But so long as the warrior can still see in such a helmet, are they really so impractical? If, for instance, a knight helmet looks like a standard knight helmet but the clamp-down visor has dragon wing decorations on the side to make the helmet more of a "dragon helmet", such as what you see here: ic./grrm/7… One thing about Fantasy armors that I notice is that many helmets tend to be more decorative or have various animal motifs and the like. Also, didn't earlier Medieval helmets that lacked clamp-down visors expose more of the face?Ģ) What would you say to helmets like this one: br./pin/336221928… That doesn't seem like it's exposing much of the actor's face to be seen.
I got nothing against historically accurate plate armor, but I do think that people sometimes forget that fiction (especially fiction that doesn't require a live actor wearing a costume), doesn't have to be totally realistic or grounded, and so I think there is way too much emphasis these days on criticizing so-called "impractical" design choices.ġ) About visors/eye-slits, it seems to me that the helmet in the sample Fantasy armor still has a fairly narrow visor, with everything that isn't metal appearing a shadowy void. That this piece instead compares and contrasts in a much more neutral sounding way is something that feels incredibly refreshing.
You see this regularly in YouTube channels featuring self-proclaimed "experts" on this stuff.
I often find that when people critique depictions of armor, weapons, fighting styles and the like they often do it with a very obnoxious, sneering, condescending tone where they make anything that isn't 100% ultra-realistic or possessing perfect historical accuracy out to be garbage that only a moron would come up with. You know, reading this I have to say I appreciate how non-judgmental in tone this sounds.
0 kommentar(er)
