@@gnarlestongnu637 that's basically the design right there. It's a sword because Pan has to fight pirates, but at the same time it is still a sword for a kid, and designed by a kid.
Regarding Hook - I always thought it was meant to look like the hilt was crudely fashioned out of half a coconut, emphasising the hodgepodge and improvised nature of the Lost Boys' equipment. Obviously a coconut shell wouldn't make a very good hilt... but this is Peter Pan after all.
Beyond that...it was Peter Pan's sword. From when he was still (perpetually) a child, and thus was too small to wield a full-sized adult blade. So, I think you can justify it a little by simply acknowledging that Robin Williams was stuck wielding the same sword from when he was a child. Poor call on him...but eh.
If a ten year old boy got a fairy to make him a sword using magic it might look very much like the one in the film. Functionally it may be crap, but it makes sense narratively. A ten second line when Peter first holds it “This is what I thought a sword was - when I was a boy. Think made it for me”
I had the same impression, that the guard was made from a coconut. It obviously isn't, but it is the visual of it. Similarly, the entire world is make-belief of children.
even back when the movie came out and I didn't know much about swords my first thought was "why is it so small?" that thing looks like it would struggle to decapitate a real-life snake, much less Nagini, nevermind doing enough damage to that huge basilisk in the chamber.
Pretty sure others will mention this but they actually did mention in Highlander that the katana was made way earlier than it was supposed to. In the film it was given to Sean Connery's character as a gift from the family that would eventually create the katana. In the "present day" the detective figures out that this katana is way older than it should be, thus making it an extremely rare item. Something someone would kill to get a hold of. Which is why the protagonist became a suspect in the first place since he's an antique collector in modern day.
@@dadventuretv2538 Thank you! That movie actually got me interested in sword combat as a kid. Looking back now, it was cheesy as ever and I can no longer take it seriously, but it's still one of my guilty pleasures. I'm looking forward to the remake.
Marshall the Larper Combination of Highlander the series and of course, Star Wars for me. Adrian Paul was much better with the sword than Lambert would ever be, but it was the fact that choreographers got really creative with a number of the fights, changing up weapon types and styles.
The series itself was solidly written, directed, and acted. It knew what it was, specifically, an excuse to choreograph an extensive number of sword fights with unique weapons and locations as possible. The very fact that the show made it 6 seasons helps show that it was a solid hit. As for why there would be 2 MacLeods? Why not? Clearly Lambert was not going to be able to do something like a series, not only because of how expensive he would be, but him being nearly blind would limit the ability of choreographers. In order to give the show some connection to the movies, they decided that the main character of the show was "born" about 200 years later into the same clan.
But then you're just talking about historically accurate swords. Unfortunately, this seems like the kind of topic that doesn't translate equally between negative and positive takes - when done right its simple and quick to describe, its when things get messy that there is something to talk about.
I think that the idea a short person should use a short weapon somewhat faulty. The main issue for a child or small person to wield a big weapon is weight. Nur there are comparetively light long weapons. And beeing small I would want to keep a bigger and stronger opponent as far away as possible as long as I am no person with realy high agility and speed that would allow me to perform quick attacks avoiding all strikes thrown at me...
Exactly. Also it is the sword of a child. What do children know of swords and practicallity? It is basically a toy. Peter was never in real danger of Hook since he can fly and easily beat Hook in any given situation, being far more nimble and dodgy. Doesn't he just use a dagger in the Disney version? Peter is a pretty arrogant boy and using this toy to humiliate Hook really fits his character.
In the Disney cartoon version he uses not just a dagger, but a dagger made of wood. His weapon is intentionally supposed to be more like a toy than a weapon. He is a magical child.
AnnasStorybox - There are many different things to consider, but a short person having a short weapon makes sense. The _main_ issue is weight, yes, but if your sword is too long it'll be less manoeuvrable (can't do rising cuts because the ground is in the way, for example). Weight _balance_ is also just as important as weight, and a longer blade will have more mass further away from your hand, causing more torque and making it harder to wield. On top of that, the more you sacrifice weight for length the worse your weapon is for parrying. A long, light weapon will be easily brushed aside or crashed through. You can say "Well a short person should carry a longer weapon to compensate" but the problem is the tall person will _also_ be carrying longer weapons to maximise their reach. That's why polearms were the primary weapon - swords were (usually) just sidearms for backup. So if we're comparing swords as sidearms (and Peter's sword is a sidearm), again a short person is going to want a length-appropriate blade. They need to be able to walk without it dragging on the ground, and they need to be able to draw it from its scabbard. So in short, scaling weapons based on a person's height/reach/strength is perfectly sensible. A smaller, weaker person will _always_ be at a disadvantage, and any specialisation you give to your weapon to compensate will always be a trade off. It can be long and weak, or short and strong, but never long and strong.
Howard's Red Sonya was set in the 16th century around the Ottoman wars. Red Sonja the barbarian was invented by Marvel Comics and was never part of the original literary universe (counting both Howard and later writers). Red Sonja always annoyed me a bit as a concept. She's a Hyrkanian but is a white European ginger that prays to an Irish goddess. Hyrkanians are meant to be Altaic (Turko-Mongolian) and their gods are also Altaic in origin. Not only that, but we know the Cimmerians are the ones with the Irish gods, and we know they are not real gods, but rather heroes remembered as gods.
IoKnight There is really nothing out of the ordinary with Sonja being white and redheaded even if she's meant to be Altaic. White people of red or blonde hair were (and still are) very common in peoples of the Steppe, including the Altaics and other Turko-Mongolians. Central Asians often vary between full Asiatic features or full Caucasian, with a significant amount looking "mixed". If you google for Altaic people you'll get some photos of white, VERY, pale and blonde Altaics. Hell, mummies of redheaded white people have been found all the way to Northern China, where prominent Caucasian features can still be seen on some of the locals.
The Godric Gryffindor sword can work if you take the Terry Pratchett view of ancestral weapons. I think it was something in the order of 'This is my great-great-great-grandfather's axe. It occasionally needs a new handle, and the blade needs fixing every so often and every now and then a complete rebuild, but this is my great-great-great grandfather's axe.'
@TheAlhouk57 I'm not well-versed on Potter lore, but isn't one of the features of a Goblin-forged blade that it can somehow absorb or adopt properties from other objects? Perhaps this goes so far as to allow it to alter its form over time.
I'm definitely going with Red Sonja's bikini armor. All I see when I look at that is pinching and chafe marks from the scales(?) directly against her skin.
Actually, Thegnthrand (I've probably spelled his channel's name incorrectly) made a video showing that, if you actually use it like a longsword, you won't cut your own hand off. Still, I do think an upswept hilt would make more sense so that the blades protect their emitters.
In that case they are terrible mace/club designs. Not functional at all in that capacity either. The best I can say for one of them is it makes a bad clever.
Same; I spent a summer binge-watching a plethora of bad 80s sword-and-sorcery films. It's one of the few I remember out of what has to be *at least* 20 films.
@Jerry C you're so very very wrong, my friend. I'm pretty sure I rented every single one on videocassette as a youngling and it was a daunting task. My favorite at the time was Deathstalker because... you know... boobies.
They really should have armed the dwarven company from the Hobbit movies with axes ( they could have put the geometric designs in without sacrificing all of their practicality) similar to Gimli's axes in the LOTR films.
@@mikolajwitkowski8093 I did read the book as a child, but other than Orcist, Glamdring, and Sting( all of which came from the trolls horde in their cave) none of the other swords we're described in detail. So I dare say they were unimportant to the plot. Also I would say an axe is more useful on a "sneaking" quest than a sword do to it's dual purpose of processing firewood as well as it's ability to cause damage to a perspective enemy.
Oh, I am not saying they were important, just that in the book the dwarves are described as using swords, so we can't fault the film for going this way. Here the issue is the design of the swords, with axes I am afraid they would have designed something equally ludicrous, as it is the matter of the designer and not the weapon. :)
I'm not sure there's even a single Dwarf in _The Hobbit_ armed with a war axe. Bilbo's mates used swords and bows, and the ones from the Iron Hills carried short swords, shields and heavy two-handed mattocks (so kinda like pollaxes). Gimli used an axe, and axes were certainly proverbially dwarven in Middle-earth (Baruk Khazâd and all that), but Tolkien made the Dwarves more complex than that.
One redeeming feature of "The Sword and the Sorcerer" was the dialogue between the hero and the princess when they're negotiating his fee. "But my sword is poised...".
5 - The blade was made for and chosen by a child. It would have been fine for a 10 year old. 4 - The sword was made with magic by goblins, not mundane bladesmiths but masters of magic. 3 - Blond braid boy's (Philly I think) sword is very reminiscent of a chopping sword while the other... well... on that one I have nothing. It just looks stupid. 2 - Depending on the strength of the "flip" parts, they are reminiscent of a design meant to catch and (possibly) disarm an opponent much like a sai. 1 - Yeah... dead on with this one. This was dumb.
Exactly. And not only that, but the whole theme of the Lost Boys vs. the Pirates was the innocence of childhood vs. the inevitable corruption of adulthood. So giving Peter an 'Adult' sword would be breaking his theme. Instead, he uses what is essentially a magical toy sword; child-sized, simple design, golden/magical, apparently ageless, ever-sharp and indestructible. That sword is part of the language of the film.
And my point is that this sword isn't 'bad' at all, but rather exactly what the moviemakers intended it to be for their story. All the things Matt suggests to 'fix' it would actually break the visual metaphors that are being conveyed by the size and design of the thing.
@@orangeiceice12 keep in mind he flies and fought on hooks ship or dense jungle, you can't use long swords easily in those places, plus given his vastly superior mobility his sword has no need for longer reach
if i ever get to produce a fantasy film, I'll have to hire Matt to invent the ultimate bad fantasy sword for my hero to get foisted on him (as a way to prevent him from succeeding!) before finding something good and simple like, say either a Hungarian saber or a Type XII arming sword to finish the victory with.
A wavy, curved sword that terminates in a Y shaped tip that is two more curved blades. Add a flail hanging from the pommel and a buckler built into the cross guard and you have a monstrosity.
Theanon26, my pic then would be the elven swords seen in Two Towers. They look functional even though they don't have a hand guard and it is something about that design that appeal to me.
Sting (like the singer) not stinger. My personal favortie is Aragorn's sword from when he was just Strider. I have the wall hanger version of the sword but I'd love to get a proper functional version of that sword made.
The best part of The Sword and the Sorcerer is that the hero spends most of the film finding this monstrosity, quickly shoots off the two side blades at random bad guys and spends the remainder of the film with 1 blade...so he'd have been better off just using literally any other sword. I would also recommend Hawk the Slayer for awful 80's fantasy and horrible sword fighting.
"Talon will return in Tales of an Ancient Empire..." Which he did (as a cameo) in 2010 when that film _was_ released... it wasn't _finished_ but it was _released._
The mindsword from Hawk the Slayer should be on this list as well. With the big metal hand at the end of the pommel it seems as if it would be horribly balanced.
Robin Thrush Then might I recommend The Dungeonmaster from 1984. Also, neat little bit of trivia, for most of the movie that actually _isn't_ Richard Moll on screen, it's his stunt double. Apparently he had a _very_ severe reaction to the make-up and spent a good part of shooting in the hospital, dubbing in his lines later.
None of these worst fantasy swords are curved. Therefore proving once again that those warriors from Hammerfell know what they are doing. Curved swords are the superior sidearm.
Oh, please, PLEASE somewhere reference the rage-quake inducing 'Glaive' from Krull. A bizarre fold out lovechild of a starfish and shurikan has nothing what-so-ever with a perfectly reasonable and effective polearm.
My theory for Gryffindor's sword is that it has a similar history as Joyeuse, Charlemagne's sword. Over the years, all the individual parts have been replaced to create the current form.
Very late side note, but I seem to recall that in The Sword & The Sorceror, it was the villain's (properly villainous-looking) sword that had the dagger concealed within the hilt - our hero instead had a spring-loaded dagger blade within the bracer he wore on his hand following the unfortunate crossbow-bolt-stapling incident early in the film. Turns out that neither of them considered "fighting fair" a sensible tactic!
A few more thing about the sword of Gryffindor: -Little taper, almost no distal taper -Insanely steep edge, worse than a hatchet -short blade -ugly decoration -the hilt doesn't seem to be too comfortable for gripping -practically no pommen That sword - even whrn I knew jackshit about swords - annoyed me. It was so... horribly wrong, even for a child's eye.
Which one? The original? Bit weighty, but not that terrible. The 2000 cartoon transforming mechanical oar with an edge? The 2010 comic's with the giant H hilt?
"[The Sword and the Sorcerer] is a terrible, terrible film, and I confess I've never managed to watch the whole thing through." I've always respected your opinion, Mr Easton, but this has changed everything. How am I supposed to believe anything you ever say again?!
As far as the Hook sword goes, I think the idea was that it was made by the lost boys out of whatever materials they could use (ie. coconuts and sticks), and the size of the blade would look far more appropriate if it were being held by a twelve year old instead of a grown man, and the sword he used was, in fact, his sword from his childhood days as Peter Pan.
What are your thoughts on the Klingon Bat'leth from Star Trek? Always looked pretty silly to me. Your hands are pretty much fixed in position; no sliding them up or down like on a staff or spear. It has points for stabbing but very little reach and it has a long cutting edge that would never be able to cut anything. You'd think a warrior race whose culture is based around melee combat would come up with something a little more effective.
the kingons in tos used ordinary, functional swords and daggers when they weren't just blasting shit with phasers. likewise the klingons in the motion picture era and even early tng are duty-obsessed but pragmatic, and don't seem to place so much emphasis on family and feudalistic honor cultism. so my headcanon is that after the explosion of praxis and peace with the federation, klingon culture gradually changed (this change was still in process during early tng, but has reached its climax by the end of ds9). what had been a ruthlessly pragmatic, expansionist, and 'secular' military dictatorship turned inward and insular. a revival of spiritualism and a ritualistic honor culture, based on real cultural roots but much exaggerated, rises to prop up the aristocratic classes. the bat'leth is a weapon for purely ritualistic duels, and gets romanticized over time by a warrior class that hasn't had to fight real wars for 2-3 generations (think of the samurai and their katana, though to a much larger degree), and when they finally do start fighting again ('going back to the old ways,' as worf puts it, abandoning ritualistic honor for the 'honor' of conquering by any means necessary) they get mowed down and even beaten in hand to hand combat by humans who aren't much more experienced than they are when they try to use their bat'leths as weapons of war.
Throughout the video I kept thinking, "Surely you can't leave out the tri-bladed abomination from The Sword and the Sorcerer." There it is at number One! Well done.
re: Godric Gryffindor's sword: it is GOBLIN made, so human historical styles wouldn't apply; why would goblins care what the human sword designs are like?
Bookwyrm 13 Because it was made for a human, the human who wouldn't have wanted or used it if it weren't practical for his times? I grant that if it were still a functional and usable sword for the times that would be valid, but it isn't so that doesn't make sense.
www.pottermore.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/the-sword-of-gryffindor Apparently the appearance of the sword is due to Godric's specifications. Given the fact it is a powerful magical weapon intended to be used by only those who are worthy it probably didn't need to be a conventional or effective design, something thin and light would do.
If we disregard it's alleged age, it seems like a perfectly reasonable sword for wizards. They will primarily use magic anyway, not fight swords versus swords,and probably enchantments or poisons on the blade. And the way their world is built, style seems to be more important to them than strict practicality. I think the sword fits perfectly into their universe.
Godric commissioned it from goblin smiths because he was very into duelling culture. He would use the wand against wizards, and the sword against muggles, for a semblance of fairness. This leads me to believe he wouldn't have given it anything in the way of enchantments/poisons that would give him an unfair edge, if that's what he was after he'd just use the wand and win easily. It also means he'd be pitting it against other swords of the time, which puts his sword at a fair disadvantage.
@@RatKing027 he wouldn't have a choice, as the sword absorbs some poorly defined amount of magical stuff by itself. When Harry stabs the Basilisk, the sword absorbs its venom. This isn't revealed or established until the last book when it's used to destroy a horcrux.
@T33K3SS3LCH3N their wands are cool, unique and stylish. And still they are just sticks. The sword doesn't look even stylish, it looks 100% kitsch, mass-produced, cheap tourist junk and it sticks out like a sore thumb in a cinematic world that is otherwise awesome.
#5 So a sword presumably forged in the fantasy world of Neverland by and for a 12/13 year old boy is short with a small hand guard, so when it's wielded by a grown man, it's too small? Imagine my shock. #4 A sword supposedly forged by a fantasy race, Goblins, who are shorter and physically weaker than humans is smaller and thinner than a human forged sword from the same time period? I wonder why. #3 - #1 Yeah, I can't argue with you.
Oh yes..... The Sword And The Sorcerer (1982) Not one blade, not two.... THREE full breadth broadsword blades on one hilt.....and two of the blades are rocket propelled! Top marks matey and bonus points for love of cheezy 80s swords and sandals flicks ;-)
Peter Pan's sword may have been stupid, but at least it was better than a knife. But I definitely agree with Gryffindor's sword. Even as a kid, without any knowledge of HEMA, I didn't like how tiny and ornamental it was. I'm kind of thinking they were going for an Arthurian look rather than a historical one (see the painting 'The Accolade'), but even then it's still so small and flowery that it's hard to believe it's one of the few objects in the world that can destroy a horcrux.
I would want a long weapon. Fly up out of my opponent's reach and rain blows from above using gravity. Now that im considering this, Peter Pan would function well as flying light cavalry with a lance or spear. Hell, even a long stick would be great. His best option, considering his mobility, would probably be to just use a bow or crossbow. I suppose he would need a short weapon if his opponents forced him to fight in an enclosed space, but from what I remember, a lot of the fighting happens out in the open air with Pan flying acrobatically anyways. A short weapon is wasted potential. I like the aesthetic of his rogueish characteristics in any case.
#1 was a total surprise! I've never even heard of that movie. Cool find and the sword clearly deserves to be the worst of them all. It's so fugly i think i need to shower, lol. Please more videos like that! Love it!
"Should we judge fantasy swords by historical accuracy? No." Proceeds to do just that to the sword of Godric Griffindor as his only complaint against it.
Yes! Sword and the Sorceror gets a shout (boo) out! When I saw the video subject I said to myself "Well if Easton doesn't list Sword and the Sorceror I'm going to have to set him straight!" but you got it! As a little kid, it seemed as cool as Krull, which was also in hindsight a pretty damn awful film.
Re: the Gryffindor sword, I don't see why the excuse that it changes appearance to suit the wielder wouldn't work. We don't ever see it used by Godric Gryffindor, nor do we ever see it used in Anglo-Saxon times, so that can't be used to argue against the sword changing shape. Also, the cross-guard isn't all that wrong in any case. The crossguard of the Charlemagne sword is usually dated to the 12th century, even though it is not a typical cross guard for that time - or any time. Special swords can have special fittings. And there is a tradition of such swords being refitted several times over the course of history, to suit contemporary styles. So really, the only point of contention that could possibly be raised is the blade itself, and as this is Harry Potter, it can easily be explained by magic. Perhaps they can alter sword shapes as easily as change fittings, with the use of magic.
Nah, those are rad. They're big, heavy, cheap to produce choppers meant to be banged out and given to warriors that lack finesse. They're basically giant machetes.
I think he's talking about the orcs of Mordor or the goblins of Moria. These guys have really interesting weapon designs. The Uruk-hai of Saruman have simple sharpened metal bar swords. While crude, it's an OK design.
The only problem with the Uruk Hai swords is they're shown to be made by pouring metal into a mold, which is a pretty terrible way to make even a bad sword
Conan's father also made swords that way. One problem that's been pointed out is that steel hot enough to melt would be a brilliant white hot, not orange like in both movies. In both cases they probably used aluminum (which melts when orange-hot) for filming.
this is so funny lol. Matt Easton, you've made another WINNER outa this video with your incredible enthusiasm and loveable reaslism towards the swords. Great fun Great respect for being honest and real about swords which are .... UTTERLY rediculous! Thanks, keep up the good work!
Final Fantasy tends to have really bad sword designs - and I've even seen designers admit that it was on purpose because "whatever, they look cool". I don't remember any particularly bad swords from Advent Children that weren't already basically in FF7. I remember the plot being really stupid, but the visuals and music were really good. Also Reno was way cuter than I expected.
Hey Matt Easton, with this video on Fantasy Swords, I'm surprised you haven't done a video on the ULTIMATE Fantasy Sword: Excalibur. I'd love for you to do a video where you count down the Top Ten Designs Of Excalibur in Movies, Videogames, TV Series, Sword Magazines, etc. Any chance you could make such a video?
HM - "She chose it because it song to her”. Maybe the series choose her? #5 - "Too short", "shouldn't judge fantasy swords based on historical accuracy", "It doesn't make sense". It's too sorry because it was made for Pan back when he was still an important, forever young lost boy. It makes perfect sense. #4 - "Most historically accurate." I thought you just said fantasy swords shouldn't be judged on historical accuracy? #3 "they are ugly." Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but fair enough on the other points. #2 ”I'm not picking on that series, even though it is ugly", "I'm not picking that sword even though it isn't historically accurate", "that sword is rubbish because there is no way to put a usable sword together like that, and it sold have been a historical design even though it is a fantasy sword and we already we shouldn't judge fantasy swords based on historical accuracy". You made a video about it. Fair enough. #1 - "triple blades that shoot out it hay wouldn't work at all as a sword". Fair enough. A shame you didn't see Christopher Lambert's sword in one of SyFy's renditions of Beowulf.
About the #4... considering the topic, I think "historically accurate" is a compliment meaning that the weapon is actually functional (as historical weapons tended to be), and this video is about fantasy swords that aren't functional.
When a friend of mine got married, all the groomsmen got swords as wedding gifts. We had Glamdring, Orcrist, Sting and Fili's sword. I picked Glamdring, but I got a chance to handle Fili's sword and I couldn't believe it; that thing has more in common with a club than a sword.
Pan's sword from Hook was originally wielded by a child, it also looks like it was crafted with makeshift materials to some degree. The sword of Godric Gryffindor, on the other hand, was designed not for a warrior, but a wizard. While I think the style should have been a little less anachronistic, it was probably crafted lighter than a typical sword, with materials that allowed it to be a better channel for magic. Also, remember it was forged by goblins, not humans. If these are your top five worst sword designs from live action fantasy films, it seems that maybe you haven't seen alot of live action fantasy films, which in this context isn't entirely a bad thing. In my experience these are generally pretty tame examples. Though the Sword and the Sorcerer one is a bit out there.
He was a combative wizard, but I was referring to a purely physical warrior versus one who fights with magic. Godric was not that kind of warrior, he wasn't a viking, or a knight. And a spell blade likely doesn't need to be as big or heavy as a sword wielded by one of those to be effective at channeling battle magic.
@@khodexus4963 he explicitly also was a good swordsman. That's why he spent a fortune getting a goblin made sword www.pottermore.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/the-sword-of-gryffindor
I've never debated that. I'm simply saying he was a war wizard, not a purely physical warrior. Thus, a difference in the style of sword he would have favored. You and I are not arguing cross-points here.
As a kid I used to always sketch multiple bladed swords for my d&d characters but had completely forgotten about seeing The Sword and the Sorcerer. I'm sure now that's where the idea came from originally for me. What a complete abomination, lol.
That's exactly what I thought! "Of course, these are fantasy films, so we shouldn't judge them by historical accuracy. The next sword made it on the list because it's *Really* historically inaccurate..." Dude, do you even hear yourself?
Sorry, the tone came across wrong. Not defensive, I just found the juxtaposition hilarious - I'm not judging by historic accuracy. Practically the next sentence: This sword's not historically accurate. Like he said it without even realizing.
If it's _Alice in Wonderland_ kind of fantasy, then it's a valid point to justify things that only make sense in dreams. But, in a setting that is otherwise supposed to obey the laws of reality, using objects that don't make any sense is inconsistent at best. And in my opinion, if the fantasy is supposed to be based on something, so should be the elements it contains.
In defense of Peter Pan's sword, he was a kid when he first made/stole/acquired/used it so at least in terms of length it probably couldn't have been made longer and still able to be used by a young boy.
Why? Because Hollywood was trying to make money off a trend they didn't understand at all. Conan and Excalibur were made with love, the rest were cash grab rip-offs. Some were still fun, but that was most likely luck.
There was a *damn explosion* of sword-and-sorcery films through the early to mid 80s - basically none of them equaled to Conan. Italy and Argentina seemed to put out a bunch as I recall, so it wasn't just Hollywood.
5. Peter Pan's "sword" was a dagger traditionally. I think they were trying to keep a nod to that. Its still terrible. 4. The Sword of Gryffindor was made by goblins, the stunty little bankers from the first movie. It's size would be an appropriate longsword for them. Its also indestructible and magically sharp, therefore doesn't need the bulk of a traditional 10th century blade. 3. yeah you got that right! The orcs had better weapons than these things. 2. Hey its the 80's man. 1. Seriously how much cocaine were they on?
So, shouldn't judge fantasy swords based on historical accuracy... but you ignore your own assertion and do it anyway. You should get into the clickbait business!
As someone who probably watched them all back in the 80's, I remember many swords being exactly the same from movie to movie. I assume these low budget production companies rented the same dumb, ugly swords from the same prop house.
I always thought the Sword of Gryffindor looked far too wimpy for what it had to be done as well, but one thing should be remembered: the Sword was made by the *goblins* of the day, not the human wizards. As a result it's under no obligation to look anything like what contemporary Muggles *or* contemporary wizards would have made.
I learned one thing from Hook. Where Rufio swings his sword at Peter Pan's face and stops right in front of his nose and says "You're dead, jolly man." I went into the woods and practiced that with my 22 inch Latin Gavilian machete until I could stop on demand. It carried over to unarmed martial arts and firearms very nicely.
The problem with saying that the Sword of Godric Griffindor changes depending on the user and their need is that it was shown to be exactly the same for both Harry... who was facing a giant Basilisk... and Neville, who just used it to cut a snake's head off, but was also intending to fight off Voldemort with it. Surely both would have different looking swords appear for them, not just for the uses, but to suit their size/build too (since Harry was 12 when he first received it, and Neville was... 17? 18? Something like that... and would have been able to use a lot larger and heavier a sword)
Holy crap, Matt! I was waiting to see if your #1 was the same I was thinking of, and you did not dissapoint! That thing is so rediculous that I almost feel including it on any kind of sword list could lead to including chainsaws as a kind of sword in movies.
Concerning the Sword of Griffondor, let's take a look at Tizona and Colada (visible in Burgos Musuem, Spain) : those two swords, one wielded by Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar, relics of the 11th century are true type X blades and had their pommel and hilt reshaped by Charles Quint for aesthetical and political reasons : while Tizona gained a mauresque inspired guard, Colada got a whole new schiavone hilt. Thus, I think Goedric's sword went through the same process and may had it's blade broken and replaced with smallswordish/courtsword blade.
5. From what I understand, Peter Pans sword is various parts of other swords he was able to steal from pirates. Think of it as something a child would assemble if they had parts lying around. 4. The sword in HP was supposed to be a wand. A sword shaped decorative focus for magic, not an actual cutting / slashing weapon. 3. Those dwarven swords are hideous. No argument here. 2. Pure fantasy from designers who never had real experience with swords. 1. Pure High-Fantasy. They were going for shock and awe factor rather than sensibility. Excellent video! Well done.
5. Peter Pan's sword may have been for (and possibly by) a 10-12 year old (the way the character is normally depicted). 4. The sword of Gryffindor was made by and for goblins (explains the size and modern design because goblins are the magical world's most skilled metalworkers). Gryffindor may have kept it as a spoil of war or purely for its magical effects. It is shown to be a good chopper and adept at destroying enchanted objects. within the setting it seems to be quit appropriate as it will only serve special purposes if the wielder can shoot death lasers and teleport. (Alternatively may have been meant for offhand use as it cant compare to a wand anyway).
for the n-th time Matt, if you're doing movies, PLEASE do the monastery fight (when D'Artagnan arrives to duel Athos, Porthos, and Aramis) from Three Musketeers (1973 version with Michael York, Oliver Reed, Richard Chamberlain, Charlton Heston, and Christopher Lee).
What do you think about the official illustrated version of Godric Gryffindor's sword? imgur.com/a/1GYobV1 I think it still maintains the fantasy aspect while looking pretty cool, although not quite historical.
I’m so glad you included Gryffindor’s “sword”. Huge disappointment in the translation from book to movie there - as both a sword nerd and Harry Potter fan, I was disappointed. Thanks for calling it out Matt!
I would like your input on the idea of padding under armor in the viking ages. Not as armor, that did not exist. The thing is, there are no mentions of any type of padded undergarments for mail. So that leads me to the conclusion that they either did not use them, or did not have any dedicated garments (such as the subermalis) and just wore some thicker tunics underneath perhaps. I did do a video about it but I am nowhere near famous so it doesn't warrant any reply
Absence of any evidence should be taken as a strong indication of absence. Especially considering that all other forms of protection are mentioned quite frequently
@@duchessskye4072 In what sources though? Padded armor existed pre migration it would make sense that simple, effective armor would persist, especially with all of the materials readily available to Viking age peoples of northern and western Europe.
Viking sagas and other contemporary literal sources. Also padded armors did not exist before them, only the padding worn _under_ armor by roman soldiers, the subarmalis, do we have mentions of. And we don't know whether the vikings knew about it Plenty of descriptions of other armors but none when it comes to padding. That is odd if they indeed did use it
Nick here, Great fun video. I don't think the sword from hook quite deserves as much as it gets, ironically as a matter of context. That weapon while obviously a fantasy design was scaled to fit the proportions of a child, thus cuphilt looks ludicris in a grown man's hand. I also think the more organic leaf blade and clam shell edging of the cup was intended to reflect the 'taken from nature' aestetic of all the lost boys. Still fascinating video, thoughtful and historical as always. Keep up the good work.
Two things about Pan's sword in Hook. Length-wise it was originally wielded by a child. Bigger issue is it seems to be made of brass or copper. Perhaps bronze. Not steel.
It cut to an advert when he said "but the swords of Fili and Kili are utter ..." and tomb raider advert, it felt like such a back to the studio moment.
Could you make a video on the best fantasy melee weapons that are not directly based on historic examples? Katana-sword hybrid would count even if it resembles a Kriegsmesser. I think Sting from LOTR should be on the list.
Hey, I'm fairly certain that in the Hook sword, it is ment to resemble a coconut the cup guard part of the sword. Also, it is ment for a kid, so a larger sword would be hard to weild properly.
The dwarf kings sword Orcrist? I think you called it looks like it would cut really well, and I like the single quillon guard, it would work I might make it.
In that case it was a bad choice, because I believe Gryffindor's sword is supposed to be functional, whereas crown jewels sword is strictly ceremonial, which you cannot even swing without the jewels sinking into your own skin.
True. Just wanted to adress the supposed non-historical argument, when it is really absolutely historical. Just from the wrong period and the wrong usage.
I think Peter’s sword was supposed to be smaller because the last time he used one he was a kid.
Makes sense but they could make it like the One Ring; i.e. it expands when the user is bigger (ooer).
Darknut but he was never supposed to leave neverland and grow up, so why would it change size to fit a bigger owner?
I was thinking that too. In fact, wouldn't it make more sense it if was basically a toy sword?
@@gnarlestongnu637 that's basically the design right there. It's a sword because Pan has to fight pirates, but at the same time it is still a sword for a kid, and designed by a kid.
He could have tried imagining it longer. "You're doing it, Peter!"
Regarding Hook - I always thought it was meant to look like the hilt was crudely fashioned out of half a coconut, emphasising the hodgepodge and improvised nature of the Lost Boys' equipment.
Obviously a coconut shell wouldn't make a very good hilt... but this is Peter Pan after all.
I also thouch it was a sword make from a small childs mind!
Beyond that...it was Peter Pan's sword. From when he was still (perpetually) a child, and thus was too small to wield a full-sized adult blade. So, I think you can justify it a little by simply acknowledging that Robin Williams was stuck wielding the same sword from when he was a child. Poor call on him...but eh.
Rufio! Rufio! Ru-fi-oooooooooooooo!
If a ten year old boy got a fairy to make him a sword using magic it might look very much like the one in the film.
Functionally it may be crap, but it makes sense narratively.
A ten second line when Peter first holds it “This is what I thought a sword was - when I was a boy. Think made it for me”
I had the same impression, that the guard was made from a coconut. It obviously isn't, but it is the visual of it. Similarly, the entire world is make-belief of children.
The Letter Opener of Godric Gryffindor
This was actually stolen from an 1809 court sword by French goldsmith Martin Biennais.
Heck, even a long broke back Seax would have made more sense.
i always wondered why the heck they put a rapier blade on a shortsword hilt
XD
even back when the movie came out and I didn't know much about swords my first thought was "why is it so small?" that thing looks like it would struggle to decapitate a real-life snake, much less Nagini, nevermind doing enough damage to that huge basilisk in the chamber.
"Worked it's way into my number 2 slot"...
Sounds painful.
Hahahahaha!
Brightened up my morning! Bravo!
This post is even better when you recall that Richard can be shortened to "Dick" for whatever linguistic reason.
Demoncard Yeah, that might be funny, if penises weren't called richards before they were called dicks :P
Old school Cockney slang based on shortening and then rhyming words. So we get Richard -> Rick -> Dick. William -> Will -> Bill, etc.
Glad I read this before I heard him say it. Made it even more hilarious.
Pretty sure others will mention this but they actually did mention in Highlander that the katana was made way earlier than it was supposed to. In the film it was given to Sean Connery's character as a gift from the family that would eventually create the katana. In the "present day" the detective figures out that this katana is way older than it should be, thus making it an extremely rare item. Something someone would kill to get a hold of. Which is why the protagonist became a suspect in the first place since he's an antique collector in modern day.
Marshall The Larper you win nerd comment of the day sir- and I mean that with the utmost respect. That is some damn good recall on your part.
@@dadventuretv2538 Thank you! That movie actually got me interested in sword combat as a kid. Looking back now, it was cheesy as ever and I can no longer take it seriously, but it's still one of my guilty pleasures. I'm looking forward to the remake.
Marshall the Larper
Combination of Highlander the series and of course, Star Wars for me.
Adrian Paul was much better with the sword than Lambert would ever be, but it was the fact that choreographers got really creative with a number of the fights, changing up weapon types and styles.
Skyfighter64 funny because if I remember right Lambert is a real master swordsman who unfortunately is almost blind as bat
The series itself was solidly written, directed, and acted. It knew what it was, specifically, an excuse to choreograph an extensive number of sword fights with unique weapons and locations as possible. The very fact that the show made it 6 seasons helps show that it was a solid hit.
As for why there would be 2 MacLeods? Why not? Clearly Lambert was not going to be able to do something like a series, not only because of how expensive he would be, but him being nearly blind would limit the ability of choreographers. In order to give the show some connection to the movies, they decided that the main character of the show was "born" about 200 years later into the same clan.
I would love to see an opposite to this in 5 best or maybe favourite Fantasy Movie Swords.
Skringly I can imagine. It would go. Look at this practical sword. Now look at this well designed sword. And here’s another decent sword 😂
Sting should be up there
I'd like to see a video on all the stupid Klingon sword designs. The Bat'leth especially does not get enough criticism.
But then you're just talking about historically accurate swords. Unfortunately, this seems like the kind of topic that doesn't translate equally between negative and positive takes - when done right its simple and quick to describe, its when things get messy that there is something to talk about.
the swords from the lord of the rings would get at least two slots. anduril looks amazing and so do all the other elven blades from that trilogy.
The only explanation I can come up with for the Hook sword is that it was the same blade Peter used as a young boy, and is scaled accordingly.
I think that the idea a short person should use a short weapon somewhat faulty. The main issue for a child or small person to wield a big weapon is weight. Nur there are comparetively light long weapons. And beeing small I would want to keep a bigger and stronger opponent as far away as possible as long as I am no person with realy high agility and speed that would allow me to perform quick attacks avoiding all strikes thrown at me...
Exactly. Also it is the sword of a child. What do children know of swords and practicallity? It is basically a toy. Peter was never in real danger of Hook since he can fly and easily beat Hook in any given situation, being far more nimble and dodgy. Doesn't he just use a dagger in the Disney version?
Peter is a pretty arrogant boy and using this toy to humiliate Hook really fits his character.
My thoughts exactly.
In the Disney cartoon version he uses not just a dagger, but a dagger made of wood. His weapon is intentionally supposed to be more like a toy than a weapon. He is a magical child.
AnnasStorybox - There are many different things to consider, but a short person having a short weapon makes sense. The _main_ issue is weight, yes, but if your sword is too long it'll be less manoeuvrable (can't do rising cuts because the ground is in the way, for example). Weight _balance_ is also just as important as weight, and a longer blade will have more mass further away from your hand, causing more torque and making it harder to wield. On top of that, the more you sacrifice weight for length the worse your weapon is for parrying. A long, light weapon will be easily brushed aside or crashed through.
You can say "Well a short person should carry a longer weapon to compensate" but the problem is the tall person will _also_ be carrying longer weapons to maximise their reach. That's why polearms were the primary weapon - swords were (usually) just sidearms for backup. So if we're comparing swords as sidearms (and Peter's sword is a sidearm), again a short person is going to want a length-appropriate blade. They need to be able to walk without it dragging on the ground, and they need to be able to draw it from its scabbard.
So in short, scaling weapons based on a person's height/reach/strength is perfectly sensible. A smaller, weaker person will _always_ be at a disadvantage, and any specialisation you give to your weapon to compensate will always be a trade off. It can be long and weak, or short and strong, but never long and strong.
Lord Kalidor was meant to be Conan, but the character rights for the his character were held by Universal Studios at the time.
Even better, Conan goes by different names in much of the literature, so it would make sense for him to be calling himself Kalidor.
Lord Pleasedontsueme
Howard's Red Sonya was set in the 16th century around the Ottoman wars. Red Sonja the barbarian was invented by Marvel Comics and was never part of the original literary universe (counting both Howard and later writers).
Red Sonja always annoyed me a bit as a concept. She's a Hyrkanian but is a white European ginger that prays to an Irish goddess. Hyrkanians are meant to be Altaic (Turko-Mongolian) and their gods are also Altaic in origin. Not only that, but we know the Cimmerians are the ones with the Irish gods, and we know they are not real gods, but rather heroes remembered as gods.
IoKnight There is really nothing out of the ordinary with Sonja being white and redheaded even if she's meant to be Altaic. White people of red or blonde hair were (and still are) very common in peoples of the Steppe, including the Altaics and other Turko-Mongolians. Central Asians often vary between full Asiatic features or full Caucasian, with a significant amount looking "mixed". If you google for Altaic people you'll get some photos of white, VERY, pale and blonde Altaics.
Hell, mummies of redheaded white people have been found all the way to Northern China, where prominent Caucasian features can still be seen on some of the locals.
The Godric Gryffindor sword can work if you take the Terry Pratchett view of ancestral weapons. I think it was something in the order of 'This is my great-great-great-grandfather's axe. It occasionally needs a new handle, and the blade needs fixing every so often and every now and then a complete rebuild, but this is my great-great-great grandfather's axe.'
I think Pratchett got that idea from only fools and horses
That's a bit older, originally it was about the ship of Theseus (also known as Theseus's Paradox)
It's a goblin forged blade though....
@TheAlhouk57 I'm not well-versed on Potter lore, but isn't one of the features of a Goblin-forged blade that it can somehow absorb or adopt properties from other objects? Perhaps this goes so far as to allow it to alter its form over time.
Forgot that completely. It's a self-repairing sword that doesn't require maintenance. It should look new.
Now we need to pair it with a list of worst fantasy armour.
all of the ones with pauldron spikes that will stab the wearer in the head when they lift their arms...
Well, Red Sonja's armor was really the worst... what was the costume designer thinking when he decided NOT to gave her the scale bikini armor?
He was thinking he didn't want the actress to freeze her ass off?
I'm definitely going with Red Sonja's bikini armor. All I see when I look at that is pinching and chafe marks from the scales(?) directly against her skin.
Not to mention those ties that keep her top together. One decent slash that doesn't even cut the skin would give her MAJOR problems with that top.
You forgot Kylo Ren’s lightsaber.
“Ouch! Well there goes my hand.”
oh hey, i didn't think people were still tossing this one around
Actually, Thegnthrand (I've probably spelled his channel's name incorrectly) made a video showing that, if you actually use it like a longsword, you won't cut your own hand off. Still, I do think an upswept hilt would make more sense so that the blades protect their emitters.
I think a lightsaber without a guard has a higher rate of hands getting chopped off...handguards are good.
With the amount of jumping and swinging around in Star Wars I'd expect self decapitation to be a leading cause of death for force users.
Maul’s is pretty stupid and impractical too
Never paid much attention to Red Sonja's sword to be honest. Let's have a look at ... wow them legs...
Legs! Yes... *ahem* that's what I was looking at... legs... Wow, look at those.... legs....
Her daughter, the chick from 50 Shades of (whichever the last one was) is supposedly slated to play Red Sonja.
She had a sword?😅
Jacob, you might be mistaken. Sonja's actress was Bridgette Nielsen. The 50 Shades chick is Dakota Johnson, no relation.
Jacob Staten Dakota Johnson isn't Bridgette Nielsen's daughter, she's the daughter of Don Johnson and Melanie Griffith
@@karlsmith2570 my bad. I'm thinking of Cherry 2000. I wasn't even in the right genre!
Walk through the average pawn shop or flea market in America, and you'll see multiple candidates.
Looks over at corner of room. Hangs head in shame. ;) Hey Greg!
Howdy, Matthew. I can't claim to be entirely unburdened by, um, interesting possessions.
Maybe Kili and Fili's swords aren't swords at all, but are actually sharpened clubs?
In that case they are terrible mace/club designs. Not functional at all in that capacity either. The best I can say for one of them is it makes a bad clever.
Plot twist - they are actually heavily modified bricks.
The one blade looked more like it was an axe with a sword shape.
Fili's sword kinda looks like an oversized Seax.
Idk the one kind of looks like a cleaver
7:49 "A brick works as a weapon" - Deadpool approves.
MAXIMUM EFFORT!!
Caveman also...
"Half-brick inna sock" Rincewind aproved
And Kili and Fili's swords also work as bricks.
We need to ban assault bricks!
Fish in a barrel comes to mind here, Matt.
I didn't think anyone remembered Sword and the Sorcerer. I loved that movie and that 'sword' when I was a kid.
Loved the movie because it was so cheesy and over the top, but even in that context I hated the sword.
Same; I spent a summer binge-watching a plethora of bad 80s sword-and-sorcery films. It's one of the few I remember out of what has to be *at least* 20 films.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sword_and_sorcery_films
@Jerry C you're so very very wrong, my friend. I'm pretty sure I rented every single one on videocassette as a youngling and it was a daunting task. My favorite at the time was Deathstalker because... you know... boobies.
I still love the movie. And if you haven't seen it, watch the Rifftrax version the commentary is an added delight.
They really should have armed the dwarven company from the Hobbit movies with axes ( they could have put the geometric designs in without sacrificing all of their practicality) similar to Gimli's axes in the LOTR films.
And you should read the book. They did use swords.
@@mikolajwitkowski8093 I did read the book as a child, but other than Orcist, Glamdring, and Sting( all of which came from the trolls horde in their cave) none of the other swords we're described in detail. So I dare say they were unimportant to the plot. Also I would say an axe is more useful on a "sneaking" quest than a sword do to it's dual purpose of processing firewood as well as it's ability to cause damage to a perspective enemy.
Oh, I am not saying they were important, just that in the book the dwarves are described as using swords, so we can't fault the film for going this way. Here the issue is the design of the swords, with axes I am afraid they would have designed something equally ludicrous, as it is the matter of the designer and not the weapon. :)
Axe with geometric design.
Hobbit logic: let's make it a cube.
I'm not sure there's even a single Dwarf in _The Hobbit_ armed with a war axe. Bilbo's mates used swords and bows, and the ones from the Iron Hills carried short swords, shields and heavy two-handed mattocks (so kinda like pollaxes). Gimli used an axe, and axes were certainly proverbially dwarven in Middle-earth (Baruk Khazâd and all that), but Tolkien made the Dwarves more complex than that.
I want a sword that has one blade, but three handles and three pommels. And the pommels can shoot out.
I just want a bag of pommels and a sling.
Like a batlith with pommels.
A sword, but the hilt is actually a musket that shoots pommels out the back. Do I get #1 worst sword now?
@@tankermottind it does exist on slingshot channel
How about some extra crossguards on your crossguards that shoot out in both directions at once?
One redeeming feature of "The Sword and the Sorcerer" was the dialogue between the hero and the princess when they're negotiating his fee. "But my sword is poised...".
The princess is the only real redeemable part of that film.
5 - The blade was made for and chosen by a child. It would have been fine for a 10 year old.
4 - The sword was made with magic by goblins, not mundane bladesmiths but masters of magic.
3 - Blond braid boy's (Philly I think) sword is very reminiscent of a chopping sword while the other... well... on that one I have nothing. It just looks stupid.
2 - Depending on the strength of the "flip" parts, they are reminiscent of a design meant to catch and (possibly) disarm an opponent much like a sai.
1 - Yeah... dead on with this one. This was dumb.
Do remember that Peter Pan's sword was meant to be wielded BY A CHILD. Of course the reach will be bad.
Exactly.
And not only that, but the whole theme of the Lost Boys vs. the Pirates was the innocence of childhood vs. the inevitable corruption of adulthood. So giving Peter an 'Adult' sword would be breaking his theme.
Instead, he uses what is essentially a magical toy sword; child-sized, simple design, golden/magical, apparently ageless, ever-sharp and indestructible. That sword is part of the language of the film.
Etaukan yeah, all this is true, but this list includes intentionally bad swords.
And my point is that this sword isn't 'bad' at all, but rather exactly what the moviemakers intended it to be for their story.
All the things Matt suggests to 'fix' it would actually break the visual metaphors that are being conveyed by the size and design of the thing.
Couldve given him a rapier like they gave to Arya Stark, or even a smallsword or backsword.
@@orangeiceice12 keep in mind he flies and fought on hooks ship or dense jungle, you can't use long swords easily in those places, plus given his vastly superior mobility his sword has no need for longer reach
if i ever get to produce a fantasy film, I'll have to hire Matt to invent the ultimate bad fantasy sword for my hero to get foisted on him (as a way to prevent him from succeeding!) before finding something good and simple like, say either a Hungarian saber or a Type XII arming sword to finish the victory with.
William Barnett-Lewis Sounds like good satire tbh
Actually you should have a table filled with all the worst iconic fantasy swords and have the hero pick a *good* one! Preferably an arming sword!
Adding on to this ^, have a rival character who chooses at the same time and chooses one of the monstrosities.
A wavy, curved sword that terminates in a Y shaped tip that is two more curved blades. Add a flail hanging from the pommel and a buckler built into the cross guard and you have a monstrosity.
What's the best fantasy swords? Glamdring and stinger looks pretty good.
Let's not forget Anduril!
@airborneleaf You can do pretty swords though. That is, swords that are useable *and* look good. :P
Theanon26, my pic then would be the elven swords seen in Two Towers. They look functional even though they don't have a hand guard and it is something about that design that appeal to me.
Clearly the pata from Willow.
Sting (like the singer) not stinger.
My personal favortie is Aragorn's sword from when he was just Strider. I have the wall hanger version of the sword but I'd love to get a proper functional version of that sword made.
Honorable mention for the He-Man Power sword which has a even bigger cross guard than the Red Sonya sword.
The best part of The Sword and the Sorcerer is that the hero spends most of the film finding this monstrosity, quickly shoots off the two side blades at random bad guys and spends the remainder of the film with 1 blade...so he'd have been better off just using literally any other sword. I would also recommend Hawk the Slayer for awful 80's fantasy and horrible sword fighting.
Actually, for most of the film he doesn't even carry it.
"Talon will return in Tales of an Ancient Empire..." Which he did (as a cameo) in 2010 when that film _was_ released... it wasn't _finished_ but it was _released._
When you have Bull from Night Court as a demonic magic user, how can it not be hilarious cheese?
The mindsword from Hawk the Slayer should be on this list as well. With the big metal hand at the end of the pommel it seems as if it would be horribly balanced.
Robin Thrush
Then might I recommend The Dungeonmaster from 1984. Also, neat little bit of trivia, for most of the movie that actually _isn't_ Richard Moll on screen, it's his stunt double. Apparently he had a _very_ severe reaction to the make-up and spent a good part of shooting in the hospital, dubbing in his lines later.
None of these worst fantasy swords are curved. Therefore proving once again that those warriors from Hammerfell know what they are doing. Curved swords are the superior sidearm.
Oh, please, PLEASE somewhere reference the rage-quake inducing 'Glaive' from Krull.
A bizarre fold out lovechild of a starfish and shurikan has nothing what-so-ever with a perfectly reasonable and effective polearm.
As you were talking about kili and fili’s swords an advert for the hobbit came up.
My theory for Gryffindor's sword is that it has a similar history as Joyeuse, Charlemagne's sword. Over the years, all the individual parts have been replaced to create the current form.
Very late side note, but I seem to recall that in The Sword & The Sorceror, it was the villain's (properly villainous-looking) sword that had the dagger concealed within the hilt - our hero instead had a spring-loaded dagger blade within the bracer he wore on his hand following the unfortunate crossbow-bolt-stapling incident early in the film. Turns out that neither of them considered "fighting fair" a sensible tactic!
So you have to ability to store compressed gas, then release it with enough force to launch a deadly projectile. JUST MAKE A FRICKING GUN.
Inversely related question: if you could have ANY fictional fantasy movie sword recreated for you to own and use, which one would you choose?
A few more thing about the sword of Gryffindor:
-Little taper, almost no distal taper
-Insanely steep edge, worse than a hatchet
-short blade
-ugly decoration
-the hilt doesn't seem to be too comfortable for gripping
-practically no pommen
That sword - even whrn I knew jackshit about swords - annoyed me. It was so... horribly wrong, even for a child's eye.
I always was most bothered by the writing on the sword, which still looks like the tackiest shit on top of everything else.
It looks like one of those ceremonial Freemason swords
Even though Freemason swords aren't at all practical, they still at least look about ten times more practical than the Gryff sword.
Everything said about The Sword and the Sorceror is true...and yet, I always thought Lee Horsley did a pretty good low-rent Errol Flynn in it.
Honorable mention to He-Man's Power Sword
Which one? The original? Bit weighty, but not that terrible. The 2000 cartoon transforming mechanical oar with an edge? The 2010 comic's with the giant H hilt?
But he doesent need the sword when he has THE POWER
Yeah... love He-Man but the Power Sword is pretty bad.
You mean the sword he apparently kept in his spinal cord?
"[The Sword and the Sorcerer] is a terrible, terrible film, and I confess I've never managed to watch the whole thing through."
I've always respected your opinion, Mr Easton, but this has changed everything. How am I supposed to believe anything you ever say again?!
I think he protest too much.. he wouldn't have known about the hidden pommel knife if he didn't watch the very end 😉
As far as the Hook sword goes, I think the idea was that it was made by the lost boys out of whatever materials they could use (ie. coconuts and sticks), and the size of the blade would look far more appropriate if it were being held by a twelve year old instead of a grown man, and the sword he used was, in fact, his sword from his childhood days as Peter Pan.
What are your thoughts on the Klingon Bat'leth from Star Trek?
Always looked pretty silly to me. Your hands are pretty much fixed in position; no sliding them up or down like on a staff or spear. It has points for stabbing but very little reach and it has a long cutting edge that would never be able to cut anything.
You'd think a warrior race whose culture is based around melee combat would come up with something a little more effective.
the kingons in tos used ordinary, functional swords and daggers when they weren't just blasting shit with phasers. likewise the klingons in the motion picture era and even early tng are duty-obsessed but pragmatic, and don't seem to place so much emphasis on family and feudalistic honor cultism. so my headcanon is that after the explosion of praxis and peace with the federation, klingon culture gradually changed (this change was still in process during early tng, but has reached its climax by the end of ds9). what had been a ruthlessly pragmatic, expansionist, and 'secular' military dictatorship turned inward and insular. a revival of spiritualism and a ritualistic honor culture, based on real cultural roots but much exaggerated, rises to prop up the aristocratic classes. the bat'leth is a weapon for purely ritualistic duels, and gets romanticized over time by a warrior class that hasn't had to fight real wars for 2-3 generations (think of the samurai and their katana, though to a much larger degree), and when they finally do start fighting again ('going back to the old ways,' as worf puts it, abandoning ritualistic honor for the 'honor' of conquering by any means necessary) they get mowed down and even beaten in hand to hand combat by humans who aren't much more experienced than they are when they try to use their bat'leths as weapons of war.
+Josh Ridinger That's brilliant!
Holy shit #1 made me burst out laughing when the little clip showed up. It's a symbol of its time haha. Gaudy and over the top.
Throughout the video I kept thinking, "Surely you can't leave out the tri-bladed abomination from The Sword and the Sorcerer." There it is at number One! Well done.
Wrong. The Sword and the Sorcery is an amazing film.
I agree the sword is impractical, but it certainly caught my imagination as a kid.
re: Godric Gryffindor's sword: it is GOBLIN made, so human historical styles wouldn't apply; why would goblins care what the human sword designs are like?
Bookwyrm 13 Because it was made for a human, the human who wouldn't have wanted or used it if it weren't practical for his times? I grant that if it were still a functional and usable sword for the times that would be valid, but it isn't so that doesn't make sense.
In Harry Potter, Goblins are part of (magical) human culture, so it doesn't make sense that they would have a totally different aesthetic.
the goblins went 900 years into the future to copy a human courtsword?
www.pottermore.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/the-sword-of-gryffindor
Apparently the appearance of the sword is due to Godric's specifications. Given the fact it is a powerful magical weapon intended to be used by only those who are worthy it probably didn't need to be a conventional or effective design, something thin and light would do.
You just spoke on pretty much all my points for hating the sword of Gryffindor's film design. I feel so damn vindicated right now.
If we disregard it's alleged age, it seems like a perfectly reasonable sword for wizards. They will primarily use magic anyway, not fight swords versus swords,and probably enchantments or poisons on the blade. And the way their world is built, style seems to be more important to them than strict practicality. I think the sword fits perfectly into their universe.
Godric commissioned it from goblin smiths because he was very into duelling culture. He would use the wand against wizards, and the sword against muggles, for a semblance of fairness. This leads me to believe he wouldn't have given it anything in the way of enchantments/poisons that would give him an unfair edge, if that's what he was after he'd just use the wand and win easily. It also means he'd be pitting it against other swords of the time, which puts his sword at a fair disadvantage.
@@RatKing027 he wouldn't have a choice, as the sword absorbs some poorly defined amount of magical stuff by itself. When Harry stabs the Basilisk, the sword absorbs its venom. This isn't revealed or established until the last book when it's used to destroy a horcrux.
@T33K3SS3LCH3N their wands are cool, unique and stylish. And still they are just sticks. The sword doesn't look even stylish, it looks 100% kitsch, mass-produced, cheap tourist junk and it sticks out like a sore thumb in a cinematic world that is otherwise awesome.
#5 So a sword presumably forged in the fantasy world of Neverland by and for a 12/13 year old boy is short with a small hand guard, so when it's wielded by a grown man, it's too small? Imagine my shock.
#4 A sword supposedly forged by a fantasy race, Goblins, who are shorter and physically weaker than humans is smaller and thinner than a human forged sword from the same time period? I wonder why.
#3 - #1 Yeah, I can't argue with you.
As soon as I saw the title of the video I knew that there could be no competition for The Sword and the Sorcerer. It's in a league of it's own.
Oh yes.....
The Sword And The Sorcerer (1982)
Not one blade, not two.... THREE full breadth broadsword blades on one hilt.....and two of the blades are rocket propelled!
Top marks matey and bonus points for love of cheezy 80s swords and sandals flicks ;-)
Peter Pan's sword may have been stupid, but at least it was better than a knife.
But I definitely agree with Gryffindor's sword. Even as a kid, without any knowledge of HEMA, I didn't like how tiny and ornamental it was. I'm kind of thinking they were going for an Arthurian look rather than a historical one (see the painting 'The Accolade'), but even then it's still so small and flowery that it's hard to believe it's one of the few objects in the world that can destroy a horcrux.
pan make up some of the disadvantage by being able to fly. so he can attack hook from different angles that he not accustom to defending
I would want a long weapon. Fly up out of my opponent's reach and rain blows from above using gravity. Now that im considering this, Peter Pan would function well as flying light cavalry with a lance or spear. Hell, even a long stick would be great. His best option, considering his mobility, would probably be to just use a bow or crossbow. I suppose he would need a short weapon if his opponents forced him to fight in an enclosed space, but from what I remember, a lot of the fighting happens out in the open air with Pan flying acrobatically anyways. A short weapon is wasted potential. I like the aesthetic of his rogueish characteristics in any case.
I love how in a movie about immortal beings that eat lightning after beheading people, the sword is even worth considering as an issue.
#1 was a total surprise!
I've never even heard of that movie.
Cool find and the sword clearly deserves to be the worst of them all. It's so fugly i think i need to shower, lol.
Please more videos like that! Love it!
I enjoy all of your videos, but I can't remember the last time I was this instantly excited to watch one of them. Can't wait.
"Should we judge fantasy swords by historical accuracy? No."
Proceeds to do just that to the sword of Godric Griffindor as his only complaint against it.
Yes! Sword and the Sorceror gets a shout (boo) out! When I saw the video subject I said to myself "Well if Easton doesn't list Sword and the Sorceror I'm going to have to set him straight!" but you got it! As a little kid, it seemed as cool as Krull, which was also in hindsight a pretty damn awful film.
Will you ever do a top one hundred worst fantasy swords?
Re: the Gryffindor sword, I don't see why the excuse that it changes appearance to suit the wielder wouldn't work. We don't ever see it used by Godric Gryffindor, nor do we ever see it used in Anglo-Saxon times, so that can't be used to argue against the sword changing shape.
Also, the cross-guard isn't all that wrong in any case. The crossguard of the Charlemagne sword is usually dated to the 12th century, even though it is not a typical cross guard for that time - or any time. Special swords can have special fittings. And there is a tradition of such swords being refitted several times over the course of history, to suit contemporary styles. So really, the only point of contention that could possibly be raised is the blade itself, and as this is Harry Potter, it can easily be explained by magic. Perhaps they can alter sword shapes as easily as change fittings, with the use of magic.
Mmm, yeah. I really dislike that Griffindor sword.
"A brick works as a weapon."
- Kevin McCallister.
Thought those awful orc "swords" from LOTR might have made it in
Nah, those are rad. They're big, heavy, cheap to produce choppers meant to be banged out and given to warriors that lack finesse. They're basically giant machetes.
I think he's talking about the orcs of Mordor or the goblins of Moria. These guys have really interesting weapon designs.
The Uruk-hai of Saruman have simple sharpened metal bar swords. While crude, it's an OK design.
The only problem with the Uruk Hai swords is they're shown to be made by pouring metal into a mold, which is a pretty terrible way to make even a bad sword
Conan's father also made swords that way. One problem that's been pointed out is that steel hot enough to melt would be a brilliant white hot, not orange like in both movies. In both cases they probably used aluminum (which melts when orange-hot) for filming.
this is so funny lol. Matt Easton, you've made another WINNER outa this video with your incredible enthusiasm and loveable reaslism towards the swords. Great fun Great respect for being honest and real about swords which are .... UTTERLY rediculous! Thanks, keep up the good work!
Dude, if you want a guilty pleasure watch Final Fantasy: Advent Children for hilarious sword design!
Final Fantasy tends to have really bad sword designs - and I've even seen designers admit that it was on purpose because "whatever, they look cool". I don't remember any particularly bad swords from Advent Children that weren't already basically in FF7.
I remember the plot being really stupid, but the visuals and music were really good. Also Reno was way cuter than I expected.
Final fantasy; let’s make the most unwieldy bat shit insane sword designs ever.
Monster hunter; hold my beer.
Hey Matt Easton, with this video on Fantasy Swords, I'm surprised you haven't done a video on the ULTIMATE Fantasy Sword: Excalibur. I'd love for you to do a video where you count down the Top Ten Designs Of Excalibur in Movies, Videogames, TV Series, Sword Magazines, etc. Any chance you could make such a video?
At least Red Sonja did a better job with her armour...
lol
What armor????
@@Marveryn exactly
Arnold enjoyed stripping that outfit off of her on a daily basis back in the day, so I hear...
Says we shouldn't worry about the historical accuracy of a fantasy film.
Proceeds to worry about the historical accuracy of a fantasy film. XD
HM - "She chose it because it song to her”. Maybe the series choose her?
#5 - "Too short", "shouldn't judge fantasy swords based on historical accuracy", "It doesn't make sense". It's too sorry because it was made for Pan back when he was still an important, forever young lost boy. It makes perfect sense.
#4 - "Most historically accurate." I thought you just said fantasy swords shouldn't be judged on historical accuracy?
#3 "they are ugly." Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but fair enough on the other points.
#2 ”I'm not picking on that series, even though it is ugly", "I'm not picking that sword even though it isn't historically accurate", "that sword is rubbish because there is no way to put a usable sword together like that, and it sold have been a historical design even though it is a fantasy sword and we already we shouldn't judge fantasy swords based on historical accuracy". You made a video about it. Fair enough.
#1 - "triple blades that shoot out it hay wouldn't work at all as a sword". Fair enough. A shame you didn't see Christopher Lambert's sword in one of SyFy's renditions of Beowulf.
About the #4... considering the topic, I think "historically accurate" is a compliment meaning that the weapon is actually functional (as historical weapons tended to be), and this video is about fantasy swords that aren't functional.
When a friend of mine got married, all the groomsmen got swords as wedding gifts. We had Glamdring, Orcrist, Sting and Fili's sword. I picked Glamdring, but I got a chance to handle Fili's sword and I couldn't believe it; that thing has more in common with a club than a sword.
Pan's sword from Hook was originally wielded by a child, it also looks like it was crafted with makeshift materials to some degree.
The sword of Godric Gryffindor, on the other hand, was designed not for a warrior, but a wizard. While I think the style should have been a little less anachronistic, it was probably crafted lighter than a typical sword, with materials that allowed it to be a better channel for magic. Also, remember it was forged by goblins, not humans.
If these are your top five worst sword designs from live action fantasy films, it seems that maybe you haven't seen alot of live action fantasy films, which in this context isn't entirely a bad thing. In my experience these are generally pretty tame examples. Though the Sword and the Sorcerer one is a bit out there.
The Godric Gryffindor had a sword made was because he was a warrior
He was a combative wizard, but I was referring to a purely physical warrior versus one who fights with magic. Godric was not that kind of warrior, he wasn't a viking, or a knight. And a spell blade likely doesn't need to be as big or heavy as a sword wielded by one of those to be effective at channeling battle magic.
@@khodexus4963 he explicitly also was a good swordsman. That's why he spent a fortune getting a goblin made sword
www.pottermore.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/the-sword-of-gryffindor
I've never debated that. I'm simply saying he was a war wizard, not a purely physical warrior. Thus, a difference in the style of sword he would have favored.
You and I are not arguing cross-points here.
@@khodexus4963 it seems to me like you have no idea what you're talking about
As a kid I used to always sketch multiple bladed swords for my d&d characters but had completely forgotten about seeing The Sword and the Sorcerer. I'm sure now that's where the idea came from originally for me. What a complete abomination, lol.
If you're going to talk that much about the runner up, just make the list "6 worst movie swords."
What do you think of the dwarf sword Thorin oak shield used before getting Orcrist
This fantasy sword isnt historical... Hmmmm maybe thats why its call fantasy.
That's exactly what I thought! "Of course, these are fantasy films, so we shouldn't judge them by historical accuracy. The next sword made it on the list because it's *Really* historically inaccurate..." Dude, do you even hear yourself?
Don't be silly you too, just an analysis. Don't be so defensive.
Sorry, the tone came across wrong. Not defensive, I just found the juxtaposition hilarious - I'm not judging by historic accuracy. Practically the next sentence: This sword's not historically accurate. Like he said it without even realizing.
If it's _Alice in Wonderland_ kind of fantasy, then it's a valid point to justify things that only make sense in dreams.
But, in a setting that is otherwise supposed to obey the laws of reality, using objects that don't make any sense is inconsistent at best.
And in my opinion, if the fantasy is supposed to be based on something, so should be the elements it contains.
In defense of Peter Pan's sword, he was a kid when he first made/stole/acquired/used it so at least in terms of length it probably couldn't have been made longer and still able to be used by a young boy.
why were the 80s so bad when it comes to costumes and weapons, what happend ?
80s fashion of excess seeped into the designs.
Cocaine. Lots and lots of cocaine.
There were a few early successes (like Conan in 1982) which inspired a multitude of wannabes to cash in with cheap knock-offs.
Why? Because Hollywood was trying to make money off a trend they didn't understand at all. Conan and Excalibur were made with love, the rest were cash grab rip-offs. Some were still fun, but that was most likely luck.
There was a *damn explosion* of sword-and-sorcery films through the early to mid 80s - basically none of them equaled to Conan. Italy and Argentina seemed to put out a bunch as I recall, so it wasn't just Hollywood.
5. Peter Pan's "sword" was a dagger traditionally. I think they were trying to keep a nod to that. Its still terrible.
4. The Sword of Gryffindor was made by goblins, the stunty little bankers from the first movie. It's size would be an appropriate longsword for them. Its also indestructible and magically sharp, therefore doesn't need the bulk of a traditional 10th century blade.
3. yeah you got that right! The orcs had better weapons than these things.
2. Hey its the 80's man.
1. Seriously how much cocaine were they on?
So, shouldn't judge fantasy swords based on historical accuracy... but you ignore your own assertion and do it anyway. You should get into the clickbait business!
I've never heard of Sword and the Sorcerer before. 80's fantasy movies never lacked for ugly swords.
As someone who probably watched them all back in the 80's, I remember many swords being exactly the same from movie to movie. I assume these low budget production companies rented the same dumb, ugly swords from the same prop house.
The only thing I really remember about Sword and the Sorcerer is how the sorcerer would suck your heart out of your chest from like 50 feet away.
I always thought the Sword of Gryffindor looked far too wimpy for what it had to be done as well, but one thing should be remembered: the Sword was made by the *goblins* of the day, not the human wizards. As a result it's under no obligation to look anything like what contemporary Muggles *or* contemporary wizards would have made.
what do you thinkof the Dothrak sword ?I have not seen a review of GOT weapons
I learned one thing from Hook. Where Rufio swings his sword at Peter Pan's face and stops right in front of his nose and says "You're dead, jolly man." I went into the woods and practiced that with my 22 inch Latin Gavilian machete until I could stop on demand. It carried over to unarmed martial arts and firearms very nicely.
The problem with saying that the Sword of Godric Griffindor changes depending on the user and their need is that it was shown to be exactly the same for both Harry... who was facing a giant Basilisk... and Neville, who just used it to cut a snake's head off, but was also intending to fight off Voldemort with it.
Surely both would have different looking swords appear for them, not just for the uses, but to suit their size/build too (since Harry was 12 when he first received it, and Neville was... 17? 18? Something like that... and would have been able to use a lot larger and heavier a sword)
Holy crap, Matt! I was waiting to see if your #1 was the same I was thinking of, and you did not dissapoint! That thing is so rediculous that I almost feel including it on any kind of sword list could lead to including chainsaws as a kind of sword in movies.
Concerning the Sword of Griffondor, let's take a look at Tizona and Colada (visible in Burgos Musuem, Spain) : those two swords, one wielded by Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar, relics of the 11th century are true type X blades and had their pommel and hilt reshaped by Charles Quint for aesthetical and political reasons : while Tizona gained a mauresque inspired guard, Colada got a whole new schiavone hilt. Thus, I think Goedric's sword went through the same process and may had it's blade broken and replaced with smallswordish/courtsword blade.
5. From what I understand, Peter Pans sword is various parts of other swords he was able to steal from pirates. Think of it as something a child would assemble if they had parts lying around.
4. The sword in HP was supposed to be a wand. A sword shaped decorative focus for magic, not an actual cutting / slashing weapon.
3. Those dwarven swords are hideous. No argument here.
2. Pure fantasy from designers who never had real experience with swords.
1. Pure High-Fantasy. They were going for shock and awe factor rather than sensibility.
Excellent video! Well done.
5. Peter Pan's sword may have been for (and possibly by) a 10-12 year old (the way the character is normally depicted).
4. The sword of Gryffindor was made by and for goblins (explains the size and modern design because goblins are the magical world's most skilled metalworkers). Gryffindor may have kept it as a spoil of war or purely for its magical effects. It is shown to be a good chopper and adept at destroying enchanted objects. within the setting it seems to be quit appropriate as it will only serve special purposes if the wielder can shoot death lasers and teleport. (Alternatively may have been meant for offhand use as it cant compare to a wand anyway).
for the n-th time Matt, if you're doing movies, PLEASE do the monastery fight (when D'Artagnan arrives to duel Athos, Porthos, and Aramis) from Three Musketeers (1973 version with Michael York, Oliver Reed, Richard Chamberlain, Charlton Heston, and Christopher Lee).
What do you think about the official illustrated version of Godric Gryffindor's sword? imgur.com/a/1GYobV1 I think it still maintains the fantasy aspect while looking pretty cool, although not quite historical.
I’m so glad you included Gryffindor’s “sword”. Huge disappointment in the translation from book to movie there - as both a sword nerd and Harry Potter fan, I was disappointed. Thanks for calling it out Matt!
I would like your input on the idea of padding under armor in the viking ages. Not as armor, that did not exist.
The thing is, there are no mentions of any type of padded undergarments for mail. So that leads me to the conclusion that they either did not use them, or did not have any dedicated garments (such as the subermalis) and just wore some thicker tunics underneath perhaps. I did do a video about it but I am nowhere near famous so it doesn't warrant any reply
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However I am interested in what Matt has to say about the topic.
Absence of any evidence should be taken as a strong indication of absence. Especially considering that all other forms of protection are mentioned quite frequently
@@duchessskye4072 In what sources though? Padded armor existed pre migration it would make sense that simple, effective armor would persist, especially with all of the materials readily available to Viking age peoples of northern and western Europe.
Viking sagas and other contemporary literal sources.
Also padded armors did not exist before them, only the padding worn _under_ armor by roman soldiers, the subarmalis, do we have mentions of. And we don't know whether the vikings knew about it
Plenty of descriptions of other armors but none when it comes to padding. That is odd if they indeed did use it
@@duchessskye4072 That's incorrect actually. Quilted linen armor is seen in Egyptian sources and we know they traded quite often with The Sea Peoples.
Nick here, Great fun video. I don't think the sword from hook quite deserves as much as it gets, ironically as a matter of context. That weapon while obviously a fantasy design was scaled to fit the proportions of a child, thus cuphilt looks ludicris in a grown man's hand.
I also think the more organic leaf blade and clam shell edging of the cup was intended to reflect the 'taken from nature' aestetic of all the lost boys.
Still fascinating video, thoughtful and historical as always. Keep up the good work.
Got any historical references for goblin weaponry from the 10th century?
Two things about Pan's sword in Hook.
Length-wise it was originally wielded by a child.
Bigger issue is it seems to be made of brass or copper. Perhaps bronze. Not steel.
It cut to an advert when he said "but the swords of Fili and Kili are utter ..." and tomb raider advert, it felt like such a back to the studio moment.
Could you make a video on the best fantasy melee weapons that are not directly based on historic examples?
Katana-sword hybrid would count even if it resembles a Kriegsmesser.
I think Sting from LOTR should be on the list.
"there can only be one" reference was expected but necessary and appreciated :)
Hey, I'm fairly certain that in the Hook sword, it is ment to resemble a coconut the cup guard part of the sword. Also, it is ment for a kid, so a larger sword would be hard to weild properly.
"Should we require historical accuracy, no" "number 4, historically inaccurate" lol otherwise good video
I remember that Dragon Magazine, in its review of The Sword and the Sorcerer, suggested that it should have been titled "The Rocket Propelled Sword."
The dwarf kings sword Orcrist? I think you called it looks like it would cut really well, and I like the single quillon guard, it would work I might make it.
A cinder block and a 2x4 work as weapons too. Tested and proven numerous times in Jersey (New Jersey that is).
Harry Potter's Gryffindor sword (the movie version) is based on the Crown Jewels sword in London.
In that case it was a bad choice, because I believe Gryffindor's sword is supposed to be functional, whereas crown jewels sword is strictly ceremonial, which you cannot even swing without the jewels sinking into your own skin.
True. Just wanted to adress the supposed non-historical argument, when it is really absolutely historical. Just from the wrong period and the wrong usage.
0.23- A movie promo shot where Arnie is the third largest character... the fourth being a kid. Bet he loved that.