Originally posted by Nibedicus
Again, you are applying the low showings of OTHER characters’ armor, essentially fodder characters and applying to a named character that has not gotten hit. Ignoring the fact that it is common practice for filmmakers to actually disregard/bend accuracy for the sake of story/pace/cost/etc. Well technically he did get hit but it was hard to tell if it was a slashing attack (Troll struck him and sent him flying, but it is unclear what kind of hit it was exactly but the SFX was definitely metal on metal (https://youtu.be/17_ImViPryQ) @ (4:30) and it was definitely the troll’s weapon if you slowmo, he caught Aragorn on the upswing). But I don’t have to show you “feats” of other characters. You need to show me showings of the specific armor in question that makes you think it’ll be ineffective. No sharing of “feats” and showings.I don’t have to support it by “feats”, as with the absence of “feats” that is still steel armor and it will have the same qualities (within reason) as steel armor and will default as steel armor until proven otherwise. Do we ask for building weight “feats” when someone lifts something? Do we ask for weight/hardness “feats” for the rock Kurse used to throw at Thor? No. We take it as it is and it defaults to reasonable real world estimates. Using that line of argument would make debates degenerate into feat pedantism and nothing will ever get done.
So disregard certain tropes and inaccuracies but take others literally? What makes the bullet thing any different a trope as the armor thing? Both have filmmaking reasons why they’re used. But one quality applies and the other does not? I mean hypothetically if I made a thread about “typical 80s hero” who is armed with a standard pistol with no magazines against 20 opponents what then? Give him unlimited ammo? Count the number of ammo the gun would have? What then?
So it is only as effective as you want it to be? Since you insist that there be no established benchmark, then I guess we should just assume that steel armor is just over fork level but below sword level? How does this work? And Leather and steel armor would be what? Just effective/ineffective? Until “feats” say otherwise? We should accept that as a standard? Guess we can make LotR armies fight Xerxes armies and not worry about the HUGE weapon/armor tech difference and just completely ignore the fact that one side has armor and the other doesn’t. I mean since Xerxes’ armies are not carrying forks, then I guess the LoTR armor is useless. You can see how badly that logic would fail given many applications while my logic would make scenarios like this workable.
If you mean the statue of Apollo. That was a gold statue, not a stone/marble one. Hey look, I never said that Achilles’ weapon were useless. I just doubt how well it would do against superior armor tech made of superior metal. I already acknowledged that a full spear throw at max force would likely penetrate but spear thrusts and sword slashes tho? Vs layers of plate+chain+gambeson? I have my doubts. The fight won’t be Aragorn standing still, he will block/parry and maneuver around. He’s not a slouch as a fighter. I believe that Aragorn could parry/block/avoid direct full power hits (as will Achilles) and that the fight will have them doing minor cuts/slashes against each other (Achilles will land more and better hits of course) in a battle of attrition. That is why the armor plays such a huge role.
Achilles will win in speed/skill but Aragorn offsets this difference with superior tech. That was my whole argument. Oh, and I never said Aragorn wins for certain. That is why I posted Legolas/Aragorn (meaning that I’m split between Aragorn and Achilles).
“Feats” are not be all end all. Especially since we USE real world equivalents as benchmarks to quantify “feats”. That in itself is telling you that reality (where it applies and is not explicitly contradicted by story) has a strong value in determining what something is capable of and we cannot disregard this.
The problem I have with your logic is that it causes a TON of problems when applied to different hypothetical scenarios (see above), is subjective in its application and ignores the fact that we do not share “feats” and showings.
Well, that tells us that Achilles’ armor works as armor should. That doesn’t change anything, though.
I'm watching that vid you linked... I don't know man, it certainly looks like Aragorn simply got backhanded. Considering the arm length of that troll I doubt it would have been able to properly swing with his sword at such a close distance.
As for low showings... again, they can't be considered low showings when there are no higher showings. They were the ONLY showings so they literally can't be considered low showings. Had their armors not had any feats whatsoever then I'd be perfectly fine attributing to them real world armor capabilities. Same way that rock that Kurse threw had no feats, therefore we can assume it behaves like real world rock.
Unfortunately, we DO have feats for LOTR armor, and based on those feats we know that they're far less protective than real world armor. So we can't apply real world armor capabilities to them when they have FEATS DIRECTLY SHOWING THEM TO BE INFERIOR TO REAL WORLD ARMOR.
You say it's just fodder characters, well here's the scene for Haldri's death: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBvGxIZ0aNI
Haldir is definitely not fodder and he's dressed in Elven armor here, presumably of fine enough make to match his status. Had his armor behaved like real world armor then a sword slash from the back, even from a heavy sword, should have done nothing but pushed him forward. At most it would have given him a bad bruise. Yet in this scene it's enough to kill him.
So there, I hope that's enough non-fodder proof for your argument.
I don't think I'm being unreasonable here. I understand that there are movie tropes, I understand that there are inaccuracies. I am not saying that feats are the be all end all. Had the armors not had any feats I'd be perfectly fine to use your real world analogy.
But you are literally asking me to attribute capabilities to Aragron's equipment that is directly contradicted by what is shown in the film. You know the golden rule.
Originally posted by FrothByte
I'm watching that vid you linked... I don't know man, it certainly looks like Aragorn simply got backhanded. Considering the arm length of that troll I doubt it would have been able to properly swing with his sword at such a close distance.As for low showings... again, they can't be considered low showings when there are no higher showings. They were the ONLY showings so they literally can't be considered low showings. Had their armors not had any feats whatsoever then I'd be perfectly fine attributing to them real world armor capabilities. Same way that rock that Kurse threw had no feats, therefore we can assume it behaves like real world rock.
Unfortunately, we DO have feats for LOTR armor, and based on those feats we know that they're far less protective than real world armor. So we can't apply real world armor capabilities to them when they have FEATS DIRECTLY SHOWING THEM TO BE INFERIOR TO REAL WORLD ARMOR.
You say it's just fodder characters, well here's the scene for Haldri's death: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBvGxIZ0aNI
Haldir is definitely not fodder and he's dressed in Elven armor here, presumably of fine enough make to match his status. Had his armor behaved like real world armor then a sword slash from the back, even from a heavy sword, should have done nothing but pushed him forward. At most it would have given him a bad bruise. Yet in this scene it's enough to kill him.
So there, I hope that's enough non-fodder proof for your argument.
I don't think I'm being unreasonable here. I understand that there are movie tropes, I understand that there are inaccuracies. I am not saying that feats are the be all end all. Had the armors not had any feats I'd be perfectly fine to use your real world analogy.
But you are literally asking me to attribute capabilities to Aragron's equipment that is directly contradicted by what is shown in the film. You know the golden rule.
I actually watched it several times in slo mo before posting. I’m almost certain it is the upswing. Even paused it. Here is the photo (https://imgflip.com/i/2sjbqy). You can tell from the length that it is a sword and the the troll’s hand is too far away to strike Aragorn. Then again, it is not 100% guaranteed. It could be a blunt strike. We don’t know. But it is a sword strike and it had enough force to send him flying several meters (and the SFX was metal to metal). So armor is obviously not as useless as you think.
That is still other characters. Again, you need to show Aragorn’s armor showings to have a leg to stand on here, man. In the absence of showings for Aragorn’s armor, we need to default to RW equivalents the same way you default to RW equivalent for the rock Kurse threw.
We actually do not see where his armor got penetrated (armor has slits and it looks like he got stabbed with a knife in an unknown spot and finished off via getting slashed on back of the head/neck). So a better example would be nice. And again, different character, we do not share “feats” and showings. For you to convince me, you’ll need to provide showings for Aragorn’s armor performing poorly.
The problem I have with your logic (and I’m almost certain you can see h1 already trying to use it) is that it fails when applied to a huge variety of scenarios (why can’t I say my 80s hero character has magic unlimited bullet powers or one shot car exploding shooting ability?). We also end up picking and choosing when to apply these stupid tropes. Like guns having infinite ammo or explosions not working as they would or cars exploding when getting shot and enemy fodder characters just standing in a corner waving their arms uselessly and attacking one by one. My logic of taking things at face value and ignoring stupid filmmaking tropes would make everything consistent, fair and balanced for both sides. I do not get to decide that YOUR universe’s characters/guns/explosions/cars act differently from those of mine just because my character is from the 80s while yours is more current. Because things will quickly degenerate if I do so.
Nothing in the film DIRECTLY contradicts what I am attributing to Aragorn’s armor. As we do not have showings for Aragorn’s armor other than the Troll swipe. So no, the golden rule does not apply. However, let me just say that we do not share “feats” and showings. That should definitely apply here.
Originally posted by FrothByte
In any case, rereading OP it says that combatants are dressed in standard gear. Considering that Aragorn spends most of his time without armor or with only little armor I feel like our argument is pointless.
I feel that characters should be given their most recent equipment as standard gear as we do not want to ignore things like character growth (like Aragorn having Anduril).
Here, you want an example of a named character’s armor performing?
Legolas vs Bolg
Bolg blocks a sword slash from Legolas with his armor (you can hear the metal on metal impact).
(1:30)
Another at
(3:16)
Where Thorin slashed at Azog’s back. Turned away by armor.
Fodder armor working:
You can see the elf mid center right hitting an ork 2x and the ork takes no damage and gets back to fighting.
(3:33)
Same ork at (3:37) rushing forward to attack an elf offscreen.