Arrow cam in movies

Reviewing the archery of Disney's new Mulan reboot trailer, I got an idea to talk about spinning arrows. Arrows don't fly straight, they spin. This is a desired quality for an arrow since spinning the missile around its axis makes it fly more straight, so it makes the projectile more accurate. The same mechanism works in bullets that are shot from rifled firearms.

The spinning for arrows is enhanced by the fletching, the three feathers at the back of the arrow. Some flething is glued and tied parallel to the arrow shaft, but some are attached slightly twisting around it, so that they form a kind of propeller. This is called helical fletching. This guides the air flowing between the feathers to turn the fletching, and thus also the arrow, away from it's path, and so the arrow spins.

Now, I'm not a physicist, but to my knowledge, all arrows spin in flight. I've seen it with my own eyes. If the fletching is helical, it accelerates the spin (slightly decelerating the arrow) thus making it more accurate, but straight fletched arrows also spin. Here's a picture of straight and helical fletching.

There is a video by the Slo Mo Guys that (as a by-product of a stupid experiment) shows clearly how much the arrow spins. Their arrow has four fletchings instead of the standard three, but it doesn't matter. Here you can see the arrow in flight in slow motion. From looking at the video I would estimate the arrow to spin about 15 rounds in the circa 10 meter distance between the two guys. This is a lot. I was surprised how much it spins. Maybe some arrows spin more, some less, but they all spin.

Some of the arrow's flight physics is beautifully explained in this video by Smarter Every Day. It mainly deals with the so called archer's paradox, but also shows arrows flying (and spinning) in slow motion. Really a great video.

Now, many movies have emplyed a so-called arrow camera. There's a whole TV tropes page for the arrow cam. These shots are abviously all done with CGI, so no actual arrows were shot (neither with a bow or with a camera). That has lead to some mistakes. Usually these arrow camera shots are used when depicting awesome feats of archery, shooting the bad guy from really far away really accurately. Most common mistakes done in post production are that the arrow has no arc, but flies straight to the target. The producers of this shot in Lord of the Rings, the Fellowship of the Ring said that they tried it but it caused motion sickness to the viewer. I believe them and thus it's a good decision. But making the computer generated arrow spin doesn't cause motion sickness since that doesn't affect the way the digital camera is moved. It just follows the arrow. But often times the arrow doesn't spin, or spins only slightly. While the distance shot with the arrow is usually pretty long in these shots, the arrow should spin many many times before hitting the target.

Let's take a look at different movies handling this arrow cam shot.

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991)

The trope might have been invented in Kevin Costner's movie, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves in 1991, at least that's the first example listed in TV tropes. The arrow cam shot was initially cut out of the movie, but was included in the film's trailer and proved to be so popular that the editors put it back in the movie. It's used at least twice in the film. I think the first time it was done with CGI in this movie. Only the tip of the arrow is visible under the camera. It works otherwise well, but the arrow doesn't spin, instead it wobbles as if to spin but then rotates a bit back to the other direction. An arrow will never do this, it's impossible. In computer graphics the spin would be easy to do so I don't know why they didn't do it. Watch it here. Later Robin Hood shoots two arrows to cut a rope, latter of which is shown in sideways arrow cam. This is done mechanically and looks better. Now the arrow does spin many times around itself, which is correct. Watch that here. It is a bit strange why they didn't make the arrow spin in the first arrow cam scene, when they obviously knew it should, since they made it spin in the second scene?

Robin Hood: Men in Tights (1993)

A few years later Kevin Costner's Robin Hood film was parodied with Robin Hood: Men in Tights, which really is an awesome and funny movie. I've already rated some of its quirks before, but now I watched the trailer, which copied the arrow cam straight (well, not exactly straight, you'll see) from Costner's Robin Hood. The arrow is attached to the camera here as well, and as previously, doesn't spin at all. Watch it here.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

In The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring when the fellowship is in Moria, goblins shoot at them. Legolas of course shoots back, much more accurately, and with an arrow camera shot bullseye's one of them between the eyes. This was one of my favourite scenes in the entire film, which is full of my favourite scenes, so it says a lot. The computer generated arrow is shown wholly in camera, and it does spin, but only about one full round, while an arrow at this great distance should have spinned many many rounds. Watch it here. But at least it spins!

The Avengers (2012)

In Avengers Hawkeye shoots (with dubious technique) many arrows. One he shoots at Loki is shown in arrow cam, first from the tip, then at the side. The CGI arrow spins vigorously as it should, yay! Watch it here.

Mulan (2020)

Just when one could hope that time has corrected this mistake, that movie makers wouldn't fall for the Robin Hood trap anymore, and make arrows spin like they did in the Avengers, came along the new Mulan reboot. Arrow cam is featured in the trailer and it follows the arrow from behind which has now become a standard. The arrow however does not spin at all. There is a slight rotational movement, but it doesn't spin even half a turn during a very long distance shot. Watch it here.

Summa summarum:

All in all The Avengers faired the best in this arrow cam test, since their CGI created arrow spins a lot. LotR takes the second place since Legolas' arrow spins slightly, but not enough. None of the rest show spinning of the arrow at all. So, try to remember moviemakers of future: arrows do spin. A lot!

There are several movies and TV series including the arrow cam that I couldn't find footage of now, so they are not reviewed in this blog post. If I find videos of them in the future, I can add them. These include at least the following: Army of Darkness (1992), Hercules: The Legendary Journeys (1995–1999), Xena: Warrior Princess (1995–2001), The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (2008), Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief (2010).

For the light end note there's a really funny scene in the parody Hot Shots! Part Deux (1993), where Charlie Sheen's character uses a chicken as the arrow, and we get a chicken cam shot! And no, it doesn't spin, but I don't know how chicken fly when shot from a bow. Watch that here to conclude everything.

Archery in the new Mulan film

I just watched the trailer for Disney's live action Mulan reboot. Years ago I was forced to watch Mulan 2, which was a nightmare. Compared to that, this cannot fail, but I really hope it will be better than those other completely unnecessary live action reboots of animated Disney classics. I saw the original Disney Mulan in 1998 in the movies, and I really liked it. Shan Yu, the leader of the evil Huns was a terrifying baddie, I really feared him as a child. And the avalanche scene was awesome!

After some googling around I found out that for some reason Shan Yu is not featured in this reboot (replaced by a random witch in stupid clichéd fantasy costume). This reboot also lacks Mushu, the Cricket, and captain Li Shang (who would've made men out of you all)! Apparently (as the producer of the film stated), the moviemakers fealt that having a superior officer of Mulan felling in love with her is "inappropriate" for this age we're living. As if it would've mattered in ancient China! Seems like I don't need to go to see this movie after all. Sad.

At least the film looks cool. I really love the colours used in this movie. Why is it that ancient and medieval China get's to bee colourful (as it was) but ancient and medieval Europe doesn't (it was too)? Could we get colours back to European historical films also, please!

Costumes in this trailer looked pretty good, especially for a Disney movie! They feature actual Chinese helmet and armour designs from almost the right time period (a few hundred years too new compared to when the story of Hua Mulan was originally set, but then again it's a fantasy story not based on real characters, so it doesn't matter as much).

Archery features heavily in this trailer, and got me excited, so let's get to it!

While not delving into too much detail, let's just say these recurve bows with long siyahs (the unbending parts at the end of Asiatic composite bows) were often used in China from the Han dynasty through the Yuan dynasty (206 BCE–1368 CE).
What is also good is that the archers start their draw from a level above their heads, which is done in East Asian archery, such as Japanese kyūdō.

 Mistakes:
1. All soldiers wear leather bracers. If these are meant to be archer's bracers, then only the archers should wear them, and only in their left arm. And they should be smooth side inside the arm, not like shown here. Leather bracers were not a part of traditional Chinese armours.
2. These bows make a creeking sound when drawn. If a bow creeks, it's somehow broken. I hope not all of these bows are broken. A standard movie cliché, a mistake nonetheless.

Other good thing was that the commander shouted: "Release!" instead of "Fire!". "Fire" was never shouted before the invention and/or widespread use of firearms. Bows don't shoot fire, but arrows, so English language commands to shoot with a bow were most probably "shoot", "loose" and "release". This was really excellent to hear from this trailer.

Now I changed the language in the speech bubble to Chinese since Chinese didn't historically speak English. I don't know Chinese, so according to Cambridge Dictionary this 发射 means "release". More specifically: "Release; to fire a bomb or a missile (= flying weapon), or to allow it to fall". They have used the word "fire" there also, so I don't know if this would be correct term regarding arrows, but someone who knows Chinese can correct this.

 Mistakes:
3. Archers are shooting upwards to create a rain of arrows.

Arrow rain is often depicted in popular media, such as films, games and books, but there is insufficient historical evidence of it being done, at leat regularly. Archers did not stay stationary on battlefield and launch arrow rains after another, but instead they were an inseparable part of the armies, they moved around the battlefield, often among infantry soldiers searching for targets to shoot. The used trajectories of arrows were much flatter and the distances shot much shorter than often imagined by modern people.

4. Mulan here is shooting with a Mediterranean grip. And that is also erroneous, since she's using all four fingers, instead of the regular three. This is anyway not the style of shooting prevalent in Asia, instead she should be shooting with a Mongolian thumb grip. I hope this was just one scene, and she uses the thumb grip in the rest of the movie. Otherwise the archery coach is to blame for this.

5. We have an arrow camera stolen from TV tropes storage of clichés. But it's not a bad cliché, I like it a lot, since it's fun to look at. That's not the mistake. But the arrow flies a long distance (nothing wrong with that either) without spinning. Arrows have those fletchings at their back to give the arrow a spin in the air. This works the same way as rifling on a gun, which makes the bullet spin around it's axis. This spinning makes the projectile fly more accurately. This arrow doesn't even make half a spin during this flight. It's impossible.

Legolas did it better in the The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring. His arrow spinned somewhat, while still too little, it looked more believable than Mulan's arrow in flight.

All and all the new Mulan trailer faired exceedingly well compared to many other travesties of archery I've seen during the last few years on screen. Good job!

Compare here how this reboot fairs against it's predecessor regarding archery. I think this new one did a better job in that respect (easier to do it alive than to animate, and some of the mistakes of the animation is due to the exaggerated characteristics of cartoons, not suitable for live action, so it is understandable). It seems I gave both versions of Mulan the same amount of mistake points, but I had more good to say about archery in this live action one.

Six shooting archery in Robin Hood – Men in Tights

Since today is the leap day, and it's only in every four years (except in years that are divisible by 100, but not by 400, in Gregorian calendar that is) you get a special extra post: Cary Elwes! Of course from the hilarious comedy film Robin Hood – Men in Tights (1993). Real Robin Hood, if he would've existed (which he most probably didn't) would not have worn tights, or known about the leap day for that matter, since they used a Julian calendar at that time. All of this is irrelevant to archery though.

So this time I want to talk about how Cary Elwes, I mean Robin Hood, shoots six arrows at once. It is most probably a reference to western movies with their six-shooting revolvers. Of course you cannot do this with a bow. The second picture shows Hood placing the arrows carefully on top of each other to the bowstring. But there's nothing to keep them there, all aligned beautifully. They used some kind of movie trickery to make that happen (secret arrow holder or glue perhaps?), but in reality this would not work. If shot like this, some of the arrows would surely fly out of the bow. Possibly poorly, hindered by the collapsing arrow pile. Many arrows would just land a few meters ahead or just straight frop off the bowstring and fall to the ground immediately. It would be completely impossible to aim all these arrows.

And what would be the point of it? If an arrow can kill a man, does it need six arrows to kill him six-times more dead? This is precisely the point why the Greeks didn't employ in great numbers the repeating catapult they invented (yes catapult is an arrow thrower, and not a stone thrower, like the ballista), it was too accurate! The same happened with the invent of the modern machine guns. All the arrows and bullets flew to the same spot, which is counter-intuitive after the target is already dead. With machine guns they made the bullets sparse out in flight so they would cover a larger area. With the repeating catapult they couldn't fix that problem, so it wasn't much used in warfare. There is no point of shooting several arrows at once, since they will hit the same target, which is not needed. It is a waste of arrows. Much more useful would be to shoot the arrows one after another to different targets. Now he would have potentially killed six enemies instead of hitting one target six times.

The film is great though, you should watch it if you haven't seen it already. And watch again if you haven't seen it in recent years.

Another one of those elvesses

Why is it that all elves are female? I know why, it's because men (and boys [and men-children]) draw these pictures with one hand in their pocket. That pocket that has a hole in the bottom you know. But seriously think about how an elven population could sustain itself if it's only made of up women? Are elves a kind of fantasy race such as Amazons who only go to men when they want to reproduce, kill all their boy children and live in solitude? Or is it that gender roles are reversed in elven societies, so that elven women do all the fighting stuff (you know, archery is fighting when done against people and not animals, in which case it is hunting), and elf-men are take care of the home and children?

These scenarios seem unlikely at best. But according to contemporary pictorial evidence, all elves seem to be women.
Except Cary Elwes of course!


Back to business. That Elder Scrolls inspired (quod green glass sword) elvess (?, female elf) has many mistakes in her archery style, so probably she's just a poser with a bow, but without any knowledge of how to shoot with it.

1. Let's start with the bow as always. It's hoorrible, also as always. Sad. This bulky spiky thing would not actually work as a bow, so maybe she should just throw it at enemies instead of trying to shoot with it.

2. The string is not attached to the end of the bow limbs, as it should. The fistmele is also too great.

3. This is a reverse grip of the arrow. There is no point of doing this, and to my knowledge, no evidence of anyone ever doing it.

4. This is the place where the arrow should be nocked. About the center of the bowstring (technically usually one fist above the center, depending on bow type though), but this arrow is nowhere near the center. This arrow would hit the ground if shooting it is possible at all.

5. Back quiver. And on the wrong shoulder for a right handed person. Impossible to get the arrows from there.

6. The arrow has a huge arrowtip, which would be too heavy for an actualy arrow that is intended to be shot from a bow.

Boobs and butt pose number million

This obviously World of Warcraft inspired (night) elf is as usual: A) female, B) scantily clad, C) has a horrible bow, D) doesn't know how to shoot. On to the mistakes:

1. This thing is what the maker of this image probably thought of as a bow. A quick look at a real bow however would've been immensely helpful in rendering the bow realistically. This "bow" is unbeliavable, and not in a good sense of the word. How does she even get her hand in the middle of the spiky thing to find the handle of the bow? Her hand must be ful of scars.

2. This bow doesn't bend. So it doesn't work. So it's not a real bow. But that we knew already.

3. The posture is very bad. The elbow should be drawn back.

4. There are no other arrows anywhere to be seen, nor an empty quiver. What she's going to shoot after this only arrow?

Bonus: the bowstring is coming apart soon.

Archery in Thorgal comics

Thorgal is a fantasy comic album series by a Belgian writer Jean Van Hamme, and Polish artist Grzegorz Rosinski, one of the most famous European comic series of all time (says the backcover text). It tells the adventurous life story of orphan Conanesque (he even have long black hair) viking warrior called Thorgal, who fights tirelessly for freedom and justice, as we modern people experience and imagine those virtues, and not like ancient or medieval people. Unusual of other cliché barbarian characters Thorgal doesn't use a sword or a huge axe as his main weapon, instead he is a master of the bow. Exciting! Let's see.

I only had the third album (out of over thirty!), which I accidentally bumped into in a library of Oodi (which' opening in Helsinki last year had more people than books in it, which is very wrong for a library!). So all these pictures are from the third album (or second in English album series?) in the Thorgal series, called The Three Elders of Aran (Aranin maan kolme vanhusta in Finnish, Les Trois vieillards du pays d'Aran in original French). The texts are in Finnish.

Now to the archery mistakes:

1. This arrow taken straight out of Thorgals quiver is way too short. It's a pet peeve of artists (mine included) to draw arrows too short when they are not being shot. It is hard to understand that the length of the arrow is really significant, longer than it's shooters outstretched arm. The arrowtip is also too big.

2. Thorgal carries his bow strung and tucked around his body. This is not a good way to carry a bow. First of all it's a nuisance, a powerful warbow or hunting bow will hurt your chest if it's carried like that, since the fistmele of the bow (distance between the handle of the bow and the string) is most probably shorter than the thickness of the archers chest. Thus the bowstring presses against the chest all the time. This might not be a problem if the bow is carried like this for a short period of time, but this is how Thorgal is shown carrying his bow all the time. The other reason is that keeping the bow constantly strung (string attached to the bow arc) it slowly but gradually loses it's power when the wood curves into the shape it's being held. This again is not a problem if done occasionally for short time, but always carrying a bow like that is not good.
I have not seen any historical illustrations of archers carrying their bows like this. Usually bows are carried in bow quivers on the hip, rarely on the back, sometimes bows are shown being carried on the shoulder, but not like this around the upper body. But this is like many fantasy characters, most famously Legolas, carry their bows around.

3. Thorgal carries his arrows on a staple fantasy back quiver, which is not very useful, furthermore because the quiver opens on the left shoulder and him being right handed the arrows should be on the right shoulder.

This picture is here to show that the baddies broke Thorgals bow (and sword) in half. This bow is unrepearable now. Easier would've been just the cut the bowstring, which usually was done to render a bow incapable of shooting (although an archer might have a spare bowstring or two somewhere on him, most usually inside his hat to keep it dry, but then again Thorgal doesn't have a hat, or a bag or any other means of transporting goods on him either...). The bowstring was spared here because it's easier to depict repaired bowstave than a repaired bowstring in a comic book.

4. In the next scene Thorgal has repaired his broken bow by threading the halves together. I doubt this would work very well at all. Maybe he's able to shoot something with it, but not very far, and it might brake in two quite easily again. Furthermore this repair shortens the bow about 30-40 cm estimating from the pictures. This makes using the same bowstring impossible, because it's way too long. They thought readers wouldn't notice such a thing, even if they noticed it themselves.

Now he uses the classic fantasy rope arrow trick to hook a grappling iron over the crenellation of the keep. Maybe it could theoretically work, I don't know, but seems quite fanciful. Certainly there is no historical precedence of doing something like that. Grappling hooks were in fact shot from catapults in antiquity (to grapple other ships in naval battles), not with bows (yes I know he first shoots a string, and then uses that to pull the hook there, but it seems like this trick has too many parts that could go wrong).

This is one of Thorgals rivals in a competition over the princess (who's already his bride). The ugly ranger dressed in fantasy studded leather armour (which never existed in real life) he shoots a longbow from a horseback. Longbows were not regularly used on horseback because they're too long for effectively being shot from there. the bows lower limb will interfere with the horses body too much. That's why horse archers tended to use very short (recurve) bows, or then make their bows asymmetrical, the lower limb being shorter than the upper (like Japanese yumi).
Here the character has turned his bow in a 45 degree angle in order to be able to shoot without having the horses neck interfering with the bow, which is exactly the thing you would do if you would have to shoot too long a bow on horseback. No mistake here. He also has his arrows on a hip quiver, like one should do.

5. What is this? This is completely ridiculous! That ranger character holds the bow with one hand (being the other hand he shot with the last time), and holds the arrow only between his bowhand fingers! This would not work with a real powerful bow. Nobody is strong enough to hold the bow strung like that with only one hand. The bow should be a children's toy in order for that to happen. Also the aim is ruined, it's just not possible to shoot with one hand only. It's quite a stupid trick, doesn't even look cool. I have never seen this mistake before, so I don't even have a name for it, and I doubt (and really hope) I don't ever see it again, so there's no point of creating a category for it.

That's not the way to string a bow

 

A Spanish (probably they want to call themselves Catalonians) historical reenactment group called Barcino Oriens who try to recreate imperial Roman army and civilian life in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE does a very poor job of representing archery. And when I say very poor, I mean absolutely abysmal.

It should be a crime to teach something if you have absolutely no clue of what you are talking about. This man here shows how he thinks a bow is stringed. This is not how it's done. That is utterly and completely wrong and he is plain ignorant about it. It is totally impossible to shoot that way, and if it would be a real bow (I mean not made of plastic), and if he somehow got the string to keep in place while drawing, the bow could break. Fortunately the string will slip off of the bow nocks if he tried to pull the string that way.

I of course commented on that, since it was on Facebook, and I like to educate people. The answer was as usual, hostile:

"Imposible! It's only one way this!" is barely an understandable sentence. I know their native language is Catalan, and not English, but neither is mine. The laughing smiley (I heard the diginatives call them emojis nowadays, but I still call them smileys) is by my (bow shooting) friend.

I patiently gave them an explanation in pictures, since if we don't have a common language, that should work:

I just posted it, so I'm now waiting for their answer, probably tomorrow we'll see. Maybe I'll update this post, but probably I have better things to do.

I don't want to comment on the quality of their reenactment, since it's not the subject of this blog (maybe I'll start another one in the future?), but let's just say that if Catalonia did separate from Spain, we would not lose much.

UPDATE

They deleted their picture without any comment. I hope they learned their lesson.

UPDATE

They answered me later in Facebook, and it seems that they learned how to string a bow. Nice to see that I taught somebody to do it right.