Is 300 a good movie?

[Mr. Versipellis]

Obviously it's the Biggest Joke On The Net, and all the people I know have seen it. I've seen ne scene of a guy killing some people (it was awesome). Is it actually a decent arty film, or just a really silly piece of rubbish full of men in panties? :smallwink:

[Haven]

If by "Arty" you mean the guy from Pete & Pete, then yes.

[The_JJ]

It's entertaining the first time through with your brain on autopilot and your history geek firmly turned to 'awesome' instead of 'accurate.'

[Joran]

Oh boy. Here we go with the objective vs. subjective arguments over quality.

The only thing I can say definitively is that I enjoyed it a lot on my first couple watches. I don't particularly feel inclined to watch parts of it obsessively like some of my favorite movies anymore, but it was very entertaining.

[Emperor Ing]

It's easy to say it's not historically accurate, but damnit, it's easily one of the most entertaining movies in existence. :smallbiggrin:

[Klose_the_Sith]

Good? Ehhh, not really. In any way.

Entertaining? Definitely.

Worth Watching? Without a doubt.

(Now you know everything there is to know about Klose's opinion re: 300)

[T-O-E]

It's entertaining the first time through with your brain on autopilot and your history geek firmly turned to 'awesome' instead of 'accurate.'

Keep in mind that the movie is being told through the eyes of a patriotic poet aiming to inspire an army before a fight.

[Icewalker]

It's ridiculous and has almost no value as a serious work of media, it is instead a nice mix of hilarious and awesome. If you're up for mocking bad history that'll make it even better.

[Mando Knight]

It's not Tolkein or C.S. Lewis, if that's what you mean. It's more of a "blockbuster" style film, like the Transformers and Star Wars movies.

[The_JJ]

Keep in mind that the movie is being told through the eyes of a patriotic poet aiming to inspire an army before a fight.

Balls to that. The distinction, if it needs to be made, is not on ehtat matters.

Hmm.. that was ackwardly worded. Here let me try this:

Most people who are not intelligent enough to recognize grade A Hollywood history won't get that either.

And if they've got such a stick up their but about accuracy, a few lines of monologue before and after the actual movie won't carry much weight anyway.

I recognize it as crap and enjoyed it anyway. Stop telling how to justify it.

Also, the bloody poet still wasn't wearing any armor in his supposedly 'real' sequences and... damnit! See why you don't bring this up!

[Sneak]

Pretty much what everyone else said.

Is it good? No. In fact, it's pretty terrible.

But is it entertaining? Hell yes.

[Renrik]

Obviously it's the Biggest Joke On The Net, and all the people I know have seen it. I've seen ne scene of a guy killing some people (it was awesome). Is it actually a decent arty film, or just a really silly piece of rubbish full of men in panties? :smallwink:

The second one, plus bad music and racism.

[warty goblin]

I watched it. I can't say I found it violently objectionable, so much as somewhere between boring and ridiculous. The stabby bits were OK, except for their insistance on turning into Frank Miller does Return of the King, but the talky bits made me die inside.

Also the sex scene was hilarious.

[Timberwolf]

In answer to the OP, it depends entirely on you.

If you watch it with your film snob head on and expect to be dazzled by the script, drool over the *shudder at the hated word* cinematography, bang on about things that sound clever and all that, like critiscising the camera angles and all that, then no, it sucks.

However, if you watch it as I watched it, which was with some mates, a bag of popcorn and drinks, with no intention of doing anything other than enjoying yourself, then it's brilliant.

[Oslecamo]

Also the sex scene was hilarious.

There was a sex scene?

acessing memory archives, please wait...

YYEEEAARRGHHHHH!!!!!!!

Damn you WG, for making me remember that!

[FoE]

Its history is very, very bad, but it's very, very pretty to look at.

[warty goblin]

There was a sex scene?

acessing memory archives, please wait...

YYEEEAARRGHHHHH!!!!!!!

Damn you WG, for making me remember that!

Damn this thread for making me remember that.

The one thing I do have to give 300 is that Gerald Butler does a really good Leonidas. Gets the whole life is short, death is certain but glory is forever bit down to a T.

Now if only they'd make an Iliad with him as Hektor or Ajax...

[Zaydos]

I enjoyed the movie, but it does get the history painfully wrong in places. The lack of armor being one point (they were heavy infantry whose tactic was...), but rather forgivable in a movie.

All in all it was pretty, it was fun, and if you want a blood fest it's definitely good. Just remember it is a blood fest and not intended to be historically accurate.

[DraPrime]

The second one, plus bad music and racism.

It was racist? :smallconfused:

[The_JJ]

It was racist? :smallconfused:

Bunch of overmuscled caucasians defending truth, freedom, civilization, and their women from a choice pick of scary colored folks.

[warty goblin]

I enjoyed the movie, but it does get the history painfully wrong in places. The lack of armor being one point (they were heavy infantry whose tactic was...), but rather forgivable in a movie.

All in all it was pretty, it was fun, and if you want a blood fest it's definitely good. Just remember it is a blood fest and not intended to be historically accurate.

My problem with the stabby bits wasn't that it was inaccurate, it was that there was a staggering lack of interesting diversity in the action scenes. Probably because there was only one color, which was visually striking for a while, but didn't take long to become boring. The bit where it was endless repetitions of people in the same damn costumes stabbing each other over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again wasn't exactly enthralling either.

Honestly I liked Kingdom of Heaven's action scenes better.

[Gourtox]

Bunch of overmuscled caucasians defending truth, freedom, civilization, and their women from a choice pick of scary colored folks.

Wait there was something overther than mindless blood and gore in this movie? It's ruined for me. I need more senseless visual violence, well hello there Braveheart.:smallbiggrin:

[zeratul]

Bunch of overmuscled caucasians defending truth, freedom, civilization, and their women from a choice pick of scary colored folks.

......Yes but historically the battle actually was between a bunch of overmuscled caucasians defending truth freedom and civilization and their women from persia or as you put it "a choice pick of scary coloured folks". :smallconfused:

The reason there's monsters in it isn't because they're trying to be racist, it's because it's based on a comic book in which the persians use giant monsters to fight the spartans in addition to normal soldiers and such.

[Dienekes]

The racist thing always seemed rather week to me. Like if they made a movie of an actual depiction of the battle would it be racist? Persia did have a rather large assortment of colored folk in their empire and the greeks were olive skinned-ish. So... history was racist then? Ehh, I certainly hope people don't start exclaiming that. Then we'll have to edit history movies to the most ridiculous extremes. "Look at the multi-racial Huns being fought off by the multi-racial Romans. No of course it wasn't a group of defending Europeans fighting against a marauding horde of diseased, self scarring Asians. That'd be racist."

Now as to the movie itself.

Was it a good movie? Nah

Was it an awesome movie? Hell yes. Very rarely does a movie get anyone as pumped as this movie to go do just about anything.

Very rarely do good and awesome movies collide. But when they do, it's fantastic.

[warty goblin]

......Yes but historically the battle actually was between a bunch of overmuscled caucasians defending truth freedom and civilization and their women from persia or as you put it "a choice pick of scary coloured folks". :smallconfused:


Yeah, the Spartans were totally for freedom and democracy, as seen by how they fought one of the bloodiest* wars in history to stop the spread of its influence some seventy years later.

Their belief in freedom and democracy is also visible in their laws, which included such enlightened concepts as enslaving 80% of the population, declaring ritual war on them every now and again, and turning its entire society into a machine for the production of highly trained killing machines.

*In relative terms obviously. I've seen figures that put the losses of the Peloponnese at up to 30% of the total population over the course of that war. During WWII, the most absolutely destructive war in history, Russia lost 14% of its population, well ahead of Germany at 10% and the other powers at somewhat lesser numbers.


OK, disengaging sarcasm in 3...2...1

Seriously, Sparta fought at Thermopylae because they did not want to capitulate to another ruler. They were no more 'free' than any other monarchical state at the time, and arguably much less so.

I suspect we get fed the democracy line because we don't like to think of a bunch of really unpleasant people being able to kick that much ass, and people tend to confuse Athens and Greece.

[zeratul]

Yeah, the Spartans were totally for freedom and democracy, as seen by how they fought one of the bloodiest* wars in history to stop the spread of its influence some seventy years later.

Their belief in freedom and democracy is also visible in their laws, which included such enlightened concepts as enslaving 80% of the population, declaring ritual war on them every now and again, and turning its entire society into a machine for the production of highly trained killing machines.

*In relative terms obviously. I've seen figures that put the losses of the Peloponnese at up to 30% of the total population over the course of that war. During WWII, the most absolutely destructive war in history, Russia lost 14% of its population, well ahead of Germany at 10% and the other powers at somewhat lesser numbers.


OK, disengaging sarcasm in 3...2...1

Seriously, Sparta fought at Thermopylae because they did not want to capitulate to another ruler. They were no more 'free' than any other monarchical state at the time, and arguably much less so.

I suspect we get fed the democracy line because we don't like to think of a bunch of really unpleasant people being able to kick that much ass, and people tend to confuse Athens and Greece.


I am aware in a general sort of way the Spartans were *******s and that their reasons for fighting at Thermopylae had more to do with wanting to protect themselves and wanting to gain glory than hey did with protecting these ideas. However, inadvertently they were doing so.

[TheSummoner]

It was a very pretty movie. Turn your brain off, sit back and take in the awesome. You will have a good time so long as you don't think too much about it.

I think Robot Chicken summed it up pretty well. "It aint accurate, but it'll blow your f***ing mind!"


The racist thing always seemed rather week to me. Like if they made a movie of an actual depiction of the battle would it be racist? Persia did have a rather large assortment of colored folk in their empire and the greeks were olive skinned-ish. So... history was racist then? Ehh, I certainly hope people don't start exclaiming that. Then we'll have to edit history movies to the most ridiculous extremes. "Look at the multi-racial Huns being fought off by the multi-racial Romans. No of course it wasn't a group of defending Europeans fighting against a marauding horde of diseased, self scarring Asians. That'd be racist."

I am offended and demand that you change the thing you worked hard on to suit my demands or else I will cry about it and sue you regardless of whether or not you intended it to be offensive or if the thing I believe to be offensive is accurate or not.

The world isn't always pretty place. People have no right to try to alter reality simply because they're too much of a wuss to handle it. It sickens me that people actually get away with that sort of thing.

[warty goblin]

I am aware in a general sort of way the Spartans were *******s and that their reasons for fighting at Thermopylae had more to do with wanting to protect themselves and wanting to gain glory than hey did with protecting these ideas. However, inadvertently they were doing so.

I think any notational protection they gave to democracy et cetera was probably undercut significantly by the amount of effort they spent trying to get rid of it. That's like saying that Hitler was pro-Democracy because he attacked Stalin who was Communist and anti Democracy- you gotta be wearing a really interesting set of blinders to make it work.

[HamHam]

300 is pretty good. It had decent acting, some great cinematography, and was overall a very tight work.

[zeratul]

I think any notational protection they gave to democracy et cetera was probably undercut significantly by the amount of effort they spent trying to get rid of it. That's like saying that Hitler was pro-Democracy because he attacked Stalin who was Communist and anti Democracy- you gotta be wearing a really interesting set of blinders to make it work.

Heh, touche :smallamused:

Yeah they did a lot to deter it as well so you could be correct in saying that what they mostly did was undercut it. I still maintain however that the movie/comic aren't racist.

[warty goblin]

Heh, touche :smallamused:

Yeah they did a lot to deter it as well so you could be correct in saying that what they mostly did was undercut it. I still maintain however that the movie/comic aren't racist.

Never said they were, just that the Spartans were liberty hating scumbags.

[DraPrime]

Yeah, the Spartans were totally for freedom and democracy, as seen by how they fought one of the bloodiest* wars in history to stop the spread of its influence some seventy years later.

Their belief in freedom and democracy is also visible in their laws, which included such enlightened concepts as enslaving 80% of the population, declaring ritual war on them every now and again, and turning its entire society into a machine for the production of highly trained killing machines.

Yes, the movie was horrendously historically inaccurate. That doesn't change the fact that calling the movie racist is a stretch, since the Greeks are white, and the Persions were mostly people with darker skin.

[The_JJ]

Hey, just summing up the arguments I've heard.

[Dienekes]

Yeah, the Spartans were totally for freedom and democracy, as seen by how they fought one of the bloodiest* wars in history to stop the spread of its influence some seventy years later.

Their belief in freedom and democracy is also visible in their laws, which included such enlightened concepts as enslaving 80% of the population, declaring ritual war on them every now and again, and turning its entire society into a machine for the production of highly trained killing machines.

*In relative terms obviously. I've seen figures that put the losses of the Peloponnese at up to 30% of the total population over the course of that war. During WWII, the most absolutely destructive war in history, Russia lost 14% of its population, well ahead of Germany at 10% and the other powers at somewhat lesser numbers.


OK, disengaging sarcasm in 3...2...1

Seriously, Sparta fought at Thermopylae because they did not want to capitulate to another ruler. They were no more 'free' than any other monarchical state at the time, and arguably much less so.

I suspect we get fed the democracy line because we don't like to think of a bunch of really unpleasant people being able to kick that much ass, and people tend to confuse Athens and Greece.

In defense of Sparta!

Technically Sparta has as much a right to the "defenders of freedom" as Athens. The only difference is Athens wrote things down. Sparta didn't.

Saying either were so kind is a laugh. Athens was one of the largest slave traders in Greece as well as creating it's own empire by subjugating the other lands. Also Athens mob rule was quite unstable that saw the rise and fall of numerous tyrants, who had no check on their power.

Sparta was even more bloody but one thing it had going for it was political stability and a balance of powers. If Athens is to be credited with Democracy, Sparta would be credited with the balanced powers system and possibly the first Republic depending on who you ask and which definition of Republic is currently being used.

The war was actually less to stop the expansion of Democracy (the places Athens was taking over weren't becoming democratic. They were the same except now subservient to Athens).

Interesting the exact details of the war are rather skipped over, since the entire shebang was caused by Athens trying to subjugate over one of Sparta's colonies (err, colonial allies). While the war was bloody both sides were fighting for less than the highly idealized means of democracy or monarchy. Athens wanted political and economic hegemony and Sparta didn't want Athens to have political and economic hegemony. During the war both sides committed atrocities against the other. But interestingly, once Sparta did win, they refused to destroy Athens even when all their allies were pressing them too.

This along with the fact that Sparta was as ham handed if not worse a hegemonic power than Athens (asking for further monetary backing to fix Greece after the wars, and a smaller fee than Athens asked for themselves. Yeah, no one wanted to pay to fix anyone but themselves and paying Sparta was right out) caused it's allies to rebel and destroyed any chance of Greek stability.

Also interesting note. Sparta had a higher literacy rate than Athens. I know, I found that weird to.

My point is! Both powers were intolerable and brutal. Claiming one was trying to spread democracy and freedom and the other to destroy it is bull.

ok rant over.

[Faulty]

I thought 300 was horrible. If you're interested in some well choreographed fight scenes interspersed amidst ham handed stupidity and boarderline racial insensitivity, then knock yourself out.

[TheSummoner]

I thought 300 was horrible. If you're interested in some well choreographed fight scenes interspersed amidst ham handed stupidity and boarderline racial insensitivity, then knock yourself out.

Heres the more sensitive version for you. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNqiSkd1M6k)

[Faulty]

Seens it. :3

[Closet_Skeleton]

I enjoyed the movie, but it does get the history painfully wrong in places. The lack of armor being one point (they were heavy infantry whose tactic was...), but rather forgivable in a movie.

Um, look at Greek vases. Plenty of soldiers naked except for helmets and weapons there. The Greeks didn't actually fight like that, but from an artistic perspective it's historically accurate (barring the loincloths).


Bunch of overmuscled caucasians defending truth, freedom, civilization, and their women from a choice pick of scary colored folks.

So pretty much the same as the written historic source material.


So... history was racist then?

No, Greek historians on the other hand...


"Look at the multi-racial Huns being fought off by the multi-racial Romans.

But the romans were multi-racial.


Yeah, the Spartans were totally for freedom and democracy, as seen by how they fought one of the bloodiest* wars in history to stop the spread of its influence some seventy years later.

Except they didn't.

The spread of the influence of a democracy is completely differant to the spread of democracy and barely differant to the spread of the influence of a dictatorship.

I'd put a more in depth real world example here, but it would be too political so I'll just say "cold war".


They were no more 'free' than any other monarchical state at the time, and arguably much less so.

The Spartans had a saying that they were the free-est people in Greece because they've never had to rebel.

Anyway, Sparta wasn't a monarchy, it was a diarchy. One were there was a legal method for the population to have their own rulers arrested and a democratic forum. The Spartan King's were pretty much just warleaders, so they had less power than the American President.


Never said they were, just that the Spartans were liberty hating scumbags.

They had a completely differant idea of liberty to modern Americans, but many of them liked that idea of liberty.

Athens and Sparta were both slave keeping hypocrits with radically differant ideas to modern morality.

[Ravens_cry]

I am not a fan of green screen productions like this, where it feels like a reverse Roger Rabbit, humans in a Toon world, albeit a super detailed 3D one. I also, as a rule, don't like super violent cheat beating movies, so all in all, there seems to be little I would enjoy in this movie.

[Tequila Sunrise]

I think it's an awesome action flick, both as a measure of its own merit, but also because it's so much fun to hear homophobic men talk about how awesome it is. :smallcool:

[Dienekes]

No, Greek historians on the other hand...



But the romans were multi-racial.

Ok touche on the roman one. I admit to error on that one. Though multi-racial seems a stretch. More Mediterranean with others as second class citizens that could eventually aspire for similar citizenship.

As to the Greek historians being racist. Ehh, from what I've read they weren't so much racist as xenophobic. The Persians weren't hated and feared because of their race, they were hated and feared because they were a big bad empire that was right next door. And quite a few times the Greeks had cordial if not great relations to Egyptians. But really Greek historians just disliked to hated everyone who wasn't from their poleis.

[Haarkla]

I have never seen this movie and do not intend to. But from my perspective as an intellectual, lover of truth and historical accuracy, 300 is a really silly piece of rubbish.


Dienekes:
The racist thing always seemed rather week to me. Like if they made a movie of an actual depiction of the battle would it be racist? Persia did have a rather large assortment of colored folk in their empire and the greeks were olive skinned-ish. So... history was racist then? Ehh, I certainly hope people don't start exclaiming that. Then we'll have to edit history movies to the most ridiculous extremes.
They didn't make a movie of an accurate depiction of the battle. They made a movie that inaccurately demonised one side and race involved in the battle.


zeratul:
......Yes but historically the battle actually was between a bunch of overmuscled caucasians defending truth freedom and civilization and their women from persia or as you put it "a choice pick of scary coloured folks".
Back to history class for you. The Persians actually had a highly developed and advanced civilisation. And it is highly unlikely that the Greeks were overmuscled.


T-O-E:
Keep in mind that the movie is being told through the eyes of a patriotic poet aiming to inspire an army before a fight.
So it is a peice of inaccurate propaganda 2500 years past its sell by date.

[Tirian]

I think that it's important to keep in mind that the movie wasn't trying to be faithful to the Battle of Thermopylae, but to a highly stylized Frank Miller limited series. It did this to an almost painful degree mostly. The one departure was the subplot with Gordo uncovering the mystery of Theron's treachery back in Sparta whose climax was so astoundingly dim-witted that Scooby Doo would have been too ashamed to write such a stupid villain.

I don't know that it was an amazing movie, but it was interesting and I'm glad it was made. I'd put it up there with Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid as a movie that took a lot of big risks and got more than a few right.

[valadil]

It was a step or two above your average fantasy movie of the month (ie Kingdom of Heaven, Troy, etc) but I wouldn't call it artsy either.

[warty goblin]

It was a step or two above your average fantasy movie of the month (ie Kingdom of Heaven, Troy, etc) but I wouldn't call it artsy either.

Better than Troy I'll buy, but I much prefered Kingdom of Heaven. At least that movie had more than one color.

There is such a thing as too much sepia tone.

[Dienekes]

It was a step or two above your average fantasy movie of the month (ie Kingdom of Heaven, Troy, etc) but I wouldn't call it artsy either.

Watch Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut.

It's a completely different movie. In a very good way

[Berserk Monk]

It's so bad it's good. All the stupid "machoism" and massive gore. :smallbiggrin:

[darkblade]

Entertaining? Um no. Unless you want pure mindless violence then it becomes wait no it still isn't that entertaining. There are much better sources for mindless violence.

Good? Nope.

I didn't find a single aspect of the movie enjoyable and would strongly advise that everyone avoid it.

[13_CBS]

I didn't find the action to be all that great due to two reasons:

1) I was too busy nerd raging over the movie's portrayal of a Greek hoplite phalanx, or more correctly, the complete lack thereof. The 300 comic by Frank Miller had the Spartans keeping formation pretty much all the time, as I recall, whereas in the movie...eh. They use it, like, once. (And then Leonidas rejects the hunch-backed dude because he can't be part of a phalanx. WUT)

2) Too much slo-mo, though this one's more personal. I prefer my violence to be fast, brutal, and visceral. What I got from 300 was more like a stylistic ballet with too much red paint in it.

[Berserk Monk]

I didn't find the action to be all that great due to two reasons:

1) I was too busy nerd raging over the movie's portrayal of a Greek hoplite phalanx, or more correctly, the complete lack thereof. The 300 comic by Frank Miller had the Spartans keeping formation pretty much all the time, as I recall, whereas in the movie...eh. They use it, like, once. (And then Leonidas rejects the hunch-backed dude because he can't be part of a phalanx. WUT)

2) Too much slo-mo, though this one's more personal. I prefer my violence to be fast, brutal, and visceral. What I got from 300 was more like a stylistic ballet with too much red paint in it.

I also didn't like how they covered some of the fight scenes in like one minute. They show elephants one moment, the next they're falling of the cliff. Also, the fight where the Persians were using alchemist fire or what every those primitive explosives were was short too. They should have gotten Peter Jackson in on this. He can make an epic battle.

[darkblade]

I also didn't like how they covered some of the fight scenes in like one minute. They show elephants one moment, the next they're falling of the cliff. Also, the fight where the Persians were using alchemist fire or what every those primitive explosives were was short too. They should have gotten Peter Jackson in on this. He can make an epic battle.

No not even Peter Jackson could have improved upon this enough to make it halfway decent. You can make the fight scenes as glorious as you desire without a story that at least tries you will fail. Frank Miller was not trying when he wrote the source material comic and it shows.

[pita]

Is it good?
Yes. It's so mindbogglingly bad it goes back the other way and becomes awesome. That's what I can say about the movie. It makes Chuck Norris look like a girly girl.
I don't get the claims of racism. If it were a serious movie, I'd regard them. But it's a little less serious than Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Why trouble yourself over it?
In any case, it was much, MUCH, better than the book.

[Killer Angel]

I think that it's important to keep in mind that the movie wasn't trying to be faithful to the Battle of Thermopylae, but to a highly stylized Frank Miller limited series. It did this to an almost painful degree mostly.

Oh, I agree. From a visual pov, it's fantastic.
Sadly, it's the only positive thing, and this don't make 300 a awesome great good film.

Take Sin City. It's very entertaining visually, AND it's a kickass movie.

[Satyr]

300 is an epitome of brainless cinema. It looks good, sure, but in no means could this ever considered to be a good movie. Entertaining - perhaps (that's a question of taste) but good - not really. It is effectively a pretty bad movie - non-existing acting, a lot of slow motion action, brown in brown picture filters, and the contentual mistakes and contradictions are just ridiculous.

But the worst was that the director, Snyder, claimed that the movie was "90% accurate", which means that he is either a complete idiot, or an impodent liar.

But that's besides the point - there is nothing wrong with liking the film. I liked the film (apart from the diapers the Spartans wore. Those looked just stupid, but apparently showing the genitals of fighting men is more dangerous for the youth than celebrating slow motion shots of a ballet of violence and decapitation) and I had a lot of fun with it, but I would never regard it as a good movie.

The best thing of the movie is the hat of the hunchback. That is one awesome hat.

Historical Note:
Regarding the clash of cultures and the heroism of Sparta: there was a time when the Ionian Greek City States asked the Persian Empire as a protection force to get rid of the Spartans. Spartans were the generally acknowledged to be the *******s of the ancient world.
The battle on Thermopylae was an accident, because of a tactical stupidity of Leonidas, who lead his army into a situation where they hadn't enough suppplies to return and had to fight, because there was no other choice. The battle had no significance at all, the Persian army had afterwards still enough punch to easily capture and pillage Attica and Athens, and only retreated because Xerxes feared that without the fleet (which was sunk by the fleet of Athens and other city state at Salamis) his supply lines could overstrain.
The Spartans than used the embarassing defeat to create a national mythos (not due to their strength, but due to their will to sacrifice themselves, if necessary), which was necessary because they did nothing during the first Persian War (remember Marathon) and was slightly embarassed by the fact that Athens won a lot of glory while they did... nothing. Than again, in the second war it was pretty much the same, but Athens was destroyed, and the PR department of Sparta worked better, but that is mostly propaganda.
Did I mention that the Spartans used pederastry as their basic system of education, binding young boys to old soldiers to become their servants, and playthings?

[daggaz]

Visually stunning, but the plot is incredibly thin and the movie is simply too long and monotonous to be supported. It ends up being boring.

Overall, I rated this movie "meh." Worth watching for the artistic style, but not worth its salt as a movie per se.

[Bhu]

If you like historically inaccurate war porn that glorifies violence while artfully avoiding the subject that the 'defenders of freedom' it portrays werent caucasian and were in fact slave owning racist xenophobes who had culturally institutionalized pedophilia then yes its a good movie.

If you dont know about any of the above and just want well shot scenes of half naked men killing each other, then yes its also a good movie.

People who do not fall into these two categories will prolly find it pretty but boring.

[Grumman]

The lack of armor being one point (they were heavy infantry whose tactic was...), but rather forgivable in a movie.
I disagree. I'm generally willing to forgive the sacrifice of accuracy for awesomeness, but the failure to give the Spartans hoplite armour made the movie less awesome.

[Robert Blackletter]

Is anyone else amused that people are using modern morals to judge ancient civilisations?

[Bouregard]

I really like to watch it after a few beer with some friends. It's good entertainment. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Parra]

Is anyone else amused that people are using modern morals to judge ancient civilisations?

very much so, yes. Especially the modern democratic ideal transplanted onto the 'original' democratic ideal.

I quite like the film, but then I wasn't really expecting detailed historical accuracy from a movie adaptation of a comic

[Axolotl]

Pretty much what everyone else said.

Is it good? No. In fact, it's pretty terrible.

But is it entertaining? Hell yes.But it's entertainment, it's purpose is to entertain people surely if is succeeds at that then by definition it can't be terrible.

Also on the subject of historical accuracy then I found it very accurate.

[Robert Blackletter]

very much so, yes. Especially the modern democratic ideal transplanted onto the 'original' democratic ideal.

I quite like the film, but then I wasn't really expecting detailed historical accuracy from a movie adaptation of a comic

Thank God, thought i was the only one that saw the difference. I to enjoyed the film seeing it has good but mindless entertainment. I mean who learns history from Hollywood that's what wiki foe :smalltongue:

[Bhu]

Is anyone else amused that people are using modern morals to judge ancient civilisations?

Perhaps if it were portraying an ancient civilization as opposed to a modern day fantasy of what one was supposed to be like that would be a problem.

[Somebloke]

It is awful. It is so wonderfully enjoyably awful.

[TheSummoner]

Is anyone else amused that people are using modern morals to judge ancient civilisations?

Eh... I've never really agreed with the whole "you have to judge a civilizations based on its own standards thing." If I am the one doing the judging it then why should I feign objectivity? My judgements and opinions on anything really, civilizations included, are shaped by my own experiences, standards, and opinions. I'm not going to pretend to be objective just for the sake of sensitivity or political correctness or whatever they're calling it now.

That being said I do see the irony, I do find it amusing, and I personally have no problem with the "offensive" portrayal of "scary dark people" in 300. I dont think anyone with half a brain or an ounce of historical knowledge expected the Spartans to be the nice guys.

As I said, turn off your brain, sit back and you should have no problem enjoying it.

[Keshay]

I'd have to say its a good movie. Why? My Grandfather had no compliants after seeing it. None. This man complains about everything.

He wants a Coke, you get him a Coke, first thing he says is that Coke tastes better from a glass bottle than from a can. Next time they visit we get Coke in glass bottles just for grandpa, at which point he lets us know that its not savvy shopping to pay a higher cost per unit just for packaging.

He "likes" war movies, but hated Saving Private Ryan, Apocolypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, etc... But he liked 300. So I say good movie.

[Cespenar]

Fact #1: I love watching well-choreographed fights.

In effect: 300 didn't have any. Slow motioning and lots of blood != good choreography.

Fact #2: I can turn off my brain when I want to.

In effect: It doesn't really work when you don't have much to enjoy with your turned off brain. See Fact #1.

Now, to be frank, the visuals were good, but that only satiates you for a small period of time, even less if you watched its awesome trailer more times than you were supposed to (yes, the trailer was very good in my opinion).

In a totally objective light, I'd give it a 6/10, a mediocre action flick. When I compare it with the movie in my expectation, however, the rate drops to a 1 or 2.

And as you noticed, I didn't mention the word "historical" at all, except for this one. It's realism was totally irrelevant, and it had nothing to do with the quality of the movie, either way.

[Texas_Ben]

Also on the subject of historical accuracy then I found it very accurate.

You're joking right?

[Arang]

When watching 300, one has to realize that what you're getting is a movie about people stabbing other people, often in slow-motion. Anything else will be purely incidental to the stabbing, the stabbing will supersede all other concerns. In 300, the stabbing is God.

Then they had to screw it up by bringing Queen Boring into it. Still, aside from those parts, it was excellent.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

No, 300 is not a good movie.

[HamHam]

Complaining about 300 not being historically accurate is ridiculous. It makes no claim to historical accuracy. That's like complaining that Iron Man was not an accurate portrayal of middle eastern terrorists.

It's also not a thoughtful or introspective movie. So what? Pointless melodrama would only have detracted from the movie.

300 is pretty much perfect for what it's trying to do.

[truemane]

Whenever I hear anyone preaching about how historically accurate a film or a novel is, the first thing I think is how that means they couldn't think of an interesting story. If you had one, you'd be bragging about that, right?

Looking for historical accuracy in films is stupid. It's always been stupid. Right from the days of D.W. Griffith and his Birth of a Nation (or Intolerance) which were accurate enough to tell the story he wanted to tell and no more.

Which is the way it ought to be. You want accuracy? Go read history. You want story? Come to the theatre.

Now. 300. I thought it was an amazing experience. Once. I was somewhat surprised at how poorly it stood up to a second viewing, considering how entranced I was on my first. Like Dark Knight. Which blew my socks off the first time and bored me the second (the opposite of Batman Begins, which I found meh the first time and VERY good the second).

What is 300? It's almost two hours of shirtless men killing each other in slow-motion. The visuals are very arresting. Some of the shots and sequences are very beautiful. A couple of them border on visual poetry.

Also, they yell a lot and talk in overly-ornate language. And it's all very BOY. It's also very much a big screen experience. So seeing at home isn't going to give you the same effect.

But for a one-time see? I say it's fantastic.

[jmbrown]

Whoah, I hope nobody is saying 300 is even remotely historically accurate. Last time I checked, Persia didn't have monsters with blades grafted to their arms, King Leonidas had thousands of troops and actually retreated from the fight, and Persia was actually one of the earliest nations to draft a common bill of rights banning slavery and giving equal representation to commoners and nobility alike.

300, both the comic and movie, are purely Western sensationalism. I enjoyed the film and novel but the events are grossly inacurrate and I'm 100% positive Frank Miller never intended it to be historically or politically correct.

[Ichneumon]

I didn't like the movie. I didn't expect historical accuracy, I expected entertainment and I didn't feel entertained. The fight scenes were repetitive and boring with the action being so dramatical "Matrix-like" that it doesn't feel like real fighting. The plot and characters were flat so it was difficult or almost impossible to connect to them. Many scenes were just disgusting in a very non-entertaining manner. No, the movie did not deliver. It felt like a one-dimensional fighting video game in which you're not the one who's playing.

Many scenes looked "great" with the visual effects and the CGI, however after 10 minutes, it turns boring.

[Weimann]

I found the clean cut, comic book-like scenes and pictures instilled a kind of... shall we say emotion in the movie. It was intense. Sure, the story was trite and clichéd and run on testosterone and over-violence, but the sceneries and special effects together with what I consider to be strong (but naturally, one dimensional) characters manages to make the movie worthwhile for me.

Naturally, the general meme-tastic quality, as well as the fact that it was based on a comic book, might have augmented it further in my mind, but if we are allowed to take those facts into the equation, then I say it was a good movie that I liked.

[Dervag]

Seriously, Sparta fought at Thermopylae because they did not want to capitulate to another ruler. They were no more 'free' than any other monarchical state at the time, and arguably much less so.

I suspect we get fed the democracy line because we don't like to think of a bunch of really unpleasant people being able to kick that much ass, and people tend to confuse Athens and Greece.Now the Athenians, those guys were fighting for democracy. Approximate democracy, to the limit of how much democracy you can have while still being a slaveowning society.

And, to be frank, their landmark contribution to the war (Salamis) made much more of a difference than Thermopylae...
______


In defense of Sparta!

Technically Sparta has as much a right to the "defenders of freedom" as Athens. The only difference is Athens wrote things down. Sparta didn't.

Saying either were so kind is a laugh. Athens was one of the largest slave traders in Greece as well as creating it's own empire by subjugating the other lands.Democracy is not mutually exclusive with imperialism. I also point out that the Athenians never declared war on their own slaves, whereas the Spartans did so on a quasi-regular basis.


Also Athens mob rule was quite unstable that saw the rise and fall of numerous tyrants, who had no check on their power.Yes, indeed it was; this is a fundamental problem with democracy-as-distinct-from-republics. I do not say the Athenians were supremely righteous, only that they were in fact fighting for democracy. And that the Spartans were not. And frankly, neither of them was fighting for freedom...


Sparta was even more bloody but one thing it had going for it was political stability and a balance of powers. If Athens is to be credited with Democracy, Sparta would be credited with the balanced powers system and possibly the first Republic depending on who you ask and which definition of Republic is currently being used.Questionable; I think that honor still goes to the Romans. Unless you'd care to elaborate on the balance of power in the Spartan government in more depth?


Also interesting note. Sparta had a higher literacy rate than Athens. I know, I found that weird to.How was this determined?
______


But the worst was that the director, Snyder, claimed that the movie was "90% accurate", which means that he is either a complete idiot, or an impodent liar.It could mean that the movie came very close to hitting its target (a mindless violent action flick), even if it missed history by a thousand miles.

No, I don't seriously believe that.


Did I mention that the Spartans used pederastry as their basic system of education, binding young boys to old soldiers to become their servants, and playthings?Yes, although that was quite common in at least some of the other Greek city-states, including Athens. And I've heard some very strange stories about the Sacred Band of Thebes...


I disagree. I'm generally willing to forgive the sacrifice of accuracy for awesomeness, but the failure to give the Spartans hoplite armour made the movie less awesome.Agreed.

[Tyrant]

It could mean that the movie came very close to hitting its target (a mindless violent action flick), even if it missed history by a thousand miles.

No, I don't seriously believe that.
Without seeing/hearing this comment, my assumtpion would be he meant accurate to the book since it is an adaptation.

[T-O-E]

Bunch of overmuscled caucasians defending truth, freedom, civilization, and their women from a choice pick of scary colored folks.

So do you want the film to be historically accurate or historically inaccurate?
Make up your mind. :smalltongue:

[Satyr]

The original quote of Snyder was:

"The events are 90 percent accurate. It's just in the visualization that it's crazy. A lot of people are like, "You're debauching history!" I'm like, "Have you read it?" I've shown this movie to world-class historians who have said it's amazing. They can't believe it's as accurate as it is."


And as far as I know, it is neither very accurate to Herodot, nor to the comic, as far as I can tell. I don't own the comic, but if I am not mistaken, it did not include a battle ogre, a long tedious side plot back in Sparta (with a solution that undermines the whole purpose of the rest of the film) and included a few scenes that made the Spartans look like masochists.
Well, at least the battle ogre scene was fun, so I am not arguing against that one, at least.


Yes, although that was quite common in at least some of the other Greek city-states, including Athens. And I've heard some very strange stories about the Sacred Band of Thebes...

The Theban model, if I am correct, was a form of exploiting the quite typical homoerotic notions of the hoplites to increase overall morals, and discipline in the phalanx. No soldier would want to look like a coward when his lover was watching. In addition, the hoplites in the Phalanx were defended by the shield of the soldier to their left, and therefore it was vital for this form of combat to trust each other and stay in close formation. I don't know if the story of the sacred band is true, but it shows a lot about the ideal of soldiers in that time.
The Spartan educational model included an organisational transfer of boys to the barracks, and included the role of servants for the younger ones, including a lot of abuse to harden them. It is very likely that this included sexual abuse as well.

[bibliophile]

On historical accuracy.

The film was about a battle that actually happened, in a war that actually happen, with armor used that resembled that of the culture (sparta) that actually used it. For a Hollywood movie set in antiquity, that's unusually accurate. Compare to 10,000 BC where mammoths help build the pyramids.


On Sparta

The Spartans were a violent dictatorship with a massive slave population and institutionalized pedophilia. They put down massive slave rebellions with mass murder. However, the battle of Thermopylae was about men dying to buy time, dying to prevent their homeland from being invaded. The fact that they were slave owners does not mean they didn't sacrifice themselves for their homeland. The classical Spartans had many ugly parts in their society, but bravery to protect your countrymen is admirable.

On Racism

Originally Posted by Dienekes
The racist thing always seemed rather week to me. Like if they made a movie of an actual depiction of the battle would it be racist? Persia did have a rather large assortment of colored folk in their empire and the greeks were olive skinned-ish.

Quoted for truth.



Is it good? Beats me. Judging by how well it did, people seem to find it entertaining.

[Setra]

If you ignore the talky bits it's a fun movie to watch.

If you're into mindless violence in slowmo. Personally, I am.

[Satyr]

the battle of Thermopylae was about men dying to buy time, dying to prevent their homeland from being invaded. The fact that they were slave owners does not mean they didn't sacrifice themselves for their homeland. The classical Spartans had many ugly parts in their society, but bravery to protect your countrymen is admirable.

No, sadly not. That's what the Spartan propaganda made out of it. The Spartans did exactly nothing in the First Persian War and were not amused when the Athenians could claim all the glory for themselves. The Spartans also didn't care much about their fellow Greeks (apart from a hegemonistic perspective) and were there in the first place mostly because of a strategic fallacy. An, let's not forget, their sacrifice had no significance at all. They were a glorified speedbump. Salamis eas the decisive battle, Thermopylae was the Spartans claiming that they fought as well. The latter myth was also weaved around the willingness to die in battle and being so disciplined that they would even stand their ground against overwhelming odds, but in truth, the army just couldn't retreat, because they had not sufficient supplies.

[DraPrime]

And as far as I know, it is neither very accurate to Herodot, nor to the comic, as far as I can tell. I don't own the comic, but if I am not mistaken, it did not include a battle ogre, a long tedious side plot back in Sparta (with a solution that undermines the whole purpose of the rest of the film) and included a few scenes that made the Spartans look like masochists.

It was actually fairly accurate to the comic. The whole thing with the Queen was only thrown in because there wasn't enough material in the comic to make a full length movie. A lot of the stuff from the comic is there almost entirely intact. Really, they barely took out anything. They just added stuff because the comic was nowhere near long enough for a full movie.

[Deadmeat.GW]

No, sadly not. That's what the Spartan propaganda made out of it. The Spartans did exactly nothing in the First Persian War and were not amused when the Athenians could claim all the glory for themselves. The Spartans also didn't care much about their fellow Greeks (apart from a hegemonistic perspective) and were there in the first place mostly because of a strategic fallacy. An, let's not forget, their sacrifice had no significance at all. They were a glorified speedbump. Salamis eas the decisive battle, Thermopylae was the Spartans claiming that they fought as well. The latter myth was also weaved around the willingness to die in battle and being so disciplined that they would even stand their ground against overwhelming odds, but in truth, the army just couldn't retreat, because they had not sufficient supplies.

Hum, actually...you did know that the several thousands of OTHER Greeks there at the Hot Gates did have supplies?
That there was farmland and such just beyond the pass which they did use to supply themselves even more?

Supplies was NOT the issue, check with more Greek historians from today and then for better information on that.

Was it a PR-stunt...?

Yes, Leonidas wanted glory and went and threw his life away for immortality.
Not to save anything.
However the Spartans did exactly what it said on the tin.
Remember, the smaller local city states also have information about what happened and that info was close enough to the Spartan version of events to make it quite likely that the Spartans did indeed fight to the death instead of retreat.

It was after all already something of a rule for Spartans from a previous series of wars.
Those wars ended up becoming tradition and as such we now remember the Helot suppression wars.
As for freedom, PR mostly but they did fight to get the Persians to move away from going for the Spartan part of Greece.

[warty goblin]

The strategic justification I've read for the destruction of the Spartans et al at Thermopylae is that after the Persians started coming over the goatpath, the situation was no longer tactically sustainable. The comglomerated Greek armies were in serious peril, and needed to withdraw. By remaining behind, the Spartans, along with the Thesbians chose to stay (and forced the Thebans to stay as well) in order to delay the Persian forces- so more or less a rearguard action.

It's also worth pointing out that Thermopylae was a resounding strategic defeat, even though the Persians lost far more men there than the Greek cities.

[bibliophile]

No, sadly not. That's what the Spartan propaganda made out of it. The Spartans did exactly nothing in the First Persian War and were not amused when the Athenians could claim all the glory for themselves. The Spartans also didn't care much about their fellow Greeks (apart from a hegemonistic perspective) and were there in the first place mostly because of a strategic fallacy. An, let's not forget, their sacrifice had no significance at all. They were a glorified speedbump. Salamis eas the decisive battle, Thermopylae was the Spartans claiming that they fought as well. The latter myth was also weaved around the willingness to die in battle and being so disciplined that they would even stand their ground against overwhelming odds, but in truth, the army just couldn't retreat, because they had not sufficient supplies.

I'm afraid Wikipedia disagrees with you on every point. Further research supports Wikipedia. Would you care to support your claims?

[DraPrime]

I'm afraid Wikipedia disagrees with you on every point. Further research supports Wikipedia. Would you care to support your claims?

See what I just bolded there? That is a classic example of evidence that is illegitimate.

[darkblade]

And as far as I know, it is neither very accurate to Herodot, nor to the comic, as far as I can tell. I don't own the comic, but if I am not mistaken, it did not include a battle ogre, a long tedious side plot back in Sparta (with a solution that undermines the whole purpose of the rest of the film) and included a few scenes that made the Spartans look like masochists.
Well, at least the battle ogre scene was fun, so I am not arguing against that one, at least.


As someone who has read the comic I can tell you that no it is accurate to a painful fault to the comic in terms of the visuals. In terms of dialouge there are a few minor differences (for one the infamous pitt scene "This is Sparta." was a calm retort not the overblown exclamation it was in the film) and their was no senate subplot. Everything else about the movie was exactly like the comic even the battle ogre.

[bibliophile]

See what I just bolded there? That is a classic example of evidence that is illegitimate.

Further research supports Wikipedia. Additionally I would still like him to back up his claims.

[DraPrime]

Further research supports Wikipedia. Additionally I would still like him to back up his claims.

Yes, but starting off with using Wikipedia as support is never a good move. Just say that research (which should be linked to) supports you're point of view. Wikipedia is too flawed.

[warty goblin]

Yes, but starting off with using Wikipedia as support is never a good move. Just say that research (which should be linked to) supports you're point of view. Wikipedia is too flawed.

Honestly I've found Wikipedia significantly more accurate and useful than the 'text' I'm being forced to use for my complex analysis course.

[bibliophile]

Yes, but starting off with using Wikipedia as support is never a good move. Just say that research (which should be linked to) supports you're point of view. Wikipedia is too flawed.

With all due respect, have you looked the Wikipedia article on the battle? Darn near every sentence is sourced, and the numerous sources appear to be scholarly books and Herodotus.

[DraPrime]

With all due respect, have you looked the Wikipedia article on the battle? Darn near every sentence is sourced, and the numerous sources appear to be scholarly books and Herodotus.

I was speaking about using Wikipedia to support arguments in general. In some cases, Wikipedia may be accurate, but it's still a questionable source.

And just because every sentence is sourced, this doesn't mean the source is correct :smalltongue:

[bibliophile]

And just because every sentence is sourced, this doesn't mean the source is correct :smalltongue:

That's true, but as I've said all the sources appear to be published books, and scholarly articles.

[warty goblin]

I was speaking about using Wikipedia to support arguments in general. In some cases, Wikipedia may be accurate, but it's still a questionable source.

And just because every sentence is sourced, this doesn't mean the source is correct :smalltongue:

So Wikipedia is a questionable source, and you should totally rely on all the other sources which are somehow better but still questionable, despite many of them being static entities incapable of incorporating or referencing any argument made after their original publication?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for research, but I've yet to hear an argument against Wikipedia that didn't strike me as academics getting their pants in a knot at the threat to their nice little self-referencing onanastic deathgrip on information.

[Closet_Skeleton]

On Sparta

The Spartans were a violent dictatorship with a massive slave population and institutionalized pedophilia.

Sparta was not a dictatorship. It was ruled by a council of five elders and the citizens (a small portion of the total population that was mostly slaves and peasants) had the ability to vote on things.

Still not a nice place, but saying it was better or worse than Athens is impossible.



On Racism

The racist thing always seemed rather week to me. Like if they made a movie of an actual depiction of the battle would it be racist? Persia did have a rather large assortment of colored folk in their empire and the greeks were olive skinned-ish.

300 is racist because it makes the asians into monsterous and weird. If it showed that the Persians had an amazing civilisation and actual people it wouldn't be. However it's racism can be viewed as a stylistic choice to highlight how Spartan society saw the Persians, which can in itself be debated from a moral perspective.


Yes, Leonidas wanted glory and went and threw his life away for immortality.

In real life he was also an old man with adult children and possibly grandchildren, rather than a single pre-teen son.

[TheSummoner]

300 is racist because it makes the asians into monsterous and weird. If it showed that the Persians had an amazing civilisation and actual people it wouldn't be. However it's racism can be viewed as a stylistic choice to highlight how Spartan society saw the Persians, which can in itself be debated from a moral perspective.

Yes, 300 was racist because they made the antagonists into monsters to add a bit of flare to it. Just like Lord of the Rings was racist because there wasn't a single black guy in any of the movies.

[Texas_Ben]

Yes, 300 was racist because they made the antagonists into monsters to add a bit of flare to it. Just like Lord of the Rings was racist because there wasn't a single black guy in any of the movies.
Actually I think they did that to avoid being called rascist-- I took away from the books that it was heavily implied that a number of Sauron's human troops were black (Southerlings and Haradrim) or asian (Easterlings). They were portrayed as persian in the movies because it is okay when white people kill white people.

[warty goblin]

Yes, 300 was racist because they made the antagonists into monsters to add a bit of flare to it. Just like Lord of the Rings was racist because there wasn't a single black guy in any of the movies.

Arguably LOTR is racist in that regard. However there's still a difference. One is a sin of omission, the other is a deliberate recasting from the historical reality to suit a larger picture.

There's a difference between not including a group of people and protraying them as subhuman.

[DraPrime]

Yes, 300 was racist because they made the antagonists into monsters to add a bit of flare to it. Just like Lord of the Rings was racist because there wasn't a single black guy in any of the movies.

Correlation does not equate causation. Simply, the Persians were not shown to be evil because they weren't white. They were evil simply because they didn't like Sparta. As you can see in the movie, Sparta is one massive Mary Sue, and anyone who isn't it is inferior, and anyone who is against it, is totally evil and messed up, no matter what the color of their skin.

[zeratul]

Arguably LOTR is racist in that regard. However there's still a difference. One is a sin of omission, the other is a deliberate recasting from the historical reality to suit a larger picture.

The entire idea of Tolkien's books is it was supposed to be a sort of mythology of England. Know of many black anglo saxons? It wouldn't have made sense for their to be a major black character in Lord of the Rings for the same reason it wouldn't make sense for there to be white people in the mythology of an African country for example.

[Satyr]

I'm afraid Wikipedia disagrees with you on every point. Further research supports Wikipedia. Would you care to support your claims?

As far as I know, the wikipedia article is mostly based on the texts of Herodot and Diodorus, and that's problematic - Herodot lied as if there is no tomorow, and Diododrus just copied older texts (like the one from Herodot). Both are completely unreliable.

I study history. I have participated in seminars about classical times (not that many, but still) and I have read the accompanying and preparative literature. The last one I have read is Leonard Burckhard: Militärgeschichte der Antike (Munich, 2008) which was a fun, small book I bought for the train. I read most if not all, of my scientific research in German, because those are the books I have access to.



Don't get me wrong, I'm all for research, but I've yet to hear an argument against Wikipedia that didn't strike me as academics getting their pants in a knot at the threat to their nice little self-referencing onanastic deathgrip on information.

It is a question of standards and reliability. Standards include that the texts you refer to are based on traceable research, and reliable in the sense of the texts are what they are and are not changed arbitrarily. In addition, many wikipedia articles are also just not good enough, and in some fringe topics (you know, apart from the main stuff) where some "specialists" try to push their often rather obscure positions in some areas.

[Dervag]

The original quote of Snyder was...Hmm. Still two interpretations. One is that Snyder is lying. The other is that the historians actually said "My God, I can't believe it's as accurate as it is. This is... this is less than zero accuracy. It's so inauthentic it actually warps around into a sick, twisted form of authenticity! Aaaah! My brain! Make the spiders go away!" or something like that.:smallamused:


The Theban model, if I am correct, was a form of exploiting the quite typical homoerotic notions of the hoplites to increase overall morals, and discipline in the phalanx.Morals or morale? I see no reason to want my phalanx to be especially moral, but I can think of lots of reasons to want them to have high morale.


The latter myth was also weaved around the willingness to die in battle and being so disciplined that they would even stand their ground against overwhelming odds, but in truth, the army just couldn't retreat, because they had not sufficient supplies.Satyr, I don't know about you, but if I had run out of food and was being attacked by a giant army of angry Persian guys with swords, I'd take my chances with running away and finding food where I could grab it. That is way less dangerous than fighting a huge army of guys with swords.

If the Spartans were undisciplined, you'd think they would just retreat. It's not as if the terrain behind them was a vast smoldering desert with no food or water, you know. They could loot. Hell, if they were undisciplined you'd expect them to loot!

For the commander to decide to stand in place, and for his soldiers to obey him, the army has to be pretty darn bold and disciplined.


Honestly I've found Wikipedia significantly more accurate and useful than the 'text' I'm being forced to use for my complex analysis course.That's because complex analysis is math. In the math and physics parts of Wikipedia, there are fewer controversial issues to act as matters of opinion, and the pages are often being referenced by people who know enough to correct mistakes or sabotage. And who's going to sabotage a page on DeMoivre's Theorem? The kind of person who would do that probably hasn't even heard of the theorem!

Whereas when you get to stuff about history or politics, there are more poeple who will read the page and edit it to match their own slant. Or know just enough to give a coherent account without knowing enough to give an accurate account.


Don't get me wrong, I'm all for research, but I've yet to hear an argument against Wikipedia that didn't strike me as academics getting their pants in a knot at the threat to their nice little self-referencing onanastic deathgrip on information.The real problem with Wikipedia is that it can easily be edited by people who think they are authorities on the subject, but aren't. Reading one or two books will often make you think you know the gist of a subject, and you may well be right to think so. But if you aren't, if the sources you read are biased or flawed, you won't know it.

So you write a Wiki article on, say, the Battle of Thermopylae, based on some books on the classics you have on your shelf. But the books are thirty years old and the scholarship is shaky and they rely heavily on Herodotus... who was known not only as the Father of History but as the Father of Lies.

And since Wikipedia's sheer scale prevents the moderators from doing deep research to figure out which sources are good and which ones aren't, they tend to judge in favor of whoever set stuff down in the proper format first. They have to; they don't have the time to do anything else.

[Cracklord]

Definitely, if you and your friends are willing to make gay jokes.

This one is too young to have felt the touch of a women.
Not really an issue, sir, that's not the way he rolls.

Otherwise? Glorification of a despicable people. I am not going to elaborate, I have more then enough infractions, but anyone who knows anything about the Spartans will not see things this way.

Give me the Viking on Stanford Bridge any day.

[Ravens_cry]

Otherwise? Glorification of a despicable people. I am not going to elaborate, I have more then enough infractions, but anyone who knows anything about the Spartans will not see things this way.

Give me the Viking on Stanford Bridge any day.
Yeah, the same Norse to whom it was perfectly legal to castrate vagrants (http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/society/text/social_classes.htm), even if they died of the wound. And that's just the Norse, the civilisation, actual Vikings were pirates.
The fact is, by modern standards, most peoples in history were pretty despicable.

[toasty]

Yeah, the same Norse to whom it was perfectly legal to castrate vagrants (http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/society/text/social_classes.htm), even if they died of the wound. And that's just the Norse, the civilisation, actual Vikings were pirates.
The fact is, by modern standards, most peoples in history were pretty despicable.

But the vikings have cool axes and beards. The Spartans have lame spears. :smalltongue:

But yes, you have a point, by modern standards, much of what people did, even just 200 years ago, in the name of "justice" and "social stability" or whatever was despicable.

[KIDS]

300 is in my mind a good example of a distinction between "good movies" and "fun movies". By almost all standards (story, action, visual effects, camera, music, characters, plot, impression, etc.), it is abysmal. I don't even like its gushing blood effects that it is based on and that might compensate for the lack of all those other things.

However, it is also incredibly fun. I recommend everyone seeing it at least once. I like the famous "This is Sparta" scene and all of its spin-offs. Why? Beats me. Perhaps because it is so outrageous and because some of the scenes were so created with such passion that you can't help but not remember them. Others might offer their reasons (I usually hear about "it's good entertainment, it doesn't need to have these other things).

All in all, I love the movie, but I don't like it when it is described as "good" :D

[Satyr]

Hmm. Still two interpretations. One is that Snyder is lying. The other is that the historians actually said "My God, I can't believe it's as accurate as it is. This is... this is less than zero accuracy. It's so inauthentic it actually warps around into a sick, twisted form of authenticity! Aaaah! My brain! Make the spiders go away!" or something like that.

The world-class historian who saw the movie was probably Dan Brown.


Morals or morale? I see no reason to want my phalanx to be especially moral, but I can think of lots of reasons to want them to have high morale.

Err... yes... May I exploit my non-native speaker status as an excuse?


Satyr, I don't know about you, but if I had run out of food and was being attacked by a giant army of angry Persian guys with swords, I'd take my chances with running away and finding food where I could grab it. That is way less dangerous than fighting a huge army of guys with swords.

The point is, if they had the supplies, they would have avoided an engagement.


If the Spartans were undisciplined, you'd think they would just retreat. It's not as if the terrain behind them was a vast smoldering desert with no food or water, you know. They could loot. Hell, if they were undisciplined you'd expect them to loot!

They probably did loot. Ancient Greece was not a fertile land.

And yes, the whole "let's sacrifice ourselves" mission is an impressive deed. It would be only much more impressive, if it had any significance, or didn't happen mostly by accident.

[Dienekes]

They probably did loot. Ancient Greece was not a fertile land.

And yes, the whole "let's sacrifice ourselves" mission is an impressive deed. It would be only much more impressive, if it had any significance, or didn't happen mostly by accident.

Technically the strategy of Thermopylae was part of a 2 way strategy involving Themistocles Athenian navy and the famous army at the pass. The entire point was to allow the citizens of Athens to retreat, which was in fact successful.

I'm not getting where you're getting the accident bit from. The plan was that Leonidas blocks the land passage and Themistocles the water. As to exact positioning, I do not know the landscape or if there was any superior location. Though from the evidence their pass worked rather well.

And the Persians did loot. A lot.

[Axolotl]

You're joking right?No I'm serious, I find 300 to be completely inline with how the Greeks portrayed the battle. OK so it would have had less clothes and less monsters but one was required for it to be released and the other is still completely inline with Greek ideology.

Also I've never understood the idea that it's an analogy for the war in Iraq as the Islamic terrorists have never liked the ancient Greek culture.

[jmbrown]

Just to put this out about the whole racism thing since I've seen it tossed around a few times:

The cries of racism aren't targetted at the fact a bunch of white guys are killing a bunch of black guys. The cries are because the Persians are depicted as dark skinned with masked faces.

There seems to be this massive Hollywood misinterpretation that Middle Eastern people are dark skinned, bearded guys. This isn't true. Persia is modern day Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and pretty much every country from the borders of Israel all the way east to the borders of China.

People throw around the word Caucasian as a catch-all for white people but how many people actually know what it means? The Caucaus region was, in large part, within Persia. The modernized spelling for Iran comes from the original name which means "Land of the Aryans."

Yes, the skinhead racist Neo-Nazis who cry for a pure blooded "Aryan Nation" are the descendants of Iranians. Try telling them they're forefathers are from the "Middle East" and see how well that goes.

What the imagery got wrong was mixing up Persia with Arabians. The story takes place way before the Arabs invaded the weakened Persia and installed Islam as the state religion. Arabians fought using light calvary and infantry and wore head wraps but even Arabians aren't dark skinned, beady eyed dervishes this movie portrayed.

To reiterate, the cries of racism are leveled primary at the imagery being completely, 100% incorrect with the source. The Persians didn't look Persian, they didn't fight with Persian weapons, they didn't fight with Persian equipment, and they were completely contradictory to any historical evidence ever. Nobody should be fooled into thinking 300 is a historically accurate movie but the badguys were lumped into a demographic that didn't even make sense. They could have called them by a fictional country name and it would have had the same impact.

[Deadmeat.GW]

The world-class historian who saw the movie was probably Dan Brown.



Err... yes... May I exploit my non-native speaker status as an excuse?



The point is, if they had the supplies, they would have avoided an engagement.



They probably did loot. Ancient Greece was not a fertile land.

And yes, the whole "let's sacrifice ourselves" mission is an impressive deed. It would be only much more impressive, if it had any significance, or didn't happen mostly by accident.

Actually...the historians in question concerning the original comic book were historians in several US universities and...the Athenian University branch of ancient history...
They ONLY refer to specific parts of the comic, NOT to the film (to be honest they trashed the film as straying so far off the comic that it is in fact two different stories).
The behavior and the manner in which boys were treated in Sparta is the historically accurate bit they were referring to.

Shall we skip the historical accuracy bit please and stop mixing up the comic and the film?

Not native speaker either here :).

As for the supplies bit...the Spartans were trained to carry specific supplies and weapons/armour when they were on the move.
Several historians seem to believe this was the reason they were able to move as fast as they did since unlike most other local armies they did not have to stop to forage and therefore moved faster.
When they got to a position they took however they were according to indications very cruel when foraging if people tried to oppose their foraging.
In all indications Spartans were one of the rare few armies in that time period that carried its own supplies and as such was able to move extremely fast for the day.

As for the sacrifice themselves...not an accident, the origin of the whole No retreating, coming back with their shield or on it...
The Helot uprisings in the early history of Sparta when they were already outnumbered by slaves by a significant amount and when they did not have quite the military mindset they later became famous for.
As the uprising threatened Sparta itself they could not afford to give ground and they made a law to enforce the army to hold its ground or get executed for cowardice.
When you home is behind the next hill and loosing means all of your family dies or gets taken as slaves with a law that means even if you survive but if you had run away you would get horribly executed you get a lot more backbone suddenly and are a lot more likely to fight to the last.
I can't find the original Greek uni stuff for this but as far as they can see the origin of this rule was because the Spartans almost got wiped out.
It was a backlash against a more traditional Greek city state to avoid the same risk (and created its own problems of course).

[warty goblin]

That's because complex analysis is math. In the math and physics parts of Wikipedia, there are fewer controversial issues to act as matters of opinion, and the pages are often being referenced by people who know enough to correct mistakes or sabotage. And who's going to sabotage a page on DeMoivre's Theorem? The kind of person who would do that probably hasn't even heard of the theorem!

True enough.


Whereas when you get to stuff about history or politics, there are more poeple who will read the page and edit it to match their own slant. Or know just enough to give a coherent account without knowing enough to give an accurate account.


The real problem with Wikipedia is that it can easily be edited by people who think they are authorities on the subject, but aren't. Reading one or two books will often make you think you know the gist of a subject, and you may well be right to think so. But if you aren't, if the sources you read are biased or flawed, you won't know it.
Sounds like about a third of my professors actually. I had a professor in history, specializing in WWII Russia, who was unable to explain the differences between a Tiger and a T-34. Nor did he realize that the AK-47 was not actually available in WWII- something I think is obvious from the name if nothing else.. My current analysis professor is apparently incapable of producing a single proof to the standards she holds the class, or even reproducing said proof without enough typographical errors to render it incomprehensible. I've written papers based on hundred year old research and recieved top marks for them. All of these occured under Ph.D.s either with tenure or on tenure track at well respected colleges.


So you write a Wiki article on, say, the Battle of Thermopylae, based on some books on the classics you have on your shelf. But the books are thirty years old and the scholarship is shaky and they rely heavily on Herodotus... who was known not only as the Father of History but as the Father of Lies.

And since Wikipedia's sheer scale prevents the moderators from doing deep research to figure out which sources are good and which ones aren't, they tend to judge in favor of whoever set stuff down in the proper format first. They have to; they don't have the time to do anything else.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Wikipedia is perfect because it is not. Nor am I saying that research is a bad thing, because it is a good thing. Most of the objections to Wikipedia that I have read however boil down to 'we don't know who wrote it' which I consider irrelevant to the veracity of the information presented therein. Since the pages should cite sources, it is possible to check both whether what it says lines up with said sources, and the varacity of those sources- which is the sort of thing one should do anyways when conducting research.

[Dacia Brabant]

Actually I think they did that to avoid being called rascist-- I took away from the books that it was heavily implied that a number of Sauron's human troops were black (Southerlings and Haradrim) or asian (Easterlings). They were portrayed as persian in the movies because it is okay when white people kill white people.

The only human troops that are overtly described as "black" are the troll-men of Far Harad, which on the Middle-earth map corresponds fairly closely to sub-Saharan Africa. The "Southrons" of Near Harad (which geographically is much closer to Gondor) are more difficult to pin down because Tolkien uses the adjective "swarthy" which in its Norse origins means "black" but in the early 20th century was used to describe people of North African, Palestinian, Turkish, Arab, Persian and even Italic, Hellenic and Hispanic descent. The Haradrim's use of "oliphaunts" further evokes Carthage and Hannibal Barca's elephants crossing the Alps.

The Easterlings though were definitely Asiatic, as I think were the Variags of Khand (many of Constantinople's Varangian Guard were Kievan Rus').

Of course Tolkien also clearly points out in RotK via Samwise that these people were compelled into Sauron's service, and in other parts of his legendarium we learn that they were abused by the Black Numenoreans (where black = evil, not skin color since they were white), kin to Gondor, in ages past. So if they did evil it wasn't because of who they were but because of what had been done to them by some truly evil beings.

Sorry this is completely off the topic of 300, which on first viewing I liked even though it had nothing to do with the historical Greco-Persian Wars, but after a second attempt I couldn't get past all the ridiculous stuff in it. There has been no third viewing.

[TheSummoner]

I make one sarcastic comment and now theres a debate about LotR being racist too - -

[Coplantor]

I haven't got time to read the whole thread, so I'll just answer to the OP.

Yeah, it's good because it's entertaining. The first time I saw it I didn't cared about all the innacuracies. I disliked the wife sub plot (I was told later that it was not a part of the original comic) because it looked to me like they were thinking "So, we have lot of guys fighting, we need a girl doing something important, otherwise they'll think we are either mysoginists or homos".

[jmbrown]

I make one sarcastic comment and now theres a debate about LotR being racist too - -

C'mon, man, this is a forum of collective nerds. You didn't expect a sarcastic comment on one of contemporary fantasy's magnum opus to go unnoticed, did you?

[Zen Monkey]

What does it mean to be a 'good' movie? Surely a 'good computer' is not meant in the same sense as a 'good piece of chocolate.' They mean different things. A good computer is probably easy to use, quick with it's calculations, and free of defects or harmful software. A good piece of chocolate is tasty, lacking unwanted impurities, and should not make me feel ill. 'Good' in this case, as an evaluation of quality and not used as an opposite for evil, means something along the lines of 'effective at the task for which it was created.'

So, why do we make films? Personally, I believe that most Hollywood movies are made for entertainment. Entertainment can take the form of laughter or tears or introspective thought, but is separate from being factually informative. So, to quote a 'good' movie, "Are you not entertained?" 300 fails as a documentary, because it lacks the sort of qualities that we would prefer in a non-fiction work. Was I entertained? I would say that I was, and thus the people who set out to entertain me and profit by it were successful in capturing my attention and a portion of my income. They made a movie that is good at doing what movies are intended to do.

[Dervag]

Err... yes... May I exploit my non-native speaker status as an excuse?Of course, or you could plausibly claim typo. No dishonor accrues, but I like to point these things out before someone who's bothered by them more catches on to them.


The point is, if they had the supplies, they would have avoided an engagement.Possibly; I'd like to see a source on that, but I don't demand one. However, if they were undisciplined enough that their reputation is outright false, as opposed to being the subject of spin, they would have avoided engagement whether they had the supplies or not, taking their chances with hunger and thirst rather than with a Persian army that outnumbered them 10 (100? more?) to one.

Regardless of how you wound up in a situation that led you to decide to stand and fight a huge army, the decision to do so when it is still physically possible (if not practical) to retreat is an act of serious and respectable courage.


And yes, the whole "let's sacrifice ourselves" mission is an impressive deed. It would be only much more impressive, if it had any significance, or didn't happen mostly by accident.Agreed.
________


What the imagery got wrong was mixing up Persia with Arabians. The story takes place way before the Arabs invaded the weakened Persia and installed Islam as the state religion. Arabians fought using light calvary and infantry and wore head wraps but even Arabians aren't dark skinned, beady eyed dervishes this movie portrayed.The Persians fought with light infantry too, at least light relative to the ultra-heavy Greek phalanx. I don't know about their cavalry; this was before the Persians invented the knight in shining armor*, so they may not have had heavy cavalry yet. Hell, for all I know they were still using chariots and not light or heavy cavalry.

*which they did, a few centuries later.


To reiterate, the cries of racism are leveled primary at the imagery being completely, 100% incorrect with the source. The Persians didn't look Persian, they didn't fight with Persian weapons, they didn't fight with Persian equipment, and they were completely contradictory to any historical evidence ever.There's more to it than that. Misrepresenting the Persians' weapons and appearance is not racist in and of itself, any more than it is racist for the Japanese to put together a cartoon about historical events in, say, France that inaccurately portrays French culture, weapons, and traditions to make them more comprehensible to the Japanese audience. Or to give them spiky hair, which for some strange reason they like to do...:smallconfused:

That's not racism, it's just a mistake, or an oversimplification, because it doesn't say anything about the people being misrepresented as a race. If French people are inaccurately portrayed as doing something like a Japanese tea ceremony, having spiky hair, and having a knightly class that practices mounted archery* it does not imply that the French are stupid, weak, inferior or contemptible.

The charge of racism is more reasonably founded in the fact that the Persian army is portrayed as a horde of bizarre savages who are in every way inferior to the stalwart Greeks. Now that can reasonably be called racism.

*As the Japanese (and, for that matter, Persians) did, but the French did not...
_________


Sounds like about a third of my professors actually. I had a professor in history, specializing in WWII Russia, who was unable to explain the differences between a Tiger and a T-34. Nor did he realize that the AK-47 was not actually available in WWII- something I think is obvious from the name if nothing else.. My current analysis professor is apparently incapable of producing a single proof to the standards she holds the class, or even reproducing said proof without enough typographical errors to render it incomprehensible. I've written papers based on hundred year old research and recieved top marks for them. All of these occured under Ph.D.s either with tenure or on tenure track at well respected colleges.This is true, and it's a real problem, I freely admit. Simply asking some professor who once upon a time managed to generate a worthwhile doctoral thesis is not good enough.

But how far would you trust a Wikipedia article written by one of those semi-competent or incompetent professors? For any given article, there's a real danger that you're doing exactly that. And the danger cannot be easily estimated, either, unless you yourself are an expert in the field you're reading an article on.

Wikipedia is a good thing, but the degree of the good is limited by the problem of ensuring reliable and competent authors.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Wikipedia is perfect because it is not. Nor am I saying that research is a bad thing, because it is a good thing. Most of the objections to Wikipedia that I have read however boil down to 'we don't know who wrote it' which I consider irrelevant to the veracity of the information presented therein. Since the pages should cite sources, it is possible to check both whether what it says lines up with said sources, and the varacity of those sources- which is the sort of thing one should do anyways when conducting research.This is definitely possible, and when doing real research is a good way to neutralize the problem with Wikipedia. But for random Internet conversation, the research tends not to get done, which leaves you open to the authorship problem.

When Satyr says X about Greek history and Wikipedia says Y, I have no easy way of breaking the deadlock, because I know Wikipedia articles can contain incomplete or biased information due to honest mistakes by the authors. I don't think it can be ignored.

[JonestheSpy]

Are Fritos good food?

(And yes, the movie is totally racist. NOT because the depictions of the Persians per se, but because of the depictions of the Spartans. If you read Miller's original graphic novel, you'll see that the Spartans look like you'd expect folks from the melting pot of the classical world to look: dark skinned, blackhaired, with a mix of African, Arab and Semitic features (kinky hair, flat noses or very prominent, etc) with no noticable trace of those pale barabarians running around the north wearing animal skins and woad. The movie, however, decided to cast all the Spartans as pasty-as-the-Brits caucasians, while keeping all the bad guys dark-skinned. If that's not playing to racist biases - concious or unconcious - I don't know what is).

[warty goblin]

The Persians fought with light infantry too, at least light relative to the ultra-heavy Greek phalanx. I don't know about their cavalry; this was before the Persians invented the knight in shining armor*, so they may not have had heavy cavalry yet. Hell, for all I know they were still using chariots and not light or heavy cavalry.

My dim recollection from about eight years ago when I ploughed through Xenophon's Persian Expedition, which occurs about fifty years after the Persian wars is that, at least by then, both light infantry in the form of peltasts and cavalry was employed. The 10,000 certainly had them, and understood the importance of the peltasts- at one point it is remarked (I can't remember by whom) that they are in serious trouble because the peltasts were refusing to fight. Cavalry I do not think was as important yet, as Xenophon says, I think in a different work, that they're primary advantage is being able to run away faster. Since he was a cavalry commander, it's unlikely he was talking trash either.

Take with much salt. Mostly what I remember about Xenophon was it being desperately dry.


This is true, and it's a real problem, I freely admit. Simply asking some professor who once upon a time managed to generate a worthwhile doctoral thesis is not good enough.

But how far would you trust a Wikipedia article written by one of those semi-competent or incompetent professors? For any given article, there's a real danger that you're doing exactly that. And the danger cannot be easily estimated, either, unless you yourself are an expert in the field you're reading an article on.
The thing is, for all the stupidity my professor have made me suffer through, they're right about a lot of stuff. Just because my history prof didn't know the difference between a medium and a heavy tank, or that the first weapon that (fully) meets the modern definition of the assault rifle was the Sturmgewehr 44 and not the AK-47 doesn't mean he knows nothing. All it means is that he makes mistakes, like everybody else. Because he got those facts wrong I really have no reason to suspect him more right or more wrong on another question. The most it might make me do is suspect anything he says about anything to do with military history, which I do with academic history anyways*.


*This was after another book for the same class tried to demonstrate how fierce fighting on the Eastern Front was because machine gun barrels got too hot to touch. They do tend to do that, it's why they come off.

Now Wikipedia obviously deprives me of making such a statistical inference about the author, since the author(s) are not known. All this means is that I should double check, which really one should do anyways.


Wikipedia is a good thing, but the degree of the good is limited by the problem of ensuring reliable and competent authors.

This is definitely possible, and when doing real research is a good way to neutralize the problem with Wikipedia. But for random Internet conversation, the research tends not to get done, which leaves you open to the authorship problem.
Agreed. On the other hand, there really isn't a better alternative much of the time. If JSTOR/LexisNexis or similar would allow the general public access, it'd be one thing. But as long as academia keeps its knowledge under lock and key, I at least don't know of another way to reliably provide a link to any sort of citation.


When Satyr says X about Greek history and Wikipedia says Y, I have no easy way of breaking the deadlock, because I know Wikipedia articles can contain incomplete or biased information due to honest mistakes by the authors. I don't think it can be ignored.

But what distinguishes the incomplete/incorrect information on Wikipedia from the incomplete or incorrect information in any other source? As long as citations are provided, which they are for a lot of things, you can do exactly the same sort of check you could with any other secondary/tertiary source.

[Oslecamo]

Agreed. On the other hand, there really isn't a better alternative much of the time. If JSTOR/LexisNexis or similar would allow the general public access, it'd be one thing. But as long as academia keeps its knowledge under lock and key, I at least don't know of another way to reliably provide a link to any sort of citation.


Then you must admit there's a margin of error. If you cannot obtain a correct source, you use an inferior one, but you must admit that the inferior may have errors.

[warty goblin]

Then you must admit there's a margin of error. If you cannot obtain a correct source, you use an inferior one, but you must admit that the inferior may have errors.

I admit there is a margin of error yes. But there's a margin of error with anything. No measurement is perfect, no report absolute in its accuracy. I've read demonstrably silly stuff in stuff produced by experts in the field with accredations, praise of other authors, and what have you. Some of it is simple typos, some of it is flat out ridiculous. The examples from my history class are a good case study of this. These were things that were trivial to find out-particularly the machine gun example- but the authors simply didn't know despite being trained in that field.

Having letters after your name may be a stastical indicator of accuracy, but it is by no means a neccessary or a sufficient condition. Oftentimes people act as though it is, and this annoys me to no end.

I also admit that it's better to use the more rigorously checked source than the less rigorously checked one. Again, this isn't much of an admission, and rather more of a definition. Right now those are sources that are not publically available, something which strikes me as being completely unethical.

I confess a lot of my views on this topic are probably not entirely rational. My experience with academia in general has been that they are very closed minded in excepting any idea that comes from outside of the universities, while at the same time being quite unwilling to make the information that they obtain easily available. I'm a bit of an egalitarian, and this pisses me off.

[Dacia Brabant]

I make one sarcastic comment and now theres a debate about LotR being racist too - -

Sorry, it's just one of my bugaboos.

[Robert Blackletter]

I read this post on a face book once.


Is Wikipedia a valid reference? Is it accurate and reliable, and is it a good source to use when attempting to understand a concept or explain a phenomenon?

In a word, Yes. However, such an answer begs for expansion and clarification, and so I hope to share my research on this subject with you all, and possibly convince some of the more skeptical people that Wikipedia is indeed credible.

The common argument against this free, internet-encyclopedia is that “anyone can write anything they want on Wikipedia, and so there’s no way to know if they’re lying or telling the truth”. In fact, even Wikipedia’s main page states, “Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page)
In 2005, there were a series of assassination edits on Wikipedia. People would edit the pages of celebrities who were still living, writing in that the famous people had already died. This caused a lot of negative publicity for Wikipedia. Even though the edits had been fixed within a matter of minutes, the controversy was that lies and fakes could still be posted.

Interestingly enough, such details seem to take precedence over the fact that, with the exception of a few pages for a few minutes, Wikipedia is overall ridiculously accurate. In fact, it is considered on par with Encyclopedia Brittanica. I repeat: Wikipedia is as accurate as Encylopedia Brittanica. Here’s a short article about that (http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html)

Every edit to every page on any given minute is recorded to a site for Wiki-monitors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges). Also recorded are the editors (and their IP addresses for Wiki-monitors so that repeat offenders may be banned if they repeatedly post nonsense or lies), as well as other important information, such as references. These edits are checked by Power Users, an extremely large group of Wiki-monitors who check and recheck all edits against scientific articles, medical journals, and other known credible resources. There are also scripted bots which block any attempts to destroy the article. Guidelines for creating valid Wikipedia pages are explicitly written, and pages/edits that disobey the rules are immediately removed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Your_first_article)

I often challenge skeptics of Wikipedia to search for any article that has incorrect information. To do this, one must find a Wiki article and a different credible source and show that the two explanations don’t match up. People have spent hours trying to do this, and they just give up in frustration.

I was talking to a guy the other day, and he was a skeptic of Wikipedia. He seemed like a logical, smart guy, so I told him to implement the scientific method to evaluate his hypothesis. We talked about it, and we agreed that the following process would be put into effect:
Hypothesis- Wikipedia is unreliable.
Test- Can I find a Wiki article that is false?
Results- No.
Conclusion- Wikipedia appears to be credible.

We both searched for a half hour, and couldn’t find a single one. He then agreed that Wikipedia is at least decent. But why stop there? I did some further reading and discovered that any mistakes in Wiki-edits are generally fixed within a half hour. So he and I talked again, and we constructed another hypothesis and test:
Hypothesis- Edits containing factually incorrect information on Wikipedia will be almost immediately repaired (we approximated around a half hour).
Test- My peer went into the Wiki-entry for Hot Dog, and wrote that Chinese hot dogs contain dog, cat, or rat meat. In reality, Chinese hot dogs are all-beef franks, but I certainly didn’t know anything about Chinese hot dogs, and could have easily been fooled by this misinformation.
Results- In 8 minutes, this false information was removed from the Hot Dog entry on Wikipedia, even though there had been over 200 other new edits in the past five minutes.
Conclusion- When wrong information is presented on Wikipedia, it is efficiently checked and removed.

Feel free to try these procedures on your own; edit a source and see how long it takes it to be fixed. One of the beautiful things about Wikipedia is that nearly all pages have a bibliography/works cited list at the bottom of the entry. You can always check and double-check the original articles, and you know that any pages lacking citations may not be particularly great references. (In fact, most Wiki-articles that lack a proper reference explicitly tells you “citation needed” for a specific statement.)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is a great reference for learning about topics. It will probably not have every single piece of information on a subject, but it is a fantastic starting point. Whenever research is being done, one should look at multiple sources anyway. If any factoid on any site is not properly referenced, then you should check it against other sources. Wikipedia is no exception. Keep in mind that no source should ever be used alone. However, Wikipedia is still a fantastic reference. Nothing’s perfect, but Wikipedia is definitely a reliable compilation of topics.

If anyone is still skeptical of Wikipedia, please find a Wikipedia entry that is wrong on something. Then go eat a snack and go to the bathroom, and then come back and refresh the page. If it is STILL incorrect, please post the website in comment form so I can check it… and make sure you post the sentence(s) that are in question.

I'm not taking the challenge but the guy who dose has yet to be taken up on it. Here the page where i found the note (http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?v=app_2347471856&ref=ts&id=8847903#/notes/chris-mango/is-wikipedia-reliable/48227344785) if your a facebook member

[DraPrime]

The charge of racism is more reasonably founded in the fact that the Persian army is portrayed as a horde of bizarre savages who are in every way inferior to the stalwart Greeks. Now that can reasonably be called racism.

Not the Greeks, just the Spartans. In case you didn't notice, everyone but the Spartans are shown as being weak. Both the comic and the movie worship Sparta. Anyone who isn't Spartan is weak. Everyone against it, is inherently evil. Take the Ephors. They're Greek, but they're against Sparta so they're shown as deformed inbred perverts. In the movie, there's that high ranking Spartan (I forget his name) who plots against Sparta and sleeps with the queen. He's completely white, but he's and evil trickster simply because he isn't on Sparta's side. And now we get to people on Sparta's side, but who aren't Spartans themselves. The Arcadians are shown as being weak and inferior to the Spartans, and not as actual warriors. They're the ones who retreat in a cowardly manner. Athenians are several times referred to negatively, even though they're on Sparta's side.

So if anything, I wouldn't accuse the comic or movie of racism. I'd accuse it of making an entire city state into a Mary Sue. In the end, the Persians aren't evil because they're dark skinned. They're evil because they're fighting the Spartans. Or at least, that's how the movie-makers viewed it.

One last thing. Ephialtes demonstrates my point quite well. While he is pro-Spartan, he is shown as being brave, determined, and kind of admirable, and although he's an inadequate soldier, his overall portrayal isn't negative. Then, when he isn't approved by Leonidas, he immediately becomes a pathetic creature desperate for approval. Basically, this proves my point that your race doesn't matter in 300. It's your relation to the Spartans that matters.

[Dervag]

This would be a very good argument were it not for the casting of the Persians as the dark-skinned savages who might as well be orcs. That is the real problem. It's not just a question of all opponents of the Spartans looking bad, it's a question of those opponents being portrayed in a way that makes them look inhuman. For relatively minor groups like the Ephors, no one cares because there aren't any Ephors around any more. But the Persians are an entire nation of people, with a long and reasonably glorious history, and they deserve better than to be shown as a bunch of howling quasi-cannibalistic madmen.

[TheSummoner]

Boo hoo? The Persians were the antagonists. From the Spartan perspective, the perspective of the protagonists... the "good" guys (term used very loosely), they may as well have been inhuman monsters. The Spartans did not care if their enemy was human or not, they only cared that it was against them and it was to be destroyed.

Let me ask you this... why is that wrong? Why humanize the thing that is opposing your way of life? Hell, we're not even talking about civilians here... I might be a bit rusty since its been quite a while since I saw it, but I don't remember a single Persian civilian, and the most monsterous of them were all out on the battlefield trying to kill the Spartans, once again, the "good" guys. Humanizing your enemy only leads to sympathy. Sympathy for someone actively trying to rip your head off only gets you killed. Its a disgusting little weakness of modern invention that the Spartans were above.

People dig too deep and try to make everything racial nowadays... Its sad really... Then again, I suppose if I could get a huge payoff by crying about being offended over something, I'd probably try it. People who throw the race card around like that only make the situation worse.

[warty goblin]

Boo hoo? The Persians were the antagonists. From the Spartan perspective, the perspective of the protagonists... the "good" guys (term used very loosely), they may as well have been inhuman monsters. The Spartans did not care if their enemy was human or not, they only cared that it was against them and it was to be destroyed.

Somehow I think this proves exactly the opposite of what you're trying to argue. They're different and opposed to us, so they might as well be inhuman? Lovely.


Let me ask you this... why is that wrong? Why humanize the thing that is opposing your way of life? Hell, we're not even talking about civilians here... I might be a bit rusty since its been quite a while since I saw it, but I don't remember a single Persian civilian, and the most monsterous of them were all out on the battlefield trying to kill the Spartans, once again, the "good" guys. Humanizing your enemy only leads to sympathy. Sympathy for someone actively trying to rip your head off only gets you killed. Its a disgusting little weakness of modern invention that the Spartans were above.
See the Iliad. Note that Achilles, the greatest hero of his age, is potrayed quite negatively for the disrespect he shows both to friend and enemy, but in much better light for the respect he does show to Priam. The two are still enemies but that doesn't mean they have to think of each other as slavering subhumans.

[Dacia Brabant]

Y'know, the only humans-as-monsters that I remember in the film were the Immortales, that fat thing with the blade-arms and the crazy chained-up ogre, and of those only the Immortales were based on real people. Yes they were depicted in a very orc-like fashion but everything else about them was fictionalized too--the real Immortales didn't have silver kabuki-style faceplates, didn't dual-wield katanas and didn't dress like ninjas.

So why did they have all that anachronistic, out-of-place stuff and why did they look like orcs? Was it racism, or was it Rule of Cool? Considering the entire film was one big Rule of Cool in action, I'd have to go with the latter: ninjas are cool, katanas are cool, demonic facemasks are cool, and orcs...well, they're not cool, but they are the stereotypical nasties of the genre, and RotK was released only 2 years before production of 300 began if that makes any difference.

I didn't like them either and I think having them be human would've made the film more dramatic and more horrific, but I'm sure the imagery was chosen for cinematic reasons.

[TheSummoner]

Somehow I think this proves exactly the opposite of what you're trying to argue. They're different and opposed to us, so they might as well be inhuman? Lovely.

But why is this a bad thing? It was a war... kill or be killed. Why sympathize with the agressors who are trying to make you submit to their will, demanding an offering and whatnot. Pointless sympathy against the people trying to kill them isn't going to do the Spartans any good. We aren't talking about civilians or innocent people, why humanize them?

[warty goblin]

But why is this a bad thing? It was a war... kill or be killed. Why sympathize with the agressors who are trying to make you submit to their will, demanding an offering and whatnot. Pointless sympathy against the people trying to kill them isn't going to do the Spartans any good. We aren't talking about civilians or innocent people, why humanize them?

There's a difference between saying 'because they are choosing to invade me, I must defend myself' and 'any who oppose or are different from me are at beast weak, at worst subhuman.' One is a position of neccessity, the other the self-aggrendizing opinion of a supremicist bigot. Visually the film communicates the later.

[Dienekes]

There's a difference between saying 'because they are choosing to invade me, I must defend myself' and 'any who oppose or are different from me are at beast weak, at worst subhuman.' One is a position of neccessity, the other the self-aggrendizing opinion of a supremicist bigot. Visually the film communicates the later.

I guess this movie is more accurate than I thought. Don't get me wrong, I love studying the classic age. But the Greeks were pretty much all supremacist bigots

[jmbrown]

But why is this a bad thing? It was a war... kill or be killed. Why sympathize with the agressors who are trying to make you submit to their will, demanding an offering and whatnot. Pointless sympathy against the people trying to kill them isn't going to do the Spartans any good. We aren't talking about civilians or innocent people, why humanize them?

We're not talking about in character sympathy, we're talking about visual depiction. You cannot deny the Persians are depicted as dark skinned, masked face, brutal savages that beat slaves, usurp the land, and conquer everything in sight with grotesque monsters. Meanwhile the Spartans are depicted as brave, upstanding, handsome, knights-in-shining-cloaks with rippling abs that effortlessly slaughter thousands of soldiers.

The rule of cool can still apply without totally defacing someone's history. People *gasp* take pride in their upbringing. If you're going to depict it in a negative light, you're going to draw criticism. Even Rambo, which is the quintessential "badass white guy taking on all foreign soldiers" didn't resort to gross exagerration with its villains.

To reiterate, you can't deny the monstrous depiction of an entire nation. Snyder and the writers knew what they were doing from the start. They knew they would draw ire from critics. What's unfortunate is that controversy is a cheap means of advertisement. I'm actually glad the stupid No Russian level of Modern Warfare 2 didn't attract the eye of media moguls like I thought it would.

[warty goblin]

I guess this movie is more accurate than I thought. Don't get me wrong, I love studying the classic age. But the Greeks were pretty much all supremacist bigots

The sense I've gotten from my classics courses is that the Greek view on Barbarians evolved significantly with time. If you go back to the Iliad for example there is very little that shows the Trojans and their allies are inferior or particularly barbaric in the modern sense of the word, even though they were certainly barbarians. There is one sequence where the Trojan army is described as chattering like a flock of birds, whereas the Achaiens are silent, which although not the most favorable of comparisons is certainly not particularly damning. It's also a reasonable simile for the multitude of languages spoken by the Trojan allies, and the need to coordinate different detachments via translators.

Given the quite favorable and similar attitudes the text expresses towards the Greek and Trojan heroes, it's hard to really call that work particularly biased against the non-Greeks.

There's a bit more overt superiority complex in Herodotus, but its still not exactly blind or unthinking. He frequently remarks on the customs of other cultures he finds inferior to those of Greece, but he also pays attention to those he considers superior. Book II on Egypt is particularly informative, since he goes out of his way to point out that although now distinct he thinks most of Greek customs and religion originally came from that land.

Socretes would rather die than live anywhere besides Athens, let alone a non-Greek city.

I haven't read enough Aristotle to say for sure, but I suspect this biais is in full bloom by his time*.


*Dave Barry summed up everything I think any person needs to know about Aristotle when he pointed out that the letters in his name could be rearranged to spell 'a tit loser'

[JonestheSpy]

I'm going to repeat this because no one seemed to pay any attention and I think it's important:

Portraying the bad guys as scary bad guys - juvenile and shallow, but forgivable.

Casting the heroes as all white guys fighting the evil darker races when in both history and in the comic there wasn't a caucasian to be found: blatant racism.

[Dienekes]

The sense I've gotten from my classics courses is that the Greek view on Barbarians evolved significantly with time. If you go back to the Iliad for example there is very little that shows the Trojans and their allies are inferior or particularly barbaric in the modern sense of the word, even though they were certainly barbarians. There is one sequence where the Trojan army is described as chattering like a flock of birds, whereas the Achaiens are silent, which although not the most favorable of comparisons is certainly not particularly damning. It's also a reasonable simile for the multitude of languages spoken by the Trojan allies, and the need to coordinate different detachments via translators.

Given the quite favorable and similar attitudes the text expresses towards the Greek and Trojan heroes, it's hard to really call that work particularly biased against the non-Greeks.

There's a bit more overt superiority complex in Herodotus, but its still not exactly blind or unthinking. He frequently remarks on the customs of other cultures he finds inferior to those of Greece, but he also pays attention to those he considers superior. Book II on Egypt is particularly informative, since he goes out of his way to point out that although now distinct he thinks most of Greek customs and religion originally came from that land.

Socretes would rather die than live anywhere besides Athens, let alone a non-Greek city.

I haven't read enough Aristotle to say for sure, but I suspect this biais is in full bloom by his time*.


*Dave Barry summed up everything I think any person needs to know about Aristotle when he pointed out that the letters in his name could be rearranged to spell 'a tit loser'

So I've heard. I was merely making a joke.

There was one essay I read that tried to make the claim that the link between growing xenophobia was a result of the developments in the phalanx and the growing patriotism of the poleis system where effectively each city was determining to be better than those around it.

It was a very interesting read, I thought. And attempted explained the lack of racist overtones in Homer, since that was pre-hoplite.

As to Aristotle, I thought he was one of the more interesting of the old Greek philosophers to read. I do not know who this Dave Berry folk is though.

[Thorcrest]

Why do all of the discussions on htese forums stray away from the original question??? Staying away from Racism...

Is it a good movie? Consider this...
Its a movie based on a comic book, based on a movie, based on a book, based on a retelling of history, several times as new books telling the story of this battle were written, based on a battle in ancient Greece. So if you like accuracy, DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE... If you can turn off brain activity then go ahead and watch it...

Its also an off orange colour the whole time!!!! That gets so annoying!

[PhoeKun]

Why do all of the discussions on htese forums stray away from the original question???

It's part of the natural flow of conversation to move from point to point, zeroing in on particularly interesting tangents. A message board thread is a conversation, albeit a particularly slow moving one. And there's only so much that can be said in response to the original question without turning it into a poll.

And as it stands, we've gone from a pretty standard "good movie/bad movie" question to some pretty interesting reading, says I.

[DraPrime]

As an answer to the many people claiming 300 is blatantly racist, allow me to point out a very basic rule of statistics which applies here.

Correlation does not equate causation.

Just because two things happen together, does not mean one causes the other. In 300, this is the case with Persians being dark skinned, and being evil. They happen together, but they don't really happen because of each other. First of all, most of the Persians aren't shown to be evil savages. They're just a bunch of ineffectual soldiers that get massacred by Spartans. And really, almost all non-Spartans are displayed as poor soldiers. Next, now that I look at the giant, he appears to be white. Likewise with the immortal who is unmasked. He just seems to be horrible deformed. The same thing with the executioner. In fact, the darkest skinned Persians are the various messengers Xerxes has. The Persians that are truly messed up, deformed, and savage, aren't actually dark at all.

[pita]

Why do all of the discussions on htese forums stray away from the original question??? Staying away from Racism...

Is it a good movie? Consider this...
Its a movie based on a comic book, based on a movie, based on a book, based on a retelling of history, several times as new books telling the story of this battle were written, based on a battle in ancient Greece. So if you like accuracy, DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE... If you can turn off brain activity then go ahead and watch it...

Its also an off orange colour the whole time!!!! That gets so annoying!
I'm in deep rdjy with you.
Just saying.
Epic post win, Thorcrest.

[warty goblin]

As an answer to the many people claiming 300 is blatantly racist, allow me to point out a very basic rule of statistics which applies here.

Correlation does not equate causation.

Just because two things happen together, does not mean one causes the other. In 300, this is the case with Persians being dark skinned, and being evil. They happen together, but they don't really happen because of each other. First of all, most of the Persians aren't shown to be evil savages. They're just a bunch of ineffectual soldiers that get massacred by Spartans. And really, almost all non-Spartans are displayed as poor soldiers. Next, now that I look at the giant, he appears to be white. Likewise with the immortal who is unmasked. He just seems to be horrible deformed. The same thing with the executioner. In fact, the darkest skinned Persians are the various messengers Xerxes has. The Persians that are truly messed up, deformed, and savage, aren't actually dark at all.

Corollation does not equal causation, but I'm not entirely sure how its relevant to the point at hand. Something can still be racist even if that is not how it is intended, and even if the depiction serves some wider cinematic purpose. Being art is not an excuse to say whatever you want honever you wish without anybody being able to criticise it for content.

[DraPrime]

Corollation does not equal causation, but I'm not entirely sure how its relevant to the point at hand. Something can still be racist even if that is not how it is intended, and even if the depiction serves some wider cinematic purpose. Being art is not an excuse to say whatever you want honever you wish without anybody being able to criticise it for content.

At what point did I say that it being art means that the producers can do whatever they want? And correlation not equating causation is quite relevant. People are basically thinking like this: "Since X happened, and Y happened together with X, and clearly Y happened because of X." Except that this is faulty logic. Certainly, X can cause Y, but in this case I believe it doesn't.

As for something being racist, even if the makers didn't intend for it to be like that, that just sounds somewhat absurd. If they didn't intend for it to be as such, then any racist tendencies of the movie are added there by the viewer. So in that case, it's more in somebody's head than it is in reality.

[HamHam]

I'm going to repeat this because no one seemed to pay any attention and I think it's important:

Portraying the bad guys as scary bad guys - juvenile and shallow, but forgivable.

Casting the heroes as all white guys fighting the evil darker races when in both history and in the comic there wasn't a caucasian to be found: blatant racism.

What. Since when are Greeks not Caucasian? Last time I checked Greeks count as white people.

The whole movie is a Spartan propaganda piece. It makes this abundantly clear. Complaining that it's portrayal of the Persians is inaccurate and unfair is like complaining about the portrayal of Nazis in Inglorous Bastards. That is to say, dumb.

[Alteran]

As for something being racist, even if the makers didn't intend for it to be like that, that just sounds somewhat absurd. If they didn't intend for it to be as such, then any racist tendencies of the movie are added there by the viewer. So in that case, it's more in somebody's head than it is in reality.

Not necessarily. I'm not arguing one way or another, but if these racist tendencies do exist, they could also be there because of an unconscious racism on the part of the writers. Racism doesn't need to be intentionally inserted to be present, it's possible for a writer to express their biases without trying to.

Repeating myself, to preemptively fight any straw-manning, I'm not making an argument supporting or attacking the presence of racism in 300. It's been too long since I've seen that movie for me to talk about its specifics.

[Dervag]

Let me ask you this... why is that wrong? Why humanize the thing that is opposing your way of life?But the Persians aren't opposing our way of life, even if they're opposing the Spartans'. While it makes sense for the Spartans to dehumanize the Persians, it does not make sense for us to do so. When they do it, it's understandable. When we do it, we're just making up insulting lies about them for no good reason.

Even if we accept that we should always think of our enemies as inhuman monsters out to destroy all that is right and pure... the Persians aren't our enemies. They're someone else's enemies, and why should we honor that someone's view of the Persians any more than we honor the Persians' view of themselves?


It was a very interesting read, I thought. And attempted explained the lack of racist overtones in Homer, since that was pre-hoplite.Another explanation is that, as portrayed in Homer, everyone is pretty much Greek; you're not comparing Greeks to Thracians or Egyptians or the like.


As to Aristotle, I thought he was one of the more interesting of the old Greek philosophers to read. I do not know who this Dave Berry folk is though.Dave Barry is an American humorist, with a low but amusing sense of humor.


What. Since when are Greeks not Caucasian? Last time I checked Greeks count as white people.That depends on who you ask. Back when racism was popular enough to be admitted to in public, people in northern and western Europe would often look down on Greeks, Italians, and other Mediterranean people as being sort of half way between white people and those icky brown people.

[Dienekes]

What. Since when are Greeks not Caucasian? Last time I checked Greeks count as white people.

The whole movie is a Spartan propaganda piece. It makes this abundantly clear. Complaining that it's portrayal of the Persians is inaccurate and unfair is like complaining about the portrayal of Nazis in Inglorous Bastards. That is to say, dumb.

I think the common term for them was "olive-skinned," if we want to get really technical they weren't descendant from nordic caucasian, which is generally what we think of as caucasian. However, the records indicate that by hair there were blond, and red head Greeks which more or less indicates that they were white.

Really, I don't know what Jonas is on about.

@Dervag, I have heard that one as well. I found the arguments of the essay I mentioned to be better at the time. However, I don't think I've ever even bothered to read further into the topic. Seems I never got around to it.

[Bhu]

What. Since when are Greeks not Caucasian? Last time I checked Greeks count as white people.

The whole movie is a Spartan propaganda piece. It makes this abundantly clear. Complaining that it's portrayal of the Persians is inaccurate and unfair is like complaining about the portrayal of Nazis in Inglorous Bastards. That is to say, dumb.

It was at one point thought that the Spartans vs the Persians setting was a bit of a stand in for the U.S. vs Iraq (or more likely Islam). It's an odd choice considering the Spartans were neither caucasian or democratic for the most part, and the Persians weren't Islamic at the time. The director has denied any such intent.

[HamHam]

But the Persians aren't opposing our way of life, even if they're opposing the Spartans'. While it makes sense for the Spartans to dehumanize the Persians, it does not make sense for us to do so. When they do it, it's understandable. When we do it, we're just making up insulting lies about them for no good reason.

Even if we accept that we should always think of our enemies as inhuman monsters out to destroy all that is right and pure... the Persians aren't our enemies. They're someone else's enemies, and why should we honor that someone's view of the Persians any more than we honor the Persians' view of themselves?

Because the story is being told from the perspective of a Spartan.

Kind of like how in Hero their clothes keep changing color? That's not because they were actually changing their clothes, it's symbolism.


It was at one point thought that the Spartans vs the Persians setting was a bit of a stand in for the U.S. vs Iraq (or more likely Islam). It's an odd choice considering the Spartans were neither caucasian or democratic for the most part, and the Persians weren't Islamic at the time. The director has denied any such intent.

Such an interpretation is baseless.

[warty goblin]

Because the story is being told from the perspective of a Spartan.

I'd find this a far more reasonable interpretation had the final scene shown people in actual historical gear, advancing against historically armed Persians in a phalanx. As it is, we're given nothing to really distinquish the Narrator's story from the reality that he tells because they use the same costumes, the same lighting scheme, the same tactics.


Kind of like how in Hero their clothes keep changing color? That's not because they were actually changing their clothes, it's symbolism.
Except Hero used that device consistantly with it being symbolism, not reality. 300 does not.

[HamHam]

I'd find this a far more reasonable interpretation had the final scene shown people in actual historical gear, advancing against historically armed Persians in a phalanx. As it is, we're given nothing to really distinquish the Narrator's story from the reality that he tells because they use the same costumes, the same lighting scheme, the same tactics.

I would not call that a reasonable expectation at all.

[warty goblin]

I would not call that a reasonable expectation at all.
That was...illuminating. I'll give it points for succintness and focus, but the lack of any argument detracts significantly from its overall impact.

I also don't see what's so unreasonable about that. The Narrator was telling a story. The story has a distinct visual style, with unreal lighting, gratuitous slow motion, a-historical equipment and tactics and several other hallmarks.

Then reality is revealed to look exactly like the story. Leaving us to think that, what, that's how the movie's reality is? That the Narrator is dilusional, and actually sees himself as charging into battle without armor? That the Narrator is stupid enough to charge into battle without armor?

[Yoren]

I think the lack of armor and phalanx is just a function of the 300 being a movie. While I agree that a heavily armored, orderly, historically accurate phalanx would have been awesome. Given the average's American's embarrassing lack knowledge about history and fondness for reality shows that value style and gimmicks over substance, I'm going to guess that the director and the producers thought most people would think the half-naked horde stampeding across the plains would be "cooler" and went with what they thought would sell better.

To put it another way I file it under the same category as getting flipped clean over by a bullet from a hand gun, Starfleet not having any inkling of what a Marine is, and mooks dying of wounds that barely slow down main characters.

[warty goblin]

I think the lack of armor and phalanx is just a function of the 300 being a movie. While I agree that a heavily armored, orderly, historically accurate phalanx would have been awesome. Given the average's American's embarrassing lack knowledge about history and fondness for reality shows that value style and gimmicks over substance, I'm going to guess that the director and the producers thought most people would think the half-naked horde stampeding across the plains would be "cooler" and went with what they thought would sell better.

To put it another way I file it under the same category as getting flipped clean over by a bullet from a hand gun, Starfleet not having any inkling of what a Marine is, and mooks dying of wounds that barely slow down main characters.

The thing is it wouldn't have to have been completely accurate to get the impact across. Even just having a normal color scheme, and some dudes in armor would have done the trick, showing that the story was a propaganda device. Instead we're left with a world that looks just the same as the propaganda.

[HamHam]

That was...illuminating. I'll give it points for succintness and focus, but the lack of any argument detracts significantly from its overall impact.

It would be unreasonable to expect that much subtlety from a Hollywood film.

[Drakyn]

So you're suggesting that the whole "the movie tends towards the IMPOSSIBLE because it's a propagandistic morale-raiser!" thing is more of an after-the-thought excuse than an intended effect that was shown incredibly poorly?

[zeratul]

As to the questions about the armor and the phalanx and why there was no distinct different shown between the story and reality, the reason is much more simple than you guys are making it out to be: they were like that because that's how they are in the comics. Aside from the side story with Lionidas' wife, the movie movie is very faithful to the comic book. Ask Frank Miller if you want to know why it was done this way, not Hollywood.

[warty goblin]

As to the questions about the armor and the phalanx and why there was no distinct different shown between the story and reality, the reason is much more simple than you guys are making it out to be: they were like that because that's how they are in the comics. Aside from the side story with Lionidas' wife, the movie movie is very faithful to the comic book. Ask Frank Miller if you want to know why it was done this way, not Hollywood.

OK, so now I can blame Miller for bad taste, and Snyder for not having the creative guts to do anything about it.

[zeratul]

OK, so now I can blame Miller for bad taste, and Snyder for not having the creative guts to do anything about it.

I don't consider it any more in bad taste than any other sensless violence style work of literature. Both the comic and the movie are just supposed to be fun mindless bloodshed factories. As Snyder said in an interview

"You know, when I see that, when I see someone use words like "neocon," "homophobic," "homoerotic" or "racist" in their review, I kind of just think they don't get the movie and don't understand. It's a graphic novel movie about a bunch of guys that are stomping the snot out of each other. As soon as you start to frame it like that, it becomes clear that you've missed the point entirely. "

[Closet_Skeleton]

The caucasus was actually in Persia at the time, so the Persians would have had more "caucasians" in their army.

Really, Greeks are more caucasian than "nordic" people, but the term is pretty much pointless and meaningless.

[TheSummoner]

I think what it boils down to is people overanalysing things.

Name a famous author... do you really think he/she is (or would be if they're dead) happy that their life's work is being picked apart by high school students?

Same thing but to a lesser scale.

[DraPrime]

In regards to the lack of armor, Frank Miller did it to show that the Spartans were so brave that they fought without armor. At one point in the comic, Delios tells a story about how the Athenians fought back some Persians. He brings up the fact that they wear armor, and makes it sound as if that makes them inferior to the Spartans, who are apparently too courageous and awesome for armor. At least, that's how the Spartans view it.

[Quirinus_Obsidian]

300 is a popcorn movie. Read me out.

Popcorn is satisfying when you just want something to snack on that tastes good and does not require a lot of work. It's fluff.

300 is like that because it is a visually stunning movie that does not require a lot of thinking. Actually, no thinking whatsoever. It's a hack and slash video game made into a movie. Yeah, I know it was born out of a "graphic novel", but still.

It was never made to be a serious explanation of the battle at Thermopyle (spelling...). It uses extreme hyperbole and epic storytelling in an attempt to thrill the viewer. You are not going to watch 300 for a serious documentary on the Spartans, or Greece for that matter. You watch it for a thrill; war, bloodshed, gore, and some gratuitous skin (thankfully some female variety added into it). Anyone trying to make it more than that is deluding themselves.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

I agree that arguments about troubling ideological content in the film are largely invalid, as the film is far from cerebral enough to have ideological content. It's really just a long, poorly choreographed fight scene with too much CGI.

[Mr. Versipellis]

I forgot to say that I knew it was woefully historically innacurate. That's not the point. I only really cared if it was entertaining.