300

[CockroachTeaParty]

I just got back from a screener for the upcoming movie, '300.'

:smalleek:

It was epic. Like Sin City before it, Frank Miller's work has been translated to the silver screen with great skill. It's not for the squeamish or faint of heart, but if you enjoy intense battles, this movie is worth the price of admission.

Kinda like God of War... Spartan mythology taken to absurd extremes, but never once did my suspension of disbelief impede my enjoyment.

Go see it! Or else suffer through 'Wild Hogs.'

Sheriff of Moddingham: Moderator's Note: I have merged three threads about the film into one, so expect some...oddness.

[Shadow of the Sun]

I would love too, but it is too mature for me. But that is why they invented BitTorrent!

[J_Muller]

I will definitely be seeing it when it comes out, if I can.

[Vespe Ratavo]

Woo! I'm gonna skewer my way to the front of the line!

[Sundog]

I've only ben waiting for this for the past year...(slaver, drool)...

[Tharj TreeSmiter]

The thing I hate about these movies is why distort the real history? What really happened is more interesting to me than an absurd recreation of it. Lots of people who watch this will think this is accurate.

Just from the preview soo much of this is wrong and silly. Spartans wore LOTS of armor, and didn't jump around matrix style in battle. Phalanx battles were all about slow diliberate progression, a wall of spear points that you couldn't get through.

Anyway I know I'm one of only a few people who care but there it is...

[Artega]

The inaccuracies are not what are being judged, but the movie on a whole. Anyway, after seeing the trailer months ago, and wiping the drool off the keyboard and floor, I can safely say, I really can't wait to see this movie.

[J_Muller]

Frank Miller doesn't write for accuracy, he writes for quality.

[Flabbicus]

The thing I hate about these movies is why distort the real history? What really happened is more interesting to me than an absurd recreation of it. Lots of people who watch this will think this is accurate.

Just from the preview soo much of this is wrong and silly. Spartans wore LOTS of armor, and didn't jump around matrix style in battle. Phalanx battles were all about slow diliberate progression, a wall of spear points that you couldn't get through.

Anyway I know I'm one of only a few people who care but there it is...

I pity anyone who thinks for even a second that it looks or is real. Its true he's taking a sensationalist or slightly skewed view on the Spartan soldiers, but several hours of tight formations with men speaking sparingly and living in mud huts is not exciting.


I'm going to see it eventually, maybe with a few friends.

[clarkvalentine]

The thing I hate about these movies is why distort the real history?


Because Frank Miller did not write a documentary, he wrote (edit: an adaptation of) mythology.

[Darth Anthony]

Frank Miller does take a great deal of liberty with the actual history, but IMHO that does not impair its entertainment value. If it were historically accurate, it would end up as a glorified (excuse th epun!) History Channel show.

[HealthKit]

Unless you are watching an actual documentary, one must regard any and every time piece movie to be inaccurate (the degree of which varies from film to film).
Just go to imdb.com and look up the trivia/goofs section and you're bound to find a plethora of examples.

Anyways, I'm very much looking forward to 300. I'll try to read the graphic novel before I do though.

[Alchemistmerlin]

The thing I hate about these movies is why distort the real history? What really happened is more interesting to me than an absurd recreation of it. Lots of people who watch this will think this is accurate.

Just from the preview soo much of this is wrong and silly. Spartans wore LOTS of armor, and didn't jump around matrix style in battle. Phalanx battles were all about slow diliberate progression, a wall of spear points that you couldn't get through.

Anyway I know I'm one of only a few people who care but there it is...
You want historical accuracy? Go watch the history channel.

You want entertainment? Watch 300.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Tharj Treesmiter, I'm with you here!

It's not the entertainment. It's the fact that 90% of people who see this movie will think it's historically accurate. Gladiator (the very beginning, where Romans fight with barbarians) - accurate combat without too many creative liberties purely for entertainment value (like putting in uber-warrior gladiators in the Roman legion). Kingdom of Heaven - not too bad. Even Alexander, for all its suckiness as a movie was pretty accurate as to how those kinds of armies fought.

But hoplites jumping around like Jet Li.. that's just plain wrong. I'll have to see the movie to find out just how good/bad it really is, but from what I saw it doesn't look too good.

[Shadow of the Sun]

They should put a disclaimer on it: This movie is not historically accurate in any way whatsoever

[Tor the Fallen]

Oh come on you guys, like what Herodotos wrote was historically accurate.

But did any of you think NIN was an incredibly good choice for the trailer music? I've been wishing for a movie about thermopylae for almost 4 years now, and they've finally made one.

The film is going to be so incredibly exciting.
(It looks like that one guy took leap attack ;) )

[Closet_Skeleton]

They should put a disclaimer on it: This movie is not historically accurate in any way whatsoever

But is it any better than Herodotus?

[Shadow of the Sun]

Probably, and far more entertaining.

[Matthew]

Okay, so I took a look at the trailers for this. It looks visually impressive, which is what I would expect. Historically authentic? It doesn't look like it's even vaguely interested, which is none too surprising considering the source.
There is, of course, a difference between historically authentic and historically accurate; a historically accurate film about Thermopylae would be virtually impossible. A historically authentic film of Thermopylae would be slightly more achievable.
This, however, is clearly a comic book adaption. I would have liked a more authentic looking film, but I will judge it on its own merits; it looks like it will be better than Alexander and Troy (for all their attempts at authenticity), that's for sure.

[jkdjr25]

Personally I'm really looking forward to this one. While I may not know a whole lot about history, even I can tell that this is one author's adaptation of events. Its all about entertainment, not telling the actual history.

[Saithis Bladewing]

Kingdom of Heaven - not too bad.

The uber-accurate trebuchets of doom weren't too bad?

[Sewer_Bandito]

I'd love to see it, but I probably won't get to unless I tell my parents I'm seeing some other movie and go see 300 instead :smallfrown:

[Spartan_Samuel]

If it was an accurate portrayal of that event it would be A DOCUMENTARY. This is a MOVIE. Fictitious. Made for PURE enjoyment. Yes, the fact that watching hundreds of men die by the hands of fellow man is disgusting and retarded yet enjoyment is sickening, but hey, the point of the movie regardless of content is enjoyment. If you can't enjoy it because it doesn't contain historical accuracy that it's not even meant to hold, then just don't see it.

[Don Julio Anejo]

The uber-accurate trebuchets of doom weren't too bad?

Considering they spent something like a few weeks zeroing them in, yeah, not too bad.

[Om]

If it was an accurate portrayal of that event it would be A DOCUMENTARY. This is a MOVIE. Fictitious. Made for PURE enjoyment.Then there should be no trouble in labeling it as such. Hollywood has never been shy about seizing history and reshaping it for its own profit. At best this is misleading and at worst it is simple propaganda. Wholesale and systematic revisionism of history is not something that can be simply written away by saying "don't go see it".

That said I don't think that this is the case here. From the trailer it appears that this film will only pay lip service to history - did I see demons or monsters? - rather than claiming to be in any way historically accurate. Think of it as a drama set in a pseudo-historical setting.

I did have to laugh at the obligatory attempt to paint the Spartans as the "good guys" though. I doubt that these "freedom loving" Spartan heroes will be freeing their slaves at any point in the movie.

Edit: With regards Kingdom of Heaven, let's not forget that the character of Sybille of Jerusalem was completely rewritten in order to serve as Orlando "Pretty Boy" Bloom's love interest.

[Logos7]

It looks like they should have put the disclaimer,

If your History/Classics Major/Buff then please pull the stick out of your arse before viewing.

It's being labled , 300 as in Frank Miller's 300, not as in a recreation of the battle of thermoplates or however its spelt.

Me and My Wife ( Both of us have more than a healthy respect for classics) are pumped for this. Seen a new longer trailer last night, it Reeks of Win

Logos

[Sundog]

I did have to laugh at the obligatory attempt to paint the Spartans as the "good guys" though. I doubt that these "freedom loving" Spartan heroes will be freeing their slaves at any point in the movie.


Now, here I have a problem, because this was one of the very few instances where one side or another really was the good guys.

And in this case, the Spartans were it.

No, the Spartans weren't the nicest, most enlightened people in the universe - that was probably their great rivals, the Athenians (who also held slaves and who had their own Imperialist ideas, thank you). They weren't the people you invited to the local garden party.

But one thing is clear: Hellenic Civilization fed Roman Civilization. Roman Civilization fed Medieval European Civilization, and that, in turn, created modern, Technic Civilization.

And way back when, a dictator was poised to crush the Hellenes and all they stood for. And for one shining moment, that dictator was held back, by a tiny force of Greeks, led by a King of Sparta and his bodyguard, stopped Xerxes and the largest army ever constructed to that time, dead, for three days, giving the city-states time to assemble their armies and navies. And in so doing, the 300 saved our entire civilization. The seized the chalice of civlization, and wreathed it in honour and glory.

That is the greatest story of military courage of the ancient world. And it is true.

[Om]

Now, here I have a problem, because this was one of the very few instances where one side or another really was the good guys.

And in this case, the Spartans were it.Really. You can applaud what the Spartans did, personally I doubt that history was changed that day, but making them out to be Hollywood "good guys" is ridiculous. This was a militaristic, puritan, slave owning society with a penchant for eugenics. I found it extremely ironic to see a Spartan declare that this was the beginning of a new "free" age.

Obviously definitions of "free" greatly differ with time :smallannoyed:

[Matthew]

I dunno, that Spartan kicks some (diplomat?) dude down a well whilst yelling "This is Sparta", I don't know how good guy they are being portrayed. Still, should be interesting to see what happens.
If they are portrayed as good guys, it will probably be no different than the way Gladiator seemed to present the character Maximus as some kind of free holding farmer unwillingly pressed into service, until you realise the guy owns a rather nice Villa complete with Servants, Slaves and Horses back in Spain (Hell, I would want to get back there too).

[zeratul]

The thing I hate about these movies is why distort the real history? What really happened is more interesting to me than an absurd recreation of it. Lots of people who watch this will think this is accurate.

Just from the preview soo much of this is wrong and silly. Spartans wore LOTS of armor, and didn't jump around matrix style in battle. Phalanx battles were all about slow diliberate progression, a wall of spear points that you couldn't get through.

Anyway I know I'm one of only a few people who care but there it is...

this isnt based on history, this is based on a frank miller comic book. Its not supposed to be a whole lot like the real battle.

Then there should be no trouble in labeling it as such. Hollywood has never been shy about seizing history and reshaping it for its own profit. At best this is misleading and at worst it is simple propaganda. Wholesale and systematic revisionism of history is not something that can be simply written away by saying "don't go see it".

That said I don't think that this is the case here. From the trailer it appears that this film will only pay lip service to history - did I see demons or monsters? - rather than claiming to be in any way historically accurate. Think of it as a drama set in a pseudo-historical setting.

I did have to laugh at the obligatory attempt to paint the Spartans as the "good guys" though. I doubt that these "freedom loving" Spartan heroes will be freeing their slaves at any point in the movie.

Edit: With regards Kingdom of Heaven, let's not forget that the character of Sybille of Jerusalem was completely rewritten in order to serve as Orlando "Pretty Boy" Bloom's love interest.

Kingdom, of heaven wasnt supposed to be entirely real either! I love history but you guys need to pull the sticks out of your collective buts an LET PEOPLE MAKE THEIR OWN INTERPRITATIONS.


Tharj Treesmiter, I'm with you here!
It's not the entertainment. It's the fact that 90% of people who see this movie will think it's historically accurate.

then they are idiots, its based of a comic book, not the real battle.

[Reinforcements]

Yeah, uh, I've only seen a few trailers, but aren't there monsters and stuff in the movie? How could anyone think it's historically accurate?

Anyway, here's to hoping it's as good as Sin City but without the misogyny.

[Matthew]

Kingdom, of heaven wasnt supposed to be entirely real either! I love history but you guys need to pull the sticks out of your collective buts an LET PEOPLE MAKE THEIR OWN INTERPRITATIONS.

Actually, that was what was said whenever the accusation was levelled. However, I saw at least one interview with Ridley-Scott when he was in more comfortable surroundings where what he was saying would make one think quite the opposite.
On the other hand, it was nowhere near as bad as King Arthur, which pretty much outright claimed to be the 'true' representation of events. Authenticity and accuracy are two separate things, but they are both easily confused with truth.
Regardless of whether people are being over righteous or not, films based on actual historical events are bound to draw this kind of criticism. It's no big deal and it's perfectly appropriate. It's possible to enjoy this movie (if it warrants it) and be critical of its historical authenticity or accuracy, especially if you happen to feel a more authentic or accurate representation would have made for a better film (I personally have no such feeling, having not seen it yet or read the comic book on which it is based).

[Edit] Those don't appear to be monsters, just disfigured humans. Some people will inevitably think this film has sme truth to it, since it is based on a well known historical event.

[Sundog]

Really. You can applaud what the Spartans did, personally I doubt that history was changed that day, but making them out to be Hollywood "good guys" is ridiculous. This was a militaristic, puritan, slave owning society with a penchant for eugenics. I found it extremely ironic to see a Spartan declare that this was the beginning of a new "free" age.


Dude, if you think anyone ever is or was a "Hollywood Hero", you're a dumbass, and I don't think you are.
But the fact is, there are sometimes one side that is obviously better than the other, and this is one of them. The first Persian Empire was a huge, pre-feudal pure empire. The Greeks were a collection of feuding, snappish city-states that were slowly, painfully trying to find a better way to go about things. Simply, one side was better than the other.
Oh, and your description of the Spartans fits equally as well for the United States and most European countries in the 19th century.


Obviously definitions of "free" greatly differ with time :smallannoyed:

Yes, they did. When Greeks of that period spoke of freedom, it was the freedom for each city-state to make it's own decisions. Ideas of personal freedom came a little later.

[sktarq]

You want historical accuracy? Go watch the history channel.

You want entertainment? Watch 300.

Actually I find the historically acurate MORE entertaining...thankyouverymuch

Quite frankly seeing the trailer put me off massivly and was close to making me a disturbance in the theatre. :smallmad:

What gets me is that this was one of those events where a little fill in the blanks would have worked fine...Real life was dramatic enough. Heck they got good and high-probability-of-accuracy movies out of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Ceasar's Rise, and even the death of Princess Diana for cripes sake. :smallconfused:

[Reinforcements]

Actually I find the historically acurate MORE entertaining...thankyouverymuch

Quite frankly seeing the trailer put me off massivly and was close to making me a disturbance in the theatre. :smallmad:

What gets me is that this was one of those events where a little fill in the blanks would have worked fine...Real life was dramatic enough. Heck they got good and high-probability-of-accuracy movies out of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Ceasar's Rise, and even the death of Princess Diana for cripes sake. :smallconfused:
Yes, but that's not the point of "300". It's a movie based on a Frank Miller comic book loosely based on an event that occured thousands of years ago. It's FANTASY.

[Tharj TreeSmiter]

I didn't know it was based on a comic till now, but I still wish the movie would be more faithfull to reality. Yes I understand and agree that movies need to take some license to keep things entertaining... but Gladiator is a good example, I could go on for days about the historical innacuracies of gladiator... BUT it got most of the big points right and a lot of people probably learned quite a bit about ancient Rome from that movie.

So 300 could do the same thing, get the big points right and I can forgive the little stuff. If your gonna ignore the major components of reality then why not add a dragon and make Xerxes the ghostrider.

I just don't understand why you would start with a historical event if you're just making up fantasy, why not make everything up?!?

[Umbral_Arcanist]

I just think of it as the way the spartans would have told it: compeltely over the top. Think about it, 300 against 10(0?),000 and, for three days, the 300 were winning? i think they deserve quite a bit of hyperbole. Plus elaborating on spartan "culture" would be boring for 90% of america

[Tor the Fallen]

Personally, I think if the ancient Greeks had a chance to make a multimillion dollar picture with state of the art Hollywood special effects about Thermopylae (or rather the legend of 300), we would have got something pretty close to this.

After all, historians now conclude that many more than 300 stood and fought far less than a million. But by Greek accounts, it was 300 vs. a million.

So the movie's true to the feel of the history, not the actual history. If that makes sense.

[Matthew]

Which Greek account? Herodotus?

[Don Julio Anejo]

Right now historians concluded that originally it was several thousand Greeks against 100,000-150,000 Persians. 250,000 Persians is the maximum number logistics-wise, the land couldn't physically support any more than that (there wouldn't be enough water).

It was 300 Spartans and 700 Thespians (from Thesipia, a small town near Thebes) after Leonidas sent away the other Greek soldiers after they found out they were surrounded.

[clarkvalentine]

It was 300 Spartans and 700 Thespians ...



"Watch the flank! Send the reserve right! Alert the.... Hey, what in the name of Olympus is he doing?!!!"

"He's... he's delivering a soliloquy, sir."

"... ... Well, he's a Thespian, what do we expect? Let 'im finish, then send him to the right flank."

[Beleriphon]

I dunno, that Spartan kicks some (diplomat?) dude down a well whilst yelling "This is Sparta", I don't know how good guy they are being portrayed.

That would be the Persian ambassador. He shows up in Sparta and demands a tribute of land and water. So they toss him and his retinue down a well. He gets both at the bottom of a rather long drop.

I suppose its only fair to point that the Spartans are still the heroes in the story. As in the classical definition of hero, not the Superman definition. From a practical perspective the Spartans are at least as heroic as Achilles, Hercules or Jason, none of whom were exactly nice people.

[Closet_Skeleton]

I just think of it as the way the spartans would have told it: compeltely over the top. Think about it, 300 against 10(0?),000 and, for three days, the 300 were winning? i think they deserve quite a bit of hyperbole. Plus elaborating on spartan "culture" would be boring for 90% of america

The 300 weren't winning. They were doing quite well and had at least 1500 non-spartans for most of the battle (and 5000 odd who gave up before hand). According to Herodotus only 2 Spartans survive because one was sent as a messanger and the other was violently ill.

Herodotus lists the Persians as having 5 million but that's unlikely.

[clarkvalentine]

I just don't understand why you would start with a historical event if you're just making up fantasy, why not make everything up?!?

I don't know, why did Homer write the Iliad the way he did rather than keep it historical?

Because it's myth. Exaggerating the accomplishments and embellishing the truth of ancient heroes has been part of human literary tradition for thousands of years.

[Om]

Dude, if you think anyone ever is or was a "Hollywood Hero", you're a dumbass, and I don't think you are.Hollywood heroes clearly exist in one place alone - Hollywood movies. Its a stock character... one that the Spartans fit into like a square block into a circular hole.

In this case I find it humorous that the Spartans are being twisted and remoulded to fit into this stereotype. As a result "freedom", I think the actual quote was "free men", becomes their driving motivation.


But the fact is, there are sometimes one side that is obviously better than the other, and this is one of them. The first Persian Empire was a huge, pre-feudal pure empire. The Greeks were a collection of feuding, snappish city-states that were slowly, painfully trying to find a better way to go about things. Simply, one side was better than the other.I fail to see the difference. The Greeks were on no "divine mission" or other drive towards "Western civilisation". This was a war between a huge collection of feuding, snappish petty chiefdoms with a nominal king and a collection of feuding, snappish city-states with no overall king.

The Greeks are typically the heroes of history for the simple reason that they wrote it.


Oh, and your description of the Spartans fits equally as well for the United States and most European countries in the 19th century.Let me know when Hollywood makes a film about the heroic exploits of William J Simmons.


Yes, they did. When Greeks of that period spoke of freedom, it was the freedom for each city-state to make it's own decisions. Ideas of personal freedom came a little later.Which do you think the scriptwriters had in mind when they were penning this film?

[Beleriphon]

Which do you think the scriptwriters had in mind when they were penning this film?

Whichever one Frank Miller had in mind when writing his graphic novel I would assume. Given that Frank Miller's interviews on the subject indicate that he was at some level trying to keep the feeling of the period correct, in that the Spartan weren't nice people, I'm leaning towards freedom in the sense that they get to have slaves, but not be slaves to the Persians.

[ampcptlogic]

"Watch the flank! Send the reserve right! Alert the.... Hey, what in the name of Olympus is he doing?!!!"
"He's... he's delivering a soliloquy, sir."
"... ... Well, he's a Thespian, what do we expect? Let 'im finish, then send him to the right flank."

QFT! I think I could sig this.

[Fireball.Man.Guy.]

Oh, mygod. That movie look AMAZAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *drool* If you expiriance flooding that would be me.

[Tharj TreeSmiter]

I don't know, why did Homer write the Iliad the way he did rather than keep it historical?

Because it's myth. Exaggerating the accomplishments and embellishing the truth of ancient heroes has been part of human literary tradition for thousands of years.


That's true, a good point. In Homers defence though he didn't actually see the battle he wrote it all from second hand sources.

[Matthew]

Homer (if he existed at all) didn't use much in the way of sources (at least not written ones). He used a form of oral heroic composition that relied on repetition and the slight alteration of stock phrases. When the Illiad and the Odyssey were composed there was no other form of history in Greek culture.

[Renegade Paladin]

Graphic novel adaptation or not, I have just one question: Since when did the Persians have friggin' orcs?

[Wizzrobe]

Apperantly they can do ninja jumps, too.

I only want to see it to watch the Persians kill the foul hellenic peoples, but judging from evidence of the usual trappings (e.g. actors with irritatingly breathy voices playing the protagonists and unnesecary sex scenes), the battle will leave you wondering how the Persians won anyway.

[sktarq]

or Rhinos to Ride? or Nubian ambassadors?

[Lord of the Helms]

Oh, and your description of the Spartans fits equally as well for the United States and most European countries in the 19th century.


I bet there is some movie or another glorifying the Reactionary/Monarchist side in the Napoleonic Wars who went on to restore the same backwards feudalist system that led to the French Revolution in the first place as "Freedom Fighters". And if there isn't, Hollywood WILL make it.

[Mr Wizard]

http://www.pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF209-Now_Showing.jpg#199

:smallbiggrin:

The actual events were far more dramatic than this rubbish. Heck, I don't even mind the rhino's and ogre and the other UBERKEWL fantasy crap that Miller added, but at least portray the Persian Army as disciplined and give Spartans fricken armor.

Also, nothing in the world is black and white, except hollywood scripts.:smallsigh:
(And the DnD alignment system for some really crappy DM's :smallwink:)

[sktarq]

I bet there is some movie or another glorifying the Reactionary/Monarchist side in the Napoleonic Wars who went on to restore the same backwards feudalist system that led to the French Revolution in the first place as "Freedom Fighters". And if there isn't, Hollywood WILL make it.

Well since the Revelution wasn't nessesarily all that popular outside many of the cities-allot of it came out of the cities and the aristocracy in the country was generally able to raise the locals to try to protect them-especially in Western part of the country, there was the whole Ropspierre aspect, they did settle for an Emperor because the revelution led to so much infernal bickering, infighting, and chaos, they may even have a point. For many outside the cities life got allot worse after the Revolt and they said so....so they wanted a system under which life had been better-may be long term stupid but since when are humans aimed at the long term....
as for Hollywood they follow good stories-which is why I have take issue with the movie at hand....They started with a good story-and then they have to jazz it up, and not just jazz it up but take it over the top into the stratosphere where contact with the ground was only ever theoretical.

[Beleriphon]

as for Hollywood they follow good stories-which is why I have take issue with the movie at hand....They started with a good story-and then they have to jazz it up, and not just jazz it up but take it over the top into the stratosphere where contact with the ground was only ever theoretical.


COMIC BOOK! Frank Miller writes and draws comic books, the movie is based on a Frank Miller comic book. What do you want?

[Tao]

I just don't understand why you would start with a historical event if you're just making up fantasy, why not make everything up?!?

My first post on these forums and it's for rebuttal. Heh, that's the way to do it, isn't it?

In any case, historical events are often remolded into fiction for hundreds upon hundreds of reasons. First, and perhaps most importantly, suspension of disbelief can often be assisted by having some root in real events, however faint that root is. While I will be one of the first to admit that the link is, in this case, almost intangible, it is often easier for the reader/ viewer to make a connection with a battle that they know took place in some form or another on Earth than it is for them to suspend disbelief in say, Middle Earth.

Secondly, fiction and history are intrinsically bound together. I would put forth the idea that you would be hard pressed to read through a fantasy novel and not be able to draw parallels between the events of the book and classical history. It's because, quite simply, we couldn't think of this stuff on our own. It is in our collective consciousness and, through some process of strange transmutation, turns into fiction. How do you think the original mythologies came about?

This is more or less what 300 is all about. Mr Miller has used the story of the Spartans as a base state and from there has built upon it to create what most people would interpret as a more entertaining story. Not everyone, as this thread shows, but most. This is an adaptation of a comic, a comic that was never meant to try and be a documentary, but instead a different sort of mythology, take that as you will.

Oh and lastly, I feel sorry for anyone who takes this movie as an account of history. Truly, truly sorry.

[Shadow of the Sun]

Judging on that first post, you shall soon be held in high esteem on these forums. I welcome you, may you have a good time on these forums. Or else! *shakes fist*

[thorgrim29]

Of course it wont be accurate, Leonidas was 60 some and Dienekes was 45 at the real battle, not 40 and 30 for starters, and then the Eprsians have deamons... and the spartans run around naked (wich they actually did, but not at a battle), oh and they weren't really 300, more like 3000 with all the auxilliarys and allies, tough most allies bugged out after the first day. And as for spartans being good guys.... I dont know

[Deleran]

Oh and lastly, I feel sorry for anyone who takes this movie as an account of history. Truly, truly sorry.

I would certainly hope nobody takes this movie to be accurate history, considering the Persians seem to fielding a number of monsters and giants, including at least one that has blades instead of hands. To say that movie seems fantastic would be an understatement.

[HealthKit]

I have yet to hear the words "Based on a true story" uttered during the commercials or movie trailers. :smallannoyed:

[Beleriphon]

I have yet to hear the words "Based on a true story" uttered during the commercials or movie trailers. :smallannoyed:

No, but they have used "Based on a graphic novel by Frank Miller".

[Healos]

I can't wait!! /drools, being a "Greek geek", I'm hoping it going to be as epic and fulfilling as Lord of The Rings turned out. Yes there going to portray the Spartens as the good guys and the Persians the bad guys, and it looks like there also making it kinda mythologyish. I just hope I can see it.

[Rainspattered]

The thing I hate about these movies is why distort the real history? What really happened is more interesting to me than an absurd recreation of it. Lots of people who watch this will think this is accurate.

Just from the preview soo much of this is wrong and silly. Spartans wore LOTS of armor, and didn't jump around matrix style in battle. Phalanx battles were all about slow diliberate progression, a wall of spear points that you couldn't get through.

Anyway I know I'm one of only a few people who care but there it is...

It is based in Spartan mythology.
That is like saying a movie about Odin and Loki isn't hystorically accurate. Or that the stories of Troy aren't accurate because "There was no one in real true for sure fact history who was immortal everywhere except his heel."
No **** there wasn't.

[Nevrmore]

No, but they have used "Based on a graphic novel by Frank Miller".
Which was loosely based on a true story.

[Healos]

Which was loosely based on a true story.

Precisely!

[Matthew]

It is based in Spartan mythology.

Really? I thought the Graphic Novel was inspired by Herodotus. Which account of Thermopylae do you have in mind?

[Om]

Really? I thought the Graphic Novel was inspired by Herodotus. Which account of Thermopylae do you have in mind?
Greek history and mythology intersect quite easily. Technically Herodotus' account is history but it really should be treated more as a work of fiction. Certainly the Oracle aspect reads more like a legend than anything else.

[Mattaeu]

...i am bursting with joys. My friend scored pre-screen tickets for monday. :smallbiggrin:

[Closet_Skeleton]

Greek history and mythology intersect quite easily. Technically Herodotus' account is history but it really should be treated more as a work of fiction. Certainly the Oracle aspect reads more like a legend than anything else.

Herodotus has a lot of mythology elements but Oracles are historic. Thucydedes ignores all mythological elements but even he mentions people consulting Oracles even if he doesn't claim they had any effect. Oracles were a major part of Classical Greek civilisation. Herodotus uses a lot of folk tales in his digressions but the main story, including Oracles, is history.

Herodotus is oral history. It's full of dramatic devices but is incredibly useful as a source on the Classical period.

[Matthew]

Greek history and mythology intersect quite easily. Technically Herodotus' account is history but it really should be treated more as a work of fiction. Certainly the Oracle aspect reads more like a legend than anything else.

Yes, this is true, and also true of most pre modern history, as few works are entirely devoid of mythological elements. However, the poster was claiming a specifically Spartan mythology, which is a somewhat different animal.
Herodotus, of course, has the dual epitaph, the 'father of history' and the 'father of lies'.

[Mr._Blinky]

See, while I can admit that this looks badass, I still have to agree that I'd have liked it to be a little more accurate. Yes, I know the jazz-up might make it better for those out for the guts and glory, or slow-thinking people much like most of our American population, who will think it is even somewhat accurate, but I just think it would have actually been more awesome if it showed the real story. Which is cooler:
1. Well, those 300 guys took on a million by themselves. That's awesome. Of course, half of that never happened, but whatever, it was still awesome.
2. Holy crap, they're outnumbered more than 250 to one, and they still managed to hold out for three days and kill like ten times their own number (no idea if that's actually how many they killed, probably not). And they actually did that. HOLY CRAP.

Personally, I think that knowledge that it was an accurate amount of completely badass fighting skillz would be way cooler than, "huh, that was cool. It would have been awesome if they'd actually done that."

[Nevrmore]

2. Holy crap, they're outnumbered more than 250 to one, and they still managed to hold out for three days and kill like ten times their own number (no idea if that's actually how many they killed, probably not). And they actually did that. HOLY CRAP.

They managed to kill 300,000, then ran out of ammunition and got overpowered.

[Mr._Blinky]

They managed to kill 300,000, then ran out of ammunition and got overpowered.
Assuming that is an accurate figure, as in not trumped up by the Spartans, holy crap. This is exactly what I mean when I say sometimes the truth is cooler than fiction, because the truth you can look at it and actually be impressed. I find it hard to be impressed by fiction, but history, when it is accurate, has some real jaw-droppers.

Though I'd have to say that from actual historical estimates of the true size of their opponents, 300,000 seems a bit unlikely. But considering their training, and that they had a huge terrain advantage, killing many times their own numbers is still an accurate fact, though the scale of their victory may be off.

[Shadow of the Sun]

Yeah. I also think that the movie is neglecting to include the reinforcements they got from the other provinces of Greece. Doesn't mean the movie is going to full out rock.

[Nevrmore]

Assuming that is an accurate figure, as in not trumped up by the Spartans, holy crap. This is exactly what I mean when I say sometimes the truth is cooler than fiction, because the truth you can look at it and actually be impressed. I find it hard to be impressed by fiction, but history, when it is accurate, has some real jaw-droppers.

Though I'd have to say that from actual historical estimates of the true size of their opponents, 300,000 seems a bit unlikely. But considering their training, and that they had a huge terrain advantage, killing many times their own numbers is still an accurate fact, though the scale of their victory may be off.

Looking at the wikipedia article of the Battle of Thermopylae, it estimates the casualties on the Persian side to be over 120,000.

Still very impressive.

[Mr._Blinky]

Looking at the wikipedia article of the Battle of Thermopylae, it estimates the casualties on the Persian side to be over 120,000.

Still very impressive.
As I said, I find that figure far more impressive than any that might be used in the movie, since it is actually based on fact.

[Tor the Fallen]

Save your breath until after next Friday.
This film is going to be mind numbingly awesome.

The reviews out there are extremely hyperbolic. Bestest is one I hear that gets tossed around a lot.

Gods, this movie shall be so epic, my teeth will hurt.

[storybookknight]

Not that Wikipedia is an accurate source on much besides pop culture... but I'm looking forward with anticipation.

[Nevrmore]

Not that Wikipedia is an accurate source on much besides pop culture... but I'm looking forward with anticipation.
There seems to be a good amount of research in the article.

[That Lanky Bugger]

I've always loved the battle of Thermopylae. I'm looking forward to this, even though Frank Miller downplayed the bravery of the Thespians greatly.

[Warpfire]

Hmm, sometimes it pays to think less.

[Closet_Skeleton]

They managed to kill 300,000, then ran out of ammunition and got overpowered.

Ammunition? They had swords and spears! Only the Persians had bows.

[Manave_E_Sulanul]

Well, if one runs out of spears...

[Nevrmore]

Ammunition? They had swords and spears! Only the Persians had bows.
Le sigh.

Spears count as ammunition, Skeleton.

[Beleriphon]

I'm always impressed by the tenacity of people that refuse to lose. Take Vimy Ridge in the world war. A Canadian regiement too the ridge with as many troops as the French lost.

Also, I think I finally figured out who the odd dancing woman in the diaphanous dress is supposed to be. Its the Oracle of Delphi.

[Om]

Looking at the wikipedia article of the Battle of Thermopylae, it estimates the casualties on the Persian side to be over 120,000.Modern estimates range from this to 250k. Of course numbers for the Greeks can also be considered suspect.

[MechaKingGhidra]

I've never been a history buff unless it was mythology. And even then, only if it had draconic and/or serpentine monsters in it. But as far as the actual history of the world goes for different civilizations, I think I will thoroughly enjoy "300" because I know little, if not any aspects of what it should really be like. As the saying goes, "Ignorance is bliss".

[That Lanky Bugger]

I'm always impressed by the tenacity of people that refuse to lose. Take Vimy Ridge in the world war. A Canadian regiement too the ridge with as many troops as the French lost.

That's because we're Canadian. And back then we actually had decent equipment. :smallbiggrin:

My favorite exchange ever is related to Vimy, and I'm sure you've heard it.

Random Person to a French Soldier: Did you hear? Vimy Ridge has fallen!
French Soldier: What? That is impossible!
RP: Really! The Canadians took Vimy!
FS: Oh, the Canadians? Then it is possible.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Le sigh.

Spears count as ammunition, Skeleton.

When they never throw them and just steal one of their enemies when one breaks?

[That Lanky Bugger]

When they never throw them and just steal one of their enemies when one breaks?

A lot of greek tactics involved the throwing of spears as well. Bows were relatively more difficult to make and master, while a spear was a well-known, familiar object to most career soldiers of the day.

[Mattaeu]

woot woot, just got back from pre-screen:

pretty awesome, though the slow motion epic-cam got a little tiresome at non-violent scenes.

The dialogue was rough at some points, feeling like the slow buildup it was to the huge tagline phrases: Dine in Hell, et al.

Beyond that, a reasonable adaptation of the graphic novel, but I didn't study the thing for frame-to-frame comparisons; though, the whole Sparta council plotline felt like a small, and failed, attempt to get political.

oh, and obligatory sex scene. meh.

[Lord of the Helms]

They managed to kill 300,000, then ran out of ammunition and got overpowered.

Actually, they lost because the Persians, thanks to the treason of a Greek local, found a path that allowed them to assault the Spartans from another side, flanking them and denying them the tactical advantage they had previously held by defending a narrow mountain path from inferior soldiers attacking from a lower position.

[Timespike]

I just got back from 300. Very disappointing. :smallfrown:

Too much deviation from the original graphic novel. Too much melodrama, bad acting, way too much slo-mo, pointless added scenes, important ones omitted, and a Greek king with an audible Scottish brogue. The movie was a huge pile of ham and cheese. Blecch. One star.

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

ok, i'm not a comic book or graphic novel to begin with. Originally I wasn't interested in seeing this movie at all. But a week or so ago, I decided that I might go see it after all. That is of course until I read some reviews and found out that it was just one giant gore fest.

[Knight13]

Everyone I talk to on other forums who have seen it say that this is a great, must-see movie.

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

Everyone I talk to on other forums who have seen it say that this is a great, must-see movie.

from what I hear, if you like mindless violence and gore. If I really wanted that, I'd watch the evening news. I don't enjoy going to see movies that have violence for the sake of being violent. Which is why I've all but stopped going to see modern horror movies.

[BR4life]

I just saw 300 today and I loved it. Its excellent, and doesn't just have violence for the sake of violence.

[Nevrmore]

It a damn war movie, what did you expect? That everyone would bleed rainbows? Of course there's going to be gore.

I will agree that the slow-mo was almost universally unnecessary. Did we really need to slow down Queen Gorgo walking to the courtyard and cupping water in her hands? It was well done when they slowed down the action mid-battle so you could make out all the carnage that was going on, though.

[Lucky]

See, your problem is you came into it expecting all of that, if you just sat back and enjoyed the action for what it is, it would be much more enjoyable. I don't normally see movies just for violence, but every now and then I treat myself to some mindless blood and gore, and as far as mindless blood and gore movies go, this tops the all-time list easily.

I just saw 300 today and I loved it. Its excellent, and doesn't just have violence for the sake of violence.Oh hell yeah it has violence for the sake of violence. That's what makes it so damned cool!

[Nevrmore]

See, your problem is you came into it expecting all of that, if you just sat back and enjoyed the action for what it is, it would be much more enjoyable. I don't normally see movies just for violence, but every now and then I treat myself to some mindless blood and gore, and as far as mindless blood and gore movies go, this tops the all-time list easily.
Oh hell yeah it has violence for the sake of violence. That's what makes it so damned cool!
I really don't understand why you all think this movie is so violent. Maybe I'm just desensitized, but I doubt that if I sat down and thought it over that this would even make it on my "Top 10 goriest movies I've seen" list.

I mean, sure, the first couple of times Leonidas impales some unlucky Persian on his spear, it's a little shocking. After that, it becomes expectant of him. The most violent things I saw in the movie were decapitations, which outshined the other scenes of death by a lot.

Incidentally, I love how they have that giant, horrid, pig-esque creature with the swords for hands for just one scene to cut off that guy's head, and they don't explain what the hell it is or anything more about it for the entire movie

[Lucky]

I have to agree, that's the first thing that came to mind when the movie ended. "What the heck happened to weird sword-hands guy?"
I never said it contained the most blood and gore of movies I've seen, I said it was the best of those types of movies.

[ElfLad]

300 is my new favorite movie, if only because I was able to prod the people who went with me into an argument about who would win between Batman and the 300.

"OK, so Batman doesn't normally kill people, but what if the Scarecrow gassed him with PCP and then he fought the 300?"

It was the best conversation ever.

[Deepblue706]

I have one question to ask about this movie (to determine if it's worth seeing): what kind of music did it have in the background?

[Kevka Palazzo]

If heavy metal could be orchestrated, that would be a good portion of it. The other part was what you'd expect from a war movie in Greece.

[Warpfire]

I just got back from seeing it, and I thought it was awesome. Yes, there were a couple cheesey scenes/lines, but overall I thought it was good. The fact that I have not read the graphic novel may have something to do with this.

I agree with Nevrmore on the violence part. I think the gore was greatly exaggerated (meaning that the movie wasn't as bloody as the paper/random people said).

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

yes, I do realize that having a war film without blood is not possible. But at the same time, you can get that point across without going over the top. There is a point at which the violence becomes completely unrealistic, and is then gratuitious violence. Now if I hear more about it differently from what I've heard, I may go see it. But I did go and see a fairly decent movie tonight in Zodiac. It's a little slow for a time, but there's that nagging suspense/tension throughout the movie which is why I liked it.

[BlueWizard]

Okay. I think it was a great movie. The men were great actors, and I thought it portrayed the graphic novel as well as it could.

Do you know what Thermoplyae is? Cause it was based on a real event!

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

Thermoplyae is just the area where the battle took place.

[BlueWizard]

I just wanted to start a thread for those people who understood or liked the movie. Yes, it is gory but what do you expect from a war moive with spears and swords as the weapons, about men who stood against so many.

And aren't you all D&D fans. There is more violence in an average game of D&D, then in this 2+ hour of movie.

I loved it. The men were well cast, and Leonides played a great Greek King. The real Leonides would have loved this movie.

[BlueWizard]

No kidding.

I doubt you have read about a guy named Herodotus.

[Ivius]

Greek explorer who sailed up the Nile, but was never able to find it's source because of the cataracts.

Meh. It was a bit of mindless fun, but it was shoved in your face that they had a 9-digit budget.

[Shadowdweller]

Just saw this movie earlier today, and it was indeed cringe-worthy. Wasn't ALL bad...David Wenham manages an excellent over-the-top portrayal of an old, crusty soldier recounting war tales as the narrator...if not necessarily an old, crusty GREEK soldier. The script was awful. But most offensive in my opinion was that all of those silly little melodramatic tricks used in attempt to stir feeling in the hearts of the adolescent audience were very blatantly ripped off from other action movies, particularly Braveheart.

Oh, and before any more of our various board dyslexics made idiots of themselves: It's Thermopylae.

[Nightmarenny]

Just saw this movie earlier today, and it was indeed cringe-worthy. Wasn't ALL bad...David Wenham manages an excellent over-the-top portrayal of an old, crusty soldier recounting war tales as the narrator...if not necessarily an old, crusty GREEK soldier. The script was awful. But most offensive in my opinion was that all of those silly little melodramatic tricks used in attempt to stir feeling in the hearts of the adolescent audience were very blatantly ripped off from other action movies, particularly Braveheart.

Oh, and before any more of our various board dyslexics made idiots of themselves: It's Thermopylae.
I think I can actualy smell the pretention:smallamused:

[Shadowdweller]

I think I can actualy smell the pretention:smallamused:
Hey, if pretention be the price of precision, so be it: Put up or shut up :smallbiggrin:

[ambu]

Well I am Greek so Thermopylae are a part of our history here. I know that usually it is a stupid argument, especially regarding a movie based on comics, but I really dislike the thought of Thermopylae becoming a videogame-like story about muscled men. If that was the premise in Miller's comic, I dislike that too!
Thermopylae's charm is the humanity of it all. That Leonidas did what he did to clear Sparti's name due to its indifference on the ongoing war. That he had 700 Thespieis with him, that rarely get mentioned. The message he sent back home. And that they were men, not superheroes. Just like Queen sing :"Just a man, with a man's courage..."

Anyway, my 2 euros!

[Druid]

I'm probably going to see it tomorow. Hope it's good.

[Turcano]

Do you know what Thermoplyae is? Cause it was based on a real event!

So was Alexander, and that didn't keep that movie from being a flaming sack of crap.


No kidding.

I doubt you have read about a guy named Herodotus.

He was the guy who killed all the babies in Bethlehem, right? :smalltongue:

[MolotovH]

Wow. Just... wow.

First of all, this is a movie from Frank Miller. FRANK... MILLER. The same Frank Miller who brought you Sin City. How did you not expect to see disturbing graphic violence?

My biggest peeve about The 300 has been mentioned, that all the Spartans seem to have Scottish brogues. But when I thought about that on a societal level, it made sense, because Americans and Brits (the target audience for a movie like this) tend to associate the Scots with a great tradition as fighters; as mentioned before, there were several Braveheart-like moments. So really, I think that made sense in the long run.

As for gore... I'd like to point out that there was far less than there could have been. At least three heads were severed, and not a gout of blood was seen. Where there were spurts of blood, it was very much a "splash" effect, more like paint on canvas than actual gore.

And ambu, while the movie very definitely honors the men of Sparta, as an American, I must apologize to you for one thing: It's next to impossible to miss the obvious parallels that the movie draws between Leonidas and President Bush.

Sorry, I'm not trying to discuss politics here, but really, this movie has "allegory" written all over it. The leader who takes his men to war to stop the enemy before they arrive in his own streets? The allied party that initially wants to fight but eventually turns against the war effort? The council that cries out that the leader is a criminal who has started an unnecessary war? Although it was interesting to see a needless political agenda that wasn't left-wing for once, I really could have done with less politics and more historical fantasy.

Overall, though? A kick-@ss action movie, with some amazingly cool CGI effects and awesome choreographed fight scenes.

[Matthew]

Heh. We always read contemporary things into stories. It is worth noting, though, that those events are fairly normal story tropes.

[slapdash]

This movie was awesome. I liked the part where the guys killed the other guys. Way sweet.

[Warpfire]

I liked it too. Great soundtrack. Need to see if I can get my hands on it...

And really, it wasn't all that gory.

My favorite violent moments from the movie have to be the decapitations. Even though they didn't involve a shower of blood.

[Rahdjan]

Saw it last night, going to see it again today. It's that good.

[Flabbicus]

I'm seeing it tonight (hopefully). Should be entertaining. My friend did say there was some unexpected boobage though. I think it was around three times.

[Nevrmore]

And ambu, while the movie very definitely honors the men of Sparta, as an American, I must apologize to you for one thing: It's next to impossible to miss the obvious parallels that the movie draws between Leonidas and President Bush.

Sorry, I'm not trying to discuss politics here, but really, this movie has "allegory" written all over it. The leader who takes his men to war to stop the enemy before they arrive in his own streets? The allied party that initially wants to fight but eventually turns against the war effort? The council that cries out that the leader is a criminal who has started an unnecessary war? Although it was interesting to see a needless political agenda that wasn't left-wing for once, I really could have done with less politics and more historical fantasy.
From Wikipedia:

The filmmakers assert that any parallels to the Iraq War have not been intended. The studio and filmmakers had discussed the sensitive issue about the film's "contemporary resonance" of the East versus West conflict.

Snyder reports that after advance screenings, he was taken aside by reporters at a screening for the international press, and asked about political implications by one reporter who insisted that Xerxes had to be symbolizing George W. Bush, only to have a second reporter suggest that Leonidas represented Bush. At a later showing at the Berlinale, Snyder says he was asked "Don’t you think it’s interesting that your movie was funded at this point?" Snyder recalled being asked in Berlin. "The implication was that funding came from the U.S. government."

[Artanis]

yes, I do realize that having a war film without blood is not possible. But at the same time, you can get that point across without going over the top. There is a point at which the violence becomes completely unrealistic, and is then gratuitious violence. Now if I hear more about it differently from what I've heard, I may go see it. But I did go and see a fairly decent movie tonight in Zodiac. It's a little slow for a time, but there's that nagging suspense/tension throughout the movie which is why I liked it.
"Unrealistic"? Wow, now I HAVE to see it! Because the real-life Thermopylae had one of the most lopsided casualty rates of any battle anywhere ever, and the prospect of a movie managing to top that to the point of being unrealistic has piqued my interest :smallcool:

[Rahdjan]

not all that unexpected if you think about it. It's a movie geared towards the Meat and Potato demigraphic who also think history is better told on the big screen with a huge CG budget.

[Mr._Blinky]

Okay. I think it was a great movie. The men were great actors, and I thought it portrayed the graphic novel as well as it could.

Do you know what Thermoplyae is? Cause it was based on a real event!
"Based" being used in the broadest possible meaning. The historical inaccuracies in this movie abound, and while that isn't neccessarily something that'll make it a bad movie, but they are enough to trash any argument of "this is amazing because it really happened."

[Kresalak]

not all that unexpected if you think about it. It's a movie geared towards the Meat and Potato demigraphic who also think history is better told on the big screen with a huge CG budget.
THIS IS MADNESS!

[ishi]

Saw it yesterday, and absolutely loved it. I really didn't think it was that gory. Violent? Yes, but if you didn't expect that, you obviously weren't paying attention before you went in. Gory? Not especially.


THIS IS MADNESS!

MADNESS? :smallfurious:

[BoneLord]

NO!! THIS! IS! SPARTA!!!:furious:

[geek_2049]

For Sparta!

I do not want to spark a political debate but there were certainly political themes aimed at the viewer. The last movie to do something like it in such blatant manner that I saw was V For Vendetta. Funny that they were both based on comic books.

Violent but it is a war movie and if you are familiar with history then you know the outcome. Gory but believably gory.

[Nevrmore]

For Sparta!

I do not want to spark a political debate but there were certainly political themes aimed at the viewer. The last movie to do something like it in such blatant manner that I saw was V For Vendetta. Funny that they were both based on comic books.
Once again, from Wikipedia:

The filmmakers assert that any parallels to the Iraq War have not been intended. The studio and filmmakers had discussed the sensitive issue about the film's "contemporary resonance" of the East versus West conflict.

Snyder reports that after advance screenings, he was taken aside by reporters at a screening for the international press, and asked about political implications by one reporter who insisted that Xerxes had to be symbolizing George W. Bush, only to have a second reporter suggest that Leonidas represented Bush. At a later showing at the Berlinale, Snyder says he was asked "Don’t you think it’s interesting that your movie was funded at this point?" Snyder recalled being asked in Berlin. "The implication was that funding came from the U.S. government."

[AmoDman]

*As opposed to the standard blaze of glory cry...

THIS is where we fight! THIS is where THEY DIE!!! RARAAAAAAAAAARARARTRARARRARARARARARARARARRARARARAR ARARARAR!


*Carnage*

Go Sparta.


p.s.

F*ck the Goa'Uld.

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

OK, I just got done watching a 2 hour show in the History Channel about the battle at Thermoplyae. First of all, it wasn't 300 Spartan't and 700 Athenians, it's was 300 Spartans and 7,000 Athenians. The other incorrect fact that I seem to be seeing is that the forces of the Persians is vastly underrated. The show said there were roughly 300,000 Persians (including the naval forces). Even though the Greek forces were outnumbered, they had vastly superior weapons, shield and armor, and for two days, just slaughtered the Persians when they tried to attack the phalanx. In the end, the Persian's found a pss that led them behind the Greeks, and King Leonidas stayed behind with his 300 Spartans and roughy 1,000 Athenians to buy time for the rest of the force to escape. Apparently, the naval side of things was in the end probably a more pivotal fight than the one in the pass. But anywho, I'm sure the History Channel will re-air the program. I personally really liked it. Oh, one more thing. Apparently the line about the arrows blocking out the sun and fighting in the shade is historically correct.

[MolotovH]

Snyder reports that after advance screenings, he was taken aside by reporters at a screening for the international press, and asked about political implications by one reporter who insisted that Xerxes had to be symbolizing George W. Bush, only to have a second reporter suggest that Leonidas represented Bush.While I can see the first reporter's point, it is based on only one shred of evidence: Xerxes' "join us or die" attitude, which was also behind the claim of the Sidious-Bush parallel in Revenge of the Sith. That reporter (and the Star Wars people, too) may as well have decided the Borg Queen in First Contact represented George Bush, though. The evidence for such a claim is not only present, but identical.

Leonidas, on the other hand, is criminalized by his own government for "starting" a war, personally refers to his nation as "the last hope of freedom" (or something to that affect), and both he and his queen repeatedly insist that his actions have been taken to "protect our freedoms" and "ensure liberty," and so forth. Gorgo even gives about speech about how the enemy must be fought in foreign lands so that the battle won't be fought in their own streets! I half-wondered if the writer wasn't just looking up old White House speeches and using his copy-and-paste tool.

And sorry, Michael, but no... those are not "fairly normal story tropes." A "fairly normal story trope" would be "the leader who carries on after everyone else has fled." Or maybe, "the usurper who tries to sieze control while true king is away at war." Or "the warrior who fights to avenge his relative's death." These elements blend seamlessly into the story, and you'll see no gripes from me about their use.

The things I'm talking about? Not so much. I defy you to name three other stories that include "a leader who goes to war on the claim that he is protecting his nation, but is called a criminal for starting a war by his own advisors." If the film-makers say that the parallels "have not been intended," I can only laugh at them, because they were grossly obvious to anyone who reads a newspaper.

Now then, if I may switch topics... Kelly Craig, the Oracle Girl? Hotness. Unfortunately, the only role she's ever had before was a stunt double on Coyote Ugly. So here's hoping this is her break-through role. :smallwink:

[Nevrmore]

While I can see the first reporters point, it is based on only one shred of evidence: Xerxes' "join us or die" attitude, which was also behind the claim of the Sidious-Bush parallel in Revenge of the Sith. That reporter (and the Star Wars people, too) may as well have decided the Borg Queen in First Contact represented George Bush, though. The evidence for such a claim is not only present, but identical.

Leonidas, on the other hand, is criminalized by his own government for "starting" a war, personally refers to his nation as "the last hope of freedom" (or something to that affect), and both he and his queen repeatedly insist that his actions have been taken to "protect our freedoms" and "ensure liberty," and so forth. Gorgo even gives about speech about how the enemy must be fought in foreign lands so that the battle won't be fought in their own streets! I half-wondered if the writer wasn't just looking up old White House speeches and using his copy-and-paste tool.
I'll agree that it is possible and not difficult to draw such parallels if you'll agree that they were unintentional.

Even though historically King Leonidas was backed by the Ephors and the Oracle (Whose prediction was, in fact, that either the king will die or that Greece will be destroyed), Leonidas' call to arms was still controversial because he was breaking the laws that there should not be battle during Carneia.

[MolotovH]

See, I would love to do that, except that it was laid on way too thick to be unintentional.

I mean, I was really trying not to see it. This was a big-budget Hollywood movie. And Hollywood just doesn't make pro-Bush movies, right? So the first couple of things I brushed off as coincidence. I chose to smile at the irony of it and let it pass.

But by the end of Gorgo's speech? No. The only way that this culmination of parallels was unintentional was if the writer was completely oblivious to American politics. There's just too much there for it to be an accident.

I will agree to disagree, though, if you agree that Kelly Craig is "teh hawtness." :smallamused:

[Nevrmore]

See, I would love to do that, except that it was laid on way too thick to be unintentional.

I mean, I was really trying not to see it. This was a big-budget Hollywood movie. And Hollywood just doesn't make pro-Bush movies, right? So the first couple of things I brushed off as coincidence. I chose to smile at the irony of it and let it pass.

But by the end of Gorgo's speech? No. The only way that this culmination of parallels was unintentional was if the writer was completely oblivious to American politics. There's just too much there for it to be an accident.
The filmmakers assert that any parallels to the Iraq War have not been intended.

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

not all that unexpected if you think about it. It's a movie geared towards the Meat and Potato demigraphic who also think history is better told on the big screen with a huge CG budget.

No, this movie's demographic would be males 18-35 or there abouts who like graphic novels, and utterly excessive amounts of violence. Now I've not seen the movie yet, but the whole bare chested no helmet thing is completely and utterly rediculous. The Greeks had helmets and armor. If anyone actually went into battle like that back then, they'd be dead in a matter of minutes.


Saw it last night, going to see it again today. It's that good.

No movie is worth paying almost $10 to see again.

[clarkvalentine]

I liked it a lot. It was utterly unrealistic, but I didn't go into it looking for realism. I went into it looking for some great visuals and testosterone-laden action, and it fit the bill nicely. It was eye candy, pure and simple.

My status as a D&D geek got more confirmation when during the movie I couldn't help but think "Boy, the DM sure didn't read up on the challenge rating rules here. The PCs are barely getting scratched..."

The other game-related observation I made was "The Persians are playing D&D, while the Spartans are playing Exalted. No wonder they're losing." :smallwink:


No movie is worth paying almost $10 to see again.


Depends who's forking over the $10, doesn't it? :smallwink:

[Artanis]

No movie is worth paying almost $10 to see again.
One word:

Serenity

[Allandaros]

One word:

Serenity

Truth!

Somehow I doubt that 300 is as good, though.

If you think it's the greatest thing since Technicolor, more power to ya. As for me, I'll stick with Sin City.

[phoenixineohp]

I went in knowing that I am rather sensitive to war gore sometimes (Alexander didn't go well for me) but looking forward to the visual candy. Well we had horrible seats which killed some of the candy but I ended up just flat out enjoying it. It really is based on the graphic novel, and the style is really strong. I'd change a few things in my version, but overall it was a good movie to see in theaters. Just try to avoid the very first row, very first seat on the left. Makes everyone on the right half of the screen look disfigured, their eyes are on a vertical plane, not the horizontal one. >.<

[Fade]

I think I'm the first one to say I was dissapointed by the movie overall...

The fighting was fairly good, but a lot of the more dramatic scenes lost their meaning because of the narration... or lack thereof. Really, though, if you're looking for a flat out action movie, there's better. A lot of the non-combat scenes are really tedious, and most of them really have nothing to do with the movie.

It was probably because I was expecting more though...

[Fade]

This movie was awesome. I liked the part where the guys killed the other guys. Way sweet.

Yeah, that part's just great!

Sadly, for me, 300 didn't do much. The action scenes were above your normal action scene, and the overall style fit, but there really wasn't enough fighting for it to be a good action movie for the action, and there wasn't good enough
acting for it to be a good movie overall.

I hesitate from giving only one star, but I wouldn't give it more than a 2.5

[Vaniel]

The movie was "Meh". It had great special effects, too much muscle though. I heard a lot of them were computerized (may be a rumor though).

In the end, I was highly disappointed.

"Hey look at me! We are 300 body-building Spartians! Your sheer numbers are nothing against our enormous pecs! PH34R!!111"

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Moderator's Note: I have merged three threads about the film into one, so expect some...oddness above.

P.S. Real world political discussions are against the forum rules. This thread is trending that way, please don't continue that trend. Thank you.

[Payne]

The leader who takes his men to war to stop the enemy before they arrive in his own streets? The allied party that initially wants to fight but eventually turns against the war effort? The council that cries out that the leader is a criminal who has started an unnecessary war? Although it was interesting to see a needless political agenda that wasn't left-wing for once, I really could have done with less politics and more historical fantasy.

Funny, seeing as the Iraqi's are the few defending motherland against those they see as the invading upstart with the overwhelming forces, I'd say the reverse is much more accurate. :smalltongue:

Still, the movie was interesting.
Speeches were a bit lame, more history and politics would have been great IMHO. But then again I did study history.

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

One word:

Serenity

In my estimation, there's not been a movie in at least the last 10 years that been worth paying to see twice. Now maybe something like one of the Indy movies or Silence of the Lambs, not nothing that recent.

[maelstrom58]

A lot of greek tactics involved the throwing of spears as well. Bows were relatively more difficult to make and master, while a spear was a well-known, familiar object to most career soldiers of the day.

Are you thinking of javelins? Because the doru or sarissa were about 7and 20 feet long, respectively. Those would be rather difficult to throw, especially with a bronze shield on your other arm.

Anyway, 300 was a good film, but obviously the thing isn't meant to be taken literally. I happen to be a history buff, but I don't instantly disparage a film merely because its action is stylized.

[Amotis]

Just saw it today. Decent war movie, I suppose. Things would of been a lot better if they actually had a climax and some actual connection to the characters.

I felt nothing when the captain's son died. Nothing. Meh...okay...

I seriously was like "what...it's the battle already? I don't even know who these people are." Actors were kinda lame too...the speeches (I mean come on...battle speeches are suppose to rock, not be mediocre...) made me wince and most occasions of "drama" made me roll my eyes. But it's a war movie so I guess I can excuse that. It's just it would of made an even better war movie if there was an actual connection to the characters and actually fleshed them out.

Moments that just had horrid direction:
the king and queen sex scene. sex scenes are suppose to reveal character, draw connections, etc. that was dry and much too long and showed nothing but her boobies. *flash*...okay...*flash*...okay still at it...*flash*...still going...*flash* this popcorn kinda sucks....*flash* oohh fade to black, I hope it's done no- oh wait...no still going *flash* okay...wtf does this mean? *flash* seriously this should of faded to black a while ago. *flash*

Queen speaking to the voters. Sure she stabbed him, that was ****ing awesome, but her speech was horrendous.

The kid randomly coming up to the king when the find the burnt city. What? I felt nothing. No connection. No meaning. It was a random kid, said something lame, and died or something. No climax, nothing foreboding. It didn't even show the immortals as evil or a threat or anything. Just...okay...it's a kid.

The wolf and young king scene. Also...no build up so the resolution meant absolutely nothing.

Awesome moments :


Slow mo fighting. Aw hells yeah.

When the king was first talking to the messenger in the start of the film, then he pulls the sword on the guy and the kings guards burst into action, drawing swords and pulling them on the messenger's bowmen. And the queen standing there, normal as all hell, with a tiny smirk. Heh, she's cool (plus she had a cool line just before it)

The teamwork fighting aspect of it. How they all snap when the kid comes, the angle of their spears, the tandam fighting/blocking in battle. That was cool.

[Piedmon_Sama]

So, I saw it tonight with my friend. I didn't get as into it as I might have because my friend can't bear to shut up no matter what we might watch, and I inevitably get drawn into bantering with him.

"You realise the second group of Immortals aren't really Immortals, right? All the real Immortals are dead. These are just guys they dressed up, it's like, "uhhh.... I'm Ted, from accounting? I don't think I should be--*HURK!*"

All good, though. The movie was exactly what I was expecting, an awesome spectacle. I want to make Leonidas's Shield an artifact in the next campaign I DM now...

[NecroPaladin]

I watched the movie on opening night, and was appalled with all of the "that didn't really happen" fascists in the audience. Because I'm sure you need to be an elitist snob to point out that Miller may be exaggerating a Spartan's ability to jump 100 feet in the air, then kill eight persians silmultaneously with one hand, while still in the air. I also happen to think that maybe the Persian army wasn't so big it was visible from space. Oh, and nor did they have giants with axes for hands. Is it really so smart and/or self-empowering to point those, erm, mild discrepancies out?

It's historical fiction, and it's pulp fiction. Fiction fiction fiction. Those people killed the mood of what could have been a piece of almost perfect surrealism.

Frankly, I loved it. Speaking as an animator (well, student animator), it was almost balletic.

EDIT:

It had great special effects, too much muscle though.
"Hey look at me! We are 300 body-building Spartians! Your sheer numbers are nothing against our enormous pecs! PH34R!!111"
Read Time magazine...the director admits that the muscle was partially so they could reach beyond the straight-male demographic. I mean, if the AFA is right and a movie will inexplicably turn me gay, it won't be Brokeback Mountain; it'll be this. Not to mention that the real Sparta had an actual culture of homosexuality and bisexuality, but since this was in no way a documentary, I don't want to talk about real history.

[Wizzardman]

Just saw it today. Decent war movie, I suppose. Things would of been a lot better if they actually had a climax and some actual connection to the characters.

I felt nothing when the captain's son died. Nothing. Meh...okay...

Same here. I don't think you're really supposed to feel anything--its not like he had much involvement in the story as a whole. I think that parts just something that Frank Miller picked up from whatever his source was, and added in to humanize the Spartans a bit more.



Moments that just had horrid direction:
the king and queen sex scene. sex scenes are suppose to reveal character, draw connections, etc. that was dry and much too long and showed nothing but her boobies. *flash*...okay...*flash*...okay still at it...*flash*...still going...*flash* this popcorn kinda sucks....*flash* oohh fade to black, I hope it's done no- oh wait...no still going *flash* okay...wtf does this mean? *flash* seriously this should of faded to black a while ago. *flash*



...You mean sex scenes are supposed to mean something? I thought they were just fan service!

...How do you reveal character in a sex scene?

...No, wait, forget I asked.

[Stagger Lee]

The people here have it exactly right. The Spartans hated freedom, and the Athenians. They wouldn't have fought for it at all. Also, if the people who made 300 have the budget for the high quality action scenes, they can give the turk warriors scimitars instead of longswords.

[Mythic]

I just saw it last night and it was sooooo awesome! Best movie EVER!

[Matthew]

The people here have it exactly right. The Spartans hated freedom, and the Athenians. They wouldn't have fought for it at all. Also, if the people who made 300 have the budget for the high quality action scenes, they can give the turk warriors scimitars instead of longswords.

Turk Warriors? There weren't any Turks in the Persian Army, were there? In any case, at this time, double edged single handed swords would be perfectly normal (as they would be at any time period, really).

[Nevrmore]

The people here have it exactly right. The Spartans hated freedom, and the Athenians. They wouldn't have fought for it at all. Also, if the people who made 300 have the budget for the high quality action scenes, they can give the turk warriors scimitars instead of longswords.
Yes, the Spartans wouldn't fight for freedom or Athens, no sirree.

Let's just ignore the fact that the is exactly what they did historically.

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

Yes I totally agree with Nevermore. All you have to do is pay attention to what actually happened historically to realize that what you said Stagger, is complete and utter BS. Not to mention the fact that, many historical experts say the battle at Thermopylae may have very well saved the system of democracy. Not to mention the fact that this was the point in history at which the greek city-states became a unified peoples.

[Stagger Lee]

If I can't make crap up, I'm going to have much less to say.

[Chunklets]

Oh, one more thing. Apparently the line about the arrows blocking out the sun and fighting in the shade is historically correct.

Historiographically correct, anyway (as, incidentally, is the line that I saw in one of the trailers that was something along the lines of "Tonight we dine in Hell."). The anecdote about the arrows turns up in Herodotus (I think) and was definitely repeated later by Cicero, and possibly others. It was used to illustrate the famously "laconic" (Sparta being located in the part of Greece known as "Laconia") nature of the Spartans.

The actual historical effects of the battle of Thermopylae are a little hard to determine, although the Greeks certainly appreciated the "heroic last stand" aspect of it, and probably got a considerable morale boost out of the entire thing. It is worth remembering that the Persians went on after Thermopylae to actually capture Athens before being finally defeated. In addition, any sense of unity that the battle gave to the Greek city-states did not last long - within 20 years of Thermopylae they were cheerfully fighting each other tooth and nail, and this eventually led to the cataclysmic Peloponnesian War and the end of the Classical Age of Greece, so-called.

[Dausuul]

Yes, the Spartans wouldn't fight for freedom or Athens, no sirree.

Let's just ignore the fact that the is exactly what they did historically.

They fought alongside Athens because it was that or be conquered--they needed the Athenian fleet. They certainly didn't do it because they liked the Athenians.

And fighting for freedom? Give me a break. Spartan society was extremely rigid and controlling. Freedom was not a big thing in Sparta, even for the citizens. And let me tell you, if I had a choice between being a subject of the Persian Empire and a helot (peasant) in Sparta, I'd pick the Persians in a heartbeat. At least there I wouldn't have to deal with a yearly ritual in which the Spartan warriors went out and butchered me and my friends as part of their friggin' training.

[13_CBS]

They fought alongside Athens because it was that or be conquered--they needed the Athenian fleet. They certainly didn't do it because they liked the Athenians.

And fighting for freedom? Give me a break. Spartan society was extremely rigid and controlling. Freedom was not a big thing in Sparta, even for the citizens. And let me tell you, if I had a choice between being a subject of the Persian Empire and a helot (peasant) in Sparta, I'd pick the Persians in a heartbeat. At least there I wouldn't have to deal with a yearly ritual in which the Spartan warriors went out and butchered me and my friends as part of their friggin' training.

I think they meant "Freedom" as in, "free to do whatever we like without having to answer to anyone else but your own king of the city state".

[Om]

I think they meant "Freedom" as in, "free to do whatever we like without having to answer to anyone else but your own king of the city state".Yep. Freedom for the slave owners.

[Nevrmore]

They fought alongside Athens because it was that or be conquered--they needed the Athenian fleet. They certainly didn't do it because they liked the Athenians.

And fighting for freedom? Give me a break. Spartan society was extremely rigid and controlling. Freedom was not a big thing in Sparta, even for the citizens. And let me tell you, if I had a choice between being a subject of the Persian Empire and a helot (peasant) in Sparta, I'd pick the Persians in a heartbeat. At least there I wouldn't have to deal with a yearly ritual in which the Spartan warriors went out and butchered me and my friends as part of their friggin' training.
I'm not talking out of my ass, here, Dausuul, they went to war to protect Athens and their own freedom. The reasons they did it or the hypocrisy behind it are completely irrelevent; Those were there motives and there is no denying that.

[rollfrenzy]

OK saw the movie. I laughed out loud at parts. The Slow motion was ridiculous. Ok you have a cool special effect, I saw Dave Chappelle too, Everything is cooler in slo-mo. But did we need to slow motion everything in the film? The queen drinking? Leonidas Climbing? Come on.

The Narrator was obnoxious. He narrated EVERYTHING. At one point he narrated dialogue right before it was said. They narratted action, thoughts, scenes. WTF? I can see the movie, I don't need you to describe it too.

There was NO charactrization. Did the spartans even have names?

The Battle tactics were cool for 5 minutes then they broke ranks and starting running around like idiots. (yeah I know two hours of phalanx fighting would be boring, but on top of everything else, I thought I'd mention it.)

OK, I know it was a comic book, but could Miller have drawn the Spartans with clothes. I'm no history buff, but I am pretty sure they had at least invented a toga by then, if not a shirt and pants. Also it really botherd my when they talked about thier armour While quite obviously not wearing any.

Also, could we fit any more cliche battle speech phrases in? please? I haven't heard these in every movie since Braveheart?

The ***** imagery at the end was unnessecary (as it was in Superman).

The Homo-erotiscism was not needed either. When xerxes came up behind Leonidas? There were bedroom eyes.

Any way that's my rant. I thought the movie could have been alright, It was close, which made the bad stuff worse.

[Holocron Coder]

Personally, I enjoyed the movie. Of course, not many people go to a movie for the express purpose of seeing the movie. Many go to compare a given movie to a book, or a historical event.

I believe someone mentioned suspension of belief.

All in all, I liked the movie, historical accuracy or not. A few part were embarassing, of course, but in the end I still think it was 8 kinds of awesome.

DnD notices in the movie:
"Improved Shield Bash with an automatic AoO while they're flatfooted!"
"Nonmagical vorpal weapons!"
"Full cover tower shields!"

I am amused.

[Matthew]

Tower Shields? For the Persians, I presume?

The lack of armour probably has to do with the Greek 'Heroic Nude' aesthetic, which you can see on a great deal of contemporary artwork.

[rollfrenzy]

Tower Shields? For the Persians, I presume?

The lack of armour probably has to do with the Greek 'Heroic Nude' aesthetic, which you can see on a great deal of contemporary artwork.

Or maybe it was just a ploy to add sexuality to a shallow film in order to gloss over the weaknesses.

[Matthew]

Maybe, but I wasn't referring to the film, rather to the Comic Book on which it is based - i.e. Why did Frank Miller choose not to portray armoured Greeks in his Comic Book?

It could also be that he just wanted to avoid the whole 'armour problem', since there are many divergent views on what would be 'authentic'.

[rollfrenzy]

Given the myriad of other gross innacuracies (which I don't mind as much I know it's fcition) I don't think Miller had history in mind. I think it's more of a "good visual" thing. not sure. I did read that the Director/producer played up the nakedness sommat in order to attract more females.

[Piedmon_Sama]

It had ****ING RHINOS AND ELEPHANTS. The only way that could have been more awesome is if the Rhinos fought the elephants! Why are people STILL whining about accuracy?

[Amotis]

And NINJAS!!

FACE-BOMB-NINJAS!!!

WITH TWO SWORDS!1!ONE!!!

[Piedmon_Sama]

YEA!1 Tehy wer leik fleing monkeez W/katanaz!1

Seriously though, I want to see the training they gave those Immortals. Where the **** else could they have learned to walk like that?

"Steve, your back is too straight! Do it like this!" *Shuffles forward with back bent and swords raised uselessly over the head*

[Amotis]

"Sir, there's a problem."

"What?"

"Well currently, without any sort of devices on our faces we can clearly see the battlefield without any hinderence..."

"Well...why don't we put pseudo asian masks on?"

"Wouldn't helmets be more effective?"

"No, that would be as ridiculous as actually fighting without covering our scarred and very intimidating faces that might acutally work as a battle tactic since our main strength is the unknown death shrouded mystery behind us."

"Oh, okay."

[Piedmon_Sama]

When I saw the movie with my friend, I think we almost got into a fight with the guy next to us because we wouldn't shut up.

"BLARGHAARGH, HAGGIS-HAGGIS, KILT! IGNORE MY SCOTTISH ACCENT, ARGHYBLARGH LADDIE!"

"Back to the NBA with you, Xerxes, your spears cannot penetrate MY ABS OF STEEL."

"This will not be over quickly. I promise you will not--oh, oh ****. Well, I guess I'm done for the night."

[Amotis]

"This will not be over quickly. I promise you will not--oh, oh ****. Well, I guess I'm done for the night."

HAhahaha....holy poo poo laughing too hard...

Gold.

[rollfrenzy]

"Did The over-narration bother anyone else?" 'Frenzy wrote as he pondered the retardedness of 300's use of narration

Did the Over-narration bother anyone else?

[Piedmon_Sama]

Touching pencil to mouth, The Lord of Piedmons frowned in dark thought.

"I dunno, I thought it was kind of funny," spake he, and a tempest lingered behind every word.

[rollfrenzy]

I literally Laughed out Loud in the theater. It could've been so good but was oh so bad.

[Piedmon_Sama]

How can it be bad if it made you laugh?

Seriously though, obviously the movie is lampoonable, but it's enjoyable on multiple levels. Those levels being "OMFG he just cut that dude's leg off SWEET!" and "roffles, I can't believe he just said that!" I more than got my money's worth.

[Amotis]

Plus the sex scene was like the karma sutra.

"Let's see how many positions we can fit in there!"

*flash* one...*flash*..two...*flash*...three...*flash* what? *flash* ...who let the midget in there?!? *flash* Oh...my...god...*flash*...okay..A clown? This is getting ridiculous...*flash* oh, that's just gross...*flash* *everyone's in full victorian era garb, sitting and sipping tea* *flash*

[rollfrenzy]

ROFL. True it did entertain me. That sex scene was great. Utter and complete lack of chemistry, it was almost like a training video.

I also really enjoyed the constant s...l...o...m...o...t...i...o...n. the whole movie was really like ten minutes long slo-mo'ed to last 2 hours.

although yeah, the action was cool, especially the realistic phalanx.

[Amotis]

Even though all that did was give something for them to burst out of dramatically.

[rollfrenzy]

True. I can see Leonidas's planning.

"ok men we'll start with a phalanx, the strongest possible defensive tactic. We'll put it in the pass here, the best strategic placement. After that we'll burst forth and run around individually, breaking ranks and leaving our position."

"Why would we do that our strength...."

"NO!! captain who has no name (literally credited as 'captain') We run around and jump and frolic individually so that the persians will be taken by surprise. They'll assume we are going to use strategy when every PC knows individual effort wins wars."

"uh..."

"ok let's do this"

[Amotis]

"Hands in, lets-all-be-heroes on three."

[okpokalypse]

The filmmakers assert that any parallels to the Iraq War have not been intended.

I would certainly hope so... Being the Graphic Novel upon which it was based had the bulk of it's story complete in 1997, and even the "300" Storyboards for the movie were already together in 2002. (He wanted to do "300" well before "Sin City." came to light.

As for historical inaccuracies:

"Director Zack Snyder says that fighting styles and formations (particularly the Spartan's phalanx) were purposefully changed - making them historically inaccurate - so they'd "look cool" and work better for movie purposes."

"The movie never claims to be historically correct. It is based somewhat loosely on Frank Miller's 1998 comic book mini-series. Changes from history were made by Miller and Snyder so as to appeal to a wider audience and create a more exciting and visually stunning action movie, rather than a typical historical epic."

If you want accuracy, it's rather difficult to find. Even to this day the size of the Persian army is in question.

[rollfrenzy]

LOL How do you add a quote to a sig, AMOT I want to siggy that.

[Amotis]

"Hands in, lets-all-be-heroes on three."

Lika thisa. Just copy and paste.

And I'm pretty sure we all know it's not made to be real, doesn't mean we can't mock it.

[rollfrenzy]

Thank you.

Yeah, I realize it's a comic book but it was really laughable at parts.

Like when Xerxes and Leonidas met, I really thought there was gonna be a "brokeback" moment.

[Reinforcements]

Saw it last night, in IMAX even. It was incredible. As a comic book adaptation it was spot-on, even including many frames from the comic, and the fighting choreography was some of the best I've ever seen. An awesome movie start to finish.

For weirdness, check out the guy who played Xerxes (http://imdb.com/name/nm0763928/). Bwuh?

[rollfrenzy]

Snip

For weirdness, check out the guy who played Xerxes (http://imdb.com/name/nm0763928/). Bwuh?

....but I ...thought.....xerxes.....black......uhh......

[Fade]

Just a little historical note...

Weren't there two kings of Sparta...?

And I didn't think there were any elephants at Thermopylae... Or that rhinos were there either...

[rollfrenzy]

Just a little historical note...

Weren't there two kings of Sparta...?

And I didn't think there were any elephants at Thermopylae... Or that rhinos were there either...
Fade, Historically there was nothing good at all about this movie. But that point has been beaten to death. It was a comic book. Plus there was so much more things to make fun of.

[Turcano]

If you want accuracy, it's rather difficult to find. Even to this day the size of the Persian army is in question.
Still, I think that you can do a liiittle better than portraying Xerxes as a body-piercing flamer. What was the point of that, anyway? "Xerxes is probably gay, as opposed to the Spar- oh, yeah. Right. Never mind."

[rollfrenzy]

"All you have to do is kneel......"

Bwahahahahah

[Vaynor]

Tonight, we dine in hell! (http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20070312)

[JonathanC]

....but I ...thought.....xerxes.....black......uhh......

You thought Xerxes was black? Huh? He kinda looked that way in the comic, but Xerxes was Persian. Born in Persia. He conquered Egypt, but he did not take to their ways, and in fact was known for having strictly imposed the Persian way of life on the Egyptians. He had a big bushy beard too.

I don't see this being such a big deal. The movie diverged slightly from something in the comic that wasn't accurate either, and he looks close enough to what the comic book Xerxes looked like.

[Lord of the Helms]

The Homo-erotiscism was not needed either. When xerxes came up behind Leonidas? There were bedroom eyes.



To be fair, homoeroticism among the spartans is at least historically accurate :smalltongue:

[phoenixineohp]

"But I don't want to fight in the shade!"
Yay for the reference in tonight's comic!

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

If you want accuracy, it's rather difficult to find. Even to this day the size of the Persian army is in question.

A few sources I came across (a History Channel special, and a few web sources) put the size at around 300,000.


To be fair, homoeroticism among the spartans is at least historically accurate :smalltongue:

Yes you are correct, except you forgot to mention that those relationship were almost always men/boys, not men/men.

[Caelestion]

Well, I don't see a problem with a Greek king having a Scottish accent. After all, that's what Sean Connery has done all his life in a million different roles. Then again, just watch Alexander or Troy to find ancient people with American accents that historically they wouldn't have had either.

[mooseofshadows]

Was anyone else dissapointed in this movie, save the historical aspects? Don't get me wrong, it was Ok, but it seemed like it was missing something. I never got attached to the characters enough to really care what they did (except the part where leonidas's wife stabbed the guy on the senate floor). I just felt like the movie was too much spectacle and not enough story.

[Syka]

Hehe, time to stick my two cents in.

First, it's a MOVIE based on a COMIC BOOK based on yet another MOVIE based on a TRUE EVENT. It goes something like: Battle of Thermopylae 480 BCE->The 300 1960ish->Frank Millers 300 Graphic Novel 1997->Frank Millers 300 Movie 2007. :) Very far removed from the original events.

Second, I'm a Classics Major (I know someone mentioned us taking the sticks out of our bums earlier...) and I loved this movie throughly. I saw it opening night and again tonight. Unlike other "historical" movies I have seen floating around it never makes a claim to historical accuracies. My problems with Troy stemmed from the fact that they were saying "Hey, this is based on the Illiad!" when...Yah, not at all. Not a bad movie, but I had trouble with that. This one I'm like "OK...They just wanted to have fun."

Visually, I thought it was a stunning movie. Having read the graphic novel (recently) I was impressed with how well they transfered it on to the big screen. I did enjoy Gorgo having a larger role, though. She just kicked butt toward the end...;)

I already know I'll be seeing it at least once (potentially twice) more in theaters (my friends are dragging me), and I'm planning on buying it. :D *nerd*

Oh yah...All those buff dudes didn't hurt, either. ;)

Cheers,
Syka

[Duraska]

Well, the Iranian government is already pissed off over the film.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17599641/



TEHRAN, Iran - The hit American movie “300” has angered Iranians who say the Greeks-vs-Persians action flick insults their ancient culture and provokes animosity against Iran.

“Hollywood declares war on Iranians,” blared a headline in Tuesday’s edition of the independent Ayende-No newspaper.

The movie, which raked in $70 million in its opening weekend, is based on a comic-book fantasy version of the battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C., in which a force of 300 Spartans held off a massive Persian army at a mountain pass in Greece for three days.

Even some American reviewers noted the political overtones of the West-against-Iran story line — and the way Persians are depicted as decadent, sexually flamboyant and evil in contrast to the noble Greeks.

In Iran, the movie hasn’t opened and probably never will, given the government’s restrictions on Western films, though one paper said bootleg DVDs were already available.

Still, it touched a sensitive nerve. Javad Shamghadri, cultural adviser to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said the United States tries to “humiliate” Iran in order to reverse historical reality and “compensate for its wrongdoings in order to provoke American soldiers and warmongers” against Iran.

The movie comes at a time of increased tensions between the United States and Iran over the Persian nation’s nuclear program and the Iraq war.
But aside from politics, the film was seen as an attack on Persian history, a source of pride for Iranians across the political spectrum, including critics of the current Islamic regime.

State-run television has run several commentaries the past two days calling the film insulting and has brought on Iranian film directors to point out its historical inaccuracies.

“The film depicts Iranians as demons, without culture, feeling or humanity, who think of nothing except attacking other nations and killing people,” Ayende-No said in its article Tuesday.

“It is a new effort to slander the Iranian people and civilization before world public opinion at a time of increasing American threats against Iran,” it said.
Iran’s biggest circulation newspaper, Hamshahri, said “300” is “serving the policy of the U.S. leadership” and predicted it will “prompt a wave of protest in the world. ... Iranians living in the U.S. and Europe will not be indifferent about this obvious insult.”


Where's a gigantic "roll eyes" emoticon when I need one!

[Piedmon_Sama]

Buncha whiners!

[Om]

Given the current political climate (I know, no discussion) I think its safe to say that a film that pitches the heroic civilising forces of the West against the innumerable faceless hordes of Persia in a battle for the future of the world was always going to cause some controversy.

[Sundog]

Jeeze, the Iranians are getting their history wrong! Xerxes was of the First Persian Empire, primarily based North of the Iranian Plateau. It was the Second Persian Empire (or more accurately, the Empire of Iran and Not-Iran) that was the historical predecessor of modern Iran.

I mean, if the US gets something Greek wrong, well, the US isn't Greece. But I expect more of the people who actually live in the region!

[Turcano]

Jeeze, the Iranians are getting their history wrong! Xerxes was of the First Persian Empire, primarily based North of the Iranian Plateau. It was the Second Persian Empire (or more accurately, the Empire of Iran and Not-Iran) that was the historical predecessor of modern Iran.

I mean, if the US gets something Greek wrong, well, the US isn't Greece. But I expect more of the people who actually live in the region!

Come on, now. Don't let "common sense" or "historical context" get in the way of a good spat of jingoistic outrage.

[Shadowdweller]

Jeeze, the Iranians are getting their history wrong! Xerxes was of the First Persian Empire, primarily based North of the Iranian Plateau. It was the Second Persian Empire (or more accurately, the Empire of Iran and Not-Iran) that was the historical predecessor of modern Iran.

Might want to check your facts, friend. Map of Persia at the time of Xerxes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Achaemenid_Empire.jpg

Capital of the Persian Empire during the time of Xerxes (Persepolis):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persepolis

[AmberVael]

Second, I'm a Classics Major (I know someone mentioned us taking the sticks out of our bums earlier...) and I loved this movie throughly.
Classics major here too. I have to agree, the movie was great.
Sure the persians weren't horribly deformed and didn't wear odd, japanese style armor.
Sure there weren't massive, bloated men with swords for arms in their army.
No, there weren't just three hundred spartans there, and it didn't all take place in a warehouse. :smalltongue:

But it was still a good movie. And, interestingly, while the style may have been off, the sheer volume of slaughter seemed to be correct. Those Greeks killed A LOT of people in the Persian army.
It wasn't meant to be accurate, and anyone who argues that it was might want to touch up on their knowledge. It WAS however, meant to be a fun movie. Which is was. Lots and lots of slow-motion and gory action made the movie fine by me.
...
I totally would have been one of the people watching the gladiators beat the crap out of each other if I had lived back then...


I did enjoy Gorgo having a larger role, though. She just kicked butt toward the end...;)

Oh, and yes. I love it when people in the movies actually CAN do something like that.
*STAB*
That was great.

[Nevrmore]

Sure the persians weren't horribly deformed and didn't wear odd, japanese style armor.
I'm guessing they made the Immortal's armor look the way it did just so it would be more eye-catching. From what I heard, the real Immortals had armor thatw as similar to that but wore blank masks that made their head look like eggs. Not very interesting to watch get slaughtered for an hour.

[AmberVael]

I'm guessing they made the Immortal's armor look the way it did just so it would be more eye-catching. From what I heard, the real Immortals had armor thatw as similar to that but wore blank masks that made their head look like eggs. Not very interesting to watch get slaughtered for an hour.
Oh it definitely caught my attention, and I thought it was actually pretty nifty armor. Not something that I would go "oo... awesome" over, but it was not a bad style at all.
And, after doing some research (aka, Google search :smalltongue:) I didn't find anything that looked like the stuff displayed in 300 being used for persian armor.

[zeratul]

I just saw the movie and it was awsome. I feel inclined to say once again that THIS IS BASED ON A COMIC BOOK, NOT HISTORY. IF YOU WANT HISTORYWATCH THE MOVIE THE 300 SPARTANS

[NecroPaladin]

Actually, that Japanese mask design stems from Korea, and some of the influence from that part of then-China did reach Persia. (BTW, you are quite right about the blank Immortal masks, historically) I'm not even going to go into the logistics of that it ISN'T INTENDED AS A REALISTIC RETELLING, and mention that leprosy was rampant in the Middle East, more so than the rest of the world, and lepers would wear masks much like those but a bit less eastern in design to hide their deformities. When an immortal in the movie got his mask knocked off, he looked like a leper (with fangs), which supports the theory. However, lepers didn't fight that well. Well, maybe one or two individuals could (a number of Arabic historical figures were afflicted), but it's just generally not a good idea to build your army out of people whose limbs are known for detaching. Oops, I was comparing this movie to history again, sorry. You know, while we're on the lepers, and annoyingly comparing the movie to history, the Spartan traitor's deformities should have had him in a coma at age 5. Point made short, it's all done to make the movie look better.

And actually, the basic non-immortal shock troops had semi-accurate armor, but that's because they didn't need to look cool as they died. Which was all they did.

I never thought I'd call a slo-mo chopping off of a leg "beautiful," but I did in the theater.

[zeratul]

, lepers didn't fight that well.

The bad-ass king in "Kingdom of Heaven" was a leper who could fight. (although realistically you probably are right)

[Syka]

Yah. Xerxes probably wasn't, like, 8 feet tall...but it makes it look better! :P (Note of interest: The actor that played Xerxes is 6'2, same height as Gerard Butler. They did a lot of editing for that part.)

[NecroPaladin]

Yah. Xerxes probably wasn't, like, 8 feet tall...but it makes it look better! :P (Note of interest: The actor that played Xerxes is 6'2, same height as Gerard Butler. They did a lot of editing for that part.)
My ONE (1) historical problem with the movie:

Big pierced-nipple guy, and all he ever says is to the effect of,

You will feel my divine power, my divine power will penetrate your ranks, you will kneel before me and let my power wash over you.

Weren't the Greeks historically the ones whose culture required homosexuality?

[AmberVael]

You mean pederasty?
It was fairly accepted, but it was by no means required. A philosopher or two protested about it.
But yes, that was part of Greek culture, though it was viewed in a very different light.

And like I said, my only evidence came from a google search. I don't know much about persians. ;)

Once again, I would like to stress that I DID like the movie. I was just agreeing that it wasn't accurate.

[Warpfire]

IF YOU WANT HISTORYWATCH THE MOVIE THE 300 SPARTANS

No, that's if you want to watch The Cold War played out in Greece between Spartans and Persians.

[Jack Squat]

No, that's if you want to watch The Cold War played out in Greece between Spartans and Persians.

he didn't say what history :smalltongue:

[Turcano]

However, lepers didn't fight that well.

"T'is but a scratch."
"A scratch? Your arm's off!"
"No it isn't."

[Nevrmore]

"T'is but a scratch."
"A scratch? Your arm's off!"
"No it isn't."
The lepers clearly have the advantage in this battle; The opposition might think that he cut the lepers arm off with his great sword, but in reality the leper just stopped holding it and let it fall off at that exact moment! Talk about a psych out!

[ElfLad]

Touching pencil to mouth, The Lord of Piedmons frowned in dark thought.

"I dunno, I thought it was kind of funny," spake he, and a tempest lingered behind every word.

"Your mother!" bellowed ElfLad, and in the silence that followed, one could almost hear an ethereal chorus of "Oh, snap!"

[Matthew]

Don't forget about the Order of Saint Lazarus, they were supposedly a fighting order of Leper Knights...

[zeratul]

Plus the sex scene was like the karma sutra.

"Let's see how many positions we can fit in there!"

*flash* one...*flash*..two...*flash*...three...*flash* what? *flash* ...who let the midget in there?!? *flash* Oh...my...god...*flash*...okay..A clown? This is getting ridiculous...*flash* oh, that's just gross...*flash* *everyone's in full victorian era garb, sitting and sipping tea* *flash*

amotis you so totally rock. ALL HAIL AMOTIS. I SAID HAIL DAMNIT!

good times good times

[NecroPaladin]

Um, if there was really that much sex that quickly, then it would be fairly rudimentary to put Xerxes in there huh?

Oh, that reminds me, the Xerxes' tent scene was not cool. I mean, it was hot at first, but man...collared bald girl with no arms = NOT SEXY. That image is gonna scar my mind. Ick.

Oh, and on the history thing, yes Pederasty was not technically required, but it was a socially expected tradition that ran down many generations, so in some cases it would be weird if you didn't...well I'm not gonna gloss over the facts here, if you didn't seduce twelve-year-old boys and then choose their wife, weapons, and various other life choices for them in a twisted father-figure role.

[AmberVael]

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up, and it was expected from what I know.

[NecroPaladin]

History-phile here <.<

You meant Pederasty, not the armless chick, right? I didn't expect the armless chick. (Oh my god that image is still melting into my brain. That and the morbidly obese swords-for-arms guy)

[AmberVael]

I meant pederasty, though your description of the armless chick sums it up pretty well too. :smallyuk:
Anyways, did anyone else think that the slow-motion may have been slightly (as in, quite a bit) overdone?

[NecroPaladin]

Not really. The combination slow/fast motion streamlined the timing of blows and other stunts. Thus it turned it into a sickening, if eerily beautiful dance of death.

I call it "Ballet de Bloodbath"

[Syka]

That bald collared armless chick? Yah, that was a dude. :) I believe credited as "Asian Transexual #x" I can't remember the number, but I know there were at least two transexuals theres. And yes, we sat through most of the credits because the theater was packed last friday.

[NecroPaladin]

Yah, that was a dude. :)

That...makes....it...WORSE!!!

[Sotextli]

Oh, and on the history thing, yes Pederasty was not technically required, but it was a socially expected tradition that ran down many generations, so in some cases it would be weird if you didn't...well I'm not gonna gloss over the facts here, if you didn't seduce twelve-year-old boys and then choose their wife, weapons, and various other life choices for them in a twisted father-figure role.

Actually, the Laws of Lykurgus (spelling?) forbade men in Sparta from participating in Pederasty, on pain of death. So, Spartans didn't do it, at least not legally.

EDIT: Error of misreading on my part, pederasty was forbidden if it was for the sake of the boy's body, and not his soul:

"Lycurgus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycurgus_%28Sparta%29) decreed that if someone, being himself an honest man, admired a boy's soul and tried to make of him an ideal friend without reproach and believed in the excellence of this kind of training. But if it was clear that the attraction lay in the boy's outward beauty, he banned the connection as an abomination.

[Syka]

The boys weren't legally allowed to steal when they were sent out, either, and they were punished harshly. But it was still expected. But, from what I understand, that was mostly in place so they would learn stealth and the like. u.u'

[AmberVael]

Actually, the Laws of Lykurgus (spelling?) forbade men in Sparta from participating in Pederasty, on pain of death. So, Spartans didn't do it, at least not legally.
That is true. Spartans were different in that regard, though Wikipedia would have you believe otherwise. *scowls at wiki*

^: oh, and yes. It was expected for you to steal and not get caught. If you WERE caught you would be punished.

[Sotextli]

Well, wiki does have the above passage that I posted in the edit.

Also, theft wasn't punishable by Death, and the Spartans were'nt being punished for stealing, so much as being punished for getting caught.

[AmberVael]

Ah, okay. So you did address the issue of pederasty as training.
Hmm. Reading it closer, Wikipedia says both. It kinda just goes back and forth in a wishy washy manner.

[NecroPaladin]

They also encouraged killing Helots, or slaves. However, that would get you whipped if you were caught, probably to death. I'm not sure what theft was punishable by, but in the Middle East (ie: Persia) it was the dismemberment of one hand. The point of the punishment is that you had to eat and, erm, "cleanse yourself" with one hand... yeesh.

[Artanis]

Having just gotten back from seeing 300, I can say that I loved the movie, and that it was exactly what I expected: a multi-hour bloodbath loosly based on Thermopylae :smallbiggrin:


Edit: Also, how the heck did anybody get a political commentary out of 300, especially one referencing Bush? I could not, no matter how hard I tried, find any sort of underlying meaning to 300 beyond "Look! Stabbing! Stabby stab stab! Whee!"

[ray53208]

saw it tonight. it was all right. maybe it was hyped up too much and i mightve come into it with some high expectations. it was pretty much par for the course in digital movie making: slow motion, washed out colors, wire stunts, cgi monsters, and boobies.

also, there was some complete idiot woman sitting directly behind me who kept talking throughout the movie. this moron actually warned the characters on-screen to "look out" when danger came their way. i swear, people, if you talk at movies (or literally AT movies) you should be sterilized for the good of all mankind. how could natural selection have failed humanity so very much? top it off with her phone ringing in the middle of the movie. shes going to the special hell.

[Wizzardman]

saw it tonight. it was all right. maybe it was hyped up too much and i mightve come into it with some high expectations. it was pretty much par for the course in digital movie making: slow motion, washed out colors, wire stunts, cgi monsters, and boobies.

also, there was some complete idiot woman sitting directly behind me who kept talking throughout the movie. this moron actually warned the characters on-screen to "look out" when danger came their way. i swear, people, if you talk at movies (or literally AT movies) you should be sterilized for the good of all mankind. how could natural selection have failed humanity so very much? top it off with her phone ringing in the middle of the movie. shes going to the special hell.
Talking AT movies is okay; talking at THE MOVIES is not okay.

I mean, come on, there are times when plot movies are so obvious that some people [myself included] just get this urge to scream at the characters "watch out, you idiot!" or "don't do [insert cliched action here]!"

[Sundog]

Might want to check your facts, friend. Map of Persia at the time of Xerxes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Achaemenid_Empire.jpg

Capital of the Persian Empire during the time of Xerxes (Persepolis):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persepolis

Well, of course Persepolis was the capital. And the founders of the Empire did come from Persis, on the edge of the plateau.

But there's a reason the Greeks often refer to the Persians as "Medes". Media, by the time of Xerxes, was by far the most influential and prosperous area of the empire. From then until the Achaemenids' collapse, most of the real power was of the northern provinces.

Oddly enough, the Sassanids, though they moved the capital to Ctesiphon, kept most of the real power concentrated in Iran proper.

(Yes, in both cases I'm overgeneralizing, but the history of the Persian Empires can (and has) filled several books. Quite fascinating.)

[Piedmon_Sama]

I mean, come on, there are times when plot movies are so obvious that some people [myself included] just get this urge to scream at the characters "watch out, you idiot!" or "don't do [insert cliched action here]!"

-EDIT- You know, I replied to this and then I thought, "wait, why start another internet cockfight?" Even though people talking at movies annoys me so bad I go chew on metal, it's his business.

As long as he keeps his voice the **** down.

[Eladrinstar]

This movie was not historically accurate. But it was possible, I mean it could have happened but it didn't. Except for one little detail. No, not the deformed immortals, not the mammoths which some evidence shows could have existed many years after the ice age. Not the fat man with the blade grafts, not the wise men with the gunpowder (which was dismissed as magic rather than what it really was.)

It was a person in the harem scene. Many people may have missed it, it was there. The goat headed person. What in Hades? Was that in the comic?

My favorite part was when the queen stabbed that guy. That was cool. "This will not end quickly. You will not enjoy it."

I had trouble taking men fighting in nothing but underwear and capes seriously.

Xerxes was supposed to have a characteristic Persian beard and a robe, and not look like a gay Egyptian man.

The oracle would have been beautiful and hot if she covered up a little. Call me strange, but seeing a woman's private parts tends to distract from their real beauty. Its just so shocking too see. It snuck up on me.

The harem scene was disturbing. It was like a fetish fest. I wouldn't have been suprised to see a furry. (Actually I did, the goat man, but he/she/it was just a musician). I hope my mother never sees this scene, or she will get mad I saw this movie.

The heavy metal rock, while awesome, was very out of place.

[AmoDman]

Xerxes was supposed to have a characteristic Persian beard and a robe, and not look like a gay Egyptian man.

Wasn't it obvious? The giveaway god complex, ridiculously deep voice...Xerxes wasn't a characteristic Persian, he was a fricking Goa'Uld! Those weren't "Immortals," those were obsessive Jaffa...

[Eladrinstar]

Wasn't it obvious? The giveaway god complex, ridiculously deep voice...Xerxes wasn't a characteristic Persian, he was a fricking Goa'Uld! Those weren't "Immortals," those were obsessive Jaffa...

Now I understand your earlier Goa'uld reference...

[Maerok]

300 is a perfect example for ToB + CWar + HoB. :smallbiggrin: I just saw it today.