NationStates Jolt Archive

Got my tickets. Then dinner at blue ribbon. (Maybe I'll see Hillary).

Who else is going to see this fine movie? (Or if not fine, at least they still kick the ambassador down the well).

I'mma go see it with some friends. It will be good. Probably will see it twice because my sis wants to go with my bro and I. I hope it's good!

I'll probably see it after school on Friday.

And this is about?

I get the feeling that people are going to be quite dissapointed with this film.
I'm not expecting anything extraordinary. The only reason I'm seeing it this weekend is because I have friends who are expecting such.

I get the feeling that people are going to be quite dissapointed with this film.

I'll wait for DVD.

I get the feeling that people are going to be quite dissapointed with this film.

I'll wait for DVD.

Well you can say that. But I have waited for this like other people waited for lord of the rings, so it has to be awesome.

A real treat for everyone. The Arrival Of the Immortals...300 seconds of 300

http://www.mtv.com/#/movies/news/articles/1554005/20070306/story.jhtml

On the left of the story there is a list of clips and one is listed as 300 seconds of mayhem.,..it looks sweet.

And this is about?

I actually missed this before.

It's about President Bush.

You should watch it.

I'm going to see it at the IMAX.:)Blood gushing effects in all spectrums of vision.

I'm going to see it at the IMAX.:)

I couldn't get IMAX tickets :(

And it was my birthday. :(

Still, I'll see it that way anyway, because it is going to be so fucking cool.

I'm going to see it at the IMAX.:)

Maybe I'll rent it some day. Probably not.

exactly. Even if the movie sucks, IMAX makes everything better.

Just make sure you sit in the very center.

Blood gushing effects in all spectrums of vision.

exactly. Even if the movie sucks, IMAX makes everything better.

I get the feeling that people are going to be quite dissapointed with this film.

I'll wait for DVD.

Go drunk, with other drunks, so when the film gets slow, the bunch of y'all can act out the better parts, or at least the parts the film should've included.
Don't forget the loud religious epithets while you're at it, to make it seem more authentic.

I'm proably gonna go see it Friday.

Go drunk, with other drunks, so when the film gets slow, the bunch of y'all can act out the better parts, or at least the parts the film should've included.
Don't forget the loud religious epithets while you're at it, to make it seem more authentic.

Μολὼν Λαβέ.

Μολὼν Λαβέ.

Blargh, my browser isn't set for that kind of sophistication (Abacus 2.5) so i'm just gonna have to rely (as usual) on what my imagination says you typed there.

Mmmmm .... *feels like a hug*

Blargh, my browser isn't set for that kind of sophistication (Abacus 2.5) so i'm just gonna have to rely (as usual) on what my imagination says you typed there.

Mmmmm .... *feels like a hug*

Well now you have hugged people I don't know whether you are against this movie or not.

What is it?

Well now you have hugged people I don't know whether you are against this movie or not.

What is it?

I read about it months ago and was looking forward to seeing it.
And then, of course, the commercial aired, and my naturally cynical and derisive nature did the rest.

I read about it months ago and was looking forward to seeing it.
And then, of course, the commercial aired, and my naturally cynical and derisive nature did the rest.

Well it is going to be violent and such.

But the gates of fire!!!!

Well it is going to be violent and such.

But the gates of fire!!!!
A perfect qualifier as to viewing it inebriated, if any! :)

I've got the original comic series by Frank Miller.

I have the 'Art of the Movie" book, also by Frank Miller.

I am counting down by the second...

Got my tickets. Then dinner at blue ribbon. (Maybe I'll see Hillary).

Who else is going to see this fine movie? (Or if not fine, at least they still kick the ambassador down the well).

I certainly am.

if this movie sucks im going to be very upset. i have been looking forward to it for months. im going to see it tomorrow and then take my sister next week if its good.

I'd love to go see it, the story of the Immortals at the Battle of Thermopylae is one of my favorite tales from the Classic Ages.

Sadly, excessive blood and gore triggers my PTSD rather badly, so I'll skip it.

I'd love to go see it, the story of the Immortals at the Battle of Thermopylae is one of my favorite tales from the Classic Ages.

Sadly, excessive blood and gore triggers my PTSD rather badly, so I'll skip it.

It's not so much excessive when there's all this killing going on, y'know? There's gonna be blood and gore in the movie because of all the dead and dying laying around. I wouldn't call it excessive.

Yes, I want to see it. Much so.

have no idea when its out here

Note from a friend who saw it twice already:

Saw it again last night, this time on a much bigger screen with superior sound. Yeah, if you didn't realize it from the trailers, this is very much a man's man movie. Don't fret too much on some things that you Gates of Fire cultists will no doubt have issues with. It's far and away the coolest thing to come along in cinema in quite a while.

Note from a friend who saw it twice already:

Saw it again last night, this time on a much bigger screen with superior sound. Yeah, if you didn't realize it from the trailers, this is very much a man's man movie. Don't fret too much on some things that you Gates of Fire cultists will no doubt have issues with. It's far and away the coolest thing to come along in cinema in quite a while.


So it's for gay people? :3

So it's for gay people? :3

it is about Greeks....

speaking of which how come there wearing underwear?

it is about Greeks....

speaking of which how come there wearing underwear?
Heh, too bad. Most of what happened in Ancient Greece (especially Sparta) is probably too much for today's fragile minds. :) Still, a movie about hot Greek warriors is worth watching. :D

I'll be seeing it after school on friday, and following that up with a bar crawl back up North.

Meh, looks like one of those movies where it is all action with bad acting and no story.

If no-one knows, this is a film, based on a true historical, battle, the battle of Thermopylae (not sure on spelling) in which 300 spartans, 700 thespians and 6000 other Greek allies held off anything ranging from 300,000 to 2,000,000 Persians. The battle was fought in a very narrow pass, about 14 meters wide, and whats more, even though all the Spartans and Thespians died heres the casualty list:

300 spartans
700 Thespians
1,400 allies

To the Persians:

80,000 deaths (Herodotus might lied though)

meaning the 7000 Greek fighters were outnumbered around 1 Greek death to 11 3/7 to a Persians. Yet thats if theyall fought to the death. 2,400 did so thats...
1 greek : 33.34 Persians

This battle is also famous for the quote of when the king Leonidas, leader of the Spartans was told that:

'The Persians have so many archers the arrows block the sunlight from the sun'
he replied:
'Good, we'll be fighting in the shade then.'

Awesome man.

Note from a friend who saw it twice already:

how come he gets to see it early???

If no-one knows, this is a film, based on a true historical, battle, the battle of Thermopylae (not sure on spelling) in which 300 spartans, 700 thespians and 6000 other Greek allies held off anything ranging from 300,000 to 2,000,000 Persians. The battle was fought in a very narrow pass, about 14 meters wide, and whats more, even though all the Spartans and Thespians died heres the casualty list:

300 spartans
700 Thespians
1,400 allies

To the Persians:

80,000 deaths (Herodotus might lied though)

meaning the 7000 Greek fighters were outnumbered around 1 Greek death to 11 3/7 to a Persians. Yet thats if theyall fought to the death. 2,400 did so thats...
1 greek : 33.34 Persians

This battle is also famous for the quote of when the king Leonidas, leader of the Spartans was told that:

'The Persians have so many archers the arrows block the sunlight from the sun'
he replied:
'Good, we'll be fighting in the shade then.'

Awesome man.

Don't forget that they still lost the battle. Standing your ground in the face of overwhelming adversity is one thing; saving your forces to live and fight another day is something else. Colleen McCullough sums it nicely through her characterization of Caesar, who discusses the battle as a stupid waste of men and poor planning. Mobility, flexibility and adaptation are the keys to victory; barricading yourself into a narrow pass without any reinforcements on the outside is a shortcut to death. Just a thought, anyways.

Don't forget that they still lost the battle. Standing your ground in the face of overwhelming adversity is one thing; saving your forces to live and fight another day is something else. Colleen McCullough sums it nicely through her characterization of Caesar, who discusses the battle as a stupid waste of men and poor planning. Mobility, flexibility and adaptation are the keys to victory; barricading yourself into a narrow pass without any reinforcements on the outside is a shortcut to death. Just a thought, anyways.
To my knowledge the Greeks were in fact doing quite well. Ephialtes's betrayal is what may have led to their ultimate demise, since he informed the Persians of a nearby passageway that would guarantee easy access to the Greek troops.

'The Persians have so many archers the arrows block the sunlight from the sun'
he replied:
'Good, we'll be fighting in the shade then.'

Awesome man.

Don't forget the famed "Μολών Λαβέ" (Molon Labe!, in English "Come and take them!")

Meh, looks like one of those movies where it is all action with bad acting and no story.

I'm fairly certain it's made by the same guy that did Sin City, so if you didn't like that movie, you won't like this one.

If no-one knows, this is a film, based on a true historical, battle, the battle of Thermopylae (not sure on spelling) in which 300 spartans, 700 thespians and 6000 other Greek allies held off anything ranging from 300,000 to 2,000,000 Persians. The battle was fought in a very narrow pass, about 14 meters wide, and whats more, even though all the Spartans and Thespians died heres the casualty list:

300 spartans
700 Thespians
1,400 allies

To the Persians:

80,000 deaths (Herodotus might lied though)

meaning the 7000 Greek fighters were outnumbered around 1 Greek death to 11 3/7 to a Persians. Yet thats if theyall fought to the death. 2,400 did so thats...
1 greek : 33.34 Persians

This battle is also famous for the quote of when the king Leonidas, leader of the Spartans was told that:

'The Persians have so many archers the arrows block the sunlight from the sun'
he replied:
'Good, we'll be fighting in the shade then.'

Awesome man.


Correction: 299 Spartans. A couple of Spartans were suffering injuries; one of them went into battle despite Leonidas's orders, the other one went home where he was vilified as a coward. He subsequently threw himself at the Persian lines at Plataea, where the Persians were routed, dying fairly pointlessly in the process but redeeming himself in the eyes of his countrymen.
Those Spartans, nutters eh?

Don't forget that they still lost the battle. Standing your ground in the face of overwhelming adversity is one thing; saving your forces to live and fight another day is something else. Colleen McCullough sums it nicely through her characterization of Caesar, who discusses the battle as a stupid waste of men and poor planning. Mobility, flexibility and adaptation are the keys to victory; barricading yourself into a narrow pass without any reinforcements on the outside is a shortcut to death. Just a thought, anyways.

Clearly in criticizing the Spartans decision there was an oversight to the fact that the Spartans would never retreat as it would be something that would be unacceptable in their culture where dying in battle is something to be aimed for. Further it was an excellent defensive position to whittle away at the Persians numbers. Letting the opportunity pass would be the foolish decision.

Don't forget that they still lost the battle. Standing your ground in the face of overwhelming adversity is one thing; saving your forces to live and fight another day is something else. Colleen McCullough sums it nicely through her characterization of Caesar, who discusses the battle as a stupid waste of men and poor planning. Mobility, flexibility and adaptation are the keys to victory; barricading yourself into a narrow pass without any reinforcements on the outside is a shortcut to death. Just a thought, anyways.

also, i dont think it should be forgotten that this battle is what has caused many others, waterloo for instance, where the Duke of Wellington gave a rousing speech to all officers about the men of Thermoplaye.

Anyway, the fact that these spartans did lose the battle is usually considered as what made Greece become one country, rather then seperate states.

Isn't this movie just random special effects enhanced killing with no plot?

It's not so much excessive when there's all this killing going on, y'know? There's gonna be blood and gore in the movie because of all the dead and dying laying around. I wouldn't call it excessive.

Yes, I want to see it. Much so.

Thank you for explaining that to me. Seems I missed that lesson during my combat service in the US Army. I always thought we were using ketchup. :headbang:

Excessive means on a huge movie screen in dramatic slow motion. Because of some of the things I went through while fighting, those kinds of scenes can send me under the bed for a week.

also, i dont think it should be forgotten that this battle is what has caused many others, waterloo for instance, where the Duke of Wellington gave a rousing speech to all officers about the men of Thermoplaye.

Anyway, the fact that these spartans did lose the battle is usually considered as what made Greece become one country, rather then seperate states.

Erm ... the ancient Greeks never became one country, but that's neither here nor there.

Thermopylae did get us the famous epitaph by Simonides of Keos:

Ὦ ξεῖν’, ἀγγέλλειν Λακεδαιμονίοις ὅτι τῇδε
κείμεθα, τοῖς κείνων ῥήμασι πειθόμενοι.
O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.
which may be translated as:

Tell the Spartans, passer-by,
here, obediently, we lie.

Hmm, not very nice rendering of the Greek font, is it?

Thank you for explaining that to me. Seems I missed that lesson during my combat service in the US Army. I always thought we were using ketchup. :headbang:

story thread time?

What makes this movie so great?

I have watched every trailer for that movie.

I have watched the main 2 every day before working out.

I am so pumped for this movie. I have reserved a spot for it on my Top Movies collection, right next to Kingdom of Heaven, Gladiator, and the Secret Garden.

...

I meant Troy.

Erm ... the ancient Greeks never became one country, but that's neither here nor there.
They did, albeit briefly, under Alexander the Great. Whether or not one should consider this a positive is another matter entirely... I preferred it when they had city-states.

They did, albeit briefly, under Alexander the Great. Whether or not one should consider this a positive is another matter entirely... I preferred it when they had city-states.

I was going to mention Alexander and the later MAcedonian kings, but even then, you know, that unity was under the cover of a league of city-states. Each of the cities was a member of the league and the league was allied with Macedon. Or a city could have a separate treaty with Macedon outside the league.

Speaking of treaties, I always love the fact that peace treaties between Greek city states were for specific time periods. There was one during the 5th century BC between Sparta and Argos that was for 50 years. Both sides kept to it but when the 50 years were up - during the Peloponnesian War - the Argives promptly chose sides.

I'm going to see it at the IMAX.:)

Oh yeah, baby...the only way to go...


(not really, but I'm going to pump myself up anyway. I love a good specticle.)

It looks like a pretty good movie. The trailer didn't show much.

What makes this movie so great?

Can someone answer my question? Why are you anticipating this movie so much? It looks like a run-of-the-mill action movie to me.

Can someone answer my question? Why are you anticipating this movie so much? It looks like a run-of-the-mill action movie to me.

I haven't seen the movie, just the trailer on TV. The special effects and make-up lend it an over-the-top grotesqueness that appeals to quite a few folks, I guess. I do find Frank Miller's art interesting and in many instances compelling (I liked the "Ronin" and "Sin City" graphic novels). The film seems to translate his particular - one might even say peculiar style very well. And hey, lots of people appear to get chopped to bits on the big screen, what more could you want? ;)

Don't forget that they still lost the battle. Standing your ground in the face of overwhelming adversity is one thing; saving your forces to live and fight another day is something else. Colleen McCullough sums it nicely through her characterization of Caesar, who discusses the battle as a stupid waste of men and poor planning. Mobility, flexibility and adaptation are the keys to victory; barricading yourself into a narrow pass without any reinforcements on the outside is a shortcut to death. Just a thought, anyways.

Colleen McCullough's book is fantastic, however she misses the point that part of the reason such a small force was sent to Thermopolae was due to its being a delaying tactic; most of Greece was competing in the Olympic Games, which was a religious observance. The fact that so many Persians died trying to fight so few was an enormous morale booster for the Greek people.

In Caesar's time, the Battle of Thermopalae was already legendary, and everyone knew that the Persians eventually found a way around the Spartans through a pass in the mountains. When later greeks tried the same thing against the Romans, it was an exercise in futility.

The Spartans knew full well that they were preparing themselves for death. It's just one of the many reasons why this particular battle is so thought-provoking.


I haven't read Frank Miller's work, but I have read Gates of Fire by Stephen Pressfield, and it is by far one of my favourite books. I wish that someone had done an adaptation of that novel instead, however, I am DIEING to see 300. I'll probably see it on Saturday.

Got my tickets. Then dinner at blue ribbon. (Maybe I'll see Hillary).

Who else is going to see this fine movie? (Or if not fine, at least they still kick the ambassador down the well).

Of course I'm seeing it.

I'm dining in hell afterwards.

Of course I'm seeing it.

I'm dining in hell afterwards.

:D

judging by the clips that I've seen I'll give this movie a pass, looks a stinker to me....Imax won't help it....

Omnimax >>>> Imax

So from 8-10 pm tonight The History Channel is showing "Last Stand of the 300", interestingly enough.

So from 8-10 pm tonight The History Channel is showing "Last Stand of the 300", interestingly enough.
That's good to know at 12:50 am.

That's good to know at 12:50 am.

Just scoot over the IDL once. Maybe twice, so you can see it 2x!

It's halfway over where i'm at. The cinematography isn't as ... erm, titillating as the movie makes it out to be. More pastels.

Even Alexander didn't take all of Greece, and Sparta didn't fall by his hand (Antipater in 331BC). Plus there were a whole slew of Greek city states that didn't fall into Alexander's realm including perhaps the greatest Greek city of them all, Syracuse.

Even Alexander didn't take all of Greece, and Sparta didn't fall by his hand (Antipater in 331BC). Plus there were a whole slew of Greek city states that didn't fall into Alexander's realm including perhaps the greatest Greek city of them all, Syracuse.

He could conquer Persia, but not his own homeland.

I haven't read Frank Miller's work, but I have read Gates of Fire by Stephen Pressfield, and it is by far one of my favourite books. I wish that someone had done an adaptation of that novel instead, however, I am DIEING to see 300. I'll probably see it on Saturday.

If you liked Gates of Fire, I suspect 300 will severely dissapoint you.

If you liked Gates of Fire, I suspect 300 will severely dissapoint you.

I know what I'm getting in for. I was really disappointed at how heavily embellished this movie is going to be. One of the most compelling features of the story is that it is based on historical events. Regardless of the actual numbers of people involved, it is an incredible story that doesn't need embellishment.

That being said, it still looks frikkin' amazing.

So it's for gay people? :3

Well, you may recall the Theban Band...

how come he gets to see it early???

He works for a special effects studio in Hollywood.

I'm fairly certain it's made by the same guy that did Sin City, so if you didn't like that movie, you won't like this one.

To give you an idea of Frank Miller's political views, here's a link from his essay at National Public Radio.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5784518

Frank Miller's "This I Believe"

Morning Edition, September 11, 2006 · I was just a boy in the 1960s. My adolescence wasn't infused with the civil rights struggle or the sexual revolution or the Vietnam War, but with their aftermath.

My high school teachers were ex-hippies and Vietnam vets. People who protested the war and people who served as soldiers. I was taught more about John Lennon than I was about Thomas Jefferson.

Both of my parents were World War II veterans. FDR-era patriots. And I was exactly the age to rebel against them.

It all fit together rather neatly. I could never stomach the flower-child twaddle of the '60s crowd and I was ready to believe that our flag was just an old piece of cloth and that patriotism was just some quaint relic, best left behind us.

It was all about the ideas. I schooled myself in the writings of Madison and Franklin and Adams and Jefferson. I came to love those noble, indestructible ideas. They were ideas, to my young mind, of rebellion and independence, not of idolatry.

But not that piece of old cloth. To me, that stood for unthinking patriotism. It meant about as much to me as that insipid peace sign that was everywhere I looked: just another symbol of a generation's sentimentality, of its narcissistic worship of its own past glories.

Then came that sunny September morning when airplanes crashed into towers a very few miles from my home and thousands of my neighbors were ruthlessly incinerated -- reduced to ash. Now, I draw and write comic books. One thing my job involves is making up bad guys. Imagining human villainy in all its forms. Now the real thing had shown up. The real thing murdered my neighbors. In my city. In my country. Breathing in that awful, chalky crap that filled up the lungs of every New Yorker, then coughing it right out, not knowing what I was coughing up.

For the first time in my life, I know how it feels to face an existential menace. They want us to die. All of a sudden I realize what my parents were talking about all those years.

Patriotism, I now believe, isn't some sentimental, old conceit. It's self-preservation. I believe patriotism is central to a nation's survival. Ben Franklin said it: If we don't all hang together, we all hang separately. Just like you have to fight to protect your friends and family, and you count on them to watch your own back.

So you've got to do what you can to help your country survive. That's if you think your country is worth a damn. Warts and all.

So I've gotten rather fond of that old piece of cloth. Now, when I look at it, I see something precious. I see something perishable.

Now go see 300, and see if you see a not-so-subtle hidden meaning in the film.

Even Alexander didn't take all of Greece, and Sparta didn't fall by his hand (Antipater in 331BC). Plus there were a whole slew of Greek city states that didn't fall into Alexander's realm including perhaps the greatest Greek city of them all, Syracuse.

He could conquer Persia, but not his own homeland.

Syracuse was the greatest Greek city of them all? I imagine the Athenians, Spartans, Thebans, Argives and Corinthians would have something to say about that. As for conquering it, considering that Syracuse is in Sicily and not even on the Greek mainland, I'm sure it wasn't a high priority for Alexander.

The rise of Macedon under Philip and Alexander was never really about "conquering" Greece outright. The kings were content to smack the city states in battle and then to create the League of Corinth, a nice show-piece alliance they could display to the world, all the while making sure to keep the members under their thumb (a Macedonian garrison in the fortress of Corinth went a long way to doing that). Once that was done, it was off to Asia to take on the Persians, which was the main target.

Now, had Alexander lived to middle age, I suppose it's conceivable he might have turned his attention to the West. I think another league would have been formed to include the Italian and Sicilian Greek cities, and treaties with the native Italians (including the ones living in that little town on the Tiber). Who knows?

been waiting 6mths for this movie, if i dont want to see it a second time, i would be very disappointed indeed

An interview on National Public Radio with Frank Miller (gives you even more insight into his politics).

NPR: […] Frank, what’s the state of the union?

FM: Well, I don’t really find myself worrying about the state of the union as I do the state of the home-front. It seems to me quite obvious that our country and the entire Western World is up against an existential foe that knows exactly what it wants … and we’re behaving like a collapsing empire. Mighty cultures are almost never conquered, they crumble from within. And frankly, I think that a lot of Americans are acting like spoiled brats because of everything that isn’t working out perfectly every time.

NPR: Um, and when you say we don’t know what we want, what’s the cause of that do you think?

FM: Well, I think part of that is how we’re educated. We’re constantly told all cultures are equal, and every belief system is as good as the next. And generally that America was to be known for its flaws rather than its virtues. When you think about what Americans accomplished, building these amazing cities, and all the good its done in the world, it’s kind of disheartening to hear so much hatred of America, not just from abroad, but internally.

NPR: A lot of people would say what America has done abroad has led to the doubts and even the hatred of its own citizens.

FM: Well, okay, then let’s finally talk about the enemy. For some reason, nobody seems to be talking about who we’re up against, and the sixth century barbarism that they actually represent. These people saw people’s heads off. They enslave women, they genitally mutilate their daughters, they do not behave by any cultural norms that are sensible to us. I’m speaking into a microphone that never could have been a product of their culture, and I’m living in a city where three thousand of my neighbors were killed by thieves of airplanes they never could have built.

NPR: As you look at people around you, though, why do you think they’re so, as you would put it, self-absorbed, even whiny?

FM: Well, I’d say it’s for the same reason the Athenians and Romans were. We’ve got it a little good right now. Where I would fault President Bush the most, was that in the wake of 9/11, he motivated our military, but he didn’t call the nation into a state of war. He didn’t explain that this would take a communal effort against a common foe. So we’ve been kind of fighting a war on the side, and sitting off like a bunch of Romans complaining about it. Also, I think that George Bush has an uncanny knack of being someone people hate. I thought Clinton inspired more hatred than any President I had ever seen, but I’ve never seen anything like Bush-hatred. It’s completely mad.

NPR: And as you talk to people in the streets, the people you meet at work, socially, how do you explain this to them?

FM: Mainly in historical terms, mainly saying that the country that fought Okinawa and Iwo Jima is now spilling precious blood, but so little by comparison, it’s almost ridiculous. And the stakes are as high as they were then. Mostly I hear people say, ‘Why did we attack Iraq?’ for instance. Well, we’re taking on an idea. Nobody questions why after Pearl Harbor we attacked Nazi Germany. It was because we were taking on a form of global fascism, we’re doing the same thing now.

NPR: Well, they did declare war on us, but…

FM: Well, so did Iraq.

And the link, for those of you who won't believe it...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7002481

*snip*
There is something else to note as well - Machiavelli brought this up in The Prince. Persia was an empire, and a heavily centralised one at that. Greece was comprised of autonomous city-states. Machiavelli, with reference to Alexander, noted that lands such as Persia tend to be hard to conquer, but easy to rule over - whereas fragmented kingdoms were easier to conquer but near-impossible to rule over.

Greece was comprised of autonomous city-states. Machiavelli, with reference to Alexander, noted that lands such as Persia tend to be hard to conquer, but easy to rule over - whereas fragmented kingdoms were easier to conquer but near-impossible to rule over.

True, but of course if you just take out the most important ones you can afford to leave the rest to their own devices without fear of problems.

That's pretty much what the Romans did when they annexed Greece as the province of Achaea in the 2nd century BC. They invaded and razed Corinth to the ground, which helped to break their resistance; they left Athens and Sparta more or less alone for about 50 or 60 years until they rebelled and the Romans sacked Athens and Thebes.

And the link, for those of you who won't believe it...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7002481

I've never read anything by him, or seen an interview, but I thought he might have that sort of view based on the impressions of the film I got. Still going to go see it though.

Erm ... the ancient Greeks never became one country, but that's neither here nor there.

Thermopylae did get us the famous epitaph by Simonides of Keos:

Ὦ ξεῖν’, ἀγγέλλειν Λακεδαιμονίοις ὅτι τῇδε
κείμεθα, τοῖς κείνων ῥήμασι πειθόμενοι.
O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.
which may be translated as:

Tell the Spartans, passer-by,
here, obediently, we lie.

Hmm, not very nice rendering of the Greek font, is it?

Hmm, the translation I saw said:
"Tell them in Lakadaimon, passer-by:
Carrying out their orders, here we lie"

I almost prefer that one, not sure why.

I've seen some brutal reviews in my time, but damn.

I'll take the 8,000 people on IMDB who gave it an 8.5/10 over some self-important "critic"'s review any day.

if this movie sucks im going to be very upset. i have been looking forward to it for months. im going to see it tomorrow and then take my sister next week if its good.

Prepare to be disappointed (http://movies2.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/movies/09thre.html).
“300” is about as violent as “Apocalypto” and twice as stupid. Adapted from a graphic novel by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley, it offers up a bombastic spectacle of honor and betrayal, rendered in images that might have been airbrushed onto a customized van sometime in the late 1970s....

Allegory hunters will find some gristly morsels of topicality tossed in their direction, but you can find many of the same themes, conveyed with more nuance and irony, in a Pokémon cartoon....

the script for “300,” which he wrote with Kurt Johnstad and Michael B. Gordon, is weighed down by the lumbering portentousness of the original book, whose arresting images are themselves undermined by the kind of pomposity that frequently mistakes itself for genius.

In time, “300” may find its cultural niche as an object of camp derision, like the sword-and-sandals epics of an earlier, pre-computer-generated-imagery age. At present, though, its muscle-bound, grunting self-seriousness is more tiresome than entertaining. Go tell the Spartans, whoever they are, to stay home and watch wrestling.
I've seen some brutal reviews in my time, but damn.

I'll take the 8,000 people on IMDB who gave it an 8.5/10 over some self-important "critic"'s review any day.

Go right ahead. But remember, you're looking at the opinions of a self-selected group there, people who are already well-intentioned toward the film. My impression, from the trailer, was that it wasn't going to do much for me, and I'm generally a fan of Miller's graphic novels, though I haven't read this one.

Go right ahead. But remember, you're looking at the opinions of a self-selected group there, people who are already well-intentioned toward the film. My impression, from the trailer, was that it wasn't going to do much for me, and I'm generally a fan of Miller's graphic novels, though I haven't read this one.

Yeah, but 8,000 people tend to have a better idea of what's good than 1. And IMDB's usually pretty reliable when it comes to films; that community's hardly biased towards a given film, and when they say a certain film is good almost all the time it actually is.

I just plain don't listen to critics because they usually try to appear artistic and refined and disparage films they have a particular bias against regardless of content. Their opinions are easily some of the most biased out there.

Yeah, but 8,000 people tend to have a better idea of what's good than 1. And IMDB's usually pretty reliable when it comes to films; that community's hardly biased towards a given film, and when they say a certain film is good almost all the time it actually is.

I just plain don't listen to critics because they usually try to appear artistic and refined and disparage films they have a particular bias against regardless of content. Their opinions are easily some of the most biased out there.

Not always. I mean, The Macarena was a number 1 hit for a long time. Following the mob means you walk through some real shitholes sometimes.

I read two review this morning. One in the Toronto Star, and one in the Globe and mail. Star - 3 out of 4 stars. Globe - 1.5 out of 5

The globe's critic seemed to be expecting something with some measure of plot and intelligence and also made a remark about neoconservatism and the impression I got was that he clearly saw it as conservative and also made negative comments about the violence and gore. The fact that he sees it as as some sort of conservative ad, or ploy, or whatever (can't think of an approriate word) is generally enough to make anyone who works for the globe dislike it (I like reading the globe, but there's a definite liberal bias in there).

The star's reviewer loved the violence and viewed the movie in the exact light it should be viewed in - a brutally violent action movie intended solely for entertainment. That's how I'm looking at it, and I have no doubt that when I go see it in a couple hours, I'll be entertained.

Prepare to be disappointed (http://movies2.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/movies/09thre.html).

I've seen some brutal reviews in my time, but damn.

I think this movie is suffering a bit from the 'measuring stick' problem genre movies are often saddled with. I glanced at the Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/300/) page and it's getting a fresh, if barely, rating of 61, though contains some of the harshest reviews like what you have, including:
As 300 doomed warriors of ancient Sparta march into the Battle of Thermopylae against hundreds of thousands of Persians, the movie version of the Frank Miller (“Sin City”) comic book becomes less a salute to the “Braveheart” school of right-wing action movies than a parody of them. Its philosophical underpinnings are not freedom and courage but Itchy and Scratchy.
...
That well is a primeval chasm, and the scene carries a terrible splendor. But Leonidas has just thrown himself down a moral well. The messenger’s warning that no one kills the mailboy is absolutely right. Leonidas, though, is just getting started; he bellows about honor as he begins a decathalon of dishonor. Rampaging in his leather Speedo, he murders wounded enemies, desecrates their remains, insults allies and confuses death with glory. His troops are like al Qaeda in adult diapers.
...
But keeping in mind Slate's Mickey Kaus' Hitler Rule - never compare anything to Hitler - it isn't a stretch to imagine Adolf's boys at a "300" screening, heil-fiving each other throughout and then lining up to see it again.

NY Post (http://www.nypost.com/seven/03092007/entertainment/movies/persian_shrug_movies_kyle_smith.htm)

Damn...

It's not all bad, Roeper of Ebert and Roeper-
This is the kind of movie that throws babies off a cliff, literally. (Hey -- there's a reason for it.) This is the kind of film that presents battlefield beheadings with the same slow-motion poetry it employs for a soft-core sex sequence, and if you're offended by that, you're at the wrong flick. The blood flies and spurts with such force and velocity that I felt a little like one of those front-row attendees at a Blue Man Group show, where they have you put on a poncho lest you get covered in viscous liquid goo.

Chicago Sun Times (http://www.suntimes.com/news/roeper/289178,WKP-News-hundred09.article)
On one level, I think audiences will have decided whether they like this movie or not long before entering. And to a certain extent that's fair, the book is out and there seems to be another attempt at a near chapter/verse adaptation of a Frank Miller graphic novel (making me wonder if that causes Alan Moore to shake his fist at the skies somewhere asking, "When's my time?!?) and if you're into Miller and you know the book you already know pretty much if you're going to like this film.

I can deal with the questionable morality of the characters and actually kind of like that it does that-sometimes I can watch a scoundrel be a scoundrel and get away with it. With my background, of course I can see how overall this can be a problem-hell we see direct relation all the time where politicians and pundits and regular people will use a popular movie to justify or relate to anything (who can forget Wag the Dog or pundits using 24 to justify torture)-but as a viewer who can seperate character from message I sometimes...you know, assholes don't always get their come-upuns...

I don't know. I'm in it for the specticle, and the specticle promises to be good, even the bad reviews acknowledge that, so I'm still going. Tickets are already bought.

Not always. I mean, The Macarena was a number 1 hit for a long time. Following the mob means you walk through some real shitholes sometimes.

True enough...

Something P.T. Barnum said fits well here...

Not always. I mean, The Macarena was a number 1 hit for a long time. Following the mob means you walk through some real shitholes sometimes.
While I agree with this, Vetalia does have a point. Many of these so-called critics are nothing but pretentious fops with little better to do. When it comes to art, I pay mind both to reviewers and critics, but ultimately will try something for myself it if seems appealing enough.

Prepare to be disappointed (http://movies2.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/movies/09thre.html).

I've seen some brutal reviews in my time, but damn.

no i wasnt disappointed. it was pretty much everything i was hoping it would be stylized, violent, spectacle. my son was distracted by the inaccuracies but they didnt bother me a bit.

Prepare to be disappointed (http://movies2.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/movies/09thre.html).
Ooh, I didn’t know Dominic ‘McNulty’ West was in the film. Never seen him as a baddie.

I've seen the same brutal reviews.. not anti-war enough, not gay-friendly (one of the enemy is lesbian, I guess) racist themes (the enemy is darker-skinned than the Greeks), etc.

In other words, I'll be seeing it. :p But not 'till next week. Kinda busy now. :(

Now having seen it, I can say with some certainty that it's just not a good movie. Not necessarily a bad one, but not good.

Without going into too much detail, and spoiling it for others, I can say that the pros are that it's visually amazing, and it has some pretty entertaining battle scenes. It really captures a 'mythic' feel of the era.

However, even going into it knowing that it wasn't going to be historically accurate, some of it is just plain goofy. One scene with Leonidas and Xerxes is just laughable. In another scene, Leonidas tells someone that he can't fight with the Spartans because he can't raise his shield to defend the next person to him in the phalanx - and then they spend most of the movie fighting in anything but a phalanx.

The Battle of Thermopalae deserved a better telling. I'll stick with Gates of Fire. Far superior, even without the beautifully rendered artwork.

I've seen the same brutal reviews.. not anti-war enough,

Why has every movie have to serve public good nowadays?

not gay-friendly (one of the enemy is lesbian, I guess)

Those girls were only to entice a traitor

racist themes (the enemy is darker-skinned than the Greeks), etc.

Persians darker than Hellenes? Yeah, that has no historical basis. You think it would threaten racists more to know that a powerful empire was widely composed of Africans. (not to mention the Carthaginians and moors).

It's really good. In some ways it is completely ahistorical. In others it completely captures being a spartan. I think they missed a point when they omitted Leonidas's final words to his wife. And maybe the spartans were too emotional about stuff. (Who can forget their reply to Alexander?)

But I think the main thing is it tries to capture the legendary grace and skill of a spartan lochoi. And their attitude towards war and death.

If you can enjoy it for the piece of pro-sparta propaganda that it obviously is, then you will love it.

Also, the whole thing is visually stunning.

(Plus the girls who went with me said it was worth it for the eye candy, though it's not so great for the men in that respect despite a few flashes of boobs).


In other news: I got raw whole scallops on my plateau fruit de mare. I can't honestly advocate them as a raw bar choice. Frankly the raw dressed scallop at Azuma is much tastier.

I still got to enjoy some excellent cloudy bay sauvignon blanc however.

If you can enjoy it for the piece of pro-sparta propaganda that it obviously is, then you will love it.

I don't know, I was sort of sold on Team Xerxes after I saw his battlefield palace and all the gold he was spending like water. I mean, damn...imagine what goes one back in Persia. That's a level of hedonistic decadence I could definitely enjoy.

I don't know, I was sort of sold on Team Xerxes after I saw his battlefield palace and all the gold he was spending like water. I mean, damn...imagine what goes one back in Persia. That's a level of hedonistic decadence I could definitely enjoy.

Well, look...

Obviously how I spent my night after the movie indicates that I am more towards the Team Xerxes inclination myself. I can't think of anything more horrible than spending the evening in my one ragged cloak and slurping down my kykkos while thinking about having my friends beat me 'cos I'm not tough enough.

That said, it was a total piece of pro-greek (spartan) propaganda. Ask the helots if they are free.

Liberty of the greeks &c.

Still, you have to respect the spartans at the gate of fire. I liked it a lot.

Not always. I mean, The Macarena was a number 1 hit for a long time. Following the mob means you walk through some real shitholes sometimes.

I guess that's why the spartans rejected democracy.

Got my tickets. Then dinner at blue ribbon. (Maybe I'll see Hillary).

Who else is going to see this fine movie? (Or if not fine, at least they still kick the ambassador down the well).
So typical of you to start this thread.:p

Savaged as crap by the better reviewers, nothing-special on the word of my friend, I will be in no hurry to see it.

Savaged as crap by the better reviewers, nothing-special on the word of my friend, I will be in no hurry to see it.

You wouldn't like it.

Syracuse was the greatest Greek city of them all? I imagine the Athenians, Spartans, Thebans, Argives and Corinthians would have something to say about that. As for conquering it, considering that Syracuse is in Sicily and not even on the Greek mainland, I'm sure it wasn't a high priority for Alexander.

Well during the time of this movie, according to Herodotus (the nearest contempory historian who supposedly spoke to eywitnesses and traveled much of the ancient west in writing his history), the Greeks sent an embassy pleading with Gelon to send his troops, of which Syracuse had the greatest army at this time, and was about to do to the Carthaginians what all the Greeks were doing against the Persians (incidently this received as much 'press' at the time as the combined Greek actions on the mainland). He did not send help due to the stubborness of the Spartans in not allowing Gelon equal rank to the Spartan King. In 480BC, Syracuse was certainly the greatest Greek city at the time. Lets see, Athens had just turned from a land power to a sea power less than 10 years prior (and didn't even have enough people to man the ships they built!), Sparta did not begin their reactionary policy against Athenian hegemony as of yet and would always carry the threat of insurrection by the helots, which would always keep them highly defensive. Didn't Athens fail to take Syracuse...twice? Corinth was a great city state prior to the Persian War but had been eclipsed in the West by Syracuse. Before the Romans only the Syracusans themselves, other than Gelon, were able to take the city. Thebes had a generation of supremacy, nothing more, and Argos was long eclipsed by many cities of the mainland.

Anyway, Machiavelli was wrong. Persia was not highly centralized but a rather highly decentralized state. Most of the land was ruled by proxy and many of the rulers were natives, kept their own native laws, but were taxed. The same system under Alexander, except they were paying the Macedonians rather than the Persians. The Great King would travel around to several cities during each year in a big cycle.

Also, if you wanted to compare with any contemporary Greek they would certainly say the people of Syracuse were Greek, they would not say that about any Macedonian city. At best the Macedonians were considered half-barbarians and if I am not mistaken, during the Persian War (480BC) they were not even admitted to the Olympic Games yet.

It is interesting you brought up the mainland, since many of the islands didn't succumb to Alexander and fought on even after Agis fell. If you are going to consider the Greek world it is best to do so in its entirety, not in little pieces that fit your theories.

An older Alexander would have first went for Arabia, he was always a stickler for securing his borders and then he most probably would have turned west, and not north to the Caspian. He had wanted to do something against the Caspian but Syracuse and Carthage would have been calling his world conquering mind. Carthage especially for the small part played in the seige of Tyre, Syracuse because it was by far the richest city in the Greek west.

I guess that's why the spartans rejected democracy.

Many contemporaries felt Sparta had one of the best governments, combining elements of monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy. They did not reject democracy, the term Spartan Equal certainly belies that contention. Don't even go into the Helot crap since if you do so, please answer why Athens is considered a democracy when 80% of the populace wasn't represented either? This means, women, freedmen, and slaves.

You guys should read a bit into the history of the Persian Empire since you feel it is so centralized and easy to rule. It was easy in places where the Persians were smart and left things mostly the way they were. In other places, say Egypt, they screwed with the populace, insulted the gods, and were left with a highly revolutionary province for the entire existence of the Empire. If it was so centralized, how can you possibly explain Cyrus the Younger, or half a dozen others like him?

lol

Well, look...

Obviously how I spent my night after the movie indicates that I am more towards the Team Xerxes inclination myself. I can't think of anything more horrible than spending the evening in my one ragged cloak and slurping down my kykkos while thinking about having my friends beat me 'cos I'm not tough enough.

That said, it was a total piece of pro-greek (spartan) propaganda. Ask the helots if they are free.

Liberty of the greeks &c.

Still, you have to respect the spartans at the gate of fire. I liked it a lot.

i liked it too.

but the important thing is that unlike most movies, with this one you can tell if you will like it by watching the trailers.

if you like the trailer, you will like the movie. if it looked like crap to you, you wont like the movie.

I guess that's why the spartans rejected democracy.

That's a debatable notion.

http://elysiumgates.com/~helena/Revolution.html

First Democracy: Revolution and Land Reform
The Spartan Constitution is most commonly dated to the early 7th century BC.

It is the first known constitution that vested the supreme power in the hands of an Assembly composed of all citizens.

Thus, Sparta was the first known functioning democracy—roughly 150 years before the introduction of democracy in Athens.

Furthermore, Sparta was the only Greek city-state to introduce a land reform, dividing property equally among its citizens.

In many ways, Sparta was a constitutional monarchy. The kings were hereditary yes, but at many times they were simply ceremonial (two kings, while we're on the subject.)

The Assembly, which is believed to have met on a monthly basis, was composed of all adult males. Although it could only vote on the bills presented by the Council/Ephors, the common misconception that the Assembly could only vote "yes" or "no" is belied by accounts of lively (not to say rowdy) debates. The Spartan Assembly was powerful and was even known to have exiled kings. Nevertheless, the Spartan Assembly never attained the absolute tyranny of the Athenian Assembly—a point praised widely by ancient writers, who saw in Sparta's more balanced (two-chambered) democracy a means of controlling the fickleness of the mob.

A conservative democracy, let's say. Even if one were to doubt the validity of this source, it would be simply incorrect to assume that the Spartans rejected democracy.

On the role of the Helots, it is far more comparable to serfdom than slavery. An enforced caste system so to speak. Meanwhile, Athens, supposedly the most democratic city, had by far the most slaves.

The Spartan helots—if compared to slaves in other Greek city-states—were very privileged indeed. Helots were not chattels. They could not be bought and sold by their "masters." They could marry who and when they willed. They even legally had parents and children. (In other Greek states, a slave was not allowed to marry, and offspring of sexual intercourse, regardless of the partner, "belonged" to the owner of the slave; parenthood was not recognized.) They could keep half the produce of their labor—and presumably sell it on the market for a profit. They could accumulate wealth and spend it as they pleased. Many acquired not inconsiderable fortunes, and when given the opportunity to purchase their freedom from the government, many could afford to do so.

That being said, the Helots were subject to manifest cruelty and the injust secret policing of the Krypteia. However, Sparta definitely had a democratic system - for the Spartans.

I saw "300" yesterday, and, Hell, I liked it. At risk of being cliche, it really is a feast for the eyes. The cinematography was excellent, the visuals were beautiful, the fight scenes were bitchin', and the character designs were just over-the-top enough to be entertaining (I especially liked how they portrayed the Immortals).

The sound just fit in every concievable fashion. Whether it is the battle sounds or the music, it just worked. Personally, I think if the Spartans did have a prefered music choice, it WOULD be metal.

In terms of acting, nothing really stood out. That's not saying it was neccessarily bad, just nothing amazing.

The script was chock-full of puns, sarcasm and occassional campy dialogue, but this I can forgive. Hell, it even made me laugh sometimes.

And all the arguments made about "anti-war messages", "racist themes", "blah blah blah" can shove it. This wasn't meant to be philosophical or a morality tale, it is just a good story with great visuals about 300 of the hardest men on Earth kicking the living shit out of the world's largest empire.

Not everything has to be symbolic or political. So just relax, shut up, and enjoy the mayhem.

Bolol: 8.5/10

I saw "300" yesterday, and, Hell, I liked it. At risk of being cliche, it really is a feast for the eyes. The cinematography was excellent, the visuals were beautiful, the fight scenes were bitchin', and the character designs were just over-the-top enough to be entertaining (I especially liked how they portrayed the Immortals).

The sound just fit in every concievable fashion. Whether it is the battle sounds or the music, it just worked. Personally, I think if the Spartans did have a prefered music choice, it WOULD be metal.

In terms of acting, nothing really stood out. That's not saying it was neccessarily bad, just nothing amazing.

The script was chock-full of puns, sarcasm and occassional campy dialogue, but this I can forgive. Hell, it even made me laugh sometimes.

And all the arguments made about "anti-war messages", "racist themes", "blah blah blah" can shove it. This wasn't meant to be philosophical or a morality tale, it is just a good story with great visuals about 300 of the hardest men on Earth kicking the living shit out of the world's largest empire.

Not everything has to be symbolic or political. So just relax, shut up, and enjoy the mayhem.

Bolol: 8.5/10


making the spartans politically correct, anti war, non racist, non sexist, whatever would have been so WRONG. it would have been worse than the historical inaccuracies in the movie as it is. what would be the sense to having an ethnically sensitive spartan?

those reviewers really do need to just shut up. the message of the movie is "spartans were kick ass fighters". thats all. if they dont like this sort of movie, FINE. to suggest that this isnt as excellent example of the kind of movie it is because it offends their modern political sensibilities is annoyingly stupid.

making the spartans politically correct, anti war, non racist, non sexist, whatever would have been so WRONG. it would have been worse than the historical inaccuracies in the movie as it is. what would be the sense to having an ethnically sensitive spartan?

those reviewers really do need to just shut up. the message of the movie is "spartans were kick ass fighters". thats all. if they dont like this sort of movie, FINE. to suggest that this isnt as excellent example of the kind of movie it is because it offends their modern political sensibilities is annoyingly stupid.

And on the subject of historical innacuracies...the only people who should be truly offended about it DIED about 2500 years ago.

I got to screen it the night before it came out, and it was a pretty badass movie.

I must admit it was unabashedly conservative in viewpoint, but I still thoroughly enjoyed it.

Remember that the Spartans only stayed there because it gave Athens a chance to retreat back to that island so their sea forces could destroy the Persian army. It was more than just machismo. (If I remember correctly)

Man, something tells me there weren't THAT many mutants running around back in the day... howabout that obese guy with the crab claw hands???

Essentially, this movie was Lord of the Rings with blood and sex.

Essentially, this movie was Lord of the Rings with blood and sex.

Sweet ass.

Essentially, this movie was Lord of the Rings with blood and sex.

So, best movie ever?

And on the subject of historical innacuracies...the only people who should be truly offended about it DIED about 2500 years ago.

Well, not if you actually care about history. You can certainly enjoy the movie for what it is though, glorious spartan imagery and spectacle.

Well, not if you actually care about history. You can certainly enjoy the movie for what it is though, glorious spartan imagery and spectacle.

And I do. But I think sometimes even the Historian needs to step back and say to himself:

"Well, I know it is innacurate, I'm certain the screenwriter knows it is innacurate, probably a good number of moviegoers know it is innacurate...but there really is no harm in it: it's really just supposed to be a action movie. If I feel like it later, I'll write a article on the TRUE story of the battle of Thermopalae; now that this film has gotten the story out, people may now be interested in the HISTORY behind it."

And I know several historians have. I've already seen two documentaries on the History Channel on the Battle of Thermopoalae and the Spartans.

I saw it last night. It's very similar to "Gladiator."

I saw it last night. It's very similar to "Gladiator."

How so?

And I do. But I think sometimes even the Historian needs to step back and say to himself:

"Well, I know it is innacurate, I'm certain the screenwriter knows it is innacurate, probably a good number of moviegoers know it is innacurate...but there really is no harm in it: it's really just supposed to be a action movie. If I feel like it later, I'll write a article on the TRUE story of the battle of Thermopalae; now that this film has gotten the story out, people may now be interested in the HISTORY behind it."

And I know several historians have. I've already seen two documentaries on the History Channel on the Battle of Thermopoalae and the Spartans.

I think it all comes down to how much different the film is in contrast with the reality. As historical pieces go, 300 is far from the worst offender when it comes to historical innaccuracy. However, 300 is so full of absolutely rediculous moments, that I feel this particular film doesn't really do the story justice.

It's an incredible and engaging story without the need to add giant fat guys with blades for arms or grenade-throwing persians or spartans with muscles that look so fake they might be wearing rubber body suits. It would be like watching a movie about the American Revolution, where the English all have ghoulish appearances, use weapons that don't exist yet, and no one bothers staying in formation when they open fire, instead opting to grab their bayonets and start going 'west side story' on us, all the while George Washington's wife is getting it on with an Empire Loyalist to give Georgie a political boost. That movie might be entertaining, but it doesn't do the real story any justice.

Yes, the people who are going to come away from the film may want to look into the facts afterwards. I would imagine that an even greater number are either going to a) think it's all fake, laugh at the rediculous points and forget about the story period, or b) think that this is how the story actually happened, and go through life imagining the story different than it actually was.

All that being said, my main beef isn't the historical innacuracies. My main beef is that it was so goofy, that I found myself trying to give the movie some credit, and then realized that I shouldn't have to. It's just wrong.

I saw it last night. It's very similar to "Gladiator."

As in it has high quality action scenes, but the rest of the movie is dreadful? If so, that's exactly what I expect to see.

My theater sold out two hours in advance two days in a row. :(

THIS IS SPARTA!

making the spartans politically correct, anti war, non racist, non sexist, whatever would have been so WRONG. it would have been worse than the historical inaccuracies in the movie as it is. what would be the sense to having an ethnically sensitive spartan?

those reviewers really do need to just shut up. the message of the movie is "spartans were kick ass fighters". thats all. if they dont like this sort of movie, FINE. to suggest that this isnt as excellent example of the kind of movie it is because it offends their modern political sensibilities is annoyingly stupid.

Just so you know, all Greeks in antiquity were racist, and referred to all non-Greeks as barbarians.

I saw the movie and thought it was god (except for those weird monsters Persia had)

Did anyone else think the whole freedom ideas got played up too much, same with Xerxes supposed gayness?

Just so you know, all Greeks in antiquity were racist, and referred to all non-Greeks as barbarians.

Don't forget sexist.

My main beef is that it was so goofy, that I found myself trying to give the movie some credit, and then realized that I shouldn't have to. It's just wrong.

It's a movie, not a documentery. Also it's based on the graphic novel, so blame Frank Miller if anyone.

If they told the real story I garuntee people would go out and kill every Phoecian they saw :p

Just so you know, all Greeks in antiquity were racist, and referred to all non-Greeks as barbarians.
Well, Aristotle and Thucydides certainly did, but you can’t say the entire Hellenic peoples held such a view. Epicurus, for example, certainly opposed such elitism/racism.

Persians darker than Hellenes? Yeah, that has no historical basis. You think it would threaten racists more to know that a powerful empire was widely composed of Africans. (not to mention the Carthaginians and moors).
The Persian empire was massive and encompassed many peoples. Persians proper (Iranids according to Coon) are in fact far more similar to certain leptomorphic strands of Northerners and Mediterraneans (Nordids/Mediterranids respectively) than anything else. The same applied with many Egyptians of the time. If "Persian" is used to refer to members of the empire at large though, I suppose it's possible many were dark skinned.

I don't know, I was sort of sold on Team Xerxes after I saw his battlefield palace and all the gold he was spending like water. I mean, damn...imagine what goes one back in Persia. That's a level of hedonistic decadence I could definitely enjoy.
It would appeal to us materialists. :D I certainly could not and would not want to live a Spartan life. Not so sure I'd want to live in Persia either though... most probably Athens instead.

Just so you know, all Greeks in antiquity were racist, and referred to all non-Greeks as barbarians.
Yes, they perfected the notion of white male privilege.

Well, Aristotle and Thucydides certainly did, but you can’t say the entire Hellenic peoples held such a view. Epicurus, for example, certainly opposed such elitism/racism.
The vast majority of Greeks held firmly to these views. Keep in mind individuals such as Epicurus (and Pyrrho) were not well liked.

And all the arguments made about "anti-war messages", "racist themes", "blah blah blah" can shove it. This wasn't meant to be philosophical or a morality tale, it is just a good story with great visuals about 300 of the hardest men on Earth kicking the living shit out of the world's largest empire.

For the record, I was quoting reviewers from the NYT and Slate.com in particular, not making those arguments myself.. I plan to see the movie next week. :)

It would appeal to us materialists. I certainly could not and would not want to live a Spartan life. Not so sure I'd want to live in Persia either though... most probably Athens instead.

I would too, but I'm a better fighter than lawyer. :p

The vast majority of Greeks held firmly to these views. Keep in mind individuals such as Epicurus (and Pyrrho) were not well liked.
Not well liked by the authorities of the time. But we have little, if any, evidence of the mindset of ‘Joe Bloggs’ Athenian.

It's an incredible and engaging story without the need to add giant fat guys with blades for arms or grenade-throwing persians or spartans with muscles that look so fake they might be wearing rubber body suits. It would be like watching a movie about the American Revolution, where the English all have ghoulish appearances, use weapons that don't exist yet, and no one bothers staying in formation when they open fire, instead opting to grab their bayonets and start going 'west side story' on us, all the while George Washington's wife is getting it on with an Empire Loyalist to give Georgie a political boost. That movie might be entertaining, but it doesn't do the real story any justice.

Say that in about 3000 years, when film makers (Or their 5007 counterparts) are looking at research on our ancient cultures and histories and think, "This story about rebelion in the ancient Americas could make a really good 'movie'." They may be as innacurate about us as we are about ancient Greece. But I'm willing to bet that the visuals would be BITCHIN'. Who cares if there were English soldiers running around with Maxim guns...it's really only about a 200 year discrepancy.

I realize that I have just made your point, but really, what is the harm? It may not do the movie justice, but sometimes a movie is just meant to be fun. Hell, it may even encourage some teens in those years to look up the "American Revolution" in the 51st century version of Wikipedia.

And they could always make a more accurate version of the revolution as a counterbalance.

PS: I would SO go see the movie you just described.

I think it all comes down to how much different the film is in contrast with the reality. As historical pieces go, 300 is far from the worst offender when it comes to historical innaccuracy. However, 300 is so full of absolutely rediculous moments, that I feel this particular film doesn't really do the story justice.

That's because it's based on the graphic novel, not the actual historical event. It's as far apart from the historical Thermopylae as the King Arthur stories are from Dark Age Britain; they contain historical information, and are based on actual events, but there's also a lot of fantastical embellishment in them to make them distinct stories, not just history. The author of 300 and the director who adapted it in to the movie intentionally wrote it to have those supernatural and ahistorical elements for entertainment and story purposes; it's not intended to be a historical movie by any stretch but rather a fantastic story set during a historical period.

Anyone who goes in to this movie thinking it will be a historical interpretation of the battle is going to be disappointed.

For the record, I was quoting reviewers from the NYT and Slate.com in particular, not making those arguments myself.. I plan to see the movie next week. :)

If you like outrageous violence interspersed with occassional nudity, you will enjoy it!

I went into that movie expecting a terrible plot and excellent combat. Unfortunately, the director seems to have an unhealthy attraction to slow motion, which I found took away an awful lot from the fighting. I also found it ironic that Leonidas speaks about how important the phalanx and fighting as a unit is, but the Spartans don't seem to be fighting as a phalanx nor do they hold formation.

One amusing thing my friend pointed out to me after the movie is the hunchback betrays the Spartans and is offered whatever he desires. Yet the next time we see him, the only difference is he's got a spiffy new hat.

It seems to me a disservice to fictionalize something this important and interesting in itself.

The appeal of Thermopylae should be that a small Greek force held off an enormous Persian one and saved the civilization which in large part has come to us today.

Thermopylae wasn't Lord of the Rings, there weren't monsters and it wasn't Great White Straight Hero of Freedom versus Magic Darkie Homo Savages.

The bravery and devotion of the Spartans was laudable and their triumph is almost unmatched in all the history of war, but they were real people, not cartoon characters.

One amusing thing my friend pointed out to me after the movie is the hunchback betrays the Spartans and is offered whatever he desires. Yet the next time we see him, the only difference is he's got a spiffy new hat.

Maybe the rest was awarded based upon success? The hat was maybe an advance payment...

But you have to admit that a spiffy new cone hat is a pretty sweet reward no matter which way you look at it.

Maybe the rest was awarded based upon success? The hat was maybe an advance payment...

But you have to admit that a spiffy new cone hat is a pretty sweet reward no matter which way you look at it.

"No, threesomes first, THEN I take you to the Spartans."

And with that, I am off!

"No, threesomes first, THEN I take you to the Spartans."

And with that, I am off!

Oh, absolutely. But I would still seriously consider the hat.

Go tell the Spartan, stranger passing by, that here obentient to their we lie.

Just saw the movie. Definetly on the top 5 list. Sweet movie.

Say that in about 3000 years, when film makers (Or their 5007 counterparts) are looking at research on our ancient cultures and histories and think, "This story about rebelion in the ancient Americas could make a really good 'movie'." They may be as innacurate about us as we are about ancient Greece. But I'm willing to bet that the visuals would be BITCHIN'. Who cares if there were English soldiers running around with Maxim guns...it's really only about a 200 year discrepancy.

I realize that I have just made your point, but really, what is the harm? It may not do the movie justice, but sometimes a movie is just meant to be fun. Hell, it may even encourage some teens in those years to look up the "American Revolution" in the 51st century version of Wikipedia.

And they could always make a more accurate version of the revolution as a counterbalance.

PS: I would SO go see the movie you just described.

That's because it's based on the graphic novel, not the actual historical event. It's as far apart from the historical Thermopylae as the King Arthur stories are from Dark Age Britain; they contain historical information, and are based on actual events, but there's also a lot of fantastical embellishment in them to make them distinct stories, not just history. The author of 300 and the director who adapted it in to the movie intentionally wrote it to have those supernatural and ahistorical elements for entertainment and story purposes; it's not intended to be a historical movie by any stretch but rather a fantastic story set during a historical period.

Anyone who goes in to this movie thinking it will be a historical interpretation of the battle is going to be disappointed.

Hey, don't get me wrong. I wasn't expecting the reality. I just expected better.

And I'd go watch the American Revolution movie I just described too. I just realize that it wouldn't do the American Revolution justice, and I'd be surrounded by morons going on about Washington's laser brigade or something.

Hey, don't get me wrong. I wasn't expecting the reality. I just expected better.

I guess it depends on whether or not you like that kind of fantastic history.

And I'd go watch the American Revolution movie I just described too. I just realize that it wouldn't do the American Revolution justice, and I'd be surrounded by morons going on about Washington's laser brigade or something.

It would be interesting, but useless as a commentary on the historical event itself.

Is there anything to this movie other than a whole lot of cartoonish violence?

I was thinking of seeing it, but the trailers turned me off.

I guess it depends on whether or not you like that kind of fantastic history.



It would be interesting, but useless as a commentary on the historical event itself.

I loved Braveheart. Think it's a fantastic flic. It isn't really historical if you look into it. However, 300, with it's limitations as an adaptation of a graphic novel, suffers from the goofy factor. Braveheart didn't come across as goofy to me. 300 did. That's what swayed me to the 'nah, it's not that great' side of the debate.

I will admit this; I love the classical Greco-Roman stories. So, to see those stories portrayed innacurately, espescially in such a cartoonish fasion, I get slightly irritated. But it isn't that, that bothers me so. It's the fact that they did that, and then made a goofy movie with it. If it wasn't stuck to the notion of planting a graphic novel to the big screen, they may have taken a little more creative license and told the story as it actually was.

But, I'm sure you guys see where I'm coming from. Not a bad movie. But disapointing.

Is there anything to this movie other than a whole lot of cartoonish violence?

I was thinking of seeing it, but the trailers turned me off.

I would say that the trailer is a good indication of what the movie is going to be like - except that I saw the trailer a bazillion (yes, a bazillion, I counted) times, and I was still disappointed.

Again, my beef isn't so much the historical side. It's the fact that I, (and most of the audience in the theatre) were too busy laughing at the rediculousness of it. Which is too bad, because it was off to a good start, and ended serioulsy campy at best.

I guess it depends on whether or not you like that kind of fantastic history. Fantastic cartoon.

Do i like this movie?
yes I am sure I will like it..
just like I like most of Hollywood blockbusters.. as entertainment.

Braveheart isn’t really historical if you look into it.
That’s the understatement of the fucking century.

That’s the understatement of the fucking century.

Thank you. But an enjoyable movie, yes? It's not that I hated 300, I just realized I was making exception for stupid parts and suddenly realized I was making allowances that I wouldnt' for any other movie.

I thought Braveheart was great. I found out after the fact that my great grandmother was distantly related to Robert the Bruce and it made me a little more interested in the reality of the story. Yet, I didn't get the 'goofy' factor out of it.

It seems to me a disservice to fictionalize something this important and interesting in itself.

The appeal of Thermopylae should be that a small Greek force held off an enormous Persian one and saved the civilization which in large part has come to us today.

Thermopylae wasn't Lord of the Rings, there weren't monsters and it wasn't Great White Straight Hero of Freedom versus Magic Darkie Homo Savages.

The bravery and devotion of the Spartans was laudable and their triumph is almost unmatched in all the history of war, but they were real people, not cartoon characters.

Triumph? Methinks you should study your history a bit better before passing judgement on a film's accuracy. Of the big three battles of the Persian War, Thermopylae was really the least important in a strategic or historical sense. The Spartans were sold out by a goat herder and slaughtered to the last man. It was a moral victory at best and perhaps an annoying speedbump for the Persian army.

If you want the real 'salvation of western civilization,' I'd look more to Salamis. It's a better story, anyway: Outnumbered two-to-one (or three-to-one, depending on how strictly you read Herodotus), with the Acropolis in flames, Athens sacked, and Attica ravaged, the Greek fleet kicks the ever-living piss out of the Persians and goes on kicking all them all the way back to Asia Minor.

That having been said, I haven't seen 300 yet, but I do plan on it. As has been mentioned, historic accuracy (especially in a movie which does not purport to be historically accurate) isn't all that important in the face of entertainment. I don't really think that Ares and Athena manifested themselves on opposing sides underneath the walls of Troy or that Odysseus visited the River Styx, and yet the Iliad and the Odyssey were the foundation of western literature. I'm not holding 300 up as an example of great art, of course, but I do think that being turned off of it because it's a reinterpritation of historic facts (which, if you read Herodotus, are really more fantastic than any movie could be) with elements of fantasy is rather silly.

Thank you. But an enjoyable movie, yes? It’s not that I hated 300, I just realized I was making exception for stupid parts and suddenly realized I was making allowances that I wouldnt’ for any other movie.

I thought Braveheart was great. I found out after the fact that my great grandmother was distantly related to Robert the Bruce and it made me a little more interested in the reality of the story. Yet, I didn’t get the ‘goofy’ factor out of it.
Braveheart is one of the worst films I’ve ever had the misfortune of seen. Unlike 300, it tries to present itself as historically accurate, while throwing all semblance of fact out the window.

It’s excruciating to watch Gibson Hollywoodise Scottish history; turning the interesting political development of an emerging nation into a fight between ham-acted noble savages with shocking accents, and Nazis in suits of armour.

Bleeuuuuurghhhh.

Braveheart is one of the worst films I’ve ever had the misfortune of seen. Unlike 300, it tries to present itself as historically accurate, while throwing all semblance of fact out the window.

It’s excruciating to watch Gibson Hollywoodise Scottish history; turning the interesting political development of an emerging nation into a fight between ham-acted noble savages with shocking accents, and Nazis in suits of armour.

Bleeuuuuurghhhh.

I'm sure there are greeks watching 300 complaining about the rediculousness of 300 as well. But you illustrate my point. I'm sure there are plenty who saw Braveheart that didn't go out and learn the truth of the situation afterwards. At best, they liked it, and assumed that the story was largely factual, becaue it was 'historical'.

I’m sure there are greeks watching 300 complaining about the rediculousness of 300 as well. But you illustrate my point. I’m sure there are plenty who saw Braveheart that didn’t go out and learn the truth of the situation afterwards. At best, they liked it, and assumed that the story was largely factual, becaue it was ‘historical’.
But at no point does 300 set out to be an adaptation of an historical event. It’s an adaptation of a fictionalised, supernatural re-telling of an ancient myth.

Braveheart, OTOH, sets out to present itself as historical. And it suffers because of it.

Triumph? Methinks you should study your history a bit better before passing judgement on a film's accuracy. Of the big three battles of the Persian War, Thermopylae was really the least important in a strategic or historical sense. The Spartans were sold out by a goat herder and slaughtered to the last man. It was a moral victory at best and perhaps an annoying speedbump for the Persian army.

If you want the real 'salvation of western civilization,' I'd look more to Salamis. It's a better story, anyway: Outnumbered two-to-one (or three-to-one, depending on how strictly you read Herodotus), with the Acropolis in flames, Athens sacked, and Attica ravaged, the Greek fleet kicks the ever-living piss out of the Persians and goes on kicking all them all the way back to Asia Minor.

That having been said, I haven't seen 300 yet, but I do plan on it. As has been mentioned, historic accuracy (especially in a movie which does not purport to be historically accurate) isn't all that important in the face of entertainment. I don't really think that Ares and Athena manifested themselves on opposing sides underneath the walls of Troy or that Odysseus visited the River Styx, and yet the Iliad and the Odyssey were the foundation of western literature. I'm not holding 300 up as an example of great art, of course, but I do think that being turned off of it because it's a reinterpritation of historic facts (which, if you read Herodotus, are really more fantastic than any movie could be) with elements of fantasy is rather silly.

300 doesn't even touch on Salamis. That's what I'm talking about.

However, go see it, and come back and tell us what you think. I didnt' think it was the worst movie I ever saw, but it was so 'over the top' in points, that I couldn't help but give it a thumbs down once all was said and done.

Which is too bad. Becaue it showed real promise for the frist half-hour or so.

But at no point does 300 set out to be an adaptation of an historical event. It’s an adaptation of a fictionalised, supernatural re-telling of an ancient myth.

Braveheart, OTOH, sets out to present itself as historical. And it suffers because of it.

Really? Were there press releases that stated that a) '300 is not historical' and b) 'Braveheart is a true story'? If so, I don't recall them. I'm thinking that your own hatred of Braveheart is due to your Scottish heritage, which is indicative of why historically based movies should at least have some resemblance to reality.

300 doesn't even touch on Salamis. That's what I'm talking about.

However, go see it, and come back and tell us what you think. I didnt' think it was the worst movie I ever saw, but it was so 'over the top' in points, that I couldn't help but give it a thumbs down once all was said and done.

Which is too bad. Becaue it showed real promise for the frist half-hour or so.

I'm afraid you may have confused the two seperate thoughts in my post. I am not complaining that 300 doesn't touch on Salamis (nor do I think that it ought to). Those first two paragraphs were merely to point out the hypocrisy of preaching historic accurateness while quoting the romantic, unfactual legend built up around Thermopylae.

I'll admit that I'm ignorant of the movie beyond seeing a few previews and trailers here and there, but so far I've liked what I've seen. The 'over-the-top' elements are in fact what most intrigue me. Ancient history, simply because records accurate by today's standards were not preserved and much of it came to us from an oral tradition, has always had a fantastic element to it, and I'm happy to see a film appear to embrace that (unlike a certain 2004 yawn-fest that managed to be neither historically accurate, fantastical, or even mildly entertaining and shall remain nameless). I'm planning to see it sometime next weekend (busy with work until then) and will report back.

If you see 300 and think that is what happened then you really need a reality check at several levels.

Mutated guy with swords for arms for example.

Exactly. So, okay as entertainment - yes. Does it do the story justice? - No.

Really? Were there press releases that stated that a) '300 is not historical' and b) 'Braveheart is a true story'? If so, I don't recall them. I'm thinking that your own hatred of Braveheart is due to your Scottish heritage, which is indicative of why historically based movies should at least have some resemblance to reality.

If you see 300 and think that is what happened then you really need a reality check at several levels.

Mutated guy with swords for arms for example.

I'm afraid you may have confused the two seperate thoughts in my post. I am not complaining that 300 doesn't touch on Salamis (nor do I think that it ought to). Those first two paragraphs were merely to point out the hypocrisy of preaching historic accurateness while quoting the romantic, unfactual legend built up around Thermopylae.

I'll admit that I'm ignorant of the movie beyond seeing a few previews and trailers here and there, but so far I've liked what I've seen. The 'over-the-top' elements are in fact what most intrigue me. Ancient history, simply because records accurate by today's standards were not preserved and much of it came to us from an oral tradition, has always had a fantastic element to it, and I'm happy to see a film appear to embrace that (unlike a certain 2004 yawn-fest that managed to be neither historically accurate, fantastical, or even mildly entertaining and shall remain nameless). I'm planning to see it sometime next weekend (busy with work until then) and will report back.

Fair enough. As I said, it's not awful. Just disapointingly inadequate.

Really? Were there press releases that stated that a) ‘300 is not historical’ and b) ‘Braveheart is a true story’? If so, I don’t recall them. I’m thinking that your own hatred of Braveheart is due to your Scottish heritage, which is indicative of why historically based movies should at least have some resemblance to reality.
Braveheart was clearly marketed as a historical film, an adaptation of the life of William Wallace. 300 is an adaptation of a graphic novel. You must see the difference between the two.

And I could direct my vitriol of Gibson’s butchering of history at The Patriot instead of the Braveheart, if you’d like to continue believing I harbour some insane national pride.

Braveheart was clearly marketed as a historical film, an adaptation of the life of William Wallace. 300 is an adaptation of a graphic novel. You must see the difference between the two.

And I could direct my vitriol of Gibson’s butchering of history at The Patriot instead of the Braveheart, if you’d like to continue believing I harbour some insane national pride.

No, Mel Gibson deserves all the vitriol you have.

I also believe that 300 was probably much better as a graphic novel.

Exactly. So, okay as entertainment–yes. Does it do the story justice?–No.
What story? The fictional account of 300 Spartans fighting a gagillion Persians? It never happened.

I also believe that 300 was probably much better as a graphic novel.
They usually are. Don’t get me started on the bastardisations of Alan Moore’s work.

What story? The fictional account of 300 Spartans fighting a gagillion Persians? It never happened.

Gagillion?

There is debate over the actual numbers of persians. The fact that the Greeks were vastly outnumbered is not questioned. And what is assured, is that 300 Spartans and 700 Thespians stayed behind to die from that collossal horde. Nothing fictional there.

Gagillion?

There is debate over the actual numbers of persians. The fact that the Greeks were vastly outnumbered is not questioned. And what is assured, is that 300 Spartans and 700 Thespians stayed behind to die from that collossal horde. Nothing fictional there.
That’s fair enough, and so would your objections be, if the movie was based on real events. But its not.

It’s like moaning that Bram Stoker’s Dracula isn’t historically accurate enough in the telling of the story of Vlad the Impaler.

Oh, and a gagillion is a million x lots.

That’s fair enough, and so would your objections be, if the movie was based on real events. But its not.

It’s like moaning that Bram Stoker’s Dracula isn’t historically accurate enough in the telling of the story of Vlad the Impaler.

Oh, and a gagillion is a million x lots.

Again, my objection isn't so much about the historical inaccurancies (and I do object to those). It's that it's fucking goofy. You've seen it right?

OMGZORG A STOIRY IS INACKURATE PEOPLZ WILL THINK ITZ TRU!!!!!

Jesus christ, does it even matter. It's not like this movie is going to change history books for fuck's sake.

I'm talking about my personal preference. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to portray the movie innacurately. I would personally rather see a movie that hold closer to reality.

That's about it.

Again, my objection isn’t so much about the historical inaccurancies (and I do object to those). It’s that it’s fucking goofy. You’ve seen it right?
Well, apologies if I’ve misread your arguments. Yeah I have seen it, and yeah it is ‘goofy’, if ‘goofy’, means over-the-top action, spectacular set pieces and weird and wonderful monsters.

Ooh, and Mcnulty. Fuckin’ McNulty.

Exactly. So, okay as entertainment - yes. Does it do the story justice? - No.

OMGZORG A STOIRY IS INACKURATE PEOPLZ WILL THINK ITZ TRU!!!!!

Jesus christ, does it even matter. It's not like this movie is going to change history books for fuck's sake.

I must say, this was a formidable movie. Opening night was crazy though, barely got in.

Well, apologies if I’ve misread your arguments. Yeah I have seen it, and yeah it is ‘goofy’, if ‘goofy’, means over-the-top action, spectacular set pieces and weird and wonderful monsters.

Ooh, and Mcnulty. Fuckin’ McNulty.

McNulty? I don't get it. Scottish thing?

And by goofy, I mean the 'love scene' was almost comic in it's soft-core porn ambition, the muscular Spartans came across as guys in latex suits, the executioner for the persians was a giant fat guy with swords for arms, the persians were using grenades, the Spartans spent most of their time fighting like skirmishers rathers than as a unit, and King Xerxes had a touchy-feely moment with Leonidas by rubbing his shoulders. Goofy.

I'm talking about my personal preference. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to portray the movie innacurately. I would personally rather see a movie that hold closer to reality.

That's about it.

Then you should watch History Channel and save your dollaru. Seeing the previews was there any point you thought: "This is going to portray what actually happened! By god the Thespians will get some credit!"

It's based off Frank Millers graphic novel, which is far more interesting than watching the Greeks stand in a line and butcher hapless Persians for two hours.

Then you should watch History Channel and save your dollaru. Seeing the previews was there any point you thought: "This is going to portray what actually happened! By god the Thespians will get some credit!"

It's based off Frank Millers graphic novel, which is far more interesting than watching the Greeks stand in a line and butcher hapless Persians for two hours.

As I mentioned earlier, I wasn't expecting it to be totally based on reality. That being said, I wasn't expecting it to be retarded either.

I still can't wait to see it, and I don't care if the Spartans are flying around like Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon.

Which was a good movie - because it was solidly written, and wasn't trying to portray an actual historical event. The action was also much, much better.

I still can't wait to see it, and I don't care if the Spartans are flying around like Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon.

McNulty? I don’t get it. Scottish thing?
No, no. no. Theron was played by Dominic West, who plays McNulty in The Best Goddamn TV Show On Earth™, HBO’s The Wire

And by goofy, I mean the ‘love scene’ was almost comic in it’s soft-core porn ambition, the muscular Spartans came across as guys in latex suits, the executioner for the persians was a giant fat guy with swords for arms, the persians were using grenades, the Spartans spent most of their time fighting like skirmishers rathers than as a unit, and King Xerxes had a touchy-feely moment with Leonidas by rubbing his shoulders. Goofy.
Yeah, and now we come back to the whole based-on-a-comic-not-reality concept. Like Superman.

Just so you know, all Greeks in antiquity were racist, and referred to all non-Greeks as barbarians.

So did virtually every other civilization in antiquity. Very few stand out as necessarily viewing others as equal or simply "different"; different often meant lesser, and thus barbarian.

Note from a friend who saw it twice already:

A "man's man" movie? I wonder if his conception of a "man's man" would conflict at all with my boyfriend and I liking it as much as we did :-P Hell, we probably liked it even more than he did; I liked the violence *and* the 300 built guys in shorter-than-short-shorts ;)

Hell, we probably liked it even more than he did; I liked the violence *and* the 300 built guys in shorter-than-short-shorts ;)
Who wears short shorts?
Spartans wear short shorts!

Which was a good movie - because it was solidly written, and wasn't trying to portray an actual historical event. The action was also much, much better.

The action in that movie put me to sleep, and the storyline...well the whole damn thing was boring.

A "man's man" movie? I wonder if his conception of a "man's man" would conflict at all with my boyfriend and I liking it as much as we did :-P Hell, we probably liked it even more than he did; I liked the violence *and* the 300 built guys in shorter-than-short-shorts ;)

word!

i dont normally like overly built men but DAYAM those guys were hot!

Heh, too bad. Most of what happened in Ancient Greece (especially Sparta) is probably too much for today's fragile minds. :) Still, a movie about hot Greek warriors is worth watching. :D

Likely, considering that for a long time the most successful fighting force of antiquity was a Spartan unit where all the soldiers were paired male lovers. The phalanx tactic was made all the more effective because they weren't just shielding another soldier to their left-- they were protecting the lives of their partners in life. And now there are those who worry that gays in the military will 'hurt morale and unit cohesion.' :-P

Am I the only one who was reminded of God of War during some of the slow-motion prepare to kill people then fast-motion slash ten people bits?

Likely, considering that for a long time the most successful fighting force of antiquity was a Spartan unit where all the soldiers were paired male lovers. The phalanx tactic was made all the more effective because they weren't just shielding another soldier to their left-- they were protecting the lives of their partners in life. And now there are those who worry that gays in the military will 'hurt morale and unit cohesion.' :-P

Hate to rain on your parade, but I don't know if we should really call the ancient Greeks gay. Sexuality in antiquity was viewed quite differently than it is now. In any case, didn't the movie make it seem that the other Greeks were the boy-lovers while the Spartans were not (there was some line in the movie that said this)? But then again, this is all just useless nit-picking.

Hate to rain on your parade, but I don't know if we should really call the ancient Greeks gay. Sexuality in antiquity was viewed quite differently than it is now. In any case, didn't the movie make it seem that the other Greeks were the boy-lovers while the Spartans were not (there was some line in the movie that said this)? But then again, this is all just useless nit-picking.

Plato's dialogues make the Athenians seem pretty fond of pederasty.. Phaedrus especially. No clue what the attitude was on the Spartan side.. in any case, critics are pretty angry about the movie in general.. if I get a minute, I'll post some excerpts.. very amusing. :p

Edit: I really doubt the military encouraged soldiers to pair up in gay groupings.. pretty unlikely. I've never heard of it, at least, and fathering children was a major civic duty back then.

Am I the only one who was reminded of God of War during some of the slow-motion prepare to kill people then fast-motion slash ten people bits?



Hate to rain on your parade, but I don't know if we should really call the ancient Greeks gay. Sexuality in antiquity was viewed quite differently than it is now. In any case, didn't the movie make it seem that the other Greeks were the boy-lovers while the Spartans were not (there was some line in the movie that said this)? But then again, this is all just useless nit-picking.

i think we can safely say that the greeks werent "straight". they werent concerned about enforcing one man/one woman relationships.

did the spartans do that adolescent boy/older man thing or were their lovers nearer their own age?

Plato's dialogues make the Athenians seem pretty fond of pederasty.. Phaedrus especially. No clue what the attitude was on the Spartan side.. in any case, critics are pretty angry about the movie in general.. if I get a minute, I'll post some excerpts.. very amusing. :p

Edit: I really doubt the military encouraged soldiers to pair up in gay groupings.. pretty unlikely. I've never heard of it, at least, and fathering children was a major civic duty back then.

one can be paired militarily with one's lover and still father children with one's wife.

Alright, a few quick quotes for fun.

...the kids just want to have fun. Many of them will. But what does that say about another Greek contribution -- Western civilization?

A violent movie? All of Western Civilization is at stake here! Clearly!

Nevertheless, it's not so much the body count or even the blood lust that's disturbing. It's that the film, with its macho militarism, seems out of step in a war-weary time.

Geez, good thing this guy wasn't around during WWII. :p

One of the few war movies I've seen in the past two decades that doesn't include at least some nod in the direction of antiwar sentiment.

What's wrong with a little diversity? :p Are we really obligated to amend ancient history to fit today's politics? Guess so.

If 300, the new battle epic based on the graphic novel by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley, had been made in Germany in the mid-1930s, it would be studied today alongside The Eternal Jew as a textbook example of how race-baiting fantasy and nationalist myth can serve as an incitement to total war.

If you liked this movie, you're a Nazi. If you haven't seen it yet, think twice when you're in line at the box office, and choose.. uh.. Norbit. Yeah.

...it isn't a stretch to imagine Adolf's boys at a "300" screening, heil-fiving each other throughout and then lining up to see it again.

Aha, that's two votes for Hitler. Two of several dozen, but they can't all be listed here, hilarious as it is. Just remember: if you watch this movie, you're watching it with Hitler! :eek:

Why can't it just be a cool fucking movie that's tryingto do something other than: "A Tim Allen Movie", "Eddie Murphy in a Fat Suit", "A Drew Barrymore/Hugh Grant Movie."

Because then all the elitist, overpaid film critics wouldn't be able to bitch.

one can be paired militarily with one's lover and still father children with one's wife.

Thanks for clearing that up.. :p

Really though, my point was that I haven't encountered any evidence that the Athenian military encouraged homosexuality, even if it wasn't taboo. In any case, the ancient Greeks viewed women as less than rational, more akin to a dog or a horse than a human being.. making valuable personal relationships something possible only among men.. might want to remember this before we declare ancient Athens a tolerant society. :p

Why can't it just be a cool fucking movie that's tryingto do something other than: "A Tim Allen Movie", "Eddie Murphy in a Fat Suit", "A Drew Barrymore/Hugh Grant Movie."

Alright, a few quick quotes for fun.



A violent movie? All of Western Civilization is at stake here! Clearly!



Geez, good thing this guy wasn't around during WWII. :p



What's wrong with a little diversity? :p Are we really obligated to amend ancient history to fit today's politics? Guess so.



If you liked this movie, you're a Nazi. If you haven't seen it yet, think twice when you're in line at the box office, and choose.. uh.. Norbit. Yeah.



Aha, that's two votes for Hitler. Two of several dozen, but they can't all be listed here, hilarious as it is. Just remember: if you watch this movie, you're watching it with Hitler! :eek:

the reviewers are such assholes. they want to be so modern and PC and against-the-war-in-iraq-ish. as if we are so weak minded that if we see this movie unwarned we will all become crazed war mongers demanding that the US invade iran.

either you like the movie or you dont. current politics doesnt make a movie good or bad. and in the end isnt the enormous number of dead bodies--including all but one spartan--anti war enough?

Thanks for clearing that up.. :p

Really though, my point was that I haven't encountered any evidence that the Athenian military encouraged homosexuality, even if it wasn't taboo. In any case, the ancient Greeks viewed women as less than rational, more akin to a dog or a horse than a human being.. making valuable personal relationships something possible only among men.. might want to remember this before we declare ancient Athens a tolerant society. :p

my bad, i thought you were talking about sparta. i have no idea how the athenian army was run. it wasnt a professional army was it? there would be no big reason to match up lovers from among those who had lovers their same age.

Likely, considering that for a long time the most successful fighting force of antiquity was a Spartan unit where all the soldiers were paired male lovers. The phalanx tactic was made all the more effective because they weren't just shielding another soldier to their left-- they were protecting the lives of their partners in life. And now there are those who worry that gays in the military will 'hurt morale and unit cohesion.' :-P

Hate to break it to ya, but that wasn't the Spartans. You might be thinking of the Theban band. The Spartans were possibly the most ardently against the idea of using sexuality to bond soldiers to one another. The founder of the Spartan constitution and the whole Spartan philosophy, Lycurgus, detested the fascination with physical beauty. (Which is ironic, since all of Sparta led clean and active lifestyles, making them the most attractive people in Greece.) Spartans also tended to marry earlier than their fellow greeks, which in turn meant more time spent with wives in the years that young men are discovering their sexuality. Which isn't to say that Spartans never practiced it, it just wasn't as you described.

The Theban Band however, did have a unit comprised of paired lovers, and it was the Theban Band that finally usurped Sparta's reputation as the baddest of the bad on Greek battlefields. Eventually, they in turn were beat by the Macedonians (who had no problem with pedaresty, but didn't create unit cohesion based on it.)

But your main point still stands; there's absolutely no reason gay people shouldn't be able to fight in the military. It's an absurd notion.

Hate to break it to ya, but that wasn't the Spartans. You might be thinking of the Theban band.
It was the Spartans as well. The difference being that if you were a Spartan, continuing a relation with the younger partner would be frowned upon, to say the least. Men were expected to marry women.

(Which is ironic, since all of Sparta led clean and active lifestyles, making them the most attractive people in Greece.)
Indeed, though I think Athenians (and other Greeks) also maintained healthy bodies. Especially the upper classes.

It was the Spartans as well. The difference being that if you were a Spartan, continuing a relation with the younger partner would be frowned upon, to say the least. Men were expected to marry women.

Granted, there is debate on this. Some historical sources, such as Xenophon, and Aristotle claim that Sparta was a largely heterosexual society, in contrast with most of Greece. Cicero (in much later Roman times) claims the opposite. We do know that the practice was far more accepted in ancient Greece than it is today. There is ample evidence that young men were encouraged to seek out older warriors for sexual encounters. However, the actual combination of pairing lovers in the military was not practiced as part of unit cohesion. That was definitely the case of a part of the Theban Band.

Prepare to be disappointed (http://movies2.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/movies/09thre.html).

I've seen some brutal reviews in my time, but damn.

Neither I, nor the audience that I sat in, was disappointed in the least.

Most of us went back out and bought tickets for another show.

Maybe the fact that Frank Miller's political beliefs about the current war against militant Islam came across VERY STRONGLY and VERY PLAINLY struck a chord.

I know that you would vomit if you saw it.

Ohhh yes can't wait for this to hit the UK, i'm gonna take both my boys!

Ohhh yes can't wait for this to hit the UK, i'm gonna take both my boys!
It was well, well worth it. Probably the most stirring movie I've seen in 20 years.

If all you are interested in are 'bitchin visuals' and consider that above any other aspect that a movie should present I would suggest just dropping some acid. The visuals will be spectacular, and as long as you stay in one place, much cheaper too. You might even come up with an epiphany, not that you would remember it, and you will deaden your mind as much as this movie will.

Q: You make the Spartans pretty idealistic, if bloodthirsty, as does the movie. How close is that to historical reality?

FM: The Spartans were a paradoxical people. They were the biggest slave owners in Greece. But at the same time, Spartan women had an unusual level of rights. It's a paradox that they were a bunch of people who in many ways were fascist, but they were the bulwark against the fall of democracy. The closest comparison you can draw in terms of our own military today is to think of the red-caped Spartans as being like our special-ops forces. They're these almost superhuman characters with a tremendous warrior ethic, who were unquesionably the best fighters in Greece. I didn't want to render Sparta in overly accurate terms, because ultimately I do want you to root for the Spartans. I couldn't show them being quite as cruel as they were. I made them as cruel as I thought a modern audience could stand.

OK, just watched trailer for 300...

since when did the Spartans fight in their underwear? I was under the impression that they had superior armour to their enemies. Is this the gay porn version of the battle of Thermopylae or something?

since when did the Spartans fight in their underwear? I was under the impression that they had superior armour to their enemies. Is this the gay porn version of the battle of Thermopylae or something?
Quite the opposite - the Greeks in fact envied the Persians with their luxurious armour (the higher ranks often sported gold). I'm not sure what amount of armaments (or lack thereof) characterised the Spartans, but the Persians had the advantage in wealth and gear.

OK, just watched trailer for 300...

since when did the Spartans fight in their underwear? I was under the impression that they had superior armour to their enemies. Is this the gay porn version of the battle of Thermopylae or something?

sigh

the one thing that the tv show "hercules" taught us is that if you drop the dresses people will love shows and movies about the ancient world. modern eyes just cant see a man in a dress or what looks like a pleated skirt as MANLY (kilt wearers excepted)

OK, just watched trailer for 300...

since when did the Spartans fight in their underwear? I was under the impression that they had superior armour to their enemies. Is this the gay porn version of the battle of Thermopylae or something?

In the graphic novel, they were actually wearing nothing but the cloaks, helmets, spears, and shields. I suppose they weren't going to try to make an NC-17 version of the movie, though. From what I understand of Spartan society, the shield was really the most important armor they possessed. A Spartan who lost his shield was killed or banished. I don't know precisely what armor the Spartans wore, but from what I understand of their fighting style, most armor would actually hinder movement, rather than helping them.

Edit: According to wiki, they did indeed wear breastplates and greaves on their legs, although these were not considered to be as important as the shield. The fact remains, however, that they were practically naked in the graphic novel on which the movie was based. =)

Quite the opposite - the Greeks in fact envied the Persians with their luxurious armour (the higher ranks often sported gold). I'm not sure what amount of armaments (or lack thereof) characterised the Spartans, but the Persians had the advantage in wealth and gear.
Well, I'm sure the high ranks were wealthy and may have had plenty of jewelry, but that doesn't make their armour better - and considering how many troops their side had and the fact that most were from countries that the Persian empire had conquered, I highly doubt they were better equipped than Spartan hoplites.

sigh

the one thing that the tv show "hercules" taught us is that if you drop the dresses people will love shows and movies about the ancient world. modern eyes just cant see a man in a dress or what looks like a pleated skirt as MANLY (kilt wearers excepted)

Well, yes, but they had bronze breastplates too. I don't think those are considered girly...

In the graphic novel, they were actually wearing nothing but the cloaks, helmets, spears, and shields. From what I understand of Spartan society, the shield was really the most important armor they possessed. A Spartan who lost his shield was killed or banished. I don't know precisely what armor the Spartans wore, but from what I understand of their fighting style, most armor would actually hinder movement, rather than helping them.
More or less. They were not big on most armour. Nor were they fond of walls - they believed their bodies were all the walls they needed. :)

Well, I'm sure the high ranks were wealthy and may have had plenty of jewelry, but that doesn't make their armour better - and considering how many troops their side had and the fact that most were from countries that the Persian empire had conquered, I highly doubt they were better equipped than Spartan hoplites.
I'm not too well informed on what the Spartans armed themselves with, but I recall references in history I've studied about how they were overwhelmed by Persian wealth - even the simplest of troops was armed well, allegedly.

People cant even see a guy without a shirt without screaming "HOMO ALERT!" anymore?

Damn, I wonder how these people go to the beaches. You know, there are a lot of non-gay people there barechested.

Well, I'm sure the high ranks were wealthy and may have had plenty of jewelry, but that doesn't make their armour better - and considering how many troops their side had and the fact that most were from countries that the Persian empire had conquered, I highly doubt they were better equipped than Spartan hoplites.



Well, yes, but they had bronze breastplates too. I don't think those are considered girly...

ya but the bronze breastplates came with the pleated skirt.

breastplate with adult diaper? not so good.

i read that they may or may not have worn breastplates so its OK to suppose they went without. they probably did wear leg protection and helmets though.

the immortals used rattan (the history channel called it wicker) shields best suited for protection from arrows. i dont think that was envied. the persians didnt use any metal armor but some had leather and linen armor.

People cant even see a guy without a shirt without screaming "HOMO ALERT!" anymore?
I was talking about what I thought looked like historical inaccuracy. The "gay porn" thing was just a joke.

Damn, I wonder how these people go to the beaches. You know, there are a lot of non-gay people there barechested.
I wonder how people get through life making up their own imaginary versions of what they read instead of what has actually been written.

In the graphic novel, they were actually wearing nothing but the cloaks, helmets, spears, and shields. I suppose they weren't going to try to make an NC-17 version of the movie, though. From what I understand of Spartan society, the shield was really the most important armor they possessed. A Spartan who lost his shield was killed or banished. I don't know precisely what armor the Spartans wore, but from what I understand of their fighting style, most armor would actually hinder movement, rather than helping them.

Edit: According to wiki, they did indeed wear breastplates and greaves on their legs, although these were not considered to be as important as the shield. The fact remains, however, that they were practically naked in the graphic novel on which the movie was based. =)

Spartans wore a type of Lamallar armor that was very effective against deflecting small arms. Essentially the Persian army was not equipped to fight against a well organized advanced land force. The Immortals, the elite Persian force, wore mostly cloth and leather armor with the infamous wicker shields with the cloth mask. The Spartans' main weapon, the Dory, was a six foot to nine foot long spear with a jagged blunt counter weight and a large flat head. In essence they could pierce right through the Immortal's shields and armor.

Had the battle been in open plains then The Persians could utilize their mobility, but that was not the case at Thermopolae.

*snip*
Do you have any idea what armaments the Persians at large had? The most I have to work with is some ancient references by the Spartans with regard to the Persians, stating that their golden armaments would not save them, as well as some quotes that the Persians were better equipped but ill-prepared to fight. This is of little help.

Do you have any idea what armaments the Persians at large had?

Not really, to my knowledge the Persians only had to subdue local tribes and most of their force was conscribed so I can't imagine they had the most desireable equipment. The same reason why the Roman Legions began to weaken was because it was mostly nomads trying to gain citizenship.

I know the Persians had excellent archers and cavalry including chariots, but as far as golden weapons...I think it was just a comment on the Persian lifestyle which was known to make Rome look like a bible study.

What riles me most about this stupid movie is that it takes a battle decided by discipline and superior tactics (the phalanx, long lances, big shields, holding the line &c.) and turned it into Gay Porn Monkey He-Man Heroes hopping around swordfighting.


A disservice to the Thermopylae.

What riles me most about this stupid movie is that it takes a battle decided by discipline and superior tactics (the phalanx, long lances, big shields, holding the line &c.) and turned it into Gay Porn Monkey He-Man Heroes hopping around swordfighting.
A disservice to the Thermopylae.Well, non of the movies of he past years has had any educational value as to narrate what really happened or to focus on the important points. Troy, Alexander, Kingdom of Heaven, Apocalypto. All completely worthless. Hollywood has never given a shit about history. They even don't give a shit about properly narrating fantasy such as LotR.

The film is based on a fictional and supernatural graphic novel, not the actual events of Thermopylae. Complaining about its historical inaccuracies is as futile as complaining about Dr. Strangelove‘s historically inaccurate portrayal of the cold war.

The movie runs into the same problem as, say, a fictional story about jews in a concentration camp making hatchets out of rocks and sticks and killing all the guards, then sabotaging a nazi factory.

Some real events, like the holocaust and some of the more important battles, are best not made the subject of fiction, especially poor quality fiction as with 300.

The film is based on a fictional and supernatural graphic novel, not the actual events of Thermopylae. Complaining about its historical inaccuracies is as futile as complaining about Dr. Strangelove‘s historically inaccurate portrayal of the cold war.

QFT

The film is based on a fictional and supernatural graphic novel, not the actual events of Thermopylae. Complaining about its historical inaccuracies is as futile as complaining about Dr. Strangelove‘s historically inaccurate portrayal of the cold war.I doubt that people make the distinction. The majority of viewers will think that the film does show what happened back then. And I am not sure whether or not folks do know what the movie is based on. Just as most folks viewing Troy have no clue who Homer was, or folks viewing Alexander have no clue who Ptolemy was or why he is the narrator of the movie.
And besides, I'd rather have an accurate movie about the Battle of Thermopylae. After all that's what the movie deals with,so I see no point in creating a fiction out of that in the first place.

After all that's what the movie deals with,so I see no point in creating a fiction out of that in the first place.

Because the fiction is more entertaining and that is what a movie is all about. Go watch the history channel, or stick to reading books because if you think a movie should be about the actual story then you have clearly been under a rock for the last century.

I doubt that people make the distinction. The majority of viewers will think that the film does show what happened back then. And I am not sure whether or not folks do know what the movie is based on. Just as most folks viewing Troy have no clue who Homer was, or folks viewing Alexander have no clue who Ptolemy was or why he is the narrator of the movie.
And besides, I'd rather have an accurate movie about Thermopylae.

Watch a documentary or a re-enactment, then.

I'm not prepared to underestimate an audience to such a degree that they would believe that Xerxes was nine feet tall and talked like one of the bad guys from Stargate, or that his executioner really had blades for hands, or that his court had a dude with a goats head, or that the priests had some semi-naked chick that could float in the air and mutter predictions.

I know it's the style here to pat ones self on the back and say, "I'z so smart, everybody else so dumb," but there has to be a limit. When you see the giant and notice the amount of stylization in the trailer you know the accuracy ship sailed. No matter how clever you want to make yourself feel in comparison to the 'average' audience, they're not that fucking stupid. So complaining about the accuracy eventually sounds like complaining that the Flintsones wasn't an accurate representation of Stone Age life. You may be, in fact are, right but saying so doesn't make anyone else but you look stupid.

Because the fiction is more entertaining and that is what a movie is all about. Go watch the history channel, or stick to reading books because if you think a movie should be about the actual story then you have clearly been under a rock for the last century.Why? For most movies it would not be too much of extra effort to stick to the facts, even without losing any entertaining aspects. After all, those stories from the "heroic" ages are in our minds and books because they are entertaining.

Just to point out here, it's not necessarily wrong to have rather seen a movie that was more historically based. However, as an adaptation of a graphic novel, this movie definitely passed the test. The question for me was, 'can I get over the fact that a 9' tall Xerxes just gave Leonidas a back rub?'. In the end, I decided that I enjoyed the movie, but I wouldn't go out and say that it was a 'good' movie. Too silly.

300 was definitely a feast for the eyes. The Soundtrack was also killer.

And besides, I'd rather have an accurate movie about the Battle of Thermopylae. After all that's what the movie deals with,so I see no point in creating a fiction out of that in the first place.

Fer Pete's sake, http://imdb.com/title/tt0055719/ .

Go watch that. It at least tries to be accurate. I think I saw a copy the other week in Target for like ten bucks.

Lastly, I would like to say that anyone who cannot tell from watching more than ten seconds of the trailer that 300 is not an accurate portrayal of historical events deserves a savage mocking from the other six billion people in the world with two brain cells to knock together.

bukkake.

Why? For most movies it would not be too much of extra effort to stick to the facts, even without losing any entertaining aspects. After all, those stories from the "heroic" ages are in our minds and books because they are entertaining.

This is too annoying to argue.

It would ruin the movie. Gladiator would be ruined. Troy would be ruined. Alexander would be ruined...er. The series on HBO called Rome would suck an abominable penis if it realistic.

This movie is FICTION, the graphic novel is FICTION, and guess what? Most of what we have that is accepted as true, ever read Suetonius? is FICTION.

bukkake.

Spaz?
:eek:

An interview on National Public Radio with Frank Miller (gives you even more insight into his politics).
....so did Iraq, eh?







Thank you Eve Online. *bows*

Some real events, like the holocaust and some of the more important battles, are best not made the subject of fiction, especially poor quality fiction as with 300.
Evermoreso, some real events shouldn't be specially crafted in the mannerism of anyone who portrays their own imposition of fiction as some kind of fact, as evidenced by proclamations in ... i dunno, maybe, interviews with NPR or something.
Might as well expect another month of guest shots of Miller on FOX. Maybe even an action figure of him and his own show.
Maybe even-er, a future episode of that show where Flush Limblob and Coulter were pres and veep, and Miller could be AG?

i give it :) :) :) :) :)

Fer Pete's sake, http://imdb.com/title/tt0055719/ .

Go watch that. It at least tries to be accurate. I think I saw a copy the other week in Target for like ten bucks.

Lastly, I would like to say that anyone who cannot tell from watching more than ten seconds of the trailer that 300 is not an accurate portrayal of historical events deserves a savage mocking from the other six billion people in the world with two brain cells to knock together.I have not seen any trailers yet. All I read is that it's about the battle of Thermopylae and that there are the characters that took part in that historical battle. So I supposed it is about that battle. But it is not about that battle but about some alternative history? And it's not about history at all but about a dumb story purely for entertainment?

I have not seen any trailers yet. All I read is that it's about the battle of Thermopylae and that there are the characters that took part in that historical battle. So I supposed it is about that battle. But it is not about that battle but about some alternative history? And it's not about history at all but about a dumb story purely for entertainment?

It's a fictional, and heavily exagerrated, take on reality. People do it all the time.

And honestly, I doubt the Battle of Thermopylae would have been that exciting to watch IRL. Remember: People tend to exaggerate ALOT, and back then, it was the flavor of the month, so to speak, to do so. The size of the men, the number of them, the battle itself and how people fought valiantly and bravely. In reality, here is the battle of Thermopylae:

Greeks form a really big line.
Persians fire lots and lots of crappy arrows that have no chance in hell of penetrating Greek Armor.
Persians charge in crappy soldiers. Crappy soldiers die really quickly due to having no armor, and the line doesn't move. Just a bunch of Greeks stabbing up and down.
Persians retreat.
Wash, rinse, and repeat in 30 second intervals for a day and a half.
Persians send in Immortals. Once again, horrible to use against Greeks.
Immortals succumb to the same tactic as previous men.
Persians send in more men. They die the same way. Who would have thought?
Persians "discover" the second pass, send men. Greeks guarding the pass easily overrun.
Most of Greek army disbanded. Spartans and Thespians remain, get slaughtered quickly.

YAY! You have an hour-long portion devoted to the battle of the exact same thing happening over and over again, and that isn't even fun to watch the first time.

Of course, there was a sea-battle going on that was just as important as Thermopylae, but meh. Nobody ever hears about that. I'm not saying it isn't an amazing battle, but seriously, in real life these battles were a BORE. They were slow, unintense, and not very energetic.

I rather enjoyed it, but then again I'm easy to please movie wise.

Wasnt this suposed to be a action movie? Yet I see people complaining that ONLY the action and soundtrack was awesome. Go figure.

And if you need a movie to "suspend belief", go find a shrink.

http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/2007/jakartadv5.png

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/9415/cartabu1.png

Sorry for the bump, but the pictures were worth it. :D

I love Photoshop...

I know what I'm getting in for. I was really disappointed at how heavily embellished this movie is going to be. One of the most compelling features of the story is that it is based on historical events. Regardless of the actual numbers of people involved, it is an incredible story that doesn't need embellishment.

Indeed...

The Battle of Thermopalae deserved a better telling.

There's an understatement.

The bravery and devotion of the Spartans was laudable and their triumph is almost unmatched in all the history of war, but they were real people, not cartoon characters.

Well said.

It sucks...I loathe this film, yet I have to hope that it does very well, or a proper telling of the tale will not make it to film for another 20 years.

It's a fictional, and heavily exagerrated, take on reality. People do it all the time.

<snip>
I'm not saying it isn't an amazing battle, but seriously, in real life these battles were a BORE. They were slow, unintense, and not very energetic.
Pretty much. It seems to me rather ridiculous to complain about the accuracy of a narrative depiction of a battle 5000 years old. We can't, by the very nature of the thing, be accurate.
Sorry for the bump, but the pictures were worth it. :D

I love Photoshop...

Quality. After the movie I kept calling random things Sparta and staring down people.

Pretty much. It seems to me rather ridiculous to complain about the accuracy of a narrative depiction of a battle 5000 years old. We can't, by the very nature of the thing, be accurate.



Indeed. I personally would love to see a fairly historically accurate movie based on it, encompassing not only the land battle, but also the battle at see(Of course liberties would need to be made), but I love movies like that. However, I also love movies which are just "based" on events, and that is all. I'm more than willing to give the movie a chance.

And hell, some of the "best" movies based on historical events are obviously exaggerated. Enemy At the Gates, We Were Soldiers, Gladiator, etc. I mean honestly, if you were to have movie that was purely historically accurate, nobody would watch them. Real life is far to boring, and far to hard to recreate.

And hell, some of the "best" movies based on historical events are obviously exaggerated.
That's one thing I agree with Ayn Rand on especially - that pieces of art (such as movies) ought to be romantic and non-realistic. Some of the best movies out there contain these features (e.g. Kill Bill, Sin City etc).

Indeed. I personally would love to see a fairly historically accurate movie based on it, encompassing not only the land battle, but also the battle at see(Of course liberties would need to be made), but I love movies like that. However, I also love movies which are just "based" on events, and that is all. I'm more than willing to give the movie a chance.

And hell, some of the "best" movies based on historical events are obviously exaggerated. Enemy At the Gates, We Were Soldiers, Gladiator, etc. I mean honestly, if you were to have movie that was purely historically accurate, nobody would watch them. Real life is far to boring, and far to hard to recreate.
To continue agreeing and expanding...

We have documentaries which will sometimes employ re-enactment and that's where the 'accuracy' buffs (I have to use quotes, because again, it's not like we have file footage of the event...) should be looking to get thier rocks off, not a narrative film and certainly not a narrative film as stylized as this one. One of the first things taught, conveyed, or sneered at a first time writer of narrative fiction, and especially scripts, is 'how it really happened' is irrelevant to the story your telling, what is relevant is a good story, and reality isn't always a good story.

When I want a laborious history lesson I have a whole channel for that, and I watch it. I don't go to narrative films for my history. It just doesn't make any sense to do that.

That's one thing I agree with Ayn Rand on especially - that pieces of art (such as movies) ought to be romantic and non-realistic. Some of the best movies out there contain these features (e.g. Kill Bill, Sin City etc).

Eh... Kill Bill aside(A horrid movie, at least Part 1), agreed.


To continue agreeing and expanding...

We have documentaries which will sometimes employ re-enactment and that's where the 'accuracy' buffs (I have to use quotes, because again, it's not like we have file footage of the event...) should be looking to get thier rocks off, not a narrative film and certainly not a narrative film as stylized as this one. One of the first things taught, conveyed, or sneered at a first time writer of narrative fiction, and especially scripts, is 'how it really happened' is irrelevant to the story your telling, what is relevant is a good story, and reality isn't always a good story.

When I want a laborious history lesson I have a whole channel for that, and I watch it. I don't go to narrative films for my history. It just doesn't make any sense to do that.


Indeed. For instance, if you are going to tell a historically accurate story of the battle, you would HAVE to include these few things:

1. The Athenians pissed off the Persians, and humiliated them, in the Ionian Rebellion(Not exactly a heroic rebellion).
2. The Persians were actually very good rulers, allowing the people they conquered to retain their way of life.
3. The Athenians SLAUGHTERED the persians at Marathon. And what I mean by this is that they brutally killed practically every last Persian, cutting down the retreating men. Hardly heroic.
4. Sparta really wasn't the target of Persia-Athens was. They were humiliated by Athens, and were seeking a bit of revenge, and pretty much only cared about taking them out-everyone else was secondary to that.

So, what we have, in summary:

Persians, whom were not tyrants, were seeking a bit of revenge from Athens after they helped in a rebellion, and brutally slaughtered Persian men at Marathon. Not only that, but Sparta wasn't even the main focus of the Persians-Athens was.

Wow. Suddenly a movie based on this really doesn't seem all that glorious.

3. The Athenians SLAUGHTERED the persians at Marathon. And what I mean by this is that they brutally killed practically every last Persian, cutting down the retreating men. Hardly heroic.

Now, not to be too contradictory here, but I have a hard time blaming the Athenians for defending their home city. Had the Persian force at Marathon continued to hold the Athenian army down, the Persian fleet rounding to the other side of Attica could have landed and taken the city unopposed. I may not be a military strategist, but why would you leave a large enemy force at your rear? It may have been uncouth in today's terms not to take prisoners, but hardly unusual at the time and was an act born out of desperation -- these people were fighting for their homeland, which they felt was threatened with absolute destruction. In those conditions, a retreating enemy could only be seen as one who would regroup and come at their rear while they were confronting Darias and the rest of his force.

Furthermore, Athenian participation in the Ionian revolt (which, no matter how benevolent the Persian rule or how petty the immediate cause, was still the imposition of a foreign state over people who saw themselves as culturally distinct) was more based around the local satrap’s refusal to expel the ci-devant tyrant of Athens from his personal protection.

Also, lest we forget, the Spartans had pledged to help the Athenians, but couldn’t show up in time to do anything because they were too busy partying. To quote you, “hardly heroic.”

Eh... Kill Bill aside(A horrid movie, at least Part 1), agreed.

Indeed. For instance, if you are going to tell a historically accurate story of the battle, you would HAVE to include these few things:

1. The Athenians pissed off the Persians, and humiliated them, in the Ionian Rebellion(Not exactly a heroic rebellion).
2. The Persians were actually very good rulers, allowing the people they conquered to retain their way of life.
3. The Athenians SLAUGHTERED the persians at Marathon. And what I mean by this is that they brutally killed practically every last Persian, cutting down the retreating men. Hardly heroic.
4. Sparta really wasn't the target of Persia-Athens was. They were humiliated by Athens, and were seeking a bit of revenge, and pretty much only cared about taking them out-everyone else was secondary to that.

So, what we have, in summary:

Persians, whom were not tyrants, were seeking a bit of revenge from Athens after they helped in a rebellion, and brutally slaughtered Persian men at Marathon. Not only that, but Sparta wasn't even the main focus of the Persians-Athens was.

Wow. Suddenly a movie based on this really doesn't seem all that glorious.

Yes, well , I'd quibble about your condemnation of the Athenians for SLAUGHTERING the Persians at Marathon. Had they won, the Persians would have gladly returned the favor.

Herodotus mentions 6400 Persian dead found on the field. The trouble is, we don't really know how big the Persian army was to start with, so it's hard to say whether that's a small or a large percentage.

Ultimately, though, killing the enemy was what you did in war. Still is, in fact. How glorious you make that depends on your point of view. For the Athenians, killing as many of the Persians (and don't forget those insidious Medes) as they could was the best way to keep them from sacking Athens, which was their intent. Defending hearth and home and Athenian motherhood, you know. Heck, you could do the story as a "Flags Of Our Fathers/Letters From Iwo Jima" pairing, one for each side, the Persians avenging the injuries done their empire by the Athenians, the Athenians standing up for Freedom and Democracy.

Yes, well , I'd quibble about your condemnation of the Athenians for SLAUGHTERING the Persians at Marathon. Had they won, the Persians would have gladly returned the favor.

Herodotus mentions 6400 Persian dead found on the field. The trouble is, we don't really know how big the Persian army was to start with, so it's hard to say whether that's a small or a large percentage.

Ultimately, though, killing the enemy was what you did in war. Still is, in fact. How glorious you make that depends on your point of view. For the Athenians, killing as many of the Persians (and don't forget those insidious Medes) as they could was the best way to keep them from sacking Athens, which was their intent. Defending hearth and home and Athenian motherhood, you know. Heck, you could do the story as a "Flags Of Our Fathers/Letters From Iwo Jima" pairing, one for each side, the Persians avenging the injuries done their empire by the Athenians, the Athenians standing up for Freedom and Democracy.

I'm not condemning the Athenians-it was common tactics to kill everyone you could.

However, I pointed it out as far to often the Greeks are seen as these nice people who can do nothing wrong. They are often portrayed as men defending themselves against unprovoked warmongers, which quite frankly is false. Not saying they were monsters or whatnot, simply that the common conception of them, is quite frankly a misconception.

Now, not to be too contradictory here, but I have a hard time blaming the Athenians for defending their home city. Had the Persian force at Marathon continued to hold the Athenian army down, the Persian fleet rounding to the other side of Attica could have landed and taken the city unopposed. I may not be a military strategist, but why would you leave a large enemy force at your rear? It may have been uncouth in today's terms not to take prisoners, but hardly unusual at the time and was an act born out of desperation -- these people were fighting for their homeland, which they felt was threatened with absolute destruction. In those conditions, a retreating enemy could only be seen as one who would regroup and come at their rear while they were confronting Darias and the rest of his force.

Furthermore, Athenian participation in the Ionian revolt (which, no matter how benevolent the Persian rule or how petty the immediate cause, was still the imposition of a foreign state over people who saw themselves as culturally distinct) was more based around the local satrap’s refusal to expel the ci-devant tyrant of Athens from his personal protection.

Also, lest we forget, the Spartans had pledged to help the Athenians, but couldn’t show up in time to do anything because they were too busy partying. To quote you, “hardly heroic.”

Sorry I sounded a bit harsh towards the Athenians, I'm just a bit jaded towards they way they are commonly perceived, not towards the Athenians and Greeks themselves. I'm not saying that the Persians couldn't be, or weren't, brutal at times, but the common perception of them is that they were tyrants and evil, killing men, women and children, with no provocation, forcing them into near-slavery, and the only ones willing to stand against them were the Greeks! Woo!...

Yeah. In truth, the Persians were a highly militarized society, whom although had the tendency to go out and conquer, also did not ruthless oppress the people(As stated, the people they conquered were allowed to retain a large degree of autonomy and their cultural ways). However, if you angered the Emporer, his wrath tended to be swift and brutal. The main reasons why people revolted was simply due to culture clash, and not wanting to be ruled over by those of another(There are various reasons for this).

Anywho...

What was my point again?

I'm not condemning the Athenians-it was common tactics to kill everyone you could.

However, I pointed it out as far to often the Greeks are seen as these nice people who can do nothing wrong. They are often portrayed as men defending themselves against unprovoked warmongers, which quite frankly is false. Not saying they were monsters or whatnot, simply that the common conception of them, is quite frankly a misconception.

Okay, I'd agree with you that the glorification of the Greeks does go a bit far, though for perfectly understandable reasons (bunch of olive-oil smelling bottom-touchers, if you ask me :p).

By modern standards, everyone in ancient times was a monster. Have a girl-child instead of a son? Just expose her on the nearest rural hillside, no problem. Defeat your enemy in battle? Cool, feel free to sell the inhabitants of their city into slavery (the ones you haven't killed).

OUR ARROWS SHALL BLOCK OUT THE SUN!!!

http://img485.imageshack.us/img485/2389/ootsmc6.jpg

:D

Okay, I'd agree with you that the glorification of the Greeks does go a bit far, though for perfectly understandable reasons (bunch of olive-oil smelling bottom-touchers, if you ask me :p).

By modern standards, everyone in ancient times was a monster. Have a girl-child instead of a son? Just expose her on the nearest rural hillside, no problem. Defeat your enemy in battle? Cool, feel free to sell the inhabitants of their city into slavery (the ones you haven't killed).

One of the things the Spartans had to do as a rite of passage was to kill a slave. If you get caught, you were punished severely(Not out of care of the slave, but because you weren't careful enough to do it silently).

Also, women were more or less property to many Greek city-states(However, it's odd in Sparta as women were venerated for birth-dieing in childbirth was one of the two way to get your name on a gravestone-the other being killed in battle).

Daughters were pretty much sold off to the highest bidder in some citystates.

Etc and so forth.

:D Greeks were true heroes.

OUR ARROWS SHALL BLOCK OUT THE SUN!!!

http://img485.imageshack.us/img485/2389/ootsmc6.jpg

:D

Elan never disapoints! :D

Kudos for the OotS reference. :D

Bestest movie in a very long time.

From now on i intend to assert that this movie was completely historically accurate down to the last detail, including the werewolf with glowing eyes, the birth defect freak and the 9 foot tall xerxes.

From now on i intend to assert that this movie was completely historically accurate down to the last detail, including the werewolf with glowing eyes, the birth defect freak and the 9 foot tall xerxes.

that wasnt a werewolf.

Hollywood declares war on Iranians (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117961076.html?categoryid=13&cs=1)

what would u call it then? sabre toothed feather-bellied greek wolf hound?

what would u call it then? sabre toothed feather-bellied greek wolf hound?

An artists rendition of a wolf in a graphic novel directly planted on the big screen - in its original 'artsy' form.