NationStates Jolt Archive

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.QFT

werewolf

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

leave off the hound part and there it is.

a werewolf is a human who turns into a wolf at the full moon.

i deduce from miller's interview quoted above that he was reluctant to have the truth of the story, that instead of killing a wild animal that a young spartan man had to sneak out and kill a slave. too creepy for modern sensibilities i guess.

To all you naysayers...90% of the movie is the recount from a Spartan...so quit bitching about it being inaccurate.

It's not to often a movie can make me laugh while a wounded soldier is being impaled.

"There's no reason why we can't be civil about this." :D

Bestest movie in a very long time.

I so totally agree. I watched it last night with my pops and my little brother, and I was not dissappointed at all. I was very please with the movie. In fact I plan on seeing it again this weekend. :)

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

The question is justified.

"What would people say if they made a film about Martin Luther King (Jr.), showed him as a monster, and tried to defend it as a fiction?"


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.The why does this FICTION use REAL names of REAL people in the context of REAL events of REAL past?
To vilify certain characters of history?

The question is justified.

"What would people say if they made a film about Martin Luther King (Jr.), showed him as a monster, and tried to defend it as a fiction?"

Historically speaking, Xerxes (no matter how you depict him in a film), was indeed invading Greece with a huge army, and was indeed demanding that the Greeks submit and kneel.

What do you suppose the Greeks should have done? Welcome him with open arms, and have a big party celebrating their new slave master?

Historically speaking, Xerxes (no matter how you depict him in a film), was indeed invading Greece with a huge army, and was indeed demanding that the Greeks submit and kneel.

What do you suppose the Greeks should have done? Welcome him with open arms, and have a big party celebrating their new slave master?

Well, they should have pulled up a table and tried to reason with each other diplomatically. And if that didn't work, they still shouldn't have fought, but rather let them live in Greece, so they can be multi cultural!:rolleyes:

Well, they should have pulled up a table and tried to reason with each other diplomatically. And if that didn't work, they still shouldn't have fought, but rather let them live in Greece, so they can be multi cultural!:rolleyes:

Yeah! Not! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Historically speaking, Xerxes (no matter how you depict him in a film), was indeed invading Greece with a huge army, and was indeed demanding that the Greeks submit and kneel.

What do you suppose the Greeks should have done? Welcome him with open arms, and have a big party celebrating their new slave master?Very funny. Spartans (i.e. Dorians) were slave-masters themselves (e.g. over Achaeans and Pelasgians).
The film's director Zack Snyder has claimed that "The events are 90 percent accurate". Is that so? And if, then what about the way in which those events and the people who took part in them are presented. Is there really a need to display Persians as bloodthirsty, underdeveloped zombies?

The question is justified.

"What would people say if they made a film about Martin Luther King (Jr.), showed him as a monster, and tried to defend it as a fiction?"

Are we really going to compare an emperor with slaves who went out trying to conquer the Greek city states to Martin Luther King, Jr.?

The why does this FICTION use REAL names of REAL people in the context of REAL events of REAL past?
To vilify certain characters of history?

Because, much like most fiction, it is at least partially based in reality. The whole point of Miller's version of the story is that it is told from the Spartan point-of-view - as if a Spartan were telling it. The invading Persians are obviously going to be seen as villains. It makes sense for a crippled person to be seen as a weak traitor who never should have been shown mercy. And so on....

Just like the fact that the numbers are most likely exaggerated (although no historian disputes that the forces were hugely imbalanced), the events and traits of those involved have been exaggerated - to make a good story.

Very funny. Spartans (i.e. Dorians) were slave-masters themselves (e.g. over Achaeans and Pelasgians).
The film's director Zack Snyder has claimed that "The events are 90 percent accurate". Is that so? And if, then what about the way in which those events and the people who took part in them are presented. Is there really a need to display Persians as bloodthirsty, underdeveloped zombies?

If you're telling it as a Spartan might have? Yes, probably. You don't think a Spartan storyteller would have said, "The Persians were really great. Honorable and all that. They were nice and gave us tea...."?

Very funny. Spartans (i.e. Dorians) were slave-masters themselves (e.g. over Achaeans and Pelasgians).
The film's director Zack Snyder has claimed that "The events are 90 percent accurate". Is that so? And if, then what about the way in which those events and the people who took part in them are presented. Is there really a need to display Persians as bloodthirsty, underdeveloped zombies?

So? There were other city-states at stake as well. It wasn't just Sparta at stake.

And if we're into self-determination, then the Spartans had the right to fight against Xerxes.

As for the zombie part, that's called fictionalization.

The actual battle at Thermopylae took place, and was a pivotal point in ensuring the rise of what we know as Western Civilization (one of several).

Honestly, why can't people go and enjoy the movie for what its worth. Of course there are historical inaccuaracies. I don't think anyone doubts that, but its a good movie, with excellent film making. So shut up about how Xerxes wasn't 18 feet tall IRL, because DUH, I know that, and guess what? I was still able to enjoy the movie.

Honestly, why can't people go and enjoy the movie for what its worth. Of course there are historical inaccuaracies. I don't think anyone doubts that, but its a good movie, with excellent film making. So shut up about how Xerxes wasn't 18 feet tall IRL, because DUH, I know that, and guess what? I was still able to enjoy the movie.

Some here can't enjoy the movie because of the historical reality that Western Civilization kicked Eastern ass.

As for the zombie part, that's called fictionalization.That's called demonization.

Some here can't enjoy the movie because of the historical reality that Western Civilization kicked Eastern ass.

Well that is true. I mean there have been instances where the East has definitly been able to kick the west's ass ( China is proof of this all through out history), but like I said, let's just enjoy the movie, and if not, then they can go away and make a new thread about how much the movie sucked to them. We don't want naysayers ruining our rocking good time!

Some here can't enjoy the movie because of the historical reality that Western Civilization kicked Eastern ass.What Western Civilization kicked Eastern ass?

That's called demonization.

What do you suppose people in those days thought of invaders?

Mmmm?

Let's pick an example, shall we? Without even going to a movie.

When the Mongols invaded Europe through Russia, how did the Europeans view the very human invaders from the East?

Well, they gave them a name first - Tatars.

Then they painted pictures of them. Often as part dog, part man.

And the artwork of the time was interesting as well.

Defeat of Poland's chivalry at Legnica, April 1241. In the centre the Tatar Chan is depicted plunging his sword into the back of Henry the Pious, who, at the bottom on the left, has just had his head severed by a Tatar. At the top, right, angels are depicted carrying off the souls of dead Christians, while at the bottom edge of the picture, on the left, the leviathan is licking up those of the infidel.—A. Karlowska-Kamzowa: Zagadnienie aktualizacji w slaskich wyobrazniach bitwy legnickiej, 1972—British Library.

Duke Henry's head is displayed on a lance before Legnica to the horror of the inhabitants.—Der Hedwigs Chronik—British Library.

You may note that while some "literary" license is taken, it is quite true that the Mongols regularly slaughtered prisoners by the thousands, often with the direct intent of scaring the shit out of their enemies.

This is to show you that this is the way people saw each other's enemies back then.

You're going to tell me that Xerxes was a nice guy, who just wanted some beachfront property in Greece, and that the Spartans overdid it, and the entire thing was completely unecessary because in your reality, the Persians were really nice people?

How many other places did Xerxes conquer? How many people did his armies kill? You're going to say that no one was afraid of Xerxes - that people didn't feel horror when hearing that his army was invading?

What Western Civilization kicked Eastern ass?

Historians generally agree that Greek civilization (and the subsequent Western civilization and Western thought) would not have survived had the battle been an easy one for Xerxes.

It did make him stop and think - and the losses demoralized his invading army.

I guess you didn't pass your A-levels.

Are we really going to compare an emperor with slaves who went out trying to conquer the Greek city states to Martin Luther King, Jr.?
...

Being the grandson of Cyrus the Great, the world’s very first great emancipator, the analogy should not be out of the question. However, from my understanding, Cyrus might compare well with MLK, but I fear that his grandson likely did not. But if someone made a documentary about MLK from the point of view of women who were abused or taken advantage of and left the politics in the background, MLK might not look so good himself…

Once again: 90% of the movie is the recount from the Spartan Thelios.

:eek:

Go bitch about a movie that doesn't raise the bar for ass kicking. Also why didn't the movie Alexander declare war on Iran? I guess only movies that are good can 'supposedly' make political statements.

You know if it had subtitles it would have been the greatest film ever in some people's opinion. ;)

Also, I enjoy all the commentary about how the battle was actually fought. I guess some people have psychic powers.

I liked it because it held true to the legend. If you want to be brutal, the only thing Thermopylae accomplished was the death of an incompetent general.

You know if it had subtitles it would have been the greatest film ever in some people's opinion. ;)

Also, I enjoy all the commentary about how the battle was actually fought. I guess some people have psychic powers.

I liked it because it held true to the legend. If you want to be brutal, the only thing Thermopylae accomplished was the death of an incompetent general.

Didn't it allow a successful retreat for the Greek allies, who later regrouped and successfully drove Persia out of Europe forever?

Once again: 90% of the movie is the recount from the Spartan Thelios.

:eek:

Go bitch about a movie that doesn't raise the bar for ass kicking. Also why didn't the movie Alexander declare war on Iran? I guess only movies that are good can 'supposedly' make political statements.

alexander was so mindnumbingly awful that people were probably too grateful that they survived it to bother considering its political implications in the modern world.

alexander was so mindnumbingly awful that people were probably too grateful that they survived it to bother considering its political implications in the modern world.

Alexander was frighteningly awful. Just horrid in so many ways.

It's coincidental I had read yet another book about Alexander's conquests prior to seeing the movie and got all pumped up to see it. I clearly have to stop reading good books before I go seeing movies.

You know if it had subtitles it would have been the greatest film ever in some people's opinion. ;)

Also, I enjoy all the commentary about how the battle was actually fought. I guess some people have psychic powers.

I liked it because it held true to the legend. If you want to be brutal, the only thing Thermopylae accomplished was the death of an incompetent general.

i liked it because it was beautiful, compelling and held just true enough to history to make you not feel like you were duped when looking up the real story.

oh yeah

and the men were HOT.

The movie was good as a movie.....but it was pretty screwed up in terms of the history lesson it will give people.

Persia did not control East Asian territories, so what's with the Samurai-esque soldiers? While it controlled Egypt, which had some sub-Saharan blacks present, the movie depicted them to be a large portion of the Persian Empire which is just inaccurate. Not to mention, it made them appear cowardly when they weren't, most of the Greeks appeared to be Viking-like Northern Europeans, and the Persian leaders appeared androgynous, unmanly, and sexually debauched. It just fuels already present xenophobia. Even a Greek film reviewer commented on that fact.

i liked it because it was beautiful, compelling and held just true enough to history to make you not feel like you were duped when looking up the real story.

Quite. It captured the legendary grace and strength of a spartan lochoi no?

And to those that say that it was all a matter of just holding the line, they have never read Herodotus.


oh yeah

and the men were HOT.

Yah. Even for a straight dood.

The movie was good as a movie.....but it was pretty screwed up in terms of the history lesson it will give people.

Persia did not control East Asian territories, so what's with the Samurai-esque soldiers? While it controlled Egypt, which had some sub-Saharan blacks present, the movie depicted them to be a large portion of the Persian Empire which is just inaccurate. Not to mention, it made them appear cowardly when they weren't, most of the Greeks appeared to be Viking-like Northern Europeans, and the Persian leaders appeared androgynous, unmanly, and sexually debauched. It just fuels already present xenophobia. Even a Greek film reviewer commented on that fact.

It was Thelio's retelling what happened for Christ's sake so of course it's going to inaccurate and exaggerated.

Just enjoy the goddamned movie.

It was Thelio's retelling what happened for Christ's sake so of course it's going to inaccurate and exaggerated.

Just enjoy the goddamned movie.

My problem is a lot of people see this as historically accurate (with even the director claiming it is "90%" so. Which is absolute crap. I enjoyed the movie, meanwhile all the redneck trash (which is a substantial amount of people) got their history lesson. Lovely.

My problem is a lot of people see this as historically accurate.

What!? lol.

What!? lol.

OK, we're not talking NationStates people. I'm talking your average, idiotic, redneck American. And yes, they do. The director even claimed it's about 90% accurate, and that's all these people need to think it's true. OH THOSE NASTY GAY PERSIANS! IM GLAD THEY LOST!

OK, we're not talking NationStates people. I'm talking your average, idiotic, redneck American. And yes, they do. The director even claimed it's about 90% accurate, and that's all these people need to think it's true. OH THOSE NASTY GAY PERSIANS! IM GLAD THEY LOST!

I'm sorry but people that stupid don't frequent areas that have a town, more or less movie theaters. You better be glad the Persian's lost because had Athens and its people been obliterated you can say good bye to modern democracy.

No one is that stupid and I'll tell you that I grew up in a trailer park.

"9 foot tall Xerxes eh? Ogres eh? Demons eh? THIS IS THE GREATEST HISTORY LESSON SINCE LORD OF THE RINGS!!!"

I'm sorry but people that stupid don't frequent areas that have a town, more or less movie theaters. You better be glad the Persian's lost because had Athens and its people been obliterated you can say good bye to modern democracy.

No one is that stupid and I'll tell you that I grew up in a trailer park.

"9 foot tall Xerxes eh? Ogres eh? Demons eh? THIS IS THE GREATEST HISTORY LESSON SINCE LORD OF THE RINGS!!!"

Xerxes wasn't 9 feet tall in the movie. But they did make him practically naked with all kinds of facial piercings, WHICH HE DIDN'T HAVE. He dressed like a King, Persian records, statues etc can attest to that. And yes, people are THAT stupid. I've met them. And all the rednecks cheered at the movie theatre. Also, Athens didn't have DEMOCRACY. Only citizens could vote, and citizens didn't mean someone who was born there. It meant priveleged men, which was a small portion of the people Athens. Why would I be glad the Persians lost? I highly doubt the world would be much different, especially because Athens was only ONE SMALL PART of the many inspirations the founding Fathers of the United States had. Besides, Athens was later conquered by Alexander the Great anyhow, so what's the difference?

EDIT: Besides, the Persians didn't OBLITERATE people when they conquered them. In fact, they usually gave them autonomy. Proves my point exactly, you think the Persians were complete savages.

In what sense were they Viking-like?

I got the impression they were Spartans.

"If a group of philosophers and boy touchers won't surrender then what do you think Sparta is going to decide?"

Not to mention, it made them appear cowardly when they weren't, most of the Greeks appeared to be Viking-like Northern Europeans
In what sense were they Viking-like?

In what sense were they Viking-like?

Well, first of all, most of them appeared to be Northern Europeans. Many were blonde and bearded, which is the Viking stereotype. Most Greeks (as seen by today's population) do not look like that. They are Mediterranean looking for the most part, just like the Persians.

You're going to tell me that Xerxes was a nice guy, who just wanted some beachfront property in Greece, and that the Spartans overdid it, and the entire thing was completely unecessary because in your reality, the Persians were really nice people?

How many other places did Xerxes conquer? How many people did his armies kill? You're going to say that no one was afraid of Xerxes - that people didn't feel horror when hearing that his army was invading?

Actually, the Persians, as far as rulers go, were quite good. They allowed a great degree of autonomy to the conquered lands, allowed the people to retain their cultures, and more or less didn't give a shit what they did-so long as they payed their taxes and followed whatever Persians ruled. Of course, their retaliation for defying Persia was quick and bloody-but that was the rule of the day. At the very least, they weren't blood-thirsty monsters that many often conceive them to be.

And yes, people WERE afraid of the Persians. At that time, they had the largest empire ever created-infact there are only a few which rival it for overall size.

That said, however, the Persian invasion of Greece WAS a direct result of the Athenians involvement in the Ionian rebellion, and the humiliation at Marathon.

Also, the Greeks weren't exactly benevolent themselves.

Not saying the Persians were nice and dandy, but that how they are portrayed is often in a very demonified way, and the Greeks are often glorified in much the same.

I'm sorry but people that stupid don't frequent areas that have a town, more or less movie theaters. You better be glad the Persian's lost because had Athens and its people been obliterated you can say good bye to modern democracy.

No one is that stupid and I'll tell you that I grew up in a trailer park.

"9 foot tall Xerxes eh? Ogres eh? Demons eh? THIS IS THE GREATEST HISTORY LESSON SINCE LORD OF THE RINGS!!!"

It's amazing, ain't it? The people who tend to think this movie is accurate(I have talked to a few-I would be shocked, but I long ago realized the idiocy of people) are the same ones who think that all that happened in the battle was that 300 Spartans held off 10 bajillion Persians. Of course, there is WAY more to this battle(Including an oft-forgotten Sea Battle ensuing at the exact same time, which was just as important as Thermopylae) than that, but meh.

Not knocking the movie, just stupid people.

Actually the movie made a brief mention of the sea battle, and made a cameo of the storm that obliterated 200 Persian warships.

Nevermind that storm took place roughly 400 miles to the south and a day into the battle of Thermopylae. :p

I really feel for Theumnystcles (I am not even close to spelling that correctly), the Athenian naval commander who won the war for Greece.

Actually, the Persians, as far as rulers go, were quite good. They allowed a great degree of autonomy to the conquered lands, allowed the people to retain their cultures, and more or less didn't give a shit what they did-so long as they payed their taxes and followed whatever Persians ruled. Of course, their retaliation for defying Persia was quick and bloody-but that was the rule of the day. At the very least, they weren't blood-thirsty monsters that many often conceive them to be.

And yes, people WERE afraid of the Persians. At that time, they had the largest empire ever created-infact there are only a few which rival it for overall size.

That said, however, the Persian invasion of Greece WAS a direct result of the Athenians involvement in the Ionian rebellion, and the humiliation at Marathon.

Also, the Greeks weren't exactly benevolent themselves.

Not saying the Persians were nice and dandy, but that how they are portrayed is often in a very demonified way, and the Greeks are often glorified in much the same.

Wasn't Persia a slave-free state, while the Greek city-states practiced slavery? I can remember hearing that this was so.

Well, first of all, most of them appeared to be Northern Europeans. Many were blonde and bearded, which is the Viking stereotype.

It's been theorised that the Spartans were of a leptomorphic brand of Northern European (characterised as "Xanthomediterranids" or "Nordids"), related to Mediterranids, unlike the burlier northern Cro-magnids, so it's not entirely impossible that many of them were in fact blonde. The type of Northerner that Spartans would be is the East-Nordid, the indo-European cousin of the Mediterranid.

Most Greeks (as seen by today's population) do not look like that.
Obviously not. You might still find such individuals in northern Greece though. Modern Greece is not a good representation of ancient Greece though - mostly because many Greeks have at least some Eastern European blood (e.g. Romanian).

They are Mediterranean looking for the most part, just like the Persians.
Yes, that's likely - Persians proper were of an indo-European strand closely linked to Meds.

It's been theorised that the Spartans were of a leptomorphic brand of Northern European (characterised as "Xanthomediterranids" or "Nordids"), related to Mediterranids, unlike the burlier northern Cro-magnids, so it's not entirely impossible that many of them were in fact blonde. The type of Northerner that Spartans would be is the Nordid, the indo-European cousin of the Mediterranid.


Obviously not. You might still find such individuals in northern Greece though. Modern Greece is not a good representation of ancient Greece though - mostly because many Greeks have at least some Eastern European blood (e.g. Romanian).


Yes, that's likely - Persians proper were of an indo-European strand closely linked to Meds.

Actually, most of those racial theories have been debunked. However, the fact of the matter is, most modern Iranians and Greeks look very similar. As for history, well Helen of Troy was specifically depicted as a blonde woman because blondes were very uncommon in Greek society, just as they are in other Mediterranean (including Iranian) cultures.

Actually, most of those racial theories have been debunked. However, the fact of the matter is, most modern Iranians and Greeks look very similar. As for history, well Helen of Troy was specifically depicted as a blonde woman because blondes were very uncommon in Greek society, just as they are in other Mediterranean (including Iranian) cultures.

There was only one or two blonde Spartans in the movie, and it really can't be that uncommon as their were plenty of blondes in Roman antiquity.

Actually the movie made a brief mention of the sea battle, and made a cameo of the storm that obliterated 200 Persian warships.

Nevermind that storm took place roughly 400 miles to the south and a day into the battle of Thermopylae. :p

I really feel for Theumnystcles (I am not even close to spelling that correctly), the Athenian naval commander who won the war for Greece.

They actually mentioned that? Hot damn, I'm going to see it just for that. It is rarely, if ever, mentioned in most articles on it, and only a handful of people actually know that it happened.

Indeed, had he not won that the battle, the Greeks would have been crushed easily, and the Persians would have likely taken Greece.

Actually, most of those racial theories have been debunked.
Debunked on the basis that they do not constitute a valid basis for racial categories - not on the basis that the types they refer to do not exist. I admit Coon's work is outdated and needs revision (which I doubt it'll ever receive), but he still made some very interesting observations (Arthur Jensen in fact did find many links that Coon suggested to hold true).

However, the fact of the matter is, most modern Iranians and Greeks look very similar.
Don't stretch it. I have lived in the Mediterranean and have been to Middle Eastern countries. Greeks do not look much like the majority of Iranians at all - they are fairer skinned and taller, to begin with.

As for history, well Helen of Troy was specifically depicted as a blonde woman because blondes were very uncommon in Greek society, just as they are in other Mediterranean (including Iranian) cultures.
Iran is not even a Mediterranean culture, for the mere fact that it's not next to the Mediterranean. Blondism was far more common amongst the Spartans than other ancient Greeks. Modern Greeks, as I have stated, are not an exact indication of what ancient Greeks would look like, for the mere fact that they have mixed with various other Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans. Blondness was hardly that uncommon in either Greece, or later Rome.

They actually mentioned that? Hot damn, I'm going to see it just for that. It is rarely, if ever, mentioned in most articles on it, and only a handful of people actually know that it happened.

Indeed, had he not won that the battle, the Greeks would have been crushed easily, and the Persians would have likely taken Greece.

He mentions holding off the Persian land forces while the Athenians cover their flank by sea. Also they mention that Thespians, Phocians, AND Arcadians are involved in the battle itself.

"Strange seeing you up here. I thought you'd be in the back with the Thespians."

"Sir the Persians are marching up the goat path to our flank and the Phocians have already fled to their lands."

It's only that the movie shows just what the Spartans did.

Some here can't enjoy the movie because of the historical reality that Western Civilization kicked Eastern ass.

Reporter: What do you think about western civilization?

Gandhi: I think that would be a good idea.


:p

Debunked on the basis that they do not constitute a valid basis for racial categories - not on the basis that the types they refer to do not exist. I admit Coon's work is outdated and needs revision (which I doubt it'll ever receive), but he still made some very interesting observations (Arthur Jensen in fact did find many links that Coon suggested to hold true).


Don't stretch it. I have lived in the Mediterranean and have been to Middle Eastern countries. Greeks do not look much like the majority of Iranians at all - they are fairer skinned and taller, to begin with.


Iran is not even a Mediterranean culture, for the mere fact that it's not next to the Mediterranean. Blondism was far more common amongst the Spartans than other ancient Greeks. Modern Greeks, as I have stated, are not an exact indication of what ancient Greeks would look like, for the mere fact that they have mixed with various other Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans. Blondness was hardly that uncommon in either Greece, or later Rome.


Iranians are not Arabs. To say the "Middle East" doesn't cut it. Greeks are usually not any fairer skinned than Iranians. I know Iranian and Greek Americans, they look basically the same, with some of the Greeks actually being darker than the Iranians.

I can't attest to what the Spartans may or may not have looked like, but Greeks as a whole were darked haired and Mediterranean in appearance. This is documented, and as I said, Helen of Troy was specifically depicted as blonde because blondes were uncommon and viewed as beautiful for this reason. This is true even today, when nations such as Italy, Spain and Greece often select blondes to represent them in international beauty pageants. What's rare is valued.

As for height, I doubt it. Mediterraneans are historically shorter than Northern Europeans. Romans and Greeks also both prided themselves in the fact that they weren't mostly fair skinned and blonde like the Germanic barbarians, and not so dark and "wooly" like Ethiopians. Interestingly, the Persians also prided themselves on this aspect.

Also, the Pashtuns of Afghanistan and Pakistan, being Irani peoples and descendants of the Ancient Persians, display the classical Iranian phenotype. While most are dark haired and eyed, they have many green and blue eyed people among them (hence their nickname as the Green Eyed People), and some red heads and blondes among them as well. There are only about 10 Pasthuns in my area, but most are fair skinned. One is in fact, orange haired and blue eyed.

Iranians are not Arabs. To say the "Middle East" doesn't cut it. Greeks are usually not any fairer skinned than Iranians. I know Iranian and Greek Americans, they look basically the same, with some of the Greeks actually being darker than the Iranians.
I know they are not Arabs, and that a good deal of Iranians are fair. The majority do not look much like Greeks though. I am not sure about expatriates in the US, but these are not what I am concerned with, since they are not necessarily representative of majorities.

I can't attest to what the Spartans may or may not have looked like, but Greeks as a whole were darked haired and Mediterranean in appearance. This is documented, and as I said, Helen of Troy was specifically depicted as blonde because blondes were uncommon and viewed as beautiful for this reason.
Yes, I am not saying all ancient Greeks were blonde - merely that it was hardly as rare in Sparta was one would think it was. Crete is the other region of Greece in which fairer hair is somewhat common.

This is true even today, when nations such as Italy, Spain and Greece often select blondes to represent them in international beauty pageants. What's rare is valued.
Blondness was revered both because of (relative) rarity and because of the purity Greeks thought it represented.

As for height, I doubt it. Mediterraneans are historically shorter than Northern Europeans. Romans and Greeks also both prided themselves in the fact that they weren't mostly fair skinned and blonde like the Germanic barbarians, and not so dark and "wooly" like Ethiopians. Interestingly, the Persians also prided themselves on this aspect.
Mediterraneans are not one monolithic roup. This is why I still consider Coon's contributions valuable when it comes to Europe. Certain strands of Mediterranid (the Atlanto-Mediterranid* in specific, referred to as Pontid when speaking of Eastern Europe) are taller and fairer than the Mediterranean mean - the Atlanto-med is incidentally the dominant type in Greece (as well as Southern France). It's not as tall or as fair-skinned as Northern European types, but it's close.

I'm familiar with the statement you make mention of, but it does not refer to blondness - merely to fairness of skin. Plato repeats it in The Republic - he considers the Greeks to be the perfect mean between swarthy southerners and pale northerners. Unlike Cro-magnid types in the North, the leptomorphic Nordid strain tans well, so it's perfectly possible to be blonde and closer to the Greek (Atlanto-med) mean pigmentation.

*Olivier Martinez is a good example of this type:
http://www.aceshowbiz.com/images/photo/olivier_martinez.jpg
http://www.mimifroufrou.com/scentedsalamander/images/olivier%20martinez.jpg

As is Barbara Temova, for the Eastern European variant:
http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/3720/barbaratemova33lz3jv2.jpg

Also, the Pashtuns of Afghanistan and Pakistan, being Irani peoples and descendants of the Ancient Persians, display the classical Iranian phenotype. While most are dark haired and eyed, they have many green and blue eyed people among them (hence their nickname as the Green Eyed People), and some red heads and blondes among them as well. There are only about 10 Pasthuns in my area, but most are fair skinned. One is in fact, orange haired and blue eyed.
I've heard of these. They are close to Mediterranids, but not exactly analogue (Coon referred to them as Irano-nordoids; they are in fact closer to Nordids and Meds than other Middle Easterners). Some of them claim ancenstry from Alexander the Great's troops. I'm not sure how well-founded their claims are, but this is what I have in mind when referring to Persians proper.

I've heard of these. They are close to Mediterranids, but not exactly analogue (Coon referred to them as Irano-nordoids; they are in fact closer to Nordids and Meds than other Middle Easterners). Some of them claim ancenstry from Alexander the Great's troops. I'm not sure how well-founded their claims are, but this is what I have in mind when referring to Persians proper.

I think it's ignorant to claim descent from Alexander's troops. For one, they were minimal. For two, they are Aryans (and even Semites have blonde hair etc, but that's another matter) with natural genetic drift.

I think it's ignorant to claim descent from Alexander's troops. For one, they were minimal. For two, they are Aryans (and even Semites have blonde hair etc, but that's another matter) with natural genetic drift.
Yes, I'm not too convinced on the matter myself. Persians proper have far greater resemblances to Greeks, without the need of such claims.

Interestingly enough, another group (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/02/wroman02.xml) of individuals like these has sprung up in China - they claim descent from Roman troops! It was on the Discovery Channel a while ago. Apparently, some academics are giving their claim serious consideration and investigating it. They certainly are not Chinese.

nterestingly enough, another group (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/02/wroman02.xml) of individuals like these has sprung up in China - they claim descent from Roman troops! It was on the Discovery Channel a while ago. Apparently, some academics are giving their claim serious consideration and investigating it. They certainly are not Chinese.

It's fairly well established that the Roman's had an embassy in China during the trajan period.

Where else would their silk come from?

Well, first of all, most of them appeared to be Northern Europeans. Many were blonde and bearded, which is the Viking stereotype. Most Greeks (as seen by today's population) do not look like that. They are Mediterranean looking for the most part, just like the Persians.

Uh, what do you define as many I saw one or two blonds, the two younger guys, but the majority of the Spartans including most of the other main characters were dark haired. As for the beards those are hardly uniquely "viking" features. My understanding was that facial hair was fairly common among ancient greeks as it was a mark that one was an adult.

It's fairly well established that the Roman's had an embassy in China during the trajan period.

Where else would their silk come from?
Their claim is a little more controversial than that. However, that could well be where these individuals originated from.

Where else would their silk come from?

Actually, it came via the Silk Road or from overseas traders that came from India and traveled through the Middle East. Roman contact with China and the rest of Asia was primarily through trade; the Roman government wasn't really capable of developing diplomatic relations with the Han Empire or the various kingdoms of the Indian subcontinent.

However, Roman coins have been found in places like Vietnam suggesting that their traders moved actively in Asia or at least had contact with traders from the region that brought the coins back.

Actually, it came via the Silk Road or from overseas traders that came from India and traveled through the Middle East. Roman contact with China and the rest of Asia was primarily through trade; the Roman government wasn't really capable of developing diplomatic relations with the Han Empire or the various kingdoms of the Indian subcontinent.

However, Roman coins have been found in places like Vietnam suggesting that their traders moved actively in Asia or at least had contact with traders from the region that brought the coins back.

There is some contretemps about the whole issue, I will admit. But the likelihood is that there was an embassy under trajan.

There is some contretemps about the whole issue, I will admit. But the likelihood is that there was an embassy under trajan.

I wouldn't doubt there was contact, but due to the huge amount of distance and time between them it was probably limited at best.

Unfortunately, the records of the time are pretty limited. However, we do know that Europe had knowledge of the Chinese empire as well as India, so it is entirely plausible, even likely that they had contact if not necessarily regular contact.

He mentions holding off the Persian land forces while the Athenians cover their flank by sea. Also they mention that Thespians, Phocians, AND Arcadians are involved in the battle itself.

"Strange seeing you up here. I thought you'd be in the back with the Thespians."

"Sir the Persians are marching up the goat path to our flank and the Phocians have already fled to their lands."

It's only that the movie shows just what the Spartans did.

That's what they said in the movie? :rolleyes:

The Spartans disbanded the Greeks, they didn't flee.

I find that quite funny for some odd reason.

And the Thespians stayed with the Spartans...

Oh well, still seems like a good movie.

Actually the Phocians defending the pass thought the Persians were heading to attack their homes rather than flank the hot gates so they withdrew back to Phocia. The movie only showed the 300 Spartans staying to the end though.

It also doesn't show what happened to Athens after the battle :p

[qutoe]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.[/quote]

The Persians had the advantage in wealth, certainly not in armor or armaments. The Greeks had much better armor.

I would suggest watching this movie for entertainment value only, if you are looking for anything of historical value do not use the movie, use a book. You'll be better off by far.

It was a fun movie, however, there are a few issues I had with it.

1. The other Greeks. The Thespians fought alongside the Spartans and also died at Thermopylae. Leonidas actually ordered some of the other Greek forces to leave when it was clear they were being encircled. The Phocians left to protect their homes.

2. The speedos. Greek hoplites had armor that included more than helmets and shields. They also had breastplates, back plates and greaves. Oh, and they wore little skirts, not speedos.

3. Xerxes. He probably looked more like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tresury_relief.JPG than Ru Paul.

4. The Persian Immortals were soldiers, not demonically possessed creatures.

There were other things, too, but these were the most major for me. All in all, I enjoyed the movie mightily even with its inaccuracies.

It was a fun movie, however, there are a few issues I had with it.

1. The other Greeks. The Thespians fought alongside the Spartans and also died at Thermopylae. Leonidas actually ordered some of the other Greek forces to leave when it was clear they were being encircled. The Phocians left to protect their homes.

2. The speedos. Greek hoplites had armor that included more than helmets and shields. They also had breastplates, back plates and greaves. Oh, and they wore little skirts, not speedos.

3. Xerxes. He probably looked more like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tresury_relief.JPG than Ru Paul.

4. The Persian Immortals were soldiers, not demonically possessed creatures.

There were other things, too, but these were the most major for me. All in all, I enjoyed the movie mightily even with its inaccuracies.

Well it's like bitching about the Last King of Scotland - which I thoroughly enjoyed also - isn't it?

Well it's like bitching about the Last King of Scotland - which I thoroughly enjoyed also - isn't it?

That was an excellent movie as well. Unfortunately, a lot of people didn't go to see it. Well worth the money.

It was a fun movie, however, there are a few issues I had with it.

1. The other Greeks. The Thespians fought alongside the Spartans and also died at Thermopylae. Leonidas actually ordered some of the other Greek forces to leave when it was clear they were being encircled. The Phocians left to protect their homes.

2. The speedos. Greek hoplites had armor that included more than helmets and shields. They also had breastplates, back plates and greaves. Oh, and they wore little skirts, not speedos.

3. Xerxes. He probably looked more like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tresury_relief.JPG than Ru Paul.

4. The Persian Immortals were soldiers, not demonically possessed creatures.

There were other things, too, but these were the most major for me. All in all, I enjoyed the movie mightily even with its inaccuracies.
Complaining about the historical inaccuracies of this movie is like complaining that Superman isn't the biography of some guy you know named Clark Kent - it's fucking retarded. This is a movie based on a graphic novel for fuck's sake. Which wasn't even directly based on the Battle of Thermopylae. It was inspired by an older movie that was already loosely based on the Battle. You historical accuracy pricks need to find something else to do with your worthless History degrees.

worthless History degrees.

Thank you!

That was an excellent movie as well. Unfortunately, a lot of people didn't go to see it. Well worth the money.

Yah. Sadly underexposed in my opinion. Of course, it wasn't 'factually' accurate either. And movies that are not 'factually' accurate are considered rubbish by some people.

(Even though they would wear shawl lapels).

You know a lot of people have been going on about the political message of the film, which I find kind of annoying sense when the book it was bassed on was written non of this was an issue, however I hae been thinking about it and it seems to me a case could be made to actualy reverse the message that they claim is being made. Lets look at it we have an international superpower invading a much smaller country. The more powerful country is led by the son of a man who had previously failed at conquring said country. The samller country however through pluck and a willingness to die for their home are able to stall/quagmire the much larger and richer invaders. In the eyes of the smaller nation the powerhouse is decadent and godless and the people of the smaller nation believe their is honor in dieing fighting the larger nation. Any of tha sound familiar to anyone else? I mean sure it isn't what the author intended, but since when has that had anything to do with how others interpert a piece.


PS: Oh, and I would like to see a source for the claim that the director said it was 90% accurate, since in all the interviews I saw they stressed that they wereaiming for accuracy with the comic, with history coming a far second. Oh, and I second the sentiment of TPH statment, if not the statement about history degrees.

You know a lot of people have been going on about the political message of the film, which I find kind of annoying sense when the book it was bassed on was written non of this was an issue, however I hae been thinking about it and it seems to me a case could be made to actualy reverse the message that they claim is being made. Lets look at it we have an international superpower invading a much smaller country. The more powerful country is led by the son of a man who had previously failed at conquring said country. The samller country however through pluck and a willingness to die for their home are able to stall/quagmire the much larger and richer invaders. In the eyes of the smaller nation the powerhouse is decadent and godless and the people of the smaller nation believe their is honor in dieing fighting the larger nation. Any of tha sound familiar to anyone else? I mean sure it isn't what the author intended, but since when has that had anything to do with how others interpert a piece.


PS: Oh, and I would like to see a source for the claim that the director said it was 90% accurate, since in all the interviews I saw they stressed that they wereaiming for accuracy with the comic, with history coming a far second. Oh, and I second the sentiment of TPH statment, if not the statement about history degrees.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300_%28film%29#Historical_accuracy

There you go. And it's cited. You're welcome to go to the original site.

EDIT: Can you say "douchebag"? What an arrogant prick that director is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300_%28film%29#Historical_accuracy

There you go. And it's cited. You're welcome to go to the original site.

EDIT: Can you say "douchebag"? What an arrogant prick that director is.

Hmm, he does say except for the visuales which are alot of the more outlandish stuff, however I'd agree he should't have said. I do find it odd that in the HBO special on it they made a point of saying that they weren't trying for accuracy, but than reverses that here. I would note that right after that remark he says this "22. Besides, it's an opera, not a documentary.
'My movie is more like an opera than a drama. That's what I say when people say it's historically inaccurate. You have to understand the convention I'm working in. Everything is at 11.'", further in that saem interview he says that it isn't ment to be a political picture "4. He really didn't mean to make a political statement. 'I'm pretty obvious. It's not like: 'Zack Snyder weaves his web so subtly. He's the most subtle filmmaker of our time.' I mean, come on! 'The Watchmen' will be political!'"

Hmm, he does say except for the visuales which are alot of the more outlandish stuff, however I'd agree he should't have said. I do find it odd that in the HBO special on it they made a point of saying that they weren't trying for accuracy, but than reverses that here. I would note that right after that remark he says this "22. Besides, it's an opera, not a documentary.
'My movie is more like an opera than a drama. That's what I say when people say it's historically inaccurate. You have to understand the convention I'm working in. Everything is at 11.'", further in that saem interview he says that it isn't ment to be a political picture "4. He really didn't mean to make a political statement. 'I'm pretty obvious. It's not like: 'Zack Snyder weaves his web so subtly. He's the most subtle filmmaker of our time.' I mean, come on! 'The Watchmen' will be political!'"

I liked the line where he said, "I've shown this movie to world-class historians who have said it's amazing. They can't believe it's as accurate as it is." That read to me like the historians were saying, "Dude, we're amazed you got anything right!"

Complaining about the historical inaccuracies of this movie is like complaining that Superman isn't the biography of some guy you know named Clark Kent - it's fucking retarded. This is a movie based on a graphic novel for fuck's sake. Which wasn't even directly based on the Battle of Thermopylae. It was inspired by an older movie that was already loosely based on the Battle. You historical accuracy pricks need to find something else to do with your worthless History degrees.

I'm a music major, asshole.

I wasn't complaining. It's a movie. I enjoyed it. It was definitely worth the price of a ticket. The inaccuracies were amusing as much as anything.

Right, just seen it - yay preview screenings - and I can say it didn't live up to the hype. Maybe I'm tired, maybe I'm not in the right mood, maybe the cinema was too hot; but 300 didn't really engage me. It felt like a series of visual set pieces linked together with a rather crappy script. I don't care about historical accuracy in this case, and the 'omg! brown people!' subtext wasn't particularly bad - but yeah, my opinion is just 'meh'. All the best bits are in the trailers.

for a battle where were not even sure of the numbers involved people aren't half bitching about how its historically inaccurate.

4. The Persian Immortals were soldiers, not demonically possessed creatures.


Actually, the Immortals main draw were their psychological factor. They WERE very well trained, however they were used to scare the shit out of the enemy. Imagine 10,000 men, marching in unison, in complete and total silence, with their faces covered by black hoods, coming at you. The way they were trained was to be seen as almost demonic in a sense, to completely break the morale of the enemy. They fought in unison, and in silence, never speaking a word, and incredibly disciplined.

Also, the reason the were called Immortals wasn't that they were seen as unkillable, but as one was killed, they were immediately replaced, by another person with no face.

Actually, the Immortals main draw were their psychological factor. They WERE very well trained, however they were used to scare the shit out of the enemy. Imagine 10,000 men, marching in unison, in complete and total silence, with their faces covered by black hoods, coming at you. The way they were trained was to be seen as almost demonic in a sense, to completely break the morale of the enemy. They fought in unison, and in silence, never speaking a word, and incredibly disciplined.

Also, the reason the were called Immortals wasn't that they were seen as unkillable, but as one was killed, they were immediately replaced, by another person with no face.

I am aware of this, however, they weren't some sort of weird zombie thing. You don't have to be demonic to be scary. I plan on getting the graphic novel, though. It was a good movie.

What was with the fat executioner dude with blade hand things? Has anyone here read the graphic novel, and if so, is he less random in it?

All in all the movie was pretty epic, which I like.

Hah, just seen this on the Guardian website. An A-Z of greeks, as seen by hollywood.
http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,2034572,00.html

I'm a music major, asshole.
Then shut your pothead ass up and stop bitching about historical inaccuracies in movies obviously not meant to be historically accurate.

I will see it in the next few weeks.Is there a message? Don't know, don't care.

It's a movie.

That's all.

Then shut your pothead ass up and stop bitching about historical inaccuracies in movies obviously not meant to be historically accurate.

I'm not a pothead, prick.

And no, I will not shut up. I wasn't talking shit about the movie. Inaccuracy doesn't make something a bad movie. I said it was fun to watch, didn't I? Jesus fucking christ, you exploded just because of slight issues. Don't get your panties in a twist.

The movie looks stupid and I have no desire to see it.

Then shut your pothead ass up and stop bitching about historical inaccuracies in movies obviously not meant to be historically accurate.

Actually, it's been established that the director claimed the film to be 90% accurate, which is absolute shit. So obviously, he thought, or wants us to think, that this a very accurate film, with the exception of the obvious CGI bits.

Hah, just seen this on the Guardian website. An A-Z of greeks, as seen by hollywood.
http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,2034572,00.html

Brilliant! :D

Actually, it's been established that the director claimed the film to be 90% accurate...what?
he was probably on crack.. Who in his right mind would actually believe him?

The only 90% accurate thing on the whole movie is that "sometime around those years there was a battle between Spartans and Persians.."

But that is like to claim "Tom & Jerry" is 90% accurate because Cats do hunt Mouses

Seeing as how the movie is a recount from Thelios, the demonizing of the Persian forces really can't be called inaccurate.

The two major innacuracies I saw were:

The Persian fleet that crashed on the shores near the hot gates. That happened a few days into the battle and a few hundred miles to the south.

None of the Thespians died with the Spartans.

Other than that if you actually pay attention during the movie that's about it.

90% isn't bunk because most of the details about Thermopylae aren't specific. Hell we barely have anything 100% factual left over from the Hellenic period.

The two major innacuracies I saw were:holy Guacamole.

How can you know there is only 2 ???

If you know there is only 2 in this movie.. by your level of knowledge.. Troy and Alexander movies must timeless mirrors of Greek life.

holy Guacamole.

How can you know there is only 2 ???

That's what I saw, not know.

Please point out the mistakes you saw, or are you just jumping on the self righteous historical **** bandwagon?

Actually, it's been established that the director claimed the film to be 90% accurate, which is absolute shit. So obviously, he thought, or wants us to think, that this a very accurate film, with the exception of the obvious CGI bits.

I'd like to see some quotes or links or something to verify this. Zack Snyder seems like he's got a pretty good head on his shoulders, and he made it clearer than anything else that 300 was based off Frank Miller's adaptation of the story, not neccessarily the true story.

That's what I saw, not know.
Please point out the mistakes you saw,
I am not going to pretend I have seen what happened thousands of years ago.

If you have seen that with your magic eyes.. then you are trully blessed.

or are you just jumping on the self righteous historical **** bandwagon?I am on the bandwagon of Logic.

This movie is based on epic narrative literature.. the Hellenic Greeks are good writers.

I am not going to pretend I have seen what happened thousands of years ago.

I am on the bandwagon of Logic.

We do have the remnants of what basically happened and when, but no specifics of the battle. We have great detail of what happened during the Naval battle, and even more about the later battle at Salamis.

Logic might tell you what a Spartan would say about his enemies to his own people. Thelios demonized the Persians and made Leonydas look like a god simple as that.

From what I know the movie is fairly accurate, not in details because no one really knows, but in general knowledge which we have.

We don't even know what happened at Troy or even if there was one. The movie, while well done, raped Homer's classic. Still good.

Alexander...I haven't lowered myself to watching that turd entirely.

We don't even know what happened at Troy or even if there was one. The movie, while well done.. raped Homer's classic. Still good.

Alexander...I haven't lowered myself to watching that turd entirely.I am not saying they are bad movies..
(like i said before) They are Good Movies.

Gladiator.
Alexander.
Troy.
300.
The Lord of the Rings.

they are all good.. they are great entertainment.
but for Christ sake.. stop pretending we can be 90% accurate about those wars.. hell we don't even know 90% of what is going on in the Iraq war.

We have great detail of what happened (2400 years ago) during the Naval battle, and even more about the later battle at Salamis.
rigthh.. (6 years ago) we had great detail about Saddam's WMD too.

Xerxes from the movie One night with the king.

http://www.8x.com/onenight/images/making_14.jpg

Xerxes in 300. :p

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/pictures/2007/03/13/3001.jpg

How could someone not watch the scene (depicted in the bottom) and not find it incredibly goofy? It was these elements of the movie that I disliked, and detracted from my enjoyment of the film. Would I like something a little more historically accurate? Sure. But not necessary.

Even the novel Gates of Fire, which I absolutely love, is rife with author created scenarios and characters which never existed. You have to understand that creative license is a necessary factor in storytelling.

My beef, is that the movie is just too silly in parts. And this is one of them.

I wanted to go see 300. So it is really, really good?

Stephen Colbert keeps talking about it on his show

I wanted to go see 300. So it is really, really good?

Stephen Colbert keeps talking about it on his show

It's definitely worth watching in theaters. At the very least, it's highly entertaining.

Anyone else love the one liners throughout the movie?

"See old friend, I brought more soldiers than you."

"Now there's no reason why we can't be civil about this."

"In case you haven't noticed we've been sharing our culture all morning."

"Only Spartan women give birth to real men."

etc, etc

Excessive? Absolutely. Entertaining? Even moreso.

Xerxes in 300. :p

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/pictures/2007/03/13/3001.jpg

You know, I'm not a historian, but I'm pretty sure Xerxes wasn't too big on BDSM

You know, I'm not a historian, but I'm pretty sure Xerxes wasn't too big on BDSM

I'm no historian, but I'm pretty sure Xerxes wasn't nine feet tall and suggestively attracted to Leonidas. That scene would have been fairly uncomfortable if the Spartan King wasn't such a smart ass :p

Is 300 a porno?

baaaaaaah!!!!!!:D

I'm wrattling my teacup as I write! As a historian, this article of inaccurate, sensationalist nonsense offends me!

Anything that isn't from the 16th century offends you :p

baaaaaaah!!!!!!:D

I'm wrattling my teacup as I write! As a historian, this article of inaccurate, sensationalist nonsense offends me!

I'm no historian, but I'm pretty sure Xerxes wasn't nine feet tall and suggestively attracted to Leonidas. That scene would have been fairly uncomfortable if the Spartan King wasn't such a smart ass :p

I'm planning on seeing it tomorrow. I'm fairly sure I will either be sitting confused all to hell, or laughing my ass off.

Anyone else love the one liners throughout the movie?

"See old friend, I brought more soldiers than you."

"Now there's no reason why we can't be civil about this."

"In case you haven't noticed we've been sharing our culture all morning."

"Only Spartan women give birth to real men."

etc, etc

Excessive? Absolutely. Entertaining? Even moreso.

i love the being civil one.

and

"Clearly you don't know our women. I might as well have marched them up here, judging by what I've seen."

Every one liner you quoted but the last one is worthless out of context.

The first is said when the Spartans meet a much larger Accadian force made up of common people whose leader questions the small Spartan troop.

The second is said after the Spartans just slaughtered thousands of Persian troops and Leonidas goes to a meeting with the approaching Xerxes.

And the third is said during that meeting (after the slaughtering Persians like they were cattle) when Xerxes is trying to tempt Leonidas with power over all of Greece and suggests the Spartans and Persians could share their cultures with the other.

People who have already seen it already know the context it was in, people who haven't seen it...well you just spoiled it a little more.

The guy who played Leonidas did an outstanding job.

Although I'm having nightmares about nipples because of this movie.

Anyone else love the one liners throughout the movie?

"See old friend, I brought more soldiers than you."

"Now there's no reason why we can't be civil about this."

"In case you haven't noticed we've been sharing our culture all morning."

"Only Spartan women give birth to real men."

etc, etc

Excessive? Absolutely. Entertaining? Even moreso.

Every one liner you quoted but the last one is worthless out of context.

The first is said when the Spartans meet a much larger Accadian force made up of common people whose leader questions the small Spartan troop.

The second is said after the Spartans just slaughtered thousands of Persian troops and Leonidas goes to a meeting with the approaching Xerxes.

And the third is said during that meeting (after the slaughtering Persians like they were cattle) when Xerxes is trying to tempt Leonidas with power over all of Greece and suggests the Spartans and Persians could share their cultures with the other.

Yes.

Not too far from it in some scenes.

"Yesssss!" "YEEEESSSSS" :D

Anything that isn't from the 16th century offends you :p

Not the bloody point!!!!!!!!!!!
:D

Although I might go to watch it, and I jus might enjoy it too..... I demand historical accuracy!

n.b. I'm drunkkkk. very drunkk:p :p :p

Is 300 a porno?
Yes.

Not the bloody point!!!!!!!!!!!
:D

Although I might go to watch it, and I jus might enjoy it too..... I demand historical accuracy!

n.b. I'm drunkkkk. very drunkk:p :p :p

Just let go and enjoy the movie, and especially the sound track.

Kudos, I'm about to go berserk on a bottle Bacardi :D

Anyone else love the one liners throughout the movie?

"See old friend, I brought more soldiers than you."

"Now there's no reason why we can't be civil about this."

"In case you haven't noticed we've been sharing our culture all morning."

"Only Spartan women give birth to real men."

etc, etc

Excessive? Absolutely. Entertaining? Even moreso.

Also highly appropriate, see Laconic Phrase. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconic_phrase)

The Spartans had little formal education beyond war, and were very rarely orators. They tended to say as much as possible, with as few words as possible.

baaaaaaah!!!!!!:D

I'm wrattling my teacup as I write! As a historian, this article of inaccurate, sensationalist nonsense offends me!

you should probably stick to documentaries then. you dont have the constitution to deal with fiction.

you should probably stick to documentaries then. you dont have the constitution to deal with fiction.

I can accept is decent enough as fiction, I just feel compelled to object to historical naccuracies.;) After all, weren't the 300 at Thermopylae heroic enough?

Also highly appropriate, see Laconic Phrase. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconic_phrase)

The Spartans had little formal education beyond war, and were very rarely orators. They tended to say as much as possible, with as few words as possible.

This one is great.
A Spartan king wanted his hair prepared, so he turned to his barber and said, "Cut it." When he was asked how he wanted it done, he answered "Short."

Yes.

Awesome!

I can accept is decent enough as fiction, I just feel compelled to object to historical naccuracies.;) After all, weren't the 300 at Thermopylae heroic enough?

if historical inaccuracy makes your hand shake there is no movie that wont offend you. movies are an art form. they arent meant to be documentaries. if it is to be a good movie you cant stick to dry fact.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/pictures/2007/03/13/3001.jpg
You know, I'm not a historian, but I'm pretty sure Xerxes wasn't too big on BDSM

I am no historian either but..

the Greeks were the Homosexual ones.. weren't they?

I am no historian either but..
the Greeks were the Homosexual ones.. weren't they?

Yup, pederasty and other homosexual acts were a widely practiced accepted part of Greek society. I don't know about the Spartans though.

I am no historian either but..

the Greeks were the Homosexual ones.. weren't they?

EVERYONE was homosexual back then, that's why they went exinct after a few years of civilization. :p

Leonidas actually brings that up against the Athenians.

"Rumors has it that the Athenians turned you down..." :D

Yup, pederasty and other homosexual acts were a widely practiced accepted part of Greek society. I don't know about the Spartans though.
Leonidas actually brings that up against the Athenians.

Leonidas actually brings that up against the Athenians.

There are two schools of thought about what spartan pederasty entailed however. Xenophon, as I recall, maintained it was chaste. Others gainsaid this opinion.

The Spartans were very secretive about their society, it's hard to say what really was going on at all.

Did anyone else see that goat playing the flute?Me and my friend could not stop laughing.We got kicked out the theater.

That was just creepy.

Yup, pederasty and other homosexual acts were a widely practiced accepted part of Greek society.what is pederasty?
The Greeks warriors.. were they Pedophiles?

If so.. sucked to be conquered peoples.. sucked to be a boy slave.

Did anyone else see that goat playing the flute?Me and my friend could not stop laughing.We got kicked out the theater.

There are two schools of thought about what spartan pederasty entailed however. Xenophon, as I recall, maintained it was chaste. Others gainsaid this opinion.

The Spartans were very secretive about their society, it's hard to say what really was going on at all.

Again, this really stems from their focus on war at the expense of other pursuits. Few could write at all, and fewer took the time to keep records. They just didn't bother to keep written histories, favoring traditional oral relation through the generations.

However, it was a hell of a lot more complicated then just saying EVERYONE was gay back then. More often then not, actual penetrative sex was ridiculed or frowned upon at least, and that's in other cities more open to it. The Spartans tended to be very critical of what would be called Malakos, essentially the Greek word for a metrosexual "girlyman" to the point that it was an insult. Its usage varied between referring to any kind of "soft" living to homosexual penetration which was considered "womanly." I doubt the Spartans would have held it in very high regard.

Also, in all this historical accuracy drivel business, I think people are missing the point.

Look, to anyone from the anglo world who thinks that any battle has just one story, go to Bayeux and have the nice French people explain the battle of hastings to you. It certainly was not what I learned in school.

And to complain that it was over-stylized is also ridiculous. It's not supposed to be bare recitation of the facts either. It's a story, given from the perspective of the spartan. That's all. So that would completely explain how the battle and the Persians were portrayed. (And considering the way the Macedonians behaved when Alexander declared himself great king, it's probably not to far from the truth in that respect).

The biggest inaccuracy would be the way the movie depicted some parts of spartan society, for example a spartan woman not being allowed to entertain another homioi in her bed chamber, or the ridiculous representation of the Ephors. Or the apparent co-equal status of the Perioici. Or the over large Gerousia.

But that's hardly a defect.

Anyway, if you want to be brutal about it historically, it was a nothing battle anyway. The only thing that happened of note is that the Spartans lost an incompetent general.

But the point of the movie wasn't supposed to be historical accuracy. It was just supposed to be about the Spartans and their myth. And that, it did, very well.

(Though obviously less well than their own spartan version which ultimately killed them off).

Did anyone else see that goat playing the flute?Me and my friend could not stop laughing.We got kicked out the theater.

Yeah seriously, what the fuck was with the goat playing the flute?
That and the MacFarlane escapee playing executioner.

Again, this really stems from their focus on war at the expense of other pursuits. Few could write at all, and fewer took the time to keep records. They just didn't bother to keep written histories, favoring traditional oral relation through the generations.

However, it was a hell of a lot more complicated then just saying EVERYONE was gay back then. More often then not, actual penetrative sex was ridiculed or frowned upon at least, and that's in other cities more open to it. The Spartans tended to be very critical of what would be called Malakos, essentially the Greek word for a metrosexual "girlyman" to the point that it was an insult. Its usage varied between referring to any kind of "soft" living to homosexual penetration which was considered "womanly." I doubt the Spartans would have held it in very high regard.

Well, quite. But they were secretive, and it stemmed from more than just the concentration on warfare; helot revolt was a constant problem historically for the Spartans which had been exploited by other greek city states, so they tended to keep their affairs to themselves.

My point was, it is all to easy to point to the spartans as a bunch of boy-lovers, when there is contemporary evidence to the contrary.

300 taught me that anyone who's not white, straight, and without any physical abnormality is almost always horribly disfigured and ALWAYS amoral, and that the Democrats are obviously in the pay of the Iranians ;o. Also, the Greeks were really Scotsman, and Xerxes was a hispanic.

Seriously though, the movie in itself was good. If the writing wasn't bad and there was more dialogue it could have been a lot better... 'Realism' isn't something that I was expecting, I think it's kind of neat how they took a real-life event and transformed it into a LOTR-esque epic.

The problem is that when you put 300 in today's political context, the movie seems like a clumsy, tactless, poorly thought-out, and desperate political commentary. Kind of ruined the experience ;[. Certain aspects of the 'unrealism' and factual deviation didn't really help this matter much.

Mind you, most people here weren't complaining when the US navy stormed a NAZI sub during WWII to crack the enigma code and beat the germans.

Go figure.

The Immortals are obviously the Revolutionary Guard ;p. :headbang:

Yeah seriously, what the fuck was with the goat playing the flute?
That and the MacFarlane escapee playing executioner.

Also,the rhino and elephants?And the big mutant thing?and the immortals looking like Samurai and looking like they had duel katana swords?This movie is full of weird shit.That goat appearing out of nowhere really got me and my friend.So random.So funny.

A good movie though,I am pissed about getting kicked out though.

actual (pedophile) penetrative sex was ridiculed or frowned upon at least.Like I said I am no historian but even the Greek tourism sites do say "sexual relations".

" Boy love (pederasty) in Athens was a formal bond between an adult man, outside his immediate family, and an adolescent boy, consisting of loving and often sexual relations."


http://www.athensinfoguide.com/gayboylove.htm
*warning* pictures *warning*

Also,the rhino and elephants?And the big mutant thing?and the immortals looking like Samurai and looking like they had duel katana swords?This movie is full of weird shit.That goat appearing out of nowhere really got me and my friend.So random.So funny.

A good movie though,I am pissed about getting kicked out though.

The elephants just all fell the fuck off the cliff, that was funny. And man, the Immortals were fucking ninjas. Did you see that one flying sidekick a Spartan? He got bicycle kicked like Liu Kang.

what is pederasty?
The Greeks warriors.. were they Pedophiles?

If so.. sucked to be conquered peoples.. sucked to be a boy slave.

I believe pederasty is teachers or other male role models having sexual relations with boys who were...uh..modeling them.

The elephants just all fell the fuck off the cliff, that was funny. And man, the Immortals were fucking ninjas. Did you see that one flying sidekick a Spartan? He got bicycle kicked like Liu Kang.

I saw that,

The immortals were just the regular Persian standing army,not Samurai Ninjas who look like monsters.

What happened after the goat scene?i got kicked out.

Let me guess,Leonidas and the spartans are surronded and killed.The 3days that the spartansbought greece allow the athenians to win at Salamis.The end.

Am i right?

I saw that,

The immortals were just the regular Persian standing army,not Samurai Ninjas who look like monsters.

What happened after the goat scene?i got kicked out.

Let me guess,Leonidas and the spartans are surronded and killed.The 3days that the spartansbought greece allow the athenians to win at Salamis.The end.

Am i right?

Well you know how it ends. The details don't really matter do they?

Well you know how it ends. The details don't really matter do they?

Nope,as long as they didnt seriouly fuck anything up.

Like I said I am no historian but even the Greek tourism sites do say "sexual relations".

Hey champ, Athens =/= Sparta. You may as well be comparing Australia to Japan.

The problem is that when you put 300 in today's political context, the movie seems like a clumsy, tactless, poorly thought-out, and desperate political commentary. Kind of ruined the experience ;[. Certain aspects of the 'unrealism' and factual deviation didn't really help this matter much.

Politcal commentary? All I got was:

"The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant."

You're reaching outside of that, and you fail to grasp anything solid.

I saw that,

The immortals were just the regular Persian standing army,not Samurai Ninjas who look like monsters.

What happened after the goat scene?i got kicked out.

Let me guess,Leonidas and the spartans are surronded and killed.The 3days that the spartansbought greece allow the athenians to win at Salamis.The end.

Am i right?
Yeah, the Spartans got fucking slaughtered.

I believe pederasty is teachers or other male role models having sexual relations with boys who were...uh..modeling them.i see.

BTW.. Wikipedia says the Spartans were homosexual/pederasty too.

"It is not only the most warlike peoples, the Boeotians, Spartans, and Cretans, who are the most susceptible to this kind of love but also the greatest heroes of old: Meleager, Achilles, Aristomenes, Cimon, and Epaminondas."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece#In_the_military

Nope,as long as they didnt seriouly fuck anything up.

It's Hollywood. They will always fuck something up in historical movies I'm afraid.

i see.

BTW.. Wikipedia says the Spartans were homosexual/pederasty too.

"It is not only the most warlike peoples, the Boeotians, Spartans, and Cretans, who are the most susceptible to this kind of love but also the greatest heroes of old: Meleager, Achilles, Aristomenes, Cimon, and Epaminondas."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece#In_the_military

As quoted by Phillip the II of Macedon.

It's Hollywood. They will always fuck something up in historical movies I'm afraid.

This movie was as historical as TMNT III.

The Greeks were Homosexual.

You mean to say the Spartans were not Greek?

Greek was made up of hundreds of radically different cultures. The Spartans and the Athenians were near polar fucking opposites and despised each other.

I'm not saying Spartans were all hetero, but that article related to Athens, and Sparta =/= Athens.

Hey champ, Athens =/= Sparta. You may as well be comparing Australia to Japan.The Greeks were Gay Pedophiles.

Are you saying the Spartans were not Greek ???? :confused:

The Greeks were Gay Pedophiles.

Are you saying the Spartans were not Greek ???? :confused:
Not all Greeks practised pederasty or tolerated homosexuality to the same extent. Spartans certainly less so than other Greeks - men were in fact expected to marry a female at some point or another. Bonding with younger males was used to boost cohesion within fighting units, but long-term sexual relationships were definitely not encouraged.

BTW.. Wikipedia says the Spartans were homosexual/pederasty too.

Heh...and obviously since Wikipedia says it, it's true! :rolleyes:

but I cannot find a source to support your "Spartans certainly less so than other Greeks" statement.
Try searching The History Channel's website. They had a documentary on this not too long ago - on how Spartan society functioned.

Heh...and obviously since Wikipedia says it, it's true! :rolleyes:

Silence unfaithful one!

..long-term sexual relationships were definitely not encouraged.that is true.. the sexual relationship usually ended when the boy reached adulthood.

but I cannot find a source to support your "Spartans certainly less so than other Greeks" statement.

Heh...and obviously since Wikipedia says it, it's true! :rolleyes:like I said..

all that happened more than 2000 years ago.. all we have is narrative writings.
Maybe that battle happened as written by the tellers.. or maybe its 90% fiction.

Maybe the Greeks were pedophile.. maybe that is fiction/legend too.

Try searching The History Channel's website. They had a documentary on this not too long ago - on how Spartan society functioned.

As you wrote this it was actually on The History Channel, at least in PDT.

As you wrote this it was actually on The History Channel, at least in PDT.

The story on the history channel was very well done.

Did anybody else say that this movie sucked the big fat one floating in the sky? Because that is what I'm saying. Better off splicing together scenes from Lord of the Rings, Gladiator and Sin City and calling it a new experience.

I thought it was quite well done. While I do lean towards the dialogue and "badassness" of Troy and the god that is Gladiator a bit more, 300 is what it set out to be: a highly-stylized highly-entertaining action film about the bravery of these men. I think it succeeded on both levels.

No one's asking it to win an Oscar.

I thought it was quite well done. While I do lean towards the dialogue and "badassness" of Troy and the god that is Gladiator a bit more, 300 is what it set out to be: a highly-stylized highly-entertaining action film about the bravery of these men. I think it succeeded on both levels.

No one's asking it to win an Oscar.

The highly stylized parts would have been more effective with the actual employment of a style which wasn't done before and done better.

I thought it was quite well done. While I do lean towards the dialogue and "badassness" of Troy and the god that is Gladiator a bit more, 300 is what it set out to be: a highly-stylized highly-entertaining action film about the bravery of these men. I think it succeeded on both levels. I can agree with that..
BTW successful it will be.. just look at the BOX office

I can agree with that..
BTW successful it will be.. just look at the BOX office

Successful it it already is (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=300.htm). Ghost Rider only barely beat it to the $100 million mark by having a few weeks head start. How Ghost Rider managed that I'll never figure out...but that's another subject...

Though, if you look at the daily receipts (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=300.htm), that's a pretty big drop off for the second weekend. That's usually not a good sign. But it's still enough to keep it at as the top earner this weekend, so I don't know that any tears will be shed at WB.

I guess this means we get a Watchmen movie now.

Successful it it already is (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=300.htm). Ghost Rider only barely beat it to the $100 million mark by having a few weeks head start. How Ghost Rider managed that I'll never figure out...but that's another subject...

Though, if you look at the daily receipts (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=300.htm), that's a pretty big drop off for the second weekend. That's usually not a good sign. But it's still enough to keep it at as the top earner this weekend, so I don't know that any tears will be shed at WB.

I guess this means we get a Watchmen movie now.

im hoping for a troy sequel (the odyssey obviously) since sean bean was odysseus on that movie. i have a slight thing for sean bean.

im hoping for a troy sequel (the odyssey obviously) since sean bean was odysseus on that movie. i have a slight thing for sean bean.

An odyssey movie with Sean Bean would be pretty kickass.

I'm a comfortably heterosexual male and I have a thing for Sean Bean.

And yes, an Odyssey with him would pwn. Hard.

Anything with him would pwn, except Alexander.

im hoping for a troy sequel (the odyssey obviously) since sean bean was odysseus on that movie. i have a slight thing for sean bean.

I'm a comfortably heterosexual male and I have a thing for Sean Bean.

And yes, an Odyssey with him would pwn. Hard.

Anything with him would pwn, except Alexander.

Or Equilibrium.

Or Equilibrium.

That's just adding the jeweled embedded golden trim on the Mona Lisa.