300 Movie


PDA






C-grunt
March 10, 2007, 03:55 PM
Well I went and saw the movie 300 last night. It is awesome. They even included the "Molon Labe" Obviously not in Greek. Also it definitely is not for children....lots of nudity and bloody violence.

If you enjoyed reading about "300 Movie" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Geegolly
March 10, 2007, 04:07 PM
I went and saw it last night aswell. All I can say about it is, WOW.

Especially loved this...
Spartans lay down your weapons
Come and get them

Zoogster
March 10, 2007, 04:28 PM
Totaly fake movie, entirely innacurate portrayal of every single aspect of not only the battle, but the tactics, the movements, the gear, nevermind remotely resembling Spartan culture or beliefs.

The movie was designed to appeal to emotions, not portray anything that actualy happened, a way of life, or even a people.

The people of Sparta would be nearly impossible for modern people to relate to if accurately displayed, so they are displayed in entirely inaccurate ways so the target audience can emotional relate and buy into it.

Glad you enjoyed it, but just remember it is not even loosely based on reality, it is based on a entirely fictional comic book.

Cesiumsponge
March 10, 2007, 04:40 PM
Totaly fake movie, entirely innacurate portrayal of every single aspect of not only the battle, but the tactics, the movements, the gear, nevermind remotely resembling Spartan culture or beliefs.

The movie was designed to appeal to emotions, not portray anything that actualy happened, a way of life, or even a people.

The people of Sparta would be nearly impossible for modern people to relate to if accurately displayed, so they are displayed in entirely inaccurate ways so the target audience can emotional relate and buy into it.

Glad you enjoyed it, but just remember it is not even loosely based on reality, it is based on a entirely fictional comic book.

It was an entertainment movie, not a documentary. I would hope that was obvious. Did you cry about the giant fat guy with sawblade arms or the Smeagol-looking character as being historically inaccurate too? :neener: Sorry, I couldn't help it. It's a great movie with a great theme. Take it for what it is--entertainment.

C-grunt
March 10, 2007, 04:46 PM
The fact that it was made by the same guy who did "Sin City" and also being based off a comic book......I wasnt expecting it to be historically accurate. But it was an amazing movie and definitely one of my all time favorites.

TCB in TN
March 10, 2007, 04:55 PM
Great movie, had more fun and left with a BIG SMILE! :D

It isn't historicly accurate, but name one movie that really is. Hollywood is there to entertain, as long as they do that and don't "CLAIM" to be educating we are all right. It is when they start trying to say they are telling the "true" story that I worry.

Zoogster
March 10, 2007, 04:59 PM
It was an entertainment movie, not a documentary. I would hope that was obvious. Did you cry about the giant fat guy with sawblade arms or the Smeagol-looking character as being historically inaccurate too? Sorry, I couldn't help it. It's a great movie with a great theme. Take it for what it is--entertainment.

The difference being people are quoting real lines, said by real people, during a real battle being entirely falsely portrayed. The references you cite never hinted even remotely at anything in history. They were fiction for fictions sake.

It is not even an innacurate portrayal of a real event, it is a fake event with references to something real in history. So it is more than misleading to uninformed.

There is fake fictional movies that at least attempt some level of fictional control even though they are not historicaly accurate and do well. Gladiator or Troy come to mind as good movies that sold well without becoming excessively fictitious.

This movie is total crap, I certainly hope low budget, and not worth citing on a gun forum as the only thing relevant is not even accurately portrayed.

Bazooka Joe71
March 10, 2007, 05:12 PM
I definately want to see this "total crap" of a movie!

But what does The Battle of Thermopylae have to do with with guns?

'Card
March 10, 2007, 05:25 PM
Let's lighten up on the 'historically accurate' bit, OK? That's a relevant point if you're talking about Braveheart, because people come out of movies like that with the fraudulent belief that they have now acquired some actual knowledge regarding actual events that may have actually happened.

300 is an entirely different animal. The fact that it's highly stylized, looks more like a music video, and has... you know, monsters in it - will prevent any but those most critically unencumbered by the thought process from getting the impression that this represents actual historical events.

And if it inspires just a few kids to look up what really happened at the Battle of Thermopylae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae)? Then it's all good in my book.

Zoogster
March 10, 2007, 05:40 PM
But what does The Battle of Thermopylae have to do with with guns?

To the gun rights people it has to do with arms. However I would venture that it is actualy a very bad example of a people to highlight for RKBA.

They had an entirely slave population who they routinely terrorized to keep them subordinate and submissive. Had rights of passage that included sending young boys out into the night to kill members of the slave population.

Newborn babies were bathed in alcoholic wine to see if they were strong enough to survive it. If they did then they were eligible for inspection by the elders, who if they found any flaws put the baby outside for the animals to eat.

Men were fined for not taking boy lovers. It was expected that men be active pedophiles and mentors of a boy as it was believed to help create a stronger positive influance. Women were expected to do the same, though they were not legaly bound or fined for not doing it.

The men were very feminine by todays standards, combing thier hair before battles, engaging in bisexual relationships, etc which actualy probably was a major contributor in thier sense of duty and valor to eachother as they were emotional and physical lovers. They even excercised naked with oil for the sole purpose of being more sexualy attractive to eachother than without oil or wearing clothes.

However they were also extremely honorable. A famous example is this story:
"An elderly man was trying to find a place to sit and observe the Olympic Games, as he went to each section. All the other Greeks laughed as he tried to make his way through. Some ignored him. Upon entering the Spartan section all the Spartans stood and offered the elderly man their seats. Suddenly the entire stadium applauded. All the Greeks knew what was the right thing to do, but the Spartans were the only ones who did it."


All in all the very things that define who a society is and the values and family unit were different and unrelatable to modern society, so could not be accurately displayed and still sell to the target audience of guy movies. I would probably find it repulsive myself even enjoying the historical accuracy and portrayal. However the actual battle I would have highly enjoyed, even with some emotional theatrics.

Then there is the tactics. Spartans had very large shields, very different than those employed in the movie. This was a necessity for the tactics used by them and the formations they used. They did not charge in or run around like macho individuals as in the movie. In fact to do so would have been a serious dishonor to Sparta and fellow soldiers punishable by death and the man protected by your shield would have been exposed. The symbol fo the shield and its purpose was sacred to Spartans, even to the extent of being presented to them by thier wives upon leaving with the phrase "With this, or upon this" refering to the fact that no soldier should return to Sparta alive without his shield. This is because the very large shields were heavy and escaping while carrying such a heavy thing was nearly impossible. Also to discard or lose your shield meant you were not only a dishonorable coward, but you let down the fellow soldiers dependent on your shield for protection in formation. The Spartan Phalanx was the primary formation used for fighting, and is extremely dependent on everyone having a shield, however such a formation does not lend itself to theatrics and exciting screenplay, nor does such a large cumbersome shield.

Even the physical build of the men was innacurate showing predominantly large men with gym and weight lifting builds like a typical action hero, which in a time of limited logistics and days and days of marching was not caloricly possible. Most men of sparta were long and lean, carrying heavy gear many miles eating minimal food, just like many other soldiers of the time period.

So the entire thing is just a bunch of macho BS designed to appeal to such emotions. No different than many other movies, except that it is refering to real life events. I can enjoy a macho BS flick myself, however not when it portrays such a coveted military success falsely. There is not many such decisive extreme examples of military achievement so when they screw up one so severely it is unfortunate.

I imagine some people would feel the same about a fake fictional representation of the Alamo. It dishonors soldiers and men who died for something they believed in and were so successful doing so to falsely represent thier struggle when it is easy not to do so.

daysleeprx
March 10, 2007, 05:58 PM
Totaly fake movie, entirely innacurate portrayal of every single aspect of not only the battle, but the tactics, the movements, the gear, nevermind remotely resembling Spartan culture or beliefs.


I really question how some people ever loosen up and have a good time.

If you want an accurate portrayal of history, go watch a documentary.

As an aside, the director of 300 even admitted that he purposely made many parts of the film historically inaccurate, so that the movie would just be more fun to watch.

Christianninja
March 10, 2007, 06:04 PM
Whether it was to do with RKBA or not is irrelevant when it comes to the quality of the movie.

How does the fact that it uses real-life inspiration suddenly mean it must be 100% accurate? Or even 90%? Or any level?

People enjoy fiction because it's just that: fiction. And all fiction is inspired at least in part by actual events/observations, so at what volume of real-world inspiration does it become necesarry to achieve absolute realism?

I could see your point if the film claimed to be "based on real events", but the claim isn't made. The entire point of the film is seperation from the actual, stylized representation of a horrible thing such as war in a romantic light- taken to the extreme of beauty.

Saying this film is terrible because it is historically inaccurate is the entertainment equivolant of a straw man argument- you propose that such a film expounds historical accuracy, or at least has an inherent duty to it- then proceed to say it is bad because it falls short of that. In reality, it neither claims or has duty to historical realism- it is a monster-filled film adaptation of a comic.

'Card
March 10, 2007, 06:07 PM
Would anyone else like to throw in a bunch of irrelevant information about Spartans in order to demonstrate their ability to read an article? Or has Zoog pretty much cornered the 'I can consume and regurgitate text and therefore I must be right' angle?

*shrug*

Dude, lighten up - it has monsters in it.

As far as the Alamo reference, the reason people would find it offensive if it got Frank Miller's fantasy workover is that (for some inexplicable reason) we still have Texans rattling around. 500 years from now nobody will care - kind of like how nobody cares today if they make a movie about Thermopylae with, you know... monsters in it.

gdvan01
March 10, 2007, 06:08 PM
The History Channel is airing now a show on the Persian army's invasion of Greece. Just an FYI for those interested.

CountGlockula
March 10, 2007, 06:19 PM
I just saw it 30 minutes ago...AWESOME!!!

Especially all the battle scenes: Braveheart on steroids baby!!!

spooney
March 10, 2007, 06:25 PM
I thought it was a great action movie.

I also realize that it was over the top and not really accurate. This is the movie form of a Greek pot with a painting of a soldier on the side. If you look at Greek artwork and storytelling from the time the deeds of heroes are very exagerated, this is the culture that gave us the story of Heracles killing a 12 headed monster. I can imagine some of the critics now transported back to ancient Athens. "Heracles didn't kill a 12 headed monster, it's total BS boo hoo." Who cares, the movie was enjoyable and was visually very impressive.

P.S. IBTL

AJD
March 10, 2007, 06:30 PM
If you want a history lesson tune into the History Channel, if you want to be entertained go watch 300.

Its that simple...I can't stand it when movies are analyzed to death over things that the movie had no intention of addressing in the first place.

DogBonz
March 10, 2007, 06:31 PM
But they were sold out

Brian Dale
March 10, 2007, 06:37 PM
Great movie.

They used the lines that I learned as a schoolboy--"with your shield, or on it;" "then we will fight in the shade;" "Come and get them!"--to illustrate the points that the movie made. It must have been a good comic book, even if different from factual history (or Herodotus, take your pick), because it's a rockin' good movie.

Let's see: Protecting freedom, justice, liberty and reason against tyranny and mysticism. Whatever could that have to do with a forum devoted to discussion of the right to keep and bear arms? :confused:

Connect the dots.

nwilliams
March 10, 2007, 06:42 PM
What a great movie I saw it yesterday and was blown away by the visuals and spectacular fight scenes. The monsters may have been a bit overblown but if you saw the History Channels documentary about the making of the movie you can understand why they did it. I appriciated the fact that they were trying to bring alive the mythology of the event and not worry as much about historical accuracy. For all those critics out there who are bashing this movie, I still don't care what you have to say:neener:

If you want a history lesson tune into the History Channel, if you want to be entertained go watch 300.
Amen brother!

texascarl
March 10, 2007, 08:54 PM
Enjoyed the movie. Meanwhile, box office shows the hoplites are raking in the dough, much to the chagrin of hoplophobes everywhere. Hear that wailing and gnashing of teeth? Music to my ears.

MrPeter
March 10, 2007, 09:01 PM
It was an awesome movie. I laughed and said, "YES!" out loud when they said, "Come and get them!"
I then had to explain quietly the reason for the outburst.

I saw the midnight showing! woot!

Delta608
March 10, 2007, 09:08 PM
Dude, lighten up - it has monsters in it.


You owe me a keyboard...I spit out my coffee... I am stealing your quote (with permission !!) for my signature !!!!!:D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Sharps-shooter
March 10, 2007, 09:11 PM
I haven't seen the movie yet, and I don't know if I will. The whole look and feel of it seemed very video-arcadish to me.

But I will say something. I've just re-read the histories of herodotus (found a cheap copy at barnes and noble), and IT ISN"T HISTORICALLY ACCURATE EITHER. So there. (and it also has monsters in it.)

It was never meant to be historically accurate, not even 2400 years ago. The stories are there to inspire courage, and other qualities of a decent human being.

I'm glad to hear that they included some of the really good lines like the bit about fighting in the shade.

Zoogster
March 10, 2007, 09:24 PM
Let's see: Protecting freedom, justice, liberty and reason against tyranny and mysticism. Whatever could that have to do with a forum devoted to discussion of the right to keep and bear arms?

Actualy the Persians around 480 BC where more free and had more equality amongst eachother than the Helots of Sparta, or even the Spartans themselves who had every single aspect of thier lives governed by law from birth, from hair length, to profession, to exactly what they would be doing at a given age etc etc.

The Persians however had many bad practices themselves, yet if I had to choose to be born a random member of one or the other your chances of a good life and freedom were far better as a Persian.

So it was really not about who was right and wrong, or freedom and liberty, simply who won. In fact under Zoroastrianism the Persians of the time had beliefs and a lifestyle more similar to life as mentioned in the Old Testament and similar values than the pagan Spartans. Thier society reflected this as well. This is still almost a thousand years before Islam would take over the region.

The Persians had a currency system and Capitalism, the Spartans tried to reduce that and create what would be called a very extreme form of socialism for the Spartans, made capable by the much larger slave population of the Helots. They were limited to trading with Iron bars intentional so as to reduce how much wealth a person could have.

No I think most people would have rather been Persian than Spartan if they could travel back in time and compare the two. Persian lifestyle would be closer to something a modern person could relate to than Sparta. Very few people in Sparta had the RKBA, since the majority were slaves.

High Planes Drifter
March 10, 2007, 09:29 PM
Fantastic movie. I saw it last night. Whoever the actress was that played Leonidas' wife is Haaaaaawwwwwttttt !!!!!!!

Stretchman
March 10, 2007, 09:32 PM
Throughout the old testament, entire societies fell for disobedience to God. There were many times that these so called civilizations fell prey to and were occupied by the pagans, until such a point in time as they returned to their proper belief system.

It would be categorically impossible to decide who was right or wrong from here. Sometimes a theocracy is worse when they don't hold true to their system of beliefs than any form of paganism.

Rock_Steady
March 10, 2007, 09:34 PM
Zoog, come on, man, buddy, it's just a movie. Have some popcorn. Its based on a comic book. Nobody in thier right mind would belive the monsters - or the wolf with glowing eyes. Very loosely based in fact, like to the point that one could almost believe that Sparta was a real place. WE know the real story. We wanted to have some fun.

Great flick, saw it with the wife, she liked it, though I'm sure we liked it for different reasons. Looking forward to seeing it again.

det.pat
March 10, 2007, 09:57 PM
Sometimes a theocracy is worse when they don't hold true to their system of beliefs than any form of paganism.

a theocracy has nothing to do with christianity or any other belief system, it just means rule by religous elite. a theocracy can be pagan.
pat

grimjaw
March 10, 2007, 10:26 PM
The veracity of accounts of what actually happened at the Battle of Thermopylae (and others) are still debated today. Do you really think the accounts we have of a battle from over 2000 years ago are "historically accurate"? Herotodus was known to come up with some doozies.

It was an OK flick. Nothing earth shattering, but good fun for a matinee.

jm

Brian Dale
March 10, 2007, 10:47 PM
Actually, Zoogster, the sentences of mine that you quoted were not about real life in ancient Sparta or any of the other ancient Greek city-states, nor in ancient Persia.

I was referring to

300: The Movie.



Glad I could clear that up. :)




Note: No actual Persians were harmed during the making of this post or the movie to which it refers. Nor Spartans neither. Not even monsters. Nope.

kentucky_smith
March 10, 2007, 10:59 PM
Zoog, if you're going to attempt academia by spouting how things really were so matter-of-factly, you need to cite your sources.


Not a lot of contemporary sources on the battle of Thermopylae. Herodotus wasn't there.

horge
March 10, 2007, 11:00 PM
Zoog,

I'm a big fan of historicity, but almost any movie that attempts it is going
to fail, because establishing accurate context alone might take days of screentime.

My wife and I enjoyed the movie immensely.
I do have a question for my American brothers, though:

"300" started screening in the Philippines on March 5-6.
When did it open on your side of the big urinal?

horge



P.S. Herodotos was a fairly unreliable historian, sometimes inflating Athenian glory
at Spartan expense, and worse, making up etymologies when he hadn't a clue ("Immortals"... pfhhh).
Thucydides wasn't much different; and centuries later, Plutarch the agitprop hack tried to correct
their biases with the deftness of an epileptic rhinoceros.

Brian Dale
March 10, 2007, 11:05 PM
March 9th.

It took three or four days to flush over to here? I'm swiping your metaphor for the big, wide, flat, wet place.

Husker1911
March 10, 2007, 11:08 PM
I read Marvel comic books by the bushel basket as a kid. I truly enjoyed "Sin City." Yet, I'm a voluminous reader/watcher of history. I don't care to read my history from a comic book. All due respects to the many expressing their enthusiasm for "300," but I'm going to await the DVD. Still, I look forward to seeing the movie!

modifiedbrowning
March 10, 2007, 11:14 PM
horge, it opened in the U.S. Friday, March 9.
I'm definitely going to see it.

Detritus
March 10, 2007, 11:36 PM
bit OT but i feel it must be said......

So it was really not about who was right and wrong, or freedom and liberty, simply who won.

to be utterly and completely clear... the reason Thermopyle is a highly important battle to US (as members/citizens of a "Western Democracy"), is That the Delaying action there resulted in the survival of Greek culture and political theory. And from Greek political thought arose the tenents upon which we consider modern democracy to be founded.

As for Thermopyle and and the american gun culture, if not for "Molon Labe" we'd not hold Thermopyle, any more sacred than other (and frankly, to the majority of americans better known) acts of bravery and defiance in the face of overwhelming odds, such as at Bastogne during the battle of the bulge and General McAuliffe's response of "NUTS!" to a german surrender request.

Those of us that are passionate about the second ammendment, to the point of having a willingness to physically defend it, and/or die before we would submit to the confiscation of our firearms, tend to veiw MOLON LABE as a way to say "from my cold dead hands" in a way that

1. Is less likely to "scare the sheeple"
2. sounds more intelligent
3. links OUR sentiments and beleifs back to an important time in history, and therefore may help others understand WHY we feel as we do



so without a two word quote, that some histories of the battle leave out, we as "gunnies" would care about as much about "300" as we did about Troy and Gladiator, or even dare i say Sin City. ie not enough to waste time complaining.

Gold Bricks
March 10, 2007, 11:41 PM
I found that the movie was even better than the previews. It is now in my favorites list. It was great from the beginning to the end.

OTH

Is there really any acutal portrayal in any movie made about an historical event. Everyone always will influence things to make it more interesting for us modern boring folk. I just go see movies to see them and hope they bring me entertainment.

rugbyer81
March 10, 2007, 11:50 PM
I am a major fan of historical epic warfare movies, such as Braveheart and Gladiator and the like. After seeing 300 last night, while I can't say it was my favorite overall movie from that genre, I certainly think it had the best action scenes that I have ever seen. Almost went back today to see it again. Spartans were the most incredible warriors ever.

lamazza
March 11, 2007, 01:19 AM
Protecting freedom, justice, liberty and reason against tyranny and mysticism
Lots and lots of symbols in that movie that apply to our own situation in the US.
I loved the movie

TimboKhan
March 11, 2007, 01:35 AM
Zoog, by merit of my education, I can justly call myself a "historian" and I have to tell you, I could care less if it is grossly inaccurate. I go to the movies to have fun, see cool stuff, and be entertained by the story line. It matters not one bit to me that the movie is a false representation of a true event. Simply put, I am going to go see 300 because I want to see the effects, I like Frank Miller and because it is something different. Romance movies do not accurately portray love, war movies cannot accurately get across the horror of war, and westerns don't accurately portray how hard life in the old west really was. It doesn't stop me from watching and enjoying them (except the romance movies...), and neither will the inaccuracies in 300 stop me from watching and enjoying it.

horge
March 11, 2007, 05:25 AM
Brian, modifiedb,

Thanks.
I don't get why we got to see it before you did.
It'd be terrible if it was to pre-empt box office losses from DVD piracy.
...almost like rewarding a country for its IPR violations*.
:scrutiny:

horge


*To be fair, much DVD piracy here can be traced to China and Malaysia.

Brian Dale
March 11, 2007, 09:26 AM
It'd be terrible if it was to pre-empt box office losses from DVD piracy.If it did pre-empt some of it and put money into the pockets of the people who actually made the movie, then great.

In my last post, I restrained myself from writing, "I wonder if the DVD was available in China on March 1st." :mad:

That's not a shot at Pilipinos. I've assumed that pirated stuff gets smuggled into your country from China.

You remark that Plutarch did his work ...with the deftness of an epileptic rhinoceros.There's another one for my "Quotes" file, with your permission. :D

horge
March 11, 2007, 10:56 AM
Then, the studio should be happy indeed, about releasing it here early.
Manila's theaters with '300' have been packed... in a way that theaters
haven't been in a very long time. Even into the last full show.

Extremely diverse crowd, too.
It's almost officially a date-movie here, with all the pull of a chick-flick, without giving up any appeal to the guys.

Amazing.



horge

P.S. .. quote at will, sir :)

JohnL2
March 11, 2007, 11:04 AM
Looking forward to it.
Lighten up, grab some popcorn and soda and relax to a flick. I'll regard it with a 'History, Mtv and comic book style' approach.
I am curious in what filmmakers are doing with the new technology out there now.
What was the budget of this movie anyway? It will make a killing at the box office no doubt.
Studio must be happy.

CNYCacher
March 11, 2007, 01:09 PM
I would like to see a gun manufacturer introduce a new chambering:

.300 Spartans


Saw the movie last night. . . Loved it.

SPOILER WARNING











I would have had the ending a little different, more "tooth and nail" and less "pincushion", if you catch my drift.

Brian Dale
March 11, 2007, 01:22 PM
I would like to see a gun manufacturer introduce a new chambering: .300 SpartansI'd want one. :D

willbrink
March 11, 2007, 02:19 PM
Yup, I am firmly in the "300 was crap" camp here. The CGI wolf the movie started with was terrible, and it was all down hill from there. It's one thing to fictionalize a true story for artistic license, it's another to just make sh*& up as you go along. Some interesting visual effects, and that's about it.

Jake
March 11, 2007, 02:39 PM
Looks like the budget was 65 million and it made 70 million opening weekend. Not sure if the 65 million includes advertising costs or not but it still opened a whole lot bigger than anyone thought it would.


http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=300.htm

mons meg
March 11, 2007, 03:00 PM
300 was based off the Frank Miller extended comic book...er...graphic novel version of the story. If we're going to complain about how unrealistic it was, then let's have another thread where we level the same criticisms at Spider Man 3.


I saw it yesterday, and I thought it was extremely entertaining. One thought occurred to me after Leonidas meets up with the Arcadians(?) who had come down to fight the Persians. This is the scene where Leonidas says "I brought more soldiers that you". I found it interesting that the American ideal of the citizen-soldier was more embodied by the non-Spartan Greeks. The blacksmith and sculptor had more to lose by standing up to the Persians, in a way...but they showed up anyway.

The Deer Hunter
March 11, 2007, 03:00 PM
Also it definitely is not for children....lots of nudity and bloody violence.

What else can you ask for?

silverlance
March 11, 2007, 03:05 PM
sorry guys, I have to side with Zorg and Willbrink.

The movie a mythos - a glorious story built around a small but important grain of truth.

The battle was intense, the women were quite alluring (especially the oracle), and all the cool lines from the "shield" comment to the "here we lie" epitaph were there.

That said -

The myth suffered from an irrepressible need to spout the word "we fight for freedom! FREEDOM!" at every corner. The attempt to either support or capitalize upon the war in Iraq was simply far too thinly veiled.

To say that Spartans believed in "freedom" is about as laughable as the idea of professional soldiers being heavily muscled, oiled, and hairless. The legends of battle were built upon not the backs of the studly, but the scrawny and wiry.

Outlaws
March 11, 2007, 03:06 PM
What else can you ask for?

Multiple positions. Oh wait, they did that. :D

Cesiumsponge
March 11, 2007, 03:14 PM
Yup, I am firmly in the "300 was crap" camp here. The CGI wolf the movie started with was terrible, and it was all down hill from there. It's one thing to fictionalize a true story for artistic license, it's another to just make sh*& up as you go along. Some interesting visual effects, and that's about it.

The ENTIRE movie was shot with a bluescreen, the same way Sin City was filmed. The CGI wolf wasn't meant to look realistic, nor was the rhino, elephants, or monsters. The Persian army's wardrobe wasn't realistic or factual either. All of it was purposely gritty and surreal, probably much in the same way traditional oral storytelling has a tendancy to embellish the truth.

People seem to forget this is an interpretation of the Frank Miller interpretation of the interpretations of historical accounts of the event so it's not remotely true to source material.

"Fictionalize" ie false.

"make sh*t up" ie false.

I still don't get why people expect a factual documentary when going to watch a piece of entertainment. This film doesn't even remotely claim "based on a true story" or "inspired by a true story" so it doesn't even so much as insinuate it was going to be remotely factual.

Also the entire "Bush propaganda" thing applying to every modern movie is getting pretty fricken old. Astronaut Farmer is about Bush wanting to build Moon bases. Brokeback Mountain is about Bush and gays. Cars is about Bush and the war on oil. :rolleyes:

longeyes
March 11, 2007, 03:21 PM
300 took liberties--but it is STILL about liberty. And for that reason alone was worth making. Over the top and surreal? Yes, but it still dramatizes an ideal of selfless honor and courage. And for that reason alone was worth making.

False to history? Perhaps so.

But excitingly true to the mythic essence of the event. And that is what drama is all about.

mcosman
March 11, 2007, 03:29 PM
This movie had a poignant message that could benifit all. It would be more consumable by all if not or the nudity. I am not personally offended, but it is now a flick I cannot show my kids. That being said, I loved it.

The director said that this movie was not intended as an analog of the current conflict. This movies message is timeless, even if its syle isn't.

From an artistic standpoint, I noticed that the individuals were a visual personification of their inner self. IE the incestuous old guys being covered with boils, the spartans being perfectly fit and trim, the traitor being horribly disfigured. It worked for me. I have been quoting the speeches for some time, so now maybe they will have more meaning for some. This movie took the message to the masses. A spoonful of violence helps the message go down.

SnWnMe
March 11, 2007, 04:16 PM
It's based on a comic book which is based on the author's fanciful take on Herodotus' story.

TechBrute
March 11, 2007, 05:17 PM
300 was a fantastic movie. My friend didn't care for the stylized genre, and I would have preferred they back down on the monsters just one notch, but otherwise, it was a killer action flick (no pun intended.) Last night when I saw it, the entire audience lit up in applause at the end.

It's a shame some people think everything has to be a documentary. Oh well, I enjoyed the heck out of it.

Guido2006
March 11, 2007, 05:43 PM
Awesome movie. I think some people are trying to look too deeply into it.

Outlaws
March 11, 2007, 06:50 PM
Last night when I saw it, the entire audience lit up in applause at the end.

The only place there was serious applause when I saw it last night was when the queen stabbed whats his name in the gut. That and when the credits started there were a few claps.

TBeck
March 11, 2007, 07:16 PM
I walked out of the film marveling at how history repeats itself.

Twenty-five centuries ago Western civilization was threatened by Persian aggression.

Today Western civilization is threatened by Persian aggression.

Back then a small band a men fought and died to buy enough time for the rest of the local democracies to wake up and mobilize themselves.

Will we wake up in time?

It always seems to come down to a thin red line of heroes.

Iran and nuclear weapons, what could possibly go wrong?

CountGlockula
March 11, 2007, 07:51 PM
Think our all troops should get a chance to watch 300. It really brings patriotism, purpose and a rally cry to fight!

Brian Dale
March 11, 2007, 07:57 PM
Anybody know when the DVD's scheduled to come out? I imagine it'd be enjoyed; good movie to buy and send to them!

Heraclid
March 11, 2007, 08:15 PM
Well all I've got to say is that when you think about it, Spartan would have been a much better name for a condom than Trojan.

Richmond
March 11, 2007, 08:28 PM
The myth suffered from an irrepressible need to spout the word "we fight for freedom! FREEDOM!" at every corner. The attempt to either support or capitalize upon the war in Iraq was simply far too thinly veiled.


The film, which I loved, really pre-dates the Iraqi conflict by a few years. No, not all the way back to 480 BC. :rolleyes:

This was a 5 book series released in 1998 - well before our current engagement in Iraq. The language about fighting as free men, for justice, law, etc. all come from the original graphic novel. I just checked - I have the re-release in hardcover right here. The line "freedom isn't free", which was in the film, was not in the book - but it follows Miller's theme. The film is pretty faithful to the book, both visually and in the dialogue. Like Sin City, the film is to a great extent a shot by shot adaptation of the graphic novel. So, Spartans as free men is a theme that runs through Miller's comic book, director Zack Snyder's movie, as well as Steven Pressfield's 1988 novel about Thermopylae, "Gates of Fire". And the Richard Egan film "The 300 Spartans". Egan , of course , played Leonidas, and in 1962, critics read it as a commentary on the Russian-American Cold War, with the Spartans fighting for freedom against the totalitarian Persians invading from the East. The film has opened strongly here in the US, but in Europe audiences seem to have drawn the Bush - Iraq picture, and are critical.

The truth and history are both complicated. The Spartan culture and economy, as well as that of the other Greek city-states, was based upon a labor force of slaves. Modern scholars acknowledge that Sparta's "freedoms" fed off the enslavement of its immediate neighbors and on its huge population of helot slaves. They did all the work in the militarized city-state. In fact, it was slave labor that allowed the Spartan male citizen to train and act as a full time military professional. The widespread use of slaves shows that the Greek concept of freedom was limited only to a select group. Herodotus spoke pretty well of the Persians and by the accounts of scholars the Persian empire was a fairly benevolent one. And Xerxes cannot possibly have been as, uh. . . . gay as portrayed in 300*. So, it is easy to mock the comic’s, and film’s, portrayal of Spartans saluting justice, law and freedom. But the truth is also that the Greek city-states were the first in the world to experiment with a truly radical new form of government - democracy. Had the Persians conquered them, those ideas, and the rest of Greek culture that forms the bedrock of what we call “Western civilization”, would not have survived to become, among other things, a constitutional republic like the United States.

* I mean, couldn't you describe 300 as Following a vigorous night of really heterosexual sex with his beautiful queen Gorgo, King Leonidas and his disciplined, ascetic Spartan gym rats, sneering at the Athenian “boy-lovers”, set forth in short leather shorts and capes to battle the multiracial sybarites of the Persian empire, led by a ten foot tall, heavily pierced Xerxes who seems to be channeling Grace Jones and hosts parties where people are smoking who knows what out of pipes and women are kissing each other!

Bazooka Joe71
March 11, 2007, 08:39 PM
Just got back from the theatre, and all I can say is wow...That was incredible...It took machoism to a whole new level. :D

That was the book "The Alphabet of Manliness" in movie form.

I was only worried for a split second when Leonidas chucked his spear at Xerxes; if that would have connected and killed him, that may have been a bit too big of a stretch. :D

Absolutely fantastic movie...The best I've seen in quite a while.

zero_chances
March 11, 2007, 08:46 PM
I wanna see it, but i have no money:(

Beau93
March 11, 2007, 08:52 PM
With regard to the "historical accuracy" of the movie, I wondered what Bettany Hughes (the British historian whose documentary on Sparta shows up on PBS from time) thought. Apparently, the director showed her the opening, and it got her seal of approval (http://www.darkhorizons.com/news07/3002.php):

I can't be emotional with what I feel about the Spartans because I'm trying to give historical reference. But you, what you've made, feels like it was made by Spartans.'

I think her comment is right on the mark. The movie is the modern equivalent of a campfire story about the battle. Very enjoyable.

telomerase
March 11, 2007, 09:00 PM
I've just re-read the histories of herodotus (found a cheap copy at barnes and noble), and IT ISN"T HISTORICALLY ACCURATE EITHER. So there. (and it also has monsters in it.)

At the time, people didn't think his monster stories were too unbelievable. But even Herodotus drew the line at believing that the Sun was in the North when the Phoenicians circumnavigated Africa :rolleyes:

JJE
March 11, 2007, 09:14 PM
Just saw it on the IMAX screen. Unfortunately, I had to see it with my annoying cousin-in-law, but it was still GREAT. Last IMAX movie I saw was V for Vendetta, which I just bought on DVD. I'm sure my tiny DVD library will include a copy of "300" in a few months.

Brian Dale
March 11, 2007, 09:42 PM
Thanks for the insight and the link, Beau93,
and Welcome to The High Road!

Beau93
March 11, 2007, 10:04 PM
Thanks.

With regard to the Arcadians: I saw the movie with a West Point graduate. When they were listing their professions (sculptor, potter, etc.), he leaned over and said "they're not being very nice to the National Guardsmen...")

Guido2006
March 11, 2007, 10:14 PM
With regard to the Arcadians: I saw the movie with a West Point graduate. When they were listing their professions (sculptor, potter, etc.), he leaned over and said "they're not being very nice to the National Guardsmen...")

That gave me a good laugh.

dave_pro2a
March 11, 2007, 10:41 PM
Quote Zoogster: " It was expected that men be active pedophiles and mentors of a boy as it was believed to help create a stronger positive influance."

Well, the above comment by Zoogster means I'm free to discount his opinions about this movie -- because it shows his IGNORANCE on the topic.

I mean really, you do not know the various meanings and implications of "eros, philia, and agape." Go study some history and get back to us.

Greeks would not tolerate pedophila or homosexuality as we currently define those activities. Comparing what they did do, to our modern standards, is like comparing apples and oranges.

In fact, if a person displayed what we'd consider 'homosexual' traits, then they would have probably been oscterzied from the community. A man simply had to marry and have children to be considered a man, that was part of his natural purpose in life (both to his own nature, and to society).

AJD
March 11, 2007, 11:07 PM
Just so you know...

Weekend box office gross was $70 million.

rugerdude
March 11, 2007, 11:29 PM
Dude, that movie made me REALLY want to make a crazy gun scene starring myself, and some zombies and stuff.

If I had like 50,000 dollars, I'd pay the director to make a 10 minute slow-mo crazy fight scene where I blast a bunch of zombies, and then I'll loop it constantly on a 32" flatpanel T.V. mounted on my wall.

It's like a painting....that moves....and stars me shooting zombies with crazy camera effects.

Arcticfox
March 11, 2007, 11:57 PM
Great Movie! It was more accurate than you think. At least, according to what I read.

mr.trooper
March 12, 2007, 12:56 AM
But what does The Battle of Thermopylae have to do with with guns?

To the gun rights people it has to do with arms. However I would venture that it is actualy a very bad example of a people to highlight for RKBA.

They had an entirely slave population who they routinely terrorized to keep them subordinate and submissive. Had rights of passage that included sending young boys out into the night to kill members of the slave population.

Newborn babies were bathed in alcoholic wine to see if they were strong enough to survive it. If they did then they were eligible for inspection by the elders, who if they found any flaws put the baby outside for the animals to eat.

Men were fined for not taking boy lovers. It was expected that men be active pedophiles and mentors of a boy as it was believed to help create a stronger positive influance. Women were expected to do the same, though they were not legaly bound or fined for not doing it.

The men were very feminine by todays standards, combing thier hair before battles, engaging in bisexual relationships, etc which actualy probably was a major contributor in thier sense of duty and valor to eachother as they were emotional and physical lovers. They even excercised naked with oil for the sole purpose of being more sexualy attractive to eachother than without oil or wearing clothes.

However they were also extremely honorable. A famous example is this story:
"An elderly man was trying to find a place to sit and observe the Olympic Games, as he went to each section. All the other Greeks laughed as he tried to make his way through. Some ignored him. Upon entering the Spartan section all the Spartans stood and offered the elderly man their seats. Suddenly the entire stadium applauded. All the Greeks knew what was the right thing to do, but the Spartans were the only ones who did it."


All in all the very things that define who a society is and the values and family unit were different and unrelatable to modern society, so could not be accurately displayed and still sell to the target audience of guy movies. I would probably find it repulsive myself even enjoying the historical accuracy and portrayal. However the actual battle I would have highly enjoyed, even with some emotional theatrics.

Then there is the tactics. Spartans had very large shields, very different than those employed in the movie. This was a necessity for the tactics used by them and the formations they used. They did not charge in or run around like macho individuals as in the movie. In fact to do so would have been a serious dishonor to Sparta and fellow soldiers punishable by death and the man protected by your shield would have been exposed. The symbol fo the shield and its purpose was sacred to Spartans, even to the extent of being presented to them by thier wives upon leaving with the phrase "With this, or upon this" refering to the fact that no soldier should return to Sparta alive without his shield. This is because the very large shields were heavy and escaping while carrying such a heavy thing was nearly impossible. Also to discard or lose your shield meant you were not only a dishonorable coward, but you let down the fellow soldiers dependent on your shield for protection in formation. The Spartan Phalanx was the primary formation used for fighting, and is extremely dependent on everyone having a shield, however such a formation does not lend itself to theatrics and exciting screenplay, nor does such a large cumbersome shield.

Even the physical build of the men was innacurate showing predominantly large men with gym and weight lifting builds like a typical action hero, which in a time of limited logistics and days and days of marching was not caloricly possible. Most men of sparta were long and lean, carrying heavy gear many miles eating minimal food, just like many other soldiers of the time period.

So the entire thing is just a bunch of macho BS designed to appeal to such emotions. No different than many other movies, except that it is refering to real life events. I can enjoy a macho BS flick myself, however not when it portrays such a coveted military success falsely. There is not many such decisive extreme examples of military achievement so when they screw up one so severely it is unfortunate.

I imagine some people would feel the same about a fake fictional representation of the Alamo. It dishonors soldiers and men who died for something they believed in and were so successful doing so to falsely represent thier struggle when it is easy not to do so.

O please DO shut up. NOBODY here is impressed with what you think you know.

You say they are so different from anything in modern society that we cant possibily understand them. But yet YOU claim to understand them. Shut up.

The underlying facts are prety close to reality. you can wine about how the kopis was styleized or how the spear heads werent ground at the perfect angle, or that the shields were small enough to actualy allow the audience to see the actors, or that the lambda was embosed instead of painted on, blah blah blah. IT DOESNT FREEKING MATTER.

The FACT is that we dont realy KNOW exactly how the battle went down. Just like we dont realy KNOW exactly what it was like inside the Alamo. We can make a good guess, but unless you were there, or reading a dirrect account of those who were, then you dont know squat. 5'th hand accounts writen down by philosophers and historians who dont understand combat dont count. ;)

Biker
March 12, 2007, 01:02 AM
I've not seen the movie and won't until it hits dad, but I have to say that there appears to be a lot of hopliteophobes in this thread.

Biker;)

Kim
March 12, 2007, 02:46 AM
I took my 74 y/o Mom and we both liked it. But I got my first bad interaction with the youth of today. I have no children so have been out of the main loop. Although I see many in the clinic it is not the same as seeing them away from their parents. Well I was sitting there next to my Mom and a teenager about 16 years old (guy )who was sitting in front of me and TWO seats down to my right looked back at me and told me to shut up. Only problem is (other than his rude manner) is I had not and was not talking it was the people to the left of my MOM. But what really got me shook up is he walked up to me as we were going out and said I needed to mind my manners. And called me a B#$CH. I was shocked to say the least. I just told him I had nothing to say to him. Gosh are 16 year old guys cussing out 50y/o women with their 74 y/o mothers now. I still am shocked. I told my Mom I am glad my nephew DID NOT go with us cause the guy would have been decked. I guess I am just too old and did not grow up with such potty mouthed rude teenagers.:mad:

clipse
March 12, 2007, 12:00 PM
I saw the movie Saturday night. It is probably my favorite movie of all time.

In this months Mens Health it has Gerard Butler (King Leonidas) in an interview. His workout regiment was insane. The tried to mimic spartan athletics and did alot of different types of lifts that you don't see in almost any gym. Very cool.

clipse

MrDig
March 12, 2007, 12:23 PM
I saw the movie on Friday night. I enjoyed it to the extent that it was based on a Graphic Novel. It was inherently true to the Graphic Novel. It was however not historicly accurate and I did not expect it to be. Thus my expectations were met.
To discredit the movie on a historic level is analagous to comparing blunderbusses to Winchester 94's. Yes the Bluderbuss is a gun and it preceded the gun that is the winchester 1894, but functionally and cosmeticly the two have little in common. The same is true for 300, Yes the Spartans and the Battle of Themoplyae are ture event, the movie is derived from these events and people.The Movie is based on a graphic novel which is LOOSELY based on a historic event. Thus you get the filtration effect of multiple interpretations.

Bazooka Joe71
March 12, 2007, 02:17 PM
Gosh are 16 year old guys cussing out 50y/o women with their 74 y/o mothers now. I still am shocked.

Who needs to mind who's manners? I'm still shocked I just read this...I'm still young myself(not 16 but young enough) and I'll be damned if I ever heard some 16 year old punk kid call a 50+ year old woman and her mother a bitch and get away with it.

Guess that just shows you what kind of parents that kid has...I know I was raised better than that...



Just rediculous

Davo
March 12, 2007, 03:32 PM
I saw it last night, its was a great movie. It wasn't violent for the sake of violence, and I thought it was tastefull.
Where it shined was in capturing the warrior spirit that was ingrained into the Spartan from a young age.
p.s.-Kim, I run into these kids at the gym all the time. I have found 3 seconds of eye contact will shut up even the most obnoxious kid. Most are just to young to have gotten their butts kicked...so far.

silverlance
March 12, 2007, 03:37 PM
The "message about iraq war" is not a cliche.

The movie was made in Hollywood. EVERYTHING here has a political cant. I know - I live and work here.

Besides, can you think of a single piece of major artistic work that DIDN'T have any political message or influence in it? It's normal.

I'm not saying that 300 was a subliminal message designed to brainwash us, i'm just saying that they said their message too damn often.

count the number of times they say "FREEDOM!" in that movie. it's excessive, it's onerous. the first couple times were cool.. then... ack.. again?

And yes, 300 is a nice myth, very graphic novel, it's pretty good entertainment. It's also one big artist's rendition of the truth.

I just wish it didn't try to hammer the "Die for Freedom" theme to death so much.

Then again, Subtlety wasn't exactly evident in Sin City either...

Seventhsword
March 12, 2007, 03:44 PM
I can't wait to see it now.......:D

George Hill
March 12, 2007, 03:57 PM
This is the greatest movies ever filmed. Period. You have to see it.
The director needs an Oscar. The guy that played Leonidas needs an Oscar. The visuals were as powerful as they were stunning. Every frame was a work of art.
As far as sword fight movies go, I'm liking this one is better than Gladiator and Braveheart put together.
Yes the movie became unrealistic, but the history of the Spartans and the basic story was realistic enough. One could easily geek out on the historical inaccuracy. Criticize the flick to death about the heroes' calls of freedom not being something that the Leonidas would have talked about and how they would have been calls for Sparta instead of freedom.... yeah yeah yeah... we know that. This isn't a historical drama.
Really it is a message to us in our time and Frank Miller retold the story so that Americans would understand and appreciate it. We have to fight for our freedoms. So take it for what it is. A fantastic motivational blood bath. I loved every minute and every frame of it.
I'm just glad one of the normal Hollywood types didn't do this story... they would have ruined it like they ruined Pearl Harbor.

cbsbyte
March 12, 2007, 04:12 PM
Still debating if I am going to see the movie or just rent it on DVD. I am not a fan of Frank Miller's work, too much senseless violence and over the top stories for my tastes. If this is a faithful reproduction of the novel then I probably won't want to see it until it come out on DVD. Its seem people who like movies like this really enjoyed it. Which is great.

I am not sure why some people are complaining about 300 not being a historically accurate to the real battle. Hey, its a movie based on a graphic novel, which is based on a 1950s Hollywood movie, which was based on dramatized rewrittings of the battle from the 1800s. After all the rewritting of the story I am amazed its still about the Greeks and Persians.

Leanwolf
March 12, 2007, 04:20 PM
KIM - "Gosh are 16 year old guys cussing out 50y/o women with their 74 y/o mothers now."


Yes.

And sometimes, they beat them up and rob them.

Signs of the times.

L.W.

mons meg
March 12, 2007, 04:48 PM
All youse guys who are talking about waiting for DVD... DON'T.

Don't tell me you can't afford it. I saw a $3.50 matinee and got stadium seating at a Cinemark here in Oklahoma City. You can find that much change in your couch. Gas money, you're on your own. Don't be a pansy...you're not going to hear a whole audience cheer a decapitation if you rent it at your house. :neener:

I'm thinking of going again just to see it on IMAX.

clipse
March 12, 2007, 05:18 PM
I wish we had an IMAX close. That would be killer. :D

David904
March 12, 2007, 05:34 PM
I'm going to go see it at the IMAX in Tampa. Can't wait!

Zoogster,

Awesome historical background. I loved reading it. I too would like to see Hollywood come out with something more along the lines of Gates of Fire a la Ridley Scott and Blackhawk down. That too would be a classic that we ALL would love to see.

I am just sorry that Hollywood chose to produce this movie INSTEAD OF Gates of Fire. I think there is room for both.

David

Kim... Too bad it is illegal to swat the crap out of a kid behaving in that manner. Parents need to make certain that they discipline their kids and make them into polite productive citizens. Do it or society will via the penal system.

Correia
March 12, 2007, 07:01 PM
you're not going to hear a whole audience cheer a decapitation if you rent it at your house.

You haven't met my kids. :)

Going this weekend.

foob
March 12, 2007, 07:15 PM
I think the reason people are asking what the movie has to do with guns and RKBA is because this General Gun Discussions forum mandates a thread that has something to do with firearms.

Unfortunately, the only thing the movie has in common with this community is the two words 'molon labe'. That's it. It's surprising that other threads about honor, fighting to the last, or similar, are closed because they they have nothing to do with firearms, but this one is left open.

silverlance
March 12, 2007, 10:02 PM
soo.... what gun for blades-for-arms hulking executioner monster? would a 9mm to COM stop it, would it take a .45? I say M14 will get the job done, them persians would never have been able to land on the beach if the spartans had m14s. :D

mr.trooper
March 12, 2007, 11:14 PM
I almost never see a movie on opening night, even if im looking forward to it. its alwase packed with 15-18 year olds that talk the entire time, and are playing games on their cell phones; they make sure to sit in the front rows and hold the phone up high so everyone gets distracted by it.

The lazer pointers randomly pointing at womens breasts is another priceless classic. :rolleyes:

Patriot-Brewer
March 13, 2007, 12:32 AM
Very good movie, just remember to think of it as a "campfire story", as someone earlier said, put into movie form.
Some of the very best sword-play scenes ever. It's part Conan, Braveheart, The Patriot and Matrix all rolled into a fun ride with a foundation based on a real event. Very well done.

The only "monster" I didn't really get was the "guillotine-arm" dude, or was he just another offspring of some serious inbreeding like the other screwed up freaks.

Go see it.

PB

History Prof
March 13, 2007, 01:59 AM
Zoog, if you're going to attempt academia by spouting how things really were so matter-of-factly, you need to cite your sources.


Not a lot of contemporary sources on the battle of Thermopylae. Herodotus wasn't there.

The things he did mention (society wise) he seems to knows his stuff. Ancient history is not my field, but most of the things he mentioned I'm familiar with:

They had an entirely slave population who they routinely terrorized to keep them subordinate and submissive. Had rights of passage that included sending young boys out into the night to kill members of the slave population.

Newborn babies were bathed in alcoholic wine to see if they were strong enough to survive it. If they did then they were eligible for inspection by the elders, who if they found any flaws put the baby outside for the animals to eat.Yup.

I've never studied Spartan homosexuality, so I cannot comment on that, whether Zoog knows his stuff or not. Also, too many sources to cite on Spartan society....


That being said, I haven't seen the movie, but I would like to. Knowing that it is based on a comic book lets me know that I need to suspend reality for the duration.

atek3
March 13, 2007, 02:30 AM
Just got back from the theatre, and all I can say is wow...That was incredible...It took machoism to a whole new level.

That was the book "The Alphabet of Manliness" in movie form.

I'm not sure I'd call it "macho", more like over the top "homoeroticism"...

Particularly funny is where the Spartans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartan_pederasty) make fun of the Athenians for being "Boy Lovers", something about pots calling kettles black...

Oh and the speechwriter in the movie must work for the Ayn Rand Institute.

All of the "freedom vs. slavery" "rational vs. mystic" "reason vs. 10 foot tall xerxes" was straight up objectivist.

Still if you take the movie for what it was, a great frank miller action movie, I'd still give it two thumbs up.

bogie
March 13, 2007, 03:17 AM
I'm waiting for the DVD...

92" widescreen
4 15" subwoofers
6,000 watts for a 7.1 surround system
Beer tapper in back of The Bunker
No Crying Children - priceless

Davo
March 13, 2007, 04:47 AM
Bogie thats what Im talking about, are you a gamer by any chance?

EricTheBarbarian
March 13, 2007, 04:51 AM
the movie was hot garbage. was it historically accurate for them to be fighting dinosaurs? seriously ***. one of the gayest movies ive seen. alot of stuff was added that did nothing to the story. most of the scenes looked pretty fake. i was disappointed hoping itd be as good as braveheart. everyone else in the theatre seemed to like it though.

ArfinGreebly
March 13, 2007, 04:52 AM
Obiligatory petty criticisms:
Yeah, they cooked the story.

Lots of dialog that's just a tad too perfect.

Monsters.

Really bad rendering of Xerxes who actually looked more like the attached relief.

Mystical crap.

And yet . . .

What a ride!

I felt small.

I was quiet for an hour afterward.

Wife kept asking what was on my mind. I don't believe I answered her.

Next week we're taking one of the younger political activists in our area to see it, our treat.

As "embellished" as it is, it portrays one of history's bottleneck moments; some would call it a watershed.

Who'd a' thought that an undermanned bunch of stubborn fools willing to fight to the last man would tip the scales of history?

I caught myself wondering, if I found myself as the potter or blacksmith, would I have the nerve to stand in the face of certain death to give my culture a slim chance at survival?

I dunno.

It's a sobering thought.

One that could preoccupy your meditations for an hour.

.

arinvolvo
March 13, 2007, 05:06 AM
it was a good movie.

regardless of historical accuracy.....i want to believe that what i saw was in some way accurate to the valor of those spartans.

come and get them........BITCHES!!!!!

darkknight
March 13, 2007, 09:15 AM
lean wolf,

Kids attacking old ladies has happened forever dont just blame it on the current generation. It is sad the respect of children today I agree with you whole heartidly but this stems on the parents to. I am 20 years old and my father would beat the piss out of me if he ever heard I acted in that manner in public but some parents dont care what their kids do.

anyhow 300 was a great movie IMO. Its not based on fact and it is for entertainment only so just sit down and watch and dont try to critique it. We all could watch a movie and find something wrong with it. I am huge fan of 24 but I understand its entertainment and not entirely realistic.

CNYCacher
March 13, 2007, 09:20 AM
was it historically accurate for them to be fighting dinosaurs?

Didn't notice the dinosaurs, just some elephants and one rhinoceros.

Gun Wielding Maniac
March 13, 2007, 11:05 AM
In Ancient Greece, how would they have told the story? Do you think they would have been concerned about recounting accurate uniforms, or making sure that the Persians side of the story was explained, or that every little word uttered by Leonidas was historically correct?

No! Look back at greek literature... Look at the oral histories, Illiad, Aniead, the Odyssey. The greeks lived in a time when monsters and gods were an accepted part of their reality. They wanted to hear about idealized heroes, impossible battles, monsters, and ruthless enemies.

If you look at this movie in THAT context, then it is actually a pretty much in keeping with that SPIRIT.

EricTheBarbarian
March 13, 2007, 11:18 AM
Didn't notice the dinosaurs, just some elephants and one rhinoceros

i couldve swore that was a triceratops. If the spartans only had teradactals to fly around on they couldve won:rolleyes:

MatthewVanitas
March 13, 2007, 05:06 PM
Here's Iran's reaction, as reported by the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6446183.stm

Iran condemns Hollywood war epic

Historical war epic 300 has been criticised as an attack on Iranian culture by government figures.

The Hollywood film, which has broken US box office records, is an effects-laden retelling of a battle in which a small Greek army resisted a Persian invasion.

Javad Shamqadri, a cultural advisor to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said it was "plundering Iran's historic past and insulting this civilization".

He branded the film "psychological warfare" against Tehran and its people.

But Iranian culture was strong enough to withstand the assault, Mr Shamqadri said. [[brings up the question: how many Hollywood films would it take to destroy a mid-sized country? Bet we can take Madagascar out with just two more action films and a romantic comedy -MV]]

"American cultural officials thought they could get mental satisfaction by plundering Iran's historic past and insulting this civilization," he said.

"Following the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Hollywood and cultural authorities in the US initiated studies to figure out how to attack Iranian culture. [italics added by MV]

"Certainly, the recent movie is a product of such studies."

Daily newspaper Ayandeh-No carried the headline "Hollywood declares war on Iranians".


The film achieved the best ever March opening in North America
The paper said: "It seeks to tell people that Iran, which is in the Axis of Evil now, has for long been the source of evil and modern Iranians' ancestors are the ugly murderous dumb savages you see in 300."

Three MPs in the Iranian parliament have also written to the foreign ministry to protest against the production and screening of this "anti-Iranian Hollywood film".

The film has already proved a major box office hit in the US where it earned almost $71m (£36.8m) in its first weekend, making it the best ever March opening in North American cinemas.

This is not the first time Iran has protested over its portrayal in films made in the West.

There was outrage over the 2004 epic Alexander which showed the Macedonian general easily conquering the Persian Empire.

Bazooka Joe71
March 13, 2007, 05:14 PM
Boo Hoo...Maybe we should take it out of the theatres because Iran doesn't like it.

Even if it IS what they say it is,

"American cultural officials thought they could get mental satisfaction by plundering Iran's historic past and insulting this civilization," he said.


Now Frank Miller is the "american culture"?

Carl N. Brown
March 13, 2007, 05:29 PM
Iranian reaction to the movie 300
"Following the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Hollywood and cultural
authorities in the US initiated studies to figure out how to attack
Iranian culture. Certainly, the recent movie is a product of
such studies."
Right, Frank Miller is part of a psychological operations conspiracy.:rolleyes:
I should have recognized that when I saw Basin City.:D
Accusations often reveal more about the psychology of the
accuser, than about the accused. This is called projection.
This is probably what Iranian officials do, so they are projecting
their psychology in response to a movie.
Movie projection.

MatthewVanitas
March 13, 2007, 05:34 PM
"American cultural officials thought they could get mental satisfaction by plundering Iran's historic past and insulting this civilization," he said.

I'm just annoyed that the U.S. Department of Propaganda gave _my_ tax dollars to Frank Miller to make a movie with CGI wolves and rhinos.

Is this what we pay taxes for?

*grin*

-MV

Havegunjoe
March 13, 2007, 05:48 PM
Yes I know it is not accurate, I watched the History Channel to get the real low-down on the battle. The question was asked as to it's relevance to guns. There were two underlying theme's I thought were relevant and every pinhead in Washington should see it because of those theme's. First, Freedom Is Not Free. Second, there are some things worth fighting for, even dieing for. Maybe I will add a third, cut and run was not in their vocabulary. Not directly gun related but I think relevant in the sense that these are things most gun owners believe in too.

SSN Vet
March 13, 2007, 06:03 PM
I personally am convinced that it is immoral to be entertained by gratuitous violence.

The taking of human life is a grave event...not material for entertainment. And I'm no pacifist, but rather one who sat on "the trigger" for 100 days and was well prepared to pull it.

The fact that this movie is so popular is proof positive that American culture is somewhere between the whirlpool and the black portal at the bottom of the toilet.

And people wonder how little events like those at Abu Ghraib come to pass.
Just boys (and girls) having fun you know.....just a little entertainment.

Be careful what things you chose to "ammuse" yourself with ..... the more you seek them out in fantasy the closer you are to pursuing them in reality.

flame away.....I stand where I stand!

Correia
March 13, 2007, 06:31 PM
Be careful what things you chose to "ammuse" yourself with ..... the more you seek them out in fantasy the closer you are to pursuing them in reality.

flame away.....I stand where I stand!

No flames, but from what I've seen, the less violent a society is in reality, the more violent their entertainment becomes. If you look back over history, mankind has always watched violence. Those few societys that weren't embroiled in everyday violence added it to their culture through entertainment. Societies that were in a struggle to survive did not tend to have violent entertainment.

Look at the Japanese. In my wildest imagination, (and it is pretty good I think) I can't come up with thinks half as messed up as what they put into cartoons.

As Roman life got easier, and the futher that the average Roman citizenry got from actual strife, the more violent their entertainment grew.

There is something deep down inside humanity that enjoys violence, and not even really for the violence I think, but rather for the struggle and the challenge. And a good struggle is by nature, violent.

As for becoming closer to persuing it because of entertainment, I train for violence. I teach people how to shoot people, and I'm certified by the state to do so. I teach self defense. I play with machine guns on a daily basis.

And if I watch 300 this weekend, I'm probably not going to go on a killing spree.

Hell, most of the 3rd world doesn't have cable or rated R movies, but I would feel a lot safer walking down a suburban street in America where all of the kids are playing Grand Theft Auto and watching Tarantino movies than spend the night in Mogadishu or Bogata.

BamBam-31
March 13, 2007, 07:01 PM
If Iran loathes it, then I HAVE to see it. :D

And Hollyweird tries so hard to depict itself as enlightened, sympathetic, and anti-war. The irony alone puts this movie in my top ten. Frank Miller rules!

politicalgeek
March 13, 2007, 07:11 PM
The movie was well done. I think one thing that can be said, is that the director/writer etc. have said that it was intentionally distored (ie. the lack of the true phallanx etc.) to be more visual entertaining.

From IMDB:

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

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

One thing I loved was the set up and execution, if you will, of this as a retelling, or campfire account of the battle. It begins with the one eyed spartan telling the story of Leonidas and moving into this particular battle. Through out the movie he narrates at various points. The visual aspect of the movie kind of lends itself to the larger than life retelling.

As to many of the "flaws", I think the quotes above address part of it...if anything its written towards our culture and our understanding or belief as to what the hero should be. As disturbed as I usually am when i see a "historical" movie that does no justice to its orgins, this does enough to at least capture the spirit.

As to the dinosaur thing, where was that in the movie? I saw elephants and what appered to be rhinos (again, the fantasy retelling idea) in the battle. The "smegol" looking guy, he was just a former Spartan, deformed at birth and taken out the community by the parents.

Andrew

Speer
March 13, 2007, 07:14 PM
To say that Spartans believed in "freedom" is about as laughable as the idea of professional soldiers being heavily muscled, oiled, and hairless.

Yep. Haven't seen it yet, but the idea that Spartans fought for freedom is about as silly as the monsters in the film.

TCB in TN
March 13, 2007, 07:22 PM
I'm just annoyed that the U.S. Department of Propaganda gave _my_ tax dollars to Frank Miller to make a movie with CGI wolves and rhinos.

Is this what we pay taxes for?

Seems to be a better use of tax dollars than many other programs I have seen in the last few years! :D

lamazza
March 13, 2007, 09:09 PM
was it historically accurate for them to be fighting dinosaurs?
Didn't the symbolism mean anything to you??!! How about all of the ugly and deformed people?

Brian Dale
March 13, 2007, 10:11 PM
Yep. Haven't seen it yet, but the idea that Spartans fought for freedom is about as silly as the monsters in the film.Whatever their personal motivations, the result of their delaying action at Thermopylae was the survival of the philosophy on which Western Civilization was built--by others. Detritus has already pointed that out in Post #37 of this thread.

I like the characterization of the movie by historian Bettany Hughes (http://www.bettanyhughes.co.uk/), quoted by Zack Snyder in this Paul Fischer interview (http://www.darkhorizons.com/news07/3002.php) linked by Beau93 above at Post #68. Using the character named Dilios as narrator emphasizes the notion that this is the way that the Spartans would have told the story. Dilios is the guy who's been sent back to Sparta by Leonidas after losing an eye in battle. His assignment: "Tell them to remember us."

Here's a slightly longer excerpt:Question: Did you throw history out the window?

Snyder: Did Frank throw history out the window - a little bit. I feel like I have shown the movie to historians. But it was funny Bettany Hughes, who's this English historian who has done - a Spartan specialist; I showed the first 20 minutes of the movie to her, and said, 'What do you think? Is it crazy? Am I stupid? Do I hate history? Am I a **** up?' And it was cool, because she said, 'You know what, in a lot of ways, it's more Spartan than anything I could do.' In a sense that it is - 'As historians, I can't be emotional with what I feel about the Spartans because I'm trying to give historical reference. But you, what you've made, feels like it was made by Spartans.'

Question: Like a home movie -

Snyder: Yeah, a home movie, like the essence of how a Spartan thinks.A campfire story.

I especially liked the depictions of rhinoceri and elephants in the movie. This is what they would look like to a guy first seeing them attacking in battle, after possibly having heard of such monsters via travelers' tales but never having seen them standing around in zoos or explained by Marlin Perkins on TV.

Go and see it. :)

Vonderek
March 13, 2007, 10:54 PM
I wish I'd just bought a box of ammo instead.

JohnL2
March 14, 2007, 10:17 AM
Okay, here's my review.
It has broad audience appeal. It most definitely has the "kick some ass" factor; always good. Has its quiet moments.
I think they could've made it just a little bit tighter. Just my opinion.
To me it seemed like with the voiceover and the images on the screen, I was actually watching the imagination of a child listening to a story told by an elder. Both surreal and fantastic. Like watching a Boris Vallejo painting come to life. The CGI helps and doesn't really overwhelm and bog down the story as it tends to do in these kinds of movies.
Depending on who you are you will take away something different from it.
If you are too much of a jaded left-brainer, you will probably hate this movie.

Blood, guts, ultramachismo, and a hot Queen. Why the hec not?
This is why we go to the movies. Kick back and enjoy a tale told.
All in all a good time at the movies.

doubleg
March 14, 2007, 10:31 AM
:D Ya more proof us whiteys were sh*ting all over iranians 2000 years ago and were still doing it now. Whatcha gunna do about it huh?

W Turner
March 14, 2007, 05:16 PM
I went into it hoping to really like, but expecting not to.

I almost never go to movies in the theatre and I never go on opening night. I did both when I went and saw this movie. It was worth every penny and every minute of my time.

Historically accurate? Not really, but that is not it's aim.

Hollywood-ed up? Sure, but like some others have said it is framed and meant as a campfire tale. A documentary would make a poor campfire tale.

W

Rev. DeadCorpse
March 14, 2007, 05:30 PM
The CGI wolf the movie started with was terrible, and it was all down hill from there. It's one thing to fictionalize a true story for artistic license, it's another to just make sh*& up as you go along.

I haven't seen it yet. However, from the trailers and clips, it looks true to the graphic novel. Even the wolf. Exactly as Frank Miller portrayed it in his mythical version of it. And the Oracle. And the Shrine. And the costuming... Ect...

Anyone looking for historical accuracy should really rent the 1962 movie "The 300 Spartans".

Carl N. Brown
March 20, 2007, 06:33 PM
I held off doing any more comments than I did earlier until
I saw the movie. As I watched it I thought to myself, this is the
story of Leonides retold by Robert E. Howard with illustrations
by Frank Franzetti and Rowena.

"300" also had some resonance for me.
During the American Civil War, Col. Richard Morgan and about
300 Confederate soldiers held the 5,500 man army of Union
Gen Stoneman at a stand-still at the Rotherwood Bridge over
the Holston River near my hometown. It is kinda hard to march
5,500 men six abreast across a bridge when the opposite hillside
is full of snipers behind rocks and trees. Eventually, Union cavalry
found a ford in the river some miles north and crossed and
came behind and surrounded Col. Morgan and his men. In a
hopeless situation, Morgan surrendered. But his stand had given
Saltville VA the time to prepare--to evacuate or defend, much
as Leonides gave the Greek cities the time they needed to
prepare against Xerxes.

(IIRC the "300 Spartans" movie (1962) was considered rather
stiff and cardboardy by many critics.)

CountGlockula
March 20, 2007, 06:35 PM
As I replied earlier, I loved the movie.

It's about time for my testosterone was fueled up. The last time it was fueled was when Braveheart came out.

amprecon
March 20, 2007, 07:40 PM
The story of the 300 Spartans unauthorized delaying action at the pass is a chilling parallel to todays circumstances with us in Iraq. Here we have been attacked by an evil empire that intentionally slaughtered almost 3,000 innocent lives and we sit and sqabble about whether we should fight them and/or keep fighting them.

To even question whether we should fight to the finish to avenge all those innocents lost should be considered treason and treated as such. To question whether to fight shows the lack of consideration or respect for human life and especially the disdain for the lives of their own innocent countrymen. They might as well have lined them up and killed them themselves.

Politicians, ya gotta love 'em :cuss: :barf:

amprecon
March 20, 2007, 07:49 PM
If Iran is p.o.'d at the movie, maybe we'll see them ask the Greeks for reparations. Maybe they'll ask us for reparations since it was an American made movie. At least Iran is recognizing their history for what it is unlike Japan who to this day denies any wrong doing or negative intentions in their recent WWII history.

Biker
March 20, 2007, 08:05 PM
News Flash!

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
I question the Iraq war. This make me guilty of treason?

Biker

damyankee
March 20, 2007, 08:15 PM
Biker, no this is America. Your on THR, that's almost instantly a patroit :D But you have to realize the people you side with are mostly left wing zealots. I agree with the principles of this war, just not the theater.

KenRocks
March 20, 2007, 08:24 PM
Incredible movie...just saw it a few days ago. Took it for granted that some might assume it was historically accurate...as others mentioned earlier, once I saw the fat man with the saw arms and the Spartan Quasimodo, I figured it was pretty clear that it was going to be about as realistic as Sin City (because I cant count on one hands the number of times I've been able to throw myself through the windshield of a police cruiser after falling 10 stories through a stairwell...).

Definitely inspiring, and I loved the visual effects.

Speer
March 20, 2007, 08:32 PM
Here we have been attacked by an evil empire that intentionally slaughtered almost 3,000 innocent lives and we sit and sqabble about whether we should fight them and/or keep fighting them.

Huh?

To even question whether we should fight to the finish to avenge all those innocents lost should be considered treason and treated as such.

Um, okay...

CWatson
March 20, 2007, 10:22 PM
Great movie except since seeing it with my wife she keeps asking me if I want to start doing sit ups.

CW

Biker
March 20, 2007, 10:31 PM
There are many, many conservatives like me who have questioned the Iraq war from the beginning. Be not so quick to judge...

Biker:)

Seancass
March 20, 2007, 10:56 PM
It was a great movie. do i need to say that again? a great movie. not a documentary. just good wholesome entertainment. i go to class for my education, not the cinema. saw wild hogs too, it was better than expected, very funny.

Stevie-Ray
March 21, 2007, 02:55 AM
I saw it saturday and it was the best movie I've spent money on in a long time. I'll definitely buy the DVD when it comes out.

1911 guy
March 21, 2007, 08:49 AM
My wife and I went to see "300" last Friday night. Yeah, it's just a movie, but it was a good movie.

Browns Fan
March 21, 2007, 09:13 AM
I am going against the tide on this one, didnt like it. To me, it was a porno movie thinly veiled as an action flick. The battle scenes were good, but, I was so upset at the porno, that I couldnt enjoy it.

Sorry to disturb the 300 love fest.

1911 guy
March 21, 2007, 09:51 AM
I can agree with the above post and still say it was a good movie. The "spicy" scenes did nothing to carry the plot and were completely gratuitous. I could have lived without them and done with more story-telling. I can remember looking at my wife and saying something to the effect of "how long do we have to watch this chick gyrate?" during the "visiting the oracle" scene. It was a bit drawn out, to the point of being irritating (my experience) or a turn-on (judging by the hoots from the peanut gallery).

The overall movie was good, the two nudity scenes were over done.

Vonderek
March 21, 2007, 10:41 AM
I guess I'm out of touch. I thought "300" sucked and I also thought "Braveheart" was silly and clumsy filmmaking.

On the other hand I think "Gladiator" is a masterpiece and successfully conveys the same themes of freedom, family, honor, etc.

quatin
March 21, 2007, 11:56 AM
saw wild hogs too, it was better than expected, very funny.

So by bull slap you mean, we're actually going to slap a bull...:evil:

max popenker
March 21, 2007, 01:45 PM
Forgive my complete out-of-line opinion, but i just cannot resist to share my opinion of the '300'.

Honestly - i think this film is great. It is probably one of the greatest propaganda setups of latest time, putting both Dr.Goebbels and Propaganda department of the Central Committee of Soviet Union Communist Party to great shame.

Look at those brave Spartans who fight for democracy (killing unfit children is very democratic, yes, as well as murdering foreign diplomats and starting the war against the laws and the will of Congress). Look at those gay Persians who summit all mall ninja's, trolls, orks and even Palpatin the emperor clones to fight the democracy... And of cause, nobody knows that it were Spartans and Greeks who in reality were "kid lovers".

I was brought up in Soviet Union and i know what is brainwashing and propaganda, and creation of the enemy image. And this movie is the most striking example of such.

Just my 2 cents.

Stevie-Ray
March 21, 2007, 02:01 PM
I was so upset at the porno, that I couldnt enjoy it.Good grief, if that was "porno" to you, I dare say you haven't watched television in a long time.

The "oracle" scene was quite boring and that's about it.

PotatoJudge
March 21, 2007, 02:16 PM
The "spicy" scenes did nothing to carry the plot and were completely gratuitous.

I think the oracle scene really developed the motivations and atmosphere of what went on up on the mountain, and how it was far from the religious beacon the politicians painted it as. It is essential to understanding how ignoring the "religous" leaders was the right thing to do. The scene with the persians had more to do with the consequences of the actions of weaker men. Turns out not only was he disfigured and physically weaker, but also was not as strong in will or loyalty as the Spartans. There are few better tests of a man's strength than to throw women his way and watch what he does. I thought a lot of story was told in a few short scenes with little dialogue. The argument could be made that the scenes were too long or too graphic, but I think they effectively got their point across.

Bazooka Joe71
March 21, 2007, 02:30 PM
What kind of man doesn't appreciate gratuitous nudity!?!?!?!?!?!?!:D

CountGlockula
March 21, 2007, 02:34 PM
I love the WHOLE movie. Including the oracle scene....reminded me of a bad mushroom trip. :what:

Anyways, it revealed the directors and Frank Millers' artistry and power of the start/stop/slow motion of filming at its best.

carnaby
March 21, 2007, 02:37 PM
I thought the sex scene was unnecessarily gratuitous, but oh well. The oracle bit was OK and had a point, as a contrast between the super ugly, corrupt, feeble old men acting with evil will, and the drugged beautiful, graceful oracle acting without any will.

The difference was that Leonidas could bow to the corrupt influence or he could break free and do what was right and necessary. Otherwise, Sparta would end up just like the oracle.

junyo
March 21, 2007, 02:43 PM
Look at those brave Spartans who fight for democracy (killing unfit children is very democratic, Yet killing fit but unwanted children is considered a universal birthright in most democracies yes, as well as murdering foreign diplomats I believe when it comes to mistreating diplomats the Persians have some fairly recent experiance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis) and starting the war against the laws and the will of Congress The Greek Congress that eventually did in fact fight a war against the Persians, or the American Congress that authorized the President's the use of force before it was bad for their poll numbers?). Look at those gay Persians I saw tons of women in the emperor's tent, his fashion sense not withstanding. So he was bi at best. The people mentioned as "boy lovers" in the movie were Greeks, whom the Spartans were defending. who summit all mall ninja's, trolls, orks and even Palpatin the emperor clones to fight the democracy... And of cause, nobody knows that it were Spartans and Greeks who in reality were "kid lovers". Except for those people that paid attention to the movie, or had a basic grasp of history not taken from 2 hours at the movies.

I was brought up in Soviet Union and i know what is brainwashing and propaganda, and creation of the enemy image. Might want to fine tune the antennae there chief. And this movie is the most striking example of such. What form of idea conveyance isn't propaganda? Unlike the Soviet Union, propaganda here tends to be less effective since multiple points of view can, and usually are, presented to the public, and discussed at length. So ideas don't exist unchallenged, and if people truly don't like them they're free to reject them. Based on almost universally bad reviews, but massive word of mouth, the tremendous box office seems to indicate that people actually approve of, or at minimum are entertained by this idea.

Just my 2 cents. Here's your change.

Boats
March 21, 2007, 02:49 PM
I read it around somewhere that every indominatable culture in the world has a tale like Thermopylae or it has been subjugated or beaten by one that does. Jewish folk have Masada. The Greeks had theirs, the Romans borrowed it. The British have Agincourt, and Victorian Era stands against Zulu warriors. The Sikhs have the stand of Banda Singh at Gurdas Nangal,. The Soviets had Stalingrad to use against Germany. We have Bunker Hill, the Alamo, Bastogne and others large and small.

The tales serve as exemplars of courage, duty, and a willingness to pay the ultimate price for one’s society. Thermopylae is instructive as long as its essence is accurately conveyed. The precise details surrounding that essence have long been mostly lost.

The 300 is historically inaccurate? Well duh. No one really has a first hand written account. Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey weren’t exactly documentary quality fare either, yet they remain central classics across Western Civilization.

Epic events get more fantastic with the retelling. As I understand it, there were between 7,000 and 10,000 Greeks at the battle in question, as well as an entire Athenian Navy protecting the ground effort.

So what? The Spartans were the ones who have long since captured the imagination. The Marines are evidently their PR descendents.;)

Then there is the nitpicking about how the oppressors of the Helots sound ridiculous spouting off about freedom. Well, that’s no more ridiculous than Thomas Jefferson and Henry Clay popping off on the subject. Perhaps no one has a greater appreciation of freedom than a slave holder? I would imagine that one who subjugates others would, with particularity, have no taste for being subjugated himself.

Again, so what?

The Spartans weren’t the ideal defenders of Western Civilization, but at Thermopylae, they, and other assorted Greek hoplites, were all that there was. I’ll take them as heroes, flaws real and imagined, over the alternative. I’d rather be the successor of Sparta and Athens than be the inheritor of “modern” Persia.

The movie was stylistically ripped right off of classical pottery and fueled by the dynamics and exaggerations of oral mythological storytelling. Anyone reading Goebbels or Bush into the film is trying too hard by half.

The 300 is a classic “us versus them to the last man” tale told tall, nothing more. That some quarters have overly complicated dismissals of it says more about them than it does about the central theme of the film.

TheLastBoyScout
March 21, 2007, 03:56 PM
The Citadel's Marine unit is seeing it as PME this afternoon.

I already caught it.

Our Midshipman CO was my platoon sgt last year, and he's had a Spartan obsession since I knew him--I had an interest before I came to El Cid, but he definitely made Spartan lore part of my freshman indoc.


I think this is the best thing I've seen in a theater since BHD.:evil:

I still hope Gates of Fire gets made--I guess this movie's success could only speed that along, right?

JAG2955
March 21, 2007, 04:36 PM
I didn't like it. I did have high hopes for it at one point in time, but after I learned that they considered both "300" and "Gates of Fire" as potential scripts for this movie, all I could think of was "Why didn't they pick "Gates of Fire"?"

If you haven't read that book, it's well worth the $7.

HiroProX
March 21, 2007, 05:15 PM
Complaining that 300 is historicly innaccurate, is the same level of humorlessness usually reserved to those who go to see Star Wars and say "Explosions don't go boom in a vacuum."

Seamusalaska
March 21, 2007, 10:12 PM
I'm so confused now. "Braveheart" wasn't historically accurate? The '300' movie is about heroic pedophiles? All movies are "political"!? Oh, mother of God....does this mean I'll never, ever, ever get to own a 40 watt phased plasma rifle?
Sorry. Just trying to insert the 'gun' angle.

helpless
March 21, 2007, 10:18 PM
Accurate or not. It is a movie. A good movie.

I saw it twice.

Watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWulyY8QOw0)

And this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvhDPPM9RYQ)

This one gives me chills.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeKY4er8wsI)

Seamusalaska
March 21, 2007, 10:35 PM
Groan. Oh, my God! They killed Kenny. Oh, well. I've seen Hollywood six-shooters shoot 15 rounds without reloading. I saw a silencer on a revolver.
I still enjoyed the movies. It's OK to enjoy The 300 AND Flags of Our Fathers.
Both movies extol bravery and we always will need brave people who will fight for our freedoms.

ZAT
March 22, 2007, 01:26 AM
Saw it last week with thewife and we both LOVED it. Having seen the previews and knowing that it is Frank Miller movie based on a comic book, I went with realistic expectations. Had I gone woth the thought that it would be a history movie, or even a Braveheart/Patriot/Gladiator type of a movie I would in all likelyhood been disappointed. The movie is on the DEFINITE buy list as soon as it hits the streets.

Great battle scenes, great nudity, with a good amount of dudity thrown in to keep the women awake :). Add to that a story line that defends masculinity, standing firm behind ones beliefs up to and including killing and being killed. I can hear the liberal panty wastes heads exploding just thinking about it. What more do you want??

jlbraun
March 22, 2007, 01:38 AM
OK, which one of you maroons yelled "MOLON LABE" at this evening's screening of 300?

Personally, I think that the audiences of 300 might be the most heavily armed group of people ever in a movie theater. :cool:

helpless
March 22, 2007, 02:41 AM
yup

"I think that the audiences of 300 might be the most heavily armed group of people ever in a movie theater."

Malone LaVeigh
March 22, 2007, 03:35 AM
Our Midshipman CO was my platoon sgt last year, and he's had a Spartan obsession since I knew him
Don't drop your soap in the shower.

Husker1911
March 22, 2007, 03:37 AM
Quote:
Our Midshipman CO was my platoon sgt last year, and he's had a Spartan obsession since I knew him
Don't drop your soap in the shower.Was this movie about the Greek navy?

Boats
March 22, 2007, 05:21 PM
Don't ask--don't tell wasn't really necessary in most of the classical world.;)

Malone LaVeigh
March 23, 2007, 07:06 PM
Kinda puts "come and get them" in a whole new light...

PershingRiflesC-7
March 23, 2007, 08:28 PM
Personally, I think that the audiences of 300 might be the most heavily armed group of people ever in a movie theater.

I was at a 10:30am showing today for my first viewing -- my G27 was alongside.:cool:

What a great movie...definitely needs to be seen more than once and placed on the DVD must-buy list. I made a double-feature of it by going to "Shooter" a half-hour after the end of "300".

QuestionEverything
March 23, 2007, 08:58 PM
Just to throw some gasoline on the fire, it makes a lot more sense to see the 300 as representing Iraqis and the Persians as representing the US in terms of their relative military power.

And while looking for historical accuracy in movies is a fool's errand, it was kind of annoying to see the bodybuilder Spartans fighting in a way so unlike how Spartans actually fought. I'm sure they could have come up with some interesting scenes involving real phalanx tactics.

DeputyVaughn
March 24, 2007, 12:21 AM
Just saw it and LOVED it.

Scott

TheLastBoyScout
March 24, 2007, 10:19 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Our Midshipman CO was my platoon sgt last year, and he's had a Spartan obsession since I knew him
Don't drop your soap in the shower.

Was this movie about the Greek navy?

No, but then again I'm in a Marine NROTC unit.

We don't do much with the Navy mids except laugh at them because they spend their training weekends on campus when we actually go to places like LeJeune and PI:neener:

billp
March 25, 2007, 12:06 AM
Please think of Iraq/Iran war. (http://www.prosefights.org/bakhtiardead/bakhtiardead.htm)

The_Shootist
March 25, 2007, 01:07 AM
Yeah, as soon as Iran banned it this movie, it moved to the top of my "must see" list :evil:

In fact, I saw some Iranian on The Orielly Facotr a couple of nights ago griping about how inaccurate, racist..whatever the movie was. Oreilly just said "Hey - it portrays events happening in 480 BC - get over it!"

the lone gunman
March 26, 2007, 02:15 PM
-Maximus Decimus Meridius: If you find yourself alone, riding through green fields with the sun on your face, do not be troubled, for you are in Elysium, and are already dead.

Sam Adams
March 26, 2007, 03:23 PM
I saw it last week. I know that it isn't 100% historically accurate - but then again, what could be some 2,500 years later, especially since Herodotus' account itself probably wasn't.

I generally liked it. The blood & gore issue didn't bother me a bit, though my wife's (female) cousin walked out to see another movie (I warned her...). I liked the big theme, which was a small group of hopelessly outnumbered freedom-lovers fighting a horde of enslavers, dying in the effort but giving the rest of the nation a chance to mobilize and ultimately win. It was the original Alamo.

What didn't I like?

1) The CGI wolf sucked.

2) Why did they have to make so many fakely and hideously deformed people in the movie? What purpose did it serve? To me, it seriously took away from the facts portrayed and the ideals affirmed.

3) Xerxes wasn't 7 feet tall, he didn't have 6 gazillion rings attached to his face, he had a beard and wore clothing, and he never came close to the battlefield. Again, why did they have to so twist the facts?

Frankly, The 300 Spartans from 1962 was better in showing something closer to reality (though the acting and special effects sucked).

Overall, I like the movie a lot. I didn't see it on an IMAX screen and I'd still like to, and I'll definitely buy the DVD the first week it comes out. The fight scenes were very entertaining, even if (as pointed out by another poster) they didn't accurately reflect phalanx fighting tactics (only military historians will notice that). Folks, it is Hollywood - this isn't a documentary.

BTW, I had my .45 strapped on and a 10-round mag in my pocket. I suspect that others were also armed in the audience (South Texas has a bunch of that :D ).

Justin
March 26, 2007, 03:28 PM
Saw it.

Utterly brilliant film making.

Correia
March 26, 2007, 05:03 PM
I saw it. Loved it.

I'm thinking that some of you just don't get it, and never will. Hey, that's cool. Different strokes for different folks.

It is a larger-than-life myth, over the top in everyway, and it lives large.

And as somebody who is a fan of history, I enjoyed it more because of that. If they had gotten an ancient Greek to direct it, this is what it would have looked like.

JohnBT
March 26, 2007, 05:20 PM
Excerpts from Mr. Hunter's follow-up to his review of 3/5:

From Here to Thermopylae
In Fred Zinnemann's Sure Hands, '300' Would Have Cut a Deeper, Truer Swath

By Stephen Hunter
Washington Post Staff Writer

"Where Zinnemann's great works were meticulous, humane, brilliantly crafted, powerful and moving, they were utterly unself-aware. "300" -- like most other teen-oriented, computer-generated films ("Sin City," "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles," etc.) -- are completely self-aware."


"By contrast Snyder isn't thinking in film terms at all. There's no sinuous continuity in his film, which is mostly geared toward re-creating images from the comic book, as if that's enough. He seems also influenced by video-game imagery, another tribal frolic that separates action from story and presents its players with something like a highly stylized, pain- and risk-free place in the front of the Spartan phalanx: It's all action, completely disconnected from any larger issue.

Still, if you read the comic (I did, standing up in a bookstore), you see that it's an extraordinary piece of work -- and better than the movie. Miller has a remarkable gift for suggesting action as it forces your eye to leap from image to image across the page, and uses all sorts of conventions -- shape of frame, for one -- to enhance and control the rhythm until your eyes reach a giant, climactic full-page frame containing a shattering image. In his infantilism, Snyder tries to duplicate that, following almost exactly the same sequence of images, reaching the same riddled-with-arrows climax. But it doesn't work, the movement seems dead; it's like a tracing rather than a spontaneous thing."
__________

Note: Zinnemann's movies include "The Search," "Act of Violence," "High Noon," "From Here to Eternity," "Oklahoma!," "The Sundowners," "A Man for All Seasons" and "The Day of the Jackal."

spooney
March 26, 2007, 09:54 PM
I think there's a good reason that this movie had so many deformed characters. All the in the movie the character's outward appearance reflected their inner self, the Spartans were great warriors singlehandly saving Greece(I know this isn't historically accurate) so they were all muscled up and handsome. The Ephors were evil men who had let greed stray them from what they were supposed to be doing and as such they had that disgusting look abou them. Ephialites was a traitor to Greece, who couldn't stand up to the patriotic Greek ideals, as such in the movie he couldn't stand up to the Spartan physical ideals. The councilmen were weak and powerless to do anything in the face of the Persian threat, they were portrayed almost universally as older, less physically fit men and so on and so forth. Every external appearance in this movie reflected in internal condition.

atek3
April 12, 2007, 12:02 PM
Speaking of 300... Did you see last nights episode of south park? The 300 spartans were the women of Les Bos vs. persian night club owners. Xerses was a tranny. it was really funny.

atek3

CypherNinja
April 12, 2007, 01:22 PM
I saw that episode, friggin awesome! :D

I was laughing for hours.


: pictures Xerxes riding around on the golden Hummer :

LOL!

Derek Zeanah
April 12, 2007, 01:33 PM
Saw it twice. Gonna buy the DVD.

Frigging awesome cinematography.

4v50 Gary
May 22, 2007, 10:50 PM
United 300 (http://http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=457131)

mons meg
May 23, 2007, 12:16 AM
Just watched the video, and I think I just peed in my pants form laughing.

carnaby
May 23, 2007, 12:39 PM
I just get a page error when I try to go there. :(

Joe Demko
May 23, 2007, 01:09 PM
Don't plan on seeing it. I find the Spartans repugnant enough that I have no more interest in seeing a fictionalized idealistic portrait of them than I would in seeing a fictionalized, idealistic portrait of the Nazis.
Perhaps they did make Western Civilization possible by fighting at Thermopylae. So what? The USSR did an awful lot to make the defeat of the Nazis real. Doesn't make Stalin and his commissars into heroes.
I'll pass.

clipse
May 23, 2007, 01:10 PM
Here is the correct link http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=457131.

The DVD is set for July 31'st release. I'm stoked. :)

Sam Adams
May 23, 2007, 07:01 PM
Hillarious video. Glad to know about the July 31 release - now I've got plans for that night.

SamTuckerMTNMAN
May 24, 2007, 10:56 AM
So the entire thing is just a bunch of macho BS designed to appeal to such emotions.

Some of you guys are such tight wads.
It was a great movie from the standpoint of resistance, overwhelming odds, and just plain massive burliness. I am a slim build fellow and take no offence at the improbable beefiness of those dudes. To me, strength is represented physically on screen but can manifest in many forms. I loved the part where they are all laughing on the cliffs in the rainstorm, that was buff. The movie is a 'comic book' put into film. It's supposed to be over the top. It has many great elements. I can see also how a minority person would be slightly offended, I can see how other people might take offense or see the propoganda in it - but then again, I get slightly offended everyday with crap in the news, in the media, and on my local radio station. Get over it!

ST

Bazooka Joe71
May 24, 2007, 08:45 PM
Has anyone seen the South Park 300 parody?

Hilarious.

If you enjoyed reading about "300 Movie" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!