PDA

View Full Version : OT: 300 anticipation



aecp
03-07-2007, 03:21
I know this forum isn't exactly the right place for it, but I thought that since we've had one thread about the movie 300 here before (and since i can't seem to find that anymore) I'd post this anyway.

For the uninitiated the movie version of Frank Miller's graphic novel '300' is being released in US cinemas later this week. If you haven't heard about the movie or novel before you should be warned that it shows a highly stylized and historically inaccurate portrayal of the battle of Thermopylai, keeping true to Miller's vision rather than Herodotos account. Anyways, here are some links:

300 seconds of 300: 5 minutes of new footage from the movie.

http://www.mtv.com/overdrive/?name=...3704&vid=136403

Theatrical trailer

http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/300/hd

"Exclusive" clip (mostly footage from the trailer)

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/300.html

Another teaser

http://www.worstpreviews.com/trailer.php?id=453&item=0

Movie stills

http://www.movieweb.com/movies/film/30/3730/gal2479/index_hi.php

Personally I'm quite excited about this movie, more for the all-out action than any pretense of historical accuracy. With that said, i hope Snyder doesn't feel compelled to use the most ridiculous of Millers ideas

Such as all non-Spartan greeks being a bunch of bumbling idiots when it comes to war who can't even tell which end of a sword is for holding. Or how about portraying the ephors as a bunch perverted, utterly corrupt old lepers. But i guess such complaints look silly in a movie where the spartans fight in banana hammocks and the Persian army includes rhinos and a three-ring-circus of mutants

Anyways, complaining about a lack of accuracy in this movie is quite silly as it never had that ambition.

Teleklos Archelaou
03-07-2007, 03:33
It makes me sad that Gates of Fire didn't get on track with Willis and Clooney quick enough. Now instead of potentially having a much more accurate movie (albeit set around a fictional person), we get catarhinos and mutants and everything exaggerated by a factor of 12.

aecp
03-07-2007, 03:46
It makes me sad that Gates of Fire didn't get on track with Willis and Clooney quick enough. Now instead of potentially having a much more accurate movie (albeit set around a fictional person), we get catarhinos and mutants and everything exaggerated by a factor of 12.

I agree, Gates of Fire would have been much better. But Willis and Clooney sounds like terrible casting and the makings of the wrong kind of movie. Don't get me wrong, I think they're both good actors. But it's sounds like "hey, let's throw in a couple of hollywoods biggest stars and cash in!" rather than a serious attempt to do the movie justice. Do you know who was meant to be directing it?

Hopefully this movie will be a big success (which seems likely, if you consider its close relation to Sin City) and rekindle Hollywoods interest for war movies set in ancient times. Atleast it could be a lot worse, it could be this:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0462396/

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-07-2007, 03:50
Lol, as I recall he finds three guys and woman and the legs it to Byzantium. that is, of course, if it is at all like the book.

Jarardo
03-07-2007, 03:50
So whats the real story anyway? Was it really just 300 spartans against a zillion persians? I was thinking about asking here, but since you brought it up...

mcantu
03-07-2007, 03:55
I'm going to see it on IMAX Saturday!! I dont think that a regular screen will do it justice

NeoSpartan
03-07-2007, 03:57
It makes me sad that Gates of Fire didn't get on track with Willis and Clooney quick enough. Now instead of potentially having a much more accurate movie (albeit set around a fictional person), we get catarhinos and mutants and everything exaggerated by a factor of 12.

I think its stupid they are not doing Gates of Fire. THEY SHOULD!! That way they can capitalize on the Spartan-Euphoria created by 300.

Teleklos Archelaou
03-07-2007, 04:00
Well, didn't the progress Stone was making with Alexander ultimately doom the Dicaprio version? Maybe not such a bad thing, but the more movies set in antiquity the better in my opinion. Although 300 is not really set in antiquity. That cartoon futuristic Alexander the great series probably has about as much relation to reality as 300 does. :laugh4:

aecp
03-07-2007, 04:25
So whats the real story anyway? Was it really just 300 spartans against a zillion persians? I was thinking about asking here, but since you brought it up...

More like a few thousand greeks from various poleis (among them 300 spartans) against 100,000 persians

Here's Herodotos account:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin//////////////////////ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126&layout=&loc=7.205.1

And wikipedias version

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_thermopylae

Jarardo
03-07-2007, 04:36
Thanks aecp, interesting stuff

Lysander13
03-07-2007, 05:02
Gates of Fire would have been great...Well maybe...I have to admit i'm a total book snob. I usually hate the movie as oppose to the book with very few exceptions. The 300..where realism and historical accuracy doesn't seem to be the theme of the movie..Instead it looks obnoxious, gaudy, and seems like it will be a complete fantasy tale in the realm of LOTR based very loosely on something that actually occured.........

I cannot wait to see this movie!!!!

CrownOfSwords
03-07-2007, 05:47
I just saw a sneak preview of the movie. As an avid EB player and as a huge fan of gates of fire here are my impressions:

Great visuals no less than I would expect from Frank Miller though, the entire movie is just beautiful to look at. The movie was extremely violent as it should be. I really liked the movie as a standalone film I had no knowledge of the comic book beforehand. The movie fell very short of my expectations though.

Here is my large list of things I didnt like if you dont want anything to be ruined before you see the movie dont read it :)


First off I hate the barechested Spartan where the hell is his breastplate. There isn't much about the Spartan lifestyle only a short sequence at the beginning, I felt without previous knowledge the viewer would be left short. The movie gives the reason that the reason why only 300 Spartans go to fight is not because they are preparing in eventuality for Platea but because some stupid politician says that Leonidas can't take the army. Um excuse me wtf if the goddamn Spartan king says hes going to war I think the entire army follows him. Yes everyone knows it but ill say it again RHINOS wtf?? there was only one so don't worry about it too much but my wtf factor was still pretty high. The elephants as well seemed to be some sort of lord of the rings giant elephants hahah pure rediculousness not to mention we all know no elephants at Thermopylae ty Frank miller... The immortals are portrayed as some sort of demon ninja type things not the way they should've been... Frank Miller also has some sort of obsession with disfigured people sorry this just has no place in this story. When I saw the trailer I figured there would be no mention of any other greeks present at the battle, but I was wrong the Arcadians met the Spartans but they really didnt do anything the entire battle but sit there I suppose? because it only shows them in battle once. And THE WORST DAMN part of the movie is the end of Leonidas and his Spartans, c'mon any dumbass and his uncle know this part of the battle where Leonidas falls and his men fight on for a long time over the body of Leonidas, sorry doesnt happen. Leonidas pretends to kneel to Xerxes then tries to throw his spear at him and only scratches Xerxes cheek before all the Spartans are killed by arrow fire just pure gay cmon.

So yes I thought the gore was cool the visuals very cool but the storyline... might be good if you have no knowledge of the events but I don't fit into that category as im sure many of you dont either. It was worth standing in line for the sneak preview though and I am going to go see it again thursday night. But as for the rest of you go see it, maybe it will inspire you into a Koinin Hellinon campaign lol.

Elthore
03-07-2007, 05:54
i thought the ephors didnt agree with the expedition at the time, and did infact disallow leonidas the army. I think he persumed they would eventually decide to send the army and went ahead with his guard.

though i dunno if im remebering this from herodotus or 300 spartans from 1962

Kushan
03-07-2007, 06:01
Kind of sad its not an accurate portrayal. I'm looking at it as a "movie" rather then an accurate portrayal of the battle. Plus, me and a few friends are going to see it in IMAX...cant be that :)

Kushan

Teleklos Archelaou
03-07-2007, 06:01
I'm really afraid me going to see it in the theater would just be a successive series of WTF!'s. Over and over and over. Sort of like my reaction when I first saw Menelaus killed at Troy by Hector. That same thing over and over. :laugh4:

I am also not a fan of the uber violent focus of Miller's work either - it might have been better for the Greeks, who really could go out and kill people to protect themselves, but for audiences today I don't get the point of a lot that I saw in Sin City. I might just go buy the Borat DVD instead of spending money on a ticket to see the 300.

EoE
03-07-2007, 09:55
As someone already stated:

300 is a motion picture visualization of Frank Miller's graphic novel 300. That novel is inspired by a lot of legends. The legend of Leonida's last stand is but one.

300 is not a motion picture about the historical battle of Termopylae. Personally I'm thankful for that.

This is one of the best movies to hit the theatres this year. But if you judge it as having anything to do with actual events you do neither yourself nor the movie any favours.

rgds/EoE

Tiberius Nero
03-07-2007, 10:22
It is not the ahistoricity of Miller's graphic novel that I hated, it is the portrayal of Xerxes as the Devil from the East, of Persians as a formless mass of subhuman lemmings, of Leonidas as the Western Savior of the World etc etc that really make me sick about this work. I mean, face it, it is just a piece of shallow pro-West propaganda reiterating the myth of hordes of savage easterners and the few valiant westerners who stand at the gates of defending humanity's best hopes for the future and all that jazz.

Shallow propaganda can be fun, I admit, but I have seen that particular one played out a few too many times to be able to just sit back and enjoy it. I mean I am Greek, and I have been hearing all that since my school days. :P

EoE
03-07-2007, 10:58
It is not the ahistoricity of Miller's graphic novel that I hated, it is the portrayal of Xerxes as the Devil from the East, of Persians as a formless mass of subhuman lemmings, of Leonidas as the Western Savior of the World etc etc that really make me sick about this work. I mean, face it, it is just a piece of shallow pro-West propaganda reiterating the myth of hordes of savage easterners and the few valiant westerners who stand at the gates of defending humanity's best hopes for the future and all that jazz.

Shallow propaganda can be fun, I admit, but I have seen that particular one played out a few too many times to be able to just sit back and enjoy it. I mean I am Greek, and I have been hearing all that since my school days. :P

It is a tale of the fight between good and evil. Because it belongs in a very specific genre of graphic novels, the good are very good and the evil are very evil. It is no accident that our villains are a faceless, grey, orkish horde. The setting could have been anything and it would have been the same, Termopylae, the Alamo, the last stand of the Iraqi guards, whatever. It does not matter.

The Persians are not "real", nor are the Spartans or anything else in that movie. Nor are they meant to be.

The real world is of course grey, but - because of the nature of graphics novels - this story is black and white. Hopefully the sheer extremism of it will make some question the validity of Leonida's ideals as well as that of the Persians, because it ends in nothing but a senseless slaughter. By painting things so black and white Frank Miller tried to make us see grey.

rgds/EoE

Watchman
03-07-2007, 13:49
*I* think ole Frankie's just lost it, 'cause the last decent work of his I recall is Ronin. And that was like what, a decade ago. The Sin City series pretty much went down the tubes by the third or fourth album and that rehash of Dark Knight Returns gave me the rash. Give Me Liberty degenerated likewise after the first book.

And now some wit goes and makes a movie out of the damn 300 ? Far as I'm concerned the only value that one will ever have is of the cult/trash amusement factor variety.

It's not so much the ahistoricity that bugs me (although that's bad enough by itself - why oh why must they have barechested kung phoo movie flying fighters of doom instead of a decent portrayal of the claustrophobic and traumatic nature of phalanx combat ?), but the overall tone and execution. For the first I've always had issues with stark Goody/Evily delineations - if not for else then for the sheer lack of depth and effort they pretty much automatically inject into the plot and characterisation. For the second it tries way too hard to be Totally Awesome And Cool and ends up a vulgar, tasteless narcissistic projection that just looks like its makers applied the Can't? Fake It(tm) principle; sorta like these 'weapons' (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=797766).

For the third, oh my gawd that acting sucks. Whoever the guy playing Leonidas is, his way of shouting all the time makes him look really retarded - following the already mentioned trademarked marketing slogan.

EoE
03-07-2007, 13:53
If you don't like Frank Miller, don't go see a Frank Miller movie. It really is as easy as that. :yes:

rgds/EoE

Tiberius Nero
03-07-2007, 13:59
@EoE

It is hardly about Good and Evil, it is about the Democratic Enlightened West being Good and the Unenlightened Barbaric East given into worshipping mortal despots presenting themselves as gods being Evil.

Watchman
03-07-2007, 14:02
I'll be forced to see the blasted trailer of the damn thing every time I go to the movies for the next few months. Dissing it for all it deserves is a good way of dealing with the trauma caused by "THIS! IS! SPARTA!":director:

Shifty_GMH
03-07-2007, 15:10
Gates of Fire would have been great...Well maybe...I have to admit i'm a total book snob. I usually hate the movie as oppose to the book with very few exceptions. The 300..where realism and historical accuracy doesn't seem to be the theme of the movie..Instead it looks obnoxious, gaudy, and seems like it will be a complete fantasy tale in the realm of LOTR based very loosely on something that actually occured.........

I cannot wait to see this movie!!!!


I'm going to have to second this. Well put Lysander. :2thumbsup:

Speaking of movies, has anyone heard about this movie yet? http://imdb.com/title/tt0382731/

Vin Diesel as Hannibal? I am hoping for a good semi-historical movie (best you'll get out of Hollywood)......but then I remember the disaster that was Oliver Stone's Alexander and lose hope. ~:mecry:

Redigo
03-07-2007, 15:38
Favorite reviewer quote from RottenTomatoes.com:

"Fills a much-needed gap between gay porn and recruitment film."

Thaatu
03-07-2007, 16:02
I can't say I expect much from 300 when I look at the trailers. The problem is, as Watchman put it, it tries to be so friggin' cool. As every action movie tries that nowadays, it just comes off as corny.

Good to see Hannibal the Conqueror finally get its own IMDB entry, I was beginning to think it already got cancelled. I'm looking forward to this one and I'm actually expecting something out of it. I do wish they'd change the title though...

By the way, why don't people like Alexander? I do hope it is more than "It didn't do well in the box office". I liked it and have been trying to figure why I seem to be the only one. It's not that ahistorical, and/or hollywood type movie. The most complaints in the IMDB boards are something like "Alexander turned christian in the end!?! WTF!??", or "So gay!!". So what are your perspectives?

EoE
03-07-2007, 16:15
@EoE

It is hardly about Good and Evil, it is about the Democratic Enlightened West being Good and the Unenlightened Barbaric East given into worshipping mortal despots presenting themselves as gods being Evil.

And even if you choose to view it like that you still can't see it as a comment to the comic like way news and politics are portrayed today in the media? Next thing you'll tell me Eastwood's Iwo Jima double feature is a pro-war movie.

Anyway, doesn't all this belong in some OT forum where I never stray?

rgds/EoE

Teleklos Archelaou
03-07-2007, 16:28
Another reason I'm not as interested in 300 is this: what is the movie about? Is there a plot really? Is there going to be a lot of good character development? Is the plot going to be complex, with a resolution you didn't expect or with a well-crafted script? Or is it going to be almost only special effects with lots of violence, with a thinly veiled barbaroi=evil message? I don't have my copy of Aristotle for Screenwriters here (a terrific little book), but I can't help but follow his advice and rate most highly those works that have a good plot first and foremost, and good character development second. The productions that put the last element first, namely special effects, are those least deserving any merit. It's great if it's there and complements the other more important elements, but not if it's the sole focus. It looks much more like a music video to me instead of a movie - the type of thing you could watch to get pumped up before a football game if you're a player - designed to get you into a frenzied pitch.

As for Alexander, it's hard to craft a really good story out of a biography. The best ones usually focus on just one aspect of a person's life instead of trying to tell it all, since that can present us with a plot that constantly moves forward toward the resolution of a problem (Lawrence of Arabia picks up at a moment when there is a problem in his life, until it was resolved, and doesn't try to explain his childhood or what happened when he came back from the war - it isn't as important). Alexander tried but didn't really succeed in doing that. Relying on a lot of flashbacks just emphasized to me that they couldn't tell the story properly by moving forward and had to stop and psycho analyze earlier events to show why he made decisions that he did later in his life. That's why the Iliad is so good though - you don't have a whole retelling of the Trojan War, from the first line to the last it tells the course of a problem (Achilles gets mad) until that problem is resolved (Achilles' anger is sated).

Tiberius Nero
03-07-2007, 17:04
And even if you choose to view it like that you still can't see it as a comment to the comic like way news and politics are portrayed today in the media? Next thing you'll tell me Eastwood's Iwo Jima double feature is a pro-war movie.

Anyway, doesn't all this belong in some OT forum where I never stray?

rgds/EoE

Well, any piece of propaganda, if for some reason we don't want to see it as such (because e.g. we think its author is above it), can be explained away as cunningly disguised satire and parody of the genre, but really there is nothing in 300 to warrant such an interpretation. There are no satirical, no comic moments that even for one instant challenge the suspension of disbelief on the part of the reader. If you can point out at least one, I might consider viewing it so, but since I have read it several times and haven't spotted anything of the sort, I highly doubt this was Miller's intention.

aecp
03-07-2007, 17:27
Another reason I'm not as interested in 300 is this: what is the movie about?

Bloody violence and brutal heroes, which seems to be the theme of all of Millers comics.


Is there a plot really?

Just standard fare rehashed stuff from Gladiator and Bravheart. Die for freedom, stand up to the evil tyrant... Apparently that was all people really cared about if you go any further back than the 20th century.


Is there going to be a lot of good character development?

Nope.


Is the plot going to be complex, with a resolution you didn't expect or with a well-crafted script?

Nope.


Or is it going to be almost only special effects with lots of violence, with a thinly veiled barbaroi=evil message?

Getting warmer. But I don't think one should make to much of the "evil darkies" message. It's more of a heroes vs villains. Who they were and where they from are really not the issues here.


I don't have my copy of Aristotle for Screenwriters here (a terrific little book), but I can't help but follow his advice and rate most highly those works that have a good plot first and foremost, and good character development second. The productions that put the last element first, namely special effects, are those least deserving any merit. It's great if it's there and complements the other more important elements, but not if it's the sole focus.

I agree, but don't forget that this movie is riding on the success of Sin City and using exactly the same concept. I think this movie panders to the fans of comics to a much higher degree than any other single group.


It looks much more like a music video to me instead of a movie - the type of thing you could watch to get pumped up before a football game if you're a player - designed to get you into a frenzied pitch.

Sounds right on the money.

As for Alexander I think it suffered from bad acting and bad storytelling.

spirit_of_rob
03-07-2007, 17:38
I think this is one of those movies im going to have to be really really drunk to enjoy

Rilder
03-07-2007, 18:30
I'm going to have to second this. Well put Lysander. :2thumbsup:

Speaking of movies, has anyone heard about this movie yet? http://imdb.com/title/tt0382731/

Vin Diesel as Hannibal? I am hoping for a good semi-historical movie (best you'll get out of Hollywood)......but then I remember the disaster that was Oliver Stone's Alexander and lose hope. ~:mecry:


You can deffinatly see the historical elements in this movie:


Vin Diesel stars as the Carthaginian general who led an elephant-riding battalion across the Alps to attack Rome in the 3rd Century B.C.


I bet its basicly gonna be Elephants vs Lorica Segmenta(sp?) legions :laugh4:

The Persian Cataphract
03-07-2007, 19:51
By the way, why don't people like Alexander? I do hope it is more than "It didn't do well in the box office". I liked it and have been trying to figure why I seem to be the only one. It's not that ahistorical, and/or hollywood type movie. The most complaints in the IMDB boards are something like "Alexander turned christian in the end!?! WTF!??", or "So gay!!". So what are your perspectives?

The reason why I butcher Alexander as a movie is foremostly the faulty depiction of the Persians. What makes it all worse is that the movie comes off as a pretentious history lesson. The battle of Gaugamela alone was ridden with errata, and to top it off not only did Alexander as a movie try to accuse the Persians as the aggressors but at the same time Rosario Dawson was casted as Raukhshanna. 300 as a movie is best treated as fiction so one could forgive the false portrayal of Xerxes and the... Mutants of the Persian army, and the rhinos... And... Yeah... But Alexander as a movie did thanks to these aspects come across as pretentious comedy if not outrightly a collective insult against Iranians. My colleague Dr. Farrokh brought these aspects to scrutiny in this article:

http://www.grecoreport.com/The_Alexander_Movie.htm

Enjoy the read. My treat :smash:

Dayve
03-07-2007, 20:35
I do not anticipate this lord of the rings, jazzed up unhistorical piece of crap one bit, i will not even watch it out of curiosity.

Booooo to hollywood, booooooo.

Axelus
03-07-2007, 20:52
I'm gonna be really controversial here, as this is a forum of alot of so-called "realism" dogmatism. :oops:
Kidding. But what is realism anyway? I believe you can never really grasp the hole reality, rather i believe it is a social and political construction. People with resources, power have a picture of how history "should" be portrayed, and then we try to controll this vision.

Teleklos Archelaou
03-07-2007, 20:57
Then why worry about EB? Vanilla must be oppressively realistic enough for that viewpoint. :laugh4:

Foot
03-07-2007, 20:58
I'm gonna be really controversial here, as this is a forum of alot of so-called "realism" dogmatism. :oops:
Kidding. But what is realism anyway? I believe you can never really grasp the hole reality, rather i believe it is a social and political construction. People with resources, power have a picture of how history "should" be portrayed, and then we try to controll this vision.

Post-modernist! :thumbsdown: A coherent picture of reality is far better than one that is incoherent, hypocritical and basically full of holes, eg. Hollywood.

Foot

aecp
03-07-2007, 21:18
I'm gonna be really controversial here, as this is a forum of alot of so-called "realism" dogmatism. :oops:
Kidding. But what is realism anyway? I believe you can never really grasp the hole reality, rather i believe it is a social and political construction. People with resources, power have a picture of how history "should" be portrayed, and then we try to controll this vision.

Well, if you'll excuse the hyperbole...

https://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w177/aecp99/PBF209-Now_Showing.jpg

Kugutsu
03-07-2007, 21:45
I'm gonna be really controversial here, as this is a forum of alot of so-called "realism" dogmatism. :oops:
Kidding. But what is realism anyway? I believe you can never really grasp the hole reality, rather i believe it is a social and political construction. People with resources, power have a picture of how history "should" be portrayed, and then we try to controll this vision.

To a certain extent he is right. It is impossible for us to ever be 100% sure of what was and was not the case in history, until someone invents a time machine, so we can go back and observe first hand. All evidence may be distorted by the opinions and agenda of the writer/painter in the case of accounts or representations, or atypical and unique in the case of artefacts. All we can do is make best guesses and rationalisations of what might have been.

I dont however believe this means we shouldn't try to get an accurate picture of history, merely that we should bear in mind that our accurate picture may not be as accurate as we would like.

EB is a better approximation of history than vanilla, hence why we should bother with it. While there may be mistakes in EB, the team have done their level best to research and eliminate these, and make the most accurate mod they possibly can. Vanilla made no such effort, and included gross historical errors which go beyond merely not having 100% reliable evidence. For example the ancient egyptians and the frankly two dimensional barbarians...

Not only that,EB is also far superior in terms of gameplay and immersion, with the vastly extended unit roster, traits and all the other improvements you guys have made. To enjoy EB you do not need to be a history fanatic... Of course playing EB will turn you into a history fanatic, but that is a whole different issue...

Axelus
03-07-2007, 23:42
EB is a better approximation of history than vanilla, hence why we should bother with it. While there may be mistakes in EB, the team have done their level best to research and eliminate these, and make the most accurate mod they possibly can. Vanilla made no such effort, and included gross historical errors which go beyond merely not having 100% reliable evidence. For example the ancient egyptians and the frankly two dimensional barbarians...

I couldn't agree more. I think this forum shows that history can be something that we argue and debating about, and with that EB and its forum members here have shown that although you perhaps can not reach "the" truth, you could land somewhere near it.


Post-modernist! A coherent picture of reality is far better than one that is incoherent, hypocritical and basically full of holes, eg. Hollywood.

Yea, but I like post-modernism. :2thumbsup:
Regarding the topic, the movie 300 is a fictious work, and nothing more. I believe here the postmodern view on things can come handy: You can never grasp the reality with a movie, so why even protend you can? It's better to protend it's not realism...

Watchman
03-08-2007, 01:20
Regarding the topic, the movie 300 is a fictious work, and nothing more.I'd get seriously concerned for anyone who though it was anything else... :sweatdrop:

Fiction schiction, the basic problem is that it's bad fiction. It comes off to me as basically a rehash of those good old colonial-era adventure novels mated to MTV generation pretentious kitsch, and the whole thing really tries too hard to be too cool for school. "Plot" and "character depth" are, I strongly suspect, concepts that have no place in the same sentence with this film.

Bad SFX-fests are dime a dozen. This one goes one better and tops it off with serious lack of taste and a dodgy attitude.

aecp
03-08-2007, 01:48
If you go to this movie expecting anything other than over-the-top gory action, or if you don't enjoy that sort of thing to at least some degree, I think you're setting yourself up to be dissapointed. I think that when it comes to previews, trailers and such that everyone involved with this movie have been really honest about what it actually is. I for one hope to enjoy it, even if I have strong doubts about its quality in many aspects, and even if I would have preffered a more serious aproach to the subject.


Bad SFX-fests are dime a dozen. This one goes one better and tops it off with serious lack of taste and a dodgy attitude.

I don't know what you base that on. I think the effects (from what I've seen in the trailers) look very impressive. And you could call 300 a lot of things, but dime-a-dozen is hardly one of them. As far as I know the only movie which it resembles in cinematography is Sin City.

Watchman
03-08-2007, 02:07
I wasn't commenting on the technical merits of the effects.

Boyar Son
03-08-2007, 03:51
I know this is not historicly accurate, but comon so isnt other stuff in other movies.

This is gonna be teh action film. Done forum settled, in fact disscusion settled. commenting wont do you any good any more.

Teleklos Archelaou
03-08-2007, 04:30
Yeah, but I just hate that I'm going to have to answer so many questions about it over the next few years. Ridiculous questions. :laugh4: You mean Achilles wasn't in the Trojan Horse? Huh? Patroclus wasn't just his younger cuz he was protecting? Achilles must have really loved Briseus, right? :grin:

Urnamma
03-08-2007, 04:31
I'll agree with TPC and go a bit further. Alexander was an unadulterated piece of garbage for many reasons, not the least of which being its erroneous depictions of near everything. Colin Farrel can't act either.

300? I would have seen it if it were just a comic-bookesque picture of the battle, but the Persians are indeed cast as the eastern horde from hell. Now, I'm no multi-culturalist relativistic wiener who eats tofu-dogs and gets sick from beef broth, but come on. It's just so fucking blatant it makes my ears bleed. IRANIANS ARE EVIL, IRANIANS ARE EVIL banner going across the top of the screen would serve up its message. AND it cheapens what those 300 men actually did.

Urnamma
03-08-2007, 04:38
TPC: One thing though. Farrokh does not understand Greek or Roman battle orders very well, as most on the other side don't understand the Persians. He actually calls the Roman armies 'hoplite inspired' at the time of Carrhae, which is rather silly to say the least.

fallen851
03-08-2007, 05:16
Die for freedom, stand up to the evil tyrant... Apparently that was all people really cared about if you go any further back than the 20th century.


Uhh, maybe you need to a refresher on 20th century history... should I list the evil tyrants and the incredible heros who stood up to them for freedom, democracy, and the American way of life?

Even today, it is the same old story. http://www4.army.mil/news/article.php?story=9825 ...do I need to say who the evil tyrant is, or who is in the "Axis of Evil"?

I'm pretty sure if the real "300" were here today they would puke at their actions being depicted in this way. I'm not looking forward to this movie at all. But at the same time, I'm already about to puke because of how much the crap in this movie actually resembles how Americans feel today.

MarcusAureliusAntoninus
03-08-2007, 07:39
The way the Achaemenid Empire is shown in every movie, TV show, etc makes me mad. To me the Persians were the "good guys".

"History is written by the winner." Ever noticed that the "good guys" are the ultimate winner of every struggle.

EoE
03-08-2007, 09:56
Anyone here seen the Starwars films? First time I saw them I was totally OMG?! WTF?! CAPSLOCK?! It never happened, even though they claim it's history! How dare they?

All movies should be painstakingly accurate documentations of historical events. We need to crack down on anything else and demand to be served movies that do not require us to look beyond the immediately recognizable.

jeez/EoE

And with that I better say bye-bye to OT'ing more on this forum and return to enjoy the wonder that is EB. :balloon2:

Tiberius Nero
03-08-2007, 11:13
I think few serious people are concerned about the movie's ahistoricity, wth, it is a work of fiction, we can understand that and it takes licences (all ancient plays or epics even take similar licence and are full of anachronisms, no one is complaining about these); what people are concerned about is the quality of it as fiction (e.g. no plot, no characters etc) and I for one with its blatant propagandist nature.

econ21
03-08-2007, 11:46
What makes it all worse is that the movie comes off as a pretentious history lesson.

No offence, mate, but I think that quote rather applies to your link. The link starts by saying Alexander drew heavily on a modern historical work. Would that all Hollywood historical movies were so grounded. The movie was head and shoulders over most Hollywood efforts. It taught me a lot - for example, about Alexander's relation with the East, which your link acknowledges as a strength. To damn the movie over details shows a lack of judgement and just surrenders the field to 300 style nonsense. The best is the enemy of the good.


...at the same time Rosario Dawson was casted as Raukhshanna.

Spending a lot of time focussing on Alexander's hair colour or Rosario Dawson's skin colour - and being "insulted" by it as your link's author and his wife were - frankly smacks of racism. It's called acting - you don't have to be a Macedonian general to play one or a 3rd century Persian woman to play one. I don't see a problem with a white man playing Othello or a black playing Hamlet; heck, Shakespeare did well enough with men playing all the women's roles (as do many single sex schools today). People are people - if you prick me, do I not bleed? ~:grouphug:

Juvenal
03-08-2007, 12:22
Why so much gloom and doom?

No matter what historical carnage 300 commits, there is one historical fact they cannot fail to honour.

Isn't it ironic that there will be no actual Spartans at all, only Thespians!

:2thumbsup:

mcantu
03-08-2007, 13:00
I'll agree with TPC and go a bit further. Alexander was an unadulterated piece of garbage for many reasons, not the least of which being its erroneous depictions of near everything. Colin Farrel can't act either.

300? I would have seen it if it were just a comic-bookesque picture of the battle, but the Persians are indeed cast as the eastern horde from hell. Now, I'm no multi-culturalist relativistic wiener who eats tofu-dogs and gets sick from beef broth, but come on. It's just so fucking blatant it makes my ears bleed. IRANIANS ARE EVIL, IRANIANS ARE EVIL banner going across the top of the screen would serve up its message. AND it cheapens what those 300 men actually did.


Except that todays Middle East Arab population is, ethnically and culturally, very far removed from ancient Persians...

Watchman
03-08-2007, 13:20
And how likely is the run-of-the-mill American movie-goer to be aware of that ? I wouldn't bet on my countrymen being on the average too well informed on the matter, and they aren't notorious for categorical ignorance concerning the rest of the world.

'Sides, we're talking symbols here.

And AFAIK the present-day Iranians aren't Arabs (to meaningful degrees anyway), and both will probably be offended if so mistaken.

Tiberius Nero
03-08-2007, 14:03
Except that todays Middle East Arab population is, ethnically and culturally, very far removed from ancient Persians...

Err, Iranians are not Arabs, they don't even speak arabic for one...

stefan25
03-08-2007, 14:42
did one of you notice that xerxes himself looked more like a klingon ?

The Persian Cataphract
03-08-2007, 15:05
TPC: One thing though. Farrokh does not understand Greek or Roman battle orders very well, as most on the other side don't understand the Persians. He actually calls the Roman armies 'hoplite inspired' at the time of Carrhae, which is rather silly to say the least.

This is the beauty of Iranology, friend. Whereas we are the masters of everything pertaining to the Iranian world, we are yet very full of misconceptions regarding the Graeco-Roman military traditions. This is largely due to the fact that Iranian cultures are so poorly documented and one could just dedicate a few days just to get a grasp of the whole pre-Islamic Iranian history, while Greek and Roman history takes years just to plow through half of the primary sources and the scholastics, to truly understand their culture. We are very used to fill in the blanks with whatever is suitable and thus by situations where ambiguities arise, we are very quick with plotting down a various hypothesis. It would sound disastrous and utterly unscholarly to any historian with sensibility in Graeco-Roman field, but it is an everyday situation for the Iranologist. Criteria are naturally higher in the ancient history of the West.

He does indeed call the Roman army, in context of Carrhae "hoplite inspired", true true. I myself caught him redhanded a few times on his work on Pan-Turanism. In his Osprey work on Sassanid cavalry, he does however retain honesty on the colour plate of the battle of Ctesiphon between the army of Julian the Apostate and the Sassanids, where Angus McBride depicted soldiers wearing the lorica segmentata, and carrying Germanic shields, so there is a note on the errata. So he is not completely ignorant, though I was baffled by his praise of muslim commanders.

As for the movie plastering the Persians as an evil horde of mutants and disfigured orchs, well, like I said before it would depend on the intention of the film. It is not meant to be a historical portrayal so I am satisfied. It does sting a bit that they carry the name of Persians, and it stings a bit that Xerxes is depicted as he is, but that's Frank Miller. If it is a caricature of history with testosterone crammed in to it, then I'll be more than willing to and spend a few hours with the gang and enjoy a flick touting itself as more masculine than Conan The Barbarian. I have no expectations for this movie, not like I had for Alexander when I heard that Robin Lane Fox, a very esteemed authority on Alexander III The Great was to be the historical advisor of the movie. It's the same as that other horrid movie known as Attila, plastering itself as historically accurate with expensive sets... But again, Hollywood legions and... Parthians? Ridiculous. Compared to these horrid attempts of serious movies, 300 comes across like a wind of fresh air, and for once we do ironically see "Persians" in actual armour and possessing some technology :egypt:

The Persian Cataphract
03-08-2007, 15:15
did one of you notice that xerxes himself looked more like a klingon ?

...I could have a field day on the comical portrayal of Xerxes alone. Rodrigo Santoro, at least with hair on his head and skipping the piercings could have passed as a half-credible Xerxes if he could wear a huge crown and a square-cut beard. Instead we see him carrying more bling than Mr.T and instead of wearing long, flowing robes a befitting an Achaemenid emperor, he is half-naked. But hey, it's not like Gerard Butler is an exact replica of Leonidas... And then we have Ephialtes... Jeez, I wish they could have cut the poor goat-herder some slack, I mean from being the man just saying "Uhh, idiots you could actually take this way, duh!" he is depicted as a gigantic uruk-hai in chains :laugh4:

aecp
03-08-2007, 15:17
Uhh, maybe you need to a refresher on 20th century history... should I list the evil tyrants and the incredible heros who stood up to them for freedom, democracy, and the American way of life?

Even today, it is the same old story. http://www4.army.mil/news/article.php?story=9825 ...do I need to say who the evil tyrant is, or who is in the "Axis of Evil"?

First of all, I was being ironic. I was just commenting on the fact that when it comes to depicting war and conflict any further back than the 20th century, the Hollywood consensus seems to be that the only thing that motivated people back then was freedom (Braveheart, Gladiator) and the possibility of being remembered for thousands of years (Alexander, Troy).

A movie about WW2 or the Vietnam War typically has far more depth when it comes to the developement of characters, moral issues, motivation and such. That was really all I was trying to say. And "American way of life?" are you saying that the heroes of the 20th century were exclusively Americans or something?


I'm pretty sure if the real "300" were here today they would puke at their actions being depicted in this way. I'm not looking forward to this movie at all. But at the same time, I'm already about to puke because of how much the crap in this movie actually resembles how Americans feel today.

Christ, calm down, get a hobby or something. You seem to be overreacting to some pretty insignificant stuff. As for the original 300, I think its very possible that they would be amused at the fact that the tale of their actions has survived for thousands of years in a society so far beyond anything they would have been able to imagine. Even if the tale is in a form that might seem to them a tad on the mythological side.

Tiberius Nero
03-08-2007, 15:26
Ephialtes' portrayal is just ridiculous: it didn't fit Miller's idea of supposed unity of the Greeks (and hence the forces of Good Democrats everywhere) that it was a simple goatherd caring more for his pocket than the Cause of Liberty and so he had to find a tragic story behind him being a Spartan actually who was denied serving in the army for being deformed etc etc. Unity my foot: anyone has noticed how the epigram of the fallen Spartans says: "we fell obeying to Spartan Law"? A far cry from at least an emerging concept of Panhellenism evident in the Athenian Epigram for Marathon, where at least it is said that "Fighting first on the front of Greeks in Marathon, the Athenians crushed the might of gilded Medes". Even using Sparta to champion the idea of Liberty and Progress betrays uncoscious irony on Miller's part. Sparta was possibly the most reactionary city state in Greece.

Foot
03-08-2007, 15:40
Even using Sparta to champion the idea of Liberty and Progress betrays uncoscious irony on Miller's part. Sparta was possibly the most reactionary city state in Greece.

That is certainly my favourite part of 300, having Sparta become of avatar for freedom and democracy. Beautiful irony.

Foot

aecp
03-08-2007, 16:07
That is certainly my favourite part of 300, having Sparta become of avatar for freedom and democracy. Beautiful irony.

Foot

Yeah, it seems like they're taking the 'freedom' theme even further than Miller did in the comic. What's even worse is that I've heard that the line "freedom isn't free" is in the movie. I cringe just reading about it.

Teleklos Archelaou
03-08-2007, 16:14
The way the Achaemenid Empire is shown in every movie, TV show, etc makes me mad. To me the Persians were the "good guys".

"History is written by the winner." Ever noticed that the "good guys" are the ultimate winner of every struggle.
I take it you haven't seen the William Shatner and Adam West pilot for the Alexander the Great TV series that was attempted about 35 years ago? I've got a copy of it on tape and it's hilarious. Of course it was filmed in the hills outside of L.A., and the Persians were indeed quite strange looking. Can't remember who the guy they were chasing was, not Darius, but another Persian general, and he was this hairy fat guy who looked vaguely hispanic who walked around for most of the show with a big chicken drumstick in his hand or in his mouth ("I want to see more greed and gluttony in this next take Steve - get him a big turkey leg and smear grease in his beard!").

At least for Alexander they did get the look (I'll just say "look", since the guy is pretty much a model from Israel who had no lines) of Darius a lot better in using Raz Degan than any other movie I've seen a Persian king depicted in.

spirit_of_rob
03-08-2007, 16:26
What's even worse is that I've heard that the line "freedom isn't free" is in the movie. I cringe just reading about it.

Lol that reminds me of that music track in Team America haha i will give the guy a million quid if they use that track haha

The Persian Cataphract
03-08-2007, 17:02
Raz Degan had the look, I agree, but his attire was far too much based on the Alexander mosaic, and while accurate, it is not written in stone. What surprised me was foremostly the lack of colour. He was a very credible Darius in style, but the whole execution made him "Meh...", and while casting him as the King of Kings was a great choice, they completely blew it by casting Rosario Dawson as Raukhshanna. It had some positive highlights, such as Alexander actually turning more "Persian" in manner, and this movie was rather worthy of lamenting.

But hey, the regular Iranian Joe would rather boycott Denmark for posting caricatures of Mohammed than pay any attention to pretentious movies depicting Iranians during the age of "ignorance" (Jahiliyat)... Never before have the Islamic regime of Iran and Hollywood been such good bed-fellows. Jesus Christ, the irony is just overwhelming ~:joker:

The Persian Cataphract
03-08-2007, 19:18
No offence, mate, but I think that quote rather applies to your link. The link starts by saying Alexander drew heavily on a modern historical work. Would that all Hollywood historical movies were so grounded. The movie was head and shoulders over most Hollywood efforts. It taught me a lot - for example, about Alexander's relation with the East, which your link acknowledges as a strength. To damn the movie over details shows a lack of judgement and just surrenders the field to 300 style nonsense. The best is the enemy of the good.

No offence taken, but I do not agree with you at all. The movie took itself very seriously as a movie biography of Alexander. If my colleague comes off as pretentious in his article, well, at the very least you cannot withdraw his premise for the bulk of his criticism against the movie. The movie did stress for more historical accuracy, but at the same time as the edifice of credibility was being built, then these mere "details" that you speak about, must have been quite the sappers. I aptly call it a failure of epic proportions. It may have taught you a lot, but to those who have read the classics, and even the scholastics of Robin Lane Fox himself, it left many baffled, Greeks and Iranians alike.


Spending a lot of time focussing on Alexander's hair colour or Rosario Dawson's skin colour - and being "insulted" by it as your link's author and his wife were - frankly smacks of racism.

I had this one little hunch, one very little sensation of anticipation that someone would bring up the race card. Did I insult black people anywhere in my post? Didn't you just recently say that the film taught you a great deal? Recently, I saw a decent movie in the campus theatre, the one based on queen Elizabeth. How about we just for a split second switch this credibly looking actress with Lucy Liu. Oops... That would also "smack of racism" if the English complained about it. Now think about it. Bactrian highlands. A typical Bactrian woman would with so much Scythian interaction over the centuries rather have had a more significant blondism among the individuals. In the sources, they hint at that Raukhshanna was a fair woman, and indeed in Renaissance art of Alexander, the couple are depicted as flaxen and fair. Alexander being depicted as a Fabio with golden hair is nothing more than an extension of this type of art. Even the Alexander mosaic depicts Alexander with hair far from flaxen-blonde. Iranians and Greeks had many things in common when it came to physical characteristics. As for the acting, Rosario Dawson is a talented actress, but to a movie stressing historical accuracy and being such a "learning experience" to you... No, that is clearly not sufficient for me.


People are people - if you prick me, do I not bleed?

Now, that is just politically correct and a red herring. We are speaking of history, not generic theatre. Alexander is not a play. Alexander is not the invention of a poet. This is why anyone could accept a black Hamlet on the basis of acting. When portraying a true historical figure based on written evidence... You're playing with fire. It has nothing to do with "People are people". Of course people are people, of course we all bleed, but in history there was no such thing as "Kumbayah". The only black peoples of the Persian Empire would have been the Eastern and Western Ethiopians and the Nubians, and that is a long way from Bactria up in the north-eastern reaches of the empire in Asia. She was the daughter of a Bactrian noble.

Axelus
03-08-2007, 19:54
Now, that is just politically correct and a red herring. We are speaking of history, not generic theatre. Alexander is not a play. Alexander is not the invention of a poet

Alexander is the invention of historians. I'm taking a post-modernistic point of view again. Why are we so desperate to find a flawless, perfect and objective Alexander? It is mostly a matter of making a certain point of view the legitimate one. History can often be a source of power, the power to define the past. You will always take a subjective point of view of how Alexander truly was.
This also applies to Oliver Stones idea of what Alexander was. What the real events would be like is something we will never have access to.

Although I agree that the movie Alexander took a very pretentious step in claiming to tell the real story of Alexander, and that it is indeed dangerous to not take the historical accounts seriously.
In that case I believe that the movie 300 is a better example of movies from historical events, cause it doesnt pretend to tell the story of the battle.
Rather it is pretending to tell a story about a story of the battle... :idea2:

Tiberius Nero
03-08-2007, 19:56
Econ's point was, if I understand it correctly, that being insulted by Raukshana being played by a black actress could sound "racist" (I hate the way this term is overused nowadays btw); on the other hand being angry at the historical inaccuracy and at the blanket position assumed by Hollywood that "all those strange people out east look a bit too tanned, don't they" is perfectly legit. I have seen many Greek characters in movies that don't look one bit Greek (they rather fall in with Hollywood's "easterner" conception), but was never insulted, I was more like "wha? have those people at Hollywood ever actually seen a Greek guy?"

Dan_Grr
03-08-2007, 20:04
I've set up two sites several weeks ago about the spartan world:

www.spartansecrets.com

www.the-spartans.com

Domitius Ulpianus
03-08-2007, 20:32
Yeah, but I just hate that I'm going to have to answer so many questions about it over the next few years. Ridiculous questions. :laugh4: You mean Achilles wasn't in the Trojan Horse? Huh? Patroclus wasn't just his younger cuz he was protecting? Achilles must have really loved Briseus, right? :grin:


gimme a break...EVERYBODY knows Achiles was in the horse...:turtle: :charge: :tomato:

Kugutsu
03-08-2007, 20:59
Eh? Achilles died before the horse got made. It was Odysseus who was in the horse...

MarcusAureliusAntoninus
03-08-2007, 21:17
Alexander was a jerk and quite possibly insane. :tomato:

On the subject of historical accuracy: I don't mind that this move (The 300) is a fictional movie. I doubt that anyone will actually believe that it is completely accurate, but the line between history and fiction isn't clear. I bet there will be a good many people who think that greeks didn't have armor, after watching this movie, for example.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-08-2007, 21:42
Yeah, but I just hate that I'm going to have to answer so many questions about it over the next few years. Ridiculous questions. :laugh4: You mean Achilles wasn't in the Trojan Horse? Huh? Patroclus wasn't just his younger cuz he was protecting? Achilles must have really loved Briseus, right? :grin:

I think Achilleus loved Briseus, but then I also think that before Patroklos died he really was planning on going home. One thing I will say for TROY, good casting.

Rilder
03-08-2007, 21:44
Alexander was a jerk and quite possibly insane. :tomato:

On the subject of historical accuracy: I don't mind that this move (The 300) is a fictional movie. I doubt that anyone will actually believe that it is completely accurate, but the line between history and fiction isn't clear. I bet there will be a good many people who think that greeks didn't have armor, after watching this movie, for example.


Spartans had armor?!?!?!? You can't be serious! I thought they all fought as Gestatae! :laugh4:

Thaatu
03-08-2007, 22:14
Alexander was a jerk and quite possibly insane. :tomato:
...and that was depicted in the movie. ~:)

Teleklos Archelaou
03-08-2007, 22:22
Yeah, casting was one area I don't fault Troy with in general, though Helen was the worst mistake, IMHO.


www.spartansecrets.com

www.the-spartans.comVery creatively designed to get the most hits and google ads and paypal submissions all benefiting from this movie. That is the nicest possible thing I could say about this. As someone's first post on an EB forum, it ranks among the worst I've seen, and entirely designed to get ad revenue it seems to my eyes. Then again I'm an ass, but what exactly is it supposed to do other than get ad revenue? Don't get mad at me for saying it though, I probably have ensured a few more people clicked on it after all. :skull:

Xtiaan72
03-08-2007, 22:27
Well think of it this way. Yes, it is highly stylized but it's universally getting great reviews. Wouldn't you rather see that than a poor attempt at a historical drama?

I mean, Alexander may be the worst movie I have ever tried to sit through. It was laughable. Angelina Jolie is comical as Alexander's mom. It fact it is impossible to think of her seriously after watching that movie. Troy was terrible, It was a big steaming, unintelligible pile of crap.

To cover events in that scope you need a quality cable mini-series like Rome or The Tudors ( Both well done) and it doesn't hurt to have the BBC involved in some way.

I'm definitely looking forward to seeing it.

econ21
03-08-2007, 23:02
I had this one little hunch, one very little sensation of anticipation that someone would bring up the race card. Did I insult black people anywhere in my post? Didn't you just recently say that the film taught you a great deal? Recently, I saw a decent movie in the campus theatre, the one based on queen Elizabeth. How about we just for a split second switch this credibly looking actress with Lucy Liu. Oops... That would also "smack of racism" if the English complained about it.

The thing is, I don't think any English professors of history and their wives - or whoever the author of your link was - would say they were "insulted" by Lucy Liu playing Elizabeth. They might have a bit of a jiggle, but I doubt they would say they were insulted. To my English ears that would smack of racism - yes, we are very politically correct nowadays. Maybe it's not racism, I don't know the author of your link. But at best, it reflects a petty and insecure form of nationalism. Just a big "who cares?" about the colour of Raukhshanna's skin or of Alexander's hair.

An actress's depiction of her character's personality and motivation - the role she plays in the story - is more important than her skin colour. I suspect Lucy Liu would probably be a lousy Elizabeth: I think she's a limited actress. She can do angry and she can do sexy; she's very good at sexy angry. Perhaps Lucy Liu could have a decent crack at being Boudicca. Zhang Ziyi might be an interesting Elisabeth, especially in a Chinese-made film. As for Rosario, I thought she carried off the role decently - as you say, she's a good actress. She had fire, presence and beauty, which seemed to be what was required. I was less convinced with Farrell though that was nothing to do with the historical accuracy of his blond hair which seemed to obsess the author of your link. Sometimes actors can transcend the physical - Ben Kingsley as Ghandhi would be one example to me, maybe not to a South Asian. Sometimes they can't- John Wayne as Ghenghis Khan. :rolleyes:


The only black peoples of the Persian Empire would have been the Eastern and Western Ethiopians and the Nubians, and that is a long way from Bactria up in the north-eastern reaches of the empire in Asia. She was the daughter of a Bactrian noble.

Is Rosario black? I watched her and could not pin her ethnicity down. Researching this reply, it turns out she is part Puerto Rican, Afro-Cuban, Irish and Native American, which is probably why I could not pin her ethnicity down. All I know is that she worked for me.


As for the acting, Rosario Dawson is a talented actress, but to a movie stressing historical accuracy and being such a "learning experience" to you... No, that is clearly not sufficient for me.

It's an Oliver Stone movie, not a historical documentary. What I learnt from it was some of what Alexander achieved, what were some of the factors that drove him to do and what were some of those constraining him. If your link has disputed some of those big issues, I might have enjoyed it. But obsessing about minor details only reminded me of the scene in the Full Monty where some English steel workers are watching the Hollywood movie "Flashdance" and criticising the lead girl's welding techniques. It's kind of beside the point.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-08-2007, 23:11
If anything I would say she looks Hispanic, she might pass for a dark modern Iranian but then Iranians vary from looking very European to very Semetic.

Domitius Ulpianus
03-08-2007, 23:17
Eh? Achilles died before the horse got made. It was Odysseus who was in the horse...


Blah...it was supposed to be a joke....snif snif ...:embarassed:

Zim
03-08-2007, 23:48
Blah...it was supposed to be a joke....snif snif ...:embarassed:

Well, i got it. :cool:

Teleklos Archelaou
03-09-2007, 00:01
You guys had to love the coins-on-the-eyes-of-the-dead thing a good half-millennium before coins were invented. :grin:

The Persian Cataphract
03-09-2007, 00:25
The thing is, I don't think any English professors of history and their wives - or whoever the author of your link was - would say they were "insulted" by Lucy Liu playing Elizabeth. They might have a bit of a jiggle, but I doubt they would say they were insulted. To my English ears that would smack of racism - yes, we are very politically correct nowadays.

Which is not in my agenda. I am here to give a scholarly opinion to a film that you personally claimed to have taught you a great deal. I am certainly not here to appease to anyone's political sensibilities. I do not care about the run-of-the-mill English professors, because I speak of something important in film, coming in many different forms; Credibility. In this aspect, I do not speak about acting, but of history. As Robin Lane Fox, a very esteemed authority was the chief historical advisor of the Alexander motion picture, one would very naturally have expectations. Except, not only were expectations failed to be met, but many issues would leave Iranians even moderately informed in history baffled. The movie takes itself seriously in a way unlike Spartacus and Ben Hur, which largely rely on filmic delivery resp. fictional story in an ancient setting. You know very well what I speak of. The intro with various Persian and Assyrian reliefs and focus on the busts of Alexander and the Alexander mosaic... The Macedonian army is very accurately depicted in the movie, as it is befitting of Mr. Fox's outspoken expertise. Political correctness set aside, the portrayal of Persians was awful. Very careful listening on the Persian army at Gaugamela, one can hear a terribly guttural language in the background and then someone realizes "Aha...! Arabic!".

Au contraire, the charge of "racism" does not fall on my nor my colleague's hands. Persians are de facto depicted as towel-heads, some very peculiarly dressed up like suicide bombers in drab clothing (At the battle of Gaugamela watch until you see some weird "Persian" axemen try to swing it "cowardly" against Alexander's back... By Mithras one must love the Hollywood symbolism) and this is facilitated by the very Arabesque-looking women, and that thing Rosario Dawson wore... What was that? A burka with meshes? Now that is an insult. Scythian Iranian women on horseback disturbed Graeco-Roman sensibilities for centuries. The Massagetae were ruled by a queen by the name of Tomyris, a woman feared by the Persians as the strong-handed woman who ended the life of Cyrus The Great. The Sassanids were a people who by the end of their rule had two Queen of Queens on the throne of the King of Kings (Interestingly enough with "prophet" Mohammed cursing Empress Pûrândukht in an infamous hadith... Now how about that?). It is an insult to confuse Islamic garb or even the veil with ancient Iranian history. English professors may merely shrug at the thought of a Chinese or Japanese sitting on the throne as an avatar of queen Elizabeth, I don't really care, because such a response would truly have differed from all the criticism "Kingdom of Heaven" received for showing the muslims in a brighter light, mainly from British scholars.

Look, the reason why Iranologists are especially touchy about these kind of issues is largely because Iran's poorly documented history, what is left of it is a treasure. In the ruins and in the pages of books written by Iran's arch-enemies, literally written in blood and poison, we see something deserving to be cherished. Most Iranologists are Iranians who have found for themselves an identity that has been denied to most Iranians since the Islamic Revolution. Today, that heritage is melting away like ice in a hot summer day, and the situation is not helped when both the Islamic regime and Hollywood, two very strange allies, undermine what truly is Iranian with ignorance. Smack of racism or not, Alexander as a flick had a budget of 155 million dollars. What were they doing with this money? They couldn't spend a few more meagre thousands just to set things straight?


Is Rosario black? I watched her and could not pin her ethnicity down. Researching this reply, it turns out she is part Puerto Rican, Afro-Cuban, Irish and Native American, which is probably why I could not pin her ethnicity down. All I know is that she worked for me.

For me, she clearly did not. Like I said before, she did not fit as Raukhshanna at all. The casting crew clearly did not understand the character, and this is irrespective of talent. The actor/actress must fit. Native American, Puerto-Rican and Afro-Cuban? Alright so she is a combination of ethnicities that all would have been out of place in Bactria, let alone anywhere else in the Iranian world. It's not racism, it is a verdict made every day in Hollywood. I wouldn't want to have a Chinese guy portraying Cyrus The Great no matter of his talent, nor would I want an Iranian, no matter of his talent portraying as the newest Shaft. It does not work that way. The Alexander motion picture was clearly aiming at credibility, but these "small" things pulled down the entire movie, by Greeks as well as Iranians.

Brightblade
03-09-2007, 00:32
After wasting a good 30 minutes of my time reading through most of this, I've come to a conclusion I'm sure we can all agree on.

Movies are made to entertain. I love history, pure and simple. I will be going to see 300, and probably enjoy it. I won't be sitting in my chair, whining about how they didn't get the Spartan's beards long enough, or if the Persians look like the Orcs. It's a MOVIE. It's supposed to wow (which it will), to shock (seems like it will) and to entertain (definitely). We should be grateful Hollywood is taking ANY expense at all by making ancient history a part of their retinue nowadays... especially since I thought Gladiator would bring about more movies about our common, interesting past.

Troy was an enjoyable movie. I believe what really compells me are the themes that make us human, whether now or 5000 years ago. Love, greed, guilt, anger... timeless emotions that both the heroes of the past, fact or fiction, and the people of today feel. That is what moves us, what makes movies so likeable. Personally, I enjoyed Alexander, Gladiator, Troy and I will enjoy 300, and any other historically inaccurate to one degree or another movie that comes out. The point being, not one of these movies claimed to be a documentary, and none could ever be - history is written by the victors, and it is NEVER unbiased, and NEVER pure, and NEVER 100% accurate. EB strives for its view on accuracy, based on evidence it finds and analyzes to its best ability, and I enjoy their product wholly without criticizing their particular view on what is considered entertainment.

Why cannot we extend the same courtesy to the people who delight us with tales of heroes of our past? We need some heroes in today's world....

Domitius Ulpianus
03-09-2007, 00:42
After wasting a good 30 minutes of my time reading through most of this, I've come to a conclusion I'm sure we can all agree on.

Movies are made to entertain. I love history, pure and simple. I will be going to see 300, and probably enjoy it. I won't be sitting in my chair, whining about how they didn't get the Spartan's beards long enough, or if the Persians look like the Orcs. It's a MOVIE. It's supposed to wow (which it will), to shock (seems like it will) and to entertain (definitely). We should be grateful Hollywood is taking ANY expense at all by making ancient history a part of their retinue nowadays... especially since I thought Gladiator would bring about more movies about our common, interesting past.

Troy was an enjoyable movie. I believe what really compells me are the themes that make us human, whether now or 5000 years ago. Love, greed, guilt, anger... timeless emotions that both the heroes of the past, fact or fiction, and the people of today feel. That is what moves us, what makes movies so likeable. Personally, I enjoyed Alexander, Gladiator, Troy and I will enjoy 300, and any other historically inaccurate to one degree or another movie that comes out. The point being, not one of these movies claimed to be a documentary, and none could ever be - history is written by the victors, and it is NEVER unbiased, and NEVER pure, and NEVER 100% accurate. EB strives for its view on accuracy, based on evidence it finds and analyzes to its best ability, and I enjoy their product wholly without criticizing their particular view on what is considered entertainment.

Why cannot we extend the same courtesy to the people who delight us with tales of heroes of our past? We need some heroes in today's world....

Agree a 100000%

It's just a movie, it is not a ESSAY OR A MEMOIR it's only pourpose is to make you laugh, cry or say "wow" and make you eat popcorn and drink soda, that's it. Not even documentary movies are 100% accurate or objectives..Sooo as long as it doesn't pretend to be the truth I have no problem seeing anything. Because I know I will never find truth in a movie screen....just my 2 cents.

The Persian Cataphract
03-09-2007, 00:54
Your post sums up why I will pay a ticket to see "300". I am tired of chick flicks, and after almost a million times of watching Conan The Barbarian, the last thing I'll be thinking about in "300" is historical accuracy as long as there is blood, violence and sex. It is meant to full of adrenaline and testosterone and given that the movie does not plaster itself as a lecture, like Alexander, I will go and see it without expectations. If I can eat an artery-clogging pastrami sandwich to it, it gets my stamp of approval. If it has poor acting, well, I don't really care, I'm not after credibility. I mean, it has Gerard Butler in it and whenever he screams he even looks like a retard. Arnold can't act worth a damn either, yet all guys claiming their masculinity loves movies like Conan and Terminator. That's entertainment. After seeing garbage like Black Dahlia, something my girlfriend forced me to watch, just for once, a movie where one can sit with the rest of the guys, have a few beers and just laying back... Or maybe screw the beer, stupid alcohol regulations :clown:

abou
03-09-2007, 00:54
Sorry, Brightblade and Domitius, but that is a pretty lame statement. Claiming that entertainment as it stands is justification for errors, or that nothing can ever be 100% accurate is reason enough to swallow our sensibilities all for that fact that it is entertainment... well, it just doesn't cut it.

Teleklos Archelaou
03-09-2007, 00:55
I just wish the plot was better - the plot of Troy was just a modern creation, when the ancient story is much more interesting. Kind of a "remix" that is sort of catchy, but mainly because the original song was so good in the first place. As for hoping the stories stick to the original versions, in Troy or 300 or Alexander or whatever, it's like a movie about WWII (not claiming to be historically accurate or realistic, but still "about" the war in general) that has the U.S. and UK and allies victorious ("hey, they got it *basically* right!"), but only after Patton snuck in disguise into Berlin and killed Rommell in hand to hand combat, and then the French rebelled and pushed the Germans back after a power hungry Churchill had most of his advisors and top generals murdered, and then De Gaulle and Stalin led a paratrooper raid on Hitler's Swiss villa and killed Hitler himself by simultaneously throwing short spears at him with atlatls. Greatest movie evar!

abou
03-09-2007, 00:57
You might want to copyright that, TA. Someone from a large studio might steal the idea.:laugh4:

econ21
03-09-2007, 01:00
Scythian Iranian women on horseback disturbed Graeco-Roman sensibilities for centuries. The Massagetae were ruled by a queen by the name of Tomyris, a woman feared by the Persians as the strong-handed woman who ended the life of Cyrus The Great. The Sassanids were a people who by the end of their rule had two Queen of Queens on the throne of the King of Kings...

Interesting: so Raukhshanna was in the tradition of these kind of women? You only increase my respect for the film. Like the Graeco-Romans, I did find something "disturbing" about her strength in the film to my "sensibilities". I did not understand where it came from - I actually suspected it might just be dramatic nonsense like a cataphract rhino, but from what you say it was more than that.

Kugutsu
03-09-2007, 01:00
...and make you eat popcorn and drink soda...

I believe there you have the crux of the matter. They set out to make a profit. If they think that a film based on a comic will make money, then thats what they will make. If someone else feels that an accurate, historical documentary will make money, then they will make that too.

Perhaps it is regretable that some people will watch it and have this as their sole impression of the ancient greeks. It is our job as the (marginally) better informed to educate others where we have the chance. Some do more educating than others, like the EB team who have turned it into what can only be described as a work of art. All we can hope for is that the film might pique some peoples' curiosity about the ancient world, and prompt them to explore further... It certainly cant do any harm.

As for the propaganda arguement, well, perhaps it is, but then there has always been propaganda, and it has always been inextricably linked with art. Thats life, Im afraid.

Xtiaan72
03-09-2007, 01:12
I get it Brightblade....If there is a movie out with someone waving a sword around, you are in. I suppose that means there is a built in audience for historical movies no matter how bad they are.

Not me senor. If I going to pony up 12 dollars to see a movie, it better be good. Gladiator was entertaining and well done and no doubt spawned Troy and Alexander. Which were mega-expensive bombs with little to no entertainment value. Poorly scripted, poorly acted. And for anybody that cared about the subject matter....huge disappointments.

Historical accuracy is nice but rarely displayed in these Hollywood movies. So the best you can hope for is a good story and script and a setting that captures 'the feel' of the era in question.

300 is actually supposed to be a decent movie. Which puts it in company with Brave Heart and Gladiator as worthy of actually watching. Although 300 is more stylized than either of those.

Kingdom of Heaven was watchable but not as good as Brave Heart or Gladiator.

I understand that when a historical movie comes out people like us tend to rush out and support it. But putting a happy face on terrible movies doesn't really improve the chances of more being made. Support the good ones and dont be shy when something really insults your intelligence.

If people had only done that with the new Star Wars movies....George Lucas might have felt some pressure to make one of them half as good as the first three.

God, this whole conversation is bringing back visions of Colin Ferrall whining like a little girl for three hours as Alexander. Colin Ferrall, shirtless, pouting and on the verge of tears for three hours playing Alexander the Great!!!....Give me a break.

The Persian Cataphract
03-09-2007, 01:12
Interesting: so Raukhshanna was in the tradition of these kind of women? You only increase my respect for the film. Like the Graeco-Romans, I did find something "disturbing" about her strength in the film to my "sensibilities". I did not understand where it came from - I actually suspected it might just be dramatic nonsense like a cataphract rhino, but from what you say it was more than that.

It seems that I've utterly failed at getting through my message to you. Raukhshanna was the daughter of a Bactrian noble, and in a society where women actually had rights, in an area today correctly labelled as misogynistic, I'd hope that you at least realized that my main complaint was a classical moment of a politically charged Hollywood error. I'll be very frank, that burka thing disgusted me. That garb is Islamic. Zoroastrian marital traditions were completely neglected. I will politely ask you to read my previous entry again and take context into respect. With that much errata hanging together as a coherent piece, my message would not easily have been misinterpreted.

MarcusAureliusAntoninus
03-09-2007, 02:40
...and that was depicted in the movie. ~:)
I never saw Alexander... or Troy and Kingdom of Heaven for that matter. I saw Gladiator, and liked it.

Here's one for you all, anyone ever seen "The Scorpion King"? That movie wasn't based on anything. When I saw that my head nearly exploded. Random historical names without any research, any. Akkadians... Monguls... Chinese... Sodom... crossbows... catapults... random references to Egypt and Sumeria... AHHHH!!!

Xtiaan72
03-09-2007, 02:52
here's one for you all, anyone ever seen "The Scorpion King"? That movie wasn't based on anything. When I saw that my head nearly exploded. Random historical names without any research, any. Akkadians... Monguls... Chinese... Sodom... crossbows... catapults... random references to Egypt and Sumeria... AHHHH!!!


That one was bad.....But kinda 'good' bad. Ridiculous but entertaining like Conan or something. Good for a laugh.

Fondor_Yards
03-09-2007, 03:41
I never saw Alexander... or Troy and Kingdom of Heaven for that matter. I saw Gladiator, and liked it.

Here's one for you all, anyone ever seen "The Scorpion King"? That movie wasn't based on anything. When I saw that my head nearly exploded. Random historical names without any research, any. Akkadians... Monguls... Chinese... Sodom... crossbows... catapults... random references to Egypt and Sumeria... AHHHH!!!

Hahah with the Rock in it? Yea I was like "wtf???" for a while till I desided to just give trying to figure out were it was and what was going on.

Domitius Ulpianus
03-09-2007, 04:31
Sorry, Brightblade and Domitius, but that is a pretty lame statement. Claiming that entertainment as it stands is justification for errors, or that nothing can ever be 100% accurate is reason enough to swallow our sensibilities all for that fact that it is entertainment... well, it just doesn't cut it.


Well then we can agree to disagree. But I will propose you a bet. Show me 20action movies and I will show you 200 mistakes on EACH. Entertainment CAN be mixed with education BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO. That's my only point. If you think it does...boy I gottta tell ya: You've been missing a loooot of fun in this world.

:joker: :argue: :computer:

Watchman
03-09-2007, 04:33
Do excuse us for insisting on certain minimum standards.

Brightblade
03-09-2007, 08:31
Xtiann72, I take offense to the fact that I will see any movie with a dude raising a sword, including bad ones.PS. I don't have to pay 12 dollars to watch a movie, it's called Blockbuster. Then you go on to say you watched all the movies I watched. Nice self-domination.

Not only are some of us looking like absolute, élitist history nerds who can't sit back, drink a beer and watch a hack and slash loosely based on history without getting our panties in a knot, you are missing the whole point. THE BLOODY POINT IS A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE WILL ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT SPARTA MORE OR LESS REPRESENTED, because unfortunately A LOT of people are dumb as a bunch of bricks and have NEVER picked up a book much less an ancient history book. The fact that they will have their curiosity piqued for the Ancients is a HUGE plus in my book. And that's irrefutable logic, not cry-whine-im-a-holier-than-thou-goober-geek logic.

Enjoy the bloody movie, stop crying about the fact that A) you will never be in Hollywood B) you'll never get as many girls as Colin Farrell does and C) you certainly won't get a prize for your zealous defense of history against, oh gasp, misrepresentations THAT DO NOT EVEN BEGIN TO CLAIM TO BE ACCURATE ONES.

Cheers,

BB

MarcusAureliusAntoninus
03-09-2007, 08:37
I think "The 300" shows just about the opposite of what Sparta represented.

Brightblade
03-09-2007, 08:45
Way to miss the point in a spectacular manner.

Thaatu
03-09-2007, 08:58
Come on people, don't get all serious about this. At least we'll always have Delta Force. ~:grouphug:

fallen851
03-09-2007, 09:03
And "American way of life?" are you saying that the heroes of the 20th century were exclusively Americans or something?



You don't really have to be so offended by my comments, this was actually a joke. I was simply making sure everyone knew that this "fight for freedom" is a reaccuring theme.

Tiberius Nero
03-09-2007, 10:46
THE BLOODY POINT IS A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE WILL ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT SPARTA MORE OR LESS REPRESENTED

Rationalism, Freedom and Progress to the Glorious Future of Democratic Mankind? Are you serious? This is exactly what makes me sick about the movie, manipulating history to project modern ideologies to a point in time where they don't belong to, to a place in time (Sparta) which has nothing to do with them. Leonidas fought and fell with his men "obeying Spartan Law" (the epigram is clear) not out of loyalty to an overarching ideal of Progress through Liberty and Rationalism. People will not come out with some idea about what Sparta actually stood for, they will come out with an insidiously distorted idea about what Sparta stood for.

Wait, have you actually read the graphic novel? Because if you had had, those things are hard to miss in there.

Brightblade
03-09-2007, 11:23
No, I haven't read the graphic novel. I read books with words, not pictures in them.

Also, clearly you're still missing my point.. it's a movie, people who have never heard of Sparta will know who Leonidas was, MORE OR LESS... you take one quote out of context and then capitalize on it. Stop being so nit picky and enjoy the film.

If you're not content, don't see the film and stop talking about it, or make your own. One thing is to casually discuss inaccuracies for informational purposes, another thing is to call apples pears, then strike down those with the more moderate tendency of live and let live. THIS ISNT A HISTORICAL DOCUMENTARY. But Im glad its out, and I hope people who never knew how great a warrior a Spartan really was will know it now.

Sigh.

Stop politicizing something that's made for entertainment. Freedom. liberty and those nifty ideals are not proprietary of America, nor are they proprietary of Athens, nor are they proprietary of any one man, entity, or government form. Forgive the director his inaccuracies, stop the conspiracy theories, and move on with your life. I'll be watching the film in 2 weeks, darned delayed opening in Spain.

Best,

Tiberius Nero
03-09-2007, 11:55
We can agree to disagree. You don't, but I have a huge problem with modern ideological anachronisms, I don't care one whit about naked Spartan hoplites, cataphract rhinos, ninja style Persian Immortals and other sort of nitpickiness about physical aspects of military representation in a work which does not pretend to be a documentary (hey, I know that btw), just to make this clear.

Miller's work is also highly political, it is not I who "politicize" it, you would have known if you have read it (and speaking of "elitism", there are quite a few books worthy to read out there with pictures in them, just FYI). Democracy and its corollaries actually are ideals proprietary of particular peoples in particular places and times. This kind of misrepresentation of the ancient world is actually worse than having no representation at all of it. I would rather that people who had never heard of Leonidas remained ignorant of his existence, than to know of him and think of him as some sort of Renaissance hero.

econ21
03-09-2007, 12:27
It seems that I've utterly failed at getting through my message to you.

Tha'ts mutual.


Raukhshanna was the daughter of a Bactrian noble, and in a society where women actually had rights, in an area today correctly labelled as misogynistic, I'd hope that you at least realized that my main complaint was a classical moment of a politically charged Hollywood error. I'll be very frank, that burka thing disgusted me. That garb is Islamic.

With Oliver Stone, I would not assume any simple political motive about the burka. My point was simply that the film conveyed Raukhshanna as a noblewoman who had rights. That was because of the way she was acted and scripted. For me, the burka thing was irrelevant to that, as was Rosario's skin colour. Come to think of it, Lucy Liu could have pulled that role off for me, even if she would have struggled with Victoria or Elizabeth.

Now with your local knowledge and historical expertise, you won't share my perceptions, I understand. We're evaluating the film at very different levels, from very different starting points. As a largely ignorant Englishman, I'm judging it by whether it gets at the essence of Alexander and the events around his life. Nothing I've read implies it does great violence to that so I think the film did well in conveying some big truths to me. You and your colleague, as apparently Iranian historical experts of the period, are looking at the details. You've identified a lot of errors and conclude it was an epic failure.

An analogy might be with Troy. The details were terribly inaccurate renditions of the Greek myth, but reading discussions by forum members with more classical education that I - e.g. by AdrianII - it seems it was pretty good at catching the essence of Achilles (and Hector).

Another analogy might be the comparison between the Passion of Christ and the Last Temptation of Christ. The Passion may get the details right and the Last Temptation invent things. But for me, the Last Temptation catches more of the spirit and essence of Christianity. And that would have been true whether Christ was played by a dark-haired whiteman, a blonde or an African.

Anyway, I'll stop here. I know this is forum where issues such as the prevalence of lorca segmenta is an emotive question, so my concept of fuzzy historical validity is not going to win many supporters.

Khazar_Dahvos
03-09-2007, 12:39
I saw it on sneak preveiw 3 1/2 hours ago. creamed myself I did.

The Persian Cataphract
03-09-2007, 12:48
Very well then. Let us just simply agree that we do disagree :shakehands:

mcantu
03-09-2007, 12:48
I just found this review...hilarious!


300 - Reviewed by Neil Cumpston:

I just saw a movie that'll give your eyes boners, make your balls scream and make you poop DVD copies of THE TRANSPORTER. It's called 300. I don't know what the title has to do with the movie, but they could've called it KITTENS MAKING CANDLES and it'd still rule.

It's about these 300 Greek dudes who stomp the sugar-coated shit out of like a million other dudes. I have a feeling that a lot of high school sports coaches are going to show this film to their teams before they play. Also, gay dudes and divorced women are going to use screen captures for computer wallpaper.

The movie takes place about a million years ago, and it's sort of like a prequel to SIN CITY. Except way less guns and cars but twice as much skull splitting.
If you watch this movie and go into a Taco Bell, and say to the cashier, "I need some extra sauce packets"
guess what? You're getting twenty sauce packets because your face will punch him in the brain.

I can't spoil the plot because THANK GOD THERE ISN'T ONE. Just ass kicking that kicks ass that, while said ass is getting kicked, is kicking yet more ass that's hitting someone's balls with a hammer made of ice but the ice is frozen whiskey.

TWO COOL THINGS ABOUT THE MOVIE AND ONE THING I DIDN'T
LIKE:

COOL THING ONE:
HEAVY METAL DURING BATTLE SCENES

Who gives a shit if the music isn't historically correct? LORD OF THE RINGS could've used some Journey.
This movie has that chu-CHUNG kind of metal that you hear in your head when your shift supervisor at Wetzel's Pretzel is telling you that you'll have to stay for clean up and you wish you had a sock filled with quarters in your hand.

COOL THING TWO:
FOES, MINI-BOSSES AND A BIG BOSS

Basically, the Greek dudes are fighting these Persian dudes, but the director, who must have a dick made of three machine guns, does it all like a video game. The Greeks fight every death metal video from the last ten years. There's wave after wave of giants, freaks, ninjas, mutants, wizards, and a hunchback who looks like he's got Rosie O'Donnell on his back.

Would I have been happy if Dom DeLuise from HISTORY OF THE WORLD, PART I had shown up? Maybe, but this movie more than makes up for that glaring oversight.

NOT SO GOOD THING:
DUDE NUDITY ("DUDE-ITY")

These are Greek times, when there were a lot of naked women around. And there are some naked women in this film, but almost every naked woman scene has a muscular dude giving the screen an ass picnic.
Dude-ity is something directors put in their movies so people will think they're serious, I guess, and not just throwing in naked hotties.

Any directors reading this - IT'S OKAY TO JUST THROW IN NAKED HOTTIES.

Can't someone make a movie about naked Amazons and call it PAUSE BUTTON?

My final analysis is 300 the most ass-ruling movie I've seen this year, and will probably be the King of
2007 unless someone makes a movie where a pair of sentient boobs fights a werewolf.

Tiberius Nero
03-09-2007, 13:05
Best review ever? :D

Domitius Ulpianus
03-09-2007, 13:38
Do excuse us for insisting on certain minimum standards.

Well fine, you can insist on trying to educate the masses through movies...you might as well try to do it through American Idol, a Madonna CD or a Jerry Seinfeld stand-up comedy act....while you are at it you can also try with other types of entertainment like Hockey, Soccer or American Football....good luck!

I don't want or need minimun standards on stuff that is completely mundane, irrelevant and superflous as a sunday movie or a radio tune.

I wan't VERY HIGH MINIMUM STANDARDS on every education system in the planet. Then, you won't need Gerald Butler to tell the kids what Sparta was or wasn't about...The problem is we want to fix the family/school defects through mass media ENTERTAINMENT....and there we will always fail. Hope I made my point clear this time.

Peace.

Digby Tatham Warter
03-09-2007, 14:10
Why does he say this in the review? "It's called 300. I don't know what the title has to do with the movie"

Then immediately say this, "It's about these 300 Greek dudes who stomp the sugar-coated shit out of like a million other dudes."

I must admit that when first hearing of the adaptation of Frank millers 300, I was a tad dissapointed(and still am).
Instead, I was hoping for a remake of the original 1962 film '300 spartans' or even better, an adaptation of Steven Pressfields 'Gates of Fire' neither of which seem to be even getting off the ground.

I will endeaver to persevere in trying to just simply enjoy Mr Millers film, simply for what it is, thrilling eye candy.

Krusader
03-09-2007, 14:23
I don't expect this movie to be historically accurate and neither that it was it's aim. Yet I will see it.

I do expect people to start talking about how Sparta fought for freedom from the evil Persians who are the fathers of evil Muslim extremists though...or something in that vein. People will watch this movie, assume its all fiction but with a grain of historical truth in it...yet, what will they consider the truth.
I'll wait till the first persons start asking me...

keravnos
03-09-2007, 14:53
Well, my opinion on the film is the following... *Haven't seen it yet.

I have read 300 many years ago and I just LOVED it. For one simple reason. It simply had an essence of its own, a very interested story loosely based on historical fact. A faery tale based on a known battle. I will also say that I prefer Miller's version to Herodotus one.

I am not going to go into Cata Rhinos' or bodypierced Xerxes. It is a faery tale. Just one thing. The Achaimenid Persia and Pahlavi/Sassanid Persia which succeeded it weren't the "evil empire" some have proclaimed it to be. It was a very organized, civilized realm which produced beautiful art, great works of literature *most of which were lost in the Arab conquest, and one which I believe reached the splendor of Rome, even surpassed it in some areas. Trade, horsemanship, monetary stability and exploration, most assuredly.

Troy and Alexander weren't well perceived in Greece.

Troy, well because Homer wrote some things a lot differently than in the pic.

Alexander, well because of the famous Demosthenes' loser bark repeated ad infinitum that somehow Macedonia wasn't a part of Greece, Hellenic culture what have you. I can understand how some people don't know better, but still, it gets pretty dumb after a while. Besides, his mother was from Epiros and Epiros was greek at the time. I have seen with my own eyes hundreds of coins/scripts in Dodona and elsewhere and only greek appear. A lot of people were also very disturbed over the apparent homosexuality of Alexander, but that is not worth to ponder right now.

300 on the other hand, people here loved it. On the avant premiere, when it ended, most were clapping , a few were in tears. While some have accused it as a fascist flick, I think it isn't. It is an "Uncle Sam Wants You" flick in the highest degree! It is a film that does the graphic novel justice and that is no small feat. It is a love/hate thing though. You either love it, or hate its guts. I love it, since we will not get "Gates of fire" this millenium :no: and also since the graphic novel stunned me like an electric bolt.

No need to say more, a lot has been discussed already on the earlier thread.

Go see it, and if you like it enough, check on the history behind the myth.

Brightblade
03-09-2007, 14:53
ROFL at that review, it's so loaded with hate and teenage angst that I can only smile. I guess that guy must be a frustrated actor, or someone who's script never made it pass the trash can.

Oh, I also found http://www.aintitcool.com/node/31520 is Neil Cumpston´s venerated and well respected all around movie critical site, as the words 'Blow me' stick out of the second sentence of the topic of the day.

Man...

Gawain of Orkeny
03-09-2007, 15:27
Looks like a comic book version of the 300 Spartans. Ill take the old movie from the 60s thank you.
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ancientpersia/images/therm1.gif
I always loved that movie as a kid and still watch it anytime it comes on tv.

Digby Tatham Warter
03-09-2007, 16:04
Looks like a comic book version of the 300 Spartans. Ill take the old movie from the 60s thank you.
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ancientpersia/images/therm1.gif
I always loved that movie as a kid and still watch it anytime it comes on tv.

I like the scene where they drive the persians into the sea, makes me think that perphaps someone might of being hurt in the filming.

What does annoy me is where the spartans are fighting in just one rank deep, but still a favourite film of my childhood and in my DVD collection.

aecp
03-09-2007, 17:15
You don't really have to be so offended by my comments, this was actually a joke. I was simply making sure everyone knew that this "fight for freedom" is a reaccuring theme.

Oh I wasn't offended, just thouroghly confused. It was kind of hard to tell if you were being ironic all the time with the "tyrant of the axis of evil" comment and then linking to a site with a speech from Dick Cheney.


I understand that when a historical movie comes out people like us tend to rush out and support it. But putting a happy face on terrible movies doesn't really improve the chances of more being made. Support the good ones and dont be shy when something really insults your intelligence.

Well, that's a question of personal prefference, isn't it. From the looks of things, 300 will certainly be trashy in many regards but I still hope to enjoy it. The way I see it there's room for both quality and "spectacular crap" when it comes to fiction set against historical backgrounds. Sure there's Shakespeare and Robert Graves, but if someone'd rather read Conn Iggulden I don't see any reason to get pissed about it.


Which puts it in company with Brave Heart and Gladiator as worthy of actually watching.

Actually I think both of those are worse because people might actually believe that they're telling the true stories whereas 300 is just to over-the-top to be taken seriously. That doesn't mean that 300 will be a better movie, just that you'd have to be pretty gullible to actually take it at face value.


People will not come out with some idea about what Sparta actually stood for, they will come out with an insidiously distorted idea about what Sparta stood for.

Well that would say more about the state of education today than anything else, wouldn't it? And I'm not saying that everyone should know the details of ancient Sparta, just that you'd expect people to be capable of separating good sources from bad ones, 300 being completely off the scale in that regard.

In closing, I think it's better when fiction is very honest about being just fiction, as in the case of 300. I think its much more likely that people whose only knowledge of the Roman Empire comes from Gladiator will be saying: "So... Commodus murdered Marcus Aurelius, but then a general-turned gladiator killed him in the arena and restored the republic and everyone lived happily ever after? Great, got it!"

keravnos
03-09-2007, 17:18
Got me a ticket to go in 2 hours. Next one available will be in 4 days! Well, other than that the way the Spartans fought is represented very well in 300.

Ancient Greeks, and most assuredly Spartans DIDN'T fight as in the above pic.

The Spartans fight like a phallanx (Note, In greece we call the longpike phallanx EB has, Phillip's phallanx or Makedonian phallanx, the phallanx the hoplites form is plain phallanx). That means interlocking shields, only the eyes being visible, and then the dekarchos/ekatontarchos (decurion/centurion) would yell "ΩΘΗΣΙΣ!" or "Push! and the frontlines would start pushing front-shields interlocked in syncronized movement, much like an army marches, any gaps in the line filled by the second line, etc.

This is a point of the classic phallanx not known. Imagine being on the receiving end of a phallanx who is thrusting foreward, and being an army of multiple single warriors doing their best not to get slaughtered... Well, phallanx was one of the original weapons of mass destruction.

Domitius Ulpianus
03-09-2007, 17:33
Oh I wasn't offended, just thouroghly confused. It was kind of hard to tell if you were being ironic all the time with the "tyrant of the axis of evil" comment and then linking to a site with a speech from Dick Cheney.



Well, that's a question of personal prefference, isn't it. From the looks of things, 300 will certainly be trashy in many regards but I still hope to enjoy it. The way I see it there's room for both quality and "spectacular crap" when it comes to fiction set against historical backgrounds. Sure there's Shakespeare and Robert Graves, but if someone'd rather read Conn Iggulden I don't see any reason to get pissed about it.



Actually I think both of those are worse because people might actually believe that they're telling the true stories whereas 300 is just to over-the-top to be taken seriously. That doesn't mean that 300 will be a better movie, just that you'd have to be pretty gullible to actually take it at face value.



Well that would say more about the state of education today than anything else, wouldn't it? And I'm not saying that everyone should know the details of ancient Sparta, just that you'd expect people to be capable of separating good sources from bad ones, 300 being completely off the scale in that regard.

In closing, I think it's better when fiction is very honest about being just fiction, as in the case of 300. I think its much more likely that people whose only knowledge of the Roman Empire comes from Gladiator will be saying: "So... Commodus murdered Marcus Aurelius, but then a general-turned gladiator killed him in the arena and restored the republic and everyone lived happily ever after? Great, got it!"


Couldn't agree more. Accusing 300 of not being historically accurate is like accussing hot dogs for not being "fine cuisine"....In both cases they never had that pretention!!!.... now if the Director of 300 would have said "Im showing you Sparta and Persia as they were. THIS IS 100% truth"....Then we would have a problem..and believe me I would be VERY angry about it...just because I don't like liars. But he never say that, did he?

So please tell me you didn't like it because the special effects were bad, because you saw a microfone hanging in the back or because you found it was plain boring....but don't tell me you didn't like it because its not historicallly accurate.

GodEmperorLeto
03-09-2007, 20:57
I am getting my MA in classical history, and I intend to get my PhD in the future. That being said, I'll be honest, I'm always surprised by just how much I find accurate in these movies, despite the mistakes.

Yes, 300 is going to be ridiculously stylized. The comic, though, had many strains of truth. The Spartans wore linen corselets and had the sideways crest, yes, but the nakedness comes from how, when the Spartiate boys were inducted, they were stripped of their clothes and given only a red cloak to wear. The Carneia was truly a reason that the Spartans couldn't march, and Leonidas did say he was going for a walk with his bodyguard. Herodotus reports that the Pythia said that Sparta would have to lose a king, and that was left out of the comic, but what the heck?

The movie is made to definitely be artsy, yeah, but honestly, how many artsy movies are there with blood, slaughter, and everything a single guy with bad luck with women would ever want to see to forget his romantic troubles? Very few. Most art movies are about lesbians and how George W. Bush is supposedly Adolf Hitler reincarnated. The Ephors are stylized as old and gross, the Persians as an army of slave-soldiers. But to the Greeks, they were slaves. Proskynesis was proof to the Greeks.

Rhinos and elephants, though, are gross overkill.

Nevertheless, I'm going, paying $5 at the matinee, buying a $3.50 popcorn and a $2.50 soda, sitting back, smiling, and enjoying a story about guys kicking butt and taking names. Which is all I ever wanted in a movie about Spartans. They could have set the movie on Mars and had Leonidas fight the tripods from War of the Worlds alongside Marvin the Martian, and it would still rock, because of Frank Miller and Spartans.

That being said, yeah, Miller's best work was Ronin as previously mentioned.

Now, a movie I would kill to see done accurately and faithfully would be Xenophon's Anabasis. My God, that would be ridiculously awesome, but that is definitely something I'd fear Hollywood butchering.

Watchman
03-09-2007, 22:28
The Spartans wore linen corselets...They did ? I read somewhere they had a bit of an all-or-nothing attitude to body armour - either solid bronze or leave it off entirely...

Xtiaan72
03-09-2007, 23:10
Xtiann72, I take offense to the fact that I will see any movie with a dude raising a sword, including bad ones.PS. I don't have to pay 12 dollars to watch a movie, it's called Blockbuster. Then you go on to say you watched all the movies I watched. Nice self-domination- Brightblade


Dude, you take offense a little to easily. Good for you if you didn't pay 12 dollars to see Troy or Alexander in the movie theatre, they're both horrible movies.. I'm glad you saved a few bucks watching them on video. I tried to watch them on cable but fell asleep. If you got some enjoyment out of them I really don't know what to say.

But that doesn't change the fact that Troy and Alexander are terrible movies with guys waving swords in the air. There are movies that demand to be seen on the big screen and are worth the 12 bucks. You haven't seen Gladiator unless you've seen it on the big screen. If you haven't seen Alexander then you lucky! That's all I'm saying. Peace out.

keravnos
03-09-2007, 23:17
I cannot participate on this thread any longer since I have just seen the movie and can only ask you the following?

Do you know the name of the Spartan king who won the Peloponnesian war for Sparta? Its greatest victory? No?

Ok, then, who commanded in its most glorious defeat?

Λ

Kugutsu
03-10-2007, 00:07
Now, a movie I would kill to see done accurately and faithfully would be Xenophon's Anabasis. My God, that would be ridiculously awesome, but that is definitely something I'd fear Hollywood butchering.

I think that would be better as a series than a movie. It is too epic and too drawn out to make a good film, while a series of episodes would capture the ongoing adventure very well, I think.

Brightblade
03-10-2007, 00:11
Yeah , kind of the argument for us LOTR geeks that would have liked to see The Silmarillion become a movie rather than the War of the Ring books... I mean.. dragons, dozens of Balrogs, hundred thousand strong Elf armies!

Oh wait I'm preaching to the wrong choir here. /hides:beam: