EB poll of '300' [Archive]

Teleklos Archelaou

03-20-2007, 01:42

It all depends how one is open minded or not imo.

Because it is not a historical Film, yet it is an entertaining movie.

So if one is capable of watching it for what it is you will lke it. If one's view is "stuck" in to a certain frame of mind you will most probably not like it.
Wow, that is a very effective way of totally dismissing any opposition to your argument/opinion. "Sure, you can say it was a bad movie, but you're closed minded if you do." Downside is that there are other points of view than yours, upside is that you sleep well at night knowing those who disagree with you are just closed minded. :laugh4:

Urnamma

03-20-2007, 02:00

It all depends how one is open minded or not imo.

Because it is not a historical Film, yet it is an entertaining movie.

So if one is capable of watching it for what it is you will lke it. If one's view is "stuck" in to a certain frame of mind you will most probably not like it.

This is the standard leftie academic response ;) If you don't agree with our position, then you're a horrible person undeserving of terrestrial happiness.

All educated people accept my idea.
You do not.
Ergo, you are not educated.

Hmm, kinda seems like a fallacy, I wonder which one it is! :juggle2: :beam:

Watchman

03-20-2007, 02:01

I recall seeing it used often enough outside "leftie" circles as well. Why do you hate freedom ?

Xtiaan72

03-20-2007, 02:20

it all depends how one is open minded or not imo.

Because it is not a historical Film, yet it is an entertaining movie.

So if one is capable of watching it for what it is you will lke it. If one's view is "stuck" in to a certain frame of mind you will most probably not like it.

Come on! Saying the movie is pure entertainment and not a historical film is not true. You know that for many kids, going out to see this movie is as close as they will ever get to opening a history book on the subject. So by basing it on a historical event and then distorting that event to the point of mockery, they do their target audience a dis-service.

Suraknar

03-20-2007, 02:28

Come on! Saying the movie is pure entertainment and not a historical film is not true. You know that for many kids, going out to see this movie is as close as they will ever get to opening a history book on the subject. So by basing it on a historical event and then distorting that event to the point of mockery, they do their target audience a dis-service.

Wow, the best argument in repsonse to the provocative reply ;)

I agree with you friend,

You know that for many kids, going out to see this movie is as close as they will ever get to opening a history book on the subject.

That is exactly the problem we should be evaluating here. We see our kids being disinterested of real history and instead prefer the sensationalism that movies offer, and seeing that, we try to turn movies, an entertainment medium, in to education.

Instead of, using this to incite our kids to take a closer look at History and its available medium.

We are all trying to kill the messenger because he presents the message in his own view, instead of taking the little effort to inform the audiance of the real message.

Think about it :)

Watchman

03-20-2007, 02:40

I think our opinions concerning the "real message" here do not quite match.

Xtiaan72

03-20-2007, 02:43

Suraknar

03-20-2007, 02:44

I think our opinions concerning the "real message" here do not quite match.

Yet, I am starting to think that we both aim the same end, even if the means may differ ;)

Watchman

03-20-2007, 02:48

I'm personally much too cynical about people to consider the movie in terms other than what Xtiaan just explained, and fully assume it to be intentionally so.

Well, with good old-fashioned profiteering thrown in of course. What'd the world come to if someone didn't make a killing out of dodgy populism ?

Suraknar

03-20-2007, 03:02

I think anyone with a keen enough interest in history, like people who post here, would pass on that curiosity to their kids. It's not those kids I'm worried about. It's the other kids running around thinking that 'Spartans' were great defenders of freedom and that The Persian Empire was ruled by evil monsters that ate their own young. It has the potential to spread bigotry and wrong headedness, that's all I'm saying. Not because it's entertainment but because they chose a historical event to frame their entertainment.

Very Good points, really. And I agree aswell with your view on it.

But permit me please to also ask, what is the root of the problem here?

Why are there kids that run around dissinformed about the Spartans and the Persian Empire? Why cant these kids be more like the kids of those who post here?

See for me the root problem is not the movie or the way movies and artists choose to interpret them. For me the problem is that somewhere allong the line we failed to inform all kids to discern between entertainment and history.

And changing the way or imposing rules on the way movies are made or categorising movies between good & bad from an ethical point of view, will not solve the root problem, which resides with those kids and how we educate them to be able to make the distinction on their own.

I think it would be better to use such movies to incite interest for the real history rather than supress them.

Watchman

03-20-2007, 03:16

Sorry Sur, but I'm smelling red herrings now. The general quality of education is not the issue here; the questionable underlying values and messages of the movie are.

Suraknar

03-20-2007, 03:24

What is Red Herrings?

English is not my first language, I dont always understand some expressions, jokes and what not. I am from Quebec.

antisocialmunky

03-20-2007, 03:25

The movie had about as much substance as a gutted house. Pretty on the outside, but there isn't much to think about if you look any deeper than that.

It was subpar but pretty.

BTW- What was up with the goat? Seriously? Why?

Watchman

03-20-2007, 03:26

An attempt to dodge the argument by changing the subject to something peripheral if not outright irrelevant.

Also, see Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring) for a decent enough defition.

fallen851

03-20-2007, 03:27

This is the standard leftie academic response ;) If you don't agree with our position, then you're a horrible person undeserving of terrestrial happiness.

All educated people accept my idea.
You do not.
Ergo, you are not educated.

Hmm, kinda seems like a fallacy, I wonder which one it is! :juggle2: :beam:

Now I could say "This is the standard right wing argument", but that would be ignorant.

Don't you see you are doing exactly the same thing he is? :no:

The "standard" liberal and Christian response to one who disagree is sadness. Sadness that they have to suffer in their situation, and that they are hurt. Instead of hating the person, you want to help them, not to understand your point of view, but help them live better, because your actions speak louder than your words.

Suraknar

03-20-2007, 03:27

As for the rest, well, for me the general quality of education is an issue here.

I dont expect movies to educate as much as Ancient Greeks sent their kids to the amphitheater to educate themselves from Tragedies. They did not...did they know better than our modern habits?

Watchman

03-20-2007, 03:31

It's a bonus if a movie is actually educational. Not being disturbingly and populistically propagandist, however, is pretty much obligatory as far as I'm concerned.

Suraknar

03-20-2007, 03:36

An attempt to dodge the argument by changing the subject to something peripheral if not outright irrelevant.

Also, see Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring) for a decent enough defition.

Ahh I see :) Thank you for explaining that.

Well, I am bringing up this line of argumentation because I see it as relevant to the current topic, which critisise a movie.

Yet, I think, we all here understand, that a movie is suposed to be entertainment, not education.

Yet the core of the arguments brought to critisise the movie are of educational nature. We dont like this movie because its educational value is not correct.

I am simply arguing that, it is not the movie that should be blaimed for its educational value, but rather that the problem is elsewear.

How is that dodging the the argument? I am making a counter argument in line with the the topic.

Watchman

03-20-2007, 03:42

Yet the core of the arguments brought to critisise the movie are of educational nature. We dont like this movie because its educational value is not correct.I will not vouch for others, but I hate it for its propagandistic nature. Were it not for that I could deal with the mere proliferation of historical inaccuracies, albeit with some suffering groans.

There is, however, a line between mere inaccuracy and bad taste, and outright pungent populist BS with an agenda.

Suraknar

03-20-2007, 03:56

I will not vouch for others, but I hate it for its propagandistic nature. Were it not for that I could deal with the mere proliferation of historical inaccuracies, albeit with some suffering groans.

There is, however, a line between mere inaccuracy and bad taste, and outright pungent populist BS with an agenda.

Aha, ok.

Well, the "Interview" of Miller, in the other 300 thread spoke tons about his propagandist bias. So yes I agree wholeheartedly on the propaganda nature without argument.

The best weapon to counter propaganda is being informed, which most often than not comes from education.

Converselly, in terms of educational correctness however, I still argue that a movie shant be expected to be so. And that if we want our kids to avoid being victims of propaganda, it is through education that this can be achieved.

I much more favor the approach of talking about the truth rather than denying anything that is reputed to be untrue.

Only thus we can effectivelly prevent propaganda victims, inform and let the individual discern for themselves rather than place walls and try to guide someone in the ethical labyrinth.

Show how to fish rather than just give the fish, in other words.

Watchman

03-20-2007, 04:11

Suraknar

03-20-2007, 04:21

And how exactly is that supposed to be actually done in practice, nevermind to the degree that would even begin to match the spread of rank tendentious garbage achieved by this blockbuster movie that so succesfully appeals to the primal urges and encourages the audience to switch off their higher faculties ?

That is specifically why I so loathe this kind of macho populism in entertainment. It's like a weed - spreads fast and wide, and is an imperial pain to get rid of should that even be possible.

Yes I understand your position.

And answering to your question will detract the original topic. So I shall...digress for now, leaving what has been said thus far, as food for thought.

EDIT: I will only say this, we do live in Democratic Countries, there are democratic means available.

Domitius Ulpianus

03-20-2007, 04:22

And how exactly is that supposed to be actually done in practice, nevermind to the degree that would even begin to match the spread of rank tendentious garbage achieved by this blockbuster movie that so succesfully appeals to the primal urges and encourages the audience to switch off their higher faculties ?

That is specifically why I so loathe this kind of macho populism in entertainment. It's like a weed - spreads fast and wide, and is an imperial pain to get rid of should that even be possible.

Well if you dont believe education is the way, I can assure you censorship isn't.

LOL Suraknar, now I see why you liked my post on the other thread about 300 hehe.

Xtiaan72

03-20-2007, 05:11

Why are there kids that run around dissinformed about the Spartans and the Persian Empire? Why cant these kids be more like the kids of those who post here?

See for me the root problem is not the movie or the way movies and artists choose to interpret them. For me the problem is that somewhere allong the line we failed to inform all kids to discern between entertainment and history.

I'm not saying it is wrong to make a movie that takes some liberties with history. I'm assuming you have seen a great movie that does that like "Roark's Drift" with Micheal Caine or "Glory" with Mathew Brodrick and Denzel Washington. Am I wrong in saying that "300" is not in that league of a movie? Take liberties because you want to tell a great story. I guess that is what irks me, They had this great story and they chose to tell it in such a base way and it's just not good enough for me.

Movies like this are a 'part' of the problem. What is clear to me is that "kids", or people even, deserve better. And they will accept and like better if given the choice.

Personally a movie like this insults my intelligence on some level. I don't know why exactly except that I demand more out of my entertainment. I like a good story. I want to understand why characters are doing what they are doing. I need more than just a laser show, I need Pink Floyd. I need more than '300', I need Spartacus.

Suraknar

03-20-2007, 05:24

Yes Xtiaan72,

I get you completelly, you like depth and you like a good intellectual challenge in your movies. I can relate to that. And there is really nothing that can be said against that, this is of the order of personal choice, and the best judge of it is yourself.

The night before 300 came out, I did some research actually, I learned that it was a movie based on a comic, which I had never read before. But I right there knew also that I was not going to see a Historical Movie.

I even poped in the DVD of the 60's "The 300 Spartans", (Richard Egan, Sir Ralph Richardson, Diane Baker, David Farrar & Donald Houston), and watched it, I wanted to see the differences between the two.

So I guess, that may have contributed somehow, of me not viewing this on a negative note.

Caratacos

03-20-2007, 05:31

I kinda got lost in the arguments but i believe Suraknar was simply stating in his first post was that "people will approach it differently and that their response to their viewing experience will reflect this" or along those lines anyway. I don't think anyone can argue that this is not true. If you went there looking for facts you'd be sadly disappointed. If you were looking for action or whatnot you might just like it.

I suspect there are a few Neitzche fans (up in their towers) out there who wouldn't mind putting the herd in their place for liking it?

There a two roads you can walk. That of feeling intellectually superior to the herd and pointing out their mistakes with great relish and laughter. Or being compassionate/understanding and offering to share your wisdom that they may better themselves from your knowledge. I like to think that the EB team is walking that second path.

And at the end of the day if you think Frank Miller told the story of the lead up, battle and aftermath of Thermopylae badly -- write your own movie script, graphic novel or whatever. No one is stopping you.

My 2 cents.

BTW i haven't seen the movie (not out in NZ yet).

EDIT: I do agree with post #31 by Xtiaan about quality though.

Xtiaan72

03-20-2007, 05:47

even poped in the DVD of the 60's "The 300 Spartans", (Richard Egan, Sir Ralph Richardson, Diane Baker, David Farrar & Donald Houston), and watched it, I wanted to see the differences between the two.

So I guess, that may have contributed somehow, of me not viewing this on a negative note.

Just out of curiousity, which did you like better?

Suraknar

03-20-2007, 06:12

Just out of curiousity, which did you like better?

Ouch! hehe. (maybe some spoilers if you havent seen the Original)

Well, from a Historical point of view, there is no question about it. The Original 60's movie I liked more.

It has a very "fair" way of portraying both sides aswell. And it also gives a Political background, we actually see Athenians and Spartans and Thebans and Corintheans all meeting in a council to discuss what each City-State would do.

Themistoclees representing the Athenians, does some very clever maneuvering, we even get a glimpse of secular and non secular views!

He appeals to Leonidas by offering overal leadership of the Greek army to Sparta.

On the Persian side, we do see Xerxes, we see his unquestioned rule, yet we also see that it is not intirelly dominating, we do get the feeling and understand that even if he does have to rule with an Iron hand, he does understand that there are other considerations at hand.

This is not a culture of mindless savages for sure as they are shown in the original.

We understand the cultural differences of both sides, and we also understand the reasons for these differences.

Xerxes, does what every other culture sought to do back in those times, Expand its empire, its influence its wealth.

If we are to condemn the Persian Empire for doing so, then we might aswell condemn Greece under Philip II and Alexander the Great, to say nothing about Rome. They are all guilty.

The downside, was the form. It is a 60's Movie. The technology in Cinematography shows, the FX and such are not great by todays standards. And Spartans are portrayed more or less soft...

In modern 300, I see the way they show Spartans, their attitude, not their superhuman actions, their way of thinking more to par with History ironically, specially Leonidas, it just feels Ancient Spartan, the extreme feminism of his wife feels accurate aswell.

But that is it, the "Houhah and the Hooplah" we hear in the movie reminescent of a US Marines as far as I am concerned are not Historically accurate.

What I liked in the modern one is well, the fact that it is modern cinematography, the form, the colours, the artistic approach to it, the FX.

Althought the use of supernatural creatures was a turn down (specially the Immortals). I found the portrayal of Xerxes highly metaphoric, yet at the same time highly innacurate Historically.

Bottom line:

I liked both for different reasons.

Yet, if I had to choose between one or another I would choose the Original, the 60's "The 300 Spartans", it represents far more accuratelly, who we are and from where we come from and the reasons we choose to lay down our lives and fight for what we believe than the Modern version.

Suraknar

03-20-2007, 06:20

Ahh yes, also an important Irony here.

Frank Miller, was inspired by the Original 60's Movie as a kid, when he decided to make the Comic.

Suraknar

03-20-2007, 06:38

I think what is the main difference between modern cinematography compared to older one is that.

In olde cinematography we were able to capture the background of a given storry, the setting is more accurate leading to the events. Yet we lack (due to technology) to portray the action during the events.

In modern cinematography, we capture the action of the events, the strugle while it happens, while we lost the art of capturing the background setting.

Maybe the future of good cinema would be to bring those two together.

EDIT: @Caratacos *Applauds* :bow:

PseRamesses

03-20-2007, 13:23

Personally I feel that it was a terrible AND excellent film. Terrible from a historical standpoint but really cool as a film. I just love the dark almost b&w photo, its almost like a crudely drawn comic.
IMHO if a movie is based on a historical event the director should stick to facts and not alter or add to that storyline. This abuse is what makes 300 a terrible film.

Watchman

03-20-2007, 13:25

Tendentious abuse at that.

Watchman

03-20-2007, 13:36

I suspect there are a few Neitzche fans (up in their towers) out there who wouldn't mind putting the herd in their place for liking it?

There a two roads you can walk. That of feeling intellectually superior to the herd and pointing out their mistakes with great relish and laughter. Or being compassionate/understanding and offering to share your wisdom that they may better themselves from your knowledge. I like to think that the EB team is walking that second path.I do not recall having been appointed a Minister of Education, nor some kind of Public Voice of Reason. I don't see where this has anything to do with the main problem - the basic messages of the movie and the way it camouflages them under special effects and infantile testosterone fantasy action and general visual impact - and the basic questionability of making such movies in the first place, either.

And at the end of the day if you think Frank Miller told the story of the lead up, battle and aftermath of Thermopylae badly -- write your own movie script, graphic novel or whatever. No one is stopping you.I don't think being able to do better was ever a requirement for expressing critique. Are you saying only movie scriptwriters, comic book authors, film directors etc. should be eligible to express valid opinions on the matter ?

Now who's being an elitist in his tower ?

EoE

03-20-2007, 13:46

Has anyone here seen the filmatization of Asterix & Obelix? OMG! It's SO ahistorical!

Or has anyone seen the filmatization(s) of Tarzan? OMG! It's SO neo-colonists and propagandistic!

People, it's a filmed comic for crying out loud. It has absolutely nothing to do with neither history nor people who have lived or live now. And it is not supposed to. It's a fabble played out in a world created for the specific purpose of letting good and evil kick the living daylights out of each other.

Feel free to find conspiracies, propaganda or hidding meanings. But don't deceive yourself for one second; it's no different then running the soundtrack backwards and hearing prophecies of a coming apocalypse.

rgds/EoE

Caratacos

03-20-2007, 14:22

I do not recall having been appointed a Minister of Education, nor some kind of Public Voice of Reason. I don't see where this has anything to do with the main problem - the basic messages of the movie and the way it camouflages them under special effects and infantile testosterone fantasy action and general visual impact - and the basic questionability of making such movies in the first place, either.

I don't think being able to do better was ever a requirement for expressing critique. Are you saying only movie scriptwriters, comic book authors, film directors etc. should be eligible to express valid opinions on the matter ?

Now who's being an elitist in his tower ?

Please don't stretch my arguements out further than i intended them to go. And they weren't directed at you or anyone in particular. My point was that it's easier to shoot something down than to make it yourself. Does that mean you don't have a right to criticise? Of corse you do-- just do so with that in mind, is all i was saying.

The first point was with regard to the denegration people show toward the average movie goer who just wants to be entertained. So they might think there is truth in there-- or might be affected by "messages". Doesn't mean they should be treated with any less respect than anyone else (imho).

Also that was a serious statement about making a script or whatever. If you (anyone) do think you can do a better job... please do so, as it would be part of the transfer of wisdom i was talking about.

That's all i'm saying. Maybe i'm just in my tower though. But then again we all like to visit our tower at times, don't we?

Watchman

03-20-2007, 14:32

Or has anyone seen the filmatization(s) of Tarzan? OMG! It's SO neo-colonists and propagandistic!They are, you know. Although they're more colonial than neo-colonial. Don't tell me this is news ?

Although they're just being true to the original stories in that regard. And "Tarzan" isn't even remotely the worst offender of the lot, however much it might underline the supposed inherent superiority and intellect of the white man; I've seen some of those real "colonial" adventure novels, and their smug sense of superiority and patronising tone is a real hair-bristler.

Tiberius Nero

03-20-2007, 16:15

I truly am astonished at the number of people who say "hey it is just entertainment". Are you people living on another planet? "300" is simply blatant in its propagandism and its representation of the Persians is downright offensive; this isn't "just entertainment" there is an express political statement to it. It doesn't even have the self satirical character of James Bond films (which were not really free of anti-soviet propaganda), but it takes itself too seriously while being pathetic on all fronts.

I am the last person on earth concerned about political correctness, but blatant propaganda like this, without redemption through artistic merit is just repugnant to me. At best I can laugh at it a lot, if I watch it with friends and I am in a good mood.

Tretii

03-20-2007, 16:35

I don't think that 300 is anything about racism, propaganda or anything serious for that matter. It's just plain shite, that's all. Basing movie on comics is typically Hollywood style and mostly target 15 year old boys. Let's dress Gollum like spartan and put some "oliphants" on the back and find ten differences with LOOTR.

Domitius Ulpianus

03-20-2007, 17:16

For those that don't see the relation between "not liking the movie because its historical innacuracies/political incrrectness" and education I would recommend they take the time to compare the budget dedicated to education in your country or a few other countries as well, and the budget of the entertainment industry in the same country/ies.

THAT is the problem! Entertainment has gone massive it's everywhere and uses any and all resources known to men. Education is just a footnote.

The problem is not that some opinions, artworks, parties, books, or media propose a version of things we might consider "insulting"...the problem is we are depriving ourselves as human beings and as societies the access to the right tools to adequately judge such things.

I think I understand the position of those that didn't like the movie based on its historical "aberration". It's just that as informed and responsible human beings I would really prefer if for once we could "see the wood for the trees".

I'd like to finish this post citing one of humanity's greatest advocates for tolerance, civil rights and freedom: François-Marie Arouet AKA Voltaire. He wrote once: "...I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write."

Thanks for reading me, and thanks for disagreeing.

Tiberius Nero

03-20-2007, 17:55

I really don't see what the budget for education has to do with the fact that 300 is a blatant piece of propaganda; I wouldn't care if it was simply ahistorical, I would never expect a movie to be about "educating" people on how to read history. There could have been dozens of different ahistorical artistic approaches to the story of the Battle of Thermopylae without all the propaganda. The fact that this is an artistic ahistorical approach to a RL event doesn't mean that the only ahistorical artistic approach possible to it is portraying either side as demons having escaped the lower depths of Hell.

Saying that "oh well it is just entertainment" or "oh well you can't expect Hollywood to teach history" is only sidestepping the real issue here.

Urnamma

03-20-2007, 18:25

Now I could say "This is the standard right wing argument", but that would be ignorant.

Don't you see you are doing exactly the same thing he is? :no:

The "standard" liberal and Christian response to one who disagree is sadness. Sadness that they have to suffer in their situation, and that they are hurt. Instead of hating the person, you want to help them, not to understand your point of view, but help them live better, because your actions speak louder than your words.

Heh. I take it you're American, or possibly British. Liberal in the rest of the world does not mean Socialist like it does in the U.S.

In any case, that's not the debate that I would get into here, in a thread about a movie. However, arguments appealing to emotion and fallacious patterns of reasoning are extremely common today, especially in academia outside the Philosophy circuit.

However, your argument is quite silly as well. Let's rephrase it.

Sallie Logos: I believe that I have a right to my sword collection.
Johnny Pathos: I feel sad for you.
SL: Why on earth would you feel sad for me?
JP: Because you don't understand how many people you're hurting by owning that sword collection.
SL: That's rediculous, I'm not hurting anyone.
JP: Don't get angry. I feel compassion for you. I want to help you. You must give up your property for the good of everyone. It'll make you happy.
SL: My statement still stands. I am not harming anyone by...

Retort Option 1:
JP: But (insert x) thinks that you are, and I believe (x) because (gender pronoun) is a great (gender pronoun).

Retort Option 2:
JP: But I feel that you're wrong. Ergo, I'm going to make blood spattered signs and try to shut down sword companies, and give you emotionally moralistic rhetoric until you give in.

Retort Option 3 (The Soviet Option):
JP: Give in to me. The dialectic says I'm right. I will kill you and put your children in a reeducat... fun camp. In Siberia.

Urnamma

03-20-2007, 18:30

And note, I really have nothing against people putting out whatever they want, regardless of the fact that it's garbage. I'm not one of those people who bitch at others for watching television, I simply refuse to do so myself (unless it is an HBO original series, or a few other exceptions).

My opinion is that 300 was a piece of overly vile drivel that depicted Persians in an offensive manner. Does that mean we should run around with torches and scream 'rabble' until it is removed from view? Of course not. Propaganda, subtle or not, is part of every film. Most filmmakers want you to believe the message they put into their work, and most put a discernable message into it. However, I suspect that if Jews, folks of African descent, etc were depicted the way Persians were, many of you crying out for the validity of art would suddenly call it evil racism. That, my friends, is hypocrisy.

Domitius Ulpianus

03-20-2007, 18:38

However, I suspect that if Jews, folks of African descent, etc were depicted the way Persians were, many of you crying out for the validity of art would suddenly call it evil racism. That, my friends, is hypocrisy.

An this my friend is called generalising and pre-judging about people you don't even know in real life.

BTW It looks like we can't discuss about this without the name calling, so far if you liked 300 you are either ignorant or a hipocrit.

This really saddens me.

Urnamma

03-20-2007, 19:32

Teleklos Archelaou

03-20-2007, 19:50

Does that mean we should run around with torches and scream 'rabble' until it is removed from view? So *that's* what they're saying. Anyone know the origins of this? Why we have crowds in movies and tv that tend to say 'rabble rabble rabble'? Serious question. I always think of the Hamburglar when I hear that, but I know I've heard it in movies and such. Or is it something like "watermelon" that actors are supposed to pretend to say so their mouths move like they are talking?

Foot

03-20-2007, 19:56

So *that's* what they're saying. Anyone know the origins of this? Why we have crowds in movies and tv that tend to say 'rabble rabble rabble'? Serious question. I always think of the Hamburglar when I hear that, but I know I've heard it in movies and such. Or is it something like "watermelon" that actors are supposed to pretend to say so their mouths move like they are talking?

"rhubard" was used by the Goons (and was probably used earlier by others) to represent the sounds of large groups of people talking, and it worked really well. As for where "rabble" comes from, I don't know, but it certainly sounds similar to "rhubard".

Foot

Domitius Ulpianus

03-20-2007, 20:10

Did I call anyone any names, or did I say I have a suspicion that people may behave in a certain way if presented with a new set of stimuli? One is an ad homenim, one is not.

And it's not people who 'liked' 300, but rather people who argued that all who did not like 300 were ignorant ;)

As I said, I don't care if you liked it or not. It is 'art', after a fashion. I don't like it, and consider it rather crude and boorish. You may not. That is diversity of opinion, which is cool with me.

Let's not hedge each other into little corners here, eh?

I guess you meant "ad hominem", if not I'm not sure what the expression means.

I will assume it was just a typing error.

Argument ad hominem: "marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made." from the Merriam Webster dictionary. If it was or not ad hominem...I will let others make that judgement. I might be biased here hahaha.

BTW the second to last part of your post is what is really important and I totally agree.:yes:

MarcusAureliusAntoninus

03-20-2007, 22:20

So *that's* what they're saying. Anyone know the origins of this? Why we have crowds in movies and tv that tend to say 'rabble rabble rabble'? Serious question. I always think of the Hamburglar when I hear that, but I know I've heard it in movies and such. Or is it something like "watermelon" that actors are supposed to pretend to say so their mouths move like they are talking?
I believe that was made popular by 'South Park'. Where, when everyone got angry and grouped together they yelled 'rabble'. It sounds like general angry crowd noises when randomly yelled in large number. I thought it was an insult to the fact that the crowd got together just to gather and had no point to make.

Watchman

03-20-2007, 22:41

Also that was a serious statement about making a script or whatever. If you (anyone) do think you can do a better job... please do so, as it would be part of the transfer of wisdom i was talking about.I do, actually. But what's the use when you don't have an audience nevermind the backers and resources needed to make a movie ? :skull:

And 300 is about as "just entertainment, man" as Riefenstahl's Olympia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympia_%28film%29) (which, incidentally, I understand is an sich a quite fine and impressive movie as her works now tend to be, but...); Miller hasn't exactly been quiet about being an angry old man with a lot to say you know.

Suraknar

03-21-2007, 02:48

Well,

Just like Spiderman comic was made a movie, X-Men comic was made a movie, Fantastic-4 Comic made in to a movie...and many more Comics being made in to movies.

They decided to take the 300 comic and make it in to a Movie.

300 was initially published as a monthly five-issue comic book series by Dark Horse Comics, the first issue published in May 1998. The issues were titled Honor, Duty, Glory, Combat and Victory. The series won three Eisner Awards in 1999: "Best Limited Series", "Best Writer/Artist" for Frank Miller and "Best Colorist" for Lynn Varley. The work was collected as a hardcover graphic novel in 1999.

What we see in the Movie, has been shown for quite some time in the Comic Book.

Caratacos

03-21-2007, 03:02

I do, actually. But what's the use when you don't have an audience nevermind the backers and resources needed to make a movie ? :skull:

Yeah that's the sad part. But all great writers or filmakers have to start somewhere . Then again there are also other avenues to persue. Like supporting the work of others you do agree with (like EB-- I tell people about it all the time :grin:)

And [I]300 is about as "just entertainment, man" as Riefenstahl's Olympia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympia_%28film%29) (which, incidentally, I understand is an sich a quite fine and impressive movie as her works now tend to be, but...); Miller hasn't exactly been quiet about being an angry old man with a lot to say you know.

To be honest (as i mentioned before) i haven't seen 300 or read the graphic novel and I don't know that much about Frank Miller so i can't make any authoritative comments in this regard. Only that in general nothing is made to be "purely entertainment". If the "artist" involved in the production of something-- anything-- considers themself an "artist" at all, they will try to convey a message or comment on something. How it received is another story. People that say it is "just entertainment, man" are receiving it as "just entertainment". Those who perceive a message in the work receive it as the bearer of that message (and let me remind us that we may see messages in things that were not intended by the "artist"-- I'm sure this is the case with 300 as well-- though like i said i wouldn't know). The world would be a rather boring place if well all saw things and responded to them in the same way.

This isn't a defence of 300. Just a reminder of things everyone already knows already (I'm sure).

Domitius Ulpianus

03-21-2007, 04:16

Suraknar

03-21-2007, 05:11

Two things:

First: Great Post Caratacos !

Second: I was just looking around in the net and there is an upcoming movie called "The Last Legion" based on a novel with the same name I think, did anybody read it?, I haven't....please be good, please be good....or this thread might hit 30000000 zillion posts :clown:

LOL Domitius - Tu est fou! Hehehehe

Oki I touk a look:

Plot Summary: As the Roman empire crumbles, young Romulus Augustus (Thomas Sangster) flees the city and embarks on a perilous voyage to Britain to track down a legion of supporters

Sinopsis

Rome, 476AD. The Roman Empire is under threat. A mighty force for almost 500 years, at its height Rome’s power spread from Mesopotamia in the east to the Iberian peninsula in the west, from the Rhine and Danube in the north to Egypt in the south. This story follows the events surrounding the historical capture of Romulus Augustus and his imprisonment on the island of Capri.

On the eve of the ceremony to crown twelve-year-old Romulus Augustus as the new emperor, the Barbarian general Odoacer arrives in Rome to make a deal with Orestes, patrician and father of the young Caesar. Odoacer makes demands on the power of the Roman Empire, in fair exchange for his decade-long support of the Roman legions in the east. Orestes refuses.

On the day of the coronation, as the whole of Rome gathers to watch the proceedings, Ambrosinus, the shaman who is a mentor and tutor to Romulus, predicts danger. Orestes is worried for his son’s safety and appoints Aurelius, the tribune of the fourth legion, as his personal guard. That night Aurelius and his legionnaires are confronted by a real danger—Odoacer and his army of Goths have returned to the outskirts of Rome to conquer the city.

With a deafening roar, the Barbarian army storm the city. A terrible battle ensues, the brutal invaders show no mercy and blood flows through the streets.

With Orestes and his wife Julia slaughtered, Romulus is captured along with Ambrosinus and both are taken to the island fortress of Capri built by the emperor Tiberius. It is there that Romulus finds the mythical sword of Caesar that holds the prophecy ‘One edge to defend, one to defeat; In Britannia was I forged…to fit the hand of he...who is destined to rule’.

But not all the Roman legionnaires are dead. Aurelius is alive and when he learns that the Byzantine Empire will give Romulus sanctuary, he embarks on the journey to the coast accompanied by a small group of his men and a mysterious, black-clad Byzantine warrior. On the journey, Aurelius discovers what lies behind the black clothing—a young, beautiful woman called Mira.

Thanks to the strategic cunning of Ambrosinus and the fighting skill of Aurelius and Mira, Romulus is freed. But when the group arrive on shore, they learn that the Byzantines have joined forces with the Goths. Faced with such betrayal, the only course of action is to reach the one legion still loyal to Rome—the ninth legion in Britannia.

As they set off on their dangerous trek North in search of the last legion, Romulus discovers a new father figure in his protector Aurelius and together they embark on a new beginning.

KARTLOS

03-21-2007, 05:25

Come on! Saying the movie is pure entertainment and not a historical film is not true. You know that for many kids, going out to see this movie is as close as they will ever get to opening a history book on the subject. So by basing it on a historical event and then distorting that event to the point of mockery, they do their target audience a dis-service.

it is a a graphic novel adaptation, the film was striving to be a faithful representation of the graphic novel rather than a "historical" film. In this aim they were deffinately successful.

the historical element only comes in indirectly, as in the fact that it was based on a graphical novel which was loosely based on a historical event.

frank miller certainly wasnt attempting to portray history accurately, and I believe he says soemthing along those lines in the indtroduction to the graphic novel. He was more intersted in certain ideas and concepts which appealed to him, and he amplified those to make a intersting/entertaining graphic novel.

KARTLOS

03-21-2007, 05:35

zonks32

03-21-2007, 05:51

All this from a simple "like it or not question", I don't know why you bother, no body will change anyones opinion.
I myself am looking forward to seeing 300 which comes out on the 5th of April here in Oz, I know the history and seen the 1962 version.
After seeing the first teaser trailer I knew It wasn't historical, but going from the trailers I think I will like it. as far as kids and education go, I thought the movie was rated R, and if I want to be educated, I will read a book.
I go to the movies for entertainment, I could not care less if you like the movie or not, and as far as being accurate to history, who can say what is accurate, I can understand what is accepted as history, what we have learned through education, but alot that we are taught is the perception of one or a few men from the period, either written or painted.
In 2000 years what will the historians say of the Iraq war, will it be taught from the percpective of the people of Iraq, or from the percpective of the US Government?
Properganda, you are subject to it constantly and make an issue of it because it is in a movie.

Suraknar

03-21-2007, 05:55

In Canada (Quebec) its PG-13.

So it depends on the country.

zonks32

03-21-2007, 06:00

Does PG-13 mean 13 years or older ?

Suraknar

03-21-2007, 06:04

Yes, it means Parental Guidance 13 years or older.

Domitius Ulpianus

03-21-2007, 12:48

Yes, it means Parental Guidance 13 years or older.

LOL I didn't notice here in Quebec it was PG 13...even in Toronto (Ontario) is rated R...hehe got to love being a teen here in Quebec!...guess we trust our kids not to believe what they see in movies...ANY MOVIE.~;)

...or we are completely crazy and irresponsible...

(C'est une drôle de société le Québec)

Suraknar

03-21-2007, 14:58

LOL I didn't notice here in Quebec it was PG 13...even in Toronto (Ontario) is rated R...hehe got to love being a teen here in Quebec!...guess we trust our kids not to believe what they see in movies...ANY MOVIE.~;)

...or we are completely crazy and irresponsible...

(C'est une drôle de société le Québec)

But of cource!

"In Quebec, the legal drinking age, is just a suggestion!" hehe

(Cela depends, je trouve on est beaucoup moins conservatifs que nos voisins, plus ouverts aussi face a certains choses, et tu sais, ce n'ai pas une mauvaise chose, si nos jeunes savent que tirer un gun sur qqun d'autre ca tue a partir de 13 ans, peut etre que c'est pour cela qu'il ne s'essayent pas de prendre une arme a l'ecole pour voir ce que cela fait ;) )

Tiberius Nero

03-21-2007, 15:23

could those who are claiming the movie is propoganda please explicietly state what they believe the propoganda message of the film is.

if they think it is anti-iranian i should point out that i believe that most people, and in particular most americans would not make the association between iran and persia, i.e they dont realise that they are roughly the same place

No it isn't really specifically anti-Iranian; it is pro-Western Democratic and anti-Easterner Theocratic; Leonidas and his men represent the forces of Reason Progress and Democratic Liberty and the Persians represent the forces of Darkness, Ignorance and absolute political submission to the will of earthly rulers claiming a divine descent/mission. The clues are so numerous and so in your face in the graphic novel that the only way to miss them is not noticing the dialogue bubbles inside the pictures.

You know what? In principle I can sympathize with these points, yes in the conflict of Theocracy and Democracy I would side with Democracy anytime any day, but:

1) those ideas are completely out of time and place in the setting they are set in by Miller and having Sparta represent the values of the modern democratic world is just ludicrous (and personally I find this kind of misrepresentation worse than a 1000 cataphract rhinos and ninja immortals, because it is quite devious and malicious in purpose, while the latter just betray ignorance or just a "hey it looks cooler" kind of approach, which are hardly criminal outside the confines of a documentary) and

2) the message is delivered in such a childish manner by representing the Persians as demons out of the depths of Hell that it loses all credibility it might had had. Think if you saw a communist propaganda film representing US capitalists as literal vampires, with sharp canine teeth capes and all, who literally feed upon the blood of workers and tell me you would consider that "just art" or that it was "just for fun". This is precisely what Miller does in the graphic novel with his ridiculously black and white representation of Westerners vs Easterners. It is juvenile and betrays bad taste.

Foot

03-21-2007, 16:11

No it isn't really specifically anti-Iranian; it is pro-Western Democratic and anti-Easterner Theocratic; Leonidas and his men represent the forces of Reason Progress and Democratic Liberty and the Persians represent the forces of Darkness, Ignorance and absolute political submission to the will of earthly rulers claiming a divine descent/mission. The clues are so numerous and so in your face in the graphic novel that the only way to miss them is not noticing the dialogue bubbles inside the pictures.

You know what? In principle I can sympathize with these points, yes in the conflict of Theocracy and Democracy I would side with Democracy anytime any day, but:

1) those ideas are completely out of time and place in the setting they are set in by Miller and having Sparta represent the values of the modern democratic world is just ludicrous (and personally I find this kind of misrepresentation worse than a 1000 cataphract rhinos and ninja immortals, because it is quite devious and malicious in purpose, while the latter just betray ignorance or just a "hey it looks cooler" kind of approach, which are hardly criminal outside the confines of a documentary) and

2) the message is delivered in such a childish manner by representing the Persians as demons out of the depths of Hell that it loses all credibility it might had had. Think if you saw a communist propaganda film representing US capitalists as literal vampires, with sharp canine teeth capes and all, who literally feed upon the blood of workers and tell me you would consider that "just art" or that it was "just for fun". This is precisely what Miller does in the graphic novel with his ridiculously black and white representation of Westerners vs Easterners. It is juvenile and betrays bad taste.

And that is a good post. :2thumbsup:

Foot

Domitius Ulpianus

03-21-2007, 16:16

2) the message is delivered in such a childish manner by representing the Persians as demons out of the depths of Hell that it loses all credibility it might had had.

Bravo!!! Tiberius this is one of the key elements I have been talking about, since we started discussing 300 in the other thread. That is why I said I compare 300 with a hot dog. It might be tasty, but is still junk food. Now should you denounce it for not being "haute cuisine"? I don't think so, because it never claimed it was. So how can you take so seriously this pretended propaganda if by your own saying it is so "cheap" to even be believable. I really don't get your point here, or is it that you are claiming it SHOULD HAVE BEEN propaganda (because you say you share this demcracy/theocracy view) BUT properly done. I confess I am a little lost here.

Think if you saw a communist propaganda film representing US capitalists as literal vampires, with sharp canine teeth capes and all, who literally feed upon the blood of workers and tell me you would consider that "just art" or that it was "just for fun".

The answer is YES, YES and YES!, the message delivered by the artist doesn't change the principle that art should be FREE!!!

This is precisely what Miller does in the graphic novel with his ridiculously black and white representation of Westerners vs Easterners. It is juvenile and betrays bad taste.

Now for someone who doesn't like black and white version of things, your statement "yes in the conflict of Theocracy and Democracy I would side with Democracy anytime any day" is quite black and white. Personally a long time ago I stopped siding with labeled causes like, democracy, capitalism, left, right, liberal or conservative. I judge a government, a system, etc. by the amount of happiness and prosperity it brings to his people and by the relations it promotes with the rest of the countries/peoples in the world.....but that is just me and my 2 cents.

Peace.

Tiberius Nero

03-21-2007, 16:32

Domitius, I judge 300 for what it is; as propaganda it is bad and purely as a work of art is worse, because, as they are given, characters, story and ideas are plain shallow. Yes, I am one of those old fashioned fellows who still believe that a good, well presented story and well developed characters are key elements for good drama; forgive my narrowmindedness, but I also think 300 purports to be "drama" both on paper and much more so on the screen, and by these standards it falls short. And btw the movie does take itself seriously, a lot; if a movie takes itself seriously, it had better live up to it. It does not pretend to be a hot dog; it pretends to talk about important stuff; "XXX" with Vin Diesel is a hot dog and pretends to be nothing more. There you have a movie which hardly takes itself seriously. I wouldn't be critical of such a movie.

The answer is YES, YES and YES!, the message delivered by the artist doesn't change the principle that art should be FREE!!!

Can you point out where I said that art shouldn't be free? What does this have to do with anything?

Now for someone who doesn't like black and white version of things, your statement "yes in the conflict of Theocracy and Democracy I would side with Democracy anytime any day" is quite black and white.

Not really. I said that in the particular conflict I would side with Democracy, not that I would do it in any conflict. Now that would have been close to black and white mindset. My criteria for this are the same you attribute to yourself, namely prosperity brought to the people etc etc.

Domitius Ulpianus

03-21-2007, 17:00

I have 2 hours free time until my next meeting...so here we go again.

To clarify something. In my view there is no difference between XXX with Vin Diesel (yuck!) and 300. I didn't take any seriously (I never even bothered watching XXX btw). But I don't get why you say 300 (the movie) takes itself seriously, when its Director publicly stated they changed historical facts to make them "look cool". I mean, come on, if that is not a confession of "un-seriousness" I don't know what is then.

Now about Art, I believe you implied that we would change opinion about "entertainment" if the movie would be about capitalist vampires or something. My reply was meant to point out that I do not care about the message portrayed by the artist. Even If I wholeheartedly oppose his point of view, I would still respect it and more importantly defend his right to express.

In my personal opinion, when an artist delivers a message it is: 1) his personal view on some subject, 2) a reflection of the general opinion of the culture/society/group the artist represents, about a given topic 3) both.

In the first case, I will defend it because I believe in freedom of speech, I know it can be abused, but I don't see many other choices in this particular point.

In the second case, on top of freedom of speech, I prefer to know what a particular culture/society/group has to say about something, than ignoring or repressing it.

Please don't take anything I have said here or before...or ever personally. It's just for the fun of dialectics. I always try hard to avoid arguments ad hominem, but ...the best hunter can miss a rabbit from time to time....

Finally, I never said, nor do I think you are narrow-minded. After all, accusing all those who oppose your point of view is the first sign of "narrowmindedness".

Peace.

Teleklos Archelaou

03-21-2007, 17:11

Tiberius Nero

03-21-2007, 17:26

Historical accuracy doesn't have anything to do with a movie taking itself seriously; a movie takes itself seriously when: 1) it purports to talk about high ideals, i.e. Liberty, Democracy, Progress, Sacrifice etc in our case and 2) it does so in a manner which doesn't undermine those ideals, by having the movie being self satirical. I am not irritated by James Bond films; they don't take themselves seriously; many scenes are there to make you laugh and make fun of the situation in the movie itself. Not so in 300. A movie which does not undermine its point by being self-satirical takes itself seriously. That is what I mean by that term. Why would a movie have to claim historical accuracy to take itself seriously anyway? It is a movie, not a documentary.

I brought the example of vampire capitalists to draw a parallel between the level of juvenile propaganda found in 300 and that, just to make clearer to the poster who asked "why do you consider 300 propagandist" the reason why. I never said anything about forbidding freedom of expression to artists or anything of the sort. I fully support freedom of speech; for this reason I defend the right to harshly criticize as rubbish what is rubbish, while it purports not to be. Believe me, if Leonidas took a break at some point in the fight to get a whiff of coke light, I would say it was the best movie ever (exaggerating of course); that would have been an indication of the movie not taking itself seriously. As it is now it is a bag full of pretentious rubbish. And it is the pretentious part that irritates me, if that is not clear yet.

P.S. I am doing this for the fun of dialectics too. Not taking anything personally don't worry. ;)

Domitius Ulpianus

03-21-2007, 17:40

It'd be nice to be able to focus all the energies required by EB members and fans as well to post more on the 300 into some sort of EB-soul-harvesting-machine that would make more units or scripts or something. :laugh4:

TA, I swear I was thinking the same thing This morning. Sadly my computer skills are sub-par. I can do a little editing in the files and that's it:thumbsdown: . On the artistic side, again I don't have a single artistic bone in my body...I really hope I could be of use. If you need someone that can read/write and research in 3 languages or do something simple, long and boring that nobody else in the team wants to do....I'm at your service.:yes:

aecp

03-22-2007, 05:41

What 300 should have been:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IN04nnRfFw

MarcusAureliusAntoninus

03-22-2007, 05:49

What 300 should have been:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IN04nnRfFw
LOL
That was the greatest thing ever.

Caratacos

03-22-2007, 09:30

So there were hidden messages in the movie! :laugh4:

Brush your teeth!

Suraknar

03-22-2007, 09:54

So there were hidden messages in the movie! :laugh4:

Brush your teeth!

A fine example of artistic expresion indeed! :balloon2:

Rex_Pelasgorum

03-22-2007, 11:14

Historicall accuracy was not the point of the movie. The entire point of making such a movie was to give to the adolescent violence-addicts something nice to watch ~:)

Howewer, i still keep asking myself, what was with the Goat-looking creature from Xerxe`s harem ? Was it a sugestions reffering to the decadence and perversion of the Persians ? Or was it a reference to the devil ? I did not understood...

Anyway, i do understand all the bad feelings that both greeks and iranians have towards this movie.

Suraknar

03-22-2007, 14:45

Howewer, i still keep asking myself, what was with the Goat-looking creature from Xerxe`s harem ? Was it a sugestions reffering to the decadence and perversion of the Persians ? Or was it a reference to the devil ? I did not understood...

Anyway, i do understand all the bad feelings that both greeks and iranians have towards this movie.

Not the devil, the concept of a devil is Mostly Christian.

The way I saw the the choice of how to portray Xerxes, and his emediate entourage including the Immortals (his Elite Bodyguard unit), I interpreted this as a bad taste metaphor.

Clearly, Miller's suggestive towards a given agenda is being displayed by that whole deal.

If you notice, not only the Goat was "odd" inside his tent, the whole crowd in there was either mutated or diformed in some way.

Politics asside, and from a strictly "story-line" point of view, Miller chose to make Ephialtes a Spartan outcast that seeks to restore the Honor of his familly that allowed him to live as a child even if he was diformed at Birth.

Now, I think, that whole scene is there to support his decision to betray the Spartans, as he was sourounded by other people who, under "normal" circomstances would be considered outcasts themselves, yet, under Xerxes they were cherished as his closest entourage.

But then again, lets not forget this is an adaptation of a comic, and if you immagine the "wierdness" of some things under the perspective of a comic, they make sence just like a Japanese comic with wierd Monsters and such.

At least my perception of it all concerning this.

blacksnail

03-22-2007, 18:02

It is hard to argue a movie's historical accuracy when it shows a goat-man in the orgy tent.

You can quote me on that.

Pelopidas

03-22-2007, 20:00

I just came for 300...

For the show, it was all I need at the moment, a really fun piece of time.

Of course, if tomorrow I hear that some nuts use it as an historical source, I would be greatly ashamed.

Suraknar

03-28-2007, 10:13

It is hard to argue a movie's historical accuracy when it shows a goat-man in the orgy tent.

You can quote me on that.

LOL!! I like that...I will :)

Zaknafien

03-28-2007, 11:59

Afro Thunder

03-28-2007, 13:09

It is hard to argue a movie's historical accuracy when it shows a goat-man in the orgy tent.

You can quote me on that.

How about the giant deformed baby with the saw arms? Anyway, I thought the goat-man was just a Persian musician in a goat costume. Crazy Persians.... :inquisitive:

Subedei

03-28-2007, 14:13

Isen´t it from the guy who did "Sin City"?

So it should have a loooot of eyecandy in it. Well afaik it is based on a comic...good enough for me to throw my history knowledge overboard and enjoy the show. Is it worth watching in this case? I mean does it entertain?

Well, I enjoyed Troy, even if it was not trying to be accurate in most things. Alexander did try and failed imo.

my2cents....Subedei

Domitius Ulpianus

03-28-2007, 17:01

Isen´t it from the guy who did "Sin City"?

yes, not the director but the writer of the original comic.

So it should have a loooot of eyecandy in it. Well afaik it is based on a comic...good enough for me to throw my history knowledge overboard and enjoy the show. Is it worth watching in this case? I mean does it entertain?

Yes, In my humble opinion.

Well, I enjoyed Troy, even if it was not trying to be accurate in most things. Alexander did try and failed imo.

my2cents....Subedei

I agree.

Watchman

03-28-2007, 22:06

lets consider for a moment the fact the entire movie is told as a story, a legend told by a spartan. every characiture, monster, etc, is all embellishment told by the spartan story-teller, based on their perecption of the evil persian empire. that settles it for me.Doesn't really match my understanding of the Spartan attitude to these things nevermind concerning defeated enemies. Plus painting a foe your audience might well end up fighting some day as the hellspawn of Hades doesn't strike me as particularly brilliant, either. Au contraire you'd think the telling of the story specifically emphasized how very mortally human the somewhat imposing Persians were...

Side note: didn't Persian financial aid have a rather important role in the ultimate Spartan victory in the Peloponnesian War...? :beam:

Shigawire

03-28-2007, 23:58

Whether or not it does a disservice to the history of this period is uncontroversial. It does a great disservice precisely because of the reasons submitted by Xtiaan72, but as Kartlos stated, it's based on a comic book by Frank Miller. Whether it's canonical to this comic book or not, I have no idea, since I haven't read it. I think the real story is far more dramatic.

If we just look away from the fantasy elements, it still portrayed the Spartan people incorrectly. Their behavior was not "Laconic" so to speak, except for their laconic derision, which was a direct quote taken from Herodotos where "Dienekes" says "we will fight in the shade". The overall Spartan experience was only shown in terms of the Agoge (child military school) and these extreme parts of their life. Yet, it did not see fit to exhibit any of their constant abuse, oppression and political malice on the Helotes. "Free Greeks" standing against an army of slaves is a bit of a propaganda/hypocritical comment, considering the nature of the Spartan state. The movie was a droll action fest which made me yawn. Much like The Fast & The Furious made me yawn and actually go to sleep for 30 min, despite being an action movie. When Leonidas yelled "This is Sparta!" and kicked the emisarry into the pit, it really made me cringe.. because Spartans were known to be low-key, yet intimidating in their own way. The way they fought in combat was totally inconsistent with what they were talking about in the very same movie. It might have gone down my memory-hole for not being historic, but when it's not even canonical to the movie itself, then it's critique-worthy. They state in the movie that the Spartan phalanx is strong when it's close together, as soon as there's a single hole in this phalanx, the whole phalanx breaks. Leonidas said this to Ephialtes. But then, when they fight, what do they do - collectively? They all break rank and commence individual single combat. :no:

Weak internal consistency. Extremely cheezy. I might as well have been watching some B-movie. Sure, it had great effects, great cinematography. The colors were true to the comic book (from what little I've seen of the comic).
Certainly not a director or movie worthy of defecating on such a grand tale. I now hear they are thinking of making a sequel. Plataia or something?
Throw the stone!:beam: