That rhino catapharct is brilliant. The new triailer looks o much better than the first one btw, better pacing and whatnot.
Printable View
That rhino catapharct is brilliant. The new triailer looks o much better than the first one btw, better pacing and whatnot.
To be fair, a really accurate movie of Thermopylae would really be a tad boring. The main action would be the assorted Persian troops trying to fight through (and dying in droves against) the Greek shieldwall in the bottleneck for several days after all - that's prone to get old after a while.
The Greek rearguard getting turned into pincushions at the finale would probably be really a tad anticlimatic too.
Something I posted at TR.net(in response to Tiberius Nero):
"I understand where you are coming from with the ideological complaints. Have you read any of Sin City or Elektra Lives, also by Frank Miller? He has a distinct style, both as a writer and a penciler. When 300 came published, it was the closing age of the American Gothic fad in comics(Hellblazer, Lucifer, etc) and reworks like 300 weren't that rare. I think Miller tried to not only make the Spartans a military elite, but the "perfect state", like Supermen in the ancient times. He managed in that, but the history and really the sacrifice sort of paled, since it was like they were destined to die at the gates of fire and weren't really troubled about it. What is funny is that this kind of idea is straight against American Gothic, since its main thing was portraying heroes as flawed things. Normal people.
Still, 300 is an awesome graphic novel and this is a direct adaption to movie format. Considering that, the movie itself shouldn't be criticized for historical inaccuryacy, since it's not striving for that anyhow. Neither is it creation of Hollywood or any kind of bloated opressive indrusty that tries to brainwash everyone to like brainless crap. What people need to see this as is Ancient Justice League, to use modern comparison. It is there to entertain and show heroism, going to tirades over it's hollywoodism is really pointless. Kataphract rhinos and the overpowering macho power should see to that. Look at it with the same membrane you listen to music. Leave the Osprey-o-matic googles home and enjoy the movie for what it is.
Or stay here and complain about the nastynasty and vile Hollywood suckvortex. I'm gonna laugh at you."
Oh, and check this review by the historian Victor Hanson: http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson101106.html
"Again, purists must remember that 300 seeks to bring a comic book, not Herodotus, to the screen."
Edit: I should totally check my posts for swearing before posting them here.
Yes. The story is about free dudes fighting for freedom against tyrants.
Anyone remember how bad the Billy Bob Thornton 'Alamo' movie was though? It still can stink no matter what the chief point of the story is. Imagine the Alamo done as a CGI story. With Santa Anna's cataphract'd burros.
I still would rather see a more historically accurate version of the story. (giggles when thinking about the old movie about the 300 Spartans - where Themistocles actually makes a last second visit to see Leonidas right as he is sending the last other Greeks away. Themistocles gives him a pep talk, and Leonidas tells him to depart and bravely lead the Greeks at Salamis to defeat the Persians at sea. :laugh4:)
A new trailer is out:
http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/300_hd.html
Looks pretty spectacular, altough i wonder what's up with all the mutants. I count three so far, where did miller get that from? I'm also looking forward to the inevitable scream-down finale between Leonidas and catamite-Xerxes.
thanks for the link. they also have eles in there, as if cataphract rhino wasnt enough:laugh4:
looks pretty cool though.
The Rhino is dumb lol
Well i dont really like a fantasy movie about historic facts , if all history was a fantasy thing , that would be ok .
Alexander Movie had the potencial to be the greatest movie ever .
Alexander has:
Great music - > composed by Vangelis.
Great scenarios and relly hellenic feeling
Great feeling of epic , battles etc
Great image quality .
Great Soul
But ! had bad acting and actors could be better , also they exagerate on the gay side of Alexander and some acting was very bad and exagerate!!
The Alexander father was very well performed has some other Alexander soldiers etc
Some parts of the movie i really like it , this movie has so much potencial and is not hollywood feeling , like troy or gladiator , this Alexander movie was far more mature and realistic
Every western generation tells of sparta...in its own special way.
It defines the moment in time, in which certain ideas and morals were born.
I LOVED 300 as a comic. I initially was VERY afraid it would turn nasty.
Seeing that newest flick made a believer out of me.
(WARNING... This is NOT history. Per History Spartans would be armored to the gills, not bearing their torsos to be arrow and spear bait.)
But it is ONE HELL OF A TALE!
...and a small hint. If you do like the greek voicemod, since I was the one doing the shouting, well, you can understand who I wanted to honour... :2thumbsup:
I didn't mind the historical inaccuracies (equipment, rhinos, elephants, ninja immortals, Persians from outer space or whatever), but I did mind the ideological anachronisms, like that the Spartans are conscious that they are defeating the old world of the irrational represented by the mindless Persian horde and bringing about a new era of reason. I mean come on now what sort of childish rubbish is that? Leonidas is a hero of the Enlightenment and he knows it? Give me a break...
'SPARTANS, TONIGHT WE DINE IN HELL!!!' i loved it!Quote:
Originally Posted by keravnos
Agree with a few of the folks above...
It's a comic book, not a history text. Sure, that doesn't mean that it will automatically be good, but then again it could be pretty awesome. Does anyone know the movie 'The Warriors' from the late 1970's (there's a console game version that's pretty popular). It's hard to imagine that anyone (who doesn't deserve it, and was pretty hopeless to begin with) would think, after watching the movie, that Xenophon's 10,000 got stuck in downtown New York because the bad guys wouldn't let them on the subway; instead, you come away from it with a new appreciation of a timeless story from a different (more approachable to the contemporary audience) point of view. Now, I'm sure there are people who hated the warriors, just like I hated that 'update' of Romeo and Juliet with that diCaprio child, but there are audiences that got a lot of entertainment (and maybe edification) out of both.
Some of the bits (like the movie clearly being almost entirely green-screened) are hallmarks of the director's style; it's part of what makes it comic-booky. Some people don't like it, but I thought it made Sin City pretty awesome (despite that annoying girl from Gilmore Girls).
To answer another comment above: If Miller announced that he was making a remake of the Alamo that involved cataphract rhinos, I think I'd buy a ticket just to see what he'd done with it. It might be terrible, it might be awesome, but either way, I don't think I'd come away with the impression that Santa Anna's rhino-dragoons turned the tide of the real battle.
I didn't like this graphic novel. It was like Marlilyn Manson meets ancient history.
Well, well, well... It seems that Iranology did not have a good enough laugh at the disgrace that was "Alexander" after seeing a black woman (Rosario Dawson) act as Rauxhshanna, the daughter of an Irano-Bactrian chieftain, or the awful rendition of Gaugamela that depicted the Persians as an amorphous mob with no sense of organization nor the slightest glimpse of uniform. The Persian cavalry? Why, we only see Bessus. Mazaeus? No where to be seen except for the few seconds we see close-ups on a despairing Parmenion. Pathetic. I know that Alexander won that battle, but through strategy, not because Alexander was meeting a mediocre army lead by a moron. Where was Issus? River Granicus? Alexander invaded Persia. Not the other way around. Seems that the otherwise highly esteemed Dr. Fox made himself look like a complete clown. Gee, thanks for the burqa, you jackass... -_-
You know, guys, it's movies like these that just makes me long after a movie about the Parthians, under the banner of Rustam of the Suren clan (To you he is known as Surena). Parthian cavalry, smashing down the flanks of Seleucid phalanxes, just like steel cutting through hot butter, or how Surena himself scaled the walls of Seleucia just like Alexander scaled the walls of Tyre. Gaugamela? Iranians counter with another triumph, Carrhae. I mean, jesus christ, if Hollywood is going to brag around with the victories of the west against the east, they have already lost all their credibility halfway into the road.
Does anyone else long for a movie about Shapur I and his triumph against three Roman emperors?
http://www.jamejamshid.com/images/sa...p-gordian3.jpg
The poor chap under Shapur's horse is supposed to be Gordian. The guy kneeling in front of Shapur is Philip The Arab, and the one who Shapur is holding (The captive) is Valerian. This is not a literal representation, but a symbolic one, except for the case with Valerian.
As for the movie about the 300 Spartans, I actually waited all this time to see a movie adaptation of "Gates of Fire", but instead some fantasy'esque garbage with a loose basis (Oh look, some black dude with a shitload of piercings is going to be... huh... Xerxes???) on the actual battle. Here we see pachyderms. Ok. So three-hundred Spartans and a few rhinos. Yes, realism has gone down the drain. The old greek phalanx is worthless against such massive animals, I mean, don't we call rhinos and elephants pachyderms because of their thick skins? I mean, except for the fact that this battle of Thermopylae actually was a siege, in which the Persians waited for four days before they decided to attack the Spartans (And four days is more than enough to evacuate a city like Athens) one reason the Spartans managed to hold out for so long was solely because of the location, strongly favouring a phalanx formation. Not because of some mythical übermensch capabilities. The Persian strength was resting on the usage of cavalry.
No, I'm not by any means claiming that the Iranians are superior than the Graeco-Romans, but I am rather commenting on the ridiculous penis-measuring contest Hollywood has arranged. Greeks and Romans have had their triumphs, and so have Iranians. All three have had their moments of humiliation.
Hollywood: No I meen liek, joo r teh liar. Teh 300 Spartans crushed liek 250 000 Persiens lol!
-_-
And for the record, Vangelis disappointed me with his poor soundtrack in "Alexander". "Drums of Gaugamela" was very underwhelming and far too synthesized. The battle of Hydaspes river however was better.
...Oh yeah, and why is Ephialtes the goat-herder depicted as some fiendish beast in chains? And at the risk of sounding "racist", why is the Persian emissary uhhhh... black? Oh and Xerxes, oh yeah I think I already mentioned it. It deserves a second mention. Oh and what about those goblins with claws and deformed faces? Those rhinos? Those ninja cataphracts of Persia? The Immortals with monkey-masks? Those stupid and over-the-top arrowheads? That stupid, obviously fake facial hair of the "Persian" that is supposed to act as Hydarnes of the Immortals? Gaaaaaaahhhh!!! This movie better be as badass as "Conan The Barbarian", because that is all it has going for ~:cheers:
Gonna be a kickass movie. :beam:
Long post ahead.
I seriously can't understand how anyone could be so offended by this movie (unless you want to be, which seems to be the case sometimes, wether it's caused by nationalistic over-sensitivity or otherwise). I mean it's clear from the outset that isn't meant to be historically accurate. Like many others I would have preferred to see a filmization of the Gates of Fire that did try to keep as close to history as possible, but that's just not happening. I found this on another forum and thought it summed up my opinions pretty well:
I think the best we can hope for is a very entertaining over-the-top action movie, (and the trailers look promising in that regard) and that its success will open the door for more movies based on ancient history.Quote:
...I hate when movies present themselves as fact when they aren't. Movies like JFK, A Beautiful Mind, and countless others, are harmful because they have a sheen of seriousness and end up as fact to those too ignorant to educate themselves on the topic any further. JFK has become the default version of reality for many people's view of that event, despite it getting almost nothing of consequence right. A Beautiful Mind more or less left its audience with the lesson that severe schizophrenia can be solved by the love of a beautiful woman.
300 is nothing like that. The creators aren't claiming this should be shown in classrooms as history. It's an exercise in style using a historical event (and one which is hardly known in exacting detail) as its inspiration.
And I don't think it's right to criticize this movie for being typical of Hollywood. The movie will be faithful to Frank Millers graphic novel and nothing else. And in my opinion thats a whole lot better than the atrocious treatment of history by Hollywood studios in the past, just look at crap like "The 13th Warrior" or Troy.
Lately I've been hearing great things about Apocalypto and that has made me hope Mel Gibson will make a movie based on ancient european history. Even thought i don't agree with his opinions he's a talented director, knows how to make a good battle-scene and has been using authentic languages in his latest films.
And that brings me to my biggest concern about 300, the motivation of the Spartans and Leonidas. I understand that it's because Miller made FREEDOM the main theme of his novel, but it just feels so... wrong. First of all it feels overplayed because it's been done to death in Braveheart and Gladiator. Second of all it feels ill-suited to the spartans in particular. It seems incredibly one-dimensional that filmmakers want us to believe that the only two reasons men did anything in ancient times were FREEDOM (Gladiator and King Arthur) and/or GLORY (Alexander and Troy) I think a bit more depth to the characters and their reasoning would go a long way to improve the quality of this kind of movie in the future.
Best of luck getting something with Middle-Eastern heroes to sell to the public. Particularly Middle-Eastern heroes that most Americans haven't heard of. People don't go to movies to learn, and they don't go for stuff they know absolutely nothing about. People have heard of Alexander, and the Trojan War, and the 300 Spartans. They haven't heard of Parthia, or Surena. They won't be interested, so it won't sell, so it's too large of a business risk to invest in. That leaves independent films, but then you lose money for costumes/set design, actors, and special effects, so you have a harder time doing history justice.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract
Never mind the movie, I want to to see "300 Total War", a minimod based on Frank Miller's art. That would be truly kick-ass.
Thank you very mutch "The Persian Cataphract" ,300 milion points for you "Savar e Parsi" :2thumbsup:
Let's discuss about untold aspects of the issue.Towwb said "People don't go for stuff they know absolutely nothing about" ,I don't know ,it needs a research to be justified.And aecp says "I think the best we can hope for is a very entertaining over-the-top action movie, (and the trailers look promising in that regard) and that its success will open the door for more movies based on ancient history." ,Perhaps you're right ,but As far as I know Historical (And epic)movies are so popular amongst people and they can bring lots of people to the theaters.
I want to talk about social part of the issue (And perhaps political one) who I discusse about them in another forum(Rise of Persia).
Why you westerners suppose that other peoples should have the same amount tolerance you have? Democracy and human right says "You should respect eachothers and eachothers beliefs".You may endure if someone talk openly about your beliefs ,but they don't and you should respect it and consider this fact.You want to criticize a belief or historical character ,good to you ,Then do it with yours (Like jesus or neron or Lincoln or...) otherwise you may see the same reaction for example muslims did when pop said somthing about islam a few weeks ago.Why they(For example muslims) are not like us? I don't know ,Maybe because they don't have freedom (And democracy) you have in the west.Imo one the advantages of freedom and democracy is it will increase people's tolerance to eachothers.This is very important note you westerners should consider and ofcourse you should responsible to your treats.
Ops ,I have to go out.Will continue later.
And "The Persian Cataphract" ,I'm already studying http://www.jamejamshid.com/ ,It sounds interesting~:)
-Kambiz
How does a movie with badass fight scenes, great actors, impressive visualization and a unique and great movie making style translate into Western Superiority Complex?
Stop overanaylzing the movie or turning it into something it isn't. I appreciate good and unique film-making as much as I do history, if this was a documentary it'd be bad, but its not. Its a badass action/adventure movie set in history. I love it personally, but don't try and turn it into something it isn't.
300 is a faery tale inspired from a true story. Just that. Even the dwarves, elves, kataphrakt rhinos man beasts, golems what have you... all that exageration is of faery tale quality.
Why should that sound as condescending?
Now, as to the fact that western culture tries its best each generation to retell a story, well that would be the same as Rustem or Darhiush, or Kurush tales be told in Iran. Each culture defines itself by its roots, and understandably cherishes them. Is that a bad thing?
Any story needs a good villain as well as a great hero. Without a villain there is no story. In Greece we cherish Alexandros and Leonidas. In persia I believe Alexandros and Leonidas aren't well liked. It is not only natural, it is human. Persians do respect them, though, as well as we respect Kyros and Dareios.
It is probably the worst tragedy in history that Megas Alexandros didn't live longer. He planned to mary Darius's III daughter, and establish a Hellenic-Persian Co-dominium. Imagine what would happen if the strong leadership, respect to authority, financial management and order of the Persian empire could fuse with the Freedom, Aesthetics, Eagerness to learn and explore, philosophy and greek science? In a recent archaeologic symposium exploring ancient greek technology it was suggested that we could probably have reached the Moon 1000 years earlier. Yep, ancient computing machines, steam engine, steel, Ancient greeks had all that. They could actually make something Grand and Lasting like the Chinese did. Instead they were too busy killing themselves, and let Romans and Parthians enslave them.
This is one of the leftovers of Alexander's plans. This little phrase which proves just how good a teacher Aristotle was, how much a good student of History and psychology Alexander was, and what a tragedy was for Humanity to lose him.This is how and why USA became the great power by the way, and will remain that way...btw... :idea2: This is why certain Greek Historians feel that Americans are the true heirs of Alexander, because they followed in and built on his dream, what he himself would make had he not died. I agree. Much as it pains me as a Greek, we forgot Alexandros and the essence of what made him Great, and are just consumed with names, and making a quick buck out of what should be our greatest resource, our History. That and getting to be civil servants...:laugh4: I hope that sometime in the future we may live up to our ancestry, to Leonidas and Alexandros like we did in 1940. Maybe we will.Quote:
Originally Posted by (Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca historia, XVIII)
Honouring you ancestors can only be good, as long as that doesn't mean devaluating and dishonouring other's. That is the meaning of Europa Barbarorum. Getting to know each other's ancestors. I am proud of mine, you of yours, Persian Kataprhakt and Kambiz, and all that is good. You respect Christianity, I respect Islam, and the world gets a little better. I like to think it does, at least.
Artists, and especially those in Hollywood can be very harsh and dimunitive though. However that doesn't happen here. I pity da foo who thinks that Persians are dark skinned gold pierced savages. By exagerating, Hollywood makes sure it doesn't get sued, and actually tries to make you look the darn thing up, learn a little history.
Enough faery tales, let's go back to History for a bit.
Leonidas was a brave but desperate man. Greeks were abandoning their sovereingty and surrendering, giving "land and water" to the Persians. An army maybe not a million but certainly Many hundreds of thousands big was going to kill/destroy/rape..*enter your own verb here, much like ALL armies would do in such an era (Greeks included). Even Makedonia's king Alexandros 1st (The one you know about is the third) surrendered, became a Persian subject/satrap and was allowed to hold on to his throne. He is supposed to have performed sabbotage and other disruptions to the Persian land troops but these were minor.
The Greek fleet at Artemision was holding the Persian armada at bay, while at land the Greeks fortified themselves in the only place they could really, THERMOPYLAI. It was 300 Spartans and 700 Thespiaeeis EVERYONE forgets about that stayed back and died to allow the rest of the Greek army to depart, after Ephialtes' betrayal. To this day Ephialtes, or ΕΦΙΑΛΤΗΣ is the greek word for knightmare A holding action ensued, that became the stuff of legend. Leonidas knew he would lose, he knew he was going to die. But he sure knew that he might become a symbol, a warcry to be heard as the unified by his sacrifice Hellenes would gather around Spartans' leadership and hold the line at the Isthmus near Corinth. He was a VERY desperate man about to have all his world destroyed, and having decided to go out in a blaze of glory, he gave the struggle his heart and soul. His and those around him. That is what 300, the comic stands for. An image of that sacrifice. That is why I still am awed every single time I read it. This echo I tried to portray in the Greek voicemod I did, it is THOSE DESPERATE MEN AND STRUGGLE I wanted to honour and I am glad that most people like it. :yes:
Xerxes, to be fair, didn't actually lose. It is just that post the sea battle at Salamis *latest ancient papyrus scroll read, points that Greeks had 220 triremes, he was afraid that Greeks would land marines and destroy his line of communications/supply. That is why he left with the bulk of his army, leaving Mardonius at Plataiae, to hold the Greek pocessions, until he could return next year. He didn't have the chance to. Emboldened by the victory at sea, and
the huge morale boost of Leonidas' sacrifice 50.000 hoplites went against 300.000 Persians. They won. We Greeks still exist today. And Frank Miller got to do 300. :2thumbsup:
That is exactly my point, friend. First off, ancient Iran is automatically represented as the "Middle East". The very term "Middle East" was coined during political circumstances in the early 20th century , in retrospect, to the British intervention in the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the forming of various Arab states. Islam too has contributed to this effect, and it is indeed an unfortunate fate that Iran that suffered a complete cultural disaster after the Islamic invasions has been clustered together to this term. Prior to the Islamic Revolution in 1979, this was not the case, and the Western world actually began to distinguish the impoverished Middle East with the thriving, culturally aware Iran. This sentiment peaked in 1971 when the celebration of 2500 years of monarchy in Iran was concluded with a grand military parade, a true one of a kind. This procession left an entire world in awe, and indeed, it was like travelling through time. The world saw Achaemenid armies, uniformed, and in disciplined order march to the sound of mighty bronze horns and kettle-drums. Formations of infantry, Immortals, light, as well as heavy cavalry, chariots, triremes and siege towers. Thereafter came the equestrian Parthians gaiting in cohesive formations, as light cavalry and as formations of cataphracts. Then came the Sassanids with their elaborate costumes and armour... And so forth, until the coming of the Pahlavi dynasty military march band.Quote:
Originally Posted by Towwb
This is something that can be seen in some sandals and swords epics, such as "The fall of the roman empire", where we see the parthians coming to the aid of the armenians, they too elaborately armed and armoured like heavy horsemen. These modern renditions that we see today in movies such as "Alexander" is highly political. Persians in grey tunics, dressed like tribal Arabs, camels, and even some cavalrymen out of Bessus' contingent speaking Arabic (These were supposedly the Bactrians and the Sakae heavy cavalry). Flies whirling around the heads of some of these "Persians", dead silent and generally has the appearance of a big shapeless blob (Even though the Persians strictly held by the decimal organization and even had a complicated organization pertaining to junior officers). The Alexander movie made it sound like the Persians were the ones to draw first blood on Macedon, and therefore were the "evil ones". Gee, was that why they skipped river Granicus, Issus, and the siege of Tyre? Speaking about the siege of Tyre, why was the audience denied from seeing Alexander's darker side? Additionally, what happened to Persepolis? Alexander the Arsonist. Alexander the Butcherer. No, of course not, why shatter romantic legends if people like them? Alexander the flaxen-haired? Heh. What's funnier than a golden-haired conqueror fighting against a people who speak in Arabic tongues? Black Persians *gasps*. Oh my, oh my. What a blunder. The difference between Alexander and 300 is perhaps the greatest here: "Alexander" pretentiously takes itself seriously. Rosario Dawson as Raukhshanna? And what the hell is she wearing? A burqa with meshes? *Sniffs* Is it old fart Oliver Stone around spreading his political bullshit in a movie... again? Why, let's make a movie about the good old Vikings and let a chinese man with bad pronounciation play Olaf. It almost makes me glad that Oliver Stone rejected some historical aspects, because had Ariobarzanes of Persepolis been depicted in the movie, he'd probably depicted as a demon with a whip in his hand, flogging reluctant Persians levies to trigger an ambush by the Persian Gates. "These people only fight because their king has forced them to! They are not fighting for their homes!"... The irony of an invader's audacity, eh Alexandros? ~:joker:
With "300" it's a different case because here Persia is after all the crap about 300 Spartans being so resilient, actually depicted as a superpower, with top technology (*looks at stupid arrowheads again*), great props (*looks at stupid facial hair prop again*), great beasts of war (*stares again at the rhinoceros*), and... Ironically armour. The Spartans in this movie fight almost butt naked. The Immortals are armoured with uhh... Monkey masks and breastplates. The arrow storms well, unrealistic and stupid looking, and in some shots have the stopping power of ballistic missiles... "300" is obviously not a movie meant to provide lectures on history, and if anything I'll be seeing it because it has been almost 25 years since "Conan The Barbarian". I need a manly movie. The problem with "300" is also political, in which Sparta (Yes, Sparta) represents freedom and... democracy? (No I'm genuinely asking, do the Spartans actually stand for democracy in "300"?) Uhhh, yeah... <_<
Really now, if it wasn't for the fact that "300" doesn't take itself too seriously, I'd be seriously offended if I was a Greek. I know for a fact that Greeks take great pride in this one stand against the Persians, and I know many Greeks who have expressed admiration for the Spartiates, but if it wasn't for the fact that "300" advertises itself as being just mindless ass-kickery, it would have been a caricature of a great moment of glory for the Greeks. "Alexander" is a caricature of a great historical figure and his achievements, but it took itself seriously. That is the reason why I will be seeing "300", provided that I someday can see a translation of "Carrhae" seeing cataphracts roll cigaweed and ride into the sunset to some uppity soundtrack.
Dear Cambyses,Quote:
Originally Posted by kambiz
Do not go to that site for personal research. I only wanted a picture of Shapur I humbling three Roman emperors in one of his bas-reliefs. For a comprehensive database on Iranian studies, I recommend CAIS-SOAS (http://www.cais-soas.com) or Encyclopaedia Iranica Online (If you know what to look for that is, but for the moment being, I recommend CAIS).
As a Greek I have given up hope for a decent historical Hollywood movie. Still, I think it's better they show it that way. At least nobody is going to think that what appears in the screen happened that way in reality too.Quote:
Really now, if it wasn't for the fact that "300" doesn't take itself too seriously, I'd be seriously offended if I was a Greek. I know for a fact that Greeks take great pride in this one stand against the Persians, and I know many Greeks who have expressed admiration for the Spartiates, but if it wasn't for the fact that "300" advertises itself as being just mindless ass-kickery, it would have been a caricature of a great moment of glory for the Greeks.
(I hope:inquisitive: )
Geez, I wonder if Krusader knew this thread would spark such a lengthy debate... about all sorts of things.
Historically accurate vs. entertaining
people see movies for all sorts of reasons and everyone's going to be disappointed in some respect (thats why i tell myself a movie is going to suck before i go see it-- no disappointment). I think anyone with a smidgen of intelligence knows the goal of hollywood movies is primarily to entertain (and make money!). Those who know nothing about Thermopylae going into the movie will hopefully leave the theater and want to learn about it. To do that they will have to look at real history. In this way movies (unrealistic or not) can only serve history by sparking interest in it.
Personally, as someone interested in all the great cultures of the world, I'd love to see a movie (as suggested by The Persian Cataphract) about Parthians and Roman defeats etc. However I don't think any such movie would do justice to the history or cultures involved. I guess the lesson is "be careful what you wish for".
As for black Persians-- i sincerely hope (for whoever is involved in the casting) that this doesn't originate from some kind of "old school" thinking Good=white, Bad=black. after all Xerxes is supposed to be the "baddie" in the movie, right? I Haven't read the graphic novel so i'm not sure how (or if) Xerxes is portrayed. If he's black in the comic i guess Frank Miller is the one to talk to about it.
As for Alexander the movie. I'm biased in that i don't really like Colin Farrell (as an actor-- i'm sure he's nice enough in real life). After watching it i felt that Alexander was portrayed as moody teenager-- i sure as hell wouldn't have followed him into battle (well maybe the battle against the monkey men-- we must retain our spot as top hominid :laugh4: ).
At the end of the day i'll turn to the history books for history... but i'll watch 300 for the fight scenes (and the cata-rhino's!)
Xerxes and his ambassadors look rather black to me in the comic; troops definitely look nice and Persian, except for the immortals.
I'd love to see a film about Crassus leading his men to defeat at Carrhae. Just imagine: the tragic story of the man once the richest and most influential in Rome, gradually surpassed by his associates Pompey and Caesar, who is less wellsuited to the political limelight than backroom politics, and who in his quest for glory goes out of his depth and is utterly defeated. Could start with his mistakes against Spartacus, forming a nice prelude for those who know how his continued meddling in military affairs will end. Excellent drama possibilities with his push ahead despite warnings and the realisation of defeat finally hitting home with the death of his son.
One can hope. Or write a book. :idea2:
Alfred Duggan - Winter QuartersQuote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
Only fictional book I can think off that comes close. Follows the story of two Gauls in Roman service.
Im in the sad position to provide a reality check as far as the Hollywood movies are concerned:
PEOPLE BELIEVE 100% WHAT THEY SEE AS A HISTORICAL FACT!
The hilarius notion that the average american doesnt take everything as he sees it in TV or movies has no basis...people form misconceptions and false beliefs get instilled in the masses as FACTS...
After that they expect and demand these "facts" to be followed by ALL media including strategy games...*cough*RTW "EGYPTIANS"*cough*
Thanks, checked it on Amazon and it sounds interesting. I'll see if I can find it sometime!Quote:
Originally Posted by Krusader
An unfounded notion playing off national stereotypes, and one I'd find frankly insulting if I were an American.Quote:
Originally Posted by hellenes
This may be a little off topic but i was thinking about Geoffrey S's idea of a film about Crassus. Another tragic tale i thought would be good to see is that of Vercingetorix and his defeat at Alesia. Then i found out that a french movie named "Druids" had been made in 2001 staring none other than (wait for it....) Christopher Lambert. Not sure how it treats history etc. but with the tagline "His people made him a leader. The empire made him a renegade. History made him a hero." i can't help but wonder which empire they mean-- as the Roman one did not yet exist. Needless to say it doesn't look good. I found a trailer here:
http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movie...ml?v_id=237168
anyone out there seen it (it's AKA "Vercingetorix")?
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by hellenes
ps--whats wrong with the egyptians?:egypt: they were in the mummy, so they were accurate right? dolt.
[QUOTE=keravnos] Persians do respect them, though, as well as we respect Kyros and Dareios.
And i want to I want to add that in ancient Greek Literature the Persians are not Bad.Herodotus in the book Kleio it wrote for the wonderful things that made all populations of east...We had some respect for them...As for the word Barbarian,in early years it has the meaning that the Greeks didn;t understand the language,after their achievements that change.Sometimes I try to understand why Herodotus wrote so many good things for Lydia,Persia etc..But his father was from Caria and his mother was Dorian...
. Much as it pains me as a Greek, we forgot Alexandros and the essence of what made him Great, and are just consumed with names, and making a quick buck out of what should be our greatest resource, our History. That and getting to be civil servants...:laugh4: I hope that sometime in the future we may live up to our ancestry, to Leonidas and Alexandros like we did in 1940. Maybe we will.
I agree with each your word
Honouring you ancestors can only be good, as long as that doesn't mean devaluating and dishonouring other's. That is the meaning of Europa Barbarorum. Getting to know each other's ancestors. I am proud of mine, you of yours, Persian Kataprhakt and Kambiz, and all that is good. You respect Christianity, I respect Islam, and the world gets a little better. I like to think it does, at least.
I agree with each your word
Artists, and especially those in Hollywood can be very harsh and dimunitive though. However that doesn't happen here. I pity da foo who thinks that Persians are dark skinned gold pierced savages. By exagerating, Hollywood makes sure it doesn't get sued, and actually tries to make you look the darn thing up, learn a little history.
If we see the movies Troy,Alexander we can say that Hollywood raped the history...In the Troy is all different (Achilles go inside the Troy for example),in the Alexander,the Alexander is like participates in gay parade...
For the 300 what can you say;Elephants,black ambassador,Xerxes with pearcing,and Dienekes is Stelios!!!But Stelios is Christian name and this era ia about 500 before Jesus!!!But Enough with faery tales as Keravnos said...