Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

[Phalanx300]

The writer himself said that he showed 300 as an story told by an Spartan to his fellow Spartans. Explaining the monter like Persians etc. That said 300 never tried to portray things Historically anyways. DW does try that and fails. Also in the Nazi episode, they never played WW2 games or something? Sucky weapon selection... I mean the Nazi's invented worlds first assault rifle and they don't use it... They should let an Call of Duty team get over or something... >.<..

Best move for an sequal for 300 would be to turn thing around, to show the Persians as the victims and the Greeks as the monsters. Too bad thats probably not going to happen.

[Hax]

The writer himself said that he showed 300 as an story told by an Spartan to his fellow Spartans.

Yes, you can pretty much defend anything this way.

[antisocialmunky]

It doesn't change the fact that they all still were wearing speedos in the end.

It would have been pretty funny if it flashed to a realistic depiction at the end like the whole story was the product of 5000 Spartans with overactive imaginations.

[Intranetusa]

I love you, Intranet. <3

I agree, though I wouldn't call the battle of Thermopylae a strategic failure as it did give enough time to the Greeks to counter the invasion.

Well, I would still consider it a strategic failure because it ruined their war plans.
The battle only gave them 2-3 extra days - and the result was they lost half of Greece and had important cities like Athens being captured...

iirc, I read somewhere that the entire initial Greek strategy was stopping them up north near Thermopylae. After Thermopylae fell, the Greeks had to change their entire war plan. So it was good in the sense that the defeat forced them to adopt a better strategy that allowed them to win in the end.

I mean the Nazi's invented worlds first assault rifle and they don't use it... They should let an Call of Duty team get over or something... >.<..

They didn't show the VC's AK-47 either. And the ak-47 would have been better than anything the Nazis had...way better than the stg-44 whachamacallit...

[TancredTheNorman]

Saying 300 is historically INACCURATE is an UNDERSTATEMENT. Roughly 90-95% of the movie is total fantasy.

Agreed

-There were 300 Spartans + at LEAST 7000-8000 other Greek soldiers at Thermopylae for the first two days.

Yes but the third day is what so stunned the Greeks and the world, you do realize that it impressed Xerxes and he ordered all of the Spartans including Leonidas to be given graves exactly where they fell? That was an unusual honor Greek and in Persian culture alike.

-There were 300 Spartans + at LEAST 700 Thespians and most likely 300 Thebans on the last day (probably also Spartan slaves/helots)

Think about the force they were fighting against, and it would seem from the way the Spartans got the royal treatment after the battle that their fighting is what impressed the enemy. Actions sometimes speak louder than words.

-Persians did not have a million soldiers. They had 70,000-300,000 max by modern estimates, and only a fraction of that fought at Thermopylae. (logistically speaking, a million man army marching from Iran to Greece wasn't feasible)

That is still a massively one sided number, even if you accept the lowest possible one.

-There was a huge Athenian navy preventing the Persians from flanking the soldiers at Thermopylae. Thermopylae was a tactical and strategic failure since the Greeks had to abandon almost half of Greece.

The Athenian Navy was itself outnumbered and saved by a storm and by bluff, had the weather been nicer the Persians would have easily encircled it, the Persian Admiral actually knew to encircle and destroy the Athenian Fleet and tried to do it, but stormy seas prevented it.

-Spartans wore heavy bronze muscle curiass armor, not speedos.

Yes, although I personally think thanks to their shields Athenian Linothorax (sp) was better armor, but that is off topic.

-At Thermopylae , the Persians did not have giant LoTR oliphaunt like-war elephants nor giant armored rhinos.

True, but those scenes are a revelation of exactly how seriously you should take the great nightmare known as 300.

_Persians had already abolished slavery

That simply isn't true, and the treatment of serfs in law and practice was not exactly good. There is a reason why the Persians relied on their cavalry, and a reason why the Parthians and Sassanians did to.

-The Spartans were the biggest dictators of ancient Greece, and were not fighting for democracy. (2/3 of the Spartan populace were enslaved neighbors - Helots)

Who are you comparing them to? If they are being compared to Persians it would be a very interesting comparison of Spartan Warrior Citizen vs Persian Cavalryman, or Helot vs Serf/Slaves, but overall if your comparing them to Athens or Thebes I definitely agree. Even then however half the Spartan Population was a lot freer then half the Athenian Population.

-It was part of Spartan training to go out into the countryside and murder a Helot

That is true, Sparta ruled the Helots by intimidation and threat of murder.

-The Persian 10,000 immortals aren't mutant-lizard ninjas with East Asian masks.

Yes, although I never saw any of those ahistorical ninja without a mask on, it could be thanks to the recoil and disgust I had at seeing them at all, and how badly they were done. Immortals were amongst the best body guards of the ancient world.

-Persians didn't have giant Doom-esque bald fat guys with saw blades attached to their arms

I was actually amused by that nonesense.

-Persians had many Greek city states and Greek mercenaries fighting on their side

Not nearly as many as later on in history, this was Xerxes not Darius, the infantry combat didn't look like a war between two Greek City States, although yes he did have some Greeks I would be careful of confusing him for later Persian Emperors.
.

-Xerxes is not a 10 foot tall, dark skinned metro sexual she-male with thousands of gold body piercings on his body.

Yes but he wasn't Dark Skinned in the movie either as far as I could tell, I might just have bad eye sight (thank you video games).

-Persians were not suicidal as portrayed in the movie.

Yes, but when forced to rely on infantry without cavalry Persian Armies did not do very well, not just at Thermopylae, the Athenians crushed a much larger Persian Army by figuring out where fighting could prevent the use of cavalry. The Persian favorite weapon couldn't be used everywere.

-Xerxes wasn't personally present at Thermopylae iirc (?)

He was close behind and he did allow Mardonius everything he asked for, although had he been present I don't know what he would have done differently, Mardonius appears to be the villain of Herodotus who wanted an invasion and wanted to conquer the Greeks.

-The Persians did not have grenades (Song gunpowder weaponry) in the 5th century BCE.

The nonesense like grenades was better then the movie, I would rather see Persians hurling grenades at iron age warriors then the horrible acting and horrible script of 300, although both are bad.

-The hoplites did NOT break the phalanx formation to fight in one-on-one barbarian brawls

Definitely, but good enemy commanders would try and force them to break the formation/

-Persians are not dark skinned Arabian looking people or black sub-Saharan Africans. Their skin color was equivalent to the tanned Mediterranean Greeks due to their Aryan background. Persians are Indo-Iranian-Europeans

Yes, but to depict that would outrage the union of morons who think everyone outside of Europe are black and they need to come up with new terms for people who are non European but clearly white,[turns on sarcasm] and surely we can't outrage those people.

-Spartans had 2 kings ruling simultaneously.

Yes

-Spartan males (even high ranking officals) lived in barracks, not the luxurious palaces you see in the movie.

Yes, but the Kings probably didn't live in the same conditions as a 18 year old who didn't yet see combat.

-Oracle of Delphi did not say Sparta will burn to the ground.

Agreed, and I would add the Spartans were the most superstitious of the Greeks so that would have prevented everything.

-Spartans did not speak with Irish accents, and not all Spartans had 6 packs.

Yes

-Persia did not just randomly decide to invade Greece - they the Greeks had supported various Greco-Persian colonies in Turkey in a rebellion against Persia.

But they lost at Marathon

Regarding the Helots, they were worse off than the other slaves in Greece.

Yes but Helots were not the only type of servant, and not all Helots were in the same position.

As the Spartans became a military state solely in order to control the Helot population, and each year they would terrorize (and murder) the Helot population in order to instill fear and prevent rebellion.

Yes

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In regards to Spartans vs Immortals:

The battle of Thermopylae involved 300 Spartans AND over 8000 Greek hoplites defending the narrow pass. They defended against the Persian for 2 days. On the 3rd day the 300 Spartans, several hundred Spartan slaves, 300 Thespians, 700 Thebans stayed behind as the rear guard.

Herodotus, who we get the story from, never said the Spartan/Thespian/Theban beat the Immortals in any meaningful manner. We only know that the Persians were unable to break through the Greek line - and before long, the Persian king sounded a withdrawal because he had found a way around the mountains.

Several Thousand Slaves is unlikely, and the Narrow Pass would have evened things out, it was probably only 300 Spartans defending against different groups of 300 non Spartans much of the time, with similar actions involving other Greeks at different parts of the pass.

[Intranetusa]

Agreed....
.

Indeed.


Btw, Deadliest Warrior's Sun Tzu vs Vlad weaponry are up.

Vlad gets a gunpowder hand cannon and a giant iron halberd.
Sun Tzu gets a back scratcher. O_o

I really like to know how they came up with this one...

And I think almost every single one of Sun Tzu's weapons is either fictional, or anachronistic and didn't exist during his time...

I had high hopes since last week's Persian vs Celt was decent. I think Deadliest Warrior might be going downhill a la history channel...

Here's a quote from one of the posters regarding Sun Tzu's weapons:


"Claw- Never have I read about this weapon used in actual battle formations, the only place where i've seen this back scratcher is in kungfu movies. So instead of using the dagger axe, which was a STANDARD weapon for any army at the time you have an obscure back scratcher for a weapon instead. That's like giving a legionnaire a whip instead of a pilum.

Jian-That's a steel sword, Sun Tzu lived in the bronze age, bronze swords cannot be casted that long and thin unless you actually want it to break as one of the special features. Bronze swords during the spring and autumn period looked very much like gladius, actually google sword of goujian and compare them.

Repeating Crossbow-Whether this weapon existing during the same time frame as Sun Tsu Was supposed of existed is a question. The primary role of this weapon was defensive, i.e raining bolts from walls on top of sieging enemies, doe's Sun Tsu get a wall as a special weapon? The bolts were also tipped with poison because it lack punching power. The regular crossbow was much more common at the time and we know for a fact that entire formations were made up of crossbowmen.

Fire Arrow-Okay flaming arrows were used during the time for sieging, But it's redundant if you had the crossbow to begin with, you could easily light the bolts on fire and have the same thing, against infantry the fire makes little difference as the bolts/arrows were tipped with poison already. A shield would of made much more sense, as it was also standard equipment for infantry of the time."

[Ibrahim]

Indeed.


Btw, Deadliest Warrior's Sun Tzu vs Vlad weaponry are up.

Vlad gets a gunpowder hand cannon and a giant iron halberd.
Sun Tzu gets a back scratcher. O_o

I really like to know how they came up with this one...

And I think almost every single one of Sun Tzu's weapons is either fictional, or anachronistic and didn't exist during his time...

I had high hopes since last week's Persian vs Celt was decent. I think Deadliest Warrior might be going downhill a la history channel...

Here's a quote from one of the posters regarding Sun Tzu's weapons:


"Claw- Never have I read about this weapon used in actual battle formations, the only place where i've seen this back scratcher is in kungfu movies. So instead of using the dagger axe, which was a STANDARD weapon for any army at the time you have an obscure back scratcher for a weapon instead. That's like giving a legionnaire a whip instead of a pilum.

Jian-That's a steel sword, Sun Tzu lived in the bronze age, bronze swords cannot be casted that long and thin unless you actually want it to break as one of the special features. Bronze swords during the spring and autumn period looked very much like gladius, actually google sword of goujian and compare them.

Repeating Crossbow-Whether this weapon existing during the same time frame as Sun Tsu Was supposed of existed is a question. The primary role of this weapon was defensive, i.e raining bolts from walls on top of sieging enemies, doe's Sun Tsu get a wall as a special weapon? The bolts were also tipped with poison because it lack punching power. The regular crossbow was much more common at the time and we know for a fact that entire formations were made up of crossbowmen.

Fire Arrow-Okay flaming arrows were used during the time for sieging, But it's redundant if you had the crossbow to begin with, you could easily light the bolts on fire and have the same thing, against infantry the fire makes little difference as the bolts/arrows were tipped with poison already. A shield would of made much more sense, as it was also standard equipment for infantry of the time."

well, if they had any scruples, the DW people would give Sun Tzu a 2 ft sword, superficially similar to the gladius, lovely scale armor (a la terracotta army, but perhaps cruder*; bear in mind a 1-200 year diff), and perhaps a chariot and pike/halberd.. now if he were infantry, pikes, halberds, swords, and of course, crossbows/bows would be the norm.

that's assuming he's a private-I have absolutely no clue what he had as a general

*hey, they want bad ******, don't they?

[Talimze]

What was wrong with Viking v Samurai? Both were great warriors and the results at the end were fairly close. The Samurai had better armor (18th cent?).

Alexander vs Attila was fine too. 1v1 or squad vs squad, Hunnic cavalry would have shot Alexander's phalangites full of holes. Alexander beat the Scythians in one battle thanks to a crap load of missile weaponry and the Scythians falling into a trap.

As for centurion vs Rajput, I didn't know how they used unhistorical weapons for both sides, and the testing was crap, but the result at the end was expected. Fully armored Rajput warrior who trained mostly for one on one combat beats a centurion who mostly drilled for formation combat.



Is that a serious question? O_o

The movie 300 is to the history of Thermopylae as the Lord of the Rings is to the history of the European Middle Ages...

I wasn't mad at those episodes because they were inaccurate, I was mad because the sides that I wanted to win lost. Pretty much every side I want to win loses.

And no, that's wasn't a serious question, although I wouldn't put it past Deadliest Warrior to use the 300 Immortals as if they really looked like that. I figured that since they did the same thing with the Spartans that they could do it with the Immortals too. Honestly, I don't see how anyone could see 300 as historically accurate. Even people I've talked to who have seen it and don't know crap about Spartans apart from that movie don't think it's historically accurate.

[Badass Buddha]

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valhalla_Rising_(movie)

Do I even have to say anything?

[athanaric]

Do I even have to say anything?

Yes: why the hell couldn't they just make a straight Viking movie?

[bobbin]

Actually that film is pretty good, the trailer is very misleading and the film is nothing like it.
And to be honest the portrayal of the vikings in it is far better than in most films you'll see, ie grubby and dirt poor as opposed to being decked out in horned helmets and armour.

[Apázlinemjó]

Yes: why the hell couldn't they just make a straight Viking movie?

I find even the trailer good too compared to other "historical wannabe" movies' trailers.

[runes]

ah man, i love the 300 hate.

it's like.. MAN ANYBODY SEEN THAT MOVIE WILD WILD WEST... WTF?? BLACK COWBOYS?? MECHA SPIDER MACHINES?!?!? WTF COME ON GUYSSSS THAT'S TOTALLY NOT RITE

[Ibrahim]

ah man, i love the 300 hate.

it's like.. MAN ANYBODY SEEN THAT MOVIE WILD WILD WEST... WTF?? BLACK COWBOYS?? MECHA SPIDER MACHINES?!?!? WTF COME ON GUYSSSS THAT'S TOTALLY NOT RITE

ok....

well, black cowboys were real (no, srsly, some did exist). and this movie, unlike 300, makes no real attempt at even rewriting history from the "perspective of one side". its just a western action sci fi thingy in the format of Jonah Hex...only IMO, WWW sucked, and Jonah Hex didn't (I refer to the comic, not the movie, which I have yet to see).

let's face it, comedy doesn't work with everything.

And honestly, 300 might have been awful (no denying that), but at least its not cinematic horror show known as "the spirit"

this one is based on a will Eisner comic, of the same name, only its been ****** on by Frank Miller (who not only wrote 300, but also directed this abomination). I heard Miller and the late Eisner were supposedly friends, but as Linkara and Filmbrain put it, after seeing this movie, I wonder if he actually hated Eisner.

I think this incident, along with others*, may be the ulterior motive behind the Miller-bashing; Miller, let's face it, is what in Arabic is known as a hamajiyy (barbarian or savage are rough translations); proud, deluded, and with certain...lady issues. the last one is particularly apparent in "the spirit"

*like: all star batman and robin, Dark Knight (the comic), Sin City, 300, etc, etc, etc.

[runes]

300 was great, dunno what you're talking about.
so was apoclypto, which was really just a chase movie, set in a nondescript "prehistoric south american" context. the coming of the spaniards wasn't racist. i thought it was pretty clear the irony of them arriving. it had nothing to do with them coming to "tame and civilize" them. it seemed pretty obvious that it was meant to foreshadow and mirror the brutality seen in the movie.

like.. oh snap you thought that was bad... here comes cortez

not really anything about "making them into proper white people"
...they're gonna behead and murder and pillage this civilization, just as the 'mayans' did to the hero's family.

[TancredTheNorman]

Indeed.


Btw, Deadliest Warrior's Sun Tzu vs Vlad weaponry are up.

Vlad gets a gunpowder hand cannon and a giant iron halberd.
Sun Tzu gets a back scratcher. O_o

I really like to know how they came up with this one...

And I think almost every single one of Sun Tzu's weapons is either fictional, or anachronistic and didn't exist during his time...

I had high hopes since last week's Persian vs Celt was decent. I think Deadliest Warrior might be going downhill a la history channel...

Here's a quote from one of the posters regarding Sun Tzu's weapons:


"Claw- Never have I read about this weapon used in actual battle formations, the only place where i've seen this back scratcher is in kungfu movies. So instead of using the dagger axe, which was a STANDARD weapon for any army at the time you have an obscure back scratcher for a weapon instead. That's like giving a legionnaire a whip instead of a pilum.

Jian-That's a steel sword, Sun Tzu lived in the bronze age, bronze swords cannot be casted that long and thin unless you actually want it to break as one of the special features. Bronze swords during the spring and autumn period looked very much like gladius, actually google sword of goujian and compare them.

Repeating Crossbow-Whether this weapon existing during the same time frame as Sun Tsu Was supposed of existed is a question. The primary role of this weapon was defensive, i.e raining bolts from walls on top of sieging enemies, doe's Sun Tsu get a wall as a special weapon? The bolts were also tipped with poison because it lack punching power. The regular crossbow was much more common at the time and we know for a fact that entire formations were made up of crossbowmen.

Fire Arrow-Okay flaming arrows were used during the time for sieging, But it's redundant if you had the crossbow to begin with, you could easily light the bolts on fire and have the same thing, against infantry the fire makes little difference as the bolts/arrows were tipped with poison already. A shield would of made much more sense, as it was also standard equipment for infantry of the time."

My point was when correcting ahistorical nonesense like 300 your corrections should be completely accurate, and should never have only part of the fact. A few of your corrections were just innacurate, and others seemed to be trying to indicate that the Spartans did not show exceptional and unique courage, which is something the emperor Xerxes himself disagreed with. The moral judgement against Spartan Culture also as I pointed out depends on who the comparison is towards and in what way you are comparing.

[antisocialmunky]

had high hopes since last week's Persian vs Celt was decent. I think Deadliest Warrior might be going downhill a la history channel...

Wow, Deadliest Warrior > History Channel. That made me lol pretty hard right there.

[Ibrahim]

300 was great, dunno what you're talking about.

I respect your opinion, but, well, to me its terrible, whether or not its accurate historically. to me, on its own, it simply has no appeal. I don't think there is anything cool about a fool kicking a man down a well after hollering "this is SPARTA", or over muscled men fighting a la gaesatae. the dialogue is abrasive, and strikes me more as a bunch as gangsters screaming at each other. in fact, you can render the whole movie in underground language, and it would make about as much sense.

the lighting is terrible too; too special-effecty (is that even a word?), and I don't like the sepia toning of the skies and rock, and well...everything. and I don't appreciate the ridiculous, over the top appearance of some: I know this is a fantasy-toned movie, but a few thousand earrings on a person =/= creepy or evil. it just means the person looks like an idiot. the over use of oblique shooting and slow motion also kinda stunts the movie, and makes it look like some sort of violent warrior version of a male model exhibition. I want to see Spartans fighting Persians, not some models showing off their biceps to the camera as they spear some random fella in the stomach. actually, the over showing of muscles kinda reminds me of the ultimate warrior (a wrestler).

then there is the farcical spraying of blood, that makes the movie look like the mass-murdering of a bunch of mortal combat characters; one of the character's death recounts to me a fatality move some characters do; essentially ripping/slashing the arms off before decapitating(its been a while, so I'm not accurate).

overall, the movie shows many of the problems of adapting comics-particularly the dark, Milleresque comics, onto the blue screen. it might look right on a page of a cheap comic, but looks like a cheap video when rendered on the silver-screen.


as to apocalypto? I never saw the movie, and accordingly said little/nothing about it. unless you're referring to some other person's posts-I only focused on deadliest warrior and 300.

[Badass Buddha]

I don't like the sepia toning of the skies and rock, and well...everything.

The filmmakers just misunderstood the meaning of Bronze Age.

[Meneldil]

ah man, i love the 300 hate.

it's like.. MAN ANYBODY SEEN THAT MOVIE WILD WILD WEST... WTF?? BLACK COWBOYS?? MECHA SPIDER MACHINES?!?!? WTF COME ON GUYSSSS THAT'S TOTALLY NOT RITE

Agreed. That's retard. 300 is an action movie to be taken as seriously as Lord of the Rings or The 13th Warrior. People who try to find a political meaning into everything so they can pretend to be intellectuals just make me laugh.
'Onoes, there's a swatiska in Sin City, Miller must be a nazi'
'Onoes, the Spanish invade South America (like they did for real) at the end of the movie. The film is a colonialist hogwash'.

Please, it reminds me of this. Same attitude.

[Lucius Verus]

I think Troy and Spartacus (2004)

[Hax]

Troy was ludicrous hogwash.

[Apázlinemjó]

Actually that film is pretty good, the trailer is very misleading and the film is nothing like it.
And to be honest the portrayal of the vikings in it is far better than in most films you'll see, ie grubby and dirt poor as opposed to being decked out in horned helmets and armour.

I had seen the movie now, and I totally agree.

Edit: People who hadn't read the full topic: the topic title clearly says that the original poster wanted a list about the historically accurate movies/videos and etc. Someone posted that the 300 is accurate, obviously it isn't, everbody should know that. It's an action movie based on a comic, so let's drop it now, because the bashing derails the topic.

[athanaric]

Someone posted that the 300 is accurate, obviously it isn't, everbody should know that. It's an action movie based on a comic, so let's drop it now, because the bashing derails the topic.

But everybody also knows that collective bashing of a bad or outrageous film is the real fun.

[antisocialmunky]

Troy was ludicrous hogwash.

I knew a guy in college who thought Troy was the best thing since sliced goat cheese. He didn't believe me when I told him the movie was crap - that was just the type of person he was. However, he took Classical Mythology and had to read the Illiad. He sang a different tune after that and we watched the movie to heckle it later that week.

@ On Topicness

Yes, please post good stuff, not Deadliest Warrior. I'll check out the viking movie.

[Ichon]

Enough about 300... not sure how much was mentioned but to me the only halfway close to accurate historical movies have been movies about naval warfare. Probably because making it historical it is still easy to portray it as interesting.

For laughs... Last Samurai- ignoring Tom Cruise character the rest wasn't half bad though a bit mixed up in time period it was closer than most Hollywood stuff.

More historical- Gettysburg, Lebanon (new movie, filmed from Israeli tank crew PoV, political overtones but from a battlefield perspective pretty accurate).

Some German movie I wish I could remember the name of... about WW1 not sure if it was ever translated. watched it in Germany as exchange student.

Unfortunately never seen a good EB era movie from anywhere. HBO's Rome as good or better than any other but still pretty lacking.

[J.R.M]

Onoes, the Spanish invade South America (like they did for real) at the end of the movie. The film is a colonialist hogwash.

Wait.. What!!?? South America, Mayans?? Apocalypto is worse than i thought then.....

[runes]

I respect your opinion, but, well, to me its terrible, whether or not its accurate historically. to me, on its own, it simply has no appeal. I don't think there is anything cool about a fool kicking a man down a well after hollering "this is SPARTA", or over muscled men fighting a la gaesatae. the dialogue is abrasive, and strikes me more as a bunch as gangsters screaming at each other. in fact, you can render the whole movie in underground language, and it would make about as much sense.

the lighting is terrible too; too special-effecty (is that even a word?), and I don't like the sepia toning of the skies and rock, and well...everything. and I don't appreciate the ridiculous, over the top appearance of some: I know this is a fantasy-toned movie, but a few thousand earrings on a person =/= creepy or evil. it just means the person looks like an idiot. the over use of oblique shooting and slow motion also kinda stunts the movie, and makes it look like some sort of violent warrior version of a male model exhibition. I want to see Spartans fighting Persians, not some models showing off their biceps to the camera as they spear some random fella in the stomach. actually, the over showing of muscles kinda reminds me of the ultimate warrior (a wrestler).

then there is the farcical spraying of blood, that makes the movie look like the mass-murdering of a bunch of mortal combat characters; one of the character's death recounts to me a fatality move some characters do; essentially ripping/slashing the arms off before decapitating(its been a while, so I'm not accurate).

overall, the movie shows many of the problems of adapting comics-particularly the dark, Milleresque comics, onto the blue screen. it might look right on a page of a cheap comic, but looks like a cheap video when rendered on the silver-screen.


as to apocalypto? I never saw the movie, and accordingly said little/nothing about it. unless you're referring to some other person's posts-I only focused on deadliest warrior and 300.

that is all.

[Ludens]

Yes, please post good stuff, not Deadliest Warrior. I'll check out the viking movie.

I agree. 300 and Deadliest Warrior have been debated ad nauseum. Let's discuss the good films.

[athanaric]

I agree. 300 and Deadliest Warrior have been debated ad nauseum. Let's discuss the good films.

Not to nitpick, but it's ad nauseam. Nausea is female, naturally