Anyone see the preview for 300?

[CrownOfSwords]

Despite the historical innaccuracies and the mythological part?? i havent read the book so I have no idea about that part, but it still looks like a pretty cool movie if you havent seen the preview i recommend checking it out
http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/300/

[-Praetor-]

Go to this thread:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=69530

Bye.

[Dayve]

Nice attitude Raso... Nice...

[Djurre]

So much for that code of honour.

[-Praetor-]

So much for that code of honour.

I beg your pardon?

I just looked for the old thread, posted it for him, and told him to watch that thread (because there he could find an already developed discussion about the subject).

So, what`s the catch behind those opinions?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The manner in which you did it?

[-Praetor-]

In that post I was brief, not unpolite. If short answers means bad manners, then almost every post in this thread would be rude.

An unpolite manner would have been saying "That`s already posted, go elsewhere" or something... which I didn`t.

Bye.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

I believe that the fact it was short and ended with "bye" it was misunderstood. Though, since the beginning of internet and text discusions there have been misinterpretations. It really shows the, often overlooked, importance of tone and nonverbal communication.

[NeoSpartan]

I believe that the fact it was short and ended with "bye" it was misunderstood. Though, since the beginning of internet and text discusions there have been misinterpretations. It really shows the, often overlooked, importance of tone and nonverbal communication.

Which is also why I don't like to have convesations with girls over AIM. The phone is Ok-ish (it depends), but face to face is much, much better.

Anyways back on topic:
having seen the trailer I say:
-I will see this movie, it is a Science Fiction Version of a Real Historical Event.
-Dang... I need to hit the gym real hard.

[Antagonist]

Dang... I need to hit the gym real hard.

[-Praetor-]

I believe that the fact it was short and ended with "bye" it was misunderstood. Though, since the beginning of internet and text discusions there have been misinterpretations. It really shows the, often overlooked, importance of tone and nonverbal communication.

Oh...

Thank you for your explanation, now I see.

Ok, in order to clarify, I must say that no, I didn`t mean to be rude with him.

From now on, I think I`ll end the discussions with the "cheers" formulae or similar, in order to avoid misunderstandings.

-Dang... I need to hit the gym real hard.

You`re not the only one...

Cheers to all.

[Kralizec]

Back to the topic, is there anyone else not overly bothered by historical inaccuracies in movies, but still thought the trailer was crappy?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Me.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Second.





Though I hate the inaccuracies too.

[-Praetor-]

Back to the topic, is there anyone else not overly bothered by historical inaccuracies in movies, but still thought the trailer was crappy?

I don`t know, I think that I`ll have to wait and watch the whole movie...

I liked Miller`s style in Sin City, maybe this movie will be not that bad... off course, only if you overlook the grossness of depicting one of the most impressive feats of arms in such grotesque way...

[Zastrow]

Historians shouldn't be allowed to make movies.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

History is far better than anything you can make up.

[CrownOfSwords]

lol, I abandoned this post after he gave me that thread. I thought he was short with me for a second, but I got over it instead giving a nice flame post but thanks for having my back everyone haha.

[Zastrow]

History can't be squished into a movie time frame effectively, especially grand geopolitics, warfare, lives of characters, etc. History we know is often romantizied already, and when I watch movies, I watch them not for use as a source in an exam paper, but entertainment. Movies are foremost entertainment, you want a non-fictional lecture, you get a documentary or attend a lecture personally.

[NeoSpartan]

History can't be squished into a movie time frame effectively, especially grand geopolitics, warfare, lives of characters, etc. History we know is often romantizied already, and when I watch movies, I watch them not for use as a source in an exam paper, but entertainment. Movies are foremost entertainment, you want a non-fictional lecture, you get a documentary or attend a lecture personally.

True... but I still believe movie makers need to make a greater effort to make historically accurate movies. (Its easier to make up stuff, than to do something as it really was).

Now in the context of 300. The Director and EVERYONE involed said: "This is an adaptation of a 'Graphic Novel' not a 'Historical Movie'". Therefore, with that in mind, I think it will be an awesome movie

[Lord Condormanius]

I do understand that this movie is an adaptation of a graphic novel, but that doesn't excuse the inaccuracies. The graphic novel is supposed to be based on history, which I guess it is, albeit loosely. That is, there does not seem to be a lot of effort to be accurate. The trailer looks way too cartoonish (yes, I know it's Frank Miller) and inaccurate (too many swords).

Besides, Thermopolae, in my humble opinion, is overrated. While it was a great military feat, it was not that unbelievable. There are several things to bear in mind:

1. the Spartans were not alone; they had a good number of Theban hoplites (who were no slouches themselves) with them.

2. the Persians were not as tough as their reputation. Herodotus tells us that the army was comprised of groups of many different ethnicities (recruited from the many corners of the vast Persian empire), but their generals were Persian (this demonstrates both mistrust by the Persians as well as the difficulty that must have ensued in commanding these groups due to language/cultural differences).

3. the Persians, although vastly superior in numbers, were far outmatched with military tactics and technology. The Spartans and the other Greeks that held the pass as Thermopolae were heavily armored and carried the long fighting spear, and of course, a hoplon. The Persians had no body armor and had shields made of wicker (yes...wicker). It is true that the Persians had lots of cavalry, but we have to bear in mind that cavalry were not very effective in the ancient world (mostly due to the potential of falling from one's horse since stirrups would not be introduced for about another 1000 years). Besides, as stupid as horses are, they are not dumb enough to rush headlong into a wall of Greek spears. Only human beings are that dumb.

4. the geography of the area had more to do with the Greek "success" than anything else. By this I mean, If you pack a couple thousand heavily armored troops into a narrow mountain pass, the bottleneck will help hold off invaders for a long time. Especially since, for some reason, the Persians didn't seem to consider that there might be a way around until it was pointed out to them by a frustrated local.

I think that's about it, at least off the top of my head. I just get a little bit frustrated when people glorify the Spartans. The only reason there were three hundred Spartans is because that is all they had! Their societal structure undermined their population growth...but I think that is another post altogether.

...I'll probably see the movie anyway...