A Bit Off Topics But....

**Chosun** · 03-29-2007, 16:31

I just saw the movie 300 and was quite amazed. I know it is only a matter of time before it is made into a game. I would rather have CA try it than any of the other publishers who will relegate it to a bargain bin game. An addition of a scenario or short campaign would be the best IMO. Was Xerxes really that tall? Cool movie by the way.

**HoreTore** · 03-29-2007, 19:00

Well, this movie is about as historical as The 13. Warrior....

**Gith** · 03-29-2007, 19:21

It'll probably be turned into some form of 3rd person console action game, and not a RTS game. I'd imagine it would make a lot more money there. The movie was okay, but only when I was able to watch it as if it had nothing to do with the actual historical event.

No chest armour?

I forget - was thermopylae included in RTW as a historical battle?

**Eparxos** · 03-29-2007, 19:33

Dont forget that it never meant to be historical as it is copied from Miller's "300" comic books.

Personally I did not liked it very much, possibly due to great anticipation of the movie and risen expectetaions. Some things are symbolical , such Spartans as being unarmored and the Persians, Ephialtis and the Ephors being disfigured.

Two things I hated about the movie: The side story of the Queen and the fact that with the exception of the first battle clash Spartans fought individually and not in phalanx formation.

Making them so uber war golems degrated the whole essence of their sacrifice. The movie was not centred on their sacrifice but on their battle capabilities.

**Hoplite7** · 03-29-2007, 19:59

Yup, was never meant to be historically accurate, especially since the whole movie is being told as a story, which could have been exaggerated.

**King of Kings** · 03-29-2007, 20:20

well even if it was historically inacorrect i thought it was amazing the vest film ive ever seen,IMO.

**Xehh II** · 03-29-2007, 20:24

When did it come out where ever you live? I live in New Zealand and it's not even out yet.

**PrestigeX** · 03-29-2007, 21:15

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Well, this movie is about as historical as The 13. Warrior....

Thank you!

yes, i saw this movie and it was garbage.. It's all a lot of hype - and now my friends go on like it's a "historical movie" when it's actually a comic book movie that adapts a historical setting (like if they saw batman and they were like 'yah thats what 1940's chicago was really like!'.. the battle scenes weren't even that interesting and the stuff they could have made cool like the rhino/elephants was like.. 30 second shots, less for the elephants.. No character development and using that lame "world music" like in Gladiator and drawn-out speeches at every turn

**TinCow** · 03-29-2007, 21:31

There are tons of threads on the movie 300 in the Frontroom, Backroom, and pretty much every other forum on the Org. If you want to discuss the movie, go there. The thread topic was about a modded scenario of 300 for a TW game. That's already so close to off-topic that I've thought about moving this, but I can't figure out where to put it, so I'm leaving it.

That said, keep the discussion to the topic (300 mod for TW) or this will definitely be closed.

**Zpartan** · 03-29-2007, 22:42

Honestly if you're a guy and you didn't like the movie might wanna go play with your dolls. Can't find a better movie I've seen right now, shit I felt like going to the gym after and pumping some iron. Who cares how historical it was too? It's a movie, it got the main historical hapennings portrayed IMO.

And to the first post I agree it would be sweet if CA developed it, I doubt it but I would definitley buy it.

Q. Also the way they fought in the movie, in their phalynx was that the way a phalynx fought? From what I saw they let them all hit the shields then they took the push held it then pushed back twice. then they lifted there shields thrusted their spears. Then the second line looked like it stepped forward and put their shields back into the phalynx? Did they rotate like this at all? Repeated.?

**pike master** · 03-30-2007, 01:25

i also found it quite intrigueing how the history channel and its "reliable" sources decided that the phalanx was more like a shield wall and that the spears were not lowered until the enemies charge was stopped.

i have been amazed over the years how the history channel has rewritten history time and time again. i suppose i wil have to throw some of my favorite and most reknowned historical books away on ancient warfare. 8(

fighting out of phalanx though is not really unusual since spartans were trained to fight individually as well. plus if the description of alexanders numerous pike formation arrangements is any indicator the spartans probably had many different ways to arrange their battle lines.

nonetheless to go from 9-12 foot spears lowered in a phalanx VS a shield wall with boar stickers is quite odd. the armor thing doesnt really surprise me because of paintings and the statue of leonidas. and how the early homeric era warriors often fought with little armor but a helmet, shield, sword and javelins. some argument can be given for this that the lighter the equipment the quicker a man is.

a big argument these days in urban combat where you have to balance a soldiers armor and equipment so he isnt walking like a turtle to get across an exposed area.

despite this my own opinion is that the spartans were heavily armored hoplites with 9-12 foot spears and a large hoplon and corinthian helmet who could fight at least two ranks deep.

however i do believe they were also tactically flexible fighters when they needed to be.