300, the Movie

[LSUALUM99]

Saw it today. While it's not an incredible literary work or anything, it was a great movie.

I thought it was one of the better action movies I've ever seen. Visually it may be the best I've ever seen.

The battle for Thermopylae is an incredible story and this is an incredible movie to show it. It's not supposed to be an exact historical account, so don't mention that.

Frank Miller's movies (300 and Sin City) are both great, but this is the better of the two.

[SuperMcgee]

I saw the sneak preview a few days ago. It was pretty good. Moved pretty quick at times, but some really good action. A lot of things reminded me of LOTR. And Xerxes is Paulo from Lost.

[swagger]

I'm seeing that tomorrow. Really excited....

It's a good stretch for movies right now, for me at least. Saw Zodiac last week, 300 tomorrow. Next week Shooter comes out. And then Fracture with Anthony Hopkins.

[Scotty D]

Just saw it. Thought it was quite good. Lots of fighting and boobies.

[bored of education]

The story itself, Thermopyle IS AWESOME.

[sweetness34]

Just saw it. Thought it was quite good. Lots of fighting and boobies.

The last word in that sentence is pretty much a lock that I'll go see it! haha

Frank Miller's stuff is awesome!

[4pAc]

haven't seen it yet, but saw a documentary about the battle on the history channel the other day. should be a good action movie

[TCU]

just got back from seeing it, its amazing. Hands down one will be the best action movie of the year.

[DHVF]

Insane action and boobs wrapped up into a good movie, wow, now I'm gonna have to go see this this weekend.

[yodapoop]

Just saw it. Thought it was quite good. Lots of fighting and boobies.

Whose boobies?

[Scotty D]

Whose boobies?

Hers

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/dimension_films/the_brothers_grimm/lena_headey/grimmprec.jpg


and

hers
http://www.modelresource.ca/Scene/Apr06/kelly_craig_elle.jpg

[TCU]

better picture
http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/warner_brothers/300/lena_headey/300pre2.jpg

[sweetness34]

haven't seen it yet, but saw a documentary about the battle on the history channel the other day. should be a good action movie

Hey douche bag, you lost the Duke bet. We need to figure out what you're going to do now that you've lost!

[4pAc]

Hey douche bag, you lost the Duke bet. We need to figure out what you're going to do now that you've lost!
uh... put whatever sig you give me in my sig area?

edit: douche bag ?! :(

[sweetness34]

uh... put whatever sig you give me in my sig area?

edit: douche bag ?! :(

I think we agreed on you wearing an Illini Sig for 2 months or something like that.

[4pAc]

whew, sure, just give me the sig

[sweetness34]

whew, sure, just give me the sig

I don't have it yet. Either that or you can wear a Chicago Bears sig, your choice. I'll see if I can get nvot to make a simple one for you to wear.

[4pAc]

I don't have it yet. Either that or you can wear a Chicago Bears sig, your choice. I'll see if I can get nvot to make a simple one for you to wear.
I'll take the Illini sig

[A-Dub4President]

I didn't like Sin City, but this was way better. Not the greatest movie (it could've been like twenty minutes shorter), but that action scenes were pretty tight.

[MaxV]

This one is a must-see for me. I, too, saw the documentary, but I'm not sure if they really know what happend.

[draftguru151]

The fight scene was amazing. Very good movie.

[Vikes99ej]

I want to see it.

[rainbeaukid2]

i thought it was great. i saw it in the IMAX theater and i got stuck on the second row so it was basically a sense overload. overall i thought the fight scenes were awesome but they could have chosen chicks with bigger tits, seems like all spartans have small boobs

[Man_Of_Steel]

Sin City is a great movie. If this is better than it must be a heck of a movie. Looked good on the previews.

[TCU]

i thought it was great. i saw it in the IMAX theater and i got stuck on the second row so it was basically a sense overload. overall i thought the fight scenes were awesome but they could have chosen chicks with bigger tits, seems like all spartans have small boobs

yeah the Persians' chicks definitly had fatter tits.

[yodapoop]

yeah the Persians' chicks definitly had fatter tits.

I love titties.

[jagsfreak27]

Crazy **** man great movie

[toonsterwu]

It's hard for me to like this movie on account of the horrendous butcher job that they did with the history ... but even removing that, I was laughing ridiculously hard throughout the movie. No doubt the graphics were intriguing, and the action was okay ... and this being Frank Miller, ridiculousness is to be expected. I guess if you remove the accuracy of the movie, it's a passable action movie ... but nothing special, IMO. Dunno ... I expect a certain amount of ridiculousness with Frank Miller stuff, and with action movies in general ... but eh, I thought this was too ridiculous, ranging from the dialogue, to the organization, and so forth.

But I'm a mild history buff ... and the historical inaccuracies were maddening. I understand changing it to suit the story ... but there were several things that were inconsequential that they changed. Specifically on the movie, I thought there were editing points that made the movie seem choppy and the story telling a little weaker.
The saddest thing about all this to me? This is such an intriguing story, and overall battle, in it's own right that it really could've been told as is, and it would still be one heck of a story. This could've been a great epic movie ... but instead, it seems to settle for being an action movie that's funny ... even though that wasn't the intent.

[TitleTown088]

I liked how Xerxes was a tranny.

[draftguru151]

Yea pretty much everything other than the action was laking. I really liked it, but I was expecting something epic, and just got a good action movie.

[Damix]

I liked it, saw it in Imax

[Ward]

I still managed to enjoy the movie even though the whole time I was thinking "That's wrong." or "They left this out." It was enjoyable, Americans seem to love the underdog stories.

[draftguru151]

What parts did they butcher? I know the messed the story up, but I'm not that up on the story.

[Namy]

It's hard for me to like this movie on account of the horrendous butcher job that they did with the history ...
I've studied Spartan history. There were some minor inaccuracies.. but they aren't nearly as bad as you're making it out to be. They over exaggerated some things, but that was to be expected. I thought they did a fine job overall.

[bored of education]

I have B.A. History. I won't be seeing this movie soon. Once movies like this are out on dvd i like to write up little something detailing the inaccuracies as compared to many many primary documents, not those stupid high school text books.

I could list the top 5 most historically accurate films and the top 1000 that arent. But i dont want to be looked at like a fool and I hae being right lol.

[Shiver]

It's hard for me to like this movie on account of the horrendous butcher job that they did with the history ... but even removing that, I was laughing ridiculously hard throughout the movie. No doubt the graphics were intriguing, and the action was okay ... and this being Frank Miller, ridiculousness is to be expected. I guess if you remove the accuracy of the movie, it's a passable action movie ... but nothing special, IMO. Dunno ... I expect a certain amount of ridiculousness with Frank Miller stuff, and with action movies in general ... but eh, I thought this was too ridiculous, ranging from the dialogue, to the organization, and so forth.

But I'm a mild history buff ... and the historical inaccuracies were maddening. I understand changing it to suit the story ... but there were several things that were inconsequential that they changed. Specifically on the movie, I thought there were editing points that made the movie seem choppy and the story telling a little weaker.
The saddest thing about all this to me? This is such an intriguing story, and overall battle, in it's own right that it really could've been told as is, and it would still be one heck of a story. This could've been a great epic movie ... but instead, it seems to settle for being an action movie that's funny ... even though that wasn't the intent.

If you wanted to see a film that did justice to the Frank Miller comic book, then 300 was awesome. If you wanted a movie with a historical backdrop, it was never intended to be. Miller and Snyder both said they were specifically tweaking things to be more exciting or whatever. Honestly though, I thought the Elephants and Rhinos, the bare chested Spartans, were a dead give away that the movie's approach was 'F with history, let's make something cool.'

[Moses]

I can't believe people are knocking the "historical accuracy" of this movie. It's a legend. The story from history is likely a massive exagerration. It's meant to be presented in a way that "legend-like".

[swagger]

It was an awesome action movie.

I don't really know the history behind the Spartans, but I don't think it makes a lot of sense to be discussing its historical accuracies. That is, unless there were 20 foot giants or 500 pound men with swords for hands walking around back then.

And if you want to see titties, go to a porn site......hahaha.

[Finz99]

It's hard for me to like this movie on account of the horrendous butcher job that they did with the history ... but even removing that, I was laughing ridiculously hard throughout the movie. No doubt the graphics were intriguing, and the action was okay ... and this being Frank Miller, ridiculousness is to be expected. I guess if you remove the accuracy of the movie, it's a passable action movie ... but nothing special, IMO. Dunno ... I expect a certain amount of ridiculousness with Frank Miller stuff, and with action movies in general ... but eh, I thought this was too ridiculous, ranging from the dialogue, to the organization, and so forth.

But I'm a mild history buff ... and the historical inaccuracies were maddening. I understand changing it to suit the story ... but there were several things that were inconsequential that they changed. Specifically on the movie, I thought there were editing points that made the movie seem choppy and the story telling a little weaker.
The saddest thing about all this to me? This is such an intriguing story, and overall battle, in it's own right that it really could've been told as is, and it would still be one heck of a story. This could've been a great epic movie ... but instead, it seems to settle for being an action movie that's funny ... even though that wasn't the intent.


i'm pretty sure it was based almost all on the comic books. thus why it wasn't dead on with what actually happened, but it's not like they completely changed the whole movie, a good amount of it was correct. I thought this was one of the best movies i've ever seen.

[Finz99]

Q: Zack Snyder: “In the Making Of book there’s a guy named Victor Davis Hanson who is a…”

Frank Miller: “We’re his fan club.”

Zack Snyder: “He’s a frickin genius. He’s a Greek historian and we showed him the movie because I wanted him to write a forward to the Making Of book. I was a little nervous to be honest, because I wasn’t sure how he’d react. And Kurt Johnstad who he and I worked on the screenplay together, he actually also is a huge fan of Victor Davis Hanson. He went up to show him the movie at his house. And about halfway through the movie, it’s the scenes where the Spartans are leaving for Thermopylae and they’re walking out of Sparta, Victor turned to Kurt and said, ‘Are the Spartans just going to be naked like this the whole time?’ And Kurt kind of went, ‘Yeah…,’ thinking that Victor was like, ‘Okay, wrong.’ But at the end of the movie he said, ‘You know, I’ve got to say that the movie in some ways,’ and I’m going to post on the website just a little excerpt from it because I feel like it’s a cool thing for people to read because it actually puts a lot of it in perspective as far as from an historical standpoint. He says that, ‘Look, if you have a problem with distilling the Battle of Thermopylae down to freedom versus tyranny, you need to read Herodotus because he’s the one. It’s his fault, not modern culture’s fault. He did it.’ He references a lot of things like that because he feels like the spirit of the book and of the movie are very close to the Spartan aesthetic. That’s really kind of what he feels.”

Frank Miller: “When I started work on the comic book I said, ‘Okay, let’s see how the accurate version works.’ Imagining 300 slow-moving beetles wearing skirts coming across the field to face off, rather than these huge, muscular guys running with these red capes and those really scary Corinthian helmets. I mean, jumping back to Victor Davis Hanson, it was right in the middle of maybe our first conversation that Zack brought his name up, not realizing that he was citing my favorite non-fiction writer in the whole universe. I kind of felt we were starting to get along.”

http://movies.about.com/od/300/a/300movie111506.htm

A little question and answer with Zach and Miller. I like what they say.

[terribletowel39]

i'm pretty sure it was based almost all on the comic books. thus why it wasn't dead on with what actually happened, but it's not like they completely changed the whole movie, a good amount of it was correct. I thought this was one of the best movies i've ever seen.

i agree with you. this is one of the best movies i've ever seen too. it had everything. you can't name a movie that had better fight scenes. no way.

[jkpigskin]

i was in awe with the action, but i think i saw too many headless bodies

[ironman4579]

i was in awe with the action, but i think i saw too many headless bodies


But can a movie ever really have TOO MANY headless bodies?

[Damix]

The only part I found weird was the guy with the horse head playing that instrument (harp?), me and my friends were like what the f***!

[toonsterwu]

First, let me say this - I can separate movie/book from history. As with any adaptation, there is always going to be the necessity to make some changes (hence, the odd butchering off the Bourne series).

From a movie perspective, as noted, I don't think this was a particularly good movie relative from the movie making aspects. It's a decent action film (which I believe I noted above as well). That said, the pacing of the movie was somewhat awkward at times. The storytelling using the composite character of Dilios could've been done better, and I wasn't a big fan of the sound effects. There's other things to go on that I didn't particularly like about the movie making aspects. Some of the dialogue in there I could've used without, as the fighting alone would've sufficed.

Historically, it's been awhile since I've done any work on Greek history, but I believe they butchered several things. Without going into too much detail

1) Spartan life - I disagree with you there, Namy. From a relative perspective, yes, they are little things, but I think it made a dramatic influence on the overall role of the movie. From the role of the ephors to the role of the council, along with the minimal discussion on the role of helots and the perioeci. The representation of the oracle was somewhat odd as well, although I guess I could buy it to a limited extent.

2) Character flaws - I understand the necessity to greatly divert from the accuracies of the battle. Furthermore, I understood the need to meld some characters together to help the story. But I don't think they did nearly enough to delve into the motivations of Leonidas. They really could've made Leonidas into a much more heroic character than what they did, IMO.

3) The representation of the battle and the representation of Xerxes - I honestly didn't have a problem with the ludicrous aspects (tis a movie after all). It's the little aspects of the fight, and how they portrayed the fight, that was somewhat maddening. From a movie making perspective, it would've been a much more daunting task for the Greeks had they followed most historical renderings of Xerxes, as it would've made Xerxes strength seem much greater.

Now, let me conclude this part by saying, it wasn't the moviemakers that did this, and it was Frank Miller. Furthermore, they did get some "big" aspects correct, with Herodotus noting the "Come get it" line, and the "We shall fight in the shade line". And this is more history than legend, IMO, Moses, as there were numerous recordings on the aspects of the Battle of Thermopylae, various archaelogical evidence (such as evidence suggesting to the rain of arrows). And they did accurately represent the motivation behind the development of the phalanx formation. ALso, I'm fine with the composite character of Dilios (basically meant to represent about 4 different guys from what I remember, with Pausinias at Palatea probably the strongest motivation). I understand the desire to remove any referencing of homosexuality, as, in modern times, that would take away from this "warrior spirit".

I guess, in short, yes, if you are talking about the "core" aspects of the Battle of Thermopylae, I would agree Namy that a large part of it was fine. I mean, heck, I didn't really have a problem with the representation of the Ephialtes. But I do think tiny little changes here or there to follow some recorded aspects would've enhanced, amongst other things

1. Leonidas and his men
2. The oddity of Dorian and Ionian Greeks uniting together

But that's me, and it's been awhle since I've gone over the historical aspects of the Battle of Thermopylae along with the Greco-Persian Wars so maybe I have some things wrong. In short, as a movie, I just didn't think it was that good to begin with. This is such a great story that I hope the formerly Michael Mann led effort "Gates of Fire" by Steven Pressfield gets made some day, as a "real" epic could be made that would be a tremendous story. Granted, it seems like epics are on a downswing right now, and with 300 out, it may be a few years before Gates of Fire gets back on the block again.

[bored of education]

It's hard to judge how accurate it was no matter what. Interpretting secondary documents might be more credible than primary documents of that time.

But I have to see this movie no matter what. Sounds bad ass

[toonsterwu]

It's hard to judge how accurate it was no matter what. Interpretting secondary documents might be more credible than primary documents of that time.

But I have to see this movie no matter what. Sounds bad ass

I can agree with that. Maybe what I should say is "commonly accepted history" or something along those lines instead.

[Space Ghost]

I saw it on Saturday. It was pretty sweet, but the line 'THIS IS SPARTA!' was edited to look way cooler in the trailer. It should have gone: This is madness?' then Leonidas should have paced back and forth staring him down saying, 'madness? you think this is madness? I'll tell you what this is. this, all this,' puts his arms up and looks to the sky then quickly looks down at the dude square in the eye with that camera technique where it flashes his face coming down to make it look kind of twister. 'THIS IS SPARTA!' bam, kicked down the hole.

I would have to say that the best scene is definitely when the captains kid and the other dude are fighting together and they slaughter like 50 guys in about 2 minutes of slow motion. Then of course the kids head goes flying.

The other sweet part is on the first day of battle closer to the end of it when they are cutting into the Persian attack and Leonidas goes ahead of everyone else and he just stabs people, cuts their limbs off and closelines them with his arm/shield.

I didn't really like the sub-plot with the Queen, it was kind of stupid I think. The makeup on that ****** up dude who told the Persians about the goat trail wasn't great either.

It was kind of funny when you first see Xerez. He looks like a little punk scrawny kid. Then he stands up infront of Leonidas and he is way taller than him.

I am definitely downloading that movie and putting the scene with the captain's kid and the other guy on my iPod and watching it to get me pumped before rugby games because it is so sweet.

That movie was great.

[draftguru151]

I think the entire Queen part should have been left out. That was really lame IMO.

A lot of stuff was also poorly explained. Can't remember what exactly but I was confused a lot throughout the movie.

Also, history guys, what was the battle at the end and what happened with that?

[terribletowel39]

yall are reading into this too much. it wasn't a History Channel movie. it was never portrayed to be an exact replica of what actually happened. and how could not like the Queen part, she shanked the lying bastard. that just gave me a rewarding feeling. and plus she was hawt, a little break from all the six packs.

[Paul]

Jesus Christ Oh Mighty! SPARTANS!! F'ing Amazing movie.

[SeanTaylorRIP]

Better than Gladiator?

[terribletowel39]

Better than Gladiator?

yes, better than Gladiator. i debated as to say way better but then that would make it sound like Gladiator sucked and it didn't so yea, it is better.

[achilles109]

its more like the beginning of gladiator.. its not really an epic, even though thats what everyone thinks, it would be like the story of the legion in the beginning of gladiator, not the story of Russel Crowe.

[eaglesalltheway]

I heard it was awesome. I would've gone with some of my freinds but I was sick this weekend. Will definitely check it out ASAP.

[bantx]

Sweet jesus this movie was amazing

[bantx]

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i251/Bantx/Signatures/300sig4.jpg
http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i251/Bantx/Signatures/300sig3.jpg
http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i251/Bantx/Signatures/300sig2.jpg
http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i251/Bantx/Signatures/300sig.jpg

[skarocksoi]

I never get why history guys get upset when a movie changes history to suit theatric needs. I have a roommate who is a history teacher and complains about war movies that change things, and I took a class on roman history and the teacher flipped about about the movie Troy. I get its not incredibly accurate, but I'm guessing the real thing would be kinda boring to watch on screen if they showed everything to be historically accurate.

I'm an electrical engineer, and when some guy wires up a circuit to save the day that in real life would never work, it doesn't ruin the movie for me. I just say "well thats not right" and then move on. I guess thats just me though.

[jkpigskin]

action wise, 300 is better than gladiator
plot wise, gladiator is far superior....

no question

[Damix]

I never get why history guys get upset when a movie changes history to suit theatric needs. I have a roommate who is a history teacher and complains about war movies that change things, and I took a class on roman history and the teacher flipped about about the movie Troy. I get its not incredibly accurate, but I'm guessing the real thing would be kinda boring to watch on screen if they showed everything to be historically accurate.

I'm an electrical engineer, and when some guy wires up a circuit to save the day that in real life would never work, it doesn't ruin the movie for me. I just say "well thats not right" and then move on. I guess thats just me though.

I also find it funny when people get annoyed when its not completly accurate, I'm a huge history buff and minor in history, but I really don't care. Whenever I walk into a movie I am expecting to be entertained, not taught what exactly happened.

[terribletowel39]

I also find it funny when people get annoyed when its not completly accurate, I'm a huge history buff and minor in history, but I really don't care. Whenever I walk into a movie I am expecting to be entertained, not taught what exactly happened.

and i think we can all agree that this movie entertained. big time.

[fenikz]

i just got back from seeing it, ever one hyped it up so much saying how epic and awesome it was...they were totally right

one of the most amazing movies i have ever seen

[yourfavestoner]

Just got so faded and saw it. And it was tight.

[fenikz]

thats what i gotta do tomorrow, get baked and see it on imax

[KBear]

yall are reading into this too much. it wasn't a History Channel movie. it was never portrayed to be an exact replica of what actually happened. and how could not like the Queen part, she shanked the lying bastard. that just gave me a rewarding feeling. and plus she was hawt, a little break from all the six packs.

Well said.

I believe the part of the Queen was enlarged to have an empowered female character in the movie.

[njx9]

I never get why history guys get upset when a movie changes history to suit theatric needs. I have a roommate who is a history teacher and complains about war movies that change things, and I took a class on roman history and the teacher flipped about about the movie Troy. I get its not incredibly accurate, but I'm guessing the real thing would be kinda boring to watch on screen if they showed everything to be historically accurate.

I'm an electrical engineer, and when some guy wires up a circuit to save the day that in real life would never work, it doesn't ruin the movie for me. I just say "well thats not right" and then move on. I guess thats just me though.

i'm not really a history buff so take this for what it is, but i would guess a big part of the problem is when a movie represents itself as "accurate history" or "based on true events" when it isn't really either. i'm not sure if 300 does either (haven't seen it yet), so that may not apply in this case, but i've certainly heard the complaint.

[KBear]

From what I understand, 300 was based on the graphic novel, not based on the true events. Hence why I dont see why people are making a big deal on the historical inaccuracy of the movie. If someone wants to compare it to the graphic novel, then thats a different story, but one would also expect it to be slightly different anyway.

[bored of education]

With me, movies and analyzing their historical accuarcy only occurs after I have watched it numerous times, enjoying it as a piece of entertainment. Once that is done, as a hobby, I like to watch it in segments, do some research and analyze the accuarcy of the movie. But I have no free time now to do that since it's draft season.

BTW, last movie I saw in the theatres was Bad Santa. I loved that movie, and it's hisotrically accurate since Billy Bob Thorton is Santa Claus.

[swagger]

I thought Gladiator was still better. Much better storyline-- incomparable. And the action in Gladiator was still sweet.

[Paul]

We have to always have to argue about something don't we. F.ck just watch the movie.

[Shiver]

First, let me say this - I can separate movie/book from history. As with any adaptation, there is always going to be the necessity to make some changes (hence, the odd butchering off the Bourne series).

From a movie perspective, as noted, I don't think this was a particularly good movie relative from the movie making aspects. It's a decent action film (which I believe I noted above as well). That said, the pacing of the movie was somewhat awkward at times. The storytelling using the composite character of Dilios could've been done better, and I wasn't a big fan of the sound effects. There's other things to go on that I didn't particularly like about the movie making aspects. Some of the dialogue in there I could've used without, as the fighting alone would've sufficed.

Historically, it's been awhile since I've done any work on Greek history, but I believe they butchered several things. Without going into too much detail

1) Spartan life - I disagree with you there, Namy. From a relative perspective, yes, they are little things, but I think it made a dramatic influence on the overall role of the movie. From the role of the ephors to the role of the council, along with the minimal discussion on the role of helots and the perioeci. The representation of the oracle was somewhat odd as well, although I guess I could buy it to a limited extent.

2) Character flaws - I understand the necessity to greatly divert from the accuracies of the battle. Furthermore, I understood the need to meld some characters together to help the story. But I don't think they did nearly enough to delve into the motivations of Leonidas. They really could've made Leonidas into a much more heroic character than what they did, IMO.

3) The representation of the battle and the representation of Xerxes - I honestly didn't have a problem with the ludicrous aspects (tis a movie after all). It's the little aspects of the fight, and how they portrayed the fight, that was somewhat maddening. From a movie making perspective, it would've been a much more daunting task for the Greeks had they followed most historical renderings of Xerxes, as it would've made Xerxes strength seem much greater.

Now, let me conclude this part by saying, it wasn't the moviemakers that did this, and it was Frank Miller. Furthermore, they did get some "big" aspects correct, with Herodotus noting the "Come get it" line, and the "We shall fight in the shade line". And this is more history than legend, IMO, Moses, as there were numerous recordings on the aspects of the Battle of Thermopylae, various archaelogical evidence (such as evidence suggesting to the rain of arrows). And they did accurately represent the motivation behind the development of the phalanx formation. ALso, I'm fine with the composite character of Dilios (basically meant to represent about 4 different guys from what I remember, with Pausinias at Palatea probably the strongest motivation). I understand the desire to remove any referencing of homosexuality, as, in modern times, that would take away from this "warrior spirit".

I guess, in short, yes, if you are talking about the "core" aspects of the Battle of Thermopylae, I would agree Namy that a large part of it was fine. I mean, heck, I didn't really have a problem with the representation of the Ephialtes. But I do think tiny little changes here or there to follow some recorded aspects would've enhanced, amongst other things

1. Leonidas and his men
2. The oddity of Dorian and Ionian Greeks uniting together

But that's me, and it's been awhle since I've gone over the historical aspects of the Battle of Thermopylae along with the Greco-Persian Wars so maybe I have some things wrong. In short, as a movie, I just didn't think it was that good to begin with. This is such a great story that I hope the formerly Michael Mann led effort "Gates of Fire" by Steven Pressfield gets made some day, as a "real" epic could be made that would be a tremendous story. Granted, it seems like epics are on a downswing right now, and with 300 out, it may be a few years before Gates of Fire gets back on the block again.

Is there anything you can't make an essay about? http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/shocking.gif

[draftguru151]

Is there anything you can't make an essay about? http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/shocking.gif

I asked him what the battle at the end was and he gave me the entire history about it. lol.

[bantx]

Can we just say the movie was the movie of 07 and get on with it?
If it were accurate it'd probably slightly lesser badas* but its still badas*

The part where they just start walking and they play that music in the background they was look straight gangsta. :]

[Damix]

Eh the historical inaccuracies can't be blamed on the movie which is pretty much directly from the Graphic Novel.

Then when you look at the description for the graphic novel, it pretty clearly says, loosely based on, and historically inspired by. Loosely and inspired aren't exactly words that scream "we want you to know exactly what happened"

So a movie based on a novel that was inspired by an event, you shouldn't expect a history lesson.

It was a very good movie, and it did its job which was to entertain. Having complete knowledge of the history didn't hurt my enjoyment of the movie at all.

[achilles109]

I am into history too and some movies piss me off... like jarhead because it was so obviously politically based and bent the truth. However movies like 300 dont bother me whatsoever. There have been good posts here that sum it up.... but people forget that there arent very good historical accounts of the actually battle. The events are based off of greek word of mouth and eventually were written down many years later... The events are completely dramatized to begin with, so what does it matter that they changed the story to make a kick ass movie?

[YAYareaRB]

Just got so faded and saw it. And it was tight.

Whenever I do that.. I fall asleep during the previews.

[snuff]

Before seeing this I thought Toonster was crazy, but after it wow... Most overrated movie I have seen in a long time. The only good part were the fight scenes.

The story was trash, the acting was trash(butler was good, but his wife....wow), the dialogue was trash, the effects got old fast and the color was annoying.

[Namy]

I have a question tho... maybe a mess up:

What the hell happened to the guy on the horse that killed the captain's son? He kinda juss disappeared. No one killed him lol.

[KBear]

I have a question tho... maybe a mess up:

What the hell happened to the guy on the horse that killed the captain's son? He kinda juss disappeared. No one killed him lol.

I was wondering the same thing when I saw the movie. The scene may have gotten shorten or deleted that would have explained it.

[yourfavestoner]

Whenever I do that.. I fall asleep during the previews.

Does faded mean drunk or high for you? Because all the Yay area people I know say it for drunk.

[achilles109]

on opening day the theater smelled like pot and everybody I talked to was completely drunk.

[KCJ58]

it was a great movie weird as hell with the elephants, guy with blades for arms, the hunchback, and the goat playing the gutar

[Paranoidmoonduck]

I don't want to cause offense to anyone, but knocking this movie for being historically innacurate is like knocking V for Vendetta for not accurately describing the Guy Fox story.

[bantx]

Have you heard of the game called telephone, i doubt that the what really happen isn't even accurate, its bound to change up, and it was word of mouth so can't really say everything was accurate, the movie could be more accurate then the actual story, but who knows.

[B-Dawk]

saw the movie and thoroughly enjoyed it.

one thing i thought was amusing was that Xerxes looked amazingly and even kind of sounded like Jason Taylor

http://www.icicom.up.pt/blog/take2/santoro_xerxes.jpg

http://espn-ak.starwave.com/media/pg2/2002/1125/photo/i_taylor_hi.jpg

[terribletowel39]

saw the movie and thoroughly enjoyed it.

one thing i thought was amusing was that Xerxes looked amazingly and even kind of sounded like Jason Taylor

http://www.icicom.up.pt/blog/take2/santoro_xerxes.jpg

http://espn-ak.starwave.com/media/pg2/2002/1125/photo/i_taylor_hi.jpg

just wondering but did it have to be the gayest picture you could find of taylor or was that by choice??

[B-Dawk]

just wondering but did it have to be the gayest picture you could find of taylor or was that by choice??

i thought it was appropriate with Xerxes' portrayal in the movie.

[bantx]

rofl extra ***

[McBain]

Just got so faded and saw it. And it was tight.

dude, me too.

was i the only one who thought it was like watching dynasty warriors (the video game) on the screen but spartan style and without the asian techno. The cinamatography was kick ass but the plot was eh overall a good movie... not as good as gladiator. I think i'll see it again.

[portermvp84]

That was an awesome movie, very well animated for the monster scenes. I saw the movie critics gave it 5 out of 5 stars and two thumbs way up.

[terribletowel39]

i thought it was appropriate with Xerxes' portrayal in the movie.

haha gotcha.

[diabsoule]

I didn't care for it at all. It seemed to steal directly from the Braveheart template with it's speeches and even stole direct quotes from Braveheart. I also didn't like the reproduction of the Gimli/Legolas dual that two of the Spartans had going for them.

I know that had to make the Persians look "evil" since the Spartans were the hero's of the movie, but their depiction of Persians, especially the elite of the Persian army -- the Immortals, was absolutely ridiculous.

[Space Ghost]

Well, in reflection. I saw it on Saturday and talked to a bunch of other people that have seen it and then I watched it again yesterday on my cousin's computer. After watching it for the second time, it really wasn't even close to being the epic film it was talked up to be. I agree about the Legolas-Gimli thing that diabsolue said, I even thought that in the theater when I first saw it and thought it was stupid. It was kind of a let down. The only good scenes were the slow motion fighting ones, they were very very high quality, but the rest, bleh.

[themaninblack]

its relentless all out warfare with a lot of boobs. whats not to like?

[cunningham06]

Extremely enertaining movie, but having a guy who had oddly shaped blades for hands was taking it a bit far (CRAB PEOPLE). Also the ******** rhino and mutant didn't really need to be in there.

[cunningham06]

I didn't care for it at all. It seemed to steal directly from the Braveheart template with it's speeches and even stole direct quotes from Braveheart. I also didn't like the reproduction of the Gimli/Legolas dual that two of the Spartans had going for them.

I know that had to make the Persians look "evil" since the Spartans were the hero's of the movie, but their depiction of Persians, especially the elite of the Persian army -- the Immortals, was absolutely ridiculous.

Wait... you mean to say they aren't goblins?

[diabsoule]

Wait... you mean to say they aren't goblins?

Well, maybe I'm lying... I mean, I don't know what the Persian army had back then but.....

Hell No!

The Immortals weren't goblins, they weren't disfigured, and they sure as hell weren't dressed as ninjas. The liberties they took in making in visualizing the Immortals were extraordinary. I can't believe people are actually praising this movie. All it was was an adolescent visual feature because it featured an ideal amount of bare breasts and violence. Everything the adolescent male wants to see.

Taken from a historical perspective, the film has some truths but mostly myths and exaggerations. I don't recommend it to any fan of history and definitely not to any students of history. I found the film to be a low-rate hack-and-slash that is grossly overrated.

[Shiver]

Well, maybe I'm lying... I mean, I don't know what the Persian army had back then but.....

Hell No!

The Immortals weren't goblins, they weren't disfigured, and they sure as hell weren't dressed as ninjas. The liberties they took in making in visualizing the Immortals were extraordinary. I can't believe people are actually praising this movie. All it was was an adolescent visual feature because it featured an ideal amount of bare breasts and violence. Everything the adolescent male wants to see.

Taken from a historical perspective, the film has some truths but mostly myths and exaggerations. I don't recommend it to any fan of history and definitely not to any students of history. I found the film to be a low-rate hack-and-slash that is grossly overrated.

Why did you watch it looking for that? It doesn't make any sense at all to me. Especially when the Director/Creator both stated over and over again, emphasizing the fact that the movie deliberately was a fantasy take, loosely based on real events, portrayed as a "Legend." In fact; that style is based on real Greek culture more than anything. With epic tales. I doubt the real Trojan war consisted of deities, heroic demigods, and probably even the famous Horse. Homer was hardly making a accurate recounting of that event, either. Not saying 300 can ever compare to the greatness of the Odyssey and the Iliad, but the point stands.

[comahan]

Stop comparing it to history. It was based off of a graphic novel, which itself was based very loosely off of history.

[Damix]

Well, maybe I'm lying... I mean, I don't know what the Persian army had back then but.....

Hell No!

The Immortals weren't goblins, they weren't disfigured, and they sure as hell weren't dressed as ninjas. The liberties they took in making in visualizing the Immortals were extraordinary. I can't believe people are actually praising this movie. All it was was an adolescent visual feature because it featured an ideal amount of bare breasts and violence. Everything the adolescent male wants to see.

Taken from a historical perspective, the film has some truths but mostly myths and exaggerations. I don't recommend it to any fan of history and definitely not to any students of history. I found the film to be a low-rate hack-and-slash that is grossly overrated.

I'm a fan and a student of history and I still enjoyed the film, again people seem to lack the ability to seperate a film from history, especially one that has never made a claim that it is an accurate story.

[someone447]

This was in no way, shape, or form supposed to be a historically accurate movie. It was not supposed to be an epic movie like Gladiator. Comparing this to Gladiator is like comparing apples and televisions. This was a battle movie, it was supposed to have cool effects and lots of killing. It delivered exactly as promised. If you went in expecting a "good" movie, then you just had no idea what kind of movie you were going to watch.

[cunningham06]

I agree, I am quite familiar with the actual events of Thermopylae, but was still able to appreciate the movie. Going into the movie I wasn't expecting an oscar winner, just something enertaining.

[Whistler6]

Did anyone know that back then the Spartan men used to all have sex with each other. One of their feelings was that if you truly love the man next to you, you will be more willing to fight and die for him. Alright I'm sure no one wanted to hear that, but I heard it in my history class few weeks back. weirrrrrrrrd

[Paranoidmoonduck]

Did anyone know that back then the Spartan men used to all have sex with each other. One of their feelings was that if you truly love the man next to you, you will be more willing to fight and die for him. Alright I'm sure no one wanted to hear that, but I heard it in my history class few weeks back. weirrrrrrrrd

In ancient Greece you were considered rather boring if you didn't engage in sex with young men.

[KBear]

Stop comparing it to history. It was based off of a graphic novel, which itself was based very loosely off of history.

I swear that this needs to be said almost every other post or 2 of every 3 post in this thread.

[Kurve]

Good movie ton of action made u sit on the edge of your seat the whole time, but damn how historically inaccurate it was. They could of use different names at least with the portrayal of historical figures especially when your gonna butcher the truth about them. I just hope people will be able to differentiate the truth and not gain a unfair bias towards a culture of people because of this movie. Other then that battles scenes were intense and ton of gore i made the mistake of taking my girl with me to see this and well she isnt much for gore and blood lol oh well.

[Kurve]

Why did you watch it looking for that? It doesn't make any sense at all to me. Especially when the Director/Creator both stated over and over again, emphasizing the fact that the movie deliberately was a fantasy take, loosely based on real events, portrayed as a "Legend." In fact; that style is based on real Greek culture more than anything. With epic tales. I doubt the real Trojan war consisted of deities, heroic demigods, and probably even the famous Horse. Homer was hardly making a accurate recounting of that event, either. Not saying 300 can ever compare to the greatness of the Odyssey and the Iliad, but the point stands.


Well you can call a movie fiction all you want but when your using factional names and events and butcher them to portray a story that wasnt truthful and rather disrespectful to a culture you have to understand why some might find a problem with it. For example if a director made a movie of Martin Luther Kings life but made a fictional twist to it and made him some kind of person he wasnt in a very disrespectful way im sure many people would find it offensive. I think the director should and could of used different names to portray this story rather then using historical names. Especially with many people in our society that are too quick to relate movie to historical fact, which could create a cultural bias to a group of people which isnt truthful.



But the movie was good lol

[wogitalia]

I'm indifferent on this one. As a history buff, a few of the alterations were annoying, but I dont think they undid the overall story so they dont annoy me greatly, or even enough to think negatively of the film.

For me the biggest problem with the film was the characters lines. It just all seemed so cliche and stilted. Every time the stopped the action to talk I basically zoned out because it really was that bad. The whole subplot with the wife was completely underdeveloped, it had the makings of a great subplot but ends up being a lot like the dialog, just a distraction.

The music used was odd, mixing from metal to classical, I think it would have had better continuity had it picked one and stuck with it, probably the classical given the era. Again, not a deal breaker, but a contributor to making it a lesser movie than it should have been.

I think the biggest problem however was the length, most notably the lack there of. I think compressing what should have been a 3 hour movie into a 2 hour movie killed a lot of what it should have been. The Queen subplot, the development of all the key characters, especially Leonidas and Xerxes, but also the hunchback and several others. I found it hard to feel anything for the captain when he loses his son given the only reference to him being a son is when the army assembled. Cutting the movie short killed the character development and didnt allow the directors to fully create an epic setting.

The action scenes were great, the sex scenes pointless but still sex scenes, so fun, and the use of special effects were good(a little too much slow motion).

Overall its a good movie that could have been so much more. I'd think it was a 6.5 but could have easily been a 9. Not sold on the use of no name actors, this is one where a really hatable person for Xerxes and a likable Leonidas would have made all the difference.

As I say, overall its a good solid movie thats enjoyable. Unfortunately it should have been so much more. It is no Gladiator or Braveheart. Not even a Patriot or Kingdom of Heaven. Just a step below that and probably more comparable to a movie like Apocalypto where the action is fun and the rest is really a waste of time.

[KBear]

Good movie ton of action made u sit on the edge of your seat the whole time, but damn how historically inaccurate it was. They could of use different names at least with the portrayal of historical figures especially when your gonna butcher the truth about them. I just hope people will be able to differentiate the truth and not gain a unfair bias towards a culture of people because of this movie. Other then that battles scenes were intense and ton of gore i made the mistake of taking my girl with me to see this and well she isnt much for gore and blood lol oh well.

Will you please read all the post that said the movie was based on a graphic novel.

[Paul]

Well you can call a movie fiction all you want but when your using factional names and events and butcher them to portray a story that wasnt truthful and rather disrespectful to a culture you have to understand why some might find a problem with it. For example if a director made a movie of Martin Luther Kings life but made a fictional twist to it and made him some kind of person he wasnt in a very disrespectful way im sure many people would find it offensive. I think the director should and could of used different names to portray this story rather then using historical names. Especially with many people in our society that are too quick to relate movie to historical fact, which could create a cultural bias to a group of people which isnt truthful.



But the movie was good lol

You must be hanging around a bunch of retards. Nobody is going to watch this movie and really believe the Persians was some evil empire with a 7'0 ***** king. People take things to seriously, it was just a bloody and gory action movie for f*** suck. If people can't distinguish that, then they are complete idiots, and deserve to be reminded of that every single day of there lives.

Unbelievable, there always seems to be some douche trying to be "that is to offensive" police.

[cunningham06]

Good movie ton of action made u sit on the edge of your seat the whole time, but damn how historically inaccurate it was. They could of use different names at least with the portrayal of historical figures especially when your gonna butcher the truth about them. I just hope people will be able to differentiate the truth and not gain a unfair bias towards a culture of people because of this movie. Other then that battles scenes were intense and ton of gore i made the mistake of taking my girl with me to see this and well she isnt much for gore and blood lol oh well.

The movie really wasn't that gory. I never found myself disgusted by the carnage on the screen.

[Kurve]

Will you please read all the post that said the movie was based on a graphic novel.

Yes i know that it was a graphic novel ...i enjoyed the movie what im saying is that your can walk a thin line when your trying to portray a fictional story with historical names and events.

[Kurve]

You must be hanging around a bunch of retards. Nobody is going to watch this movie and really believe the Persians was some evil empire with a 7'0 ***** king. People take things to seriously, it was just a bloody and gory action movie for f*** suck. If people can't distinguish that, then they are complete idiots, and deserve to be reminded of that every single day of there lives.

Unbelievable, there always seems to be some douche trying to be "that is to offensive" police.

Well as i said before i enjoyed the movie for what it is but i do see why some people might be offended. The fact is we all know that we have a bunch of idiots who do see these movies and gain a unfair bias of certain people its just the way things are you cant deny it. We are also very easy to say how people shouldnt be so sensitive over a movie and i agree for the most part, but i also think if the pages would be reversed many people in our country would be offended as well. We all can be ok with something until it is something about them then we all start to stand up for our selfs and say how unfair and unjust it is. With all this im mainly just saying i would understand if people found this offensive thats all.

and paul you dont have to be a douche towards me for expressing my opinion ...my opinion was not offensive nor was it directed towards you. So there is no need for childish remarks , no one stole your toy in the playpen over disliking this movie just relax.

[Kurve]

The movie really wasn't that gory. I never found myself disgusted by the carnage on the screen.

I really didnt think it was too gory, it was more brutal then i thought it would be. Then again Sin City was pretty Graphic, regardless i didnt have problem with it my girl did she just has weak stomach for those things i guess lol.

[someone447]

Well as i said before i enjoyed the movie for what it is but i do see why some people might be offended. The fact is we all know that we have a bunch of idiots who do see these movies and gain a unfair bias of certain people its just the way things are you cant deny it. We are also very easy to say how people shouldnt be so sensitive over a movie and i agree for the most part, but i also think if the pages would be reversed many people in our country would be offended as well. We all can be ok with something until it is something about them then we all start to stand up for our selfs and say how unfair and unjust it is. With all this im mainly just saying i would understand if people found this offensive thats all.

and paul you dont have to be a douche towards me for expressing my opinion ...my opinion was not offensive nor was it directed towards you. So there is no need for childish remarks , no one stole your toy in the playpen over disliking this movie just relax.

And if the pages were reversed, I would feel the same way. People who get offended by ANYTHING another person says or does confuse me. So what, a culture that lived 2500(roughly, I'm not sure on the exact dates) years before any of you were alive were portrayed as evil. Really, why do you give a flying ****?(Not necessarily you Kurve, this is more of an open response.)

Here is a perfect example of my point. On MLK day a frat at Tarleton State threw a party, they wore stereotypically black attire and drank malt liquor and ate fried chicken. There was a national outrage. Now what did we celebrate last saturday? WE ALL GOT DRUNK IN HONOR OF THE IRISH!!! MOST PEOPLE DRANK GUINNESS/JAMESONS OR AT THE VERY LEAST GREEN BEER. Many, many, many people tried to talk with an Irish accent. How is that any different. I thought the NAACP at Tarleton needed to grow the **** up and learn to deal with satire, just like the Irish have. I wasn't offended by either, and frankly, I don't understand why anyone would be.