300!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[68Hawk]

I second what Dowding said about historical accuracy of the texts from the period.

Masher I'm glad we can agree that this film is ludicrous.  

It's not like the Greeks faced all 10,000 at once.  The terrain played a big part.  In essence, the Persians choosing to take the pass and push its army through such a narrow strip was its own making.  Wasn't about the greeks forcing them to go through there.

To think that some of us watched 300 without an eye to the history it is supposedly based on is sad.  I'd also go so far as to use the words lazy, irresponsible, ignorant, juvenile, horrid, banal, public education, and banana.  

It depicted better soft core porn than it did the history that it slapped in the face in order to sell tickets.

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by 68Hawk

Don't take a single thing in it as fact, many are misled by its semi-historical basis.

Here's a piece of advice that should apply to anyone who ever goes to see a movie. Ever.

-Sik

[68Hawk]

Yeah, especially if they come out of Hollywood, but some films do a decent-good job of portraying history.  I'd call Saving Private Ryan somewhere on the outside of decent, but not nearly as bad as 300.  A bridge too far was much more to the good side.  Gettysburg was pretty damn good too.  We were soldiers goes back to the pvt. Ryan side.  

Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima, while certainly still presentations of history, where beyond the good in this scale and deserve endearing respect.  300 grotesquely portrayed itself as something along the lines of these two films, but wasn't even on the same continent.

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by 68Hawk
 300 grotesquely portrayed itself as something along the lines of these two films, but wasn't even on the same continent.

I don't mean to be argumentative, and I fully admit that I don't have a TV, and didn't see many previews for the movies, but did it actually portray itself as history?

As to your point, sure, there are varying degrees of historical accuracy. I personally don't believe that better accuracy necessarily equals better cinema. Unless it's a documentary that professed to be an exploration of the facts, I'm never going to bang a movie too hard for deviating from history for the sake of drama.

And yes, I cringed when I saw the Japanese blow the **** out of those Spruance Destroyers in Pearl Harbor.

-Sik

[lazs2]

yeah.. the movie was a movie... not history but...  I don't think any of us really know about that history...  even tho..  most agree that a lot of the movie did follow history.

I was not impressed with letters from iwo tho knowing the history of the event.  I think that it was much more entertaining the way Clint portrayed the japs than the way they were tho.

lazs

[68Hawk]

Lazs, I have to strongly disagree with you on the portrayal of the Japanese.  Obviously there were many opinions and feelings on both sides, but the American perspective on what the Japanese thought and felt has always been very skewed.  I thought Eastwood did a good job of getting behind their lines in a meaningful and mostly truthful fashion.

Silkboy I went back to look at some trailers to see if they actually used the words, "true story of".  Didn't find them, but it is strongly implied in the couple of trailers I saw.  If nothing else, a great deal of cross-promotional money was spent to laud the historical 'basis' of this.  

I don't mind that compromises be made to make a good movie, so long as they are acknowledged and minimized when the subject is supposed to be historical.  If someone made a WW2 movie and messed up the planeset slightly or something (such as the HA1112 in Battle of Britain) I can understand.  They got the basics of the history right and didn't really embellish.  

The last samurai is another perfect example of just enough historical seed to give a flavor, and just too much to make people who don't know the history think that it is actually historical.  It wasn't, neither was 300.

Might as well have F-16s fighting the Battle of Britain.

[Jebus]

Originally posted by Masherbrum
Hmm, so holding off a first wave of almost 10,000 Perisans and losing 2-3 Spartans is nothing.   Forcing the 2nd wave with 50,000 Persians to retreat is nothing.    Yeah, forcing a huge Army to "fight the fight your way" and holding out is nothing.  

You should read more.

Didnt the sea battle take out more Perisans than the actual Spartans?  Everything I read and watch stated that it was the sea fighting taking more lives and making more of a stop than that Spartans did.  Wondering if anyone else read or heard that?

[68Hawk]

Praise Jebus, I do believe he's right!

[C(Sea)Bass]

Originally posted by fd ski
firebombs as someone called it were actually historical. Naphta ( stuff used later in the lamps) was used as a form of a granade in historical times.

I guess you have to enjoy it for what it really is - movie based on comic book rather then history. Because historically there are 7000 Athenians and other greeks missing

Red headed chick in the temple was HOT HOT HOT though

Athenians did not take part in the battle, it was the spartans and a group of 1000 thespians.

[Slash27]

Originally posted by USRanger
One of the best action movies I've seen in a long time. I've had it on DVD for a few months(shhh!)

me too:noid

[hyena426]

Not even sure I'd go so far as to call it "the greatest last stand in history", nor can the Greeks be universally called the best fighters of the period.

 many armies were bigger..but i dout many at the time were as advanced and well trained like the greeks....alaxander rolled most of the known world with the greek phalanx. they were outnumberd in many battles and usualy came out ahead cause of well train troops and great tactics...i think there one of the best fighters of there time....they defenatly have anuff battles under there belt to prove it... even the later romans had a tuff time taking on the greeks...they still tring to figure out how they made those cranes that flipped the roman boats over in there attack. lol

[Hoffman]

I watched it for the action, knowing that it is highly unlikely that anything made by a production studio is going to have any real sense of realism.


Action wise, pretty good.

Fact wise...
Yes there was a King Leonidas.
Yes there was a festival called Carhnae.
Yes the main Spartan Army stayed home.
Yes it was because of the Carhnae.
I doubt it was for political reasons.
Yes Spartan Women were treated better than any other Greek woman.
Unlikely that they would be equal to men, but while the men were away the women did run the City.
Yes there are no defensive walls in Sparta.
The Athenians kicked the Persians down a well.
Yes Leonidas lead 300 Spartans into Thermopylae.
No they didn't wear loincloths, they fought naked.
No that was not a real Spartan Phalanx.
That was a Macedonian style Phalanx.  Greeks fought with the spear over-handed, which provided a much more powerful thrust.
Yes he did actually say the following famous quotes:  Then we shall fight in the shade, Come and get them, Tonight we dine in Hell... what no tables? Fine Purgatory...
No it was more like 500,000 Persians not a Million.
Yes there was a lunatic named Xerxes.
Yes he went to Thermopylae.
Yes his fleet got beaten up by Poseidon.
Yes he still landed the vast majority of his troops.
Yes there was a guy named Ephialtes.
No he probably wasn't a hunchback, just a moron.
Yes Xerxes eventually won.  But the Immortals were mauled.
No the Immortals weren't middle-aged mutant ninjas.
No the Persians didn't use elephants, or rhinos.
Naptha... probably... although it wasn't cheap back then.
Xerxes eventually went on to sack Athens.
Although why he went through Thermopylae to do it... And why he needed 500,000 men to do it...

Yes the Persians were massacred at Plateha (however you spell it)
No Xerxes wasn't there he ran away back to Persia, who then later was ruled by Darius the II.  Who was later usurped by Alexander the Great.


Ignoring all of that... okay movie.  Good music... gratuitous sex scenes not withstanding I liked it.
Favorite part:
When Gorgo disembowls the politician.

[bozon]

Originally posted by Jebus
Didnt the sea battle take out more Perisans than the actual Spartans?  Everything I read and watch stated that it was the sea fighting taking more lives and making more of a stop than that Spartans did.  Wondering if anyone else read or heard that?

The Persians were forced to fold back and leave Greece due to the Athenian navy sinking their reinforcements and supplies. Athenians themselves had a heroic fight in the straits east of Thermopylae, at the same time, blocking a vastly superior Persian force.

Athenians won the war.

The movie sucked, save a couple of action scenes.

[Shuckins]

When it came to documenting battles, ancient historians wildly exaggerated the numbers of warriors involved.  I don't believe the claim that Xerxes had 500,000 men involved in the campaign against the Greeks.  Such a large number could not have supplied themselves by foraging in the lands ringing the Aegean, through which they marched.

A more likely number, as estimated by modern historians, was 150,000 or so.  If Xerxes followed the custom of later armies that trudged through the same region, he would have hugged the coast so that his fleet could keep him supplied with victuals and reinforcements.  To keep in touch with his fleet, he would have had to pass through the mountains of northern Greece near the coast, and would have found it necessary to utilize the pass at Thermopylae.

The fact remains, however, that a force of approximately 2000 Spartans and other Greeks held that narrow pass against a vastly superior force for three days, and the 300 Spartans held the pass as a rear guard to allow the other Greeks to safely retreat.

[rogwar]

Was just watching scenes from the DVD this morning. I enjoyed the battle scenes and throught the movie was entertaining. For history, go to the books and likely several of them because there are always different takes on history.

Enjoyed watching the Hoplites fight.