Alright, who here hates 300?

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
Honestly, as anyone should've seen from the trailer, this movie is about a bunch of bada$$ Spartans (the other Greeks were pvssies until the end IMO) beating the crap out of a lot of not-so-bada$$ Persians. It didn't even pretend to be historically accurate (although I know for a fact that the phalanx tactics were dead on).

And yes it had a few cheesy (albeit bada$$) lines about freedom and what-not.

Still, unless your completely turned off by CG tits and violence, what's not to like?

And don't say Anti-religious themes. If you're so religious that you can't enjoy a movie over it, you need to get a life or some spiritual security. Or both.



 

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
53,631
6,508
126
sweet since there aren't any other 300 threads on the forums, someone started one!
 

SirStev0

Lifer
Nov 13, 2003
10,449
6
81
you are actually wrong. It is about a 90% true real telling of a greek historian's account of the battle...
the fight in the shade thing is a quote...

gg grats on 60
 

Juddog

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 2006
7,851
6
81
The movie was from the viewpoint of someone listening to a story being told by a spartan who was wounded in the battle. Therefore it makes sense to have monsters and what-not in the story. Information back that spread as readily from word of mouth as it did text, if not more so.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
Originally posted by: SirStev0
you are actually wrong. It is about a 90% true real telling of a greek historian's account of the battle...
the fight in the shade thing is a quote...

gg grats on 60

I know the story of the 300 is true, but I also know that Xerces didn't use Elephants because of the pass, that Rhinos aren't that large, and that the Immortals wore blank, grim reaper style masks, and fought with Spears and Shields with swords as a secondary weapon.
 

SirStev0

Lifer
Nov 13, 2003
10,449
6
81
The film's director Zack Snyder states that "The events are 90 percent accurate. It's just in the visualization that it's crazy... I've shown this movie to world-class historians who have said it's amazing. They can't believe it's as accurate as it is."

, Professor of Greek History at Cambridge University, advised the filmmakers on the pronunciation of Greek names, and states that they "made good use" of his published work on Sparta. He praises the film for its portrayal of "the Spartans' heroic code," and of "the key role played by women in backing up, indeed reinforcing, the male martial code of heroic honor," while expressing reservations about its "'West' (goodies) vs 'East' (baddies) polarization."[72]/Q]

Then Xerxes I asked him more forcefully to surrender their arms. To this Leonidas gave his noted answer:

????? ?aß? (pronounced: /mol??n labe/),

meaning "Come and get them". This quote has been repeated by many later generals and politicians in order to express an army's or nation's determination to not surrender without a battle (taken by the Greek First Army Corps as their emblem[21]).

Despite their extremely disproportionate numbers, Greek morale was high. Herodotus writes that when Dienekes, a Spartan soldier, was informed that Persian arrows would be so numerous as "to blot out the sun", he remarked with characteristically laconic prose, "So much the better, we shall fight in the shade." (Taken by the Greek 20th Armored Division as their motto[22]).

Xerxes I waited four days for the Greek force to disperse. On the fifth day he sent Medes and Cissians, along with relatives of those who had died 10 years earlier in the battle of Marathon to take the Greeks prisoner and bring them before him.[23] According to Ctesias, the first wave numbered 10,000 soldiers and were commanded by Artapanus. They were "cut to pieces" with only 2 or 3 Spartans dead.[24]

Receiving intelligence that Ephialtes and the Immortals were advancing toward the rear, the Greeks withdrew and took a stand on a small hill behind the wall. The Thebans deserted to the Persians but a few were slain before their surrender was accepted.[40] While some of the remaining Greeks fought with their xiphoi, some were left with only their hands and teeth. Tearing down part of the wall, Xerxes I ordered the hill surrounded and the Persians rained down arrows until the last Greek was dead.[41] Modern archaeologists have found evidence of the final arrow shower.[42]

Also lookhere for information about how the battle has been used as a classic story of sacrifice for freedom since it happened....

all from wiki
 

Rapidskies

Golden Member
May 27, 2003
1,165
0
0
Originally posted by: irishScott
Honestly, as anyone should've seen from the trailer, this movie is about a bunch of bada$$ Spartans (the other Greeks were pvssies until the end IMO) beating the crap out of a lot of not-so-bada$$ Persians. It didn't even pretend to be historically accurate (although I know for a fact that the phalanx tactics were dead on).

Umm the phalanx tactics they showed were way off. They were out of formation and fighting one on one most of the movie and the use of spears in the phalanx was way different from what I've read (front row uses shield 2nd 3rd row use spears like pokers). I can see why they made the movie like they did as it is more exciting but it was far from dead on.
 

SirStev0

Lifer
Nov 13, 2003
10,449
6
81
Originally posted by: irishScott
Originally posted by: SirStev0
you are actually wrong. It is about a 90% true real telling of a greek historian's account of the battle...
the fight in the shade thing is a quote...

gg grats on 60

I know the story of the 300 is true, but I also know that Xerces didn't use Elephants because of the pass, that Rhinos aren't that large, and that the Immortals war blank, grim reaper style masks, and fought with Spears and Shields with swords as a secondary weapon.

sorry actually, I must have read your tone wrong, originally I thought you were complaining. Have been dealing with my stupid roommate who didnt like the cheesy lines about heroics and freedom... even though most of them are quotes and historically the story has been one of freedom.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
Originally posted by: Rapidskies
Originally posted by: irishScott
Honestly, as anyone should've seen from the trailer, this movie is about a bunch of bada$$ Spartans (the other Greeks were pvssies until the end IMO) beating the crap out of a lot of not-so-bada$$ Persians. It didn't even pretend to be historically accurate (although I know for a fact that the phalanx tactics were dead on).

Umm the phalanx tactics they showed were way off. They were out of formation and fighting one on one most of the movie and the use of spears in the phalanx was way different from what I've read (front row uses shield 2nd 3rd row use spears like pokers). I can see why they made the movie like they did as it is more exciting but it was far from dead on.

Phalanx tactics being defined as when they were actually in a phalanx.

According to the History Channel, the Front Row shoves their spears between the shields, while the 2nd row thrusts from overhead. The "Push and strike" tactic was also used.

 

Leros

Lifer
Jul 11, 2004
21,867
7
81
I'm really tired and don't feel like the reading the entire post, but I got something about it not being historically accurate.

Its not supposed to be historically accurate. Its a comic book turned into a movie.
 

Gunslinger08

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
13,234
2
81
It's a movie, people. It didn't claim to be historically accurate. It isn't a documentary. Get over it.
 

BrownTown

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2005
5,314
1
0
One thing should be clear, whether you like the movie or not it is not even clsoe to being historically accurate (and it doesn't claim to be either which is fine). That is not what Spartans wore, that is not how Spartans fought. Also, of course the Spartan's were elevated way past reality in terms of numbers killed. Furthermore, the battle that ACTUALLY made all this possible (the athenian navy stoping the Persian navy) is not even mentioned. The Persians would have easily outflaked the Spartans (as they eventually did anyways) had they been able to get their ships past the Athenian navy. Also, all the talk of freedom is silly. The Spartans did nto love freedom, they were blood thirsty warriors who society was supported be slavery while all the actual citizens were warriors. Athens was the "craddle of democracy", all the scholars and historians are from Athens, not Sparta. And it is worth pointing out that after all of Greece banded together to drive the Persians out they lasted all of one generation before Athens and Sparta went to war and Sparta ended up defeating Athens. At this point of course the weakened Greece was taken over by Macedonia and Philip of Macedon and later his son Alexander the Great who conquered all of Greece as well as Persia.

Summary:
-300 is a movie
-the movie doesn't even claim to be based on reality
-thats OK because 95% of movies based on facts stretch the truth anyways, at least they admit it here
-300 is still a good movie
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
I thought it was ok... my biggest problem with it is all the people who are all like "omgwtfbbq!!1! best movie of all time!"
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
Originally posted by: BrownTown
One thing should be clear, whether you like the movie or not it is not even clsoe to being historically accurate (and it doesn't claim to be either which is fine). That is not what Spartans wore, that is not how Spartans fought. Also, of course the Spartan's were elevated way past reality in terms of numbers killed. Furthermore, the battle that ACTUALLY made all this possible (the athenian navy stoping the Persian navy) is not even mentioned. The Persians would have easily outflaked the Spartans (as they eventually did anyways) had they been able to get their ships past the Athenian navy. Also, all the talk of freedom is silly. The Spartans did nto love freedom, they were blood thirsty warriors who society was supported be slavery while all the actual citizens were warriors. Athens was the "craddle of democracy", all the scholars and historians are from Athens, not Sparta. And it is worth pointing out that after all of Greece banded together to drive the Persians out they lasted all of one generation before Athens and Sparta went to war and Sparta ended up defeating Athens. At this point of course the weakened Greece was taken over by Macedonia and Philip of Macedon and later his son Alexander the Great who conquered all of Greece as well as Persia.

Summary:
-300 is a movie
-the movie doesn't even claim to be based on reality
-thats OK because 95% of movies based on facts stretch the truth anyways, at least they admit it here
-300 is still a good movie

Agreed. Also, IIRC the Oracle prophesied that "One king will save Sparta" Leonitis assumed he was it. He couldn't convince the Spartan council to go along with him though
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
20
81
Originally posted by: purbeast0
sweet since there aren't any other 300 threads on the forums, someone started one!
Can't stop until there are 300 threads going on it.
Or 300 mod-appointed vacations as a result, whichever comes first.
 

jtvang125

Diamond Member
Nov 10, 2004
5,399
51
91
Movie was overhyped. It was ok but not great. And what's with him always sucking in his gut?
 

ondarkness

Platinum Member
Nov 10, 2004
2,003
1
81
FOR SPARTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

-there's trolls under every bridge.....
 

Dracos

Senior member
Jun 10, 2001
637
0
0
Originally posted by: jtvang125
Movie was overhyped. It was ok but not great. And what's with him always sucking in his gut?

I didnt think that 300 received that much hype.

I also didnt go into the movie thinking I would see the next Citizen Kane like it seems alot of other movie watchers did.
 

eits

Lifer
Jun 4, 2005
25,015
3
81
www.integratedssr.com
After the krypteia, the men were expected to marry. Marriage was stressed highly in Spartan society, specifically in the proliferation of young healthy children. However, the marriage ceremony for a Spartan man and woman was not highly ritualized. The woman was abducted in the night, her head would be shaved, and she was made to wear men's clothing and lye on a straw pallet in the dark. The groom afterward would return to the barrack of young men, and would have little or no contact with the bride from thereafter, save for purely procreative visits. A Spartan male could have multiple wives, (anthropologically known as polygamy) but lived mostly amongst his mess and barrack mates with little connection to the opposite sex. Until the age of thirty or onward, a Spartan man's life was entirely dedicated to his state and to the army.

yikes
 

toolboxolio

Senior member
Jan 22, 2007
872
1
0
The movie was badass. For me it was especially provoking because my 9th grade history teacher told us this story just like the narrator in the movie.

I know it is historically accurate to a point. But I am glad they spruced up the film to reflect the story of the unbeatable spartans.
 

eleison

Golden Member
Mar 29, 2006
1,319
0
0
Originally posted by: UncleWai
Go Persia!

yea, I was rooting for the Persians too!!! They were into raves, equal opportunity for handicap people... and they looked like there were also into equal opportunity - more minorities on the Persian side.

The Spartans were like a bunch of frat boys. I bet most of the spartans in the movie wouldn't even allow half the "nerds" from this forum into their exclusive "jock" club :) too skinny.. too dorky... etc...