Platypus
Lifer
- Apr 26, 2001
- 31,046
- 321
- 136
Originally posted by: Malfeas
Originally posted by: Platypus
Originally posted by: Malfeas
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: DAGTA
Originally posted by: clamum
Fvck the haters.
As for the tirade about the lack of the Spartans' clothing, wasn't that how they fought back then? I thought they took quite a bit of pride in their bodies.
Why are people so obsessed over this movie? It's just a movie...
And why does no one ever answer this question?
The critics are correct, the Spartans wore body armor. Don't believe me? Read a history book.
http://history.missouristate.edu/jchuch...%204--Greek%20Warfare%20and%20Army.htm
The critics are NOT correct, this isn't supposed to be a historical reenactment. It's based on the graphic novel in which they wore nothing at all.. though that'd really give some people in this country heart attacks :roll:
I KNOW it is based off of a graphic novel, however that does not invalidate a critics statement that the Spartans did not fight dressed like that. No one is making the argument that you shouldn't watch the movie because it is not historically accurate, they are just pointing out the absurdity and innaccuracy of portraying spartan hoplite armor the way it is in the movie. For example, what if I made a movie based on the US civil war battle of gettysburg, in which all the soldiers wore blue or gray tutus but which in all other regards was accurate? You would immediately point out that it is a bit silly to have the soldiers dressed like that, wouldn't you?
I really don't know how much clearer I can make it... it's based on a graphic novel... why should critics be holding it up to the same standards as a movie that was MEANT to be historically accurate. The graphic novel was NOT meant to be historically accurate, it's a fiction based on facts. That's like saying there's no such thing as wizards in a Harry Potter movie because it's not historically accurate. You CANNOT compare them so that was my point.
