Why? It's not accurate in any regard, except with the names.
300
- Thread starter Genji
- Start date
Why? It's not accurate in any regard, except with the names.
Because it's interesting. It's absurd that we manage to turn history into a boring class, when all it is is stories of war, conquest, triumph, defeat, love, hate, etc. Everything we pay to get at the movies and on cable is right there, waiting to be told.
That's the problem with American public schools. Education has to be interesting. At what price? The facts? A good education?
education is about raising a new generation of tax payers. Why would it need to be interesting?
Oh, come on. You show the movie, then discuss it. Point out any errors or ommisions. We expect art to take poetic license.
I saw it in an advanced screening, the cinema was packed, they even applauded at some points:bugeye:
amazing movie...
amazing movie...
Roman:
Actually, it is reasonably accurate. Certainly, the lack of the legitimate portrayal Arcadian and Theban reenforcements to the Spartan force was a downfall, and the general dramatization, but such could be easily rectified with even a 15-minute follow up lesson.
Actually, it is reasonably accurate. Certainly, the lack of the legitimate portrayal Arcadian and Theban reenforcements to the Spartan force was a downfall, and the general dramatization, but such could be easily rectified with even a 15-minute follow up lesson.
Thank you for that quote.
Obviously it's about westerners being rad and massive and cool and tough and easterners being scoundrely snivelling little scum fucks with nothing but a numerical advantage.
At times the spartans are litterally twice the size of their persian adversaries and I swear in many scenes actual stink lines are visible around the persians.
So it's perfectly historically accurate and roman is a faggot.
The whole litterary significance of the film is simply that we (the west) are great and the enemy (the east) is shit.
That's the whole point of the movie, and it's so refreshing.
It is bizarre to me that the arab-rimming liberals on this board actually like it, but it's bizarrely awesome and I dare not bring too much attention to the anomoly.
At times the spartans are litterally twice the size of their persian adversaries and I swear in many scenes actual stink lines are visible around the persians.
So it's perfectly historically accurate and roman is a faggot.
The whole litterary significance of the film is simply that we (the west) are great and the enemy (the east) is shit.
That's the whole point of the movie, and it's so refreshing.
It is bizarre to me that the arab-rimming liberals on this board actually like it, but it's bizarrely awesome and I dare not bring too much attention to the anomoly.
w1z4rd
Valued Senior Member
Did you know in my country under Apartheid they banned the book, Black Beauty (the book about the black horse). Apparently you and them think alike.
The fighting style, the numbers of troops, the rhetoric, the armor, the lack of helots, the... the everything, really.
Well you have to admit, Black Beauty does shamelessly glorify blackness.
I don't know anything about it being backed by Republican interests, but if it was I think it would ruin the movie for me (if I didn't already hate it).
At some point in the movie, Leonidas' wife said "freedom isn't free", a phrase popularized by GOP campaigns. That seems kind of deliberate. I don't have anything against the message, but why use a phrase that has been turned into a sound byte, full of political associations, instead of simply saying it with different words.
Other than that part I really only watched the battle scenes, or scenes near the battles with the soldiers, skipping the stuff taking place at Sparta since I was watching it through an online stream instead of at the theater
I thought Leonidas' speeches had modern political associations as well. The words that were chosen to say, fighting for freedom against a dictator seemed to attach to Republican messages. It sounded out of place to me, more like a slogan than something that would actually be said, and of course it was out of place for the reasons already mentioned in this thread.Anyone read 'gates of fire' by Steven Pressfield?
I always wished they would make a film version of that. But I guess that will never happen now with 300 out.
I always wished they would make a film version of that. But I guess that will never happen now with 300 out.
w1z4rd
Valued Senior Member
I see a horse. My elders see a black horse. Oh how indoctrination works is amazing.
i saw the movie last night down central london, i hear people complain about it alot because its not historically correct through and through, but fuck it, its a movie, and i thought it was damn good, you gotta love the king and his selfless warrior code, and xerxes self love haha.
great movie 9/10 from me,
they should have made the scenes with the rhino and elephants longer though maybe?.
peace.
I did and have been thinking the same thing plenty of action, drama, history etc for a great film.
Did you read his last of the amazons? Not as good as gates of fire but an enjoyable read.
I didn't like the two novels that came after that, but the last one, Alexander is really great again. I already read it twice.
After it I actually started to change my tactics on the battlefield of [ENC]Medieval Total War[/ENC], and it actually really works. I really started to use my cavalry and infantry differently. It's bloody great.
Thanks *drool* I hadn't seen that book :worship: ! I'll have to install MTW at the end of the week and join you guys