http://gamingtrend.com
July 24, 2014, 06:21:27 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: 300 - What'd ya think? [Movie]  (Read 5489 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
MerianMoriarty
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 107

You will be baked, and then there will be cake.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #40 on: March 16, 2007, 04:44:53 AM »

to quote a friend of mine whose impeccable taste in movies/games i blindly trust: "dude, there was violence, manflesh, and boobs. i was in heaven the whole time."  XD  (ah, lex.  lex is great for a laugh. i should point him to this forum sometime.)

i really enjoyed the visual feel to this; it really made me think of the graphic novel (what i'd seen of it, anyway).  the imagery is so...mythic.  it's really great.  the effects were well handled, i feel, especially the slo-mo stuff.  i don't think it was overly violent; it's about the same level of Gladiator.  nowhere near as bad as the stuff Mel Gibson does (see braveheart, passion of christ, et al).

the weak points for me:  the sex scene almost went on a little longer than was justifiable for something that didn't show anything worse than bare boobs and butt, but at least it wasn't too badly done (as opposed to the sex scene in Underworld 2, which went on for WAY too long and was really badly faked...); i think they needed a more epic voice for their narration than Daisy Wenham, of all people (i couldn't help hearing the voice he did as that wussy friar from Van Helsing); and yeeeeeaaah, they coulda stood to be a little more historically accurate, but that's okay, since it's a legend/fairytale style of thing (it's not a documentary, people!  sheesh, take it easy....).

and for those of you boys who wish the spartans had worn more clothing?  the real spartans wore less clothing.  get over it.  i had to sit through rampant breasts, you can sit through men who have all the important bits covered (well...except for that moonlight scene *remembers fondly* ...but you guys got to see boobs, so stop complaining).  (don't pay too much attention to my griping, either, because i thought the oracle scene and the scene in the harem tent were really cool in spite of random topless chicks.)


and xerxes' voice was tooled -- they toned him down about an octave from the real actor's voice. there's a huge fansite floating around somewhere that has a lot of interviews, and one of the interviews is with the actor who played xerxes (a spanish fellow, if i recall...).  the guy has a really great accent.
Logged

XBox Live Gamertag: M Moriarty

Currently Playing:
<360> eternal sonata/warriors orochi/PORTAL!/that-game-with-that-dude-in-the-spacesuit-and-all-those-alien-guys3
<XBox> ...
<PS2> ffxii (working on Yiazmat) (on indefinite hold)
<PSP> dead head
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #41 on: March 16, 2007, 03:45:05 PM »

I wasn't really complaining about the lack of accuracy: I was already aware of it from the comic.  I was simply pointing it out.

Gotta talk about something on the internets.
Logged
Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 18512


Thirty. Minutes.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #42 on: March 16, 2007, 04:14:14 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on March 12, 2007, 09:13:25 PM


3. Somewhat disappointingly, the movie didn't go into this idea (although the comic did):  The entire reason Leonidas went and was content with dying there was because, through his death, all the states of Greece would be bound by duty in war against Xerxes, since he killed the king of a Greek state.  At that point, no diplomacy or subterfuge could avoid that.

Yes it did. It was mentioned about half-way through the movie. I don't recall who said it; I think it was Leonides himself while occupying the pass (IIRC).

I'd also like to suggest something : Slavery isn't bad.

That's right, it isn't ... in certain contexts. Just like a monarchy if you have a benevolent "master" then slavery is almost no different than being a working class schmuck (see EA employees). Slaves were valuable; they were a precious commodity and treated well. One does not trash and beat your slaves if they are to work hard for you. This is how the greek society saw them; our view of the "unjust" slave trade was largely spoiled by the ways in which slaves have been treated when the "world expanded" in the 1500's. The was an overabundance of slave labour, and as such their value went down and they were treated like crap.

I am not pro-slavery; I am simply pointing out that in a world where just having a COUNCIL was considered progressive, that demonizing the society for having slaves is unreasonable. We're talking 500BC here folks; this is the beginnings of western recorded history. With that in mind, there is nothing wrong with Leonides defending "liberty" and "freedom".

 smile
« Last Edit: March 16, 2007, 04:23:04 PM by Purge » Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
Knightshade Dragon
Administrator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 21047



View Profile WWW
« Reply #43 on: March 16, 2007, 04:21:06 PM »

Quote from: Purge on March 16, 2007, 04:14:14 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on March 12, 2007, 09:13:25 PM


3. Somewhat disappointingly, the movie didn't go into this idea (although the comic did):  The entire reason Leonidas went and was content with dying there was because, through his death, all the states of Greece would be bound by duty in war against Xerxes, since he killed the king of a Greek state.  At that point, no diplomacy or subterfuge could avoid that.

Yes it did. It was mentioned about half-way through the movie. I don't recall who said it; I think it was Leonides himself while occupying the pass.

Correct.   
Spoiler for Hiden:
Let's hope they are that stupid...let's hope that we are that lucky.
Logged

Ron Burke
EiC, Director of Gaming Trend
Gamertag:
Gaming Trend
PS3 Tag: GamingTrend
Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 18512


Thirty. Minutes.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #44 on: March 16, 2007, 04:25:05 PM »

Thanks! biggrin

Oh, and edited above to speak to the slavery point.

And NO, I don't expect hollywood to project true-to-historical accounts; I'm just saying that this ain't that far off the mark according to the stories told.
Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #45 on: March 16, 2007, 05:12:09 PM »

Actually, I thought about editing that statement right after I posted to kind of correct it, but I've been getting self-conscious about all the edits I make in the 20 seconds after posting (I really, really need to get in the habit of using preview).

What I should have said was the concept wasn't presented as prominently as it was in the comic.  With the movie, I almost missed it, and I was waiting for it to be mentioned.

The only reason I can think for glossing over it was to not allude too much on how the movie was going to end.  I'm sure the movie creators realized how likely it is a majority of the people watching the movie have no idea there is a historical basis, so obfuscating the ending could work.  Heck, I'm also willing to bet only a small fraction are aware it was based on a comic book.

But anyway, it was a good movie, so I won't get too nitpicky on it.

[edit] As for the slavery bit, thoughts of freedom and liberty were the farthest thing from the Spartans mind, regardless.  Even in their speech, they proudly proclaim their subservience to the king (and to the ideal of being Spartan in general).  So even if you remove the issue of their taking and owningslaves... they didn't even view themselves as free people.  They simply didn't want to be ruled by Xerxes.

Or, more specifically, they didn't want to be conquered by Xerxes, since that would imply losing (or avoiding) a war.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2007, 05:17:35 PM by unbreakable » Logged
gameoverman
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1422


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: March 17, 2007, 02:10:44 AM »

They didn't hesitate to kill Leonidas at the end, so that statement about if they assassinate him makes no sense to me.

If dying at the hands of the Persians would unite all of Greece against the Persians and thereby lead to the defense of Greece, why wouldn't Leonidas just lead his men into an immediate suicidal charge?  It's not like they were afraid to fight and die.  And they were doing whatever it took to save their homeland.

In the movie, leaving out history and the comic, we are presented with a Spartan force desperate to hold their ground at a certain spot, because that is the only place a defense against the overwhelming Persians could possibly work.   With that understanding, it all makes sense.   Then you realize that comment about being assassinated by the Persians was just a throwaway line to excuse the craziness of Leonidas going to a face to face meeting, a scene which admittedly was pretty cool.    Especially since the Spartans had made a habit of killing every single emissary that the Persians sent, the writers knew they couldn't get Leo over for a face to face without everyone in the audience expecting the Persians to kill him, so they tossed in that line hoping people would buy it.
Logged
Thin_J
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3409


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: March 17, 2007, 05:06:58 AM »

Quote from: gameoverman on March 17, 2007, 02:10:44 AM

They didn't hesitate to kill Leonidas at the end, so that statement about if they assassinate him makes no sense to me.

If dying at the hands of the Persians would unite all of Greece against the Persians and thereby lead to the defense of Greece, why wouldn't Leonidas just lead his men into an immediate suicidal charge?  It's not like they were afraid to fight and die.  And they were doing whatever it took to save their homeland.

In the movie, leaving out history and the comic, we are presented with a Spartan force desperate to hold their ground at a certain spot, because that is the only place a defense against the overwhelming Persians could possibly work.   With that understanding, it all makes sense.   Then you realize that comment about being assassinated by the Persians was just a throwaway line to excuse the craziness of Leonidas going to a face to face meeting, a scene which admittedly was pretty cool.    Especially since the Spartans had made a habit of killing every single emissary that the Persians sent, the writers knew they couldn't get Leo over for a face to face without everyone in the audience expecting the Persians to kill him, so they tossed in that line hoping people would buy it.

Why would he lead an immediate suicidal charge? You have the advantage of favorable terrain and better warriors. Why not see how long you can delay them, see how many of them you can kill before you go out? They're not "desperate to hold their ground"... it was a suicide march from the beginning. There's a reason they only chose men with living sons for the group of 300. But being Spartans, that doesn't mean they're going to stupidly run to their deaths. It was as much an attempt at delaying the Persians as it was anything else.

As for why Xerxes would bother with a face to face, if you'd witnessed what he was witnessing at that small mountain pass, wouldn't you attempt to turn those fighters to your side? The narration spoke of Xerxes' arrogance and his belief that he was a god. Of course he would assume he could simply bribe Leonidas to kneel before him and then use him like he used everyone else.

And as for why not just kill Leonidas while he's standing before you, it's not going to accomplish anything. You kill one of the 300. Congratulations. All you've just managed to do is strengthen the resolve of the others and guaranteed that when you do get past you'll eventually be facing all of Greece. He didn't want to kill Leonidas. He wanted to turn him and use him. It's why he tried again later.

The only alternate course of action Xerxes probably had would have been to try capturing and imprisoning Leonidas and bringing him along. It might have prevented the uniting of the Greeks, but I'm not sure what laws went along with that kind of thing so even that might not have helped.
Spoiler for Hiden:
But I don't imagine he was thinking rationally enough to do that anyway once he'd had his own cheek torn open by a spear thrown by Leonidas himself.
That points back to his arrogance and belief that he was a god and all that jazz.

Really. It wasn't a throwaway line. It was a line showing the real intelligence of Leonidas' efforts at Thermopylae. He was essentially giving Xerxes no choice but to either go back where he came from or uniting all of Greece against him.

According to history, and the fictional telling you saw in the movie, it worked pretty well smile
Logged

Xbox Live: Thin J
PSN: Thin_J
Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 18512


Thirty. Minutes.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #48 on: March 17, 2007, 06:04:10 AM »

The battle with the wolf was a precursor to the entire strategy employed by Leo. He finds his "high" ground, and forces him to battle him on his terms. He basically put himself in a stalemate position, where if Xerxes kills him he has all of greece to deal with (he wanted to conquer, and subservience works a helluva lot better than having to go to war to do it). The mountain pass wasn't just physical; it was also political.

The battle of Thermoplylae wasn't about defeating Xerxes; it was there to trigger the war to prevent Greece from chosing the "easy" way out. Leo had the opportunity to force the war; a war that would prevent greece from resting on it's laurels and letting greed and temptation decide the fate of their culture. Had he knelt Xerxes likely WOULD HAVE given him all of greece to rule; he would have been the first piece to fall and since he wasn't killed by the conquering forces, the world may well have been a VERY different place today. The greek and roman cultures are the cradle upon which western society owes its enlightenment; you only need to look to the persian gulf to see the conflict in ideologies hasn't really ended; neither side truly "get" what the other one is about.

Looking back at the narrators comments at the beginning, I like how he states that Leo "caused" the war and then show him killing a messenger. The audience believes the war is started, but really it doesn't start until the arrows of the persian forces annihilate the Spartans.

I like this movie more and more. It's like bugs bunny; you can enjoy the comic surface; but beneath it there is REAL discussion material that actually makes you think.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2007, 06:06:31 AM by Purge » Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #49 on: March 18, 2007, 12:31:49 AM »

I'm going to order the movie The 300 Spartans; Frank Miller watched it as a boy, and it inspired him to write "300".  Also, it's supposed to be a kick-ass movie.
Logged
ROTC1983
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4414


Is it really that Kampfy?


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: March 18, 2007, 12:40:23 AM »

I saw that movie flying around at work...The 300 Spartans...and I might purchase it.  Gonna have to look it up on imdb first biggrin
Logged

unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #51 on: March 18, 2007, 01:10:28 AM »

I just ordered it.  IMDB had good things to say about it, I think it gets 4 out of 5 stars.
Logged
gameoverman
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1422


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: March 21, 2007, 10:47:52 PM »

Quote from: Thin_J on March 17, 2007, 05:06:58 AM

Quote from: gameoverman on March 17, 2007, 02:10:44 AM

They didn't hesitate to kill Leonidas at the end, so that statement about if they assassinate him makes no sense to me.

If dying at the hands of the Persians would unite all of Greece against the Persians and thereby lead to the defense of Greece, why wouldn't Leonidas just lead his men into an immediate suicidal charge?  It's not like they were afraid to fight and die.  And they were doing whatever it took to save their homeland.

In the movie, leaving out history and the comic, we are presented with a Spartan force desperate to hold their ground at a certain spot, because that is the only place a defense against the overwhelming Persians could possibly work.   With that understanding, it all makes sense.   Then you realize that comment about being assassinated by the Persians was just a throwaway line to excuse the craziness of Leonidas going to a face to face meeting, a scene which admittedly was pretty cool.    Especially since the Spartans had made a habit of killing every single emissary that the Persians sent, the writers knew they couldn't get Leo over for a face to face without everyone in the audience expecting the Persians to kill him, so they tossed in that line hoping people would buy it.

Why would he lead an immediate suicidal charge? You have the advantage of favorable terrain and better warriors. Why not see how long you can delay them, see how many of them you can kill before you go out? They're not "desperate to hold their ground"... it was a suicide march from the beginning. There's a reason they only chose men with living sons for the group of 300. But being Spartans, that doesn't mean they're going to stupidly run to their deaths. It was as much an attempt at delaying the Persians as it was anything else.

As for why Xerxes would bother with a face to face, if you'd witnessed what he was witnessing at that small mountain pass, wouldn't you attempt to turn those fighters to your side? The narration spoke of Xerxes' arrogance and his belief that he was a god. Of course he would assume he could simply bribe Leonidas to kneel before him and then use him like he used everyone else.

And as for why not just kill Leonidas while he's standing before you, it's not going to accomplish anything. You kill one of the 300. Congratulations. All you've just managed to do is strengthen the resolve of the others and guaranteed that when you do get past you'll eventually be facing all of Greece. He didn't want to kill Leonidas. He wanted to turn him and use him. It's why he tried again later.

The only alternate course of action Xerxes probably had would have been to try capturing and imprisoning Leonidas and bringing him along. It might have prevented the uniting of the Greeks, but I'm not sure what laws went along with that kind of thing so even that might not have helped.
Spoiler for Hiden:
But I don't imagine he was thinking rationally enough to do that anyway once he'd had his own cheek torn open by a spear thrown by Leonidas himself.
That points back to his arrogance and belief that he was a god and all that jazz.

Really. It wasn't a throwaway line. It was a line showing the real intelligence of Leonidas' efforts at Thermopylae. He was essentially giving Xerxes no choice but to either go back where he came from or uniting all of Greece against him.

According to history, and the fictional telling you saw in the movie, it worked pretty well smile

I was unclear in my comments.  I understand Xerxes's motives and goals completely.   I meant my comments from Leonidas's point of view.

1.  'Uniting all of Greece' was used in a way that implied that if that was done then a HUGE Greek army would face and defeat the Persians.   Since this is what Leonidas wanted, it would make sense that anything that made that happen was the preferred action, correct?

2.  Leonidas being killed by the Persians would unite Greece.   Therefore the sooner Leonidas dies at Persian hands, the better for Greece(and by extension, Sparta).   That whole thing about buying time, time for what?  In the movie, Leonidas has no reason to think there is a bigger force coming to his aid in a later time, that negotiation is happening far away without his knowledge.

3.  As presented in the movie, the only reason Leonidas was stuck with 300 was timing.  If he waited awhile he would get the troops he wanted from Sparta.  So why not wait?  Because he had to stop the Persians at THAT place/time, no choice there.  That makes sense.  He needed to move NOW, and if 300 was all he could get now then that was what he'd take.
If we are going to allow that the Persians could also be defeated at a later time and another place, then what Leonidas did makes no sense other than to get himself and his men killed pointlessly.  Because then there'd be no reason they had to march off to that fight at that particular pass.

4.  The Spartans killed the Persian emissaries over and over again.   I figured that it was a stretch that the Spartan leader would think he could go over to the Persian side (by himself!) and be completely safe, when he wouldn't extend that diplomatic immunity to Persians coming to see him.  Leonidas could see for himself that Xerxes had gone to the trouble of assembling the largest army of all time AND bringing it to Greece, did he think Xerxes brought it to TALK?
That's why I thought the line about the Persians not being willing to assassinate him was just for the purpose of making it believable that Leonidas wasn't concerned that the Persians might take the chance to remove the leader of the military force standing in their way.  I think the writers plan was "if Leonidas says they won't assassinate him, the audience will accept that'.   

Now maybe Xerxes doesn't want to fight if he doesn't have to, but Leonidas doesn't know that.  All indications Leonidas has are that Xerxes came here for one reason- to kick ass.

Personally, I think the key flaw was that whole 'Greece will unite' angle.   By dangling the possibility of that happy ending so early on, alot of the tension for me was removed.  I think it would have been more dramatic(not to mention true to life) if Leonidas and his men thought it was all or nothing, either they win at that pass and Greece is saved, or they lose and the Persians win it all.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2007, 10:53:32 PM by gameoverman » Logged
Thin_J
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3409


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: March 22, 2007, 03:10:43 AM »

Quote from: gameoverman
Personally, I think the key flaw was that whole 'Greece will unite' angle.   By dangling the possibility of that happy ending so early on, alot of the tension for me was removed.  I think it would have been more dramatic(not to mention true to life) if Leonidas and his men thought it was all or nothing, either they win at that pass and Greece is saved, or they lose and the Persians win it all.

I still don't see what your point is. It wasn't "all or nothing" in real life either. I get the idea of what you're saying in regards to uniting Greece... but I just can't possibly understand that opinion. Again, given the favorable terrain and superior skill of your fighters, who in their right mind wouldn't see how much of the Persian army you could destroy in the meat grinder of that tiny pass before you went out? Your very laws and beliefs prevent you from surrender so that's not an option, but being Spartan, neither is an idiotic suicidal charge. I think that partially goes back to that "fight with your mind" idea he preaches to his son at the very beginning.

Anywho, back to the Thermopylae fight not being all or nothing. The only "all or nothing" part of the entire conflict was the battle at sea. Without Themistocles' tactis on the water the entire battle at Thermopylae never even happens and the Spartans get bypassed entirely. In fact, most of the truly important battles of the entire conflict are on the water, including Salamis, where the entire thing essentially ended. The battle of Platea pictured at the end of the film wasn't even a real attempt by Xerxes forces at attacking. It was whatever he left there while he and a larger portion of his forces retreated.

I don't even know why we're talking about this. It's so entirely irrelevant anyway.

The movie borrows small bits of history to make a movie about Spartan badasses beating up Zombie Ninjas and their mutated giant zoo animal freak show pets. Relevance to real life war strategy isn't going to be it's strength.
Logged

Xbox Live: Thin J
PSN: Thin_J
gameoverman
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1422


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: March 22, 2007, 06:47:46 AM »

I'm talking internal logic.

Here's an example of internal logic in this movie:  The Persians, on more than one occasion, send emissaries to talk to Leonidas/Sparta.  Okay, what are the 'rules' governing this that the audience should know?  Well, by having the Spartans kill the Persians each time, the rules are that there is no diplomatic immunity in this story- everyone is fair game.   That's acceptable, the writers can set the rules of their own story, so no diplomatic immunity is the rule.

Then, later in the story, Leonidas decides to go see the Persians.  All of a sudden, just because this particular scene requires it, the rules change.  Now it's unthinkable that the Persians would 'assassinate' the emissary from the Spartans.  This is not acceptable, it's unfair and a cheat to change the rules at a key moment for no other reason than the script calls for it.  The writers violate the rules they themselves set.

The stuff about it not being a lost cause because of the later naval battles- yeah, exactly.  And in the movie Leonidas has NO way of knowing that those naval battles would turn out that way.  In fact, his knowledge of Persia's vast numbers, numbers far greater than what Greece could muster, should tell him the exact opposite- that they shouldn't count on being able to win naval battles later if they lost this position.

In a nutshell:

I think this is a dramatic way to tell the story:  The 300 fight to the death to hold this line because they believe(rightly) that if they lose here, the Persians will sweep across Greece(which they did, for a time).

Not such a dramatic story:  The 300 fight to the death to hold this line because they are buying time for an as yet undetermined Greek force to assemble and counterattack the Persians at a yet to be determined time and place.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #55 on: March 22, 2007, 04:10:29 PM »

Quote from: gameoverman on March 22, 2007, 06:47:46 AM

Then, later in the story, Leonidas decides to go see the Persians.  All of a sudden, just because this particular scene requires it, the rules change.  Now it's unthinkable that the Persians would 'assassinate' the emissary from the Spartans.  This is not acceptable, it's unfair and a cheat to change the rules at a key moment for no other reason than the script calls for it.  The writers violate the rules they themselves set.

There's a difference between killing a diplomat and killing a king.  But regardless, they said in the story that Leonidas was not concerned about being killed.  Sure, Xerxes could have killed him, but he would rather have had Leonidas surrender.

Quote
The stuff about it not being a lost cause because of the later naval battles- yeah, exactly.  And in the movie Leonidas has NO way of knowing that those naval battles would turn out that way.  In fact, his knowledge of Persia's vast numbers, numbers far greater than what Greece could muster, should tell him the exact opposite- that they shouldn't count on being able to win naval battles later if they lost this position.

That's because the historical details in the graphic novel are wrong.  In reality, Athens and Sparta already had an agreement (along with most of Greece) to fight the Persians.  Leonidas went to hold that pass, and Athens brought their navy.  The Spartans could have held the Persians back had they not found a way around the fortified position.  What made them and the others who stayed them heroes was the fact that they could have retreated, but they held the position anyway, as they had agreed to do.  Many of the forces did leave, but I think most who left were the forces supporting the soldiers.  I'll have to look it up again, but offhand I believe 700 other Greeks stayed, and died, with the Spartans to hold the pass.

Quote
In a nutshell:

I think this is a dramatic way to tell the story:  The 300 fight to the death to hold this line because they believe(rightly) that if they lose here, the Persians will sweep across Greece(which they did, for a time).

Not such a dramatic story:  The 300 fight to the death to hold this line because they are buying time for an as yet undetermined Greek force to assemble and counterattack the Persians at a yet to be determined time and place.

That's why I chose not to get hung up on the inconsistencies with what really happened.  It was a good story, and as far as the movie was concerned, it was extremely true to the graphic novel.  It wasn't the movie which played it fast and loose with the history, it was the graphic novel.  But since it was basically just meant as an action story, it's forgivable.
Logged
Thin_J
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3409


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: March 23, 2007, 07:03:16 AM »

Quote from: unbreakable on March 22, 2007, 04:10:29 PM

Quote from: gameoverman on March 22, 2007, 06:47:46 AM

Then, later in the story, Leonidas decides to go see the Persians.  All of a sudden, just because this particular scene requires it, the rules change.  Now it's unthinkable that the Persians would 'assassinate' the emissary from the Spartans.  This is not acceptable, it's unfair and a cheat to change the rules at a key moment for no other reason than the script calls for it.  The writers violate the rules they themselves set.

There's a difference between killing a diplomat and killing a king.  But regardless, they said in the story that Leonidas was not concerned about being killed.  Sure, Xerxes could have killed him, but he would rather have had Leonidas surrender.

Quote
The stuff about it not being a lost cause because of the later naval battles- yeah, exactly.  And in the movie Leonidas has NO way of knowing that those naval battles would turn out that way.  In fact, his knowledge of Persia's vast numbers, numbers far greater than what Greece could muster, should tell him the exact opposite- that they shouldn't count on being able to win naval battles later if they lost this position.

That's because the historical details in the graphic novel are wrong.  In reality, Athens and Sparta already had an agreement (along with most of Greece) to fight the Persians.  Leonidas went to hold that pass, and Athens brought their navy.  The Spartans could have held the Persians back had they not found a way around the fortified position.  What made them and the others who stayed them heroes was the fact that they could have retreated, but they held the position anyway, as they had agreed to do.  Many of the forces did leave, but I think most who left were the forces supporting the soldiers.  I'll have to look it up again, but offhand I believe 700 other Greeks stayed, and died, with the Spartans to hold the pass.

You said it. Diplomat != King

Also agreed on the points about it being based on a graphic novel, and not history.

And finally, I believe you're correct on the generally agreed number of other Greeks that stayed and died with the Spartans. In reality didn't they have numbers in the low thousands defending the pass? Like 2 or 3,000 or so but with all but the Spartans and a few others retreating near the end?
Logged

Xbox Live: Thin J
PSN: Thin_J
Starshifter
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2183


CINEMAGIC on XM!


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: March 23, 2007, 12:10:09 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on March 18, 2007, 12:31:49 AM

I'm going to order the movie The 300 Spartans; Frank Miller watched it as a boy, and it inspired him to write "300".  Also, it's supposed to be a kick-ass movie.

It is!  And it's a very good historical portrayal of what happened from what I remember learning about the Battle of Thermopylae in school.  I've watched this movie a hundred times and continue to do so.  Great music. Amazing battle scenes.  Richard Egan was brilliant as Leonidis and the actor playing Xerxes (can't remember name) was brilliant as well.  The movie also displays many of the Spartan's brilliant tactics.  They were certainly amazing.  I highly recommend this movie if you want a more historical perspective of the battle compared to a comic book like rendering that 300 provides.
Logged

CINEMAGIC - Escape into the Movies!
XM Channel 76
brettmcd
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1355


View Profile
« Reply #58 on: March 23, 2007, 12:35:38 PM »

The history channel last night had a 2 hour history of the 300 show that was really good, and told me a lot of things about the battle that I didnt know before.   Like the fact that it wasnt just the 300 who stayed behind, there were also 1000 soldiers from the greek city of Thespia, and other things like that.
Logged
raydude
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1506


SPICE! Nomnomnomnom


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: March 23, 2007, 03:51:52 PM »

Quote from: gameoverman on March 22, 2007, 06:47:46 AM

I'm talking internal logic.

Here's an example of internal logic in this movie:  The Persians, on more than one occasion, send emissaries to talk to Leonidas/Sparta.  Okay, what are the 'rules' governing this that the audience should know?  Well, by having the Spartans kill the Persians each time, the rules are that there is no diplomatic immunity in this story- everyone is fair game.   That's acceptable, the writers can set the rules of their own story, so no diplomatic immunity is the rule.

I'm sorry, what other emissaries? Are you referring to the guys w/ spears coming out of their mouths? Maybe the Spartans called them emissaries in the movie, but in the graphic novel they were advance scouts. And the "arrows blot out the sun" guy, he just lost his hand right?
Logged

A Pew Research Center poll found nearly half of Americans hold the false belief that TARP was passed under President Obama, while only 34 percent know it originated under Bush.
"Oh yeah?" Bush replied. "50% of the people were wrong."
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #60 on: March 23, 2007, 08:26:52 PM »

One thing I liked from reading the Wikipedia page: When the Persians requested "earth and water", the Athenians threw the emmisary in a pit, and the Spartans threw theirs in a well, and sent back the message "dig it out for yourself".  Earth and water, LOL.
Logged
gameoverman
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1422


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: March 23, 2007, 10:12:54 PM »

All I'm saying is the inconsistencies in the storytelling keep it from being a great movie, as opposed to the entertaining movie(especially from a visual standpoint) that it is now.

Another example of what I mean:  A character is rejected by the Spartans, on the basis of not being able to fight from the Spartan formation, which is said to be all important.  But then except for the first rush from the Persians, we never see that formation again.  Practically all the fighting, including a ridiculous death of a Spartan later,  is done in a manner that the rejected character would have been able to handle and contribute to.  Spartans are spread out over a wide area, scattered willy nilly, fighting however they can. 

Ah, but it was important for script purposes that said character NOT be allowed to join the Spartan effort, so that's what happened.  That's just sloppy writing.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #62 on: March 24, 2007, 12:03:37 AM »

It's actually because watching a phalanx at work for the whole movie wouldn't be all that exciting, at least for an action film.  In fact... it might come across as rather sickening.

What it really looks like is butchery, not fighting.  And would you rather watch people butchered by a machine-like formation, like cattle, or watch a movie with really cool, choreographed fight scenes?

When it came down to a choice between what was historically accurate or what looks cool, they went with what was visually cool.  This is more than an action film, it's a visual, in motion, comic book.  That's why the Spartans weren't wearing bronze armor as they historically would have: instead, they were running around with helmets and loincloths.

I recorded a two-hour special on Thermopylae from the History Channel.  THAT should be historically accurate.  The action film?  I'm willing to give that a pass, especially since I have the graphic novel, and the movie comes across as an accurate, on film, representation of that.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2007, 12:07:39 AM by unbreakable » Logged
raydude
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1506


SPICE! Nomnomnomnom


View Profile
« Reply #63 on: March 26, 2007, 03:25:34 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on March 24, 2007, 12:03:37 AM

It's actually because watching a phalanx at work for the whole movie wouldn't be all that exciting, at least for an action film.  In fact... it might come across as rather sickening.

What it really looks like is butchery, not fighting.  And would you rather watch people butchered by a machine-like formation, like cattle, or watch a movie with really cool, choreographed fight scenes?

Personally I thought the first phalanx scene looked pretty damn cool and would have wanted to see more of it. Perhaps w/ variations, like if the Thespians tried to do their phalanx but several in the front rank faltered, which meant the Spartans would have to march up in phalanx to help.
Logged

A Pew Research Center poll found nearly half of Americans hold the false belief that TARP was passed under President Obama, while only 34 percent know it originated under Bush.
"Oh yeah?" Bush replied. "50% of the people were wrong."
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #64 on: March 26, 2007, 03:31:50 PM »

I'm kind of pissed: for some reason, the History Channel program didn't record  icon_mad
Logged
Calvin
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13895

President of G.R.O.S.S.


View Profile
« Reply #65 on: March 26, 2007, 03:34:27 PM »

You know....the more I think about this movie in my head and read the posts here and think about some of the terribly flawed logic the less I like the movie.
Logged
Knightshade Dragon
Administrator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 21047



View Profile WWW
« Reply #66 on: March 26, 2007, 03:35:00 PM »

Quote from: raydude on March 26, 2007, 03:25:34 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on March 24, 2007, 12:03:37 AM

It's actually because watching a phalanx at work for the whole movie wouldn't be all that exciting, at least for an action film.  In fact... it might come across as rather sickening.

What it really looks like is butchery, not fighting.  And would you rather watch people butchered by a machine-like formation, like cattle, or watch a movie with really cool, choreographed fight scenes?

Personally I thought the first phalanx scene looked pretty damn cool and would have wanted to see more of it. Perhaps w/ variations, like if the Thespians tried to do their phalanx but several in the front rank faltered, which meant the Spartans would have to march up in phalanx to help.


Well, they DID change to a wedge formation for the second rush of guys on horses, which is a logical formation for that type of charge..
Logged

Ron Burke
EiC, Director of Gaming Trend
Gamertag:
Gaming Trend
PS3 Tag: GamingTrend
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #67 on: March 26, 2007, 03:45:24 PM »

Quote from: Calvin on March 26, 2007, 03:34:27 PM

You know....the more I think about this movie in my head and read the posts here and think about some of the terribly flawed logic the less I like the movie.

It's an action film.  EVERY action film starts falling apart once you start overthinking it.
Logged
wonton
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 150


View Profile
« Reply #68 on: March 26, 2007, 11:20:48 PM »

I was really dissapointed by this movie.  Just wasn't into it at all, the characters seemed to be cookie cutter sterotypes to me.  That said, the visuals were outstanding, and I'm still looking forward to his future projects.

I also thought the dialogue was really lacking, but it sounds like thats the comics fault (although it doesn't change the fact that I thought it was horrible)

Did any other theaters burst into laughter when Xerxes came up from behind Leonidas and said the line about his "divine power"?  Yeah, cause the theater I was in did...
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #69 on: March 27, 2007, 03:22:06 AM »

Sorry man... it needed to be said...

Logged
Calvin
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13895

President of G.R.O.S.S.


View Profile
« Reply #70 on: March 27, 2007, 01:00:07 PM »

Quote from: wonton on March 26, 2007, 11:20:48 PM

I was really dissapointed by this movie.  Just wasn't into it at all, the characters seemed to be cookie cutter sterotypes to me.  That said, the visuals were outstanding, and I'm still looking forward to his future projects.

I also thought the dialogue was really lacking, but it sounds like thats the comics fault (although it doesn't change the fact that I thought it was horrible)

Did any other theaters burst into laughter when Xerxes came up from behind Leonidas and said the line about his "divine power"?  Yeah, cause the theater I was in did...

I not only laughed during that scene, I alternated between cringing and desperately stifling laughter during almost every bit of "serious" dialogue in the film. It was awful. And no Kathode, Armageddon was not worse smile
Logged
javahead
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 907

Coffee is Murder!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #71 on: March 27, 2007, 01:16:35 PM »

I vaguely remember being somewhat shocked by the voice of Xerxes, had already come to accept some of the overblown style of the movie (i.e. xerxes' throne of slaves), and the Scottish accent of the Greek King kept snapping me out of the immersion (Why wasn't he the next James Bond?), but I really enjoyed the movie as a whole.

My Wife & MIL wouldn't stop whining about tiny bits of the movie , but I completely attribute this to lack of testosterone.
Quote from: My Mother-in-law
What about the whole naval campaign? Xerxes was never that close to the front line!
waaaah
Logged

Jesters Do It Till Ya Smile!
          \|/ ____ \|/
        ~@_/ Oo \_@~
          /_( \__/ )_\
             \__U_/
Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 18512


Thirty. Minutes.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #72 on: March 27, 2007, 01:41:42 PM »

Quote from: Calvin on March 27, 2007, 01:00:07 PM

I not only laughed during that scene, I alternated between cringing and desperately stifling laughter during almost every bit of "serious" dialogue in the film. It was awful. And no Kathode, Armageddon was not worse smile

Let me break this down for ya, Calvin.

300 > Eraser > The-6th-Day > any-Segal-movie > any-Van-Damme-movie > amateur-indoor-soccer-on-Channel-11 > having-only-one-arm-and-hanging-from-a-cliff-with-an-itchy-ass > falling-and-landing-on-a-30ft-fir-tree > sodomy-with-a-7ft-decorated-fir-tree > trying-to-uninstall-MS-updates-once-installed*> Armageddon

These are all from experience. Trust me.

* this leaves more broken pieces behind than the previous two experiences... and a whole lot more sobbing.
Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
Calvin
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13895

President of G.R.O.S.S.


View Profile
« Reply #73 on: March 27, 2007, 01:54:02 PM »

Armageddon is a great, great, great dumb action movie. I will not derail further, but people that hate on it like that are just being silly. It is no more or less objectively stupid than something like the 300. It just has Bruce Willis saving the world instead of a half naked Scottish dude.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #74 on: March 27, 2007, 10:13:35 PM »

Head downtown and turn in your penis.  I'm sorry.
Logged
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #75 on: August 02, 2007, 04:33:13 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on March 27, 2007, 10:13:35 PM

Head downtown and turn in your penis.  I'm sorry.

That's what ATB needs to do.
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
raydude
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1506


SPICE! Nomnomnomnom


View Profile
« Reply #76 on: August 02, 2007, 07:13:12 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on March 24, 2007, 12:03:37 AM

It's actually because watching a phalanx at work for the whole movie wouldn't be all that exciting, at least for an action film.  In fact... it might come across as rather sickening.

What it really looks like is butchery, not fighting.  And would you rather watch people butchered by a machine-like formation, like cattle, or watch a movie with really cool, choreographed fight scenes?

Funny thing is, I'm reading Gates of Fire and they're describing the phalanx combat as exactly that - this man-machine "thing" that just grinds people into dead flesh. "War is work" as they say in the book. Still - reading those battle scenes in Gates of Fire makes me wish even more that I saw more of it in 300.

In fact, I daresay that if they had cut out the political intrigue at Sparta and replaced it with the battle as viewed from the squires and weapon-bearers (as in Gates of Fire) we would have seen lots of action and drama - AND have been able to include much more phalanx formation scenes.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2007, 09:31:33 PM by raydude » Logged

A Pew Research Center poll found nearly half of Americans hold the false belief that TARP was passed under President Obama, while only 34 percent know it originated under Bush.
"Oh yeah?" Bush replied. "50% of the people were wrong."
jimmyorr99
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 958


View Profile
« Reply #77 on: August 03, 2007, 01:31:01 PM »

Am I the only one that noticed Xerses was especially feminine in his motions and characterization? He made very effeminate moves and wore make up and jewelry. It honestly seemed like that was intentional, because he wasn't nearly as "manly" as the Spartans who did no such thing.
Logged

if you strike me down, i will become more powerful than you can ever imagine.
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #78 on: August 03, 2007, 02:17:46 PM »

Quote from: jimmyorr99 on August 03, 2007, 01:31:01 PM

Am I the only one that noticed Xerses was especially feminine in his motions and characterization? He made very effeminate moves and wore make up and jewelry. It honestly seemed like that was intentional, because he wasn't nearly as "manly" as the Spartans who did no such thing.

I noticed that, but it may have been because I saw the South Park episode that parodied 300 before I actually saw the movie...... naw, Xerxes was just a flamer  icon_wink
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
PeteRock
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6798


Fabulous is a state of being. For me, anyways.


View Profile
« Reply #79 on: August 03, 2007, 04:59:58 PM »

I finally had a chance to watch 300 last night.  I missed it in the theaters and we had guests over for a movie night after work (complete with popcorn, candy, and beer - yes, you don't normally have  beer at the theater, but in my theater you do  icon_cool). 

My impressions?  I F-ing loved it.  Great imagery, fantastic sound, cool story, and some amazing battle scenes.  It was everything I expected.  A fantastic recreation of Miller's graphic novel on-screen.  The dialogue, imagery, everything was taken straight from Miller's work.  It was a graphic novel come-to-life, just like Sin City, only I think 300 was even better than Sin City.  Even my wife absolutely loved it and can't wait to watch it again.  Every one of my expectations were met.  I love Miller's work, and it's always exciting for me to see it brought to life with such accuracy and dedication to the source material. 

I watched the entire film sitting wide-eyed and leaning forward from my couch.  I loved it.  Loved it, loved it, loved it.  I've long ago learned to disregard ATB's thoughts on film, and my enjoyment of 300 only further supports the fact that he and I have very different taste in film.  As in, I have it, and he doesn't.

I found Hot Fuzz to be somewhat of a disappointment (although I think that it will become funnier and more enjoyable after repeat viewings), but I have not a single gripe about 300.  It was everything it was supposed to be.  A faithful recreation of Frank Miller's graphic novel.  It wasn't meant to be historically accurate, it was simply meant to be cool.  And that it was.   
Logged

Beauty is only skin deep.  Which is why I take very good care of my skin.
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.27 seconds with 105 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.06s, 4q)