The 300

[HattonTheHammer]

watched the houston 500 the other day.....






very messy ending

[Wayne]

Wow. Why are ppl looking for this movie to be historically accurate? It's based on a comic book, not the actual events. Guess what, a man coming from a far off galaxy who can fly around and burn you up by staring at you is physiologically inaccurate, but we love Superman anyway. Spiders don't give you superpowers either and nobody grew up with bone claws popping out of their hands. All things inaccurate and 300 is no different. Hell, they didn't even put 'based on a true story' anywhere in the advertisements.

What you really gloss over, for those who saw it, was this was a story told by a soldier who survived to other soldiers to pump them all up. He exaggerated (and also had no idea what an elephant or rhino was) to make the enemy seem insurmountable, but yet the 300 thrived in battle against them.

The director made a more than faithful interpretation of the Frank Miller story. I get it if you have a problem, but your problem is with the wrong person.

[OumaFan]

I don't have a problem with the historical accuracy, just that it was such shit.

[Wayne]

I can respect that. You're completely wrong, but I can respect that.

[OumaFan]

To be honest I agree with not caring about the historical accuracy, its a movie based on a comic book Its like I watched this foreign monster movie the other day and at one point thought fuck that's not realistic when the whole movie's about a giant sea lizard that comes out of a Korean river, I'm really worried about realism?

I just thought 300 was boring and kind of silly, to each his own. I had high expectations, maybe If I had just stumbled on it it would have been different.

[Nameless]

Wow. Why are ppl looking for this movie to be historically accurate? It's based on a comic book, not the actual events. Guess what, a man coming from a far off galaxy who can fly around and burn you up by staring at you is physiologically inaccurate, but we love Superman anyway. Spiders don't give you superpowers either and nobody grew up with bone claws popping out of their hands. All things inaccurate and 300 is no different. Hell, they didn't even put 'based on a true story' anywhere in the advertisements.

What you really gloss over, for those who saw it, was this was a story told by a soldier who survived to other soldiers to pump them all up. He exaggerated (and also had no idea what an elephant or rhino was) to make the enemy seem insurmountable, but yet the 300 thrived in battle against them.

The director made a more than faithful interpretation of the Frank Miller story. I get it if you have a problem, but your problem is with the wrong person.

The thermopiles battle really happened. There was really 300 spartans lead by King Leonidas. They really were outnumbered and really killed more persians than they were (though the fight ended into the Persian camp where the spartans stormed and almost reach the tent of Xerces). SO why we are expecting some realism? Because it is an historical fact well documented IMO. If it was based solely on a fantasy I would understand but it is not.

[amat]

Wow. Why are ppl looking for this movie to be historically accurate? It's based on a comic book, not the actual events. Guess what, a man coming from a far off galaxy who can fly around and burn you up by staring at you is physiologically inaccurate, but we love Superman anyway. Spiders don't give you superpowers either and nobody grew up with bone claws popping out of their hands. All things inaccurate and 300 is no different. Hell, they didn't even put 'based on a true story' anywhere in the advertisements.

What you really gloss over, for those who saw it, was this was a story told by a soldier who survived to other soldiers to pump them all up. He exaggerated (and also had no idea what an elephant or rhino was) to make the enemy seem insurmountable, but yet the 300 thrived in battle against them.

The director made a more than faithful interpretation of the Frank Miller story. I get it if you have a problem, but your problem is with the wrong person.

The thermopiles battle really happened. There was really 300 spartans lead by King Leonidas. They really were outnumbered and really killed more persians than they were (though the fight ended into the Persian camp where the spartans stormed and almost reach the tent of Xerces). SO why we are expecting some realism? Because it is an historical fact well documented IMO. If it was based solely on a fantasy I would understand but it is not.

No but it really is. I mean that's cool that you know all this history (I've found this thread interesting since it's revival) but all you have to do is watch the movie and understand that historical accuracy is not what you're going for. I'm sure plenty of myths throughout history were actually rooted in something that actually happened then glorified to capture people's imagination. Seriously, it's a comic book film interpretation. Like Killface said, hold it against Frank Miller not the film.

[Nameless]

Wow. Why are ppl looking for this movie to be historically accurate? It's based on a comic book, not the actual events. Guess what, a man coming from a far off galaxy who can fly around and burn you up by staring at you is physiologically inaccurate, but we love Superman anyway. Spiders don't give you superpowers either and nobody grew up with bone claws popping out of their hands. All things inaccurate and 300 is no different. Hell, they didn't even put 'based on a true story' anywhere in the advertisements.

What you really gloss over, for those who saw it, was this was a story told by a soldier who survived to other soldiers to pump them all up. He exaggerated (and also had no idea what an elephant or rhino was) to make the enemy seem insurmountable, but yet the 300 thrived in battle against them.

The director made a more than faithful interpretation of the Frank Miller story. I get it if you have a problem, but your problem is with the wrong person.

The thermopiles battle really happened. There was really 300 spartans lead by King Leonidas. They really were outnumbered and really killed more persians than they were (though the fight ended into the Persian camp where the spartans stormed and almost reach the tent of Xerces). SO why we are expecting some realism? Because it is an historical fact well documented IMO. If it was based solely on a fantasy I would understand but it is not.

No but it really is. I mean that's cool that you know all this history (I've found this thread interesting since it's revival) but all you have to do is watch the movie and understand that historical accuracy is not what you're going for. I'm sure plenty of myths throughout history were actually rooted in something that actually happened then glorified to capture people's imagination. Seriously, it's a comic book film interpretation. Like Killface said, hold it against Frank Miller not the film.

300 is a historically-inspired comic book (later collected as a graphic novel) written and illustrated by Frank Miller with painted colors by Lynn Varley. The comics itself is true inspired history, they just put some funny color and a specific art around it, which I have no problem about; They can depict an historic event with colors and with the style they want (more or less), my problem is definitely how they fucked up things in the process, if it would only slightly modify some stuff to make the history fit better together, I am all ok with it; they did the same for LOTR and though some details irked m e seriously, the overall was quite ok but in 300....
Thus said, I agree that many things in history have been pulled by the hairs to inspire men etc. However, 300 isn't exactly the case as there is many different records from various sources that seem to corroborate that battle. The spartans were amazing fighters and superbly organized but to hold on against 250 000 men with solely the help of 7000 soldiers with them,they need another ally; The ground battle was more than perfect for that kind of battle otherwise no matter how good they were, 250 000 would have simply steamrolled them.

[Wayne]

The thermopiles battle really happened. There was really 300 spartans lead by King Leonidas. They really were outnumbered and really killed more persians than they were (though the fight ended into the Persian camp where the spartans stormed and almost reach the tent of Xerces). SO why we are expecting some realism? Because it is an historical fact well documented IMO. If it was based solely on a fantasy I would understand but it is not.

No but it really is. I mean that's cool that you know all this history (I've found this thread interesting since it's revival) but all you have to do is watch the movie and understand that historical accuracy is not what you're going for. I'm sure plenty of myths throughout history were actually rooted in something that actually happened then glorified to capture people's imagination. Seriously, it's a comic book film interpretation. Like Killface said, hold it against Frank Miller not the film.

300 is a historically-inspired comic book (later collected as a graphic novel) written and illustrated by Frank Miller with painted colors by Lynn Varley. The comics itself is true inspired history, they just put some funny color and a specific art around it, which I have no problem about; They can depict an historic event with colors and with the style they want (more or less), my problem is definitely how they fucked up things in the process, if it would only slightly modify some stuff to make the history fit better together, I am all ok with it; they did the same for LOTR and though some details irked m e seriously, the overall was quite ok but in 300....
Thus said, I agree that many things in history have been pulled by the hairs to inspire men etc. However, 300 isn't exactly the case as there is many different records from various sources that seem to corroborate that battle. The spartans were amazing fighters and superbly organized but to hold on against 250 000 men with solely the help of 7000 soldiers with them,they need another ally; The ground battle was more than perfect for that kind of battle otherwise no matter how good they were, 250 000 would have simply steamrolled them.

Hahaha, you used a work of fiction to prove your point, thus proving mine. Sure, the battle at Thermopylae really happened, but the movie 300 is not based on that, it's based on a fictionalized account told in a comic book. That's why Zack Snyder, the director, matched frame for frame what was in the comic and he did a wonderful job. Frank Miller acknowledged his story was inaccurate. He wasn't going for accuracy, he wanted something that wasn't in the version he saw when he was younger. How about the fact the Spartans weren't half naked fighting in battle. He wanted to show off their muscle.

There's a lot 'wrong' with this movie if you're looking for accuracy, but the same is true of every single story based off true events. There's always something that was only speculation or something changed to make it more interesting or some back story that may or may not have happened. I defy you to find a single movie that's completely accurate. It's never happened and never will. There was no Jack and Rose on the Titanic, but the boat really sank. At least with 300 they didn't try to pan it off as being absolute truth by putting in the opening credits, "Based on a true story."

Case in point- Ephialtes. Real guy, but he was not a hideous freak. He was a sheepherder, more than likely, and was bribed to reveal the hidden pass. Frank Miller's interpretation was to make him a monster as told through Dilios. Remember that Dilios is telling the meat of the story and he is obviously exaggerating his retelling to the Spartan soldiers to pump them up for the fight. And he's absolutely lying about the end because he wasn't there. Remember that you didn't see any 'monsters' until he started telling the story.

[Nameless]

No but it really is. I mean that's cool that you know all this history (I've found this thread interesting since it's revival) but all you have to do is watch the movie and understand that historical accuracy is not what you're going for. I'm sure plenty of myths throughout history were actually rooted in something that actually happened then glorified to capture people's imagination. Seriously, it's a comic book film interpretation. Like Killface said, hold it against Frank Miller not the film.

300 is a historically-inspired comic book (later collected as a graphic novel) written and illustrated by Frank Miller with painted colors by Lynn Varley. The comics itself is true inspired history, they just put some funny color and a specific art around it, which I have no problem about; They can depict an historic event with colors and with the style they want (more or less), my problem is definitely how they fucked up things in the process, if it would only slightly modify some stuff to make the history fit better together, I am all ok with it; they did the same for LOTR and though some details irked m e seriously, the overall was quite ok but in 300....
Thus said, I agree that many things in history have been pulled by the hairs to inspire men etc. However, 300 isn't exactly the case as there is many different records from various sources that seem to corroborate that battle. The spartans were amazing fighters and superbly organized but to hold on against 250 000 men with solely the help of 7000 soldiers with them,they need another ally; The ground battle was more than perfect for that kind of battle otherwise no matter how good they were, 250 000 would have simply steamrolled them.

Hahaha, you used a work of fiction to prove your point, thus proving mine. Sure, the battle at Thermopylae really happened, but the movie 300 is not based on that, it's based on a fictionalized account told in a comic book. That's why Zack Snyder, the director, matched frame for frame what was in the comic and he did a wonderful job. Frank Miller acknowledged his story was inaccurate. He wasn't going for accuracy, he wanted something that wasn't in the version he saw when he was younger. How about the fact the Spartans weren't half naked fighting in battle. He wanted to show off their muscle.

There's a lot 'wrong' with this movie if you're looking for accuracy, but the same is true of every single story based off true events. There's always something that was only speculation or something changed to make it more interesting or some back story that may or may not have happened. I defy you to find a single movie that's completely accurate. It's never happened and never will. There was no Jack and Rose on the Titanic, but the boat really sank. At least with 300 they didn't try to pan it off as being absolute truth by putting in the opening credits, "Based on a true story."

Case in point- Ephialtes. Real guy, but he was not a hideous freak. He was a sheepherder, more than likely, and was bribed to reveal the hidden pass. Frank Miller's interpretation was to make him a monster as told through Dilios. Remember that Dilios is telling the meat of the story and he is obviously exaggerating his retelling to the Spartan soldiers to pump them up for the fight. And he's absolutely lying about the end because he wasn't there. Remember that you didn't see any 'monsters' until he started telling the story.

I didn't use a fiction to prove my point, I was answering to Amat saying that the movie was inspired by the graphics of Miller but based on a true story, that I was more than ok with the novel graphical experience but against the total un-accuracy of the movie.
As I said before, I don't mind a few little mistakes, I am not challenging that, but I am against total deformation of what happened. If you're about to do so, they should mention that it is a fiction thing inspired on true event.
I know that Ephialthes was a shepperder and got bribed, that is one of the reason why I was irked, why put a damn hunchback instead, there would have been so many cool ways to depict a miller-esque shepperder, the need for a hunchback desiring to fight for Sparta was useless and grotesque. That is one of the many details that made me angry, perhaps I am too much of a geek history and not enough of a comic books nerds on that one, perhaps it is a professional deformation (I study philosophy, did tons of greek philosophy and history though political is my main focus) but there was too many BIG flaws to forgive the film so easily, hence why to me it deserves a 6.7, nothing ,more.

[Wayne]

300 is a historically-inspired comic book (later collected as a graphic novel) written and illustrated by Frank Miller with painted colors by Lynn Varley. The comics itself is true inspired history, they just put some funny color and a specific art around it, which I have no problem about; They can depict an historic event with colors and with the style they want (more or less), my problem is definitely how they fucked up things in the process, if it would only slightly modify some stuff to make the history fit better together, I am all ok with it; they did the same for LOTR and though some details irked m e seriously, the overall was quite ok but in 300....
Thus said, I agree that many things in history have been pulled by the hairs to inspire men etc. However, 300 isn't exactly the case as there is many different records from various sources that seem to corroborate that battle. The spartans were amazing fighters and superbly organized but to hold on against 250 000 men with solely the help of 7000 soldiers with them,they need another ally; The ground battle was more than perfect for that kind of battle otherwise no matter how good they were, 250 000 would have simply steamrolled them.

Hahaha, you used a work of fiction to prove your point, thus proving mine. Sure, the battle at Thermopylae really happened, but the movie 300 is not based on that, it's based on a fictionalized account told in a comic book. That's why Zack Snyder, the director, matched frame for frame what was in the comic and he did a wonderful job. Frank Miller acknowledged his story was inaccurate. He wasn't going for accuracy, he wanted something that wasn't in the version he saw when he was younger. How about the fact the Spartans weren't half naked fighting in battle. He wanted to show off their muscle.

There's a lot 'wrong' with this movie if you're looking for accuracy, but the same is true of every single story based off true events. There's always something that was only speculation or something changed to make it more interesting or some back story that may or may not have happened. I defy you to find a single movie that's completely accurate. It's never happened and never will. There was no Jack and Rose on the Titanic, but the boat really sank. At least with 300 they didn't try to pan it off as being absolute truth by putting in the opening credits, "Based on a true story."

Case in point- Ephialtes. Real guy, but he was not a hideous freak. He was a sheepherder, more than likely, and was bribed to reveal the hidden pass. Frank Miller's interpretation was to make him a monster as told through Dilios. Remember that Dilios is telling the meat of the story and he is obviously exaggerating his retelling to the Spartan soldiers to pump them up for the fight. And he's absolutely lying about the end because he wasn't there. Remember that you didn't see any 'monsters' until he started telling the story.

I didn't use a fiction to prove my point, I was answering to Amat saying that the movie was inspired by the graphics of Miller but based on a true story, that I was more than ok with the novel graphical experience but against the total un-accuracy of the movie.
As I said before, I don't mind a few little mistakes, I am not challenging that, but I am against total deformation of what happened. If you're about to do so, they should mention that it is a fiction thing inspired on true event.
I know that Ephialthes was a shepperder and got bribed, that is one of the reason why I was irked, why put a damn hunchback instead, there would have been so many cool ways to depict a miller-esque shepperder, the need for a hunchback desiring to fight for Sparta was useless and grotesque. That is one of the many details that made me angry, perhaps I am too much of a geek history and not enough of a comic books nerds on that one, perhaps it is a professional deformation (I study philosophy, did tons of greek philosophy and history though political is my main focus) but there was too many BIG flaws to forgive the film so easily, hence why to me it deserves a 6.7, nothing ,more.

Yes, you did. Bam. Regardless, you didn't like it- I get it. I just don't understand why people look for accuracy in movies. They never are. People don't do somersaults through the air when they get shot in the head at close range. It's all a matter of whether or not I'm engaged by the story and 300 had me for the whole time.

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

Im feeling the whole 'BAM' thing as part of your argument... Nice touch

[Wayne]

I think that's becoming my thing, my coup de grace.

[JazMerkin]

Aside from the lack of historical accuracy & it just being a poorly plotted film, the level of homoeroticism was crazy. At least with Brokeback I knew that was coming. I don't care who's to blame for that Zack Snyder or Frank Miller, they could have put a notice on the DVD case. Fact. BAM. Braaap.

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

Double Brrrap.