300 (movie)

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
It's not a historical documentary. It's a comic book adaptation. Anyone going to the movie expecting a history lesson should have their head examined.

I don´t expect the movie to be so true to the story like a historic documentary, but there is enough room to create a story that dooesn´t go as contrary to the historic facts as this movie does.

They still could have stayed rather true to history by filling the things we don´t know about Leonidas with an exciting story, intermixing it with for example love stories about some spartan hoplites and aside from this staying rather true to history.

Look at Hollywood and Cowbopy&Indian movies or Hollywoods movies about WW2.
During the 50s/60s they were rather plump in their storyline, with mighty and smart heroes and rather dumb enemies. But since then Hollywood has learned and now often displays indians as well as WW2 rather accurate.

So IMHO it wasn´t false to hope that Hollywood could have done the same with 300 by creating a movie that has both, an exciting story as well as being rather true to history.

But obviously they chose to mix film making of the 50s/60s (in the characterization of heroes/enemies) with the visual effects of the 21st century.


And yes, as you said, as it is a comic book adaptation. Still no reason not to mention how much the story digresses from histroy.
I for my part have never seen the comic book and therefore wouldn´t have known how far these discrepancies go,

[Jaakko]

What I wanna know is, why were the Greeks made whiter than they really were and Persians darker than they really were.

My guess is that it's because the average (white anglosaxon) viewer is more comfortable with whitey killing darkie, rather than dark-skinned mediterraneans killing lighter-skinned Persians.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Jaakko
What I wanna know is, why were the Greeks made whiter than they really were and Persians darker than they really were.

My guess is that it's because the average (white anglosaxon) viewer is more comfortable with whitey killing darkie, rather than dark-skinned mediterraneans killing lighter-skinned Persians.

I bet among those that took note of that it actually made them less comfortable. Observe how they wince when watching some grossly unPC scenes from old movies.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Jaakko
What I wanna know is, why were the Greeks made whiter than they really were and Persians darker than they really were.

Weren't the Hellenistic Greeks blond haired and blue eyed? I heard that somewhere, decades ago.

[Dis]

Originally posted by BeBro
I tried, but self ignore doesn't work

yes it does, I've done it before

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Weren't the Hellenistic Greeks blond haired and blue eyed? I heard that somewhere, decades ago.

do you think movie writers should be careful to consider such speculations on physical appearance of ancient peoples?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Jaakko
My guess is that it's because the average (white anglosaxon) viewer is more comfortable with whitey killing darkie, rather than dark-skinned mediterraneans killing lighter-skinned Persians.

Where did you find photographs of a Hellenistic-era Greeks and Achaemenid-era Persians?

[Elok]

I think I agree with Proteus, with this added: when you take a story "based on history" and gut everything at all relevant or complex, not only do you give a false impression about history (which, I admit, is no major crime, since your average person probably thinks of the ancient Greeks as "those guys in white who ate olives and ran naked"), you often destroy the whole point of basing it on history in the first place.

I gather that what they did here was to take a potentially quite interesting story with nuanced characters and a thought-provoking plot, and turn it into some crap that could have been churned out by the hacks who wrote "Van Helsing." Ungawa, Sparta good, Persia bad, big muscles! That's a lost opportunity right there. I don't find it quite as horrifying as "Troy," which did everything possible to make the high drama of the Iliad stupid and uninteresting, but it is baffling.

And I too like the comic Jaakko posted. I've only read one of my brother's Sin City collections (I thought it was silly, and terribly written dialogue), but that sounds accurate. Oh, and I did read "The Dark Knight Returns" and "Batman: Year One," but he was hampered by pre-existing mythology there so it doesn't really count. He did his best, anyway; wasn't Catwoman a madam or something in BY1?

EDIT for nitpicking about punctuation n'stuff.

[Drake Tungsten]

1. Criticism of a movie you haven't seen makes you look like a moron.

2. Please Mr. Cruise, come out of the closet...

[Darius871]

I know this has already been said about five times, but since it obviously still hasn't sunk in I figured what the hell:

300 is >not< a historical film, nor was it ever intended to be. Rather, it is a comic book adaptation. If you watch it (or, for that matter, read about its contents without bothering to watch it) with the expectation of a history lesson, Tommy will come back there and hit you over the head with a tackhammer because you're a ******.

[Seeker]

general frank miller crtiticisms

-Brutality is OK and 'pornographically acceptable' as long as you are physically strong and one against many (which is why we don't actually see any group tactics).

-Brutality is BAD if you do it via manipulation, politics, deviousness, i.e. mental attributes

-All women are whores. There is no 'whore/saint' dichotomy in Miller, even the saints are whores.

-Men are either hyper-Butch or effeminate

Thus the somewhat impractical leather speedos, etc etc.

Come to think of it, what movies have had accurate portrayals of group tactics?

-the Sharpe movies (napoleonic) "Form Square!"
-The orginal Spartacus
-"Heaven and Earth" samurai movie

I want to know where these things came from in modern war movies:

-the battle as a series of close-up 1/2 second long jump-cuts (possibly Saving Private Ryan?)

-Fire. All arrows MUST be fire-arrows, even in the day, because fire is COOL. Also, any innovative tactic must consist of lighting something on fire. (possibly Robin Hood: prince of thieves?) Any artillery, whether ballistae, cannon balls, or artillery shells, must also result in plumes of fire.

Sad as it is to say, for the small length that it lasted, the battle in Alexander was probably the best having a relatively realistic phalanx.

[Barnabas]

Originally posted by Zkribbler

I heard that somewhere, decades ago.

Maybe Nazi literature?

[Seeker]

That reminds me! I just remembered what this movie reminds me of!

It's basically the classical version of Starship Troopers, except without the hetero elements.

The only question is: Does it have ST's ambiguous sense of irony??

[Dis]

Originally posted by Seeker
That reminds me! I just remembered what this movie reminds me of!

It's basically the classical version of Starship Troopers, except without the hetero elements.

The only question is: Does it have ST's ambiguous sense of irony??

or obligatory tittie shots?

[Seeker]

"...except without the hetero elements."


<--- see above Dis