Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 (edited) Another thing, weren't the Spartan Phalanxes supposed to employ much longer spears? Like up to 18+ foot long ones. Not the short ones we see in the movie. And the fancy looking swords the Spartans were using?!?!? WTF?!!? And of course the Immortal's twin 'Ninjatos'. Wahah! Edited March 10, 2007 by Retracting Head Ter Ter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skullsixx Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 I'm venturing out to see this TODAY!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uxi Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 (edited) Saw the IMAX showing yesterday. Very cool movie. Not completely accurate, but I wouldn't expect any cinematic representation to be. I've been loving my Rome: Total Realism mod for Rome: total war and have been playing it extensively for months. The subject of the phalanx comes up much and i'll paraphrase from the FAQ at their forums: The Greek City States used a Doru (7-9 feet) in their Phalanx, as did the various copies made by the barbarians, whereas the Macedonian and Hellenistic kingdoms used the Sarissa, a pike 14-18 feet long. My Roman Legions always crush the phalanx. Set the unit taking the brunt of a phalanx to loose formation and count on them getting a bit mauled (typically I'll use either another mercenary phalanx, some Italian spearman, or maybe a unit of Legionary Hastati, but never Gauls or Iberians or Illyrians who'll panic). Then send some other units quickly to flank the edge most phalanx (I almost exclusively use Legionary Principes for this, though sometimes barbarian cavalry). I've just conquered Greece (Sparty and Corinth put up the biggest fight. I had Athens isolated for some time and my spies opened the gates for me anyway, though I still had to fight through some elite hoplatai at each gate) and have been carving up Macedonia... Once I'm done there, though, Carthage is gonna see some legions! But anyways, I was pretty disapointed with 300's showing of the phalanx. Leonidas tells quaismodo how important it is, etc and you see it employed briefly in the first charge and from there on they don't use it at all. Edited March 10, 2007 by Uxi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Another thing, weren't the Spartan Phalanxes supposed to employ much longer spears? Like up to 18+ foot long ones. Not the short ones we see in the movie. And the fancy looking swords the Spartans were using?!?!? WTF?!!? And of course the Immortal's twin 'Ninjatos'. Wahah! The spears Greek Hoplites traditionally used were 8 ft long, give or take a foot. The 18 or so foot long weapons you're thinking about are the Macedonian Sarissas, developed by Alexander the Great's father, Phillip of Macedon. The Sarissa is developed much, much later than the era of Thermopylae / The Persian Wars. The Sarissa becomes more predominant after Alexander the Great's conquests and with Greeks and Hellenic culture spreading due to the conquests. When the Roman Republic gets into the 2nd Punic War in about 280 BC, the Hellenic world (Greek) spread considerably in the states that popped up after Alexander's death... and so did the Sarissa / Macedonian style of the Phalanx. As for the swords the Spartans were using in the movie, I'm not sure if that's accurate or not. Hoplites used a pretty a variety of short swords as their backup (Xiphos), since the spear is the primary weapon. Once the spear was lost, the Xiphos will then be used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azrael Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 As for the swords the Spartans were using in the movie, I'm not sure if that's accurate or not. Hoplites used a pretty a variety of short swords as their backup (Xiphos), since the spear is the primary weapon. Once the spear was lost, the Xiphos will then be used. I'm sure they weren't accurate, but then again, not much of the movie bows to history. The common Greek short sword was more of a straighter blade double-edge sword without the hacking curve seen in the movie. The other common design was a leaf-shaped blade. So I doubt the swords are historically accurate. Again, a lot of it was artistic license. Saw it today. Good movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Limbo Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Despite historical accuracy, all I can say is WOW. The movie got me so pumped up I had to go to the gym do some pushups and then eat a 20oz ribeye rare for dinner to burnout the testosterone. Can't wait to watch it again!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skullsixx Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Just got in from seeing this... I'm glad to say it exceeded my expectations. NICE!!! The trailer and and advertising are a bit misleading. It seemed like the trailer had Leonidas screaming all the time. Happy to say the movie really had a great story and I thought it actually went into more detail than the graphic novel. I loved the stylistic blood/battle scenes. The instrumental hard/rock metal music fit in nice well too. I'm thrilled that didn't bother me at all. Most importantly, I thought the CG backgrounds would really limit the scale of the film and it did not in any way. The end credits were awesome too!!! They say they may give the Watchmen film to this director, if so, I definitely give it my blessing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 They didn't have Leonidas screaming all the time. He was just screaming 3/4 of the time, even when there was no fighting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the white drew carey Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 (edited) I'm sure they weren't accurate, but then again, not much of the movie bows to history. The common Greek short sword was more of a straighter blade double-edge sword without the hacking curve seen in the movie. The other common design was a leaf-shaped blade. So I doubt the swords are historically accurate. Again, a lot of it was artistic license. The swords are almost exactly like how Miller drew them in the comic book. The wife and I saw it last night and we were both floored by it. It's an awesome movei. Afterwards, though, she fell into mentioning and asking about historical inaccuracies and I had to keep reminding her that the movie is not based on the battle of Thermopylae... it's based on a comic book that is loosely based on the battle of Thermopylae. Sometimes it's hard to get that through people's head, you know? Edited March 11, 2007 by the white drew carey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwinges Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 You must see this movie...No exceptions! Deciding not to see this movie is punishable by a death. A death you will not enjoy and will not be quick. Damn now I gotta go buy God of War 2 when it comes out on Tuesday. This just reawakened my spartan bloodlust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugimon Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 The swords are almost exactly like how Miller drew them in the comic book. The wife and I saw it last night and we were both floored by it. It's an awesome movei. Afterwards, though, she fell into mentioning and asking about historical inaccuracies and I had to keep reminding her that the movie is not based on the battle of Thermopylae... it's based on a comic book that is loosely based on the battle of Thermopylae. Sometimes it's hard to get that through people's head, you know? people who go to see this movie expecting a history lesson are just missing the point. It's supposed to a good old fashion blood and guts popcorn movie... not a PBS documentary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Shade Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Just saw it. It was bloody, it was gory, it was f'ing violent. It was a manly man's movie. This is the best film I've seen in theatres in a while. A lot of people in the threatre were almost cheering when the giant was fighting Leonidas (the giant was being played by a local actor), and while we knew he wasn't going to win, it was still great seeing him in the film kicking ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrono Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Just saw it. It was bloody, it was gory, it was f'ing violent. It was a manly man's movie. This is the best film I've seen in theatres in a while. So your saying that you enjoyed it? But yeah people tend to forget that it's entertainment. LOL I'll see it Monday when the theaters are empty and the little bastards are back in school. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewie Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 people who go to see this movie expecting a history lesson are just missing the point. It's supposed to a good old fashion blood and guts popcorn movie... not a PBS documentary. QFE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 (edited) The sad part is that in between the Orcs, Mutants, Giants, Goat-Headed-Man, Quazimoto / Hunchback of Notre Dame, and Silver-Masked-Black-Uniformed-Ninjas-Wielding-Something-Like-Katanas-But-Are-PERSIAN-Immortals-And-Not-Japanese-Ninjas, people may think the Spartans were fighting Sauron's / Eisengardt's Army instead of Persians... and thinking The Battle of Thermopylae was a fictional event! Also, if you dig up the actual history of the events leading into Thermopylae and its aftermath, there is alot of good potential for a damn good movie(s). I'm not saying History's all fun, but there are some events that can be a good movie and still be decently faithful to the real thing. Honestly, no movie will be 100% accurate. But if there's too many liberties taken, you might as well make it Sci-Fi or Fantasy, like the Americans cracking the Enigma Code in WWII instead of the British... oops, that was done already with "U-571" You might as well have British Royal Marines raising the British Flag atop Mount Suribachi at Iwo Jima. ... and if you're going to use CG, don't make your actors stand out from the CG that glaringly bad. The CG was decent for most parts but atrociously done in some parts. The worst was when this Spartan got his head lopped off by a Cavalryman. Man, was that awfully done. Edited March 12, 2007 by Warmaker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Opening here in HK on March 15th. Definitely going to see it. Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugimon Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 The sad part is that in between the Orcs, Mutants, Giants, Goat-Headed-Man, Quazimoto / Hunchback of Notre Dame, and Silver-Masked-Black-Uniformed-Ninjas-Wielding-Something-Like-Katanas-But-Are-PERSIAN-Immortals-And-Not-Japanese-Ninjas, people may think the Spartans were fighting Sauron's / Eisengardt's Army instead of Persians... and thinking The Battle of Thermopylae was a fictional event! Also, if you dig up the actual history of the events leading into Thermopylae and its aftermath, there is alot of good potential for a damn good movie(s). I'm not saying History's all fun, but there are some events that can be a good movie and still be decently faithful to the real thing. Honestly, no movie will be 100% accurate. But if there's too many liberties taken, you might as well make it Sci-Fi or Fantasy, like the Americans cracking the Enigma Code in WWII instead of the British... oops, that was done already with "U-571" You might as well have British Royal Marines raising the British Flag atop Mount Suribachi at Iwo Jima. ... and if you're going to use CG, don't make your actors stand out from the CG that glaringly bad. The CG was decent for most parts but atrociously done in some parts. The worst was when this Spartan got his head lopped off by a Cavalryman. Man, was that awfully done. you're missing the fact that this is an adaptation of Frank Millar's graphic novel... those characters are drawn that way in the comic. And the comic wasn't a history lesson. I get that you're a big history buff and that you know your stuff. I'm not knocking that, and maybe this movie wasn't your cup of tea... but this movie was never even trying to appeal to the hardcore history buffs. There are plenty of film-makers out there who do that sort of thing. As far as the CG thing. It seems pretty obvious that there is a certain look that they're going for... in the same vein as Sin City and Sky Captain.. they're not trying for photorealism but something that's obviously supposed to be stylized after Frank millar's art work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 (edited) *Edited away my original first half of this reply... you don't need me raining on the parade any furhter!* Anyways, I did read Frank Miller's 300 Comic and I still like that better than the movie. I'll leave it at that. ------------------ I've heard whispers about a year ago of a movie adaptation of Steven Pressfield's "Gates of Fire," which itself is a novel of Thermopylae. I'm quite curious about it since the book is very, very good in it's own telling of the battle. It also provides a strong background on the Spartans. Their lifestyle, training, mindset... everything. The depiction of the battle was outstanding. You had a definite feel of exhaustion, death, wounds, and desperation. The description and "feel" of Hoplite warfare felt vastly different from a standard "Run around and skewer / slash everyone you see." I know his book took a few liberties, but it included alot of historical accuracy as well. I'm just curious to see if this comes out and if it does, how accurate it will be to history and the book. Edited March 12, 2007 by Warmaker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugimon Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 there were enough scenes of the phalanx in action for the viewer to "get it" the initial surge and the calvary charge. an impenterable wall of shield and spears is cool and all, but this is a movie. generally, audiences like to see their heroes. point at one shield among 300 and saying, ooh, that one is Leonidas! makes for boring. And there were plenty of scenes showing the strict discipline of spartan life.. the whole opening sequence was about showing the rigours of spartan life. I don't think we really needed to see them doing push ups to get that spartans were badass and disciplined, besides, the whole spartan versus arkadian thing really spelled it out again, if anyone wasn't paying attention. and yes, there were mutants, and giant elephants and what not, but again, this movie never pretended to be some sort of historical docudrama. They were meant to be entertaining. They were meant to emphasize power and twistedness of the persians. And yes, it's doubtful that xerxes spoke with a spanish accent. But again, this wasn't, national geographic presents: 300. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 My last take on this whole thing: Was I watching a story about the Battle of Thermopylae or was I watching someone's version of Lord of the Rings? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoveringCheesecake Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 It was good. Second movie I've seen in a digital theater. The spear-throwing got old after a while, though. They aren't javelins, ffs. But yeah, I enjoyed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfx Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 and yes, there were mutants, and giant elephants and what not, but again, this movie never pretended to be some sort of historical docudrama. They were meant to be entertaining. They were meant to emphasize power and twistedness of the persians. And yes, it's doubtful that xerxes spoke with a spanish accent. But again, this wasn't, national geographic presents: 300. The story was told from the perspective of that one-eyed guy. Stories being stories, they tend to be exagerrated over many tellings of the tales. There probably weren't orcs and demons and giant elephants and rhinos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Were Elephants present in the historical battle? Did Spartans really march to war carrying NOTHING except their spear,sword, shield, robe and underwear? Where did leonidas get the apple from huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 My comments in red! Were Elephants present in the historical battle? I can't say for certain they were not, but I have not read any account of them being there. The thing is that the Persian Empire reaches pretty far to the East. The possibility is there, but again, I read nothing about them at Thermopylae. Did Spartans really march to war carrying NOTHING except their spear,sword, shield, robe and underwear? I'm not familiar with the Spartan Army on the march. But armies of the time tended to have attendants along in a "baggage train" which contained supplies, equipment, etc. for a campaign. The baggage train could be quite large if the fighting force numbers are significant. The first ones to lessen these extra people for efficiency were the Romans. Look up a guy named Gaius Marius who began to have his own Legionaries carry their own personal gear instead of every other guy having their own attendant and / or mule. The extra people were another logistical burden to keep alive. When Marius made his soldiers carry their own gear, it supposedly averaged 86 pounds... which is still the average weight a soldier in the field carries when on a march. Also, when Marius' Legionaries began to carry all their own gear, they were nicknamed "Marius' Mules." Where did leonidas get the apple from huh? Probably from a farm in Southen California, USA Back on the Spartan equipment... if anything, the Spartans (or Greek Hoplites) in general appeared in this fashion: Hoplite Warfare - See Spartan Hoplite image halfway down They may opt for a bronze breastplate. This was still a time when Greek Hoplites would get heavier protection if possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Shade Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 One thing I noticed while watching it: the film seemed to be grainy, ie the image wasn't as plain as what you would have seen in other movies. Was this done on purpose, or did my threatre just have really bad equipment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Limbo Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Historically the Spartans were actually heavly armed, and that was one of the key points for their advantage in Thermopylae. The persians wore minimum armor, designed for speed and their spears were quite short. The movie's outfit was just artistic license. In the 300 comic most of them are actually naked the whole story! I remember Frank Miller commenting he just thought naked men fighting only with red capes was more epic and cooler than the classic skirt and sandals greek thing... Here's a nice historical documentary film from History Channel about the Spartans and the legendary Battle of Thermopylae. The film is divided in 3 videos: The Battle Of Thermopylae 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy Focker Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 You know guys going nuts over 300 nearly naked men sounds a little gay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leo Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 The movie was sure entertain but I'm disappointed of how much BS they shuffle into it.. eg. the scene when the queen speak infront of the house.. .. I'm sure that scene itself was funded by the republican party.. it's sad that our goverment try to sent us (citizen) message through our movies.. it's just my 2 cens. Overall.. it's a very good movie.. I sure enjoy the orciale scene.. yes I do... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingNor Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 .. I'm sure that scene itself was funded by the republican party.. it's sad that our goverment try to sent us (citizen) message through our movies.. it's just my 2 cens. Show some evidence of this BS or get out, i've got no time for political conjecture in a movie thread. It's possible some film makers have a different political opinion than you, you know. Anyway I thought this movie was great, it wasn't historically accurate at all but unlike a movie like say.. Braveheart.. it doesn't try at ALL to seem historical. It's like watching a movie of a folk tale the way it would have been told in those times. I loved it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leo Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Show some evidence of this BS or get out, i've got no time for political conjecture in a movie thread. It's possible some film makers have a different political opinion than you, you know. Anyway I thought this movie was great, it wasn't historically accurate at all but unlike a movie like say.. Braveheart.. it doesn't try at ALL to seem historical. It's like watching a movie of a folk tale the way it would have been told in those times. I loved it. Kid, If you don't see the push of some particular issue than you don't. I can't help you with that and I'm not about to start one either. Historical or not, it's just a movie at least to me. Kid, don't read too deep into it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Shade Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 (edited) Kid, If you don't see the push of some particular issue than you don't. I can't help you with that and I'm not about to start one either. Historical or not, it's just a movie at least to me. Kid, don't read too deep into it. Though based on an historial event, the movie follows more Frank Miller's Graphic Novel, which came out in 1998. Unless Miller was extremely prescient, your political comment has no merit. Therefore, the Mods should step in and close this argument before it escalates into full blown politics. We are talking about a movie and whether we liked it or hated it. Let's keep it at that, shall we? (Edit: spelling) Edited March 12, 2007 by The Shade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingNor Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 We are talking about a movie and whether we liked it or hated it. Let's keep it at that, shall we? Personally I would have really liked to see some more Phalanx formations and less "thrilling heroics" since i remember a very interesting story from years ago about a king who captured dozens of spartans and wished to see their "superior" fighting. So he set them to battle one on one with other captured soldiers. and the spartans complained that in one on one they were just men battling each other, so the king let them fight as a unit and they were basicly un beatable. While i really loved the movie, and it put so much emphasis on SPARTANS, i wish this one aspect was given more promonance. I wish i could remember where i heard that story, i think it was on one of the learning channels but it really was years and years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JsARCLIGHT Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Please ease up off the politics, cats. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossi Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 STILL haven't had a chance to see this movie. This is just supposed to be a fun movie using a famous battle as a backdrop, but, as a teacher, I can't help dropping at least a little knowledge! In answer to a question a page or two back - No, the Persians did not use elephants at Thermopylae. In fact, in an effort to save time and supplies, Xerxes had to move his massive army over large boats that were lashed together - making a bridge of sorts. Yes, I know, that's a helluva' lot of boats! There is no way that the Persians could have used elephants, rhinos, or giants (but I bet it looked cool in the movie)! Something tells me that Pressfield's Gates of Fire will not be made into a movie now (screenplay was in the works 2003-2004) because Miller's 300 beat it to the punch. Too bad. Of the two, I would have wanted to see Pressfield's on the big screen more. We already had Miller's version in pretty colors on the page! That, and Pressfield's book was far more descript and accurate. If Steven Pressfield's name sounds familiar, by the way, you may remember him better as the author of The Legend of Baggar Vance. Anyway, I've appreciated the honest comments! It sounds like I need to see this movie in IMAX. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Just ordered both Gates of Fire & 300 from Amazon. can't wait to read them. Will be seeing the movie on Thursday. Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.