Rossi Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 (edited) Welcome to the website of best-selling author Steven Pressfield, where the #1 question we're getting these days (early '07) is, "Is the new movie 300 based on your book Gates of Fire?" That's a very reasonable question. The answer, however, is no. 300 comes from a graphic novel of the same title by Frank Miller. There's no connection between it and Gates of Fire. The second most-asked question is: "Okay, if this new movie isn't based on Gates of Fire, will there be a Gates of Fire movie at all?" The answer to that is a little trickier. Gates has been under option to Universal Studios since it was first published in 1998. For a while George Clooney was part of the project, as was the director Michael Mann. A number of screenplay drafts have been written by the excellent young writer David Self (Road to Perdition, Thirteen Days). However, so far the stars have not aligned in such a way as to green-light the project. Certainly Universal is watching to see how 300 does at the box office. The above information is straight from Steven Pressfield's official website - for those of you still interested! Clooney as Leonidas? I could see it... Edited March 13, 2007 by Rossi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossi 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 Read 300 first, go and see the movie, then enjoy Pressfield's Gates of Fire! I read this book during the quiet moments I had on my honeymoon in (funny enough) the Greek Isles! How appropriate is that?! Taking a break from the book and staring out over the Med. Sea from our ship at the shores/cliffs of Mykonos and Santorini? Needless to say, my environment lent itself heavily to the book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Can a Spartan Phalanx stop a war elephant charge? Esp. when they were not using those later 'deluxe length' spears? Actually, if I was facing a non-moving phalanx wall (who can't move up and attack since they were guarding a narrow pass), I think 'battering rams' (or just long tree trunks) would be a good idea. One smash and the arm holding the shield is in for some bruising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingNor Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Can a Spartan Phalanx stop a war elephant charge? Esp. when they were not using those later 'deluxe length' spears? Actually, if I was facing a non-moving phalanx wall (who can't move up and attack since they were guarding a narrow pass), I think 'battering rams' (or just long tree trunks) would be a good idea. One smash and the arm holding the shield is in for some bruising. Remember that all of 300 is being told by the Spartan with one eye who was sent back to tell a grand tale. according to real life accounts there were no elephants, and even if there had been, according to the story they slipped on all the dead bodies and fell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugimon Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Remember that all of 300 is being told by the Spartan with one eye who was sent back to tell a grand tale. according to real life accounts there were no elephants, and even if there had been, according to the story they slipped on all the dead bodies and fell. it's funny the things that people want to pick out on this movie. For me, the super sized elephants were much more believable than the odd goat man and especially the executioner with the blades grafted into his elbows... in a day and a age without antibiotics, how do they keep him alive? and it must hurt like a mother every time he uses those things... I gotta imagine those stumps are all inflamed and infected from having those big old blades stuck in there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 (edited) it's funny the things that people want to pick out on this movie. For me, the super sized elephants were much more believable than the odd goat man and especially the executioner with the blades grafted into his elbows... in a day and a age without antibiotics, how do they keep him alive? and it must hurt like a mother every time he uses those things... I gotta imagine those stumps are all inflamed and infected from having those big old blades stuck in there. Were they grafted blades? I though it was his mutated bones. As for the phalanx vs elephant question. I was asking in real life. Not about the movie. Edited March 13, 2007 by Retracting Head Ter Ter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ladic Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 i think it was bones too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugimon Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 i think it was bones too eeew, it might have been his bones, but definitely his flesh was removed on his arms down to the elbow. pretty nasty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ladic Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 nasty indeed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugimon Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Were they grafted blades? I though it was his mutated bones. As for the phalanx vs elephant question. I was asking in real life. Not about the movie. I don't know about greek hoplites, but elephants were pretty ineffective against roman legionnaires... who reportedly just moved out of the way of charging elephants and later on, would hack the legs with axes as they ran past. Another claim is that elephants were scared of pigs... so apparantly, pgis were doused in oil, set aflame and set off running towards the elephants who would go all nuts from the sight and sound of burning squealing piggies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingNor Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 so apparantly, pgis were doused in oil, set aflame and set off running towards the elephants who would go all nuts from the sight and sound of burning squealing piggies. ...that is so many things at once.... It seems like any elephant that made it to europe to fight was probably not in top condition, they'd probably be freezing cold, uncomfortable and very poorly tempered. I don't know what the weather is like in greece but i'm assuming that even hot days in europe arn't quite the africa that elephants are used to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugimon Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 ...that is so many things at once.... It seems like any elephant that made it to europe to fight was probably not in top condition, they'd probably be freezing cold, uncomfortable and very poorly tempered. I don't know what the weather is like in greece but i'm assuming that even hot days in europe arn't quite the africa that elephants are used to. true.. and ineffective probably isn't the best characterization... for the most part, elephants were the big bad on the battle field, but were notoriously hard to control. It was until scipio figure out formations that channeled elephants towards the back where they could be dealt with while not disrupting the front lines that elephants stopped being the be all and end all of ancient warfare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 (edited) Well yes I know about the Roman's countering the inflexible elephants but the Phalanx doesn't have the flexibility of the Roman Legions. I was just wondering that if Xerxes really had some elephants at Thermopylae, the damn thing might have been over on day one. Oh, and about historical inaccuracies, what about the 3 metre tall Xerxes with Surround Sound Audio? I suppose the intention to super-size him was to really show him as some sort of demi-god? Edited March 13, 2007 by Retracting Head Ter Ter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugimon Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Well yes I know about the Roman's countering the inflexible elephants but the Phalanx doesn't have the flexibility of the Roman Legions. I was just wondering that if Xerxes really had some elephants at Thermopylae, the damn thing might have been over on day one. Oh, and about historical inaccuracies, what about the 3 metre tall Xerxes with Surround Sound Audio? I suppose the intention to super-size him was to really show him as some sort of demi-god? yeah, all the super sized stuff and the fanciful stuff, I take as part of the storytelling of one eye. The persians apparantly did have elephants, but I don't think they came to thermopylae. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfx Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 I find the running BBQ pigs strategy sadistically funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugimon Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 I find the running BBQ pigs strategy sadistically funny. I wanna see that in one of these historical epics! dang, they should of had that in return of the king.. the elephants charge, obliterating the rohan calvary, when the gates open and a bunch of burning squealing pigs come running out, causing the elephants to go beserk and the goblins to break ranks as they run around trying to catch one to eat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uxi Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Carthaginian Elephants gave the (pre Marius) Roman legions a helluva time until Zama. Publius Cornelius Scipio finally figured out and implemented an effective strategy at Zama though, and they were never really used quite effectively against the legions again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 I find the running BBQ pigs strategy sadistically funny. Something similar was used in Ancient China. The besieged city opened its gates and a horde of oxen with flammables tied to their tails (and set ablaze of course) charged out, trampling the enemy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfx Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Something similar was used in Ancient China. The besieged city opened its gates and a horde of oxen with flammables tied to their tails (and set ablaze of course) charged out, trampling the enemy. Man-made stampedes. w00ts! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossi Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 As I mentioned earlier, there were no elephants at Thermopylae. Sure, the Persians had access to elephants, but it was an impossibility to utilize them in Xerxes' campaign against the Greeks. Mainly due to the water bridge the army had to create out of boats lashed together... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingNor Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 ancient times were crazy. i think if i was given the option to watch a battle from ancient days, i'd HAVE to say yes. I'd probably regret it afterwards, but i'd need to see it. It must have just been complete brutal savagery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mechaninac Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 ancient times were crazy. i think if i was given the option to watch a battle from ancient days, i'd HAVE to say yes. I'd probably regret it afterwards, but i'd need to see it. It must have just been complete brutal savagery. No more savage or brutal than modern warfare, and in many ways far less so. But one thing it was is personal. Aside from archers loosing arrows from a distance, ancient warfare was an in-you-face affair where you could smell your opponent's breath, hear his gurgling scream as he was hacked by your blade, and see him lose his bowels in front of you. It must have been far more terrifying to both the vanquished and the victor than shooting somebody with a high powered weapon from 100 yards away, or dropping bombs and artillery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mechafan Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 I just saw 300 and I love this movie. I take it for what it was, entertainment and nothing more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingNor Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 No more savage or brutal than modern warfare, and in many ways far less so. But one thing it was is personal. Aside from archers loosing arrows from a distance, ancient warfare was an in-you-face affair where you could smell your opponent's breath, hear his gurgling scream as he was hacked by your blade, and see him lose his bowels in front of you. It must have been far more terrifying to both the vanquished and the victor than shooting somebody with a high powered weapon from 100 yards away, or dropping bombs and artillery. Thats what i'm getting at, those old battles were just a writhing sea of death and dismemberment. Todays wars create some pretty nasty aftereffects, but i can't even imagine the spectacle of watching thousands of men hack each other to peices. I try to imagine it and it's just too unreal, i can't really perceive it as something that actually happend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugimon Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Thats what i'm getting at, those old battles were just a writhing sea of death and dismemberment. Todays wars create some pretty nasty aftereffects, but i can't even imagine the spectacle of watching thousands of men hack each other to peices. I try to imagine it and it's just too unreal, i can't really perceive it as something that actually happend. well, it wasn't as if people back then les such insular lives either. I'm sure people back then grew up with a much higher background level of violence and suffering. Those city states were contantly engaged in some level of warfare with one another, afterall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoveringCheesecake Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Going to see it again tonight. w00t I've also ordered the Series 1 action figures from bbts. Hopefully they are worth it. Leonidas looks pretty badass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GobotFool Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Saw it. It was a fun movie, but I wasn't blown away. The battles were beutiful, and I don't really care that much about historical accuracy in a movie that makes no real pretense in presenting itself realistically. Anyone who takes the depictions of persians seriously, either offended by it or thinking its an honest representation of them needs to get their heads examined. I just found it took itself to seriously in parts, and found it a little distracting from the real reason I went the see the movie, to watch 300 greek men fight while almost totally naked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Limbo Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Silly buy mildly funny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingNor Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 so, having seen 300, would many of you be interested in seeing a historically "accurate" rendition of this battle? I think i would, but i might be happy with a good high budget documentary too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kung flu Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 so, having seen 300, would many of you be interested in seeing a historically "accurate" rendition of this battle? I think i would, but i might be happy with a good high budget documentary too. I've not seen the movie yet, but if the movie only depicts 300 spartans against thousands, which would be exciting by the sound of it. But to be Historically accurate the 300 spartans had a few thousand extra soldiers from other states/countries that lent a hand in the battle. That probably won't sound as exciting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoveringCheesecake Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 A historically accurate movie would bomb. Let's just keep "Gates of Fire" as a book. It's probably best that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 Saw it last night with the wife, we both enjoyed it. Will probably buy the DVD when it comes out. Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 A historically accurate movie would bomb. Let's just keep "Gates of Fire" as a book. It's probably best that way. Exactly how would an accurate Thermopylae movie would fail? Also, "Gates of Fire" is d**n good but it did take a scant few liberties. If you have ever read that book, you could imagine how great it would be as a movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugimon Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 Exactly how would an accurate Thermopylae movie would fail? Also, "Gates of Fire" is d**n good but it did take a scant few liberties. If you have ever read that book, you could imagine how great it would be as a movie. well, recent historically "acurate" movies haven't done to well, but historic fiction has done fairly well... I think a more accurate 300 movie would do alright as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoveringCheesecake Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 Exactly how would an accurate Thermopylae movie would fail? Also, "Gates of Fire" is d**n good but it did take a scant few liberties. If you have ever read that book, you could imagine how great it would be as a movie. I was the first person to mention the book in this thread, afaik. As for my reasons - Eugimon answered the question for me. The general moviegoing public would be bored to death by a historically accurate movie on Thermopylae. 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.