300 Movie

[saltinespike]

Even before this movie came out, people from the Middle East were complaining that the movie rained on the Persian Empire legacy. The facts are also argued. But when it comes down to it all, it's a he-said she-said type thing (by the few who wrote about it). Now, in your eyes, was 300 disrespectful, exagerrated, etc.

 

My view: The Spartans were the greatest soldiers to walk the planet. They were courageous, brave, and VERY skillful. The movie WAS a bit exagerrated, but the main idea rings true.

[Svip]

Compared to how Hollywood usually illustrates foreigners, I think the Iranians are overreacting. And besides, it was 2400 years ago, let it rest. And it is not like when I see the film, I think, "those are just like the Iranians today, we can beat their asses easily."

[Tom Toole]

The movie WAS a bit exagerrated, but the main idea rings true.

It was more than a "bit". I mean -a giant xerxes? It's from what I understand a great big he-man action movie, not meant to be politically or historically correct.

 

I don't think it's disrespectful, but it's interesting how the Iranians feel about the movie. Do the greeks of today welcome it with 100% attendance or something?

[The-King]

In reality after greek forces retreated there where 1000 Thespians that stayed to fight with the 300 spartans so the movie is definitely exaggerated. Felt like adding that little tidbit.

 

In the end it has no effect on the Iranians of today because they are not powerful, they can't conquer countries, and they certainly aren't capable of rational thought apparently.

[Trows]

The movie is based on a comic book which was influenced by an older movie which was based on a historical event.

 

No doubt it's going to be fantasy induced.

 

[NARFALICIOUS]

People shouldn't put much stock in any movie for historical views.

 

It was a great movie though

[Moth]

300 was a great movie.

 

and the fact the iranians are getting piss off at this makes me left when in other movies the iranians are f*ck terrerests kill themselves and others

[soleil]

I was a Classics major and so I am more able to enjoy a movie like this when it's obvious they're not even trying to be historically accurate... and it was obvious. I really liked the movie.

[Ronmar The Only]

I enjoyed the movie quite well and love the history of Greece and Rome. Much more Rome, but I know several things about Greek and Roman history and by all means the movie was obviously fantasy, it still had several parts that were almost completely factual.

[Tom Toole]

It might not have been intended as pro - USA propaganda, but in the eyes of many the USA is the side of Sparta (in the movie) of the free, democratic, godly (non pederast) greek ones against the ungodly, dirty, persians.

 

Onwards with democracy! is what the movie says.

 

the US is a military power, saying the exact same thing...

[Mister Pink]

It might not have been intended as pro - USA propaganda, but in the eyes of many the USA is the side of Sparta (in the movie) of the free, democratic, godly (non pederast) greek ones against the ungodly, dirty, persians.

 

Onwards with democracy! is what the movie says.

 

the US is a military power, saying the exact same thing...

Good thought. Like the Nazi propaganda films in the past.

[dertyjerzian]

the movie was about doing whats right.

[TerminalGTA]

I believe that the movie was exxagerrated because the account of the battle is exxagerated by those that documented what happened that day. They said there were over a million Persians when modern day historian comment that there were about 100,000.

 

The Spartans were the best force of the time and the Persians used superior numbers that they could conscript from their vast empire to fight the better troops.

 

The Spartan Phalanx is the modern day equivalent of a Abrams Tank against according to many historians.

 

But to be honest I believe that the director like in Sin City set to exagerate what could happen to the maximum.

[saltinespike]

The size of the Persian Army is argued, but they were talking of the ENTIRE Army, not just in the battle. They weren't really wrong (if that's how many they had), but they make it seem as if a million went into that battle. 40,000 Persian troops fought against 300 Spartans and 700 Thespians. Basically, Persians won and killed every last one.

 

The traitor was portrayed as the ugly hunchback who couldn't do anything but cheat, which was stupid. They also had elephants and animals and mutants and stuff, which is probably a lie also.

[Ph3L1z14n0]

For many reasons apparently (as said by Frank Miller the author of the original comicbook) they decided to better make an action movie rather than a historical account of what REALLY happened.

[Struff Bunstridge]

Yo, anyone remember Troy, or Alexander, or Kingdom of Heaven, or pretty much any recent big-budget film attempting to seriously portray ancient history?

 

I don't, because they all disappeared up themselves.

 

The 300 was fun, didn't take itself too seriously, and was essentially one long fight scene. As soon as we saw monsters, surely that was enough of a sign that it wasn't to be taken seriously?

[Mexli]

I don't think it was exagerated, it would be like if Mexicans would get pissed at how the Aztecs are portrayed in the movie "Apocalypto" Irt doesn't mean that the Iranians are like that today. The Spartans were great warriors and maybe if it wasn't for them we wouldn't be sitting in front of our computers typing, because by winning the battle they helped democracy stay alive.

[Seachmall]

The movie was supposed to tell the story like it was told from Spartan to Spartan, of course its not 100% accurate. The Persian Prince was 8', is that accurate? It comes from the story of how he was a giant amongst men. The arrows blotted out the sun, is that accurate? Probably not but thats how the story would have been told from generation to generation. We saw that movie in the cinema last year for school as part of our Classical Studies and we were warned not to take it litteraly and thats why. Its the story according to Spartans not historical fact.

[Stefan.]

I enjoyed the movie greatly, and despite me not studying Latin and Mythology (missed out by .5%, apparently) I still take a great interest in these types of movies, and even purchased the Mythology textbook for private study. Like many above me have said, it's way over the top. I think it's more intended to be a budget film more for pure interest, rather than to recreate an actual even to a T.

[Ph3L1z14n0]

I don't think it was exagerated, it would be like if Mexicans would get pissed at how the Aztecs are portrayed in the movie "Apocalypto" Irt doesn't mean that the Iranians are like that today. The Spartans were great warriors and maybe if it wasn't for them we wouldn't be sitting in front of our computers typing, because by winning the battle they helped democracy stay alive.

You gotta be f*cking kidding me

 

Did you watched the beggining of the movie, they KILLED babies who, to their standards, were "unfit" to live.

 

Did you know that spartans thought that homosexuality between fellow warriors was more respected than their relations with women?

[Seachmall]

Did you watched the beggining of the movie, they KILLED babies who, to their standards, were "unfit" to live.

 

 

Easy mistake to make considering thats what is commonly believed, and even taught in schools (at least thats what I learned in my brief year of Classical Studies) but apparently its not true

 

 

Did the ancient Spartans really throw the deformed or ill newborns off the top of the Taygetus Mount, so as not to burden their small society with unwanted weight? 

For some 2,000 years, history texts say it was the case, but today - according to Greek anthropologist Theodoros Pitsios - the evidence is to the contrary.

The Spartans - at the time called Spartiots - were not so evil since, at the end of five years of research and analyses of human remains found on the site - at the bottom of a cliff called Apothetes on the counterforts of Taygetus - the expert verified that it were bones of men aged between 18 and 35.

Source: PlayHistory

[Ph3L1z14n0]

I don't think it was exagerated, it would be like if Mexicans would get pissed at how the Aztecs are portrayed in the movie "Apocalypto" Irt doesn't mean that the Iranians are like that today. The Spartans were great warriors and maybe if it wasn't for them we wouldn't be sitting in front of our computers typing, because by winning the battle they helped democracy stay alive.

Oh, and of course, the MAYANS were represented in apocalypto

[Vercetti21]

Of course it's exaggerated. It's supposed to be exaggerated - that's all part of the theatrical experience that leaves the viewer in awe. For example, exact numbers of the Persian Army are never given, but they are portrayed to be in the millions to add to the full effect. They've also thrown in mythological creatures, and not to mention it's based on a comic book.

 

That's like criticizing "Titanic" for not being historically accurate. The event is true, but the 'love story' element is fictional. If it were a movie such as "Walk the Line" or any film that documented a person's life, I would be very uptight about the historical aspect of it - but 300 is a story - a nonfictional story with a fictional influence. Give it a break, people.

Edited April 5, 2008 by Vercetti21

[SBizz6]

This is an excellent movie, but it definately has political undertones to it. I mean, think about it. There is no doubt in my mind that this movie was strategically released to coincide with events going on in our world at the time. I think the movie portrays the modern day war between civilizations, which is essential the west vs. the middle east and Arab nations. Although exaggerated in the movie, it does expose the relationship between civilizations in the modern day, and I really do think that it what it is coming down to know. The future conflicts of our planet are most likely not going to be conflicts over political thinking but over races and religion. It will turn into a war of civilizations rather than countries, and I think that this movie was striving to portray that. With the Spartans and Athenians banding together to take on a foe in the east, commonalities between traditional enemies brought them together to rid the world of a tyrant who was of a completely different culture.

I don't know, maybe I sound a bit off my rocker, but I honestly think this movie does deliver some political messages in it.

[Claude GTA3]

300 was a great movie.

 

and the fact the iranians are getting piss off at this makes me left when in other movies the iranians are f*ck terrerests kill themselves and others

Meet The Spartans > 300

[Saggy]

There have been many accounts of the battle throughout history and mythology, and this is just one of many. It is not intended to be a historical document, and in most cases, the story is told as a form of propaganda to fulfill some type of political agenda.

 

There are many historians that feel if the Persians were not held up for as long as they had been in this battle, that other more important battles could not have been won, and the basis for the western world and its principles ( Alexandria ) could never have occurred. It's in this sense that the side of the Spartans is attributed to democracy and freedom, but the film itself was attributed ideals of freedom and democracy to people who did not have any concept of it until hundreds of years after the fact. I don' think that it was really any sort of propaganda, however, I think it was simply done this way as a marketing ploy to appeal to people's sense of patriotism and encourage them to tell others to see the film. Typically propaganda is used in conjunction with things that try to have at least some sense of reality to them.

 

I think that the film does undermine the Persian empire, however, as even people in this thread are failing to recognize the Persian empire as anything but strength in numbers. They were actually technologically more advanced than the Greek soldiers, devising a way to cut the time it would take to lead their invasion by years by means of a floating bridge constructed out of old cargo ships and huge cables. They were, however, completely unaccustomed to fighting hoplite armies, and were designed for speed.

 

The other part about this that people don't often consider, though some have pointed out, is that there was not just 300 soldiers. In fact, in the beginning of the battle, there were thousands of Greek soldiers, from many different city states, and when the flanking Persian force was discovered and the choice was made to retreat, it was actually done in a systematic way to prevent the Persian front-force from simply charging. It was not done how the movie portrayed, where the majority of troops simply abandoned the Spartans, and in fact as many pointed out, 1,000 Thespian soldiers stayed behind to fight along with them.

 

Probably the biggest overlooked part about this battle was the significance of naval battles. If it weren't for the Greek navy, the Persian navy probably would have been able to attack the Greek forces, and in fact after the battle was lost, the Greek navy once again played a much more significant role in preventing the Persians from successfully invading.

 

The reason the story is often told in this way, is because it was the first time that Greek city states had united together to fight a common enemy, and the story was told in such biased ways to promote the strength of this union. It's a very romantic tale, and I think that this film didn't really try to do the same thing. After all, exactly who would buy it? There are not enough parallels to really compare it, and in my opinion I think the emphasis on "freedom" and "democracy" was not only just a marketing ploy as I stated earlier, but also probably one of the only truly historically accurate parts of the film, because our idea of democracy and freedom might be very different today if the Persian empire had succeeded.

 

 

I don't have a lot of formal knowledge on the subject, but I actually studied it in school well before the movie ever came out. If anyone wants a better picture of what really happened, from someone that can remember it in great detail, they should check out some of the History Channel's programs on it.

 

[Girish]

300 was a great movie.

 

and the fact the iranians are getting piss off at this makes me left when in other movies the iranians are f*ck terrerests kill themselves and others

Meet The Spartans > 300

I wouldn't have seen that movie if it wasn't for Carmen Electra.

The GTA San Andreas spoof at the end was cool.

[Ph3L1z14n0]

It is not intended to be a historical document

That point you mentioned is crucial, both Frank Miller and the director Zack Snyder decided it was better to make an action movie than a possibly unaccurate portrayal of the story, but even that doesn't make sense to me, that's exactly why people do RESEARCH.

[Eddie280]

The truth of the battle of thermopolyae(sp) will never be known by us, but it should certainly not be taken from 300. The film itself was certainly not filmed to be a direct representation of reality but rather it is a much more styleised version of the account of a Greek historian who was writing some 50 years after the event.

 

The pure fact that the Persians in 300 were represented in such a non-naturalistic way should be enough dispell any feelings of discrimination which middle-eastern people may feel as the presentation of the Persian's isnt realistic in anyway.

[joe_bevis]

THIS IS SPARTA!