Yeah that gay brigade was formed in Thebes. It was the Thebans who utterly defeated Sparta in the IVth century ending its power and liberating the Mesenian Helots, although that was due to superior tactics.

I hadn't heard before that Spartans wore little armour, as far as I know Spartan hoplites were as heavily armed as the rest of the Greek ones, armour did matter for their tactics. Actually it was Athens the first to use with good success light assault infantry in the war against Sparta, although those toops were foreing not Athenian. Anyway the film exaggerates Spartan war proficiency compared to other Greeks', or rather exaggerates other Greeks' incompetence. Not only the Spartans were finally defeated, beforehand they were regarded as very good because of their education and exclusive dedication, but not invincible at all, as experience repeatedly proved.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Japofran @ Mar 26 2007, 04:48 PM) [snapback]285096[/snapback]</div>
YOU TAKE THAT BACK!!! :titan: :D


I would use a bow....

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Prephax @ Mar 25 2007, 11:18 PM) [snapback]284966[/snapback]</div>Yep, there were definitely more than 300, because Spartans were really into slavery (like the rest of the Greek city-states of the time) so the original "300" all had their own personal group of slaves who would have fought alongside their Spartan owners.

Also, the number 300 is really unreliable because ancient Greek historians who recorded events (such as Herodotus) are notorious for exagerating numbers to make their stories more compelling.

Anyways, the film isn't based on history, it's based on a comic.

Finally, just to clarify what I meant by calling the movie "homoerotic" - I didn't mean that the movie is "meant for gay people," I meant that the film hails all things masculine and uses the male form almost like art (for a good example of homeroticism look at the photography of Robert Mapplethorpe.) Conversely the film portrays women as secondary, and either weak or whorish. That is not a fault of the film, after all it is based on Frank Miller's comic and Frank Miller treats femle characters as either *****s or weak in pretty much all his comics (a perfect example of this is Jessica Alba's character in Sin City who combines the worst of his misogyny, a stripper and a princess that needs to be saved.)
Besides, "sword and sandal" movies (gladiator/roman/greek themed films) have a long and noble history of being homoerotic. Spartacus, Ben Hur and even Gladiator. How else do you think Tony Curtis became a gay icon? So to finally clear this up - Homerotic does not mean the same thing as "a movie for gay people."

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lulu_Jane @ Mar 27 2007, 07:30 AM) [snapback]285160[/snapback]</div>Homerotic? What does Homero have to do in all this mess?

You silly duffer Tito :)

That's the worst historical film I saw. It's mockery on history. They'd better made a fantasy film than fantasy remix of historical events. Monsters-humans, monsters-creatures and adult content in one episode. What if childs have come to see a historical event in a film?! What if they just come to see what kind of people were there? The same xxx s**t with BloodRayne. When I was watching that film with my parents in cinema, there were some kids there. I am ashamed for those, who make such films. Cinema, like music, is a part of culture. What the hell culture they bring to us, making films like that? Well, I dreived from main topic to another with last sentences...

I don't think this film was meant to be historical an any moment, Nick. And children don't go to the cinema to see historical events, they go to have a nice time. If parents want their children to actually see history in certain films, they should inform themselves first.

Besides, history can be quite brutal and bloody without any additional help. Take Braveheart, for example. That film is quite accurate, for what I've read about Scotish history, and still has a lot of violence, blood and brutality. In fact, that's what happens in battles.

What's with the sudden freaking out on violence in movies? :huh: Movies nowdays does not have any more violence than before, moreover has less than before, only more visual, more real. Just think back to the "classic" B cat. action and horror movies of the 90's. Those things were all over the place, in fact those were almost the only movies around that time. And we watched those films as kids or teenagers. We watched gallons of blood and guts spilling all over the place, with mutilated people crying and yelling for help in anguish, while some maniac with huge machine guns slaughtering them, laughing hysterically while his fingers cramped on the trigger, spitting away the seemingly unlimited ammo of certain doom. But those films were barely believable, with all those "effects". Even as kids we knew that it is fiction, and not real. We grew up on those films, and here we are. Not maniacs, not serial killers, not social trainwrecks, but normal people. I don't get it why you guys think that kids cannot decide what is real and what is not. Think back to your own childhood. heh..

On another account, if you want to see historical things, go watch Discovery Channel or something like that. 300 is a fairytale, nothing more. If you ever studied history in school, you should know that. It's a good composition of historical background and modern animation, tho I doubt the historical background part. Not because it's not according to the history books, but I don't think the battle of Thermopylae went like that at all. You know, legends tend to exaggerate at times ;)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tito @ Mar 26 2007, 05:31 PM) [snapback]285119[/snapback]</div>Prolly based on the concept that you fight harder for those you love; especially if the one you love is fighting too.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tito @ Mar 26 2007, 05:31 PM) [snapback]285119[/snapback]</div>And I wonder how many slash fanfiction lemons that line is going to inspire. :D


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nick @ Mar 27 2007, 07:41 AM) [snapback]285195[/snapback]</div>Wait. WHAT?! HOLLYWOOD? TAKING HISTORY OUT OF CONTEXT?! OH MY GOD I DON'T BELIEVE IT :P

Notice that, as posted above, the movie was based on a comic book; a comic that was loosely based on historic fact. Are you gonna start insulting Clive Cussler now for not being historically accurate too? Or perhaps the Divinchi Code? :P

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nick @ Mar 27 2007, 07:41 AM) [snapback]285195[/snapback]</div>In a movie that's rated R? What? How does possible historical accuracy offset the R rating enough that kids should go see it?

I need clarification on what this is saying, 'cause it sounds like he's talking about going to a movie to see the other moviegoers. And frankly I can't imagine people paying upwards of five to ten bucks to stare at other people in a dark room.

...Wasn't BloodRayne about vampires? How does this have to do with historical accuracy? O_o

Don't blame the creators of a product if some of the consumers decide to misuse it.

It's not their fault if some idiot wants to take their kid to a movie that is clearly innapropriate for a child to view.

See, we have this thing; it's called a rating system. And if you bring children into a movie that is clearly labeled to be violent and gory, whatever happens to the kids in result is your own friggin' fault.

Bottom line is you're freaking out over someone's attempt to entertain, not educate. If you put that much pressure into historical accuracy over any and everything else, you're likely going to find better luck on the history channel. :D

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sol @ Mar 27 2007, 06:13 PM) [snapback]285245[/snapback]</div>I think he was still referring to the historical thing, that is, how people portrayed on a film are, as representations of characters from ancient ages and different parts of the world.

Ohh, sometimes I feel so clever. If I only knew what "silly duffer" means... :whistling: