300 seconds of the movie 300

[Wulf Ratbane]

Looks good, although I am disappointed not to see the Spartans fighting in a phalanx.

If they aren't fighting in a phalanx, well... they can't really stand against the Persians. That's kind of the point of the battle's historical and military significance.

Aw, I'm sure we'll see it elsewhere in the movie.

Anybody jazzed about this movie, I highly recommend Gates of Fire by Steven Pressfield. An awesome novelization.

 

[Thad Enouf]

And again, this movie is not supposed to be an accurate historical recreation of the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C.. It is instead a somewhat fanciful interpretation of Frank Miller's graphic novel based on that battle. Do not look for realism here, as it is not intended as such.

That's too bad. From what I recall, the actual battle doesn't really need any embellishing. I suppose someone will get the girl in the end or some other nonsense.

Maybe I'll add it to my collection of awful historically-based movies (Troy, Alexander, etc.)

 

[Sir Brennen]

I suppose someone will get the girl in the end or some other nonsense.

From what I understand and have read sofar, the romance is primarily in the blood-letting, not the other kind

 

[shilsen]

That's too bad. From what I recall, the actual battle doesn't really need any embellishing. I suppose someone will get the girl in the end or some other nonsense.

So I'm told about the Battle of Agincourt. But that doesn't stop me from really enjoying old Bill's "Henry V." Even though he does murder the history and Henry does get the girl in the end.

Different strokes, I guess.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Looks good, although I am disappointed not to see the Spartans fighting in a phalanx.

If they aren't fighting in a phalanx, well... they can't really stand against the Persians. That's kind of the point of the battle's historical and military significance.

Aw, I'm sure we'll see it elsewhere in the movie.

Anybody jazzed about this movie, I highly recommend Gates of Fire by Steven Pressfield. An awesome novelization.

Yup. I think this must be the very end. There is only like twelve of them left. I guees phalanx works better with 300.

 

[Storm Raven]

So I'm told about the Battle of Agincourt. But that doesn't stop me from really enjoying old Bill's "Henry V." Even though he does murder the history and Henry does get the girl in the end.

Different strokes, I guess.

Well, the real Henry got the girl in the end too, so he doesn't murder the history too much. Shakespeare just truncates the events following the 1417 campaign into the 1415 campaign.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Yup. I think this must be the very end. There is only like twelve of them left. I guees phalanx works better with 300.

Well, in the very end, Xerxes orders his troops to finish off the Spartans with arrows. He refused to risk any more men in close combat.

By that time, not only were the Spartans lacking enough men for a phalanx, they were also (according to Herodotus) without weapons or shields and reduced to fighting with their bare hands and teeth.

And still... arrows were deemed safest.

 

[Thad Enouf]

So I'm told about the Battle of Agincourt. But that doesn't stop me from really enjoying old Bill's "Henry V." Even though he does murder the history and Henry does get the girl in the end.

Different strokes, I guess.

Please tell me you are not comparing Shakespeare to modern Hollywood, for whatever reason.

EDIT: Forgive my tone. I have been a student of ancient history for several years and of the opinion that certain events do not need embellishing. The circumstances surrounding the Persian War (and later, the Peloponnesian war) are about as dramatic as things can get.

 

[Mistwell]

Please tell me you are not comparing Shakespeare to modern Hollywood, for whatever reason.

EDIT: Forgive my tone. I have been a student of ancient history for several years and of the opinion that certain events do not need embellishing. The circumstances surrounding the Persian War (and later, the Peloponnesian war) are about as dramatic as things can get.

As a student of entertainment however, you wouldn't agree with that sentiment. Not everyone is a student of history, or appreciative of that field. Moviemakers make movies for everyone, and not just those who have a pre-existing appreciation for historical events.

In this case, it is an artists iterpretation of a historical event. Artists, throughout history, have always interpreted historical events and embellished on them. Indeed, your own sources for that history are probably inaccurate on some level due to the embellishment of the writers reporting on those events.

Frank Miller is an artist and writer, and he has ALWAYS embellished on the thing his art and writing is based on, because that is his style. Maybe you don't like his style, but he is being true to his style, just as Herodotus embellished certain stories to emphasize what he believed were significant differences between Greece and Egypt, because that was his style.

And now we have a director embellishing Frank Miller's work, based on that director's style.

I think you should take a step back and let people do their thing, and appreciate interpretations for what they are (all of them, including ancient and modern interpretations of real events).

 

[shilsen]

Please tell me you are not comparing Shakespeare to modern Hollywood, for whatever reason.

Yes, I am, and I often do. I've been teaching Shakespeare long enough to know that his plays, in their role and position in Renaissance England, are very nicely analogous to Hollywood movies in the current USA.

EDIT: Forgive my tone. I have been a student of ancient history for several years and of the opinion that certain events do not need embellishing. The circumstances surrounding the Persian War (and later, the Peloponnesian war) are about as dramatic as things can get.

No problem. While it's not my primary discipline I've been studying ancient history for a long time, and I choose to disagree. I don't think there's anything wrong with reworking history, and frankly, I agree with Mistwell's post above that every author and historian embellishes, just as Herodotus or Thucydides or the rest did. Frank Miller doing it and the movie doing it isn't unusual at all. It's one thing to not like the movie. That's your prerogative. But to say it shouldn't is a little presumptuous, IMO.