300Follow

So how was the cinematography there Scooter?

In the trailers?

Again, you have to understand that this is a story that a soldier is telling to other soldiers in order to get them ready for a war. They exaggerated the strengths of the enemy to make the 300 look better, of course.

Guess I'm not getting the problem. It's not like I didn't see scenes with non-human "things" in them fighting in the battle and just figured that since this is based on the battle of Thermopolae that they must have added them in for color or something. I saw them in the trailer(s). Thus, I'm not particularly interested in the film, for all the reasons I've already outlined.

Having already made this assessment, I talked with a friend of mine who saw the film this weekend. He loved it, but did confirm that it's basically pretty "out there" in terms of the people/creatures in the film and the action sequences.

Again. I'm not opposed to "out there" flims. I would just prefer that they not be based on historical events. I just kinda figure that if a storywriter can come up with that much "out there" content, they should also come up with their own backdrop for the story rather then taking one out of historical context. Heck. If they'd retold the story in a fictional magical fantasy setting and done absolutely nothing other then changed the names I would have no problems with it. It becomes an homage at that point. But when you set the story in the time and place, and you use the names of real historical characters, I do have a problem with dropping fantasy elements in willy-nilly.

Well it's a good job that so many Hollywood Movies were historically faithful, like Braveheart, JFK, Shakespeare in Love, erm

Give me a few minutes

I thought I'd help Gbaji out a bit here. (get my 'good deed for the year' out of the way nice an early).

Its not fair of the guys takin the p1ss outta your meticulously concocted considered opinions of a film that you've never seen. After all, you've never seen europe either, and theres nothing at all that you don't know about that place as you keep on reminding us all. (In fact for a bloke who has never seen the ME or South America or Matabeleland you are pretty darned knowledgeable about those places and the people who live there and what it is that they are doing so wrong with their lives!)

Anyway, I digress.

I found a condensed version of 300. And it should help you in your arguments no end.

No need to thank me! Glad to be of help.

And the rest of you.....leave him alone. He judges everything else in the world without any direct knowledge of it. Why not a movie?

Really? Must have been great shrooms or something. Cause I saw a huge giant guy that looked suspiciously like a troll from LoTR. I also recall some folks with animal heads and "zombie" faces (I didn't catch what they were supposed to be but they definately did not look human). I'm also pretty sure that no one *ever* outside of fantasy rode a rhino into battle.

How many did you see 'fighting in battle'?

Oh yeah, none.

Your powers of observation never cease to amaze. I hope that if I ever decide to murder someone that you're the sole eye witness.

Those people or person with the goat head. It wasn't a permanent attachment. It was a person with a dead goat's head over his own as a mask. It was basically to represent some of the beliefs these people had in a diety or sub-diety. This is common in various cultures.

The zombies weren't really zombies they were humans with deformed faces. Xerxes was trying to portray himself as a diety and claimed he was one. What better way to show your super natural powers than to take your best fighters and disfigure their faces and put scary looking masks on them. Call them 'the immortals' and it strikes fear into your enemies. It's part of his act to put fear into others and declare that he is a diety and has an army of immortals to prove his power. It's no different than a magician doing parlor tricks and claiming it's magic.

I just used the goat head as an example. There were numerous featured "characters" in the trailer that most definately did not look human and were intentionally made to not look human.

And Smash. I would assume that if they were with the army, they "fought in the battle", even if the trailers didn't show them directly. The whole thing is about the battle, right? What's the point of highlighting them?



Look. I wasn't saying they actually *were* zombies or demons. I said that they were presented in shapes and forms that were definately not human, normal, nor anything likely to have actually appeared in or around the actual battle itself.

And while we can debate the accuracy of Wiki:



Oddly. No mention of full metal face masks (and it would have been silly anyway). No mention of disfigurement, and it was highly unlikely that it would have occured given that noble son's often fought in the Immortals regiment. It was considered an "elite" military force, with only the best of the best serving in its ranks. Not likely that they'd be treated as common slaves and mutilated for the Kings pleasure.


I'm ok with a little historical inaccuracy in a film based on an historical event. I'm not ok with such a dramatic level of ridiculous changes as appear in this film. It's just overdone IMO.

I'm confused, what exactly gave people the impression that this movie was going to be realistic?

Who said it was a beast of burden? They got themselves a big-*** rhino, put a bunch of spikey crap on its back, pointed it towards the enemy and slapped it on the ***. I'm not saying it happened or that it's historically accurate and the rhino is ridiclously large but it's not the same as rhino calvary or a string of pack rhinos.

Did anyone ever really use enraged rhinos as an anti-infantry weapon? Who the hell knows? Maybe. Folks'll try anything once or at least make up a good story about it.

The fact that it was based on graphic novel that is loosely based on a historicial event and exagerated to fit the vision of a graphic artist.

...The Patriot, Pearl Harbour, 2001, A space odissey...