Ö÷²¥´óÐã

Ancient and Archaeology  permalink

Niks Opinions on 300?

• Message 1. 

  Posted by justalexander (U13884823) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009

  Nik im pretty sure you will have seen the movie 300.What is your opinion on the movie its story and the history.
  
  I only want your opinion no one elses matters.
  
  Its been critisised for been historically off the mark.But to be honest it was pretty near for me.Apart from Leonidas dying last.
  
  I think the underlying politics and bribery was pretty spot on and just showed how souldiers and Some generals are fooled by the idea of fighting for freedom while at the same time been turned over by politicians.
  
  The movie was criticised for its brutality but yet again that is basically warefare butchery till the other guy was dead.
  
  The movie to me was a representaion of war the Spartan ideal. The Spartan ideal was downt to basics and discipline indicated by been almost naked.Most Ancient Sculptures from Greec show sparatns cladly dressed.
  
  And the monsters and Ork was representative of war. Armies have always monstrosised and demonised invading armies. I doubt any country learning of Roman invasion would see Romans as Cute little 5 feet 6 men with fluffy helmets.
  
  Its also said such a nasty movie inapropriate in todays society. Look at all the Computer games all based on war and killing.Yes its cannged alright dismiss ancient war and get out kids into Grand Theft Auto,Prince of Persia etc etc.
  
  Then we can all go see Saw and a slasher movie.
  
  

  Link to this forum: Niks Opinions on 300?

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009

  I only want your opinion no one elses matters. 
  
  Well excuse us for breathing!
  
  This is a public messageboard - others can and will leave their opinion and your say so will not stop them. If you don't like other's opinions, don't read them
  
  

  Link to this forum: Niks Opinions on 300?

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by justalexander (U13884823) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009

  Accepted Stoggler they can give opinions but alas they are worthless.They were neither asked or invited for opinion.
  
  So on that basis its worthless
  

  Link to this forum: Niks Opinions on 300?

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009

  Why are they worthless? What's wrong with others' opinions? What makes Nik's opinion so much better than others'?

  Link to this forum: Niks Opinions on 300?

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009

  heheh stoggler, I think justalexander wants my opinion since he knows it is one of my favourite eras (and I know 1-2 things on it) - thanx justalexader for asking anyway!
  
  The director of the movie 300 openly declared that he knew merely the summary (i.e. not details) of the historical event of the battle and that was mainly inspired from the 300 cartoon. The creator of the cartoon also said he was only roughly based on the historical event and that he wanted to give his own twist to the story. The film basically remained faithfull to the cartoon. Since that has been stressed by the authors of these works, I find their position very clear and honest and from there on, their works as pieces of art is remarkable - just note the surrounding colours of the movie giving a half-cartoon, half-mythologocial atmosphere, amazing and an innovation for the 7th art.
  
  I really enjoyed the film. But from there on to see it as anything more than a film it is wrong, this is not any attempt to speak on history. Note all these Iranians that protested with the distorted depiction of Persians as half monsters, half ninja led by a drag queen - but then even many Greeks protested by the distorted depiction of the city of Sparta (special reference to Ephors depicted as monstrous old men).
  
  I did not find the movie very brutal, it just depicted the realities of war (and I loved your remark on the "monsters" representing the idea that people have of their enemies). It should not have been very brutal for the general public. I saw it with my wife (that really is not into history and really does not like war movies - especially those history-related ones -). Despite her initial negative approach (she did the favour for me only, note she has done cinema studies so she is more into more technical stuff), she loved the film and she was glad that she followed me.

  Link to this forum: Niks Opinions on 300?

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009

  Stoggler - I only want your response. No one else's. Especially not the hellephiles. Their responses would be worthless.
  
  What do you reckon of the sequel, 302?
  
  Oh, and is Hollywood's new policy of finding exact doubles (ie. allegedly pox-ridden alcoholic to play Alexander the Great) a welcome innovation in treatments of historical subjects?

  Link to this forum: Niks Opinions on 300?

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009

  There are various twists to the movie story that can relate to the real history:
  
  1) As you said Alexader, the political games and the double language of politicians versus the fighting spirit of soldiers that believed in fighting for their country it was successfully depicted.
  
  2) The hard training since children and fighting spirit of Spartans was successfully depicted (of course including exagerations like that immense wolf!)
  
  3) The success of the well trained Spartan phalanx organised in a dense fighting formation opposing in a narrow passage a greater mass of albeit less trained unaware various light troops. Interesting, somehow close to the truth (in reality Persians suffered a lot of casualties... of course here in the film that was exaggeration).
  
  So, from there on, there is a large number of not accurate details and I will avoid the usual drag queens and the monsters:
  
  1) Persians were not so bad soldiers. In fact they had been excellent soldiers - they had not conquered Asia (including numerous Greek cities in western Minor Asia) by accident. In those battles the main problem of Persians was more of leadership and a correct choice of moves and tactics (something that elsewhere they had done successfully - do not forget they had easily subdued Thraecians and these were excellent soldiers too!) rather than lack of skills and courage.
  
  2) Persians were not depicted as in reality, in fact they resembled more ninjas than Achaemenid Persian troops.
  
  3) Spartans of those times were usually fully bronze clad, here they were depicted more like peltasts, i.e. missing their armour (the rest was there). One can imagine that withour armours they would not have full advantage over their enemies. Greek armies had become somewhat lighter with changing tactics in Hellenistic times not yet back then.
  
  3) Other Greeks like Argives were depicted as ignorant half-barbarians, maybe courageous but having no clue about war. In fact, while there was great variation among Greek cities, many of them (including Argos) had well trained armies and while Spartans were considered as an elite force the others did not lag too much behind as they were depicted in the film (remember the phrase of Leonidas in the film about Argives: "Argives also tried to fight in their own way, they somehow provide some service too"!). Not true. Remember that the bulk of the Persian wars was bore by Athenians and their allies, not Spartans.
  
  4) Of course the whole real story: Spartans were about 300 but were not alone. The 80,000 front of the 200,000 Persian invading army (of an overall 1 million men total campaign, that note included as many Greeks as were on the opposite side) - numbers are roughly given) were stopped by a 7,000 allied Greeks' opposing force in the narrow of Thermopyles, the only easy road that conducts to the south. It was them that stopped the Persians, not only Spartans, though Spartans were indeed in the forefront having huge success against Persians. Persians found the way (via treason) to encircle the force and the leader Spartan military king (Sparta had two kings, the other was religious) Leonidas ordered the force to be disbanded to survive and fight another day - himself remained bound on Spartan law. Along with the 300 Spartans remained 700 Thespians honouring their city's alliance to Sparta and I think some other totalling - I guess - not much more than 1200 people being encircled we can guess by at least half of the 80,000 Persian front. These men kept their position I think for 2-3 days more and fought till their death and their sacrifice gave the rest of the Greeks the time to escape. A mere handfull should have managed to escape after battle to tell the story (usually those lying wounded and believed dead etc.).
  
  Today as even back then people tend to remember only the 300 Spartans because it was mainly their decision to stay till the bitter end. However that hides the fact that if a Greek city really fought against Persians that had to be Athens. In the final decisive battle of Plataies, it was mainly thanks to 15,000 Athenians (who faced mainly the Persians' Greek allies) that the battle was won and not thanks to 8,000 Spartans who faced mainly the easier Persian light infantry.

  Link to this forum: Niks Opinions on 300?

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009

  Sorry Nik - I think you're needed in a chat room somewhere. Stoggler and I are having a private conversation here.

  Link to this forum: Niks Opinions on 300?

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009

  Nordman, as I said, 300 is an honest movie. It tells its story, it does not pretend to tell history. Other films like Stone's Alexander pretend to tell history while being based on lies and false presumptions. That is the difference.

  Link to this forum: Niks Opinions on 300?

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 9.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009

  I'm not listening to you, Nik. This is between me and Stoggler!

  Link to this forum: Niks Opinions on 300?

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009

  The film 302 was a travesty in my opinion. No swans for a start, and a complete lack of pixies wearing leather chaps! Talk about a complete lack of historical accuracy...

  Link to this forum: Niks Opinions on 300?

  Report message11

• Message 12

  , in reply to message 11.

  This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.

• Message 13

  , in reply to message 11.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009

  But the plumage, Stoggler - don't forget the plumage! The frilly undies in particular caught the true essence of Sparta, I thought, not to mention the mutual waxing.
  
  With that final climactic scene in the Bronze Age version of Smooth Pex Mens Training Salon it was up there with Spartacus, I thought (not the movie, the "special interest" magazine).

  Link to this forum: Niks Opinions on 300?

  Report message13

• Message 14

  , in reply to message 13.

  Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009

  Hi Nordmann.
  
  Sorry to interupt a private conversation but I felt that I had to point out that no one has mentioned the final charge by the Spartans Hairdressers which finally won the battle. Surely this would have been an excellent cinematic moment to colse the film as the ranks of the faithful Dressers minced into action over the bodies of their erstwhile customers scissors at the ready, quiffs glistening in the sun not to mention their now famous battle cry of
  
  "Look at the extentions on her!!!!"
  
  I can never read that without shedding a manly tear.

  Link to this forum: Niks Opinions on 300?

  Report message14

• Message 15

  , in reply to message 14.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009

  All fiction, alas. In reality it was the Persians who were proud of their rugs.

  Link to this forum: Niks Opinions on 300?

  Report message15

• Message 16

  , in reply to message 1.

  This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.

• Message 17

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Andrew Host (U1683626) on Thursday, 2nd April 2009

  Hi overthehill,
  
  These boards are for open discussion - they are not a private messaging service.
  
  We encourage people with enquiring minds to be open to a variety of opinions - it should after all lead to a more stimulating discussion!
  
  Many thanks
  
  Andrew

  Link to this forum: Niks Opinions on 300?

• Message 18

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Andrew Host (U1683626) on Thursday, 2nd April 2009

  Hi all,
  
  Can you take a few minutes to read my message here, please.
  
  
  
  Thanks
  
  Andrew

  Link to this forum: Niks Opinions on 300?

Back to top