The Shrine

Julius Seeker wrote:Yeah it was stupid, but it wasn't nearly as stupid as 300.

300? What was wrong with 300?

I think you have to have the right framing to what the story is all about. It's not about a History Channel version of the events, but a re-telling of the stories around the event, which are going to be glorious and fanciful.

What is wrong with 300? I didn't find so much the fact that it wasn't historically accurate to be the reason I didn't enjoy the movie. There are other historically based films which aren't accurate and I still loved: Braveheart, Gladiator, Amadeus, and The Last Samurai. There is historical innacuracy, and then there is historical ignorance; 300 falls into the later realm.

Things I found outright ridiculous in 300:
* Spartan warriors running into battle in nothing but their underwear, a pair of sandles, and wearing a cape. Not even Superman stooped this low =/ ... Actually it's worth noting that there actually was a famous group of 300 Greek warriors who actually DID wear capes. It wasn't the 300 Spartans who fought at Thermopylae though, it was the Sacred Band of Thebes, 150 pairs of gay male lovers who would fight to the death for each other.
* Pointlessly random and cheesy gratuitous scenes that look ripped off of some low-budget depraved Japanese film. Even you fans of the movie have to admit these were cheesy =)
* The Spartans are based on a Republican version of fantastical Americans, while the Persians are based on a Republican version of a fantastical Muslim Empire.
* The battle sequence reminded me of a fantasy version of Matrix 3: long, boring, with too much of a reliance on bad CG. And it kept constantly flipping in and out slow motion, which was irritating.
* Their fighting style was terrible, they would flail about with their spears and shields, leaving themselves wide open at almost all times, and were miraculously not being hit by anything until the story needed it to happen.
* The entire movie was filmed in a dull yellow filter for some reason.

It wasn't even a retelling of the story, not even a retelling of the heavily pro-Spartan heroditus retelling of the actual event:

300 depicted a war between Spartans fighting for freedom and democracy, against Persians who worshipped a God King and loved slavery and persecution. To compare it to the modern era, this is the equivalent of the ignorance and distortion of reality demonstrated in Kim Jong Il's movies about how he battled against the evil west intent on slavery and destruction, while he (Kim Jong Il) fights for freedom and all that is good... And the US is led by a 12 foot pierced up effeminate man who is meant to threaten the masculinity of the viewers.

1. The war between Persia and the Greeks was not about freedom or democracy. The Persian Empire was at war with the Athens and its allies after the Tyrant of Miletus stirred up the Ionian revolt, and Athens supported it. As part of a treaty, the Spartans had to send troops in aid of Athens. It had nothing to do with democracy.

2. The war the Spartans fought which actually did involve fighting for democracy and freedom from slavery came later. The Spartans would fight a series of wars, known collectively as the Peoponesian War, against Athens. The difference was that it was Sparta was not fighting for, but rather AGAINST freedom and democracy.

3. Spartans were not only very much against both freedom and democracy, but they were the most pro-slave owning nation of their time. Even among the other Greeks their system was frowned upon, and continued to be so well into the Roman era where even Plutarch, hundreds of years later, still writes about the wretched cruelty of Spartans to their slaves. While the typical Greek polis did maintain a kind of slave, the slaves were generally treated as an unofficial member of the family who did the chores around the house. In Sparta, however, they worked huge armies of slaves (called helots) in the mines and fields, and they were housed like animals. For every Spartan citizen there were approximately 8 helots.

4. The Persians, on the otherhand, did not run an Empire of slaves; slaves weren't even legal in the Persian Empire. At the time of its inception under Cyrus the Great, the Persians launched a crusade of liberation and freedom throughout the known world. Cyrus the Great went on to conquer an even larger Empire than Alexander, but unlike Alexander, his Empire didn't colapse after his death.

One of the abosulte greatest moments in history was when Cyrus the Great entered the city of Babylon. In a time when it was typical for warlords to rape, slaughter, plunder, and brutally subjugate populations - as the Assyrians and Babylonians had done beforehand - Cyrus had already achieved a reputation of being merciful. The people of Babylon did not fully know what to expect, despite his reputation he was still foreign of nationality and foreign of religion; yet when Cyrus entered the city a great cheer went up. There was no rape, no slaughter, no plunder, and no brutal subjugation. Rather, despite being a monotheist and believing in only one God, when Cyrus first entered the city he first paid homage to the Babylonian chief God Marduk. Next he freed the slaves of Babylon, and allowed all religions to be practiced freely; he then drafted what was the world's first charter of human rights and freedom - a replica of the original stands prominently on display in the UN to this very day. The Jewish bible records Cyrus as the liberator and annointed one, the Messiah; and if you read the bible, you'll see that the Jews hated just about everyone, with the sole exception of the Persians. Alexander is the only historical figure recognized as a Messiah in the Biblical scripture.

Cyrus continued to build upon his Empire, and became the first to institute a provincial system by which all successful future Empires would be based on. The provinces were run by Satraps, or governors; who co-existed peacefully in the Persian hegemony. The Persians built long roads across the vast Empire where trade could be safely conducted on a universal level. Cyrus built a city called Pasargadae, and in it he created a garden with plants and trees from every province of his Empire, all living as one in the same place. It is also the first historical Imperial garden we know of, since of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon no trace has been found. Cyrus's garden was simply called "The walled enclosure" - in Persian the word was Pairi-daiza, the word which we get Paradise from; to this day the legacy of Cyrus's garden remains captured inside the word "Paradise."

Lastly, Cyropaedia: The wisdom of Cyrus, written by Xenophon, student of Socrates and contemporary of Plato, was until the 1800's considered the primary guidebook to good and benevolent leadership. Many great leaders throughout history would carry this book; from Julius Caesar, to the Medicis, to Thomas Jefferson (whose copy is still in existence today). Sorry, on a rant and way off topic, but I love the Persian Empire, FASCINATING civilization and I love writing about Cyrus and Darius the Great =)
Again, sorry.

Anyway, back onto 300.

5. Xerxes the God King... Actually, this is pretty much true for every Emperor in Western history until Constantine the first of the Romans. They either considered themselves
descended from the Gods, or a God themselves; and it wasn't limited to Emperors, the Greek nobles considered themselves descended from Gods as well. Actually, the Persians were a bit of an anomaly here being Zoroastrian; Zoroastrianism being monotheistic religion headed by an omnipotent and omniscient God revealed by the ancient Prophet Zarathustra. The Persians Emperor was called the King of Kings, the saviour, the annointed Messiah, but certainly NOT a God King, nor the son of a God like a certain later King of Kings, saviour, and Messiah. In the Zoroastrian religion idolatry is a major sin; so much so that they do not depict Zarathustra or God in any form that would be worshipped in - it would be even more ridiculous for a Persian Emperor to be called a God than a Christian Emperor.


All in all, I just couldn't help but feeling like this while sitting through it in theatres:



It's just where I come from, to me it was like how I woukld imagine a high budget Kim Jong Il glorification flick.

You dedicated entirely too much text to 300 sir. :p 300 knows it's a cheesey movie! We have slow motion this is sparta memes!

Julius Seeker wrote:What is wrong with 300? I didn't find so much the fact that it wasn't historically accurate to be the reason I didn't enjoy the movie. There are other historically based films which aren't accurate and I still loved: Braveheart, Gladiator, Amadeus, and The Last Samurai. There is historical innacuracy, and then there is historical ignorance; 300 falls into the later realm.

You miss the point. It's not supposed to be historically accurate or even pretend to be. It's a re-telling of the stories, like Big Fish. It's all fantasy and myth, because the story is surrounded by that sort of thing. Hell, what Spartan wouldn't grossly embellish a story about 300 Spartans defeating a force 2.5 million strong?

Movies like Braveheart or JFK were trying to pretend that it was some documentary or some shit. 300 was going for the opposite effect.

Eric wrote:You dedicated entirely too much text to 300 sir. :p 300 knows it's a cheesey movie! We have slow motion this is sparta memes!

I'm sorry, couldn't help it, I only intended a short point form list, but I couldn't stop! I just couldn't....

At least for the most part my writing is positive things about the Persians and their culture, and not actually about 300 =D

SineSwiper wrote:

Julius Seeker wrote:What is wrong with 300? I didn't find so much the fact that it wasn't historically accurate to be the reason I didn't enjoy the movie. There are other historically based films which aren't accurate and I still loved: Braveheart, Gladiator, Amadeus, and The Last Samurai. There is historical innacuracy, and then there is historical ignorance; 300 falls into the later realm.

You miss the point. It's not supposed to be historically accurate or even pretend to be. It's a re-telling of the stories, like Big Fish. It's all fantasy and myth, because the story is surrounded by that sort of thing. Hell, what Spartan wouldn't grossly embellish a story about 300 Spartans defeating a force 2.5 million strong?

Movies like Braveheart or JFK were trying to pretend that it was some documentary or some shit. 300 was going for the opposite effect.

I would guess if Spartans were watching the movie, they would be scratching their heads at why they are fighting for freedom and democracy.

It would be like sitting Republicans down and showing a film about Bush leading the Republican only army in a war against the Iraqi horde of hardcore capitalist Christians. Bush's goal is ultimately to spread Islam and Communism.

WTF does Republicans or Bush have to do with anything? I don't get the political subtext here...

I was illustrating an analogy to show that a Spartan watching the movie today would be as confused by their portrayal in the film as a Republican would be if a film was made about the war on Iraq, featuring a Christian Iraq, and George Bush's primary objective was the spread Islam and Communism.

Obviously a Spartan would be against freedom and democracy, not madly chanting support for them. They lived in a Kingdom where 8 out of 9 of the populace were slaves of the lowest kind; and the remaining others were brought up in a rigid militant lifestyle, where non-adherence typically meant ostracism, banishment, or death. The only ideological war that Sparta ever fought was actually against democracy and a free society.

OMG, Seeker. It's not supposed to be accurate. How many times do I have to tell you that? Next thing you'll tell me is that Scott Pilgrim isn't an accurate film.



WTF? Why do coins come out when he kicks his head?

It is not the act of being inaccurate that is the problem. It is the act of being inaccurate in stupid ways, and therefore stupid, that is the problem.

I wonder what 300's Leonidas would think about this thread?



Oh yeah

I just stopped in to "LOL" at seeker wanting or expecting 300 to be historically accurate.

SineSwiper wrote:OMG, Seeker.

Never more true words have been spoken on this board.

Really, you shoulda just stopped when you realized who was replying

kali o. wrote:I just stopped in to "LOL" at seeker wanting or expecting 300 to be historically accurate.

I was neither wanting or expecting 300 to be accurate. I was expecting it to be good rather than filled with stupidity. It's a film of the same ilk as Apocalypto, Clash of the Titans '10, and Conan the Barbarian '11.

Bad movies can still be entertaining as long as they know they're bad. Again my big issue with Prometheus, was that it was an awful movie pretending to be deep or better then it was.

300 was stupid, it knew it was stupid, and ran with that stupidity to the bank, but was still entertaining along the way. :p

It's a fine line between spicing something up and changing it to the point where it no longer resembles anything like the original history. Unless your goal is to just create controversy, it can't be grossly inaccurate. If you're writing about Napoleon, he has to lose the battle against Russia.

Then again I was reading there is a movie version of Moby Dick where Captain Ahab slays Moby Dick and returns home to his true love...

Don wrote:It's a fine line between spicing something up and changing it to the point where it no longer resembles anything like the original history. Unless your goal is to just create controversy, it can't be grossly inaccurate. If you're writing about Napoleon, he has to lose the battle against Russia.

Ahem, Inglourious Basterds.

SineSwiper wrote:Ahem, Inglourious Basterds.

Just cause

Eric wrote:

SineSwiper wrote:Ahem, Inglourious Basterds.

Just cause

Him and Jeff Bridges are both great character actors.

SineSwiper wrote:Ahem, Inglourious Basterds.

This comparison would hold water if IG were about Hitler's glorious freedom-fighting Schutzstaffel making a righteous stand against the overreaching and all-powerful empire of the European Jews.

The Spartans were among history's most colossal, murderous, authoritarian assholes. The comic's few saving graces were its acknowledgements of this, as well as gestures towards other realities a typical 300 fan would find horrifying, such as the casual bisexuality of ancient Greek masculine culture. 300 the film is 300 the comic sans any redeeming features whatsoever, and it didn't have many to begin with.

Andrew, Killer Bee wrote:

SineSwiper wrote:Ahem, Inglourious Basterds.

This comparison would hold water if IG were about Hitler's glorious freedom-fighting Schutzstaffel making a righteous stand against the overreaching and all-powerful empire of the European Jews.

Errr, the Persians weren't all that "righteous", either. After all, they were invading Sparta, not the other way around.

SineSwiper wrote:

Andrew, Killer Bee wrote:

SineSwiper wrote:Ahem, Inglourious Basterds.

This comparison would hold water if IG were about Hitler's glorious freedom-fighting Schutzstaffel making a righteous stand against the overreaching and all-powerful empire of the European Jews.

Errr, the Persians weren't all that "righteous", either. After all, they were invading Sparta, not the other way around.

Actually, the war was mostly the fault of Athens. They sparked the open conflict when Athens and Eritrea sent a joint invasion fleet against Western Turkey (Then a Persian Satrap) during the Ionian revolt.

Sparta was mostly a secondary objective to the Persians, and there was very little actual combat between the two powers; the war was largely fought between the the city states that would become the Delian League (led by Athens) and the Persian Empire. The Spartans actually played a relatively trivial role overall, and would at later times allie themselves with the Persians.

If the Persians had invaded and conquered Sparta, considering that 8 out of 9 of them are helots (essentially poorly treated field and mining slaves), it wouldn't have been such a bad change. The territories conquered by Persia generally enjoyed huge improvements in human rights standards, whereas those conquered by Sparta were brutally enslaved.

The Spartans are actually the oldest example of a fascist state that we know of.

Andrew, Killer Bee wrote:This comparison would hold water if IG were about Hitler's glorious freedom-fighting Schutzstaffel making a righteous stand against the overreaching and all-powerful empire of the European Jews.

The Spartans were among history's most colossal, murderous, authoritarian assholes. The comic's few saving graces were its acknowledgements of this, as well as gestures towards other realities a typical 300 fan would find horrifying, such as the casual bisexuality of ancient Greek masculine culture. 300 the film is 300 the comic sans any redeeming features whatsoever, and it didn't have many to begin with.

I was entertained...what else is needed?

I mean really, who requires facts or reality in their fictional entertainment? Would it have made the film better if the Spartans were assholes instead? Seems to make the whole "300" angle lose steam if you can't root for them.

My view is that if you have Captain Ahab defeating Moby Dick, then it better be a very good movie to justify such a ridiculous departure from what actually happened.