Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:02 pm
Kevin's Watch
Official Discussion Forum for the works of Stephen R. Donaldson
https://kevinswatch.com/phpBB3/
300
Page 4 of 7
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:24 pm
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:47 pm
Just back from seeing it. I thought it was superb.
Especially loved the scene:
''Spartans! Lay down your arms''
''Persians! Come get them.''
Especially loved the scene:
''Spartans! Lay down your arms''
''Persians! Come get them.''
Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 2:29 am
Well, that was a righteous flick!!!!! 
It had my favorite scenes from the comic: "We've been sharing our culture with you all morning." And when Leonidas asks the other Greeks, then his own men, what their professions are.
It had some damned nice fights!! Maybe not enough of how the Spartans actually fought, from my limited understanding (Gates. Heh.), but spectacular!! I mean... DAMN!!
The CGI was extremely good. (Was anything actually filmed??)
As with Sin City, they did a fantastic job of making it look like a comic book format, but still like a movie.
It must be nice to be Frank Miller!!!!
It had my favorite scenes from the comic: "We've been sharing our culture with you all morning." And when Leonidas asks the other Greeks, then his own men, what their professions are.
It had some damned nice fights!! Maybe not enough of how the Spartans actually fought, from my limited understanding (Gates. Heh.), but spectacular!! I mean... DAMN!!
The CGI was extremely good. (Was anything actually filmed??
)As with Sin City, they did a fantastic job of making it look like a comic book format, but still like a movie.
It must be nice to be Frank Miller!!!!
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 2:26 pm
Saw it yesterday. Not a bad film, and definitely some impressive moments, but disappointing overall. It was so...superficial.
I wasn't expecting a deep and moving account of a historical battle (though the friend I went with was moved, heh) but...I expected some kind of substance. Sadly, it was all flash and sparkle. The acting was mostly a bit shoddy, though Leonidas was fine, and it annoyed me that the queen was only ever "the queen" and never actually had a name. This niggled at me throughout the film, but became glaringly obvious at the end - when Leonidas was thinking of her, but could only call her "my queen" and "my wife" because if he said her name we'd have no idea who he meant. That's sloppy.
I also wasn't keen on some of the changes to history. I know it's a dramatisation, but I felt some of the alterations actually detracted from the heroism of the Spartans. Assuming my prior knowledge of the battle is correct, Leonidas actually took the whole army with him, then sent them away when he realised everything was going pear shaped. He and his 300 stayed behind, expecting to die, to buy time for the rest of Greece to prepare. To me, that is more heroic than being thwarted by a corrupt council (in an autocratic monarchy - how exactly does that work?) and a bunch a warty, lecherous priests.
If I were to give it a star rating out of five...probably three. Not a bad film, but shallow and overrated, IMO.
I wasn't expecting a deep and moving account of a historical battle (though the friend I went with was moved, heh) but...I expected some kind of substance. Sadly, it was all flash and sparkle. The acting was mostly a bit shoddy, though Leonidas was fine, and it annoyed me that the queen was only ever "the queen" and never actually had a name. This niggled at me throughout the film, but became glaringly obvious at the end - when Leonidas was thinking of her, but could only call her "my queen" and "my wife" because if he said her name we'd have no idea who he meant. That's sloppy.
I also wasn't keen on some of the changes to history. I know it's a dramatisation, but I felt some of the alterations actually detracted from the heroism of the Spartans. Assuming my prior knowledge of the battle is correct, Leonidas actually took the whole army with him, then sent them away when he realised everything was going pear shaped. He and his 300 stayed behind, expecting to die, to buy time for the rest of Greece to prepare. To me, that is more heroic than being thwarted by a corrupt council (in an autocratic monarchy - how exactly does that work?) and a bunch a warty, lecherous priests.
If I were to give it a star rating out of five...probably three. Not a bad film, but shallow and overrated, IMO.
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 3:29 pm
A brief google says that the Spartans did, indeed, perfect the method of fighting in phalanxes (of at least eight ranks deep). Pressfield's descriptions of it in Gates of Fire would seem to be accurate. (And awesome!!!) They have been called the greatest infantrymen in history.
The individual fighting seen in the movie would seem to be less accurate. But it looked pretty cool.
Regarding the number 300, most sites I've just looked at agree that Leonidas took only 300. uts.cc.utexas.edu/~sparta/topics/essays/academic/alamo.htm lists the same reasons as the movie. Pressfield's story goes along with the legend (which Wikipedia says comes from Herodotus) that the Oracle said either Sparta would fall, or one of its kings; and, knowing it would be a suicide mission, Leonidas took only 300 men who were not the last of their line.
A couple other sites are sort of vague about the number, allowing for the interpretation that Leonidas did, indeed, take more than 300 Spartans. In which case, the big story would be that 300 were left for the final battle?
The other several thousand Greeks either died or left before the end.
As for the queen's name, I guess it was Gorgo. "Ah, I love thee, Gorgo." Hmmm
Anyway, I agree that it was sort of superficial. It had its moments, but it was more for spectacle than anything. In that, at least, it succeeded very well! Even the comic doesn't compare to Gates, which, fantastic a book as it is, could certainly be cirticized for various reasons. But it's Historical Fiction, after all.
The little I know of the Spartans says they truly did raise their children as the beginning of the movie depicts. In fact, those several minutes of the movie barely scratched the surface of the horrifying child abuse that ruled their culture.
Homosexuality has also been ignored by Miller, Pressfield, and the other movies that have been made. From the time they were taken from their families at the age of 7 until several years later, the boys might not have seen females at all. At least not close up, and certainly no relationships were formed. They were killing machines. At times, roving the area in murderous bands. They each had a mentor, who took care of all their needs. When they got married, their wives would cut their hair short, dress like men, and meet them in dark rooms, so the new husband could more easily perform. But such things do not make for a good Hollywood movie.
The individual fighting seen in the movie would seem to be less accurate. But it looked pretty cool.
Regarding the number 300, most sites I've just looked at agree that Leonidas took only 300. uts.cc.utexas.edu/~sparta/topics/essays/academic/alamo.htm lists the same reasons as the movie. Pressfield's story goes along with the legend (which Wikipedia says comes from Herodotus) that the Oracle said either Sparta would fall, or one of its kings; and, knowing it would be a suicide mission, Leonidas took only 300 men who were not the last of their line.
A couple other sites are sort of vague about the number, allowing for the interpretation that Leonidas did, indeed, take more than 300 Spartans. In which case, the big story would be that 300 were left for the final battle?
The other several thousand Greeks either died or left before the end.
As for the queen's name, I guess it was Gorgo. "Ah, I love thee, Gorgo." Hmmm
Anyway, I agree that it was sort of superficial. It had its moments, but it was more for spectacle than anything. In that, at least, it succeeded very well!
Even the comic doesn't compare to Gates, which, fantastic a book as it is, could certainly be cirticized for various reasons. But it's Historical Fiction, after all.The little I know of the Spartans says they truly did raise their children as the beginning of the movie depicts. In fact, those several minutes of the movie barely scratched the surface of the horrifying child abuse that ruled their culture.
Homosexuality has also been ignored by Miller, Pressfield, and the other movies that have been made. From the time they were taken from their families at the age of 7 until several years later, the boys might not have seen females at all. At least not close up, and certainly no relationships were formed. They were killing machines. At times, roving the area in murderous bands. They each had a mentor, who took care of all their needs. When they got married, their wives would cut their hair short, dress like men, and meet them in dark rooms, so the new husband could more easily perform. But such things do not make for a good Hollywood movie.
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 4:21 pm
Bah, don't be smug. 
Yes, that was one of the things I approved of about 300.Smug Fisty wrote:The little I know of the Spartans says they truly did raise their children as the beginning of the movie depicts. In fact, those several minutes of the movie barely scratched the surface of the horrifying child abuse that ruled their culture.
I suspect it's one of those cases of there being a different version of events for each person who writes about it. I've read in at least three separate sources that Leonidas took the whole army, then sent them away and just kept his personal bodyguard. *shrug* I'm sure it doesn't really matter. All that's relevant is I wasn't that impressed with the film.Smug Fisty wrote:A couple other sites are sort of vague about the number, allowing for the interpretation that Leonidas did, indeed, take more than 300 Spartans. In which case, the big story would be that 300 were left for the final battle?
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 5:12 pm
True enough. This far removed from the event, nobody should ever imagine they know the real story. Like with TCTC, what matters is how the story we have impacts on us.CovenantJr wrote:I suspect it's one of those cases of there being a different version of events for each person who writes about it. I've read in at least three separate sources that Leonidas took the whole army, then sent them away and just kept his personal bodyguard. *shrug* I'm sure it doesn't really matter.
Yeah, that is a relatively important point.CovenantJr wrote:All that's relevant is I wasn't that impressed with the film.
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 8:13 pm
Saw this film yesterday: SPOILERS APPROACH!
As expected it was not a historical account (although a surprising amount of it was not far off what little we know of them), but as a spectacle it was.. erm
SPECTACULAR!!
It's really good reading everyone's opinions here, and I seem to agree with you all (is that even possible?) in some way or other.
I really do think that they could have told the "Real Story" (to quote SRD
) and it still would have had a great impact, if not more. From what I can gather that was one major battle! Spartans were nutters!
While 300 was superficial, it was based on a comic book. Bits reminded me of videogames;
blood everywhere but none stayed on the ground, or on the Spartans, it kind of faded away... Some of it was like a music video!
Not sure if this is a good thing (usually I hate that stuff!) but it seemed to work fairly well.
The odd bit of "Cheese" in the dialogue, and "Ham" in the acting, but it was tolerable!
The goat playing a lute (!) cracked me up but kind of distracted me for a long while into the build up at the end.
The queen's story seemed kind of tacked on, but not badly done. (the old farts shouting "Traitor! Traitor!" made me laugh)
Obviously the elephants and rhino were there to please LOTR fans, ie. me!
I hope I never meet a huge bloke like the one the Immortals had with them. He was evil! (Cave troll anyone?)
Good point about the queen Covenant Jr (lots of good points BTW), they could have at least used her name (Gorgo), or maybe changed it to GORGEOUS! I mean they changed history enough as it was, may as well do that.
I thought the hunchback's betrayal was a bit telegraphed, but he was depicted well, metaphorically speaking.
As far as we know the real-life traitor was an average Spartan, but afterwards the rest of his kind would have seen him as some sort of hideous dishonourable monster for not wanting to fight and die alongside his brethren.
I'm glad the "story teller" guy was not despised in the film as he was reported to have been on his real return to Sparta. But I thought his end speech was 50% brilliant, 50% cheese!
Xerxes was huuuuuuuge!
Any one notice Leonidas' unsubtle christ pose at the end (sacrifice for the greater good, blah blah)?
Dude with blade arms.. WTF?
I could go on....but I already have!
I'll have to check the graphic novel now, bet it looks amazing like the movie did.
Thanks to Fist and Faith for reminding me to read "Gates of Fire". Hope they do a film version soon. Not too soon though, I hate bandwagon-jumping!
Arg!
This is the longest most rambling post I've done in ages!
I've been on the Watch for over a year and only just reaching 60 posts... what a slacker!
As expected it was not a historical account (although a surprising amount of it was not far off what little we know of them), but as a spectacle it was.. erm
SPECTACULAR!!
It's really good reading everyone's opinions here, and I seem to agree with you all (is that even possible?) in some way or other.
I really do think that they could have told the "Real Story" (to quote SRD
) and it still would have had a great impact, if not more. From what I can gather that was one major battle! Spartans were nutters!While 300 was superficial, it was based on a comic book. Bits reminded me of videogames;
blood everywhere but none stayed on the ground, or on the Spartans, it kind of faded away... Some of it was like a music video!
Not sure if this is a good thing (usually I hate that stuff!) but it seemed to work fairly well.
The odd bit of "Cheese" in the dialogue, and "Ham" in the acting, but it was tolerable!
The goat playing a lute (!) cracked me up but kind of distracted me for a long while into the build up at the end.
The queen's story seemed kind of tacked on, but not badly done. (the old farts shouting "Traitor! Traitor!" made me laugh)
Obviously the elephants and rhino were there to please LOTR fans, ie. me!
I hope I never meet a huge bloke like the one the Immortals had with them. He was evil! (Cave troll anyone?)
Good point about the queen Covenant Jr (lots of good points BTW), they could have at least used her name (Gorgo), or maybe changed it to GORGEOUS! I mean they changed history enough as it was, may as well do that.
I thought the hunchback's betrayal was a bit telegraphed, but he was depicted well, metaphorically speaking.
As far as we know the real-life traitor was an average Spartan, but afterwards the rest of his kind would have seen him as some sort of hideous dishonourable monster for not wanting to fight and die alongside his brethren.
I'm glad the "story teller" guy was not despised in the film as he was reported to have been on his real return to Sparta. But I thought his end speech was 50% brilliant, 50% cheese!
Xerxes was huuuuuuuge!
Any one notice Leonidas' unsubtle christ pose at the end (sacrifice for the greater good, blah blah)?
Dude with blade arms.. WTF?
I could go on....but I already have!
I'll have to check the graphic novel now, bet it looks amazing like the movie did.
Thanks to Fist and Faith for reminding me to read "Gates of Fire". Hope they do a film version soon. Not too soon though, I hate bandwagon-jumping!
Arg!
This is the longest most rambling post I've done in ages!
I've been on the Watch for over a year and only just reaching 60 posts... what a slacker!
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:01 am
Yeah, Xerxes was a big one, wasn't he??? And that voice! Heh. Good stuff!
The real-life traitor wasn't a Spartan. He was a native of the area around Thermopylae. (Or, at least, that's how the "real-life" story goes. heh)Reave the Unjust wrote:I thought the hunchback's betrayal was a bit telegraphed, but he was depicted well, metaphorically speaking.
As far as we know the real-life traitor was an average Spartan, but afterwards the rest of his kind would have seen him as some sort of hideous dishonourable monster for not wanting to fight and die alongside his brethren.
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:58 am
Thanks for pointing that out. That does make more sense.
May be a few versions of "reality" floating about eh?
May be a few versions of "reality" floating about eh?
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:15 am
Could be.
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 1:08 pm
CONTINUED SPOILERS FROM ABOVE POSTS
I was talking to a friend (who is, incidentally, a fan of the graphic novel) about the improbable fighting and the enormous monsters, and he ventured an opinion that I found interesting. He pointed out that, up until the end, the whole thing is being narrated to the council by the one-eyed bloke, so it's quite possible that he exaggerated everything for effect. You know, along the lines of "We fought ten thousand...no, twenty...no, five million big, sweaty, heavily armed men. Who had...er...magic. And bombs. And...giants...and elephants... And...er..we were jumping all over the place, chopping them up and laughing and...I cut seven blokes in half with one swing of my pocket knife. It was hardcore, dude."
Indeed. Leonidas must be a bit mentally deficient to have not seen that coming. As soon as he refused to allow hunchy bloke to join the fight, it wouldn't have been a great stretch to add "You're gonna betray us now, aren't you? Aren't you, you little git?"Reave the Unjust wrote:I thought the hunchback's betrayal was a bit telegraphed
I was talking to a friend (who is, incidentally, a fan of the graphic novel) about the improbable fighting and the enormous monsters, and he ventured an opinion that I found interesting. He pointed out that, up until the end, the whole thing is being narrated to the council by the one-eyed bloke, so it's quite possible that he exaggerated everything for effect. You know, along the lines of "We fought ten thousand...no, twenty...no, five million big, sweaty, heavily armed men. Who had...er...magic. And bombs. And...giants...and elephants... And...er..we were jumping all over the place, chopping them up and laughing and...I cut seven blokes in half with one swing of my pocket knife. It was hardcore, dude."
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:07 pm
That ties in with a comment by the director, in which he admitted that the movie is definitely from a Spartan point of view, so the exhaggerations (including the Spartans fighting barechested) could be seen as an attempt by the narrator to impress the valour of the 300 on the audience (both the fictional audience, i.e. the councils and rulers of the Greek city-states, and the movie audience).
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 7:35 pm
Ahh now that is a good answer by the director, whether thought up recently or by design.
Another tidibt: The actor who plays Xerxes also plays new character Paulo on LOST. I would have never guessed...
Another tidibt: The actor who plays Xerxes also plays new character Paulo on LOST. I would have never guessed...
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:54 pm
CovenantJr wrote:I was talking to a friend (who is, incidentally, a fan of the graphic novel) about the improbable fighting and the enormous monsters, and he ventured an opinion that I found interesting. He pointed out that, up until the end, the whole thing is being narrated to the council by the one-eyed bloke, so it's quite possible that he exaggerated everything for effect. You know, along the lines of "We fought ten thousand...no, twenty...no, five million big, sweaty, heavily armed men. Who had...er...magic. And bombs. And...giants...and elephants... And...er..we were jumping all over the place, chopping them up and laughing and...I cut seven blokes in half with one swing of my pocket knife. It was hardcore, dude."
"Spartan Army Knife" complete with spear, shield, helmet, black swimming trunks and swordy-thing. Cape not included.
Thanks for the new sig Covenant Jr!
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 4:27 pm
Reave the Unjust wrote:CovenantJr wrote:I was talking to a friend (who is, incidentally, a fan of the graphic novel) about the improbable fighting and the enormous monsters, and he ventured an opinion that I found interesting. He pointed out that, up until the end, the whole thing is being narrated to the council by the one-eyed bloke, so it's quite possible that he exaggerated everything for effect. You know, along the lines of "We fought ten thousand...no, twenty...no, five million big, sweaty, heavily armed men. Who had...er...magic. And bombs. And...giants...and elephants... And...er..we were jumping all over the place, chopping them up and laughing and...I cut seven blokes in half with one swing of my pocket knife. It was hardcore, dude."
"Spartan Army Knife" complete with spear, shield, helmet, black swimming trunks and swordy-thing. Cape not included.
Thanks for the new sig Covenant Jr!
You're very welcome. Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 6:27 pm
I thought it lacked a certain amount of testosterone!
Damn! That's what going to the movies should be about. I'm all for beautifully acted drama and complex, moving stories but...come on! Give me a group of huge muscle bound warriors fighting to the death against all manner of beasts, monsters and men any day of the week and twice on sundays, thank you very much.
Yknow...I don't care what the Queens name was, I don't care that the hunchback's betrayal was telegraphed, I don't care that the Persians didn't really have pet Ogres and that the Persian King wasnt really 12 foot tall. Bloody hell the more monsters and deformed beasts the better!!
But that's just me. For the record I thought the scene in King Kong where Kong fought a bunch of T-rex's was just about the greatest scene in cinematic history. That's the sort of stuff I could only dream about when I was a kid.
Good bloody stuff.
Damn! That's what going to the movies should be about. I'm all for beautifully acted drama and complex, moving stories but...come on! Give me a group of huge muscle bound warriors fighting to the death against all manner of beasts, monsters and men any day of the week and twice on sundays, thank you very much.
Yknow...I don't care what the Queens name was, I don't care that the hunchback's betrayal was telegraphed, I don't care that the Persians didn't really have pet Ogres and that the Persian King wasnt really 12 foot tall. Bloody hell the more monsters and deformed beasts the better!!
But that's just me. For the record I thought the scene in King Kong where Kong fought a bunch of T-rex's was just about the greatest scene in cinematic history. That's the sort of stuff I could only dream about when I was a kid.
Good bloody stuff.
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 6:29 pm
Everything you just said here spoke to my heart.Marvin wrote:I thought it lacked a certain amount of testosterone!
Damn! That's what going to the movies should be about. I'm all for beautifully acted drama and complex, moving stories but...come on! Give me a group of huge muscle bound warriors fighting to the death against all manner of beasts, monsters and men any day of the week and twice on sundays, thank you very much.
Yknow...I don't care what the Queens name was, I don't care that the hunchback's betrayal was telegraphed, I don't care that the Persians didn't really have pet Ogres and that the Persian King wasnt really 12 foot tall. Bloody hell the more monsters and deformed beasts the better!!
But that's just me. For the record I thought the scene in King Kong where Kong fought a bunch of T-rex's was just about the greatest scene in cinematic history. That's the sort of stuff I could only dream about when I was a kid.
Good bloody stuff.
I should see this movie a few more times before it's out of theatres.
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 6:41 pm
Hey, KK fought those T-rex's back in '33; they just got better actors to do it this time around.Marvin wrote: For the record I thought the scene in King Kong where Kong fought a bunch of T-rex's was just about the greatest scene in cinematic history. That's the sort of stuff I could only dream about when I was a kid.
Good bloody stuff.
