300 the Movie thread

[bandit29]

Saw it last night. It was awesome.

So..I guess this years comic-con costume of choice will be a Spartan? Except the gut will be bigger

[Phyrox]

well, recent historically "acurate" movies haven't done to well, but historic fiction has done fairly well... I think a more accurate 300 movie would do alright as well.

Which movies would those have been?

[KingNor]

Which movies would those have been?

well.. I'm sure we all know about the historical train wreck that is Braveheart. They almost comically got every aspect of that story wrong. Like Robert the Bruce being a young boy at Wallaces death, Wallace spending most of the wars in Europe looking for support, Wallace being very well known for his big manly beard, the kilt not being used yet, the there isn't even a hint historically that the kings son was gay, Wallace is NOT the father of Edward III, the first big battle "at Sterling" being historically known as "the Battle at STERLING BRIDGE" and taking place on a fking bridge.

anyway that's Braveheart and its an easy mark

Another good example and also another MelMovie is the Patriot, i don't know the inaccuracies as well but they're numerous and glaring.

U-571: the british captured an enigma machine, not the americans.

Gladiator: /laugh

Pearl Harbor: the p-40 "heroic" battle is pretty silly and seemed to want to attribute a good amount of the 29 kills to these two pilots, iirc it's unlikely any of the fighters that launched shot down any zeros or bombers, and it was ground fire that did most of the killing. I could be wrong though. Various other things. And cuba should have had a bigger part.

Finding Neverland , Enemy At the Gates, Master and Commander..

Anyway Hollywood has a bad track record with historical accuracy, and the worst part is how convincingly they can portray INaccuracy. Just read up on a few of these movies and the events the portray. And i'm not even going to get into the issues i have when Hollywood tries to depict science.

ALL OF THAT SAID... a good actually histiorically somewhat accurate depiction of 300 would still interest me a great deal, like i said also, even if it was just a documentary or something but with a good budget and battle scenes.

[JsARCLIGHT]

A recent "historically accurate" movie I remember is "We Were Soldiers", another Mel Gibson joint. That movie was very accurate. In fact, about the only inaccuracy it had was that it stopped telling the story of LZ X-Ray too early and omitted the whole "ending". But it was pretty darn accurate up to that point and portrayed both sides in the conflict as human. It did pretty good at the box office as well, with a production budget of $70mil it grossed over $120mil worldwide.

[Akilae]

There's also Kingdom of Heaven... historical trainwreck, but frickin good visuals.

Even "Rome" with all it's hubbub about historical accuracy took plenty of liberties.

Maybe... just *maybe* Saving Ryan's Privates.

But "Band of Brothers" was probably more historically accurate.

Clint's Iwo Jima duology didn't fare too bad, and it's about as accurate as you can get.

There's "Memphis Belle", which was big in its day, although I'm not sure how accurate the movie is.

[KingNor]

A recent "historically accurate" movie I remember is "We Were Soldiers", another Mel Gibson joint. That movie was very accurate. In fact, about the only inaccuracy it had was that it stopped telling the story of LZ X-Ray too early and omitted the whole "ending". But it was pretty darn accurate up to that point and portrayed both sides in the conflict as human. It did pretty good at the box office as well, with a production budget of $70mil it grossed over $120mil worldwide.

except the m-16 wasn't in action yet. odd since they go out of their way to talk about it. i beleive at the time of that battle they would have been using m-14's but i'm probably wrong.

[JsARCLIGHT]

This one is SO right up my alley (as the MW AR15 expert)... heh...

The original M16 was being field tested in the early 60's and was approved for service use in 1963. It began to be issued in large numbers to combat troops in late 1964, starting with the elite troops first such as Hal Moore's Airborne brigades that took part in the LZ X-Ray battle in the movie. The movie takes place in November 1965, the M16 was in full field issue for almost a year at that point but it was still very "new" and a lot of troops like the grizzled old Master Sergent had grave misgivings about the weapons which were in Hal Moore's book thus they appear in the movie.

However you are correct that the M14 was still in field use at the time, notably with the Marines who only grudgingly adopted it by 1966.

... now back to the Spartans with their privative spears and swords.

[KingNor]

This one is SO right up my alley (as the MW AR15 expert)... heh...

The original M16 was being field tested in the early 60's and was approved for service use in 1963. It began to be issued in large numbers to combat troops in late 1964, starting with the elite troops first such as Hal Moore's Airborne brigades that took part in the LZ X-Ray battle in the movie. The movie takes place in November 1965, the M16 was in full field issue for almost a year at that point but it was still very "new" and a lot of troops like the grizzled old Master Sergent had grave misgivings about the weapons which were in Hal Moore's book thus they appear in the movie.

However you are correct that the M14 was still in field use at the time, notably with the Marines who only grudgingly adopted it by 1966.

... now back to the Spartans with their privative spears and swords.

I stand corrected sir.

you know, reguarding spartan gear, i know it's not movie related but i've been looking for an authentic real spartan helmet, since there seems to be so much variation. you guys know where someone could find a pic of a authentic spartan helm?

[HoveringCheesecake]

In that aspect, the movie was pretty accurate. The Spartans wore the Corinthian helmet at that time.

As for buying a "real" Spartan helmet... when my cousin was on a cruise of the Mediterranean, his friend had to spend $3000 to get an authentic Corinthian helmet.

EDIT: bbts just shipped my 300 prop replica helmet. I'll let you know if it is worth the $60.

Edited March 16, 2007 by meh_cd

[Jolly Rogers]

This article has a link to a fairly long video that shows how they did the VFX in 300... might ruin the 'magic' for some of you though.

http://www.pluginz.com/news/5290

[KingNor]

In that aspect, the movie was pretty accurate. The Spartans wore the Corinthian helmet at that time.

As for buying a "real" Spartan helmet... when my cousin was on a cruise of the Mediterranean, his friend had to spend $3000 to get an authentic Corinthian helmet.

EDIT: bbts just shipped my 300 prop replica helmet. I'll let you know if it is worth the $60.

wow, he got the real deal? so an actual corinthian or spartan warrior probably wore the helmet your cousin now owns? that would blow my mind.

actually i can see how it was confusing but i'm not looking to buy, i just want to see an image of one. I've seen quite a few authentic-ish looking ones but they're all reproductions. I'm just looking to see what a helment from that era would actually look like.

[HoveringCheesecake]

Ah. Yeah he got a repro one that was real bronze. The reason it was so expensive is because it was handmade... I think. But who knows - maybe it was authentic? It had to go through customs, so I doubt it was an historical artifact.

I'll try and find some pictures...

http://www.freewebtown.com/italica/italic_...corinthian.html

http://www.royalarmouries.org/extsite/view...?sectionId=2998

http://www.artsmia.org/viewer/detail.php?i...=12&op=1449

http://travel.webshots.com/album/551376924pzZOmc

And some good repro ones...

http://www.hellenic-art.com/armour/ (FANTASTIC pictures!)

http://www.hellenic-art.com/armour/21-28-226.jpg

http://www.hellenic-art.com/armour/helmetlife.jpg

http://www.hellenic-art.com/armour/21-28-026.jpg

http://www.hellenic-art.com/armour/spartan2.jpg

http://www.hellenic-art.com/armour/helmetlife3.jpg

http://www.hellenic-art.com/armour/21-28-029.jpg

Edited March 17, 2007 by meh_cd

[Graham]

A recent "historically accurate" movie I remember is "We Were Soldiers", another Mel Gibson joint. That movie was very accurate. In fact, about the only inaccuracy it had was that it stopped telling the story of LZ X-Ray too early and omitted the whole "ending". But it was pretty darn accurate up to that point and portrayed both sides in the conflict as human. It did pretty good at the box office as well, with a production budget of $70mil it grossed over $120mil worldwide.

What I really hated about that movie, was actually the terrain. It was so obvious that it was filmed in North America or Canada and not in a tropical or sub-tropical asian country. Stood out like a sore thumb and really spoiled the movie for me.

Graham

[JsARCLIGHT]

Hate to hijack this topic even more (last time I promise) but the depiction of the terrain and foliage was pretty correct as well... the Ia Drang valley in Vietnam was in one of the more temperate zones in the country. Vietnam is not all rice paddies and tropical jungles like they show in the movies, it has different zones just like most any country. Here are some photos from the actual LZ Xray in the Ia Drang taken in 1965:

The exact type of plant life and native grasses could not be shown due to obvious filming reasons but the impression of the actual area was quite accurate.

OK that was the last hijack I promise, back to the Spartans.

[KingNor]

imho dont' worry about hijacking as 300 spawned this conversation, anyone who wants to steer it back to 300 related topics is perfectly welcome to do so at any time :-)

thats amazing footage there js, you think that was a happy accedent or you think they tried hard to get the "look" right?

Also thanks so much for the pics of the helms meh cd, thats exactly what i was looking for.

[Warmaker]

Saw it last night. It was awesome.

So..I guess this years comic-con costume of choice will be a Spartan? Except the gut will be bigger

* shudders *

Nothing like a tarnished image

[KingNor]

* shudders *

Nothing like a tarnished image

ugh. nothing like a untanned fat man in a cape and no clothes to make me think "comics just arn't worth it this year"

[Graham]

Heh, but will it be the movie version with loincloth, or the comic version without?

Graham

[KingNor]

i'm starting to see why so many people go as storm troopers. It's excellent protection from pastey white nerd flesh.

[kung flu]

well.. I'm sure we all know about the historical train wreck that is Braveheart. They almost comically got every aspect of that story wrong. Like Robert the Bruce being a young boy at Wallaces death, Wallace spending most of the wars in Europe looking for support, Wallace being very well known for his big manly beard, the kilt not being used yet, the there isn't even a hint historically that the kings son was gay, Wallace is NOT the father of Edward III, the first big battle "at Sterling" being historically known as "the Battle at STERLING BRIDGE" and taking place on a fking bridge.

The sad fact about Braveheart is that some Scottish people actually thought it was accurate, and it dug up or increased the old hatred towards the english. Thats just to show how some people just don't know their own history. I remember during world cup 2002 i said i would support england, but all my friends called me a traitor and asked if i ever seen braveheart. It kind of gives you the impression that you can't be Scottish and like the English at the same time.

I hope people don't take 300 seriously as its just a story wither true or not.

[eugimon]

The sad fact about Braveheart is that some Scottish people actually thought it was accurate, and it dug up or increased the old hatred towards the english. Thats just to show how some people just don't know their own history. I remember during world cup 2002 i said i would support england, but all my friends called me a traitor and asked if i ever seen braveheart. It kind of gives you the impression that you can't be Scottish and like the English at the same time.

I hope people don't take 300 seriously as its just a story wither true or not.

considering a growing portion of kids in the USA think we fought with the germans against the russians in WWII... I think that people think braveheart was an accurate depiction of Wallace and King Edward can be forgiven...

[kung flu]

considering a growing portion of kids in the USA think we fought with the germans against the russians in WWII... I think that people think braveheart was an accurate depiction of Wallace and King Edward can be forgiven...

Thats understandable, but in Scotland, we are taught about the war of Scottish independence in school, when braveheart came out, all that was taught seemed to go out the window. I must have been the only one listening in class. Films like Braveheart triggered a lot of anti-english feeling. I just think its a shame that some people take it too far like beating someone up because hes english.

I doubt 300 would stir any feelings like that unless someone who is Greek or Persian has got something to say about it.

[HoveringCheesecake]

Oh, the Iranians aren't pleased about the movie. Both the people AND the government. Personally, I think that they can go stuff it. It's a movie based on a comic book. Geesh.

That being said, the battle DID happen, and the Greeks did end up kicking ass at Plataea. Sure, the Persians were very stylized in the movie - but did the movie really portray them in a way that wasn't somewhat accurate? I'm sure that the forces of both sides pillaged entire villages and mutilated some corpses. As for Xerxes not being a ten foot tall transvestite - alright fine. However, he was off his rocker (God-king bullcrap), and I'm sure there was all sorts of debauchery going on in his private tent. There probably weren't any goat people, though.

Edited March 18, 2007 by meh_cd

[kung flu]

Oh, the Iranians aren't pleased about the movie. Both the people AND the government. Personally, I think that they can go stuff it. It's a movie based on a comic book. Geesh.

That being said, the battle DID happen, and the Greeks did end up kicking ass at Plataea. Sure, the Persians were very stylized in the movie - but did the movie really portray them in a way that wasn't somewhat accurate? I'm sure that the forces of both sides pillaged entire villages and mutilated some corpses. As for Xerxes not being a ten foot tall transvestite - alright fine. However, he was off his rocker (God-king bullcrap), and I'm sure there was all sorts of debauchery going on in his private tent. There probably weren't any goat people, though.

Yeah its really sad how some people and even governments can take movies too far, even though those events depicted happened thousands of years ago. Its time to move on and enjoy movies wither they are fact or fiction.

[KingNor]

Yeah its really sad how some people and even governments can take movies too far, even though those events depicted happened thousands of years ago. Its time to move on and enjoy movies wither they are fact or fiction.

I think a lot of those countries don't understand our free press too. Iran probably thinks that because a movie is made in the US it must be propaganda made by the US.

Sorry, its just the views of a comicbook nerd named miller with a tendancy towards 13 yearold-kid fantasies of violence and women.

In reality xerxes was actually a pretty interesting guy. He had a similar policey that the Romans had, where they would overtake a culture relativly peacefully, allow them to retain their beleifs and social structure, and they became a part of his empire.

If Iran were smart they'd just say "persia was a crazy place a few thousand years ago" and move on. It'd be like the US getting bent out of shape if someone made a movie about gnomes , dragons and trolls fighting in the civil war and mentioned "the u.s. had slaves". It's just make beleive and especially in this case, not even trying to be realistic.

Even if the movie was trying to be historical, the "Persian Empire" covered what like 2/3 of the known world, it's pretty arrogant for modern day Iran to think they can speak for the representation of all the peoples shown in the film. It'd be like Germany saying "hey, don't talk about neandertals like that, those are our forefathers."

Seriously, choose your battles.

Edited March 18, 2007 by KingNor

[Warmaker]

Heh, but will it be the movie version with loincloth, or the comic version without?

Graham

Neither, since the Police will take him away for public indecency. Well, at least here in the USA! But they may get away with it in San Francisco

As for Braveheart, after seeing the movie I knew something was wrong regarding the "history" of it all. I wasn't familiar with it until I saw documentaries. Even Scottish historians were saying the movie was total BS in accuracy. What's worse is how many people thought it was all true! :lol:

Edited March 19, 2007 by Warmaker

[KingNor]

if the rhino hadn't been felled to a javalen toss, could a spartan.. or any phalanx stand up to a charging rhino?

Seems maybe they could, but they might want to try and deflect it rather than absorb the brunt force of it. it's questionable wether the whole phalanx had the dexterity to adapt to a charge like that though.

[HoveringCheesecake]

No, I don't think they could. That was the phalanx's weakness - its inflexibility. That's why the Romans wiped the floor with them later on.

I think Alexander encountered some elephants during his escapades... any of the super-history buffs know how the phalanx faired against them? I think that the longer pikes would be a benefit compared to the shorter variety used by the earlier Greeks.

I should know the names of the spears considering I worked on Rome: Total Realism, but I guess my brain is fried. The sarissa is the long pike, right?

[Macross73]

thought this was interesting,

the 300 workout

http://joshsgarage.typepad.com/articles/20..._miller_mo.html

[Phyrox]

What I meant was what were the "historically accurate" films that have done poorly at the box office.

Anybody with eyes knows about the historical fiction in movies, that was not my question.

[eugimon]

What I meant was what were the "historically accurate" films that have done poorly at the box office.

Anybody with eyes knows about the historical fiction in movies, that was not my question.

off the top of my head, gettysburg.

[Isamu Atreides 86]

off the top of my head, gettysburg.

Not very historically accurate, neither was Gods and Generals.

For me, about the best "historical fiction" movie made recently was "Master and Commander". As someone who studies history for a living, it was pretty well done. on the other end, the Patriot was atrocious.

[eugimon]

Not very historically accurate, neither was Gods and Generals.

For me, about the best "historical fiction" movie made recently was "Master and Commander". As someone who studies history for a living, it was pretty well done. on the other end, the Patriot was atrocious.

well, I guess you would know better than me, but the book gettysburg was based on (The killer angels) won a pulitzer and was pretty well regarded as being pretty historically accurate and by all accounts, gettysburg was a pretty faithful rendition of it.

[Warmaker]

No, I don't think they could. That was the phalanx's weakness - its inflexibility. That's why the Romans wiped the floor with them later on.

I think Alexander encountered some elephants during his escapades... any of the super-history buffs know how the phalanx faired against them? I think that the longer pikes would be a benefit compared to the shorter variety used by the earlier Greeks.

I should know the names of the spears considering I worked on Rome: Total Realism, but I guess my brain is fried. The sarissa is the long pike, right?

*WARNING: Boring History Lesson!*

There's two forms of the Phalanx, really.

1) The classical Greek Phalanx: Tight formation of Hoplites, preferrably deep in its ranks. The main characteristics of the Hoplite is the large Hoplon shield and a spear of 6-8 ft in length. Used by the Greek city-states and what they were known for.

2) The Macedonian style of Phalanx: Tight formation of Phalangites, preferrably deep also. The Phalangites had much smaller shields which were slung forward since both hands were used for the Sarissa (Pike going 18 or so feet long). Introduced by Philip of Macedon (Alexander's father) and subsequently used by the Diadochi, successor states, after Alexander the Great's death.

Both types use the name "Phalanx" but both operate quite differently. The major reason is the Sarissa used by the Macedonian Phalanx. The Macedonian Phalanx had their men present their extremely long weapons as literally a forest of spear points to the front. These points are staggered since Phalangites from the ranks further back can present their Sarissas together with the front ranks. This made the Macedonian Phalanx extremely tough to close with from the front. The movie "Alexander" actually does a fair job of showing this.

But the Macedonian Phalanx had several major flaws which became increasingly apparent as time passed.

* Firstly, Phalangites were not great fighters in close combat. Their primary form of fighting was with the very long Sarissa while in formation. Short swords were available but proficiency in that type of fighting was not appreciably good compared to other units / people.

---- There's an old story from the days of Alexander the Great while he was still in Greece, before he crossed the Hellespont to invade Persia. A "duel" / match taking place between a decorated Macedonian Phalangite and a Greek Athlete / Wrestler. The Macedonian was fully equipped for war... armor, helmet, greaves, and the Sarissa. The Greek was simply naked except for being oiled and holding a simple club. The match garnered much attention, even gaining Alexander as an onlooker. It was essentially a contest between Greece and Macedonia. The Macedonian tried to make use of the very long Sarissa to defeat his opponent. The Greek was patient, and finally lunged, swinging his club to shatter the wooden shaft of the Sarissa. Once it was shattered, he quickly closed in before the Macedonian could prepare for close fighting. The Greek took down the Macedonian but spared his life... Alexander was disappointed.

* Secondly, a Macedonian style Phalanx can't react quickly enough or well enough to attacks / threats from the flank or rear. The Sarissa's long nature prevented a sudden change of facing against a new, sudden danger. Having several hundred guys in one big formation, packed together, with 18-21 ft long spears pointing to one direction, does not allow a sudden change of facing.

* Thirdly, a Macedonian style Phalanx battle line is best when stationary or when advancement / movement is at a minimal. The reason being is that the Phalanx tends to lose cohesion and alignment the further it advanced. The array of Sarissas lose its "density" and openings can occur for exploiting.

The Roman Republic and its Legions fought against the Macedonian style Phalanx in several wars / major battles. In each significant engagement and war, the Roman Army defeated the Phalanx in very lopsided victories.

- Roman Pila (Javelins) were deadly against the Phalanx and used to help break up the formation before contact.

- The Roman Legions were very flexible and not rigid to a fault like the Phalanx. Phalanxes lost cohesion the further it advanced, allowing openings for attack. Broken / Rough terrain had the same effect for the Macedonian style Phalanx. Any instance of an opening was ruthlessly exploited by Roman Legionaries who would close in with their very large shields and short swords to make short work of the Phalangites.

The classical Greek Phalanx with the Hoplites were not as rigid. It didn't have the same strengths and weaknesses as the Macedonian Phalanx. But the Greek city-states were no longer as strong as they once were since capitulation to Philip of Macedon.

As for Alexander the Great facing Elephants, the only one I recall was one of his last major battles... the Battle of the Hydaspes River in 326 BC against King Porus. The victory was attained by Alexander but Hydaspes was by far his costliest victory. His Phalangites held firm and beat back the 200+ war elephants, but had many casualties (4k+ men).

----------

A nice little side note:

When Philip of Macedon had control of Greece... except Sparta... he stated:

"If I enter Laconia I will level Sparta to the ground." (Laconia is the region Sparta is in).

The Spartan reply?

"If."

(Even though Sparta was now a much weaker city-state than in the past)

----------

The Battle of Chaeronea, 338 BC

The battle between the classical Greek Phalanx and the Macedonian Phalanx.

Edited March 21, 2007 by Warmaker

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Any truth to the story about the Mongolians countering the elephants they met by unleashing Tigers?