# "300" Movie Review (Advanced Screening Focus Group)(Some Spoilers)



## Mistwell (Aug 18, 2006)

Tonight I saw the movie "300" at the very first advanced screening that this studio has allowed.

Studio synopsis: "Film tells the true story of 300 elite Spartan fighters who, led by King Leonidas (Butler), fought to the death against King Xerxes' massive Persian army during the battle of Thermopylae in 481-480 B.C. According to lore, their valor inspired all of Greece to rise up against the invading Persians, planting the seeds of democracy."

STARRING: Gerard Butler, Lena Headey, David Wenham, Dominic West, Rodrigo Santoro, Vincent Regan
DIRECTOR: Zack Snyder
SCREENWRITER: Zack Snyder
STUDIO: Warner Bros.
RATING: R
GENRE: Action / Adventure / Drama
RELEASE DATE: TBA 2007
Based on the comic book series by Frank Miller.

First, a note on the screening itself. I've never been to an advanced screening that was cracking down this much on who they were going to let see their movie. No saving places in line (everyone got a number after their interview), every person personally interviewed with multiple questions about your employment (to make sure you in no way are affiliated with any kind of press, entertainment company, etc...), a little speech about how they matched your named against a black-list of people they have caught releasing reviews prior to final cut in the past, checking every person's driver's license (I saw three people sent home because they had no driver's license), no cell phones allowed (not just turned off, but not allowed), full metal detector to get in the door, etc..

Okay, on to the movie.

It's very, very good in my opinion. However, not for everyone. If I had to compare it to some other movies, I would say there are parts of Gladiator's organized fighting, Lord of the Rings' grand-scale battles, the Thirteenth-Warrior's feel of going against the unknown depths of man, and the stylistic feel of Sin City.

And the movie is quite stylistic. Colors are stark and heavily contrasted. While it isn't as extreme as Sin City, the feel of a comic book is present, and the entire film looks "different" than most film. Sometimes, using slow motion, it almost seems paneled. And certain scenes are set up to further this mood, this distinctness.

The story is fairly simple, and told through the eyes of one soldier, exaggerated here and there by him due to his perceptions at the time and not due to intentional puffery it seems.

Sparta is a country of soldiers. While Athens and the Acadians have philosophy and finer intellectual pursuits, Sparta is a hard, harsh, almost cruel place where only the strong are permitted to survive, where every child goes off to become the perfect soldier (or die trying, which is common), and where even the weakest women is a stronger and likely better fighter than most of the strongest soldiers of any other country.

King Leonidas is the best of the soldiers of Sparta. He is the nearly perfect warrior in an army of nearly perfect warriors. His speech is at times near-Shakespearian, and he is passionately in love with his wife, Sparta's Queen.

Sparta is about to be attacked by the Persian army, the greatest army in the world that is threatening to engulf everyone and everything under the rule of their God-King Xerxes. King Leonidas, seeing this threat, wants to send the Spartan army to stop the Persians.

However, because Sparta is the beginnings of a Democracy, he must follow the law. And the law says Sparta cannot go to war unless the Oracle that is controlled by the small ancient order of priests who worship the elder gods give their advice to go to war. Unfortunately, the oracle does not advice war (having been bought off by the Persians).

King Leonidas struggles with the concept of defying the law he was born to defend. Eventually, he decides to "take a stroll" with 300 hundred soldiers as "King's Guard" to defend him while he takes he "wanders". The council permits this (though without a vote).

King Leonidas and his 300 come up with a plan to rebuild an ancient wall near the sea, and force the enemy into a narrow gorge where the enemies numbers will not serve as much of an advantage (the enemy numbers around 100,000+ is my guess).

The soldiers of Sparta are all dressed in their uniforms: bright red cloaks, distinctive helmets, shields, spears, and swords (scimitars or falchions actually), bare chested in a toga-like wrap, boots, armbands, and extremely muscular. They move with grace, speed, and a certain uniformity. You really get the sense that these are people whose only purpose is to fight, so that the rest of their nation can survive in this harsh world.

From here, the movie becomes a bit of a cross between Gladiator and several scenes from the Lord of the Rings movies.

Battle after battle after bloody battle takes place. The armies of Xerxes seem inconceivably large and varied. Having conquered most of the world, Xerxes's battalions are each somewhat elite unites of unique fighters and fighting styles. Their are bowmen, cavalry, elephant-riders, alchemist-fire throwers, beasts, heavily armored men, lightly-armored whip-wielders, a super-elite Xerxes guard called the Imortals (whose faces are deformed and look a bit like orcs), and there is even a giant reminiscent of a troll.

The Lord of the Rings analogy doesn't end there however. The whole feel of large portions of the movie is similar to the Rings trilogy, with grand vistas, ancient buildings, fleets of ships, and even a Gollum-like hunchback who follows them (a discarded Spartan whose mother escaped with him at birth to avoid his death due to his deformity - Sparta breeds only perfect warriors). There is some witty banter between the king and his closest friend similar to the banter between Legolas and Gimli in the Rings movies. There are even some "creatures" in the movie, such as a goat-headed man and a man with blades for arms and perhaps even some dark arts of magic being performed in the corrupt dens of the enemy - but the impression is given that these are maybe exaggerations of the storyteller rather than "real" creatures and things.

While all of these waves of battles are going on, back home the Queen is attempting to persuade the council, using all her that she has to offer in that persuasion, to send the full army to support the King.

I will not give away the entire ending at this point, as there are some surprises at the end that, though not wholly unpredictable, are worth experiencing nonetheless without spoilers.

The audience seemed to love it from beginning to end. However, note that the audience was 400 or so people, mostly men in their 20s (primarily due to the fact that invitations were given out at comic book stores and game stores in the area for the most part).

I said earlier that this movie is not for everyone, and it isn't. It's "R" rated for a good reason. While there are some explicit sex scenes, it's the violence that gets the rating here. Boy, is this movie bloody at times. Some of the more in-your-face bloody moments include: a tree covered entirely by dead bodies nailed to it; a wall built mostly with the dead used as the mortar; and a pile of dead bodies about three stories tall. There are limbs severed, spears plunged, lots of blood, screaming, and slow-motion ballet-like dances of spinning death.

In other words, this is not a date movie for most couples. This is a chest thumping, dirty, writhing mass of violence at times. You can feel the testosterone in this film. However, the violence is not the kind that makes you want to be sick at the reality of it. It is all quite stylized and probably less gory overall than Sin City for example. Still, it's there, and if you don't want to see men fighting and dying, do not see this movie.

I found the movie very compelling, and plan on seeing it again (perhaps even on opening night). It is very "manly" in tone, and one does not leave contemplating the philosophical meaning of things. Instead, it's the kind of movie that you leave with a feeling of power, from having been witness to something grand.


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 18, 2006)

Misty, I only skimmed your post because of the spoiler warning, and have nothing real to add but I wanted to offer props for the the double parenthesis thread title.

Carry on.


----------



## Yellow Sign (Aug 18, 2006)

Did the movie give the impression that there were only 300 Spartans there at the battle? Because there was from 4000 to 7000 (give or take) Greek warriors from various cities at the Battle of Thermopylae. The beliveved number of Persians varies from 300,000 to 4,000,000.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 18, 2006)

Yellow Sign said:
			
		

> Did the movie give the impression that there were only 300 Spartans there at the battle? Because there was from 4000 to 7000 (give or take) Greek warriors from various cities at the Battle of Thermopylae. The beliveved number of Persians varies from 300,000 to 4,000,000.




The other Greek "warriors" are there, however they are not trained soldiers but just ordinary craftsmen who are serving second duty as warriors.  They fight for a while, but eventually everyone leaves except the Spartans, after a situation develops that makes it look hopeless.

300,000= makes some sense.  There are literally countless armies going back to the horizon.  I mentioned 100,000+ because at one point a 30,000 man armies leader says that they are only outnumbered 3 to 1 (and this is after the prior battles where around 10,000+ of the enemy fell).  However, a lot of the enemy die at sea as well, so it's unclear how many are really represented in the movie.  

The point is basically made that this appears to be a nearly infinite enemy.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Aug 18, 2006)

This doesn't sound very historically accurate to me. As for the spoilers, anyone who knows anything about the battle knows how it ended. The only 'surprise' would be if the hunchback is the one to show the Persians how to get around the wall. 'Everyone knows' that it was a random NPC shepard.


----------



## TemplarSaint (Aug 19, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I will not give away the entire ending at this point, as there are some surprises at the end that, though not wholly unpredictable, are worth experiencing nonetheless without spoilers.




Thank goodness!  I'd hate to know how things turned out before I saw the movie.


----------



## Welverin (Aug 19, 2006)

Ed_Laprade said:
			
		

> This doesn't sound very historically accurate to me. As for the spoilers, anyone who knows anything about the battle knows how it ended. The only 'surprise' would be if the hunchback is the one to show the Persians how to get around the wall. 'Everyone knows' that it was a random NPC shepard.




It's based on a comic that's based on the actual event and 



Spoiler



shockingly the hunchback has a bit of a grudge that leads him to betray his countrymen, if you can call it that.



That spoilers not that surprising, but there are people who won't want to know.


----------



## mattcolville (Aug 22, 2006)

Yellow Sign said:
			
		

> Did the movie give the impression that there were only 300 Spartans there at the battle? Because there was from 4000 to 7000 (give or take) Greek warriors from various cities at the Battle of Thermopylae. The beliveved number of Persians varies from 300,000 to 4,000,000.




There's a great bit in the graphic novel where a whole bunch of other troops, having heard about Leonidas' march to the Hot Gates, show up to lend aid.

Foreign commander: "Leonidas! I have come with soldiers to aid your small army"

Leonidas: "I believe I have more soldiers than you."

Foreign commander; "Are you blind? I have 1,000 here ready to lend aid."

Leonidas: "You there, Arcadian. What is your profession?"

Arcadian: "Me sir? I'm a shipwright, sir."

Leonidas: "And you?"

Other Dude: "I'm a carpenter, sir."

Leonidas: "And you?"

2nd Other Dude: "A blacksmith, sir."

Leonidas: "SPARTANS! WHAT IS YOUR PROFESSION!!"

The Spartans, as one man, raise their spears into the air.

Leonidas: "You see, I have many more soldiers than you."

Random dude in the background; "Stupid Spartans. Always know what to say."


----------



## Seonaid (Aug 22, 2006)

Hot. ::drool:: This is the first that I've heard of it, but it's definitely on my list. Massive battle scenes? I'm so there. Does anyone know when it'll come out in theaters for us peons?


----------



## Meloncov (Aug 23, 2006)

Ed_Laprade said:
			
		

> This doesn't sound very historically accurate to me. As for the spoilers, anyone who knows anything about the battle knows how it ended. The only 'surprise' would be if the hunchback is the one to show the Persians how to get around the wall. 'Everyone knows' that it was a random NPC shepard.




Just the title "300" is enough to tell that it is based more on myth than history. Most historians put the Spartan force at around a couple thousand, despite the legends on the contrary.


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 23, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Tonight I saw the movie "300" at the very first advanced screening that this studio has allowed.
> 
> Studio synopsis: "Film tells the true story of 300 elite Spartan fighters who, led by King Leonidas (Butler), fought to the death against King Xerxes' massive Persian army during the battle of Thermopylae in 481-480 B.C. According to lore, their valor inspired all of Greece to rise up against the invading Persians, planting the seeds of democracy."




Well, while the descriptions of the battle seem at least reasonably accurate by Hollywood standards, about everything else seems ridiculously silly. The Spartans did not "plant the seeds of democracy", they were ardently anti-democratic in most ways, and later went to war with Athens over this issue (the Spartans made sure their allies had kings, like a good city-state should). There was no "persuading the council" to send a bigger army, the army was to be sent when the religious observance that was occurring at the time ended. The whole "we have better soldiers because they are soldiers" thing runs counter to Hellenistic beliefs at the time, which was the citizen-soldiers serving a civic duty to go to war were the best at fighting for their homes.

And, I'm guessing that, as usual, Hollywood will "action-up" the fight sequences so that the Spartans don't fight as a phalanx, but rather fight in "superhero movie guy" style.


----------



## Meloncov (Aug 24, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The Spartans did not "plant the seeds of democracy", they were ardently anti-democratic in most ways, and later went to war with Athens over this issue (the Spartans made sure their allies had kings, like a good city-state should).




Compared to nearly anyone but the other Greek city states, the Spartan political system was quite democratic. They had a pair of kings, but their power was checked by an assembly and a ruling console. 

Additionally, I wouldn't say that political systems were the central conflict that caused the Peloponesean War. They were part of it, but only a small one.



In any case, if the Spartans had failed at Thermopolae, and Persia had conquered Greece, the flowering of Athenian civilization would not have occured. The summary never said that Sparta itself laid the seeds of democracy, it said that Greek victory did.


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 24, 2006)

Meloncov said:
			
		

> Compared to nearly anyone but the other Greek city states, the Spartan political system was quite democratic. They had a pair of kings, but their power was checked by an assembly and a ruling console.




At best, Sparta could be described as an oligarchy. The Homioi theoretically had a voice, but in relaity, the government was controlled by a handful of elders. The Spartans had a government that was filled with checks on power, but that doesn't make them democratic, just conservative.



> _Additionally, I wouldn't say that political systems were the central conflict that caused the Peloponesean War. They were part of it, but only a small one._




Athens insisted that members of the Delian League have democratic governments. The Spartans insisted that members of the Peloponnesian League be rules by selected monarchical oligarchies. The form of government was a major issue in the wars, and after the war, when Athens had been defeated, their democracy was dismantled and replaced by a ruling oligarchy.



> _In any case, if the Spartans had failed at Thermopolae, and Persia had conquered Greece, the flowering of Athenian civilization would not have occured. The summary never said that Sparta itself laid the seeds of democracy, it said that Greek victory did.[/]_



_

That is a real stretch. of course the delay at Themopylae allowed the Hellenes time to prepare, but Athens was abandoned and the Persians burned it anyway. The real battle was at Salamis. And, of course, the Spartans were not alone at Thermopylae, they made up a tiny core of a larger force. The Spartans were not even the only ones to stay to the bitter end, 400 Thebans and 700 Thespians also stayed after the rest of the Greek force withdrew.

But the connection between democracy and the Spartans is very tenuous._


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 24, 2006)

Welverin said:
			
		

> It's based on a comic that's based on the actual event and
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The spoiler I am not revealing is not in the comic apparently (though I have not read it yet), and is not part of known history.  It's not huge, but it is unexpected.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 24, 2006)

mattcolville said:
			
		

> There's a great bit in the graphic novel where a whole bunch of other troops, having heard about Leonidas' march to the Hot Gates, show up to lend aid.
> 
> Foreign commander: "Leonidas! I have come with soldiers to aid your small army"
> 
> ...




That scene, pretty much word for word, is in the movie  Great scene.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 24, 2006)

My review (with additional edits and fleshing out of some areas) was read by the powers that be over at WB, and approved for front-page posting over at comicbookresources.com (run by a friend of mine). He forwarded it to them on a whim, assuming they would say no to an early review, but on reading it apparently they were quite enthusiastic to get it up right away.

Sweet! I've never had an article over at CBR. This will make my master scheme to become a graphic novel reviewer for them (enjoying the fruits of reviewer copies of books I hope) a bit easier!

http://comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=8202

By the way, the film is not supposed to be based precisely on history.  It is supposed to be based on Frank Miller's 300 graphic novel, which itself is Frank Miller's artistic reinterpretation of the battle rather than a stictly historical rendition.  This is not meant to be a documentary, and if a documentary is what you are looking for there are many fine cable stations that cater to your desires on that front.  

If you like interesting action films, you will probably like this movie.  But if you are going in to see a historically accurate depiction of this particular battle, you will obviously be disappointed.  Much like some folks were disappointed with the Lord of the Rings trilogy of movies because they did not match the books.


----------



## DanMcS (Aug 24, 2006)

Cool.  I liked that comic, and didn't know a movie was being made of it.  According to IMDB, it will be out in 2007?  I'm looking forward to it.


----------



## Meloncov (Aug 25, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> At best, Sparta could be described as an oligarchy. The Homioi theoretically had a voice, but in relaity, the government was controlled by a handful of elders. The Spartans had a government that was filled with checks on power, but that doesn't make them democratic, just conservative.




By the standards of the day was the key part of that sentance; I realize it was far from being a true democracy.





			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Athens insisted that members of the Delian League have democratic governments. The Spartans insisted that members of the Peloponnesian League be rules by selected monarchical oligarchies. The form of government was a major issue in the wars, and after the war, when Athens had been defeated, their democracy was dismantled and replaced by a ruling oligarchy.




I suggest you read Donald Kagan's On the Origins of Wars. It explains that the causes of the Peloponesian War were very complex, and only a small part of them was the difference in political systems.

It is true the war ended Athenian democracy, though it also fatally wounded the Spartan social system. It would be innacurate to say that Spartan ethics were forced onto the Athenians; rather, the war destroyed their way of life.






			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> But the connection between democracy and the Spartans is very tenuous.




Addmittedly true, but it's proably just a case of the film marketers playing up the story for modern audiences. It doesn't necesairly translate over to the film itself.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 25, 2006)

Meloncov said:
			
		

> It is true the war ended Athenian democracy, though it also fatally wounded the Spartan social system. It would be innacurate to say that Spartan ethics were forced onto the Athenians; rather, the war destroyed their way of life...
> 
> Addmittedly true, but it's proably just a case of the film marketers playing up the story for modern audiences. It doesn't necesairly translate over to the film itself.




The word "Democracy" is not used in the film, and it isn't portrayed as a true Democracy.  There is a council (unclear if they are elected or not), and the council has some authority, and in particular there is a law (unclear what method was used to draft or approve the law) that forbids going to war during a particular holiday, and the oracle (which also has some large amount of influence over certain events) confirms that they should not go to war during this holiday (though the oracle has been bought off by the Persians, and perhaps so has some of the council).  "Freedom" is an important issue to Sparta, but what the freedom means, beyond "not slaves", is unclear.

I do think the use of the word Democracy in the studio description is not entirely accurate and more to identify the concepts more with the audience rather than reflect what is actually in the film.


----------



## Shag (Aug 25, 2006)

You also have to take into account that 'Democracy' is a word that describes a concept that means different things to different people at different times.

Rome was considered a democracy during the republic, but would be considered fascist by todays standards for example. 
Or as a progressive woman in 19th century US if she was living in a democracy.

Perhaps we could return to talking about how cool this movie is going to be, before this thread is poli-jacked.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 25, 2006)

By the way, I was just informed that the sword-like weapons used by the Spartans in this movie are neither scimitars nor falchions, but are called Kopis.

However, to me, they looked a bit more curved than the pictures I have seen of the Kopis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kopis.png


----------



## Seonaid (Aug 25, 2006)

Shag said:
			
		

> Perhaps we could return to talking about how cool this movie is going to be, before this thread is poli-jacked.



I, for one, am psyched. As I may have mentioned before, massive battle scenes = good.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 25, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> By the way, I was just informed that the sword-like weapons used by the Spartans in this movie are neither scimitars nor falchions, but are called Kopis.
> 
> However, to me, they looked a bit more curved than the pictures I have seen of the Kopis.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kopis.png



 Could it have been a Makhaira?


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 27, 2006)

Meloncov said:
			
		

> By the standards of the day was the key part of that sentance; I realize it was far from being a true democracy.




Not even by the standards of the day was Sparta a democracy. No one was elected. The ruling elders controlled everything. The homioi had no voice, and they only represented a iny fraction of the populace to begin with.



> _I suggest you read Donald Kagan's On the Origins of Wars. It explains that the causes of the Peloponesian War were very complex, and only a small part of them was the difference in political systems._




certainly there were several reasons for the war, but the conflict of ideology was a major sticking point. Sparta had limited economic interests, the need of the homioi were taken care of by the helotes for the most part. Spartas _allies_ were economic rivals of Athens, which dragged them into the war, but Sparta's primary motivation was protecting their insular and conservative culture, by exporting it to the other greek city strates.



> _It is true the war ended Athenian democracy, though it also fatally wounded the Spartan social system. It would be innacurate to say that Spartan ethics were forced onto the Athenians; rather, the war destroyed their way of life._




Sparta's social system was dying before the war, and that circumstance was a big part of what caused the war to begin with. Sparta could not exist in the long haul with an economic rival like Athens outperforming it so dramatically



> _Addmittedly true, but it's proably just a case of the film marketers playing up the story for modern audiences. It doesn't necesairly translate over to the film itself._




All it really does is make the filmmakers look uneducated.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 27, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> All it really does is make the filmmakers look uneducated.




You had me up until that statement.

I already explained that the film itself doesn't portray it as a Democracy, just the PROMO description.

I also mentioned that it is based on Frank Miller's 300, which itself is an artistic reinerpretation based on the events of the battle, and not meant to be an accurate retelling of the story.

And yet, given those facts, you claim the filmakers (a broad brush statement) look uneducated (another broadbrush statement), without regard for the fact that it's a promo descriotion that isn't actually in the movie, and it's based on a book not actually supposed to be directly historical to begin with.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Aug 27, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> But the connection between democracy and the Spartans is very tenuous.




On the other hand, they were FAR more of a democracy than, say, the Persian Empire.

Brad


----------



## Sugarmouse (Aug 28, 2006)

*On that note...*

I heartily recommend (for those interested, but have not yet done so) attaining 'The History of the Peloponnesian War' by Thucydides.

I decided to purchase, and read this book from cover to cover, after studying excerpts at school. (Oh, so long ago.)

Hmm. It's been a while. Time to break it out again.


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 29, 2006)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> On the other hand, they were FAR more of a democracy than, say, the Persian Empire.




The differences between the Persian Empire and Sparta were primarily degrees of scale. The Persians had a ruling elite (and, of course, a hereditary emperor) and millions of subjects with few, if any, rights. The Spartans had a ruling elite, and tens of thousands of subjects (helotes) who, not only had no rights, but against whom the Spartans declared war once per year to justify killing any of them they wanted to. Sure, the Spartans had checks against the excercise of power by their government, but those checks only applied to those in the ruling elite, and not to those downrange.


----------



## Mark CMG (Aug 29, 2006)

Thanks for the scoop, Mistwell!  Looking forward to seeing this!


----------



## Dire Bare (Aug 30, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> All it really does is make the filmmakers look uneducated.




Dude, it's a movie based on a comic based on MYTHOLOGY, not history texts . . . and there is obviously various viewpoints on the actual history anyway (since none of us were actually there at the time) . . .

Didn't the spoiler bits above regarding goat-headed men and dudes with swords for arms kinda clue you in?


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Aug 30, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Sure, the Spartans had checks against the excercise of power by their government, but those checks only applied to those in the ruling elite, and not to those downrange.




Which weren't even present on the Persian emperor.

Not that the Spartans, or, heck, the Athenians or Thebans were paragons of Modern Virtue, either.

Brad


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 30, 2006)

Dire Bare said:
			
		

> Dude, it's a movie based on a comic based on MYTHOLOGY, not history texts . . . and there is obviously various viewpoints on the actual history anyway (since none of us were actually there at the time) . . .




Actually, the history related to the battle and the surrouding political dynamics is remarkably consistent.



> _Didn't the spoiler bits above regarding goat-headed men and dudes with swords for arms kinda clue you in?_




Elements that made the movie look even dumber to boot.

I predict a debacle on the scale of _Troy_ or _Alexander_.


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 30, 2006)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> Which weren't even present on the Persian emperor.




Not formal ones. But his power was as constrained in reality as the power of the elders of the Spartan nation.



> _Not that the Spartans, or, heck, the Athenians or Thebans were paragons of Modern Virtue, either._




The Athenians were closest, and actually had something that might be considered recognizable as an actual democracy (limited though it was).


----------



## Meloncov (Aug 31, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Actually, the history related to the battle and the surrouding political dynamics is remarkably consistent.




Huh? Even the supposed number of troops a widely considered inaccurate.


----------



## reapersaurus (Sep 13, 2006)

Thanks for the info, Mistwell.
It's a tightrope walk, to give some info, and not too much.....

I'm guessing this'll be a great genre movie, even if it isn't completely historically accurate or follow every single panel of Frank Miller's work.


----------



## Eosin the Red (Sep 13, 2006)

I'll take one to go... now, please. Dang does it sound good.


----------



## David Howery (Sep 13, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Actually, the history related to the battle and the surrouding political dynamics is remarkably consistent.



eh... the only historical source about the battle that I know of is the Histories by Herodotus... are there others?  If not, the history should be consistent...


----------



## Someone (Sep 13, 2006)

i can´t speak for the movie, but the comic is hardly an attempt to recreate history; you just have to look at what way are each character drawn. Greeks, specially spartans, dress a loincloth, if at all. Their weapons and armor are very simple, without any decoration. The persians, on the other hand, wear extremiely elaborate clothes, a couple pounds of piercings, and the arrow tips are so elaborate that they can´t be functional at all. Ephialtes isn´t just deformed: he´s hideous, barely recognizable as human; the oracles that forbid Leonidas to fight are horrible too, skinny monsters covered in blisters. Miller didn´t care for historical accuracy: he wanted to set a brutal contrast between spartans and persians as living metaphors for freedom and opression.


----------

