# 300.  Just got back from Midnight opening...



## QuaziquestGM (Mar 9, 2007)

From the movie, first impression.

Prestige Class:  Spartan Army
Prerecs
Spartan by birth; Able to lift shield high enough to protect the man next to you from thigh to neck. 2 weapon fighting, Improved critical (shield), Improved Critical (long spear), Advanced Close order fighting, Combat reflexes, Die hard, Weapon focus (sword), Expertise, Iron Will, Toughness (X 6)

Benifit.

HD: D20
Skill points/2
Class skills
Intimidate, Perform (stoic saying), Knowledge history (Sparta)

Level one.  Gains abity to honesty claim membership in Spartan Army.
(this class has only one level)

Description:
This is the class that Spartans typically enter at age 15.....


----------



## Turanil (Mar 9, 2007)

Apart from that, was the movie any good?


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Mar 9, 2007)

You know you're hopelessly addicted if...

... your first impression to a movie is "This would be the PrC for that character" or something like that.


----------



## Black_Swan (Mar 9, 2007)

Ugh..I thought I was going to get a quick review...not a d20 hit die prc.   

I'm guessing it was inspiring though.

There is an issue of Dragon that deals with the Persian invasion.  I don't know what issue but it's the one that has the Elven Ancestral Foe class in it.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 9, 2007)

For a review, look in the Media forum - which is where this is heading!


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Mar 9, 2007)

I saw the movie and thought it was pretty good (2.5 stars) if can ignore the glaring historical inaccuracies and just get along with watching (I was drunk and that helped).  The fight scenes were well done and the CGI was excellent.
Ironically Leonidas won't let the hunchback fight with him saying he needs to lift his shield high enough to protect the man next to him as the spartans fight as a phalanx, but through most of the movie the spartans fight as individuals.


BTW I don't like your PRC.


----------



## Insight (Mar 9, 2007)

Aust Diamondew said:
			
		

> BTW I don't like your PRC.




Aw, c'mon.  The prerequisites are _only_ 15 feats.  That's what, a 15th level Fighter to get into the class.  Who wouldn't want to blow 6 feats on Toughness, anyway?  :\


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Mar 9, 2007)

Aust Diamondew said:
			
		

> ...if can ignore the glaring historical inaccuracies and just get along with watching...




If you're expecting historical accuracy from a movie like 300, that's your first problem right there.

Not to pick on you specifically; I've heard and read several people griping about this "flaw" when I in fact don't see it as such.  I don't think Miller ever intended to write a historically accurate graphic novel.  I think he wanted to tell an evocative story.

I'll be measuring it against that tonight.


----------



## horacethegrey (Mar 9, 2007)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> If you're expecting historical accuracy from a movie like 300, that's your first problem right there.
> 
> Not to pick on you specifically; I've heard and read several people griping about this "flaw" when I in fact don't see it as such.  I don't think Miller ever intended to write a historically accurate graphic novel.  I think he wanted to tell an evocative story.
> 
> I'll be measuring it against that tonight.



Quite true. When you the see name Frank Miller on the cover of something, you don't go in expecting a historical doumentary. You go in expecting hot babes, manly men, and blood. LOTS OF BLOOD.  

I just came from watching this, and I must say, it was a great film. 

First off, the imagery was breathtaking. Yeah, it was all shot on a soundstage with some digital backgrounds, but hey, it looks good, and really helps to convey the mood of the story.

The action bits certainly won't dissapoint, as the battle scenes are incredible. Maybe some people will gripe that they're too stylized and in slow motion, and lack the realism of medieval combat in films like _Braveheart _ or _Gladiator_. But hey, like I said, it's by Frank Miller, so such artistic licesence is to be expected. 

What really gets you though is the story. I don't know how to describe it, but the whole thing had me rooting for the Spartans until the end. I couldn't help but feel moved as Leonidas were finally cut down. This is the film _Troy _ should have been I reckon.

And such a story wouldn't be so good without a such a good cast to give it life. Once again, the criminally underrated Gerard Butler shines in a role that seems made for him. He dominates the film as Leonidas, giving the Spartan ruler warmth and ferocity in equal measure. I've been such a fan of this guy since _Beowulf and Grendel_, and I hope that the success of this film leads him to better things. Lena Headey also shines as his queen, imbuing the role with a quiet strength and steel will. The real surprise though, is David Wenham. Prior to the film's release, I had no idea that the onetime Faramir was in this movie at all. But his prescence greatly helps the film as a whole, as his role as the Spartan warrior Dilios provides a narrative voice for the audience and Wenham does an awesome job with this task.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Mar 9, 2007)

I expect the same sort of slavish attention to historical accuracy from 300 as I expect from Raiders of the Lost Ark.


----------



## Crothian (Mar 9, 2007)

It was a very good movie.  If you want history realism, watch the History Chennel.  This was all about entertainment!!


----------



## jonathan swift (Mar 9, 2007)

I enjoyed it a lot. First movie I've been in since the third Matrix where the audience literally broke out in applause at two points in the movie:

[sblock]When they finally killed the giant and when the queen killed the traitor politician.[/sblock]


----------



## Thanee (Mar 9, 2007)

jonathan swift said:
			
		

> First movie I've been in since the third Matrix where the audience literally broke out in applause at two points in the movie...




The audience applauded during the third Matrix? 

When the disaster was _finally_ over? But when was the other time?

Or did you mean the third _time you saw_ Matrix?



Bye
Thanee


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Mar 9, 2007)

Thanee said:
			
		

> The audience applauded during the third Matrix?




So I did read his post correctly after all! I thought I was hallucinating.


----------



## shilsen (Mar 9, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> So I did read his post correctly after all! I thought I was hallucinating.



 Screw that. I roll to disbelieve.


----------



## jonathan swift (Mar 9, 2007)

Thanee said:
			
		

> The audience applauded during the third Matrix?
> 
> When the disaster was _finally_ over? But when was the other time?
> 
> ...





Yeah, when the flying robot things attacked Zion and they killed them off with the little 'mecha things. Everyone started clapping.


----------



## Presto2112 (Mar 9, 2007)

I have to wait until next week to see this.

*Sigh*... my dad, on the other hand, is going to watch "Norbit" tonight.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Mar 9, 2007)

jonathan swift said:
			
		

> Yeah, when the flying robot things attacked Zion and they killed them off with the little 'mecha things. Everyone started clapping.




Lol.  I also cheered when that happened.



			
				Presto2112 said:
			
		

> I have to wait until next week to see this.
> 
> *Sigh*... my dad, on the other hand, is going to watch "Norbit" tonight.




My girl friend is making me watch Wild Hogs tonight.. So i'm not sure who has it worse, you or I.


----------



## Pbartender (Mar 9, 2007)

My wife just called...  The tickets for the local IMAX showing sold out while she was standing in line.


Damn.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Mar 9, 2007)

jonathan swift said:
			
		

> I enjoyed it a lot. First movie I've been in since the third Matrix where the audience literally broke out in applause at two points in the movie:
> 
> [sblock]When they finally killed the giant and when the queen killed the traitor politician.[/sblock]




The only time the audience cheered when I went to see the third Matrix on opening night was when Trinity finally died. During her prolonged death soliloquy (with, what, like 7 lengths of re-bar in her chest?    ) someone yelled out "Just die already!". That got some good laughs. 

Other than that the only cheering I've been privy to in a movie theatre is all three Star Wars prequels on opening night when the opening crawl started up. That and when Sam Jackson said "I'm sick of these mother f---- snakes on this mother f----- plane!". 

 

But as far as 300 is concerned, I don't think I've been this excited for a movie since LoTR was in the theatres.


----------



## Presto2112 (Mar 9, 2007)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> My girl friend is making me watch Wild Hogs tonight.. So i'm not sure who has it worse, you or I.




LOL, he and Mom saw that last week.  they haven't seen a movie at a theatre in eleven years (Twister), and they follow it up with two real gems!

BTW, I don't have it bad.  It's not like they're making me go.  They live four provinces west of me.


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 9, 2007)

Saw it.

Loved it.

Seeing it again tomorrow.

ps. Mrs. Wormwood loved it also. It's not every day you can have a conversation with your wife where the word "thews" comes up.


----------



## Alaric_Prympax (Mar 9, 2007)

I just saw it and enjoyed it.  I'll be getting the DVD once this comes out.  The crowd applauded when...


[sblock] the Spartan Queen killed the traitor.[/sblock]


----------



## Kaodi (Mar 10, 2007)

I have almost no interest in seeing that film... I can do with historical innacuracies, really, but when you make rampant single combat be the basis of fighting, in a situation where we all know that fighting as a group is the only way to pull off what they did, that just kills it for me. The awesomeness of unit combat, even heroic unit combat, is what I would want to see about any film about the three hundred Spartans. If you can't give me what made the real battle so amazingly cool, then I'll pass, I'm not interested.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 10, 2007)

Kaodi said:
			
		

> I have almost no interest in seeing that film... I can do with historical innacuracies, really, but when you make rampant single combat be the basis of fighting, in a situation where we all know that fighting as a group is the only way to pull off what they did, that just kills it for me. The awesomeness of unit combat, even heroic unit combat, is what I would want to see about any film about the three hundred Spartans. If you can't give me what made the real battle so amazingly cool, then I'll pass, I'm not interested.




They fight in a Phalanx.  They make a big deal out of it.  They break phalanx sometimes when the situation seems to call for it, like when they are setting a trap or when someone loses their temper and runs ahead.  But the Phalanx plays a prominent role in this film, and you shouldn't let a 30 second scene here or there persuade you otherwise.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Mar 10, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> They fight in a Phalanx.  They make a big deal out of it.  They break phalanx sometimes when the situation seems to call for it, like when they are setting a trap or when someone loses their temper and runs ahead.  But the Phalanx plays a prominent role in this film, and you shouldn't let a 30 second scene here or there persuade you otherwise.




Yep.  They do pay at least lip service to the need for the phalanx.

And if they wore the full hoplite regalia, they couldn't flex as much, and the armor check penalty would kill those nifty acrobatics.

Personally, I'm surprised that no one else has commented yet on Xerxes being a Goa'uld.

Brad (who did enjoy it, make no bones about it)


----------



## paradox42 (Mar 10, 2007)

I was going to comment to that effect, but you beat me to it. Xerxes was one screwed-up dude, and I wondered how his voice was being distorted (I'm assuming those gold collars he was wearing had something to do with it) every time he had a line.

The historical inaccuracies were a little jarring to me, but not so much that I didn't appreciate the action sequences for their own sake, and not enough to really detract from my enjoyment of the movie. Honestly, from the previews and scenes I watched before seeing it (particularly the MTV clip), I was surprised they paid as much attention to the tactics and formations as they did- the phalanx fighting was near-constant considering the chaos of battle, and their strategic planning was clearly put forth on screen and logical to boot.

I also wondered how many people in the audience realized that Leonidas was offering the most vile curse imaginable when he told Ephialtes (the hunchback) "



Spoiler



May you live forever.


" You could certainly see it on Ephialtes's face, that *he* knew...

So yes, damn good movie. Not _Lord of the Rings_ caliber, and it won't win Best Picture either, but it's unquestionably the best thing on screens right now IMO. My first favorite movie of the year. I'll be going to an IMAX screening as soon as I can get a ticket.  That, of course, is the hard part on opening weekend.


----------



## Hammerhead (Mar 10, 2007)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> Personally, I'm surprised that no one else has commented yet on Xerxes being a Goa'uld.




Heh, my friends and I joked about that exact same thing. I was expecting his eyes to start glowing any minute. 

It's too bad that the Spartans hadn't invented the shirt yet for that movie, much less armor.


----------



## Krug (Mar 10, 2007)

Can't say I enjoyed it as much as *Sin City*, though I did like the visuals. Rest of the story just came across as macho posturing, with the masculinity of the Spartans in start contrast to the effeminate Xerxes. Someone described it as 'war porn'; guess I have to agree.


----------



## Priest_Sidran (Mar 10, 2007)

I already plan on getting a copy for every one of my players, and hopefully a directors cut or some other such copy for myself, I loved it. The movie was a quality mix of graphic novel and historical (well psuedo-historical) accuracy. 

After watching it I read the Osprey book that deals with Thermopylae, and while it did not deal with the real issues of that battle in any historical way, it was still an awesome war movie and it did not detract from my enjoyment. 

Other than the gratuitous use of nudity in the earlier scenes of the movie I enjoyed all of the movie thoroughly.


----------



## Priest_Sidran (Mar 10, 2007)

Kaodi said:
			
		

> I have almost no interest in seeing that film... I can do with historical innacuracies, really, but when you make rampant single combat be the basis of fighting, in a situation where we all know that fighting as a group is the only way to pull off what they did, that just kills it for me. The awesomeness of unit combat, even heroic unit combat, is what I would want to see about any film about the three hundred Spartans. If you can't give me what made the real battle so amazingly cool, then I'll pass, I'm not interested.





Not to mention the real battle of Thermopylae, had much more than three hundred spartans. It had 300 elite spartans plus 7000+ Boetians, Phoecians, Athenians (who fled the field), among others, the boetians where not a reliable source and the Phoecians were left guarding the "Goat trail". Leonides and his 300 men took the Middle Gate of three gates in this case narrow defiles in the landscape that led to the Coast. Xerxes was in real life a tyranical and powerful man both physically and politically, the actor from the movie was billed to look like Frank Miller's Xerxes not the real Xerxes. It is said that the Army of Xexes included men from every Satrapy, and that his army on the march dried the rivers where they camped. Of Course this also is a myth (graphic novel of its own time, legend). In truth they had 150,000-300,000 Troops. And in the end Athens was abandoned, and sacked by Xerxes, effectively blinding one of the two eyes of Greece (the other being Sparta). They did not even show the bridge of ships that Xerxes made to march his army across the Helespont which was a major achievement in the ancient world, or talk of how he built a canal for his ships which is still visible.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Mar 10, 2007)

Hammerhead said:
			
		

> It's too bad that the Spartans hadn't invented the shirt yet for that movie, much less armor.





That's the freedom they were fighting for, you know.  The freedom not to wear shirts or pants!

Brad


----------



## Grog (Mar 10, 2007)

Kaodi said:
			
		

> I have almost no interest in seeing that film... I can do with historical innacuracies, really, but when you make rampant single combat be the basis of fighting, in a situation where we all know that fighting as a group is the only way to pull off what they did, that just kills it for me. The awesomeness of unit combat, even heroic unit combat, is what I would want to see about any film about the three hundred Spartans. If you can't give me what made the real battle so amazingly cool, then I'll pass, I'm not interested.




You're complaining about inaccuracies like that in a movie where the Persians are physically mutated??

That's my big beef with the movie. Why not just call them orcs and get it over with?


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Mar 10, 2007)

The movie, quite simply, was awesome. Complaints about niggling details brings a new level to the definition of "lame".

Its a movie adaptation of a comic book, which itself was an adaptation of ancient acounts by Herodotus, Plutarch, and Diodorus. If precise numbers of troop counts brings meaning for you, I got nothing.. don't see this movie. The movie gets the core theme of the historical accounts dead on. Quoting from a Victor Davis Hanson review of 300:







> ...the main story from our ancient Greek historians is still there: Leonidas, against domestic opposition, insists on sending an immediate advance party northward on a suicide mission to rouse the Greeks and allow them time to unite a defense. Once at Thermopylae, he adopts the defenses to the narrow pass between high cliffs and the sea far below. The Greeks fight both en masse in the phalanx and at times range beyond as solo warriors. They are finally betrayed by Ephialtes, forcing Leonidas to dismiss his allies — and leaving his own 300 to the fate of dying under a sea of arrows.
> 
> But most importantly, 300 preserves the spirit of the Thermopylae story. The Spartans, quoting lines known from Herodotus and themes from the lyric poets, profess unswerving loyalty to a free Greece. They will never kow-tow to the Persians, preferring to die on their feet than live on their knees.


----------



## Seonaid (Mar 10, 2007)

Priest_Sidran said:
			
		

> I already plan on getting a copy for every one of my players, and hopefully a directors cut or some other such copy for myself, I loved it. The movie was a quality mix of graphic novel and historical (well psuedo-historical) accuracy.
> 
> After watching it I read the Osprey book that deals with Thermopylae, and while it did not deal with the real issues of that battle in any historical way, it was still an awesome war movie and it did not detract from my enjoyment.
> 
> Other than the gratuitous use of nudity in the earlier scenes of the movie I enjoyed all of the movie thoroughly.



What he said (except that I didn't read that book ).

Three little things bothered me, and if I hadn't been desperately trying to find something to dislike about the movie*, I probably wouldn't have cared:[sblock]1) Leonidas's form when he throws his spear/javelin at Xerxes was atrocious. I kept thinking, "If he had used proper form, he could have hit him in the eye instead of grazing his cheek."

2) I know it was all digitally put in, but for the amount of blood being splashed across the screen in every fight, the Spartans sure were clean . . .

3) The Christ imagery at the end. Maybe I'm sensitive to it, and I'm sure it's in the graphic novel (which I am definitely picking up), but it was a bit jarring for me. Leonidas is no Christ, and there was no other obvious Christian mythology, so why?[/sblock]All that being said, I think it's my favorite movie of all time. I cannot express how much I enjoy fight scenes, and these were done just right. We saw it last night on a digital screen and now I want to drive 45 minutes to see it on IMAX. :drool:

*I was enjoying it so much I was afraid it wouldn't live up to itself, so I was trying to find reasons to not be disappointed when it fell on its face. Lucky for me, it lived up to all of my (_extremely_ high expections).


----------



## trancejeremy (Mar 10, 2007)

Seonaid said:
			
		

> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 3) The Christ imagery at the end. Maybe I'm sensitive to it, and I'm sure it's in the graphic novel (which I am definitely picking up), but it was a bit jarring for me. Leonidas is no Christ, and there was no other obvious Christian mythology, so why?






Spoiler



Since I haven't seen it yet, I can only guess what you are referring to, but after the battle, Leonidas dead body was crucified by the Persians at the order of Xerxes.  So if that was in the movie and what you are referring it, it's historical.


----------



## trancejeremy (Mar 10, 2007)

Priest_Sidran said:
			
		

> It is said that the Army of Xexes included men from every Satrapy, and that his army on the march dried the rivers where they camped. Of Course this also is a myth (graphic novel of its own time, legend). In truth they had 150,000-300,000 Troops.




Actually, no one knows. Saying 150,000-300,000 is just a guess (based on the modern view that all the old time writers were wrong). However, Herodotus, which is one of the primary sources for the movie, said



> I cannot give the exact number that each part contributed to the total, for there is no one who tells us that; but the total of the whole land army was shown to be one million and seven hundred thousand.




What he right? I dunno. No one really knows. But that's what he wrote. And his writing was one of the primary sources for the story, particularly the movie.


----------



## Queen_Dopplepopolis (Mar 10, 2007)

> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Leonidas's form when he throws his spear/javelin at Xerxes was atrocious. I kept thinking, "If he had used proper form, he could have hit him in the eye instead of grazing his cheek."






Spoiler



See... I thought that was done to scar the God-King so that he would carry with him the reminder of the battle because Leonidas knew that the entire Spartan army would march on Xerxes upon his death.


----------



## Seonaid (Mar 10, 2007)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Since I haven't seen it yet, I can only guess what you are referring to, but after the battle, Leonidas dead body was crucified by the Persians at the order of Xerxes.  So if that was in the movie and what you are referring it, it's historical.



I didn't know that, but, no, that's not exactly what I was referring to. However, it makes much more sense now!  "It" being why it was done presumably at the end of the comic and, subsequently, the end of the film.







			
				Queen_Dopplepopolis said:
			
		

> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> See... I thought that was done to scar the God-King so that he would carry with him the reminder of the battle because Leonidas knew that the entire Spartan army would march on Xerxes upon his death.



That makes sense, and made poetic (and story) sense, but the fact of it still bothered me. I haven't thrown in years, but it was recent enough that I cringed a little when I saw it.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Mar 11, 2007)

Far as the thrown spear threre at the end, it's a bit of poetic license.  Remember the line where Leonidas tells Xerxes "they will know even a god can bleed" and refuses his offers.

Far as the Christ-like imagery that's just way to common in everything now, you saw the same thing in the new Superman movie.  Crucifiction in a historical context has nothing to do with Christ it was one of the most common punishments of the classical mediterrainian world and elsewhere was carried on far longer after the practice stopped in Europe.  

But it was fleeting enough that it didn't detract from the movie in this case at least.  And after about two hundred years of just refusing to consider classical historian's numbers more recent historians have been forced to acknowledge in many cases that those numbers may have been possible given what we now know about population density and technical/logistics achievements of the time in regards to the major empires of the classical world.  Anyway, who cares, it was a great movie that spoke to the heart of the issue and the Greeks of the time would have been proud of this telling.


----------



## Richards (Mar 11, 2007)

I went to see it today with my son and one of his friends.  I absolutely loved it.  However, while it was spot-on as far as the comic is concerned, I was a tad disappointed that they didn't include the scene where 



Spoiler



Stellios trips and falls as the 300 are marching to the Hot Gates, and the Captain starts beating him, even after Leonidas tells him to stop, so Leonidas decks the Captain, knocking him out cold, and then tells Stellios "Your Captain is sleeping.  You will carry him on your back."


That was a cool scene in the comic (plus, I liked the nickname that resulted from the incident), and I'm surprised it wasn't in the movie.

But still, it was a great movie, definitely one I'll be picking up on DVD when it comes out.  I may try to hunt up the soundtrack as well.

Johnathan


----------



## Korgoth (Mar 11, 2007)

I just saw it at the IMAX.  Awesome.  "Testosterone: The Movie".    

I liked how the Greeks were physically ideal, whereas the Persians were mutated and horrible looking.  It was showing, from the Greek perspective, the moral qualities of the Greeks vs. the Persians.  The Greeks are heroic, just and morally straight, and thus they appear beautiful.  The Persians are slavish, wicked and perverted, and therefore they have an awful appearance.  I thought that was clever, actually.

For all the historical inaccuracies, it followed history more than I expected it to (given the trailers showing war beasts and so forth).  I'm usually disappointed by pseudo-historical movies, but this one I really enjoyed.

Definitely see it on IMAX if you can.


----------



## Cor Azer (Mar 11, 2007)

Saw it tonight. Loved it. Definitely a DVD buy.

My only comment is: Wow... did those extras really work out for that muscle tone or were there CG touch-ups? Really shames the beer belly I've been trying to lose.


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 11, 2007)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> The movie, quite simply, was awesome. Complaints about niggling details brings a new level to the definition of "lame".








Let's hear it for the internet.


----------



## Acid_crash (Mar 11, 2007)

jonathan swift said:
			
		

> I enjoyed it a lot. First movie I've been in since the third Matrix where the audience literally broke out in applause at two points in the movie:
> 
> [sblock]When they finally killed the giant and when the queen killed the traitor politician.[/sblock]




The audience in my showing also clapped when both of these scenes happened.  It was awesome, and amazing that the movie could get such a reaction.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Mar 11, 2007)

*It is the stuff of Legends...it has been a rare few times. That when a movie ends. The nearly entire theater claps with LOUD approval.


Apparently...we WERE ENTERTAINED.


See this film, not for the sex, the boobs, or the near-naked SPARTANS!!!


There is a story about, Loyalty, Honor, and DUTY!


There is a Story, of what price is paid for Freedom.


And there is a story...no matter what tyrant rises...the sole gift of being a free being shall be the continous source of strength, courage, and convinction. Against all oppression.


REMEMBER THE 300!!!​*


----------



## Felon (Mar 11, 2007)

Just saw it, and it's definitely one of the best flicks I've seen in a while.


----------



## Shade (Mar 12, 2007)

Great movie.  I think of it as the 4th Lord of the Rings movie...the all battle, all the time one.  The special effects fit so seamlessly into those in the LotR movies it's scary.

This is one of the best D&D movies ever.  It's also one of the best football movies ever.  I don't know how many times I saw parallels to a football team in this film.  I think it was Entertainment Weekly that said that all coaches should show this to their teams before big games, and that they'll outscore their opponents 50 to 1.   I wholeheartedly agree.    

I think I finally have seen the personification of the Legendary Dreadnought prestige class in the Epic Level Handbook.  I'll just refer to it as "Spartan" from now on.

Oh, and add me to the ranks of those who thought "Gou'ald" the first time Xerxes spoke.


----------



## Felon (Mar 12, 2007)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> *There is a Story, of what price is paid for Freedom.
> 
> 
> And there is a story...no matter what tyrant rises...the sole gift of being a free being shall be the continous source of strength, courage, and convinction. Against all oppression.​*




You had me up until you started going on about freedom and defying tyranny and oppression. Reality check: the Spartans themselves weren't exactly heroic champions of personal liberties, except for those liberties you could take by force. The movie does not shy away from demonstrating that, particularly early on with the scenes of unfit babies being discarded onto a trash heap and seven-year-old kids being confiscated as government property. True, they were the underdogs in this film, so we root for them naturally, but there plenty of times when the Spartans were the big bullies. And proud of it.

I'm not one for judging ancient societies by modern values--rather, I'm saying we ought not to do exactly that.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Mar 12, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> You had me up until you started going on about freedom and defying tyranny and oppression.



Then you can blame Herodotus, Diodorus, and Plutarch. And then we can damn the movie for bothering to evoke their writings on the event. Or you could read the review  by a professor of ancient Greece and military history I posted further up the thread on how the movie gets to the core of just Truth Seeker noticed.


----------



## buzzard (Mar 12, 2007)

Well I'm not going to go with the consensus here. I saw it yesterday, and kinda walked out in a "meh" mood. The movie seemed to me to be an example of violence and gore for the sake of violence and gore. There just wasn't much else to it at all. I guess the overall feeling I got from it was a whole lot more ado than the writing actually deserved. 

This is not to say it was bad. It was a great job of making a comic book writ large. The acting was ok, the photography did a great job of serving its purpose. I guess in all I just wasn't too taken with the purpose. 

As for the phalanx issue, yes they did, for a while, stress the importance of them. However by halfway through the battle you really never saw a phalanx again, and it was down to paired melee. 

Though it has been a while, I'd probably say I preferred 300 Spartans. 

buzzard


----------



## shilsen (Mar 12, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> You had me up until you started going on about freedom and defying tyranny and oppression. Reality check: the Spartans themselves weren't exactly heroic champions of personal liberties, except for those liberties you could take by force. The movie does not shy away from demonstrating that, particularly early on with the scenes of unfit babies being discarded onto a trash heap and seven-year-old kids being confiscated as government property. True, they were the underdogs in this film, so we root for them naturally, but there plenty of times when the Spartans were the big bullies. And proud of it.
> 
> I'm not one for judging ancient societies by modern values--rather, I'm saying we ought not to do exactly that.



 If you're not using modern values, then it's not difficult to see the Spartans as defending freedom. They, and the historians writing at or shortly after the time, as Eric Anondson has pointed out, certainly saw themselves as doing so. They were defending the freedom of Sparta, and that of the Greek city-states in general, against an invader who wanted to conquer and subjugate them. 

Which, in all honesty, is pretty much what most defenses of freedom, in the ancient or modern world, has been about. It's about freedom for the guy defending it, and sometimes, by extension, some other people. But there's no great defense of some Platonic, universal freedom, because there's no great, universal freedom shared by everyone. The Spartans defended what they saw as freedom. It's like the fact that the Athenians had what they saw as democracy, and what many people afterwards saw as such. Sure, it wasn't complete democracy, since women, madmen, slaves and a few others didn't get to vote, but then no nation in the history of the world has had complete democracy, if we define that as equal franchise and rights for everyone in the nation. Within certain boundaries, we have democracies. Within certain boundaries, we have battles for freedom from subjugation. And Thermopylae was one such battle.


----------



## Wycen (Mar 12, 2007)

The movie did a magnificent job of entertaining me.  Sure, we discussed some historical issues after the fact, but I was at the edge of my seat near the end hoping they could squeeze one more battle into it.  I'd definitely see it again, and not even just waiting for the DVD.


----------



## Felon (Mar 12, 2007)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Then you can blame Herodotus, Diodorus, and Plutarch. And then we can damn the movie for bothering to evoke their writings on the event. Or you could read the review  by a professor of ancient Greece and military history I posted further up the thread on how the movie gets to the core of just Truth Seeker noticed.



For all of your indignation and name-dropping, you assiduously avoid refuting any particular thing I said as untrue. 



			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> Which, in all honesty, is pretty much what most defenses of freedom, in the ancient or modern world, has been about. It's about freedom for the guy defending it, and sometimes, by extension, some other people. But there's no great defense of some Platonic, universal freedom, because there's no great, universal freedom shared by everyone.



Well, yes, you can put forth the notion that there are no Lawful Good governments or armies. I'd agree. But then, look at the post I was replying to. It was speaking about freedom defying oppression in that lofty, Lawful Good sense. Why celebrate the freedom of somebody who would beat and starve you until you acquired the right attitude, or throw your kids into a rubbish pile because they're a little scrawny?

They were playing king of the mountain, a game at which they excelled. This time around they were the defenders and the underdogs and we have to admire how they stood their ground, but the Spartans were well-versed in the art of freedom-quashing. Let's not be so quick to idealize them as more virtuous than Xerxes. Smacks of Billy the Kiddism.


----------



## Felon (Mar 12, 2007)

Wycen said:
			
		

> The movie did a magnificent job of entertaining me.  Sure, we discussed some historical issues after the fact, but I was at the edge of my seat near the end hoping they could squeeze one more battle into it.  I'd definitely see it again, and not even just waiting for the DVD.




I had more fun watching the credits roll than I did watching the entirety of Ghost Rider.

Zack Snyder is going to become a big name quickly, I suspect.

Not sure how showing the Spartans wearing breastplates would have detracted from anything, but I guess that was Miller's vision.


----------



## Seonaid (Mar 13, 2007)

buzzard said:
			
		

> The movie seemed to me to be an example of violence and gore for the sake of violence and gore. There just wasn't much else to it at all.



And what's wrong with that?  That's exactly why I enjoyed it so much.


----------



## shilsen (Mar 13, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Well, yes, you can put forth the notion that there are no Lawful Good governments or armies. I'd agree. But then, look at the post I was replying to. It was speaking about freedom defying oppression in that lofty, Lawful Good sense. Why celebrate the freedom of somebody who would beat and starve you until you acquired the right attitude, or throw your kids into a rubbish pile because they're a little scrawny?




Can't argue with you there. That post was a little ... simplistic.



> They were playing king of the mountain, a game at which they excelled. This time around they were the defenders and the underdogs and we have to admire how they stood their ground, but the Spartans were well-versed in the art of freedom-quashing. Let's not be so quick to idealize them as more virtuous than Xerxes. Smacks of Billy the Kiddism.




For me, and this is just a personal thing, the bit that's particularly interesting - and maybe worth a little idealizing, though I don't think it's a necessity - is the specific action of the Spartans and the others who stood at Thermopylae. To get a little Conanesque, what matters is that few stood against many, willing and expecting to die, to defend their way of life and their personal freedom and their homelands. I may not agree with many aspects of their particular philosophy, but bravery - that I can appreciate.


----------



## buzzard (Mar 13, 2007)

Seonaid said:
			
		

> And what's wrong with that?  That's exactly why I enjoyed it so much.




Yeah, I am unsure why I didn't happen to be that taken with it. I'm certainly not one that objects to violent movies, or sustained action for that matter. Just for some reason this movie didn't do it for me. I can't say it was bad or anything. I mean it really was well done and everything, but somehow didn't float my boat. 

buzzard


----------



## Seonaid (Mar 13, 2007)

Eh, it's not for everyone. I thought it was fantastic, but then I'm a whore for fight scenes. ::shrug:: To each his (or her) own. Too bad you didn't enjoy it as much as you thought you might.


----------



## Felon (Mar 14, 2007)

shilsen said:
			
		

> For me, and this is just a personal thing, the bit that's particularly interesting - and maybe worth a little idealizing, though I don't think it's a necessity - is the specific action of the Spartans and the others who stood at Thermopylae. To get a little Conanesque, what matters is that few stood against many, willing and expecting to die, to defend their way of life and their personal freedom and their homelands. I may not agree with many aspects of their particular philosophy, but bravery - that I can appreciate.



Sounds like we're in agreement.

Funny, even watching The Devil's Rejects, towards the climax I experienced a kind of involuntary admiration for watching these scumbag killers put in the very hopeless, horrible plight as their countless innocent victims, because unlike all those victims they distinguish themselves by not mewling and begging for mercy. They were pitiless as torturers and expected none as torturees. Much the same with the Spartans in 300.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Mar 14, 2007)

No societies are perfect...and yes, those were very rough times. Which exactly, still exist in one variant form or other, today. Mankind's history is mired with it.



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> You had me up until you started going on about freedom and defying tyranny and oppression. Reality check: the Spartans themselves weren't exactly heroic champions of personal liberties, except for those liberties you could take by force. The movie does not shy away from demonstrating that, particularly early on with the scenes of unfit babies being discarded onto a trash heap and seven-year-old kids being confiscated as government property. True, they were the underdogs in this film, so we root for them naturally, but there plenty of times when the Spartans were the big bullies. And proud of it.
> 
> I'm not one for judging ancient societies by modern values--rather, I'm saying we ought not to do exactly that.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Mar 14, 2007)

I could make a long spiel about morality, but morality is something WE create and give meaning.  All morality is ultimately arbitrary and worthless outside the group that creates and honors it.  The only thing that truly matters in the case of Thermopylae is courage.  

The most enormous, unstoppable military force the classical mediterrainian world had ever seen turned its gaze and its hungry maw on a small fractious and divided peninsula.  A place with but a tiny fraction of Persia's population and resources, that hated each other as much as any external foe.  Athens was a naval not a land power but even its navy couldn't stop an invasion force of such size.  When an army that can very conservatively be estimated at between 250k-300k men from an empire that could have concievably raised and supported an army of between 750k and 1000k men at full war footing on a temporary basis and many refused to face the threat.

Fifteen thousand to start with, but those fairweather friends left them.  Left just 7000 proud Theban hoplites spearheaded by some 300 of the greatest warriors to trod the face of the earth.  And against an army so massive it boggles the imagination those few held the pass until betrayed.  Battered and broke their enemies like pinatas under a steamhammer soaking the ground with the blood of their foes.  After armour and shield were shattered and weapons were rendered useless.  Until fighting with bare hand and teeth they were still so dangerous that the Persians were forced to finish them with archers because sending troops to meet them face-to face was too costly.  

Regardless of morality or immorality, good or evil, or anything else.  These are deeds so great they must be remembered for so long as even a single man draws breath.  Because to forget what they did would prove ourselves not men but worthless wretches.


----------



## Felon (Mar 14, 2007)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Regardless of morality or immorality, good or evil, or anything else.  These are deeds so great they must be remembered for so long as even a single man draws breath.  Because to forget what they did would prove ourselves not men but worthless wretches.



Nice sound bite.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Mar 14, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Not sure how showing the Spartans wearing breastplates would have detracted from anything, but I guess that was Miller's vision.




They couldn't /flex wearing the breastplates.

Brad


----------

