Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Green Blow Fly wrote:300 was by no means a movie with homosexual undertones. The Spartans' dress was simply accurately depicted.

G

Well sort of, if I remember the actual Spartans would have worn all of it except for the loin cloths. Jibblies hanging out. The homoeroticism leveled at it I think comes from every last person being ultra buff.

Green Blow Fly wrote:300 was by no means a movie with homosexual undertones. The Spartans' dress was simply accurately depicted.

G

Umm, no. The Spartans were not accurately depicted. Like all hoplites, they were heavy infantry, and were called heavy infantry because they wore heavy armour. Now, at various times the level of armour differed, but at a minimum it was considerably heavier than the armour of contemporary armies, such as the Persians.

In fact, the Battle of Thermopylae shown in 300 could be considered the logical consequence of a force of heavy armour defending a narrow pass against a lightly armed army more accustomed to open battles of manoeuvre.

In short, they didn't fight bare chested, that's ridiculous.


And yes, 300 can be seen as homoerotic. It wasn't the dominant theme, and I doubt it was even an intended theme, but pretending it isn't the background is simply wrong.

If people like seeing men wearing little but a few clothes, shaved gym bodies, beards, good looking actors, slo-mo, Vaseline on the lens, etc etc. Then they will like 300

Anung Un Rama wrote:@Fraz,
yes, the movie is very violent, but as Lucius already mentioned, it's supposed to be. The high level of violence however, does not make the story any less good.


What I find interesting about this critic in particular, is that she doesn't seem to realize that fictional violence can be entertaining for a lot of people. If that is a good or a bad thing, should probably discussed in another thread.

I don't want to go into what the reviewer said, because thats not relevant to me.
She did do a service though. In describing those events, and having them confirmed, I'm glad I am not attending, as thats not my cup of tea.
Frankly its one thing to say its violent. Its another to say there are multiple rapes, amputations etc etc. Schindlers List was violent, but you really did know that going in. Grindhouse is violent (I think, never saw), and anyone stupid enough to see it knew that as well.

But it needs to be said how violent it really is, so people can make an informed decision.

sebster wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:300 was by no means a movie with homosexual undertones. The Spartans' dress was simply accurately depicted.

G

Umm, no. The Spartans were not accurately depicted. Like all hoplites, they were heavy infantry, and were called heavy infantry because they wore heavy armour. Now, at various times the level of armour differed, but at a minimum it was considerably heavier than the armour of contemporary armies, such as the Persians.

In fact, the Battle of Thermopylae shown in 300 could be considered the logical consequence of a force of heavy armour defending a narrow pass against a lightly armed army more accustomed to open battles of manoeuvre.

In short, they didn't fight bare chested, that's ridiculous.


And yes, 300 can be seen as homoerotic. It wasn't the dominant theme, and I doubt it was even an intended theme, but pretending it isn't the background is simply wrong.

IIRC they had
1. Clothes. I know, shocking. tunic thingy, sandals and cape for ze sleeping.
2. Armor (bronze) large round shield, bronze helmet, bronze greaves, may have had forearm guars which would have been bronze, and cuirass- typically composite cloth/glue, plates over a cloth backing, or uber armor made of complete bronze.

I must say I enjoyed 300 immensely. Deep it was not, but cool it be.

Yeah it was cool. Heavy armor did not exist during that period. I see no reason why they all not be buff. Was Troy starring Brad Pitt geared for homo erotism?

G

No, just people who like really bad movies.

Accurate spartan armor:

HALO PICK DELETED FOR BEING TOO LARGE> I AM HOLDING IT HOSTAGE UNTIL YOU GIVE ME BACK MY SOCKS MALF.

Now compare to the following:



from http://www.hellenic-art.com/armour/spartanset.htm

vs.



Note: They wore even less in the comic.

stonefox wrote:

Sure, the movie’s not so subtle homoerotic content will draw in gay viewers as it did Snyder’s 300.

Gerard Butler and 299 other bikini clad warriors defend the honor of Sparta against an invincible army
until they’re all killed

Ok I've had just about enough of the Dr Manhattan's penis bs. Is everyone such a homophobe that they have to complain about the naked blue guy?
He's naked even more in the comic. You know what? I'm GLAD he's naked. I really am.

Manhattan's gradual retreat from humanity is portrayed through his costume getting smaller and smaller the older he gets; The further time goes by, the less 'human' he feels, so the less 'human' he acts.
Clothing is a nessessity for humankind. Seeing as Manhattans self-image tells him he is no longer human, he is not bound my a human morality code, so therefore has no need for clothes on a moral basis.

They guy has no physical need for clothes either; he doesn't get cold or dirty so he really doesn't need them. The fact Snyder kept that it really pleased me. It's important.

Secondly. Homoeroticism in 300? I've heard that before too. Again that just sounds like homophobia. "299 bikini-clad warriors"?
In history (and strangely enough, Frank Miller's comic), the Spartans went everywhere nude. For almost the same reason as Dr M.
The Spartans viewed clothes as promoting prudity, and by being naked, the Spartans viewed themselves as being free from the bothers and fears that clothes gave them.
If you don't like a bit of man-meat in a movie, thank your lucky stars Zack Snyder didn't decide to have Spartans all naked, as they should have been.

I don't see any homophobia anywhere, bro. All I see are enthusiastic people who like the sweet guy action going on in Watchmen and 300. I know I'll watch men sometime this week.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Yeah it was cool. Heavy armor did not exist during that period. I see no reason why they all not be buff. Was Troy starring Brad Pitt geared for homo erotism?

G

No, they were heavily armoured for the period. While that doesn't mean anything like the heavy armour of latter periods, it did cover the body. I said it before, the Greeks at Thermopylae were as deadly as they were because they were heavy infantry grinding up wave after wave of light infantry, who couldn't use their mobility due to the defensive position taken.

The film shouldn't be criticised for going another route, there were monsters, a nine foot Xerxes, the absence of anyone at the battle but Spartans, and the crazy bit about Spartans fighting for freedom. With all that the film obviously wasn't attempting an accurate recreation, so the lack of armour wasn't a problem. It was stylised violence.

However, pretending actual Spartans looked anything like the dudes in the movie, that be nonsense.



And no, Troy wasn't geared for homoeroticism. Both had pretty men wearing little clothing, but in Troy the pretty men were spending their time chasing after the ladies. It seems to me you don't want there to be a homoerotic subtext because you like the movie. Dude, let it go. Liking a movie that has a homoerotic subtext doesn't say anything about you. Everyone likes Top Gun, and that film is more homoerotic than gay porn.

Frazzled wrote:IIRC they had
1. Clothes. I know, shocking. tunic thingy, sandals and cape for ze sleeping.
2. Armor (bronze) large round shield, bronze helmet, bronze greaves, may have had forearm guars which would have been bronze, and cuirass- typically composite cloth/glue, plates over a cloth backing, or uber armor made of complete bronze.

I must say I enjoyed 300 immensely. Deep it was not, but cool it be.

I got pretty bored by the end, to be honest. The first fight was awesome, as the Spartans formed the shield wall and shoved the Persian unit into the sea, it was pretty different to other fighting scenes. Then they ditched the shield wall and started having Spartans running around, and the thing devolved into slo-mo scene after slo-mo scene, with Spartans hacking up useless Persians, half of whom didn't even bother to swing their swords.

But that appears to be the natural order between us. If you think something I'll think the opposite . I'm going to check out Watchmen this week and I'll tell you if I like it. If I do stay well away

That is light armor at best.

G

Tek wrote:

stonefox wrote:

Sure, the movie’s not so subtle homoerotic content will draw in gay viewers as it did Snyder’s 300.

Gerard Butler and 299 other bikini clad warriors defend the honor of Sparta against an invincible army
until they’re all killed

Ok I've had just about enough of the Dr Manhattan's penis bs. Is everyone such a homophobe that they have to complain about the naked blue guy?
He's naked even more in the comic. You know what? I'm GLAD he's naked. I really am.

Manhattan's gradual retreat from humanity is portrayed through his costume getting smaller and smaller the older he gets; The further time goes by, the less 'human' he feels, so the less 'human' he acts.
Clothing is a nessessity for humankind. Seeing as Manhattans self-image tells him he is no longer human, he is not bound my a human morality code, so therefore has no need for clothes on a moral basis.

They guy has no physical need for clothes either; he doesn't get cold or dirty so he really doesn't need them. The fact Snyder kept that it really pleased me. It's important.

Secondly. Homoeroticism in 300? I've heard that before too. Again that just sounds like homophobia. "299 bikini-clad warriors"?
In history (and strangely enough, Frank Miller's comic), the Spartans went everywhere nude. For almost the same reason as Dr M.
The Spartans viewed clothes as promoting prudity, and by being naked, the Spartans viewed themselves as being free from the bothers and fears that clothes gave them.
If you don't like a bit of man-meat in a movie, thank your lucky stars Zack Snyder didn't decide to have Spartans all naked, as they should have been.

I agree with you on Dr Manhattan. A good point well made.

But the Spartans wore armour. They were heavy infantry, so they wore armour. It's not a debatable point.

Green Blow Fly wrote:That is light armor at best.

G

It's a lot more than the leather undies in the movie. What are you trying to achieve here, what makes you want to believe the get up in the movie was historically accurate?

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:IIRC they had
1. Clothes. I know, shocking. tunic thingy, sandals and cape for ze sleeping.
2. Armor (bronze) large round shield, bronze helmet, bronze greaves, may have had forearm guars which would have been bronze, and cuirass- typically composite cloth/glue, plates over a cloth backing, or uber armor made of complete bronze.

I must say I enjoyed 300 immensely. Deep it was not, but cool it be.

I got pretty bored by the end, to be honest. The first fight was awesome, as the Spartans formed the shield wall and shoved the Persian unit into the sea, it was pretty different to other fighting scenes. Then they ditched the shield wall and started having Spartans running around, and the thing devolved into slo-mo scene after slo-mo scene, with Spartans hacking up useless Persians, half of whom didn't even bother to swing their swords.

But that appears to be the natural order between us. If you think something I'll think the opposite . I'm going to check out Watchmen this week and I'll tell you if I like it. If I do stay well away

1. Have fun Sebbie. You might really like it and thats cool. I'm not saying anything ill of this film, just that it doesn't fit my tastes (and I can't get past the costumes). Rape and child murder I can do without at the current time.

2. I'm not saying 300 is high art by any means. Its just stylized cool. An excellent film to play while working out. One has to breakup continuous episodes of Babylon Five somehow.

Green Blow Fly wrote:That is light armor at best.

G

Respecftully, no.

Light armor was what the Persians had. Loose clothing and light wicker shields. The only thing lighter would be akin to no armor or just Zulu shields.

Greek hoplites were literally protected head to foot in armor. It has to be noted that cloth armor is not a shirt but a series of sheets, soaked in glue. it was more akin to modern composite armor and was exceedingly strong for its weight.

Even the Romans viewed hoplites as heavily armored dudes, and the Romans knew a thing or two about armor.

Having said that, the only thing the Spartans in 300 didn't have were 1) a tunic worn under the armor; 2) the cuirass. Leather jock straps were not worn by anyone except maybe the Vikings and guys in Hercules movies (man that would stink after a while). I just thought the shirtless thing was eye candy for the ladies dragged along to see the movie.

I enjoyed the movie, but I think it should have been shorter. I wouldn't mind that 4 hour directors cut one review mentioned if I knew I was watching a 4 hour directors cut, but 2 hrs 44 minutes was just too long.. but then, there isn't much that could have been cut.

I liked how one review said it followed the comic exactly, then blasted all the violence, gore and bad stuff.. yet that's exactly how the comic was, so why are they surprised? if they knew the comic, then they should have known how the movie would be. If they're worried about the kids seeing it, why would kids see it at all if it's rated R and there's boobies in it? Guess they gotta go back to parenting school.

IMO, if you liked the comic you should enjoy the film. If you didn't like the comic and had no idea what it was about or are expecting another happy xmen ripoff, the film may not be for you.

Why do people keep talking about Manhatten's Junk?
I barely noticed it.

Frazzled wrote:1. Have fun Sebbie. You might really like it and thats cool. I'm not saying anything ill of this film, just that it doesn't fit my tastes (and I can't get past the costumes). Rape and child murder I can do without at the current time.

Meh, violence and other stuff is contextual. I'll wait to see, because it might be gratuitous or it might be worthwhile. Find out in a couple of days.

2. I'm not saying 300 is high art by any means. Its just stylized cool. An excellent film to play while working out. One has to breakup continuous episodes of Babylon Five somehow.

See, there it is again. I don't like Babylon 5 either. Or working out. I'm like the anti-Fraz. Or you're the anti-Seb.

sebster wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:That is light armor at best.

G

It's a lot more than the leather undies in the movie. What are you trying to achieve here, what makes you want to believe the get up in the movie was historically accurate?

It was a movie. Often times they are not that accurate since the primary intent is entertainment. For example I somehow doubt the oracle would have floated.

G

My thoughts on the watchmen. I gave it a 6/10 It was funtionaly a solid movie, with on-par acting ( Silk spectre II was kinda wooden) And above par effects. Now for my gripes. Remember this is just my Opinion. It was very very violent movie. Thats not a badd thing, But then Most violent movies are just senseless summer fun. Watchmen add an almost malovence to it. Your less worried about who's going to stop stis sick bastard and more into what horrible punishment can be inflicted on the human body. The women in the movie are as shallow as a 2 foot grave. The love scene was laughably bad. The ending made no sense, and the Energy crisis part seemed tacked on, because it was. The movie clobs you over the head with points it was trying to make (everybody wantes to rue the world musak). Now with all of that said, The movie was quite good, and most of my gripes personal. I noticed just as many people cheering as walking out, and to me each one had valid reasons to do so.

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:1. Have fun Sebbie. You might really like it and thats cool. I'm not saying anything ill of this film, just that it doesn't fit my tastes (and I can't get past the costumes). Rape and child murder I can do without at the current time.

Meh, violence and other stuff is contextual. I'll wait to see, because it might be gratuitous or it might be worthwhile. Find out in a couple of days.

2. I'm not saying 300 is high art by any means. Its just stylized cool. An excellent film to play while working out. One has to breakup continuous episodes of Babylon Five somehow.

See, there it is again. I don't like Babylon 5 either. Or working out. I'm like the anti-Fraz. Or you're the anti-Seb.

I'm older, you're the antiFraz.

"I knew (Thomas) Jefferson, and you're no Thomas Jefferson" the epic Frazzled / Wilson debate 1908.

EDIT: Not a B5 fan? Oh the Humanity! Please report to the B5 re-education center immediately.

I think what people miss, about 300, and Watchmen (same director too), is that while Dr. Manhattan walks around naked, and the Spartans are bare chested, this is because that is how the comics that the movies are based on are written. Anyone who went to see 300 thinking it was going to be a historical reenactment doesn't get it. Anyone who goes to see Watchmen thinking that it's another Spiderman doesn't get it.

Watchmen is the most influential comic ever written. It changed the industry. It changed how people looked at comics in general. It turned them from something for kids into an art form that could be respected by adults. Does that translate into the movie? No. The movie is not going to revolutionize film-making. It doesn't do anything new, and mature themes have been shown in movies for years. But, the movie is an excellent adaptation of an important book. I think that's the best way to explain it.

I didn't see the violence in the movie to be any worse (or better) than in the book. There are certain things that are necessary to understand the characters, whether it be what turns Kovaks into Rorchark or the Comedian's attempted rape of Sally. I thought that Dr. Manhattan's "junk" was understated, much as it is in the comic, and unless you were going out of your way to stare at it, it wasn't like it was made into a focal point of any scene. Anyone making a big issue out of this needs to grow up.

Or just not see the movie.

The Teutons cavlary who brought about the downfall of the roman empire wore heavy armor... Plate metal.

Can someone please delete that giant Halo pic. All it does is making the posts here harder to read

Green Blow Fly wrote:The Teutons cavlary who brought about the downfall of the roman empire wore heavy armor... Plate metal.

I’m confused, what exactly constitutes heavy armor to you?
*head-helmet
*chest cloth/cloth bronze combo or full bronze cuirass
*greaves
*forearms

The only thing not covered were tops of the arms and thighs, which were covered by their shields.

That’s way more armor than any German wussy boy of the period, and the most armor you’d see for a thousand years outside of maybe China. Whats the deal?

M1A1 Abrams = heavy armor.

Anything before that historically is light armor or no armor. They may as well be naked.

Frazzled wrote:I’m confused, what exactly constitutes heavy armor to you?
*head-helmet
*chest cloth/cloth bronze combo or full bronze cuirass
*greaves
*forearms

The only thing not covered were tops of the arms and thighs, which were covered by their shields.

That’s way more armor than any German wussy boy of the period, and the most armor you’d see for a thousand years outside of maybe China. Whats the deal?

Yeah, I don't know how this is even a discussion. It was light armor by medieval standards, but hoplites were probably the most armored warriors in the world at the time...and absolutely were the "heavy infantry" of the day.

Another important point here is that weapons tech isn't what it was during later periods either. There's a certain amount of relativity at work here.

Edit: I wasn't particularly fond of 300. And I owned (and liked) the comic long before I saw the movie. I know a phalanx depicted realistically isn't nearly as cinematic as guys leaping around on wires. But I guess I prefer that degree of stylization in a comic more than a film. IIRC, some studio had the rights to Gates of Fire (Pressfield's book) around the same time, but it never happened because of the competing 300 project. :(