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.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Where'd you get that from mate? As a historian myself, I cannot find anything that suggests anything other than he is one of the most reliable sources for the period that is currently available. We all understand that history is biased towards the victors, as they are the ones writing it, however after reading Herodotus and especially the part of the '300 spartans', he, in my view, presents the facts with out a large amount of hyperbole.

Oh Herodotos is definitely the major source for a lot of stuff, and careful study can help make sure we're getting the most accurate impression, but I just never forget that he has a way of including all versions of a story and then saying which he thinks is right, and some of his choices are quite fanciful.

Basically, I would expect a decent amount of hyperbole in his presentation of facts, but enjoy and respect it anyway.

http://ancientpeoples.tumblr.com/post/25642340039/herodotus-herodotus-is-often-referred-to-as-the

This is either the battle of Artemisium or the battle of Salamis. Artemisium is basically Thermopylae at sea (in fact, it happened at the same time). I don't know as much about Salamis, but if the movie has Themistocles in it, then it's either or.
I think some people might be surprised at how closely 300 is based on the historical texts. The famous THIS IS SPARTA! kick-down-a-well scene? That actually happened, though not quite in that way.

Apparently there will be flashbacks to Xerxes rise (which is where the prequel rumors come from that I had heard as well) and...you know what I'll just paste the wiki entry:

The film centers on Themistocles and Artemisia I of Caria, as well as Xerxes I of Persia. It originally went under the working title of Battle of Artemisium (widely mis-reported as "Battle of Artemisia"). The Battle of Artemisium was a naval engagement, concurrent with the battle at Thermopylae, and was fought between an alliance of Greek city-states and the Persian Empire in September 480 BC, in the straits between the mainland and the northern tip of the island of Euboea (modern Evvia). The film will probably also focus, in part, on the Battle of Salamis, in which Artemisia played a major role, as well as possibly the Battle of Marathon. Salamis was fought once the Persian Empire had advanced into southern Greece and occupied Athens.

The film will also cover some of the backstory of Xerxes, and will explain how he became "the God King"

I really the framing device of Diver Dan telling a mythologised version of Thermopylae. I mean, its just a straight up great concept to put us into a big action movie. And sure, there was a lot more than just the 300 Spartans defending the pass, but this is a Spartan story about Spartan heroism (macho stupidity?) so let them tell their story. And about 30 minutes in, when the Spartans used their shield wall to force the Persian unit off the cliff, I was loving it. I mean, Spartans telling other Spartan soldiers about how their own soldiers fought in their undies and not the heavy armour they actually used was weird, but whatever.

But then we got, well, whatever the hell the rest of that movie was. Scene after scene of Spartans doing pointless slow-mo spins before stabbing some guy who didn't even have the common sense to raise his weapon. Lots of shouting and speaches about freedom, as if that had one fething thing to do with Sparta's political system.

I mean, I'm all for fantastical re-tellings, but make that fantastical re-telling the actual story Diver Dan might tell. The story that reinforced actual Spartan beliefs, and reinforced the Spartan way of war. Instead of, you know, a story that's notionally a fantastical myth told by Diver Dan, but is actually just a list of trite 21st century action cliches.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I'll keep my fingers crossed for a 3rd one with Olga Kurylenko in it. She was amazing in Centurion.

I personally had no idea mascara was in such ready supply in Roman occupied Britain.

I'm moderately excited about it' - I'd quantify it as the excitement I felt if someone said they brought in donuts, but there were no jelly or boston cremes. Pleased, but not you know, stoked.

I thought the first one was a great popcorn movie, and furthermore, I take great issue with the poster earlier who felt movie makers had an obligation to be more truthful to history in their films. I believe that is solely the purview of documentaries, not films, whose sole duty is to entertain. If at the end of the movie, they have to fight a final boss of Zombie Leonidas, striding about on a robot, steam powered, clockwork Tyrannosaur, it wouldn't bother me one whit, so long as they do the thing where a Spartan slashes in fast forward, then it pauses for a second, then he speeds up, and repeat until Zack Snyder climaxes and we can move on.

Also, I like Eva Green.

 Ouze wrote:
I thought the first one was a great popcorn movie, and furthermore, I take great issue with the poster earlier who felt movie makers had an obligation to be more truthful to history in their films. I believe that is solely the purview of documentaries, not films, whose sole duty is to entertain.

I agree, sort of, adding that it depends on what the movie is trying to be. If, for instance, Downfall included a scene where Hitler fought some Russian troops and killed them before retreating in to his bunker, well that'd be a lot less ludicrous than anything in 300, but also way more of a problem because of the kind of movie that Downfall was trying to be.

In the same kind of way, it didn't bother me at all that Xerxes was an effete giant, because that kind of thing makes perfect sense in a film that is supposed to be Diver Dan telling a heavily mythologised version of his story to the other Spartans. But it did bother me that Diver Dan told a story of Spartans running about in their undies, breaking formation at the first opporunity to do weird spinning stabby moves while shouting about freedom... because that isn't the story a Spartan would tell.

I guess what I'm saying is that it isn't about accuracy to the historical record, but about accuracy to the story you're trying to tell.

Any movie that has ship borne cavalry leaping off a burning trireme into the ocean to attack another boat and its occupants HAS to be awesome.

Man up and bask in the homoeroticism of the 300 franchise!

 sebster wrote:
I guess what I'm saying is that it isn't about accuracy to the historical record, but about accuracy to the story you're trying to tell.

Alright, that's a fair point.

 CuddlySquig wrote:
I think some people might be surprised at how closely 300 is based on the historical texts. The famous THIS IS SPARTA! kick-down-a-well scene? That actually happened, though not quite in that way.

More detail please?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
The film will also cover some of the backstory of Xerxes, and will explain how he became "the God King"

Well see little Timmy, when a God King Daddy likes a God King Mommy, they share a special kiss, and nine months later, everyone at court is plotting the downfall of the current God King...

Whats interesting is that Spartans had to strangle a helot as part of their graudation to manhood. Persian kings had to kill a big cat (lion or tiger I can't remember which). The Persian kings are actually more in line with the 300 entry...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 sebster wrote:
I guess what I'm saying is that it isn't about accuracy to the historical record, but about accuracy to the story you're trying to tell.

Alright, that's a fair point.

Who the hell is Diver Dan?????

I just want the question answered, what if, when Xerxes says "I will make you warlord of all Greece and you will carry my standard to Europa" Leo had say "Sounds cool Bro" ???

I wanted more Spartans damnit, not those pansy-ass Athenians...

Oh man, I'm all set to go see Man of Steel tonight and then I remember Zack Snyder also made 300 ... ugh.

 Manchu wrote:
Oh man, I'm all set to go see Man of Steel tonight and then I remember Zack Snyder also made 300 ... ugh.

THIS IS......KRYPTON!!!! **kicks baby Superman into pod**

LOL!

300 is so obviously not trying to be historical that its just silly to complain about historical accuracies. The Persian Immortals were actually undead zombie troopers iirc.

Another Zach Snyder film? Pass. The rest have been boring, or downright sucked. As bad a director as Ang Lee. My opinion, of course, may vary from everyone else. Just disappointed about Superman, I guess.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Oh man, I'm all set to go see Man of Steel tonight and then I remember Zack Snyder also made 300 ... ugh.

THIS IS......KRYPTON!!!! **kicks baby Superman into pod**

I lol'd superheated coffee up my nostrils.

Could be okay. Cautiously interested.

I'll totally watch it.

"I will attack the Greeks...with my entire navy!" Brilliant writing...I smell a Razzie in their future.

I've only seen two Zack Snyder films which were 300 and Watchmen. As far as I could tell, he did a great job translating the comic book into a film.

You could say that a comic book gives the director the script, storyboard and production design, and that is basically true, but there is a substantial amount of work to take that from paper to finished film.

While you can criticise Snyder as an auteur, I think you have to recognise his skills as a practical producer/director.

This looks awesome.

THIS IS DIVER DAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Wenham

he played a character called Diver Dan on the Australian TV show 'Sea Change'.

Xerxes should make Admiral What's-Her-Name bargain like a Clanner for the right to attack the Greeks.

"I bid my entire Navy!"
"I can do it 3/4 of my Navy"
"Then I shall do it with half of mine free birth scum"
"Well bargained and done"

 Frazzled wrote:
Who the hell is Diver Dan?????

Per Waaagh_Gonads link, David Wenham first got noticed by Australian audiences playing a character called Diver Dan in an Australian soap opera called Sea Change. He'd been him some decent local movies, but no-one really noticed him much.

Then the guy turned up as Faramir in Lord of the Rings, and all the Australians in the crowd were saying 'holy gak Sean Bean's brother is Diver Dan'. Then a little while later we were all saying 'holy fething gak now Diver Dan is a Spartan'.

I suppose this was inevitable but I can't say I'm pleased.

Didn't like the first one...then again maybe being an actual Persian person has something to do with that...

Also Eva Green's casting might be worse than Jake Gylenhall as the "Prince of Persia". Persian people can't be that hard to find!

 asimo77 wrote:
I suppose this was inevitable but I can't say I'm pleased.

Didn't like the first one...then again maybe being an actual Persian person has something to do with that...

Also Eva Green's casting might be worse than Jake Gylenhall as the "Prince of Persia". Persian people can't be that hard to find!

And if they are, just get Ben Kingsley to fill in in his patended "vaguely not white but not actually from the region in question" role. Which is terrible, but a lot less terrible than getting Jake Gylenhall.

We don't get a lot of naval battles in film, and we sure as hell don't get a lot of pre-gunpowder ones. I'll watch it for that alone, plus any other overly-dramatic epicness they throw in.

Noble makes an EXCELLENT point. I don't think I've seen a pre-gun powder naval battle more then twice, and certainly not with modern tech.

 asimo77 wrote:
I suppose this was inevitable but I can't say I'm pleased.

Didn't like the first one...then again maybe being an actual Persian person has something to do with that...

Also Eva Green's casting might be worse than Jake Gylenhall as the "Prince of Persia". Persian people can't be that hard to find!

Considering she's supposed to be a Greek methinks its not an issue.

Well in that case I suppose it's not as bad (though her casting is probably the least of this movie's problems).

Then again Eva Green doesn't look very Greek either...oh well.