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.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Easy E wrote:


I can not seem to recall where Ephialtes was lame came from. I am pretty sure it is not mentioned in Herodotus, but I could have sworn a different ancient historian made this claim. However, I can not recall who at the moment.....

Am I just being crazy or does someone else recall it?

I'm not exactly sure where it comes from but it wasn't contemporary. I think Miller invented it to add an extra layer of tragedy to the story of 300. In the record Ephialtes wasn't Spartan. He was a local and not described as crippled or deformed. It's also not entirely clear if he was the one who betrayed the defenders. Herodotus records two other men as being accused of revealing the existence of the bypass to the Persians and I've read at least one book that notes that the Phocians who lived in the area and were not overly fond of the other Greeks would probably be aware of the area and might have revealed it.

Yes, Herodotus lists two other names but rejects them as the likely culprits as the Greek authorities did not issue any punishment to them officially after the fact. They did with our guy Ephialtes, who was eventually killed in an unrelated manner IIRC.

Dang, I am surprised it was so recent as Frank Miller who wrote that Ephialtes was a cripple. I suspected some later Roman writer to have added that touch. Someone like Livy or Dionysus of Halicarnassus or something.......

I'l gonna get flamed for this, but i kinda liked "300: Rise of an empire".

Acknowledging, even if in a very fictitious context, Themistocles and Artemisia, was an amazingly good touch and a welcome nod to some important but generally unsung figures in greek, and therefore western, culture.

Also the fact that the greeks weren't saints and the persians weren't demons was a good touch. Artemsia was essentially a monster the greeks made for themselves thru their own cruelty and evil.

The best man in the movie as i saw it? The persian who saw the child dying in the streets of athens, picked her up, adopted her and raised her to be strong.

Seconding Solomon Kane, it was basically a Warhammer Witch Hunter movie, the scene with the ghouls is as close as we will get to the Old World on screen.

I also liked Starship Troopers a lot, but I guess that is not weird on this forum!

For real though, I enjoyed the hell out of the Nicolas Cage Ghost Rider movie. Ghost Rider is a ridiculous and cheesy character, and Cage does ridiculous and cheesy better than anyone.

The Village was excellent and IMO, better than several of that year's Oscar nominees for Best Picture.

Critics, including Roger Ebert at peak powers, gave "The 'Burbs" 2 out of 4 stars and gaked on it in his way, but I love that movie. Classic Tom Hanks flick in my opinion.

Movie is over 30 years old and I probably haven't watched it in 20 years, but any time I see a redheaded dude with a beard, I think of the Klopek son (who was also the creepy redhead in Children of the Corn). And I think in every neighborhood I've lived in, there is always that one house that is a bit suspect and I think of this movie.

 Da Boss wrote:
Seconding Solomon Kane, it was basically a Warhammer Witch Hunter movie, the scene with the ghouls is as close as we will get to the Old World on screen.

I also liked Starship Troopers a lot, but I guess that is not weird on this forum!

For real though, I enjoyed the hell out of the Nicolas Cage Ghost Rider movie. Ghost Rider is a ridiculous and cheesy character, and Cage does ridiculous and cheesy better than anyone.

I was disappointed that we get this great scene of Sam Elliot and Nick Cage riding across the darkened desert, only for Sam Elliot to bow out as soon as they get to the destination..... I was all like..... what? Why? Did Sam Elliot's contract for this movie JUST expire?

I just watched this film on horror channel called 'The Last Man on Planet Earth'.

It's a shonkey direct to video type film with bad cgi, but somehow seems to do it's interesting premise justice, create some textured characters and put some good twists in there.

I very much judged this film by its cover but I'm glad I stuck with it!

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
Isn't it being an adolescent fantasy more or less the whole point of Sucker Punch, which as that's about Zacks limit, a series of essentially MTV music video was something even he couldn't mess up (likewise 300 being a film stylised like a video game flipping between cut scenes and fighty bits)

I thought it was a scathing feminist critique on male nerd objectification of women (but only after indulging in said objectification in the trailers and publicity to get the male nerds into the cinema, obviously).

the_scotsman wrote:

The only problem I had with 300 was how utterly dumb the inciting event that created the pivot point in the movie was.

"you can't fight with us, for your shield cannot guard your brother on the flank from -"

"Actually, we don't even do that. When the actual fighting starts, we abandon all formation and run off to stab people as a disorganised mob, usually in super-slo-mo."

Mine is Ghostbusters '16. Script was shoddy, the editing was choppy in the third act, Chris Hemsworth was clearly on brodude autopilot, the villain was...so forgettable I couldn't tell you a single thing about him, but the actual main cast were fun, had some great individual scenes (like the "They're here!" moment in the restaurant) and deserved a far better story to work with.

Tremors 7 - Shrieker Island.

Picked it upon a whim, and greatly enjoyed it. Lots of fun, and for what it is, a decent plot. Effects are above Direct To Video expectation too.

 Elemental wrote:

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
Isn't it being an adolescent fantasy more or less the whole point of Sucker Punch, which as that's about Zacks limit, a series of essentially MTV music video was something even he couldn't mess up (likewise 300 being a film stylised like a video game flipping between cut scenes and fighty bits)

I thought it was a scathing feminist critique on male nerd objectification of women (but only after indulging in said objectification in the trailers and publicity to get the male nerds into the cinema, obviously).

the_scotsman wrote:

The only problem I had with 300 was how utterly dumb the inciting event that created the pivot point in the movie was.

"you can't fight with us, for your shield cannot guard your brother on the flank from -"

"Actually, we don't even do that. When the actual fighting starts, we abandon all formation and run off to stab people as a disorganised mob, usually in super-slo-mo."

Mine is Ghostbusters '16. Script was shoddy, the editing was choppy in the third act, Chris Hemsworth was clearly on brodude autopilot, the villain was...so forgettable I couldn't tell you a single thing about him, but the actual main cast were fun, had some great individual scenes (like the "They're here!" moment in the restaurant) and deserved a far better story to work with.

In 300, why not put that guy at the end of the line with no brother to shield on his side? Duh, leo.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Tremors 7 - Shrieker Island.

Picked it upon a whim, and greatly enjoyed it. Lots of fun, and for what it is, a decent plot. Effects are above Direct To Video expectation too.

Yikes Tremors is still going! I think Tremors 3 was the last one I watched but they tread a good line between horror and fun.

 Kroem wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Tremors 7 - Shrieker Island.

Picked it upon a whim, and greatly enjoyed it. Lots of fun, and for what it is, a decent plot. Effects are above Direct To Video expectation too.

Yikes Tremors is still going! I think Tremors 3 was the last one I watched but they tread a good line between horror and fun.

I think the series honestly deserves some credit. While no Tremor's film is as good as the first one, the sequels have been surprisingly okay. I think Tremors 4 is the second best movie in the series. Tremors 5 was so average it was okay. 6 and 7 fully embraced being corny B-movies and ran with it to good effect. None of them will blow your mind or anything, but they are decidedly adequate (in a good way).

Yea, they must be doing something right if they are still making them!
I liked the third one because it went back to the town of Perfection and had some good references to the first film.

 Matt Swain wrote:
I'l gonna get flamed for this, but i kinda liked "300: Rise of an empire".

Acknowledging, even if in a very fictitious context, Themistocles and Artemisia, was an amazingly good touch and a welcome nod to some important but generally unsung figures in greek, and therefore western, culture.

Also the fact that the greeks weren't saints and the persians weren't demons was a good touch. Artemsia was essentially a monster the greeks made for themselves thru their own cruelty and evil.

The best man in the movie as i saw it? The persian who saw the child dying in the streets of athens, picked her up, adopted her and raised her to be strong.

True, although as someone aware of Artemisia previously it was quite jaring - in reality she is a pragmatic indivudal who like many Greeks simply saw serving the Persians as no worse and perhaps better than serving Athens or Sparta.

She also too the opportunity to dispose of a rival during the battle, shifting her colours during the battle depending on situation and recived high praise from the king before heading home. This was partly as she also advised the King not to bother fighting the greeks further once they had burned and looted Athens and to leave the mopping up to his subordinates. She may have even married one of the Kings sons following the war.

I enjoy 300 and its sequal as simply how the Spartans told the story to new recruits - massively exagerting everything and promoting themselves.

Of course they both also have some distortions of ancient era sexuality to suit modern audiances.

 Mr Morden wrote:


I enjoy 300 and its sequal as simply how the Spartans told the story to new recruits - massively exagerting everything and promoting themselves.

Of course they both also have some distortions of ancient era sexuality to suit modern audiances.

I mean that's sort of the point of the films. They are propaganda movies and all the style and description of the Persians is done intentionally to demonize them as "the enemy". Heck in the first film the person telling the story of how Leonidas died wasn't even there when it happened.

When you look at the story through the lense as an exaggerated propaganda film all the stuff in the story that doesn't make sense kinda does from that angle.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Of course they both also have some distortions of ancient era sexuality to suit modern audiances.

I always just thought the homoerotic slippt thru censorship because of the violence and was way ahead of its time

 kodos wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Of course they both also have some distortions of ancient era sexuality to suit modern audiances.

I always just thought the homoerotic slippt thru censorship because of the violence and was way ahead of its time

Ahh not my point - Spartan soldiers were usually given a older male lover when they joined a barracks and are often described as having to be dragged to their marriage bed as it was so unatural so when they call the Athenians "boy lovers" it is amusing .

Some prominent ancients considered that sex with women was only to make children and that love was more natural with a male comrade with whom they experienced war together - not forgetting of course the Sacred Band of Thebes. Of course there was also Hetaira and "flute girls" as well as male prostitutes

Most ancients would not define themselves as a specific sexual type in the same way as we do today.

Edge of Tomorrow and Oblivion are two of my favorite Tom Cruise movies. They aren't world-changing, but they are solidly fun sci fi adventures, and I think they both have good endings.

... and the best part about both is that Tom Cruise's character dies.

At least once.

 chromedog wrote:
... and the best part about both is that Tom Cruise's character dies.

At least once.

I've always wanted to ask something: Is all the hostility against tom cruise based on his involvement in what many people regard as a fraudulent and possibly dangerous cult? I'm not saying the name as someone might accuse me of getting into R&P, but is that the only reason people have such hostility towards tom cruise? I really am curious here.

As for me, i never gave a damn about him till "Interview with the vampire" and wasn't displeased with his lestat. I mean from what I head of him i'd expected his performance to be a $@/#sandwich, and instead I considered it a ham sandwich, and when you''re expecting the former and get the latter it can be a pleasant surprise.

I'm not a fan at all, and the last movie of his i watched was "Oblivion", which i almost saw as an apple product of the future ad, with the Ihouse, the Idrone, the Iclothes, the Iplane, the Ibike, the Irifle, etc.

But seriously, someone tell me is all the hate for him about his cult involvement? I remember then the valkyrie movie was announced and you had Klaus Von Stauffenberg's grandson on an interview, practically on his knees with his hands clasped in front of him begging "Mr. Cruise, I am asking you to please not play my grandfather! We don't want your cult using his story to spread their propaganda!"

https://www.dw.com/en/family-of-german-resistance-hero-condemn-cruise-casting/a-2420476


I mean, DAMN! Is all this hate just because he belongs to that organization? And yes it seems a lot of people do literally hate him.

I hope no one has a problem with me asking this, just seeing this post here finally triggered me to ask this.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Edge of Tomorrow and Oblivion are two of my favorite Tom Cruise movies. They aren't world-changing, but they are solidly fun sci fi adventures, and I think they both have good endings.

I can't recall watching a bad TC movie - both of these are really good IMO. Also really impressed with Collaterall with TC as an Assassin bad guy.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Of course they both also have some distortions of ancient era sexuality to suit modern audiances.

I always just thought the homoerotic slippt thru censorship because of the violence and was way ahead of its time

Ahh not my point - Spartan soldiers were usually given a older male lover when they joined a barracks and are often described as having to be dragged to their marriage bed as it was so unatural so when they call the Athenians "boy lovers" it is amusing .

Some prominent ancients considered that sex with women was only to make children and that love was more natural with a male comrade with whom they experienced war together - not forgetting of course the Sacred Band of Thebes. Of course there was also Hetaira and "flute girls" as well as male prostitutes

Most ancients would not define themselves as a specific sexual type in the same way as we do today.

making the movie now and you could go much more into that direction and it would be accepted, by that time it feels the movie went as far as possible into the "not heterosexual" direction as possible and that the scenes with the Queen were added to make it less obvious

 kodos wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Of course they both also have some distortions of ancient era sexuality to suit modern audiances.

I always just thought the homoerotic slippt thru censorship because of the violence and was way ahead of its time

Ahh not my point - Spartan soldiers were usually given a older male lover when they joined a barracks and are often described as having to be dragged to their marriage bed as it was so unatural so when they call the Athenians "boy lovers" it is amusing .

Some prominent ancients considered that sex with women was only to make children and that love was more natural with a male comrade with whom they experienced war together - not forgetting of course the Sacred Band of Thebes. Of course there was also Hetaira and "flute girls" as well as male prostitutes

Most ancients would not define themselves as a specific sexual type in the same way as we do today.

making the movie now and you could go much more into that direction and it would be accepted, by that time it feels the movie went as far as possible into the "not heterosexual" direction as possible and that the scenes with the Queen were added to make it less obvious

Maybe.... - the Old Guard was certainly well recieved andits also quite possible that the Leonidas and his Queen were a loving couple - people are complicated and often fail to succumb to easy clasification.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Of course they both also have some distortions of ancient era sexuality to suit modern audiances.

I always just thought the homoerotic slippt thru censorship because of the violence and was way ahead of its time

Ahh not my point - Spartan soldiers were usually given a older male lover when they joined a barracks and are often described as having to be dragged to their marriage bed as it was so unatural so when they call the Athenians "boy lovers" it is amusing .

Some prominent ancients considered that sex with women was only to make children and that love was more natural with a male comrade with whom they experienced war together - not forgetting of course the Sacred Band of Thebes. Of course there was also Hetaira and "flute girls" as well as male prostitutes

Most ancients would not define themselves as a specific sexual type in the same way as we do today.

making the movie now and you could go much more into that direction and it would be accepted, by that time it feels the movie went as far as possible into the "not heterosexual" direction as possible and that the scenes with the Queen were added to make it less obvious

Maybe.... - the Old Guard was certainly well recieved andits also quite possible that the Leonidas and his Queen were a loving couple - people are complicated and often fail to succumb to easy clasification.

I find it highly likely that even in ancient Greece, where bisexuality seems to have been the social norm there were those who preferred one gender over the other, even to the extreme of what we'd consider to be 'heterosexual' or 'homosexual'.

As an aside, I would share an excellent post from r/AskHistorians here. It's a great 'TLDR' of Spartan history that I really appreciated when I found it (I think I found the literal needle in the haystack with that one, the whole thread is pretty good). It's not as hard hitting for the Greeks as the Egyptians, but Classical greek history spans 1000 years, and we tend to treat Greek culture as monolithic, something that never changed in all that time even though it changed about as much as anywhere else with 1000 years to adapt to new situations.

Most ancients would not define themselves as a specific sexual type in the same way as we do today.

And as an another aside, I find this observation to be great in its conciseness. Historians have recently been tackling a wave of criticism from the LGBTQ community on a number of things, and largely failing to explain their position in laymen's terms (long explanations about source criticism, anachronism, and historiography are dry even to historians). Historians haven't until recently really faced this kind of criticism and it can be hard to explain how preposterously modern current perceptions of gender, sex, and identity are. They're literally only about 50 years old, 200 tops depending on how strict we want to be. It's not something we can transplant back 2000 years and expect to fit neatly into a box.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Of course they both also have some distortions of ancient era sexuality to suit modern audiances.

I always just thought the homoerotic slippt thru censorship because of the violence and was way ahead of its time

Ahh not my point - Spartan soldiers were usually given a older male lover when they joined a barracks and are often described as having to be dragged to their marriage bed as it was so unatural so when they call the Athenians "boy lovers" it is amusing .

Some prominent ancients considered that sex with women was only to make children and that love was more natural with a male comrade with whom they experienced war together - not forgetting of course the Sacred Band of Thebes. Of course there was also Hetaira and "flute girls" as well as male prostitutes

Most ancients would not define themselves as a specific sexual type in the same way as we do today.

making the movie now and you could go much more into that direction and it would be accepted, by that time it feels the movie went as far as possible into the "not heterosexual" direction as possible and that the scenes with the Queen were added to make it less obvious

Maybe.... - the Old Guard was certainly well recieved andits also quite possible that the Leonidas and his Queen were a loving couple - people are complicated and often fail to succumb to easy clasification.

I find it highly likely that even in ancient Greece, where bisexuality seems to have been the social norm there were those who preferred one gender over the other, even to the extreme of what we'd consider to be 'heterosexual' or 'homosexual'.

Indeed - however many would also not have seen the need or indeed point in defining a person by their preferences given that sex could and often was not just something for pleasure/afirming relationships but also for duty or just stress relief / part of war.

I just found it amusing that given how homoerotic (*) imagery abounded in 300 the characters expressed the opposite

(*) my Female friends don't seem impressed by the sculpted male bodies but I am sure some are !


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
As an aside, I would share an excellent post from r/AskHistorians here. It's a great 'TLDR' of Spartan history that I really appreciated when I found it (I think I found the literal needle in the haystack with that one). It's not as hard hitting for the Greeks as the Egyptians, but Classical greek history spans 1000 years, and we tend to treat Greek culture as monolithic, something that never changed in all that time even though it changed about as much as anywhere else with 1000 years to adapt to new situations.

Most ancients would not define themselves as a specific sexual type in the same way as we do today.

And as an another aside, I find this observation to be great in its conciseness. Historians have recently been tackling a wave of criticism from the LGBTQ community on a number of things, and largely failing to explain their position in laymen's terms (long explanations about source criticism, anachronism, and historiography are dry even to historians). Historians haven't until recently really faced this kind of criticism and it can be hard to explain how preposterously modern current perceptions of gender, sex, and identity are. They're literally only about 50 years old, 200 tops depending on how strict we want to be.

Thanks - will check out that link

And exactly - at work I talk about the rather wonderful Hortense Mancini who had affairs with men and women, much to the chargrain of her husband, finally ending up in the bed of both Charles II and his illegitimate daughter - but would she have described herself as "bisexual" - I seriously doubt it even if the term had been known - she was just enjoying life and would have been uncertain of the point of defining herself in such a way.

The same can be said for her contemporary Phillip, brother of Louis XIV who was happily fathering many children, having mistresses as well as being very much in thrall to his male lover/s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hortense_Mancini

It’s my very basic understanding of Greek and Roman society that your sexual partners’ social class / standing was probably more important than their gender.

 Jadenim wrote:
It’s my very basic understanding of Greek and Roman society that your sexual partners’ social class / standing was probably more important than their gender.

Well I think thats limited to your wife or husband - slaves, prostitutes and casual sexual partners are different, in fact men were encouraged to seek out prostitutes but not too much. Women did suffer from the usual double standard, as in many cultures it was important that a husband knew any children were his - "Caesar's wife". Egyptian and northern european woman seemed to have more choice and freedom than their sisters in Greece or Rome.

Also in Rome it also mattered if you were the dominant partner - specifically who put what in whom but then the Romans had sexual imagery Everywhere - including as soon as you walked in the door.

That being said, I imagine alot of married couples were just that - couples who at most indulged themselves with their slaves - which again technically did not count but that would depend on the couple. Marriage in Rome was also, for most people, very simple and pretty much happened if you lived together long enough with divorce from this sort of marriage being equally simple.

Currently watching Mortal Engines on Netflix.

40 minutes in, and it’s really rather enjoyable. Certainly a visual treat.

Mortal Engines main problem is that it tries to get as much from the books in as possible while leaving important information for those who did not know the source out or just gives small hints

less of the book and more of a story would have helped
yet it was fun to watch