Duck and Cover

emoutofthevee wrote:I just don't see the point in making a movie about a historical event from a comic if you alredy have a good story in reality.
And mutants? It's like making a movie about Vietnam war with Klingons instead of vietnamesse...

Maybe because you're an idiot? 300 isn't supposed to be historically accurate. There's a whole other genre out there called historical fiction. You take a premise to something that actually happened and exaggerate or add stuff that's totally made up to make it seem fresh. Here's a few examples of similar movies: Braveheart (real guy, but much of it is exaggerated), The Patriot (everything about it except the war itself was made up), Titanic (none of the main characters existed!), Gladiator (totally made up except for setting and the emperor's name), The Great Escape (the setting and people are real, but almost everything they do never happened in reality). 300 takes it pretty far, but it's still in that category. So stop being an idiot.

I think what he's trying to say is that the Spartan war period was already interesting enough without adding mutants or aliens or naked oily man chests or whateverthefuckelse is in the movie, and I'm inclined to agree. Anyone can make things interesting by adding anachronisms and CGI effects - what takes more skill is crafting a compelling story out of an accurate historical setting without any bells and whistles.

Whatever, the movie might still be okay. Troy was more historically accurate but boring as a dog's ass.

I'm glad somebody blew the whistle on this fraud. Frank Miller is a hack, not only is 300 bullshit, but I've also heard that Daredevil wasn't really blind either (he just had depth perception issues).

Subhuman wrote:I think what he's trying to say is that the Spartan war period was already interesting enough without adding mutants or aliens or naked oily man chests or whateverthefuckelse is in the movie, and I'm inclined to agree.

Good, then you and him can go rewatch "The 300 Spartans."

Troy was more historically accurate but boring as a dog's ass.

Isn't that an argument of why 300 should have been left the way it was? Also, how would you know if it was more historically accurate? The best source we have on the Trojan war is some blind poet. For all we know, it's every bit as fictional (if not more so) then 300.

I think what he's trying to say is that the Spartan war period was already interesting enough without adding mutants or aliens or naked oily man chests or whateverthefuckelse is in the movie, and I'm inclined to agree.

doesnt hurt much though. like i could make a movie about anything and as long as it had mutants and muscles i would smash a crater into a billion pieces.

but jah i tried watching it 3 times already and just get side-tracked with reading about god of war 2 or thinking about rome: total war or just going to eat something.

Comparisons of Homer to Miller invoke the insidious wrath of the Penguins.

Mad Max RW :

Maybe because you're an idiot? 300 isn't supposed to be historically accurate. There's a whole other genre out there called historical fiction. You take a premise to something that actually happened and exaggerate or add stuff that's totally made up to make it seem fresh. Here's a few examples of similar movies: Braveheart (real guy, but much of it is exaggerated), The Patriot (everything about it except the war itself was made up), Titanic (none of the main characters existed!), Gladiator (totally made up except for setting and the emperor's name), The Great Escape (the setting and people are real, but almost everything they do never happened in reality). 300 takes it pretty far, but it's still in that category. So stop being an idiot.

Look shithead you just said things I'm talking about only in your stupid way. All of this movies that you mentioned were fictional reality with stories made in the realistic setting , where as 300 is supposed to be historical fiction with story made in half realistic half fictional happenings. I'm not saing that movie sux. I just said that I don't see the point in making a fictional movie in realistic setting if you already have a lot of material for making a "realistic" movie in that setting. That is ONE of the reasons why L.O.T.R is so good: it has a great fictional story set up in a great fictional world.

I'm not going to tell you to stop being an idiot becaouse when someone is already an idiot like you, he can't change. If you have any objections on my post than use good facts against it or shut up!

Lord of the Rings is shit. Yay for kickstarting modern fantasy and whatever, but bland, bland, bland, and the movies managed to rape the books. Not to mention he was a fucking nutjob.

And he made a clear and present point that if you want a "realistic" movie set in that setting it was made a loooooooong time ago. Go watch The 300 Spartans. I don't see what's wrong with 300. It's historical fiction, and it fits the bill quite well. Spartans fight some sand swell guy. They all die. That's about the extent of what we can say actually happened. How are we to know there weren't giant fucking mutant zombies with laser cannons there?

Lord of the Rings is fiction? ehue

Thor Kaufman wrote:Lord of the Rings is fiction? ehue

Not according to Tolkein, hence the nutjob bit.

jetbaby wrote:

Thor Kaufman wrote:Lord of the Rings is fiction? ehue

Not according to Tolkein, hence the nutjob bit.

Yes it was, he was trying to create a mythology.

emoutofthevee wrote:
Look shithead you just said things I'm talking about only in your stupid way. All of this movies that you mentioned were fictional reality with stories made in the realistic setting , where as 300 is supposed to be historical fiction with story made in half realistic half fictional happenings. I'm not saing that movie sux. I just said that I don't see the point in making a fictional movie in realistic setting if you already have a lot of material for making a "realistic" movie in that setting. That is ONE of the reasons why L.O.T.R is so good: it has a great fictional story set up in a great fictional world.

I'm not going to tell you to stop being an idiot becaouse when someone is already an idiot like you, he can't change. If you have any objections on my post than use good facts against it or shut up!

If you still don't see the point then you're a dumbass, plain and simple. For one thing, the movie isn't based on the historical 300 Spartans, it's based on a comic by Frank Miller (I still consider graphic novels comic books). And some people are getting way out of hand with the mutant stuff. Everything you see is exaggerated and told as if it's literal. What ancient stories haven't? Do you really think Moses parted the Red Sea, knights fought with fire breathing dragons and early voyagers had numerous run ins with giant serpents because they were sketched on ancient maps? Find the original stories told about Leonidus, or even better, read the Iliad and Aniad. You know, the Trojan War. They add stuff like a guy is 10 feet tall and the only weak spot is a tiny patch on his ankle. What difference does it make if these were written 2 years ago or 2000 years ago? It makes it more dramatic and is supposed to scare you. A bad guy appears a hell of a lot more evil if he's gigantic and horribly deformed. There's no point arguing when you're too stupid to get it. So go back to watching bullshit long winded Lord of the Rings. Where you know it's a story some nutjob pulled out of his ass and stole the rest.

agreed with the exception of lotr, ive always enjoyed it. the historical accuracy debate is getting old. if youre looking for authenticity dont watch something based on a comic


fyi, its leonidas as opposed to leonidus and its the aeneid as opposed to the aniad.

also subhuman - how did you arrive at the conclusion that troy is historically accurate? the only real evidence that there was a real trojan war is the excavation of one of the cities built at ilium having signs indicative that it was destroyed by fire or war around the supposed time of the trojan war. while there probably was a trojan war at some point, who knows what it was really like? as far as the truth, there is absolutely no evidence

History is written by the victors and Zionists.

If you depict a 2000+ year old story according to generally accepted historical "facts", you are probably equally as false as if it was written by a bum. If a movie doesn't even claim to be an accurate description of the past, what difference does it make what content the movie holds? Especially when you see goatpeople and mutants waving swords something inside you should say "Hey guys, I think this is fiction!" and enjoy the content as fiction. Give the artists their artistic freedom and so on and so forth.

johnnygothisgun wrote:agreed with the exception of lotr, ive always enjoyed it. the historical accuracy debate is getting old. if youre looking for authenticity dont watch something based on a comic


fyi, its leonidas as opposed to leonidus and its the aeneid as opposed to the aniad.

also subhuman - how did you arrive at the conclusion that troy is historically accurate? the only real evidence that there was a real trojan war is the excavation of one of the cities built at ilium having signs indicative that it was destroyed by fire or war around the supposed time of the trojan war. while there probably was a trojan war at some point, who knows what it was really like? as far as the truth, there is absolutely no evidence

Yeah, could never remember the popular spelling after taking Latin for 6 years.

are you being facetious? i took latin for six years as well and ive never once seen it spelled 'aniad'? it would also make little sense, since it comes from the title character aeneas, whose name is never spelled 'aneas'


edit: oh. youre placing the latin ending on leonidas, i get it now, lolz

Mad Max RW wrote:

If you still don't see the point then you're a dumbass, plain and simple. For one thing, the movie isn't based on the historical 300 Spartans, it's based on a comic by Frank Miller (I still consider graphic novels comic books). And some people are getting way out of hand with the mutant stuff. Everything you see is exaggerated and told as if it's literal. What ancient stories haven't? Do you really think Moses parted the Red Sea, knights fought with fire breathing dragons and early voyagers had numerous run ins with giant serpents because they were sketched on ancient maps? Find the original stories told about Leonidus, or even better, read the Iliad and Aniad. You know, the Trojan War. They add stuff like a guy is 10 feet tall and the only weak spot is a tiny patch on his ankle. What difference does it make if these were written 2 years ago or 2000 years ago? It makes it more dramatic and is supposed to scare you. A bad guy appears a hell of a lot more evil if he's gigantic and horribly deformed. There's no point arguing when you're too stupid to get it. So go back to watching bullshit long winded Lord of the Rings. Where you know it's a story some nutjob pulled out of his ass and stole the rest.

Look stupid maybe the film is made too scare someone of your small intelect but people usualy go to movies to watch a quality. And how the hell can you say that LOTR sux? Probably because you never red the book, nor anything else ==>Aniad

I already red Aeneid and Homer BTW.

Lord of the Rings has a few negative aspects which really bring down the book for me. Chief among those is the obvious imperialism which Tolkien supports, which is at odds with my anti-monarchist politics. Another issue, albeit one that's far behind the imperialism, is the fact that I can't stand elves. I've got massive problems with their portrayal as "higher-than-human" beings - I actually have more sympathy towards the grittiness of the Orcs and Trolls than I do towards the Hobbits, Humans or Elves.

hell can you say that LOTR sux?

It's not historically accurate enough.