|
|
History vs. 300
While the answer to the question, "how historically accurate is the movie 300?" is rather predictable, the author still provides a good look at what Sparta was really like during classical times. Expecting a film based on a comic book graphic novel to even vaguely represent an historical event is rather like expecting Ann Coulter and John Edwards to elope to the Bahamas, but if it gets people interested in the classics and finding out what really happened, I call that a Good Thing.
Hell, it's even surprising that Hollywood spelled anything correctly in the movie, or even got the dates and location approximately correct. Some of the changes they made were likely good for the movie from a visual sense, some where likely made due to American mores (the whole buttsecks thing and the killing of the Helot), but some where damn stupid. Like leaving out the fleet (which I assume they did).
Not that it doesn't amuse me that the Iranians are all pissed off about looking like pussies. That's just amusing. Hell, I should buy copies and send them over...
That being said, I thought that the History Channel said Leonidas wasn't exempt from the training regimen.
Posted by: ronaprhys on March 14, 2007 08:44 PMAt what point in time did any say that this was going to be a historicaly accurate movie.
If it was a documentary. I woulnt have paid admission to the theater to see it.
GET OVER YOURSELF
enjoy it for what it is...entertainment.
I HATE STUPID PEOPLE
Posted by: I hate stupid people on March 26, 2007 12:25 AMBut if you can't trust Hollywood, who can you trust? Newspapers? Dan Rather? BLOGS?!?
Entertainment comes from hollywood
News comes from Dan Rather.
Blogs are nothing more than forums with a new name written by one person.
News papers suck!
If you want historicaly accurate information.
History Channel!!
ITS ENTERTAINMENT PEOPLE!
Posted by: I hate stupid people on March 26, 2007 06:49 PMEntertainment comes from hollywood
News comes from Dan Rather.
Blogs are nothing more than forums with a new name written by one person.
News papers suck!
If you want historicaly accurate information.
History Channel!!
ITS ENTERTAINMENT PEOPLE!
Posted by: I hate stupid people on March 26, 2007 06:49 PMAnd double posts come from stupid people!
...says the inventor of the quintuple post.
I wasn't around at the time, so I don't remember... Was JFK's first name Jack or John? The History Channel said it was Jack, but a 1971 encyclopedia my parents have says it was John F. Kennedy, Jr.
Get over it. Its not like anyone is actually posting to this thing other than us....
And there are such things as typos. You know the majority of thise narrator types are like 100 years old.
Actually, wasn't Rather shown to be "creating" news? Maybe you should use a better example.
That aside, I didn't realize people still used soapboxes...
Posted by: ron on March 27, 2007 08:44 AMEver since Vietnam, the "news" has been nothing more than fan fiction for the socialist elite. People are starting to realize this, which is why so many are turning to blogs for their information.
It's like the desperate flailing of millions of drowning people who thought they'd never need to learn to swim.
Posted by: Tatterdemalian on March 27, 2007 08:57 AM