Forget LOTR 300 Spartans will own it!

[silentspanky]

The movie I am waiting diehard for is 300 spartans. Not the 60's version which is alright but the modern one. Think LOTR meets blade meets pulp fiction. Dark atmopshere, background story for any HALO fans. A spartan hence John 113Spartan aka Master Cheif *I read books ya know* Links for background history and movie versions if this sparks intrest.

Battle of Thermopylae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Real history)
The 300 Spartans (1962) (1962 version)
300 (2006) (2007 TBA * Fall*)
300 (Titled 300 site says in march. OMG has a trailer. You will see by far why its 100000 times better then LOTR. If frodo were in this he would have his head on a pike.)

Now that ya oogled nifty stuff. Lately I been taking intrest in BC history and We all know the 12 months represent the GODS of when BC was lead by greeks romans etc.. Most I have to say is when it comes to facts and history then film adaptations sure we think its all make belief. Troy, elf wanna be prince has a brother who use to be a green hulk in the recent film. It did happen. 300 Spartans did happen. Alexander did happen. Maybe not like how the films depict how they did take event but blood and swords and battle still exsisted. Men made ultimate sacrifices for future generations.

Troy was a lost cause because its prince slept with the enemy's wife and braught her on its shores leading to the fall of its kingdom. Death of his brother to follow suit etc.. Alexander was power hungrey, Got posined and died for getting what he deserved! And lastly 300 Spartans. Red cloaks, very feared for their personalty when faced in battle. Cannon fodder for short. Now you all know where master cheifs linieage comes from aka spartan program.

The most I have to say I am just tingling about this movie. Talk about massive battles. I mean hey 300 - 1,000,00 its a pretty insane odd *In the 1962 movie said 2 mil not 1.* Maybe it is 2 mil. I mean heck to be a spartan you would have to be insane and die for a very worthy cause. Because if persia did invade and ensalve all the east would of fallen to its king and well its like imagining what would happen if ya go back in time and kill hitler? Ya just dont mess with history and be thankfull 300 men includeing 700 greek soilders to aid support went up against those odds so we can have it easy.

If ya read the link about the battle then good for you. I just wanna see this moive so bad because I mean look at the battle scenes!

And yes, they all die every spartan. Their cause to hold them back so greece can build up into one civilization and bring down a massive army. Well hold back and the stupid part is the spartan council wouldn't rush aid to the passageway because of a festival. The king didnt listen obviously lol. Ahh... Well I hope this makes ya tingle too

 

[Gabrieth]

Its not the same thing as lotr duno why your even comparing it lol.
Not same age, style or enything related to it ... oh wait they got swords too thats where you might see the relation lol.

Well I want to see it too but I can wait arledy got so meny movies to watch T.T

 

[Konrow]

the movie is called 300, not 300 spartans, but yea it looks like its gonna be amazing. Its based on the farily famous old comic books and its filled with tons of action. "This is not madness! This is Sparta!!!!!!" *kicks guy down bottomless pit*

 

[Vendaku~Metal]

Looks awesome. I love medieval, battle style of movies. Can't wait to see it.

 

[Akai]

Looks cool, medieval is awesome.

 

[silentspanky]

LOTR is pure fanatasy make belief. If ya did read the links it does say 300 and there was a 1962 version called 300 spartans. And this film is a adpatation from the 1962 version modernized from the veiws of the comic book. When he says "Our arrows will black out the sun, then the other guy replies, Then we will move into the shade." Same line from the 1962 300 Spartans.

I liked LOTR at one point now it just seems unreal battle wise. Best movies ever Starwars NH, ESB, ROTJ, Ghostbusters, Ninja Turtles *Shush*, Historical movies, and when people can actually act yet not rely on special effects.

I dont know really why I refered LOTR to this, personally I think hobbits are whiney lil wenches. I got in on a LOTR stress test beta, I personally dont like the level cap being 50. K I said enough about that seeing they have rules about being hush hush on the beta.

*On a quick note, this movie does have mythology basis on its artistical ideal. The history WAS real as 300 REAL spartans did sacrifice their lifes for us to this day. Personally people in the last 20 years to this movie glorified what happened. And my veiws on greek or BC mythology about gods and such with powers beyond this world were no more then mear mortals who did extraordinary feats to prove themselfs to be very important so that soilders then would rally the troops in favor of their memory.*

 

[efareo]

Looks good but if they have fag **** actors on it like brad pit fuk'em if im gonna watch it

 

[omerta]

nothing owns lotr, specially the 3rd one

 

[Hydra]

I can't wait to see this film either. Seen a few trailers and it looks like it's going to be a crazy-good movie.

 

[Iron Maiden]

The Battle Of Thermopylae is one of the greatest exaggerated battles in history. Almost every expert on this battle rejects the idea of 1 million men. Mainly, because at this point in history, the supplies needed to support such a sizable force is near impossible to obtain by the Persian Empire. Though, it is plausible to believe that there were maybe 250,000 Persian soldiers and roughly 500,000 to 600,000 slaves and other nobles, merchants, and possibly the King's entire retinue.

One school of thought rejects the figures given in ancient texts as exaggerations on the part of the victors. Based on analysis of the resources available to armies of the ancient era, the Persian force was between 60,000 and 120,000 combatants, plus a retinue of non-combatants made larger because of the presence of the Persian king and high-ranking nobility. The upper limit was 250,000 total land forces. The main reason most often given for these values is the army could not have surpassed 175,000 due to lack of water.

A second school contends that ancient sources do give realistic numbers. According to the texts the Greeks at the end of the battle of Plataea mustered 110,000 (Herodotus) or 100,000 (Pompeius) troops: 38,700 hoplites and 71,300 or 61,300 peltasts respectively, the difference probably being 10,000 helots. In that battle, according to Herodotus, they faced 300,000 Persians and 50,000 Greek allies. This gives a 3-to-1 ratio for the two armies, which proponents of the school consider a realistic proportion.

I personally don't believe that there were 1 million men fighting in this battle. For either side or even both sides combined. The numbers just don't fit the average army size for this time. On top of that, for 300 men to hold of an army of 1,000,000 is physically impossible. Even though Spartans were known as the greatest and toughest warriors of Ancient Greece, the Spartans would have given way to exhaustion more or less 4 hours into the battle. Why? Mainly because of their fighting style. The Spartans as well as all other Greeks used a battle formation called a phalanx. The (hoplite) phalanx was a formation in which the hoplites would line up in ranks, usually no less than four deep, in very close order. In this formation, the hoplites would lock their shields together, and the first few ranks of soldiers would project their spears out over the first rank of shields, to try to gain the upper hand in the battle early on and as a result, allowing for the first three or so ranks of spearmen to engage their spears against the enemy. Therefore, one might say that the phalanx was essentially a formation in which the hoplites created a mass spear and shield wall. The effectiveness of the phalanx depended upon how well the hoplites could maintain this formation while in combat, and how well they could stand their ground.

And, for a phalanx of 300 men or even close to maybe 5,000 men split up into several phalanxes, against 1,000,000 men, the odds were just too great and they would be overwhelmed by the sheer amount of men and charge of massive amounts of cavalry.

 

[Mara]

Frank Miller's 300

Its Hollywood Iron, What Were U Expected?
More Heroic More Tickets.

 

[Iron Maiden]

I don't like it when people distort history to make money. Because people will start believing this bullshit and think it's actually what happened.

The best interpretation of ancient cultures is probably the HBO series Rome. They stay true to history for the most part and build a dramatic storyline in the middle of it all.

 

[Mara]

Heard Of Mel Gibson's Apocalypto? All My Friends Found It Pretty Out Of History Line And Distort.
Just Like Braveheart.

 

[Iron Maiden]

Braveheart has a lot of made up **** in it. For example, at the end of the movie when the French/English princess tells the English King Edward that she is pregnant with William Wallace's child. Never happened. As well as the little bullshit story between Robert the Bruce and Wallace. Bruce had asked Wallace several times to join him and Wallace refused claiming Bruce was a coward unfit to rule the Scots.

 

[NoOxygen]

Saw the trailer a while ago. Looking forward. Gave me chills.

 

[Cuias]

silentspanky, go home! As we can see, you've got absolutely no knowledge in movies! You are comparing two completely different movies and try to pick one you think is best..... What the ****?!?!
Lord of the Rings is based on a revolutionary roman by a man who introduced the fantasy genre (with a few others) to the human, The Hobbit. Tolkien might come to your little fucked up mind!
This Hollywood movie you're linking to could be compared to all other Hollywood weed like Troy and Alexander, but you choose LORT. Why?

Seriously, next time you want to play smart, do some research and think before you post!! And to give my comment on the preview: Bullshit. Yet another of these nonesense fighting movies, but this time, uuuuh, they're even more unrealistic. Great! We've had enough of this already.

 

[Rishwin]

silentspanky, go home! As we can see, you've got absolutely no knowledge in movies! You are comparing two completely different movies and try to pick one you think is best..... What the ****?!?!
Lord of the Rings is based on a revolutionary roman by a man who introduced the fantasy genre (with a few others) to the human, The Hobbit. Tolkien might come to your little fucked up mind!
This Hollywood movie you're linking to could be compared to all other Hollywood weed like Troy and Alexander, but you choose LORT. Why?

Seriously, next time you want to play smart, do some research and think before you post!! And to give my comment on the preview: Bullshit. Yet another of these nonesense fighting movies, but this time, uuuuh, they're even more unrealistic. Great! We've had enough of this already.

Seriously, next time you want to play smart, do some research and read the other posts!!

He made another post here you moron, stop being a dick.

 

[xeLJoYo]

Actually Iron, it IS possible for those 300 men to have held their ground.
After all, they were defending a narrow pass. For this kind of situation, the phalanx is PERFECT. you can hold your ground nearly untouchable for a long time, meanwhile killing everyone coming close. After many hours ofcourse, spears will eventually break, an arrow will make it through anyway, and so eventually they died.
Don't forget that since the phalanx is mainly a stationary formation, and the enemy is constantly attacking, that the persians will actually tire out first.
What's more is that relatively early on the Persian king ordered their elite soldiers, the immortals, to attack. But they couldn't hope to win either. And so the defeat of their best soldiers in battle was sure to knock out the Persian morale...

I also don't think it was 1 million persians, but heck, eeven if it was any number into thousands it would have been an awesome feat.

 

[Iron Maiden]

Actually Iron, it IS possible for those 300 men to have held their ground.
After all, they were defending a narrow pass. For this kind of situation, the phalanx is PERFECT. you can hold your ground nearly untouchable for a long time, meanwhile killing everyone coming close. After many hours ofcourse, spears will eventually break, an arrow will make it through anyway, and so eventually they died.
Don't forget that since the phalanx is mainly a stationary formation, and the enemy is constantly attacking, that the persians will actually tire out first.
What's more is that relatively early on the Persian king ordered their elite soldiers, the immortals, to attack. But they couldn't hope to win either. And so the defeat of their best soldiers in battle was sure to knock out the Persian morale...

I also don't think it was 1 million persians, but heck, eeven if it was any number into thousands it would have been an awesome feat.

True, the battle was in a narrow pass. But the Persians would tire just as fast as the Spartans. Just because they are stationary doesn't mean anything. The effort of constantly jabbing the enemy with a spear that long and that heavy took and extreme amount of effort against a force that size. So no, it is not possible. Plus, archers would slaughter the Spartans if they remained stationary, because they didn't posses shields like the Roman legions and couldn't form the testudo. To remain stationary with only 300 men is just retarded.

That is why the theory about just 300 men at the battle is utterly ridiculous because they would have been cut down in a very short amount of time. The theory that supports that there were at least 5,000 - 6,000 Greeks including the 300 Spartans is much more plausible and believable, especially if you cut down the Persian force to about 125,000 - 175,000. The 300 Spartan story had probably derived from the fact that the Spartans were natural fighters and showed exceptional leadership and were identified as a unique element within the whole Greek Army.

 

[xeLJoYo]

True, the battle was in a narrow pass. But the Persians would tire just as fast as the Spartans. Just because they are stationary doesn't mean anything. The effort of constantly jabbing the enemy with a spear that long and that heavy took and extreme amount of effort against a force that size. So no, it is not possible. Plus, archers would slaughter the Spartans if they remained stationary, because they didn't posses shields like the Roman legions and couldn't form the testudo. To remain stationary with only 300 men is just retarded.

That is why the theory about just 300 men at the battle is utterly ridiculous because they would have been cut down in a very short amount of time. The theory that supports that there were at least 5,000 - 6,000 Greeks including the 300 Spartans is much more plausible and believable, especially if you cut down the Persian force to about 125,000 - 175,000. The 300 Spartan story had probably derived from the fact that the Spartans were natural fighters and showed exceptional leadership and were identified as a unique element within the whole Greek Army.

Actually the Spartans did have proper shields (the hoplon, hence the name hoplites), and when in proper formation, the large pikes worked together with the shields to stop most of the arrows.

Also stabbing all the time in a stationary formation is not THAT tiring or hard; all you have to do is push it straight forward all the time. Well-trained soldiers could that for a long time indeed, and Spartans were MORE than well-trained.
And ur not jabbing against the whole force at the same time. In fact, most of the Persian army never got to participate, due to lack of room. They simply didn't fit there. So effectively the size of the Persian army was drastically reduced.