Lords of Death Forums Lords of Death Forums Movie Forum 300 Today!

"Also, needed more NiN "
Can never have too much.

I heard they show penis in the movie. So that makes you officially gay two weeks earlier than the rest of us.

Are you trying to say the Big Ogre and Big Fat guy with blades as hands didn't have historical truth??? *gasp*

Not necessarily, but it's standard for you to not like something, not be satisfied or negative in general, that's all I was saying. Like no one could have predicted you would have something negative to say about it. <img src="/~stretch/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

This post saved the thread.

ok sorry didnt mean to contradict myself. yes both based off comics. but one was first based off history. which means, he did follow some sort of historical event like the weapons and the lines in the movie(then we will fight in the shade line was a classic). the twist is, what he threw out there like the crazy looking beasts and the fact that none of them wore armor to show off those oh so sexy abs. among others.
the difference between that, and sin city, is that sin city aside from the nickname of vegas, has no historical background (as far as we know right?)
frank miller's 300 wasnt JUST based off a comic, unlike sin city. 300 did have historical truth. but to make it more appealing (i watched a lot of the history channel on it, im no expert but i did see some of the same things in both) they threw in some of the other shit you saw.
but to say it had a bad plot and ZERO historical similiarities is just bad bad bad! the way they fought, the style of the way the spartans were brought up and how the ruler of the persians was exactly how they show him in the books(not sure about looks wise, but the way he ruled) the ruler of persians let everyone govern themselves, and just asked for the leader of the spartans (dont make me spell his name) to answer only to him. he could run his own city and govern the way he saw fit. thats how the persian ruled the other countries as well. thus having a historical similarity.

Making what up? That no matter how good the movie was, that you'd still not like it? Yeah I was way off, as evidence of your posts. <img src="/~stretch/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Is it coincidence you're the only one in this thread that had something negative to say about it? <img src="/~stretch/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> The only fiction here is you believing that I'm wrong. <img src="/~stretch/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

I will try to diagnose why Stretch did not like this movie.
The overly pierced Persians were evil. It showed the Persians ie (one could say Muslims) as the "bad guys". It showed homosexuality in a negative light. The Persian degenerates were led by a dictator whom enslaved others, ruled by fear and engaged in orgy's.
The Spartans were a bunch of "white guys" that were about freedom, law and democracy. They seemed to live a degenerate free way of life.
Ahhhh, I just took a poke at it. I could be dead wrong. <img src="/~stretch/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

not entirely. did you see the council? totally corrupt. big surprise. they did portray the persian king as a real bad guy though. but he did travel and conquer other lands. he wasnt exactly like genghis khan but the reason why he was attacking them anyway was because of his fathers grudge against the athens and greece in the first place.