[quote]Kuz wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Agent Frost wrote:
n3wb wrote:
There is nothing that suggests that the Spartans acted in the way you describe at all and it sounds like you are lumping them together with the Athenians because they were all Greek.[/quote]
There was line in the movie where Leonidas mocks the “boy loving Athenians”.
[quote]Kuz wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Agent Frost wrote:
n3wb wrote:
I saw it to
I have to say that brought a hole new level of bad ass to movies Im going to see it again on sunday I liked it that much
the only thing I didnt like was the underwear/sack holster they wore that was pretty gay
cant wait until it comes out on DVD
n3wb
From what i have been reading and understand… many times Spartans entered into combat armourless, or with very little armour on to prove there superiority in battle.
AND there was that whole thing where the Spartan army ate, bathed… and slept together… in a “gay” way. To “love” you fellow solider made you fight that much harder to keep your fellow solider safe in combat it was believed.
You are correct. The Spartans were not necessarily homosexual, but they did encourage man-on-man relationships for the reason you stated above. Funny how the move avoided that whole side of the Spartan lifestyle.
It was “avoided” because that simply was not the case with the Spartans and the comments above are a reach, at best (and mostly sound like trying to view ancient history through a modern conception of the world).
There is nothing that suggests that the Spartans acted in the way you describe at all and it sounds like you are lumping them together with the Athenians because they were all Greek.[/quote]
"Most modern theories are based on assumptions derived from ancient sources and parallels drawn between Sparta and contemporary Dorian Greek societies such as Crete. Some scholars assume that the custom of pederasty paralleled the mentoring relations between Spartan males and adolescent boys, common in Dorian societies.
Some of the ancient scholars seem to have supported an opposing view: Xenophon writes that Lycurgus efficiently managed to cultivate chaste pederasty in the Spartan society.[16] This however tends to be viewed as an attempt of praise towards Sparta, and not necessarily as a sincere remark.
Aristotle also wrote that Sparta belonged to the type of military society that was based on heterosexual relationship, unlike other Greek states of his time. However, an examination of the historical details reveals that “references to particular homosexual attachments of Spartans are conspicuous even by Greek standards”.[16]
Cicero furthermore asserts that, "The Lacedaemonians, while they permit all things except outrage (hubris, referring here to homosexual coitus) in the love of youths, certainly distinguish the forbidden by a thin wall of partition from the sanctioned, for they allow embraces and a common couch to lovers.'[17]
In antiquity it was thought that a youth was expected to find himself an older lover, and that Pederasty, a social practice common throughout most of Greece, was especially so in Sparta, where the ephors fined any eligible man who did not have chaste relationships with youths.[18]"
AND for an even MORE indepth look at the topic…
The subject was first brought to my attention by a HS teacher of mine who happened to Greek. We used to joke anout who was “Spartan” and who wasn’t.
PLEASE note that the activites were completely out of the context of what being gay of homo means today. It was mandated and philisophical. The views and mores of sex have changed since that time.
It is also a fact that the samuari of Japan ALSO practiced similar sexual relations with other men, as the view of sexual relations with a woman was solely for procreation, and not enjoyment among the feudal warriors.
[spoiler]
As for the movie it was hinted at in dialog between Astinos and i believe Stelios during the scene when they are piling the bodies of the Persian dead for the ambush on the Immortals. It could also be implied that there was a relationship between the two Spartans in the manner of which they fought side by side in the scene before Astinos is beheaded by the Persian horseman.
[quote]Kuz wrote:
…
There is nothing that suggests that the Spartans acted in the way you describe at all and it sounds like you are lumping them together with the Athenians because they were all Greek.[/quote]
I disagree. I think there was some wild man-love in Sparta.
[quote]Agent Frost wrote:
"Most modern theories are based on assumptions derived from ancient sources and parallels drawn between Sparta and contemporary Dorian Greek societies such as Crete. Some scholars assume that the custom of pederasty paralleled the mentoring relations between Spartan males and adolescent boys, common in Dorian societies.
Some of the ancient scholars seem to have supported an opposing view: Xenophon writes that Lycurgus efficiently managed to cultivate chaste pederasty in the Spartan society.[16] This however tends to be viewed as an attempt of praise towards Sparta, and not necessarily as a sincere remark.
Aristotle also wrote that Sparta belonged to the type of military society that was based on heterosexual relationship, unlike other Greek states of his time. However, an examination of the historical details reveals that “references to particular homosexual attachments of Spartans are conspicuous even by Greek standards”.[16]
Cicero furthermore asserts that, "The Lacedaemonians, while they permit all things except outrage (hubris, referring here to homosexual coitus) in the love of youths, certainly distinguish the forbidden by a thin wall of partition from the sanctioned, for they allow embraces and a common couch to lovers.'[17]
In antiquity it was thought that a youth was expected to find himself an older lover, and that Pederasty, a social practice common throughout most of Greece, was especially so in Sparta, where the ephors fined any eligible man who did not have chaste relationships with youths.[18]"
AND for an even MORE indepth look at the topic…
The subject was first brought to my attention by a HS teacher of mine who happened to Greek. We used to joke anout who was “Spartan” and who wasn’t.
PLEASE note that the activites were completely out of the context of what being gay of homo means today. It was mandated and philisophical. The views and mores of sex have changed since that time.
It is also a fact that the samuari of Japan ALSO practiced similar sexual relations with other men, as the view of sexual relations with a woman was solely for procreation, and not enjoyment among the feudal warriors.
[spoiler]
As for the movie it was hinted at in dialog between Astinos and i believe Stelios during the scene when they are piling the bodies of the Persian dead for the ambush on the Immortals. It could also be implied that there was a relationship between the two Spartans in the manner of which they fought side by side in the scene before Astinos is beheaded by the Persian horseman.[/quote]
I am not actually all hung up on whether any person is gay, straight or bisexual. To each their own - live and let live.
What I find interesting about what is written above seems to re-enforce what I was saying in that we are viewing their relationships through a modern lens. If they were expected to maintain “chaste” relationships between men and boys, that’s simply not a sexual relationship at all. It is likely a different kind of relationship than most people may think of today, but that does not mean it was a homosexual one at all.
This reminds me of some sections of Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book “Team of Rivals” about Lincoln and his cabinet. If you read some of the letters written by Salmon P. Chase (Lincolin’s secretary of the Treasury) to one of his long-time dear friends and did so without taking into account the context of the age, your first assumption would be he was writing to a gay lover. Chase is just one example from that time period, but I guess my point is that context matters and from what I have read of Sparta, I think the context is being misconstrued.
Interesting debate topic, nonetheless.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
florin wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
…
As for the most important part of portraying Achilles – being the greatest killer who ever lived – Pitt sucked donkey balls.
true, no doubt
Remember how Tim Roth just seemed like a killer in Rob Roy? Pitt was not convincing as a killer. [/quote]
YES! Tim Roth. I couldn’t remember his name. He was brilliant. What a complete and utter arrogant bastard. He was one of the best villians of all time.
Seeing it 3rd time tomorow…this one IMAX.
As far as Greek History…dependent upon the historian writing, you will get different dipictions. As far as men relationships…hell what the heck does a football team do all year? Train, shower, eat, etc. together…My teammates were my closest comrades or warriors whom I went to battle with. Dont pull that crap about man to man relationships are not healthy. That is how you build a better team…ie spartan army.
AND…some of my kids in class, for my birthday pre-ordered a helmet and sword for me. They were so psyched about the movie and have trained their balls off this week. I am just happy the movie has done well, and can be enjoyed by different generations.
SP
[quote]strongFB wrote:
Seeing it 3rd time tomorow…this one IMAX.
As far as Greek History…dependent upon the historian writing, you will get different dipictions. As far as men relationships…hell what the heck does a football team do all year? Train, shower, eat, etc. together…My teammates were my closest comrades or warriors whom I went to battle with. Dont pull that crap about man to man relationships are not healthy. That is how you build a better team…ie spartan army.
AND…some of my kids in class, for my birthday pre-ordered a helmet and sword for me. They were so psyched about the movie and have trained their balls off this week. I am just happy the movie has done well, and can be enjoyed by different generations.
SP[/quote]
Those swords are already sold out in most places even on line. The masks of the Immortals were limited to 250,000 world wide. This movie might create some decent collectables 20 years from now.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
strongFB wrote:
Seeing it 3rd time tomorow…this one IMAX.
As far as Greek History…dependent upon the historian writing, you will get different dipictions. As far as men relationships…hell what the heck does a football team do all year? Train, shower, eat, etc. together…My teammates were my closest comrades or warriors whom I went to battle with. Dont pull that crap about man to man relationships are not healthy. That is how you build a better team…ie spartan army.
AND…some of my kids in class, for my birthday pre-ordered a helmet and sword for me. They were so psyched about the movie and have trained their balls off this week. I am just happy the movie has done well, and can be enjoyed by different generations.
SP
Those swords are already sold out in most places even on line. The masks of the Immortals were limited to 250,000 world wide. This movie might create some decent collectables 20 years from now.[/quote]
Might be still a few out there:
Some pretty damn cool stuff, for sure.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Panther1015 wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Brad Pitt is just one of those celebrities that alot of guys just want to hate on, I think he’s a damn good actor. I would however have to rank Patriot, Gladiator, and Braveheart above it though.
Seems to me like the haters are too caught up by Brad’s good looks to realize he’s a damn good actor. And he’s the metrosexual?
Wow. Brad’s “good looks” (as you put it…NTTAWWT) are not why I dislike Troy. I do feel he was wrong for that part and thought so from the very first fight he was in with someone who actually did look like he could kill someone. It was the overall cast that made it suck along with the fact that it wasn’t exactly even a “guy movie”. That may be why so many women went to go see it. The killings were minimal and I don’t remember one memorable gory or graphic scene in any of the minutes that I could tolerate it before I turned it off. It was BORING.
Brad Pitt was great in Seven. He was great in Fight Club. I do not consider him a poor actor at all. However, whoever cast him for that part fucked up in my opinion.
Along those same lines, whoever cast the parts for 300 needs a fucking promotion.
That may hurt your feelings but I am sure you and that poster over your bed of him will get over it in time.
Just believe.[/quote]
No mention of Troy in my post. I hated that movie for the exact same reasons you stated. However, I didn’t hate it because of the simple fact that Brad Pitt was in it as many Troy haters in this thread have said.
Pitt may not have been the best actor for the role, but he doesn’t suck as many have said. My post was directed at them. I’m sure you’ve noticed not too many posters here share your cogent brand of logic when forming their “own” opinions.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
That may hurt your feelings but I am sure you and that poster over your bed of him will get over it in time.
Just believe.[/quote]
BTW…Not really necessary. An attempt at humor, but in actuality, just not cool.
[quote]Panther1015 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
That may hurt your feelings but I am sure you and that poster over your bed of him will get over it in time.
Just believe.
BTW…Not really necessary. An attempt at humor, but in actuality, just not cool. [/quote]
So it DID hurt your feelings? Several people have stated that they disliked Pitt in that movie for the same reason I did. He was NOT convincing. I would imagine most people who weren’t “checking out his bod” came to the same conclusion. He DID suck in that role since he wasn’t convincing as that character. Does that mean he sucks in general as an actor? Of course not. I don’t go to movies to look at Brad. I go to movies to be entertained. I was NOT very entertained by Troy. It was like a group of women got together like on Sex in The City and came up with the cast over pints of ice-cream.
Hopefully people are actually paying attention to WHY 300 worked. It was written well and the acting was great. they gave the parts to the right people. Brad Pitt would make a fucking horrible King Leonidas.
Seems strange that not many people are commenting on Xerxes. I actually thought that they portrayed him surprisingly well.
It seems like they actually made him like a believable god-king, he was HUGE and had that deep ass voice, but his face was really feminine looking.
He also seems really morally deficient, though it’s actually kind of hard to say why, other than that he’s cocky.
[quote]Agent Frost wrote:
I saw the film Saturday night… then turned right back around and saw it Sunday afternoon and am seeing it in IMAX this weekend!
Best film i have seen so far this year. Miller is a GENIUS! Sin City, the Elektra character, 300! G-d bless that man!
PS BOTH times i saw the film the ENTIRE sold out theater rose in applause when queen Gorgo gutted Theron!
“Only Spartan women give birth to real men.”
[/quote]
My theater got applause at the same moment. Seriously, how often is the FEMALE the one who gets to kill the guy who raped her?
Truly, a well done portrayal of the strength of Spartan women! Her husband didn’t come save her, no soldiers no men. She just stabbed the bastard. I felt it was a truly awesome moment for female heroes in movies!
[quote]Agent Frost wrote:
…
From what i have been reading and understand… many times Spartans entered into combat armourless, or with very little armour on to prove there superiority in battle.
…
[/quote]
Oh no buddy, you got the wrong guys here. Spartans DID fight armored. Very well armored I should say. Besides the Corinthian helmet, and the Hoplon shield (actually called the Aspis), they wore bronze Breastplate, and bronze Greaves for the lower legs.
Now the guys that fought naked were the Gaesatae. Warriors from Gaul (modern day France) who fought with a long oval shield, a sword, and a few javelins. They were extremely strong, and fearless.
Also, some Celtic Britons fought without armor too. They painted themselves in blue woad because they believed it had spiritual protective powers.
What I love about this whole discussion is that we forget that the Spartans lost, and that the war of 480 was actually won by a corrupt politician, tricking the Persians into battle and destroying their supply lines.
As long as the Persians were supplied, a delay of three days at Thermopylae, while destroying a major component of Greek fighting ability was probably seen a good bargain. But when Themistocles crushed the Persian navy, it was another matter. A horse can carry 10 days of fodder, a man perhaps two weeks. A large expeditionary force would need a continuous flow of logistics to be able to move. Xerxes did not go home in a sulk. The Persians simply had to withdraw a major part of the troops to continue fighting. This changed the balance of forces so that the Greeks when regrouped could win at Plataea the next year.
Call me an unromantic soul, but I think Leonidas should have disengaged at the end of day two and gone to work on the Persian train instead;-)
TQB
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
spiderman739 wrote:
Troy doesnt deserved to be mentioned in the same breath as Gladiator and Braveheart. Troy is so very UN-manly that it sucks testosterone out of you as you watch.
How did Troy become so unmanly? It’s taken word for word from the greatest war story ever told… I must be missing something here.[/quote]
Sorry dood, it was so historically inaccurate it was painful to watch the whole thing… They pussified it to make it more appealing to the pussified masses…
300 was great! I read this thread a few days ago and I guess the last one I saw was Figtin Irish and his post on Troy. I’m glad to see the general consensus is negative on Troy. I didn’t care for Troy either.
The thing I remember about Troy is a pathetic Peter O’Toole phoning in his performance and his most memorable lines repeated ad naseum “It’s the will of the Gods.” There were some good fight scenes in Troy but overall I hated the movie.
“It’s not YOUR arm anymore.”
300 may not be everything to everyone. Is it as complete as Gladiator or Braveheart? No, but niether was it trying to. They could have made it 3 hours long and accomplished that feat very easily, it’s not really that hard to put a good story line into a movie and develop the hell out of it.
This movie was not about storyline, it was about strength and principles, and it delivered those with a devastating right cross followed by a spear thust into your open mouth and through the back of your head.
The mutants were Awsome in this movie, this was a time when people were just starting to not believe in the old greek gods, and the monsters that came along with them, but the trumped up wolf and rhino were nothing short of stellar.
This Isn’t Saving private ryan, its a cinematic version of a real life event thats purpose was to bring the slobering masses a message. Most of you got it, which is actually kind of sad. I would think that this place would have 100% understanding of the beuty and glory of this film.
I remember not too long ago people on here were talking about an online clip where some huge black guy beats a guy in a small pizza shop close to death over a 5 minute period while 10-15 able bodied people stood less than a foot away and did nothing.
Not only did they do nothing, they didn’t even watch it, they turned thier heads and most likley tuned out the sounds of ribs getting cracked and a mans skull being broken.
I’m not suggesting someone should have pulled a spear and run it through the guy, allthough i’m also not saying they shouldn’t have. The main point is that people today have no idea what strength is.
Strength is not lifting 1000 lbs off the floor, it is the ability to stand for what you believe in no matter the costs. The founders of this country knew this virtue well, and hopefully with films like this, just enough of us will remember that we too need to stand in the face of evil.
This movie should be a requirement for all tennage boys and girls to watch once a month for a solid year. Many of us are too old to have this affect the way we live our lives, maybe the next generations can make up for our complacency and weakness with thier strength.
V
[quote]Vegita wrote:
300 may not be everything to everyone. Is it as complete as Gladiator or Braveheart? No, but niether was it trying to. They could have made it 3 hours long and accomplished that feat very easily, it’s not really that hard to put a good story line into a movie and develop the hell out of it.
This movie was not about storyline, it was about strength and principles, and it delivered those with a devastating right cross followed by a spear thust into your open mouth and through the back of your head.
The mutants were Awsome in this movie, this was a time when people were just starting to not believe in the old greek gods, and the monsters that came along with them, but the trumped up wolf and rhino were nothing short of stellar.
This Isn’t Saving private ryan, its a cinematic version of a real life event thats purpose was to bring the slobering masses a message. Most of you got it, which is actually kind of sad. I would think that this place would have 100% understanding of the beuty and glory of this film.
I remember not too long ago people on here were talking about an online clip where some huge black guy beats a guy in a small pizza shop close to death over a 5 minute period while 10-15 able bodied people stood less than a foot away and did nothing.
Not only did they do nothing, they didn’t even watch it, they turned thier heads and most likley tuned out the sounds of ribs getting cracked and a mans skull being broken.
I’m not suggesting someone should have pulled a spear and run it through the guy, allthough i’m also not saying they shouldn’t have. The main point is that people today have no idea what strength is.
Strength is not lifting 1000 lbs off the floor, it is the ability to stand for what you believe in no matter the costs. The founders of this country knew this virtue well, and hopefully with films like this, just enough of us will remember that we too need to stand in the face of evil.
This movie should be a requirement for all tennage boys and girls to watch once a month for a solid year. Many of us are too old to have this affect the way we live our lives, maybe the next generations can make up for our complacency and weakness with thier strength.
V[/quote]
Very nice. Many people here equate manliness with simply lifting heavy things. The message of standing up to evil came through loud and clear in this movie. Unfortunately, self-preservation at all costs is a virtue to some people. This message is lost on them. “Self-sacrifice is for suckers” is their motto.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
It was interesting, don’t get me wrong, but I’d have been alot happier if I’d seen it on HBO as opposed to paying ten bucks at a theater.
Gladiator, Braveheart, and Troy still kick this movie’s ass though.[/quote]
It is only $10.00 dollars. I never understood that argument people spend more money on paying for HBO for a month, hell people spend more money on just about anything.
I agree on character evolution but we all knew what we were in store for. Connor I don’t know what you mean by the lesbian themes? I know that Young Spartans usually were cared for by an older male (mentor) and formed homosexual relationships, in fact I believe male and female sexual relationships were generally saved for consummation.
I believe the homosexual bond was used also in battle to make you fight harder as they were likely about as close as they could be emotionally and physically, they kind of skipped over that I can see why with the current societal acceptance of female homosexuality but not so much for males.
Not only as such but your typical average Joe is so homophobic it would crush his image of the mighty Spartans.
I thought Gerard Butler did an excellent job, very good performance. Like what was said by the original poster who I agree with.