this one's for the guys

[Full Quiver]

OK, since my original thought was totally hijacked I will play along. This scenario, history and a movie, were said to have taken place how many years before Christ? 480 years as it is told. Now we are to believe every word as written by these Greek historians who believe that Leonidas was the descendant of a mythical god as well. My theory is that we can not believe Greek history anymore than we can believe Hollywood. Hollywood at least says the movie is based on history. Who really cares; it was a decent movie.

[Pianoman]

I know this was for the guys, but I had to express my opinion anyway. We've been married nearly 39 years and the only one I have a problem with is Sherry Easter, I know how pretty and talented she is, and he likes her. Its got to the point now that he really rags it on. Its all in fun (I think) but still bugs me.

FYI - Sheri was recently diagnosed with breast cancer & had surgery today. Initial reports are that the surgery was performed without any complications.

Don't know if you've ever seen her up close & in person - but she is a VERY petite little thing. I had a photo taken with her awhile back & didn't realize how short she was (or how tall I am) until I saw it. We had them as one of the guests at our group's homecoming and she & Jeff are very sweet people. If you ever need a bus mechanic - Jeff is your man!

[one love]

300 is a great movie and I am confused as to what the problem is. Surely one would not expect it to be perfectly accurate it is a movie. Not to mention nobody could give a perfect relection of that battle.

I dont know all the historical facts I admit that but you have mentioned the same names of the king of sparta and of persia.
was there really 300 men that held them off , with the help of a close by army?
Were there oracles in there religion?
Im just curious what is it that is so off? As mentioned I dont know but what I have seen posted here is in the movie.

which is a good movie

[TW]

TW, would I be correct in saying that they "interpolated" the story?

Interpolate is a kind word.

Rambo, the problem with saying this was only a "graphic novel, much like 'Sin City'" is tha in Sin City the locale and characters were totally fictitious. They might very well have been modeled after a certain locale or person, but they made no claim to being that locale or person. Whereas in 300 the lead character is supposed to be Leonidas I, King of Sparta, and the events are supposed to be representations of the actual Battle of Thermopylae. Those claims remove it from the graphic novel model. If you are going to represent historical events, at least try to be accurate.


TW

I disagree. The burden should not lie with Frank Miller, the author of the graphic novel, nor with those who made the movie (who openly talk about not trying to be historically correct). The burden should be on the audience. It is not an artists job to make sure everyone knows all the facts behind their inspiration, in order for them to create and use real people, events, and places for their own creative output. Im sure almost every piece of artistic or entertaining art has been inspired in some way or another by some entity in reality.

I bet you havnt even seen the movie, much less checked out the graphic novel. What gives you the right to criticize something you havnt seen or read for yourself?

Jamais Vu,

Following your logic on "artistic license," and the creation and use of real people, events, and places for their own creative output, could I assume that you would have the same condescending attitude if the movie producers used any historical figure in this vein? What if they made a movie about Jesus, dressed him in a loin cloth, had him say and do anything they wanted? Would it be alright as long as at the end of the movie they had him crucified? Would that be acceptable to you?


TW

[Jamais Vu]

TW, would I be correct in saying that they "interpolated" the story?

Interpolate is a kind word.

Rambo, the problem with saying this was only a "graphic novel, much like 'Sin City'" is tha in Sin City the locale and characters were totally fictitious. They might very well have been modeled after a certain locale or person, but they made no claim to being that locale or person. Whereas in 300 the lead character is supposed to be Leonidas I, King of Sparta, and the events are supposed to be representations of the actual Battle of Thermopylae. Those claims remove it from the graphic novel model. If you are going to represent historical events, at least try to be accurate.


TW

I disagree. The burden should not lie with Frank Miller, the author of the graphic novel, nor with those who made the movie (who openly talk about not trying to be historically correct). The burden should be on the audience. It is not an artists job to make sure everyone knows all the facts behind their inspiration, in order for them to create and use real people, events, and places for their own creative output. Im sure almost every piece of artistic or entertaining art has been inspired in some way or another by some entity in reality.

I bet you havnt even seen the movie, much less checked out the graphic novel. What gives you the right to criticize something you havnt seen or read for yourself?

Jamais Vu,

Following your logic on "artistic license," and the creation and use of real people, events, and places for their own creative output, could I assume that you would have the same condescending attitude if the movie producers used any historical figure in this vein? What if they made a movie about Jesus, dressed him in a loin cloth, had him say and do anything they wanted? Would it be alright as long as at the end of the movie they had him crucified? Would that be acceptable to you?


TW

You can assume as much as you want all day long, that still does not change the fact that you are criticizing a novel and a movie that you have neither read nor watched. This also does not change the fact that people have creative energy inside of them that they release through various outlets, all of which you have zero authority over. If you are so bothered by a movie loosely based on historical events not being 100% accurate, then i think the only other alternative is to make your own movie living up to your own expectations.

If a movie was made about the life of Jesus, and that movie was historically incorrect, yet i never watched it nor had intentions to, i dont think i would even bother trying to talk bad about it to someone who has actually SEEN IT.

[RamboPreacher]

documentary/historical reproduction does not equate entertainment/graphic novel in video.

different genre's. does one read the Book of Luke and the Book of Daniel with the same expectations as to content?

[TW]

If a movie was made about the life of Jesus, and that movie was historically incorrect, yet i never watched it nor had intentions to, i dont think i would even bother trying to talk bad about it to someone who has actually SEEN IT.

You would make no attempt to correct any incorrect concepts that such a movie might produce in someone that was not familiar with the life of Jesus?

Oh well, I guess that truth only matters until it gets in the way of being entertained.


TW

[Jamais Vu]

If a movie was made about the life of Jesus, and that movie was historically incorrect, yet i never watched it nor had intentions to, i dont think i would even bother trying to talk bad about it to someone who has actually SEEN IT.

You would make no attempt to correct any incorrect concepts that such a movie might produce in someone that was not familiar with the life of Jesus?

Oh well, I guess that truth only matters until it gets in the way of being entertained.


TW

"that such a movie"......such a movie as 300...NO. I would try to explain to the unfamiliar first that movies are not REAL. I think knowing the difference between real life and make believe would be a better start.

The truth matters in REALITY. You are trying to make a work of fiction hold standards that should only apply to "historical documents".

There is no discussion here because you are talking about one, and i am talking about another. As much as you want to blur the line and confuse others about the movie, it will not work on those of us who are capable of grasping the idea of a movie inspired by real events and people, yet not claiming to historically fact.

[TW]

Jamais Vu wrote:

"that such a movie"......such a movie as 300...

You are as good at skirting the truth as are the people that produced 300. I did not ask you about the movie 300, I asked about a movie "inspired" by Jesus.

Jamais Vu wrote:

I would try to explain to the unfamiliar first that movies are not REAL. I think knowing the difference between real life and make believe would be a better start.

The problem with this is that most people develop their views of ancient history based upon what they see on TV and in the movies. Our educational system does not afford much time for the study of the ancient world. For most people this means simply memorizing names and dates to answer test question in their World History class in high school. They lack a base from which to judge fact from fiction.

Jamais Vu wrote:

The truth matters in REALITY. You are trying to make a work of fiction hold standards that should only apply to "historical documents".

The truth always matters. I am not trying to force a fictional work to be a "historical document'" only to be faithful to the major historical facts. The biggest problem that I have with this movie is the total omission of the other Greeks that were in the battle. The movie depicts the Greek forces as only the 300 Spartans, ignoring the fact that on the first two days of fighting the Greek forces number at least 5200. After Leonidas dismissed the rest of his army except for the Spartans, they were joined by 700 Thespians, 400 Thebans, and 900 Helots. That gave the Greeks a force of 1800 men defending that low hill which became their final resting place. Do those 1500 other Greeks deserve less honor than the Spartans. I think not, they gave their lives in defense of their homeland the same as the Spartans. This is a major historical fact that has been deliberately omitted.

Jamais Vu wrote:

As much as you want to blur the line and confuse others about the movie,

I want to blur the line? Who's post have you been reading? I think that if anything, I have drawn a sharper line. A line to separate historically based and inspired fiction, with which I have no fight as long as it remains faithful to history, and out right lies propagated for no other reason than to generate spectacular fight scenes.

Jamais Vu wrote:

it will not work on those of us who are capable of grasping the idea of a movie inspired by real events and people, yet not claiming to historically fact.

That anybody with an IQ greater than 40 could write this amazes me. Let me try to understand this. Make a movie . . . be inspired by real events (historical events) . . . real people (historical people). . . but yet, not historical. Hmmmmmm.

I am not asking that the movie be a documentary about the battle. I realize that the movie is for entertainment, that there will be character development that is not provable history, that there will be sub-plots to add interest, that the costumes and equipment might be a little off for visual reasons. However, I do not feel that it is asking to much for the movie to be a little more faithful to the truth.

I will repeat myself here. The movie 300 may indeed be entertaining, but it remains bad history.


TW

[Jamais Vu]

Get off your high horse.....IT IS JUST A MOVIE, a movie made by HOLLYWOOD....for ENTERTAINMENT. This movie was not made for you obviously, and since YOU HAVE NOT EVEN WATCHED IT, perhaps you should just drop it. If little ole me with my superior mind can understand the difference between 300 and a history book, then surely the all knowing TW can too???

That anybody with an IQ greater than 40 could write this amazes me. Let me try to understand this. Make a movie . . . be inspired by real events (historical events) . . . real people (historical people). . . but yet, not historical. Hmmmmmm.

Yes if you look around you can find plenty of examples.....like the hollywood movies about september 11th......YES indeed terrorists attacked the twin towers.....yes indeed real people were heros and real people died....should those movies be considered "historical"? According to you they should, according to me they should not. No need for your condescending insults, they make you look foolish.

Personally i think we should burn Da Vinci's portrait of "The Last Supper" since he did not quite capture the correct length of Jesus beard. Such propagated filth!!

[c u there]

I hope you did not think I meant anything ugly by what I said about Sheri Easter. I had no idea of what she was /is going through and pray for only the best for her. I also believe she is pretty and extremely talented as I said, and no I don't know her personally but they both seem like great people. Its just been a little thing between me and hubby through the years, and he knows it gets to me a little so I guess it makes him feel good. I am very sorry if I offended anyone, certainly was not my intention.

[Pianoman]

I hope you did not think I meant anything ugly by what I said about Sheri Easter. I had no idea of what she was /is going through and pray for only the best for her. I also believe she is pretty and extremely talented as I said, and no I don't know her personally but they both seem like great people. Its just been a little thing between me and hubby through the years, and he knows it gets to me a little so I guess it makes him feel good. I am very sorry if I offended anyone, certainly was not my intention.

Didn't think that in the least! I just happened to receive the email about her coming out of surgery while I was reading this post & since you knew who she was thought you might find it of interest. My sweety & I actually have a similar rivalry going with Guy Penrod & Janet Paschal. I never myself thought Guy was much to look at - so never have understood why the ladies like him? I always thought Janet had the prettiest smile of just about any singer I've ever known. Can't remember a time I've seen her that she wasn't smiling. We rib each other a lot when the Gaither shows come on - but all good natured & we both know it's all in good fun.

[c u there]

Thanks pianoman , I feel better. I was just not sure by your response if maybe I had offended somehow. I think Guy Penrod is totally handsome too,btw.

[one love]

TW for someone as yourself who is a real big history buff I see your point however the movie (to my knowledge) does not claim to be perfectly accurate but rather the story was inspired by that battle.
It also is only a portion of the battle and it does show the other army that came with them, it was not only the 300 for the whole movie.

I understand but keep in mind it can be good, the first thing I did after watching the movie was google the battle and characters. It made me interested in it.

so who knows

[pastorables]

I will repeat myself here. The movie 300 may indeed be entertaining, but it remains bad history.


TW

I absolutely get this idea.

I always thought that "Remember the Titans" was historically factual to the real life accounts. Upon further study, I have found out that it's very much a Hollywood account of the story line and the people involved. I understand that the original "Walking Tall" was also touched up by Hollywood.

pa