Any chitchat maybe, about that... "historic" movie

[lupus]

Firstly, I think Frank Miller is a TERRIFIC artist. His style is so much more interesting than most comic book artists, very loose and gorgeously inked - almost reminiscent of early Greek art itself. It is sometimes very lazy, othertimes it's beautifully detailed. The whole comic book looks absolutely delicious (and I can't think of any other word, honestly...) with fantastic watercolour work by Miller's wife. Speaking from an artists' point of view, '300' is comic-noir. I'm more of a cartoon fan, but this comic, at the very least, looks very nice

As an artist myself (comic artist aswell, too), I COULDN'T AGREE more!
He is superb artist, ALTHOUGH if you are working on a HISTORIC event, from my part, I think the artist must NOT add so MANY "personal" elements.

I'm pointing to another great comic artist, a US artist, that BLOW my mind with his SUPERB RESEARCH and art:

Eric Shanower, "Age of Bronze" (the epic story about Homer's "ILIAD")

If you take a look in his alboum-books, you'll be SHOCKED from his HISTORIC accurancy for these Ancient Times, of Bronze's Age...

One can wonder exactly why Miller portrayed the hoplites as he does. Most people seem to believe it's in homage of ancient Hellenic vase paintings, sculptures and reliefs, which frequently "glorified" their warriors by showing that they needn't need any armour to be a great fighter. But this style of art seems to have never taken off in Sparta, who apparently clothed all their depictions whenever necessary. And if Miller wants to glorify the Spartans by giving them no cuirass... then why do they still wear greaves, sandals and additional bronze on their arms? Miller's decision perplexes me and I would like this comic MUCH more if the Spartans wore their correct armour (and maybe got rid of the cloak and sandals in the process. Arm gear seems to have only been worn on parade in this period, also). More horrifying still is that Leonidas is the only character in the entire comic with a crest on their helmet... and get this, it's nothing pretty like a transverse, a double or a tall crest, it's just your ordinary front-to-back one. This makes the other Spartans look even more naked!
Miller may have chosen this story because it's more original than just your typical superhero one (he made a few Batman comics back in the day). However, the superheroes are still there - the Spartans, heavily cloaked and seemingly immortal (even when not in phalanx formation!) are just as cliched as any other superhero, if a little less pompous.

This is a nice, although too "simple" explaination. Greeks used to showing NUDE warriors in statues/paintings, NOT because they DIDN'T need armor, but because they LOVED human body/anatomy and showing a nude warrior was MORE... epic!

Believe me... Spartans and ALL REST GREEKS, were not "Batman & Robin" or "X-Men"! They were NOT "Supermen"!
They NEEDED PRETTY MUCH any protection they could have!

Showing them naked, it's a bit of... "Xena" TV show approach... A "Hollywood" aproach...

(Even P. Jackson's... Lothlorien ELVES in "Lord of the Rings" - IMMORTAL RACE, in Tolkien's mythology! - they were COMPLETELY covered by armor!)...

I find it absolutely amazing how (in my opinion) the most beautiful looking helmet of all time, the Corinthian, can be mutated into the downright hideous representation it's getting in the movie. Miller drew his Corinthians rather accurately, so why have they been bloated into this tosh? They don't even look threatening or intimidating, as was the helmet's intention. They just look downright stupid.
To kick Greek historians while they're down, the sword being used by the Spartans in this movie will be a very stylized looking kopis, although the blade is much too straight and appears to be more of a Medieval two-handed-sword then anything else. The scabbard, usually worn over one shoulder, is worn across the waist by the actors in this film.
The costumes look very true to the comic (which is not a good thing!) and generally just don't seem to translate well onto the big screen with real-time actors, while they are somewhat acceptable in the very modern comic, they look ridiculous in real life.
The aspii of the Spartans also have the Lamtha on them, while they should have seperate mora designs in this period. This is a common misconception and can be excused whence compared to all the other inauthenticities

Like I said... This movie is a SUPERB conversion of this fine comic-book!
Indeed!
But IT'S NOT A HISTORIC MOVIE! It's a FANTASY movie - close more to "Lord of the Rings" type of movies...

I like an accurated historical movie. Even... "Asterix & Cleopatra" is more historic accurated...

There is no sight of historical Spartans like Aristodemus, Dienekes and Eurytus- instead we have some fictional ones called Daxos, Delios and Stelios. Ephilates, truly from Malis, is represented as a grotesquely handicapped Spartan, with bulging blisters all over his face and back. Both of these are used to make the story more interesting, although hideous and disfigured characters were cliche in 90's adult comics, and I think the trend has continued.
Miller shows numerous different phalanx-type formations in the comic, although not once are they totally accurate. He even adopts a testudo-type formation near the end of the comic. As a final noteworthy quote, one of the crew working with '300' said something along the lines of "we know nothing of how they fought", in regards to the Spartan hoplites. Frankly, I've never heard so much garbage in my life. This sort of thing is inexcusable- we know more about hoplites than ANY other warrior of their time.

About Dienekes, you're wrong! We don't have any evidents or details about him (was he an 'Enomotarch' - squad-leader?), but WE DO know that HE WAS the one that said "Great! We will fight under the Shade!"...

And making the hoplites fighting like ANYTHING ELSE, except... Hoplites' formation is stupid enough!

Simply though, I don't think we need to put the blame on Hollywood (maybe only as to why they choose 300 over Gates of Fire... although Sin City was a smash, so I suppose it was inevitable), instead we should blame Miller for screwing everything up in the first place!

I'm respecting your opinion, but I'm TOTALY DISSAGREE on this!
I'm SO MUCH of blaming Hollywood!
Damn! LETS STAY ON THEIR HISTORY, if they like to TWISTING Historic events!
Why they keep working on OTHER NATIONS' History???

Hollywood made "Alamo" the movie, well-directed and much accurated on the true facts!
WHY they DIDN'T TWISTED that event TOO?

(First of all, I like to write a thought... Does these producers SHOULD FIRST took a permission from the Greek Culture Ministry or something alike? Or to hire a Greek History Professor or something?)

Anyway...

I'm a TOTAL SPARTAN "follower" and I'm NOT gonna see that movie; I'm protesting against that childish version!
Modern kidds DON'T reading books - UNFORTUNATELLY! - and they "educating" themselves from other "resourses". Movies are one of these "resourses"...
So, any kidd that will see that movie, will get TOTALY INACCURATED informations about the Ancient Spartans...

(I didn't see "Troy", I'm not gonna see "300" aswell...)

Regards...