Hacker Cinema
300
2007 · Film · 117 min
Part of 300 Collection
Directed by Zack Snyder
A story very loosely based the 480 B.C. Battle of Thermopylae, where the King of Sparta led his army against the advancing Persians.
6 positive21 negative1 mixed47 neutralfrom 75 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
88 comments on Hacker News
Leave it to HN to over-intellectualize and twist something obvious because why not?
The cretins in charge of the country think the problem is that the soldiers don't have enough testosterone and have too much facial hair, and these people are capable of this next-level deception of the enemy? I don't think so.
Their idea of an army is the movie "300" - on oiled up, violent homoerotic phantasy. Soon, that's what's going to be actually left.
It reminds me of the recent claim about how AI is resulting in a booming job market for philosophers. Then when you look at it, it turns out single-digit numbers have been hired at Anthropic and OpenAI, and that’s about it.
The point is it’s unlikely to have some sort of significantly or lasting cultural impact, any more than say “The 300” or “Beowulf” or “Gods of Egypt” or any of the other quite long list of such movies did.
Its also because they built it entirely on slaves and refused citizenship to most. 300 was an entertaining movie but it left out the slavery that was central to Sparta.
This reminds me of the movie 300 where an army shows up with potters and other tradesmen, while the army of Sparta were all soldiers.
Opinion: as an expat, I'm not sure who would join the CAF nowadays. Not much to be proud of in my opinion. Without exaggerating, not a single person I grew up with is doing well, and I had to leave Canada to start my family.
Another thing we could do is watch the documentary 300 to learn about how the Spartans fought off Xerxes.
I don't quite buy it. There's a line in Herodotus' Histories about Persian arrows blocking out the sun, and that implies a volley to me.
I don't have time to find a link now but if you google it you'll see.
(Incidentally, it's also in the movie 300)
>i remember in 2007 i noticed that movies sucked… i was a teenager. and i was right
You had an opinion, it was neiter right nor wrong. I was a teenager and watched Juno, 300, Bay's Transformers, And Pirates of the Carribean 3. I thought it was a renaissance. It's all based on personal experience.
> things are not the same regardless of how much you want to believe that
So how is this related to a union in 2025?
Uuuuuff....
I am Spartan. I grew up in Sparta, Greece. I am in my "ancient Sparta" reading phase for some months now, I read everything from (modern) Greek, Foreign authors and researchers, as well as ancient texts with references to Sparta (even books/scrolls about "Helen of Troy" or as we call her in Greece/Greek "beautiful Helene" - Ωραία Ελένη.
There is SO MUCH to know about (Ancient) Sparta.
Two Kings? - Check City without Walls? (who would be crazy enough to attack?) - Check Simple legislation? (one written Law - Lycurgus) - Check (debatable - depends on the book/scroll) One prison cell - 4 walls, no ceiling, you stay in until some other criminal is convicted and replaced you (not much crime back in the day) - Check There was a big shift in the change of the dominant 'tribe' (Δωριείς vs Αχαιοί) post the financial ruin and loss of many men of the Trojan War.
Anyway.. for anyone who hasn't read about Ancient Sparta, it is one of the 'things' that reading it will fulfill you.
Fun fact for the movie 300. The producers sent photographers and photographed the valley, mountains, made an actual scenery of the landscape. I remember watching the movie and understanding where EXACTLY they had placed their cameras from the angle of the mountains, etc. I later asked around and they verified my suspicion. One issue though.. they they started "marching north" towards Thermopylae, in reality/in the real landscape they walked to the SOUTH, and I remember watching the movie in Athens, and apparently it was me and some other Spartan in the audience, so we both yelled at that point "hey malakes, you are going the wrong way"
One last thing. Perhaps for the foreigners the most famous phrase is "μολων λαβε". For Greeks (I bet you!) is "ή ταν ή επί τας" which literally translates to "either THE or ON THE", which means "I will either walk back CARRYING my/THE shield, or I will be brought back dead CARRIED ON my/THE shield" (apologies for the caps)
Gotcha. As a fan of the 300 movie, "We are Sparta boarding" will now forever live rent-free in my head.
You do realize that many, many movies have been edited in various versions of Final Cut Pro on Macs right? Including several Academy Award winners.
Movies like _Parasite_, _The Social Network_, and _300_, to name just a few.
If that's a toy, I'd love to hear what is industrial strength.
Is this kind of like 300 was a movie about a Frank Miller novel about a Greek legend about the actual Battle of Thermopylae?
> weren't as bad
that's one hell of an endorsement, and not a good one. pretty much sums it up. 300 and Sin City at least styled them to look like the comic they were based, but the Willy Wonka and Alice all just were a bunch of nope from me. these movies just look/feel uncanny valley, and we just expected to accept it.
compare Mad Max Fury Road. yes, there's some digital additions, but it feels real because so much of it was real.
Thinking for yourself required knowledge and actual study, not just something people can do on a moment's notice.
For example, thinking about the movie 300(2006) required some knowledge of how aristocratic Sparta actually works. It's basically a fascist movie glorifying the brutality of Spartan warriors with no question on its actual efficacy as a fighting force(unremarkable). I recommend this essay on why Sparta sucks.[1]
1. https://aeon.co/essays/who-are-the-leaders-in-our-heads-and-how-did-they-get-there
Heh, obvious a cultured man of knowledge (or anyone who watched the movie 300 and read wikipedia) would know that these are major leaders of Sparta
Grant, Sherman, Meade
Churchill, Roosevelt, De Gaulle
It's to filter the cultured elite from the unread plebes.
In the movie 300, after Leonidas and the 300 decide to march North towards Thermopylae. The valley & mountains in the background are REALLY from Sparta, Grecet. The producers made had sent crews to take enough photos and videos of the valleygt to accurately portrait the landscape. It was eerie to watch the movie (I grew up in Sparta) and see the mountains all around as they really are. BUT (big but here) they march SOUTH while they should be marching NORTH.
When I watched it at the cinema (in Athens) back in the day, apparently there was one more Spartan in the venue and we both stood up and shouted (using different words) something to the effect of: hey morons, you are going the wrong way, you should be marchin North!!
You say “modern” but we could say “western” as well. There is a well documented gradient in attitudes of elites to autocracy as a style of leadership between Europe and Asia. I.e as Alexander the Great moved east, he took up to the local institutions of totalitarian leadership, and was considered a total dick by his generals due this.
Also traditional example is the feud between Greek city states and Persia (Which is documented in the painstakingly historically accurate movies such as ‘300’).
I’m not saying peoples are predestined to be forever in one system of governance, but the differences predate enlightenment way, way back.
For me, the 90's X-Men theme doesn't work in the movie 300.
The Ephorate did have power, which ultimately corrupts them to some degree, but they were not required to be wealthy and their term lasted for only one year.
My initial comment was about the "deep state" (non-electable de-facto powers with vast influence) in Sparta, which were the rich families run by the πατρούχοι that had an immense influence over the diarchy and Sparta at large. They used their wealth to influence most of the Spartan institutions, resulting in more wealth which ultimately tipped the balance of power to their side.
You are just incredibly confused, thinking that I am talking about the movie/visual novel 300, and then turning this into some kind of movie review.
Let me save you the public shame and let's cut this exchange short. Have a good life and enjoy learning about history.
The movie "300". In the US most people's knowledge of Sparta comes from the movie "300". It's part of the romantic mythos, the underdogs that saved western civilization against amazing odds. You had a particular reaction to the contradiction of that version, I had just assumed that was the background.
So I'm not really following your argument.
I thought you were arguing that the submitted article was wrong. It was really the corrupt Elites that were the problem, not soldiers.
I posted something about elites and soldiers being in the same class.
You replied with link to Ephors, I thought to argue that Ephors were the 'elite's that were corrupt and lead to the downfall of Sparta.
I quoted about Ephors being generally elected and frequently from the poor, and soldiers. And also agreeing that they were corrupt, but not purely a class of 'elite's.
Then you sent video that seems to praise the 'ephor's. Not only were they not elites, they were actually trying to do the right thing, fighting for the people. (so I thought opposite of your original post, original post implied Ephors were bad, but this video makes them out as good). But, the video does point out who the elites were. They "Gerousia" which was a council of elders that were actually the more typical 'elites'. Old, entrenched, not elected, and had power over the Ephors. So the "Gerousia" are the 'elites' to blame, not the honest fighting soldiers.
But generally, the Video makes clear that we don't know much about this time period, and that by the time Rome was moving in, Sparta was a small village that couldn't form an army. So was it 'corruption' of the elites? Or stagnation? Still, nothing really contradicts the posted article.
As stated elsewhere I think. Right-Wing glorification of Sparta is really based mostly on the movie 300, and not on much 'historical fact'.
Not that this bad. Most of our romanticized notions are incorrect. I also loved the movie 300 and if that is the romantic ideal for manly fighting, then so be it. That is fine. Call this some kind of 'Spartan Fighting Spirit'. Just don't take it as fact. Kind of like the Arthurian Ideal of Knighthood and Chivalry. It is a very powerful symbol, even if not very 'accurate'.
That isn't really an accurate take.
Most 'right wingers' only fetishize Sparta based on what they learned from the movie 300. Kind of like a lot of 'right wingers' say they are Christian, but have never read the bible and have no idea what they believe in. (for example, Jesus didn't actually support killing neighbors with guns).
Like from the Movie 300, it is made out like Athens are 'gay', 'boy lovers'.
When it is pretty clearly documented that Spartans were very homosexual. Since the movie changed this, 'right wingers' feel ok fetishizing them. (and, I do like how you used the word "fetish" here, it almost makes me think this was a long con reverse troll post).
I don't see any lies.
The link supports the claim is that 'Molṑn Labé' is used as a "political rallying cry", in this case by Rep. Jeff Duncan making a political rally cry in support of access to guns.
That is indeed a Spartan saying: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molon_labe .
It was also used "by members of the extreme right who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021." For example, from 'SPARTANS ON THE CAPITOL: Recent Far-Right Appropriations of Spartan Militarism in the USA and their Historical Roots' - https://www.academia.edu/download/96214086/Beerden_Epping_2022_Classical_Controversies.pdf#page=59
] The display of ‘Spartan’ symbols during the insurrection of 6 January 2021 represented the culmination of an increasing recent trend whereby the U.S. Far-Right has appropriated martial images of the Spartans (linked especially to the battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC) to support their causes. Three strands of appropriation have been prominent: Three strands of appropriation have been prominent: first, exploitation of the phrase MOLON LABE, supposedly uttered at Thermopylae by Sparta’s king Leonidas, by the firearms industry and gun-rights activists as a selling-point and a rallying cry against restrictions on gun ownership; secondly, use of imagery from Zack Snyder’s film 300 (2006) by supporters of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign; thirdly, invocations of ‘Spartan’ military symbols and Sparta’s martial reputation to mobilise violence against the leftist movement labelled ‘Antifa’.
> Is my takeaway supposed to be that anybody who names anything after the Spartans is associated with a bunch of idiotic boomers who were way too butthurt over losing that election?
... No? I think it's supposed to be that perhaps your understanding is incomplete and there is context you aren't aware of? Perhaps a newer context than one used to, for example, choose the name "Spartans" for the Michigan State University mascot back in 1925?
Did you watch the movie 300? Then you know
Never said it did. Just felt like making a little historical aside.
>> What "people" say or write the one-dimensional stories you repeat?
Lots and lots of people throughout my life. Sorry I don't have any references and so on. I've heard people say variously that it was gunpowder, horses, or steel. I've heard this from teachers at school, from friends at casual conversations, from fellow wargamers when discussing history, by people in the TV, read comics and watched movies where that was the theme, and so on.
As to Thermopylae, it definitely wasn't 300 that made people think that was the number of soldiers on the Greek side. 300 was made because that was the number people knew, as a bit of folklore. And btw, I'm Greek myself which should, I hope, suffice as evidence for my claim. Everybody always forgets the Thespians.
If you are aware that those are misconceptions, why do you mind a comment that doesn't suffer from them?
I agree this (and related religious-political thought policing) are a dark side of what amounts to UBI which it where much of society is at. Do and say the right things, give up freedom of choice, and you're taken care of for life. Think for yourself and you're left in the cold.
It reminds me of the movie 300, where all Xerxes demands is that you kneel.
I'm sure they can figure out the history well enough to depict it, or punt on the accuracy. They probably figured it wouldn't be a popular enough setting for the intended audience.
It's been done a few times. Prince of Persia was set in a fantasy land without a real attempt at historical accuracy, but it was sorta Sasanid Persia. Similarly, Aladdin in Iraq. There was also the 2004 Alexander which was quite accurate, but it wasn't a good movie. And Lawrence of Arabia, sorta fictionalized but accurate in spirit, which was the best.
300 was interesting cause they made it clear the story was being told from the Greek perspective by having Dilios narrate it, and he hyped it up even more than the actual Greek historians did, instead of the movie presenting it as a factual view. The movie still pissed off the Iranian government, but whatever.
Again, depends on what's being shot. Like I said, 300 is a good pre-2010 example of a film stock/grain specifically chosen for it's artistic value.
However, for a bunch of film and especially tv shows, the choice had FAR less to do with aesthetics and was more related to cost. Big budget films certainly could pick any sort of equipment/stock they wanted. Lower budget productions didn't necessarily have that luxury.
I'm not saying it didn't happen, rather that the choice in stock was more often than not "cheap while being as clear as we can afford".
Again, you see this with modern film where grain is almost never added (except for specific scenes trying to give more of a dated effect). That, to me, says cinematographers aren't generally trying to pick their stock to add grain. Some do, but that's the exception and not the rule.
Now-a-days, I agree, grain is more of an aesthetic choice and for modern films. And, in fact, I generally don't enable de-noise when it's fairly clear that's what's happening.
However, for a lot of film shot pre-2010, grain is an artifact that's not there by choice or artistically. Other than perhaps the film 300.
It just so happens that most of my personal media fits in that box of being pre-2010 which is why I generally denoise.
Something like 30 rock, or The Office, for example, don't have film grain because of some artistic choice.
Interestingly, though, "That 70s' show" does in a few cases even though it's somewhat noisy be default. That's a more tough call.
To be fair to the author, his book was published in 2005, well ahead of 300: Rise of an Empire (2014) and a year prior to the original 300 film (2006).
I was going to complain that the article focus in videogames and does not mention movies, but I noticed that it has a few paragraphs about Bret Devereaux that wrote a serie of post about the differences of the movie 300 and the real Sparta. [warning: the blog is a huge time sink!] https://acoup.blog/2019/08/16/collections-this-isnt-sparta-part-i-spartan-school/
I think two things are going on, everyone remembers movies they watched as a kid/teen and thinks they where unusually good. It’s not that there was a golden age of movies, it’s that you personally had seen fewer movies.
That said, the ratio of original movies to sequels/franchises changed. Fast forward 20 years from Star Wars to 1997 and sure yet another Titanic, Jurassic Park 2, and a James Bond film but also, Men in Black, The Fifth Element, Liar Liar, As Good as It Gets etc so still mostly original movies.
But fast forward to 2017 and the top 10 movies included: Pirates of the Caribbean 3, Harry Potter 5, Spider-Man 3, Shrek 3, National Treasure 2, The Simpsons Movie, and Transformers. I Am Legend based on a book and 300 based on a comic. So only Ratatouille was actually new.
I say this as someone who still occasionally pulls up a YouTube video of a supercut of 300 up against the song "Tangerine Speedo" to emphasize the accidental homoeroticism of the movie, just for giggles: it's a graphic novel. Art oversimplifies to make its points, and graphic novels are no stranger to that. Perhaps they are even the best example of doing so.
That it doesn't align with your personal politics at the time is not a crime. It's not even interesting. I can imagine fewer things more boring than someone going over a work with a fine-toothed comb looking for violations of their own personal Hays Code. None of them will turn that level of inspection on their ideological pets, only their "problematic faves."
I dare her: do romance novels next, and do it from a men's rights perspective. I've read my fair share of them, they're all a real crapfest if you want to think of men as actual people instead of living props in the Happily Ever After each heroine is owed. But that doesn't sell clicks on Polygon.
>300 (released in 2006) was the first popular film that did this
Does Spider-Man count in 2002?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM7Eou4bV-Q&t=56s
> In 2010s slow-motion (high FPS played back at regular speed) was the thing. So every other video had the slow motion "water/colored dust hitting something" scene.
Probably more late-00s than 2010s, but IIRC, the optical-flow slowdown effect was created (and cheaply) distributed.
Older slow-mo effects required high FPS cameras. But with 00s technology, you could optical-flow time warp to any slowdown you desired, with mostly good looking results. 300 (released in 2006) was the first popular film that did this, but IIRC the effect was being used in a lot of action films all over the place.
Slow-motion was definitely the "Oh wow, that looks cool, and it costs so cheap. Lets do it" effect of the 00s.
Let's be honest, 99% of the average American's knowledge about Spartan society is from the movie "300". But it never stops being amusing when Americans have their "wait, those Hollywood movies are not even 1% historically correct??" moments.
What Herodotus (and Xenophon, Thucydides, Plutarch, etc) is writing about happened more than 2000 years ago. I don't have any "bias" that relates to what he wrote. I just can't get worked up about how the ancient Spartans murdered their slaves, as I can't get worked up about how every other Greek city did not grant any rights to "free" women, or how the priests of the Aztecs sacrificed POWs and then sold their flesh to the market to be consumed by the ordinary citizens of Tenochtitlan, or about the cannibalism at the siege of Maara [1].
Generally I find it ridiculous to moralise about ancient peoples. The blog posts above are just one big moralising moralisation about ancient Sparta. People who share their link are probably people who really get all their knowledge of history from films like 300, people who sincerely, honest-to-G0d, hand-on-heart, thought the Spartans were noble warriors with huge gnashers and sculpted six-packs, who are utterly shocked to learn about the helots, and about the Agoge, and how the 300 Spartans of Leonidas were not alone in Thermopylae, hence why a blog rant appeals to them as some kind of font of revelatory knowledge.
And hence my advice to such people to read actual history and not continue to take their knowledge of history from shallow, unscientific sources like blog rants. Intellectual laziness is what makes people keep sharing this rubbish, not any kind of desire to know any sort of unbiased, objective truth.
__________
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Ma%27arra#Cannibalism
The article you link is the worst kind of telling of history: overflowing with bias, preaching and pontificating and making moral judgments left and right about things that happenned more than 2000 years ago. It is an internet rant, designed to provoke clicks and outrage, and its only reason of existence is the existence of the film, 300, a fantasy, that presents a fantastical image of Sparta, that the author then proceeds to deconstruct as if it were reality, or as if anyone claimed was reality. It is one gigantic straw man.
Instead of consuming one person's opinion, second-hand, why not read the original historical sources?
For example:
The Polity of the Athenians and the Lacedaemonians, by Xenophon
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1178
The History of the Peloponnesian War, by Thucydides
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7142
History, by Herodotus
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2707 (Volume 1) https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2456 (Volume 2)
On Sparta, by Plutarch
https://www.amazon.com/Sparta-Penguin-Classics-Plutarch/dp/0140449434
And so on. Read history; and make up your own mind.
But I enjoy Dynasty Warriors / Wuxia / Dragonball Z!! (Or 300 if you prefer American)
Heck, I enjoy watching Yu-gi-oh with my nieces. It turns out that full fantasy fights with completely different sets of rules is certainly a genre. Sure, its a cartoon, but the entire point is that the fights progress by a completely different set of rules on purpose.
----------
> There's fake made with human actors, and there's "f--k it, just cut and paste 1000 zombies or robots in the next scene and make the heroes cut through them like butter" fake.
You mean like Star Wars stormtroopers? In something like 3 movies, they only ever land ~2 or 3-shots off on the main characters (R2D2 and Leia in the 3rd film IIRC).
I think about some older movies I've enjoyed: Star Trek, Flash Gordon, etc. etc. Plenty of "1000-to-1 odds" going on and yet I still enjoyed the film. Or Indiana Jones. The 1000-to-1 odds thing is basically an ancient trope: found in old epics / stories, and even movies from decades ago.
The author is addressing the perception of Sparta as it exists in popular culture today. Which is to say - the perception that is fueled by movies like 300, and the military culture that adopted that perception to glorify itself by proxy. Because of that, the vast majority of people are not aware that Spartans were a tiny minority of the residents of Sparta (the state), or that most residents were slaves. If you do, great - but your assertion that the article "does not improve the reader's knowledge" is not grounded in reality.
No, it's not sophistry and I don't appreciate you insulting me by saying I engage in sophistry. I am sick and tired of random people on the internet accusing me of intellectual dishonesty because they have no idea what I'm talking about because they haven't any knowledge relevant to the subject at hand, other than having read a blog post or two.
As to the "the case" that "80% of the population of the Spartan state were slaves", that is an acceptable turn of phrase, but it is not what the blog author says. He says that the majority of the people of "Sparta" were slaves. This is calculated to come across as a tear down of the myth of "noble" Sparta because it makes no distinction between the free citizens of Sparta who are the ones elevated to mythical status by ignorance of history, and their slaves, who are never and under no circimstances considered to be part of the "noble warriors of Sparta" or what have you.
In short, the author is making a very clear attempt to exploit the confusion caused by the synecdochical use of "Sparta" to mean both the city and the city-state, to make a point that ultimately only serves his vanity, and is not really informative. To say that "most people of the city state of Sparta were slaves" is only revelatory to those who have no idea of ancient history.
To give you an analogy, it's like someone making a huge todo about how "Black holes are not really black". This can only be news to people who don't know what black holes are and what is meant by "black" in their name. Then instead of trying to clarify the meaning of the word "black" in "black hole" the author launches into a tirade about how black holes have been glorified as being the blackest bodies in the universe when in reality they are not even black and most of their mass is invisible because it's hidden behind the event horizon and Oh Gods! All you 've ever been told about physics, it's all wrong! You've been worshipping a black body that is not even black and is not even all there!
It's a lot of noise for nothing but internet likes and an utter appeal to ignorance that does not improve the reader's knowledge one bit. And it is many peoples' first point of entry into the subject of not only Sparta, but ancient history in general. If that first point of entry is not 300 instead, which to be sure is even worse but without which the author's blog post would not even exist, because it has nothing to say other than "300 sucks, man".
300 has Persians throwing incendiary grenades. Their king is a giant. He's carried to battle on a golden throne, like a Warhammer figure. But the author saw fit to attack 300's realism by picking apart its mythologising of "noble" Spartan warriors, which nobody has ever believed other than people who learn their history from comics and movies. This is how much the author of the blog post is interested in historic truth.
The idea that "Sparta" was close to "80% enslaved people" is confused and I hold the author of the linked article responsible for not clarifying the confusion.
"Sparta" is the name of the principal city of the city-state of Lacedaemon, which comprised the regions of Laconia and Messinia in the Peloponnese. The inhabitants of the city of Sparta are in ancient sources referred to as Lacedaemones ("Λακεδαίμονες") and are the people we, in the modern day, know as as Spartans or Spartiates ("Σπαρτιάται").
The people inhabiting the greater area of the Lacedeamonian city-state, the inhabitants of the settlements in Laconia and Messinia, were never referred to in any ancient text as "Spartans" or "Lacedaemones" and they were only referred to, to the extent they were ever mentioned, as "helots" ("είλωται") or, simply, as the Spartans' slaves. Any reference to those people as "Spartans", let alone "Lacedaemones" is a modern invention and only serves to deepen the confusion I highlight here. In fact, I am only aware of a single modern "source" that commits this confusing error: the blog post linked above. If we were to give those people a modern name devoid of political connotations, that would be "Lacones" ("Λάκωναι") or "Messinians" ("Μεσσηνοί"), the inhabitants of the regions of Laconia and Messinia.
So it makes no sense to say that "Sparta" was "80% enslaved people" or the other errors committed in the linked article. It might make sense to say that "Laconia and Messinia (resp. Lacedaemon) was 80% enslaved people", although that would greatly weaken the intended invective against Spartans. It would certainly make sense to point out that Spartans, i.e. the inhabitants of the city of Sparta, had a huge number of slaves in proportion both to their own numbers and in comparison to the number of slaves of other Greek city-states of the same historical period(s), but again that would not be a proper attack on the myth of Sparta, which is what is intended. Of course it makes every sense to point out the cruelty of Spartans, but in that case, if we call the helots "Spartans", also, the confusion only deepens.
All such nuance is left out of the article linked above which makes it very, very misleading and confuses people who are used to getting their knowledge of history from second- third- and further- hand accounts, like the one in the linked article, or the movie 300, etc. Unfortunately once something is elevated to mythical status there is nothing more profitable than to tear it down, even if this tearing down is based on the same poor knowledge of history that allowed it to be elevated in the first place.
Imagine the movie 300 except voiced in the style of
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6wtj04dJ_g
Blackkklansman was a relatively big budged film starring popular actors and made by an established director back in 2018, Spike Lee, and oh boy did he take risks. Despite being a historic drama/comedy the movie ends with the horrors of the Trump presidency. Just like Mel Brooks, the message is pretty obvious. Despite these risks this movie was aired in most big cinemas throughout the USA for several weeks (just like any other big budged drama/comedy would).
Casting: I don’t remember a time when casting didn’t cause the hate mobs to go haywire. When Noma Dumezweni was cast as Hermione Granger people went nuts. Some historians raised issue with the fact that Xerxes II was acted by a black man in the movie 300 despite being Persian. And I’m sure casting a black man as Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar was equally controversial. Now in the era of people realizing how much representation matters, of course it is going to cause controversy if you hire an actor to play a role of a underrepresented group while the actor does not belong to said group. This didn’t used to be the case, but it is today. However this has such an obvious solution that I doubt it has hindered the production of a single movie.
> "It’s been a decade since any comedy launched a blockbuster franchise."
The times change. At one point hiring a white actor to play a black role did not stir a huge controversy, now it does. Franchises come into fashion, people get tired of them, creators move on. Just because comedy franchises aren’t big today, it doesn’t mean they are not possible. More likely is that people have seen enough sequels in other genres that they don’t want to see Baby Driver 2 no more then they like to see Dump and Dumber 5. And I think for a reason, comedy sequels tend to be pretty shitty (and I guess it makes sense, how often can you tell the same joke before it stops being funny).
I think you are over-reading into the twitter mobs. I don’t think they have as much power as you give them credit for. I think the biggest achievement of the twitter mob in the film industry was to give Sonic the Hedgehog a makeover. I don’t know of a single example where a comedy was cancelled because twitter didn’t like it. And I think comedies get made today just like they did yesteryear. And I think producers of comedies had to be careful about the subject matter before just like today. And I think they stirred controversies before, and they will continue to do so, irregardless of the political climate.
> The story of 300 depicts the Persians in a very negative way lol
For sure. The movie's framing device is a Spartan soldier recounting a glorified version of the Battle of Thermopylae, and building up Leonidas as a heroic figure, as a way to fire up the troops for the next battle against the Persians. That's why I put "bad" in quotes - it's Spartan propaganda.
The story of 300 depicts the Persians in a very negative way lol. They don’t seem at all Zoroastrian in the movie (multiple idols, and weird rituals, no likeness of anything Zoroastrian shows up). It’s a great movie tho!
In reality those Persians were Zoroastrian, at least in name. I say “in name” because the Battle of Thermopylae (i.e. 300) would have been 500-2000 years after the creation of the Zoroastrian religion[0], I’m sure more than a little was altered/forgotten.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire
[0] We don’t have much recorded history that dates back that far and it’s a matter of academic debate when exactly the religion started.
What's interesting that you see this come up in places in cinematic period pieces like Takeshi Kitano's Zatoichi remake, Oliver Stone's Alexander, the shows _Rome_ and _Spartacus_ on HBO. We _should_ have seen this in Zack Snyder's _300_ as well (Spartans allowed for same-sex relations in older/younger male mentorships in their warrior-aristocracy training, much of the lifestyles of Spartan citizens would be prohibited from being depicted) but that movie chose to be a historically inaccurate Triump of the Will of the straightest of straight male masculinity.
Yes they do. I have also heard claim on podcast that 300 movie is acutely historically accurate and argument was that it fits Herodus.
Its weird.
I had an Iranian teacher, here in USA. Despite the calls to violence, its clear that we hate each other's countries, but not each other's peoples.
Well... by and large anyway. I'm sure there are assholes who actually wish death personally on both sides. But there's an understanding of the global political stage. There's still a way to communicate. I think there's a path forward for diplomacy even in these tense times.
----------
Knowing these things really helps put ideas into context. Ex: Iranians got really pissed off at the movie 300 for example (after all: Iranians see themselves as the Persians. So seeing a bunch of Persians get slaughtered by the "Western-world Greeks" on a big Hollywood movie is not exactly nice to them either...)
These sorts of things are just accepted. Iranians know that the Persians are by-and-large demonized by the history books that our culture teaches, and we know the same for their side. These conflicts and tensions have been around for literally centuries and millennia.
I can’t tell if you are being serious or sarcastic.
FWIW I think all of those things sound interesting and cool.
Here’s the abstract from the ‘Saga’s Sorrow’ paper:
“This article examines the construction of gender roles in contemporary white nationalist music. Grounded in extensive and ethnographic fieldwork, the article traces the rise of leading Swedish singer Saga and argues that her music frames women as besieged embodiments of racial and national essence dependent on men for deliverance. The discussion of Saga’s music draws from a review of recent social and ideological shifts in radical white nationalism, insider interviews, performance observations, and structural and textual analyses.”
For some reason I’m reminded of the Zack Snyder film ‘300’.
That was in the (fiction) movie 300
I already knew a lot about the Spartan philosophy and outlook on life before I started reading it (both from 300, comics and movie, and non-fiction books), but I was really surprised how well he described the combat scenes, with all the feet churning in the dirt of shield wall, and so on. It had the risk of becoming repetitive due to the static nature of the combat situation, but the book always felt like it was moving forward quickly. I really liked it!
I've read both good and bad things about The War of Art by Pressfield, but I'm at least very curious to some day read it.
It's primarily a criticism of modern perception of Sparta, particularly "300". I don't see why it need be any more fair than it is.
> comparing the popular legacy of Sparta (embodied in films like 300) with the historical ancient state
Do we benefit from drawing lines between "cinema" and... whatever you might call a Marvel film? What do we call a Marvel film, if not "cinema"?
Further, why isn't anything at risk? Infinity War got about as close to real risk as any MCU film has so far, and I think if Mr. Scorsese watched that film he'd realize it's actually possible to create emotional drama within the context of a "Marvel Movie".
Also, are we really drawing the line arbitrarily at Marvel specifically? Where does "Joker" fit? Watchmen, The Dark Knight, Wonderwoman, 300, Scott Pilgrim, V for Vendetta? What about undeniably "Marvel" films like Logan, and Into the Spiderverse? Do we dismiss all media sourced from the pages of comics, or just the MCU specifically?
I ask both to make a rhetorical point, and because I genuinely don't understand. Mr. Scorsese writes this opinion piece like there's a shared understanding of what a "Marvel movie" is, but I don't know that there is such an understanding.
> Incidentally, the popular book/film 300, which focuses heavily on the bravery and martial ethos of the Spartans, instead depicts the Persian fleet as being destroyed by a storm prior to the decisive battle. This makes for a simpler story, but at a rather significant loss of historical accuracy.
I'm pretty sure the film stopped caring about historical accuracy when they created a wall out of dead bodies, samurai-ninja-trolls attacked at night, and an executioner with swords-as-arms appeared on screen.
https://300.fandom.com/wiki/Executioner
>> Incidentally, the popular book/film 300, which focuses heavily on the bravery and martial ethos of the Spartans, instead depicts the Persian fleet as being destroyed by a storm prior to the decisive battle.
The Persians did lose a lot of ships in two storms, before the battle at Artemision:
Simultaneous with the battle at Thermopylae, an Allied naval force of 271 triremes defended the Straits of Artemisium against the Persians.[126] Directly before Artemisium, the Persian fleet had been caught in a gale off the coast of Magnesia, losing many ships, but could still probably muster over 800 ships at the start of the battle.[127] On the first day (also the first of the Battle of Thermopylae), the Persians detached 200 seaworthy ships, which were sent to sail around the eastern coast of Euboea. These ships were to round Euboea and block the line of retreat for the Allied fleet.[127] Meanwhile, the Allies and the remaining Persians engaged in the late afternoon, the Allies having the better of the engagement and capturing 30 vessels.[127] That evening, another storm occurred, wrecking the majority of the Persian detachment which had been sent around Euboea.[128]
>Incidentally, the popular book/film 300, which focuses heavily on the bravery and martial ethos of the Spartans, instead depicts the Persian fleet as being destroyed by a storm prior to the decisive battle. This makes for a simpler story, but at a rather significant loss of historical accuracy.
What you're describing is the Battle of Salamis in the _second_ Persian invasion. The storm off Mount Athos in 300 happened during the first invasion (and it really did happen). Quoth wikipedia:
>The fleet then rounded the coastline as far as Acanthus in Chalcidice, before attempting to round the headland of Mount Athos.[42] However, they were caught in a violent storm, which drove them against the coastline of Athos, wrecking (according to Herodotus) 300 ships, with the loss of 20,000 men.[42]
The second time, instead of going around the peninsula, Xerxes had them dig a canal. For the longest time people doubted Herodotus' account of this canal, but it was actually real. [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerxes_Canal
> Incidentally, the popular book/film 300, which focuses heavily on the bravery and martial ethos of the Spartans, instead depicts the Persian fleet as being destroyed by a storm prior to the decisive battle. This makes for a simpler story, but at a rather significant loss of historical accuracy.
Justified in the story, given who's narrating.
This is an oddly shallow article. The Persian army, whatever its exact size, was vast; too vast to have travelled by sea, instead marching overland into Greece.
The Persian fleet's job was to supply them with food and other necessities, as the army was too large to live off the land. It is reasonable to view Thermopylae as a delaying maneuver, although due to political differences between the Athenians and the Spartans, it's also reasonable to view the Greek defenders as having been backed into a strategic corner by indecision.
Anyway, while the Spartans and a small Athenian contingent were marching off to Thermopylae, Themistocles, an Athenian leader, sent word to Xerxes that the (much smaller) Greek navy was fearful and likely to surrender - partly true, as the Peloponnesian contingent was less firmly committed than the Athenian one. Xerxes has his navy block the Greek ships into a relatively narrow strait, but then (on Themistocles' orders) the Greeks navy ran from the Persian ships instead of giving battle. The Persians, sensing victory, chased them into the strait.
But whereas a narrow passage provided a huge geographic advantage to the Spartan and Athenian foot soldiers bunched together in a phalanx, it was a fatal mistake for a naval force, which depends on freedom of maneuver. The huge Persian navy crowded into the narrow strait, leaving the ships bunched up against each other, at which point the Greeks reversed course and attacked their flanks, laying waste to them. With his supply system in pieces, Xerxes was forced to withdraw his army.
Incidentally, the popular book/film 300, which focuses heavily on the bravery and martial ethos of the Spartans, instead depicts the Persian fleet as being destroyed by a storm prior to the decisive battle. This makes for a simpler story, but at a rather significant loss of historical accuracy.
Blame 300 the movie
"Heavy" GPU-accelerated 2d effects, like Optical Flow Time Remapping, are used quite often in my experience. Its the easiest way to get the "cool slo-mo" that made movies like 300 popular. Good Youtubers are using the effect a lot in their videos now.
You're right about Adobe being bad with OpenCL, but its just an example. But my overall point is that the 2d video editing community is mostly about FP32. A high end FP32 card caters towards 3d renderers, 2d video editors, and others in the professional marketplace.
Davinci Resolve users seem to get a bigger benefit out of Vega cards than 10xx series NVidia cards. So it depends on your video editor.
----------
Aside from scientific compute, I'm having issues figuring out where FP64 support is an issue. All of the applications I'm aware of are FP32. There's a clear difference in the rendering of heavy effects (Optical Flow based Resampling) or 3d editors, so a good GPU really makes a difference in those cases.
> And 8GB is more than enough, heck if AMD memory management worked as in dev's would've used it then 4GB is enough for 4K even today, there are plenty of GDC talks about it and how some games on average only accessed 3GB of memory for a given level the biggest ones were from Doom and Witcher 3 iirc.
XBox and PS4 Pro are bad examples to use. Those systems have far weaker GPUs, and the textures aren't truly 4k.
If you enter a game with 4k texture packs (or 8k texture packs, like Star Citizen), you can expect your memory usage to spike significantly. 8GB is still sufficient, but gamers are expecting better and better textures.
4k + 10-bit HDR textures take up a lot of room.
> Something that is inspired by something is also based on that thing.
Inspire -- give rise to -- stimulate, motivate, spawn, engender.
Based on -- rooted in -- built upon, be founded on/upon, be anchored in something, rooted in.
-
A hamburger inspired the design of the Millenium Falcon, the ship is not based on hamburgers. A comic book inspired the movie 300, which is only loosely based on the comic and historical fact.
A story that is based on specific events it must build upon those events. A story that is inspired by something has no presumption of content, only that some facet of it motivated the storyteller somehow.
I get scared when I hear how many Turkish people talk about the Gülenist movement. The similarities to communism in the US during the 50s and 60s is striking. Sure, based on a "true story" but in the same way that the movie 300 is.
Ancient Greece is full of interesting stories that rival Byzantine machinations.
For example, Megacles, who was archon eponymous during the attempt coup, lead the reprisals that killed Cylon's supporters, after promising them safe passage from the temple to stand trial. For this action, Megacles and the Alcmaeonids (his noble family) were exiled from Athens for some time. (Later on they returned to Athenian politics)
Perhaps the most interesting character from the Alcmaeonids was a fellow named Alcibiades, who lived during the Peloponnesian War, which was mainly between Athens and Sparta. (This is after the Persian wars, the events fancifully depicted in the movie 300) Coming from a rich family, he had an aristocratic upbringing, counting Socrates among his teachers; Pericles also helped raise him after his father was killed in battle.
Perhaps the best way to describe him is as a blend of JFK's womanzing, Bill Clinton's charm and Donald Trump's flamboyance. (He supposedly had a lisp, but curiously, this made him even more charming, but his "lisp" turned "R" into "L"[0])
He became popular in Athens but obviously made some powerful enemies along the way, and was forced to flee/defect to their rival city, Sparta, after being accused of desecrating religious statues of Hermes in the city. (Could you imagine if a prominent politician was accused of vandalizing churches or destroying flags hung from people's houses after a night of drinking? Such was the supposed outrage in Athens after this act.)
After some time in Sparta, he was accused of having an affair with the Spartan King's wife and fled again, this time to Persia.
He eventually made it back to Athens, after some negotiations where he promised that he could bring Persian support to Athens in their continuing war against Sparta and her allies. (This support didn't materialize) Nevertheless, he was given a military command and did manage to secure some victories for Athens, but after one particular defeat, his enemies in Athens took this opportunity to get him removed from command. After that, he went into self-imposed exile, and not too long afterward, was assassinated, probably by Sparta.
Some other interesting words with roots in Ancient Greek politics:
- Anarchy: Athens was ruled by several Archons, who were leaders each with specific duties. So the word "anarchy" means something like "an absence of leadership".
- Ostracism: Once a year, Athenians would be given the chance to exile someone. If they decided on this, they took a vote, by writing the name of the person they wanted to exile. The names were written on discarded pieces of broken pottery known as ostraka or ostrakon in the singular. After successful vote, the person was exiled for 10 years; attempting to return before this carried the death penalty. Interestingly, after the 10 years there seems to have been no residual sanction against the individual, and furthermore their property was returned to them.
0. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Alcibiades*.html
The structure of 300 is it is the atory told by the lone survivor of the 300, to drum up support back home and to motivate the troops. The only "real" part of the film is the charge at the end, everything else is the visualization of an oral retelling.
Something interesting that might change your view of 300. The movie is a story being told by a narrator who wasn't present for much of the events. The first bit of the story was fairly realistic, or at least plausible, but then his eye gets injured and he's sent back to town to get reinforcements. After he leaves things start to get more fantastical.
I agree and tend to think of it in terms of how the movie 300 depicted the Persians as monsters. They were nowhere near as monstrous in real life but the Greek saw them that way. And the only way to convey the sense of how the ancient Greek viewed them to our modern eye was to make them hulking giants.
In much the same way, Hackers had to do something to depict how we felt about computers at the time. I remember thinking how silly it looked at the time but I also remember it resonating.
Though, I have to say, I was much more inspired by Sneakers a few years earlier which was much more accurate from a visual and technical standpoint.
Because buying a movie or a game is much more intentional in the sense that it appeals to a specific demographic that has opted in (my grandma would HATE Half Life or any most rated R movies, but is way less offended by a sexual reference in a sitcom).
Mainstream Media doesn't want it, enter Showtime and HBO.
I watch movies and play games that I wouldn't want my six year old to be exposed to when he was flipping the channels? Like Leonidas in 300. My kid would have nightmares for days!!!
just echoing what termain said. Going back to at least the Greek Phalanx and up to even quite a while after the introduction of gunpowder, massed warfare typically involved long weapons like spears or pikes.
A reasonably good depiction is the Phalanx shown in the movie "300". The history of warfare is generally about increasing the standoff distance between two militaries. The side with longer spears generally did better, then the side with the better archers.
Even after gunpowder was introduced, the reload time was so long that after getting a shot off, armies would switch to pikes.
The "wall of men in formation" you see in the Napoleonic wars and the American Revolutionary and Civil wars was sort of the last use of that kind of traditional formation and movement. The widespread use of heavy artillery put an end to it much like the airplane put an end to trench warfare.
http://bcw-project.org/military/tactics
Look at a film like 300, which is awash in gore. There's a big audience for that sort of thing, based on some sort of physical dunning -Kruger effect - the same sort you see among a small fringe of gun aficionados who spend their time fantasizing about the collapse of society and their imaginary subsequent dominance - such conversations tend to involve a great deal more consideration of optimum ammunition loadouts then discussion of triage strategies or injury management, despite the presumable non-availability of hospitals or medical supplies.
I find it's still really noticeable in the skin tones and highlights. You can find lots of comparisons online; once you see film beside digital, the difference can be pretty huge. Some people in Hollywood still really care about it... one recent example: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Publications/InCamera/Creating_an_Edgy_Anti_Comedy_Look_for_Tammy.htm “It’s like we’ve forgotten how great film looks when you see it in comparison,” Alsobrook remarks. “We looked at each other, and it was a done deal. There was no question we were going to shoot film. It has a rich, creamy look to it that you just can’t get any other way.”
One instance where it's very obvious to me was 300 vs its sequel 300: Rise of an Empire. I tried to find 2 similar images: 300 http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/dvdreviews46/300_the_complete_experience_blu-ray/large/large_300_blu-ray3.jpg 300 sequel http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTQwMTk3MTU3OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMDA5NDQyMTE@._V1__SX1857_SY901_.jpg
So basically I think digital is getting there but it still has a little ways to go in matching the perceived quality.
The popularity of cross fit can be explained, at least in part, because it promises to cram an extremely effective workout into a short period of time that is easy to fit into ones day using short intense intervals and paired opposition exercises. It is almost presented as a hack to get fit in a small amount of time (and is not, to me, out of place on hacker news).
Setting aside the idea that the culture can contribute to people doing exercises wrong and risking injury the debate over cross fit become about weather short, intense, interval workouts are effective.
Famed alpine climber (and trainer to the stars of the movie 300) Mark Twight was an early proponent of the cross fit style work outs but has since returned to including longer endurance style workouts in his programs. He stated in an article titled something like "There is no free lunch" that he saw initial gains from the cross fit style but that endurance began to suffer seriously after 18 months. [1]
Another great climber/multi sports athlete Will Gadd has a number of posts and articles on cross fit and is generally a fan but uses it between sports specific training and with more emphasis on correct form and less on time. [2]
A balanced conclusion would seem to be that cross fit style work outs are better then nothing, can be effective as part of a large training plan even for serious athletes but that we should be aware of the risks of injury and must take personal responsibility for doing exercises correctly. And should still find time to get out for long hikes, bike rides etc if we are interested in having true all day endurance fitness.
[1] The article has since disappeared from his "Gym Jones" website but excerpts can be found here: http://conditioningresearch.blogspot.com/2008/07/intervals-for-endurance.html http://www.catalystathletics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5963
[2]http://gravsports.blogspot.com/2009/11/congrats-to-gm-crossfit-training-from.html http://willgadd.com/injury-and-a-few-crossfit-mods-as-a-result-planes/
You're making interesting assumptions about myself. I speak 5 languages fluently; trust me I watch movies, shows, pieces from many, many countries. (I'm not a native English speaker).
This is valid for my tastes in music, painting, books(I've been raised with classic french litterature, but read stuff from all over the world).
(I find it amusing when I see hipsters saying they're "eclectic", yet all their bands sing in English..)
So I understand your assumption that "most" people are spot on top of a Gaussian distribution, listen to popular music, watch popular movies.. People do what other people do. I simply not. Not because I'm contrarian (although this can prove useful in this era), but simply because I have a delicate taste and been exposed to many nice things to spoil my senses.
Furthermore, my words have been distorted. There are many young actors and singers I appreciate a great deal.
PS: You can't deny that the number of cool movies has "sort of decreased". When you see the sequel of a movie like 300, and sequels for everything.. I've watched so many movies that I can tell how a movie will go and I'll be disturbingly close. Heck at one time I unraveled the plot of a movie my friend was watching while I was almost asleep and only listening to audio. Good writers, we need more of those.
It's true that on the surface, this schism seems absurd. However, I believe there's a little more nuance to it than you realize.
Middle-class parents in a low crime neighborhood don't really have to worry about young Sally growing up to be a psychotic warrior because they to occasionally watch blockbuster movies like 300 or Saving Private Ryan.
But if family movie night regularly included films like Eyes Wide Shut or Fifty Shades of Grey, one can certainly imagine it may influence a young adult's sexuality. And at a time when they are exceptionally impressionable and have particularly poor judgement no less. This is an unsettling thought to most parents.
That said, I do believe that Americans generally overexpose their children to bombastic, violent movies. I'm certain that this has something to do with our relatively higher violent crime rates. I'm not sure if our media shapes our collective consciousness or the other way around. I suspect it's both.
What is "the 300"? The only thing I can think of is the movie/comic book but I don't see how that ties in to cancer research.
This echoes my usage patterns as well, and I'm 37; the only difference is I had a reasonable CD collection (~250 discs) before I met Napster and AudioGalaxy back in the late 90s.
I only ever rented VHS/DVDs and I buy blu-ray used and only if I want to own a re-watchable experience (Dark Knight, The 300, Pulp Fiction, etc.) First-run blu-ray movies are RedBoxed or downloaded in 720p x264 from usenet (RIP NZBmatrix) and deleted after viewing.
Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, and Pandora/Spotify round out content. I watch more stuff now that I don't have cable (around 2hrs/day) than when I did (30min. or less/day).
This jumped out at me and I want to make a correction.
The actors in that film trained at a gym called Gym Jones, run by Mark Twight, one of the strongest American alpine climbers of his day. The directors wanted them to look sinewy and jacked, not big, so they put them on a caloric restriction diet (they had to do reps to earn food, on a schedule designed for weight loss). The actual exercises they had to do were changed constantly to prevent their bodies from becoming accustomed to any one thing, so there really is no "300 workout" at all.
He's got a good informational post about it here: http://gymjones.com/knowledge/article/3/.
In 1848 people were just tired and full of anger for the "world" they were living in.
In 2011 people are not just tired and full of anger for the countries they're living in, but they also have communication they never had before, which means they can work with each other, and organize efficiently as they never could in past (anyone watched 300 movie how small but coordinated army defeated big one?).
I wouldn't dare to predict what will happened in those countries after revolutions, but I dare to predict many more countries where people are tired of same bullshit years over years will take same path.
Star Wars, the original movie
Superman, the original movie
Star Trek, the first movie with Shatner, Nimoy, etc. Also Wrath of Khan.
The Matrix
300 probably will become one
The Social Network was surprisingly motivational. Fairly realistic portrayal of programming and programmers and startup life, and I loved many of Sean Parker's motivational speeches, and some of the Zuckerberg character's speeches as well.
300 - just something so aggressive about that movie. It's like cinematic Sun Tzu or something...
You don't need to see uplifting stories about people pursuing their dreams, you need to watch movies about kicking ass, like Gladiator or 300. Or maybe you need to watch uplifting stories about people pursuing their dream of kicking a lot of ass.
Everyone struggles. Keep fighting
"Give him one little stroke of luck, and he would think he had conquered the world. But, equally, the slightest setback would find him in deepest despair"
If you’re still playing, you can still win
Nail on the head. Short and simple. This reminds me of the movie 300 in which King Leonidas fights till his end with just a small group of soldiers. I dug up a lot of articles about the war and read them after I watched the movie
are probably the same people that hated the movie "300" because the characters weren't wearing proper period clothing.
Granted, if you know anything about the Persians, the historical inaccuracies were a hell of a lot less subtle.
Subtlety is an artistic choice, not a necessity. People that complain about the lack of realism in certain authors' works are probably the same people that hated the movie "300" because the characters weren't wearing proper period clothing.
> Instead of having just a few people read through a script maybe it should be free for all to read through and rate. That way you will have a good selling point to Hollywood - "hey - 500.000 people read this script and rated it, they will all go see the movie when it comes out. And bring their friends and family!"
That worked for "Lord of the Rings" but would it have worked for "Sixth Sense"? How about "Blades of Glory"?
Did it work for "300"?
I see a startup kind of like the movie 300... but without the 0's where the speed, mobility and adaptiveness of (around) 3 allow them to out-smart, out-maneuver and out-bootstrap a larger, more established company. Madness? This is startup!
>Actually historically there were numerous instances of largely-homosexual civilizations. Just look up the true story behind the movie 300.
This is anecdotal evidence. Isolated societies that practice homosexuality do not offer a sound argument against the general trend. Note that you can only think of a few examples.
>I think you completely forgot about masturbation, which pretty much destroys that entire line of argument ;) Males "waste" sperm on a constant basis. :)
Recall that is is a conversation about bisexuality and homosexual behavior, not homosexuality which is obviously not evolutionarily helpful to a homosexual man (although there are theories that account for the genes that increase the liklihood of homosexuality having an evolutionary advantage for the women that carry them). Evolution is not a boolean question, traits propagate according to their relative success. Men who only want to have sex with women are more likely to deposit more sperm into women than men who deposit sperm wherever it fits. Masturbation would work against both populations.
>Actually in many societies men were NOT focused on social interaction with females.
I did not say interacting with women. Lots of people interact with women without reproducing. I said 'interfacing,' which was meant as a euphemism for fucking. I will spare you the confusion of further euphemisms. Son, people fuck everywhere.
> However, tolerance for homosexual acts between men seems to be strongly selected against
Actually historically there were numerous instances of largely-homosexual civilizations. Just look up the true story behind the movie 300.
> Creating sperm is expensive and wasting them with a man is not to your advantage.
I think you completely forgot about masturbation, which pretty much destroys that entire line of argument ;) Males "waste" sperm on a constant basis. :)
> It was also important for men to be highly focused on interfacing with females
Actually in many societies men were NOT focused on social interaction with females, a trend that continues to this day especially in certain religious countries. Interaction was and is often limited to reproduction, with gender segregation in social roles (the men spend most of their time with other men while the women spend most of their time with other women and children).
It really doesn't take much effort at all to get a female pregnant. The vast majority of effort is in child-rearing, not procreation. Homosexuality actually confers some advantages, such as:
- Male bonding, leading to more effective teamwork, which is a huge advantage in small tribal societies;
- Exclusively-homosexual males don't compete for females yet can still lend their muscle to protecting the tribe.
In a small tribe, competition for females can lead to infighting which will put the whole group at a disadvantage to a neighboring tribe that has the same gender split but in which most of its males are homosexual. (Effeminate homosexuals tend to be much less common than non-effeminate ones, which is why so many gay males can fly under the radar.)
Wow. Google makes the transition from text ads that are benign and often relevant to moving ads that cover the screen, with transparent backgrounds making them ambiguous to close.
I hate ads.
Another video site (either Break or MetaCafe), constantly had animated ads for the movie 300 overlaid on top of the video area. Very annoying.