What should a female breastplate really look like

[Dream]

 

 

It's a pretty accurate article, but I agree that he's being a bit to angry. Of course, 300 is one hell of a stupid movie but not many historical films are very accurate anyway, so it's nothing to get worked up about.

300 was a comic book movie; not a historical one. You wouldn't go to see Captain America for an accurate portrayal of WW2; why expect that from 300?

 

 

So what if I made a movie about WW2 with the only difference from history that there were no genocides, and the Allied bombing of Germany and Japan were the significant atrocities of the war. Even if I stated it's fictional people would surely accuse me of trying to change our view of history.

 

There's a common interest in knowing our shared history. It's hard to say what is OK and what is not, I would say the only way we can determine that is by looking at the effects of movies such as 300. Obviously there are a lot of stupid people and 300 did not do anything to help them with an accurate picture of history. The effect can only be reversed, in my opinion, by criticizing 300 for it's detrimental effect on our knowledge of history.

 

If you did it in 2500 years I doubt many would care.

[TMZuk]

Not that this has anything to do with women's armour anymore, but....

 

What was wrong with 300 was not it's historical flaws as such. The problem was that many of these flaws were political in nature, in the sense that they were anti-gay and anti-Iran, and imposing terms like freedom and tolerance on a nation (Sparta) that was anything but!

 

The whole piece felt like a piece of poorly written propaganda.

[smithereen]

If you think 300 is a damagingly inaccurate movie, try The Patriot. You would be amazed how many people believe that ****.

[TrashMan]

300 anti-gay? With all of those muscled, oily men grunting and running around?

That move was a like a buffet for gays.

[TMZuk]

300 anti-gay? With all of those muscled, oily men grunting and running around?

That move was a like a buffet for gays.

Probably, but at the same time it more than once attack the Athenians for being gay, whereas the Spartans are depicted as the prime example on the All American core family.

[BruceVC]

ewm

 

300 anti-gay? With all of those muscled, oily men grunting and running around?

That move was a like a buffet for gays.

Probably, but at the same time it more than once attack the Athenians for being gay, whereas the Spartans are depicted as the prime example on the All American core family.

 

 

I don't profess to be an expert in Ancient Greece but I thought homosexuality was common and encouraged amongst the Spartans? Didn't the Sacred Band practice sodomy as rule

[Elerond]

 

ewm

 

300 anti-gay? With all of those muscled, oily men grunting and running around?

That move was a like a buffet for gays.

Probably, but at the same time it more than once attack the Athenians for being gay, whereas the Spartans are depicted as the prime example on the All American core family.

 

 

I don't profess to be an expert in Ancient Greece but I thought homosexuality was common and encouraged amongst the Spartans? Didn't the Sacred Band practice sodomy as rule

 

Yes, homosexual relationships were encouraged in Sparta to make soldiers to bound with each other. Sacred Band was made of 150 pairs of male lovers. At least so say experts of Ancient Greece.

[Dream]

You guys sound like English teachers talking about a novel.

 

It was just a movie about a bad ass battle.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Dream

[BruceVC]

 

 

ewm

 

300 anti-gay? With all of those muscled, oily men grunting and running around?

That move was a like a buffet for gays.

Probably, but at the same time it more than once attack the Athenians for being gay, whereas the Spartans are depicted as the prime example on the All American core family.

 

 

I don't profess to be an expert in Ancient Greece but I thought homosexuality was common and encouraged amongst the Spartans? Didn't the Sacred Band practice sodomy as rule

 

Yes, homosexual relationships were encouraged in Sparta to make soldiers to bound with each other. Sacred Band was made of 150 pairs of male lovers. At least so say experts of Ancient Greece.

 

 

Thanks, thats what I thought and it makes sense. You would fight more for someone you actually loved than someone who was just a close comrade I imagine?

[Elerond]

 

 

 

ewm

 

300 anti-gay? With all of those muscled, oily men grunting and running around?

That move was a like a buffet for gays.

Probably, but at the same time it more than once attack the Athenians for being gay, whereas the Spartans are depicted as the prime example on the All American core family.

 

 

I don't profess to be an expert in Ancient Greece but I thought homosexuality was common and encouraged amongst the Spartans? Didn't the Sacred Band practice sodomy as rule

 

Yes, homosexual relationships were encouraged in Sparta to make soldiers to bound with each other. Sacred Band was made of 150 pairs of male lovers. At least so say experts of Ancient Greece.

 

 

Thanks, thats what I thought and it makes sense. You would fight more for someone you actually loved than someone who was just a close comrade I imagine?

 

 

And there is also that factor that in that time of age war excursions could last several years without leaves for soldiers, so when you have soldiers that spend their leasure time with each other, it always lowered number of accessory people like concubines and servants (slaves) that usually followed large armies (meaning that cost of war excursio was lower). And it probably also lowered soldiers longing get home to their loved ones. And etc. factors probably played at least some part why it was as it was.

[Ffordesoon]

You guys sound like English teachers talking about a novel.

 

It was just a movie about a bad ass battle.

Yes, and Animal Farm was just a book about animals, and The Great Gatsby was just about some jerks doing jerky stuff to each other in the Twenties, etc.

 

Just because some people overanalyze small details doesn't mean there's nothing there to analyze. Anti-intellectualism of the sort you're engaging in is why we can't have nice things.

[jamoecw]

so with all of the 300 bashing, does anyone know the legend, or the comic book?

event -> legend -> comic book -> movie

 

i have to say that the political arguments against the movie are either unfounded, or blown way out of proportion.  unless the war with iran was consistently being built up to for thousands of years.

 

event in a nutshell:

part of athens pisses off persia, persia marches against greece, greece fights a battle at thermopylae.  greece at the time is divided in 3 power blocks, the spartan one fields few soldiers due to political issues.  loss of battle draws spartans into a more committed stance, boeotia power block becomes divided (thebes) most backing persia, patriotic political corruption saves athens from persians.

legend in a nutshell:

persia invades greece, greek power blocks put away differences and unify under spartan leadership on land and athenian leadership at sea.  a religious holiday prevents sparta from fielding an army, so the king with an overinflated honor guard leads the battle.  a minor greek city state is given charge of guarding a critical goat path to their rear, which they fail to do out of fear for their own city state's safety.  a hermit leads the persians through the goat path to the rear, causing all but the thespians and spartans to flee the battle for fear of defeat.  spartans and thespians make heroic last stand, athenian navy retreats.  spartans after the holiday are angered and take to the field in force and along with their athenian allies crush the persians in short order, divine prophecies turn out to be true.

comic book in a nutshell:

persia threatens the greeks for submission, the greeks refuse and march to war.  persians buy off corrupt spartan religious leadership with gold. bad ass spartans lead under the super leader leonidas, while the athenian navy and hurricane keeps the persian navy at bay.  the 300 spartans hold the line, while they send the thousands of lesser greeks to flank, hold the rear, build a wall, and ultimately do less manly things.  a hunchback quasimodo like person informs them of a goat pass to their rear, and asks the spartans to compromise their integrity so that he may share in spartan glory, which is rebuffed for he shall gain the glory which he earns himself.  the hunchback defects to the persians and all greek forces scatter aside from the spartans and some thespians, the reasoning that the spartans no longer hold to the old ways of doing what you want as opposed to doing what is needed.  the thespians are used as a screening force, the spartans die to arrows in mass.  a spartan storyteller that was ordered back to sparta to tell the tale rallies spartans before the battle of plataea.

the movie in a nutshell:

spartans and athens refuse to submit, all of greece march to war.  persians buy off religious and political leadership with gold and promises of women.  bad ass spartans under firm leadership of leonidas lead all greeks, while a hurricane decimates the persian fleet.  the 300 spartans inspire the other greeks to valor, while the spartans share in all of the aspects of battle.  the spartans stand against fantastical beasts of war.  a hunchback informs them of a path to their rear, and asks to be a part of their well oiled machine, leonidas refuses and says he may do less manly things.  hunchback defects to persians and tells them of the path.  the greeks retreat from an unwinnable battle, the spartans refuse, knowing that if they do the rest of sparta won't rally to save greece.  storyteller who had been ordered back rallies the greeks, and the spartans who are at the heart of a greek coalition, to a sweeping victory over the persians at some unknown battle.

 

it constantly moves towards fantastical and current ideological standards of heroic.  at the time of the comic book armour was considered cowardly, and shields patriotic (like captain america).  in fact captain america is:

ww2 -> propaganda for ww2 -> comic -> movie

so it isn't too out there to compare the two, though the comic and the propaganda are a bit intermingled, and the name changed for the comic, and is a bit more fantastical than 300's comic.  both comics were about doing what is right even when faced with overwhelming opposition, using heroic images and settings in order to entertain and teach life lessons.  captain america comics used a very loose interpretation of recent events, and 300 comics a less loose (but still pretty loose) interpretation of history.

[Lephys]

Have I ever said that everyone has to wear plate?

I don't think so.

I quite literally cannot find anything even resembling the notion that everyone has to wear plate (much less the notion that you said it), anywhere within the textual block of mine that you quoted. I'm 100% serious. I have absolutely no idea what you're even talking about here. o_o

 

Nothin else should provide the same level of protection. Not even close. Especially not chainmail bikini's. They are a stupid idea for multiple reasons - the least of which being visual.

So... no magic forcefields. Got it. Wizard's Veil, out. Magical chainmail bikinis? Completely out of the question. Rings of Protection? Holy CARP those are like 1/100th the size of a chainmail bikini! So they're 100 times further out of the question.

 

Glad we cleared that up. I feel better now, knowing.

 

In large battles you fight in formations. Meaning you have your own guys from the left and right and behind. So not really. Only when the formation breaks.

Which, of course, never happens. I mean, that's why, historically, NO one's ever lost a battle. Because one side or the other's formations/ranks don't ever break, leaving the ill-formed soldier groups at the mercy of a 15,000 manpower locomotive of death. See, that breastplate covers soldiers backs, as well, simply because the never-ever-breaking-rank soldiers behind them just like to look at the designs on the back. That's why you don't want gaps/flaws in your plate (and why this discussion thread even exists in the first place), because you're never actually going to get attacked from anywhere except where you expect it and can control the incoming attack. THAT, ladies and gentleman, is why full-plate was ever invented. 'Cause it's pretty.

 

Hearing "you dont' understand my point, and are wrong" for the 50'th time is getting boring.

Well, if lies make you feel better, "You understand my point perfectly, and are ultra-correct. Thanks for pointing out that I had everything wrong, thinking armor protected the wearer from all manner of attacks, and was much more important in large-scale battles where these attacks were more likely to occur than in small, party-on-party fights that rely upon extremely small-scale tactics."

 

There ya go. Glad I could help.

[Ffordesoon]

@jamoecw:

 

To be clear, I'm not saying the film or the comic is a justification for war with Iran. I'm not saying it isn't, either. I'm saying that there are more layers to the story, and Miller/Snyder's telling of it, than "Some wicked awesome dudes fought in a battle and all died but they were so super awesome that the Persians retreated."

[jamoecw]

i love the argument between trashman and lephys:

trashman:  chainmail bikinis don't any real sense

lephys:  but you know magic, so why not?

trashman:  that would be impractical, due to magic limitations and stuff

lephys:  if people want it why not?

trashman:  well if they use magic for that why not other things, i say we draw the line

, no further.

lephys:  but we already have scantily clad mages hurling balls of fire and subduing tentacled monsters, maybe we already went far enough to allow it.

trashman:  tentacles?

lephys: illithids, the tentacled ones, P:E ring any bells?

 

and here i am:

 

oops, i think i may have read ahead in the script.

 

seriously, funny stuff, not as heated as it seems, but funny and not too degenerative.

[Dream]

 

You guys sound like English teachers talking about a novel.

 

It was just a movie about a bad ass battle.

Yes, and Animal Farm was just a book about animals, and The Great Gatsby was just about some jerks doing jerky stuff to each other in the Twenties, etc.

 

Just because some people overanalyze small details doesn't mean there's nothing there to analyze. Anti-intellectualism of the sort you're engaging in is why we can't have nice things.

 

 

And I suppose Transformers 3 was an opus on the battle between technology and humanity, Bad Boys 2 was designed to ask the question of when excessive force is acceptable, and Shoot 'Em Up discussed man's inhumanity to man.

 

Some things do have deeper meanings, yea, but a lot of things are exactly what they appear to be.

[BruceVC]

i love the argument between trashman and lephys:

trashman:  chainmail bikinis don't any real sense

lephys:  but you know magic, so why not?

trashman:  that would be impractical, due to magic limitations and stuff

lephys:  if people want it why not?

trashman:  well if they use magic for that why not other things, i say we draw the line

, no further.

lephys:  but we already have scantily clad mages hurling balls of fire and subduing tentacled monsters, maybe we already went far enough to allow it.

trashman:  tentacles?

lephys: illithids, the tentacled ones, P:E ring any bells?

 

and here i am:

 

oops, i think i may have read ahead in the script.

 

seriously, funny stuff, not as heated as it seems, but funny and not too degenerative.

 

 

thats a good review of this thread and quite funny. Both of them have loads of patience, you almost wait for one of them to just accept they are wrong  but neither seems to, I admire there tenacity 

[Ffordesoon]

@Dream:

 

Hey, look! I found some quotes from all three movies you mentioned that indicate those movies have themes beyond what they literally portray on screen!

 

Transformers 3

 

How doomed you are, Autobots. You simply fail to understand that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...

Bad Boys 2

 

We ride together, we die together. Bad boys for life.

Shoot 'Em Up

 

Let me give you a piece of advice. Never trust the people who stand to profit, plain and simple. They're the bad guys.

Are those dumb themes? Absolutely. Are they at odds with what's actually on the screen? Perhaps; I haven't seen any of those movies. Do these films strive mainly to entertain rather than inform? Well, duh. But my point is that even the dumbest piece of Hollywood garbage can be taken apart and analyzed through a variety of critical lenses.

 

Your argument seems to be that we shouldn't even attempt to do that, because... Well, I'm unclear on that point. You say we sound like "English teachers," as if thinking critically about a popular film is somehow a bad thing.

 

Why is it a bad thing? No, seriously, I'm asking. Why?

[TrashMan]

i love the argument between trashman and lephys:

trashman:  chainmail bikinis don't any real sense

lephys:  but you know magic, so why not?

trashman:  that would be impractical, due to magic limitations and stuff

lephys:  if people want it why not?

trashman:  well if they use magic for that why not other things, i say we draw the line

, no further.

lephys:  but we already have scantily clad mages hurling balls of fire and subduing tentacled monsters, maybe we already went far enough to allow it.

trashman:  tentacles?

lephys: illithids, the tentacled ones, P:E ring any bells?

 

and here i am:

 

oops, i think i may have read ahead in the script.

 

seriously, funny stuff, not as heated as it seems, but funny and not too degenerative.

 

There you go and mention tentacles. You know I was saving that for later, but now you ruined the surprise.

 

 

Magical field of almost any shape and size that can be controled by casters = magical tentacle monster constructs.

The real reason people fear mages in Dragon Age.

[TMZuk]

 

 

ewm

 

300 anti-gay? With all of those muscled, oily men grunting and running around?

That move was a like a buffet for gays.

Probably, but at the same time it more than once attack the Athenians for being gay, whereas the Spartans are depicted as the prime example on the All American core family.

 

 

I don't profess to be an expert in Ancient Greece but I thought homosexuality was common and encouraged amongst the Spartans? Didn't the Sacred Band practice sodomy as rule

 

Yes, homosexual relationships were encouraged in Sparta to make soldiers to bound with each other. Sacred Band was made of 150 pairs of male lovers. At least so say experts of Ancient Greece.

 

Now I'm going to derail this otherwise entertaining discussion once more: The Sacred Band were not Spartans. They were Thebans. They were first recorded as an elite unit during the Boeotian War, where Thebes and Athens where allied against Sparta.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

ewm

 

300 anti-gay? With all of those muscled, oily men grunting and running around?

That move was a like a buffet for gays.

Probably, but at the same time it more than once attack the Athenians for being gay, whereas the Spartans are depicted as the prime example on the All American core family.

 

 

I don't profess to be an expert in Ancient Greece but I thought homosexuality was common and encouraged amongst the Spartans? Didn't the Sacred Band practice sodomy as rule

 

Yes, homosexual relationships were encouraged in Sparta to make soldiers to bound with each other. Sacred Band was made of 150 pairs of male lovers. At least so say experts of Ancient Greece.

 

Now I'm going to derail this otherwise entertaining discussion once more: The Sacred Band were not Spartans. They were Thebans. They were first recorded as an elite unit during the Boeotian War, where Thebes and Athens where allied against Sparta.

 

 

 

That is relevant and interesting, but I guess the main point on this particular part of this discussion is that Homosexuality wasn't uncommon in Ancient Greece and was encouraged to a certain degree

[TrashMan]

Are those dumb themes? Absolutely. Are they at odds with what's actually on the screen? Perhaps; I haven't seen any of those movies. Do these films strive mainly to entertain rather than inform? Well, duh. But my point is that even the dumbest piece of Hollywood garbage can be taken apart and analyzed through a variety of critical lenses.

 

Your argument seems to be that we shouldn't even attempt to do that, because... Well, I'm unclear on that point. You say we sound like "English teachers," as if thinking critically about a popular film is somehow a bad thing.

 

Why is it a bad thing? No, seriously, I'm asking. Why?

 

 

 

Personally I consider it more of a "deliberate effort and thought" vs. "happy accident" thing.

 

Some works are made with deeper meaning imbedded in the very core and carefull crafted from day 1.

 

Other may possibly have some symbolism if looked from a certain angle at a specific time of day and while chanting the prayer to the dark gods - and simbolim the oginal author didnt' evne plan for or intend.

 

 

There is a school of thought that nothing has any intrinsic value, but the only value is what you assign yourself.

Therefore, it doesn't matter what the creator thought or tried, or what message (if any) he wanted to send. It only matters what you see.

Then there is the opposite that calims that only the creatros intentions/emotions matter (a.k.a. - Modern Art)

 

 

I kinda in between. Some things have intrinsic value and in general what you see is what you get. But intent and effort do matter, at least a bit.

I hate modern art. And I dislike people who read too much into things.

 

and I suck at explanign things and should probably shut up, because what I wrote doesn't really explain my position very well.

[Ffordesoon]

No, that's actually an interesting take on the issue, and I thank you for offering it.

 

For what it's worth, I do think English teachers - the bad ones, anyway - have much to answer for. By teaching students what the book is supposed to mean according to their curriculum rather than putting the onus on them to bring their own perspective to the work, many English teachers foster a hatred of textual analysis in their pupils that sticks with them forever. Literary devices are judged instruments of authoritarian artifice designed to justify an English teacher's paycheck, or derided as things thrown into a novel simply to trick frustrated readers into believing they are in the presence of greatness.

 

While there is truth to the second objection in certain cases, literary devices are by and large merely tools in a writer's toolbox, no more or less artificial than nouns, verbs, and adjectives. And textual analysis is not a game to be won, though there are undoubtedly academics who treat it as such. It is, rather, an attempt to fully understand and evaluate one's own opinion of a text through the application of rigorous critical standards. The objective is (or should be) a deeper understanding of the text and the way we engage with the text, not to stifle divergent voices.

[Dream]

 

Are those dumb themes? Absolutely. Are they at odds with what's actually on the screen? Perhaps; I haven't seen any of those movies. Do these films strive mainly to entertain rather than inform? Well, duh. But my point is that even the dumbest piece of Hollywood garbage can be taken apart and analyzed through a variety of critical lenses.

 

Your argument seems to be that we shouldn't even attempt to do that, because... Well, I'm unclear on that point. You say we sound like "English teachers," as if thinking critically about a popular film is somehow a bad thing.

 

Why is it a bad thing? No, seriously, I'm asking. Why?

 

It's not that those themes being dumb; it's the fact that those lines were put into those movies simply because they were catchy. Some works were created with deeper thought and should be analyzed and discussed, but when you slave over every minute detail of every single movie (including those that were clearly made to be carefree popcorn entertainment) all you do is dilute the actual meaningful discussions that should be had.

 

Not wanting to over-analyze everything under the sun isn't about being anti-intellectual; it's about not being a pretentious snob who thinks he's better than everyone else because he can see the "deeper meaning" in everything.

[Ffordesoon]

Leaving aside the obvious question of what "meaningful discussions" can be had about a popcorn film if we're arbitrarily disallowed from discussing anything beyond the surface level of the film because it apparently makes us "pretentious snobs" who think we're "better than everyone else," who was claiming that the film had a "deeper meaning" that only they understood?

 

I mean, there's a world of difference between your "blue curtains" example and saying that the movie where a diplomat gets kicked down a well just might have an anti-diplomat agenda.