<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Prephax @ Mar 25 2007, 11:18 PM) [snapback]284966[/snapback]</div>
Quote:
PD: History say that Leonidas have more than 50 years old and the spartans were more than 700.
[/b]
|
Yep, there were definitely more than 300, because Spartans were really into slavery (like the rest of the Greek city-states of the time) so the original "300" all had their own personal group of slaves who would have fought alongside their Spartan owners.
Also, the number 300 is really unreliable because ancient Greek historians who recorded events (such as Herodotus) are notorious for exagerating numbers to make their stories more compelling.
Anyways, the film isn't based on history, it's based on a comic.
Finally, just to clarify what I meant by calling the movie "homoerotic" - I didn't mean that the movie is "meant for gay people," I meant that the film hails all things masculine and uses the male form almost like art (for a good example of homeroticism look at the photography of Robert Mapplethorpe.) Conversely the film portrays women as secondary, and either weak or whorish. That is not a fault of the film, after all it
is based on Frank Miller's comic and Frank Miller treats femle characters as either *****s or weak in pretty much all his comics (a perfect example of this is Jessica Alba's character in Sin City who combines the worst of his misogyny, a stripper and a princess that needs to be saved.)
Besides, "sword and sandal" movies (gladiator/roman/greek themed films) have a long and noble history of being homoerotic. Spartacus, Ben Hur and even Gladiator. How else do you think Tony Curtis became a gay icon? So to finally clear this up - Homerotic does not mean the same thing as "a movie for gay people."