300

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by DarkMaster

I heard that there weren't any golem/crab mutants and ghost warriors back then. Does that mean 300 is historically innacurate? Can anyone confirm this? I think I might not like this movie anymore if I knew some of it wasn't real...

Hardy har har... Once again, I enjoyed the movie, but I'm also a history enthusiast and the story of 300 doesn't need much embellishment. In fact, this story is my favorite historical moment of all time and what inspired me to want to be a teacher, so I could relate such amazing moments in human history.

Thats where a movie such as this frustrates me. Most people don;t take the time to educate themselves on the historical portions of historical fiction... so they believe the fiction is the truth. My nightmare is people thinking that Xerxes' Immortals really had boar tusks and scales...

I think a historially accurate potrayal of this battle and story would not only be just as entertaining, but enlightening and show Spartans for both their strengths and their weaknesses, which makes them more human and therefore more relatable to us all.

And Xantar, I never "argue" with you. We simply have very passionate discussions.

[Typhoid]

I havent seen it, but I dont know why people would take it literally. I mean...give the general populace a little more credit than that.


I look at the movie from a point of a word of mouth story just passed on through generations, and things become skewed. A "And it was as if they had tusks" could be changed to "they had tusks" to make it more entertaining.

Then again, I dont know, I havent seen it. But that's just my opinion.

[Professor S]

[quote=Typhoid;207946]I havent seen it, but I dont know why people would take it literally. I mean...give the general populace a little more credit than that.[quote]

Are we both talking about the same general populace? The one I'm talking about have proven themselves to be knee-jerk, naive, giant tongued mongoloids who believe anything they see on a movie screen. "An Inconvenient Truth" being a perfect example. "New York City under 20 feet of water" and "warriors with scales and tusks" both have about the same amount of scientific backing and believability, so why would I think anything else about the general populace?

*best segway to a political conversation EVER*

[Xantar]

Originally Posted by Professor S

"An Inconvenient Truth" being a perfect example. "New York City under 20 feet of water" and "warriors with scales and tusks" both have about the same amount of scientific backing and believability

Or for that matter, "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction."

*runs away*

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Are we both talking about the same general populace? The one I'm talking about have proven themselves to be knee-jerk, naive, giant tongued mongoloids who believe anything they see on a movie screen. "An Inconvenient Truth" being a perfect example. "New York City under 20 feet of water" and "warriors with scales and tusks" both have about the same amount of scientific backing and believability, so why would I think anything else about the general populace?

*best segway to a political conversation EVER*

Oh, you're talking about Americans.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Oh, you're talking about Americans.

You know what? While living in Canada I did notice that Canadians are a bit more thoughtful* than Americans in making their political decisions. In America political discussion has degraded to taubts of "You're a terrorist!" and "Your'e a racist, evil conservative!". Those that honor intellectual honesty and objective discussion need not apply, or you'll be branded a bigot, hatemonger, commie or terrorist-lover.

My politics may not go hand in hand with a lot of Canadians, but at least your leaders seem to be knowledgeable and well read. I think this stems from a Parliamentary form of government that makes you confront other ideas and defend your own with intelligent vigor.



*Well, outside of Quebec they are more thoughtful, but thats a given. Quebecers are inbred jackasses with severe penis envy.

[The Duggler]

Originally Posted by Professor S

*Well, outside of Quebec they are more thoughtful, but thats a given. Quebecers are inbred jackasses with severe penis envy.

Care to explain that comment?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by The Duggler

Care to explain that comment?

Well I didn't think I was being all that cryptic, but sure:

Quebecers are so caught up in being Fake French that they tend to interbreed with one another in their own little Fake French universe at the Fake French capital of Montreal. Their gene-pool has become so small and polluted that all of Quebec's combined IQ equals that of Corky from Life Goes On. This is the reason that such idiotic notions like cessession can become common thought. Also, its kind of funny/stupid how they pretend to hate Americans while they consume American culture like an alcoholic throws back a flask of vodka.

Have I crystalized my opinion a little better for you?

Oh wait, Quebec does have one thing going for it: Strip clubs. Super Sex OWNS. You go ride that national strip club pride while you **** your sister.







Wow, I am in a rare mood thi morning.

[Dylflon]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Are we both talking about the same general populace? The one I'm talking about have proven themselves to be knee-jerk, naive, giant tongued mongoloids who believe anything they see on a movie screen. "An Inconvenient Truth" being a perfect example. "New York City under 20 feet of water" and "warriors with scales and tusks" both have about the same amount of scientific backing and believability, so why would I think anything else about the general populace?

*best segway to a political conversation EVER*