pothos.org

Well, initially there was no question.

There have been plenty since....most answered, or, attempted.

Stathi, though, is still going 'round in circles!!

Going round in circles. Maybe because i was watching the F1 race in the weekend.

Stathi watch moto gp Sunday. real adrenalin racing. Rock on Rossi

jasonxx wrote:WE start a post about 300 and get on about Greek art. Is it that Porthonians cant Answer the [edited - Moderator] Question.

What was the question?

jasonxx wrote:300 Hundred Is breaking bow office records and the reviewers are mostly on fire with this movie.

It comes to show audiences are sick of Teen flick Comedies. Movies with an inate question and cartoons.

The masses prefer Warriors,Antion,Heroism and Escapism. Rounded of with Entertainment. With Leonidas we get a warrior King and Hero fighting enormous odds with patriotism. They want the heroism the Patriotism etc. Indeed the story is losely based on Thermopalai. yet it is based and the fundamentals are there.

Hail Leonidas hail the Warriors and go to hell with Alexander.

I counted them up, and there are zero question marks there.

Anyway, I haven't seen the film yet - have a ticket booked for the 1st April at the London IMAX - but I am looking forward to the film. I go to it knowing full well that I will learn very little from the film, and that I will need to work hard to convince my friends that, no, really, Spartans did wear chest armour, and no, really, Xerxes was not eight foot tall, and no, really, there were thousands of Greeks at Thermopylae, not just 300, and so on...

My question is this - how can we possibly compare this film to Alexander. My arguement is that if a film was made simply about the battle of Gaugamela or Hydaspes then the comparison would be fitting, but as things stand the movies are completely different. 300 is about a single battle (or series of battles if you prefer) in a single location, whilst Alexander is effectively about the life of someone who travelled further than any before him. To compare them seems absurd, they have completely different aims.

Pothosians might find this blog post by a film critic, on the political fuss being made of 300, interesting: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/20/91256/7965

On the issue of “staying on topic”:

A diversion from the main topic is unavoidable when some small part of one member’s post generates interest in another member, thereby initiating a response. The one and only disadvantage of the new Pothos format is that it does not generate “threads within a thread” wherein it is easier to follow sub-topics in the same thread. Upon request we are able to split a thread and remove sub-topics to a new thread with a different header, however, it isn’t always as simple as one may think because many discussions on different subtopics may be present in an individual post.

Who would want to tell Pothosians that they cannot make any comment that doesn’t have specific relevance to the title of the thread? I think this would effectively end Pothos as we know it. Imagine if one had to start a new thread every time the discussion veered in a slightly new direction. And who would decide what should be included in a thread and what should not? In this thread we have a discussion of ancient Greek attitudes towards the Persians – relevant because of the movie, I would say - and certainly relevant to the study of Alexander because this was an important issue in his histories. You might want to consider also that if there were to be “topic police” on the forum then this thread might not exist. One could easily argue that the movie 300 has nothing whatsoever to do with Alexander. As it stands, it has generated much intelligent and enjoyable discussion on issues that are germane to the forum.

Best regards,

amyntoros wrote:On the issue of “staying on topic”:

One of the good things about a discussion forum like this is the fact that it can go in all sorts of different directions - just like a normal conversation.

It does help if people use the "quote" feature, though, which helps others to understand what the next post is referring to. I tend to select the "quote" that directly relates to what I'm responding to, and deleting the rest (e.g. this post itself) - or at least something that prompts others to know what the heck I'm talking about.

Also, I might cheekily add that, technically, "300" doesn't really have anything to do with Alexander, and so the so-called digressions have helped to make it appropriate to this forum, which otherwise it wouldn't really have been!

ATB

Todays the day.

Rock On.

Kenny

smittysmitty wrote:'When Alexander spread Greek culture into Asia, it laid the groundwork for the development of the churches in Asia minor and greater Asia by Greek, Jewish and Assyrian missionaries.'


hmm! ... and I have a daughter that will be commencing year 7 next year at a Victorian school.

smittysmitty - I don't teach ancient history anymore.
Rest easy

A few messages ago I said that we needed to make this thread more relevant to Alexander ... and people rose to the challenge. However, it became so different from the original title and thrust of the thread, that I have split all the most recent messages off into a new thread entitled "Alexander's "Spartan" upbringing".

ATB

Efstathios and Kenny,

Sorry to post so late. I only just saw the movie, having promised you guys. It's really hard to say anything nice about this one. The only thing that allowed me to sit through it was the Spartans forgetting their clothes and armours (and my friends' immature jokes). Now I know why it’s described as “visually stunning” – the rippling muscles. Not only was it rubbish as a movie, the racial symbolism employed was sickening. To get through it, I had to force myself not to think about ‘300’ and focus on the 1800 pack of abs.

Best

Semiramis

Ps. Who do you all think looks more like Xerxes would've? Cartoon guy or Movie guy?

SAME GUY!!

They really were faithful to the graphic novel, weren't they? Yikes.

Semiramis wrote:Ps. Who do you all think looks more like Xerxes would've? Cartoon guy or Movie guy?

Honestly, I never imagined Xerxes as a bald, beardless man. I was quite stunned by how they portrayed Xerxes, but that's just me.

I had always imagined him to be Persian for some reason.

And nothing like Magic Johnson with a make-over.

The film was terrible.