Even more hilarious again again... Compare the multinational state of Persia with the pretty blatant fascism and eugenics even depicted in the "Dude, Spartans are awesome, bro"-movie, you're getting really really confused on who to actually route for.OneCatch said:
300 Sequel---300: Rise of an Empire is Due Out in 2014. Here's the Trailer.
- Thread starter Basement Cat
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I uh... don't see how 300 lends itself to a sequel. Kind of feels a little scummy to force a sequel. I'd feel better about it if they didn't call it 300. Since it will have very little if anything to do with the titular 300 soldiers of the first film.
If it gets well-received, I'll check it out. I liked the first one.
If it gets well-received, I'll check it out. I liked the first one.
Even more hilarious again again again[footnote]I admit, I'm running out of steam now[/footnote]... the Persians and their agents in the film are portrayed as being lying, dishonest, Machiavellian sods compared to the honest and upright Greeks.RoonMian said:
But IRL the Greeks venerated craftiness (Odysseus being a prime example), whereas lying was vilified in Persia to such an extent that the rulers of the largest empire in the world would eulogise themselves as 'honest', and lying under some circumstances was a capital crime.
I enjoyed 300 and watched it a few times. Nothing wrong with a little guilty-pleasure war-porn. It's one of those movies where I just go "Bugger history! I just want to see some stylized ass-kicking". I'm also part Greek. The Greek part is from Sparta, so it was a little extra fun from that angle (and no one from the Greek side of my family found that movie offensive. Actually quite a few of them enjoy it). Not sure what to think of this new "sequel" or whatever. I think 300 sits fine by itself.
Wait, you mean this is actually a thing?? I thought this was just one of those psuedo-trailers, a fan work with no real implications.
Uh...okay then...
Really, I'm just going to rehash the comment I left under the video on youtube. I loved 300, still watch it often, but the biggest problem I have is Xerxes. The fact that they have him, well, doing stuff kills it for me. Xerxes is the ruler, he's supposed to stand there and look menacing. He's not a soldier. He's not a warrior. He's the god-king of the Persian empire. Him leading the invasion of Greece would be like if the president of the united states personally led the invasion of Iraq or Afganistan. It's so...out there that I can't extend my suspension of disbelief that far. The movie no longer seems that dark or edgey, it's just...dumb.
Uh...okay then...
Really, I'm just going to rehash the comment I left under the video on youtube. I loved 300, still watch it often, but the biggest problem I have is Xerxes. The fact that they have him, well, doing stuff kills it for me. Xerxes is the ruler, he's supposed to stand there and look menacing. He's not a soldier. He's not a warrior. He's the god-king of the Persian empire. Him leading the invasion of Greece would be like if the president of the united states personally led the invasion of Iraq or Afganistan. It's so...out there that I can't extend my suspension of disbelief that far. The movie no longer seems that dark or edgey, it's just...dumb.
i'm also one of the few that liked 300. Don't really care about historical accuracy in a movie. The trailer looks rather nice.
But...
This takes place after the events of 300 right?
But...
This takes place after the events of 300 right?
Well there was that ONE dude played by Faramir that is shown leading a new army in the end.Tom_green_day said:
I actually just watched the trailer and I have something similar with the short shot of slaves on a galley chained to an oar. There were no slaves on ancient galleys, at least not on warships. That's what kinda ruined Ben Hur for me as well. -_-ShadowKatt said:
Wait was that queen Cercei?
I'm not that big on the whole Spartan-freedom and Persian=demonic tyrants, even if its meant ironically. In fact the Persians where by all accounts much more enlightened then the brutal, slaveholding Spartans. I'm fine with ditching historical accuracy if it adds something more interesting then the actual history but I don't find this the case with 300 or its incoming sequel.
I suppose I will go check it out though. I don't expect I will love this film but it should be a decent way to fill an evening.
I'm not that big on the whole Spartan-freedom and Persian=demonic tyrants, even if its meant ironically. In fact the Persians where by all accounts much more enlightened then the brutal, slaveholding Spartans. I'm fine with ditching historical accuracy if it adds something more interesting then the actual history but I don't find this the case with 300 or its incoming sequel.
I suppose I will go check it out though. I don't expect I will love this film but it should be a decent way to fill an evening.
Yeah, but that new army seemed to be a tad over the 300 mark, more like the 300 thousand mark.Johnny Novgorod said:
Hey, that's why I'm going to see Pacific Rim.BeeGeenie said:
Anyway.
I absolutely adored the first 300 but I'm as excited about this movie as I should be.
I don't know, I'll go see it if my friends want to.
On the other hand... the Classical era is my strength (while I'm reading up on the Italian Wars & Wars of Religion etc.), but I still enjoyed it because it was so OTT and really couldn't take itself seriously... David Wenham's snarky commentary throughout rather demonstrating this...leviathanmisha said:
Actually, what's silly is that Frank Miller's comic was based on the 1962 film with Richard Egan and Ralph Richardson... and some scenes in it are shot for shot taken from the 300 Spartans. So 300 is an adaptation of a comic book which was inspired by a film which was based on a book which was a retelling of a 2500 year old event. -_-redknightalex said:
Pity the new film couldn't boast Greeks genuinely fighting on both sides (for the 1962 film, the King of the Hellenes loaned the producers some 5000 soldiers to play both Greeks and Persians... LOL).
Yeah... he survived because he genuinely got blinded in one eye, then fought like a total nutcase at Plataea. He had a weird name and all (Pantites, IIRC).Johnny Novgorod said:
Well, as the poets of the day did: they knew not to ruin a good story with the truth! I mean, without exception they numbered the Persians at a million or more, when every logistician worth his pay knows that the land (especially the shitty Greek hills) could not support more than 120000 or so. So they had their drama and stoked up the patriotism.CriticKitten said:
Still, drama, my friend, drama... can't have a stirring film without a dose of exaggeration. AFAIK, though, by themselves the Lacedaemonian contingent numbered more than two thousand (300 Spartiates, 700 Perioeci and I dunno how many helot skirmishers). *scratches head* Thespians... that was it (bad soldiers, good Greeks...).
Rather bizarre that I quite enjoyed 300 and despised Gladiator. -_-
I'll probably see it since I loved the first 300. Sure, it's historically inaccurate but I didn't go into the movie for a history lesson.
A lot of people seem to forget that the story from the movie 300 is not an objective story. We hear it as it is told by one of the Spartans who survived the battle. He is a very subjective narrator who, as added weight, tells the story to his comrades before the next battle in the war. He is basically exaggerating a campfire tale to epic proportions about how Greeks are the heroes and the Persians are evil monsters in order to give his combatants reasons to be fierce, unrelenting and brutal in the battle. Of course Persians aren't evil. And of course they are not monsters. But a Spartan who fought them would describe them exactly like that for the purpose of pumping the adrenaline of warriors before the battle. If any of us was there in 5th century BC, listening to a Spartan warrior re-telling that story, we would've heard it exactly like that. Also, I didn't mention that regardless of how much we know about the Persians and their really awesome civilization, the Greeks in 5th century hated them. The Greeks hated pretty much everyone, they were incredibly xenophobic and everyone who wasn't a Greek was a barbarian and they would either tolerate them for trade or outright fight them. That's why I love the movie 300. It tells us a story from a viewpoint of an actual 5th century Spartan warrior, not a viewpoint of some quasi-historical lesson. And I say that as an archaeologist. 300 for me is the best historical movie because it gives us a glimpse of history as it was back then for certain, and not a textbook reading. Sure, the Persians were very advanced and enlightened, but the Greeks never perceived them as such. Why should a Spartan tell us about it? To him, Persians are monsters and he is there to kill them all. Unfortunately, people in the past were sometimes like that. I got more accurate vibes from 300 than from a lot of other historical movies which are pretty much always influenced by modern way of thinking and have the characters talk and think like... well, us, the 21st century modern viewers.Hades said:
Needless to say, can't wait for the sequel. I hope the overall feel will remain the same. It certainly looks gorgeous, if nothing else. Also, if anything really bothers me about historical accuracy, it's the way they do the environments. They always look like modern art. Sure, it's pleasing to look at, but that pulls me out of immersion much more easily than the demon Persians.