At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
I just finished seeing this film. The original version is much better. Why, because it's more accurate historically, and believe it or not, despite all the present technological advantages enjoyed by movie makers today, it is also far more realistic. Part of the problem perhaps is the temptation to use all means at their disposal to enlarge things beyond believability. The recent King Kong film went in that direction but in comparison is tame. In three
Hundred Spartans what we have is unrestricted special effects debauchery which instead of enhancing only serves to distract due to its unhistorical nature and even more--by its impossibly nature.
In short, what you are going to see in Three Hundred Spartans the newest version, is far more akin to fantasy than history. Something like Lord of Rings but done with far less taste, disregard for a strong plot and character development in favor of the shock value via the continuous presentation of the deformed, grotesque, "people" who look more like monsters from another planet, and the incessant display of violence slowed down so that every minute detail of dismembered limbs can be appreciated by the supposedly enthralled audience.
Another unnecesary which is ever-present in the film is the narrator voice which explains the obvious via admiring platitudes in an effort to have us dull witted historical ignorants understand-that the Spartans were excellent warriors. On he drones through the whole film until one wishes Leonidas would stuff a pomegranate in his mouth.
Then there is the innacurate portrayal Spartan method of fighting itself. The original film made an effort at portraying a phalanx. After all, it is the key to holding the pass and compensating for being outnumbered. Not in this film brothers. This film has the Spartans break formation and charge into the enemy each man using a sword instead of the long spear. In short, since the phalanx formation wouldn't lend itself to the close-up man to man fighting which would supposedly awe us they flippantly discarded it. This despite the fact that the triple hunchback begs to participate in the battle but is denied participation precisely because he would be unable to fight in the phalanx formation due to his deformities. So much for logic and audience ability to notice the obvious contradiction.
There are many more annoying things in this movie, such as having an elephant sized rhino, and imperial mastodon sized elephants appear briefl and be dispatched with ridiculous ease. The uglier and bigger the better was the modus operandi and historical accuracy be damned. Darius himself, for example is a bald nine-foot-tall semi effeminate giant with about twenty gold rings attached to his face. The Greek traitor who revealed the pass to the Persians so they could outflank the Spartans looks more like a deformed gnome. Huge triple hunches on his unatomically incorrect back, gnarrled deformed limbs, a plethora of rotting black and yellowed teeth, bulging bloodshot eyes all seem to say somtheing which I am still trying to figure out.
Want a good 300 Spartan film. See the original. IMHO
I dont wanna sound harsh, but i really do think you're reading to much into this. you do have the right to have your own opinion and if you didnt like it coz you just didnt thats fine but 300 wasnt ment to be a history lesson, its entertainment. so i dont think its fair to judge the historical inaccuracies of it. yes i know it was way off, i learned all about it at school, so im not saying you're wrong about that. all im saying is that its a movie. as for the whole thing about the elephants and the giant rhino, remember the have never seen these creatures before so that was just to show how it may have appeared to them and yes the elephants went down easy but its not like they were standing on ground that could support their weight hence them falling so easily.
i havent seen the original, so i can safely say i absolutely love this version, without the obligation to stand behind the original. i also happen to love frank miller and zack snyder and i think they do great work.
So many movies are being slammed by all these hollywood remakes it really is kinda sad, so ill take your word for it when you say the original is better. but i mean you also have consider the fact that this is what people are used to today. im only 19 but i grew up watching all the classics, mostly horror, and how many of those have been re-made? i didn't know anyone my age who had seen the original texas chainsaw massacre (and now thats supposed to be a true story, but its based loosely on ed gein. ive read all about him but i dont take it to heart that TCM doesnt accurately portray him,because its a movie) but anyway give people a choice between the new one and the old one, they pick the new one, despite it being a HUGE waste of time, but it's just what they're used to seeing. it takes a lot more to shock people these days. besides if we didnt have re-makes some stories like texas chainsaw massacre wouldn't be know by many people in my generation. and thats where hollywood comes in.
Also i have a lot of faith in zack snyder, i loved the dawn of the dead re-make and he's a great director. personally i think 300 was a excellent re-make job for what it was.... a movie. its not like teachers are going to be showing this in every history class as a documentary, so just enjoy it, forget what you know for 2hrs, i mean who watches action movies to learn?
i have to go die now coz all that typing really sucked!!
I just finished seeing this film. The original version is much better. Why, because it's more accurate historically, and believe it or not, despite all the present technological advantages enjoyed by movie makers today, it is also far more realistic. Part of the problem perhaps is the temptation to use all means at their disposal to enlarge things beyond believability. The recent King Kong film went in that direction but in comparison is tame. In three
Hundred Spartans what we have is unrestricted special effects debauchery which instead of enhancing only serves to distract due to its unhistorical nature and even more--by its impossibly nature.
In short, what you are going to see in Three Hundred Spartans the newest version, is far more akin to fantasy than history. Something like Lord of Rings but done with far less taste, disregard for a strong plot and character development in favor of the shock value via the continuous presentation of the deformed, grotesque, "people" who look more like monsters from another planet, and the incessant display of violence slowed down so that every minute detail of dismembered limbs can be appreciated by the supposedly enthralled audience.
Another unnecesary which is ever-present in the film is the narrator voice which explains the obvious via admiring platitudes in an effort to have us dull witted historical ignorants understand-that the Spartans were excellent warriors. On he drones through the whole film until one wishes Leonidas would stuff a pomegranate in his mouth.
Then there is the innacurate portrayal Spartan method of fighting itself. The original film made an effort at portraying a phalanx. After all, it is the key to holding the pass and compensating for being outnumbered. Not in this film brothers. This film has the Spartans break formation and charge into the enemy each man using a sword instead of the long spear. In short, since the phalanx formation wouldn't lend itself to the close-up man to man fighting which would supposedly awe us they flippantly discarded it. This despite the fact that the triple hunchback begs to participate in the battle but is denied participation precisely because he would be unable to fight in the phalanx formation due to his deformities. So much for logic and audience ability to notice the obvious contradiction.
There are many more annoying things in this movie, such as having an elephant sized rhino, and imperial mastodon sized elephants appear briefl and be dispatched with ridiculous ease. The uglier and bigger the better was the modus operandi and historical accuracy be damned. Darius himself, for example is a bald nine-foot-tall semi effeminate giant with about twenty gold rings attached to his face. The Greek traitor who revealed the pass to the Persians so they could outflank the Spartans looks more like a deformed gnome. Huge triple hunches on his unatomically incorrect back, gnarrled deformed limbs, a plethora of rotting black and yellowed teeth, bulging bloodshot eyes all seem to say somtheing which I am still trying to figure out.
Want a good 300 Spartan film. See the original. IMHO
the new verison wasn't about depicting history accurately, it's based on the graphic novel by Miller. Plus the true story of 300 is kinda ridiculous since they teem up with the Athenians and eventually turn on eachother after defeating the Persians anyway.
the new verison wasn't about depicting history accurately, it's based on the graphic novel by Miller. Plus the true story of 300 is kinda ridiculous since they teem up with the Athenians and eventually turn on eachother after defeating the Persians anyway.
Well, they strove to be historically accurate in the homosexual portrayal of the Spartans. A Thespian calling Spartan a woman, he giggling while teasing another Spartan not to be jealous because of he had sodomized himself to the Thespians.
Yes, the Athenians and Spartans eventually went at each other's throats. But the film was not about that part of history--it was about the battle of Thermphylae.
In any case, I am sure that millions enjoyed it. Unfortunately, I initially found it extremely annoying. Perhaps partially because I see no sense in adding tension to the world which is already tense via irresponsibly dehumanizing and callously denigrating another culture's history.
On the other hand most Westerners, I surmise, don't really give a hoot as long as it isn't their ox getting gored, such as Lincoln, Washington, Robert E Lee, Napoleon, or Julius Caesar or any other of their historical icons for that matter. But then again that's human nature which I condone when inevitable but which in this case I don't.
But as I said before, that is simply my opinion and I am aware that there are other opinions to which people are entitled in the realms of politics, religion, art, etcetera.
I just now got done watching the new one and I loved it. I thought it was really good, however I dont have anything else to base it on because I havent seen the original. I'd like to see it, where can I get it? Would I have to get it online?
I just now got done watching the new one and I loved it. I thought it was really good, however I dont have anything else to base it on because I havent seen the original. I'd like to see it, where can I get it? Would I have to get it online?
i liked that movie.....
also, war elephants historically were notorious for their tendency to panic in combat i think, often trampling there own side.
another interesting thing is, in one battle it is written that one of the greek generals had to move his mens camp several miles, because the spartans kep kidnapping their allies sentries and raping them. the greek general then posted even more sentries to try and avoid this, and moved the camp, but that just meant that more sentries got raped by their spartan allies.
homosexuality i think was acceptable in greece, as long as it was consentual lol
spartans did have a good military, but when they tried to build a navy, it was disasterous for them.
i liked that movie.....
also, war elephants historically were notorious for their tendency to panic in combat i think, often trampling there own side.
another interesting thing is, in one battle it is written that one of the greek generals had to move his mens camp several miles, because the spartans kept kidnapping their allies sentries and raping them. the greek general then posted even more sentries to try and avoid this, and moved the camp, but that just meant that more sentries got raped by their spartan allies.
homosexuality i think was acceptable in greece, as long as it was consentual lol
spartans did have a good military, but when they tried to build a navy, it was disasterous for them.
You are right about elephants! Yet people insisted on placing them in the front lines.
Hannibaal's elephants did him absoliutely no good at the battle of Zama where the Romans pelted them with darts, made a huge noise with whatever was at hand such as trumpets, and courteously made corridors for the hysterical beasts to find a way out. As you say, a panicked elephant is a thing to fear since it can turn back and trample. One general, Hannibaal's brother, provided each Elephant rider with a long spike to thrust into the elephant's brain in case they panicked.
About naval prowess, the Persian fleet got bottlenecked and was soundly defeated by the Greek fleet at the battle of Salamis. Something akin to what was done on Thermophylae but this time at sea. Large numbers were not effective in the areas which the Persian fleet was lured into--speed and maneuverability were. This happened imediately after the battle of Thermophylae.
Linear Mode
