The 300

[jamiebhoy]

I agree, if you make an historical movie based on actual events then stick to the real story, if it wasn't interesting enough for Hollywood then don't make it. A real story doesn't need to be made glam, it should simply be a good enough tale to tell.

Braveheart,Rob Roy etc, examples of Hollywood's need to mess with history to make a dollar on wholly inacuarate stores.

[Wayne]

Call me crazy, but I could SWEAR I read where you mentioned Lord of the Rings not being accurate to the books. Unless there really was a Middle Earth you did bring up a work of fiction to prove your point.

Regardless, Miller didn't make the movie, Zack Snyder did. But beside the point, think of it as a story a guy thought was cool and wanted to make into a movie. Yeah, it did work for me. It would have worked for me even if there were no such people as Spartans or Persians. The story's strength is not drawn from its historical accuracy; in fact the history plays a back story to the story that was made up. Just like Titanic. Who do you hear say, "I didn't like it because the main two characters didn't really exist."? No one. Sure Xerxes wasn't 8ft tall with rings all through his face and the Spartans weren't mostly naked in battle, but remember remember remember: the story is being told by someone who is exaggerating and didn't see many of the things he's retelling. It's supposed to be inaccurate. Ephialtes was a hideous monster because he had no honor and betrayed the 300. Xerxes had to appear as an insurmountable foe, bigger than life and various other things that were altered as a means of pumping up the Spartan warriors for battle.

But that's all right if that went past you.

[miron_lang]

Rape scene on the queen was horrible.

[HattonTheHammer]

Rape scene on the queen was horrible.

Not if you had a tub of vaseline and a box of tissues at the ready it wasnt


giggitty....giggitty

[miron_lang]

Rape scene on the queen was horrible.

Not if you had a tub of vaseline and a box of tissues at the ready it wasnt


giggitty....giggitty

No Foreplay i hate it.

[Nameless]

Call me crazy, but I could SWEAR I read where you mentioned Lord of the Rings not being accurate to the books. Unless there really was a Middle Earth you did bring up a work of fiction to prove your point.

Regardless, Miller didn't make the movie, Zack Snyder did. But beside the point, think of it as a story a guy thought was cool and wanted to make into a movie. Yeah, it did work for me. It would have worked for me even if there were no such people as Spartans or Persians. The story's strength is not drawn from its historical accuracy; in fact the history plays a back story to the story that was made up. Just like Titanic. Who do you hear say, "I didn't like it because the main two characters didn't really exist."? No one. Sure Xerxes wasn't 8ft tall with rings all through his face and the Spartans weren't mostly naked in battle, but remember remember remember: the story is being told by someone who is exaggerating and didn't see many of the things he's retelling. It's supposed to be inaccurate. Ephialtes was a hideous monster because he had no honor and betrayed the 300. Xerxes had to appear as an insurmountable foe, bigger than life and various other things that were altered as a means of pumping up the Spartan warriors for battle.

But that's all right if that went past you.

For the LOTR: I said that there was many little mistakes and some middle ones (If you want me to cite you them, an old veteran of te LOTR like me will do himself a pleasure to point what and where) and I also said that these were still not huge mistakes in the end that were screwing the history like 300. I also said that they skipped some parts but that it was normal as it is impossible to fit one book per movie.

[Wayne]

Call me crazy, but I could SWEAR I read where you mentioned Lord of the Rings not being accurate to the books. Unless there really was a Middle Earth you did bring up a work of fiction to prove your point.

Regardless, Miller didn't make the movie, Zack Snyder did. But beside the point, think of it as a story a guy thought was cool and wanted to make into a movie. Yeah, it did work for me. It would have worked for me even if there were no such people as Spartans or Persians. The story's strength is not drawn from its historical accuracy; in fact the history plays a back story to the story that was made up. Just like Titanic. Who do you hear say, "I didn't like it because the main two characters didn't really exist."? No one. Sure Xerxes wasn't 8ft tall with rings all through his face and the Spartans weren't mostly naked in battle, but remember remember remember: the story is being told by someone who is exaggerating and didn't see many of the things he's retelling. It's supposed to be inaccurate. Ephialtes was a hideous monster because he had no honor and betrayed the 300. Xerxes had to appear as an insurmountable foe, bigger than life and various other things that were altered as a means of pumping up the Spartan warriors for battle.

But that's all right if that went past you.

For the LOTR: I said that there was many little mistakes and some middle ones (If you want me to cite you them, an old veteran of te LOTR like me will do himself a pleasure to point what and where) and I also said that these were still not huge mistakes in the end that were screwing the history like 300. I also said that they skipped some parts but that it was normal as it is impossible to fit one book per movie.

Again, call me crazy, but that reads a lot like a comparison. You're talking about another movie and how it was different than the source material, ie-comparing.

[Nameless]

Call me crazy, but I could SWEAR I read where you mentioned Lord of the Rings not being accurate to the books. Unless there really was a Middle Earth you did bring up a work of fiction to prove your point.

Regardless, Miller didn't make the movie, Zack Snyder did. But beside the point, think of it as a story a guy thought was cool and wanted to make into a movie. Yeah, it did work for me. It would have worked for me even if there were no such people as Spartans or Persians. The story's strength is not drawn from its historical accuracy; in fact the history plays a back story to the story that was made up. Just like Titanic. Who do you hear say, "I didn't like it because the main two characters didn't really exist."? No one. Sure Xerxes wasn't 8ft tall with rings all through his face and the Spartans weren't mostly naked in battle, but remember remember remember: the story is being told by someone who is exaggerating and didn't see many of the things he's retelling. It's supposed to be inaccurate. Ephialtes was a hideous monster because he had no honor and betrayed the 300. Xerxes had to appear as an insurmountable foe, bigger than life and various other things that were altered as a means of pumping up the Spartan warriors for battle.

But that's all right if that went past you.

For the LOTR: I said that there was many little mistakes and some middle ones (If you want me to cite you them, an old veteran of te LOTR like me will do himself a pleasure to point what and where) and I also said that these were still not huge mistakes in the end that were screwing the history like 300. I also said that they skipped some parts but that it was normal as it is impossible to fit one book per movie.

Again, call me crazy, but that reads a lot like a comparison. You're talking about another movie and how it was different than the source material, ie-comparing.

Comparing: important history crap busting to technical details in a movie. 2 very different things.