The 300

[Nameless]

Hahaha, you used a work of fiction to prove your point, thus proving mine. Sure, the battle at Thermopylae really happened, but the movie 300 is not based on that, it's based on a fictionalized account told in a comic book. That's why Zack Snyder, the director, matched frame for frame what was in the comic and he did a wonderful job. Frank Miller acknowledged his story was inaccurate. He wasn't going for accuracy, he wanted something that wasn't in the version he saw when he was younger. How about the fact the Spartans weren't half naked fighting in battle. He wanted to show off their muscle.

There's a lot 'wrong' with this movie if you're looking for accuracy, but the same is true of every single story based off true events. There's always something that was only speculation or something changed to make it more interesting or some back story that may or may not have happened. I defy you to find a single movie that's completely accurate. It's never happened and never will. There was no Jack and Rose on the Titanic, but the boat really sank. At least with 300 they didn't try to pan it off as being absolute truth by putting in the opening credits, "Based on a true story."

Case in point- Ephialtes. Real guy, but he was not a hideous freak. He was a sheepherder, more than likely, and was bribed to reveal the hidden pass. Frank Miller's interpretation was to make him a monster as told through Dilios. Remember that Dilios is telling the meat of the story and he is obviously exaggerating his retelling to the Spartan soldiers to pump them up for the fight. And he's absolutely lying about the end because he wasn't there. Remember that you didn't see any 'monsters' until he started telling the story.

I didn't use a fiction to prove my point, I was answering to Amat saying that the movie was inspired by the graphics of Miller but based on a true story, that I was more than ok with the novel graphical experience but against the total un-accuracy of the movie.
As I said before, I don't mind a few little mistakes, I am not challenging that, but I am against total deformation of what happened. If you're about to do so, they should mention that it is a fiction thing inspired on true event.
I know that Ephialthes was a shepperder and got bribed, that is one of the reason why I was irked, why put a damn hunchback instead, there would have been so many cool ways to depict a miller-esque shepperder, the need for a hunchback desiring to fight for Sparta was useless and grotesque. That is one of the many details that made me angry, perhaps I am too much of a geek history and not enough of a comic books nerds on that one, perhaps it is a professional deformation (I study philosophy, did tons of greek philosophy and history though political is my main focus) but there was too many BIG flaws to forgive the film so easily, hence why to me it deserves a 6.7, nothing ,more.

Yes, you did. Bam. Regardless, you didn't like it- I get it. I just don't understand why people look for accuracy in movies. They never are. People don't do somersaults through the air when they get shot in the head at close range. It's all a matter of whether or not I'm engaged by the story and 300 had me for the whole time.

No I didn't. "Bam" Coup de grace didn't work, try again later. Read twice, you have to read the whole sentence to get the meaning of it, just taking a snippet out of the whole context change the whollllee thing. I will try to say it in another way: Miller took a real history, the Thermopiles battle. Inspired by that history (because he thought it was cool, interesting or something), he did put graphics over it. with these graphics and this history, he made a comic book. Then a movie. But his movie, inspired by his art and his graphics, has historical pretentions. Which are POOR. So then he should say something like "a fiction inspired by real events" instead of "based on a true story". Which are 2 different things, VERY different eventhough it might sounds similar. Based on a true story has historical accuracy pretention. "A fiction based on a true story" wayy less as it means that there is a huge fiction coming out of something that did happen. Miller used the first terminology *BUZZER*. Wrong. I don't care that peoples do not fall the good way when they are shot or sliced, I am talking historical accuracy, not details accuracy about when peoples die or whatever. If I watch an historical movie of China inivolving Kung-fu, I know that kung fu adepts can't fight the way they do in movies, I am ok with it, however, if it is an historical movie, I assume they will respect the history as it happened, at least in the important details, even if they powder a bit of fiction is ok but the main lines have to. 300 didn't respect even the middle lines. At least, for somebody who knows the history quite good it doesn't. Glad it did the trick for you though.

[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

[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.

[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.

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.