300 seconds of the movie 300

[Mistwell]

From what I can gather, the film is intentioned to be mythic in its storytelling, not historical. It's the legend, not a military journal entry. It's like a wonderfully poetic grandfather were telling the story to a small but rapt group around a campfire at night.

The entire story is told from the eyes of a wounded solider who survived the battle, apparently a while after the battle took place. When watching it, I assumed the exagerations which just what you said, the embellishments of this old soldier retelling the story, and he didn't know what an elephant, rhino, really tall person, and other elements were precisely. He describes them in an entertaining manner, and that is how myths are created.

 

[hexgrid]

...an emphasis on an idealized male body.

Yeah... the "fighting in their underwear" aspect sort of ruins it for me.

 

[Felon]

I could forgive it in a fantasy movie. But this is supposed to be about an actual real battle with people who were really there.

No, it isn't. Think of it in mythical terms. You people griping about historical accuracy have been told at the start of this very thread that this a heavily-fictionalized movie, based only loosely on the events of that battle. So that's at least once, for all the good it did. In the movies, you can expect knights to be chivalrous, and you can expect the Wild West to be a hell of a lot more wild than it was. The point here is here to entertain the masses, not to satisfy aficionados.

 

[Mistwell]

No, it isn't. Think of it in mythical terms. You people griping about historical accuracy have been told at the start of this very thread that this a heavily-fictionalized movie, based only loosely on the events of that battle. So that's at least once, for all the good it did. In the movies, you can expect knights to be chivalrous, and you can expect the Wild West to be a hell of a lot more wild than it was. The point here is here to entertain the masses, not to satisfy aficionados.

I feel like I posted about a movie about pop tarts, and got a ton of replies by people saying they will not see this horrible movie because it's not about monkey's throwing spam at zebras.

I changed the text at the top of the thread to red, and a larger size. It won't help much, but maybe someone will see that and not get all bent out of shape that this movie is not the movie they would have made had they been in charge of making this movie.

 

[shilsen]

I changed the text at the top of the thread to red, and a larger size. It won't help much, but maybe someone will see that and not get all bent out of shape that this movie is not the movie they would have made had they been in charge of making this movie.

I'm pretty sure you're right - it won't help much

 

[Sir Brennen]

The point here is here to entertain the masses, not to satisfy aficionados.

Hey, I consider my self somewhat of an afficionado of film... whatya tryin' to say?

monkey's throwing spam at zebras.

I would stand in line for this.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

they will not see this horrible movie ... it's not about monkey's throwing spam at zebras.

Now if it were zebras slathered in spam and gravy being attacked by lions in an arena whose floor was covered in chained monkeys...

I would stand in line for this

 

[Storm Raven]

In other words, 300 is to the Battle of Thermopylae, as A Knight's Tale was to Chauncer's Canterbury Tales... It's not necessarily meant to be a "good" movie dramatically-speaking, but it can be an theatrically entertaining movie.

Oh well, if it's like A Knight's Tale, then all sins are forgiven.

Wait, no, that just confirms my earlier analysis. A Knight's Tale was a giant pile of crap. If this movie is anything like that, then paying for tickets to see it is worse than buying mud. It's like buying used mud.

 

[trancejeremy]

I don't think it can be compared to A Knights Tale. That had a lot of modern day anachronisms and wasn't really based on real knights or any specific event, or even how knights were portrayed in romances of the times. And of course, that was a comedy.

This, on the other hand, is pretty much a mythic presentation of a real event. No, it's not real historically, but it's perhaps real as the Spartans themselves would have told it. The Greeks as a whole had a way of building myth from history, and this apparently uses a lot of diagloue from some Greek accounts of it. Yeah, some elements are out of place, but the same can be said for the Illiad and the Odyssey.

And seriously, if you have ever seen ancient Greek art, it's pretty much entirely scantily clad athletic men, including their battle scenes that they painted (on vases and such). So that's hardly out of character.

And lastly, the Spartans were a fairly unique culture, and this movie apparently captures them quite well, for better or for worse. That might not stack up to modern sensibilities, but eh, I'm sure they would be happy with the portrayal. (The Thespians probably aren't too happy, though. The Greeks, not the actors)

 

[shilsen]

Oh well, if it's like A Knight's Tale, then all sins are forgiven.

Wait, no, that just confirms my earlier analysis. A Knight's Tale was a giant pile of crap. If this movie is anything like that, then paying for tickets to see it is worse than buying mud. It's like buying used mud.

For you. For people who enjoyed A Knight's Tale, and for people who'll enjoy 300, not so much.