I am not a 300 hater and I haven't seen the movie but I have to ask this question remember that movie apocalypto? The majority of people did not like that movie because it was historically inacurrated and senalziatiolize! (I spent hours trying to explain to my roommate if u want a history watch the history channel) I was expecting the movie 300 to be critizied for the same reason....but it wasn't??? Why did people blast apocalypto for its historical inacurraties but hardly no is complaining about 300? I see some double standards why do poeple in general contradict themselves?
2007-03-13 05:43:59 · 8 answers · asked by Daniel C 1 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
Apparently no one knows the accurate story behind that (300)war; so instead of going for historical accuracy, the creators went for a more OTT fantasized version of the story.
2007-03-13 19:33:09 · answer #1 · answered by lookin 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I saw it and loved it. Like you, I tell the critics to stick to the d@mn history channel because I was there to be entertained and this movie was better than I expected!!
I think part of the reason people trashed APOCALYPTO was that a lot of people hate Mel Gibson. Seriously. The complaints were stupid! Just as the people claiming that 300 is an analogy for the Iraq/US conflict! C'mon, give it a rest!
2007-03-13 20:16:25 · answer #2 · answered by Spartan Sense 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The reason why people are not complaining about 300 is because it is based on a frank miller graphic novel, and from what i here, it is accurate with the book. now for everyone who complained about apocalypto, the movie is not a true story, so get over it, and enjoy some good fiction.
2007-03-13 13:23:30 · answer #3 · answered by Luca Febbraro 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
300, FYI, wasn't made to be historically accurate. it was made for entertainment, not as a documentary. i disagree with people who put down the movie. up to now i still can't find the words to express how much i liked it. it was just... wow. i wish i can watch it over and over again.
300 is not your average movie. if it's going to be criticized let's leave that to the professional movie critics. watch it, see for yourself. you won't find anything wrong with it at all.
2007-03-14 04:55:32 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
both movies were great in my opinion. i have heard a lot of people complain about the accuracy of 300. look back at the questions on Y!A and you will see. i agree that it was not a documentary it was for entertainment.
2007-03-13 12:50:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well as i have no real answer for you all i can do is give you advice. DON'T waste your time trying to explain something to someone that is just a waste of time. MOVIES are MOVIES if it was meant to be accurate then it would be a DOCUMENTARY. Shake the junk off of what people say, they just like to argue. C'est la vie!! (that is life)
2007-03-13 12:54:09 · answer #6 · answered by ccutestuff2001 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i saw it tonight. i think that since the movie is based on the graphic novel more than history (though the battle of Thermopylae did happen), people aren't criticizing it. and it wasn't directed by the controversial Mel Gibson
2007-03-17 01:32:14 · answer #7 · answered by The Tourist 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes I saw 300 over the weekend and I was extremely unsatisfied. It was very boring and way too much like a boring historical television show.
2007-03-13 14:00:40 · answer #8 · answered by leged56 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋