My husband and i have just watched this, and are completely mortified that this battle could be tarnished to such an extent....
Where was the research?
This is not even close to the truth about the spartan 300..
Of course, its good ole hollywood ruining yet another historical event, but COME ON!!!!
I think that these directors should be banned, as now the rest of the world will think that is what really happened!!!!!
2007-04-04 16:42:43 · 13 answers · asked by hippygirl 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
My dear,
The movie was based on a comicbook based on the ancient Greek equivalent of media spin.
Given the average intelligence of a comicbook collector, what else we're you expecting?
2007-04-04 16:58:45 · answer #1 · answered by Megat K 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Personally, I loved it. A little heavy on the CGI gore, but that can be overlooked. It's a movie, not a documentary. It's a work of fiction based on a graphic novel by Frank Miller (who also wrote the graphic novel 'Sin City' is based on). It just so happens that Miller's graphic novel is based roughly on something that happened 2500 years ago. Complaining that '300' isn't historically accurate makes about as much sense as complaining that 'Breaveheart' isn't historically accurate because William Wallace reportedly stood about 6'6" and Mel Gibson is only 5'10".
And really, anyone who actually gives a rat's posterior about the real battle will do their own research. If you want a good story, go see a movie. If you want historical accuracy, watch The History Channel.
2007-04-05 00:23:57 · answer #2 · answered by angel s 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I saw the movie. Is it any worse than the fictional portrayal of modern day history? Everything is" hollywoodized". I enjoyed the eye candy . I did have to laugh out loud when the big villain came onto the screen for the first time He was a huge drag queen!!! This was a big guy loving guy movie. I still think that as far as skirts and sword movie's go you can't beat Brad Pitt.
2007-04-05 00:28:38 · answer #3 · answered by modmedusa 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I've seen it twice and plan on seeing it again. If you think Heroditas' account was factural, you make me laugh. No historian of ancient armies would ever consider a 2 million man army as anywhere near being practical, let alone factual. The movie was an account of the graphical novel, not of Heroditas' account, which was the 'hollywood' story of the day.
2007-04-05 00:30:01 · answer #4 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Well, it is not supposed to be reality. It is based on a comic book so what do you expect. Just take it as a fantasy action movie. What was a little disturbing to me is that it is brought just when tension starting coming with Iran. Could be used as a propaganda tool
2007-04-05 00:02:29 · answer #5 · answered by Rongfred K 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Since when do historical movies have any basis in history besides the names?
2007-04-05 01:06:41 · answer #6 · answered by Fred 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I haven't seen it, but i heard it was pretty good. I don't know, cuz the person that told me says that every movie is the best movies they've ever seen.
2007-04-05 00:10:01 · answer #7 · answered by Barbeaux 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No one cares. The cinematic quality of the film far outweighed its inaccuracies.
2007-04-04 23:52:40 · answer #8 · answered by rock55 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It was a movie for entertainment purposes only. Chill out.
2007-04-04 23:51:01 · answer #9 · answered by AJ 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
based on a comic book
'nough said
2007-04-05 00:43:16 · answer #10 · answered by N W 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋