300 the movie is a big lie...what is your idea?

Question

I AM SURE

Answer 1

Once the Spartans, being greatly outnumbered, did stand up to the Persians but remember that it's a historical fact that's been distorted in the telling and retelling until, now, it's a legend and can't be considered to be 100% accurate on every point. Was it 300 Spartans vs. 10,000 Persians? Who knows? It was just a few Spartans vs. many more Persians but the actual numbers have been lost in history.

Secondly, the story was made into a graphic novel (comic book for adults) and so it was further distorted (such as adding mutant Persian warriors with swords as arms or whatever).

Thirdly, the graphic novel was then made into the movie and they wanted an artistic rendering not a literal and historically accurate rending of the battle and times.

Lastly, keep in mind the movie is told from the narrator's viewpoint. The guy who lost his eye and was sent back to Sparta with the King's necklace is telling the tale and, naturally, his own perceptions and emotions are coloring what he tells and, consequently, what we see because it's meant to be as if he's telling us and the rest of the Spartans the story

So, is it a "lie" or is it "true?" It's based on fact but it's fictionalized fact. If you want historical accuracy, watch PBS or the History Channel. This was a movie for entertainment!

Answer 2

Lets just say that the producers just want a more cinematic
movie than a history lesson. But theoretically speaking the
movie might just be an exaggerated version of what really
happened. And also taking Leonidas' tactics into account
they might hold the 'hot gates' long enough for any
reinforcements arrive if they continue to funnel the
persians into a narrow space, where the veteran skills would
win over conscripts. If that is they continue a phalanx
formation but as portrayed in the movie they would often break this formation, if exploited, King Xerxes would not
encounter as much casualties. We also can't be sure of the
amputated and deformed women of Xerxes existed,
although they resemble a 'guro' liking of Xerxes. And the
rust from the blade embedded in to the fat guy's hand
would kill the executioner. And in the extent of my history,
Xerxes would wear a robe, rather than a gold overload.
Still I'am a fan of 300 even though it has many fallacies, and
it sounds like you aren't.

And the biggest fallacy to 300 is that Xerxes has a beard

Answer 3

i saw 300 the opening night, in the morning i was watching the history channel and it had something about that 300 so i wanted to see what it was about since i just saw a great looking movie, the movie was pretty off. some things were close, some things you could say was accurate, but mostly it was just to look good and gave a general idea of what happend. the movie was about The 300, not the Persians, but after watching it on the history channel, the 300 was much less important compared to everything else that happend.

Answer 4

I don't think 300 Spartans could really stand up against millions of Persians. In the movie, the Persians are excellent fighters. Even if they were babies with lollipops, the sheer number of Persians would have crushed the Spartans from the very beginning.

Answer 5

Its definitely not historically accurate, but then again most movies aren't. They always add some things just for flair and to make a better movie.

Im sure that the Titanic incident didn't go down the way that Leo portrayed it.

Answer 6

We have gone over this ad nauseum. Repeat after me: "The movie 300 is based on a graphic novel. It is not a documentary."


I want to know how many theaters in Iran are showing this movie.

Answer 7

Iam sure it's a big lie,but some times a couragious and much skilled with weapons can win the war.

Answer 8

my idea is that if you go to see a movie made in hollywood to make money, you will not see the truth.

if you want the truth, go to The History Channel and see their take on it. i'm not 100% if that will be accurate but you have a better chance there of seeing what might have really happened.

personally, i went to see an action film--and i got more than my money's worth. i did not go for a history lesson.

Answer 9

It is just a movie base on a novel. Even the so-called "base on a true story" is not exactly accurate simply because they have to spice it up to keep the audience entertain.

Answer 10

i understand adequate that the action picture grew to become into oftentimes fake, nevertheless based loosely on a real occurance. i think of it won't be taken heavily because of the fact it does not even take itself heavily - there are fictional monsters, blah..... i did no longer get exhilaration from the action picture, i did no longer get exhilaration from the portrayal of the Iranians, however the Spartans known like barbaric, war-hungry, anti-psychological (of their comments approximately Athenians) human beings besides. i does not take it too heavily. uninteresting, uninteresting, no longer inventive and thoroughly a wanna be gladiator / troy / braveheart / patriot / and so on. blah.