300

[brownjenkins]

Movies succeed or fail on how entertaining they are, not how accurate they are. I don't think there has ever been a movie made that was an accurate depiction any real event. The format (getting the whole story into two to three hours), simply doesn't support it. And real events are seldom, if ever, entertaining enough if seen in their full perspective.

If there is any fault to place, it's on advertisers who bill movies as "historical" and viewers who believe it. For real history about any event, you really have to delve into as many sources as possible and put in a lot of reading.

[Lord of the Mark]

True. But I still think, if their going to make the Battle of Themopylae, to try and make it as historically accurate as possible, and not off some comic book.

[brownjenkins]

It's why I watch the History, Discovery and Science channels more than I go see movies.

[D.Sullivan]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

It's why I watch the History, Discovery and Science channels more than I go see movies.

Hehe. I can relate with that.

Movies succeed or fail on how entertaining they are, not how accurate they are. I don't think there has ever been a movie made that was an accurate depiction any real event. The format (getting the whole story into two to three hours), simply doesn't support it. And real events are seldom, if ever, entertaining enough if seen in their full perspective.

True. But in this case, I would say that there were things in 300 that could have easily been more accurate and still worked within the film formet(a little less racism, for instance). It's not a matter for me of not cutting stuff out, when things inevitably must be, but a matter of not putting in things that never happened.

If there is any fault to place, it's on advertisers who bill movies as "historical" and viewers who believe it. For real history about any event, you really have to delve into as many sources as possible and put in a lot of reading.

Agreed. Thanks for your thoughts.

[Millane]

I really enjoyed this film, not as good an adaptation as Sin City but not far off. The side story with Leonidas' wife was kinda **** but it wasnt a huge part of the film, and i didnt think the music was anything special, personally i think it wouldve been better with Just Like You Imagined from start to finish I thought Gerard Butler and David Wenham played their parts perfecto!

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

I would say that there were things in 300 that could have easily been more accurate and still worked within the film formet(a little less racism, for instance).

If your gunna play that bullshit racist card, could you at least explain what you mean?

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

In my opinion, if you don't want to tell the true story, why base it on a true story? If you want to make fiction, make fiction. If you want to change something, change the names and setting and leave the "based on true events" message out. I think you owe that to the people who actually lived those lives.

So does this also apply to the historically inaccurate graphic novel that you liked?
And just as a side note i cant even remember seeing "based on true events" on any of the promo stuff, i did see a lot of "based on the graphic novel by Frank Miller" though...

[D.Sullivan]

Originally Posted by Millane

I really enjoyed this film, not as good an adaptation as Sin City but not far off. The side story with Leonidas' wife was kinda **** but it wasnt a huge part of the film, and i didnt think the music was anything special, personally i think it wouldve been better with Just Like You Imagined from start to finish I thought Gerard Butler and David Wenham played their parts perfecto!

If your gunna play that bullshit racist card, could you at least explain what you mean?

If you don't know what I mean by that how do you know it's BS? And can you tell me you really didn't notice it? Do you think that the Persian royal guard (the Immortals) really looked like a pack of goatman out of Willow? I found it annoying how many Persians were disfigured and monsterous looking. The film seemed to go to great lengths to dehumanize the Persians - which I think was unnecesarry.

So does this also apply to the historically inaccurate graphic novel that you liked?

I can't say I have any.

And just as a side note i cant even remember seeing "based on true events" on any of the promo stuff, i did see a lot of "based on the graphic novel by Frank Miller" though...

That's true and I respect that. Also, I would take this moment to again say that how I feel about being as accurate as possible when basing a film on historical events wasn't directed as much at the film, but at the people who were defending it using arguments like "hang historical accuracy". Which I disagree with.

[D.Sullivan]

Double post, sorry.

[Lord of the Mark]

So does this also apply to the historically inaccurate graphic novel that you liked?

Unless I'm very, very much mistaken, the Hellboy comics are not based on true events, so making a fictional movie about fictional events is not as big a deal as making a movie about true events based on a fictional comic book.

[Millane]

Originally Posted by Lord of the Mark

Unless I'm very, very much mistaken, the Hellboy comics are not based on true events, so making a fictional movie about fictional events is not as big a deal as making a movie about true events based on a fictional comic book.

not talking about Hellboy

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

If you don't know what I mean by that how do you know it's BS? And can you tell me you really didn't notice it? Do you think that the Persian royal guard (the Immortals) really looked like a pack of goatman out of Willow? I found it annoying how many Persians were disfigured and monsterous looking. The film seemed to go to great lengths to dehumanize the Persians - which I think was unnecesarry.

Id say Ephialtes was pretty ****ed up as well, and *shock horror* he was a Spartan Its supposed to give it a mystical quality, frankly if you want to call it racism be my guest, i just dont buy it...

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

I can't say I have any.

well you did say you read 300

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

That's true and I respect that. Also, I would take this moment to again say that how I feel about being as accurate as possible when basing a film on historical events wasn't directed as much at the film, but at the people who were defending it using arguments like "hang historical accuracy". Which I disagree with.

well you were having a go at the film directly for promoting itself as "based on a true story", and im just pointing out unless the promo stuff in your country was completely different to mine you dont have a leg to stand on...

[Nerdanel]

Just to lighten this up a bit..

'It's raining 300 men' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pi2t58CRmbU

[Acalewia]

I'm going to put in my two cents worth on this topic.


True I went to see 300 because it was based in Sparta and I have a hellava lot of respect for the 300 men who went out to try to hold off the Persians. I am a history buff so I went knowing the film was not historiclly accurate (try watching the trailers and TV spots). It had the epic feel to it, which is my favorite type of movie. IIRC, they never claimed 300 would be historiclly accurate to begin with. It's a movie made for entertainment purposes, not for showing in history class as the acual event. If you want to see historical accuacy, I'm sure The 300 Spartans is a lot closer than 300.

[klatukatt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

It's why I watch the History, Discovery and Science channels more than I go see movies.

All right Discovery Channel! You watch Mythbusters?