I had some difficulty wrapping my mind around the idea that men would go into battle wearing little more than Speedos and capes. Overall, I thought that 300 was a great deal prettier but far less realistic than The 300 Spartans,
sharePersonally, I think 300 is better. Everybody whines about how "unrealistic" it is, however, it contains many more battle sequences than The 300 Spartans and battle is what those 300 Spartans set out to do.
Spartans, prepare for glory!
If you like crappy battle scenes, acting at its worst, spartans with a wisp, then 300 spartans is your choice. Honestly, the guys in 300 spartans couldn't fend off an angry womens bridge club. Okay, historically it may be more accurate, but as far as entertaining it's not even close to 300. 300 spartans is flat out whimsical.
share[deleted]
300 all the way. better acting in 300, way better fighting scenes in 300, but probably alot less historically accurate, but who gives a *beep* its for the battles not for a masterpiec movie of the century
shareI'm a fan of fight scenes too, which is one of the big issues I have with 300. Like so many other movies these days, it's all flash and no actual fighting. The battle scenes in 300 Spartans, although with standard '60s effects and melodrama, were nevertheless more believable than what was seen in 300. I care about tactics and technique, not graceful dancing moves designed to mimic fighting.
shareI enjoyed them both but then again I enjoy just about anything that involves ancient history.
However The 300 Spartans was an attempt to depict the actual events, which it did fairly well (as far as anyone knows). It was a bit sanitised. I imagine that face to face mortal combat is rather more horrifying than it showed.
It reminds me a little of the Richard Burton film about Alexander the Great. Those historical films of the late 50's and 60's had a pretty stilted and theatrical air to them. Plus Richard Egan is no Burton and I suspect if you touched him you would get a splinter.
300 is a completely different film. Taking the basic bones of history and tying fantasy/horror and violence to them. On the blood and gore front it was probably more accurate than the earlier film although the Spartans were unlikely to have broken their phalanx to attack individually.
As long as you approach it in that way then it is great entertainment. Thats all that it is supposed to be.
"You elected? No, but i've been nominated"
On the blood and gore front it was probably more accurate than the earlier film although the Spartans were unlikely to have broken their phalanx to attack individually.
Karl, I suppose a typical greek phalanx would make boring viewing for some so they had to spice it up.
As for the gore. The Spartan spears would have caused some pretty serious damage to the body. I would expect entrails would have been spilled as well as blood. On that basis I would imagine that a battlefield of this kind would quickly become rather messy although, thankfully it is only imagined.
The first Persian assault was made by 2,000 Medes, not the best troops in the army but probably second best. They were fairly swiftly dealt with and reinforcements had to be sent in. Toward the end of the first day most of them were dead and Xerxes had to send in his Immortals. They too suffered heavy losses.
On that basis I think there would have been a lot of blood and gore around at the end of that first day. We don't know for sure how many Persians died that day but it was many thousands. That's gory and messy enough for me.
Good to talk to you.
"You elected? No, but i've been nominated"
At the top of the screen of every movie listed on IMDB.com is a thing that says "User Rating." "The 300 Spartans" received a 6.7 out of 10, while "300" recieved an 8.0 out of 10. So I'd say the generally consensus is that "300" is better.
Probably worth seeing, however, as supposedly Frank Miller saw this movie as a child and it inspired him to create his graphic novel years later.
300
Many speak of how soft the Spartans looked in the first movie. I guess many are looking solely at the muscle aspect. If I read correctly in my hisory classes about this subject, Leonidas was in his 60's when the battle took place.
No way did Leo look like the stylish version we see in 300. I have said that a remake of the original with the CG effects that were used for the movie Troy, would have been better.
I have seen the pass at Thermopylae, and you stand there in awe seeing how small a space they had to work with (pass was barely 50 feet wide). There is also a statue of Leonidas which marks then spot of the battle.
The only thing that did in the original for me (as someone posted earlier), was the love scenes that tried to put into the movie. I guess it was 1962 and they tried to make movies for everyone.
I liked "The 300 Spartans" more than "300".
"300" isnt bad, is very good; but is full of twisted iconography, too baroque. Besides, "Matrix" touch was good in "Matrix". In this one makes me sick.
Just read intelligent answers
I think '300 Spartans' is way better than '300', and I wasn't alive when '300 Spartans' first came out and I think I am young enough to be part of the target audience for '300'.
I firts saw '300 Spartans' when I was quite young and it made me obsessed with 'Sparta' more than any of the other Greek states (though I did like Athens, Thespia and Thebes), so much that I looked for more info on Sparta in the history books (I was already interested in history at that point' and thus found out more about Darius's invasion of Greek and the events at Marathon (also an interesting story).
Now if I was a bairn when '300' (and my parents would have let me see it) came out I doubt very much 'Sparta' would have had as much of an impact as it did after I saw '300 Spartans'. It's just too removed from real life, too inaccurate, too "slick", too MTV!
It's not the worst film I've seen, nor is it the best. It is however way too cheesy...so much that I found myself laughing at parts of it, and I though that the Persians were depicted terribly (and in a slightly racist manner but I shall not go into that).
I short '300 Spartans' is an epic, whereas '300' is an extended cartoon music video for the Playstation 3 era!
"Nothings gonna change my world!"
300 Spartans is better than 300 because it's only a little bit racist.
The main message of 300 seemed to be "Persians (That's Iraqis kids!) are animals. Kill them"
They're portraying a REAL RACE who exist today as demonic beasts! Persia's a real place, it's not Mordor.
300 is horrible, horrible propaganda.
Moral issues aside, 300 is boring. 15min of plot and 80min of swords banging on shields and shouting!
I could have watched the kids in my road running round playing with sticks for free and witnessed the same level of drama!
Heh, propaganda indeed. "Your king is pursuing an illegal war" hilarious.
Anyway, better movie 300 spartans, best CGI, 300. What kinda bothers me is the ppl going: "300 fighting is realistic, they have like, technique man, and they ownz so many persians noobs". I mean, 300 fighting realistic? Cmon! A guy putting a dude of a horse with a spear realistic? Ninja persians? Chinese spear movement in a phalanx? Sheesh, someone needs to read a bit.
I was surprised by how much I enjoyed 300. It is a work of art. I recognize the fact that 300 wasn't meant to be a work of realism, and it's pretty obvious by the great number of surreal scenes in it. The fantastic Persian images, the trolls, the war-rhino, Xerxes himself, are meant to look as strange to us as the real thing did to the Greeks. The "ubiquitous outsiders."
It is not history, and even though The 300 Spartans is closer to history, it isn't really history either. History, for those who want to know about it, is in the books. Someday, they may even make a REALLY GOOD movie about Thermopylae. I was hoping Gates of Fire by Pressfield would be produced, as it had an excellent script. Maybe it will, eventually. Anyway, I liked both of these movies for different reasons. Negative aspects about The 300 Spartans would be the tedious off-plot love sequences, dancing girls, theatrical rages by Xerxes, and other things that were a part of early historical epics. Negative aspects of 300 would be the troops who resemble more the U.S. Marines than the Saprtans - this is a problem in many recent historical films, by the way. So both movies are good in one respect, with some flaws.
"So both movies are good...."
True. They each have their strength and..flaws.
But I'll always wonder though why the modern remake was the one to be "remade" from the '62 film instead of say a "conventional" film without all the CGI stuff. Was the market for people seeing movies in CGI really high??? Initially, I had read that Michael Mann might do "Gates of Fire for the screen but that went by the wayside for some reason. Now that would have been interesting if was done. Mann is a fine director. I wonder if those producers who thought about doing the "300 Spartans" over perhaps felt CGI was the only way they could depict the 'real' battle. Really it was probably worse than we could envision it. It must have been a horrific battle during those 3 days.
Could it be the thought was that a "conventional" film perhaps with how modern audiences look at battles today might not have worked?
One of the things to remember about 300:
300 is a movie about a soldier telling the tale of how great King Leonidas and his army was. This is why things are blown so far out of proportion. It's a campfire tale told to rally soldiers and to inspire confidence in them before a final battle.
300. People don't seem to get that 300 is being told from the perspective of a soldier who fought amongst the 300 spartans, rallying up new soldiers for the next battle against the persians. So yes, those 'stupid' inaccuracies, gory battles, rhinos, far east elements, african elements, monsters, the persians almost alien like clothing were all done on purpose.
"300. People don't seem to get that 300 is being told from the perspective of a soldier who fought amongst the 300 spartans, rallying up new soldiers for the next battle against the persians. So yes, those 'stupid' inaccuracies, gory battles, rhinos, far east elements, african elements, monsters, the persians almost alien like clothing were all done on purpose."
That "explanation" falls apart when you watch the scene in which the narrator is shown rallying the troops (AKA not part of his tale) which is equally ridiculous, in fact it looks exactly the same as the events as depicted in his "tale".
Also "the persians almost alien like clothing"? Do you not mean "the Persians' almost alien like looks in general"; they have crabs claws and other assorted weirdness for Zeus's sake!
"Nothings gonna change my world!"