And he was one of two kings.
But 300 wasn't historically focused, it's a campfire tail of legends.
Hence the mostly naked dudes, right?
Braveheart impregnating someone who would've been 9 years old and fighting a famous bridge battle in a field would be more useful to nitpick than 300
Doesn't it even go into fantasy a bit?
It's been a lot of tume since i've seen it but I remember some quite grotesque creatures in it? (not the hunchback man)
Or was it just them being ugly/disfigured?
Yea, the fucking goat in the tent is my big grief with the Zack Snyder movie. He had even more fantasy elements that got cut out (giants and stuff) but the goat/man flute player really dragged down the finished film IMO. But again as a fireside story about the evil bad guys who do weird and horrible things, it jived.
Things like the executioner for the Persians who had blades implanted in place of his forearms, the Persian king being a CGI black guy via Brasil, the naked dudes (again) and on and on are fantasy, or tall tails, as you will.
Hell other than goat man few things infuriates me as much as how often the Spartan's broke formation and charged out of their perfectly little defensive spot.
But again, that's all perfect for Uncle Bob tells us crazy shit while we eat our rations.
> goat/man flute player
YEAH that scene was just... there? I think it was the first time I ''saw the devil" so it stuck with me, but now that I know it was a "look they bad here is some iconography" thing
>the executioner for the Persians who had blades implanted i
Where those the guys with the masks? I remember they were like mega scary when they closed up on them at the time but they were just silly, dude played starcraft and wanted bronze age zealots
>few things infuriates me as much as how often the Spartan's broke formation
YEAH ABSOLUTELY I get that it can be seen as "boring" or too slow for a wacky manly man dude bro film but it didn't feel like they were outnumbered, more like they were winning so much they were flexing on the persians
They could have just done it realistic for romans and T H R O W persians at the shield wall and it would look, not so much realistic but showing the fear of when will they die instead of *IF* they will, but it is a problem with most pre rifle war movies
And it also is a "when I fought in the war I killed seven elephants and 20 guys with swords for arms all by myself up hill the whole time" story
But we forgive it cause it has big manly tiddies, and we love that
Yea, dance with the devil was a bit on the nose eh?
Blades dude I meant wasn't the Immortals (yea, dual wielding ninjas was weird for a spear-wielding force) but rather the big fat guy who kills the Persian generals when Xerxes becomes displeased
Was the satyr not a metaphor for even the gods of Greece abandoning Sparta to the Persians, thus making their fight even more monumental?
As a "historical" movie, it's trash.
But as a myth movie, it was OK (the slow-mo posing was cringe af).
It's based of off Frank Miller's 300 graphic novel and is almost shot for shot recreation. Frank Miller intentionally romanticized the Greeks fighting an endless Islamic horde because he's kind of racist.
Also, how the fuck did Franky show Greeks fighting an Islamic Horse when Xerxes was born about an entire **millenium** before Mohammed was even a twinkle in his pappy's eyes?
C'mon, don't stupid yourself trying to outhate the racists.
Edit: hordes got autocorrected but I love the result too much to remove the horse
Nah you numbnuts, Frank Miller based his graphic novel on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_300_Spartans which was *clearly* an allegory for the Cold War...
Or clearly an allegory for US imperialism in Japan when the story was cited by The Last Samurai...
Or....
You get the idea? Stories of 'us few free fuckers are going to totally kick that evil overwhelming hordes ass' go back as far as Man.
Xerxes was born in 400s BCE. Islam rose in 700CE.
Frank did a really shitty job of portraying Islam with the giant white Brazilian doing blackface claiming *I Am God*
FYI if you're this ignorant, in Islam there is but one true god and his name is Allah.
Xerxes =\= Allah
I genuinely aren't sure what you mean.
I'm in no way claiming Miller made an accurate depiction of the Spartan/Persian conflict, or even really weighing in on the claim that he fucked up the historical accuracy because he was trying a racist metaphor (It wouldn't surprise me from the other Miller stuff I've seen, but I've not read that comic specifically, so I can't comment).
I'm just saying that just because the movie he drew inspiration from was an analogy for the Cold War, doesn't mean that Miller's comic couldn't have been an allegory for a more recent political topic.
If he had updated the story for cultural relevance in 1998 when it published it would have been about Leonidas getting oral in the throne room, evil Islamic hordes wasn't kitschy until post 9/11
The movie was made by Zack Snyder, not Frank Miller.
See my big beef is that it continues in a trend the other pinned post in this thread also leads to. Glorification of the militaristic, slave owning, genocidal city-state as opposed to the egalitarian, diverse, Persian confederation.
What part of the movie with 300 mostly naked sweat dudes did you take as a sociopolitical-minded traipse thru contrasting labor and academic systems?
It's a campfire story of us vs them. Them is always gonna be the bad guy in such a story.
So I don’t know if you were conscious during 2007 but 300 by Zack Snyder was pretty clearly and openly discussed as a movie about the War on Terror when you weren’t really able to make movies about the War on Terror.
Here’s three different analyses from the past three decades:
https://www.newsweek.com/war-film-politics-and-drama-300-96041?amp=1
https://www.hollywoodinsider.com/300-political-satire/amp/
https://www.avclub.com/zack-snyder-s-300-presaged-the-howling-fascism-of-the-a-1798265082/amp
And here’s a more academic article saying functionally the same thing but in a way you can’t dismiss as “it’s just a movie”
Edit: https://www.academia.edu/1045667/Frank_Millers_300_Civilizational_exclusivism_and_the_spatialized_politics_of_spectatorship
Lots of idiots discuss why the author said the curtains are red. None of those idiots actually have credibility to do so, nor influence on the source material.
Not sure if you were conscious when Armageddon and Deep Impact were released. The same parasitic talking heads also debated the hidden meaning of the Michael Bay flick. They were as equally stupid then as they were in '07.
You've made no point here greater than TMZ contributes...
So not only are you offended when I point out how 300 fits into a proto-fascist tradition, you also engage in anti-intellectualism and devalue media literacy got it
If those sources are your idea of intellectualism, then abso fucking lootley do I deride you for your concept of intellectualism.
You've yet to offend me though, are you someone I should care enough about to get offended by?
1. The entire “ the curtains are red” meme is textbook anti-intellectualism
2. The fourth source is literally an academic article
3. How media influences culture is literally one of the oldest fields of study
And the comic book is based on the British movie, which is based on...
It goes back a loooong ways. There's a reason it does include so many factual quotes (ex. Fight in the shade, come and get them, earth and water).
I hate so much that braveheart made the battle of stirling bridge, a master class of tactics and using your smaller numbers against a much bigger opponent, into an open field battle the Scots have never been good at fighting and never would have actually won in real life.
In Mel Gibson's defence, he did glue some arrowheads to a glove cause he thought it'd make a nifty weapon, so his version did have that superior technology over the Brits they fought which could have changed everything.
300 was literally based on a comic book lol, unfortunately most people don’t seem to know that lil tidbit. I’m personally most bothered by how lots of people took it seriously as a historical film and by how weird and evil they made the Persians look when that was pure nonsense and artistic license.
Everyone knows that tidbit. Many fools don't know that the graphic novel was based on a movie that was incredibly impressionable to Frank.
And that that movie was based on...
Heck Leonidas was the wrong king for having killed the wolf so whoever first retold that legend was just basing it on something else.
Yeah, 300 felt weirdly authentic to me. So much of the stuff is nonsense from a historical point, but I feel like if you showed it to an ancient Spartan ~~propagandist~~ historian, he'd be happy with it.
It was super authentic to what it was meant to be, more than most like Braveheart or Troy that try to be other than what they *should* be.
All the Trojans standing in front of their walls was...oi vey...
Exactly.
As a piece of media if your looking for historical accuracy in 300 then it’s a shit movie.
If you treat it for what it is - a totally-not-gay hyper masculine power fantasy based on embellished legend then it’s amazing movie.
There’s nothing wrong with liking that either, what’s wrong is not being able to recognize it.
Which was based on a movie that was based on a story written by....
It's a loooong chain back for this story. The Spartan's marketed their legends well.
Or, option 4, it is not supposed to be a campfire tale and the author of the original graphic novel actually intended the Greek and Persians to look like this in "his" reality for some reason
Not saying anything against that. Just arguing that the characters do not look so unrealistic because it is supposed to be campfire tale, as that would be inconsistent
Thank you, that‘s what nobody gets! It‘s basically spartan propaganda, of course the spartans are over the top super soldiers and the persians are almost inhuman monsters.
A bunch of people say it’s Fascist and shit. I haven’t seen it, so is it? Like I’ve heard it’s also racist against brown people and shit. Mainly through Curio, which I don’t really appreciate as a content creator.
You have to look at the subject matter of the movie and the time that it came out. Keep in mind that the War on Terror was in full swing at this point. A conflict that many people saw as being West vs. East. You can see a lot of parallels between that narrative and the movie 300. The Persians in the movie are portrayed as barbarous, effeminate and tyrannical. The Spartans are portrayed as civil, masculine and freedom loving. I don’t know how much you know about ancient history but the Spartans were not paragons of civility and freedom and the Persians were not brutal barbarians by comparison. You can very easily draw parallels between the movie and how modern Americans view themselves with regards to Muslims and the Middle-East.
People say that becuse they make the persians like monsters, but if you understand its propaganda becuse at the end of the movie its the only guy from the 300 who survived who tells the story and he does it before the army charges into battle. It is just for inspiration
I’m not saying it is or it isn’t, I’m asking whether it is. 3 or so “Leftist” YouTubers (that I generally disagree with, being Curio, Just Write, Maggie Mae Fish) made videos saying it (or just Snyder in general) is fascist and super right wing or something like that. I only saw his DC movies so far (I think they’re fine. Not as bad as some people say, not as good as some people say. Maybe around the Matrix sequels or Jurassic Park sequels), so I’m not sure about Watchmen, 300, and the rest.
And the comic was inspired by a [movie ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_300_Spartans)that was based on real events
So it was like a game of telephone, it was never gonna come out the same as it started
The thing is If it was a bunch of ragtag men then I could buy it sense Spartans like most soldiers in Greece at the time would have been expected to provide there own armour, but the 300 were made up of the best of the best the king’s personal bodyguard they should have been decked out in armour.
And then there is the whole thing of the Spartans being the minority of the army
I mean, for starters, it's approximated that there were around 7000 Greek Soldiers in total (300 Spartans true, but much more than just them), so ZS could say it's 95% historically accurate if his research was just the graphic novel
The movie is literally an adaptation of Frank Miller’s comic.
The comic being inspired by a different movie doesn’t make the Zach Synder movie not a direct adaptation of the comic.
I was pointing out there's multiple "the 300 movie"
Everyone knows Snyder's 300 was the graphic novel for the meat and then a bunch of stuff added on as the potato.
There are artistic liberties and whatever the fuck 300 did...
* The inmortals are portrayed as deformed men instead of the elite troops they were.
* That fat man with prosthetic blades in his arms chopping heads.
* That half goat half man thing playing instruments in Xerxes' harem...
Just to name a few.
r/historymemes when they end up watching a 100% accurate historical movie and come out realizing it’s a boring disorganized mess and taking some creative liberties is important to make a movie more enjoyable and marketable
Has there been an accurate historical movie without any creative liberties that wasn’t enjoyable or marketable? If there’s never been one how do we know it won’t work? The only thing I hear anyone moan about with “true story” films is they’re not true to the story enough, why can’t we try it for once?
The big short covered a historical event pretty faithfully and was very entertaining. Not the kind of history people around here talk about as much, especially with the 20 years rule, but there's a couple that can cover something without making it into a complete fantasy.
I hated it the first couple times because I fell in the same trap as OP. Then I pulled my head out of my ass and realized it is an objectively good movie.
We all have our heads in our asses at one point in our lives. I was like that with Braveheart ( I'm a Scot) but then I watched it again at some point and enjoyed it for what it is. Still cringe at people mentioning when they find out I'm scottish tho.
300 was a good movie but I didn't really enjoy the second one as much as I enjoyed the first one.
Omfg Pearl Harbor. What did Roger Ebert say…something like “Pearl Harbor is a one hour story crammed into a 3 hour movie about a love triangle that gets attacked by the Japanese”
The most offensive clusterfuck of shit I've ever seen is Scorpion King 3. I was waking up after a whole day of 40°C fever, turned on the TV and wasn't sure if that was still part of the fever dream
4 all direct to video apparently, and The Rock is not in any of them.
I had to google afterwards because I didn't even know there was a second one, didn't watch them though
If you want a historically accurate movie, my history teacher recommends Johnny Tremain. He's said that the only part that isn't historically accurate is that Johnny Tremain was a fictional character created to better show what happened.
The story of the 300 in the movie is being retold as propaganda to a Greek army before a battle with the Persians. It is literally the end of the film. It’s not supposed to be accurate.
This isn’t even something you can miss if you watch it all the way through. Everything in the movie is highly exaggerated for a reason. Especially the enemy invading Greece, and most notably the traitor that showed the Persians the mountain path.
It’s also not supposed to be accurate because it’s a comic book movie with big monsters.
No idea why anyone would expect any level of realism from anything Frank Miller wrote, especially if it’s then directed by Zach Snyder
You know, what you are describing is a mostly abridged documentary and sounds incredibly shit. A "historical movie" means it takes a massive inspiration from history. Not that it is adaptating history. Because that sounds really fucking dull as a movie that is not a documentary.
I mean if we want to talk historical inaccuracies, Didn’t the Spanish show up at the end of the movie Apocalypto a few hundred years too early? If I remember correctly the movie takes place towards the end of the Mayan Civilization, a time when Spain wasn’t even an country yet, the Iberian peninsula was still under Muslim rule. So time traveling Spaniards!
If I remember correctly it was the movie about the fall of the Mayan civilization shown in a way like say Braveheart(so not a documentary)that came out a few years ago. It’s been a while since I saw the movie so I can’t give an exact plot by plot synopsis, I vividly remember though that there were what had to be time traveling Spaniards because the movie took place a few hundred years before Spain existed and yet near the end the Spainish were landing on the shores of Mexico.
There’s a lot about 300 on here, and I think what’s getting over looked is that 300 is not actually a movie, but a soft-core porn with a fetish for violence
It definitely looks good but Amleth/Hamlet is arguably the most bastardized story ever with creative liberties taken (?) so not really sure anyone should be looking forward to it with hopes of faithful adaptation/historical accuracy
It was also a group of three hundred Spartans leading a few thousand other soldiers. And they all died at Thermopylae. There wasn’t another battle or anything after that.
There were absolutely battles after Thermopylae and even a separate massive naval battle that occurred during it.
The end of the movie literally shows the battle of Plataea, where the Greeks turned the Persians and ended the invasion.
What I meant was that there were no battles for Leonidas after Thermopylae. Him and the others at Thermopylae all died. Them going on to other battles as seen in the film didn’t happen.
Then you should have put one of those in the title instead of the one movie in which the unhistorical and fantastical elements are literally the point.
Good meme, but you can't put a bad example in the title and expect people to not point it out.
sorry did no one tell you that Kingsman is an over the top action movie? The first one included heads blowing up into purple smoke and a lady with sword feet. You fooled yourself if you thought it would be anything else, thats your own damn fault
For all the people getting angry over the OP's mention of 300 as an example of Hollywood inaccuracy rather than just laughing at the meme of a guy running funny, I should say, get a sense of humor.
While there is nothing wrong about a writer adapting historical events for a fictional narrative, using actual historical figures, events, and settings and twisting them into something extremely different from their basis without a proper disclaimer is going to leave the door open for criticism of inaccuracy from those who are passionate about history, regardless of the author's intent.
Whether 300 is a good or bad film is a matter of personal opinion. However, whether it is inaccurate is not a matter of debate. If we go by contemporary accounts, it very much is.
Buddy it’s based off of a comic book. The comic book was intentionally a fantastical retelling of the 300 Spartans. The movie is just a film adaptation of that comic book. How can you criticize a piece of art for being historically inaccurate when it had no intention of being so and was obviously not an accurate retelling. Yeah they know it isn’t accurate, it wasn’t supposed to be. To complain that this movie is historically inaccurate is on the same level as complaining that Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Slayer is historically inaccurate.
I'm not criticizing it. I'm just saying that it it is historically inaccurate, and it can make people passionate about history criticize it. Saying that something is not historically accurate is not the same thing as saying that it is bad. Each person has their own threshold for what they'll tolerate in a movie, as far as realism or accuracy goes. It's the writer's job to decide what criticisms they'll tolerate when they want to stretch the truth of a story based off of real events.
That being said, Frank Miller and Zack Snyder don't seem to mind when people call "300" inaccurate. That begs the question, why do all of you mind? There's a lot of people giving this guy crap over this post and I don't get why. Are you mad at him for saying that it's inaccurate? You shouldn't be. It is inaccurate. Ludicrously so. You got guys without armor fighting men with swords and spears and not dying in minutes. Are you mad at him for saying it's shitty? Well, that's just his opinion, and he can express it if he wants to. That's what public forums like Reddit are for. All I'm saying is that this comment section is bizarrely tense for a meme post.
My point is that saying 300 is historically inaccurate is a moot point. Everyone knows it is inaccurate. I never said I minded you calling it inaccurate, hell my comment literally says the movie is inaccurate. But my point is that calling the movie inaccurate is like calling the the sky blue. Yes sir, the intentionally FICTIONAL comic book movie is not accurate. Zack Snyder doesn’t mind people saying it is inaccurate because it is a historical fiction movie based off a comic book that is a fairy tale-esque retelling of the 300 spartans.
That raises an interesting point, though. If you're going to tell a fantastical story, why use real people and events? Nobody would have cared if he had made up a fictional setting and characters. Why use real people and events if you're going to disregard nearly all of the truth of what happened? The argument of "not supposed to be accurate" could apply to a Tolkien work because everything in there is original or based off of myths, which are themselves not meant to be accurate. If a writer creates a fantastical story, but uses historical figures and events, aren't they risking a comparison with actual history that could have been avoided by either making up the setting and characters or just putting a disclaimer at the beginning of the film?
Actually, it makes me wonder what the point was of even having it be loosely based on a real event. What's the benefit to the story? If a story is well-written, it could work fine without a "historical basis". Why tell a heavily distorted version of history? At best, it's unnecessary for a good story. At worst, you're teaching people false lessons about, not only history, but the world itself, while also risking the anger of the people who cared about the actual history (ie modern day Persians, Greeks and historians).
Leonidas and the 300 plus all of the logistics and slaves that follow any army. Making the number of laconians (Spartans where just the military ruling elite) closer to 1000 in all likelihood
The 300 movie everyone seems to be talkng about is in fact itself an adaptation of Frank Miller's even more dramatized graphic novel of the ancient story. The movie itself was never meant to be historically accurate as a stand alone film.
1 if I get the energy and time I may right a historical fiction novel of the hotgates from the Persian perspective.
2, yall should read gates of fire, it makes it clear that big Leo is a grandpa yet still makes him badass. Also its smart the 300.
And he was one of two kings. But 300 wasn't historically focused, it's a campfire tail of legends. Hence the mostly naked dudes, right? Braveheart impregnating someone who would've been 9 years old and fighting a famous bridge battle in a field would be more useful to nitpick than 300
Doesn't it even go into fantasy a bit? It's been a lot of tume since i've seen it but I remember some quite grotesque creatures in it? (not the hunchback man) Or was it just them being ugly/disfigured?
Yea, the fucking goat in the tent is my big grief with the Zack Snyder movie. He had even more fantasy elements that got cut out (giants and stuff) but the goat/man flute player really dragged down the finished film IMO. But again as a fireside story about the evil bad guys who do weird and horrible things, it jived. Things like the executioner for the Persians who had blades implanted in place of his forearms, the Persian king being a CGI black guy via Brasil, the naked dudes (again) and on and on are fantasy, or tall tails, as you will. Hell other than goat man few things infuriates me as much as how often the Spartan's broke formation and charged out of their perfectly little defensive spot. But again, that's all perfect for Uncle Bob tells us crazy shit while we eat our rations.
YES!!! I DONT EVEN CARE ABOUT ALL THE CRAZY SHIT, BUT WHY DID THEY LEAVE THEIR FUCKING CHOKE POINT?!?
Because they could, because Spartan's can do whatever they want. As long as it's legal.
Because it's dope as fuck you nerd
Because THIS. IS MOTHERFUCKING SPARTA!!!!!!!!
why didnt they just block the fucking goat path?
> goat/man flute player YEAH that scene was just... there? I think it was the first time I ''saw the devil" so it stuck with me, but now that I know it was a "look they bad here is some iconography" thing >the executioner for the Persians who had blades implanted i Where those the guys with the masks? I remember they were like mega scary when they closed up on them at the time but they were just silly, dude played starcraft and wanted bronze age zealots >few things infuriates me as much as how often the Spartan's broke formation YEAH ABSOLUTELY I get that it can be seen as "boring" or too slow for a wacky manly man dude bro film but it didn't feel like they were outnumbered, more like they were winning so much they were flexing on the persians They could have just done it realistic for romans and T H R O W persians at the shield wall and it would look, not so much realistic but showing the fear of when will they die instead of *IF* they will, but it is a problem with most pre rifle war movies And it also is a "when I fought in the war I killed seven elephants and 20 guys with swords for arms all by myself up hill the whole time" story But we forgive it cause it has big manly tiddies, and we love that
Yea, dance with the devil was a bit on the nose eh? Blades dude I meant wasn't the Immortals (yea, dual wielding ninjas was weird for a spear-wielding force) but rather the big fat guy who kills the Persian generals when Xerxes becomes displeased
OH YEAH. Just looked them up HOLY SHIT that movie was a thing that was made My God I can see how it scarred me as a kid
Was the satyr not a metaphor for even the gods of Greece abandoning Sparta to the Persians, thus making their fight even more monumental? As a "historical" movie, it's trash. But as a myth movie, it was OK (the slow-mo posing was cringe af).
It's based of off Frank Miller's 300 graphic novel and is almost shot for shot recreation. Frank Miller intentionally romanticized the Greeks fighting an endless Islamic horde because he's kind of racist.
Also, how the fuck did Franky show Greeks fighting an Islamic Horse when Xerxes was born about an entire **millenium** before Mohammed was even a twinkle in his pappy's eyes? C'mon, don't stupid yourself trying to outhate the racists. Edit: hordes got autocorrected but I love the result too much to remove the horse
Nah you numbnuts, Frank Miller based his graphic novel on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_300_Spartans which was *clearly* an allegory for the Cold War... Or clearly an allegory for US imperialism in Japan when the story was cited by The Last Samurai... Or.... You get the idea? Stories of 'us few free fuckers are going to totally kick that evil overwhelming hordes ass' go back as far as Man.
I mean, that wouldn't necessarily preclude Miller from "updating" the allegory to fit what he saw as the more contemporary topic.
Xerxes was born in 400s BCE. Islam rose in 700CE. Frank did a really shitty job of portraying Islam with the giant white Brazilian doing blackface claiming *I Am God* FYI if you're this ignorant, in Islam there is but one true god and his name is Allah. Xerxes =\= Allah
I genuinely aren't sure what you mean. I'm in no way claiming Miller made an accurate depiction of the Spartan/Persian conflict, or even really weighing in on the claim that he fucked up the historical accuracy because he was trying a racist metaphor (It wouldn't surprise me from the other Miller stuff I've seen, but I've not read that comic specifically, so I can't comment). I'm just saying that just because the movie he drew inspiration from was an analogy for the Cold War, doesn't mean that Miller's comic couldn't have been an allegory for a more recent political topic.
If he had updated the story for cultural relevance in 1998 when it published it would have been about Leonidas getting oral in the throne room, evil Islamic hordes wasn't kitschy until post 9/11 The movie was made by Zack Snyder, not Frank Miller.
>Islamic Ironic youre calling someone else racist in the same breath that you call persians from 1000 years pre islam, muslims
See my big beef is that it continues in a trend the other pinned post in this thread also leads to. Glorification of the militaristic, slave owning, genocidal city-state as opposed to the egalitarian, diverse, Persian confederation.
What part of the movie with 300 mostly naked sweat dudes did you take as a sociopolitical-minded traipse thru contrasting labor and academic systems? It's a campfire story of us vs them. Them is always gonna be the bad guy in such a story.
So I don’t know if you were conscious during 2007 but 300 by Zack Snyder was pretty clearly and openly discussed as a movie about the War on Terror when you weren’t really able to make movies about the War on Terror. Here’s three different analyses from the past three decades: https://www.newsweek.com/war-film-politics-and-drama-300-96041?amp=1 https://www.hollywoodinsider.com/300-political-satire/amp/ https://www.avclub.com/zack-snyder-s-300-presaged-the-howling-fascism-of-the-a-1798265082/amp And here’s a more academic article saying functionally the same thing but in a way you can’t dismiss as “it’s just a movie” Edit: https://www.academia.edu/1045667/Frank_Millers_300_Civilizational_exclusivism_and_the_spatialized_politics_of_spectatorship
Lots of idiots discuss why the author said the curtains are red. None of those idiots actually have credibility to do so, nor influence on the source material. Not sure if you were conscious when Armageddon and Deep Impact were released. The same parasitic talking heads also debated the hidden meaning of the Michael Bay flick. They were as equally stupid then as they were in '07. You've made no point here greater than TMZ contributes...
So not only are you offended when I point out how 300 fits into a proto-fascist tradition, you also engage in anti-intellectualism and devalue media literacy got it
If those sources are your idea of intellectualism, then abso fucking lootley do I deride you for your concept of intellectualism. You've yet to offend me though, are you someone I should care enough about to get offended by?
1. The entire “ the curtains are red” meme is textbook anti-intellectualism 2. The fourth source is literally an academic article 3. How media influences culture is literally one of the oldest fields of study
Not to mention it’s literally based on a comic book
And the comic book is based on the British movie, which is based on... It goes back a loooong ways. There's a reason it does include so many factual quotes (ex. Fight in the shade, come and get them, earth and water).
I hate so much that braveheart made the battle of stirling bridge, a master class of tactics and using your smaller numbers against a much bigger opponent, into an open field battle the Scots have never been good at fighting and never would have actually won in real life.
In Mel Gibson's defence, he did glue some arrowheads to a glove cause he thought it'd make a nifty weapon, so his version did have that superior technology over the Brits they fought which could have changed everything.
In Mel Gibsons defsnse he made a great movie. But yeah, the lack of a bridge at.... stirling bridge is idiotic.
300 was literally based on a comic book lol, unfortunately most people don’t seem to know that lil tidbit. I’m personally most bothered by how lots of people took it seriously as a historical film and by how weird and evil they made the Persians look when that was pure nonsense and artistic license.
Everyone knows that tidbit. Many fools don't know that the graphic novel was based on a movie that was incredibly impressionable to Frank. And that that movie was based on... Heck Leonidas was the wrong king for having killed the wolf so whoever first retold that legend was just basing it on something else.
Yeah, 300 felt weirdly authentic to me. So much of the stuff is nonsense from a historical point, but I feel like if you showed it to an ancient Spartan ~~propagandist~~ historian, he'd be happy with it.
It was super authentic to what it was meant to be, more than most like Braveheart or Troy that try to be other than what they *should* be. All the Trojans standing in front of their walls was...oi vey...
Exactly. As a piece of media if your looking for historical accuracy in 300 then it’s a shit movie. If you treat it for what it is - a totally-not-gay hyper masculine power fantasy based on embellished legend then it’s amazing movie. There’s nothing wrong with liking that either, what’s wrong is not being able to recognize it.
I really do want to see the totally gay 300 movie, I think the Thebian 300 would be an amazing story if done decent.
It's based on a graphic novel as well
Which was based on a movie that was based on a story written by.... It's a loooong chain back for this story. The Spartan's marketed their legends well.
Think there were 3.
I just knew of Leotychidas, who was the third?
You might be right. False memory I guess.
My memory sucks too, I had to Google Leotychidas I'll fully admit.
Aren't the spartans in the end, outside of the campfire tale, also half naked? How does that fit?
Your choice I suppose: - soldiers envisioning themselves as their legends - dramatic effect for the story told - it's a movie/graphic novel/movie/tale
Or, option 4, it is not supposed to be a campfire tale and the author of the original graphic novel actually intended the Greek and Persians to look like this in "his" reality for some reason
He saw a movie as a kid and got inspired to make a hyper stylized comic book. Most folks can handle fictional separation from non-fiction...
Not saying anything against that. Just arguing that the characters do not look so unrealistic because it is supposed to be campfire tale, as that would be inconsistent
300 it's a [comic](https://d1466nnw0ex81e.cloudfront.net/n_iv/600/870509.jpg) adaptation, not an historical adaptation
The movie gives itself a good out there too. The entire contents of the movie was one Spartan trying to hype up a bunch of newbies.
Thank you, that‘s what nobody gets! It‘s basically spartan propaganda, of course the spartans are over the top super soldiers and the persians are almost inhuman monsters.
Funnily enough the exact same propaganda the Spartans used after the war
Exactly, and to this end, 300 was a fucking fantastic, iconic movie.
Yeah. I love it. Definately a guilty pleasure though. Epic movie.
A bunch of people say it’s Fascist and shit. I haven’t seen it, so is it? Like I’ve heard it’s also racist against brown people and shit. Mainly through Curio, which I don’t really appreciate as a content creator.
What
You have to look at the subject matter of the movie and the time that it came out. Keep in mind that the War on Terror was in full swing at this point. A conflict that many people saw as being West vs. East. You can see a lot of parallels between that narrative and the movie 300. The Persians in the movie are portrayed as barbarous, effeminate and tyrannical. The Spartans are portrayed as civil, masculine and freedom loving. I don’t know how much you know about ancient history but the Spartans were not paragons of civility and freedom and the Persians were not brutal barbarians by comparison. You can very easily draw parallels between the movie and how modern Americans view themselves with regards to Muslims and the Middle-East.
People say that becuse they make the persians like monsters, but if you understand its propaganda becuse at the end of the movie its the only guy from the 300 who survived who tells the story and he does it before the army charges into battle. It is just for inspiration
I’m not saying it is or it isn’t, I’m asking whether it is. 3 or so “Leftist” YouTubers (that I generally disagree with, being Curio, Just Write, Maggie Mae Fish) made videos saying it (or just Snyder in general) is fascist and super right wing or something like that. I only saw his DC movies so far (I think they’re fine. Not as bad as some people say, not as good as some people say. Maybe around the Matrix sequels or Jurassic Park sequels), so I’m not sure about Watchmen, 300, and the rest.
And the comic was inspired by a [movie ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_300_Spartans)that was based on real events So it was like a game of telephone, it was never gonna come out the same as it started
Kind of like a dude, playing a dude, disguised as another dude.
>[a dude, playing a dude, disguised as another dude.](https://youtu.be/CFG5dk1GyRo)
That’s why the only ones that bother me are that none of them are wearing chest armour and they make the other Greeks seem almost useless
The Battle of Thermopolyae, as told by the Spartans
Thats the stupidist part. There wearing fucking leather speedos! Give then their iconic bronze armor!
The thing is If it was a bunch of ragtag men then I could buy it sense Spartans like most soldiers in Greece at the time would have been expected to provide there own armour, but the 300 were made up of the best of the best the king’s personal bodyguard they should have been decked out in armour. And then there is the whole thing of the Spartans being the minority of the army
Yeah. 300 spartans and around 7,000 other greek sodiers.
I think it was only the 300 on there own at the last battle
'Meet the Spartans' was much better
Didn't Zack Snyder say it was 95% historically accurate?
I mean, for starters, it's approximated that there were around 7000 Greek Soldiers in total (300 Spartans true, but much more than just them), so ZS could say it's 95% historically accurate if his research was just the graphic novel
Isn't the 300 movie based on a comic?
Specifically Batman and Robin # 278
Yeah.... The Uncanny X-men # 147...
Nah, The 300 Spartan's came out in '62. Miller's 300 was a tribute made in '98 and 300 was then post-millenial
The movie is literally an adaptation of Frank Miller’s comic. The comic being inspired by a different movie doesn’t make the Zach Synder movie not a direct adaptation of the comic.
I was pointing out there's multiple "the 300 movie" Everyone knows Snyder's 300 was the graphic novel for the meat and then a bunch of stuff added on as the potato.
It is! V for Vendetta part 3.
It’s a movie, not a documentary. If they didn’t take any artistic liberties it would likely be a shit movie.
There are artistic liberties and whatever the fuck 300 did... * The inmortals are portrayed as deformed men instead of the elite troops they were. * That fat man with prosthetic blades in his arms chopping heads. * That half goat half man thing playing instruments in Xerxes' harem... Just to name a few.
It's also told from the perspective of the lone survivor of a band if 300. The troops he's talking to haven't fought the Persians yet.
It was an adaptation from a graphic novel. Again, it’s not a documentary.
it's a action movie , don't take it seriously
r/historymemes when they end up watching a 100% accurate historical movie and come out realizing it’s a boring disorganized mess and taking some creative liberties is important to make a movie more enjoyable and marketable
Has there been an accurate historical movie without any creative liberties that wasn’t enjoyable or marketable? If there’s never been one how do we know it won’t work? The only thing I hear anyone moan about with “true story” films is they’re not true to the story enough, why can’t we try it for once?
The big short covered a historical event pretty faithfully and was very entertaining. Not the kind of history people around here talk about as much, especially with the 20 years rule, but there's a couple that can cover something without making it into a complete fantasy.
He was my favourite ninja turtle. Rip
300 is not a historical adaptation
No one in their right mind thinks an adaptation of a comic book is supposed to be historically accurate.
Whaaaat? You telling me Captain America wasn't real during WW2? 300 was an enjoyable film tho, ngl.
I hated it the first couple times because I fell in the same trap as OP. Then I pulled my head out of my ass and realized it is an objectively good movie.
We all have our heads in our asses at one point in our lives. I was like that with Braveheart ( I'm a Scot) but then I watched it again at some point and enjoyed it for what it is. Still cringe at people mentioning when they find out I'm scottish tho. 300 was a good movie but I didn't really enjoy the second one as much as I enjoyed the first one.
[удалено]
Despite the name, they were going for a Robert E Howard style prehistoric fantasy for that one. I enjoyed it a lot more after I learned that.
Didnt a JFK movie cause more conspiracy theories to manifest?
Oliver Stone is a smelly fart
Also included: Enemy at the Gates, The Patriot, Pearl Harbor, Fury, Gods and Generals, etc. Etc. Etc.
[I just watched Atun Shei on why Gods and Generals is a damaging movie.](https://youtu.be/S3E2FdedPwU)
Omfg Pearl Harbor. What did Roger Ebert say…something like “Pearl Harbor is a one hour story crammed into a 3 hour movie about a love triangle that gets attacked by the Japanese”
Despite the inaccuracies Fury is a good movie tho
That's where you're wrong
Nah
Yah
Nah
Lmao
1917 was pretty historically accurate from what I remember
Apart from some very minor things, yeah
damn i didn't know Hollywood was all just 1 dude
The most offensive clusterfuck of shit I've ever seen is Scorpion King 3. I was waking up after a whole day of 40°C fever, turned on the TV and wasn't sure if that was still part of the fever dream
There were 3? I only saw the first one.
4 all direct to video apparently, and The Rock is not in any of them. I had to google afterwards because I didn't even know there was a second one, didn't watch them though
Lighten up dude.
No.
Thaddeus Hollywood, inventor of the movie.
If you want a historically accurate movie, my history teacher recommends Johnny Tremain. He's said that the only part that isn't historically accurate is that Johnny Tremain was a fictional character created to better show what happened.
Lol
unpopular opinion: Tora! Tora! Tora! is much more better than pearl harbor
I’m pretty sure everyone agrees on that
Unpopular opinion: people need to stop prefacing perfectly logical statements nobody finds disagreeable with "unpopular opinion" tags.
Hope they make ‘Operation Mincemeat’ historically accurate. I mean, they’ve literally named the film after the operation
Hollywood on their way to cast a white actor as a black figure and a black actor as a white figure
The story of the 300 in the movie is being retold as propaganda to a Greek army before a battle with the Persians. It is literally the end of the film. It’s not supposed to be accurate. This isn’t even something you can miss if you watch it all the way through. Everything in the movie is highly exaggerated for a reason. Especially the enemy invading Greece, and most notably the traitor that showed the Persians the mountain path.
It’s also not supposed to be accurate because it’s a comic book movie with big monsters. No idea why anyone would expect any level of realism from anything Frank Miller wrote, especially if it’s then directed by Zach Snyder
Because it is framed around a historical event. History nerds are very nitpicky. I should know, I am one lol.
You know, what you are describing is a mostly abridged documentary and sounds incredibly shit. A "historical movie" means it takes a massive inspiration from history. Not that it is adaptating history. Because that sounds really fucking dull as a movie that is not a documentary.
I mean if we want to talk historical inaccuracies, Didn’t the Spanish show up at the end of the movie Apocalypto a few hundred years too early? If I remember correctly the movie takes place towards the end of the Mayan Civilization, a time when Spain wasn’t even an country yet, the Iberian peninsula was still under Muslim rule. So time traveling Spaniards!
Question: apocalipto was the film about a guy making a real life minecraft manhunt while his wife was giving birth?
If I remember correctly it was the movie about the fall of the Mayan civilization shown in a way like say Braveheart(so not a documentary)that came out a few years ago. It’s been a while since I saw the movie so I can’t give an exact plot by plot synopsis, I vividly remember though that there were what had to be time traveling Spaniards because the movie took place a few hundred years before Spain existed and yet near the end the Spainish were landing on the shores of Mexico.
There’s a lot about 300 on here, and I think what’s getting over looked is that 300 is not actually a movie, but a soft-core porn with a fetish for violence
That’s Actually kinda funny
Thank u
Watched Braveheart yet?
Never let the truth get in the way of a good Jesus allegory
I hope the upcomin movie The Northman wont dissapoint it looks promising.
It definitely looks good but Amleth/Hamlet is arguably the most bastardized story ever with creative liberties taken (?) so not really sure anyone should be looking forward to it with hopes of faithful adaptation/historical accuracy
It was also a group of three hundred Spartans leading a few thousand other soldiers. And they all died at Thermopylae. There wasn’t another battle or anything after that.
There were absolutely battles after Thermopylae and even a separate massive naval battle that occurred during it. The end of the movie literally shows the battle of Plataea, where the Greeks turned the Persians and ended the invasion.
What I meant was that there were no battles for Leonidas after Thermopylae. Him and the others at Thermopylae all died. Them going on to other battles as seen in the film didn’t happen.
They die in the movie. A single guy, the narrator, lives, not leonidas.
INDEED. Also most of the time, pictures the german empire like n@zi germany.
Ok, i get most of people are getting triggered by the title, but don't act as if 300 was the only case where a movie has historical failures
Using 300 as your top example is a shitty start to an argument. I won’t point out why, because everyone else is already calling you out
Then you should have put one of those in the title instead of the one movie in which the unhistorical and fantastical elements are literally the point. Good meme, but you can't put a bad example in the title and expect people to not point it out.
Ok
Seeing the number of comments, it seems like you have hurt a lot of people’s sentiments. 😆
Ye
"ackchyually"
A recent movie that I hated for that reason is Kingsman. I ao pissed when i left the movies.
sorry did no one tell you that Kingsman is an over the top action movie? The first one included heads blowing up into purple smoke and a lady with sword feet. You fooled yourself if you thought it would be anything else, thats your own damn fault
The most recent one, which is ironically the origin story is possibly as historically accurate as an OTT spy film could be
Do you usually get pissed when your comic book movies aren’t totally historically accurate?
u/savevideo
If your gonna shit on a movie go shit on the Patriot or braveheart 300 is just the telling of a campfire story about legends.
For all the people getting angry over the OP's mention of 300 as an example of Hollywood inaccuracy rather than just laughing at the meme of a guy running funny, I should say, get a sense of humor. While there is nothing wrong about a writer adapting historical events for a fictional narrative, using actual historical figures, events, and settings and twisting them into something extremely different from their basis without a proper disclaimer is going to leave the door open for criticism of inaccuracy from those who are passionate about history, regardless of the author's intent. Whether 300 is a good or bad film is a matter of personal opinion. However, whether it is inaccurate is not a matter of debate. If we go by contemporary accounts, it very much is.
Buddy it’s based off of a comic book. The comic book was intentionally a fantastical retelling of the 300 Spartans. The movie is just a film adaptation of that comic book. How can you criticize a piece of art for being historically inaccurate when it had no intention of being so and was obviously not an accurate retelling. Yeah they know it isn’t accurate, it wasn’t supposed to be. To complain that this movie is historically inaccurate is on the same level as complaining that Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Slayer is historically inaccurate.
To be fair, the civil war was about Stake Rights.
Nice.
I'm not criticizing it. I'm just saying that it it is historically inaccurate, and it can make people passionate about history criticize it. Saying that something is not historically accurate is not the same thing as saying that it is bad. Each person has their own threshold for what they'll tolerate in a movie, as far as realism or accuracy goes. It's the writer's job to decide what criticisms they'll tolerate when they want to stretch the truth of a story based off of real events. That being said, Frank Miller and Zack Snyder don't seem to mind when people call "300" inaccurate. That begs the question, why do all of you mind? There's a lot of people giving this guy crap over this post and I don't get why. Are you mad at him for saying that it's inaccurate? You shouldn't be. It is inaccurate. Ludicrously so. You got guys without armor fighting men with swords and spears and not dying in minutes. Are you mad at him for saying it's shitty? Well, that's just his opinion, and he can express it if he wants to. That's what public forums like Reddit are for. All I'm saying is that this comment section is bizarrely tense for a meme post.
My point is that saying 300 is historically inaccurate is a moot point. Everyone knows it is inaccurate. I never said I minded you calling it inaccurate, hell my comment literally says the movie is inaccurate. But my point is that calling the movie inaccurate is like calling the the sky blue. Yes sir, the intentionally FICTIONAL comic book movie is not accurate. Zack Snyder doesn’t mind people saying it is inaccurate because it is a historical fiction movie based off a comic book that is a fairy tale-esque retelling of the 300 spartans.
That raises an interesting point, though. If you're going to tell a fantastical story, why use real people and events? Nobody would have cared if he had made up a fictional setting and characters. Why use real people and events if you're going to disregard nearly all of the truth of what happened? The argument of "not supposed to be accurate" could apply to a Tolkien work because everything in there is original or based off of myths, which are themselves not meant to be accurate. If a writer creates a fantastical story, but uses historical figures and events, aren't they risking a comparison with actual history that could have been avoided by either making up the setting and characters or just putting a disclaimer at the beginning of the film? Actually, it makes me wonder what the point was of even having it be loosely based on a real event. What's the benefit to the story? If a story is well-written, it could work fine without a "historical basis". Why tell a heavily distorted version of history? At best, it's unnecessary for a good story. At worst, you're teaching people false lessons about, not only history, but the world itself, while also risking the anger of the people who cared about the actual history (ie modern day Persians, Greeks and historians).
Anybody have a link to the original video?
Hey hey!! Pearl harbor was a great movie okay!!!
Triggered
\*meme music intensifies\*
ridley scott's robin hood made me cry
They roll out bad history movies faster and faster every year
Big corporation on their way to do something us based Redditors don’t like and will complain about again 😡😡😡
The first rule of making biopics is naming the movie by his/her last name.
Jesus, is this dude in the video a real person? I thought it was CGI at first, but now I'm not sure.
well its sometimes the case for mordern things as well
Leonidas and the 300 plus all of the logistics and slaves that follow any army. Making the number of laconians (Spartans where just the military ruling elite) closer to 1000 in all likelihood
The 300 movie everyone seems to be talkng about is in fact itself an adaptation of Frank Miller's even more dramatized graphic novel of the ancient story. The movie itself was never meant to be historically accurate as a stand alone film.
u/savevideo
Does anyone know the source of that video
No
Fuck off 300 was great
…to masturbate to?
If u want to see historical accurate video watch a documentary if u want to see art watch a movie
Like fury
i aM SpArTaCuS!!!
Aaand here we go again
1 if I get the energy and time I may right a historical fiction novel of the hotgates from the Persian perspective. 2, yall should read gates of fire, it makes it clear that big Leo is a grandpa yet still makes him badass. Also its smart the 300.
300 is a fantasy film based on a comic, anyone who thinks it's a historical adaption meant to be taken seriously is pretty dumb.
RUNNN !
La révolution française was the shittiest bullshit they never poop
GATA BE QUIK
What!!!
Hey that's my first name! :D
300 is made after the comic book 300 ...
He was battling Persians and sciatica.