"300 vs. Meet the Spartans" Topic

Which did you think was more realistic and/or better?

On the one hand, 300 had the Persian War Rhino. OTOH, Meet the Spartans had Leonidas kicking Britney Spears, Sanjaya, and all of the American Idol judges into the pit of death. I'm not sure whether this ever happened historically (I can find no mention in primary sources, which, of course, is not conclusive) however, if it didn't happen, it definitely should have.

Also, Carmen Electra is hot.

MTS was horrible. Even CE couldn't save that sinking ship.
The credits were the best part – made even better by the fact the the rest of the audience had left before the best parts (of the whole movie) started.

I think HMGS-EAST-BOD-QRS-LOL had something to do with the writing of MTS.

I wouldn't whine about it though.

Also, Carmen Electra is hot.

She always looks like she could use a hot shower.

Saw her in person in the Atlanta airport….looks like she's been ridden hard and put up wet far too often…..nothing like what she looks like in films or television….ewww

IMO, both movies were very, very poor, and neither had anything historical other than perhaps the titles and theme. Acting was terrible, & scripts even worse. Realism; none.

It's pretty bad when the old movie "300 Spartans" puts them to shame (if you can get around the poor sound track).

:-)

I never did understand the whole Carmen Electra thing. Yuck.

I enjoyed 300 for what it was and laughed aloud at Meet the Spartans (well during the first half, at least). I also own all 3 versions of Alexander… :-)

I thought 300 was OK; at least it got youngsters interested in an ancient battle taking place at a battlefield most of them can't pronounce (let alone spell) correctly.

I have faith that the more intelligent ones (or at least the ones that matter) will become interested enough to start researching into actual history, and learn to filter out historical fact from MTV fiction.

300 was much better!

Kraussian makes a good point about the introduction of Ancients to the Twitter generation.

Without meaning to high-jack the thread; what advise would he give to get "…into actual history and allow them to filter out historical fact from MTV fiction"?

How do you make Ancient History accessable – let alone understandable?

Oliver

How do you make Ancient History accessable – let alone understandable?

Well, I wouldn't normally associate "history" with terms like "accessible".

But seriously, I think a major factor in making it accessible would be to make it actually "fun". I believe miniature wargaming would fit that bill marvelously.

A line like "You remember the movie 300, right? We're going to use these little toy soldiers to play that battle. But this time, YOU are King Leonidas and YOU command the Spartan army!" would have a very high probability of drawing in a kid's attention.

This would hopefully lead the kid to questioning things like why the Spartans are wearing "shiny gold armor", and he may learn that it's actually bronze, which may then lead to an interest in the Bronze Age and how it's different from iron (and later, steel).

Or he may question the lambda symbol etched onto the shields, and learn that it's a Greek alphabet for "L", which stands for Lacedaemon, which was the ancient traditional name for Sparta.

These little tidbits of information may seem insignificant at first, but they have a tendency of creating a synergic effect and snowballing into a full-blown interest in general history of the period.

Another good introduction would be a heavily illustrated book with lots of "cool pictures", such as:
link

300 was good for painting since all the actors had their ab muscles spray painted on, its a good reference for us to follow when painting on detail….and of course so every wife could say "you need to do more situps, and look like them" bah, real warriors had beer/mead bellies like vikings
ps- alexander has 3 versions?….the theatrical one, the directors cut , and….?

Hi Thor, there is the theatrical version, the Directors cut and the very much better "Alexander Revisited: the Final Cut". This runs at 205 minutes and includes a lot of extra scenes. Mind you it's only going to appeal to those who liked the film. I appreciate a lot of people didn't, and presumably they probably wouldn't enjoy the longer duration of this version!

I think the way it is cut, and the extra material, means it makes a lot more sense than the Directors cut. I watch it every few months, whilst painting Macedonians.

Cheers, Simon

I could not be bothered to see either 300 or MTS. War rhino indeed. Harrumph!