"What is the Worst part of 300 Rise of an Empire" Topic

Costumes
Weapons
Tactics
Fast and Loose with History

That it took them eight years to release a sequel, and this was the best that they could come up with.

I've not seen it but maybe the title? Which Empire is rising exactly?

The body piercing "jewelry."

The fact that it got made?

Honestly, i have no idea where to begin

I don't know about the worst part but it's easy to say what the best part was.:)

There were good parts?

No good parts, sorry.

"There were good parts?"

Yes… Eva Green…. mmmmmm

I've tried to watch it twice, and I actually made it through almost 15 minutes.

I've got to go with the flame and fireball shooting, giant armored Persian Leviathan.

I enjoyed watching it, but had to keep remembering, 'It's just a movie, not a documentary.'

The bits that took the most 'It's just a movie-ing' were depiction of hoplite tactics as individual heroes fighting individual battles, each against six + Persians. At least '300' had the hoplites standing shoulder to shoulder, shields to the front and working together.

And depiction of naval maneuver: 'Brilliant, putting the Greek ships in a circle like a wagon train leaves no flanks to attack'. It was all flanks darn it!

But, 'Just a movie. Just a movie.'

The worst part was not having any War Rhinos onboard the ships.

The worst part is some not so smart kid will think that what he is watching is history!!!

Luckily, I'm pretty dumb when it comes to ancients. You have to get pretty basically wrong to offend me. Maybe I can get to the 'best part'…

depiction of hoplite tactics as individual heroes fighting individual battles

Oh.

Oh.

Never mind…

Doug

The advertisements. If not for those I would not have seen a single frame of the movie.

That Frank Miller would let it be made?

"Which Empire is rising exactly?" – Athens presumably.

Not quite a funny as the original – Meet the Spartans

I have to keep reminding myself that the movie is based on a COMIC BOOK(!).

Yeah, the cavalry charge at sea was pretty special.

A comic book based on the myth/legend of the 300.

For the purposes of telling a story of duty and sacrifice, 300 is epic. (I haven't seen 300: Rise of an Empire)

But I think I'd have to go with tactics. Especially after they took the trouble in 300 to describe the strength of the Phalanx as being in the training and unity of the phalanx.

To my mind, the worst part is all the hand-wringing and chicken-little comments on this board and others about it.

The two movies never claimed to be history. They never claimed to be "historically accurate". They are big-screen adaptations of graphic novels. They are entertainment, and they are quite excellent at what they do.

I enjoyed them for what they are, as well as for what they aren't. They are fun movies, nice escapes from the mundane world for a couple of hours.

No car chases. No song and dance routines. Not even a CAMEO appearance for Great Cthulhu.

The script. I can tolerate inaccuracies in a historical movie if the script is good (eg, Seven Graves to Cairo). But 300 Rise of an Empire has an appalling script that makes everything unwatchable.

It's not meant to be historical; it's a fantasised version of it in the same way that Troy is. However, Troy had a marginally better script.

The fact that the sequel didn't focus on the Illyrian wars so they could have called the movie 301 Dalmatians.

I want to watch it now.

Well it literally put me to sleep the first time I tried to watch it. I am going to give it another try.

I'm not vested in Ancients one bit so I liked it a lot as an actioner.

Every part of this movie is quite awesome. Chuck Norris approves this movie.

I'm fairly forgiving as it was only a movie and fantasy at that. However, what really got me was the ships seen in the distance as they crested a "water hill???". Apparently the special effects folks misunderstood how the curvature of the earth works. That was just too much.

Did like me some Eva Green though!

The consensus on the worst part of this movie appears to be… the bit between the opening and closing credits.

Even as a classical archaeologist, I can let a lot go for the sake of a good story. However, the two things that got to me were:

1. I watched it with my son and a couple of his friends, and they came away convinced that Sparta saved Greece … again. Athens, huh?

2. That Green lady was pretty stick thin for a Greek warrior woman!

Criticizing this movie on its history is like criticizing a King Arthur movie because the actors are wearing the wrong armour. Its a fantasy movie loosely based on a historical event…. and not a bad one at that. Lots of fighting, muscular guys, sexy women and divine kings- preety much like its predecessor. Its not much dissimilar to the Conan or Jason and the Argonauts movies really.
Worst part, they passed me over as a body double for Themistokles during the Eva Green scenes. Terrible decision.

I can only speak for 300, even from a purely "this is just a fantasy movie" perspective, it was crap.

300 was much better than this though. I'd say this was one of the worst films I've ever watched. I wouldn't have stuck it out to the end if I wasn't watching it with friends at the cinema.

Just viewed the trailer. Really off putting!

I saw it this week and after the war rhinos in 300 I was disappointed not to see Egyptian marines riding on squid. I refused to get stressed about the inaccuracies as it was obviously not meant to be historical. I'll be perusing the NSFW board for a figure of Eva Green though.

No, it was clearly in an entirely different but extremely popular genre: the hysterical epic.

The first 100 minutes really sucked! The last 3 were OK.

That's how I felt about Godzilla, Socalwarhammer :)

"The first 100 minutes really sucked! The last 3 were OK."

The credits?

Everything

Eva Green.
Seriously, this is the most overrated "screen beauty" since Faye Dunaway.

Actually, the worst part was that 300 was ever made at all, instead of Stephen Pressfield's infinitely superior "Gates of Fire".

Warpigs, added with the artistic background made the song awesome again.

Also I think we loose track here anything made in a movie is always a smashing failure to us history buffs. There is not enough time to express the historical nuances and frankly most people would be bored.

no? name one movie (no not a TV show Vikings has way more airtime) that is satisfactory.

To my mind, the worst part is all the hand-wringing and chicken-little comments on this board and others about it.

Tim, you nailed it!

The lip smacking glee of telling others that there were no Ninjas at Thermopylae. Really? What's next, that Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is not an accurate representation of Herpetology? They're all based on comic books, for crying out loud!

I really enjoyed the first movie. Despite the ahistorical aspects, I was entertained. The second movie was nowhere near as entertaining, despite the obvious charms of Eva Green. She definitely was the best part of the film.

Actually, the worst part was that 300 was ever made at all, instead of Stephen Pressfield's infinitely superior "Gates of Fire".

While I totally agree with this comment it does show an appalling ignorance how Hollywood works. Filmmaking is very, very expensive and each film is under severe financial pressures to succeed. With that in mind, consider the sales of Frank Miller compared to Stephen Pressfield. "Gates of Fire" will never happen.

If you were a studio executive, how would you spend $110 USD million dollars of your company's money?

By the way, here is some advice Bloomberg Business gave to other studios, based on 300's success. You'll notice there was no advice saying, "Use historically accurate sources". They don't care.

link

So, "real" history is too boring to make big money? Sad.