Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Based on Frank Miller's latest graphic novel Xerxes, and told in the breathtaking visual style of the blockbuster "300," this new chapter of the epic saga takes the action to a fresh battlefield—on the sea—as Greek general Themistokles attempts to unite all of Greece by leading the charge that will change the course of the war.
"300: Rise of an Empire" pits Themistokles against the massive invading Persian forces led by mortal-turned-god Xerxes, and Artemisia, vengeful commander of the Persian navy.
Warner Bros. Pictures presents and Legendary Pictures presents, a Cruel and Unusual Films/Mark Canton/Gianni Nunnari Production, "300: Rise of an Empire." The action adventure stars Sullivan Stapleton ("Gangster Squad") as Themistokles and Eva Green ("Dark Shadows," "Casino Royale") as Artemisia. Lena Headey reprises her starring role from "300" as the Spartan Queen, Gorgo; Hans Matheson ("Clash of the Titans") stars as Aeskylos; David Wenham returns as Dilios, and Rodrigo Santoro stars again as the Persian King, Xerxes
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
I don't know how to feel about this. Not good is where I am leaning atm. Still, I do love a good shield bash. At this point it seems to have moved from historical event told as myth through the eyes of the Spartans, to total fabrication from start to finish.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Which wasn't a retelling of the battle of Thermopylae, it was a retelling of "300 Spartans" (the movie, based on that battle, but also taking liberties with historical accuracy) by Miller and translated into a movie by Zakk Snyder. Some minor details got discarded along the way.
I'm OVER 50 (and so far over everyone's BS, too).
Old enough to know better, young enough to not give a ****.
That is not dead which can eternal lie ...
... and yet, with strange aeons, even death may die.
300 was presented as a myth told through the eyes of the Spartans, so the names and people were real, and the names of locations, but it was exaggerated because it is an oral tale meant to make them seem bigger then life. It was never presented as a historical retelling. Yet, there is a difference between a tall tale told about an event and completely making up an event and people. Still, I don't remember every battle or person so I looked some of it up and apparently Artemisia I of Caria was a naval commander for Xerxes in real life and one of the only female commanders, so I guess they aren't making up quite as much as I thought. Still, without the narrative focus of 300, which just focused on a single event, as well as allowing characters to be exaggerated for effect. Xerxes being an effete giant made sense when we are just getting a retelling where all the villains are turned to monsters and all the heroes are super manly men standing up for right with barrel chests and unfaltering bravery. Here they show at least three separate threads which moves away from the perspective of an oral narrator passing down a rally cry to motivate soldiers to 'no really, this is all real and here is what happened'.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Didn't see the narrator dude that lost an eye from the first movie. :(
"Sometimes the only victory possible is to keep your opponent from winning." - The Emperor, from The Outcast Dead.
"Tell your gods we are coming for them, and that their realms will burn as ours did." -Thostos Bladestorm
The original was fun to watch the first time around, but not particularly good without mind-altering encouragement after that. It never needed a sequel, and I feel it would only be made even less novel with one.
Besides, that doesn't even begin to touch how little faith I have in Miller these days. What's the last actually good thing he's written, anyway?
Kilkrazy wrote: It's a comic book Cliff Notes version of historical events seen through the eyes of the winners -- i.e. the Greeks.
It's actually a comic book Cliff Notes version of a movie version of historical events seen through the eyes of the winners. Essentially a movie based on a comic based on a movie based on historical events. A big game of "Telephone," really.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/13 09:45:09
I would be interested in seeing the sources where Miller said he was, essentially, rewriting The 300 Spartans instead of his own interpretation of the events.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
The trailer I saw looked like it was heavily based around the Battle of Salamis and the Burning of Athens.
I liked the hints of historicity (Not that Herodotos was really very reliable anyway) that slipped into 300, especially when accounting for the self made mythic nature of the narration. Fighting in the shade, free men never kneel, etc etc. I would hope they manage to continue that feel here.
Ahtman wrote: I would be interested in seeing the sources where Miller said he was, essentially, rewriting The 300 Spartans instead of his own interpretation of the events.
Since he considers it a major inspiration to his creative development (that's what the wikipedia page says, but the link to the original article is dead, sadly). It may not be a straight up rewrite/remake, but considering the impact of the film, I'd imagine his interest and impetus for 300 draws more from the film than the actual historical events. And when you consider his strict adherence to historical accuracy, I think it can be safely assumed that he borrows much more from filmic ideas than anything else in his inspiration for 300.
Ahtman wrote: I would be interested in seeing the sources where Miller said he was, essentially, rewriting The 300 Spartans instead of his own interpretation of the events.
Since he considers it a major inspiration to his creative development (that's what the wikipedia page says, but the link to the original article is dead, sadly). It may not be a straight up rewrite/remake, but considering the impact of the film, I'd imagine his interest and impetus for 300 draws more from the film than the actual historical events. And when you consider his strict adherence to historical accuracy, I think it can be safely assumed that he borrows much more from filmic ideas than anything else in his inspiration for 300.
Having an impact isn't the same as twice claiming that 300 was mainly just sourced from The 300 Spartans; I'm sure all sorts of other sources were inspirational to the work. If he said it then it will be elsewhere beside on a disappeared wiki page.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Slaanesh-Devotee wrote: The trailer I saw looked like it was heavily based around the Battle of Salamis and the Burning of Athens.
I liked the hints of historicity (Not that Herodotos was really very reliable anyway) that slipped into 300, especially when accounting for the self made mythic nature of the narration. Fighting in the shade, free men never kneel, etc etc. I would hope they manage to continue that feel here.
After Thermopylae, the Persians overran most of Greece. The Athenians evacuated their population to the nearby island of Salamis and used their fleet to battle the Persian navy, winning a resounding victory. The Persian army then retreated into Boeotia, and Xerxes went back to Persia, and left the further conduct of the campaign to the general Mardonius.
The next year the Greeks put together an army and camped near the Persian camp near Plataea, leading to the battle of Plataea which they won, killing Mardonius. There was also a major naval battle at Mycale, which again was won by the Greeks. The Persians withdrew to Asia Minor, and were followed up in subsequent years by the Athenian led Delian League.
It's likely the film concentrates on the battle of Salamis, since the longer war is more difficult to follow in a simplified presentation.
I have the feeling since moving pictures have such an enormous impact on the viewer, movie makers have a kind of responsibility towards history. For many people novels and movies are the only source of gaining historical knowledge. And while it may be part of the spartan self-conscience as a spuperior breed of people, presenting the leading culture of their time and their emperor as a bunch of orks from mordor does not do good. While it may be a good comic adaption, as a movie in itself I am of the opinion "300" was a desaster. It might have been much more entertaining by having two layers: one the spartan point of view, the other showing what the archeologists and historicans tell us: that sparta was just the most powerful and the most barbaric of a bunch of globally not so significant city states, while persia was one of the dominating high cultures in this time. In the end I believe this would have made the glory of greece defeating persia even bigger. But for sure this movie will not be that one.
I have the feeling since storytellers can have such an enormous impact on the audience, story tellers have a kind of responsibility towards history. Are we to believe that some guy actually changed the course of a River with his bare hands? Or that some guy is holding the world up on his shoulders? Achilles was invincible except for just one small part of him? Homer is such a hack. A cyclops? Really? I can't stand this historical revisionism.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Considering naval battles were done epically (pun intended) in Cleopatra and Ben Hur, they have big shoes to fill.
I was wrong about 300 though. I love its campiness, so we'll see.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Hruotland wrote: I have the feeling since moving pictures have such an enormous impact on the viewer, movie makers have a kind of responsibility towards history.
I agree only to an extremely limited extent.
The creators of Zero Dark Thirty should not have falsely implied that the CIA's use of torture (an evil, counterproductive war crime) played any part in America tracking down Osama Bin Laden. But that's because the creator pretended it was historically accurate, and the subject is still hugely relevant today - John Kiriakou is in prison right now because he confirmed the use of torture by the CIA, while the torturers themselves walk free.
On the other hand, it doesn't really matter whether or not you know that a particular bunch of guys who have been dead for thousands of years were jerks. It is trivia.
"When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
-C.S. Lewis
I will, as before, switch off logic, switch of historical reference and switch off notions of high art cinema, and will instead, love this movie as I loved the first one for it's grandeur, heroic violence and ease of storytelling.
I will not expect an intelligent movie, I will expect a fun movie, and in that, I think I'll be left entirely happy with the result.
Is the baddies general lass the same lass from Kingdom of heaven?
Yes it is, and Lena (if she were my sister I'd have to think about it) Headley-Lannister as well... I'm a happy stompa!
I will miss the walking meme-factory that was Leonidas though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/13 12:34:15
Where'd you get that from mate? As a historian myself, I cannot find anything that suggests anything other than he is one of the most reliable sources for the period that is currently available. We all understand that history is biased towards the victors, as they are the ones writing it, however after reading Herodotus and especially the part of the '300 spartans', he, in my view, presents the facts with out a large amount of hyperbole.
But, again, the movie is based on a comic book, and I love the movie for that... 300 was actually quite true to the "source material", which is merely the comic book, not the historic events actually linked to it.
With Eva Green in it pretty much guaranteed some T & A too... it's like she's Jenny Agutter for a new generation !
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Where'd you get that from mate? As a historian myself, I cannot find anything that suggests anything other than he is one of the most reliable sources for the period that is currently available. We all understand that history is biased towards the victors, as they are the ones writing it, however after reading Herodotus and especially the part of the '300 spartans', he, in my view, presents the facts with out a large amount of hyperbole.
I thought that many historians thought you had to take Herodotus with a grain of salt, but it is possible I am getting my "Dead Ancient Greek Guys with Names that Begin with H" mixed up and am really thinking of Hesiod.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/13 20:23:33
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Ehh, I don't think this will be much good. As Ahtman said, the reason 300 worked was the frame story of a soldier telling the story of a heroic battle, thus allowing for the exaggeration of the characters and fantastical embellishments. This feels more like someone needed a quick buck so they figured they'd make a "300 Part II: Return of the Abs, at Sea!"
