so the battle of platae was just an impossibility then? Never mind that it was the battle that happened after the battle of the hot gates and was the final conflict of the Greko-Persian conflict, no no we couldn't possibly follow the story to its logical narrative conclusion could we? I mean why is 300 in the title it's more like a retelling from the villains point of view, this is the worst sequel idea I've heard of sense Highlander 2 the Quickening
300's Sequel Stars The Bad Guy
- Thread starter vansau
- Start date
Recommended Videos
also glory fuckin be that we're seeing a 300 sequel, clash of the titans 2 and 3, and Immortals, cause greek mythology hadn't taken it up the ass from hollywood quite enough.
Hey HEY! Insult this all you want but lay off The Spirit! 
On topic though eeh...it could work, the potential is there if they pull it off right. Having Xerxes being a brainwashed hero could be interesting. The main thing that makes me think it won't work is the fact that Zack Snyder isn't involved. 1st movie is success with a certain director, it isn't wise to switch. It's likely going to end up trying to imitate Snyder's style when that style is what made 300 in the first place. Problem is it won't be the same. Imagine if someone tried to make an Inception sequel without Nolan directing it. Or a Jurassic Park sequel without Spielberg directing it. Oh wait, that did happen with Jurassic Park 3 :s
On topic though eeh...it could work, the potential is there if they pull it off right. Having Xerxes being a brainwashed hero could be interesting. The main thing that makes me think it won't work is the fact that Zack Snyder isn't involved. 1st movie is success with a certain director, it isn't wise to switch. It's likely going to end up trying to imitate Snyder's style when that style is what made 300 in the first place. Problem is it won't be the same. Imagine if someone tried to make an Inception sequel without Nolan directing it. Or a Jurassic Park sequel without Spielberg directing it. Oh wait, that did happen with Jurassic Park 3 :s
In all honesty, I don't know if I'm even fully convinced that 300 was a good idea.
It was certainly something to watch, full of visual style and auditory rumble, sort of like being in the front row of a rock concert. But even coming out of the theater, I wasn't sure if I had been "awesome-experience-knocked-flat" or "five-feet-from-a-train-derailment-knocked-flat". So much of it was so over-the-top that I think part of my mind was going, "Really? I- you- really?! You think- you're going to- seriously?..."
I'm not sorry I saw it, because it was a remarkable experience, even if parts of me aren't certain it was exactly a cultural milestone. But I quite doubt a second pull from the well would have the advantage of washing over me or surprising me in the same way, and all the failures and excesses would thus likely stand out that much more.
It was certainly something to watch, full of visual style and auditory rumble, sort of like being in the front row of a rock concert. But even coming out of the theater, I wasn't sure if I had been "awesome-experience-knocked-flat" or "five-feet-from-a-train-derailment-knocked-flat". So much of it was so over-the-top that I think part of my mind was going, "Really? I- you- really?! You think- you're going to- seriously?..."
I'm not sorry I saw it, because it was a remarkable experience, even if parts of me aren't certain it was exactly a cultural milestone. But I quite doubt a second pull from the well would have the advantage of washing over me or surprising me in the same way, and all the failures and excesses would thus likely stand out that much more.
I most certainly don't. 300 was horrible.Sober Thal said:
Besides, what the hell would they even call it? 301? 300 2?
This will either be great or it'll be a total and utter failure, depending on if the director can capture the essence of what made 300 so awesome. That being said, what made 300 awesome was the sight of a handful of overbuff killing machines slaughtering helpless Persians in slow motion while delivering badarse one-liners, so I'm not quite sure how they'll manage that with the Persians...
Bonus question: Am I the only one who thinks that 300's Xerxes is remarkably similar to Autarch Sulepis from the Shadowmarch books?
Bonus question: Am I the only one who thinks that 300's Xerxes is remarkably similar to Autarch Sulepis from the Shadowmarch books?
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RealityIsUnrealisticBaresark said:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BasedOnAGreatBigLie
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ButItReallyHappened
Given the only account of the 300 Spartans readily available is a fictionalised one, don't you think that's a splendid way to get around any sort of libel laws? Like say, basing a 'fictional' comic book around the events of 9/11 [http://io9.com/5816828/frank-millers-superhero-vs-al-qaeda-comic-comes-out-on-the-tenth-anniversary-of-911].
I mean Maus also goes that way, but it specifically deals with the unreal reality of the piece.
My advice would be not to be passive-aggressive. Not until you know the depths of someone's knowledge on the subject.
So all future installments cannot refer to our history as it will have been different. Funny that, let's see how often they do that.
You've read Odysseus, right? Or when the Daleks were involved in World War 2?ChupathingyX said:
See Holy Terror. Great way to "fictionalise" real life views. Pathe News would be proud.
According to history, Xerxes wasn't even at the final battle at the end of 300, he got word that one of his underlings was trying to launch a coup, so he took the majority of his troops and went home.
Yeah Xerxes can't be the good guy, then Leonidas would be the bad guy. You can't have two good guys fighting it out.
Yeah Xerxes can't be the good guy, then Leonidas would be the bad guy. You can't have two good guys fighting it out.
Why not? It's your story, what's stopping you?008Zulu said:
Other than Hollywood producers, obviously.
Don't think the sequel is necessary, but it could be interesting seeing it from Xerxes view. They made him ridiculously over the top evil in 300. Lets see if they can mellow him out.
However, it would have been nice to have been able to read half that article. If only there wasn't a fucking advert covering half the page.
However, it would have been nice to have been able to read half that article. If only there wasn't a fucking advert covering half the page.
Oh joy, more Frank Miller insanity. 300 was enjoyable in a "watch tons of dudes get killed" way, but let's face it, Frankie hasn't been good since he finished writing The Dark Knight Returns. Yes I know Sin City also exists, but I don't care. I hate this grim and gritty nonsense he ushered in. Yeah Alan Moore contributed to it, but you have to remember that Moore's contribution to the rise of "grim and gritty" was friggin' Watchmen.
You could do a good movie about Xerxes, but not set in that universe/version of things. It's a matter of timing and what story you tel about him. The way to really make him more sympathetic would be to say tell the story of him uniting that empire to begin with, and the good that came of it and it's conquests... even if we side with the Greeks and support his empire ending given that we have hindsight behind us, and the origins of our own civilization, it is a matter of perspective.
It's short of like how Ghengis Khan and Kubla Khan are presented as being bad guys traditionally for obvious reasons, but you could definatly do some interesting things with them in their own enviroment before the events that lead to their villain status.
I'll also say that the Persians didn't really do anything paticularly bad in 300 overall. Understand it's a war, we were on the side of the greeks. Xerxes wanted Greece, he was a conquerer. He tried to take it relatively peacefully through bribery and failed, he then moved in and tried to conquer it. He's holding his empire together through his personal charisma and perceived invincibility so any kind of serious diplomacy on the spot isn't really viable if he doesn't want to seem weak to those he's commanding.
The Persians slaughtered villages and such, but that's just what a real war is like. The Greeks and especially the Romans were just as brutal in their own offensive wars. Alexander The Great wasn't exactly known for being a nice guy in war, on some levels he's the Greek version of Xerxes.
It's short of like how Ghengis Khan and Kubla Khan are presented as being bad guys traditionally for obvious reasons, but you could definatly do some interesting things with them in their own enviroment before the events that lead to their villain status.
I'll also say that the Persians didn't really do anything paticularly bad in 300 overall. Understand it's a war, we were on the side of the greeks. Xerxes wanted Greece, he was a conquerer. He tried to take it relatively peacefully through bribery and failed, he then moved in and tried to conquer it. He's holding his empire together through his personal charisma and perceived invincibility so any kind of serious diplomacy on the spot isn't really viable if he doesn't want to seem weak to those he's commanding.
The Persians slaughtered villages and such, but that's just what a real war is like. The Greeks and especially the Romans were just as brutal in their own offensive wars. Alexander The Great wasn't exactly known for being a nice guy in war, on some levels he's the Greek version of Xerxes.
Are you even vaguely serious?OutrageousEmu said:
Let's imagine you went to see Downfall, and instead of Hitler committing suicide in his bunker, a younger, muscular Stalin personally kills Hitler when he knocks him off his giant Tiger tank with a single grenade. Because that would basically be the modern day equivalent of 300.
Now imagine said someone wanted to make a sequel to this.
pfft...and Hollywood says the Assassin's Creed movie will fail...Also, and I know I'm a noob for thinking this but, I thought Immortal was a spiritual successor to 300. This movie just sounds a bit unnecessary but hey, however Hollywood feels it'll make money...
