300's Sequel Stars The Bad Guy

[John Horn]

They...they do realise Artemisia was a place not a person right? Thats kind of why it was called the Battle of Artemisium. Because thats where it was, not thats who started it.
And why is Themistocles in it? His false side-switch to trick the Persians into battle was Salamis not Artemisium...

Nah. If anything. Themistokles should be portrayed as the mastermind behind both the land battle of Thermopylai and the sea battle of Artemision. Themistokles was in effect the Field Marshall, organizing the preparations for both battles, and doing the overall coordination.

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

If only Comic Book Jail were a real thing...

 

[TJC]

I... waht... I can't...

I AM DISAPPOINT, HOLLYWOOD!

I mean... I didn't need another piece of evidence that Hollywood is led by exploitative, uncreative, money-grabbing fucks who tell the quality of an idea by the amount of cocksucking service it provided...

but this is... just...
D:

 

[Baresark]

snip

LoL, right up front, I don't think fiction is bad at all, as a matter of fact, it's my most read subject matter. I have done some writing myself and short fiction is my baby. That being said, you clearly have more writing experience than I do. I wouldn't deny that, but we are still allowed to have different views on it, it's the spice of life you know.

Also, I agree that Frank Miller is a hack. The only draw I ever had to his work as a comic book dork was his art style. His writing seems to be considered avant-garde by a great many people, and I can't agree with that. As a funny aside, I actually used to date a girl who was at an after party that Frank Miller was at, post 300 success. He was a drunken lech who practically drooled all over her perfectly formed breasts whenever he got the chance till she actually left the party.

I think Miller did define it as a comic universe. But it's a Millerverse, so that possibly hardly counts. I guess this would include anything with "The Spirit" and also "Sin City". I felt that his Batman work (at least in the 80's, not sure if he has done anything with that recently) was probably his best work. It was gritty (like most comics in the 80's) but it made one of the most memorable battles in comic book history. As a fanboy, I like it. Though, I haven't gone on to re-read it after my own writing experiences. I have the issue buried deep down in a lot of boxes.

All the greatest works of fiction are still drawn from reality though. And I can't change my mind on that. It's the foundation of my writing classes, and it's the only way to make fiction that can touch people on a deep level. I once wrote a story for a final and based it off of my grandfather. It was 5% really him, 95% made up but it managed to get me a standing ovation from my teachers and half of my class. But, perhaps the reading was part of it as well.

I was struggling with why the new Clash of the Titans sucked. I thought it was because of nostalgia (not usually like me). Ultimately I settled on just about everything being wrong with the movie. It was utterly forgettable. I don't really care for Sam Worthington. This is gonna sound petty of me, but no one really walked around with buzz cut hair during that time period. But, I do like your breakdown on more story based level. Nothing like changing the whole fundamental concept of a story to ruin it. Now I'm gonna have to re-watch it.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

LoL, right up front, I don't think fiction is bad at all, as a matter of fact, it's my most read subject matter. I have done some writing myself and short fiction is my baby. That being said, you clearly have more writing experience than I do. I wouldn't deny that, but we are still allowed to have different views on it, it's the spice of life you know.

Oh, I'm glad that I do have people to disagree with. Makes me question my own views.

Also, I agree that Frank Miller is a hack.

So many people do, but like a lot of the directors/producers, he keeps getting away with outright racism/sexism in the disguise of "fiction". Which is why it's such a sore point with me.

But it's a Millerverse,

Yeah. I can go with that. A Millerverse, not quite a universe.

All the greatest works of fiction are still drawn from reality though.

Oh, they have to be. The mark of a really good writer is one that understands why reality is like that, and alters it. Odysseus's Trojan Horse, or the Ironsides understand their place in the universe as is. They're totally fantastical, but they come with rules: like the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus or Fox News.

When you add something just to be cool though, without understanding the changes that makes to the universe - like Miller did with Batman - then you're going down the Stephanie Meyer or LOST route; where things happen purely for the story and the reader/watcher is conned.

But, I do like your breakdown on more story based level. Nothing like changing the whole fundamental concept of a story to ruin it. Now I'm gonna have to re-watch it.

Cheers, it was cobbled together from a lot of critics I saw - but I think it strikes at the most of the re-makes around.
Mission Impossible succeeded as a re-make because it just re-started everything, and while it's reality based, it's anything but realistic.
The Italian Job(remake) or The Pink Panther(remake) fails for the reverse reason; they were never based in our reality at all - just in war films/farce.

Good to finish this conversation on a positive note though *shakes hands*
(Occasionally I do get a little ranty )

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Are you even vaguely serious?

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.

Less than a hundred years ago, Hitler killed 9 million civilians, most of whom have direct blood relations alive today who can name the relatives who were killed. If anyone can name their direct blood relative who died at the battle of Thermopalyae, then you may have a point.

You can't compare a recent atrocity to one that happened 480 years before the birth of Christ. Because the difference there is "desecrating the memory of my relatives who were slaughtered" - i.e., its literally personal.

I think you completely missed the point. It's not about whether there's any atrocity being committed, it's about the fact that the historical story itself is interesting and has enough gravitas that it doesn't need to be embellished in the way you're suggesting. I mean, the Battle of Thermopylae has all the elements of a good story: betrayal, sacrifice, one or two particularly witty lines, the fate of several cities in the balance, a despot's megalomania, etc.

But all that's too boring for the MTV generation, apparently. So it's perfectly okay to throw historical accuracy out the window and ramp up the sexy action violence, because kids these days will walk out of the theatre if someone doesn't get killed every 3 seconds.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Yes, how dare they not want to go to the movies to learn something about military history, and not appreciate droning retellings of ancient history.

Were you raised by a fucking British Headmaster? Also, I don't recall the Harryhausen movies being accurate either. Musta missed the skeleton warriors in ancient greece.

No-one apart from you has ever thought a historically accurate and dry retelling of miulitary history would be entertaining, meaning the audience for that movie is you and you alone, ever.



The reason World War II is treated with respect is entirely because of how fresh in our minds it is. If you think differently, you have an understanding of the concept of emotion on par with the Borg collective. But oh, I guess I can't mention them, as they're not historically accurate, and are thus just "sexy action for the MTV generation."

If you at any point favour historical accuracy over entertaining your audience, you have officially a complete failure at making movies. This is pretty much baseline moviemaking ideas.

Also, MTV generation? The fuck? http://xkcd.com/973/

Two things:
a) If you believe that the story of Thermopylae as we know it is "dry" and "droning" and any movie made of it without the comic book embellishments of 300 would a "complete failure", then it kind of proves my point.
b) I think World War II stopped being treated with quote unquote respect around the time that the Nazis were being driven back by magic in Bedknobs and Broomsticks.

 

[easternflame]

300 2!!!!!!?????
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

 

[Darks63]

isnt the upcoming immortals gonna fill this niche nicely already.

 

[AD-Stu]

Sounds like a pretty horrible idea to me. Ignoring the story side of things and just looking at it from a marketing perspective there has to be dozens of other properties with greater brand awareness that would make more sense to work with - as the article correctly notes, the original 300 movie was made a few years back now.

Smells like a straight-to-DVD quality idea to me.

 

[not_you]

resisting urge to watch 300 again....

OT: It would be a massive mistake... some movies just don't need sequels...
I mean, what would've happened if a sequel to "Resevoir Dogs" was made? Would the main character become the first cop to find the hideout?

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Why not? It's your story, what's stopping you?
Other than Hollywood producers, obviously.

Someone has to be the bad guy. Every story needs a villain, otherwise its two guys fighting over who is the "goodest", which makes them both egotistical jerks.

 

[Brendan Hurley]

People tend to miss the whole 'unreliable narrator' aspect of the story.

The whole thing is being delivered as equal parts pep-talk and propaganda by the only survivor of Leonidas' action at Thermopylae.

Of course it's inaccurate, of course it demonizes the Persians, of course it ignores the worst of Spartan society and the best of the Persian people.

Anything different would have been inaccurate in it's own way.

 

[Corporal Yakob]

I think there should be more 300 style films for other historical battles, for whenever I'm tired from a hard day and just want a gloriously mindless bloody romp laden with gore and special effects. Valiant and muscle-bound Confederate soldiers against Union steampunk mechas at Gettysburg anyone?

 

[ServebotFrank]

Battle of Artemesia? I thought they would mean the Artemesian strait which was essential to helping the 300 Spartans win. Because that would make sense as a movie.

 

[Speakercone]

Why not? It's your story, what's stopping you?
Other than Hollywood producers, obviously.

Someone has to be the bad guy. Every story needs a villain, otherwise its two guys fighting over who is the "goodest", which makes them both egotistical jerks.

Or you have two people who think themselves to be the 'good guy' and who consider each other to be villains. That's usually how this sort of thing happens in real life (a few notable exceptions, e.g. the nazis). No reason you can't make a narrative that includes that kind of political dynamic.

I could see myself wanting to play a game set in the hundred years war, for example, where both sides often come across as both righteous and villainous at different times.

I'd be willing to agree with you that 300 doesn't easily lend itself to this kind of storytelling. After setting up Xerxes as a somewhat one dimentional "conquer all the things" villain, it would be jarring to be told that he's suddenly the hero. Also the fact that it was his force invading Greece with intentions on the rest of Europa, it makes sense that he'd be the 'bad guy' due to world domination and such.

TL;DR: you totally can have two 'good guys' if you set up the narrative properly. It probably wouldn't be the right treatment for 300 though.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Or you have two people who think themselves to be the 'good guy' and who consider each other to be villains. That's usually how this sort of thing happens in real life (a few notable exceptions, e.g. the nazis). No reason you can't make a narrative that includes that kind of political dynamic.

I could see myself wanting to play a game set in the hundred years war, for example, where both sides often come across as both righteous and villainous at different times.

I'd be willing to agree with you that 300 doesn't easily lend itself to this kind of storytelling. After setting up Xerxes as a somewhat one dimentional "conquer all the things" villain, it would be jarring to be told that he's suddenly the hero. Also the fact that it was his force invading Greece with intentions on the rest of Europa, it makes sense that he'd be the 'bad guy' due to world domination and such.

TL;DR: you totally can have two 'good guys' if you set up the narrative properly. It probably wouldn't be the right treatment for 300 though.

The Nazis thought they were the good guys too, for a while they were. They pulled Germany out of a crippling depression. Then their leader went bat-crap insane.

Most nations back then were the conquer all types, but your right about how he was portrayed in the film.