300's Sequel Stars The Bad Guy

[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.

 

[Speakercone]

snip

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.

I meant to say that the allied powers were correct in portraying the nazis as villains. The fact that the nazis actually were evil, in the most objective sense that the word exists, is what makrs them out as a historical exception. Normally all sides of a conflict think the enemy is evil and neither side is entirely correct. I could have phrased it better, thanks for pointing it out.