wats better this or 300
i am wondering if this movie is better than 300?..i am a fan of 300.share
It depends on what you would consider better? If your looking for something a with a little more historical accuracy, then "The 300 Spartans" is the way to go. If your looking for mindless violence and cartoonish characterization of events in bold sepia tones and loud digitally mastered sound, then "300" will be your cupo of tea.
Personally, I'm waitng for Stephen Pressfield's book, <u>Gates of Fire</u> to be made into a film.
i'd gotta say 300 since its more modernized and fit with our generation.share
why, are you all morons?share
The 1962 version is to inform the audience what happened and is fairly accurate. The 2007 version is purely entertainment. The 62 version drove me to the library for weeks as the 07 version didn't. I suppose the rhinos, elephants, and ghastly behavior put the 300 to much over the top.share
300 i heard, was a exaggeration because that's how (They think) the people (At that time) saw the Persians and all the other characters. Could it be?!
"Time is all we have"
i, dont know why, we are all morons.share
@ by demon314 1 day ago (Mon Mar 26 2007 08:21:13 )
Though I'm not quite sure what B Burl meant with his question about morons, but in your case the answer seems to be that it's because creating proper english sentences is too hard even when it's just one line. It's not even poetic, in case you're wondering.
On topic: I don't think there is a good answer to what's better. Times were different, people who lived then and now are different. Not to mention , in respect to the question 'what movies is better', the question of intent with which a movie is made; historally correct material, visually more appealing material, etc.
'What's better' are only answerable if you are comparing 2 movies about the same subject, telling a similar story, created in the same time, with more or less the same budget, created with 2 different people.
Then and only then do you have a valid question.
My suggestion and answer: stfu, watch both, then decide for yourself which you liked better. Once you made a decision, stfu some more and go do something useful.
I had hoped someone like you would do that. This man knows what he's talking about. I like 300 because of the war sequences, and I'm a fan of war sequences. All I can say is this: 300 is way better than this movie. Period.share
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Why concern yourself with which one is better. Enjoy them both for what they are.share
I echo this deftly worded FU.
--"My suggestion and answer: stfu, watch both, then decide for yourself which you liked better. Once you made a decision, stfu some more and go do something useful."
Of course we are all morons. You didn't know that?
I haven't seen either movie, but I've seen the three-hour History Channel feature on Sparta. Which made me want to see 300. (My Latin professor prefers The 300 Spartans, of course.)
The only non-sequel film I've paid $5 to see this year was Transformers, which I pretty much loved. I'M A MORON I'M A MORON! [email protected]
The cockroach is a noble beast....
"why, are you all morons?"
Auahahahahahahaaaa!!!! Best. Answer. Ever! :)
by moonjievax9 (Mon Mar 19 2007 19:56:13 )
"i'd gotta say 300 since its more modernized and fit with our generation."
The Laziest Generation.
Since you replied in this way, I suppose you're - unlike me - not one of that lazy guys.
In that case I just wanted to remind you that you raised that generation.
the idea that 'the 300 spartans' is more historically accurate than '300' is ridiculous. did you guys see the movie? it has one of the soldiers bringing his girlfriend along for god's sake!
judging by historical accuracy has no point in discussing the quality of a movie compared to another, especially not if they are both inaccurate. i myself enjoyed both films. i personally like '300' better simply because it provides more bang for the buck, the other one might be more something for you if you enjoy good old fashioned swords and sandals movies, though i must say that the limited budget on this one shows quite badly, especially in the battle scenes.
"BTW...cannot imagine many having Greek or any history as a favorite subject, which is why I find these "debating threads" on the accuracy of 300 so absolutely amusing."
Load of people consider Greek history to be one of their favourite subjects. Some people consider history in general a favourite subject.
I find it odd that you said that and consider yourself a 'historian'! How odd. I like the histories of the Germanic tribes, that is my favourite subject; why not Greek history for others?
Some tend to like historical accuracy and they are in their rights to criticise '300' for the lack of accuracy.
Debates about whether '300 Spartans' or '300' is better are not 'amusing' but logical.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"
im sure it was so lazy of the filmakers to spend soo much time on the detail of the sheer gold that this movie was. And im sure Frank Miller is lazy for writing such enthralling tales.
Hows that for a slice of fried gold?
Guys, 300 is A MOVIE ADAPTATION OF A COMIC BOOK BASED ON THE BATTLE, not a history channel documentary. The more old prunes and self-proclaimed intellectual historical movie watchers who get this through their narrow minds, the better off everyone will be.share
Thanks, I'm so tired of hearing how historically inaccurate "300" is, it's based off off of a GN adaptation, get over it!share
"300 is A MOVIE ADAPTATION OF A COMIC BOOK BASED ON THE BATTLE, not a history channel documentary."
Funny you say that. I saw the story of the 300 Spartans on the History Channel and rolled my eyes at the Fabio looking models and computerized backgrounds. Then I started seeing previews for "300" the movie. I just had to see it to crap on it. The History Channel could've done it better and cheaper.
"mindless violence and cartoonish characterization of events in bold sepia tones ".........................EXACTLY
That is what Ruined 300 for me......its an absolute overdose of Sepia CGI.
Braveheart and even gladiator were much MUCH better than this........
"It depends on what you would consider better? If your looking for something a with a little more historical accuracy, then "The 300 Spartans" is the way to go. If your looking for mindless violence and cartoonish characterization of events in bold sepia tones and loud digitally mastered sound, then "300" will be your cupo of tea."
yeah. personally, i like both (not that ive seen "The 300 Spartans" (streaming it now)
If you want historical accuracy, read a book, don't waste your time on feature films and documentaries.
Never, ever trust a flick. Enjoy it for what it is, a story. Not history.
The 300 Spartans = 6.7
300 = 7.9
I don't approve that 300 is mindless violence & cartoonish characterization
It is an amazing piece of art..
And being historically correct is easy.. because you can just read books and make movie...
But deviating from the history and creating a mind blowing story like 300... well Mr Carlito_Negro that is amazing..
The graphics are not cartoonish..
they are just WOW!!!!!
lets not forget graphical exploration is appreciated like sin city..
the graphics and effects of the movie was a powerful reason why the film was cinematic success world wide..
AND 300 is RATED MORE THAN TROY!!!!!!!!!!!!
and please next time be careful about giving senseless negative reviews about movies..
although you have a right to share your opinion but the problem is this that you are preventing people to watch a great and entertaining movie..
REMEMBER THESE THREADS ARE SUPPOSED TO HELP PEOPLE!!!!
SO STOP HATING AND START BEING APPRECIATIVE TOWARDS GOOD MOVIES...
I agree with you completely about Pressfield's book, "Gates of Fire". I would love to see it made into a movie. I remember reading that George Clooney had optioned it, with an eye to producing, not acting in it. I think Bruce Willis was suggested as Leonidas, which actually could be quite good casting as Leonidas was supposed to be in his 60s (that last might just be my imagination as I am a Bruce fan and thought he could play the character as represented in the book). However, I suppose that "300" will put off any other movie about Thermopylae.share
My thoughts exactly.
Brother Maynard, bring forth the holy hand grenade!
They are two different movies with two different interpretations based on the same event. I enjoyed both for different reasons. People are going to dislike the 1962 version simply because it's over 40 years old. Believe it or not, there were good movies before CGI. People are going to dislike the 2007 version simply because it's new. Believe it or not, just because it's CGI heavy, doesn't mean it's a bad movie. As far as the historical "errors," this is an event that happened 2500 years ago. People are arguing about exactly who did what to who in Iraq, and that started just four years ago.share
Well said, Jim of oz. The idiotic argument over which version is better reminds me of "Titanic" vs "A Night To Remember". Both ended the same; the ship sank and people died. "300" vs. "300 Spartans", Leonides and his Spartans warriors died, Greek culture lived. I recommend that people watch the 1962 version to learn what happened and the 2007 version to be entertained with lots of action and gore.share
stop watching fox news and cnn, it'll help ... :xshare
Ok. Here's the deal. Yes, both movies are "sort of" about the same event. But the main thing to keep in mind is that THEY ARE NOT AT ALL THE SAME MOVIE. 300 is based off of a comic that was loosely based off of a historical event. 300 Spartans is based on the actual event. It's like asking which is better, X-Men or any other movie involving the oppression of a given group.share
Personally, I prefer the 62 film...and i'm only 25 so not that old.
They both have different things to offer but I wasn't into the comic book style, especially the visuals, of 300. I like comic book films but would have preferred a more 'realistic' version of the events at Thermopylae.
I just watched this movie to compare it to the new 300 movie, and I was so bored through out the whole movie I was waiting for it to get better, but it never did. Here's my list of things wrong with this movie
1- This was such a soap opera, I thought I was watching a chick flick, this was more about the love stories involved with the two main spartans that they show the whole movie, then about the actual war.
2- They didn't show any action for more than an hour into the movie, And when they did, the fighting was so sloppy,
In the new 300 they showed why the spartans were such great warriors, in this one, it felt like it was just 300 regular guys, fighting with no style or technique.
3- The thing that annoyed me the most was the everybody talked as if they were in some kind of Shakespeare play, the dialogue was so unrealistic, the whole movie felt like a play, and what's even worse was that there was so much dialogue that it was tiring
4- This movie had absolutely zero style, it was shot like a TV, only your basic LS MS and CU, were used through out the whole movie. It's definitely not a beautiful looking movie.
5- The guys they picked to star in this movie were so soft looking, there is no way spartans could have have looked this soft.
So people argue that "The 300 Spartans" is more realistic, I beg to differ, this 62 version was made when hollywood was trying to make every movie into Casablanca with a romantic love story (give me a break). Plus the war scenes were so fake, and pretty much rated G, it never showed the ugliness and the heard reality of war. The feel and mood of the new 300 is definitely more realistic in encompassing the atmosphere and feeling of war. The 62 version felt like a musical.
Are you nuts?share
This. I remember how it inspired me when I was younger. Oddly enough, unlike most children, I could understand concepts ect and knew what was historically accurate or not. Other children liked my childhoon drawings of what they thought were 'knights'.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"
Wow. You quoted South Park in defending a movie made in 1962.
Something about that...just doesn't seem right...
My Good Guys Are The Stereotypical Bad Guys
Oh boy ...
"this was more about the love stories involved" Maybe 300 Spartans was aimed at adults?
"This movie had absolutely zero style, it was shot like a TV, only your basic LS MS and CU, were used through out the whole movie. It's definitely not a beautiful looking movie." Absolutely 100% dead-on there. The director used no CGI, there were NO visuals stolen wholesale from LOTR and worst of all, the Spartans wore armor! Holy cow! What a POS. [/sarcasm]
"The feel and mood of the new 300 is definitely more realistic in encompassing the atmosphere and feeling of war." If y'all don't mind, I'm going to beg to differ.
Well, I was going to point out the historical innacuracies in 300, but then this post would be TL:DR. Instead let's focus on the historical ACCURACIES ...
1) the Persians invaded Greece
2) A small force of Spartans (and others) delayed them at Thermopylae
... er, that's it.
300 Spartans gave more of the historical/military/political background to Thermopylae than 300. OK, I wouldn't use it as the basis for a history thesis, but it was certainly less inaccurate.
this. there's a actual characters and story lines, which is lacking in the newer oneshare
The new one isnt about characters and storylines its about 300 ripped guys kicking the crap out of way more than that, thats wat was advertised, thats what i saw and i thought it was great i dont want to hear another thing about its historical innacuracy thats like saying lord of the rings took place a long time ago in europe. nobody is going to make the mistake of thinking there were huge fat guys wit blades for arms ok? its entertainment, its supossed to look surreal so i dont want to hear about that either.share
"to hear another thing about its historical innacuracy thats like saying lord of the rings took place a long time ago in europe."
Not really, Tolkien's work is set in a fantasy pre-normal Earth and is similar to Germanic mythology, '300' is set during a real period.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"
"this was more about the love stories involved" Maybe 300 Spartans was aimed at adults?You mean like practically every single Disney movie is aimed at adults, due to being largely about love stories?
The new one isnt about characters and storylines its about 300 ripped guys kicking the crap out of way more than that, thats wat was advertised, thats what i saw and i thought it was great i dont want to hear another thing about its historical innacuracy thats like saying lord of the rings took place a long time ago in europe. nobody is going to make the mistake of thinking there were huge fat guys wit blades for arms ok? its entertainment, its supposed to look surreal so i dont want to hear about that either.
1 you are an anal didactic fool who feels he/she is impressing a bunch of strangers with his alleged knowledge of what actually occurred (winners write history btw so who knows what really happened)
2) you are a complete idiot who saw this expecting to see a fairly accurate representation of your favorite ever childhood History lesson and are completely taken aback by how god-awfully inaccurate this travesty dare be, insulting your knowledge, raping your childhood...leaving you wide eyed and slack jawed. HOW DARE THEY!!! HOW DARE THEY!!!!!
calm down history buffs....its a movie!
Warriors would NEVER have looked like the guys do in 300. For that level of definition you have to dehydrate (that's why you sometimes get bodybuilders fainting / being hospitalised in competitions) and you can't maintain much physical exertion in that state.
They'd be built more like the guys you see in worlds strongest man competitions and less like underwear models.
The main plot of The 300 Spartans and the character portrayals therein are probably more accurate than those in 300 (although having a bunch of white guys running around in 300 Spartans and calling some of them "Persians" is completely inaccurate). However, The 300 Spartans was trying to give an accurate portrayal of the events at Thermopylae, whereas 300 was much more about style and the subtle elements underlying the plot, such as what it means to be a Spartan and the burden of the storyteller (or at least that's how it came across to me). I think 300 achieves its goal better, and, further, I think it's more entertaining.
Here's what bothers me about The 300 Spartans:
1. The love stories. It's been mentioned before, but I'm mentioning it again. If you went back to ancient Sparta, I'm telling you that you wouldn't find much of anything to make a love story out of. The Spartans were tough, the Spartans were warriors, and the Spartans barely had time for women, anyway. They had wives so that they could have a son, and that was pretty much it. I'm not going to say that the Spartans were necessarily "too tough for love"...but they probably were too tough to be talking about it, and they certainly wouldn't have spouted all that sappy lovey-dovey nonsense in the movie. It bugs the crap out of me that moviemakers think they have to turn stories about war into stories about war AND love...it ruins movies, and it didn't help this movie at all. It was incredibly fake and incredibly off-putting, and the only people who would like it would be silly teenage girls or soppy older women and housewives. And it was completely inaccurate, too...yeah, maybe that's how love worked in some idealized 1962 mentality, but it sure as heck wasn't how it worked in Sparta. Besides, although neither movie featured manlove, if you'd wanted historical accuracy, that's how you'd achieve it.
2. Based on the way everyone acted and spoke, the movie could have just as easily been set in 14th Century England or 17th Century France...the character's personalities just seemed to be all-purpose war-movie-set-in-the-past-and-including-some-form-of-royalty personalities. It didn't seem like the moviemakers really tried to portray true Greeks or Spartans, just that they sort of thought, "okay, so this takes place in the past, so let's just give everyone accents and have them talk all funny and proper".
3. All that crap about fighting for freedom and uniting Greece. I know everybody thinks that Greece was all about democracy and freedom and everything that Americans hold dear, but the typical American perception of "Greece" is incredibly Athenocentric. This movie is about SPARTA, and sorry, but in the realm of Greece Sparta was the polar opposite of Athens. Sparta was an oligarchy, and as for freedom...well, if you think hauling all boys off to the agoge for intensely harsh and long military training at age 7 and turning their lives into not much more than being in the army, then you're deluded, but I guess you won't have a problem with the portrayal of Spartans as "champions of freedom". And as for "uniting Greece"...first of all, Athens and Sparta were RIVALS, and all that buddy-buddy crap going on between them annoyed me. Speaking of rivals, there was plenty of rivalry between Greek city-states, and that's just how Greece was and that's how Greece apparently liked it. Greek city-states were loosely connected...some were more tightly connected than others (because they were allies, but alliances could always change), and some had large rifts between them (because they were rivals), but all in all, that entity that we call "Greece" was just a group of loosely connected city-states.
Overall, The 300 Spartans came across as an attempt at a historically accurate movie that was ruined by the obvious projection of American ideals and perceptions on it. Also, it was boring.
As for 300, I personally think it portrayed the Spartan mentality much better...from an intangible standpoint, I think that 300 really did well with historical accuracy. On the other hand, it didn't really do that well with tangible historical accuracy, which is more noticable...there were characters (which really seemed to be more along the lines of "creatures") that obviously couldn't exist in reality. I think this is because 300 was going for a very stylized representation of Thermopylae which was evident from the tones that the movie was shot in, the artistic way blood splatter was depicted, etc. But underneath the physically impossible hunchback and the giant slavering Persian monster, there was storytelling and there were characters, and there was SPARTA. I think it's important to note that "This is SPARTA" was proclaimed in 300, and that's what was shown...Sparta. 300 was a movie about 300 men in Sparta, whereas The 300 Spartans was a movie about 300 Spartans in all of Greece...and I think that's an important distinction to make. The 300 Spartans was too concerned with the notion of "Greece"...300 stuck to Sparta, which is where I think the focus needed to be. The rough, gritty, bloody life of a Spartan soldier was portrayed much more accurately in 300, and as such I think the Spartan mentality was portrayed much more accurately. In The 300 Spartans, Leonidas looked very clean, groomed, and like the type of guy who would be shown on a magazine cover, winking, and with a glistening white-toothed smile. The rest of the Spartans looked pretty much the same. In 300, the soldiers were dirty, with blood-caked feet (Spartans fought barefoot...after the agoge, their feet were practically shoes, anyway), and actually looked like Spartan soldiers rather than eye-candy. I felt like 300 had a lot more substance to it, that you could actually empathize with the characters, and that there was more to the story than a battle. It was something different, it was something interesting, and while hardcore history buffs might have qualms with it, I think if you're more interested in plot (not whether it was "accurate" or not, just its substance), characters, and being able to feel like you actually experienced something worthwhile, 300 is your best bet.
Also, I will kill anyone who posts "TLDR". If you didn't feel like reading this, don't tell me. For me, "TLDR" translates to "I'm an illiterate moron," mmkay? Just so we're clear.
Well I have to say the 1962 version definitely. After watching it, it almost seemed as though 300 was a petty rip-off of it. I mean the historical truths should be the same, but even most of the historical inaccuracy was re-created in the new movie as almost a direct copy of the 62 version.
Obviously I agree that the 62 version acted as a better informant of history whereas the new movie was purely entertainment.
I always said that 300 was a great movie if you like effects and action, but the storyline was horrible. No good character development.
The 62 version does go into a lot more detail as far as characters go in a classic 1962 style of bringing out romance. Back then, little things like that were needed to make a good movie.
Considering how old The 300 Spartans is compared to the new one, and considering they're nearly just as good as one another, I have to give all the credit to the older movie. It entertained me a lot more than the new one did overall.
I think one of the things i hated most about the old one was that the spartans looked like pansies, you are told they are great warriors so you have to role with that even though they look soft and weak which is the problem with the love stories as davind wenham says in the new one "he doesnt say he loves her there is no room to be soft no room for weakness" and also 300 shows how sprtans were raised from childhood to fight and in 300 spartans they just seem.... weak. Also i know the whole thing about using the hot gates in order to limit the number of persians fighting at a time but then they ended up fighting in front of it is a criticism of the new one i have heard but in the old one i didnt even see a canyon or pass at all, not to mention the fact that the "sea" was clearly a lake less than a mile across.share
the idea that 'the 300 spartans' is more historically accurate than '300' is ridiculous. did you guys see the movie? it doesn't just have a love story in it, it has one of the soldiers bringing his girlfriend along to the battle for god's sake!
judging by historical accuracy has no point in discussing the quality of a movie compared to another, especially not if they are both wildly inaccurate. i myself enjoyed both films. i personally like '300' better simply because it provides more bang for the buck, the other one might be more something for you if you enjoy good old fashioned swords and sandals movies, though i must say that the limited budget on this one shows quite badly, especially in the battle scenes.
Boy am I glad I watched the old movie first...then I could just sit back and enjoy the new one without paying attention to the story, and I wouldn't have to go "is this the way it REALLY happened?" and "this is BOOORING" when watching the old one.
I don't think the two movies compare, the new is more artsy, has more action and coolness. The old one, is about telling a story, about developing it, about describing. I think both have entertainment values, but they have different entertainment values, the newest is hardcore fun whereas the old one is more enjoyable if you will.
Both movies are good, they don't compare, neither are masterpieces, the newest is more fun, but not necessarily better.
The 62 version is hokey, lame, and Ralph Richardson is the only actor who can deliver a line. The costumes are pure hollywood for sure. The dialogue is so bad as is the famous lines regarding the battle. I like Richard Egan but he was not a great actor....his best film was LOVE ME TENDER as one of the Reno Brothers. The new 300 is better written, visual beyond belief, and so what if they added Rhinos...it was based on a novel not on historical fact....bottom line old movies just dont cut the mustard compared to new ones.share
jezuz christ guys, the man said:
"i am wondering if this movie is better than 300?..i am a fan of 300. "
The answer is simply: YES
It is better, but only as a movie, it has many special effects and stuff.
How astute of you Duke. You're right. Old movies like "The Hustler", "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" and "Lawrence of Arabia" can't hold a candle to the excellent new movies like "The Fast and the Furious", "The Day After Tommorrow", or "The Incredible Hulk". I mean there's no CGI in "Lawrence". David Lean put his crew through helll and spent a ton of money on location just to make the viewer "feel" the desert in Cinemascope. I mean the desert is like all boring and stuff. And who needs chracter development or moving story lines when you can fill the screen explosions and big breasts an' have lots of really loud noise on the sound track. After all, intelligent dialogue is boring and who needs a coherent plot anyway?share
When I heard of a remake of the perhaps stodgy 1962 film I was very intrigued since the period interested me. When I saw "300" well it was a fine piece of entertainment but really we're all waiting for a version that perhaps from film's point of view gives a better humanistic inkling of what went on during those three days at the pass in 480 BC. All film has a point of view and what we have on screen is Miller's CGI version of Thermopylae. A bit of hype thrown in and that's fine but the topic I felt was subordinated to special effects. For I guess pure film lovers "300" just can't fly.share
I vote 300 Spartans. More realistic.share
The 300 Spartans was 100% percent charming and was just a lot of fun to watch. 300 on the other hand, was exhausting. The chiseled soldiers were irritatingly bad at acting (though Richard Egan was hardly De Niro as Leonidas, he was far better than Gerard Butler) and the visuals didn't actually do anything for me. People say "Oh, but it was such a breakthrough film for CGI movies"--no. Screw that. Toy Story was a breakthrough for CGI. 300 was okay but not great. The 300 Spartans was classic.share