EB poll of '300'

[Xtiaan72]

even poped in the DVD of the 60's "The 300 Spartans", (Richard Egan, Sir Ralph Richardson, Diane Baker, David Farrar & Donald Houston), and watched it, I wanted to see the differences between the two.

So I guess, that may have contributed somehow, of me not viewing this on a negative note.

Just out of curiousity, which did you like better?

[Suraknar]

Just out of curiousity, which did you like better?

Ouch! hehe. (maybe some spoilers if you havent seen the Original)

Well, from a Historical point of view, there is no question about it. The Original 60's movie I liked more.

It has a very "fair" way of portraying both sides aswell. And it also gives a Political background, we actually see Athenians and Spartans and Thebans and Corintheans all meeting in a council to discuss what each City-State would do.

Themistoclees representing the Athenians, does some very clever maneuvering, we even get a glimpse of secular and non secular views!

He appeals to Leonidas by offering overal leadership of the Greek army to Sparta.

On the Persian side, we do see Xerxes, we see his unquestioned rule, yet we also see that it is not intirelly dominating, we do get the feeling and understand that even if he does have to rule with an Iron hand, he does understand that there are other considerations at hand.

This is not a culture of mindless savages for sure as they are shown in the original.

We understand the cultural differences of both sides, and we also understand the reasons for these differences.

Xerxes, does what every other culture sought to do back in those times, Expand its empire, its influence its wealth.

If we are to condemn the Persian Empire for doing so, then we might aswell condemn Greece under Philip II and Alexander the Great, to say nothing about Rome. They are all guilty.

The downside, was the form. It is a 60's Movie. The technology in Cinematography shows, the FX and such are not great by todays standards. And Spartans are portrayed more or less soft...

In modern 300, I see the way they show Spartans, their attitude, not their superhuman actions, their way of thinking more to par with History ironically, specially Leonidas, it just feels Ancient Spartan, the extreme feminism of his wife feels accurate aswell.

But that is it, the "Houhah and the Hooplah" we hear in the movie reminescent of a US Marines as far as I am concerned are not Historically accurate.

What I liked in the modern one is well, the fact that it is modern cinematography, the form, the colours, the artistic approach to it, the FX.

Althought the use of supernatural creatures was a turn down (specially the Immortals). I found the portrayal of Xerxes highly metaphoric, yet at the same time highly innacurate Historically.

Bottom line:

I liked both for different reasons.

Yet, if I had to choose between one or another I would choose the Original, the 60's "The 300 Spartans", it represents far more accuratelly, who we are and from where we come from and the reasons we choose to lay down our lives and fight for what we believe than the Modern version.

[Suraknar]

Ahh yes, also an important Irony here.

Frank Miller, was inspired by the Original 60's Movie as a kid, when he decided to make the Comic.

[Suraknar]

I think what is the main difference between modern cinematography compared to older one is that.

In olde cinematography we were able to capture the background of a given storry, the setting is more accurate leading to the events. Yet we lack (due to technology) to portray the action during the events.

In modern cinematography, we capture the action of the events, the strugle while it happens, while we lost the art of capturing the background setting.

Maybe the future of good cinema would be to bring those two together.

EDIT: @Caratacos *Applauds*