[rooboy]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

I dislike very much movies that claim to be historical but lack any sense of historical basis in them. Like when I went to watch Apocalypto, I mean, COME ON, Gibson, Mayans disappeared WAY before Spaniards came to America.

Spoiler:

This isn't quite that bad. Technically it's based on a graphic novel (300 by Frank Miller), not on the historical event of the Battle of Thermopylae. The graphic novel itself is mostly based on Herodotus' actual historical accounts of the time (most historians discount those accounts as being inaccurate - particularly in regards to the size of the Persian army). Some of the lines in the movie are right out of Herodotus (for example, when Dienekes tells the Persian that they will fight in the shade (because the Persians arrows will blot out the sun). Rather than calling it a historical movie, I would say it is a movie based on a historical account (and inherits the bias' of that account). While it is probably historically inaccurate - at least it's following (more or less) the original account.

The true story of the Battle of Thermopylae is a good one, but some things are exaggerated in the ancient accounts. Most historians (while still agreeing that the Greeks were horribly outnumbered) now think that there were far fewer Persians than ancient accounts claim. Also, the movie really only follows the 300 Spartans, but it's important to note that other Greeks were at the battle. However, without question, the Spartans were the force that spearheaded and drove the entire battle.

Personally I love this era in history, and I love this graphic novel. While it's not an accurate representation of the battle, per se, the original graphic novel is a great piece of work, working on a lot of themes including the cost of preserving democracy. Like Monir, I am really looking forward to the movie (probably more than any other movie this year), and am very jealous that he has IMAX tickets (they've been sold out in Dallas forever).