So what about your own thoughts?
As for mine, 300 was truer to the spirit of the original sources than Troy
which totally lost the meaning of the Iliad and the Trojan War and changed
the ending and Alexander which was more about psychoanalysing Alexander's
relationship with his parents and made up most of the stuff which happened
in India and ignored the build-up to Alexander's invasion of Asia-Minor, and
cut most of the battles and sieges including the siege and naval assault of
Tyre. Michael Wood did a much better job than Oliver Stone in the same
amount of time.
Still could have been improved by adding an extra two hours and including
the final route of the Persians from Greece as well as showing the Persians
invading Greece and burning, looting and raping and the Battle of Salamis.
I thought the purpose of the film was to portray the Spartan spirit
which it did very well though I thought the tangent they took about the
Ephors was not authentic.
Searles
Nor did I. Even the made up nonsense about Leonidas wife wasn't that bad,
considering the history of Alcibiades in the Peloponnesian War but the
Ephors were never priests but held the same authority as Roman Tribunes and
it was the Oracle of Delphi the Spartans went to for advice.
>
> Searles
>
They diss'd the Athenians as fags, but all three parties
practiced that habit.
A Spartan soldier typically had a support staff of seven-
most slaves, maybe a relative as an apprentice. They's be a lot
more people around in the back lines.
No monarch would get personally involved in the front lines
like Xerxes.
How about this; it sucked?