The realism inZack Snyder’s epic historical action movie is evaluated by a historian. Snyder’s first feature-length movie was the 2004 remake of George Romero’sDawn of the Dead. His next two movies,300andWatchmen, adapted comic book series. This set the stage for Snyder directingMan of Steeland building the DC Extended Universe featuring Henry Cavill as Superman/Clark Kent, Ben Affleck as Batman/Bruce Wayne, and Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman/Diana Prince. While directingJustice League, Snyder exited the project due to personal tragedy, and the movie changed significantly under Joss Whedon’s direction.
After years of fans campaigning for what was dubbedthe Snyder Cut,Zack Snyder’s Justice Leaguewas released on HBO’s streaming service, and showcased his previously unfulfilled creative vision for the story of DC’s superhero team.More recently, Snyder has directed, written, and produced Netflix’sRebel Moonmovies, which he hopes will become a full-fledged science-fiction franchise. DC andRebel Moonare not the only franchises he has worked on, though.
A Historian Analyzes The Realism Of 300: Rise Of An Empire
Zack Snyder Co-Wrote And Produced The Sequel
After the success of300, a sequel,300: Rise of an Empire, was released eight years later. Snyder co-wrote and produced the sequel while Noam Murro directed it. The storysees the Greeks' war against Persia’s King Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) continuing.Lena Headey, David Wenham, and Andrew Tiernan reprise their roles from the first film, while Sullivan Stapleton and Eva Green play new characters.Rise of an Empire’s box officecame to $337 million worldwide compared to the first movie’s $456 million and was not as well-received as its predecessor.
300: Rise Of An Empire Cast & Returning Character Guide
300: Rise of An Empire is a sequel to the historical epic action film 300, and features a number of overlapping characters with the original film.
In anInsidervideo,historian Roel Konijnendijk reviews the realism duringRise of an Empire’s Battle of Marathon. He is critical of how the movie tries to show the Greeks winning via"shock tactics,“even though their tactics are not surprising. Konijnendijk also takes issue with the inaccurate depiction of the armor and weaponry used by both the Greeks and the Persians. The only thing he is impressed by is how the scale of violence is portrayed, but the movie still receives a low score. Check out Konijnendijk’s comments below:
They’re supposed to have run from their camp into battle by running a mile across this plane. Now, many people question this for obvious reasons, and many people have questioned this for centuries. We don’t really believe that people could run that far in full armor in the summer heat and I think that’s what they’re kind of trying to convey, that the Persians were taken by surprise because the Athenians were advancing much faster and going straight into that fight.
They’re trying to convey this idea that the Athenians won the Battle of Marathon through shock tactics. The Athenians didn’t attack them while they were disembarking. They encamped across from them in this plane and sat looking at each other for 10 days.
This is such a bizarre way of depicting Greek equipment. We know very well what kind of equipment they would have carried because they kept on depicting it in on all their art and, especially after this victory, they were very proud of depicting themselves the way they looked and depicting the Persians the way they had been defeated. They have little boss shields, which are wrong. The swords are accurate. That sword looks like a very good Greek xiphos. But then they have double-headed axes. They have all sorts of random weapons that have absolutely no place in Classical Greece. Greeks are heavy spearmen, double-grip shields, long spears, heavy armor. The Persians seem to be carrying the khopesh, which is an Egyptian sword. The Egyptians were a big part of the Persian navy, so you might have had some Egyptian marines on board who may have carried these kinds of weapons, but if we assume this is a force of Persians, which the movie wants you to believe, then why are they carrying Egyptian weapons and not Persian ones?
The ancient battle account actually does say that they pursued the Persians to their ships and and they seized some of the ships, so they have these really broad gang planks, which would have been really nice if they had those. I think that would have made things a lot easier. But as far as we know, embarking and disembarking from these ships is actually quite difficult because they’re just sort of beached or just lying offshore.
While this clip is working with a kernel of what we’re told about the Battle of Marathon,basically everything you’re seeing here is complete fantasy, so I would give it a two [out of ten]. One thing I’ll give them is the sheer scale of the kind of violence happening in this battle is something that the Greeks themselves were already wanting to convey. They want us to know that this is a huge thing.
Our Take On Roel Konijnendijk’s Comments
Realism Is Not The Priority In 300: Rise Of An Empire
Even thoughZack Snyder didn’t direct300’s sequel, the movie still features his penchant for slow-motion, over-the-top action scenes and a darker visual aesthetic.Just like in300, there is largely an emphasis on style over substancethrough the lens of an underdog story in which the Greeks defend themselves against the tyrannical Xerxes and his forces. Historical accuracy was never the priority for Snyder when making300,andit should not be a surprise that it was not a priority inRise of an Empire.
Why Rise Of An Empire Was Not As Well-Received As 300
The Sequel Could Not Live Up The Original Movie’s Legacy
300is often considered to be one of Snyder’s best movies. This high bar already made it difficult forRise of an Empireto live up to the previous movie. The less favorable reception is evident inRise of an Empire’s Rotten Tomato scores, particularly a 51% Popcornmeter score compared to300’s 89% score.One of the key issues with the sequel is the absence of Gerard Butler’s King Leonidas, who had considerable presence and was the face of the first film.
One of the most prominent criticisms is thatRise of an Empiremimics Snyder’s style but does not execute it as well.
Stapleton’s Themistocles is not considered to be as compelling a protagonist as Leonidas. Manyreviews do praise Green’s portrayal of Artemisiawhile also noting that her performance is not enough to save the movie from its other flaws. One of the most prominent criticisms is thatRise of an Empiremimics Snyder’s style but does not execute it as well. This is one of the dangers that can occur when a different director helms a sequel to a popular movie.
300: Rise Of An Empire’s Timeline & How It Fits Into The Original Movie’s Events Explained
300: Rise of an Empire is a sequel to 300, but it doesn’t directly follow it chronologically, and the timeline between each movie is a bit confusing.
Reviews from critics and general audiences also discuss the plot not being as engaging as in300and that it repeats many of the same story beats. Without being able to form a connection to the characters, plot, or filmmaking style,the majority of viewers were left unimpressed byRise of an Empire, especially when juxtaposed with300. Almost twenty years later,300is still one ofZack Snyder’s most defining movies, whileRise of an Empirewas left impactful.
Source:Insider
Zack Snyder
Discover the latest news and filmography for Zack Snyder, known for 300 and Justice League.
300: Rise of an Empire
Cast
Based on Frank Miller’s latest graphic novel, “Xerxes,” 300: Rise of an Empire follows greek general Themistokles' attempts to unite all of Greece by leading the charge that will change the course of the war. The movie pits Themistokles against the massive invading Persian forces led by mortal-turned-god Xerxes and the deadly Artemisia, the vengeful commander of the Persian navy.
