Zack Snyder is renowned for his captivating films, particularly in the realm of epic historical action. Among his notable works is the 2004 remake of George Romero’s classic Dawn of the Dead, which marked his debut in feature-length filmmaking. Following this, he adeptly adapted comic book series into major films with 300 and Watchmen. Snyder’s successful trajectory led to him directing Man of Steel and expanding the DC Extended Universe, featuring iconic characters portrayed by Henry Cavill (Superman), Ben Affleck (Batman), and Gal Gadot (Wonder Woman). During the production of Justice League, Snyder stepped away due to personal loss, leading to a reimagined version under Joss Whedon’s guidance.
Fans longed for Snyder’s original vision, resulting in the release of Zack Snyder’s Justice League on HBO. This version provided a deeper and more comprehensive exploration of the DC superhero narrative. Recently, Snyder has ventured into science fiction with the direction, writing, and production of Rebel Moon for Netflix, aspiring to cultivate it as a significant franchise. Notably, his hands-on work spans across various franchises beyond just DC.
Historian Examines Realism in 300: Rise of an Empire
Snyder Co-Wrote and Produced the Sequel
The sequel to 300, titled 300: Rise of an Empire, debuted eight years later, with Snyder taking on the roles of co-writer and producer, while Noam Murro directed the film. The narrative continues to unfold the Greeks’ battle against King Xerxes of Persia (played by Rodrigo Santoro). Along with returning actors Lena Headey, David Wenham, and Andrew Tiernan, the film also introduces new characters portrayed by Sullivan Stapleton and Eva Green. Despite earning $337 million globally, Rise of an Empire fell short in critical acclaim compared to its predecessor’s impressive $456 million take.
In a recent Insider video, historian Roel Konijnendijk critiques the realism portrayed during the Battle of Marathon in Rise of an Empire. He expresses disappointment with the film’s approach, stating that it resorts to “shock tactics”rather than depicting accurate military strategies. Additionally, he notes discrepancies in armor and weaponry represented in the film. Although he awards points for the violence depicted, the overall score remains low. Here are his insights:
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 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 works 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.
Reflection on Roel Konijnendijk’s Feedback
Realism is Secondary in 300: Rise of an Empire
While Snyder did not helm the sequel, his trademark aesthetic—characterized by slow-motion sequences and a darker atmosphere—remains prominent. Much like its predecessor, this film emphasizes style over substance, framing the underdog struggles of the Greeks as they confront the tyranny of Xerxes. Historical fidelity was not a priority for Snyder in the original 300, and consequently, it comes as no surprise that Rise of an Empire reflects a similar approach.
Dissecting the Mixed Reception of Rise of an Empire
The Sequel Faces Unmatched Legacy Challenges
300 is often hailed as one of Snyder’s crowning achievements. This reputation set a high bar for Rise of an Empire, which struggled to match its predecessor in terms of critical and commercial acclaim. Evidence of this lies in their respective Rotten Tomatoes scores: Rise of an Empire garnered a mere 51% on the Popcornmeter, while the original film secured an impressive 89% rating. A significant factor in this disparity was the absence of Gerard Butler’s iconic portrayal of King Leonidas, a character who was instrumental to the original film’s success.
Critics have noted that while Rise of an Empire attempts to channel Snyder’s visual style, it fails to do so with the same finesse. Furthermore, Stapleton’s Themistocles does not resonate with audiences as powerfully as Leonidas did. Although Eva Green’s performance as Artemisia received praise, it was insufficient to elevate the film overall. Many reviews highlight that the storyline lacks engagement and often rehashes elements from the original, leading to dissatisfaction among viewers.
Ultimately, some audiences found it challenging to connect with the characters and narrative, resulting in a diluted experience compared to that of 300. Nearly two decades later, the first film remains a defining work in Snyder’s career, while Rise of an Empire has faded into relative obscurity.
Source: Insider
Leave a Reply