Has the 300 prequel-sequel replaced its subtitle The Battle of Artemisia with something more generically epic?
Someone over in 300's marketing department must have realized what we've all already learned in telling people about this flick - nobody would know what the f*** "BATTLE OF ARTEMISIA" meant. I would explain it, and then they'd kind of dig what Warner Brothers was laying down, but that's the point I guess. I'd have to explain it. So the "BATTLE FOR ARTEMISIA" bit of the title has been chucked like a faceless Persian stereotype off a cliff in favor of...
I'm assuming it means the Greek empire, as the whole point of this is ripped and sweaty Greeks stomping on the Persian plans for world domination. Despite the fact that the Greeks had, you know, kind of already been around for a while before Xerxes and his faceless/monstrous hordes rolled in.
So what's your verdict? Should this new title dine in hell or dine in hell?*
300: RISE OF AN EMPIRE prepares for glory on August 2nd, 2013. Directed by Noam Murro (SMART PEOPLE), it stars Eva Green (as the once-titular Artemisia), Sullivan Stapleton (as the hero Themistocles), Lena Headey (Queen Gorgo), and Rodrigo Santoro (Xerxes).
Plot: Xerxes is somewhat pushed into the bloody battle with the Greeks by the gold-covered maven goddess Artemisia. Artemisia, witnessing just how much his father King Darius’s death has affected him, persuades Xerxes – with her “vindictive charm” – to go into battle against those responsible. Artemisia attempts to play both sides, enlisting Themistocles, a Greek warrior, to her ranks with her alluring charm. However, Themosticles is every bit as good a liar as he is a fighter and may be playing an angle of his own.
|Extra Tidbit:||*I mean those options in the sense of how the first sounds like a bad time while the second was used by King Leonidas to spur his Spartans on to glory. Just so we're clear.|