300

[Kiiml]

My friends and I are waiting to see it when it comes out it March next year. From the trailer, it looks like it will be pretty decent. I had a look in the comic book Frank Miller did and noticed several scenes from the trailer are done to-the-panel so to speak, like Sin City was. The kid fighting the wolf, the guy getting pushed into the pit, are all straight out of the book itself. I haven't read the book, but I do plan on seeing the film. The battle of Thermyopolae (whatever) consisting of 300 spartans against at least 2,000,000 Persians (not counting the elephants and rhinos) looks like it will make an exciting action movie. Anyone else have thoughts on the movie?

[BathTub]

Is it a history film or a comic book film?

[Sharktopus]

Is it a history film or a comic book film?

Because it's impossible for it to be both?

[BathTub]

Well only if the comic was meant to be a 100% faithful to all known historical sources on the subject.

[Sharktopus]

Well only if the comic was meant to be a 100% faithful to all known historical sources on the subject.

I'm a history buff, but I think a lot can be said for historical fiction. For instance, what would make for a more interesting movie? Johnny Tremaine or a documentary on the American Revolution? Would you rather the general public knew nothing at all about the battle of Thermopylae, or see a movie that misrepresents what the Spartans wore? I don't know how many liberties 300 has taken with historical fact, but I'm sure it still qualifies as historical.

What if they made a film of Art Spiegelman's Maus? Would it not qualify as historical because the Nazis weren't cats and Jews aren't really mice?

[BathTub]

My point is it is a comic book movie, It's like Sin City. People aren't really Yellow!

[Sharktopus]

My point is it is a comic book movie, It's like Sin City. People aren't really Yellow!

I'm just a little over-defensive of people using the term "comic book movie" in a derisive manner. There's no reason a movie can't be both historical and based on a comic. In a way, Sin City has done as much to dirty the reputation of "comic book movies" as X-Men, Spider-Man, and Batman Begins have restored it. Yeah, it was enjoyable and looked awesome, but it was all style over substance.

Anyway, I've been looking forward to 300 for a while now. I just hope the substance can rival the style. (Which looks very cool.)

[BathTub]

/wave Sharktopus

We're half the forum at the moment.

My point simply is 'what is the intent of the story', which in this is instance I think is more likely to be a rip roaring yarn very closely based on Frank Millers Comic book series/Graphic Novel.

[Sharktopus]

/wave Sharktopus

We're half the forum at the moment.

My point simply is 'what is the intent of the story', which in this is instance I think is more likely to be a rip roaring yarn very closely based on Frank Millers Comic book series/Graphic Novel.

I agree. I'm looking forward to 300 because it looks to be a fun movie. But as a comics fan I'm also apprehensive of the ammunition it might give to to the people who say comics are just an adolescent power fantasy, bah blah, blah, so I hope that it also has just enough, dare I say, educational value to shut those people up. I also hope it doesn't suck. 

[Pak-Man]

A movie can be good just by having a lot of cool moments. That's why we HAVE Bond flicks.

[J-Proof]

All of us in this office are really looking forward to 300. I actually am a fan of Gerard Butler, and of the style that this film is trying to portray.

Is it historically accurate? Outside of Gettysburg and God's and Generals, I'd say Hollywood stays away from being historically accurate. I still managed to enjoy movies like Kingdom of Heaven (Director's Cut that is) and Gladiator even tho they weren't historically accurate. The only thing that sucks about movies that /pretend/ to be historically accurate is that uneducated people take them for truth (but that always happens anyway).

300 doesn't appear to try and pretend being historically accurate, it appears more to be a stylized film with lots of pretty - which is what I am expecting to see =)

That line where Spartan dude #297 says "Then we shall fight in the dark" made me feel as strong as ten grinches plus two....

[J-Proof]

Imrahil:

I actually agree with your argument about the dining in hell bit. When I saw the trailer, I turned to TorgosPizza and was like.... "The Greeks...didn't have a 'hell.'" Cuz you know - Hades and Hell are two WAY different ideas of the underworld. Greek mythology and Christian Dogma really differentiate the purpose of both places. So when I saw the trailer I was like - "wait a tick!"

But eh - I still think the movie will be really fun.

[J-Proof]

Again: I'm not insisting that it be a documentary.

I'm just insisting that it doesn't suck.  But apparently everyone also loved Gladiator despite its cliches and truly AWFUL acting by Phoenix, so whatever.

I know what you are feeling. Kind of like what I felt when the book/movie "DaVinci Code" came out and suddenly /everyone/ was an expert on ancient Christian lore... I was SOOOOO bugged. So when something like 300 or gladiator makes its way to theaters, people who /do/ take study of ancient civ and Greek mythology very seriously get just as bugged.

BTW - if DaVinci Code is real, then BEWARE! FOR I AM CATHOLIC!

[SmilinJackRoss]

Thing is, Sin City didn't have "style," really, either.

Ridiculous. That's all it had was style.  The whole thing was an exercise in style.

It pretended to be a Film Noir movie, but all it I got from it was that it was done by someone who had maybe seen a film noir, but had heard about it more than seen. It wasn't really film noir, it was...just stupid. I loathed that movie. It was so high on its own sense of "God, I am so cool," that nothing in it had to make sense or be anything other than masturbatory source material for wankers.  Watch Blade Runner if you want an hommage to Film Noir; watch Sin City if you want to watch a teenager videogame version of film noir.

This movie isn't "trying" to be film noir.  It's trying to be like the graphic novel, and in that it succeeded.  It resembles a film noir, but only because the book does.  You can't blame it for resembling something, if it's primary intention is to be something else.

And 300 is the same. It has "style" in the sense that quick-cut advertising and music videos do.  I'm not saying that this should be a historical film. I'm just saying it shouldn't be full of cliched one-liners, delivered with balls-out-bravado, followed by slow-motion shots covered with guitar riffs and heavy drum solos and "iconic" fist-puming, "YEAH!" screaming moments.

Maybe calm and quiet courage in the face of battle doesn't fly. Maybe it all has to be WWE wrestling moves before you "take down" your enemy and "bodyslam" him. 

You talk like no movies exist like that, but we just got Flags of our Fathers, which is probably much more up your alley.  But why does EVERY movie have to be like that?  Why can't we have our pure, visceral "bodyslam" movies too?  Why shouldn't this movie have one-liners?  what's inherently wrong with one-liners?

Then, go have a bud light, play some poker, and watch nascar.

Yeah, sounds great.

How prickishly presumptuous of you.

[mrbasehart]

Maybe it all has to be WWE wrestling moves before you "take down" your enemy and "bodyslam" him. 

WWE sucks.  TNA however...Did anyone see the Joe/Angle match on Sunday? Whoo...!