The 300

[Shinja]

hmm, so it is aparent that being the minority is a caracter fault, i try my hardest not to reserach or ply the net or other sources for information on the movies im going to watch simply becuase i want to see the film as its shown without all reasons for it. if a film cant stand on its own then its not much of a film. i also find it interesting that any problem i point out with a film is sumarily labled as a personal problem and not for what it is a critical responce to my viewing of the film.

i find it facinating that the idea that since the creators of the film say it look exactly the way they wanted it to that should be good enough for me. i think the over abundantce of CG cinimitography was a huge distraction as were the over the top visuals. i supose to some that is a personal flaw of mine that i cant get into overly graphic cartoons of violence. going into the film i had a good idea the level of violence that would transpire yet nothing could prepare me for the sinceless drivile that would follow. i mean seriously when is copying basic bubble dialoge from a comic book considered good screen writing?

on a final note there have been many good graphic novels, comic books, etc. that do follow well to the historical record. it was not foolish of me to believe this artistic work would be much differant. perhaps movies should have a lable on the posters that warn people like me that they are only intended for the diehard fans.

[Radical Dreamer]

hmm, so it is aparent that being the minority is a caracter fault, i try my hardest not to reserach or ply the net or other sources for information on the movies im going to watch simply becuase i want to see the film as its shown without all reasons for it. if a film cant stand on its own then its not much of a film. i also find it interesting that any problem i point out with a film is sumarily labled as a personal problem and not for what it is a critical responce to my viewing of the film.

I really don't think anyone in this thread was trying to bash you for what you said about the movie. Sure, people have disagreed with you, but I think you're taking their disagreeing to be more of an attack on you personally, and I really don't think that's what this is about, here. And I'm certain that no one said there was a flaw in your character because you didn't like the movie. o_o

Regarding what you said about not researching a movie before you see it, it's actually a very good idea to do so, especially as Christians. I mean, one main reason that I won't be seeing this one (even though, other than the following reason, I'd like to see it) is because, after reading up on it and hearing my brother's opinion on it, I've found that it's got more sexual content and nudity than I care to see. Had I not read up on it beforehand and just traipsed into the theater unaware of the film's content, I would've been offended/exposed to something that I didn't care to be exposed to. I understand that you wanted to go into the movie without pre-formed opinions, but sometimes, that's not such a bad thing.

if a film cant stand on its own then its not much of a film.

Not true. Plenty of movies--adaptations, sequels, etc.--don't stand on their own and are excellent movies. Star Wars and Lord of the Rings are prime examples. I'll let someone else who's seen the movie comment on whether or not you need to be a fan of the comic to enjoy or understand this movie, though.

i supose to some that is a personal flaw of mine that i cant get into overly graphic cartoons of violence.

Interesting that this is coming from someone on an anime forum. o_o

[Etoh*the*Greato]

on a final note there have been many good graphic novels, comic books, etc. that do follow well to the historical record. it was not foolish of me to believe this artistic work would be much differant. perhaps movies should have a lable on the posters that warn people like me that they are only intended for the diehard fans.

I am by no means a diehard fan. As a matter of fact, I generally bear a strong dislike towards Frank Miller's stuff. His comics at least. I kind of enjoyed Sin City, but that appears to be the extent of it not including this film. I found the flick very accessible for what it was, and as a personal preference I liked the visuals. I thought they were taking a tired method of special effects and using them in new and creative ways to give a visual sense that I've not really seen in a movie before. I was impressed, and felt it was nothing short of artistic in that respect. You're welcome to not feel the same was as me, however.
Ikimasu - Something doesn't have to directly be about the message that they want to spread in order to spread said message. I still didn't catch an any-religious sentiment, though.

[K. Ayato]

I just saw it. Definitely a guy movie.

[Fish and Chips]

hmm, so it is aparent that being the minority is a caracter fault, i try my hardest not to reserach or ply the net or other sources for information on the movies im going to watch simply becuase i want to see the film as its shown without all reasons for it. if a film cant stand on its own then its not much of a film. i also find it interesting that any problem i point out with a film is sumarily labled as a personal problem and not for what it is a critical responce to my viewing of the film.

Not to rag on you, but in the case of the religious context of the film, I do think it really is whatever you make of it]Dinotopia[/I], I believe) wherein a group of the charcters were exploring a chasm and they find an oddly-shapen rock formation; one of the characters sees a mother comforting her children, but another sees a learing skull. Who was right? The answer, I think, is neither, as it was simply a random formation, make of it what they will.

And personally, not to be antagonistic, and your case is certainly an exception to the rule, I'm usually highly annoyed by people who read their own issues into a form of media. For example, cut from Wikipedia:

The filmmakers assert that any parallels to the current Iraq War that some in the media have implied were not intended. Indeed, Zack Snyder sees that comparison by some as a possible hindrance in the long run.[70] The studio and filmmakers had discussed the sensitive issue about the film's "contemporary resonance" of the East versus West conflict.[71]

Snyder reports that after advance screenings, he was taken aside by reporters at a screening for the international press, and asked about political implications by one reporter who insisted that Xerxes had to be symbolizing George W. Bush, only to have a second reporter suggest that Leonidas represented Bush. At a later showing at the Berlinale, Snyder says, he was asked, "Don’t you think it’s interesting that your movie was funded at this point?" Snyder clarifies, "The implication was that funding came from the U.S. government."

To me, this is just rubbish, and these reporters are looking for trouble to satiate themselves and their publications. Now you are not a reporter, and your problems are far more legitimate than either of these fellows, but I'm used to running into people like this rather than people like you.

i find it facinating that the idea that since the creators of the film say it look exactly the way they wanted it to that should be good enough for me. i think the over abundantce of CG cinimitography was a huge distraction as were the over the top visuals. i supose to some that is a personal flaw of mine that i cant get into overly graphic cartoons of violence.

Personal flaw? No. But it is a taste issue. It simply doesn't appeal to you, and that's fine. Neither is it necessarily a flaw in the movie, however.

on a final note there have been many good graphic novels, comic books, etc. that do follow well to the historical record. it was not foolish of me to believe this artistic work would be much differant. perhaps movies should have a lable on the posters that warn people like me that they are only intended for the diehard fans.

I would have hoped the trailer made that clear.

[termyt]

I haven't seen the movie, so take these comments as general ones and not about the 300 directly.

Parallels drawn between a film and real life whether they are intended or not by the film's creators are still valid. If you see a parallel, then it is there. If you don't see it, that's fine, too.

[Saj]

Saw the movie on Friday. My opinion of it was that its not a good movie, but a very good action flick.

The fight scenes were really kool. and the graphics were really really good.

But it was a bland story altogether. thus not a good movie.

If you like action, the movies great, but if you want something Brave heart and Troy caliber, this movie isn't anywhere near.

On note of the sexual scenes and nudity. My suggestion to people who dont want to see that, but want to see the movie. Walk out of the theater or close your eyes. I usually would close my eyes. In 300, the scenes with thats stuff are fairly short, so i just closed my eyes.

[Puguni]

Saw the movie on Friday. My opinion of it was that its not a good movie, but a very good action flick.

The fight scenes were really kool. and the graphics were really really good.

But it was a bland story altogether. thus not a good movie.

If you like action, the movies great, but if you want something Brave heart and Troy caliber, this movie isn't anywhere near.

Woah! 300 Spartan men fighting 100,000 Persians and nearly decimating half of their forces while trying to stay alive as long as possible so to preserve the Spartan way is a bland story?

Dude.

[Fish and Chips]

It's based off a graphic novel, which is itself based on a legend, and not too detailed a legend at that. It's not bland, but not particularly deep either.

[Animus Seed]

on a final note there have been many good graphic novels, comic books, etc. that do follow well to the historical record. it was not foolish of me to believe this artistic work would be much differant. perhaps movies should have a lable on the posters that warn people like me that they are only intended for the diehard fans.

I would have hoped the trailer made that clear.

I wouldn't say the movie was only intended for die-hard fans; 300 is currently on my top 4 list of movies of all time (along with Pan's Labyrinth, Curse of the Golden Flower, and Return of the King) and I can't decide which one's number 1 on the list and I've never read or even seen pictures from the original graphic novel.

As for historical accuracy, my Greek historian friend sitting next to me had only 2 complaints: 1) the Ephors, the deformed priest guys, she said, were really just like the "upper house" of the counsel, and not mysterious or other-worldly or inhuman at all, and 2) the repeated references to "history" in the movie really annoyed her, since this battle takes place before the life of Herodotus, the first historian. Other than that, she said there were no *major* flaws at all.

[mitsuki lover]

Of course if you read or saw the news you would have seen that the Iranians denounced the movie.This would be like the English trashing on Braveheart.
I understand that even the blood was CGIed in and that overall it was generally
directed to the Gamer set,thus the look.

The truth was that the battle was merely a holding action in order for the Athenian
and other allied Greek troops to prepare for the ultimate battle of the war against the Persians.And the Greeks eventually won not on land but on sea.
I believe that this is the war where Xerxes famously had the sea flogged after it destroyed his boat bridge.

Spartan factoid:They always did their hair before going into battle when Persian
scouts saw this they were astonished.

[Saj]

Woah! 300 Spartan men fighting 100,000 Persians and nearly decimating half of their forces while trying to stay alive as long as possible so to preserve the Spartan way is a bland story?

Dude.

actually it was 1,000,000. and yea, it was bland. its not like troy where theres really good fight scenes and a really good story along with them. it was a plain story...


300 spartans go to fight 1,000,000 persians.... theres the story.

[Puguni]

actually it was 1,000,000. and yea, it was bland. its not like troy where theres really good fight scenes and a really good story along with them. it was a plain story...


300 spartans go to fight 1,000,000 persians.... theres the story.

No, it was historically more or less 100,000. You honestly think they can get 1,000,000 men out there? Either way the Spartans decimated half of them.

[EDIT]
Fufufu, you're entitled to your own opinion. ' 3'

[/EDIT]

[Etoh*the*Greato]

Of course if you read or saw the news you would have seen that the Iranians denounced the movie.This would be like the English trashing on Braveheart.
I understand that even the blood was CGIed in and that overall it was generally
directed to the Gamer set,thus the look.

The truth was that the battle was merely a holding action in order for the Athenian
and other allied Greek troops to prepare for the ultimate battle of the war against the Persians.And the Greeks eventually won not on land but on sea.
I believe that this is the war where Xerxes famously had the sea flogged after it destroyed his boat bridge.

Spartan factoid:They always did their hair before going into battle when Persian
scouts saw this they were astonished.

The sea battle was supposed to be quite the sight too. Greek fire left and right!

[mitsuki lover]

And afterwards the Athenians rewarded Themistocles by booting him out of town!
Now Themistocles is someone that a movie really ought to be made about since
he is one of those larger than life characters that crop up every so often.
His father was something like a green grocer.
Themistocles is the first person Plutarch talks about in his Lives.

[Tenshi no Ai]

Just saw it last night. A pretty good movie I must say, TONS of violence (haven't seen that much beheading since well, Elfen Lied actually). There are a few instances of female upper nudity, but being a girl myself it wasn't too troublesome. But yes, a slow-mo sex scene which often flashed to black and then to another quick scene. Not very long but I was moreso like shaking my head thinking "This is necessary -_-;". It seemed as though they were trying to make it into some type of artform. Well, when the oracle was dancing would be a part with the sashes of her clothes spinning around was where it really did look like a piece of art, although a bit of nudity was exposed as well. Also a part with random lesbianism going on and I was thinking "Oh yes, that is even MORE necessary -_-;".

Still, I didn't dwell on the -_-;ness of those parts and thought as a movie it was a very nice art form and just the characters and everything were neatly designed and just, yeah.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

was the sex scene flashed back to? I honestly don't remember any flashbacks of it at all.

[Fish and Chips]

No flashbacks. It was brief, and then it was gone.

[Tenshi no Ai]

No flashbacks. It was brief, and then it was gone.

Exactly. I said flashed 'bLack', in other words there was a scene, screen went black, another quick sec of a shot, screen went black and so forth for a little bit.

[Fish and Chips]

I believe "Fade to black" is the usual term. "Flash black" is just baiting dyslexics.

[Scarecrow]

Lol... I read it "flash back to" as well And it's dyslexia, its just the way the brain works... Its like on another movie message board they had a thread called:

Signature Waver

Me and quite a few others, at first glance browsing the forums, read it as Sigourney Weaver

Or lkie how you can raed tihs even thuogh I'm spleling mnay of the wodrs mxied up. As lnog as the fisrt and lsat lteter are in the corerct sopt, mroe otfen tahn not, you wlil stlil bealbe to raed it. Chirsothper

[Headkicker9000]

That movie was all style, no substance. Just like Sin City. The fact that it's so praised and made so much money is a sad comment on the viewing habits today's movie goer. Frank Miller can draw, but he hasen't been able to write since 1989. It was a hollow movie with no power or emotion, and used a bunch of gimmicks to make up for it.

[Fish and Chips]

That movie was all style, no substance. Just like Sin City. The fact that it's so praised and made so much money is a sad comment on the viewing habits today's movie goer. Frank Miller can draw, but he hasen't been able to write since 1989. It was a hollow movie with no power or emotion, and used a bunch of gimmicks to make up for it.

I disagree, but perhaps that's just our opposing perceptions.

[Cognitive Gear]

That movie was all style, no substance. Just like Sin City. The fact that it's so praised and made so much money is a sad comment on the viewing habits today's movie goer. Frank Miller can draw, but he hasen't been able to write since 1989. It was a hollow movie with no power or emotion, and used a bunch of gimmicks to make up for it.

You sir, should consider NOT flaming someone who helped change the direction of an entire industry. Simply because you do not like Frank Miller's work does not mean that he "cannot write". Please try not to state your opinions as fact.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

Although I felt that The Dark knight Returns was a bit too far in the other direction, he was pivotal in helping establish Batman as a "dark" hero again.

[Headkicker9000]

You sir, should consider NOT flaming someone who helped change the direction of an entire industry. Simply because you do not like Frank Miller's work does not mean that he "cannot write". Please try not to state your opinions as fact.

Where did I state my opinions as fact? And yes, he did change the direction of the industry. Now comics aren't fun and enjoyable, they're depressing and serious. Miller is a one trick pony, and he's been a walking self-parody since 1989.

[Nate]

Now comics aren't fun and enjoyable, they're depressing and serious.

Yeah, I liked it better when Batman used Shark Repellent from his utility belt. I know that's a lot better than a guy who struggles emotionally because his parents were brutally murdered in front of him.

Seriously, the older comics were a joke. I can't imagine anyone enjoying those things, but I guess at the time they were revolutionary, so... *shrug* I guess people will say the same thing about current comics in thirty years or so.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

They weren't revolutionary. What they were was stunted. A kneejerk parental reaction during the fifties and sixties caused a comic book censorship to come in to place that essentially killed comics as a potential art and serious medium for story-telling. Parents were worried that comics were "too serious," "too adult," and "too scary," for children. Sounds a little like the initial public reaction to anime, doesn't it? That whole, "Cartoons are for kids, but these cartoons are scary and not kid-like! They must be evil!" The Batman we all know because of the television show is a direct symptom of this idiocy. Batman was actually pretty much like Frank Miller described him in DKR - a complete hardy with no qualms about killing the badguy. He was actually pretty crude too. I'm really more in to the medium ground, myself.
Also, comics are what you make of them. If the only comics you're seeing are the serious ones, then you need to walk in to a comic book store and take a good look around. You're going to find cheery stuff mixed in there. If all you want is anesthesized entertainment, just watch the Disney channel from about 5AM to noon on weekdays. As for me, occasionally a serious plot is entertaining.

[Shinja]

its true there is a differance between good writeing and good story. i think its the deprivation of american society that refuses to call for cleaner entertainment anymore. what entertains you shows who you really are.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

Were we to censor everything to make it "cleaner" we would be ignoring certain parts of human existance that simply do not go away no matter how we ignore them. Even the scriptures address them. They paint these things in a horrible light, but they address them instead of ignoring it because it is unpleasant. I suppose that shows who I really am, though.