300

[klatukatt]

http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comics/20070312.jpg (http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/)



This movie made me come in my pants. :eek:

[Acalewia]

I saw this last night. It was sooooooo AWESOME!!!


BTW, Katt love the comic.

"You're lucky only Spartan women can give birth to real men" :D

[bropous]

http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comics/20070312.jpg (http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/)

This movie made me come in my pants. :eek:

Ooookay, I could have done without that....

I just saw "300" today. Honestly, I would have preferred a film version of Larry Pressman's "Gates of Fire" over Frank Miller. HOWEVER:

I really enjoyed it. The color palette was really, really interesting, and a lot of the action was well done. The movie didn't slow down, and I liked the boob shots and the sensuous writhing of the oracle (oh, maybe that's what the thread starter was on about). HOWEVER:

Really, really stupid "monsters", and Farmir fighting orcs again was a tad cliche. The use of the Spartan phalanx should have remained as the fighting style for all the battles, and the face-to-face meetings of Leonidas and Xerxes were really not in the realm of believability. I know, I know, it's a representation fo the graphic novel.

To me, the Pressman book would have been far, far more watchable, as it held closer to the historical battle and the events leading up to it. I am glad thay didn't have the Spartans prancing about, buggering each other (the bad rep Sparta got re: homosexuality was more an effect of Athenian historians pegging them with the rap, as the Romans did to all Grekk culture hundreds of years later). The movie focused on the true heroism of the Spartan holding action at Thermopylae, which is the most important thing about the entire battle.

All in all, this is one heck of a ripping good film, and I walked out of the theater glad that I had seen it. It is original, imaginative, and such a far better product than Hollywood has vomited forth in theaters recently. No belly button gazing, metrosexual male wingeing over some wraithlike overbearing semifrigid chick, no onerous "message" trying to proselytize the new morality, it is a throwback to earlier films that just entertained. It's just a good moviegoing experience, and I highly recommend the movie.

[Lotesse]

http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comics/20070312.jpg (http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/)



This movie made me come in my pants. :eek:
Hah!! Awesome!! You're the bomb, Katt you crazy Katt, god damn -

I am so, so eager to see this new film; I have got to check this out. 300 has gone alomost instantly through the roof in the brief time the film's been released in theatres atround the world; I just read in the LATimes this morning that they premiered 300 in actual Sparta, the city of Sparta in Greece. Which is a big deal, 'cause almost always the big films are premiered either in Hollywood or New York, never places like "Sparta." That'd be like premiering Titanic in Liverpool, or premiering The Return of the King in, I dunno, freakin' Gondor, right? or premiering The Departed in Boston, Mass rather than in WSestwood Village or at Mann's Chinese, here in my town. Know what I mean? Very cool they opened in actual Sparta.

I wanna see the naked fighting-men. Oh, come to Mama, come to Mama!! Dear god I wanna see this film...

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Katt! You read that comic too! Awesome! :D

the bad rep Sparta got re: homosexuality was more an effect of Athenian historians pegging them with the rap, as the Romans did to all Grekk culture hundreds of years later)

Umm...no. At least, depending on how you define homosexuality. If you mean a romantic love of an older for a younger man, then it was there. If you mean actual sexual intercourse, then you can make a case.

[The last sane person]

Near naked statuesque Greeks fighting orc like Persians who have no soul... When it comes to sticking to the graphic novel it does very well. When to actual reality its way off. Anyone ever remember that it wasn't just the Spartans there?

[klatukatt]

There were other free Greeks there, but they were wimps in the movie.

[The last sane person]

Heheh, of course they were, they were GAY! Duh.

[Butterbeer]

No comment!

:D


*ahem*

[The last sane person]

Hehehe....

Yeah, lets just leave it there.

[Butterbeer]

... might be inconvienient in the morning tho' ... ;)

[bropous]

Katt! You read that comic too! Awesome! :D



Umm...no. At least, depending on how you define homosexuality. If you mean a romantic love of an older for a younger man, then it was there. If you mean actual sexual intercourse, then you can make a case.

The latter.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Heheh, of course they were, they were GAY! Duh.


Naw, they were bi. :p

[klatukatt]

No, they were TRIsexual. They will TRY anything! ;)

[Acalewia]

The reason I loved this movie is because the Spartans not only kicked ass but they were willing to give their lives to protect all they loved (Sparta). You gotta give it to them, they knew they were going to die when they left ("All have sons to carry on their name, Sire"). These men were the definion of "Hero"


Of course they weren't that bad to look at either ;)

[bropous]

Although there have been attempts to draw analogies from 300 to current political situations, I did read that Miller had no desire to make such analogies.

Just like Tolkien, but of course, that hasn't stopped some commentators (not here, but elsewhere) from trying to draw those comparisons.

[Farimir Captain of Gondor]

Just watched it last night and it was pretty good. It had some good carnage. The oracle part was hot until the leper licked her. The slow down of the battles was awesome. The Immortals were cool looking and I loved the scene where the rain was beating on Leonidas' sheild. All in all, it was worth the 8 bucks and another viewing.

I don't know why people insist on wanting all their movies to have historical accuracy. These kind of films aren't ment to educate, they're made to entertain and I think it did it's job. If I wanted to learn something from a movie I'd watch PBS.

Anywho, if you haven't seen it yet, go watch it. You won't be disapointed.

[hectorberlioz]

So I shouldn't watch it, right?;)

[Farimir Captain of Gondor]

Depends. If you want a history lesson, no. If you want to see some blood, awesome boobage, and some cool battles, then yes. :p

[hectorberlioz]

Depends. If you want a history lesson, no. If you want to see some blood, awesome boobage, and some cool battles, then yes. :p

As I suspected;):p

[nokom]

No comment... Only a blood bath. They left out all the history, which is in fact very, very, very interesting...

[The last sane person]

I didn't know Xerxes dressed like a chip'n'dale dancer... I always thought he had hair, from looking at the murals...

[nokom]

The real man, no doubt about it, did. By all of the statues we have, it is quite clear he had a beard and rather long hair.

[Acalewia]

I told my friend there was something for everyone: boobs for the guys, twelve packs/ half nude men for the ladies and enough blood to sastify a vampire :p I'm going for a rewatch on Sunday

[nokom]

Ugh.... Sounds terrorible.

[nokom]

However... I have been told that in the film- like most film adaptions- only the 300 stay to fight and the others leave. This was NOT true in fact. They did not leave, no, but 1000 others were with them.

[The last sane person]

It's senseless violence and nudity. What else matters? :D

But, I watched it with my boyfriend, he enjoyed it, even though he said the history was much more interesting. After a while we just enjoyed it for what it was. Fiction.

[katya]

Finally saw the movie tonight. I thought it was sweet-tastic. There were parts when I thought there was too much unbroken fighting scenes but on the whole it was beautiful through and through. I liked the wolf-killing scene and the oracle and the Persian women the best, I think. And also the part where the queen kills that guy but not so much for aesthetics as much as because I wanted to do the same.

Personally I didn't mind the historical inaccuracy at all. The fact that it was presented as a story being told is a catch-all excuse for that. :) It was fun the way it was told.

Am I the only one who didn't think there was all that much nudity, or have I been watching too much porn?

[Acalewia]

I didn't. Of course I wasn't expecting the nudity either

[durinsbane2244]

hang historical accuracy, it's fiction and fun for the sake of fiction and fun!

also, i'd just like to point out this fun fact:
anyone who's played or seen soulcalibur, look at Xerxes...then look at Volod...'nuff said....

:D

BEST MOVIE EVER!
SAW IT TWICE! CHANGED MY LIFE...TWICE!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Volod? Are you thinking Volvo? I don't remember any Volod... :confused:

[Acalewia]

Saw it twice as well. Loved it even more. I found a few more things that had me laughing.


Has anyone had to carded to see this? :confused:

[durinsbane2244]

oh, i'm sorry. typo above!

i meant Voldo! y'know, the creepy guy you can get tambourines for? yeah...him.

;)

[Nerdanel]

*laughs* watching that movie was a wasted couple of hours of my life.. there's so much else i could've done instead.. anything would've been more useful, really. i got a feeling that they had made a video game first, and then, to promote it, decided to make a movie based on that game.

the worst wannabe-movie i've ever seen.

[klatukatt]

However... I have been told that in the film- like most film adaptions- only the 300 stay to fight and the others leave. This was NOT true in fact. They did not leave, no, but 1000 others were with them.
I heard they brought about 2000 slaves with them.
And the Spartans were notorious homosexuals. It's good for fighting.


Am I the only one who didn't think there was all that much nudity, or have I been watching too much porn?
Too much porn. ;) ;) I didn't think there was enough nudity either.

And the queen kicked some serious ass.

[Acalewia]

The soundtrack is awesome. ;) Yes I have bought the soundtrack. So far my faves are "the Hot Gates" and "Message for the Queen" :D

[D.Sullivan]

In my opinion, if you don't want to tell the true story, why base it on a true story? If you want to make fiction, make fiction. If you want to change something, change the names and setting and leave the "based on true events" message out. I think you owe that to the people who actually lived those lives. Seems to me the only reason not to do that would be to give the film more mystique by being able to say it's true and therefor make it more successful. Seems like a sorry way to honor someone elses life.

Historical inaccuracies aside, I thought the film was a giant bore. Acting was bad, script was bad, camera work wasn't interesting(could they have used any more slow motion?). I really enjoyed most of the music, though.

It was almost too pumped up. I wouldn't be surpised if the film get's discualified at the Oscers for suspicions of steriod usage. :p

Did anybody else feel like it was just a tad racist?

I did read the comic after seeing the film, and I enjoyed it much more then the film.

[BeardofPants]

*laughs* watching that movie was a wasted couple of hours of my life.. there's so much else i could've done instead.. anything would've been more useful, really. i got a feeling that they had made a video game first, and then, to promote it, decided to make a movie based on that game.

the worst wannabe-movie i've ever seen.


Oh, I definitely agree. This was almost as bad as Ghost Rider, right down to the annoying token "sassy" female that hollywood likes to throw around. I liked the bits that I recognised as Frank Miller-esque, but the script, acting, and music were decidedly too cheesey for my taste.

[BeardofPants]

No comment... Only a blood bath. They left out all the history, which is in fact very, very, very interesting...

It wasn't supposed to be based on "history" - it's an adaption from a graphic novel series by Frank Miller, which happened to be based somewhat around real events. *shrug*

[D.Sullivan]

It wasn't supposed to be based on "history" - it's an adaption from a graphic novel series by Frank Miller, which happened to be based somewhat around real events. *shrug*

Happened to be based somewhat around real events? Ah, so it was purly coincidental that many of those events actually happened...I'm sorry, but I fail to understand your logic here. It doesn't matter what it was supposed to be. It is based on real events.

[BeardofPants]

You're missing the point. The movie is based on the comic. It is a rendition directly from that. It's not supposed to be some accurate historical drama. It's an adaption from the comic (in much the same way as Sin City was adapted from the graphic novel, or V for Vendetta). That's all I'm sayin'. So for those who are complaining that it's not factual or whatever, it doesn't matter. It's an adaption from a comic. Point period polka-dot. The caveat of course, is that the comic is based somewhat on historical fact. But that is neither here nor there, since the purpose of the movie is to adapt from the comic.

[hectorberlioz]

My my, some people just get really worked up over this movie, don't they?;)

[D.Sullivan]

You're missing the point. The movie is based on the comic. It is a rendition directly from that. It's not supposed to be some accurate historical drama. It's an adaption from the comic (in much the same way as Sin City was adapted from the graphic novel, or V for Vendetta). That's all I'm sayin'. So for those who are complaining that it's not factual or whatever, it doesn't matter. It's an adaption from a comic. Point period polka-dot. The caveat of course, is that the comic is based somewhat on historical fact. But that is neither here nor there, since the purpose of the movie is to adapt from the comic.

I get your point. I just don't believe it's all that valid a point. Sorry. See my first post if you wonder why.

[BeardofPants]

Fair enough. Keep in mind though, that historical accounts (primary OR secondary) are just that... accounts. They, too, are an interpretation of the past in much the same way as historical-based movies. The only way you're gonna get actual historical representation, is if you travel back in time and watch it yerself, and even then, you'll be interpreting with yer own POVs.

In terms of your first post - how do you then propose to make a movie adaption from a comic series without tryin' to pull it off as 'based on actual historical events'?

[katya]

I wouldn't criticize the movie for historical inaccuracy. If anything it's the comic that such a comment should be directed toward. (yes, comments directed at inanimate objects are always fun.) That said, a lot of great stories are based more and more loosely on actual events. History becomes legend becomes myth or fairy tale or whatever. It's entertainment.

I do think the dialog of the movie was terrible. I don't know how much of it came from the comic directly but it was horribly, horribly cheesy.

Also I think there was too much of the same sort of fighting scenes without interruption. I would've liked more variety. One of the reasons I prefer Sin City.

[Acalewia]

Does anyone know where I can find the graphic novel?

[The last sane person]

I bought it at a used book store. If you have any around you, I'd go there, or any decent comic book place. Anywhere that has Sin City, will likely also have 300.

If both of those places are misses, then try looking on line, on places like Ebay or Amazon.

[Acalewia]

Thank you, Shah. I'll check them out

[D.Sullivan]

Fair enough. Keep in mind though, that historical accounts (primary OR secondary) are just that... accounts. They, too, are an interpretation of the past in much the same way as historical-based movies. The only way you're gonna get actual historical representation, is if you travel back in time and watch it yerself, and even then, you'll be interpreting with yer own POVs.

In terms of your first post - how do you then propose to make a movie adaption from a comic series without tryin' to pull it off as 'based on actual historical events'?

Oh, I agree. There's no way to know whether or not the accounts are accurate or not. But that doesn't mean we should ignore the accounts we have. They're the best we've got. If you find something of validity that contradicts what we suppose to be the truth, change it. But if not stick with what you've got.

Well, first of all, the comic is more historically accurate then the movie. So they could have just based it whole heartedly on the comic and it would have been a better film(still not THAT good, though). Second of all, I wouldn't try to pull it off making the comic. That's what my first post was all about in the first place. I said I wouldn't base it on fictional accounts(the comic), and you question then how I would propose to base it on fictional accounts? Maybe...I wouldn't? :p

That said, a lot of great stories are based more and more loosely on actual events. History becomes legend becomes myth or fairy tale or whatever. It's entertainment..

There's an idea. Let's just change history to make it better. It's just more fun that way. :rolleyes: Sorry, I just think that's kinda funny.

History becoming legend and legend becoming myth is something that happens despite historians trying to get it right. I just think if we can get it right, why shouldn't we? Why have myths when you can have equally powerful stories that are true?

[katya]

I don't really think it matters that much if we know exactly what happened 283973829 million years ago. The important thing about studying history is the major themes and ideas. It doesn't really matter that much if it's true or not, I don't think.

Granted some stories are far more interesting the way they actually happened. No comment on whether this applies to 300 though- I didn't really care about the plot of it so much as the visuals.

[D.Sullivan]

I don't really think it matters that much if we know exactly what happened 283973829 million years ago. The important thing about studying history is the major themes and ideas. It doesn't really matter that much if it's true or not, I don't think.[QUOTE]

What's the use of studying the themes and ideas of the past if they aren't true? Then you just have a bunch of ideas that you can't apply to anything because they weren't gathered empirically and therefor aren't valid. Besides, it was a little over two thousand years ago, not "283973829 million years ago". And if it doesn't matter if we know what happened, why bother making a movie about it?

[QUOTE]Granted some stories are far more interesting the way they actually happened. No comment on whether this applies to 300 though- I didn't really care about the plot of it so much as the visuals.

Fair enough. For me though, film is a media constructed from pre-existing individual modes of art. Such as playwriting, photography/painting, acting and music. Usually when a film crew throws all it's eggs into one basket, like the photography and special effects, I feel like the film goes out of balance. That's how I feel about this film. It was a visual overload for me, and not in an interesting way. Cool beans if that floats your boat, but it wasn't my cup of tea.

[katya]

What's the use of studying the themes and ideas of the past if they aren't true? Then you just have a bunch of ideas that you can't apply to anything because they weren't gathered empirically and therefor aren't valid. Besides, it was a little over two thousand years ago, not "283973829 million years ago". And if it doesn't matter if we know what happened, why bother making a movie about it?
And I agree with you to a point. I like to study history to try and see what actually happened myself. I just think details are somewhat irrelevant. And that's just my way of talking- I refer to things that happened last week as x millions years ago too. And I'd bother making a movie of it because it's entertaining. I think it makes it more interesting if it's based on some actual events, even if it's not entirely accurate and anyway it's a good story.


Fair enough. For me though, film is a media constructed from pre-existing individual modes of art. Such as playwriting, photography/painting, acting and music. Usually when a film crew throws all it's eggs into one basket, like the photography and special effects, I feel like the film goes out of balance. That's how I feel about this film. It was a visual overload for me, and not in an interesting way. Cool beans if that floats your boat, but it wasn't my cup of tea.
Interesting. I think so too. Hey it's not like this is my favourite movie or anything- it was just good enough to stop me from falling asleep, which is saying a lot for me.

[elven dragonrider]

I am amazed at how you could spend 3 whole pages talking about this overated idiotic slummy sluk. (my new word for something I dislike)
This world is going backwards. Pretty son we are going to forget how to make fire. then we are going to turn back into monkeys and prove evolution. :p
:rolleyes: :)

[Acalewia]

Well there are worst things to talk about on this board, ED

[D.Sullivan]

And I agree with you to a point. I like to study history to try and see what actually happened myself. I just think details are somewhat irrelevant. And that's just my way of talking- I refer to things that happened last week as x millions years ago too. And I'd bother making a movie of it because it's entertaining. I think it makes it more interesting if it's based on some actual events, even if it's not entirely accurate and anyway it's a good story.


Interesting. I think so too. Hey it's not like this is my favourite movie or anything- it was just good enough to stop me from falling asleep, which is saying a lot for me.

Hey, if you enjoy the movie, great. Most of what I'm saying about how I think historical accuracy matters and such, isn't actually directed at the movie as it is at the people who say things like "hang historical accuracy" when they here that some of the details in the film were off. I just think that's a silly way to view subjects such as this.

Originally Posted by elven dragonrider
I am amazed at how you could spend 3 whole pages talking about this overated idiotic slummy sluk. (my new word for something I dislike)
This world is going backwards. Pretty son we are going to forget how to make fire. then we are going to turn back into monkeys and prove evolution.

Anything for the sake of discussion. :D Besides, we're only going to start moving backwards when we stop discussing subjects such as the value of art and entertainment, if you ask me. I think people should take careful consideration in what entertainment is worthy of their praise, and how else will they decide without discussing it, or at least thinking about it?

[durinsbane2244]

Well then, judging from what i've read, i'll no longer watch Hellboy because it is loosely based off of a comic that purports that demons and magic were behind WWII and the Nazi Regime...:p

Forget about any and all Arthurian legend, Homer, Virgil, Norse epics, the Bible, the Koran, the Vedas, you name it.

When it comes down to it, all history we have is merely stories. Stories. So why not make it more appealing to the current audience? I doubt each time Homer told the Iliad he used the same words. They were only written once, though.

;)

[D.Sullivan]

Well then, judging from what i've read, i'll no longer watch Hellboy because it is loosely based off of a comic that purports that demons and magic were behind WWII and the Nazi Regime...:p

Forget about any and all Arthurian legend, Homer, Virgil, Norse epics, the Bible, the Koran, the Vedas, you name it.

When it comes down to it, all history we have is merely stories. Stories. So why not make it more appealing to the current audience? I doubt each time Homer told the Iliad he used the same words. They were only written once, though.

;)

Comparing Hellboy to 300 I don't think is a very good comparison. A fictional story set to the backdrop of a historical event isn't the same as making a film based on a historical event.

"All history we have is merely stories. Stories. So why not make it more appleaing to the current audience?". I'm not even going to bother replying to that. I've already talked about my feelings on that sort of attitude on earlier posts. Why should I repeat them?

[Lord of the Mark]

Well then, judging from what i've read, i'll no longer watch Hellboy because it is loosely based off of a comic that purports that demons and magic were behind WWII and the Nazi Regime...:p

Forget about any and all Arthurian legend, Homer, Virgil, Norse epics, the Bible, the Koran, the Vedas, you name it.

When it comes down to it, all history we have is merely stories. Stories. So why not make it more appealing to the current audience? I doubt each time Homer told the Iliad he used the same words. They were only written once, though.

;)

Yeah, because Hellboy sooo happened. Good point dude. As long as they're changing stuff to make it appeal to the "current audience" they might as well give the Spartans mechine guns :rolleyes: It would make about as much sense as your post did.

[durinsbane2244]

alright then, let's just completely gloss over the point and reply to the jokes...that makes sense...:rolleyes:

point: the only history we have of events in ancient greece, example: trojan war, are stories. stories that the original storytellers (not historians) most certainly spiced up. example: i doubt that say, Odysseus really went to the land of the dead, or that Achilles was truly invincible (probably just had nice armor, from what i hear ;) )

therefore, it is unfair to say that the movie "didn't follow the facts accurately enough" or some such comment, it's simply someone else's rendition of a story.

centuries from now, graphic holograms will be made about, say, custard's last stand, and i'd bet my last dollar it wouldn't be "historically accurate", even though now we actually do have historians. and even with that, what they write down depends on what side they favor and who wins. again, stories. nothing in the history books is 100% fact.

and now, i'm going to bed, because this is all a waste of time anyway, because it's just a movie, and i've just wasted precious minutes of sleep i'll never get back...sigh....

:rolleyes:

[D.Sullivan]

alright then, let's just completely gloss over the point and reply to the jokes...that makes sense...:rolleyes:

point: the only history we have of events in ancient greece, example: trojan war, are stories. stories that the original storytellers (not historians) most certainly spiced up. example: i doubt that say, Odysseus really went to the land of the dead, or that Achilles was truly invincible (probably just had nice armor, from what i hear ;) )

therefore, it is unfair to say that the movie "didn't follow the facts accurately enough" or some such comment, it's simply someone else's rendition of a story.

centuries from now, graphic holograms will be made about, say, custard's last stand, and i'd bet my last dollar it wouldn't be "historically accurate", even though now we actually do have historians. and even with that, what they write down depends on what side they favor and who wins. again, stories. nothing in the history books is 100% fact.

and now, i'm going to bed, because this is all a waste of time anyway, because it's just a movie, and i've just wasted precious minutes of sleep i'll never get back...sigh....

:rolleyes:



I agree. This is a waste of time. But only because every point you made has already been made by someone earlier on in the converstation, and are points I've already replied to. You can try backtracking if you want to know what my reply would be.

[brownjenkins]

Movies succeed or fail on how entertaining they are, not how accurate they are. I don't think there has ever been a movie made that was an accurate depiction any real event. The format (getting the whole story into two to three hours), simply doesn't support it. And real events are seldom, if ever, entertaining enough if seen in their full perspective.

If there is any fault to place, it's on advertisers who bill movies as "historical" and viewers who believe it. For real history about any event, you really have to delve into as many sources as possible and put in a lot of reading. :)

[Lord of the Mark]

True. But I still think, if their going to make the Battle of Themopylae, to try and make it as historically accurate as possible, and not off some comic book.

[brownjenkins]

It's why I watch the History, Discovery and Science channels more than I go see movies. :D

[D.Sullivan]

It's why I watch the History, Discovery and Science channels more than I go see movies. :D

Hehe. I can relate with that. :D

Movies succeed or fail on how entertaining they are, not how accurate they are. I don't think there has ever been a movie made that was an accurate depiction any real event. The format (getting the whole story into two to three hours), simply doesn't support it. And real events are seldom, if ever, entertaining enough if seen in their full perspective.

True. But in this case, I would say that there were things in 300 that could have easily been more accurate and still worked within the film formet(a little less racism, for instance). It's not a matter for me of not cutting stuff out, when things inevitably must be, but a matter of not putting in things that never happened.

If there is any fault to place, it's on advertisers who bill movies as "historical" and viewers who believe it. For real history about any event, you really have to delve into as many sources as possible and put in a lot of reading.

Agreed.:D Thanks for your thoughts.

[Millane]

I really enjoyed this film, not as good an adaptation as Sin City but not far off. The side story with Leonidas' wife was kinda **** but it wasnt a huge part of the film, and i didnt think the music was anything special, personally i think it wouldve been better with Just Like You Imagined from start to finish :p I thought Gerard Butler and David Wenham played their parts perfecto!
I would say that there were things in 300 that could have easily been more accurate and still worked within the film formet(a little less racism, for instance). If your gunna play that bullshit racist card, could you at least explain what you mean?
In my opinion, if you don't want to tell the true story, why base it on a true story? If you want to make fiction, make fiction. If you want to change something, change the names and setting and leave the "based on true events" message out. I think you owe that to the people who actually lived those lives. So does this also apply to the historically inaccurate graphic novel that you liked?
And just as a side note i cant even remember seeing "based on true events" on any of the promo stuff, i did see a lot of "based on the graphic novel by Frank Miller" though...

[D.Sullivan]

I really enjoyed this film, not as good an adaptation as Sin City but not far off. The side story with Leonidas' wife was kinda **** but it wasnt a huge part of the film, and i didnt think the music was anything special, personally i think it wouldve been better with Just Like You Imagined from start to finish :p I thought Gerard Butler and David Wenham played their parts perfecto!

If your gunna play that bullshit racist card, could you at least explain what you mean?

If you don't know what I mean by that how do you know it's BS? And can you tell me you really didn't notice it? Do you think that the Persian royal guard (the Immortals) really looked like a pack of goatman out of Willow? I found it annoying how many Persians were disfigured and monsterous looking. The film seemed to go to great lengths to dehumanize the Persians - which I think was unnecesarry.

So does this also apply to the historically inaccurate graphic novel that you liked?
I can't say I have any.

And just as a side note i cant even remember seeing "based on true events" on any of the promo stuff, i did see a lot of "based on the graphic novel by Frank Miller" though...

That's true and I respect that. Also, I would take this moment to again say that how I feel about being as accurate as possible when basing a film on historical events wasn't directed as much at the film, but at the people who were defending it using arguments like "hang historical accuracy". Which I disagree with.

[D.Sullivan]

Double post, sorry.

[Lord of the Mark]

So does this also apply to the historically inaccurate graphic novel that you liked?

Unless I'm very, very much mistaken, the Hellboy comics are not based on true events, so making a fictional movie about fictional events is not as big a deal as making a movie about true events based on a fictional comic book.

[Millane]

Unless I'm very, very much mistaken, the Hellboy comics are not based on true events, so making a fictional movie about fictional events is not as big a deal as making a movie about true events based on a fictional comic book. not talking about Hellboy :p
If you don't know what I mean by that how do you know it's BS? And can you tell me you really didn't notice it? Do you think that the Persian royal guard (the Immortals) really looked like a pack of goatman out of Willow? I found it annoying how many Persians were disfigured and monsterous looking. The film seemed to go to great lengths to dehumanize the Persians - which I think was unnecesarry. Id say Ephialtes was pretty ****ed up as well, and *shock horror* he was a Spartan :eek: Its supposed to give it a mystical quality, frankly if you want to call it racism be my guest, i just dont buy it...
I can't say I have any. well you did say you read 300 :confused:
That's true and I respect that. Also, I would take this moment to again say that how I feel about being as accurate as possible when basing a film on historical events wasn't directed as much at the film, but at the people who were defending it using arguments like "hang historical accuracy". Which I disagree with. well you were having a go at the film directly for promoting itself as "based on a true story", and im just pointing out unless the promo stuff in your country was completely different to mine you dont have a leg to stand on...

[Nerdanel]

Just to lighten this up a bit..;)

'It's raining 300 men' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pi2t58CRmbU

[Acalewia]

I'm going to put in my two cents worth on this topic.


True I went to see 300 because it was based in Sparta and I have a hellava lot of respect for the 300 men who went out to try to hold off the Persians. I am a history buff so I went knowing the film was not historiclly accurate (try watching the trailers and TV spots). It had the epic feel to it, which is my favorite type of movie. IIRC, they never claimed 300 would be historiclly accurate to begin with. It's a movie made for entertainment purposes, not for showing in history class as the acual event. If you want to see historical accuacy, I'm sure The 300 Spartans is a lot closer than 300.

[klatukatt]

It's why I watch the History, Discovery and Science channels more than I go see movies. :D

All right Discovery Channel! You watch Mythbusters?