(Close Window)
Topic: 300
Message: Posted by: magicman226 (Mar 6, 2007 07:14AM)
I'm definitely seeing it this weekend. Looks incredible.

<-----And this is random, but my post count is significant!
Message: Posted by: cardking (Mar 6, 2007 01:45PM)
I'm seeing it in imax here in the city where they filmed it. can't wait.
Message: Posted by: magicman226 (Mar 6, 2007 06:03PM)
I'm sure it will be at our IMAX's too, but I don't think I can handle that much intenseness.

Lion King in IMAX was extremely intense, so this movie would be way too mind-blowing.
Message: Posted by: Cinnamon (Mar 6, 2007 06:16PM)
I believe it looks good, however, dark-colored screens/ shots are not appreciated by my eyes. Seems like the trailer shows scenes often done in night time. *sighs* I would love to see it though.
Message: Posted by: Blindside785 (Mar 6, 2007 06:59PM)
I've read the novel, so awesome. Can't wait for the movie.
Message: Posted by: magicman226 (Mar 6, 2007 07:07PM)
I think the color of the scenes makes it even more amazing. Adds to it.

I loved the colors they made O Brother, Where Art Thou? Really gave a real feel of the time period (although I wasn't around then to know how it really was)
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Mar 6, 2007 08:16PM)
The clips on TV look VERY CGI.

Compare to Imortal and similar and we have a very strange future for films.
Message: Posted by: Bill Nuvo (Mar 6, 2007 09:41PM)
I don't get the trailer. It seems very choppy and CGIish. Although I understand that this is the "style" of the film, I find it hard to watch.

"I loved the colors they made O Brother, Where Art Thou? Really gave a real feel of the time period (although I wasn't around then to know how it really was)"
That was funny Magicman226
Message: Posted by: DerekMerdinyan (Mar 6, 2007 10:31PM)
Here's a few fun facts (as I remember them):

300 was filmed almost entirely on blue screen with minimal physical props/landforms to interact with.

300 was filmed with 30 extras - everyone else is a computer based by-product

The final cut of 300 was compressed so the film appeared as a moving watercolor painting (giving it that asthetic appeal).

Can't Wait!

Derek Merdinyan
Message: Posted by: The Drake (Mar 7, 2007 09:53AM)
[quote]
On 2007-03-06 22:41, mrbilldentertainer wrote:
I don't get the trailer. It seems very choppy and CGIish. Although I understand that this is the "style" of the film, I find it hard to watch.
[/quote]

The trailer turned me off as well. The story is based on one of the great battles of history but the trailer makes me tend to think they went for a " look" rather than a story. I don't know if I could take 2 hrs of that " look" without it giving me a headache.

If the two hours of the visuals didn't succeed in giving me a headache then I'm sure the way [b]Gerard Butler screams his lines throughout the entire film would give me a headache on its own!!![/b]

Best,

Tim
Message: Posted by: magicman226 (Mar 7, 2007 06:56PM)
I say some weird stuff sometimes, mrbilldentertainer.

They really did do a good job on that movie though. One of my favorites.

There have been some interesting looking films recently. A Scanner Darkly had a really interesting film style if anyone saw that. Very trippy, though.
Message: Posted by: Jim Poor (Mar 7, 2007 07:15PM)
I turned off A Scanner Darkly after about 10 minutes.

I'm interested in 300, though I'll wait for the DVD.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Mar 7, 2007 07:27PM)
If you like Frank Miller... today his Martha Washington story with the death of a "Captain America - like" character came all too true.

Sadly.

Bye Cap. Bye Jack (and Joe)

Thanks for the warning Frank.
Message: Posted by: tuffnavyrn (Mar 7, 2007 09:32PM)
This will be very, very good.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Mar 8, 2007 05:28AM)
[quote]
On 2007-03-07 10:53, Timothy Drake wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-03-06 22:41, mrbilldentertainer wrote:
I don't get the trailer. It seems very choppy and CGIish. Although I understand that this is the "style" of the film, I find it hard to watch.
[/quote]

The trailer turned me off as well. The story is based on one of the great battles of history but the trailer makes me tend to think they went for a " look" rather than a story. I don't know if I could take 2 hrs of that " look" without it giving me a headache.

If the two hours of the visuals didn't succeed in giving me a headache then I'm sure the way [b]Gerard Butler screams his lines throughout the entire film would give me a headache on its own!!![/b]

Best,

Tim
[/quote]
So, he hasn't improved all that much since "Phantom of the Opera," eh?

My daughter refers to these kinds of films as "Shake stick and yell!"
Message: Posted by: magicman226 (Mar 8, 2007 05:52AM)
[quote]
On 2007-03-07 20:15, Jim Poor wrote:
I turned off A Scanner Darkly after about 10 minutes.

I'm interested in 300, though I'll wait for the DVD.
[/quote]

The movie was really weird, and I only watched a few minutes as well. I just thought the way they made it was pretty interesting.
Message: Posted by: Joey Stalin (Mar 9, 2007 12:13AM)
Choppy? What are you talking about? Better yet what are you watching it on? Probably your computer more than the trailer itself, heh.

And it's a graphic novel, not a historic class movie, what do you expect? If you want history go watch a documentary. Or more to the point, a Frank Miller graphic novel, so look is a big part of it. And things in that trailer look exactly as they do in the graphic novel.
Message: Posted by: Blindside785 (Mar 9, 2007 12:27AM)
I've already read the novel a couple times through. It's awesome, I'm so ready for it! Me and my friend got tickets for 6:45 tomorrow. Time to pull out my superman gimmick

(muahah copy and paste
Message: Posted by: Blindside785 (Mar 9, 2007 12:29AM)
[quote]
On 2007-03-07 10:53, Timothy Drake wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-03-06 22:41, mrbilldentertainer wrote:
I don't get the trailer. It seems very choppy and CGIish. Although I understand that this is the "style" of the film, I find it hard to watch.
[/quote]
The trailer turned me off as well. The story is based on one of the great battles of history but the trailer makes me tend to think they went for a " look" rather than a story. I don't know if I could take 2 hrs of that " look" without it giving me a headache.

If the two hours of the visuals didn't succeed in giving me a headache then I'm sure the way [b]Gerard Butler screams his lines throughout the entire film would give me a headache on its own!!![/b]

Best,

Tim
[/quote]
Timothy...I'd like you to scream at 300 people and see if they listen to you :P
Message: Posted by: The Drake (Mar 9, 2007 01:23AM)
[quote]
On 2007-03-09 01:29, Blindside785 wrote:
Timothy...I'd like you to scream at 300 people and see if they listen to you :P
[/quote]
LOL.... You'll have to tell us what you thought of it. I normally like Butler's acting but this performance just seemed over the top.

Looking forward to your review.

Best,

Tim
Message: Posted by: tuffnavyrn (Mar 9, 2007 02:56AM)
I guess there is a benefit to being stationed in the U.S. Territory of Guam since this place is considered where "America's Day Begins" because of the International Dateline we get everything that is newly released a day ahead. So, today I saw 300 and all I can say is WOW!!! All will be impressed....very dramatic, very graphic and a well plotted story. I don't want to riuin anyhting whether you've read the novel or not so just go and enjoy it. Run time is 1hr 57 mins and would have gladly sat through another immediate viewing. Enjoy!!!!
Message: Posted by: irossall (Mar 9, 2007 07:01AM)
[quote]
On 2007-03-07 19:56, magicman226 wrote:
I say some weird stuff sometimes, mrbilldentertainer.

They really did do a good job on that movie though. One of my favorites. [quote]



Not weird at all. For reasons that I don't understand, Sepia tones do give one the feeling (can't think of a better word) of the 1930's & 1940's.
I hear many people say that the begining and ending of The Wizard Of OZ was filmed in black & white but it was actualy filmed in Sepia and that was done for a reason.
I also agree that O Brother, Where Art Thou was an excellent movie and I loved the title song "Man of Many Sorrows".

I will check out 300 when it is available on DVD but it is probably not my kind of flick.
Iven :patty:
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Mar 9, 2007 07:29AM)
I was told the framing sequence of the movie was filmed in black and white but [b]printed[/b] into sepia tones by a film processor.
Message: Posted by: Robert Apodaca (Mar 9, 2007 02:50PM)
Seeing this this weekend. Can't wait. Wanted to see it in IMAX but apparently it's all sold out for the weekend.

The film was supposed to have the style of the graphic novel. It's an adaptation of a graphic novel and is not a recreation of history because there are inaccuracies.
I have high hopes.
Message: Posted by: Blindside785 (Mar 9, 2007 06:12PM)
It is based on a TRUE war. Battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C. Which was based on about 700 sparts + 300 of another group vs about 10,000 I think. Frank Miller just took the idea of little vs a lot and then it turned out to 300 to 1,000 natians of the persian army and called it good. Which is gonna turn out awesomely. I'm gonna leave in a little over an hour to get some good seats :)
Message: Posted by: Blindside785 (Mar 10, 2007 12:20AM)
2 words, Freakingomgspectacularawesomehotbodierippedabshighaction movie
Message: Posted by: The Drake (Mar 10, 2007 12:38AM)
[quote]
On 2007-03-10 01:20, Blindside785 wrote:
2 words, Freakingomgspectacularawesomehotbodierippedabshighaction movie
[/quote]


Ok.. so I think you liked it. LOL Can you compare it to other movies so we may have a better idea of what makes it so good? Somewhere it was called a combination of Gladiator and Lord of the Rings. ( that's that part that turned me off as LOTRs put me to sleep..LOL )

Best,

Tim
Message: Posted by: Blindside785 (Mar 10, 2007 01:33PM)
Gladiator and 300 are in a whole different arena. Gladiator is much more of a drama movie and 300 is meant to be more action packed blood and gore.

Well 300 is not for everyone, I've been a fanboy ever since I read the graphic novel. What makes it good to me is the smart story line, good action, not boring at all, they put in funny parts as well :). Plus even though the WHOLE ENTIRE MOVIE, even if you think they are in a solid area...it's not! It's amazing how it is ALL entirely done on green screen (just like Sin City) it's beautiful if you can pick up the novel before watching the movie I would do that to see how beautifuly they changed a 4 or 5 issue comic into a beatufiul movie.

I might get smacked for saying this but I think it's better than Star Wars
Message: Posted by: Blindside785 (Mar 10, 2007 01:38PM)
Just a little taste

http://www.doubleviking.com/the-best-fight-scene-from-300--3999-p.html

and this is not the best fight scene in 300, there is much better
Message: Posted by: The Drake (Mar 10, 2007 01:56PM)
Thanks Blindside,

After seeing that clip I feel I made the right choice about not seeing it. I do prefer a story in the films I watch. The violence in the fight scene did nothing for me so I'll avoid this one.

That scene did have a comic book presence to it. You could freeze frame much of that scene and it would look exactly like a frame from a comic book. The film looks like a techical wonder but not like something I'd watch. Glad you enjoyed it.

Best,

Tim
Message: Posted by: Bill Nuvo (Mar 10, 2007 01:57PM)
[quote]
On 2007-03-10 14:38, Blindside785 wrote:
Just a little taste

http://www.doubleviking.com/the-best-fight-scene-from-300--3999-p.html

and this is not the best fight scene in 300, there is much better
[/quote]
I watched the above link. I still don't get it. It goes fast and then goes into slow-motion almost erratically. It doesn't flow for me. Maybe it's my computer making it do that...maybe I'm out of touch. That definitely does not sell it for me.
Message: Posted by: The Drake (Mar 10, 2007 02:03PM)
[quote]
On 2007-03-10 14:57, mrbilldentertainer wrote:
I watched the above link. I still don't get it. It goes fast and then goes into slow-motion almost erratically. It doesn't flow for me. Maybe it's my computer making it do that...maybe I'm out of touch. That definitely does not sell it for me.
[/quote]
Bill,

I think its like that on purpose to recreate those " comic book" moments in the viewers mind. The film appears to slow down just enough to give us a quick glimpse of those specific scenes that resemble the comic drawing. The only difference being that the " BAM" and " WHACCK" balloons used in comics are replaced with audio instead. LOL

Best,

Tim
Message: Posted by: Harry Murphy (Mar 10, 2007 03:22PM)
It was an interesting animated/live action combo film. Make no mistake, it’s basically an animated (computer generated) film.

Other than the comic book feel and graphic fight scenes it was not that much. "Zulu" did it better in the 1960's as an “against overwhelming odds” film and did it with no special effects, relying on acting, location, stunts, and extras. More recently "The 13th Warrior" (another against overwhelming odds film) was a way better action film.

Still it was a fun ride depending on the comic book (graphic novel if you will) look and the reliance on the artistry (true artistry here) of the computer graphic and green screen folks to make it interesting. Oh, and the very brief soft core porn bits didn't hurt either.

Go early and pay the lower admission. It will be more fun to watch on the big screen than waiting for the DVD rental and being forced to watch it on the small screen.
Message: Posted by: magicman226 (Mar 11, 2007 09:31AM)
It has been out for 56 and a half hours. I still haven't seen it.

[b]However,[/b]
my brother originally said we were going today, so hopefully I shall be seeing it.

According to my older friends at my high school, I have heard it was the greatest movie ever. I also heard it was one of the most violent (unrealistically) movie ever. I'm pumped.

Unfortunately, I haven't really read any of these famous graphic novels. I am still yet to read V for Vendetta, which turned out to be an extremely magnificent film, Sin City, and 300.

Can't wait to see it!


Posted: Mar 11, 2007 10:34am
--------------------------------------
I don't really mind the changing of speeds in that scene. I do like, however, how it is not like flashing little clips of the battle everywhere. It's actually following the same two guys. Battle movies can get annoying with that sometimes.
Message: Posted by: Freak Prodigy (Mar 11, 2007 07:27PM)
I saw it...I hated it.
Message: Posted by: Paul D (Mar 11, 2007 07:39PM)
Just came back from the theater... The story could have been better. The action and CGI was incredible. They could have done a lot more with this. It could have been the next "Gladiator" if they would have put more thought into the story.
-Pauly
Message: Posted by: Blindside785 (Mar 11, 2007 07:45PM)
The story is from the comic...wow
Message: Posted by: DerekMerdinyan (Mar 11, 2007 10:42PM)
I'll admit the plot was, well, you could probably write a thorough description of the plot in a sentence or two.

That being said, I heard on the radio: "...300 is like the Mary Poppins of the 21st century..."

Derek Merdinyan
Message: Posted by: The Drake (Mar 12, 2007 01:14AM)
[quote]
On 2007-03-11 23:42, DerekMerdinyan wrote:

That being said, I heard on the radio: "...300 is like the Mary Poppins of the 21st century..."

Derek Merdinyan
[/quote]

If it was on the radio then it MUST be true! LOL

Best,

Tim
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Mar 12, 2007 05:12AM)
[quote]
On 2007-03-10 14:57, mrbilldentertainer wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-03-10 14:38, Blindside785 wrote:
Just a little taste

http://www.doubleviking.com/the-best-fight-scene-from-300--3999-p.html

and this is not the best fight scene in 300, there is much better
[/quote]
I watched the above link. I still don't get it. It goes fast and then goes into slow-motion almost erratically. It doesn't flow for me. Maybe it's my computer making it do that...maybe I'm out of touch. That definitely does not sell it for me.
[/quote]

I watched it. I think what the film maker was trying to do was show that, from the point of view of the two warriors, time is flexible. The battle seems to whip by as they're between enemies (sp) and slow to a crawl at the actual strikes.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Mar 12, 2007 06:54AM)
[quote]
On 2007-03-11 23:42, DerekMerdinyan wrote:...
That being said, I heard on the radio: "...300 is like the Mary Poppins of the 21st century..."[/quote]

I missed the catchy songs but could expect a broadway production. Perhaps an opera.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Mar 12, 2007 12:42PM)
[quote]
On 2007-03-09 15:50, Drizz wrote:
It's an adaptation of a graphic novel and is not a recreation of history because there are inaccuracies.
[/quote]


I can't believe I'm the first person to ask this, but what would be an example of a movie that is "a recreation of history" WITHOUT inaccuracies?
Message: Posted by: jkesler (Mar 12, 2007 01:03PM)
I agree with Tim....I too will pass on this one! I like movies that use a little less blue/green screens, and a little more on acting. IMHO
James
Message: Posted by: airship (Mar 12, 2007 03:10PM)
This is just the first wave.

In 20 years you won't be able to tell the difference between live and CGI/animation. Even 'mainstream' films will use nothing but CGI actors and scenery. It'll be cheaper, and look better than real.

Actors' estates will be the big winners. Marilyn, Bogie, Gable and many more will come back in new productions. You'll even be able to see Ronald Reagan in 'Casablanca' (it was originally going to be offered to him).

Of course, a few art houses will still be producing live-action films, and occasionally a big-name Hollywood producer/director will do one just to prove he's 'serious' about film. But that's it. Money rules Hollywood, and as soon as it's cheaper to do CGI than live action, that's where the industry will go.
Message: Posted by: The Drake (Mar 12, 2007 03:20PM)
[quote]
On 2007-03-12 13:42, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I can't believe I'm the first person to ask this, but what would be an example of a movie that is "a recreation of history" WITHOUT inaccuracies?
[/quote]

Private Ryan was respected for its accuracy other than the odd issue as to tank models. Another movie already mentioned in this thread is also debated over its accuracy is Zulu Dawn. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zulu_Dawn

I don't think this movie was really to concerned about accuracy but rather paying tribute to the grahic book. The real story was the stuff of legend so its only natural that the movie may be criticised for exaggerating things a bit.

that's Hollywood for you! LOL

Best,

Tim
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Mar 12, 2007 09:26PM)
To be fair, the historical record is itself dubious. Geez, Herodotus claimed that the
Greeks at Thermopylae faced some 3 million Persians. If the Greeks can grant Herodotus that much leeway, what should we expect of a movie based on a graphic novel based on the Herodotus's account?

John
Message: Posted by: Joey Stalin (Mar 12, 2007 11:49PM)
IMO, if you haven't seen it you don't have a say in anything.
Message: Posted by: elmago (Mar 13, 2007 03:16AM)
[quote]
On 2007-03-12 16:10, airship wrote:
This is just the first wave.

In 20 years you won't be able to tell the difference between live and CGI/animation. Even 'mainstream' films will use nothing but CGI actors and scenery. It'll be cheaper, and look better than real.

Actors' estates will be the big winners. Marilyn, Bogie, Gable and many more will come back in new productions. You'll even be able to see Ronald Reagan in 'Casablanca' (it was originally going to be offered to him).

Of course, a few art houses will still be producing live-action films, and occasionally a big-name Hollywood producer/director will do one just to prove he's 'serious' about film. But that's it. Money rules Hollywood, and as soon as it's cheaper to do CGI than live action, that's where the industry will go.
[/quote]

That asumes people buy into the concept. You still need voice actors. The Audience ultimatly decides what is what because they are spending the money.

But hey, The movie made $370 million opening weekend. The highest opening for an "R" rated movie. You never know.
MR
Message: Posted by: Bill Nuvo (Mar 13, 2007 06:57AM)
[quote]
On 2007-03-12 16:10, airship wrote:
This is just the first wave.

In 20 years you won't be able to tell the difference between live and CGI/animation. Even 'mainstream' films will use nothing but CGI actors and scenery. It'll be cheaper, and look better than real.
[/quote]

Does this mean no more TV magic shows?
Message: Posted by: Blindside785 (Mar 13, 2007 08:59AM)
[quote]
On 2007-03-13 04:16, elmago wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-03-12 16:10, airship wrote:
This is just the first wave.

In 20 years you won't be able to tell the difference between live and CGI/animation. Even 'mainstream' films will use nothing but CGI actors and scenery. It'll be cheaper, and look better than real.

Actors' estates will be the big winners. Marilyn, Bogie, Gable and many more will come back in new productions. You'll even be able to see Ronald Reagan in 'Casablanca' (it was originally going to be offered to him).

Of course, a few art houses will still be producing live-action films, and occasionally a big-name Hollywood producer/director will do one just to prove he's 'serious' about film. But that's it. Money rules Hollywood, and as soon as it's cheaper to do CGI than live action, that's where the industry will go.
[/quote]

That asumes people buy into the concept. You still need voice actors. The Audience ultimatly decides what is what because they are spending the money.

But hey, The movie made $370 million opening weekend. The highest opening for an "R" rated movie. You never know.
MR
[/quote]70million
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Mar 13, 2007 11:30AM)
[quote]
On 2007-03-13 09:59, Blindside785 wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-03-13 04:16, elmago wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-03-12 16:10, airship wrote:
This is just the first wave.

In 20 years you won't be able to tell the difference between live and CGI/animation. Even 'mainstream' films will use nothing but CGI actors and scenery. It'll be cheaper, and look better than real.

Actors' estates will be the big winners. Marilyn, Bogie, Gable and many more will come back in new productions. You'll even be able to see Ronald Reagan in 'Casablanca' (it was originally going to be offered to him).

Of course, a few art houses will still be producing live-action films, and occasionally a big-name Hollywood producer/director will do one just to prove he's 'serious' about film. But that's it. Money rules Hollywood, and as soon as it's cheaper to do CGI than live action, that's where the industry will go.
[/quote]

That asumes people buy into the concept. You still need voice actors. The Audience ultimatly decides what is what because they are spending the money.

But hey, The movie made $370 million opening weekend. The highest opening for an "R" rated movie. You never know.
MR
[/quote]70million
[/quote]

He must have been quoting Herodotus again ;)

John
Message: Posted by: Robert Apodaca (Mar 13, 2007 03:46PM)
Beautiful movie. Amazing art direction.

I thought the acting in the film was superb. Keep in mind this is a graphic novel adaptation and that is exactly what you get.
Message: Posted by: Robert Apodaca (Mar 13, 2007 05:14PM)
[quote]
On 2007-03-12 13:42, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-03-09 15:50, Drizz wrote:
It's an adaptation of a graphic novel and is not a recreation of history because there are inaccuracies.
[/quote]


I can't believe I'm the first person to ask this, but what would be an example of a movie that is "a recreation of history" WITHOUT inaccuracies?
[/quote]

Passion of the Christ has no inaccrucies based upon the text it is adapted from and there are several other films that do not change history the way 300 does, but like I said, this isn't a weak point for me.
Message: Posted by: Mystical Matthew (Mar 14, 2007 11:24AM)
[quote]
On 2007-03-13 07:57, mrbilldentertainer wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-03-12 16:10, airship wrote:
This is just the first wave.

In 20 years you won't be able to tell the difference between live and CGI/animation. Even 'mainstream' films will use nothing but CGI actors and scenery. It'll be cheaper, and look better than real.
[/quote]

Does this mean no more TV magic shows?
[/quote]

I'm going to hold my tongue in regards to the obvious comment about the current state of Mindfreak.
Message: Posted by: leapinglizards (Mar 14, 2007 02:32PM)
Saw it last night... It was an OK popcorn "kill em" movie- I think I would have enjoyed it more for what it was if either A- they hadn't based it on an actual historic battle or B- they had left out the obvious fantasy characters. There were a lot of Lord Of The Rings, Orc-like critters that made is less real. (Yeah, I know it's based on a comic book- er Graphic Novel.)

Also had the distinct feeling that most of the sub plot at Sparta with the queen was added later to give it some plot. Would be curious how much of that was in the graphic novel. Anyone know?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Mar 14, 2007 02:36PM)
The graphic novel is VERY direct, and does show the queen and also the oracle and the animals. You can probably find the thing at your local bookstore.
Message: Posted by: Doug Higley (Mar 16, 2007 02:13PM)
I had an extra part in a movie once that was totally accurate.
I really was sitting at a Black Jack Table!

But seriously (ha)I think a peek at the end of Pee Wee's Big Adventure (on the Drive-In screen) handles this very well...accuately speaking.
Message: Posted by: Mark R. Williams (Mar 16, 2007 10:08PM)
So, I take it this in NOT basically a remake of the 1961 film (which had real people) "The 300 Spartans"..........

From what I had heard many of the scenes in the new movie are right out of the old one....................... Perhaps the screen writers had seen the "300 Spartans" and as is so common now "simply forgot" they saw it.

M
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Mar 16, 2007 10:12PM)
Screenwriters? frank miller
Message: Posted by: Cinnamon (Mar 17, 2007 05:58PM)
Yay I saw it! Hehehe. Got addicted to it, and made myself part of it. Harharhar. *photoshop mode*
Message: Posted by: Marvello (Mar 17, 2007 06:48PM)
I saw the movie, and thought it was very entertaining. The fantasy mixed with history didn;t bother me - the made Xerxes in to a god-like being, and back then he WAS considered a god-king! The orcs/trolls, etc., just seemed to be an analogy as to how fierce the Persian army was, as compared to the seriously outnumbered Greeks. I am looking forward tot he sequel - "300 2: Electric Boogaloo" (just kidding).
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Mar 19, 2007 11:14PM)
[quote]
On 2007-03-13 04:16, elmago wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-03-12 16:10, airship wrote:
This is just the first wave.

In 20 years you won't be able to tell the difference between live and CGI/animation. Even 'mainstream' films will use nothing but CGI actors and scenery. It'll be cheaper, and look better than real.

Actors' estates will be the big winners. Marilyn, Bogie, Gable and many more will come back in new productions. You'll even be able to see Ronald Reagan in 'Casablanca' (it was originally going to be offered to him).

Of course, a few art houses will still be producing live-action films, and occasionally a big-name Hollywood producer/director will do one just to prove he's 'serious' about film. But that's it. Money rules Hollywood, and as soon as it's cheaper to do CGI than live action, that's where the industry will go.
[/quote]

That asumes people buy into the concept. You still need voice actors. The Audience ultimatly decides what is what because they are spending the money.

But hey, The movie made $370 million opening weekend. The highest opening for an "R" rated movie. You never know.
MR
[/quote]

I dunno. When they did "Max Headroom," they had to take a guy and digitally distort him to look like a "digitized person." Today, they could actually make him and probably find voices for him as well. Given 20 years or so, the strange stilted voices we have on the computers these days could be a thing of the past and we could actually have total cyber actors.

I remember they did a "Daredevil" thread on that once where someone was feeding digitized images to the news to confuse the people. This was 25-30 years ago.


***


Incidently, check snopes.com, Ronald Regan was <never> going to be offered the lead in "Casablanca." The studio just let that out to keep his name in circulation.

http://www.snopes.com/movies/films/reagan.asp
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Mar 20, 2007 12:03AM)
I watched a documentary on the real 300 (plus 7000) and you wanna find a warrior nation Sparta was it. I don't know if the movie looked into the upbringing of those Spartans or not but it isn't a surprise they marched to certain death.
Message: Posted by: Marvello (Mar 20, 2007 04:23AM)
[quote]
On 2007-03-20 01:03, MagicSanta wrote:
I watched a documentary on the real 300 (plus 7000) and you wanna find a warrior nation Sparta was it. I don't know if the movie looked into the upbringing of those Spartans or not but it isn't a surprise they marched to certain death.
[/quote]In their minds it wasn't "certain death." They were fulfilling the prophecy of the oracles at Delphi, and there was no greater glory than to die in battle in service to their country. In later battles, they eventually DID hold back the Persian empire's expansion, once the Greek state took a unified stand.
Message: Posted by: phedonbilek (Mar 25, 2007 11:31PM)
Let's add a Greek's view to this: the 300 spartans along with their allies did hold the Persians while the Athenians (their sworn ennemy, but then allies against the common persian ennemy) organised themselves better to defeat the huge persian army later on (what they did in Salamis, forcing Xerxes to retreat). Sparta, one of the Greek nation-states (with Athens, Macedonia...), was the best war machine ever conceived; modern armies can only dream emulating the spartan spirit, but that will be forever impossible since I don't see any country taking their 7-year old healthy boys (the unhealthy would have been tossed over a cliff) from their moms to make them killing machines, bred to survive under any circumstance, taught to live only to protect Sparta and their fellow spartan hoplite, without ever being given food enough to make them steal, without ever being clothed enough to make them adjust to the tough Spartan winters... Sparta had no walls around it, since a wall of men, especially Spartans, was more effective than any wall of stone. Spartans used no bows for war (only to hunt), since bows and arrows are the weapons cowards use. Spartans fought man to man. Sparta had two kings, always. When the Persians started their invasion, it was a sacred spartan period when fights were not allowed. One of the two kings, Leonidas, gathered 300 expandable men (they had at least one son), and marched for the first suicide mission ever recorded. Their aim: die for Sparta, achieving what they were brought up for.

I enjoyed the movie very much, and those who have been disappointed must have thought they were going to watch an accurate reenactment. No rhino or elephant took part in this battle, nor has been any written record of a chained persian giant who almost prematurely put an end to one of Greece's greatest heroes... But fact remains: 300 spartans did fight to the last, showing the Persians that their fame throughout the antic world as the perfect killing machine was well-deserved.

Later on (more than a century after the Persians were sent back home) Alexander the Great, a Macedonian, would unify the Greeks and conquer Persia, without ever loosing a single battle. But that's another long story. And another hollywood movie.

Have a nice day

Phedon
Message: Posted by: Cinnamon (Mar 27, 2007 11:25AM)
Phedon,

Thank you for the very informative post! It makes me love the spartans more. Seriously, I want one... *sighs*

Cyssa
Message: Posted by: phedonbilek (Mar 28, 2007 12:57AM)
Ah ah ah... Cyssa, if the avatar picture is accurate, you won't have any problem finding one :) ... Just come to Greece!

Happy you liked the post.

Phedon
Message: Posted by: Cinnamon (Mar 30, 2007 06:48PM)
[quote]
On 2007-03-28 01:57, phedonbilek wrote:
Ah ah ah... Cyssa, if the avatar picture is accurate, you won't have any problem finding one :) ... Just come to Greece!

Happy you liked the post.

Phedon
[/quote]

You mean there are spartan killing machines who still roam greece? WOW!
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Mar 31, 2007 09:00AM)
Hey, we'll make one up for you in my country, Malaysia!

We're closer btw! Lol!

:)
Message: Posted by: phedonbilek (Mar 31, 2007 12:19PM)
[quote]

You mean there are spartan killing machines who still roam greece? WOW!
[/quote]

Ah ah ah... I myself have some spartan blood... But we're no longer killing machines :) , although Spartans still have a 'tough cookie' reputation in Greece.

Phedon