"300" - Merged Thread

[slicedbread]

While the scenes were kind of cool, that's not what made me like this movie...

 

[jake_fink]

I'm shocked at how many people on this board enjoyed this film. I saw it lastnight and I don't think I've seen a more appalling, awful, just plain stinky movie since Treasure of the Four Crowns.

Are you the same crew who love to hate CGI so much? And none of you found the aesthetic a little too Tom of Finland for your tastes?

I just thought it was hideous start to finish: badly written, the look got quickly boring, the fight scenes were more or less the same moves recycled and reused, and the 300 looked more like the two dozen. And this bellowing Butler fellow... who is he? I've never had the displeasure before, so I don't know his bona fides, and I just don't care enough to look him up on IMDB, but his work here is so preening and bellowy that I just hope I never see him again.

This one took two baths to wash off.

Awful.

 

[The_Edge]

THIS! IS! SPARTA!

LOVED! IT!

Stunning visual poetry written with violence and jingoism.

 

[Doh!]

I absolutely hate CGI.

But rather liked 300 quite a bit.

Contradiction? Not really: 99.9% of the time, CG is used to replace "reality" because it's deemed cheaper or easier to do these days. Most of the time, it stinks and is just a crutch for good direction/editing. For example, earlier this week, Sony released about 7 minutes of Spider-Man 3 onto the 'net, and MOST of it looked CG'd. There was an extended scene of the Green Goblin's son beating the crap out of Peter Parker, and I'd be shocked if more than 25% of it was done using the actors. It showed both characters moving in ways that in real life would result in whiplash or... death. Spider powers or not, Peter Parker is still a human being and has the limitations of muscle, bone, etc. Anyway, that's an example of bad CG.

Good CG? Ironically, I still think the T-Rex in Jurassic Park is the most convincing use of the stuff -- and it was the first movie to use it! Shouldn't effects look more real as the years go by instead of not?

But back to 300: the CG works here because the filmmakers weren't aiming for reality. They used it as an art form in order to bring a graphic novel to life. And succeeded splendidly. I did like Sin City better (thought it had a better, more interesting story) but if you like gladiator movies -- and are not put off by violence and nudity -- it's absolutely worth seeing on the big screen.

As others have mentioned above, it may not be historically accurate but it doesn't pretend to be, either. However, it has piqued my interest in the actual battle so now I'm off to "Read More About It."

 

[Dr Doran]

Got Herodotus?

Haven't seen 300 yet. My hopes are low. As for graphic novels made into films, I didn't care much for Road to Perdition and thought most of that violent one with Mickey Rourke was a bit too sick. As for films based on greco-roman antiquity, I hated Troy and I hated Alexander. But I loved Gladiator and never saw The Passion. And I loved the first season of the show Rome. Haven't seen the second yet. And English accents sound just fine to me as long as they don't sound fake. In fact, I think they sound better for Roman characters than American accents do.

However, from my point of view, I want these films to be seen by as many people as possible. I want them to succeed. Why? Besides the intrinsic interest of the material, a selfish reason: so that students will take the classes I and my fellow graduate students will teach. I'm in the Graduate Group in Ancient History and Mediterranean Archaeology at Berkeley. I am working on a PhD. In a few years I have it and then I will be on the job market to be a professor. Who knows where I will be hired. Perhaps it will be near one of you. So the more people see this genre of film, the more work there is for me and for the people in my program, towards whom I feel a certain allegiance, understandably.

As for accuracy: all of you have good points to make. I like the distinction between lightly fictionalized history and historical dramas that take place in the past but whose focus is not the history, but the larger distinction is of course between documentary and non-documentary. As for Pressfield's book, I haven't read it.

The most important thing is still to come: I must recommend to all of you that you read Herodotus if you want the best account of all this. He wrote in the fifth century BC and he traveled all over the Aegean, being originally from Hallikarnassos, modern Bodrum in Turkey (yes, I have been there; no, there is no shrine to Herodotus). In addition his History is full of many, many more fascinating things, gold-digging ants and dog-headed men (although no bellowing giant at Thermopylai). If you haven't a year handy to learn ancient Greek, you can find a Penguin translation or, better, the Oxford World Classics translation by Robin Waterfield with superb notes by Carolyn DeWald, an alumna of my university, for ten bucks each. The decision to make a stand at Thermopylai is in book 7, chapter 175 (each "book" is the length of a chapter of a normal book and each "chapter" is about a paragraph long). The count of the Persian forces is in ch. 184 - 186: Herodotus gives a staggering 5.283 million besides "cooks and concubines" and such in ch. 187. Ephialtes' agreement to tell the Persians about the pass is in 213. The crux of the horror and heroism starts in ch. 219. Herodotus describes the animal-like treatment of soldiers by Persian commanders and how they trample each other underfoot (223) yet Herodotus respectfully names the Persian soldiers of note (224).

I recall translating this from Greek a few years ago under Professor Ron Stroud. The part that was the most poignant, that almost made me cry when I deciphered it, was in chapter 225, the last stand, when Herodotus says, "Here the Greeks defended themselves with knives, if they still had them, and otherwise with hands and teeth."

 

[Velma the Diva]

Haven't see it yet but---

Hi I'm new here so I'm just jumping in. I haven't see "300" yet so I'm going to reserve judgement.

It seems to me that CGI can be helpful to duplicate locations and such, I mean if anyone has watched the speical effects in a lot of the old movies, there was a lot of toy trains destroyed in the train crashes, that it almost seems laughable today. But when you think about the stop motion photography of "King Kong" and even some of film experiments doing in the 1920's which were considered innovative for its time, then one has to consider that CGI is going to be the wave of the future for speical effects.

On plot, acting and such well I've got to see the film first.

The one that I'm planning to see next weekend is "Zodiac", some of my friends saw it and said it had the feel of "All The President's Men". A couple of them said that it brought back the memories of how afraid they were at the time the Zodiac was doing his murders.

____________
Trying to find my way around

 

[Quigley Brown]

I absolutely hate CGI.

But rather liked 300 quite a bit.

Contradiction? Not really: 99.9% of the time, CG is used to replace "reality" because it's deemed cheaper or easier to do these days.

Actually it took only about 60 days to film and about a year to do the rest (CGI, etc.).

I get to the theater about twice a year and I want to make it worth it. 300 was meant to be seen on the big screen (like it or not). Sure, the acting wasn't the greatest, but the photo effects were incredible.

 

[Fleur De Guerre]

Watchmen fans may be interested to know that in the extended trailer of 300 at 1.52, you can see a test shot of Rorschach standing in a street. Oh boyohboyohboy I hope they do a good job of it!

 

[Marc Chevalier]

... but if you like gladiator movies ... it's absolutely worth seeing on the big screen.

Captain Oveur, in the movie Airplane!: "Joey ... do you like movies about gladiators?"

And none of you found the aesthetic a little too Tom of Finland for your tastes?

A spoonful of violence helps the homoeroticism go down. lol


.

 

[Quigley Brown]

My dog Arizona had a cameo appearance....

[/IMG]

 

[carebear]

When exactly did we decide that just because men who are brothers in arms are spending lots of time together in training and war, often unclothed to one degree or another, that there is any hint of "eroticism" going on, homo or otherwise? [huh]

I spent 13 years in the Marine Corps and never the once felt any shred of erotic feelings for my fellow (male anyway) Marines.

Why all the projection and/or assumption of some kind of inherent homosexuality, often by folks who have never served? When did that tripe just get a free pass?

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Why all the projection and/or assumption of some kind of inherent homosexuality, often by folks who have never served?

And where did you get that statistic? [huh]

.

 

[carebear]

And where did you get that statistic? [huh]

.

Personal experience. Not limited to present circumstances.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data", but as long as one solely references one's own experience as the data set then one can make a valid statement as to the relative proportions.

Man that sounds scientific.

For example, none of my Marine buddies would view any of our interactions as "homoerotic" yet, when described to my non-military friends, some idiot always spouts off with "that's so {insert perjorative}". Now, they are free to state their opinion, but, neither being in that particular situation nor having served at all, their opinion carries little validity. If that invalid opinion is then in fact directly contradicted by someone with real credibility to speak, they should probably just shut their snide little mouths and go buy that noble warrior a beer in apology. lol

 

[Marc Chevalier]

When exactly did we decide that just because men who are brothers in arms are spending lots of time together in training and war, often unclothed to one degree or another, that there is any hint of "eroticism" going on, homo or otherwise? [huh]

Here's the difference between life and art. In life, brothers in arms have to to live together in close quarters. That kind of life involves being unclothed to one degree or another, whether the men like it or not. It's neither glorious nor contemptible; it just is.


In the art of 300, however, all these oiled up muscles have been deliberately made to appear as if they're advertising a Calvin Klein or Dolce & Gabbana cologne. They are indeed portrayed homoerotically. Does it follow that today's Marines are living homoerotic fantasies in the service? Of course not, even though some are gay. What I'm saying is that 300's imagery is homoerotic. Is this bad? Good? Neutral? That's up to each one of us to decide for himself/herself.


.

 

[carebear]

This isn't meant as a challenge, but is there an objective measure of "homoeroticism"?

Maybe I'm carrying around a poor definition of the word, but just because men are portrayed all oiled up and musclely does it have to then necessarily (in the Logic 101 sense) be "homoerotic"?

I mean, even men being deliberately sexy, does not = men being sexy deliberately for other men.

Sure some men may find those men sexy, but so do legions of women. If you are aiming at the ladies and a few fellas jump on board the "nice pecs" train, that doesn't mean it was intended by the filmmaker.

Shouldn't the filmmaker's intent be the final definition of whether something was actually "homoerotic" (as opposed to perceived that way by folks looking to do so)?

 

[Marc Chevalier]

... just because men are portrayed all oiled up and musclely does it have to then necessarily (in the Logic 101 sense) be "homoerotic"?

Well, look at it this way: most women say they prefer images of men looking a bit less muscled and oiled up. Rugged, yes. Gleaming and posturing, no. Conversely, most gay men say they prefer exactly the 'grimy, oiled stud' look that 300 glorifies. Take bodybuilding: what group is its #1 fan base? Women? Wrong.

I mean, even men being deliberately sexy, does not = men being sexy deliberately for other men.

As I said above, it depends on how that sexuality is deliberately portrayed.

.

 

[Feraud]

The trailers do look very Mapplethorpe-esque. If that is a word..

 

[Marc Chevalier]

The trailers do look very Mapplethorpe-esque. If that is a word.

Mapplethorpey?
Mappelthorpean?
Mappelthorpelike?
Mappelthorpese?
Mappelthorpish?
Mappelthorpine?


Frankly, I don't give a tinker's cuss if the movie's imagery is homoerotic or not. I can live with its cornball one-liners as well.


The one and only reason why I don't care for 300 is because I'm not into CGI/video game effects. Never have been. [huh]

.

 

[carebear]

Mapplethorpey?
Mappelthorpean?
Mappelthorpelike?
Mappelthorpese?
Mappelthorpish?
Mappelthorpine?

I like the -ean one. I think it flows better, -pine is a close second.

Good explanation Marc, thank you.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Good explanation Marc, thank you.

And thank you. I wouldn't be around here so much if you weren't posting: I always enjoy and learn from your well-reasoned knowledge, and look forward to more. You make people think. Keep it coming :eusa_clap

.