"300" - Merged Thread

[Ruby Slippers]

This looks SO good, I'm TERRIFICALLY excited.

Trailer!

 

[Fletch]

Little chance of any laser printed documents in THAT one!

 

[Kim_B]

Yep, really looking forward to this one! Love the song in the trailer too...Trent Reznor is a musical genius

 

[Hondo]

I second that, look forward to this film, There’s a lot of computer animation enhancement, but so what? That’s the way it this today.
I always enjoyed the “300 Spartans” live action even Jason and the Argonauts

 

[Cacklewack]

March 9th will be a good day!

Matt

 

[carebear]

"300" - Molon Labe!

I am so looking forward to 300. Thermopylae is a stirring tale even without Frank Miller putting his spin on it. From the little I've seen and read it looks like another good transfer of a graphic novel to the screen.

Persians - "Our arrows will blot out the sun."
Spartans - "Then we will fight in the shade."

Persians - "Give up your arms!"
Spartans - "Molon Labe!" (Come take them!)

On a larger note, most novels are too long to make a good 2 hour movie, most short stories need a bit too much fleshing out. I wonder if the graphic novel, being written, in essence, as individual shots and scenes, may be the best type of literature to make the jump?

 

[Shearer]

I may be venturing into no-woman's land here, but I've been really excited about this since the first time I saw the trailer!

It must appeal to the 30 year old man inside me

 

[lindylady]

I'm looking forward to seeing that movie, too. Perhaps it's a fondness for sweeping, historical epics.

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

Personally, I am a little disappointed by the trailer. I have always been a big fan of the classical period (even studied ancient philosophy in school) and from the looks of things this is just another movie which thinks that classical history needs "improvement" by distorting or changing the facts to better suit modern temperments or cinematic style.

What would be so bad about a historically accurate account of the 300? Is the story not interesting enough as it is without adding monsters, incorrect costumes and weapons, freaky lighting, etc?

 

[carebear]

Personally, I am a little disappointed by the trailer. I have always been a big fan of the classical period (even studied ancient philosophy in school) and from the looks of things this is just another movie which thinks that classical history needs "improvement" by distorting or changing the facts to better suit modern temperments or cinematic style.

What would be so bad about a historically accurate account of the 300? Is the story not interesting enough as it is without adding monsters, incorrect costumes and weapons, freaky lighting, etc?

That might be a good movie, but remember, THIS movie isn't really based on Thermopylae itself. It is based on Frank Miller's graphic novel, which took its inspiration from the actual story but already introduced those ahistorical elements. This movie is at least two-steps removed from "historical accuracy".

So, as there is no claim to real historical accuracy made by Miller or the filmmakers, and thay aren't saying it is an attempt to protray things "how they were"; those can't justly be used as criticism. The film will have to be judged on how well (and cinematically) it adapts its actual source material.

I do agree though that if the filmmakers were doing a treatment of, say, Steven Pressfield's "Gates of Fire", which WAS a historically accurate novelization of the actual battle, then we could justly levy charges of historical mistakes against the filmmakers as their source material would have been more correct to start.

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

That might be a good movie, but remember, THIS movie isn't really based on Thermopylae itself. It is based on Frank Miller's graphic novel, which took its inspiration from the actual story but already introduced those ahistorical elements. This movie is at least two-steps removed from "historical accuracy".

I understand that, although that doesn't really address the question, which is why there is any need for purely imaginary and ahistorical elements in the telling of this story? Movies which are "inspired" by historical events or even classic novels are a dime-a-dozen. They usually end up being nowhere near as interesting as the actual events or original book.

The film will have to be judged on how well (and cinematically) it adapts its actual source material.

The fact that the movie is supposed to be based on what is already an interpretation does not absolve it of being compared to the actual events either. The movie "Gettysburg" was based on the novel "The Killer Angels," which was in turn based on the actual battle. Does that mean that "Gettysburg" should only be compared to the novel and not the battle?

For instance, if "The Killer Angels" had depicted General Hancock as a monster to symbolize the evil intentions of the union, and General Lee as a 25-year old brawny guy to symbolize his strength, and the movie had stayed true to these depictions, would that make it right? Would we say "Oh, yeah, that is totally inaccurate and stupid, but hey, it was in that book, so historical accuracy doesn't matter!"

I guess my hostility just is that movies in general seem in a major slump right now. It seems all that people can come up with are remakes of other movies or movies based on comic books or "graphic novels." The few movies about the classical period are terrible, inaccurate, boring affairs (Troy, Alexander, Gladiator, etc.) This movie will just add to that list.

 

[carebear]

Vlad,

I guess the ultimate answer is that such movies get made because folks feel they will make money, where dead-on historical recreations won't. If they made money, they'd get made. Unfortunately our two tickets won't pay the cost of a great spot-on historical epic.

As far as comparisons to "Gettysburg" go... There is a world of difference between "The Killer Angels" and FM's "300" as source material. A more just comparison would be to compare Shaara to the similarly accurate-by-design "Gates of Fire" by Pressfield. If the filmmakers said they were using Pressfield, and then produced a movie with monsters, we could then accuse them of twisting history.

There's a huge difference between "novelized history", which tells a true story and stays true to the facts and just fills in the details with fiction and "historical fiction" which only ever claims to start off referencing something historical. I know it's a fine distinction, but it is very necessary or we end up with apples to oranges standards.

So yes, if in fact the film does not ever claim to be an accurate recreation it is actually perfectly absolved of not being one.

 

[Doctor Strange]

I'm on the fence about seeing this one. Frankly, I'm afraid that it's too much visual overkill for me, and is clearly designed for the current generation raised on videogames, of which I'm definitely not a part. (I'm old-fashioned, I need substantial STORY and CHARACTER as well as just action.) Since I only made it about 15 minutes into "Sin City" on DVD before turning it off in disgust, I think I'll probably pass on seeing this in theaters.

Now mind you, I'm a lifelong fan of ancient history, and I loved the old "The 300 Spartans" film from the 60s when I was a kid - though I was pretty unimpressed with it after seeing it again recently. The Battle of Thermapylae is a wonderful story, and I'm usually up for any variation on it (e.g., the magnificent Samurai Jack episode "Jack and Spartans")... But I think the unending supersaturated images of this movie may simply be too intense for me.

I know: I'm a geezer.

 

[Twitch]

300

This looks interesting http://300themovie.warnerbros.com/

 

[Fletch]

Can't view the trailer. I assume it's not about bowling.

 

[Fletch]

Ok, it's not about bowling. Thanks Jonesy.

 

[Hemingway Jones]

Ok, it's not about bowling. Thanks Jonesy.

Oh, I don't know, it could be about bowling.
I can't tell if it is straight up history or some kind of fantasy movie. It looks visually stunning though, regardless.

 

[griffer]

It's Frank Miller's graphic novelisation of the famous Spartan stand, i believe.

 

[Hondo]

The 300 Spartans (1961)
Richard Egan, Ralph Richardson, Diane Baker.
Plot Synopsis: Essentially true story of how Spartan king Leonidis led an extremely small army of Greek Soldiers (300 of them his personal body guards from Sparta) to hold off an invading Persian army more than 20 times as large. The actual heroism of those who stood (and ultimately died) with Leonidis helped shape the course of Western Civilization, allowing the Greek city states time to organize an army which repelled the Persians. Set in 480 BC.
I don't know about the new movie and all its gore, animations. I’ll take the original film, saw this movie when it first came out with Richard Egan; I enjoyed it, and remember without any computer wizard animations, it’s a good story, sad but good. The last stand :eusa_clap

 

[Fleur De Guerre]

I can't watch this because I'm not in America, but I watched the low res version on Youtube.

300 seconds of 300: http://www.mtv.com/overdrive/?name=movies&id=1553704&vid=136403

It's the manliest film ever! But I cannot wait for it!!