300 [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

nevnut

03-03-2007, 07:56 AM

This movie looks like it may be one of the best of 2007.What does every one else think?

oh_kee_pa

03-03-2007, 07:58 AM

cant wait to see it... i remember patrice talking about this movie on O&A in like november

Don Stugots

03-03-2007, 08:06 AM

i am so up for this movie.  i cannot stop telling people to check it out.  I may have to go see it opening day.

Drunky McBetidont

03-03-2007, 08:07 AM

<a href="http://www.themoviebox.net/movies/2006/0-9ABC/300/trailer.php">http://www.themoviebox.net/movies/2006/0-9ABC/300/trailer.php</a>it will make more $ than norbitthe trailor has been my screen-saver for a couple weeks and i stll watch it multiple times a a dayi can't wait

Golfman

03-03-2007, 08:21 AM

I certainly agree, I make my wife stop the TIVO so I can watch the same trailers over and over.  Looks like a killer flic.

cougarjake13

03-03-2007, 01:00 PM

def ant wait till fridaylooks awesome

Don Stugots

03-07-2007, 03:25 PM

Friday at 4:00 Imax in NYC, got my tickets.  i am so happy.

TheMojoPin

03-07-2007, 03:26 PM

I can't wait to see this even though I really didn't like the book.Oh well.

narc

03-07-2007, 03:30 PM

I can't wait either. Ancient Greek history was pretty much my thing in college, so this is right up my alley. I just hope I can suspend being history nerd about the inaccuracies to just enjoy it. But if there's enough bloodspill that shouldn't be a problem. My friend and I are thinking about making or own "Sparta" or "Lacedaemon" shirts for the movie. I'm planning on Sat. night.

Bossanova

03-07-2007, 03:32 PM

I read online somewhere, that this is the best movie in the last decade

cupcakelove

03-07-2007, 03:34 PM

I'm kinda on the line with this movie.  Everything in the commercials is either slow motion, or someone yelling, and if I have to sit through that for two hours straight I will loose my mind.  The posibility for cool effects are there, but I really need more than that enjoy myself.  Of course I will wait until I actually see it before I form an opinion of it, but the commercials do not do much for me.

feralBoy

03-07-2007, 03:41 PM

I'm too excited about this movie.  If it sucks, i'll probably commit seppuku.  I was hoping it was going to be played at the ziegfeld, but they are playing zodiac.  lame. 

Midkiff

03-07-2007, 03:55 PM

This will be an abso-freaking-lutely incredible movie.

NortonRules

03-07-2007, 04:01 PM

I can't wait to see it.  I really hope it's great. 

FMJeff

03-07-2007, 09:55 PM

danny from the O&A show saw it and said it was visually fantastic but the interaction between villain and hero (xerxes and leopidus) was a little weak. I'm not sure what he meant but i guess ill see for myself.

stump12

03-08-2007, 02:28 PM

Im guessing if you liked sin city youll like this. The visuals in sin city were great and there will be a lot more in this movie.   I read all the actors do their own stunts.

J.Clints

03-08-2007, 02:36 PM

Looks Great I am looking foward to it.

LordJezo

03-09-2007, 03:41 AM

Tomorrow we're going to see it on IMAX.  Everyone should come. Pallisades Center, 4:45 show.  Meet up around 2:00, hang out in Dave & Busters for a while, and go see it on a massive screen.Hawt.

Sheeplovr

03-09-2007, 03:48 AM

LordJezo wrote: Tomorrow we're going to see it on IMAX. Everyone should come. Pallisades Center, 4:45 show. Meet up around 2:00, hang out in Dave & Busters for a while, and go see it on a massive screen.Hawt.  its sold out by the by

BeerBandit

03-09-2007, 03:56 AM

I'm going to see it on Sunday... ...with my mother.  My wife doesn't want to see it.  My father doesn't want to see it.  My mother, of all people, can't wait to see it.  I feel kinda creepy.

Chip196

03-09-2007, 04:07 AM

BeerBandit wrote: I'm going to see it on Sunday... ...with my mother.  My wife doesn't want to see it.  My father doesn't want to see it.  My mother, of all people, can't wait to see it.  I feel kinda creepy. Why do you have negative sheepy points?

Reynolds

03-09-2007, 04:27 AM

Down to 62% on rottentomatoes, 55% with cream of the crop, Ill still probably check it out.  Host, which I never heard of, at 95% interesting since I never seen a horror movie that high, especially with over 70 reviews counted.

LordJezo

03-09-2007, 04:42 AM

Sheeplovr wrote: LordJezo wrote: Tomorrow we're going to see it on IMAX. Everyone should come. Pallisades Center, 4:45 show. Meet up around 2:00, hang out in Dave & Busters for a while, and go see it on a massive screen.Hawt. its sold out by the by  You just ruined my weekend.

Don Stugots

03-09-2007, 04:43 AM

Sheeplovr wrote: LordJezo wrote: Tomorrow we're going to see it on IMAX. Everyone should come. Pallisades Center, 4:45 show. Meet up around 2:00, hang out in Dave & Busters for a while, and go see it on a massive screen.Hawt. its sold out by the by  its not in NYC!   or it wasnt when i bought my tixx.  4.00 IMAX near lincoln center.  see you there or be square.

cupcakelove

03-09-2007, 04:57 AM

mudeater wrote: Down to 62% on rottentomatoes, 55% with cream of the crop, Ill still probably check it out. Host, which I never heard of, at 95% interesting since I never seen a horror movie that high, especially with over 70 reviews counted.62% is not a bad score for rotten tomatoes.  Every review, good or bad, seems to say the same thing.  Over the top violence with amazing visuals, and a medicore storyline behind it.  I'll probably check this movie out down the road.

drjoek

03-09-2007, 04:58 AM

I hate to go against the flow but the movie seems kind ofd Homo to me.

moochcassidy

03-09-2007, 05:12 AM

this looks ike one of the best movies of all time..anyone wanna do a cam job for yer pals in europe?

LordJezo

03-09-2007, 05:22 AM

Don Stugots wrote: Sheeplovr wrote: LordJezo wrote: Tomorrow we're going to see it on IMAX. Everyone should come. Pallisades Center, 4:45 show. Meet up around 2:00, hang out in Dave & Busters for a while, and go see it on a massive screen.Hawt. its sold out by the by its not in NYC! or it wasnt when i bought my tixx. 4.00 IMAX near lincoln center. see you there or be square. I just checked that one too.  Whloe day is sold out there as well, from the 10am show to the 12:45am show the next day.

Don Stugots

03-09-2007, 05:24 AM

LordJezo wrote: Don Stugots wrote: Sheeplovr wrote: LordJezo wrote: Tomorrow we're going to see it on IMAX. Everyone should come. Pallisades Center, 4:45 show. Meet up around 2:00, hang out in Dave & Busters for a while, and go see it on a massive screen.Hawt. its sold out by the by its not in NYC! or it wasnt when i bought my tixx. 4.00 IMAX near lincoln center. see you there or be square. I just checked that one too. Whloe day is sold out there as well, from the 10am show to the 12:45am show the next day.  holy schnikes.  full house today when i go.  i will get there alittle early to be sure i get a primo seat.  thanks for telling me.  full review of the movie on Sundays show.

BeerBandit

03-09-2007, 05:39 AM

Chip196 wrote: BeerBandit wrote: I'm going to see it on Sunday... ...with my mother. My wife doesn't want to see it. My father doesn't want to see it. My mother, of all people, can't wait to see it. I feel kinda creepy. Why do you have negative sheepy points? I don't want to get into in this thread. Unless you want to help me rouse 298 other warriors to challenge Persian King Sheepxes for points.

Sheeplovr

03-09-2007, 06:11 AM

Don Stugots wrote: LordJezo wrote: Don Stugots wrote: Sheeplovr wrote: LordJezo wrote: Tomorrow we're going to see it on IMAX. Everyone should come. Pallisades Center, 4:45 show. Meet up around 2:00, hang out in Dave & Busters for a while, and go see it on a massive screen.Hawt. its sold out by the by its not in NYC! or it wasnt when i bought my tixx. 4.00 IMAX near lincoln center. see you there or be square. I just checked that one too. Whloe day is sold out there as well, from the 10am show to the 12:45am show the next day. holy schnikes. full house today when i go. i will get there alittle early to be sure i get a primo seat. thanks for telling me. full review of the movie on Sundays show.  I thought you had tickets already i was just telling anyone who thought they would jsut show upimax first weekend is nuts people go to imax likes its a normal movie but its like going on a rideyou can only show up 30 mineuts before show time at palise ades but i like to go a bit before cause even though its imax i just dont want to be in one of those side sections the center section is all i want to be get this Spiderman 3 is going to be imax thats awesome harry potty 5 is imax to so was the past harry potter but i didnt do the imax but this time i will i plan to see 300 in the week i wanna try to go without so much peoples

Sheeplovr

03-09-2007, 06:12 AM

drjoek wrote: I hate to go against the flow but the movie seems kind ofd Homo to me.  you have a baseball player avatar that sounds like it be up your ally

Don Stugots

03-09-2007, 06:19 AM

Sheeplovr wrote: drjoek wrote: I hate to go against the flow but the movie seems kind ofd Homo to me. you have a baseball player avatar that sounds like it be up your ally  sheepy, alot of Joe's posts are negative but the ball player in his avatar is the late great Thurmon Munson.  My 2nd fav. player of all time, he drank beer, ate steaks, smoked cigars, fly his own plane, took car of his family and played hard.  His avatar is the only thing i like about him.   I have my tixx for today.  i bought them on FANDANGO monday night.  you can show up to the place anytime you want but they dont let you inside so you have to wait in a line.  i just dont want crappy seats.

PapaBear

03-09-2007, 09:53 AM

I don't put much stock in movie reviews (sorry Paul), but I just read the Washington Post review. That guy RIPPED 300! He absolutely hated it.

LordJezo

03-09-2007, 10:07 AM

Okay weekend fixed.2:15 IMAX showing on Sunday at Palisades mall.Can't wait.

feralBoy

03-09-2007, 10:15 AM

mudeater wrote: Host, which I never heard of, at 95% interesting since I never seen a horror movie that high, especially with over 70 reviews counted. I saw The Host and the NY film festival like 5 months ago.  It's a korean movie.  It's pretty good.  I think people tend to give foreign and obscure movies higher ratings.  I mean, it's good, but not the greatest thing I have ever seen.  Definitely worth checking out if you like that kinda shit.

WRESTLINGFAN

03-09-2007, 06:50 PM

Just got back from the 8pm showing. Great movie

Don Stugots

03-09-2007, 06:51 PM

i thought so too. 

TheMojoPin

03-09-2007, 07:56 PM

Stunning battle scenes, I really enjoyed the whole thing, BUT...did the director have to use slow motion ALL the fucking time?  Jesus Christ...I swear he added an extra 15 minutes onto the film slowing down shots of people just walking or riding horses and shit.  KNOCK OFF THE ART SCHOOL STUDENT CRAP, ASS.  Get to the hacking of limbs!  This movie is about MEAT.

weekapaugjz

03-09-2007, 07:57 PM

TheMojoPin wrote: Stunning battle scenes, I really enjoyed the whole thing, BUT...did the director have to use slow motion ALL the fucking time? Jesus Christ...I swear he added an extra 15 minutes onto the film slowing down shots of people just walking or riding horses and shit. KNOCK OFF THE ART SCHOOL STUDENT CRAP, ASS. Get to the hacking of limbs! This movie is about MEAT. you really love that meat, don't ya mojo?

TheMojoPin

03-09-2007, 08:26 PM

weekapaugjz wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: Stunning battle scenes, I really enjoyed the whole thing, BUT...did the director have to use slow motion ALL the fucking time? Jesus Christ...I swear he added an extra 15 minutes onto the film slowing down shots of people just walking or riding horses and shit. KNOCK OFF THE ART SCHOOL STUDENT CRAP, ASS. Get to the hacking of limbs! This movie is about MEAT.  you really love that meat, don't ya mojo?Delicious.  Wanna wrestle?

weekapaugjz

03-09-2007, 08:28 PM

TheMojoPin wrote: weekapaugjz wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: Stunning battle scenes, I really enjoyed the whole thing, BUT...did the director have to use slow motion ALL the fucking time? Jesus Christ...I swear he added an extra 15 minutes onto the film slowing down shots of people just walking or riding horses and shit. KNOCK OFF THE ART SCHOOL STUDENT CRAP, ASS. Get to the hacking of limbs! This movie is about MEAT. you really love that meat, don't ya mojo?Delicious. Wanna wrestle? not with you

feralBoy

03-09-2007, 09:30 PM

Seems like everyone else liked it.  I wasn't too big a fan.  It was a pretty decent dissapointment for me.  I think visually, it was awesome, some very cool shit.  They actually kept realtively close to history as well, which I thought was cool.  But some of the story and the dialogue was just stupid.  I also think they writers stole (borrowed) a bunch from braveheart.  Can you say a movie is hack?  This movie was kinda hack.  The worst part was there was actually a scene in the movie, where all the women in the audience started clapping.  I really wanted this movie to be great.  I feel heartbroken.

Shamrock

03-09-2007, 10:32 PM

Here is the review I wrote for my blog  300 is a movie based on the graphic novel by Frank Miller published by Dark Horse comics in 1998.  The movie details the battle of Thermopile, 300 Spartan solders vs the million plus of the Persian army.  Some of you might be aware of the actual story of this battle that the facts of has been disputed for countless years.  Many of the facts, namely the number of Persian solders and the number of Greek solders from other cities, are widely disputed by history scholars.  The one fact that cannot be disputed is that there were only 300 Spartan warriors and they were heavily out number, conservatively 100 to 1, and that they absolutely punished the Persians and brutally slain so many that all would know, till the end of time, that the 300 Spartans were some of the fierce, highly skilled and battle savvy warriors ever to walk this earth. Put your history book down because this movie is not trying to be historic fact.  This a historic battle depicted as a comic book with Hollywood moxy and juiced with testosterone and a shot of pure adrenaline. This version of the story is balls out, unapologetically graphic, gratuitous, and brutal.  This CG stylized action flick is full of with quick witted dialog and epic battle scenes that will please the carnal beast hidden in every man, (and some women.) One of the things that was surprising to me was the acting in it is quite good.  It has it's heart felt moments that added depth and emotion to the story without being sappy or heavy handed.  The dialog was very true to the original graphic novel as well as many shots in the movie were pulled right from Frank Miller's comic page.  This movie honors the spirit of Miller's book much like Sin City did, and is a true testament to the respect that Frank Miller is given to his master works from Hollywood Producers and Directors. This Movie was directed by Zach Snyder, director of the Dawn of the Dead remake a few years back. Zach showed great skill and pulled out all the stops and new tricks in digital film making.  The look of the movie was vivacious, visceral and visually appetizing, much like the graphic novel.  The battle scenes were heavy in the CG and noticeably so, but not to the detriment of the movie because it fit with the heightened sense and surreal feeling this movie is shooting for.  This movie has heart,a pumping blood soaked heart that makes one long for the days that you could swing an axe into someone's face.   This movie could have been a disaster and very well could have turned into a sappy male bonding, homo erotic "I love you man" type movie but no!  It's tough, gritty and raw till the bitter, blood soaked end.  Never to shed a pussiefied tear or besmirch

thepaulo

03-09-2007, 11:44 PM

sorry i didn't get around to reviewing the movie today....just want to mention that Lena Headly's nipples and lips are amazing

PapaBear

03-09-2007, 11:58 PM

thepaulo wrote: sorry i didn't get around to reviewing the movie today....just want to mention that Lena Headly's nipples and lips are amazingSonofabitch... Head(ly)... nipples... lips... amazing....If the promos for this movie included your review, I'd actually put out the bucks to go to the theatre.   This isn't a bash, Paul. Stay alive for the gap (no caps) debut.

thepaulo

03-10-2007, 12:47 AM

lena's nipples have given me some life

Don Stugots

03-10-2007, 02:31 AM

thepaulo wrote: sorry i didn't get around to reviewing the movie today....just want to mention that Lena Headly's nipples and lips are amazing yes they were.  every woman in the film had the hardest nipples i have ever seen.  do all greek women have nips like that?

badorties

03-10-2007, 04:40 AM

<a href="http://www.aintitcool.com/node/31814" target="_blank">From 300 Trailer comes one helluva Rorshach... first look at WATCHMEN?</a><a href="http://www.aintitcool.com/images2007/rorshach_badge.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.aintitcool.com/images2007/rorshach_badge.jpg" border="0" width="415" height="207" /></a>(click for larger view)

feralBoy

03-10-2007, 08:12 AM

Shamrock wrote: The one fact that cannot be disputed is that there were only 300 Spartan warriors and they were heavily out number, conservatively 100 to 1, and that they absolutely punished the Persians and brutally slain so many that all would know, till the end of time, that the 300 Spartans were some of the fierce, highly skilled and battle savvy warriors ever to walk this earth.  There were only 300 spartans, but there were other warriors at that battle.  The final showdown was like 300 spartans, and 1000 other warriors.  There were more before that, like 10,000, and they were led by the spartans.  When the spartans found out that they were surrounded, they ordered everyone to retreat.  The 1,300 remained and died.

SouthSideJohnny

03-11-2007, 06:45 AM

I saw it last night and thought it was outstanding.  Highly recommended!

TheMojoPin

03-11-2007, 07:14 AM

badorties wrote:  <a href="http://www.aintitcool.com/node/31814" target="_blank">From 300 Trailer comes one helluva Rorshach... first look at WATCHMEN?</a><a href="http://www.aintitcool.com/images2007/rorshach_badge.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.aintitcool.com/images2007/rorshach_badge.jpg" border="0" width="415" height="207" /></a>(click for larger view)OH.MY.GOD.OHMYGODOHMYGODOHMYGODOHMYGOD.

joeyballsack

03-11-2007, 07:38 AM

I saw it last night and the main thing I got from the movie was that I need to start doing crunches and other ab exercises.

nevnut

03-11-2007, 07:46 AM

Caught it yesterday with the wife and kid and we all thought it was awesome.A must see in the theater.

TheMojoPin

03-11-2007, 08:03 AM

OK, this is the history nerd in me, and I know, "it's just a movie," BUT...writings (especially Persian) from that period describe how the Spartans were almost impossible to kill when they were in their phalanx (massed together, shields up and out, spears at the ready).  They very rarely broke rank and went individually apeshit with their swords like we see all the time in the movie.  The only time a Spartan would go for a sword would have been when the phalanx was broken, which was incredibly rare.  One Persian writer even said that they hardly ever saw an individual Spartan unless he was wounded or dead because they were always behind their shields in their formations.Yeah, I know seeing them in the phalanx all the time would have been boring...I'm just saying, that's the main reason why they were such successful warriors.  Yes, individual they were very good fighters, but they weren't some scary elite warrior on their own that were nearly invincible.  And to give the film credit, it's the only time I've ever seen the phalanx I've read about a hundred times shown correctly in all of its "hold, push and thrust" glory.Yeah, I'm nitpicking.  I liked it.  Fun, messy, manly movie.

LordJezo

03-11-2007, 04:09 PM

Saw the movie this afternoon. Imax. It was like watching 300 Rambos walking around in Spartan armor kicking ass and flexing abs. Pure awesome.

cougarjake13

03-11-2007, 04:15 PM

LordJezo wrote: Saw the movie this afternoon. Imax. It was like watching 300 Rambos walking around in Spartan armor kicking ass and flexing abs. Pure awesome. best review yet

BeerBandit

03-11-2007, 04:24 PM

Fucking fantastic!  Not the best movie ever.  Not even close.  But fun as hell.  I'm going to have to see it again this week.

feralBoy

03-11-2007, 04:24 PM

TheMojoPin wrote: OK, this is the history nerd in me, and I know, "it's just a movie," BUT...writings (especially Persian) from that period describe how the Spartans were almost impossible to kill when they were in their phalanx (massed together, shields up and out, spears at the ready).  They very rarely broke rank and went individually apeshit with their swords like we see all the time in the movie.  The only time a Spartan would go for a sword would have been when the phalanx was broken, which was incredibly rare.  One Persian writer even said that they hardly ever saw an individual Spartan unless he was wounded or dead because they were always behind their shields in their formations.Yeah, I know seeing them in the phalanx all the time would have been boring...I'm just saying, that's the main reason why they were such successful warriors.  Yes, individual they were very good fighters, but they weren't some scary elite warrior on their own that were nearly invincible.  And to give the film credit, it's the only time I've ever seen the phalanx I've read about a hundred times shown correctly in all of its "hold, push and thrust" glory.Yeah, I'm nitpicking.  I liked it.  Fun, messy, manly movie.I don't think you are nitpicking at all.  It's one of the things that annoyed me about the movie, especially because Leonidas made it a point to tell that troll dude, that the reason we are so strong is because we don't break rank, and fight as one unit....yet a few scenes later they were fighting on open plains.  It just annoyed me.  I mean, if you could get them in the open that easy, wouldn't you just bring in your calvary and trample them all?  The persian army was supposedly known for their calvary.  Anyway, still a fun movie, but not as good as LOTR.

sr71blackbird

03-11-2007, 04:40 PM

thepaulo

03-11-2007, 04:47 PM

biggest march opening ever.....$70,000,000bigger than ice age 2 and in fewer theaters

TheMojoPin

03-11-2007, 04:50 PM

feralBoy wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: OK, this is the history nerd in me, and I know, "it's just a movie," BUT...writings (especially Persian) from that period describe how the Spartans were almost impossible to kill when they were in their phalanx (massed together, shields up and out, spears at the ready).  They very rarely broke rank and went individually apeshit with their swords like we see all the time in the movie.  The only time a Spartan would go for a sword would have been when the phalanx was broken, which was incredibly rare.  One Persian writer even said that they hardly ever saw an individual Spartan unless he was wounded or dead because they were always behind their shields in their formations.Yeah, I know seeing them in the phalanx all the time would have been boring...I'm just saying, that's the main reason why they were such successful warriors.  Yes, individual they were very good fighters, but they weren't some scary elite warrior on their own that were nearly invincible.  And to give the film credit, it's the only time I've ever seen the phalanx I've read about a hundred times shown correctly in all of its "hold, push and thrust" glory.Yeah, I'm nitpicking.  I liked it.  Fun, messy, manly movie.I don't think you are nitpicking at all.  It's one of the things that annoyed me about the movie, especially because Leonidas made it a point to tell that troll dude, that the reason we are so strong is because we don't break rank, and fight as one unit....yet a few scenes later they were fighting on open plains.  It just annoyed me.  I mean, if you could get them in the open that easy, wouldn't you just bring in your calvary and trample them all?  The persian army was supposedly known for their calvary.  Anyway, still a fun movie, but not as good as LOTR.*SPOILERS*                 I was impressed with that they stuck to one thing in the book that was supposedly true to life...in the end, the Spartans didn't go down fighting hand-to-hand to the very last man.  They were slaughtered by thousands of Persian arrows after they had caused so much havoc it forced the Persians to resort to attacking them from a distance.                        *END SPOILERS*

blakjeezis

03-11-2007, 04:54 PM

Not gay enough.

realmenhatelife

03-11-2007, 08:25 PM

its good to see willy ames get some work

patsopinion

03-11-2007, 11:52 PM

i thought the narriorator should have been kut out showing more instead of talking about(show dont tell first thing you learn as a screenwriter)i thought the movie missed some of the backstory but that goes back to the narratornext i loved the move visually, beautiful, didnt go as far out of the box as i was hoping but overall very goodi ended up a not caring about the characters b not feeling like the spartans were immoratal or badass enough...overall an 8 out of ten (mind you a high 8 but not what it could have been with a better director or writing staff) oh and the ending sucked ass 

This message was edited by patsopinion on 3-12-07 @ 3:58 AM

MasterSoySauce

03-12-2007, 04:28 AM

i know its supposed to be this way but i thought the cornball lines was a little over the top, the part when the persians are backed up on the cliff and the one spartan is like: " they look thirsty" then the one dude goes: " lets give them a drink" and then they kick them into the ocean was really corny, he might as well as told him to have a seat and hit him with a chair and re-name the movie roadhouse. The visuals were cool and the battle scenes were cool. I'm not a fan of comic books or comic book movies so i guess its no surprise, but some was way too corny.

ralphbxny

03-12-2007, 07:37 AM

Now I have to see this!!

BrooklynKat

03-12-2007, 07:49 AM

TheMojoPin wrote: OK, this is the history nerd in me, and I know, "it's just a movie," BUT...writings (especially Persian) from that period describe how the Spartans were almost impossible to kill when they were in their phalanx (massed together, shields up and out, spears at the ready). They very rarely broke rank and went individually apeshit with their swords like we see all the time in the movie. The only time a Spartan would go for a sword would have been when the phalanx was broken, which was incredibly rare. One Persian writer even said that they hardly ever saw an individual Spartan unless he was wounded or dead because they were always behind their shields in their formations.Yeah, I know seeing them in the phalanx all the time would have been boring...I'm just saying, that's the main reason why they were such successful warriors. Yes, individual they were very good fighters, but they weren't some scary elite warrior on their own that were nearly invincible. And to give the film credit, it's the only time I've ever seen the phalanx I've read about a hundred times shown correctly in all of its "hold, push and thrust" glory.Yeah, I'm nitpicking. I liked it. Fun, messy, manly movie.  Not to brag but I got my master's in Classical art, so I went into this movie with an opened mind, assuming that they would get everything wrong and that I should just enjoy it as a graphic novel movie. But I was really pleasantly surprised that they got allot of details right. *SPOILER* Like "turning the sky black with arrows" a direct quote from Herodotus, the "earth and water" request by the Persians, throwing the messenger into the well, Leonidas' wife telling him to come back with his shield or on it. Also, it was really cleaver the way they made Xerxes kinda fey and drenched in gold. The Greeks viewed the Persians as completely decadent freaks. Most importantly, HOT HOT Spartan menz in tiny leatherkinis, yum!<img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/wub.gif" border="0" width="22" height="29" /> Ok, maybe that part isn't historically accurate, but why nitpick with this particular detail.  

This message was edited by BrooklynKat on 3-12-07 @ 11:55 AM

feralBoy

03-12-2007, 08:03 AM

BrooklynKat wrote: Not to brag but I got my master's in Classical art, so I went into this movie with an opened mind, assuming that they would get everything wrong and that I should just enjoy it as a graphic novel movie. But I was really pleasantly surprised that they got allot of details right. *SPOILER* Like "turning the sky black with arrows" a direct quote from Herodotus, the "earth and water" request by the Persians, throwing the messenger into the well, Leonidas' wife telling him to come back with his shield or on it. Also, it was really cleaver the way they made Xerxes kinda fey and drenched in gold. The Greeks viewed the Persians as completely decadent freaks. Most importantly, HOT HOT Spartan menz in tiny leatherkinis, yum!<img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/wub.gif" border="0" width="22" height="29" /> Ok, maybe that part isn't historically accurate, but why nitpick with this particular detail.  This message was edited by BrooklynKat on 3-12-07 @ 11:55 AM *MORE SPOILERS*  Wasn't it the spartan mothers who told their sons "with it, or on it?"  Another part that I was wondering if it was changed for PC reasons, but the spartans wouldn't go out into the wild for their initiation into the army.  They would go out and kill a slave, and they had to do so without getting caught or noticed.  In the movie he just killed a wolf.  But the stuff like throwing the babies away, and whippings, all true.  That must have been some crazy ass town.

BrooklynKat

03-12-2007, 12:46 PM

There's lots of things they omitted but the stuff that's in there isn't bad for the type of movie that it is.  One thing that they probably couldn't mention was homosexuality. I know it's hard to believe, but those manly men, the 300 probably comprised of 150 couples. For example, check out the story of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes" target="_blank">Sacred Band of Thebes</a>. Homosexuality was not what we think of it today. For them the idea of fighting along side your lover made sense.  It made you a stronger fighter because you wanted to prove your valor to someone you cared for and had something to protect and to die for.  Maybe the US military should rethink this "don't ask don't tell" policy. <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/happy.gif" border="0" />

phixion

03-12-2007, 01:06 PM

There's lots of things they omitted but the stuff that's in there isn't bad for the type of movie that it is.  One thing that they probably couldn't mention was homosexuality. I know it's hard to believe, but those manly men, the 300 probably comprised of 150 couples. For example, check out the story of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes" target="_blank">Sacred Band of Thebes</a>. right but wrong. spartan homosexuality was usually timed with the stage of their training. from 7-14 they grew up in training, from 14- 21 is where they first tasted actual battle. during this period they usually were picked by an older soldier and shown the ropes if you will, commonly these relationships evolved into sexual ones. so it was quite common, in fact mandated by law, that the grown adult soldiers were to go home every evening have sex with their preordained wives and then return to the young boy lover. so homosexuality was just to be found in stages. early and late in the warriors life. the band of thebes your talking about involved truly gay men, spartan society just was in the closet so to speak. and can i just say they used the immortals, and even mentioned how he sanctioned the 300 as his bodyguard, if they just subtracted all the crap involving the gods and his whore of a wife it wouldve been perfect.

feralBoy

03-12-2007, 01:08 PM

BrooklynKat wrote: There's lots of things they omitted but the stuff that's in there isn't bad for the type of movie that it is.  One thing that they probably couldn't mention was homosexuality. I know it's hard to believe, but those manly men, the 300 probably comprised of 150 couples. For example, check out the story of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes" target="_blank">Sacred Band of Thebes</a>. Homosexuality was not what we think of it today. For them the idea of fighting along side your lover made sense.  It made you a stronger fighter because you wanted to prove your valor to someone you cared for and had something to protect and to die for.  Maybe the US military should rethink this "don't ask don't tell" policy. <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/happy.gif" border="0" width="20" height="20" />In this particular battle, it probably wasn't the case.  Pederastry was an older man, and a young boy.  The whole point was for the young boy to learn from the older man.  Since in this battle leonidas made sure all of his 300 had a male son, chances are there were no relationships in this particular army.  But they definitely would wake up and oil themselves up naked every day.  so...

Don Stugots

03-12-2007, 01:12 PM

the movie needed more hot hard women's nipples. 

CofyCrakCocaine

03-12-2007, 01:30 PM

Yeah, most Greeks (Spartans, Athenians, Thebans, etc.) were *ahem* bi-sexual- not strictly homo.Meaning they pounded man ass and had women who basically acted like birthing vessels more than anything else at the same time. So even if Spartans had sons, they likely had gay lovers as well. Greeks believed that the most important thing in life was passing on your bloodline, so even if they found women yucky, it was their ultimate goal to have a son.

joeyballsack

03-12-2007, 01:33 PM

Who cares if it was historically accurate or not ?

How accurate was it showing the Immortals as some kind of mythical beast man or the huge troll the Persians used as a weapon ? How about portraying Ephialtes as a disfigured monster ?

phixion

03-12-2007, 01:42 PM

Who cares if it was historically accurate or not ? How accurate was it showing the Immortals as some kind of mythical beast man or the huge troll the Persians used as a weapon ? How about portraying Ephialtes as a disfigured monster ? i do. cause the reality is far greater than the mysticism. its like the battle of dunkirk, all they have to do is tell the story accurately and then add enough hollywood to make it sell. not the other way around. as for your second set of points thats adding the hollywood to the history instead of adding history to the hollywood. plus id like to see how thye explain the immortals werent really immortals just that as one died another warrior took his place including his name, so his 'legacy' lived on. hollywood cant get behind that. its very important to be historically accurate otherwise you get pearl harbor.

SouthSideJohnny

03-12-2007, 01:50 PM

If I remember the film correctly, Leonidas or the narrator said something negative about the Athenians and referred to them as "boy lovers."  It might have been right after he saw the oracle and the diseased guys.  The implication was that the Athenians were into boy love, but not the Spartans.  I realize that may not be historically correct, but that's the impression I got from the film.

feralBoy

03-12-2007, 01:58 PM

CofyCrakCocaine wrote: Yeah, most Greeks (Spartans, Athenians, Thebans, etc.) were *ahem* bi-sexual- not strictly homo.Meaning they pounded man ass and had women who basically acted like birthing vessels more than anything else at the same time. So even if Spartans had sons, they likely had gay lovers as well. Greeks believed that the most important thing in life was passing on your bloodline, so even if they found women yucky, it was their ultimate goal to have a son. I actually don't think spartans had sex with the boys.  I think if they did, they were banished or had to kill themselves.  just saying....

J.Clints

03-12-2007, 01:59 PM

I am going to see it on the I max. After hearing do talk about it I think that is the way to go. Thanks Don. You the best.

CofyCrakCocaine

03-12-2007, 01:59 PM

Well the Spartans hated the Athenians, so there could be a bunch of reasons for the boy-lover comment. Maybe because Spartans loved men, and Athens liked little boys, etc. But you may be right about it. Sparta later defeated Athens and ended the so-called Golden Age for Greece. Spartans also treated women better than Athens did theirs. Athens had Taliban-esque laws forbidding women from being seen in public- Sparta let women work alongside the men. And yeah, more people than you think cares about historical accuracy. Hollywood tends to be over the top and ruins the ability to enjoy a movie. Pearl Harbor is what happens when you take out the history and put Hollywood in its stead. Unless you really enjoyed Pearl Harbor

TheMojoPin

03-12-2007, 02:01 PM

SouthSideJohnny wrote: If I remember the film correctly, Leonidas or the narrator said something negative about the Athenians and referred to them as "boy lovers."  It might have been right after he saw the oracle and the diseased guys.  The implication was that the Athenians were into boy love, but not the Spartans.  I realize that may not be historically correct, but that's the impression I got from the film. In the ancient world, many cultures saw a big difference between a man-boy "relationship" and "gay men."  The mentor-student deal was seen more as, somewhat ironically, as being part of "becoming a man" whereas adult men who were more flamboyantly gay in general were considered less "manly."  The other main difference between the two cultures is that it's the classic clash between the more aggressive and military-minded Spartans differing with the more "artistic" culture of Athens.  The Spartans did look down on the Athenians for not being as tough or "manly" as them, and as such mocked them for being, for lack of a better term, "gay" in the sense that we see people use the term negatively today.  In that sense, the "boy lovers" insult is anaccurate.Let me put it this way...from what I've learned, the Spartans would be the "boy lovers" and the Athenians would be the "man lovers."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 3-12-07 @ 6:02 PM

phixion

03-12-2007, 02:13 PM

thye way i learned it is sex took place between men and boys. that was accepted. its considered the 'norm' that goes for athens greece and all the little ones inbetween. but once growing up to your tewnties in your 'peak' physical state your supposed to have sex with women, and then once you head into middle age it became okay to have sex with boys again. and i dont see how being gay made u less manly in ancient greece, alexander the great was a full fledged homosexual, and that guy spread hellenistic society all the way to india. the gays are tough bastards

joeyballsack

03-12-2007, 02:20 PM

I guess I am different. When I go to the movies, I am willing to let the movie maker slide a little on historical facts for the sake of good storytelling. This movie was billed as a movie based on a comic book, not a textbook so I dont fret about the historical inaccuracies in it. Pearl Harbor wasnt a bad movie because of the facts that were ignored/changed, it was a bad movie because it didnt know if it was a romance or an action flick. It ended up not doing either one them very well in the end.     

This message was edited by joeyballsack on 3-12-07 @ 6:26 PM

Don Stugots

03-12-2007, 02:22 PM

joeyballsack wrote: I guess I am different. When I go to the movies, I am willing to suspend my disbelief on historical facts for the sake of good storytelling. This movie was billed as a movie based on a comic book, not a textbook so I dont fret about the historical inaccuracies in it. Pearl Harbor wasnt a bad movie because of the facts that were ignored/changed, it was a bad movie because it didnt know if it was a romance or an action flick. It ended up not doing either one them very well in the end.   i love suspending my disbelief at the movies.  If i didnt, would i enjoy SUPERMAN so much or JAWS or ET?  no.

CofyCrakCocaine

03-12-2007, 02:26 PM

Flamboyant gayness was indeed a source of ridicule in Greek society, in spite of the 'more manly' man-on-man relations that took place all over the Greek states. To cite one example, in Aristophanes' The Frogs, Dionysus (Bacchus, whoever u want) is portrayed as being flamboyantly gay as opposed to the mighty god that drove women to madness each year and inspired fear in men. It was a statement by Aristophanes that Athens had declined so much during the war with Sparta that it's very Gods were becoming effeminate weak creatures who would rather lie around and hide than fight (Dionysus also wore yellow in the play, signifiying his cowardice). There was tough-man gaylove, and then there was womanly gay-love- boy-loving would insinuate the former. As for Sparta's policies with homosexuality, history actually knows jack shit about it because Sparta was all about military and very little else in terms of cultural memory- so its society is awash with secrecy. There are enough clues to indicate that homosexuality went on in Sparta though, and it was not banished.

CofyCrakCocaine

03-12-2007, 02:33 PM

Oh and let me get this out right now: Herodotus, and nearly all other ancient historians were typically insanely inaccurate with their facts. Herodotus was just the first historian whose writings survived to this day. He based his writings more upon being poetic than he did upon historical documents and sources, simply because there was very little of these things around in the world. It is doubtful, for instance, that the Persian army numbered even close to a million men. Rome at its peak numbered something close to a million, and that population stat was not reached again until 19th century London. Probably the most accurate contemporary historian would be Thucydides, who was an actual general in the Pelopanissian War and whose writings are dry factual records of the going ons within the Athenian empire during this conflict. He died before he got to the very end of the war.

This message was edited by CofyCrakCocaine on 3-12-07 @ 6:37 PM

CofyCrakCocaine

03-12-2007, 02:45 PM

joeyballsack wrote: I guess I am different. When I go to the movies, I am willing to let the movie maker slide a little on historical facts for the sake of good storytelling. This movie was billed as a movie based on a comic book, not a textbook so I dont fret about the historical inaccuracies in it. Pearl Harbor wasnt a bad movie because of the facts that were ignored/changed, it was a bad movie because it didnt know if it was a romance or an action flick. It ended up not doing either one them very well in the end.     This message was edited by joeyballsack on 3-12-07 @ 6:26 PM I guess we'll have to agree to disagree :)   Actually, I agree with you that suspension of disbelief is key to all these movies. Nitpicking a movie for accuracies is not fun. I like the frag grenades that make big fireballs for instance- I don't complain about how frag grenades don't do that. But ignoring history altogether, or getting it dead-wrong, can be a really damning part of a movie. Pearl Harbor was a horrible movie for a multitude of reasons. For me, it was the amount of disrespect it had towards WWII veterans and people who were there during the attack by blatantly not knowing its history and portraying the event as the staging ground for a Bad-Boys meets Dawson's Creek story. Bay sucks. Also, a WWII movie is kind of expected to have more accuracy than an ancient history setting because we have a billion historical records that tell us what went on and who was there and so on, whereas we have a couple records for ancient battles like Thermopylae.  Lastly, dry historically accurate movies would be very boring. If they showed that first major battle in Braveheart in an accurate manner, it would be alot more boring than the Hollywood version. You'd see alot of English crossing a bridge, and getting shot with arrows, rinse, spit, repeat until they retreat. Bo-oring.

TheMojoPin

03-12-2007, 02:59 PM

phixion wrote: thye way i learned it is sex took place between men and boys. that was accepted. its considered the 'norm' that goes for athens greece and all the little ones inbetween. but once growing up to your tewnties in your 'peak' physical state your supposed to have sex with women, and then once you head into middle age it became okay to have sex with boys again. and i dont see how being gay made u less manly in ancient greece, alexander the great was a full fledged homosexual, and that guy spread hellenistic society all the way to india. the gays are tough bastardsAlexander was the exception to the rule.  The general idea was that adult homosexuals (ie-they only and freely had sex with other adult men) were generally looked on as as "weaker," or however you want to put it.  They simply saw a difference between the "mentor"-sex relationships between older men and boys and two adult men actually carrying on a relationship of sorts with each other.And guys, we're not saying the movie sucks because it plays loose with its history...we're just using it as an opptortunity to discuss the history of the era.  Don't get scared just because we're not "OMG IT WUZ AWESOEM!!!111" fawning over it.

Reephdweller

03-12-2007, 03:02 PM

I really want to see this, hopefully this weekend we'll get the chance to check it out.

Dan 'Hampton

03-12-2007, 05:44 PM

So Iran can complain about 300 <a href="http://english.people.com.cn/200703/12/eng20070312_356565.html">http://english.people.com.cn/200703/12/eng20070312_356565.html</a>but doesn't have enough money to buy a nuke plant. Way too keep your priorities.

Don Stugots

03-12-2007, 05:51 PM

i think i am going to see it again tomorrow night. 

DoubleJ

03-14-2007, 04:46 PM

I saw this movie today, and I enjoyed it. That being said, I was pretty disappointed that Athens was completely slighted. I understand that the movie was about Sparta, Leonidas, and Thermopylae, but some details were worth a mention, if only briefly.

The battle was a masterpiece of geographic strategy, and the film kept the viewer completely ignorant of half of it. Did anyone wonder why the Persians didn't just sail around the Spartans with the remainder of their fleet? Themistocles and the Athenian navy occupied the strait at Artemisium. They successfully repelled the massive Persian fleet during the Spartan defense of Thermopylae.

There are plenty of other things that disappointed me, but I've written enough and no one cares anyway. I did like the movie for what it was. I was just hoping for something else.

mdr55

03-14-2007, 04:57 PM

how does it stack up to the original "300 Spartans"?

Kevin

03-16-2007, 04:57 PM

Just saw it.. Decent movie, not  as great as the hype.

Friday

03-16-2007, 05:24 PM

I reeeeely want to see this movie.  In HD or Imax preferably.  We shall see!

J.Clints

03-16-2007, 05:30 PM

Don Stugots wrote: i think i am going to see it again tomorrow night.  I am going to see it in the morning. I put posters up in the theaters and the mananger told me to come at 1100 and I could get inn free. So that is cool. My 7year old wants to see it bad too. Is there any sex or nudity in it.

Kevin

03-16-2007, 05:31 PM

dschef wrote: So Iran can complain about 300 <a href="http://english.people.com.cn/200703/12/eng20070312_356565.html">http://english.people.com.cn/200703/12/eng20070312_356565.html</a>but doesn't have enough money to buy a nuke plant. Way too keep your priorities. Well... they did depict the Persians as evil and godless.. And the leader was a coward and pretty gay... I kinda would complain, if they did that to my culture.

Don Stugots

03-16-2007, 05:40 PM

jclintsma wrote: Don Stugots wrote: i think i am going to see it again tomorrow night. I am going to see it in the morning. I put posters up in the theaters and the mananger told me to come at 1100 and I could get inn free. So that is cool. My 7year old wants to see it bad too. Is there any sex or nudity in it. YES and alot or violence.  not for the 7 year old.  get me a poster!  just kidding.

J.Clints

03-16-2007, 05:45 PM

Don Stugots wrote: jclintsma wrote: Don Stugots wrote: i think i am going to see it again tomorrow night. I am going to see it in the morning. I put posters up in the theaters and the mananger told me to come at 1100 and I could get inn free. So that is cool. My 7year old wants to see it bad too. Is there any sex or nudity in it. YES and alot or violence.  not for the 7 year old.  get me a poster!  just kidding.You want a 300 poster. I dont do em for the company that maked 300 but I can get one.I dont mind Violence for him but sex and nudity.....To many questions. I will see it and tell him about it.

Kevin

03-16-2007, 05:54 PM

jclintsma wrote: Don Stugots wrote: jclintsma wrote: Don Stugots wrote: i think i am going to see it again tomorrow night. I am going to see it in the morning. I put posters up in the theaters and the mananger told me to come at 1100 and I could get inn free. So that is cool. My 7year old wants to see it bad too. Is there any sex or nudity in it. YES and alot or violence. not for the 7 year old. get me a poster! just kidding.You want a 300 poster. I dont do em for the company that maked 300 but I can get one.I dont mind Violence for him but sex and nudity.....To many questions. I will see it and tell him about it. Yea, there is some nudity, and one sex scene, and one semi sex scene, also a hot semi naked red head doing a shimmy dance.

This message was edited by Kevin on 3-16-07 @ 9:55 PM

Don Stugots

03-16-2007, 05:55 PM

Kevin wrote: jclintsma wrote: Don Stugots wrote: jclintsma wrote: Don Stugots wrote: i think i am going to see it again tomorrow night. I am going to see it in the morning. I put posters up in the theaters and the mananger told me to come at 1100 and I could get inn free. So that is cool. My 7year old wants to see it bad too. Is there any sex or nudity in it. YES and alot or violence. not for the 7 year old. get me a poster! just kidding.You want a 300 poster. I dont do em for the company that maked 300 but I can get one.I dont mind Violence for him but sex and nudity.....To many questions. I will see it and tell him about it. Yea, there is some nudity, and one sex scene, and one semi sex scene, also a hot naked red head doing a shimmy dance. THE RED HEAD!  HOLY SHIT.  plus all the women have nips that were in ice over night.

PapaBear

03-17-2007, 04:25 PM

If you're as bored as I am right now, you can check out the true story on the History Channel.

cougarjake13

03-18-2007, 06:37 AM

this movie must be raking in some serious cash b/c everytime i look to see movie times they already sold out for most showsmaybe next weekend

BeerBandit

03-18-2007, 06:55 AM

To all those complaining about the movie and its historical innacuracies, you've got it all wrong. This film is essentially an adaptation. The dialogue, the imagery, the overall themes of the film were already presented by Frank Miller in his graphic novel. Save your criticisms for him.To judge this movie you must analyze how well the transition from ink and paper to film was made. Did Zach Snyder and his crew (actors, cameramen, effects crews) successfully bring Frank Miller's work to the big screen. I say yes. Brilliantly. I understand it may be difficult for those who were not exposed to the source material (not the source material's source material), but I believe a lot of films are unfairly judged as stand alone projects, with no thought given to their inspiration.I just really liked this film. 

This message was edited by BeerBandit on 3-18-07 @ 10:56 AM

TheMojoPin

03-18-2007, 08:25 AM

BeerBandit wrote: To all those complaining about the movie and its historical innacuracies, you've got it all wrong.OK, please show me where we were "complaining" about the film like we thought it was terrible?  Reading over the thread, I saw one person who said they prefer historical accuracy over entertainment for entertainment's sake.  If you actually read through the thread, you'd see those of us discussing the history in the film were simply using its release as a reason to talk about the history.  I don't understand why this is automatically taken as bashing of the film.  I enjoyed the film just fine...I also enjoying talking about history.  The two don't cancel each other out. To judge this movie you must analyze how well the transition from ink and paper to film was made. Did Zach Snyder and his crew (actors, cameramen, effects crews) successfully bring Frank Miller's work to the big screen. I say yes. Brilliantly.I agree, especially since I really didn't like the book at all.  Miller, to me, has sunk into a really bland brand of myopic uber-Libertarian/Ayn Rand-isms with his writing over the last decade, and "300" is the epitome of it.  The film was one of the rare cases where I think the adaptation is better than the book...it focuses on the strongest part, the pure spectacle of the battles, and puts the ham-fisted and half-baked political ramblings off to the side.  They're still there, but they're easier to ignore thanks to the glorious war-porn.I understand it may be difficult for those who were not exposed to the source material (not the source material's source material), but I believe a lot of films are unfairly judged as stand alone projects, with no thought given to their inspiration.It's not necessary for someone to have read the source material to know whether or not they like a film.  A good film stands on its own and doesn't use the source material as a crutch, and it can't help but sound more thna a little pretentious to basically say, "oh, you can't REALLY appreciate this film, YOU haven't read the book."[/quote]

BeerBandit

03-18-2007, 09:24 AM

TheMojoPin wrote: BeerBandit wrote: To all those complaining about the movie and its historical innacuracies, you've got it all wrong. OK, please show me where we were "complaining" about the film like we thought it was terrible? Reading over the thread, I saw one person who said they prefer historical accuracy over entertainment for entertainment's sake. If you actually read through the thread, you'd see those of us discussing the history in the film were simply using its release as a reason to talk about the history. I don't understand why this is automatically taken as bashing of the film. I enjoyed the film just fine...I also enjoying talking about history. The two don't cancel each other out.  To judge this movie you must analyze how well the transition from ink and paper to film was made. Did Zach Snyder and his crew (actors, cameramen, effects crews) successfully bring Frank Miller's work to the big screen. I say yes. Brilliantly. I agree, especially since I really didn't like the book at all. Miller, to me, has sunk into a really bland brand of myopic uber-Libertarian/Ayn Rand-isms with his writing over the last decade, and "300" is the epitome of it. The film was one of the rare cases where I think the adaptation is better than the book...it focuses on the strongest part, the pure spectacle of the battles, and puts the ham-fisted and half-baked political ramblings off to the side. They're still there, but they're easier to ignore thanks to the glorious war-porn. I understand it may be difficult for those who were not exposed to the source material (not the source material's source material), but I believe a lot of films are unfairly judged as stand alone projects, with no thought given to their inspiration. It's not necessary for someone to have read the source material to know whether or not they like a film. A good film stands on its own and doesn't use the source material as a crutch, and it can't help but sound more thna a little pretentious to basically say, "oh, you can't REALLY appreciate this film, YOU haven't read the book." Wow, rough hangover?OK, never said "terrible."  Perhaps "complaining" was the wrong word.  "Criticizing" may have eliminated any of the negativity that your focusing on.   Didn't say people "preferred" accuracy over entertainment, but merely that blame was placed on the movie rather than the book.  Perhaps a little nitcpicky.  And finally, I never said that you had to read the book to really appreciate it.  I agree with you that a good movie should stand on its own, but you can't tell me that it doesn't bother you when someone criticizes the cheesy lines, the over the top violence (not in this thread, but a complaint I heard), and "cartoonish" portrayal of the enemies, and don't get that it's done that way as a comic book adaptation.

TheMojoPin

03-18-2007, 09:43 AM

BeerBandit wrote:  Wow, rough hangover?OK, never said "terrible."  Perhaps "complaining" was the wrong word.  "Criticizing" may have eliminated any of the negativity that your focusing on.   Didn't say people "preferred" accuracy over entertainment, but merely that blame was placed on the movie rather than the book.All of us discussing the history aren't blaming anyone for anything.  We're pointing out how the history in the film often contrasts with what we know about what actually happened.  It's fin because we like history.  We're using the film as a springboard to have a nerdly discussion about the ancient world.Perhaps a little nitcpicky.  And finally, I never said that you had to read the book to really appreciate it.  I agree with you that a good movie should stand on its own, but you can't tell me that it doesn't bother you when someone criticizes the cheesy lines, the over the top violence (not in this thread, but a complaint I heard), and "cartoonish" portrayal of the enemies, and don't get that it's done that way as a comic book adaptation. I think a lot of that is more reflective of the book being pretty clunky and not terribly good as opposed to it being a comic book adaptation in general.  But, like I said, I wasn't that impressed with the book.  I enjoyed the movie much more.