[Movie] 300

I like how people are saying that this is going to be tacky when it has been rated as one of the best things about "The Grudge 2" (which is when the trailer first hit theaters)

I really love how people are saying that this is going to be tacky, yet it is shot in the same style as Sin City with color.

Quote:

Tacky photography, tacky wardrobe, tacky sets, tacky screenplay, tacky bronze g-string.

Award winning photography that was used in Sin City
Nearly historically accurate Spartan clothing for that era
Because pillars and mountain cliffs are tacky. Good Job nature, now do it right
Screenplay based off of an award winning graphic novel. Awards suck.
Because armor doesn't weigh anyone down and fighting is a fashion statement.

Main Entry: 2tacky
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): tacki·er; -est
Etymology: tacky a low-class person
1 a : characterized by lack of good breeding <couldn't run around downtown...in a bikini, which was tacky -- Cyra McFadden> b : SHABBY, SEEDY <a tacky town whose citrus groves were blighted by smoke -- Bryce Nelson>
2 : not having or exhibiting good taste: as a : marked by lack of style : DOWDY b : marked by cheap showiness : GAUDY <a tacky publicity stunt> <a tacky outfit>

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by el jacko

What if you thought Sin City's style was a gimmick designed to coverup plot, character, and direction flaws in the movie? I certainly hope this movie will be good, but the trailer doesn't give me a whole lot of hope (though in its defense it doesn't seem like a very well thought out trailer, and that is not the fault of the movie itself).

If you thought this, then you obviously know jack shit about Sin City in terms of the movie and the graphic novel.

That "gimmick" style is taken straight from the book. A black and white style with small bits of color to give it a gritty look. That's what Miller was going for.

Now your opinion on the characters is fine by me because I don't like some of them either.

Using the "gimmick" to cover up plot and directional flaws is moronic. The entire Sin City series is more then 7 books long. All they did was take three of the books and turned them into a movie. There was no directional flaws because you don't have to read the novels in order.


Ulysses, granted it looks falsely colored, they where trying to get close to Miller's book which is page after page of detailed but extremely heavily drawn with a lot of dark outlines and shadowing. I guess that's what they where trying to copy.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by el jacko

...what? I'm not comparing the movie to the comic. I don't even care about the comic that much; I just want to see a good and interesting movie. I'm acknowledging that the visual style is done to mimic the look and feel of the comics, and I don't think that's inherently a bad idea. But watching Sin City, all I saw was a visual style, with a lot of forgettable directing and absolutely terrible dialogue. It wasn't a "one or the other" sort of thing; you can have a good visual look and still have decent directing and acting and plot.

Well the directing was done by Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller taken straight from the novels. If you watch the extra stuff on the uncut edition of Sin City, they admit to having Miller direct it while they watched over the shoulder, as well as using the novels they needed the entire time to set up shots and get a directional feel on how the movie should look. As for dialogue, they where reading from the novel, not some dumb ass script that was written. Every last word came from the book or from Frank Miller telling them to say something different. When it comes to this movie, you have to compare to book because that's what they did when directing it.

Quote:

Looks gay from the trailer. And the makings-of.

Pay attention kids, this is called an opinion, everyone has them and they are killing off logical thought patterns in a timely manner. So please, hit yourself with a rock, it's better for everyone.

Quote:

You mean individually celebrated elements, when bunged together, couldn't possibly NOT make a great composition? Really?

Well from the look of things, that is the kind of stuff that has made movies box office hits over the years. Weather you like it or not the fact that these where the box office hits doesn't matter because, well that's just how the movie industry goes.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Capo

Pretty damn good movie. The slow motion walking was awesome.

Slow motion bashing Persians in the face was awesome



also, if you say this movie sucks, fuck you, go to hell, die, and then die again. This includes you film majors, just because you like movies in more than a platonic way does not make you the Academy, it just makes you pompous(yay sundance).



This is still my favorite Frank Miller work to date

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Devoxycontin

God forbid people have different movie tastes. I can see why people might not like 300 even though I do. Doesn't make them stupid or "pompous".

I dont care if they have different tastes, thats fine because my whole family doesn't like the movie. They don't like the blood and gore of it. I don't care, they can go watch Wild Hogs, it is comments like this,

Quote:

I think that because I'm a film major, my bullshit-meter has become far too sensitive.

and the pointless over analyzing and nit picking of movies that make them pompous. "useless sex scene" in the movie, how about movie adapted from award winning graphic novel. More than 80% of that movie was spot on to the graphic novel.

I will admit to it being slow and stretched in parts of the movie, but over all, it was great. Sure it was gritty, but trying to capture the look of the novel and the feel of that era, gritty is good. The way the showed Xerxes as a "king of kings, god of gods" was more than amazing. A 10 foot tall black man with a digital voice over cover in and surrounded by gold, he truly looked like a god, a perfect way to resemble Frank Miller's idea. The slow motion was ideal and my favorite part of the whole movie. Watching the ends of the battles go down in that kind of speed sort of amplified the point that Spartan warriors fought strong and hard, with out letting up. Leonidas smashing the Persian warrior with his shield at the end of the first fight is what really caught me on to the use of slow motion. Just watching how a true hand to hand battle would go down and be able to see everything was just amazing.

To say it sucks because of the way it was shot, or the actors, or some actual factor is more appropriate than because it was gritty, or cliche (name a movie with out a single cliche in it, shouldn't be hard for a film major {not directed to you Servilonus} because you would know that in "war" movies leaders don't make speeches because their wifes are at home waiting for them to save everyone.

Cliches, they are in every god damned movie and that is the problem with film students/film majors. They cant see past the small cliches to notice the huge story in front of them. I heard law school pays more.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by sprouticus

That's your opinion and I'm fine with it. Don't knock mine because you feel it's inferior to yours just because I have more knowledge about the medium. Grow up.

Now you say you have more knowledge of this medium, but the problem is, that this is not just one medium. It is a merge of them, like all other comic based movies, but it is not one single medium. Weather you have more knowldge over me or any other person could be debated since it does not take much to obsessivly watch movies to the point where you can bitch about the kind of lens used to shoot it in. Don't flaunt that you know more about something than others, because that just makes you a douche, and I hate to say it, but there is always someone that will know more. Jumping to the conclusion that I don't know as much as you is the reason that you sir should grow up.

Quote:

Again, your opinion. Which is fine, just stop preaching it to me like it's fact. Personally, I thought Xerces looked great, but I don't think a tall, gold-covered Prince lookalike like him would have been able to lead any armies, except for maybe an army of Persian cock into his tight ass.

I also thought the voice was so poorly handled at times that, like the clichés, it took me out of the movie. But that's just me.

Well it is your opinon that you do not think he could lead an army. It is in Frank Miller's opinion that he could, seeing as he drew that character and agreed with the chracter design for the movie. I again hate to say it, but I do beleive in the natural world, the creator's opinion has a higher value than your's no matter how much schooling you have.

Quote:

Yeah, I thought the fighting was good too. Where did I say it wasn't? It's the slow motion that bothered me.

Well here now I can question if you even watched the movie. See the slow motion and fighting a fused together in this movie. The fighting is good, I agree, but with out the slow motion, you would not have seen as much fighting. Take Saving Private Ryan for example. Alot of fast paced action to keep you attacted to what the war was like. The problem, all of that action at that speed left alot of the battles with week content. Had more left to be desired. The slow motion in 300 gave all veiwers the chance to actually see the battle instead of just swords, shields, and blood flashing around. Showing the battles with out slow motion would have just left us with watching a bunch of guys swinging at each other with no real way to tell what was actually going on within the fight. As well as mentioned before, the use of it also allowed to show some of the more iconic stances that Leonidas made with in the comic itself, with out having to take away from the movie.

Quote:

This is where your obvious case of down syndrome comes into play. Where in my posts did I say I didn't like it because it was "gritty?" I didn't say that anywhere. If anything, that was a positive aspect of the film.

- Awesome visuals, though on some shots you can see some digital grain. Not a huge deal, but just something I nitpicked.

Nit picking the digital grain that they wanted in the film in the first place (just watch ICONs: Frank Miller and they make the same statement) seems very close to saying you didnt like it because it was gritty.

Quote:

The fact that you feel that "the way it was shot, or the actors" are actual factors as to why a movie sucks really shows just how much you don't know about movies. That's fine though. Not all people know about films like me and other majors do. You can go ahead and go see movies like 300 and enjoy them. You like your shitty movies, and I'll like my shitty movies. Different strokes, man.

Now I like the end of this where you state that we both can like different movies and think they are equally as shitty. Now, the fact that I feel actors and the way a movie is shot does not mean I do not know as much as you and other film majors. It just states that I prefer watching a visually beautiful movie with great dialogue, that I would like good actors playing the parts and directors that know that they are doing to go with it. A cleverly scripted 70's porn might get it for you, but I am a little past Deepthroat. Again as I said before, don't automatically think that your film major gives your comments and opions more weight, it just gives you a title to throw around.

On a similar note, Miller himself loves how the movie turned out. If there is anyone that has the right to complain about this movie, it would be him, not us.

Also, if you dont like it that much, dont talk about it, dont watch it, and make a better version. Till then, step off the film major high horse, because it does nothing for you.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by sprouticus

Okay, what I gathered is this - You said that 300 is a combination of mediums, and that it is a faithful translation of the comic, because Frank Miller said so. Here are the problems with that statement-

Your inital response to what I said was an image of an emo kid cutting himself, is it that hard to accept that someone can actually disagree with you and give decent reasons why?

Quote:

A film is a film. The end. No matter what it is based off of, be it a comic, a novel, real events, whatever, in the end it is still just a film. You don't need to be a film major to figure that out. Of course Frank Miller is happy with it - It's a near-flawless rendition of HIS comic. This is problematic because if somebody made a near-flawless rendition of my life, I too would be happy with it. Does that make it a good film? NO.

See I don't think you grasped the fact that if something is based off of another, then it is not just one medium. Like I said before, when it comes to something like this, the two merge. Yes, they are two different mediums, but why do you think people compair them to each other. Because they, like the film makers are trying to bring one medium to life with another. This would make it two different mediums, especially since those who made the movie, used the comic as a storyboard. As for Frank Miller saying it is good, well it boils down to this. It was his comic, and he thinks the director and producers didn't fuck it up and make it look like shit (Batman & Robin anyone) so there for, he would be the final say in weather the movie is perfect or not. Guess what, he thinks it is. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it a bad movie.

Quote:

300 is a film, and only a film. Therefore, it should follow the guidelines of what make a good film good. It shouldn't have limited itself strictly to the source material, because quite frankly, stuff that works well in other mediums may not work as well in a film. Look at The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy if you want a stunning example of how NOT to translate a book to film. What worked in the book did not work in the film at all.

Correction 300 is a comic that was turned into a film, completely different set of guidelines. If you don't limit yourself to the source matrerial then you might throw in something that is nothing like the source in the first place. On the note of Hitchhickers Guide, they did a pretty damned good job, but you don't seem to remeber that the book has ALOT of stuff that was not put into the movie. Your nitpicking that is the same as nitpicking 300. Also, what works in a book, is imagination, which someone had to bring it to light as a movie, weather or not it was exact to the soucre.

Quote:

300 may very well be faithful to the source material, but you could write a book on a piece of dog shit and make a film that is faithful to it. You'll still be left with dog shit in the end.

Now you are just fishing, catch me something good.

Quote:

Can we end this nonsense? Can we just both agree that I know more about how films work than you do? It may make me sound like a douche to you, but when you say you wish you could have seen more violence in Saving Private Ryan because it doesn't have slow motion like 300 makes you sound like the meathead jock that 300 was clearly aimed at.

Well I cant agree with you on this one seeing as I was a move theater projectionist for the last two years of my life. See you read, and watched, and sat on your ass studing movies to say that you know how they work. I learned how to thread a projection head from platter to platter, change out the lens from flat to scope or back, fix a brain wrap on a film when it happens. I know how to install Xenon bulbs ( they can melt off your eyelids, but you know that dont you film major) with out them going off in my face. I can fix framing and sound problems on the spot. I also know how to build up and tare down movies when they come to the theaters and when it is time for them to leave. I know how splicing frames work, and I know how to put together a trailor pack. Sir, you think you know how movies work, I have worked with movies.

Like I said, you dont like it, stick it in your ass and make something better, till then, keep your butter knife, you might need later in life.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Vestin

Using your janitorial experience doesn't validate your opinion either. Stop trying to prove who's opinion is right. I thought it was a kick ass movie. I'm not saying that the movie was kick ass because I've been a mechanic for thirty-five years and I am far more cultured than the both of you. I'm just simply stating that I thought it was cool. End of discussion, thank you.

I am not saying my opinion is right because of my experiance, in every post from sprouticus, he keeps saying that he is right because he is a film major. He even stated that he knows how movies work and that is why he "know more" All I was doing with that part was showing that I too have worked with movies in the point that I know how to actually play a movie through a projector. I was just defending myself against someone that keeps throwing their film major title around.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Diversion

Are you trying to use your ability to do a task, one that thousands of teenagers throughout the nation can also do as well, to justify any opinion on presentation on creativity? I'm not here to say your opinion is wrong, but it's an entirely foolish stance to think that using "experience" involving the avoidance of burning out your retinas will somehow make you more credible.

No, its not like that. I was using it to justify the fact that I know how movies work just as well as sprouticus. Granted it is a task that can be learned by anyone. I was just trying to make the point that throwing around a film major title doesn't automatically make you all knowing in movies. I am a game designer and I don't act like I have played every game ever made.Thats generally what sprouticus has been doing this entire thread. " I am a film major, I know more than you." Yay, that just means you watch alot of movies and will be line to become a film critic, which not alot of people like.

Jam it back in, in the dark.