OT: 300 anticipation

I know this forum isn't exactly the right place for it, but I thought that since we've had one thread about the movie 300 here before (and since i can't seem to find that anymore) I'd post this anyway.

For the uninitiated the movie version of Frank Miller's graphic novel '300' is being released in US cinemas later this week. If you haven't heard about the movie or novel before you should be warned that it shows a highly stylized and historically inaccurate portrayal of the battle of Thermopylai, keeping true to Miller's vision rather than Herodotos account. Anyways, here are some links:

300 seconds of 300: 5 minutes of new footage from the movie.

http://www.mtv.com/overdrive/?name=...3704&vid=136403

Theatrical trailer

http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/300/hd

"Exclusive" clip (mostly footage from the trailer)

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/300.html

Another teaser

http://www.worstpreviews.com/trailer.php?id=453&item=0

Movie stills

http://www.movieweb.com/movies/film/...9/index_hi.php

Personally I'm quite excited about this movie, more for the all-out action than any pretense of historical accuracy. With that said, i hope Snyder doesn't feel compelled to use the most ridiculous of Millers ideas

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Such as all non-Spartan greeks being a bunch of bumbling idiots when it comes to war who can't even tell which end of a sword is for holding. Or how about portraying the ephors as a bunch perverted, utterly corrupt old lepers. But i guess such complaints look silly in a movie where the spartans fight in banana hammocks and the Persian army includes rhinos and a three-ring-circus of mutants

Anyways, complaining about a lack of accuracy in this movie is quite silly as it never had that ambition.

It makes me sad that Gates of Fire didn't get on track with Willis and Clooney quick enough. Now instead of potentially having a much more accurate movie (albeit set around a fictional person), we get catarhinos and mutants and everything exaggerated by a factor of 12.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

It makes me sad that Gates of Fire didn't get on track with Willis and Clooney quick enough. Now instead of potentially having a much more accurate movie (albeit set around a fictional person), we get catarhinos and mutants and everything exaggerated by a factor of 12.

---

I agree, Gates of Fire would have been much better. But Willis and Clooney sounds like terrible casting and the makings of the wrong kind of movie. Don't get me wrong, I think they're both good actors. But it's sounds like "hey, let's throw in a couple of hollywoods biggest stars and cash in!" rather than a serious attempt to do the movie justice. Do you know who was meant to be directing it?

Hopefully this movie will be a big success (which seems likely, if you consider its close relation to Sin City) and rekindle Hollywoods interest for war movies set in ancient times. Atleast it could be a lot worse, it could be this:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0462396/

Lol, as I recall he finds three guys and woman and the legs it to Byzantium. that is, of course, if it is at all like the book.

So whats the real story anyway? Was it really just 300 spartans against a zillion persians? I was thinking about asking here, but since you brought it up...

I'm going to see it on IMAX Saturday!! I dont think that a regular screen will do it justice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

It makes me sad that Gates of Fire didn't get on track with Willis and Clooney quick enough. Now instead of potentially having a much more accurate movie (albeit set around a fictional person), we get catarhinos and mutants and everything exaggerated by a factor of 12.

---

I think its stupid they are not doing Gates of Fire. THEY SHOULD!! That way they can capitalize on the Spartan-Euphoria created by 300.

Well, didn't the progress Stone was making with Alexander ultimately doom the Dicaprio version? Maybe not such a bad thing, but the more movies set in antiquity the better in my opinion. Although 300 is not really set in antiquity. That cartoon futuristic Alexander the great series probably has about as much relation to reality as 300 does. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarardo

So whats the real story anyway? Was it really just 300 spartans against a zillion persians? I was thinking about asking here, but since you brought it up...

---

More like a few thousand greeks from various poleis (among them 300 spartans) against 100,000 persians

Here's Herodotos account:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin...t=&loc=7.205.1

And wikipedias version

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_thermopylae

Thanks aecp, interesting stuff

Gates of Fire would have been great...Well maybe...I have to admit i'm a total book snob. I usually hate the movie as oppose to the book with very few exceptions. The 300..where realism and historical accuracy doesn't seem to be the theme of the movie..Instead it looks obnoxious, gaudy, and seems like it will be a complete fantasy tale in the realm of LOTR based very loosely on something that actually occured.........

I cannot wait to see this movie!!!!

I just saw a sneak preview of the movie. As an avid EB player and as a huge fan of gates of fire here are my impressions:

Great visuals no less than I would expect from Frank Miller though, the entire movie is just beautiful to look at. The movie was extremely violent as it should be. I really liked the movie as a standalone film I had no knowledge of the comic book beforehand. The movie fell very short of my expectations though.

Here is my large list of things I didnt like if you dont want anything to be ruined before you see the movie dont read it :)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

First off I hate the barechested Spartan where the hell is his breastplate. There isn't much about the Spartan lifestyle only a short sequence at the beginning, I felt without previous knowledge the viewer would be left short. The movie gives the reason that the reason why only 300 Spartans go to fight is not because they are preparing in eventuality for Platea but because some stupid politician says that Leonidas can't take the army. Um excuse me wtf if the goddamn Spartan king says hes going to war I think the entire army follows him. Yes everyone knows it but ill say it again RHINOS wtf?? there was only one so don't worry about it too much but my wtf factor was still pretty high. The elephants as well seemed to be some sort of lord of the rings giant elephants hahah pure rediculousness not to mention we all know no elephants at Thermopylae ty Frank miller... The immortals are portrayed as some sort of demon ninja type things not the way they should've been... Frank Miller also has some sort of obsession with disfigured people sorry this just has no place in this story. When I saw the trailer I figured there would be no mention of any other greeks present at the battle, but I was wrong the Arcadians met the Spartans but they really didnt do anything the entire battle but sit there I suppose? because it only shows them in battle once. And THE WORST DAMN part of the movie is the end of Leonidas and his Spartans, c'mon any dumbass and his uncle know this part of the battle where Leonidas falls and his men fight on for a long time over the body of Leonidas, sorry doesnt happen. Leonidas pretends to kneel to Xerxes then tries to throw his spear at him and only scratches Xerxes cheek before all the Spartans are killed by arrow fire just pure gay cmon.

So yes I thought the gore was cool the visuals very cool but the storyline... might be good if you have no knowledge of the events but I don't fit into that category as im sure many of you dont either. It was worth standing in line for the sneak preview though and I am going to go see it again thursday night. But as for the rest of you go see it, maybe it will inspire you into a Koinin Hellinon campaign lol.

i thought the ephors didnt agree with the expedition at the time, and did infact disallow leonidas the army. I think he persumed they would eventually decide to send the army and went ahead with his guard.

though i dunno if im remebering this from herodotus or 300 spartans from 1962

Kind of sad its not an accurate portrayal. I'm looking at it as a "movie" rather then an accurate portrayal of the battle. Plus, me and a few friends are going to see it in IMAX...cant be that :)

Kushan

I'm really afraid me going to see it in the theater would just be a successive series of WTF!'s. Over and over and over. Sort of like my reaction when I first saw Menelaus killed at Troy by Hector. That same thing over and over. :laugh4:

I am also not a fan of the uber violent focus of Miller's work either - it might have been better for the Greeks, who really could go out and kill people to protect themselves, but for audiences today I don't get the point of a lot that I saw in Sin City. I might just go buy the Borat DVD instead of spending money on a ticket to see the 300.

As someone already stated:

300 is a motion picture visualization of Frank Miller's graphic novel 300. That novel is inspired by a lot of legends. The legend of Leonida's last stand is but one.

300 is not a motion picture about the historical battle of Termopylae. Personally I'm thankful for that.

This is one of the best movies to hit the theatres this year. But if you judge it as having anything to do with actual events you do neither yourself nor the movie any favours.

rgds/EoE

It is not the ahistoricity of Miller's graphic novel that I hated, it is the portrayal of Xerxes as the Devil from the East, of Persians as a formless mass of subhuman lemmings, of Leonidas as the Western Savior of the World etc etc that really make me sick about this work. I mean, face it, it is just a piece of shallow pro-West propaganda reiterating the myth of hordes of savage easterners and the few valiant westerners who stand at the gates of defending humanity's best hopes for the future and all that jazz.

Shallow propaganda can be fun, I admit, but I have seen that particular one played out a few too many times to be able to just sit back and enjoy it. I mean I am Greek, and I have been hearing all that since my school days. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius Nero

It is not the ahistoricity of Miller's graphic novel that I hated, it is the portrayal of Xerxes as the Devil from the East, of Persians as a formless mass of subhuman lemmings, of Leonidas as the Western Savior of the World etc etc that really make me sick about this work. I mean, face it, it is just a piece of shallow pro-West propaganda reiterating the myth of hordes of savage easterners and the few valiant westerners who stand at the gates of defending humanity's best hopes for the future and all that jazz.

Shallow propaganda can be fun, I admit, but I have seen that particular one played out a few too many times to be able to just sit back and enjoy it. I mean I am Greek, and I have been hearing all that since my school days. :P

---

It is a tale of the fight between good and evil. Because it belongs in a very specific genre of graphic novels, the good are very good and the evil are very evil. It is no accident that our villains are a faceless, grey, orkish horde. The setting could have been anything and it would have been the same, Termopylae, the Alamo, the last stand of the Iraqi guards, whatever. It does not matter.

The Persians are not "real", nor are the Spartans or anything else in that movie. Nor are they meant to be.

The real world is of course grey, but - because of the nature of graphics novels - this story is black and white. Hopefully the sheer extremism of it will make some question the validity of Leonida's ideals as well as that of the Persians, because it ends in nothing but a senseless slaughter. By painting things so black and white Frank Miller tried to make us see grey.

rgds/EoE

*I* think ole Frankie's just lost it, 'cause the last decent work of his I recall is Ronin. And that was like what, a decade ago. The Sin City series pretty much went down the tubes by the third or fourth album and that rehash of Dark Knight Returns gave me the rash. Give Me Liberty degenerated likewise after the first book.

And now some wit goes and makes a movie out of the damn 300 ? Far as I'm concerned the only value that one will ever have is of the cult/trash amusement factor variety.

It's not so much the ahistoricity that bugs me (although that's bad enough by itself - why oh why must they have barechested kung phoo movie flying fighters of doom instead of a decent portrayal of the claustrophobic and traumatic nature of phalanx combat ?), but the overall tone and execution. For the first I've always had issues with stark Goody/Evily delineations - if not for else then for the sheer lack of depth and effort they pretty much automatically inject into the plot and characterisation. For the second it tries way too hard to be Totally Awesome And Cool and ends up a vulgar, tasteless narcissistic projection that just looks like its makers applied the Can't? Fake It(tm) principle; sorta like these 'weapons'.

For the third, oh my gawd that acting sucks. Whoever the guy playing Leonidas is, his way of shouting all the time makes him look really retarded - following the already mentioned trademarked marketing slogan.

If you don't like Frank Miller, don't go see a Frank Miller movie. It really is as easy as that. :yes:

rgds/EoE

@EoE

It is hardly about Good and Evil, it is about the Democratic Enlightened West being Good and the Unenlightened Barbaric East given into worshipping mortal despots presenting themselves as gods being Evil.

I'll be forced to see the blasted trailer of the damn thing every time I go to the movies for the next few months. Dissing it for all it deserves is a good way of dealing with the trauma caused by "THIS! IS! SPARTA!":director:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lysander13

Gates of Fire would have been great...Well maybe...I have to admit i'm a total book snob. I usually hate the movie as oppose to the book with very few exceptions. The 300..where realism and historical accuracy doesn't seem to be the theme of the movie..Instead it looks obnoxious, gaudy, and seems like it will be a complete fantasy tale in the realm of LOTR based very loosely on something that actually occured.........

I cannot wait to see this movie!!!!

---

I'm going to have to second this. Well put Lysander. :2thumbsup:

Speaking of movies, has anyone heard about this movie yet? http://imdb.com/title/tt0382731/

Vin Diesel as Hannibal? I am hoping for a good semi-historical movie (best you'll get out of Hollywood)......but then I remember the disaster that was Oliver Stone's Alexander and lose hope. ~:mecry:

Favorite reviewer quote from RottenTomatoes.com:

"Fills a much-needed gap between gay porn and recruitment film."

I can't say I expect much from 300 when I look at the trailers. The problem is, as Watchman put it, it tries to be so friggin' cool. As every action movie tries that nowadays, it just comes off as corny.

Good to see Hannibal the Conqueror finally get its own IMDB entry, I was beginning to think it already got cancelled. I'm looking forward to this one and I'm actually expecting something out of it. I do wish they'd change the title though...

By the way, why don't people like Alexander? I do hope it is more than "It didn't do well in the box office". I liked it and have been trying to figure why I seem to be the only one. It's not that ahistorical, and/or hollywood type movie. The most complaints in the IMDB boards are something like "Alexander turned christian in the end!?! WTF!??", or "So gay!!". So what are your perspectives?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius Nero

@EoE

It is hardly about Good and Evil, it is about the Democratic Enlightened West being Good and the Unenlightened Barbaric East given into worshipping mortal despots presenting themselves as gods being Evil.

---

And even if you choose to view it like that you still can't see it as a comment to the comic like way news and politics are portrayed today in the media? Next thing you'll tell me Eastwood's Iwo Jima double feature is a pro-war movie.

Anyway, doesn't all this belong in some OT forum where I never stray?

rgds/EoE

Another reason I'm not as interested in 300 is this: what is the movie about? Is there a plot really? Is there going to be a lot of good character development? Is the plot going to be complex, with a resolution you didn't expect or with a well-crafted script? Or is it going to be almost only special effects with lots of violence, with a thinly veiled barbaroi=evil message? I don't have my copy of Aristotle for Screenwriters here (a terrific little book), but I can't help but follow his advice and rate most highly those works that have a good plot first and foremost, and good character development second. The productions that put the last element first, namely special effects, are those least deserving any merit. It's great if it's there and complements the other more important elements, but not if it's the sole focus. It looks much more like a music video to me instead of a movie - the type of thing you could watch to get pumped up before a football game if you're a player - designed to get you into a frenzied pitch.

As for Alexander, it's hard to craft a really good story out of a biography. The best ones usually focus on just one aspect of a person's life instead of trying to tell it all, since that can present us with a plot that constantly moves forward toward the resolution of a problem (Lawrence of Arabia picks up at a moment when there is a problem in his life, until it was resolved, and doesn't try to explain his childhood or what happened when he came back from the war - it isn't as important). Alexander tried but didn't really succeed in doing that. Relying on a lot of flashbacks just emphasized to me that they couldn't tell the story properly by moving forward and had to stop and psycho analyze earlier events to show why he made decisions that he did later in his life. That's why the Iliad is so good though - you don't have a whole retelling of the Trojan War, from the first line to the last it tells the course of a problem (Achilles gets mad) until that problem is resolved (Achilles' anger is sated).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EoE

And even if you choose to view it like that you still can't see it as a comment to the comic like way news and politics are portrayed today in the media? Next thing you'll tell me Eastwood's Iwo Jima double feature is a pro-war movie.

Anyway, doesn't all this belong in some OT forum where I never stray?

rgds/EoE

---

Well, any piece of propaganda, if for some reason we don't want to see it as such (because e.g. we think its author is above it), can be explained away as cunningly disguised satire and parody of the genre, but really there is nothing in 300 to warrant such an interpretation. There are no satirical, no comic moments that even for one instant challenge the suspension of disbelief on the part of the reader. If you can point out at least one, I might consider viewing it so, but since I have read it several times and haven't spotted anything of the sort, I highly doubt this was Miller's intention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

Another reason I'm not as interested in 300 is this: what is the movie about?

---

Bloody violence and brutal heroes, which seems to be the theme of all of Millers comics.

Quote:

---

Is there a plot really?

---

Just standard fare rehashed stuff from Gladiator and Bravheart. Die for freedom, stand up to the evil tyrant... Apparently that was all people really cared about if you go any further back than the 20th century.

Quote:

---

Is there going to be a lot of good character development?

---

Nope.

Quote:

---

Is the plot going to be complex, with a resolution you didn't expect or with a well-crafted script?

---

Nope.

Quote:

---

Or is it going to be almost only special effects with lots of violence, with a thinly veiled barbaroi=evil message?

---

Getting warmer. But I don't think one should make to much of the "evil darkies" message. It's more of a heroes vs villains. Who they were and where they from are really not the issues here.

Quote:

---

I don't have my copy of Aristotle for Screenwriters here (a terrific little book), but I can't help but follow his advice and rate most highly those works that have a good plot first and foremost, and good character development second. The productions that put the last element first, namely special effects, are those least deserving any merit. It's great if it's there and complements the other more important elements, but not if it's the sole focus.

---

I agree, but don't forget that this movie is riding on the success of Sin City and using exactly the same concept. I think this movie panders to the fans of comics to a much higher degree than any other single group.

Quote:

---

It looks much more like a music video to me instead of a movie - the type of thing you could watch to get pumped up before a football game if you're a player - designed to get you into a frenzied pitch.

---

Sounds right on the money.

As for Alexander I think it suffered from bad acting and bad storytelling.

I think this is one of those movies im going to have to be really really drunk to enjoy