300 seconds of the movie 300

[MoogleEmpMog]

Not to upset anyone's apple cart, but--a giant? An 8 or 9 foot tall man whom the Persians have to keep in chains so he doesn't kill their own, then "turn him loose" on the enemy?

I understand the movie is not even pretending at historic realism, but this was a bit much. It smacks too much of the cave troll scene in the Mines of Moria, methinks, as though the director had LOTR in his eyes.

Or as though he had an eyeful of, I don't know... the comic book that predated the LotR films?

What with it being, like Sin City, a close to shot for shot version of the comic it's based on, I'd say that's a safer bet.

For that matter, I'd say 'dangerous giant/wild man chained up by the evil forces and unleashed on the heroes' predates both Frank Miller's comic book 300 and the LotR movies. No specific scene leaps to mind, but I certainly recall seeing and reading similar setups in dozens of comics, pulpy stories and novels, video games and movies.

 

[David Howery]

No, it isn't. Think of it in mythical terms. You people griping about historical accuracy have been told at the start of this very thread that this a heavily-fictionalized movie, based only loosely on the events of that battle. So that's at least once, for all the good it did. In the movies, you can expect knights to be chivalrous, and you can expect the Wild West to be a hell of a lot more wild than it was. The point here is here to entertain the masses, not to satisfy aficionados.

uh, did you read my post? I'm not complaining about the historical accuracy in general... I'm not a stickler for such... it's just the specific example of the war rhino that makes me groan... I'll probably see this movie and buy the DVD, as I like historical movies in general... I'll just fast forward through the war rhino scene...

 

[jonathan swift]

Saw it at the midnight showing. Simply amazing and beautiful movie. And if you're complaining about the war rhino, seriously, don't. Spoilers below.

[sblock]The rhino charges the Spartans, killing a couple of Persians that get in the way. Then one of the Spartans puts a spear through it's eye at range and it dies. That's it.[/sblock]

 

[ShinHakkaider]

One thing which I also find curious is the habit that some people, such as yourself in this case, have of dropping into a thread which is about a particular subject that others are getting enthused about, to say nothing more than that they hate it. Maybe it's just me, but if there's something that I dislike or have no interest in, I don't see how throwing that opinion into a forum where people who like the subject are discussing it is at all productive or helpful in any way. But, as I said, maybe that's just me.

Nope, it's not just you.

Sometimes people just feel the need to crap all over something that they think that they won't like. It's like walking down the street and telling that guy with the bad hair cut "Hey your haircut SUCKS!!!"

Except it's the internet and you can do it in anonymity (sp?).

and there's no chance of said person getting punched in the face for being obnoxious.

Welcome to the INTERNERD!

Edit: although what crapping has gone on here has been tame compared to some of the other game related threads on EN World.

 

[Sir Brennen]

For that matter, I'd say 'dangerous giant/wild man chained up by the evil forces and unleashed on the heroes' predates both Frank Miller's comic book 300 and the LotR movies. No specific scene leaps to mind, but I certainly recall seeing and reading similar setups in dozens of comics, pulpy stories and novels, video games and movies.

And depicting enemies as giants is also common in the telling of "historical" events, such as the guy David took out with a sling, and the spies of Moses reported that Canaan was full of giants. Again, 300 is in the style of these legends, where the event is seem through a tall-tale lens to make the heroes larger-than-life, where conveying ideals is more important to the storyteller than facts.

But I think it's becoming obvious that this sort of film has to work against more modern and realistic depictions of war, such as "Saving Private Ryan" and its ilk. In addition, the film depicts the myth as told by a Spartan warrior, whose sensibilities aren't neccessarily the same as our own. Even the director said that there are scenes included to remind the viewer "Hey, these are the heroes, but they aren't us. We don't throw babies off of cliffs if we don't think they'll grow up to be good warriors." There's also the irony that here is a group of warriors battling for freedom when their own existence as a warrior culture is based entirely upon their heavy reliance on slaves.

As for those that don't like the intercut slo-mo/fast-mo... that's definitely a personal taste thing. I think it works well to convey the "Dance of Death" ideal, reinforcing the Spartan warriors' belief that battle is art, like an incredibly violent ballet, complete with it's own rythms and beats.

Maybe this whole film technique will be more palatable for the nay-sayers if it were used for a non-historical movie like the upcoming new Conan instead.

Hmmm...

 

[grimslade]

300

One thing which I also find curious is the habit that some people, such as yourself in this case, have of dropping into a thread which is about a particular subject that others are getting enthused about, to say nothing more than that they hate it. Maybe it's just me, but if there's something that I dislike or have no interest in, I don't see how throwing that opinion into a forum where people who like the subject are discussing it is at all productive or helpful in any way. But, as I said, maybe that's just me.

Posting you dislike something and pointing out reasons why is very valid and beneficial to a true discussion.
Posting six times in a thread and arguing why people who would like to go see it are buying used mud or heathen WWF monkeys is a bit much.

I am a little leery after seeing the trailer and hearing early reviews.
I'll buy the whole 'mythic retelling" of Thermopylae. It is very stylistic. The subject matter is fantastic. It is a comic book movie that stays firmly grounded to the source material.
I am worried that it is one long battle scene with little plot or character. It seems a little video gamey "Oooh we're at the War Rhino level". I realize that any battle sequence with waves of combatants will seem that way.
All in all, I will wait for Netflix for this one. Maybe its sour grapes for not being "Gates of Fire".

 

[Mistwell]

Just saw the movie for the second time (last one was over 6 months ago). Still love it.

 

[trancejeremy]

But the fact that it is based, however loosely, on a historic event, inevitably causes people to compare the film to the real event. Whether or not it's the filmmakers' intent, it's an inevitable byproduct of making a film about something that really happened. Hence my slightly jaundiced, though still interested, eye.

I dunno, though. I mean, we've had a spate of historical epics over the last 4-5 years - Kingdom of Heaven, Troy, Alexander, King Arthur, Gladiator, the Last Samurai, etc. And before that, things like Braveheart. None of them were particularly accurate historically.

I just think that a supposed "realistic" style is in vogue these days (almost Sergio Leonesque, everything is dirty and grimy and ugly and sweaty) for historical movies, not to mention, in some cases modern day political messages get thrown in as well. This on the other hand, is in its own style (other than perhaps Sin City), as well as being completely apolitical (while some have tried to insert all sorts of political stuff into it, that wasn't the intention - according to the makers, it's just being told from the point of view of the Spartans, which is somewhat alien to today's thinking).

Plus, really, while it was a historical battle, it's just on the edge of where myth becomes history, sort of a mirror image of the Trojan War (which would be on the myth side). The movie Troy sucked out all the mythological aspects of the Illiad, this pretty just does the opposite.

And even then, it still seems like it sticks to the basic story pretty well. Sure, they missed out on the other Greeks there, most notably the Thespians who also stayed and fought and died just as bravely, and it added some stuff like rhinos and giants, but other than that, it's pretty close (including how the story was told by a survivor - there actually was one who was ordered to leave due to an injury), and indeed, like stuff a Spartan version of Homer might come up with.

Indeed, that's sort of what Herodotus was doing when he wrote his Histories (on which this is based), sort of doing to the conflict between the Greeks and Persians what Homer did between the conflict between the Trojans and Achaeans. A little more historical, but that's probably because Homer didn't write it down, while Herodotus did.

 

[death tribble]

I had to see the trailer on YouTube. MTV wouldn't let me see it as I was outside the continental US.
But the trailer was good and I look forward to seeing the film as it opens in Britain on the 22nd March.

One nitpick to StormRaven. WWF became WWE some years back. WWF is now World Wildlife Fund. They had the acronym a long time before Vince MacMahon did and they won the court case to use it.