Rate 300

[John Crichton]

Which brings us to my question - what does being made from a graphic novel have to do with those things?

It really only relates to the backgrounds, now that I look at it again. But I guess for some folks it could explain the odd nature of the acting & soundtrack since comic book movies still carry an unfair stigma of being cheezy and bad.

 

[Donovan Morningfire]

Which brings us to my question - what does being made from a graphic novel have to do with those things?

Becuase with rare exceptions (namely Spider-Man, the recent Batman movie, and the first Superman movie), Hollywood tends to view comic-book based movies as less than deserving of serious treatment, which in turn makes them less than stellar flicks. Execs seem to think they can toss crap up on a screen and the comic geeks will flock to it. Cases in point being Catwoman and the horror that was Batman or Robin (aka Joel Schumacher's Homoerotic Fantasy on Ice). Of course, some of these flicks end being a lot better than they should, but not many. Right now, comic book films are becoming one of Hollywood's cash cows, based largely upon the popular response to the past two Spidey films.

For some folks, saying it's based on a comic book/graphic novel is a way to say "you shouldn't be expecting Shakespeare," or that you shouldn't go see these things with high expectations of quality, either acting, action, background or story.

I agree that's not an excuse for a bad movie (cases in point again, Catwoman and B&R), because some really good stuff has come from comic books (Spidey, Batman Begins, 1st Superman flick). Could "300" have been a better flick? I certainly think so, but others think it was perfect as is. It just seems you have different tastes that a lot of us when it comes to movies.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

...(aka Joel Schumacher's Homoerotic Fantasy on Ice).

Dude! Every time you utter those names, Dread Cthulu stirs in watery tomb!

But you're right. Even though, in terms of content any number of comedies and rom-coms that come out every year are worse, they are more aptly made by Hollywood. Cheep digital effects may help curb this in the future, as in the past it cost a lot more money to make a man fly than it does today.

That said, why are people taking 300 so seriously as to be deeply angered by its flaws?

 

[John Crichton]

Dude! Every time you utter those names, Dread Cthulu stirs in watery tomb!

But you're right. Even though, in terms of content any number of comedies and rom-coms that come out every year are worse, they are more aptly made by Hollywood. Cheep digital effects may help curb this in the future, as in the past it cost a lot more money to make a man fly than it does today.

That said, why are people taking 300 so seriously as to be deeply angered by its flaws?

Cuz they see how well it's doing and it angers them. That and they just don't get why it's entertaining or can't get past their own knowledge of history.

 

[Arnwyn]

Just saw it last night - I thought it was okay, and gave it a 6 (above average).

I did find it one-trick-ponyish D), and ended up yawning and shifting in my seat a lot about three quarters of the way through. I found Xerxes to be damn cool, though.

And it was really... brown.

 

[Lewis526]

I read both. In fact, I was a history major in college.

It's worth considering that the Greeks themselves in their art depicted battle scenes that were very idealized. The human form was idealized and I've seen pottery depicting warriors wearing barely more than a helmet.

I also think it would have been really boring to watch the Spartans methodically fighting behind a shield wall in a phalanx for the whole movie. Effective, yes. Exciting to watch, I don't think so.

You and Hanson seem to agree about the similarity between this movie and pottery: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/300_fact_or_fiction.html

Sure, it was eye-candy, and I loved Leonidas' beard. But I was bored by the fighting I did see in this movie. Even with all the special effects and pageantry, it wasn't very interesting. In a movie about Thermopylae, I figured the combat itself would be somewhat different from the same old stuff you see every time you go to the theater these days. Besides that, this movie needed more fight scenes. All the standing around stabbing half-dead Persians after the fighting that we really didn't get to see much of, and all the standing around Hoo-rahing while waiting for the next wave of Persian freaks, left me hungry for more combat. The fight scenes, which were why I went to the movie in the first place, were too few and of low quality. Any Hollywood producer can chop off a manequin's head and send it spinning slow-mo through the air. Any Hollywood producer can choreograph a chaotic free-for-all melee for a few minutes out of a two hour movie. The blood and guts, which were supposed to set this movie apart, didn't have much original in them at all.

 

[Nyaricus]

Gladiator is not a movie that is shooting for a surprise ending. Heck, the title says it all: The main character is there solely to entertain the audience and die doing so.

Wow, that is actually an interesting meta-level concept you've pointed out. Very interesing, indeed.

cheers,
--N

 

[John Crichton]

Wow, that is actually an interesting meta-level concept you've pointed out. Very interesing, indeed.

cheers,
--N

Ooo! I'm all quote-y. Observations rule.

 

[Nyaricus]

Ooo! I'm all quote-y. Observations rule.

Well, it was, in my opinion, a brilliant observation. And since the majority of EN World (myself included, truth be told) doesn't visit the Media Lounge often, I might as well spread the good word

cheers,
--N

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

There was a NPR call-in program a few weeks ago about 300. It can be heard here... tonight we dine in Gehenna! To his credit, the historian who participates in the discussion knows his history and is not troubled by the movies inaccuracies.