Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

300, The Movie

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 02:11 PM
link   
I thought you guys might want to read this article:

Iran condemns Hollywood war epic




posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Why is this post in the comics section? It is 300 the MOVIE not the graphic comic book novel we are talking about.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   
zerotime, most comics movies can be found in the comics forum. These comics movie threads may be posted in either the movies or comics forums.

In the future rather than going off topic in a thread please feel free to use this feature.

Thank you.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerotime
Why is this post in the comics section? It is 300 the MOVIE not the graphic comic book novel we are talking about.


That was sooooooo worth your time posting that wasn't it?


Mind you I guess I'm even worse replying to it. DOH! :w:

[edit on 13-3-2007 by John Nada]



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Nada

Originally posted by zerotime
Why is this post in the comics section? It is 300 the MOVIE not the graphic comic book novel we are talking about.


That was sooooooo worth your time posting that wasn't it?


Mind you I guess I'm even worse replying to it. DOH! :w:

[edit on 13-3-2007 by John Nada]


I was confused. I went to the movie section first and all I saw were 300 movie threads that had been locked by moderators who gave links that pointed to this thread that happens to be in the comics forum. But I thought it was strange for a discussion about the MOVIE 300 to be put in the COMICS section. The movie, although a good representation of the comic, should not be confused with the graphic novel comic.

I didn't realize it was going to cause such a problem. Anyway, back to the movie...

CINEMATOGRAPHY: I will be surprised if this movie is not one of the frontrunners come awards season. The CGI was simple yet the use-of-color dominate the scenes beautifully.

HISTORY: This is not a history lesson and it should not be mistaken for one. There are going to be people who hate this movie because it is not 100% accuarate. There were also people who hated Braveheart because the Battle of Stirling was not fought on a bridge in the movie. When you are telling a story it isn't always about having every detail told but it is about capturing the spirit of the moment in the story.

CHARACTERS: I would not say the characters had a lot of development. You pretty much know who you are dealing with right from the start. There were some twists and conflicts that worked well in the story.

SYMBOLS: Lots of symbolic imagery in the film. Take the deformed looking traitor for example. He symbolizes the ugliness of betrayal.

STORY: Nearly all action based. Fast paced. Good fight scenes. I thought there were some nice breaks in the action for humor and suspense. It does a pretty good job of telling the story. If someone asked me I would recommended it. But please leave your personal hangups at the door.


[edit on 13-3-2007 by zerotime]



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   
good movie...

i have seen it on imax today

i wonder why the movie made it look like sparta was the good guys...

i mean, athens was the real democracy (while sparta used a tyrannical form of government)...

that's not a huge deal though...

i also wonder why the director added "monsters" to the film and etc...

this just might be his style though...





posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by they see ALL

i also wonder why the director added "monsters" to the film and etc...


The director didn't add anything. This is an adaptation of Frank Miller's graphic novel. It isn't meant to be a reenactment, just entertainment and "David & Goliath" tale.



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Umbrax
The director didn't add anything. This is an adaptation of Frank Miller's graphic novel. It isn't meant to be a reenactment, just entertainment and "David & Goliath" tale.


true, i guess...

i knew it was an adaption and all that...





posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 10:00 PM
link   
As of course was meantioned 300 is based on Frank Millers 300 who got the idea from the movie The Spartan 300 (1962?). The monsters are all symbolic exaggerations created for a comic book style of art. An "artistic license" if you will. The story is told from the Spartan point of view so the Persians, an invading force, is thought of as monsters lead by a man who believes himself a god. I think the theme of monsters also plays into the whole Greece mythology factor and similar references to monsters can be found in Greece stories like the Iliad and the Odyssey.




[edit on 14-3-2007 by zerotime]



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerotime
As of course was meantioned 300 is based on Frank Millers 300 who got the idea from the movie The Spartan 300 (1962?).


yupp:

"The 300 Spartans"...





posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
I thought you guys might want to read this article:

Iran condemns Hollywood war epic


John Stewart on Iran Condemning the 300 Movie.




posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 09:31 PM
link   

VERY well played sir!!!!



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 02:21 PM
link   


Anyone seen this. The PG version of 300.

BRUSH YOUR TEEETH!!!

[edit on 28-3-2007 by Striker122]



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 02:31 PM
link   


That is pretty good.



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Looking forward to this in a big way.

What happened to "pathfinder" it was only on our cinema for 1 week, was it crap?



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 03:17 AM
link   
I watch this movie last week...it has to be one of my favorite movies I've ever seen. I like the old style fight type of movies...Like Troy.



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Saw it yesterday to the premiere in Denmark - Man, what a movie!!

The plot was quite thin, but hey, it got along. THe battlescenes though.. W0000t!!! O_O



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 03:36 AM
link   
Ooh, amazing movie - lots of fun to watch in the theater.

to the creator and the actors, it was a fine accomplishment.

I think my favorite scene was the mountain pass, the first time the 'assorted greeks' encounter the Spartans. The Arcadian says something about bringing more soldiers, and Leonidas takes turns asking the men from the other 'army' what they do for a living, then asks his own men..

"Spartans! What is your profession?"

Chills down my spine...

That, and the line spoken by Leonidas as he stands, surrounded by enemy dead, "there's no reason we can't be civil" - and in the foreground and background there are Spartans, possessed of an eery calm, armed with long spears, finishing off the wounded. It was brilliant...

Anyway, the controversy is ridiculous in my opinion. It's not as if the Spartans were spared criticism - their callous disregard for life was laid bare at the very opening of the movie, their government criticized (worse than the Persians), and in general, they were only sympathetic characters because of their fierceness in battle and their insane bravery.

It's not as if Sparta was made out to be some Mecca of understanding and compassion and one-world sentiment - they were portrayed as militaristic nutters. And the Athenians? "Boy-lovers."



And was Persia not hellbent on conquering EVERYTHING at the time, for power and gold and dominion over men? Were the Spartans not the greatest warriors in the world at the time? Credit where credit is due.

Frankly, I think the more honest nations are about their own history, the less eager they are to repeat their mistakes. There's no harm in having brutal ancestors - we've all got them. The real harm comes when you can clearly see the flaws of others, but fail to see the same in yourself, I think.

If one historical inconsistency pissed me off, it was the absence of Spartan slaves in the movie - they were there at the battle, why not the movie/book? The movie seems to portray the Spartans as being all about personal freedom (and they were), but they were still a slave-owning society, and Spartan slaves outnumbered Spartan citizens at the battle of Thermopylae (probably 3 -1).

It would have been a better movie, I think, if we saw the Spartan slaves fighting the Persian slaves in at least one scene, because isn't that what war in any age is about, for the most part?

Still, a very well-done and exciting piece of cinema. I'm a Persian monster, and I give it seven green thumbs up.

(Nobody is stopping the Iranian government or the Mullahs from bankrolling studios to portray Persian history differently - stop complaining and make your own movie. What's that, you're better at criticizing the work of others than you are at producing your own crystallized artistic visions? I agree, that sucks, but don't blame Frank Miller...)



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 10:24 PM
link   
I saw the film and enjoyed it - but the over use of bluescreen really did bug me, I understood what they where trying to to - but it looked a little lazy to me in some parts. Also I wish (this isn't specific to this film) that when casting for films like this (which are set in non english speaking countries) that they didn't have such a mixed set of accents! I mean, how do you get a kid with an american accent out of a scottish father and an english mother?
They;d be better of picking a cast with one accent for each tribe, or at least a bunch of actors with dodgy greek accents XD

Anyway, thats just my two-pennthe anyway - I did enjoy the film, it's nice to see a higher ratio of man-boobs to lady-boobs in a film for one hehe



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 09:41 AM
link   
i thought it was a great movie. all the fighting parts were excellent.
one of my favs.





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join