Author Topic: New Movie - 300 (Read 1753 times)

TrybalRage · « **on:** December 09, 2006, 09:52:43 AM »

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/300.html;_ylt=Aqf_NiLDit_vTawoJUe08F1fVXcA

Trailer: http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist.dll?id=1529799&sdm=web&qtw=480&qth=300

It's based on the history that 'Molon Labe' comes from - just a little magicked up from a graphic novel. Looks pretty cool.

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #1 on:** December 09, 2006, 11:26:19 AM »

Coolness

gunsmith · « **Reply #2 on:** December 09, 2006, 12:32:04 PM »

I saw the trailer at Apocalypto last night...looks good

Vodka7 · « **Reply #3 on:** December 09, 2006, 01:06:58 PM »

Some older threads on it:

http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=3288.0

http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=4580.0

Cosmoline · « **Reply #4 on:** December 09, 2006, 06:25:55 PM »

Meh. Hyped up, oiled down preening and posturing. Too much CGI nonsense, no soul at all. I prefer Milius' nod to the Spartans:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_3eXIUWzcs

Dannyboy · « **Reply #5 on:** December 09, 2006, 08:09:22 PM »

Quote from: Cosmoline on December 09, 2006, 05:25:55 PM

Meh. Hyped up, oiled down preening and posturing. Too much CGI nonsense, no soul at all. I prefer Milius' nod to the Spartans:

You prefer Conan the Barbarian to a movie that hasn't even been released yet? Despite the thought that one little part of Conan might have something to do with the same subject matter? And I stress, might.

My point is that you prefer a small part of a 20+ year old movie to a movie that is not yet released.

Cosmoline · « **Reply #6 on:** December 10, 2006, 10:08:26 AM »

Quote

My point is that you prefer a small part of a 20+ year old movie to a movie that is not yet released.

Absolutely. I've been keeping an eye on "300" and the trailer leaves no doubt that it's a bunch of CGI cartoonish nonsense. I guess if you like "graphic novels" you might like the movie, but I don't think much of them. Besides, it's overblown nonsense. Just look at it! How can you take that seriously? Almost all of it is greenscreen CGI.

Quote

Despite the thought that one little part of Conan might have something to do with the same subject matter?

No might about it. Conan's reference to "few stood against many" and the fight itself is a tip of the hat to the Spartans. I appreciate that better than some attempt to recreate it with cruddy CGI and a bunch of preening, highly sexualized limey scum. Arching their backs, screaming, yowling like monkeys. A bucket full of nonsense.

Cosmoline · « **Reply #7 on:** April 05, 2007, 12:16:19 PM »

Hilarious spoofs here:

http://community.livejournal.com/randompictures/2209617.html?page=2

LadySmith · « **Reply #8 on:** July 31, 2007, 11:49:44 PM »

The DVD came out yesterday. I got it, saw it and liked it. It's highly stylized, mostly CGI, but brutal and beautiful. The DVD I got has only the director's commentary as an extra, no deleted scenes or anything else. Now I want to add the older version(s?) to my collection.

Cromlech · « **Reply #9 on:** August 01, 2007, 01:19:45 AM »

^Yup, that's 300 alright. I went to see it in theaters, having first experienced the graphic novel/comic. It was faithful to the comics, which is what it set out to be, even if it isn't faithful to real events. Entertaining movie, I thought.

280plus · « **Reply #10 on:** August 01, 2007, 03:45:37 AM »

Quote

How can you take that seriously? Almost all of it is greenscreen CGI.

That's what I noticed in the trailers, blechhh. Is this the new thing we have to put up with? Digitized characters in our movies? Just another way to spend minmal bucks and generate maximum profit. The forum REALLY needs a headbang smiley! grin

Anyhoo, I notice in the trailer some guy is screaming about "dining in HELL this evening!!" Wouldn't you think if they were about to give their lives for Sparta in the ultimate spirit of the Spartan warrior they'd be going someplace just a bit better than hell? rolleyes

Manedwolf · « **Reply #11 on:** August 01, 2007, 03:49:18 AM »

Quote from: 280plus on August 01, 2007, 02:45:37 AM

Anyhoo, I notice in the trailer some guy is screaming about "dining in HELL this evening!!" Wouldn't you think if they were about to give their lives for Sparta in the ultimate spirit of the Spartan warrior they'd be going someplace just a bit better than hell? rolleyes

I thought it meant they were going to Waffle House. grin

280plus · « **Reply #12 on:** August 01, 2007, 03:56:55 AM »

It's gotten that bad has it? cheesy

roo_ster · « **Reply #13 on:** August 01, 2007, 04:59:53 AM »

Waffle House is not hell. Matter of fact, scattered/covered/smothered hash browns are a little slice of the other place.

Not to mention the waffles....

=====

As to CGI, it is just another technology. Used well, it adds to the movie. Used poorly, it becomes the star of the show. I am full-bore against shows where forces of nature of the actual technique is the star.

Manedwolf · « **Reply #14 on:** August 01, 2007, 05:18:29 AM »

The problem with all CG sets is that the actors have nothing to react to, and it definitely shows at times, as in Lucas' awful second trilogy.

What seems to be better is CG extended sets, where the CG takes the place of a matte painting. The actors are indeed on a real set, but a short one. The rest of the giant hangar/hall/palace/street is CG. They do, however, have nearby objects to react to.

For example, here's a CG extended set for Galactica. The foreground objects are all real, from the fullscale shuttle to the tools and walls. Beyond one of the arches is a greenscreen, and the set is digitally extended to make it look like it goes on and and on and on. The actors have real objects to relate to.

Same set. You can see the greenscreen beyond the second arch.

And the difference in Episode III. They're standing on nothing, with nothing in the background. Nothing to react to, no sightlines. It showed.

AJ Dual · « **Reply #15 on:** August 01, 2007, 06:15:06 AM »

Quote from: Manedwolf on August 01, 2007, 04:18:29 AM

And the difference in Episode III. They're standing on nothing, with nothing in the background. Nothing to react to, no sightlines. It showed.

I think it depends on the quality of the actor.

I mean, Yoda didn't have that problem in Ep III... grin

280plus · « **Reply #16 on:** August 01, 2007, 11:33:35 AM »

It'd be a better line, no? "We're dining at WAFFLEHOUSE this evening!!"

or is it, "Tonight we dine at WAFFLEHOUSE!!"

whatever...

cheesy

Bogie · « **Reply #17 on:** August 01, 2007, 05:23:09 PM »

Ah, but Sin City was pretty much ALL digital post-production... Didn't hurt that flick in the least...

And some of the new Batman stuff looks very interesting...

Mabs2 · « **Reply #18 on:** August 02, 2007, 06:12:21 AM »

Doesn't change the fact that Sin City was horrible all around.
And 300 was amazing.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #19 on:** August 02, 2007, 07:17:47 AM »

I have seen part of Sin City. It was a bit strange. I am not a huge of all the unrealism that CGI allows.

Brad Johnson · « **Reply #20 on:** August 02, 2007, 07:25:58 AM »

Quote from: mbs357 on August 02, 2007, 05:12:21 AM

Doesn't change the fact that Sin City was horrible all around.
And 300 was amazing.

I thought Sin City was incredible. Haven't seen 300 yet.

Brad

Mabs2 · « **Reply #21 on:** August 02, 2007, 09:28:43 AM »

Quote from: Brad Johnson on August 02, 2007, 06:25:58 AM

Quote from: mbs357 on August 02, 2007, 05:12:21 AM

Doesn't change the fact that Sin City was horrible all around.
And 300 was amazing.

I thought Sin City was incredible. Haven't seen 300 yet.

Brad

Really? Why?
I thought that the acting was cheesy, the voice over narration was dumb, the general plots were stupid...
The Bruce Willis parts were nice though. The big crazy guy story was silly, and the third was ok.

Brad Johnson · « **Reply #22 on:** August 02, 2007, 09:34:34 AM »

Because it was a true-to-the-vision live action version of a highly stylized comic book. So much so that they used Millers comics as the movie storyboards. The visuals, the audio, the style were all truly unique. It is a love it or hate it kind of movie. I just happen to be the former.

Brad

Manedwolf · « **Reply #23 on:** August 02, 2007, 09:37:09 AM »

I thought using single spots of color in a B&W setup was so...80's.

Seriously. That was in vogue in ad design in my marketing history book.

atomd · « **Reply #24 on:** August 02, 2007, 10:02:01 AM »

The trailer made it look like it might have been good but....I think the History Channel special on the 300 was much better than the actual movie. The movie was really silly. I had to laugh when for no apparent reason there's some mutant beast (not talking about the guy with birth defects who was exiled) and a guy with saw arms and some other imaginary creature or 2 thrown in there. Maybe I'm just too young to remember all the mutants and saw-armed guys running around. It's a shame because the basis is pretty interesting. Oh well.

News:

Author Topic: New Movie - 300 (Read 1753 times)