Post by: TrybalRage on December 09, 2006, 09:52:43 AM
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.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 09, 2006, 11:26:19 AM
Post by: gunsmith on December 09, 2006, 12:32:04 PM
Post by: Vodka7 on December 09, 2006, 01:06:58 PM
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=3288.0
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=4580.0
Post by: Cosmoline on December 09, 2006, 06:25:55 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_3eXIUWzcs
Post by: Dannyboy on December 09, 2006, 08:09:22 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.
Post by: Cosmoline 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.
Post by: Cosmoline on April 05, 2007, 12:16:19 PM
http://community.livejournal.com/randompictures/2209617.html?page=2
Post by: LadySmith on July 31, 2007, 11:49:44 PM
Post by: Cromlech on August 01, 2007, 01:19:45 AM
Post by: 280plus 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! 
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?
Post by: Manedwolf on August 01, 2007, 03:49:18 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?
I thought it meant they were going to Waffle House.
Post by: 280plus on August 01, 2007, 03:56:55 AM
Post by: roo_ster on August 01, 2007, 04:59:53 AM
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.
Post by: Manedwolf on August 01, 2007, 05:18:29 AM
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.
Post by: AJ Dual on August 01, 2007, 06:15:06 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...
Post by: 280plus on August 01, 2007, 11:33:35 AM
or is it, "Tonight we dine at WAFFLEHOUSE!!"
whatever...
Post by: Bogie on August 01, 2007, 05:23:09 PM
And some of the new Batman stuff looks very interesting...
Post by: Mabs2 on August 02, 2007, 06:12:21 AM
And 300 was amazing.
Post by: MechAg94 on August 02, 2007, 07:17:47 AM
Post by: Brad Johnson on August 02, 2007, 07:25:58 AM
Doesn't change the fact that Sin City was horrible all around.
And 300 was amazing.
And 300 was amazing.
I thought Sin City was incredible. Haven't seen 300 yet.
Brad
Post by: Mabs2 on August 02, 2007, 09:28:43 AM
Doesn't change the fact that Sin City was horrible all around.
And 300 was amazing.
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.
Post by: Brad Johnson on August 02, 2007, 09:34:34 AM
Brad
Post by: Manedwolf on August 02, 2007, 09:37:09 AM
Seriously. That was in vogue in ad design in my marketing history book.
Post by: atomd on August 02, 2007, 10:02:01 AM