We went friday, the 9th, 8:00 pm show. Wow. Super impressive battle scenes. I've never seen any movie with such an interesting display of colors and art work. At times it was like watching an moving oil painting.

I hope MfM board posters enjoyed it as much as we did. Everyone in the theater was spell bound. Truly a work of art and the future of all motion pictures to follow IMO. Dont wait for dvd. This needs to be seen at IMAX or the big screen. Enjoy.

Truly a work of art and the future of all motion pictures to follow IMO. .

Glad you liked it but ... I hope not.

Glad you liked it but ... I hope not.

Why not?

Better than I thought it would be. I found Xerxes laughable as did many in the audience by the audible chuckles whenever he was on-screen. His appearance was a stylistic choice I would have made differently.

Battles were impressive if over repetitive. Again, I liked it, but I hope this isn't the future of all movies. Actors in a vacuum with total digital environments can breed detached performances ala Episodes 1, 2 and 3. Liked the cast in 300, particularly Leonidas, but I wasn't as invested as I would have been if the environments they were in had seemed more reality-based. Just my opinion and I'm sure it's in the minority.

I would question why you would feel more invested had the scenery been 'reality based' in a movie that was taken from a graphic novel? With the graphic novel being an exaggerated telling of an historical event to begin with.

The stylistic filming and the visual element gave it a feel of an animated tale, which is what was intended. I like aurora_fan's reference to a living oil painting, because that is exactly the way it looks.

Had it been more 'realistic" it would have felt like another Braveheart. This way, it felt like I was watching a tale told around a campfire, with everything brash, bold and larger than life. Definitely a must get DVD for me.

I have to agree with you on Xerxes though.. He reminded me of Ra from Stargate.

The style they chose for this movie has to do with the fact that it's based off a comic book, not actual historical events. As such, you get the "like watching a moving oil painting" imagery. I've not yet seen it, but have watched several clips and agree that it does indeed come across that way and I look forward to seeing it. Unfortunately for me, tho, I'll likely have to wait 'til it releases to DVD.... :(



EDIT: wrote this before reading yours, OSP. Agreed.

I really enjoyed it. IMO, it's like film noir and the sword-and-sandal epic had a violent clash. Something that's easily forgotten is that the story is being told as a retrospective - as Ohio said, like a story told around a campfire.

Why not?

Because I like realistic movies that tell human stories is why. Got no problem with the technology employed in Sky Captain or Sin City or 300. Got a big problem with them as "the future of all motion pictures to follow".

Sounds reasonable enough to me. I'm of the same thinking, as well. I've no problem when it fits that specific movie, but would rather not see it in EVERY movie. Imagine a movie like The Departed, Timeline, Hannibal Rising or Casino Royale as all CGI sets and backgrounds. I think those movies would have been nearly unbearable to watch, IMNSHO.

So you guys must HATE movies that use matte paintings, constructed sets, and rear projection. :rolleyes:

I LOVED it!!!

I understand the debate over the stylized presentation, but here's my two cents:

The story is being told to the Spartan Army by Dilios to get their bloodlust up for battle... And who has NEVER exaggerated when telling a war story? Xerxes eight feet tall, war-elephants 40 feet tall... To me it felt like a faithful visual depiction of the storyteller's exaggerated (propagandistic?) war story as the sole survivor.

---Da Sarge (who reminds you: Fairy Tales begin with the words, "Once Upon A Time;" War Stories begin with the words, "And This Is No S#1t...")

So you guys must HATE movies that use matte paintings, constructed sets, and rear projection. :rolleyes:No, we just don't want to see CG and greenscreen replace physical sets and locations completely. I don't think they will, because small-scale films can still use them. However, completely-CG sets seem to represent the future of big-budget blockbusters at least.

Which I wouldn't mind, as long as the script and performances were good, and kept me involved in the story. However, if I sat in the theater thinking "wow -- neat effects" or "wow -- this was done by two guys with Lightwave?" then the movie would fail, as did Sky Captain, for me at least. But nowadays, that kind of techie "wow" factor seems to sell tickets to the target demographic.

So you guys must HATE movies that use matte paintings, constructed sets, and rear projection. :rolleyes:
We're talking movies w/complete - or at least nearly so - CGI backgrounds and in-ground replacing actual location shots, dude. Don't take it personally. I have no problem w/shots that use CGI in combination w/physical location shots. I think that the Lord of the Rings trilogy is a great example of that combination. Even a combination of matte paintings - which harkens back how many centuries, or even millenia? - isn't an issue when done right. It's also usually done in combination with some sort of location or nicely detailed set, as you'll note. Even live on-stage performances use matte paintings sometimes, such as to show the New York City skyline out an apartment window.

However, I'm with SteveR in that I didn't care for Sky Captain at all because of their use of all CGI background. Most of it looked CGI which took me out of the movie in pretty much every seen.

Actors in a vacuum with total digital environments can breed detached performances


Forgive me for saying so, but I think it's a mistake to blame a poor performance on the technology utilized to capture that performance.

If twentieth century actors could negotiate the tricky transition from stage to screen I see no reason why modern performers shouldn't be able to adapt to -- or even exploit -- the technological changes brought about by digital cinema.

Any tool it can be used badly, and CGI is obviously no exception. I haven't seen 300 yet, but if the performances are "detached" I suspect the fault is that of the usual culprits, i.e. the writer, director, actor, or some combination thereof.

Digital movies aren't the wave of the future; they're the wave of the present. And just like the dreaded "talkies," they're here to stay.

Today's directors often spend too much time on the visuals and too little time helping the actors adjust to the environment by helping them with their performances.

Today's directors often spend too much time on the visuals and too little time helping the actors adjust to the environment by helping them with their performances.

Yesterday's directors did the same thing (there's a reason why Harrison Ford despises Blade Runner, and why Alfred Hitchcock was accused of treating his actors like cattle).

Depending on the subject matter, the environment of a movie can be just as important as the characters inhabiting it (watch 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and tell me the Nautilus isn't a character).

Different stories make different demands on the actors and the environment. Certain directors are predisposed to futz with atmosphere (e.g. Terry Gilliam; ever see The Hampster Factor?), but this is nothing new.

Digital cinema hasn’t been around very long, and mainstream directors are still feeling their way. In time, as they become more comfortable with the format, they’ll become more adept at using it.

Digital cinema hasn’t been around very long, and mainstream directors are still feeling their way. In time, as they become more comfortable with the format, they’ll become more adept at using it.True, but I was referring to directors who are not only comfortable with virtual sets (which is the topic under debate, I think), but embrace them and other technologies enthusiastically, often to the detriment of the actor's performances.

300- Cinema as art, but in a re-define the media kind of way. It wouldn't work for all films, but for this movie, it was perfect and I loved it!

So you guys must HATE movies that use matte paintings, constructed sets, and rear projection. :rolleyes:

Ah! Argument by extreme exaggeration and totally missing the point! Excellent!

:freak:

I was referring to directors who are not only comfortable with virtual sets (which is the topic under debate, I think), but embrace them and other technologies enthusiastically, often to the detriment of the actor's performances.

The list of directors with any significant experience in the realm of virtual cinematic environments is thus far a pretty short one -- George Lucas, Peter Jackson, Kerry Conran, Robert Rodriguez, Zack Snyder and James (Avatar) Cameron being the foremost examples.

Lucas has long been a favorite target amongst critics for his seeming ambivalence with regard to actors (particularly during the post-Graffiti years). Clearly working with actors is not the man’s favorite pastime, but I think it’s worth noting that this shortcoming is just as evident in the original Star Wars as it is in the prequel trilogy which followed (Empire being the one Star Wars film to feature uniformly decent performances).

Let’s face it; when it comes to the science-fiction/ fantasy genres performance frequently takes a back seat to FX, art direction, story, etc. Consider Forbidden Planet, Planet of the Apes, 2001, Star Wars, Blade Runner, and The Matrix. Each of these films is considered a landmark, yet none of them feature Brando caliber performances. Hell, the most beloved science-fiction character of the twentieth century is arguably James T. Kirk, and he was played by William Shatner. ;)

Agreed. Great movie.

It was a good comic to begin with,
and an even better movie.

Our local Marines are loving it.

Let’s face it; when it comes to the science-fiction/ fantasy genres performance frequently takes a back seat to FX, art direction, story, etc. Consider Forbidden Planet, Planet of the Apes, 2001, Star Wars, and The Matrix. Each of these films is considered a landmark, yet none of them feature Brando caliber performances. Hell, the most beloved science-fiction character of the twentieth century is arguably James t. Kirk, and he was played by William Shatner. ;)Heh. Point taken, sir. :thumbsup:

Forgive me for saying so, but I think it's a mistake to blame a poor performance on the technology utilized to capture that performance.


I said can, not must. I'm just recalling the actors of the new trilogy saying how difficult it could be to generate a performance, or occasionally even a conversation, in isolation on the greenscreen stage.

The sole comment that provoked the response was stating this as the future of ALL movies.

The performances in 300 are quite good all around (except for Xerxes :p ).


Ah! Argument by extreme exaggeration and totally missing the point! Excellent!

Ha, I was thinking it and then I saw you already typed it. Very good.

I'm just recalling the actors of the new trilogy saying how difficult it could be to generate a performance, or occasionally even a conversation, in isolation on the greenscreen stage.

That's why they make the big bucks. If it was easy everyone would be doing it. :)

OK you guys, "actors" are suposed to know how to ACT. Have any of you heard of "theater in the round"? Often done with no sets and few props. Or for that matter, ever heard of "animation"? Actors use no sets, props or costumes. How about "radio"..? Need I go on?

Environment should have no bearing on an actors performance. It can help but should never be a crutch. I agree with Carson, if there is a problem with the performances, don't blame the visuals for them, look elsewhere for the causes.

That's my two-bits.

OK, fine. Remove my little aside about performances. It was incidental to the main point anyway.

Back to this being the future of all movies? Works here, not everywhere. That's all I'm saying. :)

I LOVED it!! Fairy Tales begin with the words, "Once Upon A Time;" War Stories begin with the words, "And This Is No S#1t...")
Close Sarge!!! Actualy its " THERE I WAS!! No Sh..T!" :wave: :thumbsup: An ex Airborne Hooah! to all!

Im certain this is a new age of movies. Noone in the audience cared about what type technology was in play. We were in awe. Like the first Matrix movie.

I know "Creature of the Black Lagoon" is being remade. One of my favorite monster movies. Underwater scenes will look spectacular fimed in this style. I hope they take advantage of anything that will improve the "man in a suit look" I stand by my statement. At least when fantasy subjects are filmed. Its beautiful.

Yeah, but the Creech was the BEST man-in-a-suit ever! Gonna be tough to improve on.

Let’s face it; when it comes to the science-fiction/ fantasy genres performance frequently takes a back seat to FX, art direction, story, etc. Consider Forbidden Planet, Planet of the Apes, 2001, Star Wars, Blade Runner, and The Matrix. Each of these films is considered a landmark, yet none of them feature Brando caliber performances. Hell, the most beloved science-fiction character of the twentieth century is arguably James T. Kirk, and he was played by William Shatner. ;)

I agree. It's the story that matters more than anything. Everything else, including the actors, are just enablers. Getting those ideas across is what counts. :thumbsup:

Saw it today. Liked it. Time flew by anyway. For a 'Talkie'.
They did keep it interesting even though most of the movie takes place in a small 'set'.
Xerxes was ridiculous. In reality he was probably 5 foot tall, and never left Persia. But if you look at it [after the fact] as a metaphor of his might, then it is more palatable.
That misshapen guy reminded me of the Hunchback, even to the same hat he was crowned with.

No, Xerxes was there, all right. He didn't LOOK like that of course!

Did anyone see "The Tonight Show" last Monday?
He did a bit about "300" having been bootlegged already.
He said a DVD is playing in Mexico. He showed a clip.
It had a dog who was supposed to be the Taco Bell chihuahua
saying "Tonight, we dine in Hell!"

It was hilarious! :lol:

Photoshopped as well.

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l306/timelordchrono/THISISSPARTAcopy.jpg

http://i-club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=159394

so... it's out on DVD.

Not my cuppa. But ok for an online rental.

Didn't care for any of the characters. Their battle was too fantastic to be believable (to me).

Reminded me of Conan the Barbarian, and I LIKED Conan. This movie took itself too seriously.

Bought this when it came out and LOVED it! It was everything I'd heard it was and I found it quite enjoyable.


so... it's out on DVD.

Not my cuppa. But ok for an online rental.

Didn't care for any of the characters. Their battle was too fantastic to be believable (to me).

Reminded me of Conan the Barbarian, and I LIKED Conan. This movie took itself too seriously.
Well, the movie is based on a comic book, not any sort of historical records. Fully, 100% comics.

Bought this when it came out and LOVED it! It was everything I'd heard it was and I found it quite enjoyable.



Well, the movie is based on a comic book, not any sort of historical records. Fully, 100% comics.

Actually, it's a movie based on a graphic novel which was based on a movie which was based on history.

For my next act, I'll prove black is actually white and cats are actually dogs. :freak:

Based loosely!! on the actual history .
i've been reading Herodatus since i saw it and the events are pretty accurate and yes, Xerxes was with the army .
obviously though much exageration as in Xerxes height and the size of beasts etc .
i thought the movie was well done and visually stunning . as mentioned earlier , like a moving oil painting .
hb

Kinda told like Greek storytellers would have told it, eh?

Kinda told like Greek storytellers would have told it, eh?

Which I think was the point. It's myth, visualized. And visualized very stunningly, at that.

Actually, it's a movie based on a graphic novel which was based on a movie which was based on history.
Ha. Ha. Ha, hah, Sam.... :rolleyes:


;)

To me, graphic novel = comic book. I'd never seen any other movie for 300, so had no clue. And I was also meaning that it wasn't based on detailed accountings of history, seein' as there's not a lot in the way of details available. I found it to be a great movie, regardless.

For my next act, I'll prove black is actually white and cats are actually dogs. :freak:
Now that I wanna see!

With all the arms, heads, and legs getting lopped off, not to mention impalements and wall building I expected these guys to look pretty messy. After what, a day and night of fighting, they looked like they even smelled good.

With all the arms, heads, and legs getting lopped off, not to mention impalements and wall building I expected these guys to look pretty messy. After what, a day and night of fighting, they looked like they even smelled good.

Sounds kinda' gay to me.:tongue:

Steve- In actual historical accounts, the Spartans relished the final battle so much that they bathed and fixed up there hair, oiled their bodies, etc to look their best for their final glory.... Gay sounding? Maybe, but also true.

I bought it recently on Blu-ray Disc. I haven't watched it, yet. But, I am looking forward to seeing it this weekend.

Ha. Ha. Ha, hah, Sam.... :rolleyes:


;)

To me, graphic novel = comic book. I'd never seen any other movie for 300, so had no clue. And I was also meaning that it wasn't based on detailed accountings of history, seein' as there's not a lot in the way of details available. I found it to be a great movie, regardless.

"Graphic Novel" is a bit more literary, and it was presented in an unusual double-page format (the hardcover uses double-wide pages). (pretension alert! pretension alert!) ;)

Miller has said that "300" was based on the 1962 film "The 300 Spartans." So we get this weird "history --> various retellings and histories --> movie --> comic book --> movie" evolution.

The 300 Spartans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_300_Spartans
300 (comic): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300_%28comics%29
300 (movie): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300_%28film%29

As far as the actual battle goes, quite a bit is known about the exact events of the Battle of Thermopylae. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae

Quite a fascinating episode in history. And a visually stunning comic book and movie. :cool:

Steve- In actual historical accounts, the Spartans relished the final battle so much that they bathed and fixed up there hair, oiled their bodies, etc to look their best for their final glory.... Gay sounding? Maybe, but also true.

Maybe before they started, but after a hard day on the job, and a few thousand gorings, I'd expect them to be a bit mussed. Dunno if that's part of the "graphic novel" art direction or they were just short on the budget to afford chum. It seems the digital gore doesn't stick so well.

They actually cleaned up at night too. The Persians were astonished and thought the Spartans were insane for doing this. But I understand, it stands to reason that during the battle, they would have been more "mussed up".

So what kind of extras are on the DVD?

Making of, Director commentaries, comparisons of the graphic novel and movie, pretty standard stuff. The BR disc is a one disc set. The SD and HD-DVD versions have more extras.