Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Here are the trailers for a upcoming movie

300

inspired by a Frank Miller books


http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/300/trailer1/

http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/300/trailer1b/

http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/300/hd/

 : ok:

(http://movies.apple.com/trailers/wb/300/trailer2/images/header2.jpg)

The trailer looks impressing  :o
Btw. the movie/book is loosely based on a true story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae

any one esle getting a little chub from watching that trailer....???

I am  :hihi:

this movie is going to be good. looks like its true to the graphic novel as well.

wat-ever, this trailer has been out for months......ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz   There was already a thread about it too.

DUPE??!!

man, sorry :(

I love the shot where the arrows block out the sun.  Like Sin City, it looks like the movie is closely following the book...

Looks absolutely amazing. I saw the trailer in the movie theater when I saw Rocky earlier today.

If I don't see that movie in the theater, I will become very depressed and I will bite a lot of heads off! : ok:

This movie is on the IMDB's top 250 list before it's even released  :o But it sure looks awesome  :drool:

The trailers look great, I hope that they are not the  high point of the movie. but I plan to see  it, one way or the other.

I wasn't, till you started talkin' dirty...

Yeah, this movie looks killer.

I work as a manager for a theatre with an IMAX screen.  IMAX movies generally come in 2+ weeks early due to various reasons.

I watched 300 twice last week in the IMAX after hours and can't wait to see it again.  It's absolutely incredible.  It completely blew me away.

If you get a chance to see it in the IMAX format, see it!  Bigger screen, better picture quality and minimally 12,000 watts of sound.  Friggin' sweet.

300 looks excellent - Some reviewers are already claiming that it's the single most stylish movie ever made.

Thought I'd bring the thread back to the top, since it came out today (in the US, at least).  Anyone get a chance to see this one yet?

I went this afternoon, and found it to be pretty fuckin' sweet.  My three favorite things:

1.) Violence
2.) Nudity
3.) Um, did I mention violence?

Seriously, this movie kicks ass.  :headbanger: 

violence before nudity? :no:

to quote a buddy of mine after watching it on opening night.

"When I got home, I just wanted to strip down naked stand in my yard and yell.......FOR SPARTA!!!!!!!!!"

hell if a movie can make someone want to do that... its got to be great

Well, the violence far outweighs the nudity, in terms of time on film.  And, I didn't go to see nudity...it was an unexpected bonus!  :hihi:

i thought it was great, just what i was looking for, very entertaining. there were some pretty funny lines too.

EPIC!

one of the best movies visually and action wise since Lord of the Rings.

i loved it!!!

This movie gives whole new meaning to the term "underdog". beutiful movie. terrific.

I got home from seeing it an hour ago, great film  :yes:

Lots of action, no long slow, boring parts like in Alexander  :hihi:

Awesome, brutal, and mindblowingly good movie  :o So many great scenes...  King Leonidas was so badass  :smoking:

man, i hope i'm gonna like this ... i WILL GO with a good mood and expecting a GOOD movie .....

I really want to go see this on the big screen, but the last movie I forked over the cash to see was "Miami Vice" so Im scared.. :hihi:

Talk about an overreaction:

Iranians outraged over hit movie ?300?
Blockbuster depicting Persian siege called an ?obvious insult?

TEHRAN, Iran - The hit American movie ?300? has angered Iranians who say the Greeks-vs-Persians action flick insults their ancient culture and provokes animosity against Iran.

?Hollywood declares war on Iranians,? blared a headline in Tuesday?s edition of the independent Ayende-No newspaper.

The movie, which raked in $70 million in its opening weekend, is based on a comic-book fantasy version of the battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C., in which a force of 300 Spartans held off a massive Persian army at a mountain pass in Greece for three days.

Even some American reviewers noted the political overtones of the West-against-Iran story line ? and the way Persians are depicted as decadent, sexually flamboyant and evil in contrast to the noble Greeks.

In Iran, the movie hasn?t opened and probably never will, given the government?s restrictions on Western films, though one paper said bootleg DVDs were already available.

Still, it touched a sensitive nerve. Javad Shamghadri, cultural adviser to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said the United States tries to ?humiliate? Iran in order to reverse historical reality and ?compensate for its wrongdoings in order to provoke American soldiers and warmongers? against Iran.

The movie comes at a time of increased tensions between the United States and Iran over the Persian nation?s nuclear program and the Iraq war.

But aside from politics, the film was seen as an attack on Persian history, a source of pride for Iranians across the political spectrum, including critics of the current Islamic regime.

State-run television has run several commentaries the past two days calling the film insulting and has brought on Iranian film directors to point out its historical inaccuracies.

?The film depicts Iranians as demons, without culture, feeling or humanity, who think of nothing except attacking other nations and killing people,? Ayende-No said in its article Tuesday.

?It is a new effort to slander the Iranian people and civilization before world public opinion at a time of increasing American threats against Iran,? it said.

Iran?s biggest circulation newspaper, Hamshahri, said ?300? is ?serving the policy of the U.S. leadership? and predicted it will ?prompt a wave of protest in the world. ... Iranians living in the U.S. and Europe will not be indifferent about this obvious insult.?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17599641/

^ OH FOR FUCK'S SAKE!!! ITS A FUCKING MOVIE!!! You don't see Germans complaining about Saving Private Ryan, you don't see the Vietnamese complaining about Full Metal Jacket, Platoon, or The Deer Hunter! Why the fuck should Iran complain about 300!!? Jesus FUCKING Christ can you GET any more paranoid!!?

Its like some schoolkids doing a home video about something, and then when they show the rest of the kids, a few complain about it because they don't get on with the kids responsible for the video, even though the vid had really nothing to do with them.

They should grow the fuck up and if they don't like it, don't watch it!!

Idiots. Paranoid idiots! They're just using this as an excuse to start a war in "self defense".

And don't all bash me saying I'm being racist, I'm so not, but when they accuse innocent movie-makers like this, is it any wonder that people get pissed off!?

im sorry you're an idiot.

1- you cited 4 american movies. Do you watch something else?
2- do you actually screen the opinions of what other countries say?
3- not talking about 300 here, but you should know that Movies are a very tool of propaganda.
Independance day anyone?

so please.
think.

The day you'll see an Iranian movie, we'll talk.

So I'm an idiot because one movie has made a country throw a gigantic hissy-fit because it doesn't show their ancestors in a favorable light?

Movies are a form of entertainment, and yea they may make you think "hey, maybe..." or "hmm... what if...?". BUT, I still don't get why a movie about the history of a small army of Spartans holding off a massive army of Persians is such a sensitive issue.

Jeez, if they get so fucking offended by that, then why don't we just cancel Christmas, because that's sure to offend them even more... promoting the birth of Jesus like that. We should be ashamed of ourselves! And while we're doing that, why don't we burn the Iliad and the Odyssey, and every other historical book about every other war there is? Why don't we just abolish the teaching of History in schools, because we wouldn't want people thinking for themselves now would we!!?


Its. A. Movie.

i dont think we'll compare 300 to Iliad ....

i didnt see the movie yet, so i can't talk about it

but i know that movies can be a propaganda tool. they are seen by a mass. and they can map weak people's mind.

you would be surprised to see how Tv / Movies can map people's mind.

Hollywood is hardly in Bush's pocket, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.  Independence Day is propaganda?  What did I miss?  I thought it was a crappy movie about an alien attack.  Maybe it's about illegal immigration?

i wasnt talking about "bush" or the "admnistration"
just that movies ARE a tool of propaganda (way of life, values, ....)

please explain, i am just as lost as Freedom78

i know movies can be a tool for propaganda (triumph of the will anyone)?? but i totally back Skynyrdgirl on this. i think the Iranians need to grow up.

we can argue on that
i thought it was wierd to jump on their backs like that, when it WAS that stupid
and countries have always, in history, been shocked by movies
so it's nothing special ...

that's all

i didnt see the movie, i'll reserve my judgement ;)

OK, fair enough.  But I don't know that that's propaganda, as much as films reflecting the values and lives of their creators to some extent.   

They can be propaganda, but this one isn't.  It's a graphic novel representation of an historic battle.  People just read way too much into things.  After all, the ideas of heroism, tyranny, and war are hardly limited to any one time.  And as the battle is told about from the vantage of the Spartans, it shouldn't be surprising that they're portrayed as heroic.  If anyone sees this and thinks it an accurate depiction of Iranians, that's simple idiocy. 

If people want to dispute the obvious historical inaccuracies, that's fine.  But read the statements from Iran's government.  At the end of the day, the propaganda is coming from Iran.   

i can agree with you on that
and i didnt see the movie yet.

I think the real question is one of (over)reaction.  Good films sometimes make you uncomfortable, either due to changing the truth to make the story more compelling (as in 300) or in putting the spotlight on controversial topics. 

Take the Turkish film "Valley of the Wolves Iraq."  It's about the US occupation of Iraq, and features an American commander as its villain.  It also portrays an American doctor as harvesting the organs of civilian prisoners.  Oh, and, of course, he's Jewish.

The film is set in a real situation, and uses SOME real events, such as Abu Ghraib, to give it some historical context.  Then there's the plot.  Is it biased?  Obviously.  Is it racist?  Clearly. 

Should the New York Times run a front page story about the Turkish film industry declaring war on America?  Nope.  Should I go out in the streets, burn the Turkish flag, and fire an assault rifle into the air?  Probably not. 

Those would be over reactions.  Anyway, a movie's a movie.  If you're swayed by it, you're easily swayed or you wanted to be convinced of something.  I saw 300.  I do not believe that Xerxes was a 7 foot tall man-God.  He did try to conquer many places, though, so I don't see why Iran is so sensitive to the issue.

well.

1st, about that Turkish movie, there HAVE been many reaction. i can assure.
both in yours and my country.
There have been many talk about how crazy Turkish are, and how they did a racist movie and how they invented situation and portrayed americans as evil ....


Now in our countries, there are movies where heroes from our country save the world, where muslims are terrorists, and german are nazis.
where the hero is here to tell us how freedom of speech is an amazing thing and that we're lucky to have that, and how the Press and the Good Journalist always let us know who's evil.
Movies where capitalism and individualism is the key, where the Winners are the ones who worked hard.
Movies where things Happen in NYC, Paris and London (sometimes Tokyo)
Movies where everybody speaks english.


But then, we could over the real situation on teh world, the balance of power and the current dialogs bewteen iran and the west. and it has an importance.

Given the supremacy of the west on the world; i can understand that these coutnries go extreme to make their voice resonate.

Again, i didnt see 300.

but i saw Batman begins, i kinda saw some episode of 24H, i've seen x-men, i've seen many romantic comedies .... and i can assure you that PROPAGANDA is everywhere.
Propaganda of our way of life.
that is NOT THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

:)

i have to go see a Bergman movie now ;)

PEACE !

i'm gonna go on a bit of a rant there, i hate how people and critics are saying it didn't have a plot or any character development. that wasnt the point!! first off its based on a graphic novel, and second it was made to be an epic, entertaining movie, and thats what i was expecting and thats what i got. i think it was awesome.

For fuck's sake it's just a movie and based on a graphic novel(monsters, immortals and gigantic elephants anyone?) If everyone would be offended by movies like this Hollywood could might aswell put a big CLOSED sign out.  Besides if the Iranians are so pissed off, why won't they make their own movie and show the "real" history?

they do make movies :)
and FYI, the best Iranian movies are - in regards of .... - better than the best Hollywood movies ;)

anyway, back on topic.

i hope the movie is gonna be good, i just fear it's going to be an 1h30 long music video ....

Touche. Maybe you should see the movie first and realize what it's about before you make your judjment about how correct the Iranian government is.

I have a question.

Was 300 actually a good movie? Or was it a "OMG! THAT MOVIE WAS AWESOME!" movie... that really wasn't that awesome.

I'm thinking about seeing it.. but it just looks pretty stupid to me. I'm not trying to bash. I'm just wondering.

depends on what you are expecting. if you are expecting a movie with brilliant acting, that is really deep, and has a intricate plot then no its not a good movie.

i was expecting awesome battle scenes and simply to be entertained by a cool war movie and thats what i got. for what it was, it was great.

that's my fear
a movie that you forget about 2 days later

and i'm sick of people coming back with the " OMG ! LIKE it's TOTALLY AWESOME ! LIKE the best evah !! LIKE I LOVE IT !! BEST MOVIE EVER !!! SO COOL  !!! "


people have done that with

fight club
sin city
kill bill
....

and in the end we all agree they are really not that good at all.



and it's NOT about it's just an action movie... that's no escuse, there are action movies that stand test of time and that are REALLY good.


we'll see.

I don't think you can say we all agree.

300 is a great action epic movie. Will it stand the test of time? Can't say ,it might or might not. we will know in a few years.

I wouldn't say it's the best ever, but it was a cool movie, and I'm glad I saw it.  I agree that character development is sacrificed for the battle itself, but it is what it is. 

I did NOT like Kill Bill.  I thought it was silly.  I found Sin City pretty cool at first, but it gets old quickly, with each additional viewing.  I've ALWAYS liked Fight Club, though.   

Actually, I thought all three of those movies were fucking awesome. Both Kill Bills I find amazing, Sin City is a genius piece of work and I can't wait to see the next four... and Fight Club... Fight Club will always be a fantastic movie whatever anyone says about it. You can't argue with fact.

And there's no doubt I'll enjoy 300. I've not seen it yet, not having the chance to, but I've seen and read a lot about it, and I know I'll enjoy it.

Now everyone quit bitching. Just because a bunch of extremist newspaper editors didn't like it, doesn't mean they're right, and doesn't mean we can't watch it and enjoy it! :peace:

300 is fucking fantastic.

If you don't like pure adrenaline, big body counts, visual eye candy, or you have a dislike for anything remotely cool, don't see this movie... Or if you're a history buff.

And the queen was pretty hot, too.

For the record: Kill Bill, Fight Club and Sin City were brilliant. If you don't like them, or if you don't get why they're so completely awesome, you shouldn't see 300.

I just watched this movie and thought it was awesome.  I'm actually a history buff, but I enjoyed it anyway :)  Probably because most of the men were just about naked in battle (yeah not at all historically accurate there) I left the theatre wanting to kick ass.  Thankfully no one got in my way :hihi:

But you liked Apocalypto, which really wasnt that good....so opinions vary.

So, this is a take on 300 by Neal Stephenson, he wrote Snow Crash, the Diamond Age, and lots of other great books, imo.

It?s All Geek to Me
By NEAL STEPHENSON

Seattle

A WEEK ago Friday, moments before an opening-day showing of the movie ?300? at Seattle?s Cinerama, a 20-something moviegoer rushed to the front of the theater, dropped his shoulders, curled his arms into a mock-Schwarzenegger pose and bellowed out a timeless remark of King Leonidas of Sparta that has in the last week become the catchphrase of the year: ?Spartans! Tonight we dine in hell!?

Groans, roars, macho hooting noises and sardonic applause rained down on him. The audience had been standing in line for an hour. Only a few of them were dressed as Greek hoplites. They were much better balanced between men and women than I?d expected and, racially, looked like a fair cross section of Seattle?s populace. Over the next couple of hours, they enjoyed ?300? with roughly the same level of energy and audience participation as one would expect in an N.C.A.A. Final Four game.

The film contains a lot of over-the-top material, reflecting its origin in a graphic novel. As often as not, when I found myself rolling my eyes at something particularly mortifying (the tactical corpse-pile avalanche, the Persian executioner with serrated fins for arms), the crowd reacted much as I did, some even hurling catcalls from the balcony or blurting their own lines of dialogue. It was all pretty festive for a movie about ancient history in which almost all of the characters end up dead.

This, apparently, was no anomaly. Though it opened on a relatively small number of screens, ?300? made money far beyond the most optimistic projections of its producers, racking up the third-best opening weekend ever for an R-rated movie.

The critics, however, were mostly hostile, and frequently venomous. Many reviews made the same points:

? ?300? is not sufficiently ironic. It takes its themes (duty, loyalty, sacrifice, the preservation of Western civilization against enormous odds) too seriously to, well, be taken seriously.

? ?300? is campy ? meaning that many things about it can be read as sexual double entendres ? yet the filmmakers don?t show sufficient awareness of this.  ;D

? All of the good guys are white people and many of the bad guys are brown. (How this could have been avoided in a film about Spartans versus Persians is never explained; the distinctly non-Greek viewers at my showing seemed to have no trouble placing themselves in the sandals of ancient Spartans.)


But such criticisms aren?t really worth arguing with, because they are not serious in the first place ? and that is their whole point. Many critics dislike ?300? so intensely that they refused to do it the honor of criticizing it as if it were a real movie. Critics at a festival in Berlin walked out, and accused its director of being on the Bush payroll.

Thermopylae is a wedge issue!

Lefties can?t abide lionizing a bunch of militaristic slave-owners (even if they did happen to be long-haired supporters of women?s rights). So you might think that righties would love the film. But they?re nervous that Emperor Xerxes of Persia, not the freedom-loving Leonidas, might be George Bush.

Our so-called conservatives, who have cut all ties to their own intellectual moorings, now espouse policies and personalities that would get them laughed out of Periclean Athens. The few conservatives still able to hold up one end of a Socratic dialogue are those in the ostracized libertarian wing ? interestingly enough, a group with a disproportionately high representation among fans of speculative fiction.

The less politicized majority, who perhaps would like to draw inspiration from this story without glossing over the crazy and defective aspects of Spartan society, have turned, in droves, to a film from the alternative cultural universe of fantasy and science fiction. Styled and informed by pulp novels, comic books, video games and Asian martial arts flicks, science fiction eats this kind of material up, and expresses it in ways that look impossibly weird to people who aren?t used to it.

Lack of critical respect means nothing to sci-fi?s creators and fans. They made peace with their own dorkiness long ago. Oh, there was momentary discomfort around the time of William Shatner?s 1987 ?Saturday Night Live? sketch, in which he exhorted Trekkies to ?get a life.? But this had been fully resolved by 2000, when sci-fi fans voted to give the Hugo Award for best movie to ?Galaxy Quest,? a film that revolves around making fun of sci-fi fans.

The growing popularity of science fiction, the rise of graphic novels, anime and video games, and the fact that geeks can make lots of money now, have given creators and fans of this kind of art a confidence, even a swagger, that ? hard as it is for some of us to believe ? is kind of cool now.

Video games have turned everyone under the age of 20 into experts on military history and tactics; 12-year-olds on school buses argue about the right way to deploy onagers and cataphracts while outflanking a Roman triplex acies formation. The near exhaustion of Asian martial arts themes has led a small but growing number to begin reconstructing, or imagining, the forgotten martial arts of the West. And science fiction, by its nature, has had to equip itself with a full toolkit for dealing with alien cultures, mindsets and landscapes.

Which is exactly how the creators of ?300? approach the Spartans and the Persians. The only people in the film who don?t seem as if they came from another planet are the Arcadians (non-Spartan Greeks), who turn tail once the battle becomes hopeless.

Classics-based sci-fi is nothing new. To name the most recent of many examples, the novelist Dan Simmons published ?Ilium? and ?Olympos,? science-fictional takes on Homer. When science fiction tackles classical themes, the results may look a bit odd to some, but the audience ? which is increasingly the mainstream audience ? is sufficiently hungry for this kind of material (and, perhaps, suspicious of anything that?s overly polished) that it is willing to overlook the occasional mistake, or make up for it by shouting hilarious things from the balcony. These people don?t need irony or campiness self-consciously pointed out to them, any more than they need a laugh track to enjoy ?The Simpsons.?

The Spartan phalanx presents itself to foes as a wall of shields, bristling with spears, its members squatting behind their defenses, anonymous and unknowable, until they break formation and stand out alone, practically naked, soft, exposed and recognizable as individuals.

The audience members watching them play the same game: media-weary, hunkered down behind thick irony, flinging verbal jabs at the screen ? until they see something that moves them. Then they?ll come out and feel. But at the first hint of politics, they?ll jump back behind their shield-wall, just like the Spartans when millions of Persian arrows blot out the sun, and wait until the noise stops.

Neal Stephenson is the author, most recently, of ?The System of the World,? the last book of ?The Baroque Cycle? trilogy.

Thats someone who obviously doesn't recognize entertainment ^  ::)

Overtly analytical... what happened to just sitting back and enjoying a movie for what it is!?

Analysing things is fine, to a degree... but this guy just went a liiii'l bit overboard... maybe he felt guilty for not liking it and wanted to explain every point about why he didn't like it so that the people who did wouldn't jump on his back and chew his head off.

He could have just said: "I didn't like it." :hihi:

a movie is roughly

135 000 images
5400 seconds of sound

and you just "sit back and enjoy it" ?

get an ice-cream, it's cheaper and you can actually sit back and enjoy it ;)

Yes, isn't that what you're SUPPOSED to do with movies? Isn't that what they're FOR?

Pardon me ever so much for being mistaken! ::)


And yes, I'm perfectly aware about what you're supposed to do with an ice-cream.

PS: As for the 135000 images and 5400 seconds of sound... THAT'S WHAT THE CREDITS ARE FOR!!!

The Persians are mis-characterized in the movie in order to personify them as the Asian Horde. The Persians are: thieving niggers, pig fuck bitches, queers, chinks, mud people, prostitutes, brutal foreign barbarians, handicapped, misshapen people, cowards, and slaves. The Greeks play the part of White Super Man, Savior of the World, fighting for 'freedom', even though Spartans were brutal fascists who wouldn't know freedom if it bit them on the ass.

Edit: I recognize and appreciate homo-erotic Aryan Supremacy when I see it-you just don't see enough these days. Also the support for eugenics was well done. I think this will be a popular movie with prison gangs.

Whoever wrote that has no clue of what is going on. It wasn't about white and brown people. It was about Spartans and Persians. It is all about Greek history. Take a trip to Thermopyles, learn the history and then let's talk.
And the movie IS great. At least this time the people in Hollywood didn't fucked up the movie as they did with Alexander and Troy.

[/size]

what do you guys think? just saw this over at movies.com

i think we had enough nazi propaganda like that ;)

.... i'll reserve my full real rational judgment for tonite after i see the movie ;)

edit: shouldnt this be moved to the 300 thread or the movie thread? ;)

Yep - done. : ok:

Given that the vast majority of Hollywood movies have nothing more to them than a large number of images and an accompanying soundtrack, what do you suggest people do with them? Even Citizen Kane is, finally, just a well-acted, beautifully shot, expertly told story - if you aren't sitting back and enjoying it Orson would be very, very annoyed.

300 is based on a comic book. A Frank Miller comic book. If anyone goes into it expecting anything other than a visually impressive wedge of macho bravado, they have missed the point.

Some movies are just nothing more that a series of images with sounds
I dont ask people to expect more than that for 300;

Sometimes, simple/dumb/straighforward movies can hide a deeper meaning considering the moment/region they are released.

300 is one of them (apparently, i'll tell you more tomorow).
it conveys some thoughts / propaganda to the people. that can impact the moment and the current tensions in the world.


on the other hand, some movies are not simply " a series of images " ... (not even talking about CitizenKane which is just an ok  movie ;) )

Wat-ever... lighten up, because you are "totally buggin" me.

Any wider resonance attributed to 300 is being read into it by the individual. Neither the source material nor the director have the inclination or the aptitude to incite genuine political or social discussion. Isn't Zack Snyder the guy who remade "Dawn of the Dead" as a brainless action movie? And Frank Miller's most overtly political works were Batman comics (his political statement seeming to be "the right-wing media is nuts").

I'm not sure if 300 is simply being targeted because the "bad guys" are middle-eastern (and therefore it MUST be a scathing statement about modern politics!) or if the media is really so brain-dead that Miller's macho fatalism is really resonating with them at some deeper level. I enjoy Miller's work, but trying to imbue 300 with political meaning is like trying to cite Sin City as a statement about law enforcement, or vigilantism, or social decline.

The sad part is that 300 should be a big fun movie and instead is being both attacked and applauded for being something that it's not.   

The Persians are surely mis-characterized in order to personify them as COMIC BOOK VILLAINS.
I'm sure that's a terrible misrepresentation, the army which came to burn Athens to the ground was probably much less mis-shapen and muscle-bound.

That said, it's probably hard to argue that the Persians weren't considered "brutal foreign barbarians" by the Greeks. I should imagine that is exactly how they felt about them. That's how they felt about pretty much everyone. Well, everyone who wasn't Greek anyway.

I have no idea why that made me laugh so hard, but it did :hihi:

Probably because I realized afterwards... that it kinda made no sense.

I meant... the credits are there to remind people of everyone who made the movie, so therefore its OK to "sit back and enjoy" a movie... and THEN realize "hey, it took a lot of work to do that, I'm going to sit back and watch all the names on the screen scroll upwards..."

One of the things I really liked about this movie was the willingness to use actors who aren't the most famous (not that they haven't had work, but they aren't typical blockbuster actors).  It would have been far too easy to throw a Brad Pitt or Russell Crowe into the role of a Spartan.   

^ You're right!

Ooooh imagine Axl as a Spartan...... :drool:

I think that if it would have been that easy, they would have done it. I'm not sure you could sell Pitt on a comic book movie. And Crowe would probably punch you in the face for suggesting it (and then accept the job. And then punch you again.)

Those two were just random examples that popped into my mind.  And, punches notwithstanding, whether they tried to get a big name star and failed or they just didn't try matters less than the fact that the film didn't have one, and is enormously successful. 

Didn't it take something like $70 million on opening weekend? Not to be sniffed at.

If I remember correctly, when Watchmen was last being prepped (under Paul Greengrass) they were using Brad Pitt's likeness and measurements for Ozymandias' designs. I could see that working out with Greengrass at the helm, I don't think Snyder would be as attractive a prospect.

I'm sure there's some movie exec somewhere tearing his hair out over how much money 300 could have made with a big name in the lead.

No way. That exec is laughing his ass all the way to the bank. The budget was 60 million, a big named star would have shot that up to 80-85 million, plus take a huge cut of the gross. This movie would have been HURT by a big name like Pitt. This movie was hyped just on the look of it and it gathered interest. A lot of interest would have been lost once Pitts face was seen in the previews. The mystery would be gone.

We are clearly thinking of different execs. Your exec should do lunch with mine.

Probably the WORST movie I have ever seen. I thought I was at least going to see an "entertaining" action flick. I thought it would be something visually attractive and originally edited. And I was wrong.
The decors are empty. You are looking at bare-chested, oiled up, pumped up, and shaved bodybuilders for 1h 30. There are basically 4 settings. For an epic war, exotic fantasy movie, that's lame.
The fights? At least the fights will be good. After the 5th minute of slow motion, i was already bored. Watching a guy jump in the air in slow motion can only be fun for a while. Then it gets boring.
More than that, the movie itself is badly edited and cut. When the trailer was correctly executed (thanks to the NIN soundtrack), the movie lacks rhythm. The pause of "moral discussions and tribute" come too often and breaks the pace. The pace. Here again, the core of the movie, the battle, is scripted like an old school 1985 video game.

Level 1 - Enemy 1 (arab guys) arrive! fight !
Level 2 - Enemy 2 (black guys) arrive! fight !
Level 2 (bonus) - Enemy 2 - boss version arrives ! Fight
Level 3 - Enemy 3 (asian guy) ! fight !
Big Boss !

I guess if you get turned on by muscular oily men, you can appreciate it ... tells a lot about the frat boys who are fan of the genre.

Anyway, that was the FORM, the carapace.

Now let's get to the content.... That was the worst.
I am sorry, under cover all the poor battle scenes and pseudo-graphical intensity (the movie is very poor), this is unashamedly a tribute to conservative right ideology.
You really have to be blind or just “ sit back and enjoy”  NOT to see a pure apology to the War in Iraq and the situation of the USA in the world.
So – in the eyes of Frank’s Miller neocon/reactionnay - :

> Politicians are sneaky and cowards (I’m sure they are leftists). Sometimes the military have to “break some laws” in order to save the world – Guatanamo, Patriot Act … -
> Religious men are horny, ugly, pedophiles and corrupted
> Allies are cowards and poor fighters and will abandon you at the first fight.
> Pacifist (Athenians/French) are of course “philosophers and in love with of little boys” and they will die.

> The bad guys are either: arab, Japanese, asian, black, different.
> There is an ugly Spartan, who is difformed, he is rejected by his peers, and of course betray them, because white blond military men are always right.
> They are of course homosexual, wear jewelry and make up. They fight because they are evil and want to rule the world (Just like Al-quaida …).

> On the Other side, the GOOD ones, the white people – Spartan/greek/American – blond and blue eyed, fight for freedom and justice.
What makes me tick, as always, is that in the movies the Good Ones – supposed to represent the good ol’ America – are always the Few Ones.
- Spartan are 300, Persians are Millions.
- Spartan fight with simple weapons, Persians have Elephants (tanks), Magic (Rockets and Planes).
- Spartan protects their land – the fight is on their land – Persians “invade”.

Are Spartan really the Americans? Are Americans invading Iraq? Are Americans fighting on THEIR land? Who are these freedom fighters?
Hollywood – who is not very democract after all – always want to picture the USA as the few who fought the evil empire. The weak ones who, thanks to god, prevail. Is it reality? Aren’t they in reality the Big Ones, The Empire.

Don’t think it’s only a movie. Because thousands of stupid frat boys and girls will see the movie and swallow these undermeanings and ideology as truth.

The movie is bad, in and out. Vomit.


an interview of F Miller that will tell a lot you about his ideas: http://hangrightpolitics.com/2007/01/26/frank-miller-on-the-state-of-our-nation/

PEACE  :hihi:

If you look for politics in anything, your gonna find it no matter if it was intended by the artist/writer or not. 

It was not ment to be a political essay, imho.  It was ment to be bad guys vs good guys, with some betrayal and intrigue thrown in.

Go read Dr. Suess, I'm sure you'll find SOMETHING political in that.

i disagree.
This is major political propaganda. read frank miller's interview ... he IS political.

and in anyways, the movie is bad.

We agree to disagree then :)

I'm gonna buy this on DVD as soon as it comes out, personally.  I enjoyed the minimized scenery (comp generated, I'm sure) and the simple story.  I didn't think the hunchback need to be in there though, but he did offer an additional betrayal and show why the Spartans thought they needed to be so heartless toward the unfortunate.

Also, I throughly enjoyed the man bodies ;D

I tend to look at things in the simplist way possible, and feel I get more enjoyment out of them when I do.  It's also how I write my own stories.  When I try to put too much underlying meaning in them, they come out like shit.  They may be shit to everyone else anyway, but they are enjoyable to me! ;D

Well, if you don't like it that's your prerogative.  And I like your video game analogy.  Where you get the idea that this implies that "frat boys" are turned on by muscular oily men (which I'm assuming is your way of saying they're homosexuals) I do not know.


Wait...politicians AREN'T sneaky cowards?   ;D  First, most of the politicians are represented as good, honest people.  Only one is otherwise, and he isn't a "leftist."  That's your assumption. 


Umm...if this is film is a tribute to American conservatives, then this is NOT a well planned scene.  It ain't called the "religious right" for nothin'!


Looked to me like the allied forces made a smart tactical decision to retreat rather than to be outflanked and pressed from front AND back. 


The 5th century BC marked a height in Athenian culture, especially in terms of philosophy.  The Battle of Thermopylae took place in 481 BC.  The assertion that Athenians were philosophers is correct.  And ancient Greek sexual practices are fairly thoroughly studied.


The bad guys are from the Persian empire.  At that time, Persia spanned most of the Middle East, the North of Africa, and Turkey.  Most of those people aren't white.  It's just that simple.  And most won't find the depiction of hot lesbians as a problem.  :hihi: 

Next you'll be pissed because all the bad guys in "Midway" are Japanese!  Fuckin' WWII propaganda piece...


The king of Sparta had dark brown ---almost black!--- hair.  Most of the rest had brown hair, too.  I didn't notice too many blue eyes, though I must admit I wasn't really too concerned with eye color.


The fact that it was 300 against an overwhelming force, and the fact that they were somewhat successful, is what makes this a compelling story.  If anything, the Persian weaponry makes them more representative of the US than are the Spartans.


What you ask as hypothetical questions are, in fact, the weaknesses of your theory!  You think the film is a propaganda piece, that suddenly neglects a critical fact.  Bravery doesn't automatically imply that you're an American or symbolic of US policy.  It's a common theme throughout history! 


Did you get cock-blocked at a frat party?  I'm not certain why you keep making generalizations like these, as they add nothing to your argument.


Got your $7.50!

Ehe, well i thank you for your answer,
but i was not waiting for a technical response on the different on the facts BUT more on what the "average movie goers" will feel when getting the story.

Ok the Persians were black and arabs.
But the way they are presented, the way their "side" fits with the current worlwide situations, incousciouly impact our average joe.

Give me this story, 300 year s ago, it will have a different importance.
Today, it has meanings, that are sneaky and political. Read the Frank Miller interview, he is hardcore.


Then on my "open questions" on American likin to portray themselves as the "weak rebels who fights for justice and protection of invasion" when they actually are the Big Empire who invades ...

it's an interesting one. it really shows how this country, socially, incousciously, does not want to be what they are. maybe.

(There are a lot of blue eyes in the movie, but again,these little details, act deeply in peoples visions to make them feel "at home" , visually and ideologically)

yeah, sorry for the fratboys stuff, never had any problem with them ;)

I guess that my point is that the movie is MOSTLY historically accurate.  There are some exceptions: embellishment of Persian culture, lack of any naval battle, and the relationship between religion and the military are all altered from fact, but I take most of this as dramatic license. 

I certainly agree that there are interesting comparisons to be made between this film (and the real battle of Thermopylae) and current events.  But, where you see propaganda, I see a timely film that capitalizes on current events to make the film more attractive.  If anyone goes into the film as anti-Bush, and comes out pro-Bush, then I'm afraid that that person is intellectually deficient. 

I think the tendency to portray America (or the good guys) as underdogs, fighting injustice is more accurate than it first may seem.  For the early part of American history, the underdog depiction is certainly applicable, when comparing the US to world powers like England, France, or Spain (among others).  And, up through WWII, we were still a mostly isolated state.  Our wars were mostly fought in North America (WWI being the major exception).  But for Americans, our "ancient history" is only a couple hundred years, so that early underdog status still means a great deal, despite the fact that it clearly doesn't apply anymore.     

we, then, agree :)

I'd like to raise a couple of points which may be worth thinking about if you're going to argue the political message of "300".

The comic book was originally published in 1998, in a rather different political climate.
It was largely inspired by the 1962 movie "The 300 Spartans".
The themes of the story are typical of Miller's work, from "Daredevil" to "Sin City" to the "Dark Knight" comics.
Frank Miller became much more of a loud-mouthed, heavy-handed ideologist around about the same time that many other average Americans did, September '01. Yet his most talked-about "political" work pre-dates 9/11. In fact, MIller's overt attempts at political commentary stem, by his own judgment, from reading galleys of "Watchmen," back in 1986.

I think that any attempt to analyze 300 as a political statement is severely lacking if all of the above factors are not taken into account.

As a secondary exercise, it might be enlightening to compare 300 to The 300 Spartans (recently re-released on dvd), to determine just how much of 300 is Miller's perspective and how much is just a half-remembered memory of a movie he saw as a child.

I'd leave the director of 300, Zack Snyder, out of the equation. I genuinely doubt that he has the capacity to recognize, nevermind instigate, any themes or ideas which aren't front-and-center of the piece. 

Why do you care so much?

Besides, even if it WAS political...  does it matter? NO! What matters is whether you enjoy it or not. Fine if you do and fine if you don't, its a story. So what if it's been glamorized and glorified to be more suitable as a movie!? Its historical, and who bloody cares if it's inaccurate, because the more intellectual people who don't already know the real history will see the movie and think "hmm, this interests me, I'm going to find out more about it...".
The dumbasses who believe that's what really happened... ::) they're just dumbasses.

People really need to quit being so damn sensitive about un-PC issues! Black is black and white is white and Arab is Arab. If I see a movie about Spartans vs Persians, I expect to see a bunch of mostly Greek-looking people fighting a bunch of mostly Persian-looking people. I don't want to see a bunch of white guys who all look the same fight each other. That is ignorant.
Just like if I see a movie about Aliens vs Predators. I expect to see Aliens fighting Predators. I don't want the director to make the Aliens prettier. I don't want him to make the Predators prettier either. I want to see butt-ugly extra terrestrials kicking the shit out of each other... doing what they do best, and doing it brutally with lots of blood and guts and gore!

So when I see a movie like 300, which is a WAR movie. I want to see a fucking WAR movie! In war, there are no good guys and no bad guys, they're all bad guys. They all kill, wound, maim. The only difference is the reason they're doing those things. The Persians want to conquer the Spartans so they can rule all of that area of the world.

You don't complain that William the Conqueror only won the Battle of Hastings because he shot King Harald in the eye with an arrow! But of course that happened in 1066, before the word "conspiracy" even meant anything remotely suspect.

Gaaaah Nowadays if William the Conqueror had done the same thing... there'd be an inquest into whether or not his actions were suitable and whether he should be put in jail or on death row...
Meanwhile, King Harald would be getting the best treatment in hospital, and although he'd end up with a glass eye, he'd also stay alive. He'd continue to be King, and history would change. We'd probably all be speaking a different language.


Quit your whining Wat-ever. "Wat-ever" you say, its still just a movie.

Fair enough, you didn't like it, but you were looking way too hard for political propaganda.

I care, cause the movie is bad.
I care because we have enough shit on tv that dumb us down.

"I want a famous face" on MTV is harmless? i don't think so.

as 25 said, on 300

i agree these are universal themes that have been done to death in movies

but this movie stink of this disgusting mixture of extreme moral opinions, and on top of that, considering the moment we are in, the pseudo war the west is takin, it all takes a very bad taste.

but in the end, it all gets cristalysed because the movie is BAD. :)

You what? Have you been drinking? What the bloody 'ell are you on about! Don't worry though, I get the irony!, incredible historical inaccuracy in a thread that, in part, discusses historical accuracy. I get it, I get it! Not sure if it was intentional, but still. The word, urm, tangent, springs to my mind.

But what I really came to this thread to say was, I'm seeing this movie tonight. Maybe.

Conspiracy? William the Conqueror? I'm lost.

My point exactly.

Uh, no. The Persians invaded Greek territory for the purpose of razing Athens in retribution for the Athenians supporting rebels who attempted to raze a Persian city some time prior. If the Persians had wanted to annex the Greek Cities they could have done so, though retaining them would have required an act of genocide which simply wasn't the Persians' style.   

I had been drinking actually... and it was 3:30AM when I posted that... so yes, I did go off on a bit of a tangent. Sorry...

The point I was trying to get across is the fact that we take everything the TINIEST bit political so seriously these days, and it is ruining our ability to enjoy certain things. Like movies.
That was the bit about William the Conqueror... :hihi: although I'm not too sure about how a battle is as entertaining as a movie... :-/

I think its safe to say I shouldn't attempt to post long-ass intellectual rants in here when drunk, tired, and wearing a corset... :hihi:

PS: 25, yea I was wrong, and I stand corrected.

It still comes back to Persia's desire to conquer, though.  They TOOK Greek (Athenian) colonies in Turkey...it wasn't as if those colonies said, "Hey, we'd really like to join the Persian empire!"

True enough, but had Athens accepted their loses and moved on the Persians would have likely left them alone. The Athenians knew they were gambling with their lives by overtly supporting dissent against Persia and, in the end, were probably lucky that the Persians were sensible enough to recognize the Iraq-sized calamity that would have resulted from attempting to occupy the major Greek cities. I think the Athenians would have been better off leaving the Persians alone and instead addressing the looming threat of Sparta. Might have been a good idea.

Wooo! America rocks, Iran is full of gays woooooooo!

There you go, 300 summarised in one line

300 is so dumb you stay long into the end credits looking for the name ''Michael Bay'' to appear....

''now remember men, we must all die in battle because i dont have the guts just to give the Persians the superficial compliments they ask for!''

i wouldnt care if the movie came out at another time, but it really is TOO tied with current news and politics, and smells right wing ideology like nothing else.

and it's a bad movie.

the trailer was awesome, the movie is badly cut, badly edited, slow, pace is unbalanced, repetitive ... i didnt ask for Bergman's but come on ....

I just watched 300 Spartians - that was quite good.


This thread is fun.  It's making me really wanna watch this film. :hihi:

I'm sure you'll love it

you can play games like:

''how many times is the Spartan king compared to Jesus?''

''how many times can the Spartan army be comapred to the 'brave' US heros fighting 'mysticism' (islam) and 'tyranny' (Iran)?''

USA! USA! USA! USA!

Puh-lease. 300 doesn't even touch on any modern political subject! Its Spartans vs Persians. Xerxes, who is an egomaniacal asshole who thinks he's God wants to add Sparta to his list of "Countries I Have Conquered Before The Age Of 30", and turn all the women and children into his slaves, and Sparta; a free area, obviously don't want to give up their freedom.

Yea, I realize the ties between the words "freedom" and "America", but that really has nothing to do with comparing Sparta and America.

Fuck this political bullshit. Its only entertainment for fuck's sake! Leave the assholish political bullshit to the side, it has nothing to do with this film!

Have fun with your conspiring bullshitism, but don't try and get me to believe you. I don't see the ties, and I'm not buying your views.

Wat-ever, Izzy, you two are paranoid and you'd probably even try to spread your politicism all over the least threatening of movies... like Toy Story or something equally kiddie, and then you'd accuse the movie-makers of attempting to brainwash the children into being "pro-America". ::)

There's too much bullshit and paranoia around these days anyway! Can't you just drop it and leave it alone!? At this rate, the only movies you'll enjoy will be Michael Moore style "anti-propaganda" movies, or conspiracy movies on YouTube about how 9/11 was all at Bush's hand... ::) Who cares who's fault it was!? It happened and that's bad enough!! Its fucking terrible! But there's no point in pointing the blame at the easiest target because its not going to change what happened!

::) For fuck's sake. Quit picking at everything! Why make yourself and other's miserable? Enjoy your life, don't try and find fault with everything! Life ain't perfect, but you gotta make do with what you got!


On a MUCH lighter note... I enjoyed 300 a LOT, and the end made me cry. It was also very eye-pleasing indeed seeing all those ripped abdominal muscles.... :drool: :drool: :drool:
On a more critique-ish note... I thought it was all very well choreographed, the fight scenes were fantastic (especially the part where Stelios and Astinos were fighting together... probably because Michael Fassbender and Tom Wisdom are both incredibly sexy men... ;) ), and the design of the whole thing was astonishing, especially the Persian character design. The Immortals were scary, and Xerxes... although he looked totally gay... I don't think he was meant to be. He was just meant to look excessive... like a man who thinks he's God should look. Can't believe how tall he was though! If I stood next to him, my head would be level with his waist most likely... :hihi:

i thought the movie was rather good.... i went expecting a blood bath and boobs...... and i got that.... not enough boobs but i got it all the same.

SG..... though i did grasp most of your drunken rant.... it was a drunken rant... lol... but there is one thing that i ahve realised here is that there are people that will pick a fight cause the sky is blue.... not simplr because its blue but because of the shade of blue.


The thing i find funny is how because of ones education makes one no longer able to just sit and watch a movie but they have to dig through every bit of the movie and say hey because of howmany spears/arrpws are used refers to the use of bullets that kills innocent peole that have not be born......

dont make sence.... no....


people should just fuck off and enjoy a movie for being a movie and not what you want to make of it

That's what I was trying to say!

:hihi: thanks for shortening my entire drunken rant into one sentence! ;D

As for the "shade of blue" thing... if they used a certain shade of blue in a movie, people would go "Oh, but that's political because its the same shade of blue that they use as the background for the stars on the US flag!! NERRR!"

... and I can feel this is gunna turn into another long-ass rant. I'm not drunk, but I think perhaps this issue irritates me so much that I can't help BUT rant... drunk or not drunk, it doesn't matter, I'm still gunna rant because of the patheticness of SOME people!! :rant: :rant: :rant:

:hihi: I'll stop myself this time. I'm sure y'all don't want to read YET ANOTHER one.

Spoken like a true conservative.


Nah.

I thought the movie was alright. I didn't know that Dominic West was going to make an appearance though, that was a suprise. One of the complaints that I've seen here and there was the overuse of slow motion. Fair enough, there were a fair few instances when it wasn't needed, but there were also a lot of times when it was. Battle scenes, especially, otherwise you end up with choppy shit like Braveheart.

Hmm...interesting take.  I saw a show on the Discovery or History channel about the making of the film, and here's their reasoning for the slow motion.

Because Spartans train their entire lives for war, in a battle situation their preparedness would make it seem as though the battle slows down from its frenetic pace.  Without that context, however, I can see why it would be annoying. 

Braveheart, on the other hand, seems intent on showing that frenetic pace and the battlefield chaos or medieval warfare.  Since the battles are supplemental to the actual story, it's appropriate that they don't make up the bulk of the film.  In 300, though, the battle IS the story.     

 

Not really. To me, that's akin to men who like to wrestle other men. Or men who "pat man ass" in the locker room, which is... well,  ::)

its funny because historicaly the 300 spartans actually had 1000 greek soldiers fighting with them. but its much cooler in the movie  :yes:

They had about 8000 other Greek troops with them at the start and about 7/800 (Thespians) stayed to the bitter end.   

::)

after watching the movie i feel skinny and manly

Fucking dreadful.  That was the worst film i've ever paid money to see. >:(

Politics?  I doubt it's smart enough for that.  There's plenty of cheesy, cliche'd sentiment but ZERO substance in any area.  Of course it's historically inaccurate but that's not really what bothers me - it's just trivial nonesense for people who WISH they were as macho as the vacant, deluded heavyweight characters who happily choose war over peace all in the name of 'honour'. ::)  Are we supposed to amire them??  It's a stupid, homoerotic mess with no real story and no reason to exist - it just goes through the motions using every Lord of the Rings cliche available.  This film did not deserve the publicity the Iranians gave it.

Oh, and visually it looked stupid.  It didn't feel like a comic book in the way Sin City did.  It was going for style over substance, which is bad, but it didn't even pull off the style.  The architypal Hollywood special effects blockbuster. :no:

I liked it.
It included blood and some nice shot fighting scenes. BUt ofcourse as any other film of the same genre it includes a certain amount of unrealism.