OT: 300

Well gang, I have not gone to the movies in years as they come out so fast
as rental and I put a good deal of $$$$ into my home theater setup. With
all the buzz about this movie, and the trailers making this movie look
great, as well as knowing the story for one of the great stories of all
time, I decided to go see 300 opening night. I was VERY disappointed to
put it mildly.

It has some well done visual effects, and that¹s about it. Starts with a
really poorly done CGI wolf, and gets no better from there. I wont mention
historical accuracy either, but will say the actual story of what really
happened was more than compelling enough to stick to vs total fabrication
that is this movie.

The 2 hour History Channel show was actually far more interesting.
Spartacus, also based on a true story, was a classic, Gladiator, etc, were
far better movies. So, if you just want to see some fairly cool battles
(though again, no where as good as say the battles found in Lord of the
Rings) and interesting visual effects, it¹s OK at best.

Wish I had waited until it came out as a rental.

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, Will Brink wrote:

> Well gang, I have not gone to the movies in years as they come out so fast
> as rental and I put a good deal of $$$$ into my home theater setup. With
> all the buzz about this movie, and the trailers making this movie look
> great, as well as knowing the story for one of the great stories of all
> time, I decided to go see 300 opening night. I was VERY disappointed to
> put it mildly.
>
> It has some well done visual effects, and that¹s about it. Starts with a
> really poorly done CGI wolf, and gets no better from there. I wont mention
> historical accuracy either, but will say the actual story of what really
> happened was more than compelling enough to stick to vs total fabrication
> that is this movie.
>
> The 2 hour History Channel show was actually far more interesting.
> Spartacus, also based on a true story, was a classic, Gladiator, etc, were
> far better movies. So, if you just want to see some fairly cool battles
> (though again, no where as good as say the battles found in Lord of the
> Rings) and interesting visual effects, it¹s OK at best.
>
> Wish I had waited until it came out as a rental.
>
>

That sucks, I bought tickets to see that later today )-:


--Sir Jackery

Sir Jackery <roehrig@cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, Will Brink wrote:
>
>> Well gang, I have not gone to the movies in years as they come out so fast
>> as rental and I put a good deal of $$$$ into my home theater setup. With
>> all the buzz about this movie, and the trailers making this movie look
>> great, as well as knowing the story for one of the great stories of all
>> time, I decided to go see 300 opening night. I was VERY disappointed to
>> put it mildly.
>>
>> It has some well done visual effects, and that¹s about it. Starts with a
>> really poorly done CGI wolf, and gets no better from there. I wont mention
>> historical accuracy either, but will say the actual story of what really
>> happened was more than compelling enough to stick to vs total fabrication
>> that is this movie.
>>
>> The 2 hour History Channel show was actually far more interesting.
>> Spartacus, also based on a true story, was a classic, Gladiator, etc, were
>> far better movies. So, if you just want to see some fairly cool battles
>> (though again, no where as good as say the battles found in Lord of the
>> Rings) and interesting visual effects, it¹s OK at best.
>>
>> Wish I had waited until it came out as a rental.
>
>That sucks, I bought tickets to see that later today )-:

We went to the theater last night and got there 20 minutes before the
late feature. It was already sold out.

Perhaps a good thing, but from what I have seen it does look they were
true to Miller's graphic novel. People need to keep in mind that's
what it's about. Some people didn't like "Sin City," either, but
those who liked the book had to admire the movie.

I may be a comic book geek, but we are seeing our media come into its
own through motion pictures, and we may be the only ones who can truly
appreciate the movies that are produced from graphic novels. Rumor
has it that HBO will be producing "Preacher" as a regular series, and
it looks like someone is picking up the "Watchmen" project again. I'm
anxious to see if someone will try to produce "Transmetropolitan."

Will Brink wrote:

> <snip> I decided to go see 300 opening
> night. I was VERY disappointed to
> put it mildly.

Not a man boob in the entire flick, eh?

> <snip> Starts with a really poorly done
> CGI wolf, and gets no better from there.

I'll just bet you complained about Spider-Man's CGI, too.

Frigging pests.

"Oh, I'm glad Spidey finally made it to the big screen, but the CGI
was aaaaawwwwwwwwful."

STFU!

> I wont mention historical accuracy either,

Um, you mean you won't mention it specifically? Because, hey, from my
perspective, well, that's kindasorta mentioning it, Will.

> <snip> no where as good as say the battles
> found in Lord of the Rings) <snip>

That right there? THAT's a nomination for a humour award.

Too funny.

Ever see Clerks 2, Brink?

--
Curt

John M. Williams wrote:
[...]

> <snip> from what I have seen it does look they were
> true to Miller's graphic novel. People need to keep in mind that's
> what it's about.

Kinda difficult not to keep that in mind, especially with "FRANK
MILLER'S" plastered on the movie posters.

http://www.impawards.com/2007/three_hundred.html

> Some people didn't like "Sin City," either, but
> those who liked the book had to admire the movie.

The comic served as a nearly frame for frame storyboard for the movie.
Incredible job.

> I may be a comic book geek, but we are seeing our media come into its
> own through motion pictures, and we may be the only ones who can truly
> appreciate the movies that are produced from graphic novels.

We as in comic book geeks?

Define we.

Regardless, this flick will appeal to more than just comics fans:

http://www.ctnow.com/movies/reviews/...-entertainment
aka http://tinyurl.com/36ydyw

> <snip> and it looks like someone is picking up the "Watchmen" project again. <snip>

Schwarzenegger had been tagged as Dr. Manhattan, but that was a
million years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmen

The Ahnuld trivia's in there, plus a whole lot more.

Plus, comics fan or not, The Watchmen is a book for anyone who enjoys
a good read.

--
Curt

In article <5eo6v296vku29g93muit74j7f435cdo68g@4ax.com>, JMW
<jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:

> >That sucks, I bought tickets to see that later today )-:
>
> We went to the theater last night and got there 20 minutes before the
> late feature. It was already sold out.
>
> Perhaps a good thing, but from what I have seen it does look they were
> true to Miller's graphic novel. People need to keep in mind that's
> what it's about. Some people didn't like "Sin City," either, but
> those who liked the book had to admire the movie.

You make a good point. I was not a big fan if Sin City either. It was fine
as a rental and not a bad movie, just nothing special and I would have
been pissed if I had spent $10-12 on it and sat in a theater to see it.

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural

In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0703101441390.5828@pc25.cs.ucdavis. edu>, Sir
Jackery <roehrig@cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:

> >
> >
>
> That sucks, I bought tickets to see that later today )-:

Well who knows, you might think it's great. Depends on what you expect
from, and like in, the movies you see. Let us know what you think. Might
be 180 degree different from me. I tend to be very hard on movies. If they
take millions to make and time and $$$ from me to see, they should not
suck. I can say the other movies I listed, if you are a fan of the genre,
were far better movies.

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Will Brink wrote:

> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0703101441390.5828@pc25.cs.ucdavis. edu>, Sir
> Jackery <roehrig@cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That sucks, I bought tickets to see that later today )-:
>
> Well who knows, you might think it's great. Depends on what you expect
> from, and like in, the movies you see. Let us know what you think. Might
> be 180 degree different from me. I tend to be very hard on movies. If they
> take millions to make and time and $$$ from me to see, they should not
> suck. I can say the other movies I listed, if you are a fan of the genre,
> were far better movies.

IMO it wasn't terrific, but at least they didn't cloud up the gore and
action with a boring plot. After taking 4 film classes I practically have
a minor. That being said, I did enjoy the cinematography. But that's about
it. The CG left a lot to be desired. The real scam with this movie is the
IMAX showings. The film was shot 2.35:1, IE not shot for IMAX with IMAX
cameras. It was not shot on 15/70. So why the big deal about the IMAX
experience? So what, they stretched the movie out and slapped it on a big
screen. What a scam.

I thought it was funny how all the characters
with significant speaking roles were the tiny ones :-P

--Sir Jackery

Will Brink wrote:
> Well gang, <snip> I was VERY disappointed
> to put it mildly.
[...]

I can guess the source of your discontent, Will. YOU would've been one
of the infants thrown from the cliff.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a36/imnoone/MFW/wb.jpg

Sorry, no man boobs in Sparta.

> Wish I had waited until it came out as a rental.

Saw it today. Glad I *didn't* wait.

--
Curt