300 is Amazing.

There are a lot of ways to tell the story of Thermopylae.

I'm surprised at how badly they screwed up the dramatic aspect of it.

The best thing the movie did for me was remind me I should go back and read the Frank Miller comic book.

He's not much of a writer - both 300 and Sin City are just 2 hour genre cliches - but he's a good artist, which doesnt mean crap when you're using live action.

Once again, aggressive commercialism overcomes understanding of an art form.
 
I'm going to bitch slap both of you.

"Oh blah blah blah look at what an elite film connoisseur I am." Gag on it. At the very least, and beyond any debate about the aesthetics of the movie, you're overlooking the fact that it shouldn't even exist. If you'd paused while whacking off to how awesome you are, and paid any real attention, you'd have noticed that there is no single point in the whole film where even a drop of weasely postmodernism appears.

The Spartans are all towering, insane cartoons of distilled manliness. In a guilt-ridden, feminized, pacifistic era, 300 glorifies all of the shit we as a society are supposed to have outgrown. The characters and story are never forced to contort themselves in order to make them more appealing to the viewer. Leonidas never makes excuses for his decisions, he simply carries them out, and the viewer is expected to admire that. The Spartans kill matter-of-factly with no remorse for their enemies, and the viewer is supposed to respect that. The way the whole society is laid out (and I am speaking of the movie, and not actual Sparta, in case any of you assholes think you can call me on some tangential technicality,) from casting out defective infants to shaping men into machines of total war is simply presented, never with any ivory-tower lessons to be learned, but just as an explanation. The Spartans are all supermen, and this is why.

And you do wind up respecting and admiring the characters in 300, fake though they may be. I found myself in awe of who the real men who formed the kernel of truth at the heart of the story, for having been so incredibly spectacular that a culture nothing like their own, on another continent, 2500 years later produced a flashy action picture for no other reason than to glorify their legend.

That is what's truly special, and worthy in 300.


P.S.
Incidentally, it's actually *written* quite well, which should be recognizable to anybody who genuinely knows what's involved in the task.
 
"Oh blah blah blah look at what an elite film connoisseur I am." Gag on it.

Above most other people, I'd assume you'd have the respect of seeing that I know what I'm talking about when it comes to film. Empty dismissives only make you look childish.

If you'd paused while whacking off to how awesome you are, and paid any real attention, you'd have noticed that there is no single point in the whole film where even a drop of weasely postmodernism appears.

300 is the kind of dreck best left in the 80s with bad Rocky sequels. Mindless fetid nonsense for the cheering masses of American males who enjoy being armchair quarterbacks and swilling Keystone Light while puffing away on Lucky Strikes.

I'm glad YOU were entertained, Frosty - but I didn't pay to see this movie and I'd like my money back.

The Spartans are all supermen, and this is why.

I'm glad you found some entertainment in the fact that theres no discerneable characterization - not that an action movie really needs it mind you - but the whole affair seemed mindless. Gore for the sake of gore. Basic sadism and little else.

300 is what was wrong with both Rambo sequels. Non-stop action for the sake of seeing a half-naked man take on armies of obviously evil people, for the sake of some nebulous cause. (As opposed to First Blood or it's novelization, which had a little bit more of a morality play to it, than simple blood and guts bullshit.)

That is what's truly special, and worthy in 300.

"It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing."

The movie will be remembered only in as far as the next big action picture that does well.

Incidentally, it's actually *written* quite well

Yes, for a movie that has Greeks screaming "Tonight we dine in Hell!".

Obviously, the word hell is used in other inappropriate situations - Han Solo even yells it in The Empire Strikes Back - but something about it being used during a film that has anything remotely having to do with a battle that took place in 430 BC is a little... odd.
 
Maybe Blackhawk Down is a little more your speed

Above most other people, I'd assume you'd have the respect of seeing that I know what I'm talking about when it comes to film. Empty dismissives only make you look childish.
Oh, really?

300 is the kind of dreck best left in the 80s with bad Rocky sequels. Mindless fetid nonsense for the cheering masses of American males who enjoy being armchair quarterbacks and swilling Keystone Light while puffing away on Lucky Strikes.
Empty dismissives indeed.
I'm glad you found some entertainment in the fact that theres no discerneable characterization
You're misrepresenting the point I made and putting words in my mouth while exhibiting the common tendency to discount archetypes as simplistic, because that's easier than understanding why they resonate. Your choosing to do so affects your opinion, but doesn't invalidate the movie for everyone else, even if you think it should.

This is very closely related to the knee-jerk negativity in response to Arena: you believe that you are too cool for X because of Y reason, so it must be no good at all. In reality, your self-image has no bearing on the quality of this film or any other.
...for the sake of some nebulous cause.
And this is precisely my point. 300 didn't bend over backwards to accomodate your circa-2007 point of view. The fact that the movie is completely divorced from the thought process of modern Americans without becoming an incoherent mess is the secret genius of the whole production.
The movie will be remembered only in as far as the next big action picture that does well.
Repeating your one-liners doesn't make them any more likely to come true, even if they're preceded by largely inapplicable quotes.
Yes, for a movie that has Greeks screaming "Tonight we dine in Hell!".

Obviously, the word hell is used in other inappropriate situations - Han Solo even yells it in The Empire Strikes Back - but something about it being used during a film that has anything remotely having to do with a battle that took place in 430 BC is a little... odd.
Oh, they changed "Hades" to "Hell" when translating the famous quote into English, why don't you have a cry about it. Not even you expected historical accuracy from a movie based on a comic book. Its inaccuracy lies at the very center of what makes it excellent. It is a tale of heroes and heroism, for no other reason than its own sake. You and many other people are sociologically unequipped to appreciate it, which is fine, but it stands as a work of worth even so.
 
Yeah, 10 bucks and 20 bucks, no difference there! :rolleyes:

Every regular DVD is $15 or less here when it comes out. Then you only have to buy one copy for you and your friends to see it. DVDs can be a lot cheaper than going to the theater.
 
Above most other people, I'd assume you'd have the respect of seeing that I know what I'm talking about when it comes to film. Empty dismissives only make you look childish.
I haven't seen the movie, so I'm not posting this to argue one way or the other about its quality. The quality of your arguments, on the other hand...

Your credentials don't matter - only your arguments do. You know very well that the "I studied film so I must be right about film" get-out-of-jail card doesn't work around here.

300 is the kind of dreck best left in the 80s with bad Rocky sequels. Mindless fetid nonsense for the cheering masses of American males who enjoy being armchair quarterbacks and swilling Keystone Light while puffing away on Lucky Strikes.
Gotta agree with Frosty - you don't actually say anything here.

Yes, for a movie that has Greeks screaming "Tonight we dine in Hell!".

Obviously, the word hell is used in other inappropriate situations - Han Solo even yells it in The Empire Strikes Back - but something about it being used during a film that has anything remotely having to do with a battle that took place in 430 BC is a little... odd.
I think if you want to demonstrate how this film is badly written, you're gonna have to dig a little deeper. Even if the usage wasn't perfectly appropriate in any case, this argument is just weak. It's like claiming that Hamlet is badly written, because it mentions Norway invading Poland, which obviously could never happen.
 
Every regular DVD is $15 or less here when it comes out. Then you only have to buy one copy for you and your friends to see it. DVDs can be a lot cheaper than going to the theater.
Wherever I go DVDs are almost always 20 bucks. I don't know where you're getting those numbers from but they certainly aren't the ones I'm getting here.
 
Or you can wait even longer when the price of the DVD gets even cheaper

I can see where ChrisReid is getting at

If you and two other friends want to go see a movie.

To go to the theater will be thirty bucks plus some odd amount if someone buys snacks there.

Or just wait a little longer and pay about 15 for the whole group and take stuff out of the fridge
 
Or you can wait even longer when the price of the DVD gets even cheaper

I can see where ChrisReid is getting at

If you and two other friends want to go see a movie.

To go to the theater will be thirty bucks plus some odd amount if someone buys snacks there.

Or just wait a little longer and pay about 15 for the whole group and take stuff out of the fridge

That's retarded. No DVD can compare to the EXPERIENCE of going to a good movie theater and watching it there. No amount of HD TVs and home theaters make up to it.

We are talking about lots of things here, but not about nickels and cents.

Why buy the damned DVD, when you can wait for a neighbor to buy it instead and use a spyglass to peek him watching it.

Better yet, why spend a single dollar on art or entertainment when you can live your life without them.

See, quarto, that's what I was talking about. It's not just about books, it's about any form of art and expression.
 
I think if you want to demonstrate how this film is badly written, you're gonna have to dig a little deeper. Even if the usage wasn't perfectly appropriate in any case, this argument is just weak. It's like claiming that Hamlet is badly written, because it mentions Norway invading Poland, which obviously could never happen.

Agreed. It's just that "Tonite we dine in Hades" didn't sound as cool. :)
 
Empty dismissives indeed. You're misrepresenting the point I made and putting words in my mouth while exhibiting the common tendency to discount archetypes as simplistic, because that's easier than understanding why they resonate.

Archtyping is a dangerous and hard thing to do. It works in the original Star Wars trilogy - but not in the prequels, for instance. Does 300 even have archetypes? You say they're supermen - I'm not sure if you're trying to shoehorn a comparison to the DC superhero or the generall public misunderstanding of Nietzsche - but it's difficult to discern if the characters are "supermen" or simply generic cardboard cutouts. Yes, I get that everyone is manly and into slaughtering the Persians... but "because there is very little there, they must be archtypal" is silly.

Aside from the patriotic romanticism that could be applied to 300 soldiers standing fast against two million, I found nothing that can be applied to a monomythical characterization. Are you attempting to apply a metaphor to the Battle of Thermopylae or the people involved? I'm curious as to something more exacting.

Your choosing to do so affects your opinion, but doesn't invalidate the movie for everyone else, even if you think it should.

I didn't know my adament disapproval was so insulting to you, personally. Perhaps next time I'll simply bite my lip instead of sawing too close to your bone?

This is very closely related to the knee-jerk negativity in response to Arena: you believe that you are too cool for X because of Y reason, so it must be no good at all.

Simply because I disagree with you and your taste in movies does not give you sudden clearance to drop me in the dreck with society's lower-half. :)

Your ribbing aside, if you're going to disagree with my thoughts on its basic sadism or its annoying, fake production value - thats fine. But I honestly expect more from you than simply a "too cool" throw-in. (But then, I did call you out on dismissives, and then launched one myself - so perhaps Ill just admit to my own guilt)

300 didn't bend over backwards to accomodate your circa-2007 point of view. The fact that the movie is completely divorced from the thought process of modern Americans without becoming an incoherent mess is the secret genius of the whole production.

I think you're giving the movie too much credit. It's as if you're beating your chest over the opposite reasoning that fuel some people's ideas that 300 is some awful secret agend for or against the current political administration (which it isn't). There is nothing new or interesting or special about the film in anyway - I've seen 300's message in a dozen WWII movies and a handful of episodes of Combat! (which was sadly taken off TV repeats over here for some reason). Does that make it archtype? Not so much, as theres no greater moral or symbolism in the movie aside from dying for a cause.

I suppose if you're into blood and gore for the sake of blood and gore, it's a fine movie - and I'll freely admit to having more than one "guilty pleasure" movie in my collection - but the whole of it in the end struck me as utterly empty. You leave the theater with nothing - no great acting, nothing to think about. Simply how people had spears shoved through eye-sockets. Thats just not my thing.

I also don't see how a "if you don't enjoy it, you just don't get it" claim holds any water. That would be like my calling you a dullard because you may not have seen Equus - even though I know you're not an idiot.

Repeating your one-liners doesn't make them any more likely to come true, even if they're preceded by largely inapplicable quotes.Oh, they changed "Hades" to "Hell" when translating the famous quote into English, why don't you have a cry about it.

I won't lie to you - I was dozing off through the later half of the movie; a thing that hasn't happened since I dragged into theaters to see Van Helsing.

It is a tale of heroes and heroism, for no other reason than its own sake.

Which I can appreciate - but I don't see it as the point of the movie. Maybe I need to see it again? Perhaps - there are a number of movies I didn't care for when I first saw them but Ill wait till it comes out on DVD.

You and many other people are sociologically unequipped to appreciate it, which is fine, but it stands as a work of worth even so.

You're telling this to the guy who has Eraserhead on his DVD shelf.

(If you wish to continue this exchange for the ages, IM me. We're just taking up space, at the moment)
 
That's retarded. No DVD can compare to the EXPERIENCE of going to a good movie theater and watching it there. No amount of HD TVs and home theaters make up to it.

We are talking about lots of things here, but not about nickels and cents.

Why buy the damned DVD, when you can wait for a neighbor to buy it instead and use a spyglass to peek him watching it.

Better yet, why spend a single dollar on art or entertainment when you can live your life without them.

See, quarto, that's what I was talking about. It's not just about books, it's about any form of art and expression.
Plus, going to movies just enhances your social life.
 
The main problem with 300, is that it's fake.

The movie should never have been made, I agree.

But not because it's not part of "modern" sensibilities.

No.

The movie is fake because it pretends(And very poorly I might add) to be "Non-postmodernist" by showing off this jingoistic and decisively modern, self-centered individualism and playing that off by the loudly (and often wrongly) emphasized stereotype that we're somehow emfeminized.

The claim that the movie's storyline is somehow divoriced from modern thought processes or view-points is misguided, simply because a lot of the purported views expressed by the Spartiates in 300 are the product of modern "post-pluralism" views about doing things that are "right" for the sake of being "right" without having to ever explain yourself.

Had this been a halfway accurate depiction of Leonidas and what made him and the 300 sires, and the thousand helots(serfs) and 700 Thespians who died at the gates of fire, it would have focused on the inevitability of their fate.

The fact that the oracles at Delphi told Leonidas that Sparta must give the life of one of its (two) kings to survive. That Leonidas accepted this with the stoicism and laconic reaction of a king of Sparta.

The fact that rather than abject cowardice, the allied Greeks retreated to preserve the forces of the congress of Corinth, and that Leonidas and his 300 elected to stay to buy these people time.

That ordinary Thespians stayed behind with the Spartans, out of loyalty and comradery. And that the Spartans saluted them for their sacrifice.

Showing these facets, the fact that their individualism wasn't to be expected in the face of an overwhelming threat. That they were expected and indeed welcomed the chance to lose their lives in service with the support of their nation. There's heroism in the Spartiates, but no the sort that glorifies their individual strengths or how they're supermen. Rather their heroism comes from going into battle knowing they're doomed, and accepting that the fates have laid things out in that fashion for them.

Yeah maybe that would have been a good depiction of non-modern heroism.

Instead, in 300 we get the chest-pounding jingoism that characterizes so many of the chicken hawk contingnent of modern society. The ones who sit comfortably drawing comics while other people fight their wars and decry that anyone who disagrees with them is a "whining Athenian."
 
If any of my posts in reply to Frosty echo this man's sentiments, I apologize profusely.
 
Is there something necessarily wrong with suggesting that a story with such a rich potential for drama and storytelling could be told better?

No one expects historical accuracy from these things.

God knows Henry V isn't accurate.

But is it really so much to ask for dramatic interpretations that are at least interesting to watch?
 
That's retarded. No DVD can compare to the EXPERIENCE of going to a good movie theater and watching it there. No amount of HD TVs and home theaters make up to it.

Obviously, you've never seen my home theater setup. It's much more enjoyable than any theater I've ever been in except for maybe an IMAX theater. I don't have to share it with a bunch of idiots shouting and hooting over stupid stuff, I can enjoy it with my friends and family. I've been anxiously awaiting to see the 300 but I'll wait till it comes out on DVD and watch it with my friends in my own house while we order pizza etc and can enjoy it as I wish.
 
I've got an astounding home theater setup myself, however that doesn't stop me from going to the theater. It's a social thing.
 
First of all, cut the gibberish about Superman and Nietzsche. You're saying my use of the word "supermen" must be a reference to one of them, and since neither makes sense, I must be wrong. That's stupid. We're all glad you're hep enough to spell Nietzsche correctly, but there's no need to show off when all it does is make the entire discussion dissonant and confusing.

Let's also not complain if I "drop you in the dreck with society's lower-half." You're the one who came to shit up my thread about a movie I happen to like a great deal, insinuating that anyone of intelligence would disagree with me. Considering the circumstances, you should feel lucky I dignified your posts with responses at all.

You say you "expect more" from me than "simply a 'too cool' throw-in." How could you expect more than the truth? It's obvious to everyone here that 300 is beneath you because it failed to pass some arbitrarily assigned litmus test.

Let's be honest, here: you had already decided you weren't going to like 300, and now you're defining the movie down into easily managed pieces to accomodate that. I'm simply pointing it out

You allege that my "if you don't enjoy it, you just don't get it' claim holds [no water.]" Well, the fact is that you don't like 300 because you don't get it. That's not an assessment of your intelligence, but it is an assessment of your capability to subsequently go and review the film, which I contend you can't do accurately because you lack the perspective. I'm going to stop repeating why.

300 is an impressive motion picture, but it's obviously an acquired taste, which doesn't disqualify it at all. Simply, those willing to make the effort will feel rewarded, and those unwilling won't.
MADE-UP WORDS, SENTENCE FRAGMENTS, AND WIKIPEDIA EXCERPTS
What the fuck? Anyone who uses "jingoism" and "chickenhawk" without irony is precisely the kind of asshole nobody here should take seriously. Go complain that your fiction is fake somewhere else.
 
Oh, right.

Because to suggest your logic (which of course you use to attack someone else) is faulty is somehow being an asshole.

Give it a rest, not everyone's somehow lacking in perspective because they don't agree with you.
 
You are so far beneath my contempt you obnoxious, sanctimonious little weasel, you need a snorkel. Go away.
 
Back
Top