Kevin's Watch

Cail wrote: Hated the style of the film, and it was so over the top I couldn't stop laughing at it. Certainly not the worst movie I've seen, but it's up there.

I agree completely. I shut if off around the time of the lobster guy. Such a let down after reading Gates of Fire.

To compare 300 to Transformers and argue about one being deeper than the other is like comparing two turds to see which one smells better. That's a contest I'm not going to stoop to judge.

[That's not a comment on anyone's opinion, however. Neither of you scare me!]

I voted Star Trek.

Malik23 wrote: Neither of you scare me!

I guess kissing skeletons don't have to be afraid of possession do they? I'll have to speak with Lord Foul and see if we can do something about this...

Ha! I'm the first "other." Officially, I am looking forward to Inglorious Bastards the most, followed by the Human Factor.

I just saw the trailer for IB...hmmm, looks like fun...I'm gonna look up HF on imdb...hol' on...

Holy crap. Wow. Eastwood doing Mandela...this might be greatness...

Malik23 wrote:To compare 300 to Transformers and argue about one being deeper than the other is like comparing two turds to see which one smells better. That's a contest I'm not going to stoop to judge.

I've yet to see 300, funnily enough.

As I have said in other threads, Transformers is not a classic or an intelligent movie. I just found it fun.

Loremaster wrote:

Malik23 wrote:To compare 300 to Transformers and argue about one being deeper than the other is like comparing two turds to see which one smells better. That's a contest I'm not going to stoop to judge.

I've yet to see 300, funnily enough.

As I have said in other threads, Transformers is not a classic or an intelligent movie. I just found it fun.

Amen to that.

Oh, I enjoyed the hell out of Transformers and plan to see the next installment. That's saying quite a bit more than I could for the other movie, which I couldn't even finish. I was just commenting on the "deepness" comparison between the two. In my opinion, 300 gets severely penalized in that contest simply because it's supposed to be depicting a real event of human glory and sacrifice, a monumental struggle which set the foundation for Western democracy. The fact that it had lobster men and other unreal oddities automatically disqualifies it for "deepness," in my opinion.

On the other hand, Transformers was simply trying to bring a comic book story of sentient robots to the big screen. So the fact that it wasn't "deep" isn't a great big "fuck you" to the ghosts of Sparta, or an insult to the intelligence all of Western civilization.

Damnit, I think you guys just got me to sniff the poop. Okay, I'll admit it, Lore's smells better.

Malik23 wrote: Damnit, I think you guys just got me to sniff the poop. Okay, I'll admit it, Lore's smells better.

My god, I think this deserves to be a signature!

Why does everyone think 300 was supposed to be deep, OR about our history...

...like the Batman before, it is a film that brings to life the story and artistry of a comic, or in this case, a graphic novel...

...expectations viel, err, veil (no deer please) the truth much in a theatre.

jacob Raver, sinTempter wrote:Why does everyone think 300 was supposed to be deep, OR about our history...

...like the Batman before, it is a film that brings to life the story and artistry of a comic, or in this case, a graphic novel...

...expectations viel, err, veil (no deer please) the truth much in a theatre.

But you cannot avoid walking into a cinema with your own likes and dislikes. Given that 300 was ostensibly a movie about an actual historical event, a fair amount of people would drawn upon a love of history or that battle, in forming their opinion. Kind of like the way that a person prefers one model of car to another - their own experiences help formulate an opinion or belief. In that regard, I do not believe expectations damaged some people's enjoyment of the movie; moreso, it was the way they framed the movie (is it historical, an action movie, or silly?) and their own histories - backgrounds - that fed their opinions.

I hope that makes sense.

Definately...but the problem is that the actual "history" might be completely made up...or at least incredibly distorted...or at least no details...it's a freaking comic book by Frank Miller...?

Oohhh. Aah, I think I get your point now...many people who saw the trailer didn't know it was a GN or who Frank Miller was...right? So they didn't expect what they got?

That's hard for me, as I've read Ronin, Batman: Year One, Elektra and Dark Knight Returns, plus have seen Sin City...before watching 300.

I had no idea it was based off a comic until the film was half way through its run. However, that only made me respect the movie more. Still, I am likely not to see it.

Malik23 wrote:

Cail wrote: Hated the style of the film, and it was so over the top I couldn't stop laughing at it. Certainly not the worst movie I've seen, but it's up there.

I agree completely. Such a let down after reading Gates of Fire.

Definitely.

jacob Raver, sinTempter wrote:Why does everyone think 300 was supposed to be deep, OR about our history...

...like the Batman before, it is a film that brings to life the story and artistry of a comic, or in this case, a graphic novel...

...expectations viel, err, veil (no deer please) the truth much in a theatre.

Quite true. If I had not recently read Gates of Fire before seeing this, I may have been able to enjoy it as a fantasy. But that would have been an enjoyment based on ignorance, or at the very least, willful disregard for the original source.

Sure, we turn history into myths. But that's usually to dress up the mundane in the fantastic. Sparta needed no "dressing up." It was already fantastic enough.

To continue a point I was making in the Watchmen thread, the look can take you out of a movie. In this case, it was the sheer silliness of what I was seeing on-screen. I felt that fantasy elements were added as a substitute to character development and drama.

Malik23 wrote:

jacob Raver, sinTempter wrote:Why does everyone think 300 was supposed to be deep, OR about our history...

...like the Batman before, it is a film that brings to life the story and artistry of a comic, or in this case, a graphic novel...

...expectations viel, err, veil (no deer please) the truth much in a theatre.

Quite true. If I had not recently read Gates of Fire before seeing this, I may have been able to enjoy it as a fantasy. But that would have been an enjoyment based on ignorance, or at the very least, willful disregard for the original source.

Sure, we turn history into myths. But that's usually to dress up the mundane in the fantastic. Sparta needed no "dressing up." It was already fantastic enough.

To continue a point I was making in the Watchmen thread, the look can take you out of a movie. In this case, it was the sheer silliness of what I was seeing on-screen. I felt that fantasy elements were added as a substitute to character development and drama.

So you were looking for a historical action/drama, instead of a fable?

I was looking for a somewhat reasonable retelling of a factual event, not some overly stylized, faux-hip, fanboy-fellating cartoon in which the main character has to scream every line.

Yeah, I know it's from a comic book. BFD.

Hey. It's a Graphic Novel, buddy...and it is a BFD...to some people (I just don't know em)...so you just chill...'fore I go get my BFG...and then we'll rumble..."Fi-laymen!"

Calling a comic book a "graphic novel" is like calling the trash man a "sanitation engineer".

Edit- To be clear, I'm not judging anyone who likes comic books, but dressing them up with a $20 name doesn't change what they are.

Cail wrote:Calling a comic book a "graphic novel" is like calling the trash man a "sanitation engineer".

Edit- To be clear, I'm not judging anyone who likes comic books, but dressing them up with a $20 name doesn't change what they are.

I agree, IMO, comic book and graphic novel are synonymous, and using one term or the other does not lessen the artistic value (or the lack thereof) as a work. Both terms simply describe an art form where stories are told with illustrations as well as words.

I'd disagree...GNs tend to have higher art production levels and a far more encapsulating story arc, the original ones at least...