I'm gonna have to agree with AC and Rogue Jedi on this specific matter. 300 is one of the least boring films I can think of; even if you're somehow bored to death with the story/action, the movie looks amazing visually. Secondly, the battles weren't really gratuitous if you think about it. If I remember correctly, there were 3 main battles in the film; none of them lasted too long and each one was different (in choreography, etc). Lastly, if you're bored by stunning visuals and tons of action then I think you ended up watching the wrong movie in the first place. "Wild Hogs" was in theaters at that time, maybe you guys should've seen that instead >_>
I don't think the battles different that much. They all used the same slow-veryfast-slow kind of effects. All of it in fact was fairly slow.
And visually amazing looks don't make a great film. They make a film look great, but pretty pics don't make the story. And why is it wrong to ask the filmmakers to ask fro both appropriate looks as well as an enteratining story? You pay good money for it.
Originally posted by queeq
I don't think the battles different that much. They all used the same slow-veryfast-slow kind of effects. All of it in fact was fairly slow.
And visually amazing looks don't make a great film. They make a film look great, but pretty pics don't make the story. And why is it wrong to ask the filmmakers to ask fro both appropriate looks as well as an enteratining story? You pay good money for it.
The slow-fast style was used in every battle, I'll grant you that, but in comparing the first battle to the Immortals battle, everything looked a hell of a lot different. So, even though the style is the same, the look and outcome of the battles were different. But that's just me. Even if I found all the battles to be repetitive, I'd be happy considering that any one of the battles kicked ass.
And I didn't mean to imply that visuals make the movie. That isn't what I meant. I just tried to convey that I would find it hard to be bored when the look of the film is so appealing to the eyes.
Lastly, it definitely isn't wrong to ask filmmakers that. I support it 100 percent, but I also understood that this film was an adaption of Frank Miller's graphic novel (which I also read beforehand) and I knew that the story wasn't complex or anything. I really think that people shouldn't have expected an Oscar-caliber plot from this film.
Originally posted by SnakeEyes
The slow-fast style was used in every battle, I'll grant you that, but in comparing the first battle to the Immortals battle, everything looked a hell of a lot different. So, even though the style is the same, the look and outcome of the battles were different. But that's just me. Even if I found all the battles to be repetitive, I'd be happy considering that any one of the battles kicked ass.And I didn't mean to imply that visuals make the movie. That isn't what I meant. I just tried to convey that I would find it hard to be bored when the look of the film is so appealing to the eyes.
Lastly, it definitely isn't wrong to ask filmmakers that. I support it 100 percent, but I also understood that this film was an adaption of Frank Miller's graphic novel (which I also read beforehand) and I knew that the story wasn't complex or anything. I really think that people shouldn't have expected an Oscar-caliber plot from this film.
Well, why not? Or as Uberto Eco stated: a film is a film, a book is a book. (or graphic novels) They need different things to work.
I never read Miller's graphic novel, I heard he withdrew from the project as well. But even so, a film should be good. It was rather entertaining, but it did feel like a big missed chance to do more with it. Some character development would hev been nice.
Are you asking why people shouldn't have expected a stunning plot? Because the source material (aka the 300 graphic novel) didn't have one. Simple as that. You'd have to change the film completely from the graphic novel in order to get the film that you're looking for.
I thought the film was much better than the graphic novel by the way. It actually added quite a bit more (the entire subplot about the Queen/events back at Sparta, etc). So, in my opinion, if they added any more to the film, it would've been just too different from the source. They did an excellent job making an action-packed, visually stunning, badass movie. Don't know what else anyone (who knew anything about the project) was looking for.
Originally posted by SnakeEyes
Are you asking why people shouldn't have expected a stunning plot? Because the source material (aka the 300 graphic novel) didn't have one. Simple as that. You'd have to change the film completely from the graphic novel in order to get the film that you're looking for.
I disagree though. Very often books are adapted or stuff added in to make it work as a movie. Besides, the graphic novel is also based on a historical event. There's a lot more source material on the battle of Thermopylae. The source material however should never be a restriction in making a film.
Thought 300 was big, loud, way over-hyped, cliche ridden, and so over oiled and muscley that it comes across as something the missus is more likely to like than I.
The jerky undercrank/ overcrack effect in the action is an effect overused and over celebrated too.
I mean, did the improved roto-camera effects and shit hot CGI save the Matrix sequels....?
True, I only watched it the once, but those were the memories of the experience. I felt it wasn't terrible, but that also I wouldn't be breaking my neck to get a copy in.
I felt angry though as usual at the hype machine for getting me all expectant and leaving me pissing in the wind.
Originally posted by queeq
I disagree though. Very often books are adapted or stuff added in to make it work as a movie. Besides, the graphic novel is also based on a historical event. There's a lot more source material on the battle of Thermopylae. The source material however should never be a restriction in making a film.
Did you not read the rest of my post? They did add a decent amount of things to make it work as a film.
Straying too far from source material is usually what makes a shitty adapted film. I don't look at it as a restriction anyway; if you don't want to stay true to what you're making a film on, then don't do it at all, go make your on film on the Battle of Thermopylae.