[redshifter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx /img/forum/go_quote.gif Lets hope it doesn't follow the "we'll film it just like the comic and that should be good enough" method of Sin City.

you ever try to feed a comic book through a projector?

 

[F1GTR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx /img/forum/go_quote.gif Lets hope it doesn't follow the "we'll film it just like the comic and that should be good enough" method of Sin City.

What would you have done differently?

 

[blessingx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by F1GTR /img/forum/go_quote.gif What would you have done differently?

Leave it as a graphic novel unless you're bringing a new medias strengths to the table. Sin City was hailed as a bold new look. But strip the look (which is always going to be second to the comic) and what do you have besides a moving version? Was it a good movie? This isn't the age old "the book is better than the movie" argument. It's more the "what's the point of doing a cover if you're doing it straight?" argument. The most faithful version in the end is always going to be the original (which in this case faithfulness was obviously the target). Translate and you better at least translate. Like all media, film/video has its strengths, and that's not just moving stills. There are plenty of good adaptations and plenty of good remakes, and they're never a straight re-staging of an earlier version. I guess it's basically: do something new to the story or leave it alone. Filming an existing version of a story isn't enough. And everything doesn't have to end up a movie [note to Sunset Boulevard fans, same goes for Broadway].

 

[harkamus]

Has anyone actually read or seen the comic books? There were 5 total IIRC. You can now get a hardcover with all books in one.

The filming and art direction remain very true to the comic, which is why I have such high hopes for the movie.

If anyone gets the chance to look at the comic and watch the trailer afterwards, do so!

 

[Dimitris]

Quote:

Originally Posted by redshifter /img/forum/go_quote.gif so when does your historically accurate film version of this battle come out, dimitris? you didn't make one?! well, until then, **** and gbtw.

What exactly is your problem?

Just because an accurate film version of this battle doesnt exist it doesnt mean that its justified to distort history completely out of proportion.

 

[redshifter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dimitris /img/forum/go_quote.gif What exactly is your problem? Just because an accurate film version of this battle doesnt exist it doesnt mean that its justified to distort history completely out of proportion.

1. you are criticizing a film that has not come out yet
2. frank miller and zack snyder have made a big hollywood film. what have you done?
3. it is their project, and in the u.s.a. we have freedom of speech. they could replace he spartans with kittens if they wanted

is that exact enough for you?

-edit-
look, i'm all for a historically accurate film about the spartans. i tink it woul be facsinating, especially when you consider how closely bonded the men were to eachother (think "brokeback spartans"). but obviously snyder and miller were going for a fantasy-horror film. taken on that level, judge the movie for its merits as a film, not a close record of history.

 

[Dimitris]

Not to hijack the thread but I didn’t know that everyone has to make a Hollywood film in order to criticize.

 

[redshifter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dimitris /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not to hijack the thread but I didn’t know that everyone has to make a Hollywood film in order to criticize.

it's more a jibe at critics. but you see my point about actually seeing a film before trashing it? and that films set in history are not required to be 100% factual? i understand it bothers you, but historical accuracy isn't something the film makers were really concerned with.

so how about we actually see a movie befoe we trash it, ok?

 

[harkamus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dimitris /img/forum/go_quote.gif What exactly is your problem? Just because an accurate film version of this battle doesnt exist it doesnt mean that its justified to distort history completely out of proportion.

You basically bashed a movie that wasn't trying to be historically accurate in the first place. The director wanted to put in the motion picture media what Miller put in the pen and paper media. His art is all symbolic.

It was Miller's interpretation of the war. It was NEVER meant to be historically accurate as much as it was meant to tell a tale.

No offense, but I would hate to ever watch movies with people like you. I do enjoy good books on a variety of subject matter, but the two forms of expression are not tied to one another.

EDIT: To redshifter who seems to be as excited as I am about this flick:
I believe Snyder did try to portray Brokeback Sparta as much as Miller did. Look at the Spartans outfits (or lack thereof). I wonder if they will put a scene in the movie to really depict the Spartan mentality that was in the book. It's the scene where the soldiers are resting around the camp fire (if memory serves me right). You had guys hugging guys for warmth, etc. That's pretty Brokeback, but in the book it wasn't meant to portray homosexuality as much as it was meant to show the bond between soldiers.

 

[redshifter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by harkamus /img/forum/go_quote.gif You basically bashed a movie that wasn't trying to be historically accurate in the first place. The director wanted to put in the motion picture media what Miller put in the pen and paper media. His art is all symbolic. It was Miller's interpretation of the war. It was NEVER meant to be historically accurate as much as it was meant to tell a tale. No offense, but I would hate to ever watch movies with people like you. I do enjoy good books on a variety of subject matter, but the two forms of expression are not tied to one another. EDIT: To redshifter who seems to be as excited as I am about this flick: I believe Snyder did try to portray Brokeback Sparta as much as Miller did. Look at the Spartans outfits (or lack thereof). I wonder if they will put a scene in the movie to really depict the Spartan mentality that was in the book. It's the scene where the soldiers are resting around the camp fire (if memory serves me right). You had guys hugging guys for warmth, etc. That's pretty Brokeback, but in the book it wasn't meant to portray homosexuality as much as it was meant to show the bond between soldiers.

*peng!* i'm back from wikipedia. spartan men joined "dinner clubs" to become full citizens, and used iron bars for currency instead of gold. married spartan women enjoyed relations with other, younger women(!), which was not considered adultry. i get the feeling homosexuality really wan't that big a deal in ancient times.

interesting stuff though. i love ancient history, even if it is filtered through miller's demented mind in the case of "300".

 

[SK138]

I am looking forward to this entertaining movie. It looks so "gothic" and "cool" on every visual level.