300

[BeardofPants]

You're missing the point. The movie is based on the comic. It is a rendition directly from that. It's not supposed to be some accurate historical drama. It's an adaption from the comic (in much the same way as Sin City was adapted from the graphic novel, or V for Vendetta). That's all I'm sayin'. So for those who are complaining that it's not factual or whatever, it doesn't matter. It's an adaption from a comic. Point period polka-dot. The caveat of course, is that the comic is based somewhat on historical fact. But that is neither here nor there, since the purpose of the movie is to adapt from the comic.

[hectorberlioz]

My my, some people just get really worked up over this movie, don't they?

[D.Sullivan]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

You're missing the point. The movie is based on the comic. It is a rendition directly from that. It's not supposed to be some accurate historical drama. It's an adaption from the comic (in much the same way as Sin City was adapted from the graphic novel, or V for Vendetta). That's all I'm sayin'. So for those who are complaining that it's not factual or whatever, it doesn't matter. It's an adaption from a comic. Point period polka-dot. The caveat of course, is that the comic is based somewhat on historical fact. But that is neither here nor there, since the purpose of the movie is to adapt from the comic.

I get your point. I just don't believe it's all that valid a point. Sorry. See my first post if you wonder why.

[BeardofPants]

Fair enough. Keep in mind though, that historical accounts (primary OR secondary) are just that... accounts. They, too, are an interpretation of the past in much the same way as historical-based movies. The only way you're gonna get actual historical representation, is if you travel back in time and watch it yerself, and even then, you'll be interpreting with yer own POVs.

In terms of your first post - how do you then propose to make a movie adaption from a comic series without tryin' to pull it off as 'based on actual historical events'?

[katya]

I wouldn't criticize the movie for historical inaccuracy. If anything it's the comic that such a comment should be directed toward. (yes, comments directed at inanimate objects are always fun.) That said, a lot of great stories are based more and more loosely on actual events. History becomes legend becomes myth or fairy tale or whatever. It's entertainment.

I do think the dialog of the movie was terrible. I don't know how much of it came from the comic directly but it was horribly, horribly cheesy.

Also I think there was too much of the same sort of fighting scenes without interruption. I would've liked more variety. One of the reasons I prefer Sin City.

[Acalewia]

Does anyone know where I can find the graphic novel?

[The last sane person]

I bought it at a used book store. If you have any around you, I'd go there, or any decent comic book place. Anywhere that has Sin City, will likely also have 300.

If both of those places are misses, then try looking on line, on places like Ebay or Amazon.

[Acalewia]

Thank you, Shah. I'll check them out

[D.Sullivan]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Fair enough. Keep in mind though, that historical accounts (primary OR secondary) are just that... accounts. They, too, are an interpretation of the past in much the same way as historical-based movies. The only way you're gonna get actual historical representation, is if you travel back in time and watch it yerself, and even then, you'll be interpreting with yer own POVs.

In terms of your first post - how do you then propose to make a movie adaption from a comic series without tryin' to pull it off as 'based on actual historical events'?

Oh, I agree. There's no way to know whether or not the accounts are accurate or not. But that doesn't mean we should ignore the accounts we have. They're the best we've got. If you find something of validity that contradicts what we suppose to be the truth, change it. But if not stick with what you've got.

Well, first of all, the comic is more historically accurate then the movie. So they could have just based it whole heartedly on the comic and it would have been a better film(still not THAT good, though). Second of all, I wouldn't try to pull it off making the comic. That's what my first post was all about in the first place. I said I wouldn't base it on fictional accounts(the comic), and you question then how I would propose to base it on fictional accounts? Maybe...I wouldn't?

That said, a lot of great stories are based more and more loosely on actual events. History becomes legend becomes myth or fairy tale or whatever. It's entertainment..

There's an idea. Let's just change history to make it better. It's just more fun that way. Sorry, I just think that's kinda funny.

History becoming legend and legend becoming myth is something that happens despite historians trying to get it right. I just think if we can get it right, why shouldn't we? Why have myths when you can have equally powerful stories that are true?

[katya]

I don't really think it matters that much if we know exactly what happened 283973829 million years ago. The important thing about studying history is the major themes and ideas. It doesn't really matter that much if it's true or not, I don't think.

Granted some stories are far more interesting the way they actually happened. No comment on whether this applies to 300 though- I didn't really care about the plot of it so much as the visuals.

[D.Sullivan]

[QUOTE=katya]I don't really think it matters that much if we know exactly what happened 283973829 million years ago. The important thing about studying history is the major themes and ideas. It doesn't really matter that much if it's true or not, I don't think.[QUOTE]

What's the use of studying the themes and ideas of the past if they aren't true? Then you just have a bunch of ideas that you can't apply to anything because they weren't gathered empirically and therefor aren't valid. Besides, it was a little over two thousand years ago, not "283973829 million years ago". And if it doesn't matter if we know what happened, why bother making a movie about it?

Granted some stories are far more interesting the way they actually happened. No comment on whether this applies to 300 though- I didn't really care about the plot of it so much as the visuals.

Fair enough. For me though, film is a media constructed from pre-existing individual modes of art. Such as playwriting, photography/painting, acting and music. Usually when a film crew throws all it's eggs into one basket, like the photography and special effects, I feel like the film goes out of balance. That's how I feel about this film. It was a visual overload for me, and not in an interesting way. Cool beans if that floats your boat, but it wasn't my cup of tea.

[katya]

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

What's the use of studying the themes and ideas of the past if they aren't true? Then you just have a bunch of ideas that you can't apply to anything because they weren't gathered empirically and therefor aren't valid. Besides, it was a little over two thousand years ago, not "283973829 million years ago". And if it doesn't matter if we know what happened, why bother making a movie about it?

And I agree with you to a point. I like to study history to try and see what actually happened myself. I just think details are somewhat irrelevant. And that's just my way of talking- I refer to things that happened last week as x millions years ago too. And I'd bother making a movie of it because it's entertaining. I think it makes it more interesting if it's based on some actual events, even if it's not entirely accurate and anyway it's a good story.

Fair enough. For me though, film is a media constructed from pre-existing individual modes of art. Such as playwriting, photography/painting, acting and music. Usually when a film crew throws all it's eggs into one basket, like the photography and special effects, I feel like the film goes out of balance. That's how I feel about this film. It was a visual overload for me, and not in an interesting way. Cool beans if that floats your boat, but it wasn't my cup of tea.

Interesting. I think so too. Hey it's not like this is my favourite movie or anything- it was just good enough to stop me from falling asleep, which is saying a lot for me.

[elven dragonrider]

I am amazed at how you could spend 3 whole pages talking about this overated idiotic slummy sluk. (my new word for something I dislike)
This world is going backwards. Pretty son we are going to forget how to make fire. then we are going to turn back into monkeys and prove evolution.

[Acalewia]

Well there are worst things to talk about on this board, ED

[D.Sullivan]

Originally Posted by katya

And I agree with you to a point. I like to study history to try and see what actually happened myself. I just think details are somewhat irrelevant. And that's just my way of talking- I refer to things that happened last week as x millions years ago too. And I'd bother making a movie of it because it's entertaining. I think it makes it more interesting if it's based on some actual events, even if it's not entirely accurate and anyway it's a good story.


Interesting. I think so too. Hey it's not like this is my favourite movie or anything- it was just good enough to stop me from falling asleep, which is saying a lot for me.

Hey, if you enjoy the movie, great. Most of what I'm saying about how I think historical accuracy matters and such, isn't actually directed at the movie as it is at the people who say things like "hang historical accuracy" when they here that some of the details in the film were off. I just think that's a silly way to view subjects such as this.

Originally Posted by elven dragonrider
I am amazed at how you could spend 3 whole pages talking about this overated idiotic slummy sluk. (my new word for something I dislike)
This world is going backwards. Pretty son we are going to forget how to make fire. then we are going to turn back into monkeys and prove evolution.

Anything for the sake of discussion. Besides, we're only going to start moving backwards when we stop discussing subjects such as the value of art and entertainment, if you ask me. I think people should take careful consideration in what entertainment is worthy of their praise, and how else will they decide without discussing it, or at least thinking about it?

[durinsbane2244]

Well then, judging from what i've read, i'll no longer watch Hellboy because it is loosely based off of a comic that purports that demons and magic were behind WWII and the Nazi Regime...

Forget about any and all Arthurian legend, Homer, Virgil, Norse epics, the Bible, the Koran, the Vedas, you name it.

When it comes down to it, all history we have is merely stories. Stories. So why not make it more appealing to the current audience? I doubt each time Homer told the Iliad he used the same words. They were only written once, though.

[D.Sullivan]

Originally Posted by durinsbane2244

Well then, judging from what i've read, i'll no longer watch Hellboy because it is loosely based off of a comic that purports that demons and magic were behind WWII and the Nazi Regime...

Forget about any and all Arthurian legend, Homer, Virgil, Norse epics, the Bible, the Koran, the Vedas, you name it.

When it comes down to it, all history we have is merely stories. Stories. So why not make it more appealing to the current audience? I doubt each time Homer told the Iliad he used the same words. They were only written once, though.

Comparing Hellboy to 300 I don't think is a very good comparison. A fictional story set to the backdrop of a historical event isn't the same as making a film based on a historical event.

"All history we have is merely stories. Stories. So why not make it more appleaing to the current audience?". I'm not even going to bother replying to that. I've already talked about my feelings on that sort of attitude on earlier posts. Why should I repeat them?

[Lord of the Mark]

Originally Posted by durinsbane2244

Well then, judging from what i've read, i'll no longer watch Hellboy because it is loosely based off of a comic that purports that demons and magic were behind WWII and the Nazi Regime...

Forget about any and all Arthurian legend, Homer, Virgil, Norse epics, the Bible, the Koran, the Vedas, you name it.

When it comes down to it, all history we have is merely stories. Stories. So why not make it more appealing to the current audience? I doubt each time Homer told the Iliad he used the same words. They were only written once, though.

Yeah, because Hellboy sooo happened. Good point dude. As long as they're changing stuff to make it appeal to the "current audience" they might as well give the Spartans mechine guns It would make about as much sense as your post did.

[durinsbane2244]

alright then, let's just completely gloss over the point and reply to the jokes...that makes sense...

point: the only history we have of events in ancient greece, example: trojan war, are stories. stories that the original storytellers (not historians) most certainly spiced up. example: i doubt that say, Odysseus really went to the land of the dead, or that Achilles was truly invincible (probably just had nice armor, from what i hear )

therefore, it is unfair to say that the movie "didn't follow the facts accurately enough" or some such comment, it's simply someone else's rendition of a story.

centuries from now, graphic holograms will be made about, say, custard's last stand, and i'd bet my last dollar it wouldn't be "historically accurate", even though now we actually do have historians. and even with that, what they write down depends on what side they favor and who wins. again, stories. nothing in the history books is 100% fact.

and now, i'm going to bed, because this is all a waste of time anyway, because it's just a movie, and i've just wasted precious minutes of sleep i'll never get back...sigh....

[D.Sullivan]

Originally Posted by durinsbane2244

alright then, let's just completely gloss over the point and reply to the jokes...that makes sense...

point: the only history we have of events in ancient greece, example: trojan war, are stories. stories that the original storytellers (not historians) most certainly spiced up. example: i doubt that say, Odysseus really went to the land of the dead, or that Achilles was truly invincible (probably just had nice armor, from what i hear )

therefore, it is unfair to say that the movie "didn't follow the facts accurately enough" or some such comment, it's simply someone else's rendition of a story.

centuries from now, graphic holograms will be made about, say, custard's last stand, and i'd bet my last dollar it wouldn't be "historically accurate", even though now we actually do have historians. and even with that, what they write down depends on what side they favor and who wins. again, stories. nothing in the history books is 100% fact.

and now, i'm going to bed, because this is all a waste of time anyway, because it's just a movie, and i've just wasted precious minutes of sleep i'll never get back...sigh....

I agree. This is a waste of time. But only because every point you made has already been made by someone earlier on in the converstation, and are points I've already replied to. You can try backtracking if you want to know what my reply would be.