I'm going to see 300 today at 2:00 in Universal City

[RedShoe]

I'm going to the 2:00 showing of 300 on IMAX at Universal city City Walk. Anyone else wanna go? I've been working my ass off trying to launch 7 sites at once so I need a break.

I'm going there now to enjoy all the tourist stuff at City Walk. You can never get tired of an overrated Hard Rock Cafe. Oh wait.. I guess you can.

Either way, I'm going now. I'll see you there at 2:00 (PM.. LOS ANGELES TIME)

[Voodoo]

Have fun! Saw it last week on the IMAX. Great flick.

[HouseHead]

I need to get around to doing this.. Ontario Mills IMAX for me ;/

[he-fox]

If you like a bad story with good special effects, you will be pleased.

If you want to see a good and more realistic story, I'd recommend Apocalypto. More blood, too.

[MrKinkade]

Shoe its Kinkade... go see it D and I went last week here in thailand its great

[RedShoe]

Originally Posted by MrKinkade

Shoe its Kinkade

Oh for a second I thought you were Mr. Kinkade.

I saw it. I liked it. I didn't read any other 300 threads here so I wasn't sure what to expect. Those IMAX theatres can make any movie good. Big screens, loud audio.

[RedShoe]

Originally Posted by he-fox

If you like a bad story with good special effects, you will be pleased.

If you want to see a good and more realistic story, I'd recommend Apocalypto. More blood, too.

Well as it turns out I used to special effects. A lot of people I know worked on 300. I guess I do like a bad story with good fx.


I did some research for this post. Not much. But here is what I learned.
When looking up 300 I found this:
The film's director Zack Snyder states that "The events are 90 percent accurate. It's just in the visualization that it's crazy... I've shown this movie to world-class historians who have said it's amazing. They can't believe it's as accurate as it is." He continues that the film is "an opera, not a documentary". Snyder describes the film's narrator, Dilios, as "a guy who knows how not to wreck a good story with truth."

Paul Cartledge, Professor of Greek History at Cambridge University, advised the filmmakers on the pronunciation of Greek names, and states that they "made good use" of his published work on Sparta. He praises the film for its portrayal of "the Spartans' heroic code," and of "the key role played by women in backing up, indeed reinforcing, the male martial code of heroic honor," while expressing reservations about its "'West' (goodies) vs 'East' (baddies) polarization.""



When I looked up Apocolypto, I found this:
The film has been accused of historical inaccuracy and racism by historians, Native Americans, and those in the archaeological community. The film has been accused of fueling a stereotype of native Mesoamericans as bloodthirsty savages with few civilized achievements other than architecture. For example, it was more typical of the Aztecs to practice the kind of human sacrifice depicted in the movie, rather than the Maya. The sun god Kukulkan, to whom the sacrifices are offered, is in fact the Maya equivalent of the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl and did not demand human sacrifice.


So, I guess when it comes to which film is more "realistic" I'd have to say the film that's 90% accurate would be more realistic than a film that is filled with inaccuracies.

I'm glad I saw a film based on what it was I wanted to see and not because it had 'more blood'

[AD_Jake]

Originally Posted by RedShoe

Well as it turns out I used to special effects. A lot of people I know worked on 300. I guess I do like a bad story with good fx.


I did some research for this post. Not much. But here is what I learned.
When looking up 300 I found this:
The film's director Zack Snyder states that "The events are 90 percent accurate. It's just in the visualization that it's crazy... I've shown this movie to world-class historians who have said it's amazing. They can't believe it's as accurate as it is." He continues that the film is "an opera, not a documentary". Snyder describes the film's narrator, Dilios, as "a guy who knows how not to wreck a good story with truth."

Paul Cartledge, Professor of Greek History at Cambridge University, advised the filmmakers on the pronunciation of Greek names, and states that they "made good use" of his published work on Sparta. He praises the film for its portrayal of "the Spartans' heroic code," and of "the key role played by women in backing up, indeed reinforcing, the male martial code of heroic honor," while expressing reservations about its "'West' (goodies) vs 'East' (baddies) polarization.""



When I looked up Apocolypto, I found this:
The film has been accused of historical inaccuracy and racism by historians, Native Americans, and those in the archaeological community. The film has been accused of fueling a stereotype of native Mesoamericans as bloodthirsty savages with few civilized achievements other than architecture. For example, it was more typical of the Aztecs to practice the kind of human sacrifice depicted in the movie, rather than the Maya. The sun god Kukulkan, to whom the sacrifices are offered, is in fact the Maya equivalent of the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl and did not demand human sacrifice.


So, I guess when it comes to which film is more "realistic" I'd have to say the film that's 90% accurate would be more realistic than a film that is filled with inaccuracies.

I'm glad I saw a film based on what it was I wanted to see and not because it had 'more blood'

nice research! - I really liked the movie as well

[JamesK2]

I love that movie. Seen it four times now.

Every frame is fucking eye-candy, very well designed.

[Kenko]

Going to see this tomorrow, the trailer looks great..
Apocalypto was awesome too on the big screen.
Who gives a shit about any historical innacuracies in some greek legend.. It's a hollywood movie, not the discovery channel.

[RedShoe]

Originally Posted by JamesK

I love that movie. Seen it four times now.

Every frame is fucking eye-candy, very well designed.

yeah but according to he-fox it wasn't very realistic. C'mon... RHINOS?? I mean really!

[Grapesoda]

more historical evidence of the '300' than jebus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae

[RedShoe]

Originally Posted by Wanton

more historical evidence of the '300' than jebus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae

Jesus was stupid. You're silly.

[DWB]

Dude, why didn't you call me? As you are well aware of, I was an extra in that movie and could have totally hooked you up on some shit.

Never callin' a brotha. Is it cause I'm black?

[RedShoe]

Originally Posted by DirtyWhiteBoy

Dude, why didn't you call me? As you are well aware of, I was an extra in that movie and could have totally hooked you up on some shit.

Never callin' a brotha. Is it cause I'm black?

No it's was because you hi-five during sex. I hate that.

[he-fox]

Originally Posted by RedShoe

yeah but according to he-fox it wasn't very realistic. C'mon... RHINOS?? I mean really!

it's a each one's taste matter in the end. I stated my personal amateur opinion about a movie, I'm not a movie critic.

but don't tell me, please, that a movie with 30 feet elephants, with a 9 feet tall persian king, with "millions" of persian troops, and with n other special effects is more realistic than one with actual humans. I was referring to the story, and by "realistic" I didn't mean "historically accurate".

Apocalypto had a good plot, with pretty good characters, 300 was just a cartoon-based flick with a lower story and characters quality than Sin City. Besides this, the Termopiles battle legend is a great one, and I think it was ruined by the poor dialogues and the exacerbate characters.

300 was an entertaining movie, but pretty easy to consume. I enjoyed much more Apocalypto and its vision on how a great civilisation self-destroyed itself.

Maybe because I didn't see 300 in IMAX, it looked bad to me.