i haven't seen the movie, and i was wondering if there are any slings in the movie 300.  from the trailers it looks like a good movie, but this would make it better of course

Care to share the reasons why, Tint?


I didn't have to set foot in a theater to come to the same conclusion.  I can probably name at least 300 reasons I didn't like it.  The chief reasons among them being who made it and their agenda in doing so.


God bless'em.  Every 1.


TS

The real story is a fine one as is. It certainly doesn't need embellishment of any kind to be appreciated.

It was based on a comic book. I knew that going in.

I saw it, and thought it was a pretty good movie, and worth seeing.  I guess I thought it was interesting in the style, I have never been much into comic books / graphic novels (no offense to Tint or anyone else who is), so it was new to me.  It did have some great scenes in it.  If you are a stickler on historical accuracy, please don't see it though 

I agree that the characters weren't well developed; by the end of the movie the only Spartans I could recognize were the King and the Queen.  Also, the plot was sort of simple

TechStuff- did you just change "cowardly propaganda", to "manipulative propaganda"? I noticed an edit a a while ago.  Manipulative propaganda seems redundant.  I guess one could also argue the same for cowardly propaganda.  Depends on your definition I guess  .

The viewpoint of the link you gave didn't really make much sense.  I was refuting the points, but I decided not to bother, so I erased what I wrote.

Note: While I was busy writing what follows, TechStuf also was busy.  The link I refer to, is in reply #7 above.

Had a look at TechStuf's link myself.  Another discussion forum, and the first entry there was a guy alarmed by similarities between German "manipulative propaganda" films in the 1930s, and this film.  Now, the question for me is, did the filmmaker simply portray how Spartans thought and acted, without editorializing?  Did he slant his portrayal to support how they thought and acted?  I have not seen the film and so cannot say.

My overall reaction, and why I don't want to bother watching the film is: how good can a film be, that is based on a comic book that in turn is based on recollections of an earlier movie (The 300 Spartans, 1962) and of history lessons about the battle of Thermopylae?  Why not do the proper research on the battle itself, and the people of Sparta?  The movie can only contain caricatures of caricatures!

Now, if you are interested in the filmmaking techniques used to turn scenes using real people, into scenes resembling the artistry of a graphic novel, that is entirely another matter.  One could make a study of the convergence of live-action film (the 300, Mission Impossible, Spiderman) and animated film or graphic novels/comic books (the Incredibles, Toy Story, Spiderman).

I guess from a 13 yo's point of view, "300" might be considered "entertainment" 

...along with the others you mentioned.

"Vendetta", however, seemed almost too real in light of whats happening world-wide.  I suppose thats what they mean when they say that a movie is timeless.

Most of the movies are not worth wasting gasoline to go see anyway...

I've been thinking about pulling out the old push lawn-mower from the garage...$13 to fill up two tanks, one for the mower and the other for the weed-whip

TechStuf,

Attractive as is the conspiracy theory, it is just not needed in this case.  The movie industry is primarily driven by the desire to make money.  Think about it: what is the first question raised when a new movie comes out?  Is it not, "How much did they make in their first week in the theaters?"  or "Did they earn more than <name of some other movie that made a lot of money>?"  The movies made, will be the ones that filmmakers (or more precisely, the producers who go get the money) think will make lots of money.  They base their choices primarily on what films HAVE MADE a lot of money.  It is one of the factors driving the sad "sequel" business, where is good story is followed by a bad one in hopes that people will all go see the sequel.  It is one of the factors driving the "me-too" movies that tell the same story with different actors, in hopes that people who saw the first successful movie will want to watch the second, and third, and fourth, and ...

The people primarily responsible for the rash of bad movies, with lots of flashy graphics and lots of blood and lots of near-pornography is ... us.  The people that go watch such films.  Not "us" as in we ourselves, who don't like such stuff, but "us" as in the population at large, that is not interested in genuinely good movies (or television, and don't get me started on the good shows that get cancelled, the reason I don't watch television is that I got tired of the good shows vanishing ... I TOLD you not to get me started!).

Let me cut this jeremiad short.  The people who own the vast majority of corporate media and who use it to promote such garbage the world over, are ... the stockholders in said corporations.  The people who insist on dividends, and rising stock prices, and who vote out boards of directors who don't provide enough of both, so that said boards are driven out of pure survival instinct to go for the short-term big profit, every time.

Aargh!  I TOLD you NOT to get me started!


Hey, by the way ... what has any of this to do with slinging?

EDIT, LATER: Hmmm, I note that I blame two sets of people for the poor movie quality: the folks that go watch junk movies, and the folks that want money for junk movies.  I'm right both times.  Both sets of people are necessary.  After all, if people did not pay money to watch junk movies, then the people who want money would not get money and they would stop making junk movies (they'd go find something else useless to trade for money).

But this still has nothing to do with slinging.