300 Is The Greatest Film Ever Made!

[Flat_Eric]

IdolDroog wrote:

>>


Yes I know that's that "artistic" argument - but it's complete bollocks and simply an excuse for sloppy, lazy film-making.

Plus, what's the point if (a) you can't make out what the fuck's going on, or who's hacking the limbs off who and (b) the spinning camera has you turning away from the screen and / or reaching for the puke bag?

I watched "Braveheart" the other night. It was made in 1995 which was a few years before this current "wobblycam" fashion took hold. And what a refreshing experience it was: Plenty of "chaos" in the battle scenes but it wasn't just one big headache-inducing blur.

Wobblycam has been responsible for badly tarnishing many an otherwise excellent movie (see Emily C's post for good examples).

[Jacques]

I'll hate it - studied Herodotus as part of my degree, so I'll just sit and pick historical inaccuracies.

Wobblycam is overused, as is Bleach Bypass.

[The Last Word]

TheProf wrote:

> They should less rely on the computer in some London Soho basement, putting these movies together, and get back to basics...making real films with real people.

All films are real films, unless they're imaginary.

> I expect it's the same few guys in costumes multiplied a million times making up the army of thousands. That goes for the horses as well. It's one gigantic Playstation. Clever, but not authentic.

And there I was thinking all cinema is a form of illusion, one way or another.

> Cecil B.DeMille would have used the real thing.

Had no choice back in the day. These days, however, it's go CG or watch the budget double. If it allows them to make the film they want and not compromise (or quit) then good. Was it Scorsece who said we're at a new infancy with regards to all this new technology? Spot on, Marty. Nobody stops the wheel.

[crofter]

Have to laugh at some of you guys "it will be shit because it is all CGI" "it is shit because I ain't seen it (so it must be shit). Has it got wobblycam?? All these new films are all too technical now and the old classics are way better (fuck me wobblycam is technichal) ... lol.
I think what Super Randy is trying to say is that HE (along with me, but not at the same time) HAS SEEN IT ... and really enjoyed it - forget all the technical/historical guff and de-engage your brain now and again - who knows you MIGHT even enjoy it.

This www.Weview Was bwought to you by Jonathin Wosses Weft Wug.

[Arnold Layne]

I loved the bit where mike freeman took on all 300 by himself armed with just a tin foil hat, and won

Twice

[strictlybroadband]

IdolDroog wrote:

> For the obvious reason that it gives a better perspective of
> the chaos unsuing and therefore brings the audience into the
> scene better?

Maybe - but it also means they can film a lot of the action with fewer extras, and you don't notice because they cut too often. So it's cheaper.

[andy at handiwork]

BBC2 this afternoon at 1.55 you can catch the original non-cgi version from 1962, 'The 300 Spartans'. I remember going to see it back then on a sat afternoon at the local Odean with my dad.

[wayne]

Wobblycam i can handle (when not overused) but the patent penting Ridley Scott "slow motion o rama" i detest with a passion.

Going to slow motion at every giving moment is makes me seeve.

[Peter]

Jacques wrote:

> I'll hate it - studied Herodotus as part of my degree, so I'll
> just sit and pick historical inaccuracies.
>


Shhhh, here come the ninjas!




Is there a proper Imax version, or did the reviewer (wasn't really paying attention) say it looked good on an Imax sized screen?