who here actuallyread the graphic nolvel.

[dpbrave84]

I have noticed that most ppl that dont like the movie always have a very bad excuse on why, but if those ppl actually took the time out to read 300 they would realize that it is one of the greatest adaptationsfrom comic book to screen, the movie is almost a completcopy of the graphic novel...makes this movie so much better if you go back and read it, how many of u have actually read it?

 

[ILikeYourCoat]

I haven't yet, but based on the movie, I think I will get a copy of the comic.

 

[LiLbOiYAmZ]

i loved it and totally agree with you. i read the graphic novel before the movie came out... it was really great seeing those come to life on the big screen.

i would really like it if they were to have a remake of the comic using just caps from the movie... i bet it would almost be shot for shot

 

[SamuraiSon6]

i loved it and totally agree with you. i read the graphic novel before the movie came out... it was really great seeing those come to life on the big screen.

i would really like it if they were to have a remake of the comic using just caps from the movie... i bet it would almost be shot for shot

thats a really good idea for a limited edition dvd!

 

[Nivek]

Bought it a couple months ago after Byrne-stealing it for years in Barnes & Noble and Borders Books. Very dissapointed in people who dont like the very small changes that were made. To me it was virtually note for note, as much as Sin City.

 

[Manhunter]

I've read the GN, I actually preffered the movie with the Queens subplot, but the GN was top notch.

BTW, any of you ever read Lone Wolf and Cub? Goseki Kojima is a huge influence to Frank Miller to say the least...

 

[tzarinna]

I read the GN before the seeing movie and have a signed copy of a comic.

 

[Comic Book Boy]

I read the graphic novel awhile ago, and I loved the film. Very true to the novel, I was surprized how closely it was followed. Did anyone notice that Lynn Varley was also credited? This hasn't happened to a colorist before I don't think.

 

[xwolverine2]

i didnt... and i loved the movie.

 

[Agentsands77]

I've read the graphic novel. And I re-read it after seeing the film. Re-reading it made me like the film less. However, it's not because I'm a purist - far from it. I thought a lot of changes would need to be made to make 300 work as a film. However, Snyder didn't make the right changes - in fact, he made some downright poor ones and failed to address other very important issues.

 

[dpbrave84]

I've read the graphic novel. And I re-read it after seeing the film. Re-reading it made me like the film less. However, it's not because I'm a purist - far from it. I thought a lot of changes would need to be made to make 300 work as a film. However, Snyder didn't make the right changes - in fact, he made some downright poor ones and failed to address other very important issues.

such as?

 

[Agentsands77]

such as?

Zack Snyder made the very odd choice of adding silly monsters and further dehumanizing the Persians beyond what Miller already did. I have yet to understand the reasoning behind that choice. Nor will I understand why Snyder decided to add an anthropomorphic goat to Xerxes' tent (or to fill it with deformed women and transsexuals).

And then there's the fact that the Spartans are mainly faceless in the graphic novel. There's the Stumblios subplot, but only Leonidas really gets fleshed out. Now, the movie tries to work on that some, but it doesn't go anywhere near as far with it as it should.

The dialogue/narration is also a problem. Firstly, a lot of the dialogue is just ridiculous - Miller's style of dialogue barely works on the page, and it sounds remarkably silly being said out loud. The dialogue needed some heavy revision to make the transfer to the screen. Secondly, the dialogue is often weirdly cut and pasted - inner monologue becomes dialogue without any change whatsoever, and it doesn't always work. Thirdly, the narration (while, in general, it's a good idea to have the whole thing be one giant tale), doesn't click because the storyteller ends up changing tenses when he talks. It's as if they just decided to cut whatever snippets of narration they wanted to from the graphic novel without any regard of whether it fits from a storyteller's perspective.

I would also argue that the additional material for Gorgo is entirely extraneous and uninteresting, largely because her character is uninteresting to begin with. Just when the film is building up energy, it stops the film in its tracks.

 

[Nivek]

pfft... Couldn't disagree more.

 

[dpbrave84]

Zack Snyder made the very odd choice of adding silly monsters and further dehumanizing the Persians beyond what Miller already did. I have yet to understand the reasoning behind that choice. Nor will I understand why Snyder decided to add an anthropomorphic goat to Xerxes' tent (or to fill it with deformed women and transsexuals).

And then there's the fact that the Spartans are mainly faceless in the graphic novel. There's the Stumblios subplot, but only Leonidas really gets fleshed out. Now, the movie tries to work on that some, but it doesn't go anywhere near as far with it as it should.

The dialogue/narration is also a problem. Firstly, a lot of the dialogue is just ridiculous - Miller's style of dialogue barely works on the page, and it sounds remarkably silly being said out loud. The dialogue needed some heavy revision to make the transfer to the screen. Secondly, the dialogue is often weirdly cut and pasted - inner monologue becomes dialogue without any change whatsoever, and it doesn't always work. Thirdly, the narration (while, in general, it's a good idea to have the whole thing be one giant tale), doesn't click because the storyteller ends up changing tenses when he talks. It's as if they just decided to cut whatever snippets of narration they wanted to from the graphic novel without any regard of whether it fits from a storyteller's perspective.

I would also argue that the additional material for Gorgo is entirely extraneous and uninteresting, largely because her character is uninteresting to begin with. Just when the film is building up energy, it stops the film in its tracks.

so u wanted a movie that was nothing like the graphic novel...ok

 

[Agentsands77]

so u wanted a movie that was nothing like the graphic novel...ok

Actually, I think I'm arguing for a film that is pretty darn close to the graphic novel, just closer to the spirit rather than the letter. What works in a graphic novel doesn't necessarily work on screen, especially with the extremity of what Frank Miller does.

To make Snyder's 300 a good 300 film, this is what I would have done:

-Edit some of the dialogue. Keep the grandeur (what is an epic film without grand dialogue), but change some of the sillier-sounding lines. Dialogue in a graphic novel can afford to be more over-the-top than it can be on film.
-Drop the deformed women and transsexuals from Xerxes' tent. There's already a subtext to his character - there's no reason to make him an overt sexual deviant. And get rid of the silly anthropmorphic goat. After all, Miller didn't do it.
-Flesh out the Spartan army a bit more. This was started, but we needed a little better picture of who some of these characters are.
-Ease up on some of the MTV editing. Effects like that work better in smaller doses rather than all the time.
-Don't use monsters. They're silly, and they weren't part of Miller's graphic novel to begin with.
-Drop the Gorgo subplot. It brings the film to a halt, and doesn't add much depth to the film. This is a story about the 300, not about the behind-the-scenes bureaucracy. Again, something that wasn't part of Miller's graphic novel to begin with.
-Rear in the performances a little. Sometimes, they're just a little too hammy for their own good.
-Have someone in the film acknowledge that the Spartans are far from a perfect society to bring in a bit more thematic complexity, rather than shameless glorification.

Make those changes and I think you've got a winner, as well as something that is fairly close to Frank Miller's graphic novel, but just acknowledges that there's a difference between what works on the page and what works on film.

 

[mrvlknight21]

I have it. I would read anything Miller did.

 

[Steelsheen]

I have noticed that most ppl that dont like the movie always have a very bad excuse on why, but if those ppl actually took the time out to read 300 they would realize that it is one of the greatest adaptationsfrom comic book to screen, the movie is almost a completcopy of the graphic novel...makes this movie so much better if you go back and read it, how many of u have actually read it?

i read the graphic novel long before it hit the theaters. i'd say its one of the best if not the best adaptation of any written work ever done for any movie.

yeah sure there were a few things that i thought Snyder could've gone the other way on, but i'll just save my rants for the Review thread

 

[Steelsheen]

I have noticed that most ppl that dont like the movie always have a very bad excuse on why, but if those ppl actually took the time out to read 300 they would realize that it is one of the greatest adaptationsfrom comic book to screen, the movie is almost a completcopy of the graphic novel...makes this movie so much better if you go back and read it, how many of u have actually read it?

i read the graphic novel long before it hit the theaters. i'd say its one of the best if not the best adaptation of any written work ever done for any movie.

yeah sure there were a few things that i thought Snyder could've gone the other way on, but i'll just save my rants for the Review thread

 

[Jim Hall]

I have the graphic novel, and I thought the movie was a wonderful translation. I've said it elsewhere on these boards that it seems to me like they just used the comic for storyboards and kept it faithful shot for shot.

If fact, the two things I noticed that they dropped were good things to drop:

1) Penis (many of the Spartans were nude in the comic)

2) "Stumblios" getting beaten to within an inch of his life by their captain as punishment for falling down from heat exhaustion

 

[MrZombay]

The only thing I can think off of the top of my head I would want in the film is the Stumblios sub-plot.

 

[cryptic name]

Actually, I think I'm arguing for a film that is pretty darn close to the graphic novel, just closer to the spirit rather than the letter. What works in a graphic novel doesn't necessarily work on screen, especially with the extremity of what Frank Miller does.

Make those changes and I think you've got a winner, as well as something that is fairly close to Frank Miller's graphic novel, but just acknowledges that there's a difference between what works on the page and what works on film.

but that's not what the filmmakers set out to do. they wanted to put the graphic novel on screen. it's ok if you don't like that approach, but you can't really fault the film for it.
and i think it's pretty obvious that the film is already a winner.

 

[Agentsands77]

but that's not what the filmmakers set out to do. they wanted to put the graphic novel on screen. it's ok if you don't like that approach, but you can't really fault the film for it.

Sure I can. I can fault the film for its approach if the approach doesn't work - the film should be entirely successful on its own merits, regardless. And I don't think it is. Furthermore, an approach can be innately flawed.

But they didn't even put the graphic novel on screen, if their goal was just to be slavishly faithful - they made some odd changes. Can anyone explain to me why the monsters were a good choice?

and i think it's pretty obvious that the film is already a winner.

I'm not so sure. There are plenty of people who seem to like it, and it's clearly a box office success, but that doesn't mean it's a winner. PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST is one of the most successful films of all time, and it was terrible. We'll see how 300 measures up in 20 years or so. I wonder if the look will be favorable. I'm not sure.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

and i think it's pretty obvious that the film is already a winner.

Exactly.

 

[Manhunter]

Actually, I think I'm arguing for a film that is pretty darn close to the graphic novel, just closer to the spirit rather than the letter. What works in a graphic novel doesn't necessarily work on screen, especially with the extremity of what Frank Miller does.

To make Snyder's 300 a good 300 film, this is what I would have done:

-Edit some of the dialogue. Keep the grandeur (what is an epic film without grand dialogue), but change some of the sillier-sounding lines. Dialogue in a graphic novel can afford to be more over-the-top than it can be on film.
-Drop the deformed women and transsexuals from Xerxes' tent. There's already a subtext to his character - there's no reason to make him an overt sexual deviant. And get rid of the silly anthropmorphic goat. After all, Miller didn't do it.
-Flesh out the Spartan army a bit more. This was started, but we needed a little better picture of who some of these characters are.
-Ease up on some of the MTV editing. Effects like that work better in smaller doses rather than all the time.
-Don't use monsters. They're silly, and they weren't part of Miller's graphic novel to begin with.
-Drop the Gorgo subplot. It brings the film to a halt, and doesn't add much depth to the film. This is a story about the 300, not about the behind-the-scenes bureaucracy. Again, something that wasn't part of Miller's graphic novel to begin with.
-Rear in the performances a little. Sometimes, they're just a little too hammy for their own good.
-Have someone in the film acknowledge that the Spartans are far from a perfect society to bring in a bit more thematic complexity, rather than shameless glorification.

Make those changes and I think you've got a winner, as well as something that is fairly close to Frank Miller's graphic novel, but just acknowledges that there's a difference between what works on the page and what works on film.

rhetoric : • language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but is often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content : all we have from Agentsands77 is empty rhetoric.

That's how I'd sum up all of your comments, agent. The way you nitpick this very successful, much beloved adaptation is highly indicitive of a hateur at work. I know it makes you feel good about yourself to try and put down the movie, but your subjective criticisms are as weak as they are tiresome.

This isn't Gladiator or Hamlet, THIS IS SPARTA! t:

 

[Agentsands77]

That's how I'd sum up all of your comments, agent. The way you nitpick this very successful, much beloved adaptation is highly indicitive of a hateur at work.

If you consider me a hater, consider me a hater. Sorry I'm out of step with the rest of the brainless praise crusade around these parts which has called this film one of the "greatest films of all time."

A lot of my problems aren't nitpicks. A nitpick is, "Dude, his hair looked silly the whole time. Ruined the film for me." Bad dialogue is a major problem throughout the entire film. Making an already borderline-silly graphic novel much sillier is a fairly big deal. A consistent lack of character development is something that's hard to overlook. A distracting, boring, and ultimately unnecessary subplot is a big deal. The glorification of a civilization that is portrayed as utterly barbaric undermines the entire film.

I know it makes you feel good about yourself to try and put down the movie, but your subjective criticisms are as weak as they are tiresome.

It could just as easily be flipped around, my friend. Your subjective praises don't count for much either.

This isn't Gladiator or Hamlet, THIS IS SPARTA! t:

Well, forgive me if I like my entertainment to be relatively well made. Just because a movie has the occaisional nice visual and a few good fight scenes doesn't give it a pass to be artistically bankrupt.