ultimatefan
The Batman must come back
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2001
- Messages
- 38,117
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 31
I did and I always knew that if the movie captured its look and feel, it´d be something to behold...
Done.If you consider me a hater, consider me a hater.
Because you said so? That blanket statement needs some sort of example to justify it's existance. Hateurs live, and die, by flimsy blanket statements....Bad dialogue is a major problem throughout the entire film.
There's another blanket statement...without any supporting evidence. Rhetoric is a hateur's best friend.Making an already borderline-silly graphic novel much sillier is a fairly big deal.
A writer has 4 plots to work with, man vs. man; man vs. environment; man vs. self; and man vs. supernatural. Character development need not be at the forefront of every story, sometimes the plot itself can be the focus, and here it was, Man vs. Man.A consistent lack of character development is something that's hard to overlook.
So I take it you don't date women then, because that little subplot you feel was so unnecessary resonates very much with the ladies. Having the Queen stand by her man gives the ladies something to relate to amidst all the blood and gore.A distracting, boring, and ultimately unnecessary subplot is a big deal.
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.
It could just as easily be flipped around, my friend. Your subjective praises don't count for much either.
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.
Here's an example: "There is no room for softness. Not in Sparta. No place for weakness. Only the hard and strong may call themselves Spartans. Only the hard. Only the strong." Absolutely terrible.Because you said so? That blanket statement needs some sort of example to justify it's existance.
I've already given examples earlier in this thread, that's why I didn't feel the need to restate myself.There's another blanket statement...without any supporting evidence. Rhetoric is a hateur's best friend.
I think character development would enhance the plot there. This is a very simple story about sacrifice, about a great a heroic moment. Well, we can only truly appreciate an act of heroism and sacrifice once we're emotionally attached to the people who are sacrificing. We have to get to know these people.A writer has 4 plots to work with, man vs. man; man vs. environment; man vs. self; and man vs. supernatural. Character development need not be at the forefront of every story, sometimes the plot itself can be the focus, and here it was, Man vs. Man.
In fact excessive character development here would detract from the plot, and therefore would have been a mistake.
Not the ladies I saw the film with. Likewise, they found her subplot dull, and were furthermore very turned off by her character's choice to let Theron have his way with her. But earlier in this thread, I said:So I take it you don't date women then, because that little subplot you feel was so unnecessary resonates very much with the ladies. Having the Queen stand by her man gives the ladies something to relate to amidst all the blood and gore.
I've supported a number of my statements before in this thread. I shouldn't have to restate everything I've said in every subsequent post (in fact, with a thread as short as this, the assumption should be that all my posts to this point have been read).See how I support my statements rather than just making unsubstantiated claims of personal preference? Rhetoric free baby, try it sometime and ppl just might take you seriously.
Sure. Obviously, I'm talking to plenty of people that disagree with me. But I thought a forum was about different opinions and people engaging them in a sort of informal discussion. I guess I was wrong....you realize just stating your opinion doesn't make it so, right?
everyone is entitiled to their own opinion...but from what i have seen most ppl enjoy this movie...actually the lines in this movie where greatly entertaining, even though they where streight out of the graphic novel
...i find it funny however that ppl who detest this movie still make a very strong commitment to go on message bords and nitpick....if u hated it so much why do you even watse your time criticisizing the film, i mean i didnt like ghost rider that much and i stay away from that forum, because i dont even feel the need to discuss it...so with that said there must have been something about the film that still draws ppl to want to go out of their way to make a point about how bad it was....that never made any sense to me
...Furthermore, I should feel free to post an opinion, substantiated or not...But I thought a forum was about different opinions and people engaging them in a sort of informal discussion. I guess I was wrong.
ALOT of people really like it, no doubt. As for the lines, alot of the "cheezy" ones are directly tied to the Legend.
You confuse your opinion with fact and you hope that repeating it ad nauseam, will convince the rest of us to do the same.
Quoting a line and then claiming it's simply terrible is not an example of substantiation. In order to achieve that, you'd have to explain why it's terrible, which you failed to do so.
Hence the lack of actual discussion.
The problem isn't with the movie it's with you. You walked into the theatre expecting Gladiator pathos, and instead you got FM's 300. That's like walking into a chocolate shop and getting all pissy with the owner because he doesn't have any caramel apples. The owner isn't incompetent in some way for not providing you with what you want, you're the fool for shopping in the wrong store.
Asserting an opinion strongly doesn't mean I've ever pretended it's anything more than a personal judgment. Would you be happier if I attached an "IMO" to every statement I make?You confuse your opinion with fact
I would be perfectly happy to stop posting - I would have stopped after my first post if someone hadn't responded to it. All of my posts in this thread have been responses to questions or attacks on my posts, not attempts to flood this thread with my perspective.and you hope that repeating it ad nauseam, will convince the rest of us to do the same.
You asked for an example. Not an explanation. But if you want the latter: First and foremost, the line is unintentionally hilarious because of the sexual meaning that is almost to easy to lay on top of it. Second, and on a more technical leve, the line is grotesquely overstated. The same point is reiterated over and over in different sentences (even in the same words!). The best way to make a poignant line is to try and keep it concise - saying it over and over again merely dilutes the effect the line desires to have.Quoting a line and then claiming it's simply terrible is not an example of substantiation. In order to achieve that, you'd have to explain why it's terrible, which you failed to do so.
From my perspective, it was closer to me walking into McDonald's expecting to dine on filet mignon. My expectations were out of whack, sure, but on my side of things, there is a case to be made as to whether McDonald's should exist to begin with.The problem isn't with the movie it's with you. You walked into the theatre expecting Gladiator pathos, and instead you got FM's 300. That's like walking into a chocolate shop and getting all pissy with the owner because he doesn't have any caramel apples.
I can't imagine 300 being any sort of smash success, so it's likely that WATCHMEN may be put on hold. Again.
Still, Zack's comments are encouraging. I'm not totally enthralled with the guy (I'm still dubious as far as his talent goes), but I know he's going to do a respectful version, at the very least.
02/12/2007post#13
You had your mind made up before you even walked into the theatre, making any further discussion rather pointless.
From my perspective, it was closer to me walking into McDonald's expecting to dine on filet mignon. My expectations were out of whack, sure, but on my side of things, there is a case to be made as to whether McDonald's should exist to begin with.
Actually, that quote says absolutely nothing about how good I thought 300 would be. Saying "I can't imagine 300 being any sort of smash success" doesn't say anything about the quality, merely a reading of how popular it would be among general masses (something I clearly misjudged).02/12/2007post#13
You had your mind made up before you even walked into the theatre, making any further discussion rather pointless.
You entirely missed the metaphorical meaning of that statement. My statement had very little to do with McDonalds at all.Nivek said:No, you obviously have issues if a simple statement like that makes you ask "why McDonalds should exist to begin with". Something like that is VERY telling about the person. Yeah... I think we are done here...
I'm not responding to any arguments that may/may not be going on, haha, I just wanted to give my opinion on the comic/movie comparison:
As far as visually, it is pretty much EXACT. Anyone who has it can justify this, so many of the scenes are perfectly replicated that I can't find any reason to complain.
As far as the story, they added all the scenes with the queen (she was on like, one page in the comic), which i liked... being a girl myself, i liked having someone to relate to on screen. (Not that I didn't like the spartans but still.) Unless I'm not remembering properly, Theron (the corrupt council member who Gorgo slept with) wasn't in the comic at all.
I also liked how they didn't include the scenes where Stelios was getting beaten up by the Captain because he fell/when the Captain was getting beaten up by Leonidas because he wouldn't stop beating Stelios. I was never a fan of those scenes, it took the protagonists and although it was an example of their 'spartan ways' I still never really liked them.
Other then those differences, it was pretty much exactly the same.
For those of you who haven't read it, I took a few pictures of my comic so you can see how awesomely alike they are...(Sorry, No scanner.)
If this isnt allowed, a mod can edit this.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()