Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Heavy armor can stop a spear or sword. It is all relative and I know you probably don't want to concede the point. I understand that at the time when the Wright brothers invented the airplane that was considered something along the lines of a 747 or even moreso.

G

Hoplite armor could stop a spear or sword without difficulty. That was the problem that the Persians (and Isrealis interestingly) ran into, shepherds with pointy sticks vs. invulnerable killing machines.

Now I'lll give on the tanks To a tanker anything not in a Challenger/M1 is not heavily armored

I'd like to point out that while rape and child killing are in the movie, they aren't depicted; The child was killed but the murder wasn't shown. Yes there are two dogs fight over a piece of the carcass, but this scene was used to show the audience that the child was actually dead, which wasn't certain yet. The rape is interrupted and not actually consumated, yet you know it would have happened had somebody not walked in. These scenes are not gratuitous, they are there for plot purposes and do a lot to further and deepen the story. Yes, the violence is over the top, but it isn't prevalent throughout the movie, and it is actually quite rare if you take in the running time.

I'll second what lordhat said - but I still felt the violence that does occur was a little gratuitous. Some things were changed from the comic, and seemed to only be changed to be more gory. Other things are straight from the comic but are much more disturbing live and in motion on a huge screen than in a comic panel or two.

That being said, as a fan of the comic, I enjoyed the movie, even with its flaws. It provides a lot of "wow, that is neat, and straight from the comic" moments which I appreciated immensly. I have no idea how it works as a movie without pre-knowledge of the plot, but it seems like it would be hard to follow and hard to understand some of the characters and whether they're being portrayed in a positive light. I've read a lot of reviews that seem to complain that these heroes aren't very heroic...which is in a nutshell one of the big themes of the story.

I want to watch it at some point, but I won't rush to the cinema. Tbh I'd never heard of the comic until the movie popped up, and after reading stuff about it online, I'd probably consider the story weak now compared to stories that have come out via Marvel, Indies and DC since.
In the same way I feel Lord of the Rings is no where near the best Fantasy piece of work anymore, first or first of note does not always equal best.

It's also interesting that it came out at around the same time as the Mutant Massacre, which in my view was another defining storyline that changed comics for the better.

Sounds over the top as a film, but then honestly what did anyone expect from the Director of 300.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Heavy armor can stop a spear or sword. It is all relative and I know you probably don't want to concede the point.

As Frazzled said, Greek shields held up really well vs. the light Persian weaponry. If they hadn't, the battle for Thermopylae would have been over quickly, bottleneck or not.

And while a hoplite's armor doesn't compare to medieval mail or plate, it probably would have been considered heavy armor for quite a while after the Persian war. IIRC, the trend after the war was to lighter armor and greater mobility. Macedonian phalangites a hundred years later are probably a good example. They used smaller, lighter shields and were spaced farther apart.

But overall, no one should concede the point to you, because this was yours...

The Spartans' dress was simply accurately depicted.

...and it's absolutely incorrect.

Back to OP.

In some ways, I'm a little disappointed that the movie is basically the comic book in film. That seems to always be a recipe for failure, the original media is usually the best way to convey the story. To me, it's like reading the novelization or comic adaptation of a movie (and I have them for Alien because I'm a geek). It conveys the story, but it's just not the same thing. I was kinda hoping they would 'update' the story some. I don't know that nearly 25 years later the threat of nuclear war has the same impact. Reagan was clearly viewed as a hawk that would press the big red button if threatened (or if confused by old age as in the Genesis video). Also, I think the Nite Owl I/Hollis Mason book adds a lot to the story, at least from the 'yeah, you had to be nutty to wear a costume and fight crime' angle, and I don't know how you incorporate that. Mason also makes a great point in his writing - when the villians stopped wearing silly costumes, it just seemed silly for the heroes to do so.

Plus, it's Zak Snyder. He strikes me as a supermodel director. Sure, it looks pretty, but there's not a lot of depth to it.

Having said all that, I'd still like to go see it. If for no other reason than it's three hours away from the kids. If people take their kids to an R movie, I have no sympathy for the parents (I do for the kids, they don't know better).

The joy of the MPAA. I remember when Stand by Me was out in theatres. It got an R rating because of a few bad words and they show a dead body. But, it's a great movie, and was suitable for most teens. And a lot of parents took kids that were 10 or 12 to it.

Didn't George Carlin have a routine about that? It's alright to kill people, but not show them making love? Something about replacing "kill" with... another word that probably won't get through the filter. "We're gonna <bleep> you sheriff, but we're gonna <bleep> you slow."

Don't don't forget, Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns came out in this time frame, iirc, a few years after Watchmen. The mid 80's did change comics, and they weren't just for kids anymore.

It is the plot of the comic book on film, not really the comic itself. For better or for worse.

Personally I think taking a book of any kind and making it into a movie without a serious re-working is trouble. Hollywood always gets caught up in plot plot plot, which tends to hurt any story which has a slower buildup.

Kubrick was a master of this - he was able to distill the meaning and message of a book or story, without necessarily getting caught up in having to hit every plot point. He gave it room to breath, cut things, changed things - all to make it work in a different medium.

I think with comics it's harder than with a novel, because there's already a visual element. Zak Snyder gives you constant reproductions of frames from the comic, for the parts (plot) that he keeps in. My wife and I really enjoyed it - seeing certian scenes in live action (like the comediens funeral, and the flashback scenes...really anything in the first 1/3rd or so of the movie) was really entertaining. But the movie feels like it's on rails, and cannot jump them.

I found it unfortunate that most of the changes that were made seemed to be in the name of more graphic violence or more graphic sex. But I wasn't surprised, based on the director.

It was still a satisfying and enjoyable movie. I think they did an ok job showing the moral ambiguity of all of the characters actions, but obviously not everyone is seeing that.

Anung Un Rama wrote:I didn't think the follwoing would be worth a new thread, but I thought I'll post it anyway:

Necros wrote:One guy came in the theater with 5 boys all around 10. They lasted till the jon & laurie 4 hands scene, then they all left

Interesting that you mention that. Because I just read this "review". Try to read it and then the comments below.
Later she posted this.

Some People just shouldn't be allowed on the Internet. I mean, of course she can have a different opinion about the movie, but if you read how she responded to some of the comments, I'm starting to doubt her journalistic credibility.

I've following her rant this afternoon and appearantly, Toys 'R us really does sell Watchmen figures, but that is no excuse for saying stuff like this:

Guess what? We know there are bad people and that people are everyday people with problems. If you don't know that, and you think a movie like this is necessary to make the point, you're even more warped and stupid than I originally diagnosed.

And maybe your sister should be fed to dogs and your mother raped and your brother should have his arms sawed off (as they do in this snuff/torture-porn movie). You know, just to make the point.

I think I am actually dumber for reading that "review". I'm not surprised the reviewer didn't get it, I've read other reviews where the person was clueless that there was even an original graphic novel.

The movie was fantastic in that it accomplished what it set out to do, capture the feel and tone of the Watchmen and do justice to the source material. The pacing was fantastic, in a 2h45 movie I never looked at my watch or felt there was a scene that could have been cut down for pacing reasons. The violence was graphic, just as it was meant to be. This isn't a kiddies story, this is a real and brutal look at the superhero genre and a spectacular "what if" story. I won't give it a 10/10 cause that's reserved for films like The Dark Knight but I will give it a solid 9/10.

sebster wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:300 was by no means a movie with homosexual undertones. The Spartans' dress was simply accurately depicted.

G

Umm, no. The Spartans were not accurately depicted. Like all hoplites, they were heavy infantry, and were called heavy infantry because they wore heavy armour. Now, at various times the level of armour differed, but at a minimum it was considerably heavier than the armour of contemporary armies, such as the Persians.

In fact, the Battle of Thermopylae shown in 300 could be considered the logical consequence of a force of heavy armour defending a narrow pass against a lightly armed army more accustomed to open battles of manoeuvre.

In short, they didn't fight bare chested, that's ridiculous.


And yes, 300 can be seen as homoerotic. It wasn't the dominant theme, and I doubt it was even an intended theme, but pretending it isn't the background is simply wrong.

Of course they didn't fight bare-chested. But look at any piece of Greek pottery or sculpture from that time period and what do you see, bunch of naked Greeks beating the crap out of their enemies. It was that aesthetic that was used in the 300 comic and therefore in the 300 movie. It wasn't an accurate representation of the battle of Thermopylae, it was an accurate representation of the Greek story of the battle of Thermopylae. Hell you even had two lines from Herodotus (Spartans, lay down your weapons... and Fight in the shade) who wasn't there so for all we know made up the lines. Anyone who thinks 300 = Homoeroticism is really missing the point.

gorgon wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Heavy armor can stop a spear or sword. It is all relative and I know you probably don't want to concede the point.

As Frazzled said, Greek shields held up really well vs. the light Persian weaponry. If they hadn't, the battle for Thermopylae would have been over quickly, bottleneck or not.

And while a hoplite's armor doesn't compare to medieval mail or plate, it probably would have been considered heavy armor for quite a while after the Persian war. IIRC, the trend after the war was to lighter armor and greater mobility. Macedonian phalangites a hundred years later are probably a good example. They used smaller, lighter shields and were spaced farther apart.

But overall, no one should concede the point to you, because this was yours...

The Spartans' dress was simply accurately depicted.

Sorry but I just can't see that what the Spartans wore could classify as heavy armor. To me the armor they did wear in the movie was accurately depicted in the sense that what I saw looked like a Spartan to me. They had their classic helmets by which they are best recognized, they had their shields, they had their leggings and they had their spears. As the movie well portrayed their shields and potent offense is what deflected enemy attacks. To me it is a point not worth getting jazzed about that they weren't wearing any upper body armor. The vast majority of the people who watched the movie are simply not students of ancient warfare by and large. If that single aspect made the movie less enjoyable for you then try to realize that most movies are made to tell a story and are often quite imperfect when it comes to exceedingly accurately portray the setting.

G

...and it's absolutely incorrect.

Green Blow Fly wrote:It was a movie. Often times they are not that accurate since the primary intent is entertainment. For example I somehow doubt the oracle would have floated.

G

You're not even reading this thread, are you?

I said earlier;
“The film shouldn't be criticised for going another route, there were monsters, a nine foot Xerxes, the absence of anyone at the battle but Spartans, and the crazy bit about Spartans fighting for freedom. With all that the film obviously wasn't attempting an accurate recreation, so the lack of armour wasn't a problem. It was stylised violence.

However, pretending actual Spartans looked anything like the dudes in the movie, that be nonsense.”

Do you understand that? There is nothing wrong with the movie taking a stylised depiction of the Spartan’s war gear, because everything else was just as stylised. But pretending their armour was historical is nutty.

Redbeard wrote:I think what people miss, about 300, and Watchmen (same director too), is that while Dr. Manhattan walks around naked, and the Spartans are bare chested, this is because that is how the comics that the movies are based on are written. Anyone who went to see 300 thinking it was going to be a historical reenactment doesn't get it. Anyone who goes to see Watchmen thinking that it's another Spiderman doesn't get it.

No, we all get that. No-one has criticised 300 for a lack of historical accuracy. Xerxes was nine foot tall and he had ogres on his side.

We are trying to explain to Green Blow Fly that it wasn’t accurate. The debate isn’t ‘was it bad because it was inaccurate’ because the answer there is ‘no, it’s a heavily stylised movie’. The debate is ‘is the armour depicted accurate’ and the answer ‘no, of course it isn’t, and basic reading of Hoplites will tell you how they were very heavily armoured’.

As Oszy has pointed out the Spartans were visibly shown in a manner in which most movie goers would recognize them. Obviously it's not like Zeus came down from Mount Olympus and started farting lightning bolts at the Persians or Ares showed up as a giant berzerker killing machine. It's splitting atoms to say they were nor correctly portrayed, they sure as heck looked like Spartans to me. To be quite frank this is the first I have ever seen anyone bring up the subject.


G

sebster wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:It was a movie. Often times they are not that accurate since the primary intent is entertainment. For example I somehow doubt the oracle would have floated.

G

You're not even reading this thread, are you?

I said earlier;
“The film shouldn't be criticised for going another route, there were monsters, a nine foot Xerxes, the absence of anyone at the battle but Spartans, and the crazy bit about Spartans fighting for freedom. With all that the film obviously wasn't attempting an accurate recreation, so the lack of armour wasn't a problem. It was stylised violence.

However, pretending actual Spartans looked anything like the dudes in the movie, that be nonsense.”

Do you understand that? There is nothing wrong with the movie taking a stylised depiction of the Spartan’s war gear, because everything else was just as stylised. But pretending their armour was historical is nutty.

Ozymandias wrote:Of course they didn't fight bare-chested.

Try explaining that to Green Blow Fly. He claimed their leather undies get up was historically accurate. All I’ve been trying to do was explain that it wasn’t actually all that accurate.

But look at any piece of Greek pottery or sculpture from that time period and what do you see, bunch of naked Greeks beating the crap out of their enemies. It was that aesthetic that was used in the 300 comic and therefore in the 300 movie. It wasn't an accurate representation of the battle of Thermopylae, it was an accurate representation of the Greek story of the battle of Thermopylae. Hell you even had two lines from Herodotus (Spartans, lay down your weapons... and Fight in the shade) who wasn't there so for all we know made up the lines.

Yeah, absolutely. Like when I pointed out earlier the film included countless stylistic flourishes, and the armour was just one more. Not being historically accurate does not make it a bad movie, but it does mean comments that it was realistic are bad comments.

Anyone who thinks 300 = Homoeroticism is really missing the point.

It’s fair to say homoeroticism wasn’t an intended theme, some people might dispute that but I wouldn’t. But whenever you get 300 muscled men baring their finely shave chests, and pack them close in together and start having them stab their spears into other men, it isn’t rocket science to see how people might detect that theme.

And I’ll say it again, just because a film you might like has homo-erotic undertones, it doesn’t say anything about you.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Heavy armor can stop a spear or sword. It is all relative and I know you probably don't want to concede the point. I understand that at the time when the Wright brothers invented the airplane that was considered something along the lines of a 747 or even moreso.

G

You thought the armour was accurate. It has been explained to you that it wasn't. Now you're prattling on about how it wasn't heavy armour according the definition of heavy armour from a later period. Stop pretending you weren't wrong. Take your licks, admit your mistake and we can all move on. As it is, you're embaressing yourself.

Green Blow Fly wrote:As Oszy has pointed out the Spartans were visibly shown in a manner in which most movie goers would recognize them. Obviously it's not like Zeus came down from Mount Olympus and started farting lightning bolts at the Persians or Ares showed up as a giant berzerker killing machine. It's splitting atoms to say they were nor correctly portrayed, they sure as heck looked like Spartans to me. To be quite frank this is the first I have ever seen anyone bring up the subject.

What?

I pointed it out first. When you seemed unaware that I had made that point, I repeated it for you. Now you quote that post, and then talk about how Ozzy just made this startling new point. What is wrong with you?

My post quoting the great Oz preceded yours. Sorry.

G

I thought 300 was a good action film.

Stuff historical accuracy. The film kicked arse, and thats all I wanted it to do.

Put it this way, in Scotland, you can go to Stirling, the former capital, and see a statue of William Wallace. Except it isn't. At all. It's a statue of Mel Gibson.

Green Blow Fly wrote:My post quoting the great Oz preceded yours. Sorry.

G

Is cool. Are you going to call it a day on the accuracy of the leather undies?

Let's call it day. : )

G

What's wrong with a little latent homoeroticism in movies anyway? It's just another demographic to appeal to.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:What's wrong with a little latent homoeroticism in movies anyway? It's just another demographic to appeal to.

My Girlfriend was actually very glad about all the men in 300 and rather enjoyed the reversal of norm with watchmen where it was the guy (albeit the blue one) who was naked a lot. So... yeah in some ways they are reaching out to another demographic.

Ok I went to see Watchmen again yesterday, this time with a group of friends who weren't familiar with the source material. This time opinion was spilt 50/50 between those who loved and hated it. Generally however I noticed that those who were disappointed where those whose expectations were different to that which the finished film delivered. I.e. they were expecting a more traditional Superhero film.

It was interesting to hear the opinion of the layman and, on reflection, I can see why they were disappointed. Most of the complaints were that the film was slow, lacked pace and had little action. Perhaps these were things I had overlooked as I was watching a translation of a book I loved to film and I must say a few nitpicks aside I wasn't disappointed. I even accepted the need for most of the changed Snyder made.

I think the problem is that this a literal translation of book to film will leave most people shocked. Books don't require the same pacing as a film for example. Books can also spend a great deal of time building up a character, as watchmen does, far more time than a conventional film ever should. Especially considering that much of Watchmen deals with flashbacks and the actual events of the main plot really only account for about half the film. Watchmen is really character driven as opposed to most films which are plot driven. Each 'slow' scene whilst have little relevance to the plot is vital to developing the characters. The funeral scene for example, which some of my friends didn’t see the point of, I think is utterly vital to development of all the characters.

Not to mention that the film ends of what can only be described as downer. Millions dead and despite a ensemble cast of 'heroes' they are either so far removed from humanity they no longer are capable of telling right from wrong, absolutists who care little for any form of due process and so think noting of violently dispatching anyone they personally deem as 'wicked' or nihilists who care really don't believe there are any innocents left and so think nothing if they are caught in the firing line. Basically the Heroes are actually shower of bastards. There are only 2 idealists in the whole bunch who manage to retain any real form of humanity. Its easy to see why many people would not be 'entertained' by film with such a bizarre set of protagonists.

So should Snyder have realised this and changed the film to suit more conventional film making methods? Personally I must say kudos to Mr Snyder for having courage to say no. Even though he will annoy as many people as he will please by doing so. The result is IMHO a flawed masterpiece. It is only flawed in so much as to make it a good film in the conventional sense would have been to ignore or vastly dilute the themes of the book. I see now why many dubbed it 'unfilmable'.

He has created a film which is totally at odds with the superhero movie genre, which is going to alienate many people who just want to see another x-men type flick. They will in all likelihood be disappointed by the lack of sympathetic characters, the relatively low amount of action and large amounts of dialog. Frankly I don’t care if they are disappointed. I think its great that film goers have their exceptions challenged. I do however also hope they have the courage to look at the film again with a different set of expectations and realise just how powerful this story is.

If not its their loss.

Been to see it tonight. I absolutely loved it. Surprisingly thought provoking, well shot, well lit, dialogue was good, soundtrack was excellent, everything about it worked.

Is it a faithful rendition of the Comic book? Buggered if I know, I've never read it.

And besides, I fail to see how it not being 100% accruate or nerd pleasing prevents it being a highly entertaining film in it's own right.

Oh, and in a turn up for the books in modern cinema....I could actually follow the action during the punch ups! No more blurred, darkened fights where I can't tell whose arm has just been ripped off and inserted up whose rectum. Oh no. Nice and clear.

Hats off My Snyder, Hats off.

Mad Doc: You should give the comic a read, it's really very good.

I fully intend to, but much like Maus, it seems every time I remember to buy it, or actually have the cash etc, it's sold out.

Getting rather fed up with this now.

Necros wrote:One guy came in the theater with 5 boys all around 10. They lasted till the jon & laurie 4 hands scene, then they all left

Yeah, and Bull Durham is just a baseball movie...

Went to see the movie. I loved it. Especially because everyone in the movie was expecting a superhero movie like spiderman. Other than some different twists, I liked most of it because it was faithful to the graphic novel.

I think they did a sterling job of characterisation.

The way the characters views intertwine and diverge is awesome. Most credit to Mr Moore for creating them that way, but top marks to Mr Snyder for pulling it off on celluloid.

The fights were also suitably 'human'. Predominatly skill rather than strength based combat is always a pleasure to watch on the big screen, and the lack of wire work was extremely refreshing (I mean, come on. Austin Powers took the piss out of it years ago...)