THIS...
IS...
STUPID!
OT: I'm sure there will be new jokes popping up before the movie even comes out.
IS...
STUPID!
OT: I'm sure there will be new jokes popping up before the movie even comes out.
300's Sequel Stars The Bad Guy
- Thread starter vansau
- Start date
Recommended Videos
300 was not meant to be historically correct. It was based of a dramatized comic book story about the same battle. And the comic was indeed awesome, but still not to be confused with reality.Cpt Corallis said:
That is besides the point. It's a comic book. New York is in "our" universe, but no one cares that Spiderman happens there. Also, as you said yourself, it's based loosely off of historical events.The_root_of_all_evil said:
Let's make sequels to EVERYTHING!!!!
Minecraft 2
Brink 2
Portal 3
Team Fortress 3
(Do you see where I'm going with these?)
Minecraft 2
Brink 2
Portal 3
Team Fortress 3
(Do you see where I'm going with these?)
I think not.Baresark said:
No, it's a film.
You're confusing universes. Ours is 1218, Spiderman is 616. 8311 would be looking for Peter Porker, the Spiderham.
Which means that if it's an alternate universe, you have to de-lineate what differences there have been. This is the job of the scriptwriter, which they haven't hired yet.
300 starring the Persians? Movie title: 300,000
My question is how can they make the persians likable? They were portrayed so harshly in the first movie how can they possibly turn that around?
My question is how can they make the persians likable? They were portrayed so harshly in the first movie how can they possibly turn that around?
Of course it is. This is a work of fiction. It's a common occurrence when people harp on 300 based on the fact that it is inaccurate. My advice would to avoid comic book culture. Or at very least align yourself with the reality that it's a work of fiction based very loosely off real events.The_root_of_all_evil said:
Frank is responsible for the comic though. Not the sequel. He is also responsible for the first comic, not the film, the movie company is responsible for the that. Along with the script writer.
It is delineated, by the events of the first movie. The only way it fits our reality is the most basic points of the event. The Persians attacked, there was a battle, and the Spartans fell after 3 days. None of the other events were aligned with reality. So, there is your delineation.
I realized I never actually gave my opinion on this article.
Meh, who cares. I'm sure it won't be that good. They even are gonna have, what, a Zack Snyder clone direct the movie. I'm not a huge fan of his work and his film style, though he has been successful with it. He is also not making 10 movies a year. So more who copy him is a bad idea.
From a comic book perspective, it's not uncommon for their to be books from the perspective of the bad guys.
Meh, who cares. I'm sure it won't be that good. They even are gonna have, what, a Zack Snyder clone direct the movie. I'm not a huge fan of his work and his film style, though he has been successful with it. He is also not making 10 movies a year. So more who copy him is a bad idea.
From a comic book perspective, it's not uncommon for their to be books from the perspective of the bad guys.
By not doing so? A couple of my favorite games had you playing the "obvious bad guy", and they were great. Movies could do the same.Xan Krieger said:
It's not like there isn't enough Greek History to change to your will.
There was more wars in Greece than just Sparta and Persia ya know?
There was more wars in Greece than just Sparta and Persia ya know?
Which games? I know silent hunter has you being the germans but other than sandbox games that let you be the bad guy I can't exactly think of one. Can you name a few? I'm interested in the idea, I'm sick of being the good guys.lacktheknack said:
Geneforge springs to mind, a game series which seems to have a pretty clear "good/evil" scale at first glance (and you're solidly on the "evil" side) but everything goes fuzzy really quickly. I also like Overlord, but I think I'm alone on that one.Xan Krieger said:
I'm gonna side against Frank Miller. The guy hasn't been "sabotaging his own career" since The Dark Knight Returns and Sin City as he has proven he was a one hit wonder.
Yes, we all applaud how Frank Miller renewed interest in Batman. Yes, it allowed some of the yesteryear fans to come out of the closet about their comic collections. Yes, it created a darker, grittier Batman that seems to have left a permanent mark on the industry.
But that was twenty-five years ago. Geeks don't need to "jock things up" anymore. We enjoy our camp, our cheese, our corn, and we enjoy it with pride.
I for one am getting tired of the "darker, gritter" Batman. Frank's comic and a lot of Batman material released since then have continued to paint Batman as nothing more than a brutal, emotionless, but otherwise functional sociopath. Nothing motivates him but rage, which always seems ready to boil over into full-out madness, that he can make himself stop at all seems to be his only heroic ability.
The Animated Series, by contrast, showed us Batman could enjoy gothic stories and yet still remain true to the Batman as a hero. He was motivated by the tragedy of his past, and it was that pain that drove him to overcome the odds without giving up his principles. Not only was the Batman a better character, his villains were better, as well. Mark Hamill's Joker and Mr. Freeze. Absolute awesome.
So yeah, sorry Frank, you wre just a placeholder.
Yes, we all applaud how Frank Miller renewed interest in Batman. Yes, it allowed some of the yesteryear fans to come out of the closet about their comic collections. Yes, it created a darker, grittier Batman that seems to have left a permanent mark on the industry.
But that was twenty-five years ago. Geeks don't need to "jock things up" anymore. We enjoy our camp, our cheese, our corn, and we enjoy it with pride.
I for one am getting tired of the "darker, gritter" Batman. Frank's comic and a lot of Batman material released since then have continued to paint Batman as nothing more than a brutal, emotionless, but otherwise functional sociopath. Nothing motivates him but rage, which always seems ready to boil over into full-out madness, that he can make himself stop at all seems to be his only heroic ability.
The Animated Series, by contrast, showed us Batman could enjoy gothic stories and yet still remain true to the Batman as a hero. He was motivated by the tragedy of his past, and it was that pain that drove him to overcome the odds without giving up his principles. Not only was the Batman a better character, his villains were better, as well. Mark Hamill's Joker and Mr. Freeze. Absolute awesome.
So yeah, sorry Frank, you wre just a placeholder.
"Universe" here refers to a fictional creation, unless of course there really were crab executioners, ogre creatures and the Immortals were lizard men...things.The_root_of_all_evil said:
Frank Miller took a page from history and changed it, similar to Romance of the Three Kingdoms by Luo Guanzhong.
Fallout would be another example, that is set in "our universe", but it changes significantly to our own to be considered a different "universe", same with 300.
Wouldn't it be hilarious if they called the sequel "600" and made into a cheesy sitcom where Xerxes is the wacky, annoying neighbor that always has a scheme up his sleeve while King Leonidas is the dad who is constantly beset by his wife(Queen Gorgo) and his family?
Yeah, that would be a hell of a lot more interesting than another "hardcore" action movie based around tough-guy bullshit and gritty lens filters.
Yeah, that would be a hell of a lot more interesting than another "hardcore" action movie based around tough-guy bullshit and gritty lens filters.