Tooj 17 Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 (edited) Every time I see the trailer for this I get a real buzz of excitement, think it looks absolutely brilliant. Anyone else think the same or am I just getting excited over nothing? Edited February 23, 2007 by Jonny2J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Every time I see the trailer for this I get a real buzz of excitement, think it looks absolutely brilliant. Anyone else think the same or am I just getting excited over nothing? The trailer is cracking. Hope it lives upto it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Everyone seems very excited. Personally I'm ambivalent. Never like swords and sandals. Never seen one I've felt compelled to re-watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo 175 Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Looks promising, although I must admit, I thought Sin City was fucking terrible, although I seem to be the only person on planet Earth with that opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Looks promising, although I must admit, I thought Sin City was fucking terrible, although I seem to be the only person on planet Earth with that opinion. What's the connection? Just that both are digital? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 ah. Frank Miller. geddit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 ah. Frank Miller. geddit. That lead bloke who shouts a lot seems to have a lisp...That's put me off a bit already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo 175 Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 The reviews of it on IMDB are outrageously complementary, nearly every review is calling it a masterpiece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Sorry. I'm not a comic book nerd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve 0 Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 A graphic novel is different to a comic book. Seriously. I cannot wait to see this. I have been a fan of the GRAPHIC NOVEL for a long, long time and the trailers I've seen look incredible. Frank Miller hasn't had a great deal to do with the movie, acting more as a consultant than anything else. From the interviews I've read with the director he's said he's tried to make this as accurate as he can. And by accurate he means bloody as hell and incredibly violent because that's what the battles were. I want to see just how violent it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Steve_Howey 0 Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 The fact they basically trashed Troy and implied this was the first period film since Gladiator has got my hackles firmly up. This bastard's gonna have to be good to impress me now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 A graphic novel is different to a comic book. Seriously. I cannot wait to see this. I have been a fan of the GRAPHIC NOVEL for a long, long time and the trailers I've seen look incredible. Frank Miller hasn't had a great deal to do with the movie, acting more as a consultant than anything else. From the interviews I've read with the director he's said he's tried to make this as accurate as he can. And by accurate he means bloody as hell and incredibly violent because that's what the battles were. I want to see just how violent it is. No titty though. If it's drawings in book form, it's a comic mate. Just like Watership Down isn't a 'graphic film', it's a cartoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Steve_Howey 0 Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 A graphic novel is different to a comic book. Seriously. I cannot wait to see this. I have been a fan of the GRAPHIC NOVEL for a long, long time and the trailers I've seen look incredible. Frank Miller hasn't had a great deal to do with the movie, acting more as a consultant than anything else. From the interviews I've read with the director he's said he's tried to make this as accurate as he can. And by accurate he means bloody as hell and incredibly violent because that's what the battles were. I want to see just how violent it is. No titty though. If it's drawings in book form, it's a comic mate. Just like Watership Down isn't a 'graphic film', it's a cartoon. I refuse to accept that a 'cartoon' scares the bejeezus out of me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo 175 Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 A graphic novel is different to a comic book. Seriously. I cannot wait to see this. I have been a fan of the GRAPHIC NOVEL for a long, long time and the trailers I've seen look incredible. Frank Miller hasn't had a great deal to do with the movie, acting more as a consultant than anything else. From the interviews I've read with the director he's said he's tried to make this as accurate as he can. And by accurate he means bloody as hell and incredibly violent because that's what the battles were. I want to see just how violent it is. No titty though. If it's drawings in book form, it's a comic mate. Just like Watership Down isn't a 'graphic film', it's a cartoon. The mans got a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyluke 2 Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 The fact they basically trashed Troy and implied this was the first period film since Gladiator has got my hackles firmly up. This bastard's gonna have to be good to impress me now Troy was absolutely awful. Aside from wooden (Pitt, Bloom, Bana) and pantomine (Cox) acting, not including Peter O'Toole of course, the story of the Iliad was completely re-written to be Hollywood friendly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 4098 Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 The fact they basically trashed Troy and implied this was the first period film since Gladiator has got my hackles firmly up. This bastard's gonna have to be good to impress me now Troy was absolutely awful. Aside from wooden (Pitt, Bloom, Bana) and pantomine (Cox) acting, not including Peter O'Toole of course, the story of the Iliad was completely re-written to be Hollywood friendly. Aye when they killed Menalaus I was like WTF!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyluke 2 Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 The fact they basically trashed Troy and implied this was the first period film since Gladiator has got my hackles firmly up. This bastard's gonna have to be good to impress me now Troy was absolutely awful. Aside from wooden (Pitt, Bloom, Bana) and pantomine (Cox) acting, not including Peter O'Toole of course, the story of the Iliad was completely re-written to be Hollywood friendly. Aye when they killed Menalaus I was like WTF!!!! Turning Agamemnon into a pantomine villain and letting Paris escape (particularly galling as he was played by Orlando "can't act, won't act" Bloom) pissed me off more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 4098 Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 The fact they basically trashed Troy and implied this was the first period film since Gladiator has got my hackles firmly up. This bastard's gonna have to be good to impress me now Troy was absolutely awful. Aside from wooden (Pitt, Bloom, Bana) and pantomine (Cox) acting, not including Peter O'Toole of course, the story of the Iliad was completely re-written to be Hollywood friendly. Aye when they killed Menalaus I was like WTF!!!! Turning Agamemnon into a pantomine villain and letting Paris escape (particularly galling as he was played by Orlando "can't act, won't act" Bloom) pissed me off more. Aye it was shite. Just watched the trailer and it seems they are showing Leonidas as THE king of Sparta. There were two who were elected every 10 years I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Just watched the trailer and it seems they are showing Leonidas as THE king of Sparta. There were two who were elected every 10 years I think. Nah they were hereditary at that time certainly (they may have had to be affirmed, can’t remember), and one of them usually had minor seniority due to their bloodline, later on more and more power was stripped from them and put into an elected councils hands, but they weren’t ever really absolute monarchs and had limited powers and were more a kinda hereditary general/war leader with absolute power on campaign but much less at home. Actually around the time of Leonides there had been issues with the dual-kingship. Not long before that battle (Thermopylae) there’d been a disagreement at a previous battle which left one of the kings fighting whilst the other went home, I think that lead to the king that went home banishment (indeed IIRC he ended up with Xerses against Leonides) and after that there was a rule put in place that only one king could go to war and the other had to remain at home. This whole issue being partly why Leonides only marched with his personal guard of 300 Spartans (others being religious, political, prophetic and perhaps even personal). Of course there is I’m sure a large degree of artistic licence in both the original and the film version. It looks like a decent film, but it is a film, not an historical account. If it's drawings in book form, it's a comic mate. Just like Watership Down isn't a 'graphic film', it's a cartoon. Yup just like Spot the Dog and Lord of the Rings are exactly the same things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 The fact they basically trashed Troy and implied this was the first period film since Gladiator has got my hackles firmly up. This bastard's gonna have to be good to impress me now Troy was absolutely awful. Aside from wooden (Pitt, Bloom, Bana) and pantomine (Cox) acting, not including Peter O'Toole of course, the story of the Iliad was completely re-written to be Hollywood friendly. Aye when they killed Menalaus I was like WTF!!!! Turning Agamemnon into a pantomine villain and letting Paris escape (particularly galling as he was played by Orlando "can't act, won't act" Bloom) pissed me off more. Bloom just comes across as a girl. Tbf he can barely lift those swords. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj 17 Posted February 24, 2007 Author Share Posted February 24, 2007 Agreed about Troy, it was absolutely gash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Agreed about Troy, it was absolutely gash. ...then there's that Oirish bloke going through big budget Hollywood with a wrecking ball of performances... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 11122 Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 SSH, Troy was fucking awful. I fully expected a bit of artistic license, but to take a chainsaw to a classic is a little much. also, there is a huge difference between a comic and a graphic novel but I accept that people who don't read them won't see it so I won't get too upset by their uninformed opinion. would you say that the Beano and Sin City are the same thing? it's like sayin Toy Soldiers and Apocalypse Now are the same thing because they're both war films. with Comics and graphic novels the difference is to be found in the artistry, the subject mater, the language and the themes. I know that the comics like Spiderman and Xmen are aimed at a young market, but Frank Millers graphic novels most certainly are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 also, there is a huge difference between a comic and a graphic novel but I accept that people who don't read them won't see it so I won't get too upset by their uninformed opinion. would you say that the Beano and Sin City are the same thing? it's like sayin Toy Soldiers and Apocalypse Now are the same thing because they're both war films. with Comics and graphic novels the difference is to be found in the artistry, the subject mater, the language and the themes. I know that the comics like Spiderman and Xmen are aimed at a young market, but Frank Millers graphic novels most certainly are not. I'd love to see someone who reads them just say "aye, they're comics" The beano and sin city are both comics. Toy Soldiers and Apocalypse now are both films. The content is immaterial. Just because they're not aimed at kids, doesn't mean they aren't aimed at nerds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve 0 Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Just because they're not aimed at kids, doesn't mean they aren't aimed at nerds. I just think a guy posting on an internet message board going on about things being nerdy is hilarious. The moment you pressed 'add reply' the first time you were forever made a nerd. And it's something you have done over 4000 times. haha, nerd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now