h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I enjoyed "Sin City" a lot.

>>Sin City was done extremely well, I thought.<<

So you noticed the SFX then I agree - both 300 and Sin City were extremely good looking and it made them enjoyable even if, in 300s case, the story and acting weren't much cop.

SFX and visual effects matter a lot to me. I might be biased because I pay a lot of attention to the visuals of a films and there are certain films - Hellboy 2 and Pan's Labyrinth for example - that I could watch muted and enjoy because the visuals are superlative, but good SFX can make a film. They need to used by an artist who really has the imagination and experience to use them correctly, but they can be pivotal.

If you looked back through the What Film Have You Seen Recently? thread you'd see I mention cinematography/visual more often that not: cinematography is important folks!

Well - rules, exceptions. I thought it was an innovative use of that - what's it called - rotovator? - technique.

That also used reasonably well in 'A Scanner Darkly' which, if you've read the book, needed the wigged out ambiance. With both films the clever thing was 'Now how do I film this...?' That's different to 'Now what film can I make with FX...?'

Or something.

Rotoscope. (Rotavator! )

(Although it's not technically rotoscoping nowadays, they use them new fangled computer whatchamacallems.)

Also: "in 300s case, the story and acting weren't much cop"

Can't disagree too hard on the acting... but the story??? Srsly?

You realise that's (an enormously exaggerated version of) a *true* story, right? A story still taught to officer cadets in military academies around the world as a textbook example of the use of terrain and training as force multipliers?

Well - I can't comment about specifics because I haven't seen the film - but isn't that a bit like saying that the story in 'Titanic' was good because it was based on a true story? There are good and bad ways of telling stories, whether true or fictitious..

Sorry, script/dialogue rather than story. Yes, I'm aware of the history of Thermopylae and Artemiseum: the Greco-Persian Wars is one of my favourite bits of history and it's cool that Alan Moore was similarly enchanted.

'The 300 Spartans' used to be a bank holiday favourite.

*Ahem* '300' is Frank "I'm the Goddamn Batman!" Miller, not Alan "Who watches the watchmen" Moore. They are poles apart in many ways.

Perils of writing presentations, Urdu homework and 6th form prospectus as well as hanging out on hootoo all at the same time.

Please don't take my nerd card from it: it's all I have left.

I assumed it was based on Herodotus.

"script/dialogue rather than story"

Historically "accurate" lines apart ("Better for us, we fight in the shade.") I'll give you that one for sure.

"I can't comment about specifics because I haven't seen the film - but isn't that a bit like saying that the story in 'Titanic' was good because it was based on a true story? There are good and bad ways of telling stories, whether true or fictitious..." [Edward the Bonobo]

The Titanic sinking holds the world's interest because it was a historically huge inflection point. "Bigger is better" ran into a disaster of epic proportions. After the sinking, it was hard to look at the world in quite the same way. So, a Titanic retelling that's not too terrible will still pique the interest of a fair number of people. As the Onion said, it was the sinking of a Metaphor.

But I agree that, in general, basing a movie on a true story does not guarantee that the story will be done in an intelligent or entertaining fashion.

Yeah...but it was a shite film.

"isn't that a bit like saying that the story in 'Titanic' was good because it was based on a true story? "

I wasn't saying it was good because it was true. I was saying you couldn't criticise the story for being bad, because the *story* (not the script) was actually an exaggerated retelling of an historical event. It's secondary that I would contend that it is objectively a good story.

The "story" of Titanic - the *real* story - is "big ship they said couldn't sink hits iceberg, sinks. Lots die." As a story, that's dull at best, so the "story" of the film is actually a LOT of stuff about people who didn't really exist, to pad out the seventeen hours it seemed to last.

The story of the battle of Thermopylae doesn't need much embellishment - the bald historical facts are incredible enough. The titular 300 (plus about 1,000 other guys you don't hear much about) held off an army that outnumbered them AT LEAST 200:1 for *days*. Now, as HI pointed out, you can demonstrably make a hokey script out of that, but unless you bury the battle under seventeen hours of hokey diddly-eye Irish dancing below decks, class war and sweaty sex in a carriage, the story stands on its merits.

Hmm. But if a film is badly enough made (bad script, tiddly-Oirish dancing) it *definitely* distracts.

Given that HI knows fine well about Thermopylae - might you and he be using the word 'Story' in different ways? 'Story' - call it 'Screenplay' perhaps - can be more than just dialogue. It can be how it's put together - what emphasis is placed on which character, etc. etc. Get that wrong and the story can *really* bury the Story.

I'm reading 'World War Z' at the moment, in anticipation of the film, which I saw being filmed (Glasgow standing in for Philadelphia.) It's arguably a good story. (Hello! Zombies?! What's not to like?) But jaysus it's one shite book. The technical aspects - the craftsmanship of the writing. - just get in the way. It's bad storytelling.

The battle of Thermopylae has always been a massively exaggerated, rip-roaring boys-own tale, and the graphic novel* is true to that. I'm told that, at one point in the original Herodotus, one of the Spartan soldiers has sex with a faerie, who gives birth to a bull...

* also the movie

Are there histories that report Thermopylae other than Herodotus? Herodotus wasn't a historian as we'd understand it but a compiler. His 'Histories' consisted of 'Well some say that this happened...' Some of it may be true. Some of it may have been embellished and distorted before it reached him.

"Given that HI knows fine well about Thermopylae - might you and he be using the word 'Story' in different ways? "

Well, we *were*. We got that sorted out *really* quickly, though:

Post 102, HI: "story wasn't much cop"
Post 104, me: ""
Post 106, HI: "SCRIPT, not story"
Post 111, me: " Agree with you there"

Seeing disagreement where none exists? Trying, dare I suggest it, to provoke?

Jaysus, no! How odd. But HI mentioned and you Dialogue and I was just reinforcing that there are other ways of getting a story wrong, no matter how true it is.

I mean...it r5eally was odd. Surely when I said 'might you and he be using the word 'Story' in different ways? ' I'm promomoting agreement rather than seeking conflict?

I thought I was anyway. Sorry if you thought I was provoking a fight.