300 Blu-ray outsells HD-DVD by 2-to-1

[Woochifer]

Big news last week on the HD front was that 300 became the biggest selling HD optical disc ever with over 250,000 copies sold in its first week of release. The other big news on the HD format war front is that the Blu-ray version outsold the HD-DVD version by 65% to 35%. Not surprising considering that overall Blu-ray has maintained a 2-to-1 advantage throughout most of the year.

But, some HD-DVD backers had hoped that the release of 300 would equalize the sales trends somewhat because the HD-DVD version includes some interactive PIP features that are missing on the Blu-ray version. The HD-DVD version is also a combo disc that's playable on conventional DVD players, which might attract even more buyers (in fairness though, the HD-DVD version also carries a price tag $5 higher). The sales figures show that the extra features on the HD-DVD version did not matter much.

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/sh..._by_2_to_1/848

IMO, Warner is trying to steer the market more towards a dual-format compromise by propping up HD-DVD at the Blu-ray version's expense. Despite their purported neutrality, some of their releases thus far have given Blu-ray the short end with missing features, and/or no lossless audio tracks, or in the case of The Matrix boxed set, releasing the HD-DVD version first and putting off the Blu-ray release until later.

Warner has deftly taken the lion's share of the HD disc market by supporting both formats and putting out quality releases, but I think their ultimate goal involves getting the industry to adopt the TotalHD hybrid disc format (for which Warner coincidentally holds the patents). They obviously want to do what they can to prop up HD-DVD. But, if Blu-ray versions continue to outpace HD-DVD versions by a wide margin despite the HD-DVD version having better features on board, it might not matter what Warner does. The sales split for 300 does absolutely nothing to break the sales trends established thus far.

[kexodusc]

Interesting stuff.
I saw that the BluRay disc was cheaper than HD-DVD version and wondered why? 'Round here those formats are fairly similarly priced (for whatever reason I see BluRay sold for $2X.99 vs $2X.95 for HD-DVD, that $.05 doesn't seem to be carrying much weight.)

The only real news I've seen in this format war all summer is that BluRay has failed to build on its momentum and further separate itself from HD-DVD, and HD-DVD's lower price advantage is translating into nothing.

Are there any affordable BluRay players on the way? Christmas is around the corner and I have to pick a new toy. Leaning towards Xbox 360 right now...

[Rich-n-Texas]

WILD HOGS with John Travolta is now available for purchase on Blu-ray, so I think that'll pretty much lock it up for the BR camp don't ya think?

I thought 300 got really bad reviews?

[Feanor]

Big news last week on the HD front was that 300 became the biggest selling HD optical disc ever with over 250,000 copies sold in its first week of release. The other big news on the HD format war front is that the Blu-ray version outsold the HD-DVD version by 65% to 35%. Not surprising considering that overall Blu-ray has maintained a 2-to-1 advantage throughout most of the year.
...
IMO, Warner is trying to steer the market more towards a dual-format compromise by propping up HD-DVD at the Blu-ray version's expense.
...

But do all Blu-Ray player support standard DVD playback? (Presumably, but what do I know.)

A lot of people are talking about falling prices of Blu-Ray players. That's the issue for people who already own appropriate HDTVs. But for me, and I'd guess a still substantial portion of the population, the issue is the price of HDTVs.

My wife, who's the video fiend around our place, bought 300 on standard DVD. What kind of reviews has it had? Well, I ranted about it in Favorite Films a few months back: not one of my favorites.

[nightflier]

Big news last week on the HD front was that 300 became the biggest selling HD optical disc ever with over 250,000 copies sold in its first week of release....(in fairness though, the HD-DVD version also carries a price tag $5 higher).

First of all, 300 sold like hot cakes because no one had seen it yet. It sucked so bad in the theaters that everyone was waiting for the disk, in any format, to come out.

Second, the movie is about as much like a video game as a movie can get - no wonder all the PS3 and Xbox-DVD owners decided to buy it, Duh.

But the fact that the HD-DVD was $5 more shouldn't be a footnote. That's a huge deal and people shouldn't be claiming that this is indicative of anything. I too was waiting for the movie to come out in both formats. When I saw the difference in price at BB, my first thought was that someone sooner or later is going to compare sales figures without mentioning the difference in price and chalk up another victory point for the BR camp. Well, in fairness to Wooch, he did mention it in passing, somewhere in the middle of his post, in parentheses, without acknowledging the actual affect this would have on sales figures - so he did mention it. 'Cmon folks, this is almost as stupid as those Cold War charts hanging in our history classes showing that Russia had bigger ICBMs.

[Groundbeef]

First of all, 300 'Cmon folks, this is almost as stupid as those Cold War charts hanging in our history classes showing that Russia had bigger ICBMs.

So what are you saying? Size doesn't matter...

[Woochifer]

First of all, 300 sold like hot cakes because no one had seen it yet. It sucked so bad in the theaters that everyone was waiting for the disk, in any format, to come out.

Might want to do some fact checking before spouting off an ignorant missive like this one. I would hardly call $211 million in domestic box office ($456 million worldwide) a case of "no one" seeing the movie yet. It's a widely anticipated home video release because it was a major box office hit. By your twisted logic, every box office flop then should have people lining out the doors on their DVD release date since no one has seen the movie, and box office hits won't have any takers since everyone has already seen it. Last time I checked, that's hardly the case.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=300.htm

And in terms of the movie sucking, well tell that to the 61% of film critics who reviewed the movie favorably, and to the 90% of movie audience that gave the film an A or B rating.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/300/

But the fact that the HD-DVD was $5 more shouldn't be a footnote. That's a huge deal and people shouldn't be claiming that this is indicative of anything. I too was waiting for the movie to come out in both formats. When I saw the difference in price at BB, my first thought was that someone sooner or later is going to compare sales figures without mentioning the difference in price and chalk up another victory point for the BR camp. Well, in fairness to Wooch, he did mention it in passing, somewhere in the middle of his post, in parentheses, without acknowledging the actual affect this would have on sales figures - so he did mention it. 'Cmon folks, this is almost as stupid as those Cold War charts hanging in our history classes showing that Russia had bigger ICBMs.

Geez, so now my method of mentioning the price difference takes on some sort of conspiratorial angle? The price gap is one of the many differences between the releases that make apples to apples comparisons difficult at best. Would the $5 price gap deter some purchases? Most definitely. But, would the enhanced features and dual format disc concurrently spur some purchases? Most definitely here too. As for which factor is more important in the overall balance, who knows. All I do know is that the features and dual format ability on the HD-DVD were not enough to close the gap.

[Woochifer]

Interesting stuff.
I saw that the BluRay disc was cheaper than HD-DVD version and wondered why? 'Round here those formats are fairly similarly priced (for whatever reason I see BluRay sold for $2X.99 vs $2X.95 for HD-DVD, that $.05 doesn't seem to be carrying much weight.)

The only real news I've seen in this format war all summer is that BluRay has failed to build on its momentum and further separate itself from HD-DVD, and HD-DVD's lower price advantage is translating into nothing.

Are there any affordable BluRay players on the way? Christmas is around the corner and I have to pick a new toy. Leaning towards Xbox 360 right now...

Warner has been going with the dual format discs recently on their major HD-DVD releases, despite the more expensive production costs. IIRC, their reasoning for going with the dual format releases was that it would appeal to 1) consumers that have not yet bought either HD-DVD or Blu-ray, but might want to upgrade soon, 2) those who already own HD-DVD players, but might want to also play the disc on their computer or secondary system DVD players, and 3) those HD-DVD player owners who might be concerned about not being to play the disc anywhere if HD-DVD loses the format war.

Somewhere in their calculus, they seem to feel that the benefits of releasing their HD-DVD titles in a dual format offset any losses that might incur due to the higher list price. Because of their patent holdings with HD-DVD and the TotalHD dual format disc, Warner has plenty of motivation to do everything it can to prop up HD-DVD just enough to keep the format viable.

If anything, the status of the format war is status quo. Blu-ray has launched some of their heavy hitter titles, while HD-DVD (or actually Toshiba) has been countering by dropping the prices on players. But, I get the impression that the big push by both sides will occur during the holiday season. Blu-ray will have POTC and Spidey 3 lined up, while Universal will counter with Bourne Ultimatum. All the while, disc player prices have been plummeting. According to a couple of articles I've looked at, Blu-ray player prices are on target to hit the $300 price point by the holidays and possibly go further below that point if the bottom totally drops out on HD-DVD prices (i.e., the offbrand Chinese players hit the market and promptly go well below the $200 price point).

But do all Blu-Ray player support standard DVD playback? (Presumably, but what do I know.)

A lot of people are talking about falling prices of Blu-Ray players. That's the issue for people who already own appropriate HDTVs. But for me, and I'd guess a still substantial portion of the population, the issue is the price of HDTVs.

My wife, who's the video fiend around our place, bought 300 on standard DVD. What kind of reviews has it had? Well, I ranted about it in Favorite Films a few months back: not one of my favorites.

Yup, Blu-ray players support DVD playback.

As far as HDTV goes, it's getting to a point that only the lowest priced entry level sets don't have HD resolution. If you're in the market for a TV, right now it's very likely that you'll end up with a HDTV simply the non-HD choices are dwindling in a hurry. I think a part of this is the requirement that all TVs larger than 32" must include a DTV tuner, and components for HD resolution are now in high volume production.

300 author Frank Miller has a huge following among comic fans (having also penned the highly influential Sin City series and The Dark Knight Returns Batman graphic novel). Like Sin City, this is bringing a graphic novel style to the big screen. With CGI, this is now possible. I can see how emulating a graphic novel doesn't appeal to everyone, but it also has a built-in audience.

[nightflier]

Wooch,

I can always count on the fact that you need to have the last word - well not this time. Granted I didn't know that box office sales were over $200M. I have to admit, I was floored to read that. Fine, but the movie did suck. And that's not just me saying that, it's a whole lot of people - just check online. 61% of film critics? How many of those are not paid stooges or work for a media outlet that is dependent on the movie industry's advertising? Even if we leave the official critics out of it, here's some quotes from the buying public:

"Incredibly stupid dialogue and insanely bad writing, historically hilarious, the worst sex scene in movie history, and generally the most intelligence-insulting film in recent memory." (Amazon.com)

"If I can save a single person from wasting their money from seeing or buying this movie.............I will have saved at least one person from the misery of having to watch it. I gave this movie one (1) star because they will not allow you to rate a movie with zero (0)stars." (amazon.com)

And yes, there are plenty of positive reviews too, if you can get through the bad spelling, the simplistic analogies, and the complete lack of knowledge or interest in either history or film making. But after all, they only make up about half of the reviews, right? Come to think of it, there's few other movies that have so many "absolute best" and "absolute worst" movie ratings as this one, with nary a middle-of-the-road opinion to be found... makes you wonder.

My personal opinion? This movie was about as moronic as they come, but I guess some people will pay for that.

Need more proof that this movie sucked? Just start a poll on this forum about it. Betcha our fellow audiophiles will give it a lackluster, if not absolutely abysmal send-off. But hey, I could be wrong about that - try it.

Oh and regarding the $5 difference in price - that's quite a chunk of change if you consider that it makes up 20-25% of the price, depending on where you buy it. Bottom line is that two different versions at different prices in no way makes for a fair comparison. Had the movies been identical in content as well as price, then I am absolutely certain that sales figures would not have been 2-1. To start a thread with that in the title when we're talking about different products is just incendiary. Kind of like comparing apples to kumquats.

[musicman1999]

I saw this in the theatre and did not care much for it.Technically it was good but the story was not that good and it was not very accurate to the events of history.All in all a 5 out of 10 would not buy it,wont rent it.My local HMV had a large display of all three formats,but not many were selling.BluRay and HDDVD seemed to be the same price $26.95 cdn.

bill

[PeruvianSkies]

What you need to realize when it comes to SIN CITY or 300 is that unlike the famous saying: all style and no substance, in these films the style IS the substance.

[Robert-The-Rambler]

I hate the dual format disks. I don't see their charm and frankly I think they are quite useless. I have several of these wretched disks like Superman Returns and I can't believe I payed extra for a useless DVD version I will never use. So while I don't think the higher price is the reason why 300 is selling better on BLU-RAY, I still hate them.

BLU-Ray is more popular right now so 300 sold more on BLU-RAY. It is quite simple. The HD-DVD camp better wake up and realize that they need to show that they can do more for less such as offer movies that focus on the quality of the movie experience without any worthless extras like a DVD format and do it for about $20. If they don't the format will simply be lost in the mix and forgotten.

[Woochifer]

I can always count on the fact that you need to have the last word - well not this time. Granted I didn't know that box office sales were over $200M. I have to admit, I was floored to read that. Fine, but the movie did suck.

Just because you did not like a movie does not mean that other people (presumably with different opinions, personal habits, and preferences from you) share your distaste for it. And the box office returns and disc sales indicate that your opinion is not shared by all (or even most if you go by the aggregate polling rather than just selectively quoted individual reviews).

Personally, I have mixed feelings about Frank Miller in general (he's a brilliant comic writer, but he also wrote the screenplays for Robocop 3 and Electra -- two of the worst-reviewed movies in their respective years), but for now at least, I think translating his graphic novels into film form and taking the comic design more literally is an inventive and fresh approach to filmmaking. To me, this approach is a very mixed bag, but it's different and obviously has a substantial following.

Need more proof that this movie sucked? Just start a poll on this forum about it. Betcha our fellow audiophiles will give it a lackluster, if not absolutely abysmal send-off. But hey, I could be wrong about that - try it.

FWIW, here's the earlier discussion of 300 from the Favorite Films board. Some liked it better than others, but I didn't see anyone dropping the hammer on the movie like you have. Might need to narrow your sample down even further if you want any polling results to come out the way you want.

This...Is...Spartaaaaaaa!!!!

Besides, how do you "prove" that a movie sucked anyway?

Oh and regarding the $5 difference in price - that's quite a chunk of change if you consider that it makes up 20-25% of the price, depending on where you buy it. Bottom line is that two different versions at different prices in no way makes for a fair comparison. Had the movies been identical in content as well as price, then I am absolutely certain that sales figures would not have been 2-1. To start a thread with that in the title when we're talking about different products is just incendiary. Kind of like comparing apples to kumquats.

Incendiary? Hard to be incendiary if all relevant differences between the disc releases were spelled out in the thread. If you think the sales difference would have been narrower with price parity, then by all means state your opinion. But, facts are facts, and I simply put the most relevant one in the title (i.e., the bottomline). If I wanted to be incendiary, I would have titled the thread something on the order of "Blu-ray 300 Sales BLOW AWAY HD-DVD!" or "HD-DVD 300 Sales CRUSHED by Blu-ray!"

In the end, I'm not so sure that more comparable releases and list prices would have narrowed the gap substantially because few people have players in both formats and can thus choose Blu-ray over HD-DVD to save $5, and the DVD layer provides additional incentive to purchase the HD-DVD version who want their disc to play on multiple systems or even those who don't currently own a HD-DVD player. Warner has a financial incentive to favor HD-DVD. If they felt that the extra $5 was an insurmountable sales obstacle, I don't think they would have kept releasing their new releases on the hybrid discs.

[nightflier]

Wooch, like I said, you won't have the last word on this one.

- The fact that a movie does well at the box office, does not make it a good movie. Millions of people eat at MacDonald's every day, but that does not make it gourmet (see Supersize Me, if you need proof). And how many of those were repeat customers? We're not talking about a deep movie here, so I'm going to guess that very few were.

- To me it was marketed as a movie for kids (despite the ratings). That means that it automatically will have box-office numbers like any other Disney movie. After all, what else is there to do for kids these days? Parents take their kids to theaters because they want them out of their hair (trust me, I've done it).

- OK, I saw the thread in Fav Films. Some people raved about the action, but frankly there's little else in this movie. Does it compare with Braveheart, Saving Private Ryan, Letters from Iwo Jima? It's just action and nothing else - and the point is that a movie does not have to be so ridiculously retarded to be good. It also does not need to skimp on the action to be good (think When We Were Soldiers). 300 is mind-numbingly dumb, it's formula, the acting is pathetic, and well, it's little more than a video game. Personally I prefer a movie that makes me think a bit more instead of making me like my brain is oozing out of my ears. Aside from the WWF-type entertainment, what was there to be gained by seeing 300?

- It's not historically accurate, and I think that's a big deal. I can put up with a movie like Gladiator, because even though it's a complete fantasy, someone actually hired a historian to work on that one. The problem with 300 is that, for a lot of people, that is their history - they will go on through life thinking that's how war happens. And that's really unfortunate, because it's the belief that war is just like in 300, that makes it possible for so many people to cheer on our current wars (most of them from the sidelines). It's this kind of nonsense that makes kids sign up to go and get maimed overseas, only to find out their government doesn't want to pay their medical bills (ref. Sicko).

- Was 300 violent enough? Apparently not. As one poster said: "300 could have used one or two more battle scenes. A little more blood would have been nice and I wish the Spartans could have been made to appear a little bit more manly. There were spaces between the arrows, which I hope they fix with the DVD. Lastly, Xerxes was just too small. Who could believe a man that tiny could get anyone to follow him. I guess I liked okay though." If this fella knew anything about history, he'd know that the Greeks weren't exactly manly, war is mostly a waiting game with very little action, that the arrows cannot "blot out the sun," and that the many successful military leaders were tiny folks (Atilla, Ceasar, Gengis Khan, Richard the Lion Hearted, Frederick the Great), hence the term "Napoleon Complex."

- Do movies have to be all drama, and no fun? Not entirely. I'm just saying that so much more could have been done with 300. We're talking about one of the most phenomenal battles in classical history - it's up there with Arbela, Canae, and Alesia, as defining moments in the history of the western world. It's taught at West Point and studied by historians. And this is how Hollywood pays tribute to it's legacy?

- So I'm in the minority in "dropping the hammer" on this movie? Well that's OK, you won't change my mind on this one, no matter how much you praise this movie. Anyhow, history is more often made my minorities or something like that (forgot who said it). If you wan to be remembered by your grandchildren as having defended this movie to the bitter end, be my guest. I had more fun watching "Knocked Up" this past weekend than I did watching 300, and I'm a history nut - that should tell you something. The fact is that this movie will go down in a few years as the Rocky IV of this decade: that is, it is ridiculously silly.

[Woochifer]

Wooch, like I said, you won't have the last word on this one.

You're more than welcome to it if it means that much to you. I'm not replying after this post.

- The fact that a movie does well at the box office, does not make it a good movie. Millions of people eat at MacDonald's every day, but that does not make it gourmet (see Supersize Me, if you need proof). And how many of those were repeat customers? We're not talking about a deep movie here, so I'm going to guess that very few were.

And I was simply refuting your illogical claims about the movie's DVD sales from nobody having seen it before. (Are lower box office returns supposed to generate higher home video sales?) The subject has nothing to do with whether I thought it was a "good" movie.

Fact is that 300 was a highly anticipated home video title because a lot of people had seen it and liked it as demonstrated by Box Office Mojo's 90% A/B audience rating and IMDB's average poll score of 8.1 (a very high rating for that website, and based on more than 100k responses).

No one's calling this "gourmet" or a "deep movie" -- it just happens to be a movie that a lot of people saw, a lot of people liked, and a lot of people bought. Your bellyaching about how much you hated it doesn't change that.

- To me it was marketed as a movie for kids (despite the ratings). That means that it automatically will have box-office numbers like any other Disney movie. After all, what else is there to do for kids these days? Parents take their kids to theaters because they want them out of their hair (trust me, I've done it).

Movies with an R-rating are not for kids, and parents should know that. If a parent takes a kid to see this movie, that's just bad parenting. Comparing the box office returns to a Disney movie is ridiculous, since R-rated movies are considered much riskier investments and generally attract notably lower box office numbers (the current "sweet spot" in the market is PG-13, and that's where most of the big box office hits now come from). I doubt that the built-in audience for this movie (i.e., comic book and graphic novel fans) is the same as for Ratatouile.

- It's not historically accurate, and I think that's a big deal. I can put up with a movie like Gladiator, because even though it's a complete fantasy, someone actually hired a historian to work on that one. The problem with 300 is that, for a lot of people, that is their history - they will go on through life thinking that's how war happens. And that's really unfortunate, because it's the belief that war is just like in 300, that makes it possible for so many people to cheer on our current wars (most of them from the sidelines). It's this kind of nonsense that makes kids sign up to go and get maimed overseas, only to find out their government doesn't want to pay their medical bills (ref. Sicko).

Anyone going to a movie expecting historical accuracy is just deluding themselves. I mean, it's a major coup if a movie even stays faithful to its original source material (whether we're talking a book, historical events, or a even the original screenplay as written by the writer). I've seen enough movies to know that directors freely augment or otherwise change book endings and/or real-life events because these ain't documentaries or literal adaptations from literature. It's about taking artistic license or making cinematic changes. You don't have to agree with that, but that's how filmmaking is done. Plus, 300 doesn't make any pretensions at historical accuracy. The stylized approach to filmmaking is supposed to emulate a comic/graphic novel. If you wanted something more faithful to classic epics with a true-to-life production design, you should have looked elsewhere.

And I don't know where you get this idea that someone watching 300 is going to suddenly change their mind on the Iraq war. 300 came out in March, and poll numbers on the war have steadily declined since that time, so I don't see any kind of "300 effect" on the electorate. Say what you will about the American public, but I think that most people can safely differentiate between reality and entertainment.

- Do movies have to be all drama, and no fun? Not entirely. I'm just saying that so much more could have been done with 300. We're talking about one of the most phenomenal battles in classical history - it's up there with Arbela, Canae, and Alesia, as defining moments in the history of the western world. It's taught at West Point and studied by historians. And this is how Hollywood pays tribute to it's legacy?

So what? Hollywood's not about anything other than separating audiences from their money. The studios are not charities or about doing good. If making a movie that "pays tribute" to an historical event has a chance at making more money than a highly stylized adaptation from Frank Miller's graphic novel, then I'm sure the studio would have done it that way. In the end, it's all showbiz.

- So I'm in the minority in "dropping the hammer" on this movie? Well that's OK, you won't change my mind on this one, no matter how much you praise this movie. Anyhow, history is more often made my minorities or something like that (forgot who said it). If you wan to be remembered by your grandchildren as having defended this movie to the bitter end, be my guest. I had more fun watching "Knocked Up" this past weekend than I did watching 300, and I'm a history nut - that should tell you something. The fact is that this movie will go down in a few years as the Rocky IV of this decade: that is, it is ridiculously silly.

I don't care to change your mind, and I'm not defending this movie "to the bitter end." (Like I said, Frank Miller is a very mixed bag and not always my cup of tea) I'm simply pointing out that your opinions do not constitute "proof" of anything, and that your assertions about the audience appeal of this particular movie beyond your own reaction were factually incorrect. Being a contrarian about something isn't necessarily a guarantee that history will favorably view that contrary position in posterity either (as another saying goes, history is written by the victors).

[PeruvianSkies]

Was 300 violent enough? Apparently not. As one poster said: "300 could have used one or two more battle scenes. A little more blood would have been nice and I wish the Spartans could have been made to appear a little bit more manly.

You do realize that this was sarcasm.

[pixelthis]

Wooch, like I said, you won't have the last word on this one.

- The fact that a movie does well at the box office, does not make it a good movie. Millions of people eat at MacDonald's every day, but that does not make it gourmet (see Supersize Me, if you need proof). And how many of those were repeat customers? We're not talking about a deep movie here, so I'm going to guess that very few were.

- To me it was marketed as a movie for kids (despite the ratings). That means that it automatically will have box-office numbers like any other Disney movie. After all, what else is there to do for kids these days? Parents take their kids to theaters because they want them out of their hair (trust me, I've done it).

- OK, I saw the thread in Fav Films. Some people raved about the action, but frankly there's little else in this movie. Does it compare with Braveheart, Saving Private Ryan, Letters from Iwo Jima? It's just action and nothing else - and the point is that a movie does not have to be so ridiculously retarded to be good. It also does not need to skimp on the action to be good (think When We Were Soldiers). 300 is mind-numbingly dumb, it's formula, the acting is pathetic, and well, it's little more than a video game. Personally I prefer a movie that makes me think a bit more instead of making me like my brain is oozing out of my ears. Aside from the WWF-type entertainment, what was there to be gained by seeing 300?

- It's not historically accurate, and I think that's a big deal. I can put up with a movie like Gladiator, because even though it's a complete fantasy, someone actually hired a historian to work on that one. The problem with 300 is that, for a lot of people, that is their history - they will go on through life thinking that's how war happens. And that's really unfortunate, because it's the belief that war is just like in 300, that makes it possible for so many people to cheer on our current wars (most of them from the sidelines). It's this kind of nonsense that makes kids sign up to go and get maimed overseas, only to find out their government doesn't want to pay their medical bills (ref. Sicko).

- Was 300 violent enough? Apparently not. As one poster said: "300 could have used one or two more battle scenes. A little more blood would have been nice and I wish the Spartans could have been made to appear a little bit more manly. There were spaces between the arrows, which I hope they fix with the DVD. Lastly, Xerxes was just too small. Who could believe a man that tiny could get anyone to follow him. I guess I liked okay though." If this fella knew anything about history, he'd know that the Greeks weren't exactly manly, war is mostly a waiting game with very little action, that the arrows cannot "blot out the sun," and that the many successful military leaders were tiny folks (Atilla, Ceasar, Gengis Khan, Richard the Lion Hearted, Frederick the Great), hence the term "Napoleon Complex."

- Do movies have to be all drama, and no fun? Not entirely. I'm just saying that so much more could have been done with 300. We're talking about one of the most phenomenal battles in classical history - it's up there with Arbela, Canae, and Alesia, as defining moments in the history of the western world. It's taught at West Point and studied by historians. And this is how Hollywood pays tribute to it's legacy?

- So I'm in the minority in "dropping the hammer" on this movie? Well that's OK, you won't change my mind on this one, no matter how much you praise this movie. Anyhow, history is more often made my minorities or something like that (forgot who said it). If you wan to be remembered by your grandchildren as having defended this movie to the bitter end, be my guest. I had more fun watching "Knocked Up" this past weekend than I did watching 300, and I'm a history nut - that should tell you something. The fact is that this movie will go down in a few years as the Rocky IV of this decade: that is, it is ridiculously silly.

Exelent comments. But if this movie accomlplishes anything it will draw attention to that strange race of beings known as spartans.
More accurate, (and to me a lot more fun) was the portrayal on the history channel of this battle, and there is a two part history of the spartans on tonight.
If the creators of this flick had simply shown the amazing true story instead of
"video gaming it" it would have been a better movie, and ultimatly that is their true error

[PeruvianSkies]

Does anyone actually have a valid point here that understands the nature of Frank Miller? I have to agree with Woochifer on his points about film and filmmaking. I can't even believe that there is even an argument about this. I mean, opinions are opinions, but there is no RIGHT OR WRONG about it. Frank Miller's vision of the story of the 300 SPARTANS is just one stylized interpretation. It's not a historical documentary nor does it ever claim to be. Again, the style IS the substance people! Did anyone actually see SIN CITY? Same thing, this time SPARTANS.

It was just a cool, edgy, stylized film that had tons of action, little story, and that's all there is. It's not the greatest film ever made, certainly not the worst, but I don't see this discussion really going anywhere.

[pixelthis]

Does anyone actually have a valid point here that understands the nature of Frank Miller? I have to agree with Woochifer on his points about film and filmmaking. I can't even believe that there is even an argument about this. I mean, opinions are opinions, but there is no RIGHT OR WRONG about it. Frank Miller's vision of the story of the 300 SPARTANS is just one stylized interpretation. It's not a historical documentary nor does it ever claim to be. Again, the style IS the substance people! Did anyone actually see SIN CITY? Same thing, this time SPARTANS.

It was just a cool, edgy, stylized film that had tons of action, little story, and that's all there is. It's not the greatest film ever made, certainly not the worst, but I don't see this discussion really going anywhere.

The wrong about it is that its a wasted opportunity.
Such a stylized effort on a common experience that everybody is familiar with would be worthwhile, but they could have made a movie about REAL people, REAL heros,
getting chopped up on a REAL battlefield, knowing they were going to die and choosing that freedom over enslavment, this is such an amazing story, we humans have so few
shining moments of greatness.
Instead they made a music video

[pixelthis]

And the fact that blu outsold HD by 2-1 just underscores my "opinion" that HDDVD
is done for

[PeruvianSkies]

The wrong about it is that its a wasted opportunity.
Such a stylized effort on a common experience that everybody is familiar with would be worthwhile, but they could have made a movie about REAL people, REAL heros,
getting chopped up on a REAL battlefield, knowing they were going to die and choosing that freedom over enslavment, this is such an amazing story, we humans have so few
shining moments of greatness.
Instead they made a music video

Since you know so much...when did you make your last movie? What do you know about the movie industry? Probably about the same as you know about home audio and video, which is a great deal (or at least that's what the person in your head keeps telling you). It's one thing to come here and express your viewpoints, but don't go around here telling us your opinions and trying to preach to us about what you feel is fact because quite frankly...we are all onto your nonsense and your reputation score proves what I have felt all along...you are nothing more than a roaming troll trying to stir up trouble. If you want to hang around and contribute worthwhile conversation than please do, but don't go claiming such ridiculous things and guess what...people might actually come around and start to like you. It's called 'making friends 101' it's the first step in most people's social skill set.

[pixelthis]

Since you know so much...when did you make your last movie? What do you know about the movie industry? Probably about the same as you know about home audio and video, which is a great deal (or at least that's what the person in your head keeps telling you). It's one thing to come here and express your viewpoints, but don't go around here telling us your opinions and trying to preach to us about what you feel is fact because quite frankly...we are all onto your nonsense and your reputation score proves what I have felt all along...you are nothing more than a roaming troll trying to stir up trouble. If you want to hang around and contribute worthwhile conversation than please do, but don't go claiming such ridiculous things and guess what...people might actually come around and start to like you. It's called 'making friends 101' it's the first step in most people's social skill set.

Do you seriously think I would be interested in making a spitefull hatefull person like yourself into a "friend"?
What do I know about the movie industry? A great deal more than you, simply because I have had more experience, I watched Chinatown when it first came out on SHOWTIME,
and a lot of "classics" as you would call them I watched new in the theater.
And, I dont have quite as much growing up to do as you do.
You know, people who disagree with you arent "wrong", considering the mess you post most of the time I would wager that disagreeing with you is an indicator of being right
I am really getting tired of your attacks on me which have nothing to do with the subject at hand, if insults are the only response you can think of then have you ever thought that I might actually be right about what I am saying?
And please, you are setting yourself up as the arbiter of "good conversation"?
You wouldnt have a clue as to what that is, it would be like a monkey trying to build a computer

[pixelthis]

But good news peruvian skier! The movie industry is making more and more
dumbed down movies with the depth of a mudpuddle, and the clarity to match,
much like your personality

[Rich-n-Texas]

Since you know so much...when did you make your last movie? What do you know about the movie industry? Probably about the same as you know about home audio and video, which is a great deal (or at least that's what the person in your head keeps telling you). It's one thing to come here and express your viewpoints, but don't go around here telling us your opinions and trying to preach to us about what you feel is fact because quite frankly...we are all onto your nonsense and your reputation score proves what I have felt all along...you are nothing more than a roaming troll trying to stir up trouble. If you want to hang around and contribute worthwhile conversation than please do, but don't go claiming such ridiculous things and guess what...people might actually come around and start to like you. It's called 'making friends 101' it's the first step in most people's social skill set.

This exact fact was pointed out way back when his post count was in the 20's. I won't mention who said it (dig a little, you'll find it); I agreed with it then and I still agree today. And thus: pixelthis = Ignore List...

Oh and BTW y'all, you can't change the color of a leopard's spots (however that saying goes)

[GMichael]

Oh and BTW y'all, you can't change the color of a leopard's spots (however that saying goes)

True, but you could neuter and de-claw him.

And what's with the "y'all?" You're from Jersey my friend.