Iranians outraged over hit movie ‘300’

[The Spartan (Returns)]

Blockbuster depicting Persian siege called an ‘obvious insult’
link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17599641/?GT1=9145)


now 300 viewers is this true? havent seen it yet but reading this sounds very convincing.

Politics or Hollywood?

[Devastatin Dave]

Outraged? Too bad...

[IrishArmenian]

Not an insult. It is gritty stylisation of Greek folklore which was originally based on fact, but got more than its share of embellishments.
In this time everyone is looking for a reason to be angry at another nation.

[ShadeHonestus]

This was most admirably addressed in the "300 movie thread."

Most notably by:


Next thing, I suppose the Iranians are also going to quote that postmodern feminist Alfred Hitchcock who didn't know how to throw together a half-decent action scene anyway.

AND



(Can anyone find what Noam Chomski's thoughts on The Big Lebowski are? DYING TO FIND OUT!!11)





Out of curiosity, I contacted Mr. Chomski and asked him what his thoughts were about said film. His response?

"That rug really tied the room together..."

[Pannonian]

There's a typo in the thread title.

[Marshal Murat]

I think they have the right to that opinion.

Now, if they were to do something drastic, I would condemn it.

They need to stop reading their fantasy books, and get into some real stuff.

cough :china: cough

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Methinks they are projecting.

[Lord Winter]

Should they be? No like IA I agree it is merly the holywood version of Thermolyppelee. Saying that it is an insult to america is the equivilent of saying that braveheart insults modern britens

[CrossLOPER]

I need to see this movie. My first impression is that's it's an awful movie (not worth being insulted over), but good action.

[Navaros]

I don't see why Iranians' objection to the movie should be taken so lightly. No wonder they hate "the West".

I'm betting that those who make light of their objection would not have the same feeling if they themselves were members of the Iranian race that is besmirched in the movie.

[ShadeHonestus]

I don't see why Iranians' objection to the movie should be taken so lightly. No wonder they hate "the West".

I'm betting that those who make light of their objection would not have the same feeling if they themselves were members of the Iranian race that is besmirched in the movie.

Yeah no kidding, I'm not hurt enough by being called the Great Satan and considered an infidel by a guy in a Member's Only jacket who denies the existence of the Holocaust.

[Decker]

Yeah no kidding, I'm not hurt enough by being called the Great Satan and considered an infidel by a guy in a Member's Only jacket who denies the existence of the Holocaust.
"I fart in your general direction" came to mind when you said that(no offense to anyone). Basically people need to grow up if they are "insulted" by a fantasied caricature of an actual battle that has been mythologized for centuries. It would be like the Russians all of a sudden getting insulted by James Bond, it's stupid.

[Ice]

I don't see why Iranians' objection to the movie should be taken so lightly. No wonder they hate "the West".

I'm betting that those who make light of their objection would not have the same feeling if they themselves were members of the Iranian race that is besmirched in the movie.

~:rolleyes:

Lol to the entire thing.

[Cronos Impera]

Well, portraing Iranians as zombie hordes wasn't that bright or correct. If you asked Herodotus about the Iranians at Thermopylae he wouldn't have them portrayed as scores of zombie horeds going to crush the uber-mega spartans.
The movie was just gross.

[Csargo]

You've got to be kidding me.

[Fragony]

Aren't they always angry, who cares :juggle2:

[naut]

Well, portraing Iranians as zombie hordes wasn't that bright or correct. If you asked Herodotus about the Iranians at Thermopylae he wouldn't have them portrayed as scores of zombie horeds going to crush the uber-mega spartans.
No offense, but I lol-ed hard after reading that.

[doc_bean]

I don't see why Iranians' objection to the movie should be taken so lightly. No wonder they hate "the West".

I'm betting that those who make light of their objection would not have the same feeling if they themselves were members of the Iranian race that is besmirched in the movie.

Right, remember the Brittish outrage right after The Patriot came out ?


Oh wait...

[InsaneApache]

I wasn't offended by the Patriot. I thought it was a comedy. :smash:

[BDC]

I wasn't offended by the Patriot. I thought it was a comedy. :smash:
Ditto for Braveheart.

It's like "Haha you Scots/Americans/anti-English are being lead by an anti-Semitic idiot".

[doc_bean]

wait, wasn't my sarcams obvious ? :inquisitive: :huh2:

[InsaneApache]

wait, wasn't my sarcams obvious ? :inquisitive: :huh2:

Wasn't mine? ~;)

[doc_bean]

Wasn't mine? ~;)

Yes, but it seemed to assume I wasn't being sarcastic :404:

[Hosakawa Tito]

I don't see why Iranians' objection to the movie should be taken so lightly. No wonder they hate "the West".

I'm betting that those who make light of their objection would not have the same feeling if they themselves were members of the Iranian race that is besmirched in the movie.

The search for Satanic Windmills continues...:turtle:

[cegorach]

We are talking about people who see Micky Mouse as Jewish propaganda ...( really !:yes: :yes:

[Fragony]

but!

http://paul-server.hum.aau.dk/pics/comics/maus-cover2.jpg

[cegorach]

No. It is about the mouse from cartoon which is Jewish propaganda because:

' mouse is a vermin which usually was used to describe Jews - for this reason making a mouse a cartoon character was designed to diminish the effect of such comparison because a friendly, funny mouse cannot be used to describe Jews any more'. Not completelly accurate, but it was from one of those Iranian conspiracy theories I was reading about recently...

So if Micky Mouse was designed to help Jewish politics '300' Spartans is just another step to humilate Iran.:laugh4:

[Sir Moody]

Someone should remind the Iranians that the Persian Empire in the movie was crushed not once, not twice but three times by various different empires after the films time frame and their current state has virtually nothing in common with modern Iran...

[sapi]

And I'm outraged by crocodile dundee.

Time to get over it, methinks :grin2:

[Fragony]

No. It is about the mouse from cartoon which is Jewish propaganda because:

' mouse is a vermin which usually was used to describe Jews - for this reason making a mouse a cartoon character was designed to diminish the effect of such comparison because a friendly, funny mouse cannot be used to describe Jews any more'. Not completelly accurate, but it was from one of those Iranian conspiracy theories I was reading about recently...

So if Micky Mouse was designed to help Jewish politics '300' Spartans is just another step to humilate Iran.:laugh4:

That calls for the rofl copter

http://sexci11.orcon.net.nz/roflcopter.jpg

[caravel]

Someone should remind the Iranians that the Persian Empire in the movie was crushed not once, not twice but three times by various different empires after the films time frame and their current state has virtually nothing in common with modern Iran...
True enough. The culture they're defending is completely the opposite to the culture in Iran today. That's not the point though is it? As the majority of English don't realise that their country was founded by Germanic tribes invading from (shock horror) Europe, and instead believe that they've been there all along. The Iranian masses probably also believe something along the same lines about their own culture. At the end of the day this kind of thing serves the regime well to further demonise the "west" and use as propaganda. The fact that it's not even about their culture, or their religion is not an issue, as the masses won't be aware of that having been, for the most part, educated in religious institutes/schools. It's a lot of hot air.

IMHO the people that need to be enraged by bad or inaccurate portrayals in American movies and TV are the English. The English are always the nastiest, from Braveheart to Titanic, and even Star Wars. If they're not cwushing pathwetic little webellions or executing Scots, they're burning villages or locking the Irish below decks to drown. Next in line are the Romans. If the Americans don't have English they can always throw the Romans in for some rape and pillage. Seeing the Persians as the baddies for once (because all historical conflicts were about the struggle between good and evil of course :yes: :yes: :yes: ) makes for a pleasant change in fact. It gives the English a break anyway.

[English assassin]

Hamshahri, said “300” is “serving the policy of the U.S. leadership” and predicted it will “prompt a wave of protest in the world. ... Iranians living in the U.S. and Europe will not be indifferent about this obvious insult.”

I'm betting that those who make light of their objection would not have the same feeling if they themselves were members of the Iranian race that is besmirched in the movie

Happily I can answer these issues. I asked my wife who is Iranian. She confirmed that she was indeed "indifferent" and did not feel "besmirched", and would I please take the rubbish out.

Of course, over the years I have repeatedly pointed out to her that the mighty Persian army had its arse handed to it by 300 manly europeans and that this must tell us something about Persia, to which she usually retorts that it tells us they had a vast empire able to send a huge army overseas, and it does not tell us that they were painting their arses blue and living in caves which is what my ancestors were doing at the time.

Henceforth of course I shall feel besmirched by this.


IMHO the people that need to be enraged by bad or inaccurate portrayals in American movies and TV are the English. The English are always the nastiest, from Braveheart to Titanic, and even Star Wars. If they're not cwushing pathwetic little webellions or executing Scots, they're burning villages or locking the Irish below decks to drown.

Enraged? By all that cool stuff? Why? :inquisitive:

[BDC]

Enraged? By all that cool stuff? Why?

It's good. Our ancestors owned everyone else, often literally. Even in Star Wars, a long time ago, far far away.

[Cronos Impera]

Would any of you have your ancestors portrayed as evil borg going to their deaths in the frag zone. That's 300!, a stainless-steel frag zone with moronic claims of historical accuracy.
300 wasn't a good film. All it talks about is slaughter and freedom- loving spartans....LOL. Subtitles should be like ownage, killing spree, mega kill.
300 spartans are as heroic as "The Birth of a Nation" Klansmen. Both are glossy and cool but when you look closely they are rubbish and narrow-minded.
Let us remember the spartans murdered their handicaped males at child birth and depended upon legions of helots to serve them with everything. Occasionaly some would practice the sport of helot-hunting.
Even though Spartans allowed women more rights and encouraged homosexual behavior they still, by every moral standard do not represent the chosen ideals of freedom.
Overall, Xerxes was far better than Leonidas and the Persian strap system allowed considerable rights to the conquered nations. If you see the reliefs of Peropolis you will see that subject nations are accurately displayed in a dignified posture delivering gifts to the King of Kings. The iranians introduced notions such as gardening, irigations and roads in the Middle East far before the Romans built their Vias. The Iranians also developed the first mail service, carved roads from the desert.
Would you allow your ancestors to be portrayed as brainless mutants borned to be fragged. GAH.

[Ser Clegane]

a stainless-steel frag zone with moronic claims of historical accuracy.
There are claims of historical accuracy? :inquisitive:
I somehow doubt that the makers of the movie make this claim, considering that the movie is based on a comic.

[Randarkmaan]

Would any of you have your ancestors portrayed as evil borg going to their deaths in the frag zone. That's 300!, a stainless-steel frag zone with moronic claims of historical accuracy.
300 wasn't a good film. All it talks about is slaughter and freedom- loving spartans....LOL. Subtitles should be like ownage, killing spree, mega kill.
300 spartans are as heroic as "The Birth of a Nation" Klansmen. Both are glossy and cool but when you look closely they are rubbish and narrow-minded.
Let us remember the spartans murdered their handicaped males at child birth and depended upon legions of helots to serve them with everything. Occasionaly some would practice the sport of helot-hunting.
Even though Spartans allowed women more rights and encouraged homosexual behavior they still, by every moral standard do not represent the chosen ideals of freedom.
Overall, Xerxes was far better than Leonidas and the Persian strap system allowed considerable rights to the conquered nations. If you see the reliefs of Peropolis you will see that subject nations are accurately displayed in a dignified posture delivering gifts to the King of Kings. The iranians introduced notions such as gardening, irigations and roads in the Middle East far before the Romans built their Vias. The Iranians also developed the first mail service, carved roads from the desert.
Would you allow your ancestors to be portrayed as brainless mutants borned to be fragged. GAH.

Agree with you here, the Spartans weren't exactly Greek Democracy incarnate, in many ways they were the complete opposite of it. The Athenians had a sort of democracy, Sparta was a militaristic state ruled by two kings and an assembly (who were not chosen by the people, but appointed), where every individual existed for the state and the state existed to create a large and formidable army. Everyone not a Spartan was kept in serfdom (marginally better than slaves, but still) and were kept in place by a sort of secret police. Never the less many poor Athenians, also some who were not poor, idealized Sparta because of it's equal distribution of wealth (between the Spartans themselves) and that there did not exist slaves (only helots, who weren't in a much better position, but they did own stuff). I can't see how the Spartans can be seen as a beacon of freedom, they were good for the other Greeks at the time because their military skills allowed them to resist the Persians. Ironic that a few decades later they succumbed to Persian bribes and became their puppets for a while because in the process they gained hegemony of Greece.

[R'as al Ghul]

We've several threads about the movie "300" on this board.
In all of these threads the movie is attacked on the base that it includes historical inaccuracies. I'm a bit puzzled by this.
I don't understand what a hollywood movie has to do with history, other then taking stories from the past and turning those into movies? Did Frank Miller at some point say that his account is historically accurate?

The way I read most comments, there seems to be a strong desire for a "historical accurate" movie.
Has there ever been one that could be taken as a reference?
If not, how would you imagine such a movie? Should it be entertaining or would you prefer a drier style like in documentaries?

What do you think about the latest Clint Eastwood movies about Iwo Jima?
Supposedly they are very accurate as I've read. I haven't seen them yet.

Please enlighten me or if you just want to discuss history, ignore me.
:bow:

R'as

P.S.:

I somehow doubt that the makers of the movie make this claim, considering that the movie is based on a comic.
Exactly.

[cegorach]

I don't get it.

'300' is based on great comic of Frank Miller and NEVER was supposed to be historically accurate.

It is based on a work of art which is only inspired by the battle, INSPIRED.

It is like accusing epic poetry for lack of realism...:juggle2:

[Randarkmaan]

What do you think about the latest Clint Eastwood movies about Iwo Jima?
Supposedly they are very accurate as I've read. I haven't seen them yet.

I've seen the Japanese one, one of the best and most moving war-movies I've ever seen and it all felt very accurate, and you knew from the start that it was nearly pointless resisting as the Japanese had nothing with which they could resist the Americans, yet surrender or retreat is not an option. The navy has just been destroyed in a battle, yet the commander does not know because it was kept secret to keep morale up, most of the remainders of the air force has met a similar fate. None of the main characters are rambos or anything resemblign gung-ho, and the most important character never (manages) to kill anyone, he only does whatever he can to survive surrounded by zealous fanatics and an overwhelming number of American soldiers.

[caravel]

There are claims of historical accuracy? :inquisitive:
I somehow doubt that the makers of the movie make this claim, considering that the movie is based on a comic.
I doubt it makes such claims, but any protrayal is often interpreted, given time, as some kind of representation of fact. The whole thing is based on historical events, but it distorts that history into something else.

An example of movies influencing people's historical perceptions is the infamous Wallace Monument statue that was placed in the car park of said institute in 1997. Instead of looking something like the paintings or other existing statues of Wallace, it ended up looking like Mel Gibson from the Braveheart movie (The movie where he looks like a new age traveller in drag going to a Scotland game). :inquisitive:

People's perceptions of ancient Romans have also been influenced by film over the years. No claims on historical accuracy were made but the legacy is still there. This is not about going out and directly stating "this is historically accurate" it's about people's perceptions of it, and when history and fiction are blended together in this way, it will be hard for many to tell the difference. Not everyone out there is a budding historian that knows their thermopylaes from their thermometers.

Note: I'm not saying that I have a problem with the movie etc, I'm just responding to the point about movies claiming or not claiming to be historically accurate.

[Ser Clegane]

Instead of looking something like the paintings or other existing statues of Wallace, it ended up looking like Mel Gibson from the Braveheart movie (The movie where he looks like a new age traveller in drag going to a Scotland game).
:wreck:

[doc_bean]

https://img137.imageshack.us/img137/1107/p2240262ry2.jpg

Is this it ?

[Adrian II]

Did Frank Miller at some point say that his account is historically accurate?

From an interview with Frank Miller (http://www.darkhorse.com/news/interviews.php?id=623):


Ervin-Gore: It seems that most fictionalized accounts of any story similar to this tend to over look the interesting particulars of the event and head straight into the big, bloody battle. Your story is so full of political innuendo -- is this the part you're most interested in?

Miller: I feel the battle means nothing unless you know how they got there and why. What I tried to get across here is that what is being defended is much larger than the fate of one country. It could be argued that without what ended up to be only 300 Spartans, we couldn't even be having this conversation, because all our notions of free speech, of democratic freedom, would have been erased by a tyrant.So much for the claim that this is 'just a cartoon with no historical pretense'. I beg to disagree with that take.

As soon as a person has to explain his feelings about a movie in terms other than 'wow' or 'uncool' or some juvenile other slogan, he enters this larger realm where he is obliged to establish the meaning of the film. That is why we discuss the film in relation to the known sources on Thermopylae, Sparta etcetera. Nobody is making a point of the lack of Spartan helmet crests in '300'. We discuss whether the artists Miller and Snyder have captured the essence of the episode. Artists are granted unusual licence as ong as they get the essence right. The Spartans in that movie could have worn Tommy Hilfiger shorts and still captured the spirit and essence of that lonely and gruesome fight in the Thermopylean pass.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

https://img137.imageshack.us/img137/1107/p2240262ry2.jpg

Is this it ?


Yes, that's it. I can't believe it's still there to be honest, the locals have always protested about it, it's manifestly not only completely ahistorical, but also an awful, awful statue, and it's been vandalised several times.

You'd think the council would have relented and taken it down.

[CrossLOPER]

It would be like the Russians all of a sudden getting insulted by James Bond, it's stupid.
The last one sucked, by the way.

[Adrian II]

The last one sucked, by the way.Open a thread on it if you dare. ~;)

You can't be serious that the last James Bond, which is actually the first real James Bond, sucked...

[caravel]

Yes, that's it. I can't believe it's still there to be honest, the locals have always protested about it, it's manifestly not only completely ahistorical, but also an awful, awful statue, and it's been vandalised several times.

You'd think the council would have relented and taken it down.
Hideous is it not? What the hell is the ball and chain thing doing there? Has he dropped it on his foot, and is that why he's seemingly yelling in pain? They've even put his name on the shield in case you might not know who it is [supposed to be]. I think they should send it to Mel, he can put it in his garden. :2thumbsup:

[Whacker]

I doubt it makes such claims, but any protrayal is often interpreted, given time, as some kind of representation of fact. The whole thing is based on historical events, but it distorts that history into something else.

An example of movies influencing people's historical perceptions is the infamous Wallace Monument statue that was placed in the car park of said institute in 1997. Instead of looking something like the paintings or other existing statues of Wallace, it ended up looking like Mel Gibson from the Braveheart movie (The movie where he looks like a new age traveller in drag going to a Scotland game). :inquisitive:

People's perceptions of ancient Romans have also been influenced by film over the years. No claims on historical accuracy were made but the legacy is still there. This is not about going out and directly stating "this is historically accurate" it's about people's perceptions of it, and when history and fiction are blended together in this way, it will be hard for many to tell the difference. Not everyone out there is a budding historian that knows their thermopylaes from their thermometers.

Note: I'm not saying that I have a problem with the movie etc, I'm just responding to the point about movies claiming or not claiming to be historically accurate.

I understand your point, but it's not the fault of the film, it's a problem with the people who watch it. I knew up front that 300 was not claiming to be historically accurate, and as such I could watch and enjoy it without those points annoying me. (The ending was entirely anticlimactic though) People who do not educate themselves and take whatever they're fed as gospel are fools, plain and simple. Even if a film DOES claim to be historically accurate, the fact remains that Hollywood is not a good source for historical facts, people need to learn this. Action/explosions/sales/wow-factor/money is always going to win over and as such there's going to be this or that item which doesn't conform to actual history, or corners "cut" in order to shave down an otherwise long story into something that will work for a film. I guess my point is that Actual History == Library, Fun/Action == Film, and folks need to be able to differentiate between those two.

@ Adrian's post

I read Frank's comments to be more 'poetic license' in creating hype for the film. From the standpoint of the Greeks, Xerxes was indeed a tyrant. As for his comments about things being erased from history, I highly doubt that but we'll never know. Certainly history would be greatly changed from what it is now, but one can say that about any number of significant events in history. You also mention "essense" of the film. To be sure, this "essense" is what Frank and the others wanted it to be, nothing more and nothing less. If they say that it's based on a comic which is a fantasy re-writing (if you will) of history, then that's what it is. As such, criticizing it in the context of actual history is essentially pointless.

@ the topic

My thoughts on this are that it's just knee-jerk nonsense by people who are in my view looking for something to get mad about. As others have pointed out, Iran now has essentially nothing in common with the ancient persian empires. This would be like me taking offense to a film (made under the same pretenses as 300, a "creative license" that's not historically accurate) that portrayed my ancient germanic ancestors as bloodthirsty mindless killers butchering the noble righteous romans at Teutoburg (sp?). Would I care at all? Not even remotely. Nowadays people are just too keen to find and take offense where there is none to be had or meant. Just my $0.02

:bow:

[caravel]

I understand your point, but it's not the fault of the film, it's a problem with the people who watch it. I knew up front that 300 was not claiming to be historically accurate, and as such I could watch and enjoy it without those points annoying me. (The ending was entirely anticlimactic though) People who do not educate themselves and take whatever they're fed as gospel are fools, plain and simple. Even if a film DOES claim to be historically accurate, the fact remains that Hollywood is not a good source for historical facts, people need to learn this. Action/explosions/sales/wow-factor/money is always going to win over and as such there's going to be this or that item which doesn't conform to actual history, or corners "cut" in order to shave down an otherwise long story into something that will work for a film. I guess my point is that Actual History == Library, Fun/Action == Film, and folks need to be able to differentiate between those two.
If only we lived in such a world. I agree with the fundamentals of what you're saying but the majority of people in the world must be fools then? :no: Look at commercials, propaganda and advertising. The majority of people swallow those and go out and buy the product/vote for the party or whatever.

Movies are the same thing, an audio visual representation that is designed to trigger certain emotions and manipulate an audience (see the Hitchcock quote posted by Adrian II, in the other thread I think).

While the average joe may not sit down and believe it's bang on Herodotus, they will still see it as some kind of reflection on reality. The line between fact and fiction is not clearly defined, which allows the falsehoods to creep through and become almost accepted as fact.

We are speaking of joe public here, the mainstream movie goer, and not the budding historian or history geek, or even those with a vague idea of that part of history. This may be the first time they've seen anything about Spartans or Persians in their lives. There is no indication to the audience of a movie as to when the fact and fiction starts and finishes, because the whole thing is blended seamlessly. Younger minds are more vulnerable in particular to this type of distortion. All in all they're going to come out of the Movie thinking what bad ******* that lot were, and what good honest and decent chaps that other lot were. Even subconsciously they will draw conclusions.

Look at movies like Schindler's List for example (not to mention countless "war films" based on the same formula that have been churned out since the late 40's). It deals with the Holocaust and Nazi Germany, a regime that it's ok to hate. It depicts the Nazis as inhuman monsters that are simply gagging to take someone outside and shoot them. This is the kind of movie that is designed to conjure up emotions, and force it's ideals down your throat - but it was ok because it's the Nazis after all - depicting them to be as evil and callous as possible is not a problem and this has not affected other nation's perceptions of Germany and Germans as a whole elsewhere :yes: :yes: :yes: .

Then you have the Passion of Christ, with it's portrayal of the Romans and Jews. Interestingly the Movie tried to exonorate the Romans from having any part in the crucifixion. All the time it was the Jews that were pushing for it. The Romans were simply a brutish regime that were not interested in the whole affair and preferred to wash their hands of it all. Historical fact? No. But does it leave an impression on a large proportion of the audience due to the way in which it is put across (as with commercials, propaganda) yes I think so.

[English assassin]

https://img137.imageshack.us/img137/1107/p2240262ry2.jpg

Is this it ?


ROFLMAO.

Ahem. Sorry. I love Scotland, and the Scots, and I take their "national identity" very seriously, oh yes, bless 'em, but

ROFLMAO.

Anyway. Back to talking about the film of a very shallow and tedious book with less artistic merit than my underpants.

[Goofball]

Anyway. Back to talking about the film of a very shallow and tedious book with less artistic merit than my underpants.

Heehee...

I think "underpants" is definitely the funniest word in the English language...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Jesus, this "average joe movie goer" talk is a condescending. I think the public realizes that a movie with giant babies who have swords for hands isn't historically accurate.

@Adrian: The director says he had no political intent. See your hitchcock quote. Everybody knows frank miller is a bit crazy.


I wonder if the people who are criticizing this also criticize the Oddysey. "I bet the average joe public can't tell it's made up" lol

[ShadeHonestus]

I wonder if the people who are criticizing this also criticize the Oddysey. "I bet the average joe public can't tell it's made up" lol

Are you trying to tell me there is no Santa Claus!?!? ~:confused:

[Blodrast]

Jesus, this "average joe movie goer" talk is a condescending. I think the public realizes that a movie with giant babies who have swords for hands isn't historically accurate.

I wonder if the people who are criticizing this also criticize the Oddysey. "I bet the average joe public can't tell it's made up" lol


I think one of the points that Caravel/CambysesII/I-don't-know-anymore, as well as Whacker made, quite clearly, is that while certain things are obviously going to be understood as artistic licenses, the line between those, and the actual historic reality is NOT going to be obvious to them at all. The instinctive reaction is then to take it all in one stride, and accept everything that seems reasonable.
Does it seem reasonable that the Persians were a bunch of eeeeeevil imperialists ? Yes. Ok, that's how it must have been then.
Does it seem reasonable that the Spartans were fighting for freedom, and ideals and so on ? Sure does. Well, then that's how it must have been then.

As for condescendence, I don't think so - I think it's realism.
Even NOW, after the movie is out, and everybody and their cat saw it, why don't you ask a few people who were a few of the big players in Greece at that time ? Why don't you ask them what they know about the Spartans' real society, with the helots, and what they stood for ? Ask them if they know the decisive battles that sealed the fate of the Persian campaign - just the names of the places, forget about the main characters.
I don't know, maybe the movie explicitly answers some of these questions (I haven't seen it), so they might know. But I'm pretty sure it doesn't answer all of them.

Caravel IS right, and not condescending at all. The average joe's knowledge of ancient Greek history is very close to zero. Do remember that we're all more or less interested in history on these boards, but that's not the case with your average person.

My friend, the average American can't name the capitals of several European countries (yes, I know this is geography, not history, but the point stands), nor does the average European know the names of all the founding fathers, or on which side general X fought in your Civil War, or how many provinces Canada has...
As far as I can remember, you're in college, right ? Remember that the average level of education of the people around you is much higher than that of the people out in the street.

[caravel]

Jesus, this "average joe movie goer" talk is a condescending.
Not at all how I intended it to be. In fact I would include myself in the "average joe movie goer" category in that I'm definitely no historian and not that much of a movie goer either for that matter, so hardly a critic. If I arrive to see a film that is somehow based on historical events, and I have no prior knowledge of those events or the circumstances surrounding them, I would leave the cinema none the wiser. The only input I have is from the film itself as I haven't read up on it, so for all I know it could be near the truth. I may assume that some poetic licence is involved, but because I don't have the prior knowledge i would have difficulty sifting the fact from the fiction. I would then have to go and read up on the subject in order to truly understand what is going on. How many of the viewers of this "action flick" do you suppose will do that? Not many. for the most part they will make assumptions based on what they've seen. To assume they will dismiss the whole thing as pure fiction, when it is based on the Spartans and Persians, two very real races that did exist, is a wrong assumption. Whatever this movie is, it has an historical basis.

The reference to the Odyssey is the same as a reference to Jason and the Argonauts. Based on myth and legend and not historical text.

@Blodrast: Exactly. :bow:


the line between those, and the actual historic reality is NOT going to be obvious to them at all. The instinctive reaction is then to take it all in one stride, and accept everything that seems reasonable.
Does it seem reasonable that the Persians were a bunch of eeeeeevil imperialists ? Yes. Ok, that's how it must have been then.
Does it seem reasonable that the Spartans were fighting for freedom, and ideals and so on ? Sure does. Well, then that's how it must have been then.

[Cronos Impera]

Orgahs, we have brains.We use it to think and separate history from crappy comics. We might represent let's say 10% of the audience. Orgah logic is neither Colonial or Revashardist.
However, there are XX% biased morons out there who use the movie as an interactive history lesson. Yes, I'm talking about lame emo kids and their parents who percieve the movie as real, historical fact. And these blokes get out of the theater with a sense of "WOW. Persians sucked. No wonder their grand-children are freedom-haters.It's in their blood." (and continue their idiotic debates abour wrestling and nukes and the Middle East).
And the movie continues to perpetuate the myth of Western superiority over the East, and the eastern savages going to rape the West of their freedom.

[CrossLOPER]

Open a thread on it if you dare. ~;)

You can't be serious that the last James Bond, which is actually the first real James Bond, sucked...
I don't like you.

:clown: As always.

[Adrian II]

I don't like you.I don't even like myself.

I was being even more of a pompous ass than usual in post 43, for which I apologise. I edited that post to take care of it.

Thank you for alerting me to that, R'as al Ghul. :bow:

[Crazed Rabbit]

I don't see why Iranians' objection to the movie should be taken so lightly. No wonder they hate "the West".

I'm betting that those who make light of their objection would not have the same feeling if they themselves were members of the Iranian race that is besmirched in the movie.

You ever see the vile propaganda they spew out about Jews and Israel?

If they have a right to hate us because some people decide in to make a unhistorical movie in a free country, we should be able to enslave them all for 1,000 years and kill those who displease us for what they do.


The last one sucked, by the way.

Prepare the stake and hay for the mob burning! ~;p

CR

[Adrian II]

Prepare the stake and hay for the mob burning! ~;pFinally something on which we can agree again, me hearty. God that was one hell of a great movie. The opening scenes are so damn good, they kept me sort of hypnotised for two days on end. Colleagues started complaining about my absent attitude..

*brings cartload of dry hay*

[Hosakawa Tito]

Yes, that's it. I can't believe it's still there to be honest, the locals have always protested about it, it's manifestly not only completely ahistorical, but also an awful, awful statue, and it's been vandalised several times.

You'd think the council would have relented and taken it down.

It would make one heck of a garden gnome. Scare the bejeesus out of the garden pests.

[ShadeHonestus]

It would make one heck of a garden gnome. Scare the bejeesus out of the garden pests.

I prefer the matching set of the Iranian president and Ayatollah dressed up as cowboys gnomes with the motion sensor that triggered a recording of "jiiiieeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaad."


scares the hell out of salesmen

[Adrian II]

Politics or Hollywood?Both.

If you look into this, some weird things come up.

All memory of Cyrus the Great, Cambyses and Darius was wiped out by Islam until European archeologists started digging, Herodotus and other classic sources were translated into Farsi and the cuneiform inscriptions of the Achaemenids wered deciphered by Europeans by the end of the 19th century.

The Pahlavi dynasty later sought to capitalise on this by declaring itself the rightful descendants of Cyrus. The Shah celebrated the 2500th anniversary of the founding of the Persian Empire in 1971 with a disgusting jet-set party in Persepolis, after which a horde of poor Persians were allowed in to the halls to jump into the champagne fountains and avail themselves of the remainder of the lavish banquets, just like in the old days.

The funny thing is, therefore, that 'Persepolis' is associated more with the previous regime of the Shah, arch-enemy of the present-day Islamic Republic.

Another funny thing. The last Shah helped spread a fake translation of the so-called 'Cyrus Cylinder', an archaeological artefact now in the British Museum. It is a cylinder with cuneiform script which the Shah pretended was Cyrus' covenant with his people(s) and 'the first human rights document in the world'. It was nothing of the kind, just a declaration to the Babylonian populace that his reign would business as usual, with restoration of temples and all.

The fake translation contains this passage:


'I announce that I will respect the traditions, customs and religions of the nations of my empire and never let any of my governors and subordinates look down on or insult them as long as I shall live. From now on, while Ahuramazda lets me rule, I will impose my monarchy on no nation. Each is free to accept it, and if any one of them rejects it, I shall never resolve on war to reign.'Yeah right.

Nonetheless, opposition figure Shirin Ebadi, when she accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003, quoted this fake passage as an inspiration.

So in the end, maybe Persepolis is more associated with the present Iranian opposition than with the regime. Makes those protests all the more mystifying. Or ridiculous if you want.

[CrossLOPER]

Prepare the stake and hay for the mob burning!
Forget if you will what I have done on this plane, may they be centuries before your time, but I will come back once more.

You will be engulfed in that abyss which already surrounds you and be crushed by its vastness.

So remember that when you force me to reveal my true nature, that you will bear you own burden...

Forgot my coffee....:beam:

[Meneldil]

Caravel IS right, and not condescending at all. The average joe's knowledge of ancient Greek history is very close to zero. Do remember that we're all more or less interested in history on these boards, but that's not the case with your average person.

My friend, the average American can't name the capitals of several European countries (yes, I know this is geography, not history, but the point stands), nor does the average European know the names of all the founding fathers, or on which side general X fought in your Civil War, or how many provinces Canada has...
As far as I can remember, you're in college, right ? Remember that the average level of education of the people around you is much higher than that of the people out in the street.

So, does your friend average Joe now think that the Persian army consisted mainly of mutants that had swords instead of their hands, aswell as overcool ninjas and brainwashed canonfodder zombies ?

Seriously guys, most american comics are totally silly, and delivers utterly stupid messages. Does that make 300 a racist movie ? Hell no, this is just a decent action movie, with badass heroes who fight against a bunch of bad guys.
Is Miller an idiot by thinking that there would be no freedom without Sparta ? Did Sparta in fact sucked badly ? Yes, probably. That won't prevent me from seeing 300 once again, and likely buying the DVD once it's released. For all I care, he could replace the Persians by Gauls, French, Orcs or even 2 light bulbs, I doubt it would change my opinion on the movie.

[Blodrast]

So, does your friend average Joe now think that the Persian army consisted mainly of mutants that had swords instead of their hands, aswell as overcool ninjas and brainwashed canonfodder zombies ?

Seriously guys, most american comics are totally silly, and delivers utterly stupid messages. Does that make 300 a racist movie ? Hell no, this is just a decent action movie, with badass heroes who fight against a bunch of bad guys.
Is Miller an idiot by thinking that there would be no freedom without Sparta ? Did Sparta in fact sucked badly ? Yes, probably. That won't prevent me from seeing 300 once again, and likely buying the DVD once it's released. For all I care, he could replace the Persians by Gauls, French, Orcs or even 2 light bulbs, I doubt it would change my opinion on the movie.

Of course, the action remains as good/spectacular/etc regardless of the races/peoples involved.
But that's not what we were referring to, Meneldil. We were referring to what people will take away from the movie, consciously or subconsciously, besides the action. You know, the historical context, Sparta = freedom fighters, Persians = evil eastern invaders, etc.
Did you never get influenced by ANY of the Hollywood movies relating to historical events that you've seen ? Did you never feel any anger, or frustration, at those evil <insert random nation here> who tortured, invaded, raped, mutilated, mass-massacred, etc, lots of <insert random nation here> ? Did you never accept that well, maybe this kinda was what D-Day/Anzio/Barbarossa/whatever-you-want was like... sure, maybe not exactly like this, but pretty much like this...
Does this explain better what we were trying to say ?

Lemme put it another way, let's say the average age of a person, in general, is 35. That's 20 years+ since they studied any history, and, depending on where they're coming from, they may or may not have studied ancient greece, and sparta. Do you really, honestly believe they'll all go and research the actual historical events after the movie, so that they get a clear, accurate opinion on the real events ? Or is it more likely that they'll just assume that MOST of the stuff they saw, the reasonable parts (see my post above, I tried to express emphasis on reasonable, but apparently it was in vain), were actually true, and that's what they'll take out of the movie ?

[caravel]

I made an example earlier, Shindlers List. Which I thought was a good example. They even filmed this movie in black and white and brought on the real shindler jews at the end. They also based this movie on historic events. That is, it is not historically accurate but is based on historical events. The only historically accurate movie would be a filming of the real events as they occurred. Let's suppose that I, average joe buy my ticket back in the 90's and sit down in the cinema to watch this film. I don't have much idea bout nazis or the holocaust but I sit down with an open mind. As the film progresses I see scenes conforming to what I've already suspected anyway. Nazis = evil side, Jews = good side. I see the nazi officer taking pot shots through the window at kids, immediately I think "evil ******* ". Immediately, the movie has unfluenced me in some way. Having read nothing about this before I may think to myself, "well nazis = evil, officer taking potshots at children = plausible. So I accept it is, maybe only subconsciously as very possibly true.

This is how urban legends emerge, and how misconceptions and misunderstandings happen. I can give you another example, a far simpler one. In the case of handguns. When in movies they are always held by actors with the muzzle pointing upward, a stupid position in which to hold a gun. But because of guns being held like that in movies, soldiers and police in the real world have been observed doing the same, and have had to be corrected. Again the separation of fact from fiction was not clearly defined. TV and cinema does influence the way we think and act, consciously and subconsciously. Only those with advanced knowledge of the period would be able to filter the fact from the fiction with any degree of accuracy, and they would probably have no business going to see it in the first place.

:bow:

[ShadeHonestus]

err..and if I was a Nazi I'd be very upset at it accurately portraying our evil nature and in such an overt way?

So are the Iranians upset that the immortals got butchered? Is that even in dispute by anyone? Does anyone know the armament and experience of the Persian army prior to the battle? If you did, you would realize that charging into Greeks in that geography, with their repsective armament and experience, would be the equivalent of driving Buffalo off a cliff...

If "Members Only" wants to be upset...he should write something scholarly about it..oh wait, not his "style".

[Tachikaze]

I don't see why Iranians' objection to the movie should be taken so lightly. No wonder they hate "the West".

I'm betting that those who make light of their objection would not have the same feeling if they themselves were members of the Iranian race that is besmirched in the movie.
I agree with Navaros again!

All through cinema history and in the history books, the Persians are portrayed as villians, as backward, and blind followers of a tyrannical ruler. Because almost all our history of the Persian Wars come from Western authors, we get a very slanted view. It's especially strong here in the US where it seems like all stories, fiction or not, have to have good guys and bad guys. Maybe Clint Eastwood should have made 300.

The Persians were a highly cultured and socially advanced society for its time.

I tell you, I'd rather have lived in the Persian Empire than Sparta. At least Alexander had great respect for the Persians.

[Ice]

I agree with Navaros again!

All through cinema history and in the history books, the Persians are portrayed as villians, as backward, and blind followers of a tyrannical ruler. Because almost all our history of the Persian Wars come from Western authors, we get a very slanted view. It's especially strong here in the US where it seems like all stories, fiction or not, have to have good guys and bad guys. Maybe Clint Eastwood should have made 300.

The Persians were a highly cultured and socially advanced society for its time.

I tell you, I'd rather have lived in the Persian Empire than Sparta. At least Alexander had great respect for the Persians.

Persian Empire DOES NOT equal Iran. I don't really know any other way to say it. Modern day Persians share LITTLE, IF ANYTHING, in common with the modern day state of Iran.

Even, if they, did WHO CARES? If the Iranians were truly interested in the matter, they would do, as was suggested before in this thread, scholarly research on the topic.

Finally, the movie is not suppose to be historically accurate. It is entertainment. To suggest the filmmaker's goal was part of a bigger plot to undermine Iran is absolutely 100% redicuolus. Some posters in this thread amaze me.

[Whacker]

Jesus, this "average joe movie goer" talk is a condescending. I think the public realizes that a movie with giant babies who have swords for hands isn't historically accurate.

Oh ye who assume too much. As I walked out of the theater with my wife and our friends, I overheard no less than THREE conversations in which the movie was discussed with some of the major inaccuracies taken as fact, such as the prophecy, the "fact" that it was "only 300 spartans because everyone else left" against "about a million", or the "outcast spartan who betrayed them". I'm directly quoting these people for the record.



I don't see why Iranians' objection to the movie should be taken so lightly. No wonder they hate "the West".

I'm betting that those who make light of their objection would not have the same feeling if they themselves were members of the Iranian race that is besmirched in the movie.

Me, personally, I'm not taking it lightly, but I think it's full of BS by people who just want something to get mad about. For the record there's not such thing as an Iranian "race", Iran is a country. The group that was "villainized" was the ancient persians, remembering that this story is told from the perspective of the greeks. Modern Iranians (if we equate modern Iran is the rough geographic equivalant of "Persia" for argument's sake, and yes I know Iran was once known as "Persia") have just about as much in common culturally with the ancient Persians as I do with my ancient B.C. germanic tribal ancestors, which is about zip dot squat. This movie says absolutely nothing about modern day Iranians, nothing is implied, and having one's ancestors portrayed in a less than stellar light is nothing new and certainly nothing for an entire nation to get in a furious uproar about. If they hated this, why didn't they get pissed about Alexander with Colin Farrell? I thought the Persians were portrayed as very opportunistic, shallow, and generally in a less that favorable light that they deserved. This is yet again why I say that this is simply people looking for something to get mad at, given the current US/Iranian relations now as compared to when Alexander was released.

The bottom line is that history will always be told from a certain perspective, and when you have opposing parties in conflict, the stories are going to be very different when told by each side. In this case the story was embelished highly (which was known up front), and told from a certain viewpoint with the stereotypical 'good and bad' forces in conflict with the aim of making an action based film. I guess I can understand why someone might get a little miffed at one's ancestors being portrayed in a 'unfavorable' manner, but the level of reaction and what I can only imagine the sheer hypocracy of it all doesn't cease to amaze me. And for the record, I do not need to be an Iranian to have a firm grasp of or appreciate the totality of the situation, nor does any open-minded thoughtful individual discussing ths in these forums. My unkind response to these very angry people is, "Get a life folks." Or perhaps "Looks like somebody has a case of the Mondays!" :hide:

Flame away. :grin:

:bow:

[Samurai Waki]

"Has anyone ever told you 'sounds like someone has a case of the mondays?"

"No man... No... **** no man, I believe someone should get his ass kicked for saying that."

[Fisherking]

So, do the Italians get bent out of shape every time someone makes a movie about the Romans being bad guys?

[ShadeHonestus]

So, do the Italians get bent out of shape every time someone makes a movie about the Romans being bad guys?

I'm not Italian and it makes me upset every time I see one.

I'm not mulsim either, but if I see one again I may issue a jihad of my own against hollywood...(they've been asking for it anyways with their gd sign mucking up the nice view of that mountain..NIMBY!)

[Adrian II]

The Persians were a highly cultured and socially advanced society for its time. I tell you, I'd rather have lived in the Persian Empire than Sparta. At least Alexander had great respect for the Persians.All true. However, the particular genius of the Achaemenids seems to have been their capacity to organise and make maximum use of available assets in the territories, nations and religions they conquered. Not unlike the Romans after them, really. Or the Hittites before them, although the latter were probably much more inventive.

The crucial importance of their (sometimes overstated) principle of religious tolerance must be stressed, because it was an integral part of their power machine. When they rebuilt the temples of subjugated peoples they weren't just being nice to them. The Jewish traditions regarding Ahasuerus (Xerxes) and Esther, the Jewess who married him and who, together with other court Jews, thwarted a plot against Xerxes' life, tells us how deep this policy was embedded in the Persian empire. Even if we discard the historicity of this reading on the basis of recent discoveries, the fact that it was thus enshrined in a Jewish Bible book tells us what a great impact this policy had on the contemporaneous mind.

Consider good old Pythagoras. P. had no choice when he found himself in Egypt in 525 b.C. and Cambyses II attacked and conquered that kingdom. P. was abducted by the Persians and sent to Babylon, which they had conquered previously. There, according to classic sources on P.'s life, he consorted with the magoi and adopted their mystical outlook, most of which was Indian in origin (such as the reincarnation of the soul and its final deliverance through perfection). He is also said to have learned the 'acme of perfection in arithmetic', which is highly probable indeed, since their deciphered clay tablets show that the Baylonians were familiar with the Pythagorian theorem well before Pythagoras.

Of course these Babylonian systems of knowledge (metaphysics and arithmetic) were intertwined. An important notion of Babylonian philosophy seems to have been the idea that at the deepest level reality, life and the human soul are all mathematical in nature. Suppression of the one would most probably have meant suppression of the other. The Persians did neither. They allowed both to flourish, thus giving one smart Greek a head-start in the history of world science.

If the present leadership of Iran had any idea what they were talking about, they would adopt this very principle of religious tolerance instead of ignorantly ranting off about their 'heritage'.

[Banquo's Ghost]

If the present leadership of Iran had any idea what they were talking about, they would adopt this very principle of religious tolerance instead of ignorantly ranting off about their 'heritage'.

Excellent point. :2thumbsup:

Even now, assorted oddballs in Iran are claiming that the film insults Islam and are calling on other Muslim countries to boycott it.

:shocked2: :book2:

[BDC]

Excellent point. :2thumbsup:

Even now, assorted oddballs in Iran are claiming that the film insults Islam and are calling on other Muslim countries to boycott it.

:shocked2: :book2:
Haha, that seriously can't be possible.

I think that goes up there with my friend's flatmate, who was reading a book on how the Bible insults Islam. These people and their difficulties with grasping dates.

[Adrian II]

I think that goes up there with my friend's flatmate, who was reading a book on how the Bible insults Islam. These people and their difficulties with grasping dates.:laugh4: Oh jeez, that is too good to be true.

I must have that book. :stare:

Seriously, I have a small collection of such gems, and this clearly belongs in it. Do you happen to know the title?

[BDC]

:laugh4: Oh jeez, that is too good to be true.

I must have that book. :stare:

Seriously, I have a small collection of such gems, and this clearly belongs in it. Do you happen to know the title?
No idea, but apparently a minor religious war is brewing in his flat between that guy and some rather passionate Christian.

He's not sharing a house with them next year.

[caravel]

Persian Empire DOES NOT equal Iran. I don't really know any other way to say it. Modern day Persians share LITTLE, IF ANYTHING, in common with the modern day state of Iran.
In fact Iran has been "Iran" (Aryanam - Land of the Aryans) since Sassanid times. Persis is the greek of Parsa/Pars, just one province of Iran that was the Achaemenid homelands, this is where the word "Persian" comes from - the greeks. I agree with you wholeheartedly though that the modern day Islamic Republic of Iran has about as much in common with the Achaemenids as modern day Egypt has with Ancient Egypt. :beam:

Even, if they, did WHO CARES? If the Iranians were truly interested in the matter, they would do, as was suggested before in this thread, scholarly research on the topic.
I think it's a case of seizing on something and using it to the full, as an excuse to blame the west for demonising Islam. Never mind that this has absolutely nothing to do with Islam or the Iranians. This is internal propaganda for the benefit of Iranians and not the rest of us. They need at least to be seen to complain about this.

Finally, the movie is not suppose to be historically accurate. It is entertainment. To suggest the filmmaker's goal was part of a bigger plot to undermine Iran is absolutely 100% redicuolus. Some posters in this thread amaze me.
I wouldn't say it was a "bigger plot", but it definitely played up to stereotypes. Imagine if I had selected your particular ancestral culture to appear in a movie likely to be seen worldwide, and if I had wrongly portrayed those people as the evil side and totally misrepresented them in every way, you may not go burning effigies of me in the street and screaming "death to caravel!", but you may be ever so slightly miffed, just slightly annoyed, irritated even?? ~;)

[Kralizec]

I tell you, I'd rather have lived in the Persian Empire than Sparta. At least Alexander had great respect for the Persians.

Being a Messenian helot certainly wouldn't have been fun, but being a Achaemenid subject wouldn't have to be either. The Persians generally kept running conquered areas they way they'd been run before- being an Egyptian serf sucked as much during the Persian occupation as it did under the old Pharaohs.

I find it ironic that contemporary Iran finds the movie so objectionable. Khomeini himself declared once that the instutition of Shahanshah was a blasphemy and that Allah hates monarchies.
Also, didn't they intend to flood the valley containing Xerxes' tomb a while back to get a lake for hydroelectric power?

[Randarkmaan]

People have been spouting that the ancient Persians have very little in common (nothing is a bit harsh) with present day Iranians, yet no one has mentioned that present day Greeks have very little in common with the ancient Greeks, and they seem to feel proud when Thermopylae is mentioned and a movie about it is made that glorifies their sacrifice, at least the cinema visits say that is the case, also many were upset when the movie Alexander portrayed Alexander as a bisexual.
If the Greeks can be proud of the way their sacrifice is portrayed in this movie what's stopping the Iranians from being angry about the way the Persians are portrayed in this move?

[caravel]

People have been spouting that the ancient Persians have very little in common (nothing is a bit harsh) with present day Iranians, yet no one has mentioned that present day Greeks have very little in common with the ancient Greeks, and they seem to feel proud when Thermopylae is mentioned and a movie about it is made that glorifies their sacrifice, at least the cinema visits say that is the case, also many were upset when the movie Alexander portrayed Alexander as a bisexual.
If the Greeks can be proud of the way their sacrifice is portrayed in this movie what's stopping the Iranians from being angry about the way the Persians are portrayed in this move?
Well no, because though Greece has a history of invasion. The extreme religious and cultural changes that occurred in those countries that were part of the Islamic Conquests and complete Arabisation, did not occur in Greece as it did in e.g. Egypt the Maghreb and most of the Middle East. Greece retained it's culture it's language, and "national" pride, and pride in all of it's history throughout the Roman conquest and right up till the present day. Present day Iranians, that are for the most part taught about only Islamic History, getting irate about the portrayal of the Achaemenids in this action flick would be like the English getting upset over the King Arthur movie - and that was upsetting. Luckily there are no real British, or Romano-British, left alive to be upset. Maybe the Welsh found it particularly upsetting though?

[BDC]

I was pretty upset by the King Arthur movie. Not because it was insulting, it was just so so so so terrible.

[Tachikaze]

Persian Empire DOES NOT equal Iran. I don't really know any other way to say it. Modern day Persians share LITTLE, IF ANYTHING, in common with the modern day state of Iran.

Even, if they, did WHO CARES? If the Iranians were truly interested in the matter, they would do, as was suggested before in this thread, scholarly research on the topic.

Finally, the movie is not suppose to be historically accurate. It is entertainment. To suggest the filmmaker's goal was part of a bigger plot to undermine Iran is absolutely 100% redicuolus. Some posters in this thread amaze me.
Let's go back and expand on an example brought up by ShadeHonestus in post #4.

Hypothetical: An American movie maker produces a film that denies the NAZIs killed Jews and others in concentration camps during WWII. the movie is not suppose to be historically accurate You could argue that a movie doesn't have to be historically accurate, but is that what we want people to learn about World War Two? Modern day Persians share LITTLE, IF ANYTHING, in common with the modern day state of Iran. To my knowledge, I'm not related to any of the people killed in the concentration camps. Does that mean I have no right to complain about the hypothetical pro-NAZI film?

I'm not expecting 100% accuracy. We don't even know everything about the Battle of Thermopylae. But it is possible to make a much more accurate portrayal that shows a more balanced viewpoint without good guys and bad guys. Would it be so bad for Americans to actually learn something for a change?

If you want to make a movie with bare-chested hyper-muscular super hero warriors fighting a soulless, mindless enemy, why base it on a real situation? Why not use a fictitious situation with fictitious people?

[Tachikaze]

People have been spouting that the ancient Persians have very little in common (nothing is a bit harsh) with present day Iranians, yet no one has mentioned that present day Greeks have very little in common with the ancient Greeks, and they seem to feel proud when Thermopylae is mentioned and a movie about it is made that glorifies their sacrifice, at least the cinema visits say that is the case, also many were upset when the movie Alexander portrayed Alexander as a bisexual.
If the Greeks can be proud of the way their sacrifice is portrayed in this movie what's stopping the Iranians from being angry about the way the Persians are portrayed in this move?
I agree.

Personally, I don't identify with any historical people.

[Tachikaze]

Well no, because though Greece has a history of invasion. The extreme religious and cultural changes that occurred in those countries that were part of the Islamic Conquests and complete Arabisation, did not occur in Greece as it did in e.g. Egypt the Maghreb and most of the Middle East. Greece retained it's culture it's language, and "national" pride, and pride in all of it's history throughout the Roman conquest and right up till the present day. Present day Iranians, that are for the most part taught about only Islamic History, getting irate about the portrayal of the Achaemenids in this action flick would be like the English getting upset over the King Arthur movie - and that was upsetting. Luckily there are no real British, or Romano-British, left alive to be upset. Maybe the Welsh found it particularly upsetting though?
Don't Iranians speak a modern version of the same Persian language? They call themselves Persians. They haven't kept a "national pride" dating back to the Achaemenids? I don't agree. I've seen pictures of annual parades in which the men are dressed in Median and ancient Persian military attire.

Greece today has a different religion and a much more Romanized and eastern Christian culture than a Spartan one. I don't agree with the distinction you're trying to make.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I agree with Navaros again!

All through cinema history and in the history books, the Persians are portrayed as villians, as backward, and blind followers of a tyrannical ruler. Because almost all our history of the Persian Wars come from Western authors, we get a very slanted view. It's especially strong here in the US where it seems like all stories, fiction or not, have to have good guys and bad guys. Maybe Clint Eastwood should have made 300.

The Persians were a highly cultured and socially advanced society for its time.

I tell you, I'd rather have lived in the Persian Empire than Sparta. At least Alexander had great respect for the Persians.

Do you? Then I must repeat my question to Navaros:

You ever see the vile propaganda they spew out about Jews and Israel?

If they have a right to hate us because some people decide in to make a unhistorical movie in a free country, we should be able to enslave them all for 1,000 years and kill those who displease us for what they do.

You do know Clint Eastwood made Letters from Iwo Jima, right?

You do know Herodotus traveled throughout the Persian empire and interviewed many Persians for his histories, right?

The culture of Persia, advanced though it may have been, does not mean that they didn't go around invading people.


But it is possible to make a much more accurate portrayal that shows a more balanced viewpoint without good guys and bad guys.

So you're saying, though one army at Thermopylae was an invading force from far distant lands sent to punish the various city states of Greece for offending an autocrat, and another a tiny force of men who fought to the death that others might live free from the yoke of a foreign king, that there were no good guys or bad guys? That would not be balanced, that would be coddling to dictators.

If the Iranians are so stupid as to be offended by this cartoonish violence, then nuts to them.

If the US ever made a more historically accurate movie about Thermopylae, then the Iranians would be more offended - because it would show the Persian empire as the bad guys, rightfully so, and the courageous Greeks as the good guys, and still be historically correct.

Crazed Rabbit

[Whacker]

People have been spouting that the ancient Persians have very little in common (nothing is a bit harsh) with present day Iranians, yet no one has mentioned that present day Greeks have very little in common with the ancient Greeks, and they seem to feel proud when Thermopylae is mentioned and a movie about it is made that glorifies their sacrifice, at least the cinema visits say that is the case, also many were upset when the movie Alexander portrayed Alexander as a bisexual.
If the Greeks can be proud of the way their sacrifice is portrayed in this movie what's stopping the Iranians from being angry about the way the Persians are portrayed in this move?
Partially true, about modern Greeks being culturally removed from their ancestors. As to your point about them feeling proud, this is no different than anyone else who sees this and identifies with the major theme of the movie and the Spartans themselves. And those who were upset that Alexander was portrayed as a bisexual are just in denial, the historical concensus is clearly that he was this at the very least. When I read about those Greek lawyers who were suing over this aspect of the movie, I laughed out loud. The response to your last point about the Iranians being mad about their ancestral portrayal is that there's nothing wrong with getting a bit miffed or annoyed about it. The massive, rabid, completely overblown response and the excuse to use it as a scapegoat since the anger is clearly directed at the US in general and not the movie is what I think is utterly obsurd and idiotic.


Hypothetical: An American movie maker produces a film that denies the NAZIs killed Jews and others in concentration camps during WWII. the movie is not suppose to be historically accurate You could argue that a movie doesn't have to be historically accurate, but is that what we want people to learn about World War Two? Modern day Persians share LITTLE, IF ANYTHING, in common with the modern day state of Iran. To my knowledge, I'm not related to any of the people killed in the concentration camps. Does that mean I have no right to complain about the hypothetical pro-NAZI film?
Nothing would or should stop you from your complaints about the hypothetical movie in your example. The problem would become if you were extremely, remotely, distantly related to the concentration camp survivors, and you took this relationship, blew it out of proportion by orders of magnitude and claimed that they represent you directly, and then collectively (with your fellow hypothetical survivor distant-relation'd peers) used this as a scapegoat to get extremely pissed at something else entirely unrelated to the offending movie and make a general uproar about it in general.


If you want to make a movie with bare-chested hyper-muscular super hero warriors fighting a soulless, mindless enemy, why base it on a real situation? Why not use a fictitious situation with fictitious people?
Because the movie is based on the friggin' comic! And the comic itself is the sole product of Frank's mind, because that's what he wanted to write about! They could certainly have done what you suggested and made another movie like this, but they didn't, they chose to make this based on Frank's comic.

Besides, I tend to enjoy these "ahistorical spin-offs".

:bow:

[Geoffrey S]

Also, didn't they intend to flood the valley containing Xerxes' tomb a while back to get a lake for hydroelectric power?
Glad you made this point. Yep, this is the same Iran that has consistently damaged, misused and misrepresented its pre-Islam cultural heritage.

[ShadeHonestus]

Every American Conservative in our history has been great, every liberal has been very very very bad.

Thats my history and I'm outraged at any notion to the opposite. Expect jihads all around at those who rebut...or draw a cartoon. or make a movie to the contrary.

If I keep that up you'll all put me on equal moral footing with other countries, recognize me as my own person-state, and say that I should have nukes to fend off attacks by liberals.



It's rational.....honest.

[Adrian II]

Every American Conservative in our history has been great, every liberal has been very very very bad.

Thats my history and I'm outraged at any notion to the opposite. Expect jihads all around at those who rebut...or draw a cartoon. or make a movie to the contrary.

If I keep that up you'll all put me on equal moral footing with other countries, recognize me as my own person-state, and say that I should have nukes to fend off attacks by liberals.



It's rational.....honest.Dave and I are exploring the market for shoulder-launched heat-seeking anti-liberal missiles.

"Yo, Hillary!" Ka-zoom!

[Ice]

Hypothetical: An American movie maker produces a film that denies the NAZIs killed Jews and others in concentration camps during WWII. the movie is not suppose to be historically accurate You could argue that a movie doesn't have to be historically accurate, but is that what we want people to learn about World War Two? Modern day Persians share LITTLE, IF ANYTHING, in common with the modern day state of Iran. To my knowledge, I'm not related to any of the people killed in the concentration camps. Does that mean I have no right to complain about the hypothetical pro-NAZI film?


Two different scenarios that aren't really comparable for obvious reasons. Think about it.


I'm not expecting 100% accuracy. We don't even know everything about the Battle of Thermopylae. But it is possible to make a much more accurate portrayal that shows a more balanced viewpoint without good guys and bad guys. Would it be so bad for Americans to actually learn something for a change?


People take history classes to learn things. People go to the movies to be entertained.


If you want to make a movie with bare-chested hyper-muscular super hero warriors fighting a soulless, mindless enemy, why base it on a real situation? Why not use a fictitious situation with fictitious people?

As stated above, it was based off a comic book.

[Whacker]

Dave and I are exploring the market for shoulder-launched heat-seeking anti-liberal missiles.

"Yo, Hillary!" Ka-zoom!

Heat seeking? I wouldn't exactly describe Hillary as "hot"... :no: Sorry Adrian, you and Dave fail here! Where is Dave anyway? This thread could use his tactful, tender, loving attention.

:balloon2:

[ShadeHonestus]

Dave and I are exploring the market for shoulder-launched heat-seeking anti-liberal missiles.

"Yo, Hillary!" Ka-zoom!

Very nice. Now, get Europe to turn their back, tell them "look at the pretty kitty over there," or something similar and have the U.N. become a completely useless institution without any authority. Once those two are done, we should be golden.

[Blodrast]

Very nice. Now, get Europe to turn their back, tell them "look at the pretty kitty over there," or something similar and have the U.N. become a completely useless institution without any authority. Once those two are done, we should be golden.

The latter one is already in place, what are you talking about... Now all that's left to do is come up with an interesting enough kitty...

[Marshal Murat]

I think that Iranians are getting to offended over something very small. I say they write a movie plot about Cyrus the Great. I actually thought it ironic when they pointed out that he freed the Jews from Babylon.
Anyway, I support Iranian actions to educate, but I doubt that it will have much of an impact on the situation. People have watched it, and if they aren't entertained, they will leave.
To bad, so sad.

[Banquo's Ghost]

The latter one is already in place, what are you talking about... Now all that's left to do is come up with an interesting enough kitty...

Interesting kitty currently distracting Euroweenie freedom-hating satan-worshipping Darwin-lovers like me (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6452555.stm).

[gaelic cowboy]

Dont see why they care seeing as the Persians in it are not muslim but various pagan beliefs and I think zoroastrian too. This is frankly a storm in a teacup designed to either fit a political agenda or worse make money for marketing guys who as we all know are the spawn of satan. Does any Iranian/Iraq care really in the grand scheme of things about this. :wall:

[ShadeHonestus]

Interesting kitty currently distracting Euroweenie freedom-hating satan-worshipping Darwin-lovers like me (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6452555.stm).


Well that is one pretty interesting kitty...

[Kralizec]

Dont see why they care seeing as the Persians in it are not muslim but various pagan beliefs and I think zoroastrian too. This is frankly a storm in a teacup designed to either fit a political agenda or worse make money for marketing guys who as we all know are the spawn of satan. Does any Iranian/Iraq care really in the grand scheme of things about this. :wall:

Teheran's reaction to this movie is of course an opportunist move to discredit the USA, but I don't think Iranians (or muslims in general) view Zoroastranians as pagans but as "people of the Book".

[Randarkmaan]

but I don't think Iranians (or muslims in general) view Zoroastranians as pagans but as "people of the Book".

"people of the Book" is only when referring to Christians and Jews, the Zoroastrians were ridiculed as "fire worshippers". But the reason modern Iranians identify with the ancient Iranians/Persians is not because of cultural or religious similiarity, there is no clear similiarity, but Modern Greeks do not have the same religion nor the same culture by a long shot as the Ancient Greeks either, the reason the Iranians (and the Greeks) identify with the Anicent Persians (or the Ancient Greeks) is because it's their past. And that has to count for something don't it?

[Kralizec]

"people of the Book" is only when referring to Christians and Jews

At first anyway, but I recall that eventually the catagory was expanded to include Zoroastrians. Not to big a stretch, as there's a lot of common ground between the Abrahamic religions and Zoroastrianism (there's a theory that Jewish monotheism was inspired by Zoroastrian dualism) and it might simply have been more practical to label them as such and tax them accordingly, rather than persecuting them till every last one of them has been converted or killed.