Glory of Persepolis' goes on screen in response to insulting movie `300'

[Zaknafien]

Glory of Persepolis' goes on screen in response to insulting movie `300'
Tehran, May 1, IRNA

Iran-Movie-Persepolis

A number of experts and critics attending the screening and analysis session of the documentary dubbed `Glory of Persepolis' said that it reflects the dignity of Iranians and Persepolis, adding that it is a proper response to the insulting Hollywood movie `300'.

The screening of a new series of films started at Nour film house of Imam Ali (AS) Religious Arts Museum on Monday afternoon and `Glory of Persepolis' was the first film that was screened and analyzed.

The session was attended by the producer of this documentary, Hossein Hazrati and Head of Parseh Research Foundation
Mohammad-Hassan Talebian among others.

Speaking at the session, Talebian said that this cinematic project was proposed by Iran's Cultural Heritage Organization in 2003.

"The production of the proposed film was materialized through the efforts of the Parseh Research Foundation team working on
it, which is now used to introduce Persepolis to visitors and give them an idea on this world famous ancient monument prior to touring it," he added.

"Based on the research conducted at the foundation on the scientific progress and outstanding technologies of the era, it was found that the technology of the period was ahead of its own time, some examples of which are just being used today.

Film critic, Reza Dorostkar, also attending the session, dismissed the idea of preserving the Iranians identity and history through incitement of their feelings.

"Today, we need to produce films aiming to revive our historical monuments that will provide the opportunity to observe historical facts and at the same time get introduced to the history," he added.

On his part, the producer of the documentary expounded on the film and the relevant book, adding that it is the fruit of sincere efforts of all those involved in the project.

"In the process of production, it was attempted to consider the views of domestic and foreign experts, researchers and
archaeologists," said Hazrati.

[antisocialmunky]

As long as it isn't equally insulting... go Persia!

[The Celt]

I'd be surprised if the Mullahs let this one through their blacklist as they usually ban anything pre-Islamic Persian. Hence why we haven't seen many historical flicks from Iran at all really.:dizzy2:

[keravnos]

I'd be surprised if the Mullahs let this one through their blacklist as they usually ban anything pre-Islamic Persian. Hence why we haven't seen many historical flicks from Iran at all really.:dizzy2:

And that is a damn shame!

:no:

[Geoffrey S]

Yeah, they are a bit selective about defending 'their' cultural heritage. Still, better late than never I guess.

[russia almighty]

You know Iran has got the dumbest propaganda people sometimes . There are hundreds of ways they could mess with Pre-Islamic Iran and make it how they want . Instead they try to ban it .

[mucky305]

Does the film start with a mushroom cloud over a picture of the US on a map? Unfortunately, I think that the modern Iran is way behind the Persian Empire....well the Persians didn't have nukes.....did they?

[Zaknafien]

You know Iran has got the dumbest propaganda people sometimes . There are hundreds of ways they could mess with Pre-Islamic Iran and make it how they want . Instead they try to ban it .

hey, the US resents that remark. US propagandists are pretty dumb too!:laugh4:



I think that the modern Iran is way behind the Persian Empire....well the Persians didn't have nukes.....did they?

well neither does Iran

[EoE]

A ban on pre-islamic films in Iran? Well, that is news to me. Does anyone actually has a source on that?

The reason not many people here have seen an Iranian historical war film is probably that not many have seen an Iranian film at all. And of course that historical war films hasn't been in the vogue in Iran, as it has here ever since Gladiator and the revival of the swords'n'sandals type films of 50's Hollywood.

As for doing that "Glory of Persepolis" movie as a response to "300" it is as dumb as doing a "Glory of Tom" film in response to Jerry's string of successes.

rgds/EoE

BTW: If they're not banned (un)officially in your country, go see a New Wave Iranian film if you got the chance. It's really something else.

[Gask]

If you want to watch one of their movies, do some research on it first or your likely to pick up a several hour long pile of crap like I did from blockbuster. But hey! All the independant film festivals loved it :dizzy2: At least it was amusing at all the wrong moments.

[Gabeed]

I'm getting pretty tired of all the "300 is racist and sexist" talk. It was based on a GRAPHIC NOVEL, with a simple plot involving good guys and bad guys. It's like saying Kill Bill is prejudiced against the Japanese, depicting them through the Crazy 88's as bloodthirsty, black mask wearing, katana wielding minions.
300 is a dumb, entertaining movie that should not be taken seriously and does not need a "response."

[JeffBag]

300 is a dumb, entertaining movie that should not be taken seriously and does not need a "response."

Try explaining that to the Mullahs. (No offense intended towards any other Iranians.)

[Zaknafien]

hm, well to consider how they feel, it would probably be like an iraqi film about the U.S. invasion depicting the americans as black-clad, demonic stormtroopers killing indiscriminately and mercilessly; which undoubtedly would upset alot of yanks.

[Thaatu]

hm, well to consider how they feel, it would probably be like an iraqi film about the U.S. invasion depicting the americans as black-clad, demonic stormtroopers killing indiscriminately and mercilessly; which undoubtedly would upset alot of yanks.
I agree. Before making '300', Snyder should have thought a little how many people were going to be insulted by it. Especially when diplomatic relations between the US and Iran are what they are. Insulting someone else for the amusement of others is not my thing...

[alatar]

Go iran (wow never though I'd say that:inquisitive: )

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

I believe they did consider who would be offended by "The 300" before they made it. And they thought it was good. "There is no such thing as bad publicity."

It would be cool to see a pro-Achaemenid movie. But I don't think one made in Iran would be very historical. There would probably be anti-West and pro-Islam (yes Islam) bais in it.

Just a side note: I see the Achaemenids as the "good guys" and the Greeks as violent barbarians on the border causing trouble.

[kambiz]

Mullahs want to make a movie about ancient Iran in response to '300' ! Oh No ,That's what I was always afraind of. How they can do so while they are already destroying Perspolis and Cyrus the great tomb the true father of all Iranians by opening the sivand dam ?!
300 was an annoying movie for me and anyother true iranian ,But what mullahs are doing is just horrific. Hope that this news is just a rumor.



P.S : We need world protest against opening the "Sivand Dam" which is a direct threat to one of the world's ancient treasures ,The Perspolis.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

P.S : We need world protest against opening the "Sivand Dam" which is a direct threat to one of the world's ancient treasures ,The Perspolis.
They're flooding Perspolis!?!

First Abu Simbel, then Zeugma, now Perspolis!?!

[Narhon]

Why should one get upset with a movie using fiction to depict something that happened long ago. If people are going to worry about who they will upset when they make a movie we would have none. I do not hear the Germans getting mad when a WWI or WWII movie is made, maybe the skinheads. I am from the southern part of the US and I do not get offended with American civil war movies. Either the movie is true or not why worry about what some overpaid person in California is portraying. :wall:


it's a movie fiction all who looks to the cinema for a history lesson are looking in the wrong place.

[Zaknafien]

It would be cool to see a pro-Achaemenid movie. But I don't think one made in Iran would be very historical. There would probably be anti-West and pro-Islam (yes Islam) bais in it.

on the other hand, any movie made in the US "probably" is anti-east and pro-christianity/judaism bais. Same thing.

[Watchman]

I do not hear the Germans getting mad when a WWI or WWII movie is made, maybe the skinheads.The Germans don't make a very good yardstick, given their fairly justified issues about the topic. The self-flagellation can, however, reach somewhat embarassing levels in my experience.

The American South I can say little about, but I suspect the phenomenom is similar regarding the population segment that doesn't have issues with Civil War movies - institutionalized slavery and oppression now just happens to be plain nasty by mainstream modern sensibilities after all.

[Zaknafien]

I do not hear the Germans getting mad when a WWI or WWII movie is made, maybe the skinheads.


well i think that probably has something to do with the germans being portrayed in most western made WWII films as pathetic losers getting killed by the dozens by the grizzled, tough-as-nails yank or brit soldier who's there to save the day ~:rolleyes:

[Geoffrey S]

hm, well to consider how they feel, it would probably be like an iraqi film about the U.S. invasion depicting the americans as black-clad, demonic stormtroopers killing indiscriminately and mercilessly; which undoubtedly would upset alot of yanks.
That's fine, except that the depiction of the Persians in 300 has absolutely nothing in common with Iran of today. Unless Iranians see some similarities between themselves and an army of faceless ninjas commanded by a creepy sexually ambiguous guy? :inquisitive: Because I didn't see it.

[Mad Guitar Murphy]

I'm getting pretty tired of all the "300 is racist and sexist" talk. It was based on a GRAPHIC NOVEL, with a simple plot involving good guys and bad guys. It's like saying Kill Bill is prejudiced against the Japanese, depicting them through the Crazy 88's as bloodthirsty, black mask wearing, katana wielding minions.
300 is a dumb, entertaining movie that should not be taken seriously and does not need a "response."

This movie makes a mockery out of human life and glorifies murder on a massive scale. I had hoped people would have ignored it but apparently good taste is hard to find these days. The whole 'it's based on a graphic novel' argument is bs, you shouldn't make a graphic novel about raping women either.

[Narhon]

All nations have their history. Good, Bad and Ugly. Yes I took the name from an Italian western. We all should learn from the past not try to hide it, like the propaganda ministries of our countries would like. I do think the cause of the Germans in WWII was bad but many Germans at that time did not. We are all swayed by our countries propaganda. What the Persians were 2500 years ago does not matter except to those who study history. The only Iranians I have met are good people. I can say the same for most of the people I have met around the world and I have been around the world. My point was why get upset with a piece of fiction set in a historical time and place. There are many other things worthwhile in the world that we should get worked up over. :egypt:

[Mad Guitar Murphy]

All nations have their history. Good, Bad and Ugly. Yes I took the name from an Italian western. We all should learn from the past not try to hide it, like the propaganda ministries of our countries would like. I do think the cause of the Germans in WWII was bad but many Germans at that time did not. We are all swayed by our countries propaganda. What the Persians were 2500 years ago does not matter except to those who study history. The only Iranians I have met are good people. I can say the same for most of the people I have met around the world and I have been around the world. My point was why get upset with a piece of fiction set in a historical time and place. There are many other things worthwhile in the world that we should get worked up over. :egypt:

Yes, and one of those things is that people nowadays apparently like to watch a movie that portrays another people as demons and see them die by the thousands by some machos. IMHO people who like this movie sould see a shrink. No offense intended.

Btw, I am watchng the movie right now and I find it offensive to everything human.

[Zaknafien]

That's fine, except that the depiction of the Persians in 300 has absolutely nothing in common with Iran of today. Unless Iranians see some similarities between themselves and an army of faceless ninjas commanded by a creepy sexually ambiguous guy? :inquisitive: Because I didn't see it.

Uh, except that they are Persians. :idea2:

[Barigos]

I totally agree with Narhon.I just add that someone with brains won't be insulted by a movie,picture( etc.) that doesn't depicts him or refers to him PERSONALLY(by name,surname,birthday..).However,there are some "people" who can take such movies as a personal insults.Poor ones...

[Caveira]

Well I saw Kingdom of Heaven and although I'm not sure about the historicle accuracy of said movie, it depicted a very honorable Saladin, more than History Channel I think; the crusaders on the other hand looked like bloodthirsty stupid fellas. How did arabs react to that movie, compared to 300?

[Mad Guitar Murphy]

I totally agree with Narhon.I just add that someone with brains won't be insulted by a movie,picture( etc.) that doesn't depicts him or refers to him PERSONALLY(by name,surname,birthday..).However,there are some "people" who can take such movies as a personal insults.Poor ones...

You don't mind watching humans get killed by the thousands just for entertainment? I find it repulisive.

[Spoofa]

You don't mind watching humans get killed by the thousands just for entertainment? I find it repulisive.


I'm sorry for the blunt response but If it bothers you then simply don't watch it.

Yes it's wrong but thats how society is nowaday's.

[Mad Guitar Murphy]

I'm sorry for the blunt response but If it bothers you then simply don't watch it.

Yes it's wrong but thats how society is nowaday's.

You are right of course but I can't stop wondering why people like this crap. Do they find it entertaining to watch people die en masse? It's not like lord of the rings, when you see orcs die or anything.

[Zaknafien]

people have always liked watching others die, its not just society these days.

whats the difference between watching orcs on LOTR die, or the thousands who died when the rebels blew up the death star?

[Spoofa]

people have always liked watching others die, its not just society these days.

whats the difference between watching orcs on LOTR die, or the thousands who died when the rebels blew up the death star?

I agree, Ill be honest and say that I find excitement to see people die (not cruelly but honorably in a fight or somthing similar)

Perhaps I've been corrupted by the media but there are very few things I wouldn't give to be able to participate in an ancient battle of the Greeks or Romans, maybe Gladiator has distorted my perception of a real battle (of course) but still...

[Mad Guitar Murphy]

people have always liked watching others die, its not just society these days.

whats the difference between watching orcs on LOTR die, or the thousands who died when the rebels blew up the death star?

The difference is that the death star exploded in 2 seconds and in 300 we get to watch persians getting hacked into pieces very graphically for 2 houres. People who should know right from wrong should understand that this is not what fun is supposed to be like. Also of course, the empire in sw is pure fiction and the persian empire still exists. Also Persians are actually a people, although most 12 years olds jerking off at this movie probably won't know were to find it on a map.

Attending an ancient battle cannot have been so nice, you should try reading accounts from WW1, they are very graphic in the horror those soldiers went through. It's the carnage that mad them go insane, so the timeframe is not to important.

[Zaknafien]

Perhaps I've been corrupted by the media but there are very few things I wouldn't give to be able to participate in an ancient battle of the Greeks or Romans, maybe Gladiator has distorted my perception of a real battle (of course) but still...

Wow, dude. I dont want to sound mean but that is one of the most ignorant statements I've ever heard. :dizzy2:

[Watchman]

I totally agree with Narhon.I just add that someone with brains won't be insulted by a movie,picture( etc.) that doesn't depicts him or refers to him PERSONALLY(by name,surname,birthday..).However,there are some "people" who can take such movies as a personal insults.Poor ones...Actually, given the extremely multi-ethnic nature of the Persian empire and army, the movie could be regarded as generally insulting to more or less everyone between the Straits of Bosphorus and Hindu Kush (not counting the Turko-Mongols and other latecomers)...


Well I saw Kingdom of Heaven and although I'm not sure about the historicle accuracy of said movie, it depicted a very honorable Saladin, more than History Channel I think; the crusaders on the other hand looked like bloodthirsty stupid fellas. How did arabs react to that movie, compared to 300?The Arabs are rather irrelevant to the discussion, as the ones feeling honked off are Iranians/Persians. Getting the two mixed up A) suggests a failure of knowledge on the part of the speaker B) would probably rather annoy both groups, much the same way as the Spanish and French would not likely appreciate being confused for each other.

Anyway, anyone who's done his homework will know that the Crusaders by and large were a bunch of bloodthirsty, ignorant fanatics and generally somewhat disagreeable people (right soon also in the opinion of the inhabitants of the Outrémer...), whereas Saladin's conduct was not only admired also by his Christian opponents but also well in line with long-established Arabic and Islamic notions of chivalrious behaviour.

The case of 300 is hardly comparable, given that the comic alone drips with very questionable partisanism and whitewashing of the Spartan system contrasting with general bad-mouthing of the Persians (although I actually found Miller's rendition of the common footsoldiers visually interesting), and the movie goes on to add the insult of freaky mutants and LotR monster circus to the injury of being in generally bad taste.
All of the above naturally quite in the face of what is known of the actual context and proceedings.

[Spoofa]

Ah its okay, I try not to be but hey... :dizzy2: We dont all come as gifted as some with knowledge of history as well as some, I have been trying to get into history and its one of my favorite subjects but I've only started on my journey for wisdom.

[Zaknafien]

The difference is that the death star exploded in 2 seconds and in 300 we get to watch persians getting hacked into pieces very graphically for 2 houres. People who should know right from wrong should understand that this is not what fun is supposed to be like. Also of course, the empire in sw is pure fiction and the persian empire still exists. Also Persians are actually a people, although most 12 years olds jerking off at this movie probably won't know were to find it on a map.

Attending an ancient battle cannot have been so nice, you should try reading accounts from WW1, they are very graphic in the horror those soldiers went through. It's the carnage that mad them go insane, so the timeframe is not to important.


Well that's true, and we can't compare reality to fiction, but the thesis is the same and people are cheering or enjoying the fact that people are being killed, some of them innocent bystanders or people who would normally have no part in any 'evil' or 'wrongdoing'.

[Spoofa]

Maybe i spoke too liberally when i said i would give anything to be in a battle, but hey, War is beautiful to those who have not yet experienced it. (the quote goes somthing like that...)

[Mad Guitar Murphy]

Well that's true, and we can't compare reality to fiction, but the thesis is the same and people are cheering or enjoying the fact that people are being killed, some of them innocent bystanders or people who would normally have no part in any 'evil' or 'wrongdoing'.

Well, I agree but Starwars didn't glorify death and killing and 300 does. It's basically what the movie is about, how cool it is to kill other humans.

[sgsandor]

:embarassed: You know what we need here....Rambo and the Soviet Union:embarassed: I miss those guys, As far as the movie 300 it is supposed to be entertaining and insulting. I like movies even if they are ignorant(clerks II) 300 is retarded i knew that, i still saw it. Lets face it some people just wanna cause an issue, every Norweigain (i cant spell) loved to be called a viking and the imagery associated with it. None of them sail or go raiding. Its like my mama told me if ur insulted by someone it means ur not seeing it right or that you are just a p***y. My friend is persian and he loves that "his people are still feared" his words not mine. and for me and for us i belive it aint where u been but where we are tying to go:2thumbsup:

[Watchman]

Well that's true, and we can't compare reality to fiction, but the thesis is the same and people are cheering or enjoying the fact that people are being killed, some of them innocent bystanders or people who would normally have no part in any 'evil' or 'wrongdoing'.In the creepily aseptic parlance of modern warfare those are called "collateral damage". Anyway, at least with the Death Star (and in general void-swimming warships going "and the sky was full of stars... every one of them a dying ship...") we're spared the high-energy details of the vast crew complement's demise.

With 300 the Movie we get to watch it in full color for a long time up close, and basically told it is justice.

See the difference ? One reduces the death of, well, given the dimensions involved, hundreds of thousands of crew to basically a statistic, as curt summaries on important historical massacres now are wont to. Another presents the bloody end of countless people as basically "good clean fun" to Impress & Entertain the audience with Spectacle, strips them of their humanity and suffering on the side, and goes to some lenghts of bogus rhetorical BS to present this as a Right And Good Thing. Oh yeah, and Decisively Important To Civilization As We Know It too.

And no, 300 isn't the sole offender in recent memory in these regards.

[Sarcasm]

This movie makes a mockery out of human life and glorifies murder on a massive scale. I had hoped people would have ignored it but apparently good taste is hard to find these days. The whole 'it's based on a graphic novel' argument is bs, you shouldn't make a graphic novel about raping women either.


Yes, and one of those things is that people nowadays apparently like to watch a movie that portrays another people as demons and see them die by the thousands by some machos. IMHO people who like this movie sould see a shrink. No offense intended.

Btw, I am watchng the movie right now and I find it offensive to everything human.

From the earliest times of cinema there's been somekind of violence on the screens, wether it's Indians circling a wagon train that get killed in droves but still manage to kill or rape everyone, or stereotypical Arab attacking a French foreign legion fort, or a concentration camp in WW2 run by evil nazis. Hell, get Rambo or American Ninja in here too.

The movie *was* based on a graphic novel, but even if it wasn't what the hell is the problem? Should the guys that make the movie (or the graphic novel) just do whatever is right in your view? Yes, the man is a douche bag, the movie is historically inaccurate and *probably* has political second-intentions, neither of which are a reason not to enjoy the movie for it's basic function - entertainment.

What is with this modern new-age over-sensitive and politically-correct movement that likes to tell people what to do or what not to do?

I think you should see a shrink. No offence intended.


:inquisitive:

[Geoffrey S]

Uh, except that they are Persians. :idea2:
Yes, Persians more than two-thousand years in the past and who have consistently been reduced as a national heritage by the current Islamist regime.

As an aside, nowhere in the movie do I recall it being mentioned where the Persians came from or a link being drawn to current-day Iran. How would people dumb enough to believe the movie is an accurate representation of reality be expected to make the link between the enemy in 300 and Iran, without this whole hysteria?

[Mad Guitar Murphy]

Thanks for eloquently making my point Watchman.

[Sarcasm]

In the creepily aseptic parlance of modern warfare those are called "collateral damage". Anyway, at least with the Death Star (and in general void-swimming warships going "and the sky was full of stars... every one of them a dying ship...") we're spared the high-energy details of the vast crew complement's demise.

With 300 the Movie we get to watch it in full color for a long time up close, and basically told it is justice.

See the difference ? One reduces the death of, well, given the dimensions involved, hundreds of thousands of crew to basically a statistic, as curt summaries on important historical massacres now are wont to. Another presents the bloody end of countless people as basically "good clean fun" to Impress & Entertain the audience with Spectacle, strips them of their humanity and suffering on the side, and goes to some lenghts of bogus rhetorical BS to present this as a Right And Good Thing. Oh yeah, and Decisively Important To Civilization As We Know It too.

And no, 300 isn't the sole offender in recent memory in these regards.

Ok, what about Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers? They are far more graphical and basically present Germans as evil monsters for most of the movie.

And it's one thing me not wanting to see the movie, and another for you to keep me from seeing it or being in your moral ivory tower looking down on me for seeing it.

[Mad Guitar Murphy]

From the earliest times of cinema there's been somekind of violence on the screens, wether it's Indians circling a wagon train that get killed in droves but still manage to kill or rape everyone, or stereotypical Arab attacking a French foreign legion fort, or a concentration camp in WW2 run by evil nazis. Hell, get Rambo or American Ninja in here too.

Watching people get killed has seldomly been so prominently in a movie, I don't agree with anything that compares with it either by the way. The point is that this movie is about killing others, shows it very graphically because it is cool and it claims justice is done.


The movie *was* based on a graphic novel, but even if it wasn't what the hell is the problem? Should the guys that make the movie (or the graphic novel) just do whatever is right in your view? Yes, the man is a douche bag, the movie is historically inaccurate and *probably* has political second-intentions, neither of which are a reason not to enjoy the movie for it's basic function - entertainment.

What is with this modern new-age over-sensitive and politically-correct movement that likes to tell people what to do or what not to do?

I think you should see a shrink. No offence intended.


:inquisitive:

I did not say that movies such as this one should be forbidden or anything so don''t act all insulted and invoke your basic freedoms. I just said that it is strange if you enjoy watching people die. Now is it or is it not?

[Zaknafien]

Yes, Persians more than two-thousand years in the past and who have consistently been reduced as a national heritage by the current Islamist regime.

As an aside, nowhere in the movie do I recall it being mentioned where the Persians came from or a link being drawn to current-day Iran. How would people dumb enough to believe the movie is an accurate representation of reality be expected to make the link between the enemy in 300 and Iran, without this whole hysteria?


well alot of the same people believe the movie represents actual spartans :laugh4:

And the Persians are not some people who have ceased to exist. They are a modern day people who live in iran, afghanistan, iraq, the united states, and a dozen other countries around the world. Any group of people can be offended when they are portrayed in a movie incorrectly, i dont blame them. the british should be upset at movies like "the patriot", etc, for example.

[Watchman]

Yes, Persians more than two-thousand years in the past and who have consistently been reduced as a national heritage by the current Islamist regime.I think even the more severely ignorant will have little trouble with associating "Persia" with more or less the correct geographical area.

And if they on the side blanket over the Arabs and Afghans into the same category, two birds with one stone right ?
(Yes, I have some quite cynical views on some of the motivating factors behind the filmatization. And Miller's questionable choice of themes and rhetoric in the original for that matter.)


Yes, Persians more than two-thousand years in the past and who have consistently been reduced as a national heritage by the current Islamist regime.I understand they've overall preserved an idea of distinct cultural identity rather well, actually. AFAIK Persia was in many ways rather odd by many of the common standards of the Muslim world for example, and succesfully enough absorbed the waves of various conquerors that washed over it due to the default condition it now happened to be one of the major (if not the main) routes from Central Asia into Mesopotamia and the Middle East general.

And while I'm leery enough of the brand of Irano-Persian nationalism propagated under the Republic (and previously under the Shah for that matter), as I now am of all such identity-building schemes, and far too cynical to not recognize a fair bit of naked political opportunism on the part of Tehran in the current holabaloo, I figure the Iranians by and large have a legit enough case to be irked over.

[Sarcasm]

Watching people get killed has seldomly been so prominently in a movie, I don't agree with anything that compares with it either by the way. The point is that this movie is about killing others, shows it very graphically because it is cool and it claims justice is done.

I did not say that movies such as this one should be forbidden or anything so don''t act all insulted and invoke your basic freedoms. I just said that it is strange if you enjoy watching people die. Now is it or is it not?

I do enjoy watching people die. I've been watching people die on my TV almost all of my life. Rambo, American Ninja, The Terminator, Commando, Braveheart, Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, etc... are all part of the list of movies I've watched and enjoyed, even if they're dumb and do glorify violence against a mob of dehumanized people. Does that make me a bad person or, even better, a lesser man than you?

And, no, you just called me crazy.

[Mad Guitar Murphy]

I do enjoy watching people die. I've been watching people die on my TV almost all of my life. Rambo, American Ninja, The Terminator, Commando, Braveheart, Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, etc... are all part of the list of movies I've watched and enjoyed, even if they're dumb and do glorify violence against a mob of dehumanized people. Does that make me a bad person or, even better, a lesser man than you?

And, no, you just called me crazy.

Those movies are not just about cool guys dressed in red killing other humans for two houres. I don't think you can compare a warmovie such as Platoon with 300, or The Terminator, a movie about the fight against evil robots with 300. Also, none of those movies glorify violence and murder of human beings and 300 does.

It can't be healthy if you enjoy to see hundreds of humans getting their limbs hacked of for two houres.

[Watchman]

Ok, what about Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers? They are far more graphical and basically present Germans as evil monsters for most of the movie.BoB was a TV series last I checked you know. Anyway, I've seen both and far as I could gather they had none of this demonization you speak of. Both indeed seemed to go to some lenghts to ascribe a fair bit of very human sentiments - fear, anxiety, pain, terror etc. - also to "the enemy", and went to some lenghts (not all that far in the case of Ryan mind you) to strip war of its luster of heroism. Or rather, the idea of heroism they communicated was a by far more "modern" and human one than the infantile propagandistic fantasies 300 pimps.

Let's just say that a movie about Thermopylai, 480BC, done with the approach of the movie and series mentioned would not have endeared nearly so much hue and cry about quasi-fascistic propagandism, black-and-white demonization, and what-have-you.

Something that is actually rather more curious is how there AFAIK was no reaction in the UK to the presentation of the Anglo-Saxons as basically rabid proto-Nazis in Arthur, given that those guys are basically their direct ancestors... I guess identifying with the heroic defenders, the Excalibur myth, and vague associations with the Battle of Britain did the trick. :dizzy2:


And it's one thing me not wanting to see the movie, and another for you to keep me from seeing it or being in your moral ivory tower looking down on me for seeing it.Please do not offend my eyes or intellect with these strawmen. Nobody, far as I know, has voiced his or her wish to keep you from seeing the movie; and I will not begrudge anyone merely for watching the thing, although I might question their taste and judgement a bit.

Apologizing for that calculated piece of crap is an entirely different issue, and I will cheerfully volunteer to try and dismember such argumentation.

[Watchman]

Does that make me a bad person or, even better, a lesser man than you?Your manliness is irrelevant here. Keep it in your damn pants.

Or as my brother would likely put it, "hide your shame man!" ~;p

[Sarcasm]

Those movies are not just about cool guys dressed in red killing other humans for two houres. I don't think you can compare a warmovie such as Platoon with 300, or The Terminator, a movie about the fight against evil robots with 300. Also, none of those movies glorify violence and murder of human beings and 300 does.

It can't be healthy if you enjoy to see hundreds of humans getting their limbs hacked of for two houres.

The Terminator and Platoon were there for the violence, after all the Terminator offs an entire police station, and murders a few other people along the way. Platoon is all about the soldiers in the unit, the enemy being part of the scenery to either kill or get killed.

And what do you mean the others don't? From anonymous ninjas to stereotypical Russian, English and Vietnamese soldiers, they're portrayed as being lesser beings than the hero, only the "bosses" remotely having a personality and usually simply "evil". They do glorify their deaths over some pretence of justice or moral superiority.

And I do enjoy it, thank you very much. Healthy, you're just gonna have to take my word for it.


BoB was a TV series last I checked you know. Anyway, I've seen both and far as I could gather they had none of this demonization you speak of. Both indeed seemed to go to some lenghts to ascribe a fair bit of very human sentiments - fear, anxiety, pain, terror etc. - also to "the enemy", and went to some lenghts (not all that far in the case of Ryan mind you) to strip war of its luster of heroism. Or rather, the idea of heroism they communicated was a by far more "modern" and human one than the infantile propagandistic fantasies 300 pimps.

Why is it relevant that it's a TV series?

Ryan was completely one sided, even the attempt of the allied soldiers to do the right thing backfires on them, because Germans were the bad guys (even if he was afraid to die), mechanically executing wounded American soldiers.

In Band of Brothers, there's about 2 german soldiers that are treated like humans, one curiously comes from Ohio (I think). For the rest of the show they're background.

However, of course 300 is miles away from being the films (or series) either of these are, in the way they portray the enemy or sheer quality. The difference is 300 is highly stylized and made so that it is directly resembles the graphic novel (which it even fails at times).


Let's just say that a movie about Thermopylai, 480BC, done with the approach of the movie and series mentioned would not have endeared nearly so much hue and cry about quasi-fascistic propagandism, black-and-white demonization, and what-have-you.

Something that is actually rather more curious is how there AFAIK was no reaction in the UK to the presentation of the Anglo-Saxons as basically rabid proto-Nazis in Arthur, given that those guys are basically their direct ancestors... I guess identifying with the heroic defenders, the Excalibur myth, and vague associations with the Battle of Britain did the trick.

Well, of course it wouldn't, then it'd actually be a great movie :beam:.

My point is there's been black-and-white demonization before, even downright fascism and racism in other films, and people still enjoyed the movies featuring them. I know I did. Sure you can ask if those people can recognize it and make the separation like I can. Maybe not, but you should still give them the benefit of the doubt.

That and probably because in Western Europe, they don't care about being misrepresented in a movie. There sure as hell wouldn't be demonstrations in the streets burning shit, prohibiting it, or official announcements from the government condemning it. And I hope it'll never will.


Please do not offend my eyes or intellect with these strawmen. Nobody, far as I know, has voiced his or her wish to keep you from seeing the movie; and I will not begrudge anyone merely for watching the thing, although I might question their taste and judgement a bit.

Apologizing for that calculated piece of crap is an entirely different issue, and I will cheerfully volunteer to try and dismember such argumentation.

Maybe not here, but the movie has been criticized in the same way you are criticizing it, and there's been movements to shut it down, which to me is a grave thing. And you might not begrudge anyone but you are questioning his judgement, meaning yours is better than anyone that wished to see the movie...no sense of superiority here huh?

Is there a reason someone who has watched and enjoyed the movie need to apologize about?


Your manliness is irrelevant here. Keep it in your damn pants.

Or as my brother would likely put it, "hide your shame man!"

:beam: A man, not in a macho sense. More as in a moral man.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

This is getting a bit hostile, it would be unfortunate if it was locked.

On a side note about violence in 300:
Did anyone notice that there was no blood on the ground at any point? Even with all the blood that flew through the air, there was never any on the ground.

[Sarcasm]

This is getting a bit hostile, it would be unfortunate if it was locked.

On a side note about violence in 300:
Did anyone notice that there was no blood on the ground at any point? Even with all the blood that flew through the air, there was never any on the ground.

Don't worry man, it's all good. I'm sure Watchman agrees.

I also noticed that the arrows that were on stuck on the shield mysteriously disappear, and the amount of arrows that fall isn't nearly as much as the ones stuck on the floor.

[Watchman]

Why is it relevant that it's a TV series?I'm a details nazi, of course.


Ryan was completely one sided, even the attempt of the allied soldiers to do the right thing backfires on them, because Germans were the bad guys (even if he was afraid to die), mechanically executing wounded American soldiers.Recall the conduct of the American soldiers at the beach assault scene, or their insistence on lynching the last survivor of the radar station's garrison ? They're not exactly made out to be shining heroes much of the time. And that one German who gets to give a face to the enemy, well, what do you seriously expect him to have done in a life-or-death hand-to-hand struggle with all of his squad-mates already dead ? At least he lets that interpreter guy who saved his life go - which duly comes back to bite him in the ass later...

For the basically heroic war story it now is, Ryan at least makes an effort to paint both sides with shades of gray.


In Band of Brothers, there's about 2 german soldiers that are treated like humans, one curiously comes from Ohio (I think). For the rest of the show they're background.But they're not particularly demonized either are they ? And I also seem to recall one poignant scene at the end where that one senior German officer surrenders his troops and makes a speech to the grizzled lot of 'em for one example - the thrust of that ought to be fairly obvious. Many of the battle scenes also give the Germans the full range of relevant emotions and a strong sense of a very human desperate wish to survive, and I don't remember that one bayonet fight in a barn being anything else than distinctly unheroic and generally rather more just desperate and grim.


However, of course 300 is miles away from being the films (or series) either of these are, in the way they portray the enemy or sheer quality. The difference is 300 is highly stylized and made so that it is directly resembles the graphic novel (which it even fails at times).Well, 300 doesn't even make the effort. It wallows in general Spartan Awesomeness and Spectacle, and commits the mortal sin of doing so in the context of an extremely questionable political statement. Several, actually. I counted a fair few from the comic alone.


Well, of course it wouldn't, then it'd actually be a great movie :beam:. No - it might be a tolerable movie.


My point is there's been black-and-white demonization before, even downright fascism and racism in other films, and people still enjoyed the movies featuring them. I know I did. Sure you can ask if those people can recognize it and make the separation like I can. Maybe not, but you should still give them the benefit of the doubt.I did make a point of mentioning 300 was not the sole offender. It is, however, the one in court here, and a particularly obnoxious specimen.

And I'm far too cynical about people on the abstract level to bother giving them much benefit of doubt. At least when I set my expectations low - as empirical evidence recommends - I will only be positively surprised.


That and probably because in Western Europe, they don't care about being misrepresented in a movie. There sure as hell wouldn't be demonstrations in the streets burning shit, prohibiting it, or official announcements from the government condemning it. And I hope it'll never will.Irrelevant. The Muslim world has its rather complicated reasons for being as testy as it is; the "West" largely lacks those circumstances, and in any case as it tends to be one of the primary offenders both past and present really has little right to talk back on the subject most of the time.

Now, I don't know what was written to assorted tabloids by concerned readers and so on, but I've got a strong hunch the lack of internationally noticeable noises on part of the Brits concerning the depiction of their forebears has by far more to do with a rather perverse identification on the other side instead - and really when it comes down to that, both ultimately count as "Britons" anyway. No such ambivalency about 300 of course, just ultra-macho supermen that could have stepped right out of Nazi art (save for the lack of blond hair and blue eyes) cheerfully slaughtering faceless, mindless hordes of thoroughly dehumanized Asian hordes...
:dizzy2:
Me, I prefer Riefenstahl over that kind of rubbish.


Maybe not here, but the movie has been criticized in the same way you are criticizing it, and there's been movements to shut it down, which to me is a grave thing.Watch me care. Never heard any of that around here, just a lot of snide remarks from reviewers.


And you might not begrudge anyone but you are questioning his judgement, meaning yours is better than anyone that wished to see the movie...no sense of superiority here huh?I was entitled to have an opinion of other people and their tastes, the last I checked. And a certain assumption of one's judgement being superior tends to be implicit in any disagreement by default...

Although I will readily admit I do tend to assume a certain degree of intellectual superiority, particularly in the field of analysis and forming coherent and passably objective judgement, over "my fellow man". Thus far empiric evidence has warranted it.


Is there a reason someone who has watched and enjoyed the movie need to apologize about?I take it you did not quite understand the concept of "apologism" ? It's basically exactly what you've been doing for a while now - defending the movie from the critique leveled against it, on IMO somewhat shaky grounds.

Although now that you mention it, yeah, actually paying money to see that kind of testosterone-laden politically tendentious infantile power fantasy would really be worth an apology. To good taste and judgement in general if nothing else.


:beam: A man, not in a macho sense. More as in a moral man.Just for the record, I am familiar enough with the reasoning of feminist discourse to start picking that statement apart...
:beam:
Being a native speaker of a fairly gender-neutral language that doesn't use the male genus as standard passive form has its perks, too.

[Aramazon]

Hello, I would like to make my own input to this argument.

Firstly I would like to make a few statements:

The Persians did invade Greece.
The Spartans did make a stand at the pass of Thermopylae.
The Spartans killed an extremely large number of Persians compared to their number.
After 3 days of combat, the Spartans all died.
Athens by then had prepared her fleet and engaged the Persian fleet at the battle of Salamis, resulting in an Athenian victory.
Xerxes returned to Persia after his fleet was destroyed, leaving command to one of his generals.
The Persian army in Greece was finally defeated by a large Greek army at the battle of Plataea.

So ended the war.


What can be said based on these events?

The Persians initiated the war by invading Greece.
The Spartans were brave and very skilled. This can be deduced from the fact that a small number of them stood against many and from the large amount of Persian losses compared to Spartan losses.
The Spartans made a sacrifice of their lives for the defense of their homeland.
The battle of Salamis may have depended on those 300 spartans giving Athens enough time to prepare.
The battle of Plataea may have depended on the absence of Xerxes which resulted from the Victory at Salamis. Regardless, it was made much easier by the smaller number of enemies as a result of the battle of Thermopylae.

Had it not been for the battle of Thermopylae:

The Persians might have conquered Greece.
The Persians might have then invaded Europe and they might have conquered it too.
World history would be very different from that point on.
It is for these reasons that the battle of Thermopylae is what might be called a turning point in history. It was an important battle to say the least.


The Spartans at Thermopylae are an example to all of bravery and that few can triumph against many. It was in fact, what people might refer to as heroic(courageous, brave, going against the odds, and morally right.) I think most of us should be able to agree on the bravery, but morally right is probably more debatable.
As far as I know, self defense is morally right. I think it can be said for sure that it is not wrong. The debate then would be "what is self defense?". Let's deduce that seeing as how the Persians had by that time conquered many lands, they intended to conquer Greece and weren't going to be convinced otherwise by diplomacy. In this way, self defense was all the Greeks could do to defend their homeland from invaders.


I believe this is true:

The battle of Thermopylae is a worthy subject for a movie as it was a very important historical event, and it was a triumph of human values(courage).


Moving on to 300.

The movie is historical. It shows us what happened in history. Some things are probably different from how they really were. However, it does not stray from the historical events. I am sorry if you are Persian and are offended by the negative light in which the Persians were portrayed. However, I believe that being the attackers, the Persians were in the wrong.

It is said that the movie glorifies death and killing. Rather, I believe the movie glorifies the courage, the skill, and the sacrifice of the Spartans.

It is said the whole movie shows killing. This is not the case. There are many scenes that involve no battle, and many that involve no violence. In fact, I think it can be said that the movie tells us of the war, mainly focused around the battle of Thermopylae.

The movie should not be discredited simply because it has action in it. I find it has an adequate storyline.

It is said that people love watching the killing. I believe this is incorrect, otherwise said people would also enjoy watching a two hour movie of a man stabbing a thousand people all standing in a row waiting to be killed.
No. I think people enjoy the movie for its rather innovative cinematography, for the fairly good stunts done by the soldiers, and for the story.

For now this is enough. If you find error in what I believe, in what I think, please pose an argument explaining why it is wrong. If you have questions for me, please ask. I'm always up for a good debate, though I ask that we keep it civil.

[Zaknafien]

The movie is historical. It shows us what happened in history. Some things are probably different from how they really were

Uh, what?

Here's a few points you can chew on.

Granted, there were 300 spartans at Thermopylae. However, there were also 4000 allies on the first two days of the battle and 1500 during the fatal last stand.

Some historians have even thought the total "greek" contingent upwards of 8000, and the last 1500 only remained because they were in essence trapped. So much for the glory of hellenic bravery.

The million man army of legend is more likely, by modern estimates, anywhere from 60,000--150,000 based on the land and amount of water availible in the campaign.

Moreso, the the central theme of the movie, that of "free" and "democracy loving" Spartans against "slave" Persians is ridiculous. The Achaemenid empire hired and paid people regardless of their sex or ethnicity, whereas in fifth-century Athens less than 14% of the population participated in democratic government, and almost half of the population were slaves. Sparta was a military monarchy, not a democracy and collectively owned an entire enslaved population

[The Celt]

Mullahs want to make a movie about ancient Iran in response to '300' ! Oh No ,That's what I was always afraind of. How they can do so while they are already destroying Perspolis and Cyrus the great tomb the true father of all Iranians by opening the sivand dam ?!
300 was an annoying movie for me and anyother true iranian ,But what mullahs are doing is just horrific. Hope that this news is just a rumor.



P.S : We need world protest against opening the "Sivand Dam" which is a direct threat to one of the world's ancient treasures ,The Perspolis.
Ba dorood Kambiz, I was wondering when you were going to see this thread!:yes:

[temenid]

In the creepily aseptic parlance of modern warfare those are called "collateral damage". Anyway, at least with the Death Star (and in general void-swimming warships going "and the sky was full of stars... every one of them a dying ship...") we're spared the high-energy details of the vast crew complement's demise.


This is rather more insidious: it trains the audience to dissociate warfare and carnage, and to associate warfare with victory instead. This makes it easier for us to accept belligerent behaviour, whether on the part of our leaders or our peers.

EB is worse. It trains us to order people to their deaths, then associate that behaviour with various rewards (victory, experience chevrons, better personality traits). It's almost Pavlovian.

That said, they're both good ways of indulging our martial instincts without getting blood on the streets. Most people are smart enough to remain decent human beings afterwards.

[Gask]

never mind

[Glewas]

some thoughts...

What I find odd Mad Guitar Murphy is that you have a problem with the sensless killing portrayed in 300, yet here you are posting your feelings on a forum for a game in which you kill hundreds/thousands of "people." Moreover the game is Rome: Total War, and, considering you here, you must have some basic knowledge of Roman history... Yet you are surprised by people enjoying wating other people die... Gladitorial games/Colloseum, etc. Romans enjoying watching people die, why would modern Americans, or anyone else for that matter be any different?

I think, if I follow that conversation correctly that you are more concerned with the GRAPHIC portrayal of 300's killing of HUMAN BEINGS. That is, why you don't have any problem with all those human deaths involved with the Death Star, or orcs being killed in LOTR. Jumping to conclusions I could judge you by saying that as long as you don't see anyone die you have no problem with them being killed - and - as long as it isn't killing humans, you have no problem with the graphic display of death involving... say monkeys?

Of course it would be wrong of me to assume and to judge, so I'll just leave as a thought for you or anyone else to respond.

In response to the movie...

I found it to be somewhat entertaining, aside from the historical inaccuracies, but that doesn't mean I got off on the violence. I don't really mind television/movie/video game violence being graphic because I know it isn't real. Yeah it is all fake... no one really go their head chopped off so I don't find it a big deal. I usually stay away from, however, the random clips on the internet that supposedly show real deaths/killings... it seems weird to watch such stuff, but when curiosity gets the better of me and I find myself not entertained and not really happy that I wasted the time to view such clips.

That being said, I do find, although am not surprised, that America's (can't say much for other parts of the world), decency rules/regulations have gone far, far down the drain, ever since those Puritan allowed dancing and a flash of ankle here and there...:beam: There is a reason that the "shower scene" from Psycho is considered to be one of the great scence in America cinema. If I recally correctly that the argument is because it doesn't acutally show the murder but implys it... leaving the horrid details up to the imagination of the viewer.

Sadly, a lot of movies paint thier pictures in broad, obvious strokes, so the simpleminded movie go-ers can follow the plot... or be grossed out. 300 is one of those films... Take it or leave it...

One more thing in regards to plot and portrayl of the Persians...

15 minutes... Sparta decides to go to go to war with Persia
Next 15 minutes... Spartan warriors go to meet the Persians
90 minutes of fighting/killing/dismemberment, with a sex scene (totally not relative to the "plot"), a rape scene, and a woman scorned getting vindiction scene.

Not much to the movie at all... not even a good back story as to why the Persians were messing around with the Greeks... therefore the director needed to make the Persians look bad/evil as quickly as possible so that the audience can side with the Spartans... Displaying them as warmongering, man-god worshipping, mutants was just one (albeit not the best) way of showing that they were the antagonist. It is just a story about good vs. evil, just like most - if not all stories, movies, etc.

In fact wasn't Star Wars based off the Greek/Persian conflict?
I think I read that in a book... and yes I am sure it was a book, sure it wasn't nothing...

[Ignoramus]

If they make a movie about ancient Persia, you can be sure that there'll be mosques in the backgrounds, and nothing remotely to do with ancient Persia.

[The Celt]

In fact wasn't Star Wars based off the Greek/Persian conflict?
I think I read that in a book... and yes I am sure it was a book, sure it wasn't nothing...
No, no, no thats Battle Star Galatica. Star Wars is based on the American Revolution.:book:

I agree with the rest of your points however Glewas.:idea2:

[Aramazon]

Uh, what?

Here's a few points you can chew on.

Granted, there were 300 spartans at Thermopylae. However, there were also 4000 allies on the first two days of the battle and 1500 during the fatal last stand.

Some historians have even thought the total "greek" contingent upwards of 8000, and the last 1500 only remained because they were in essence trapped. So much for the glory of hellenic bravery.

The million man army of legend is more likely, by modern estimates, anywhere from 60,000--150,000 based on the land and amount of water availible in the campaign.

Moreso, the the central theme of the movie, that of "free" and "democracy loving" Spartans against "slave" Persians is ridiculous. The Achaemenid empire hired and paid people regardless of their sex or ethnicity, whereas in fifth-century Athens less than 14% of the population participated in democratic government, and almost half of the population were slaves. Sparta was a military monarchy, not a democracy and collectively owned an entire enslaved population


The Greeks: Yes, I'm aware of the number of greeks in the battle, however they were led by King Leonidas of Sparta, and for that reason I felt it adequate collectivelly calling them "Spartans."
300 shows that the Spartans were not alone. It has the 700 or so Thespians in it. I believe the numbers aren't so important in this case. It's enough to know that few stood against many.
I find it acceptable that movies should change small details like that for the sake of simplicity.
They said million man army, yes, but it's a simple exageration to emphasize the point. Once again, I say the point is that few stood against many.

Moving on to free men.

Here is what I know:

The Greek army was made up completely of free men, all of whom fought for their homeland.
The Persian army was made up of many men from conquered nations. Be they mercenaries or not, it is logical that they would put up less of a fight.
I believe that is the distinction the movie makes.
I don't recall anything about democracy loving, or anything said about the Persian government. I may be wrong, so do tell me if there was anything in the movie that spoke directly of that.

A historical movie, as far as I'm concerned, is a movie that follows the events in history. I haven't been swayed yet that 300 isn't so. The movie does follow the historical events, with only a few differences for the sake of the movie(the numbers).

I would argue that the central theme of the movie is quite different. I would say the best line to sum it up is, "few stood against many." I believe there were a few references to the fact that the Spartans were free men, and that the Persians had mercenaries or slaves. The thing that stood out for me most though was how brave the Spartans were. I suppose what one views as the main theme can vary.

[Zaknafien]

well actually, the spartan contingents were helots. slaves.

[Aramazon]

well actually, the spartan contingents were helots. slaves.

The 300 Spartans with Leonidas?

[mcantu]

just out of curiosity...how does modern Iran compare culturally/ethnically with ancient Persia?

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Hello, I would like to make my own input to this argument.

Firstly I would like to make a few statements:

The Persians did invade Greece.
It wasn't really an invasion, more of a counterattack and an act of retribution.

The Spartans did make a stand at the pass of Thermopylae.
The Spartans killed an extremely large number of Persians compared to their number.
After 3 days of combat, the Spartans all died.
Athens by then had prepared her fleet and engaged the Persian fleet at the battle of Salamis, resulting in an Athenian victory.
The Athenian navy was already at sea and battling the Persian navy while the the Greek armies fought at Thermopylae.

Xerxes returned to Persia after his fleet was destroyed, leaving command to one of his generals.
The Persian army in Greece was finally defeated by a large Greek army at the battle of Plataea.

So ended the war.


What can be said based on these events?

The Persians initiated the war by invading Greece.
Again, more of a counerattack and act of retribution. The city of Sardis had been burned to the ground by Athenians and Ionians.

The Spartans were brave and very skilled. This can be deduced from the fact that a small number of them stood against many and from the large amount of Persian losses compared to Spartan losses.
There were actually about 6,000 Greeks at Thermopylae and the Spartans were just 300 above average guys amoung them.

The Spartans made a sacrifice of their lives for the defense of their homeland.
The battle of Salamis may have depended on those 300 spartans giving Athens enough time to prepare.
The Battle of Salamis didn't really need the Spartans to give up their lives. However the Spartans did die so that the other Greeks in the 6000 at Thermopylae could retreat without being chased down. Also, the city of Athens was evacuated during this time.

The battle of Plataea may have depended on the absence of Xerxes which resulted from the Victory at Salamis. Regardless, it was made much easier by the smaller number of enemies as a result of the battle of Thermopylae.

Had it not been for the battle of Thermopylae:

The Persians might have conquered Greece.
The Persians might have then invaded Europe and they might have conquered it too.
World history would be very different from that point on.
It is for these reasons that the battle of Thermopylae is what might be called a turning point in history. It was an important battle to say the least.
I don't believe that the Persians would have conquered Greece. Their main goal was to burn down Athens and kill as many Athenians for Sardis and Marathon. After that they would have probably burned down all Athenian allies' town. Then, depending on how secure Greece was, they would have made it a protectorate or withdrawn completely. And remember, the Achaemenids usually let regions govern themselves to some degree, so Greek culture and government wouldn't be completely dead.

The Spartans at Thermopylae are an example to all of bravery and that few can triumph against many. It was in fact, what people might refer to as heroic(courageous, brave, going against the odds, and morally right.) I think most of us should be able to agree on the bravery, but morally right is probably more debatable.
As far as I know, self defense is morally right. I think it can be said for sure that it is not wrong. The debate then would be "what is self defense?". Let's deduce that seeing as how the Persians had by that time conquered many lands, they intended to conquer Greece and weren't going to be convinced otherwise by diplomacy. In this way, self defense was all the Greeks could do to defend their homeland from invaders.
True. Even though the Athenians had started the war, at this point it was self defense. It was a right and noble act to defend themselves.

I believe this is true:

The battle of Thermopylae is a worthy subject for a movie as it was a very important historical event, and it was a triumph of human values(courage).


Moving on to 300.

The movie is historical. It shows us what happened in history. Some things are probably different from how they really were. However, it does not stray from the historical events. I am sorry if you are Persian and are offended by the negative light in which the Persians were portrayed. However, I believe that being the attackers, the Persians were in the wrong.
Only the very base story is true. There was a Battle of Thermopylae that was fought between some guys called Spartans and some guys called Persians. The majority of it is wrong.

(BTW, no personal offense, I just wanted to correct a couple things then got off on a tangent.)

EDIT: Wow alot happened. That's what I get for leaving a thread open a long time then taking a while to respond.

Star Wars was based on a lot of things. George Lucas (back in the good old days) liked analogies and Star Wars is filled with analogies of many things. Mainly the Roman Empire and the American Revolution.

[Xtiaan72]

An appropriate response to a movie Iranians will never see in the theatre:dizzy2:

Very odd. Why would they even need one in this case?

Would love to check it out though. Can't help but wonder what a homage to ancient Persia that gets past the mullahs looks like. It's probably more enlightening regarding the state of modern Iran than anything else.

[Aramazon]

@MarcusAureliusAntoninus

I suppose it was a counter-attack. Wasn't the sack of Sardis in a revolt by the greek city states under Persian rule?
I suppose looking at it like that, it could go back a long way, but I think it seems that the Persian Empire was more aggressive in conquest than the Greek.

As for the battle of Salamis, had the Persian army not been opposed at Thermopylae, could they have attacked Athens? Perhaps that might have drawn the fleet away from Salamis and the Persian fleet would not have had to fight in disadvantageous waters.
I suppose it would have made little difference.

I understand that they wanted to destroy Greece(probably worse than just conquest), but if Greece were destroyed, or forced into the Persian Empire, wouldn't some ambitious leader of Persia have pressed on.
Weren't the Persians conquerors?
Didn't they carve out an empire?
Would they just be satisfied and stop conquering lands?

I think you mean the small details in the movie. I assume that most of the costumes, the mutants, and what not were incorrect. What else is there?
I've read that the religious customs were true, that only the Spartan who lost an eye survived. Perhaps you mean the bribery of that leader in Sparta who keeps the army from going to Thermopylae?

Are there any large historical inaccuracies in the movie?

Thanks for your response by the way, I'm learning a lot.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

The Athenians had already given up on Athens. They had evacuated it (except for a few diehard people who barricaded themselves on the Acropolis) and retreated to Salamis and the peloponnesis. After the Greek defeat at Thermopylae, the Persians actually did attack Athens. And they burned it to the ground and destroyed the Acropolis, killing everyone who stayed behind.

The fleet was actually defending Athenian citizens at the Battle of Salamis.

And just after the Persian invasion of Greece, the Acheamenid empire began to decline. So, I doubt that (no matter the results in Greece) the Persians would have expanded into Europe.




Large historical inaccuracies:
Leonidas didn't disobey the rest of Sparta and alone go fight the Persians. Sparta was part of a Greek alliance that had been preparing for the Persians. All of Sparta and most of Greece (not the dirty Thebians) were behind the battle of Thermopylae.

That bribery and betrayal thing.

The culture of Sparta in 300 was just wrong. There were no happy children, merchants, politicians, fine architecture, or love. That thing about Leonidas loving his wife and respecting her was way off. Spartans did one thing, fight. They probably had skills like armor repair and such but there were no artisans or craftmen in Sparta. And all of the non-war, menial tasks were done by their 'race' of slaves. Once a Spartan warrior got old, then he qualified to join politics. There were two Spartan Kings and a councel with checks and balances on eachother. There was no art in Sparta, including architecture.

The whole oracle thing was a huge pile of fantasy. Leonidas did see an oracle (at Delphi IIRC) but the message he got was (paraphase) "A Spartan King will die or Sparta will burn." But the whole oracle experience was different. (No drugged up anarexic Irish exotic dancing.)

No mention of Themistocles or the Athenian fleet and how they won the war.

You know that thing with the Persian ships sinking, that actually happened far away during the middle of the Battle of Thermopylae. They were trying to sail around the island of Euboea to land troops behind the line at Themopylae.

Spartans wore armor! :wall:

The majority of Persian bows were weak and basically useless. That is why they didn't fear the Persian arrows.

The Persians didn't use cavalry at Thermopylae. Horses were expensive and that would have been throwing them away.

It wasn't 300 Spartans with a couple Greek friends. It was 6000 Greeks, 300 of which happened to come from Sparta.

The Spartans didn't die for glory. They died because they were holding back to buy time for the other 5000 Greeks to retreat from Thermopylae. Then it was too late to retreat when they were surrounded.

I could go on...

[Kull]

You don't mind watching humans get killed by the thousands just for entertainment? I find it repulisive.

Welcome to EB - "Killing 1000's daily" could be our motto! I suppose we could change that, but this "remaining true to history" thing sorta ties our hands. I'm also guessing that a "picking petunias" RTW mod wouldn't have much of a fan base.

[Brightblade]

Ugh god, people are still hung up on this? It's a movieeeee...

I watched it and I'd watch it again, educating whoever I was with after the movie was over on the historical inaccuracies... stop getting your panties in a knot.

Watching thousands of people die? Hello you play a game that basically is about how to kill the largest amounts of people during battle in creative ways! Its a game, its a movie! Same concept.

stop being such purists!

[mAIOR]

I find odd that some of you say this movie praises killing of people and if anyone likes it shoud see a shrink. Well, let's talk about a trully hillarious movie: Commando. Where Arnold Schwarznegger (AS) kills 156 people singlehanded.
Why do I also find it amusing. 300 is one of this movies (Arnold, Steven Seagal) however, it has more quality to it. I enjoied the movie and the slaughter in it however, I didn't laugh in Polanski "The Pianist" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0253474/) or enjoied the killings in it. Does this makes any sense to you? If it does, my point is made.

Cheers...

[hoom]

Not really wanting to get involved in this thread but when talking about the destruction of Deathstar, one should always ponder the Endor Holocaust (http://www1.fanforce.net/swtc/holocaust.html) ~:mecry:

[Zaknafien]

Not really wanting to get involved in this thread but when talking about the destruction of Deathstar, one should always ponder the Endor Holocaust (http://www1.fanforce.net/swtc/holocaust.html) ~:mecry:

hm wow, I'd never seen that. THose damn rebel alliance terrorists!

[Watchman]

I understand that they wanted to destroy Greece(probably worse than just conquest), but if Greece were destroyed, or forced into the Persian Empire, wouldn't some ambitious leader of Persia have pressed on.
Weren't the Persians conquerors?
Didn't they carve out an empire?
Would they just be satisfied and stop conquering lands?Empires would usually prefer to keep conquering, if only to keep troublesome tribes beyond the border from raiding into and generally causing trouble in their new borderlands (like, say, the Greeks). One major driving force behind the way many expanded was probably just the need to subdue such troublemakers, after which they ended up with yet new subjects and territory - beyond which there were yet more troublemakers, and now their new subjects were duly entitled for imperial protection against those...

But most weren't actually asked for their opinion. Each empire had a certain maximum size dictated by the considerations of geography, politics and logistics; that of the Achaemenids was clearly constrained by the natural barriers of the Mediterranean and the Straits of Bosphorus in the west (AFAIK they never got a permanent foothold beyond the latter), the Sahara in the southwest, the Arabian desert and the Indian Ocean in the south, the Hindu Kush in the east, and the steppe in the north; they were apparently unable to carry out much more than police actions and punitive expeditions beyond these barriers, not that even those would have made much sense on several fronts, due to sheer limits imposed by considerations of logistics and the internal structure of their empire. After all, they likely spent at least as much time putting down satrapal revolts and popular uprisings as campaigning abroad, and wasn't it just such internal troubles that made Xerxes leave Greece for Mardonius to deal with ?


There were actually about 6,000 Greeks at Thermopylae and the Spartans were just 300 above average guys amoung them.Well, those 300 were the picked royal bodyguard from a fanatical warrior society so I would think "above average" is a slight understatement.


The majority of Persian bows were weak and basically useless. That is why they didn't fear the Persian arrows.Doubtful. We're after all talking about troops from a part of the world where composite bows were pretty much the norm, particularly for warfare. Far as I've read the Greeks worried a fair bit about Persian archery - it's not like they hadn't been on the receiving end before already in the squabbling in Asia Minor - and preferred to experience as little of it as possible before getting into hand-to-hand. I suspect the presence of a reasonable degree of protective field fortification was primarily what allowed the hoplites at Thermopylae to avoid getting turned into pincushions, armour and shields or no (the hoplite panoply had far too many gaps for a man wearing one to be really safe from extensive archery); the battle was after all essentially a short siege.


It's enough to know that few stood against many....which was really the norm with troops defending fortified places, nevermind strategic chokepoints, anyway. Big deal; force multiplication is the whole point of giving battle in such locations to begin with.


The Greek army was made up completely of free men, all of whom fought for their homeland.
The Persian army was made up of many men from conquered nations. Be they mercenaries or not, it is logical that they would put up less of a fight. By that selfsame logic the professional Roman legions and their various auxiliaries should have been less spirited combatants than the early Republic citizen militia...
I think the psychological aspects involved in how huge multi-ethnic world-empires motivated their troops are a whole lot more complex, and in any case when the push comes to shove people will tend to fight fiercely enough for their own and their mates' survival. Heck, by some accounts of Plataia I've read once the spara wall broke the Persian archers put up a stubborn resistance against the hoplites with little more than daggers and their bare hands for a while...


This is rather more insidious: it trains the audience to dissociate warfare and carnage, and to associate warfare with victory instead. This makes it easier for us to accept belligerent behaviour, whether on the part of our leaders or our peers.:shrug: It is the nature of technologically advanced warfare. And nothing compared to the chilling calculativeness involved for example in the strategic bombing campaigns of WW2, or the attrition-warfare calculations of WW1...

At least we're not made to watch, in excruciating detail, the crew vaporize and get told it's all right because this is for freedom and justice.


EB is worse. It trains us to order people to their deaths, then associate that behaviour with various rewards (victory, experience chevrons, better personality traits). It's almost Pavlovian.The perspective of RTW is that of a warlord, who is in the business of demolishing armies and conquering cities at preferably minimum expense of soldiers. As such it actually serves as a passable introduction to the somewhat creepy paradigm of thinking involved in such pursuits, but in any case it makes no judgement one way or another about the ethics of the matter. Whether to pursue routers mercilessly and massacre populations for economical and adminstrational convenience is left entirely up to the conscience of the player.

And, again, he or she is not shown the associated unpleasantness in excessively gory detail and told this is a-okay 'cuz it is for freedom and justice. Oh yeah, and democracy. :dizzy2:

[Narhon]

Lets try to get our countries to outlaw everything offensive. That is what many are trying to do today. Remember what you find entertaining may offend someone else. If we follow that path we may get what some countries are doing, exe. in a certain European country one cannot show any outward sign of their faith because it may offend someone. In my country many are doing the same. Some confuse the line "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" in the US constitution, as one shall not pray or show their faith in a public place. So do we want to travel down that offends me road. :no:

[keravnos]

It can't be healthy if you enjoy to see hundreds of humans getting their limbs hacked of for two houres.

Ancient battles were a human butcher's shop. You were both the butcher and meat there, trying to chop/kebab the other side, whereas keeping them from doing the same thing. That lasted for hours, from daybreak to the last light, sometimes.

Most of the guys making it out of that, of course, led perfectly normal lives, so far as we know, that is.

[MiniMe]

Empires would usually prefer to keep conquering, if only to keep troublesome tribes beyond the border from raiding into and generally causing trouble in their new borderlands (like, say, the Greeks). One major driving force behind the way many expanded was probably just the need to subdue such troublemakers, after which they ended up with yet new subjects and territory - beyond which there were yet more troublemakers, and now their new subjects were duly entitled for imperial protection against those...

IMO a fine argument, plus I'd like to add one more thing nobody speaks of:
during the whole ancient period and many many many centuries later it were
Persians who were rich while Greek were poor.

In XXI century, europe is one of the major places of the world by many means, but 500 years B.C. it wasn't. A huge forest with rocky islands to the southeast, some olives and goats, some small silvermines, that was it.
Actually, the attractive center of the ancient world was the persian empire =)
Alexander had the same idea =)

[Ardu]

As a historian ( yes I actually study history at university, lucky me ) I always look forward to these kind of films. I like history, heroism, ancient settings, historic battles and so on... However '300' must be one of the most appalling movies I've ever seen.

I, unlike others, dont even get bothered so much by the fact that there's a lot of brutal killing in it, nor even by the fact that it is not historically correct ( We also need to consider that in the instance of '300', historically correct would be correct according to ancient Greek writers and historians, so probably even then, 'historically correct' wouldnt be so correct after all ).
What did bother me however, was that the film just completely sucked. I see people all over screaming that this was the coolest film they had ever seen and on top of that, they try to defend it by saying that the basic story is correct apart form a few inaccuracies. I personally, would have a harder time naming the historical accuracies than naming the historical inaccuracies... The directors of '300' have actually made a whole lot of money with this horrible film. I felt actually robbed when I walked out of the actually and was considering asking my money back. Now let me elaborate, why I think this is such a terrible film...

It basically comes down to this: The movie has absolutely no storyline at all, everything is completely over the top and absolutely ridiculous and all you see is 2/3 hours of spartans killing millions of persians in the most ridiculous way possible.

Now lets start with the storyline. If you're making a movie about a historic event at least make sure you have any clue at all about what actually happened. If you dont, just make up a fictional story by yourself and place it in a historic setting, without pretending to base it on something that actually happened. Take 'Gladiator' for example: They made up their own story and placed it in the context of the time somewhere between emperor Marcus Aurelius and Commodus... 'Gladiator' also, unlike '300' actually had a storyline. The whole storyline in '300' besides killing a lot of persians is a few stupid scenes about the wife of Leonidas, which are neither interesting, nor have any relevance to the rest of the film.

Even if you make a fictional story, you still have to make sure it looks realistic in it's setting. For instance: LotR is fantasy with a lot of supernatural beings and magic, but in that setting it still would be upsetting if the orcs suddenly got machineguns, because that wouldn't be realistic. Now let's take a look at one error in '300' among the countless errors. Details, perhaps, but a lot of details add up to make this film suck.

The Persian arrows: In the first wave of arrows, not a single guy gets hit. All arrows stick inside the shield but none of them gets through. If arrows get shot at a bronze shield I expect them A: to bounce off ( perhaps leaving a dint) B: to pierce the shield C: to pierce it a little bit, making part of the point visible at the back of the shield. All arrows however stick with their points inside the small layer of bronze. While not a single arrow hits anyone in the first wave of arrows, everyone suddenly dies with the last wave of arrows. That's just plain stupid.

Or take this wall they're building. They are happily building a wall of corpses??? oh come on! Can it be anymore ridiculous. If the screams of men dying in agony wouldn't take the fun out of making such a wall, the horrible smell of corpses would certainly deter anyone to get even close to such a thing. I'm not an architect, but making a wall of corpses, sounds pretty silly to me in any case.

Then, they throw in a few elephants, which haven't been mentioned in any sources as to give it that 'LotR coolness'.

The motives of these 'spartans' also worry me a lot. As if the persians of today who have fled their country from islamic dictatorship haven't suffered enough, they are now being confronted with a film that depicts their highly civilized, prosperous and intellectual ancestors as stupid, bloodthirsty, misformed slaves led by a big gay rapist. Thus, they get slaughtered by the millions and its even ok to kill their negotiator because they dont like what he says. Now even the worst nazi's wouldn't go so far and have such a lack of honour, to kill a negotiator! For what!!!??? Oh, yes... For freedom!!! That is kind of bothering also. This continuous spartan rant about freedom and free Spartans. Spartans were perhaps the biggest slave drivers of all of ancient history... Their slaves were called 'helots'. Wikipedia on the number of helots and their role in the battle of Plataea following Thermopylae:

The absence of a formal census prevents us from accurately assessing their number, though some estimates are possible. According to Herodotus (IX, 28–29), the Helots were seven times as numerous as the Spartans during the Battle of Plataea in 479 BC. At the time of the conspiracy of Cinadon, at the beginning of the 4th century BC, at the agora only 40 peers or citizens could be counted in a crowd of 4000 (Xenophon, Hellenica, III, 3, 5). At that point, the total population of Helots, including women, is estimated as 170,000 – 224,000.

I could go on and on and on, about how stupid this film is. In fact I saw the southpark parody on '300'. In fact the episode wasn't anymore ridiculous than the film itself. The only difference was the southpark episode was actually fun...

[Watchman]

Then, they throw in a few elephants, which haven't been mentioned in any sources as to give it that 'LotR coolness'.To be fair, those are present in Miller's comic too. No less stupid though. Personally I've no illusions as to what even a few war elephants would do to a hoplite phalanx that had never even heard of such animals before...


...and its even ok to kill their negotiator because they dont like what he says. Now even the worst nazi's wouldn't go so far and have such a lack of honour, to kill a negotiator! For what!!!??? Oh, yes... For freedom!!!Well, the modern idea about diplomatic immunity and overall untouchability of accredited ambassadors (as well as the idea of a professional diplomatic corps for that matter) was only born during the Thirty Years' War in Europe. And not always respected there either, although it did become pretty normative pretty fast.

Before that it was in no way unusual for ambassadors and suchlike to gain the questionable privilege of serving as the punching bag of their hosts who didn't quite like the message they brought.

[Randarkmaan]

The Greek army was made up completely of free men, all of whom fought for their homeland. Not quite right, the Spartans forced roughly 2000 helots to fight and die at Thermopylae (they are nearly never mentioned), there were also some Thebans present who were forced to fight, though they deserted to the Persians when the Greeks were surrounded and participated in fighting at the end. Also how do you define free? Many people did not define the citizens of the Soviet Union as free, neither did the Greeks regard the citizens of Persia as free. If you are of that belief then not even the Spartans were free in Sparta, they were basically the property of the state.


Well, the modern idea about diplomatic immunity and overall untouchability of accredited ambassadors (as well as the idea of a professional diplomatic corps for that matter) was only born during the Thirty Years' War in Europe. And not always respected there either, although it did become pretty normative pretty fast.

Before that it was in no way unusual for ambassadors and suchlike to gain the questionable privilege of serving as the punching bag of their hosts who didn't quite like the message they brought.
The Persians accused the Spartans of having violated the ... "folkeretten" (that's we call it in Norwegian, literally translating to "the right(s) of the people"), and when the Spartans sent two of their number to die so that they could redeem themselves of this crime (killing the messenger), the Persians did not accept it and said that nothing could forgive the Spartans' crime.

[Watchman]

I don't know if Sparta and Athens had quite developed their imperial ambitions by the time of the Persian Wars, but given the distinctly unequal power relations between the different poleis and the little detail the vast majority of the lot either sided with the Persians or prudently sat on the fence watching things develop "free" seems a wee bit questionable.

Personally I'm cynical enough to simply assume "freedoms" were about at the bottom rung of Greek motivators, particularly as far as the Spartans were concerned. What the hoplites were fighting for was ultimately nothing more than the preservation of their own political power as the privileged freeman-soldier class and the maintenance and hopefully bettering of the standing and power of their communities.

Which those poleis in subjugated positions in the power constellation duly tended to opt out of.

[alatar]

well i think that probably has something to do with the germans being portrayed in most western made WWII films as pathetic losers getting killed by the dozens by the grizzled, tough-as-nails yank or brit soldier who's there to save the day ~:rolleyes:

Exactly, even saving privite ryan had masses of allied casulties and was good.
And the german movie stalingrad is good, the bad dubbing annoyed me, I would have prefered sub titles (like in downfall a great film).

And there flooding Cyrus tomb! Even Alexander respected it.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Doubtful. We're after all talking about troops from a part of the world where composite bows were pretty much the norm, particularly for warfare. Far as I've read the Greeks worried a fair bit about Persian archery - it's not like they hadn't been on the receiving end before already in the squabbling in Asia Minor - and preferred to experience as little of it as possible before getting into hand-to-hand. I suspect the presence of a reasonable degree of protective field fortification was primarily what allowed the hoplites at Thermopylae to avoid getting turned into pincushions, armour and shields or no (the hoplite panoply had far too many gaps for a man wearing one to be really safe from extensive archery); the battle was after all essentially a short siege.
Yes, the Immortals, elites, and any steppe conscripts probably had the composite bow, the best in the world. But ironically the vast majority of their conscripts were equipted with inferior simple bows.


Ardu: :2thumbsup:

[Watchman]

Yes, the Immortals, elites, and any steppe conscripts probably had the composite bow, the best in the world. But ironically the vast majority of their conscripts were equipted with inferior simple bows.A bow is as good as completely useless unless its user knows his archery. Which tended to mean archers were raised from either groups specifically trained in archery (perhaps as a part of their military obligations, as in the case of the English yeomanry), or who learned the skill in their everyday lives (such as hunters and steppe nomads).

Neither groups sounds too likely to have poor bows of their own, and why their Persian masters would settle for ones is beyond me. (Self-bows may not be as good as composites, but they hurt quite enough.) They raised these formations to shoot the enemy full of arrows after all, not stand around looking stupid...

[Gask]

Gates of Fire would have made a much better movie or series of movies ~:handball:

[Tiberius Nero]

...and its even ok to kill their negotiator because they dont like what he says. Now even the worst nazi's wouldn't go so far and have such a lack of honour, to kill a negotiator! For what!!!??? Oh, yes... For freedom!!!

Just pointing out that this bit is at least accurate in the movie, the Persian ambassadors who asked for subjugation were killed in Athens and Sparta.

And no, it wasn't ok to do that, even then, ambassadors were sacred and this was regarded as sacrilege.

[The Celt]

Just pointing out that this bit is at least accurate in the movie, the Persian ambassadors who asked for subjugation were killed in Athens and Sparta.

And no, it wasn't ok to do that, even then, ambassadors were sacred and this was regarded as sacrilege.
Yet in movie, the Spartans get away with it!:dizzy2:

[bovi]

Getting away with it is hardly right... They did have a battle you know.

[Watchman]

But then the Athenians got their city burned down for the same thing.

Now that I think about it, didn't the Greeks also have some sort of herald system associated with Hermes...?

[rorarii]

Why should the Iranians care about the movie 300 anyway .. it's just a gay romp porno, no historian takes it seriously.

The 1960's original was good but could have been better, 300 is just trash.


R

[Aramazon]

Okay, okay, I understand everyone's arguments against the movie "300".

It just doesn't seem right though.

300 never advertised itself as a historical movie.

The commercials showed what would be in the movie(the mutants).

It gave me the impression it was going to be an over the top action movie, with amazing cinematography, nice stunts, good battle scenes. I also figured it would outline the events of Thermopylae, but that's just because I've already seen the older movie. From the commercial alone you have enough to figure out what the story is. You just have to see the movie for the action and cinematography.

That's how I went into the movie, and quite frankly, I enjoyed it. I find a lot of people simply don't enjoy movies because they go into the theatre expecting something different.

I think when people say that the movie is offensive to persians they're just making things seem more than they are. During the events of the movie, this is just the way it was. I never had an overly negative impression of the Persians, honestly. I simply had a very positive impression of the Spartans. Of the Persians, I thought they were very powerful and rich. People said the movie had homosexuality in it. Well honestly, after seeing Alexander I was prepared for the worst. It turned out that the movie was fine though. The Spartans look stronger without armor, and it makes the whole movie more cinematic. As for Xerxes, he looked cool the way he was, all decked out in gold and as tall as a basketball player.

You all seem like smart people, and I've often found that smart people sometimes don't enjoy simpler things. You don't have to look for deep meaning in every movie. Just enjoy it for what it is. If you really don't like the movie because of the wackier aspects, then it's fair enough to just say you wouldn't like the movie and move on. Not everyone likes every movie.

[Xtiaan72]

I can't, for the life of me, figure out why so many people think 300 has good battle scenes! There is a total of maybe two minutes of Spartans in proper formation and the rest looks like slow motion kung-fu on a blue-screen sound stage. There is absolutely no sense of scale or tactics.

Be honest about it. It does not have good 'battle scenes', it has fight scenes
that focus on one on one combat that under the circumstances would not even be possible.

Characterize the action for what it is, cheezy kung-fu with swords and sandals. The best battle scenes from Gladiator and Brave Heart rise to a much higher level technically. And those two movies don't even come close to the best that have graced the screen. Watch 'Lawrence of Arabia' or 'Zulu' and see how it should be done.

If you liked 300 fine. But it's cheap Hollywood action. It's a big crispy cream donut. That has it's place ...I guess.

Note to film makers: If you are going for 'Epic' film making, you have to hire a few thousand extras and run them around in costume for a few weeks. Duplicating fifty dudes a thousand times on a blue screen really doesn't cut it.

You can't make an epic war movie for 23 million dollars.

[Aramazon]

I can't, for the life of me, figure out why so many people think 300 has good battle scenes! There is a total of maybe two minutes of Spartans in proper formation and the rest looks like slow motion kung-fu on a blue-screen sound stage. There is absolutely no sense of scale or tactics.

Be honest about it. It does not have good 'battle scenes', it has fight scenes
that focus on one on one combat that under the circumstances would not even be possible.

Characterize the action for what it is, cheezy kung-fu with swords and sandals. The best battle scenes from Gladiator and Brave Heart rise to a much higher level technically. And those two movies don't even come close to the best that have graced the screen. Watch 'Lawrence of Arabia' or 'Zulu' and see how it should be done.

If you liked 300 fine. But it's cheap Hollywood action. It's a big crispy cream donut. That has it's place ...I guess.

Note to film makers: If you are going for 'Epic' film making, you have to hire a few thousand extras and run them around in costume for a few weeks. Duplicating fifty dudes a thousand times on a blue screen really doesn't cut it.

You can't make an epic war movie for 23 million dollars.


You have valid points friend. I shall try to explain myself. By good battle scenes I mean I enjoy the clash of men and the spears driving through the enemy. I'm not really talking about the tactics, just the way it looks. I think it has style about it that looks good. I personally thought that the two scenes where the camera followed, in slow motion, one soldier as he killed about 10 men was very well done.

Anyway I've seen all the movies you mentioned, and my two personal favourite movies are Gladiator and Braveheart. 300 doesn't compare, but it does have it's own thing that makes it good, the unique cinematography(in my opinion). As for Lawrence, I saw that a while back, but I don't really remember it as being too impressive so I'll have to watch it again. Zulu is a good movie I agree. Not much tactics from the zulu side though. it always aggrivated me that they never all attacked at once, if they had, I think they would have won.

I completely agree with you about the computer generated soldier thing. I hated troy for that reason. Braveheart was all real men, which I love about the movie. I suppose I understand what you are saying about 300 but the whole movie was so wacky that I think it fits with the mutants and bluescreen. The men that did portray the spartans were very well chosen or trained for the parts. I agree though, an epic war movie should have real men. I never really thought of 300 as epic though, just as a new and good looking action movie.

Anyways it's nice that others feel the same way about epic movies. I generally agree with you, except that I liked 300. Well I gotta run, I'm off to see a theatre production of The Music Man. :beam:

[Tiberius Nero]

Off the top of my head I can think of three ways in which someone can miss the blatant propaganda in 300: 1) going to the theater high on something, possibly opium, 2) not speaking English (or watching a version dubbed in Proto-Germanic with subtitles in Linear A), 3) not having a clue about world history of the past couple of millenia or so.

Seriously now, enjoying the film is one thing, saying that people overanalyze it when they point out that it is obvious, disgusting propaganda is just, wow, I can't find the word for this. Is it the same film we are talking about?

[antiochus epiphanes]

You don't mind watching humans get killed by the thousands just for entertainment? I find it repulisive.
i find it repulsive that you dont like it.:wall:



i love when people do this, considering they are on a TOTAL WAR FORUM.
ROME TOTAL WAR! why would you post that here besides wanting to spam or troll?

[Aramazon]

Off the top of my head I can think of three ways in which someone can miss the blatant propaganda in 300: 1) going to the theater high on something, possibly opium, 2) not speaking English (or watching a version dubbed in Proto-Germanic with subtitles in Linear A), 3) not having a clue about world history of the past couple of millenia or so.

Seriously now, enjoying the film is one thing, saying that people overanalyze it when they point out that it is obvious, disgusting propaganda is just, wow, I can't find the word for this. Is it the same film we are talking about?


Oh come on now, you can actually watch the movie without thinking about any propaganda at all.
Almost anything can be called propaganda.
Heck, Braveheart could have been propaganda against the english.

If you're talking about making the so called insulting perisan empire, that seems silly. There is no more Persian empire anymore, it's Iran now isn't it?
That's like calling Italians Romans, and the French Gauls.

This stuff is ancient history now.

I think a lot of people just go into movies looking for things they can call propaganda.
I'll tell you what, a documentary, that would be propaganda.
Faerenheit 9/11 would be propaganda against George Bush.
In the case of 300, people really just make connections between people they think are similar, that could be coincidence.

Heck Braveheart was propaganda against the queen during the death of Princess Diana. The freedom of the scots represented Diana. William Wallace was Tony Blair, Edward Longshanks was the royal family, or the queen herself. The people were on the side of Tony Blair(wallace), even the closest advisors of the Queen(longshanks) had doubts. There you are, now what horrible propaganda that is! How can you even watch a movie like that!! Actually because that's not what the movie is about it's about Scots fighting for the liberation of their country.
300 is about Spartans fighting for the defense of their country.
Done.

[The Celt]

Faerenheit 9/11 would be propaganda against George Bush.

Okey, I won't argue with the rest of your points but Fahrenheit(Not "Faerenheit")9/11 IS PROPAGANDA AGAINST GEORGE BUSH!!!!!! You'd have to be an idiot not to know that! :wall: :wall:

Regarding 300 I can only say that I really don't see what all the fuss is about. Its just a stupid(really stupid) movie based on a really stupid comic book that I don't care to read ever.
When I went to see it with my Dad and my Brother, we were all falling out of our seats laughing due to the horribly over the top.....well everything! Hell even the closing credits were blood soaked!!! And lame bravado induced lines like "Don't worry sir! It's just AN EYE!!! ARGHH!!" and "In the back they said: FORWOOOOOOOOOORRRRDDDDD, while in the front they said: BLARRRRRGHHOOSHHFFFFFFAAAAH!!*SPOOOOLSHHHH*" nearly killed me right on the spot!:laugh4: :laugh4:

You just can't take a movie this hysterically bad as propaganda of any kind, much less good cinema, or even a good movie by itself....:egypt:

[Modern Warrior]

I love it when a bunch of history buffs get together to discuss a movie like "300". Of course it's not historically accurate, no Hollywood movie ever is. Of course I don't believe it was billed as an "accurate history of the battle of Thermopolye", either.

It was created to make money for the studio and provide entertainment for audiences, not to be used as resource material in a university.

As far as offending the Iranians, give me a break. Every movie ever made as well as every joke ever told is potentially 'offensive to someone. Hell, I'm surprised "Dumb and Dumber" wasn't picketed by those with sub-80 IQs.

Finally, as far as glorifying violence, this entertains some people, as it's somewhat hypocritical for those involve in a forum for a war game to be offended by graphic violence associated with ancient warfare.

I've been deployed to the Middle East twice (Iraq, Saudi and Kuwait) and I'm ready to go back to Iraq in a few months. I've seen the real thing, yet I can still be entertained by movies depicting violence, if it has a context in the film.

[Zaknafien]

regarding "Farenheit 9/11", yeah, its propaganda, but all that stuff is true nontheless about the relationships of the bush regime and the binladen family, oil profiteering, etc, etc.

I dont think anyone is saying they're offended by violence, violence has its place in film and entertainment of course. its the enjoyment of violence that i think some people here are pointing out, as the movie 300 is nothing but 'an ode to violence' with homoerotic dudes posturing to boot.

and just to nit-pick, kuwait hardly counts as a deployment ;)

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Yep, that's my opinion Zak. It's the enjoyment of violence that is not copasetic with me. Then again that's why I didn't find much use for Reservoir Dogs, the Kill Bills, the Sopranos, any current slasher/gore movies, Sin City, and such, and why those movies differ quite a lot from movies where wars do take place but it clearly shows the negative effects (Alexander's a good example).

[Zaknafien]

well i dont know about that I enjoy the Sopranos, because while violent, the violence has a place and a reason for existing within the plot. I dont think theyve shown a violent act simply for the sake of violence, nor is it glorified as it is in other films. I agree though about the slasher flicks, etc.

[Watchman]

Heck, Braveheart could have been propaganda against the english.Not "could have been". Was. As was The Patriot for that matter. Not recognizing something so blatantly obvious is worth flunking Media Literacy.

I thought Gibson's political sympathies were common knowledge ?

300 is about Spartans fighting for the defense of their country.
Done.:no:
You flunk Media Literacy.

[Tiberius Nero]

Oh come on now, you can actually watch the movie without thinking about any propaganda at all.
Almost anything can be called propaganda.
Heck, Braveheart could have been propaganda against the english.

If you're talking about making the so called insulting perisan empire, that seems silly. There is no more Persian empire anymore, it's Iran now isn't it?
That's like calling Italians Romans, and the French Gauls.

This stuff is ancient history now.

I think a lot of people just go into movies looking for things they can call propaganda.
I'll tell you what, a documentary, that would be propaganda.
Faerenheit 9/11 would be propaganda against George Bush.
In the case of 300, people really just make connections between people they think are similar, that could be coincidence.

Heck Braveheart was propaganda against the queen during the death of Princess Diana. The freedom of the scots represented Diana. William Wallace was Tony Blair, Edward Longshanks was the royal family, or the queen herself. The people were on the side of Tony Blair(wallace), even the closest advisors of the Queen(longshanks) had doubts. There you are, now what horrible propaganda that is! How can you even watch a movie like that!! Actually because that's not what the movie is about it's about Scots fighting for the liberation of their country.
300 is about Spartans fighting for the defense of their country.
Done.

Alexandr Nevsky is widely recognized as a propaganda film and it is about a clash of Germans and Russians like 700 years before the war it was meant to serve as propaganda in. Euripides draws from ancient myths to do pro-Athenian propaganda and propaganda against Sparta during the war.

News flash, old stuff has been used in this way, as propaganda for contemporary issues, throughout history. I don't mind proaganda per se, I mind it when it is given as childishly as here, in 300.

[Watchman]

A propaganda piece may still have other artistic merits.

300 doesn't. Braveheart doesn't. The Patriot doesn't. Most don't.

The makers of those that do tend to be a bit of trailblazing geniuses, however crappy their political affiliations might be.

[blacksnail]

Once again:

It is hard to argue a movie's historical accuracy when it shows a goat-man in the orgy tent.

[kambiz]

There is no more Persian empire anymore, it's Iran now isn't it?
That's like calling Italians Romans, and the French Gauls.Hey mate ,Becareful ! What you are saying is more insulting to me than 300 !
I (We Iranians) don't care if Frenchs know themseleves descendants of Gauls or Italians Know themselves Romans or not. Each Iranians consider him/herself as descendant of ancient Iranians and I don't think we are the only nation with ancient roots ,at least I know that Greeks are ancient people as well.
Also you Foreigners must learn that the name of this country never was Persia. It was always IRAN even in ancient era. and Iran means land of aryans ,Parsian (Eng: Persians) ,Madian (Eng: Medians) and Parthian or Pahlavian (Eng: Parthians) were the three groups of Aryans settled in Iran.
Please do not repeat it again~:angry:

Regards

[Ower]

Once again:

It is hard to argue a movie's historical accuracy when it shows a goat-man in the orgy tent.

well it's hard to argue a movie's historical accuracy, when the movie is based on a comics, and never aimed for Historicity.:juggle2:

[Modern Warrior]

You know, any film about war can be called historically inaccurate if it DOESN'T depict gristly violence. War, whether it be ancient or modern, is a slaughter house than is unimaginable unless you've actually seen it. Soldier just don't die like they are portrayed in John Wayne movies.

As far as propaganda goes, everyone has an opinion that is a result of his/her experiences and it often shows in their films. To say that all these films are nescessarily 'propaganda' may be overly simplification.

Finally, my family is Greek, my parents both being born there. My mother's side is from Sparta and I'm sure her experiences (and mine to an extent) are quit different from others in here when it comes to their civilization and it's history. We are proud of the triumphs of our ancesters, but often times that is confused with an ignorance of the history of others. It's not.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Once again:

It is hard to argue a movie's historical accuracy when it shows a goat-man in the orgy tent.
(1) What proof have you that the musical goat-man did NOT exist?
(2) Some of these ancient sources were clearly biased against orgy musician goatmen, and you have to look at what the individual authors' motives were in their statements about said orgy musician goatman utilized as soothing songsmiths (hereafter OMGUASS).
(3) Several groups may claim to be descended from OMGUASSes today, but it is unclear whether or not their dialects and musical performances in ancient times were similar to those of the variant OMGUASSes found across the world today.

[Ower]

(1) What proof have you that the musical goat-man did NOT exist?
(2) Some of these ancient sources were clearly biased against orgy musician goatmen, and you have to look at what the individual authors' motives were in their statements about said orgy musician goatman utilized as soothing songsmiths (hereafter OMGUASS).
(3) Several groups may claim to be descended from OMGUASSes today, but it is unclear whether or not their dialects and musical performances in ancient times were similar to those of the variant OMGUASSes found across the world today.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Artificer]

(1) What proof have you that the musical goat-man did NOT exist?
(2) Some of these ancient sources were clearly biased against orgy musician goatmen, and you have to look at what the individual authors' motives were in their statements about said orgy musician goatman utilized as soothing songsmiths (hereafter OMGUASS).
(3) Several groups may claim to be descended from OMGUASSes today, but it is unclear whether or not their dialects and musical performances in ancient times were similar to those of the variant OMGUASSes found across the world today.

:laugh4:

Now if only posts like this could be dropped into every thread of this sort.

[Afro Thunder]

I don't quite understand how 300 can be considered propaganda against Iran, considering how modern Iran and the Persian Empire of old don't have much in common, except for occupying the same geographical location. :dizzy2:

[Zaknafien]

I don't quite understand how 300 can be considered propaganda against Iran, considering how modern Iran and the Persian Empire of old don't have much in common, except for occupying the same geographical location. :dizzy2:

well, and the fact that the same race of people live there. :idea2:

[Agiselaos]

I see Kambiz that you mention about aryans a lot.I want to learn about this aryan story,where are they coming from rtc. can you plz tell me????:book:

[Watchman]

What Wiki sez. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan)

[Sarcasm]

Hey mate ,Becareful ! What you are saying is more insulting to me than 300 !
I (We Iranians) don't care if Frenchs know themseleves descendants of Gauls or Italians Know themselves Romans or not. Each Iranians consider him/herself as descendant of ancient Iranians and I don't think we are the only nation with ancient roots ,at least I know that Greeks are ancient people as well.
Also you Foreigners must learn that the name of this country never was Persia. It was always IRAN even in ancient era. and Iran means land of aryans ,Parsian (Eng: Persians) ,Madian (Eng: Medians) and Parthian or Pahlavian (Eng: Parthians) were the three groups of Aryans settled in Iran.
Please do not repeat it again~:angry:

Regards

Are you better now?

[Afro Thunder]

well, and the fact that the same race of people live there. :idea2:

It's an action movie based on a comic book that's (loosely) based on a battle that took place almost 2500 years ago. If anyone walks out of the theater after seeing 300, and has the strange urge to go to Iran with an M4, then they're just a damn fool.

[Watchman]

That's not quite the point.

Oh, and you flunk Media Literacy too. :smash:

[Aramazon]

That's not quite the point.

Oh, and you flunk Media Literacy too. :smash:


What's the point then?

So many people make so many assertions without ever explaining themselves. Give reasons behind your statements please.

Is Media Literacy run by the same guy who made up the Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Have your little poke at theism and be glad we're not going to burn your house down. It would be wrong to, so thank the little spaghetti in the sky for giving us a conscience.

Anyways, I don't know what this media literacy course is, but I wouldn't want to take it if it makes you think of every single movie as though it were Shakespeare.
Shakespeare meant for you to notice all the little tid bits in his plays. I don't think the director, or screenwriter for 300 meant for people to notice anything other than what's expected from an awesome action movie.

[Randarkmaan]

I don't quite understand how 300 can be considered propaganda against Iran, considering how modern Iran and the Persian Empire of old don't have much in common, except for occupying the same geographical location.
Many Greeks were pissed off at Alexander (even though that movie is a lot more historically accurate than 300), were they not? Let the Iranians be pissed off about 300, its their right.

[NeoSpartan]

Many Greeks were pissed off at Alexander (even though that movie is a lot more historically accurate than 300), were they not? Let the Iranians be pissed off about 300, its their right.

Hey I was pissed at Alexander too. That dumb director (Oliver Stone was it??) made Alexander look like a wuzzy.

[Zaknafien]

Hey I was pissed at Alexander too. That dumb director (Oliver Stone was it??) made Alexander look like a wuzzy.

heh, he was. Although probably the most famous homosexual in all of history.:yes:

[Redigo]

Personally, as someone with British roots, I was terribly offended by the original Star Wars. There is no reason for those Imperial troopers to have English accents except to incite hatred of John Bull.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

But Obi-Wan Kenobi was English, too. :clown:
And he was the best character.

[HFox]

Regarding Zulu......and tactics.

The movie was pretty damn accurate. Main differences between rorkes drift and the battle two days before...

1. They couldn't be flanked, the standard Zulu bull head tactic couldnt work
2. The commisary was not rationing ammunition (there are stories of supply officers refusing to send ammo to units running out at Islawanda), out of a store of some 20,000 rounds only nine hundred were left at the end of the battle for Rorkes drift
3. At a range over 50 yards, an ox hide shield will stop a bullet. Not every time but it can
4. The start of the battle the Zulu sent in their 'recruits', not their elite. By the end of the battle there was still no way to use their numbers to any advantage due to the close confines of the combat itself
5. The Zulu could have won, but viewed the advancing relief column as a threat and retreated. If they had launched a final attack they probably would have succeeded but would then have had to contend with the relief column......so they retreated

....whereupon the defenders and the relief column bayonetted any wounded zulus left on the battle field......

[Aramazon]

Regarding Zulu......and tactics.

The movie was pretty damn accurate. Main differences between rorkes drift and the battle two days before...

1. They couldn't be flanked, the standard Zulu bull head tactic couldnt work
2. The commisary was not rationing ammunition (there are stories of supply officers refusing to send ammo to units running out at Islawanda), out of a store of some 20,000 rounds only nine hundred were left at the end of the battle for Rorkes drift
3. At a range over 50 yards, an ox hide shield will stop a bullet. Not every time but it can
4. The start of the battle the Zulu sent in their 'recruits', not their elite. By the end of the battle there was still no way to use their numbers to any advantage due to the close confines of the combat itself
5. The Zulu could have won, but viewed the advancing relief column as a threat and retreated. If they had launched a final attack they probably would have succeeded but would then have had to contend with the relief column......so they retreated

....whereupon the defenders and the relief column bayonetted any wounded zulus left on the battle field......

I never questioned the historical accuracy of Zulu.
It simply bothers me that they did not all swarm down at them from the very start.
I seem to recall the English being surrounded in a small valley. Did the Zulus attack them from all sides?
Either way the thing that bothered me was that the zulus didn't just keep sending the troops, but they would stop at a certain point and fall back. Then they would start the whole charge over again even though last time they were already at the sandbags. It's like playing a linear game for a few hours, then starting over again without saving.
I have to say I did like the English triple line tactic though. Haha, I bet people are going to say this movie was propaganda against the Zulu Nation. <sigh> Some people...I tells ya...

[Jesus_saves]

You don't mind watching humans get killed by the thousands just for entertainment? I find it repulisive.
And yet you play RTW?

[mcantu]

Hey mate ,Becareful ! What you are saying is more insulting to me than 300 !
I (We Iranians) don't care if Frenchs know themseleves descendants of Gauls or Italians Know themselves Romans or not. Each Iranians consider him/herself as descendant of ancient Iranians and I don't think we are the only nation with ancient roots ,at least I know that Greeks are ancient people as well.
Also you Foreigners must learn that the name of this country never was Persia. It was always IRAN even in ancient era. and Iran means land of aryans ,Parsian (Eng: Persians) ,Madian (Eng: Medians) and Parthian or Pahlavian (Eng: Parthians) were the three groups of Aryans settled in Iran.
Please do not repeat it again~:angry:

Regards

Wouldn't that be like modern Americans saying that they considered themselves to be descendants of Native American Indians?

[Zaknafien]

Wouldn't that be like modern Americans saying that they considered themselves to be descendants of Native American Indians?

Are you kidding? :dizzy2:

[il-principe]

heh, he was. Although probably the most famous homosexual in all of history.:yes:

I must defend the Alexander movie as it was surprisingly historical accurate for a Hollywood movie. The movie wasn't a commercial success and the commentators in the US complained that the movie followed History too much and had no dramatic. Oh well, what could be a better recommendation?:laugh4:

And about homosexuality: There was no explicit homosexual scene in the movie....so it's only your dirty imagination.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Zaknafien]

I must defend the Alexander movie as it was surprisingly historical accurate for a Hollywood movie. The movie wasn't a commercial success and the commentators in the US complained that the movie followed History too much and had no dramatic. Oh well, what could be a better recommendation?:laugh4:

And about homosexuality: There was no explicit homosexual scene in the movie....so it's only your dirty imagination.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Im not speaking of the movie Im speaking of Alexandros himself and his one true love.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Wouldn't that be like modern Americans saying that they considered themselves to be descendants of Native American Indians?
The Americas were 'invaded' and 'conquered' by Europeans who destroyed the exsisting people. The only time that Persia was (substantially) invaded by non Aryans since the Achaemenid Empire was by Alexander and then by Arab Muslums. Neither destroyed the people or completely did away with the culture. Nor did the Arabs breed them out or push them out like in Iraq. People living in Iran today are direct descendants of 'Persians' and even have aspects of ancient Persian culture intact.

[Zaknafien]

Regarding what MAA said you can't forget the Mongolid invasions but thats correct for the most part. In fact you'd be very interested to learn about the huge influence the Persian peoples had on the development of Shia Islam, and the incorporation of 'eastern' style mysticism and ritual into the new religion of the Crescent.

[Persian Horseman]

as some have argued, it is not MEANT to be a historical movie. its just a movie. its just a piece of art. its entertainment.

well, to be honest, i dont see it that way. it might look like that on the surface. but maybe im being too sensetive and paying too much attention, but this is not just a movie. plus, its very racist i believe.

why do i think that?
did you guys notice that all the greeks were white looking? so the good guys, who you (the audience) is supposed to support, are all WHITE. they fight for justice. freedom. democracy. and all the other good stuff in the world. they are white, some blond. some red hair , etc.

by the way, the greeks back then looked a lot more like the persians. tanned skin. black hair. not blond. bright white skin and red hair.

ok, and now the enemies, who are all the BAD people, are ranging from Black people, to middle easterns to indians, to even some mongolian looking guys. and these guys are bad and evil and want slavery and generally do bad things, simply because they are BAD people.

so basically how i see it, its the white good guys, killing all the bad non white looking guys. thats just racist to me.

how many times in the movie i heard
"They send the best warriors of Asia, from a thousand countries, but they all die against only 300 from Europa (europe)".
so basically i hear that as, all the europeans are better than all the asians. the best of asians. from all over asia. middle eastern, indian, east asians, none of them can compare to the europeans because they are better.
thats just racist.

so this movie is not only racist to persians, but also to other asians. but of course it concentrates on persians.

another symbolism for good and bad.

all the good guys have families. they are someone's son, brother, father. that is mentioned countless times. they are somebody. a story is behind them. you get to see their faces.

the bad guys on the other hand have their faces covered. they are all wearing masks. they are no body. no story. no remorse when they die. they are like dark vaders, breathing heavily and being all evil. wearing scary masks, to portray they are bad people.

another symbolism.

the bad guys, all look weird. deformed. lots of piercings. their women are deformed too. and their arrows look like what the devil uses. you know how the devil has stick with 3 pointy things at the top. well, that is how the persian arrows look like.

so these guys are bad. they are evil. they use devil's stuff.

on the other hand, the good guy. the man at the centre of it all. the one who fights for justice and freedom, when he dies, his body lies just like how jesus died on the cross. so he is the good guy because he died like jesus.

its just the symbolisms.

some say, forget it, just a movie.
but im telling you, it subconsciously affects people. the german Nazis made cartoons and movies showing jews very badly before WWII and people were saying, "ah just cartoons, just comic books".

but a generation grew up with that, and after that, they thought it was ok to kill all the jews during WWII.
same thing happening here.
you keep hearing, watching, listening about how bad the middle easterns or asians are and how good the white man is.
they want it to slowly affect your thinking.
to prepare you. prepare your mind.

its not just a movie.

[Aramazon]

as some have argued, it is not MEANT to be a historical movie. its just a movie. its just a piece of art. its entertainment.

well, to be honest, i dont see it that way. it might look like that on the surface. but maybe im being too sensetive and paying too much attention, but this is not just a movie. plus, its very racist i believe.

why do i think that?
did you guys notice that all the greeks were white looking? so the good guys, who you (the audience) is supposed to support, are all WHITE. they fight for justice. freedom. democracy. and all the other good stuff in the world. they are white, some blond. some red hair , etc.

by the way, the greeks back then looked a lot more like the persians. tanned skin. black hair. not blond. bright white skin and red hair.

ok, and now the enemies, who are all the BAD people, are ranging from Black people, to middle easterns to indians, to even some mongolian looking guys. and these guys are bad and evil and want slavery and generally do bad things, simply because they are BAD people.

so basically how i see it, its the white good guys, killing all the bad non white looking guys. thats just racist to me.

how many times in the movie i heard
"They send the best warriors of Asia, from a thousand countries, but they all die against only 300 from Europa (europe)".
so basically i hear that as, all the europeans are better than all the asians. the best of asians. from all over asia. middle eastern, indian, east asians, none of them can compare to the europeans because they are better.
thats just racist.

so this movie is not only racist to persians, but also to other asians. but of course it concentrates on persians.

another symbolism for good and bad.

all the good guys have families. they are someone's son, brother, father. that is mentioned countless times. they are somebody. a story is behind them. you get to see their faces.

the bad guys on the other hand have their faces covered. they are all wearing masks. they are no body. no story. no remorse when they die. they are like dark vaders, breathing heavily and being all evil. wearing scary masks, to portray they are bad people.

another symbolism.

the bad guys, all look weird. deformed. lots of piercings. their women are deformed too. and their arrows look like what the devil uses. you know how the devil has stick with 3 pointy things at the top. well, that is how the persian arrows look like.

so these guys are bad. they are evil. they use devil's stuff.

on the other hand, the good guy. the man at the centre of it all. the one who fights for justice and freedom, when he dies, his body lies just like how jesus died on the cross. so he is the good guy because he died like jesus.

its just the symbolisms.

some say, forget it, just a movie.
but im telling you, it subconsciously affects people. the german Nazis made cartoons and movies showing jews very badly before WWII and people were saying, "ah just cartoons, just comic books".

but a generation grew up with that, and after that, they thought it was ok to kill all the jews during WWII.
same thing happening here.
you keep hearing, watching, listening about how bad the middle easterns or asians are and how good the white man is.
they want it to slowly affect your thinking.
to prepare you. prepare your mind.

its not just a movie.

Okay pal, some of your stuff makes sense, but I say it's not for affecting our minds, it's to emphasize certain aspects in the movie. I thought people would say that the Persians are portrayed as mutants. You've forgotten one tiny detail. The guy who betrayed the Spartans, he's said to be Spartan himself, and he's quite deformed. Several of the Spartans are portrayed as bad; by the way, they are also white skinned.
As for racism, I don't think it's being racist at all. It would be weird to have an army of black or asian Spartans. I don't think they would get away with that without taking heat for being too politically correct. Oh and Xerxes, he's white too.
As for the nazi propaganda, there were many germans who wanted Hitler dead for all his evil deeds. Honestly, I think everyone knew it was bad, some people were just greedy enough to justify it with their own progress in wealth.
I have to go, I'll continue later.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Regarding what MAA said you can't forget the Mongolid invasions but thats correct for the most part. In fact you'd be very interested to learn about the huge influence the Persian peoples had on the development of Shia Islam, and the incorporation of 'eastern' style mysticism and ritual into the new religion of the Crescent.
Crap! I can't believe I forgot the Mongols. Stupid me. :wall:

And Persian Horseman, interesting...

[Tiberius Nero]

The propaganda contained in the movie is not racist: Greeks were white in real life, it is not an invention of the movie; now as for black Persians, Americans have some peculiar ideas about how people from the Balkans eastwards look like, for example no modern Greek character I have seen in a movie looks even remotely Greek; remember black Roxanna and the Persians sounding like Arabs on the battlefield etc in "Alexander"? It is just fixed American mass perception of the East, not really racist, just very ignorant, like not being able to tell a Korean from a Chinese, sorta, don't read too much into this.

The propaganda in 300 it is political/cultural: the shining West as the beacon of Democracy (lol democratic Sparta!!!11oneone1), Reason and assorted Western values (as well as Christianity, you have to be asleep during the movie or never to have read the Gospels to miss how Leonidas is modeled on Jesus and Xerxes on Satan during the temptation scene e.g.) oposed to eastern Theocracy, slavish behaviour towards rulers, mysticism and everything similar attributed to the East. Listen to what people say in the movie, not everything is visual.

[Persian Horseman]

thank god finally someone else also saw that whole jesus vs. devil thing.

about them being white, i didnt say greeks are not white.
they are white. they are just not blonde and blue eyed white.
they are black haired, like the persians.
i dont clasify the persians as being black like african, yellow like chinese, or brown like indians. they are still white, but a darker shade with black hair.
somewhat like the greeks.

i just dont get why this movie had to have so much homosexual and trasexual stuff in it.
that scene where the 2 kings are touching each other and one is tempting the other was pretty gay. 2 guys, naked, only wearing underwears, touching each other, whispering in each others ears.

[Mylae]

well, i guess that was an utterly unimportant aspect in the movie.
i've seen it with a bit of fun, just avoiding my brain to connect what i know on what i see, otherwise i could get very angry.
i've seen it with friends, and we had a great time in saying funny things instead of the real audio :)
the real problem of the movie is the exxageration of several aspect.
is white-black, a series of several dicotomies, no grey space in it. evil vs good, etc. so i dislike it. it could be intended as a propaganda movie because has this point in common: the exxageration of certain characteristics and the clear distinction of good and evil.
obviously i cannot consider it an historical movie, and i was very upset of hearing ignorant friends of mine thinking about the movie as it was a more or less real thing. that way i can understand persians, but i guess the best way of show things as they really were is to teach something historically correct. not to just counterpose a new propaganda movie on a supposedly propaganda movie.

[keravnos]

There is no more Persian empire anymore, it's Iran now isn't it?
That's like calling Italians Romans, and the French Gauls.

Iranians=Arians, in Parsi. Nuff said. They have been the same people since Kurush created the Achaimenid Empire. There are some Turkic minorities, but the large majority of the people is the same from then on. They are the eastern IndoEuropeans the ones who conquered India.

[antiochus epiphanes]

The propaganda contained in the movie is not racist: Greeks were white in real life, it is not an invention of the movie; now as for black Persians, Americans have some peculiar ideas about how people from the Balkans eastwards look like, for example no modern Greek character I have seen in a movie looks even remotely Greek; remember black Roxanna and the Persians sounding like Arabs on the battlefield etc in "Alexander"? It is just fixed American mass perception of the East, not really racist, just very ignorant, like not being able to tell a Korean from a Chinese, sorta, don't read too much into this.

The propaganda in 300 it is political/cultural: the shining West as the beacon of Democracy (lol democratic Sparta!!!11oneone1), Reason and assorted Western values (as well as Christianity, you have to be asleep during the movie or never to have read the Gospels to miss how Leonidas is modeled on Jesus and Xerxes on Satan during the temptation scene e.g.) oposed to eastern Theocracy, slavish behaviour towards rulers, mysticism and everything similar attributed to the East. Listen to what people say in the movie, not everything is visual.
its just a damn movie....... you can find shit like that anywhere if you look hard enough....

[Gabeed]

I'd just like to point out that the movie 300 is pretty much exactly like the graphic novel 300. The only difference was the whole politician vs. queen sideplot. The director Zack Snyder was merely bringing the graphic novel to the screen--it is Frank Miller who had this vision of Thermopylae, Greeks, and Persians.

[Miles Sueborum]

Actually I do like the movie - it has very impressive pictures and I like watching them. And it is - though in an extremly exaggerated manner - a better depiction of the battle at the termopylae, than the movie troy of the troyan war...

btw - did anyone notice that the Spartans were not depicted as good guys? They are fighting for a just cause - but they aren't good...
Except you think of slaughtering defenseless, humilating dead bodies, unconditional militarism and killing babies because of deformation or weakness as good...
In that case - they are very good indeed

Saying the film is bad because of the slaughtering is an interesting point from someone who plays rome and so sends several thousand men to death in hours just for entertainment (Ok - you don't play rome to see them dying but to test your skills as virtual general - but in 300 not the killing is reason to watch it but the great pictures.)
Death and killing are part of entertainment for more than thousand years (though not all fights of gladiators ended fatally some did).

And feeling insulted by the movie is really something I can't understand...
As it was already said - Germans (inclduing me) do not feel insulted by the depiction of WWII Krauts as stupid, brutal, arrogant losers - and they are at least of our people. Iranians aren't Persians - they have as much in common with them as Germans and the Germanics (and their portrayal as dirty stupid barbarians in Gladiator could also be seen as insulting :P)

Correct if I'm wrong

[Aramazon]

Actually I do like the movie - it has very impressive pictures and I like watching them. And it is - though in an extremly exaggerated manner - a better depiction of the battle at the termopylae, than the movie troy of the troyan war...

btw - did anyone notice that the Spartans were not depicted as good guys? They are fighting for a just cause - but they aren't good...
Except you think of slaughtering defenseless, humilating dead bodies, unconditional militarism and killing babies because of deformation or weakness as good...
In that case - they are very good indeed

Saying the film is bad because of the slaughtering is an interesting point from someone who plays rome and so sends several thousand men to death in hours just for entertainment (Ok - you don't play rome to see them dying but to test your skills as virtual general - but in 300 not the killing is reason to watch it but the great pictures.)
Death and killing are part of entertainment for more than thousand years (though not all fights of gladiators ended fatally some did).

And feeling insulted by the movie is really something I can't understand...
As it was already said - Germans (inclduing me) do not feel insulted by the depiction of WWII Krauts as stupid, brutal, arrogant losers - and they are at least of our people. Iranians aren't Persians - they have as much in common with them as Germans and the Germanics (and their portrayal as dirty stupid barbarians in Gladiator could also be seen as insulting :P)

Correct if I'm wrong

Amen! Very good point about the Spartans not actually being portrayed as good. For that matter, in response to the guy who said it's all black and white, it really isn't. Any movie will tend to have the audience more sympathetic to the side from which the story is told.

[Boyar Son]

hey guys, what this movie about?

Iran defeating every major western power?

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

And feeling insulted by the movie is really something I can't understand...
As it was already said - Germans (inclduing me) do not feel insulted by the depiction of WWII Krauts as stupid, brutal, arrogant losers - and they are at least of our people. Iranians aren't Persians - they have as much in common with them as Germans and the Germanics (and their portrayal as dirty stupid barbarians in Gladiator could also be seen as insulting :P)

Correct if I'm wrong
There were major migrations in and out of "Germania" over the last couple thousand years. This was no so with Iran...

[Veris]

And feeling insulted by the movie is really something I can't understand...As it was already said - Germans (inclduing me) do not feel insulted by the depiction of WWII Krauts as stupid, brutal, arrogant losers - and they are at least of our people. Iranians aren't Persians - they have as much in common with them as Germans and the Germanics (and their portrayal as dirty stupid barbarians in Gladiator could also be seen as insulting :P)

Correct if I'm wrong

Kaiser Wilhelm constructed a huge statue of Arminius as a symbol of national pride. Whether that was purely propaganda or something people could relate well with I'm not sure.

[Miles Sueborum]

Kaiser Wilhelm constructed a huge statue of Arminius as a symbol of national pride. Whether that was purely propaganda or something people could relate well with I'm not sure.

Of course German nationalists always saw themselves as Germanics somehow - and of course Germany's history has much to do with the people living in German territory - but IMO nationality has nothing to do with blood but with language and culture...

And though at least the German language has Germanic roots it is hard to judge how similar German culture is to Germanic culture ;)


There were major migrations in and out of "Germania" over the last couple thousand years. This was no so with Iran...
Ok - but how similar is Farsi to the ancient Persian language and how changed culture (I know - such a thing is always difficult to say...)?

[NeoSpartan]

Im not speaking of the movie Im speaking of Alexandros himself and his one true love.

I know, the guy had a 99% of liking guys... look at how "heart broken" he got when his "Best Friend" (forgot the name) died.

The thing that pissed me off about the movie, is that Alexander was shown as weak man, afraid and crying. I mean, the guy was crying for every little thing. From his mom, his dad, his soldiers, etc, hell his wife even B***T Slapped him WFT!!!

Anywho... enough of my rant:furious3:

Wrong director, wrong actor, and wrong music too (God was it aweful, Gladiator did a much better job with the music).

p.s oh and the battle were too short, and too few of them.:wall:

[Pelopidas]

Well, the Kurdish, Georgians, Armenians, Mongols, Turkish and Arabic peoples you could actually find in Iran aren't especially related to ancient " Persians " ( ok, perhaps the Kurds... )
For what I remember of my studies on Iranian population, the numbers given by my Iranian professors about the percentage of descendants of " Persians " is something like 54 % of the population.

So," no major migration flux ", I'm not so sure...

Besides, I've never seen any proof that Parthians were Iranian peoples, there's as much evidences of them being proto-Turks, no ?

And even is those guys are really your ancestors, we spoke of events dating for more than two thousand years...yet, you could be prood, but feeling insulted...not for me.

Well, if I have to take offense every time someone says something false about the history of France, I would be sick every days, especially on english speaking forums.

For the accuracy of American historical movies...well, I'm French, so, perhaps, it's normal that I think they are blatant propaganda :p
Yes Fahrenheit 9/11 is propaganda against Bush. This film used fakes and false testimony, so, it could be considered propaganda. As " The Patriot "...

[Foot]

It doesn't matter how things really are, that kind of knowledge we are just not privy. The perception is all important. For Iranians, the history of their country goes back millenia and so does their identity. Or that is the perception I get anyway.

EDIT: Oh and the people who really deserve to be pissed off by the 300 movie is the last of the Iranian Zarathustrians. Did you know that the same flame that burnt during the reign of Darius III still burns today. Now that is continuity.

Foot

[Watchman]

Besides, I've never seen any proof that Parthians were Iranian peoples, there's as much evidences of them being proto-Turks, no ?They're classified as Iranian-speakers anyway, but, no, they're not regarded as "ethnic" Persians by what I know of it. Something the Sassanids - who were - doubtless emphasized after their coup...

Nomadic conquerors like the Parthians have usually tended to establish themselves as a ruling layer over the existing populations, and Iran/Persia is AFAIK alongside China one of those regions that has always been pretty good at assimilating and absorbing such newcomer elites. I'd hazard a guess that's already a question of pure demographics - pastoral ecology being what it is, the conquerors would be hard pressed to outnumber even the already established aristocracy by a clear margin so it should not really be too surprising if they tend to "melt" into their surroundings through intermarriage and cultural osmosis over time once they've spread wide and thin as the new ruling elite. Those that have tried to hold too tightly to their separate identity have had a tendency to eventually alienate the natives and get overthrown in a major uprising or a few, probably getting backstabbed by their more acclimated brethren in the process.

[Dux Corvanus]

Did you know that the same flame that burnt during the reign of Darius III still burns today.

That's why they are so easily flamed. :laugh4:

[Ardu]

Actually I do like the movie - it has very impressive pictures and I like watching them. And it is - though in an extremly exaggerated manner - a better depiction of the battle at the termopylae, than the movie troy of the troyan war...

They really cant be compared. '300' makes an effort to portray a true historical battle and utterly fails. Troy on the other hand is based on a mythological story written by one man, that was already mythology by the time the battle at Thermopylae took place. The Ilias is a story full of gods, demigods, supernatural beings and strange events. It's by no means a writing of actual history. It's in doubt wether any of the figures in the Ilias or even Troy itself existed ( although it is almost certain Troy actually existed ). They actually made the story more believable by leaving out all the gods and supernatural stuff. They did change homerus' storyline a quite bit ( in regard to Ajax and Achilles for instance ), but they have more right to do so, because it's mythology. Besides the overall battles in Troy, although over the top in many occasions, is still a lot more credible than the battles in 300.



btw - did anyone notice that the Spartans were not depicted as good guys? They are fighting for a just cause - but they aren't good...
Except you think of slaughtering defenseless, humilating dead bodies, unconditional militarism and killing babies because of deformation or weakness as good...
In that case - they are very good indeed


That's the whole point some people are trying to make here. They are actually trying justify all these things, because they're fighting for a very debatable 'just' cause.



Saying the film is bad because of the slaughtering is an interesting point from someone who plays rome and so sends several thousand men to death in hours just for entertainment (Ok - you don't play rome to see them dying but to test your skills as virtual general - but in 300 not the killing is reason to watch it but the great pictures.)
Death and killing are part of entertainment for more than thousand years (though not all fights of gladiators ended fatally some did).


I think people here don't really mind the killing and violence, I think a lot of people despise the fact that besides the killing there is nothing else to this film and killing and cruelty are being glorified in such a manner, because they're figthing against some lower than human' people.



And feeling insulted by the movie is really something I can't understand...
As it was already said - Germans (inclduing me) do not feel insulted by the depiction of WWII Krauts as stupid, brutal, arrogant losers - and they are at least of our people. Iranians aren't Persians - they have as much in common with them as Germans and the Germanics (and their portrayal as dirty stupid barbarians in Gladiator could also be seen as insulting :P)

Correct if I'm wrong

I actually do hate all these American war movies where all Germans are depicted as stupid, brutal, arrogant losers and I'm not even German. By portraying all Germans in this way, you're creating a black and white picture, where it is ok to kill and be brutal to all of them because they're something below human. They're in fact doing precisely that which the nazi's did when they depicted Jews and Slavic people in such a way.
Also, by depicting Germans in such a way, while depicting Americans as unbeatable Rambo's they're actually actually the horrors of the war and the sacrifices their own soldiers made for our freedom. It would bring all the more respect for the soldiers when you still see them fighting despite loosing most of their friends, despite seeing cut off limbs, intestines hanging out of bellies that have been ripped open, burnt faces. People don't always get one-shotted in wars. This way people would really realize what madness war really is and what sacrifices these soldiers actually made for us.
That is why a film like 'Der Untergang' is so good: It warns us that humans influenced by propaganda, with strange motives, and in certain circumstances and not all-evil monsters are capable of such atrocities and it shows the madness that war really is.

[Afro Thunder]

They really cant be compared. '300' makes an effort to portray a true historical battle and utterly fails.

That's funny, all this time I thought it was trying to portray a comic book based on a historical battle.

[Watchman]

And that comic book tries to portray a historical battle, throwing in all kinds of patent historical inaccuracies many of which stink to the high heavens of anachronistic political statements and distinctly questionable sympathies.

The movie just adds in extra fantasy stuff Miller at least had the sense to stay the heck away from in the comic.

[Miles Sueborum]

They really cant be compared. '300' makes an effort to portray a true historical battle and utterly fails. Troy on the other hand is based on a mythological story written by one man, that was already mythology by the time the battle at Thermopylae took place. The Ilias is a story full of gods, demigods, supernatural beings and strange events. It's by no means a writing of actual history. It's in doubt wether any of the figures in the Ilias or even Troy itself existed ( although it is almost certain Troy actually existed ). They actually made the story more believable by leaving out all the gods and supernatural stuff. They did change homerus' storyline a quite bit ( in regard to Ajax and Achilles for instance ), but they have more right to do so, because it's mythology. Besides the overall battles in Troy, although over the top in many occasions, is still a lot more credible than the battles in 300.

Hm - you are right, I expressed so0mething I didn't mean. I wanted to say that at the base the movie is closer to the historical source (Herodot) than Troy was (Homer). At least as far as I know (I just read extracts and I'm not able to translate them myself so I can't be absolutely sure) - but wasn't Herodot as unrealistic on numbers as the movie was? While in Homers work the war for Troy endured 10 years rather than ca. 20 days.
300 in turn seem to keep closer to the source - though of course graphical details such as uruk-hai-like immortals and naked Spartan-Gods of War are completely ahistoric. Other details such as the final deadly arrow-shower and the failure of the elite-immortals can be found in Herodot (once again - as far as I know...)


That's the whole point some people are trying to make here. They are actually trying justify all these things, because they're fighting for a very debatable 'just' cause.
At least as presented in the movie they had a just cause - defending yourself IS a just cause. But I agree that the justice of the real Spartans 2500 years ago may be questioned...
I don't know if the movie is really trying to justify these things - at least I didn't hat the impression. I was disgusted by the opening telling you they killed their weak children, felt pity for the boys who were sent into the "Warrior School" and once again was disgusted how the Spartans treaded the dead and wounded Persians...
I didn't find their arrogance cool and I pity any society who sees it's only task in war - I didn't had the impression they were depicted as heroes...
Ok they all looked extremly fit, were absolutely brave and so - but is that a miracle in a society that focuses on the survival of the fittest? (As Sparta is depicted in the Comic and the movie as well - no matter how the real Sparta was)


I think people here don't really mind the killing and violence, I think a lot of people despise the fact that besides the killing there is nothing else to this film and killing and cruelty are being glorified in such a manner, because they're figthing against some lower than human' people.

Maybe - but as you later say yourself - the cruel depiction of a battle is vital in a movie that shows war...
The Persians were inferior to the Spartans in the "Art" of war - probably because their lives had other things to focus on in peace times. So they are the ones to die in melee...
But who can you esier identify with? Men who fight when they must and fear death (Arcadians and Persians except for the immortals) or with men who seem to be invincible demigods?


I actually do hate all these American war movies where all Germans are depicted as stupid, brutal, arrogant losers and I'm not even German. By portraying all Germans in this way, you're creating a black and white picture, where it is ok to kill and be brutal to all of them because they're something below human. They're in fact doing precisely that which the nazi's did when they depicted Jews and Slavic people in such a way.

There are few of such films I like - for example the Indina Jones trilogy I like - though the Germans in these movies are the prototype of any nazi-cliché you can think of - it's ok because the whole movie is unrealistic...
Other movies who show Germans/Russians/Vietnamese/any other oponent as such fools I usually don't like. Not because I feel insulted - but because it is boring...
If you know that the enemy can't harm the protagonists their is no thrill - but many moviemakers understood that when you want to show that a group of soldiers is good - they need worthy oponents...
For example I once watched a soviet film (unfortunatly forgot the title) about a female group of soldiers in russia in WWII. Suddenly a small group of German paratroopers (10-13) landed in that area behind the frontline an the only male soldier - the senior NCO and round about five of the girls - pursecuted them. The movie was extremely thrilling and I liked it - though the paratroopers in this movie also were depicted as evil-fascists - they at least weren't losers so you feared for the russian soldiers, whenever they encountered the enemy...


That is why a film like 'Der Untergang' is so good: It warns us that humans influenced by propaganda, with strange motives, and in certain circumstances and not all-evil monsters are capable of such atrocities and it shows the madness that war really is.
I agree - among the best movies I ever saw. And one of the few movies I like not only to watch for entertainment but also for the message they try to send...


And that comic book tries to portray a historical battle, throwing in all kinds of patent historical inaccuracies many of which stink to the high heavens of anachronistic political statements and distinctly questionable sympathies.

The movie just adds in extra fantasy stuff Miller at least had the sense to stay the heck away from in the comic.

But you may not forget that neither comic nor movie ever tried to be an history-lesson. They are mainly made for entertainment - perhaps even for sending a message (which this is, is depending on the interpretor)

[Watchman]

It is specifically that taking of an old and well-known story and turning it into a populistic vehicle of anachronistic political statements that I despise both the comic and the movie for. The latter more, due to the media format's better suitability for such purposes on audiovisual "shock and awe", the idiotic and tasteless fantasy stuff, and the fact the comic can at least be regarded as the product of skilled artistic craftsmanship even if one disagrees with its underlying statements while the movie is really just CG for the most part.


I don't know if the movie is really trying to justify these things - at least I didn't hat the impression. I was disgusted by the opening telling you they killed their weak children, felt pity for the boys who were sent into the "Warrior School" and once again was disgusted how the Spartans treaded the dead and wounded Persians...
I didn't find their arrogance cool and I pity any society who sees it's only task in war - I didn't had the impression they were depicted as heroes...Personally I got a strong vibe of "can't make omelettes without breaking a couple of eggs" - that the (for that matter partially whitewashed) Spartan unpleasantness was in fact attempted to be excused on the grounds that it was "necessary" for the continued survival and future of "western reason and freedom in the face of Asian irrationality and despotism" off the comic alone. The end justifies the means, in other words. Which also gave off the stench of retroactively ascribing a "historical mission" to the Spartan system, and more widely propagates the idea that "just ends" excuse nigh any horror.

This is particularly damning given some of Miller's openly expressed ethnocentrist views, even if the comic was published well before 9/11. The movie can make no such appeal, and thus seems to me to be a piece of pro-War-On-Terror populism - or alternatively a cynical effort to profiteer on such sentiments. I'm guessing both, personally, true to my practice of generally assuming the worst of my fellow man until proven different.

[aecp]

I'd just like to point out that the movie 300 is pretty much exactly like the graphic novel 300. The only difference was the whole politician vs. queen sideplot. The director Zack Snyder was merely bringing the graphic novel to the screen--it is Frank Miller who had this vision of Thermopylae, Greeks, and Persians

Not really, if Snyder intended to be faithfull to the comic he failed completely. First of all there's the terrible queen subplot that you mentioned, that's a pretty big change right there. Secondly the way the spartans fight is totally different in the movie. As I remeber it the Spartans in the comics didn't spin around all the time and fight out of formation. Lastly they changed Leonidas's character drasticly (and for the worse) in the movie. In the comic he was all about quiet resolve. In the movie he's a loudmouth pussy who can't do anything without his wifes approval. Oh and I almost forgot the mutants, the rhino and the magic grenades. Those were great.

So what we're left with are the worst parts of the comic, the inane dialouge and the lack of anything resembling a coherent plot.


so basically how i see it, its the white good guys, killing all the bad non white looking guys. thats just racist to me.

So then any moive where caucasians triumph in battle over non-caucasian opponents is racist? That's just ridiculous. This kind of movie in general, and anything written by Frank Miller in particular, will glorify the heroes and vilify the enemy. Just look at gladiator which portrayed the germanians more or less as cavemen. It's not racism, just ignorance.


quall the good guys have families. they are someone's son, brother, father. that is mentioned countless times. they are somebody. a story is behind them. you get to see their faces.

the bad guys on the other hand have their faces covered. they are all wearing masks. they are no body. no story. no remorse when they die. they are like dark vaders, breathing heavily and being all evil. wearing scary masks, to portray they are bad people.

another symbolism.

the bad guys, all look weird. deformed. lots of piercings. their women are deformed too. and their arrows look like what the devil uses. you know how the devil has stick with 3 pointy things at the top. well, that is how the persian arrows look like.

so these guys are bad. they are evil. they use devil's stuff.

Wow, a movie that portrays the villains as unsymphathetic, who would've thunk it. This is a shitty popcorn flick, what do you expect?


but a generation grew up with that, and after that, they thought it was ok to kill all the jews during WWII.
same thing happening here.
you keep hearing, watching, listening about how bad the middle easterns or asians are and how good the white man is.
they want it to slowly affect your thinking.
to prepare you. prepare your mind.

its not just a movie.

If you'd said Fox News or anything like that I might have agreed, but this? 300? A CGI shitfest by an old hack who isn't fit to write the backside of the DVD-case and a stoner who loves greenscreens a bit too much? Find something real to worry about instead, like how certain nations governments are still doing exactly what you described. Telling their populaces that all jews must be killed.

This is just a movie, a crappy one at that. But I guess if you want to feel persecuted and see racism everywhere then why not. Go nuts.

[Miles Sueborum]

Good points, Watchman.
Maybe a complete fantasy setting would have been better than giving a fantasy-story a historical background.
And you may be right that miller and/or the director of the movie (forgot the name) try to justify Spartan cruelty...
But in my opinion more important than the message that is sent is the message that you get...
For example in the end it is of no real matter wether the makers intended to criticize militarism and imperialism or wether they wanted to show Western superiority and the neccessity of being disgustingly cruel to save the Western culture...

You'll probably never like the film because - independingly from the inentions - it shows to you latter...

I like the movie because - though it might have been planned as warmonger-propaganda - it shows to me the clash of two negative systems which causes several thousnads to die, and shows that standing on the right side doesn't make you a good guy...

But there is one thing I do not agree - I think the movie is done in a very aesthetic manner. The pictures and animations are extremly impressive and the soundtrack seems to fit. I agree that the movie is open for interpretation and that you can see bad intentions in it - but from the artistical point of view I think it is great.

[Count Belisarius]

Personally, I thought 300 was a piece of trash, celluloid pulp fiction of the lowest order. I would have gotten more entertainment out of my $10 (US) admission fee by slathering the bills in napalm, shoving the whole mess into my underwear, and lighting it on fire. Probably would have been less painful than listening to Faramir's voice-over.

Still, I don't really see what all the fuss is about. 300 is a MOVIE based on a really long COMIC BOOK, for the LOVE of GOD!!! It's biased, insulting, offensive, unrealistic, unfair and wildly inaccurate. That said, it is PURE ENTERTAINMENT, not - repeat, not - a documentary. It makes no pretensions at historical accuracy. I don't pretend to speak for the author/writer here, but think about this: the "fantasy" elements of the movie might - might - have been inserted INTENTIONALLY - to clue in uninformed viewers that, "Hey, this isn't REALLY the way it was ..." Did that ever occur to anyone?!?!?

Don't like the movie? Fine. Stay home. Tell all your friends how horrible the movie was. Write a letter to the writers/directors/producers. Start a blog outlining the historically inaccurate the movie was. Boycott the production company. Whatever. But don't say that the movie shouldn't have been made, any more than violent video games (like RTW) shouldn't be made. If every movie MUST be unbiased, non-insulting, inoffensive, realistic, fair and historically accurate ... well, no movies would ever get made at all.

As a side note, I find all this tripe about "300 was a crappy movie because of all the gratuitous violence" to be disingenuous as hell. How so? Well, is there anyone out there who plays RTW (and EB, obviously) using only diplomats? No generals (only "governors"), no armies (only "peacekeepers"), no spies, and - God forbid - no assassins? Of course not. Heck, I'd be surprised if there were more than a handful who autocalculated every battle, and never, ever took the offensive. Why? Because it can't be done. The whole raison d’être for RTW is, in fact, FICTIONAL gratuitous violence for purposes of pure ENTERTAINMENT. This ENTIRE FORUM is based on a COMPUTER GAME premised on the following: KILL your fellow man (by the bushel-basket-load, preferably) on the battlefield, CONQUER your neighbor, OCCUPY his territory (or worse yet, ENSLAVE or EXTERMINATE the inhabitants), and SUBVERT his culture (replacing it with your own). Talk about gratuitous violence!

[Foot]

As a side note, I find all this tripe about "300 was a crappy movie because of all the gratuitous violence" to be disingenuous as hell. How so? Well, is there anyone out there who plays RTW (and EB, obviously) using only diplomats? No generals (only "governors"), no armies (only "peacekeepers"), no spies, and - God forbid - no assassins? Of course not. Heck, I'd be surprised if there were more than a handful who autocalculated every battle, and never, ever took the offensive. Why? Because it can't be done. The whole raison d’être for RTW is, in fact, FICTIONAL gratuitous violence for purposes of pure ENTERTAINMENT. This ENTIRE FORUM is based on a COMPUTER GAME premised on the following: KILL your fellow man (by the bushel-basket-load, preferably) on the battlefield, CONQUER your neighbor, OCCUPY his territory (or worse yet, ENSLAVE or EXTERMINATE the inhabitants), and SUBVERT his culture (replacing it with your own). Talk about gratuitous violence!

You should probably take a look at the dictionary definition of gratuitous, but to save you the trouble I'll post the url:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gratuitous

Seeing as RTW, even under CA's unhistorical gaze, is far from showing violence with justification I'm not entirely sure what your position is here. 300 glorifies violence, and violent deaths far beyond anything the RTW engine could ever do. In RTW the violence is there to the extent it can be justified; wars are fought, assassinations are made, cities are burned. These happen, and RTW depicts them without any attempt to glorify them for the sake of their violent aspects. Indeed exterminating a city will actually give your general nightmares. 300 however, glorifies the violence of war far beyond any need except for entertainment and in the sake of "art".

In short, I disagree with you. One can enjoy RTW and still feel that 300 went way to far. The extent of the violence depicted in that film was done in the sake of "art" and thus glorified the violence. RTW does not do that, the violence is justified and thus not gratuitous. Before using a word, try finding out what it means.

Foot

[Watchman]

It's biased, insulting, offensive, unrealistic, unfair and wildly inaccurate. That said, it is PURE ENTERTAINMENT, not - repeat, not - a documentary."It gives you a totally skewed, biased and tendentious view of a historical event - but that's okay because it's entertainment and doesn't claim to be a documentary."
:dozey:
So not. You're engaging in apologist lawyer-speak &#224; la Clinton here you know; a pile of vile propaganda does not become any less so by the virtue of not specifically claiming to be a documentary. Whether it is succesful or not in spreading its message is equally irrelevant compared to the intent of doing so.


I don't pretend to speak for the author/writer here, but think about this: the "fantasy" elements of the movie might - might - have been inserted INTENTIONALLY - to clue in uninformed viewers that, "Hey, this isn't REALLY the way it was ..." Did that ever occur to anyone?!?!?I'm not that generous a person. Far as I'm concerned they're there to pull in more fanboys and stun them with Awesomeness, which on the side should also keep them from thinking too much about the messages they're being fed.


Don't like the movie? Fine. Stay home. Tell all your friends how horrible the movie was. Write a letter to the writers/directors/producers. Start a blog outlining the historically inaccurate the movie was. Boycott the production company. Whatever. But don't say that the movie shouldn't have been made, any more than violent video games (like RTW) shouldn't be made.Strawmen. I fail to recall people insisting on such things here. Please do not assume positions to the opposition for your own rhetorical convenience.


If every movie MUST be unbiased, non-insulting, inoffensive, realistic, fair and historically accurate ... well, no movies would ever get made at all.Nobody said anything about this either - and besides, what you're biased for is also important.


As a side note, I find all this tripe about "300 was a crappy movie because of all the gratuitous violence" to be disingenuous as hell. How so? Well, is there anyone out there who plays RTW (and EB, obviously) using only diplomats? No generals (only "governors"), no armies (only "peacekeepers"), no spies, and - God forbid - no assassins? Of course not. Heck, I'd be surprised if there were more than a handful who autocalculated every battle, and never, ever took the offensive. Why? Because it can't be done. The whole raison d’&#234;tre for RTW is, in fact, FICTIONAL gratuitous violence for purposes of pure ENTERTAINMENT. This ENTIRE FORUM is based on a COMPUTER GAME premised on the following: KILL your fellow man (by the bushel-basket-load, preferably) on the battlefield, CONQUER your neighbor, OCCUPY his territory (or worse yet, ENSLAVE or EXTERMINATE the inhabitants), and SUBVERT his culture (replacing it with your own). Talk about gratuitous violence!On top of what Foot said, there's the little detail the rather sterile RTW violence does not have even a fraction of the emotional and subliminal effect an SFX-intense movie on a big screen in a dark theater has.

Sorry, but you flunk the class of Critical Media Consumership too. :shame:


For example in the end it is of no real matter wether the makers intended to criticize militarism and imperialism or wether they wanted to show Western superiority and the neccessity of being disgustingly cruel to save the Western culture...

You'll probably never like the film because - independingly from the inentions - it shows to you latter...Sorry, but it does matter. Especially given the way a whole lot of people are so willing to ignore the implicit messages of the movie, and just take it in as supposedly pure entertainment without sparing a thought for the rather problematical salient issues. That's exactly how propaganda is supposed to work after all.

Put this way: would you read Orwell, Lenin or Ludendorff as sui generis authors without keeping in mind their political leanings and historical contexts ? Or ancient court historians without keeping in mind their dependency on their royal patrons ? Autobiographies while ignoring the obvious potential for one-upmanship ? Hobbes while ignoring the Thirty Years' War, Sun Tzu or von Clausewitz without referencing the pattern of politics and warfare in their lifetimes ?

I certainly wouldn't recommend it.


I like the movie because - though it might have been planned as warmonger-propaganda - it shows to me the clash of two negative systems which causes several thousnads to die, and shows that standing on the right side doesn't make you a good guy...While you're of course entitled to your opinion, I would say you are rather ignoring certain problematic aspects here. One is the association of Leonidas' and the Spartans' motives to the "preservation of freedom and blahblahblah"; another is the entirely unproblematized division of the participants to White (the Greeks - freedom, democracy, human diginity, rationality, sense of duty and capacity to self-sacrifice, heroism, "manly virtues", good looks yadda yadda) and Black (the Persians and the Greeks siding with them - treachery, "unfair tricks", tyranny, slavishness, oppression, pretty much the opposition of all the positives ascribed to the Greeks really) Hats. Particularly should one be aware of the historical realities involved such superficiality can be regarded as little short of a mortal sin IMO, and even if that is not the case simply swallowing such crap hook line and sinker strikes me as rather... shall we say, gullible.

Plus there's the parroting of the standard, morally bankrupt pro-Bushite apologist philosophy that "just ends justify any means" to keep in mind.


But there is one thing I do not agree - I think the movie is done in a very aesthetic manner. The pictures and animations are extremly impressive and the soundtrack seems to fit. I agree that the movie is open for interpretation and that you can see bad intentions in it - but from the artistical point of view I think it is great.Overblown fanboy-pandering crap for the MTW generation without even the kinetic artistry of good old kung fu flicks IMO, judging by the trailers and statements I've seen (no, I'm not going to see the thing myself; if it looks like crap and smells like crap, I tend to think it safe to assume it is crap without paying for a taste). I have a major loathing of the current filmographic norm of depicting ancient mass warfare to begin with and 300 by all indications tops this off with major inconsistency issues, some of which have already been referred in this thread. Not to forget historical accuracy issues and dodgy political tie-ins that give me a rash.

But YMMV. I merely question your taste and judgement.

[Miles Sueborum]

Put this way: would you read Orwell, Lenin or Ludendorff as sui generis authors without keeping in mind their political leanings and historical contexts ? Or ancient court historians without keeping in mind their dependency on their royal patrons ? Autobiographies while ignoring the obvious potential for one-upmanship ? Hobbes while ignoring the Thirty Years' War, Sun Tzu or von Clausewitz without referencing the pattern of politics and warfare in their lifetimes ?

I certainly wouldn't recommend it.

There is an important difference. While the works of the authors you just mentioned are usually about politics, econemy, warfare and philosophy and so have clear intentions in that directions - 300 is mainly made for entertainment. Of course it might have political aims - but they aren't it's main component.
A better comparison would have been LotR - and I read it without knowing Tolkiens political intentions to be honest...


While you're of course entitled to your opinion, I would say you are rather ignoring certain problematic aspects here. One is the association of Leonidas' and the Spartans' motives to the "preservation of freedom and blahblahblah"; another is the entirely unproblematized division of the participants to White (the Greeks - freedom, democracy, human diginity, rationality, sense of duty and capacity to self-sacrifice, heroism, "manly virtues", good looks yadda yadda) and Black (the Persians and the Greeks siding with them - treachery, "unfair tricks", tyranny, slavishness, oppression, pretty much the opposition of all the positives ascribed to the Greeks really) Hats. Particularly should one be aware of the historical realities involved such superficiality can be regarded as little short of a mortal sin IMO, and even if that is not the case simply swallowing such crap hook line and sinker strikes me as rather... shall we say, gullible.

Plus there's the parroting of the standard, morally bankrupt pro-Bushite apologist philosophy that "just ends justify any means" to keep in mind.

As I already pointed out I don't see that the Spartans' hat is white...
In the movie they are not only fierce warriors - they are murderers. If you wnated to glorify them - would you led them smile while stabbing defenseless, wounded Persians to death? More effective would have been to show, that they, because of their small number can't afford to keep prisoners and so reluctantly kill them...
This would have glorified it and sent the "the-end-justifies-the-means"-message more clearly than showing men, who murder without hesitation or pity...
On the otherhand the regular Persian soldiers aren't depicted as evil - just as men who fear death (except for the immortals)
And all Spartans are good looking? SS-men are usually also depicted as tall, handsome guys...
And another thing I pointed out is that standing on the right side doesn't make you a good man - so the Spartans fight for the right thing - but nevertheless they are depicted as murderers...


Overblown fanboy-pandering crap for the MTW generation without even the kinetic artistry of good old kung fu flicks IMO, judging by the trailers and statements I've seen (no, I'm not going to see the thing myself; if it looks like crap and smells like crap, I tend to think it safe to assume it is crap without paying for a taste). I have a major loathing of the current filmographic norm of depicting ancient mass warfare to begin with and 300 by all indications tops this off with major inconsistency issues, some of which have already been referred in this thread. Not to forget historical accuracy issues and dodgy political tie-ins that give me a rash.

But YMMV. I merely question your taste and judgement.

Probably a simple matter of taste ;)
btw - I wouldn't count myself to the MTV-generation
And I'm quite sure you didn't mean "Medieval: Total War"-Total War generation ^^
And I disagree - if you haven't seen the movie you can not judge the whole thing. How do you know from the trailers how exactly the Greeks, the Spartans and the Persians are depicted? Of course you may know the style and you can judge that it isn't your taste - the complete content?

[Watchman]

There is an important difference. While the works of the authors you just mentioned are usually about politics, econemy, warfare and philosophy and so have clear intentions in that directions - 300 is mainly made for entertainment. Of course it might have political aims - but they aren't it's main component.
A better comparison would have been LotR - and I read it without knowing Tolkiens political intentions to be honest...Sure thing massa. IMO it's about "for entertainment" as Dickson's Dorsai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorsai) series - and the alternate title of the first book in the series, The Genetic General, ought to hint of something. I know that one gave me the rash.


As I already pointed out I don't see that the Spartans' hat is white...
In the movie they are not only fierce warriors - they are murderers. If you wnated to glorify them - would you led them smile while stabbing defenseless, wounded Persians to death? More effective would have been to show, that they, because of their small number can't afford to keep prisoners and so reluctantly kill them...
This would have glorified it and sent the "the-end-justifies-the-means"-message more clearly than showing men, who murder without hesitation or pity...Which is pretty much the hard core of what I hate of the whole thing; as mentioned already, "the idea that "just ends" excuse nigh any horror."

By the accounts the movie is even worse in this regard than the comic.

Moreover, do keep in mind the general tone of the apologies given for "Coalition" (for the most part, American) excesses in the War On Terror. This has far too suspiciously similar tone to those to be entirely coincidential.


On the otherhand the regular Persian soldiers aren't depicted as evil - just as men who fear death (except for the immortals)See above for "manly virtues", "courage" and "self-sacrifice". Describing "the enemy" as both vicious and cowardly is a longstanding standard propaganda trope, and it is rather irrelevant in this regard that the latter is primarily communicated through the faceless, slavish masses of the grunts.


And all Spartans are good looking? SS-men are usually also depicted as tall, handsome guys... The peculiar entry requirements of the SS actually meant the members did fit the ideal of "Aryan" masculinity. Anyway, AFAIK in both the comic and the movie the exact only Greeks who aren't macho supermen are deformed traitors, traitorous old pervs and similarly unpleasant fellows.

Most of the Persians in the movie seem to be either deformed mutants, or at the very least have a serious thing for excessive and unaesthetical - in other words, "decadent" - body piercing and so on.

The vicious might start pointing out certain curious similarities to the values of fascist art and their idea of, whatwasthewordnow, "degenerate art", at this point...


And another thing I pointed out is that standing on the right side doesn't make you a good man - so the Spartans fight for the right thing - but nevertheless they are depicted as murderers...Which is then legitimized by the "historic mission", heroism and sacrifice "for greater good" ascribed to them. "Just ends excuse nigh any horror," remember ?

This argument is missing the point.


And I disagree - if you haven't seen the movie you can not judge the whole thing. How do you know from the trailers how exactly the Greeks, the Spartans and the Persians are depicted? Of course you may know the style and you can judge that it isn't your taste - the complete content?I did read the comic, remember ? It doesn't take psychic powers to deduce from the trailers, reviews, comments etc. that the movie is basically the same as plot and message goes - with the bad bits magnified and added to.

And I'm just not going to pay money to see a movie I can tell I will loathe from start to finish merely for the sake of the argument, thank you very much.

[Miles Sueborum]

The peculiar entry requirements of the SS actually meant the members did fit the ideal of "Aryan" masculinity. Anyway, AFAIK in both the comic and the movie the exact only Greeks who aren't macho supermen are deformed traitors, traitorous old pervs and similarly unpleasant fellows.

Most of the Persians in the movie seem to be either deformed mutants, or at the very least have a serious thing for excessive and unaesthetical - in other words, "decadent" - body piercing and so on.

And so it is with the Spartan society as depicted in the movie - who doesn't fit into their warrior-culture is sorted out early and doesn't become adult. And even if he does he certainly would not be selected for Leonidas' peronal elite body guard of the 300 best Sparta has to offer...

And the Arcadians aren't depicted as an Army of bodybuilders...

Most of the Persians are ordinary men - except for the immortals who are portrayed as Orcs (or something like that) and these do have an mutant in their ranks. Other mutants shown are mainly around the area of Xerxes and don't participate in actual combat. And the mutated Greek becomes only a traitor because Leonidas refuses to let him fight for Sparta (as you know - you've read the comic).

For the rest - we begin to run in a circle...
Of course I could repeat my statements over and over again - as you could...
I think I'll cease doing so ^^

[Watchman]

There's a fair bit to be said about Miller's grand idea to make that whatshisnameagain Greek traitor a deformed Spartan outcast - apparently, he seems to regard it important to underline mere venal greed was not enough to make a "Greek" turn against his "countrymen" (note that this is different from the issue with the corrupt priests earlier, who are merely bribed to look the other way rather than do a fairly concrete backstab), or something equally dumb.

And while the way Xerxes treats the traitor would seem to reflect rather well on the character, I can't but be rather bothered by the insinuations of the line "I am kind. Cruel Leonidas demanded you stand; I only ask you to kneel" in the comic (which I would presume are preserved in the movie) given the rest of the tendentious crap and Miller's outspoken political views.

Like I said, I rather hate the anachronistic ideas he keeps tacking onto the story.

[Boyar Son]

That's why they are so easily flamed. :laugh4:

:laugh4:

And can anyone fill me in on whats happening? I just got to this thread and dont know what going on...

[Foot]

:laugh4:

And can anyone fill me in on whats happening? I just got to this thread and dont know what going on...

Basically there are some people defending 300 has pure entertainment, and then there are others attacking 300 as rather unsubtle propaganda. That rather simple description doesn't display the complexities of both sides, but hopefully that shouldn't be a problem.

Foot

[Afro Thunder]

Sorry, but you flunk the class of Critical Media Consumership too. :shame:


You remind me of a certain soup shop owner from the sitcom Seinfeld. "You didn't follow proper soup-purchasing procedure! NO SOUP FOR YOU LOLZ!"

Edit: Just for the record, there were at least two scenes that I found absolutely hilarious: the scene where the Spartans push all the persians off the cliff, and the scene where they're finishing off the wounded soldiers. :laugh4:

[Watchman]

Failure to even attempt analysis is a failure of analysis. :shrug: No two ways about it.
:stare:
Plus I rather question your tastes, sir. Nay, I find them vulgar and disgusting. :artist:

[Afro Thunder]

Plus I rather question your tastes, sir. Nay, I find them vulgar and disgusting. :artist:

As a certain Kazakhstani journalist would say...

"Great success!"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/03/09/wborat.jpg

Ah, the joys of being an immature 18-year old fool. :D

[Count Belisarius]

You should probably take a look at the dictionary definition of gratuitous, but to save you the trouble I'll post the url:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gratuitous

I'm perfectly acquainted with the definition of the word "gratuitous," thanks much. To quote your own link, "being without apparent reason, cause, or justification." In the US, RTW is rated "'T" (for "Teen") by the Electronic Software Rating Board. The stated reason: "Violence." The violence in RTW is gratuitous. Perhaps not as gratuitous as in 300 (and certainly far less graphic), but gratuitous nonetheless. There is no "reason" or "justification" for the violence in RTW - other than to entertain. Just like in 300. CA could have made RTW far less violent, or even virtually nonviolent, and still provided an entertaining product. Take Europa Universalis, for example, a very deep and engaging game (in its time), where all the violence of conquest is strictly computer-controlled and implied. So where's your alleged "justification" now?

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. I see the comparison. You don't. I see the hypocrisy in those who complain about how violent 300 was, while at the same time reveling in RTW - a form of entertainment undeniably premised on fictional acts of purposeful (and gratuitous) violence. You don't. I didn't like the movie, and I won't recommend it to anyone ... but not because it was excessively (and gratuitously) violent.


In short, I disagree with you. One can enjoy RTW and still feel that 300 went way to far. The extent of the violence depicted in that film was done in the sake of "art" and thus glorified the violence.

That's the root of the problem with this whole debate. Arguing the merits of a piece of "art" is pointless. There was an "artist" in the US recently whose "work" consisted largely of smearing various Christian symbols and icons with cow excrement. In poor taste? That's putting it mildly. Offensive? You betcha. But who am I to judge what another person considers "art" - or even entertainment - so long as nobody is physically injured in the process? Whether 300 "went way to [sic] far" is purely a matter of personal opinion, and I prefer to be free to form my own.

[Count Belisarius]

"It gives you a totally skewed, biased and tendentious view of a historical event - but that's okay because it's entertainment and doesn't claim to be a documentary"
So not. You're engaging in apologist lawyer-speak &#224; la Clinton here you know; a pile of vile propaganda does not become any less so by the virtue of not specifically claiming to be a documentary. Whether it is succesful or not in spreading its message is equally irrelevant compared to the intent of doing so..
That's pretty much it, "so" yes. No express or implied claim to historical or factual accuracy = entertainment. Anyway, as far as propaganda goes, 300 is pretty silly and ineffective. Fahrenheit 9/11 is propaganda. Everything that comes out of George Bush's mouth is propaganda. 300 is just an inane, awful movie - pure entertainment. Then again, maybe Gladiator is Spanish nationalist propaganda, and Marcus Aurelius Commodus Antonius was killed in a sword fight in the Flavian Amphitheatre by an Iberian general named Maximus. You're so busy flaming, you're missing the underlying point. The less you talk about it, the sooner it will go away. Like Ricky Martin.

"But don't say that the movie shouldn't have been made, any more than violent video games (like RTW) shouldn't be made."
Strawmen. I fail to recall people insisting on such things here. Please do not assume positions to the opposition for your own rhetorical convenience.
Please be sure to read the thread before issuing instructions on how others should frame their rhetorical arguments:

Yes, and one of those things is that people nowadays apparently like to watch a movie that portrays another people as demons and see them die by the thousands by some machos. IMHO people who like this movie sould see a shrink. No offense intended. Btw, I am watchng the movie right now and I find it offensive to everything human.
All due respect to Mad Guitar's opinion, but it's not a far leap of logic from "300 is offensive to everything human" to "300 never should have been made." It's definitely implied.

On top of what Foot said, there's the little detail the rather sterile RTW violence does not have even a fraction of the emotional and subliminal effect an SFX-intense movie on a big screen in a dark theater has.
Sure thing. Because sterile, bloodless imaginary mass killing is far healthier for the fragile teenage psyche than graphic imaginary mass killing, right? Except with RTW, the violence goes on and on - not just for a couple of hours, but for days, weeks, even years (how long has RTW been out, and here we are still playing it?). Bonus: with RTW, you get to slaughter the PEOPLE of a BUNCH of different civilizations - not just some refugees from the Tolkein books! Please spare me the psycho-babble. The evidence linking on-screen violence and real-world violence is equivocal. Just one example: http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~sdellavi/wp/moviescrime06-07-31.pdf

Sorry, but you flunk the class of Critical Media Consumership too.
Funny, I don't remember signing up for that one, although it's core curriculum at the University of Narrow-Minded Condescension - Helsinki Campus. I hear the professor is tough. He also teaches "Smugness, Bombast and You" and "Your Friend the Conspiracy Theory" and "Western Civilization: REPENT."

[Tiberius Nero]

Just an addition, I find all this argument about how 300 is about the glorification of violence a bit off in the TOTAL WAR boards to be honest; if any of you are so annoyed by violence, what are you doing posting here anyway?

[Foot]

Just an addition, I find all this argument about how 300 is about the glorification of violence a bit off in the TOTAL WAR boards to be honest; if any of you are so annoyed by violence, what are you doing posting here anyway?

Did you read what I posted. Total War doesn't glorify violence, at least not to the extreme that 300 does. Indeed I'm not sure the in the hell total war glorifies it at all. If there was random slow motion sweeping shots of barbarian hordes being killed, then i could understand how one would draw the connection, but really, how the hell is violence anything but understated in TW games. Yes hundreds of people die in battle in TW games, but there is no sense of glory to it, indeed the random tangle bodies at the end of a battle is almost sad.

Just my opinion, but 300 uses violence to entertain the audience, TW uses violence to explain the rise and fall of kingdoms. Big difference in my opinion. And seeing as 300 is just full of unsubtle references to the current political climate, whilst not only playing on uninformed, and downright insulting stereotypes not only of Persians, but of eastern cultures in general, I would say that it loses out big time. I have no time for it, my love for Persian culture and for the greatness of Persian achievement is just too great.

Foot

[zonks32]

"insulting movie `300'", they must be very sensitive people to be insulted by a movie based on a comic.
The movie was "Entertainment", wether you liked the movie or not I could not care less, and Im not going to argue and try to change anyones opinion.
Has it got to the point where a movie must be "politically correct".
What part of the movie was considered insulting ?

[Watchman]

Funny, I don't remember signing up for that one,...I think that much has been pretty obvious for a while. Not that you've been doing too well telling apples from oranges either.

Around here the whole "active media readership" thingy is part of Junior High curriculum, incidentally.


All due respect to Mad Guitar's opinion, but it's not a far leap of logic from "300 is offensive to everything human" to "300 never should have been made." It's definitely implied.It's still a leap you made, not him. Ergo, strawman.


No express or implied claim to historical or factual accuracy = entertainment.Which doesn't excuse a thing by itself. Since when has "being entertainment" been a vaccine against being vile, tendentious garbage that does its best to promote a highly biased view of history ?


Anyway, as far as propaganda goes, 300 is pretty silly and ineffective.As already mentioned, its effectiveness or lack thereof is irrelevant compared to the intent.


You're so busy flaming, you're missing the underlying point. The less you talk about it, the sooner it will go away.This is wholly irrelevant to the topic. We were debating the (de)merits of the movie here, remember ? Analysing and all that ?


Sure thing. Because sterile, bloodless imaginary mass killing is far healthier for the fragile teenage psyche than graphic imaginary mass killing, right? Except with RTW, the violence goes on and on - not just for a couple of hours, but for days, weeks, even years (how long has RTW been out, and here we are still playing it?). Bonus: with RTW, you get to slaughter the PEOPLE of a BUNCH of different civilizations - not just some refugees from the Tolkein books! Please spare me the psycho-babble. The evidence linking on-screen violence and real-world violence is equivocal.Let me see now. In the red corner we have jerkily animated, not-exactly-photorealistic-looking little toy soldiers knocking each other down in your computer screen where most players will in any case be too busy actually directing their troops to watch the action up close most of the time, with no inherent moral judgement being passed one way or the other.

In the blue corner we have a CG-fest movie of the highest audiovisual quality the budget could buy where oiled musclemen "defending freedom and rationality" gorily slaughter endless hordes of faceless "foreign" minions of "mad tyrant" to a blood-pumping soundtrack, complete with over-sexed combat choreographies and all the rest that these days go into making action movies look "totally awesome", with a plot (or excuse thereof) that not only glorifies the violence but tries to tell it's okay because it's For The Right Thing By The Right People (recognizable by being the good-looking ones). Seen, preferably, in a dark movie theater on a huge screen with topnotch surround sound system for maximum sensory and emotional impact and minimum inclination to think.

If you indeed seriously try to tell me these are even remotely comparable, as you seem to, then I can only draw the conclusion you have just disqualified yourself from being taken seriously in this issue due to an obvious and persistent inability to tell the difference between a bicycle and a 18-wheeler truck.

Besides, RTW lets you change your POV to the "other guy" and start looking at the world from his perspective - all the while passing no judgement on which side, if any, is "right". It doesn't try to make statements about or with it, it merely presents the fact people in Antiquity did kill each other a lot to further their diverse ambitions.

[MiniMe]

...of "mad tyrant"...
Actually, that "mad tyrant" seems to be the only interesting character in the hole movie =)
Has some style, rides in glamorous vehicles, runs classy house-parties with goat-dj and sexy-models...
Oh, and one more thing: he tolerates invalids with respect!
My kind of good neighbor =)

The best episode was when Xerxex was standing behind Leonidas and whispering into his ear (both of them having this "youknow" smile on their faces): "It's not the lash they fear..."
I remember half of the audience laughing for five minutes at this gay-porn.

[Count Belisarius]

...
Good Lord, you need a hobby! In any case, I'm done trading barbs and beating my head against the brick wall of your convictions. :wall:

Let's just agree that, however repugnant the movie might be (to you, and as it happens, to me) in terms of aesthetics, artistry and historical accuracy, 300 is an extraordinary achievement from a purely technical standpoint: active production time of only 60 days, shot in chronological order using an entirely digital backdrop, with a relatively small budget of $60 million US, compared to its contemporaries like Superman Returns, X-Men: The Last Stand and King Kong, which averaged over $200 million US each, much less Titanic (a whopping $200 million US - in 1997 dollars).

And we'll disagree that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, however misguided.

[Modern Warrior]

It seems that in this day and age, we've developed a whole subculture of those that are looking for reasons to be offended and then go on a crusade against the offenders.

Don Imus is an excellent example. We have so many witch hunts going on, we'd put the people of Salem to shame.

I chose not to get involved in these causes or rail against those who do. It's like arguing with a pig. You give yourself a headache and annoy the pig.

[Tiberius Nero]

@Foot

The violence in RTW is not any better just because there isn't any blood shown, at least this is my opinion, it isn't the blood that makes the difference. Neither 300 nor RTW "glorify" violence for its own sake; in the former it is all about Freedom, Democracy and all that jazz that the goodies kill the baddies for, while in the latter things are just more realistic and cynical, there are hardly goodies or baddies you just have to kill the opponents to grab their resources so you can kill more of them and dominate the world. You say RTW is not about the glorification of violence, then what is it about, glorification of Imperialism achieved through violence? I mean which one is better here?

I just can't understand how people playing any sort of wargame can be allergic to depictions of violence in battle (not talking about sick crap like "Hostel" where the violence is just senseless). Even playing and enjoying something with as abstract representations of warfare as Civ or HOI (where all you can see is counters fighting other counters) would IMO show that one is a bit desensitized to depictions of violence in a war context. I mean, do you really need to show blood for something to be morally questionable in a war context, if there is such a thing as morality in a war context, to begin with? When I for example playing as the Soviet Union in HOI2 just throw troops at the Germans only to wear them down, knowing that I can afford to lose infinite amounts of men while they can't, that doesn't involve an awful lot of violence, just because you don't see every soldier shedding their blood?

P.S. I do get flabbergasted to see so many people say that they don't see the propaganda in the movie; I mean unless you are posting from some place in the world which hasn't had much meaningful communication with the Western world, like some village in the heart of a jungle, fine, but it is inconceivable for me that you can miss it, if you know how to use a keyboard in the first place.

[Miles Sueborum]

@Tiberius Nero
Very few here say that the violence it self is bad - they say it is bad how the violence is depicted...
At least if I got them right

@all
Though I have to ask - what is glorifying battle? To show people recieving a hit and imidietly die, without too much pain or any visable injury - or showing people getting pierced by Spears, getting cut open or losing their limps/heads and wounded who lie around and get stabbed to death, when they are defenseless?
I mean - why the hell is it glorifying to see legs cut off? Or to kill wounded on the ground? What a glorious deed! I thrusted my spear into someone who couldn't even walk and begged for his life!
The greeks also die - get their heads cut of, get butchered by immortals, get killed by arrows and so on...
Of course less Greeks die than Persians do in the movie - but to all who demand historical correctness from comic-based movie: At the Termopylae probably died more Persians than Greeks...

@Tiberius Nero again
And don't forget - it is based on a comic that came out before 9/11 -.-
In Lord of the Rings Mordor also is in the southeast - and men from the south and from the east fight for Sauron...
If you search for Propaganda you'll usually find it (Though I have to admit you often have to look harder than in 300)

[Grey_Fox]

I don't think there's much in the way of political overtones in 300 any more than there is in Die Hard or any of Steven Seagal's movies - it's just a thoroughbred action movie with the pure good guys against the evil bad guys, and it's a sad testament to the over-politicisation of the media that it is being seen as an allegory for 'the war on terror' or a propaganda movie. I could argue that it's portrayed Xerxes as Bush (wanting to take over the lands of the Greeks - wanting to take over the middle east and oil).

As for glorification of violence, I'm perfectly willing to admit that I like a good fight scene - Black Hawk Down is brilliant and I'm able to forgive Kingdom of Heaven for the battles in it - but none of that means I'm going to go out and shoot up my university to get a kick out of it.

[Foot]

I don't think there's much in the way of political overtones in 300 any more than there is in Die Hard or any of Steven Seagal's movies - it's just a thoroughbred action movie with the pure good guys against the evil bad guys, and it's a sad testament to the over-politicisation of the media that it is being seen as an allegory for 'the war on terror' or a propaganda movie. I could argue that it's portrayed Xerxes as Bush (wanting to take over the lands of the Greeks - wanting to take over the middle east and oil).

Firstly it is most certainly is not a leftist film, which is what would be required if Bush were to be represented as Xerxes with the desire for conquest. Indeed to see it as anything other than a defence of the war on terror requires blinkers in my opinion. Here we see the gallant greeks, defending the western ideals of liberty and democracy, against the incoming tide of persians, whose Immortals indicate a certain brainwashing, willing-to-die kind of behaviour. A film that sought to attack Bush would certainly never represent in a film as anyone other than someone from a western tradition, as a film that attacks Bush must also be a film that attacks western imperialism and imagined superiority. A far better stage for such a propagandist film would be the crusades, that emphasised the civility of the islamic east compared to the barbarism of the christian west. Quite frankly, were it the case (and I am not saying that you would argue this so) that Xerxes represented Bush and western imperialism, and Sparta represented the middle east, then I would have to say that those writers were entirely the most stupid, uncreative and downright ignorant prats I would ever have known. It wasn't, they aren't (though 300 certainly isn't subtle at all).



As for glorification of violence, I'm perfectly willing to admit that I like a good fight scene - Black Hawk Down is brilliant and I'm able to forgive Kingdom of Heaven for the battles in it - but none of that means I'm going to go out and shoot up my university to get a kick out of it.

Oh glorification of violence is well and good. Die hard is magnificent for this, but at the same time those films that focus on the violence don't ever take themselves too seriously. There is a light-heartedness to their portrayal of violence, the little quips the heroes make and all that. 300 on the other hand, takes itself far too seriously for a film that focuses on violence in such a way.

Foot

[Tiberius Nero]

@Tiberius Nero again
And don't forget - it is based on a comic that came out before 9/11 -.-

I have read the comic and I never said it or the movie are directly about the War on Terror; they are about the clash of Democratic Free Thinking West and Despotic Unenlightened East (Middle East at that), and that predates the War on Terror campaign.


Originally Posted by Grey_Fox
I don't think there's much in the way of political overtones in 300 any more than there is in Die Hard or any of Steven Seagal's movies - it's just a thoroughbred action movie with the pure good guys against the evil bad guys, and it's a sad testament to the over-politicisation of the media that it is being seen as an allegory for 'the war on terror' or a propaganda movie. I could argue that it's portrayed Xerxes as Bush (wanting to take over the lands of the Greeks - wanting to take over the middle east and oil).

1. The Spartans in 300 (comic and movie) are represented as upholding Freedom against Despotism. Freedom is associated with the West since time immemorial and Despotism with the East.
2. The Spartans are represented in 300 (comic and movie) as defenders of Reason against the Irrational and Mysticism, associated since long ago the former with the West, the latter with the East.
3. The Persians are coming from the East (for crying out loud) to invade the bastion of Western civilization, Greece itself.

I mean there is such a thing like looking too hard to find something you want to be there and there is such a thing like not paying a bit of attention to what people say on paper or screen or simply not wanting to admit what is before your eyes. I am not doing the former, you are doing the latter.

[Grey_Fox]

Quite frankly, were it the case (and I am not saying that you would argue this so) that Xerxes represented Bush and western imperialism, and Sparta represented the middle east, then I would have to say that those writers were entirely the most stupid, uncreative and downright ignorant prats I would ever have known. It wasn't, they aren't (though 300 certainly isn't subtle at all).

You're right, I don't think that Bush is Xerxes, I just think 300 is an action movie, and a pretty good one at that.



1. The Spartans in 300 (comic and movie) are represented as upholding Freedom against Despotism. Freedom is associated with the West since time immemorial and Despotism with the East.
2. The Spartans are represented in 300 (comic and movie) as defenders of Reason against the Irrational and Mysticism, associated since long ago the former with the West, the latter with the East.
3. The Persians are coming from the East (for crying out loud) to invade the bastion of Western civilization, Greece itself.

And this has been the premise for almost every Van Damme, Seagal, Shwartzenegger, Willis etc film for decades.

[Watchman]

Yeah, well, those tend not score too high on Enlightenment either. But at least most of them aren't subversively political and ethnocentrist.

More rah-rah gung-ho stupid if anything.

Although post Cold War and pre 9/11, haven't the standard bad guys been the likes of third-world banana-republic dictators, druglords, crackpot western terrorists, space aliens, killer robots, corrupt cops and so on since the Commies were kinda passé...?

[Foot]

Although post Cold War and pre 9/11, haven't the standard bad guys been the likes of third-world banana-republic dictators, druglords, crackpot western terrorists, space aliens, killer robots, corrupt cops and so on since the Commies were kinda passé...?

That is a bit unfair, all these action movies do use enemies that are (imagined or otherwise) effecting the contemporary world. During the cold war days it was the russkies, during the war on drugs days it was the colombian coke barons, and now, post 9/11 it is the islamic fundamentalist terrorists. My main beef with 300 is that it takes itself so seriously, as if it is saying something important. Its propagandist crap would be far less offensive if it just behaved like every other action movie and took the piss everyonce in a while, but 300 stands there bold as day and proclaims itself as meaningful.

Foot

[aecp]

That is a bit unfair, all these action movies do use enemies that are (imagined or otherwise) effecting the contemporary world. During the cold war days it was the russkies, during the war on drugs days it was the colombian coke barons, and now, post 9/11 it is the islamic fundamentalist terrorists. My main beef with 300 is that it takes itself so seriously, as if it is saying something important. Its propagandist crap would be far less offensive if it just behaved like every other action movie and took the piss everyonce in a while, but 300 stands there bold as day and proclaims itself as meaningful.

Foot

That's true, but isn't that the case with just about any sword-swinging epic? The reason why it feels so wrong in 300 is because the movie is so goddammed tacky. A popcorn flick shouldn't pretend to be something it's not.

[Watchman]

That is a bit unfair, all these action movies do use enemies that are (imagined or otherwise) effecting the contemporary world. During the cold war days it was the russkies, during the war on drugs days it was the colombian coke barons, and now, post 9/11 it is the islamic fundamentalist terrorists.Well, I was really adressing Fox's "And this has been the premise for almost every Van Damme, Seagal, Shwartzenegger, Willis etc film for decades" line - off the top of my head I can't recall "nutty rag-'eads" being a very common villain in witless pre-9/11 action flicks contrary to what he claims.


The reason why it feels so wrong in 300 is because the movie is so goddammed tacky. A popcorn flick shouldn't pretend to be something it's not.IMO 300 tries to make a statement or a few. That's what graduates it from "silly testosterone action film" to "vile propaganda" in my books.

I don't think you could locate much of a statement in, say, Conan the Barbarian or Predator even if you disassembled it in a particle accelerator...

[Sarcasm]

What strikes me as odd, for a person of such intelligence is that you cannot disassociate the propagandistic overtones and reduce the film to what it really is, essentially a non-PC action movie, not what it tries to be. You recognize them, you know where those elements are, and what they consist of and you can abstract yourself from them.

Heck go see it, just for kicks and maybe even you'll even enjoy it as a silly testosterone action movie.


On a lighter tone...

http://mtvmovieawards.yahoo.com/spoofs/United300/110883

[Watchman]

Knowingly ignoring the nasty propaganda part is one thing. Claiming it isn't there to begin with is entirely another, as is claiming it doesn't matter.

Plus I have some standards for my silly action flicks.

[Afro Thunder]

I bet if you were around in the '40s you would be up in arms about the various anti-Axis Bugs Bunny cartoons and Three Stooges shorts. (which are in fact propaganda. I won't deny that)

[Jesus_saves]

It seems that in this day and age, we've developed a whole subculture of those that are looking for reasons to be offended and then go on a crusade against the offenders.

Don Imus is an excellent example. We have so many witch hunts going on, we'd put the people of Salem to shame.

I chose not to get involved in these causes or rail against those who do. It's like arguing with a pig. You give yourself a headache and annoy the pig.

I'm offended by this! :furious3:

[Watchman]

I bet if you were around in the '40s you would be up in arms about the various anti-Axis Bugs Bunny cartoons and Three Stooges shorts. (which are in fact propaganda. I won't deny that)Already on general principles, yes.

I don't really see where this is one bit relevant though.

[Afro Thunder]

You should know by now that my specialty is personal attacks. Whether or not it's relevant is irrelevant; what is relevant is that you get annoyed.

[Foot]

You should know by now that my specialty is personal attacks. Whether or not it's relevant is irrelevant; what is relevant is that you get annoyed.

Ah so your would be one of those people it is best to ignore. Gotcha!

Foot

[Grey_Fox]

Well, I was really adressing Fox's "And this has been the premise for almost every Van Damme, Seagal, Shwartzenegger, Willis etc film for decades" line - off the top of my head I can't recall "nutty rag-'eads" being a very common villain in witless pre-9/11 action flicks contrary to what he claims.

Delta Force films, Navy Seals, etc. Using middle eastern people in films as the bad guys is nothing new.

[aecp]

IMO 300 tries to make a statement or a few. That's what graduates it from "silly testosterone action film" to "vile propaganda" in my books.

I don't think you could locate much of a statement in, say, Conan the Barbarian or Predator even if you disassembled it in a particle accelerator...

Statements such as "all brown people are evil and must be destroyed"? I think that's stretching it a bit. 300 is a very stupid movie, written by a hack who's characters are always completely one-dimensional. That combined with the faux-seriousness of 300, I think is the reason why some people are mistaking it for propaganda. Basically I think the reasons why some people find this offensive is because:

1. Frank Miller is an idiot. Seriously, he's as unfair to the other Greeks as he is to the Persians or Asians. Just in a different way. I think this stems from his warped (mis)understanding of antiquity in general.

2. Snyder not giving a shit, just wanting to do a cool-looking movie. The impression that I've gotten of Snyder from interviews is that he's just a stoner who couldn't care less about message or statement.

3. PC. This movie is completely devoid of it. I think that people these days are way to sensitive. What did you expect this movie to be, Kingdom of Heaven?

With all that said i absolutely hated this movie and think that people should be upset with it, just for different reasons. First of all it's a shitty movie in it's own right. No plot, bad acting and repetitive action. Secondly, the battle of Thermopylai deserves so much better than a hack like Frank Miller, who can't write for shit, and greenscreens. It's just the same as it was with Troy, Hollywood takes one of the greatest stories ever told and turns it into dime-a-dozen dreck. This movie is Alexander Nevsky for retards who are impressed by shiny spinning things.

[Foot]

Statements such as "all brown people are evil and must be destroyed"? I think that's stretching it a bit.

That is stretching it, certainly. What isn't a stretch of the imagination is that this movie come at a time when America's war on terror is looking damn sketchy and this little baby of a movie is all about the "Spartans" defending freedom, democracy and all that jazz against the hordes of persian/iranians. And of course in the modern mindset, which America nor this film even attempt islam is firmly synonymous with iran/persia. In fact I would imagine that a lot of people (not just americans) have no idea what the difference is between arabs and arabia (where islam came from) and iranians and iran/persia.

But quite frankly I couldn't care less, I don't like this film because persia is betrayed in the most stupid and insulting way possible. The entire race and empire are invariably seen as either cowards or sado-maschoists. If you enjoy 300, fine. I really have no desire to ever see it.

Foot

[Grey_Fox]

Ah come on, why are you judging something without actually seeing it yourself? As a person working on the historically-accurate EB surely you should realise the danger of relying purely on secondary and tertiary sources without looking at the original thing yourself.

For one, I liked the film. Sure I was snickering at the 'fighting for freedom and logic' speech, but I enjoyed the rest of the film.

[Foot]

Well from that logic, applied to its extremes, all acts must be considered equal and unjudged before they are experiences. Ever taken heroine, killed a man, flown an aeroplane whilst blindfolded? We make judgements on many things without experiencing them, and many of them are not unreasonable. I have seen how they have portrayed the persians, and I am not impressed. I have no reason to waste money or time on watching something that I find offensive and insulting, one-sided and really rather pointless. I have no doubt that the combat in it would be rather enjoyable to watch, but I don't out of respect for a culture that deserves much more than what the film gives them. You may of course retort that my position is hypocritical as I have watched many films in which there have been enemies who have been portrayed as evil. But I would answer that never in my entire life have I watched a film in which an entire culture has been turned into a monstrous, cowardly horde of slaves and decadent mutants. To be frank 300 portrays the persians much in the same way as any other movie would portray aliens, lacking any human character or emotion, beyond our own sympathy or empathy and beyond any ability to connect.

Why I don't go to see 300? For the same reason you wouldn't go and see a nazi propagandist film about Jews for entertainment. The degradation of an entire race to amuse and reaffirm the superiority of another. Thats how I feel about the film. You may well respond that I should see it for the same reason one may want to see a nazi propagandist film, for educational reasons. Yet I find nothing educational about the film, whilst it may well contain propagandist material, certainly its main approach is to entertain, and there is nothing educational about seeing a film that degrades a culture for the amusement of its patrons.

Foot

[aecp]

That is stretching it, certainly. What isn't a stretch of the imagination is that this movie come at a time when America's war on terror is looking damn sketchy and this little baby of a movie is all about the "Spartans" defending freedom, democracy and all that jazz against the hordes of persian/iranians. And of course in the modern mindset, which America nor this film even attempt islam is firmly synonymous with iran/persia. In fact I would imagine that a lot of people (not just americans) have no idea what the difference is between arabs and arabia (where islam came from) and iranians and iran/persia.

Foot

Sure, but when wouldn't it have been a suspect time to release this movie, since America have been in a state of conflict of some kind with of with various representatives of the part of the world that according to your criteria could be confused the Persian empire for the last 30 years or more?

Personally I think the timing of this movie has more to do with the success of Sin City than anything else.

As for the whole Spartans "defending democracy and freedom", that's just Miller being an idiot. I'm sure that to him, the Spartans represent all the manly virtues that can be found in all his heroes while just about everyone else is weak/decadent/evil. I posted an interview with him in another 300 thread where he contrasted the greatness of Sparta with the complacency of Athens and Rome!!! The man is a goddammed fool, that's all there is to it.

And his portrayal of the Persians and Asians is just par for the course when it comes to him. All his villains are disgusting and loathsome to some degree.

[Foot]

I am not saying in anyway that this film was released for the sole reason of defending the war on terror or the war in iraq (too seperate things in my opinion). But neither is it impossible to see that creative elements of the film may well have been treated so as to aide in public opinion on the war in the middle east. I'm not saying that this has anything to do with the white-house or the current administration, but I suspect that Miller and/or people on the production team for the film have sympathies for american foreign policy in the middle east. The film and comic can both be interpretated as such, and their timing is perfect, as public opinion falls for the war in iraq. Or do you think that Hollywood has no political agenda at all?

Foot

[aecp]

I am not saying in anyway that this film was released for the sole reason of defending the war on terror or the war in iraq (too seperate things in my opinion). But neither is it impossible to see that creative elements of the film may well have been treated so as to aide in public opinion on the war in the middle east. I'm not saying that this has anything to do with the white-house or the current administration, but I suspect that Miller and/or people on the production team for the film have sympathies for american foreign policy in the middle east. The film and comic can both be interpretated as such, and their timing is perfect, as public opinion falls for the war in iraq. Or do you think that Hollywood has no political agenda at all?

Foot

Yes, but then again you could blame this movie for supporting just about anything. How about exchanging support for the war in Iraq/against terror for the conflict over Irans nuclear program. Or since the comic was made 1998, why not bring the embassy bombings or operation Desert Fox into the mix?

Miller's comments on terrorism reveal a considerable antipathy towards islam and fundamentalism. But I don't see what that has to do with 300. The conflict between Sparta and Persia in the comic isn't brought about or maintained by religious extremism.

And yes, Hollywood has many agendas. But more often than not Hollywood is accused of being dominated by liberal elitists. Hollywood hasn't really rallied behind president Bush in my opinion.

I think this whole debate just takes focus from what everyone should be pissed about, that 300 is an EXTREMELY shitty movie and that Hollywood has yet again taken a massive dump on antiquity as a subject that for some reason doesn't deserve better treatment. The Persians were portrayed in a horrible way, that is true, but so was everything else in 300. If it had been the Germanic tribes (as in Gladiator) or the Saxons (as in King Arthur), no-one would have cared. Both of the above were portrayed as brutal savages without redeeming qualities, but who cares? They're white, aren't they? But when it comes to the Persians suddenly people are up in arms.

[Ardu]

I think we had already come to a more or less general consensus that '300' is an extremely shitty movie after page 5, since then we were discussing if it had any other merits or demerits and wether it can be classified as propaganda...

[Grey_Fox]

Since I don't think it's crap, no consensus has been reached at this point in time.

[Miles Sueborum]

I agree - I also like the movie

[Boyar Son]

Yeah, that movie has some good action, and I dont think anyone but Iranian cared that the evil guys were persian.

Nope nobody really cared...

[Watchman]

Haven't we already gone over that several times now ?

[Boyar Son]

Haven't we already gone over that several times now ?


Well according to you (guys), not enough!

[Big_John]

a lot of discussion about such a boring movie. why?

[Watchman]

Because a surprising lot of people seem to be in the opinion that the equivalent of the depiction of Africans in those old Tarzan films is right OK and unproblematic in a 21st century mainstream movie.

[Big_John]

yeah, that's true of a lot of hollywood movies produced now-a-days. aren't people properly cynical yet?
:shrug:

[abou]

And you know, it's funny because people claim that a clear opposite to the main character(s) needs to be maintained otherwise people won't follow the movie or get bored. This seems to be important for apologetics of the movie; yet, the Column of Trajan, in its portrayl of the Dacians as a noble people, throws that theory to the ground and then proceeds to piss on it.

[geala]

The problem with 300 has to do with the reception of the movie. It is fantasy and fiction, quite unhistorical fiction, so one could argue: "Why feel the Iranians etc. insulted?", no reason for that.

One reason may be a certain hypersensitivity. I don't want to discuss this.

Another reason may be that despite the fact the movie has a lot of fantasy, it could easily be interpreted in a metaphorical sense. So the feeling remains that a evil Persian nature should be depicted in the movie. And that would be insulting.

I am not sure wether the movie has this intention but the interpretation is not far away. And that alone is a bad thing.

I am convinced that a more historically correct movie with normal Persians - even if it would have shown a real invasion and some cruel Persian deeds (sry, it was not a "counterattack" if one will not stick with very cursory arguments) - would not have caused this riot.


As a German I would like to compare two movies as an example: "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan". I like both movies but I feel a bit uncomfortable (although I'm not insulted:beam: ) with the evil German in "Saving Private Ryan" - one could take it as an archetype, message: every German is as bad. The reason is that the evil nature of the one German is not necessary so an interpretation is inevitable why he is shown in that certain way.
In "Schindler's List" the Germans commit a lot of cruel crimes but that is not a problem of interpretation. I know they did it and it is totally correct that it is shown in that way, it is not an insult but a fact told in a movie about that crimes. If it tells us something about the Germans or any human being one has to deal with it.

Another example is "The Patriot" (ok, I don't like any Gibson movie). I got rather upset about the design of the English.

Could unfortunately be continued. People like simple things and movies are for people, so...

[aecp]

Because a surprising lot of people seem to be in the opinion that the equivalent of the depiction of Africans in those old Tarzan films is right OK and unproblematic in a 21st century mainstream movie.

Jesus Christ. This is a fantasy movie. Complaining that it's racist makes as much sense as accusing Lord of the Rigns of the same (which incidentally, some people did). How oversensitive and politically correct can you get. I remember that some critics accused Troy of being racist against the Trojans(!!!). So vilifying the antagonists is A-Ok as long as they're white, but god help you if they're even tanned or have dark hair. Frankly I'm far more annoyed by, say, Mel Gibson's portrayal of the Brittish in Braveheart or The Patriot since those movies have a pretense of truthfulness that 300 completely lacks.


And you know, it's funny because people claim that a clear opposite to the main character(s) needs to be maintained otherwise people won't follow the movie or get bored. This seems to be important for apologetics of the movie; yet, the Column of Trajan, in its portrayl of the Dacians as a noble people, throws that theory to the ground and then proceeds to piss on it.

First of all, apologetics? And you have to consider the target demographic and artistic (HA!) intentions of the movie in question. The first is obviously the teenager/fratboy demographic and the second is ripped men in thongs spinning in slow-mo. Do you seriously expect such a movie to be concerned with portraying the villains fairly? And what does Trajan's Column have to do with anything? I have a hard time seeing the relevance of comparing a mindless popcorn-flick to a nearly 2000 years old monument. I hardly think the creators of the two had the same intentions.


Another example is "The Patriot" (ok, I don't like any Gibson movie). I got rather upset about the design of the English.

Could unfortunately be continued. People like simple things and movies are for people, so...

Didn't you get the memo? As long as the people being vilified are white it's no problem. But if the people in question reside(d) east of the Aegean or south of the Mediterranean you better put on those silk gloves and pay homage to the greatness of their culture, no matter what kind of movie you're trying to make.

[Tiberius Nero]

I for one don't see racism in the movie, its bias is cultural/political. I don't think anyone can seriously claim that it is racist, the Persians in the movie are the degraded beasts they are because of the ideology they stand for, not because they are born Persians, or Easterners.

And Persians are classified as white (they are the Aryans after all), never mind that half of them in the movie are black for some reason.

[Ardu]

Except for a handful here, who are still arguing that '300' is a good film, I think most of us agreed that this film is crap and we have already heard sufficient arguments to support this statement...

Now about the '300' is propaganda part, I just checked this film on www.imdb.com and this was the very first comment on 300 there:


*'300' is a totally riveting masterpiece of film making. Zack Snyder, inspired by the graphic novel, has brought a 2487 year-old news story to life with people you really care about who are faced with choices between compromise and war that are all too familiar today.

The breath-taking CGI images are flawlessly integrated with the live action. All the actors are excellent in their roles, and Butler IS Leonidas.

The sound design is excellent. The score was recorded by the London Phil with a full chorus and is beautiful to listen to, but is very reminiscent of 'Gladiator' which detracts from the otherwise total originality of the film.

This movie integrates the potentials of film-making and story-telling in a wonderful new way that is the best of both entertainment and artistic achievement.*

Especially: *has brought a 2487 year-old news story to life with people you really care about who are faced with choices between compromise and war that are all too familiar today.*

I rest my case on the *This film is propaganda* part...

[aecp]

Except for a handful here, who are still arguing that '300' is a good film, I think most of us agreed that this film is crap and we have already heard sufficient arguments to support this statement...

Now about the '300' is propaganda part, I just checked this film on www.imdb.com and this was the very first comment on 300 there:

Especially: *has brought a 2487 year-old news story to life with people you really care about who are faced with choices between compromise and war that are all too familiar today.*

I rest my case on the *This film is propaganda* part...

You rest your case!? Based on comment written by some random anonymous idiot on the internet that had nothing to do with the making of the movie!? So if I were to write a comment on, say, Apocalypse Now calling it vile pro-American propaganda that would settle it for you? IMDB is notorious for the aggressive stupidity of it's users, sometimes almost equaling the quality of the average youtube-comment.

https://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w177/aecp99/docevil04-09-06_37.gif

https://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w177/aecp99/docevil04-09-06_27.gif

Truly a bastion of thoughtful insight!

[Ardu]

You rest your case!? Based on comment written by some random anonymous idiot on the internet that had nothing to do with the making of the movie!? So if I were to write a comment on, say, Apocalypse Now calling it vile pro-American propaganda that would settle it for you? IMDB is notorious for the aggressive stupidity of it's users, sometimes almost equaling the quality of the average youtube-comment.

https://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w177/aecp99/docevil04-09-06_37.gif

https://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w177/aecp99/docevil04-09-06_27.gif

Truly a bastion of thoughtful insight!

Exactly, most people aren't as intelligent or well-informed as most of the people on this forum are, but they still hold the right to vote. So films like this do have an influence on voters and as such on politics, wether conscious or unconscious...

[Conradus]

Except for a handful here, who are still arguing that '300' is a good film, I think most of us agreed that this film is crap and we have already heard sufficient arguments to support this statement...


De gustibus et coloribus non est disputandum.That said, I didn't consider this film bad. It did exactly what it set out to do: entertain those who want to watch it as entertainment. I watched it with some friends and we had a nice time.

[Plebian#10]

I have not met an Iranian that I did not like - people are people - not governments. Most people can get along just fine until disinformation gets circulated which then starts polarization (all part of the propaganda machine run by who - the governments).
I watched the 300 and thought it was OK. I knew that it would demonize the Persians and I also know that the Persians during this time were more civilized socially and politically than the Greeks (no slam intended against the Greeks) but the Persians did not decide a infants fate at the time of birth like the Spartans did, let alone leaving them to die if they were unfit for life.
This was a Greek story told by Greeks - why is anyone surprised of the portrayal of their arch enemy the Persians.

[Miles Sueborum]

Except for a handful here, who are still arguing that '300' is a good film, I think most of us agreed that this film is crap and we have already heard sufficient arguments to support this statement...

So the opinion of those who argue it is a good movie is worth nothing and they (we) never brought any acceptable argument? Good to know...


As a German I would like to compare two movies as an example: "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan". I like both movies but I feel a bit uncomfortable (although I'm not insulted ) with the evil German in "Saving Private Ryan" - one could take it as an archetype, message: every German is as bad.

Hm - I think you are refering to the guy they captured at the radarstation and who was finally executed? He isn't really portrayed as evil, I think (though that might have been intended). I mean - try to look at the situation from his perspective: The Americans are acting behind enemy lines and Miller orders him to go to the next allied POW camp...
This means he will probably have to to pass German lines....
In the final battle he fights alongside SS-men - so he probably ran into these guys on his way. What should he have done? Saying: "Excuse me, Sturmführer, I unfortunatly can't acompany you because an American Captain told me to surrender..."?
Not an good idea if he likes to live ^^

[Watchman]

Jesus Christ. This is a fantasy movie. Complaining that it's racist makes as much sense as accusing Lord of the Rigns of the same (which incidentally, some people did). How oversensitive and politically correct can you get. I remember that some critics accused Troy of being racist against the Trojans(!!!). So vilifying the antagonists is A-Ok as long as they're white, but god help you if they're even tanned or have dark hair. Frankly I'm far more annoyed by, say, Mel Gibson's portrayal of the Brittish in Braveheart or The Patriot since those movies have a pretense of truthfulness that 300 completely lacks.
---
Didn't you get the memo? As long as the people being vilified are white it's no problem. But if the people in question reside(d) east of the Aegean or south of the Mediterranean you better put on those silk gloves and pay homage to the greatness of their culture, no matter what kind of movie you're trying to make.In the case you forgot, I previously specifically singled out Gibson's crappy nationalist and Brit-hating movies as comparable cases...


I for one don't see racism in the movie, its bias is cultural/political. I don't think anyone can seriously claim that it is racist, the Persians in the movie are the degraded beasts they are because of the ideology they stand for, not because they are born Persians, or Easterners.

And Persians are classified as white (they are the Aryans after all), never mind that half of them in the movie are black for some reason.Given that "evil comes from the East" is pretty much one of the core building blocks of the whole damn plot, I'd say it matters fairly little if the Easterners were purple. The racism, or rather ethnocentrism, in the movie is not so much based on specific nationality and ethnicity as on a "the West vs. the Rest" duality, where the former - represented by the Greeks in general and the Spartans in particular - get to represent what really amount to "good old American values" and the latter - summed up as "Persians", "all the hordes of Asia" in one line at least - the negation of those values and duly everything vile and oppressive and whatnot.

In other words, crazy Easterners are assailing the very roots of human civilization as we (or rather, Miller et Co...) know it and it is up to Real Men(tm) to make sacrifices and if necessary do bad things to save it.
:dizzy2:
No cheap populist commentary on current events here, nosirree.

While the Iranians specifically are presumably honked off because they identify themselves with ancient Persia (the actual legitimacy of this being irrelevant here), about anyone from between the Bosphorus and Indus Valley could hardly be faulted for being a tad miffed about the whole thing.

[Tiberius Nero]

This was a Greek story told by Greeks - why is anyone surprised of the portrayal of their arch enemy the Persians.

Because we actually have portrayals of the story by Greeks and they don't look one bit like 300. Read the "Persians" of Aeschylus to see how on the one hand Greek victory is celebrated all the while showing considerable sympathy for the plight of the enemy. The scene is the Persian court, when the news of the defeat arrive. Not one Greek is present on stage. Everything is shown from the Persian point of view. And this was written by a man who fought against the Persians in Salamis.

Let's not hear that argument again, that 300 somehow is kosher, because this is how Greeks saw their enemies, it doesn't hold a drop of water.

EDIT: Watchman, I don't disagree with what you say, as I have said it is indeed about "West vs East" and everything those stand for in popular perception of them; I just responded to some attack on a point no one has seriously maintained here.

[Watchman]

Hm - I think you are refering to the guy they captured at the radarstation and who was finally executed? He isn't really portrayed as evil, I think (though that might have been intended). I mean - try to look at the situation from his perspective: The Americans are acting behind enemy lines and Miller orders him to go to the next allied POW camp...
This means he will probably have to to pass German lines....
In the final battle he fights alongside SS-men - so he probably ran into these guys on his way. What should he have done? Saying: "Excuse me, Sturmführer, I unfortunatly can't acompany you because an American Captain told me to surrender..."?
Not an good idea if he likes to live ^^The silly Yankees should have shot him in the primary arm, treated the wound, and then pointed him towards the Allied lines. That way even if he got picked up by German troops along the way he'd still have been hors de combat...

[Miles Sueborum]

Let's not hear that argument again, that 300 somehow is kosher, because this is how Greeks saw their enemies, it doesn't hold a drop of water.
There were Greeks and there were Greeks...
Greeks who liked Persians and Greek who hated them...
Greeks who could be fair about an enemy and Greeks who couldn't

Of course this is probably like Greeks saw the war - some greeks...
Other Greeks of course might have had a completely diffrent view of things...

[Watchman]

That's not a very solid house of cards you're building there.

[Miles Sueborum]

Wait! I don't want to say: "The film is good because it shows the events as some greeks saw it!"
That indeed would be a poor argument - I know.
All I was saying is: From one source you can not say how a people (or a group of peoples) percepted an event...

[Tiberius Nero]

There were Greeks and there were Greeks...
Greeks who liked Persians and Greek who hated them...
Greeks who could be fair about an enemy and Greeks who couldn't

Of course this is probably like Greeks saw the war - some greeks...
Other Greeks of course might have had a completely diffrent view of things...

I brought my proof, you bring yours. The man who wrote the "Persians" fought against them. The "Persians" weren't a novel to be read by Athenian leftists and intellectuals, it was a play shown on stage to be watched by all Athenian citizens. Show me one piece of art that depicts a Persian as a subhuman monster and I might start seeing that theory as remotely valid.

[Ardu]

Wait! I don't want to say: "The film is good because it shows the events as some greeks saw it!"
That indeed would be a poor argument - I know.
All I was saying is: From one source you can not say how a people (or a group of peoples) percepted an event...

Yes, in this case if you wanted to construct something near an objective view you would take in account Greek sources, Persian sources and neutral sources. We have a serious lack of neutral and Persian sources about this event so that leaves us with Greek sources. This film goes way way further than any of the Greek sources, so that brings me to the conclusion this film is total bs...

[mucky305]

I'm totally lost on this one. My opinion is that if the education system in this country (US) worried more about teaching math, science, and literature instead of sex ed and sensitivity classes maybe people here would start thinking outside the herd and we wouldn't have to worry about whether a movie based on a comic book influences foreign policy. I liked the movie personally but it wasn't based on the politics, but then I liked T2 soooo......

I'm kind of shocked this is so divisive. I hear many countries say that the US is an imperialist state, but I don't see anyone from the US government making a statement about what a horrible classification it is even though it's an outright lie. A hegemony yes, imperialist no. It seems to me that Iranian foreign policy seems to consist of alot of the same nonsense that Hitler's Germany perpetrated. Glorification of the past empire, doing whatever despite the condemnation of a confederation of nations, repressive social policy, etc. It's a stinkin' movie!

[Miles Sueborum]

I brought my proof, you bring yours. The man who wrote the "Persians" fought against them. The "Persians" weren't a novel to be read by Athenian leftists and intellectuals, it was a play shown on stage to be watched by all Athenian citizens. Show me one piece of art that depicts a Persian as a subhuman monster and I might start seeing that theory as remotely valid.
Again - very few persians are depicted as monsters - Xerxes (somehow), the immortals and the executor - they are depicted as weak fighters...
And Herodot is the Greek who told the story of more than 1.000.000.000 Persians who are unable to fight down comparable few Greeks for 3 days...

[Tiberius Nero]

You forgot the goatman, the chained ogre and the mutant chicks in Xerxes' tent. And implying that the Greeks were better fighters or that the Persians were cowards or were worse fighters than the Greek hoplites is not on the same level as depicting the Persians as the Horde of Hell.

[Afro Thunder]

Well, there's also the soldiers with the weird claw weapons. (any body else notice that? You can see them in this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lW9gw5TwxE) clip, at around 1 minute in) First time I noticed that, I looked like this guy -> :dizzy2:

At least, I hope those are just claw weapons, and not part of their arms....

[Grey_Fox]

Looks like the arms were removed and the 'cleavers' attached.

Agreed, at times I thought the Persian army would have been better used in lord of the rings, but I still enjoyed the film.

[Miles Sueborum]

You forgot the goatman, the chained ogre and the mutant chicks in Xerxes' tent. And implying that the Greeks were better fighters or that the Persians were cowards or were worse fighters than the Greek hoplites is not on the same level as depicting the Persians as the Horde of Hell."

The "ogre" I counted to the Immortals - but sorry for the goatman ;)
And again - most Persians were depicted as ordinary human beings - and men who are too afraid to advance don't seem all too demonic to me.
And what about the greeks? They also had their mutants. They had ephialtes (the traitor) and those men in the temple...
Of course now could be argued that these were traitors and no "real" greeks or something like that - but look at it from this way: The Persians had no traitors in their ranks...

[Boyar Son]

Um I dont think muslim extremist will go away even if the U.S. backs down, they'll keep hitting the west for one reason or another.


OR, the west backs down (which is extremely wussy) and the mid east thinks they're victorious and go back to living their life.

Did I get this topic on target?

[Zaknafien]

OR, the west backs down (which is extremely wussy)


:laugh4: thats got to be the best quote I've seen all week. Almost good enough to make into a sigline.

That's probably the best example of why most of the world hates Americans. And did you ever stop to think, there's actual reasons the islamic extremists don't like us?

[Watchman]

The Persians had no traitors in their ranks...And what's that say to you about their overall depiction ?

Answers other than something to the effect of "unthinking hordes" don't get a cookie. In other words, "the Enemy" are denied even the capacity for dissent and, thus, presumably individual (or at the very least certain degree of critical/rational) thought... The tie-in to Miller et Co's political opinions oughta be fairly obvious.

Well, K COSSACK helpfully demonstrated more or less what I'm talking about. On top of what Zak said. But let's not stray too far into Backroom territory here, 'k ?

[geala]

I don't like 300 and I don't like bashing Islam or the Muslims as it is done nowadays sometimes. But...

That said I'm a bit anxious about what you implied, Zaknafien. Maybe it's just my bad English. Should the west (which is not the USA but the western way of life containing not only exploitation, greed for oil and a sometimes cynical capitalism but also human rights, equality, democracy, laicysm and so on) really back down? I don't think so.

I will stop because this would be a modern discussion and this is EB forum.

[Miles Sueborum]

And what's that say to you about their overall depiction ?

Answers other than something to the effect of "unthinking hordes" don't get a cookie. In other words, "the Enemy" are denied even the capacity for dissent and, thus, presumably individual (or at the very least certain degree of critical/rational) thought... The tie-in to Miller et Co's political opinions oughta be fairly obvious.

Well, K COSSACK helpfully demonstrated more or less what I'm talking about. On top of what Zak said. But let's not stray too far into Backroom territory here, 'k ?

Hm - so when they lack good fighting abilities and courage they are depicted in a derogatory way - and when they lack treachery they are also depicted in a derogatory way?
To be honest - that doesn't sound very sensible to me...