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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mad Guitar Murphy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MastaSpoofa

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MastaSpoofa

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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...

---

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)...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mad Guitar Murphy

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'.

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...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

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.

: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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mad Guitar Murphy

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mad Guitar Murphy

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

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?

Thanks for eloquently making my point Watchman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

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.)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mad Guitar Murphy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mad Guitar Murphy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

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

---

I'm a details nazi, of course.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

No - it might be a tolerable movie.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

: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.

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.

Quote:

---

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