EB poll of '300'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xtiaan72

Come on! Saying the movie is pure entertainment and not a historical film is not true. You know that for many kids, going out to see this movie is as close as they will ever get to opening a history book on the subject. So by basing it on a historical event and then distorting that event to the point of mockery, they do their target audience a dis-service.

---

it is a a graphic novel adaptation, the film was striving to be a faithful representation of the graphic novel rather than a "historical" film. In this aim they were deffinately successful.

the historical element only comes in indirectly, as in the fact that it was based on a graphical novel which was loosely based on a historical event.

frank miller certainly wasnt attempting to portray history accurately, and I believe he says soemthing along those lines in the indtroduction to the graphic novel. He was more intersted in certain ideas and concepts which appealed to him, and he amplified those to make a intersting/entertaining graphic novel.

could those who are claiming the movie is propoganda please explicietly state what they believe the propoganda message of the film is.

if they think it is anti-iranian i should point out that i believe that most people, and in particular most americans would not make the association between iran and persia, i.e they dont realise that they are roughly the same place

All this from a simple "like it or not question", I don't know why you bother, no body will change anyones opinion.
I myself am looking forward to seeing 300 which comes out on the 5th of April here in Oz, I know the history and seen the 1962 version.
After seeing the first teaser trailer I knew It wasn't historical, but going from the trailers I think I will like it. as far as kids and education go, I thought the movie was rated R, and if I want to be educated, I will read a book.
I go to the movies for entertainment, I could not care less if you like the movie or not, and as far as being accurate to history, who can say what is accurate, I can understand what is accepted as history, what we have learned through education, but alot that we are taught is the perception of one or a few men from the period, either written or painted.
In 2000 years what will the historians say of the Iraq war, will it be taught from the percpective of the people of Iraq, or from the percpective of the US Government?
Properganda, you are subject to it constantly and make an issue of it because it is in a movie.

In Canada (Quebec) its PG-13.

So it depends on the country.

Does PG-13 mean 13 years or older ?

Yes, it means Parental Guidance 13 years or older.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suraknar

Yes, it means Parental Guidance 13 years or older.

---

LOL I didn't notice here in Quebec it was PG 13...even in Toronto (Ontario) is rated R...hehe got to love being a teen here in Quebec!...guess we trust our kids not to believe what they see in movies...ANY MOVIE.~;)

...or we are completely crazy and irresponsible...

(C'est une drôle de société le Québec)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Domitius Ulpianus

LOL I didn't notice here in Quebec it was PG 13...even in Toronto (Ontario) is rated R...hehe got to love being a teen here in Quebec!...guess we trust our kids not to believe what they see in movies...ANY MOVIE.~;)

...or we are completely crazy and irresponsible...

(C'est une drôle de société le Québec)

---

But of cource!

"In Quebec, the legal drinking age, is just a suggestion!" hehe

(Cela depends, je trouve on est beaucoup moins conservatifs que nos voisins, plus ouverts aussi face a certains choses, et tu sais, ce n'ai pas une mauvaise chose, si nos jeunes savent que tirer un gun sur qqun d'autre ca tue a partir de 13 ans, peut etre que c'est pour cela qu'il ne s'essayent pas de prendre une arme a l'ecole pour voir ce que cela fait ;) )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KARTLOS

could those who are claiming the movie is propoganda please explicietly state what they believe the propoganda message of the film is.

if they think it is anti-iranian i should point out that i believe that most people, and in particular most americans would not make the association between iran and persia, i.e they dont realise that they are roughly the same place

---

No it isn't really specifically anti-Iranian; it is pro-Western Democratic and anti-Easterner Theocratic; Leonidas and his men represent the forces of Reason Progress and Democratic Liberty and the Persians represent the forces of Darkness, Ignorance and absolute political submission to the will of earthly rulers claiming a divine descent/mission. The clues are so numerous and so in your face in the graphic novel that the only way to miss them is not noticing the dialogue bubbles inside the pictures.

You know what? In principle I can sympathize with these points, yes in the conflict of Theocracy and Democracy I would side with Democracy anytime any day, but:

1) those ideas are completely out of time and place in the setting they are set in by Miller and having Sparta represent the values of the modern democratic world is just ludicrous (and personally I find this kind of misrepresentation worse than a 1000 cataphract rhinos and ninja immortals, because it is quite devious and malicious in purpose, while the latter just betray ignorance or just a "hey it looks cooler" kind of approach, which are hardly criminal outside the confines of a documentary) and

2) the message is delivered in such a childish manner by representing the Persians as demons out of the depths of Hell that it loses all credibility it might had had. Think if you saw a communist propaganda film representing US capitalists as literal vampires, with sharp canine teeth capes and all, who literally feed upon the blood of workers and tell me you would consider that "just art" or that it was "just for fun". This is precisely what Miller does in the graphic novel with his ridiculously black and white representation of Westerners vs Easterners. It is juvenile and betrays bad taste.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius Nero

No it isn't really specifically anti-Iranian; it is pro-Western Democratic and anti-Easterner Theocratic; Leonidas and his men represent the forces of Reason Progress and Democratic Liberty and the Persians represent the forces of Darkness, Ignorance and absolute political submission to the will of earthly rulers claiming a divine descent/mission. The clues are so numerous and so in your face in the graphic novel that the only way to miss them is not noticing the dialogue bubbles inside the pictures.

You know what? In principle I can sympathize with these points, yes in the conflict of Theocracy and Democracy I would side with Democracy anytime any day, but:

1) those ideas are completely out of time and place in the setting they are set in by Miller and having Sparta represent the values of the modern democratic world is just ludicrous (and personally I find this kind of misrepresentation worse than a 1000 cataphract rhinos and ninja immortals, because it is quite devious and malicious in purpose, while the latter just betray ignorance or just a "hey it looks cooler" kind of approach, which are hardly criminal outside the confines of a documentary) and

2) the message is delivered in such a childish manner by representing the Persians as demons out of the depths of Hell that it loses all credibility it might had had. Think if you saw a communist propaganda film representing US capitalists as literal vampires, with sharp canine teeth capes and all, who literally feed upon the blood of workers and tell me you would consider that "just art" or that it was "just for fun". This is precisely what Miller does in the graphic novel with his ridiculously black and white representation of Westerners vs Easterners. It is juvenile and betrays bad taste.

---

And that is a good post. :2thumbsup:

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius Nero

2) the message is delivered in such a childish manner by representing the Persians as demons out of the depths of Hell that it loses all credibility it might had had.

---

Bravo!!! Tiberius this is one of the key elements I have been talking about, since we started discussing 300 in the other thread. That is why I said I compare 300 with a hot dog. It might be tasty, but is still junk food. Now should you denounce it for not being "haute cuisine"? I don't think so, because it never claimed it was. So how can you take so seriously this pretended propaganda if by your own saying it is so "cheap" to even be believable. I really don't get your point here, or is it that you are claiming it SHOULD HAVE BEEN propaganda (because you say you share this demcracy/theocracy view) BUT properly done. I confess I am a little lost here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius Nero

Think if you saw a communist propaganda film representing US capitalists as literal vampires, with sharp canine teeth capes and all, who literally feed upon the blood of workers and tell me you would consider that "just art" or that it was "just for fun".

---

The answer is YES, YES and YES!, the message delivered by the artist doesn't change the principle that art should be FREE!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius Nero

This is precisely what Miller does in the graphic novel with his ridiculously black and white representation of Westerners vs Easterners. It is juvenile and betrays bad taste.

---

Now for someone who doesn't like black and white version of things, your statement "yes in the conflict of Theocracy and Democracy I would side with Democracy anytime any day" is quite black and white. Personally a long time ago I stopped siding with labeled causes like, democracy, capitalism, left, right, liberal or conservative. I judge a government, a system, etc. by the amount of happiness and prosperity it brings to his people and by the relations it promotes with the rest of the countries/peoples in the world.....but that is just me and my 2 cents.


Peace.

Domitius, I judge 300 for what it is; as propaganda it is bad and purely as a work of art is worse, because, as they are given, characters, story and ideas are plain shallow. Yes, I am one of those old fashioned fellows who still believe that a good, well presented story and well developed characters are key elements for good drama; forgive my narrowmindedness, but I also think 300 purports to be "drama" both on paper and much more so on the screen, and by these standards it falls short. And btw the movie does take itself seriously, a lot; if a movie takes itself seriously, it had better live up to it. It does not pretend to be a hot dog; it pretends to talk about important stuff; "XXX" with Vin Diesel is a hot dog and pretends to be nothing more. There you have a movie which hardly takes itself seriously. I wouldn't be critical of such a movie.

Quote:

---

The answer is YES, YES and YES!, the message delivered by the artist doesn't change the principle that art should be FREE!!!

---

Can you point out where I said that art shouldn't be free? What does this have to do with anything?

Quote:

---

Now for someone who doesn't like black and white version of things, your statement "yes in the conflict of Theocracy and Democracy I would side with Democracy anytime any day" is quite black and white.

---

Not really. I said that in the particular conflict I would side with Democracy, not that I would do it in any conflict. Now that would have been close to black and white mindset. My criteria for this are the same you attribute to yourself, namely prosperity brought to the people etc etc.

I have 2 hours free time until my next meeting...so here we go again.

To clarify something. In my view there is no difference between XXX with Vin Diesel (yuck!) and 300. I didn't take any seriously (I never even bothered watching XXX btw). But I don't get why you say 300 (the movie) takes itself seriously, when its Director publicly stated they changed historical facts to make them "look cool". I mean, come on, if that is not a confession of "un-seriousness" I don't know what is then.

Now about Art, I believe you implied that we would change opinion about "entertainment" if the movie would be about capitalist vampires or something. My reply was meant to point out that I do not care about the message portrayed by the artist. Even If I wholeheartedly oppose his point of view, I would still respect it and more importantly defend his right to express.

In my personal opinion, when an artist delivers a message it is: 1) his personal view on some subject, 2) a reflection of the general opinion of the culture/society/group the artist represents, about a given topic 3) both.

In the first case, I will defend it because I believe in freedom of speech, I know it can be abused, but I don't see many other choices in this particular point.

In the second case, on top of freedom of speech, I prefer to know what a particular culture/society/group has to say about something, than ignoring or repressing it.

Please don't take anything I have said here or before...or ever personally. It's just for the fun of dialectics. I always try hard to avoid arguments ad hominem, but ...the best hunter can miss a rabbit from time to time....

Finally, I never said, nor do I think you are narrow-minded. After all, accusing all those who oppose your point of view is the first sign of "narrowmindedness".

Peace.

It'd be nice to be able to focus all the energies required by EB members and fans as well to post more on the 300 into some sort of EB-soul-harvesting-machine that would make more units or scripts or something. :laugh4:

Historical accuracy doesn't have anything to do with a movie taking itself seriously; a movie takes itself seriously when: 1) it purports to talk about high ideals, i.e. Liberty, Democracy, Progress, Sacrifice etc in our case and 2) it does so in a manner which doesn't undermine those ideals, by having the movie being self satirical. I am not irritated by James Bond films; they don't take themselves seriously; many scenes are there to make you laugh and make fun of the situation in the movie itself. Not so in 300. A movie which does not undermine its point by being self-satirical takes itself seriously. That is what I mean by that term. Why would a movie have to claim historical accuracy to take itself seriously anyway? It is a movie, not a documentary.

I brought the example of vampire capitalists to draw a parallel between the level of juvenile propaganda found in 300 and that, just to make clearer to the poster who asked "why do you consider 300 propagandist" the reason why. I never said anything about forbidding freedom of expression to artists or anything of the sort. I fully support freedom of speech; for this reason I defend the right to harshly criticize as rubbish what is rubbish, while it purports not to be. Believe me, if Leonidas took a break at some point in the fight to get a whiff of coke light, I would say it was the best movie ever (exaggerating of course); that would have been an indication of the movie not taking itself seriously. As it is now it is a bag full of pretentious rubbish. And it is the pretentious part that irritates me, if that is not clear yet.

P.S. I am doing this for the fun of dialectics too. Not taking anything personally don't worry. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

It'd be nice to be able to focus all the energies required by EB members and fans as well to post more on the 300 into some sort of EB-soul-harvesting-machine that would make more units or scripts or something. :laugh4:

---

TA, I swear I was thinking the same thing This morning. Sadly my computer skills are sub-par. I can do a little editing in the files and that's it:thumbsdown: . On the artistic side, again I don't have a single artistic bone in my body...I really hope I could be of use. If you need someone that can read/write and research in 3 languages or do something simple, long and boring that nobody else in the team wants to do....I'm at your service.:yes:

What 300 should have been:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IN04nnRfFw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aecp

What 300 should have been:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IN04nnRfFw

---

LOL
That was the greatest thing ever.

So there were hidden messages in the movie! :laugh4:



Brush your teeth!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caratacos

So there were hidden messages in the movie! :laugh4:



Brush your teeth!

---

A fine example of artistic expresion indeed! :balloon2:

Historicall accuracy was not the point of the movie. The entire point of making such a movie was to give to the adolescent violence-addicts something nice to watch ~:)

Howewer, i still keep asking myself, what was with the Goat-looking creature from Xerxe`s harem ? Was it a sugestions reffering to the decadence and perversion of the Persians ? Or was it a reference to the devil ? I did not understood...

Anyway, i do understand all the bad feelings that both greeks and iranians have towards this movie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rex_Pelasgorum

Howewer, i still keep asking myself, what was with the Goat-looking creature from Xerxe`s harem ? Was it a sugestions reffering to the decadence and perversion of the Persians ? Or was it a reference to the devil ? I did not understood...

Anyway, i do understand all the bad feelings that both greeks and iranians have towards this movie.

---

Not the devil, the concept of a devil is Mostly Christian.

The way I saw the the choice of how to portray Xerxes, and his emediate entourage including the Immortals (his Elite Bodyguard unit), I interpreted this as a bad taste metaphor.

Clearly, Miller's suggestive towards a given agenda is being displayed by that whole deal.

If you notice, not only the Goat was "odd" inside his tent, the whole crowd in there was either mutated or diformed in some way.

Politics asside, and from a strictly "story-line" point of view, Miller chose to make Ephialtes a Spartan outcast that seeks to restore the Honor of his familly that allowed him to live as a child even if he was diformed at Birth.

Now, I think, that whole scene is there to support his decision to betray the Spartans, as he was sourounded by other people who, under "normal" circomstances would be considered outcasts themselves, yet, under Xerxes they were cherished as his closest entourage.

But then again, lets not forget this is an adaptation of a comic, and if you immagine the "wierdness" of some things under the perspective of a comic, they make sence just like a Japanese comic with wierd Monsters and such.

At least my perception of it all concerning this.

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

You can quote me on that.

I just came for 300...

For the show, it was all I need at the moment, a really fun piece of time.

Of course, if tomorrow I hear that some nuts use it as an historical source, I would be greatly ashamed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blacksnail

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

You can quote me on that.

---

LOL!! I like that...I will :)

lets consider for a moment the fact the entire movie is told as a story, a legend told by a spartan. every characiture, monster, etc, is all embellishment told by the spartan story-teller, based on their perecption of the evil persian empire. that settles it for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blacksnail

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

You can quote me on that.

---

How about the giant deformed baby with the saw arms? Anyway, I thought the goat-man was just a Persian musician in a goat costume. Crazy Persians.... :inquisitive:

Isen´t it from the guy who did "Sin City"?

So it should have a loooot of eyecandy in it. Well afaik it is based on a comic...good enough for me to throw my history knowledge overboard and enjoy the show. Is it worth watching in this case? I mean does it entertain?

Well, I enjoyed Troy, even if it was not trying to be accurate in most things. Alexander did try and failed imo.

my2cents....Subedei

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subedei

Isen´t it from the guy who did "Sin City"?

---

yes, not the director but the writer of the original comic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subedei

So it should have a loooot of eyecandy in it. Well afaik it is based on a comic...good enough for me to throw my history knowledge overboard and enjoy the show. Is it worth watching in this case? I mean does it entertain?

---

Yes, In my humble opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subedei

Well, I enjoyed Troy, even if it was not trying to be accurate in most things. Alexander did try and failed imo.

my2cents....Subedei

---

I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

lets consider for a moment the fact the entire movie is told as a story, a legend told by a spartan. every characiture, monster, etc, is all embellishment told by the spartan story-teller, based on their perecption of the evil persian empire. that settles it for me.

---

Doesn't really match my understanding of the Spartan attitude to these things nevermind concerning defeated enemies. Plus painting a foe your audience might well end up fighting some day as the hellspawn of Hades doesn't strike me as particularly brilliant, either. Au contraire you'd think the telling of the story specifically emphasized how very mortally human the somewhat imposing Persians were...

Side note: didn't Persian financial aid have a rather important role in the ultimate Spartan victory in the Peloponnesian War...? :beam: