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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ardu

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ardu

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...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ardu

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ardu

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ardu

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ardu

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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)

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecramer

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Persian Horseman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Persian Horseman

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Persian Horseman

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.

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.

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Count Belisarius

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Count Belisarius

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 à 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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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!

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miles Sueborum

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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...

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miles Sueborum

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 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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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 ^^

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dux Corvanus

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

: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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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:

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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/grap.../09/wborat.jpg

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

"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 à 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

"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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mad Guitar Movie

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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/w...me06-07-31.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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."

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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

"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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Count Belisarius

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 ?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 ?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

...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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

...

---

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.

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.

@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.

@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)

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.

Quote:

---

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).

---

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).

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

@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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aecp

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...

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

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.

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

I'm offended by this! :furious3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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)

---

Already on general principles, yes.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Foot

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aecp

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

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

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...

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

I agree - I also like the movie

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...

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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

---

Well according to you (guys), not enough!

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

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.

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

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.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geala

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.

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.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

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/...4-09-06_37.gif

https://i176.photobucket.com/albums/...4-09-06_27.gif

Truly a bastion of thoughtful insight!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aecp

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/...4-09-06_37.gif

https://i176.photobucket.com/albums/...4-09-06_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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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...

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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...

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geala

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 ^^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aecp

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plebian#10

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miles Sueborum

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius Nero

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...

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

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miles Sueborum

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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...

---

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...

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!