-
Re: Glory of Persepolis' goes on screen in response to insulting movie `300'
-
Re: Glory of Persepolis' goes on screen in response to insulting movie `300'
Quote:
Originally Posted by kambiz
Hey mate ,Becareful ! What you are saying is more insulting to me than 300 !
I (We Iranians) don't care if Frenchs know themseleves descendants of Gauls or Italians Know themselves Romans or not. Each Iranians consider him/herself as descendant of ancient Iranians and I don't think we are the only nation with ancient roots ,at least I know that Greeks are ancient people as well.
Also you Foreigners must learn that the name of this country never was Persia. It was always IRAN even in ancient era. and Iran means land of aryans ,Parsian (Eng: Persians) ,Madian (Eng: Medians) and Parthian or Pahlavian (Eng: Parthians) were the three groups of Aryans settled in Iran.
Please do not repeat it again~:angry:
Regards
Are you better now?
-
Re: Glory of Persepolis' goes on screen in response to insulting movie `300'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
well, and the fact that the same race of people live there. :idea2:
It's an action movie based on a comic book that's (loosely) based on a battle that took place almost 2500 years ago. If anyone walks out of the theater after seeing 300, and has the strange urge to go to Iran with an M4, then they're just a damn fool.
-
Re: Glory of Persepolis' goes on screen in response to insulting movie `300'
That's not quite the point.
Oh, and you flunk Media Literacy too. :smash:
-
Re: Glory of Persepolis' goes on screen in response to insulting movie `300'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
That's not quite the point.
Oh, and you flunk Media Literacy too. :smash:
What's the point then?
So many people make so many assertions without ever explaining themselves. Give reasons behind your statements please.
Is Media Literacy run by the same guy who made up the Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Have your little poke at theism and be glad we're not going to burn your house down. It would be wrong to, so thank the little spaghetti in the sky for giving us a conscience.
Anyways, I don't know what this media literacy course is, but I wouldn't want to take it if it makes you think of every single movie as though it were Shakespeare.
Shakespeare meant for you to notice all the little tid bits in his plays. I don't think the director, or screenwriter for 300 meant for people to notice anything other than what's expected from an awesome action movie.
-
Re: Glory of Persepolis' goes on screen in response to insulting movie `300'
Quote:
I don't quite understand how 300 can be considered propaganda against Iran, considering how modern Iran and the Persian Empire of old don't have much in common, except for occupying the same geographical location.
Many Greeks were pissed off at Alexander (even though that movie is a lot more historically accurate than 300), were they not? Let the Iranians be pissed off about 300, its their right.
-
Re: Glory of Persepolis' goes on screen in response to insulting movie `300'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randarkmaan
Many Greeks were pissed off at Alexander (even though that movie is a lot more historically accurate than 300), were they not? Let the Iranians be pissed off about 300, its their right.
Hey I was pissed at Alexander too. That dumb director (Oliver Stone was it??) made Alexander look like a wuzzy.
-
Re: Glory of Persepolis' goes on screen in response to insulting movie `300'
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoSpartan
Hey I was pissed at Alexander too. That dumb director (Oliver Stone was it??) made Alexander look like a wuzzy.
heh, he was. Although probably the most famous homosexual in all of history.:yes:
-
Re: Glory of Persepolis' goes on screen in response to insulting movie `300'
Personally, as someone with British roots, I was terribly offended by the original Star Wars. There is no reason for those Imperial troopers to have English accents except to incite hatred of John Bull.
-
Re: Glory of Persepolis' goes on screen in response to insulting movie `300'
But Obi-Wan Kenobi was English, too. :clown:
And he was the best character.
-
Re: Glory of Persepolis' goes on screen in response to insulting movie `300'
Regarding Zulu......and tactics.
The movie was pretty damn accurate. Main differences between rorkes drift and the battle two days before...
1. They couldn't be flanked, the standard Zulu bull head tactic couldnt work
2. The commisary was not rationing ammunition (there are stories of supply officers refusing to send ammo to units running out at Islawanda), out of a store of some 20,000 rounds only nine hundred were left at the end of the battle for Rorkes drift
3. At a range over 50 yards, an ox hide shield will stop a bullet. Not every time but it can
4. The start of the battle the Zulu sent in their 'recruits', not their elite. By the end of the battle there was still no way to use their numbers to any advantage due to the close confines of the combat itself
5. The Zulu could have won, but viewed the advancing relief column as a threat and retreated. If they had launched a final attack they probably would have succeeded but would then have had to contend with the relief column......so they retreated
....whereupon the defenders and the relief column bayonetted any wounded zulus left on the battle field......
-
Re: Glory of Persepolis' goes on screen in response to insulting movie `300'
Quote:
Originally Posted by HFox
Regarding Zulu......and tactics.
The movie was pretty damn accurate. Main differences between rorkes drift and the battle two days before...
1. They couldn't be flanked, the standard Zulu bull head tactic couldnt work
2. The commisary was not rationing ammunition (there are stories of supply officers refusing to send ammo to units running out at Islawanda), out of a store of some 20,000 rounds only nine hundred were left at the end of the battle for Rorkes drift
3. At a range over 50 yards, an ox hide shield will stop a bullet. Not every time but it can
4. The start of the battle the Zulu sent in their 'recruits', not their elite. By the end of the battle there was still no way to use their numbers to any advantage due to the close confines of the combat itself
5. The Zulu could have won, but viewed the advancing relief column as a threat and retreated. If they had launched a final attack they probably would have succeeded but would then have had to contend with the relief column......so they retreated
....whereupon the defenders and the relief column bayonetted any wounded zulus left on the battle field......
I never questioned the historical accuracy of Zulu.
It simply bothers me that they did not all swarm down at them from the very start.
I seem to recall the English being surrounded in a small valley. Did the Zulus attack them from all sides?
Either way the thing that bothered me was that the zulus didn't just keep sending the troops, but they would stop at a certain point and fall back. Then they would start the whole charge over again even though last time they were already at the sandbags. It's like playing a linear game for a few hours, then starting over again without saving.
I have to say I did like the English triple line tactic though. Haha, I bet people are going to say this movie was propaganda against the Zulu Nation. <sigh> Some people...I tells ya...
-
Re: Glory of Persepolis' goes on screen in response to insulting movie `300'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Guitar Murphy
You don't mind watching humans get killed by the thousands just for entertainment? I find it repulisive.
And yet you play RTW?
-
Re: Glory of Persepolis' goes on screen in response to insulting movie `300'
Quote:
Originally Posted by kambiz
Hey mate ,Becareful ! What you are saying is more insulting to me than 300 !
I (We Iranians) don't care if Frenchs know themseleves descendants of Gauls or Italians Know themselves Romans or not. Each Iranians consider him/herself as descendant of ancient Iranians and I don't think we are the only nation with ancient roots ,at least I know that Greeks are ancient people as well.
Also you Foreigners must learn that the name of this country never was Persia. It was always IRAN even in ancient era. and Iran means land of aryans ,Parsian (Eng: Persians) ,Madian (Eng: Medians) and Parthian or Pahlavian (Eng: Parthians) were the three groups of Aryans settled in Iran.
Please do not repeat it again~:angry:
Regards
Wouldn't that be like modern Americans saying that they considered themselves to be descendants of Native American Indians?
-
Re: Glory of Persepolis' goes on screen in response to insulting movie `300'
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcantu
Wouldn't that be like modern Americans saying that they considered themselves to be descendants of Native American Indians?
Are you kidding? :dizzy2:
-
Re: Glory of Persepolis' goes on screen in response to insulting movie `300'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
heh, he was. Although probably the most famous homosexual in all of history.:yes:
I must defend the Alexander movie as it was surprisingly historical accurate for a Hollywood movie. The movie wasn't a commercial success and the commentators in the US complained that the movie followed History too much and had no dramatic. Oh well, what could be a better recommendation?:laugh4:
And about homosexuality: There was no explicit homosexual scene in the movie....so it's only your dirty imagination.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
-
Re: Glory of Persepolis' goes on screen in response to insulting movie `300'
Quote:
Originally Posted by il-principe
I must defend the Alexander movie as it was surprisingly historical accurate for a Hollywood movie. The movie wasn't a commercial success and the commentators in the US complained that the movie followed History too much and had no dramatic. Oh well, what could be a better recommendation?:laugh4:
And about homosexuality: There was no explicit homosexual scene in the movie....so it's only your dirty imagination.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Im not speaking of the movie Im speaking of Alexandros himself and his one true love.
-
Re: Glory of Persepolis' goes on screen in response to insulting movie `300'
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcantu
Wouldn't that be like modern Americans saying that they considered themselves to be descendants of Native American Indians?
The Americas were 'invaded' and 'conquered' by Europeans who destroyed the exsisting people. The only time that Persia was (substantially) invaded by non Aryans since the Achaemenid Empire was by Alexander and then by Arab Muslums. Neither destroyed the people or completely did away with the culture. Nor did the Arabs breed them out or push them out like in Iraq. People living in Iran today are direct descendants of 'Persians' and even have aspects of ancient Persian culture intact.
-
Re: Glory of Persepolis' goes on screen in response to insulting movie `300'
Regarding what MAA said you can't forget the Mongolid invasions but thats correct for the most part. In fact you'd be very interested to learn about the huge influence the Persian peoples had on the development of Shia Islam, and the incorporation of 'eastern' style mysticism and ritual into the new religion of the Crescent.
-
Re: Glory of Persepolis' goes on screen in response to insulting movie `300'
as some have argued, it is not MEANT to be a historical movie. its just a movie. its just a piece of art. its entertainment.
well, to be honest, i dont see it that way. it might look like that on the surface. but maybe im being too sensetive and paying too much attention, but this is not just a movie. plus, its very racist i believe.
why do i think that?
did you guys notice that all the greeks were white looking? so the good guys, who you (the audience) is supposed to support, are all WHITE. they fight for justice. freedom. democracy. and all the other good stuff in the world. they are white, some blond. some red hair , etc.
by the way, the greeks back then looked a lot more like the persians. tanned skin. black hair. not blond. bright white skin and red hair.
ok, and now the enemies, who are all the BAD people, are ranging from Black people, to middle easterns to indians, to even some mongolian looking guys. and these guys are bad and evil and want slavery and generally do bad things, simply because they are BAD people.
so basically how i see it, its the white good guys, killing all the bad non white looking guys. thats just racist to me.
how many times in the movie i heard
"They send the best warriors of Asia, from a thousand countries, but they all die against only 300 from Europa (europe)".
so basically i hear that as, all the europeans are better than all the asians. the best of asians. from all over asia. middle eastern, indian, east asians, none of them can compare to the europeans because they are better.
thats just racist.
so this movie is not only racist to persians, but also to other asians. but of course it concentrates on persians.
another symbolism for good and bad.
all the good guys have families. they are someone's son, brother, father. that is mentioned countless times. they are somebody. a story is behind them. you get to see their faces.
the bad guys on the other hand have their faces covered. they are all wearing masks. they are no body. no story. no remorse when they die. they are like dark vaders, breathing heavily and being all evil. wearing scary masks, to portray they are bad people.
another symbolism.
the bad guys, all look weird. deformed. lots of piercings. their women are deformed too. and their arrows look like what the devil uses. you know how the devil has stick with 3 pointy things at the top. well, that is how the persian arrows look like.
so these guys are bad. they are evil. they use devil's stuff.
on the other hand, the good guy. the man at the centre of it all. the one who fights for justice and freedom, when he dies, his body lies just like how jesus died on the cross. so he is the good guy because he died like jesus.
its just the symbolisms.
some say, forget it, just a movie.
but im telling you, it subconsciously affects people. the german Nazis made cartoons and movies showing jews very badly before WWII and people were saying, "ah just cartoons, just comic books".
but a generation grew up with that, and after that, they thought it was ok to kill all the jews during WWII.
same thing happening here.
you keep hearing, watching, listening about how bad the middle easterns or asians are and how good the white man is.
they want it to slowly affect your thinking.
to prepare you. prepare your mind.
its not just a movie.
-
Re: Glory of Persepolis' goes on screen in response to insulting movie `300'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Persian Horseman
as some have argued, it is not MEANT to be a historical movie. its just a movie. its just a piece of art. its entertainment.
well, to be honest, i dont see it that way. it might look like that on the surface. but maybe im being too sensetive and paying too much attention, but this is not just a movie. plus, its very racist i believe.
why do i think that?
did you guys notice that all the greeks were white looking? so the good guys, who you (the audience) is supposed to support, are all WHITE. they fight for justice. freedom. democracy. and all the other good stuff in the world. they are white, some blond. some red hair , etc.
by the way, the greeks back then looked a lot more like the persians. tanned skin. black hair. not blond. bright white skin and red hair.
ok, and now the enemies, who are all the BAD people, are ranging from Black people, to middle easterns to indians, to even some mongolian looking guys. and these guys are bad and evil and want slavery and generally do bad things, simply because they are BAD people.
so basically how i see it, its the white good guys, killing all the bad non white looking guys. thats just racist to me.
how many times in the movie i heard
"They send the best warriors of Asia, from a thousand countries, but they all die against only 300 from Europa (europe)".
so basically i hear that as, all the europeans are better than all the asians. the best of asians. from all over asia. middle eastern, indian, east asians, none of them can compare to the europeans because they are better.
thats just racist.
so this movie is not only racist to persians, but also to other asians. but of course it concentrates on persians.
another symbolism for good and bad.
all the good guys have families. they are someone's son, brother, father. that is mentioned countless times. they are somebody. a story is behind them. you get to see their faces.
the bad guys on the other hand have their faces covered. they are all wearing masks. they are no body. no story. no remorse when they die. they are like dark vaders, breathing heavily and being all evil. wearing scary masks, to portray they are bad people.
another symbolism.
the bad guys, all look weird. deformed. lots of piercings. their women are deformed too. and their arrows look like what the devil uses. you know how the devil has stick with 3 pointy things at the top. well, that is how the persian arrows look like.
so these guys are bad. they are evil. they use devil's stuff.
on the other hand, the good guy. the man at the centre of it all. the one who fights for justice and freedom, when he dies, his body lies just like how jesus died on the cross. so he is the good guy because he died like jesus.
its just the symbolisms.
some say, forget it, just a movie.
but im telling you, it subconsciously affects people. the german Nazis made cartoons and movies showing jews very badly before WWII and people were saying, "ah just cartoons, just comic books".
but a generation grew up with that, and after that, they thought it was ok to kill all the jews during WWII.
same thing happening here.
you keep hearing, watching, listening about how bad the middle easterns or asians are and how good the white man is.
they want it to slowly affect your thinking.
to prepare you. prepare your mind.
its not just a movie.
Okay pal, some of your stuff makes sense, but I say it's not for affecting our minds, it's to emphasize certain aspects in the movie. I thought people would say that the Persians are portrayed as mutants. You've forgotten one tiny detail. The guy who betrayed the Spartans, he's said to be Spartan himself, and he's quite deformed. Several of the Spartans are portrayed as bad; by the way, they are also white skinned.
As for racism, I don't think it's being racist at all. It would be weird to have an army of black or asian Spartans. I don't think they would get away with that without taking heat for being too politically correct. Oh and Xerxes, he's white too.
As for the nazi propaganda, there were many germans who wanted Hitler dead for all his evil deeds. Honestly, I think everyone knew it was bad, some people were just greedy enough to justify it with their own progress in wealth.
I have to go, I'll continue later.
-
Re: Glory of Persepolis' goes on screen in response to insulting movie `300'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
Regarding what MAA said you can't forget the Mongolid invasions but thats correct for the most part. In fact you'd be very interested to learn about the huge influence the Persian peoples had on the development of Shia Islam, and the incorporation of 'eastern' style mysticism and ritual into the new religion of the Crescent.
Crap! I can't believe I forgot the Mongols. Stupid me. :wall:
And Persian Horseman, interesting...
-
Re: Glory of Persepolis' goes on screen in response to insulting movie `300'
The propaganda contained in the movie is not racist: Greeks were white in real life, it is not an invention of the movie; now as for black Persians, Americans have some peculiar ideas about how people from the Balkans eastwards look like, for example no modern Greek character I have seen in a movie looks even remotely Greek; remember black Roxanna and the Persians sounding like Arabs on the battlefield etc in "Alexander"? It is just fixed American mass perception of the East, not really racist, just very ignorant, like not being able to tell a Korean from a Chinese, sorta, don't read too much into this.
The propaganda in 300 it is political/cultural: the shining West as the beacon of Democracy (lol democratic Sparta!!!11oneone1), Reason and assorted Western values (as well as Christianity, you have to be asleep during the movie or never to have read the Gospels to miss how Leonidas is modeled on Jesus and Xerxes on Satan during the temptation scene e.g.) oposed to eastern Theocracy, slavish behaviour towards rulers, mysticism and everything similar attributed to the East. Listen to what people say in the movie, not everything is visual.
-
Re: Glory of Persepolis' goes on screen in response to insulting movie `300'
thank god finally someone else also saw that whole jesus vs. devil thing.
about them being white, i didnt say greeks are not white.
they are white. they are just not blonde and blue eyed white.
they are black haired, like the persians.
i dont clasify the persians as being black like african, yellow like chinese, or brown like indians. they are still white, but a darker shade with black hair.
somewhat like the greeks.
i just dont get why this movie had to have so much homosexual and trasexual stuff in it.
that scene where the 2 kings are touching each other and one is tempting the other was pretty gay. 2 guys, naked, only wearing underwears, touching each other, whispering in each others ears.
-
Re: Glory of Persepolis' goes on screen in response to insulting movie `300'
well, i guess that was an utterly unimportant aspect in the movie.
i've seen it with a bit of fun, just avoiding my brain to connect what i know on what i see, otherwise i could get very angry.
i've seen it with friends, and we had a great time in saying funny things instead of the real audio :)
the real problem of the movie is the exxageration of several aspect.
is white-black, a series of several dicotomies, no grey space in it. evil vs good, etc. so i dislike it. it could be intended as a propaganda movie because has this point in common: the exxageration of certain characteristics and the clear distinction of good and evil.
obviously i cannot consider it an historical movie, and i was very upset of hearing ignorant friends of mine thinking about the movie as it was a more or less real thing. that way i can understand persians, but i guess the best way of show things as they really were is to teach something historically correct. not to just counterpose a new propaganda movie on a supposedly propaganda movie.
-
Re: Glory of Persepolis' goes on screen in response to insulting movie `300'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramazon
There is no more Persian empire anymore, it's Iran now isn't it?
That's like calling Italians Romans, and the French Gauls.
Iranians=Arians, in Parsi. Nuff said. They have been the same people since Kurush created the Achaimenid Empire. There are some Turkic minorities, but the large majority of the people is the same from then on. They are the eastern IndoEuropeans the ones who conquered India.
-
Re: Glory of Persepolis' goes on screen in response to insulting movie `300'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius Nero
The propaganda contained in the movie is not racist: Greeks were white in real life, it is not an invention of the movie; now as for black Persians, Americans have some peculiar ideas about how people from the Balkans eastwards look like, for example no modern Greek character I have seen in a movie looks even remotely Greek; remember black Roxanna and the Persians sounding like Arabs on the battlefield etc in "Alexander"? It is just fixed American mass perception of the East, not really racist, just very ignorant, like not being able to tell a Korean from a Chinese, sorta, don't read too much into this.
The propaganda in 300 it is political/cultural: the shining West as the beacon of Democracy (lol democratic Sparta!!!11oneone1), Reason and assorted Western values (as well as Christianity, you have to be asleep during the movie or never to have read the Gospels to miss how Leonidas is modeled on Jesus and Xerxes on Satan during the temptation scene e.g.) oposed to eastern Theocracy, slavish behaviour towards rulers, mysticism and everything similar attributed to the East. Listen to what people say in the movie, not everything is visual.
its just a damn movie....... you can find shit like that anywhere if you look hard enough....
-
Re: Glory of Persepolis' goes on screen in response to insulting movie `300'
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.
-
Re: Glory of Persepolis' goes on screen in response to insulting movie `300'
Actually I do like the movie - it has very impressive pictures and I like watching them. And it is - though in an extremly exaggerated manner - a better depiction of the battle at the termopylae, than the movie troy of the troyan war...
btw - did anyone notice that the Spartans were not depicted as good guys? They are fighting for a just cause - but they aren't good...
Except you think of slaughtering defenseless, humilating dead bodies, unconditional militarism and killing babies because of deformation or weakness as good...
In that case - they are very good indeed
Saying the film is bad because of the slaughtering is an interesting point from someone who plays rome and so sends several thousand men to death in hours just for entertainment (Ok - you don't play rome to see them dying but to test your skills as virtual general - but in 300 not the killing is reason to watch it but the great pictures.)
Death and killing are part of entertainment for more than thousand years (though not all fights of gladiators ended fatally some did).
And feeling insulted by the movie is really something I can't understand...
As it was already said - Germans (inclduing me) do not feel insulted by the depiction of WWII Krauts as stupid, brutal, arrogant losers - and they are at least of our people. Iranians aren't Persians - they have as much in common with them as Germans and the Germanics (and their portrayal as dirty stupid barbarians in Gladiator could also be seen as insulting :P)
Correct if I'm wrong
-
Re: Glory of Persepolis' goes on screen in response to insulting movie `300'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miles Sueborum
Actually I do like the movie - it has very impressive pictures and I like watching them. And it is - though in an extremly exaggerated manner - a better depiction of the battle at the termopylae, than the movie troy of the troyan war...
btw - did anyone notice that the Spartans were not depicted as good guys? They are fighting for a just cause - but they aren't good...
Except you think of slaughtering defenseless, humilating dead bodies, unconditional militarism and killing babies because of deformation or weakness as good...
In that case - they are very good indeed
Saying the film is bad because of the slaughtering is an interesting point from someone who plays rome and so sends several thousand men to death in hours just for entertainment (Ok - you don't play rome to see them dying but to test your skills as virtual general - but in 300 not the killing is reason to watch it but the great pictures.)
Death and killing are part of entertainment for more than thousand years (though not all fights of gladiators ended fatally some did).
And feeling insulted by the movie is really something I can't understand...
As it was already said - Germans (inclduing me) do not feel insulted by the depiction of WWII Krauts as stupid, brutal, arrogant losers - and they are at least of our people. Iranians aren't Persians - they have as much in common with them as Germans and the Germanics (and their portrayal as dirty stupid barbarians in Gladiator could also be seen as insulting :P)
Correct if I'm wrong
Amen! Very good point about the Spartans not actually being portrayed as good. For that matter, in response to the guy who said it's all black and white, it really isn't. Any movie will tend to have the audience more sympathetic to the side from which the story is told.
