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

hey guys, what this movie about?

Iran defeating every major western power?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miles Sueborum

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

Correct if I'm wrong

---

There were major migrations in and out of "Germania" over the last couple thousand years. This was no so with Iran...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miles Sueborum

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

Correct if I'm wrong

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veris

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntonius

There were major migrations in and out of "Germania" over the last couple thousand years. This was no so with Iran...

---

Ok - but how similar is Farsi to the ancient Persian language and how changed culture (I know - such a thing is always difficult to say...)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

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

---

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

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

Anywho... enough of my rant:furious3:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelopidas

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

---

They're classified as Iranian-speakers anyway, but, no, they're not regarded as "ethnic" Persians by what I know of it. Something the Sassanids - who were - doubtless emphasized after their coup...

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

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

---

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

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...

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miles Sueborum

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miles Sueborum

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miles Sueborum

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

Correct if I'm wrong

---

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

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."