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

Glory of Persepolis' goes on screen in response to insulting movie `300'
Tehran, May 1, IRNA

Iran-Movie-Persepolis

Quote:

---

A number of experts and critics attending the screening and analysis session of the documentary dubbed `Glory of Persepolis' said that it reflects the dignity of Iranians and Persepolis, adding that it is a proper response to the insulting Hollywood movie `300'.

The screening of a new series of films started at Nour film house of Imam Ali (AS) Religious Arts Museum on Monday afternoon and `Glory of Persepolis' was the first film that was screened and analyzed.

The session was attended by the producer of this documentary, Hossein Hazrati and Head of Parseh Research Foundation
Mohammad-Hassan Talebian among others.

Speaking at the session, Talebian said that this cinematic project was proposed by Iran's Cultural Heritage Organization in 2003.

"The production of the proposed film was materialized through the efforts of the Parseh Research Foundation team working on
it, which is now used to introduce Persepolis to visitors and give them an idea on this world famous ancient monument prior to touring it," he added.

"Based on the research conducted at the foundation on the scientific progress and outstanding technologies of the era, it was found that the technology of the period was ahead of its own time, some examples of which are just being used today.

Film critic, Reza Dorostkar, also attending the session, dismissed the idea of preserving the Iranians identity and history through incitement of their feelings.

"Today, we need to produce films aiming to revive our historical monuments that will provide the opportunity to observe historical facts and at the same time get introduced to the history," he added.

On his part, the producer of the documentary expounded on the film and the relevant book, adding that it is the fruit of sincere efforts of all those involved in the project.

"In the process of production, it was attempted to consider the views of domestic and foreign experts, researchers and
archaeologists," said Hazrati.

---

As long as it isn't equally insulting... go Persia!

I'd be surprised if the Mullahs let this one through their blacklist as they usually ban anything pre-Islamic Persian. Hence why we haven't seen many historical flicks from Iran at all really.:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Celt

I'd be surprised if the Mullahs let this one through their blacklist as they usually ban anything pre-Islamic Persian. Hence why we haven't seen many historical flicks from Iran at all really.:dizzy2:

---

And that is a damn shame!

:no:

Yeah, they are a bit selective about defending 'their' cultural heritage. Still, better late than never I guess.

You know Iran has got the dumbest propaganda people sometimes . There are hundreds of ways they could mess with Pre-Islamic Iran and make it how they want . Instead they try to ban it .

Does the film start with a mushroom cloud over a picture of the US on a map? Unfortunately, I think that the modern Iran is way behind the Persian Empire....well the Persians didn't have nukes.....did they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by russia almighty

You know Iran has got the dumbest propaganda people sometimes . There are hundreds of ways they could mess with Pre-Islamic Iran and make it how they want . Instead they try to ban it .

---

hey, the US resents that remark. US propagandists are pretty dumb too!:laugh4:

Quote:

---

I think that the modern Iran is way behind the Persian Empire....well the Persians didn't have nukes.....did they?

---

well neither does Iran

A ban on pre-islamic films in Iran? Well, that is news to me. Does anyone actually has a source on that?

The reason not many people here have seen an Iranian historical war film is probably that not many have seen an Iranian film at all. And of course that historical war films hasn't been in the vogue in Iran, as it has here ever since Gladiator and the revival of the swords'n'sandals type films of 50's Hollywood.

As for doing that "Glory of Persepolis" movie as a response to "300" it is as dumb as doing a "Glory of Tom" film in response to Jerry's string of successes.

rgds/EoE

BTW: If they're not banned (un)officially in your country, go see a New Wave Iranian film if you got the chance. It's really something else.

If you want to watch one of their movies, do some research on it first or your likely to pick up a several hour long pile of crap like I did from blockbuster. But hey! All the independant film festivals loved it :dizzy2: At least it was amusing at all the wrong moments.

I'm getting pretty tired of all the "300 is racist and sexist" talk. It was based on a GRAPHIC NOVEL, with a simple plot involving good guys and bad guys. It's like saying Kill Bill is prejudiced against the Japanese, depicting them through the Crazy 88's as bloodthirsty, black mask wearing, katana wielding minions.
300 is a dumb, entertaining movie that should not be taken seriously and does not need a "response."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecramer

300 is a dumb, entertaining movie that should not be taken seriously and does not need a "response."

---

Try explaining that to the Mullahs. (No offense intended towards any other Iranians.)

hm, well to consider how they feel, it would probably be like an iraqi film about the U.S. invasion depicting the americans as black-clad, demonic stormtroopers killing indiscriminately and mercilessly; which undoubtedly would upset alot of yanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

hm, well to consider how they feel, it would probably be like an iraqi film about the U.S. invasion depicting the americans as black-clad, demonic stormtroopers killing indiscriminately and mercilessly; which undoubtedly would upset alot of yanks.

---

I agree. Before making '300', Snyder should have thought a little how many people were going to be insulted by it. Especially when diplomatic relations between the US and Iran are what they are. Insulting someone else for the amusement of others is not my thing...

Go iran (wow never though I'd say that:inquisitive: )

I believe they did consider who would be offended by "The 300" before they made it. And they thought it was good. "There is no such thing as bad publicity."

It would be cool to see a pro-Achaemenid movie. But I don't think one made in Iran would be very historical. There would probably be anti-West and pro-Islam (yes Islam) bais in it.

Just a side note: I see the Achaemenids as the "good guys" and the Greeks as violent barbarians on the border causing trouble.

Mullahs want to make a movie about ancient Iran in response to '300' ! Oh No ,That's what I was always afraind of. How they can do so while they are already destroying Perspolis and Cyrus the great tomb the true father of all Iranians by opening the sivand dam ?!
300 was an annoying movie for me and anyother true iranian ,But what mullahs are doing is just horrific. Hope that this news is just a rumor.



P.S : We need world protest against opening the "Sivand Dam" which is a direct threat to one of the world's ancient treasures ,The Perspolis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kambiz

P.S : We need world protest against opening the "Sivand Dam" which is a direct threat to one of the world's ancient treasures ,The Perspolis.

---

They're flooding Perspolis!?!

First Abu Simbel, then Zeugma, now Perspolis!?!

Why should one get upset with a movie using fiction to depict something that happened long ago. If people are going to worry about who they will upset when they make a movie we would have none. I do not hear the Germans getting mad when a WWI or WWII movie is made, maybe the skinheads. I am from the southern part of the US and I do not get offended with American civil war movies. Either the movie is true or not why worry about what some overpaid person in California is portraying. :wall:


it's a movie fiction all who looks to the cinema for a history lesson are looking in the wrong place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus

It would be cool to see a pro-Achaemenid movie. But I don't think one made in Iran would be very historical. There would probably be anti-West and pro-Islam (yes Islam) bais in it.

---

on the other hand, any movie made in the US "probably" is anti-east and pro-christianity/judaism bais. Same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Narhon

I do not hear the Germans getting mad when a WWI or WWII movie is made, maybe the skinheads.

---

The Germans don't make a very good yardstick, given their fairly justified issues about the topic. The self-flagellation can, however, reach somewhat embarassing levels in my experience.

The American South I can say little about, but I suspect the phenomenom is similar regarding the population segment that doesn't have issues with Civil War movies - institutionalized slavery and oppression now just happens to be plain nasty by mainstream modern sensibilities after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Narhon

I do not hear the Germans getting mad when a WWI or WWII movie is made, maybe the skinheads.

---

well i think that probably has something to do with the germans being portrayed in most western made WWII films as pathetic losers getting killed by the dozens by the grizzled, tough-as-nails yank or brit soldier who's there to save the day ~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

hm, well to consider how they feel, it would probably be like an iraqi film about the U.S. invasion depicting the americans as black-clad, demonic stormtroopers killing indiscriminately and mercilessly; which undoubtedly would upset alot of yanks.

---

That's fine, except that the depiction of the Persians in 300 has absolutely nothing in common with Iran of today. Unless Iranians see some similarities between themselves and an army of faceless ninjas commanded by a creepy sexually ambiguous guy? :inquisitive: Because I didn't see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecramer

I'm getting pretty tired of all the "300 is racist and sexist" talk. It was based on a GRAPHIC NOVEL, with a simple plot involving good guys and bad guys. It's like saying Kill Bill is prejudiced against the Japanese, depicting them through the Crazy 88's as bloodthirsty, black mask wearing, katana wielding minions.
300 is a dumb, entertaining movie that should not be taken seriously and does not need a "response."

---

This movie makes a mockery out of human life and glorifies murder on a massive scale. I had hoped people would have ignored it but apparently good taste is hard to find these days. The whole 'it's based on a graphic novel' argument is bs, you shouldn't make a graphic novel about raping women either.

All nations have their history. Good, Bad and Ugly. Yes I took the name from an Italian western. We all should learn from the past not try to hide it, like the propaganda ministries of our countries would like. I do think the cause of the Germans in WWII was bad but many Germans at that time did not. We are all swayed by our countries propaganda. What the Persians were 2500 years ago does not matter except to those who study history. The only Iranians I have met are good people. I can say the same for most of the people I have met around the world and I have been around the world. My point was why get upset with a piece of fiction set in a historical time and place. There are many other things worthwhile in the world that we should get worked up over. :egypt:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Narhon

All nations have their history. Good, Bad and Ugly. Yes I took the name from an Italian western. We all should learn from the past not try to hide it, like the propaganda ministries of our countries would like. I do think the cause of the Germans in WWII was bad but many Germans at that time did not. We are all swayed by our countries propaganda. What the Persians were 2500 years ago does not matter except to those who study history. The only Iranians I have met are good people. I can say the same for most of the people I have met around the world and I have been around the world. My point was why get upset with a piece of fiction set in a historical time and place. There are many other things worthwhile in the world that we should get worked up over. :egypt:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

That's fine, except that the depiction of the Persians in 300 has absolutely nothing in common with Iran of today. Unless Iranians see some similarities between themselves and an army of faceless ninjas commanded by a creepy sexually ambiguous guy? :inquisitive: Because I didn't see it.

---

Uh, except that they are Persians. :idea2:

I totally agree with Narhon.I just add that someone with brains won't be insulted by a movie,picture( etc.) that doesn't depicts him or refers to him PERSONALLY(by name,surname,birthday..).However,there are some "people" who can take such movies as a personal insults.Poor ones...

Well I saw Kingdom of Heaven and although I'm not sure about the historicle accuracy of said movie, it depicted a very honorable Saladin, more than History Channel I think; the crusaders on the other hand looked like bloodthirsty stupid fellas. How did arabs react to that movie, compared to 300?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barigos

I totally agree with Narhon.I just add that someone with brains won't be insulted by a movie,picture( etc.) that doesn't depicts him or refers to him PERSONALLY(by name,surname,birthday..).However,there are some "people" who can take such movies as a personal insults.Poor ones...

---

You don't mind watching humans get killed by the thousands just for entertainment? I find it repulisive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mad Guitar Murphy

You don't mind watching humans get killed by the thousands just for entertainment? I find it repulisive.

---

I'm sorry for the blunt response but If it bothers you then simply don't watch it.

Yes it's wrong but thats how society is nowaday's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MastaSpoofa

I'm sorry for the blunt response but If it bothers you then simply don't watch it.

Yes it's wrong but thats how society is nowaday's.

---

You are right of course but I can't stop wondering why people like this crap. Do they find it entertaining to watch people die en masse? It's not like lord of the rings, when you see orcs die or anything.

people have always liked watching others die, its not just society these days.

whats the difference between watching orcs on LOTR die, or the thousands who died when the rebels blew up the death star?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

people have always liked watching others die, its not just society these days.

whats the difference between watching orcs on LOTR die, or the thousands who died when the rebels blew up the death star?

---

I agree, Ill be honest and say that I find excitement to see people die (not cruelly but honorably in a fight or somthing similar)

Perhaps I've been corrupted by the media but there are very few things I wouldn't give to be able to participate in an ancient battle of the Greeks or Romans, maybe Gladiator has distorted my perception of a real battle (of course) but still...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

people have always liked watching others die, its not just society these days.

whats the difference between watching orcs on LOTR die, or the thousands who died when the rebels blew up the death star?

---

The difference is that the death star exploded in 2 seconds and in 300 we get to watch persians getting hacked into pieces very graphically for 2 houres. People who should know right from wrong should understand that this is not what fun is supposed to be like. Also of course, the empire in sw is pure fiction and the persian empire still exists. Also Persians are actually a people, although most 12 years olds jerking off at this movie probably won't know were to find it on a map.

Attending an ancient battle cannot have been so nice, you should try reading accounts from WW1, they are very graphic in the horror those soldiers went through. It's the carnage that mad them go insane, so the timeframe is not to important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MastaSpoofa

Perhaps I've been corrupted by the media but there are very few things I wouldn't give to be able to participate in an ancient battle of the Greeks or Romans, maybe Gladiator has distorted my perception of a real battle (of course) but still...

---

Wow, dude. I dont want to sound mean but that is one of the most ignorant statements I've ever heard. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barigos

I totally agree with Narhon.I just add that someone with brains won't be insulted by a movie,picture( etc.) that doesn't depicts him or refers to him PERSONALLY(by name,surname,birthday..).However,there are some "people" who can take such movies as a personal insults.Poor ones...

---

Actually, given the extremely multi-ethnic nature of the Persian empire and army, the movie could be regarded as generally insulting to more or less everyone between the Straits of Bosphorus and Hindu Kush (not counting the Turko-Mongols and other latecomers)...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caveira

Well I saw Kingdom of Heaven and although I'm not sure about the historicle accuracy of said movie, it depicted a very honorable Saladin, more than History Channel I think; the crusaders on the other hand looked like bloodthirsty stupid fellas. How did arabs react to that movie, compared to 300?

---

The Arabs are rather irrelevant to the discussion, as the ones feeling honked off are Iranians/Persians. Getting the two mixed up A) suggests a failure of knowledge on the part of the speaker B) would probably rather annoy both groups, much the same way as the Spanish and French would not likely appreciate being confused for each other.

Anyway, anyone who's done his homework will know that the Crusaders by and large were a bunch of bloodthirsty, ignorant fanatics and generally somewhat disagreeable people (right soon also in the opinion of the inhabitants of the Outrémer...), whereas Saladin's conduct was not only admired also by his Christian opponents but also well in line with long-established Arabic and Islamic notions of chivalrious behaviour.

The case of 300 is hardly comparable, given that the comic alone drips with very questionable partisanism and whitewashing of the Spartan system contrasting with general bad-mouthing of the Persians (although I actually found Miller's rendition of the common footsoldiers visually interesting), and the movie goes on to add the insult of freaky mutants and LotR monster circus to the injury of being in generally bad taste.
All of the above naturally quite in the face of what is known of the actual context and proceedings.

Ah its okay, I try not to be but hey... :dizzy2: We dont all come as gifted as some with knowledge of history as well as some, I have been trying to get into history and its one of my favorite subjects but I've only started on my journey for wisdom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mad Guitar Murphy

The difference is that the death star exploded in 2 seconds and in 300 we get to watch persians getting hacked into pieces very graphically for 2 houres. People who should know right from wrong should understand that this is not what fun is supposed to be like. Also of course, the empire in sw is pure fiction and the persian empire still exists. Also Persians are actually a people, although most 12 years olds jerking off at this movie probably won't know were to find it on a map.

Attending an ancient battle cannot have been so nice, you should try reading accounts from WW1, they are very graphic in the horror those soldiers went through. It's the carnage that mad them go insane, so the timeframe is not to important.

---

Well that's true, and we can't compare reality to fiction, but the thesis is the same and people are cheering or enjoying the fact that people are being killed, some of them innocent bystanders or people who would normally have no part in any 'evil' or 'wrongdoing'.

Maybe i spoke too liberally when i said i would give anything to be in a battle, but hey, War is beautiful to those who have not yet experienced it. (the quote goes somthing like that...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

Well that's true, and we can't compare reality to fiction, but the thesis is the same and people are cheering or enjoying the fact that people are being killed, some of them innocent bystanders or people who would normally have no part in any 'evil' or 'wrongdoing'.

---

Well, I agree but Starwars didn't glorify death and killing and 300 does. It's basically what the movie is about, how cool it is to kill other humans.

:embarassed: You know what we need here....Rambo and the Soviet Union:embarassed: I miss those guys, As far as the movie 300 it is supposed to be entertaining and insulting. I like movies even if they are ignorant(clerks II) 300 is retarded i knew that, i still saw it. Lets face it some people just wanna cause an issue, every Norweigain (i cant spell) loved to be called a viking and the imagery associated with it. None of them sail or go raiding. Its like my mama told me if ur insulted by someone it means ur not seeing it right or that you are just a p***y. My friend is persian and he loves that "his people are still feared" his words not mine. and for me and for us i belive it aint where u been but where we are tying to go:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

Well that's true, and we can't compare reality to fiction, but the thesis is the same and people are cheering or enjoying the fact that people are being killed, some of them innocent bystanders or people who would normally have no part in any 'evil' or 'wrongdoing'.

---

In the creepily aseptic parlance of modern warfare those are called "collateral damage". Anyway, at least with the Death Star (and in general void-swimming warships going "and the sky was full of stars... every one of them a dying ship...") we're spared the high-energy details of the vast crew complement's demise.

With 300 the Movie we get to watch it in full color for a long time up close, and basically told it is justice.

See the difference ? One reduces the death of, well, given the dimensions involved, hundreds of thousands of crew to basically a statistic, as curt summaries on important historical massacres now are wont to. Another presents the bloody end of countless people as basically "good clean fun" to Impress & Entertain the audience with Spectacle, strips them of their humanity and suffering on the side, and goes to some lenghts of bogus rhetorical BS to present this as a Right And Good Thing. Oh yeah, and Decisively Important To Civilization As We Know It too.

And no, 300 isn't the sole offender in recent memory in these regards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mad Guitar Murphy

This movie makes a mockery out of human life and glorifies murder on a massive scale. I had hoped people would have ignored it but apparently good taste is hard to find these days. The whole 'it's based on a graphic novel' argument is bs, you shouldn't make a graphic novel about raping women either.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mad Guitar Murphy

Yes, and one of those things is that people nowadays apparently like to watch a movie that portrays another people as demons and see them die by the thousands by some machos. IMHO people who like this movie sould see a shrink. No offense intended.

Btw, I am watchng the movie right now and I find it offensive to everything human.

---

From the earliest times of cinema there's been somekind of violence on the screens, wether it's Indians circling a wagon train that get killed in droves but still manage to kill or rape everyone, or stereotypical Arab attacking a French foreign legion fort, or a concentration camp in WW2 run by evil nazis. Hell, get Rambo or American Ninja in here too.

The movie *was* based on a graphic novel, but even if it wasn't what the hell is the problem? Should the guys that make the movie (or the graphic novel) just do whatever is right in your view? Yes, the man is a douche bag, the movie is historically inaccurate and *probably* has political second-intentions, neither of which are a reason not to enjoy the movie for it's basic function - entertainment.

What is with this modern new-age over-sensitive and politically-correct movement that likes to tell people what to do or what not to do?

I think you should see a shrink. No offence intended.


:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

Uh, except that they are Persians. :idea2:

---

Yes, Persians more than two-thousand years in the past and who have consistently been reduced as a national heritage by the current Islamist regime.

As an aside, nowhere in the movie do I recall it being mentioned where the Persians came from or a link being drawn to current-day Iran. How would people dumb enough to believe the movie is an accurate representation of reality be expected to make the link between the enemy in 300 and Iran, without this whole hysteria?

Thanks for eloquently making my point Watchman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

In the creepily aseptic parlance of modern warfare those are called "collateral damage". Anyway, at least with the Death Star (and in general void-swimming warships going "and the sky was full of stars... every one of them a dying ship...") we're spared the high-energy details of the vast crew complement's demise.

With 300 the Movie we get to watch it in full color for a long time up close, and basically told it is justice.

See the difference ? One reduces the death of, well, given the dimensions involved, hundreds of thousands of crew to basically a statistic, as curt summaries on important historical massacres now are wont to. Another presents the bloody end of countless people as basically "good clean fun" to Impress & Entertain the audience with Spectacle, strips them of their humanity and suffering on the side, and goes to some lenghts of bogus rhetorical BS to present this as a Right And Good Thing. Oh yeah, and Decisively Important To Civilization As We Know It too.

And no, 300 isn't the sole offender in recent memory in these regards.

---

Ok, what about Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers? They are far more graphical and basically present Germans as evil monsters for most of the movie.

And it's one thing me not wanting to see the movie, and another for you to keep me from seeing it or being in your moral ivory tower looking down on me for seeing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

From the earliest times of cinema there's been somekind of violence on the screens, wether it's Indians circling a wagon train that get killed in droves but still manage to kill or rape everyone, or stereotypical Arab attacking a French foreign legion fort, or a concentration camp in WW2 run by evil nazis. Hell, get Rambo or American Ninja in here too.

---

Watching people get killed has seldomly been so prominently in a movie, I don't agree with anything that compares with it either by the way. The point is that this movie is about killing others, shows it very graphically because it is cool and it claims justice is done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

The movie *was* based on a graphic novel, but even if it wasn't what the hell is the problem? Should the guys that make the movie (or the graphic novel) just do whatever is right in your view? Yes, the man is a douche bag, the movie is historically inaccurate and *probably* has political second-intentions, neither of which are a reason not to enjoy the movie for it's basic function - entertainment.

What is with this modern new-age over-sensitive and politically-correct movement that likes to tell people what to do or what not to do?

I think you should see a shrink. No offence intended.


:inquisitive:

---

I did not say that movies such as this one should be forbidden or anything so don''t act all insulted and invoke your basic freedoms. I just said that it is strange if you enjoy watching people die. Now is it or is it not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Yes, Persians more than two-thousand years in the past and who have consistently been reduced as a national heritage by the current Islamist regime.

As an aside, nowhere in the movie do I recall it being mentioned where the Persians came from or a link being drawn to current-day Iran. How would people dumb enough to believe the movie is an accurate representation of reality be expected to make the link between the enemy in 300 and Iran, without this whole hysteria?

---

well alot of the same people believe the movie represents actual spartans :laugh4:

And the Persians are not some people who have ceased to exist. They are a modern day people who live in iran, afghanistan, iraq, the united states, and a dozen other countries around the world. Any group of people can be offended when they are portrayed in a movie incorrectly, i dont blame them. the british should be upset at movies like "the patriot", etc, for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Yes, Persians more than two-thousand years in the past and who have consistently been reduced as a national heritage by the current Islamist regime.

---

I think even the more severely ignorant will have little trouble with associating "Persia" with more or less the correct geographical area.

And if they on the side blanket over the Arabs and Afghans into the same category, two birds with one stone right ?
(Yes, I have some quite cynical views on some of the motivating factors behind the filmatization. And Miller's questionable choice of themes and rhetoric in the original for that matter.)

Quote:

---

Yes, Persians more than two-thousand years in the past and who have consistently been reduced as a national heritage by the current Islamist regime.

---

I understand they've overall preserved an idea of distinct cultural identity rather well, actually. AFAIK Persia was in many ways rather odd by many of the common standards of the Muslim world for example, and succesfully enough absorbed the waves of various conquerors that washed over it due to the default condition it now happened to be one of the major (if not the main) routes from Central Asia into Mesopotamia and the Middle East general.

And while I'm leery enough of the brand of Irano-Persian nationalism propagated under the Republic (and previously under the Shah for that matter), as I now am of all such identity-building schemes, and far too cynical to not recognize a fair bit of naked political opportunism on the part of Tehran in the current holabaloo, I figure the Iranians by and large have a legit enough case to be irked over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mad Guitar Murphy

Watching people get killed has seldomly been so prominently in a movie, I don't agree with anything that compares with it either by the way. The point is that this movie is about killing others, shows it very graphically because it is cool and it claims justice is done.

I did not say that movies such as this one should be forbidden or anything so don''t act all insulted and invoke your basic freedoms. I just said that it is strange if you enjoy watching people die. Now is it or is it not?

---

I do enjoy watching people die. I've been watching people die on my TV almost all of my life. Rambo, American Ninja, The Terminator, Commando, Braveheart, Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, etc... are all part of the list of movies I've watched and enjoyed, even if they're dumb and do glorify violence against a mob of dehumanized people. Does that make me a bad person or, even better, a lesser man than you?

And, no, you just called me crazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

I do enjoy watching people die. I've been watching people die on my TV almost all of my life. Rambo, American Ninja, The Terminator, Commando, Braveheart, Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, etc... are all part of the list of movies I've watched and enjoyed, even if they're dumb and do glorify violence against a mob of dehumanized people. Does that make me a bad person or, even better, a lesser man than you?

And, no, you just called me crazy.

---

Those movies are not just about cool guys dressed in red killing other humans for two houres. I don't think you can compare a warmovie such as Platoon with 300, or The Terminator, a movie about the fight against evil robots with 300. Also, none of those movies glorify violence and murder of human beings and 300 does.

It can't be healthy if you enjoy to see hundreds of humans getting their limbs hacked of for two houres.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

Ok, what about Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers? They are far more graphical and basically present Germans as evil monsters for most of the movie.

---

BoB was a TV series last I checked you know. Anyway, I've seen both and far as I could gather they had none of this demonization you speak of. Both indeed seemed to go to some lenghts to ascribe a fair bit of very human sentiments - fear, anxiety, pain, terror etc. - also to "the enemy", and went to some lenghts (not all that far in the case of Ryan mind you) to strip war of its luster of heroism. Or rather, the idea of heroism they communicated was a by far more "modern" and human one than the infantile propagandistic fantasies 300 pimps.

Let's just say that a movie about Thermopylai, 480BC, done with the approach of the movie and series mentioned would not have endeared nearly so much hue and cry about quasi-fascistic propagandism, black-and-white demonization, and what-have-you.

Something that is actually rather more curious is how there AFAIK was no reaction in the UK to the presentation of the Anglo-Saxons as basically rabid proto-Nazis in Arthur, given that those guys are basically their direct ancestors... I guess identifying with the heroic defenders, the Excalibur myth, and vague associations with the Battle of Britain did the trick. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

And it's one thing me not wanting to see the movie, and another for you to keep me from seeing it or being in your moral ivory tower looking down on me for seeing it.

---

Please do not offend my eyes or intellect with these strawmen. Nobody, far as I know, has voiced his or her wish to keep you from seeing the movie; and I will not begrudge anyone merely for watching the thing, although I might question their taste and judgement a bit.

Apologizing for that calculated piece of crap is an entirely different issue, and I will cheerfully volunteer to try and dismember such argumentation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

Does that make me a bad person or, even better, a lesser man than you?

---

Your manliness is irrelevant here. Keep it in your damn pants.

Or as my brother would likely put it, "hide your shame man!" ~;p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mad Guitar Murphy

Those movies are not just about cool guys dressed in red killing other humans for two houres. I don't think you can compare a warmovie such as Platoon with 300, or The Terminator, a movie about the fight against evil robots with 300. Also, none of those movies glorify violence and murder of human beings and 300 does.

It can't be healthy if you enjoy to see hundreds of humans getting their limbs hacked of for two houres.

---

The Terminator and Platoon were there for the violence, after all the Terminator offs an entire police station, and murders a few other people along the way. Platoon is all about the soldiers in the unit, the enemy being part of the scenery to either kill or get killed.

And what do you mean the others don't? From anonymous ninjas to stereotypical Russian, English and Vietnamese soldiers, they're portrayed as being lesser beings than the hero, only the "bosses" remotely having a personality and usually simply "evil". They do glorify their deaths over some pretence of justice or moral superiority.

And I do enjoy it, thank you very much. Healthy, you're just gonna have to take my word for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

BoB was a TV series last I checked you know. Anyway, I've seen both and far as I could gather they had none of this demonization you speak of. Both indeed seemed to go to some lenghts to ascribe a fair bit of very human sentiments - fear, anxiety, pain, terror etc. - also to "the enemy", and went to some lenghts (not all that far in the case of Ryan mind you) to strip war of its luster of heroism. Or rather, the idea of heroism they communicated was a by far more "modern" and human one than the infantile propagandistic fantasies 300 pimps.

---

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

Ryan was completely one sided, even the attempt of the allied soldiers to do the right thing backfires on them, because Germans were the bad guys (even if he was afraid to die), mechanically executing wounded American soldiers.

In Band of Brothers, there's about 2 german soldiers that are treated like humans, one curiously comes from Ohio (I think). For the rest of the show they're background.

However, of course 300 is miles away from being the films (or series) either of these are, in the way they portray the enemy or sheer quality. The difference is 300 is highly stylized and made so that it is directly resembles the graphic novel (which it even fails at times).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Let's just say that a movie about Thermopylai, 480BC, done with the approach of the movie and series mentioned would not have endeared nearly so much hue and cry about quasi-fascistic propagandism, black-and-white demonization, and what-have-you.

Something that is actually rather more curious is how there AFAIK was no reaction in the UK to the presentation of the Anglo-Saxons as basically rabid proto-Nazis in Arthur, given that those guys are basically their direct ancestors... I guess identifying with the heroic defenders, the Excalibur myth, and vague associations with the Battle of Britain did the trick.

---

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

My point is there's been black-and-white demonization before, even downright fascism and racism in other films, and people still enjoyed the movies featuring them. I know I did. Sure you can ask if those people can recognize it and make the separation like I can. Maybe not, but you should still give them the benefit of the doubt.

That and probably because in Western Europe, they don't care about being misrepresented in a movie. There sure as hell wouldn't be demonstrations in the streets burning shit, prohibiting it, or official announcements from the government condemning it. And I hope it'll never will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Please do not offend my eyes or intellect with these strawmen. Nobody, far as I know, has voiced his or her wish to keep you from seeing the movie; and I will not begrudge anyone merely for watching the thing, although I might question their taste and judgement a bit.

Apologizing for that calculated piece of crap is an entirely different issue, and I will cheerfully volunteer to try and dismember such argumentation.

---

Maybe not here, but the movie has been criticized in the same way you are criticizing it, and there's been movements to shut it down, which to me is a grave thing. And you might not begrudge anyone but you are questioning his judgement, meaning yours is better than anyone that wished to see the movie...no sense of superiority here huh?

Is there a reason someone who has watched and enjoyed the movie need to apologize about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Your manliness is irrelevant here. Keep it in your damn pants.

Or as my brother would likely put it, "hide your shame man!"

---

:beam: A man, not in a macho sense. More as in a moral man.

This is getting a bit hostile, it would be unfortunate if it was locked.

On a side note about violence in 300:
Did anyone notice that there was no blood on the ground at any point? Even with all the blood that flew through the air, there was never any on the ground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus

This is getting a bit hostile, it would be unfortunate if it was locked.

On a side note about violence in 300:
Did anyone notice that there was no blood on the ground at any point? Even with all the blood that flew through the air, there was never any on the ground.

---

Don't worry man, it's all good. I'm sure Watchman agrees.

I also noticed that the arrows that were on stuck on the shield mysteriously disappear, and the amount of arrows that fall isn't nearly as much as the ones stuck on the floor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

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

---

I'm a details nazi, of course.

Quote:

---

Ryan was completely one sided, even the attempt of the allied soldiers to do the right thing backfires on them, because Germans were the bad guys (even if he was afraid to die), mechanically executing wounded American soldiers.

---

Recall the conduct of the American soldiers at the beach assault scene, or their insistence on lynching the last survivor of the radar station's garrison ? They're not exactly made out to be shining heroes much of the time. And that one German who gets to give a face to the enemy, well, what do you seriously expect him to have done in a life-or-death hand-to-hand struggle with all of his squad-mates already dead ? At least he lets that interpreter guy who saved his life go - which duly comes back to bite him in the ass later...

For the basically heroic war story it now is, Ryan at least makes an effort to paint both sides with shades of gray.

Quote:

---

In Band of Brothers, there's about 2 german soldiers that are treated like humans, one curiously comes from Ohio (I think). For the rest of the show they're background.

---

But they're not particularly demonized either are they ? And I also seem to recall one poignant scene at the end where that one senior German officer surrenders his troops and makes a speech to the grizzled lot of 'em for one example - the thrust of that ought to be fairly obvious. Many of the battle scenes also give the Germans the full range of relevant emotions and a strong sense of a very human desperate wish to survive, and I don't remember that one bayonet fight in a barn being anything else than distinctly unheroic and generally rather more just desperate and grim.

Quote:

---

However, of course 300 is miles away from being the films (or series) either of these are, in the way they portray the enemy or sheer quality. The difference is 300 is highly stylized and made so that it is directly resembles the graphic novel (which it even fails at times).

---

Well, 300 doesn't even make the effort. It wallows in general Spartan Awesomeness and Spectacle, and commits the mortal sin of doing so in the context of an extremely questionable political statement. Several, actually. I counted a fair few from the comic alone.

Quote:

---

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

---

No - it might be a tolerable movie.

Quote:

---

My point is there's been black-and-white demonization before, even downright fascism and racism in other films, and people still enjoyed the movies featuring them. I know I did. Sure you can ask if those people can recognize it and make the separation like I can. Maybe not, but you should still give them the benefit of the doubt.

---

I did make a point of mentioning 300 was not the sole offender. It is, however, the one in court here, and a particularly obnoxious specimen.

And I'm far too cynical about people on the abstract level to bother giving them much benefit of doubt. At least when I set my expectations low - as empirical evidence recommends - I will only be positively surprised.

Quote:

---

That and probably because in Western Europe, they don't care about being misrepresented in a movie. There sure as hell wouldn't be demonstrations in the streets burning shit, prohibiting it, or official announcements from the government condemning it. And I hope it'll never will.

---

Irrelevant. The Muslim world has its rather complicated reasons for being as testy as it is; the "West" largely lacks those circumstances, and in any case as it tends to be one of the primary offenders both past and present really has little right to talk back on the subject most of the time.

Now, I don't know what was written to assorted tabloids by concerned readers and so on, but I've got a strong hunch the lack of internationally noticeable noises on part of the Brits concerning the depiction of their forebears has by far more to do with a rather perverse identification on the other side instead - and really when it comes down to that, both ultimately count as "Britons" anyway. No such ambivalency about 300 of course, just ultra-macho supermen that could have stepped right out of Nazi art (save for the lack of blond hair and blue eyes) cheerfully slaughtering faceless, mindless hordes of thoroughly dehumanized Asian hordes...
:dizzy2:
Me, I prefer Riefenstahl over that kind of rubbish.

Quote:

---

Maybe not here, but the movie has been criticized in the same way you are criticizing it, and there's been movements to shut it down, which to me is a grave thing.

---

Watch me care. Never heard any of that around here, just a lot of snide remarks from reviewers.

Quote:

---

And you might not begrudge anyone but you are questioning his judgement, meaning yours is better than anyone that wished to see the movie...no sense of superiority here huh?

---

I was entitled to have an opinion of other people and their tastes, the last I checked. And a certain assumption of one's judgement being superior tends to be implicit in any disagreement by default...

Although I will readily admit I do tend to assume a certain degree of intellectual superiority, particularly in the field of analysis and forming coherent and passably objective judgement, over "my fellow man". Thus far empiric evidence has warranted it.

Quote:

---

Is there a reason someone who has watched and enjoyed the movie need to apologize about?

---

I take it you did not quite understand the concept of "apologism" ? It's basically exactly what you've been doing for a while now - defending the movie from the critique leveled against it, on IMO somewhat shaky grounds.

Although now that you mention it, yeah, actually paying money to see that kind of testosterone-laden politically tendentious infantile power fantasy would really be worth an apology. To good taste and judgement in general if nothing else.

Quote:

---

:beam: A man, not in a macho sense. More as in a moral man.

---

Just for the record, I am familiar enough with the reasoning of feminist discourse to start picking that statement apart...
:beam:
Being a native speaker of a fairly gender-neutral language that doesn't use the male genus as standard passive form has its perks, too.

Hello, I would like to make my own input to this argument.

Firstly I would like to make a few statements:

The Persians did invade Greece.
The Spartans did make a stand at the pass of Thermopylae.
The Spartans killed an extremely large number of Persians compared to their number.
After 3 days of combat, the Spartans all died.
Athens by then had prepared her fleet and engaged the Persian fleet at the battle of Salamis, resulting in an Athenian victory.
Xerxes returned to Persia after his fleet was destroyed, leaving command to one of his generals.
The Persian army in Greece was finally defeated by a large Greek army at the battle of Plataea.

So ended the war.


What can be said based on these events?

The Persians initiated the war by invading Greece.
The Spartans were brave and very skilled. This can be deduced from the fact that a small number of them stood against many and from the large amount of Persian losses compared to Spartan losses.
The Spartans made a sacrifice of their lives for the defense of their homeland.
The battle of Salamis may have depended on those 300 spartans giving Athens enough time to prepare.
The battle of Plataea may have depended on the absence of Xerxes which resulted from the Victory at Salamis. Regardless, it was made much easier by the smaller number of enemies as a result of the battle of Thermopylae.

Had it not been for the battle of Thermopylae:

The Persians might have conquered Greece.
The Persians might have then invaded Europe and they might have conquered it too.
World history would be very different from that point on.
It is for these reasons that the battle of Thermopylae is what might be called a turning point in history. It was an important battle to say the least.


The Spartans at Thermopylae are an example to all of bravery and that few can triumph against many. It was in fact, what people might refer to as heroic(courageous, brave, going against the odds, and morally right.) I think most of us should be able to agree on the bravery, but morally right is probably more debatable.
As far as I know, self defense is morally right. I think it can be said for sure that it is not wrong. The debate then would be "what is self defense?". Let's deduce that seeing as how the Persians had by that time conquered many lands, they intended to conquer Greece and weren't going to be convinced otherwise by diplomacy. In this way, self defense was all the Greeks could do to defend their homeland from invaders.


I believe this is true:

The battle of Thermopylae is a worthy subject for a movie as it was a very important historical event, and it was a triumph of human values(courage).


Moving on to 300.

The movie is historical. It shows us what happened in history. Some things are probably different from how they really were. However, it does not stray from the historical events. I am sorry if you are Persian and are offended by the negative light in which the Persians were portrayed. However, I believe that being the attackers, the Persians were in the wrong.

It is said that the movie glorifies death and killing. Rather, I believe the movie glorifies the courage, the skill, and the sacrifice of the Spartans.

It is said the whole movie shows killing. This is not the case. There are many scenes that involve no battle, and many that involve no violence. In fact, I think it can be said that the movie tells us of the war, mainly focused around the battle of Thermopylae.

The movie should not be discredited simply because it has action in it. I find it has an adequate storyline.

It is said that people love watching the killing. I believe this is incorrect, otherwise said people would also enjoy watching a two hour movie of a man stabbing a thousand people all standing in a row waiting to be killed.
No. I think people enjoy the movie for its rather innovative cinematography, for the fairly good stunts done by the soldiers, and for the story.

For now this is enough. If you find error in what I believe, in what I think, please pose an argument explaining why it is wrong. If you have questions for me, please ask. I'm always up for a good debate, though I ask that we keep it civil.

Quote:

---

The movie is historical. It shows us what happened in history. Some things are probably different from how they really were

---

Uh, what?

Here's a few points you can chew on.

Granted, there were 300 spartans at Thermopylae. However, there were also 4000 allies on the first two days of the battle and 1500 during the fatal last stand.

Some historians have even thought the total "greek" contingent upwards of 8000, and the last 1500 only remained because they were in essence trapped. So much for the glory of hellenic bravery.

The million man army of legend is more likely, by modern estimates, anywhere from 60,000--150,000 based on the land and amount of water availible in the campaign.

Moreso, the the central theme of the movie, that of "free" and "democracy loving" Spartans against "slave" Persians is ridiculous. The Achaemenid empire hired and paid people regardless of their sex or ethnicity, whereas in fifth-century Athens less than 14% of the population participated in democratic government, and almost half of the population were slaves. Sparta was a military monarchy, not a democracy and collectively owned an entire enslaved population

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kambiz

Mullahs want to make a movie about ancient Iran in response to '300' ! Oh No ,That's what I was always afraind of. How they can do so while they are already destroying Perspolis and Cyrus the great tomb the true father of all Iranians by opening the sivand dam ?!
300 was an annoying movie for me and anyother true iranian ,But what mullahs are doing is just horrific. Hope that this news is just a rumor.



P.S : We need world protest against opening the "Sivand Dam" which is a direct threat to one of the world's ancient treasures ,The Perspolis.

---

Ba dorood Kambiz, I was wondering when you were going to see this thread!:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

In the creepily aseptic parlance of modern warfare those are called "collateral damage". Anyway, at least with the Death Star (and in general void-swimming warships going "and the sky was full of stars... every one of them a dying ship...") we're spared the high-energy details of the vast crew complement's demise.

---

This is rather more insidious: it trains the audience to dissociate warfare and carnage, and to associate warfare with victory instead. This makes it easier for us to accept belligerent behaviour, whether on the part of our leaders or our peers.

EB is worse. It trains us to order people to their deaths, then associate that behaviour with various rewards (victory, experience chevrons, better personality traits). It's almost Pavlovian.

That said, they're both good ways of indulging our martial instincts without getting blood on the streets. Most people are smart enough to remain decent human beings afterwards.

never mind

some thoughts...

What I find odd Mad Guitar Murphy is that you have a problem with the sensless killing portrayed in 300, yet here you are posting your feelings on a forum for a game in which you kill hundreds/thousands of "people." Moreover the game is Rome: Total War, and, considering you here, you must have some basic knowledge of Roman history... Yet you are surprised by people enjoying wating other people die... Gladitorial games/Colloseum, etc. Romans enjoying watching people die, why would modern Americans, or anyone else for that matter be any different?

I think, if I follow that conversation correctly that you are more concerned with the GRAPHIC portrayal of 300's killing of HUMAN BEINGS. That is, why you don't have any problem with all those human deaths involved with the Death Star, or orcs being killed in LOTR. Jumping to conclusions I could judge you by saying that as long as you don't see anyone die you have no problem with them being killed - and - as long as it isn't killing humans, you have no problem with the graphic display of death involving... say monkeys?

Of course it would be wrong of me to assume and to judge, so I'll just leave as a thought for you or anyone else to respond.

In response to the movie...

I found it to be somewhat entertaining, aside from the historical inaccuracies, but that doesn't mean I got off on the violence. I don't really mind television/movie/video game violence being graphic because I know it isn't real. Yeah it is all fake... no one really go their head chopped off so I don't find it a big deal. I usually stay away from, however, the random clips on the internet that supposedly show real deaths/killings... it seems weird to watch such stuff, but when curiosity gets the better of me and I find myself not entertained and not really happy that I wasted the time to view such clips.

That being said, I do find, although am not surprised, that America's (can't say much for other parts of the world), decency rules/regulations have gone far, far down the drain, ever since those Puritan allowed dancing and a flash of ankle here and there...:beam: There is a reason that the "shower scene" from Psycho is considered to be one of the great scence in America cinema. If I recally correctly that the argument is because it doesn't acutally show the murder but implys it... leaving the horrid details up to the imagination of the viewer.

Sadly, a lot of movies paint thier pictures in broad, obvious strokes, so the simpleminded movie go-ers can follow the plot... or be grossed out. 300 is one of those films... Take it or leave it...

One more thing in regards to plot and portrayl of the Persians...

15 minutes... Sparta decides to go to go to war with Persia
Next 15 minutes... Spartan warriors go to meet the Persians
90 minutes of fighting/killing/dismemberment, with a sex scene (totally not relative to the "plot"), a rape scene, and a woman scorned getting vindiction scene.

Not much to the movie at all... not even a good back story as to why the Persians were messing around with the Greeks... therefore the director needed to make the Persians look bad/evil as quickly as possible so that the audience can side with the Spartans... Displaying them as warmongering, man-god worshipping, mutants was just one (albeit not the best) way of showing that they were the antagonist. It is just a story about good vs. evil, just like most - if not all stories, movies, etc.

In fact wasn't Star Wars based off the Greek/Persian conflict?
I think I read that in a book... and yes I am sure it was a book, sure it wasn't nothing...

If they make a movie about ancient Persia, you can be sure that there'll be mosques in the backgrounds, and nothing remotely to do with ancient Persia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glewas

In fact wasn't Star Wars based off the Greek/Persian conflict?
I think I read that in a book... and yes I am sure it was a book, sure it wasn't nothing...

---

No, no, no thats Battle Star Galatica. Star Wars is based on the American Revolution.:book:

I agree with the rest of your points however Glewas.:idea2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

Uh, what?

Here's a few points you can chew on.

Granted, there were 300 spartans at Thermopylae. However, there were also 4000 allies on the first two days of the battle and 1500 during the fatal last stand.

Some historians have even thought the total "greek" contingent upwards of 8000, and the last 1500 only remained because they were in essence trapped. So much for the glory of hellenic bravery.

The million man army of legend is more likely, by modern estimates, anywhere from 60,000--150,000 based on the land and amount of water availible in the campaign.

Moreso, the the central theme of the movie, that of "free" and "democracy loving" Spartans against "slave" Persians is ridiculous. The Achaemenid empire hired and paid people regardless of their sex or ethnicity, whereas in fifth-century Athens less than 14% of the population participated in democratic government, and almost half of the population were slaves. Sparta was a military monarchy, not a democracy and collectively owned an entire enslaved population

---

The Greeks: Yes, I'm aware of the number of greeks in the battle, however they were led by King Leonidas of Sparta, and for that reason I felt it adequate collectivelly calling them "Spartans."
300 shows that the Spartans were not alone. It has the 700 or so Thespians in it. I believe the numbers aren't so important in this case. It's enough to know that few stood against many.
I find it acceptable that movies should change small details like that for the sake of simplicity.
They said million man army, yes, but it's a simple exageration to emphasize the point. Once again, I say the point is that few stood against many.

Moving on to free men.

Here is what I know:

The Greek army was made up completely of free men, all of whom fought for their homeland.
The Persian army was made up of many men from conquered nations. Be they mercenaries or not, it is logical that they would put up less of a fight.
I believe that is the distinction the movie makes.
I don't recall anything about democracy loving, or anything said about the Persian government. I may be wrong, so do tell me if there was anything in the movie that spoke directly of that.

A historical movie, as far as I'm concerned, is a movie that follows the events in history. I haven't been swayed yet that 300 isn't so. The movie does follow the historical events, with only a few differences for the sake of the movie(the numbers).

I would argue that the central theme of the movie is quite different. I would say the best line to sum it up is, "few stood against many." I believe there were a few references to the fact that the Spartans were free men, and that the Persians had mercenaries or slaves. The thing that stood out for me most though was how brave the Spartans were. I suppose what one views as the main theme can vary.

well actually, the spartan contingents were helots. slaves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

well actually, the spartan contingents were helots. slaves.

---

The 300 Spartans with Leonidas?

just out of curiosity...how does modern Iran compare culturally/ethnically with ancient Persia?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aramazon

Hello, I would like to make my own input to this argument.

Firstly I would like to make a few statements:

The Persians did invade Greece.

---

It wasn't really an invasion, more of a counterattack and an act of retribution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aramazon

The Spartans did make a stand at the pass of Thermopylae.
The Spartans killed an extremely large number of Persians compared to their number.
After 3 days of combat, the Spartans all died.
Athens by then had prepared her fleet and engaged the Persian fleet at the battle of Salamis, resulting in an Athenian victory.

---

The Athenian navy was already at sea and battling the Persian navy while the the Greek armies fought at Thermopylae.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aramazon

Xerxes returned to Persia after his fleet was destroyed, leaving command to one of his generals.
The Persian army in Greece was finally defeated by a large Greek army at the battle of Plataea.

So ended the war.


What can be said based on these events?

The Persians initiated the war by invading Greece.

---

Again, more of a counerattack and act of retribution. The city of Sardis had been burned to the ground by Athenians and Ionians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aramazon

The Spartans were brave and very skilled. This can be deduced from the fact that a small number of them stood against many and from the large amount of Persian losses compared to Spartan losses.

---

There were actually about 6,000 Greeks at Thermopylae and the Spartans were just 300 above average guys amoung them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aramazon

The Spartans made a sacrifice of their lives for the defense of their homeland.
The battle of Salamis may have depended on those 300 spartans giving Athens enough time to prepare.

---

The Battle of Salamis didn't really need the Spartans to give up their lives. However the Spartans did die so that the other Greeks in the 6000 at Thermopylae could retreat without being chased down. Also, the city of Athens was evacuated during this time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aramazon

The battle of Plataea may have depended on the absence of Xerxes which resulted from the Victory at Salamis. Regardless, it was made much easier by the smaller number of enemies as a result of the battle of Thermopylae.

Had it not been for the battle of Thermopylae:

The Persians might have conquered Greece.
The Persians might have then invaded Europe and they might have conquered it too.
World history would be very different from that point on.
It is for these reasons that the battle of Thermopylae is what might be called a turning point in history. It was an important battle to say the least.

---

I don't believe that the Persians would have conquered Greece. Their main goal was to burn down Athens and kill as many Athenians for Sardis and Marathon. After that they would have probably burned down all Athenian allies' town. Then, depending on how secure Greece was, they would have made it a protectorate or withdrawn completely. And remember, the Achaemenids usually let regions govern themselves to some degree, so Greek culture and government wouldn't be completely dead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aramazon

The Spartans at Thermopylae are an example to all of bravery and that few can triumph against many. It was in fact, what people might refer to as heroic(courageous, brave, going against the odds, and morally right.) I think most of us should be able to agree on the bravery, but morally right is probably more debatable.
As far as I know, self defense is morally right. I think it can be said for sure that it is not wrong. The debate then would be "what is self defense?". Let's deduce that seeing as how the Persians had by that time conquered many lands, they intended to conquer Greece and weren't going to be convinced otherwise by diplomacy. In this way, self defense was all the Greeks could do to defend their homeland from invaders.

---

True. Even though the Athenians had started the war, at this point it was self defense. It was a right and noble act to defend themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aramazon

I believe this is true:

The battle of Thermopylae is a worthy subject for a movie as it was a very important historical event, and it was a triumph of human values(courage).


Moving on to 300.

The movie is historical. It shows us what happened in history. Some things are probably different from how they really were. However, it does not stray from the historical events. I am sorry if you are Persian and are offended by the negative light in which the Persians were portrayed. However, I believe that being the attackers, the Persians were in the wrong.

---

Only the very base story is true. There was a Battle of Thermopylae that was fought between some guys called Spartans and some guys called Persians. The majority of it is wrong.

(BTW, no personal offense, I just wanted to correct a couple things then got off on a tangent.)

EDIT: Wow alot happened. That's what I get for leaving a thread open a long time then taking a while to respond.

Star Wars was based on a lot of things. George Lucas (back in the good old days) liked analogies and Star Wars is filled with analogies of many things. Mainly the Roman Empire and the American Revolution.

An appropriate response to a movie Iranians will never see in the theatre:dizzy2:

Very odd. Why would they even need one in this case?

Would love to check it out though. Can't help but wonder what a homage to ancient Persia that gets past the mullahs looks like. It's probably more enlightening regarding the state of modern Iran than anything else.

@MarcusAureliusAntoninus

I suppose it was a counter-attack. Wasn't the sack of Sardis in a revolt by the greek city states under Persian rule?
I suppose looking at it like that, it could go back a long way, but I think it seems that the Persian Empire was more aggressive in conquest than the Greek.

As for the battle of Salamis, had the Persian army not been opposed at Thermopylae, could they have attacked Athens? Perhaps that might have drawn the fleet away from Salamis and the Persian fleet would not have had to fight in disadvantageous waters.
I suppose it would have made little difference.

I understand that they wanted to destroy Greece(probably worse than just conquest), but if Greece were destroyed, or forced into the Persian Empire, wouldn't some ambitious leader of Persia have pressed on.
Weren't the Persians conquerors?
Didn't they carve out an empire?
Would they just be satisfied and stop conquering lands?

I think you mean the small details in the movie. I assume that most of the costumes, the mutants, and what not were incorrect. What else is there?
I've read that the religious customs were true, that only the Spartan who lost an eye survived. Perhaps you mean the bribery of that leader in Sparta who keeps the army from going to Thermopylae?

Are there any large historical inaccuracies in the movie?

Thanks for your response by the way, I'm learning a lot.

The Athenians had already given up on Athens. They had evacuated it (except for a few diehard people who barricaded themselves on the Acropolis) and retreated to Salamis and the peloponnesis. After the Greek defeat at Thermopylae, the Persians actually did attack Athens. And they burned it to the ground and destroyed the Acropolis, killing everyone who stayed behind.

The fleet was actually defending Athenian citizens at the Battle of Salamis.

And just after the Persian invasion of Greece, the Acheamenid empire began to decline. So, I doubt that (no matter the results in Greece) the Persians would have expanded into Europe.




Large historical inaccuracies:
Leonidas didn't disobey the rest of Sparta and alone go fight the Persians. Sparta was part of a Greek alliance that had been preparing for the Persians. All of Sparta and most of Greece (not the dirty Thebians) were behind the battle of Thermopylae.

That bribery and betrayal thing.

The culture of Sparta in 300 was just wrong. There were no happy children, merchants, politicians, fine architecture, or love. That thing about Leonidas loving his wife and respecting her was way off. Spartans did one thing, fight. They probably had skills like armor repair and such but there were no artisans or craftmen in Sparta. And all of the non-war, menial tasks were done by their 'race' of slaves. Once a Spartan warrior got old, then he qualified to join politics. There were two Spartan Kings and a councel with checks and balances on eachother. There was no art in Sparta, including architecture.

The whole oracle thing was a huge pile of fantasy. Leonidas did see an oracle (at Delphi IIRC) but the message he got was (paraphase) "A Spartan King will die or Sparta will burn." But the whole oracle experience was different. (No drugged up anarexic Irish exotic dancing.)

No mention of Themistocles or the Athenian fleet and how they won the war.

You know that thing with the Persian ships sinking, that actually happened far away during the middle of the Battle of Thermopylae. They were trying to sail around the island of Euboea to land troops behind the line at Themopylae.

Spartans wore armor! :wall:

The majority of Persian bows were weak and basically useless. That is why they didn't fear the Persian arrows.

The Persians didn't use cavalry at Thermopylae. Horses were expensive and that would have been throwing them away.

It wasn't 300 Spartans with a couple Greek friends. It was 6000 Greeks, 300 of which happened to come from Sparta.

The Spartans didn't die for glory. They died because they were holding back to buy time for the other 5000 Greeks to retreat from Thermopylae. Then it was too late to retreat when they were surrounded.

I could go on...

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.

---

Welcome to EB - "Killing 1000's daily" could be our motto! I suppose we could change that, but this "remaining true to history" thing sorta ties our hands. I'm also guessing that a "picking petunias" RTW mod wouldn't have much of a fan base.

Ugh god, people are still hung up on this? It's a movieeeee...

I watched it and I'd watch it again, educating whoever I was with after the movie was over on the historical inaccuracies... stop getting your panties in a knot.

Watching thousands of people die? Hello you play a game that basically is about how to kill the largest amounts of people during battle in creative ways! Its a game, its a movie! Same concept.

stop being such purists!

I find odd that some of you say this movie praises killing of people and if anyone likes it shoud see a shrink. Well, let's talk about a trully hillarious movie: Commando. Where Arnold Schwarznegger (AS) kills 156 people singlehanded.
Why do I also find it amusing. 300 is one of this movies (Arnold, Steven Seagal) however, it has more quality to it. I enjoied the movie and the slaughter in it however, I didn't laugh in Polanski "The Pianist" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0253474/) or enjoied the killings in it. Does this makes any sense to you? If it does, my point is made.

Cheers...

Not really wanting to get involved in this thread but when talking about the destruction of Deathstar, one should always ponder the Endor Holocaust ~:mecry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoom

Not really wanting to get involved in this thread but when talking about the destruction of Deathstar, one should always ponder the Endor Holocaust ~:mecry:

---

hm wow, I'd never seen that. THose damn rebel alliance terrorists!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aramazon

I understand that they wanted to destroy Greece(probably worse than just conquest), but if Greece were destroyed, or forced into the Persian Empire, wouldn't some ambitious leader of Persia have pressed on.
Weren't the Persians conquerors?
Didn't they carve out an empire?
Would they just be satisfied and stop conquering lands?

---

Empires would usually prefer to keep conquering, if only to keep troublesome tribes beyond the border from raiding into and generally causing trouble in their new borderlands (like, say, the Greeks). One major driving force behind the way many expanded was probably just the need to subdue such troublemakers, after which they ended up with yet new subjects and territory - beyond which there were yet more troublemakers, and now their new subjects were duly entitled for imperial protection against those...

But most weren't actually asked for their opinion. Each empire had a certain maximum size dictated by the considerations of geography, politics and logistics; that of the Achaemenids was clearly constrained by the natural barriers of the Mediterranean and the Straits of Bosphorus in the west (AFAIK they never got a permanent foothold beyond the latter), the Sahara in the southwest, the Arabian desert and the Indian Ocean in the south, the Hindu Kush in the east, and the steppe in the north; they were apparently unable to carry out much more than police actions and punitive expeditions beyond these barriers, not that even those would have made much sense on several fronts, due to sheer limits imposed by considerations of logistics and the internal structure of their empire. After all, they likely spent at least as much time putting down satrapal revolts and popular uprisings as campaigning abroad, and wasn't it just such internal troubles that made Xerxes leave Greece for Mardonius to deal with ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus

There were actually about 6,000 Greeks at Thermopylae and the Spartans were just 300 above average guys amoung them.

---

Well, those 300 were the picked royal bodyguard from a fanatical warrior society so I would think "above average" is a slight understatement.

Quote:

---

The majority of Persian bows were weak and basically useless. That is why they didn't fear the Persian arrows.

---

Doubtful. We're after all talking about troops from a part of the world where composite bows were pretty much the norm, particularly for warfare. Far as I've read the Greeks worried a fair bit about Persian archery - it's not like they hadn't been on the receiving end before already in the squabbling in Asia Minor - and preferred to experience as little of it as possible before getting into hand-to-hand. I suspect the presence of a reasonable degree of protective field fortification was primarily what allowed the hoplites at Thermopylae to avoid getting turned into pincushions, armour and shields or no (the hoplite panoply had far too many gaps for a man wearing one to be really safe from extensive archery); the battle was after all essentially a short siege.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aramazon

It's enough to know that few stood against many.

---

...which was really the norm with troops defending fortified places, nevermind strategic chokepoints, anyway. Big deal; force multiplication is the whole point of giving battle in such locations to begin with.

Quote:

---

The Greek army was made up completely of free men, all of whom fought for their homeland.
The Persian army was made up of many men from conquered nations. Be they mercenaries or not, it is logical that they would put up less of a fight.

---

By that selfsame logic the professional Roman legions and their various auxiliaries should have been less spirited combatants than the early Republic citizen militia...
I think the psychological aspects involved in how huge multi-ethnic world-empires motivated their troops are a whole lot more complex, and in any case when the push comes to shove people will tend to fight fiercely enough for their own and their mates' survival. Heck, by some accounts of Plataia I've read once the spara wall broke the Persian archers put up a stubborn resistance against the hoplites with little more than daggers and their bare hands for a while...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by temenid

This is rather more insidious: it trains the audience to dissociate warfare and carnage, and to associate warfare with victory instead. This makes it easier for us to accept belligerent behaviour, whether on the part of our leaders or our peers.

---

:shrug: It is the nature of technologically advanced warfare. And nothing compared to the chilling calculativeness involved for example in the strategic bombing campaigns of WW2, or the attrition-warfare calculations of WW1...

At least we're not made to watch, in excruciating detail, the crew vaporize and get told it's all right because this is for freedom and justice.

Quote:

---

EB is worse. It trains us to order people to their deaths, then associate that behaviour with various rewards (victory, experience chevrons, better personality traits). It's almost Pavlovian.

---

The perspective of RTW is that of a warlord, who is in the business of demolishing armies and conquering cities at preferably minimum expense of soldiers. As such it actually serves as a passable introduction to the somewhat creepy paradigm of thinking involved in such pursuits, but in any case it makes no judgement one way or another about the ethics of the matter. Whether to pursue routers mercilessly and massacre populations for economical and adminstrational convenience is left entirely up to the conscience of the player.

And, again, he or she is not shown the associated unpleasantness in excessively gory detail and told this is a-okay 'cuz it is for freedom and justice. Oh yeah, and democracy. :dizzy2: