What faction did you play first?

[Foot]

I felt your post was particularly confrontational, especially by painting all recent Anti-American films as ideologically based, examples of propaganda and, in particular, attempts at "social re-engineering". Had you said "some Anti-American films", I would have been more understanding. If that was not your intention then I suggest you make a better attempt before painting all films with the same brush.

Foot

[TWFanatic]

I was pointing towards "the swathe of recent anti-American films that bombed in the box office" as a rare case of placing ideology before profits in Hollywood (pretty specific I think). I apologize if you enjoyed a recently re-released anti-American film that bombed at the box office and that comment upset you. I will not give a lecture on their value as propaganda and tools of social-reengineering here as we are already far off topic, but I do believe there is a movie thread in the Frontroom.

This is an interesting thread and it would be a shame if it died.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I do not think that films such as 300 are by any means a result of political incorrectness, but simply out of an apathy toward historiography. It is pure capitalism.

Of course it is. But that's easy saying 'cause it doesn't concern you (or me for that matter). You have got to agree that film wasn't exactly a beacon of light of political (or historical for that matter) correct views; for avoiding more hot headed terminology at this point. In any case you can see where I'm coming from; that such films might've simply 'rubbed' some people 'the wrong way' as well?

Look at the swathe of recent anti-American films that bombed in the box office. The people who fund these films lose a tremendous amount of money yet continue to do it; clearly they care more about spreading anti-American propaganda than making profits. I believe these isolated attempts at socially-reengineering the populace to be an exception to the rule however.

Social-reengineering is a pretty serious accusation/claim and wether true or not the word itself (incidentally I take it you were fully aware of that?) alludes to illegit practices. Indeed social-engineering will get you a ticket to court in most countries. Coupled to the use of "swathe" & "propaganda" it is easy to see why people may find that confrontational? At any rate it isn't very well phrased.

So really what's there so different in a movie as 300 to some 'Anti-American' movie currently 'bombing the box office' to people sensitive to bias, propaganda or statements expressed in either? I for one think there is little difference in and of itself; however it's different people that get riled up over it.

[Ibrahim]

I cannot believe I'm saying this, but:

guys, this is the EB forum. this place is to debate history, and the mod known to the world as "Europa barbarorum". politics (especially infalammatory or cruel behavior), is supposed to be banned here. If anyone has issues with "anti-america" or "pro-Islam" or anti-bateekh, there is a place called the backroom. alternately, there is a place called the political mudpit @ the TWcenter.


yeah i learned my lesson from the rules crackdown....

@TPC:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

allright-so the government in Iran, and western culture have issues...

[TWFanatic]

Of course it is. But that's easy saying 'cause it doesn't concern you (or me for that matter). You have got to agree that film wasn't exactly a beacon of light of political (or historical for that matter) correct views; for avoiding more hot headed terminology at this point. In any case you can see where I'm coming from; that such films might've simply 'rubbed' some people 'the wrong way' as well?

Quite so. As I have mentioned before, one of my roommates was a Persian immigrant. We went to see 300 together in fact. Being naturally a light-hearted fellow, he laughed the stupidity off, but I could certainly see that it irked him personally and shared that feeling myself.

Social-reengineering is a pretty serious accusation/claim and wether true or not the word itself (incidentally I take it you were fully aware of that?) alludes to illegit practices. Indeed social-engineering will get you a ticket to court in most countries. Coupled to the use of "swathe" & "propaganda" it is easy to see why people may find that confrontational? At any rate it isn't very well phrased.

It was never my intention to debate this issue in this thread, in fact my post was entirely relevant to the subject at hand even if my phrasing was perhaps too harsh in the context. I would love to share with you the innumerable attempts people have made to socially-re engineer myself and and others, but this is not the place.

So really what's there so different in a movie as 300 to some 'Anti-American' movie currently 'bombing the box office' to people sensitive to bias, propaganda or statements expressed in either? I for one think there is little difference in and of itself; however it's different people that get riled up over it.

Big difference--300 made big money and cost relatively little to create. These other films I alluded to were expensive and brought in very low revenues, yet Hollywood fat cats continue to fund their production. A fascinating situation, is it not?

For future conversation, there is an excellent thread in the Frontroom in which we can discuss movies. I refused to name names on this thread because it was irrelevant to the point I was making and I feared it would engender hard feelings by someone who had enjoyed the films. Unfortunantly, that appeas to have already been done.

I cannot believe I'm saying this, but:

guys, this is the EB forum. this place is to debate history, and the mod known to the world as "Europa barbarorum". politics (especially infalammatory or cruel behavior), is supposed to be banned here. If anyone has issues with "anti-america" or "pro-Islam" or anti-bateekh, there is a place called the backroom. alternately, there is a place called the political mudpit @ the TWcenter.


yeah i learned my lesson from the rules crackdown....

Amen.

[Tollheit]

These other films I alluded to were expensive and brought in very low revenues, yet Hollywood fat cats continue to fund their production.

All is not lost, then. It will be a dark day when everything will be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator.

[TheGlobalizer]

Of course it is. But that's easy saying 'cause it doesn't concern you (or me for that matter). You have got to agree that film wasn't exactly a beacon of light of political (or historical for that matter) correct views; for avoiding more hot headed terminology at this point. In any case you can see where I'm coming from; that such films might've simply 'rubbed' some people 'the wrong way' as well?

To be fair, the movie 300 is not based on history, it's based on a fictionalized interpretation of history as represented in a graphic novel by Frank Miller.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300_(comics)

Artistic liberty piled upon artistic liberty. Counter-productive in terms of teaching accurate history? Yep. Fun movie? Yep. (IMHO.)

[The Persian Cataphract]

I do not think that films such as 300 are by any means a result of political incorrectness, but simply out of an apathy toward historiography. It is pure capitalism--in most cases films are made first and foremost to make money, not to accurately represent the diversity of ancient cultures and encourage viewers to study more history. Likewise, EB does not accurately represent the complexity of each and every ancient culture to be politically correct, but to encourage players to study more history. Please correct me if my understanding of the EB ethos is off the mark.

I disagree that a movie such as "300" was all "pure capitalism"; its political allusions were clearly conveyed, and according to many others it would hold a valid comparison to fascist art. The Persians were effectively denied their humanity. The Persians were marketed as a demonic horde, all dressed up in Arabesque garb, and worse, clustered together "non-white" peoples as the foe to a bunch of perfectly chiseled, waxed and oiled Caucasian body-builders. It is nonsensical to suggest that the movie had no political undertone to it, or a subconscious, derogatory (Towards Iranians) message attached to it. It's like watching John Wayne's "The Green Berets" being set in antiquity all over again!

If capitalism is implied by deception, defamation and distortion of facts, then the lack of scruples of the landed merchant classes of today (*ahem*) is merely being perpetuated. It is a filthy business. But on the other hand, to merely believe that all these tricks were just used to milk more money is to dismiss their lasting effect. Why get the cow when you can get the milk for free? The average Joe ignoramus is as good a source as he can get.

Artistic liberty piled upon artistic liberty. Counter-productive in terms of teaching accurate history? Yep. Fun movie? Yep. (IMHO.)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Yes, clearly it is "artistic liberty". No hidden undertones here. I am sure Hydarnes finds this a most excellent "artistic tribute" to his legacy. I am most confident that he shall find the added drool, animalistic growling, gingivitis gone extreme, and BDSM collar to be satisfactory additions to his character :eyesroll:

Look, I don't give a shit about the "official response" from Warner Bros. I don't fall for the folly of "C'mon it's just entertainment! It's not real! It's not real! It's fantasy!", because I know how hypocritical some individuals might get if we switch settings to the American War of Independence, and play dress-up with George Washington and turn him into a gigantic demonic bullfrog with a white wig. Hey! Isn't that "fantasy"? I mean, it's not "real", now is it? I'd be heckled beyond belief. And understandably too, as I would relate to the reaction myself. No producer in Hollywood would ever accept the idea.

So don't give me any bullshit about it being "artistic liberty". Why wasn't there a black Spartan? Why not a Mongol Spartan to add? What difference would that have made? They were certainly capable of giving the "Persians" a spectrum covering sub-human species and apply to some trans-gender characteristics. The movie certainly had its homo-erotic moments; Greeks don't look like that. Period. There are no excuses left.

allright-so the government in Iran, and western culture have issues...

Yeah, they do.

...And?

[abou]

To add to TPC's argument, Frank Miller is working on a new graphic novel entitled Holy Terror, Batman, in which Batman fights al-Qaeda in Gotham city.

It's pretty clear Frank Miller has put certain agendas into his work (such as dehumanizing Iranians in 300, which he has admitted to) and this latest is clearly the most blatant and likely to be among the worst of the worst. And considering I don't hold Miller's works in high regard you can imagine what I mean by worst of the worst.

[Ibrahim]

Yeah, they do.

...And?

I say things like that to act like a pike to the person's temper...if you got my idea, you'd should be laughing

just trying to calm you. no use debating if you are enraged..I mostly agree with ya anyways..mostly.

let's take this elsewhere, plz?

[Lysimachos]

let's take this elsewhere, plz?

Seconded. Nobody is going to be convinced here of whatever and what could be said has been.

By the way, i played the Romans first, too, because i think they are the best choice to learn a mod's concept's differences to those of other mods, as they are most "common" faction for ancient era mods.
Another thing is, they are designed very interesting in EB: they have the most reforms, they have a lot of special traits, they have offices and so on.

[TheGlobalizer]

Yes, clearly it is "artistic liberty". No hidden undertones here. I am sure Hydarnes finds this a most excellent "artistic tribute" to his legacy. I am most confident that he shall find the added drool, animalistic growling, gingivitis gone extreme, and BDSM collar to be satisfactory additions to his character :eyesroll:

Look, I don't give a shit about the "official response" from Warner Bros. I don't fall for the folly of "C'mon it's just entertainment! It's not real! It's not real! It's fantasy!", because I know how hypocritical some individuals might get if we switch settings to the American War of Independence, and play dress-up with George Washington and turn him into a gigantic demonic bullfrog with a white wig. Hey! Isn't that "fantasy"? I mean, it's not "real", now is it? I'd be heckled beyond belief. And understandably too, as I would relate to the reaction myself. No producer in Hollywood would ever accept the idea.

So don't give me any bullshit about it being "artistic liberty". Why wasn't there a black Spartan? Why not a Mongol Spartan to add? What difference would that have made? They were certainly capable of giving the "Persians" a spectrum covering sub-human species and apply to some trans-gender characteristics. The movie certainly had its homo-erotic moments; Greeks don't look like that. Period. There are no excuses left.

It's not a matter of making excuses -- it's a matter of whether Frank Miller, Warner Bros., or anyone in Hollywood really gives a shit about "The Persian Cataphract", historians, or anyone other than their core demographic when it comes to producing a movie.

Is Hollywood disingenuous, hypocritical, inaccurate, and does it play into the worst elements of American popular culture and ignorance about the world? Absolutely. But most people who walked into that movie understood that it was fiction, that such people did not exist, and that it was a marked deviation from anything remotely historical.

My point is very simple: If you expect Hollywood or the American movie-going public to rise up and embrace the cause of the mis-portrayal of Hydarnes in an action blockbuster film, perhaps the issue is your expectations and not the actions of Hollywood or the American movie-going public.

It's not that Hollywood or America has some latent issue with the Persian Empire because of some perversion of politics -- it's just that neither of them care one iota about accuracy or how it may be interpreted by "vested interests" around the world. Good guys, bad guys, underdogs, epic battle, lots of blood, good guys win, end of story. That's the model, and it sells tickets.

When historians become the primary source of revenue for the film industry, you'll see the presentation change to preserve historical accuracy. When fans of the Persian Empire become the primary source of revenue, then movies will be more sensitive to the depiction of Hydarnes and Persian history and culture. Until then, keep getting bent out of shape about this all you like, it won't change the formula or the resulting ahistorical nonsense.

(Or feel free to go all EB on it and make your own version of the Battle of Thermopylae -- I'll watch it.)

I'm happy to take this private if you want to discuss further, but I do agree that this is the wrong thread (or forum) for this discussion.

[The Persian Cataphract]

Then you have indeed validated my idea for a caricature of President George Washington. The rationale you have presented applies to basically anything one can throw on the table then.

But most people who walked into that movie understood that it was fiction.

Either you are expecting the best out of the audience, or you are incredibly naïve. Have you read YouTube comments as of late? As before, I do not care about the official response of the movie-makers and their sponsors, as they are just providing a response for catering. You can keep crying about fiction all you like, at least Frank Miller portrayed the Persians within the sapient spectra; Zack Snyder however went the extra mile, and the inclusion of this concept is bizarre to say the least. Besides, the movie does have a historical precedent to it (As did the comic), effectively negating the argument of "fiction". Snyder says it here himself:

"The events are 90 percent accurate. It's just in the visualization that it's crazy.... I've shown this movie to world-class historians who have said it's amazing. They can't believe it's as accurate as it is."

Historians! World-class historians even, if we are to take Snyder's words somewhat seriously. If this is even somewhat true, many professors ought to lose their tenures. Why then put any faith to the average Joe who probably slept through elementary history classes? Where did this 90% figure come from, and why does it appear to be so remote from the appeal to fiction? Like I said, if this is no more than harmless fiction, then why was there not a black or a Mongol Spartan? I would have enjoyed a wise-cracking Chris Tucker, or Gerry Lopez doing another "battle of the Mounds". Instead we got to see a Riefenstahl-influenced cockamamie caricature of an event that Greeks hold in high esteem. If I as an Iranian, am baffled by how the Persians were depicted as sub-human demons, then I would, if I were a Greek, be even more baffled at how a bunch of Americans have taken the Spartans and turned them into Hitler's little boys. All fully intended.

You claim "fiction", but are you willfully forgetting that even fiction can have its own subconscious and sometimes explicit political innuendos and statements? You make it out like it's all about the money. It's not just about the money. We are talking about a 60 million dollar movie full of various ideas that are getting streamed into the popular culture. You say "That's the model, and it sells tickets", but I say that this is still a filthy business, and the filthy money is accumulated at the expense of another. On one hand, it defames and dehumanizes the Persians (There is no argument, it does); on the other hand it lampoons physically disabled, and "non-white" peoples. On boot, the movie is very serious in its portrayal of the events. If this is what caters the popular youth, then I can only lament. Now what if this was a movie which glorified Hitler and portrayed a bunch of Jews as monsters with claws begging to be gassed en masse? The argument of demographics doesn't hold water, if one must assume a perspective broader than that of a marketer.

I'm not advocating a boycott; it would only serve to dignify the film intellectually, which it does not deserve. I'm not advocating censorship, because even though the movie was fucking racist (This coming from someone with enough anthropological know-how to dismiss the concept of "race" altogether), it's still creative property and would in the spirit of Voltaire still have it this way than the other. I am however pointing out the movie for what it is and what it portrays. It's full of irrational Nordicist demagoguery, it's full of derogatory racial allusions, and wears a deceptively simplistic facade from where it can resort to "IT'S FICTION IT'S ALL FICTION GET IT IT'S JUST FICTION AMERICAN YOUTH WANTS THIS NYAH-NYAH!"-card which already has seen official application. It's a stupid flick, yes, but it carries a message nonetheless.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Warner Bros. doesn't care about what I think? Good riddance, I don't need the approval or permission of a bunch of overpaid mentally numb individuals wearing the executive badge so that I can speak my mind. They'd probably sell their own mothers as prostitutes for peanuts. You are very right, my friend, their target demographics colloquially forms the relevant cash-cow, and the same would apply to fascist rhetorics being directed towards aspiring bullies. So? It doesn't render what I have said untrue. It's like saying the latest TV-shop scam, promising instant abs and pecs, doesn't care about what I think, just because I'm not obese and therefore not a part of the target demographics. Isn't it still a scam? Someone needs to break the ice.

And speaking of which, where is this Aemilius Paulus now? I'd certainly like to hear his "politically incorrect" point-of-view on this ordeal. On-topic or not, the poll lives on.

May the Jägermeister-gods forbid that Satrap Ariobarzanes shall ever be subject to the fate of King Leonidas. Thermopylae has been cheapened and served like a MacDonald's burger: Cheap, quick and without nutrition. I will hang myself if they turn the battle of the Persian Gate into something even remotely similar to "300".

THIS. IS. CAKETOWN.

[Atraphoenix]

ROMA INVICTA of course I am sure that %90 of RTW player started with Julii and wiped out all romani faction and tasted to be imperator...

when I was bored with infantry I started to play Parthia.
in EB 1.1 I am not playing with any faction other than Pahlava.
If Konny or other smart guys manages to put RS Legions (I am a failure on adapting them) into EB I do not think that I will play with other than Romani
for that reason when I want to play Romans I play RS when I want to play pahlava I always play EB..
OMG I am a maniac I have two seperate RTW folder for this reason. one for EB one for RS...
10 GB...
my first PC had 8 GB HD only!.....

for foot : the world of screen is just a manipulated imaginery life... for me best of the tools for escapism......
maybe for that reason I almost never watch TV, except LOST of course....

[Lysimachos]

OMG I am a maniac I have two seperate RTW folder for this reason. one for EB one for RS...

Two folders? If you think that's much, you don't want to know how many I have...

Edit: A lot of mods nowadays can be used in one rtw-folder without interfering, but i think it's cleaner to use separate ones. Just a bit of superstition on my part.