Quote Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract View Post
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.