EB poll of '300'

[Xtiaan72]

Why are there kids that run around dissinformed about the Spartans and the Persian Empire? Why cant these kids be more like the kids of those who post here?

See for me the root problem is not the movie or the way movies and artists choose to interpret them. For me the problem is that somewhere allong the line we failed to inform all kids to discern between entertainment and history.

I'm not saying it is wrong to make a movie that takes some liberties with history. I'm assuming you have seen a great movie that does that like "Roark's Drift" with Micheal Caine or "Glory" with Mathew Brodrick and Denzel Washington. Am I wrong in saying that "300" is not in that league of a movie? Take liberties because you want to tell a great story. I guess that is what irks me, They had this great story and they chose to tell it in such a base way and it's just not good enough for me.

Movies like this are a 'part' of the problem. What is clear to me is that "kids", or people even, deserve better. And they will accept and like better if given the choice.

Personally a movie like this insults my intelligence on some level. I don't know why exactly except that I demand more out of my entertainment. I like a good story. I want to understand why characters are doing what they are doing. I need more than just a laser show, I need Pink Floyd. I need more than '300', I need Spartacus.

[Suraknar]

Yes Xtiaan72,

I get you completelly, you like depth and you like a good intellectual challenge in your movies. I can relate to that. And there is really nothing that can be said against that, this is of the order of personal choice, and the best judge of it is yourself.

The night before 300 came out, I did some research actually, I learned that it was a movie based on a comic, which I had never read before. But I right there knew also that I was not going to see a Historical Movie.

I even poped in the DVD of the 60's "The 300 Spartans", (Richard Egan, Sir Ralph Richardson, Diane Baker, David Farrar & Donald Houston), and watched it, I wanted to see the differences between the two.

So I guess, that may have contributed somehow, of me not viewing this on a negative note.

[Caratacos]

I kinda got lost in the arguments but i believe Suraknar was simply stating in his first post was that "people will approach it differently and that their response to their viewing experience will reflect this" or along those lines anyway. I don't think anyone can argue that this is not true. If you went there looking for facts you'd be sadly disappointed. If you were looking for action or whatnot you might just like it.

I suspect there are a few Neitzche fans (up in their towers) out there who wouldn't mind putting the herd in their place for liking it?

There a two roads you can walk. That of feeling intellectually superior to the herd and pointing out their mistakes with great relish and laughter. Or being compassionate/understanding and offering to share your wisdom that they may better themselves from your knowledge. I like to think that the EB team is walking that second path.

And at the end of the day if you think Frank Miller told the story of the lead up, battle and aftermath of Thermopylae badly -- write your own movie script, graphic novel or whatever. No one is stopping you.

My 2 cents.

BTW i haven't seen the movie (not out in NZ yet).

EDIT: I do agree with post #31 by Xtiaan about quality though.

[Xtiaan72]

even poped in the DVD of the 60's "The 300 Spartans", (Richard Egan, Sir Ralph Richardson, Diane Baker, David Farrar & Donald Houston), and watched it, I wanted to see the differences between the two.

So I guess, that may have contributed somehow, of me not viewing this on a negative note.

Just out of curiousity, which did you like better?

[Suraknar]

Just out of curiousity, which did you like better?

Ouch! hehe. (maybe some spoilers if you havent seen the Original)

Well, from a Historical point of view, there is no question about it. The Original 60's movie I liked more.

It has a very "fair" way of portraying both sides aswell. And it also gives a Political background, we actually see Athenians and Spartans and Thebans and Corintheans all meeting in a council to discuss what each City-State would do.

Themistoclees representing the Athenians, does some very clever maneuvering, we even get a glimpse of secular and non secular views!

He appeals to Leonidas by offering overal leadership of the Greek army to Sparta.

On the Persian side, we do see Xerxes, we see his unquestioned rule, yet we also see that it is not intirelly dominating, we do get the feeling and understand that even if he does have to rule with an Iron hand, he does understand that there are other considerations at hand.

This is not a culture of mindless savages for sure as they are shown in the original.

We understand the cultural differences of both sides, and we also understand the reasons for these differences.

Xerxes, does what every other culture sought to do back in those times, Expand its empire, its influence its wealth.

If we are to condemn the Persian Empire for doing so, then we might aswell condemn Greece under Philip II and Alexander the Great, to say nothing about Rome. They are all guilty.

The downside, was the form. It is a 60's Movie. The technology in Cinematography shows, the FX and such are not great by todays standards. And Spartans are portrayed more or less soft...

In modern 300, I see the way they show Spartans, their attitude, not their superhuman actions, their way of thinking more to par with History ironically, specially Leonidas, it just feels Ancient Spartan, the extreme feminism of his wife feels accurate aswell.

But that is it, the "Houhah and the Hooplah" we hear in the movie reminescent of a US Marines as far as I am concerned are not Historically accurate.

What I liked in the modern one is well, the fact that it is modern cinematography, the form, the colours, the artistic approach to it, the FX.

Althought the use of supernatural creatures was a turn down (specially the Immortals). I found the portrayal of Xerxes highly metaphoric, yet at the same time highly innacurate Historically.

Bottom line:

I liked both for different reasons.

Yet, if I had to choose between one or another I would choose the Original, the 60's "The 300 Spartans", it represents far more accuratelly, who we are and from where we come from and the reasons we choose to lay down our lives and fight for what we believe than the Modern version.

[Suraknar]

Ahh yes, also an important Irony here.

Frank Miller, was inspired by the Original 60's Movie as a kid, when he decided to make the Comic.

[Suraknar]

I think what is the main difference between modern cinematography compared to older one is that.

In olde cinematography we were able to capture the background of a given storry, the setting is more accurate leading to the events. Yet we lack (due to technology) to portray the action during the events.

In modern cinematography, we capture the action of the events, the strugle while it happens, while we lost the art of capturing the background setting.

Maybe the future of good cinema would be to bring those two together.

EDIT: @Caratacos *Applauds*

[PseRamesses]

Personally I feel that it was a terrible AND excellent film. Terrible from a historical standpoint but really cool as a film. I just love the dark almost b&w photo, its almost like a crudely drawn comic.
IMHO if a movie is based on a historical event the director should stick to facts and not alter or add to that storyline. This abuse is what makes 300 a terrible film.

[Watchman]

Tendentious abuse at that.

[Watchman]

I suspect there are a few Neitzche fans (up in their towers) out there who wouldn't mind putting the herd in their place for liking it?

There a two roads you can walk. That of feeling intellectually superior to the herd and pointing out their mistakes with great relish and laughter. Or being compassionate/understanding and offering to share your wisdom that they may better themselves from your knowledge. I like to think that the EB team is walking that second path.

I do not recall having been appointed a Minister of Education, nor some kind of Public Voice of Reason. I don't see where this has anything to do with the main problem - the basic messages of the movie and the way it camouflages them under special effects and infantile testosterone fantasy action and general visual impact - and the basic questionability of making such movies in the first place, either.

And at the end of the day if you think Frank Miller told the story of the lead up, battle and aftermath of Thermopylae badly -- write your own movie script, graphic novel or whatever. No one is stopping you.

I don't think being able to do better was ever a requirement for expressing critique. Are you saying only movie scriptwriters, comic book authors, film directors etc. should be eligible to express valid opinions on the matter ?

Now who's being an elitist in his tower ?

[EoE]

Has anyone here seen the filmatization of Asterix & Obelix? OMG! It's SO ahistorical!

Or has anyone seen the filmatization(s) of Tarzan? OMG! It's SO neo-colonists and propagandistic!

People, it's a filmed comic for crying out loud. It has absolutely nothing to do with neither history nor people who have lived or live now. And it is not supposed to. It's a fabble played out in a world created for the specific purpose of letting good and evil kick the living daylights out of each other.

Feel free to find conspiracies, propaganda or hidding meanings. But don't deceive yourself for one second; it's no different then running the soundtrack backwards and hearing prophecies of a coming apocalypse.

rgds/EoE

[Caratacos]

I do not recall having been appointed a Minister of Education, nor some kind of Public Voice of Reason. I don't see where this has anything to do with the main problem - the basic messages of the movie and the way it camouflages them under special effects and infantile testosterone fantasy action and general visual impact - and the basic questionability of making such movies in the first place, either.

I don't think being able to do better was ever a requirement for expressing critique. Are you saying only movie scriptwriters, comic book authors, film directors etc. should be eligible to express valid opinions on the matter ?

Now who's being an elitist in his tower ?

Please don't stretch my arguements out further than i intended them to go. And they weren't directed at you or anyone in particular. My point was that it's easier to shoot something down than to make it yourself. Does that mean you don't have a right to criticise? Of corse you do-- just do so with that in mind, is all i was saying.

The first point was with regard to the denegration people show toward the average movie goer who just wants to be entertained. So they might think there is truth in there-- or might be affected by "messages". Doesn't mean they should be treated with any less respect than anyone else (imho).

Also that was a serious statement about making a script or whatever. If you (anyone) do think you can do a better job... please do so, as it would be part of the transfer of wisdom i was talking about.

That's all i'm saying. Maybe i'm just in my tower though. But then again we all like to visit our tower at times, don't we?

[Watchman]

Or has anyone seen the filmatization(s) of Tarzan? OMG! It's SO neo-colonists and propagandistic!

They are, you know. Although they're more colonial than neo-colonial. Don't tell me this is news ?

Although they're just being true to the original stories in that regard. And "Tarzan" isn't even remotely the worst offender of the lot, however much it might underline the supposed inherent superiority and intellect of the white man; I've seen some of those real "colonial" adventure novels, and their smug sense of superiority and patronising tone is a real hair-bristler.

[Tiberius Nero]

I truly am astonished at the number of people who say "hey it is just entertainment". Are you people living on another planet? "300" is simply blatant in its propagandism and its representation of the Persians is downright offensive; this isn't "just entertainment" there is an express political statement to it. It doesn't even have the self satirical character of James Bond films (which were not really free of anti-soviet propaganda), but it takes itself too seriously while being pathetic on all fronts.

I am the last person on earth concerned about political correctness, but blatant propaganda like this, without redemption through artistic merit is just repugnant to me. At best I can laugh at it a lot, if I watch it with friends and I am in a good mood.

[Tretii]

I don't think that 300 is anything about racism, propaganda or anything serious for that matter. It's just plain shite, that's all. Basing movie on comics is typically Hollywood style and mostly target 15 year old boys. Let's dress Gollum like spartan and put some "oliphants" on the back and find ten differences with LOOTR.

[Domitius Ulpianus]

For those that don't see the relation between "not liking the movie because its historical innacuracies/political incrrectness" and education I would recommend they take the time to compare the budget dedicated to education in your country or a few other countries as well, and the budget of the entertainment industry in the same country/ies.

THAT is the problem! Entertainment has gone massive it's everywhere and uses any and all resources known to men. Education is just a footnote.

The problem is not that some opinions, artworks, parties, books, or media propose a version of things we might consider "insulting"...the problem is we are depriving ourselves as human beings and as societies the access to the right tools to adequately judge such things.

I think I understand the position of those that didn't like the movie based on its historical "aberration". It's just that as informed and responsible human beings I would really prefer if for once we could "see the wood for the trees".


I'd like to finish this post citing one of humanity's greatest advocates for tolerance, civil rights and freedom: François-Marie Arouet AKA Voltaire. He wrote once: "...I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write."

Thanks for reading me, and thanks for disagreeing.

[Tiberius Nero]

I really don't see what the budget for education has to do with the fact that 300 is a blatant piece of propaganda; I wouldn't care if it was simply ahistorical, I would never expect a movie to be about "educating" people on how to read history. There could have been dozens of different ahistorical artistic approaches to the story of the Battle of Thermopylae without all the propaganda. The fact that this is an artistic ahistorical approach to a RL event doesn't mean that the only ahistorical artistic approach possible to it is portraying either side as demons having escaped the lower depths of Hell.

Saying that "oh well it is just entertainment" or "oh well you can't expect Hollywood to teach history" is only sidestepping the real issue here.

[Urnamma]

Now I could say "This is the standard right wing argument", but that would be ignorant.

Don't you see you are doing exactly the same thing he is?

The "standard" liberal and Christian response to one who disagree is sadness. Sadness that they have to suffer in their situation, and that they are hurt. Instead of hating the person, you want to help them, not to understand your point of view, but help them live better, because your actions speak louder than your words.

Heh. I take it you're American, or possibly British. Liberal in the rest of the world does not mean Socialist like it does in the U.S.

In any case, that's not the debate that I would get into here, in a thread about a movie. However, arguments appealing to emotion and fallacious patterns of reasoning are extremely common today, especially in academia outside the Philosophy circuit.

However, your argument is quite silly as well. Let's rephrase it.

Sallie Logos: I believe that I have a right to my sword collection.
Johnny Pathos: I feel sad for you.
SL: Why on earth would you feel sad for me?
JP: Because you don't understand how many people you're hurting by owning that sword collection.
SL: That's rediculous, I'm not hurting anyone.
JP: Don't get angry. I feel compassion for you. I want to help you. You must give up your property for the good of everyone. It'll make you happy.
SL: My statement still stands. I am not harming anyone by...

Retort Option 1:
JP: But (insert x) thinks that you are, and I believe (x) because (gender pronoun) is a great (gender pronoun).

Retort Option 2:
JP: But I feel that you're wrong. Ergo, I'm going to make blood spattered signs and try to shut down sword companies, and give you emotionally moralistic rhetoric until you give in.

Retort Option 3 (The Soviet Option):
JP: Give in to me. The dialectic says I'm right. I will kill you and put your children in a reeducat... fun camp. In Siberia.

[Urnamma]

And note, I really have nothing against people putting out whatever they want, regardless of the fact that it's garbage. I'm not one of those people who bitch at others for watching television, I simply refuse to do so myself (unless it is an HBO original series, or a few other exceptions).

My opinion is that 300 was a piece of overly vile drivel that depicted Persians in an offensive manner. Does that mean we should run around with torches and scream 'rabble' until it is removed from view? Of course not. Propaganda, subtle or not, is part of every film. Most filmmakers want you to believe the message they put into their work, and most put a discernable message into it. However, I suspect that if Jews, folks of African descent, etc were depicted the way Persians were, many of you crying out for the validity of art would suddenly call it evil racism. That, my friends, is hypocrisy.

[Domitius Ulpianus]

However, I suspect that if Jews, folks of African descent, etc were depicted the way Persians were, many of you crying out for the validity of art would suddenly call it evil racism. That, my friends, is hypocrisy.

An this my friend is called generalising and pre-judging about people you don't even know in real life.

BTW It looks like we can't discuss about this without the name calling, so far if you liked 300 you are either ignorant or a hipocrit.

This really saddens me.

[Urnamma]

Did I call anyone any names, or did I say I have a suspicion that people may behave in a certain way if presented with a new set of stimuli? One is an ad homenim, one is not.

And it's not people who 'liked' 300, but rather people who argued that all who did not like 300 were ignorant ;)

As I said, I don't care if you liked it or not. It is 'art', after a fashion. I don't like it, and consider it rather crude and boorish. You may not. That is diversity of opinion, which is cool with me.

Let's not hedge each other into little corners here, eh?

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Does that mean we should run around with torches and scream 'rabble' until it is removed from view?

So *that's* what they're saying. Anyone know the origins of this? Why we have crowds in movies and tv that tend to say 'rabble rabble rabble'? Serious question. I always think of the Hamburglar when I hear that, but I know I've heard it in movies and such. Or is it something like "watermelon" that actors are supposed to pretend to say so their mouths move like they are talking?

[Foot]

So *that's* what they're saying. Anyone know the origins of this? Why we have crowds in movies and tv that tend to say 'rabble rabble rabble'? Serious question. I always think of the Hamburglar when I hear that, but I know I've heard it in movies and such. Or is it something like "watermelon" that actors are supposed to pretend to say so their mouths move like they are talking?

"rhubard" was used by the Goons (and was probably used earlier by others) to represent the sounds of large groups of people talking, and it worked really well. As for where "rabble" comes from, I don't know, but it certainly sounds similar to "rhubard".

Foot

[Domitius Ulpianus]

Did I call anyone any names, or did I say I have a suspicion that people may behave in a certain way if presented with a new set of stimuli? One is an ad homenim, one is not.

And it's not people who 'liked' 300, but rather people who argued that all who did not like 300 were ignorant ;)

As I said, I don't care if you liked it or not. It is 'art', after a fashion. I don't like it, and consider it rather crude and boorish. You may not. That is diversity of opinion, which is cool with me.

Let's not hedge each other into little corners here, eh?

I guess you meant "ad hominem", if not I'm not sure what the expression means.

I will assume it was just a typing error.

Argument ad hominem: "marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made." from the Merriam Webster dictionary. If it was or not ad hominem...I will let others make that judgement. I might be biased here hahaha.

BTW the second to last part of your post is what is really important and I totally agree.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

So *that's* what they're saying. Anyone know the origins of this? Why we have crowds in movies and tv that tend to say 'rabble rabble rabble'? Serious question. I always think of the Hamburglar when I hear that, but I know I've heard it in movies and such. Or is it something like "watermelon" that actors are supposed to pretend to say so their mouths move like they are talking?

I believe that was made popular by 'South Park'. Where, when everyone got angry and grouped together they yelled 'rabble'. It sounds like general angry crowd noises when randomly yelled in large number. I thought it was an insult to the fact that the crowd got together just to gather and had no point to make.

[Watchman]

Also that was a serious statement about making a script or whatever. If you (anyone) do think you can do a better job... please do so, as it would be part of the transfer of wisdom i was talking about.

I do, actually. But what's the use when you don't have an audience nevermind the backers and resources needed to make a movie ?

And 300 is about as "just entertainment, man" as Riefenstahl's Olympia (which, incidentally, I understand is an sich a quite fine and impressive movie as her works now tend to be, but...); Miller hasn't exactly been quiet about being an angry old man with a lot to say you know.

[Suraknar]

Well,

Just like Spiderman comic was made a movie, X-Men comic was made a movie, Fantastic-4 Comic made in to a movie...and many more Comics being made in to movies.

They decided to take the 300 comic and make it in to a Movie.

300 was initially published as a monthly five-issue comic book series by Dark Horse Comics, the first issue published in May 1998. The issues were titled Honor, Duty, Glory, Combat and Victory. The series won three Eisner Awards in 1999: "Best Limited Series", "Best Writer/Artist" for Frank Miller and "Best Colorist" for Lynn Varley. The work was collected as a hardcover graphic novel in 1999.

What we see in the Movie, has been shown for quite some time in the Comic Book.

[Caratacos]

I do, actually. But what's the use when you don't have an audience nevermind the backers and resources needed to make a movie ?

Yeah that's the sad part. But all great writers or filmakers have to start somewhere [insert "hold on to the dream" type clichè here]. Then again there are also other avenues to persue. Like supporting the work of others you do agree with (like EB-- I tell people about it all the time )

And 300 is about as "just entertainment, man" as Riefenstahl's Olympia (which, incidentally, I understand is an sich a quite fine and impressive movie as her works now tend to be, but...); Miller hasn't exactly been quiet about being an angry old man with a lot to say you know.

To be honest (as i mentioned before) i haven't seen 300 or read the graphic novel and I don't know that much about Frank Miller so i can't make any authoritative comments in this regard. Only that in general nothing is made to be "purely entertainment". If the "artist" involved in the production of something-- anything-- considers themself an "artist" at all, they will try to convey a message or comment on something. How it received is another story. People that say it is "just entertainment, man" are receiving it as "just entertainment". Those who perceive a message in the work receive it as the bearer of that message (and let me remind us that we may see messages in things that were not intended by the "artist"-- I'm sure this is the case with 300 as well-- though like i said i wouldn't know). The world would be a rather boring place if well all saw things and responded to them in the same way.

This isn't a defence of 300. Just a reminder of things everyone already knows already (I'm sure).

[Domitius Ulpianus]

Two things:

First: Great Post Caratacos !


Second: I was just looking around in the net and there is an upcoming movie called "The Last Legion" based on a novel with the same name I think, did anybody read it?, I haven't....please be good, please be good....or this thread might hit 30000000 zillion posts

[Suraknar]

Two things:

First: Great Post Caratacos !


Second: I was just looking around in the net and there is an upcoming movie called "The Last Legion" based on a novel with the same name I think, did anybody read it?, I haven't....please be good, please be good....or this thread might hit 30000000 zillion posts

LOL Domitius - Tu est fou! Hehehehe

Oki I touk a look:

Plot Summary: As the Roman empire crumbles, young Romulus Augustus (Thomas Sangster) flees the city and embarks on a perilous voyage to Britain to track down a legion of supporters

Sinopsis

Rome, 476AD. The Roman Empire is under threat. A mighty force for almost 500 years, at its height Rome’s power spread from Mesopotamia in the east to the Iberian peninsula in the west, from the Rhine and Danube in the north to Egypt in the south. This story follows the events surrounding the historical capture of Romulus Augustus and his imprisonment on the island of Capri.

On the eve of the ceremony to crown twelve-year-old Romulus Augustus as the new emperor, the Barbarian general Odoacer arrives in Rome to make a deal with Orestes, patrician and father of the young Caesar. Odoacer makes demands on the power of the Roman Empire, in fair exchange for his decade-long support of the Roman legions in the east. Orestes refuses.

On the day of the coronation, as the whole of Rome gathers to watch the proceedings, Ambrosinus, the shaman who is a mentor and tutor to Romulus, predicts danger. Orestes is worried for his son’s safety and appoints Aurelius, the tribune of the fourth legion, as his personal guard. That night Aurelius and his legionnaires are confronted by a real danger—Odoacer and his army of Goths have returned to the outskirts of Rome to conquer the city.

With a deafening roar, the Barbarian army storm the city. A terrible battle ensues, the brutal invaders show no mercy and blood flows through the streets.

With Orestes and his wife Julia slaughtered, Romulus is captured along with Ambrosinus and both are taken to the island fortress of Capri built by the emperor Tiberius. It is there that Romulus finds the mythical sword of Caesar that holds the prophecy ‘One edge to defend, one to defeat; In Britannia was I forged…to fit the hand of he...who is destined to rule’.

But not all the Roman legionnaires are dead. Aurelius is alive and when he learns that the Byzantine Empire will give Romulus sanctuary, he embarks on the journey to the coast accompanied by a small group of his men and a mysterious, black-clad Byzantine warrior. On the journey, Aurelius discovers what lies behind the black clothing—a young, beautiful woman called Mira.

Thanks to the strategic cunning of Ambrosinus and the fighting skill of Aurelius and Mira, Romulus is freed. But when the group arrive on shore, they learn that the Byzantines have joined forces with the Goths. Faced with such betrayal, the only course of action is to reach the one legion still loyal to Rome—the ninth legion in Britannia.

As they set off on their dangerous trek North in search of the last legion, Romulus discovers a new father figure in his protector Aurelius and together they embark on a new beginning.