[Monique]

I am not totally surprised that 300 is not historically correct. It is very hard to know what really happened in ancient Greece, it is more mythological than accurate anyway. Some nice special effects, but the director forgot to say that Sparta was also a very important cultural city.

Zodiac was interesting; really like what Fincher did with the story.

Loved Breach, as I thought I would, very interesting storyline and very informative. Like Aames Hansen was a total bas... I do not even know if I can use that word here. They did it for money and funny thing is that Hansen was saying that he loved his country, yeah right. He is kidding right. Very good movie, good supense when needed to be, interesting script and acting.

[Dakar²]

Wrong forum

[design219]

Did you enjoy 300?

[exca1ibur]

People seem to forget the movie is based on the Frank Miller graphic novel, more so. So you need to expect it to be more Sin City like, than historical. That is his style of film is to be more graphic novel and visual. I enjoyed it personally, because I knew what to expect. Zodiac I plan to see this week, I heard good things about it. I'm kinda looking forward to seeing Shooter, being I like Antoine Fuqua films, and this genre.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Monique 

I am not totally surprised that 300 is not historically correct. It is very hard to know what really happened in ancient Greece, it is more mythological than accurate anyway. Some nice special effects, but the director forgot to say that Sparta was also a very important cultural city.

The movie was based off a comic book of the same name. It wasn't meant to be accurate.

[centerchannel68]

I'm looking forward to 'the Host'.

[Mithras]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

I'm looking forward to 'the Host'.

I agree, it looks funny & weird. Have you seen Oldboy? I love South Korean movies.

Also, Zodiac was 'filmed' completely without videotape or film -- straight to hard drive -- and then edited with Final Cut Pro, so that's pretty neat.

[Aron Peterson]

I'm very eager to see 300 because it was some of Frank Miller's best work. It's not meant to be historically correct and to those who say it is full of Miller's political opinions, please pick up the comics and read the letters on the last pages. Miller outrightly says that the opinions of the characters therein don't necessarily reflect his own.

Historically speaking the stand off between the tiny Roman garrison that took on Boudica's army was the most impressive display of strategy and bravery on record. 10,000 Roman soldiers faced an army of 230,000 Iceni and Britons, even if they did bring it upon themselves, and beat them. Most of the damage was inflicted solely by a few hundred legionnaires who formed a standard Wedge Formation to drive through Boudica's army. Miller's 300 also included a wedge-like formation to drive the Persian horde off the cliff.

My one complaint with 300 will probably be that the screen version of Leonidas is a madman compared to the graphic novel's.

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by Mithras 

Have you seen Oldboy? I love South Korean movies.
.

Don't you just love the fight scene in the corridor? Amazing.

[G Barnett]

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson 

I'm very eager to see 300 because it was some of Frank Miller's best work. It's not meant to be historically correct and to those who say it is full of Miller's political opinions, please pick up the comics and read the letters on the last pages. Miller outrightly says that the opinions of the characters therein don't necessarily reflect his own.

Historically speaking the stand off between the tiny Roman garrison that took on Boudica's army was the most impressive display of strategy and bravery on record. 10,000 Roman soldiers faced an army of 230,000 Iceni and Britons, even if they did bring it upon themselves, and beat them. Most of the damage was inflicted solely by a few hundred legionnaires who formed a standard Wedge Formation to drive through Boudica's army. Miller's 300 also included a wedge-like formation to drive the Persian horde off the cliff.

My one complaint with 300 will probably be that the screen version of Leonidas is a madman compared to the graphic novel's.

Actually, I suspect you'll be rather pleasantly surprised. The stuff you see of Leonidas in the trailers is mostly some of his battle cries. It's a much more nuanced performance than the trailers would let on. Sure, Gerard Butler did "play it big" for certain parts, but that's just a small bit of Leonidas.

[norcalfilmbuff]

i really enjoyed this movie. the way it was filmed was totally innovative. i'm not a big fan of bloody action movies, but this movie made me a convert. i hope more action movies follow suite and start to film in this format. it was like watching the comic book come to life right before my eyes.

i found some really cool behind the scenes pictures and videos on zannel. it was really cool to watch how the movie was made. if you likes the movie, you would definitely like the behind the scenes content that they have on zannel.

[:haripu:]

I am very much looking forward to the movie. Although I have my doubts about Frank Miller movies since Sin City (sorry, Sin City fans out there!). He was never really great in character development, and just guys being tough isn't enough to keep me interested. Let's hope this movie has a few more nuances to it.

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by :haripu: 

I am very much looking forward to the movie. Although I have my doubts about Frank Miller movies since Sin City (sorry, Sin City fans out there!). He was never really great in character development, and just guys being tough isn't enough to keep me interested. Let's hope this movie has a few more nuances to it.

Yeah. Sin City (the movie) was just scene after scene of characters talking rough. However, Miller has been one of the guys who has contributed massively to Batman's character development in the last two decades.

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by G Barnett 

Actually, I suspect you'll be rather pleasantly surprised. The stuff you see of Leonidas in the trailers is mostly some of his battle cries. It's a much more nuanced performance than the trailers would let on. Sure, Gerard Butler did "play it big" for certain parts, but that's just a small bit of Leonidas.

I understand they have to do things different on screen for a movie to have impact and a collective audience reaction, so 300 the movie is the graphic novel with a few shots of testosterone. Leonidas in the novel was skinny and rarely yelled. Even when he boots the Persian emissary down the well he says "This is Sparta" quietly without an exclamation mark. Butler's Leonidas is muscled, loud and very brash. Does he still respond to Xerses with the same sarcasm?

[andreas_g4]

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson 

Does he still respond to Xerses with the same sarcasm?

Yes he does.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

I saw 300 which I thought I was going to love it but it was just ok. The art style wasn't as strong as I thought it would be a the story was rather flat.

Still good but not really a distinct or fun as Sin City.

[iREZ]

i liked both 300 and zodiac....but zodiac is the better movie hands down imo.

[OAW]

I saw 300 and found it to be exhilarating spectacle of a movie, yet disturbing in some of its underlying themes. Visually it was just stunning. That's why I went to see it and on that note I wasn't disappointed. However, some of the imagery it employed I found rather uh .. "odd". For instance, since when were Persians black? Granted the Persian empire was rather vast and undoubtedly included some nations with black people, but I found it strange that all the leadership of the people referred to as "Persians" in the film were clearly dark-skinned to one degree or another ... when in reality Persians are just as Caucasian as the Spartans (or other Greeks). In fact, they are true Aryans since the name "Iran" literally means "Land of the Aryans" and this nation is predominantly populated by people who look nothing like what was depicted in this film. The messenger, the military commanders, even Xerxes himself (who is played by a light-skinned Hispanic actor but was made to appear darker in the film) .... are all depicted as dark people in stark contrast to the perfectly sculpted and white Spartans. And those "Persians" that weren't portrayed as dark where completely dehumanized and depicted as barbaric, deformed, and disfigured beasts. Even Xerxes is shown as being some 8 or 9 feet tall giant. He's portrayed as half naked, overly adorned with jewelry and piercings, and in a very androgynous (some would say borderline homosexual) manner ... yet the Spartans are all uber-masculine, never mind the fact that anal sex between men is called "Greek Love" for a reason ... let alone the pederasty that was common in the Greek military. The sex scenes between the Spartans were portrayed with great passion and romance, but the scene with the Persians was portrayed as a lesbian orgy with writhing dark bodies. Very animalistic in its depiction. Perhaps with suggestions of bestiality when the hunchback traitor was allowed to get a little? The Spartans were fighting for "freedom" (never mind the fact that the large numbers, if not the majority of the population were actually slaves) and "reason" ... but the Persians represented "enslavement" and "mysticism". And what's up with the elite Persian soldiers, the Immortals, running around dressed like ninjas? And when they take their masks off they are disfigured and dehumanized as well? Or the average Persian foot-soldier wearing an Arab headdress ... when Persians are not Arabs?

All in all, it was a good action film. The visual style was awesome. I wish I could have seen it on an IMAX screen. But I really wished they had forgone the racial/cultural stereotypes and historical inaccuracies. A simple "300 Spartans against overwhelming odds" theme would have worked just fine. It didn't need to be turned into the "300 white guys, defenders of freedom and reason, against the dark, demonic, animalistic horde" theme.

OAW

[analogue SPRINKLES]

The thing that bothered me a lot was there was supposed to be 300 warriors holding off millions but it always only looked like there was 20 of them.

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I saw 300 and found it to be exhilarating spectacle of a movie, yet disturbing in some of its underlying themes. Visually it was just stunning. That's why I went to see it and on that note I wasn't disappointed. However, some of the imagery it employed I found rather uh .. "odd". For instance, since when were Persians black? Granted the Persian empire was rather vast and undoubtedly included some nations with black people, but I found it strange that all the leadership of the people referred to as "Persians" in the film were clearly dark-skinned to one degree or another ... when in reality Persians are just as Caucasian as the Spartans (or other Greeks).

Persians and Greeks come in all skin tones. Persia has always had a dark population too due to a hot dusty climate surrounding the Zagros. Please note a Latino played Xerses, not a black person.

In fact, they are true Aryans since the name "Iran" literally means "Land of the Aryans" and this nation is predominantly populated by people who look nothing like what was depicted in this film.

Aryans are not a race in the Indo-Iranian literature. 'Arya' simply means 'righteous'. The idea of a white Aryan race was an invention of European historians in the 19th century. As for the rest, Miller withstood such accusations of xenophobia and homophobia when 300 came out. He addresses letters he recieved at the end of each issue.

It's entertainment. It's not supposed to be 100% accurate (though I'd say it is over 50% accurate). If you take it seriously you end up like these unintelligent morons...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6446183.stm

You read correctly. They think 'US cultural officials' made the movie and that cultural authorities "initiated studies to figure out how to attack Iranian culture."

And Bram Stoker had a problem with Romanians...

[G Barnett]

US Cultural Officials? Ummm.... that implies we actually have an "official culture," yes? Since when? Oh, no.

Don't tell me Paris Hilton is gonna be considered a civil servant now....

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by G Barnett 

US Cultural Officials? Ummm.... that implies we actually have an "official culture," yes? Since when?

It shows you how they don't understand the concept of freedom, or freedom of expression. To the Iranian government, culture is something forced upon a civilisation. In free nations culture starts with the individual, with families, from the grassroots.

The Iranian government proved Miller right by opening their mouths. 300 wasn't about whites vs blacks or civilisation versus barbarism. It was about Greek democracy being saved from the central theocratic control of the King of Persia.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson 

Persians and Greeks come in all skin tones. Persia has always had a dark population too due to a hot dusty climate surrounding the Zagros.

While it is true that there are dark skinned people in the south of Iran, these people are not ethnically Persian. The Persians are descendants of Aryan tribes that are caucasian. Having said that, my point is that you saw no "caucasian Persians" (a term that is most redundant from an ethnicity standpoint) in the film ... even though they are the largest and dominant ethnic group in Persia. If one loosely defined "Persian" to be anyone subject to the Persian empire or living in a region dominated by Persian culture ... then I suppose you could pull that off in a stretch. However, we didn't see Persians of "all skin tones" in the film. And we damned sure didn't see Greeks "of all skin tones" either. Like I said ... I found the juxtaposition of the white Greeks and the black/dark Persians rather .. uh "interesting".

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson 

Please note a Latino played Xerses, not a black person.

1. I do believe I noted that fact in my post. As well as the fact that he was portrayed in the film as much darker than what he really is in real life.

2. Latino and black are not mutually exclusive. But I digress.

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson 

Aryans are not a race in the Indo-Iranian literature. 'Arya' simply means 'righteous'. The idea of a white Aryan race was an invention of European historians in the 19th century.

While it is true that "race" as a biological reality is dubious at best, and while it is true that European historians and anthropologists twisted the term to support their white supremacist ideologies of the time ... the fact remains that "Aryan" people who referred to themselves as "righteous" look a certain way because they are tribally related. When it's all said and done, I simply found it "odd" not to see anyone in the so-called Persian army that looked anything like the typical person you'd see in Tehran today. Especially since they were/are the clear majority.

OAW

[pooka]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the gist of your comments, but one thing that was stated was that Xerses army was composed primarily of slaves. I dunno.

My biggest gripe was the constant reminder of how "free" the Spartans were. Riiiiiiight. I guess at the time. Whatever. As an action flick, it kicked some serious ass. I'll give it a pass on historical accuracy.

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by OAW 

While it is true that there are dark skinned people in the south of Iran, these people are not ethnically Persian. The Persians are descendants of Aryan tribes that are caucasian.

OAW

There's no such thing as an Aryan tribe. I challenge any person, scholar or not, to go and find an historical reference for that. There is no record of such a thing and no racial definition for 'arya'.

I should have said earlier than the armies faced by the Spartans were not purely from Persia. In 300, Leonidas says 'The nations of the world march upon us'. The Persians absorbed many subjugated peoples into their ranks, from Egypt to India and that includes Nubians, Arabs and Ethiopians. The Romans did the same thing. The majority of the Roman armies were not Italian men. If we take a look at the legionairres at Hadrian's Wall for instance, many were from Africa and Asia. The British Army continues the tradition to this day by employing many gurkhas from Nepal, and the UN too employs many South Asian soldiers who are stationed in Africa and the Balkans.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson 

There's no such thing as an Aryan tribe. I challenge any person, scholar or not, to go and find an historical reference for that. There is no record of such a thing and no racial definition for 'arya'.

Uh ... ok. How about this ...

As a whole it is believed that the widespread migration of the Aryan tribesmen into the Iranian plateau started at the end of the second millennium B.C. Although traces of their arrival have been noted at Tappeh Hessar, near Damghan or Tappeh Silk, near Kashan, during the third millennium B.C, in all probability this was the first migration of the Aryans into the heart of the Iranian mainland. But the second migration differed from the first invasion. This was a continued wave of invasion starting from Eurasian plains south of Russia and advancing into the south from two fronts:

1. Western branch where the migrants circled the Black Sea and after crossing the Balkans and Bosphorus they penetrated the Asia Minor and formed the Hittites confederation.

2. Eastern branch known as Indo-Iranians branch which moved from east of the Caspian Sea and advanced from the following directions:

- Moving from Caucasus to the great Euphrates bend, the new comers mixed with the Hurrians, Asiatic natives, and formed the Mitanni kingdom.

- Moving from the Central Zagros mountains range this branch was assimilated by the dominant Cassette tribe.

- Moving from eastern front and crossing the Transoxiana and Jeyhoon river through Hendukosh pass and the ancient Indian road. Probably part of these Aryan hordes turned and moved into Iran.

History of Iran: The Aryan Movement

or this ...

I am Dariush, the great king, the king of kings
The king of many countries and many people
The king of this expansive land,
The son of Wishtaspa of Achaemenid,
Persian, the son of a Persian,
'Aryan', from the Aryan race

"From the Darius the Great's Inscription in Naqshe-e-Rostam"

The above scripture is one of most valid written evidences of the history of the Aryan race, and as can be seen, Darius I (Dariush in persian), the Achaemenian king, in the 5th century BCE, declares himself a Persian and form the Aryan race. Herodotus, the father of history, writes (in his book: "History of Herodotus") at the same times: "In ancient times, the Greeks called Iranians "Kaffe", but they were renowned as Aryans among themselves and their neighbors". In another part of his book, Herodotus writes that the Medians were known as Aryans during a certain period. So in two of the oldest written human documents, the race of the Iranians have been mentioned as Aryan.

History of Iran: The Origins of Aryan People

or this .....

The area of present-day Azerbaijan was settled beginning in about the 8th century bc by the Medes, an ancient Aryan tribe. It became part of the Persian Empire in the 6th century bc, and the ancient Persian religion of Zoroastrianism was introduced. Between the 1st and 3rd centuries ad, the Romans conquered the area of present-day Azerbaijan, which then became known as Caucasian Albania. Christianity began to spread there in the 3rd century.

Azerbaijan - MSN Encarta

Bear in mind that when I use the term Aryan I do not mean it in the supposed "racially superior" manner that so-called European "scientists" promoted in days gone by (and perhaps still hold onto in some cases). I mean it simply as a term that a particular tribe or larger ethnic group used to refer to themselves. Nor do I mean it in any sort of "blonde haired, blue eyed" racial connotation ... a fantasy that some continue to cling to. Obviously, most modern day Iranians don't look like that.

Anyhoo, regardless of all this my point still remains. I realize that the Persian army would reflect many of its non-Persian subjects. I do believe I mentioned that at least on one occasion. Having said that, I still find it odd that you never see anyone that looks like a Persian throughout the entire movie. The entire Persian army is shown as dark-skinned, disfigured, or sub-human ... which historically speaking ... like it or not ... conjure up visual depictions produced by Hollywood in days gone by where "dark-skinned" people were essentially portrayed as "disfigured" or "sub-human". And I simply questioned the point of all of that because it didn't add to the movie in any way. Even a Greek movie critics have noticed the same thing ...

Greek critics have blasted "300," a Hollywood recreation of the 480 BC Battle of Thermopylae, where King Leonidas of Sparta held back a massive Persian military invasion, leading to its eventual defeat.

....

"By ancient Persia, they refer to modern Iran - whose soldiers are portrayed as bloodthirsty, underdeveloped zombies," he wrote. "They are stroking racist instincts in Europe and America."

Greek critics lash out at Hollywood's take on ancient Sparta in '300'

Then again, perhaps it's just me?

OAW

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Uh ... ok. How about this ...

Even though it is off-topic I'll answer briefly and if you want more you can PM me.

History of Iran: The Aryan Movement

Theoretical. There are no ancient references to an 'Aryan Movement' and whatever physical evidence there is points to a large scale migration of peoples from 2000 to 1800 BCE from northern India across the middle-east and towards Europe after the collapse of the Indus Valley Civilisation due to drought and earthquake. The population displacement numbered almost 15 million people, a huge amount for that time.

If any people came from the Caucasus into Iran and India, logically they would be speaking languages related to the Caucasian dialects, yet there's nothing. North of the Caucasus there the Uralo-Altaic and Turkic languages. They didn't spread until the 6th century CE. The only place the Indo-European branch could have spread from is Iran, Afghanistan and India. The population of those regions were as ethnically diverse then as they are today making any idea of an Aryan race moot. There wasn't one.

I am Dariush, the great king, the king of kings
The king of many countries and many people
The king of this expansive land,
The son of Wishtaspa of Achaemenid,
Persian, the son of a Persian,
'Aryan', from the Aryan race

This mistranslation is particularly offensive because the idea of a 'race' didn't exist at the time. Translate it properly and completely into English and you'll see it makes better sense 'Righteous/Noble, from a Righteous/Noble lineage'.

Then there's the reference to the Greeks using 'kaffe' against Persians. The word is related to the Arabic 'kafr' and means 'infidel' or 'unbeliever'. The word is used to differentiate between people who follow Greek gods and those who don't. It's not racial.

History of Iran: The Origins of Aryan People

Again, not based on real evidence but theory - European theory. The earliest texts refering to 'aryans' are the Vedas where there is no racial connotation. The term 'arya' means 'the righteous' and is often associated with the Forces of Light fighting Forces of Darkness. European historians in the 19th century went as far as purposefully mistranslating that as 'Forces of Fair Skinned People fighting the Forces of Dark Skinned People' and that's how they came up with the idea of a European tribe invading Iran and India. The historical migration was in fact the other way around and has continued every since (Roma gypsies, modern migrants, etc).

Persia, Afghanistan and India as mentioned before have always been ethnically diverse due to highly contrasting environments and long trade routes used by many cultures. There are just as many dark as there are fair peoples in those regions.

Miller didn't single out any particular skin tone. His Greeks, as they are in the movie too, look just as much Assyrian or Hittite as they do Greek. The Persian allies are varied and historically included many Chaldean Babylonians, Arabs, Egyptians and Nubians, many of whom are naturally going to be darker skinned than Greeks because they lived in hotter climes. That's neither Miller or Hollywood's fault. It's just the way it was.

Greek critics have blasted "300," a Hollywood recreation of the 480 BC Battle of Thermopylae, where King Leonidas of Sparta held back a massive Persian military invasion, leading to its eventual defeat.

Just more people with nothing better to do than complain. Where were they when the graphic novels came out?

[Mister Ush]

I just watched the trailer for this movie, and although I haven't seen it yet in theatres, just from the trailer I can see that the movie has some pretty strong racial undertones. It is very obviously a white vs black film (but personally I felt Lord of the Rings had some serious racial undertones as well). I agree with OAW, just from the trailer all the scenes show strong honorable white men vs inferior primitive black men, it's pretty clear, unless your white I guess. It's pure xenophobia.

Now I don't think any of this was cooked up by any government group, but the political undertones are just too obvious. This is totally pro-war propaganda, I mean come on! It's like the sum total of the Bush administration's rhetoric blown-up into some adolescent fantasy. Fighting evil doers, fighting for freedom, stay the course, surge, it's a whole military policy based on testosterone and caffeine.

A friend of mine did go see this in the theatres and he commented on how the whole place was packed with jocks puffing their chests and and getting hard off of it. I can just see jarheads in military bases the world over getting their nipples hard over this movie.

I think this guy has it pretty right on:
300 � The Cedar Lounge Revolution

To quote:
"It reminded me, in some ways, of the idea made popular in the 1980s by the Rambo films: that the Vietnam War could have been won by the United States if only the cowardly politicians and protesters at home had allowed the soldiers to get on with the job (i.e. killing lots more people)."

And to kind of expand the subject a little bit, I remember hearing a radio piece interviewing a kid in New York who was a refuge from the fighting in Somolia where he was actually trained as a child soldier after his whole family was killed. He said after a skirmish they would give them lot's of drugs and show movies like Rambo that would glorify what they had done. I don't think our military works much differenty.

[Mister Ush]

...

[Jim Paradise]

Originally Posted by Mithras 

I agree, it looks funny & weird. Have you seen Oldboy? I love South Korean movies.

Also, Zodiac was 'filmed' completely without videotape or film -- straight to hard drive -- and then edited with Final Cut Pro, so that's pretty neat.

Oldboy was excellent!

[Mister Ush]

ps:
Holy Terror, Batman! - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Frank Miller is making pure propaganda. I actually have the orginal 'Holy Terror' book, its pretty ironic how he's done a 180 from attacking conservative Christians to attacking Al-Qaeda

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by Mister Ush 

ps:
Holy Terror, Batman! - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Frank Miller is making pure propaganda. I actually have the orginal 'Holy Terror' book, its pretty ironic how he's done a 180 from attacking conservative Christians to attacking Al-Qaeda

By that logic James Bond movies were propaganda against SMERSH!

300 is no more propaganda than Lord of the Rings or playing a computer game. Compare the graphic novel and movie to the following: training real life suicide bombers, holding conferences to deny the Holocaust, send agents to arm terrorists and provoke havoc in Iraq, arm terrorist groups to oust Jews from their historical homeland and ruin any chance of peace with Palestinian Arabs, say Jews should be thrown in the sea and that every US citizen is a child of The Great Shaitan. That's not a fantasy graphic novel adapted for the screen because the author has been hip for some time. That's something really happening. If anyone wants to criticise this movie on grounds of xenophobia I'll happily stand up for it and point out the hypocrisy.

[Mister Ush]

According to Miller, the comic is a "piece of propaganda" in which Batman "kicks Al-Qaeda's ass."

I was refering to the section where Miller himself is quoted as saying the comic is propoganda.

All I'm saying really is that you have to recognize that the film obviously represents the fantasy of the American psyche, and right now it's xenophobia directed at Arabs but which has ALWAYS been a source of discrimination towards blacks. Now I won't deny the film's ability to be entertaining, and even visually a stunning piece of work, but it also has the ability to incite very deep rooted feelings of hatred and self-righteousness, as is the intent of the creators as obviously stated.

I am not saying people shouldn't be able to enjoy a movie like this, but it shouldn't be enjoyed from a participitory view, but rather from a conscious view that the message can be detrimental. Otherwise it becomes a tool to fuel hatred and violence, just like past American war movies that glorify violence in such a gratuitous and unthinking manner. Be aware that people in power are using movies just like these to motivate those younger and impressionable to perform violent and cruel acts in other parts of the world, and don't think our military doesn't work the same way. What do you think actually motivates 90% of soldiers to go to war in the first place? I'm sure it isn't from any real experience of war.

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by Mister Ush 

All I'm saying really is that you have to recognize that the film obviously represents the fantasy of the American psyche, and right now it's xenophobia directed at Arabs but which has ALWAYS been a source of discrimination towards blacks. Now I won't deny the film's ability to be entertaining, and even visually a stunning piece of work, but it also has the ability to incite very deep rooted feelings of hatred and self-righteousness, as is the intent of the creators as obviously stated.

Seven million people saw 300 in its first 3 days of release and there's been no incitement to hatred. Compared to a single sermon by a violent mullah 300 is a nursery story. We're not going to oppress our filmmakers, writers and other creatives just to appease some conspiracy theorists and fundamentalists who have killed and threatened filmmakers and cartoonists in recent years. As soon as we oppress ourselves we open the door for more appeasement and more oppression. It's like the good old adage "Give a man a hand and he'll take your arm".

300 was written ten years ago. It's based on history. Monsters, hunchbacks, lepers and Samurais have been added to both Spartan and Persian sides to put this take on the battle firmly in the category of a fantasy battle movie like Lord of the Rings. Enjoy it for its technical merits, which by the way are outstanding.

[Miniryu]

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson 

There's no such thing as an Aryan tribe. I challenge any person, scholar or not, to go and find an historical reference for that. There is no record of such a thing and no racial definition for 'arya'.

I should have said earlier than the armies faced by the Spartans were not purely from Persia. In 300, Leonidas says 'The nations of the world march upon us'. The Persians absorbed many subjugated peoples into their ranks, from Egypt to India and that includes Nubians, Arabs and Ethiopians. The Romans did the same thing. The majority of the Roman armies were not Italian men. If we take a look at the legionairres at Hadrian's Wall for instance, many were from Africa and Asia. The British Army continues the tradition to this day by employing many gurkhas from Nepal, and the UN too employs many South Asian soldiers who are stationed in Africa and the Balkans.

Not to mention that many Greeks (and yes, even a lot of Spartan warriors) defected and fought on the side of Xerxes. But that is never depicted in the movie.

[Dakar²]

Christ, does everything need to be politicized?

[G Barnett]

Originally Posted by Mister Ush 

ps:
Holy Terror, Batman! - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Frank Miller is making pure propaganda. I actually have the orginal 'Holy Terror' book, its pretty ironic how he's done a 180 from attacking conservative Christians to attacking Al-Qaeda

Wrong. Frank Miller made a single comic which was pure propaganda. The way you phrased it there makes it sound like that's all he does, in order to link that quote to 300.

300 was originally written based off of his memories of a 1960s movie which affected him as a kid. In doing so, he stripped the story to its bare essentials, reduced most of the characters to archetypes and then painted with as broad a mythological brush as he could. The movie is about as accurate a recreation of the comic as is possible nowadays; that was the prime motivation behind making it. No agenda, no xenophobia, no ulterior motives.

The whole rationale behind making the movie was twofold:

1) Frank Miller is a visionary genius of a comic writer/artist.

2) Let's see if we can capture this particular vision of his on the big screen.

That's it. That's all. Nothing more. So please, try not to read some sort of political/racial/religious/whatever prejudice into the movie. Whatever you think you see is pure projection.

Pun fully intended.

[Dakar²]

Thank you.