I don't wanna get too into at this point, since many of yall ain't seen it yet. But I caught the sneak preview last night and all I will say for now is...

:-D

http://300themovie.warnerbros.com/
http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/300/

So are some of y'all gonna try and catch the IMAX screening?
I may do that for a second viewing.




http://fuck-your.blogspot.com
http://www.myspace.com/insightclopediabrown
http://www.myspace.com/dumhi
http://www.youtube.com/group/okayplayer
http://www.last.fm/user/DawgEatah
R.I.P. 3rd i

I guess because the effect allows you to see the fights more clearly and graphically. I mean it's not some arbitrary shit, when they slow shit down it's to show you, in the clearest of detail, how one swing of the sword cuts one dude's arm off, another dude's head and another cat's hand, full-on with huge splatters of blood.



http://fuck-your.blogspot.com
http://www.myspace.com/insightclopediabrown
http://www.myspace.com/dumhi
http://www.youtube.com/group/okayplayer
http://www.last.fm/user/DawgEatah
R.I.P. 3rd i

lets you really see the fight and the choreography in detail.

its a nice change of pace than say an American filmed fight scene, with close, tight shots that barely let you see the action (as opposed to an asian filmed fight scene which uses a much wider angle and lets you see everything, showcasing the ability of the actor's skills).

>I guess because the effect allows you to see the fights more
>clearly and graphically. I mean it's not some arbitrary shit,
>when they slow shit down it's to show you, in the clearest of
>detail, how one swing of the sword cuts one dude's arm off,
>another dude's head and another cat's hand, full-on with huge
>splatters of blood.

I was wondering if they overused it for expressive and aesthetic purposes because some clips have them jumping/flying and falling back in slow-mo which is unlike the examples of the functional purpose that you stated above (i.e., clarity of detail).

Maybe it's integral to the Miller source?

... certainly some of it is for style. but like i said, it never bothered me. i could see it possibly bothering others.





http://fuck-your.blogspot.com
http://www.myspace.com/insightclopediabrown
http://www.myspace.com/dumhi
http://www.youtube.com/group/okayplayer
http://www.last.fm/user/DawgEatah
R.I.P. 3rd i

it is based on Frank Miller's text, almost shot for shot...
and alot of the slow motion functions as a way to frame the exact graphic that is in the book.

Thanks for the confirmation. I was thinking the source had alot to do with it.

stays 100% loyal to the graphic novels...they need to do the dark knight returns next!

Matrix and a slew of other films have slowed down scenes for choreography....this is not new, nor particularly impressive. for your typical commercial action film, this is par for the course. deserves no special accolade.

i'll say this, it's the MOST BEAUTIFUL SCENE FOR SCENE, FRAME BY FRAME, VISUAL FILM I HAVE EVER SCENE

BUT...
i'll say, i was amped up to see this film, and engrossed in the hype.

after walking out, i feel that i didn't see anything that i matrix, sin city, or what dreams may come (which overall i didn't like) already showed.

but hey, if you like it you like it.....

http://fuck-your.blogspot.com
http://www.myspace.com/insightclopediabrown
http://www.myspace.com/dumhi
http://www.youtube.com/group/okayplayer
http://www.last.fm/user/DawgEatah
R.I.P. 3rd i

this was the largest white cock stroke i've seen in a long time.

the best performance in my opinion was the hunchback...how f***ing hilarious is it when the poor bastard eagerly screams "YES"....i was rolling!!!!

i mean did u see sin city. the acting in that was just horrible. and most comic book movies have really macho cheesy line. this was high art compared to some x-men shit.

is that it looks like it might be completely computer generated I have been unable to discerne a single shot I can confidently with 100% say is a real actor on film... am I mad?

The look of the film is basically a cross between Sin City and Lord of the Rings. And it works.

I'm really excited for this flick, I'll be checkin out Friday Night

I can't wait.
______________________________
"It's by the grace of Allah I don't kill half of ya'll."- Ason

"These niggas got price tags on their forehead."- Saigon

http://www.last.fm/user/OlH8fulBastard

http://fuck-your.blogspot.com
http://www.myspace.com/insightclopediabrown
http://www.myspace.com/dumhi
http://www.youtube.com/group/okayplayer
http://www.last.fm/user/DawgEatah
R.I.P. 3rd i

I'll be back with thoughts on it.

even though i swore to myself that i would never do another midnight showing i'm going tonight. fuck it, this shit has me excited.

I care not however I'm still seeing it in IMAX tomorrow!!


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/movies/09thre.html?8dpc

“300” is about as violent as “Apocalypto” and twice as stupid. Adapted from a graphic novel by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley, it offers up a bombastic spectacle of honor and betrayal, rendered in images that might have been airbrushed onto a customized van sometime in the late 1970s. The basic story is a good deal older. It’s all about the ancient Battle of Thermopylae, which unfolded at a narrow pass on the coast of Greece whose name translates as Hot Gates.

Hot Gates, indeed! Devotees of the pectoral, deltoid and other fine muscle groups will find much to savor as King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) leads 300 prime Spartan porterhouses into battle against Persian forces commanded by Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro), a decadent self-proclaimed deity who wants, as all good movie villains do, to rule the world.

The Persians, pioneers in the art of facial piercing, have vastly greater numbers — including ninjas, dervishes, elephants, a charging rhino and an angry bald giant — but the Spartans clearly have superior health clubs and electrolysis facilities. They also hew to a warrior ethic of valor and freedom that makes them, despite their gleeful appetite for killing, the good guys in this tale. (It may be worth pointing out that unlike their mostly black and brown foes, the Spartans and their fellow Greeks are white.)

But not all the Spartans back in Sparta support their king on his mission. A gaggle of sickly, corrupt priests, bought off by the Persians, consult an oracular exotic dancer whose topless gyrations lead to a warning against going to war. And the local council is full of appeasers and traitors, chief among them a sardonic, shifty-eyed smoothy named Theron (Dominic West, known to fans of “The Wire” as the irrepressible McNulty).

Too cowardly to challenge Leonidas man to man, he fixes his attention on Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey), a loyal wife and Spartan patriot who fights the good fight on the home front. Gorgo understands her husband’s noble purpose, the higher cause for which he is willing to sacrifice his life. “Come home with your shield or on it,” she tells him as he heads off into battle after a night of somber marital whoopee. Later she observes that “freedom is not free.”

Another movie — Matt Stone and Trey Parker’s “Team America,” whose wooden puppets were more compelling actors than most of the cast of “300” — calculated the cost at $1.05. I would happily pay a nickel less, in quarters or arcade tokens, for a vigorous 10-minute session with the video game that “300” aspires to become. Its digitally tricked-up color scheme, while impressive at times, is hard to tolerate for nearly two hours (true masochists can seek out the Imax version), and the hectic battle scenes would be much more exciting in the first person. I want to chop up some Persians too!

There are a few combat sequences that achieve a grim, brutal grandeur, notably an early engagement in which the Spartans, hunkered behind their shields, push back against a Persian line, forcing enemy soldiers off a cliff into the water. The big idea, spelled out over and over in voice-over and dialogue in case the action is too subtle, is that the free, manly men of Sparta fight harder and more valiantly than the enslaved masses under Xerxes’ command. Allegory hunters will find some gristly morsels of topicality tossed in their direction, but you can find many of the same themes, conveyed with more nuance and irony, in a Pokémon cartoon.

Zack Snyder’s first film, a remake of George Romero’s “Dawn of the Dead,” showed wit as well as technical dexterity. While some of that filmmaking acumen is evident here, the script for “300,” which he wrote with Kurt Johnstad and Michael B. Gordon, is weighed down by the lumbering portentousness of the original book, whose arresting images are themselves undermined by the kind of pomposity that frequently mistakes itself for genius.

In time, “300” may find its cultural niche as an object of camp derision, like the sword-and-sandals epics of an earlier, pre-computer-generated-imagery age. At present, though, its muscle-bound, grunting self-seriousness is more tiresome than entertaining. Go tell the Spartans, whoever they are, to stay home and watch wrestling.

"Being the bigger man is overrated." -- Huey (The Boondocks)

http://www.myspace.com/dozingoff

i mean, last movie I saw in IMAX was Batman Begins... now maybe it was because i wasnt way in the back, but it was almost too big, like i couldnt follow all of the action because i had to turn my head to see every portion of the screen (and i was sitting dead center pretty much)

And all I'm saying is that it's as good as you hope it is.

on what basis do you think this was a great film?

Turn your mind off and enjoy the fireworks and you'll like it. Even moreso than Sin City.

Otherwise, the sex scenes are HILARIOUS and McNulty's good as the evil dickhead. But it is definitely worth seeing.

"great"?

hurdling the lowered bar. 'turn your mind off'......

>Turn your mind off

With lots of bad-ass decapitations.

PLEASE do not fall for this okeydoke.
this has all the trimmings and trappings of typical bamboozlement.

just as Griffith was lauded in 1917 for making a technical masterpiece with "birth of a nation", the seminal race film....

snyder has served up a delicious slice of 'white is right', buried under the latest technical wizardry.

how could you not laugh out loud at xerxes...played by the same latin actor who acts as Paolo on LOST...but painted in BROWNFACE

THIS FILM HAS BLACKFACE yall!!!!

the persian army had bajillions of white slaves, and you ain't seeing nary a damn white person in that army.

only black people who fade into the shadows with only their eyes and teeth glowing white.

i am not joking. it could have only been more perfect if the persian king was eating a chicken wing and watermelon on his throne.

"fighting against the mysticism and tyranny of the east"...

Get the fuck out of here with this drum-beating bull sh**

I mean, the movie's been out what? Less than a week?

shit's racialized as all hell

yeah, not liking that so much.

might completely fit in with the story.

But I'm just sayin. They kicked bruhman down the hole in SLO MO.

Nah son.

>yeah, not liking that so much.
>
>might completely fit in with the story.

It COMPLETELY fits with the story
>
>But I'm just sayin. They kicked bruhman down the hole in SLO
>MO.
>
>Nah son.


How would you have done it?

A lot of folks act as if black folks never got to kick white ass at any point in history. The Moors took over the Iberian Peninsula for centuries, Hannibal gave the Romans hell.

And the Persians ain't exactly black either

the hole was either a) a well, and throwing dead bodies in the well poison the water. OR b) it is a conveniently placed bottomless pit in the middle of their city...ummm....yeah....

it isn't about blacks not getting to kick white ass.
its about a war that was mediterranean greek vs an army from all over the world (thousands of whites included)....but instead reframed to show white victimization.

As the histories go, Xerxes demanded soil and water from those who submitted to him as proof of their allegiance. The Persian envoy was thrown into the well, and told to dig themselves out.


How many white folks were actually in the Persian army, compared to the rest of the forces?

at the battle of the hot gates. Xerxes had pretty much captured most of the known world at the time

but its convenient they are absent in the film......

funny. but you know what i'm saying.

>A lot of folks act as if black folks never got to kick white
>ass at any point in history. The Moors took over the Iberian
>Peninsula for centuries, Hannibal gave the Romans hell.

Hannibal wasn't black. Most Moors weren't exactly black either.

>And the Persians ain't exactly black either

that's the point.

the moors were an army as diverse as the persians....the moor army had units of whiter turks kicking ass as well....

the Moors were about as black as the Persians,lol

...taking on people of color for the sake of political correctness?

I'm not saying but I'm saying...
-------------------
"Fuck yo couch, nigga!" - Tom Cruise

http://melanism.com
http://preptimeposse.blogspot.com
http://www.myspace.com/melanism
http://www.last.fm/user/Melanism/

but i'm questioning why 300 (the book AND the movie) has altered the demographic in the first place. you're question in the context of 300 assumes that the greeks were the white massive scottish people and persians were a black, brown, gay freakshow. (umm...isn't it the GREEKS who are known for their fun boys? and whats so not-gay about buff spartans oiled down running around in briefs?) which just wasn't the case. snyder/miller have made persians jet black to play on white fear. i know you know this...i don't have to explain it to you.

So yes, they did have Jet Black folks in it as well as brown and olive skinned middle easterns. It is what it is

you're right man....the film is perfect.

I'm saying you are not following good logic.

racial divisions didn't exist back then!

in posts above i've said the same thing. i don't understand why the 300 shows a different picture.

1) greeks being white white (aren't they just as mediterranean as say...syrian, lebanese, or palestinian? = "brown") and

2) no representation of the caucasian, aryan(iran = aryan in farsi), dynamic army you mention? not arguing that the persian army didn't have black people in it....arguing that it had other people too that are absent in the film, because non white others easier to vilify.

this is all an aside to the characterization of persian aggression (homosexual, 'mystic', tyranical) with no similar analysis of greek homoerotic, oracle/many gods, violence.

as the Syrians, Lebanese or Palestinian. I won't even get into the fact that what we now know as Syria, Lebanon and Palestine did not exist in the time the movie takes place.

Just because they are all "mediterranean" (your definition) doesn't make them the same ethnic group. Is a dougla from Trinidad the same ethnic group and or phenotype as a Haitian? Is one more "Caribbean" than the other?


>in posts above i've said the same thing. i don't understand
>why the 300 shows a different picture.
>
>1) greeks being white white (aren't they just as mediterranean
>as say...syrian, lebanese, or palestinian? = "brown") and

How about this, how about I watch the movie tonight (got my IMAX tickets already) and I give you my full opinion. Let me reiterate, the point I am trying to make is that it's not a historical fallacy to portray the Persian forces as generally darker and more ethnically diverse than the Spartan forces.

>2) no representation of the caucasian, aryan(iran = aryan in
>farsi), dynamic army you mention? not arguing that the
>persian army didn't have black people in it....arguing that it
>had other people too that are absent in the film, because non
>white others easier to vilify.

NOW we are getting somewhere, and again, I will reserve full judgment until I see the movie later on tonight. It struck me as funny watching the trailer and seeing Leonidas talking about "an age of freedom" The reason why Sparta was able to train such an exceptional fighting force is that it relied on slave labor (mostly made up of other greeks) and second-class citizens to keep their city-state running.

>this is all an aside to the characterization of persian
>aggression (homosexual, 'mystic', tyranical) with no similar
>analysis of greek homoerotic, oracle/many gods, violence.
>
>

>It struck me
>as funny watching the trailer and seeing Leonidas talking
>about "an age of freedom" The reason why Sparta was able to
>train such an exceptional fighting force is that it relied on
>slave labor (mostly made up of other greeks) and second-class
>citizens to keep their city-state running.

it was a kind of rudimentary outlook to take by Miller, considering what you mentioned was true

it sounds like you are in the same situation i am/was...

i was so excited for this film, and was very disappointed. i hope you can enjoy it. but if you're already noticing miller/snyder's leonidas spouting rhetoric about freedom....i believe you'll be dying laughing by the end of the film.

what is hilarious is...for all of the "democracy" and "free men" drum beating.....the spartan / greek community in the film followed the direction of those corrupt priests, and they basically practice eugenics by throwing babies off of cliffs.

also i'm being general with the use of "mediterranean"...my point is...greeks aren't the strapping white, scottish and british men we are watching in the film.

also, thanks for giving me a little credit...i know that syria, lebanon, and palestine didn't exist then, i just didn't know what empire it fell under at the time of this battle.

I give the movie an 8/10, it's not the greatest I've ever seen, but I love that it was so faithful to the graphic novel. I kept wishing they would fast forward the council subplot, I wanted to see more battle.

My friends and I were cracking up and enjoying how the Spartan tactics worked, bounding overwatch to keep a fresh front line, and that wedge against the calvary charge was brilliant.

I read this post before seeing the movie, so I went in looking specifically for the issues you brought up. Is it just me, or were Xerxe's generals and envoys darker than the regular rank and file soldiers? Except for the one at the end of the battle, it seemed to me that those leading the armies had a more african phenotype than the ones they led.

Amazing that no mention of slavery was made in Sparta, that we can agree on and I don't think Miller deserves a pass on this one. And he often sugar coats the point that you make about eugenics. I mean, the Quasimodo dude is a perfect example...between the lines the message is that if he had been discarded as law stated, he wouldn't have been alive to betray Leonidas. That's one of the biggest things people overlook when they praise Plato's "The Republic" he flat out states that weak or deformed babies should be left to die

That whole line of fighting against "Tyranny and Mysticism" Am I the only one that thought the part about Mysticism was against the Spartan traditions (the elders, the reliance on the oracle, etc).

Overall, I loved the movie though, I was looking for a movie version of one of my favorite graphic novels. And I got exactly that.

>it sounds like you are in the same situation i am/was...
>
>i was so excited for this film, and was very disappointed. i
>hope you can enjoy it. but if you're already noticing
>miller/snyder's leonidas spouting rhetoric about freedom....i
>believe you'll be dying laughing by the end of the film.
>
>what is hilarious is...for all of the "democracy" and "free
>men" drum beating.....the spartan / greek community in the
>film followed the direction of those corrupt priests, and they
>basically practice eugenics by throwing babies off of cliffs.
>
>
>also i'm being general with the use of "mediterranean"...my
>point is...greeks aren't the strapping white, scottish and
>british men we are watching in the film.
>
>also, thanks for giving me a little credit...i know that
>syria, lebanon, and palestine didn't exist then, i just didn't
>know what empire it fell under at the time of this battle.
>
>
>

>I mean, the Quasimodo dude is a perfect example...between the lines the >message is that if he had been discarded as law stated, he wouldn't >have been alive to betray Leonidas.

Miller's take on the Spartan selective breeding was sugar-coated

as to say, he *should* have been thrown off a cliff as a baby or else he'll grow up into a traitor monster

.
>Miller's take on the Spartan selective breeding was
>sugar-coated
>
>as to say, he *should* have been thrown off a cliff as a baby
>or else he'll grow up into a traitor monster

i guess alot of my issue with the treatment lies with miller's original, as the film is faithful to the book. besides the boring subplot.

question...did you get the "bloodlust claps" throughout the film at the various beheadings? quite possibly the most disturbing part of the experience. but again, i went on thursday midnight first showing with the fanboys.

>NOW we are getting somewhere, and again, I will reserve full
>judgment until I see the movie later on tonight. It struck me
>as funny watching the trailer and seeing Leonidas talking
>about "an age of freedom" The reason why Sparta was able to
>train such an exceptional fighting force is that it relied on
>slave labor (mostly made up of other greeks) and second-class
>citizens to keep their city-state running.

I was thinking the same thing. I also thought it was funny that the Spartans were making fun of the Athenians as being gay boy lovers, when the Spartans were just as big pederasts as Athenians. pretty ironic.

not the same thing at all.

shit was still dope though.

>PLEASE do not fall for this okeydoke.
>this has all the trimmings and trappings of typical
>bamboozlement.
>
>just as Griffith was lauded in 1917 for making a technical
>masterpiece with "birth of a nation", the seminal race
>film....
>
>snyder has served up a delicious slice of 'white is right',
>buried under the latest technical wizardry.

Lord of the Rings was almost as bad.


>how could you not laugh out loud at xerxes...played by the
>same latin actor who acts as Paolo on LOST...but painted in
>BROWNFACE

I was laughing too hard at his painted eyebrows & eyeliner.


>the persian army had bajillions of white slaves,

they did?


>and you ain't
>seeing nary a damn white person in that army.

the Persian archers looked kinda white.


>only black people who fade into the shadows with only their
>eyes and teeth glowing white.

the Immortals didn't look African, shit they didn't even look human.


>i am not joking. it could have only been more perfect if the
>persian king was eating a chicken wing and watermelon on his
>throne.

LOL


>"fighting against the mysticism and tyranny of the east"...
>
>Get the fuck out of here with this drum-beating bull sh**

well yeah, but the Greeks did have that general outlook towards the Persian empire. all that stuff was definitely blown out of proportion in the movie though.

man finally someone who sees it similar to me...i was beginning to think i was crazy....

the scene that i had the strongest reaction to (ROTFL) was when the hunchback is standing there, girls between his legs and lesbians licking each other all over, and xerxes says 'all you have to do is kneel'...and the poor bastard is just like yes! yes!! jesus christ yes!!! lol


and then dude asks, in the midst of all this smut..."can i have a uniform"....bwahahahaha...

Normally, I would read something like this and go "Aw, COME ON!" However, when I saw "300," and Queen Gorgo said, "Freedom is not free," I thought, "Aw, shit. Did I pay $7 for a 'Let's Roll' production?"

Apparently, I did. From the "hoorah" bellowed by the Men's Health/Muscle and Fitness White Guys to the effete, sybaritic "Persian" Xerxes, this movie pretty much seemed like a veiled screed extolling the virtues of white masculinity (see, the whites have DEMOCRACY! and FREEDOM!! even if we don't really see any evidence of either in the film).

lol..i see alot of new spartan recruits as of late

and not in the way we know and love him.

He pissed me off.

i couldn't take him seriously, i was dying!

Maybe because I also enjoy graphic novels, I was really appreciative of how stylized it was.
The battle scenes were excellent.
Xerxes looked very cool.
The wolf scene was awesome.

And when...

***
***
***
***SPOILER***
***
***


Queen Gorgo killed Theron, I was so hyped. I said "Kill his ass!" and then she did and we all clapped and cheered. :-D

>Maybe because I also enjoy graphic novels, I was really
>appreciative of how stylized it was.
>The battle scenes were excellent.
>Xerxes looked very cool.
>The wolf scene was awesome.
>
>And when...
>
>***
>***
>***
>***SPOILER***
>***
>***
>
>
>Queen Gorgo killed Theron, I was so hyped. I said "Kill his
>ass!" and then she did and we all clapped and cheered. :-D

there were many screams of "kill his ass!!" during that scene in the theater i was at.

Liked it. Didn't love it. On it's face, it's a good popcorn flick. But there's a few too many things going on that keep me from embracing it flat out. Too much slow-motion & too many John Basedow stomachs. The racial undertones are there if you want to find them, them, the political allegory is there as well. I thought it was still a pretty effective movie.

that was some of the most gratuitous use of slow-motion I've ever seen

the fighting got repetitive because of that...I thought it would've been better if they had stayed in the phalanx rather than watching them wandering around, Samurai Showdown-style while the Persians attacked in waves of 12

racial undertones can be spotted like you said; I think this pops up more often than not in Frank Miller's work

another problem I have with the comic translations (happened in Sin City as well) is that too much of Miller's text being used as voice-over

part of the beauty of film is that you don't have to fill in all those pauses and gaps like you would a comic

so a long narrative over every other scene where we can clearly understand what's going on anyway get tedious

Was it pretty faithful to the comic otherwise? I never read 300.

I'd imagine it is though (like I said, too much so in some cases)

and that might turn some people off, they are watching this version of the 300 which is based on a book that was inspired by the original version of the 300 which is inspired by....

that might works in graphic novel format, but on a movie screen look kinda dumb.

e.g. - the humpback dude looking like a cross between quasimodo and gollum, Xerxes being like 9 feet tall, and the goat-head dude playing the lyre or whatever in Xerxes' court.

>e.g. - the humpback dude looking like a cross between
>quasimodo and gollum, Xerxes being like 9 feet tall, and the
>goat-head dude playing the lyre or whatever in Xerxes' court.

was laughing out loud at that goat character, hunchback in his Fantasia sorcerer's hat with pastel sash, and any scene featuring Xerxes.

only because when you read them he sounds absolutely psychotic.

anyway...like Sin City, the coolness factor was ridiculous but there's not much more than that. Dope movie though.



SPIOLERS......







I loved the narrator/voice overs esp, that "those in the back yell forward, those in the front yell ahhhhhhhh!" line.

Just to nitpick, I would've liked to see Zerkces (sp?) killed. I know it wasn't supposed to happen but a movie feels unresolved without the villain taking an L especially when a final battle was suggested at the end but not shown.

I dug the slo-mo scene when that one dude was moving forward bodying like 30 cats.

I laughed at hunchback rocking that wizard hat.

I was like, "Oh shit, McNulty". I didn't now he was in this.

I want an Immortal mask. Fuck it the whole outfit. The shot of them lined up marching forward in slo-mo...gulliest shit in movie history.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0851851/

she plays "sarah connor" in the sarah connor chronicles.

i think part of the allure of lena headey in this film is that she's portrayed as a classic beauty, but there's still a demure strength about her that's not too over-powering. she was lady-like, but she was still ready to stab someone when necessary.

i could be wrong, but i think the persian army ended up retreating back to persia....and xerxes was not killed. so, although miller tweaked and changed bits i guess he just wasn't willing to re-write history - beyond making the war a racial one of course.

The narration was good, done by non other than your boy Boromir's little brother who let Frodo go.

The King's voice is one of the most commanding voices I've ever heard since maybe James Earl Jones. I know thats quite a stretch, but whenever dude yelled, that shit DEMANDED attention.

Yes, the Queen was hot, with her no-ass-having self. She could still get it.

The first battle where they fended off the first wave, ridic, how they were just one unit almost impenetrable.

The captain's son had the best "solo" performance of the whole flick.

I LOVED the little satirical comments and comical queues. Added a lot to the movie for me.

Overall I give it a 4/5 simply for entertainment value. DOnt go into this movie expecting some Lord of the Rings shit (lots more still backdrops), but this was a fantastic action/adventure flick.

that guy doesn't have the right voice for it IMO

And you should see Imagine Me and You. Think Lena Headley as a (hot) lesbian. A little corny at times, but an entirely pleasurable film.

...
http://info.avonfoundation.org/site/TR?px=1258515&pg=personal&fr_id=1270&et=ePVFtPqehg4TxNdFkg26DA..&s_tafId=146716

who knew?

A nice start to the weekend.

Cant bloody wait.

The perfect mix of Sin City and Gladiator.

by Stephen Pressfield. It's a novel, but is incredibly researched and goes into more depth about Spartan culture and the Battle of Thermopylae itself.

Check it out:
http://www.amazon.com/Gates-Fire-Novel-Battle-Thermopylae/dp/055338368X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-2883001-3768005?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173584004&sr=8-1

I actually wish they would've adapted this story into a screenplay.

>by Stephen Pressfield. It's a novel, but is incredibly
>researched and goes into more depth about Spartan culture and
>the Battle of Thermopylae itself.
>
>Check it out:
>http://www.amazon.com/Gates-Fire-Novel-Battle-Thermopylae/dp/055338368X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-2883001-3768005?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173584004&sr=8-1
>
>I actually wish they would've adapted this story into a
>screenplay.

that amazon page states that the rights to the movie were sold to Universal Pictures for Clooney's Maysville Pictures.

probably a bit overhyped in retrospect. loved the look and the slow motion battle. i actually thought it would be more violent than it was and less talking. but it was a solid film.

I felt slightly cheated that they didn't even delve into the end battle beyond them charging....but not enough to mar my overall opinion...dman good flick

Xerxes was a lil too ambigously homo to be taken seriously as a villain.

Other than that, dope movie. I thought the movie might have been a little better if the movie led up to the battle, and the battle itself was the climax off some 30 minutes of straight head slicin and arrow shootin. 8.5/10

i haven't seen the movie yet, but my problem with it exists and watching it won't change. my problem is when historical accounts of major points in history are taken and bastardised for the sake of entertainment.

as a greek, not a greek-american, not a greek-cypriot, but someone who has spent his entire life in athens, it pisses me off to see the stories of alexaner, of troy, of sparta ripped apart and fictionalised. this is OUR HISTORY and OUR MYTHOLOGY, for better or for worse, with warts and all, with homosexuality, with slavery, with slaughtering of millions, but also with great heroism, innovation, and the laying down of the foundations for the world as we know it today, in everything from medicine to politics to strategies of war. between the greeks, the romans and the egyptians and others you have legendary societies whose stories have become cannon-fodder for the latest producer-director-writer team to vandalise because they can't come up with original ideas anymore.

achilles made it all the way to the end of troy because god-forbid you waste the money you spent getting brad pitt by killing him off at the point when HISTORY DICTATES IT.
alexander conquered and ruled the land from Greece ALL THE WAY TO INDIA! and all Oliver stone could give us was his infatuation with his homosexual relationships (which wasn't out of the ordinary at the time) even after removing 8 MINUTES of man on man loving from the final cut.

and i'm not just taking my own greek side, in alexander it depicted king darius deserting his persian troops but history says it was the other way around. in 300 the finest fighting force in the world, the cream of the persian empire are shown as freaks who just came back from a marilyn manson concert. alexander barbarically burned down the entire city of persepolis but that wasn't mentioned in the movie.

in troy they had the gall, the audacity, the criminal negligence to massacre Homer's ILLYAD AND ODYSSEY for gods sake!!! is nothing sacred? a ten year war was reduced to a couple of weeks, people died in the battle of troy that survived long afterwards. achilles was supposed to be dead before the trojan horse was even built, so what was he doing in it, and in the battle of troy??? this isn't taking the god's out of the movie to make it more "realistic", that i could maybe understand even if homer's books are largely based on the intervention of the gods, this is changes for the sake of them.

and yes, they butchered the fuck out of the Illyad and Oddysey in troy (I was annoyed as fuck too). But this film was based on Miller's 300 graphic novel and was extremely faithful to it.

well yeah, one equals the other, the movie is based on the comic book and miller is involved in both, so my beef is with both, i see them as one entity.

edit: to summarise my previous posts, i don't see why stories that have survived thousands of years and hundreds of reprints need to be changed by oliver stone (or anyone else) to make them better.

in the year 5000 i doubt any hollywood scripts will be held up as classic pieces of literature. if it ain't broke... you know the rest

>as a greek, not a greek-american, not a greek-cypriot, but
>someone who has spent his entire life in athens, it pisses me
>off to see the stories of alexaner, of troy, of sparta ripped
>apart and fictionalised.

Troy is fictional anyway. and how do you have more claim to greek history & culture than a greek cypriot?


>achilles made it all the way to the end of troy because
>god-forbid you waste the money you spent getting brad pitt by
>killing him off at the point when HISTORY DICTATES IT.

TROY IS NOT HISTORY TO BEGIN WITH


>alexander conquered and ruled the land from Greece ALL THE WAY
>TO INDIA!

and they showed that in the movie.


> and all Oliver stone could give us was his
>infatuation with his homosexual relationships (which wasn't
>out of the ordinary at the time) even after removing 8 MINUTES
>of man on man loving from the final cut.

above you said homosexuality was part of Greek history... so do you want them to show it or not?


>
>and i'm not just taking my own greek side, in alexander it
>depicted king darius deserting his persian troops but history
>says it was the other way around.

no, history says Darius did in fact desert his troops.


>in 300 the finest fighting
>force in the world, the cream of the persian empire are shown
>as freaks who just came back from a marilyn manson concert.

the Spartans were the finest fighting force in the world, not the Persian Immortals. but yeah they portrayed them as freaks.

I don't know what you're so mad about though, they made y'all the baddest badasses in the history of badassery.


>alexander barbarically burned down the entire city of
>persepolis but that wasn't mentioned in the movie.

as I recall the movie said Alexander did some cruel and barbaric stuff, and showed him do some cruel and barbaric stuff (e.g. murdering Cleitus)

>>as a greek, not a greek-american, not a greek-cypriot, but
>>someone who has spent his entire life in athens, it pisses
>me
>>off to see the stories of alexaner, of troy, of sparta
>ripped
>>apart and fictionalised.
>
>Troy is fictional anyway. and how do you have more claim to
>greek history & culture than a greek cypriot?
>
>
>>achilles made it all the way to the end of troy because
>>god-forbid you waste the money you spent getting brad pitt
>by
>>killing him off at the point when HISTORY DICTATES IT.
>
>TROY IS NOT HISTORY TO BEGIN WITH
>
>
They still fucked that story up. People that died lived, people that lived died... it was crazy as hell

>>>achilles made it all the way to the end of troy because
>>>god-forbid you waste the money you spent getting brad pitt
>>by
>>>killing him off at the point when HISTORY DICTATES IT.
>>
>>TROY IS NOT HISTORY TO BEGIN WITH
>>
>>
>They still fucked that story up. People that died lived,
>people that lived died... it was crazy as hell

but history doesn't dictate it as dude said.

>>>>achilles made it all the way to the end of troy because
>>>>god-forbid you waste the money you spent getting brad pitt
>>>by
>>>>killing him off at the point when HISTORY DICTATES IT.
>>>
>>>TROY IS NOT HISTORY TO BEGIN WITH
>>>
>>>
>>They still fucked that story up. People that died lived,
>>people that lived died... it was crazy as hell
>
>but history doesn't dictate it as dude said.
>
history doesn't, but mythology does.

>history doesn't, but mythology does.

I know, but he said history does.

its like when they need help they're greek but when you call them greek they are quick to call themselves cypriots not greeks.

thats my take on why he said that, it could be that hes a cocksucking Olympiakos fan of Athens.....

PAOK KAI AS MHN YAMAW POTE!

so I don't see how that would apply here.

>thats my take on why he said that, it could be that hes a
>cocksucking Olympiakos fan of Athens.....
>
>PAOK KAI AS MHN YAMAW POTE!

LOL

so what don't you know?

*I* know they are greek

*THEY* choose to be exclusively "Cypriots"

put it this way its not something you'd understand. not trying to sound like a dick or anything but its a wierd relationship.

ok i should have clarified what i meant with the cypriot-greek american line. no disrespect to either of them. but both of them seem to be more patriotic than is justified. i was shocked when i was in astoria a couple years back at how nationalistic and proud the greeks there are, i wanted to take them by the hand back to athens and show them how fucked up our country is nowadays, and that they have a good thing going for them.
oh and effa, ΑΚΡΟΠΟΛΗ, ΛΥΚΑΒΗΤΤΟ, ΓΑΜΩ ΤΟΝ ΠΥΡΓΟ ΤΟΝ ΛΕΥΚΟ, ΑΘΗΝΑ ΜΟΥ, ΠΡΟΤΕΥΟΥΣΑ, ΓΑΜΩ ΤΗΝ ΣΥΜΠΡΟΤΕΥΟΥΣΑ. GATE 7 MEMBER AND PROUD AS FUCK.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHfqYzNMdxY

right next door to the United Cyprians Of America association. they came out in droves & were partying in the street when Greece won the Euro cup a couple years back.

i gotta say, i did enjoy astoria because i didn't pay for shit the whole time i was there, this is how every conversation went:

RANDOM GREEK: havent seen you before, you from around here?
ME: no, i'm from athens
RANDOM GREEK: yeah ok arent we all, but where you from here, astoria? bay ridge?
ME: no, i'm from athens, i'm on holiday here for two weeks
RANDOM GREEK: wait? you mean you live in athens??
ME: um yeah
RANDOM GREEK: brother!!! coffee's on me!! hey george, this guy's over here visiting from the motherland.
OTHER RANDOM GREEK: hey maria, bring this boy some baklava on me...

i got fat and i had the jitters from all the coffee

oh and the inevitable "i've got a cousin in athens called spyro, he works in a pizza joint, you know him?" questions always cracked me up.

a friend of mine is still wanted in greece for molotov cocktailing an olympiakos club house....

this is greece, if they didnt arrest him in the first month then they've forgot about him.

>*I* know they are greek
>
>*THEY* choose to be exclusively "Cypriots"

only in terms of nationality. in terms of culture and heritage they are hellenes just as much as mainland Greeks.


>put it this way its not something you'd understand.

and you do?

>not trying
>to sound like a dick or anything but its a wierd
>relationship.

it's really not that weird or that unique of a dynamic.

i mean... you are entitled to your position of course
the point of movie making is ENTERTAINMENT
these movies arent given as accurate, historical accounts
just as biographical movies like la bamba make minor changes for the sake of a movie, historical battles and societies arent somehow sacred and off limits... why the fuck would they kill off brad pitt before the trojan horse? you don't kill your star before the end! far more people woulda been far more pissed had this happened in the name of preserving the historical account (which could have been embelished anyways).. movies are adaptations, not direct reflections

these stories arent being "bastardized"
you are simply on some "HOW DARE THEY SHOW A PICTURE OF THE PROHPET MUHAMMED???!??!?!"

lighten up, it's just a movie, it's perfectly ok to use historical qccounts as background fodder for movies
really, it is

Homer didn't have the foresight to copyright his characters, so fuck him!

that nobody over here liked Troy or Alexander.

And Hollywood has bastardized Arthurian and Norse legends just as much-and probably even worse (Richard Gere as Lancelot? WTF!)--as Greek.

hector is worthwhile

first off all movie about any point in history are bullshit. its always irish/british actors or actors using those accents and it pisses me off. either talk normal or shut the fuck up.

yea, troy butchered the iliad and oddysey (and there was infact a large battle where troy was).

Alexander was all about gays and that asshole Oliver Stone thought it best to point that out more than anything else.

meanwhile tons of ethnic groups have homosexuality in there history yet only the greeks get pointed out for it in film. the chinese, the italians, congonese, hell even the native american's had same gender spiritual marriages or something to that effect where one man would even take on woman's duties. i also heard the catholic church was arranging same sex unions for years back before the 1400's yet you never see the movie about a gay ninja or some shit like that.

its whatever to me. i come from a forgotten ancestry anyways....call me when they make a movie about the pontian greeks. they'll probably portray them as pedophile gays too.

anyways alex the difference between this movie and alexander/troy is this movie isn't trying to portray history to a T as troy/alexander's producers wanted you to think. its pretty much frank miller being frank miller. he loves greek history and mythology, he's based characters and storyline on them before. the things frank miller added was just some extras because he's an artsy fartsy drama heavy guy.

but he did have some good, true to the history books parts in the book/movie.

like he has the arcadians(though it wasn't just them really) helping. making the total amount of troops around 1500 or so. he had "mollov labe", he threw in "come back with your shield or on it". things like that.

all in all if you go to see it not as a documentary but just as a movie its fuckin great.

as for the whole "why are the persians "black" and evil and boo hoo my life is a dark room and i have nothing better to bitch about" thing.....get over it people. its a fuckin movie based off a graphic novel. a graphic novel that uses symbolism in its artwork like most good graphic novels.

http://www.myspace.com/bski
http://www.myspace.com/livesociety

Some of you forgot how to sit back and enjoy a movie, I swear. I don't even think this movie took itself as serious as some of you are...

see: Hunchback armor, Funny narration/lines, Xerxes gay pride parade, goat man, etc

I haven't been to a movie in years that was able to control an audience like this one. It commanded peoples attention from start to finish.

Audience laughed on cue.
Cheered on cue.
Some even cried on cue!

It was such a fun experience.

I gotta go see it at IMAX now.

>Some of you forgot how to sit back and enjoy a movie, I
>swear. I don't even think this movie took itself as serious as
>some of you are...

Sometimes people need to just shut up, watch the movie for what it is and let it go. It's NOT THAT DEEP all the time.

.

Peace-Like Stylee,
J-Bird

http://www.librarything.com/profile/J-Rok

"I am not a hip hop head, I'm a whole body" - K-OS

Obviously the visuals and battle scenes were pretty stunning(particularly the first one in which they actually stuck to the phalanx), but even the latter got rather repetitive imo.

There was really no storyline material, the aspects that Miller chose to ignore within Spartan society in order to portray them as the freedom-loving ideals were hilarious, the racist undertones as many have noted(who knew all persian leaders were that dark?), the boring attempt to give the Queen a larger role in the story, the hunchback cat w/ the dunce cap on @ the end(I was dying when I saw that shit and the sash), the homo-erotic Xirxi(sp?) w/ those giant fucking hands and grabbing Leonitas from the back lmao, the stripper Oracle lol, and lastly the Sparta cat @ the end denouncing Eastern 'mysticism' (the hypocracy made me laugh out loud in the theater).....the message of the movie was evident after the first 5 mins and then beaten into my head: the Spartans were great warriors and bad-ass...yeh, I get it.

The only performances that stuck out imo were King Leonitas(great voice) and Theron....the rest were fine, just nothing memorable imo. Great battle scenes, I enjoyed the very humanizing humor/sarcasm thrown in by the Spartans.....but honestly, I was sitting there kinda bored, and Im a movie viewer who usually just takes the movie for what its worth, but 300 just had nothing outside of fighting imo.

If a movie w/ these visuals and style could be made w/ a more objective view and more historically accurate particularly in terms of examining Spartan society...I would absolutely love it.

The movie looked RIDICULOUS in Imax though.

edit: last thing, when Theron got killed and dropped those Persian coins, I nearly lost it lol. Why in the gotdamn world would he be carrying those? lmao. 'Traitor! Traitor!'

Same here - P.S. Ho-Wood when i'm TRYING to enjoy a highly advertised movie I don't need to know for the millionth time that

a. you dont like black people - CROSSED that border long ago
b. give me b.s. polotricks -- yeah "freedom is not free" bitches
c. WTF is with that goat ???

oh yeah mo'T&A&Thongs since Booty Poppin - I know yall just had to find a place for sistas right.... keep it at the club... fu**ers

one bro & his girl left after the first 45 min 3 more 20 min after them.
needed some yak & The Isis Papers to detox...

THAT'S PRACTICALLY UNHEARD OF FOR A R-RATED FILM WITH HARDLY ANY KNOWN STARS AND BEING RELEASED IN THE EARLY MONTH OF MARCH!!!

Gerard Butler was also pretty good

Visually impressive and all of that

Corny dialogue, though

Loved the nudity

And most of the action

But couldn't help but think of Gladiator during certain sections

Also was a bit longer than it should have been

Somewhat enjoyable, but not Blow Away Entertainment

That said, Zack Snyder is 2 for 2... interesting filmmaker...
_______________________________________________________________________
freak out
in a moonage daydream
oh yeah

I'm not Persian, or Turkish..

But I felt offended by the film.

There were too many racial undertones..the Persians DID NOT LOOK LIKE THE purposefully "evil" mofos in the film.

They did not have to show a black Persian messanger being kicked down the well..or a black general getting his head lopped off by a monstrous guy with kaiser blades as arms.

The film was horrifically one-sided..not by the battle scenes but by the way Persians and Spartans were portrayed.

I saw the original Spartans movie on TNT a few years back (when they used to show those classic and high-quality stop motion animated Greek films like Jason and the Argonauts, Clash of the Titans) and that movie was true to form.

I hated the subplots too, they were boring and it was something I've seen before.

The deformed guy who turned was a good idea, but I felt cheated because I thought I was going to actually see him do battle, kill off a few Spartans and then once he and Leonidas fight, Leonidas persuades him to "join us, I misjudged you. You fight well, e.t.c." I don't know.. :)

But,
I WANT MY SHAKA ZULU FILM!!!!
If Frank Miller is allowed to twist history to ridiculous proportions, then I think it's time that a black filmmaker should answer by coming up with a film about Shaka..or Chaka.

Anyone remember that made for TV film about Chaka back in the 80s? It was great, but it's mostly forgotten. I am surprised to not find any modern films that highlight ancient milestones in our African heritage. A film that admits "yes, he was a bad-ass, he terrorized and killed, (just like William Wallace and Alexander the "Great") but he was able to create a vibrant and powerful empire that shaped the destiny of South Africa."

I'm not South African, but I would really like to see that. I'm tired of watching films that portray history from a Eurocentric and Asian point-of-view.

if this happened i would have considered walking out of the theater.
>
>The deformed guy who turned was a good idea, but I felt
>cheated because I thought I was going to actually see him do
>battle, kill off a few Spartans and then once he and Leonidas
>fight, Leonidas persuades him to "join us, I misjudged you.
>You fight well, e.t.c." I don't know.. :)
>

Glad I saw it first before I came in here. LOL

Good to see mcnulty being an asshole.

The slo-mo was overdone, and some of the movie dragged.

It was worth the ducats and the time.
----------------------------
"The Mets had a chance last year to go to the World Series. They made it to the playoffs. They won the division. Congratulations, but last year is over."

I thought it was a good movie...

Effect and visuals were excellent...

Those Spartans were the shyt...

I do, however, think "Apacolypto" was better...

I am going to see it again though...

http://fuck-your.blogspot.com
http://www.myspace.com/insightclopediabrown
http://www.myspace.com/dumhi
http://www.youtube.com/group/okayplayer
http://www.last.fm/user/DawgEatah
R.I.P. 3rd i

after seeing some of the previews i thought it would just be a bunch of exaggerated male posturing & glorified violence but i was pleasantly surprised. the visuals were AMAZING.

i definitely did not leave the theater dissapointed.

at least racist overtones

I mean, it's 300 white dudes facing the oncoming dark hordes.

.

http://webzoom.freewebs.com/adria24/300_video1_22.jpg

:D

I must say I had to really prepare myself for 300, just as I did for Lord of the Rings or LOTR. I knew what to expect because of the graphic novel and because I read all of Tolkien's books years ago. What I wasn't prepared for was the 'preachiness' (propaganda). IMO the film/story is in-your-face white/western supremacy and I haven't seen anything like that since digging into the Disney vault to check out Song of the South (actually I have)...but I'll let the young, angry Persian guy vent first:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWLk3hfy1Hk

I debated whether or not 300 was even worth my matinee money and my curiosity won out in the end. In the 25th hour, I realized that 300 is no different from LOTR and Tolkien wrote those novels nearly 70 years ago, so why not see the movie? The same b.s. conflicts that existed during his time exist today. Afterwards, I watched a TV show about the fight between radical Jews and Muslims to dig around the "holiest of holies" to find the Ark of the Covenant. They were even talking about escalating it to WWIII! All over a myth...

...and myths are very important. As with LOTR I predict that 300 will have a profound and wide-ranging impact on popular culture. Mostly, 300 maintains a status quo: The good guys are white and virtuous and the bad guys are dark, sinful, undemocratic, and a psychologically undeveloped horde. For today's film fans, this older racism fuses with a current fear and hatred of Islam that supports a crusading war in the Middle East. The mass appeal of 300 may well rest on racist codes.

But we all want to see an entertaining film, right?

reason being there was a freakin goat playing a sitar in the movie.

as for him worrying about what "people" will think after seeing the movie....if they think persian people were mutated ghostlike demons those people dont really matter now do they?

in fact if they didn't know what a persian was by now they especially dont matter.

Check out - Popular Art and Racism: Embedding Racial Stereotypes in the American Mindset--Jim Crow and Popular Culture by Ronald Davis

http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/resources/lessonplans/hs_es_popular_culture.htm

"The onset of Jim Crow laws and customs rested upon the racist characterization of black people as culturally, personally, and biologically inferior. This image functioned as the racial bedrock of American popular culture after 1900, especially manifested in minstrel shows, the vaudeville theatre, songs and music, film and radio, and commercial advertising. So pervasive was the racial demeaning of black people, and so accepted was it by white Americans throughout the nation, that blackness became synonymous with silliness, deprivation, and ignorance. Most white Americans believed that all Africans and their descendants were racially inferior to whites, and that their common inferiority tied them together wherever they might live in the modern world.

In America, black people were portrayed as inferior almost from the time of their enslavement in the colonies in the 1620s. This racial characterization enabled white masters to justify slavery as something positive. Using racial stereotypes to justify the enslavement of blacks was especially pronounced after 1830 as white Southerners defended slavery against attacks by northern abolitionists."

History tells the tale...

(which was about taking a stand against crusaders btw) or believe that it accurately depicts history. It's plain as day that the Spartans were pretty awful. There's not a person who hasn't picked that up. If America was filled with morons this movie would be a problem.

And before somebody mentions the moronic Christian right: They aren't going to this movie.

I'm not sure I'd take much ethnic pride in the exploits of a corrupt slave driving warmonger either.

its a movie based on a comic book, based on another movie that was vaguely based on history lol

.

dark knight returns is considered scripture and will actually happen in the near future....

>(which was about taking a stand against crusaders btw) or
>believe that it accurately depicts history. It's plain as day
>that the Spartans were pretty awful. There's not a person who
>hasn't picked that up. If America was filled with morons this
>movie would be a problem.

It is a problem. I checked other discussions and comments before seeing 300. It's pretty sad, really.

>And before somebody mentions the moronic Christian right: They
>aren't going to this movie.

We'll see.

>I'm not sure I'd take much ethnic pride in the exploits of a
>corrupt slave driving warmonger either.

smh

i'm astounded at the dr and effa's comments dismissing the relevance of the ignorant. can we all take a look at who is in office? he didn't actually steal the presidency the second time....our monkey asses voted him in.

but hey......who gives a sh** right?

:(

No I'm not reading any book, I probably read it already
No I'm not watching any doc, I probably saw it already

And shit the person that brought it up is white...like come the fuck on...

It's a movie....entertainment...I had fun.

If you really want to do something, click the last link. That's more important than looking for a hidden agenda in a fucking movie about a graphic novel that came out years ago. And if you read any Frank Miller graphic novel, he always draws villians in a deformed and dark image. It's a simple literary device.

We are all dreamers...

MickeyMade Candles...Has Mickey Made Your Day?
www.mickeymade.com

I Am Music: http://bigprov.blogspot.com/ (Updated 2/25/07)

FREE GENARLOW WILSON!
http://www.naacp.org/advocacy/genarlowwilson/

In an age when most Americans get most of their information from television not textbooks, pictures not print, we need a wider definition of what it means to be literate (including the use of 'literary devices'.

Today's technologies represent a startling fusion of sight and sound that frequently make it difficult for us to discern illusion from reality, fact from fiction. Special effects like those seen in movies like "JFK" and "Forrest Gump" merge the past with the present, color with black and white, the dead with the living, fact with fiction in such a way that the real truth can often be confused with the reel truth.

Media literacy is about more than just consuming information or being entertained. People tend to blow off racist codes a bit too much and then complain when there is no progress. The racism and propaganda in 300 is far from hidden or subtle. It makes it hard for a media literate person to sit back and enjoy the show.

"You know the Persians were black, right? Why aren't they in the movie? RACISM!" I mean this dude http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Farrar played Xerxes. Was 300 Spartans, which the graphic novel and movie was based on, racist?

Again, I went to see 300 to get entertained. I live life and face (subtle)racism everyday. I would like to think I could escape that for at least two hours.

And comparing it to "Birth of a Nation" is just asinine and telling.

"We'll just agree to disagree"

We are all dreamers...

MickeyMade Candles...Has Mickey Made Your Day?
www.mickeymade.com

I Am Music: http://bigprov.blogspot.com/ (Updated 2/25/07)

FREE GENARLOW WILSON!
http://www.naacp.org/advocacy/genarlowwilson/

Tyrone Benskin
Kwasi Songui
Peter Mensah

>Again, I went to see 300 to get entertained. I live life and
>face (subtle)racism everyday.

I am not talking about subtle racism. I think it's a cop out to expect people to just shut off racial awareness and respect for other's cultural narratives for a film.

>I would like to think I could
>escape that for at least two hours.

I escape it daily when I am at home...so?

>And comparing it to "Birth of a Nation" is just asinine and
>telling.

You tell that to the modern day Persians.


>
>"We'll just agree to disagree"
>
>We are all dreamers...
>
>MickeyMade Candles...Has Mickey Made Your Day?
>www.mickeymade.com
>
>I Am Music: http://bigprov.blogspot.com/ (Updated 2/25/07)
>
>FREE GENARLOW WILSON!
>http://www.naacp.org/advocacy/genarlowwilson/

>Tyrone Benskin
>Kwasi Songui
>Peter Mensah

3 Black actors constitute a majority now?

You mean to tell me that the possibility of there being black people in the Persian Empire were slim to none?

If we use wikipedia as even a slightly decent source, the Persian Empire during the Greco-Persian wars consisted of, but not limited to:

the east modern Afghanistan and beyond into central Asia
portions of Baluchistan;
in the north and west all of Asia Minor (modern Turkey)
the upper Balkans peninsula (Thrace),
and most of the Black Sea coastal regions
in the west and southwest the territories of modern Iraq, northern Saudi-Arabia, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, all significant population centers of ancient Egypt and as far west as portions of Libya.

>>Tyrone Benskin
>>Kwasi Songui
>>Peter Mensah
>
>3 Black actors constitute a majority now?

Feel free to visit imdb.com and see more. I don't have the time or interest in listing them all.

>You mean to tell me that the possibility of there being black
>people in the Persian Empire were slim to none?

No but the poster I responded to implied there were no Black folks in Persia.

>If we use wikipedia as even a slightly decent source, the
>Persian Empire during the Greco-Persian wars consisted of, but
>not limited to:

iKNOW (I don't need that info)

No blacks, complaints
Blacks, complaints

But fight that good fight though
ASHE!

We are all dreamers...

MickeyMade Candles...Has Mickey Made Your Day?
www.mickeymade.com

I Am Music: http://bigprov.blogspot.com/ (Updated 2/25/07)

FREE GENARLOW WILSON!
http://www.naacp.org/advocacy/genarlowwilson/

>No blacks, complaints
>Blacks, complaints

Not the point. Here's one I agree with:

"The movie had all of the ability to be one of the greatest epics in modern times, but failed rather miserably at even coming close. I leaned over and whispered “I liked this movie better the first time I saw it when it was called Return of the King”. And that therein (aside from the overtly racist imagery) lies the biggest problem with 300. I love Frank Miller’s work. I’m a huge fan of Sin City, but one thing 300 has made me realize is that I don’t know where Frank stands on racism in general." - http://sunkingpoet.com/om

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_Me_Liberty

and god help us when/if this gets made:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronin_%28comic_book_series%29

The asians are gonna have a field day, right?

And I think yall should hold off until this comes out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Holy_Terror%2C_Batman%21%22
Now that...you would have a better case.

We are all dreamers...

MickeyMade Candles...Has Mickey Made Your Day?
www.mickeymade.com

I Am Music: http://bigprov.blogspot.com/ (Updated 2/25/07)

FREE GENARLOW WILSON!
http://www.naacp.org/advocacy/genarlowwilson/

smh

THATS ignorant.

a freaking MOVIE.

ya'll act like it was a snuff film or kiddie porn.

its like, lets figure out what else could be racist? the nutritional value of Milk as opposed to Coca-Cola?

oh, why's the milk white and good for you but the cola is black and causes tooth decay!

we might aswell because we're discussing the "racist" under tones of a movie based on a comic, based on a movie....

Propaganda. I am sure when Birth of a Nation hit the screens plenty of people thought it was entertaining (it was a blockbuster in its time). I know the modern day Persians were going to hit the roof and I was right:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070313/ap_on_en_mo/iran300_movie

I teach media literacy, so I have to stay on my toes.

its comedy to watch you set all the overt racism in the film aside. lol at the coke/milk allusion, but thats not this. i feel you, people get too whiny over things. i guess we all draw our own lines. its just i feel that this is so overtly lame i'm suprised more people aren't calling it out for what it is. if its just a movie to you, cool...thats you.

To point out the ways in which a movie reinforces stereotypes and promotes nationalistic jingoism ("Freedom is not free," bellowing about "democracy" and what not) is not "whiny." Take a look at "Birth of a Nation" and Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will." Both films exalt a mythology of the nation at the expense (both literally and metaphorically) of those who are "different." While "300" is VERY loosely based on actual events, it is the mythological/ahistorical elements that are disturbing to me. I went to watch this movie fully intent on "turning my brain off" and just enjoying the spectacle. I've argued with people who found "Lord of the Rings" racist--but with this movie and the graphic novel, I was not able to ignore the (un)subtle use of contemporary language and catchphrases, the presentation of "good" in such a hypermasculinized package (no pun about leather speedos intended), and the presentation of "evil" in such a "dark" package.

.

in GD. copy/paste b/c that thread won't stay up long:

Not to give any plot spoilers, but very early on they state that the enemy is a dark beast. This is voice-over on the shot when the messenger is riding into town. draw your own conclusions there.

But overall, my beef was, in a larger systemic sense, with Hollywood. Its funny how Hollywood will portray people from history, in parts of the world that were inhabited by non-white/non-eurpoeans, as dark skinned when it suits a particular purpose of the film (villainy), but light-skinned or caucasian when there is a heroic or noble element (Elizabeth Taylor playing Cleopatra; no black Egyptians in 5th element, few in Stargate, almost white-looking actors in Scorpion King, etc.) I saw a bio / story on the History Channel about Hannibal, and they had him cast as a caucasian.

There are a ton more examples, I've been studying this for a minute.

My other beef was the historical issue surrounding the idea of Sparta fighting for a unified Greece. I'm not very familiar with the hellenistic timeline but I thought the idea & unification of greece didn't come until later, and that the city-states used to fight each other quite often. so that whole thing I thought was odd. I gotta research that part more though.

im not going to argue if they did or not in the movie. again, its just a movie.

as for history, after the persian war greece didn't unite. there was a greek league, then athens made some moves and made a treaty with the spartans that lasted 30 years or so. those 30 years were considered the "athenian empire" age. after the 30 years they went to war with sparta and sparta won. yadda yadda yadda greece didn't become unified until philip the II of macedonia. bout 150 years later or something like that?

>in GD. copy/paste b/c that thread won't stay up long:
>
>Not to give any plot spoilers, but very early on they state
>that the enemy is a dark beast. This is voice-over on the shot
>when the messenger is riding into town. draw your own
>conclusions there.

yeah I hadn't even thought about that really, they said it like that? I'll try to catch that if/when I see it again.


>But overall, my beef was, in a larger systemic sense, with
>Hollywood. Its funny how Hollywood will portray people from
>history, in parts of the world that were inhabited by
>non-white/non-eurpoeans, as dark skinned when it suits a
>particular purpose of the film (villainy), but light-skinned
>or caucasian when there is a heroic or noble element
>(Elizabeth Taylor playing Cleopatra; no black Egyptians in 5th
>element, few in Stargate, almost white-looking actors in
>Scorpion King, etc.) I saw a bio / story on the History
>Channel about Hannibal, and they had him cast as a caucasian.
>
>There are a ton more examples, I've been studying this for a
>minute.


Well, in The Mummy Imhotep was white (which is a whole other issue, but he was the villian in the movie), Stargate had a bunch of dark skinned folks, Scorpion King too. I mean yeah in 300 it was ridiculous and you do have a basic point here, but I think you are reaching a bit with the generalizations.

And btw, Cleopatra *was* white, and Hannibal wasn't black.


>My other beef was the historical issue surrounding the idea of
>Sparta fighting for a unified Greece. I'm not very familiar
>with the hellenistic timeline but I thought the idea &
>unification of greece didn't come until later, and that the
>city-states used to fight each other quite often. so that
>whole thing I thought was odd. I gotta research that part more
>though.

they didn't say they were fighting for a unified greece, they said they were fighting to defend the ideal of freedom - which is just as ahistorical.

the guy who lost his eye(i forget his name).

what country at war doesn't portray their enemies as monsters?

the americans have been doing it forever. its american culture.

And that is exactly it.

Although, I really think this movie misrepresented mutants, giants, goat musicians, and large blob men with blades for hands...

AND WHAT ABOUT THE ELEPHANTS?! Nobody ever sticks up for the elephants.

This movie was VERY high on unintentional comedy....capped off with the mutated ephrialtes with the dunce cap + sash. hahahahahahah.

*taps mic*

... is this thing on?

'CISM!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_rhino

The Elephants = BLACK!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Bush_Elephant

MO 'CISM!

>'CISM!
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_rhino
>
>The Elephants = BLACK!
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Bush_Elephant
>
>MO 'CISM!


^^^ sees it!

from MSNBC.com:

>Iranians outraged over hit movie ‘300’

Blockbuster depicting Persian siege called an ‘obvious insult’

The Associated Press

Updated: 3:27 p.m. PT March 13, 2007

TEHRAN, Iran - The hit American movie “300” has angered Iranians who say the Greeks-vs-Persians action flick insults their ancient culture and provokes animosity against Iran.

“Hollywood declares war on Iranians,” blared a headline in Tuesday’s edition of the independent Ayende-No newspaper.

The movie, which raked in $70 million in its opening weekend, is based on a comic-book fantasy version of the battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C., in which a force of 300 Spartans held off a massive Persian army at a mountain pass in Greece for three days.

Even some American reviewers noted the political overtones of the West-against-Iran story line — and the way Persians are depicted as decadent, sexually flamboyant and evil in contrast to the noble Greeks.

In Iran, the movie hasn’t opened and probably never will, given the government’s restrictions on Western films, though one paper said bootleg DVDs were already available.

Still, it touched a sensitive nerve. Javad Shamghadri, cultural adviser to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said the United States tries to “humiliate” Iran in order to reverse historical reality and “compensate for its wrongdoings in order to provoke American soldiers and warmongers” against Iran.

The movie comes at a time of increased tensions between the United States and Iran over the Persian nation’s nuclear program and the Iraq war.

But aside from politics, the film was seen as an attack on Persian history, a source of pride for Iranians across the political spectrum, including critics of the current Islamic regime.

State-run television has run several commentaries the past two days calling the film insulting and has brought on Iranian film directors to point out its historical inaccuracies.

“The film depicts Iranians as demons, without culture, feeling or humanity, who think of nothing except attacking other nations and killing people,” Ayende-No said in its article Tuesday.

“It is a new effort to slander the Iranian people and civilization before world public opinion at a time of increasing American threats against Iran,” it said.

Iran’s biggest circulation newspaper, Hamshahri, said “300” is “serving the policy of the U.S. leadership” and predicted it will “prompt a wave of protest in the world. ... Iranians living in the U.S. and Europe will not be indifferent about this obvious insult.”
______________________________________________________________________
freak out
in a moonage daydream
oh yeah

.

smh

Bullshit like this statement make half of these complaints baseless...

"the way Persians are depicted as decadent, sexually flamboyant and evil in contrast to the noble Greeks"

Yes, the noble Greeks in the movie who discarded "unfit" babies in the opening scene, beat their children to make them "stronger" and let them play survival of the fittest with each other, a whore-ish Queen that used her body for political purposes, backstabbing amongst their own people, and laughter as they killed person after person...

SO NOBLE!

And really, this should all be deaded here:

300 "is based on a COMIC-BOOK FANTASY VERSION of the battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C., in which a force of 300 Spartans held off a massive Persian army at a mountain pass in Greece for three days."

Nowhere in any of the marketing of this movie did it have the "based on a true story" or similar slogan. It was a movie filled with mutants, goat heads, lepers, random animals, black people, white people, brownish gold people, sluts, etc

Everyone had their evilness and flaws despite the color of their skin, or nationality, or favorite food. Some got kicked down wells, while others were beheaded, and some were stabbed by their own people. Maybe not all the 300 Spartans were flawed, but they were the protagonist of the story, as told through the eyes of one of the Kings best men - Dilios. The king himself was too cold and understanding to allow Ephialtes to fight with the "mighty" Spartans and this ultimately caused their demise.

Any "empire" makes a good antagonist, or villain, because their goal was to take control of the world. Is that how it happened in history? I don't know, but it works well in Frank Millers graphic novel. I don't believe goat sitar players, giant men with blades for arms, large menacing wolves that glow, and half-mutated hunchbacks were a part of history either. THIS ISN'T A HISTORY LESSON AND IT DOESN'T TRY TO BE.

God, I'm done with this thread.

maybe iranians think thats noble....maybe thats why thousands of years ago when Alexander took over countries like Egypt were mad happy to let him conquer lol

“Javad Shamghadri, cultural adviser to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said the United States tries to “humiliate” Iran in order to reverse historical reality and “compensate for its wrongdoings in order to provoke American soldiers and warmongers” against Iran.”

To Mr. Shamghadri I would say of course there has always been a “master narrative” for every place and time, constructed to “tell the one true story” according to the requirements of the current elite. And just as obvously, the means of creating, telling and distributing the “story” in fact also shapes the story. It also confers great benefit to the masters of the narrative.

Hollywood had been a great outlet for propganda since the early 1900s. Promoted as “entertainment” propaganda is masked and people feel encouraged to let their guards down at the expense of others. What has really changed though? The playing field hasn’t changes and neither has the socio-political status quo.

when frank miller and his artist made the graphic novel in 1993(?) they were like "oooh, can't wait to make this into a movie 15 years from now when we have conflict in Iran...."

the movie was damn near panel for panel out of the book.

the people saying this movie is racist are fucking cunts. its not racist.

the movie was good, not great. it is highly worth seeing though. it isnt boring, its a little short on character juice, but who cares. this is a special effects film first and foremost.

go see it you wont be disappointed. it is high on unintentional humor as was mentioned. i enjoyed it a lot. the slow motion fighting scenes are sick.

>the people saying this movie is racist are fucking cunts. its
>not racist.

Ya mama. How's that?

Now I can go back and have a mature discussion with folks who are more aware/media literate.

Joe Mama's got an afro with chin strap.

Joe Mama
Joe Mama
Joe Mama

lol

>when frank miller and his artist made the graphic novel in
>1993(?) they were like "oooh, can't wait to make this into a
>movie 15 years from now when we have conflict in Iran...."
>
>the movie was damn near panel for panel out of the book.

Agreed.

Watching this National Geographic show about the Ark of the Covenant right after I saw 300 made it very clear to me that this conflict is hundreds, maybe thousands of years old...waaaaaay before Frank Miller wrote a graphic novel about Thermopylae or the Spartans.

Media has always been an ideal way for supremacists to spread their propaganda. Hitler used it. The U.S. used em all during WWII to vilify the Japanese. They used it in Korea and Vietnam. Always with the U.S.’s point of view and always depicting the U.S. as the heros, the good guys, the saviors. But it goes way beyond Hollywood or even Frank Miller who decided to tell his own version of the "master narrative". Tolkien was able to tell his own and make a fortune even after his death people are still getting rich.

they beat the shit out of their children and throw them into the wild to fend for themselves, but it's described even by Spartan mothers as cruel "but necessary." if they don't throw deformed babies off cliffs, they grow up to be twisted mutated treacherous freaks who betray Sparta.

the movie portrays the Spartans as noble and heroic and the Persians as wicked tyrants. period.

>they beat the shit out of their children and throw them into
>the wild to fend for themselves, but it's described even by
>Spartan mothers as cruel "but necessary."if they don't throw
>deformed babies off cliffs, they grow up to be twisted mutated
>treacherous freaks who betray Sparta.

You mean, that is YOUR interpretation of events.

I saw it as pointing out a fatal flaw in Spartan logic. Painting them as too arrogant and self righteous to realize their mistakes and portrays them as having absolutely zero compassion. The king is given a chance to see the flaws of his culture, that a "defective" baby is still a human being with full mental capacity and the same prideful fire inside. He chooses to disregard this and asks him to do something to stay out of their way. The kings lack of compassion and understanding ultimately caused their demise.

And if I recall, the movie portrayed the twisted mutated freak as a prideful Spartan wanting to help fight for his home Sparta despite the way he was treated. It was the King that caused the treachery by betraying one of his own.

>the movie portrays the Spartans as noble and heroic and the
>Persians as wicked tyrants. period.

Spartans are the protagonist, Persian EMPIRE is the antagonist... how are you supposed to tell this story otherwise? I don't think this movie would of made any sense if the Spartans were just randomly attacking Persian Empire soldiers consisting of daffodils and unicorns for no reason.

Did or did not Xerxes and the Persian Empire attempt to conquer Greece and the surrounding lands (ultimately the "world" at the time)? Were the Spartans trying to protect their city from invaders or not?

>>they beat the shit out of their children and throw them
>into
>>the wild to fend for themselves, but it's described even by
>>Spartan mothers as cruel "but necessary."if they don't throw
>>deformed babies off cliffs, they grow up to be twisted
>mutated
>>treacherous freaks who betray Sparta.
>
>You mean, that is YOUR interpretation of events.

no, that is the movie's interpretation of events.


>I saw it as pointing out a fatal flaw in Spartan logic.
>Painting them as too arrogant and self righteous to realize
>their mistakes and portrays them as having absolutely zero
>compassion. The king is given a chance to see the flaws of his
>culture, that a "defective" baby is still a human being with
>full mental capacity and the same prideful fire inside. He
>chooses to disregard this and asks him to do something to stay
>out of their way. The kings lack of compassion and
>understanding ultimately caused their demise.

no. the king showed compassion when the captain wanted to ice him & instead treated him as a human being and talked to him with respect. he just told him he couldn't fight with them because he was physically unable to join ranks in the phalanx formation.


>And if I recall, the movie portrayed the twisted mutated freak
>as a prideful Spartan wanting to help fight for his home
>Sparta despite the way he was treated.

not really. he wanted to fight to restore his family honor, not to defend Sparta.

>It was the King that
>caused the treachery by betraying one of his own.

no. the king told him he could help by bringing water and carrying dead & wounded soldiers off the battlefield. Ephialtes refused and betrayed the Spartans because he didn't really care about helping Sparta, he only cared about himself (pride & family honor)



>>the movie portrays the Spartans as noble and heroic and the
>>Persians as wicked tyrants. period.
>
>Spartans are the protagonist, Persian EMPIRE is the
>antagonist... how are you supposed to tell this story
>otherwise?

how about portray the Persians as human beings instead of mutated monstrous freaks?

>I don't think this movie would of made any sense if
>the Spartans were just randomly attacking Persian Empire
>soldiers consisting of daffodils and unicorns for no reason.

the fuck does that have to do with anything?

>Did or did not Xerxes and the Persian Empire attempt to
>conquer Greece and the surrounding lands (ultimately the
>"world" at the time)? Were the Spartans trying to protect
>their city from invaders or not?

yes, but Xerxes was not a nine foot tall transvestite, the Persian army were not mutated freaks with claws and fangs, and the Spartans were not fighting to defend "a new age of freedom", as was portrayed in the movie.

I'm going to go ahead and concede everything else, because this is what is truly key to this discussion.

>yes, but Xerxes was not a nine foot tall transvestite, the
>Persian army were not mutated freaks with claws and fangs, and
>the Spartans were not fighting to defend "a new age of
>freedom", as was portrayed in the movie.

Xerxes WAS a nine foot tall tranvestite, the Persian army WERE mutated freaks with claws and fangs, and the Spartans WERE fighting to defend "a new age of freedom", as was portrayed by Dilios in the GRAPHIC NOVEL that is loosely based on a historical event.

graphic novel
n. A novel whose narrative is related through a combination of text and art, often in comic-strip form.

This isn't a history lesson on film. The movie is not called "The Battle of Thermopylae" and never once claimed to be anything more than a work of HISTORICAL FANTASY.

'The story is LOOSELY based on the Battle of Thermopylae which took place in 480 BC, although a narration by Dilios (David Wenham) gives the film a historical fantasy feel.'

-------------------------------------

Now let's assume people went into the movie thinking it was a historically accurate portrayal of the famous battle. After seeing the large menacing wolf with glowing eyes, the mutated elders of Sparta, the anatomically perfect Spartans, the hunchback Ephialtes, blob man with blades for arms, a chained up giant, charging Rhinos, the Immortals with perfectly matching shiny new masks and outfits, a 9 foot tall feminine Xerxes with a moving stage, countless 'bombs', etc... that people walked out of the theater with a new opinion on what Persians must look like? Immediately thought, USA is so much better than those Iranians and their mutant freak friends!!! and now people will tell their grandchildren that this is the history of the Persian Empire?

Really?





Really?

Are we assuming the world is absolutely mentally challenged at this point?

Are we going to start banning movies that shed a bad light on any historical figures? Everyone will be the good guys? No more ability to be creative? If a story consists of any historical context, it can only be a 100% accurate documentary?

Where do we draw the line?

>I'm going to go ahead and concede everything else, because
>this is what is truly key to this discussion.
>
>>yes, but Xerxes was not a nine foot tall transvestite, the
>>Persian army were not mutated freaks with claws and fangs,
>and
>>the Spartans were not fighting to defend "a new age of
>>freedom", as was portrayed in the movie.
>
>Xerxes WAS a nine foot tall tranvestite, the Persian army WERE
>mutated freaks with claws and fangs, and the Spartans WERE
>fighting to defend "a new age of freedom", as was portrayed by
>Dilios in the GRAPHIC NOVEL that is loosely based on a
>historical event.

you were talking about history there, not the graphic novel.


>Now let's assume people went into the movie thinking it was a
>historically accurate portrayal of the famous battle. After
>seeing the large menacing wolf with glowing eyes, the mutated
>elders of Sparta, the anatomically perfect Spartans, the
>hunchback Ephialtes, blob man with blades for arms, a chained
>up giant, charging Rhinos, the Immortals with perfectly
>matching shiny new masks and outfits, a 9 foot tall feminine
>Xerxes with a moving stage, countless 'bombs', etc... that
>people walked out of the theater with a new opinion on what
>Persians must look like? Immediately thought, USA is so much
>better than those Iranians and their mutant freak friends!!!
>and now people will tell their grandchildren that this is the
>history of the Persian Empire?
>
>Really?


who the fuck said anything about that?


>Really?
>
>Are we assuming the world is absolutely mentally challenged at
>this point?

no, but at this point I'd have to assume you are.


>Are we going to start banning movies that shed a bad light on
>any historical figures? Everyone will be the good guys? No
>more ability to be creative? If a story consists of any
>historical context, it can only be a 100% accurate
>documentary?
>
>Where do we draw the line?

uh, look at my avi. I liked the movie. that doesn't change the facts of the matter though.

Clearly, your ability to read between the lines and basic comprehension skills are falling a little short today.

>you were talking about history there, not the graphic novel.

Yes, I asked if those events happened in history. I didn't ask about what the empire consisted of, or a historical account of Xerxes characteristics. You came back with the Xerxes/tranvestite remark out of nowhere. You BROUGHT in the graphic novel in responding to my questions.

I chose my words carefully when speaking of the historical context. Why? Because that is what the movie is based on - the EVENTS. This isn't a character piece about Leonidas, Xerxes, the Spartans, or the Persian Empire.

Again, it is HISTORICAL FANTASY. Real names, real events, and real locations intertwined with fantasy elements to create a fictional story.


>who the fuck said anything about that?

The point was people are getting "offended" about a fantasy movie because they say it shows them in a bad light. They think it is propaganda from the US, and/or that they are being labeled as evil and mutants.

that doesn't change the
>facts of the matter though.

What are THE facts of the matter though?

>Clearly, your ability to read between the lines and basic
>comprehension skills are falling a little short today.

clearly you're a fucking moron and I'm wasting my time here.

>
>>you were talking about history there, not the graphic novel.
>
>Yes, I asked if those events happened in history. I didn't ask
>about what the empire consisted of, or a historical account of
>Xerxes characteristics. You came back with the
>Xerxes/tranvestite remark out of nowhere. You BROUGHT in the
>graphic novel in responding to my questions.

this entire debate is about how the film PORTRAYS those events, not whether the basic events happened in history or not.


>I chose my words carefully when speaking of the historical
>context. Why? Because that is what the movie is based on - the
>EVENTS. This isn't a character piece about Leonidas, Xerxes,
>the Spartans, or the Persian Empire.
>
>Again, it is HISTORICAL FANTASY. Real names, real events, and
>real locations intertwined with fantasy elements to create a
>fictional story.

see above.

>>who the fuck said anything about that?
>
>The point was people are getting "offended" about a fantasy
>movie because they say it shows them in a bad light. They
>think it is propaganda from the US, and/or that they are being
>labeled as evil and mutants.

that doesn't change the fact of the matter about what I said.


>that doesn't change the
>>facts of the matter though.
>
>What are THE facts of the matter though?

that you're wrong.

you're silly if you think that a large chunk of cinema is not crafted to make an audience perceive/reflect on a situation in a specific way. sure there are some herzogs/korines/etc that present shit for you to interpret yourself. but this isn't that.

a testament to how wrong you are was the clapping/cheers in the audience at every beheading. the applause when queen stabs dude. could go so on and so on

>a testament to how wrong you are was the clapping/cheers in
>the audience at every beheading. the applause when queen
>stabs dude. could go so on and so on

People like violence. People REALLY like slow motion violence. People REALLY REALLY like violence against the villains (including Spartan council traitor guy). People REALLY REALLY REALLY like slow motion violence against the villains of the movie.

People were cheering when the Spartan guys son got beheaded. People were cheering when limbs went flying in slow motion. The audience was hyped when they saw a billion arrows flying through the sky and firecracker bombs were exploding everywhere. What's your point?

No one is denying that Hollywood has a history of racism. No one is denying that the US loves to make themselves out as heroes. But what THE FUCK does that have to do with this movie?

If this was some political allegory, as some have claimed, couldn't the United States be just as closely linked as being the Persian Empire? We are the ones doing the invading of another country (see: Iraq). If we are trying to base this concept on terrorists, US defending itself, etc - we are really pushing it at this point. We can do the twisting and stretching with nearly every movie for any cause.

Light vs. Dark? I mean, really? I can't even bother with this one. It is so laughable. Do you buy your Race cards in packs of 52 or what?

Lets change "dark beasts" to... "purple animals" - CAPTIVATING!

You know what else is laughable? Iranian anger directed at the movie/US. The same population that others in here have said, "Well, look at the people who elected the President", also probably did not link the Persian Empire with modern day Iranians. You can't have it both ways - either Americans are stupid and vote retards like Bush in or are so educated in the world that they know detailed history of modern day countries and empires.

But that is all a moot point because:
A) I am certain the word Iran/Iranian was not in the movie to even suggest a connection.
B) The Persian Empire was depicted as such a hodge podge of people and characters, that you wouldn't be able to distinguish much of anything.
C) The movie was written nearly 15 years ago before this current 'tension' and doesn't suggest a thing.
D) NO ONE THINKS PERSIANS or IRANIANS ARE EVIL, MUTANTS, TRANSVESTITES, and MYSTICS based on this movie.

It is clear that you and your crusaders are in the minority here with this outlook. Regardless, I've said my view enough times in this thread to warrant a small novel. I'll let others carry on from here.

I gotta go check out 300 in IMAX today.

; )

>through the sky and firecracker bombs were exploding
>everywhere. What's your point?

maybe i read the posts wrong, but i was understanding that the poster was pointing out the cold/calculated eugenics the spartans practiced in the film as it was treated with heroism. then you replied that it wasn't the film that heroicised this act, but it was the poster's interpretation.

my point, without going into it (though i'll be glad to) is that multiple cinematic devices were employed to convey the heroics of what the spartans were doing, while demonizing the persian army for doing the same thing (whether it was all the aforementioned institutions discussed in this post - homosexuality, exploitation of slaves, murder, 'mystic' non-monotheology, etc). which leads me to your second question...

>No one is denying that Hollywood has a history of racism. No
>one is denying that the US loves to make themselves out as
>heroes. But what THE FUCK does that have to do with this
>movie?

everything. every shot of every film is poured over, discussed, selected, and is deliberate. anyone involved in film in any capacity is familiar with this concept. unless you are watching some subversive independent college film or a film like DOG STAR MAN, you're watching an exact calculation of what the director and producer want you to see. so either A) snyder didn't consider all of these racist choices and is a complete idiot, or B) he accepts these overtones uncritically either happily or oblivious. either way, it makes it hard for some people (an old grump like me) hard to swallow.

>If this was some political allegory, as some have claimed,
>couldn't the United States be just as closely linked as being
>the Persian Empire?

i totally agree with you here, and this was the basis for my excitement of this film. i thought it would be about the little guy taking down the big guy. more than US being invaders, xerxes wanted to finish a job his father couldnt (bush 1 and 2). but all of the brown man, teeth and eyes, 'faggotry' put me off. none of it was subtle...otherwise you wouldn't hear nervous giggles at xerxes grabbing leonidas or that man fading into the darkenss on some old school negro villanry.

>Light vs. Dark? I mean, really? I can't even bother with this
>one. It is so laughable. Do you buy your Race cards in packs
>of 52 or what?

i'm not saying you can't call a spade a spade. but there are much much greater warrior films, the most recent of which is eastwood's "FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS" / "LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA" duo....which don't let anyone off the hook and avoid classic pitfalls of weak / racist "RETURN OF THE KING" writing.

>The same population that others in here have said,
>"Well, look at the people who elected the President", also
>probably did not link the Persian Empire with modern day
>Iranians.

to me you're treating this more intelligently than you need to. its even more dumbed down to the audience than your position of "is this iran or not?"....its more like "the advancing brown herd is attacking the free society and we must drink their blood" (insert audience claps)

>It is clear that you and your crusaders are in the minority
>here with this outlook.

unfortunatley. not to pull some "charter member" shit...but my investment in this post has confirmed my disappointment in the (d)evolution of the discourse on these boards. i used to learn ALOT here.

1998, people, 1998
And story told from the VIEW OF SOMEONE WHO GOT THEIR EYE TAKEN OUT AND LOST HIS KING. You want them to look like fairies?

Shit I'm waiting for the goats to complain...


We are all dreamers...

MickeyMade Candles...Has Mickey Made Your Day?
www.mickeymade.com

I Am Music: http://bigprov.blogspot.com/ (Updated 2/25/07)

FREE GENARLOW WILSON!
http://www.naacp.org/advocacy/genarlowwilson/

1st of all, this movie is being narrated thru a spartan's point of view, AND to get the other 10,000 spartans rallied up, therefore of course it would be told from a negative perspective. the persian empire was the enemy.

however, it's the spartans that acted like barbarians pretending to be civilized. whereas the persian empire were more reasonable, even though more liberal in their culture.

there wasn't anything neccessary to killed the envoy messenger in the beginning of the movie. any country would of came in all force over something like that.

when xerxes was negotiating, he was being realistic while leonidas was being bompus and rude, turning his back on him and everything...just to taunt him.

the envoys were articulate, the only reason everything was perceived as if the persian empire was "evil" was because it was told from a spartan point of view..which they considered them the enemy

even when the 1st envoy messenger came to let them know that xerxes request for their "land & water"..had they accepted there wasn't going to be any bloodshed and really they would of been about their business, with the exception that they were part of the persian empire....not to say that was fair, just saying the persian empire was NOT brutal...the came forth with reason, but the spartans was a group was unreasonable, because they were raise since infancy to be barbarians

They even mocked the Spartan spiritual beliefs portraying the elders as greedy and corrupt.

When Leonidas rejected Ephialtes as a worthy soldier/ally, he caused his own demise because of his arrogance, reason, and lack of compassion.

CONTAINS MILD SPOILERS

Sad thing is, some of yous will find shit in THIS to argue about. I got it from Nikki Finke's site, who got it from MTV.com:

>From MTV.com, 30 facts about 300 from director Zack Snyder to answer the questions everybody has about the blockbuster. Forget the complaints that 300 is historically inaccurate: Snyder says "it's an opera, not a documentary". He considers talk about its political statement crap. He says John Boorman's Excalibur was a major influence. And he boasts that his Leonidas could take out Maximus from Gladiator.

1. Snyder was the only guy not at the movies on Friday night.
"I was home. My wife was under the weather and I was just getting over something, so we were kind of hiding."

2. He even likes flicks without decapitations.
"I like subtle movies. My personal taste in movies really isn't always for a gonzo freak-out. I liked Little Miss Sunshine.

3. Mixed reviews don't bother him.
"The bad reviews are so fun. Stuff they say, like, 'Zack Snyder has made homoeroticism safe for homophobes,' is priceless. As soon as I hear 'neocon' or 'homophobic' in the review, I laugh to myself and say, 'OK, this person has lost their inner child somewhere along the way, too much time in film school.' "

4. He really didn't mean to make a political statement.
"I'm pretty obvious. It's not like: 'Zack Snyder weaves his web so subtly. He's the most subtle filmmaker of our time.' I mean, come on! The Watchmen will be political!"

5. 300 is not about the dialogue.
"Someone said, 'There's the perfect amount of dialogue in the movie. It's just enough for you to turn to your friend and say, "Did you f------ see that?" ' "

6. There was a little more dialogue in the first draft.
"There was a little more character development. There was stuff with the Captain and his son, sitting around the fire talking about war."

7. It's not as CGI-heavy as you think.
"It's virtual matte paintings. I call it a low-tech movie because it's such a simple concept: putting people in front of painted backdrops. It's like a student film on steroids."

8. Some re-shoots turned out even better.
"The sequence in battle one, where (Gerard Butler) breaks out and it's that long tracking shot where he chops and hacks everyone to bits, we had to shoot twice because the first time the piece of equipment we had didn't work."

9. $60 million can go a long way when you don't have any stars.
"I wanted to make an R-rated movie and I wanted to make Frank Miller's version of 300 with no stars. You present the studio with that formula and they go, 'That's a lose, lose, lose situation.' I'm proud that they gave me that much money."

10. Making 300 wasn't as easy as you might have thought.
"We feel sorry for the studios that give $60 million to the next guy and say, 'Make me a 300. Here's your blue screen, give me an epic!' "

11. CGI elephants are expensive.
"Our rhinos and elephants were the things that broke the bank. That's why there aren't a lot of them."

12. Believe it or not, 300 earned its R rating easily.
"With 'Dawn of the Dead' it took me four or five tries to get an R. With this, for some reason, it wasn't that way."

13. Rodrigo Santoro, who plays Xerxes, knows how to go with the flow.
"Rodrigo's look goes into the stratosphere of bizarre land. The great thing about him was he just went with it."

14. Xerxes isn't for everyone.
"The people I made the movie for, people like myself, love Rodrigo in it. He's fun. One of the major gay Web sites likes the movie and one hates it. And they pick out Rodrigo in particular."

15. Queen Gorgo was almost a factory girl.
"I met a bunch of people for Lena Headey's part, but I kept coming back to her. I met with Sienna Miller and a bunch of people. Gorgo needed to be hard and beautiful at the same time and I just wasn't getting that from anyone else."

16. Don't look for Gorgo's tale in the book.
"By far the biggest deviation from (Miller's story) was anything with Gorgo after the Spartan soldiers leave. That's not in the graphic novel at all."

17. Gorgo did well for herself after that whole stabbing thing.
"In the true history her son became king. She just kind of hung out as the matron."

18. The choice of narrator was new but the language was faithful to Miller.
"The way Frank writes is he'll do a drawing and he'll do a box in the drawing with some descriptive prose. Everything the narrator says is from that prose. So it was just a way to get that in the movie."

19. Those actors really were in shape. No CGI there.
"It was all them. It's just iron and the way we created the film that makes it look like the way it looks."

20. Leonidas could take out Russell Crowe's Gladiator.
"He would stomp Maximus into the ground. No two ways about it. He doesn't have the same rules that apply to Maximus, like gravity. Leonidas can do stupid crazy 'Matrix'-y stuff."

21. This stuff really happened! Well, most of it anyway.
"The events are 90 percent accurate. It's just in the visualization that it's crazy. A lot of people are like, "You're debauching history!" I'm like, "Have you read it?" 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."

22. Besides, it's an opera, not a documentary.
"My movie is more like an opera than a drama. That's what I say when people say it's historically inaccurate. You have to understand the convention I'm working in. Everything is at 11."

23. Yeah, that death scene should have looked familiar.
"John Boorman's Excalibur was an influence. It's one of my favorite movies. The way that the Captain dies when he pulls the spear into himself is the same as the ending of Excalibur."

24. Snyder also took inspiration from some unlikely places.
"Caravaggio paintings and Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel were influences too."

25. Yes, there's more on the DVD.
"This is in rough form on the DVD: At the beginning of the rhino and elephants battle, there was a sequence I designed with these Albino giants which had their arms lopped off and these little hooks on them. And riding on their backs are these elfin archers. These giants have harnesses on their heads so they're being steered like horses. And one of the Spartans hacks the leg off a giant and they fall down."

26. It's OK to laugh at that hacked-off-leg scene.
"When you watch the fight scenes, you should be giggling. When you see a guy's leg hacked off, you should be like, 'Awesome!' "

27. And yes, for you hunchback fans, there's more Ephialtes on the DVD too.
"There're also some more hunchback scenes that got cut because of time."

28. Despite Miller saying he's thinking sequel, don't hold your breath.
"I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see it (from Frank) for 10 years. Maybe we can combine a 'Dawn of the Dead' sequel with it and make it a zombie apocalypse."

29. That shot of The Watchmen in the 300 trailer? It's just a test shot.
"It wasn't for mass consumption. It was a test where I was trying to figure out costumes and look. That was one of my producers playing Rorschach. I shot that in Pasadena (California) just down the street from my house."

30. Stay tuned for "Watchmen" casting news.
"I think we're a couple weeks away."
_____________________________________________________________________
freak out
in a moonage daydream
oh yeah

We are all dreamers...

MickeyMade Candles...Has Mickey Made Your Day?
www.mickeymade.com

I Am Music: http://bigprov.blogspot.com/ (Updated 2/25/07)

FREE GENARLOW WILSON!
http://www.naacp.org/advocacy/genarlowwilson/

i hope he at LEAST meets expectations. he could be walking into a no-win situation.

Cats overanalyze the shit like they were either film students or they wanna front like they saavy about shit.

Shut up and have fun, people.




http://fuck-your.blogspot.com
http://www.myspace.com/insightclopediabrown
http://www.myspace.com/dumhi
http://www.youtube.com/group/okayplayer
http://www.last.fm/user/DawgEatah
R.I.P. 3rd i

scenes, quotes, and style of the film left a memorable impact.

i mostly liked the ruthlessness and skill of the Spartan army. eventhough they where limited in numbers, they adapted and knocked off competition with ease.

This left much room for a sequel or better yet sequel(s). This could in fact become the next major epic series to look forward to in the years to follow. The ending gave way to much more.

Already...in my book, 300 is a tie with Gladiator for favorite movie in its genre.

all the people that say this film are racist are fucking cunts.

no one has made an argument yet for why it is racist that has held any meaning whatsoever.

its all "they're black" no mufucker they are all races...did you watch the movie? they are black, white, asian, everything. they are slaves taken from every corner of the globe, hence they are all races.

if you say this movie is racist you are a racist.

its a piece of fantasy. and in fantasy anything goes. american films have a history of turning black and other non-white ethnic groups into monsters in their films. it has to do with ways of looking at others in ethnography. it goes all the way back to nanook of the norht. king kong did this with the islanders for a rudimentary example.

but in this film these "exotic" peoples are of all races. and the greeks are greeks. who are for the most part pretty fair skinned. did you expect them to cast all greek actors for an english speaking film so it couldnt be construed as black versus white crackery pale whites?

you people talking this racist shit are mental midgets.

as for the metaphor for the conflict with iran argument, ill say this. the movie is a historic fantasy. the theme here is "live free or die" and that is the metaphor we see for the entire film, it is beaten into our heads over and over. and imo that is a damn good message and has nothing to do with iran. read the news much? iran aint gonna be invading our lands anytime soon demanding we bow to allah. only the extremists want that. xerxes was no extremist, he was the mainstream...the ruler of everything. what parallel can we draw to a current dictator/king figure? absolutely none.

so yea. calling this movie racist = cunt. and i dont know what the fuck is wrong with you. you need therapy

Have people actually had the audacity to compare the minor racial overtones in this film to A BIRTH OF A NATION?!?!?

Wow people, wow.

Learn how to have a little fun in our life, it was just a cool flick vaguely based on historical events. I'm sorry there was a few black villains and some of the Persians weren't actually Iranians. The Immortals were deformed white guys, who should be offended about that one?

Seriously, I've never been more amazed at an OKP thread, look a little bit more into the shit you anal retentive cunts, I actually felt guilty for enjoying the film for about 10 seconds of reading this thread.

First comedy/action flick on the big screen.

Denial is a bitch...lol

^ wow.

yea. ptp'ers compared it to birth of a nation.

you need to get your priorities straight. lemme ask you something.

why do you feel the need to find subtle racism in unintended, out of the way places when white people everywhere are spewing racist rhetoric on a daily basis?

i hate racist shit. and i am the most stonefaced when it comes to any racial remarks. yet i still CANT get away from it. several times per year it confronts me in some way or another. some more disgusting then others.

but 300? youre just unequivocably wrong and thats all there is to it. and i truly dont give a fuck about your argument because it was total garbage to begin with and you didnt care to advance it.

IMO there is nothing okay about subtle propaganda (or racism) in media. 300 is an entertaining film and it is fascist. Too bad.

There has always been a "master narrative" in film that promotes one civilization over others and it is insidious. I am much too aware to just turn my mind off to enjoy a flick solely based on its entertainment value.

>but 300? youre just unequivocably wrong and thats all there is
>to it.

No it isn't. Let's take a look at Frank Millers other stories:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_Me_Liberty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronin_%28comic_book_series%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Holy_Terror%2C_Batman%21%22

These stories perpetuate the status quo whether you like it or not and whether you admit to the racism or not.

here's why:

This shit had OBVIOUS racial pretext. Not subtext, pretext. The comic was the same way

I mean, the persian army was filled with exoticized people of color. Freaks and monsters led by a 9 ft tranny with too much eye make-up on.

The spartan allusions to fighting for "reason and democracy" against "tyranny and mysticism"...the spartans all being very un-Mediterranean in appearance (I mean, Leonidas had a Scottish accent, playa)...the persians were pretty much cannon fodder, all interchangeable, but the first dead spartan on screen was a traumatic event...the persian army was filled with giants, freaks and non-white people, which is as about as obvious a dehumanizing a tactic as possible.

I mean, I could go on, but your retort will be "But its a MOVIE" or "you're a cunt"

Cuz this movie obviously means waaaay more to you than it prolly should, and the complaints of people who were offended by it means waaay less than they prolly should.

hey, what can you do

its clear as day...hopefully some lurkers read this and can decipher for themselves what 300 is, but as far as convincing/converting fanboy posters, thats you're own risk...

homeskillet.

the first dead spartan primary character HAD to be a traumatic event, because the spartans are the protagonists of the film. good guys and bad guys. and in this film the bad guys arent black people they are ALL people besides spartans. i saw every race represented in the villain group.

whites were made to look like monsters (the giant, the creatures) the black villains were the most human. you werent gonna see a huge black monster chained up and unleashed because that would have been construed as racist (even though it might not have been in acutality)

it is all about INTENTION.

BIRTH OF A NATION is intentionally racist. KING KONG is less intentional but still racist (the scene where KING KONG picks the white female lead over the black offering who wears a grass skirt and cocunut shells) that is a racist pretext.

300 didn't intend racism. imagine the backlash had the monster been black.

>and in this film the bad guys arent
>black people they are ALL people besides spartans. i saw every
>race represented in the villain group.

not great. I mean I really cant fault the movie... I think its just cuz I heard all the hype before I saw it. Still awsome though.

OK.

A Birth of a Nation is a fictionalized account of history that PRESENTS itself as factual or at best a subjective historical account. The films various overt racist imagery (watermelon eating sambos loving slavery, to lazy black politicians drinking) is coupled with slides claiming historical accuracy. Comparing the two films simply illustrates the idiocy of your argument.

300 is a fictionalized film making no attempt to accurately represent history, but present a stylized hack-em flick/graphic novel. The use of darkness, of deformity, mysticism and general depravity is a simple literary/film tool to provide contrast between the obvious good and evil forces of the film. What of the presentation the Priests at Delphi as deformed, depraved perverts. I'm sure Greece's real oracles would be very happy with their presentation, not even mentioning the fact that historical, the Priests at Delphi supported Leonidas.

Obviously, the film is making no overt effort to prove the unworthy qualities of another race, a clear narrative in A BOAN.

You're really just picking hairs, looking way too deep into the film and digging deep for something that's not really there. You can find something, you just have to look so hard you really want to find it.

As for the Spartans. You all are really trying to say the film's racist b/c they didn't hire dozens of native Greeks? Are Rome and Gladiator racist b/c they employ English, Scottish and Australian actors, rather than Italian? So you're also angry that acting is a profession, as all gangster roles should be played by actual gangsters, all poor played by poor, etc....?

Seriously.

I'm just amazed, I really have the ask...

would you still consider the film racist had the Spartans been played by American actors with a little more color? Would it have been less racist if they made sure to show some crazy white guys in Xerxes army as well? Or remove all black characters, ensuring only Persian, Arabian, and Central Asian characters (the core of the empire) were hired?

For real, the film wasn't attempting to have a moral arguement with itself. I can't even imgaine how rediculously lame adding stuff like

"ohh, well Xerxes just conquers, but allows all to maintain government and their religion". They never really conquered peoples, just land and resources. Should Zach have added 1 hour of political commentary to the film, arguing the morality of Spartan man-boy love culture and the disposal of "weak"?

That's what you wanted? A moral and political discussion right smack dab in the middle of a sweet hack-em war movie?

You clowns need to stop, analyze your argument, AND REALIZE THE FILM WAS SIMPLY A GRAPHIC, COOL HACK-EM FLICK.

>You clowns need to stop, analyze your argument, AND REALIZE
>THE FILM WAS SIMPLY A GRAPHIC, COOL HACK-EM FLICK.

smh...I am so glad I can be both educated (thinking critically) and entertained when I consume media.

Media illiteracy is a crime.

"There has always been a "master narrative" in film that promotes one civilization over others and it is insidious."

um in 300 xerxes is master. his civilization is the dominant, enslaving civilization. and guess what, some civilizations are better than others. dont believe me? go move to the middle east and have your clitoris removed and then tell me which is better.

the master narrative you speak of becomes insidious when people are
characters are judged by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.

when this "master narrative" promotes racism it is a problem, but there isn't a shred of racism in this movie. a bunch of the slaves where white. all of the slaves depicted as monsters were as white as a sheet. xerxes looked persian (blackface my ass) he didnt even look
slightly black.

movies do not equal real life and they often (especially in sandal and swords genres) have NOTHING to do with "reality" as people live it.

and again i ask of you: "why do you find the need to find racism in unintended, out of the way places when white people everywhere spew racist rhetoric on a daily basis?"

but im finished with this because i am starting to think you are playing devils advocate for fun. this is boring me.

>go move to the middle
>east and have your clitoris removed and then tell me which is
>better.

Here we can have our clits removed and it's high art, so miss me with all that...it's all about choice.

>when this "master narrative" promotes racism it is a problem,
>but there isn't a shred of racism in this movie. a bunch of
>the slaves where white. all of the slaves depicted as monsters
>were as white as a sheet. xerxes looked persian (blackface my
>ass) he didnt even look
>slightly black.

What in the hell does this have to do with being Black?

>movies do not equal real life and they often (especially in
>sandal and swords genres) have NOTHING to do with "reality" as
>people live it.

Tell that to Edward Bernays.

Go take a media literacy class and get back to me.

edward bernays intentionally used propaganda.

i have taken plenty of media literacy classes.

go study fatimah tobing rony. "race, cinema, and the ethnographic spectactle." this film had no ethnographic spectactles (xerxes might count) but it is a big stretch.

in her book you will find concrete examples with solid arguments about what you are talking about with "master narrative" and depiction of others.

300 isn't an example. you haven't provided an ARGUMENT you just keep throwing out red herrings and bringing up bernays and other bullshit. i feel sorry for your students because it is my guess that you subject them to this kind of one sided non critical thinking and force them to either adopt your beliefs or get an F.

"...part of the Master Narrative, a term from critical race theory that describes a grand narrative of How the World Works that is supported and validated by society as a whole. This is the life story of the dominant culture, fed to us all with our pablum, supporting beliefs in the superiority of the dominant culture and affecting members of nondominant cultures, as a mechanism for spreading internalized racism, internalized sexism, internalized heterosexism and similar internalized -isms." - http://www.rcgi.org/salon/122003/authority.asp

>i have taken plenty of media literacy classes.

Could've surprised me.

>i feel sorry for your students because it
>is my guess that you subject them to this kind of one sided
>non critical thinking and force them to either adopt your
>beliefs or get an F.

If you were to ask any of my students what I believed they wouldn't be able to tell you. I save my "beliefs" for folks like you. lol

I am not here to win you to my side. I am saying that 300 is an entertaining film that also happens to be fascist (with a bit of racism thrown in for good measure).

xerxes was the only fascist.

>xerxes was the only fascist.

smh and lol

Everyone is a fascist.

Happy now?

^um i edited that you were stupid in my earlier post. sorry i said that.

youre just pushing buttons, but it isn't working. xerxes was a fascist in the film and the spartans were about freedom. yawn

>^um i edited that you were stupid in my earlier post. sorry i
>said that.

Stupid doesn't bother me. At least I am not ignorant. Ignorance is the worst.

>youre just pushing buttons, but it isn't working.

Then why do you keep replying to me?

>xerxes was a
>fascist in the film and the spartans were about freedom.

In your crazy world, yes.

>You're really just picking hairs, looking way too deep into
>the film and digging deep for something that's not really
>there. You can find something, you just have to look so hard
>you really want to find it.

Tell that to the Persians.

But quit before they filmed Star Wars...


http://www.myspace.com/bski
http://www.myspace.com/livesociety

but it WAS overrated.

i was expecting a bit more... but i was still impressed.

from the L.A. Times:

>THE BIG PICTURE/ PATRICK GOLDSTEIN

'300': It's just a movie -- or is it?

Call it a grand, vivid spectacle -- nothing more, nothing less.

PATRICK GOLDSTEIN

March 20, 2007

DON'T tell the critics, but "300" is a new kind of action movie, a clever synthesis of the stylized epic storytelling practiced by Peter Jackson in "Lord of the Rings" and the stop 'n' start fast-motion cutting of the Wachowski brothers' "Matrix" series. Let's call it Hyper Cinema. "300's" entire visual environment — its billowy wheat fields, its stormy gray skies, even blood that miraculously evaporates before it hits the ground — is a fabricated universe, created by 1,300 effects shots generated in a computer after the actors have gone home.

It's a gamer's view of the world that film critics don't relate to because they seem to have forgotten the kick they got from reading comics as kids. When I went to see "300" last week, the theater was full of scruffy guys who looked like they spent a lot more hours playing Final Fantasy X11 or God of War II than working out at the gym. In an era when it's increasingly difficult to reach young males, "300" offered a vivid spectacle of glistening pecs — as one admirer put it, "Ray Harryhausen crossed with Leni Riefenstahl" — that couldn't be replicated at home.

"We took a singular idea and went all the way with it, which I think resonates with audiences," director Zack Snyder, whose only other feature was a remake of "Dawn of the Dead," said on the phone from London. "It gives you that feeling that made you go to movies in the first place, as in 'Holy (smoke), that was awesome!' "

Populated with unknown actors, the retelling of the gory battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC was airily dismissed as hokum by America's leading critics.

Where the fanboys saw an easily identifiable theme — "me and my buddies are gonna band together and kick some butt" — critics spied pandering trash. The Boston Globe's Wesley Morris called "300" "action porn." The New York Times' A.O. Scott said " '300' is about as violent as ' Apocalypto' and twice as stupid." And the Washington Post's Stephen Hunter, dripping with disdain, exclaimed, "Go tell the Spartans that their sacrifice was not in vain; their long day's fight under the cooling shade of a million falling arrows safeguarded the West and guaranteed, all these years later, the right of idiots to make rotten movies about them."

Those idiots grossed $129.2 million in just 10 days. And Snyder says he wasn't perturbed by the nasty reviews. "Nah, I love 'em, they were funny," he says. "The reviews were so neo-con, so homophobic. They couldn't just go see the movie without trying to over-intellectualize it."

The critics were disturbed by a host of issues, not the least being the film's macho belligerence, cartoonish lack of interest in history and racial stereotyping of Xerxes' Persian hordes as dark-skinned, decadent club queens. But a key reason critics reacted so harshly is because they have been trained to value realism over fantasy, whether it is the stoic drama of Clint Eastwood's "Letters From Iwo Jima" or the cool psychological precision of David Fincher's "Zodiac," which has flopped at the box office, despite critical raves.

"Zodiac" had everything a critic could love. It was smart, full of context and armed with a compelling narrative about an obsessive search for an enigmatic killer. Unfortunately, Fincher is a filmmaker who has little interest in what audiences — or studio executives — think about his movies. He makes them for himself.

In contrast, Snyder's "300," with its Xbox ethos, is a movie made for a generation of visual sensation seekers. Critics are largely shaped by the aesthetic of the cinematic past, which is why you often get the feeling they've been dragged, kicking and screaming, into a new world they describe as coarser, more superficial and less intellectually stimulating than the golden age of their moviegoing youth.

The complaints are almost always the same. "It's an epic without a dream," said one critic. "The loudness, the smash-and-grab editing, and the relentless pacing drive every idea from your head, and even if you've been entertained, you may feel cheated of some dimension — a sense of wonder, perhaps." Those words were written 30 years ago by Pauline Kael, reviewing "Star Wars."

If anyone knows how late critics come to the party, it is Fincher, whose breakthrough 1995 thriller "Se7en" was roundly dismissed by many of the same top critics who were "Zodiac's" biggest admirers. The Wall Street Journal's Joe Morgenstern called it "ponderous," Time's Richard Schickel dubbed it "twaddle" and Newsweek's David Ansen described its style as being a cross between "a Nike commercial and a bad Polish art film."

Now that his work is more familiar, Fincher is considered an old master, at least compared with a nervy upstart like Snyder. As it turns out, the two men's backgrounds are surprisingly similar. Fincher, who is only four years older than the 40-year-old Snyder, began his career at ILM doing optical effects on George Lucas films before directing a series of commercials and music videos for everyone from Aerosmith to Paula Abdul. Snyder had a similar career path.

"I'm part of the 'Star Wars' generation — it's what made me want to become a director," Snyder says. "Blade Runner," "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "Excalibur" — films he saw in his mid-teens — are the ones he cites as big influences.

It's obvious that Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" series has served as an influence as well. "300's" deformed hunchback, Ephialtes, who betrays the Spartans, is uncannily reminiscent, both in physical form and in moral ambiguity, to "LOTR's" Gollum.

Snyder has learned that film is a subliminal art, in the sense that he uses his visuals to supply the film's emotional underpinning. In "300," the sky is always dark and unsettled, as if to signal the bitter bloodshed to come. "We tried to make the sky reflect the emotion in the movie, which you can't do in a regular movie," he says. "That's what is great about this kind of green-screen filmmaking. It's not just the actors who matter. Every element in the frame supports the emotion of the moment."

Sadly, our critics, who seemed content with hooting at "300," have lost touch with what makes movies different from other art forms. Hollywood's mass-audience films are not a literary or an intellectual genre. Never have been, never will be. They are built around visuals and emotion, the two elements that "300" used to capture the public imagination.

No one understands this better than 13-year-old Tristan Rodman, who saw "300" (with his dad, since the film is R-rated). "I guess the critics have not liked the movie for the same reason that the majority of people in America did like it," he told me. "Most people just went to see it. Not for the acting or the story, which was just OK, but for the spectacle."

Tristan got a great thrill from seeing "300." And whether you're a critic or just a fanboy, isn't that what people have always gone to the movies for?
______________________________________________________________________
freak out
in a moonage daydream
oh yeah

Apparently, today is 300 day in the L.A. Times.

>ON FILM

'300' mixed messages

The film's team says no big statements were intended. Sure. We believe that.

CARINA CHOCANO

March 20, 2007

THE latest entry in the annals of Money Changes Everything is Zack Snyder's "300," which about a month ago was being discussed in terms of its allegorical message, but is now being closely inspected for its magical money-making properties.

Even before it became a box-office sensation, the director was sloughing off questions of whether the movie was a metaphor for the current war, or any war we might happen to have in the works. Any political message was "inadvertent." That people were picking up on some political message — well, you could have knocked the director, producers and studio marketing department over with a feather. As for some people's fixation on certain words, "When someone in a movie says, 'We're going to fight for freedom,' that's now a dirty word," Snyder told Entertainment Weekly. "Europeans totally feel that way. If you mention democracy or freedom, you're an imperialist or a fascist. That's crazy to me."

Someday, maybe, the "entertainment defense" will no longer hold water. But for now, we're slogging through the era of the completely implausible denial. Like many films that seem to riff on everything without stooping to make a point (which would be just so hopelessly earnest and dorky), "300" proudly claims to be about nothing. Or rather, like another type of purchased pleasure, it claims to be about anything you want it to be. As long as a movie is dumb and violent enough, it can quote whatever cultural allusion is handy, then deny that it did with impunity.

Granted, as hard to buy as these denials are, their claim to meaninglessness does seem entirely possible. Sure, Frank Miller, on whose graphic novel the movie was based, has a political point of view. On NPR's "Talk of the Nation" last month he expressed his dismay about the "state of the home front" and his disappointment at the fact that "nobody seems to be talking about who we're up against — and the 6th century barbarism that they" — by which he meant not just terrorists, but entire civilizations — "actually represent." (He also, incidentally, quoted philosopher Will Durant's line — "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within" — which opened "Apocalypto," another movie that was either a comment on our current political situation — or not.)

Snyder has repeatedly expressed his desire to remain true to Miller's vision and leave it at that. A commercial director before making "Dawn of the Dead," his job is to sell — and what's better for business than the appearance of reality with the tedious connections to reality removed? "300" straddles more lines than SUVs packing a mall parking structure. Nearly everything in the movie rings a bell, but it's hard to know what to make of it. Is it unabashedly camp or athletically self-serious? Homoerotic or gay-baiting? Slyly allegorical or chaotically referential? A rousing defense of a military campaign that despite being doomed to failure represents the defense of Western civilization against barbarous (and gay) Middle Eastern hordes? Or just harmless (or as it's now called, "mindless," because decerebration is a virtue) entertainment?

Ultimately, the big question is not whether the Spartan king, Leonidas (Gerard Butler), a warrior with steel-cut abs girded by a leather codpiece whose NFL-ready soldiers rally behind him with a synchronized bellow and a heavenward pump of the fist, is supposed to be George Bush. Or even whether, as some foreign journalists at a press junket in February suggested, the president has more in common with the tyrannical Persian emperor, Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro), done up to resemble RuPaul after a scuffle with Gwen Stefani's stylist. The question isn't even if Xerxes is intended to be perceived as a big, gay menace. (Although, maybe that one thing is clear: Snyder has allowed that the overtones of sexual menace were not accidental, because "What's more scary to a 20-year-old boy than a giant god-king who wants to have his way with you?")

The interesting question is how "entertainment" has come to be accepted as a valid, irreducible argument against interpretation; how, in a broader sense, the act of putting things in context has come to be seen as inherently suspect. Whether it's the attorney general claiming lack of clarity on the firings of U.S. attorneys, or a Lionsgate executive admitting mistakes were made regarding the torture billboards for "Captivity" pasted all over town, it seems that no connection is too clear, no cause and effect too obvious for shocked denial and feigned surprise not to be a viable option.

That's not to suggest that anything involving "300" exists on the same plane of importance — it's just a good example of a trend that would be funny if it weren't so insulting.

The fact that a debate has taken place at all has become fodder for satire. Last week on "The Colbert Report," Stephen Colbert offered this hilariously reductive analysis of the whole thing: "First, this is a great movie because it made $70 million. No better critic than the free market. Second, I'm pretty sure it's an allegory for the war in Iraq." He then went on to characterize King Leonidas as George Bush in a leather Speedo, Xerxes as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the ravenous wolf as the liberal press, the Persian hordes as the Democratic-controlled Congress, the fanged giant as Nancy Pelosi, the blubbery beast with saws for hands as Tim Russert, and the messenger kicked into a pit as Scooter Libby.

But as silly as it is to scour a movie like this one for allegory, insisting that it be viewed in a political and cultural vacuum is not exactly aboveboard, either. Denying that anything means anything beyond its strictest parameters is not only dishonest, it's discouraging, as the first lady might say.

While the best movies of recent years have diligently traced causal connections and reminded us that the basic laws of physics — actions have effects — apply to everything under the sun, the mantra of the entertainment industry could be summed up as "Syriana's" tag line in reverse: Nothing is ever connected unless we say it is.

Postmodernism is all about allusion without the burden of attribution. Or, as Jonathan Lethem wrote last month in Harper's, "What is postmodernism, but modernism without the anxiety?" Ironic detachment has its uses, but the attainment of a deeper understanding about the world we live in and our role in it is not one of them. So what do we call postmodernism without the burden of self-awareness?
_______________________________________________________________________
freak out
in a moonage daydream
oh yeah

As was Sin City

The narration was terrible

Closing credits were cool tho

none at all
i dont think there was a braincell involved in this film
the fights and the visuals and effects were incredible but plotwise it just seemed ridiculous, from the first scene about how spartans cant show fear etc etc
quite stooopid IMO
i didnt find anyone likeable in this film either
they were all quite idiotic
i found it slightly offensive how biased it was towards the spartans too

lol