How gay is 300?

[neoolong]

Wait - I've only flicked through the book, but it sounds like the moviemakers made it MORE racist, by adding more bestial Persians etc. Aside from the LotR influence, how can this be defended? It would have been easy enough to stay with the already-dubious book imagery, but why make it worse?

Well, there was the Spartan traitor. And weren't the mutants lighter skinned than the other Persians? Though, they were still on the Persians' side so...

[Ghost Rider]

The queen subplot existed to break up the action.

Yes, for the mindless retards who needed another half hour to forty five minutes attached for a sub plot of "Let's focus on the mustache twirling pussy, Leo's queen who needs a justification of a paycheck and a council of nobodies!"
Yup, real useful.

You can't have an action scene drag on to long. It will lose its power. You need something to break it up and create highs and lows. Thats movie making 101. The scenes with the queen were what they chose to use. If not her they would have used some thing else.

Then it would've likely been better then demonstrate a useless villain, an even more useless protagonist, all of which is summed up when the hurt soldier returns.

Yay for wasting time and making me sit in my chair an extra half hour.

[Aeolus]

The queen is a rediculously beautiful women....I am really not seeing the problem here. Hell I like guys but even I could not help but check her out.

[Lord Relvenous]

Um... the battle of Thermopylae WAS a groups of white folks (Spartans and weren't there some Thespians as well?) fighting the Persians and their allies who WERE darker skinned than the Greeks. I'm sorry, is someone having a problem with historical accuracy?

The Achmaenid Persians were related to and descended from the Scythians, so they were as "white" as the Greeks. Darius and Cyrus were described as having red hair and grey or blue eyes. The 300 Spartans was more accurate on that score and every other I can think of. True, the Persians were a mixed bag ethnically, but the movie has the same "band of whites vs hordes of darkies" theme that was done to death in earlier movies.

I'm sorry I just had to stop and reply after this post, which is on the first page. WTF are you thinking? The 300 Spartans was more accurate than 300? At least 300 had the Spartans fighting in a phalanx some of the time. I watched half of The 300 Spartans and had to turn it off because it was such a mockery of the battle that i love to study. it had the Spartans engaging the Immortals in 5 lines seperated by at least 30 feet. The Spartans would have gotten ass-raped if they tried a tactic like that. So anyone thinking that The 300 Spartans was anywhere near to accurate is a dumbass. That movie was the Battle of Thermopolyae done John Wayne style.

Returning to the discussed topic, Aeolus is right. They did need some quiet time to take you off that high so that the next action sequence would still have power. Every movie does it. Even pure action movies, to soem extent.

[Honorable Mention]

Hm, my latin professor (also taught Greek) and some guest professor from UCONN both agreed that The 300 Spartans was probably the most historically accurate Hollywood film that they'd seen so far. I haven't seen it myself, so I cannot comment on that. I figured they had a decent idea of what they were talking about, though.

[Bertie Wooster]

Hm, my latin professor (also taught Greek) and some guest professor from UCONN both agreed that The 300 Spartans was probably the most historically accurate Hollywood film that they'd seen so far. I haven't seen it myself, so I cannot comment on that. I figured they had a decent idea of what they were talking about, though.

It wasn't Professor Travis from Uconn, was it?

[The Original Nex]

True, the Persians were a mixed bag ethnically, but the movie has the same "band of whites vs hordes of darkies" theme

I don't know if I'm blind or what, but I'll say again, I DID see a mixed bag ethnically in the Persian troops. Did I just miss the "hordes of darkies"?

[Honorable Mention]

Hm, my latin professor (also taught Greek) and some guest professor from UCONN both agreed that The 300 Spartans was probably the most historically accurate Hollywood film that they'd seen so far. I haven't seen it myself, so I cannot comment on that. I figured they had a decent idea of what they were talking about, though.

It wasn't Professor Travis from Uconn, was it?

I'm really not sure. It was last year at Fairfield University (I'm no longer there - I transferred) during the second semester with Professor Rosivach. I'd say the name sounds familiar but not enough for me to be sure it was him. I just recall the topic being about history (classical history, obviously) and movie media, so naturally it begged the question of what movie was, in their opinions, the most historically accurate movie and The 300 Spartans was the answer. Most other professors in the field have agreed, so I just found the disagreeing comment interesting.

[Darth Wong]

True, the Persians were a mixed bag ethnically, but the movie has the same "band of whites vs hordes of darkies" theme

I don't know if I'm blind or what, but I'll say again, I DID see a mixed bag ethnically in the Persian troops. Did I just miss the "hordes of darkies"?

No, but you did miss the point. Evil multicultural eastern Persians vs Good ethnically homogeneous defenders of western civilization. Multiculturalism run amok, including subhuman monsters, etc.

[Big Orange]

That some Nubians might have been present is of course a possibility -- as slaves, since the Empire didn't extend there, but traded with Nubia. Most slaves would have been obtained elsewhere, however.

Moreover, Xerxes would not have had any levies from there. And yes, it is unrealistic that the uppercrust would be subsaharan (that's what you'd call an "understatement").

The majority of Persian auxiliaries would be mainly Semitic or Indo Caucasians from the Middle East but if the Persians directly controlled Egypt and other parts of Eastern Africa then it wouldn't be ridiculous if black peasant conscripts or mercenary warriors were in the Persian Empire's ranks (just not as noblemen or envoys, although that could be a remote possibility).

No, but you did miss the point. Evil multicultural eastern Persians vs Good ethnically homogeneous defenders of western civilization. Multiculturalism run amok, including subhuman monsters, etc.

Having multicultural rank and file soldiers for a transcontinental empire is realistic although having Persian Uruk-Hai as elite troops is clearly not - why did the movie makes decide to make the Persian Immortals hulking humanoid monsters? And barbarian Aryans being homogenous defenders of Germanic culture against the Roman Empire's mongrels was likely common in Nazi race propaganda.

[Lord Zentei]

The majority of Persian auxiliaries would be mainly Semitic or Indo Caucasians from the Middle East but if the Persians directly controlled Egypt and other parts of Eastern Africa then it wouldn't be ridiculous if black peasant conscripts or mercenary warriors were in the Persian Empire's ranks (just not as noblemen or envoys, although that could be a remote possibility).

I beleive I pointed out earlier that the Egyptians were not subsaharan.

Moreover, the nobles and envoys would be Persian.

[Big Orange]

I beleive I pointed out earlier that the Egyptians were not subsaharan.

What rock solid evidence proves that? Egypt was ethinically varied as well, also Egypt was significantly connected with East Africa and the Nile which both directly led to *gasp* black people.

Moreover, the nobles and envoys would be Persian.

The vast majority of Persian noblemen and envoys would be the Persians themselves, with Medians, Assyrians and Babylonians widely represented in the Persian political and military elite - I guess they would ethnically look similar to modern Iraqis or Iranians with hardly any sub-Saharan blacks (although Asiatic peoples would perhaps not be uncommon in the Persian Empire and original Persians seemed somewhat similar to the Mongolians).

[Lonestar]

What rock solid evidence proves that? Egypt was ethinically varied as well, also Egypt was significantly connected with East Africa and the Nile which both directly led to *gasp* black people.

I'm gonna take a wild-ass guess and assume the Egyptian Art portraying Egyptians as lighter skinned than the Nubians woul imply that the Egyptians, at least, didn't think of themselves as "black".

Edit: Like so

[Big Orange]

Edit: Like so

Pfft, the Egyptians themselves don't exactly look white or fully Caucasian either even though they look lighter skinned than their Nubian cousins and are significantly Caucasian to a certain extent (but so are black people in the Americans).

[Lonestar]

Pfft, the Egyptians themselves don't exactly look white or fully Caucasian either even though they look lighter skinned than their Nubian cousins and are significantly Caucasian to a certain extent (but so are black people in the Americans).

So? That isn't the argument. Arabs are Caucasians too. The argument that you made is that Zentei was wrong for saying that Egyptians weren't "Black/subsaharan"...which they most certainly were not.

[The Original Nex]

True, the Persians were a mixed bag ethnically, but the movie has the same "band of whites vs hordes of darkies" theme

I don't know if I'm blind or what, but I'll say again, I DID see a mixed bag ethnically in the Persian troops. Did I just miss the "hordes of darkies"?

No, but you did miss the point. Evil multicultural eastern Persians vs Good ethnically homogeneous defenders of western civilization. Multiculturalism run amok, including subhuman monsters, etc.

I see. I thought the argument was white versus black. I can see your point here, although I'm not sure that it was intended to be portrayed that way.

[Big Orange]

I don't think the Ancient Egyptians were mostly sub-Saharan blacks, but they certainly did not look like Caucasian Semites either and comparing ancient depictions of Egyptians with Nubians is similar to comparing Peter Williams (Stargate SG-1) with Djimon Hounsou (Gladiator).

[Lonestar]

I don't think the Ancient Egyptians were mostly sub-Saharan blacks,

Not 6 posts up:

What rock solid evidence proves that? Egypt was ethinically varied as well, also Egypt was significantly connected with East Africa and the Nile which both directly led to *gasp* black people.

Reading that statement, I've come to think that the gist and true intent of it is "Egyptians=blacks"

but they certainly did not look like Caucasian Semites either

Why not? You seem to have a narrow defination of "caucasian" which is quite a bit broader than "white" and "Arabic-looking".

and comparing ancient depictions of Egyptians with Nubians is similar to comparing Peter Williams (Stargate SG-1) with Djimon Hounsou (Gladiator).

Because one is Caucasian(or lighter skinned) and the other is subsaharan? I'm not sure if I understand what you're driving at.

[Tanasinn]

Just speaking personally, I think anyone who tries to interpret 300 as anything more than a violent, loud action film is wasting their time.

(As an aside, who cares about Iran's outrage? They're always outraged over something.)

[Lord Zentei]

I beleive I pointed out earlier that the Egyptians were not subsaharan.

What rock solid evidence proves that? Egypt was ethinically varied as well, also Egypt was significantly connected with East Africa and the Nile which both directly led to *gasp* black people.

Don't be disingenious, fukctard. We have these things called "mummies", and we are moreover talking about large contingents of troops, not sections of whatever Egyptian levies were present.

I have already covered the Nubians. They would have been slaves, if present.

Incidentally, Xerxes had only recently subdued a longstanding revolt in Egypt two years earlier: it would have been under occupation, instead of supplying levies.

The vast majority of Persian noblemen and envoys would be the Persians themselves, with Medians, Assyrians and Babylonians widely represented in the Persian political and military elite - I guess they would ethnically look similar to modern Iraqis or Iranians with hardly any sub-Saharan blacks (although Asiatic peoples would perhaps not be uncommon in the Persian Empire and original Persians seemed somewhat similar to the Mongolians).

In other words, not black.

[Honorable Mention]

When the movie has been marketed to the 16-24 yr old male demographic, then yeah.

Sorry, I had missed this.

Not that I think gauging reactions to a movie by one particular demographic says anything about the actual film, but all this really proves is the hypersensitivity that demographic has to male nudity and the like. 300 goes out of its way to emphasize heterosexuality, most likely to either avoid this exact discussion, turning off that demographic, or both.

But, frankly, SPOILER (I guess) if Leonidas is ass naked and then has pretty enjoyable sex (and buttsex, which doesn't make babies) with his wife, then some other man has sex with his wife, and he criticizes Athens for its "boy love", and mentions the captain's son has never felt the warmth of a woman, well, the film seems pretty not-gay to me regardless of the actual tendencies Spartans historically had. END SPOILER

If a few men running around in the Spartan equivalent of a Speedo (because they fought balls out, not because they thought it was kinky or hot) within a completely non-sexual context of war and violence suddenly triggers one's "gaydar", I think that says more about the functionality of that "gaydar" than the film.

[Adrian Laguna]

[quote="Lord Zentei"Incidentally, Xerxes had only recently subdued a longstanding revolt in Egypt two years earlier: it would have been under occupation, instead of supplying levies.[/quote]

The Egyptian Navy and its Marines played a rather large part in the campaign. Though navies are not levies, and the Egyptian marines were something of an elite, might be they didn't participate in the revolt at all.

[TithonusSyndrome]

When the movie has been marketed to the 16-24 yr old male demographic, then yeah.

Sorry, I had missed this.

Not that I think gauging reactions to a movie by one particular demographic says anything about the actual film, but all this really proves is the hypersensitivity that demographic has to male nudity and the like. 300 goes out of its way to emphasize heterosexuality, most likely to either avoid this exact discussion, turning off that demographic, or both.

Which probably appeals to hypersensitive Thars on many levels, not an exclusively sexual one. Getting what they want from women and beating their chests over how hetero they are dosen't exclude latent homoerotic leanings, particularly for a group of people who might begin to lust for the forbidden fruit they've created.

But, frankly, SPOILER (I guess) if Leonidas is ass naked and then has pretty enjoyable sex (and buttsex, which doesn't make babies) with his wife, then some other man has sex with his wife, and he criticizes Athens for its "boy love", and mentions the captain's son has never felt the warmth of a woman, well, the film seems pretty not-gay to me regardless of the actual tendencies Spartans historically had. END SPOILER

Wong addressed this earlier; a film with homoerotic leanings can most definetly appeal to bisexuals.

If a few men running around in the Spartan equivalent of a Speedo (because they fought balls out, not because they thought it was kinky or hot) within a completely non-sexual context of war and violence suddenly triggers one's "gaydar", I think that says more about the functionality of that "gaydar" than the film.

I haven't seen the movie and I don't know if I will, but I don't think that taking advantage of artistic lisence to show rippling pecs and abs without any armor to adolescent males is something that should pass over the gaydar without warranting at least some examination.

[ArmorPierce]

If a few men running around in the Spartan equivalent of a Speedo (because they fought balls out, not because they thought it was kinky or hot) within a completely non-sexual context of war and violence suddenly triggers one's "gaydar", I think that says more about the functionality of that "gaydar" than the film.

I haven't seen the movie and I don't know if I will, but I don't think that taking advantage of artistic lisence to show rippling pecs and abs without any armor to adolescent males is something that should pass over the gaydar without warranting at least some examination.

it's a comic book movie. If you noticed any of today's comic books, all the comic book men have skin tight suits that shows off rippling tight abs and pecs. It has little to do with being gay and I am suprised at how rather than people making a fuss about how stupid it was, instead are complaining about how gay it was.

[Flagg]

I just saw it and I liked it quite a bit, even with it's horrible inaccuracies, and seemingly pro-Iraq War stance.

I would have definately enjoyed it more if I were homosexual, though.