StarDestroyer.Net BBS

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

Since you've actually seen it and can reply, what do you feel makes it seem pro-Iraq war?

Stark wrote:

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

Since you've actually seen it and can reply, what do you feel makes it seem pro-Iraq war?

Well aside from the premise of freedom and liberty standing against the forces of unreason and terror, there are certain statements made, like "Freedom isn't free" that sound way to much like something you would see on Faux News. You also have something along the lines of "The King has started an illegal war against the wishes of the council" (made by a traitor to Sparta) that sound like a parody of anti-war arguments.

It was enough that it stood out to me and made me roll my eyes, but not enough to make me 100% positive that that was the movies intent. Those lines may well have been in the comic book for all I know.

I've seen it. People think its pro-Iraq because its westerners beating up on evil, evil persians and arabs. There's also a WHOLE FRIGGING LOT of talk about the virtues of freedom, liberty, and honor. That part, I can kinda see applying. Mostly, though, I just remember most of the imagery and dialogue is shot-for-shot and word-for-word from the comic book, which was written in 1998.

CaptainChewbacca wrote:I've seen it. People think its pro-Iraq because its westerners beating up on evil, evil persians and arabs. There's also a WHOLE FRIGGING LOT of talk about the virtues of freedom, liberty, and honor. That part, I can kinda see applying. Mostly, though, I just remember most of the imagery and dialogue is shot-for-shot and word-for-word from the comic book, which was written in 1998.

So were those lines in the comic? I definately intend to check that out, too. I just wanted to see the movie before I read it.

Flagg wrote:So were those lines in the comic? I definately intend to check that out, too. I just wanted to see the movie before I read it.

Pretty much everything not dealing with the whole Queen and Council subplot was taking directly from the comic.

Erik von Nein wrote:

Flagg wrote:So were those lines in the comic? I definately intend to check that out, too. I just wanted to see the movie before I read it.

Pretty much everything not dealing with the whole Queen and Council subplot was taking directly from the comic.

Well, the Queen and Council subplot was where just about all of the lines I had a problem with were.

TithonusSyndrome wrote: 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.

the way I understand it, helmet+greaves+bigass shield was a common historical level of armor at the time, and offered adequate coverage and excellent mobility without the addition of a restrictive and heavy bronze breastplate.

The idea of the unlawful war making Leonidas into Bush falls apart at any closer examination though. You'd need to be a crazyperson to believe that the US army is a small little band of Spartans holding off the insurgent Horde of bazillions of regimented troops led by an opressive slavedriver Emperor that seeks to invade the US. The Republicans like to spin it exactly that way, but it's certainly not true, nor is it an opinion you could really consider a popular one in Hollywood.

If anything, the Persian demand of land and water is like the US request of landbases in Saudi Arabia that pissed off Osama, and it's easier to make a paralell between Bush and Xerses in other ways.

Lord Zentei wrote: 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'm convinced that the Persian elite looked nothing like the black African Persians featured in Frank Miller's 300 even if some of them were dark skinned (but still Caucasian). But have they reconstructed King Tut and he looked like this:


He looks like Vin Diesel.

And here's Queen Nerfetiti:


She reminds me of Vanessa Williams crossed with Grace Jones.

I realise many Ancient Egyptians would've been Caucasian but many of them would be black as well, only there would be a high degree of intermarriage between the various ethinic groups from Africa, Southeastern Europe and West Asia. And comparing Egyptians with Nubians is like comparing Barack Obama with a guy from the Congo.

In fact that's him here:

I could see some crackpot deciding that 300 was pro-Iraq, but I really think it does not work at all; the 300 are fighting a defensive war, on their own territory, without support from their government and people, started by a foreign power. There is no pretext of exporting democracy to another land or of overthrowing Xerxes or of liberating the Persians or of disarming Xerxes's Elephants of Mass Destruction. There is no debate as to whether the Persians are actually coming or if said Elephants are really there or not.

If the movie was intended to be pro-Iraq, it doesn't argue it well at all. If it wasn't, than any perception thereof is false. Either way I think looking at 300 as a pro-Iraq war movie is rather absurd, unless you'd like to tell me that Bush/Fox News/Team America has permanently co-opted the notion of "sometimes people must sacrifice themselves to defend their nation".

Now, what 300 does do is portray a specific war as a glorious event, and this is nothing new at all either - we have a whole mess of WW2 movies which do that, too - although it is quite out of fashion at the moment.

The Original Nex wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:

The Original Nex wrote: 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.

Let's put it this way: ALL of the more well-read white-supremacists wank Thermopylae, Sparta, and Ancient Greece in general, citing the same basic socio-political ideology that this movie is pushing. If you had spent time reading white-supremacist websites, then you'd probably have the same reaction that I did.

Uraniun235 wrote:I could see some crackpot deciding that 300 was pro-Iraq, but I really think it does not work at all; the 300 are fighting a defensive war, on their own territory, without support from their government and people, started by a foreign power. There is no pretext of exporting democracy to another land or of overthrowing Xerxes or of liberating the Persians or of disarming Xerxes's Elephants of Mass Destruction. There is no debate as to whether the Persians are actually coming or if said Elephants are really there or not.

OK, so you've shown that it is not a precise analogue to the real situation with the Iraq War. Now compare it to the delusional right-wing Bush Republitard's view of the Iraq War. Those fuckers do think that Iraq is basically a defensive war. They do think it was started by the other side. They do think there's no doubt whatsoever about the magnitude of the threat. It may not be a very good analogue to the reality of Iraq, but it's a pretty good analogue to the average redneck's notion of Iraq.

Big Orange wrote:I realise many Ancient Egyptians would've been Caucasian but many of them would be black as well, only there would be a high degree of intermarriage between the various ethinic groups from Africa, Southeastern Europe and West Asia. And comparing Egyptians with Nubians is like comparing Barack Obama with a guy from the Congo.

In fact that's him here:

http://starbulletin.com/2004/07/25/news/art7b.jpg

What part of "large contingents of troops, not sections of whatever Egyptian levies were present" is failing to get across? Also, I pointed out that Egypt was only recently reconquered at that point, so its even doubtful that there would even be any such levies.

"High degree of intermarriage" -- throughout the Middle East, compared with modern times? No: not enough mass migration. Within Egypt - entirely possible, though that's still subject to the qualifiers I placed above. Elsewhere, there would be slaves and individuals here and there, not formations.

I understand that Egypt was still unstable, Lord Zentei, so the Egyptians wouldn't make up the bulk of Persian auxiliary forces and I know the Persian aristocratic elite were uniformly Caucasian, but I disagree that Egypt itself would've been monolithic in it's overall ethnic make up and blacks would not be uncommon.

Well the Iranian do have a right to be angered by the depictions of their ancestors as monsters. I would ask how would you feel if your ancestors were depicted as such but I know that someone would answer "I wouldn't care" but I know that I'd be angered/disgusted if my ancestors were depicted as such.

Big Orange wrote:I understand that Egypt was still unstable, Lord Zentei, so the Egyptians wouldn't make up the bulk of Persian auxiliary forces and I know the Persian aristocratic elite were uniformly Caucasian, but I disagree that Egypt itself would've been monolithic in it's overall ethnic make up and blacks would not be uncommon.

I didn't say it would be "monolithic". That's a mite strongly put. There would be ethnic minorities, only rather less than there are today.

Other than that, we seem to agree now.

Darth Wong wrote:

Uraniun235 wrote:I could see some crackpot deciding that 300 was pro-Iraq, but I really think it does not work at all; the 300 are fighting a defensive war, on their own territory, without support from their government and people, started by a foreign power. There is no pretext of exporting democracy to another land or of overthrowing Xerxes or of liberating the Persians or of disarming Xerxes's Elephants of Mass Destruction. There is no debate as to whether the Persians are actually coming or if said Elephants are really there or not.

OK, so you've shown that it is not a precise analogue to the real situation with the Iraq War. Now compare it to the delusional right-wing Bush Republitard's view of the Iraq War. Those fuckers do think that Iraq is basically a defensive war. They do think it was started by the other side. They do think there's no doubt whatsoever about the magnitude of the threat. It may not be a very good analogue to the reality of Iraq, but it's a pretty good analogue to the average redneck's notion of Iraq.

You're quite right. And of course, Xerxes' demand for submission could be twisted into the common "those A-rabs want us to pull out of Saudi Arabia? we can't appease them! that's bull-shit!" (and, to my great embarrassment, I know that I pulled out the appeasement word once or twice before)

300 would make for a horrible pro-Iraq war movie, but I suppose that doesn't stop it from being one. I'm personally reluctant to subscribe to the notion because I thought it was fun mindless violence and I don't like the idea of having thoroughly enjoyed a propaganda piece without realizing what it was, but I'll admit that's a wholly emotional reaction.

Your point regarding white-supremacist websites is also well-taken. That aspect didn't hit me particularly hard, but then I haven't taken much time to look at white-supremacist claims in any sort of detail.

Wouldn't you know it, but Victor Davis Hanson was on Glenn Beck's TV show and both were saying that the negative reaction to the movie was (in a classic example of Projection) the result of Iranians being evil and Europeans being pansies (a number of people in a Berlin threatre walked out of the movie, according to the dimwitted war whores).

It couldn't be that with Hitler, Mussolini and Franco a part of living memory among a number of western Europeans that most find moronic jingoism and chest-thumping stupidity in bad taste. Nah, it's because they're too sophisticated to realize that America is God's gift to the world and that we are the forces of Light while any who say otherwise are Evil -or Europussies.

Oh God, it's just a fucking movie. A little band of Greek men takes on an empire and gives them hell. It's not gay porn, it's not a Hollywood commentary on the Iraq War, it's not anti-black propaganda (if anything, it'd be anti-arab); it's just an action movie about a famous battle.

The fact that white supremicists wank over this battle is meaningless; there are plenty of people who are interested in Nazi Germany who don't hold neo-nazi tendancies, and there are plenty of filmgoers who can watch a bunch of Greek men fight a horde of Persian men without holding white supremicist beliefs.

Tanasinn wrote:Oh God, it's just a fucking movie.

Wow, what a brilliant point! Did you figure that out all by yourself? None of us could have possibly realized that before you piped up! Thank you for bringing your brilliant commentary into this thread. I feel that we are all a little more enlightened just knowing that you are here.

Covenant wrote:The idea of the unlawful war making Leonidas into Bush falls apart at any closer examination though. You'd need to be a crazyperson to believe that the US army is a small little band of Spartans holding off the insurgent Horde of bazillions of regimented troops led by an opressive slavedriver Emperor that seeks to invade the US. The Republicans like to spin it exactly that way, but it's certainly not true, nor is it an opinion you could really consider a popular one in Hollywood.

If anything, the Persian demand of land and water is like the US request of landbases in Saudi Arabia that pissed off Osama, and it's easier to make a paralell between Bush and Xerses in other ways.

Yeah, but the people most likely to buy into this shit are the people who think Fox News is the only unbiased TV "news" outlet. Their idea of "closer examination" is sticking their finger in their navel and sniffing it to see if they need to take their weekly shower yet.

And yes, they view the war in Iraq as "the US army is a small little band of Spartans holding off the insurgent Horde of bazillions of regimented troops led by an opressive slavedriver Emperor that seeks to invade the US".

ArmorPierce wrote:Well the Iranian do have a right to be angered by the depictions of their ancestors as monsters. I would ask how would you feel if your ancestors were depicted as such but I know that someone would answer "I wouldn't care" but I know that I'd be angered/disgusted if my ancestors were depicted as such.

My ancestors are commonly depicted as monsters. Being that some of them were slaveship crewmen out of New Bedford MA, and others were white Southerners before and during the civil war I can't say I can complain. Of course those are pretty accurate representations, and to my knowledge the Persian Empire wasn't any more barbaric in comparison to other civilizations of the time, so their descendants may have cause to complain.

Generally though, I can't see getting insulted over a movie which distorts events which happened over 2000 years ago. Unless ala Mel Gibson there is some obvious attempt at provoking hatred against an ethnic population. I can't really say there was any of that in this movie. They made it pretty damned clear that the Spartans weren't beacons of humanity themselves.

Flagg wrote:

Covenant wrote:The idea of the unlawful war making Leonidas into Bush falls apart at any closer examination though. You'd need to be a crazyperson to believe that the US army is a small little band of Spartans holding off the insurgent Horde of bazillions of regimented troops led by an opressive slavedriver Emperor that seeks to invade the US. The Republicans like to spin it exactly that way, but it's certainly not true, nor is it an opinion you could really consider a popular one in Hollywood.

If anything, the Persian demand of land and water is like the US request of landbases in Saudi Arabia that pissed off Osama, and it's easier to make a paralell between Bush and Xerses in other ways.

Yeah, but the people most likely to buy into this shit are the people who think Fox News is the only unbiased TV "news" outlet. Their idea of "closer examination" is sticking their finger in their navel and sniffing it to see if they need to take their weekly shower yet.

And yes, they view the war in Iraq as "the US army is a small little band of Spartans holding off the insurgent Horde of bazillions of regimented troops led by an opressive slavedriver Emperor that seeks to invade the US".

As I noted, that's exactly the kind of worldview the republicans spin it as. I acknowledge that they could certainly get that feel from the movie. I don't think it IS an intrinsic message of the movie though, any more than the gay/manrape symbolism of Independence Day (ID4) was actually reinforced throughout the movie on purpose... or that it wouldn't take an odd reading of it to see it at all.

So I was disputing that this is a message that the film has, and saying that from a film analysis POV it doesn't stand up. I liked the movie and see no issue with it, but I know how to analyze a film, and I know how it could be misconstrued, especially by people with an agenda and little intellectual honesty.

However, to a layperson, it's certainly easy to interpert it that way even without tuning into Faux News. The next question is, then, were the movie makers irresponsible during the conceptualization and casting of the film by not making it more clear that this was not a battle of races, clash of civilizations, or anything other than a heroic last stand?

I would say that they don't have a responsibility to disprove a hypothetical interpertation, but that there were definately casting and art choices that were unnecessary to the story, and that any time you demonize a historical people you run the risk of offending many. Given our current political climate, that may have been irresponsible.

This may not be a good time for a movie maker to create a story glorifying the Crusades, for example, especially if they gave Saladin the same treatment they gave Xerses' Immortals.

Regardless, what's this argument about?* I agree that it could be easy to see this as a White Force of Reason vs. Not-White Force of Crazy with the white folks being badass freedom loving mofos killing them not free greedy darkies who bribe our weak, law-loving senates. But since you also paint these people as already lost to the Right Wing Bullshit machine, I'm not sure how this is suprising. I bet they could get similar messages from almost any other movie, while dismissing Hollywood in the same breath as a liberal enclave of weak Jewish freedom haters.

*I mean between several other people on this topic. I don't think flagg and I are arguing.

As for calling someone's ancestors a monster, I still say that the Immortals were supposed to be Demons or something, based on the comments heard earlier. Besides, isn't the idea that just because you had some uglyass relatives (like Apes) that you're somehow impure or less human itself the foundation of racist and creationist reactionary bullshit? I'm not sure I should even dignify someone's anger about this. It's not like just because the US army in WWII employed Superman to fight the Axis that all Americans are somehow mutant halfbreed aliens.

I should be so lucky to be descended from badass mutant demon ninjas. I'm not so sure what they're so mad at. It's not like your standard Midwestern German/Irish mix has some amazingly glorious past to look back on. I'd rather be the great great grandson of a demon ninja than some jackass who grew potatos.

I'm still not satisfied why the movie makers wanted to depict a real life military organisation as Uruk-Hai like creatures when even Frank Miller originally depicted these elite troops as more or less normal humans, even though they were wearing fearful black robes and scowling masks. And it seems insensitive when the Persian Immortals actually existed and were entirely made up of ordinary and quite cultivated humans, not snarling monstrosities from the land of Middle-Earth (I would be annoyed if the Romans and Mongolians were depicted as having monsters in their ranks).

ArmorPierce wrote:Well the Iranian do have a right to be angered by the depictions of their ancestors as monsters. I would ask how would you feel if your ancestors were depicted as such but I know that someone would answer "I wouldn't care" but I know that I'd be angered/disgusted if my ancestors were depicted as such.

My ancestors were Vikings, the most ferocious barbarians ever to lay waste to Europe The Glory Days! I'm more upset when they're portrayed as a pack of anemic merchants.