Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/
Ah, havent read the graphic novel. Must have ended up on the virtual cutting room floor.Lord Zentei wrote:The fall of the 700 Thespians was shown in the graphic novel, however.The Original Nex wrote:They did show the Spartans banding up with a larger contingent of Arcandians and mentions Phocians. This could imply that the other Greek nations were present. But the film certainly wanked the Spartans, depicting the holding action on the 3rd day as Spartan honor, when more likely Leonidas was acting to cover the retreat of the main Greek force, where in the film he treats the Arcadians with disdain for leaving.
The film also fails to feature the 1000 Thesspians who ALSO stayed behind and were slaughtered with the 300 Spartans.
Hmm, I thought he said something to the effect that they should search their hearts to do the right thing, or something of the sort, though it may have been another one of the "remember us and our sacrifice" schpeals. It's completely possible I misinterpreted the meaning of the line.Also, Leonidas did not show the Arcadians any particular contempt as they left; just the uncompromising "a Spartan never retreats! A Spartan never surrenders!" line.
You'd probably have critics calling it sexist.salm wrote:If all the Spartans were female and running around in bikinis would it be lesbian? Probably not.
[/quote]They did show the Spartans banding up with a larger contingent of Arcandians and mentions Phocians. This could imply that the other Greek nations were present. But the film certainly wanked the Spartans, depicting the holding action on the 3rd day as Spartan honor, when more likely Leonidas was acting to cover the retreat of the main Greek force, where in the film he treats the Arcadians with disdain for leaving.
The film also fails to feature the 1000 Thesspians who ALSO stayed behind and were slaughtered with the 300 Spartans.
No, but I might watch it -on cable.salm wrote:If all the Spartans were female and running around in bikinis would it be lesbian?
Depends on how hot they are.Probably not.
If Leonidas was helping his queen pick out curtains, agreeing to watch chick flicks with her, telling her how much he loves her in front of other people, and how he can't wait for the next Sarah McLachlan CD and cuddling after sex, maybe.Come to think of itWhile this movie does offer an aweful lot of eye candy i guess it´s more targeted at the female audience because the female audience is a lot more numerous than the gay audience.
Pretty much. The movie follows the graphic novel, just no naked, and they add a subplot for the terminally stupid(and the add more scenes with the Queen to justify her existence).Vympel wrote:Anyway- let's say 300 is gay- or perhaps more accurately, definitely appeals to gay men because of the cast/style.
So what? That's sure as fuck not going to stop me from watching it. By most reports I've heard it kicks ass. It is a good war/action movie, if it follows the comic (which I own) as faithfully as I've seen.
Because most aspects of Persian and Greek culture would be outdated or abhorrent to our modern sensibilities, so naturally the Persians and Greeks would be ethically despicable by our standards.Darth Wong wrote:Explain why we should not do this.Big Orange wrote:Why are people applying their own modern morality and ideas on two alien, extinct cultures?
You cannot make a real excuse for a very bad culture like Sparta but you cannot condemn individual Spartans who were born into a society where arbitrary state sponsored death hung over them from the cradle to a early grave (which could explain why the Spartan elderly were respected). And while you could scoff at Athens' pseudo-democracy and Greek slavery, do you think the Persian Empire did not practice slavery either? And what about their absolute monarchs with absolute power corrupting absolutely? At least the Greeks had mildly more progressive government systems with Athens' fairly open aristocratic plutocracy with no real dictator in charge and even Spartan having no real absolute monarch (they had figure head kings who were constantly watched).There is a difference between an explanation and an excuse.
It's supposedly racist that a non-Caucasian is the emperor of a vast imperial superpower that commands seemingly endless wealth, power and people? And looking at Frank Miller's graphic novel, I noticed that many Spartans or other assorted Greeks didn't look that much different to the average Persian.How can you not understand the accusations of racism when you go on to illustrate precisely why the film is obviously racist?
The Persian Empire encompassed territories raning from Anatolia to Egypt to Mesopotamia, up near India.Persian territory encompassed blocs of Africa did it not? Therefore the presence of dark-skinned Persians is to be expected. Xerxes himself was portrayed as no darker than Leonidas, or at least, not appreciably so.
If it was targeted at female audiences, then yes, I would definitely say that it carries some heavy lesbian overtones.salm wrote:If all the Spartans were female and running around in bikinis would it be lesbian? Probably not.
Of course, because it must be one or the other! It's not as if there's a term for people or themes that include both homosexuality and heterosexuality, right? Or is there? There certainly seem to be a lot of similar terms, like binary, or bilingual, or binomial, or binoculars ...Cos Dashit wrote:I don't see how this movie is gay. Yes, there were half-naked fit men in capes running around, but this was Greece people. They also fail to mention the virtually-naked female "Oracle", a decidedly heterosexual sex scene, and the scene with Xerxes and about ten scantily clad/naked women dancing and even making out with each other. Couple this with the violence and blood, this film is definitely for heterosexual guys.
So? How does that even vaguely address my original point that the much-ballyhooed moral superiority of Greek civilization over Persian civilization is a bunch of bullshit? If anything, you're agreeing with me.Big Orange wrote:Because most aspects of Persian and Greek culture would be outdated or abhorrent to our modern sensibilities, so naturally the Persians and Greeks would be ethically despicable by our standards.
It's racist when they're made out to be villains who "coincidentally" tend to have darker skin, when there is no real reason to believe that there was any particular moral superiority on the part of either side (or that the Persians even had darker skin).Big Orange wrote:It's supposedly racist that a non-Caucasian is the emperor of a vast imperial superpower that commands seemingly endless wealth, power and people?
I must have missed the memo when it was declared that you can excuse a movie's flaws by pointing to the graphic novel which inspired it. As if I should be expected to do comic book research before I watch a movie in order to put in proper context.Big Orange wrote:And looking at Frank Miller's graphic novel, I noticed that many Spartans or other assorted Greeks didn't look that much different to the average Persian.
What's sort of amusing about that is leftists are doing the exact opposite.Elfdart wrote:I saw
I think it's funny how war whores are trying to grab onto the movie since it depicts white "heroes" fighting against hordes of Persian darkies. That smarmy putz Michael Medved practically blew a load over the movie last Friday.
In other words: It's bad because its whites against brown people, and because its a war movie that isn't anti-war.A Movie Only a Spartan Could Love
The battle epic 300.
By Dana Stevens
Posted Thursday, March 8, 2007, at 7:15 PM ET
If 300, the new battle epic based on the graphic novel by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley, had been made in Germany in the mid-1930s, it would be studied today alongside The Eternal Jew as a textbook example of how race-baiting fantasy and nationalist myth can serve as an incitement to total war. Since it's a product of the post-ideological, post-Xbox 21st century, 300 will instead be talked about as a technical achievement, the next blip on the increasingly blurry line between movies and video games.
Directed by Zack Snyder, whose first feature film was the 2004 makeover of the horror classic Dawn of the Dead, 300 digitally re-creates the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C., where, according to classical history and legend, the Spartan king Leonidas led a force of only 300 men against a Persian enemy numbering in the hundreds of thousands. The comic fanboys who make up 300's primary audience demographic aren't likely to get hung up on the movie's historical content, much less any parallels with present-day politics. But what's maddening about 300 (besides the paralyzing monotony of watching chiseled white guys make shish kebabs from swarthy Persians for 116 indistinguishable minutes) is that no one involved—not Miller, not Snyder, not one of the army of screenwriters, art directors, and tech wizards who mounted this empty, gorgeous spectacle—seems to have noticed that we're in the middle of an actual war. With actual Persians (or at least denizens of that vast swath of land once occupied by the Persian empire).
In interviews, Snyder insists that he "really just wanted to make a movie that is a ride"—a perfectly fine ambition for any filmmaker, especially one inspired by the comics. And visually, 300 is thrilling, color-processed to a burnished, monochromatic copper, and packed with painterly, if static, tableaux vivants. But to cast 300 as a purely apolitical romp of an action film smacks of either disingenuousness or complete obliviousness. One of the few war movies I've seen in the past two decades that doesn't include at least some nod in the direction of antiwar sentiment, 300 is a mythic ode to righteous bellicosity. In at least one way, the film is true to the ethos of ancient Greece: It conflates moral excellence and physical beauty (which, in this movie, means being young, white, male, and fresh from the gyms of Brentwood).
Here are just a few of the categories that are not-so-vaguely conflated with the "bad" (i.e., Persian) side in the movie: black people. Brown people. Disfigured people. Gay men (not gay in the buff, homoerotic Spartan fashion, but in the effeminate Persian style). Lesbians. Disfigured lesbians. Ten-foot-tall giants with filed teeth and lobster claws. Elephants and rhinos (filthy creatures both). The Persian commander, the god-king Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) is a towering, bald club fag with facial piercings, kohl-rimmed eyes, and a disturbing predilection for making people kneel before him.
Meanwhile, the Spartans, clad in naught but leather man-briefs, fight under the stern command of Leonidas (Gerard Butler), whose warrior ethic was forged during a childhood spent fighting wolves in the snow. Leonidas likes to rally the troops with bellowed speeches about "freedom," "honor," and "glory," promising that they will be remembered for having created "a world free from mysticism and tyranny." (The men's usual response, a fist-pumping "A-whoo! A-whoo!" sounds strangely fratty.) But Leonidas is not above playing the tyrant himself. When a messenger from Xerxes arrives bearing news Leonidas doesn't like, he hurls the man, against all protocol, down a convenient bottomless well in the center of town. "This is blasphemy! This is madness!" says the messenger, pleading for his life. "This is Sparta," Leonidas replies. So, if Spartan law is defined by "whatever Leonidas wants," what are the 300 fighting for, anyway? And why does that sound depressingly familiar?
Another of the Spartans' less-than-glorious customs is the practice of eugenics, hurling any less-than-perfect infant off a cliff onto a huge pile of baby skeletons. Unfortunately for the 300 at Thermopylae, this system of racial cleansing isn't foolproof: One deformed hunchback, Ephialtes (Andrew Tiernan), manages to make it to adulthood and begs Leonidas for a chance to serve Sparta in the 300. Sure enough, when he's turned down, the hunchback confirms his moral weakness by accepting Xerxes' offer to join ranks with the Persians.
Meanwhile, back home in Sparta, Leonida's wife, Gorgo (Lena Headey), engages in some plot-padding political intrigue with the evil Theron (The Wire's Dominic West, looking particularly risible in classical drapery). Theron wants to persuade the Spartan council not to send reinforcements to the desperately outnumbered 300 (what is he, a Democrat?). The noble and sexy Gorgo finally gives herself to Theron in exchange for a chance to persuade the council. "This will not be over quickly," the villain warns as he pins her against a temple pillar. "You will not enjoy this." It might have been Zack Snyder himself whispering in my ear, and he would have been right.
In a classic example of the epic understatement known as litotes, Variety's reviewer observes that the picture's vision of the West as a heroic contingent of sculpted badasses and the East as a cauldron perversion and iniquity "might be greeted with muted enthusiasm in the Middle East." Replace the words "muted enthusiasm" with "a roadside bomb," and you've got yourself a tagline for the Baghdad premiere.
Bullshit. The Persians were depicted as subsaharan African. The Greeks were depicted as mediterranean white.Big Orange wrote:And looking at Frank Miller's graphic novel, I noticed that many Spartans or other assorted Greeks didn't look that much different to the average Persian.
The Persian Empire did have a slice of Africa, specifically Egypt -- the Egyptians are and were not subsaharans. Moreover, the preponderance of dark skin in the Persian camp is not explained thereby.Persian territory encompassed blocs of Africa did it not? Therefore the presence of dark-skinned Persians is to be expected. Xerxes himself was portrayed as no darker than Leonidas, or at least, not appreciably so.
Oh for fuck's sake- it's just a very, very simplistic war movie/ comic book. It's got no bloody underlying political message. Few stood against many and kicked ass and saved their country. Their country sucked. Big shit.A Movie Only a Spartan Could Love
The battle epic 300.
By Dana Stevens
Are you saying that you disagree with all of the people who said that Mel Gibson has displayed a consistent anti-English bias in his films?Vympel wrote:I mean really, was there dipshit commentary like this when Braveheart came out?
So why do you categorically reject the notion of any political intent behind them? Do you think they accidentally made Greece vs Persia into "white vs black"?That's not to say I don't approve of some of the obvious choices in the comic and film-
I realise the Spartans were broadly Caucasian but so were most of the Persian grunts - only the Persian aristocrats seemed to be subsaharan Africans which merely seems unrealistic. And in my mind Jews, Arabs, Persians, Indians and Berbers have always been mostly Caucasian as well.Lord Zentei wrote:Bullshit. The Persians were depicted as subsaharan African. The Greeks were depicted as mediterranean white.Big Orange wrote:And looking at Frank Miller's graphic novel, I noticed that many Spartans or other assorted Greeks didn't look that much different to the average Persian.
And people, south Europeans are white. Get over these retarded US "anything not north European is not white" ideas.
In Ancient Egypt many Nubians could've likely been Sub-Saharan blacks or East African blacks similar to modern Ethiopians or Somalians - and what about the River Nile going right into Sub-Sahara Africa?The Persian Empire did have a slice of Africa, specifically Egypt -- the Egyptians are and were not subsaharans. Moreover, the preponderance of dark skin in the Persian camp is not explained thereby.Persian territory encompassed blocs of Africa did it not? Therefore the presence of dark-skinned Persians is to be expected. Xerxes himself was portrayed as no darker than Leonidas, or at least, not appreciably so.
No way- but that's not the commentary I'm referring to- I mean the scoffing about use of the word "freedom" and prattling about "tyranny" as if it can only have the meaning we want in the review I quoted in my reply .Darth Wong wrote: Are you saying that you disagree with all of the people who said that Mel Gibson has displayed a consistent anti-English bias in his films?
Because the story of the comic is nothing but a very simple-minded myth-making fantasy. It's all gory art with a smattering of dialog to break it up. If there's an underlying racial message, I certainly don't see it. So I find it hard to believe that in adapting it for film Zack Snyder divined some sort of clearly visible racial-political intent out of it and sought to turn it into some sort of political statement. Heck, the outright confusion of the reviewers trying to divine greater meaning out of it seems to make this movie be all things to all people, message-wise.So why do you categorically reject the notion of any political intent behind them?
Sure (though I wouldn't say black, I'd simply say dark). Accidentally isn't the word I'd use, however- unconcious, though, quite possibly. Hell, it could still have been conciously or unconciously racist choice (ie. simply assume that the Greeks as Europeans should be white and Persians should be dark, because that's what the casting director's stereotypes were) but that doesn't mean it's a political/racial tale in and of itself.Do you think they accidentally made Greece vs Persia into "white vs black"?
And if most of Scotland's population was slaves at the time, you don't think people would have found the film's use of the rallying cry "Freedom" more offensive than they did?Vympel wrote:No way- but that's not the commentary I'm referring to- I mean the scoffing about use of the word "freedom" and prattling about "tyranny" as if it can only have the meaning we want in the review I quoted in my reply.
So? You could say the same thing about all of the old 1930s action movies and serials, yet nobody hesitates today to say that many of those old films were racist.Because the story of the comic is nothing but a very simple-minded myth-making fantasy.
So the fact that physical male (and coincidentally light-skinned) beauty is depicted as directly correlational with righteousness doesn't strike you as a message? What is it, then?It's all gory art with a smattering of dialog to break it up. If there's an underlying racial message, I certainly don't see it.
Who gives a shit if he sought to make a political statement? The makers of all those old racist 1930s movies weren't trying to make a political statement either. It was simply instinctive to them to think that dark skin = barbaric.So I find it hard to believe that in adapting it for film Zack Snyder divined some sort of clearly visible racial-political intent out of it and sought to turn it into some sort of political statement.
I don't see much confusion. Virtually all of the reviewers who say they dislike the messages of the film say the same two things:Heck, the outright confusion of the reviewers trying to divine greater meaning out of it seems to make this movie be all things to all people, message-wise.
Not really, no- well, well-informed people who would comment on this sort of thing, anyway. Heck, most of Scotland's population were indentured peasantry being lorded over by nobles, and you had one such noble (William Wallace) trying to put their own autocrat on the throne rather than someone elses. Some freedom. It's not so different.Darth Wong wrote: And if most of Scotland's population was slaves at the time, you don't think people would have found the film's use of the rallying cry "Freedom" more offensive than they did?
It depends on the movie/serial in question- I know it's not in the date order, but let's take Zulu. Whites triumph over blacks. But I don't think it's racist- it's not the point of the movie- it's a tale of military heroism that takes place in a period of British history that was of course shockingly racist.So? You could say the same thing about all of the old 1930s action movies and serials, yet nobody hesitates today to say that those old films were racist.
No, because the leader of the enemy is even more physically imposing than Leonidas. He towers over him and is just as "beautiful", to use that word. Sure, he's depicted as more exotic and his sexuality is somewhat ambiguous (I have no idea about inter-gay prejudices, I didn't know what the hell a "club" gay was until I heard about this storm in a teacup).So the act that physical male (and coincidentally light-skinned) beauty is depicted as directly correlational with righteousness doesn't strike you as a message? What is it, then?
Granted- I said as much in my last post.Who gives a shit if he sought to make a political statement? The makers of all those old racist 1930s movies weren't trying to make a political statement either. It was simply instinctive to them to think that dark skin = barbaric.
Agreed, as I said earlier, but at the same time I don't think we're meant to approve of the Spartan's barbarous ways as described in the comic and the film, which is what I think Ephilates depiction was meant to tie in with. It is IMO unfair to say that 300 (the comic, in any event) unequivocally equates ugliness with evil.I don't see much confusion. Virtually all of the reviewers who say they dislike the messages of the film say the same two things:
1) The movie resurrects the primitive medieval notion that ugliness = evil, and that the pinnacle of human perfection happens to be a white man. This notion was most recently resurrected by the Nazis, so they make that connection as well.
I'd have to watch the movie before I decide on that one- the Spartan's stand was glorious, but the war was sure as shit depicted as ugly and brutish.2) The movie resurrects the primitive medieval notion that war is a glorious thing, rather than an ugly brutish affair
I was referring more to the confusion between right wing and left wing commentators on the political message to take from this (ie. Bush is Xerxes! Bush is Leonidas! Hordes= US! Spartans = US! Spartans are gay! Spartans are straight! Xerxes means gays are evil! etc and so on)I don't see any "confusion" on this.