StarDestroyer.Net BBS

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? 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.

Just a comment but aside from the messengers we see throughout the film most of the persian army that we see doesn't look much, if any darker than the spartans.

Big Orange wrote: 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.

That's great for you, but I'd wager the average American moviegoer doesn't see things that way.

Hell, it's probably worse that only the Persian aristocrats and envoys were non-whites while the rank and file were white: "Look at them darkies forcing those poor white slaves to fight their Greek brothers!" Further, the majority of the Persian troops wore turbans and head-scarves — distancing them from White, western culture even if the actors portraying them didn't have dark skin.

Saying Frank Miller and Zak Snyder didn't intentionally set out to make a Black/Arab versus White film is one thing. But to deny that people can watch this film and take that theme away from it is either incredibly naive or willfully ignorant.

Grasscutter wrote:

Big Orange wrote: 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.

That's great for you, but I'd wager the average American moviegoer doesn't see things that way.

Hell, it's probably worse that only the Persian aristocrats and envoys were non-whites while the rank and file were white: "Look at them darkies forcing those poor white slaves to fight their Greek brothers!" Further, the majority of the Persian troops wore turbans and head-scarves — distancing them from White, western culture even if the actors portraying them didn't have dark skin.

Saying Frank Miller and Zak Snyder didn't intentionally set out to make a Black/Arab versus White film is one thing. But to deny that people can watch this film and take that theme away from it is either incredibly naive or willfully ignorant.

They can take just about any message from a movie that they can falsely percieve to be there. I'm not sure what this debate is about. It's certainly possible for them to go "Those not-quite-brown Greeks sho' did some beatin's on some o' those slightly-more-darkerer Persians!" based on the fact that some black guys and Apophis ran the Persians.

I said early on and I'd say again, the movie itself gave a very complicated set of messages, and it's problematic to try to wrench from it a political spin.

I think we can definately be sure that Sparta & Leonidas are not the war on terror nations. The defiant stand against an onrushing horde of evil hasn't got the allegorical paralell and the message fails to deliver those crucial hints at certain points. I'm sure soldiers are going to watch this and consider it a great movie that's pro-them, but this is still up in the Patton section as far as "movies that can be interperted by both sides" go.

It would have been incredibly easy to make a movie that was more potently a symbol of that ideology if they wanted, and it seems they did avoid that. One would have to be hard pressed to consider Bush the Younger as any variety of Spartan, except perhaps for the conniving ratass politician, so you'd need to be taking that correlation in the broadest possible sense. Which someone might do. But even if we made the Greeks highly-tanned and with flabby abs, wearing armor, and made the Persians white as snow and threw them together, all you'd get is a totally different movie with flaws that still exist. It's hard to contrive a movie that disallows improper readings of it.

People with axes to grind will by-God put a racial context to any entertainment they can, regardless of what is or isn't there.

"Neimoidians = evil greedy Asians", anyone?

After browsing through a book about the art production behind 300 I was mildly annoyed that the Persians seemed to have the most LotR style freaks and monsters - the Persian Immortals wore black Easterling style robes with steel Greek style theatre masks, which is creative on a certain level, but for some reason they're essentially Uruk-Hai instead of normal humans. And the Persian executioner is an morbidly obese Ogre with bone blades instead of hands.

I mean come on, the Persian elite warriors looked more like this:



Instead of this:

Well, the whole thing behind the Immortals was that they in fact did cover their faces in masks so that they had no identity, they could not be killed as they would simply give the mask to the next guy and the numbers would not be diminished from losses.

History tells that they wore black cloths over their faces, Miller just stepped it up a notch with shiny metal masks over the cloth, sounds like reasonable artistic liscence.

Big Orange: The Persians were pretty much all depicted as African in the graphic novel.

Big Orange wrote:

Lord Zentei wrote: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.

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?

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").

Personally, I'm going to see it for entertainment. If you're going to watch a comic book inspired movie and derive your socio-political or moral code or even history from it, then you're a fucking moron. Unlike most of the population, I gather, I will be seeing the movie, hopefully enjoying it, then coming out and going "That was a fine use of two hours, but I sure don't wish I could fight TO THE DEATH against a vast army, for war is not pleasant. I certainly don't buy the idea that black is always evil and white is always good, because that's one big fallacy, forget the name of it though".

At the end of the day, like Coyote said, you can try and spin anything your way and it's not like the white and black thing is because black people are stupid and evil and ugly while white people are the epitome of perfection (it's far more ingrained than that, given darkness is the unknown, people prefer warmth and light etc.). To conclude that such things are racist down to racial leanings of the creators is assuming there is a motive behind that, which isn't always the case. Obviously, in the early days of cinema, most of society saw blacks as lesser people which certainly showed in the media at the time. The furore over LotR and race was another example, although again, it can be simply seen as good and bad being light and darkness, although the text being written in a less PC time may indicate otherwise (the wanking of the elves being a perfect Aryan like society is annoying). You could argue the same of Star Wars, with the white clad Luke fighting the black clad Vader, or any fantasy game where "white magick" is healing and used for good, while "black magicks" are harmful. I think it's a bit simplistic to assume this whole line of reasoning is down simply to ethnic origins.

Anyway, nothing's stopped morons from taking things out-of-context before or seeing messages where there isn't anything more meaningful than gory fights for a couple hours. That problem won't go away, but I like to think no one here is going to seriously argue how historically inaccurate a damn work of fiction is or expect it to be some form of moral guidance.

KrauserKrauser wrote:Well, the whole thing behind the Immortals was that they in fact did cover their faces in masks so that they had no identity, they could not be killed as they would simply give the mask to the next guy and the numbers would not be diminished from losses.

History tells that they wore black cloths over their faces, Miller just stepped it up a notch with shiny metal masks over the cloth, sounds like reasonable artistic liscence.

In the graphic novel, the Easter- eh, Persian Immortal uniforms looked very cool, but in the movie version of 300 the Immortals themselves resemble Uruk-Hai with clawed feet, reptile hands and fanged mouths (I saw LotR style creature prosthetics in the making of book, in addition to concept sketches of Perisian Immortals looking like goblins or zombies). I don't mind the fictional armour or weapons of the Persian Immortals, it is their monsterous Orc/Uruk-Hai like appearance that bothers me (they even have a Immortal "champion" that closely resembles the real berserker Uruk-Hai I’ve shown above ).

Darth Wong wrote:

Vympel wrote: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 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 may be just geographical and ethnological ignorance. They might have thought : "Greece is in Europe , Persia in Asia , ergo Greeks are white and Persians are darker.". But I would not bet any money on that. They may be unconscioussly racist. I just think that in the absence of some more information about the creators of this movie the only thing sure is that it is not historically correct portrayal.

Now, I understand how homosexuality was viewed and largely accepted (even encouraged, to a degree) in Ancient Greece; however, I do not thinks this film is "gay". So there are really, really HOT men running around in speedos and gay guys would find that attractive. So what? Does that mean that every movie with an emphasis on a half-naked female body is for "dikes" (or whatever)? Or, are we only giving these movies labels based on how men react to the content?

Honorable Mention wrote:Now, I understand how homosexuality was viewed and largely accepted (even encouraged, to a degree) in Ancient Greece; however, I do not thinks this film is "gay". So there are really, really HOT men running around in speedos and gay guys would find that attractive. So what? Does that mean that every movie with an emphasis on a half-naked female body is for "dikes" (or whatever)? Or, are we only giving these movies labels based on how men react to the content?

Honorable Mention wins the thread.

Honorable Mention wrote:Now, I understand how homosexuality was viewed and largely accepted (even encouraged, to a degree) in Ancient Greece; however, I do not thinks this film is "gay". So there are really, really HOT men running around in speedos and gay guys would find that attractive. So what? Does that mean that every movie with an emphasis on a half-naked female body is for "dikes" (or whatever)? Or, are we only giving these movies labels based on how men react to the content?

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

In the comic, when Ephilates comes to Leonidas, dressed in Spartan garb and asking to join the fight- one of Leonidas' Captain's scorns him and tries to beat him- a real asshole. Leonidas tells him to lay off and takes Ephilates with him to talk. Ephilates shows him what he can do- a powerful spear thrust- but he can't lift his shield high enough to be of any use in a phalanx. So Leonidas apologizes and says he can't use him. Ephilates, grief stricken, throws himself off a cliff, but lives and goes to the Persians, bitter at his rejection.

Not to take sides in the debate, just pointing this out. Ephilates doesn't jump- Leonidas kicks him off the cliff.

Pulp Hero wrote:Not to take sides in the debate, just pointing this out. Ephilates doesn't jump- Leonidas kicks him off the cliff.

What comic did you read?

Click Me

Coyote wrote:People with axes to grind will by-God put a racial context to any entertainment they can, regardless of what is or isn't there.

"Neimoidians = evil greedy Asians", anyone?

Ah, of course. If one accusation of racist undertones was ever unwarranted, then they must all be unwarranted! I bow before your peerless logic, sir. I especially liked the part where you went to great pains to show how these accusations actually employed the same kinds of arguments as the other ones you mentioned.

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?

Stark wrote: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?

Could it be they just wanted to buff the enemy so that the resultant Spartan victory seems more "glorious"?

My personal interpretation of the film's "racism" was that the filmmakers were attempting to reinforce the massive and multinational nature of the Persian threat. The Spartans weren't just facing a powerful nation, they were facing a large portion of the world, and an army drawn from every corner of it (hence the variety of skin colors). After all, the constituents of Xerxes' force display a wide range of skin coloration, from black to white. As for the grotesque and other-worldly nature of some of the host, I suspect its an element of the movie's mythic style; the villains of ancient epics are rarely anything other than exemplifications of undesirable traits.

In regards to the film supposedly being 'gay', who cares? If a couple hundred nearly naked men running around immediately makes your mind jump to that area, I think it says more about your mind than it does about the movie. or is every shirts vs. skins game ever played now a seething hotbed of homosexuality?

As far as racism is concerned, I don't personally think that was the intent, and certainly didn't take it as such, but as a white male I'm not the demographic likely to be offended or pay attention to such.

For glorification of war, it only works as such if you have a psychotic deathwish. The message is pretty clear, the sane people all left, then the glory hungry got shot to crap, in a manner reminiscent of a rabid dog being put down by an extended family with shotguns.

Noble Ire wrote:My personal interpretation of the film's "racism" was that the filmmakers were attempting to reinforce the massive and multinational nature of the Persian threat. The Spartans weren't just facing a powerful nation, they were facing a large portion of the world, and an army drawn from every corner of it (hence the variety of skin colors). After all, the constituents of Xerxes' force display a wide range of skin coloration, from black to white. As for the grotesque and other-worldly nature of some of the host, I suspect its an element of the movie's mythic style; the villains of ancient epics are rarely anything other than exemplifications of undesirable traits.

I agree, they went to great lengths to demonstrate the numerous peoples and cultures encompassed by Persia in visuals as well as dialogue. I've seen the film, and I don't recall the massive hordes of Persians being "evil black people." Xerxes' messenger in the beginning was clearly of sub-Saharan Africa, but IIRC his guards appeared central asian. Likewise Xerxes' second emissary who gets his hand chopped off was very dark (I don't recall if he was of African or Indian descent), but these characters are at a far end of the spectrum of Persian skin-colors shown. Many of the Persian warriors (who weren't disfigured/mutant feaks) looked the way native Persians should look; middle-eastern or central asian. I see these cries of racism bloated out of proportion.

Ghost Rider wrote:

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.

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).

The queen subplot existed to break up the action.

Aeolus wrote:

Ghost Rider wrote:

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.

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).

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.

Ghost Rider wrote:

Aeolus wrote:

Ghost Rider wrote: 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).

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.