300

[Till]

I wouldn't have a problem with this movie, if one side was labeled "monsters" and the other "humans" and the setting was some fantasy land. It would still be incredibly corny (judging from the trailers alone), but that's bearable after a few beers.

Unfortunately, the movie doesn't completely break with the source of its inspiration, but still uses the same names for parties and settings, as the historic event.

When Leonidas shouts "This is Sparta!", i can can't help but think "No, it isn't, not by a long shot!". If the movie wishes to tell the tale of the Battle of Thermopylae, as the trailers, the names used and even the title suggest, then it better get its basic facts right.

I don't mind embellishments and minor changes, but if the main protagonists are distorted to the point where they share only their name with their historic counterparts, then somewhere something went quite wrong.

 

[Mott1]

People have no problem with it because the ethnic group being treated that way are Iranian, the flavor of the month in global 'badboys'. How would they feel if the ethnic group had been Chinese, or Scandinavian, or French, or whatever?

My ethnicity is of Middle Eastern origin and I had no problem with '300', in fact I thoroughly enjoyed it. As long as the film is not touted as a "fancinating history lesson" or "historically accurate" then there is no reason to gripe. The film is based on a fiction comic novel loosely based on an historical event. Why is it when films depict "non-whites" as the goodguys and "whites" as the baddies it is acceptable, however when the rolls are reversed it is suddenly considered a nazi snuff flick?
Watch the trailer to this film about that is about to be released. It depicts the evil vikings invading and sluaghtering the good native indians of America.
http://www.pathfinderthemovie.com/

 

[Kyriakos]

I do not think that the vast majority of people will care of any link between 300 and the Us-Iranian relations, the link being somewhat insignificant anyway. One could try to see such relations between films and supposed popular moods anywhere, and imo it would not amount to much.
From what i gather F.Miller is not exactly good at presenting something below the surface, and so his characters are obviously sketches. The film 300 has sketches of people; no one should expect to see something more. I personally liked the battles and the cinematography of them, but there was nothing else to watch. However art is for all; if enough people like something then it automatically gains a reason for existing, and i do not see anything wrong with that.

 

[MjM]

When Leonidas shouts "This is Sparta!", i can can't help but think "No, it isn't, not by a long shot!". If the movie wishes to tell the tale of the Battle of Thermopylae, as the trailers, the names used and even the title suggest, then it better get its basic facts right

Okay, as said before, the movie is based off a graphic novel, not off the Battle of Thermoplaye. It is not meant to be historically accurate in any light.

 

[Esckey]

That Pathfinder Movie looks good, but as far as I could tell other then "Vikings" "Native America" and "Boats" the thing doesn't have an ounce of truth in it, and thus I predict a resurgance of the Han's Island Debate between Canada(Native Americans) and Denmark(Vikings) It'll be War and Anarchy I tell ya!

 

[TheDervish]

I wont give a cent of my money to a movie that portrays Persians as mutant monsters, whether it's supposed to be a documentary, or a fantasy loosely based on history. The movie seems to be an abomination from my standpoint, but I can certainly respect people's desire to be entertained by fight scenes and plot, as they would respect my view.

Of course, all those who think it is silly to be offended by "300" must by default also think it silly to find movies like "Valley of the Wolves: Iraq" and "The Passion of the Christ" offensive based on negative portrayals of key groups, so I also respect their consistency

 

[Bozo Erectus]

My ethnicity is of Middle Eastern origin and I had no problem with '300', in fact I thoroughly enjoyed it.

You arent Iranian though, right?

As long as the film is not touted as a "fancinating history lesson" or "historically accurate" then there is no reason to gripe. The film is based on a fiction comic novel loosely based on an historical event.

Here we go again. Apparently for many people, its ok to make a racist film, so long as its based on a comic book. Sure doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me.

Why is it when films depict "non-whites" as the goodguys and "whites" as the baddies it is acceptable, however when the rolls are reversed it is suddenly considered a nazi snuff flick?

Its not considered acceptable by me.

Watch the trailer to this film about that is about to be released. It depicts the evil vikings invading and sluaghtering the good native indians of America.
http://www.pathfinderthemovie.com/

Mott, sure, 300 isnt the first movie like that Ive ever seen. One of the first 'blockbuster' movies ever made, Birth of a Nation, was a racist movie, told from the perspective of the KKK, and the movie led directly to the resurgence of the Klan. Maybe we think of it today as shamefully racist because it wasnt based on a comic book?

 

[Perfection]

Terrible, simply terrible

 

[Paradigne]

I think the only people who see this film as racist, are racist people. There is no way it could have been considered such in less you were LOOKING for it.

I saw it, I enjoyed it. I didn't notice any of the things you people are talking about.

 

[Xanikk999]

I think the only people who see this film as racist, are racist people. There is no way it could have been considered such in less you were LOOKING for it.

I saw it, I enjoyed it. I didn't notice any of the things you people are talking about.

Either that, or sensitive crybabies who will call the race-card for anything.

 

[TheDervish]

I think the only people who see this film as racist, are racist people. There is no way it could have been considered such in less you were LOOKING for it.

Word. Let's bring back Amos'n'Andy!

 

[Bozo Erectus]

I think the only people who see this film as racist, are racist people. There is no way it could have been considered such in less you were LOOKING for it.

I saw it, I enjoyed it. I didn't notice any of the things you people are talking about.

Well then according to your logic, if you didnt notice any of those things, you arent a racist. Interesting how that works out that way.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

Okay, as said before, the movie is based off a graphic novel, not off the Battle of Thermoplaye. It is not meant to be historically accurate in any light.

You can't help but wonder why they bothered basing it in history at all...

What's the point of making a movie about a historical battle if you aren't going to bother with any of the historical details beyond names and places?

I pretty much agree with Till, although I have only seen the trailers - I probably wouldn't mind the movie if it was based in fantasy land x. As it stands I don't really like the look of it.

 

[puglover]

You can't help but wonder why they bothered basing it in history at all...

What's the point of making a movie about a historical battle if you aren't going to bother with any of the historical details beyond names and places?

Because it is an awesome story. I grew up with the story of the 300 Spartans. The idea of making a really awesome fantasy flick based on the ideal of the battle really appeals to me.

 

[capslock]

To summarize the responses people have made to my original post, apparently they believe that making a movie that depicts a certain ethnic group as monsters is perfectly fine, so long as its based on a comic book, and the storyline is told from the perspective of the racists. So if Frank Miller decides to make a comic next year called "Attack of The Pickanninies" and then a movie was made about, youd have no problem with it. Or if he made a comic book about the Protocols of Zion, and then a movie.

But 300 is just a bad film, period. It also happens to be racist and xenophobic. In WW2 the Nazis would put out crap like this too, except the monsters would be Jews, or whoever they were planning on invading that week.

Ummmm Persia was an invading army. Even all the pacifist hippies on this forum say they would bear arms against a force invading their homeland. Persia was the ENEMY. They threatened to DESTROY Greece and with it Greek culture, ie) the western world. Did everyone forget this bit of history?

Why are you so freaking sensitive about the freaking Persians anyway? Thye are a long dead empire, portraying them this way has no consequence today because there are NO Persians.

Get the stick out of your butt grandma and l2nottakeeverythingsoseriously.

 

[Fëanor]

Ummmm Persia was an invading army. Even all the pacifist hippies on this forum say they would bear arms against a force invading their homeland. Persia was the ENEMY. They threatened to DESTROY Greece and with it Greek culture, ie) the western world. Did everyone forget this bit of history?

What part of the Spartan Culture do you hold so dear? Pedophilia or Homosexuality? Its not like Greece remained independent, others conquered it and absorbed Greek Culture into their own, why would the Persian do differently?.

Why are you so freaking sensitive about the freaking Persians anyway? Thye are a long dead empire, portraying them this way has no consequence today because there are NO Persians.

Persia existed until a couple of decades ago, some Iranians were born as Persians, but why something that does not existing anymore makes historical revisionism all right? whats the point of history then?

I agree that many people exaggerate since this is a fantasy movie and not a documentary, but your points are mighty ********.

 

[Princeps]

They threatened to DESTROY Greece and with it Greek culture, ie) the western world. Did everyone forget this bit of history?

Ancient Greeks were as much western as Arabs and Persians. Also, there is a huge difference between conquering and destroying.

 

[Atlas14]

Why are you so freaking sensitive about the freaking Persians anyway? Thye are a long dead empire, portraying them this way has no consequence today because there are NO Persians.

Get the stick out of your butt grandma and l2nottakeeverythingsoseriously.

So because the Roman Empire doesn't exist anymore, there are no more people with Roman ancestry?

Even all the pacifist hippies on this forum say they would bear arms against a force invading their homeland. Persia was the ENEMY.

You are taking a practical, life-abiding principle out of context. Just because a pacifist hippie would defend their homeland doesn't mean a movie that depicts the enemy as monsters doesn't have racial undertones.

They threatened to DESTROY Greece and with it Greek culture, ie) the western world. Did everyone forget this bit of history?

The Greeks threatened the same. Your point?

Fact is, this movie is just plain terrible. Resorting to movies based on comic books when plenty of historical information is available that would inevitably make it more interesting and awesome is just simply ridiculous. I have not seen it so I can't directly comment on the degree of racism or whatever.

 

[Mott1]

You arent Iranian though, right?

Yes, my father is Iranian.

Here we go again. Apparently for many people, its ok to make a racist film, so long as its based on a comic book. Sure doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me.

No its not ok to make a racist film. You are arguing from a point of view where it is already established that the film as well as the graphic novel is racist, that is not my impression. A movie is not racist just because two warring ethnic groups are depicted as moral opposites. The substance of the film is determined by its message. If the message of the film presented the Greeks as racially superior, then I would concede to your point. But that is not the case in '300', we see the Athenians in a minimized role. Leonides chides them as potters, blacksmith and "boy lovers," not true warriors. He goes on to say "they have their uses." The monstrosities existed on both sides, and most of the Persian army was not even Persian but rather those of the "thousand nations" it conquered.
To me the Spartans become the symbolic bearers of the values of the viewer, irrespective of that viewers nationality, religion, politics or race. The message was simply that freedom is worth fighting for.

 

[Fëanor]

Leonides chides them as potters, blacksmith and "boy lovers," not true warriors.

You know whats really funny, it was actually in Sparta were it was mandatory for boys to engage into sexual relations with older men in exchange for tutelage, while in Athens this was not so.