Well I've seen a petition from an Iranian on line that doesn't like the portrayal in the film. And it is going to be controversial when the connotations are taken into account, why I have no idea, people are stupid? But it's one of those things that has been thrust into the media attention and anything is blown out of all proportion.
300
- Thread starter Jet
- Start date
Well I've seen a petition from an Iranian on line that doesn't like the portrayal in the film. And it is going to be controversial when the connotations are taken into account, why I have no idea, people are stupid? But it's one of those things that has been thrust into the media attention and anything is blown out of all proportion.
True; the real crime in the movie though is that all these monsters and exotic creatures didn't kill a single Spartan, thus makin their presence even more pointless.
Really how difficult would it have been to make the elephants stampede into the Spartans, rather than hobbling over the cliff? The guy with blades for arms didn't even do anything apart from execute one failed general (We didn't even get to see what he did so badly). Utter tosh.
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
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.
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.
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.
Look. The movie is told from the perspective of the Spartans. To Spartans, the vastness and diversity of the Persian Empire would be alien and strange to them, thus the Persian army is depicted with many soldiers from multiple parts of the Empire. What's racist about that?
Bozo Erectus said:
Ooh, so now we're Nazis too?
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
Ok, so if I make a movie about the Klu Klux Klan, which depicts black people as monsters, theres nothing wrong with it, if the point of view expressed in the movie is that of the Klan? Explain to me how that line of reasoning makes even a tiny bit of sense.
Nahh, not as sophisticated.
Very much correct Bozo Erectus. This would be the kind of thing you'd expect from a propaganda movie, or a lazy director unwilling to show his protagonists as being human... a movie or even a comic like 300 doesn't need to portray the enemy as slavering monsters in order to get the point across. Though that's really begging the question, as I'm not sure the movie had a point beyond "make money by using cool imagery". And equating goodness of character with personal beauty isn't exactly a new idea in Hollywood (I've just never seen it done so blatantly).
The same effect could have been yielded by showing the Immortals as actually being an effective combat unit who can take down almost any foe (Not just unarmed villagers and children) rather than just calling them the greatest opponent of the Spartans but showing them to be useless in battle anyway. I guess we should probably take comfort they didn't just use the large fella from Daredevil/ Green Mile as the ogre type.
The same effect could have been yielded by showing the Immortals as actually being an effective combat unit who can take down almost any foe (Not just unarmed villagers and children) rather than just calling them the greatest opponent of the Spartans but showing them to be useless in battle anyway. I guess we should probably take comfort they didn't just use the large fella from Daredevil/ Green Mile as the ogre type.
300 wasn't making the point that all black people are monsters. From the Spartan perspective, they were depicting foreign invaders from the Persian Empire for what they were: their enemies. How can you get upset over something like that?
Bozo Erectus said:
Do you know how hard it is to buy a used Panzer tank nowadays?
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
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?
Reality is so much more interesting than the utter crap they dreamt up.
They didnt depict black people as monsters, they depicted Iranians as monsters. You know, the people we might be at war with any minute now. Why doesnt that upset you?
Do you think I don't care about the depictions in the movie simply because they are Persian? That would be completely foolish. I just believe that a movie told from the perspective of brave soldiers defending their city against invaders doesn't have to be completely sympathetic to the invaders.
Completely different genre?
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
I see youre in Kansas. Then youd have no objections if a movie made from the perspective of Native Americans depicted youre settler great great great grandmom and dad as demonic monsters?
I see youre in Kansas. Then youd have no objections if a movie made from the perspective of Native Americans depicted youre settler great great great grandmom and dad as demonic monsters?
It's been done many times already.
(and my great great great grandparents were Poles
)Try and keep up. You're claiming that becuase it's from the Spartans' point of view, that it is only right and proper that their enemies be protrayed as beasts and monsters. SPR or any number of war films are also from the American/ European perspective, so why shouldn't the Nazis have been portayed as almost comical monsters, with awkward deformities, fangs and monstrous characteristics? How about in Pearl Harbour, they could have had someone dressed like Genghis Khan as the Emperor of Japan, how cool would that have been?!
You misunderstand me. A movie like Saving Private Ryan is trying to be realistic and convey different emotions that 300. They are both action movies, but they have different things to say, not to mention different perspectives.
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
Ok, Im nothing if not flexibleIt's been done many times already.
(and my great great great grandparents were Poles
A movie then made from the perspective of workers at Ellis Island at the turn of the century, depicting Eastern European immigrants as monsters. Forget all the hype, forget the computer graphics, the wonderfull heartwarming scenes of people being decapitated. Youre looking at a movie which depicts real people, yes Persians are Iranians, as unhuman, inhuman monsters. We may be at war with Iran very soon. Doesnt that make you think, just a little bit?
Pearl Harbor (spelt correctly this time 
) on the other hand was showing the US fighting against a dastardly sneak attack by the Japanese. So would it have been a bold editorial move to have the Japanese dressed like unsophistocated Mongols? Perhaps they could have thrown a few Samurai into the mix as well. All in the name of showing "perspective".
) on the other hand was showing the US fighting against a dastardly sneak attack by the Japanese. So would it have been a bold editorial move to have the Japanese dressed like unsophistocated Mongols? Perhaps they could have thrown a few Samurai into the mix as well. All in the name of showing "perspective".Ok, Im nothing if not flexible
I don't recall the Eastern Europeans trying to put Ellis Island to the sword.
Bozo Erectus said:
Ah, so this is about current events? OK, remember that you don't just fall out of bed and make a movie. It takes work, a lot of work. My mother's a screenwriter, and it can take years to write, submit, and even begin producing a movie. Not to mention filming and post-production. I don't think the release of this movie is supposed to have anything to do with current events in Iran, because at the time the movie was starting to be made, we weren't in a tense diplomatic position with Iran.
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
Pug, we've been in a tense diplomatic position with Iran for 30 years.
But dont get me wrong, I dont think the makers of this movie are part of some conspiracy, or the film studio suits, or the distributors or anyone else. All it is is a lousy, almost laughable movie, that also happens to be in very very poor taste, released at exactly the wrong time. All Im saying is, try to have some situational awareness. Be aware of what youre looking at, and its context.
But dont get me wrong, I dont think the makers of this movie are part of some conspiracy, or the film studio suits, or the distributors or anyone else. All it is is a lousy, almost laughable movie, that also happens to be in very very poor taste, released at exactly the wrong time. All Im saying is, try to have some situational awareness. Be aware of what youre looking at, and its context.
