300?

[Traitorfish]

Ok, if my argument is so bad, make one against it. Surely you can since its so bad... In the example I gave, people should and would be offended because what they're doing is changing history in the movie to glorify one side, and humiliate the other. The same thing is happening in 300.

I'm not going to make a counter-argument because you don't have anything to counter. You have a feeble logical fallacy dressed up in a pathetic emotional appeal: you're basically presenting bias as a binary system, with any work with the slightest bias coming into one all-embracing category completely lacking in distinctions based on intent, let alone the actual level of bias shown. And, of course, you follow this up with a long and frankly rather strange elaboration of this involving everyone's favourite all-purpose villains, the Nazis.

300 was never intended as an historical account, it is, as I have said, legendary. The whole thing is presented as a story-within-a-story, an account intended to encourage the Greeks at Platea. At no point is the story meant to be taken as anything approaching historical accuracy. It doesn't matter if the Spartans are lionised and the Persian demonised, because the whole point is that this is how the Greeks saw it.
The film is not historically accurate, no-one argues that. However, it is consistent with a long history of epic storytelling, from Homer to Tolkien.

 

[holy king]

you didnt get it, traitorfish:

his argument was : "NAZIS!"

 

[caketastydelish]

you didnt get it, traitorfish:

his argument was : "NAZIS!"

Your argument is: Oversimplification!

 

[caketastydelish]

I'm not going to make a counter-argument because you don't have anything to counter. You have a feeble logical fallacy dressed up in a pathetic emotional appeal: you're basically presenting bias as a binary system, with any work with the slightest bias coming into one all-embracing category completely lacking in distinctions based on intent, let alone the actual level of bias shown. And, of course, you follow this up with a long and frankly rather strange elaboration of this involving everyone's favourite all-purpose villains, the Nazis.

300 was never intended as an historical account, it is, as I have said, legendary. The whole thing is presented as a story-within-a-story, an account intended to encourage the Greeks at Platea. At no point is the story meant to be taken as anything approaching historical accuracy. It doesn't matter if the Spartans are lionised and the Persian demonised, because the whole point is that this is how the Greeks saw it.
The film is not historically accurate, no-one argues that. However, it is consistent with a long history of epic storytelling, from Homer to Tolkien.

You said "The film is not historically accurate, no-one argues that." Yet the producers have said it is at least 90 percent accurate. If you don't believe me, I can dig up where that quote came from for you.

 

[jlvfr]

"300" is a comic book adapted to movie. That alone should tell ya something...

As for acuracy, here's what's acurate:
-the place;
-the reason for choosing the place;
-the names of the kings;
-the name of the traitor.

That's it. The rest is total, utter crap.

 

[1889]

300 is legendary, not historical. There's a subtle but ever so significant difference. Learn it before passing comment on this sort of thing.

That’s certainly a helpful distinction to make.

I really enjoy most Hollywood historical epics such as “300” and “Kingdom of Heaven” as well as older ones such as “55 Days at Peking” and “Khartoum”. Often after seeing such films I'm inspired to research the event to see what really happened. The fact is there is no way to condense the true story of the fall of Jerusalem in 1187, for example, into a film of approximately 120 minutes. Let’s also recognize that there are numerous angles from which to understand events. A documentary like "Last Stand of the 300" does a good job of summarizing the narrative elements of the battle of Thermopylae. Movies instead revolve around the impact of events on individuals which involve a great deal of supposition and artistic license, that is why in Hollywood the historical often serves as an allegory for the contemporary.

(I also like some Hollywood crap like Shanghai Knights - for movies of that caliber I enjoy cataloging anachronisms.)

 

[caketastydelish]

That’s certainly a helpful distinction to make.

I really enjoy most Hollywood historical epics such as “300” and “Kingdom of Heaven” as well as older ones such as “55 Days at Peking” and “Khartoum”. Often after seeing such films I'm inspired to research the event to see what really happened. The fact is there is no way to condense the true story of the fall of Jerusalem in 1187, for example, into a film of approximately 120 minutes. Let’s also recognize that there are numerous angles from which to understand events. A documentary like "Last Stand of the 300" does a good job of summarizing the narrative elements of the battle of Thermopylae. Movies instead revolve around the impact of events on individuals which involve a great deal of supposition and artistic license, that is why in Hollywood the historical often serves as an allegory for the contemporary.

(I also like some Hollywood crap like Shanghai Knights - for movies of that caliber I enjoy cataloging anachronisms.)

Notice how in Kingdom of Heaven, they don't look the Arabs don't look like evil monsters. In 300, they do so with the Persians.

 

[Traitorfish]

You said "The film is not historically accurate, no-one argues that." Yet the producers have said it is at least 90 percent accurate. If you don't believe me, I can dig up where that quote came from for you.

Go ahead. I'm surprised you haven't done so. I don't see how it matters much, unless you can prove that the 10% they (arbitrarily) declared inaccurate is anything other than the things you mention, but I'm sure it's worth a look...

Notice how in Kingdom of Heaven, they don't look the Arabs don't look like evil monsters. In 300, they do so with the Persians.

Strictly speaking, only the Immortals looked like "evil monsters", and that was A) a representation of how terrifying they were seen to be by their contemporaries and B) because it looked cool. The vast majority of the Persians shown were perfectly ordinary human beings, not slavering orc-beasts. Apart from the Immortals, the most you got was a few strange outfits and piercings. No racialist undertones were intended.

 

[luiz]

Can't believe I'm defending 300, but I don't think it was racist either. The persians were a mockery, sure, but that has more to do with the whole stupidity thing than with actuall racism.

However, if some greeks got angry because in Alexander the great conqueror was portrayed as whiny homo, I can see some iranians upset about 300. They don't have a valid point, but everyone is offended by something nowadays.

 

[caketastydelish]

Strictly speaking, only the Immortals looked like "evil monsters", and that was A) a representation of how terrifying they were seen to be by their contemporaries and B) because it looked cool. The vast majority of the Persians shown were perfectly ordinary human beings, not slavering orc-beasts. Apart from the Immortals, the most you got was a few strange outfits and piercings. No racialist undertones were intended.

I didn't like it how the bulk of the soldiers in the Persian army looked like Arabs. I have nothing against Arabs, but its not historically accurate to make them look like Arabs, because they looked quite a bit different.

As for the Immortals the only ones looking like evil monsters? Tell that to this picturehttp://http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/0/04/150px-300_monster.poster03.jpg

Yeah yeah, so I guess I have "gotten over it". I still say the producers should have never said the movie was at least 90 percent accurate because that is a big lie. And you have to keep in mind this is the civ forums, which attracts history people more often than not. The dumb general public does not know half the stuff we do about history. As many of my friends admitted: "this is the first time I've even heard of the Persian empire except maybe here and there in the Bible". And when pretty much all they know about the empire was what was in that movie, there is a problem.

I have been extremly impressed with all of you, seperating the facts from the fiction in that movie. Sadly, so many people are unaware of them.

 

[Traitorfish]

I didn't like it how the bulk of the soldiers in the Persian army looked like Arabs. I have nothing against Arabs, but its not historically accurate to make them look like Arabs, because they looked quite a bit different.

I may be exhibiting some ignorance here, but how exactly can you tell if a person look particularly Arabic and not merely West Asian? And, even if this is the case, it's worth remembering that the Persian Empire contained most of the Middle East- "the thousand nations of the Persian Empire"- and so many troops would be drawn from the heavily populated areas of the fertile crescent, the areas which, outside of Arabia itself, is most heavily Arabic (Although the movie is set before the Arab expansions, the actual genetic makeup of the region was relatively unaffected by the Arab conquests. The primary effects were cultural, the Arab tribes being far from numerous enough to have a major genetic impact on the natives of the fertile crescent.)

As for the Immortals the only ones looking like evil monsters? Tell that to this picturehttp://http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/0/04/150px-300_monster.poster03.jpg

Well, that was an Immortal, or at least their "pet" and wasn't so much a monster as a heavily-scarred, over-sized berserker. Besides, it was never asserted that he, at least, was Persian- "thousand nations", remember- and, in fact, he looked more Caucasian, that being the actor's ethnicity.

I still say the producers should have never said the movie was at least 90 percent accurate because that is a big lie.

Well, more of an exageration- the movie was rooted in history, more or less, just an extremely stylised version of it- if the quote I'm looking at is the one to which you refer, Snyder asserts that "it's the visualisation that's crazy". I'll admit that, even keeping this in mind, "90%" is an overly generous estimation, but, as I said, the film is not intended to portray events as they took place but as the Spartans percieved them, and, when taken as such, the inaccuracies are minor details. As an "epic clash of civilisations", or whatever you want to call it, the film follows the spirit, if the not the word, of Classical sources fairly closely.

And you have to keep in mind this is the civ forums, which attracts history people more often than not.The dumb general public does not know half the stuff we do about history. As many of my friends admitted: "this is the first time I've even heard of the Persian empire except maybe here and there in the Bible". And when pretty much all they know about the empire was what was in that movie, there is a problem.

Granted, but I don't see why the movie's creators are obliged to educate the audiences. The ignorance of the audiences, or their reliance upon fantasy action films as a source of education, is their own fault, not Zack Snyder's. The film is entertainment first and foremost, the closest it can give to education is encouraging viewers to learn more themselves. After all, the DVD contained a short documentary comparing the representation of Sparta in the film with the actual city, highlighting both similarities and differences while encouraging viewers to look at more advanced sources.

 

[caketastydelish]

Go ahead. I'm surprised you haven't done so. I don't see how it matters much, unless you can prove that the 10% they (arbitrarily) declared inaccurate is anything other than the things you mention, but I'm sure it's worth a look...


Strictly speaking, only the Immortals looked like "evil monsters", and that was A) a representation of how terrifying they were seen to be by their contemporaries and B) because it looked cool. The vast majority of the Persians shown were perfectly ordinary human beings, not slavering orc-beasts. Apart from the Immortals, the most you got was a few strange outfits and piercings. No racialist undertones were intended.

If you actually believe that movie was 90 percent accurate, I don't know what to tell you. I won't even argue with you.

 

[caketastydelish]

I may be exhibiting some ignorance here, but how exactly can you tell if a person look particularly Arabic and not merely West Asian? And, even if this is the case, it's worth remembering that the Persian Empire contained most of the Middle East- "the thousand nations of the Persian Empire"- and so many troops would be drawn from the heavily populated areas of the fertile crescent, the areas which, outside of Arabia itself, is most heavily Arabic (Although the movie is set before the Arab expansions, the actual genetic makeup of the region was relatively unaffected by the Arab conquests. The primary effects were cultural, the Arab tribes being far from numerous enough to have a major genetic impact on the natives of the fertile crescent.)


Well, that was an Immortal, or at least their "pet" and wasn't so much a monster as a heavily-scarred, over-sized berserker. Besides, it was never asserted that he, at least, was Persian- "thousand nations", remember- and, in fact, he looked more Caucasian, that being the actor's ethnicity.


Well, more of an exageration- the movie was rooted in history, more or less, just an extremely stylised version of it- if the quote I'm looking at is the one to which you refer, Snyder asserts that "it's the visualisation that's crazy". I'll admit that, even keeping this in mind, "90%" is an overly generous estimation, but, as I said, the film is not intended to portray events as they took place but as the Spartans percieved them, and, when taken as such, the inaccuracies are minor details. As an "epic clash of civilisations", or whatever you want to call it, the film follows the spirit, if the not the word, of Classical sources fairly closely.


Granted, but I don't see why the movie's creators are obliged to educate the audiences. The ignorance of the audiences, or their reliance upon fantasy action films as a source of education, is their own fault, not Zack Snyder's. The film is entertainment first and foremost, the closest it can give to education is encouraging viewers to learn more themselves. After all, the DVD contained a short documentary comparing the representation of Sparta in the film with the actual city, highlighting both similarities and differences while encouraging viewers to look at more advanced sources.

Well if the empire was "made of up a thousand nations" then the army should have been just have diverse. But could they do that? Nooooo just a bunch of computer generated Arab looking guys, and a few evil monster guys on chains here and there. The movie also claimed all the Persian soldiers to be "slaves" or something like that, when in fact, they were paid soldiers. Now there is no doubt in my mind the Persian empire was less than perfect, and they had no place attacking Greece. However, Greece also had there share of atrocities (such as killing babies "unfit" for battle)

If you asked any Persian historian what was the one thing they were best for, it would be how they were so anti-slave. And they took that, and made them look pro slave! It would be like making a civil war movie, and all of Ab Lincolns soldiers were slaves....

Anyhow, like I said I "got over it". I'm not offended anymore, are you happy? I'm just pointing out the facts from the fiction, so no one in there right mind will actually find this film "90 percent accurate". Was it a great movie, that was very well done? Yes. Was it 90 percent accurate? No.

 

[flyingchicken]

The movie was a 90 percent accurate adaptation of the comic book. Scenes were made to look like frames from the book (the comparison pictures tell all!). And I believe they were just following Herodotus' account, which doesn't explicitly state it's full of crap therefore there's a lot of room for crap.

And musclebound half-naked men beating the crap out of everything, making things a whole lot less crappy. To quote the citizens of Charismatic leaders in Civilization IV and its expansions: "OH YEAH!"

 

[Traitorfish]

Well if the empire was "made of up a thousand nations" then the army should have been just have diverse. But could they do that? Nooooo just a bunch of computer generated Arab looking guys, and a few evil monster guys on chains here and there.

Because "thousand nations" doesn't necessarily mean that. The setting of the film, after all, means that a "nation" would be roughly equivalent to a tribe, so it would be quite possible to have many Middle Easterners all coming from different "nations". Maybe not quite a thousand, but that was never intended to be literal, it was simply intended to enforce the size of the Empire.
After all, the Persian Empire was not all that diverse, racially speaking. For the most part, you'd simply have Middle Easterners of different skin tones.

The movie also claimed all the Persian soldiers to be "slaves" or something like that, when in fact, they were paid soldiers.

You misunderstood what was meant by "slaves". They're talking in literal terms here, they meant that the Persians were subject to the absolute rule of a "divine" monarch, while Spartans (albeit not their Helot slaves) were free citizens of the state. The accuracy of this assertion is questionable, of course, but that was exactly the view held by and expressed by the Greeks. Why would it have been better to take a revisionist approach,
robbing the Spartans of their motivation, just for the sake of historical accuracy?

Now there is no doubt in my mind the Persian empire was less than perfect, and they had no place attacking Greece. However, Greece also had there share of atrocities (such as killing babies "unfit" for battle)

Yeah, but that's the opening scene of the film, and a major piece of backstory of one of the major characters. They don't gloss over it. The film is quite arguably questionable in it's glorification of brutal Spartan society, but it never really tries to hide that brutality.

If you asked any Persian historian what was the one thing they were best for, it would be how they were so anti-slave. And they took that, and made them look pro slave! It would be like making a civil war movie, and all of Ab Lincolns soldiers were slaves....

As I said, this isn't about fact or historical accuracy as such. It's about how the Greeks saw it. The Confederate soldiers, for example, did indeed see the Union forces as "slaves" of the Federal government, fighting against states rights and, in their eyes, freedom! Whether they were right or wrong, that's what they thought. Similarly, it doesn't really matter what the Persian Empire was like, it's about how the Greeks, particularly the Spartans, percieved the Persians to be.

Anyhow, like I said I "got over it". I'm not offended anymore, are you happy? I'm just pointing out the facts from the fiction, so no one in there right mind will actually find this film "90 percent accurate". Was it a great movie, that was very well done? Yes. Was it 90 percent accurate? No.

Fair enough, but I still feel obliged to dispute points that I feel are unfair...

 

[1889]

Another thing that’s really inaccurate is that everyone in the movie speaks English.

 

[caketastydelish]

Another thing that’s really inaccurate is that everyone in the movie speaks English.

Win.

 

[caketastydelish]

Because "thousand nations" doesn't necessarily mean that. The setting of the film, after all, means that a "nation" would be roughly equivalent to a tribe, so it would be quite possible to have many Middle Easterners all coming from different "nations". Maybe not quite a thousand, but that was never intended to be literal, it was simply intended to enforce the size of the Empire.
After all, the Persian Empire was not all that diverse, racially speaking. For the most part, you'd simply have Middle Easterners of different skin tones.


Lets not forget what the word "Iran" literally means (and by the way, they always refered to themselves as Iranians, the word Persian is a Greek word, the Greeks used when referring to the Persians, the Persians themselves didn't call themselves Persians) land of the Aryans. They settled in Persia, and India. When they went to India, the original people there were not Aryan. The aryans had a lighter complextion than the native peoples. Even though the civilization of the original people was superior than the Aryans, they looked down on them because they were so arogant.

Anyways, in Persia there were no "original people". The Aryans were the first ones to settle there. Therefore, Persians almost certainly had a light complextion. Simular to Europeans. The reason so many Iranians today have a darker complexion is just because the Arabs invaded and intermarried. The Babylonians, if I am correct, were semetic. I say this because Abraham is semetic, and he came from the land of Uruk (babylonian) so I guess they were semetic too? No? So the babylonians (part of the Persian empire at that time) probably had a darker complexion than that Persians. The persian empire at there height stretched out from western India to Egypt. That covers a LOT of territory. Don't kid yourself. They were diverse.

 

[caketastydelish]

You misunderstood what was meant by "slaves". They're talking in literal terms here, they meant that the Persians were subject to the absolute rule of a "divine" monarch, while Spartans (albeit not their Helot slaves) were free citizens of the state. The accuracy of this assertion is questionable, of course, but that was exactly the view held by and expressed by the Greeks. Why would it have been better to take a revisionist approach,
robbing the Spartans of their motivation, just for the sake of historical accuracy?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spartans were ruled by their King, King Leonidas. Athenians were free. Some of the Greeks were free. The Spartans weren't one of them, they were ruled by a king.

 

[Traitorfish]

Lets not forget what the word "Iran" literally means (and by the way, they always refered to themselves as Iranians, the word Persian is a Greek word, the Greeks used when referring to the Persians, the Persians themselves didn't call themselves Persians) land of the Aryans. They settled in Persia, and India. When they went to India, the original people there were not Aryan. The aryans had a lighter complextion than the native peoples. Even though the civilization of the original people was superior than the Aryans, they looked down on them because they were so arogant.

What's your point? I was saying that the Persians drew their troops from the Middle East, and so their armies would probably look fairly Middle Eastern... I fail to see how the Aryan expansions- taking place thousands of years before the Persian Empire even formed- it relevant.

Spartans were ruled by their King, King Leonidas. Athenians were free. Some of the Greeks were free. The Spartans weren't one of them, they were ruled by a king.

Not quite- "king" is merely a rough translation of the Greek term, it should not be assumed to be equivalent to the European monarchical tradition which draws on feudal origins. Their system was originally diarchic, but became diluted into a form of oligarchy with time. Hardly democratic- although neither was Athens- but hardly despotic, either.

Anyway, I said that what was important was the Spartan view. I'm not here to argue how was or who wasn't a slave. All I'm saying is that the Spartans viewed themselves as free citizens of Sparta and the Persians as slave-subjects of the King of Kings. That is what the film depicts.