NationStates Jolt Archive

An almost perfect combination of thinly veiled homoeroticism with even more thinly veiled fascism and racism. it was the tale of 300 perfect specimens of european manhood, without shirts fighting endless faceless hordes of mongels and negroes, defeating them all until they are betrayed by a degenerate malformed freak of their own people who escaped his just euthanization only to ultimately betray his race and bow before the mongrel tyrant in return for the debaucheries of the flesh. it was endless oiled men flexing and strutting and posing as they withstood the subhuman hordes to uphold the values of western civilization.... plus it had a war rhinoceros, you gotta love any movie with a war rhinoceros falling dead at the feet of a half naked sweating european warrior...

I had asked my friends, "Why didn't they bring another war rhino?" and they figured that with the amount of their own dudes it took out that was about all they could afford to take...

Although I'm sure it titillated Fass, I wasn't as much excited by the nearly-naked men as I was by all the blood and killing. I got what I went for.

I wouldn't call it gay, but it definitely wasn't that enjoyable. All style and no substance -- generic orchestral music, graphic violence, gratuitous nudity, poor dialogue, and ridiculous amounts of slow motion.

I wouldn't call it gay, but it definitely wasn't that enjoyable. All style and no substance -- generic orchestral music, graphic violence, gratuitous nudity, poor dialogue, and ridiculous amounts of slow motion.

Unfortunately, expect more... that's all that American movies boil down to these days.

Stupid stupid Americans...

I wouldn't call it gay, but it definitely wasn't that enjoyable. All style and no substance -- generic orchestral music, graphic violence, gratuitous nudity, poor dialogue, and ridiculous amounts of slow motion.

Slow fast slow, it's the new 3D rotation matrix thingy.

Most sub-500 postcount noob scum here just post troll crap to vandalize our forum. They are graffiti vandals.

You are dead on, I hope you continue to post here until your post-count is as high as the old school people.

+1000 you. Keep it up.

any time i read "gay nazi" i think "troll."

any time i read "gay nazi" and it's april 1st i think "April Fools Day"

any time i read "gay nazi" i think "troll."

any time i read "gay nazi" and it's april 1st i think "April Fools Day"

And whoever you are, you're wrong tonight.

"No, try again."

An almost perfect combination of thinly veiled homoeroticism with even more thinly veiled fascism and racism. it was the tale of 300 perfect specimens of european manhood, without shirts fighting endless faceless hordes of mongels and negroes, defeating them all until they are betrayed by a degenerate malformed freak of their own people who escaped his just euthanization only to ultimately betray his race and bow before the mongrel tyrant in return for the debaucheries of the flesh. it was endless oiled men flexing and strutting and posing as they withstood the subhuman hordes to uphold the values of western civilization.... plus it had a war rhinoceros, you gotta love any movie with a war rhinoceros falling dead at the feet of a half naked sweating european warrior...

It was definately not PC. White greeks should have been played by black Americans while non-white Mid Easterners should have been played by whites.

any time i read "gay nazi" i think "troll."

any time i read "gay nazi" and it's april 1st i think "April Fools Day"Whatdoyoumean? Are/were there no gay Nazis?

any time i read "gay nazi" i think "troll."

any time i read "gay nazi" and it's april 1st i think "April Fools Day"


yeah okay i'm not exactly new here, i just keep forgetting to feed my nations and they end up dead and dehydrated in their little cages, then i have to get another... oh yeah and to be honest one of my nations was ernst rohm the most famous gay nazi... so i do have certain themes i tend to come back to. i don't however actually mean this nation to be a troll.

i just thought this movie played so perfectly into that stereotype. it had all the trappings of fascism and all the crypto-homoerotic elements of its extreme glorification a few white warriors standing alone against the hordes of none europeans and getting naked and sweaty doing it.

Whatdoyoumean? Are/were there no gay Nazis?

Urg, no, that's not what I mean... aww, forget it. :(

yeah okay i'm not exactly new here, i just keep forgetting to feed my nations and they end up dead and dehydrated in their little cages, then i have to get another... oh yeah and to be honest one of my nations was ernst rohm the most famous gay nazi... so i do have certain themes i tend to come back to. i don't however actually mean this nation to be a troll.

i just thought this movie played so perfectly into that stereotype. it had all the trappings of fascism and all the crypto-homoerotic elements of its extreme glorification a few white warriors standing alone against the hordes of none europeans and getting naked and sweaty doing it.

Look, okay?! I'm not taking what you are saying in your thread title for face value. I saw "gay Nazi" on the General forum list and that's what I first thought.

Sheesh. :headbang:

It was definately not PC. White greeks should have been played by black Americans while non-white Mid Easterners should have been played by whites. why were so many persian played by black men, sure persia had conquered many nationalities, but i don't believe any of them were from subsaharan africa, but of the persians who weren't cgi monsters or pierced fetishists an awful lot of them seemed to be of african extraction.

why were so many persian played by black men, sure persia had conquered many nationalities, but i don't believe any of them were from subsaharan africa, but of the persians who weren't cgi monsters or pierced fetishists an awful lot of them seemed to be of african extraction.

Because apparently the huge-arse capes weren't enough distinction between the two armies for North American viewers.

Because apparently the huge-arse capes weren't enough distinction between the two armies for American viewers.

:)

As a Canadian, I originally had that typed in exactly... but before I hit 'post', I remembered that Canadians are becoming less intelligent due to culture flux and proximity. It makes me an unhappy panda. :(

Which is funny, because I'm American.

:D

EDIT: Another warp. Grr...

I think part of my leg is missing now...

:)

As a Canadian, I originally had that typed in exactly... but before I hit 'post', I remembered that Canadians are becoming less intelligent due to culture flux and proximity. It makes me an unhappy panda. :(

Whatdoyoumean? Are/were there no gay Nazis?
Ernst Rohmm

Because apparently the huge-arse capes weren't enough distinction between the two armies for North American viewers.well yeah i guess their is some truth to that. the movie obviously wasn't attempting to actually accurately portray the battle of the hot gates, it was an adaption of a very stylized graphic novel.

the problem is that the imagery was extremely racist, it turned the persians into a symbol for all non-europeans and the struggle as one between white european civilization and the rest of the worlds tyranny and and beastal degravity. if that isn't the nazi/white supermacist view in a nutshell i don't know what is.

it did leave the jews out of the picture, but if you look at the new far right movements antisemetism is less important than a general xenophobia of all that isn't white western civilization.

why were so many persian played by black men, sure persia had conquered many nationalities, but i don't believe any of them were from subsaharan africa, but of the persians who weren't cgi monsters or pierced fetishists an awful lot of them seemed to be of african extraction.

Not all blacks are in sub-saharan Africa. There are blacks in Mid East as well.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Achaemenid_Empire.jpg

Especially Egypt.

well yeah i guess their is some truth to that. the movie obviously wasn't attempting to actually accurately portray the battle of the hot gates, it was an adaption of a very stylized graphic novel.

the problem is that the imagery was extremely racist, it turned the persians into a symbol for all non-europeans and the struggle as one between white european civilization and the rest of the worlds tyranny and and beastal degravity. if that isn't the nazi/white supermacist view in a nutshell i don't know what is.

it did leave the jews out of the picture, but if you look at the new far right movements antisemetism is less important than a general xenophobia of all that isn't white western civilization.

The only little problem is Europeans are actually white. Duh!

The only little problem is Europeans are actually white. Duh!

omgzzzz raecizt



oshi-

Not all blacks are in sub-saharan Africa. There are blacks in Mid East as well.

Especially Egypt.Ancient Egyptians were not blacks, they were a mixture of semitic, indo-european, and hamitic (black, if you wish) stock. The whole Egyptians-were-black-crap as spread by Rastas drives me crazy...
It was more like blacks in the US today. I hope that is what you said.

Ancient Egyptians were not blacks, they were a mixture of semitic, indo-european, and hamitic (black, if you wish) stock. The whole Egyptians-were-black-crap as spread by Rastas drives me crazy...
It was more like blacks in the US today. I hope that is what you said.

I didnt say they were all blacks. I just said that there were also blacks there. Not to mention, Persian Empire was a powerful empire so it also had mercenaries who are from beyond its borders.

The only little problem is Europeans are actually white. Duh!
greeks an fairly olive complexed as are iranians... i would say while they are obviously ethnically distinct, they look more similar than either does to both northern european or subsaharan africans. the way this movie choose to exaggerate the differences and its portayal of the persians as monsters and barberous savages, is what makes it racist.

well yeah i guess their is some truth to that. the movie obviously wasn't attempting to actually accurately portray the battle of the hot gates, it was an adaption of a very stylized graphic novel.

the problem is that the imagery was extremely racist, it turned the persians into a symbol for all non-europeans and the struggle as one between white european civilization and the rest of the worlds tyranny and and beastal degravity. if that isn't the nazi/white supermacist view in a nutshell i don't know what is.

it did leave the jews out of the picture, but if you look at the new far right movements antisemetism is less important than a general xenophobia of all that isn't white western civilization.Well, Greeks and Persians are both Indo-Europeans, although from different branches.
And they didn't "leave the jews out of the picture". There were just no Jews involved in the Persian-Greek conflicts :rolleyes:

Not all blacks are in sub-saharan Africa. There are blacks in Mid East as well.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Achaemenid_Empire.jpg

Especially Egypt.
The Nubians

greeks an fairly olive complexed as are iranians....

*cough* Jennifer Aniston *cough* Greeks are not Scandinavians but they are definately whiter than Iranians.

The Nubiansyeah, the gold boys from Wawat...

Ernst Rohmm

omg him thats who i scored as nazi leader ahh!!! he's gay!!!!:headbang:

oh and 300 was awsome and the violence just made it better:D

*cough* Jennifer Aniston *cough* Greeks are not Scandinavians but they are definately whiter than Iranians.Dorians came from somewhere around the northern section of the Black Sea. I don't know how "white" :rolleyes: that would make them...

Well, Greeks and Persians are both Indo-Europeans, although from different branches.
And they didn't "leave the jews out of the picture". There were just no Jews involved in the Persian-Greek conflicts :rolleyes:i was merely explaining how it could still be a virtually perfect nazi film without having any actual antisemetism in it:p

Dorians came from somewhere around the northern section of the Black Sea. I don't know how "white" :rolleyes: that would make them...

Probably not more black than red sea makes nearby people red.

persians had black slaves and most persians were a lite black of sorts so maybe instead of getting all these persians they settled for blacks

i was merely explaining how it could still be a virtually perfect nazi film without having any actual antisemetism in it:pSince when do Nazis require antisemitism?

Probably not more black than red sea makes nearby people red.wtf?

wtf?

Oh, was your "not white" comment not related with BLACK sea?

yeah, the gold boys from Wawat...
EH?
They gave the Egyptians a good run for their money.
omg him thats who i scored as nazi leader ahh!!! he's gay!!!!:headbang:

oh and 300 was awsome and the violence just made it better:D
You know his brown Uniform was originally white.;)

Most of the Persian army in "300" consisted out of these guys (http://media.cinenews.be/pics/13073.jpg). To be honoust, I don't remember seeing many blacks in the movie. The few I remember, was the negotiator and his escort ( who were kicked in the well) and the guy with the whip ("their arrows will block out the sun"). They came out too brave to be a racist stereotype.

the slaves to carry lazy ass king tut through battle field

greeks an fairly olive complexed as are iranians...
I have actually lived in Greece for a brief period, so I know what they look like, and I am also aware of their subracial makeup. They are mostly fair when untanned, and go many go an olive or golden complexion when tan. They resemble Persians proper. They are a type of Mediterranid commonly found in Eastern Europe for the most part (and which bears similarities to Southern French, more so than Spanish or Italians). Incidentally, ancient Greeks had far less Eastern European blood than their modern counterparts (who are estimated to have roughly 30% Eastern European blood on average), so there was some phenotypic variation.

Dorians came from somewhere around the northern section of the Black Sea. I don't know how "white" :rolleyes: that would make them...
Explain this statement.

Oh, was your "not white" comment not related with BLACK sea?no :rolleyes:, just that they (the Dorians) came from a bit further north than folks would normally understand 'greeks' (you know, someone witlessly threw 'scandinavians' in)

I have actually lived in Greece for a brief period, so I know what they look like, and I am also aware of their subracial makeup. They are mostly fair when untanned, and go many go an olive or golden complexion when tan. They resemble Persians proper. They are a type of Mediterranid commonly found in Eastern Europe for the most part. Incidentally, ancient Greeks had far less Eastern European blood than their modern counterparts (who are estimated to have roughly 30% Eastern European blood on average), so there was some phenotypic variation.


Pseudoscience not helping your case. Mediterranid? Persians proper? Which credible biological and/or genetic organisation recognizes these designations?

no :rolleyes:

Then, your comment was quite stupid. Since north of black sea does include Ukranians, who are really fair. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Pseudoscience not helping your case.
As I have mentioned before, this so-called pseudoscience may be worthless in establishing substantive differences between races, but it does have something to say with regard to phenotypes and relationships between various European peoples. It is much more convenient when addressing specific phenotypes in Europe than, say, saying "oh the type of people that live in Greece, the Balkans and Southern France, but not in Spain or Italy, well at least not in a majority."

Mediterranid?
Mediterranean subtypes.

Persians proper?
The original inhabitants of Persia. Is that difficult to understand? It isn't even an anthropological term.

As I have mentioned before, this so-called pseudoscience may be worthless in establishing substantive differences between races, but it does have something to say with regard to phenotypes and relationships between various European peoples.

Mediterranean subtypes.


The original inhabitants of Persia. Is that difficult to understand? It isn't even an anthropological term.

No, idiot. What's difficult FOR YOU to understand is that these terms have been produced via primitive means. Not by genetical analysis or any other modern methods. That's why they were coined before 70's. That's why they are not recognized. And I wasnt asking for you to explain them.

EH?
They gave the Egyptians a good run for their money.Wawat is the Egyptian name for Nubia. Nubia is a latin rendition for Egyptian Nub(t), the land of gold, meaning the ridges in the eastern desert where gold was mined (south of Kom Ombo, also called Nubt, not to be confused with Nubt at Naqada).

Then, your comment was quite stupid. Since north of black sea does include Ukranians, who are really fair. As if Ukrainians existed back then :rolleyes: (and btw, i edited the 'no')

No, idiot.
Insulting me will get you nowhere.

What's difficult FOR YOU to understand is that these terms have been produced via primitive means. Not by genetical analysis or any other modern methods. That's why they were coined before 70's. That's why they are not recognized. And I wasnt asking for you to explain them.
Yes, which is why I said they are worthless with regard to showing any substantive differences between the types they describe; for this they would need to be revised via the use of genetics. But they serve well in naming various types that inhabit Europe, and incidentally genetic research (e.g. that carried out by Arthur Jenkins) does show some validity in the links they suggest.

Insulting me will get you nowhere.


I read your reply before you edited it.


Yes, which is why I said they are worthless with regard to showing any substantive differences between the types they describe;


Then dont mention them as if they explain something.

...I am also aware of their subracial makeup...They resemble Persians proper. They are a type of Mediterranid commonly found in Eastern Europe for the most part (and which bears similarities to Southern French, more so than Spanish or Italians)....


If those are worthless designations, then so was your post which was my point.


for this they would need to be revised via the use of genetics.


Until then, they are worthless.


But they serve well in naming various types that inhabit Europe,


Subjective. Unsourced.


and incidentally genetic research (e.g. that carried out by Arthur Jenkins) does show some validity in the links they suggest.


Who? He doesnt seem to be well known.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Jenkins_%28disambiguation%29

no :rolleyes:, just that they (the Dorians) came from a bit further north than folks would normally understand 'greeks' (you know, someone witlessly threw 'scandinavians' in)

Still, Scandinavians are more Northern and hence whiter. Point still stands. Dont make silly replies just to use the word "witless".

Then dont mention them as if they explain something.
They explain phenotypal variations quite well, just not genetic.

If those are worthless designations, then so was your post which was my point.

Worthless with regard to genetics, not phenotypes that exist in Europe. Also how amazingly convenient that you chose to ignore everything else I said.

Until then, they are worthless.
...in saying anything about actual genetic relations.

Who? He doesnt seem to be well known.
Hehe. Sure. Just some random crackpot, good ole Arthur Jensen.

:rolleyes:

He made major contributions to research regarding IQ and genetic distance between the various races. In fact, he sparked quite some controversy, so he is hardly unknown.

Wawat is the Egyptian name for Nubia. Nubia is a latin rendition for Egyptian Nub(t), the land of gold, meaning the ridges in the eastern desert where gold was mined (south of Kom Ombo, also called Nubt, not to be confused with Nubt at Naqada).

As if Ukrainians existed back then :rolleyes: (and btw, i edited the 'no')

So? Black sea is CURRENTLY not associated with being non-white. Back then, Dorians are themselves not non-white. Both the origins and current conceptions does not correlate with your original point.

Dorians came from somewhere around the northern section of the Black Sea. I don't know how "white" :rolleyes: that would make them...

But I guess you didnt have any all along. It was just an excuse to use :rolleyes: , huh?

So there were no people inhabiting the area back then? The problem is your statement regarding the Black Sea is quite confusing. Why would Dorian origin from this area have anything to do with Greeks being white or not? It's not exactly a mixed area.What's not a mixed area? Greece? The inhabitants of Greece before the Dorians came were more like southern Anatolians and Phoenicians (although the latter are Semites).
And the general assumption is that the further north you go the 'whiter' the people get... and folks here were referring to how much 'whiter' Greeks are compared to Persians. However, I find the discussion about shades of white rather weird.

What's not a mixed area? Greece? The inhabitants of Greece before the Dorians came were more like southern Anatolians and Phoenicians (although the latter are Semites).
The area around the Black Sea.

And I want proof for that latter statement.

And the general assumption is that the further north you go the 'whiter' the people get... and folks here were referring to how much 'whiter' Greeks are compared to Persians.
It depends on which inhabitants of Persia they are being compared to. With regard to their contemporaries, they were probably very similar in phenotype (Persians back then were likely similar to Mediterraneans, and structurally similar to a leptomorphic strand of Indo-European northerners).

They explain phenotypal variations quite well, just not genetic.


And how did they know how a Persian proper looked like? From the bones? What methods did they have to determine that those bones were Persian proper (ie: the original inhabitants?) Without modern equipment, they couldnt have determined the age. They could have just observed the current inhabitants and those wouldnt be persian proper, would they?


Worthless with regard to genetics, not phenotypes that exist in Europe. Also how amazingly convenient that you chose to ignore everything else I said.


Yet, they are useless to contrast ancient populations which was your original usage.


...in saying anything about actual genetic relations.


And about ancient populations.


Hehe. Sure. Just some random crackpot, good ole Arthur Jensen.

:rolleyes:


LMAO. It was you who wrote "Arthur Jenkins" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12498641&postcount=50) and now you roll your eyes? ROFLMA. Learn to spell properly and then expect others to recognize the guy.


He made major contributions to research regarding IQ and genetic distance between the various races. In fact, he sparked quite some controversy, so he is hardly unknown.

He is a psychologist. He is unreliable when it comes to genetics. It's like George Bush commenting on physical theories.

IMO the movie just shows how badly wrong Hollywood can get things. Considering the supposedly historical basis, almost nothing survived into the movie except for the fact that there was a battle at Thermopylae, there was a rearguard of 300 spartan warriors (completely forgetting the "700 Thespian volunteers" and the "1,000 to 2,000 Helots" who did the same http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae) or the fact that there was a naval battle at the same time. they should have made up a fictional place and people and that way it would not have mattered.

stupid holywood

And how did they know how a Persian proper looked like? From the bones? What methods did they have to determine that those bones were Persian proper (ie: the original inhabitants?) Without modern equipment, they couldnt have determined the age. They could have just observed the current inhabitants and those wouldnt be persian proper, would they?
I believe Guenther was the only one of the older anthropologists to make rather specific claims about ancient peoples; most speculation about the subtypes in the area would be based off more modern research, which could be used to match the subtypes Coon (and Guenther) identified. As I have said before, the identification of these subtypes is complementary to modern research - although the whole area needs a revival IMO.

LMAO. It was you who wrote "Arthur Jenkins" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12498641&postcount=50) and now you roll your eyes? ROFLMA. Learn to spell properly and then expect others to recognize the guy.

My mistake. Now you should know who he is.

He is a psychologist. He is unreliable when it comes to genetics. It's like George Bush commenting on physical theories.
His research into IQ ties into his studies on genetics and the like. He has a broad area of expertise. The other guys who have done much research on this are Cavalli-Sforza and Philippe Rushton (more so the former than the latter).

I believe Guenther was the only one of the older anthropologists to make rather specific claims about ancient peoples; most speculation about the subtypes in the area would be based off more modern research, which could be used to match the subtypes Coon (and Guenther) identified. As I have said before, the identification of these subtypes is complementary to modern research - although the whole area needs a revival IMO.


If these people used Persian proper and Persian proper refers to original inhabitants, then they all made claims about ancient peoples. Either that or your explanation of Persian proper was wrong.
And Coon was the latest which used these terms. So there can be noone who would base his or her work on "more modern research".

My mistake. Now you should know who he is.


His research into IQ ties into his studies on genetics and the like. He has a broad area of expertise. The other guy who has done much research on this is Cavalli-Sforza.

And they have claimed that "Persian proper" is similar to "Mediterranid" which is "commonly found in Eastern Europe"?

And they have claimed that "Persian proper" is similar to "Mediterranid" which is "commonly found in Eastern Europe"?
Erm, no. They have claimed that the original inhabitants of Iran are closer to Greeks genetically than to most other types (which is exactly what Coon theorized). Iranians (at least Persians proper) are a lot more similar to Mediterraneans than to other inhabitants of the Middle East.

Mediterranid is not commonly found in Eastern Europe, but in areas of the Balkans and across Southern Europe - depending on the area there is a specific subdivision.

What exactly are we trying to say here?

Because in the last two pages all I saw was you two guys fighting over something that escapes my understanding.

As for the original topic:
An almost perfect combination of thinly veiled homoeroticism with even more thinly veiled fascism and racism. it was the tale of 300 perfect specimens of european manhood, without shirts fighting endless faceless hordes of mongels and negroes, defeating them all until they are betrayed by a degenerate malformed freak of their own people who escaped his just euthanization only to ultimately betray his race and bow before the mongrel tyrant in return for the debaucheries of the flesh. it was endless oiled men flexing and strutting and posing as they withstood the subhuman hordes to uphold the values of western civilization.... plus it had a war rhinoceros, you gotta love any movie with a war rhinoceros falling dead at the feet of a half naked sweating european warrior...

Guess what: The fight in question is a famous last stand, so it actually happened! Ofcourse, in the movie some things changed under the will of whomever was the director (like in any movie based on a book, or real experiences), but in essence most of the stuff presented there is true.

What exactly are we trying to say here?
My only contention is that the original inhabitants of Iran (and indeed many today) are far more similar to Mediterraneans and leptomorphic Northern Europeans than they are to any other inhabitants of the Middle East.

Erm, no. They have claimed that the original inhabitants of Iran are closer to Greeks genetically than to most other types (which is exactly what Coon theorized). Iranians (at least Persians proper) are a lot more similar to Mediterraneans than to other inhabitants of the Middle East.


Cavalli-Sforza uses current populations as subjects, not "original inhabitants". And those results do now support your original assertion. Just because they are closer to Greeks does not mean they resemble Greeks. Indians are genetically closer to Western Europeans than Far Easterns, but they do not resemble Western Europeans.


Mediterranid is not commonly found in Eastern Europe, but in areas of the Balkans and across Southern Europe - depending on the area there is a specific subdivision.

That was what you had said:

"They are a type of Mediterranid commonly found in Eastern Europe for the most part"

Cavalli-Sforza uses current populations as subjects, not "original inhabitants".
Many of the current inhabitants descend from the original ones.

And those results do now support your original assertion. Just because they are closer to Greeks does not mean they resemble Greeks. Indians are genetically closer to Western Europeans than Far Easterns, but they do not resemble Western Europeans.
They are hardly as distinct from Europeans as Indians though - I won't say the resemblance to Greeks is strong, but they are not that awfully different from most Mediterraneans.

That was what you had said:

"They are a type of Mediterranid commonly found in Eastern Europe for the most part"
Yes, a specific type that predominates solely in Eastern Europe - the Pontid. It's fairer and somewhat taller than the Mediterranean mean.

To clarify, I use these types because it makes it easier to classify Europeans than simply saying "Mediterranean" or "Northern European", which by themselves say very little at all. NOT because I support the work of their original authors. I have made this abundantly clear several times.

In response to the OP, the Spartans weren't exactly portrayed as the pinnacle of morality either. Didn't the opening sequence allude to them leaving weak babies to die on mountain tops? What about their corrupt religious leaders, forced conscription from a young age, and military aggresiveness being held on such a high pedestal? Aside from their bravery, the film does paint a pretty negative picture of Spartan culture imo.

In contrast, theirs nothing really said about Persian culture, just that they had a narcissistic, power hungry leader call Xerxes with an ambition to make the whole world bow down before him, and you cant really take their military to be representatives of the whole culture.

Oh, just thought I'd point out that the Spartans prayed to non Christian polytheistic Gods in the movie, and the Persians were monotheists (Zoroastrians specifically), so that kind of ruins your analogy of whose supposed to be a symbol for whom. Get over your self righteousness, it was just a movie. Are you seriosuly that deluded to be making Nazi comparisons?

Thought I will admit, I didnt particularly enjoy the movie.

Guess what: The fight in question is a famous last stand, so it actually happened! Ofcourse, in the movie some things changed under the will of whomever was the director (like in any movie based on a book, or real experiences), but in essence most of the stuff presented there is true.
This is so much of an understatement it almost becomes an april fool's joke.

In response to the OP, the Spartans weren't exactly portrayed as the pinnacle of morality either. Didn't the opening sequence allude to them leaving weak babies to die on mountain tops?

They did.

What about their corrupt religious leaders, forced conscription from a young age, and military aggresiveness being held on such a high pedestal?


Go read history books. Thats what Sparta was like.

Aside from their bravery, the film does paint a pretty negative picture of Spartan culture imo

Which is why in modern times, people are referred to as being Spartan in their tastes.

Thucydides
Boag and Sinnegan
Cary
Aristophanes
Aristarchus
Polemocrates

Books. Knowledge.Facts.

Go find them.

Free Pacific Nations. I never said otherwise, I already know that's what Spartan life was like. My point was that the movie does acknowledge and accurately portray all those flaws in Spartan paradigms and make no pretences of them having some moral highground over Persian culture. Hence why I dont think that film was bigoted. They were simply historically accurate.

They did.
Indeed. Most people apparently find it shocking in The Republic when Plato alludes to infanticide - the translators often have to clarify that this was in fact common practice in ancient Greece, not some particular nasty predilection on behalf of the author himself.

Books. Knowledge.Facts.
Arse. Feck. Drink.

:)

They were simply historically accurate.
It is of course based on a comic book...

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~sparta/topics/reviews/enthusiast/300.htm
The Good:
Some attention has been paid to "getting it right." The Spartans are distinguished by their red cloaks and long hair (even to the point of being shown brushing it out before battle, as described by the historian Herodotus, bringing to mind Housman's poem about how "the Spartans, on the sea-wet rock / sat, and combed their hair"). Some of the Persian army is depicted in accurate campaign dress. The Spartan characters are rather laconic in speech (as opposed to the usual superhero bombast), and many of the famous Spartan aphorisms are worked into the dialogue.

Now, the Bad:
Again, this isn't something designed to be used in school, but with so much done right, it's a shame an equal number of things are done so poorly, either for artistic license or some other reason. The Spartan hoplites are depicted in either the "heroic nude" or wearing something very much like thong underpants, which is laughable. Why do their helmets (except Leonidas') lack crests? Did they forget them at home, with their body armor and tunics? The ephors are shown like a band of evil Emperors from STAR WARS, leprous and perverted. Their absolute corruption and malevolence must be designed to make Leonidas shine all the brighter. The traitor Ephialtes, the Judas of Thermopylae, has been rewritten into a diseased, hunchbacked, half-breed in whom rejection by Leonidas instills a crazed desire for vengeance. (This scene doesn't hold water: the king turns Ephialtes away because he isn't able to hold a shield in the phalanx, but there's no reason this Ephialtes couldn't have served capably as a skirmisher, armor-bearer, messenger, waterboy, hair stylist (ha), or whatever.) The Immortals, Great King Xerxes' crack troops, are drawn heavily stylized, with pitch black cowls, black shields, and armored facemasks, more like Halloween goblins than the Persian elite. The Persian host did NOT include elephants, alas, despite what is shown in volume five. Xerxes himself is perhaps the greatest departure from reality. Rather than an arrogant Achaemenid prince, he is drawn as a towering, body-pierced, Nubian smooth-talker. Most disconcerting.

It was definately not PC. White greeks should have been played by black Americans while non-white Mid Easterners should have been played by whites.

Was it necessary to show non-white middle easterners as degenerate mutant freaks, instead of as, you know, non-white middle easterners?

leaving the idiotic nazi talk aside for a moment

as a woman i feel completely confident in saying that there was utterly NO homosexual subtext to the movie. all it was was hunky men fighting. the only eroticism was strictly straight. the king and his queen, the disgusting temple man and the oracle girl, the queen and the bad man.

im thinking that its the perfect HOMOPHOBIC movie because so many otherwise straight men seem to be so completely taken with how sexy those guys were. in a movie void of men showing any attraction to each other at all, straight men see eroticism.

SURE, anyone who is attracted to men will find these men attractive. id like to see it again just for the eye candy. but gay men (assumedly) enjoying the sight of so many buff shirtless men does not make the movie gay any more than it makes the NFL gay.

its very telling.

Unfortunately, expect more... that's all that American movies boil down to these days.

Indeed, I expect within 5 years all movies made in the US will follow the example of Grind House.

An almost perfect combination of thinly veiled homoeroticism with even more thinly veiled fascism and racism. it was the tale of 300 perfect specimens of european manhood, without shirts fighting endless faceless hordes of mongels and negroes, defeating them all until they are betrayed by a degenerate malformed freak of their own people who escaped his just euthanization only to ultimately betray his race and bow before the mongrel tyrant in return for the debaucheries of the flesh. it was endless oiled men flexing and strutting and posing as they withstood the subhuman hordes to uphold the values of western civilization.... plus it had a war rhinoceros, you gotta love any movie with a war rhinoceros falling dead at the feet of a half naked sweating european warrior...

Abuuh?

The Nubians

BANKY: "What's a Nubian?"

BANKY: "What's a Nubian?"

Someone from Nubia, duh.

(Nubia was a country south of Egypt.)

*cough* Jennifer Aniston *cough* Greeks are not Scandinavians but they are definately whiter than Iranians.

Oh, yes. Let's put all Greeks into a categoey based on the skin color of a Hollywood actress who rhinoplastied her way out of looking anything like a continental Greek woman, and did so in order to look more like a typical Hollywood woman. :rolleyes:

Nice try.

If these people used Persian proper and Persian proper refers to original inhabitants, then they all made claims about ancient peoples. Either that or your explanation of Persian proper was wrong.
And Coon was the latest which used these terms. So there can be noone who would base his or her work on "more modern research".



And they have claimed that "Persian proper" is similar to "Mediterranid" which is "commonly found in Eastern Europe"?

I believe Guenther was the only one of the older anthropologists to make rather specific claims about ancient peoples; most speculation about the subtypes in the area would be based off more modern research, which could be used to match the subtypes Coon (and Guenther) identified. As I have said before, the identification of these subtypes is complementary to modern research - although the whole area needs a revival IMO.


My mistake. Now you should know who he is.


His research into IQ ties into his studies on genetics and the like. He has a broad area of expertise. The other guys who have done much research on this are Cavalli-Sforza and Philippe Rushton (more so the former than the latter).

*adopts Cartman voice*

NERD FIIIIIGHT!!!

leaving the idiotic nazi talk aside for a moment

as a woman i feel completely confident in saying that there was utterly NO homosexual subtext to the movie. all it was was hunky men fighting. the only eroticism was strictly straight. the king and his queen, the disgusting temple man and the oracle girl, the queen and the bad man.

im thinking that its the perfect HOMOPHOBIC movie because so many otherwise straight men seem to be so completely taken with how sexy those guys were. in a movie void of men showing any attraction to each other at all, straight men see eroticism.

SURE, anyone who is attracted to men will find these men attractive. id like to see it again just for the eye candy. but gay men (assumedly) enjoying the sight of so many buff shirtless men does not make the movie gay any more than it makes the NFL gay.

its very telling.

Laaaadieeees aaaand gentlemennnn!

The winner of this thread, and Crappy Thesis Debunker CHAMPIONNNN,

AAAAAAASSHMOOOOOORIAAAAA!

(Uh...you win the thread.)

Someone from Nubia, duh.

(Nubia was a country south of Egypt.)

Hey, Captain Reference Misser, that was a line from Chasing Amy, hence the character attribution and the quotation marks. Sheesh. :rolleyes:

Yeah, those sex scenes and the dancing Oracle, that was really gay.

I loved this movie. All those rippling abs, all on the screen at once. Those guys were fucking ripped. And the level of violence was phenomenal. If there was one drawback to this movie it was the boring and unnecessary subplot with the queen and the traitorous ambassador, which meant fewer people getting stabbed in the chest or beheaded. In slow motion. With the splatter. The splatter is key. There was so much violence, I found that the only times I WASN'T jacking off to it was during the nude scenes.

Yeah, those sex scenes and the dancing Oracle, that was really gay.

Spot on.


And I'm not normally one to unleash the horn-dog in NSG, but the actress playing the Queen? Hot. SMOKIN' hot.

Laaaadieeees aaaand gentlemennnn!

The winner of this thread, and Crappy Thesis Debunker CHAMPIONNNN,

AAAAAAASSHMOOOOOORIAAAAA!

(Uh...you win the thread.)

thank you!

*tears up*

*accepts huge bouquet of roses*

*walks down the runway blowing kisses to the crowd*

Ive heard 300 refered to as homoerotic, but the original graphic novel had much more male nudity and less female nudity than the film. The truth is 300 was a good film to watch, but not based on the truth. Did you know the average spartan had around 10 slaves, that is how they could devote all their efforts to war

I think a lot of people watched The 300 from the wrong angle: It wasn't the story of how the spartans held off the Persian army, it was the story of how Leonidus was such a fucking pussy that he couldn't even score a solid hit on Darius in the middle of an open field with only about 10 feet seperating them.

I think a lot of people watched The 300 from the wrong angle: It wasn't the story of how the spartans held off the Persian army, it was the story of how Leonidus was such a fucking pussy that he couldn't even score a solid hit on Darius in the middle of an open field with only about 10 feet seperating them.

Xerxes, not Darius. But I personally went to see it for the severed limbs, blood, etc., and it did not disappoint.

these was a true homosexual and/or pederastic army: Sacred Band of Thebes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes)

and these articles are related to it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_militaries_of_ancient_Greece
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_Ancient_Greece
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartan_pederasty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theban_pederasty

OK, first off I would like to point out that "300" was based on a fictional graphic novel. And lets not forget that the author of 300 was the same guy who wrote Sin City. This movie was not designed to be a documentary people, and it didn't even suggest that this was based on the true story. So, unless you guys generally spend your time criticizing the factual correctness of comic book authors lay off the corrections to what was a decent movie.

Next, what is with all of the bashing of Americans?! If you ever want your point of view heard don't go insulting the other person's ethnicity. I would also like to point out that this horribly hypocritical because your main rap with 300 is the fact that it was racially incorrect. So, you just go around insulting Americans. Not only are you insulting them, but you're doing it on the basis of several stereotypes. I'm not saying that we Americans are the smartest people in the world, but if you come from the so-called "industrialized world" show some respect to your fellow man. If you don't like our policies say it, but please don't insult me based on the ground that's beneath my feet.

By the way, not all Americans are stupid, as I hope this post has shown you.

:headbang:

Slow fast slow, it's the new 3D rotation matrix thingy.

I'm fine with slow->fast->slow, but 300 was just slow.

OK, first off I would like to point out that "300" was based on a fictional graphic novel. And lets not forget that the author of 300 was the same guy who wrote Sin City. This movie was not designed to be a documentary people, and it didn't even suggest that this was based on the true story. So, unless you guys generally spend your time criticizing the factual correctness of comic book authors lay off the corrections to what was a decent movie.
The director said it was 90% accurate.

The Film's Director Zack Snyder stated in an MTV interview that "The events are 90 percent accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300_%28film%29#Historical_accuracy

Forgot to mention this in my original post...

Why is everyone calling this a "gay movie"?

First, this movie was completely devoid of any homosexuality what so ever. And the fact that there were millions of lepers only emphasized this point.

And I'm sorry, but I would hardly call a ton of ripped guys (most of which were obviously edited to look such) blowing the shit out of each other with metal objects "gay".

Also, why do you people have to use that term? Why do you have to look for any possible reason to look at something and say "Hey that was gay!" I'm quite sure that people who are homosexual don't refer to things as "straight". Why can't you realize that they are becoming an accepted part of our society and that you can't freely use that term anymore.

OK, first off I would like to point out that "300" was based on a fictional graphic novel. And lets not forget that the author of 300 was the same guy who wrote Sin City. This movie was not designed to be a documentary people, and it didn't even suggest that this was based on the true story. So, unless you guys generally spend your time criticizing the factual correctness of comic book authors lay off the corrections to what was a decent movie.

Next, what is with all of the bashing of Americans?! If you ever want your point of view heard don't go insulting the other person's ethnicity. I would also like to point out that this horribly hypocritical because your main rap with 300 is the fact that it was racially incorrect. So, you just go around insulting Americans. Not only are you insulting them, but you're doing it on the basis of several stereotypes. I'm not saying that we Americans are the smartest people in the world, but if you come from the so-called "industrialized world" show some respect to your fellow man. If you don't like our policies say it, but please don't insult me based on the ground that's beneath my feet.

By the way, not all Americans are stupid, as I hope this post has shown you.

:headbang:

but we don't insult you based on the ground that's beneath my feet. we insult you based on your folks conduct and appearance on the global stage. ;)

IMO the movie just shows how badly wrong Hollywood can get things. Considering the supposedly historical basis, almost nothing survived into the movie except for the fact that there was a battle at Thermopylae, there was a rearguard of 300 spartan warriors (completely forgetting the "700 Thespian volunteers" and the "1,000 to 2,000 Helots" who did the same http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae) or the fact that there was a naval battle at the same time. they should have made up a fictional place and people and that way it would not have mattered.

stupid holywood

Wow....its wasnt meant to be a "historical" movie. Its was meant to ENTERTAIN. Not once did the creators of this movie say "historical" at all. Even as a Historian to be can see this....

And as for the make up of the characters...i saw NOTHING wrong with the "racial" make up, even though i think that should be a non -issue. The fact of the matter is the Persian Empire was a MIXED empire of peoples. They had all sorts of different cultures with in the governmental structure from the bottom up. That is one thing i think so many forget, and is it shown in the movie? No, its wasnt meant to be that way for the movie...
As for some of the things liek the rhinos and such, like i said a fictional movie that exaggerated the plot. I looked at this film like i would watch a Japanese anime film, exaggerated and far out in some areas.

The fact of the matter is even within the Greek city states they had different tone colors of skin too....

Snyder himself dismisses ideological readings, suggesting that reviewers who critique a "graphic novel movie about a bunch of guys...stomping the snot out of each other" using words like " 'neocon,' 'homophobic,' 'homoerotic' or 'racist' " are "missing the point."

Hey, OP, you're creating dirt where there is none. Get off it.

Wow....its wasnt meant to be a "historical" movie. Its was meant to ENTERTAIN. Not once did the creators of this movie say "historical" at all. Even as a Historian to be can see this....

The director said it was 90% accurate.

The director said it was 90% accurate.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300_%28film%29#Historical_accuracy

it IS 90% accurate, depending on how you rate accuracy.

its typical of any dramatic treatment of any historical event. you have 2 hours to cover what happens over the course of a few days (longer if you consider the time passing between the beginning of the movie and the end). the writers wants to use famous sayings of the spartans so he puts them into the story even though they come from different stories. the director wants to have a bigger role for a woman so he adds to the queen's story (Not unlike what peter jackson did to the arwen story line in lord of the rings). and so on.

there are a few puzzling changes that seem unnecessarily wrong--the treatment of the delphic oracle springs to mind-- but such problems exist in every movie no matter what the subject.

Snyder himself dismisses ideological readings, suggesting that reviewers who critique a "graphic novel movie about a bunch of guys...stomping the snot out of each other" using words like " 'neocon,' 'homophobic,' 'homoerotic' or 'racist' " are "missing the point."

Wow, he went from saying it was historically accurate to saying it was a comic book. Which one is it?


From my own personal experience, most of the kids who saw it thought it was historical fact.

Spot on.


And I'm not normally one to unleash the horn-dog in NSG, but the actress playing the Queen? Hot. SMOKIN' hot.

Quoted for mighty truth.

Was it necessary to show non-white middle easterners as degenerate mutant freaks, instead of as, you know, non-white middle easterners?

Your point? It is based on a fictional setting, nothignto do with history, its called symbolism. The author was trying to explain something with in that story.

it IS 90% accurate, depending on how you rate accuracy.

its typical of any dramatic treatment of any historical event. you have 2 hours to cover what happens over the course of a few days (longer if you consider the time passing between the beginning of the movie and the end). the writers wants to use famous sayings of the spartans so he puts them into the story even though they come from different stories. the director wants to have a bigger role for a woman so he adds to the queen's story (Not unlike what peter jackson did to the arwen story line in lord of the rings). and so on.

there are a few puzzling changes that seem unnecessarily wrong--the treatment of the delphic oracle springs to mind-- but such problems exist in every movie no matter what the subject.

So an army of 300 Spartans fighting naked against hoards of mutant animal freaks and fat guys with lobster claws for hands led by an androgynous giant BDSM enthusiast is an accurate depiction of the battle of Thermopylae...

Or maybe, if it is indeed ideologically charged, there might be a reason...perhaps there is a conflict, and we just don't want to admit it.

Your point? It is based on a fictional setting, nothignto do with history, its called symbolism. The author was trying to explain something with in that story.

I don't have any problem when it's considered to be what it is, a comic book. I do have a problem when it's considered historical fact, which right now, it is.

The director said it was 90% accurate.

Then again the director did say this too:

He continues that the film is "an opera, not a documentary. From your site.

Point i was making was he wasnt trying to portray as a historical movie.

Point i was making was he wasnt trying to portray as a historical movie.
Then why did he say it was historically accurate?

Wow, he went from saying it was historically accurate to saying it was a comic book. Which one is it?


From my own personal experience, most of the kids who saw it thought it was historical fact.


Then those kids need to go back to school, then.

What I want most is clarification on what you people think about it, is it:

A.) A historically accurate depiction of the Battle of Thermopylae

or

B.) An accurate depiction of Frank Miller's comic 300.

So an army of 300 Spartans fighting naked against hoards of mutant animal freaks and fat guys with lobster claws for hands led by an androgynous giant BDSM enthusiast is an accurate depiction of the battle of Thermopylae...

yes.

were there spartans? yes

were there persians? yes

where there a small number of spartans? yes

did they have help from other greeks? yes

did xerxes have a big army? yes

did xerxes watch the battle? yes

did a bunch of xerxes' ships get wrecked? yes

did they fight in a spot that negated the huge army's advantage? yes

did they get betrayed by a greek revealing the goat path? yes

were the spartans kickass fighters? yes

did all the spartans die? yes

were they raised that way? yes

were their women more independant than other greek women? yes

did sparta have a council? yes

did the envoy from xerxes get killed and tossed into a well? yes

did xerxes offer leonides rule over greece if he submitted? yes

were the cool quotes actually said by spartans at one time or another? yes

did everyone dress that way? no

did they include every aspect of the battle? no

did the persians bring elephants, rhinos and grenades? no

did xerxes touch leonides? no

did leonides hurl a spear at xerxes and graze his face with it? no

the important parts are true, the unimportant parts are false. the stuff they didnt include is irrelevant.

B.) An accurate depiction of Frank Miller's comic 300.

What is The Motion Picture called '300', Alex?

but we don't insult you based on the ground that's beneath my feet. we insult you based on your folks conduct and appearance on the global stage. ;)

Ahh...but do all Americans lumber around the global stage acting like imbeciles?

I for one do not.

:cool:

AS for the director saying that it was 90% accurate, what kind of accuracy is he talking about? I'm quite certain that the Immortals weren't made up of lepers, and the same goes for his tent girls. And the battle in the Hot Gates was quite different. The director said a lot of things in order to sell the movie. For example, when he said that it was a psychological attack on Iranians. I can guarantee that when he was asked that question he had never even thought about it before. The fact is that the director really doesn't know what he's talking about, the whole 90% thing is just to get people talking, or just something idiotic that he said. Because there is no way that 300 was 90% accurate (at least in my point of view). Directors do all sorts of crazy publicity things to get their movies out there, to make sure that their movie is the talk of the land.

And this forum is proof that it worked...

:D

yes.

were there spartans? yes

were there persians? yes

where there a small number of spartans? yes

did they have help from other greeks? yes

did xerxes have a big army? yes

did xerxes watch the battle? yes

did a bunch of xerxes' ships get wrecked? yes

did they fight in a spot that negated the huge army's advantage? yes

did they get betrayed by a greek revealing the goat path? yes

were the spartans kickass fighters? yes

did all the spartans die? yes

were they raised that way? yes

were their women more independant than other greek women? yes

did sparta have a council? yes

did the envoy from xerxes get killed and tossed into a well? yes

did xerxes offer leonides rule over greece if he submitted? yes

were the cool quotes actually said by spartans at one time or another? yes

did everyone dress that way? no

did they include every aspect of the battle? no

did the persians bring elephants, rhinos and grenades? no

did xerxes touch leonides? no

did leonides hurl a spear at xerxes and graze his face with it? no

the important parts are true, the unimportant parts are false. the stuff they didnt include is irrelevant.

Were the Persians Mutants? No.

Were the Persians Animals? No.

Did some of the Persians have lobster claws for hands? No.

Was Xerxes 9 feet tall? No.

Was Xerxes and Androgynous sissy? No.

Was Xerxes into BDSM? No.

Was the Battle of the pass if Thermopylae the only resistance to the Persian invasion? No.

Did the Greeks fight naked? No.

Did the Greeks push a wall of dead bodies on the immortals? No.

The movie didn't have Themistocles in it, without him there would be no Thermopylae.

the important parts are true, the unimportant parts are false. the stuff they didnt include is irrelevant.
The most important part, however, was that the Spartans weren't simply there as part of a petty penis-waving contest between two dictators, they were sent there by a coalition of Greek city-states in order to buy time for the rest of their armies to assemble.

Were the Persians Mutants? No.

Were the Persians Animals? No.

Did some of the Persians have lobster claws for hands? No.

Was Xerxes 9 feet tall? No.

Was Xerxes and Androgynous sissy? No.

Was Xerxes into BDSM? No.

Was the Battle of the pass if Thermopylae the only resistance to the Persian invasion? No.

Did the Greeks fight naked? No.

Did the Greeks push a wall of dead bodies on the immortals? No.

seen now those things, while inaccurate, are in no way as important as what IS accurate. it falls in the 10%.

besides xerxes was only 7 feet tall in the movie. how do you know what he was and wasnt into? i dont recall seeing xerxes in a sexual situation.

the persians werent protrayed as animals or mutants. they were portrayed as an exotic people from a huge empire. an empire that included some freaky people. there were far more "normal" persians than freaks.

seen now those things, while inaccurate, are in no way as important as what IS accurate. it falls in the 10%.
The film did not include Themistocles, the man who mustered the Greeks into fighting the Persians at the pass of Thermopylae, he was also the man who defeated the Persians and sent them packing.
besides xerxes was only 7 feet tall in the movie. how do you know what he was and wasnt into? i dont recall seeing xerxes in a sexual situation.
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/03/29/300_wideweb__470x248,0.jpg

the persians werent protrayed as animals or mutants. they were portrayed as an exotic people from a huge empire. an empire that included some freaky people. there were far more "normal" persians than freaks.
http://www.aintitcool.com/images2006/CC300uglyposter.jpg

"exotic" :rolleyes:

The most important part, however, was that the Spartans weren't simply there as part of a petty penis-waving contest between two dictators, they were sent there by a coalition of Greek city-states in order to buy time for the rest of their armies to assemble.

thats another one of the things that i thought was needlessly inaccurate. it doesnt make the story better to have leonides go out on an ill planned suicide mission.

there are others but the list doesnt spring to my mind any more.

The film did not include Themistocles, the man who mustered the Greeks into fighting the Persians at the pass of Thermopylae, he was also the man who defeated the Persians and sent them packing.

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/03/29/300_wideweb__470x248,0.jpg


http://www.aintitcool.com/images2006/CC300uglyposter.jpg

"exotic" :rolleyes:

its only a 2 hour movie. it cant include everything. themistocles is irrelevant to the movie.

if you have something to say, say it, i dont have the bandwidth to look at big jpgs.

yeah, exotic. its not a documentary. its a stylistic choice to contrast perfect bodies with freaky ones. get over it.

The film did not include Themistocles, the man who mustered the Greeks into fighting the Persians at the pass of Thermopylae, he was also the man who defeated the Persians and sent them packing.

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/03/29/300_wideweb__470x248,0.jpg


http://www.aintitcool.com/images2006/CC300uglyposter.jpg

"exotic" :rolleyes:

I dont think people on here understand it was NOT a historical FILM. It is a fictional film that had a place, time and certain people that are true people. Lot of films do this....
Have any of you ever seen some of what Homer's epic sotries would look like to its original watchers of the play? It would of been "exatic" and exaggerated and such.

I dont think people on here understand it was NOT a historical FILM. It is a fictional film that had a place, time and certain people that are true people. Lot of films do this....
Have any of you ever seen some of what Homer's epic sotries would look like to its original watchers of the play? It would of been "exatic" and exaggerated and such.

Um, look above this post.

its only a 2 hour movie. it cant include everything. themistocles is irrelevant to the movie.

if you have something to say, say it, i dont have the bandwidth to look at big jpgs.

yeah, exotic. its not a documentary. its a stylistic choice to contrast perfect bodies with freaky ones. get over it.

Than can at least admit that its not historical fact,and that it's based off a comic book?

thats another one of the things that i thought was needlessly inaccurate. it doesnt make the story better to have leonides go out on an ill planned suicide mission.

there are others but the list doesnt spring to my mind any more.


Actually the film is right inthsi regard, teh otehr city states were still arguing over if it want to fight the mighty Persian Empire. It wasnt until they "heard" stories from how the 300(plus some 100 other greeks)died bravely they decided to fight. Hence why they showed tens of thousands lined up at the end of the movie to fight the Persians.

Um, look above this post.

Read what i said again....

Actually the film is right inthsi regard, teh otehr city states were still arguing over if it want to fight the mighty Persian Empire. It wasnt until they "heard" stories from how the 300(plus some 100 other greeks)died bravely they decided to fight. Hence why they showed tens of thousands lined up at the end of the movie to fight the Persians.

That was another part of the movie which was fiction.


It's inevitable, we've lost another battle in the war on stupidity.

Wow, another multiple-page thread on the merits of 300; with plenty of arguments as to the historical accuracy of a 35-page comic book.

Suffice to say that every single event that has happened in every single film in the history of humanity actually hapened for real.

Especially Star Wars.

*nods*


Are we quite finished girls and boys? Everyone done wraping their heads around the concept of fiction?

Than can at least admit that its not historical fact,and that it's based off a comic book?

sure. no problem

it IS based off a comic book. its not meant to be a documentary and should not be taken as accurate in any detail. if you want to know what really happened, read a book about it.

An almost perfect combination of thinly veiled homoeroticism with even more thinly veiled fascism and racism. it was the tale of 300 perfect specimens of european manhood, without shirts fighting endless faceless hordes of mongels and negroes, defeating them all until they are betrayed by a degenerate malformed freak of their own people who escaped his just euthanization only to ultimately betray his race and bow before the mongrel tyrant in return for the debaucheries of the flesh. it was endless oiled men flexing and strutting and posing as they withstood the subhuman hordes to uphold the values of western civilization.... plus it had a war rhinoceros, you gotta love any movie with a war rhinoceros falling dead at the feet of a half naked sweating european warrior...

I agree. The series went downhill after 253. This movie had its moments, but it lacked the subtlety of 196, and there hasn't been good character development since 208.

A lot of people will tell you that 001 was the definitive release, but in truth, the series hadn't really developed until 027, when it learned to weave intricate plot with relatable characters. And I don't care what anyone says about eye candy, the special effects made possible by the technology that had developed by 135 did nothing but enhance the experience. 018 could definitely have benefited from it.

Actually the film is right inthsi regard, teh otehr city states were still arguing over if it want to fight the mighty Persian Empire. It wasnt until they "heard" stories from how the 300(plus some 100 other greeks)died bravely they decided to fight. Hence why they showed tens of thousands lined up at the end of the movie to fight the Persians.

It was a thousand other Greeks. And they didn't line up to repel the invaders. They gathered their forces and attacked Persia a year later.

thats another one of the things that i thought was needlessly inaccurate. it doesnt make the story better to have leonides go out on an ill planned suicide mission.
I wouldn't say "needlessly", as that little inaccuracy made it a story about how the dynamic, violent and pure Leonides defied the weakness and corruption inherent in Democracy. It's the sort of thing Mussolini would have written, had he been born on the other side of the Adriatic.
And it isn't just a movie based on a comic book, it is a dangerous endorsement of fascism and alpha-male antics mascarading as "90% historically accurate."

I wouldn't say "needlessly", as that little inaccuracy made it a story about how the dynamic, violent and pure Leonides defied the weakness and corruption inherent in Democracy. It's the sort of thing Mussolini would have written, had he been born on the other side of the Adriatic.
And it isn't just a movie based on a comic book, it is a dangerous endorsement of fascism and alpha-male antics mascarading as "90% historically accurate."

whatever you say

i dont think we have to worry that 300 is going to spawn a new fascist movement.

Is it just me, or were the spartans wearing musclebound bodysuits?

I didn't think this movie was particularly racist, it was a story of a Xenophobic European nation fighting all the combined nations of Africa. Unless I'm mistaken, the ethnic portrayals were pretty acurate.

Sure the Persian army was pretty decadent and vile, but hey, they were the bad guys!:rolleyes:

Aside from the weird-mutant-Persian-executioner-cyborg-thingy, I thought this movie was rather entertaining. Well worth the 0$ I paid to go see it (It's nice to have connections).

I guess that makes me a Neo-Zpartanazi.

Posted by Chumblywumbly:
Suffice to say that every single event that has happened in every single film in the history of humanity actually hapened for real.

Especially Star Wars.

Of course! Star Wars is ancient history yo!

I agree. The series went downhill after 253. This movie had its moments, but it lacked the subtlety of 196, and there hasn't been good character development since 208.

A lot of people will tell you that 001 was the definitive release, but in truth, the series hadn't really developed until 027, when it learned to weave intricate plot with relatable characters. And I don't care what anyone says about eye candy, the special effects made possible by the technology that had developed by 135 did nothing but enhance the experience. 018 could definitely have benefited from it.

Yeah, but it'd jumped the shark by 199, easily. They were coasting on fumes 'til the last installment.

Is it just me, or were the spartans wearing musclebound bodysuits?


its just you. the men worked out for 6 months. if you go to the 300 website you can see video of the actual men walking around with splendid natural bodies

the muscles were enhanced by makeup though. and probably further by lighting and color/contrast manipulation.

I'm sure 300 was eye candy for our gay friends here.

its just you. the men worked out for 6 months. if you go to the 300 website you can see video of the actual men walking around with splendid natural bodies

the muscles were enhanced by makeup though. and probably further by lighting and color/contrast manipulation.


This is true. Zach went to britain and employed many theatrical stunts men and body builders to be in his film. these men did nothing practically for about a month but train as hard as they could. they never did the same work out twice. much of the film was shot on a steady cam, and a system of sophisticated dollys to get the smooth camera movements. They built extensive sets, but much of the XLS backgrounds, and skies are CG. "if it is close enough to touch, i want it to be real". -snyder. Most of the movie was shot in front of a blue screen, b/c snyder liked the way the blue showed up on the caes and bodies. many of the screen shots were taken directly from the graphic novel. the colors were crushed. they used super 35mm with panavision and arriflex cameras and primo lenses, using kodak vision2 expression 500T 5229 stock film, which works best for under exposure. the extensive top light created many eyeshadows, exaggerated in the high contrst color crush. they remidied this through eye lighting. Snyder and Fong were going for a Pageant of the masters look, always portraying the men in an epic way. They wanted to combat the culture of portraying the PC man as a f***ing pussy. They often used multiple cameras running at a variety of frame rates to be able to use in post for the slomo sections. It was a different more artsy form of slo mo never quite done that way before. many difficult zoom s such as when Leonidas' blade lops off some ones head ...the camera zooms in to show the bloody moment, and zooms back ou, camera and Actor perfectly in sync.

pretty much, 300 is a cinemagraphic piece of beauty. It was never marketed as any more historically accurate than Braveheart, the patriot, Veggietales, or james Bond. In fact, all of the trailers and movie posters incessantly repeated that it was based off of the graphic novel, and to anyone with any intelligence knows that graphic novels are historical fiction, or just plain fiction, for the most part.

It is always quite interesting when non media persons, especially from nations with little or no media or film experience decide to critique american cinematography. keep up for education, for you have much to learn. for instance, Europe, as a whole put directors 9the creative guy) in charge of the producer (the buisness guy), about 10 years ago. Before that point, Greece was putting out nearly 300 quality films a year. Then, due to a poor understanding of film, the made the creative guy in charge. some beautiful/strange creative films that were horribly over buget that no one went to see were produced, resembling student/indie films, but worse. now, that shining pinnacle of cinematography, greece, puts out 3 or 4 films ayear.

also, you will remember that the depiction of good and evil resembles the Lord of the rings, and many other superhero films, and practically all mythology for all time. Good is beautiful, and evil is disgusting. Film portrays this visually, in order to predispose you to one side or the other.
Zach was asked if the spartans represented the western world, to which he gave a cryptic reply. if it does, then both sides are portrayed equally negatively, just in different ways. a corrupt government oppossed to a tyranny. a cocky egotistical rebellious king oppossed a more sickly sweet cunning, if not "tropical" emporer. A city state constantly at petty war vs a conquering empire. it could just as easily represent the USA Vs Britain in the early colonial era, or any other time anyone has held of certain loss, and showed bravery in the face of certain destruction.

It also did have homosexual overtones. As one of my alternative life style friends put it, ' If I was in leonidas's shoes, and Xerxes was talking to me that way: wispering in my ear, and resting his hand on my sholder, and coming on with that demeanor, I would have been all over him."
Also, 2 girls making out, as well as the other acts of bestiality, and lesbian behavior in Xerex's tent is clearly alternative, and homosexual.

However,
It was not intended to be historically accurate, but to be a creative expression, an epic movie, and a good fun guy film, with sex and epic violence.

:mp5:

I agree. The series went downhill after 253. This movie had its moments, but it lacked the subtlety of 196, and there hasn't been good character development since 208.

A lot of people will tell you that 001 was the definitive release, but in truth, the series hadn't really developed until 027, when it learned to weave intricate plot with relatable characters. And I don't care what anyone says about eye candy, the special effects made possible by the technology that had developed by 135 did nothing but enhance the experience. 018 could definitely have benefited from it.
i'm waiting for 1 000 000, the story from the Persian point of view.

and adding on to the OP's keen penetration of this movie's homoeroticism, I would like to quasi-quote Jon Stewart,
"300, a movie showing how 300 Spartans and nearly 1800 abs beat a million persians."

godamit Jon Stewart is funny.

Stop streching (How the fuck do you spell this word?) the goddamn page.

Stop streching (How the fuck do you spell this word?) the goddamn page.
You need a 't'.

And I need a cup of tea.

The film did not include Themistocles, the man who mustered the Greeks into fighting the Persians at the pass of Thermopylae, he was also the man who defeated the Persians and sent them packing.

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/03/29/300_wideweb__470x248,0.jpg


http://www.aintitcool.com/images2006/CC300uglyposter.jpg

"exotic" :rolleyes:

that big guy looks like a tranny. nice eyebrows, make up and well done nails.

monster guy looks like an ogre.

An almost perfect combination of thinly veiled homoeroticism with even more thinly veiled fascism and racism. it was the tale of 300 perfect specimens of european manhood, without shirts fighting endless faceless hordes of mongels and negroes, defeating them all until they are betrayed by a degenerate malformed freak of their own people who escaped his just euthanization only to ultimately betray his race and bow before the mongrel tyrant in return for the debaucheries of the flesh. it was endless oiled men flexing and strutting and posing as they withstood the subhuman hordes to uphold the values of western civilization.... plus it had a war rhinoceros, you gotta love any movie with a war rhinoceros falling dead at the feet of a half naked sweating european warrior...

Amazing. No other words for that review. Just amazing.

I have to show this to all my friends.

Seriously, if I was a woman I would have your babies.

Unfortunately, expect more... that's all that American movies boil down to these days.

Stupid stupid Americans...

Yes, unlike European movies, that display true form of emotion and meaning... Movie with purpose and sanity.

And that's why they all suck! :p

No offense to anyone who likes European movies but I have yet to like one.

*adopts Cartman voice*

NERD FIIIIIGHT!!!

Coming from someone with 3,888 posts?

[...] 300 perfect specimens of european manhood, without shirts [...] endless oiled men flexing and strutting and posing [...] a half naked sweating european warrior...

{sighs wistfully} yeah, it was a pretty good movie, wudn'it?

More seriously, though-- just the use of the term "gay nazis" shows remarkable insensitivity and/or ignorance of history. It's like tossing around the idea of "black Klansmen." The only relationship between gay people and the national socialist party of Germany in the 30's and 40's was that they had a vicious propensity for rounding us up for shipment to the death camps and murdering us en masse. If there *were* any actual gay Nazis, they didn't dare be both publicly, and were in all likelihood hiding under the enemy's nose to keep from being killed, in which case I wouldn't call them 'gay Nazis,' I'd just call them Nazis and disown them as gay.

{sighs wistfully} yeah, it was a pretty good movie, wudn'it?

More seriously, though-- just the use of the term "gay nazis" shows remarkable insensitivity and/or ignorance of history. It's like tossing around the idea of "black Klansmen." The only relationship between gay people and the national socialist party of Germany in the 30's and 40's was that they had a vicious propensity for rounding us up for shipment to the death camps and murdering us en masse. If there *were* any actual gay Nazis, they didn't dare be both publicly, and were in all likelihood hiding under the enemy's nose to keep from being killed, in which case I wouldn't call them 'gay Nazis,' I'd just call them Nazis and disown them as gay.

Apparently there were plenty of gay guys in the SS.

{sighs wistfully} yeah, it was a pretty good movie, wudn'it?

More seriously, though-- just the use of the term "gay nazis" shows remarkable insensitivity and/or ignorance of history. It's like tossing around the idea of "black Klansmen." The only relationship between gay people and the national socialist party of Germany in the 30's and 40's was that they had a vicious propensity for rounding us up for shipment to the death camps and murdering us en masse. If there *were* any actual gay Nazis, they didn't dare be both publicly, and were in all likelihood hiding under the enemy's nose to keep from being killed, in which case I wouldn't call them 'gay Nazis,' I'd just call them Nazis and disown them as gay.

But homophobia and homo-eroticism often go hand in hand. Like football players whipping each others asses in the locker-room and patting each others asses in tights, anal rape and forced feminization of prison inmates, the first 10 minutes of "Triumph of the Will," and Ted Haggard.

The OP wasn't using the term "gay" the way people have come to use it to simply mean "inferior." He really was pointing out that it was homoerotic in the way that a lot of homophobes seem to flock to.

it was endless oiled men flexing and strutting and posing as they withstood the subhuman hordes to uphold the values of western civilization....
You’re a complete mong if you think ancient Greece shares the "values of western civilization".

I suppose you think Black Hawk Down was a film where the Sceptics 'save the day' from the relentless evil Africans, or that in Saving Private Ryan the team of spam soldiers were the 'moral barrier' from Hitler’s ideal world...

European's are sweaty and strange anyway. Grow up mate, it’s a film.

Oh, yes. Let's put all Greeks into a categoey based on the skin color of a Hollywood actress who rhinoplastied her way out of looking anything like a continental Greek woman, and did so in order to look more like a typical Hollywood woman.

Nice try.
Jennifer Aniston indeed does not resemble a Greek woman in any way. And thank God she does not.

Here are some examples of how they can vary in looks:

http://www.acemodels.gr/datafiles/610_1l.jpg

http://www.acemodels.gr/datafiles/2061_6l.jpg

http://www.acemodels.gr/datafiles/3009_5l.jpg

http://www.acemodels.gr/datafiles/1088_12l.jpg

http://www.sitesled.com/members/racialreality/tanned03.jpg

Of course these women are all models - but their features are far more typically Greek than Jennifer Aniston's; long noses, tall, fair skin (when not tan), usually dark eyes and hair and thin, sinewy bodies. They resemble Southern French women more than Spaniards or Italians, say, and look neither like (typical) North Europeans nor Middle Easterners. There is a higher incidence of blondes in Northern Greece (and islands such as Crete), and even then these women retain typical Greek features.

Some males:

http://www.acemodels.gr/datafiles/1127_1l.jpg

http://www.acemodels.gr/datafiles/2317_1l.jpg

http://www.acemodels.gr/datafiles/2607_1l.jpg

http://www.acemodels.gr/datafiles/1962_2l.jpg

http://www.i-m.gr/data/men/big/00094-0005.jpg

The same as above applies. I have not seen the movie, but I doubt the actors chosen look Greek at all.

*adopts Cartman voice*

NERD FIIIIIGHT!!!

Coming from someone with 3,888 posts?

That settles that then. ^^


European's are sweaty and strange anyway. Grow up mate, it’s a film.
You say that like it's a bad thing. <.<

This is all a bit homophobic.

[...] as a woman i feel completely confident in saying that there was utterly NO homosexual subtext to the movie.[...]

I'll do you one better-- as a gay guy I wish there'd been MORE homosexual subtext to the movie. I mean the eye candy was agreeable, but come on. Statistically, out of 300 guys there should have been like 30ish who were enjoying being in the phalanx more than the rest of their buddies.

[QUOTE=Ashmoria;12498833]im thinking that its the perfect HOMOPHOBIC movie because so many otherwise straight men seem to be so completely taken with how sexy those guys were. in a movie void of men showing any attraction to each other at all, straight men see eroticism.

SURE, anyone who is attracted to men will find these men attractive. id like to see it again just for the eye candy. but gay men (assumedly) enjoying the sight of so many buff shirtless men does not make the movie gay any more than it makes the NFL gay.

its very telling.

Gotta agree with a lot of that. Why is it that any depiction of a bunch of hot guys together-- even if they don't flirt or f*ck or anything-- always seems to rate as "ugh, GAY!" by straight guys, while the average music video full of half-naked girls who're actually grinding up against each other doesn't get "ugh, DYKES!" I mean I know the answer, but it's meant to illustrate the double standard. Who's to say that all the man candy isn't meant for the ladies (and the me's) to get us into the theatre even if we aren't into the beheadings and impalings (though, some of us enjoyed that, too)?

Then there's the fact that the Spartans deride the Athenians for being 'boy lovers' when there's a very well developed historical case for the Spartans practicing pedarasty too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartan_pederasty). Hell, one of the most successful single military units in all of antiquity was the Sacred Band of Thebes-- yeah, but let's make fun of something that's going on all over Greece.

And if the omission of any trace of homoeroticism in the Greeks isn't bad enough, the bad guy's pretty un-subtly depicted as kinda fey. Big shaved, plucked, blinged-out egomaniac who went for a bit of 'hands-on' diplomacy with Leonidas-- oh no, no queer villain there. Grr.

The point is: boys 'r dumb-- throw rocks at them.

Further to the point: http://www.afterelton.com/movies/2007/3/300.html

Kudos to Ashmoria on her refutation. . .I didn't really notice any gay subtext either. Granted, I grew up alone on a farm, so "gay subtext" usually flies right by me, but near-nudity aside, this wasn't any more gay than seeing shirtless guys in the locker room after football practice; a lot less, actually, since the guys on screen were portrayed to be born killers.

That being said, why is anyone trying to defend or deny the historical accuracy of this movie? If it were historically accurate, then why are the guys who are supposed to fight in formation (the stated reason why Ephialtes is rejected by Leonidas) always jumping out on their own in front of the phalanx? Why, for that matter, did the Persian cavalry have stirrups? And why for the love of Mike are people who throw babies down cliffsides crooning about justice?

Seriously, people, this is designed and built to be much more in keeping with The Iliad than The Fall of the Roman Empire. It's supposed to be about people who are so badass that the gods fear them, not about actual, realistic portrayals of those fighters. Even the movie itself makes plain that this is a story told by a man encouraging his fellow Spartans to heights of valor, and no one in such a circumstance would ever take dramatic liscence, would they?
It's an action movie designed to be highly stylized. In that sense, it succeeds. It's not supposed to be anything more than that.

An almost perfect combination of thinly veiled homoeroticism with even more thinly veiled fascism and racism. it was the tale of 300 perfect specimens of european manhood, without shirts fighting endless faceless hordes of mongels and negroes, defeating them all until they are betrayed by a degenerate malformed freak of their own people who escaped his just euthanization only to ultimately betray his race and bow before the mongrel tyrant in return for the debaucheries of the flesh. it was endless oiled men flexing and strutting and posing as they withstood the subhuman hordes to uphold the values of western civilization.... plus it had a war rhinoceros, you gotta love any movie with a war rhinoceros falling dead at the feet of a half naked sweating european warrior...Guess what back then the Greeks were pretty open about having sex with other men, espically the Spartans whom had sex with their students.

As well, to state the Spartans were in great shape as all they were taught in their youth to kill people, when they were kids they would be whipped till they fainted and the winner was the one who could handble the heaviest beating.

Also, the Greeks were pretty racist as many of them saw the Persians as inferior and the Spartans and the other Greeks did massacre wave after wave of Persian soldiers as to put it bluntly they were simply superior soldiers in close combat.

The person who did betray the Greeks did so for money so it was for his own gain and his name literally translates into nightmare in modern Greek.

The Spartans also did kill their own children whom were considered to weak to survive without so much as a care and in all likehood they died.

So in general the movie was pretty accurate.

Than can at least admit that its not historical fact,and that it's based off a comic book?

Dude, the movie's poster has Frank Miller's name all over it. If you couldn't figure out it was a graphic novel-sourced film, then you're just not paying attention.

I think a lot of people watched The 300 from the wrong angle: It wasn't the story of how the spartans held off the Persian army, it was the story of how Leonidus was such a fucking pussy that he couldn't even score a solid hit on Darius in the middle of an open field with only about 10 feet seperating them.

Come on, tell me you could hurl a hoplite spear with any kind of accuracy with that many arrows in your ass.

but we don't insult you based on the ground that's beneath my feet. we insult you based on your folks conduct and appearance on the global stage. ;)

Really?

And exactly how many of "our folks" have you personally met? You're full of shit, sir, and I'm pleased to call you on it.

I don't think that the Greeks were racist for thinking themselves better than the Persians. They thought themselves better than everyone. If I'm not mistaken, the term "barbarian" originally meant someone who didn't speek Greek.

{sighs wistfully} yeah, it was a pretty good movie, wudn'it?

More seriously, though-- just the use of the term "gay nazis" shows remarkable insensitivity and/or ignorance of history. It's like tossing around the idea of "black Klansmen." The only relationship between gay people and the national socialist party of Germany in the 30's and 40's was that they had a vicious propensity for rounding us up for shipment to the death camps and murdering us en masse. If there *were* any actual gay Nazis, they didn't dare be both publicly, and were in all likelihood hiding under the enemy's nose to keep from being killed, in which case I wouldn't call them 'gay Nazis,' I'd just call them Nazis and disown them as gay.

Ernst Rohm was actually openly gay. Though he did get killed in the Night of the Long knives in 34 (though more for being seen as a threat to Hitler). So yeah.

...Threads like this make me sad.

It was based off of a "graphic novel." In my eyes, that means "overblown comic book." Even more so, it was based off of a graphic novel by Frank Miller, the same person who wrote Sin City, and Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. Would you consider these to be even remotely accurate?

It was based off of a comic book, not actual history. If I wanted historical accuracy, I would have borrowed the book that I bought my father about the wars of the ancient Greeks. As it was, I came expecting a spectacular, numbing bloodbath, and I got exactly what I expected. Only, possibly even more spectacular and bombastic than I expected. So sue me; I'm a college student, and entertainment with a small group of my friends is sometimes more important than a deep plot and an epic script and acting.

So, disparaging the movie because of its lack of historical accuracy is pointless and stupid. If you want to criticize it, find the comic book and read through it--I'm probably going to do the same, just to see how faithful it was to the source. Otherwise, equating 300 with real history is similar to equating Sin City to politics, urban life, and social structure in the US.

I wouldn't call it gay, but it definitely wasn't that enjoyable. All style and no substance -- generic orchestral music, graphic violence, gratuitous nudity, poor dialogue, and ridiculous amounts of slow motion.

you say that like it's a bad thing :p

I don't think that the Greeks were racist for thinking themselves better than the Persians. They thought themselves better than everyone. If I'm not mistaken, the term "barbarian" originally meant someone who didn't speek Greek.

True.

Barbarian was basically the "******" of the Greek world - a derogative aimed at virtually anyone not Greek to designate cultural, racial, and intellectual inferiority. The word itself is a mockery of language, basically comparing non-Greek language to childish babble.

It was used to justify slavery, Us vs. Them nationalistic rhetoric, and to assert their own perceived superiority over everyone else. Sure, they were racism. Who the fuck WASN’T?!?

And the Spartans WERE practically fascist. It was a militant, authoritarian dictatorship built on the backs of slave labor and geared towards creating racially pure “perfect” soldiers. It would have given Hitler a hardon.

And while we’re here, I should probably mention that anyone who wasn’t Xerxes was a slave to Xerxes. The Persian Empire expanded endlessly through conquest, enslaving every group of people it came into contact with, and absorbed them under the rule of a single king. And yes, the idea of a “God-King” was not altogether unheard of (though the Egyptians made this doctrine standard policy). When Alexander was made “king of Persia,” even he was shocked at the shear decadence and display of wealth shown by Persian royalty.

Please, please, PLEASE stop trying to superimpose modern morality and political doctrine onto cultures of the past. It was a different world and our oft-idiotic sensibilities are fucking meaningless without modern context. Drop it. It was a fucking movie, about a fucking comic book!

Oh, and Frank Miller has a thing for sub-human villains. See the Yellow Bastard from Sin City.

I don't think that the Greeks were racist for thinking themselves better than the Persians. They thought themselves better than everyone. If I'm not mistaken, the term "barbarian" originally meant someone who didn't speek Greek.
Indeed. The Romans later picked up their little habit. I believe the Greeks thought themselves to be the ideal mean between the Middle Easterners and Africans on the one hand and the Germanic tribes on the other (Plato made references to such a line of thought in The Republic; the Greeks no doubt had a fetish for blonde hair, but not so much for very fair skin - Northerners of a leptomorphic indo-European strand tend to combine skin that tans well with blonde hair, and most blonde greeks are consistent with this type). I suppose one could say they were the original racialists as opposed to racists.

This is the most awesome thread on NSG in a while. We're questioning the sexuality not only of other NSers, but of fictional characters as well.

Well it was white Greeks that defeated the Persians in the Polyponesian Wars and directed the world to be under the influence of the West for the rest of history up until today with few lapses (The short Dark Ages). The fact that the Greeks were the most advanced technological, philosophically and culturally, I think they should get some glory for beating the East and giving us the great lives we have today.

True.

Barbarian was basically the "******" of the Greek world - a derogative aimed at virtually anyone not Greek to designate cultural, racial, and intellectual inferiority. The word itself is a mockery of language, basically comparing non-Greek language to childish babble.

It was used to justify slavery, Us vs. Them nationalistic rhetoric, and to assert their own perceived superiority over everyone else. Sure, they were racism. Who the fuck WASN’T?!?

And the Spartans WERE practically fascist. It was a militant, authoritarian dictatorship built on the backs of slave labor and geared towards creating racially pure “perfect” soldiers. It would have given Hitler a hardon.

And while we’re here, I should probably mention that anyone who wasn’t Xerxes was a slave to Xerxes. The Persian Empire expanded endlessly through conquest, enslaving every group of people it came into contact with, and absorbed them under the rule of a single king. And yes, the idea of a “God-King” was not altogether unheard of (though the Egyptians made this doctrine standard policy). When Alexander was made “king of Persia,” even he was shocked at the shear decadence and display of wealth shown by Persian royalty.

Please, please, PLEASE stop trying to superimpose modern morality and political doctrine onto cultures of the past. It was a different world and our oft-idiotic sensibilities are fucking meaningless without modern context. Drop it. It was a fucking movie, about a fucking comic book!

Oh, and Frank Miller has a thing for sub-human villains. See the Yellow Bastard from Sin City.


Did you watch the movie, the whole "all of Sparta is under the law" thing... that doesn't strike you as very un fascist....?

Did you watch the movie, the whole "all of Sparta is under the law" thing... that doesn't strike you as very un fascist....?

Umm, yes? This thread is about how the movie glorifies white, European fascists. I was pointing out that the Spartans actually were, well, yanno... white, European fascists. Well, it’s also about how they were gay, which is also true, but wasn’t even mentioned in the movie.

I think a lot of people watched The 300 from the wrong angle: It wasn't the story of how the spartans held off the Persian army, it was the story of how Leonidus was such a fucking pussy that he couldn't even score a solid hit on Darius in the middle of an open field with only about 10 feet seperating them.

He really dropped the ball on that final spear throw. It's because he tried to go for a head shot instead of just the chest. It's a meter long javelin, it doesn't matter where you hit him, he's dead.

I'm sure 300 was eye candy for our gay friends here.

Maybe because I'm straight I'm not as good at evaluating man candy, but I thought Troy's was far better.

It was a thousand other Greeks. And they didn't line up to repel the invaders. They gathered their forces and attacked Persia a year later.

Did you even read my post? Did I even mention anything about repeling anything? If anything i made a general statement saying how they went to war with Persians later after the Battle of Thermopylae. Please read other persons posts closer.

And actually you would be wrong. The scene that is depicted at the end is suppose to represent the Battle of Plataea, which had like 110,000 greek combined troops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plataea

This is the most awesome thread on NSG in a while. We're questioning the sexuality not only of other NSers, but of fictional characters as well.

I bet Holmes and Watson were shagging non-stop.

I'll do you one better-- as a gay guy I wish there'd been MORE homosexual subtext to the movie. I mean the eye candy was agreeable, but come on. Statistically, out of 300 guys there should have been like 30ish who were enjoying being in the phalanx more than the rest of their buddies.


ME TOO.

geez would it have hurt to have a couple of guy who were obviously fighting "together"? we need more buff, macho, killing-machine gay icons!

it would have added to the movie.

Maybe because I'm straight I'm not as good at evaluating man candy, but I thought Troy's was far better.

it wasnt.

but brad pitt's body made it much closer than it would have been without him.

Well it was white Greeks that defeated the Persians in the Polyponesian Wars and directed the world to be under the influence of the West for the rest of history up until today with few lapses (The short Dark Ages). The fact that the Greeks were the most advanced technological, philosophically and culturally, I think they should get some glory for beating the East and giving us the great lives we have today.

im not sure that the greeks WERE more advanced. my doubt coming from my general ignorance of the persian empire. im thinking that an empire that big probably had more thinkers and inventors than the relatively tiny population of greece.

but without their success against the vastly larger persian empire we would all be "persian" today instead of "greek". so they did affect the course of western civilization.

ME TOO.

geez would it have hurt to have a couple of guy who were obviously fighting "together"? we need more buff, macho, killing-machine gay icons!

it would have added to the movie.

That scene where the captain's son and one of the other Spartans were fighting together, I figured for sure that there'd be gay loving there.

Then one of them got decapitated.

That scene where the captain's son and one of the other Spartans were fighting together, I figured for sure that there'd be gay loving there.

Then one of them got decapitated.

it was the only thing that could have kept them apart.

sigh.

Well it was white Greeks that defeated the Persians in the Polyponesian Wars and directed the world to be under the influence of the West for the rest of history up until today with few lapses (The short Dark Ages). The fact that the Greeks were the most advanced technological, philosophically and culturally, I think they should get some glory for beating the East and giving us the great lives we have today.

That is, in a historical sense, fraudulent bollocks. Firstly, the influence of Rome, and the facets of Rome that developed contrary to Hellenism, and the influence of post-Roman barbarianism, upon the west is undoubtedly greater in many senses.

Equally, to view any historical era as a collection of rigidly divided states is simplistic. Whilst Grrek academic pursuits may well be prevalent amongst Western academia, this owes more to the Athenian navy than any inherent superiority. Moreover, cultural superiority is a subjective issue that has no place in historical analysis.

Lastly, how pi and simple are you. "I think they should get some glory for beating the east and giving us the great lives we have today" is amongst the least educated and simplistic statements I have ever had the displeasure to read.

Is the film historically accurate? Any student of ancient greek history World tell you the answer is no.

Now is it meant to be? The obvious (to me anyway) answer is no!
Now the reason why.
Who is actually telling the story? A man called Dilios, who prior to the battle Plataea is trying to boost the confidence of his fellow Spartans by recounting the heroic battle of their recently deceased king.

Looking at the film this way, explains a lot of whats happening the descriptions of events.

Greek Hoplites fought in close formation and relied on the length of their spears to defeat the enemy. Yet telling your fellow soldiers prior to a great battle that “we held them off by letting them run into our spears” is not going to have the same effect as the fighting style seen in the film.

About how the Persians are portrayed. As was shown by another poster, the average troops shown would fit with the image of the average Persian. The only troops that really stood out as looking like leapers/mutants/zombies would have been the immortals. In reality these troops were well trained, respected soldiers who have a venerable tradition in the Persian Empire. Now Dilios is not going to treat them as such. They are going to become vile henchman of a sadistic king. AND even then, he shows them some respect as they were the only troops really shown killing some Spartans. Up till this point the Spartans were shown to be invulnerable.

Xerxes himself is portayed in a bad light surrounded by all sorts of “depravities”, at least by Spartan standards. Again, Dilios would want to show in a light that is going to generate contempt NOT respect amongst the Spartan troops.

What else..? Ah yes how the Ephialtes (the traitor) is depicted. Personally I think this was genius. I think in this case Wiki (I know, I know) says it well:

Ephialtes has been considered the archetypical traitor to the Greek cause—although other Greeks also helped Xerxes, from fear or hope of reward. His name has become an epithet for traitors; more commonly in Modern Greek than in English, used in the same manner as the Norwegian term "Quisling" and the American term "Benedict Arnold." His name both in Ancient and in Modern Greek literally means "nightmare."

Notice the last word Nightmare. Is the character not presented as such?

Anyway that my 2 cents for the moment

I must admit, as fascist propaganda movies go (I believe that's a more accurate description than "nazi" ) I enjoyed Starship Troopers more.

Maybe that's because I like big guns more than pointy spears... ;)

That scene where the captain's son and one of the other Spartans were fighting together, I figured for sure that there'd be gay loving there.

Then one of them got decapitated.

[*insert pun about getting a little head here*]

Is the film historically accurate? Any student of ancient greek history World tell you the answer is no.

Now is it meant to be? The obvious (to me anyway) answer is no!
Now the reason why.
Who is actually telling the story? A man called Dilios, who prior to the battle Plataea is trying to boost the confidence of his fellow Spartans by recounting the heroic battle of their recently deceased king.

<snip>

We don't truck with actually reading the narrative the way it's presented and engaging with the story tellin' round these parts. All this payin' attention to narrators voice and unreliable witness, you can take yer college learnin' and critical readin' back there to them high falutin' city folks wit their champaign flutes, Mr. Fancy Pants. We shoot from the hip with half assed opinions formed from skimming random text and assuming. Get with the program.

Which is to say, pretty much, yeah.

We don't truck with actually reading the narrative the way it's presented and engaging with the story tellin' round these parts. All this payin' attention to narrators voice and unreliable witness, you can take yer college learnin' and critical readin' back there to them high falutin' city folks wit their champaign flutes, Mr. Fancy Pants. We shoot from the hip with half assed opinions formed from skimming random text and assuming. Get with the program.

Which is to say, pretty much, yeah.

lol

YEAH who is he to be making posts that make sense!

lol

YEAH who is he to be making posts that make sense!

Newbies, I tell ya...actually contributing to the conversation in a considered way...doesn't he see this is on page 12 fer cryin' out loud? At this point he'd be lucky if it was still on topic...

sorry guys. I forgot about NS etiquette!

But peoples reaction to 300 is my current pet peeve.

Newbies, I tell ya...actually contributing to the conversation in a considered way...doesn't he see this is on page 12 fer cryin' out loud? At this point he'd be lucky if it was still on topic...

Teh Rulez say that it's past page 20 you shouldn't post on topic anymore, so on topicness on page 12 should be forgivable :)

Teh Rulez say that it's past page 20 you shouldn't post on topic anymore, so on topicness on page 12 should be forgivable :)

I thought within the first 6 pages you had to critize either the EU or the USA. By 15 its islam and preverably by page 20 something or another about the Israel/Jews.

But hey maybe things have changed recently?

I thought within the first 6 pages you had to critize either the EU or the USA. By 15 its islam and preverably by page 20 something or another about the Israel/Jews.

But hey maybe things have changed recently?

When you start with gay nazis it throws the ratios way off.

If it gets past page 25 it usually degenerates into a liberal-conservative or Atheist-christian fight.

I must admit, as fascist propaganda movies go (I believe that's a more accurate description than "nazi" ) I enjoyed Starship Troopers more.

Maybe that's because I like big guns more than pointy spears... ;)



[*insert pun about getting a little head here*] the book starship trooper was enjoyable fascist propaganda... well actually more militarism and barry goldwater conservativism from old bob heinlein, but the movie was kind of a mess.

as to nazi vs. fascist in my description of 300 i would still go with nazi because of the racial elements... and well my obsession with ernst rohm might also play into it.

I thought within the first 6 pages you had to critize either the EU or the USA. By 15 its islam and preverably by page 20 something or another about the Israel/Jews.

But hey maybe things have changed recently?
All I can say is, this was made for a reason:

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/Notontopic.jpg
the book starship trooper was enjoyable fascist propaganda... well actually more militarism and barry goldwater conservativism from old bob heinlein, but the movie was kind of a mess.

I haven't read the book, and I thoroughly enjoyed it as fascist propaganda ;)

as to nazi vs. fascist in my description of 300 i would still go with nazi because of the racial elements... and well my obsession with ernst rohm might also play into it.
Might be.

I just see the focus on strength more prevalent than the focus on rase, and that brings to me stronger overtones of fascism... But hey, the two aren't that far appart so meh :)

Notice the last word Nightmare. Is the character not presented as such?
Not really, of all the Spartans there he was the most tolerable.
And you still miss the most important thing: the Spartans didn't go there as part of a private ego trip, they were sent there as a stalling action by a Greek coalition. The way the movie runs, all that bullshit the Spartan king spouted about fighting for freedom was just empty rhetoric, and I get enough of that from real leaders.

I've read the comic and watched the movie. I disagree with the claims of gay and nazi and fascist.
The movie depicts the persian as definitely sub-human, and sexual perverts. But if it had been "the battle of Carrae" where the Romans got massacred, no one would have called it a "gay, nazi fascist film".
The movie is greatly exaggerated, I'll give you that.

But, from my interpretation, it's more like what the Spartans saw in Thermopylae. They saw countless Persians (they were less than 500,000 actually), they saw deformed slaves (the Persians were quite cruel with those, just like the Greek and Romans), they saw a king revered as a god, and many arrows.

My point is that the enemy could have been anyone, just anyone, and the result would have been the same. The movie is there to glorify Spartans, not to talk crap about the Persians. Take Persians and put Romans, or Partians, or Sicilians, and the movie would still be as it is now.

And, regarding the two spartans fighting together... ever heard of the word friendship? Or, daring to say, platonic love? And if it were gay, which I don't think it is, what about it?

Not really, of all the Spartans there he was the most tolerable.
And you still miss the most important thing: the Spartans didn't go there as part of a private ego trip, they were sent there as a stalling action by a Greek coalition. The way the movie runs, all that bullshit the Spartan king spouted about fighting for freedom was just empty rhetoric, and I get enough of that from real leaders.

I was refering to the fact that from historical records, he was in no way deformed, yet he is portrayed as such in the movie.
Regarding the Comments about fighting for freedom and such. Yes we can view it as empty rhetoric, but again on the one side, you got a nation that was following the teachings of Lyrcugus, with the dual king system, elected lawgivers (ephors), and a legal system that all (in theory) must obey including the kings. And on the other an Absolutionist Gov. where the ruler can pretty much do whatever he wants... Whether he chooses to be enlightened as Darius or a Tyrant as others chose to be.

And again as I said in my previous post Dilios was telling his fellow Spartans a story to inspire them!

errr..... I just went to post something and a message came up saying something about one of the mods having to review it before being visible????

errr..... I just went to post something and a message came up saying something about one of the mods having to review it before being visible????

It's a bug due to a spam filter, it kicks in sometimes, mostly (only?) with posters who have a postcount of less than 10...

It'll appear in time :)

It's a bug due to a spam filter, it kicks in sometimes, mostly (only?) with posters who have a postcount of less than 10...

It'll appear in time :)

Oh ok. thanks Grav.
Well its a first.

Oh ok. thanks Grav.
Well its a first.

its annoying for newbies but it saves us from untold amounts of sleazy advertising.

its annoying for newbies but it saves us from untold amounts of sleazy advertising.

Oh for God Sake. That'll teach me to let my accounts close. Why don't they just implement a spam filter? Viagra, penis enlargement, financing, Cialis, boobs.

Wonder if this will get through

(PS guess the rule is 13 pages before going to pot ;) )

its annoying for newbies but it saves us from untold amounts of sleazy advertising.

Just had another one blocked. does it go on key words? Used some traditional spam words and it was sent to mods. How interesting...

Just had another one blocked. does it go on key words? Used some traditional spam words and it was sent to mods. How interesting...

dunno but im pretty sure that once you reach 10 you are done with it.

Is the film historically accurate? Any student of ancient greek history World tell you the answer is no.

Now is it meant to be? The obvious (to me anyway) answer is no!
Now the reason why.
Who is actually telling the story? A man called Dilios, who prior to the battle Plataea is trying to boost the confidence of his fellow Spartans by recounting the heroic battle of their recently deceased king.

Looking at the film this way, explains a lot of whats happening the descriptions of events.

Greek Hoplites fought in close formation and relied on the length of their spears to defeat the enemy. Yet telling your fellow soldiers prior to a great battle that “we held them off by letting them run into our spears” is not going to have the same effect as the fighting style seen in the film.

About how the Persians are portrayed. As was shown by another poster, the average troops shown would fit with the image of the average Persian. The only troops that really stood out as looking like leapers/mutants/zombies would have been the immortals. In reality these troops were well trained, respected soldiers who have a venerable tradition in the Persian Empire. Now Dilios is not going to treat them as such. They are going to become vile henchman of a sadistic king. AND even then, he shows them some respect as they were the only troops really shown killing some Spartans. Up till this point the Spartans were shown to be invulnerable.

Xerxes himself is portayed in a bad light surrounded by all sorts of “depravities”, at least by Spartan standards. Again, Dilios would want to show in a light that is going to generate contempt NOT respect amongst the Spartan troops.

What else..? Ah yes how the Ephialtes (the traitor) is depicted. Personally I think this was genius. I think in this case Wiki (I know, I know) says it well:

Ephialtes has been considered the archetypical traitor to the Greek cause—although other Greeks also helped Xerxes, from fear or hope of reward. His name has become an epithet for traitors; more commonly in Modern Greek than in English, used in the same manner as the Norwegian term "Quisling" and the American term "Benedict Arnold." His name both in Ancient and in Modern Greek literally means "nightmare."

Notice the last word Nightmare. Is the character not presented as such?

Anyway that my 2 cents for the moment



Thanks for your educated literary/Script analysis! very insightful.

Not really, of all the Spartans there he was the most tolerable.
And you still miss the most important thing: the Spartans didn't go there as part of a private ego trip, they were sent there as a stalling action by a Greek coalition. The way the movie runs, all that bullshit the Spartan king spouted about fighting for freedom was just empty rhetoric, and I get enough of that from real leaders.

Particularly jarring in it's bullshit is the fact that Sparta wasn't a democracy. It was a slave state. It would be like saying that the United States citizenry consists only of the descendants of the people from the Mayflower, and everyone else is just a slave.

Well considering I live in AMERICA... I think its full of Nazi's anyways. Maybe it was a neo-America movie. Since it seems like children are raised from birth here to go die in Iraq... Cant wait till Bush is gone. He started out strong, but bit the big one when he keeps this "no end" BS. I think that its a neo-America movie, even though I must admit to have seen it twice... =p

Particularly jarring in it's bullshit is the fact that Sparta wasn't a democracy. It was a slave state. It would be like saying that the United States citizenry consists only of the descendants of the people from the Mayflower, and everyone else is just a slave.

Find one country/state/city that WASNT a slave state in that era.

It's all relative.

Well considering I live in AMERICA... I think its full of Nazi's anyways. Maybe it was a neo-America movie. Since it seems like children are raised from birth here to go die in Iraq... Cant wait till Bush is gone. He started out strong, but bit the big one when he keeps this "no end" BS. I think that its a neo-America movie, even though I must admit to have seen it twice... =p

ohhh darlin' you have a lifetime of presidential disappointment ahead of you. it will be hard to do worse than bush2 but the next president WILL do things that piss you off with their stupidity.

ohhh darlin' you have a lifetime of presidential disappointment ahead of you. it will be hard to do worse than bush2 but the next president WILL do things that piss you off with their stupidity.

*Ronald Reagan comes back to life and runs for president.*

ohhh darlin' you have a lifetime of presidential disappointment ahead of you. it will be hard to do worse than bush2 but the next president WILL do things that piss you off with their stupidity.


that is no surprise. I think I will become a recluse and move to a cave in Canada's northern part and befriend a whale named Jacob, whereas I will search the world to find the best place to live, and all in all, I will probably become a tribal member in Africa trying to win America's interest for more AIDs research money while killing fellow people to get some food. Tsk tsk tsk. Why dont we give money to where it is needed? Did you know the next election is going to require more than 400 MILLION dollars to advertise?!! WTF?!!!! Why dont they do something useful with that money and donate it to a charity or something. America is full of tightwads. Id rather sell everything and live under a bridge, at least someone will be better off.

that is no surprise. I think I will become a recluse and move to a cave in Canada's northern part and befriend a whale named Jacob, whereas I will search the world to find the best place to live, and all in all, I will probably become a tribal member in Africa trying to win America's interest for more AIDs research money while killing fellow people to get some food. Tsk tsk tsk. Why dont we give money to where it is needed? Did you know the next election is going to require more than 400 MILLION dollars to advertise?!! WTF?!!!! Why dont they do something useful with that money and donate it to a charity or something. America is full of tightwads. Id rather sell everything and live under a bridge, at least someone will be better off.

Ironically, as a homeless person, you would probably get some of that money back from charities and stuff.

Ironically, as a homeless person, you would probably get some of that money back from charities and stuff.


lmao... Sounds about right. It would be good if America did donate more money to other countries though... Instead of trying to start another war... And another... And another just for kicks.

*Ronald Reagan comes back to life and runs for president.*

ewwww that really would be a ......looks uplist for the word....Ephialtes

Way cool. I learned something new today. Based on the descriptions of the movie I have read so far, I know that I can safely cross off 300 off my list of movies I need to go see.

Way cool. I learned something new today. Based on the descriptions of the movie I have read so far, I know that I can safely cross off 300 off my list of movies I need to go see.

the best way to know if you want to see this movie is to watch the trailer online. if you love the trailer you will love the movie, if you think the trailer looks stupid, you will hate the movie.

its one of the few movies that are accurately promoted.

Way cool. I learned something new today. Based on the descriptions of the movie I have read so far, I know that I can safely cross off 300 off my list of movies I need to go see.

I will probably get slammed but I enjoyed the movie ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pi2t58CRmbU&mode=related&search=

:p

Meh. I just enjoyed the violence and didn't really empathize with either side.
its one of the few movies that are accurately promoted.
I wouldn't say that. Plenty of shitty movies are painfully accurately promoted. The Lake House, any movie starring Lindsy Lohan, all those shitty college "comedies."

It's only high-budget films that get that convenient five different tailors each appearing to indicate a different genre deal.

Thanks for your educated literary/Script analysis! very insightful.

If this is not sarcasm, thanks

I suppose soon somebody wil release a four hour sweeping epic of the Battle of Thermopylae where everone speaks there lines in ocreecto languages for the time and they make sure all the warriors have ocrrect detail on there armour and weapons and the like

:mp5: An almost perfect combination of thinly veiled homoeroticism with even more thinly veiled fascism and racism. it was the tale of 300 perfect specimens of european manhood, without shirts fighting endless faceless hordes of mongels and negroes, defeating them all until they are betrayed by a degenerate malformed freak of their own people who escaped his just euthanization only to ultimately betray his race and bow before the mongrel tyrant in return for the debaucheries of the flesh. it was endless oiled men flexing and strutting and posing as they withstood the subhuman hordes to uphold the values of western civilization.... plus it had a war rhinoceros, you gotta love any movie with a war rhinoceros falling dead at the feet of a half naked sweating european warrior...

:mp5: grrrrr

i just thought this movie played so perfectly into that stereotype. it had all the trappings of fascism and all the crypto-homoerotic elements of its extreme glorification a few white warriors standing alone against the hordes of none europeans and getting naked and sweaty doing it.

Yeah, imagine, I suppose the only thing those that disagree with the movie should be accepting is that it happened. All those nasty non-Europeans invaded, and those few Europeans fought.

I just don't see the problem?

This thread sucks.

This thread sucks.

Then your contribution to it is fitting.

I have a few problems with the label 90% accurate. I am of the opinion that its somewhat lower than that and mostly due to a few important historical events being portrayed differently in the movie:

- The phalanx formation was inaccurate.
- The Council never disallowed Leonidas to march towards the gates.
- There were two instead of only one king in sparta
- I doubt even the spartans themselves would see themselves as the pinnacle of freedom,democracy and decency considering they very land they owned was conquered from a people they later enslaved for centuries. Those slaves could hardly be treated any worse and part of the agoge (the rite which young men had to follow to become men) was to slay one of these slaves to become a respected citizen. In contrast many consider Persians of those days to be alot more reasonable.
- The greeks never had such a dim view of Persians as seen in the movie. Instead they actually had a healthy amount of respect for them, which we can read back in their history books.
- There may have been 300 men but they were backed up by alot more greeks and even more slaves who saw as much as fighting as the spartans.
- There were no elephants. The greeks would certainly have mentioned them if they were encountered on the battlefield. I shall put the rhino's under the guise of an artistic impression of the battle.
- The immortals were obviously depicted wrong. The reason why they were called immortals was not because they were malevolent 500 year old spirits but because their army always consisted of 10.000 men. Each time a soldier died he would be replaced until their numbers were back to 10.000 again.

The monsters have be considered a faithfull adaption of the comic, but that only makes it harder for me to consider it 90% accurate. More close towards 50%.

I have a few problems with the label 90% accurate.

90% accurate to his comic is what I figured.

Oh, and on the phalanx, Leodines actually says at one point(when he's telling Ephialtes he can't fight with them)that in the phalanx each man protects the man beside him (I can't remember if it's the left or right side) from chest to thigh with his shield. It was then rather amusing to find that in the battle scenes they did no such thing.

Inconsistencies=lols

- There were two instead of only one king in spartaisn't dual kingship what sparta is famous for?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta#Constitution

isn't dual kingship what sparta is famous for?



Along with republican Rome who had a simmilar system with their consuls. I guess it's the classical equivilant of the the division of power thought by montesquieu.

My god people, it's based off a comic and the director used a little bit of artistic license. Accept it for what it is. Jesus...:rolleyes:

My god people, it's based off a comic and the director used a little bit of artistic license. Accept it for what it is. Jesus...:rolleyes:the director says it's 90% accurate. all we don't know is whether he meant accurate in respect of reality or in respect of the comics...

My god people, it's based off a comic and the director used a little bit of artistic license. Accept it for what it is. Jesus...:rolleyes:

Wow your first post, and one of considerble common sense!

I have a few problems with the label 90% accurate. I am of the opinion that its somewhat lower than that and mostly due to a few important historical events being portrayed differently in the movie:

*snip*

The monsters have be considered a faithfull adaption of the comic, but that only makes it harder for me to consider it 90% accurate. More close towards 50%.

Dude, I breathed in to do this, but it's not worth it.

Has anyone heard a nipple count yet? I'm dying to know. Got to be in four figures, lol.

Slow fast slow, it's the new 3D rotation matrix thingy.

http://www.multiplexcomic.com/archive.php?name=125

the director says it's 90% accurate. all we don't know is whether he meant accurate in respect of reality or in respect of the comics...
I dunno, I've never seen the comic. I can't imagine it being to much different.

And thank you Peepelonia. I was on here a few years ago so I'm used to it.

Dude, I breathed in to do this, but it's not worth it.

Has anyone heard a nipple count yet? I'm dying to know. Got to be in four figures, lol.

Well let's see

300 spartans x 2 nipples each = 600 man nipples.

I'd say 10-12 girl ones. >.>;

I'd say 10-12 girl ones. >.>;

Are you sure that some of those weren't just pretty men? Because I don't know that there were even 5 women in the whole cast...

I have a few problems with the label 90% accurate. I am of the opinion that its somewhat lower than that and mostly due to a few important historical events being portrayed differently in the movie:

- The phalanx formation was inaccurate.
- The Council never disallowed Leonidas to march towards the gates.
- There were two instead of only one king in sparta
- I doubt even the spartans themselves would see themselves as the pinnacle of freedom,democracy and decency considering they very land they owned was conquered from a people they later enslaved for centuries. Those slaves could hardly be treated any worse and part of the agoge (the rite which young men had to follow to become men) was to slay one of these slaves to become a respected citizen. In contrast many consider Persians of those days to be alot more reasonable.
- The greeks never had such a dim view of Persians as seen in the movie. Instead they actually had a healthy amount of respect for them, which we can read back in their history books.
- There may have been 300 men but they were backed up by alot more greeks and even more slaves who saw as much as fighting as the spartans.
- There were no elephants. The greeks would certainly have mentioned them if they were encountered on the battlefield. I shall put the rhino's under the guise of an artistic impression of the battle.
- The immortals were obviously depicted wrong. The reason why they were called immortals was not because they were malevolent 500 year old spirits but because their army always consisted of 10.000 men. Each time a soldier died he would be replaced until their numbers were back to 10.000 again.

The monsters have be considered a faithfull adaption of the comic, but that only makes it harder for me to consider it 90% accurate. More close towards 50%.

Please remember, that the film was told as a story, a great tale before a final battle. It had everything it needed to rally the troops, to give them great morale. Embelishment is after all a soldiers right.

ITS A FRIGGIN COMIC BOOK BASED MOVIE!! How many times do we have to say this!!! Yes it has a real place, time and people in it...but so what!?!? :headbang: :headbang:

:D

ITS A FRIGGIN COMIC BOOK BASED MOVIE!! How many times do we have to say this!!! Yes it has a real place, time and people in it...but so what!?!?so why does the director claim 90% accuracy? He's a bloody liar then.

Indeed, but it doesn't make him less great.

so why does the director claim 90% accuracy? He's a bloody liar then.

But like someone said, 90% accurate on WHAT? The book or the so called historical matter?

I'd say 10-12 girl ones. >.>;

Let's see...

Leonida's wife, the oracle make for four.

And that's got to be at least eight more in Xerxes crazy tent.

Let's see...

Leonida's wife, the oracle make for four.

And that's got to be at least eight more in Xerxes crazy tent.

I believe those in Xerxe's tent were actually transexual men. Read up the casting at the end of the movie if you don't believe me.

But like someone said, 90% accurate on WHAT? The book or the so called historical matter?That someone was I.
And here's what the director said http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300_%28film%29#Historical_accuracy

That someone was I.
And here's what the director said http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300_%28film%29#Historical_accuracy

Then again he did say this:

The events are 90 percent accurate. It's just in the visualization that it's crazy.... I've shown this movie to world-class historians who have said it's amazing.

Then again this guy is no historian. I am a studying one and consider myself KNOWLDGABLE in this era, my knowledge and study is in ancient Greece and Europe. And there is SOME stuff that is historical and some that is more fiction. Then again they never promoted in ADVERTISEMENTS as a historical film. Sorry what this guy says behind the scenes means nothing to me.

Wawat is the Egyptian name for Nubia. Nubia is a latin rendition for Egyptian Nub(t), the land of gold, meaning the ridges in the eastern desert where gold was mined (south of Kom Ombo, also called Nubt, not to be confused with Nubt at Naqada).

As if Ukrainians existed back then :rolleyes: (and btw, i edited the 'no')
Wow, thanks for that, i now know one more piece of information.:)

I'm of two minds. Whoever choreographed the fights was a first rate choreographer. The camera work, and effects were first rate, and the actuall fighting, while plain, was suprisingly realistic (although there were moments when it absolutely was not).

The script read like Neo-conservative talking-points straight through. Hell, they used one of Bush's buzz-phrases without any editing, "Freedom isn't free". The political bias of the film was completely and utterly transparent, and I was a bit disgusted with that.

I give it a 5/10. Could've been worse. It was a good, mindless slaugher film lacking in any redeeming qualities beyond the prevalence of violence.

I wouldn't call it gay, but it definitely wasn't that enjoyable. All style and no substance -- generic orchestral music, graphic violence, gratuitous nudity, poor dialogue, and ridiculous amounts of slow motion.

You forgot the totally bogus and retarded plot. Or lack of any plot whatsoever.

That's why I don't watch many movies anymore...

An almost perfect combination of thinly veiled homoeroticism with even more thinly veiled fascism and racism. it was the tale of 300 perfect specimens of european manhood, without shirts fighting endless faceless hordes of mongels and negroes, defeating them all until they are betrayed by a degenerate malformed freak of their own people who escaped his just euthanization only to ultimately betray his race and bow before the mongrel tyrant in return for the debaucheries of the flesh. it was endless oiled men flexing and strutting and posing as they withstood the subhuman hordes to uphold the values of western civilization.... plus it had a war rhinoceros, you gotta love any movie with a war rhinoceros falling dead at the feet of a half naked sweating european warrior...
Two and a half hours of mindless gore and sweaty, dirty, and half-naked men?

As fun as that sounds, I'd like a decent movie. Everyone I know who's seen it says it's not that good, but I haven' seen it myself. I'm not into war movies anyway.

I haven't watched this movie, and you guys aren't making it sound great, but I have read up on it, and if one thing annoys me, it's the complete absence, as others have said, of the Thespians, Helots, and so on.

But it all looks like common action-movie errors to me. The ones who did just as much, if not more, of the fighting get no publicity, be they WW2 Russians, US revolution continental regulars, or Thespians. The ones who actually won, rather than dying horribly, never get the epics they deserve, be they Robert Bruce or the Athenian navy. And an accurate portrayal of the enemy? Are you joking?

Anyway, its got to have boobies. Gore and boobies make action movies. Just boobies is porn, and just gore if horror.

I haven't watched this movie, and you guys aren't making it sound great, but I have read up on it, and if one thing annoys me, it's the complete absence, as others have said, of the Thespians, Helots, and so on.

But it all looks like common action-movie errors to me. The ones who did just as much, if not more, of the fighting get no publicity, be they WW2 Russians, US revolution continental regulars, or Thespians. The ones who actually won, rather than dying horribly, never get the epics they deserve, be they Robert Bruce or the Athenian navy. And an accurate portrayal of the enemy? Are you joking?

Anyway, its got to have boobies. Gore and boobies make action movies. Just boobies is porn, and just gore if horror.
300 actually came out as we were studying ancient Greece, and my history teacher saw it and said it was inaccurate. I hate it when movies like that are historically innaccurate, and I hate the generic war movie becuase it's always good vs. evil and blood and gore and sex. Screw that.

300 actually came out as we were studying ancient Greece, and my history teacher saw it and said it was inaccurate. I hate it when movies like that are historically innaccurate,
Yeah me too. I hate it when movies based on a graphic novel which was inspired by a movie that was an allegory of the Cold War loosely based on the Battle of Thermopylae and as told through the eyes of a Spartan "historian" are historically inaccurate.

300 actually came out as we were studying ancient Greece, and my history teacher saw it and said it was inaccurate. I hate it when movies like that are historically innaccurate, and I hate the generic war movie becuase it's always good vs. evil and blood and gore and sex. Screw that.
It's based off a comic, not off actual history. I wish people would stop faulting it for being something it's not intended to be.

Yeah me too. I hate it when movies based on a graphic novel which was inspired by a movie that was an allegory of the Cold War loosely based on the Battle of Thermopylae and as told through the eyes of a Spartan "historian" are historically inaccurate.

It was based off a comic?

:headbang:

I haven't watched this movie, and you guys aren't making it sound great, but I have read up on it, and if one thing annoys me, it's the complete absence, as others have said, of the Thespians, Helots, and so on.

Other Greeks were present, but were just referred to (I think) Arcadians. Which doesn't seem quite right.

It was based off a comic?

:headbang:
Yeah... the comic being called "300", as fate would have it.

Still isn't that good a film, to be honest, and it's a bit grating at times with the prejudice and such.

I found Gayniggers from Outer Space better. And, yes, it's both gay and nazi, though of course not white nazi. It's the movie that rocks teh scene.


The piece can be found on Google Video, remastered by GNAA (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5121649266422516795), or as torrent, both raw (http://www.protorrent.com/info/59795/Gay_Niggers_from_Outer_Space_(1992).DCP.mpg.torrent.html) and GNAA digitally remastered (http://www.protorrent.com/info/56602/Gayniggers%20From%20Outer%20Space%20%5BGNAA%20Digitally%20Remastered%5D.avi.torrent.html).
If you still wonder how significant it is - well, the entire GNAA name comes from that movie, and that's probably the best testament to the historical significance and influence of this frequently overlooked work of art, despite its tight budget.

I'm of two minds. Whoever choreographed the fights was a first rate choreographer. The camera work, and effects were first rate, and the actuall fighting, while plain, was suprisingly realistic (although there were moments when it absolutely was not).

The script read like Neo-conservative talking-points straight through. Hell, they used one of Bush's buzz-phrases without any editing, "Freedom isn't free". The political bias of the film was completely and utterly transparent, and I was a bit disgusted with that.

I give it a 5/10. Could've been worse. It was a good, mindless slaugher film lacking in any redeeming qualities beyond the prevalence of violence.


I am sorry but the coin phrase "freedom isnt free" is older then any bush is.