The movie had racist, sexist and homophobic themes. It did, I was there. My wife is a cultural anthropologist and she was there and pointed them out to me. That doesn't entirely negate the movie, I think we can enjoy things that contain -ists (see Breakfast at Tiffanys or Lawrence of Arabia). We should notice them, understand them and try to minimize the damage that they do, but RSH is such a part of our culture that it crops up everywhere, including in things that have other artistic virtues worthy of display. I worry when people say "I liked it, and I'm not a racist, therefore the film cannot contain any racism." I think 300 had some racist/sexist/homophobic parts, I question whether it will be well recieved in Iran, or with women, or LGBT communities. I also question whether it had enough artistic merit to justify it's use of RSH elements.
In any case, this is neither here nor there, others can make this argument better than I.
My main critique was that the film was full of distractions. Of course I can think of a reason there's snow or naked children, the point is I shouldn't have to. I should be able to suspend my disbelief and just enjoy the ride. Everytime you remind me that I am watching a movie, the story becomes less real and less engaging. Some of the elements that were used to up the comic book factor, like narration and slow-mo (to make frames look more like panels) actually lower the movie factor. As someone said on the Watchmen thread, a perfectly faithful comic adaptation involves filming a comic book as someone turns the pages. That would be an unspeakably boring and bad movie. I think that 300 the graphic novel is better than 300 the movie, and since the movie slavishly, mindlessly follows the comic (except for a few things to add more cheesecake/make it more modern), it does not show me anything new.
Oh and Gorgo was a man. She had female parts so that Leonidas could sleep with her and not be considered gay. Her actions, dialogue and apperance were either masculine, or how an adolescent boy would like a woman to be. This is because Miller writes women like Spike Lee writes white men, to demonstrate a point rather than to be realistic or identifyable characters (Possible Exception: Carrie as Robin)
Oh and Gorgo was a man. She had female parts so that Leonidas could sleep with her and not be considered gay. Her actions, dialogue and apperance were either masculine, or how an adolescent boy would like a woman to be. This is because Miller writes women like Spike Lee writes white men, to demonstrate a point rather than to be realistic or identifyable characters (Possible Exception: Carrie as Robin)
You do realize that Miller only wrote about two lines of dialogue for Gorgo. In the comic she's barely featured at all. They decided to give her more presence in the film, in order to balance out the rampant manliness that was Leonidas and his Spartans.
And saying the depictions of the Persians was racist is like saying Raph Fiennes' depiction of the Nazi in Schindler's List is racist. The Persians were known to be a flamboyant people with a darker skin tone than the rest of Asia. And of course they came across as evil. THEY WERE THE ANTAGONISTS OF THE STORY. ANTAGONISTS ARE SUPPOSED TO THREATEN THE PROTAGONIST IN SOME WAY, IN THIS CASE SURRENDER OR DIE. I'm not saying you had to love the movie, but some of your reasons for not liking it are kinda dumb.
Oh and Gorgo was a man. She had female parts so that Leonidas could sleep with her and not be considered gay. Her actions, dialogue and apperance were either masculine, or how an adolescent boy would like a woman to be. This is because Miller writes women like Spike Lee writes white men, to demonstrate a point rather than to be realistic or identifyable characters (Possible Exception: Carrie as Robin)
You do realize that Miller only wrote about two lines of dialogue for Gorgo. In the comic she's barely featured at all. They decided to give her more presence in the film, in order to balance out the rampant manliness that was Leonidas and his Spartans.
And saying the depictions of the Persians was racist is like saying Raph Fiennes' depiction of the Nazi in Schindler's List is racist. The Persians were known to be a flamboyant people with a darker skin tone than the rest of Asia. And of course they came across as evil. THEY WERE THE ANTAGONISTS OF THE STORY. ANTAGONISTS ARE SUPPOSED TO THREATEN THE PROTAGONIST IN SOME WAY, IN THIS CASE SURRENDER OR DIE. I'm not saying you had to love the movie, but some of your reasons for not liking it are kinda dumb.
Well, they were shown to be monsters and savages.
The thing is, this is a fictional movie, based on a fictional graphic novel, that was partially based on a fictional movie that was loosely based on a historical event. People need to stop treating it like it is a fucking documentary.
Rabid_Llama on
/sig
0
augustwhere you come from is goneRegistered Userregular
Look, I haven't see the movie, but the funny things is that anyone smart enough to realize the Iranians are Persians is smart enough not to take the story in any kind of seriousness.
Oh and Gorgo was a man. She had female parts so that Leonidas could sleep with her and not be considered gay. Her actions, dialogue and apperance were either masculine, or how an adolescent boy would like a woman to be. This is because Miller writes women like Spike Lee writes white men, to demonstrate a point rather than to be realistic or identifyable characters (Possible Exception: Carrie as Robin)
You do realize that Miller only wrote about two lines of dialogue for Gorgo. In the comic she's barely featured at all. They decided to give her more presence in the film, in order to balance out the rampant manliness that was Leonidas and his Spartans.
And saying the depictions of the Persians was racist is like saying Raph Fiennes' depiction of the Nazi in Schindler's List is racist. The Persians were known to be a flamboyant people with a darker skin tone than the rest of Asia. And of course they came across as evil. THEY WERE THE ANTAGONISTS OF THE STORY. ANTAGONISTS ARE SUPPOSED TO THREATEN THE PROTAGONIST IN SOME WAY, IN THIS CASE SURRENDER OR DIE. I'm not saying you had to love the movie, but some of your reasons for not liking it are kinda dumb.
Well, they were shown to be monsters and savages.
The thing is, this is a fictional movie, based on a fictional graphic novel, that was partially based on a fictional movie that was loosely based on a historical event. People need to stop treating it like it is a fucking documentary.
I honestly forgot about the monsters. But as for them being savage, so what if they were? You have to remember, Xerxes army conquered almost all of Asia, so they may have been pretty barbaric.
Oh and Gorgo was a man. She had female parts so that Leonidas could sleep with her and not be considered gay. Her actions, dialogue and apperance were either masculine, or how an adolescent boy would like a woman to be. This is because Miller writes women like Spike Lee writes white men, to demonstrate a point rather than to be realistic or identifyable characters (Possible Exception: Carrie as Robin)
You do realize that Miller only wrote about two lines of dialogue for Gorgo. In the comic she's barely featured at all. They decided to give her more presence in the film, in order to balance out the rampant manliness that was Leonidas and his Spartans.
And saying the depictions of the Persians was racist is like saying Raph Fiennes' depiction of the Nazi in Schindler's List is racist. The Persians were known to be a flamboyant people with a darker skin tone than the rest of Asia. And of course they came across as evil. THEY WERE THE ANTAGONISTS OF THE STORY. ANTAGONISTS ARE SUPPOSED TO THREATEN THE PROTAGONIST IN SOME WAY, IN THIS CASE SURRENDER OR DIE. I'm not saying you had to love the movie, but some of your reasons for not liking it are kinda dumb.
Well, they were shown to be monsters and savages.
The thing is, this is a fictional movie, based on a fictional graphic novel, that was partially based on a fictional movie that was loosely based on a historical event. People need to stop treating it like it is a fucking documentary.
I honestly forgot about the monsters. But as for them being savage, so what if they were? You have to remember, Xerxes army conquered almost all of Asia, so they may have been pretty barbaric.
Still, the movie isn't real. We don't actually think that the persians were depicted accurately in the movie. They didn't need to be. It is a fun, fairly mindless, action flick that does not claim any sort of historical accuracy. That is why I love it so much.
The movie had racist, sexist and homophobic themes. It did, I was there. My wife is a cultural anthropologist and she was there and pointed them out to me. That doesn't entirely negate the movie, I think we can enjoy things that contain -ists (see Breakfast at Tiffanys or Lawrence of Arabia). We should notice them, understand them and try to minimize the damage that they do, but RSH is such a part of our culture that it crops up everywhere, including in things that have other artistic virtues worthy of display. I worry when people say "I liked it, and I'm not a racist, therefore the film cannot contain any racism." I think 300 had some racist/sexist/homophobic parts, I question whether it will be well recieved in Iran, or with women, or LGBT communities. I also question whether it had enough artistic merit to justify it's use of RSH elements.
In any case, this is neither here nor there, others can make this argument better than I.
My main critique was that the film was full of distractions. Of course I can think of a reason there's snow or naked children, the point is I shouldn't have to. I should be able to suspend my disbelief and just enjoy the ride. Everytime you remind me that I am watching a movie, the story becomes less real and less engaging. Some of the elements that were used to up the comic book factor, like narration and slow-mo (to make frames look more like panels) actually lower the movie factor. As someone said on the Watchmen thread, a perfectly faithful comic adaptation involves filming a comic book as someone turns the pages. That would be an unspeakably boring and bad movie. I think that 300 the graphic novel is better than 300 the movie, and since the movie slavishly, mindlessly follows the comic (except for a few things to add more cheesecake/make it more modern), it does not show me anything new.
Oh and Gorgo was a man. She had female parts so that Leonidas could sleep with her and not be considered gay. Her actions, dialogue and apperance were either masculine, or how an adolescent boy would like a woman to be. This is because Miller writes women like Spike Lee writes white men, to demonstrate a point rather than to be realistic or identifyable characters (Possible Exception: Carrie as Robin)
Being a cultural anthropologist myself I'm not completely sure I would agree with your wife. I can MAYBE see a bit of racism but no more than say LOTRs. Sexism? Beyond the oracle scene I don't think so, and really that was no worse than any other movie. Homophobia? Yeah I can see that. I wouldn't call the movie ripe with the stuff though.
Oh and Gorgo was a man. She had female parts so that Leonidas could sleep with her and not be considered gay. Her actions, dialogue and apperance were either masculine, or how an adolescent boy would like a woman to be. This is because Miller writes women like Spike Lee writes white men, to demonstrate a point rather than to be realistic or identifyable characters (Possible Exception: Carrie as Robin)
You do realize that Miller only wrote about two lines of dialogue for Gorgo. In the comic she's barely featured at all. They decided to give her more presence in the film, in order to balance out the rampant manliness that was Leonidas and his Spartans.
And saying the depictions of the Persians was racist is like saying Raph Fiennes' depiction of the Nazi in Schindler's List is racist. The Persians were known to be a flamboyant people with a darker skin tone than the rest of Asia. And of course they came across as evil. THEY WERE THE ANTAGONISTS OF THE STORY. ANTAGONISTS ARE SUPPOSED TO THREATEN THE PROTAGONIST IN SOME WAY, IN THIS CASE SURRENDER OR DIE. I'm not saying you had to love the movie, but some of your reasons for not liking it are kinda dumb.
Well, they were shown to be monsters and savages.
The thing is, this is a fictional movie, based on a fictional graphic novel, that was partially based on a fictional movie that was loosely based on a historical event. People need to stop treating it like it is a fucking documentary.
I honestly forgot about the monsters. But as for them being savage, so what if they were? You have to remember, Xerxes army conquered almost all of Asia, so they may have been pretty barbaric.
Still, the movie isn't real. We don't actually think that the persians were depicted accurately in the movie. They didn't need to be. It is a fun, fairly mindless, action flick that does not claim any sort of historical accuracy. That is why I love it so much.
Of course it's not meant to be taken as a historical adaptation. The monsters alone are proof of that. That's why this guy's arguement holds no water; he's saying that the false and racist depiction of the Persians was a fault of the movie. But when you look at it from a storytelling point-of-view, the Persians were the perfect antagonistic force to oppose the noble Spartans.
The end scenes and voiceover were horrible and fucking tacky. The movie should have ended with Leonidas' dead body on the ground then fade to black.
Cheeto on
Geebs is a dick and made me change my sig.
0
WulfDisciple of TzeentchThe Void... (New Jersey)Registered Userregular
edited March 2007
Iran needs to take some lessons in lighten the hell up, I mean getting bent out of shape at an Action flick with loose ties to historical events? Honestly :P Good movie though, and makes me want to find a local copy of the original comic.
The movie 300 is a movie of much debate. Is the movie Pro-Bush? Is the movie Anti-Bush? Truth is the movie is anti-bush, as in anti-vagina. It it also a movie about the struggle of gung-ho men who endure an inner battle of sexual conflict before succuming to their homosexual urges.
The movie is the story of King Leonidas. The ultimate alpha male who has a deep hidden secret. He is gay, so are his 300 men who he trust by his side throughout most of the movie. Who knows what led them on this path sodomy. My bet would be spending long nights alone with nothing but battle hardened allies by their side they became seduce by that luscious hershey highway of sin. Can you blame them? After all a man has to sheath his sword somewhere.
The women are nothing more than a sheild used by the men to hide their deepest desires. The Oracle is little more than a young cock tease used men afflcited by leprosy. The Queen is a whore who clearly knows the burning in her husband's loins is not for her. There is also the whores who are given to the mutant ball sack as he betrays the Spartans for a taste of pink bliss.
Then we have Xerses, who is nothing more than a giant dressed up cock used to tempt the Spartans. The Spartans themselves are soldiers of legend. They plow (penetrate) through the Persian Empires with their spears and swords (cocks) as they refuse to give into the pleasures of the flesh.
Ultimately this is all futile. They eventually fight the giant decorated penis known as Xerxes and fall to his army of asshole romeos. There is a lesson to be had here. You can use violence and comradery as smoke screen to cover ones homosexuality, but in the end you fall to the powers of the one-eyed monster of debauchery.
The end scenes and voiceover were horrible and fucking tacky. The movie should have ended with Leonidas' dead body on the ground then fade to black.
It was literally shot-for-shot from the comic. The comic ended the same way the movie ended(eg: fucking awesome). Also, most audiences would have been incredibly pissed if the movie ended with Leonidas dead and no other force opposing Xerxes, word of mouth would have been bad, and it wouldn't have gotten the reception it did.
Oh and Gorgo was a man. She had female parts so that Leonidas could sleep with her and not be considered gay. Her actions, dialogue and apperance were either masculine, or how an adolescent boy would like a woman to be. This is because Miller writes women like Spike Lee writes white men, to demonstrate a point rather than to be realistic or identifyable characters (Possible Exception: Carrie as Robin)
You do realize that Miller only wrote about two lines of dialogue for Gorgo. In the comic she's barely featured at all. They decided to give her more presence in the film, in order to balance out the rampant manliness that was Leonidas and his Spartans.
And saying the depictions of the Persians was racist is like saying Raph Fiennes' depiction of the Nazi in Schindler's List is racist. The Persians were known to be a flamboyant people with a darker skin tone than the rest of Asia. And of course they came across as evil. THEY WERE THE ANTAGONISTS OF THE STORY. ANTAGONISTS ARE SUPPOSED TO THREATEN THE PROTAGONIST IN SOME WAY, IN THIS CASE SURRENDER OR DIE. I'm not saying you had to love the movie, but some of your reasons for not liking it are kinda dumb.
Well, they were shown to be monsters and savages.
The thing is, this is a fictional movie, based on a fictional graphic novel, that was partially based on a fictional movie that was loosely based on a historical event. People need to stop treating it like it is a fucking documentary.
I honestly forgot about the monsters. But as for them being savage, so what if they were? You have to remember, Xerxes army conquered almost all of Asia, so they may have been pretty barbaric.
Still, the movie isn't real. We don't actually think that the persians were depicted accurately in the movie. They didn't need to be. It is a fun, fairly mindless, action flick that does not claim any sort of historical accuracy. That is why I love it so much.
Of course it's not meant to be taken as a historical adaptation. The monsters alone are proof of that. That's why this guy's arguement holds no water; he's saying that the false and racist depiction of the Persians was a fault of the movie. But when you look at it from a storytelling point-of-view, the Persians were the perfect antagonistic force to oppose the noble Spartans.
Exactly. Why do people always have to think so hard about action moveis like this?
The movie 300 is a movie of much debate. Is the movie Pro-Bush? Is the movie Anti-Bush? Truth is the movie is anti-bush, as in anti-vagina. It it also a movie about the struggle of gung-ho men who endure an inner battle of sexual conflict before succuming to their homosexual urges.
The movie is the story of King Leonidas. The ultimate alpha male who has a deep hidden secret. He is gay, so are his 300 men who he trust by his side throughout most of the movie. Who knows what led them on this path sodomy. My bet would be spending long nights alone with nothing but battle hardened allies by their side they became seduce by that luscious hershey highway of sin. Can you blame them? After all a man has to sheath his sword somewhere.
The women are nothing more than a sheild used by the men to hide their deepest desires. The Oracle is little more than a young cock tease used men afflcited by leprosy. The Queen is a whore who clearly knows the burning in her husband's loins is not for her. There is also the whores who are given to the mutant ball sack as he betrays the Spartans for a taste of pink bliss.
Then we have Xerses, who is nothing more than a giant dressed up cock used to tempt the Spartans. The Spartans themselves are soldiers of legend. They plow (penetrate) through the Persian Empires with their spears and swords (cocks) as they refuse to give into the pleasures of the flesh.
Ultimately this is all futile. They eventually fight the giant decorated penis known as Xerxes and fall to his army of asshole romeos. There is a lesson to be had here. You can use violence and comradery as smoke screen to cover ones homosexuality, but in the end you fall to the powers of the one-eyed monster of debauchery.
You said "movie" seven times in six sentences. Also,
The movie 300 is a movie of much debate. Is the movie Pro-Bush? Is the movie Anti-Bush? Truth is the movie is anti-bush, as in anti-vagina. It it also a movie about the struggle of gung-ho men who endure an inner battle of sexual conflict before succuming to their homosexual urges.
The movie is the story of King Leonidas. The ultimate alpha male who has a deep hidden secret. He is gay, so are his 300 men who he trust by his side throughout most of the movie. Who knows what led them on this path sodomy. My bet would be spending long nights alone with nothing but battle hardened allies by their side they became seduce by that luscious hershey highway of sin. Can you blame them? After all a man has to sheath his sword somewhere.
The women are nothing more than a sheild used by the men to hide their deepest desires. The Oracle is little more than a young cock tease used men afflcited by leprosy. The Queen is a whore who clearly knows the burning in her husband's loins is not for her. There is also the whores who are given to the mutant ball sack as he betrays the Spartans for a taste of pink bliss.
Then we have Xerses, who is nothing more than a giant dressed up cock used to tempt the Spartans. The Spartans themselves are soldiers of legend. They plow (penetrate) through the Persian Empires with their spears and swords (cocks) as they refuse to give into the pleasures of the flesh.
Ultimately this is all futile. They eventually fight the giant decorated penis known as Xerxes and fall to his army of asshole romeos. There is a lesson to be had here. You can use violence and comradery as smoke screen to cover ones homosexuality, but in the end you fall to the powers of the one-eyed monster of debauchery.
The movie 300 is a movie of much debate. Is the movie Pro-Bush? Is the movie Anti-Bush? Truth is the movie is anti-bush, as in anti-vagina. It it also a movie about the struggle of gung-ho men who endure an inner battle of sexual conflict before succuming to their homosexual urges.
The movie is the story of King Leonidas. The ultimate alpha male who has a deep hidden secret. He is gay, so are his 300 men who he trust by his side throughout most of the movie. Who knows what led them on this path sodomy. My bet would be spending long nights alone with nothing but battle hardened allies by their side they became seduce by that luscious hershey highway of sin. Can you blame them? After all a man has to sheath his sword somewhere.
The women are nothing more than a sheild used by the men to hide their deepest desires. The Oracle is little more than a young cock tease used men afflcited by leprosy. The Queen is a whore who clearly knows the burning in her husband's loins is not for her. There is also the whores who are given to the mutant ball sack as he betrays the Spartans for a taste of pink bliss.
Then we have Xerses, who is nothing more than a giant dressed up cock used to tempt the Spartans. The Spartans themselves are soldiers of legend. They plow (penetrate) through the Persian Empires with their spears and swords (cocks) as they refuse to give into the pleasures of the flesh.
Ultimately this is all futile. They eventually fight the giant decorated penis known as Xerxes and fall to his army of asshole romeos. There is a lesson to be had here. You can use violence and comradery as smoke screen to cover ones homosexuality, but in the end you fall to the powers of the one-eyed monster of debauchery.
You said "movie" seven times in six sentences. Also,
The only semi homosexual thing I spotted in the movie was when
Leonidas turned his back on Xerxes. Even then you could explain it away as Leonidas being suicidal and hoping Xerxes would kill him thus allowing the rest of Sparta to go to war. Or he was just trying to push Xerxes buttons so he'd send in his elite Immortal soldiers, which is what I think was the actual reason given what happened directly afterwards.
I'm sure there is plenty of material in this movie that could or does scream "homosexual" but unless they all start going down on one another on screen who gives a shit?
Also, this is just my opinion, does anyone else get the feeling that people who go out of their way to see, for example here with 300 the homosexual aspects, are trying way to hard? It's like they think if they can say "That movie with the naked guys fighitng with spears was gay! I bet you didn't realize that when -you- watched it!" suddenly they are so much smarter and cooler than everyone else?
How much you wanna bet they have a degree (or at least some schooling) in drama/the arts/some other practically useless title that doesn't help them out much as a barista at starbucks? (not bashing baristas but you know what I mean).
Whenever someone mentions racism, people seem to have one of three reactions:
1. Discuss-
"I was a little put off by the racism, sexism and homophobia in 300"
"Yeah I noticed that too, but I still thought it was a good enough movie to warrant the use of those themes, and frankly I don't know how it could have been made without them."
That's a good answer, you aknowledge that the -ism is there, but you also point out that the film has other merits. In future you can discuss the racist themes, you can empathize with people who were offended by them and you don't have to give up the things you like about the movie.
2. Question-
"I was a little put off by the racism, sexism and homophobia in 300."
"Really? I didn't notice, like what?"
"Well, the heroic army was all white and the villianous army was all people of color, it reinforced the sterotype that asians are a 'horde' of faceless people who lack individuality, casting an actor of african descent as king of the persians give the impression that all people of color look alike and are interchangeable, the only females are all sex objects or boob war fantasys, the men reinforce their masculinity by making homophobic jokes and disabled people seem to only be good as traitors, monsters or concubines."
"Oh."
This is also good. One big positive step our culture has taken is to stigmatize overt racsim (like that in Breakfast at Tiffanys), now more racism is more subtle. If you don't notice it, that's fine, but you should try to learn about what you missed. It's scary to think that some racist themes are so ingrained in your mind that you instantly accept them when you see them. Learning and talking about them, is good, and you can still like the movie.
3. Denial-
"I was a little put off by the racism, sexism and homophobia in 300."
"There was no racism, sexism or homophobia in 300."
Unfortunately, this is the most common response. To me it's logically untenable. Racism, sexism and homophobia mean different things to different people. No one can claim that they know the minds of all possible people and that none of those minds considers something hurtful. You're telling someone what they think, and unless you're a very good hypnotist I don't think it'll work. I think people use denial to try to change the subject. It's uncomfortable for people to talk about -ism and so they pretend it's not there. It's like in improvisational theatre when someone says "Look it's Burt Reynolds!" and the other person replies "no it's not." The scene dies right there or turns into "Uh-huh,""Nuh-uh."
I'm willing to change the subject, I'd rather talk about why "faithful adaptation" of comics = poor movies, but please don't tell me I'm wrong about something subjective. Next you'll telling me what my favorite food is or changing my name around on me.
Oh and I nearly forgot
Majidah on
0
HardtargetThere Are Four LightsVancouverRegistered Userregular
The end scenes and voiceover were horrible and fucking tacky. The movie should have ended with Leonidas' dead body on the ground then fade to black.
God do people not understand this? This thread is rediculous.
The ENTIRE movie is Faramir telling the story of the 300's great sacrifice to pump up his troops one year later.
That is why EVERYTHING is exaggerated, the "monsters" are shown as monsters as that is what you do in a story, you exaggerate the enemy, make them more menacing, so that your army will fight better. After he leaves camp, he makes up the final act of the story, if the king had actually thrown a spear at Xerxes it would of hit him in the head.
Instead he tells of the spear just missing, but cutting Xerxes open. To show his troops that Xerxes is just a man, and that they CAN beat him.
That is the ENTIRE point of the movie, and it HAS to end how it did, or else NOTHING makes sense.
The end scenes and voiceover were horrible and fucking tacky. The movie should have ended with Leonidas' dead body on the ground then fade to black.
God do people not understand this? This thread is rediculous.
The ENTIRE movie is Faramir telling the story of the 300's great sacrifice to pump up his troops one year later.
That is why EVERYTHING is exaggerated, the "monsters" are shown as monsters as that is what you do in a story, you exaggerate the enemy, make them more menacing, so that your army will fight better. After he leaves camp, he makes up the final act of the story, if the king had actually thrown a spear at Xerxes it would of hit him in the head.
Instead he tells of the spear just missing, but cutting Xerxes open. To show his troops that Xerxes is just a man, and that they CAN beat him.
That is the ENTIRE point of the movie, and it HAS to end how it did, or else NOTHING makes sense.
Why wouldn't it make sense? Because it wouldn't have ended with fuckin one eyed Faramir leading some more spartans to fight? Why don't they make a sequel called 10,000? There was no need for anything after Leonidas' dead body to be shown. One-eye could have said like one final sentence or something and it could have ended.
On a side note though, who made the dumb ass decision of casting Gerard Butller as Leonidas? Butler sure as fuck doesn't look 50 years old to me.
t Majidah: Back then, many areas were homogenous. Greece had greeks, Persia had Persians. IT FUCKING MAKES SENSE THAT THEY LOOK DIFFERENT.
Xerxes' normal army weren't faceless monsters, they were goddamn persians!! His elite were monsters, because that was the damn idea. To terrify people into submission. He calls himself a God-King, to support that, he's got "otherworldly" forces you idiot. Not because "they were persian." Also, the "monsters" were obviously exaggerated because it's a GODDAMN MOVIE. It's not like Xerxes was like, "man, like all persians, even in the future, i will enjoy eating this baby and puppy sandwich."
The Spartans weren't exactly portrayed as nice either, they throw babies away that are weak for christs sake.
I'm still not seeing any homophobia, all the guys were mostly nude the whole movie. questioning someone's masculinity is an age old insult. Like, if i call you a dumb faggot, does that make me a homophobe? No, it makes you a moron.
Sexism was there...yeah. because back then, most men thought of women as baby factories because chicks couldn't fight good. it's not a theme of the movie, it's just how it was back then.
I swear people like you just find something miniscule in a movie, or someone's behavior and then blow it out of proportion into something it's not. THERE ARE ETHNICITIES IN THE WORLD, showing that does not mean racism!! you're talking like, OH EVERYONE IN THE MONGOL ARMY IN THIS GHENGIS KHAN MOVIE WERE ASIAN LOOKING, THAT IS SOOOOOO RACIST!!! I highly doubt 300 was a commentary on social mores, it was a FUCKING MOVIE ABOUT GREEKS FIGHTING PERSIANS.
ugh...cheeto, you can eat a dick too.
Dr. Frenchenstein on
0
NogsCrap, crap, mega crap.Crap, crap, mega crap.Registered Userregular
The end scenes and voiceover were horrible and fucking tacky. The movie should have ended with Leonidas' dead body on the ground then fade to black.
God do people not understand this? This thread is rediculous.
The ENTIRE movie is Faramir telling the story of the 300's great sacrifice to pump up his troops one year later.
That is why EVERYTHING is exaggerated, the "monsters" are shown as monsters as that is what you do in a story, you exaggerate the enemy, make them more menacing, so that your army will fight better. After he leaves camp, he makes up the final act of the story, if the king had actually thrown a spear at Xerxes it would of hit him in the head.
Instead he tells of the spear just missing, but cutting Xerxes open. To show his troops that Xerxes is just a man, and that they CAN beat him.
That is the ENTIRE point of the movie, and it HAS to end how it did, or else NOTHING makes sense.
Why wouldn't it make sense? Because it wouldn't have ended with fuckin one eyed Faramir leading some more spartans to fight? Why don't they make a sequel called 10,000? There was no need for anything after Leonidas' dead body to be shown. One-eye could have said like one final sentence or something and it could have ended.
On a side note though, who made the dumb ass decision of casting Gerard Butller as Leonidas? Butler sure as fuck doesn't look 50 years old to me.
It ends that way because that is the way the story goes. This isn't a made-only-for-movie-script. Its an ancient historical event, that - over time - was exaggerated for story telling purposes, then made into a movie, then graphic novel, and then a movie script. All leading off of the other. There is no sequel, because there is no other war. Leonidas dies, the rest of greece makes Xerxes flee. The signifigance of Faramir at the end, is to show that Leonidas' sacrifice wasn't in vain. Sure he COULD say that in one sentence - but who the fuck wants that when they can see 10,000 Spartans riding towards a massive battle?
Its not a 'he gave his life for his country, he is so noble, let us mourn his death' movie. Its a 'he gave his life for his country, he was badass, lets go fuck some persians up because of it' movie.
And I thought the casting of Leonidas was great, you are really grabbing for flaws if you are nit-picking about him not looking 50.
I -think- Dr.Frenchenstein is correct... but yeah. Fuck it.
This is a movie about a comic book. Anyone poopooing it for (whatever reason) is just gonna come off as silly since, well I just said why.
Enjoy it or hate it for what it is, don't try and hold it up to common sense, reality or the story it is inspired by.
If this had been an attempt at a "documentary" style look at the actual battle between the spartans and persians it would have been one billion times more racist and the women would have been slapped around like punching bags if they ever tried to talk to a man like anything close to an equal. Believe it or not, people back then were not PC. Shocking I know.
The end scenes and voiceover were horrible and fucking tacky. The movie should have ended with Leonidas' dead body on the ground then fade to black.
God do people not understand this? This thread is rediculous.
The ENTIRE movie is Faramir telling the story of the 300's great sacrifice to pump up his troops one year later.
That is why EVERYTHING is exaggerated, the "monsters" are shown as monsters as that is what you do in a story, you exaggerate the enemy, make them more menacing, so that your army will fight better. After he leaves camp, he makes up the final act of the story, if the king had actually thrown a spear at Xerxes it would of hit him in the head.
Instead he tells of the spear just missing, but cutting Xerxes open. To show his troops that Xerxes is just a man, and that they CAN beat him.
That is the ENTIRE point of the movie, and it HAS to end how it did, or else NOTHING makes sense.
Why wouldn't it make sense? Because it wouldn't have ended with fuckin one eyed Faramir leading some more spartans to fight? Why don't they make a sequel called 10,000? There was no need for anything after Leonidas' dead body to be shown. One-eye could have said like one final sentence or something and it could have ended.
On a side note though, who made the dumb ass decision of casting Gerard Butller as Leonidas? Butler sure as fuck doesn't look 50 years old to me.
It ends that way because that is the way the story goes. This isn't a made-only-for-movie-script. Its an ancient historical event, that - over time - was exaggerated for story telling purposes, then made into a movie, then graphic novel, and then a movie script. All leading off of the other. There is no sequel, because there is no other war. Leonidas dies, the rest of greece makes Xerxes flee. The signifigance of Faramir at the end, is to show that Leonidas' sacrifice wasn't in vain. Sure he COULD say that in one sentence - but who the fuck wants that when they can see 10,000 Spartans riding towards a massive battle?
Its not a 'he gave his life for his country, he is so noble, let us mourn his death' movie. Its a 'he gave his life for his country, he was badass, lets go fuck some persians up because of it' movie.
And I thought the casting of Leonidas was great, you are really grabbing for flaws if you are nit-picking about him not looking 50.
Cheeto, you fail for saying Gerard Butler was miscast. He kicked ass as Leonidas.
Well considering he looked like a version of Leonidas that was twenty years younger I don't see how I'm wrong. What if they cast a 12 year old or young teenager to play Batman in The Dark Knight? I bet everyone would have a problem then wouldn't they? Plus that scene at the end with 10,00 Spartans was so cheesy it made me wince. That was not bad ass it was lame and unnecessary.
Cheeto on
Geebs is a dick and made me change my sig.
0
AngryThe glory I had witnessedwas just a sleight of handRegistered Userregular
edited March 2007
gerard butler is 37 years old. the events in 300 were said to have taken place 30 years after leonidas was roughly 12 or so years old.
your argument is stupid.
Angry on
0
Bloods EndBlade of TyshallePunch dimensionRegistered Userregular
The movie 300 is a movie of much debate. Is the movie Pro-Bush? Is the movie Anti-Bush? Truth is the movie is anti-bush, as in anti-vagina. It it also a movie about the struggle of gung-ho men who endure an inner battle of sexual conflict before succuming to their homosexual urges.
The movie is the story of King Leonidas. The ultimate alpha male who has a deep hidden secret. He is gay, so are his 300 men who he trust by his side throughout most of the movie. Who knows what led them on this path sodomy. My bet would be spending long nights alone with nothing but battle hardened allies by their side they became seduce by that luscious hershey highway of sin. Can you blame them? After all a man has to sheath his sword somewhere.
The women are nothing more than a sheild used by the men to hide their deepest desires. The Oracle is little more than a young cock tease used men afflcited by leprosy. The Queen is a whore who clearly knows the burning in her husband's loins is not for her. There is also the whores who are given to the mutant ball sack as he betrays the Spartans for a taste of pink bliss.
Then we have Xerses, who is nothing more than a giant dressed up cock used to tempt the Spartans. The Spartans themselves are soldiers of legend. They plow (penetrate) through the Persian Empires with their spears and swords (cocks) as they refuse to give into the pleasures of the flesh.
Ultimately this is all futile. They eventually fight the giant decorated penis known as Xerxes and fall to his army of asshole romeos. There is a lesson to be had here. You can use violence and comradery as smoke screen to cover ones homosexuality, but in the end you fall to the powers of the one-eyed monster of debauchery.
You said "movie" seven times in six sentences. Also,
The argument that the story was supposed to make them seem badass doesn't explain why there was a huge guy with two blades for hands cutting off a general's head.
gerard butler is 37 years old. the events in 300 were said to have taken place 30 years after leonidas was roughly 12 or so years old.
your argument is stupid.
Actually it takes place 40 years after he fought the wolf in the woods. Taken directly from the comic itself I quote "It has been more than forty years since the wolf and the cold. Now, as then, it is not fear that grips him." Plus Leonidas in the comic looks so much older than Gerard Butler it's not even funny. So my estimate of Butler being 20 years younger than he should be was close. If he was 12 or a teenager that would make him at the least in his early fifties.
gerard butler is 37 years old. the events in 300 were said to have taken place 30 years after leonidas was roughly 12 or so years old.
your argument is stupid.
Actually it takes place 40 years after he fought the wolf in the woods. Taken directly from the comic itself I quote "It has been more than forty years since the wolf and the cold. Now, as then, it is not fear that grips him." Plus Leonidas in the comic looks so much older than Gerard Butler it's not even funny. So my estimate of Butler being 20 years younger than he should be was close. If he was 12 or a teenager that would make him at the least in his early fifties.
So, you mean to say that despite a fantastic performance in the film, he should not have been cast because he doesn't look quite old enough?
Posts
Also, Faramir played such an awesome story teller, especially during the last scene.
In any case, this is neither here nor there, others can make this argument better than I.
My main critique was that the film was full of distractions. Of course I can think of a reason there's snow or naked children, the point is I shouldn't have to. I should be able to suspend my disbelief and just enjoy the ride. Everytime you remind me that I am watching a movie, the story becomes less real and less engaging. Some of the elements that were used to up the comic book factor, like narration and slow-mo (to make frames look more like panels) actually lower the movie factor. As someone said on the Watchmen thread, a perfectly faithful comic adaptation involves filming a comic book as someone turns the pages. That would be an unspeakably boring and bad movie. I think that 300 the graphic novel is better than 300 the movie, and since the movie slavishly, mindlessly follows the comic (except for a few things to add more cheesecake/make it more modern), it does not show me anything new.
Oh and Gorgo was a man. She had female parts so that Leonidas could sleep with her and not be considered gay. Her actions, dialogue and apperance were either masculine, or how an adolescent boy would like a woman to be. This is because Miller writes women like Spike Lee writes white men, to demonstrate a point rather than to be realistic or identifyable characters (Possible Exception: Carrie as Robin)
You do realize that Miller only wrote about two lines of dialogue for Gorgo. In the comic she's barely featured at all. They decided to give her more presence in the film, in order to balance out the rampant manliness that was Leonidas and his Spartans.
And saying the depictions of the Persians was racist is like saying Raph Fiennes' depiction of the Nazi in Schindler's List is racist. The Persians were known to be a flamboyant people with a darker skin tone than the rest of Asia. And of course they came across as evil. THEY WERE THE ANTAGONISTS OF THE STORY. ANTAGONISTS ARE SUPPOSED TO THREATEN THE PROTAGONIST IN SOME WAY, IN THIS CASE SURRENDER OR DIE. I'm not saying you had to love the movie, but some of your reasons for not liking it are kinda dumb.
This development is completely unexpected.
Well, they were shown to be monsters and savages.
The thing is, this is a fictional movie, based on a fictional graphic novel, that was partially based on a fictional movie that was loosely based on a historical event. People need to stop treating it like it is a fucking documentary.
Look, I haven't see the movie, but the funny things is that anyone smart enough to realize the Iranians are Persians is smart enough not to take the story in any kind of seriousness.
I honestly forgot about the monsters. But as for them being savage, so what if they were? You have to remember, Xerxes army conquered almost all of Asia, so they may have been pretty barbaric.
Still, the movie isn't real. We don't actually think that the persians were depicted accurately in the movie. They didn't need to be. It is a fun, fairly mindless, action flick that does not claim any sort of historical accuracy. That is why I love it so much.
Being a cultural anthropologist myself I'm not completely sure I would agree with your wife. I can MAYBE see a bit of racism but no more than say LOTRs. Sexism? Beyond the oracle scene I don't think so, and really that was no worse than any other movie. Homophobia? Yeah I can see that. I wouldn't call the movie ripe with the stuff though.
Of course it's not meant to be taken as a historical adaptation. The monsters alone are proof of that. That's why this guy's arguement holds no water; he's saying that the false and racist depiction of the Persians was a fault of the movie. But when you look at it from a storytelling point-of-view, the Persians were the perfect antagonistic force to oppose the noble Spartans.
The movie is the story of King Leonidas. The ultimate alpha male who has a deep hidden secret. He is gay, so are his 300 men who he trust by his side throughout most of the movie. Who knows what led them on this path sodomy. My bet would be spending long nights alone with nothing but battle hardened allies by their side they became seduce by that luscious hershey highway of sin. Can you blame them? After all a man has to sheath his sword somewhere.
The women are nothing more than a sheild used by the men to hide their deepest desires. The Oracle is little more than a young cock tease used men afflcited by leprosy. The Queen is a whore who clearly knows the burning in her husband's loins is not for her. There is also the whores who are given to the mutant ball sack as he betrays the Spartans for a taste of pink bliss.
Then we have Xerses, who is nothing more than a giant dressed up cock used to tempt the Spartans. The Spartans themselves are soldiers of legend. They plow (penetrate) through the Persian Empires with their spears and swords (cocks) as they refuse to give into the pleasures of the flesh.
Ultimately this is all futile. They eventually fight the giant decorated penis known as Xerxes and fall to his army of asshole romeos. There is a lesson to be had here. You can use violence and comradery as smoke screen to cover ones homosexuality, but in the end you fall to the powers of the one-eyed monster of debauchery.
It was literally shot-for-shot from the comic. The comic ended the same way the movie ended(eg: fucking awesome). Also, most audiences would have been incredibly pissed if the movie ended with Leonidas dead and no other force opposing Xerxes, word of mouth would have been bad, and it wouldn't have gotten the reception it did.
Also, Algertman, that post is hilarious.
Are you listening?
There's something I need to tell you...
...
...
You made my day. Thank you.
Exactly. Why do people always have to think so hard about action moveis like this?
You said "movie" seven times in six sentences. Also,
Hey, cool, my brain just flew out of my urethra.
and you're from Canada........
I'm sure there is plenty of material in this movie that could or does scream "homosexual" but unless they all start going down on one another on screen who gives a shit?
Also, this is just my opinion, does anyone else get the feeling that people who go out of their way to see, for example here with 300 the homosexual aspects, are trying way to hard? It's like they think if they can say "That movie with the naked guys fighitng with spears was gay! I bet you didn't realize that when -you- watched it!" suddenly they are so much smarter and cooler than everyone else?
How much you wanna bet they have a degree (or at least some schooling) in drama/the arts/some other practically useless title that doesn't help them out much as a barista at starbucks? (not bashing baristas but you know what I mean).
1. Discuss-
"I was a little put off by the racism, sexism and homophobia in 300"
"Yeah I noticed that too, but I still thought it was a good enough movie to warrant the use of those themes, and frankly I don't know how it could have been made without them."
That's a good answer, you aknowledge that the -ism is there, but you also point out that the film has other merits. In future you can discuss the racist themes, you can empathize with people who were offended by them and you don't have to give up the things you like about the movie.
2. Question-
"I was a little put off by the racism, sexism and homophobia in 300."
"Really? I didn't notice, like what?"
"Well, the heroic army was all white and the villianous army was all people of color, it reinforced the sterotype that asians are a 'horde' of faceless people who lack individuality, casting an actor of african descent as king of the persians give the impression that all people of color look alike and are interchangeable, the only females are all sex objects or boob war fantasys, the men reinforce their masculinity by making homophobic jokes and disabled people seem to only be good as traitors, monsters or concubines."
"Oh."
This is also good. One big positive step our culture has taken is to stigmatize overt racsim (like that in Breakfast at Tiffanys), now more racism is more subtle. If you don't notice it, that's fine, but you should try to learn about what you missed. It's scary to think that some racist themes are so ingrained in your mind that you instantly accept them when you see them. Learning and talking about them, is good, and you can still like the movie.
3. Denial-
"I was a little put off by the racism, sexism and homophobia in 300."
"There was no racism, sexism or homophobia in 300."
Unfortunately, this is the most common response. To me it's logically untenable. Racism, sexism and homophobia mean different things to different people. No one can claim that they know the minds of all possible people and that none of those minds considers something hurtful. You're telling someone what they think, and unless you're a very good hypnotist I don't think it'll work. I think people use denial to try to change the subject. It's uncomfortable for people to talk about -ism and so they pretend it's not there. It's like in improvisational theatre when someone says "Look it's Burt Reynolds!" and the other person replies "no it's not." The scene dies right there or turns into "Uh-huh,""Nuh-uh."
I'm willing to change the subject, I'd rather talk about why "faithful adaptation" of comics = poor movies, but please don't tell me I'm wrong about something subjective. Next you'll telling me what my favorite food is or changing my name around on me.
Oh and I nearly forgot
God do people not understand this? This thread is rediculous.
The ENTIRE movie is Faramir telling the story of the 300's great sacrifice to pump up his troops one year later.
That is why EVERYTHING is exaggerated, the "monsters" are shown as monsters as that is what you do in a story, you exaggerate the enemy, make them more menacing, so that your army will fight better. After he leaves camp, he makes up the final act of the story, if the king had actually thrown a spear at Xerxes it would of hit him in the head.
Instead he tells of the spear just missing, but cutting Xerxes open. To show his troops that Xerxes is just a man, and that they CAN beat him.
That is the ENTIRE point of the movie, and it HAS to end how it did, or else NOTHING makes sense.
Why wouldn't it make sense? Because it wouldn't have ended with fuckin one eyed Faramir leading some more spartans to fight? Why don't they make a sequel called 10,000? There was no need for anything after Leonidas' dead body to be shown. One-eye could have said like one final sentence or something and it could have ended.
On a side note though, who made the dumb ass decision of casting Gerard Butller as Leonidas? Butler sure as fuck doesn't look 50 years old to me.
Xerxes' normal army weren't faceless monsters, they were goddamn persians!! His elite were monsters, because that was the damn idea. To terrify people into submission. He calls himself a God-King, to support that, he's got "otherworldly" forces you idiot. Not because "they were persian." Also, the "monsters" were obviously exaggerated because it's a GODDAMN MOVIE. It's not like Xerxes was like, "man, like all persians, even in the future, i will enjoy eating this baby and puppy sandwich."
The Spartans weren't exactly portrayed as nice either, they throw babies away that are weak for christs sake.
I'm still not seeing any homophobia, all the guys were mostly nude the whole movie. questioning someone's masculinity is an age old insult. Like, if i call you a dumb faggot, does that make me a homophobe? No, it makes you a moron.
Sexism was there...yeah. because back then, most men thought of women as baby factories because chicks couldn't fight good. it's not a theme of the movie, it's just how it was back then.
I swear people like you just find something miniscule in a movie, or someone's behavior and then blow it out of proportion into something it's not. THERE ARE ETHNICITIES IN THE WORLD, showing that does not mean racism!! you're talking like, OH EVERYONE IN THE MONGOL ARMY IN THIS GHENGIS KHAN MOVIE WERE ASIAN LOOKING, THAT IS SOOOOOO RACIST!!! I highly doubt 300 was a commentary on social mores, it was a FUCKING MOVIE ABOUT GREEKS FIGHTING PERSIANS.
ugh...cheeto, you can eat a dick too.
It ends that way because that is the way the story goes. This isn't a made-only-for-movie-script. Its an ancient historical event, that - over time - was exaggerated for story telling purposes, then made into a movie, then graphic novel, and then a movie script. All leading off of the other. There is no sequel, because there is no other war. Leonidas dies, the rest of greece makes Xerxes flee. The signifigance of Faramir at the end, is to show that Leonidas' sacrifice wasn't in vain. Sure he COULD say that in one sentence - but who the fuck wants that when they can see 10,000 Spartans riding towards a massive battle?
Its not a 'he gave his life for his country, he is so noble, let us mourn his death' movie. Its a 'he gave his life for his country, he was badass, lets go fuck some persians up because of it' movie.
And I thought the casting of Leonidas was great, you are really grabbing for flaws if you are nit-picking about him not looking 50.
PARKER, YOU'RE FIRED! <-- My comic book podcast! Satan look here!
This is a movie about a comic book. Anyone poopooing it for (whatever reason) is just gonna come off as silly since, well I just said why.
Enjoy it or hate it for what it is, don't try and hold it up to common sense, reality or the story it is inspired by.
If this had been an attempt at a "documentary" style look at the actual battle between the spartans and persians it would have been one billion times more racist and the women would have been slapped around like punching bags if they ever tried to talk to a man like anything close to an equal. Believe it or not, people back then were not PC. Shocking I know.
The thread... it... it hurts me.
PENIS!
Exaaactly!
Well considering he looked like a version of Leonidas that was twenty years younger I don't see how I'm wrong. What if they cast a 12 year old or young teenager to play Batman in The Dark Knight? I bet everyone would have a problem then wouldn't they? Plus that scene at the end with 10,00 Spartans was so cheesy it made me wince. That was not bad ass it was lame and unnecessary.
your argument is stupid.
What?
Actually it takes place 40 years after he fought the wolf in the woods. Taken directly from the comic itself I quote "It has been more than forty years since the wolf and the cold. Now, as then, it is not fear that grips him." Plus Leonidas in the comic looks so much older than Gerard Butler it's not even funny. So my estimate of Butler being 20 years younger than he should be was close. If he was 12 or a teenager that would make him at the least in his early fifties.
Edit: Comparison