300 (movie)

[lord of the mark]

If you really wanted to make a thoughtful pic on the current situation, one that can make arguements for both sides, you would not use the Persian war, but the Pelopenisian war.

The side thats proud of its democracy, is also the side running a commercial empire, and frightening everyone else by their "hegemony". While the defenders of freedom from hegemony include some really nasty domestic regimes. But the beseiged democracy is tempted to do some really nasty things, like in Melos. There are interventions and counter interventions in the politics of the smaller states. And occasionally Athens runs off to peripheral battlefields like Sicily, in a frustrated attempt to get a victory indirectly, an attempt which leads to disaster, after poor implementation.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Did anyone seriously go to a movie about the Battle of Thermopylae and expect a fair and balanced look at the Persian Empire? Did you really expect the movie to be like that, BeBro?

I didn't expect this movie to be like that after I read some more of it, no. And I never would say that any movie (or book, whatever) has always to attempt this or that it has to depict everything in a completely historic correct way (which wouldn't be possible all the time anyway).

But still it's perfectly fine to point out certain things IMO. When those who made the movie found it useful to create an extra Feindbild of Persia they should be prepared to take criticism on that. Personally I think such a movie could work well without this stuff.

And while I think movies don't have to be balanced, fair etc. all the time I would prefer some more of it many cases. I mean one-dimensional enemies are IMO kinda boring, not just in historic movies.

[DinoDoc]

I don't think you've ever read a Frank Miller comic (what the movie is directly based on) before. The only signifigant departure the film makers made was the expanded role for the Spartan Queen.

[BeBMan]

Well, that's true.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by BeBro
I didn't expect this movie to be like that...

Can you point to any movie about the battle that would be like that?

[Jaakko]

[DinoDoc]

@ Jaakko

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Can you point to any movie about the battle that would be like that?

Fair etc.? At the moment I don't remember one being the embodiment of "objectivity" and historical correctness, certainly not about Thermopylae, but there are still some differences in the depiction of the (various) enemies in various other war movies.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by BeBro
Fair etc.? At the moment I don't remember one being the embodiment of "objectivity" and historical correctness, certainly not about Thermopylae,

Ok, then. Why get all twitchy about this depiction of the battle?

Or do you simply feel that the subject should be off limits for film making purposes?

[BeBMan]

Well, I'd complain about other movies too. And even when there isn't a perfect example I can still hope for improvement

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by BeBro


Fair etc.? At the moment I don't remember one being the embodiment of "objectivity" and historical correctness, certainly not about Thermopylae, but there are still some differences in the depiction of the (various) enemies in various other war movies.

BeBro. You should probably take a quick look at some of Frank Miller's other work. I'm not saying you would like it but perhaps you might get an idea why 300 is over the top and not exactly documentry material.

Like I said before in the the thread, the History Channel took the dark atmosphere and made a really great show about the battle without any characterizations whatsoever. That was probably more your style which I enjoyed as well but I will probably love the over the top Miller treatment just for entertainment value.

Seriously some of you here really know how to get worked up over absolutely nothing

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
If you really wanted to make a thoughtful pic on the current situation, one that can make arguements for both sides, you would not use the Persian war, but the Pelopenisian war.

The side thats proud of its democracy, is also the side running a commercial empire, and frightening everyone else by their "hegemony". While the defenders of freedom from hegemony include some really nasty domestic regimes. But the beseiged democracy is tempted to do some really nasty things, like in Melos. There are interventions and counter interventions in the politics of the smaller states. And occasionally Athens runs off to peripheral battlefields like Sicily, in a frustrated attempt to get a victory indirectly, an attempt which leads to disaster, after poor implementation.

I would think that movie would have to be told in at least two or three enstallments but I would definitly watch it

[Colon™]

I don't think this got posted yet:

Iran condemns Hollywood war epic

Historical war epic 300 has been criticised as an attack on Iranian culture by government figures.

The Hollywood film, which has broken US box office records, is an effects-laden retelling of a battle in which a small Greek army resisted a Persian invasion.

Javad Shamqadri, a cultural advisor to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said it was "plundering Iran's historic past and insulting this civilization".

He branded the film "psychological warfare" against Tehran and its people.

But Iranian culture was strong enough to withstand the assault, Mr Shamqadri said.

"American cultural officials thought they could get mental satisfaction by plundering Iran's historic past and insulting this civilization," he said.

"Following the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Hollywood and cultural authorities in the US initiated studies to figure out how to attack Iranian culture.

"Certainly, the recent movie is a product of such studies."

Daily newspaper Ayandeh-No carried the headline "Hollywood declares war on Iranians".

The paper said: "It seeks to tell people that Iran, which is in the Axis of Evil now, has for long been the source of evil and modern Iranians' ancestors are the ugly murderous dumb savages you see in 300."

Three MPs in the Iranian parliament have also written to the foreign ministry to protest against the production and screening of this "anti-Iranian Hollywood film".

The film has already proved a major box office hit in the US where it earned almost $71m (£36.8m) in its first weekend, making it the best ever March opening in North American cinemas.

This is not the first time Iran has protested over its portrayal in films made in the West.

There was outrage over the 2004 epic Alexander which showed the Macedonian general easily conquering the Persian Empire.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/entertainment/6446183.stm

Published: 2007/03/13 14:43:11 GMT

© BBC MMVII

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by BeBro
I didn't expect this movie to be like that after I read some more of it, no. And I never would say that any movie (or book, whatever) has always to attempt this or that it has to depict everything in a completely historic correct way (which wouldn't be possible all the time anyway).

But still it's perfectly fine to point out certain things IMO. When those who made the movie found it useful to create an extra Feindbild of Persia they should be prepared to take criticism on that. Personally I think such a movie could work well without this stuff.

And while I think movies don't have to be balanced, fair etc. all the time I would prefer some more of it many cases. I mean one-dimensional enemies are IMO kinda boring, not just in historic movies.

I agree.

Especially as the battle of the Thermopylae leaves enough room for a creative film maker to make a movioe that is both, thrilling as well as historic correct.

There is really no need to hollywoodize the stuff as it was obviously done in 300.

Wouldn´t the movie still be thrilling if Leonidas had been shown killing a helote and stealing food to survive.
And wouldn´t it still have been thrilling enough if they wouldn´t show only the 300 Spartans doing all the work but instead would show that they did the work with the Support of their Allieds and their own support troops (consisting of periökes and helots).
Same goes for all the other inaccurate points.

Look at "Saving private Ryan" for example. It is a thrilling movie that still tries to display the story in a rtather accurate historic context and goes without trying to elevate his heroes into superhuman heights while at the same time depicting the enemies as subhuman miscreants.

I never saw the comics after which the movie was made (well I also never saw the movie, I just get the above mentioned points from the reviews of the movie).
Maybe the Spartans and Persians are really depicted this way in the comic (and so the movie stays true to the original).

What I know is that contrary to my plans i won´t go into the movie because of the reasons mentioned above and better wait till someone makes a movie of the battle that tries to be more historic accurate.

And therefore I also agree with Bebro that the reviewers are fully justified in pointing out the historic inaccuracies of the movie.
The thorough listing in these reviews of all the inaccuracies of the movie truely helped me in my decision against spending my money and time into watching the movie.
Hadn´t the reviews mentioned this I probably had wasted time and money.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
And therefore I also agree with Bebro that the reviewers are fully justified in pointing out the historic inaccuracies of the movie.

It's not a historical documentary. It's a comic book adaptation. Anyone going to the movie expecting a history lesson should have their head examined.