Blogcritics Comments on The 300 Controversy: Fact vs. Fiction

Comment by Harold on The 300 Controversy: Fact vs. Fiction

Sun, 20 Jul 2008 04:46:51 EDT

To claim that film is inherently apolitical and should not be criticized for any moral or political views, is to defend all propaganda -- this seems a foolish (monkey holding hands over eyes) approach. Now, it is apparent to anyone with even a limited historical background that this film whitewashes the Spartans ludicrously as keepers of freedom (they were a monarchy built on slavery, folks, everyone knows that -- there isn't any controversy at all over that!) But, to be fair, the previous 300 Spartans movie did the same ludicrous whitewash -- it was obviously aimed at the very ignorant American audience. Frank Miller should not be blamed too much for ignorantly copying someone else's silly whitewash; he is just the ignorant copier, not the author. And even the author of the original was probably some American with the usual lack of education and lack of basic reasoning ability -- we should not blame them too heavily; they struggle through the mire of their ignorance, their overweight, wasteful lives, their lack of morality, their pride and foolishness, as best they can given their extremely limited potential...

Comment by Mylos on The 300 Controversy: Fact vs. Fiction

Tue, 1 Jan 2008 13:38:38 EST

Good movies but only as a visual art. The special effects were well done and well directed. Other than that its a bungled story. But what is disappointing is reading people writing as if the Persians were some monsters who would have prevented the western civilization and democrazy. What the hell does western civilization and democracy have to do with the battle of Thermopylae? First the Spartans weren't even a democratic society and second the Persian primary target was Athens, not Sparta or the as yet to exist West. And further down the line during the Peloponnesian War the Spartans actually allied with the Persians against Athens.

Comment by Joey A, on The 300 Controversy: Fact vs. Fiction

Mon, 31 Dec 2007 04:52:05 EST

What I noticed is that the Persians had a black guy as a messenger. This is probably a reference to the fact that Persians owned everything from Egypt to Turkey (Anatolia) to Bactria. That guy need not be of Aryan descent (Persians are white,but could vary since they're West Asians and such) - he could be Nubian. Then again, is Nubia part of the Persian Empire? oh, btw, good article. Nice job posting it here, too. I couldn't agree more.

Comment by cjsplace on The 300 Controversy: Fact vs. Fiction

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:46:08 EST

Okay, came here looking for something else, but I have to say something about this subject. First and foremost, get over it. I mean that in the nicest way, but this is a movie. By its very definition, it's meant to entertain us. What's rather strange to me is that the movie, though done from a graphical novel viewpoint is still based on historical fact. Please, don't throw eggs. Yes, I know that Mr. Miller left rather large chunks out of the actual event. Like it wasn't just those brave 300 huddled together while Leonidas decided to try a slight of hand. The fact still remain that King Xerxes brought the battle to Greece. He was following in his father's and grandfather's footsteps, with no intention of stopping until he had accomplished what he set out to do. But, really my question to everyone out there is this. Is Hollywood no longer supposed/allowed to produce movies based on actual events? Especially historical ones? Has our society decayed to such a degree that a movie based on history, that means you know it really did happen, should be banned or picketed because someone feels that the alleged bad guy portrayed in the movie, shares some like characteristic with them, (not sure how unless they can pop their butts into a time machine, but okay) which will cause people to treat them badly. Yes, America is wonderful and we treasure our liberties. I simply wonder sometimes if we spend too much time protesting about how something sounded or appeared, and then asking our government to step in and fix it for us that we might end up with no choices and no liberties. If you're not sure about a movie's content, investigate. Wait until its been out for a little while and read the reviews posted online at reputable site. Go, watch the show, and if by some strange fluke it turns out that something offends you in any way, shape or form. Simple, move forward in your seat, grab your popcorn and coke, look around for whatever else you can find that belongs to you, and stand up. That's it you can do. Now, walk out of the theatre. You don't have to even throw your snacks away if your not finished, take 'em home, enjoy 'em. Go home and put in a DVD of you favorite movie, then write off that movie and wash your hands of it. See we have all kinds of great rights. There's nothing in the world that says we have to stay if a movie offends us, bores us, or just plain sucks. But, for goodnes sakes don't go out creating websites, forums and blogs to protest a movie that you despised when you sat through the entire show.

Comment by AVG on The 300 Controversy: Fact vs. Fiction

Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:18:49 EST

Frank Miller wrote the comic book in 1998 unless he can see into the far future how the hell is this movie pro-bush.

Comment by im awesome on The 300 Controversy: Fact vs. Fiction

Wed, 7 Nov 2007 23:42:24 EST

its a movie watch it wnjoy it get over it.=]

Comment by Ray Ellis on The 300 Controversy: Fact vs. Fiction

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:06:25 EDT

GS--I read your comment, and it gave me pause to wonder.. . Are you--how shall I put this delicately?--retarded?

Comment by GS on The 300 Controversy: Fact vs. Fiction

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:34:25 EDT

The film made a mint because it rocked. Tell the liberal terrorists appeaser JF who wrote that steaming pile to calm down. He wrote a friggin manifesto worthy of the unibomber. LOL If I were him, I would get used to hearing "President Thompson". AT the rate the left is backstabbing our troops in the field and slandering Generals giving reports in washington. They have assured it. And yes, the backstabbing SOB in 300 that Gorgo deals with is very reminding of our own opportunists so called "anti-war" politicians isn't he? LOL

Comment by Ray Ellis on The 300 Controversy: Fact vs. Fiction

Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:15:06 EDT

Calm down, GS. It was only a comic book adaptation--and not a very good one at that.

Comment by GS on The 300 Controversy: Fact vs. Fiction

Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:06:22 EDT

The above post is the biggist pile I have ever read. FREEDOM! And it drives liberals and terrorists mad when they cannot control it! LOL!

Comment by jf on The 300 Controversy: Fact vs. Fiction

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 22:25:51 EDT

Everyone on this page (except ml) is completely missing the point. The problem with 300 has absolutely nothing to do with its historical accuracy. What is wrong with you people? Doesn't anyone find it offensive that during a completely misguided and tragic war with Iraq, while the PNAC-based ambitions of the government are squarely set on Iran and the the rest of the middle east (Syria.. even Pakistan is being implicated as an enemy lately) that a movie like this be released? It is not the historical accuracy or lack thereof that is the problem. It is the extreme politicization of the movie - the fact that every line of dialog in it is an awkward and heavy-handed attempt to make a parallel to the situation the US finds itself in today in the Middle East and to make a case for continuing and extending the fight against Islam. Don't you people recognize a propoganda film when you see one? Has anyone seen 'How Green Was My Valley' (socialist propoganda film) or any Nazi propoganda films? Each shameless and awkward attempts to further a political agenda where such other minor concerns like plot, character development, acting quality, dialog.. all take a backseat. This film fits squarely into that genre. A propoganda film is simply a film whose number one priority is to make a political statement, not to make entertainment and you can recognize it in under 10 seconds of watching any portion of these movies with dialog. The writing, the dialog and teh acting are of such poor quality, while the agenda is so heavy-handed, that you cannot mistake it. Was this movie made primarily for entertainment or to further a political agenda? You have to be crazy or outright daft to think this movie was made primarily for entertainment. It's attempts to make post-911 parallels relating to the senate which is unable to act and 'support the troops', to the half-human oracles to the united nations who are caught up in obsolete regulations and corruption, to the Islamic peoples who are all portrayed as evil Arab mystics, is shameless and mind-bogglingly transparent, while the cast of utterly unknown actors are just above the high school drama level and still too good for the writers. The question is not one of historical accuracy or of Hollywood's right to make a piece of fiction loosely based on a true story. The question is this: In an extremely sensitive international climate between ourselves and the middle east like the one we have ineptly and callously created for ourselves today, when a war with Iran, involving most likely tens of thousands of deaths of American and Iranian people, is very possible and very real, and furthermore was completely unprovoked by Iran, is this movie appropriate? What do we think about the timing and the politicization of this film? That is the only question at hand. What kind of war-mongering or otherwise completely apathetic tendencies does it take to not complain about this movie? Propoganda is an attempt to use film to influence weak minds toward accepting a certain political agenda, and to hold that goal higher than any art or entertainment value that may come out of that. How does this movie not fit that definition? This movie attempts to get an uneducated American youth psyched up for war against the middle east, plain and simple. How responsible is that? Should we tolerate that? Nearly 4,000 mostly young American soldiers have died already in this fiasco, along with literally hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis or all ages and we are going to lie down or even defend a movie like this? We are even going to go so far as blame Iranians for being offended? Because I imagine we would not be offended by a similar international blockbuster film put out by and Iranian film company where the exaggerated roles were reversed? Whether this film was a completely private effort or was in fact received support from a small network of GOP cronies who prefer to go unnamed is not really the point. That point is that we should denounce it wholeheartedly. Let the world know at least that the citizens of the USA are not the ignorant and violent beasts that the film would have us believe the Persians were.

Comment by sahar on The 300 Controversy: Fact vs. Fiction

Wed, 22 Aug 2007 22:48:17 EDT

you guys don't undrestand.Iranians are really mad. they don' care of the film maker wanted to just make a movie they are saying if he wanted to make a movie like this why did he choose persians as the devil because if for some reason persians always got heart in their wholl history and they didin't heart anyone.ok if the goverment of America hase problems with iran they shoulden't go and make a movie about the people in iran.

Comment by dvd review guy on The 300 Controversy: Fact vs. Fiction

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 04:29:07 EDT

The simple truth is that someone is offended by everything. Period. There is no way to judge when a person or group of people should be offended, but it is a movie (for entertainment) and not a history lesson (for accuracy).

Comment by go 300!! on The 300 Controversy: Fact vs. Fiction

Sun, 5 Aug 2007 19:57:30 EDT

most of you are a bunch of idiots. this is not a pro-bush movie, it is simply a retelling of an ancient story--in an exaggerated way. and sparta did beleive in freedom and all that good stuff.. even back then. if they did have slaves, it was a completely different time, as that was the norm. this movie is just showing that "few stood against many." yes it is an exaggeration of the truth, but if you watch this movie you WILL get the jist of what actually happened.

Comment by john on The 300 Controversy: Fact vs. Fiction

Tue, 17 Jul 2007 08:35:18 EDT

am african and have watched the movie,and i think it has nothing to do with modern Iran, it's true persia was geographically where Iran is today but that does not mean THAT THE IRANIANS ARE THE TRUE DESCENDANTS OF THE PERSIANS. the movie also has some historical truth in it but its not a documentary either. FACT :!!IF THE PERSIAN EMPIRE HAD NOT FALLEN WE WOULD NOT BE WHERE WE ARE TODAY: the movie focuses on a well trained army and a well planned war stratergy.

Comment by Sami on The 300 Controversy: Fact vs. Fiction

Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:52:33 EDT

The west needed a movie like that at this time, lots of obviouse messeges like the debate on sending more troop or not. LOL I recommend this movie to the American soldirs fighting today in the parsian golf.

Comment by GS on The 300 Controversy: Fact vs. Fiction

Fri, 8 Jun 2007 16:19:51 EDT

The left attacks 300 and it really bothers them clearly. So do islamo facists. Gee I wonder why! LOL

Comment by John on The 300 Controversy: Fact vs. Fiction

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:28:29 EDT

Searching for political significance in a film made as a piece of fiction is patently ridiculous. Iranians may desperatly scream propaganda, but having observed what they so happily did to the British service personnel they so recently kidnapped renders critisism of a fictional work somewhat moot. If 'the west' as the Iranians would have it were to indulge in a propagnda campaign against Iranians then you can bet that the respective governments would not be so restrained in their criticisms. Anyone with half a brain knows better than to expect historical accuracy from Hollywood, unless of course we are to accept films like the DaVinci code, U-571 and the last samurai as gospel and simply do away with the academic study of history. We go to the cinema to be amused, if you want fact go to a library and look it up.

Comment by espandyar on The 300 Controversy: Fact vs. Fiction

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:36:33 EDT

Here are some great facts for people who are interested in serious discussion and historical facts. If you are Iranian then its a MUST for you to watch this movie.

Comment by Paul on The 300 Controversy: Fact vs. Fiction

Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:04:24 EDT

For my part, I also don't go for this conspiracy theory angle. It's a little too fanciful. But I wonder if those who have commented here along the lines of "it's only fictional entertainment, get over it", (probably most of the posts here) would feel exactly the same if a movie totally distorted history to show the US forces in WWII, as revolting, deformed monsters that stood for everything that was evil and bad in the World, in contrast to the Japanese, portrayed as the heroic, muscular goodies that stood for everything was good? Keep in mind that, despite it s claim to be only fiction, 300 is based on REAL history, REAL nations, REAL events, and REAL characters. So, while I might not agree with all their criticisms, I can understand Iranians/Persians being at least little pissed off about it. Oh and, having traveled through both countries, the Greeks and Iranians, in many cases, actually look very similar. I can also tell you that the great majority of the Iranians that I met, absolutely detest the Mollas and the fanatics who rule over them and want to have good relations with the West. Something that we don't hear much about in the Western media.

Comment by N.H. on The 300 Controversy: Fact vs. Fiction

Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:19:21 EDT

Many people claim 300 is only a movie. If it's only a movie, I would love to see another similar movie made, but with the characterisation reversed for the races. Let's have a huge number of caucasians portrayed as pathetic, bad, immoral, disloyal, licentious, weak and stupid. Let's have a small number of Persian/Asian/Arab looking people portrayed as strong, heroic, courageous, loyal, self-sacrificing, intelligent and honourable. And let's have this small clan easily massacre the pathetic white people, piling their bodies in a way that's reminiscent of the holocaust. Then see the reaction of the same large group of (mostly caucasian) movie-goers who claim 300 is fantastic, and just a movie, and shouldn't be taken so seriously. Whether they admit or not, many caucasians would despise and be upset by seeing the way the characters that "represent" them are portrayed and they would feel the simplistic, hateful racism that is inherent in such portrayals.

Comment by Richard on The 300 Controversy: Fact vs. Fiction

Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:16:38 EDT

I can only hope that the people who have argued back and forth about the historic inaccuracies and/or the irrelevance of said inaccuracies do go ahead and read up on them, as many have suggested an interested viewer should do. The thing that bothers me about the film more than anything else is the way that it suggests that only in classical Greece could the ideas of democracy and reason originate. That's just a little too much for me to swallow, notwithstanding the fact that Western culture and democracy does descend from classical Greece. Also, how funny was it that towards the end of the film Dilios was describing how the Spartans were protecting Greece (and its attendant virtues) against the forces of 'mysticism and magic' considering the fact that Greece at that time refused to go to war before consulting its own mystic Oracle?

Comment by hmm on The 300 Controversy: Fact vs. Fiction

Sat, 7 Apr 2007 14:40:42 EDT

Actually, Warner Brothers has a history of creating propaganda for the government. Do you know about Private Snafu?

Comment by Starstruck on The 300 Controversy: Fact vs. Fiction

Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:37:22 EDT

Wow, quite the sounding board we have got here... Has our society become so twisted, so perverse that we cannot even spend the $8.50 it costs to see a movie and enjoy it? 300 was what it was; a fictional story based on some historical events. It was Rudy, The Mighty Ducks meets Rocky IV and Dreamer all hopped up on roids. Leonidas and George Bush? I don't recall Leonidas using the word "strategery." But I do seem to remember George W. on the front lines yelling, "THIS IS AMERICA!!!" Seriously, comparing Leonidas to G.W.II is like comparing Arnold Schwarzenegger to Peter Griffin. You might find similarities, but come on folks, don't be that guy. Was 300 a great movie, no probably not. Was it entertaining, yeah I think so. Will it change the way I vote, no. Do I think that Frank Miller new in 1998(when he wrote the graphic Novel, aka comic book) that George W would become president and that he would lead us into the middle east, highly unlikely. (But just in case, I want Miller to pick my next lotto numbers.) Until the dispute is settled or, even more likely, until people get tired about debating, can't we just all agree that this was a movie and that movies are intended for entertainment? I know there is one fact we all can agree on, Gerald Butler looks much better in a Spartan costume that G.W.

Comment by ben on The 300 Controversy: Fact vs. Fiction

Tue, 27 Mar 2007 22:11:02 EDT

this is sparta, the is where democracy was born, this where human right was born, we gonna keep and protect it, stupid and barberian persians go back to your caves in afganistan.