Everyone with a blog and a dream thinks they are a pundit these days.
Everyone with a blog and a dream thinks they are a pundit these days.…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
The 300 Controversy: Fact vs. Fiction - Comments Page 3
Everyone with a blog and a dream thinks they are a pundit these days.
Everyone with a blog and a dream thinks they are a pundit these days.…
Article comments
76 - GS
The left attacks 300 and it really bothers them clearly.
So do islamo facists.
Gee I wonder why! LOL
77 - Sami
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.
78 - john
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.
79 - go 300!!
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.
80 - dvd review guy
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).
81 - sahar
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.
82 - jf
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.
83 - GS
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!
84 - Ray Ellis
Calm down, GS. It was only a comic book adaptation--and not a very good one at that.
85 - GS
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
86 - Ray Ellis
GS--I read your comment, and it gave me pause to wonder.. . Are you--how shall I put this delicately?--retarded?
87 - im awesome
its a movie watch it wnjoy it get over it.=]
88 - AVG
Frank Miller wrote the comic book in 1998 unless he can see into the far future how the hell is this movie pro-bush.
89 - cjsplace
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.
90 - Joey A,
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.
91 - Mylos
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.
92 - Harold
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...
93 - Rachel Smith
i think the whole thing is pretty fuckin stupid. i love this movie because the gore. when you watch a movie your supposed to sit down with your popcorn and shut the fuck up, not tear it apart and say how inaccurate it is. you're all like my mom. she watchs ER and cant shut up. she's a nurse you see...i just tell her no one gives a fuck if they didnt do the IV right. its just a god damn movie. and besides, it really annoys me when people say that its racist or not historically accurate that the persians are dark-skinned. its fiction people, come on... lets be realistic. black is intimidating. who's scarier? a big black guy or a big white guy? the black one... duh black is meant to be scary and in 300 they use that as a symbol. there are very few white men with alot of heart and pride and a ton of blacks. its the story of the underdog once again. so of course the spartans win