Since when are Iranians black and since when are Greeks brave?
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-28 10:42
Every Iranian I met looks nothing like people of sub-Saharan African descent like most of the "Persians" in the movie 300.
Also, from what I remember, King Xerxes was a simple bearded man, not a a 7-foot androgynous man with obscene amounts of piercings and jewelry and hardly any clothes.
So it was kind of disappointing, sure there was a ton of blood and gore, but the action felt so slow and drawn out. My god, after five minutes the slow-motion action scenes started taking their toll. Sure, I appreciated seeing Persian heads roll at 5 frames per second, but I can only take so much. Also, they had some weird casting choices, mainly the Persians themselves. Since when are Persians black? As in Black from Africa? I mean seriously. Persians look Mediterranean, not straight up black. Heck the Persian empire only included one part of Africa, Egypt, and last time I checked they didn't look too different from Greeks. Oh and there were weird mystical goats playing lyres in Xerxes tent, WTF?
So anyways, I'll talk about the movie. It was alright, expect the whole Queenny political thing was a little weak, it seemed like they just threw that in for effect to parallel the US in Iraq. The blood and guts was cool for a while, but just became a little repetitive. I'm sure you'll appreciate it if you're in to that kind of thing, but otherwise the movie is a waste of time, unless of course you like seeing muscular waxed men walking around in speedos. The plot is obvious, since it follows a fairly well known historical event; and it was fairly accurate. I mean sure they glossed over somethings and over did a few others, but the basic plot was followed. I rate the 300 a fair B-, there's not much reason to see it besides for the blood and guts action.
Oh and another thing, there was definitely quite a bit too much borrowing from other films. I mean you had a ton of Gladiator type effects and scenes which could have almost been ripped from it. Then there was the the Lord of the Rings influence: the Gollum-like hunchback, the Immortals looking like shiny Oruk-hai, the Elephant scenes. Plus Xerxes and all his henchmen (who were inaccurately portrayed as Black, WTF?, how hard is it to find a swarthy looking Italian to better fit the role) acted like Gou'ald from Stargate, they had that whole Egyptian theme and weird voices. Oh and the funny looking Ephors ring a bell? Palpatine anyone?
Nice try, but "RedCream" is spelled without a space in it. Good luck next time.
The movie "300" was OK, but obviously it was aimed to emphasize the mighty mighty US Imperium. Yeh, aren't we the brave Greeks (note that Wester Civ is based upon Greco-Roman Civ), holding the line against the terrorists of Islam looking to take over the world, yadda yadda. However, the film's renditions actually show exactly the opposite. The Arabs in the Middle East are more like the Spartans. They are fewer and are holding the line against the barbarous attacks by the West (the true Persian conquerors who consider their civilization superior to all others). At this time, George W. Bush is King Xerxes, and YES, his sexual preferences have also been in doubt for some time, too!
I love pointing out these little things to those who think that the old Persia (now Iran, etc.) is somehow this huge threat to lil' ol' America and Britain. Stupid fuckers!
I think it's because the Persians they wanted to hire were too smart; they didn't want to be in a shitty Persploitation film, so they hired niggers, to make it a niggerploitation film
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-29 11:09
300 is propaganda to help boost hate towards Iran.
Ignorant Americans that watch the movie 300 because "violence is cool" might catch a few lines of dialogue of what little plot the movie has. They'll see the Persians inaccurately depicted as Africans and as a monstrous, barbaric, and demonic horde and King Xerxes inaccurately portrayed as a 7-foot androgynous man with lots of piercings and make-up.
If they can figure it out they'll see the Persians as being symbolic to "the evil Islamic fundamentalists". When the only ones the evil Persians in the movie 300 are symbolic to are themselves.
They could've still hired some Italians, Spaniards, Turks or some group of people to portray the Persians. But they decided to be unbelievably inaccurate.
The Spartans were violent people who engaged in institutionalized infanticide and pederasty. Two out of every three Spartans were slaves, which makes their portrayal as freedom fighters all the more absurd. Indeed, it's quite difficult to cheer for the Spartans. The Persians were not without fault themselves, but it's hard to imagine a more bleak, oppressive society than ancient Sparta.
But there's one big issue I have with the movie: why does director Zack Snyder portray many of the Persians as black? I can think of no reason why they would be black; modern Persians aren't black, and early Persian art doesn't depict Persians as black. It also seems unlikely that the Persians would have hired/conscripted black fighters to be in their army. I suspect that this choice was made out of latent racism and xenophobia. We have the Spartans, who look more or less like white Americans (albeit white Americans in the Charlton Heston biblical movie sense), and then we have the Spartans, who look like the opposite. It's not a clash of civilizations, but of races.
stop promoting allthemisc.com here. we do not want any problems with them. believe me i will find out IP's and will be doing everything i can to prosecute. and sorry to 4chan for all these gay trolls who have no lives other than to troll the internet.