300 Ban?

[Futuwwa]

It's so over the top that one would think that no-one would mistake it for historical reality but I guess it shows you can never overestimate audiences.

I find it interesting that some Iranian groups are so offended by it. If anything, they could take the film as an example of a small, determined group fighting against a huge number of well equipped enemy. Remember, everyone thinks that they're the good guys.

There's more to this, actually, than what meets the eye. There's hardly anything Eastern about the way the Persians are depicted in 300, so even an Iraqi insurgent could probably identify with the heroes of 300 and regard Xerxes & co as representative of American Imperial might

 

[Yusuf Evans]

300. An awesome movie, based on two groups of rather mean SOBs on both sides.

 

[Gareth]

Damn good entertainment though, despite any historical inaccuracies. I do loves me some blood 'n' gore.

Like Gary Oldman as Dracula?

 

[Futuwwa]

However, when it comes to historical accuracy, credit must be given where credit is due.

The very first combat scene was actually the most historically accurate melee I have ever seen in a movie. That's what heavy infantry battles actually are like: Two extremely densely packed masses of men engaged in a major pushing contest. The guys in front manage to score kills occassionally, but on the whole, the battle is largely decided by brawn, stamina, discipline and guts, rather than who has more l33t combat skills.

The Persians in the first combat scene looked somewhat like real Persians too. Too bad the movie quickly devolved into Hollywoodian action-combat, with the Persians getting more outrageous all the time.

 

[KhlulHloo]

Well, they can't all be Dagon, can they?

Hey!
You there- talking monkey....back off!!



Besides, Dagon's a wuss.

 

[keith99]

Just to add one little bit of historical perspective. The Persia of xerxes predeate The Prophet and many of the things The Prophet condemned were in fact excesses of that system and the gods they worshiped.

Just pointing this out. A Submitted one has no call to be upset about that culture being painted in a bad light.

 

[Morcova]

It's a movie based upon a comic book, only an idiot, or someone completely ignorant of the origin of the movie went expecting to see anything realistic.

 

[rppearso]

The bottem line is the spartans and greece were the dominate warriors at that time and the persians were 2 bit hacks, this was on the history channel and the 300 spartans slaughtered countless persians before they lost. They dont know why thoes 300 stayed but if the entire spartan army was there it would have been the end of the persians. People getting offended is not really relavant to me its the facts that matter, I can see someone not wanting to watch excessive sex and violence if thats not your thing to be entertained with. If you are of persian decent, oh well thats life, your ancestors did the best they could but they were not the best of the best not everyone is created equal.

 

[Ryal Kane]

There's more to this, actually, than what meets the eye. There's hardly anything Eastern about the way the Persians are depicted in 300, so even an Iraqi insurgent could probably identify with the heroes of 300 and regard Xerxes & co as representative of American Imperial might

Well if you're going to read into it more, you could argue that the Spartans in the film lost because of their blind obedience to religious tenants and their intolerance of imperfection .

Ah, English Majors. Is their anything we can't over analyze?

 

[peter22]

Well if you're going to read into it more, you could argue that the Spartans in the film lost because of their blind obedience to religious tenants and their intolerance of imperfection .

Ah, English Majors. Is their anything we can't over analyze?

That reminds me of the time I jokingly drew parallels with Conan the barbarian and homoeroticism in an English class at uni...and ended up as a half hour discussion.

 

[Futuwwa]

The bottem line is the spartans and greece were the dominate warriors at that time and the persians were 2 bit hacks, this was on the history channel and the 300 spartans slaughtered countless persians before they lost. They dont know why thoes 300 stayed but if the entire spartan army was there it would have been the end of the persians. People getting offended is not really relavant to me its the facts that matter, I can see someone not wanting to watch excessive sex and violence if thats not your thing to be entertained with. If you are of persian decent, oh well thats life, your ancestors did the best they could but they were not the best of the best not everyone is created equal.

Huh? What does 300 the movie have to do with "facts" of any kind?

 

[Yusuf Evans]

Huh? What does 300 the movie have to do with "facts" of any kind?

It's a fact that 300 is one of the best action movies in a long time

 

[rppearso]

Huh? What does 300 the movie have to do with "facts" of any kind?

300 was based on a true events, if people get offended at the fact that the spartans were much better warriors and greece was a much greater civilization than persia then your offence is unwarranted and you ought to not be taken seriously.

 

[Futuwwa]

"Based" in the sense that there is a marginal correlation between the movie and what actually happened.

As for Greece being a "better" civilization, how is that an objective fact?

If you think the movie depicted Achaemenid Persians in a realistic way, I suggest you get out of that bizarre alternative universe you are living in.

 

[StarCannon]

*shrug* I liked three hundred. Lots o' blood and gore. XD

 

[Morcova]

That reminds me of the time I jokingly drew parallels with Conan the barbarian and homoeroticism in an English class at uni...and ended up as a half hour discussion.

Hahaha!

 

[wannabeadesigirl]

It wasn't that the Persians were bad soldiers. They had a great armada, and killer horsemen, and also created some great fighting styles, and weapons. They just had a complete dodo for a King.

Artexerxes is often viewed as the same king Xerxes mentioned in the book of Esther. All you have to read is the first chapter in that book to realize he was egotistical at the least. Read on and you'll find that wasn't his only problem. He had bad personal judgement when it came to people.

And granted while the Persians had great war tactics, and some great weapons, the Greeks had better Scientists who invented better ships, they had great logical thinkers who could predict the outcome of a maritime battle. And they had very devoted soldiers.

Add the ruthless Spartan warriors and Greecian victory was no surprise. Don't feel bad for the Persians though. Their influence stayed on in India until the British came in 1600. Thanks to them we have the Taj Mahal, and something of a Moghul Indian fetish for house decor. No wonder seeing as Moghul India was the epitome of luxuriant opulence.

 

[Baggins]

300 was based on a true events, if people get offended at the fact that the spartans were much better warriors and greece was a much greater civilization than persia then your offence is unwarranted and you ought to not be taken seriously.

This is what happens when you glean your history from Hollywood blockbusters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae

The site of the battle has more to do with why 300 men could hold off an army than the relative merits of the Greek and Persian soldiers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_empire

Even wikipedia can make you seem a little more learned

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire

That was a pretty large empire

 

[rppearso]

This is what happens when you glean your history from Hollywood blockbusters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae

The site of the battle has more to do with why 300 men could hold off an army than the relative merits of the Greek and Persian soldiers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_empire

Even wikipedia can make you seem a little more learned

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire

That was a pretty large empire

I dont disagree that terrain was in favor of the greeks but still one on one the spartans could rip the persians a new one, the only reason 300 men did not destroy the entire persian army is because the 300 men largely if not entirely lacked archers.

 

[Futuwwa]

And, pray tell, how would the presence of archers have made it possible for 300 Spartans to defeat 150.000 Persians?