Iran condemns Hollywood war epic, page 5
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times


reply posted on 14-3-2007 @ 02:00 PM by whargoul
Originally posted by beckybecky
Originally posted by Flighty
How silly to call americans racist because of a movie.


We Americans are sick of being vilified all of the time.
Without America you would be licking Hitlers boots and Japanese [mod edit: removed profanity] if we had not saved you in WW2.
Remember it was America who sorted these aggresors out.
Arabs are just barbarians goverened by tyrants,despots and other unelected murderous thugs who manipulate the population into hating western civilisation using the stste controlled media.
They are not very bright or innovative.A tiny country like Isreal defeated 5 Arabs countries single handedly in 5 wars defeating and thrashing the living daylights out of them in the Arab instigated wars.

America nourishes and protects western civilisation and ideals of democracy,free speech,innocent until proven gulity.
We dont torture prisioners.We use science and forensics.Arabs simply torture a confession out of any random passerby showing just how retarded they are.
That Xerxes "king" was so stupid.He did not care about the army in his care.
He had dog dung for brains.

I mean if I had been charge I would have simply fired large rocks or bricks/boulders either using catapults or even just manuelly.This rain of rocks coming down on the defenders would have ruined their defensive posture.Also high speed chariots racing towards the Greeks would again have done the same thing, but the moron Xerxes was so stupid and retarded that he killed a 100000 of his own soldiers doing the same stupid thing over and over and over again.Somebody should have stabbed him for that level of incompetance.
He had zero regard for his soldiers lives.

Arabs place no value on human life at all and that is why they are so dangerous and such a menace to modern civilisation.We Americans must stay firm in our resolve to defeat this menace.

[edit on 14-3-2007 by beckybecky]

[edit on 14-3-2007 by beckybecky]

[edit on 3/14/2007 by Gools]


IGNORANT!

DENIED!


reply posted on 14-3-2007 @ 03:56 PM by lee anoma
Some of you have really gotten the whole reasoning for the "insult" ALL WRONG. It's not about who won.

The Persians in the movies looked like they came out of one of those golden cubes in the movie Hellraiser. They were monstrous freakish mutants, transsexual deviants, and they were lead by a leader in very BAD drag.

Xerxes?--->


or
Xerxes? --->

I was waiting for the Xerxes in the movie to cry out "Persians...YOU BETTER WORK!"

I mean come on...who wouldn't be insulted by a movie portraying your cultures historical figures as a bloody freak show.

God forbid someone portray the US soldiers on D-Day as shambling zombies with chainsaws for hands.


I read the comic...it was void of any involving dialouge. I actually thought I was missing something.

Frank Miller has written better graphic novels that should see film.


reply posted on 14-3-2007 @ 04:55 PM by 2manyquestions
Originally posted by Damocles
granted...300 has already done better than kingdom of heaven but is that a reflection on hollywood or on the movie goers?


In my opinion it is a reflection on movie goers. Hollywood makes only what it thinks it can sell. It's a business. People love seeing explosions, conflicts, good vs. bad, fantasy, romance, etc. Sometimes Hollywood takes a chance, but they know what makes money. Just look at the Comic book movie explosion. First there were the Superman movies, then Spiderman gained a large crowd. I can name all of the comic books that have been made into movies over the last 10 years or so, but it would be a long list. I think "300" is just another one of those movies, but the guy who brought it to life thought he could separate himself artistically by creating a "different" comic book/graphic novel movie,.... kind of like "Sin City". Comic books offer a neat visual experience that movies usually cannot. Sin City and 300 were supposed to immitate the comic books as closely visually as possible. They succeeded, and people (especially comic book readers) showed Hollywood they liked the results by dishing out lots of money to go see those movies.

P.S. By the look of it,..... "300" was/is a very successful film financially, and I think we can expect to see Hollywood making more of these in the future. This is what is profitable for them at the moment.

[edit on 14-3-2007 by 2manyquestions]



reply posted on 14-3-2007 @ 06:25 PM by resistancia
Originally posted by Odium
Let us be honest...

The Battle of Thermopylae probably did not happen how we are told. Does anyone honestly believe that an Army of 300 people could hold off an Army of over 1,000,000?

But aside from the historical problems. (Do the math 1,000,000/300.).

Iran does need to grow up a bit here - or at least those who find a problem. The fact is a battle did happen, people do put it as roughly 300 people killing 1,000,000 (although this is still being challenged). It is not them saying: The Iranians are stupid, backward or so on and so fourth - however the timing is interesting. But I do believe the movie makes no reference to Iran and how many people know that Iran is/was Persia? I seriously doubt the Average Joe does.




In 480BC Persia was not just the small place we know as Iran. It was a vast area that included countries that we know as Turkey, parts of southern Russia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and even further into the east. The empire was divied into satrapies and ruled by satraps (like governors). The people were oppressed and made to fight, there was no uniformity to their military.
Herodotus tells us (my words) that they were a rag tag bunch of misfits, speaking many different languages, many were old men and boys and many untrained. We would call them cannon fodder today. Some were merceneries out to get whatever they could from the campaign. So yes, Xerxes may have had numbers but did his soldiers have the ticker for war against the most feared naval and land armies known at the time?

You can find more information in many scholarly works about this battle and the numbers of military present. (A History of Greece - J.B Bury & Russell Meiggs -just to name one text that does ponder this question in depth) The Spartans are said to have been 300 in number, that is most likely correct but if you research further you will discover that the Spartans, being the most feared Greek land warriors and the most experienced, were leading the campaign at Thermopylae. They were actually accompanied by a number other warriors from minor Greek states, mainly Thespians and Thebans.

Meanwhile, the Athenians (the most experienced Greek naval force) were keeping vigil at Artemisium to prevent the Persians from landing on Greek soil.

The Persian army numbers may be over exaggerated due to the habit of taking wives, children, slaves and others as part of their entourage. The Persian were like nomads during times of war and set up camps with all the creature comforts of home.

I tend to agree that this is where the inflated numbers come from. I believe that the Spartan contingent and their supporters were a small group

Herodotus' "The Histories" is the main primary source of information we have but there are many contemporary scholars who challenge his account and put forth more theories and arguments to ponder.

Herodotus is a very interesting read.


edited for spelling

[edit on 14-3-2007 by resistancia]

[edit on 14-3-2007 by resistancia]


reply posted on 15-3-2007 @ 09:56 AM by junglejake
As UK Wizard pointed out, the wicker used in their shields was not as baskets are today. I know that, were I to fall on a wicker trash basket, that thing would shatter into a million pieces. However, wicker can be extremely powerful and very light weight.

Because of its construction, there is a greater change of deflecting an arrow from (in the event of a broad tipped arrow) a direct hit to a glancing blow, and a wood tipped arrow could be completely deflected. As the arrow would hit the shield, because of the weave of the material, while traveling the path of least resistance, the arrow would be redirected were it able to penetrate the shield.

On top of that, in skilled hands, a wicker shield could easily redirect a direct blow from a sword or speak. If your shield is heavy, such as those used by the Spartans, you're relying on your strength and the strength of the shield to absorb the full brunt of the blow. On the other hand, a lighter, faster shield would rely more on the skill of the wielder to angle the shield and push or give to redirect the blow of your foe, often with far greater effectiveness. When you absorb the full brunt of a blow, your opponent is as off balance as they would have been were they to strike you. On the other hand, were you to redirect it, your going to shift their center of gravity, their arm is not going to be where they expected, and recovery takes a little longer, giving you more opportunity to land a blow of your own.

So, were they thinking? Oh yes, yes they were. Their shield design gave veterans the potential for a great advantage in battle. The only problem existed in that new soldiers and those not solidly trained in the use of the shield would discover it to be fairly useless in hand to hand combat. There would be a high learning curve, but be wary of those who had mastered it!


reply posted on 15-3-2007 @ 12:46 PM by junglejake
Originally posted by Gools
The portrayal of the Persians in a Hollywood film and the convenient timing of its release (thus the conspiracy angle)?
.


It's really remarkable that with all the anti-American, anti-government, and pro-Arab stuff coming out of Hollywood, there is silence, but as soon as something comes out that, even by quite a stretch, could be construed as having a deeper message in support of America, all assumptions on the table state that it must be a conspiracy or funded by the government.

I don't think this stinks of conspiracy nearly so much as it stinks of arrogance in the assumption that if something is in accordance with what one assumes the government would like, it must have been funded by said government because no one in their right mind would, of their own accord, agree with said government.

I'm not saying that is the case in all instances, nor is it the case with all individuals. Nor am I saying the government doesn't fund movies -- let's face it, everyone's recognized the propaganda potential of movie media, and Hollywood is the biggest, most popular movie producer in the world. As Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said, “For sure, I’m American [sic] enemies. Usama bin Laden, he did his best press conference in American media.”

I just don't see it taking place here in 300...In my opinion, as I understand it now (and I admit I haven't seen the movie, just read some reviews comparing it to history), you have to be looking either for a reason to be offended or a reason to apply it to Arabs to see any deeper meaning in this movie. But, again, I haven't seen it, so take that statement with a grain of salt.


reply posted on 15-3-2007 @ 12:50 PM by Flighty
Originally posted by beckybecky
Originally posted by Flighty
How silly to call americans racist because of a movie.


We Americans are sick of being vilified all of the time.
Without America you would be licking Hitlers boots and Japanese [mod edit: removed profanity] if we had not saved you in WW2.
Remember it was America who sorted these aggresors out.
Arabs are just barbarians goverened by tyrants,despots and other unelected murderous thugs who manipulate the population into hating western civilisation using the stste controlled media.
They are not very bright or innovative.A tiny country like Isreal defeated 5 Arabs countries single handedly in 5 wars defeating and thrashing the living daylights out of them in the Arab instigated wars.

America nourishes and protects western civilisation and ideals of democracy,free speech,innocent until proven gulity.
We dont torture prisioners.We use science and forensics.Arabs simply torture a confession out of any random passerby showing just how retarded they are.
That Xerxes "king" was so stupid.He did not care about the army in his care.
He had dog dung for brains.

I mean if I had been charge I would have simply fired large rocks or bricks/boulders either using catapults or even just manuelly.This rain of rocks coming down on the defenders would have ruined their defensive posture.Also high speed chariots racing towards the Greeks would again have done the same thing, but the moron Xerxes was so stupid and retarded that he killed a 100000 of his own soldiers doing the same stupid thing over and over and over again.Somebody should have stabbed him for that level of incompetance.
He had zero regard for his soldiers lives.

Arabs place no value on human life at all and that is why they are so dangerous and such a menace to modern civilisation.We Americans must stay firm in our resolve to defeat this menace.

[edit on 14-3-2007 by beckybecky]

[edit on 14-3-2007 by beckybecky]

[edit on 3/14/2007 by Gools]


Bravo. I agree with the WW2 summary. I think we are both on the same side on this one. For some reason, I think you took it the opposite way.
It was a defence of the U.S.A not a criticism. Please go back and read what I posted as I didn't criticise america at all. Your response made it sound like I did.


reply posted on 15-3-2007 @ 01:29 PM by Gools
Originally posted by junglejake
It's really remarkable that with all the anti-American, anti-government, and pro-Arab stuff coming out of Hollywood, there is silence,


Well I haven't seen any kind of study or anything similar on that, but I'm willing to bet that those "kinds" of films are still being produced in minority numbers. Besides the classification of such is in the eye of the beholder.

In my opinion, as I understand it now (and I admit I haven't seen the movie, just read some reviews comparing it to history), you have to be looking either for a reason to be offended or a reason to apply it to Arabs to see any deeper meaning in this movie.


I remember reading something years ago about the portrayal of Arab and Persian cultures in Disney films and cartoons. I don't know if you ever consumed such products, but I do recall that in cartoons of my youth such foes were often portrayed as bloodthirsty, crazed and evil looking figures. Then there's the cute movies like Aladin.

Originally posted by lee anoma
The Persians in the movies looked like they came out of one of those golden cubes in the movie Hellraiser. They were monstrous freakish mutants, transsexual deviants, and they were lead by a leader in very BAD drag.

I mean come on...who wouldn't be insulted by a movie portraying your cultures historical figures as a bloody freak show.


I've seen other posters refer to them being portrayed "orc like".

I haven't seen the movie either (I will soon), but to deny that Hollywood has been 'dissing' other cultures for decades is willfully blind IMO.

And that's all I'm trying to say, I'm not trying to be anti-this or pro-that.

Just that if you're going to make a movie (even one with the visual "style" of Frank Miller) then at least don't turn it into a villification of an entire culture to support a political agenda. But then I'm just a crazy conspiracy theorist. Hollywood never really met with Karl Rove and Frank Miller would never go along with such a thing. Right?
.
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 6 days ago with 83 member flags
Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 7 days ago with 72 member flags
Strange noises reported around North Battleford
  Posted 18 days ago with 67 member flags
Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 6 days ago with 49 member flags