Iran condemns Hollywood war epic

IGNORANT!

DENIED!

Were not Muslim either... Zoroastrian.

Seems pretty imature, hopefully it is something she can grow out of.

I just skipped to the end on this one, because I'm sick and tired of the "race card" being played regarding muslims. It's a religion (for God's sake), not a race that's being discussed. In case none of you card players has ever noticed, muslims are members of all the races. Another way of looking at it, does anyone (or any movie ) ever get called racist for depicting Christians or Hindus or Buddhists in a way that is perceived to be unfavorable to one of those groups?

The correct answer is "no".

So, let's call this race card thing what it really is; and that is a sorry attempt to deflect attention away from the horrendous acts perpetrated by radical (I said radical, not all) muslims on themselves and others.

Maybe you should have read the thread before putting forth this post, it might have made sense then.

That being said, let's use decorum here folks.

Actually I think that was just at about the time (or just afterward) the US had undermined their democratically elected government and installed the puppet dictatorship that lasted until the late 70s (which is why all the Iranian old timers hate the US)...

You've got to remember our current tensions go WAAAY back!

-50s US sponsered Coup
-70s Popular people revolution type thingy
-80s US supplies Iraqis WMDs to fight Iranians
-00s Axis of Evil...

Hell, I'd want nukes if I were them! The sad part is that from what I understand the real Iranian people want to be more moderate and more western. They want to consume our products and enter "our world", we just keep shoveing them back down and spitting on them!

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.

well, like i said, i saw it and i thought it was great. it was a movie, i went to be entertained not informed. if i want to be informed, ill read a book, likely one without pictures.

but before everyone vilifies islam, or even hollywood, id like to put forth a movie for discussion.

kingdom of heaven.

in the movie it showed the massive islamic armies under the leadership of saladin living in peace with the christian armies and while there were those in saladins army that wanted to go kill everyone, they didnt.

the war wasnt started until a group of templars attacked the muslims without provocation, no, take that back, even then the war was held off by cooler heads prevailing. the real war didnt start until king guy (christian) went and attacked the muslims.

in the end, the muslims agreed to let the christians leave the holy land unmolested.

yeah, real blood thirsty let me tell you, great piece of hollywood propaganda.

so, when we compare/contrast, is it not possible that instead of hollywood only putting out propaganda, they are putting out movies that may...oh, call me crazy...make money?

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]

Shields made of wicker! Oh my God! What were they thinking?

Oops! i forget Arabs dont think.

I mean this just proves what I said above.They are incredibly stupid.

Wicker shields!

Amazing.

I mean after sacrificing the first 100 of his soldiers the 1/2 wit Xerxes was so stupid that he never thought of changing his tactics or shields.The spineless Persians should have strung him for His Royal Retardedness.

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]

You are still here?

No warnings?

I suggest strongly that you start thinking before writing.

Or is that too hard for you?

You are quoting me out of context.Remember whicker shields?

Why are you trying to suppress me and my thoughts?
My opinions are equally valid.

Also when I show you the truth the truth can offend but the truth is not offensive as it is the truth.

Truth is unknowing if it offensive or not.The truth is objective of all observers.

European's used large wall like wickershields when attacking castles/keeps, archers used them as cover when releasing their arrows at those on the walls of the castle/keep, a decent thick wickershield is both light/easy to carry and a hell of a lot better than air at stopping an arrow.

The Persians would have used them as "light infantry" shields due to their light weight which is practical in the desert heat and the fact they could easily be constructed.

Don't think these shields were the same strength as a modern day wicker basket, although the wicker shields were more than likely be designed to deflect/cushion rather than recieve a heavy blow they would have been alot better than nothing and alot less heavy than a greek bronze shield.

Oh, and please drop the hateful talk.


[edit on 15-3-2007 by UK Wizard]

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!

Respectfully, I did read a page or so of posts. All I kept seeing was the race card being played. What I said did not lack in any 'decorum'. It was a "scold" for people ducking the issue by screaming "racism", when the term does not even apply (to a religion).

I really don't think you know what that expression means. Or it means something totally different to you than it does to me.

What I see in this thread are ignorant people denigrading the (arguably) greatest empire the world has ever seen, who accomplished amazing feats of engineering and military prowess, simply based on their narrow-minded hatred of the people of that region. If that's not a "race card" I don't know what is.




Ignorance is not valid.

Your opinions are totally off-topic, hateful, sickening and clearly untrue.

To wit...






Deny Ignorance.


Oh, and to answer another question in this thread, nobody that I can see is arguing "against the movie". It's a movie. Remember the topic? 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.

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.

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.



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.



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?
.

The Persians were not, in my opinion, portrayed as "orc like" in this movie (just to clear that up). They were ordinary people (just as fantastic as the Spartans) with human faces, armor, weapons, etc. The "Immortals", the elite Persian-controlled force wore Samurai-like masks, because their faces were deformed. They looked like they had been burned. I think these were the creatures that some people think were "Persians portrayed as Orcs." In the movie it was explained that Xerxes had recruited this force from a place like hell,...or literally hell. I can't remember exactly. They were fighting FOR the Persians, but they were not supposed to be "Persians" by birth. My guess is that they were supposed to be just as fantasy-based as the giant rhino, the giant elephants, and the large, human-like beasts that the Persians enslaved to fight the Spartans.