Gromnir

I'd love to see them try to pioneer in the dialog as much as they are trying to pioneer with the system. RPG dialog is tricky, but I'm sure they could switch it up a bit, and if nothing else, hopefully make the "evil" options a bit less psychotic and a bit more subtle than their previous titles. josh always complains when people not offer plausible alternatives. you not wanna cheese off josh, do you? evil options that not gonna break quests/critical path needs be insular. so, how you makes mature evil options that not gots impact beyond the immediate quest, and still seem evil 'nuff to be recognized as evil w/o resorting to thuggish kinda crap? in traditional stories the mature evil stuff typical involves the Evil Plan, which requires stringing together multiple actions that in and of self probably not seems overt evil. is at least as much effort as a typical romance to put together something like an Evil Plan.... and there is some obvious obstacles even so. Gromnir made some suggestions 'bout integrating an evil plan sequence o' dialogues into a bio crpg, and developers not seem to thinks it were worth effort. so, what is bullocks ideas... mature evil that not break the otherwise heroic critical path, and at same time not seem petty or small. don't make josh angry. HA! Good Fun!

slightly disappointed. kotor 2 had some inexplicably terrible characters and dialogues, and the ending were horrible. mostly a good game, but obsidian/bis has a bit o' a problem with conclusions. iwd might be only bis game we weren't disappointed with conclusion and it seems like obsidian ain't learned much in the intervening years, 'cause kotor2 and nwn2 both had mostly terrible conclusions. nwn2

*chuckle* persians v. greeks? miller's new comic book? seems like most o' the folks seeing a political angle (including azar) is seeing w/o actually considering STORY o' 300. people is seeing what they wish to. if you ignore the movie itself, and focus instead on details, you can see whatever you want to in 300... just as people can see the virgin mary in a grilled cheese lunch food. HA! Good Fun!

Its all the same to me. Bias, preference, opinion, reasonable or unreasonable. *nods* is exactly why we said your pov is screwy. HA! Good Fun!

what a screwy pov. bias ain't same as preference. bias is an unreasoned preference, so no, an opinion does not always have a bias. The biggest problem with reviewers that Gromnir has is not that they gots preferences or tastes that is different than Gromnir

am not a fan o' moderation... multiple meanings intended. regardless, we doubt Gromnir ever gets a Christmas card from fergie... not his biggest supporter. oh, and oblivion is kinda like all-you-can-eat cafeteria food. sure, there were lots o' oblivion, many hours o' game play, but Gromnir were full after the first few hours o' gameplay. can only stomach so much mystery meat... fact that there were a seemingly endless supply o' crap not somehow make it more palatable . however, please note that Gromnir were happier to see oblivion do well than we were 'bout any other game in past 5 years. virtually every developer since bg2 has been telling us that games of such scale as bg2 were no longer possible. bio developers and obsidian developers and pandemic, irrattional, troika and others all claimed BIG and 3d were mutual exclusive. is oblivion success that helped put a stop to fergie 20 hour nonsense? maybe. heck, if toee had been as big a hit as oblivion, then we would have seen bunch o' tb crpgs. oblivion helped slow trend in favor o' ever shorter crpgs, and for that alone we is thankful. HA! Good Fun!

they were all half-baked. is a shame too, 'cause shandra and ammon jerro and some others had potential, but it were as if somebody decided to only writes 2/3 o' a npc... and in casavir's case, 1/3 at best. khelgar were actually not one we enjoyed. were all surface, but as no character got 'nuff development, the dwarf suffered least due to obvious paucity o' consideration... though we suspect grobnar were also pretty much complete after initial encounter. kotor2 had better npcs, and worse npcs... more dvelopment gave Gromnir more chance to like or loathe. HA! Good Fun!

you got a funny notion 'bout how govt. works. anybody wanna tell calax which branch interprets laws? if Congress or Executive tries to clarify by anything short o' a new Amendment, then the Court will smote'em... 'less they is named andrew jackson. ... the rest o' your post is just so much gibberish... for multiple reasons. HA! Good Fun!

you really don't understand how "the Government" works... even school kids know the basic separation o' powers stuff. also, you surely not thinks a thread on an obsidian message board would result in clarification by... whom? you got clarification from Gromnir and others 'bout what is current situation regarding 1st Amendment establishment clause application to use of "god" by State. congratulations. oh, and God is not universal accepted as christian, not by a long shot. HA! Good Fun!

short answer: is a tough road to slog to proclaim that intent o' the 1st amendment prohibits use of word "god" in various State supported activities simply 'cause the folks who ratified the Bill o'Rights opened their sessions with a prayer that mentioned God over and over and over... and the actions of the early Congress shows that nobody thoughts that 1st Amendment prohibited use of "god" word by State. longer answer: meaning of first amendment free exercise clause and establishment clause is subject of some debate. Gromnir is a proponent o' using an original intent approach when trying to comes up with answers to Constitutional questions. sadly, nobody kept useful records of the debates regarding the Bill o' Rights, so we is left in dark concerning an actual intent of the framers. Madison kept notes, but they is not all that illuminating insofar as intent is concerned. however, we can looks at framer actions and we can also looks at the various drafts o' the First Amendment to see what alternatives were discarded. also of note is fact that the first amendment clauses looks similar to the Virginia's Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, which were penned by Thomas Jefferson... though Thomas Jefferson were not one o' the geeklings who were present to frame the Bill o' Rights. reason for scholars limping back to this Virginia Bill is two-fold: 1) James Madison were the first person to suggest a wording for the First Amendment Religious Clauses, and Madison were a supporter o' Jefferson's Bill. 2) In Everson v. Board of Education, when the Supreme Court finally got 'round to discussing establishment clause for serious, Hugo Black uses Wall o' Separation language, which were taken from a letter by Thomas Jefferson in which he rejected the notion o' the State setting aside a day for Religious Observance. 'course the problem with J. Hugo Black's interp is that Madison's wording were not adopted to become the language o' the First Amendment. first draft: The Civil Rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, nor on any pretext infringed. No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases. second draft: No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed, third draft: Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience. fourth draft: Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience. fifth draft: Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. sixth draft: Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. seventh draft: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. please note the abandoning o' the "rights o' conscience" language. *shrug* the Virginia Bill, which were debated hotly and for which we do have records, had 2 effective portions: 1) we, the General Assembly of Virginia, do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. 2) and though we well know that this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right. yes, yes, all very nice... but the parts o' the Virgina Bill that may be most enlightening is the preamble portions, which sorta gives persons a notions o' the WHY behind the Bill... but is very long. google the Bill and you will not be spending your effort in vain. main reason for adoption o

never been a big cthulhu/lovecraft fan... always preferred the hellboy kinda variant 'stead... Dark Elder Gods, The Church & modern pseudo-science mixed together with some magic. am not saying we is a big fan o' hellboy, but we likes the setting. *shrug* have always a sucker for the traditional iconography o' the Church, and all the attendent baggage... the good and the bad. HA! Good Fun!

is like arguing wit the tide... if all you is arguing is that 300 is open to numerous interps, then fine... scroll back up and sees where Gromnir has said over and over that we do not disagree. so much for obvious politically charged material, and conspiracies 'bout timing of release and suggestions that it were pretty clear that new material were added to make more political. whatever. even moriarty didn't see no political agenda, and fact that there is a split 'mongst the people that does see political motives should be telling you something as well, 'cause as been said already, hollywood ain't aiming for subtle. and trying to come up with a possible explanation to make moriarty's comments work for you, rather than simply dismissing or disagreeing, is symptomatic o' the problem we got with your arguings. bah. this were a waste o' time a couple pages ago and as you seems to be fighting this battle alone, we got no great urge to waste time beating the breath out o' one lone voice in the dark. HA! Good Fun!

by TheRealMoriarty Mar 10th, 2007 12:38:13 AM Actually, my point was that the film is not a political screed, but that I'm sure people will project in order to pump up their own point of view. But thanks for calling me an a$$hole anyway. moriarty explained what he meant... you simply continue to ignore. *shrug* HA! Good Fun!

just a quick aside, 'cause this thing is cooked, none of the reviewers at aicn claimed that 300 is political. a guy named moriarty mentioned politics in his review, but azar-class reading skills led to confusion among the rabble: by TheRealMoriarty Mar 10th, 2007 12:38:13 AM Actually, my point was that the film is not a political screed, but that I'm sure people will project in order to pump up their own point of view. But thanks for calling me an a$$hole anyway. the posts at aicn is almost all non-political, and those that is went off onto a tangent 'bout whether or not israel or palestinians is more worthy o' terrorist label. the other aicn posts is usual mish-mash: claim that reviewer is paid by producers, questions 'bout whether or not is appropriate to take kids, note that this is not historical accurate, replies that people demanding historical accuracy from an obvious fantasy-adventure flick is morons, i like pie, etc. as noted above, some few people at aicn talks politics, but not many, and those that do talk of 300 politics is split. why? 'cause that moriarty clown actually were correct. 'cause 300 ain't political ('members our lesson 'bout hollywood subtlety and propaganda,) it is easier for viewer to read nonsesne into 300. and you don't recall the reviews and responses to lotr very well. were just as many reviewers that complained 'bout the obviously muslim/black aspect o' the human portion o' sauron's army, and a complete absence o' minority actors for the Good Guys, as well as other increasingly ridiculous observations. as to astro's observations 'bout norbit and taladega nights, if you makes a claim that bush is representing norbit and come up with some wacky conspiracy theory 'bout how a black movie released at this moment in history is obviously done to garner a politically charged reaction, we suspect that at least one person would respond and identify your theory as nut jobish... no doubt the movie cars would lend itself equally well to azar political commentary, after all, the movie cars were relaeased just as nascar was debating 'bout whether or not to allow toyota to enter teams into their series, which is pretty much the extent o' our nascar knowledge. even so, nascar is far more Aerican than a bunch o' greeks circa 480bc. HA! Good Fun!

gotta love reply/quote. that way you not answer the post, but instead respond to sippets... mostly we see that you rest on notion o' mid-east v. west, with leonidas somehow standing in for bush simply 'cause he represents west (HA!) or somesuch nonsense... but this bit really took cake. "Lord of the Rings, another film you brought up as a possible candidate for the same sort of "political foolery," did not receive nearly as much flak, either among major critics or the average netizen." HHHHAAAA!!!! we gotta thank you for that bit son... made our day to get such a laugh, though we did stop reading at that point. you gots a mighty selective memory, and maybe a streak o' narcissism to deal with if you think lotr, book and/or movie got less political commentary. HA! Good Fun! ps how many copies o' 300 were floating 'round previous to last couple months? you mention the debate raised by 300 previous to release, but most o' that were relying on as shallow an interp as you got: simple west v. mid-east. why? 'cause aside from the comick book geeks, nobody really knew the miller 300 story, and the miller fans were, as we has said til we is blue in face, near unanimous in acknowledgment that 300 were an anti-establishment tale that made bush looks bad IF you were to make 300 a political allegory.... which, as you may recall, is reason why you keep bringing up the ADDED material for your support. *shakes head sadly* we been going so long that you forgot how you got started. HA!

that is precisely Gromnir's point. people has been reading political agenda and content into miller writings for a long time... and virtually all of it is imaginary... is people seeing what they wish to. the crazy thing is that azar comes to a conclusion

poor azar. is not like he claims that 300 is pro-bush propaganda, per se, but he Does see the added material as being OBVIOUSLY politically motivated, and over and over he explains how leonidas can very easily stand in for bush and how the timing o' release somehow proves that 300 is mid-east allegory, or some such nonsense. ... yeah, you is really being misrepresented... and don't even get started on the logic bit, 'cause you clearly abandoned that route early in this thread. tell us again 'bout the conspiracy theory you got 'bout timing o' 300 release adn Gromnir will be able to devote an entire page o' material illuminating all the logic fallacies and bass ackwards reasoning. "What, Leonidas can't stand for Bush because he can also stand for Xerxes under a different reading? Who made that rule in cinematic interpretation?" loosen up the tifoil hat. sure you can see into 300 whatever the hell you wish... just as Gromnir can argue that miller ripped off the smurfs. you gonna go the pure subjective route... claim that there ain't no way you can be wrong 'cause it is all just subjective interpretation? HA! that is a slippery slope indeed, and pretty much kills the last few pages of your contribution to this thread, but go for it if you wish

obama's biggest obstacle might not be that he is black, but rather that he ain't black enough. h. clinton is currently doing better with black voters, 'ccording to polls. one reason given for this were that black voters didn't identify with obama... presumably 'cause he had a white mother, his father is actually from kenya, and he grew up in indonesia and hawaii and attended a prep school from 5-12th grade. his father and mother divorced when he was 2 and dad went back to kenya leaving mom and his maternal grandparents doing the actual child rearing of the young obama. is a great story, but it seems that many black voters just don't feel that obama is their black candidate. also, and this may offend the sensibilities o' some posters in this particular place, but obama may not be religious enough. obama admits that he were pretty much raised w/o religion until he reached his 20s. weren't til he started a career in politics that he found religion. this fact seems to bother both some % relgious and non-religious voters alike. nevertheless, we suspect that finding religion were, at the very least, necessary for somebody with an eye on the oval office. obama is an intriguing candidate... HA! Good Fun!

"Not to mention all the GAY references! I mean WOW! " what is REALLY funny is that in spite of some anti-gay comments in 300, we bets that every gay male in the country is gonna buy 300 as soon as it becomes avilable on dvd. after all, 300 is like 2 hours o' soft core gay pr0n, with high production values. ... 300 gots one valuable side-benefit. any woman that oggled at 300 cannot now justifiably criticize men who watches such stuff as... dunno, what is the current equivalent o' baywatch? a movie with 300 oiled up guys wearing speedos... and yet we not yet heard one woman criticizing how those poor men were being objectified and degraded. tsk HA! Good Fun!

grilled cheese sandwiches IS comfort food... so maybe Gromnir used the image of the sandwich purposefully to further bend your mind to our will... soften you up with the fond memories related to eating grilled cheese sandwiches as a kid. conspiracy. btw, Gromnir thinks that azas biggest mistake is mistaking the director/producer desire to make 300 a tad more pc, with pro-bush propaganda. should be obvious how far the two is apart... but maybe not. the villains in 300, the comic, is all dark-skinned or crippled. no doubt the producers were aware of how such a thing could irritate a % of viewers. so make leonidas nicer to the hunchback, and add a white bad-guy, and makes xerxes a decadent ruler who gots mutants and monsters in his army as 'posed to simply being a tall black man. is kinda funny. the folks who make 300 add in some minor pc alterations, and now they somehow gots a small % o' people who thinks such changes makes the movie a pro-bush vehicle.... when they were probaly genuinely worried that people would come away seeing bush as xerxes. a zero-sum gain. made film easier to swallow for minorities and handicap, but now you got the anti-bush lobby riled up. no-win. HA! Good Fun!

and again, if you looks hard 'nuff at the grilled cheese sandwich you will see whatever the heck you want. you donned your tinfoil hat and somehow turned this flick into a movie 'bout the middle-east situation, and then you takes individual details out of context to show that the movie is a vehicle for political propaganda. you hinge so much on the release time of movie, but for that to have any relevance at all we gotta accept that this is indeed a movie with a political agenda, which you prove by pointing out when the movie were released... hilarious circular nonsense. sin city made money. next thing you know, another non-dc miller story is turned into a movie. conspiracy fodder? again, Gromnir can point out individual details in 300 to prove it were a smurf rip-off, and to do so we do not have to ignore the core message o' 300. hell, to try and show that 300 ain't 'bout resisting The Man and the value o' personal freedom, you contrast to ANOTHER miller anti-establishment work. HA! at best you maybe conclude that 300 is less anti-establishment than sin city? more fantastic logic. *chuckle* a small group o' freedom fighters spit in the eye o' the law, of the establishment and they go off to fight a hopeless battle to defend their homelend from a foreign tyrant/superpower. they willingly sacrifice their lives 'cause they is fighting for their freedom and their children's freedom. no matter what you see in the added material (more than simple boosting of run-time and giving the female lead something to do,) it don't change the core story a bit. surely any person not bedecked in tinfoil hats is gonna realize that the basic story o' 300 makes it unsuited as a pro bush propaganda piece 'bout the middle-east conflict. but hey, ignore the story and focus on fact that 300 takes place in greece (not the middle-east) which is the cradle o modern democracy... 'cause somehow that detail, stretched a bit, makes leonidas a stand in for bush? HA! ignore the story and hang on some o' those all important details instead. and suggesting that a vigilante anti-establishment is part o' the bush conservative platform is nuts... simply identify that vigilante is typically placed on the right-wing side of the spectrum is more of your bad logic, 'cause you complete ignore just how far to the right o' mainstream consevative thinking the vigilante bit is... which is why even undergrad political science courses is gonna point out to you that the left v. right spectrum is actually a circle, with extreme right and left eventually meeting. regardless, astro is essenially correct in that this is same stuff we see from hollywood over the years... but that not go far 'nuff. 'cause in point o' fact, 300 gots the same basic heroic elements as beowulf had, and that were the first bit o' english writing, and not much 'bout the modern hero story has changed since then... other than the addition o' romance, which is exactly what snyder had to add to 300, 'cause 300 were a stripped down hero story. for chrissakes, you might as well prove to us that lotr were released as part o' a pro-bush propaganda campaign, 'cause it gots similar elements. and the details is even more us v. them heavy... not hard to makes middle-east fanatics a good stand-in for sauron's army... probably easier than the extreme gymnastics you is using to make leonidas into bush... though you admit that bush could just as easily stand in for xerxes, which should make OBVIOUS that your suggestion that 300 is political ain't quite as OBVIOUS as you thought. sin city made money. next thing you know, another non-dc miller story is turned into a movie. conspiracy? do you perhaps read some editorial at The Onion and maybe failed to see the joke? put away the tinfoil hat and eat the sandwich rather than trying to figure out what sort o' political agenda the toasted bread and melty cheese might be hiding. sometimes a sandwich is just a sandwich. of all the movies for the crackpots to latch onto as proof o' pro bush propaganda, 300 is particularly ill-suited, precisely because, as you concede, bush could just as easily stand in for xerxes if you assume a political motivation into the production. for your conspiracy to gain legs, we now gotta assume that the makers o' 300 were so incompetent that they would not have realized how the message o' 300 would undermine their aim to create a pro-bush political piece. 'course that seems unlikely considering miller's history with critics and fans. propaganda ain't never as subtle and as ambiguous as azar seems to believe, 'cause if people don't GET IT, then your propaganda failed... and what would be the point then? HA! Good Fun!

oh and btw, since this not seem to be understood, Gromnir gots no problem with pro-bush folks or anti-bush people taking the message of 300 for their own. good art inspires. no doubt miller would be proud if he saw so many disparate peoples and groups adopting his message as their own. the problem we got is your notion that some elements in 300 were so "obvious" political motivated. bull. you is seeing what you wish to, which is your prerogative... but suggesting that snyder or miller were adding material to promote a political agenda Obviously to support some political pov is the stuff o' conspiracy theories

"But don't act like I'm a nutjob because of your strawmans and misrepresentations." don't forget your circular reasoning and your own reliance 'pon straw men... though we concede that some o' your strawman routine were simply poor reading. am particularly a fan of the conspiracy theory 'bout timing of 300 release. of course 300 is political pro-bush, just look at how/when it were released, right? but to get there we gotta accept 300 as being viewed as a movie 'bout the middle-east conflict, which requires us to accept on your initial premise that 300 content were politically motivated. classic, really. "Furthermore, 300 being anti-establishment is only relevant insofar as Bush can be symbolically cast as The Man" actually, no. 300 had an anti-establishment message long before bush became President and that message actually exists beyond politics. even miller has admitted that his works got a strong pro-liberty and anti-establishment message... but assume for a moment that xerxes is representative of no more than xerxes. great. how does that change our observations o' 300 insofar as basic themes is concerned? not at all... which is exactly why the anti-establishment folks love miller. you still got the vigilante freedom fighter flaunting the law to go off and get himself killed in a fight with a seemingly unbeatable tyrant. freedom is worth fighting for. freedom is worth dying for. change the names and dress up bush in xerxes garb or bush garb (HA!) and the core story not change a bit. heck, change the title to TDKR and you still got same message. you quibble over which character symbolizes what nation or leader, but you ignore the gosh darned story. so yeah, in that sense we thinks you is a nut job... a nut job like so many other folks who works so damned hard to plant political motivations and causes into a piece o' literature or in a film, you work overtime to show how some detail makes 300 looks like pro-bush propaganda, while complete ignoring the actual gosh darned story. and yeah, we gots no doubt that some audiences and critics has seen pro-bush propaganda in 300. as we noted above, thousands o' people saw the virgin mary and proof of God's existence in a gosh darned grilled cheese sandwich. People will see what they wish to. HA! Good Fun!

this is getting wacky. you is still dead-set on the notion that there is an obvious angling twoards modern politics... when in point o' fact all you got is a freaking grilled cheese sandwich. for chrissakes, brown-skinned enemies were one o' your so-called points. HA! go on and on and on 'bout the obvious use o' modern political dogma, when it ain't there less you try to convince self. *sigh* and Gromnir will once more try to explain miller to you, and where a 180 took place... 'cause our only claim is that you tooks a logical 180 rather than that your pov reversed. you see black, and then try to argue that you is actually showing us white. see, miller's writing DOES INDEED suggest various pro-liberty and pro-vigilante view points, which is why so many critics thought he were pro-terrorism and pro-anarchy. the critics and fans who thought that miller were pro-terrorist were not wacky and out in left feld, even if they were trying too hard to add politics into miller's works. IF miller had been making a political statement with his writing, then it would clearly have been an anti-establishment message. 300, written pre-bush and war on terrorism, is clearly having much similar themes and characters to previous miller works, same fight for liberty and freedom message. same anti-authority stuff. same old miller that gots him the wacky lefty liberal label. so, azar comes along and knows of miller pov on the war on terrorism stuff (which is just a small issue as far as personal politics is concerned,) and he sees or hears of 300 and how some white looking guys is spouting off 'bout freedom and they is fighting brown-skinned enemies, and azar complete ignores all the repeated miller content likes liberty and vigilante justice, and how a single person or small group is pitted in a fight 'gainst a super-power in 300, and somehow agrees with notion that yeah, 300 is a pro-bush vehicle. bravo. another triumph of reason. cospiracy nuts see conspiracies everywhere. congrats. you prove once again that a good conspiracy is bestest when it has as little fact as possible to support. "Or maybe Hollywood decided 300 would make more money because it's politically relevant? It's not a conspiracy theory to push out a film of public interest in order to make more doe. See Munich, Kingdom Under Heaven, etc.." the most circular absurdity we has seen today. is NOT politically relevant 'less you imagine in all kinds o' crap as azar has done... stuff which the director and writer has both said ain't there, and stuff which would clearly be 180 degrees opposite of EVERYTHING miller has ever done in past. "Fight for freedom" is not changing 300 to pro-establishment. brown-skinned enemies? HA! a legislature that lacks patriotism? you gotta be kidding. these middling details (one of which proves opposite of what you suggest,) in no way changes fact that 300 is a tale of how a vigilante king ignores corrupt laws and goes forth on a suicide mission to fight a Tyrant/Superpower from a foreign land, a Tyrant/Superpower that seeks to conquer and enslave his people. no doubt the producers/directors/and writers had some fears that the reasonable but inaccurate argument would be raised that miller's tale were pro-terrorist and anti-american, 'cause unlike azar gymnastics, it ain't hard to see 300 as anti-establishment at the very least. sure, ignore fact that the obvious and simple explanation for 300 production were the success of sin city... 'cause that makes too much sense. instead you gotta somehow imagine that 300 is actually a middle-east-war-on-terrorism allegory to explain why it were made. and further ignore the fact that it seems like most people ain't seeing no political allegory at all, and those that does is split as to whether it is pro or con on the issue. that 'bout right? ... sure, that makes perfect sense. nuts. HA! Good Fun!

now you has finally gone over the edge. go back and review thread and observe how many times Gromnir has conceded that miller IS NOT pro-terrorist. (we will give you a moment to do so now.) more than once or twice? good. the POINT, which you keeps missing, is that before miller came out and specifically said that he were anti-terrorist, there was a large % of critics and fans who believed that miller's writing were pro-anarchist and pro-terrorist. his writing is repetitive in sense that there is always some idealist who finds himself forced by fate to confront the Establishment, THE MAN! what is so darn hilarious is that azarkon goes and does 180. because miller admits that he is anti-terrorist, azarkon ignores miller's actually Pro-Liberty, Vigilante v. The Man writing... ignores that in previous miller works the hero fights the police and the church and the US Government, ignores fact that this is the same miller who had batman kick superman's arse while superman is acting as ronald regan's pawn, and sees that bush and miller is both anti-terrorist... so somehow azrkon sees 300 as pro bush. HA! the insanity of it all really gets Gromnir in the funny bone "So in your mind terrorists = Iraqi freedom fighters? Bleh. We've had this discussion before." how did you get that? again, we don't subscribe to the argument that miller is pro-terrorist, and Gromnir is clearly anti-terrorism, but for those people who is sympathetic to terrorists, as many people suspected miller to be, the argument is invariably made that the gap 'tween freedom fighter and terrorist is small. in no way is Gromnir suggesting that freedom fighters= terrorists, just as we clearly were not saying that miller ripped off the smurfs to make 300. how obtuse is you gonna try and be? "Everything about its release time reeks of capitalizing on the conflict in the Middle-East. Of course, this has little to do with the story of 300 itself-" oh for chrissakes. more freaking conspiracy theories? maybe the release and production o' 300 has something to do with the popularity o' sin city. hollywood is not real imaginative. frank miller only got so many movie appropriate works that can be turns into movies... 'less you wanna pay huge monies to dc. sin city made money. THAT is the most obvious motivation. "Please. Feel free to call them weak if you want, but you're not convincing anyone that they don't exist." *chuckle* firstly, Gromnir never suggested that no material were added to 300, but you really should not walks into such pitfalls so blindly. let us assume that you is correct for a second. and let us assume that all the examples you give 'bove were, we 'spose fro your comments, attempts to makes leonidas seems more cuddly so that people would swallow pro-bush propaganda. right, 'cause hollywood is ssssooooo pro-bush. didn't gore get an academy award, and the dixie chicks gots all kinds of awards at the grammies this year? hollywood, at the moment, is so damn patriotic that they is making a whole slew of the gung-ho war movies like... oh, well, we guess that we don't go to the movies often 'nuff, 'cause "flags of our fathers" were the last big budget war movie we recall and it were hardly gung-ho, was it? oh, and if you were to make a pro-bush propaganda movie, the obvious thing to do would be to take a movie that seems to glorify the outnumbered vigilante freedom fighter protecting his homeland against an impossibly powerful tyrant from across the sea, and use THAT story to make a pro-bush propaganda film. sneaky? stoopid? hey, is your conspiracy theory, you explain. its a grilled cheese sandwich. the movie is 'bout heroism and sacrifice and the fight for freedom. miller makes some sweeping generalizations 'bout society (though clearly not so much as he did with TDKR,) and he uses themes that has been 'round since beowulf. material were added to give characters a back story and to give a female role meaning, but the flick is exactly what it appears to be... is a grilled cheese sandwich. your conspiracy theories notwithstanding. HA! Good Fun!