300

[Krookie]

Just saw it. I thought it was pretty cool.

[Musopticon?]

I'm fairly hyped now. Anyone know when it's going to hit Europe?

[Surreptishus]

I'm fairly hyped now. Anyone know when it's going to hit Europe?

 

IMDB says it hits Finland on 6th April.... haw haw!

[Musopticon?]

Thank you....

 

 

 

 

 

...and die.

[Azarkon]

This is a fantasy movie, not the history channel.

 

It's much closer to being a mythopoeic movie (similar to, say, LOTR) than pure fantasy. The key points have already been noted - some of the dialogue seems taken almost straight out of Bush's political speeches, particularly the ones that were added ontop of what was there in the comics. People complain that critics read too much into the movie, but after seeing it myself, I can't say I disagree with them. When the director/screenwriter uses lines like "freedom is not free" (in what is probably the weakest link in the movie - the domestic scenes that were added in as filler), you know he's intentionally angling for modern politics.

 

Of course, that's not to say Miller didn't intend 300 to be a mythopoeic work, in the first place. He certainly didn't make an effort to make it historically accurate or morally complicated. But Miller being a bit right-wing in his present political perspective on Iraq (and he seems to be, see this article: http://raggedthots.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20300) does not explain why Snyder, who claimed that he did not set out to analogize either side, added so much support for the Leonidas-as-Bush idea.

Edited March 11, 2007 by Azarkon

[Musopticon?]

 

Uhh-yup!

 

 

 

 

I know it's horrible, but I couldn't find a tanning filter with my meager photoediting skills and five minutes. And someone had to do it.

[kumquatq3]

who claimed that he did not set out to analogize either side, added so much support for the Leonidas-as-Bush idea.

 

He did? Because I left the movie with a group of people who entered into just such a discussion and came away virtually split. I thought no meaningful connections could be draw, at least, none that were intentional. Maybe because I have read 300 well before the movie, so when I saw a scene I thought of the comic rather than modern day comparisons.

 

However, as I noted in my discussions with my friends, the Persians attacked Leonidas, not the other way around. That, imo, kind of breaks any analogy that could meaningfully be made. And the gods were against Leonidas (if the director were pro Bush)

 

Favorite part of the movie:

 

"Trust the Gods Leonidas"

"I would prefer it if you trusted in reason"

Edited March 11, 2007 by kumquatq3

[Hurlshort]

I just saw it, excellent action movie and stunning visuals. The dialogue didn't bother me, but I wasn't expecting Shakespeare (although I'm pretty sure all the actors have a Shakespearean background.)

[Azarkon]

who claimed that he did not set out to analogize either side, added so much support for the Leonidas-as-Bush idea.

 

He did? Because I left the movie with a group of people who entered into just such a discussion and came away virtually split. I thought no meaningful connections could be draw, at least, none that were intentional. Maybe because I have read 300 well before the movie, so when I saw a scene I thought of the comic rather than modern day comparisons.

 

 

I thought the modern day inspired dialogue gave it away. "Freedom is not free." "We bring a new world where freedom will triumph over tyranny and mysticism." Etc.

 

Not that Miller wasn't of the same mind. Rather that the added dialogue was especially analogical to current politics.

[Gromnir]

...

 

is not like 300 is miller's first graphic novel. the same guy who had batman kick superman's (truth, justice and the American Way,) arse is the guy who created some kinda pro-bush propoganda piece? 300 is less political than is TDKR, and is maybe a bit less clever in the way it is structured, but miller is still miller, and miller's leonidas and batman gots lots in common.

 

people will see what they wish to see.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gorgon]

Well I thought Cin City was quite enjoyable. I'm not sure why hating Frank Miller is mandatory now.

 

I haven't seen, or bought, this crappy batman he supposedly made and i'm quite looking forward to a historically incorrect action movie.

[kumquatq3]

who claimed that he did not set out to analogize either side, added so much support for the Leonidas-as-Bush idea.

 

He did? Because I left the movie with a group of people who entered into just such a discussion and came away virtually split. I thought no meaningful connections could be draw, at least, none that were intentional. Maybe because I have read 300 well before the movie, so when I saw a scene I thought of the comic rather than modern day comparisons.

 

 

I thought the modern day inspired dialogue gave it away. "Freedom is not free." "We bring a new world where freedom will triumph over tyranny and mysticism." Etc.

 

Not that Miller wasn't of the same mind. Rather that the added dialogue was especially analogical to current politics.

 

Meh, the "Freedom isn't free" line is the one that is getting people rilled up, but I just don't see anything supporting that stance outside of that one line. The metaphor(s) are all wrong for the current climate. I don't think the intention was there at all, I just think people are seeing what they want to see.

 

And if the movie is meant to support the neo-con stance, the consistent bashing of religion by Leonidas isn't very apt. The Spartan senators wouldn't vote to go to war, the US senate did. Sparta had war declared against it, the US wasn't attacked by Iraq. I could go on and on, point being, if you REALLY want to find something in anything you can, but I just don't see any intentional comparisons here.

[Tale]

"Freedom isn't free, it has a hefty ****in' fee."

 

"Freedom costs a buck 'o five."

[Gorgon]

Actually it's 9.99 and only available through this special offer.

[Pop]

So does the Scorpion King die at the end of the movie?

[Gorgon]

Who, xerxes ?

[Aram]

I thought the modern day inspired dialogue gave it away. "Freedom is not free." "We bring a new world where freedom will triumph over tyranny and mysticism." Etc.

 

I'm not really sure that's a "modern" concept. People have been preaching freedom for centuries.

 

The only thing that is a new concept is preaching freedoms while systematically taking them away.

 

 

And I for one thought that Batman: The Dark Night Returns kicked some serious ass.

[Tale]

I thought the modern day inspired dialogue gave it away. "Freedom is not free." "We bring a new world where freedom will triumph over tyranny and mysticism." Etc.

The only thing that is a new concept is preaching freedoms while systematically taking them away.

How is that even remotely new?

[Aram]

I thought the modern day inspired dialogue gave it away. "Freedom is not free." "We bring a new world where freedom will triumph over tyranny and mysticism." Etc.

The only thing that is a new concept is preaching freedoms while systematically taking them away.

How is that even remotely new?

 

Point taken. Clearly, none of it is new.

[Azarkon]

...

 

is not like 300 is miller's first graphic novel. the same guy who had batman kick superman's (truth, justice and the American Way,) arse is the guy who created some kinda pro-bush propoganda piece? 300 is less political than is TDKR, and is maybe a bit less clever in the way it is structured, but miller is still miller, and miller's leonidas and batman gots lots in common.

 

people will see what they wish to see.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

300 came out in 1998 so it's difficult to argue that it's a pro-Bush propaganda piece. But... I've read the original comics and they're not nearly as steeped in modern political rhetoric as the film. This whole deal with the senate not being patriotic enough to support their king, freedom is not free, etc. was all tacked on. Kinda hard not to see to the political connection, even if you didn't go into the theatre expecting it.

 

Though, as far as Miller's personal political beliefs go, I do think that he's gone over to the pro-Bush side since 9/11. In the interview I linked to earlier he claimed that Iraq declared war on us first (by proxy of Al Qaeda, I presume), that we were in the midst of an existential war against the Middle-East, said that Bush didn't mobilize the American people to war enough, and was in the process of doing some Batman vs. Al Qaeda comic.

[Walsingham]

Millar has written for the Authority, and they're about as Neocon as you can get, or Neolib or something. Basically they say "We're superheroes. why are we busting muggers when genocide is going down?" So it would make sense for him to be at least in favour of some Bush tactics.

[Gromnir]

"300 came out in 1998 so it's difficult to argue that it's a pro-Bush propaganda piece."

 

so why try?

 

the senate stuff were tacked on to give the female lead something to do... try not to read so much into it. the queen obviously were gonna be a non-combatant, so how could writers/directors has her actively fight for freedom? have her sew more red capes? has her rally the peoples directly? sure, coulda' gone that way, but you still gotta work sacrifice into the mix. you see the tree and miss the forest.

 

as for miller... you is again reading far too much into what little you has read from him. miller is all 'bout fighting for Personal Freedom. do yourself a favor and actually read some miller stuff, 'cause if you did you should be aware that there is a running theme in all his works... an individual gots to stand up to and against an unjust establishment and fight for liberty and justice. the establishment may change, but the message is always the same. Ronald Regan Cold War US, the Church, The Police, Xerxes, etc. The Man takes many forms, and miller uses each symbolically rather than literal.

 

miller's stand on terrorism is understandable, 'cause terrorism takes choice away from folks, which makes it 'bout as anti-liberty as you can get... 'least that is what he told Gromnir way back in 1989.

 

*shrug*

 

the jokers who somehows sees 300 as a pro-bush propoganda piece is wacky. in point o' fact, it is far easier to put bush/America in the role of xerxes than it is to has bush=leonidas... but that too would be missing the point o' miller's message.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited March 11, 2007 by Gromnir

[Pop]

I'm not sure about Miller's intentions just yet, but it is out there in the open that the main villain in the movie happens to be a brown-skinned ****, and the hero is an aggressive heterosexual and such a patriot that he defies his democratic government to defend his nation. The hunchback (the weak, malformed hunchback) betrays his country after witnessing the evils of lesbianism and promiscuity, and thinking "hey, that ain't so bad". Frank Miller didn't write the 300 as a pro-Bush piece, obviously, he wrote it before Bush, but he is still quite fond of fascist iconography, of strong, tall white men who stand up against the foreigners when no one else will (think Rambo) and the women who fellate them / get raped / whore themselves out. The compass of the movie is most definitely an American neoconservative one.

Edited March 11, 2007 by Pop

[Tale]

Talk about reading too much into a movie. Miller saw the movie The 300 Spartans and felt inspired. Lesbianism, whores, the whole congress issue, aren't even part of the work written by Miller, but are added by the screenwriters to help extend the length.

 

All Miller intended was to create an artistic representation of the 300 men who sacrificed their lives to delay the Persians.

Edited March 11, 2007 by Tale

[Pop]

Talk about reading too much into a movie. Miller saw the movie The 300 Spartans and felt inspired. Lesbianism, whores, the whole congress issue, aren't even part of the work written by Miller, but are added by the screenwriters to help extend the length.

 

All Miller intended was to create an artistic representation of the 300 men who sacrificed their lives to delay the Persians.

The female characters at least fit in with Miller's style. He loves, loves his violated women. He made catwoman a prostitute, whores are ****ing everywhere in Sin City (and they have strong male Dwight to protect them)

 

And even if Miller didn't originally write all that stuff, by being a producer he at least would have some say over what was written in. But really, when we're talking about the movie, you're right, it has nothing to do with Miller. The movie, not Miller, is reactionary and pro-war. It can be those things without ever touching Bush or his administration.

 

Millar has written for the Authority, and they're about as Neocon as you can get, or Neolib or something. Basically they say "We're superheroes. why are we busting muggers when genocide is going down?" So it would make sense for him to be at least in favour of some Bush tactics.

Wrong dude, dude. And if I remember correctly, the Authority eventually got in some trouble for portraying Bush as a coward not long after 9/11, so I'd wager that it's neolib.

Edited March 11, 2007 by Pop