RebelKev Wrote:

aTxTIGER Wrote:id disagree. i do like their numbers, their science, and their literature. of course those all came about 1000-1300 years ago, so i do see your point.

Sorry, I don't know if you're referring to the Persians or Arabs, but if you're referring to Algebra, well, it dates back to the Babylonians.......who also weren't Islamic. Islam is only 1400 years old. Seriously, what HAVE they given society? Because I can't find anything. Even Cyrus was WAYYYYY before Islam. Let's not intertwine Islam with ancient Persia or ancient Arab culture. It's VERY new considering the issue.

islam. western culture didn't adopt arabic numerals until contact with Islamic forces. Also, their science and literature mostly predates islam, however, didn't reach all of europe until the ottoman turks and the moors tried to take over europe.

btw, if you ever find yourself in need of reading material, you should read about timbuktu and mali. interesting history. especially when it comes their past wealth.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Islam was after 300 supposedly occurred as well.

The issue should be Persians were portrayed poorly. And even then, it's a freakin movie. One side has to be the 'good guys' and one side has to be the 'bad guys.' The average film goer would be confused if you actually tried to present a two sided story.

actually I'd disagree a little, yes this was a good vs. evil movie and it clearly showed that one culture was superior to the other so it was anti-multiculturalism(very politically incorrect). but alot of crap that comes out of hollywood tries to take a 'nuanced' approach to this known as "moral relativism" which would show both sides equally flawed, neither culture superior. 300 did not do this, which is refreshing and reminicent of WW2 era flicks except for its still not directly referencing the modern enemy(however Iran appears to see it anyway)......listen to the Frank Miller clip I linked above, he clearly does not agree with multi-culturalism and gives great reasons as to why.

This battle 300 is based from is considered one of the turning points for what we know today as Western Civilization. the Persians were the conquerors then, wanted Sparta to submit and the King refused.

whats funny is the constant Nihllistic, anti-west and anti-american movies that come out of Hollywood like "V for Vendetta", yet you do not see our govt. condeming it or Christians going crazy that they were portrayed so negatively. Its the difference between a free society and a totalitarian state like Iran.

GGniner Wrote:

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Islam was after 300 supposedly occurred as well.

The issue should be Persians were portrayed poorly. And even then, it's a freakin movie. One side has to be the 'good guys' and one side has to be the 'bad guys.' The average film goer would be confused if you actually tried to present a two sided story.

actually I'd disagree a little, yes this was a good vs. evil movie and it clearly showed that one culture was superior to the other so it was anti-multiculturalism(very politically incorrect). but alot of crap that comes out of hollywood tries to take a 'nuanced' approach to this known as "moral relativism" which would show both sides equally flawed, neither culture superior. 300 did not do this, which is refreshing and reminicent of WW2 era flicks except for its still not directly referencing the modern enemy(however Iran appears to see it anyway)......listen to the Frank Miller clip I linked above, he clearly does not agree with multi-culturalism and gives great reasons as to why.

This battle 300 is based from is considered one of the turning points for what we know today as Western Civilization. the Persians were the conquerors then, wanted Sparta to submit and the King refused.

whats funny is the constant Nihllistic, anti-west and anti-american movies that come out of Hollywood like "V for Vendetta", yet you do not see our govt. condeming it or Christians going crazy that they were portrayed so negatively. Its the difference between a free society and a totalitarian state like Iran.

Quote:actually I'd disagree a little, yes this was a good vs. evil movie and it clearly showed that one culture was superior to the other so it was anti-multiculturalism(very politically incorrect). but alot of crap that comes out of hollywood tries to take a 'nuanced' approach to this known as "moral relativism" which would show both sides equally flawed, neither culture superior. 300 did not do this, which is refreshing and reminicent of WW2 era flicks except for its still not directly referencing the modern enemy(however Iran appears to see it anyway)......listen to the Frank Miller clip I linked above, he clearly does not agree with multi-culturalism and gives great reasons as to why.

I would disagree that Hollywood tries to take a nuanced approach. Well yes they do in some movies, but 300 is obviously not that type of movie. I'm referring to all the other action movies like Die Hard, Pearl Harbor, True Lies. They want the bad guys bad and the good guys good. Now obviously there are plenty of exceptions, but I didn't think we'd actually be comparing 300 to movies like Letters From Iwo Jima/Flags of our Fathers.

Quote:whats funny is the constant Nihllistic, anti-west and anti-american movies that come out of Hollywood like "V for Vendetta", yet you do not see our govt. condeming it or Christians going crazy that they were portrayed so negatively. Its the difference between a free society and a totalitarian state like Iran.

That was my point about Jason Isaacs killing Mel Gibson's sons. I don't think the British reacted all that poorly to The Patriot. Well no more poorly than they do to most other American culture. :)

According to Zack Snyder, the director of 300:

Quote:Someone asked me, "Is George Bush Leonidas or Xerxes?" I said, "That's an awesome question." The fact they asked tells me that this movie can mean one thing to one person and something totally different to another. I clearly didn't mean either. I was just trying to get Frank's book made into a movie.

Now, Miller wrote the graphic novel in 1999, which is before the current administration. The movie stayed very true to the graphic novel, so any politics that you see in it is due to eisegesis, not exegesis.

GGniner Wrote:whats funny is the constant Nihllistic, anti-west and anti-american movies that come out of Hollywood like "V for Vendetta", yet you do not see our govt. condeming it or Christians going crazy that they were portrayed so negatively. Its the difference between a free society and a totalitarian state like Iran.

You see so-called Christians going nuts over all sorts of entertainment, and your comment shows that you live under the delusion that Hollywood has an anti-west, anti-american agenda.

Do SOME directors have a bias? Yes, but being a liberal does not make you anti-west or anti-american, just as being a conservative does not make you a theocratic facist. You're just a different viewpoint.

But then again, I'm the guy with a chaosphere in his signature...

WMD Owl Wrote:Here is the quote in question:

Shamqadri, who is also a filmmaker, said that production of more domestic and artistic films which portray Iranian achievements is a proper response to movies like "300".


I am well aware of the contributions of the Persians to science, engineering, etc.

But Sharnqadri didn't say Persian achievements. He said Iranian achievements.

According to the Ayatollahs, their "history" started in 1979 when the "Islamic Republic" was founded by Khomeini. I don't see them making any movies about what happened during the period of 1935-February 1979, unless its a movie about the "Den of Spys" or how SAVAK and the CIA supposedly ran death camps..

From 1979 onwards the Iranians offer no evidence of any achievements worth making a movie about...

Um, first of all --

The "Iranian" state pre-dates 1979 buddy. It goes back to 1935. They just had a revolution in 1979.

Iran is simply the Western name for Persia. Pahlavi just recognized that and changed the name to Iran.

Second of all, All they had in 1979 was a revolution. France has gone through 5 different Republics and countless monarchical and feudal regimes before that. It doesn't disconnect the French people from their history just because they have a new government. It doesn't mean that French civilization starts over.

The Iranian people ARE the Persian people. To suggest otherwise is meaninglessness. It is one civilization that has gone through different regimes. Guess what? This current one is the shortest, and it too will pass into the dustbin of history. These things come and go. But don't deny their civilization its rich history that it rightly earned.

GGniner Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:Interesting. It appears that your position is that the movie is propaganda and you think thats a damn good thing and we need more of it.

Interesting.

It is rare that a free-man asks to be propagandized.

are you always this dumb? everything that comes out of hollywood has a message, somehow I bet you like Syriana and "an inconvient truth"

They are making the villians in upcoming blockbuster films environmental related for crying out loud. During WW2 we didn't have loons like this running that place and they produced great films that rallied the nation like Casablanca.

I'm sure you would take issue with anti-nazi films from WW2 era the same way you are with the islamo-nazi's /sarc

Paul Haagis, won 2 Oscars for Crash last year exposed a well known agenda while quoting in his speech from Marxist playwright, Bertolt Brecht:

Quote:"Art is not a mirror held up to society, it is a hammer by which to shape it."~Brecht

This echos Lenin:

Quote:"Of all the arts, for us cinema is the most important." ~Lenin

I think art should reflect everything thats really Good and True about the world, in 300 they do a decent job in showing parts of that and most importantly the need to stand up to an imperalist threat like Xeres was then, if you want to connect the dots to the modern imperalist(iran, islamofascim) then fine.

Whether something is propaganda or not is more than whether it is one sided, or that it has a political intent.

Here is the fundamental test:

Does the art prompt you to ask questions? Does it inject doubt and force you to reason with the world around you?

If so, than it isn't propaganda.

Many people thought 1984, by Orwell, was propaganda. Conservative elites see it as a satire of them, as a liberal attempt to say that they are totalitarians. Even today, conservatives see it (and V for Vendetta, the graphic novel for which is loosely based on it), as an attack on them. Funnily enough though, communist governments banned it. It was a ray of hope to people behind the Iron curtain. To them it wasn't a leftist book, it was a book that reflected the reality of communism - it was something that LIBERATED them from propaganda. The fact is, the book wasn't propaganda for the right or left. Orwell deliberately leaves out indicating whether or not Oceania is a far right regime or a far left regime. He didn't want either side in the ideological battles of his time to take comfort in it. That is Orwell's genius. For him, quite rightly, totalitarianism is the one point at which the far right and far left converge. At some point, all ideology leads to tyranny -- that is its nature.

The problem is, your agenda doesn't want people to ask questions -- it wants to the art to produce a result that makes the asking of the question itself an illegitimate act. In your mind that questioning both reflects and causes a weakness, rather than helping us see a different side of things -- something that can make us stronger.

Where both communism and right-wingers converge is on that point -- the idea that questioning is necessarily subversive and threatening. Its quite interesting.

Whats also funny is that you see the movie as an allegory for modern times. Islam is obviously the imperialist, corrupt Xerxes; the West is the small Spartan city-state holding out for its freedom and self-determination. Yet people in most non-Western countries would probably see the reverse in that movie. Who is right? Probably both.

The great thing about the film is that it ISN'T propaganda because it leaves that question open to those who are open to seeing it.

Sophandros Wrote:You see so-called Christians going nuts over all sorts of entertainment, .

these "so called christians" you are referring to are not government officials. There is a difference between religious fundamentalist who live in a free state(but do not rule in it), and the head of state of a theocratic totalitarian state like Iran getting upset over a movie that has nothing to do with islam. I do think its a metaphor for the current war and showcases East vs. west which that paticular battle inspired future generations in greece then Rome and eventually led to modern western civilization.

a majority of the movies that come out of hollywood are preaching their on secular religion, the common messages are post-modernism(see Pulp Fiction), existenialism(see Forrest Gump), hedonism and now environmentalism or some combination of secular philosphies. basically substitutes for judeo-christian philosophy Western Civilization was founded on, many are great entertainment. There is still alot of truth that comes out of hollywood, dont get me wrong.

Take Munich last year, it had its history off and an appeasement, moral relativism message which on its face is absurd.

GGniner Wrote:

Sophandros Wrote:You see so-called Christians going nuts over all sorts of entertainment, .

these "so called christians" you are referring to are not government officials. There is a difference between religious fundamentalist who live in a free state(but do not rule in it), and the head of state of a theocratic totalitarian state like Iran getting upset over a movie that has nothing to do with islam. I do think its a metaphor for the current war and showcases East vs. west which that paticular battle inspired future generations in greece then Rome and eventually led to modern western civilization.

a majority of the movies that come out of hollywood are preaching their on secular religion, the common messages are post-modernism(see Pulp Fiction), existenialism(see Forrest Gump), hedonism and now environmentalism or some combination of secular philosphies. basically substitutes for judeo-christian philosophy Western Civilization was founded on, many are great entertainment. There is still alot of truth that comes out of hollywood, dont get me wrong.

Take Munich last year, it had its history off and an appeasement, moral relativism message which on its face is absurd.

I think that you're looking at the world through too simplistic of a lens. For example, I didn't see any of what you saw in that movie--apparently Jewish groups saw it as I did, as well.

Hollywood isn't promoting anything, which is why most of what comes out of there is offal.

As for your Judeo-Christian comment, you might want to take a few history lessons. The ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans were neither Jews nor Christians (by the time Rome converted, they had been on the downside of their reign for a while). THAT is what Western Civilization is founded on. Paganism.

I think it was just a movie.

You can see "subtext" in any movie.

Rocky is racist cause the black guy never beats him (except by split decision or once and then rocky beats him in a rematch)

Top Gun portrays the russians as killers who attack for no reason

Oh, and don't get me started on how that bastard from the Office made all virgins look like dorks who play with action figures.

Frankly any movie that attempts to be "fair" to both sides would be pretty damn boring. If I want that I'll watch the History Channel or Discovery Times.

And FYI, I saw 300 last weekend and you know that Iran never once crossed my mind.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:I think it was just a movie.

You can see "subtext" in any movie.

Rocky is racist cause the black guy never beats him (except by split decision or once and then rocky beats him in a rematch)

Top Gun portrays the russians as killers who attack for no reason

Oh, and don't get me started on how that bastard from the Office made all virgins look like dorks who play with action figures.

Frankly any movie that attempts to be "fair" to both sides would be pretty damn boring. If I want that I'll watch the History Channel or Discovery Times.

And FYI, I saw 300 last weekend and you know that Iran never once crossed my mind.

The ONLY thing controversial that crossed my mind was the same thing that some of my friends said: The Greeks weren't that light skinned and the Persians weren't all that dark skinned, but we acknowledged that it was done that way for a reason no more sinister than art and lighting.

I was disappointed in the queen and the politician. No way Leonidas's wife takes it from that guy that way. Just my opinion.

GGniner Wrote:

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Islam was after 300 supposedly occurred as well.

The issue should be Persians were portrayed poorly. And even then, it's a freakin movie. One side has to be the 'good guys' and one side has to be the 'bad guys.' The average film goer would be confused if you actually tried to present a two sided story.

actually I'd disagree a little, yes this was a good vs. evil movie and it clearly showed that one culture was superior to the other so it was anti-multiculturalism(very politically incorrect). but alot of crap that comes out of hollywood tries to take a 'nuanced' approach to this known as "moral relativism" which would show both sides equally flawed, neither culture superior. 300 did not do this, which is refreshing and reminicent of WW2 era flicks except for its still not directly referencing the modern enemy(however Iran appears to see it anyway)......listen to the Frank Miller clip I linked above, he clearly does not agree with multi-culturalism and gives great reasons as to why.

This battle 300 is based from is considered one of the turning points for what we know today as Western Civilization. the Persians were the conquerors then, wanted Sparta to submit and the King refused.

whats funny is the constant Nihllistic, anti-west and anti-american movies that come out of Hollywood like "V for Vendetta", yet you do not see our govt. condeming it or Christians going crazy that they were portrayed so negatively. Its the difference between a free society and a totalitarian state like Iran.

did you see v for vendetta? it is a movie that rails against the existence of a police state and the misuse of religion for purposes of power and fear. in no way does it rail against christianity itself. its very clear in this matter by making the most "religious" characters the most unchristian....former death camp commanders and a pediphile....high "power" intensive, highly unchristian figures.

as far as being unamerican, well, unless you think police states are an american ideal, then i think you are wrong.

aTxTIGER Wrote:did you see v for vendetta?

Yes

Quote: it is a movie that rails against the existence of a police state and the misuse of religion for purposes of power and fear.

Yes it rails against a police state, AND the hero, V, also justify's terrorism and says "you can change the world by blowing up buildings", the filmakers are philosophically aligned with Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda. which ironicly have and wish to impose on us all the type of govt. they portray in the film, except even worse.

Quote: in no way does it rail against christianity itself. its very clear in this matter by making the most "religious" characters the most unchristian....former death camp commanders and a pediphile....high "power" intensive, highly unchristian figures.

in the film the Public Relations mouthpiece uses God talk in his speeches, the symbol of the state is a double cross, and the government posters all say, "Unity through faith," an obvious reference to "One nation under God" Some [b]government agents quote Proverbs, "Spare the rod, spoil the child"

check this out, I think RebelKev will love this.

The director of 300 did an interview http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/di...30-on-300/

check out the pic from the interview of Snyder.



he is wearing a "Major League Infidel" T-shirt.

[/img]

Check out one of my global mod's avatars:


http://usmilnet.com/smf/index.php?action=profile;u=37

http://usmilnet.com/smf/index.php?action...ype=avatar

GGniner Wrote:[quote="aTxTIGER"]
did you see v for vendetta?

Yes

Quote: it is a movie that rails against the existence of a police state and the misuse of religion for purposes of power and fear.

Yes it rails against a police state, AND the hero, V, also justify's terrorism and says "you can change the world by blowing up buildings", the filmakers are philosophically aligned with Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda. which ironicly have and wish to impose on us all the type of govt. they portray in the film, except even worse.

Quote: in no way does it rail against christianity itself. its very clear in this matter by making the most "religious" characters the most unchristian....former death camp commanders and a pediphile....high "power" intensive, highly unchristian figures.

in the film the Public Relations mouthpiece uses God talk in his speeches, the symbol of the state is a double cross, and the government posters all say, "Unity through faith," an obvious reference to "One nation under God" Some [b]government agents quote Proverbs, "Spare the rod, spoil the child"

GGniner Wrote:[quote="aTxTIGER"]
did you see v for vendetta?

Yes

Quote: it is a movie that rails against the existence of a police state and the misuse of religion for purposes of power and fear.

Yes it rails against a police state, AND the hero, V, also justify's terrorism and says "you can change the world by blowing up buildings", the filmakers are philosophically aligned with Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda. which ironicly have and wish to impose on us all the type of govt. they portray in the film, except even worse.

Quote: in no way does it rail against christianity itself. its very clear in this matter by making the most "religious" characters the most unchristian....former death camp commanders and a pediphile....high "power" intensive, highly unchristian figures.

in the film the Public Relations mouthpiece uses God talk in his speeches, the symbol of the state is a double cross, and the government posters all say, "Unity through faith," an obvious reference to "One nation under God" Some [b]government agents quote Proverbs, "Spare the rod, spoil the child"

Sophandros Wrote:And "terrorism" would also describe the American and French revolutions.

umm, yeah because our Founding Fathers went to Britain and killed innoncent women, children and civilians and blew up buildings as people were going about their daily lives like cowards(see islamic terrorist), chopped off innoncent people's heads(see KSM who agrees with you on this)....

Moral relativism is a mental disease.


if these movies do not have messages in them, then advertisers are idiots wasting money. They pay big money for product placement because it increases sales of that product. Why, because the audience is influenced by the movie, its not a stretch to see the world view the screenwriters having the same type of influence, over time. 99% of art consumers are clueless to the fact that ideas philosophers put forth are communicated to the masses via art. Don't mistake that I'm saying we shouldn't watch these movies, I'm saying they should be watched with wisdom and discernment and be able to distinguish the worldviews within.

Quote:"Art is not a mirror held up to society, it is a hammer by which to shape it."~Brecht

This echos Lenin:

Quote:"Of all the arts, for us cinema is the most important." ~Lenin