Breaking news from Iran on CNN:

zDom

zDom

Senior Master
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200703131507DOWJONESDJONLINE000590_FORTUNE5.htm


TEHRAN (AP)--It may be a hit in the U.S., but the blockbuster movie "300" has angered Iranians, who say the Greeks-vs-Persians action flick insults their ancient culture and drums up present-day animosity against Iran.
Click to expand...

Holding it in....holding it in .....


.

.

.

.

.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :rofl:

I'm sorry. I agree Frank Miller and Hollywood should have depicted them more realistically ...

as a bunch of whiners who cry or throw temper tantrums anytime somebody says something about them that they don't like, true or not!

Get over it, Iranians. Repeat after me:

"Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me ..." :rolleyes:
 
It's a pretty legitimate gripe, and I'd be shocked if the Iranian government didn't express its displeasure. The portrayal of the Persians is as monsters, pure and simple. It's about on a level with how "Birth of a Nation" shows the bestial, bug-eyed subhuman Negro. If a government just sits there and takes it when something like this comes along it's not looking out for its own people.
 
I will have to find the time to see "300" again...... and again ....... and again...... and to buy the DVD when available..... with copies for friends.
 
tellner said:
It's a pretty legitimate gripe, and I'd be shocked if the Iranian government didn't express its displeasure. The portrayal of the Persians is as monsters, pure and simple. It's about on a level with how "Birth of a Nation" shows the bestial, bug-eyed subhuman Negro. If a government just sits there and takes it when something like this comes along it's not looking out for its own people.
Click to expand...

It seems to be more like the portrayal of Huns in the movie Mulan. Quite often invaders and antagonists in movies are portrayed as somewhat less civilized; from the Huns in the animated Mulan, to the Europeans in 1492: Conquest of Paradise. I'm definitely not saying that people that think they are being harmed by portrayals in Hollywood (such as 2500 year old Persians) shouldn't stick up for themselves.

from the CNN article said:
In Iran, the movie hasn't opened and probably never will, given the government's restrictions on Western films - though one paper said bootleg DVDs were already available.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure who has a lower opinion of Iranians, the people that put out a movie making invading Persians many centuries ago appear to be all mean and nasty, or a government that doesn't even give the people an option to boycott the same movie.
 
They really need to consider the source....a comic book. Personally, I didn't care much for the characterisation of the Persians either, but other than the hollywoodisms, it was pretty accurate.
 
tellner said:
It's a pretty legitimate gripe, and I'd be shocked if the Iranian government didn't express its displeasure. The portrayal of the Persians is as monsters, pure and simple. It's about on a level with how "Birth of a Nation" shows the bestial, bug-eyed subhuman Negro. If a government just sits there and takes it when something like this comes along it's not looking out for its own people.
Click to expand...

It's also about on the level with "Death to the Great Satan America". Pot, meet kettle. I don't give a damn what Iran thinks.
 
I'm no great fan of President Iwannajihad, but "I don't care what Iran thinks" is short-sighted, stupid and almost certain to get us in another disastrous war. Or course, with the fanatic religious nutjobs with delusions of godhood and an erection for the Apocalypse in the presidential palace in Tehran and Washington it's almost inevitable at this point. If you want to get technical they've got a lot more to legitimately hate us for than the other way around. We've helped destroy democracy at least twice in their country and helped bring about the rule of the Mullah****ers.
 
It is very likely that Hollywood, in its usual heavy-handed way was trying to draw some parallel between then and now, but honestly, the culture that this group of Iranians is claiming has been insulted is not the culture of modern Iran. It is a culture that their ancestors threw away in favour of the Islamic culture they now embrace. This is a little like modern Germans complaining that the Goths have been poorly portrayed and insulted.
 
Touch Of Death said:
I understand they had to sneak off to secret wives, because they were simply not allowed to partake in the fairer sex. It was the Original "Don't ask don't tell"
Sean
Click to expand...

A Spartan began his training at seven, but he lived at home until 18. At that time he moved into barracks where he lived until he was 33. Somewhere in between he was encouraged to marry, the state needed more Spartiates afterall, but had to see his wife on the sly. After 33 he was encouraged to move out of the barracks and live with his wife and family. He was, of course, still an active part of the miltary until he was 55.

I might point out that having a male lover was not unique to the Greek warrior view. There is some evidence for similar views among the Aztecs and medieval Japanese (not much for Japan though).
 
tellner said:
It's a pretty legitimate gripe, and I'd be shocked if the Iranian government didn't express its displeasure. The portrayal of the Persians is as monsters, pure and simple. It's about on a level with how "Birth of a Nation" shows the bestial, bug-eyed subhuman Negro. If a government just sits there and takes it when something like this comes along it's not looking out for its own people.
Click to expand...

Fact:
Xerxes and the Persian empire attacked the Greeks because they had defended themselves successfully from his grandfather 25+ years earlier at Marathon and built a monument about it.

Fact:
THe Persians openly stated that they were going to burn down Athens and all inside it.

Fact:
the Persians came with anywhere from 300,000 to 1,000,000 soldiers to do so. It was the largest army ever assembled - ever.

Opinion:
Sounds pretty monsterous to me.

Fact:
Iranians identifying with the Persians is about as pointless as me identifying with the celts. Somewhere back there we are connected, but I don't wear blue when I fight and I ALWAYS wear clothes when I do. We no longer have the same religion, society, socuial mores, laws, diet, language, etc.

Opinion:
The Iranians are just blowing more hot air because it makes them feel important.
 
Steel Tiger said:
A Spartan began his training at seven, but he lived at home until 18. At that time he moved into barracks where he lived until he was 33. Somewhere in between he was encouraged to marry, the state needed more Spartiates afterall, but had to see his wife on the sly. After 33 he was encouraged to move out of the barracks and live with his wife and family. He was, of course, still an active part of the miltary until he was 55.

I might point out that having a male lover was not unique to the Greek warrior view. There is some evidence for similar views among the Aztecs and medieval Japanese (not much for Japan though).
Click to expand...
Dont forget the Romans. One of the Roman Emporers named a city in Ancient Egypt after his lover, after he fell off a boat on the Nile and drowned.

B
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

WMDs found on Titan!

Previous Thread

Happy "National Pi Day"

Next Thread

Latest Discussions

Back
Top