h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I saw this was mentioned quite a bit in the Films thread, and I thought seeing as it has some political controversy, it might deserve a thread of it´s own.
So let´s hear what you thought of the movie and if the Iranians are right.

I can see the points about the movie (and the original graphic novel) being anti-Iranian, anti-Bush, homoerotic, homophobic, etc., but it isn't. When it comes down to it, it's just a movie about 300 oiled-up men in posing pouches killing other men. It's the glamorisation of violence done as only Frank Miller can do it.
In conclusion, as I have said elsewhere, it manages to pull of the surprising trick of being awesome and awful at the same time.

It's a genre movie - a comic book fantasy. Once that's understood, it's a relatively harmless waste of a few hours.

I don't agree with that comment. If the Wachowskis hadn't made such a mess of V For Vendetta, it would have been a 'comic book fantasy' with a great deal to say about modern society, using the genre to say it intelligently and entertainingly.

V for Vendetta or 300?

I'd say it's by far the silliest film I've seen in a very long time.

I agree with Bob and Woodpigeon - there's all kinds of things that could be read into the film, but it's really not worth it because it's just not there - it's really not meant to be taken seriously.

I have to say that some of the acting was first rate, though - delivering some of that dialogue without sniggering must have taken some doing.

I loved it

Are the iranians really identifying themselves ethnically with the peoples that populated that area of the world about 2500 years ago
There have been so many migrations of people since then that the idea is absurd.

And the Spartan really did love their warfare. They were such good warriors of course that they got mashed by the Romans only about 150 years after Thermopylae

By that time the population of Sparta was very low because they were so obsessed with keeping bloodlines pure. They were fascistic in their devotion to maintaining the 'purity' of their race.

I think Iran identifies itself *culturally* with the Persian Empire, rather than ethnically. I'm sure Greeks identify themselves with the Greeks of the Classical Period. It's something humans seem to like doing. There's nothing particularly wrong with this but it can be taken too far.

I saw an article where the Iranians complaining about 300 mentioned how Xerxes grandfather Cyrus did the first declaration of human rights. Which is true, for example he decided that everybody should be allowed to practice their religion. Which Iran of course so nobly follows, not at all cutting your head off for praying to the wrong god. I´d say we can´t insult the memory of the ancient Persians anymore than Iran is doing themselves.
It does seem from interviews that Miller didn´t have much more reason to make the comic than to create a story about the underdog winning. Shame really. But I would like if people who try to analyse such things would actually back it up with something. What exactly in the movie gives the impression that the US should invade Iraq for example?

I enjoyed it.

It was slightly spoiled by a bunch of inconsiderate teenagers talking all the way through it, but after we left the cinema I stabbed two of them in the throat, so I felt better. Oh, hang on, no, I just fantasised about doing that all the way through the film and for the next two hours, that's right, my mistake, sorry.

I enjoyed it. It was a comic-book movie, very well done as such. Several bits of it looked almost painted, it was beautiful.

The only detraction really was all the "fantasy" stuff. For the majority of the film it didn't take much suspension of disbelief to view it as a stylised but vaguely historically accurate film (it is based on a real event, after all). One could even forgive Xerxes being portrayed as about ten feet tall, for instance. But then it goes all "Lord of the Rings" with giants, fighting Oliphaunts, and that weird executioner-thing, to say nothing of the totally unnecessary freak orgy. Kinda spoiled it, a bit, all that, I thought.

Worth seeing though.

There's an interesting article in this month's Men's Health magazine about Gerard Butler's training regime for the film - he seems to have practically damaged himself over training for it. Then again, you can't argue with results...

SoRB

Was the film historically accurate in showing the other 4000+ (non-Spartan) soldiers who were also defending the area?

From what I gleaned from the media and vague descriptions it seemed like just 300 Spartans held back a mass army rather than the 300 Spartans being part of a larger force but being the nuttier, gung-ho shit-or-glory part of the whole hacking-match and therefore a bit more heroic than the other thousands of soldiers.

There were some Acadian "amateurs" as the Spartans seemed to regard them in the film but they left prior to the finale.
So yes, it was - sort of - accurate in that regard.

And they did outnumber the Spartans massively in 300 - although as the Spartan king put it, he was the one who brought the more *soldiers*.

I enjoyed watching the film, mainly because when I watch films, I'm ready to suspend my disbelief for a couple of hours and not let petty things like "what a silly thing to have a guy with swords for hands" or the like ruin the film for me.

This is an adaptation of a comic book that in itself is an adapation of an older film from the early 60's called "The 300 Spartans", which was based on the events as described.

So it's an adaptation of an adaptation of an adaptation of events described in folk lore from thousands of years ago.

I don't see why some people get upset about films that haven't proclaimed to be "accurately depicting the actual events as they happened".

It's a movie, folks. Deal with it.
It's the same as if people would be upset with "School of Rock" for not portraying proper pedagogical ways of teaching.

The story of Thermopylae has almost ascended to the status of a legend anyway, so I don't see anything wrong with the film. Some historical films profess to be accurate when they are not, but '300' obviously isn't.

"It's a movie, folks. Deal with it. "

I know that. I had no problem with "The Two Towers", for instance, because that is clearly fantasy. And no problem with "Saving Private Ryan", because that is clearly based on real events.

It's this half-way house thing I'm not that keen on. Thermopylae was a real battle. Xerxes and Leonidas were real people. And there's just so much suspension of disbelief one can manage for a film based on real events, and I just think this one went unnecessarily far down the "fantasy" route. Just an opinion. Not a particularly strongly held one, either.

SoRB

Don't get me wrong, it is tremendously fun, and beautifully filmed. It's just that this is as far as it goes.

By the way, 300 is nto based on "The 300 Spartans". Frank Miller admitted to having seen it, and hence probably being at least a bit influenced by it. However, he insisted that his account is a separate synthesis of the legend and writings of he time (which were a bit fanciful for a start).

Yes, my understanding is that the graphic novel was 'inspired by' but not 'based on' "The 300 Spartans".

Apparently that movie was where Miller first heard of the battle.

I liked the fact that they used some of the original lines, but I don´t think they were delivered that well though. Such as the "fight in the shade"-line.

And then you have the absolutely cringe-worthy

"They look thirsty."
"Let's give them something to drink!"

Before pushing the Persian infantry off the cliff. And that's not even justified by being taken from Herodotus.