What I DONT Like About 300

[quote]nik19 wrote:

Fucking Hitler and his Nordic Master Race bullshit, he even took our ancient Hindu Swastika and made into some white supremacy symbol and now it has been banned. Indians are very very very angry about it, its an ancient Hindu symbol that is around 8000 years old. Its like someone taking the symbol of the cross and demonizing it, resulting in all Christians bieng told that it is illegal to display the sign of the cross in any shape or form.[/quote]

Are you aware that the swastika was used in several indigenous european religions thousands of years before national socialism existed? It is far from being exclusive to hinduism. For example Aries’ throne has a swastika on it in greek mythology, and it is found extensively in norse religious symbology.

And i’ve seen as much evidence supporting the aryan invasion theory as there is against it. No one seems to really know, but it would go a great way towards explaining the evolution of the caste system.

Back to the movie though, I’m going to see it in a few days.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
PGJ wrote:

Why is ANYONE concerned over someone elses opinion of a movie?

Because this is a discussion forum, not a “post your random thoughts where no one will comment on them Forum”.[/quote]

I like pancakes.

Apparently americans aren’t as nerdy as the posters here, is that a crime?

Besides I heard the story got hollywooded and they cut out some serious historical stuff.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
DON D1ESEL wrote:
I really didn’t have any complaints about the presentation of Xerxes. From the trailer I thought he was definitely going to be puny and androgynous…and then he was 7 feet tall and had the voice of Satan (which no one in the theater was prepared for) and put his hands on Leonidas without immediate consequences (and you better believe that gave everyone the willies). He was everything you would expect out of a Frank Miller rendition of an all-powerful god-king. Again, I think i’m going to dress up as him for next Halloween.

Agreed. Whatever giant ex-drag queen they got to play him fit that part like no one else could.[/quote]

I thought they gave his voice some sort of echo effect which made it sound even deeper, at least during the initial meeting.

The spear across the cheek might have changed his pitch a little though…

[quote]mharmar wrote:
Pressfield was alright but I seriously don’t get why people want to blow the guy. Yeah it’s a classic of our time(debateable) but I figured people meant the true classics. I am sure Pressfield would tell everyone to read Herodotus too. [/quote]

He would and he has, to me in fact via e-mail. I contacted him about a paper I wrote while I was in college. This is a snip from the e-mail.

Herodotus and Diodorus were my primary sources;

there’s a book called “Arms and Armor of the Greeks and Persians,” I
don’t
know the author. Peter Green’s “The Persian Wars” is good. There’s an
excellent short book in the Osprey Military series called “The Greek and
Persian Wars” by Jack Cassin-Scott. Victor Davis Hanson’s “Hoplites” is
excellent too. Just go to the library and key in the words “Greek,”
“Persian Wars,” and “armor.” All kinds of stuff will come up.

I just saw the movie and I had mixed feelings as well. The key here is suspension of belief, as earlier stated. 300 isn?t like Gettysburg or Gods and Generals, it is a comic book work of fiction loosely based on an actual event. It is hard to forget what you know about the battle but is essential to appreciate the movie for what it is.

I think the movie is better for people who don’t know the real story since they have nothing to base their reaction on. If they follow up the movie with more reading then they can better appreciate the story.

By the way, Leonidas didn’t have a “speech impediment” - he is Scottish.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
By the way, Leonidas didn’t have a “speech impediment” - he is Scottish.[/quote]

He has a sheep impediment?

i saw the trailer of 300 and i can’t wait to see the movie.
i think frank miller’s comic books rock.
i remember lending a friend of mine a conan the barbarian book. He told me after that the hyborian age actually did exist. I laughed in his face.

i don’t want to hijack the thread but what is the best epic,historical or fantasy movie that you have seen?(question goes to anyone reading this)

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
By the way, Leonidas didn’t have a “speech impediment” - he is Scottish.

He has a sheep impediment?[/quote]

Actually it’s the welsh that are famous sheep shaggers and everything sheepish. not the scottish. they just wear kilts

[quote]PGJ wrote:
Professor X wrote:
PGJ wrote:

Why is ANYONE concerned over someone elses opinion of a movie?

Because this is a discussion forum, not a “post your random thoughts where no one will comment on them Forum”.

Alright, I’ll give you that. Do you not have any complaints about the movie? Surely it didn’t completely meet your expectations. Every movie has those moments where you think “OK, that was dumb.”

[/quote]

Just a tad anal retentive on many topics.

D

[quote]WeaponXXX wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
By the way, Leonidas didn’t have a “speech impediment” - he is Scottish.

He has a sheep impediment?

Actually it’s the welsh that are famous sheep shaggers and everything sheepish. not the scottish. they just wear kilts[/quote]

I thought they just wore the kilts for fast access to the flock.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
DON D1ESEL wrote:
I really didn’t have any complaints about the presentation of Xerxes. From the trailer I thought he was definitely going to be puny and androgynous…and then he was 7 feet tall and had the voice of Satan (which no one in the theater was prepared for) and put his hands on Leonidas without immediate consequences (and you better believe that gave everyone the willies). He was everything you would expect out of a Frank Miller rendition of an all-powerful god-king. Again, I think i’m going to dress up as him for next Halloween.

Agreed. Whatever giant ex-drag queen they got to play him fit that part like no one else could.[/quote]

Rodrigo Santoro

[quote]diesel25 wrote:
Sure, its portrayed in a light to make easy heros of the Spartans - but any group of men brave enough to stand before many-fold their number have an engraved place in history.

[/quote]
Was it really brave or was it just a part of the warring culture of Sparta? As far as ‘Greek’ culture goes Spartans were the ignorant rednecks of their day.

The conflict portrayed in this film is just one more data point in a litany of historical battles to prove how the mindless masses can be wielded against an enemy foe in the interests of the ruling class–weather there was actual reason for conflict or not.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
diesel25 wrote:
Sure, its portrayed in a light to make easy heros of the Spartans - but any group of men brave enough to stand before many-fold their number have an engraved place in history.

Was it really brave or was it just a part of the warring culture of Sparta? As far as ‘Greek’ culture goes Spartans were the ignorant rednecks of their day.

The conflict portrayed in this film is just one more data point in a litany of historical battles to prove how the mindless masses can be wielded against an enemy foe in the interests of the ruling class–weather there was actual reason for conflict or not.[/quote]

A million-man army invades your country, you gotta do something. I’d say there was a reason for conflict. What is mindless about defending your country from an invasion?

Let’s not make this a political thread.

[quote]PGJ wrote:
I’m not running for political office so you can stop the nit-picking.[/quote]

Actually, I’m not nit-picking (for that, see your post with all of your numbered “problems” with the movie); quite the opposite in fact.

I was considering the overall tone behind two subsequent posts of yours on the topic at hand that sent out two very different messages. The whole point of my original post in that other thread - which you so conveniently lifted for this thread - was to get people to stop nit-picking.

And I knew that “politics” comment was coming as soon as I used the term “flip-flop”. Hehe; eh well.

At this point I just figure either a) your simply too hard-headed to admit you changed your tune, or b) you just really don’t “get it” (in regards to this conversation).

At any rate, I think we can at least agree now that the movie was not as ridiculous as you originally thought it was going to be, despite your problems with it.

Touche, good sir. :slight_smile:

[quote]PGJ wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
diesel25 wrote:
Sure, its portrayed in a light to make easy heros of the Spartans - but any group of men brave enough to stand before many-fold their number have an engraved place in history.

Was it really brave or was it just a part of the warring culture of Sparta? As far as ‘Greek’ culture goes Spartans were the ignorant rednecks of their day.

The conflict portrayed in this film is just one more data point in a litany of historical battles to prove how the mindless masses can be wielded against an enemy foe in the interests of the ruling class–weather there was actual reason for conflict or not.

A million-man army invades your country, you gotta do something. I’d say there was a reason for conflict. What is mindless about defending your country from an invasion?

Let’s not make this a political thread.

[/quote]

It is only mindless when you are not really fighting for “your” country or homeland–which may not include this particular incidnet. Let’s just say they weren’t working with an all voluntary military and many solidiers were conscripted from other lands. Volun-told is a more accurate description here.

My biggest problem with military genre films in general is that the soldiers are portrayed as robotic automotons–which doesn’t do modern day military forces any justice. There may be a central hero that stands out in these films but by and large they are just shown as pawns doing the “man’s” bidding. Back in these times it really was about preserving the interest of the ruling class. After all, these were the real stake-holders when all was said and done–politics aside.

[quote]florin wrote:
The Aryan Invasion model provided an easy explanation for the similarities between Sanskrit and the European languages.

How does the other model explain those similarities?

(not criticizing, just asking)[/quote]

[quote]Rah-Knee wrote:

Are you aware that the swastika was used in several indigenous european religions thousands of years before national socialism existed? It is far from being exclusive to hinduism. For example Aries’ throne has a swastika on it in greek mythology, and it is found extensively in norse religious symbology.

And i’ve seen as much evidence supporting the aryan invasion theory as there is against it. No one seems to really know, but it would go a great way towards explaining the evolution of the caste system.

Back to the movie though, I’m going to see it in a few days.

[/quote]

Hi guys, sorry for the late reply…

Ok, I am going to address you both here. This is going to be a lengthy reply so bear with me.

Comprehensive population genetics data along with archeological and astronomical evidence presented at June 23-25, 2006 conference in Dartmouth, MA, overwhelmingly concluded that Indian civilization and its human population is indigenous.
In fact, the original people and culture within the Indian Subcontinent may even be a likely pool for the genetic, linguistic, and cultural origin of the most rest of the world, particularly Europe and Asia.

Leading evidences come from population genetics, which were presented by two leading researchers in the field, Dr. V. K. Kashyap, National Institute of Biologicals, India, and Dr. Peter Underhill of Stanford University in California. Their results generally contradict the notion Aryan invasion/migration theory for the origin of Indian civilization.

The Indian civilization was the most advanced civilization of its time and is the only one that has survived throughout the ages. It is far more ancient than the other major civilizations that sprung up in the world (Greek, Roman, Mayan, Chinese etc) only the ones in Mesopotamia and Egypt were its contemporaries.

I really don’t know what there is to discuss here, the Aryan Invasion Lie has been disproved countless times and even rejected by its inventors and leading ‘scholars’ who promoted its bigoted and false claims.

My first post and the links that I provided explain everything quite well so there really isnt anything more to say about this.

[quote]florin wrote:

The Aryan Invasion model provided an easy explanation for the similarities between Sanskrit and the European languages.

How does the other model explain those similarities?

(not criticizing, just asking)[/quote]

Regarding Sanskrit…

It was the first language on earth, now you have to speak sanskrit to understand the significance of what Im going to say properly.

I speak Sanskrit, Hindi, Urdu, Marathi, Punjabi, Gujurati and English (and I can understand Bengali and Sindhi). I am learning German and Spanish now because I need to know two European languages to ensure I get a job offer after my placement at Goldman Sachs.

Since the very first day the linguists have learned about the existence of the Sanskrit language, they have seen it in the same perfect form. No sound shift, no change in the vowel system, and no addition was ever made in the grammar of the Sanskrit in relation to the formation of the words. It is in its totally perfect form since it was discovered with its 52 letter alphabet.

There is no other example of the same kind in the world; and, in the last 5,000 years, since the Sumerians twittered the communicating words in a very limited scope and their wedge-shaped cuneiform writing came into existence, there was no such genius born who could produce a grammar as perfect as Sanskrit.

Whereas all the languages of the world started from scratch with incomplete alphabet and vowels, not altogether of their own, borrowed from others to improve it, had only a few words in the beginning which were just enough for the people to communicate with each other, and it took a very long time to establish a proper literary form of that language.

Even the advanced international language of today, the English language, when it took its roots from the West Germanic around 800 AD, it was in an absolutely primitive form. As it developed, it assimilated about 30% of its words from Latin and a lot of words from French and Greek. Slowly developing and improving its vocabulary, the style of writing and the grammar, from Old English (which had only two tenses) to Middle English, to Early Modern English, and then to Modern English, it took a very long time.

As late as the beginning of the seventeenth century when its first dictionary was published in London in 1604 it had only 3,000 words
Somewhat similar is the story of all the ancient and modern languages when they started from a very primitive stage of their literal representation with no regular grammar, because the proper grammar was introduced at a much later date when they reached to a significant level of communication.

Now regarding it bieng similar to european languages…

In every society there are many classes of people. Some are educated, some are less educated and some are much less educated. Accordingly, the quality of their speech differs. Thus, during the time of Ved Vyas, when Sanskrit was the spoken language of India, there may have been some people who spoke a localized form of less perfect Sanskrit. As time went on a new language developed in the Bihar area of North India which was a combination of the localized dialect with the apbhransh words of Sanskrit.

The pronunciation of the Sanskrit word changes when it is spoken by the people who are less educated or not educated in the Sanskrit language, and then such words permanently enter into their locally spoken language. These, partly mispronounced words, are called the apbhransh. Still, Sanskrit remained the spoken language of the literary class of India at least up to the time of Shankaracharya.

All over India Shankaracharya debated in Sanskrit language wherever he went. It was around 500 BC. That was the time when the Greek and Latin languages were in the course of their development. Trade communications between India, Persia, Mesopotamia, Syria and Greece were already well established.

Later on India developed colonies, in Cambodia (Kambuja in Sanskrit) in Java, (Chavakam or Yava dwipa) in Sumatra, in Borneo, Socotra (Sukhadhara) and even in Japan. Indian traders had established settlements in Southern China, in the Malayan Peninsula, in Arabia, in Egypt, in Persia, etc., Through the Persians and Arabs, India had cultivated trade relations with the Roman Empire.

The stories of the Puranas and the Bhagwatam had already reached, in a broken form, into those countries which they then adopted in their society and incorporated into their religious mythology. The Iliad and the Odyssey in their earliest and incomplete forms were composed around 600 BC, and later on certain Sanskrit apbhransh words were added in the Greek and Latin languages .

[quote]nik19 wrote:
a lot of stuff about language[/quote]

Wow, nik. Thanks for that amazing post. Foreign language, culture, and history have always fascinated me. I took both French and German in my early education. I still understand French to some degree.

I’ve always wished I had the time and patience to learn several languages. I just never devoted myself to it enough. I also have a slight hearing disability, which, as you can imagine, always made actual communication a bit frustrating for me. Reading and writing, however, was always very easy for me.

Anyway, thanks again.

[quote]Rah-Knee wrote:

Are you aware that the swastika was used in several indigenous european religions thousands of years before national socialism existed? It is far from being exclusive to hinduism. For example Aries’ throne has a swastika on it in greek mythology, and it is found extensively in norse religious symbology.

[/quote]

Yes I am aware, that it was used in several indigenous european religions thousands of years before national socialism existed.

But…

The word swastika is derived from the Sanskrit ‘svastika’ meaning any lucky or auspicious object, and in particular a mark made on persons and things to denote good luck.

It can be translated literally as “little thing associated with well-being”, corresponding roughly to “lucky charm”, or “thing that is auspicious”.

The word first appears in Classical Sanskrit (in the Ramayana and Mahabharata epics).

The swastika is a sacred symbol in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism…religions with billions of adherents worldwide

Hindus often decorate the Swastika with a dot in each quadrant.

It is often imprinted on religious texts, marriage invitations, decorations etc. It is used to mark religious flags in Jainism and to mark Buddhist temples in Asia.

It is said that ancient Indian migrants who went exploring the world during those times were responsible for the diffusion of the symbol in its several forms across Europe. Greece had trade relations with India at that time aswell… when Alexander the Great was in India, there was alot of intermarriage between the greek troops and the local Indian population which led to intermingling of cultures and language as well… heck Asoka the Great Indian Emperor was half greek half Indian as a result.

But irrespective of how the swastika symbol was diffused into the west… it is sacred to Indians and Adolph Hitler twisted the theories of Gustaf Kossinna (1858-1931), to put forward the Aryans as a master race of Indo-Europeans, who were supposed to be Nordic in appearance and directly ancestral to the Germans.

These Nordic invaders were defined as directly opposite to native south Asian peoples, called Dravidians, who were supposed to have been darker-skinned and he took the ancient symbol and used to to represent his disgusting ideology, although he altered it… (his tilts to the left) but fact remains, the fact that it is banned in many parts of the world is a cause of great concern for Indian people abroad because for us, it is a good luck charm!

More on the false Aryan Invasion Theory on Archeology.com