Forbidden Hollywood - Lessons Of '300'

[SUBMAN1]

Interesting take on 300, and hopefully its right since we need more entertaining movies again - ones that forget about PC and go on to be something worth watching again!

-S

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03162007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/forbidden_hollywood_opedcolumnists_david_kahane.ht m?page=0

A tidbit from the article:

...Out went any script that ascribed anything but the purest of motives to Arabs, Iranians and Muslims. Back came everybody's favorite villains: ex- and neo-Nazis (I haven't met any, but I hear they're everywhere) and crazed Christian fundamentalists, lurking out there in flyover country, itching to pull the triggers to establish a theocracy in a country we all know perfectly well was founded by unarmed vegetarian multicultural atheists....

[kiwi_2005]

300 is the best movie i have seen in a long time. True to its comic form, but a blast to watch.

[Heibges]

American's didn't really appreciate at the realistic way Norman Mailer portrays the average American soldier in "Naked and the Dead".

Political Correctness isn't a creation of the 1990's.

It existed in the 1940's also.

Saving Private Ryan" was a PC piece of crap.

"Flags of Our Fathers" told it how it was.

[bradclark1]

I read it then had to ask myself "Did he like it or not?":lol:

[fred8615]

Saving Private Ryan" was a PC piece of crap.
I found it to be nothing more than a bunch of old war movie cliches, with a lot more gore.

[fred8615]

After reading the article, it reminded me of something:
Befor 9/11, they were making a movie based on Tom Clancy's book, The Sum Of All Fears. In the book, Islamic terrorists were the bad guys, but when they made the movie, they changed them to neo-Nazis. I've heard that this was because of pressure from Muslim groups who didn't want Muslims being portrayed as terrorists, though the IMDB listing says it was done because at the time it wasn't considered "realistic" to show Islamic terrorists operating in the U.S.
Whatever the reason, I wonder if those responsible for the change noted the irony after 9/11?? :hmm:

[Oberon]

Hmmm...I think that there may be a hidden or slight passing reference to the current Middle Eastern crisis in the film, the bold 300 (The US) standing up against the Arab hordes, fighting for freedom and liberty (In particular the Queens speech came across as a flag waver) and trying to stir up the rest of Sparta (The EU) to come to their aid, but having to fight against corruption to do so.
Either that, or I'm looking too deeply into it.

Still...bloody good film! The battle scenes against the Persians are nothing short of epic, and little is held back...sure, there may be some historical glitches...but it's pretty good viewing anyway. :up:

[Heibges]

Saving Private Ryan" was a PC piece of crap.
I found it to be nothing more than a bunch of old war movie cliches, with a lot more gore.

I realized watching Sahara (the one with Boggie and the Stewart Tank) the other day, that basically the plot was stolen from there.

I love the old WWII Movies, especially with John Wayne, but they had a certain time and place.

[SUBMAN1]

I read it then had to ask myself "Did he like it or not?":lol:

Yeah - I can't tell either! Given the source, I am guessing he didn't, but I can't tell for sure!

-S

[fred8615]

I realized watching Sahara (the one with Boggie and the Stewart Tank) the other day, that basically the plot was stolen from there.
That was an M3 Lee medium tank, not a Stuart light tank.

PC isn't just in Hollywood productions. BBC America started running a new Robin Hood TV series. But instead of an English longbow and broadsword, this Robin uses a "better" Asian recurved bow, and a Muslim scmitar.

[August]

Saving Private Ryan" was a PC piece of crap. I found it to be nothing more than a bunch of old war movie cliches, with a lot more gore.
I realized watching Sahara (the one with Boggie and the Stewart Tank) the other day, that basically the plot was stolen from there.

How so? The plots are completely different. Rangers on a mission to retrieve a single soldier vs a mixed nationality ad hoc unit cut off behind enemy lines that seizes and holds a water source against a horde of thirsty nazis. Where is the similarity?

[Heibges]

Saving Private Ryan" was a PC piece of crap. I found it to be nothing more than a bunch of old war movie cliches, with a lot more gore.
I realized watching Sahara (the one with Boggie and the Stewart Tank) the other day, that basically the plot was stolen from there.

How so? The plots are completely different. Rangers on a mission to retrieve a single soldier vs a mixed nationality ad hoc unit cut off behind enemy lines that seizes and holds a water source against a horde of thirsty nazis. Where is the similarity?

I would say they are both about Allies from all different backgrounds united happily against the common mindless enemy.

In Sahara you have some Yanks, some Brits, a Frenchman, and Sudanese Soldier.

In SPR you have the Italian, the Jew, and all the other members of the American melting pot. If you did not know better, you might even think the US Army was integrated because Vin Diesel in real life is half black.

Remember in Sahara, how Boggie gets mad when the German Pilot shows racism towards the Sudanese Soldier.

Remember in SPR, when Melisch flashes his star of David, and yells Juden at the German prisoners.

Both these are totally PC, and far from the truth. But you can see why it was that way in Sahara. There is no reason for SPR to sugarcoat the truth.

It was extremely difficult to be Black or Jewish at this time. I'm sure it's no piece of cake today.