PDA

View Full Version : Has Political Correctness Gone Mad ??



MB_Avro_UK
03-27-2008, 08:02 PM
Hi all,

Today, I watched on DVD the film 'Atonement'. It won major awards last year.

It was made by the British film industry who are well known for denigrating anything to do with the British military, police or anything relating to British history.

Not wishing to spoil the film for any viewers but there was an incident portrayed in the film which I take exception to.

The incident related to three British soldiers making their way to Dunkirk in 1940. For some reason, one of the soldiers was black. There were no black soldiers in the British Army at that time.

Does anyone remember the film 'Zulu'?

It related the true account of 120 Welsh/English soldiers in 1879 fighting against a few thousand Zulu warriors in South Africa.

Today, the Zulu people and the descendents of the soldiers have great respect for each other.

But, if the Zulu people in the film had a number of white guys inserted into their side for the sake of political correctness , how would they have considered this?

Just a thought.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

MB_Avro_UK
03-27-2008, 08:02 PM
Hi all,

Today, I watched on DVD the film 'Atonement'. It won major awards last year.

It was made by the British film industry who are well known for denigrating anything to do with the British military, police or anything relating to British history.

Not wishing to spoil the film for any viewers but there was an incident portrayed in the film which I take exception to.

The incident related to three British soldiers making their way to Dunkirk in 1940. For some reason, one of the soldiers was black. There were no black soldiers in the British Army at that time.

Does anyone remember the film 'Zulu'?

It related the true account of 120 Welsh/English soldiers in 1879 fighting against a few thousand Zulu warriors in South Africa.

Today, the Zulu people and the descendents of the soldiers have great respect for each other.

But, if the Zulu people in the film had a number of white guys inserted into their side for the sake of political correctness , how would they have considered this?

Just a thought.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Airmail109
03-27-2008, 08:06 PM
Well I have nothing to say, I don't feel like being labeled by either side in the 20 pager thats going to result from this.

All I can say is blahhh, there have been plenty of white dudes saving native American tribes single handidly in films.

stalkervision
03-27-2008, 08:09 PM
P.C. is a bogus attempt to rewrite history..

heywooood
03-27-2008, 08:11 PM
Has Political Correctness Gone Mad?


yes - yes it has...

I saw the 300 yesterday and it was nothing like Sin City..soooo...uhh...you know.

zardozid
03-27-2008, 11:56 PM
No blacks at all? Wow...didn't know that.

Are you bothered by the fact that the film is inaccurate, or does it bother you that some people might get the wrong idea about blacks in the English service?

Its only a movie...I'm not sure that this qualifies as "PC gone mad". I don't think the film makers had an agenda when they cast a black soldier in the British army. I think they just cast an interesting actor in the role. The weird thing is that I didn't even think about him being "out of place"...I guess I just assumed that in the UK a black guy could end up in the army (somehow)...

The US military was segregated...and although it was rare that you might find a black soldier walking with a white soldier I suppose it could have happend given the right circumstances....But you are saying that their was no blacks in the whole of the English service? I never knew that...

jadger
03-28-2008, 12:03 AM
have you read the book "Atonement"? because the movie is based on the book. I was supposed to read it for my contemporary literature class in college a few years ago, and gathering by the conversation in class, it was a good book. Before you blast the movie for being overly PC, make sure the character is not black in the book. I don't know if he was black in the book or not, and I sold my copy, so I cant look it up for you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif Just saying, maybe they were following the faulty story of the book rather than real history.

If I remember correctly from the book, he is put in jail (falsely) for raping his lover, and then gets sent into the British army while in jail to serve his jail sentence that way. I dont know if that sort of thing happened, but to me that sounds ridiculous, sending people with reason to desert into your frontlines. did the prison army thing happen IRL?

zardozid
03-28-2008, 12:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jadger:
have you read the book "Atonement"? because the movie is based on the book. I was supposed to read it for my contemporary literature class in college a few years ago, and gathering by the conversation in class, it was a good book. Before you blast the movie for being overly PC, make sure the character is not black in the book. I don't know if he was black in the book or not, and I sold my copy, so I cant look it up for you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif Just saying, maybe they were following the faulty story of the book rather than real history.

If I remember correctly from the book, he is put in jail (falsely) for raping his lover, and then gets sent into the British army while in jail to serve his jail sentence that way. I dont know if that sort of thing happened, but to me that sounds ridiculous, sending people with reason to desert into your frontlines. did the prison army thing happen IRL? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe they are trying to suggest that he is in a Regiment of "misfits"? The Regiment is made up of criminals, blacks, and whoever else they don't know what to do with (I don't know)?

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
03-28-2008, 12:48 AM
Never mind that bolox what about those little fury bastiges in Return of the Jedi!!! Every one knows there were no Ewoks in the Rebel alliance until after the death of Palpatine and that was just positive discrimination to offset the tribbles in the federation !!!

WN_Barbarossa
03-28-2008, 04:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

Today, I watched on DVD the film 'Atonement'. It won major awards last year.

It was made by the British film industry who are well known for denigrating anything to do with the British military, police or anything relating to British history.

Not wishing to spoil the film for any viewers but there was an incident portrayed in the film which I take exception to.

The incident related to three British soldiers making their way to Dunkirk in 1940. For some reason, one of the soldiers was black. There were no black soldiers in the British Army at that time.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
Oh, your expectations are too high. Complain when you see a "historical movie" about the British Army, where every single platoon has a black, an Indian, a Chinese, a g@y and a lesbian member.

SeaFireLIV
03-28-2008, 05:11 AM
There is ONE photograph I have seen that has always stuck in my mind.

It`s a picture of a black soldier in full British troop kit with his hands up being searched by a german soldier. I believe the period was at Dunkirk.

I have asked time and again what the story about this one unique scene was about - no replies.

Now I don `t know if there were any black British soldiers at dunkirk, and there likely weren`t any, but until I find out the story behind the photo I saw I`m not saying that there were absolutely none.

Of course, if there were no black soldiers at Dunkirk, then there should be none in re-enactments. I fully agree.

I will try and find that photo, but hopefully, someone will find it sooner and know more on it than than me.

p.s. I haven`t seen the film, btw.

edit:

Well, so far, i`ve discovered that there were some black French soldiers during the battle for france, most of which were executed... I`ve learnt something already.

Still looking...

tagTaken2
03-28-2008, 05:59 AM
Political correctness is mad by definition.

It's great to tell a story from a different and perhaps neglected perspective, but adding historically untrue material to appease interest groups does everyone a disservice.

I don't know why everyone gets so up in arms about '300'. It was a comic book retelling of a legend, and the narrator was doing what most storytellers do, which is exaggerate.
I thought it rocked, as long as people understood the context of the telling.

Pirschjaeger
03-28-2008, 06:07 AM
I really liked 300 too.

This is the first time I've seen a motion comic book. To me, this was no more factual or historical than Star Wars.

It's just entertainment. It's too bad some were disappointed due to their expectations of historical accuracy.

It's really all about expectations.


As for the possibilities of black soldiers in British uniforms, why not?

IIRC, the Canadians were short of uniforms at the beginning of the war. Some even wore their father's uniform from the first WW. Some wore British uniforms. I see no reason why a black commonwealth soldier wouldn't have worn a British uniform, even if he wasn't from Britain.

Fritz

Worf101
03-28-2008, 06:46 AM
There were Black Soldiers in the British Army at that time, they might have been commonwealth troops but I'm sure someone wore the uni. If not, give em hell.

But remember when the movie "Flyboys" came out and there was a black fighter pilot depicted, some folks cried foul in the exact same manner you did, only to be proven wrong by the facts. Make sure YOU'RE right before you start screaming about Political Correctness.

Da Worfster

SeaFireLIV
03-28-2008, 06:49 AM
Well found a lot of interesting stuff, but Black brit soldiers at dunkirk- nothing. Now I`ve only looked for a couple of hours and maybe someone else will find something.

Now if that film just put black soldiers in for PC without any evidence at all then that`s just ****. Pretending history had things in it it did not does a disservice to ALL people.
As I have already discovered, Black people made many STRONG contributions in action in other parts of WWII along with white and other folks.

History should teach, not preach just to please a particular section of society. It`s what we LEARN from history that teaches us what to do right in the future, especially important recent history.

Let`s not forget that the percentage of black people in Brit service was quite small, so it was quite easy for a black guy to be a soldier in the British army at dunkirk and be completely unnoticed by 99% of the world.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
03-28-2008, 07:30 AM
Nothing concrete on Dunkirk as yet - but of related interest:-

There was certainly at least one black paratrooper at Pegasus Bridge. He's named in Stephen Ambrose's book, saying "I don't think I'll bother" when the boot polish face cammo was being passed around in the glider.

Royal Engineers:

http://www.wewerethere.defencedynamics.mod.uk/ww2/images/m_sappers_lg.jpg

luftluuver
03-28-2008, 08:24 AM
What are the motorcycles? The one on the left looks like a Royal Enfield.

jadger
03-28-2008, 10:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Worf101:
But remember when the movie "Flyboys" came out and there was a black fighter pilot depicted, some folks cried foul in the exact same manner you did, only to be proven wrong by the facts. Make sure YOU'RE right before you start screaming about Political Correctness.

Da Worfster </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but even if there were black soldiers in the army of any country at the time, they were in a very small minority. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be depicted in movies, but every war movie now has atleast one black man in it, who is always being persecuted by atleast one white man, and will eventually rise to overcome it and either the racist white man will rehabilitate or die in combat, after the black man saves his life of course.

My point being, that even thought there were black people in the army, by watching movies these days you'd expect to have seen one in almost every platoon IRL. It's just not realistic.

jadger
03-28-2008, 10:02 AM
P.S. for those that see the movie, was this black soldier a combat troop or was he simply a logistics soldier behind the lines that got caught up in the scramble at Dunkirk?

SeaFireLIV
03-28-2008, 10:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jadger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Worf101:
But remember when the movie "Flyboys" came out and there was a black fighter pilot depicted, some folks cried foul in the exact same manner you did, only to be proven wrong by the facts. Make sure YOU'RE right before you start screaming about Political Correctness.

Da Worfster </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but even if there were black soldiers in the army of any country at the time, they were in a very small minority. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be depicted in movies, but every war movie now has atleast one black man in it, who is always being persecuted by atleast one white man, and will eventually rise to overcome it and either the racist white man will rehabilitate or die in combat, after the black man saves his life of course.

My point being, that even thought there were black people in the army, by watching movies these days you'd expect to have seen one in almost every platoon IRL. It's just not realistic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, you have a point. Black people in the forces were a tiny percentage of the main forces unless you depicted actual Indian regiments in India or such like. But in white armies the percentage was tiny, still is now and I have no qualms about that. In my experience, though, I don`t recall seeing black blokes in every recent white-based (I hate talking like this) war film . I watched Flags of their Fathers and letters from Iwo Jima, Saving private Ryan, Thin Red Line and a few others and only in SPR do I remember a prominent black guy in it and even he looked pretty white at the time, took me a while to figure him out. If there were black people in the other films they must have been stand-in parts.

I`ll have to watch Atonement at some point to see how the black soldiers are depicted and their role, although I was avoiding it as some dumb romantic twiddle.

Aaron_GT
03-28-2008, 11:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">unless you depicted actual Indian regiments in India </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or the Indian contingents of the British Army fighting in the Western Desert and then Italy?

jadger
03-28-2008, 12:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In my experience, though, I don`t recall seeing black blokes in every recent white-based (I hate talking like this) war film . I watched Flags of their Fathers and letters from Iwo Jima, Saving private Ryan, Thin Red Line and a few others and only in SPR do I remember a prominent black guy in it and even he looked pretty white at the time, took me a while to figure him out. If there were black people in the other films they must have been stand-in parts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was more in reference to the not-so-serious war films lately, as SPR is getting rather old now. Like Fly Boys as someone mentioned earlier(not saying there weren't black aviators IRL, just that it wasnt a seriously researched war film). Or "300" if you want to call it a war film. Or Pearl Harbour, there's a great example of what I was talking about with Cuba Gooding Jr. Not that his character was a real historical person, but the story that they make up

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Or the Indian contingents of the British Army fighting in the Western Desert and then Italy? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

or the Legion Freies Indien (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Legion)

SeaFireLIV
03-28-2008, 12:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">unless you depicted actual Indian regiments in India </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or the Indian contingents of the British Army fighting in the Western Desert and then Italy? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, that`s what I meant...

MB_Avro_UK
03-28-2008, 06:03 PM
Hi all,

From my research (and I'm not the best at researching http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) there were no Black guys in the British Army in 1940. The recruits were white and drawn from the British Isles.

Also, there were no ex-convicts in the British Army. It was a professional force albeit with outdated tactics.

After 1940 there were many Blacks in the British military, mostly from Jamaica. Many ended up as pilots and aircrew. There appears to have been no discrimination from what I have read.

The French Army had many Black guys in her Army in 1940 and drawn from her Empire.

The film Atonement, as in my original post related in it's later stages to three front line soldiers who had been cut off from their unit during the 1940 Dunkirk episode.

My original post is not based on racism but historical facts.

Anyone seen the film '633 Squadron'? It was made in the 1960s and featured a pilot from India in the RAF which was accurate for 1943/44.

Anyway,thanks for the intelligent contributions to this thread http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

MB_Avro_UK
03-28-2008, 07:21 PM
Hi all,

Here's a clip from 'Atonement' which relates to my original post.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2cdBuomTbw&feature=related

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

SeaFireLIV
03-28-2008, 07:21 PM
Thanks to you especially, MB_Avro_UK, since I actually learned a few things on the way. And the whole thing was maturely dealt with too.

zardozid
03-28-2008, 09:35 PM
The issue of "people of color" turning up in a historical movie where they probably wouldn't have (in real life) is not a new one....a lot of people felt that Jim Brown in the 1967 movie "The Dirty Dozen" (http://imdb.com/title/tt0061578/) was an obvious attempt to satisfy the tastes of 1960's civil rights America, and was "un-realistic"...

The funny thing here is that traditionally speaking if you saw a leading black character in a war movie chances are that he would be dead before then end of the movie...

The real issue isn't that "people of color" are turning up in historical movies out of historical context (this has been happening in Hollywood for the last 40 or 50 years), but is that these leading "characters of color" are surviving the movie (they are not dead hero's). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tab_Flettner
03-28-2008, 09:45 PM
Well, if you were going to do a movie about the RAF during the battle of France / Britain, you probably wouldn't think of casting this guy, either...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v712/mr_coffee/MahinderSinghPujjiBOBpilot.jpg

SeaFireLIV
03-28-2008, 10:04 PM
People have expectations and sometimes the truth doesn`t suit the `peoples` expectations.

One thing I do know and that is `men of colour` (a strange term, but pretty 1940s) today are greatly encouraged, proud and pleased when they see that their forefathers actually contributed in a postive way to bringing an end to WWII. It makes `men of colour` feel that perhaps they can actually help positively in the world today, no matter what obstacles may obviously or subtlely try to discourage them.

And like all people, it`s easy to be discouraged by others who would have it so.

jadger
03-29-2008, 12:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

Here's a clip from 'Atonement' which relates to my original post.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2cdBuomTbw&feature=related

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the black guy is fat as well!!! I doubt he would of made it into a real army.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Also, there were no ex-convicts in the British Army. It was a professional force albeit with outdated tactics </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the book, I believe he was still in jail, and was given his freedom if he would enlist.

leitmotiv
03-29-2008, 09:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

Today, I watched on DVD the film 'Atonement'. It won major awards last year.

It was made by the British film industry who are well known for denigrating anything to do with the British military, police or anything relating to British history.

Not wishing to spoil the film for any viewers but there was an incident portrayed in the film which I take exception to.

The incident related to three British soldiers making their way to Dunkirk in 1940. For some reason, one of the soldiers was black. There were no black soldiers in the British Army at that time.

Does anyone remember the film 'Zulu'?

It related the true account of 120 Welsh/English soldiers in 1879 fighting against a few thousand Zulu warriors in South Africa.

Today, the Zulu people and the descendents of the soldiers have great respect for each other.

But, if the Zulu people in the film had a number of white guys inserted into their side for the sake of political correctness , how would they have considered this?

Just a thought.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In a word, yes. Political zealots of all flavors always sacrifice history on the altar of "making a statement."

Badsight-
03-29-2008, 05:55 PM
300 is just another reason why hollywood shouldnt be allowed to use any people or place names from history

ever

its not that eductaed people can understand its a load of **** , its that some people take their history from hollywood

if the masses wernt so eager to swallow up this **** it wouldnt be so bad

Xiolablu3
03-29-2008, 07:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
300 is just another reason why hollywood shouldnt be allowed to use any people or place names from history

ever

its not that eductaed people can understand its a load of **** , its that some people take their history from hollywood

if the masses wernt so eager to swallow up this **** it wouldnt be so bad </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


300 was a comic book based very, very loosely on a real story.

It wasnt suposed to be realistic, it was by the same director as SIn City, and in the same sort of style.

It wasnt supposed to be anything like realistic. Once you watch it in the correct context its a really entertaining film IMO.

Airmail109
03-29-2008, 07:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
300 is just another reason why hollywood shouldnt be allowed to use any people or place names from history

ever

its not that eductaed people can understand its a load of **** , its that some people take their history from hollywood

if the masses wernt so eager to swallow up this **** it wouldnt be so bad </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


300 was a comic book based very, very loosely on a real story.

It wasnt suposed to be realistic, it was by the same director as SIn City, and in the same sort of style.

It wasnt supposed to be anything like realistic. Once you watch it in the correct context its a really entertaining film IMO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct context?

It was originally seen as the ultimate man film. Filled with fighting, blood, death and sex scenes of a varied nature. But the main focus of the film was on sweaty men, in skirts and other tight clothing, that people questioned 'What Men' was the film aimed at. Although the sex scenes complimented the film for being 'The Ultimate Man' film (especially the lesbian scene) there were many men complaining that the film made them question sexuality. One account was from a friend who, after seeing the film, commented "It made me feel so gay that I had to go watch a years worth of porn in a day."

A reported 25% of the audience suffered major brain trauma by the confusing plot and the lack of talking animals. Another 12% died from homophobia and 0.67% suffered a bad case of conspiracy theory syndrome and constipation.

jadger
03-29-2008, 11:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
300 is just another reason why hollywood shouldnt be allowed to use any people or place names from history

ever

its not that eductaed people can understand its a load of **** , its that some people take their history from hollywood

if the masses wernt so eager to swallow up this **** it wouldnt be so bad </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


300 was a comic book based very, very loosely on a real story.

It wasnt suposed to be realistic, it was by the same director as SIn City, and in the same sort of style.

It wasnt supposed to be anything like realistic. Once you watch it in the correct context its a really entertaining film IMO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ya, it's based VERY loosely on historical occurences. And a lot of the people that go to see quasi-historical movies aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the shed if you know what I mean. Throughout high school I was known as a history buff, so I'd often have people coming up to me saying like "did they really do this in that time period" and blah blah blah, it got tired pretty quick to have to correct dumb people.

Pirschjaeger
03-30-2008, 02:50 AM
I think you are confusing intelligence with knowledge.

Two different animals.

Fritz

GIAP.Shura
03-30-2008, 04:15 AM
No, political correctness has not gone mad, at least not in Atonement. The makers of the film Atonement, just like those of Flyboys, are following the principle of appealing to as wide an audience as possible by having a diverse range of characters the audience can sympathise with.

Now, the claim that there were no black people at Dunkirk may or may not be true. Personally, I haven't gone through all the regimental photos of every soldier present so I can't make a point either way. However, it is known that there were black soldiers during the war and frequently filmakers will compress events or occurrences either into a single character or timeframe for narrative purposes.

The point is, it is a fictional film set in a historical background. Not a historical document nor a recreation of historical fact. The point of the film is the relationship between the two leads, not necessarily an accurate account of the composition of the British military.

300 isn't a bad film because of its "historical inaccuracies", it is a bad film because it is complete drivel.

Aaron_GT
03-31-2008, 04:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Well, that`s what I meant... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, I must have misunderstood your post!

I think a lot of people forget (and typical war films about the Western Desert, with James Mason, et al don't help) that there was a significant Indian presence. Naveen Andrews playing an Indian in the English Patient is one of the few exceptions, and doesn't really indicate that there were entire Indian Army units involved. Ditto WW1, although the French Army probably used greater number of non-European troops in WW1 (some volunteered, some were 'volunteered').

zardozid
04-01-2008, 12:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GIAP.Shura:
No, political correctness has not gone mad, at least not in Atonement. The makers of the film Atonement, just like those of Flyboys, are following the principle of appealing to as wide an audience as possible by having a diverse range of characters the audience can sympathise with.

Now, the claim that there were no black people at Dunkirk may or may not be true. Personally, I haven't gone through all the regimental photos of every soldier present so I can't make a point either way. However, it is known that there were black soldiers during the war and frequently filmakers will compress events or occurrences either into a single character or timeframe for narrative purposes.

The point is, it is a fictional film set in a historical background. Not a historical document nor a recreation of historical fact. The point of the film is the relationship between the two leads, not necessarily an accurate account of the composition of the British military.

300 isn't a bad film because of its "historical inaccuracies", it is a bad film because it is complete drivel. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1 well said and sensible...



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101

Correct context?

It was originally seen as the ultimate man film. Filled with fighting, blood, death and sex scenes of a varied nature. But the main focus of the film was on sweaty men, in skirts and other tight clothing, that people questioned 'What Men' was the film aimed at. Although the sex scenes complimented the film for being 'The Ultimate Man' film (especially the lesbian scene) there were many men complaining that the film made them question sexuality. One account was from a friend who, after seeing the film, commented "It made me feel so gay that I had to go watch a years worth of porn in a day."

A reported 25% of the audience suffered major brain trauma by the confusing plot and the lack of talking animals. Another 12% died from homophobia and 0.67% suffered a bad case of conspiracy theory syndrome and constipation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I think I'm a pretty "open minded" person, but I have too admit that I had a hard time sitting through "300" without taking a few breaks... Their was a couple of times that I remember wondering who this movie was made for(and who might "really" enjoy it). Half way through the movie I remember checking my arm pits because I could swear that I could smell "b.o.". The movie is like spending 2 hours in a stinky locker room (not my idea of heaven). "men, men, men, men......" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

HotelBushranger
04-01-2008, 01:12 AM
Are you lot serious?! Seems to me that if you're accusing 300 of being homo-erotic or some such you should be reviewing your own sexuality http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif (not that I've anything against homosexuals)

All the people that are accusing 300 of historical inaccuracy are in the wrong context: 300 is the sort of story a father would tell his son at bedtime; filled with amazing characters and exaggerated circumstances. Not for a second should 300 be considered factual in any way.

IMO, it is the ultimate man movie. I certainly know it got my blood pumping when I watched it with my mates. Is there anything wrong with that? Absolutely not.

As for the thread topic, I don't really have anything much new to add http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

jadger
04-01-2008, 01:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
I think you are confusing intelligence with knowledge.

Two different animals.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

not when they fail to budge from their viewpoint because they saw it on the silver screen, so it must be true!!!

Capt.LoneRanger
04-01-2008, 01:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

Today, I watched on DVD the film 'Atonement'. It won major awards last year.

It was made by the British film industry who are well known for denigrating anything to do with the British military, police or anything relating to British history.

Not wishing to spoil the film for any viewers but there was an incident portrayed in the film which I take exception to.

The incident related to three British soldiers making their way to Dunkirk in 1940. For some reason, one of the soldiers was black. There were no black soldiers in the British Army at that time.

Does anyone remember the film 'Zulu'?

It related the true account of 120 Welsh/English soldiers in 1879 fighting against a few thousand Zulu warriors in South Africa.

Today, the Zulu people and the descendents of the soldiers have great respect for each other.

But, if the Zulu people in the film had a number of white guys inserted into their side for the sake of political correctness , how would they have considered this?

Just a thought.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry, maybe I got it wrong, but are you offended because there was a black soldier displayed in a Royal Army Uniform? Hell, the "bada$$ racist evil nazi" Wehrmacht had black people in their lines and the Commonwealth spread over many continents on the southern half of the globe, fighting for freedom for all mankind is rigidly banning black people from their troops - even when fighting in Africa? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

If that was offensive, IMHO it would be towards the black people.

And that Anglo-Zulu war you mentioned was not at all a fight between skin-colors. It was the defense against an unauthorized invasion by British troops and Cetshwayo didn't make it an offensive war (crossing the boundaries of his country) even after the second invasion by the British.
Infact this single battle you mentioned was just by chance against no black colored people: On March 28th, 1879 during the Battle of Hlobane which was a total desaster for the British forces, 360 mounted cavalry and 200 regional forces (Uhamu's) were attacking 2 plateaus held by the Zulu and were forced to retreat after heavy losses.

Pirschjaeger
04-01-2008, 01:45 AM
I don't get it.

His mom was a babe.

His wife was a babe.

There was a bra-less babe wearing see-through on the mountain.

The circus freak's harem had babes.

The movie was based on a comic book, not history.

The story was about 300 men fighting a battle again 1,000's of men. See movie title.

The battle ground was nowhere near villages or cities.

What did you guys expect? 'Fly Boys'? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Some claim it was a 'homo' movie. Is it because they didn't wear protective gear, smack each other on the butt, and jump on each other for every little victory?

You guys are over-analyzing the movie. Besides being the first movie of its kind, it was meant to be nothing more than entertaining. The complete movie was filmed with bluescreen. That fact alone make the movie a 'must see'.

I took the movie for what it was and enjoyed it. Try watching it again for what it was.

Advice (LeBillFish excluded): Stop focusing on men wearing next to nothing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz

jadger
04-01-2008, 01:49 AM
You're right, you did get it wrong. He's not offended because a black soldier in a British Army Uniform. He's offended because the Black actor is only there to fill out PC quota in modern media. Seriously, watch most TV commercials. I know in Canada today almost all TV commercials have a visible minority in them in a major role. despite them being a small fringe group in reality, on TV they have become the majority, as that's all you see.

You totally misunderstood the context of his Zulu statement. There were no white people in the Zulu culture IRL, or at most a very small small fringe group of probably missionaries. what he said is not that it was a black v. white war, but that if some white guys had been added into Zulu ranks in the movie, this would be very strange looking.

Capt.LoneRanger
04-01-2008, 02:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jadger:
You're right, you did get it wrong. He's not offended because a black soldier in a British Army Uniform. He's offended because the Black actor is only there to fill out PC quota in modern media. Seriously, watch most TV commercials. I know in Canada today almost all TV commercials have a visible minority in them in a major role. despite them being a small fringe group in reality, on TV they have become the majority, as that's all you see.

You totally misunderstood the context of his Zulu statement. There were no white people in the Zulu culture IRL, or at most a very small small fringe group of probably missionaries. what he said is not that it was a black v. white war, but that if some white guys had been added into Zulu ranks in the movie, this would be very strange looking. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'm really glad I got both wrong, honestly. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

To the Zulu-thing: Considering the in depth adaptation of European military training and the tactical ideas Shaka adopted for his offensive war in Afrika speak a clear language that there were European forces involved on their side, too. It is also known that the Zulus had contact to South Africa, where many European camps and training-facilities were located.

SeaFireLIV
04-01-2008, 02:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zardozid:


LOL! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I think I'm a pretty "open minded" person, but I have too admit that I had a hard time sitting through "300" without taking a few breaks... Their was a couple of times that I remember wondering who this movie was made for(and who might "really" enjoy it). Half way through the movie I remember checking my arm pits because I could swear that I could smell "b.o.". The movie is like spending 2 hours in a stinky locker room (not my idea of heaven). "men, men, men, men......" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You completely got the wrong end of the stick here. You are looking at it from a homo-erotic angle which is not what it`s about (i`m sure some want to think of it that way).

If you read comics such as Conan, King Kull and similar you`ll see that 300, though loosely based off a historical story, is all about heroic men with muscles being, well MEN and women being basically, women. The men do the classic-heroic men thing, shout, punch each-other and screw any female they find (but the female always wants it). And die- heroically in as much blood as possible. And the fact that the men wear little, well the point is that they are so macho, so brave, that armour is for `COWARDS` as I`m sure the boss would`ve shouted at you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

On a small point, it was was the way of many real life barbarian tribes in history to go into battle completely naked to show that they had no fear of the well armoured Romans, so the idea is not so ridiculous at all.

You need to understand the mind-set and don`t let it be hijacked by people who might want to put `gay` into the context.

I draw this stuff all the time, though you`ll always see a few very scantily-clad females just to point out the fact that the men are MEN.

It`s a film to make men feel good about being men, even if it`s a fantasy.

I fully agree with HotelBushranger.

GIAP.Shura
04-01-2008, 03:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
Are you lot serious?! Seems to me that if you're accusing 300 of being homo-erotic or some such you should be reviewing your own sexuality http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif (not that I've anything against homosexuals)

All the people that are accusing 300 of historical inaccuracy are in the wrong context: 300 is the sort of story a father would tell his son at bedtime; filled with amazing characters and exaggerated circumstances. Not for a second should 300 be considered factual in any way.

IMO, it is the ultimate man movie. I certainly know it got my blood pumping when I watched it with my mates. Is there anything wrong with that? Absolutely not.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Denial. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Don_X
04-01-2008, 05:05 AM
Speaking of political correctness; I recently heard of a MSFS instructor who objected to the use of "Roger" on coms, claiming it had another slang meaning.

Now I understand the response:-

me " theres 8 190s on my 6 help!"

squad "Roger that!"

HotelBushranger
04-01-2008, 07:13 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Breeze147
04-01-2008, 11:21 AM
There were no black soldiers in Saving Private Ryan, therefore it has to be true.



I know, I'm a pr*ck.

zardozid
04-01-2008, 02:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zardozid:


LOL! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I think I'm a pretty "open minded" person, but I have too admit that I had a hard time sitting through "300" without taking a few breaks... Their was a couple of times that I remember wondering who this movie was made for(and who might "really" enjoy it). Half way through the movie I remember checking my arm pits because I could swear that I could smell "b.o.". The movie is like spending 2 hours in a stinky locker room (not my idea of heaven). "men, men, men, men......" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You completely got the wrong end of the stick here. You are looking at it from a homo-erotic angle which is not what it`s about (i`m sure some want to think of it that way).

If you read comics such as Conan, King Kull and similar you`ll see that 300, though loosely based off a historical story, is all about heroic men with muscles being, well MEN and women being basically, women. The men do the classic-heroic men thing, shout, punch each-other and screw any female they find (but the female always wants it). And die- heroically in as much blood as possible. And the fact that the men wear little, well the point is that they are so macho, so brave, that armour is for `COWARDS` as I`m sure the boss would`ve shouted at you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

On a small point, it was was the way of many real life barbarian tribes in history to go into battle completely naked to show that they had no fear of the well armoured Romans, so the idea is not so ridiculous at all.

You need to understand the mind-set and don`t let it be hijacked by people who might want to put `gay` into the context.

I draw this stuff all the time, though you`ll always see a few very scantily-clad females just to point out the fact that the men are MEN.

It`s a film to make men feel good about being men, even if it`s a fantasy.

I fully agree with HotelBushranger. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/ccarter/2005/07/25/airplane.jpg
"...Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?"

DuxCorvan
04-01-2008, 03:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
It`s a film to make men feel good about being men, even if it`s a fantasy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a film to make the normal guy feel complexed about his unfit body. A glorification of physical much as a compendium of nazi aesthetic virtues. To summarize this, all the evil people in the movie are deformed, freakish or plain ugly dark-skinned people, to contrast their physical "sins" with the beautiful "virtues" of the "good", handsome fair-skinned supermen. Just the kind of racism and exaltation of good looks lesson you don't want your son to learn. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Airmail109
04-01-2008, 03:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
It`s a film to make men feel good about being men, even if it`s a fantasy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a film to make the normal guy feel complexed about his unfit body. A glorification of physical much as a compendium of nazi aesthetic virtues. To summarize this, all the evil people in the movie are deformed, freakish or plain ugly dark-skinned people, to contrast their physical "sins" with the beautiful "virtues" of the "good", handsome fair-skinned supermen. Just the kind of racism and exaltation of good looks lesson you don't want your son to learn. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good points

Pirschjaeger
04-01-2008, 03:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
It's a film to make the normal guy feel complexed about his unfit body. A glorification of physical much as a compendium of nazi aesthetic virtues. To summarize this, all the evil people in the movie are deformed, freakish or plain ugly dark-skinned people, to contrast their physical "sins" with the beautiful "virtues" of the "good", handsome fair-skinned supermen. Just the kind of racism and exaltation of good looks lesson you don't want your son to learn. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Most were from Persia. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Keep in mind, the 'good guys' tossed imperfect babies off a cliff. Obviously there was imperfections on both sides, only, the 'bad guys' let their imperfections live.


Let's make a movie about overweight people wearing Inuit winter fashions.

'Battle of the Bulges'? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Star Wars: Princess Lea and Skywalkwer wore light to white while Darth Vader always wore black. It must be racism!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

You guys crack me up. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

EDIT: The worst of the bunch, the traitor politician, was as white as rice.

Fritz

Airmail109
04-01-2008, 03:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
It's a film to make the normal guy feel complexed about his unfit body. A glorification of physical much as a compendium of nazi aesthetic virtues. To summarize this, all the evil people in the movie are deformed, freakish or plain ugly dark-skinned people, to contrast their physical "sins" with the beautiful "virtues" of the "good", handsome fair-skinned supermen. Just the kind of racism and exaltation of good looks lesson you don't want your son to learn. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Most were from Persia. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Keep in mind, the 'good guys' tossed imperfect babies off a cliff. Obviously there was imperfections on both sides, only, the 'bad guys' let their imperfections live.


Let's make a movie about overweight people wearing Inuit winter fashions.

'Battle of the Bulges'? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Star Wars: Princess Lea and Skywalkwer wore light to white while Darth Vader always wore black. It must be racism!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

You guys crack me up. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

EDIT: The worst of the bunch, the traitor politician, was as white as rice.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find this hilarious

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuqBDmGkbIQ

Don_X
04-01-2008, 04:39 PM
Suggest you check this out 761st-tank-battalion (http://www.historynet.com/world-war-ii-761st-tank-battalion.htm)

Messaschnitzel
04-01-2008, 04:42 PM
From what it looks like, the equation is men+nekkid+sweat+swords+shields= beaucoup heaux-meaux cinma. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

I didn't care for "300" because of the comic book aspect of filming, and the overuse of CGI. OTOH, I really liked the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. With "300", the battle scenes were ruined for me with the "Matrix bullet time" fighting sequences.

Another movie that I like is "Alexander". The only thing that detracted from the movie was the homoerotic obsession that Oliver Stone added to the movie. Historically speaking, I don't care whether Alex and crew were brutti-frutti or not. If I go see a movie about Spartans, Vikings, Attila, or Gengis Khan, I want to see fighting with lots of carnage and destruction! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

IMO, the battle of Gaugamela between Alexander and Darius was filmed very well:

The Battle of Gaugamela (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1aSsdLsuBM)

DuxCorvan
04-01-2008, 05:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Most were from Persia. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And? You have no clue, do you?

Ancient Persians -as most native non-Arabian Iranian people today- were probably more Caucasian looking than the Greek. Before it had the racist meaning it adquired later, "arian" was a synonym of ancient Persian.

There were almost no black people in the Achaemenid empire, except for the Nubian-Meroe people from the High Nile, which were rare to find out of Nubia and Egypt. In fact, to find black people in Xerxes's army is even weirder than to find them in Dunkirk.

Dark skinned people were scarce in the Achaemenid Empire, and to find so many, depicted under such a negative light, surrounded by freaks and monsters, as representative of some dark, base, slavish death-monger "Asian" cult, to counterbalance the "honor in slaughter" and "glorious patriotic hate" of the "perfect" Caucasian muscle men (in an ideal aesthetic which resembles closely nazi and stalinist statuary and Leni Riefensthal movies), looks, at least, a bit dubious, doesn't it?

Airmail109
04-01-2008, 05:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Most were from Persia. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And? You have no clue, do you?

Ancient Persians -as most native non-Arabian Iranian people today- were probably more Caucasian looking than the Greek. Before it had the racist meaning it adquired later, "arian" was a synonym of ancient Persian.

There were almost no black people in the Achaemenid empire, except for the Nubian-Meroe people from the High Nile, which were rare to find out of Nubia and Egypt. In fact, to find black people in Xerxes's army is even weirder than to find them in Dunkirk.

Dark skinned people were scarce in the Achaemenid Empire, and to find so many, depicted under such a negative light, surrounded by freaks and monsters, as representative of some dark, base, slavish death-monger "Asian" cult, to counterbalance the "honor in slaughter" and "glorious patriotic hate" of the "perfect" Caucasian muscle men (in an ideal aesthetic which resembles closely nazi and stalinist statuary and Leni Riefensthal movies), looks, at least, a bit dubious, doesn't it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pure genius lol, oh boy something to confuse my "300" loving mates with, apart from my accusations they're all closet homos.

MB_Avro_UK
04-01-2008, 05:16 PM
Hi all,

IMHO 300 was a PoS. If they had called it, 'Lots of Cartoon Guys get Killed in Slow Motion', I would have found it more acceptable.

It was an insult to history. But do film makers care about history? They are more concerned with money and their egos.

Best Regards,
MB_Ego.

Messaschnitzel
04-01-2008, 05:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:

Ancient Persians -as most native non-Arabian Iranian people today- were probably more Caucasian looking than the Greek. Before it had the racist meaning it adquired later, "arian" was a synonym of ancient Persian.

There were almost no black people in the Achaemenid empire, except for the Nubian-Meroe people from the High Nile, which were rare to find out of Nubia and Egypt. In fact, to find black people in Xerxes's army is even weirder than to find them in Dunkirk.

Dark skinned people were scarce in the Achaemenid Empire, and to find so many, depicted under such a negative light, surrounded by freaks and monsters, as representative of some dark, base, slavish death-monger "Asian" cult, to counterbalance the "honor in slaughter" and "glorious patriotic hate" of the "perfect" Caucasian muscle men (in an ideal aesthetic which resembles closely nazi and stalinist statuary and Leni Riefensthal movies), looks, at least, a bit dubious, doesn't it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, you do know your ancient history! A lot of people don't realize that Persians are ethnically close to western europeans, and that Farsi is an Indo-European language that uses Arabic script. Also, Iran means "land of the Aryans". Most of the Iranian immigrants that I have met or known are very light skinned.

Pirschjaeger
04-01-2008, 05:36 PM
I don't get you guys. The movie was never offered as a historical movie. Right from the get-go, it was presented as a comic. Nothing more.

What you guys don't seem to get is that it was made to entertain people of today, not those from 1,000's of years ago and not historians.

If an egg salesman sells you an egg, and promises you it's an egg, don't complain it's not a chicken.


And what is everyone's attraction to the 'homo' part of the topic? Did anyone besides me see the babes (females with female parts)? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz

Airmail109
04-01-2008, 05:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
I don't get you guys. The movie was never offered as a historical movie. Right from the get-go, it was presented as a comic. Nothing more.

What you guys don't seem to get is that it was made to entertain people of today, not those from 1,000's of years ago and not historians.

If an egg salesman sells you an egg, and promises you it's an egg, don't complain it's not a chicken.


And what is everyone's attraction to the 'homo' part of the topic? Did anyone besides me see the babes (females with female parts)? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It needed 3 hours of lesbian sex scenes to make up for the rest

SeaFireLIV
04-01-2008, 06:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
It`s a film to make men feel good about being men, even if it`s a fantasy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a film to make the normal guy feel complexed about his unfit body. A glorification of physical much as a compendium of nazi aesthetic virtues. To summarize this, all the evil people in the movie are deformed, freakish or plain ugly dark-skinned people, to contrast their physical "sins" with the beautiful "virtues" of the "good", handsome fair-skinned supermen. Just the kind of racism and exaltation of good looks lesson you don't want your son to learn. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You naysayers just don`t get it, do you?

I guess you`ve just gotta know the fantasy that stems from Conan, Kull, the Odyssey, Iliad and all that which makes great fantasy. Men`s fantasy.

Perhaps it can be interpreted many ways and in such a fashion as to perverse it as many of you seem intent on doing. I don`t see it that way at all. Why, I`ve already aptly explained.

You either understand or you don`t.

Pirschjaeger
04-01-2008, 06:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
It needed 3 hours of lesbian sex scenes to make up for the rest </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've seen the movie 3 times. I have to admit, I love fighting, UFC, K1, stuff like that. At no time after watching the movie did I feel my sexuality needed a boost in the hetero direction.

I guess I'm just not so easy to convert. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz

MB_Avro_UK
04-01-2008, 06:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
I don't get you guys. The movie was never offered as a historical movie. Right from the get-go, it was presented as a comic. Nothing more.

What you guys don't seem to get is that it was made to entertain people of today, not those from 1,000's of years ago and not historians.

If an egg salesman sells you an egg, and promises you it's an egg, don't complain it's not a chicken.


And what is everyone's attraction to the 'homo' part of the topic? Did anyone besides me see the babes (females with female parts)? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Fritz,

I rented the DVD with high expectations. I had not read any reviews such as IMDB provides. I wish I had done so. Imagine that BoB had been portrayed in this way?

The film was an insult to anyone who had even the smallest interest in history. And the 'enemy' were portrayed as monsters from a nightmare.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Pirschjaeger
04-01-2008, 06:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
You either understand or you don`t. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True. I think people are simply trying so hard to be pc these days that they are completely confused.

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
04-01-2008, 06:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:

Hi Fritz,

I rented the DVD with high expectations. I had not read any reviews such as IMDB provides. I wish I had done so. Imagine that BoB had been portrayed in this way?

The film was an insult to anyone who had even the smallest interest in history. And the 'enemy' were portrayed as monsters from a nightmare.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Expectations are often the cause of disappointment. You can probably blame the review. I was fortunate as I don't read reviews. I knew it was based on a comic book. It's the same with Batman, Superman, any of the comics. If they hadn't been a comic in the beginning then I would have thought the movies to be totally ridiculous.

I avoid reviews like the plague. How often do you actually get what you've expected from a movie? I find people who read the reviews before seeing the movie are often critical and end up disappointed.

Fritz

SeaFireLIV
04-01-2008, 06:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
You either understand or you don`t. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True. I think people are simply trying so hard to be pc these days that they are completely confused.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, there`s definitely an element of `PC` going on too. as if the guys are embarrassed to see Men as powerful, strong and not afraid to say what they think.

I also think that people miss the point completely. Either they think it`s historical fact or they fail to put their minds into the `mindset`.

Perhaps it would`ve been better if the producers had not depicted the film as in a real world setting like Sparta and instead popped it into a 3rd Conan film or even a Lord of the Rings type setting...

But overall, you`ve gotta know the old Robert E Howard type stories to appreciate where 300 comes from. The guys who made that film read the same books, comics and films that I did as a child.

Perhaps that`s why i so liked Sin City too.

Messaschnitzel
04-01-2008, 06:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
I don't get you guys. The movie was never offered as a historical movie. Right from the get-go, it was presented as a comic. Nothing more. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are absolutely correct. I looked at it for what it was, a comic book movie. As far as comic book movies go, I preferred Spider Man, and Batman. I wish they'd make a WonderWoman movie in the future, with someone like Eva Green. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What you guys don't seem to get is that it was made to entertain people of today, not those from 1,000's of years ago and not historians. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whether this really makes a difference or not is the problem that history is not being taught in schools today (in the U.S., at least). It boggles me to learn that the people who will see an "historical" movie will believe the unfolding of fictional events that occur during said movie. Pearl Harbor and 300 are two of them, believe it or not.

I think the trouble starts with the combination of historical facts and timeline backdrop with a fictional story in the foreground. People who know the actual history will know the difference, while the others can't separate the known facts from the fiction.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If an egg salesman sells you an egg, and promises you it's an egg, don't complain it's not a chicken. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll have the Denver Omelette, please. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And what is everyone's attraction to the 'homo' part of the topic? Did anyone besides me see the babes (females with female parts)? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, I saw the babes. The movie was kinda similar to watching Pro Boxing, or Wrestling when the ring girls come out between the rounds:

http://www.pound4pound.com/RingGirls/MandalayBabe3.jpg

SeaFireLIV
04-01-2008, 06:42 PM
I think the only change I would make to 300 (if I were making it) would be to have a bit more female scantily-cladness going on... But I get the feeeling that `pc`ness kinda reduced that a bit in the flim, although you do get some boob and rogering action.

Pirschjaeger
04-01-2008, 07:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Most were from Persia. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And? You have no clue, do you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

clues (http://www.livius.org/a/iran/persepolis/people/people.html)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Ancient Persians -as most native non-Arabian Iranian people today- were probably more Caucasian looking than the Greek. Before it had the racist meaning it adquired later, "arian" was a synonym of ancient Persian. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

See the above clues.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
There were almost no black people in the Achaemenid empire, except for the Nubian-Meroe people from the High Nile, which were rare to find out of Nubia and Egypt. In fact, to find black people in Xerxes's army is even weirder than to find them in Dunkirk. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yet more clues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_characteristics_of_ancient_Egyptians) .

Dark skinned people were scarce in the Achaemenid Empire, and to find so many, depicted under such a negative light, surrounded by freaks and monsters, as representative of some dark, base, slavish death-monger "Asian" cult, to counterbalance the "honor in slaughter" and "glorious patriotic hate" of the "perfect" Caucasian muscle men (in an ideal aesthetic which resembles closely nazi and stalinist statuary and Leni Riefensthal movies), looks, at least, a bit dubious, doesn't it?[/QUOTE]

Ridiculous. Have you ever seen Greek statues?

For more clues, google 'greek statues' .

When you mentioned Leni Riefenstahl, correct me if I'm wrong, but you were referring to 'Olympia' right? I have that movie and it is nothing more than a celebration of the Olympics. It starts with Greek statues. It shows Germany winning and losing equally. It was made before the war, before the Nazis even showed their true colors.

Can you back up what you posted?

Fritz

HotelBushranger
04-01-2008, 07:46 PM
Man, you guys are unbelievable...apparently you're not allowed to make fiction movies anymore - EVERYTHING has to be perfectly historically accurate. I mean I know us simmers like historical accuracy, but it CAN be taken too far sometimes; you lot really are looking faaaar too much into 300. It's just a very simple, entertaining movie. Stop thinking about the history and the racial prejudices and the unfair treatment of women ad nuseum, and maybe you might just see that.

Pirschjaeger
04-01-2008, 07:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Messaschnitzel:
A lot of people don't realize that Persians are ethnically close to western europeans, and that Farsi is an Indo-European language that uses Arabic script. Also, Iran means "land of the Aryans". Most of the Iranian immigrants that I have met or known are very light skinned. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ethnically close?

From Wiki:

Proto-Iranians first emerged following the separation of Indo-Iranians, and are traced to the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex.[31] Aryan, (Proto-Iranian) tribes arrived in the Iranian plateau in the third and second millennium BC, probably in more than one wave of emigration, and settled as nomads. Further separation of Proto-Iranians into "Eastern" and "Western" groups occurred due to migration. By the first millennium BC, Medes, Persians, Bactrians and Parthians populated the western part, while Cimmerians, Sarmatians and Alans populated the steppes north of the Black Sea. Other tribes began to settle on the eastern edge, as far as on the mountainous frontier of north-western Indian subcontinent and into the area which is now Balochistan. Others, such as the Scythian tribes spread as far west as the Balkans and as far east as Xinjiang. Avestan is an eastern Old Iranian language that was used to compose the sacred hymns and canon of the Zoroastrian Avesta in c. 1000 BC. Zoroastrianism was the state religion of the Achaemenid empire and later Iranian empires, until the 7th century.

About Persian:

Article 15 of the Iranian constitution states that the "Official language (of Iran)... is Persian...[and]... the use of regional and tribal languages in the press and mass media, as well as for teaching of their literature in schools, is allowed in addition to Persian." Persian serves as a lingua farnca in Iran and most publications and broadcastings are in this language. Next to Persian there are many publications and broadcastings in other relatively large languages of Iran such as Azeri, Kurdish and even in relatively smaller ones such as Arabic and Armenian. Many languages have originated from Iran, but Persian is the most used language. Persian is a tongue belonging to the Aryan or Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European family of languages. The oldest records in Old Persian date back to the Achaemenid Empire[116] and examples of Old Persian have been found in present-day Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Egypt. In the late 8th century the Persian language was highly Arabized and written in a modified Arabic script. This caused a movement supporting the revival of Persian. An important event of this revival was the writing of the Shahname by Ferdowsi (Persian: Epic of Kings), Iran's national epic, which is said to have been written entirely in native Persian. This gave rise to a strong reassertion of Iranian national identity, and is in part responsible for the continued existence of Persian as a separate language.

Persian is a tongue belonging to the Aryan or Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European family of languages.

The meaning of 'Iran':

Iran - from Pers. Iran "Persia," from Middle Persian Eran (sahr) "(land) of the Iranians," gen. pl. of Er "an Iranian," from O.Pers. ariya- "compatriot," from PIE aryo-, self-designation of the "Aryan" people (see Aryan).

Aryan - 1. Indo-Iranian. No longer in technical use.
2. A member of the people who spoke the parent language of the Indo-European languages. No longer in technical use.
3. A member of any people speaking an Indo-European language. No longer in technical use.
4. In Nazism and neo-Nazism, a non-Jewish Caucasian, especially one of Nordic type, supposed to be part of a master race.

Further note:

Word History: It is one of the ironies of history that Aryan, a word nowadays referring to the blond-haired, blue-eyed physical ideal of Nazi Germany, originally referred to a people who looked vastly different. Its history starts with the ancient Indo-Iranians, Indo-European peoples who inhabited parts of what are now Iran, Afghanistan, and India. Their tribal self-designation was a word reconstructed as *arya- or *ārya-. The first of these is the form found in Iranian, as ultimately in the name of Iran itself (from Middle Persian Ērān (ahr), "(Land) of the Iranians," from the genitive plural of Ēr, "Iranian"). The variant *ārya- is found unchanged in Sanskrit, where it referred to the upper crust of ancient Indian society. These words became known to European scholars in the 18th century. The shifting of meaning that eventually led to the present-day sense started in the 1830s, when Friedrich Schlegel, a German scholar who was an important early Indo-Europeanist, came up with a theory that linked the Indo-Iranian words with the German word Ehre, "honor," and older Germanic names containing the element ario-, such as the Swiss warrior Ariovistus who was written about by Julius Caesar. Schlegel theorized that far from being just a designation of the Indo-Iranians, the word *arya- had in fact been what the Indo-Europeans called themselves, meaning something like "the honorable people." (This theory has since been called into question.) Thus "Aryan" came to be synonymous with "Indo-European," and in this sense entered the general scholarly consciousness of the day. Not much later, it was proposed that the original homeland of the Indo-Europeans had been in northern Europe. From this theory, it was but a small leap to think of the Aryans as having had a northern European physiotype. While these theories were playing themselves out, certain anti-Semitic scholars in Germany took to viewing the Jews in Germany as the main non-Aryan people because of their Semitic roots; a distinction thus arose in their minds between Jews and the "true Aryan" Germans, a distinction that later furnished unfortunate fodder for the racial theories of the Nazis.

Farsi - The modern Iranian language, dating from about the ninth century A.D., that is the national language of Iran and is written in an Arabic alphabet; Persian.

Fritz

zardozid
04-01-2008, 08:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
It`s a film to make men feel good about being men, even if it`s a fantasy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a film to make the normal guy feel complexed about his unfit body. A glorification of physical much as a compendium of nazi aesthetic virtues. To summarize this, all the evil people in the movie are deformed, freakish or plain ugly dark-skinned people, to contrast their physical "sins" with the beautiful "virtues" of the "good", handsome fair-skinned supermen. Just the kind of racism and exaltation of good looks lesson you don't want your son to learn. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You naysayers just don`t get it, do you?

I guess you`ve just gotta know the fantasy that stems from Conan, Kull, the Odyssey, Iliad and all that which makes great fantasy. Men`s fantasy.

Perhaps it can be interpreted many ways and in such a fashion as to perverse it as many of you seem intent on doing. I don`t see it that way at all. Why, I`ve already aptly explained.

You either understand or you don`t. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I actually really enjoyed reading the Conan books, comic books (Berry Smith rules), and watching the movies (all of them)... I have also read the Odyssey and the Iliad a couple of times.

"300" was way too over the top to me....

I don't really think the movie is "homo-erotic" per say....but it does celebrate the muscular male body...

Bewolf
04-02-2008, 04:24 AM
Maaaan. It appears more men are infected with the "Oh noez, I need to go conform with the models" then I thought. And there I thought that was a girls problem only. I am certainly not fitting the 300 perfect body type, but who cares?

Those that complain this movie gives them a bad feeling or are afraid of society going this way have to seriously ask what problems they have with themselves. A bit of self confidence no matter how you look may be of service. If you let others decide how to feel about yourself you really have a problem.

About the historical outlook on this movie...it was based on a darn, black and white world, manly comic book done by the same guy that did "Sin City". Next thing is ppl complaining about Superman and Catwoman not beeing "realistic" and the "Joker" beeing an unfair representation of Clowns.

Some folks have to losen up big time. That is exactly the kind of "oh noez, I am feeling offended" BS that spawns overdone PC in the first place.

Ratsack
04-02-2008, 05:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by heywooood:
Has Political Correctness Gone Mad?


yes - yes it has...

I saw the 300 yesterday ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You did better than me. I watched the first 20 minutes of it and decided I wouldn't waste another 20 seconds of my life on it. Don't know about PC or anything, I was just repelled by the heavy-handed story telling, like swimming through treacle. Blerch!

Ratsack

Breeze147
04-02-2008, 06:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
I don't get you guys. The movie was never offered as a historical movie. Right from the get-go, it was presented as a comic. Nothing more.

What you guys don't seem to get is that it was made to entertain people of today, not those from 1,000's of years ago and not historians.

If an egg salesman sells you an egg, and promises you it's an egg, don't complain it's not a chicken.


And what is everyone's attraction to the 'homo' part of the topic? Did anyone besides me see the babes (females with female parts)? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wonder why they don't sell turkey eggs?

Pirschjaeger
04-02-2008, 06:12 AM
That's the next booth. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Fritz

SeaFireLIV
04-02-2008, 07:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
Maaaan. It appears more men are infected with the "Oh noez, I need to go conform with the models" then I thought. And there I thought that was a girls problem only. I am certainly not fitting the 300 perfect body type, but who cares?

Those that complain this movies gives themselves a bad feeling or are afraid of society goes this way have to seriously ask themselves what problems they have themselves. A bit of self confidence no matter how you look may be of service. If you let others decide how to feel yourself you really have a problem.

About the historical outlook on this movie...it was based on a darn, black and white world, manly comic book done by the same guy that did "Sin City". Next thing is ppl complaining about Superman and Catwoman not beeing "realistic" and the "Joker" beeing an unfair representation of Clowns.

Some folks have to losen up big time. That is exactly the kind of "oh noez, I am feeling offended" BS that spawns overdone PC in the first place. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hear! Hear!

MEGILE
04-02-2008, 07:56 AM
aint nothing wrong with some bicep peak, and a good set of abs on screen... it's a good healthy figure. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I got some pull ups to do.

HotelBushranger
04-02-2008, 08:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
Some folks have to losen up big time. That is exactly the kind of "oh noez, I am feeling offended" BS that spawns overdone PC in the first place. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fkin oath.

SeaFireLIV
04-02-2008, 08:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
aint nothing wrong with some bicep peak, and a good set of abs on screen... it's a good healthy figure. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I got some pull ups to do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As Bewolf said, it`s not about conforming to the physique. Of course, if it gets your doing 10 extra press-ups a day that can only benefit you.

GIAP.Shura
04-02-2008, 10:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You did better than me. I watched the first 20 minutes of it and decided I wouldn't waste another 20 seconds of my life on it. Don't know about PC or anything, I was just repelled by the heavy-handed story telling, like swimming through treacle. Blerch! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. What on earth does PC have to do with 300 being a bad movie?

In general the fight scenes were well done, although I personally thought there was far too much slo-mo. Then again, that might just be because there was slo-mo everywhere, not just in the fight scenes. I'm sure if we had seen Leonides brushing his teeth it would have been in slo-mo. All very good for a 2 minute in-game cinematic but 2 hours of slo-mo doesn't make a good movie. It was almost exactly the same in feel and pace as the cinematics in God of War.

There seems to be a tendency for people to excuse the faults of the film (one-dimensional characters, poor dialogue, terrible acting, massive plot holes, not to mention jaw-dropping historical innacuracies) by saying it is based on Miller's 300. I think this is pretty lazy analysis. A film should be judged on its quality as a film, not on the quality or the loyalty it shows to its source material. The LotR films are good because it is a good film, not because it is loyal to the novel. 300 is clearly speaking a different language than that of traditional film.

I've always thought of comics as being crystalised film. Every comic frame has to capture the essence of what would be a standard cinematic cut, ranging from 1/2 second to 30 seconds. As such you end up with images which have a very striking visual impact (if it is a good comic) which not only have to describe who is where and doing what but also the motion, force and intention of those characters. However, taking those images and going the other way, extending those images back over their cinematic time frames, as seems to have been done in 300, results in cinematography that is melodromatic and overbearing. Also comic books, despite onomatepeiac effects, don't have music, sounds, or the subtlety of the human voice to indicate meaning, so dialogue needs to be clear and easy to intrepret; another restriction that is not very conducive to good film.

It seemed to me that we were constantly being asked to suspend our disbelief in order to have "pretty" images. Like the decapitating horseman who just disappears, the shields which change size from being handy sized to sword fight with to chunky sized to completely shield you from arrows, the one-eyed veteran who somehow knows how the battle continued even after he had left, Leonides as a youth being beaten to toughen him up who then does nothing more when educating his own son than a gentle shove and a kiss on the head or the teenage Leonides who doesn't die of exposure on a snowy night despite being clad only in a loincloth. There are also the inbred, diseased priests who live on summits only accessible by strong, mountain climbing kings but who somehow get nublie young girls up and down there without too much effort and also manage to let their pronouncements be known to the general populace. How can they be inbred if they are constantly getting a stream of the best looking women sent up to them from the valley below? How about the vaunted phalanx front we are shown which lasts a whole two seconds before they start opening up their shields in order to do a glorious thrust, then after a few rounds of this, breaking up into open combat for some lovely choreographed individual butchery as always. Similarly, when the Immortals come to face to face with the wall of corpses and those cunning Spartans are hiding behind them and push them over to crush...one warrior? What military genius!!

Being honest, I did have trouble with the historical background of the film. This is an actual battle, which no doubt mythologised, is fairly well reported. I never really expect historical accuracy from Hollywood but if an event actually occurred then it is nice to have at least some semblance of reality. Putting aside the monstrous nature of the Persians (although I find it hard to imagine a film about the American War of Independance which would have the English soldiers with filed teeth, massive deformed giants in chains and a eight foot transvestite general), having the Spartans constantly crowing about freedom and complaining about inneffectual, bum-bashing Greeks was just total pandering to the audience and another example of justifying ultra-violence by dressing it up in the glad rags of the fight for freedom. For any film set in Antiquity to be talking about a fight for freedom, with the exception of Spartacus and Asterix the Gaul, is pretty moronic. Gladiator, while in no way perfect, was of course ahistorical events but was making the pretension that it was set in the Roman Empire which actually existed and the realities of the day were at least given lip service. 300 which deals with an historical event seems to be doing its upmost to push away any semblance of reality it can. What I don't understand is that the reality of the Battle of Thermopylae is dramatic enough in itself without throwing in all this fantasy ****. If fantasy **** is what is wanted then why burden yourself with a historical event? Why not just make a new Conan? Or come to think of it, this sort of film would have been perfect for dealing with Slaine.

Bewolf
04-02-2008, 10:23 AM
Yanno, this is one of these discussions making me overly glad I am not one of these guys constantly ranting about "how things should be done", but rather one of the "take it as it comes" folks.

Makes life so much more enjoyable.

jadger
04-02-2008, 11:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Dark skinned people were scarce in the Achaemenid Empire, and to find so many, depicted under such a negative light, surrounded by freaks and monsters, as representative of some dark, base, slavish death-monger "Asian" cult, to counterbalance the "honor in slaughter" and "glorious patriotic hate" of the "perfect" Caucasian muscle men (in an ideal aesthetic which resembles closely nazi and stalinist statuary and Leni Riefensthal movies), </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Leni Riefenstahl works? you mean like the many documentary photo trips to Africa in order to try and preserve for posterity, cultural remembrances of many small African tribes?

DuxCorvan
04-02-2008, 01:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
See the above clues.

Blah, blah, blah, clues, etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Saw your clues. Knew them before. Still not seeing ANY black people among the peoples and nations mentioned.

As for Egypt, their ethnical composition always included Nubian black people. There were even black pharaohs when the Kush/Nubian kingdom managed to dominate their northern neighbors (Taharqa, and others) -but Nubian political domination does not mean necessarily a massive immigration of Nubian people down the Nile.

I concur that Ancient Persians were not so closely related to Western Europeans as we may think, and that "Arians" had likely a different meaning in ancient times than today. But, the fact is, it was not at all like shown in the film, which is REALLY full of racial and cultural negative slurs.

As for the thing being fictional, it's OK for me, but someway I think reality was much more deep, interesting and thrilling than this kill-go-happy cr*ppy brainless comic.

I found also derisive how Leonidas dismisses Ephialtes in the film for being deformed and being thus unable to fight efficiently in the hoplitic way -tight formation, and then he and his boys go berserk and start a series of individual dancing fight parties in choreographic one-on-one melees that have nothing to do with Spartan fighting skills, but rather belong to some Jackie Chan movie with a plus of gore-galore.

@Seafire: I understood it. It's only that I don't feel groaning and saying stupid things and acting like a testosterone-doped gorilla, to be part of some long lost manly culture. The guys in the movie don't seem like real men to me, rather they seemed like real gits.

Real ancient people were not THAT ******ed, nor is ******edness a virile trait.

I think you have been drawing barbarians with giant double axes for too much time.

Anyway, I liked the only likable thing in the movie: it is visually stunning.

DuxCorvan
04-02-2008, 01:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jadger:
Leni Riefenstahl works? you mean like the many documentary photo trips to Africa in order to try and preserve for posterity, cultural remembrances of many small African tribes? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I mean the nazi, cult-of-the-body works.

And yes, it is included the nazi, cult-of-the-body works she made in Africa, filming once and again the sculptural Mandinga fighters, with perfect bodies, that formed the bulk of her African attraction.

DuxCorvan
04-02-2008, 01:42 PM
I guess I have to drink this while watching "300" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Tbxq0IDqD04&feature=related
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=uxieMOdo6IU&feature=related
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru6p5NLXxvY&feature=related

Pirschjaeger
04-02-2008, 01:51 PM
Perfect bodies does not mean nazi ideology.

Every people and every culture adore perfect bodies. It's natural considering we are animals that must breed to continue.

How would you have viewed the movie if the warriors didn't look anything like the way the Spartans and Greeks portrayed themselves through art?

If a perfect body is indicative of nazi ideology, then you must really hate Swimsuit magazine. Somehow, I don't think that's the case.

What about Conan? What about Batman? What about all these superheros? Nazi ideology?

If you look at the artwork of the period you'll find that the warriors were accurately portrayed according to how the Spartans and Greeks viewed themselves.

Dux,

I can't help but thinking you have issues with this particular movie but not for the reasons you've mentioned.

Or do you have issues with people liking something you don't.

BTW, I used to live in Egypt. There is actually a lot of ancient artwork depicting blacks. That doesn't mean the movie is accurate since it wasn't supposed to be.

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
04-02-2008, 01:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
I guess I have to drink this while watching "300" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Tbxq0IDqD04&feature=related
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=uxieMOdo6IU&feature=related
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru6p5NLXxvY&feature=related </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Pirschjaeger
04-02-2008, 02:07 PM
http://s11.photobucket.com/albums/a198/FritzFranzen/hooters-bikini-1.jpg

Perfect body. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

Nazi ideology?

You just knew I was going to do that didn't you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Fritz

DuxCorvan
04-02-2008, 02:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Perfect bodies does not mean nazi ideology. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know. I think you didn't get the point. There's no issue about the perfect bodies themselves. It's the way the film associates good looks to positive moral traits -loyalty, courage, freedom- and bad looks to negative ones -submission, treachery, cruelty. It's a repeated clich in Hollywood, but this film takes it to an extreme.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How would you have viewed the movie if the warriors didn't look anything like the way the Spartans and Greeks portrayed themselves through art? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lycurgan Spartans had practically no art. As for the Greeks in general, I'm very satisfied about the way they look in the movie -though I'd have preferred a more realistic approach with real armour and so. It is that Persians don't look at all like they prtrayed themselves in their own art -unless you think Immortals were some deformed monsters trained in the Ninjitsu arts.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What about Conan? What about Batman? What about all these superheros? Nazi ideology? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, don't start me! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you look at the artwork of the period you'll find that the warriors were accurately portrayed according to how the Spartans and Greeks viewed themselves. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like they viewed their mythical heros. Achilles was. Leonidas wasn't. Heroic art was a genre on its own. And Leonidas wasn't so celebrated as you may think. That is mostly Herodotus work, and Leonidas is more of an icon in modern days, than he was in his time.

Ancient Spartans, on the other side, rarely depicted themselves: the severe Lycurgan code determined a very oppressive society where art was rejected and despised, and there was only one objective: to dominion by force of a few landowners "the Equals", or "10.000" over a massive population (circa one million) of enslaved people (the Messenian helots).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I can't help but thinking you have issues with this particular movie but not for the reasons you've mentioned. Or do you have issues with people liking something you don't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't have issues with anything but stupidity elevated to cult status.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">BTW, I used to live in Egypt. There is actually a lot of ancient artwork depicting blacks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep. Nubians (from northern Ethiopia and Sudan). Many Nubian prisoners of war brought as slaves, prospered and thrived in Egypt. They became an important part of population, and their original kingdom managed even to dominate the whole Egypt at some time. But I've told you that.

Anyway, there were no Egyptians -and even less Nubians- reported by Herodotus among the forces of Xerxes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That doesn't mean the movie is accurate since it wasn't supposed to be. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The same than most movies I've seen in the last decades. I wished they did ONE accurate movie, just for a change. Then we'd see that doesn't mean any loss in spectacle and visual qualities, but rather the contrary.

Pirschjaeger
04-02-2008, 02:26 PM
The problem with accurate movies is that they tend to be documentaries. The market for docs is very small.

I too would love to see a movie that is 100% historically accurate but I know that's impossible.

I've been trying to think of a movie that portrayed the bad guys as anything less than a freak, either mentally, physically, or both. No go. I can't think of any.

It's the world we live in.

If this sort of thing bothers you than how can you enjoy life? We only live once. I used to be like you. I was very critical of all movies. The result was a lot of movies I was dissatisfied with, not to mention being the party-pooper when watching a movie with friends and family.

Take it for what it is. If you try hard enough, you can find nazi ideology in a potato or historical inaccuracies in sci-fi cartoons and comics.

Life's too short.

Fritz

luftluuver
04-02-2008, 02:50 PM
Cuss words are not allowed but almost naked females are. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Pirschjaeger
04-02-2008, 02:54 PM
"almost" is the keyword. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

DuxCorvan
04-02-2008, 02:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
The problem with accurate movies is that they tend to be documentaries. The market for docs is very small. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They don't have to. A good story, when well told is always a good story. Even if it is non-fictional.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I've been trying to think of a movie that portrayed the bad guys as anything less than a freak, either mentally, physically, or both. No go. I can't think of any. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you watched the HBO series "Rome"? It takes too many liberties with the historical characters, and events are quite condensed and simplified, but it is still a good and quite accurate portrait of Roman society and has many interesting and realistic details. The characters are also complex and non-monolithic, and there are no real differences between 'goods' and 'evil' ones, but rather they all move according to their interests and point-of-view, like in real life.

It's a good example of a good historical movie: even if not accurate at 100%, it is at least not inaccurate at 100%, and it is very entertaining.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If this sort of thing bothers you than how can you enjoy life? We only live once. I used to be like you. I was very critical of all movies. The result was a lot of movies I was dissatisfied with, not to mention being the party-pooper when watching a movie with friends and family.

Take it for what it is. If you try hard enough, you can find nazi ideology in a potato or historical inaccuracies in sci-fi cartoons and comics.

Life's too short. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, Fritz, you don't know me at all. If you did, you'd realize I'm a very carefree guy and that my ONLY interests are my beloved ones -that includes my friends.

But everyone has a hobby -or several- and History is one of mine. I've imagined so many times how it was, that I'd really like resources invested in showing how it was. I'm not bothered at all. Just a bit disappointed by the lack of cultural sensitivity of mass media -and the public it is directed to: I don't think it is a good thing to dumb down shows and cultural items so people can happily dumb down themselves without feelings of guilt.

SeaFireLIV
04-02-2008, 03:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Cuss words are not allowed but almost naked females are. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


And the problem is?

I far prefer the almost naked female to a cuss word. In fact I try to swear almost never which I think is healthy.

Pirschjaeger
04-02-2008, 03:15 PM
Sorry, I haven't seen 'Rome'. I don't watch TV. I don't even own one. But it sounds interesting.

Have you seen Hamlet (Mel Gibson)? This is a movie I really enjoyed, even with Gibson's overdoing it.

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
04-02-2008, 03:16 PM
Almost naked females are rewards for not cussing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz

DuxCorvan
04-02-2008, 04:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Have you seen Hamlet (Mel Gibson)? This is a movie I really enjoyed, even with Gibson's overdoing it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, best 'Hamlet' ever, IMHO. Much better than Branagh's, and more moving than Olivier's. And one of my favorite Shakespeare adaptations.

Airmail109
04-02-2008, 04:07 PM
"Rome" was good, "The Tudors" was a bit bad tbh

Pirschjaeger
04-02-2008, 04:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Have you seen Hamlet (Mel Gibson)? This is a movie I really enjoyed, even with Gibson's overdoing it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, best 'Hamlet' ever, IMHO. Much better than Branagh's, and more moving than Olivier's. And one of my favorite Shakespeare adaptations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah ha! We agree. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And now, here's your reward for not cussing.

http://s11.photobucket.com/albums/a198/FritzFranzen/hooters-bikini-7.jpg

Fritz

MB_Avro_UK
04-02-2008, 04:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GIAP.Shura:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You did better than me. I watched the first 20 minutes of it and decided I wouldn't waste another 20 seconds of my life on it. Don't know about PC or anything, I was just repelled by the heavy-handed story telling, like swimming through treacle. Blerch! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. What on earth does PC have to do with 300 being a bad movie?

In general the fight scenes were well done, although I personally thought there was far too much slo-mo. Then again, that might just be because there was slo-mo everywhere, not just in the fight scenes. I'm sure if we had seen Leonides brushing his teeth it would have been in slo-mo. All very good for a 2 minute in-game cinematic but 2 hours of slo-mo doesn't make a good movie. It was almost exactly the same in feel and pace as the cinematics in God of War.

There seems to be a tendency for people to excuse the faults of the film (one-dimensional characters, poor dialogue, terrible acting, massive plot holes, not to mention jaw-dropping historical innacuracies) by saying it is based on Miller's 300. I think this is pretty lazy analysis. A film should be judged on its quality as a film, not on the quality or the loyalty it shows to its source material. The LotR films are good because it is a good film, not because it is loyal to the novel. 300 is clearly speaking a different language than that of traditional film.

I've always thought of comics as being crystalised film. Every comic frame has to capture the essence of what would be a standard cinematic cut, ranging from 1/2 second to 30 seconds. As such you end up with images which have a very striking visual impact (if it is a good comic) which not only have to describe who is where and doing what but also the motion, force and intention of those characters. However, taking those images and going the other way, extending those images back over their cinematic time frames, as seems to have been done in 300, results in cinematography that is melodromatic and overbearing. Also comic books, despite onomatepeiac effects, don't have music, sounds, or the subtlety of the human voice to indicate meaning, so dialogue needs to be clear and easy to intrepret; another restriction that is not very conducive to good film.

It seemed to me that we were constantly being asked to suspend our disbelief in order to have "pretty" images. Like the decapitating horseman who just disappears, the shields which change size from being handy sized to sword fight with to chunky sized to completely shield you from arrows, the one-eyed veteran who somehow knows how the battle continued even after he had left, Leonides as a youth being beaten to toughen him up who then does nothing more when educating his own son than a gentle shove and a kiss on the head or the teenage Leonides who doesn't die of exposure on a snowy night despite being clad only in a loincloth. There are also the inbred, diseased priests who live on summits only accessible by strong, mountain climbing kings but who somehow get nublie young girls up and down there without too much effort and also manage to let their pronouncements be known to the general populace. How can they be inbred if they are constantly getting a stream of the best looking women sent up to them from the valley below? How about the vaunted phalanx front we are shown which lasts a whole two seconds before they start opening up their shields in order to do a glorious thrust, then after a few rounds of this, breaking up into open combat for some lovely choreographed individual butchery as always. Similarly, when the Immortals come to face to face with the wall of corpses and those cunning Spartans are hiding behind them and push them over to crush...one warrior? What military genius!!

Being honest, I did have trouble with the historical background of the film. This is an actual battle, which no doubt mythologised, is fairly well reported. I never really expect historical accuracy from Hollywood but if an event actually occurred then it is nice to have at least some semblance of reality. Putting aside the monstrous nature of the Persians (although I find it hard to imagine a film about the American War of Independance which would have the English soldiers with filed teeth, massive deformed giants in chains and a eight foot transvestite general), having the Spartans constantly crowing about freedom and complaining about inneffectual, bum-bashing Greeks was just total pandering to the audience and another example of justifying ultra-violence by dressing it up in the glad rags of the fight for freedom. For any film set in Antiquity to be talking about a fight for freedom, with the exception of Spartacus and Asterix the Gaul, is pretty moronic. Gladiator, while in no way perfect, was of course ahistorical events but was making the pretension that it was set in the Roman Empire which actually existed and the realities of the day were at least given lip service. 300 which deals with an historical event seems to be doing its upmost to push away any semblance of reality it can. What I don't understand is that the reality of the Battle of Thermopylae is dramatic enough in itself without throwing in all this fantasy ****. If fantasy **** is what is wanted then why burden yourself with a historical event? Why not just make a new Conan? Or come to think of it, this sort of film would have been perfect for dealing with Slaine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Excellent post and very well written http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

ploughman
04-02-2008, 05:11 PM
A good analysis of a film I initially found mediocre but now quite like (it's visually spiffing), I can, nevertheless, see how the population of Asia might be rather agrieved.

Gladiator is about nobility (in the greater sense), not the Romans, criticising it for factual innacuracies is missing the point.

luftluuver
04-02-2008, 05:22 PM
A bonus Dux for not cussing. Enjoy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

http://newmedia.funnyjunk.com/pictures/mcdonalds.jpg

R_Target
04-02-2008, 07:59 PM
300 was just plain old boring.

DrHerb
04-02-2008, 08:18 PM
that.......just.......aint......right!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

MY EYES!!!!!! THEY BURN

zardozid
04-02-2008, 11:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Have you watched the HBO series "Rome"? It takes too many liberties with the historical characters, and events are quite condensed and simplified, but it is still a good and quite accurate portrait of Roman society and has many interesting and realistic details. The characters are also complex and non-monolithic, and there are no real differences between 'goods' and 'evil' ones, but rather they all move according to their interests and point-of-view, like in real life.

It's a good example of a good historical movie: even if not accurate at 100%, it is at least not inaccurate at 100%, and it is very entertaining. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really liked "Rome"... I wish they would make another season, but I guess it cost too much money. I agree with most of the points you make. +1 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

"Rome" took a lot of historical liberties, but held together really well...that was good tv!

I loved the friendship between Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo (2 guys who obviously loved each other...but it didn't make me feel weird at all...LOL)
http://www.canmag.com/images/front/tv/rome2.jpg

HotelBushranger
04-02-2008, 11:41 PM
So wait...Rome is allowed to have historical liberties, but 300 doesn't...hmmm, I can almost taste the hypocrisy.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Being honest, I did have trouble with the historical background of the film. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point is 300 didn't try to historically accurate. None of the directors, producers etc said they were aiming for historical accuracy, and why should they have to? If that wasn't their aim, they shouldn't have to. 300 is an exaggerated, romanticised tale. That's it. Do you criticise A Bridge Too Far because it isn't perfectly accurate, because the characters didn't perfectly say what happened in real life, and didn't do the exact movements of the soldiers in real life? I think not. You guys really do need to chill out about perfect historical accuracy and stop huffing kittens http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

zardozid
04-03-2008, 12:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
So wait...Rome is allowed to have historical liberties, but 300 doesn't...hmmm, I can almost taste the hypocrisy.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Being honest, I did have trouble with the historical background of the film. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point is 300 didn't try to historically accurate. None of the directors, producers etc said they were aiming for historical accuracy, and why should they have to? If that wasn't their aim, they shouldn't have to. 300 is an exaggerated, romanticised tale. That's it. Do you criticise A Bridge Too Far because it isn't perfectly accurate, because the characters didn't perfectly say what happened in real life, and didn't do the exact movements of the soldiers in real life? I think not. You guys really do need to chill out about perfect historical accuracy and stop huffing kittens http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



My issue with 300 was not historical inaccuracy....

jadger
04-03-2008, 06:45 AM
If anyone has issues with Rome's "historical accuracy" you should watch the director's commentary on the DVDs (I own season 1 and 2) or read the wikipedia entry on the series.

Rome was meant to be "historically authentic" but not "historically accurate". authentic meaning the clothing, uniforms, places, props all were made to look entirely as it would have been IRL. the story was made up though. Oh, and Octavian ages 4 or 5 years in about 5 minutes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

SeaFireLIV
04-03-2008, 07:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zardozid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Have you watched the HBO series "Rome"? It takes too many liberties with the historical characters, and events are quite condensed and simplified, but it is still a good and quite accurate portrait of Roman society and has many interesting and realistic details. The characters are also complex and non-monolithic, and there are no real differences between 'goods' and 'evil' ones, but rather they all move according to their interests and point-of-view, like in real life.

It's a good example of a good historical movie: even if not accurate at 100%, it is at least not inaccurate at 100%, and it is very entertaining. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really liked "Rome"... I wish they would make another season, but I guess it cost too much money. I agree with most of the points you make. +1 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

"Rome" took a lot of historical liberties, but held together really well...that was good tv!

I loved the friendship between Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo (2 guys who obviously loved each other...but it didn't make me feel weird at all...LOL)
http://www.canmag.com/images/front/tv/rome2.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting comment.

Rome was good, but I was beginning to get a bit worried about Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo relationship. They were getting more close than anyone in 300!

I was glad when one got married and the other finally got a girlfriend (well he thought it was his girlfriend). And there was certainly some off-putting man-raping going on too.

But a puzzling comment in my view, the men in 300 were less girly than in Rome!

Of course, Rome was far more realistic, I fully agreed, but Rome and 300 are 2 different kind of programs set in 2 different genres. You all need to see the difference, which for some strange reason, most of you refuse to- or are unable to.

DuxCorvan
04-03-2008, 08:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
But a puzzling comment in my view, the men in 300 were less girly than in Rome! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

SeaFire, I'm starting to feel a bit worried about what you understand not to be girly at all... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
http://chenzhen.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/troglodyte.jpg

SeaFireLIV
04-03-2008, 08:42 AM
Keyboard taste not so good.

GIAP.Shura
04-03-2008, 09:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
So wait...Rome is allowed to have historical liberties, but 300 doesn't...hmmm, I can almost taste the hypocrisy.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Being honest, I did have trouble with the historical background of the film. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point is 300 didn't try to historically accurate. None of the directors, producers etc said they were aiming for historical accuracy, and why should they have to? If that wasn't their aim, they shouldn't have to. 300 is an exaggerated, romanticised tale. That's it. Do you criticise A Bridge Too Far because it isn't perfectly accurate, because the characters didn't perfectly say what happened in real life, and didn't do the exact movements of the soldiers in real life? I think not. You guys really do need to chill out about perfect historical accuracy and stop huffing kittens http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You need to be a little clearer in your posts. Here you go:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">U is ghey!!! 300 is based on FRANK MILLER 300 comix!!! NOT history!! 300 is awesum movie!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is the way that argument is usually expressed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Any work of art needs to be assessed on its own merits. A work of art is the result of the creative decisions of those who produced it. However, no work of art is created in a vacuum and every work of art has an associated cultural baggage, arising from the artist and from the society in which the art was produced. Neglecting that cultural baggage can result in either the artist producing a bad piece of art or the audience failing to understand or misinterpreting the piece of art.


The audience interprets a piece of art within the confines of this cultural baggage. When an artist decides to do something which goes against that then that change has to be beneficial to the work of art in order for the audience to accept it. For example, the LotR films had a massive cultural baggage to deal with from the work of Tolkien and the expectations of its fans worldwide. When Peter Jackson decided to cut out the whole episode of the Barrow Downs and Tom Bombadil I think that was a good decision. In terms of film that episode was extraneous to the main narrative. However, I thought the decision to make Gimli an element of comic relief and Legolas' shield surfing antics to be inappropriate. These were creative decisions by the director which went against the cultural baggage and made it more or less succesful as a film.

I don't expect historical accuracy from films, unless they make an express intention of being historically accurate. You may have noted earlier that I defended the right of filmakers to change events or details for narrative or stylistic purposes, so even if there were no black soldiers at Dunkirk, I'm not too bothered about that if the black character there makes the film more successful.

We have already seen in this discussion several elements of the cultural baggage that 300 has, both from the vision of the creators and through the various interpretations of the audience: the heroic fantasy tradition, greek mythologising, homoerotic aspects, body fascism, cinematic conventions, graphic novel conventions. As the film is based upon a real event, there is also a historical baggage, not only of the event itself but in a more general way of our cultural baggage concerning the time period itself.

Note that I said I had a problem with the historical background of the film not the historical inaccuracy of the film. Just because the filmakers say that they weren't aiming for historical accuracy does not make the historical context irrelevant. Would it have been ok if all the Spartans were wearing Nike trainers ? Or if Xerxes offered Leonides an X-Box 360 with HD plasma screen TV as a gift for his service ? Clearly historical background matters at some point.

I'm not saying that film is bad because the 4th soldier in the 3rd rank had a cold that day, or that their sandals were the wrong colour. What I am saying is that a great many of the creative decisions made by the filmakers were ill chosen, contradictory or inconsistent in their own right. Even a vague knowledge of classical history only emphasises the film's failings and in no way do they compensate for the licenses taken with the historical backgorund.

One of, if not the, major theme of the Battle of Thermopylae, in common with many other famous battles, is the importance of intelligence, weapons, tactics and choice of terrain to victory in battle. The film itself sets up this message throughout its build up. The very first scene is presaging the choice of terrain and with the spartan exile we get a description of the arms and techniques. When it finally comes to action we are shown the phalanx in operation (badly) for about 30 seconds. After that, it is never seen again all we get is sword ballet. What is the great intelligence shown in the wall of dead crushes one man maneuvre ? How do the so crucial shields change in size ? The one thing that the film is meant to be good at, action, is full of contradictions and screw ups. So what does that leave us with ? The western Anglo-Saxonised free Greece winning because they are clearly superior individuals, whereas the barbarous slave-driving demonised Eastern Persians are obviously morally and physically corrupt.

The film's attitude to sex and sexuality is at best confused, at worst miscogenistic, the acting is atrocious with only the traitor in court providing any interest, the one-eyed man's narration is melodramatic and fascile, the slow motion is over used and in the end irritating, the constant shouting and grunting is tiresome and ridiculous and the constant parade of perfect abs and pecs is either body fashion or titillation depending on your outlook.

For those saying that it is a celebration of male values and masculinity that might be true, if superiority based purely on muscle development, grunting in time, looking constipated and performing inane nonsensical stunts is what you consider masculinity.

Historical accuracy is the least of 300's failings. Sure, we should take the film for what it is. A piece of **** and a fine example of everything that is wrong with Hollywood at the present time.

BTOG46
04-03-2008, 10:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Historical accuracy is the least of 300's failings. Sure, we should take the film for what it is. A piece of **** and a fine example of everything that is wrong with Hollywood at the present time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sadly true, but you only have to look at the forums frequented by school age members to see that a lot of them just enjoyed the film purely as a fun action movie.
And as most console playing kids are fond of using "gay" as an insult, I doubt if many of them saw the film as homo erotic, instead many seem to keep littering their posts with cries of "This is Sparta!" and regard the Spartans as some kind of super warriors.
I think we may be guilty of over analysing this film, and, although it may be based an a historical battle, it was purely made for the box office and to make money, as the vast majority of films are.

Friendly_flyer
04-03-2008, 10:55 AM
Come on guys, 300 is just a film. It's not like it's compulsive educational stuff we're all taught to adore like Triumph des Willens.

SeaFireLIV
04-03-2008, 11:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BTOG46:

Sadly true, but you only have to look at the forums frequented by school age members to see that a lot of them just enjoyed the film purely as a fun action movie.
And as most console playing kids are fond of using "gay" as an insult, I doubt if many of them saw the film as homo erotic, instead many seem to keep littering their posts with cries of "This is Sparta!" and regard the Spartans as some kind of super warriors.
I think we may be guilty of over analysing this film, and, although it may be based an a historical battle, it was purely made for the box office and to make money, as the vast majority of films are. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes! You are all over analysing it too much! gah!

Y`know there is such a thing as thinking too hard and in your attempts to be so `wise` and clever` you all end up looking rather stupid.

Sorry, but it`s true.

Aaron_GT
04-03-2008, 01:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Keyboard taste not so good. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Full of old hob nob and digestive goodness, though.

Pirschjaeger
04-03-2008, 01:42 PM
Capslock on the toilet can be hazardous though.

Fritz

zardozid
04-03-2008, 01:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zardozid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Have you watched the HBO series "Rome"? It takes too many liberties with the historical characters, and events are quite condensed and simplified, but it is still a good and quite accurate portrait of Roman society and has many interesting and realistic details. The characters are also complex and non-monolithic, and there are no real differences between 'goods' and 'evil' ones, but rather they all move according to their interests and point-of-view, like in real life.

It's a good example of a good historical movie: even if not accurate at 100%, it is at least not inaccurate at 100%, and it is very entertaining. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really liked "Rome"... I wish they would make another season, but I guess it cost too much money. I agree with most of the points you make. +1 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

"Rome" took a lot of historical liberties, but held together really well...that was good tv!

I loved the friendship between Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo (2 guys who obviously loved each other...but it didn't make me feel weird at all...LOL)
http://www.canmag.com/images/front/tv/rome2.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting comment.

Rome was good, but I was beginning to get a bit worried about Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo relationship. They were getting more close than anyone in 300!

I was glad when one got married and the other finally got a girlfriend (well he thought it was his girlfriend). And there was certainly some off-putting man-raping going on too.

But a puzzling comment in my view, the men in 300 were less girly than in Rome!

Of course, Rome was far more realistic, I fully agreed, but Rome and 300 are 2 different kind of programs set in 2 different genres. You all need to see the difference, which for some strange reason, most of you refuse to- or are unable to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I think that the reason that 300 was a little "off putting" to me was that many of the same techniques that are used by the mainstream media to objectify and sexualized the female form where used in filming the half naked, oiled up men of Sparta..."the slow motion camera pans and lingers over their posed and oiled body's"... I don't enjoy looking at well toned male flesh, oiled up, or other wise...

I can respect the amount of work it took to achieve a body like that, but after the first few scenes I felt like the point was made...

Maybe I'm a bit of a slave to the modern media, but I have been permanently (damaged/LOL) influenced by the medias constant objectification of the female form and I have come to accept it.... I like looking at oiled up, half naked, one dimensional females not men...

Pirschjaeger
04-03-2008, 02:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Cuss words are not allowed but almost naked females are. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry that women in bikinis offend you but then again,......I didn't post them for you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

DuxCorvan
04-03-2008, 02:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Cuss words are not allowed but almost naked females are. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry that women in bikinis offend you but then again,......I didn't post them for you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Almost naked females should not be allowed, but enforced in this forum. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

luftluuver
04-03-2008, 02:14 PM
Wasn't me but the gf.

Here are 4 for you then Fritz. Enjoy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

http://image002.mylivepage.com/chunk2/889231/678/Fat%20women%20in%20Bikinis.jpg

Pirschjaeger
04-03-2008, 02:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Almost naked females should not be allowed, but enforced in this forum. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ha ha ha, considering you posted before Luftluuver, are you still sure?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Fritz

zardozid
04-03-2008, 02:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Wasn't me but the gf.

Here are 4 for you then Fritz. Enjoy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

http://image002.mylivepage.com/chunk2/889231/678/Fat%20women%20in%20Bikinis.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thats just wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

SeaFireLIV
04-03-2008, 03:09 PM
Well, all I can say is a perfectly good thread has been perverted by those `ladies`... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

It`s kinda hard to eat...

Pirschjaeger
04-03-2008, 03:13 PM
C'mon Seafire, there's a whole lot of lovin' x4. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz

MEGILE
04-03-2008, 03:34 PM
No sir.. I don't like it.

HotelBushranger
04-04-2008, 01:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BTOG46:

Sadly true, but you only have to look at the forums frequented by school age members to see that a lot of them just enjoyed the film purely as a fun action movie.
And as most console playing kids are fond of using "gay" as an insult, I doubt if many of them saw the film as homo erotic, instead many seem to keep littering their posts with cries of "This is Sparta!" and regard the Spartans as some kind of super warriors.
I think we may be guilty of over analysing this film, and, although it may be based an a historical battle, it was purely made for the box office and to make money, as the vast majority of films are. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes! You are all over analysing it too much! gah!

Y`know there is such a thing as thinking too hard and in your attempts to be so `wise` and clever` you all end up looking rather stupid.

Sorry, but it`s true. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1111111!1111one1!eleven

Shura, I can appreciate where you're coming from, and I'm sure I would react in a similar way if such a historical/theatrical '****-up' happened in something like A Bridge Too Far or some such, but as BTOG46 said and SeaFire reiterated, you really are over analysing it far too much. It is simply a one-dimensional (in a good way), pure action film. And for once, it is a Hollywood film that does not proclaim it is anything more than that. Haven't you ever been sick of watching the serious, complex doings of Lenin's mind or a film of a similar level of complexity? 300 is a film that you watch when you want to watch mindless, popcorn munching, entertaining action. Which is natural for men, believe it or not if you think you are more 'cultured' than the rest of us (which I don't think you do). In the end, each to his own and all that jazz, if you truly believe all that stuff you said then I'm not going to try to prove you otherwise.

Good debate though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif And for once it didn't get violent! ~S~

WOLFMondo
04-04-2008, 01:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Wasn't me but the gf.

Here are 4 for you then Fritz. Enjoy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

http://image002.mylivepage.com/chunk2/889231/678/Fat%20women%20in%20Bikinis.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just lost my breakfast and I think lunch ain't happening either now.

WOLFMondo
04-04-2008, 01:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zardozid:

I think that 300 was a little "off putting" to me because many of the same techniques that are used by the mainstream media to objectify and sexualized the female form where used in filming the half naked, oiled up men of Sparta..."the slow motion camera pans and lingers over their posed and oiled body's"... I don't enjoy looking at well toned male flesh, oiled up, or other wise...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It did get my girlfreind to come and see an incredibly violent film with me and I had absolotly no complaints from her, unlike most of the other films I ever go and see.

Bewolf
04-04-2008, 02:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zardozid:

I think that 300 was a little "off putting" to me because many of the same techniques that are used by the mainstream media to objectify and sexualized the female form where used in filming the half naked, oiled up men of Sparta..."the slow motion camera pans and lingers over their posed and oiled body's"... I don't enjoy looking at well toned male flesh, oiled up, or other wise...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It did get my girlfreind to come and see an incredibly violent film with me and I had absolotly no complaints from her, unlike most of the other films I ever go and see. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same with my girl. She actually loved it and brought up Sparta references for quite a while.
So that works for me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

tagTaken2
04-04-2008, 04:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zardozid:

I really liked "Rome"... I wish they would make another season, but I guess it cost too much money. I agree with most of the points you make. +1 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

"Rome" took a lot of historical liberties, but held together really well...that was good tv!

I loved the friendship between Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo (2 guys who obviously loved each other...but it didn't make me feel weird at all...LOL)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rome was awsum. I'm getting series 2 in a few days, and can't wait.
The episode with Cleopatra gave me the irrits, but everything else felt 'authentic'. And the two leads were fantastic. It was impossible to connect Lucius Vorenus with the AIDS-ridden junkie played in Trainspotting... but I guess that's how you recognise acting.

tagTaken2
04-04-2008, 04:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:

Same with my girl. She actually loved it and brought up Sparta references for quite a while.
So that works for me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So it was your girlfriend shouting 'THIS IS SPARTA!!' anytime there was an issue? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Sounds like a great girl. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

zardozid
04-04-2008, 10:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zardozid:

I think that 300 was a little "off putting" to me because many of the same techniques that are used by the mainstream media to objectify and sexualized the female form where used in filming the half naked, oiled up men of Sparta..."the slow motion camera pans and lingers over their posed and oiled body's"... I don't enjoy looking at well toned male flesh, oiled up, or other wise...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It did get my girlfreind to come and see an incredibly violent film with me and I had absolotly no complaints from her, unlike most of the other films I ever go and see. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same with my girl. She actually loved it and brought up Sparta references for quite a while.
So that works for me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well, maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way... "turn-a-bout, fair-play and all."

jadger
04-04-2008, 10:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tagTaken2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zardozid:

I really liked "Rome"... I wish they would make another season, but I guess it cost too much money. I agree with most of the points you make. +1 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

"Rome" took a lot of historical liberties, but held together really well...that was good tv!

I loved the friendship between Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo (2 guys who obviously loved each other...but it didn't make me feel weird at all...LOL)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rome was awsum. I'm getting series 2 in a few days, and can't wait.
The episode with Cleopatra gave me the irrits, but everything else felt 'authentic'. And the two leads were fantastic. It was impossible to connect Lucius Vorenus with the AIDS-ridden junkie played in Trainspotting... but I guess that's how you recognise acting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you didn't like the Cleopatra part, you won't like the 2nd season. I found the 2nd season diverged far too much from history. The first season was great, but they were dragging the characters along until the end. I dont want to spoil it for you, but Titus and Eirene, I always wanted them to hook up http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

Bewolf
04-04-2008, 10:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tagTaken2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:

Same with my girl. She actually loved it and brought up Sparta references for quite a while.
So that works for me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So it was your girlfriend shouting 'THIS IS SPARTA!!' anytime there was an issue? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Sounds like a great girl. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

She undoubtly is. She also drew my forum avatar here completly on her own motivation. I suppose that tells enough http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

DuxCorvan
04-04-2008, 03:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jadger:
If you didn't like the Cleopatra part, you won't like the 2nd season. I found the 2nd season diverged far too much from history. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I don't think so. Cleopatra and Antony are given much deeper, human roles -you hate them, but in the end you get to compassionate them. And, in fact, except for an absolutely crazy detail in the very end (which is funny anyway), the 2nd season is closer to History than the first.

I love Octavian in the 2nd part. He grows to be the cold-minded, ambivalent, mild-mannered but terrifying person I've always imagined the first cesar was.

Messaschnitzel
04-04-2008, 04:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Messaschnitzel:
A lot of people don't realize that Persians are ethnically close to western europeans, and that Farsi is an Indo-European language that uses Arabic script. Also, Iran means "land of the Aryans". Most of the Iranian immigrants that I have met or known are very light skinned. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ethnically close?

From Wiki:

Proto-Iranians first emerged following the separation of Indo-Iranians, and are traced to the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex.[31] Aryan, (Proto-Iranian) tribes arrived in the Iranian plateau in the third and second millennium BC, probably in more than one wave of emigration, and settled as nomads. Further separation of Proto-Iranians into "Eastern" and "Western" groups occurred due to migration. By the first millennium BC, Medes, Persians, Bactrians and Parthians populated the western part, while Cimmerians, Sarmatians and Alans populated the steppes north of the Black Sea. Other tribes began to settle on the eastern edge, as far as on the mountainous frontier of north-western Indian subcontinent and into the area which is now Balochistan. Others, such as the Scythian tribes spread as far west as the Balkans and as far east as Xinjiang. Avestan is an eastern Old Iranian language that was used to compose the sacred hymns and canon of the Zoroastrian Avesta in c. 1000 BC. Zoroastrianism was the state religion of the Achaemenid empire and later Iranian empires, until the 7th century.

About Persian:

Article 15 of the Iranian constitution states that the "Official language (of Iran)... is Persian...[and]... the use of regional and tribal languages in the press and mass media, as well as for teaching of their literature in schools, is allowed in addition to Persian." Persian serves as a lingua farnca in Iran and most publications and broadcastings are in this language. Next to Persian there are many publications and broadcastings in other relatively large languages of Iran such as Azeri, Kurdish and even in relatively smaller ones such as Arabic and Armenian. Many languages have originated from Iran, but Persian is the most used language. Persian is a tongue belonging to the Aryan or Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European family of languages. The oldest records in Old Persian date back to the Achaemenid Empire[116] and examples of Old Persian have been found in present-day Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Egypt. In the late 8th century the Persian language was highly Arabized and written in a modified Arabic script. This caused a movement supporting the revival of Persian. An important event of this revival was the writing of the Shahname by Ferdowsi (Persian: Epic of Kings), Iran's national epic, which is said to have been written entirely in native Persian. This gave rise to a strong reassertion of Iranian national identity, and is in part responsible for the continued existence of Persian as a separate language.

Persian is a tongue belonging to the Aryan or Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European family of languages.

The meaning of 'Iran':

Iran - from Pers. Iran "Persia," from Middle Persian Eran (sahr) "(land) of the Iranians," gen. pl. of Er "an Iranian," from O.Pers. ariya- "compatriot," from PIE aryo-, self-designation of the "Aryan" people (see Aryan).

Aryan - 1. Indo-Iranian. No longer in technical use.
2. A member of the people who spoke the parent language of the Indo-European languages. No longer in technical use.
3. A member of any people speaking an Indo-European language. No longer in technical use.
4. In Nazism and neo-Nazism, a non-Jewish Caucasian, especially one of Nordic type, supposed to be part of a master race.

Further note:

Word History: It is one of the ironies of history that Aryan, a word nowadays referring to the blond-haired, blue-eyed physical ideal of Nazi Germany, originally referred to a people who looked vastly different. Its history starts with the ancient Indo-Iranians, Indo-European peoples who inhabited parts of what are now Iran, Afghanistan, and India. Their tribal self-designation was a word reconstructed as *arya- or *ārya-. The first of these is the form found in Iranian, as ultimately in the name of Iran itself (from Middle Persian Ērān (ahr), "(Land) of the Iranians," from the genitive plural of Ēr, "Iranian"). The variant *ārya- is found unchanged in Sanskrit, where it referred to the upper crust of ancient Indian society. These words became known to European scholars in the 18th century. The shifting of meaning that eventually led to the present-day sense started in the 1830s, when Friedrich Schlegel, a German scholar who was an important early Indo-Europeanist, came up with a theory that linked the Indo-Iranian words with the German word Ehre, "honor," and older Germanic names containing the element ario-, such as the Swiss warrior Ariovistus who was written about by Julius Caesar. Schlegel theorized that far from being just a designation of the Indo-Iranians, the word *arya- had in fact been what the Indo-Europeans called themselves, meaning something like "the honorable people." (This theory has since been called into question.) Thus "Aryan" came to be synonymous with "Indo-European," and in this sense entered the general scholarly consciousness of the day. Not much later, it was proposed that the original homeland of the Indo-Europeans had been in northern Europe. From this theory, it was but a small leap to think of the Aryans as having had a northern European physiotype. While these theories were playing themselves out, certain anti-Semitic scholars in Germany took to viewing the Jews in Germany as the main non-Aryan people because of their Semitic roots; a distinction thus arose in their minds between Jews and the "true Aryan" Germans, a distinction that later furnished unfortunate fodder for the racial theories of the Nazis.

Farsi - The modern Iranian language, dating from about the ninth century A.D., that is the national language of Iran and is written in an Arabic alphabet; Persian.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What you wrote made me think about what the actual facts are in relation to what I have heard, and also what I have read on the internet.

As I looked farther into the subject of whether the Iranians were "ethnically close" to Western Europeans, the more confusing it became. I found that a good deal of the webpages that I visited were contradicting each other. Some were clearly biased, some seemed to be written by professionals, etc. I finally decided to get in touch with a professional in the field of linguistics.

I contacted Johanna Nichols, of the Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures at the University of California, Berkeley. Although she is not an Iranianist, I figured that she may know someone at Berkeley that was. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

I wrote to her, and referenced the Wiki page that you quoted. I have always cautiously regarded Wikipedia as a work in progress because of some errors, and later corrections about other topics I have encountered before.

I cut and pasted the quoted material and link from Wiki that you posted. I did so, not because I didn't believe it, but rather to find out from a professor of linguistics Whether the Wiki entry was correct. Here is what she posted:

"I'm not an Iranianist but as a linguist I can assure you that what you quote from Wikipedia below is true. The Persian *language* is related to most of those of western Europe (excluding Basque); whether the Persian speakers themselves are is a very different question.

Some people living in Iran speak Semitic and Turkic languages, but the Persian language itself is Indo-European.

You could find out more by looking up "Iranian languages" and "Indo-European languages" in Wikipedia; I haven't checked those entries but I would imagine they are reliable. The ancestor of English, Persian, etc. didn't come from the Indus Valley itself but was spoken in the western steppe (today's southern Ukraine and southern Russia) about 6000 years ago.

Try this link to a review of a recent excellent book on Indo-European:"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/books/review/Kenneall...f=review&oref=slogin (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/books/review/Kenneally-t.html?_r=1&ref=review&oref=slogin)

The second question that I looked into was even more contradictory. I did find this Wiki about genetics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Luca_Cavalli-Sforza

What caught my attention was the image on the entry:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/94/Cavallisforzageneclusters.jpg

I wrote to the Stanford Medical Center Dept. of Genetics, and asked about whether the Persians are ethnically close to western europeans, as well as the Wiki link. I received this message back:

"It is difficuolt for me to answer in detail all questions I receive like the enclosed one. To answer briefly, there is genetic similarity between the groups mentionesd which is perhaps soimewhat closer than one would expect given the geographic distance between them, because of historical reasons that are seem acceptable but are not fully known or understood. See my book Genes Peoples and Languages, Penguin Press.

Luca Cavalli-Sforza"

Anyway, this may probably be what explains the relationship between Iranians and Western Europeans.

I must admit that the farther I looked into this stuff, the more interesting it became. Too bad I don't have rich relatives that will send me to Stanford U. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

MB_Avro_UK
04-04-2008, 05:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Messaschnitzel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Messaschnitzel:
A lot of people don't realize that Persians are ethnically close to western europeans, and that Farsi is an Indo-European language that uses Arabic script. Also, Iran means "land of the Aryans". Most of the Iranian immigrants that I have met or known are very light skinned. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ethnically close?

From Wiki:

Proto-Iranians first emerged following the separation of Indo-Iranians, and are traced to the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex.[31] Aryan, (Proto-Iranian) tribes arrived in the Iranian plateau in the third and second millennium BC, probably in more than one wave of emigration, and settled as nomads. Further separation of Proto-Iranians into "Eastern" and "Western" groups occurred due to migration. By the first millennium BC, Medes, Persians, Bactrians and Parthians populated the western part, while Cimmerians, Sarmatians and Alans populated the steppes north of the Black Sea. Other tribes began to settle on the eastern edge, as far as on the mountainous frontier of north-western Indian subcontinent and into the area which is now Balochistan. Others, such as the Scythian tribes spread as far west as the Balkans and as far east as Xinjiang. Avestan is an eastern Old Iranian language that was used to compose the sacred hymns and canon of the Zoroastrian Avesta in c. 1000 BC. Zoroastrianism was the state religion of the Achaemenid empire and later Iranian empires, until the 7th century.

About Persian:

Article 15 of the Iranian constitution states that the "Official language (of Iran)... is Persian...[and]... the use of regional and tribal languages in the press and mass media, as well as for teaching of their literature in schools, is allowed in addition to Persian." Persian serves as a lingua farnca in Iran and most publications and broadcastings are in this language. Next to Persian there are many publications and broadcastings in other relatively large languages of Iran such as Azeri, Kurdish and even in relatively smaller ones such as Arabic and Armenian. Many languages have originated from Iran, but Persian is the most used language. Persian is a tongue belonging to the Aryan or Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European family of languages. The oldest records in Old Persian date back to the Achaemenid Empire[116] and examples of Old Persian have been found in present-day Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Egypt. In the late 8th century the Persian language was highly Arabized and written in a modified Arabic script. This caused a movement supporting the revival of Persian. An important event of this revival was the writing of the Shahname by Ferdowsi (Persian: Epic of Kings), Iran's national epic, which is said to have been written entirely in native Persian. This gave rise to a strong reassertion of Iranian national identity, and is in part responsible for the continued existence of Persian as a separate language.

Persian is a tongue belonging to the Aryan or Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European family of languages.

The meaning of 'Iran':

Iran - from Pers. Iran "Persia," from Middle Persian Eran (sahr) "(land) of the Iranians," gen. pl. of Er "an Iranian," from O.Pers. ariya- "compatriot," from PIE aryo-, self-designation of the "Aryan" people (see Aryan).

Aryan - 1. Indo-Iranian. No longer in technical use.
2. A member of the people who spoke the parent language of the Indo-European languages. No longer in technical use.
3. A member of any people speaking an Indo-European language. No longer in technical use.
4. In Nazism and neo-Nazism, a non-Jewish Caucasian, especially one of Nordic type, supposed to be part of a master race.

Further note:

Word History: It is one of the ironies of history that Aryan, a word nowadays referring to the blond-haired, blue-eyed physical ideal of Nazi Germany, originally referred to a people who looked vastly different. Its history starts with the ancient Indo-Iranians, Indo-European peoples who inhabited parts of what are now Iran, Afghanistan, and India. Their tribal self-designation was a word reconstructed as *arya- or *ārya-. The first of these is the form found in Iranian, as ultimately in the name of Iran itself (from Middle Persian Ērān (ahr), "(Land) of the Iranians," from the genitive plural of Ēr, "Iranian"). The variant *ārya- is found unchanged in Sanskrit, where it referred to the upper crust of ancient Indian society. These words became known to European scholars in the 18th century. The shifting of meaning that eventually led to the present-day sense started in the 1830s, when Friedrich Schlegel, a German scholar who was an important early Indo-Europeanist, came up with a theory that linked the Indo-Iranian words with the German word Ehre, "honor," and older Germanic names containing the element ario-, such as the Swiss warrior Ariovistus who was written about by Julius Caesar. Schlegel theorized that far from being just a designation of the Indo-Iranians, the word *arya- had in fact been what the Indo-Europeans called themselves, meaning something like "the honorable people." (This theory has since been called into question.) Thus "Aryan" came to be synonymous with "Indo-European," and in this sense entered the general scholarly consciousness of the day. Not much later, it was proposed that the original homeland of the Indo-Europeans had been in northern Europe. From this theory, it was but a small leap to think of the Aryans as having had a northern European physiotype. While these theories were playing themselves out, certain anti-Semitic scholars in Germany took to viewing the Jews in Germany as the main non-Aryan people because of their Semitic roots; a distinction thus arose in their minds between Jews and the "true Aryan" Germans, a distinction that later furnished unfortunate fodder for the racial theories of the Nazis.

Farsi - The modern Iranian language, dating from about the ninth century A.D., that is the national language of Iran and is written in an Arabic alphabet; Persian.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What you wrote made me think about what the actual facts are in relation to what I have heard, and also what I have read on the internet.

As I looked farther into the subject of whether the Iranians were "ethnically close" to Western Europeans, the more confusing it became. I found that a good deal of the webpages that I visited were contradicting each other. Some were clearly biased, some seemed to be written by professionals, etc. I finally decided to get in touch with a professional in the field of linguistics.

I contacted Johanna Nichols, of the Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures at the University of California, Berkeley. Although she is not an Iranianist, I figured that she may know someone at Berkeley that was. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

I wrote to her, and referenced the Wiki page that you quoted. I have always cautiously regarded Wikipedia as a work in progress because of some errors, and later corrections about other topics I have encountered before.

I cut and pasted the quoted material and link from Wiki that you posted. I did so, not because I didn't believe it, but rather to find out from a professor of linguistics Whether the Wiki entry was correct. Here is what she posted:

"I'm not an Iranianist but as a linguist I can assure you that what you quote from Wikipedia below is true. The Persian *language* is related to most of those of western Europe (excluding Basque); whether the Persian speakers themselves are is a very different question.

Some people living in Iran speak Semitic and Turkic languages, but the Persian language itself is Indo-European.

You could find out more by looking up "Iranian languages" and "Indo-European languages" in Wikipedia; I haven't checked those entries but I would imagine they are reliable. The ancestor of English, Persian, etc. didn't come from the Indus Valley itself but was spoken in the western steppe (today's southern Ukraine and southern Russia) about 6000 years ago.

Try this link to a review of a recent excellent book on Indo-European:"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/books/review/Kenneall...f=review&oref=slogin (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/books/review/Kenneally-t.html?_r=1&ref=review&oref=slogin)

The second question that I looked into was even more contradictory. I did find this Wiki about genetics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Luca_Cavalli-Sforza

What caught my attention was the image on the entry:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/94/Cavallisforzageneclusters.jpg

I wrote to the Stanford Medical Center Dept. of Genetics, and asked about whether the Persians are ethnically close to western europeans, as well as the Wiki link. I received this message back:

"It is difficuolt for me to answer in detail all questions I receive like the enclosed one. To answer briefly, there is genetic similarity between the groups mentionesd which is perhaps soimewhat closer than one would expect given the geographic distance between them, because of historical reasons that are seem acceptable but are not fully known or understood. See my book Genes Peoples and Languages, Penguin Press.

Luca Cavalli-Sforza"

Anyway, this may probably be what explains the relationship between Iranians and Western Europeans.

I must admit that the farther I looked into this stuff, the more interesting it became. Too bad I don't have rich relatives that will send me to Stanford U. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good post and interesting http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Pirschjaeger
04-04-2008, 06:31 PM
Messaschnitzel,

nice work. I am impressed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

But I think you have to define 'ethnic'. From American Heritage;

Ethnic - Of, relating to, or characteristic of a sizable group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage.

Notice 5 aspects were mentioned. This is how I viewed your post, with the consideration of the 5 aspects. Maybe you meant 'linguistically related'? In that case, I'd tend to agree with your post.

But the whole idea of 'Aryans' is still a matter of confusion. It's got nothing to do with being white. In fact, the reason the Nazis chose the Arians as their ancestors was because they claimed that they were a hybrid between humans and the gods. Since the Arians were the oldest known culture during the Nazi era, the idea was that they were the best and that all cultures stem from the Arians. If another culture would be proven to be older, then the complete Nazi ideology would have been undermined.

Today we've found cultures and religions to be over 70;000 years old. Google 'ancient snake religion Botswana' or ask Friendly-Flyer for info since it was his friend who discovered it.

This silly Aryan idea was perpetuated by the Allies after the war as propaganda. But, like much propaganda, this one became a kind of 'known' fact.

Do you know how the linguists connect old Persian with modern English? If you knew, you'd be disappointed. They basically take words from different languages and try to find common points such as 'p' and 'f', ie father and pater.

Considering we have less than half the languages we had 1,000 years ago, there's not a lot to go on. How many did we have 10,000 years ago? Today we have an estimated 5,000.

I'm not saying the linguists are wrong. What I am saying is that a lot of what they say should be taken with a grain of salt. I followed a discussion that turned to debate and finally an outright argument with insults between some linguists about the proper pronunciation of old English and in particular in the Beowolf text. Being only ca 1,000 years old (Beowolf), I noticed there was a lot of 'best guessing' going on.

But really, I am very impressed that you took the time and made the effort. I wish more people in this community would do so.

If you are willing to dig deeper (because it's really interesting) ask the linguists how they know the languages are connected. We could even start a new thread if you'd like.

Fritz

Airmail109
04-04-2008, 06:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Messaschnitzel,

nice work. I am impressed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

But I think you have to define 'ethnic'. From American Heritage;

Ethnic - Of, relating to, or characteristic of a sizable group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage.

Notice 5 aspects were mentioned. This is how I viewed your post, with the consideration of the 5 aspects. Maybe you meant 'linguistically related'? In that case, I'd tend to agree with your post.

But the whole idea of 'Aryans' is still a matter of confusion. It's got nothing to do with being white. In fact, the reason the Nazis chose the Arians as their ancestors was because they claimed that they were a hybrid between humans and the gods. Since the Arians were the oldest known culture during the Nazi era, the idea was that they were the best and that all cultures stem from the Arians. If another culture would be proven to be older, then the complete Nazi ideology would have been undermined.

Today we've found cultures and religions to be over 70;000 years old. Google 'ancient snake religion Botswana' or ask Friendly-Flyer for info since it was his friend who discovered it.

This silly Aryan idea was perpetuated by the Allies after the war as propaganda. But, like much propaganda, this one became a kind of 'known' fact.

Do you know how the linguists connect old Persian with modern English? If you knew, you'd be disappointed. They basically take words from different languages and try to find common points such as 'p' and 'f', ie father and pater.

Considering we have less than half the languages we had 1,000 years ago, there's not a lot to go on. How many did we have 10,000 years ago? Today we have an estimated 5,000.

I'm not saying the linguists are wrong. What I am saying is that a lot of what they say should be taken with a grain of salt. I followed a discussion that turned to debate and finally an outright argument with insults between some linguists about the proper pronunciation of old English and in particular in the Beowolf text. Being only ca 1,000 years old (Beowolf), I noticed there was a lot of 'best guessing' going on.

But really, I am very impressed that you took the time and made the effort. I wish more people in this community would do so.

If you are willing to dig deeper (because it's really interesting) ask the linguists how they know the languages are connected. We could even start a new thread if you'd like.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Most reputable historians and archaeologists of the time could have refuted the notion of the Aryan race.

The Nazi's were really whacked in their heads, somehow they managed to tie Buddhism into all of their BS.

"This silly Aryan idea was perpetuated by the Allies after the war as propaganda. But, like much propaganda, this one became a kind of 'known' fact."

Prove it, oh man a friend of mine could have an absolute field day with that.

Tell me again, why were Jew's you know...gassed?

Pirschjaeger
04-04-2008, 06:46 PM
I can assume two things when I see your post Aimail.

1) You didn't understand.

2) You don't agree.

I don't have to prove anything based on a 'prove it'. It is you making the challenge so you should post something to the contrary.

I suggest you focus on number 1.

Fritz

Airmail109
04-04-2008, 06:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
I can assume two things when I see your post Aimail.

1) You didn't understand.

2) You don't agree.

I don't have to prove anything based on a 'prove it'. It is you making the challenge so you should post something to the contrary.

I suggest you focus on number 1.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you misunderstood what is known as fact, I know of very few textbooks that describe the notion of Arianism merely as White + Blonde.

However, the Nazi's did seem to favor them.

Pirschjaeger
04-04-2008, 06:59 PM
I have no idea what you are talking about Aimail. Maybe that's because you haven't a clue as to what I said.

The Nazis, just as the British had previously done, used the Aryan myth to subjugate, just as the British had previously done. After the war was over the Allies used it as negative propaganda against the Germans. This propaganda has perpetuated the myth.

That is what I said. Understand now?

Fritz

Airmail109
04-04-2008, 07:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
I have no idea what you are talking about Aimail. Maybe that's because you haven't a clue as to what I said.

The Nazis, just as the British had previously done, used the Aryan myth to subjugate, just as the British had previously done. After the war was over the Allies used it as negative propaganda against the Germans. This propaganda has perpetuated the myth.

That is what I said. Understand now?

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think I did have a clue what you said? Just what were you saying, you didn't seem to actually make any points. I contest your idea that the Nazis based their ideology on the Aryan race being the oldest, had they done this they would have known the Roma and Jews were technically "Aryan". They forced and bent vague ideas to suit their own political ideology.

Some British used the idea of the Aryan race in India, not on an official level however and It was used to tie in with the Indian caste system.

Pirschjaeger
04-04-2008, 07:30 PM
Britain used the Aryan myth to connect themselves with the caste system in order to subjugate.

Now, I'm not going to continue playing your silly little game. All you are doing is posting contrary to what I post and offering nothing to back it up.

Your intentions are obvious.

Fritz

Airmail109
04-04-2008, 07:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Britain used the Aryan myth to connect themselves with the caste system in order to subjugate.

Now, I'm not going to continue playing your silly little game. All you are doing is posting contrary to what I post and offering nothing to back it up.

Your intentions are obvious.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Show me evidence where it was official doctrine and not used by some silly public school boys playing king over in India?

heywooood
04-04-2008, 08:17 PM
I'm a little surprised to see my comparison betweeen the film '300' and 'Sin City' got some traction in this thread....

I only tossed it out to avoid participation in yet another futile PC related debate.

They go around and around and cover the same ground and open the same wounds without any real frank, useful conversation.

For my money political correctness is a sham - its a lie and a camoflage for people that have some hatred in them to hide behind, and on the flip side - the phoney appeasement that is forced and legislated doesn't really solve anything either...historically accurate inclusion and proper honor is the only thing that matters.

I would much rather that if someone is a hater we let them speak their minds freely - thats what this republic is about.
When people are allowed or rather encouraged to do that - then and only then can you have any meaningful exchange of ideology and on the plus side (invaluably) you get to hear where a person is really coming from and know the scope and detail of the hate as well as the face of it.
No more anonymity - no more protection - and no more lies.

Then we can get down to the business of removing the hatred and solve a weary problem (or at least do a better job of avoiding these types and keeping our kids safer) but preventing open discussion because it hurts?! thats not going to solve anything - infact - it just breeds further resentment if you ask me.

Everything that is worth having comes at a price - It would be nice if we could just suck it up and get to it already.

Maybe Obamas' run will help...or maybe the frustration and resentment bred by Political Correctness have reduced our ability to discuss these things with each other and his run for office will do more harm than good in the short term (maybe) - but I think in the long run, it can only be a good thing.

I don't mean to make such an America-centric post but lets face it - we in the jingoistic USA still can't talk about any (notable) person without mentioning his/her race (as if it F'n mattered one way or the other)- unless he or she is white - and this after some 200 years of accepting the words 'all men, being created equal' as the cornerstone of our Republic.

and just like that my attempt to skip this thread is shattered utterly

Pirschjaeger
04-04-2008, 08:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Britain used the Aryan myth to connect themselves with the caste system in order to subjugate.

Now, I'm not going to continue playing your silly little game. All you are doing is posting contrary to what I post and offering nothing to back it up.

Your intentions are obvious.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Show me evidence where it was official doctrine and not used by some silly public school boys playing king over in India? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Enough of the games Aimail. I've been much too patient in the last 2 weeks.

Fritz

SeaFireLIV
04-04-2008, 08:57 PM
oh well.

Messaschnitzel
04-04-2008, 10:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Messaschnitzel,

nice work. I am impressed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks! This is a topic that I have read a little about, but never studied casually, even from a layman's perspective. As little as I investigated it, I got a lot out of it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But I think you have to define 'ethnic'. From American Heritage;

Ethnic - Of, relating to, or characteristic of a sizable group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I did check into what the definition(s) was, but I came away feeling that the definition is somewhat shaky even among professional academics on the subject. The same goes for the very idea of "race", (the term "Caucasian" seems to be argued over in its definition and usage) given the amount of time humans have had to spread and intermingle throughout the world.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Notice 5 aspects were mentioned. This is how I viewed your post, with the consideration of the 5 aspects. Maybe you meant 'linguistically related'? In that case, I'd tend to agree with your post. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I meant related both in language and people. I mentioned that the number of Iranians that I knew or met have very light skin. Hell, I have slightly darker skin than they did because I have creole blood from down the line. I remember reading or seeing something about the Persian/european genetic connection, and thought that would explain the lighter skin. Then again, I have met people from Turkey that look Western European, and have light skin.

Another thing that might have influenced my perspective is that I read a biography about Sir Richard Francis Burton, maybe 15 years ago. The book states that he wrote about "beebee", and "booboo", two Indian terms for a "white noble woman", and a "dark common woman". (The terms may be backwards. It has been a long time since I have read the book.) IIRC,I believe that he went on to mention how skin color played a big part in their culture, and that since the British were light skinned, they were more readily accepted by the Indian ruling class.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But the whole idea of 'Aryans' is still a matter of confusion. It's got nothing to do with being white. In fact, the reason the Nazis chose the Arians as their ancestors was because they claimed that they were a hybrid between humans and the gods. Since the Arians were the oldest known culture during the Nazi era, the idea was that they were the best and that all cultures stem from the Arians. If another culture would be proven to be older, then the complete Nazi ideology would have been undermined.

Today we've found cultures and religions to be over 70;000 years old. Google 'ancient snake religion Botswana' or ask Friendly-Flyer for info since it was his friend who discovered it.

This silly Aryan idea was perpetuated by the Allies after the war as propaganda. But, like much propaganda, this one became a kind of 'known' fact. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The reason I wrote the "Land of the Aryans", I was originally told that was the land's original name, by an Iranian. I never looked in depth into the nazi historical aspect of the co-opting of the term. I always thought that the nazis grabbed the word because that conveniently explained and fitted in with the whole light skinned master race theory. (ie, that since some Iranians have light skin, they must be "white".) I admit that this is ignorance of the subject on my part.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Do you know how the linguists connect old Persian with modern English? If you knew, you'd be disappointed. They basically take words from different languages and try to find common points such as 'p' and 'f', ie father and pater.

Considering we have less than half the languages we had 1,000 years ago, there's not a lot to go on. How many did we have 10,000 years ago? Today we have an estimated 5,000.

I'm not saying the linguists are wrong. What I am saying is that a lot of what they say should be taken with a grain of salt. I followed a discussion that turned to debate and finally an outright argument with insults between some linguists about the proper pronunciation of old English and in particular in the Beowolf text. Being only ca 1,000 years old (Beowolf), I noticed there was a lot of 'best guessing' going on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I know what you mean. The scientific method of finding, using, and shaping information to their needs. (like adding vowels to ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics, maybe.)Interesting that you mention Beowulf. I saw an argument between three people from U.C. Berkeley sitting in a pizza parlor about the correct pronunciation of certain words in OE. At the time, I thought to myself, hell, how would they know? These people weren't even alive when the language was in everyday use, and I didn't even have to go to college to figure that one out.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But really, I am very impressed that you took the time and made the effort. I wish more people in this community would do so. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks again, and thank you for prompting me to do this. It really hit me that before, I felt I knew a little bit about the subject to post, but after reading your post, It led me to attempt to find the answers. (Say, how deep DOES this rabbit hole go?)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you are willing to dig deeper (because it's really interesting) ask the linguists how they know the languages are connected. We could even start a new thread if you'd like.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh! I don't know why, but I have a feeling that they would think that it is bait for an ambush. After reading the Wiki entry about the argument between Dr. Cavalli-Sforza and the linguists, that might be a loaded question because of the etymology guesswork that goes on. From what I gather, academia can be a war zone when theories and reputations are involved.

Friendly_flyer
04-05-2008, 03:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Messaschnitzel:
I remember reading or seeing something about the Persian/european genetic connection, and thought that would explain the lighter skin. Then again, I have met people from Turkey that look Western European, and have light skin. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's hardly surprising. The Middle East is situated so that every little group of people crossing between Asia, Africa and Europe will eventually cross it, most leaving a bit of genes here and there. "New" people continually enter the regions, the Europeans left genetic imprints during the Crusades some 700 years ago, the Turks entered the region (probably from the Caucasus) as recently as 500 years ago. You'll find people in the Middle East ranging from dark chocolate to pig-pale, from pure bred ancient peoples to peoples with 5-6 known different ancestral groups and likely some unknown ones as well.

Etymologically, the word "Aryan" is linked with "Iran", the Persians possibly being the ancestral Aryans.

Pirschjaeger
04-05-2008, 05:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Messaschnitzel:
Heh! I don't know why, but I have a feeling that they would think that it is bait for an ambush. After reading the Wiki entry about the argument between Dr. Cavalli-Sforza and the linguists, that might be a loaded question because of the etymology guesswork that goes on. From what I gather, academia can be a war zone when theories and reputations are involved. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From my experience I've noticed that linguists tend to be very sensitive and defensive.

I was in discussions with a famous publisher about teacher training. Since they offer a lot of ESL material they also offer teacher training to their clients. A bad teacher can make a book look bad.

A meeting was set up between myself and a linguist from their training department. The meeting started out really well and we agreed on almost every point. Then when it came to solutions everything went downhill quickly. As soon as I mentioned neurocognitive linguistics and how it had helped enhance my teaching skills , she became very defensive claiming it required years of study. I told her I had been studying for a while and wanted to integrate certain points into a training program. I explained that I could simplify certain aspects by providing some simple information and backing that up with practical applications. She went as far as claiming teachers didn't have the intellect required for studying language in detail. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Needless to say, this was the end of the meeting. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

The linguistics community is divided as they cannot agree whether language is illusory or tangible.

I've contacted various scientists over the years and have to admit I am still impressed with how willing they are to share information and ideas. But, when it comes to linguists, it's like walking on eggshells. First responses are often aggressive to rude. Maybe I've just been unlucky with my choice of 'language experts' I've contacted.

From the subjectivity I see in the linguistics community I'd say linguistics is a study, not a science.

Fritz

Messaschnitzel
04-05-2008, 09:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:

[QUOTE]From my experience I've noticed that linguists tend to be very sensitive and defensive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll hazard a guess that it is because of the environment they work in. They are so paranoid about someone challenging their beliefs that everyone who is not a known supporter is the enemy.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As soon as I mentioned neurocognitive linguistics and how it had helped enhance my teaching skills , she became very defensive claiming it required years of study. I told her I had been studying for a while and wanted to integrate certain points into a training program. I explained that I could simplify certain aspects by providing some simple information and backing that up with practical applications. She went as far as claiming teachers didn't have the intellect required for studying language in detail. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My wife graduated from Berkeley a couple of years ago. She had a really rough time dealing with the economics professors. Some of these professors were on loan from places like Harvard, Yale, Brown, etc. She said that when she would ask an honest question about what they were lecturing about, she would get the same sort of response that you had from the linguist. I would hear my wife use the term "ivory tower A-holes!" a lot, and "these people don't live in the real world."

I have gotten the same response from people who hold master's degrees in ancient and medieval studies. First thing out of their sneering mouth is "So, what university did you graduate from" Granted, I never had any higher education, but I do read current books written by experts of the subjects. Also, people will automatically think that I will hold onto ideas like someone clutching a teddy bear. I don't, because I have found that if I do that, I will end up cutting off my nose to spite my face. If someone has documentable information to the contrary, I'll gladly accept it and change my position because I am always willing to learn.

I can imagine that the linguist that you mentioned probably has implemented what you proposed for your curriculum, and now is standard practice. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif My wife had an argument over the U.S. housing bubble with one of her professors in 2004. She recently read in the news that the same professor is now, in 2008, espousing what she was claiming back then.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I've contacted various scientists over the years and have to admit I am still impressed with how willing they are to share information and ideas. But, when it comes to linguists, it's like walking on eggshells. First responses are often aggressive to rude. Maybe I've just been unlucky with my choice of 'language experts' I've contacted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's because you are probably threatening their ego and academic position with the correct "wrong" questions. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">From the subjectivity I see in the linguistics community I'd say linguistics is a study, not a science. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This reminds me of the movie "My Big Fat Greek Wedding", wher the character Gus Portokalos claimed that the roots of all words were Greek.
One scene has a girl gave the word "kimono".

"Say any word, and I'll tell you how the root of that word is Greek."

"Kimono, kimono, kimono. Ha! Of course! Kimono is come from the Greek word himona, is mean winter. So, what do you wear in the wintertime to stay warm? A robe. You see: robe, kimono. There you go!"

OT: That is one of our favorite movies because of the exact parallel problem that the characters had, we had, but with a serious side to it. When her parents found out that I wasn't Italian and rich, they hit the roof when they found out that we were serious about getting married. When they saw the engagement ring, and saw the inevitability of the situation, they relented. After a number of years, we are a happy "Italian family", and now can laugh about it! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif (we also like the movie "Shrek" because our personalities are exactly like Shrek and Fiona when we interact.)

jadger
04-06-2008, 12:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Etymologically, the word "Aryan" is linked with "Iran", the Persians possibly being the ancestral Aryans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interestingly, there is another little known fact that I'd like to share with you. Many people don't know this, but Iran's neighbour, Iraq, is named after me. Now now, I know you're saying "how could this be?" but most people pronounce Iraq incorrectly. It is properly pronounced "I Rock", a perfect description of me if I may say so http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

Friendly_flyer
04-06-2008, 01:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Messaschnitzel:
"It is difficuolt for me to answer in detail all questions I receive like the enclosed one. To answer briefly, there is genetic similarity between the groups mentionesd which is perhaps soimewhat closer than one would expect given the geographic distance between them, because of historical reasons that are seem acceptable but are not fully known or understood. See my book Genes Peoples and Languages, Penguin Press.

Luca Cavalli-Sforza" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You got that answer from Cavalli-Sforza? He's the man on population genetic studies of Indo-Europeans!

AKA_TAGERT
04-06-2008, 08:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

Today, I watched on DVD the film 'Atonement'. It won major awards last year.

It was made by the British film industry who are well known for denigrating anything to do with the British military, police or anything relating to British history.

Not wishing to spoil the film for any viewers but there was an incident portrayed in the film which I take exception to.

The incident related to three British soldiers making their way to Dunkirk in 1940. For some reason, one of the soldiers was black. There were no black soldiers in the British Army at that time.

Does anyone remember the film 'Zulu'?

It related the true account of 120 Welsh/English soldiers in 1879 fighting against a few thousand Zulu warriors in South Africa.

Today, the Zulu people and the descendents of the soldiers have great respect for each other.

But, if the Zulu people in the film had a number of white guys inserted into their side for the sake of political correctness , how would they have considered this?

Just a thought.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The answer to your question is YES..

Sad..

In that some kids will watch that movie and think there were black soldiers present..

Same thing goes for the way the portray women in film and TV today..

I can not tell you how many films and TV shows feel the need to portray women as men..

Take any of the thousands of CSI shows on TV and note how many 98lb. super models are able to beat up a 275lb' man with one kung foo chop..

If I had a daughter I would not allow her to watch any TV or film.

Messaschnitzel
04-06-2008, 11:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Messaschnitzel:
"It is difficuolt for me to answer in detail all questions I receive like the enclosed one. To answer briefly, there is genetic similarity between the groups mentionesd which is perhaps soimewhat closer than one would expect given the geographic distance between them, because of historical reasons that are seem acceptable but are not fully known or understood. See my book Genes Peoples and Languages, Penguin Press.

Luca Cavalli-Sforza" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You got that answer from Cavalli-Sforza? He's the man on population genetic studies of Indo-Europeans! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. I saw his name come up in some of the sites that I visited, and read that he was an emeritus of Stanford University. Until I started to look into this stuff, I had no idea of who this guy was, or of his famous reputation.

I figured that the folks at Stanford were the people for me to ask. When I got the reply, I thought that it would be from someone else on the staff, not Cavalli-Sforza.

Pirschjaeger
04-06-2008, 12:03 PM
It feels good to get replies from experts doesn't it.

It took a lot of courage for me to make the first attempts but I soon learnt these people love to be asked about their work.

FRitz

Patriot_Act
04-06-2008, 05:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

Today, I watched on DVD the film 'Atonement'. It won major awards last year.

It was made by the British film industry who are well known for denigrating anything to do with the British military, police or anything relating to British history.

Not wishing to spoil the film for any viewers but there was an incident portrayed in the film which I take exception to.

The incident related to three British soldiers making their way to Dunkirk in 1940. For some reason, one of the soldiers was black. There were no black soldiers in the British Army at that time.

Does anyone remember the film 'Zulu'?

It related the true account of 120 Welsh/English soldiers in 1879 fighting against a few thousand Zulu warriors in South Africa.

Today, the Zulu people and the descendents of the soldiers have great respect for each other.

But, if the Zulu people in the film had a number of white guys inserted into their side for the sake of political correctness , how would they have considered this?

Just a thought.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i believe you to be incorrect.
It is VERY unlikely that there would have been an African "black" soldier at Dunkirk.
But there were in fact blacks, very few of them, in the British military.

Yes, I demand we have some White Zulus!
Why not? We had many Jewish "NAZIs" in the
movies and on television http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

P.A.

Cossack13
04-06-2008, 05:17 PM
I don't know if Political Correctness has gone mad or not but it most certainly was born stupid.

SeaFireLIV
04-06-2008, 05:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:


Same thing goes for the way the portray women in film and TV today..

I can not tell you how many films and TV shows feel the need to portray women as men..

Take any of the thousands of CSI shows on TV and note how many 98lb. super models are able to beat up a 275lb' man with one kung foo chop..

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fully agree. It was funny 20 years ago when it was titilation and unusual. Now it`s become something that`s hard to ignore because young kids are actually believing it and almost denigrating themselves to suit a woman.

Actually, my daughter goes to a girls only school, but she comes back to me with stories of how males are always belittled and put down in so many ways. even the male science teacher keeps coming out with men-put down rubbish, saying stuff like, "I see now how females are superior to men." He uses the history and stuff like that to push it. This is just the male teacher, the female teachers, some of them are also quite bad. I don`t think they realise my daughter tells me this stuff.

My daughter gets very annoyed by it, while the rest of the girls lap it up.

I tell my daughter that he`s probably having a joke, but I`m seriously considering complaining to the school if this belittling of Men continues.

AKA_TAGERT
04-06-2008, 06:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Fully agree. It was funny 20 years ago when it was titilation and unusual. Now it`s become something that`s hard to ignore because young kids are actually believing it and almost denigrating themselves to suit a woman. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bingo!

Have you also noticed how many movie, TV, stories in general feel the need to replace the main male role character with a female one..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Actually, my daughter goes to a girls only school, but she comes back to me with stories of how males are always belittled and put down in so many ways. even the male science teacher keeps coming out with men-put down rubbish, saying stuff like, "I see now how females are superior to men." He uses the history and stuff like that to push it. This is just the male teacher, the female teachers, some of them are also quite bad. I don`t think they realise my daughter tells me this stuff. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Scary stuff..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
My daughter gets very annoyed by it, while the rest of the girls lap it up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sounds like your raising a good kid there..

I hope she can set an example of how a woman can work along side men without becoming a man..

In that is what I thought the original womans movement was all about..

but now it appears the wackos have taken over that movement..

And now that they have equal pay..

They want to remove men from all aspects of life..

This unisex we don't need a man stuff is poison IMHO!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I tell my daughter that he`s probably having a joke, but I`m seriously considering complaining to the school if this belittling of Men continues. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sad part is he would probably take it out on your daughter..

In that he does not sound like much of a man..

If you know what I mean..

But if no one speaks up..

That is how we get where we are today..

I support you and thank you in what ever you decide to do on that subject!!

SeaFireLIV
04-06-2008, 06:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:


Have you also noticed how many movie, TV, stories in general feel the need to replace the main male role character with a female one..

!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Every single time.



As for my daughter, I simply make her aware of the general unfairness that goes on and she sees it. I don`t want her becoming some kind of feminist idiot in later years. Of course, it can`t be guaranteed.

She will have to make her own way and own decisions ultimately, but hopefully, when out in the world proper, she`ll be a wise-woman, aware that there are good and bad in all people and not continuously batter men over the head or put them down just because she can - To understand that men should not be made to feel guilty for being Men. And that we have a strength and a useful place as Men.

oh, and I`m aware of the danger of her not following the `party-line`. And i`ll jump on the guy if I see anything go against my child because of it. I acted once before on a different matter.

zardozid
04-06-2008, 08:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:


Have you also noticed how many movie, TV, stories in general feel the need to replace the main male role character with a female one..

!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Every single time.



As for my daughter, I simply make her aware of the general unfairness that goes on and she sees it. I don`t want her becoming some kind of feminist idiot in later years. Of course, it can`t be guaranteed.

She will have to make her own way and own decisions ultimately, but hopefully, when out in the world proper, she`ll be a wise-woman, aware that there are good and bad in all people and not continuously batter men over the head or put them down just because she can - To understand that men should not be made to feel guilty for being Men. And that we have a strength and a useful place as Men.

oh, and I`m aware of the danger of her not following the `party-line`. And i`ll jump on the guy if I see anything go against my child because of it. I acted once before on a different matter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

SeaFireLIV, its good that you have such an open relationship with your daughter. And its cool that she is so supportive of you...

I agree with some of the stuff your saying about the mixed messages that children are exposed to... A boy should never feel guilty for being born with a *****. And girls shouldn't feel that they have to question every action a man makes for some kind of "hidden agenda"...

But you guys loose me on few things... <span class="ev_code_PINK"> AKA_TAGERT: "Have you also noticed how many movie, TV, stories in general feel the need to replace the main male role character with a female one."</span> The TV and movie industry is ruled by the "all mighty dollar" if people didn't want to see it, they wouldn't put it on the screen... the only conspiracy is how to make more money.

Female action hero's (for the most part) are a male fantasy... Lara Croft, Charlie's Angles, Sarah Connor, AEon Flux, Honey West, Emma Peel, Xena, Red Sonja...all of them are a male fantasy. Is it unrealistic that a 110 pound woman could down a 200 pound male? Yes...it's very unlikely the chick could knock him out. But I don't see the conspiracy...doesn't everyone cheer for the underdog?... Why take it personally?

AKA_TAGERT
04-06-2008, 09:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Every single time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I just got done watching the new James Bond movie..

Now they were not so bold as to replace James with a woman..

But note that M is now a female and that Mollypenny is man..

And a wimpy one at that..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
As for my daughter, I simply make her aware of the general unfairness that goes on and she sees it. I don`t want her becoming some kind of feminist idiot in later years. Of course, it can`t be guaranteed.

She will have to make her own way and own decisions ultimately, but hopefully, when out in the world proper, she`ll be a wise-woman, aware that there are good and bad in all people and not continuously batter men over the head or put them down just because she can - To understand that men should not be made to feel guilty for being Men. And that we have a strength and a useful place as Men.

oh, and I`m aware of the danger of her not following the `party-line`. And i`ll jump on the guy if I see anything go against my child because of it. I acted once before on a different matter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sounds like you got a good handle on it all!

Good luck!

I wish there were more parents like you around these days!!

GIAP.Shura
04-08-2008, 12:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Every single time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I just got done watching the new James Bond movie..

Now they were not so bold as to replace James with a woman..

But note that M is now a female and that Mollypenny is man.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From 2002 till 2007 the head of British MI5 was a woman. Mollypenny? Who's that?

A quick glance over this list (http://movies.toptenreviews.com/list_2007.htm) of top 50 movies from last year only shows 10 where the main lead is not a man: 1 horror, 1 musical, 1 cartoon, 1 Disney fantasy, 1 action film, 1 documentary, 2 dramas and 2 romcoms.

HotelBushranger
04-08-2008, 01:47 AM
Bloody hell! Just lookin at that top 50 list, about 95% of them are given an R rating by the US system. You blokes are wussy boys http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

zardozid
04-10-2008, 02:06 AM
I know that this is page 12 of this particular thread and its unlikely that anyone is still following it but...

I'm watching " Bataan (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0035664/) " on AMC and their is a black guy in the squad http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif... This movie came out way back in 1943 during the war and they are (unrealistically) including a black guy in a fighting squad (and he's not cooking_ although he is singing a spiritual)!

I guess this would have been propaganda back then... I wonder if any black guys joined the Army after seeing this movie only to find them selfs cleaning up after other soldiers or driving a truck...

I don't know which ones worse... portraying history incorrectly for the sake of the "PC" police or including black people in an "all white war" for "Hollywood story telling" or showing black soldiers fighting alongside whites for propaganda purposes? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

eddie_brune1974
04-10-2008, 03:17 AM
The best way to answer the question...come visit me in South Africa http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Some of you cricket fans might know that Herschelle Gibbs is a black player http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

horseback
04-10-2008, 08:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zardozid:
I know that this is page 12 of this particular thread and its unlikely that anyone is still following it but...

I'm watching " Bataan (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0035664/) " on AMC and their is a black guy in the squad http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif... This movie came out way back in 1943 during the war and they are (unrealistically) including a black guy in a fighting squad (and he's not cooking_ although he is singing a spiritual)!

I guess this would have been propaganda back then... I wonder if any black guys joined the Army after seeing this movie only to find them selfs cleaning up after other soldiers or driving a truck...

I don't know which ones worse... portraying history incorrectly for the sake of the "PC" police or including black people in an "all white war" for "Hollywood story telling" or showing black soldiers fighting alongside whites for propaganda purposes? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, as I recall, the Bataan campaign turned pretty quickly into a 'every able-bodied man" situation, where the artificial distinctions of race were quickly dissolved, so the Black/African American/person of color/label-of-the-week (and how come we still need labels anyway?) soldier in that case is not necessarily out of place.

There was a push to integrate the armed forces in the United States dating back to the First World War; one of the good things that Hollywood could do was bring the idea of our common humanity to the public consciousness. Hence the Filipino guy, the Eastern European immigrant, the swarthy Mediterranean type (maybe he's Italian, maybe he's Latino), the occasional Chinese kid, the tough city guy and the big ol' farm boy from the Midwest being staples of those wartime movies.

Slipping in someone of a blatantly different color (even if only for musical accompaniment) was pretty daring, and should be applauded. There were black men there at Bataan, and they did take up arms and fight in spite of not having been trained to do so.

cheers

horseback

nsteense
06-04-2008, 07:49 AM
I'm currently reading the excellent book 'Duel of Eagles' written by Peter Townsend. In light of this discussion it is interesting to note the following: (regarding the aftermath of the evacuation at Dunkirk)'...They landed in a field near a burning village outside Dunkirk. (Erhard) Milch saw scores of dead soldiers. The only live one was a Black...' p238
Now I don't know why the autor decided to write black with a capital B (not my doing), but I can only assume he is referring to a person.

Urufu_Shinjiro
06-04-2008, 11:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nsteense:
I'm currently reading the excellent book 'Duel of Eagles' written by Peter Townsend. In light of this discussion it is interesting to note the following: (regarding the aftermath of the evacuation at Dunkirk)'...They landed in a field near a burning village outside Dunkirk. (Erhard) Milch saw scores of dead soldiers. The only live one was a Black...' p238
Now I don't know why the autor decided to write black with a capital B (not my doing), but I can only assume he is referring to a person. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats a good book, interesting perspective on the BoB.

stalkervision
06-04-2008, 12:57 PM
I'm just wating for lesbian women combat soldiers to be portrayed fighting along with regular soldiers in ww2. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

rewriting history with ficticious PC-ness is a slippery slope if you ask me.

leitmotiv
08-31-2008, 09:33 AM
There is a genre in literature in the UK right now devoted to "love is agony" placed in a "historical" setting to make it tonier soap opera than "Coronation Street". Goes under the name of "Neogothic". Pretentious nonsense. Found "Atonement" unbearably precious---like the equally unbearable "The English Patient"---another sterling example of Neogothic (horrible disfigurations, obsession with disease and decay, fatal love). Give me the crystalline purity of the vision of Catherine Breillat to this lugubrious tosh. Saw her "The Last Mistress" last night. Brilliant.

Regarding the black soldier at Dunkirk, the theme of "Atonement" is that "reality" is mere aesthetics, thus, anything is permitted to create the effect desired. Thus, throw in a black soldier at Dunkirk, add a ferris wheel, and, for good measure, put soldiers on a merry-go-round. Why not have Charlotte Gainsbourg singing on the quay, too?

stalkervision
08-31-2008, 10:56 AM
Political correctness. Yes we must all bend over with a smile to the gods of political correctness and revisionist history. I knew this was starting when they change the term "garbage collector" to Sanitation engineer. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Monterey13
08-31-2008, 11:09 AM
A midget will always be a midget in my book. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

stalkervision
08-31-2008, 11:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Monterey13:
A midget will always be a midget in my book. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

well let's see how the phrase "little people" works in some instances shall we?

Like the derogatory term "Mental midget" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Now it is "Mental little person" I guess. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

No. we change that to
"Mentally challenged". That new PC term seems totally off the hook to me.

It's not that your mind is challenging you. It's just that you have very little of it to call upon. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ARCHIE_CALVERT
08-31-2008, 11:51 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif As one who has recently had to spend some time as a patient/pin cushion of the NHS, the PC brigade has now even got to change what to say when you are about to stick a hypodermic syringe into someone... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Years ago when I was young, a simple, 'You will feel a little *****' would do, just before they slung a 2" needle in your arm. But now the PCB have changed that to, 'You will feel a sharp scratch'... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Politically Correct they say, more like a load of old Bollicks I say... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

DuxCorvan
08-31-2008, 01:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
I'm just wating for lesbian women combat soldiers to be portrayed fighting along with regular soldiers in ww2. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And doing it better, of course, making the homophobic guy fully feel the shame of his prejudiced bigotry in the start of the movie, and shed sensitive tears while he proudly announces how it is a pride to die side by side with the glorious lesbian heroins, etc.

MB_Avro_UK
08-31-2008, 03:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
I'm just wating for lesbian women combat soldiers to be portrayed fighting along with regular soldiers in ww2. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And doing it better, of course, making the homophobic guy fully feel the shame of his prejudiced bigotry in the start of the movie, and shed sensitive tears while he proudly announces how it is a pride to die side by side with the glorious lesbian heroins, etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You've just spoiled the plot of my latest Blockbuster movie script.

I hope that you are happy as regards your destructive post... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Spielberg.

foxyboy1964
08-31-2008, 03:18 PM
Hold on to your hat Avro, you're going to hate this...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7590705.stm

...what's next?

I can understand why they might want to stop using real bear skin, but CHANGE THE SHAPE? WTF?

Taylortony
08-31-2008, 03:19 PM
When in the Military in Ireland we used to carry our SLR's resting on our hips barrel facing up and damn comfortable it was..... However it was deemed to be an agressive stance and so to make it more PC we had to change to carrrying in barrel facing downwards which then tied up both hands......

Pre PC

http://www.shinycapstar.com/Northern%20Ireland%20e.jpg

Post PC

http://www.shinycapstar.com/Northern%20Ireland%20h%201982.jpg

luftluuver
08-31-2008, 03:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
Political correctness. Yes we must all bend over with a smile to the gods of political correctness and revisionist history. I knew this was starting when they change the term "garbage collector" to Sanitation engineer. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you bend over you will get thee shaft. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

stalkervision
08-31-2008, 04:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
Political correctness. Yes we must all bend over with a smile to the gods of political correctness and revisionist history. I knew this was starting when they change the term "garbage collector" to Sanitation engineer. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you bend over you will get thee shaft. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have been shafted by PC in this lifetime so much already I've learned to walk on my hands.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

stalkervision
08-31-2008, 04:55 PM
Ever go into a grocery store where some darling angel child is pitching a fit of unbelievable proportions and no one says a word about it? Even you? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Your much too afraid that the parents of this angel will jump you and hand you your brain for daring to say a word about this angels outburst?

MB_Avro_UK
09-01-2008, 02:48 PM
Hi all,

A politician in the news very recently used the term 'Yes-Person' rather than the conventional 'Yes-Man' that we are all familiar with.

And the 'Person' in question was a man!

I am very concerned about the word 'Mandate'...should we consider 'Womandate' or 'Persondate'?

And the words 'Manning' or 'Manpower' have been reduced by the PC thingy things to the words 'Staffing' or 'Staff'.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

stalkervision
09-01-2008, 03:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I am very concerned about the word 'Mandate'...should we consider 'Womandate' or 'Persondate'? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a mater of time till they go.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

stalkervision
09-01-2008, 03:24 PM
I was thinking about this possible one.


" The Armed forces " soon to be... The Non-Confrontational military groups ?

Kurfurst__
09-01-2008, 03:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Regarding the black soldier at Dunkirk, the theme of "Atonement" is that "reality" is mere aesthetics, thus, anything is permitted to create the effect desired. Thus, throw in a black soldier at Dunkirk, add a ferris wheel, and, for good measure, put soldiers on a merry-go-round. Why not have Charlotte Gainsbourg singing on the quay, too? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It all start to make sense when you realize that Robbie at the time is suffering from sepsis, and his mind falling apart. Hence the surreal visions at the Dunkirk scene.

leitmotiv
09-01-2008, 04:03 PM
Unfortunately the camera is not being used subjectively, thus, the phantasmagorical imagery is not intended to be R's perspective---anyway, why would he be hallucinating a corpulent black soldier? And, in literary terms, what conceivable symbolic function does the soldier have?! Has anybody read the book? Was there a black soldier in the book?

R_Target
09-01-2008, 05:13 PM
"Surrogate Mother" is now "Gestational Carrier."

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

stalkervision
09-01-2008, 10:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
"Surrogate Mother" is now "Gestational Carrier."

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh god... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Bearcat99
09-02-2008, 07:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

Today, I watched on DVD the film 'Atonement'. It won major awards last year.

It was made by the British film industry who are well known for denigrating anything to do with the British military, police or anything relating to British history.

Not wishing to spoil the film for any viewers but there was an incident portrayed in the film which I take exception to.

The incident related to three British soldiers making their way to Dunkirk in 1940. For some reason, one of the soldiers was black. There were no black soldiers in the British Army at that time.

Does anyone remember the film 'Zulu'?

It related the true account of 120 Welsh/English soldiers in 1879 fighting against a few thousand Zulu warriors in South Africa.

Today, the Zulu people and the descendents of the soldiers have great respect for each other.

But, if the Zulu people in the film had a number of white guys inserted into their side for the sake of political correctness , how would they have considered this?

Just a thought.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

History should be told like it was... warts & all othwerwise it is just fiction.

My 2 cents..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jadger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Worf101:
But remember when the movie "Flyboys" came out and there was a black fighter pilot depicted, some folks cried foul in the exact same manner you did, only to be proven wrong by the facts. Make sure YOU'RE right before you start screaming about Political Correctness.

Da Worfster </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but even if there were black soldiers in the army of any country at the time, they were in a very small minority. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be depicted in movies, but every war movie now has atleast one black man in it, who is always being persecuted by at least one white man, and will eventually rise to overcome it and either the racist white man will rehabilitate or die in combat, after the black man saves his life of course.

My point being, that even thought there were black people in the army, by watching movies these days you'd expect to have seen one in almost every platoon IRL. It's just not realistic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, you have a point. Black people in the forces were a tiny percentage of the main forces unless you depicted actual Indian regiments in India or such like. But in white armies the percentage was tiny, still is now and I have no qualms about that. In my experience, though, I don`t recall seeing black blokes in every recent white-based (I hate talking like this) war film . I watched Flags of their Fathers and letters from Iwo Jima, Saving private Ryan, Thin Red Line and a few others and only in SPR do I remember a prominent black guy in it and even he looked pretty white at the time, took me a while to figure him out. If there were black people in the other films they must have been stand-in parts.

I`ll have to watch Atonement at some point to see how the black soldiers are depicted and their role, although I was avoiding it as some dumb romantic twiddle. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed Worf... and to a point jadger... There are still movies that try to keep it accurate.. and they do get blasted..

SF.. which black man are you talking about in SPR? I don't recall one... if you mean the Vin Deisel character... he was Italian in the movie.. IMO any depiction of an unsegregated military in the USA in WWII is a historical.. I don't know how the other armies did it.. but I do know that if you did the reaerch and in some cases you have to dig.. you might be surprised at how many people of color there were fighting... not only in the US but across the board.. Certainly not a huge number.. but more than many history books and "historical" films guive credit to.

SeaFireLIV
09-02-2008, 08:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:


SF.. which black man are you talking about in SPR? I don't recall one... if you mean the Vin Deisel character... he was Italian in the movie.. IMO any depiction of an unsegregated military in the USA in WWII is a historical.. I don't know how the other armies did it.. but I do know that if you did the reaerch and in some cases you have to dig.. you might be surprised at how many people of color there were fighting... not only in the US but across the board.. Certainly not a huge number.. but more than many history books and "historical" films guive credit to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sometimes I`m thinking `SF? Who`s SF?` then I realise it`s meant to be me! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Yes, I was talking about Vin Diesel. He was supposed to be Italian?? Rigghht. He really came across as Italian to me!

I agree, that if one looks hard enough black people have been in many things that present day society have forgot or rubbed out, especially during the Victorian era where black Egyptian examples were considered not possible.

I know for example that there were at least one black Roman General who I believe died in Britain. There are other examples. So, yes, of course.

Just the other week I was talking to some Medieval Re-enactment guys, spoke at length with them and even dressed up in a typical Medieval Knight`s kit. Nothing beats the feel, really. Holding a a period hand and a half sword, wearing the chainmail coif and slit-view helmet. Heavy but the weight spreads out.

They actually wanted me to join since I am very interested in the period. I asked them about the chances of there being a real black Medievel Knight? They were very incredibly accomodating, even when I said `pull no punches`. They said that during the Crusades there were examples of Medieval black knights.

I`m a bit sceptical, but then again, I never knew black RAF pilots existed until someone posted on the forum which made me check up. I also know a few black people were in England as early as 1100s.

By the way, I saw Atonement. There`s no explanation of how the black guy got there.

Problem is I`m also wary of perversion of history, so I would rather know if they really existed in the present scenario (even if only one example) than someone telling me black guys were there just to avoid hurting my feelings. If it was it was, if it wasn`t, it wasn`t.

Problem is, how true is the history we are told? and from whoms viewpoint? Western history is white man`s history... How true is it to the true history? Although present history is becoming less polarised these days.

Perhaps the full truth will be known in time. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Pirschjaeger
09-02-2008, 09:17 AM
Saint Maurice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Maurice) is not forgotten. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coburg)

Low_Flyer_MkIX
09-02-2008, 09:41 AM
Septimus Severus wasn't just a Roman general, he was Emperor. He died in York.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septimius_Severus

SeaFireLIV
09-02-2008, 09:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
Septimus Severus wasn't just a Roman general, he was Emperor. He died in York.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septimius_Severus </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That`s him! Cheers.

MB_Avro_UK
09-02-2008, 04:37 PM
Hi all,

I am English but also part Welsh and Irish.

A couple of years ago I was on holiday (vacation) in Wales. The road signs are now in both English and Welsh.(Politically Correct).

I noticed that as I approached a tight bend that the warning road markings in white paint were first in Welsh and then in English http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

I don't understand Welsh and by the time I read the English translation it was too late http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

All Welsh people understand English. About 5% or less of Welsh people speak Welsh.

But ALL road signs etc. in Wales have to be duplicated in English and Welsh.

If anyone exposes this situation as a waste of money they will be sent to PC h*ll.

See you all in h*ll http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

The PC issue is more than race.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

luftluuver
09-02-2008, 04:52 PM
Canada is officially bilingual &gt; English - French.

If you travel in Ontario and New Brunswick (border provinces) the road signs are in English and French. If you travel in Quebec, the road signs are ONLY in French.

Von_Rat
09-02-2008, 05:56 PM
in chicago some streets have 2 names. one is the real name, the other is a honorary name. the honorary name is usually for some locally well known person, usually a minority.
the streets have two street signs that look similiar and you have to look close to see the word honorary. it must confuse the hell outta visitors.

i can see where people in minority nieghborhoods would want the streets named after people they can relate to, rather than some dead white guys.

but for godsakes just rename the street and stop the crap with two street signs.

GIAP.Shura
09-03-2008, 03:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

I am English but also part Welsh and Irish.

A couple of years ago I was on holiday (vacation) in Wales. The road signs are now in both English and Welsh.(Politically Correct).

I noticed that as I approached a tight bend that the warning road markings in white paint were first in Welsh and then in English http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

I don't understand Welsh and by the time I read the English translation it was too late http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

All Welsh people understand English. About 5% or less of Welsh people speak Welsh.

But ALL road signs etc. in Wales have to be duplicated in English and Welsh.

If anyone exposes this situation as a waste of money they will be sent to PC h*ll.

See you all in h*ll http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

The PC issue is more than race.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

English/Welsh road signs first appeared in 1965 and appeared systematically from 1972. They are not a new phenomenon. The local highway authorities in question decide whether signage will have English or Welsh priority. Areas in the North West are generally Welsh priority wheareas areas in the South are generally English priority. According to the 2004 Welsh Language Use Survey 21.7% of the population of Wales speaks Welsh.

English/Welsh road signage is not some new fad of PC money wasting. It is one part of an effort to guard an important aspect of the historical and cultural heritage of one of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom. Have you not always championed a greater awareness and appreciation of British history and culture?

Low_Flyer_MkIX
09-03-2008, 03:42 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/4795138.stm


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/4836406.stm

Airmail109
09-03-2008, 05:46 AM
I know a couple who speak old English whenever they are in Wales to **** the Welsh off.....who tend to speak Welsh whenever one enters a shop when they realise your English. The language gets funny looks apparently hehe

MB_Avro_UK
09-03-2008, 12:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GIAP.Shura:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

I am English but also part Welsh and Irish.

A couple of years ago I was on holiday (vacation) in Wales. The road signs are now in both English and Welsh.(Politically Correct).

I noticed that as I approached a tight bend that the warning road markings in white paint were first in Welsh and then in English http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

I don't understand Welsh and by the time I read the English translation it was too late http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

All Welsh people understand English. About 5% or less of Welsh people speak Welsh.

But ALL road signs etc. in Wales have to be duplicated in English and Welsh.

If anyone exposes this situation as a waste of money they will be sent to PC h*ll.

See you all in h*ll http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

The PC issue is more than race.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

English/Welsh road signs first appeared in 1965 and appeared systematically from 1972. They are not a new phenomenon. The local highway authorities in question decide whether signage will have English or Welsh priority. Areas in the North West are generally Welsh priority wheareas areas in the South are generally English priority. According to the 2004 Welsh Language Use Survey 21.7% of the population of Wales speaks Welsh.

English/Welsh road signage is not some new fad of PC money wasting. It is one part of an effort to guard an important aspect of the historical and cultural heritage of one of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom. Have you not always championed a greater awareness and appreciation of British history and culture? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But it is an example Political Correctness.

If a Public Figure was to say that it was all expensive window dressing to champion a minority issue, that 'anyone' would face criticism from the PC Department as 'not respecting minority/cultural issues'.

Road-signs do not preserve a culture or language.

Open and frank debate is forbidden within such circles.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

GIAP.Shura
09-03-2008, 01:11 PM
You don't believe that the presentation of names of towns in their native language on signs preserves culture or increases the awareness of people that that culture exists? You clearly underestimate the importance of language as a part of culture.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If a Public Figure was to say that it was all expensive window dressing to champion a minority issue, that 'anyone' would face criticism from the PC Department as 'not respecting minority/cultural issues'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which PC Department? Who exactly would do the criticism? Expensive? How expensive? So what if it is an issue affecting a cultural minority? Do minority groups deserve no support from the government just because they are a minority? War veterans make up a very small percentage of the population, smaller than the number of Welsh speakers in Wales. Are Remembrance memorials just political correctness, purely expensive window dressing to appease this particular identity group?

The label "Political Correctness" has no meaning any longer. It is used to close down debate on practically any topic of cultural or social interest instead of discussing the issue itself. Welsh road signage is a local issue which principally affects the local people. The issue is whether the additional costs in road signage are compensated for by the cultural benefits it provides. I don't hear of this as an issue from the Welsh so maybe what is happening here is just that politicians are representing their electorate. Minorities are part of the electorate. The reason why we have a representative democracy is because of the dangers of mob rule.

MB_Avro_UK
09-03-2008, 01:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GIAP.Shura:
You don't believe that the presentation of names of towns in their native language on signs preserves culture or increases the awareness of people that that culture exists? You clearly underestimate the importance of language as a part of culture.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If a Public Figure was to say that it was all expensive window dressing to champion a minority issue, that 'anyone' would face criticism from the PC Department as 'not respecting minority/cultural issues'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which PC Department? Who exactly would do the criticism? Expensive? How expensive? So what if it is an issue affecting a cultural minority? Do minority groups deserve no support from the government just because they are a minority? War veterans make up a very small percentage of the population, smaller than the number of Welsh speakers in Wales. Are Remembrance memorials just political correctness, purely expensive window dressing to appease this particular identity group?

The label "Political Correctness" has no meaning any longer. It is used to close down debate on practically any topic of cultural or social interest instead of discussing the issue itself. Welsh road signage is a local issue which principally affects the local people. The issue is whether the additional costs in road signage are compensated for by the cultural benefits it provides. I don't hear of this as an issue from the Welsh so maybe what is happening here is just that politicians are representing their electorate. Minorities are part of the electorate. The reason why we have a representative democracy is because of the dangers of mob rule. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fancy a Pint?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

GIAP.Shura
09-03-2008, 01:35 PM
Sure, so long as it is historically accurate. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

DuxCorvan
09-03-2008, 01:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I am very concerned about the word 'Mandate'...should we consider 'Womandate' or 'Persondate'? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a mater of time till they go.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suggest "manipulate" to become "womanipulate". It's more accurate.

MB_Avro_UK
09-03-2008, 02:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I am very concerned about the word 'Mandate'...should we consider 'Womandate' or 'Persondate'? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a mater of time till they go.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I suggest "manipulate" to become "womanipulate". It's more accurate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dux...you really do worry me at times..

But what about Manchester United?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

joeap
09-03-2008, 02:02 PM
Seriously guys, things like manipulate and manual come from the latin root "manus" (hand) nothing to do with "man" an adult male human.

But PC folks wouldn't know that.

SeaFireLIV
09-03-2008, 02:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
Seriously guys, things like manipulate and manual come from the latin root "manus" (hand) nothing to do with "man" an adult male human.

But PC folks wouldn't know that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I saw no reason to change that, neither did I see anything wrong with terms like `blackboard` either.

stalkervision
09-03-2008, 02:23 PM
wanna bet. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Womanipulate... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Von_Rat
09-03-2008, 02:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
Seriously guys, things like manipulate and manual come from the latin root "manus" (hand) nothing to do with "man" an adult male human.

But PC folks wouldn't know that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



reminds me of the his'tory,,, her'story argument.


the femms did know that the "his" in history comes from the greek histor (iirc), and has nothing to do with being male.

i miss the good ole days when hurricanes were only named after women. i always found it fitting somehow.

luftluuver
09-03-2008, 03:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Dux...you really do worry me at times..

But what about Manchester United?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Womanchester United has a nice ring to it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif Suites their playing style. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

stalkervision
09-03-2008, 09:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Dux...you really do worry me at times..

But what about Manchester United?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Womanchester United has a nice ring to it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif Suites their playing style. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Womb-chester" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif