300 appears to be homophobic
#1
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
300 appears to be homophobic
The movie "300" is homophobic as far as I can tell. It appears that the very important fact that the 300 warriors were romantically linked to each other has been censored. Was this too much for the studio? As far as I'm concerned, what we are witnessing is another example of Hollywood homophobia.
#3
#7
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Originally Posted by art
The movie "300" is homophobic as far as I can tell. It appears that the very important fact that the 300 warriors were romantically linked to each other has been censored. Was this too much for the studio? As far as I'm concerned, what we are witnessing is another example of Hollywood homophobia.
#12
DVD Talk Gold Edition
I saw this last night. They were picked because they were the best warriors that had sons to carry on the family name should they not return. As far as I'm concerned, this topic is just another example of uninformed idiocy.
#17
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To a woman, male flesh is hetero-erotic, not homo-erotic. So you need to be very careful how you use the term. Homo-erotic depends on your point of view. But it is a mis-representation of fact if the male-male erotic interaction has been censored. This is something that doesn't depend on point of view.
Moreover, to say that it's sufficient that there's plenty of male flesh, well, that's insulting and patronizing.
Overall, did you like it when President Bush mis-represented the weapons of mass destruction situation in Iraq to convince Americans to support him? If your answer is "no", then you should also abhor the way history is being re-written by homophobic Hollywood types in the name of selling a few tickets.
Moreover, to say that it's sufficient that there's plenty of male flesh, well, that's insulting and patronizing.
Overall, did you like it when President Bush mis-represented the weapons of mass destruction situation in Iraq to convince Americans to support him? If your answer is "no", then you should also abhor the way history is being re-written by homophobic Hollywood types in the name of selling a few tickets.
#18
DVD Talk Hero
I could see this being a point if the movie were intended to be historically accurate, it's not and it isn't.
Get over it.
Get over it.
#20
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For goodness sake, it's about a real-life historical event. You can't cherry-pick your facts to suit sleazy straight guys who might be offended by scenes of male homosexuality. It isn't a minor point, either. Male-male love was considered a primary bonding force, and hence a reason for the sucess in battle against incredible odds. To censor it is like leaving out the fact that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in a movie about the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima.
#21
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by art
For goodness sake, it's about a real-life historical event. You can't cherry-pick your facts to suit sleazy straight guys who might be offended by scenes of male homosexuality. It isn't a minor point, either. Male-male love was considered a primary bonding force, and hence a reason for the sucess in battle against incredible odds. To censor it is like leaving out the fact that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in a movie about the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima.
I'm not homophobic, but when people need to make EVERYTHING in the world a discussion of homophobia, it makes me reconsider.
#24
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Central Jersey
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've seen enough crappy, generic, tacked-on love stories in my day that if I never saw one ever again I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. I don't care if its man on woman or man on man or what. Theres no reason EVERY movie needs to have a love story. In fact, the fewer the better.