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.

We need more Spartan-on-Spartan action in our Persian movies.

The problem with the "ignore list" is that you still see topics by those people.

If you want to see Spartans screwing themselves, watch an MSU football game. :D

What I keep witnessing is another tired art thread.

Remember, 300 is an adaptation of a Frank Miller graphic novel. If he left it out of his novel, you can't blame the film makers for doing so also.

I hesitate to use this outside of Other, but I simply have to...
 

Don't you mean homo-erotic? ;-)

How could a movie full of so much greased-up, sweaty man-flesh be homophobic? We should celebrate it as the sausage parade that it is!

Get back to us once you've actually seen the film.

No, wait. Don't get back to us.

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.

Thanks for the heads up Art. Now I have even more incentive to see it, knowing that it is offensive to you.

I wasn't going to see this movie, but if art hates it, that makes me want to watch it.

Worst. Thread. Ever.

300 Rules.

:up::up:

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.

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.

HOMOPHOBIC no..... BUT WE LIVE IN SPPPARTTTAAA

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.

censorship? wtf are you talking about.

I'm not homophobic, but when people need to make EVERYTHING in the world a discussion of homophobia, it makes me reconsider.

The only thing making me homophobic right now is art.

*sigh... Great now this shit is spilling out into the main forums.

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.

Maybe they should have gotten more versatile actors.