This weekend's Box Office results:

The number one movie is "300".

It had a wide release at approx 3100 screens.

Total box office take approx 70 million.

"What's more scary to a 20-year-old boy than a giant god-king who wants to have his way with you? - Zack Snyder"

Zack Snyder and Frank Miller are bigoted morons.

thanks for spelling it out!

i'm so glad i didn't see it. this idiot will never see a gay penny of my gay money.

Fuck, I don't believe it!
And this is the guy who's supposed to work on adapting Watchmen,
which is written by Alan Moore, the most gay-friendly writer in comics.

The also made the villian a person of color. Don't forget that. So they are racist and homophobic

The only homophobic thing about the movie was when Leonidas sneers that theAthenians are "boy-lovers". If you take this movie as a accurate history lesson, you are pretty stupid. I suggest you read Stven Pressfield's "Gates of Fire". Other than that one part what the hell is allthe whining about. Maybe I just don't get it? And Scott Xerxes was a person of colour.

No, ousslander, the only homophobic about the movie wasn't the "boy-lovers: comment. The real King Xerxes looked nothing like the hairless, plucked-eyebrow, polished finger nail, jewel encrusted effeminate villain in the movie. He looked pretty much like Leonida without the six-pack. What part of Snyder's statement don't you get as homophobic? He admits he used homosexuality to freak out 20 year olds. How much more homophobic does it have to get?

For what it's worth, the movie 300 is not intended to be historical in the least bit. It is based on the graphic novel by Frank Miller, which itself is inspired by, but admittedly fictionalized, the events that even historians don't agree on at the Battle of Thermopylae (1). Therefore, it's important that you compare King Xerxes to Frank Miller's characterization, not the historical record (2).

"He looked pretty much like Leonida without the six-pack."

That is factually inaccurate. The only similarities between the two that they share the same general set of physical features as all other humans. Minus their adornments, they are unmistakably different individuals. That said, don't let the facts stand in the way of your shrill mischaracterization of the movie.

"What part of Snyder's statement don't you get as homophobic?"

The part where it's not in context. The part where you name the source, but don't give any way to verify it. The part where, well, Snyder doesn't say this in the movie. And how about the part where Zack says, as you quoted in your post, "Some people have said to me, …ËœYour movie is homoerotic,' and some have said, …ËœYour movie's homophobic.' In my mind, the movie is neither." How do you justify your assertion that Zack intentionally made a movie to scare 20 year old males with the big scary concept of homosexuality with the fact that he says he doesn't see this in his own movie?

And you might want to read up about homosexuality in a historical context, since being gay or gay friendly doesn't qualify you as a historian. Though it is known that Spartans engaged in homosexuality, it is also widely believed they did so privately. They were not out of the closet with their sexuality like their Athenian rivals.

In another discussion, someone more wise than myself stated the obvious: that people are seeing racisim, homophobia, and other social ills in this movie is more of a reflection of themselves than the movie. The movie is uncritical of it's portrayal controversial subjects, so it's left to the viewer to arrange the images and narrative in a manner which suits them.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae
2. http://thadeu.files.wordpress.com/2006/08/xerxes.jpg

I soooo want to see this movie but all of this is making me not want to. I know that it is not historically accuate but then again why support people who COULD be racist and homophobic? I just don't know.

A movie or a novel or any kind of artistic endeavor is NEVER "uncritical of its portrayal of controversial subjects." It always reflects the ideological mindset of its creator(s).

Whether it's racist or homophobic has nothing to do with "history", it has everything to do with concious decisions made by the director, executive producers, and writers. Just because it is an adaptation of a novel/comic does not mean they don't "own" it.

You wouldn't think "Batman and Robin" and "Batman Forever" were basically the same movie ideologically... just because they had the same source material, would you? So why assume that this is "uncritical"?

Anyone who has been in any kind of television or film production knows that nothing is ever "uncritical"...every piece of jewelry, every object on the set, every color scheme...was selected by somebody with the intention of provoking a response from the audience.

And then there's the hours of manipulation, editing, and re-shooting. If you seriously believe everything in the comic could've gotten into the movie without them debating and discussing it at length, you're pretty naive about how "the industry" works.

Gay men have a right to be upset and gravely concerned at this most recent use of homosexuals/homosexuality as a source of derision and villainy in this film..

All aspects of this film are intentional.

Read another example:

Q and A By Steve Daly (Entertainment Weekly)

Steve Daly interviews Frank Miller/ Here's an excerpt:

Daly: The Spartan soldiers are practically naked in your version of combat: helmets knocked off, no body armor. How accurate is that?

Miller: The inaccuracies, almost all of them, are intentional. I took those chest plates and leather skirts off of them for a reason. I wanted these guys to move and I wanted 'em to look good. I knocked their helmets off a fair amount, partly so you can recognize who the characters are. Spartans, in full regalia, were almost indistinguishable except at a very close angle. Another liberty I took was, they all had plumes, but I only gave a plume to Leonidas, to make him stand out and identify him as a king. I was looking for more an evocation than a history lesson. The best result I can hope for is that if the movie excites someone, they'll go explore the histories themselves. Because the histories are endlessly fascinating.

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20014175,00.html

So this was the movie that my friend was talking about today? She was all like "I had no idea it was gonna be a gay movie!!! Ewww!" ugh.

haven't seen the movie. But why you all care what the movie is about when that quote says everything??? He is homophobic!!

No, the graphic novel and movie is not meant to be historically accurate. I don't know where you got that from when both Frank Miller and Zach Synder have said that the movie is based on the graphic novel and the graphic novel is only Frank's interpretaton of historical events not what really happened. The look of the Xerxes character comes directly from the graphic novel. He is not meant to look anything like the real Xerxes.

Why is it homophobic for straight guys to be "uncomfortable" out by eight foot god king who wanted to bugger you? I might not be but if it was a woman, I would be uncomfortable. I guess I'm Labiaphoic. Yes I do realize that xerxes didn't look like that. IT's a fantasy retelling. And why can't gay characters be bad?

It's homophobic to use anti-gay stereotypes to to make people uncomfortable. Just like it would be racist to play up stereotypes about black men wanting women to freak out white people. It would be one thing if the movie had balanced out Xerxes with heroic, gay Spartans, but instead the movie/novel removes what really existed--Spartans who had same-sex lovers--and gave us something that didn't exist--a feminized, predatory, gay stereotype. Pretty darn homophobic.

Funny, I don't recall anyone saying anything about gay characters not being bad. I've never said that. That's not the attitude of the site. You're arguing a point no one else has made.

Michael,

You can't argue with denial, and Ousslander has some powerful denial going on. It's like Cadence the other day. There is a reason why you have people out there to this day who deny things like the holocaust ever happened, etc. In those situations, it is even more visceral- you have photographs, etc, and yet, you have people who claim it never happened lie Mel Gibson's father. In perfect world people would rely on facts to make their arguments, but they don. that's the power of denial. Denial requires no proof. That's why nothing you will say will change this persons views . They aren't based on facts. Just feelings. Some call this approach to discuss the flat earth argument. It comes out of the the idea that there are people out there who would deny the earth is round. They will make up stuff to sustain the belief to- as you are seeing with the change of subject to telling you what you think rather than asking or finding out.

I have said this before....

It's fascinating to me that we are the "boogey man" for so many straights.

When I was growing up the fear of the black man was this:

He was such a horny sexual deviant that he'll rape white women — so the Negro had to be watched like a rabid dog and locked up whenever possible.

The flip side was that there was another kind of Negro that was very docile and stupid (lame).
A type of jester, who liked to entertain, can sing and dance.

Now the gay man is the …Ëœfaggot' boogeyman.

He's also a horny sexual deviant that'll rape — but this time it's boys - and the …Ëœfag' has the power to magically seduce young men — so the faggot has to be watched like a rabid dog and locked up whenever possible.

The flip side was that there was another kind of …Ëœfaggot' that was very docile and stupid (lame). A type of jester, who liked to entertain, can sing and dance.

This film intentionally expresses these racist/homophobic sentiments.

QTC

QueerTwoCents, your above post -march 12th, at 4:34pm- is very well put. That's exactly what has been taking place for decades now with gay men.

"It would be one thing if the movie had balanced out Xerxes with heroic, gay Spartans, but instead the movie/novel removes what really existed—Spartans who had same-sex lovers—and gave us something that didn't exist—a feminized, predatory, gay stereotype. Pretty darn homophobic."

Exactly Michael. And Zack Snyder and Frank Miller are in your face homophobic assholes. Open homophobia in the US by well known celebrities seems to be on the rise. Look at Isaiah Washington from Greys Anatomy, he got a top award and a standing ovation the other day at an African American award show. Ann Coulter getting some cheers and claps when she used the F word the other day at some function. And i've just read that Terrance Howard said something about not agreeing with homosexuality because of his religion. Jennifer Hudson also said something to that effect about homosexuality and her religion. And now 300 bringing in a staggering 70 million on opening weekend for a movie riddled with homophobic overtones and one of the producers proudly saying "What's more scary to a 20-year-old boy than a giant god-king who wants to have his way with you? - Zack Snyder" It's disgraceful and i'm thankful Michael you've brought our attention to this. I hope Snyder and Miller get called out on their blatent homophobia.

It's amazing how in-your-face this is all becoming. It's like open season on gay people. We know many people are homophobic including a heck of a lot of so called 'liberal hollywood' celebs. You only have to look at what happened at the Oscars last year with Brokeback Mountain as proof, but when did it become without shame or a silenced tongue for celebrities to talk homopobia so freely in public, put it in their movies and write about it in their magazines? I thought we were progressing in this country not regressing.

Going back last year I was excited to see this movie, but now i'm not going to burn two hours of my life or my hard earned money on this insult. I really hope this movie is front loaded and sinks like a brick at the box office next week, although I doubt this will happen.

Francois, I fear for the fate of WATCHMEN as well. But perhaps his steadfast loyalty to his source will also apply to his next project? I won't be so daft as to imagine that he's learned any kind of lesson from offending gay people with this film -- not with box office like that.

I have only one problem with the above statements made by everyone. Everyone wants to point out that the Spartans were practicing homosexuality, which is true but their homosexuality was in todays terms called Pedophilia and I feel that that would have hurt the homosexual cause more than any ignorant comment. When we want to be critical of other people we sometimes need to look at the situation truthfully and lets face it, if the Spartans sexual practices were displayed accurately it would made homosexuals look like monsters and not normal people who have an attraction for people of the same sex.

My beef with the film is not so much with the historical inaccuracies as it is with the fact that they wrote with the clear intent to use homosexuals/homosexuality as a source of derision and villainy.

I saw the 300 and I didn't even get that that was a homosexual scene. Then again I laughed at other 'inappropriate' parts because of the horrible dialog.

Perhaps people should actually watch the movie before passing judgment. Those who do might be surprised to find that there are actually "gay Spartans" in the movie. There was obviously no sex or kissing between these two characters but listen to their exchange on the battlefield and there is little doubt that they were lovers ... something along the lines of "someone has to watch your back" then his "friend" replies "oh, not right now I'm busy."

Even though that scene came after about a good hour of a lot of manlove, it still surprised me. I had to turn to my partner and ask if I heard it correctly. He laughed and said I did and that those two boys were so hot for each other. Seriously, just watch it.

Have you seen Zack Snyder? I just watched an interview on tv, and he is obviously gay himself. That's why I looked this hottie up.