Jump to content

Talk:300 (film)/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

Females watched because of Queen Gorgo?

They credit the movie's stylized violence, the strong female role of Queen Gorgo which attracted a large number of women to the movie, and the MySpace advertising blitz... cough cough....(BULLSHIT!).....cough cough :) Equinox137 (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately (for you), you don't write for a notable publication which you could then cite as a source of your opinion. You do know that we use reviews, and that we don't just write our opinions, right? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I was just making humor out of the statement, which is why I kept it here and even put a :) behind what I said. Really, women came to see the movie because of the strong, 45 second role of Queen Gorgo? The fact that the rest of the film was loaded with greased, buffed, half-naked men had nothing to do with it??? Please...
But either way, I didn't remove the statement, did I? Lighten up, pal... Equinox137 (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I think he can be forgiven for jumping to a conclusion there; this article has been subject to larger-than-usual numbers of attempts to add (or remove) contentious detail in its lifetime. At first glance your comment might have suggested a likewise intention on your part. (That said, you're probably right. My g/f loved the film for it's half-naked warriors, gore and gratuitous limb-choppage; it wasn't anything to do with Queen Focus Group.) All the best, Steve T • C 10:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Bot archival and indexing of this talk page

Would bot archival (by Miszabot I) and indexing (by HBC Archive Indexerbot) be helpful for this talk page? There are several (currently 16) archives and there appears to be complaints that people aren't reading the archives before commenting. It appears that Arcayne is doing the archival and links by hand which while helpful I would think would be a bit tedious. Given what appears to be the rate of discussion and archival would archival of topics older than 30 days be OK? -Optigan13 (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Would this affect the current archives? Also, can you show an example of a talk page that has undergone bot archival and indexing? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The Indexing bot would index all of this talk page's archives. The archival bot would not archive to pages less than what you set the counter to. This could be set to 16 to add additional threads, or to 17 to begin a new archive page. Also you can adjust the maximum size of each archive, the number of threads to archive at a time, and the number of threads to keep at a minimum. It would probably be helpful to change the archivebox to be an automatic description, and it would also help to move empty archives to get consistent, since archives two, three, and five are empty. I've set this up on Talk:Mormonism and Christianity and Talk:Mormonism and Christianity/Archive Index. It appears to be helping keep the recurring threads together to avoid repetition. I wish I could say it avoids trolling and other bad behavior but it doesn't, at least not entirely. -Optigan13 (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

New Parody Film Announced

Someone may want to mention the parody film coming out this spring titled "305". The trailer can be found on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuNDkxVTGSk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasteddie5000 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the amateur fan film, right? If so, then it won't warrant a mention unless/until it receives some kind of third-party coverage from a reliable source. If it already has, then by all means add the cited information. Best regards, Steve T • C 18:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I did find the website for it. http://www.305movie.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasteddie5000 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry, but though it has a website, it is still a fanfilm. When Wikipedia allows an article on the amateur version of Dracula me and my mates filmed when we were younger, then it will warrant inclusion. A reasonable guide is to see whether the film has an Internet Movie Database listing. 305 does not, and so it's reasonable to assume a lack of notability. The only other circumstances in which it could be mentioned is if the film attracts some form of coverage from what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. e.g. press coverage, as with the Raiders of the Lost Ark fan film from a few years back. I hope this explanation has been of some use. All the best, Steve T • C (formerly Liquidfinale) 08:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The film seemed as a two dimention cartoon! or a game like prince of persia.I think they should work on it to make better three dimentional effects.Battles were not make scense as films like braveheart or Ben-Hur (1959 film) and at least like Gladiator (2000 film) that was blue screen two.I hope the newer film to be a better 3D film!--80.191.122.15 (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Here the new film can be found on amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/305-Tim-Larson/dp/B00199PPF6/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1211385623&sr=8-2

and listed on the hollywood Reporter. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/technology/news/e3i6e9065c556a62f75c773057ee1fabfa8 206.173.3.254 (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Fasteddie5000

Other shortcomings with film not addressed by the article

The casus belli was not discussed at all. The war broke out over Greek support for revolt in the Ionian provinces -- which were territories acquired legitimately by the Persians when their legitimate ruler, the King of Phrygia, joined the Persian Empire. The Persian army was composed of many nations including Indians, Phoenicians, Armenians, Phrygians, Kurds, Egyptians, Aramaic peoples, Hebrews, Carians, Cappadocians, Cilicians, Arabs and many others. The Persian Empire could count on their loyalty precisely because it granted these peoples self-rule and autonomy within the Persian framework. There is no record of a single Jewish revolt against Persia. The "terrorists" to use our language were the Greeks -- sorry Hellenes, but you were on the wrong side. The film does not address any of this and neither does the article.--Jackkalpakian (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Should you find these issues discussed by what Wikipedia deems a reliable source, please feel free to add the information to the article. All the best, Steve T • C 21:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Steve. In addition, the reliable source should be independently making comparisons and contrasts between the film and actual history. It's considered synthesis to take a regular history book and argue that the film failed to neglect the various aspects of actual history. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my source is Herodotus :) as reliable as any possible. My dilemma is that the historical inaccuracy and shortcomings of the film have melded into the political criticism and it now hard to separate the two, so I put my contribution in talk instead.--Jackkalpakian (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you can't cite Herodotus to offer commentary about the film itself. Obviously, Herodotus does not compare actual history to the film, and Wikipedia disallows synthesis of such information. That's why the citations in the article are by historians who are familiar with the actual history and can comment on the film. We as editors are not in a position to posit arguments of our own; we only cite others who do, and seek to keep the article neutral throughout. Herodotus has been brought up in previous discussions, so you may want to review the talk page archives to see what has resulted. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for outlining further dilemmas. I did not compare anything -- I am reporting what Herodotus himself says about the Persians and there is more in Xenophon's accounts of them. Persia was being demonized by the film, and sadly that demonology is now being given a nice shield here. How about making these arguments for "The Triumph of the Will."--Jackkalpakian (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That was totally uncalled for, my little friend. Apparently, you are confusing your miscalculated desire to be activist with how Wikipedia works. There are rules here. If you want to edit here, I think you are going to look less and less like a horse's ass if you actually take some time to learn them.
Erik was politely pointing out that any citations present in an article about the film actually have to refer to the film itself. In other words, if you take issue with Xerxes' portrayal as an 8-ft tall Mister Clean, you need to find a citation that - in referring specifically to the film - says that. If you cannot find such a reference, then you are going to have to simply deal with the fact that your opinion, while valid on the inside of your own skull, has very little place in a Wikipedia article.
Erik also helpfully noted that this discussion has appeared many times in the archives. If you choose not to even bother asking which archives or investigating for yourself, well, you only have yourself to blame for ignorance, now don't you?
You are probably wondering why I kinda ripped you a new one here. People who accuse others of racism indiscriminately really sets my jaw, and instills a very solid lack of good faith in your editorial bent. If you apologize, it might go a long way to undoing that. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Battles were not millitaric designed

If you want to see a real battle this film cannot make you pleased.The battles are not real millitaric and without design ,something like after watching the film you may think the history of these battles is not true.A good story can be seemed as a true history and a bad story can not make the feel of the truth.Thy should work on the real millitaric designs.--80.191.122.15 (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there are articles where that sort of thing is discussed in super, super detail. this article is not one of them. If you are unsure why not, ask an admin. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Its a film based on a highly stylised comic book dont a docu drama, you may also spot that the spartans had no armour that persian had olyphants, stone trolls and Orcs in there army so unless i missed a big chuck of history and Lord of the rings is a historically drama its quite clear this film is a fantasy it the difference between Batman and the Wire.

And yet again, I am saying that this isn't the place for the wacky speculation. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
FANTASY still have some magic or something that people can accept the actions after believing that magic.But in this film there is no magic to believe the actions.Something like this film is A wish for poor spartans!!!--80.191.122.15 (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
,,,and your point is...what, exactly? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

2008 six nations trailer

i think it should be mentioned that the new BBC six nations promo is homage to this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.99.176 (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Just make sure you can cite how someone has said it was notable and connected, so we can consider it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Persians race is Aryan race ,Arian dress,no slaves

The film did not pay attention to the races of main persian personals and their clothes!

You will see persian soldiers' dresses in big musiems of France and UK.They are dressed with colorfull clothes.

And their race is something like todays Iranians Aryan.The flag of Persians was "+" that Nazi germans today use it and you can find it if you visit persepolis and Naqsh-e Rustam

the film showed Persian race incorrectly as Black or some kind of affricans!?

And the dress of soldiers as Arabic?(not persian?)

And if the film want to talk about History,history says Achaemenid Empire never used slaves.They paied their workers. --80.191.122.15 (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And that appeared/was explained in the movie....when? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The story explainer talks about "making spartans to slaves" around the first battle.--80.191.122.15 (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So, your comment is to contradict what was said in the film about making 'Spartans into slaves', yes? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Why not?! may he want to say issues around the movie as a music!?... anyway most of my comment is about RACE and DRESS.--80.191.122.15 (talk) 13:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but your comment is not supported by any commentary specifically referencing the film to do so. You are entitled to think as you will. Without solid citations though, it has no place in the article. Thanks, though. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

More Hitler propaganda. Just looks at the walls of ancient Persia and find me a tribe of whites with afros! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.93.188 (talk) 05:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I knew if I edited long enough, I'd be subject to Godwin's Law! LOL!

Seriously though, I am not going to waste bandwidth explaining why you should read the archives to find all the answers you need. I will simply say that if the matter is as near and dear to your heart as you propose, you should go there to come up with a new argument. It's been done to death. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Slavery in Sparta

i want to dedicate this part for the slavery in sparta. As we know spartans enslaved helots after they invaded them. according to University of Sydney:

"heir main duty was agricultural. They were responsible for farming the land and supplying a fixed quota of produce annually. This allowed the Spartans to focus their attention on their military training. It was considered beneath the Homoioi to work the land." and "Politically and legally Helots had no rights at all"

none of this was mentioned in the movie. instead the movie accused Persians of slavery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Immortals (talk • contribs) 17:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

And this is related to the movie, precisely...how? As far as I can tell, the quote makes no mention of the film. At all. Without such connection, it remains the musings of someone trying to beat a dead horse. the film is not history. Read a book. Don't look to movies for history lessons. I am unsure how to make it any clearer than that. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It is prooved that persians were one of the most civilized people of those days of history : Cyrus cylinder.They compete Greeks and Romans and Egypts in civilization all the ancient times.But this is only a film.Not the truth! Let's talk about technics,Design,views and THE FILM.--80.191.122.15 (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't proven within scope of the film, and that is all that we are concerned with here. Perhaps you missed it, my little friend, but this article is entitled 300 (film). Actual history has no - to repeat for the learning-impaired - NO bearing on this film. Yes, the film doesn't accurately portray history. We got it. Do you have anything else to say? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This is actually what I wanted to say!thanks!--80.191.122.15 (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, 300's director Zack Snyder stated in an MTV interview that "The events are 90 percent accurate. It's just in the visualization that it's crazy.... I've shown this movie to world-class historians who have said it's amazing. They can't believe it's as accurate as it is." I'd say that this part is very misguiding to people who read the article: on one side, the director says that it's very accurate and on the other, we have historians (and clever people like ourselves) that know it isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackeru (talk • contribs) 21:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we know what Snyder said already; its been done to death. Read the archives. They are marked with handy-dandy section summaries at the top (courtesy of yours truly) so you can read what has already been said (ad infinitum) on the topic. The article is currently balanced, with everyone agreeing that the film's events are mostly accurate, but that the way events were depicted was drastically altered.
And, on a last note, if you or anyone watches 300 expecting a history and culture lesson, I strongly recommend they pick up a book instead. Any book. Green Eggs and Ham might be an appropriate reading level. Sorry for the harsh, but its just plain stupid to expect a documentary when the image on the front of the movie poster/DVD cover is written in cinematic blood. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"Minor" edits

While I rather like most of the changes wrought by User:Imacphee, I am concerned that they are all marked as minor. Here is an edit gathering all of these changes into one Diff. Does everyone else agree with the reworking of the plot? I have a couple issues, and will deal with them with a few edits (the captioning of the Leonidas battle image and the reinstertion of the 'molon labe' comment). I just thought that, in an FA level article, we should have consensus for these changes. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

direct quotations, seems to be in a contradictory statement

"The events are 90 percent accurate. It's just in the visualization that it's crazy.... I've shown this movie to world-class historians who have said it's amazing. They can't believe it's as accurate as it is." seems to place a contradiction in the statements that follows, if this could be omitted and the following sentence used, it might place less confusion or otherwise, the quoted statement placed and the following sentence omitted.

might be great as well to add the quotations of other comic book writers regarding the film that was adapted from the comic book. --ParthianPrince (talk) 10:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

How would you find that to be notable, PP? Not being mean, just curious as to where you are going with the idea. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

shot-for-shot?

The film is a shot-for-shot adaptation of the comic book,

The above claim is cited by [1] which was written before filming started. A simple look at the comic and the film shows the claim untrue. The comic's first three pages, for a start. In fact, ignoring the changed ordering, several of the comic pages are significantly changed in the film. Maybe some source could be found for the truer claim that it is "partly a shot-for-shot adaptation"? -84.223.78.145 (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Let us know if you find one that fulfills the criteria for inclusion. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Cast

I am adding an actor who played the key Ephor (the one who licks & translates the Oracle) to the cast. Mr. Fleury has been in a number of films (JFK, Babel among others) and is worthy of addition to this page, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtwhitejr (talk • contribs) 03:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the litmus test for inclusion shouldn't be how many bit parts he has played elsewhere but how much of a pivotal role he played in this film. As the answer to that is probably 'no', I am going to remove that (as well as the actor playing Leonidas' son, who also doesn't have a link). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference

300 Lies? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

- Excellent post - article says it all, I think. Thanks. YAC (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

For the time being I've placed it under external links, along with the column by Mary Beard that Erik posted ages ago. --Javits2000 (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Mild Protest to Arcayne

Hopefully I won't get a tongue lashing but I gotta say - although I agree with almost everything you say - the way you say it is often quite off-putting. I stopped reading half-way through the discussion page. Aren't you close to violating one of the rules about being nice or whatever? Obviously I'm not much of a Wikipedian - but I do know what "It's turtles all the way down" means and I appreciate the humor, but I'm just saying, when I run across the kind of negativity I encountered here I generally stop reading. Best - YAC (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, why don't you come to my UserTalk page and maybe tell me where I am off-putting? Yes, we do have rules about being nice (they are here and here, and an exceptionally good essay on how to avoid being a jerk is located here). Sometimes, I have let the Crazy get to me, and sometimes I don't. I'm learning how to not let it affect me as much nowadays.
Anyway, if you want to talk about this more, come to my talk page and we'll do just that. I promise to be nice (unless you kick my cat, in which case it's on. :) ). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Spartan Codpiece

Would it be overly facaetious to note that the 'codpiece' from 300 is actually attested in early Greek art as a form of armour (Snodgrass:1964)? 78.146.215.12 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. However, you are going to need a citation that is speaking about the movie's use of the codpiece being historically accurate. Without it, we wouldn't be able to include a reference to it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The actual reference is attested to by Snodgrass. However, since the edition of Greek Arms and Armour is several decades old, it's unlikely to be mentioned in the context of 300. Even if a historian has mentioned it as such though, I don't think that that should be referenced: that Zach Snyder had it in mind as a historical item is somewhat unlikely and I doubt modern scholarship would commend its listing. My apologies if it wasted anyone's time; it was meant in good humour. 78.146.67.214 (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Amazing...

How this talk page has been archived 14 times! But no i do have a valid question, why is this article semi-protected with bots Ect, is it mindless vandalism with people putting THIS IS SPAAAARTAN!!! Into the article or is it something more serious? (Butters x (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC))

AP Tests

Has anybody considered adding something in reference to the process by which students are writing "This is Sparta" en masse on their AP tests this year? 76.189.255.237 (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC) 8:30PM EST 5-13-08

Can you cite the instances of that? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Its difficult to get picture evidence because thatnis against test rules but go on facebook and find the this is Sparta group and u will find hundreds of thousands of students who participated 76.189.255.237 (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)5-15-08 11:16pm EST
Unfortunately, Facebook isn't really a reliable source of information, User 76. Can you find something from, say, a news source? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe just wait until grading begins and something might come out about it 76.189.255.237 (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

300 (film) showings

According to this edit on Spartan Army, the film "300" was on HBO, an American television station. I reverted a whole bunch of unuseful IP edits there, including the usual batch of movie quotes. Probably there'll be more of that over the next day or two. Just a heads-up for editors here. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 08:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It did look to be a gawd-awful mess there. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Animation

Ok. I had an arguement with my grandfather and he says that the people and the elephants are animated as well. I know that the people are not animated. Are the elephants? I read through these pages and there is no discussion of the elephants. I am assuming they are animated and put into the background via bluescreen. I know this is not a forum but I beleive that someone should address this so that the viewers can know more about what parts in the movie are real and what arent real. So a topic on this from someone with better knowledge of the movie's production would be much appreciated. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by K174n4 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an online forum. Please reserve the talk page to issues that pertain to the article. Thank you and happy editing. ŁittleÄlien¹8² (talk\contribs) 00:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

broken ref

ref 53 seems incomplete. is it only supposed to say "‘300’ wows Sparta home crowd despite some critics’ complaints" with no publication being assiciated to it?

90 and 92 are broken also —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.128.184.119 (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Main page: Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles

We need to be careful that the "In popular culture" section doesn't grow monstrous. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 03:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That section is fairly small at present, compacted together it would probably make a decent sized paragraph. I doubt it will be growing anytime soon. Even if it does, I'm sure people will add properly cited and relevant bits of information. A Prodigy (t•c•m) 12:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

accuracy?

the film was reallllyy inacurate.and ive heard about 18 different lecturer complain about the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke12345abcd (talk • contribs) 12:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

yes an inaccuracy was plentiful throughout the movie, but if you would notice this was labeled as mythical, and also from a comic book rewritten into a big-screen movie... So the inaccuracy that you speak of is incorrect because it brought great life to this excellent movie, 2 thumbs, 5 stars, ten points... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatchitw (talk • contribs) 15:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Er, what the other fellow was trying to say is that this was a movie, not a documentary. At the risk of sounding impolite, if you are getting your historical input (as opposed to incentive to study) from films, it is time to put down the remote and pick up a history book. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Look at it this way. The film is basically a movie version of the comic book. In that regards, the film is very faithful to the comic. ArakunemTalk 19:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Looking at a different perspective, the story is narrated by a patriotic Spartan. He is bound to exaggerate some parts :|, still it is such an awesome movie! A Prodigy (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Look at it this way, Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of conversation, why not use IMDB or somewhere else? Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Historical Accuracy section

Surely the section should include descriptions of omissions in the film from a military point of view? It does not mention the fact that in the actual battle, 1000-odd Thespians stayed behind with the Spartans as the Persians outflanked the group. The snippet of information was not implemented into the movie. And the film also ignores the string of naval clashes between the ships of Athens and Persia. In fact, had it not been for the Navy of Athens, the small company of Spartans and fellow Greeks would have been slaughtered much sooner. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 13:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Anything in the article should be from a reliable source, so we can't just add things because we know them. Doug Weller (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I second that. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The movie has a definite bias against Athens. If it wasn't for the Athenian navy, the Persians could have just sailed around the Spartans. Of course, that's small beer compared to the movie's portayal of the poor Ephors. But I would say that the most serious historical omission is that the helots, Sparta's notoriously degraded slaves, are never even referred to. There is a scene in the movie where the king brags that every Spartan is a full-time soldier. That much is true, but no where does the movie even try to explain how such a thing was possible. Eighty percent of Sparta's population was helots -- that's how they did it. Kauffner (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that I could provide a source for my (already factual) claim, no-one would protest at it's inclusion? A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 15:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No objection here, as I could add many similar items just from reading Herodotus. (not to mention our own Battle of Thermopylae. The only issue I'd like to throw out is that the movie was made to be a faithful representation of the graphic novel, which it is. Would the Historical Accuracy section be better suited for 300 (comics), or perhaps even both? Granted, more people are likely here when searching on "300". Just want to make sure everything goes in the appropriate spot. ArakunemTalk 16:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better/safer to have a Historical Accuracy section for both articles? One way or another, if someone wants to see the accuracy of either film or comic, they'd get their answer(s) regardless of which of the two pages they visit. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 16:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Probably so. The comic article has some of the same accuracy info as the movie article, though presented and aligned differently. Was just making a sanity check :) ArakunemTalk 17:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Whoa, nellie. Let's remember that any source speaking to the historical accuracy/inaccuracy/utter-blighting-of-history must be in terms of its presentation in the film. In other words, citing a historical text will present as synthesis, whereas a review of the film noting the same thing would be perfectly acceptable (so long as it avoids undue weight concerns). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Using the first example, it would be appropriate to say something like "The film shows only the 300 Spartans, when in reality there were the Thespians too" if properly cited, but the part about "If it had not been for the Athenian navy" would fall under SYN, yes? ArakunemTalk 18:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, as it would be you, utilizing a non-film-related source to point out that there were more than 300 there. It is an action film, it is not history; attempting to present it as such is a mistake. If you find a film review that says 'hooboy, they done clusterfucked history in that the Thespians stuck aroundthrough thick n' thin', that would be a source that is pretty explciit in noting how the film doesn't jibe with history. Someone else (read: someone reliably, notably citable) needs to point it out, not you. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not all too familiar with Wikipedian jargon (being fairly new), what exactly is SYN? A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 20:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:SYN, essentially taking several undisputed facts, and then drawing a conclusion based thereupon. The facts would all be true, but the conclusion drawn would be Synthesis, hence Original Research. ArakunemTalk 20:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
While I'd like to take credit for the point about the Athenian navy, various historians have come to this conclusion before me. The issue concerning the number of Greek soldiers has been misunderstood here. There were more than 7,000 Greeks soldiers at the beginning of the battle. When Leonidas realized he'd been flanked, he told the soldiers from other states to go home. The 300 Spartans and the 700 Thespians represent the Greeks who were willing to fight to the death strictly for the glory of it. Sparta was a proto-fascist state while Thespiae was a liberal democracy, so there is an issue of political ideology involved here as well. IMO, the Sparta vs. Athens issue is likely to interest more readers since Thespiae comparatively little known. Kauffner (talk) 05:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully, that info can be added to the article about the actual Battle of Thermopylae (and discussed extensively on that article's discussion page). This is an article about a movie; if it doesn't say that the Thespians were there, for the purposes of this film, they weren't. There is a link to the actual historical event at the top of the article, so the article can focus on the film, and the commentary about the film. Not commentary about history, but about the film. And for good measure, I will say film three more times: film, film, film. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell)
Many people are interested in the historical accuracy issue and to address it requires the use of historical sources. Readers who feel this issue is not appropriate here can just skip the section. I wonder if this article would meet your standards. It mentions the movie prominently and also explains the Thespian issue. Kauffner (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
We are talking in circles, Kauffner; those wanting historical accuracy can follow the link to the article on the historical battle. We don't write articles with the notion that folk can skip sections that are irrelevant.
As to you query, yes, I think that article would be splendid to use to note the Thespians, but you might want to get input from others. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
As the saying goes, Wiki is not paper. This article is its own thing and we don't have to worry that we are repeating the information contained in some other article. To based the acceptability of a source on whether it mentions the movie or not strikes me as an arbitary criteria. Kauffner (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Part of the NotPaper meta is the idea that we organize our information effectively. While the article is its own identity, and some information is okay to duplicate (like dates and essential overviews of related items, as has been done before in other articles), the application of such in this article is unnecessary.
As was mentioned before, we don't get to connect the dots between historical events; we cite others who do that themselves. If the source doesn't connect the movie to the film, we cannot include it, as it would be synthesis. That isn't arbitrary criteria; its part of our NPOV core policy. Again, you connecting the film to historical inaccuracy is unacceptable, as you are not a published, citable source saying so. We cite people who are notably appropriate to cite who make the connection. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I guess this isn't going anywhere. You decided to be unreasonable appearently just because, that's your thing. This is the royal "we" here? Or you're awarding yourself two votes compared to my one vote? Kauffner (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure where I am being unreasonable, Kauffner; you didn't understand our synthesis policy and I explained it to you. Suggesting that being unreasonable is "my thing" borders on being unpleasant, and there isn't really a need for it. It isn't as if I called you a jackass for failing to see what has been pointed out to you three times now (nor would I; synthesis is tricky sometimes, and often people need examples of how it occurs). Keeping pleasant is the best way to grease the wheels of cooperation and understanding. Being snippy just gets you a metaphorical cricket bat upside the head, or simply dismissed.
When I refer to we, I am referring to the Wikipedia editing community; presuming that I am trying to out-vote you or whatnot is offering a bit less than good faith, not to mention wildly inaccurate; these aren't my personal rules - these are the rules that all of us here n Wikipedia have to abide by. Getting pissy with me because you don't like me pointing them out doesn't make me want to continue to try to help you learn, or to even interact with you. Maybe consider making your responses more polite if you are actually interested in interacting constructively. If you think the current policy is too unwieldy, there are places you can go to advocate a change in them. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
You might try looking at other articles on Wikipedia before threatening me. The Patriot has an extensive historical inaccuracy section organized around points of controversy, rather than in a historiography format like this article. Munich doesn't follow your rules either -- it cites sources that don't mention the movie. The way it's done here, its all fuss about authors and sources and no meat. Kauffner (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure where or how I actually threatened you, Kauffner - maybe you could point out where, in my last post, I did such a thing. Alternatively, you could stop alluding to threats that aren't being made. It's considered a personal attack. Maybe you could stop doing that. :)
Now, looking at the articles you chose as examples, you will note that neither of them are Featured Article quality (ie, the best examples of what Wiki articles are supposed to be); in fact, neither of those articles are even listed as Good Articles. How you should interpret this is that those articles have yet to have these historical inaccuracy sections addressed. This article is a Featured Article, and addresses these concerns more appropriately, within the scope of the film itself, as that is the primary subject, not the Battle of Thermopylae. I hope that helps to explain things better. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Reviews Bias.

The reviews section only contains American reviews and one Greek one, which is shunted to the bottom. Blatant systematic Bias, so please change it, as this is an FA article 89.168.235.100 (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to cite reviews of the film from other sources - British, English or Bahamian, for example. Foreign language translations are often suspect with film reviews. In other words, if you don't like it, offer choices of fixes. It's a lot more effective than complaining. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

why is it "systemic bias" if the article on an US American movie focusses on US American reviews? You would have a point if the article on a Greek movie would be neglecting Greek reviews, but I fail to see any "systemic bias" here. This movie has nothing to do with Greece, or Iran, it is an US American adaptation of an US American graphic novel. The only point regarding Ancient Greece or Ancient Persia the article needs to make is that the movie just like the graphic novel is not in any way historically accurate, nor did it ever try to or claim to be, period. --dab (𒁳) 11:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


THIS IS SPARTA!

I've seen a funny song made from the phrase THIS IS SPARTA! on YouTube called THIS IS SPARTA! REMIX... just asking if it is worth putting up in that part about parodies of 300 211.30.16.199 (talk) 09:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Producers

There has been some back-and-forth in the infobox about the producers. Sources that list the producers as Mark Canton, Gianni Nunnari, Bernie Goldmann and Jeffrey Silver (with Steve Barnett and Josette Perrotta as co-producers) are e.g. Film.com, IMDb, Variety, The press release, Rotten tomatoes, ...

Frank Miller is executive producer, not producer, and Zack Snyder has nothing to do with the production of the movie (he is of course the director). Fram (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so quickly, Fram. I am not sure, but I think that an executive producer is still a producer, and we do have citation for that. While the infobox has been messy of late, I welcome any change that corrects any defects that might have slipped in. Is there a way to get conformation from the studio press releases themselves? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Just noticed that the Steve Barnett I linked to is not the Steve Barnett who produced this movie :-) As for producers vs. executive producers, it was my understanding that only "proper" producers where included in the infobox (no idea about co-producers though). Press releases? [2], [3] (Quote: "Warner Bros. Pictures presents in association with Legendary Pictures and Virtual Studios, a Mark Canton/Gianni Nunnari Production, "300". " I guess that at least these two just have to be included...) Perhaps some editors from the film project can chime in? Fram (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIMDB

Considering WP:CIMDB there is no reason to remove factually accurate references from the article. Therefore I'm going to revert the removal of source ref for fact [4] | (budget = $65 million). Please feel free to replace the source with anything else as long as there is a reason to believe that the $65 million is more valid if given by any other source than the current one. Simply removing the sources from a featured article, I'm afraid, is not acceptable.--Termer (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, using bad sources is actually worse than using no sources at all, Termer. I will be undoing that revert. Please feel free to discuss the matter further. As Imdb doesn't cite where they received their info, and considering that much of Imdb is crufty, user speculation ,we cannot consider it even remotely reliabble. Please use the discussion page to argue for inclusion, but do not add the Imdb source back in. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Termer actually found a Time article that he could have used instead. It's not to say that every single item on IMDb is completely false; we just don't know where it came from. Perhaps in this case it was a user who found this Time article and used it to specify the budget on the IMDb page for 300. We have a source that I don't think anyone will dispute now, so we can use it. Howdy, by the way, Arcayne... been a long time. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
For the record, to suggest that IMDb is a "bad source" and that "Imdb doesn't cite where they received their info" is completely unreasonable. IMDb main sources of information are on-screen credits. And, even though Time doesn't literally "cite where they received their info" in this case, just shows how little it has to do with anything. The fact is "an attempt to address valid concerns about the usage of the IMDb as a reference source" has been dismissed by WP community and therefore there is no sensible reason whatsoever not to use IMDb as a reference for solid facts. Especially since the proposed IMDb guide line never did question the use of IMDb as a tertiary source for "hard data" on released films.--Termer (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Hey, Erik; I was about to say the same thing. It's good to cross paths with you again. :)
That is the main problem of CIMDB, to my reckoning - that while Imdb is good for some things, it is just plain wobbly for others, and it is as uncited as a fan forum (and my opinion of those is fairly well-documented). It seems that Termer was conducting the same discussion here as he had in Wikifilms, TemplateTalk: Infobox Wikifilms and CIMDB; he just thought to institute his belief here, as it wasn't working out there. Either way, I'll avoid the WP:SPADE argument and say thanks to Termer for providing a reliable source Erik. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
post-ec comment: Termer, Wikipedia is not a battleground; while the idea of excluding Imdb as a source didn't find purchase, it doesn't translate as an excepton to our reliability and verifiability policies. I understand what you are doing here - I've been precisely where you are a few times before, and shopping this new interpretation around is both uncool and unaccpetable. You want to create new policy or interpret old ones, take it to the appropriate page. Do not think trying to backdoor a different interpretation is going to fly. At least, not here. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll be going back to WT:CIMDB. FYI, Arcayne, Termer provided the Time article. Can't take any credit here. :P —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, some more good faith extended to Termer. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Just that how exactly does it make sense to replace one valid source with another that do both say the same thing?--Termer (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Pit/Well

This is a laughably small point, but I'm a bit confused as to why the plot synopsis says the Persians are kicked down a pit instead of a well. First off, we know that it's supposed to be a well because that's the story from history. Second, it looks like a well because it's circular, lined with stone, and located in a public square. Third, according to Leonidas's dialogue, it has water at the bottom. Fourth, it's frequently described as a well in media:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Crawdad (talk • contribs)

Might I trouble you to point out where, in Leonidas' dialogue, it has water at the bottom? I appreciate you providing citations as to the mention of well, but this conversation has come up a few times before, with an equal (if not more) citations calling it a pit. Secondly, our personal assessments of what the big hole in the ground in a fictional story are not sufficient mortar for inclusion, nor is pointing to the historical record of such; it is why we excluded bas reliefs of Xerxes used as objection to the depiction in the film. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Leonidas backs the Persian messenger up to the edge of the pit/well and says, "You'll find plenty of earth and water down there." If you'll recall, the messenger had asked for earth and water as a tribute. It seems to me that if an engineered hole in a public square has water at the bottom, it can reasonably be described as a well, just as a man with a deformed spine can be described as a hunchback, or a animal looking like a rhinosaurus can be described as such without either term being spoken in the film. I won't press the issue further if you disagree, but it seems reasonable to me. -Captain Crawdad (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your polite defense of your position, Captain (trust me, I really, really do). However, a person with a deformed spine could simply be scoliotic, an animal resembling a rhino could be a unicorn, and sometimes a pit might have water in it (esp. waste water). I do concur that logic dictates that it is a well, and not a big smelly pit in the center of town, but that's one, big-honking well, right? Common sense (and logic, too) would suggest that such would be smaller (so as to prevent evaporation in the hot, dry Spartan climate). Apparently, Frank Miller has an odd view of such things. Ours is not to question it, though - as you've pointed out - we have every reason to. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll respond because now I'm confused again. I mentioned "Rhinoceros" and "hunchback" because they're currently used to describe creatures in the film's plot section. Your response seems to suggest that those terms are being used inappropriately. Should we not use the term "rhinoceros" to avoid mislabeling a unicorn? In addition, real rhinos are much smaller than the creature in the film, so if the pit is too large to be a realistic well, then wouldn't the same hold true for the rhino? And wouldn't the hunchback's deformities also be too vague and unrealistic to use specific medical terms? I don't mean to belabor a small point, but am I missing something? -Captain Crawdad (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I was just demonstrating how something can be seen to be one thing and described as another - I was aiming at pointing out how a common sense logical conclusion might not be. Sorry.
Tell you what, let's see what other folk have to say. I won't oppose you putting it back in, but if someone else reverts it, we pick up the conversation where we left off. Sound like a workable option? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. -Captain Crawdad (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
It was nice working with you, Captain, O Captain. ;) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Iranian perspective

Found this today and thought it might be useful commentary to add to the article if anyone is interested. —Erik (talk • contrib) 06:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Zoroastrian Parsi opposition to the movie 300

The WIkipedia page on 300 should record the Zoroastrian PARSI opposition to the movie under the title "Controversies".

The Persian Achaemenid King in the battle was a Zoroastrian, the ancient religion of Iran before the Arab conquest centuries later. The Parsis are the descendants of the ancient Persians who migrated to India in boats for religious sanctuary, after the Arab conquest and the forced conversion of many Zoroastrians to the new religion of the Arabs, Islam.

Khojeste Mistree, a prominent Zoroastrian PARSI scholar in India who has studied the religion in detail under Professors such as Mary Boyce and John Hinnells, voiced a strong protest against the movie's wrong depiction of their people, warriors and King. See the Times of India article at:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/King_a_barbarian_Parsis_are_not_amused/articleshow/1775488.cms

The ancient Persian Zoroastrians were Aryans like their Greek opponents. There was no slavery in the Persian empire, unlike Sparta and Greece at that time.

Also the first Achaemenid King Cyrus the Great was responsible for the world's first declaration of human rights for his subjects, which is today in the United Nations. "The Law of the Medes and the Persians" was also appreciated by the ancient world, a forerunner of the modern "Rule of Law".

Porus Homi Havewala (talk) 05:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC) PorusHH, December 19 2008

Over A Million Persians?

It doesn't actually say that as far as I remember; Dilios says there are about 120 000- slightly fewer than a million.211.30.172.67 (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Placeholder image

Well, it looks as if the most recent that was used to replace the original image was removed some time ago. I've re-uploaded the original film poster image (had to get it from somwhere else, as the original source no longer had it) and yep, I find it more than a tad annoying that it was removed in the first place. Please, for the sake of equanimity, please take the time to discuss crap like that in the future. It's an FA article; it got to be this way because a lot of work was put into it. Respect that effort, please. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Strangely worded statement on Region 2 release

The second to last paragraph in Promotion and release ends with:

300 was released in single-disc and steelcase two-disc editions on DVD, BD and HD DVD in August 2007 in Region 2 territories, albeit not in every Region 2 country such as the United Kingdom and Germany.

The bold portion is strangely worded. It is not clear whether the U.K. and Germany were included or excluded from the initial Region 2 release. In fact, according to [http://www.amazon.co.uk/300-Blu-ray-Gerard-Butler/dp/B000VE2NQ4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1234332534&sr=8-1 Amazon.co.uk] and [http://www.amazon.de/300-Blu-ray-Gerard-Butler/dp/B000RGHYMY/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1234332299&sr=8-6 Amazon.de], the German release was in August 2007, but the U.K. release wasn't until October 2007.

I'd like to remove the second part of the sentence completely and just allude to its beginnings in Region 2 without any more specifics:

300 was released in single-disc and steelcase two-disc editions on DVD, BD and HD DVD beginning August 2007 in Region 2 territories, albeit not in every Region 2 country such as the United Kingdom and Germany.

Any objections? I'd like to get this resolved within the next day, as I'm racing to get the spoken version of this article ready for its appearance as FA in two days.

—Tonyle (talk • contribs) 06:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Cast

lol very cute but i think someone needs to redo this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.109.222 (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

mistakes in the movie

i think it would be a really good idea to add a section about the mistakes of the movie. eg- the persions fire loads of arrows,they hit the spartans shields, and in the next shot, all the arrows are gone and only the holes are left. (Panthinpants (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC))

It would be nifty to have that. Can you find some cited sources that address those continuity errors? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Did you miss the shot where Leonidas is shown breaking off the arrows embedded in his shield? Joule36e5 (talk) 08:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Its not a mistake per say. The movie is a narrative propagando imagination. Anything can happen as long as it triumphs the spartan excellency Sioux345t (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Spoken article complete

The first spoken version of this article is complete. (See infobox above.) Note that this file does not yet reflect the recent rewrite of the Plot section, as I recorded that section before it was edited. Chances are about 50/50 that I'll be able to update this before the article appears as FA on the Main Page.

—Tonyle (talk • contribs) 10:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Very nice! Thank you very much! —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I just incorporated the rewritten Plot section and added the summary infobox to the end. Enjoy!

—Tonyle (talk • contribs) 00:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"box office records" in the intro

I changed the vague statement in paragraph 3 that it "broke box office records", to stating that it was the 24th largest gross in history. I think that's a more important (and impressive) statistic than saying it was the biggest March opening in history. Tempshill (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, but removing the discussion-request notice in the opening section is disrespectful to those who have collaborated on this article for a long time. —Tonyle (talk • contribs) 22:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I disagree that it's disrespectful. "Don't modify this without discussing it first" is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Surely a lot of effort goes into an FA, but you do not WP:OWN the article and WP:BOLD still applies. Tempshill (talk) 06:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
You are both right - to an extent. Everyone can edit, but WP:BOLD isn't a shiny badge to be a jerk, adding or deleting willy-nilly. Nobody owns the article (and tossing around that accusation both fair and largely inaccurate), but its been the subject of significant POV editing. Because of that, there is the need to discuss edits, as per WP:BRD. That is the spirit of Wikipedia, the discussion (so long as it isn't contrary to policy). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change

In the section about historical accuracy, I propose changing the wording of the sentence that starts with "However, he..." I think the wording currently implies that one of his statements contradicts the other. It would be better if the sentence started with, "He also said...", and then people can decide for themselves whether or not the two statements are in harmony with each other. Chicken Wing (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a better way to put it! "However" did seem out of place. Go ahead and make it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This shouldn't be an FA

A bunch of movie gossip sites and puff pieces about the film are weak. They only magnify how dodgy the few sort-of intellectuals referenced seem to be. It's fine if there are people who want to be known for writing long articles about popcorn fluff, but this article just isn't very good. Perhaps a GA, not a FA. --32.147.185.138 (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

FA status is based on the number of cited sources, not the overall quality of the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.8.73.115 (talk • contribs)
(ignoring the facetious unsigned comment...) So, 32, is the main issue that the citations are not good enough? You say you don't mind 'popcorn fluff' but the very fact you brought it up... Hadrian89 (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comparison to the 1962 film.

Perhaps a section on the comparison between the 1962 film The 300 Spartans and this film would serve several purposes, one of which would be to let people know that this film was not the first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Typeset (talk • contribs) 15:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, this movie isn't based off of The 300 Spartans. It is based off of 300 the graphic novel, which is inspired by The 300 Spartans. Its a derivitive of a derivitive of a derivitive of a derivitive. Livewireo (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Still, a link to The 300 Spartans may have a place in the "See also" section. Steve T • C 20:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Xerxes I of Persia

I put up a modern interpretation of what he looked like (based on remains in Persepolis) for reader to compare to the image potrait in the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddd0dd (talk • contribs) 19:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Xerxes I, the Great, King of Persia.jpg Ddd0dd (talk)Ddd0dd

And I would have reverted it, but someone else beat me to it. Frankly, we've been through this many, many times before. Your interpretation of the controversy isn't notable, while Miller's and Snyder's is. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
1. It is not MY interpretation, 2.it is far more accurate that Miller's,Xerxes and rest of Achamedian kinds were a.not black b.not bald, as hair (facial and head) was considered attractive c. I believe I put up up next to the contoversy part, next to the part that said "some find the imagine disturbing" or something, to make it clear "why" some find the picture in the movie is not accurate. I don't mind not putting it into the main article but I will make sure it stays in the discussion page as it has everything to do with this movie. --Ddd0dd (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Allow me to address a number of misapprehensions as to what our actual duties are here. It doesn't matter what Xerxes looked like - this is a theatrical film, not a documentary. What you perceive as the differences between the real chap and Miller's interpretation is not usable within this forum. When a reliable, verifiable and neutral reviewer puts these two images up next to each other and comments as to the differences, then we have a discussion. Until then, we do not.
Additionally, I am guessing you might be new, because putting a link to an image is a better usage of space in article discussion than putting the actual image. You might have known how it commanded too much space where discussion is supposed to be. What you feel has "everything to do with this movie" is immaterial. I apologize for the seeming harshness of that statement, but stating that you will "make sure" something stays, despite opposition, is an invitation to an editorial beat-down, and certainly not in keeping with how the consensus aspect works here. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I understand what you mean, and I can see that you are right.Ddd0dd (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed weasel-word tag

I've removed the weasel-word tag from the caption "Some criticized the portrayal of Xerxes as androgynous." Citations are given in the main text, so I don't believe they need to be duplicated here. If they should be, the wiki code to add is: 

<ref name=AfterElton /><ref name=BostonDaily />

I've also removed the quotation marks around "androgynous" as neither cited article actually uses the word verbatim.

—Tonyle (talk • contribs) 20:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This is Sparta

This movie is pretty popular because of the "THIS IS SPARTA" part in the movie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.109.32 (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I always thought the phrase was popular because of the film that used it. Horse before the cart sort of thing... - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but i happen to think that the movie is way better than that one line, sorry but how can the one line solely make the movie popular? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ICheets (talk • contribs) 06:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Rather the point, ICheets - the line isn't more popular than the film. At least, we have no reliable citation that says so. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

300: The Complete Experience Blu-ray released

300: The Complete Experience Blu-ray has been released and is reviewd now on Blu-ray.com. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Reference In Watchmen

does somebody want to write in the fact that in the watchmen theres a reference to 300 when an ashtray is thrown at the sign for room number 3001 and knocks out the 1...its not trivial, and if anything is one of the most blatantly obvious references ever. in case you didnt know Zack Snyder did direct both.

Do you have a citation friom a reviewer noting that? If so, we might be able to include that. If not, we cannot, as it is your observation. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have found such a citation on IMDB

"There are at least three subtle references to Zack Snyder's previous film 300 (2006): One of Ozymandias' video screens features the film "The 300 Spartans". During the fight between Blake and his assailant, the number 1 falls off of his apartment number, 3001, leaving the number 300 for a split second. Finally the psychiatrist's briefcase is also briefly seen with the numbers facing the camera reading 3-0-0 (the combination dialed-in is 2-9-9)".

- IMDB

Whether or not this needs inclusion in the article is another matter. brgibson (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This is Sparta (part 2)

THISS IS SPARTAAAAAAAAAAASpartan King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) the above line was put in the article, possibly due to the fact that wikipedia can now be edited by anyone, and not just members, plus the fact that some idiots try to be funny. FYI: the above line has been reedited by me to the below line: Spartan King Leonidas (Gerard Butler)

Just wanted to post this here so everyone knows, and might keep their eyes open for more of this nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkestSinsHeartofGold (talk • contribs) 16:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy

It should probably be pointed out that the movie is presented from start to finish as a narrative offered by Dilios, a Spartan serving directly under Leonidas. In this context, historical accuracy must be viewed and judged through the lens of his opinions and biases. He is portrayed as telling this narrative to move his audience to a patriotic defense of Sparta and to remember the bold and brave who fought next to his King. He's not necessarily trying to accurately and objectively record history. Rather, he is trying to remember his king and his comrades in the most favorable and most honorable light possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.12.199 (talk) 04:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Good insight, anon. You should start an account, as your insight will work in your favor in Wikipedia. :)
Also consider that this is a screenplay of white American's interpretation of a legendary telling of a historical event. Anyone expecting actual history from a film deserves the miseducation they receive. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to have this this section of the article altered, highlighting how the the 700 Thespians, 900 Helots and 400 Thebians participating at the last stand were completely ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueballer1 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Blueballer1, it's very hard to ignore that 300 was a remake of a Cold War propaganda film. Never mind that the "freed slaves" fighting with the Spartans were the regular kind of slaves, enslaved by the Spartans. Or that the rest of Greece contributed to the defense of, well, Greece when the Persians attacked. (For example at the Battle of Salamis, at which the bookish, boy-buggering Athenian navy played a crucial role.) Or that the Spartans worshipped the same "ancient Gods" that the Ephors did, because Greece was pagan in 480 BC, and had not become "enlightened." Or that freedom is an entirely anachronistic value for an oppressive oligarchy in which four fifths of the population could be legally killed by a military elite. Or that the Spartans wouldn't have thought anything of Athenian pederasty, or the adultery that Gorgo is accused of, because of their own customs. Cripes, Miller must have gotten his understanding of Greece and Persia off the back of a cereal box during clown college. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.39.83 (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There is also the matter that, unless you're the sort of ignorant conservative who thinks Western civilization is wholly derived from Christianity, you view our social norms and political values as largely derived from Greco-Roman sources. In this context, Greece's wars with Persia, et al, preserved (or one might even say established) Western civilization as we know it. The comic book and film are paeans to that point of view, and it's nice to see Frank Miller bluntly admitting it. This point needs further discussion. (But, of course, 300 is Just Plain Silly, especially the homoerotic costuming -- another point that could stand some discussion.) WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Navid: I just one to add one important forgotten thing about the movie and that is the customs and faces which strongly reveals the lie behind this movie,I want to talk about what impression people might get when seeing something we picture for them? Iranian emperors all have beard and they wear customs; they did not look and they did not act like barbarians; the Achaemenens kings had established the first human rights regulations when they conquered Babylon, you can check this at the following link in this site:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/cyrus_cylinder The movie maker is using Iranian ancient looks and customs for the others;the face of Xerxes is without any beard and some chain around his neck!!! where these professors backing the film get their PhD's! Perhaps they haven't seen the Achaemenens kings and warriors pictures made on the walls of Perspolis yet! I believe when we are making movies, what is going to be shown to the people is important, I do not criticize the fantasy movies but it should not be biased need to try so hard; you can check what i say by searching Iranian empires in this site!

Sheesh, take off the caps lock. It's blatantly clear here that the movie was meant as a sword & sorcery entertainment vehicle, not a documentary. Spartan198 (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I changed the caps due to the fact it annoyed me. I do not agree with the origonal poster, I just hate how some people type without etiquette.68.1.98.2 (talk) Anonymous User

And you are just about as rude; the insipid argument of "300" finding justification (If not outrightly an excuse) by being based on the "Spartan" point of view (Which is simplistic and trivialized to say the least) being inherently biased to the degree of promoting obvious fascism and racism and thus finding a market and an audience willing to pay to be entertained by such media reveals a level of idiocy where basically any untruth or case of defamation could be peddled by the same stupid rationale.

I for one think the Greeks have had one of their great patriotic moments unjustly marketed to ignorant teenagers, like a cheap McDonald's burger. And worse, the Persians were outrightly denied their humanity. Let's for one second assume that the point-of-view indeed is "Spartan". So what? If the purported "Spartan" point-of-view is perverse, biased, untruthful, racist (If not outrighly inhuman considering a great deal of Persians in the film were depicted in a number of bizarre ways that would rather go under the sub-human category) and full of flaws... Why the fuck invest over 60 million dollars in a Hollywood production and try to find a market and an audience to bolster this bizarre concept? It just goes to show that profit is made on someone else's expense, while everything could legally be peddled as "art" or "entertainment" while making a buck out of it. Seems like the perfect backdoor in avoiding charges of libel and defamation.

In fact, how about someone makes a collage of Zack Snyder and Frank Miller in photoshopped pictures performing fellatio and label it art? Libel, anyone? Defamation? If art is free, then certainly the wind may and must blow in all directions, just as much as a coin may have two sides. After all, through the argument of "point of view", anything could be distributed as art. And why stop there? A sequel entailing their mothers could be appropriate, considering that the new best friends Snyder and Miller have confirmed a sequel.

--The Persian Cataphract (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Remake?

The opening para says that the film is a remake of The 300 Spartans, but as far as I am aware it is an adaption of the Miller comic. The 'remake' sentence should be removed. 213.201.175.114 (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

'Controversy' reference to graphic novel

In the section headed 'Controversy,' there is a sentence: "As in the graphic novel, the Persians were depicted as a monstrous, barbaric and demonic horde, and King Xerxes was portrayed as androgynous." I've got the graphic novel here beside me, and I can't see one monstrous-looking Persian. They all look quite normal. The Immortals, of course, look quite menacing in their armour, but no part of the person beneath the armour can actually be seen (and thus no part can be seen to be a 'monster').

because this movie was built to show that poor Persians are monstrous, barbaric and demonic horde.when i say this to them they almost cry... ,i think Persians are the best people i have ever seen except mullahs... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.82.64.13 (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

If Sparta fought for freedom, then the South fought for Freedom in 1861. The Spartans were the worst slaveholders of ancient Greece, the proto-typical a Herrenvolk-Demokratie.

____ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.114.93 (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

300 workout

This section doesn't seem relevant. It read like a how-to guide ("you don't stop between workouts") and the sources were questionable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 12:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree. That said, the workout appears to be a recreation of the one used to get the actors in shape for the film. However, that would need a pretty good citation noting that. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Second film poster

I don't see a need for the second film poster in this article. There is no discussion about this poster anywhere. Was it a controversial poster? If so, please add that in. Was the berserker's physical appearance a source of controversy such that we need to display it here? If so, please add that in as well (and even then, a screenshot would better than the poster). Because currently, it's just decoration, and WP:NFCC explicitly prohibits that. howcheng {chat} 17:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the assessment that the image is simply decoration; it was specifically noted in the text of the article, alongside the outcry of the portrayal of Xerxes as androgynous:
"Since its opening, 300 also attracted controversy over its portrayal of Persians. Various critics, historians, journalists, and officials of the Iranian government including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad[98] denounced the film. As in the graphic novel, the Persians were depicted as a monstrous, barbaric and demonic horde, and King Xerxes was portrayed as androgynous"
As the poster is the only one of the released posters for the film that portrays a monstrous-looking individual, I feel the image is appropriate and intrinsic to understanding the outcry by the Iranians. Leaving it out marginalizes their anger, which created quite a bit of notable press. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
That's fine, but can we use a screenshot from the film of the berserker then? I ask because one frame of a copyrighted film far less infringing (a very small percentage used), whereas having the poster is using 100% of a non-free item. Also, the caption should be extended then to link the image to the text, so it's clear that we're not just including this for decoration. Something like "The Persian Berserker, played by Robert Maillet, was singled out as an especially barbaric portrayal of Persians" (assuming that this can be cited). howcheng {chat} 19:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
The presumption that Maillet was specifically cited, of course. I imagein some enterprising sould could find something like that. The point is, most of the uproar over the film came from folk who didn't even see the film (fully half of the criticism being offered came from Iranians from Iran, where the film was banned); therefore, a more likely presumption was that the Maillet poster is a ignition point, serving as it was seen by the film's marketing as a memorable enough character from the film - that they thought it an important character speaks to more than just the outcry, i think. A poster would appear to infringe less upon the film's copyright than a screen capture of the film itself. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Use of the poster infringes on the poster's copyright, not the film's (the poster itself is copyrighted as well). Regardless, you can't presume that the poster was the flash point without a source. You need a source that points to a specific scene or example, and then you can use an image of that example. Right now, you've got nothing. That's why the image can't be used until you can justify its use in the text itself. And that's why I'm taking it out again. I don't think I'm being unreasonable here. When you or someone else can edit the article in the manner I've outlined, then it can be re-added. howcheng {chat} 20:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
All images from films infringe on copyright somewhat; the balancing act is to infringe as little as possible. I get that you think that the image is "decorative"; I've pointed out (rather clearly, to my reckoning). I think you are incorrect; the text specifically discusses the monstrous portrayals of Persians in the film. there are no posters of any other monstrous appearances of Persians (however, if you should find some, that would be an appropriate counterweight to the presented argument); therefore, we use the one that we know that at least the film company considered monstrous enough to be eye-catching.
I've reinserted the image again, and I'd prefer it stay in until we are done talking about this. I believe that to be a reasonable request, considering it has been in the article for over a year without issue. If you feel we are at loggerheads at this point, you should feel free to seek a Third Opinion on the matter. In case I've been too wordy here, allow me to be clear: I think that using the image is entirely reasonable and rather specifically referred to in the text. It is the only poster image released that depicts a "monstrous" Persian, and its further reasonable to presume that it may have been the only image to represent the film to those for whom the film was banned. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Right now, the image fails WP:NFCC based on 10c. A week fair use rationale, which I quote states used for informational purposes only. If you are saying the image is used to show the depiction of Persians in the film, then explain that in the fair use rationale. Furthermore, if the only purpose is to show what Persians looked like in the film, a screenshot could accomplish that in a much more simpler (and less infringing way), as Howcheng pointed out. Please rework the fair use rationale to explain the purpose (keeping in mind NFCC 8 and 10c). It isn't clear to me that the poster increases the readers understanding any more than a screenshot would, but maybe you can work that out in your fair use rationale (or if not, we'll need to delete the poster image, but perhaps replace it with a screenshot). -Andrew c [talk] 17:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Andrew and Howcheng; a screenshot would serve the same purpose and be less infringing. This image isn't necessary. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, while I sure we are splitting hairs, the easiest way around this problem is to adjust the rationale appropriately. I do not feel that a screen cap addresses the weight of the image (explained previously); its more than just a picture of an ugly person; its that someone used that image to promote the image of Persians in the film. Someone take a gander at the addition I've made to the image rationale, and let me know if it's enough. Please feel free to propose different language if necessary. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
And there's no screen cap from the movie that shows a Persian soldier? The section the image illustrates does not discuss the poster. It's association with the section is only loose; any screencap could do to serve the same purpose. Unless there's secondary sources pointing to the notability of this poster as being directly relevant to the subject of the appearance of Persian soldiers, it really needs to go. A screencap can and will serve the same purpose and be less infringing. No, the change to the rationale is not sufficient to fix all the problems associated with this image. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Then offer a change to the rationale to fix the problem; I find the arguments to use a screen capture to be unconvincing, Additionally, we have a citation regrding the movie's intentions to make Maillet look like a Persian monster(1) tied to the Iranians pissed about the portrayals of Persians. Done and done. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think I've been clear. There is no fix to the rationale sufficient to vacate the other problems that have nothing to do with the rationale. The image needs to go for other reasons, and I'm not alone in that opinion. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
No, you were clear, 'soft. I get that you don't think that the image belongs under any circumstances. I disagree with your interpretation on 10c, as the image just isn't about the image but the context also. Maybe you aren't clear on that. You haven't pointed out a substantial reason as to why the copy infringement of a screen cap is somehow better than that presented by the poster. I offered an adjustment to the rationale, as suggested by Andrew. Maybe instead of throwing in the towel, try to suggest ways to make it work within the scope of the conversation. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
See, this is where you are wrong. Hammersoft understands the problem like I do: You need to prove that the poster itself is the subject of discussion, not the image of a deranged Persian which happens to be on the poster, because that depiction of a deranged Persian could come from any other source. As to why a screencap is less infringing, it's a very tiny percentage of the copyrighted work (the film), but the poster is a copyrighted work in and of itself, and you are using 100% of it. I thought I was pretty clear about it before: You can keep the poster in the article if and only if you show that there was controversy about that specific poster. howcheng {chat} 06:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Clearly, we both know that that isn't going to be possible; the controversies were about the posters themselves; most people saw them and not the film (as mentioned in the article). I still think the poster has more value to the article, as they (the posters) served to outrage a group of people that had no way of seeing a movie that was banned within their own country.
As I said before, I seel rather strongly about this; if you wish to submit the matter to 3O, I am willing to submit to their decision. As I see it now, there are two people in favor of using a screen cap and two having no issue with the poster, so long as the rationale fits the usage. 3O seems our bet course of action. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
If the controversies were about the posters themselves, then why is it not a single source in that section makes any reference to the movie posters? I searched all of them (several of which were bad links by the way) and not one mentioned "poster" or showed this particular image. You may say it as 2 vs 2. Frankly, it doesn't really matter if there were 100 on your side and 1 saying "this is wrong". The fact is that no so far produced references have shown this poster to be the source of the controversy. The fact is that a screen cap is considerably less infringing than the poster. If I'm wrong, then show me where there's a reference in the article that indicates any significance of the poster with regards to this controversy. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
You say the poster is the source of controversy? Then prove it. Find a source that states that -- once you do that you will have no argument from either myself or Hammersoft (if I may speak for him). howcheng {chat} 16:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Concur with Howcheng. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Again, I am saying that here, not in the article. I am saying it here because - and I cannot believe i have to repeat this - the poster was the only scrap that the Iranian people had to base their viewpoint on, as the film was (and, to my knowledge, still is) banned there. Pretty much basic logic that when noting the outrage of that group of people, we point out the source of that outrage. And again, it isn't specifically this poster (though I think it works best) but all posters. Since this is the only one (including the promotional/teaser posters) that ostensibly features a monstrous-looking humanoid, I think it serves the article far better thana screen cap. Therefore, it doesn't fail NFCC 10c. If you disagree, please recall that I suggested that you initiate a discussion at 3O or the appropriate noticeboard for this particular NFC-related topic. Just post a link to that discussion here after you do so, so we can all monitor/contribute to that discussion, please. I think that is going to be the best option at this point, as there doesn't appear to be a consensus for a change. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I guess I failed basic logic then, because I can't find any reference to the poster in any secondary sources, as being the source of the controversy. Also, we don't need to go further up the dispute resolution chain just yet. Note the second to last line of WP:NFCC where it says "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof." You've not achieved consensus that this is a valid application (rationale) of this image. When consensus on the use of a non-free image is not achieved, the default solution is removal. I strongly suspect that if we were to upload a screen cap showing a similar depiction of a Persian solider, and replaced the poster with it, we wouldn't be having this discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Arcayne, your argument is all synthesis: Iranian people were angered (fact); poster features a barbaric Persian (fact); conclusion: Posters stirred up the anger (conjecture). If you can't believe that you have to repeat yourself, think about how I must feel: Prove your point in the article with sources and the poster becomes perfectly acceptable. This is what I've been saying all along. The use of non-free images is perfectly fine when it backs up points that are made specifically in the text. Hammersoft: For that reason, simply switching out the poster with a screenshot is still not enough. As for a noticeboard, I've already put in the review request at WP:NFCR, which is how Andrew c and Hammersoft got involved. howcheng {chat} 16:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
(←dent) First point: Hammer, if you had replaced the poster with an uploaded a screen cap of a random Persian soldier and presume now that no discussion might have taken place, you don't know me. At all. Not only was I the uploader, but I could very well have used a screen cap myself. I preferred the poster image (for the reasons described above).
And I appreciate you providing the link to the NFC discussion, Hammersoft. Odd how that had never made an appearance before now. Considering the text of the query there, it seems like one thing was asked there by Howcheng (how to fix the rationale) and another sought here (complete removal and replacement). I prefer folk who play it straight to a bug hunt every time. I'm going to assume good faith that this was simply an oversight and a misunderstanding, but in the future, I will expect links when other opinion is sought, and the query to be made less disingenuinely. Nuff said on that; let's hope the topic doesn't need revisiting.
Howcheng, your conclusion of synthesis would be more valid were you not missing the same piece of the relationship every time. I have repeatedly stated that the film was not available to those people raising the ruckus. the film was banned in Iran (fact), so the only imagery that was available to Iranians were the posters. Period. This is not synthesis; this is simply logical, chronological fact.
Since we are no longer arguing that the image isn't necessary, we are left with where to obtain the image from. Since the sole remaining problem arises from whether to use a screen cap from the film or the poster specifically created to highlight the monstrousness, we should likely focus on that. I will be posting a comment on the NFC discussion link to reflect the more appropriate input we are seeking guidance on, since neither side appears to have consensus here and the default choice when no consensus is to keep, not remove the item contested. And again, the text of the article explicitly states that the outcry was the depiction of the Persians as "a monstrous, barbaric and demonic horde", so an image demonstrating that is prudent. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Claiming you're assuming good faith on one hand and continuing to accuse bad faith on the other. Ok. Well, you don't need me in the discussion anymore. Goodbye. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I was specifically not going down the path of assuming bad faith, merely illustrating how it could have easily appeared to someone not prepared to assume the best. It was a passing odd set of coincidences. And even if I had been presuming bad faith, it would not have been on your part. But I am presuming it was an "oversight and misunderstanding" (my exact words, actually). So put down the righteous indignation and relax, pls. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Not really interested. Devolving into attempting to attack the bearer of opposing opinions rather than debating the opinions themselves is, to me, a catastrophic failure of trust in your fellow Wikipedian. Whether it's against me or not is irrelevant in this case. You're attacking someone else. You can choose to strike your comments and apologize for it if you like. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry you feel that way, Hammersoft. You will be missed. Considering that I explicitly noted that I wasn't going to assume the worst here but noting how the matter could easily be perceived as sneaky, an apology isn't necessary, and I will not be striking my comments, as I've done nothing inappropriate. I consider the matter closed, and won't be commenting on this particular topic any longer on this page. If you feel the pressing need to continue this discussion with me, you may do so on my usertalk page. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
In regards to I have repeatedly stated that the film was not available to those people raising the ruckus. the film was banned in Iran (fact), so the only imagery that was available to Iranians were the posters. Period. This is not synthesis; this is simply logical, chronological fact. I was thinking this is OR myself. It would help if you had citations. How do you know they didn't have access to the trailer which contained such offending images, and it was the trailer, not the posters, that caused all the uproar. You are making bold assertions, but not backing them up with reliable sources. While it may seem logical, it still reeks of OR to me :) -Andrew c [talk] 23:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I totally get that, Andrew - and normally, I am the one using the cn template like ninja shuriken. However, the two trailers released on the net prior to the film's opening (which can be seen here) showed the "monstrous characteristics" of the Persians (specifically, Maillet and the tubby fellow) for about a quarter of a second in the first trailer and about a half second int he second one - hardly enough time to build up the hefty outrage levied against the film; remember, the president of Iran himself made a point of lambasting the film. the posters, static as they are, allow for anyone to see how the Persians were being presented.
Since the film was banned in Iran, and the film trailers do not show anything that would inspire true outrage, that leaves either the posters themselves or word of mouth (and i am not discounting the possibility of monkey see - monkey do behavior at all here). Since providing an image for word of mouth would be like trying to grasp a pound of smoke, it seems more logical to provide the most reasonable source of the outcry. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Maybe more logical, but at the expense of using more non-free content than necessary? Fact of the matter is, we don't know exactly what was the source of the outrage, and given that we are just illustrating the depiction of Persians in the film, we can accomplish that easily enough with a one frame still. Without citations establishing the notability of that particular poster, I don't see why it is necessary. But that is just my opinion. I'd say we should always try to get free content. And when we can't use free content, use partial non-free content if available in lieu of using an entire non-free work, if possible. Point being, this clearly is a case where it is possible to illustrate the desired concept with a partial (as opposed to entire) non-free work. Maybe we are going in circles, but the prominence you are giving the movie poster is based on your personal belief and synthesis, not on any given notability established in sources. To me, at least, if we had a number of sources saying "a specific poster was vandalized repetitively in Iran" or something else that established the prominence of this one poster, then we'd have more to go on that your personal theories. -Andrew c [talk] 02:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
A valid point, Andrew. While I think it isn't really broken and doesn't need fixing, I concede that my reasoning (humbly brilliant that it is) isn't notable in and of itself to predicate a particular use of an image in an article. However, it seems that we are changing things simply to change them - itself a part of the larger, long-running NFC debate between inclusionists and exclusionists.
I mean, this is an FA article - it is one of our better articles, which says to me that calls to alter the article should consist of more than splitting hairs. To me, that's what a large part of this argument is. There are likely several other FA articles which use film posters as well (Halloween 3 and November are two examples that spring to mind). If it is likely that the poster created some of the outrage, then it seems smarter to keep it in place; a source might well turn up citing it. It seems a cheap throwaway to grab a sloppy screen cap instead. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
FA or not, the rule is still simple: make the citation first, then you get to have the image. It doesn't work the other way around. If it was missing during the FA candidacy, then that doesn't preclude us from fixing it now. If there are other FAs on films that are inappropriately using posters, then you're arguing on the basis of other stuff exists. If the poster was a free image, then we wouldn't be having this discussion; you could keep it in there no matter how tangential the relationship might be. But because it's non-free, its usage is strictly regulated. I think we've reached the point where I can safely remove the poster image now. Yes? howcheng {chat} 21:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
No, we haven't quite reached that point as of yet, Howcheng. Frankly, I was pointing out examples of this precise treatment in other FAs. It isn't an example of Other Stuff exists, but rather that precedent does. You have yet to to indicate how the image is disastrously wrong for the article, and that replacing it with a blurry screen cap is going to make it better. It's an FA, Howcheng; you have to prove that your alteration is going to constitute an improvement to the article. It is pointless to argue the what if of a free poster - we both know that no such poster exists. For any film. Such is the problem with media articles; there is no free content related to either the item or the marketing for said item.
Since it doesn't violate NFC in any way, but your sole argument that it is infringing on the copyright of the poster. Using that argument, we should purge every film poster in the wiki - descriptive or not, it infringes on the copyright of the film itself. Following your reasoning, we now need to remove every poster from the wiki, as we have established that no poster is free content. You should begin that purge elsewhere; I imagine you will encounter a wee bit of resistance doing such.
I've suggested we widen the circle on this discussion; not sure what the resistance to this suggestion is, but I am renewing it. I am unconvinced by your arguments, and find your proposal of an alternate image quite possibly lessens the impact of the article. The image is eminently suitable for the article as is. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I've ever been in such a long discussion with someone where the other party has completely misunderstood what I've been talking about. My argument has not been about the infringement of copyright at all. I myself have written a number of articles (and sections of articles) that include non-free images. In fact, Hammersoft pointed it out earlier: In order to include non-free content, you need to prove that it's required. That's all I've been asking for: Proof that this poster was the source of controversy. howcheng {chat} 00:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
As I have said at least four times before, its perfectly reasonable to assume that a group of people who cannot see a particular film because its against the law probably have not seen that film. However, they felt outrage at the depiction of their ancestors. Therefore, their outrage must be coming from somewhere. The images from the posters were all over the internet - and no other media was (save for the comic book, also not available for viewing in that country) depicted the Persians as (and I quote from sources here) "as a monstrous, barbaric and demonic horde". Indeed, no other poster depicted the Persians as such (and yeah, you can see all the posters at the film's website.
Because we have a a citation noting that Iranians were outraged at Persians being depicted as monsters, we are able to include one of those Persians depicted. I feel a screen cap is inappropriate, as it almost certainly could not have caused the outrage - remember, Iranians cannot see this film, and the largest source of outrage came from Iran (where the film has been cited as being officially banned). We have one image that depicts, clearly, one of the "monstrous, barbaric and demonic horde". It seems a no-brainer to me. There is no need to cite the poster as being the source of the outrage; the image is supported by the text. As the film isn't viewable by those getting all upset by it, it seems prudent to note the only media related to the film that they were likely to have seen. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
It's reasonable to assume that, sure, and if this were a thesis or term paper or something, you could make that argument, but not here. Here, you need the citation. Without the citation, it's synthesis (not "logical, chronological fact"). Perhaps you need to read WP:SYN again: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." You want to include the poster in order to imply that it is the cause of controversy -- that's synthesis, right there. You seem to have experience with FAs, so I don't get how you're not getting that. Maybe because you're too closely involved with this article or something. You also stated earlier that because this is an FA, that I better have a good reason to remove content. Let me give you the flip side of that argument: Because this is an FA, then it should be held to a higher standard, that we should make sure that every i is dotted and every t is crossed, so that no one can point to us and say, "If Wikipedia bends the rules for its best articles, then why should those rules apply to any other article?" howcheng {chat} 05:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I get what you are aiming at, but you are mistaken. Three different arguments are being presented. One editor is arguing that we should use less infringing screen caps to demonstrate the text (note I sad demonstrate the text, not decorate the article). You are arguing that we don;t need the image at all. Unfortunately, you are of the impression that I am arguing that we tout the poster in the article as being the ignition point for the controversy and outrage. I am not. Allow me to restate that in the clearest possible terms: We cannot currently cite that the poster caused the outrage. The poster is being used only to clearly demonstrate the description of Persians in the film as a "monstrous, barbaric horde". At some point, someone is going to write a book or article that singles out the posters as the flashpoint (since we have citable proof that people couldn't have seen the film), but until then, no one is suggesting that we say that in the article. Please feel free to point out where I have ever suggested such. We need an image to put into perspective the description of Persians that fueled the outrage; otherwise, its just a bunch of people getting all upset, and the reader has no context as to why.
Part of having the best articles is that the dotted 'i's' and crossed 't's' don't get in the way of delivering functional content that helps the reader learn about something. I think the image is necessary, and I additionally believe that there isn't the slightest bit of harm in retaining the same image that has been in place for over three years. We have other exemplars that do the same thing - we tend to call that precedent. I do have a bit of experience with FA's (and I know you do as well), so I am having just as much trouble understanding why you fail to grasp why the image is helpful in understanding the outrage. It ain't broke, so fixing it via whittling seems a rather large-type waste of time. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Again, I renew the suggestion to widen the circle on this discussion to include other viewpoints, as we clearly are on opposite sides of this particular argument. I make the offer, because I don't want the matter growing contentious; Hammersoft already split over a perceived slight. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I get what you are trying to do in the article, and I agree that the poster provides context, but you can't make the implied connection between the posters and the outrage without the citation. Because you don't have the citation, you can't have the poster either. Just curious, if I'd brought this up at FAC, would you have spent so much time fighting it, or would you have worked to find the citation? howcheng {chat} 16:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

← I would rather see the image removed in light of this discussion. It is not related enough to the neighboring content; the image is only supporting this fragment of a sentence: "As in the graphic novel, the Persians were depicted as a monstrous, barbaric and demonic horde..." Compare this to Changeling (film) – Closing sequence, where there is a very dedicated rationale for the non-free image. Unless we see more directed critical commentary, either related to the protests or the costume design (the latter more likely), it should be excluded. As I recall, this was an image that was kind of added decoratively, and there was a struggle to rationalize it afterward. We should instead add non-free images where we know beforehand that they will be effective. Erik (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, i disagree, Erik. There is no other image content elsewhere in the article that supports the quoted statement. I don't need to cite the relationship between the posters existence and the outrage by Iranians; someone else will likely do that who is better at net research than I. All I need to do is provide an image that shows an example of what caused the notable, cited outrage. As for the question as to whether I'd be as resistant to lessening the article at FAC - which is frankly what we are talking about by removing a descriptive image related to the text. Of course I would resist such a change, Howcheng; I'd like to believe you would, too.
The comparison to Changeling isn't valid here; the image there is being explained in the context of how it was shot; in other words, production techniques. This is simply descriptive: putting a face to the image. Without the image, there isn't context for the outrage, which was significant enough to make actual news (as opposed to entertainment news). Removing the image lessens the correlation between description and visual that has served the article for over three years.
Lastly, the image you recall that there was significant struggle about revolved around a bas relief bust of the historical Xerxes, not this image. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Btw, are we planning on widening the loop on this discussion, or are some thinking that the same viewpoints are going to magically change? I don't see a solution otherwise. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that the image does not have sufficient critical commentary. We do not know what media in particular enraged the Iranians; there is no evidence that they saw the poster, so it should not be representative. Because of this, the contextual significance of the poster image is weak. The problem is that we do not have references about the response to the Uber-Immortal, only Xerxes. We should not be arguing for the inclusion of the image if we do not have references to back the response to the poster and/or the displayed entity. The Changeling example is absolutely valid because readers' understanding of that entire section is significantly improved by the presence of that image. Here, we are discussing a non-free image for part of a sentence when we have no indication from any references that the particular entity in question is involved. Erik (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Erik, howcheng, Andrew c, and Hammersoft. This image does not meet WP:NONFREE, and is not supported by any real critical commentary in the prose. The single sentence does not speak to that specific poster, only to the image (which they could just as easily have "heard about" which is often more than enough to get people in an uproar when they have never seen it themselves). I'm sorry Arcayne, but I also must agree that your arguments for keeping it are based on your presumption that they had to have seen this poster to have such an response. Unless this claim can be supported by reliable sources, and the section expanded to provide critical commentary on this poster, it should be removed as its use does not enhance the readers understanding nor would it be a detriment to the article to remove it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
No, we do not know what precisely outrages the Iranians (read: no citations have been yet found). We do know it could not have been the film, as it was banned. What's left, aside from blogs or internet pictures? But, as others have said, we cannot cite the flashpoint of their ire at this time. Eventually someone will, and I'm pretty sure I'll be proven right. Until then, let's stop talking about citing the image to the outrage. It's a distractive argument, and not on point.
I'm talking about retaining an image that has stood the test of time (3 years, which is, like, an epoch in Wiki years). the image points to a depiction of Persians as monsters. Sans the aforementioned citable connection to Iranian ire, it is descriptive of the statement of Persians as monsters. Period.
Without an example of what the Iranians called being described as "a monstrous barbaric horde", we are left to wonder what they are upset about. without an example, their outrage - and the underlying citable significance of that - is at best marginalized and at worst utterly lost. It does in fact enhance the reader's understanding of that outrage, and it would of course be a detriment to the article to remove it. three years of inclusion have pretty much proved that.
Again, we are talking not about the poster (at least not until someone with net research experience seeks out the citation); we are talking about an example of a monstrous Persian as presented in the film. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
You asked for more opinions and you've gotten them. At what point do you concede that maybe you're incorrect? howcheng {chat} 23:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Really? Where precisely did you widen the circle as I asked, Howcheng? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The question is irrelevant. Do you dispute that you have five editors disagreeing with you? Erik (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I certainly didn't direct these other users here. They came on their own. howcheng {chat} 03:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
So they magically showed up, all by themselves to share your viewpoint? Wow, how fortunate that they just somehow knew to come here to comment in your favor. How nifty. In answer to your question, no - I do not concede the point. The image should be in the article; it shouldn't be the latest battleground for the exclusionist vs inclusionist battle. Precisely what part of 'widen the circle' were you have trouble grasping? Open it up to the appropriate noticeboard or policy talk page - just make sure - as I've suggested before - to put a link here, so we can all follow the discussion. Surely, you wouldn't have a problem with having more eyes on this, would you? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I came here because I check for ongoing discussions through recent changes pages I have on my user page; this was what I used. I also notified WT:FILM of the discussion, and I am sure that is how AnmaFinotera came here. You have made it clear that we five editors cannot convince you, so I have gone ahead and removed the image because five of us agree that this is the right course of action. I hope you will not engage in edit warring, for which you have been blocked four times here at this article. Erik (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I was just commenting on AnmaFinotera's talk page that it's amazing I'd never seen her around before this, considering how active she is and how active I used to be. It's probably because I don't normally edit film articles that often except for minor cleanup. The same could be said for Erik. This is the first I've ever interacted with either of these users. You can believe me or not; it doesn't matter much to me either way. howcheng {chat} 17:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I was actually going to concede that current consensus doesn't want the image in. So be it. When a cite turns up, I will replace the image. No big loss. And Erik, the next time you misrepresent my block-log, I will trout-slap you so hard, your grandkids will get whiplash. I was not blocked in this article four times; it was once. Granted, being blocked once is bad enough, but using it in an argument to win points as a de facto threat when I haven't been blocked in almost two years is pretty fucking low. It was a pretty stupid move, sport. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I redacted my statement; it was inappropriate. Conceding does not mean that you agree with the action taken; it means that you acknowledge that your viewpoint is not shared by others. Your resistance on the talk page, believing that there was collusion and not conceding five editors' shared viewpoint, had me concerned that we would see it in the article as well. Erik (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
No, my use of the word meant that i was not convinced by the arguments being presented. It's the sloppiest application of NFC I've seen in over a year (and that's saying something). Your comments about collusion are, frankly, uninformed. I asked at least three times for Howcheng to widen the circle on the discussion, and due to an earlier issue with how that had been done before, i wanted a link to see if the question had been framed correctly. When folk started showing up, I wondered what had brought several people here all at once, as Howcheng had apparently ignored my request for outside input. I wasn't concerned about collusion; I was concerned that what had brought them here was a distinctly one-sided argument.
And thank you for admitting you mucked up colossally with your ill-researched accusation. Guess its too much to expect an actual apology. Sort of a post-escaping horse barn door closure, but better late than never. As well, you belief that I would edit-war after almost two years of not doing so was rather ill-informed as well. There was room to edit-war during this discussion, and yet none of that happened, either by myself or others. It came across precisely as a threat, when coupled with your action of reverting anyway. You handled this really, really badly, Erik. Work on that particular skill-set, please. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth: Screenshot or poster, doesn't matter to me. However, I'm mystified by the idea that a piece of free advertising (a poster) is more of a copyright violation than an unauthorized reproduction of a portion of a copyrighted work (a screenshot). I can't imagine someone suing to prevent free advertising, but I can imagine someone suing for the unauthorized reproduction. If the poster illustrates the point under discussion, so much the better. I realize that I have no knowledge nor interest in copyright law, but then I have extremely strong doubts about the expertise in these matters of most of my fellow editors. I suspect that these decisions usually come about not through any basis in reality, but in various self-promoting Wiki-ideologies which, even if based in reality, spin further and further into absurdity. Dekkappai (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NFCC lists the rationale for the criteria on non-free content. My take is that it boils down to, if you use non-free content, you need to have a good reason for using it. I did not find the reason for using the poster image (or any Uber-Immortal image) to be good enough. I think that this article could be improved, and that may open the door to other images. I was actually Googling for costume design information, especially for the Persian characters. This may be a way to show the atypical appearances with the right significant context. Erik (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
It did not violate a single facet of NFCC, as I've pointed out a number of times. There was a good reason for using it. The people who wanted it removed have been the sorts who dislike any non-free content in the Wiki-en. It happened a year ago with some tv articles. You've actually made it easier for them to come after film articles. Good job. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
It is your opinion that there was a good reason to use it. It is other editors' opinion that it is not. Non-free content needs to be contextually significant, and the significance of this image was under debate. I've argued to both include and exclude images. If the so-called "sorts who dislike any non-free content" dispute the Changeling screenshot, I would argue to defend that. Erik (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Not actually my point, Erik, but whatever. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
What is your point? Are you concerned that the removal of the image empowers a certain group of editors? You said this of "the people who wanted it removed". Which persons are they? Erik (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I thought you said you wanted to discuss this on your talk page, Erik. I willing to do it either place, but pick one. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
No, we can discuss my conduct on my talk page. This is about your statement about 300's image and other film articles' images, "The people who wanted it removed have been the sorts who dislike any non-free content in the Wiki-en... You've actually made it easier for them to come after film articles." Could you please elaborate? Erik (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I categorically reject any characterization of myself as someone who dislikes any non-free content. I've written articles or parts of articles with non-free photos in them (see David Rubinger or Pepsi#Niche marketing) and I've done a lot of NFCC enforcement during my time here, so I have a good idea of what's acceptable and what's not. And as far I know, nobody is planning to "come after" film articles. howcheng {chat} 21:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Makeup and costume design

We may be able to add information about makeup and costume design to the article. With such a detailed section, we could include an image. Below are some possible references to use:

Involved in these efforts were costume designer Michael Wilkinson, visual effects supervisor Chris Watts, and make-up and creature effects supervisors Shaun Smith and Mark Rappaport. It may be possible to Google their names in relation to 300 to find other references. There are probably some periodicals about makeup and costume design in 300 that would not be easily found online. Any takers? Erik (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

i want 2 make a big editor plz help me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.248.15.217 (talk) 09:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Question

I have a question about this movie. How did the Spartans manage to get the Persians near the cliff?--Valkyrie Red (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Because the entrance to the pass was quite on top of the cliff. 80.212.162.251 (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Second picture is NOT a "true portrait" of Xerxes - it was drawn thousands of years later, not contemporaneously. Caption should be changed to "another version of Xerxes" or simply "A portrait of Xerxes" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.13.140.55 (talk) 09:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Changed it to artistic depiction, that´s what it says in the Xerxes article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC

Historical accuracy

The following need to be featured in the 'Historical accuracy' section of this article:

The Spartans were not depicted as wearing armor during the whole film, when there is ample evidence that they wore traditional 'Hoplite' armor.

Ephialtes of Trachis is depicted as a hunchback, however there is no evidence for this.

Characters

I found a source that documents how the characters are different:

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Japan site

These links are posted for archival purposes. http://wwws.warnerbros.co.jp/300/index2.html http://wwws.warnerbros.co.jp/300/jpspecial/news.html http://wwws.warnerbros.co.jp/300/main.swf WhisperToMe (talk) 03:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Books' chapters covering 300

  • Albu, Emily (2010). "Disarming Aeneas: Fulgentius on Arms and the Man". In Cain, Andrew; Lenski, Noel (eds.). The Power of Religion in Late Antiquity. Ashgate. p. 21. ISBN 0754667251. (one-page mention)
  • Cyrino, Monica Silveira (2010). "'This is Sparta!': The Reinvention of Epic in Zack Snyder's 300". The Epic Film in World Culture. AFI Film Readers. Routledge. ISBN 0415990181.
  • Ecke, Jochen (2010). "Spatializing the Movie Screen". In Berninger, Mark; Ecke, Jochen; Haberkorn, Gideon (eds.). Comics as a Nexus of Cultures: Essays on the Interplay of Media, Disciplines and International Perspectives. pp. 15–17. ISBN 0786439874. (section in chapter titled "Zack Snyder's Adaptation of Frank Miller's 300 (2007)")
  • Hanson, Victor Davis (2010). "Raw, Relevant History: From the 300 Spartans to the History of Thucydides". The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern. Bloomsbury Press. pp. 51–55. ISBN 1608191656.
  • Hassler-Forest, Dan (2010). "The 300 Controversy: A Case Study in the Politics of Adaptation". In Goggin, Joyce; Hassler-Forest, Dan (eds.). The Rise and Reason of Comics and Graphic Literature: Critical Essays on the Form. McFarland. ISBN 0786442948.
  • Turner, Susanne (2009). "'Only Spartan Women Give Birth to Real Men': Zack Snyder's 300 and the Male Nude". In Lowe, Dunstan; Shahabudin, Kim (eds.). Classics for All: Reworking Antiquity in Mass Culture. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN 1443801208.

For possible use to ensure this article's continued comprehensiveness. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Iranians

  • in the film the "persians" are ethiopoid and congoid aspects..it´s false..the anciet iranians was a anciet europoid people of asian jus soli and descend of citoids peoples of anciet central asia/eastern europe.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.192.73 (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

slow motion

ok i found this video on youtube with spartens one man was in slow mo was this in the movie or hoax? Hydrant4 (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

DJ Hero Achievment

As ridiculous as it sounds, yes; there is a achievement for DJ Hero 1 titled "Tonight, we DJ in Hell!". I added this into the "Popular Culture" section, it was then quickly removed. I know this, because I've gotten the achievement my self, and its in plane view on the achievements list. http://www.trueachievements.com/a37738/tonight-we-dj-in-hell-achievement.htm Source information here. Please re-add my contribution as soon as possible. It is not fair to reference one video game and not reference another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.76.13 (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Basis for movie.

In the original opening statement for this page, the basis for the 300 movie was stated as being an adaptation from a comic book. Whatever the author entering that may claim, this is not entirely accurate. The basis for the current 300 movie is a remake of the original, "The 300 Spartans" which was the story of King Leonidas standing against the Persians, and being betrayed by outcast Spartan Ephialtes. The comic series came later and had too many significant differences, where-as the 1962 film had far more similarities.

The film was made in 1962 and may be found at the following link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055719/

Here is the Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_300_Spartans

The original varies slightly in how the Greeks functioned together, however the main story points are identical. Identical enough that one could watch both and clearly see the new one as a remake with pretty graphics and better acting.

Due to this, I am editing the front page to reflect this movie as a remake of the 1962 movie. While still including mention of the 1998 comic book series. This is also one of the rare times we see a movie inspire a comic book, as it is typically the other way around.

Feel free to get a copy of the original and watch it :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkwolfe 73 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC) 


   The film was based on Frank Miller's Graphic novel, which, along with 'The 300 Spartans' was based (loosely) on the account of the battle of Thermopolae in Herodotos' 'Histories'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.253.1 (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

"A famous parody of the film"

What is the basis for calling this parody famous? Or even for just calling it well known? I've never heard of it. Wik likes to have citations for value judgments.211.225.30.91 (talk) 07:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

World of Warcraft Parody/Spoof.

In the new World of Warcraft expansion Cataclysm, Blizzard made a spoof of the "This is Sparta!" quote in the quest line for the Dragonmaw/Twilight Highland section. The section goes by requiring the player to accompany a Horde negotiator to the Dragonmaw Warchief. The conversation roughly goes like the following:

Negotiator: "This is madness!"
Dragonmaw Warchief: "This is..."
Dragonmaw Warchief: "DRAGONMAW!!" [At this point the Dragonmaw Warchief kicks the negotiator into a bonfire, and the negotiator dies.]

Not sure how a in-game cutscene gets added, hope someone could add it since its rather a nice spoof. The quest line for this can be found at Wowhead. http://www.wowhead.com/quest=26549 You can also see it in this YouTube video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-IBUQ-RM-8 Tchu414 (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

One of Breivik's favorite movies

Should it be mentioned that '300' belongs to the favorite films of the Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik, since the controversy about the movie is already an important aspect of this article? 89.204.138.99 (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Considering that I have seen assorted online fascists and "I'm absolutely fascinated by new developments of biological warfare and its applications for creative torture on the human body" social-Darwinist libertarian extremist wannabe survivalist mass-murderers online, including ones already active in actual warzones. With the borderless global society "If they can commit warcrimes over there and get celebrated for it over there, why can't I do it here?" mindset being the funadamental basis for Breivik's type of mindset... I definitely consider it a very symtomatic socially relevant truth that should not be covered up.
Releasing this type of Triumph Of The Will-identical propaganda, very much does have an effect, and as Terry Pratchett almost put it for Moist von Lipwig, together with a sufficient amount of similar or even more extremely warfare-, hate-crimes, racism-, and genocidal eugenics-inciting memetic programming material, it does serve to kill an awful lot of people little percentages at a time, which disturbingly not unlikely at all, starts to sum up when something has a sufficient amount of impact, especially through widespread coordinated destructive trends.
However., I am sure that some covert Hollywood marketing connected handle will attempt to shut down the notion/repeatedly clean up the article for anythign like that. It has happened repeatedly before. Also, it should obviously be kept to encyclopaedic standards, with only a brief relevant quoted mention, and no, I'm not pro-censorship. I'm pro-widespread school awareness of how embarrassingly easy mos of us are to subliminally brainwash, or even to incite into thrill-killing psychopathic or genocidal hate-crime mindsets throughout history, so most people at least have an increased mental guard up, and instantly recognise the demagoguery for what it is, with the bonus that we get rid of misapplied usage of Godwin's Law.
I'm also not fond of artists who gleefully pervert their freedom of speech, which the Chinese are still fighting and dying for, into mere frat-boy attitude hate-crime incitement just to prove that they can, and since "true art is offensive", no matter how much damage it causes. No they should not get punished, and most are trying to be responsible, which they should get large accolades for, but there should also be no widespread deliberately scientifically inaccurate lies that enough of sufficiently extreme propaganda doesn't have a massive social effect, and if somebody does release a work inciting warfare and bigotry as many people as possible should be aware of/guarded against the kind ripple-effect it can potentially cause.
Was 300 directly responsible for Anders Behring Breivik and the 2011 Norway attacks? Of course not. Years of online indoctrination in mental border-destroying extremist communities inclined to be pick up this type of media as a personal banner was, but sufficient amounts of it does definitely play a large part in negatively inspiring them. However, that sufficient amounts of this type of media cumulatively plays a large part in lots of far less visible cases of turning progressively nastier isn't about silly easily swept aside "point-and-laugh-without-checking-it-up" scapegoating, that is about the actual truth of the issue as far as I have seen from online culture or, among other things, the non-fictional subjects linked above. Ah well, rambling on. Deliberate hush-hush about an important social problem tends to get to me.
More importantly, when it comes to these types of hate-crime/torture/war-crime/thrill-killing communities I may actually be for international cutdowns on/deletion of the websites/forums. I'm not sure either way, as I prefer to not be pro-censorship, but they are more intensely indoctrinating than 300 could ever hope to be (although it is the sort of thing that tends to be a kick-starter for these types of interests), and Germany's anti-Nazi propaganda laws have worked rather well. I'm not sure at all regarding how to tackle the problem, but widespread awareness of the issues is at least a kind of solution, without having negative or tyrannical side-effects. Dave (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course, let's start researching the movie tastes of our least-favorite mass murderers, serial killers, and politicians, and use what we find to denigrate any film whose theme bothers us. We can start with Hitler, since he's a very unpopular mass murderer and insert his name in the articles about his reported favorite, King Kong (1933) as well as The Wizard of Oz (1939), and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937). Kong is particularly nasty with its enslavement for profit of the "other" and Oz is likely to influence those with delusions of grandeur to try that man-behind-the-curtain scam. I don't even want to get into poor Snow White and the corruption of Aryan purity. The world sorely needs this level of esthetic engagement with film fandom to protect itself from the evil that may poison film goers' otherwise innocent hearts. —Blanchette (talk) 07:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Sequel section?

Now that Rise of an Empire has been released, should the sequel section be edited or removed? EmperorFishFinger (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

"criticism for [...] its depiction of the ancient Persians in Iran"

Apart from the awkward grammar of this sentence, is it balanced. I find it hard to believe that it was only contemporary Iranians ("in Iran"?) who took the depiction of the Persian army as offensive/racist/politically incendiary. Surely a number of critics in other countries also pointed this out? (I don't actually know -- has anyone else checked?) And if critics in countries other than Iran felt this way, then we probably shouldn't be implying (or outright claiming) that it was only Iranians criticizing this aspect of the film. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Release year: 2006 or 2007

The lead starts "300 is a 2007 film...". Should it be 2006 instead? Usually films are categorized to the year when they were first released, be it festival or other limited release (See The Hurt Locker, Under the Skin (2013 film), Tekken (2009 film)). The unusual thing about this film is that the version that was shown at Butt-Numb-A-Thon festival was somewhat unfinished according to Ain't It Cool News: "Snyder was there and told us that 99% of the effects were finished, but then later said there were about 100 VFX shots still left to tweak"[6]. Should the same guideline apply in this case or should we make an exception? I'm not sure how common it is to show unfinished films at festivals. --Mika1h (talk) 23:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Misprouncing 'Leonidas'

We know Paul Cartledge informed the producers of this movie that Leonidas is properly pronounced 'LeonEEEdas'. For some reason, they insisted on saying, 'LeonEYEdas'. Even the History Channel has picked up this travesty. What a shame they'd go to such tremendous lengths to research an historical movie, but to totally and unjustifiably muff the pronunciation of its protagonist's name, is beyond comprehension and to their great humiliation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.14.172 (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

"tremendous lengths to research"...? LOL! Anyway, Americans like to go with what sounds better. (I bet you loved it when they referred to the Picts as "Woads" in the 2004 film King Arthur). It's Hollywood, get over it. - theWOLFchild 03:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 300 (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 300 (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 300 (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Release year

The article says 2006 due to the BNAT screening. However, the movie wasn't all finished at the time, so it wasn't a release version, the same the audience saw in theaters. There is one previous reference to this point in the archives which no bothered to reply to or address.

The AFI[1] lists 2007 as the release date, so do Rotten Tomatoes[2] and Metacritic[3]. 2006 should be changed to 2007 in the header. —Hexafluoride Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk 08:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Details of Movie Page".
  2. ^ "300 (2007)".
  3. ^ "300 Reviews".

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 68 external links on 300 (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Controversy

Reference the instance of Naruto character Rock Lee's cruel fate at the hands of Gaara of the Desert. Lee, determined to be a fully functional ninja in spite of inability to perform 'ninjutsu' and 'genjutsu' is crippled in his contest against Gaara and rendered incapable of holding any function as a ninja. Gaara, already of a disturbed mind, endowed with a relatively small and frail body only happens to be imbued with superhuman power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.237.58 (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Being familiar with the 300 film and the Naruto series, I don't see how this has anything to do with this film or is considered a "controversy". Opencooper (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 300 (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on 300 (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on 300 (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 300 (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Other 300 pages

There should be a page that is for bowling that redirects to a section on bowling a 300.

See Perfect game (bowling). It's already mentioned on 300 (number). Opencooper (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 300 (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 300 (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 300 (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 300 (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:300_(film)/Archive_14&oldid=1155866610"