Talk:300 (film)

This movie is a laugh

The movie three hundred is a complete and total laugh. In truth the three hundred Spartan’s were not the ultimate warriors the movie portrays them to be. If you lack any knowledge of history an make your facts from a movie you must be an idiot. The three hundred Spartan’s were accompanied by at least two thousand Greek warriors when the fought the Persians on there last stand. The Spartan’s also were homosexual's that were encouraged to love each other to fight harder for one another in battle. When in fact the Spartan’s did marry they made their wives dress like a man on the wedding night to ease the transition (FACT)! Also the Spartan’s did not charge out wearing red rags and flashy red capes in fact they wore armor but it only cover the chest region. The Spartan’s obviously did not fight the way they did in the movie ether, however some believe they did so I must also set the record straight for those people to. They would stand in lines and put out there wooden shields (only some were coated with a thin layer of bronze) so nothing but a spear would poke threw. Then they would wait for the enemy to charge, from there they would poke their spears out jabbing like cowards being able to kill them but making them unable to kill them. Some people might say it was smart but the only reason it worked in the movie and in reality was because they were fighting on a narrow path and they could not get around to attack them from behind. The Spartan’s never smashed their enemies with shields or flipped their blades into the Persian’s like they were freaking Jedi. The movie was trash and will always be trash no matter what spin you put on it.

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)

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)

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 think that 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)

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 Nazzi 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)

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)