Talk:300 (film)

; Archives
	January 2006 to February 2007;
	February 22-March 13 2007;

For those contributors looking to address the Controversies, Political Aspects or the Depictions of Ethnic Groups in this film please visit theTemp Page, where simultaneous editing will be occurring to work on these specific aspects of the film. This Discussion Page is to sort out the main parts of the article, such as Plot, Theme, Production and mainstream Critical Reception. The work on the Temp Page will be integrated into the main article at a point in the near future. Please post questions with section headers below, making sure to sign your names with four tildes (~) after your post. Those posts unrelated to the discussion at hand will be removed without warning.

Film B‑class

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article has an archived peer review.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 300 (film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

Temp Page

Talk:300 (film)/Controversies

I am thinking that there appear to be two distinct areas being worked here in the article and in the Discussion Page. The first group are those who are focused on getting the structure of the article into the right framework for Wikipedia. the second group is very concerned with how this film impacts various cultures and the political fallout. These two groups are having some difficulty in accomplishing their various tasks, and frankly, it looks like a traffic jam.

I propose that we create a Temp Page so that the various Controversies created by this movie can be developed and refined into something nifty-looking, like the V for Vendetta (film) article - another film adapted from a graphic novel with controversy attached.

I would like to make it clear that the Temp Page is not intended to be a separate entity from the article, and not a forum for exchanging personal opinions (altho' brainstorming is to be expected). The Temp Page will, in a few weeks, likely be reintegrated back into the main article.

The point of the Temp Page is to essentially divert traffic from those who have specific knowledge of Persian culture and politics in general and the like to have a specific place to 'separate the wheat from the chaff'. Meanwhile, the main discussion area and Discussion page will focus its attentions on the meat and potatoes of the article: Lead, Plot, Themes, Production, Cast, Critical and external links. For the most part, controversies will be avoided completely in the main article until reintegration in a few weeks. Critical Reception will be worked on, but in both the Temp Page and the article itself. Don't be afraid to duplicate references in this section, as it will make reintegration a lot easier if there is parallel information and citations.

Lastly, we will put a big ol' text box with large, friendly letters letting people know that if they are interested in discussing the Controversies, the Temp Page is for them, and pertinent posts can go there.

Again: this is not to shuffle off anybody, but instead an idea to divert two different streams of traffic to areas where ideas can flow better, and the work get done faster. I am sure that everyone wants a good, truly representative article. I think this is a good way to accomplish that. Thoughts? (nobody bite my head off) Arcayne 20:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do it. WikiNew 20:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support this. It is better to resolve the controversy there before placing it back here so that there is less conflict on the main page and to prevent users who work on both aspects from having extremely limited revert maneuverability. Hopefully, this will allow both aspects to see quality improvement without all the mess and disorganization we have seen so far. The Behnam 21:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...I could use some help with creating a temp page, seeing as I haven't done it before, and my first example isn't really linking or anything...Arcayne 21:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created something and adjusted the link... is that what you wanted? The Behnam 21:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No that isn't it, I'm going to kill it. The Behnam 21:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made another. Fine with that? Or did you want it to be a subpage of the article itself? The Behnam 21:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think that is what we need. Are there ways to center the link, or make the text a bit larger? I want to make sure the traffic sign is clear for all. Arcayne 21:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Temp Page is now populated with data. Someone want to take a gander and render an opinion? I still have to make something for this page to refer to the temp page...Arcayne 21:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove the controversy section from the main article, white-washing and removing valid criticism is not the right approach. There is no consensus on this, you can't unilaterally censor sourced information, trying to hide it, others will just add it back. --Mardavich 22:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ever heard of stability? It's a safe haven. WikiNew 22:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, guys, since this is the first time I see this method here, may I suggest something: We let the stable and most importantly sourced last version of the controversy in the article itself, but we agree not to edit it. We also keep the copy to the subpage, and we work on it there. This will serve both causes: avoiding traffic and at the same time informing. Then, we can copy the end-result into the main article. As a bonus, if there are series of significant edits in that hidden other, then we can move them to the main article upon agreement. Thoughts? Niko Silver 22:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another idea would be to create an article called 300 (film) controversies, and have the second team work there, while we include a small 2 sentence summary in this article, with {{main}} on top for the other. Then we can normally merge and redirect. Niko Silver 22:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information is not long enough yet for a full article, But I second Niko's original proposal, a stable sourced version of the controversy section should be visible, this is notable info. --Mardavich 22:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We discussed doing that, but discarded that idea, as it would make the new article ripe for AfD nomination, and we desperately need the info that canbe put together on the Temp Page. As the Temp Page is protected under the umbrella of the main article, there are no worries of deletion. However, what you mentioned about preserving the controversies stuff in its last form is intriguing. My only concern is that new contributors wouldn't know that the main work was being done on the temp page, and continue to edit the main article. By removing the content to the Temp Page completely, most will come to the Discussion Page to ask 'hey, what about the controversy' and see the great big textbox at the top explaining everything. However, I agree that something should be present on the live article. It's a conundrum. Your thoughts?Arcayne 22:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I say below, I strongly oppose this idea if it means deletion of the material, however temporarily, from the main article. Hornplease 23:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy section is quite notable. The film itself is not much notable (ordinary film) from cinematic style point of view. Critics votes on yahoo-movie ranked it as B-. The length of the article is not long and its handling is quite easy. Sangak ^Talk 09:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with removing that Controversy section although i believe the title does not match the content. Zirnevis 09:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute Bullshitism

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?wpci96c&5701

go and find your the reasons

I also don't see such deletation of sourced data proper, and I don't see the disscusion on stablity holding much water. It is fine if people edit controversy section as much as they want until it improves it and it is sourced. But I do see merits in a seperate controversy page when we have eanough material. A temp page seems to be more harmful and white-wash rather than helpful.Farmanesh 23:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explain what you mean by a "white-wash" and how it is more harmful. I am not understanding your meaning there.Arcayne 00:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is best to go with the 'separate controversies page with short summary & link in the main article' idea. The Behnam 23:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explain what you mean, Behnam.Arcayne 00:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with Temp page. The temp page page will become a page for pros only and become one sided and there will be a big challenge to import contents of the temp page to the original page later. I know there is alot of pressure onsome of us to adjust opinions and revert vandalism but this is the best approch to have a NPOV article. Nevertheless, we should keep current contents anyway since they are well sourced and argued.(Shahingohar 00:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Not going to the temp page, since I'm not going to contribute enough content to really make much of a difference, but I do think this section in particular does need cleanup, and it seems that with all this editing going on, some kind of organized effort to develop a consensus may be appropriate. I suggest looking at some of the films that are already featured articles and seeing how they've handled any controversies. Good luck. Mister.Manticore 00:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mardavich, removing the Controversies section form the 300 movie article does not make sense. There has been a lot of discussion about this, but the fact is that there are many controversial aspects of this film, and even if this is a brief enumeration of the media's coverage of these controveries (which is essentially what the controversies section has been reduced to), it would be more inciteful to the reader than removing a mention of it. I am also not sure that Controveries deserves its own article either. Nakhoda84 02:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC article on the controversies

It's here, it can be used as a source in the article if needed. --Mardavich 21:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"There was outrage over the 2004 epic Alexander which showed the Macedonian general easily conquering the Persian Empire." Lol! WikiNew 22:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good source. Maybe you can get started on that in the Temp page, where we have decided to pursue two different paths. See the Temp Page discussion above, and check out the Temp page. Let me know what you think. If you wnt, I could move your post over there. Let me know. :) Arcayne 22:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus on any "Temp page", it's not right to unilaterally remove sourced information from the article. Please do not move my post. --Mardavich 22:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. WikiNew 22:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and your BBC article section was ported over here, before the internet connection at work conked out. I had done that before you expressed a concern.Arcayne 22:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the internet cacked out at work. I am at the library right now. The point of the Temp Page is divert traffic that specifically addressed the controversies you are pointing out so they can be discussed, cited and tightened up for a reintegration with the main article in a few weeks. To be frank, so much time has been spent ('wasted' was the word some editors used)discussing this one particular element of the film rather than production or theme or even plot. It is unfair to the rest of the article to devote time to only the topic of Depiction of Persians or some other controversy.

The point of the Temp Page is to allow those issues to be discussed by those who know the most about them, or are at least interested in tightening them up. It isn't as if they are being shoved into a closet like a red-headed stepchild. Once those matters have been properly framed in the Temp Page, they are going to be added back into a stronger article, making it even stronger. I am nit sure why you would be opposed to this?Arcayne 22:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely be opposed to this, because right now, when the movie is just being released and the reading traffic of the page is most likely increased, there is no controversy section! This is obviously wrong. Niko Silver 22:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think its a good idea at all. Temp pages have a habit of languishing unnoticed and unimproved. Also, I disagree that 'essential work' is being slowed down by people editing 'inessential' stuff about the controversy. I strongly oppose the removal of the material, its a terrible precedent, as is removing the material unilaterally. Hornplease 22:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. To begin with, I don't intend on letting the Temp Page languish at all: it isn't a dark corner that we would rather forget - we are expecting some tight results to come from the topics there that are best researched and cited and shaped up by people who know the topics better than I. Being a middle-American/English hybrid, my contact with controversy is minimal. I know grammar and (to an extent) Wiki policy. I cannot pretend to understand the Persian pyche, and how this movie affects it. And I am not alone in that lack of understanding. What I do know is that nothing is getting done in the article (except for the Plot - thanks for all the work on that) that needs to be done because we are all debating The Unfairness of It All, and it simply wastes time. Secondly, I guess I am not opposed to the text in the topics to be squared away in the Temp Page staying in the article. How do you suggest we keepit pristine until re-integration?Arcayne 23:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth noting that temp pages tend to languish if the same section remains in the main article. If the temp page were the only place for the controversy, then people would edit there. However, it seems that a better idea may be to make a genuine contrversies page and have a two-sentence summary in this article with a 'main article' link. The Behnam 23:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(crap, page blanked on me)

Niko, Mardavich, what do you guys say? I need your help to make this work, as you will both likely be leading the way in sorting out the controversies sections. Would either of the two of you write a two sentence summary for the categories in the main article?Arcayne 23:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Behnam, that might be an eventual end-goal, but I do not think that that article would survive AfD at this point. Arcayne, my objection is that whatever else needs to be done on the article can still be done even if other people are debating what The Unfairness. We dont need a temp page for that; work gets done continually on high-traffic pages without arbitrary temp pages. Hornplease 23:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly we disagree, but I think the Temp Page will be able to focus the talents and energies of those who can knock out the controversies sections without interruption. There has certainly been enough of that to date. Please, give it a try, why dontcha?Arcayne 23:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced, highly relevant material from a high-traffic article in order to 'focus' energies is not a good idea. I'm sorry, I must say that I - and presumably many others - are not going to accept it; and remove it or not, it's just going to be replaced in a less pleasant format by someone who wont bother to click on any link to any temp page. Hornplease 23:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, removing the posts and redirecting them to the Temp Page will let them repost it there. Don't just dismiss the idea without trying it.Arcayne 23:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried it before. It used to be called subpages and everyone decided they were a terrible idea. As Nico points out below, just concentrate on the bit that interests you without splitting anything off. That is, after all, how WP works. Hornplease 00:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Hornplease, this may be a good idea after all due to the fact that accurate concise information will still remain within the article. See my proposal below (my last post for tonight). Niko Silver 00:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: androgyny, please note Xerxes' Jewish wife Esther

As you can see below, the Bible clearly states that Xerxes was a heterosexual. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerxes_I_of_Persia#In_the_Bible Xerxes is also understood to be Ahasuerus the King in the biblical Book of Esther. In this book, Ahasuerus dismisses his Queen consort, Vashti, because she refused to obey his command of appearing as 'queen of his empire' at a feast he was having for his princes. Then after sending forth a decree to gather the fair young virgins from throughout his empire, he chooses the Jewess Esther as his queen. --Wavesswung 22:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arcane just tried to delete this finding! He completely deleted it off of talk. It's as well sourced as you're going to get. IT'S IN THE BIBLE. Despite Miller and Snyder's portrayal of an androgynous homosexual king, Xerxes was married. --Wavesswung 22:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on! Hornplease 22:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I removed it, and was going to reply to your talk page as to why, but I can do so here.The reason I removed it is because, while the Bible is eminently citable (as are the Koran, the Talmud and the Saga of the Great Spaghetti Monster), the Bible doesn't say anything about the film. Yes, it controverts something that appeared in the book and the film, but not specifically. Do you understand what I mean?It constitutes Original Reseaqrch to link the two together, because your thought processes are not citable.Arcayne 23:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that reasoning, as well more generally with the point that departures from the historical record are only notable if they are pointed out as such in several reliable sources. Hornplease 23:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most popular area of discussion about this movie is its historical inaccuracy. Here we have a perfect example. While Leonidas is portrayed as having a beautiful queen, Xerxes is portrayed as a wife-less homosexual - despite the fact that he is one of the most important heterosexual kings in world history! He's in the Bible! Yet you want to censor this information. You want to censor it so badly that you don't even want it in talk! I don't know how miserable a person has to be to spend his days censoring information, but you deserve it. Enjoy your bald, information censoring existence. --Wavesswung 23:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, thanks for the WP:Civility, friend.

That being said, it gives mean idea about something else that is ideally suited to the Temp Page - a section called Historical Inaccuracies. So long as it was cited up the yazoo, I don't think it would be bad to have the section. Yes, even though the film is based upon the GN, a number of users have said that they don't have access to it.

A question: has this movie even been seen within Iran?Arcayne 23:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen the film 300 yet. But I am an avid fan of Frank Miller's work, so I have read his graphic novel. For the uninitiated, his artwork can seem bizarre and unrealistic. But then again, he is a COMIC BOOK artist. A certain amount of artistic license is allowed. Concerning the supposedly "androgynous homosexual king" Xerxes. Pardon my language, but did he 'suck cock in the film?' Did he take it 'up the ass?' Did he engage in any EXPLICIT homosexual acts? Or is this "androgynous homosexual" characterization based on an ASSUMPTION? If I wear a pink shirt, am I gay? I just thought 300's Xerxes had a bad fashion sense. Northridge 23:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't Xerxes wife Esther even mentioned in the film? She's mentioned all over the old testament, yet she disappears in a movie about her husband! I guess Gorgos was a more important historical figure than Queen Esther! lol! This bit of historical inaccuracy is a travesty! --Wavesswung 23:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because she wasn't in the graphic novel. And the movie isn't based on history, its based on Frank Miller's book. --Scientz

Yes, it wasn't good, but the bit on Xerxes is your own research and so cannot be added to the article. This isn't anything personal, just policy. Sorry. The Behnam 23:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second. What's my own research? The bible? The fact that Xerxes is portrayed as homosexual? That's in dozens of articles. Don't try to pull a fast one censor. You censor because you hate the truth. --Wavesswung 23:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, your refutation based upon the Bible is your own work. Besides, the Book of Esther is known for historical inaccuracies [1]. The Behnam 23:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? You've decided that the bible is inaccurate when it says Xerxes married Esther? That has to be the stupidest statement I've ever heard. I've really had enough of arguing with you censors. I don't have time to get in 24 hour edits wars with people so pathetic that they spend their days on wikipedia. Intelligent people know the truth any way. Intelligent people also know what a toilet people like you have made Wikipedia. --Wavesswung 23:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent people, like the scholar who contributed to Encyclopaedia Iranica, consider the Book of Esther historically inaccurate. Or is he unintelligent too? The Behnam 23:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources described him as androgynous whatever. None of them talked about the Bible-related inaccuracy. The Behnam 23:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, about the splitting issue, it actually struck me right now: There are no edit conflicts or other distraction/disruption if everybody edits their own section! Just go cook the "meat and potatoes", and we go on "making the salad", without going to the neighbor's kitchen! (or vice versa, that is). :-) If you want, we can split the talkpage! (but then again, that one has sections too) Niko Silver 00:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last post of the day (as I have a social engagement this evening). One of the key pluses in having a separate page for the controversies is that it prevents outrageous info from making it into the live article. Thoughts?Arcayne 00:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

controversies is an essetional part of this live article. I belive the temp page will become too one sided that can not be summerized in the original one. However, current contents of the section are well sourced and argued and should not be deleted. (Shahingohar 01:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

This section's a mess. We cannot source the bible to refute Frank Miller's artistic sstyle, NOR to refute Synder's interpretations thereof. FURTHER, Suggesting that some editors do one part of the article, leaving those pro-persian/pro-xerxes editors to 'fix' the criticisms is absolutely opposite of the way Wikipedia works. Such a situation would allow ridiculous 'xerxes was anything cause the bible said so' arguemnts to come in rampantly. NO, it is far better than editors interested in protecting Xerxes read all of WP:ATT. We need understanding on this page, and not more fights, and certainly no more false reporting of policy violations to the admins. (NOt you two, but others on this page with Bad Faith behaviors.) read up on Reliable Sources. ThuranX 01:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Thuranx, I believe you may have misunderstood what I said. In response to a suggestion that the article be split in order to facilitate some as-yet-unspecified work on the 'main' part of the article, as the political issues were deemed to interfere with that work, I said that people who were interested in one need not be bothered by discussion on the other. This is obviously not an invitation to POV-warriors. (And I really don't think anyone here is interested in 'protecting' a long-dead Achaeminid king.) Hornplease 01:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's exactly what some of the ditors and summaries are saying. That they feel that Xerxes' reputation is being slandered by the film, and they intend to point out how in the controversies/criticisms section of this article. ThuranX 03:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you have seen different music performances of the conductors. Each conductor does a background research to underestand the environement where the music was originally created. This is why for instance Karajan's take on Vivaldi is different from other conductors. Now Frank Miller is trying to tell a story which by his own claim is "%90 accurate". There are two legitimate questions which needs to be addressed. 1- under what impression and environement the peice was created? What was the mindset of the creator? 2-What about that %10 inaccuracies? Can we single them out? was the inaccuracies in purpose or just due to the nature of the script? I think leaving these questions unanswered does not merrit the discussion and the article. From the Bible or from the news, his interviews or whatever else, there are resources available and have been made available to you two guys ThuranX and Arcayne. Until now you have chosen to ignore them and then blank the page. It has been mentioned several times in this page.

Well, if a significant set of reliable sources point out that Xerxes has been slandered, we'll put a note to that effect in. Say it often enough and they'll go away. Nobody objecting to the slanderous implications about the Athenians? Odd. Hornplease 04:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm MOST hoping for a set of quotes about how Snyder and Miller feel slandered for just telling a STORY. that'd be nice to add to all the chaos. ThuranX 04:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So perhaps Ahmadinejad was telling just a STORY and we should MOST hope for a set of his quotes about how he feels slandered for just telling a STORY. I hope you get it this time. BTW, you keep repeating almost the same sentence that you mentioned before. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.49.196.147 (talk) 07:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

What ThuranX said, times a million. What a joke. María: (habla ~ cosas) 01:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Thuranx. Splitting the article and making pros only to write a section is against Wikipedia policy.(see my comments above)(Shahingohar 02:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Do not blank

Arcayne and other censors blank out to end discussion of matters they don't like. These censors are ruining the credibility of wikipedia. --Wavesswung 23:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please Don't blank about 1600 characters in one edits, it is OK to discuss it in the temp page, at least keep some of it till that parts get consensus. --Pejman47 23:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that the conversation was archived before you had a chance to finish it (I didn't do it). What was the topic?Arcayne 23:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that you blank it and then claim that there is nothing there! where?! what?!

Proposal

How about if we had the following (telling IMO) summary:

Controversies

Greek, Iranian and Western critics raised concerns over historical accuracy, especially concerning depictions and portrayals; mainly for the Persian army and King Xerxes. Historians and critics from all sides agree that the original comic-book symbolism for the "bad guys" which has been followed for the film, is a "departure from reality" which is "most disconcerting".

The Iranian government gave political aspects to the film, and thousands of Iranians have protested against what they regard the false portrayal of their ancestors.

Other historical elements of the film are considered mostly accurate.

You think this movie is a documentary? --Northridge 00:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Critics say that the "bad guys" are black people, cripples, Asians, etc. but the "BAD GUY" in the movie is not even Xerxes, it is Theron, a Greek and a Spartan. I've read in numerous theaters people cheered when the Queen killed Theron, there was no such reaction in the final confrontation between Xerxes and Leonidus. And of course they're going to dehumanize someone... its called "300" for a reason. They're gonna want to portray the Spartans as unified, moral and upright, and everyone else as the polar opposite. It's just a movie and people should take it for what it's worth and not try to find some random political/racial/social message behind it. I just wanted to get that off my chest.--Ychennay 04:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[don't forget to add the existing refs, including mine from the archive]

I think this actually says more, because people are more likely to read it (being short). We can always add html comments on the top and bottom of the section reading . And we can always merge the two later with the complete content. Please edit my section above mercilessly, as I'll go to bed now, hoping you will have sorted this out until tomorrow! Niko Silver 00:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the format. --Mardavich 00:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just (a) don't see the point of it, as, in my experience, it doesnt end the warring and (b) don't see the problem, genuinely. This is an article in progress, and a little messiness is expected. As I say elsewhere, a temp page is a bad precedent, unnecessary, and ineffective. Don't forget: an independent article would not survive AfD at this point. Hornplease 00:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please include this quote

From Dana Stevens of Slate: "If 300, the new battle epic based on the graphic novel by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley, had been made in Germany in the mid-1930s, it would be studied today alongside The Eternal Jew as a textbook example of how race-baiting fantasy and nationalist myth can serve as an incitement to total war. Since it's a product of the post-ideological, post-Xbox 21st century, 300 will instead be talked about as a technical achievement, the next blip on the increasingly blurry line between movies and video games." [2]

It is lovely that the North American public has proven themselves so adoring of this new film and most reviewers - all of them grown adults - have praised and delighted in this film's violence and bloodshed, and even the US Marines in Iraq love this movie's bloodshed and racism and have thrown praise upon it: see [3] Khorshid 00:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also definition of propaganda. Khorshid 00:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That should clear up the question of whether or not people in Iran have seen the film. It mentions the pirated copies being circulated. The Behnam 00:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is old news, my friend. All AP and AFP news outlets report on the bootlegs. Search Google news: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=the+300&btnG=Search Even the people in the Iranian government have seen it! Khorshid 00:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't my question; I knew Iranians would bootleg it. Someone else asked the question earlier. The Behnam 00:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Khorshid: the Slate review is linked from main article, though a more informative and relevant quote is used.

For Behnam: yes, good point. Hornplease 00:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More relevant? LOL Stop joking. Just because you do not like the quote do not attempt to censor it. If you even attempt to prevent NPOV here by refusing to include such quotes then we will have to take this to RfC immediately. Stop your anti-Iranianism. Again if this movie was attacking Jews instead of Persians, it would be a non-issue and no bigot would dare to censor this article. But because Iranians are fair game, there is double-standard. I call upon other editors esepecially Iranians to stop this nonsense and include this relevant information if they have a backbone and not submit to this bigotry. Khorshid 00:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is not representative of mainstream critical reaction and makes a Nazi analogy, which never serves any argument well. Removing it is not censorshop or anti-Iranianism, as considerable space is devoted to criticism of the portrayal of Persians. Thanks for your input. Hornplease 01:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who are we to judge if it serves an argument or not?! Who gave us the ownership of judgement. That is a valid relevant quote. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.49.196.147 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 14 Mar 2007 (UTC)

I concur. With the full link there already, there's no need to turn this article into an inflammatory soapbox, to support your general anti-300 sentiment. ThuranX 01:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You intentionally blank and ignore any referenced mentions of "racism" in the article you Ashkenazi and friends. I still wonder how easily you guys dared to blank the parts referring to racism and prejudice. Are you playing gods in here?! You are not adding anything to the article by your comments. What is the place of "I" in abstract articles?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.49.196.147 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 14 Mar 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but racism will only be a part of the article if enough reliable sources indicate it has been considered a problem with the film. Please note that I am responding to you in spite of the fact that unwarranted references to ethnicity of the sort you just made would typically lead to your suggestions being ignored by everyone, including me. Hornplease 07:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

good article

http://www.startribune.com/562/story/1049937.html ^Many good points are made worth mentioning

Iran

Iran is Persia?

Not really, Iran was a part of the area which they ruled. Many people in present day Iran have persian ancestry, though. Persian Empire Timber Rattlesnake

Persia was the name that was referred to Iran in the West until 1930s --Rayis 11:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Iran Is Persia

Soundtrack elements "borrowed" from Titus

I can't find any mention of this on the web, but 300's soundtrack lifted many elements from Titus (film). 300's "Remember Us" is identical in parts to then end of Elliot Goldenthal's "Finale". Even more obvious is 300's "Returns A King" and its similarities to "Victorius Titus". I'm suprised lawsuits haven't flown over this one yet.

I'd add this to the article, but it remains original research... for the time being. --Quasipalm 03:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an authoritative source that says much the same:

Borrowing to such a degree that Zimmer's pending lawsuit over Gladiator looks frivolous, Bates lifts music from Gabriel Yared's rejected score to Troy and even more directly from Elliot Goldenthal's Titus. So note for note, that Bates doesn't even bother changing instruments at times - "Come And Get Them" features the same metal clanging that accompanied the entrance of soldiers in the opening of Titus and the phonetic choral in "Returns A King" is not unlike hearing the crunch of a plastic bottle inside the recycling machines at your local grocery store.

...

Yet by the end of the album, "Message for the Queen" sounds like little more than a demo track for the wailing women used in either version of Troy (take your pick as to which one!) and "Remember Us" is nothing more than, sigh, "Finale" from Titus. Bates is not allowed to create anything on his own, without leaning on someone else's work. There is nothing wrong with good plagiarism amongst composers, but there does come a point where it's indigestible. This score goes beyond that.

-Quasipalm 03:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too long?

I really don't think the plot summary is too long. It doesn't go into much explicit detail (other than the ironical situation where Gorgo says 'it will not end quickly' and 'you will not enjoy it'. This movie is talked about a lot and has been given reviews saying it is one of the best movies in quite a while, so I think a small little plot summary saying "Leonidas got pwned by the Persians" won't do it. Pulp Fiction has a long plot summary (over 900 words, the "average" or something), yet it is agreed that it is just the right size. Why should 300 be any different? 72.200.27.179 03:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there is nothing wrong with the length of the plot summary. Comparing with other film summaries, it actually seems short. I'm for removing the notice on length.Mgold4me 04:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Plot information on the plot. Just because other articles get away with something doesn't mean that every article should. This film is not complicated, in the least. It's about a small group of people defending their freedom from a large group of people, it can be trimmed a lot more. You don't need minute details about irrelevant things. Also, read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. At 926 words, for a film that's just 2 hours and not very complicated in plot, it's too long. We don't need 3 images either. Two will suffice. Also, some paragraphs can be merged. I see one that is actually only 2 sentences long, and the final paragraph is only 3 sentences long. The entire thing needs some copyediting because I saw lots of run-ons. Before you do the "why don't you do it yourself" rule, I haven't had a chance to see the film, and would rather not read through the plot and spoil it for myself. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on the whole length thing, but it's difficult to remove certain things (quotes, for example) when anon IPs keep adding them back in for sentimentality's sake. I'd rather have it be four short paragraphs in total, but it seems some are rather attached to the details. I really don't know how to compromise. New siggy, Bignole? I liked your old one, though I'm forced to be a UF fan; my boyfriend's a Gator. :) María: (habla ~ cosas) 12:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's hard to "compromise" on a plot so soon after its release. Everyone and their sons wants to put every detail in there. If the quote is relevent it's ok, but if they are quoting everything then no. I wish I could help, I'm usually pretty good at cutting details down, but I haven't seen it yet so I'm distancing myself from the plot. When I put a tag on it, or merge paragraphs I'm focusing on just the spaces and not the text. Also, the pictures need to be address. You rarely, if ever see 3 fair use screenshots in a plot section. I think since the film is about this huge battle, they should really be (at least one of them) scenes from the two armies and not just a shot of Gerard Butler (lone and with family). The arrows one is good, but it's really just the arrows and the Spartans in the foreground. Oh, I changed the sig because I was gettings flak for it being so long in code. I'm think of going back to the color scheme before, and just removing the "talk" code. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the pictures; the only one I am partial to is the third one with Leonidas, but only because it's so clear compared to the others. Perhaps the family one should be removed for now, and when we get our hands on a better battle pic we can replace one of the remaining two. I'll take it out so we can see how it looks. María: (habla ~ cosas) 12:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Yeah, I understand your partiality to the last one. It is a good pic. I think the reason I like the middle one is probably because it's one of this almost direct interpretations not just from the GN but from history, I mean the dialogue about blotting out the sun and fighting in the shade (I can't verify that it actually occurred in the way the film depicts, that's a lot of arrows). If we could find an image of the two sides running to each other, kind of like the start of the hand-to-hand combat, that would be good. IMO. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, it is a lot of arrows, and a very impressive scene. I'm weary of seeking out screencaps for fear of violating copyright, but I definitely agree that a better fighty stabby grr pic is needed; and there are so many excellent shots to choose from! I'd particularly like to see a shot of a Spartan soldier with sword and shield, in case anyone out there knows where to find one. By the way, I took the family pic out, and don't particularly miss it. María: (habla ~ cosas) 13:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Fair use" is allowed in limited numbers, but you have to be able to explain a "rationale" in the image's summary. Screencaps are generally always fair use, depending on how you obtain them. When a DVD comes out, just about anything can be used, you just have to give a rationale for its use and hope it's encyclopedic in nature. But since the film's in theaters I'm not sure where you can get some screen caps. The official website might have some promotional screencaps (which the tag would still be screencap) and in there they might have some fight scenes. At work, so I can't actually view certain "entertainment" websites. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]