::::Errr, I do aplologise if I had given you the impression that I considered myself to be the most intelligent person among all the participants. I certainly didn't intend to convey that. Perhaps something else led you to that assumption? ) 
 ::::That it is a blockbuster movie on the same level as Braveheart or the Patriot I do not deny. That it is different from the Patriot in purporting to tell a real and important story as opposed to a story on the margins of a real and important story should be evident. That it is different from Troy in that the Iliad is itself generally recognised less as history and more as myth is evident. That it is different from Braveheart in that Longshanks' army in the latter does not feature rhinos and the like is also evident.  
 ::::You simultaneously want this movie to be held to the 'relaxed' standards that it seems you think should apply to 'blockbusters', and yet to stand up for it's historical accuracy - to the extent of claiming that its depiction of Spartan society is accurate. (Even Cartledge, who as is noted here is something of a Laconophile, said somewhere that the movie can make no claims to veracity.) This is unsustainable. More to the point, I cannot see why an encyclopaedia should have the same standards of historical attribution as a film director. 
 ::::Finally, you need to work out in your head what fiction is. If the occasional superficial accuracy of setting meant that something was not fiction, then is anything fiction other than Star Trek? 
 ::::Also, please note the difference between pretensions (which 300 has) and pretentious (which 300 is not.) 
 ::::Finally, calm down. Perhaps a break to recharge your batteries?