Talk:300 (film)/Archive 10

message: *
:Information about the film's effects; may require registration.  Check out http://www.bugmenot.com/ to bypass. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visual effects 

message: Given all the irate people have calmed down, the article is a stable GA, and I would love to nominate this for FA. All in favour, cry "This IS SPAAARTTTTAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!" Alientraveller 10:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (as Woody Allen) Um, what I really want to say, kind of, and the thing is, you know - despite the fact that this looks conspicuously like the Lower East Side, it might in fact closely resemble Sparta in a drug-induced sort of way. Especially if you really squint your eyes and have been awake for close to 37 hours.   -Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is SPARTTTTTTAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!! BTW, i am actually wanting to nominate this article as an FA. So please, dont undo my comment.(Cablebfg 19:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA nomination 

message: I'm sorry, but does anyone else find that quote by him in the controversy section as ridiculous?  The Spartans were neither monotheistic or American like in their politics.  Is a quote that stupid really important to have on this page?DeviantCharles 00:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Traveler is right: the standard is verifiability, not truth. We do not weed out people who are too stupid to keep their ill-formed opinions to themselves. We just shine a nice, bright light ont hat stupidity. :) Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.  While the fact that it is an absurd rant may not necessarily be the reason to remove it, it may qualify as WP:FRINGE (like  the Farrokh article).  Also, we quote him like he is some academic or reputable source, when the face is that this guy, "David Kahane," is not a real person in the National Review.  His qualifications are completely unknown to us.  If you read his article, at the bottom it says, "David Kahane is a nom de cyber for a writer in Hollywood. “David Kahane” is borrowed from a screenwriter character in The Player."   In any case the article seems more bloggish than serious.  Any ideas on what is best to do?  The Behnam 18:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Put in that light, I offer the scalpel, Doctor Traveler. :) Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't get me wrong guys, I'm all for having a different opinion to the people saying 300 is evil, but to have that comment be so...idiotic...seems unfair as well to the people who might glimmer some positive messages out of this movie like loyalty and friendship.  The quote saying that the film is too silly to have a serious point is a far better counter argument to the people hating on it than "The Spartans were standing up for the American way.  They are against gay marriage, illegal immigrants, and abortion.  You won't find that in a book though.  They're all up here *points to head* and not enough here *points to gut*."  I'm glad it's going away.DeviantCharles 09:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the National Review is now pretty  much the standard-bearer for American conservatism, and whatever idiot they get to review their anti-furriner movie of the week is pretty much automatically notable by our standards. Hornplease 19:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Kahane review on National Review  

message: How is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's opinion of this movie relevant?  Has he even seen it?  Someone who wants to wipe Israel off the map and has set a timeline for it, probably doesn't know a damn thing about the Persian Empire.  Would you include the opinion of another countries leader for a movie? unsigned post by User: 207.69.139.137
: I think it is notable because he commented on the movie. Not too many world leaders comment on popular films. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Arcayne.  It's the reputation of the person who is commenting on the film; it doesn't even matter if he never saw it or if he sucks at Persian history. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  President of Iran 

message: The article says Studio executives are predicting the film will make over $210,000,000 in North America before its theatrical run concludes. Box Office Mojo says that the movie already made that amount. link Should be updated. --Ted87 17:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Box office 

message: It should be noted that a recent episode of South Park parodied this movie. It was the one where Ms. Garrison(sp?) defends a lesbian bar from Persians with the help of 30 lesbians.
::I believe this matter was decided a long time ago. The over-utilization of pop culture will eventually turn the article stale as the article ages. For example, when Casablanca came out, there were print ads that used the film to sell trenchcoats and cigars. Radio shows made satires and copycats of it, and every other Bogart film. You will note that these are not in the film article because they are stale, and have little value beyond the faddish, flavor of the moment appeal. As well, for the most part, they are largely unencyclopedic. This SP episode in particular was not notable enough to include. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Park parody 

message: In the box office section it says (source says they predicted this before the movie premiered):
Studio executives correctly predicted the film would make over $210,000,000 in North America before its theatrical run concludes.
But the next sentence says:
Studio executives were surprised by the showing, which was twice what they had expected.
Aren't these contradicting setences or am I just reading this wrong? --Ted87 07:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They expected the film to make over a certain amount, but were surprised how much over that amount. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it just barely made over $210M. --Ted87 18:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, in North American release. The returns from overseas were the surprising amounts. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction? 

message: This article is wonderfully written and informative. It can easily become a featured article with little trimming necessary. - Throw 08:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Great article

message: While Italic text300Italic text was a great film I noticed no references to its meme status, which is surprisingly close to the mudkip issue with the exception of the vandalism part. Clearly someone should write a section about that.````
:Are you really sure "This is Sparta!" will last? No reliable source has commented on it for sure. Alientraveller 20:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think a meme is noteworthy unless its picked up by commercial media, the way More cowbell has. All I've seen is a few people use it in message boards. It's really no different than Dead Rising's "I"ve been in wars, ya know." - Throw 07:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meme issue