Talk:300 (film)/Archive 5

message: (the following is lifted in its entirety from WP:FA?. It is presented here, because I want our contributors to take a good, hard look at the article and see if we are ready to apply for Good Article status. Articles over a certain length are advised to use the criteria for FA instead. Please post your comments after this area, under the temporarily blank section headers below.) 
<BR>-Arcayne 02:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So far as I can tell, all statements are thoroughly referenced, and all references employ appropriate templates. Some very minor remarks: some authors are cited in "last, first" form, others simply with the "author" field. Should this be standardized? There's also some ambiguity regarding which citations employ the "news" template and which employ the "web" template. --Javits2000 14:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What is a good article?

message: Arcayne, can you please prove your claim that the "when critics/reviewers see a movie ahead of the public, this is called a preview showing"(Sorry. it is not clear to me). The article says: "USA TODAY asked Paul Cartledge, author of Thermopylae: The Battle that Changed the World, who has seen a preview of the movie," --Aminz 05:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I could, but I cannot cite myself.I used to review movies for a college university newspaper. When there were reviewer screenings, called previews or preview screenings, it meant that they were not open to the general public. For example, there was a preview screening for 300 at Chicago's Navy Pier on February 27th. I know, because I won tickets to go and see it. It was called by the media in atendance (and the PR people, sometimes called 'media wranglers' - lol), who asked us to "tell our friends after this preview screening that you thought it rocked!" I didn't necessarily thought it rocked, but I do think it rolled somewhat. :) Arcayne 05:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be possible to find a real ref for that somewhere on the internet.  Worth a look.  The Behnam 05:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is this query referring to? The word "preview" appears nowhere in the article. Cartledge might have attended one, or the producers might have sent him a DVD; in either case I can't see how it matters. --Javits2000 10:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he was defining preview as being an excerpt, and was concerned that Cartledge had seen only a small bit of the film, ie. in the way that people (with far too much time on their hands) can see a preview of an upcoming tv show on their cellphone. Of course, that term is applied differently in media circles, in much the same way that the word 'boom' or 'tear sheet' mean different things in- and outside of this circle.  -Arcayne 18:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preview 

message: Is this addition really necessary?  It's clear that the king goes against the Oracles; it shouldn't be important to get in the details. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Going against the law is very different from going against some advice.--Patrick 00:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was my impression that Leonidas' reasoning to the council members was not supposed to be convincing. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is about the second part of my addition. You can add some clarification.--Patrick 01:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can appreciate your point, Patrick, but in the interests of brevity, we need to keep it to the point. :) We do appreciate your attention to detail, though. Arcayne 02:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary detail 

message: There doesn't seem to be much in the article about what Frank Miller thought of the film, or whether he thought it followed his own ideas or themes. Can we add something? Magic Pickle 15:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, if we had a source. On the other hand he was a producer, so I'm guessing he had a fair amount of input. --Javits2000 15:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Frank Miller's opinion

message: In his column of March 23, 2007, advice columnist Dan Savage points out the irony of Leonidas sneering at the Athenians as "Boy lovers" while in historical reality the Spartans were the most notorious boy-lovers of the ancient world. 
Dan Savage is of course right, and it is preposterous to deny his point.
Furthermore, it is important to note this, as the movie relentlessly makes the propaganda point that the super-macho heterosexual Spartans are superior to the effete and efeminate Iranians, even going as far as taking off the King of King's beard. Erudil 16:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this notion.  Paragraphs and paragraphs could be written on what was accurate or not in 300.  The mention of boy-loving is hardly at the top of the list.  Like Wiki-newbie said, it's a graphic novel that took creative licensing in adapting the battle.  It's not the gospel truth about what has gone before. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Not to mention that Dan Savage, while undoubtedly a smart guy, is hardly a professional historian. --Javits2000 16:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, he's a gay sex advice columnist; he's not even a film critic.  If we include this guy, what's next? María: (habla conmigo) 16:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Please read the article.  It is already mentioned (numerous times) that the film is not meant to be historically accurate.  There are a plethora of differences that we could find between this artistically created film and its historical counterpart, I'm sure, but this is not the most notable or contributive difference to mention. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Nah, Das Baz is just signing his comments with "Erudil" for some reason.  Like you with WikiNew/Wiki-newbie and me with Erik/Erikster, but this is a big difference, obviously. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked him to sign correctly on his talk page before his latest comment, but obviously the guy is not in a listening mood.  María: (habla conmigo) 17:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, that's odd. But I'll try to state the point against as clearly as possible. No one's denying there was institutionalized pederasty in Sparta. The point is rather, as we've often discussed here, that "historical accuracy" can't turn into a catalogue of minutiae, pro or con; instead we've made the decision, by consensus if I'm not mistaken, to limit it to evaluations of the film by profesional historians. Note that these address the broad themes of the film, like freedom vs. tyranny, and not finer points, such as (as have been raised here before): military apparel, famous quotes, Xerxes's hairstyle, etc. Something that comes up once in the film, in a toss-off line, is clearly too trivial. In any case, Leonidas just calls the Athenians "boy-lovers," which is as accurate as calling the Spartans "boy-lovers"; to turn it into an instance of "inaccuracy" you have to infer that he's claiming that the Spartans are not. Too fancy. --Javits2000 17:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I thought it was the Thebans that were paired lovers-warriors. Boy love? In ancient Greece? Shocking. Arcayne 17:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That's the problem, though.  The film does not purposely pride itself on being 100% historically accurate, it prides itself on being close to a comic book.  It would be unencyclopedic to draw at length the undoubtedly countless differences between the film and its actual historical event. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it'd be one thing if there was anything in the movie about 'boy-loving', the film doesn't have to show every part of the culture. It'd be silly to add this, like others have said -- where do you stop? LilDice 00:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not rocket science; all you do is put four "~" after your comments, as it tells you to do below the Save Page button.  I've also reminded you of this (twice) on your talk page.  It helps other users identify who is saying what.  María: (habla conmigo) 19:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spartans were notorious Boy-lovers

message: Or internet culture. It's a film that already has over 9,000 memes. It's huge on the web. There's an article with more detail on it on Encyclopedia Dramatica. I do believe that the 300 (film) article needs to at least mention this phenomenon.Ealgian 01:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what the guidelines for using Internet memes in articles are.  Have any memes been successfully placed in articles of Featured status?  Additionally, is it really ultimately notable?  How is it supposed to be gauged, that 300 is more of an Internet phenomenon than something like Ghost Rider or Pan's Labyrinth?  The addition seems unnecessary unless it can be determined that the scale actually means something notable. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree, if it's important culturally it will be published somewhere, until then relax. LilDice 04:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I do know that Encyclopaedia Dramatica shouldn't be the inspiration behind inclusion of something.  The Behnam 04:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess Ealgian should likely explain why this is particularly noteworthy. I mean, I get the cultural impact of certain memes ("where's the beef", "go ahead, make my day", "I'm the Decider" "all your base are belong to us", etc.). However, these memes are similar to opportunistic bacteria in that they survive by spreading as far as they can as fast as they can. They tend to become bad clichés almost without warning. Speaking personally, I would prefer if the final article submitted for FA consideration didn't have the literary equivalent to a Members Only jacket. Arcayne 04:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Firstly, Encyclopedia Dramatica was not the "inspiration" for anything, including my suggestion, nor do memes need to be "succesfully placed" in Featured articles for memes to be notable. I noticed the 300 meme issue because I'm part of various art online communities, and I know that the "THIS IS SPARTA!" has spread around like wildfire (or, as it's now referred to, "THIS IS MEME!"). The 300 meme mainly appears in graphics, whereas the memes Arcayne mentioned are usually used in conversation. So yes, this is just from personal experience, although if you go on art community websites, you will not find many, if any, Ghost Rider or Pan's Labyrinth memes. I do believe that it'd make sense to wait a while for this to further develop, but I would like to add that there have been various articles published on 300 that have "This is Sparta!" as the article title. I'm referring to the "professional" sources, (example: USA Today) and not just blogs and chatrooms. Ealgian 01:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  After all that talk about memes, I did say a section on influence on popular culture would be appropriate. It's a film that's been noted on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report multiple times. The Snakes on a Plane article includes "Parodies and References in Popular Culture," which is close to what I was thinking of. The memes were simply the most readily apparent. Ealgian 01:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I do agree somewhat, but again, the Snakes on a Plane article does have such a section, and it isn't that ancient of a film, either. Ealgian 01:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True dat, but Snakes was essentially a one-trick pony, and without Sam Jackson's trademark epithets, it would have been as direct-to-DVD as Barbie on Ice. Honestly, I don't really find any real value to the inclusion of a meme that might become as dated as a box of uncooked trout in a few weeks. Arcayne 02:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is the last time that I'm repeating that this isn't about a meme. This is about influence on pop culture. And I've already said that it's good to wait.Ealgian 03:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influence on Popular Culture 

message: I was skimming the article, and noticed that Dana Stevens (writer for Slate) pops up twice with full name and journal affiliation. What is the policy regarding the re-identification of a reviewer in two separate categories? Is it even necessary that their comments are used in two separate categories? Arcayne 18:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that's my fault.  I missed the first instance of her name and added Slate to the second use.  I would like to know what the solution to this would be and I don't mind if it's removed if that is found to be the best answer. Hewinsj 18:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Repetition

message: This is the opener as it stands at present:
: 300 is a 2007 film adaptation of the graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller, itself partly inspired by another film, The 300 Spartans,Frank Miller, 300 #3 (July 1998),"Slings & Arrows" letters page, Dark Horse Comics  and is a semi-historical account of the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC. The film is directed by Zack Snyder with Frank Miller attached as an executive producer and consultant, and was shot mostly with bluescreen to duplicate the imagery of the original comic book. 
: Spartan King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) and 300 Spartans fight to the last man against Persian King Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) and his army of more than one million soldiers, while in Sparta, Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey) attempts to rally support for her husband. The story is framed by a voice-over narrative by the Spartan soldier Dilios (David Wenham). Through this narrative technique, all manner of fantastical creatures are introduced, placing 300 within the genre of historical fantasy.
: 300 was released in both conventional and IMAX theaters in America on March 9, 2007. The film broke box office records, although critics were divided over its look and style. Some acclaimed it as an original achievement, while others accused it of favoring visuals over characterization. Some controversy arose over its depiction of the ancient Persian and Greek civilizations.
Without addressing the wording (which I think is pretty good) I'd make the point that the wikilinking in parts here is somewhat too dense for easy reading, and probably unnecessarily so. Here's my attempt at weeding out redundant links.  The wording is unchanged.  The choice of which links to remove is a quite delicate one, and this attempt isn't intended to be definitive, but rather to demonstrate the removing some links may considerably improve readability.  I have concentrated mainly on the opening sentence of the first paragraph, leaving only essential wikilinks.  I would also suggest that the reference for the film The 300 Spartans does not belong in an opener.  Detail and references should be expanded within the body of the article.
: 300 is a 2007 film adaptation of the graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller, itself partly inspired by another film, The 300 Spartans,Frank Miller, 300 #3 (July 1998),"Slings & Arrows" letters page, Dark Horse Comics  and is a semi-historical account of the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC. The film is directed by Zack Snyder with Frank Miller attached as an executive producer and consultant, and was shot mostly with bluescreen to duplicate the imagery of the original comic book.
: Spartan King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) and 300 Spartans fight to the last man against Persian King Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) and his army of more than one million soldiers, while in Sparta, Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey) attempts to rally support for her husband. The story is framed by a voice-over narrative by the Spartan soldier Dilios (David Wenham). Through this narrative technique, all manner of fantastical creatures are introduced, placing 300 within the genre of historical fantasy.
: 300 was released in both conventional and IMAX theaters in America on March 9, 2007. The film broke box office records, although critics were divided over its look and style. Some acclaimed it as an original achievement, while others accused it of favoring visuals over characterization. Some controversy arose over its depiction of the ancient Persian and Greek civilizations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs) 17:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Complete agreement. I've always been opposed to excessive wikilinking. --Javits2000 17:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you sure that you want to de-link Frank Miller?  I would think that wiki-link to the author of the source material is pretty relevant. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's linked in the second sentence along with his ties to the film's production, which makes sense, I think.  I also agree the delinking is less taxing on the reader; thumbs up. María: (habla conmigo) 17:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't catch that.  Isn't it abnormal to wiki-link something later in a particular passage rather than at the earliest chance? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it's very unusual, and I'm not very happy with it. It may be going too far. --Tony Sidaway 17:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than that, I don't have a problem with de-linking the common words. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've edited the opener.  Beside not moving the Frank Miller link to the occurrence of his name in the second sentence, I have also opted to keep the IMAX wikilink.  I think the reference to the older film which inspired the graphic novel should probably be moved to the interior of the article, but I haven't done that in this edit. --Tony Sidaway 18:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good edit, and I agree with both of those keeps. I also agree with moving the 300 spartans reference into the body of the article at some point, if the "semi-historical account of the Battle of Thermopylae" stays in the opening. Hewinsj 18:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact I'm not sure 300 Spartans needs to be mentioned in here at all. There's no indication it served as direct inspiration for the film, and if Miller was inspired by it, that's a matter for the page on the comic. --Javits2000 18:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  (indent reduced) I've no objection to that.  Let's see what others say. --Tony Sidaway 18:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The opener

message: Historical accuracy of the film 300.  Hmm. María: (habla conmigo) 19:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Poof.  It was speedily deleted. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I love it when that happens.  María: (habla conmigo) 20:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who was that masked man?  Arcayne 21:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Das Baz, who signs his comments as "Erudil".  He's argued here about the historical inaccuracies before, and I suppose he tried to circumvent the consensus that was set up here regarding the extent of coverage for the inaccuracies. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I was referring to you, and the way you had handled it so swiftly. lol. Arcayne 20:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: We've got a splitter

message: (in response to the idea that westerners wouldn't truck with the making fun of our own religious icons):
I would submit that Dogma, The Prophecy and innumerable comedy skits and comics that make fun of Jesus and Christianity or paint it in quite a dark light, up to and including equating the resurrection with the reanimation of a vampire (no kidding) - all of it with nary a bleat of anguish. the reason why is simple - they are recognized as not being real, and therefore not attacks on current ideas. The Herodotus account makes the persians look bad, and Miller went a step further and made them look bad. the film is widely complimented and acclaimed for its faithful reproduction of the comic. I would further submit that people need to grow a thicker skin:
:::Peter: As we all know, Christmas is that mystical time of year when the ghost of Jesus rises from the grave to feast on the flesh of the living! So we all sing Christmas Carols to lull him back to sleep. 
:::Bob: Outrageous, How dare he say such blasphemy. I've got to do something. 
:::Man #1: Bob, there's nothing you can do. 
:::Bob: Well, I guess I'll just have to develop a sense of humor.     -A Very Special Family Guy Freakin' Christmas (1)
Funny how apt that seems to be. :)
Arcayne 06:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Addressing the last bit of convo in Farrokhe 2

message: I suggest we create subsections on external links for critical reviews & positive reviews. This  would follows the same pattern we have followed in many articles say religous ones. --Aminz 05:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would much rather we discuss this and acheive consensus before introducing the scheme. I'm going to remove the headings for the time being, not the links. --Javits2000 08:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having removed them, I'll express my skepticism. I see no reason why an article about  movie should follow the model of articles on religious subjects. --Javits2000 08:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Javits, the question is why religous related articles do that. Simply to make it more easy  for the reader. Please note that we can have a section on "positive reviews". That's fine with me. --Aminz 08:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that this would make it seem as if the criteria for inclusion were the opinions of the reviewer (loved it or hated it) and not the usefulness of the source. External links should be for useful, supplementary information, not for a string of other reviews that we couldn't fit into the body of the text. --Javits2000 08:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe it is not a good idea to divide the reviews into critical ones and non-critical ones, i agree. But we can at least put all the reviews in one section, the "offical website" information in another section, etc etc. --Aminz 10:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some division along those lines could make sense. But we haven't as a rule been including any straight reviews, so we would have to find another criterion. --Javits2000 14:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Javits2000, it doesn't need to be optimal. What is your suggestion? I suggest we separate reviews from other links. --Aminz 00:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any links included at present that you would consider to be reviews? As far as I can tell they're all just supplementary sources of information. --Javits2000 00:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Farrokh is a review. --Aminz 01:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: The lead states that the movie is a "semi-historical account of battle of Thermopylae" when the producer of the movie Warner Bros has clearly states that "The film 300 is a work of fiction inspired by the Frank Miller graphic novel and loosely based on a historical event.". I'm changing the lead accordingly. --Mardavich 06:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any reliable source saying it is "semi-historical"? If not, we can say "fictional". Otherwise we can say that according to X it is fictional and according to Y it is semi-historical. --Aminz 06:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to put too fine a point on it, but are we suggesting that the Battle of Thermopylae was a fictional event? that's quite a statement. The fact that there are fictional elements doesn't make the entire film fictional. If Leonidas and his merry band of grunts had pulled out light sabers and went to town on Ol' Baldy and company, then it would be fictional. Seeing as the main fictional elements of this story were the portrayals of the Persians, while leaving quite alone the actual events, the term "semi-historical" seems far more appropriate. I could posit other ideas as to why fictional is offered, but that would not quite be AGF. Arcayne 07:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As well, when I reverted the statement fromt he article before, it was because major changes to the article (or intent) need to be discussed here first. This doesn't mean that an editor posts their point of view and then proceeds to add the change which they know will be met with opposition. Please play fair. I will be reverting the change yet again. Please be so good as to allow other editors to discuss the change as well. Arcayne 07:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here are my suggestion: "a semi-fictional account of the Battle of Thermopylae in 480" This would be more faithful to Warner Bros's description of the film as "a work of fiction" and addresses Arcayne's point. --Aminz 07:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No Arcayne, it's not suggesting that the Battle of Thermopylae was a fictional event, it's clearly stating that this movie is a fictional account of Battle of Thermopylae. That's what the producers of the movie believe and that's what we should have in the lead. --Mardavich 07:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think Arcayne means that a fiction is 100% non-historical. We can say "fictional but with some elements of truth". Another suggestion would be to use the term "mythical"(?). --Aminz 07:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, let's do not do original research. We simply report. According to Warner Bros "The film 30 is a work of fiction" and according to the director the film is 90% factual. That's it. We simply report the both side and do not engage in interpretations on our part. --Aminz 00:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that Aminz, this talk page has been jumping around a little bit and I must have reposted this in a second thread.  Personally I don't have anything invested in this argument, I just try to help out if I think I can re-word a section or fix grammar.  I saw these two points as a contradiction and that there is more than one POV on the subject from people involved in the production of the film.  I agree with what you say, just to stay neutral and report things as they develop.  That said I didn't think it would turn so ugly in the earlier thread, but this is the internet and some people care about it. Hewinsj 04:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I really don't understand what this is all about.  Lots of movies, while fictional, are historical or semi-historical.  Lawrence of Arabia (film) and Pearl Harbor (film) are pretty good examples of this.  Shakespeare's history plays show that the genre isn't at all new.   So arguing over whether it's semi-historical or fictional is beside the point.  It's both. Nobody is claiming that it's non-fiction or documentary. --Tony Sidaway 05:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not semi-historical, fictional per producers of the movie 

message: I will be archiving the Discussions in 8 hours or so (we're at 116kb), so please tie up the conversations above or begin new topic headers below (encapsulating the to-be-archived discussion from before). Arcayne 11:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not archive the ongoing discussions, there are unresolved matters that need discussing. --Mardavich 11:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course he won't archive the active discussions.  The Behnam 11:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (sigh) No, I am not just going to cut off conversations still inline. I did suggest that those conversations could be concluded or continued under a new header below this section. That way, active conversations could continue, allowing for a smoother archive. Arcayne 11:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving Soon