Talk:300 (film)/Archive 4

300themovie.info website
There is website getting very popular very fast. Here's the description of the website from their own page. "300themovie.info (300 the movie ) is an ongoing collaborative art project featuring art by artists using the theme of 'ancient Persia'. Driven by an admiration for arts, and united by a common concern about the barbaric and demonic portrayal of Persians in Frank Miller's graphic novel and the movie 300, we have come together to voice our objection in a uniquely artistic fashion. The call for art has just been released and we are still receiving the artworks." The site includes variety of intresting and different art forms. it also includes information in forms of videos about the times the Battle of Thermopylae happened. --siavash 23:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you taking the time to explain that to us. However, most of us already knew all about the site. It's a POV website. It has no place even getting mentioned in the article. You might want to revisti the half-dozen times its been discussed, explained and dismissed. Perhaps you could read throught he archives and see these various conversations. I hope that explains things sufficiently. Arcayne 02:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

My mistake.--siavash 03:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I read the topics, thanks. The website is not POV though. I think the controversy section of the movie page is little disorganized. There are many movies that have created controversies before, and there are many people who can only get access to credible sources of those controversies through a wikipeidean movie page. ( I am specifically referring to movies like Borat! the Cultural Learning of America, or Passion of the Christ). A website would be anti-fan if it's a petition (no content). The 300themovie.info web page seems different as first of all it's all Arts (rather than a endless list of names, such as xblahX123 in online signature petitions, or a forum disfigured by senseless rage and profanity), and secondly because the index is so high on all search engines, it's already something that people might hear about and come to wiki to hear more about. The only reason we can't fit it in properly, is the same reason the Heading "Depictions of ancient Persians" seems so ridiculously out of place for an article about a movie.

A heading for Reception and a heading for Controversy would best divide the concepts discussed here. A topic like "Depictions of ancient Persians" would be classified much better this way, though I disagree with the structure of that topic anyways. This way we can show the readers all the controversies of the movie including in a categorized manner.

Anyways, that's my idea. hope it's helpful.

--siavash 04:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * True, in normal cases, a sections re: "Depictions of Persians" would seem "ridiculously out of place" for a movie entry. But in this case it's a substantial component of the reception.
 * The suggestion to divide everything into "reception" and "controversy" has a certain elegance; however, the controversy is part of the reception. "Reception" is a neutral term that embraces all aspects of the reaction to the film, positive, negative, and indifferent. (Frankly, I think the "mildly indifferent, but impressed by the FX" POV is underrepresented in this article -- clearly a sign of systematic bias on the part of the editors. [insert appropriate emoticon here])--Javits2000 10:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Reaction in Iran
This title doesn't fit. As sources cite, the anger of Persians over this movie was not limited to the ones living in Iran. I personally like the "Persian Depiction".Klymen 08:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite right, and the reaction to depictions of Persians wasn't limited to Persians -- that is, if I'm not making inaccurate ethnic assumptions regarding the names "Dana Stevens" and "A.O. Scott." --Javits2000 10:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would submit that the strongest reactions to the film, however, seem to be coming from Iran - the Arts Minister all but declared war on the film. I would hardly say that is a reaction we are seeing anywhere else. As well, most film reviewers aren't going to have read Miller's GN before seeing the movie, and accusations of racism are far better targeted towards the GN. Aside from using the narration of Dilios to illustrate point of view, and the Gorgo storyline, this movie is almost a live-action represetnation of the comic. Arcayne 15:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, we do have to consider whether the Iranian reactions, that is, the official Iranian reactions (great sequel: Watching 300 in Shiraz) are significantly different in degree and in content from the other critical reactions that we've compiled, in which case they may well need to be somehow set off under a separate section.


 * I'm not sure that the "source of the racism," if you like, is terribly relevant; we're primarily documenting a response, and not asking whether or not it was well-targeted. Although one might argue that the film is reaching a much larger audience than the book ever would have, so that if the book were racist, then the film would be complicit in its further dissemination. --Javits2000 19:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The Iranian-American reaction is important to look at. I read in a couple news articles on web that they are overwhelmingly critical. Due to this group are largely anti mullah their opinion shows the anger at the depicton of their history. Eliteforce 04:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Might we see some links to these articles? Arcayne 05:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is a link about the reaction of Iranian-Americans. Barnetj 13:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Restructuring
I don't understand Roscius's "restructuring" of the reception section, for the following reasons


 * "Historical reactions" has previously been limited to the filmmaker's own account and to the responses of professional historians. It now includes a number of statements by film critics.


 * "Depiction of Persians" now begins with a statement about the "reaction in Iran," as if (as Klymen noted above) only Iranians were annoyed. But the last two sentences in the first paragraph (on androgyny / masculinity) cite non-Iranian sources.

I'm planning to shift it back to its previous state. We have had discussions in talk about the structure of these sections, and I think it would be better if any major changes were floated here first. --Javits2000 10:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I restructured that way because I don't see how "Depictions of Persians" is a logical sub-header to "Reception". I moved the first paragraph up to "Historical Accuracy" because, as you mention, it wouldn't have made any sense in a "Reactions in Iran" section.


 * Even if the way I did it isn't the right one, I think the "Depictions of Persians" section needs restructuring - right now it's partly about historical accuracy, which already has a sub-header, and partly about reactions by Iranian officials and critics, which might be better served by a more fleshed out section on "Reception in Iran" or something like that.


 * And sorry about not discussing first. I'm still trying to find the medium between being bold and being cautious. Roscius 14:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And we're not faulting you for being bold. Good editing is half the work in Wikipedia, the other half being working with other editors. You're doing fine. Keep up the effort! Cheers! Arcayne 15:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, nothing wrong with shifting things around. I see where the confusion is coming in ; it's not clear to me why "depictions of Persians" wouldn't be a "logical sub-header" under "reception." The three subheadings, "historical accuracy," "political aspects," and "depictions of Persians," all refer to themes that have arisen frequently in media discussions of the film. Why is "depictions of Persians" different, or less logical, than the other two?


 * I agree that there could be some overlap between "historical accuracy" and "depictions of Persians." I see two distinctions: first, the criticisms regarding "depictions" of Persians tend to argue, not that the film is inaccurate, but rather that it employs certain techniques to mark off the Persians as weird or abnormal. In other words, the reviewers in the first paragraph don't turn around and say -- but in fact Xerxes was wicked macho! (as if that could somehow be proven); they simply point out that his androgyny is meant to mark him off from the manly Spartans (a critical, not a historical, observation). Second, after the intial statement by Snyder, "historical accuracy" at present includes only statements by professional historians; that is, by people who might be considered competent to judge. The opinion of a film critic on this score wouldn't carry much weight for me; in fact, I'ld put it on the level of my own opinion, as I probably have as vague an understanding of the historical realities of fifth century Greece and Persia as most film critics do.


 * In any case, that's how I understand the present structure. Best, --Javits2000 19:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, I think the "depictions" and stuff should be a sub-heading. It wasn't their intention (at least they aren't claiming it to be) to create such an outcry.  BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Make it so. :) Arcayne 20:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have been away a few days celebrating Norouz and now I see the article is now very much improved. I don’t agree with changing the name to “Reaction in Iran”. It is not only Persians in Iran who have been protested. In fact there has been also a strong reaction from Iranian around the world which is estimated to be around 1 million. Since the on-line percentage of this group is higher and their voices are more likely to be heard they have had a considerable effect in this controversy. In fact I think we should rephrase some sentences to include it. Also by considering historians and critics comments, changing the title is not reasonable. I think we also need the critics reaction here to show why Iranians have protested. I noticed that during edits this sentence is missed at the beginning, was it intentional or have you discussed it? “Since its opening, 300 has attracted controversy over its portrayal of ancient Persians …” (Shahingohar 21:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC))
 * There was a discussion of the line in the lead (it's somewhere in the archives). The problem was that it went on to mention something to the effect of "a long series of Hollywood films that have disparaged Iranian and other Asian cultures" (paraphrasing from memory), an account that was not supported by the citation that was supplied. The present formulation, "Controversy arose over its depiction of the ancient Persian and Greek civilizations," is succinct and accurate. Anyone desiring further details will of course find "depictions of Persians" in the TOC directly below. Sad saal be in saal-ha, --Javits2000 21:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I meant in the depiction of Persians Section(Shahingohar 22:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC))


 * I'm not sure what that was; it must have dropped out during the edits. I'm sure there wouldn't be any problem with putting it back again. --Javits2000 23:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me try to explain the rationale I had behind that particular restructuring. I see that "Reaction in Iran" was a poor choice of words; "Iranian Reaction" would have been better, as it would have encompassed all Iranians around the world. I was trying to make a distinction between a subsection on how Persians are portrayed in the film (which does not belong in a "Reception" section) and a subsection on reactions to that portrayal (which does belong in a "Reception" section). I see now I did a poor job of making that distinction, but I still think that the distinction might be important to the article. Roscius 22:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I see. I'ld say that since we (as editors) have no objective criteria for judging the depiction of the Persians, we're reliant on the assessments of critics. Which means we're really just documenting the reception. Put it another way: if the depiction of Persians hadn't become an issue in the critical discourse, we wouldn't be writing about it here. There are really no statements of fact about the film in that section, like we have, for example, under "production," etc. It's just a catalog of opinions. --Javits2000 23:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I looked at some Wiki articles on other movies which have been controversial for being anti-something. Except The Passion of the Christ, others like Borat, The Siege, Dogma and The Da Vinci Code  have a controversy section. I remember one of the first titles for this section was Controversy over depiction of Persians and I think it was more apropriate. (Shahingohar 00:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC))

I agree with this change of the sub-heading to Controversy over depiction of Persians --siavash 04:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What would that add? The word, "controversy," appears in the first line of the section (now that Shahingohar has restored the original wording), and anyone who reads the section will understand that there was a controversy. Sorry if I'm being obtuse, but to me that would just be more words. --Javits2000 08:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Song used in the credits
Could someone add the title and artist who performed the song? It's not on the soundtrack. User:89.58.50.250 15:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am presuming we are talking about the statements here? If so, they are interesting, but we do need a citation for that.
 * As well, I was wondering about the Soundtrack statements, detailing the small controversy there. The main citation appears to be a blog, which is a bozo no-no as per WP policy. Arcayne 15:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, that's not it. I am talking about the song played directly at the beginning of the extro. The vocals are in a language which is most probably a non-Germanic one. If it was on the soundtrack, I would come straight after the 25st track. User:89.58.50.250 17:17, 21 March 2007

What I was discussing the inclusion of the blog in the Soundtracks area, endnoted as reference #36. The statements pertaining to it:
 * The soundtrack borrows elements from Elliot Goldenthal's 1999 soundtrack for Titus, giving rise to some controversy in the film composer community.[33][34][35] '"Remember Us," from 300, is identical in parts to the the "Finale" from Titus, and "Returns A King" (300) is similar to "Victorius Titus."[36]

cannot be included without better citation, as the original source is a blog. -Arcayne 16:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Again: It is not on the soundtrack. I bought it, so I know it.
 * If it were, it would be track 26. User:89.58.50.250 17:36, 21 March 2007

The soudtrack features the vocals Iranian born vocalist Azam Ali. On March 8th she has posted a letter on her website to Iranians expressing her concerns about outrage of Iranians against 300. She says she didn’t know anything about the project when she accepted it and continues “I must admit that after seeing some of the initial footage from the film I began to feel very conflicted about being part of the project because of how inaccurately the Persians were depicted …. I am sharing these thoughts with you because it is important for me that you know this was not a decision I entered lightly. I can only hope that you view 300 for what it is – a fictional film with mythological characters. … I hope you will be able to get past all its incidental political implications because there is a truly visually stunting work of art and amazing score to be experience”

Do you think there is place for this quote in the article (Shahingohar 17:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC))

VFXWorld article
Would be a nice change of pace from the political crap.
 * Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

New Images
I have recently uploaded the following images, and would like to include 2 of them. Thoughts and comments? -Arcayne 16:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This version replaces the image of Leonidas in the plot section with one displaying both Leonidas and Xerxes, with the second image replacing that of Xerxes in the Depiction of Persians section with something more appropo, the depiction of a monster in chains, used as a movie poster for 300.
 * This version simply replaces the second image of Leonidas in the plot section with something more telling of the action-orientated nature of the film.


 * For the plot, if we are going to have 2 images, then I think it needs to be in time frames that they can fit with the text and not be right on top of each other. The one with Leonidas fighting the Persians happened right after they pushed the first wave off the cliff. As for the "Depictions" section, I like the monster image better because we can say "there were no 'monsters' back then", instead of "Xerxes didn't look like this, he looked like this...".  BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 16:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, so you are suggesting version 1 should be used instead? I prefer that one myself, as it shows Xerxes (a figure of contention in the controversy part) and Xerxes clearly. This removes the need for the image of Xerxes in the Depiction of Persians section, replacing it with an example of the "monsters" description. While version two's action image is way cool, you are right in that it follows the original image too closely in the unfolding of the movie. More thoughts, anyone? Arcayne 16:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree to the monster poster, it allows a better representation of why some people were upset to the portrayl. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 16:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, as much as I agree with Bignole about the monster image being easier to explain, a majority of the controversy deals with the portrayal of Xerxes (and that seems to be the largest complaint by editors on this talk page thus far), so it would make more sense to include a picture of him in this section, I should think. Pity we can't fit both.  María: ( habla  con migo ) 16:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know, even that's close to the cliff scene. Didn't Xerxes first try and tempt him right after the cliffs? It was after the first major battle, because Stelios (i think) was killing the survivors, and asking him if he thought it would be safe to go alone; Leonidas' reply of "they can't be that stupid" and then later "there's no reason why we can't be civil". I think it's a good image, I just think it's a little close to the cliff scene, there was still like an act and a half following that. Also, I think the plot is wrong in its timeline, because I think the Immortals came after his meeting with Xerxes, because no one had died on the Spartan side before his meeting with Xerxes, and Xerxes felt that "human chill" as he was watching his Immortals perish, which was after his meeting with Leonidas. As for Xerxes, Maria, I could only find a small part in the "Depictions" section that mentioned Xerxes as being androgenous, which was following the part about the novel making the Persians appear as a "demonic horde".  BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 16:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I included the picture, not as consideration for when the images fell in the plot, but to provide differences. The first image shows the Spartans cliffing the Persians mostly in silhouette; the image of Leonidas and Xerxes clearly shows both characters' face, and the expressions of both speak volumes (yes, that last bit was OR). That Xerxes is thus depicted removed the subsequent need for another picture of him later, and allows for another picture that addresses the subject of the controversy (although i think it is sized a bit too large). Ergo, the image of Xerxes serves both the plot and the controversy. At least, that's how I was reckonin'. -Arcayne 16:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the images of Xerxes and Leonidas, as well as the Persian "troll", but does anyone think having two images of the now-iconic cliff push is overkill? I'd much rather have something of the film's fights. WikiNew 16:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand that point Arcayne, it's just that images usually need to be placed next to the text that describes them, and the cliff scene is already next to the paragraph where Xerxes petitions Leonidas.  BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 16:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, after listening to both Yllosubmarine, Bignole and WikiNew, how does this sound:

-Arcayne 17:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * replace the cliff image with the Leonidas fighting image and Leonidas and Xerxes image? Action stuff and the chit-chat stuff, showing two main characters?
 * replace the Santoro-as-Xerxes image with the monster poster image?


 * I don't know, the closeness (timeline wise) bothers me, but that's just me. I like the Leonidas fighting image better, but technically it was after the cliff scene. Regardless of what we decided, I went into the plot and, as I was relinking "phalanx" to the first use, moved the image up and merged some paragraphs so they the images wouldn't be so "literally" close to each other.  BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 17:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't dismissing your concerns, Bignole; I happen to agree with the guiding principle, but I think the difference in subject imagery is enough to allay those concerns. Arcayne 17:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I know, that's why I made the positioning alterations in the plot, so whatever was decided, at least the images wouldn't be close to each other and wouldn't be below the plot text.  BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 17:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've created a diff showing the possible use of the images (Leonidas wading through the Persian soldiers and then the parlay betwixt him and Xerxes, followed with the moster image in the Depictions section). How's that look? Arcayne 17:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support WikiNew 17:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to have a few more approvals before adding them (not that I need approbation, but instead would prefer to avoid the complaining afterwards). Arcayne 17:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Since no one has voiced opposition, I will insert the images now. Arcayne 19:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me! --Javits2000 20:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks the new images are more illustrative. (Shahingohar 20:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC))
 * Hey, thanks for that! For my next magical trick, watch me bring about world peace...presto! Arcayne 20:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Playing the devil's advocate about the new "troll" image: is the troll Persian? Xerxes' empire is vast, and the film does not make much of a distinction between who is actually Persian and who is fighting on the Persian side. It might be misleading to have that picture there; the troll, like the rhino and elephants, may be a (non-Persian) oddity from the corners of Xerxes' empire. Roscius 22:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing is, we don't know what nationality the disfigured giant with dental issues is; the point is, he's arrayed with the Persian host, used by the Persian host, and killed by the Spartans, just a like a large number of the Persian host. As the film fits the criteria of historical fantasy, it becomes even less important. The point is that the contention is that Persian army was portrayed as ugly and bad, to contrast "those nice boys from Sparta". It's associative depiction. Arcayne 23:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I followed Arcayne's example and made a new temp diff with 4 pictures. Personally, I like the fact that the text is aligned and doesn't flow like a [insert euphemism]. Is there a rule for 2 pics? (It's the first movie article I ever edited). If it's only two pics we're after, then I agree with everyone else. If not, do you like the diff? NikoSilver 23:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I just had this same conversation recently with another editor, without drawing any conclusions. I think it is a finesse thing. If you notice that there are too many pictures, there are. If you notice that aren't enough, then there probably isn't enough.
 * I think that 1 or 2 pics per section, and 6 per article is kinda the meximin density, judging from some of the other FA media articles out there,and I am using that as a guideline. I think if we need a type of pictures, it would have to be something showing Gorgo and Theron. I've found a couple, but they tend to be either too dark or too bland to include. bignole has some experience with this, though, having seen articles that went off the deep end with pics... Arcayne 00:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The four-photo version looks like overkill to me. At present there seems to be no WikiCommons category for the film -- is that because of copyright issues? If there were such a category, we could link to it and provide a more complete gallery of stills. --Javits2000 09:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Depiction explanation
Well, I'm new and not sure how to make a new discussion, but maybe I could put it here? I was thinking, the whole thing is told as a story by Dilios, right? Maybe the reason the Persians are depicted the way they are, and in fact many historical inaccuracies, could be explained by this. I mean, when one tells a story, they rarely ever tell it exactly how it happened, and most of the time, they add and change things for various reasons. I was thinking of adding it to the article at least as a suggestion, but I don't think it is allowed. Neospawn 17:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be original research, because you don't have a reliable source saying such a thing.  BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 17:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I see what he is talking about, and while I think it might not be necessary to the film beyond its current mentioning, | storytelling is not beyond making up events or imagery to rell a story. That said, unless we can find a citation that speaks to this, we cannot include it, as it would be OR. Arcayne 17:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it makes a lot of sense to me too, and we actually do have a line under "production" that suggests this was Synder's intention: "One exception to the direct adaptation was the use of the character Dilios as a narrator. Snyder used this narrative technique to show the audience that the surreal "Frank Miller world" of 300 was related from a subjective perspective." The piece which is cited at this point is worth quoting directly: Fantasy enters the picture thanks to a new narrator: Dilios, who is one of the 300 Spartans who used strategy and their knowledge of the Greek landscape to hold an enormous, invading Persian army at bay for three days. Dilios is a natural storyteller: Like a fisherman who exaggerates the size of the one that got away, he never hesitates to use artistic license. "Dilios is a guy who knows how not to wreck a good story with truth," Snyder said in an interview. "If he's telling you the story about what happened to his boys, and he's talking about an elephant, and you've never seen an elephant, that elephant's going to be crazy. If the movie takes place from Dilios' point of view, the audience can make the jump. They don't have to go, 'OK, we're going to Frank Miller world, so check your keys at the door.'" It might be possible to make more use of this in the article, or to somehow state the point differently / more forcefully. --Javits2000 20:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I added a bit. It likely needs to be massaged somewhat. Arcayne 21:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for putting it into a discussion. I read some of the help files, so now I know how to do it. Another thing I'd like to add, Dilios also told of what happened AFTER he was told to leave. He had to have made up the final confrontation, as he wasn't there to see what happened. It would make me feel much better if someone can help me find some sources to help my theory, maybe it would help cut down some criticism. It was a good movie, in my opinion, and I hate how people always draw connections to the Iraq situation from any movie, game, or book that has any form of conflict in it. Anyway, even if you don't like the idea of this, I'd like some help.Neospawn 04:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Nationality
A couple of back-and-forth edits have occurred about the nationality/ethnicity of Touraj Dayaee. Some think it's important to mention that he is Iranian-born, and some do not. For me, the question is super simple: would the scholar's words have less weight were they Irish? How about Pakistani? Or Iraqi or Japanese? If so, then it doesn't matter what he says, since his ethnicity matter more than what he says. That implies a POV mindset which is unacceptable here. If, however the ethnicity doesn't matter, then what is correct is to mention his title, and leave the rest alone. Arcayne 05:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that his title is sufficient. In any case, his name is linked, so anyone who wants to know can click on it and will see that he was born in Tehran. --Javits2000 09:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Further on this: now that I've looked at the edit history, I see that the proposed edit was "The Iranian scholar T.D...." Iran is an article about a nation, not an ethnic group. If nationality is what matters, the proper designation for Daryaee would of course be American. --Javits2000 09:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is immaterial what the person's nationality is, unless they are speaking solely as a member of that group (and that itself is hardly worthy of note). If, however, we are to follow this, we need to remove the Greek descriptor from the names of Robby Eksiel (from the Critical Reaction section) and Dimitris Danikas (Depiction of Persians). Furthermore, I strongly suggest that Danikas' comments have no bearing in that section, and should instead be moved to the Critical Reception section, as his profession is that of movie reviewer and not sociologist, ethnographer or political scientist. That his comments are even in that particular section lends credence to the idea that we are missing POV-pushing. Arcayne 15:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I said more on Arcayne's page, but basically the ethnicity should only be mentioned if that is why the person was cited. Hence, for Daryaee, the ethnicity is not appropriate because he is notable for his academic authority on ancient history, not his Iranian background.  I'm not sure about the Greek film critic, but it is worth looking into.  The Behnam 16:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've already removed it from both, and think the text is not damaged by their removal. Miskin made a valid point regarding their presence, and while i strongly think that Daryaee is directly refuted by Herodotus' own account (I know - I was surprised myself), I don't know enough about the Battle or Herodotus enough to present contrast w/out skipping down the pat h to OR-Town. Someone else should take a crack at it, though... Arcayne 17:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good call on the Greek critics; the only reason that was notable was because so many film articles include only the American response! But no need to pat ourselves on the back. I'm sure Daryaee has read Herodotus and has his reasons, valid or not, for distrusting him. I'm not sure I understand why film reviewers should be excluded from "depictions of Persians" -- it strikes me as a perfectly "cinematic" subject. In any case, they're all we have in there at present, besides the incensed Iranians, although a perspective from a sociologist or whatever would be useful if we could find one. --Javits2000 18:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Continuing my annoying habit of posting addenda to my own replies. I would be opposed to the incorporation of Herodotus's account in the "historical accuracy" section -- that is, original work, as opposed to citation of a contemporary, professional historian. Any classical historian, and especially one who does not rely on autopsy (as is the case with Herodotus, who lived after the events recounted) must be approached first through source criticism, and, second, his account must be controlled against other available evidence (be it textual, archaeological, or what have you). In the case of a question such as, for example, the composition of the Achaemenid army, the first question would therefore be, from whom has Herodotus heard, or where has he read, that they were slaves? ; and the second, is there additional ancient evidence that calls his account into question? That all before asking whether he might himself have been biased. This is something that none of us are qualified to do; or rather, if anyone is, they should publish their findings in an appropriate venue, and then I'ld be in favor of citing it here. --Javits2000 18:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that because there are some mistakes in the Daryaee quotation, we should actively search for something to replace it that maintains the same viewpoint, but doesn't include mistakes of interpretation. Daryaee should maybe read more comic books. :) Arcayne 23:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, he could certainly lighten up a bit. But what exactly are the mistakes in the quotation? I missed that bit. --Javits2000 00:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Historical Fantasy
As well, there has been some controversy as to whether the film meets the criteria of historical fantasy. Please present reasons as to why it is or isn't? Arcayne 05:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I had been skeptical about this, but was convinced that it was an appropriate description of the genre (somewhere back in the archives). But I had never heard of "historical fantasty" before I started working on this article, so I'm hardly an informed commentator. --Javits2000 09:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To quote from the Wikipedia article on historical fantasy - "It is used to describe a story set either in a specified historical period but with some element of fantasy added to the world, such as magic or a mythical creature hidden in the cracks."


 * I'd say 300 qualifies, what with the Oracle, the troll, the Execution Blob... Roscius 14:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree. In my talk page discussion I discussed this very issue. I repeart it here because I am simply too lazy to write it all again in a different way: "The comparison between Alexander and 300 is not a valid one, personally. In the former movie, they dealt with all mamer of opponents, but I don't think that 12-foot-tall giants were amongst them. Neither were there any horror-faced Immortals (and I refer to the face under the masks). Xerxes is portrayed as a literal giant of a man (the tallest man on record was only 8'11, and that is with modern nutrition). As far as I know, neither Rodrigo Santoro nor the actor portraying the misshapen warrior were nearly that tall.'
 * "These alterations do not represent a simple, point of view alteration to the events; they represent an intention to add fantasical elements into a historical narrative. That it is accomplished by Dilios is immaterial. There were no such elements utilized in Alexander. The usage of fantasy elements in a historical narrative fits the criteria of historical fantasy. It is arrived at from a point of reason, and not partisan sentiment."
 * So, the main argument against this categorization lies not in the empirical evidence, but rather in the suspicion of partisan sentiment at placing this label on a film that portrays ancient Persians in a bad light - to whit, to lessen the impact of the film's point by relabeling its historical accuracy a fantasy. Were it accurate, I would consider it an insidious tactic worthy of a junior Machiavelli. However, I don't think it fits here. Everyone knows I am amongst the first to smite any POV trash that makes its way into this article, nationalism be damned, so I am thinking I would know. Arcayne 15:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hanson
As a military specialist on this era, where can we add Victor Davis Hanson's '300' Fact or Fiction??


 * We have already cited Hanson, although a different essay, under "historical accuracy." Does this new reference add anything that's of use? --Javits2000 11:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've read the citation, and I think it essentially rehashes his prior statements. Arcayne 15:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, I'm going to qualify tht last statement. I think that while Hanson essentially reiterates that Miller and Snyder are using Herodotus' material, there is supplementary information in the above citation as to them using the same sorts of devices of fantasy to communicate that material. Additional information should be added to that effect next to the statements already in place. Arcayne 16:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Check it out and tweak as necessary. :) Arcayne 16:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary issues
The plot summary looks worse now than it did when it had more paragraphs. That huge last paragraph has got to be split up, it looks terrible. And as a side note, I find quotations in the plot summary unnecessary, especially when we're trying to keep the length down. Alabasterchinchilla 18:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I cut the last paragraph in half, hopefully at a point that makes some sense. I think the size of the paragraphs look good now. Let's leave it at four or five decently-size paragraphs, instead of trying to cram an entire two hours worth of plot into overly-large paragraphs that make the page look terrible. Please? Alabasterchinchilla 19:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The quotes are there because they represent something taken directly from history, and since the plot is below 700 words, we don't need to actually cut anymore. If you look at the quotes, they are linked to actual articles.  BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally, quotes were used where the source used words or phrases that have a specific effect on the course of the article; better to include them than deal with cries of POV-pushing. You do make good points though, Alabasterchinchilla (wot a silli name for a llama's sidekick). The article is getting pretty tight now, ever closer to GA and FA consideration, but that doesn't mean that if something comes along tht imporves the article, it should be nixed. Staying vigilant and open-minded is always a good thing. Arcayne 23:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, geez

 * This is seriously getting retarded. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that the most we should do with this is add "including the President," somewhere in that section. The Behnam 18:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that the most we should do with this is add "including the President," somewhere in that section. The Behnam 18:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Works for me, the President can lead the "Various Iranian officials" listing. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Or what you just did is fine, too. Yeah. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup. Kind of amusing that he complains about tampering with history, but anyway, it is in there now.  The Behnam 18:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being the one to say it out loud, TheBenham. You would think, what with all the other issues facing Iran's emergence into the world markets, they would even bother to take the time to all but declare war on a movie. What I find even more boggling is that they actually think that Hollywood gives a rat's ass about what that chimp in the White House thinks. If Iran wants to look at America as their enemy, they should get to know them a bit better. 'Course, the movie does make ancient Persians (and not modern Iranians) look like total ass-clowns. -Arcayne 23:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC) (taking off the RantHat)
 * Iranians have every right to be angry when their glorious history is slandered. 71.170.48.116 00:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, they do. Appropriately. Involving top-level government employees in a ruckus about a comic-book film is not an sensible allocation of resources. Does the movie make ancient Persians look bad? Duh, yes. Is it something called dramatic license, used by the author of the comic book? Again, yes. Does this mean that Miller hates all Persians, or that there is some vast conspiracy to 'get' the modern Iranians? A billion times, 'no.' This movie would have likely already been dropping in viewer rankings if politicians weren't getting involved.
 * And I'm going to let you in on a little history buff secret: no one's past is glorious. No one's. As well, the term would be libel, as the film and the comic book are 'fixed' material. Slander regards spoken defamation.Arcayne 05:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Nobody declared you the judge of appropriateness so don't pretend to know everything. The movie was popular before the extra media attention.Asidepanic12 00:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is getting silly. The reason I said it was amusing is because Ahmadinejad is the same guy who made the Holocaust conference, which itself was devoted to tampering with accepted history.  Anyway, Arcayne, please archive this section too.  The Behnam 00:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot the basic rule of theese situations, and went off on a rant. My bad. Arcayne 01:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers
Hey, has anyone else noticed the unmarked plot spoilers in the intro? Seems excessive. EuPhyte 18:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. It seems that the second paragraph of the lead is unnecessary.  The mention of "historical fantasy" genre can be placed in the first paragraph, and the rest can go, in my opinion.  The Behnam 18:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute, spoilers? Since when is the outcome of the internationally famous Battle of Thermopylae a spoiler? That's like letting loose that the boat sinks in Titanic is a spoiler. I mean, come on. Personally, I have no problem with the lead. María: ( habla con migo ) 18:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh. I second what she said above.  This is why the battle is known, for the sacrifice that took place. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If we are going to assume that the battle is already known about and so the second paragraph is not a spoiler, there is no reason to include the details in the first place. The first paragraph mentions that it is about the Battle of Thermopylae, and under these assumptions, that should be enough for the reader to know what it is about.  So, if we get rid of the second paragraph, we can reduce article size further.  The Behnam 19:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, its just the second paragraph. Try not to look at this so subjectively. This is not the article for The Battle Of Thermopylae, its a film article, where we mark plot-revealing details. EuPhyte 19:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would also comment that it's not our place to make assumptions about what the reader of an article already knows. EuPhyte 19:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That may be the case, but my point still stands, now coupled with Erik's: how can it be labeled a spoiler if that's the entire purpose of the movie in the first place? It should be included in the lead for thematic elements alone.  The second paragraph also establishes lead characters and actors, something that is commonly done in film articles.  Now, the issue of size may be a valid point for cutting the lead down (yet again), but I see no reason to remove the entire second paragraph.  María: ( habla  con migo ) 19:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this entirely addresses the "spoiler" issue, but we could probably do away with the line, "The sacrifice of the Spartans inspires all of Greece to unite against the Persian invaders." This is really just a summary of the last five minutes -- it's certainly important to the plot, but might be a bit too detailed for the lead. Quick note on size: we've crept back up to 50kb.--Javits2000 19:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Everything from "Spartan King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) and..." to"...attempts to rally support for her husband." is plot and needs to be moved or removed. EuPhyte 19:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't agree. Most film articles that I've read include some quick synopsis of the main themes -- which only makes sense. For example, and since it's been mentioned, I had a look at Titanic: "It stars Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio as Rose DeWitt Bukater and Jack Dawson respectively, members of different social classes who fall in love aboard the ill-fated 1912 maiden voyage of the ship." In our case the main themes would be the fight at Thermopylae, and Gorgo on the homefront -- just as in the lead. I suppose if we removed "to the last man" it might become less of a "spoiler" -- on the other hand it might become kinda weak. --Javits2000 20:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Javits2000, that is precisely what I meant to say. María: ( habla  con migo ) 20:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, it looks a little better now. Thanks all. EuPhyte 20:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait...the Titanic sank?! awwwww, now you've ruined it for me!
 * Seriously though, I think the excised part was a good move. Euphyte brought up a good point, but its pretty clear even from the trailers that the 300 weren't going to have a Scooby-Doo ending where they all get invited to a hair-braiding party at Xerxes' Malibu Beach House. In retaining the broad strokes of the film's intent without the fine detail of the impact of the intent, I think it's a tighter article.
 * What still needs work on the article before GA submission, or are we simply waiting on all the input to stabilize somewhat? Arcayne 22:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Seriously, after I saw Titanic in the theatre and mentioned it to one of my friends, she nearly had a heart attack and slapped me, yelling about spoilers and how horrible I am for almost ruining the movie for her. Um.  Yeah. Someone slept through their fifth grade history class.
 * About the GA, however, I believe we're waiting to see further comments on the Peer Review page. It's has been stagnant for a, so I'm not sure if anything more will come of that.  New people are showing up to edit every day, though, so a little more time is a good idea, methinks.  I like the way things are going so far, and I'm glad that a majority of the lead section remains intact.  María: ( habla  con migo ) 00:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

GA?
I've been chipping away at standardizing the citations, which was one issue that came up on the "Peer Review" page. Which makes me think -- that page doesn't seem to be generating any more replies. Should we start thinking about putting the article up for GA? Is there anything else we would want to take care of before doing so? --Javits2000 19:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it would be best to wait another week or two; the film is still very much in theaters, especially internationally. The Iranian President's recent statement might spur further hostility in the next few days. Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point. --Javits2000 20:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Gird your loins, boys and girls. :P Arcayne 22:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ephors?
I recently removed the wikilink for the ephors from the article, as the definition navigated to doesn't fit the role they were given in the film (despite them being so-named). If my edit isn't sound, please feel free to edit, but please explain why. Arcayne 02:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Tough call. As you said, the term is a misnomer on the part of the film, not the article. I think removing the link was wise. EuPhyte 02:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think "priests of the oracle" is sufficiently descriptive. I frankly don't recall them being called "ephors" in the film, but it's been over a week now since I saw it. --Javits2000 12:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Cartledge
I know that I've started carping about length again; nevertheless I went ahead and added a quick summary of this interview with Paul Cartledge, who is a notable historian of Sparta and briefly advised the filmmakers, under 'historical accuracy.' I think it's useful both because of his formal connection with the film and because he's, well, perhaps a more respectable positive voice than Hanson, who's a bit of an ideologue. --Javits2000 12:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Spartan premiere?
One more bit of business; I've placed a fact tag on the following sentence, under "box office": "300 opened in Greece two days earlier on March 7, 2007 in the city of Sparta (followed by an avant première in Athens the next day)." This information isn't found in the ref that follows. It would, however, be notable if the film did premiere in Sparta, so I'm leaving the sentence in for the time being. I'll leave a message for the user who added the sentence; but has anyone else read something about this? --Javits2000 12:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Google parts of the phrasing; it might be located that way, and we can just fix the cite. I've been noticing that some users (mostly anon IP) will go into an article and remove one letter from a ref to disable it. Most would miss it in a diff history survey as it's only one letter. Such users, btw, deserve a baseball bat to the eyes. Arcayne 18:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi! There ARE many references, but all the websites are in greek!:D Actually the premiere was organised by Village Roadshow, the Austalian distributor and Multiplex owner around the world. Thus the flim opened two days earlier in sparta in the Village Center multiplex and also in Athens in the Village multiplex in ALL of its cinema screens in""The Mall Athens"". But unfortunately, poor International PR made that few outside greece knew about this.Part of the news can be found here http://www.lgr.co.uk/events/highlighted/5914/homecoming-for-300-in-sparta/Zisimos 18:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that reference covers the Sparta half. I personally wouldn't have any problem with citing a Greek newspaper article if there's a good one that covered the openings. --Javits2000 19:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Archive action looms
Talk is getting big again, so I'll be archiving sometime Saturday evening. Please tie up conversations occurring prior tothe "Oh Geez" header by then. Arcayne 23:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Soundtrack "Message For The Queen"
I think we should add the following text in the Soundtrack section. Please advise:

The melody of the soundtrack "Message For The Queen" is exactly the same with the melody of the Macedonian folk song "Zajdi Zajdi Jasno Sonce". Although regarded as old folk song, "Zajdi Zajdi Jasno Sonce" is actually composed by Aleksandar Sarievski, a famous singer and composer of Macedonian folk songs.

--GoranStojanov 13:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's my opinion that this comparison, howeverso convincing, constitutes original research, as it supplies no "reputable source" for the similarity / identity of the tunes. If such a source (for example, a newspaper or magazine article) were supplied, I would be in favor of including the comparison, especially as the issue of the the score's originality, or lack thereof, has already been raised in the reviews cited in the article as it stands. What do other people think? --Javits2000 13:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the melody is exactly the same, I wouldn't say that is a research, but rather a simple comparison. --GoranStojanov 14:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course a source for the claim of authorship by Sarievski would also have to be supplied. However, while I maintain my position stated above, I do feel this is a debatable case, especially given the identity of the melodies, and would appreciate the input of other editors. --Javits2000 16:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Simple comparisons definitely fall under original research. What may be a simple comparison to you may not be one to me, and your claim cannot be verified without a reliable source. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That basically what I thought. But given that the tunes do seem to be identical, I'm guessing that someone else must have noticed the similarity and mentioned it in print. If Goran could find a source (a newspaper or something similar, not a blog), for example, in Macedonian, that would be fine with me; my Slavic languages aren't great, but they'ld be good enough to vet it. --Javits2000 17:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually brought up the need for the citable reference, on his own talk page. Maybe he doesn't know the proper definition of what he needs. It cannot be in without citation. It opens WP to libel if a statement like that makes it into the article without attribution. WP:BLP applies a bit to the statment's inclusion. Arcayne 17:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the movie is still not shown in Macedonia. I'll keep on monitoring macedonian media. I'm sure they will not miss this obvious case of "borrowing" a melody. --GoranStojanov 12:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Posters in Rainbow 6 Vegas
From time to time there are posters for 300 on xbox live during a match.Peacemaker456 22:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as Marketing goes, I'm not sure how necessary this information is. I wouldn't oppose a brief mention of it, though, as it can reflect how the marketing strategy has permeated action figures, video games, the UFC, and online environments. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)