Talk:300: Rise of an Empire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A category to nitpick about[edit]

At the bottom of the page, there is a category listed as "Films based on Greco-Roman mythology".

Greek mythology? How so? This isn't Clash of the Titans (2010 film).

From the terse description of the plot thus far, the movie seemingly only depicts historical events during the Second Persian invasion of Greece in 480 BC. So why this out-of-place category? If no one defends it, I'll see fit to remove it soon. I honestly don't know how you could defend it, unless there's evidence the movie writers are throwing in Zeus just for giggles.--Pericles of AthensTalk 13:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 11:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

300: Battle of Artemisium[edit]

This isn't the same film retitled. Artemisium is a 'sidequel' set at the same time as the original film but showing what the Athenians were up to, Rise is a prequel set before both of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.247.245 (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source to back this up? QValintyne (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is completely wrong. They're the same film. Battle of Artemesium was the working title. As per all the sources already on the page. Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Themistocles[edit]

The website, which launched today, spells his name Themistokles. http://www.300themovie.com/characters.html Unless someone has a definitive reason not to, I'll change it thought the article. I imagine there's some reason why it's different, but I don't see any articles covering the subject ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason Themistocles and many Greek words and names are written with "c" instead of "k" is because they went to English through Latin . No doubt the standard is Themistocles and not Themistokles but I see lately that it is not uncommon keeping the "k" (from Greek kappa) not using the standard latinisation. Fun fact: in standard Greek alphabet (remains unchanged since the end of 5th century BC) Themistocles is written "ΘΕΜΙΣΤΟΚΛΗΣ", but Persian wars happened in early 5th century, I see that his name in that Athenian alphabet was written "ΘΕΜΙΣΘΟΚLΕΣ" at that time. --188.4.125.140 (talk) 07:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sequel or prequel?[edit]

I think the most accurate term would be "parallelquel" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.125.140 (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what Empire (magazine) suggested. I think they were joking though. Maybe only half joking. Fourth paragraph here: http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=33416 Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 08:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I Just saw http://www.empireonline.com/features/movie-franchise-lexicon-infographic It has many more terms I did not knew about. As far as I know it will include Xerxes background, Darius and battle of marathon. That is prequel stuff. It will also incude Athenian politics and battle of Artemisium. That is sidequel or parallelquel. It will also include battle of Salamis. I think that is midquel stuff, since in 300 includes a bit of battle of Plataea. It is clear that the most important part is the Athenian and Xerxes perspective, that is also mentioned by the creators of the film. So definitely the most accurate term is sidequel. --188.4.125.140 (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a sequel. We can't kill the "prequel" buzzword that has become so popular but we can be sensible and keep it simple. For example The Godfather 2 is the sequel to The Godfather, the timeframes of the storylines are irrelevant. -- 147.252.95.68 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

release date changed[edit]

changed to March 7 2014 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/300-sequel-bumped-august-march-520290

RfC: Historical accuracy[edit]

The Wikipedia article about the original 300 movie from 2006 has a very elaborate section called "Historical Accuracy." I need your help to construct such a section for this new movie also, but I am not an an expert on Greek history, I need to find some good sources to construct such a section. I will appreciate your help here. Please feel free to start editing such a section before even I start! Here is the Wikipedia article for the original movie 300 (2006) for inspiration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300_(film)

Meanwhile, these are the primary details that I can point out to get started:

  • According to Wikipedia, Darius I died from other causes after his health worsened when he was preoccupied with a revolt in Egypt, after he spent three years to prepare his navy for the final invasion of Greece. In other words, he did not die in combat in Greece as shown at the beginning of the film. The plot of the film then tries to say that Xerxes (the son of Darius) attacked Greece to avenge the killing of his father by the Greeks, which did not happen.
  • Artemisia I of Caria did not die at the Battle of Salamis, after the battle was lost, she still continued to work with Xerxes (as in the Wikipedia article about Artemisia).

Here is a detailed BBC article written by movie critics, about the movie 300: Rise of an Empire, explaining the distortions:

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-26484784

These two history websites give a lot of details about the roles of Artemisia and Darius:

(But we are still supposed to find other articles that directly focus on the movie, these history websites are not about the movie itself.)

Here is a very authoritative website about the classical texts covering the writings of the ancient Greek historian Herodotus. In this page there is a detailed account that explains that Artemisia advised Xerxes not to choose Salamis to fight the Greek navy, but that the other advisers who were in favor of fighting at Salamis won out and Xerxes followed their advice instead of Artemisia.

Here is a serious history article about the writings of Herodotus, where it is explained that Artemisia supplied only 5 ships to the Persian navy at the Battle of Salamis:

According to this translation of Herodotus, after the Battle of Salamis was lost, Artemisia continued to work with Xerxes (i.e. she did survive the battle):

Accurate-spelling-enforcer (talk) 07:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I would like to build a consensus here in order to add a section about historical perspectives in the Wikipedia article for this movie. In the original 300 movie, historical flow was not distorted, there were only minor speculations, such as whether King Leonidas and Xerxes met to negotiate or not (which is not so important since the actual battle in the original 300 movie and the events that followed were presented within reasonable limits.) Similarly in the new movie, it is not so important whether Themistocles and Artemisia met or not, but in the new movie the role of Artemisia with the rank of the top general of Xerxes and her role in the war is much higher than in reality, and she did not die in the war. Also Darius was not even present in the wars in Greece. Thus the flow of events has been altered far more seriously. Accurate-spelling-enforcer (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • We need a section in such articles for any film purporting to be historical. Sourcing must be solid and sources should be historians, not just journalists with an interest in history. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is a movie based on a comic book "purporting to be historical"? Koala15 (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's being treated as a historical drama by some critics and commentators. It uses the names and garbled versions of the lives of a number of historical persons. People with little knowledge in this area may take it for granted that there's some substance there. (And your genre prejudices are irrelevant to the matter, as are my low opinions of Frank Miller's writing.) --Orange Mike | Talk 03:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your comments. Since the Wikipedia article for the original 300 movie (2006) does have section called "Historical accuracy" with a lot of scholarly details, certainly it is time to construct a detailed section for the new movie also. This time there are even more inaccuracies that misrepresent both Greek and Persian histories. Even though both movies are fictional fantasies, such a section must be written. Please note that the Wikipedia article for the original 300 also contains separate but related section called "Controversy" that discusses the depiction of Persians, and the Spartan culture. Thus the new movie also deserves more scholarly analysis in the Wikipedia article. Accurate-spelling-enforcer (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A historical accuracy section can be ok if there are good sources for it. The movie is fairly new, so there might not be very much yet, and there might not be as much written since this is a sequel and less interesting to write about. The thing to remember is that such a section should be free of WP:SYNTH, it must be sourced to WP:RS historians and critics that discuss these inaccuracies in connection to the film, nothing else. Statements on the subject by the filmmakers can be worth including. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I felt WP:BOLD, so I took a stab at it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the contribution, but I can see that you chose to insert the text as a subsection of the Reception section. Although Historical Accuracy does overlap with the Reception section to some extent, maybe you might consider inserting it as a separate section, as in the case of the Wikipedia article for the original 300 movie. This is because it is a much broader subject than reception. In the latter article about the original 300 movie, both the Historical Accuracy and Controversy sections are inserted next to the Production section, before Reception section. Accurate-spelling-enforcer (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I misunderstand you, but in 300, HA is a subsection to reception. Not that the articles have to match on that, but it seems reasonable to me. Now, here´s my veiw. You say "it is a much broader subject than reception." That´s wrong. For the purpose of this article, it´s only as broad as WP:RS makes it. And this thread have shown one reasonably good source on that, the BBC one, and my edit summarized that. Two more sources have been added to "Historical Accuracy" but none of them mention the film. Why should they? They´re about history, and we have other articles for that. So those sources are WP:SYNTH, put there because editors thought "this is interesting", and should be cut. At this point in time, the fact that this fantasy movie (with a 3 meter god-king and a charge by horse in a seabattle) is not historically correct deserves only a brief mention, if that. Rehashing Herodotus is very uncalled for. Of course it not historically accurate, it´s not meant to be and not expected to. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies! You are correct, I was mistaken, the original article for 300, HA is also a subsection of Reception. In fact, the Controversy discussion is also a subsection of Reception there. In this case, everything is OK. The fact that Xerxes was not 3m tall or that he has not personally met King Leonidas is not so important as far as the flow of events, or that the Persian army did not have giant monsters and exotic weapons, as these did not affect the historical framework. In fact, in the case of the original 300 movie, several historians said that the 300 movie was 90 % accurate as far as the way the battles were fought and the historical context. This time the new movie substantially differs from the original 300 in this respect. You are also partly correct about WP:SYNTH, but please note that these details are very fundamental. You can remove these if you want, but we will almost certainly find other articles that are directly about the movie. Accurate-spelling-enforcer (talk) 07:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying. It´s not that I disagree with you about flow of events and fundamental details, but anything we put in the article about this must not come from ourselves. Therefore I´ll take your offer and remove that text again. When more WP:RS appear, we´ll summarize/quote those and put them in then. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Please see the updated sources at the beginning of this discussion. Some of these sources were used by Wikipedia in history articles before. I believe that although these were not written about the movie, we still have the right to invoke these articles in the article about the movie, because we are not trying to build a case in favor or against any idea, we are only displaying relevant facts about the plot of the movie. Accurate-spelling-enforcer (talk) 07:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said above, I disagree. The HA section in 300 is more developed, but that is because more has been written about it. That section is well-sourced to people, like professors and filmmakers, that talk about HA in connection to the film, and that is how it should be on WP. Historical errors in films like these are legio, and those that decide which ones should be mentioned are our WP:RS. It can be interesting subject, but WP isn´t the best place for a big study of it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors, care to voice an opinion? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to find this guideline: WP:FILMHIST.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of the article already makes this section completely moot: 300: Rise of an Empire is a 2014 American fantasy war film. You might as well go make a historical accuracy section on Winnie Pooh: the Movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.153.16.208 (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the Wikipedia article for the original 300 movie does have a very detailed section called Historical Accuracy, even though the latter film was also a fantasy inspired from a comic book. Accurate-spelling-enforcer (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this section, "Historical accuracy", and the statement "Paul Cartledge ... noted that the film contains historical errors" suggest that this is a historical movie, while this is a fictional movie inspired by historical facts. --Z 12:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Iranian film & historical errors of 300: Rise of an Empire[edit]

the 300: Rise of an Empire, is The second part of the film 300, and undoubtedly, is a continuation of this trend is an anti-Iranian.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/goingoutguide/movies/300-rise-of-an-empire-movie-review-sequel-is-no-fun-at-all/2014/03/05/ec76dd3e-a46f-11e3-84d4-e59b1709222c_story.html

http://time.com/17578/300-greece-persians-xerxes/

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=34440

http://projections.blogs.gainesville.com/11141/how-a-woman-conquered-300-rise-of-an-empire/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/13/300-is-a-misleading-muscle-bound-travesty-of-ancient-history.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-26484784

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/2992/casting_out_satan_with_satan_a_review_of_300_rise_of_an_empire.aspx

http://www.avclub.com/review/even-more-so-part-one-300-rise-empire-rotten-power-201838

http://www.tasnimnews.com/English/Home/Single/248002

http://blog.oup.com/2014/03/five-things-300-rise-of-an-empire-gets-wrong/

♔ Koolak (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is an Iranian point of view (or, more precisely, a POV of a few non-notable authors), not shared by independent reliable sources. War is war and many other war films contain some sentiment against the enemy. Per WP:NPOV, the article should be neutral. Brandmeistertalk 07:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it's your opinion♔ Koolak (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. The accepted policy is that Wikipedia should not be a mouthpiece of some authors, who think the film is anti-Iranian. It's a neutrality and a common sense. Keep in mind this is a fantasy film, not a documentary. Brandmeistertalk 23:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the Wikipedia article for original 300 movie has very elaborate separate sections for both Historical Accuracy and also for Controversy, even though it was also a fantasy movie inspired from a comic book. The Wikipedia article for the original 300 movie basically informs the readers that there has been a serious controversy where some authors have argued that there has been prejudice. But it is actually possible for Wikipedia to report this information without being the mouthpiece of one group or another, and it is also a matter of writing style. Style does make a big difference. Please see the Wikipedia article for the original 300 movie for inspiration to create such a section called Controversy in this article. It seems that since 2006 the latter section has been meticulously improved and refined by hundreds of editors. On the other hand, because this new movie is a sequel, probably there will be a lot less articles written about the historical accuracy and controversy, and so it will be more difficult to find "notable' articles as reference, but we can probably find a few notable articles worth mentioning in such a section for this movie also. Accurate-spelling-enforcer (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's no matter, The main subject is, how can the firs part of the film is a Anti-Iranian film!! But the second part is not the case? ♔ Koolak (talk) 06:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


No matter whose point of view it is, take care what the truth is. Do you have any problem with that User:Brandmeister? The movie suffers from lack of historical integrity. History is history; let's not change it to push forward propaganda, OK?

Achaemenid Empire is known for its moral basis, take a look at How the Founding Fathers of America, in Their Own Words, Were Inspired by Cyrus the Great written by Richard N. Frye; Is he an independent reliable source for you sir?

According to your logics (WP:NPOV and Wikipedia should not be a mouthpiece of some authors, who have Zionist attitudes) the article should contain a section called "Anti-Iranian sentiments" or "a fantasy Movie, twisting history". دانشجوی گمنام (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hi[edit]

persian people (son of arabian people) say 300: Rise of an Empire: Difference between revisions is Anti-Iranian sentiments they are Lying pls help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.234.228.151 (talk) 08:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Persians and the Arabs despise each other, get your facts straight. There are genetic variations as well.--RidiQLus (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who is lying??? First, Persians are not Arabs, were not Arabs and will never be Arabs. We are Aryans. Got it? (Other races are fully respected too.)

Second, there is a huge propaganda against Iran because Iran is inside a different political block. (The Anti-Imperialist Block; Non-Aligned Movement) It is absolutely obvious that a corrupt country which is politically influenced by AIPAC to behave this way. Iran is known for its deep culture, heritage and morality values; do you think the Ziono-controlled Hollywood-ism can change the TRUTH??? Do you know were Iran on the map is at all?!! or what the difference of Iran and Iraq is?!! دانشجوی گمنام (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What movies want to tell[edit]

Somewhere in the article should include the interpretation of the movie. Wikipedia articles on movies mostly lack interpretations; the meanings of movies, what director/writer/company wants to tell, or what the interpretation of watchers are. Wikipedia articles on movies mostly tell about who are the people responsible, plot, publicity, and surroundings; There is no interpretation of what the intent of the writer/director/company might be of going to long distances to produce the art and not producing other arts that is abundant in the universe . For example, this movie (among other things) wants to tell that Greek/Western culture was/is really great while Iranian/Eastern was/is slight. All I want to tell is, Wikipedia articles on movies lack the intent or interpretations of director/writer/company and others/watchers. side note: (I am not saying now if Greek culture is really Western or Eastern for now, let's assume it is western. However even if accepted that Greek culture is western, this should be mentioned as the intent of the movie. Let's undermine for now that Greek people culture is more close to eastern people (Turks, Iranians, Arabs) than to western ones (Western: the intent of the movie), go to Greece if you don't believe me. These should be mentioned, even if Greeks might not like it and want to attache themselves to Europeans as that has more benefit to them. These "plays" should be indicated; Of course if we find sources for them!)-Raayen (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The westerners should stop playing with Greeks' cards, even if Greek people want it, and I know they want it. We, Easterners, know what Greeks were and are. You Westerners were once Berber to Greeks, northern Berber people. So stick to your recent history, we also appreciate that, it is much more advance than us, we accept that. However, please don't play with history, ancient Greek is not your arena. Present is your power, history is not.-Raayen (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, don't portray Greek heroes as blondes, we know you are lying, Brad pitt is not and was not Greek. Stop this! As Christ was not blonde either, he was a Jew (unless Jews also want to all be blonde these days). Stop this nonsense as the most technological people of the world, if you want us to accept you.-Raayen (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I wonder why Americans think that they are Greek or descendants of Greeks or something like that; In that case the English expression "It's Greek to me" would be meaningless. What an irony, It's really Greek to me! دانشجوی گمنام (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 300: Rise of an Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 300: Rise of an Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:300:_Rise_of_an_Empire&oldid=1197007689"