Talk:300 (film)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

The Remark about Androgyny

Keep in mind, in the film, Xerxes declared himself as a God. All-powerful gods and the gods of Egypt were described as androgynous. Therefore it makes sense that Xerxes might have appeared in such a manner. Vagrant

^That is a totally ignorant and incorrect statement. Unlike his depiction in the film, Xerxes never believed he was a god. He followed Zoroastrianism - a monotheistic religion that influenced the three major abrahamic religions.

The Bible states that Xerxes was married to Esther. Get a clue about history. --75.19.107.246 04:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with Vagrant. Since when does androgyny have anything to do with sexual orientation and/or the institution of marriage? Since never. If a person is androgynous, it does not automatically make them queer. And enough with the Bible; if you knew anything about its penmenship history, you would know it's not to be trusted in many historical aspects. Back to the movie. María: (habla conmigo) 12:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

To summarize: at Persepolis Xerxes is a dignified fellow with an impressive beard. In 300 he's ten feet tall and spends as many hours in wardrobe; from which we may conclude that Achaemenid Persians had more refined tastes than 21st-century Americans. On the flip side, Achaemenid reliefs don't move, so they're not as cool as movies. Is there such a thing as progress? Yes; it's in Pennsylvania. --Javits2000 12:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ha! :) María: (habla conmigo) 12:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

lol. I see a sitcom in the offing: "Xerxes in Progress": the Xerxes family, recently having lost their fortunes, struggle to adapt to sedate, Progress Pennsylvania. Hilarity ensues.-Arcayne 13:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha! I remember the moving Greek reliefs in the 2004 Summer Olympics Opening Ceremony in Athens! Some values remain constant (but can also move occasionally)!

Nevertheless, I find that the interpretation of Xerxes' claims for Divinity as an excuse for his (apparently accidental?) androgynous portrayal, to fall in the category of original thought. This would be an advantage of great value for a movie/comic-book critic, or WB's spokesman, but we need them to suggest this (and I'd personally be relieved to include that opinion also in the article, if it were said by them). NikoSilver 14:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no doubt. I wasn't suggesting (by my above agreement) that it be added to the article. I was merely, you know, agreeing, and thereby saying that the whole XERXES = GAY school of thought is ridiculous. And, no, I wouldn't call the androgyny accidental; according to what both Santoro and Snyder have said, anyway. María: (habla conmigo) 17:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm..the film doesnt show Xerxes as androgynous. The graphic novels do, but the film doesn't really make him seem androgynuous. He's just a weird guy with loads of bling. Heck, the Spartans seem more metrosexual than masculine. No real man would have abs.

Um, okay, I sense someone who is a bit defensive about their love handles and beer belly. However, lacking those things can still make you a man. Just a lazy one. :P Arcayne 06:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe it , obviously you haven't watched 300 spartans, Xerxes was shown similar to reality, if it were inspired in from that movie it would be really good, but 300 is not loyal to 300 spartans and nor to the reality. There are hundreds of historical facts to proof that this movie is junk in matter of historical accuracy, and it doesn't even claim to be one. It's just abuses the history to sell more ticket. 211.24.149.43 17:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The Movie 300 is it an insult to the (fucked up) persian Culture or not?

I don't know if The Movie 300 is it an insult to the great persian Culture or not? As a Persian, my first reaction and answer would be YES! But I think this movie is ment to be a scince fiction rather than to be a historical fact. I must admit that the technics and the visual and special effects of the movie are Great alot of ++++ from me.

Maybe we as persians has to see this movie as an opportunity to be abel to show the real side of our culture. I do not want to write a lot about it here but I want to refer to a great Documentary movie about Persian Empire and Persian Culture, made by Farzin Rezaian and many great Scientists and Archeologist and historians about the subject. If you want to learn about the real Persian Empire and the Persian Culture view this documentary about 40 ,minutes) here : on This site : http://www.iraninfo.dk

http://www.iraninfo.dk/iranske-dokumentar-film-iranian-documentaries/persepolis-recreated-filmen-om-genskabelse-af-perse.html

Since when should we give a fuck what the Iranians think? 150.113.7.99 16:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

And Judge for yourself.

Kind regards

As a Wikipedian editor, we cannot "judge for ourselves", as that would be original research. BTW, I don't think it depicted Greeks any better, what with showing them performing massive infanticide, bullying their young men, killing messengers who bring bad news just because they don't like their choice of words. That's not very civil, I wouldn't think.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the persians offered the spartans 4 chances of surrender which is unheard of in that day of age. The spartans however do not take prisoneers. I think its a bit foolish that the Iranians are flipping out over a movie about 99% of them have never seen. They're just looking for excuses to be offended and it sounds like that country has a bad case of PMS... oh wait anyone with PMS has the act of rajm committed to them, nm..... civil country my ass. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.68.121.39 (talk) 12:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Actually some greeks are upset - but not as much because the truth is that they DID practice infanticide. Persians are angry because this movie is an insult and a lie to not only their past but also to history. The negative dipiction of the Persians have no truth or substance to them and some of the wiki admins do not realize this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.170.161.240 (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, wait a sec, comparative "socialization" is a stretch; after all, the Spartans in this film, howeverso nasty, are the heroes. I can understand the vehemence of the response. But, as stated, the controversies have been fairly well addressed in the article and only genuinely new complaints / queries / reflections ought to be raised here. Other, more run-of-the-mill, remarks should be removed to chat rooms and the like. And appearances to the contrary, this is not a chat room. --Javits2000 13:49, 19 March 2007 .

Fair enough; I withdraw my comment about socialization. Arcayne 14:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I just wonder, in the main page it has been written "Touraj Daryaee, associate professor of Ancient History at California State University, Fullerton, criticizes the central theme of the movie, that of "free" and "democracy loving" Spartans against "slave" Persians. Daryaee states that the Achaemenid (Persian) empire hired and paid people regardless of their sex or ethnicity, whereas in fifth-century Greece "less than 14%" of the population participated in democratic government, and "nearly 37%" of the population were slaves. He further states that Sparta "was a military monarchy, not a democracy," and collectively owned slaves (the Helots)." then the director says it has 90% historical accuracy! How is it possible? Has he studied other historical risources unknown to Persian History Professionals?!! I may mention that before it would be offensive to Persians, it's an offence to the history, or they would announce that the movie is a 100% fiction based on fantasy, or they should oppologize the world for changing the history in an unequal unjust way convenient for the political interests or any other purposes they would mention.

The article is of course designed to provide people with information and to allow them to form their own opinions. The talk page is not, however, designed as a forum for people to air said opinions, but rather for them to suggest concrete improvements to the article. --Javits2000 14:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If you take a moment to reread the article, you will note that Snyder's (foolish) comment is included to start the section, and subsequent statements clearly refute that claim. Arcayne 15:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The Oracle at Delphi

Did anyone else notice that the Oracle given in the movie is %100 different that the Historical one? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TsugaruRage (talk • contribs) 16:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Did you notice that the movie is a movie, not a documentary. I'm pretty sure that every line of dialogue spoken wasn't directly taken from "historical records", and since everyone of the 300 (minus 1) died, I'm sure that after Dilios left, we wouldn't have record of anything they said. It's a film, and also, without reliable source discussing such an issue (how ever minor it is), it would be considered original research.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. The Oracle in the film was not given a definite name or place. How could it be the Oracle at Delphi, when it was across the Gulf of Corinth, many miles away? [1] The Oracle at Delphi is probably the most well known one today, but it certainly wouldn't (and couldn't!) have been used in reference to Sparta. María: (habla conmigo) 16:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, there might have been many oracles spread all over Greece, to satisfy the fortune-telling needs of all the city-states, not to mention the lesser-known oracles, such as the oracle of Hot Pockets, who rather quickly died out, as they starved to death waiting for their payment to be invented. Oracles oracles everywhere, and not a union to be seen. ;) Arcayne 16:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

wow, tough crowd... Arcayne 17:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Spartan Kings did often consult the actual Oracle at Delphi to come to agreement. The movie neglects to mention the fact that Sparta has always had two Kings. Whenever an even number of people disagree, you need someone to tip the balance, and the Oracle at Delphi was the Spartan Kings' go-to person.

Might we ask you to cite your statements, please? Arcayne 06:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Historically, Leonidas consulted the oracle at Delphi. According to legend, he was told that either Sparta would be destroyed, or that it would lose a king. The Delphi oracle was managed collectively by the Greek states, many of which had given Persia the "earth of water" tribute that Sparta and Athens refused. Oracular readings were the product of complex political give and take. The Athenians thought the oracle had been pro-Persian and snubed it after the war. The oracle in the movie is managed by the Ephors. Historically, the Ephors were Sparta's annually elected five-man governing council and didn't have their own oracle. Kauffner 11:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Political Parts of Depictions

I know it was discussed before, but what concensus did we arrive at for moving/reworking the last two paragraphs of the Depiction of Persians section to the Political Aspects section" Arcayne 22:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we did reach a consensus, although in the meantime I've trimmed both sections fairly substantially, so perhaps it'll be a bit easier to judge. It's still my opinion that the two sections are more coherent if kept distinct; i.e. "political" as perceived global-political parallels & "ideological" readings; "depictions" as the orientalist stuff & the particular intensity of the Iranian reaction thereto. As I see it those represent two different strands in the reception. But they're certainly intertwined; likewise for "historial accuracy."

So, in short, I think it's relatively well-structured at present, but there is a risk of redundancy. It would be useful if some news outlet would publish a sort of "critical review of the critical reception," to which we might be able to compare the present structure, but to date I've not seen anything of the sort.

In the meantime we have succeeded, I think at some point yesterday, in bringing the total under 50 KB; so while still leaner may yet be better, we're no longer egregiously over quota --Javits2000 22:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Historical accuracy (no, no, no, not what you think)

I added the two famous mottos that were correctly depicted in the movie. 1) Molon labe, and 2) the fact that it was "illegal" for a Spartan to retreat. I feel that these two add greatly to the encyclopedic content of the article, because they link to the respective historical facts. Moreover, we already had enough bitching about "historical accuracy" (me included), and I think that it is wrong to highlight all the defects (wrong depictions etc), without also illustrating the accuracies. Please do not revert. After all, it's just 10 words (or something). NikoSilver 23:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I like it; these additions are strangely heartening! And for the record, the plot is now at 630, which is not bad, considering it used to be over 1,100... María: (habla conmigo) 23:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem at all, I'm surprised you didn't include the "arrow" quote, since that was taken from history as well. Granted, it was a different individual reciting it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I swear I didn't help shortening it back then for that purpose! NikoSilver 00:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I liked it very much, too. I would like to see the arrow quote as well. Arcayne 00:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this since seeing the film, but does anyone else think the caption for the Leonidas image is a little misleading. "Leonidas makes his last stand"? It sounds, to me at least, like he's about to fight some more, 1 last time. But, that scene is the one right before he falls down next to (I believe) Stelios. They exchange their "it's an honor to die by your side....it's an honor to fight by yours" and then he gets up one last time and watches the thounsands of arrows fly toward him. Not really a "last stand". If anything, it was right after the last stand.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I never really liked that photo. I remember two that I think might be better. The first one shows Leonidas in profile wading through a group of Persians (awesome), and the second is of Xerxes with his hands on Leonidas' shoulders (showing faces). Both are pretty good, and can be uploaded with tags rather quickly. But then, I liked the 'arrows blotting out the sky picture'. -Arcayne 02:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The arrow quote is attributed by Herodotus to Dienekes. I haven't seen the film yet but he is not represented in the film (or GN for that matter). -- Zippocar 13:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

See also section redundant

The "See also" section is (maybe!) redundant, already linked within the text (and from the first lines of the lead!). Per WP:MoS and, specificaly WP:LAYOUT, "The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in the Wikipedia that are related to this one as a navigational aid, and it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article" (the text is not bolded by me but by Wikipedia). Is there any objection to removing it?--Yannismarou 12:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Correction: I'm not sure if the second link is somewhere linked. If not, then it can stay, but again a See also section with just one link ... I don't know ...--Yannismarou 12:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Archiving again

Can we please archive the talk page again if the discussions are pretty much concluded? The existing sections keep drawing uncontributive comments. A notaforum template at the top of the talk page advising against such general discussion would be nice as well. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)