|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Dated prediction
- 2 Page title
- 3 Vandal
- 4 Non-human, zombie-like creatures?
- 5 article
- 6 Differences with actual history
- 7 Plot synopsis?
- 8 Historical Innacuracies
- 9 Reshuffled intro?
- 10 Vandals revisited...
- 11 Requested move
- 12 References to 300 in other Miller works
- 13 Queen Gorgo
- 14 Fair use rationale for Image:300 comic.jpg
- 15 the point
- 16 homoeroticism
- 17 Pronouns need referents
- 18 Assessment comment
The intro to this article ends with "Miller will write and draw a prequel to "300" titled "Xerxes" to be released sometime in 2011". Someone who knows these things should maybe update it. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, we've got a naming convention which means it should be at 300 (comics). Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics). Hiding The wikipedian meme 18:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough, Ill move it back. Oskar 20:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Everything was pointing to comic book, so I fixed the last 10 entries.
Someone Vandalized it, but I fixed it, although it should probably be reworked. I just cut out the profanity.
Non-human, zombie-like creatures?
I just reread this graphic novel, and I'm at a loss as to who the "non-human, zombie-like creatures" are supposed to be. Although Miller's drawing style was certainly flamboyant, all of the people in the story were recognizably human. Ephialtes had severe deformities, and the Laconian monks were filthy wretches, but they weren't zombies!
The non-human zombie dudes are supposed to be the Persian Immortals
- I'm pretty sure Xerxes isn't black in the comic like the article says, but I haven't read the original myself so I'm not sure. Certainly the movie Xerxes is Brazilian and doesn't have dark skin. The obvious black guy in the trailer is a Persian Emissary. Could someone check the graphic novel and make appropriate edits? LadyPhi 00:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Xerxes appears black in the graphic novel. However, with Miller's style it is often hard to tell definitively without an actual outside reference. For instance Dwight 1, has African American features despite the fact Dwight 2 was clearly white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
xerxes isn't the black dude. maybe in the comic, but a white guy plays xerxes and a black guy plays an emissary (oldschool diplomat). --Blambloom 00:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)--Blambloom 00:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Differences with actual history
Should there not be a comparison? For one, Spartans were not homophobic often preferring males to females as females were weak and frail. Also, in the actual Battle of Thermopylae had more than 300 soldiers. Just to inform people and make this article more than just a brief summary of a piece of work. I'm adding the section but remove if unwanted. I think it's a good idea. Zuracech lordum 04:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Once we've got a plot summary, I'd agree that this would be useful - we can link to the article(s) covering the actual history, but it's also worth explaining the differences. Especially as, if memory serves, they caused some controversy at the time... --Mrph 22:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I would recommend using reliable sources to address historical inaccuracies. These do not include side-by-side comparisons of a source speaking in general about the Battle of Thermopylae, and an editor pointing out the contradiction in the comic book. The source should include a direct comparison between the actual event and the comic book. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Um, is there going to be a reference for that "90%" crap? It's very contentious how historically accurate 300 is; it's fine to point out why the innaccuracies MIGHT be there (as the user does), but to just assign a percentage (a high percentage, I might add) to the historical accuracy without a reference only highlights the authors bias. Where did he/she get this statistic from? What were the criteria for deriving this percentage? Presumably, very little of the dialogue would be accurate (and for good reasons: none of the Spartans had a detailed biographer); what exactly does this "90%" stuff refer to, EVEN IF we were to grant it was accurate? I think the author did a good job on two points: 1. Describing how the historical innaccuracies MIGHT be defended, and 2. Pointing out specific innaccuracies. If the author wants to do more, and point out the ACCURACIES, he/she would be doing a productive thing. But we needn't know the author's own personal bias.
Where's the plot synopsis? I didn't realise it wasn't there until I saw that the differences with actual history was the first sub-section. Someone please write up a plot synopsis to appease any curious readers.Zuracech lordum 04:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Although this is pure fiction (like Apacalytpo) and a comic, there needs to be a historical inaccuracy section because the errors are significant and numerous. This innacuracy page could also be used for the film, which is based slide by slide on the comic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) 20:57, February 14, 2007 (UTC)
- That's fine, as long as you can cite historical inaccuracies with reliable sources so it can be verified by other editors. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Deleted the phrase "Aristodemus/Dilios" replacing it with just Dilios because without explanation it only disimproves readability and creates ambiguity. If a historical inaccuracies section is added then it might be worth explaining the different names. Good writing style avoids slashes, the shorthand should be replaced with the full word "or" (similar to how numbers should be written as words for best readability). -- Horkana 14:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed there are innacuracies in the comic and the film.Of course the Ephoroi and the Immortals were not mounstrous-like creatures.Herodot gives his numbers too.He writes that 1.700.000 Persians passed the Straits of Hellespont but it seems too mouch.In his 'Stories'(i have it on my hands wright now) he gives us the conversation between Xerxes and Demaratus.Demaratus tells Xerxes that he should not look down on the Greeks and Xerxes responds laughing 'How can this be possible Demaratus,we are more than one thousand against each one of them, if we can say the are five thousands(in fact Greeks were 1.000).The most logical numbers given by the historians are 300 Spartans + 700 Thespians on the Greek side(no doubt) and 700.000-1.000.000 Persians.But where do you learn history people.The term 'Pederasty in ancient Greece' misplaced many of you people!Pederasty litterary means love for a child.With the word 'Love' the Greeks meant to say mutually pure love,pure friendship and not passionate desire for one person.In ancient Greek era young men aged 14-18 were 'adopted' by a mature man and taught by him about life.There were surely some occasions of Pederasty in modern usage of the word bu they were dicriminated by the society.Even Aristophanes in his commedy 'Ιππείς'-Horsemen(meaning the politicians) refers to these youn men as 'ευρυπρωκτοι'=wideanussed.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablo10 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree there should be a section on historical inaccuracies, although Frank Miller of course knew about them.
I'm starting to think it would make more sense to switch the second and third paragraphs, so that it's not talking about the double-page spreads before it explains that the graphic novel was initially published as a comic book series. However, I'm not sure about rearranging the other information in those paras... opinions? --Mrph 20:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, WP:LEAD states that the lead paragraphs should be a concise overview of the rest of the article. So you can start new sections (which will then be listed in the table of contents). I'd suggest going in chronological order -- the origin of the idea adaptation, the publishing information, then the film and video game adaptations. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- True. I think WP:CMC/X is the preferred layout, so the body of the article should probably head in that direction. As for the intro, perhaps some of that information should then shift into other sections... but are there other things that should be added to the intro, that have a better claim to be part of that overview? --Mrph 20:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, overview just means that it covers the content of the article briefly. It's basically a summary of the rest of it. If you're planning to expand the article, I suggest that you take all the information from the lead paragraphs, put them in sections, and worry about writing lead paragraphs at the end of the expansion. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I've just requested semi-protection, as this is getting a bit tiresome. --Mrph 17:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not going to happen right now, it seems - not quite enough vandalism to justify it. Hopefully it'll calm down anyway --Mrph 21:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Propose that this article be moved back to 300 (comics) per the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics), to fall in line with all the others in suit with the guideline. Anyone have strong feelings and reasons against this move? MURGH disc. 17:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
References to 300 in other Miller works
Theres a reference that is missing, in the 7th Sin city book during the drug trip section the main character sees a spartan with a gun. I believe it is king Leonidas, he has the same cut in his helmet. I think that should be added in the Reference section. But I will not perform the edit. 5150 01:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Why not mention in this page that there is no Queen Gorgo in the senate in the comic although it appears in the movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:300 comic.jpg
Image:300 comic.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
is there ANY poitn for this article all i see is a comic book/movie slandering the men who died there and to a further note Racist towards ancient persians portrayign them as horrific brutal zombie liek people.--188.8.131.52 (talk) 05:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- The "point" is that 300 is a popular, well known graphic novel that was turned into a major movie seen by millions. The "point" is that this is an encyclopedia that provides information on as many subjects as possible. The "point" is that whether you liked 300 (whose premise was the clearly biased and exagerrated propaganda of a Spartan soldier; spend more than 30 seconds reading the book before calling it racist) or not, it was notable for both its qualities and controversies. Did that answer your question?
- I hope you get my point. The Cap'n (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The article nowhere discusses the fact that 300 is a bluntly homoerotic work by an obviously heterosexual writer. Has no "respected" critic covered this point? WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Pronouns need referents
In the sentence "In Sin City: The Big Fat Kill, Dwight considers Leonidas' choice of "where to fight" and manages to loosely recreate the Spartan defense tactics by cornering the enemy gang in a tight alley; they then annihilate them with heavy gunfire and explosives.", it is not entirely clear who "they" and "them" are. I think it is saying that Dwight annihilates his opponents, but it could be read the other way around. It is especially confusing as Dwight is not mentioned as having anyone else with him, meaning that both possible readings use a plural pronoun for a single person. --Khajidha (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section., and are posted here for posterity. Following
|Rated as a stub.
Substituted at 21:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)