Talk:300 (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article 300 (film) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 13, 2009.

References to use[edit]

Please add references to use here.
  • Albu, Emily (2010). "Disarming Aeneas: Fulgentius on Arms and the Man". In Cain, Andrew; Lenski, Noel. The Power of Religion in Late Antiquity. Ashgate. p. 21. ISBN 978-0-7546-6725-4.  (one-page mention)
  • Cyrino, Monica Silveira (2010). "'This is Sparta!': The Reinvention of Epic in Zack Snyder's 300". The Epic Film in World Culture. AFI Film Readers. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-99018-9. 
  • Ecke, Jochen (2010). "Spatializing the Movie Screen". In Berninger, Mark; Ecke, Jochen; Haberkorn, Gideon. Comics as a Nexus of Cultures: Essays on the Interplay of Media, Disciplines and International Perspectives. pp. 15–17. ISBN 978-0-7864-3987-4.  (section in chapter titled "Zack Snyder's Adaptation of Frank Miller's 300 (2007)")
  • Hanson, Victor Davis (2010). "Raw, Relevant History: From the 300 Spartans to the History of Thucydides". The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern. Bloomsbury Press. pp. 51–55. ISBN 978-1-60819-165-9. 
  • Hassler-Forest, Dan (2010). "The 300 Controversy: A Case Study in the Politics of Adaptation". In Goggin, Joyce; Hassler-Forest, Dan. The Rise and Reason of Comics and Graphic Literature: Critical Essays on the Form. McFarland. ISBN 978-0-7864-4294-2. 
  • Turner, Susanne (2009). "'Only Spartan Women Give Birth to Real Men': Zack Snyder's 300 and the Male Nude". In Lowe, Dunstan; Shahabudin, Kim. Classics for All: Reworking Antiquity in Mass Culture. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4438-0120-1. 

Misprouncing 'Leonidas'[edit]

We know Paul Cartledge informed the producers of this movie that Leonidas is properly pronounced 'LeonEEEdas'. For some reason, they insisted on saying, 'LeonEYEdas'. Even the History Channel has picked up this travesty. What a shame they'd go to such tremendous lengths to research an historical movie, but to totally and unjustifiably muff the pronunciation of its protagonist's name, is beyond comprehension and to their great humiliation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

"tremendous lengths to research"...? LOL! Anyway, Americans like to go with what sounds better. (I bet you loved it when they referred to the Picts as "Woads" in the 2004 film King Arthur). It's Hollywood, get over it. - theWOLFchild 03:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

One of Breivik's favorite movies[edit]

Should it be mentioned that '300' belongs to the favorite films of the Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik, since the controversy about the movie is already an important aspect of this article? (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Considering that I have seen assorted online fascists and "I'm absolutely fascinated by new developments of biological warfare and its applications for creative torture on the human body" social-Darwinist libertarian extremist wannabe survivalist mass-murderers online, including ones already active in actual warzones. With the borderless global society "If they can commit warcrimes over there and get celebrated for it over there, why can't I do it here?" mindset being the funadamental basis for Breivik's type of mindset... I definitely consider it a very symtomatic socially relevant truth that should not be covered up.
Releasing this type of Triumph Of The Will-identical propaganda, very much does have an effect, and as Terry Pratchett almost put it for Moist von Lipwig, together with a sufficient amount of similar or even more extremely warfare-, hate-crimes, racism-, and genocidal eugenics-inciting memetic programming material, it does serve to kill an awful lot of people little percentages at a time, which disturbingly not unlikely at all, starts to sum up when something has a sufficient amount of impact, especially through widespread coordinated destructive trends.
However., I am sure that some covert Hollywood marketing connected handle will attempt to shut down the notion/repeatedly clean up the article for anythign like that. It has happened repeatedly before. Also, it should obviously be kept to encyclopaedic standards, with only a brief relevant quoted mention, and no, I'm not pro-censorship. I'm pro-widespread school awareness of how embarrassingly easy mos of us are to subliminally brainwash, or even to incite into thrill-killing psychopathic or genocidal hate-crime mindsets throughout history, so most people at least have an increased mental guard up, and instantly recognise the demagoguery for what it is, with the bonus that we get rid of misapplied usage of Godwin's Law.
I'm also not fond of artists who gleefully pervert their freedom of speech, which the Chinese are still fighting and dying for, into mere frat-boy attitude hate-crime incitement just to prove that they can, and since "true art is offensive", no matter how much damage it causes. No they should not get punished, and most are trying to be responsible, which they should get large accolades for, but there should also be no widespread deliberately scientifically inaccurate lies that enough of sufficiently extreme propaganda doesn't have a massive social effect, and if somebody does release a work inciting warfare and bigotry as many people as possible should be aware of/guarded against the kind ripple-effect it can potentially cause.
Was 300 directly responsible for Anders Behring Breivik and the 2011 Norway attacks? Of course not. Years of online indoctrination in mental border-destroying extremist communities inclined to be pick up this type of media as a personal banner was, but sufficient amounts of it does definitely play a large part in negatively inspiring them. However, that sufficient amounts of this type of media cumulatively plays a large part in lots of far less visible cases of turning progressively nastier isn't about silly easily swept aside "point-and-laugh-without-checking-it-up" scapegoating, that is about the actual truth of the issue as far as I have seen from online culture or, among other things, the non-fictional subjects linked above. Ah well, rambling on. Deliberate hush-hush about an important social problem tends to get to me.
More importantly, when it comes to these types of hate-crime/torture/war-crime/thrill-killing communities I may actually be for international cutdowns on/deletion of the websites/forums. I'm not sure either way, as I prefer to not be pro-censorship, but they are more intensely indoctrinating than 300 could ever hope to be (although it is the sort of thing that tends to be a kick-starter for these types of interests), and Germany's anti-Nazi propaganda laws have worked rather well. I'm not sure at all regarding how to tackle the problem, but widespread awareness of the issues is at least a kind of solution, without having negative or tyrannical side-effects. Dave (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course, let's start researching the movie tastes of our least-favorite mass murderers, serial killers, and politicians, and use what we find to denigrate any film whose theme bothers us. We can start with Hitler, since he's a very unpopular mass murderer and insert his name in the articles about his reported favorite, King Kong (1933) as well as The Wizard of Oz (1939), and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937). Kong is particularly nasty with its enslavement for profit of the "other" and Oz is likely to influence those with delusions of grandeur to try that man-behind-the-curtain scam. I don't even want to get into poor Snow White and the corruption of Aryan purity. The world sorely needs this level of esthetic engagement with film fandom to protect itself from the evil that may poison film goers' otherwise innocent hearts. —Blanchette (talk) 07:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Sequel section?[edit]

Now that Rise of an Empire has been released, should the sequel section be edited or removed? EmperorFishFinger (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

"criticism for [...] its depiction of the ancient Persians in Iran"[edit]

Apart from the awkward grammar of this sentence, is it balanced. I find it hard to believe that it was only contemporary Iranians ("in Iran"?) who took the depiction of the Persian army as offensive/racist/politically incendiary. Surely a number of critics in other countries also pointed this out? (I don't actually know -- has anyone else checked?) And if critics in countries other than Iran felt this way, then we probably shouldn't be implying (or outright claiming) that it was only Iranians criticizing this aspect of the film. (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Release year: 2006 or 2007[edit]

The lead starts "300 is a 2007 film...". Should it be 2006 instead? Usually films are categorized to the year when they were first released, be it festival or other limited release (See The Hurt Locker, Under the Skin (2013 film), Tekken (2009 film)). The unusual thing about this film is that the version that was shown at Butt-Numb-A-Thon festival was somewhat unfinished according to Ain't It Cool News: "Snyder was there and told us that 99% of the effects were finished, but then later said there were about 100 VFX shots still left to tweak"[1]. Should the same guideline apply in this case or should we make an exception? I'm not sure how common it is to show unfinished films at festivals. --Mika1h (talk) 23:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)