Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Peer review/300 (film)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] 300 (film)
The article is currently part of a hot debate (hence sprotection for the past week), but many of a wide variety of editors have been working diligently to work and rework the article to both properly represent current controversies as well as the unique production and surprise success of the film. It is very well referenced, well written, and once the vandals back off a little more (it's already begun to quiet down), we plan to nominate the article for GA status. With this goal in mind, any and all outside opinions and suggestions are very much welcome. Please help us improve the fourth (or is it third now?) most popular article on Wikipedia. María: (habla conmigo) 16:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Fourth. Anyway, I'd recommend going through the references and using {{cite news}} for proper referencing. WikiNew 16:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Quadzilla99
Well, I'm not a member of the WikiProject and haven't seen the film yet, but I'll comment anyway. Here are some points to consider:
- Some of the wording in the Historical accuracy section needs watching. A nice subtle way to smuggle in your point of view is to put all the dissenting view points in "person x claims" and "x states that historical record states", while putting your viewpoints "in x dismisses" and "x points to historical research" this is done in making the case that the film is not historically accurate. Instead of dismisses and points to historical research "this point is debated by x who states or claims that" and "x states (or claims) that the historical record is actually different" are more fair and less subtly devious. Claims implies doubt of the statement's accuracy, I would just use states in both cases. Basically try to use the same wording for both points of view and let the facts do the talking while hopefully presenting them in an accurate, even handed manner. If one side's facts genuinely dominate another's it should be clear and obvious to everyone.
-
-
- Most of that has since been removed, and further additions will be smited into neutral phrasing. Arcayne 21:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- The image with comic and film spliced together has no source information, please explain how it was made and where the two images came from. This is done well on the other image with two images spliced together and should serve as an example.
- The fact it comes from the comic book and film should quell many copyright sniffers. WikiNew 19:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- It still needs source info for attribution purposes, as a matter of fact it's only a matter of time until it's tagged by the bot as not specifying the source and creator of the image. Quadzilla99 20:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- These are the two sources, here and here and I'm going to add them. The first one is from the actual website that put the images together, the second is where "our" image came from because it was resized on the other screen. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- It still needs source info for attribution purposes, as a matter of fact it's only a matter of time until it's tagged by the bot as not specifying the source and creator of the image. Quadzilla99 20:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- The last two paragraphs in the Political aspects section probably belong in the critical reaction section or perhaps could just be deleted as there are already several negative reviews quoted in length in the critical reaction section. The whole political aspects section seems unnecessary to me. Perhaps it could be just mentioned elsewhere that the film has been interpretated using contemporary political views but there is no evidence it was made that way (especially given the source inspiring it was written in 1998) and the filmmakers have denied it. Maybe it needs to stay as there obviously has been some debate about it but I would delete it. It seems like someone used that section as a chance to include several more negative reviews quoted at length. Basically I would suggest to perhaps eliminate the section and mention it briefly elsewhere (There's already a Persian depiction section which could house some of this info) and pick 2-3 of the most essential negative reviews to use in the critical reaction section.
-
- This strikes me as an interesting point; as I wrote quite a bit of that section I'll briefly give my reasoning here. The question of the film's contemporary political relevance became a major topic of discussion immediately after it was first screened, and I thought it was worthwhile to track that discussion, giving Snyder's replies throughout. (Snyder's replies, incidentally, are quite nuanced, if colloquial, and don't simply consitute a "denial"; more a subtle understanding of the way a film takes on a life of its own once it is released.) That's the first half of the section. The second half charts a major theme in the film's reception by significant critics (i.e. "fascist aesthetics" and the like). Here again, I've attempted to provide balance by supplying demurrals by other critics and by Snyder himself. I don't think these reviews belong in the main "critical reaction" section, which is concerned with more traditional subjects (style, characterization, etc.). Nor do they belong in the "depictions of Persians" section -- the questions of androgyny, mysticism, etc., that are appropriate to that section are not addressed. In general I think the "historical accuracy," "political aspects," and "depiction of Persians" sections provide good coverage of specific significant themes in the film's reception, thus providing some structure to the "reception" section and preventing "critical reaction" from becoming a formless laundry list. But they may all need to be trimmed. --Javits2000 10:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well it's a suggestion. Like I said if it is genuinely a large and reported enough issue it will deserve it's own section, but if it's just a temporary reaction that has no merit and will die down in a matter of days. It should deleted or mentioned briefly in my opinion. Also, be aware that to people who aren't as in to the film as you are the endless detail and subdivision might look like needless overanalysis. The statement that "films take on a life of their own" looks like classic reificiation in it's most pure sense to me. I feel it's pretty absurd personally. Correct me if I'm worng, but the film was written in 1998 and is closely based on the original story hence there is no way it could have been made with current political events in mind. The idea that the film is floating around out there in some nebular region developing a mind, consciousness, and life of it's own, is kind of like when ancient philosphers would get so detached from reality they would ask questions like, "What happens when Liberty confronts Justice?" or when "Will confronts Eternity?" Forgetting for a second that those concepts are nothing more than adjectives created by human beings to describe things. Quadzilla99 10:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. For the record I'm not so interested in the film itself (although I did enjoy it) as I am in its reception (i.e. as a discourse -- now there's an article that could use some copy-editing!), so naturally I give greater weight to these sections. Whether or not any political allegory could have been intended by the creators, the fact that such a reading has been repeatedly bandied about by the press strikes me as an interesting historical phenomenon in its own right. But I recognize that someone who is less interested in the subject will probably have to slash these sections -- just as I've slashed "marketing" (see below)! In any case, thanks for your remarks; I think they're on point and very useful.--Javits2000 11:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Sure, thanks for taking as what they were meant to be: helpful advice. Quadzilla99 19:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- While not legitimizing the validity of the current uproar or comparisons to current events, it would appear that certain stories, or the methods of communicating them are timesless, i.e. East vs, West, Good vs. Evil, Pure vs. Polluted, Invader vs, Defender, etc. When the earlier film version of Thermopylae was made, comparisons were made between it and the Cold War. All politics is allegory, as all history is repeated. Seen in that context, the grasping at 300 as a sign of the times is to be expected. For that reason, maintaining the political reaction with a minimalist eye will likely work in the long run. Arcayne 22:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, thanks for taking as what they were meant to be: helpful advice. Quadzilla99 19:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Fair enough. For the record I'm not so interested in the film itself (although I did enjoy it) as I am in its reception (i.e. as a discourse -- now there's an article that could use some copy-editing!), so naturally I give greater weight to these sections. Whether or not any political allegory could have been intended by the creators, the fact that such a reading has been repeatedly bandied about by the press strikes me as an interesting historical phenomenon in its own right. But I recognize that someone who is less interested in the subject will probably have to slash these sections -- just as I've slashed "marketing" (see below)! In any case, thanks for your remarks; I think they're on point and very useful.--Javits2000 11:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well it's a suggestion. Like I said if it is genuinely a large and reported enough issue it will deserve it's own section, but if it's just a temporary reaction that has no merit and will die down in a matter of days. It should deleted or mentioned briefly in my opinion. Also, be aware that to people who aren't as in to the film as you are the endless detail and subdivision might look like needless overanalysis. The statement that "films take on a life of their own" looks like classic reificiation in it's most pure sense to me. I feel it's pretty absurd personally. Correct me if I'm worng, but the film was written in 1998 and is closely based on the original story hence there is no way it could have been made with current political events in mind. The idea that the film is floating around out there in some nebular region developing a mind, consciousness, and life of it's own, is kind of like when ancient philosphers would get so detached from reality they would ask questions like, "What happens when Liberty confronts Justice?" or when "Will confronts Eternity?" Forgetting for a second that those concepts are nothing more than adjectives created by human beings to describe things. Quadzilla99 10:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- This strikes me as an interesting point; as I wrote quite a bit of that section I'll briefly give my reasoning here. The question of the film's contemporary political relevance became a major topic of discussion immediately after it was first screened, and I thought it was worthwhile to track that discussion, giving Snyder's replies throughout. (Snyder's replies, incidentally, are quite nuanced, if colloquial, and don't simply consitute a "denial"; more a subtle understanding of the way a film takes on a life of its own once it is released.) That's the first half of the section. The second half charts a major theme in the film's reception by significant critics (i.e. "fascist aesthetics" and the like). Here again, I've attempted to provide balance by supplying demurrals by other critics and by Snyder himself. I don't think these reviews belong in the main "critical reaction" section, which is concerned with more traditional subjects (style, characterization, etc.). Nor do they belong in the "depictions of Persians" section -- the questions of androgyny, mysticism, etc., that are appropriate to that section are not addressed. In general I think the "historical accuracy," "political aspects," and "depiction of Persians" sections provide good coverage of specific significant themes in the film's reception, thus providing some structure to the "reception" section and preventing "critical reaction" from becoming a formless laundry list. But they may all need to be trimmed. --Javits2000 10:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Marketing section contains a lot of trivial cruft and short sentences which look like they were converted from a bulleted trivia list. Condense the paragraphs to two or three and eliminate the cruft.
-
- That's all for now, if it looks like I'm being harsh I'm just being thorough. I actually came here as I saw the article and thought "Damn this is a pretty good article for a new movie" and went to the talk page as I wondered what it was rated. I expected it to be a GAC or undergoing something like this and wanted to come comment. Quadzilla99 18:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
