Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bignole (talk | contribs) at 14:34, 12 March 2007 (→Heads-Up: oops, not I, I've just tried to play 3rd party opinion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Attempting school wikibreak

Archives

1. July 2006 – October 2006
2. November 2006 – December 2006
3. January 2007 – February 2007

300 movie

My edits are direct criticism of the movie itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arad (talk • contribs) 22:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

I saw that archive. Well it looked like many users agree that we need a section talking about the misconceptions. Right? And most of the information I put on the section were from the battle of Thermopylae article, which is a cited article. So it's a fact that Persian army is usually exaggerated and that the Persian immortals didn't look like barbaric soldiers.--Arad 23:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I really don't understand how refs work, and I thought that removing them in one place didn't affect where they might be referenced in another place. Corvus cornix 23:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Personally I'm against such a section for various reasons. If such a section existed it would be mainly edited by users who care only about their patriotic integrity and not about the film. The article would be turned into a pov-fork of Battle of Thermopylae, edited by people who have most likely never seen the film. The edits we have reverted so far are already a proof of this, they all contained POV and OR, written by people who haven't even seen the film yet. The new section would become huge and the Talk page of the article would be flooded by irrelevant information. In my opinion, as long as the film makers claim an "adaptation", there's no basis to exert criticism on its historical accuracy. Whether the graphic novel article can be subject to such criticism is a whole different story. Furthermore I don't think that 300 can be compared to Apocalypto, Braveheart and other films who have indeed attracted comments on their historical accuracy. This is due to two main factors involved: Firstly the "adaptation" factor, and secondly the "political" factor (Greeks vs Persians, West vs East, USA vs Iran etc). I think that only a small number of critics will make comments on historical accuracy, and I'm of the opinion that they should not be taken into consideration (for the reasons already mentioned). If for some reason the majority of critics focus on the historical aspect, then of course things will be different, but I somehow really doubt that this will happen. In my opinion many people in the media will link theories about USA propaganda against Iran etc. Even if for some reason this was to be included in the article, I still see no reason to have a section about the actual history when there are several other articles dealing with it, already in a polemic and vandal-attractive state. I think the article needs to keep a strictly neutral position and avoid any polemic content, just like the film's creators have. The film is an adaptation of a graphic novel, which in turns deals with the battle of Thermopylae, this is all that needs to be said. Anyone who wants to learn about the graphic novel or the actual story will have the relevant wikilinks in the article's first line. Miskin 14:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I think that reading current political commentary into 300 is about as dumb as it gets. I read the cited article (endnote #52), and kept sighing at the over-politicization of movies, and kept hoping it was all some sort of grand, practical joke like the over-analysis of the Family Circle comic strip. However it isn't a joke. There are quite simply chuckleheads who will read anything political into a film. What's next? Batman Begins as a platform for gun control? Star Wars as a burning effigy for the lack of Asian-folk in the universe? Brazil acting as a political argument against bureaucracy? (wait, that last one is actually quite apt). There simply must be reviews out here where some bonehead didn't go off the deep end and try to turn a movie review into a quasi-manifesto against the war. I saw it last week here in Chicago at a screening at the IMAX, and I kinda liked it. There is a lot of stuff that only guys will get and appreciate, and some pretty silly dialogue in it. There is a lot of sex and nudity that is probably unnecessary, and I think it will be very popular with the male gay community. What film with muscle-bound men in leather speedos and capes isn't going to be popular? It is a film about a period in western history. It is a mostly ficticious accounting of Sparta's actions in the war with Persia. While quite similar to the comic book (some cinematography was specifically set up to be precisely like the comic), the secondary plotline concerning Leonidas' wife was completely missing in the source material. It is not a movie about east versus west, or islam versus Christianity (the actual war predates all of that). Any clown who suggests such should have their motives severely questioned. It does a disservice to the film.Arcayne 09:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I never saw the modern day correlations in the film. The closest thing it reminded me of were the fight scenes and speeches from Braveheart...if they were filmed by the cinematographer from the Matrix. I could however, see the close relationships to the film that Miller drew as his inspiration from - The 300 Spartans. I went out and rented it after seeing 300. It was pretty tame in comparison but - and this is important - the earlier film was also considered to have been a metaphor for the Cold War, which was going on during the movie. Apparently, sacrifice in the face of insurmountable odds knows no time, place, President or conflict. 300 is an abstract about war Itself, I think.

War fought by guys in leather speedos.Arcayne 14:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

http://theworld.org/?q=taxonomy_by_date/2/20070308. Azam Ali speaks about how she initially saw the Persians and was hesitant about her participation, but that she found the director to be an amazing person to work with, who repeatedly was asked about the 'Is bush leonidas or xerxes?' thing, but held that it was just an adaptation of Miller's novel, adn that she agrees, that's what it is. ThuranX 02:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, take a look at the article, when I was attempting to make some edits to the Political Aspects, the edit button took me to the international section. That seems like a pretty damned odd glitch, and it is repeatable. Do you think someone messed with the edit button link?Arcayne 01:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

References

Why did you remove my references and then go that the fact is needed when I provided the reference? I just don't understand what you're doing so please explain. 2 March 2007 Xleax

Questions

I was wondering; if a user is the subject of an article, how does he or she correct an article without running the risk of OR? As well, Let's say a contributor had an opportunity to interview a film director about a film. How is that information attributable? How can it be used and cited in an article here in WP?Arcayne 02:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Katie Holmes "dropping out of" The Dark Knight

Ok..... it seems that pretty much everyone hated Katie Holmes in Batman Begins. She even received a Razzie Award for her performance. Her people are obviously trying to simply preserve her reputation by stating that she just didn't want to reprise her role as Rachel in TDK and that she had "scheduling conflicts." Please! Do you really think she'd rather play second fiddle to Queen Latifah in some little B-movie comedy instead of starring in one of the biggest movies of 2008? Warner Brothers is going along with Holmes' reps just to be kind to Holmes. You and I and everyone else knows that she was either not invited back or she quit because she would've been dropped if she had not dropped out. I think it's just misleading to only print this on The Dark Knight film page:

"In January 2007, Holmes had turned down an offer to reprise her role as Rachel Dawes due to scheduling conflicts. The studio is currently seeking a new actress to portray the character."

I actually thought she did a decent job and I really had no qualms with her performance. But these formal lies are just nonsense.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Christflame3 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Spiderman 3

Take a look over there, the stupid 'let's use a screencap of Venom' issue has come up YET again. ThuranX 03:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am curious about all this talk about the image you, ThuranX and Bignole apparently agreed to wait for instead of allowing other images to serve the article until then. I am meeting considerable resistance from Big and Thuran about its placement, and I am simply not understanding why, or even if there is a legitimate reason for preventing the image from being placed. I am thinking that if this cannot get resolved within our circle, I will likely ask for an outside editor to weigh in.Arcayne 03:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I read your post in the Discussion page. I can understand that you might wish to limit the number of pictures in the article. I am not suggesting we load up the article. Frankly the sideview of Brock's head getting covered with the symbiote is not a very good image, as it doesn't explain production or allow us a good image of either Brock or the symbiote or Venom, and I recommend replacing it with a better view of Venom. It is not a blurry picture, nor is it improperly tagged. It meets the criteria for inclusion according to Misplaced Pages, and your reasons listed in the article do not seem to represent current WP policy or guidelines, and in fact seem to be supporting a willful agreement between editors to revert any pictures that does not concur with where you have previously determined the article is to go. I guess what I am taking issue with here is a determination to run this article according to a set of criteria different than usual for inclusion in Misplaced Pages.Arcayne 05:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, your explanation is reasonable enough for me. Thanks for explaining it.Arcayne 06:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Bond, James Bond

Have you ever heard of breaking a plot up into subsections by location? Casino Royale (2006 film) is doing this, and their reasoning is "it looks better". I'm just curious if I'm the only one that thinks it looks horrible, and is just an excuse to add more images. I mentioned it on the talk page.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  14:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh, the headers were gone, but I left the discussion up for anyone that might disagree with their removal, or want to voice an opinion about why they shouldn't have been there in the first place. Hope you are enjoying your WikiBreak.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  16:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

300

Sigh, this is getting horrible. Political correctness is mad. The talk page is now becoming a complete mess too due to people registering too soon to get their agenda across and not understanding the rules of Misplaced Pages. Do you think there can ever be a thing like a sudden GA film? I mean, most people just come to dump the plot section. I thought Casino Royale would have become GA real quick and then, well, shit happens. WikiNew 16:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Erik. I don't think that saying that it is loosely based on the Battle of Thermopylae is POV, as not that much specific info is known save for that of Herodotus (written long after the fact and likely based on individual accounts and tales gone tall in the retelling by old soldiers and the like). Arad is undoubtedly pushing POV, but even a busted clock is right twice a day. I don't think it is necessarily POV to suggest that a film takes certain liberties with the mundanity of history, and a comic book ever more so.Arcayne 17:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, I hate to start swearing uncontrollably but some vandal moved the page! Ugh! I moved it back but now the revision history starts back there. WikiNew 11:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Your Input

How would you handle this almost entirely unsourced article? I am not even sure what category it falls under to ask for an editor to take a gander.Arcayne 01:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

300 movie

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Thank you. --Mardavich 03:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I think it was User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me who protected it, as evidenced by this edit.Arcayne 14:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Preemptive warnings are not accusations, I just want to make sure you're familiar with WP:3RR. --Mardavich 14:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me did not semi-protect 300. This edit is just a move-protection of the page. "{sprotected}" is the common and appropriate tag for pages that are semi-protected. --Mardavich 14:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Eck, I don't know, somebody shafted lots of reviews into the section. I tried to axe some, but they were restored. I really don't know. I simply went and spruced up Raiders of the Lost Ark a little. As it is, 300 is an unstable article. WikiNew 15:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at the article. I've tried to remove some WP:OR in the form of unsupported synthesis of books written between one and three decades ago, long before the movie or graphic novel. I'm not interested in getting 3RR'd about this, and I'm barely willing to even stay here on WP at all, so I'm letting someone else know. ThuranX 23:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thought I'd give you and ThuranX a heads-up about Mardavich. He sent me essentially the same sort of 3RR warning he sent you , but is reporting me for 3RR. I don't think I have anything to worry about, but you guys might want to stay sharp.Arcayne 03:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC) And of course you can comment on the matter if you wish. Arcayne 03:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Heads-Up

I know that you, ThuranX and Bignole recently were "warned" by User:Mardavich about reverting edits and 3RR and the like. I wanted to let you know that he unsuccessfully tried to get me blocked for 3RR. It was a close thing, as the admin looking at the complaint probably only skimmed through the complaint, as is usual, and Bignole intervened, preventing the block from happening. I wanted to let you know that this user, and likely others, might be targeting others making edits contrary to their POV push, and if you are running out of reverts or move into target territory, it might be helpful for us to watch each other's backs. Either way, I wanted to let you know of the tactics being utilized.Arcayne 13:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay - just wanted to let you know, pal. Go see Children of Men, why dontcha?! :)Arcayne 14:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)