Talk:Meet the Spartans

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bold text[edit]

I can't get rid of bold text at bottem of page. It looks really bad. Can somebody else try? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.61.211 (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parodies Included[edit]

Shouldn't the article include an entire list of which films are parodied? e.g. 300, Stomp The Yard etc... 212.219.220.125 (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of a list per se, I'll put to links to parts in the Plot to which it is referring to Andy_Howard (talk) 10:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Epic Movie Sequel[edit]

Really, yes it spoofs movies that recently came out but that does not make it a Epic Movie sequel!, there's not even a reference to an interview where they said that.Onepiece226 (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Onepiece226[reply]

It's exactly the same as Epic Movie and made by the same people, therefore, it's Epic Movie 2. It even got the same reception. Doshindude (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That does not mean anything, than it should be Date Movie 3 because it's the third movie made by "2 out of the 6 writers of Scary Movie" but it's not now is it? and so what about the reception? that dosen't mean it's a sequel! A sequel is a continuing of a movie, this does not continue Epic Movie!Onepiece226 (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Onepiece226[reply]

Duh! Epic Movie spoofs... epic movies. Meet the Spartans also spoofs epic movies. And Date Movie spoofs... what, didn't you figure that one out already? It is a sequel.--Surten (talk) 07:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Surten[reply]

If your gonna call this a sequel then it might as well be "Shit Movie 10" starting way back to the first Scary Movie. This isn't a sequel people. --Bending Unit (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Bending Unit[reply]

Excuse me, the movie is a (get ready for it...) PSEUDO-SEQUEL! I believe this to be the right term. (I still say we just call it "Shit Movie 10")--Bending Unit (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Bending Unit[reply]

Sequel - "the next installment (as of a speech or story); especially : a literary, cinematic, or televised work continuing the course of a story begun in a preceding one" How does this "continue the course" of any of their previous movies? This is no more a sequel than The Langoliers was a sequel to The Stand. Having the same writers (and/or director) and a common genre does not a sequel make. There has to be a story link between the two works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.217.118 (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reference/links for movies being parioded[edit]

well its easy to see 300 and stomp the yard are pariodey but what proof is there that the other movies on the list are being parioded? considering theve parioded them in other movies it dosnt make that much sense that they would pariody them again i think they should be removed until a vaiable source is provided.--12.164.50.249 20:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cloverflied[edit]

Whys cloverflied on it? It's coming in a few days and I don't think they would spoof it.--4444hhhh (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rambo hasn't come out yet either, and they're doing that, too. The Cloverfield trailer premiered in July, so there was enough time to use it. Socby19 (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But Rambo will be a remake. Cloverfield is new. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.103.176 (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get your point. Actually, it's a sequel, being the fourth in the series. Stallone wanted to revisit the franchise, as he did with Rocky Balboa (film). Even if it was 'a remake', what's your point? Socby19 (talk) 06:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they ment 'Rambo is a re-make' as in, maybe this movie spoofs one of the previous Rambo films. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tydamann (talk • contribs) 22:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well -- At least people generally have some idea of what Rambo is about, or at least what it looks like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.226.117 (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cloverfield was spoff in the new trailer [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.250.89 (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No sorry, it was used in the trailer, but not in the film itselfOnepiece226 (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Onepiece226[reply]

Parody of a Comedy? WTF?[edit]

I thought parodies made fun of serious movies, not OTHER comedies? (Meet the parents)

WTF?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.106.150 (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can parody anything, the genre does not matter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.119.65 (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can has plot?[edit]

its been out for at least three days, someone has to have seen it by now... so yeah plz write up a plot section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.43.48 (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot? That's a good joke... 65.6.213.12 (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You want a joke, you (by which I mean Wikipedia) are asking for a citation that it is, indeed juvenile. -trainbrain27 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.153.13.68 (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly Written[edit]

This article is poorly written. The Plot section details too much of the plot and fails to give a spoiler warning. The wording is atrocious, and seems like the bulk of it was taken verbatim from another source.Eno-Etile (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could stand to be reworded, but there should be no spoiler warning per WP:SPOILER. Nufy8 (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eno-Etile, if you want to add a spoiler warning to the plot section, copy this:

:'''Note''': ''This section contains spoilers''

..and paste it under the ==Plot== heading. It will likely be removed by another editor, but it can be done. --Pixelface (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were talking about the movie's plot :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.106.150 (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no spoiler warning. I agree that the article looks like it was written by a script writer from the actual movie.--Bending Unit (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Bending Unit[reply]

Plus the sentence "American Idol: At the beginning when leonidas kicked the messagers and when everyone is singing at the end". It was BAdLy WrITteN aND HaD SpeLiNG ERRRoRs.Moocowsrule (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Moocowsrule[reply]

Some Cast not posted[edit]

Is it important to post that Nicole Parker also acts as Paula Abdul and Paris Hilton....and I don't recall Ellen being in it. Also, Christa Flannigan was not credited as being Ugly Betty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.25.217 (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hmm... not so much.[edit]

I watched this movie on opening day, and it's highly obvious that Donald Trump was not playing himself. I don't know the actor's name, but that needs to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigfuz (talk • contribs) 14:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parodies[edit]

I've re-added the Parodies section that was removed from the article. The articles Airplane!, Hot Shots!, Hot Shots! Part Deux, The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!, and The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear all have similar sections. The section could certainly use some cleanup and citations though. --Pixelface (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you think the section is appropriate. It seems akin to a blow-by-blow account of the film in listing all the elements of parody in a parody film. Can we not set up a limit using secondary sources to mention the more notable examples? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should be removed. It's trivia and horribly written. Tabor (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the threefold interest in its removal, I've done so, but I encourage examples observed as relevant as opposed to the indiscriminate listing. Somehow, though, I don't see this article getting quality attention... :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's appropriate because it's verifiable by watching the film, such lists appear in many other film articles, and it appears like it's information readers want to read. I alphabetized the lists so it's not a "blow by blow" account of the plot. I'm sure nearly all of the list items have been mentioned by film critics, although I could go and look and cite them if necessary. But I don't want to waste my time adding citations if the section is just going to be removed again. The items in the list don't have to be notable, nor relevant. And the whole article is trivia so I don't see the point of singling out the Parodies list as trivia. --Pixelface (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is unsourced and represents OR and SYN. I will let it stand a day or so and remove it. A for other articles having similar lists. See WP:NOT They shouldn't have those lists either. --Adam in MO Talk 07:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Feet reference[edit]

This article says that one of the movies Meet the Spartans ridicules is Happy Feet. This does not seem likely to me based on what it says further. Then again, I haven't seen the movie (and if you think I want to, you're crazy)... User:Gmeric13@aol.com —Preceding comment was added at 23:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leonidas clearly says to the Penguin "You've got Happy Feet" when he's dancing. Andy_Howard (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy Quest reference[edit]

The quote is "Never Give Up, Never Surrender", not the other way around. If it's only mentioned in the movie, they're not actually parodying it, it's more likely a rip-off. --Surten (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Surten[reply]

Where is the Starbucks Parody[edit]

All I see is the spartans ordering drinks from the coffee bean and tea leaf, not starbucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.93.158 (talk) 09:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The actor who played "Captain"[edit]

I forget his name but the guy who played "Captain" said this in the movie: "Don't make me go Hercules on your ass!" which may be a reference to that actors first big start which was on a television show based on Herecules.--Bending Unit (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Bending Unit[reply]

The Actor is Kevin Sorbo. Andy_Howard (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Iran?[edit]

What does this movie have to do with Iran?--Bending Unit (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Bending Unit[reply]

Absolutely nothing, I'd say. I have removed the template. Terraxos (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "Persians" in the movie, but that doesn't have too much relevance to WikiProject Iran... moocowsruletalk to moo 22:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot section[edit]

Do we really even need a plot section? I saw this movie and there wasent plot,just a string of pop culture references for 2 hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.51.159 (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this movie mirrors 300 Plot-wise(in it's own way), it is legit to have a Plot section Andy_Howard (talk) 10:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

parody vs. reference[edit]

this movie clearly has no parodies in it, only pathetic references. Parodies are supposed to be funny, references are not. The section in the main article should be renamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.218.0.62 (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole movie is a Parody of "300" it uses references to other movies(Happy Feet, Transformers).

Box Office Success[edit]

Is there any scholarly info on why this movie (and these parody movies in general) did well at the box office? Something more than "people are stupid and will see trash"? If so it would enhance the criticism section to include it. 24.220.188.43 (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also the number is wrong, are you telling me that this movie made $269 quadrillion worldwide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.40.167.249 (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing up the vandalism. I've restored an older version of the article with the correct numbers. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Meet the Spartans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gorgo or Margo?[edit]

Why do the references to Margo link to Gorgo, Queen of Sparta. "Margo" isn't "Gorgo". Is this a character based on the historical figure... deal? Coastside (talk) 02:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Critical response[edit]

The critical repose section was a mess. Even the archive copy of the Hollywood Reporter review didn't work, but I was able to replace it with a working copy and I replaced the Radio Times review with a working copy too. I've added some reviews from notable top critics and publications.

The section referred to several reviews but failed to provide any references to those reviews:

  • The Scotland Sunday Herald only has 26 reviews in total listed at Rotten Tomatoes and none of them are for this film.[2] Site search of HeraldScotland.com did not turn up a copy of the review either.[3] (I was only able to find a review for Superhero movie[4] that mentioned Spartans in retrospect.)
    • The text was obviously vandalized in 2016, changing the score of "zero" to 10 [5] and was still incorrect in 2020.
    • I'm going to remove this reference entirely. If anyone wanted an example of a critic giving this film zero, it would be better to pick from more notable critics such as any of the 4 reviews Metacritic rated as zero.[6]
  • Ireland's Day and Night, does not seem to be a notable publication. It is possible that it is was supposed to refer to the website DayandNightmag.ie but it is more likely that it was supposed to refer to the newspaper Irish Independent (Independent.ie) which had an entertainment supplement or section called "Day and Night" (Note: that's because if in doubt the The Irish Times and The Irish Independent are most likely sources about something Irish). I was almost ready to give up but from the bottom of the barrel I was eventually able to find a review of Meet The Spartans from the Irish Independent, and the reviewer talks about never having given a film "zero" before and wanting to give it a minus score.[7] It was a non-notable unreferenced review and it should have been removed years ago but since I have found a source I might include it for a of variety and diversity beyond just American critics hating this film.
  • An unnamed Australia newspaper review described it as being "about as funny as a burning orphanage" but again no reference.
    • I went through all the critics listed on Rotten Tomatoes, clicking onto nearly all the reviews that had links available (and even a few that didn't) but I wasn't able to find the review this might have come from. I made various web searches but they only went in circles. It's a funny way to describe a bad film and I'd like to keep it but without a reference it really should go, and really should have been deleted long before I got here.
  • The Times shouldn't be a difficult publication to reference in theory but in practice that Rupert Murdoch publication is heavily paywalled, and a dedicated editor would need to resort to a professional newspaper archive service (or library) to actually fill that reference. The chances of anyone ever doing that are vanishingly small.

TL:DR; A few things fixed. A few things added. A few things I'm very likely to delete (and will most likely have deleted long before anyone actually reads the Talk page). -- 109.79.72.115 (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to leave it for a while (a week or more) and when I come back around to it make some deletes, if someone else hasn't done it before then. -- 109.76.154.21 (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whole paragraph was a disaster, unreferenced or dead links, and I said above I was gong to do, I have removed it.[8] If anyone is interested in expanding or improving the section I again recommend picking other more notable critics anyway, in particular the critics listed on Metacritic or any of the top critics on Rotten Tomatoes. -- 109.76.142.249 (talk) 11:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems one of the few sources I was actually able to find a reference for, Newsblaze published by Blaze Media, is not a reliable source, so that has been removed.[9] It was the only positive review listed on Rotten Tomatoes. -- 109.76.144.223 (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meet_the_Spartans&oldid=1208966281"