I saw this movie last night, and while it wasn't spectacular I thought that it was a wonderful movie.
Any thoughts?
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
According to my roommate, the theme music is an exact ripoff of Stargate. Good choice all things considered, but James Horner should know better.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Is it true they took the gods out of the plot? That they weren't the reason for Helen, and that there weren't any gods fighting in combat? If that's true then the entire plot is changed. It's not the story of troy.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Brian, I believe that this movie is actually meant to be the story of Troy, and not the story of the Iliad. Like the upcoming King Arthur movie, it relates a realistic historical fiction that might well reflect the original truths that inspired the more fantastic myth.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Brian, No gods or goddesses. I read that they felt people couldn't take it. Sigh. I agree that it is not the same story. I guess they are trying to make it historical fiction. Whatever, I will still go see it. And probably stay out of this thread for anti-spoilage purposes.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Except that the new King Arthur movie is based on historical theory, not fact, and is riddled with historical inconsistencies.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
I'm sure it is the same with "Troy," Jon Boy.
So, it is still fiction. Why not put the gods and goddesses back in?
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Jon Boy, I thought historical fiction was supposed to be based on theory, and not completely on fact Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
You know, the stuff with the upcoming arthur movies... My brother and I are both really interested in Arthurian legend, in fact, my brother took a course on it... and the stuff thats supposed to be in the movie, neither of us have heard of as even relating to arthur. I'm very skeptical.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I thought historical fiction was supposed to be based on history, especially when you say "This is the REAL story of King Arthur."
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Paul,
I am SO going on a retroactive date with you! A guy who is obsessed with Arthur? That is my kind of guy.
I just thought to myself abut this thread, What freakin spoilers? I already know the ending. ha ha.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: I thought historical fiction was supposed to be based on history, especially when you say "This is the REAL story of King Arthur."
Wouldn't that be a documentary, or something?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Um...methinks you posted on the wrong thread Xavier. Although I definitely agree with you.
As for Troy, I liked that they kept the gods and goddesses out. To me, it would just seem rather corny and in some ways an attempt to play off of Lord of the Rings. Troy proved that a movie of this scale could be done very realistically. At least I think so.
If the gods were there, it would have been considered a fantasy instead of a historical epic/action film. Just my opinion, though.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Wouldn't that be a documentary, or something?
No, because documentaries use real footage and stuff like that.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Okay, that's true. But if it's called fiction, there has to be something in it that isn't true. Is there a name for a movie that depicts actual events in an accurate way, without actual footage? Or does the very fact that the people are played by actors make it fiction?
[ May 15, 2004, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
PSI T, I don't think it makes it fiction, it just makes it a second or third source, instead of a primary source. (not this movie, Troy, but in general with historical movies)
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
A documentary doesn't have to have footage from the event. There are more Civil War documentaries than I can count, and they all use actors and are not fiction.
I think what makes it fiction is that the movie is being taken from a certain point of view. Whether or not they succeed, documantaries generally try to stay removed from making any kind of moral judgements about the figures involved. In fiction, there are going to be heroes and villains. And, while Troy does a great job of showing the shades of gray in all its characters, I think you can agree with me that some of them are definitely meant to be seen as either a "good guy" or "bad guy".
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Okay, you can't really spoiler that story. I mean, I've read the book. So tell me what your impression of all the major players was! Did they do Hector and Andromache's scene with their toddler son on the battlements? The one where he says, "May I be dead, and may the earth of my homeland be heaped over my grave before I hear your cries"? Please tell me they didn't leave that part out. And did his son scream at the horsehair crest on his helm, and did Hector then take off his helmet and laugh and dandle him in his arms and pray to Zeus that he be a greater man than his father?
[ May 16, 2004, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
Okay, that helps, but tell me about that one scene? It's my favorite scene in the Iliad. Was it in the movie or not? Pleeeeease, tell me?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
They don't take scenes from the Illiad, except in the broadest sense. They don't have that scene exactly, but they have a similar scene (or scenes) that serves the same effect. After all - this is Troy, not the Illiad.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
After all, nothing! Where did they get the names of the characters and the basic outline of events if not the Iliad? Of course it's based on the Iliad! Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
AK, I am with you! The guy who dug up Troy(German man, begins with H, cannot remember name)used Homer's Iliad to find the spot in the first place. I do not believe they ever found specific names of the heroes, so they must have used the story. And I think they could have done the gods in a very classy way, since they always visited as humans or animals, anyway.
Edit: Heinrich Schliemann
[ May 16, 2004, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: Elizabeth ]
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"The events that led to the Trojan War began long before the war itself did. It started with the marriage between Peleus and Thetis, a mortal and a sea-goddess. Almost all gods and goddesses were invited to this rare event except Eris, the goddess of discord. The angered goddess crashed the wedding banquet and threw a Golden Apple inscribed "For the Fairest" among the goddesses.
Hera, Athena, and Aphrodite fought for the apple immediately. Zeus ordered them to take their quarrel elsewhere and instructed Hermes to lead them to Troy, a great walled city on the Aegean coast. He then appointed Paris, a Trojan prince of Troy and reputedly the handsomest man alive, to decide the matter.
All three goddesses attempted to bribe him. Hera promised him dominion over the whole world, Athena promised him certain victory in every battle, and Aphrodite offered him the most beautiful woman in the world.
Paris chose Aphrodite, and she promised him that Helen. But Helen was already married to the Menelaus, the Greek king of Sparta. Paris's brother and sister, the seers Helemus and Cassandar warned him not to go. But Paris would not listen and set off for Sparta to get Helen which would eventually trigger the Trojan War."
If I need to footnote that more appropriately, please tell me how. Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:According to my roommate, the theme music is an exact ripoff of Stargate. Good choice all things considered, but James Horner should know better.
Well, it's not. But also - consider that Horner had little ovwer a week to record the score (as is evident in tha majority of it being vocal soloist, or performed on a synth. The original score (written over a much more lengthier time by Gabriel Yared, I believe) was rejected and completely tossed out after negative test screenings. Horner was brought in to write a quicky replacement.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
From http://www.greek-mythology-gods.com/trojan-war.html: "The events that led to the Trojan War began long before the war itself did. It started with the marriage between Peleus and Thetis, a mortal and a sea-goddess. Almost all gods and goddesses were invited to this rare event except Eris, the goddess of discord. The angered goddess crashed the wedding banquet and threw a Golden Apple inscribed 'For the Fairest' among the goddesses.
"Hera, Athena, and Aphrodite fought for the apple immediately. Zeus ordered them to take their quarrel elsewhere and instructed Hermes to lead them to Troy, a great walled city on the Aegean coast. He then appointed Paris, a Trojan prince of Troy and reputedly the handsomest man alive, to decide the matter.
"All three goddesses attempted to bribe him. Hera promised him dominion over the whole world, Athena promised him certain victory in every battle, and Aphrodite offered him the most beautiful woman in the world.
"Paris chose Aphrodite, and she promised him that Helen. But Helen was already married to the Menelaus, the Greek king of Sparta. Paris's brother and sister, the seers Helemus and Cassandar warned him not to go. But Paris would not listen and set off for Sparta to get Helen which would eventually trigger the Trojan War."
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
History of Troy is on the History Channel tonight at 8. (here, anyway)
I just watched the Rise and Fall of the Spartans.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Phanto, are you saying that is how to show the reference?
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
quote:... it relates a realistic historical fiction that might well reflect the original truths that inspired the more fantastic myth.
I think this is much more accurate than calling Troy a work of historical fiction. The Iliad isn't exactly what one might call an accurate historical work. As much as I'd love to believe it is, it just isn't. So we're already working from fiction. Add to that the years of interpretation that are inescapable and an adaptation for the script and it's hardly even the same story.
It took me a bit to realize this, but I think I liked it better this way. It's the story of the mortal men and women who became myth. It's not the fancy myth itself with the gods and goddesses and superhuman powers, it's real. The movie shows the very beginning of the most important myth in Western civilization. Had the myth been more accurately adapted, it would have been awful. Why? We can't relate to it. We, the modern audience, do not have any idea what the characters in the Iliad feel or think. But the people in the movie, those are people to whom we can relate. They obey gods, but the gods aren't there, and that leads to doubt. Sound familiar?
That said, the movie is nowhere near perfect. The score was not thematic, which was disappointing. Some of the acting left much to be desired (Orlando Bloom, anyone? Hot, yes, but acting, not so much).
And for my personal pet peeves, being the Classics major I am (Spoiler Warning!): 1. They left Paris alive? 2 (and more important). They killed Agamemnon?? Does Aeschylus mean nothing to the screenwriters? Gah! Though I did like the 2.2 second homage to the Aeneid and the fact that there were no stirrups on the horses. Yay for historical and epic accuracy.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
Oh, and for that History of Troy show... Watch it! One of my professors is going to be on it (Barry Powell), apparently.
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
I'm going to go see it, but with no other expectation than seeing acres of pretty man flesh. That way, I'll be pleasantly surprised if it doesn't suck. Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Olivia,
I feel strongly that those little leather breastplates should come back into men's fashion.
I have heard that Brad Pitt thinks the skirt might come back as a result of the movie. The skirt for men, that is.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Was it just the nudity that gave it the R rating, or was there gratuitous sex as well?
(I'm also assuming that there was some serious violence to be seen...)
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
I am in the middle of watching the hitory Channel show. they mentioned the Iliad being the oldest written story in western civ, but isn't the Epic of Gilgamesh the oldest? If The Bible is considered Western lit, then that would be as well, right?
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Most people equate Western Civ with the Greeks and their influences.
[ May 16, 2004, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: Richard Berg ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
There is some rear female nudity, a brief glance at Brad's rear, and while it's not really a gory movie there are a few notable scenes of explicit flesh-rending that probably brought the "R."
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
What's really funny is that the ancient greeks most definitely did not think very much like people in the western world, and as far as we can tell would be more closely matched with asia, particularly contemporarily.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Well, as for gore, I don't think it could possibly match the zest with which the Iliad described javelins entering people's eyes and coming out the back of their heads and blood pouring out on the ground and never again did the hero see his beloved homeland and his mother and father long wept with grief, and on an on. The Iliad was really gory and seemed to depict the horrors of war with almost a joy or a lust for death and life both. If they didn't get at least an R then they were totally unfaithful to that aspect of the story, for sure. Posted by Lara (Member # 132) on :
Explicit flesh-rending. I nominate you for best three-word vomit inducer.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
AK,
Good point. if a story about Troy wasn't AT LEAST rated "R," there is no way it could work for me.
Have you read "Gates of Fire," by Steven Pressfield? (about the battle of Thermopylae?)
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Liz, that was a GREAT book.
now, as for Troy, the movie, I have to say that it was probably very nearly perfect. It is easily and by far Brad Pitt's best performance ever. The casting was brilliant all around, really.
The thing I liked most, however, is that they gave serious reasons to explain the motivation of the people involved. Some of it invoking the Gods. Though no gods put in an appearance, belief in and fear of the gods figures prominently in the story. As do love, and greed, and honor, etc. All the things that make the story of the Trojan war so timeless and speak to us today. Cheesy discussions among the Gods would not have made this a better movie. They would've destroyed it.
Instead, we have the essence of why the battle of Troy speaks to us through the ages.
I think they got it just right.
Perfect, or very nearly so.
I even came away thinking that they have a handle on Helen. Which is a pretty tough call if you read the epic poem.
Ah well...
I enjoyed it immensely.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
Sounds like a generic star vehicle with a lot of rationalizing going on.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
I always pictured Helen as being a mousey sorta person.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Fallow, Helen was a Spartan. She was no mouse. She was probably as well trained as any of the soldiers you would see in "Troy." The women were in peak athletic shape at all times. They were bred to be tall and strong. Weak, ugly babies were tossed off a cliff.
Bob, If you loved "Gates," and loved "Troy," I trust your judgment. But I see the other side of the drachma as well. I don't think it would HAVE to be cheesy to have the gods in it. That could have been done in a very classy way.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
It's a long movie as it is. Add in the gods and you would have run over four hours.
It worked better for me the way it was presented. After all, you don't know that the gods did or didn't intervene in the events. I loved little details, like how Achilles' fabled weakness could have been real or could have been a legend that grew from the events of his [spoiler] death. Nicely done.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
chris,
"long" as in tiresome?
fallow
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Long as in 2 1/2 hours.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
aye, there's the rub! lack of back-support. numb buttocks. this is counter to pleasant film-watching experience.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So, um, why kill Agamemnnon? And spare Paris?
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
Does Pericles show up?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I have a confession to make. I haven't actually read the Iliad. I guess that I don't mind the changes in the story so much because I was only somewhat familiar with the story.
One thing I found amusing is the change in the role of Patroclus. I don't know what the Iliad said about him, but I remember reading in Symposium that Patroclus was Achilles' lover, not his cousin (I think that would also imply that Patroclus is older than Achilles). Of course, that would probably offend a lot of people, so they changed Patroclus to a cousin so that Achilles would still have a reason to avenge his death.
I did notice that the music was reminicent of Stargate. It was very distracting.
Why did they kill off Agamemnon? I mean, it was nice to see Briseis get him after all that happened, but he's supposed to be killed by Clytemnestra when he gets home.
Achilles dying after being shot in the ankle was a brilliant way of alluding to legend without actually claiming that his only vulnerable spot was his heel. I also liked what he told the boy at the beginning of the film when asked if he was unkillable: "If that were true, I wouldn't be bothering with the armor, would I?"
I wonder if they'll make the sequel. Odysseus didn't get much of a big part in this movie (he wasn't even in the Iliad, right?)
Isn't Wolfgang Petersen supposed to make Ender's Game? If so, I'm not surprised OSC gave Troy favorable ratings. He must like Petersen's work already.
quote:It takes a very secure man to let his woman ogle Pitt and Bloom in this film.
Anyone else think that it was Hector who was the really hot one? The way he said goodbye to his wife and baby... But yes, there were lots of scantily-clad muscular men.
Most of the acting was good, in my opinion. Even Orlando Bloom pulled off a decent job this time.
[ May 17, 2004, 04:18 AM: Message edited by: Shigosei ]
Posted by fiazko (Member # 5812) on :
Is it legal to copy and paste OSC's column here? My work system considers it porn, and I didn't see it on the Rhino Times website. I don't really have any input besides what's already been said, but I'd like to read the column.
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
I thought the movie was terrible actually. I haven't read the Illiad so I don't know what kind of changes were made, but... I don't know. I thought it was great entertainment and little more. I just didn't care about the characters at all. I didn't care when Patroclus died. Even though it was a huge motivational factor for Achilles, I just didn't feel a thing. I think that was my main problem with the movie. It didn't make me care enough about the characters to be excited for them.
I thought the beginning was horribly rushed, and Orlando Bloom has to be the worst actor EVER.
Peter O'Toole and Sean Bean were perfect though.
Posted by fiazko (Member # 5812) on :
Setting aside my personal opinion about Orlando Bloom's acting, who else do you think is pretty enough to stand next to the chick who played Helen?
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
The understanding I had of Patroclus is that he was Achilles' "boy", not the other way around. So no, he should be younger than Achilles. Unless I misunderstood your meaning.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Patroclus, IIRC, is both Achilles' younger cousin and his lover.
Odysseus is in The Iliad, and is responsible for coming up with the whole Trojan Horse scheme. The Odyssey, in fact, is all about his return home from the war.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
I love the story of Troy so much. It's one of my favorite stories in the world. (My dear sister, on the other hand, departed in the middle of a battle scene in disgust because the story was so stupid. Go figure.)
Overall I thought they handled the story very well. My friend Diwen, who worships Orlando Bloom, was hissing nasty epithets at him the whole time, so that's definitely a plus. Eric Bana and Sean Bean were the best, I thought, but then I always liked Hector & Odysseus.
Yeah, what the hell was up with Agamemnon? I mean, it's nice and all for Briseis to get to kill him and such, but really.
I was also sad about the whole Patrocles-Achilles thing... Did anyone else wince every time they said Achilles the Greek way? I kept thinking, How nice it would be if someone said Ash-eel.
Good movie. I do recommend it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*laugh* You know, Orson Scott Card fans are probably the ONLY people in the world who think pronouncing "Achilles" the Greek way sounds wrong. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If I recall correctly, the Illiad doesn't actually have the story of the Trojan Horse in it - it ends with Achilles relenting and letting them bury Hector.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nods to Dagonee* Good point. Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
I still have no clue why they would want to un-involve the gods. To the ancient pagans, the gods *were* real, they waded into battle, had direct interaction with people. Several of the offenses on either side were headed by Ares Athena and Apollo marching into battle. The possibility for an awesome CGI god to make the movie spectacular was huge, shouldn't that have been obvious? Besides, without the gods there is no story of Troy, you cannot sepetate them. I mean, Achilles is the *SON* of an immortal. Heh, I bet the movie doesn't include the several-year hiatus Achilles goes on to leave and pout to his mother who then goes to Zeus and tells him to sabotage the Greek war effort just to make them suck up to Achilles.
[ May 17, 2004, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I would imagine there's a simple, two-fold answer:
1) Many Americans, being Christian fundamentalists, would be offended by the presence of non-Christian gods as characters.
2) As the movie attempts to present itself as "historical," rather than fantasy or a straight retelling of the epic, it would have been very difficult for them to include as characters gods who never actually existed.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
I understand the Christian point, but I certainly think that, especially in the area of movies and entertainment, the presence of non-Cchristian gods as characters do *not* offend Christians, especially since the specific plot of Troy is fiction anyway, it simply serves to add more interesting flavor to a modern-day mock-up of Ben Hur. And like I said, to the pagans, sure the gods took human form occasionally, but their default forms *were* the things they were gods of. Zeus became the sky after Oranos, Poseidon became the sea. Ares *was* war, Athena was victory at battle, etc. From what I've heard though the movie did not even try to use them that way. You see, this is what makes them an absolute integral part of the story, for which it makes no sense without, otherwise you shouldn't try to call it Troy and have the characters from the Iliad in it.
[ May 17, 2004, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
I think they left the gods out because of Clash of the Titans. They didn't want to risk looking like that.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
UofU, yeah, I am old enough to remember how horrid that was, but with such awesome CGI tech. available today, there was no chance of that kind of thing. I still laugh when I think about that old guy supposed to be Poseidon gliding under the water to release the Kracken.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: Many Americans, being Christian fundamentalists, would be offended by the presence of non-Christian gods as characters.
But allowing Jim Carrey to be God for a while was OK with Christian fundamentalists?
I disagree. Hercules and Xena were fairly popular TV shows and gods were regular characters there.
Posted by Beca (Member # 4340) on :
I think they did include the gods in the movie - just not on the literal level, where we're used to seeing them. Even if you never see them physically manifested, they do move the plot, and they influence the choices of the characters.
Paris is moved by Aphrodite to take Helen. Eris is present among the Greeks - you can feel her in every scene between Achilles and Agamemnon. Ares fights beside every soldier, and you wonder sometimes whether it's Achilles you see in battle, or Ares himself. Perhaps Ares bestowed his likeness on Patroclus, to fool Achilles's men into following him and to punish Achilles for his refusal to fight. Athena may as well be leading Odysseus around on a leash. When Priam begs Achilles for the body of Hector, it may as well be Apollo and Ares disputing which concessions civilized men must make to each god in war.
I especially liked how they handled the character of Thetis, Achilles's mother. She appears on the beach to be talked to - by the water, like a sea goddess would. All the other women are associated with man-made structures - Briseis and the temple of Apollo, Helen in the palaces of Sparta and Troy, Andromache with the walls of Troy. But Thetis has no connection with anything man-made. Her gift to Achilles of a shell necklace is a gift of the sea. She knows the future without consulting an oracle or interpreting bird signs. She's completely safe wandering around by herself, while every other woman in the movie must be protected by some man. In fact, for all we know, she could be a figment of Achilles's imagination - no one else seems to see her, and no one else talks to her. Every other character has a social existence. They managed to make her Unlike other women without going into a 5-minute explanation of how she's a goddess, but not an Olympian goddess, and how she's not really as powerful as some of the other gods but is still more powerful than men, etc.
Anyway, I thought it was a decent and overall satisfying treatment of the "How do we deal with the gods, anyway?" problem that comes up in this sort of movie. You can find the gods in the story if you want to, or you can see the story without the gods. It's presented to make sense on both levels.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Many Americans, being Christian fundamentalists, would be offended by the presence of non-Christian gods as characters.
Oh, no way. First, I can't believe it because of Xena and Van Helsing and Bruce Almighty and, oh, everything. Secondly, I don't believe that because even if a majority DID, I doubt they'd change the movie to respect that.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Could Troy have been made with the gods involved and still been entertaining, heroic, moving? Sure.
But I liked it this way. This could have happened. The gods' influences weren't ruled out, after all, they just weren't characters. If you want to believe that Apollo guided the arrow to Achilles, go right ahead.
But King Priam's scene in Achilles tent was so moving and powerful that including the deific influence would have lessened it. In the myth, the god Hermes sent Priam to do it with assurances of protection and advice on exactly what to say. Big deal. In the movie we saw Priam brave the enemy camp to enter the tent of his worst enemy and plead for his son's body. He did it unprotected, with guile and stealth and unmatched bravery. As Achilles said, he was more of a king than the one Achilles fought for. That scene works precisely because there was no assurance of help from the gods.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
That's nice, maybe the producer's should change the name to "a lovely, poignant tale about heroics and great deeds based loosely around characters from greek mythology," because that's sounding about as close as this movie actually comes. The entire point of the trojan war was that mortals were at the complete whim of the gods and that the gods ruled human fate absolutely, that *is* history whether or not those gods exist. From the the sounds of things and the previews I've seen, this movie protrays too much of the events as results of human desires. If hollywood wants to do that fine, just don't call it "Troy" or say that it's the story of the Trojan war.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't mind the reinterpretation. Considering that different authors added plays and fleshed out events with the same characters (Ancient Fan Fiction!) for hundreds of years after the Iliad and Oddysey were probably composed, this is merely yet another installment and interpretation of an old, old story. The Trojan War and its aftermath is like the ultimate add-to-the-story party game for our civilization.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Its been years since I've read the Illiad, but I do believe Odyseus was in it. He was a cheiftain who was often called the "Willy Odyseus". I remember one scene where he led a band of warriors into the Trojan camp and slit their throats at night. He was mentioned there, and his future as creator of the Horse was also mentioned.
But the Illiad ends well before the final battle. The fall of Troy is brought to us in other ancient literature, mostly the plays.
Agamenon is killed? That is wrong. Some of the best ancient drama revolves around Agamemnon and his children, his death and their revenge.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
[ May 17, 2004, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Yes he is. He doesn't have a starring role, but he's definitely a part of the story. He's one of the people who goes to Achilles and tries to talk him into getting back into the action, for example, along with Aias and...oh, who is it? Kind of a mentor of Achilles, and older guy. Not Nestor. I want to say Phoenix, but I'm sure that's not it. Probably a name that makes me *think* of the word "Phoenix". I'll go look for it.
[ May 17, 2004, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
BrianM, are you saying that Homer wrote non-fiction?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Ulysses is in the Iliad.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
In the linked translation, he's referred to as "Ulysses."
He's in there.
Dagonee
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Odyseus is not mentioned in the Iliad, but Ulysses is.
quote:Then Nestor answered, "Most noble son of Atreus, king of men, Agamemnon. The gifts you offer are no small ones, let us then send chosen messengers, who may go to the tent of Achilles son of Peleus without delay. Let those go whom I shall name. Let Phoenix, dear to Jove, lead the way; let Ajax and Ulysses follow, and let the heralds Odius and Eurybates go with them. Now bring water for our hands, and bid all keep silence while we pray to Jove the son of Saturn, if so be that he may have mercy upon us."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*does the dance of MyPostWon* Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Chris, I am saying that whether the pagan gods were real or not, the entire reason the trojan war occured was that the people believed the gods directly caused it. You can argue there's no proof of this, but the only way the trojan war has ever been present in our history and stories is with that context. In short, there is no evidence that the gods weren't the sole driving factors of the peoples.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
It is telling, I think, that the movie was not named The Iliad. If it was I think you'd have more of a complaint about the changes made. Instead it's a story of the fall of Troy that uses Homer's poetry as a major source.
And the peoples' belief in the gods are still in there. Priam made a major mistake because he believed that Apollo favored an attack. The horse was accepted because his advisors believed it to be an offering to Poseidon. They're in there. We just don't see them in their togas staring over the tops of the clouds.
[ May 17, 2004, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
How do they decide which name to use? This link uses Ulysses even in the Odyssey.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
But Brian, it isn't the only thing that the Iliad was about. Even without the gods, this movie had themes (what makes a warrior, love, loyalty, power) that were present in the original story. An exploration of those themes is a legitimate interpretation. It's not all encompassing, but it doesn't need or pretend to be.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
And all those other things were the tools by which the gods constantly manipulated the peoples with directly.
It doesn't matter if the movie isn't named the Iliad or not, a movie called "Troy" that involves the Trojan war and some characters that we know about from ONLY the Iliad might as well be called the Iliad.
[ May 17, 2004, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Now you're being stubborn. You don't need to attribute those qualities to gods to explore them in human beings.
quote:Meaning of Name: Ulysses Ulysses: A masculine baptismal name, the Latin form of the Greek Odysseus, "to cause pain."
quote:some characters that we know about from ONLY the Iliad might as well be called the Iliad.
But we DON'T know them only from the Iliad. That's the earliest mention, but there are centuries of literature that mention these characters.
[ May 17, 2004, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
I'm not being stubborn, I am trying to communicate what poetry and classics professors spend months trying to communicate: the pagans truly believed the gods controlled all things, both emotions and externals.
I have yet to see another piece of literature by a different author than Homer before say, 1000 AD, that talks about Menelaus, Hector, and others.
[ May 17, 2004, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
But that's not the story these filmmakers wanted to tell. You can't dictate the stories other people want to tell.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
One is Greek, the other is Latin--Odyseus, Ulyseus. (Pardon the bad spelling please).
The same as if they are talking Ares or Mars, Aphrodite or Venus, Heracles or Hercules.
Its like the difference between Juan and John in Spanish or English.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Then the filmakers are committing copyright infringement and material disalignment with one of the oldest works of fiction in mankind. If they want to create whole new characters and not steal half the plot and leave the rest out then that's fine, but I really hate their prositution of Homer's epic.
Also, just because others have done this to Homer throughout history does not make this instance anymore right or aesthetically pleasing.
[ May 17, 2004, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
I watched some of the Troy stuff on A&E last night. The search for the city part was interesting, but the last hour was physically painful to watch. They kept using scenes from the movie to illustrate parts of "history." Not as a story someone wanted to tell.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I have yet to see another piece of literature by a different author than Homer before say, 1000 AD, that talks about Menelaus, Hector, and others
Homer may have been the first, but he wasn't the last to deal with these characters. TROY is part of a long, long tradition of retelling this story. Do you have the same objections to Euripedes?
You can't prostitute a story that's slept with every sailor off the boat. And I'm pretty sure that after 2500 years and a dubious claim to authorship in the first place, the copyright's expired.
[ May 17, 2004, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:I have yet to see another piece of literature by a different author than Homer before say, 1000 AD, that talks about Menelaus, Hector, and others.
Brian, what difference does that make? Seriously, I'm not trying to be snarky--I don't understand your point.
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
BTW, Homer's copyright has TOTALLY expired.
*snark*
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
What I'm saying is no matter how many others used those characters as devices in their own plots and twists of Troy, it still comes from Homer, the fact that there have been other versions since then does not negate the instance of the original. I am not trying to be technical, or sophistic, I am trying to draw an aesthetic line that provides for keeping a wonderful old tale from turning into a boring D&D tabletop game. This is why people, even heirs like Tolkien's son, shouldn't try to continue to write in the "tradition" or "character setting" as someone before them with a hugely popular story did.
[ May 17, 2004, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If all future copies of the Iliad had the gods scrubbed out, then you'd have a point. But they won't. This movie doesn't erase the original. It's part of a long, long tradition of retelling this story.
Some of the world's greatest literature has been Fan Fiction. Yay for Trojan Women!
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Do you feel that modern authors shouldn't be free to change elements of the story, or modify character's traits if doing so suits the story they're seeking to tell?
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
It's still a cheaper, mediocre wanna-be copy of the original. Don't make me get out the milquetoaste shtick, OK?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
If not Disney is out of business. (to Noe)
[ May 17, 2004, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: Dan_raven ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Doesn't OSC deal with this all the time? He's based many of his books on various works of scripture, and holds that if you don't like his interpretation, that doesn't matter because his interpretations don't change the original.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
I'm not saying it's illegal, just saying that it's wrong and works produced that way usually suck.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'm afraid we'll have to disagree, then. The movie works for me, despite the changes (and there are a lot more than just missing gods and Achilles in the horse; the entire 10 year war got squashed down to two weeks, for instance). Obviously it won't for you, and there's no sense in trying to convince you it will.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Hey, it might not, I really liked Ben Hur style movies with massive battle scenes, I just hope it's not one big Brad Pitt-athon with half the movie consisting of drawn out shots of him.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
He's onscreen a lot, I can't deny it. But Peter O'Toole, Eric Bana, and Sean Bean made the movie for me.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:I'm not saying it's illegal, just saying that it's wrong and works produced that way usually suck.
Sure, I didn't think you were arguing that it should be a criminal offence or anything.
So what is your opinion of works such as Euripides' Hecuba, or Helen, or Andromache, or The Trojan Women?
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
No, Brian's right, unoriginal stories suck. Like that Shakespeare guy? Total hack. He didn't come up with of those stories himself, and he had the gall to pretend that some of them were based on real events. Like any of them could compare to the original folk tales / history. They're all total crap in my opinion. No wonder we don't know if it was him, his wife or Sir Francis Bacon who wrote those pieces of trash. I know I wouldn't want my name associated with those cheap, campy rip-offs.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Seriously, Brian, what do you think of Euripides' work, and that fact that virtually none of his major characters were original to his plays? Was it wrong of him to do this, to employ characters and settings that his audience was familiar with, and use them to examine contemporary politics, ethical thought, and the like?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:One is Greek, the other is Latin--Odyseus, Ulyseus. (Pardon the bad spelling please).
That's what I thought. But now I've come across two translations of Homer (Greek) that use Ulyseus. So I'm wondering why.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Do the gods use their Roman or Greek names?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Author's whim probably. Could be that the translator thought that the audience would be more familiar with the character by his Roman name. Could be that the Big Book of Myths the translator marveled over as a tiny child called him Ulysses, and in their heart, the character will always be "Ulysses" to them.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I've always had kind of a toxic reaction to the Roman names for Greek gods and other mythological figures, and I'm pretty sure it's because my childhood Big Book of Myths used the Greek names.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Disney does Troy:
Scene opens with a young Helen, a overly busty sweet innocent blonde. She sings of the horrible plight it is to be beautiful when all she wants is to be known for her intelligence and good heart.
Animals sing with her.
Her father dcrees that she is to wed, but that all suitors must promise not to kidnap her, and to go to war against anyone who kidnaps her.
Chorus of valiant Greeks (looking awfully pail skinned) declaring their vows and talking of Helen's beauty.
Cut Scene, Marriage of Theytis and what's his name. Gods are all present.
In comes evil Discord. She rants about not being invited, then sneaks the Golden Apple into the center of the room.
The Goddesses fight. Zeus stops them and asks if there is not a better way to solve this problem.
Hades suggests the hansome Paris should solve it.
Paris is an evil old man who is full of evil plots and evil magic. He is a coconspirator with Hades. He wants Helen. When the goddess appear before him he breaks into a song, "What's in it for me."
World dominoin holds appeal. Conquest holds appeal, but his lust for Helen wins him over to Aphrodite.
Helen, meanwhile, has found true love with Menaleus. Menaleus is not an overly strong warrior lad. He is bright and sensitive.
He talks to Helen, discussing things. They do puzzles together. He like her for her brain.
They go off into the valley where they can dance with the animals together. The sing a love song written and performed by Elton John.
At its end a dark cloud covers the field and evil Paris steals Helen away.
Menaleus is perplexed. Hera tells him that she's been stolen and sent wisked away to Troy. Menaleus goes to the other suitors, still upset that they did not win Fair Helen.
He tells them of her abduction.
They don't care.
Then he reminds them of their pledge.
Achillies joins Menaleus in his vow to bring her back. One by one the others join too in a musical number calling back to thier earlier pledge, and with personal reasons such as "Sacking RIch Troy" and "Honor of my people" and "Helen's beautiful eyes."
They sail off. While Menaleus tries to lead them, Agamenom, and old blustering wind bag, ignores him and leads.
They land.
Paris, meanwhile, calls upon his family to defend themselves from the bloodthirsty invaders. Greeks bearing swords, he warns, are invading.
He hides Helen.
King Priam is not in this film. There are too many characters as it is.
Instead, his brother, King Hector leads Troy. Hector, is a not very bright big man. He leads the men out to fight.
For twenty long days the fight goes on.
Achillies, the greatest Greek warrior, gets upset when Agamenom boasts and blunders. He threatens to go home.
His friend Menaleus is wounded by Hector (Patracolous was just too many people for the kids to follow). He is brought back to the tents to recover.
This angers Achillies and he storms out to fight. Wise Ulysese, who has been offering vague clues and hints the whole time, binds Menaleus's wounds.
"If one man were to enter Troy, and free Helen, then we could end this war. Where can I find a boy brave enough?" He asks.
"I will go" Menaleus jumps up at the idea.
"Good lad. I have built a wooden horse. It is fantastical. It will jump over the walls of Troy and hide amongst King Hector's toys. You must climb in and wait until dark."
Wounded Menaleus recovers immiediately and climbs in.
Meanwhile the war goes well for Achillies and the Greeks. Finally, king Hector meets him on the battlefield.
They fight.
In the background a wooden horse jumps over the wall.
It is a close battle, but finally, Hector's sword is knocked from his hand and he surrenders.
(what, you expect him to die? This is Disney!)
He is carried away in chains.
A band of Trojan's come out to ask for his release. Agamenom considers it, but Achillies refuses. It would just lengthen the war.
Paris calls the band back, and declares Hector dead. He declares himself the new king of Troy. The walls will hold. They party all night long.
Menaleus spends all night looking for Helen. Only when he hears her singing does he find her. By then the sun is rising.
The start to sneak out of Troy when the get trapped on the wall.
A band of Trojans are calling on the Greeks. They want to talk peace with Achillies.
Achillies steps out--with Hector, to show the people of Troy that Paris is bad.
From out of hiding on the wall, Paris fires his bow, hitting Achillies in the ankle.
Achillies falls, and tries to crawl away.
Paris aims again. "This one will stop you for ever!" he shouts in glea. "And the next one goes into the heart of my stupid brother."
But he doesn't know that Menaleus and Helen are hiding near him. Seeing the life of his friend about to end Menaleus rushes Paris.
A fight ensues.
Paris accidently falls from the walls, impaled on one of his own misfired arrows.
Peace is restored.
Helen and Menaleus live happilly ever after with their new friend, the wooden horse.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The wooden horse, of course, is voiced by Sinbad.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Of course, and Helen is Hilary Duff
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
I thought Phil Collins was going to sing for this one.
Posted by Altril of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
That was the funniest thing I've ever read. kudos to you man.
EDIT: Paris's voice would be Jeremy Irons
[ May 17, 2004, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: Altril of Dorthonion ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Something I find interesting is that trying to take the Gods out of Troy is like taking God out of the Exodus. Just imagine someone trying to tell that story in the "real" way without religion. I don't think it would float.
Something I always thought was the coolest was that the survivors of Troy went on into the west and became the Romans. Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Thank you oh Tree of Valinor! That was exactly the comparisson I was looking for. The gods are so central to and driving of the plot that it makes no sense without them.
[ May 17, 2004, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Brian? Seriously, what do you think of works like Euripides' plays? If you consider them acceptible, what do you think the difference is between ancient and modern authors' use of mythic figures as characters in their stories?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Well, as I'm not Christian I wouldn't have a problem with the story of the exodus of the Jewish people from Egypt told without visible sign of God's involvement, either (as opposed to the peoples' belief in God and his support). I somehow doubt it would do very well in the theaters, though...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think the Exodus would be a less compelling story. There are explanations (lust, jealousy, pride) for all the actions of the humans in the Trojan War. In the Exodus, I don't think it's possible to have a Prince run into the desert and return a changed man without some mystical explanation.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Actually, kat, I disagree. I could imagine a plausible non-divine source for his shift, and I think it'd be a pretty good story.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What is it? I could imagine an enlightenment concerning justice and democrasy, but considering the time and place, that would still be a mystical experience.
I think it works in Troy because while the gods were meddling, the players didn't really object too much - what they were being manipulated to do was what their natures wanted to do when engaging in a superfluity of naughtiness.
I'm really interested. What natural desires would lead Moses to return to his homeland? I guess there is the Rescuing-his-people part, but if you consider that it looks like he knew all along they were his people, why the change of heart?
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
There's a non-mythical reason that a greek army more than quintipling the size of their opponents took more than a decade to lay seige to merely a walled city near an accessible beach? Uh, NO. Without the gods, it doesn't make sense that the Trojans were able to hold out as long as they did, especially given all the glorification of the various greek heroes and generals.
[ May 17, 2004, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
Let us not forget The Simpson's take on it from "Tales in the Public Domain".
Ron and I took the boys (and their uncle Mark) to a Greek Festival this weekend. Robert loved the traditional dances and the singing, Liam loved running around the columns outside the Greek Orthodox church, Ron loved tne food. I'm never sure whether Mark likes anything, he's so quiet. Anyway, there were lots of short, swarthy handsome men wandering around. It made me wonder if anyboy would 'buy' Costas Mandylor as Achilles.
Western Civilization does owe a great debt to the Greeks. The rich Mythology and forms of comedy, tragedy and the epic adventure (yeah, there's Gilgamesh, but the Greek culture spread farther... which was largely because of the Romans... but anyway). And don't forget wonderful things like spanekopeta (sp?) which my son still pronounces 'spank-a-taco' for some reason. Ron is fond of Uzo, though I think it's kinda nasty. *shudder*
Then, there's also the man-love.
OPA!
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
BrianM -- that's probably why they conquered the city in two weeks in the movie Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Have you guys seen Troy? It clearly makes sense - and the gods are not in it. Thus, yes, the story of Troy can make sense without the gods.
[ May 17, 2004, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
That's what I get for taking so dang long to write my post. It no longer makes sense. *giggles*
Anyway... still debating when to see Troy with Ron.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
If you come up with any thoughts in response to my questions, Brian, I'd love to hear them.
Kat--well, I don't have something plotted out myself, but there would be a couple of ways to play it. He could finally see something in some of the slaves' behavior that echos in his mind, and brings about an emotional rather than intellectual understanding that these are his people. It could be a political move--perhaps his true goal, at least at first, isn't the liberation of the Israelites. Maybe he's trying to gain control over the slaves in order to advance a faction in a behind-the-throne battle for dominance. Or it could be that he is insane, and while he does kill the overseer, it has nothing to do with helping the Israelites. Aaron or Mirriam or somebody sees the possibilities of the situation, though, and is skilled enough a leader to be the true power behind Moses; he's just a figure head.
All of these stories would be pretty different from the Exodus account, but all of them could be fairly interesting, I think.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hmmm... it could work, but I don't think it works easily. The heart of the problem is that the main character undergoes a drastic transformation with no visible cause. The solution is to have it happen without God (the enlightenment theory - which still takes on religious tones), or else to invent subplots and backstory to expand the story.
Troy is both a battle between gods using the humans as pawns, and a battle between the humans. The story of the Exodus is the resolution of the conflict between God and the humans. Taking out God takes out half the notes in the melody instead of the under and overtones.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
katharina,
I seriously doubt a revelation concerning democract would be the thing to get Moses back to Egypt, since its not even really considered that he was trying to create a democracy by freeing the Israelites. As far as I know, he would hae been fine with a righteous Monarchy or (even batter) a theocracy. But as to why he would go back to Egypt without God...
Perhaps it's because as a boy, he viewed his people the way the Egyptians did, as others. When he was in the desert, living among these "others" he began to have a greater respect and connection to them. Over a long period of time (indicated by a montage of him looking toward Egypt across the desert while he is tending sheep, foraging, etc.) he comes to the realization that he is in a unique position to help them, those who he now views as human beings. So he does, no burning bush or anything.
Even so, I think the line should be drawn at turning the characters into functional atheists. The camera doesn't have to believe in the gods or God, so it doesn't have to show them. But in both stories, people whose actions were motivated by gods should still clearly have belief and faith in those gods. It just makes more sense that way.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I never saw the Iliad as two battles, that between the gods and that between the people. I always saw it as a battle between the human pawns and the godly masters set in the context of a War. Despite doing as they were told, how they were told, and facing impossible demands of conflicting gods, the humans on the whole manage to achieve a glory and nobility that their gods can not.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Since when have Christians had problems with the gods in the Iliad? In our past, the Christians often advocated study of the Iliad, because it embodied values they wanted their children to have. The gods were pagan, yes, but that wasn't a worry to the Christian parents who had their children studying this work.
Since when has our society been so wussy as to blame not showing gods on one religious group's sensibilities?
Hasn't stopped them from showing a lot of other things...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I seriously doubt fear of Christian sensibilities had anything to do with the decision to leave the gods out of Troy. Take a look at Hollywood's track record on the subject, for one.
Dagonee
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
I didn't think so, either.
So, according to Livvy and OSC, there's lots of tasty manflesh available in this film? *perks up*
Is it a good date film to take your husband to? My hubby likes action, historical stuff, and sci-fi films. Would he like this? He also appreciates any hot female nudity.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
More female nudity than male (the sides of Achilles' tent warmers and Helen's bottom) but lots of oiled male thighs. Lots. Tens of thousands.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Mmm... I'll take one...
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote: (the sides of Achilles' tent warmers
Wouldn't that be Patracolus?
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Oiled thighs! Hot dog!
(edited because Jenny is evil )
[ May 17, 2004, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: Jenny Gardener ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Wouldn't that be Patracolus?
Not in this movie. Achilles is all man, baby.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
SPOILER ALERT:
For those of you who are upset that the Trojan's lose, don't forget Aenas.
This other son of Priam takes the survivors on a Oddysean-like journey, landing in Carthage where he beds the queen, but leaves her to die so he can found his empire.
They then land in Rome, where they rape the Sabine women and start all the glory that is Rome.
Rome comes back and kicks Greek butt so hard that they still are recovering.
The Aenid--Chapter III in the Trojan Trilogy (Illiad, Oddyseus, Aenid). Buy them together cause paper is cheaper by the ton.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Over a long period of time (indicated by a montage of him looking toward Egypt across the desert while he is tending sheep, foraging, etc.) he comes to the realization that he is in a unique position to help them
*thinks* This is still the key transformation. In this version, it happens, but still with no visible reason. It's the enlightenment theory. Now, that could be very true and possible (for an example, see Buddha), but I don't see it making for a good story or drama.
Great. Now it's going to bug me. *hands on hips* How to drastically change a heart without altering the entire story and without mentioning God?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"How to drastically change a heart without altering the entire story and without mentioning God?"
You know, there are those of us who believe it happens all the time. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So the wonders are generated by lots and lots of hebrew pranksters, in this God-less version of exodus?
:sniffs: I went all of 2003 three without seeing any R-rated movies except when my husband rented Matrix reloaded. What will it make me if I bend my rule to see "Troy" and not "Passion of the Christ"?
As for revisionism, anyone who complains about the story changes is trumpetting their own ignorance. In addition to Euripides, Hesiod and Aescylus had vastly different versions of all of Greek mythology from Homer. The purpose of myth in their culture was not to establish a canon to dictate morality like we have in our Judeo-Christian dominated society.
"Troy" is actually a pretty good translation of "The Illiad" as Illium was an ancient name for Troy.
Dan, I think your story would be well served with how Zeus woos Helen's mother in the form of a swan and Helen and her twin sister actually hatch from large eggs.
Despite my classics training, I have to admit that "Hercules" was one of my favorite Disney flicks.
As an aside, I saw the mask of Menelaus when it was being temporarily displayed in Athens. I'm wallow in my specialness.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:You know, there are those of us who believe it happens all the time.
Well, yeah, but it's not cinematic. Barring the cartoon light bulb, how do you show a realization? Even including God as a presence, it's hard to show without the burning bush. For example, God's Army.
[ May 17, 2004, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I like "Zounds" or "Eegads" as a signal that the speaker is about to impart revealed knowledge.
Posted by larisse (Member # 2221) on :
quote:*thinks* This is still the key transformation. In this version, it happens, but still with no visible reason. It's the enlightenment theory. Now, that could be very true and possible (for an example, see Buddha), but I don't see it making for a good story or drama.
Tsk... tsk... I think kat has forgotten the cinematic genius of Little Buddha with Keanu "Whoa" Reeves as Siddhartha.
As for Troy, I enjoyed it. Okay... that's a bit of an understatement. I enjoyed the acting. I enjoyed the costumes, or lack thereof. *coughBradPitt'singuinalcanalcough* I liked the story. I thought it worked the way it was adapted. I didn't mind the lack mentioning of the gods and goddesses or the missing characters because I think the writer, the actors, and the director captured the spirit of the story. Heck, I even enjoyed the music even though it did remind me of the dirge music in Xena: The Warrior Princess.
[spoiler]And then there was that once scene where they light the fires on the beach and roll the straw balls down the hills to catch fire. All I could think was, "Rolling balls of death... rolling balls of death" like some weird Monty Python skit.[/spoiler]
Oooo.... and you know.... if Hillary Duff is in the Disney version of Troy than Lindsay Lohan is gonna have to be in The Odyssey as the voice of Penelope. And, Odysseus will be voiced by none other than... wait for it..... Justin Timberlake. Ta da.
Phew... did I get everything. Probably not. Oh well.
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
Hey Andrea! This one acquaintance of mine posted some stills from Troy with the caption "So. Much. Leg." Quite funny.
My squeals of revelation usually take the the form of uvulating screams, not unlike those a person might utter upon finding a pine beetle scuttling up their ankle.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Gosh, I find some of the arguments here completely absurd.
Basically, mythology arises from oral history and people's general lack of a better explanation. Not from ACTUAL gods actually doing things. Criminy people!!! The events probably took place. The several-thousand year old explanations for those events, written well after the events, with an eye towards telling an engaging yarn to while away the summer nights while tending sheep???? Well, my money's on human inventive story telling.
I no more think a lack of gods and goddesses diminishes the story of Troy than I think that Apollo makes the sun race across the sky. C'mon folks. It's a great story, told well. If it lacks the pious insertions that Homer sprinkled in to please a patron, play to a particular audience (or avoid the thought police of his day) should we care? I certainly don't.
Now, as for the story of the Exodus, I believe there's a way to tell it without God's involvement, but that would certainly cast a taint on Moses and his motivation. Here's the deal. He was the 2nd son and very ambitious. Got tired of being reminded that he wasn't really Egyptian by birth (stay with me here...he was taunted by the other kids...not treated like an equal, etc.). So, in a huff, he runs away from home. Meets up with a crazy old man who makes him waste his life away working like a dog to earn the right to marry the daughter he fell in love with. Goes a little batty himself.
But remembers that there's like this HUGE ass army of slaves, to whom he is supposedly related (if the taunts are true). And he's ready to come into his own. He knows his brother is a superstitious idiot. Knows the jews are also very superstitious. Decides, hey, what've I got to lose?
Goes to his brother and demands his half of the kingdom.
Ha!
I'll take the jewish slaves away if you don't.
Yeah, right!
I will.
Go ahead, they're a big pain in the @ss anyway.
Then Pharoah's advisors remind him that Egypt has a slave economy and allowing his non-Egyptian brother to take the jews away will ruin the place. He gives chase.
It doesn't work out.
The jews escape.
Moses realizes he's got a fractious bunch of people on his hands. Decides religion is the only way to control them.
Runs up the mountain and carves a bunch of rules on a rock. Carries it down and lords it over the people, like the true megalomaniac he is. Appoints his brother as head clergy. Then sets up a religious government. Borrowing heavily from Hammurabi along the way. Dissent is death, by the way...
Next they wander around looking for a place to settle (i.e., take over). They manage to make it to the Jordan after years of just being lost.
Then, Moses dies and the people say "screw it, were staying here. Enough of this Nomadic nonsense. Give me a home where the buffalo roam... etc."
And there they parked.
Over time, Moses is revised in the local mythology until he is seen as basically one step below God and the great leader. Stories of his miraculous feats crowd out the truth about him. Eventually, every child learns at their father's knee the story of the great prophet Moses and all that God did for his chosen people. Then a few hundred years later, somebody writes it all down.
It makes a pretty boring movie. And without the intervention of God and the larger-than-life Moses, it would've made lousy stories to while away the hours tending sheep. There's those sheep again!!!
[ May 17, 2004, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: Apollo makes the sun race across the sky.
The sun is driven by Hyperion and his super flaming horses. If you were the god of an element, would you actually do the daily gruntwork? Artemis actually drove the moon, and that's why she died a virgin. Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Artemis was no virgin.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
pooka & Liz Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I should think the objection would be to my saying she died. But was it just that she didn't like men?
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
Am I the only one who thought Troy was incredibly boring? There were plenty of pretty people to ogle at, but not much else. The only character I really bought was Odysseus, and he was barely there. I liked Hector, except he was made to be too perfect.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Pooka, I think Artemis liked men, but she loved women.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I agree with BrianM. If there is an excellent and beloved story, why take it and macerate it into something entirely different? Why not call your movie "The Siege" and have it be about the Bronze Age city of Remlap, with great heroes Rortak and Dweezle fighting on either side? Then you have a free hand to do anything you like without desecrating something classic and beloved. Why make it ALMOST the Iliad but then change it in ways that make it fundamentally different? This drives me nuts about Disney, too. It's just heinous, what they do to my beloved childhood stories.
The gods are an integral part of that story. It sucks that they uprooted them from it. Like trying to do the Silmarillion with no Valar.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:The only character I really bought was Odysseus, and he was barely there. I liked Hector, except he was made to be too perfect.
Agreed. Also, I thought that Achilles was too smart. I think he should've just been a really good soldier, in the movie he sounded more like a philospher, which he clearly wasn't, he was a spoiled man who happened to be very very good at what he did.
Odysseus is by far the most intersting chareceter that Homer ever wrote about, strong, intelligent, and all he really ever wanted was to get home to his wife whom he loved.
Hobbes Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
The theme of the Iliad was supposedly the ruinous wrath of Achilles. Does anyone besides me think he was perfectly justified? I never thought his wrath was so overweening. If I were he, I would have slain Agamemnon out of hand and been done with it. It would have saved lots of bother later on as well. The whole sad story of Clytemnestra and so on. If anyone needed a sword in the gullet it was Agamemnon.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
Justified in what, exactly?
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
His wrath at Agamemnon. It was the theme. Ruinous wrath.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
I suppose so, though I don't really remember the specifics of the conflict beyond what is in the movie, with Briseis and all.
A couple humorous things I remembered about the movie, very minor SPOILERS, if anyone's concerned. . . . . . . . When Paris starts into the battle with his bow and arrows, all I could think of was Legolas. And in Achille's death scene, with him being stuck with so many arrows and still taking so long to die, I kept on thinking of Boromir's death scene.
[ May 18, 2004, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: Miro ]
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
did they preface the story with the dip of achilles' heel in the water/river thing?
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
No, Appollo drove the thing, I think he took over from Hyperion or Helios. The reason for this is that is the myth of Phaethon, Phaethon finds out his dad is Appollo and gets to have one request, so he asks his dad if he can ride his chariot accross the sky, then dies.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
Miro--me too, me too!
I am ashamed to admit that I cried when Paris gave the sword to Aeneas. I'm pathetic. I don't even like Aeneas.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
In that case, Anne Kate, I'm curious as to what your response to the questions I posed to Brian is. Again, I'm not trying to be snarky--I really want to know.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
What are these questions? Looking back over thr thread I'm probably missing them spread out, if you could condense them into 1,2,3 format for me with simple tag lines in one post I will answer them.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Sure Brian. Actually, it's funny--I was going back through the thread, reconstructing my questions, when I realized that kat had summed it up much more succinctly that I had in the following exchange:
quote:I have yet to see another piece of literature by a different author than Homer before say, 1000 AD, that talks about Menelaus, Hector, and others
--BrianM
quote:Homer may have been the first, but he wasn't the last to deal with these characters. TROY is part of a long, long tradition of retelling this story. Do you have the same objections to Euripedes?
--kat
That is basically what my questions all boiled down to.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
That long tradition is is by no means any more leigitmate than this movie, though a lot of it is probably more tasteful. When I think of these characters shakespeare nor other modifying authors comes to mind.
Posted by Kabederlin (Member # 6304) on :
Having read the Iliad, I for one enjoyed the movie Troy and would encourage all to go see it. But when you watch it do not try and see Homer's story in it because you'll only be dissapointed. Look at this movie as it's own work of art, whose characters and idea were borrowed from Homer's epic. Brad Pitt, an actor whom I used to dislike before Fight Club, did an excellent job portraying Achilles as the arrogant hero he was. Hector's character, though not fully accurate to the story (remember this is the movie) was still brilliantly portrayed. The whole movie was excellent and if all thats stopping you from seeing it is the prospect of being dissapointed because it's not true to Homer's Epic, then I believe you are foolish. I only hope when Peterson creates Ender's Game it is not given such a terrible welcome as Troy has been recieving.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:When I think of these characters shakespeare nor other modifying authors comes to mind.
Hmm...just because you are ignorant of the tradition does not mean its grace doesn't exist. You should give it a try.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Ignorant? *laugh* I am willing to bet I have a better command of shakespeare and more of what you would probably include in this "long tradition" than most people. There's no need to be rude merely because I disagree. with you and do not share the same connotative connections as you, and certainly no need to call me ignorant of basic, english and other literature. I would call percieving others as ignorant because they don't think of things the same way as you arrogance. Maybe you should give humility a try.
[ May 18, 2004, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm not talking about Shakespeare. I do think that if you think the Iliad is the end all and be all of these characters and the only legitimate source of these stories then you ought to expand the horizons a little bit. I think you'd enjoy it.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
And I think that if you think every little story that a theatrical apple-john whips up by stealing the characters and modifying it how they see fit qualifies as quality entertainment then not only is *that* ignorance, but it hurts the original. Please enlighten me as to what you would consider belongs in this "long tradition."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
How about you actually watch the movie Troy before expounding an opinion on it?
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
We weren't discussing the movie just now persay, try to stay on topic please, I would really like to see this big list of what you consider to be in this "long tradition" besides Shakespeare.
[ May 18, 2004, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You haven't seen the movie! How can you diss a movie you haven't even seen!
Shakespeare is not on the list of authors who have participated in the Trojan War tradition, as far as I know. Bob was using him as an example of someone who created new art out of old stories. Slavish devotion to the current conception of the source would have eliminated his works.
You want a quick rundown of everything in the tradition of telling of the Trojan War? Hhmmm. There are people here who know much more than I do, and I'd hate to pretend to knowledge I don't have.
Off the top of my head (there's more that I never learned/am not aware of):
The Iliad The Oddysey Aschylus' Agamemnon and Eumenides Sophocles' Ajax Euripedes Andromache, Trojan Women, and Helen Xenophon - except I can't remember the names of his plays Virgil's Aeneid
Modern favorite: Yeats' Leda and the Swan
----
per se. It's Latin for "through/concerning itself."
[ May 18, 2004, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Given that the first two of your list were the original works themselves, they don't belong in a post-original "tradition."
As for the scant other few you named classics authors don't really qualify in that, especially with the works you mentioned, they relied heavily upon meticulate detail from the original works and modified usually only unimportant temporary and non-unique emotional and social situations. Either that or they expounded details in the lives of the characters that Homer didn't cover at all, the rarely took specific plots from Homer and altered them they way modern media does. Even if I granted you every work in that list, none of which qualify, that would still hardly be anyhting near to qualify what you have tried to argue is a "long tradition." Please, you have to do better than this.
[ May 18, 2004, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Keep digging, baby.
[ May 18, 2004, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
For that matter the Homeric poems changed quite a bit since the time Homer created them. What we have now are the "fixed" versions, stabilized from the oral traditions and written down hundreds of years after his death when book publishing and libraries became more commonplace.
"The first complete version may well have been that established as a standard for rhapsodic competitions at the great quadrennial festival at Athens, the Panathenaea, at some time during the 6th century BC. Even that did not permanently fix the text, and from then on the history of the epics was one of periodical distortion followed by progressively more effective acts of stabilization. The widespread dissemination of the poems consequent upon the growth of the Athenian book trade in the 5th century and the proliferation of libraries after the 4th was followed by the critical work of the Alexandrian scholar Aristarchus of Samothrace in the 2nd century BC, and much later by the propagation of accurate minuscule texts (notably the famous manuscript known as Venetus A of the Iliad), incorporating the best results of Greco-Roman scholarship, in the Byzantine world of the Middle Ages. Rare portions of either poem may have been added after, but not long after, the main act of composition; the night expedition that results in the capture of the Trojan spy Dolon and that fills the 10th book of the Iliad, some of the underworld scenes in the 11th book of the Odyssey, and much of the ending of the Odyssey after line 296 of the 23rd book (regarded by Aristarchus as its original conclusion) are the most probable candidates on the grounds of structure, language, and style."
[ May 18, 2004, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
There is a lot of work to go back and re-translate them Chris. This is true especially with Homer, Plato and Aristotle who have suffered the "interpretation" of many christian scholars who erased any trace of what could be considered over-zealous pagan worship or homosexual referances.
[ May 18, 2004, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Not what I meant. I'm talking about the changes from the time Homer created the poems and the time they were fixed in print. I added more above.
[ May 18, 2004, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
quote: I would imagine there's a simple, two-fold answer:
1) Many Americans, being Christian fundamentalists, would be offended by the presence of non-Christian gods as characters.
There's an interesting dilemma here. I pondered starting a new thread for it, because it opens up a rather different avenue of discussion. When writing stories, does one leave religion out or put it in? Is putting God in your story more disrespectful than leaving him out? What if there are other gods, or "gods", present; how does that change matters?
As a long-time comic-book fan I was always struck by the difference between Marvel's and DC's worlds.
DC has actually had characters who served as known agents of God, like the Spectre (perhaps because DC was the older publisher). They once avoided using the term "God"--the Spectre, for instance, served the "Voice" that spoke to him from the afterlife--but it was clear who was involved. While other gods appeared from time to time, they usually seemed to be subordinate beings existing on sufferance. But by making God a character in their books, they also opened up the possibility of storylines like the one in Supergirl a few years ago, in which a vampire blackmails God into giving up the divine power to him. Worse, he does so by threatening to destroy God's "feminine aspect" by way of the three angels who embody it, which apparently would make God into a destructive, judgemental tyrant.
Marvel, by contrast, has been scrupulously careful never to unequivocally portray God (or the devil, or angels) in its comics. Cosmic figures appear, but it's always made plain somewhere that they aren't interested in worship/look up to something still higher/etc. Demons do exist, and sometimes claim to be THE devil, but again they always turn out to be lying (naturally enough). On the other hand, it's an odd way to defend God's character--by eliminating or hiding him while demons and other deities wield power openly. Often the reader might well suspect he's not there at all...
What, then, is the line between offensive and nonoffensive? How do you portray--or not portray--God in art?
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Could you provide a link for that quaote please?
Mabus, you have it COMPLETELY backwards, Marvel has the most godlike characters I have ever seen of any comic universe. I'm sure Galactis, the Watcher, Warlock and others should be immediately familiar to you, but the list goes on quite extensively.
[ May 18, 2004, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Source given is the 2000 Encyclopedia Britannica.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
BrianM, if you're a comics fan, what do you think of the Ultimate Spider-Man series?
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Haven't read that particular one yet, I kind of stopped collecting when I realized how old I was a few years ago and after they stopped printing Appocalypse.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Mabus, you have it COMPLETELY backwards, Marvel has the most godlike characters I have ever seen of any comic universe. I'm sure Galactis, the Watcher, Warlock and others should be immediately familiar to you, but the list goes on quite extensively.
Powerful does not equal godlike. Most of Marvel's ultra-powerful beings are NOT supernatural - Galactus epitomizes this.
Dagonee
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
They *are* supernatural. Galactis himself is the primary force in the universe, if he dies it causes the universe to implode. There is even a figure above him. Warlock is *perfect* and there are others. I am looking for the online marvel encyclopedia.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
*nods* I'm well aware of the vast number of godlike figures in the Marvel Universe. In fact, I recently grabbed up the paperback edition of Paradise X (Captain Mar-vell builds heaven, only it's not all it's cracked up to be).
But that's not what I'm talking about. Marvel makes thinly-veiled allusions, and devises beings with "phenomenal cosmic power", but doesn't actually portray God as such. For instance, from the Official Handbook: "Eternity, and its fellow metaphysical being Death, are said to encompass the universe in its entirety, but are not deities in the religious sense." You can take that with a grain of salt--Eternity has appeared in a number of situations as a "divine stand-in"--but nonetheless it amounts to a disclaimer. "Eternity isn't really God, and nobody worships him." DC does it the other way, so far as I can tell, though I've never been as much of a fan.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
*grin* I just found this online, but I wish I could find that online marvel encylopedia.
BIOGRAPHICAL DATA:
Real Name: Galactus (the being he once was, known as Galan) Other current aliases: None known Former aliases: None Dual Identity: None Current occupation: Devourer of Worlds, Third Force of the Universe Former Occupation: None, though Galan was a space explorer Citizenship: None, Galan was a citizen of Taa however Place of Birth: The known universe Martial Status: Single Known Relatives: Eternity (father/brother/son), Death (mother/sister/daughter/wife) Known Confidants: Eternity, Death Known Allies: Nova, Firelord, Terrax, Silver Surfer, the Fantastic Four, other cosmic beings such as Eternity Major Enemies: Rom, (the Space-Knight once tricked The Devourer of Worlds into trying to consume a planet that didn't have the appropriate life energies to sustain Galactus, but "repulsed" and "tricked" are two different things!), the Fantastic Four, Thanos (with Infinity Gauntlet), Tyrant Usual Base of Operations: Mobile throughout the Universe, The Worldship: Taa 2 Former Base of Operations: None Membership: None Extent of Education: Unrevealed
[ May 18, 2004, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
I do know where you can find _an_ online Marvel Encyclopedia, but it's a gaming product and is therefore written mostly in the terms of the old Marvel Supers RPG.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Intelligence: Immeasurable Strength: Immeasurable (variable) Flight speed: Warp Speed Endurance: Godlike (variable) Durability: Totally Indestructible (variable) Agility: Metahuman Reflexes: Metahuman Fighting skills: Galactus is not known to have ever participated in purely physical combat. Special Skills and Abilities: Omniscient and all powerful world devourer. Superhuman Physical Powers: Besides the above listed attributes, Galactus can tap, transform, and direct vast quantities of cosmic energy for whatever purpose he desires. Galactus can teleport within and between dimensions under personal power. Galactus has shown he can allow his “Hunger” to consume entire mutliverses, plus he has all the abilities of his heralds, to a greater degree, and then some. Superhuman Mental Powers: Galactus has demonstrated psionic abilities, the limits of which are unknown. Source of Superhuman Powers: Galactus simply is, his nature is beyond the comprehension of mortal ken.
If that isn't godlike I don't know that is.
[ May 18, 2004, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Reason I asked was actually on-topic.
The Ultimate Spider-man series was a restarting of the Spider-Man story told in today's terms. Unlike the previous attempt, which retold his story with the same plots but with new references (cellphones, etc) and bombed horribly, this one took the essence of the original stories and retold them in exciting ways. The characters don't all have the same relationships, the timeline is different, the villians are much more complex and unpredictable. In short, the magic of the stories is still there and stronger than ever, but someone convinced that Stan Lee's stories were the only way to ever tell those stories would be sadly disappointed.
Also, they're written (wonderfully) by Brian Michael Bendis. Thought you might have felt a kinship Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Chris, I'm unashamed to admit that I'm a total Bendis fanboy. *laugh* Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
I'm no fan of the Ultimate series so far. It's not that they're badly done; I'm just dismayed by the recent splintering of what used to be a coherent Universe into a dozen or so discontinuous shards.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
They've been having some serious problems with continuity, but I like the Bendis-related ones.
TomD - check out his message board. He comes on there regularly to pass along info and tease unmercifully about future storylines. He's got each one of his comics written about a year in advance. Oy. I don't spend anywhere near the amount there that I do here (I barely spend the amount of time at home that I do here), but I stop in occasionally.
[ May 18, 2004, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm liking the supposed continuation of the "old" Spider-man books (Volume 2 Amazing Spider-Man) by J. Michael Straczynski and John, Jr. Romita. I like the Ezekiel angle. Although even these have continuity problems: why is Aunt May still alive?
Dagonee
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Because no one can die in the Marvel Universe, silly. No matter how much it screws up continuity or ruins the impact of previous stories.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I mean, what was their rationale? Was she resurrected for services rendered? Did she lie in the bottom of Jamaica Bay for 6 years in a comsmically-created cocoon? Was the May who died a Life Model Replica? Was she a clone? Did she jump out of the burning car before it went over the cliff? (OK, strike the last one).
Dagonee *Did I miss any of the standard techniques?
P.S., Is there any topic we can't derail to a comic book discussion?
[ May 18, 2004, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Depends on what difficulty you are referring to.
Age is weird in the Marvel Universe. Although almost 40 years have passed in our time frame, no more than 10 have passed there (at least in relation to age). So if Aunt May was 60 when she first appeared in 1963, she's 70-ish now.
If you're referring to the recent "death" of Aunt May a few years back, it turned out that an actress had been hired by Norman Osborn (back from apparent death due to super-powers) to screw up Peter's life, and it was she who died. The real Aunt May had been kidnapped and was eventually released.
What bugs me is "Why is neither MJ nor Peter still concerned about the disappearance of their infant daughter (also named May)?"
[ May 18, 2004, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: Mabus ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If you're referring to the recent "death" of Aunt May a few years back, it turned out that an actress had been hired by Norman Osborn (back from apparent death due to super-powers) to screw up Peter's life, and it was she who died. The real Aunt May had been kidnapped and was eventually released.
The time thing I'm fine with. I didn't know about the Norman Osborn thing. I've only been reading trade paperbacks, and the kidnap story wasn't in any of them.
Dagonee Edit: Didn't know about any infant daughter - just the unborn child that died in the "Revelations" story line.
[ May 18, 2004, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
I only recently found out myself. I didn't even know May had died. I read comics only occasionally, unless I spot something I'm really enthusiastic about (ie, Earth/Universe/Paradise X).
For anyone not in the loop, Norman Osborn, the original Green Goblin, died in the comics quite a few years ago in more or less the way he did in the Spider-Man movie, after killing Gwen Stacy (Peter's love interest before MJ). However, the much-deserved death of the villain was reversed recently to the disgust of many fans because the authors were desperate for a good criminal mastermind. (Nobody really creates new characters anymore.) A previously-unknown healing factor was created for the Goblin and a number of unpleasantnesses in Spidey's life since the Clone Saga were retconned into Norman's work.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
That's the daughter I'm talking about, Dag.
When Aunt May was returned to the storyline, Peter and MJ got a mysterious message that "May is alive, and we have her". They believed it was their daughter, but it turned out to be the aunt instead.
If they were so willing to believe it was the daughter, there must have been some doubt in their minds that the baby was really dead.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I just pretend that none of that happened.
I don't mind other people playing with and extending a story, but I do require that they do a better job.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Norman's return also spelled doom for the short-lived Green Goblin series, about a kid who uses goblin gear he discovered to become a superhero. It was interesting series and recaptured a lot of the appeal of the original Spider-Man series.
Dagonee
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Also the daughter has her own comic (Spider-Girl) that started out life as a What If? comic that became insanely popular.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
As bad as they are as a plot device, clones are infinitely preferable to alternate timelines. Just ask X-fans.
Dagonee
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
I don't know...there's at least one good use for alternate timelines. I highly recommend Universe X and its treatment of the subject (except for its horrible mangling of dimensional geometry--but anyone who understands it will be able to rearrange the text to make it make sense, and anyone who doesn't will miss the horror anyway).
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Noemon: because it's like bad fanfic. When you change the heart of what the characters are all about, it's just wrong.
The things I objected to most in the LotR movies, for instance, were when they changed the motivations of the characters. It is like listening to someone slander a beloved friend to watch that. For instance, the idea that Aragorn was skulking around in the wilderness trying to get out of having to follow his destiny and fight for the kingship. Such a lie! An evil lie! He always accepted who he was and was more than equal to the task required of him. Even if it were to have failed, he would have labored valiantly to the end, without a doubt.
Or when they had Frodo send Sam away after all that faithful service. Such a lie! Frodo would never ever have done such an awful thing as that. Even if he were ever so unwise as to doubt the faithful goodness of Sam. The ring was exerting an evil influence, no doubt, but Frodo was still Frodo.
Right now I'm steeped in LotR much more than the Iliad, but they are of equal stature, (in my opinion) and fanfic that makes a mockery of the characters as birthed by a fair author is more worthy of Melkor, twisting fair elves into his foul orcs, than of the Ainur.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The things I objected to most in the LotR movies, for instance, were when they changed the motivations of the characters.
YES! This somes up my objections to the changes as well. Glorfindal to Arwen didn't annoy me in the first one, but things that change the moral dimension of the story just annoyed me. Elrond's refusal to confront Sauron at first, Faramir's actions in the TT, and the issues you pointed out really stuck out.
The moral dimensions they kept were some of the most powerful parts of the movie: Boromir's fall and redemption in FotR, for example, as well as Frodo's ultimate inability to give up the ring.
These elements are what makes LotR so much more than swords and spells.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm actually amazed that people still read the "normal continuity" Spidey books -- as if "continuity" and Spidey were words that could ever be used in the same sentence, at least since the Secret Wars. Following the whole clone storyline, it's been obvious to me that the "main-line" books are just treading water until their fans get old enough to die.
[ May 18, 2004, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't know - the new story lines are very good, and it's nice having all that history to draw on. Frankly, I think Spider-Man's low point was the whole Jackel story line (the one that started the clone saga Edit: and the one that included the Spider-mobile) way back in the 70s. Prety much from the time Green Goblin died until the Hobgoblin storyline started.
I didn't think Secret Wars I did too much damage - the alien costume wasn't bad. It was the subsequent return to clones that did it for me. Clever, but too hard to conceive.
There was a mini-series "Hobgoblin Returns" where they uncovered who was really the Hobgoblin in the beginning, and that reminded me how good some of the storylines were in the mid 80s.
Dagonee
[ May 18, 2004, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I actually liked the whole Black Cat affair, to be honest. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Hmmm - skintight-suit-wearing platinum blondes flirting outrageously with Spider-Man? What's to like? Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Anne Kate, you think of Euripides as bad fanfic? Really? I think I must be misunderstanding you--you don't really think that, do you? I mean, what Euripides was doing was taking these characters, with whom every member of his audience was intimately familiar, and fleshing them out in ways that they weren't by Homer. His plays were, among other things, social commentary, so when his Odysseus is a political opportunist, and a fairly dispicable human being, he's using that Odysseus to comment on the political opportunists he saw around him in Athens at that point--it's kind of like he's casting those people into mythic guise, and by presenting his reworking of the myth to his audience, he communicates what his thoughts are on what is going on in Athens' political and social worlds. Does that make sense? I'm not sure I phrased that very well, but I'm hurrying to get this post out before a meeting.
I can see how a person could call Euripides works "fan fiction", with their tongue planted firmly in cheek, but to dismiss it as bad fan fiction in all seriousness seems...well...bizarre. I'm thinking I must have misunderstood you.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I wasn't talking about Euripides, but about Troy and by extension LotR.
And it's true that Shakespeare retold familiar stories too. Another thing that's true is that all composers and musicians steal ideas from each other. Even Homer took freely what he needed from the stories everyone already knew. Like Kipling said,
When Homer smote his blooming lyre He'd heard men sing by land and sea, And what he thought he might require He went and took, the same as me.
I guess there are two issues. One is ownership (not legal but moral). Tolkien owns Legolas, Aragorn, and the rest, and you really ought not to do things to them to which he would violently object. The second is just quality. If you're going to write a stupid story filled with ugliness and idiocy, don't perpetrate it on something far better than itself. Invent it whole cloth. Don't pretend it's about people and events beloved from some better version.
If Disney does Romeo and Juliet, and rewrites it with a happy ending, for instance, it would be very very bad. Really bad. Deeply sincerely bad. Rotten tomato throwing bad.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Well, I saw Troy last night for the first time, and it was pretty much what I would've expected/wanted from a summer movie. I can see doing the Iliad without the gods, because I see the mortal characters far more interesting in the first place, it was the abuse of those characters that kind've got to me. But because this is such a forgettable movie, it didn't matter.
What really made me mad wasn't the damage done to the story, but the clunky, bad dialect and acting. Brian Cox is a Disney villan, and I'd say every single character had at least five lines that made the audience either cringe or smirk. Several of Priam's lines about the gods seemed heavy handed, and Paris's greeting to Briseis was a dud that I felt in my bones. Brad Pitt seemed to try to use an ambiguous accent from time to time, but, overall, he did allright, even though he had to throw out a few stinkers that no one could pull off. Eric Bana's Australian accent was palpable at the start of the movie, but left as it went on, and, as the movie progressed, it also seemed to move better. Only Sean Bean seemed to really know what he was doing, and he wasn't on screen very long. The immortality line when Achilles lands at the beach was particularly hard to swallow. Also, parts of the soundtrack sounded like they had been done on a keyboard, which made anything on screen suffer heavily, usually a battle. Anyone here remember that one slow zoom-in of Priam watching one of the fights? That, to me, seemed very out of place and somewhat laughable. Orlando Bloom and Diane Kruger didn't have much chemistry (although I do like how her dress is simply held on by two hairpins; a mechanical innovation that is brilliant and needs to be used in modern society), all they had to do was stand around looking pretty and worried, but after a while the audience got sick of that.
The best thing about the movie was the fight scenes, although I'm sure a few military history majors here can poke numerous holes in them. However, I, as a lowbrow philistine fool, felt fine with them, especially the balletic Achilles-Hector fight, which I think was the best and most well-made part of the movie.
This was a summer movie. No more than that. Like the film predicts, the characters will live on, but, ironically, the movie will not. We'll have forgotten about it by fall.
EDIT: Also, in real life, Eric Bana would've mopped the floor with Brad Pitt. The guy was huge.
[ May 18, 2004, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Oh, okay, that makes much more sense--thanks for clarifying; I thought that I had to be misunderstanding you, and as it turns out I was.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
I finally saw it. katharina and others might accuse me of wanting to dislike it but I really tried my best, the fact is this is one of the worst movies ever made. I can go on why without including minor technical stuff for hours.
Character growth: there was ALMOST none that wasn't immediately followed by that particular character dying off immediately afterward. I know Brad Pitt has this thing for dying in his movies right when his character gets interesting but he has spread it to the entire cast. Priam is some blithering idiot smiling and talking about "the gods" this and "the gods that" until he goes for his son's body, Hector is the dutiful, honorable and boring son until he realizes his number is up, then of course he dies after displaying inner conflict. Paris is ridiculously played by Orlando Bloom and I laughed every time he tried affecting a serious line in the movie. The worst character by far though, was Achilles. He was a simpering whelp of a copy of what Achilles was. Achilles had no mercy, Achilles had no doubt, Achilles WAS insatiable wrath. The movie had Pitt as a whiny Achilles long before the excuse of Briseis could be used. They painted Agamemnon as some slothful King, when in reality both he and Menelaus were far younger than Odyseus and both fearsome warriors. Agamemnon had his fabled war cry.
Most of all though, the wwar really WAS about Helen and the insult of her departure, however it came about. It wasn't about greed or anything else, and the movie suggesting that ruins the entire theme and moral and purpose of the story of the Trojan War!!!!!
Some MAJOR missing and extremely underplayed characters:
-Cassandra, jeese, I guess Paris gets to see the future since he tells his father to burn the horse. So much for half the plot including the ENTIRE BACKGROUND STORY BEHIND PARIS. -DIOMEDES, I mean, COME ON -Ajax, wow, we get what, about 4 scenes with him showing less character than a cave troll out of LOTR? --Menelaus, I mean, what the hell, they portrayed him as some evil SOB then kill him off early in the movie. -Aeneus If they weren't gonna do it right they should have just left him out, I mean, they even left Paris alive at the end, what were they thinking?! -Paris he already looked like a weak idiot without them having to completely make up the humiliating duel scene. There are many others, and yes, they are integral parts of the plot.
What made me very mad was the way they vilainized the crap out of the greeks. It was so bad that most people in the theatre that hadn't read the Iliad or knew much about the story probably saw the Trojans as the morally-correct people in the movie just because the films portrays Agamemnon and Menelaus as such horrid creeps.
Why the gods really did matter: -The Palladium - no mention of this yet we hear the Trojans saying over and over how their walls are invincible. -Achilles, heel. The movie made it seem that the myth about his hell is an accident, when in fact that was one of the biggest parts of the Iliad relating to Achilles. -Hephaestus finally convincing Achilles to stay in the fight after Patroclus gets killed by giving him that awesome shield. -Ares leading the strike that turns the tide of the war. -Hermes giving Priam safe passage
There's more but that's all I can stomach for now. This movie went beyond creative license and practical cuts and changes to sheer lunacy in the sense that this is *most definately* not the story of Troy. I can't believe for a second that OSC thinks this film displays and understands true heroes.
btw: Andromache and Briseis were *much* more beautiful than the actress playing Helen.
[ May 19, 2004, 03:23 AM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
Agamemnon was a horrid creep. Remember poor Iphigenia? And Paris was NOT portrayed sympathetically...no one likes Paris.
I found out how Paris dies, by the way--I could never remember what happened to dreadful Paris. He got shot by Philoctetes with poisonous arrows that once belonged to Hercules, and when he went back to his old nymph wife Oenone (whom he had ditched for Helen) to ask her to heal him, she said NO.
Hee-hee.
Jen
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:One is ownership (not legal but moral). Tolkien owns Legolas, Aragorn, and the rest, and you really ought not to do things to them to which he would violently object.
Nobody OWNS characters or stories, other than perhaps the readers in whose mind they exist. (This is illustrated by the fact that the original authors can be as guilty of misrepresenting their characters as anyone else - see George Lucas and Star Wars for a prime example.)
quote:If you're going to write a stupid story filled with ugliness and idiocy, don't perpetrate it on something far better than itself. Invent it whole cloth. Don't pretend it's about people and events beloved from some better version.
But nobody intends to write a stupid story filled with ugliness and idiocy. People intend to write glorious reinventions of old stories that will imporve upon them and bring them to new audiences.
quote:This movie went beyond creative license and practical cuts and changes to sheer lunacy in the sense that this is *most definately* not the story of Troy.
What is THE story of Troy then? Why would Homer's version of the events be more valid than this film's?
And more importantly, what does the accuracy of this movie to the original story have to do with the film's quality? Can't it be good while changing the traditional telling of the tale? I think Troy proves it can be, although it certainly has a good deal of room for improvement too.
[ May 19, 2004, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Most of all though, the wwar really WAS about Helen and the insult of her departure, however it came about. It wasn't about greed or anything else, and the movie suggesting that ruins the entire theme and moral and purpose of the story of the Trojan War!!!!!
There is NO WAY that a war is ONLY about the stated, original reason for its existence. I'm not sure where you're getting the romantic idea that thousands of men fought for thirty years over the right to restore someone else's girl. The movie may or may not be good (I haven't seen it. ), but I don't give credance to your objections. Homer didn't even pretend that everyone was fighting for noble reasons. Odysseus hated being there and did it to avoid having to kill his son. Achilles would die in a streak of lightning and leave a beautiful corpse than live a happy and boring life. Everyone had their own reasons.
No story is about only one thing. Why it it that yours and only yours is the correct subjective interpretation?
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
So, lets say you see a movie and enjoy it only later to discover it was based on the book. You then go back and read the book and notice the movie makes a number of important changes. Do you then start hating the movie for not being true to the book or hate the book because it wasn't true to your first (and you never love like your first) experience with the story?
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Lets face it, as much as you guys try to claim that the movie and the Iliad are seperate and the movie shouldn't be judged in relation to it, you cannot deny that without the Iliad there would have been no Troy.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
And...? There's got to be more to that post.
Edit: There's probably a word for the habit of leaving out verbs.
[ May 19, 2004, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I have another question:
Did you guys hate O' Brother Where Art Thou? After all, it was based on the Odyssey and took a whole lot more creative liscense than Troy did.
[ May 19, 2004, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Look, I showed numerous ways that even by itself the movie was horrible. The acting was terrible, plot cuts were bad and it was at the very least unbalanced as hell making the Trojans out to be morally superior when they had stolen the Queen of Sparta and then irrationally refused to give her up instead choosing to put their whole nation at risk! The greeks did *not* unite because of one man's greed, they united because of external threats to their culture, and the movie is sweepingly revisionist and slanderous in this wholly-changed regard.
I have no problems with movies like "Oh brother where art thou" other such modern adaptions that use the basic theme and don't try to use the same characters and the same overall plot and then twist and mutilate it.
[ May 19, 2004, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
All of your objections to the movie so far consist of it not matching your subjective interpretation of the Iliad which was written down a few hundred years after Homer died.
The Iliad isn't scripture. It isn't infallible, and it isn't coming directly from the hand of God here. Whether or not it is better, its authority doesn't come from being first.
Do you really think all the Greeks were fighting for Helen? *suddenly suspicious* Have you read the Iliad?
[ May 19, 2004, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
You gave reasons why the movie was bad because it wasn't the picture in your head. And fair enough, I whole-heartedly support your decision to hate the movie based on those reasons. I just didn't get the same impressions from the performances, they worked for me.
But I don't understand why you're so dead set on convincing me that I should hate this movie. I didn't expect The Illiad put to film with every nuance or even every character. I expected a different interpretation of the story. Which is exactly what I got. May it helps that I don't consider The Illiad to be historical cannon and any and every deviation from the tale to be historical blasphemy.
*shrug* I'm sorry you wasted 10$. I'm also sorry you're going to experience this exact disappointment over and over again.
Edit: Once again Kat and I seem to be following each other from thread to thread. When will I learn to lead and not be lead?
[ May 19, 2004, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The greeks did *not* unite because of one man's greed, they united because of external threats to their culture, and the movie is sweepingly revisionist and slanderous in this wholly-changed regard."
How odd. Are you objecting to "Troy" because you feel that it slanders the reputations of largely fictional ancient Greeks?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Do you really think all the Greeks were fighting for Helen? *suddenly suspicious* Have you read the Iliad?
Now *that* would be funny, wouldn't it? I actually kind of hope that that's the case, just for the comedic value of it.
Hmmm...he did assert that Odysseus wasn't in the Illiad, didn't he? That doesn't *seem* like the kind of thing that a person who had read the Illiad would say, does it?
[Edited to add kat's quote, so that my post would at least make some degree of sense]
[ May 19, 2004, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Face it, Bobble. You're the funnier, more macho version of me. We have the same friends. I'll bet your best friend is fairly sweet, unfailingly polite, and likes you because you verbalize what they are thinking too.
[ May 19, 2004, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
*shrug* I'm not trying to colonize your opinion of the movie, I'm merely delivering my opinion on this movie in a forum about books, film and american culture. You attempt to give me reasons why my opinion is wrong, and I respond with normative artistic criteria to show that the movie sucked in my opinion. If you liked it then great, I guess you feel your opinion must be more worthwhile than mine, if not then there would be no need for you to attempt to act your opinion is somehow endangered of being swallowed up by mine.
And Noemon, if you look to the exact spot I was being humorous since I knew that Odyseus was in the Iliad just under a different name. No need to try to insult my knowledge because you disagree with me.
[ May 19, 2004, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The seeds of suspicion have sprouted into full-blown shrubs of amusement.
[ May 19, 2004, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:No need to try to insult my knowledge because you disagree with me
Don't worry, I'm not trying to insult you. I do think, though, that it would be one of the funniest things I've seen on Hatrack in a while if it turned out that a person taking the stance you're taking about the sanctity of a primary work turned out not to have read said work.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
a shrubbery a shrubbery! <somone had to make the obligatory Monty Python reference>
AJ
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
I just can't get upset over the character mutilation in this movie because, to me, it's the equivalent of First Knight or The Italian Job. One day, no one will know what the hell we were talking about.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
quote: *shrug* I'm not trying to colonize your opinion of the movie, I'm merely delivering my opinion on this movie in a forum about books, film and american culture. You attempt to give me reasons why my opinion is wrong, and I respond with normative artistic criteria to show that the movie sucked in my opinion. If you liked it then great, I guess you feel your opinion must be more worthwhile than mine, if not then there would be no need for you to attempt to act your opinion is somehow endangered of being swallowed up by mine.
I think the problems people are having with your statements are based more on your contention that all adaptations that use the original characters/plot/themes are bad, then on your dislike of the movie itself. Well, I suppose I shouldn't put words in other people's mouths. I have a problem with you declaring all adaptations to be wrong/bad/amoral. I certainly don't have a problem with your opinion of Troy. I agree, the movie is crappy.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Well put Miro. That was exactly what I was having a problem with. I haven't seen Troy though, so I have no idea as to whether I'll like it or not. I expect that it'll probably be crap, but I could be surprised.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
On the contrary, I never said they must all suck if they are derivitive, but that they usually do. You're reading more generalizations than are really there.
[ May 24, 2004, 08:43 AM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
My biggest problem with Troy: naked Brad Pitt.
*insert vomiting smiley here*
Posted by Kabederlin (Member # 6304) on :
He had two naked women with him... That cancels out doesn't it?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
No.
Posted by Jill (Member # 3376) on :
I have a question: The Illiad ends just after Hector's death. Where have we gotten the rest of our information on the rest of the war? Euripedes' plays, or another source? Just curious.
Oh, and Katharina, Shakespeare DID participate in "the Trojan War tradition," in his play "Troilus and Cressida."
[ May 31, 2004, 06:03 AM: Message edited by: Jill ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:katharina and others might accuse me of wanting to dislike it but I really tried my best, the fact is this is one of the worst movies ever made.
That accusation is, of course, completely baseless.
quote:Most of all though, the wwar really WAS about Helen and the insult of her departure, however it came about. It wasn't about greed or anything else, and the movie suggesting that ruins the entire theme and moral and purpose of the story of the Trojan War!!!!!
Yeah, yeah. Any deviation from the Sacred Text is sacrilege, and the "fact" (LMAO) is, renders the movie one of the worst films ever made.
quote:Look, I showed numerous ways that even by itself the movie was horrible.
No you didn't. I can state as 'fact' that I am, in fact, the dead-sexiest male ever to exist in any universe. Won't stop people from thinking I'm wrong, though.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
quote:Where have we gotten the rest of our information on the rest of the war?
There are lots of classical works that mention parts of the Trojan War, some that agree with Homer and some that disagree with Homer. Sadly, all I can think of (other than obviously the Iliad and Euripides) are the Odyssey and the Aeneid. I'm not sure how much Aeschylus goes into the Trojan War in his collected works, but it's probably safe to say there's a detail or two in there.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
If you really feel so endangered by my opinion as to go out of your way to state the obvious that my opinion is not a Law of the Universe then you have serious inferiority problems.
And btw: when I first posted on this thread and said I hand't seen the movie yet several of you *did* say I was just going to make myself dislike it.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:No you didn't. I can state as 'fact' that I am, in fact, the dead-sexiest male ever to exist in any universe. Won't stop people from thinking I'm wrong, though.
Well, no kidding. I'm here.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
The funniest part about this thread, Brian, is my mental image of you red faced and fuming somewhere out there in America. I get that you made some snap judgements about this movie because it wasn't true to the original. And hear the sound of snapping fingers out there? That's me making snap judgements about you because of your snapping. It's a right regular snapfest. A veritable cornucopia of snappage.
*snap snap snap*
Judge this!
*snappa snappa snappa*
Oh yeah, don't even go there. It's already been BROUGHTED
*snap* (hand at right shoulder) *snap* (hand at left shoulder) *snap* (hand at right hip)
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
And I get this image of some guy spending way too much time and effort trying to portray me as having spent way too much time and effort and getting angry when I'm merely midly annoyed.
Keep up the esoteric lyrical nonsense if you feel it puts you above the imaginary fray.
[ May 31, 2004, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
[This message has been deleted at the request of numerous credible Hatrackers for general obnoxiousness.]
[ June 01, 2004, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: KathrynHJanitor ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
[Ditto.]
[ June 01, 2004, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: KathrynHJanitor ]
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
I hope you didn't mean anything you said in either of those posts because if you did I feel really bad for you. Not only do you take internet stuff way too seriously but you don't get humor too well either. Hell, even if you didn't mean it I feel bad you wasted so much time posting those crazy meaningless and backwards messages.
If you did mean it, let me fill you in on something: I don't "hate" anyone. I am not some young "thug" as they term it now going around trying to prove my manhood by 'besting' someone else in crude verbal sparring. I am old, have grown kids, and a lot of learning under my belt that makes me feel like a different person when I read the things you wrote, it's crazy and none of this makes sense, just drop it ok?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
[And so on.]
[ June 01, 2004, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: KathrynHJanitor ]
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
I am laughing hard because there's been no condenscension on my part, and you have stretched this pretty far for whatever doubled emotional purpose it serves you. You might say your laughing and it's all funny for you, but there is a difference between our posts. Yours contain extremely nasty tone and content, mine don't, when I read yours I detect beyond mere hostility and almost a vengeful hatred which is stupid over something like this topic. Then you spend the rest of the time backpeddling yourself trying to downplay your heated rhetoric. Just end it here ok? There's no need to continue your cycle of half-nasty half-trying-not-to-care posts.
[ May 31, 2004, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Who said anything about half-nasty? I was trying for, and got (I think), whole-nasty.
Let me know when you want your last word. I will openly admit I am stubborn enough to want it:). I wouldn't want to damage your carefully-crafted real disinterest by having you continue to post in this thread in response to yours truly...
Too late!
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
No disinterest in mine, its been raining here all day and my fishing trip's been ruined due to river flooding. I actually don't think you got nasty enough, if you don't call me bourgeoisie by the end of this page you will severely dissapoint me.
[ May 31, 2004, 10:34 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Well, heck, I finally actually watched it. I thought it was fabulous, and did not miss the gods one bit.
I have the same question as Tom, though.
How come Agamemnon gts a good, clean death by soldier than the nasty stabbling in the bath by his wife that he deserves?
(aside)After watching the patriots play Miami today, ithought, man, Doug Flutie s the perfect Greek hero.
Watching historical fiction movies is brutal for me. Twice this week, the death of Caesar on "Rome," and the death of Hector and Achilles in "Troy" had me sobbing.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
I grew up on stories of Achilles and Troy. I did not like the movie, especially Achilles who was depicted as a spoilt brat, and whose fighting style was just plain annoying.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
)![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)