posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
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.
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?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 369 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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?
posted
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 ]
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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]
posted
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.
posted
*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.
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.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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."
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3932 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, you know what I really hate? People who say things like " that's just your opinion. "
NO SH*T.
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.
Posts: 369 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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)
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 369 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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...
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
), 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.![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
