# Rate Troy



## Krug (May 11, 2004)

Saw it last night and thought it was spectacular. Peterson manages to pull off a historical epic with style and a great script by David Benioff. Some liberties (such as the war lasting like barely a month when it went on for ten years), but the movie's well-paced as it switches back and forth between the two sides and the doomed combatants, and the duels are believable. Eric Bana is brilliant as the doomed Hector, while Brad Pitt is competent as Achilles. 

Very well-done. Might be the monster hit of the summer. Washed the bad taste of *Van Helsing* out of my mouth.


----------



## Mistwell (May 11, 2004)

Troy has a release date of the 14th.  You must have seen a sneak preview or something.  Not gonna get many people rating it until it's released, I suspect.


----------



## Krug (May 11, 2004)

Yeah but just a few days away...


----------



## Eosin the Red (May 12, 2004)

I have Krug Envy


----------



## johnsemlak (May 12, 2004)

It opens on the 21st or thereabouts where I am.  I can't wait!!!!


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 12, 2004)

Eosin the Red said:
			
		

> I have Krug Envy



 You're not alone...we need to find revenge!


----------



## Krug (May 12, 2004)

Just a few days dudes... troy can wait.  And it's worth it... to me at least!


----------



## Mark (May 12, 2004)

I'm glad to see this is being well received.  It's the primary movie I was looking forward to this year.


----------



## Beretta (May 13, 2004)

Krug said:
			
		

> Washed the bad taste of *Van Helsing* out of my mouth.




I'm seeing it tomorrow night, and from what you're saying I'm sure it will purge VH from my mind for me as well.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (May 13, 2004)

I'm looking foreward to it big time.  Might wait until saturday to see it, though.


----------



## Thanee (May 13, 2004)

I gave it a 9 (just because I'm reluctant to give out the highest rating ).
Very impressive movie. Great characters (and superb cast), fantastic shots and a very good script.

Funny tho, 



Spoiler



that the greeks came with 50,000 men, but not a single siege engine... didn't they have any of those back then? I mean, how did they want to scale those walls?


 

Anyways, the movie was almost 3h and I didn't notice how the time flew by. Even though the story was well-known beforehand, there was a lot of tension.

Fantastic movie. One candidate for best movie this year. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## talinthas (May 14, 2004)

I just saw it (free preview), and i'm gonna go back and see it again for real tomorrow =)

damned good movie, worthy in all regards.


----------



## shilsen (May 14, 2004)

I'm going to see it today. With the (thus far) positive responses here, I'm really looking forward to it. And being very, very careful to turn my "Greek mythology buff" mode off


----------



## The_Universe (May 14, 2004)

Wife and I are going to go catch it at 7:40 EST--we're excited!


----------



## buzzard (May 14, 2004)

After a combination of being burned by Van Helsing, and a disfavorable review in the WSJ, I will wait. I had intended to see it Saturday, but I will put that off pending reviews by people who's views are close to my own. 

Hay, Barsoomcore, you want to be a guinea pig?

buzzarJ


----------



## Sirius_Black (May 14, 2004)

buzzard said:
			
		

> After a combination of being burned by Van Helsing, and a disfavorable review in the WJS, I will wait.
> buzzard




WJS?  :\


----------



## buzzard (May 14, 2004)

Sirius_Black said:
			
		

> WJS?  :\




My bad, I meant WSJ. Wall Street Journal. I went back and fixed it. 

buzzard


----------



## Sirius_Black (May 14, 2004)

buzzard said:
			
		

> My bad, I meant WSJ. Wall Street Journal. I went back and fixed it.
> 
> buzzard




No problem. I thought that's what you might have meant, but didn't think they did movie reviews.

MSNBC gave it a good, but not great review.


----------



## Andrew D. Gable (May 15, 2004)

Just one question for anyone who saw it (you might spoiler the answer if you want): is the Laocoon section in there?  I dunno why, I really wanna see those serpents... umm... that didn't sound two good.


----------



## buzzard (May 15, 2004)

Sirius_Black said:
			
		

> No problem. I thought that's what you might have meant, but didn't think they did movie reviews.




WSJ does a couple reviews in the Weekend Section which comes out on Fridays. I've found that I agree with their reviewer more than I disagree. Which, for movie reviewers, is uncommon. 

buzzard


----------



## shilsen (May 15, 2004)

Andrew D. Gable said:
			
		

> Just one question for anyone who saw it (you might spoiler the answer if you want): is the Laocoon section in there?  I dunno why, I really wanna see those serpents... umm... that didn't sound two good.



 Nope. I thought about exactly the same thing as soon as the Horse showed up. In fact, I don't think Laocoon shows up at all. There is a priest figure dealing with prophecies, but I think that is Antenor  (can't recall the character being named in the movie).

I just got back from it and I quite enjoyed the movie. Some random observations:

* Most people know this already, but DO NOT go to the theater expecting an adaptation of the _Iliad_ or even the Troy myth cycle. As the credits say, the movie is "Inspired by Homer's _Iliad_." 

* The above being said, most of the changes work well as far as the movie as a movie is concerned. The fates of Agamemnon, Menalaus and Ajax, for example, work fine in the context of the movie, even though they depart totally from the myths. In fact, I would argue that there are some places where the movie was handicapped by trying to stick with the source material (the whole sequence of Achilles being slain by Paris, for example) and would have been better off just continuing with the changes already made.

* The movie is often surprisingly true to the spirit of the myths (not just the _Iliad_), even when rewriting the letter. The character of Hector, Achilles' pursuit of timeless glory at the expense of a life of peace (and his awareness of himself as doomed), the Greek vs. Troy clash as a western vs. eastern issue (which gets slightly ham-handed with sculptures of Apollo and the other gods being represented in Assyrian/Mesopotamian form), the Hector-Andromache relationship and their awareness of the evil of war, etc. are all nicely handled.

* Two issues which seemed more than a little anachronistic were the focus on the meaninglessness of the gods and the anti-monarchy angle. 

* Aeneas. Hah!

* One place where Homer beats Wolfgang Petersen is in the closing. "Troy" gets a little weak in the last 15 minutes and I can't help wondering if it would have been better to take the _Iliad_ route. Or make more substantial changes than were done to the ending.

Overall, a good and enjoyable movie. I give it two thumbs up!


----------



## Abraxas (May 15, 2004)

Just saw it earlier today.
Another solid 5 movie - nothing special.  The mass combat scenes were atrocious, and other scenes were just . . . off 



Spoiler



the spear throw from the temple steps was particularly bad


. All I'm gonna say - _Blood Spray_ :\.  Mostly unimpressed with Brad Pitt.  However, Bana and O'toole were excellent - so I enjoyed the last 3rd of the movie much more than the 1st 2/3rds.

Saw it with one of my gaming crew - we both decided that Achilles is NE


----------



## Thanee (May 15, 2004)

Achilles is _so_ CN.

Agamemnon is NE, tho, as his brother Menelaus (maybe LE).

Odysseus is probably LG (or NG), as is Hector (very much LG) and Priamos.

Helena is NG and Paris CG.



Bye
Thanee


----------



## Assenpfeffer (May 15, 2004)

shilsen said:
			
		

> ...which gets slightly ham-handed with sculptures of Apollo and the other gods being represented in Assyrian/Mesopotamian form




I rather liked that.  From a production design standpoint, it was important to make the Trojan stuff distinct from the Greek stuff.  While its authenticity is doubtful, I felt it worked very well visually.



> Aeneas. Hah!




_That_ made my hair stand up.  Very clever.

I also thought: 



Spoiler



the death of Achilles was done very cleverly.  Paris puts about 4 arrows in him, but when the Greek soldiers find him dead he's pulled out all of then... except the one in his heel.


  I thought that was pretty cool.

I gave the movie an 8.  The dialogue is sometimes hammy, but I thought it was quite enjoyable overall.  And the fight scenes, both the individual matches and the big battles, are very well-done.  

I liked the way Achilles _moved_.  I don't know if it was beacuse Brad Pitt got all buffed-out and in-shape for the part, or if it was done with camera tricks, but he has a very unusual dangerous grace about him, similiar to but distinct from that of a modern martial artist.


----------



## Goodsport (May 15, 2004)

I haven't seen this film yet (and thus skipped over most of the spoiler bits), but I'm not surprised that this film has gotten good reviews both here and in most newspapers.

I'm a big fan of Wolfgang Petersen's films, with _Air Force One_ being his only film of late that was less-than-great (it was competent enough yet somewhat awkward, though Harrison Ford _did_ make a pretty cool President  ).

So I'm definitely looking forward to this one. 


-G


----------



## Wereserpent (May 15, 2004)

I realy did not like it.  I was on the verge of falling asleep many times during the movie.  i would have rather seen VanHelsing again than this movie.


----------



## Dark Jezter (May 16, 2004)

I just got back from the movie, and I loved it!  Probably the best movie I've seen so far this year.

I loved the characters of Hector, Ajax, Achilles, and Odysseus.  I also thought Hector's wife was a very nicely-done character.

I hated Paris, though.  I just plain found it impossible to like the prissy little fop.  If he were a character in Braveheart, he would have been thrown out the castle window by Longshanks.  The fact that he realized "Hey, I'm Legolas!" towards the end of the movie and picked up a bow still didn't make me like him any more.

Still, great movie.  I gave it a 9 out of 10.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 16, 2004)

GREAT movie. I loved that they made Achilles 'immortality' just the fact that no one could seem to hit him...EVER.  The whole flip-shield-on-back-and-catch-arrow-with-it just rocked.

As for the characters...

Achilles: Thought he was an arrogant jerk in the book itself, and thought the same of him in the movie. That means he was great.

Hector: Loved him in the book...same in the movie. Best character, IMO.

Paris: Hated him in the book...thought he was a whiny coward in the movie. Again, GOOD.

And the list goes on...Ajax was great too. 



Spoiler



Break the spear and BEAT them with it!


----------



## shilsen (May 16, 2004)

Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> I rather liked that. From a production design standpoint, it was important to make the Trojan stuff distinct from the Greek stuff. While its authenticity is doubtful, I felt it worked very well visually.




I just thought it was a little - as I mentioned before - ham-handed, or to be more precise, unsubtle, but I do agree that it worked for the movie. I preferred the way the Trojan armor and dress had slight Byzantine touches to separate it from the Greeks. 



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> I loved the characters of Hector, Ajax, Achilles, and Odysseus. I also thought Hector's wife was a very nicely-done character.




The Achilles-Odysseus friendship (runs completely counter to the book) was an interesting choice to make, since Odysseus is very much the new breed of hero, who stands apart from those like Achilles, who perfectly embodies the older, more simplistic and brutal, warrior code. But it worked fine for the movie. And Andromache (Hector's wife) was quite well-done by Saffron Burroughs, who I have only seen elsewhere in "Deep Blue Sea" (eyeballs bleed at the remembrance   ).



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> I hated Paris, though.  I just plain found it impossible to like the prissy little fop.  If he were a character in Braveheart, he would have been thrown out the castle window by Longshanks.  The fact that he realized "Hey, I'm Legolas!" towards the end of the movie and picked up a bow still didn't make me like him any more.




As Ankh-Morpork Guard said, this is totally in keeping with the _Iliad_. When the duel with Menelaus began I was wondering if Orlando Bloom would suddenly turn into Legolas (and also how they'd handle the absence of Aphrodite), and I thought it was handled very nicely.


----------



## LightPhoenix (May 16, 2004)

Absolutely terrible.  I've never wanted to walk out of a movie so badly before, and I would have if not for the fact that I drove my friends and I there.

The good about it is rather slim... the acting was decent, cinematography was good.  Action was okay, but really nothing special nor groundbreaking.  The sole exception to this was the Hector/Achilles fight, which was the best part of the movie, and highly enjoyable.  Otherwise it was pretty ho-hum.

The script... oh dear god, the script.  Now, I did not expect it to be any more than based on _The Iliad_, which is one of my favorite myths.  In fact, I'd say my expectations were downright rock bottom, because of my love for the source material.  Even that didn't help this steaming pile of turd.

First off... the dialogue was terrible.  Not only did it sound completely rediculous, but so very obviously only existed to fill the gap between action scenes.  I give credit to the actors for doing the best they could with it, but you can't make crap anything more than crap.  My impression (and presumably that of much of the audience, who were laughing throughout the film) was that it was written by a high-school student.

Secondly, the pacing is absolutely _horrible_.  For the middle hour and a half or so, I was completely bored out of my skull, and no amount of action helped any... the sole exception again being the Hector/Achilles fight.  By the time the big ending sequence came along, I was on the edge of my seat... waiting for the movie to be over.  I didn't particularly care what happened by the time the action started to pick up again... hell, the Trojans could have won, I wouldn't have cared.  I was simply bored.  162 minutes was _way_ too long for this film.  It's called editing, and people need to learn how to use it.

Third, the music.  There _is_ such a thing as overusing a particular style of music, and this was it.  That whole crooning-soprano thing just got old, fast.

In the end, this film was nothing but an attempt to cash in on the success of _Lord of the Rings_, with a bit of _Braveheart_ thrown in there.  Unfortunately, unlike _LotR_ and _Braveheart_, _Troy_ had a script that I wouldn't use for toilet-paper.


----------



## Dimwhit (May 16, 2004)

Loved this movie! As was recommended, I checked my love of the Iliad at the door, and I'm glad. I thought that, as a movie, it was spactacular. I don't really have anything bad to say about it (with the caviat that, as mentioned, I didn't look to compare it to the original myth).



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> I hated Paris, though.  I just plain found it impossible to like the prissy little fop.  If he were a character in Braveheart, he would have been thrown out the castle window by Longshanks.  The fact that he realized "Hey, I'm Legolas!" towards the end of the movie and picked up a bow still didn't make me like him any more.




In all fairness, Paris isn't supposed to be a likeable character.


----------



## Dark Jezter (May 16, 2004)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> In all fairness, Paris isn't supposed to be a likeable character.




I don't know, it seemed to me that the movie tried to portray him in a somewhat sympathetic light.  Almost like "yeah, he's weak, cowardly, and he set into motion a chain of events that led to the destruction of his city, but he did it all for love so it's kinda okay".

Although in the original tale, Paris actually kidnapped Helen rather than just persuading her to come with him, which made it a lot easier to dislike him.

On a related note, I'd love to see an _Odyssey_ movie (or trilogy of movies, since the Odyssey was pretty long) with Sean Bean reprising his role as Odysseus.  Although, since the movie tried to make the Trojan War seem like a historical event rather than Greek mythology, a story containing things like witches and sirens probably wouldn't fit as a sequel.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 16, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> You know, I'd love to see an _Odyssey_ movie (or trilogy of movies, since the Odyssey was pretty long) with Sean Bean reprising his role as Odysseus.  Although, since the movie tried to make the Trojan War seem like a historical event rather than Greek mythology, a story containing things like witches and sirens probably wouldn't fit as a sequel.




I was thinking that, too. And maybe they COULD put more of the Gods into an Odyssey. Sean Bean was great as Odysseus, and I'd love to see him take on the role again.


----------



## jasamcarl (May 16, 2004)

I'm usually not squeemish on giving my oponion about anything, but with this movie I can't really seperate any criticism I have on the merits from its departures with the Iliad. I'll just make a few broad points:

This is more or less a standard modern epic, which means that it is the pretty much exactly like the 'Swords and Sandals' movies of Hollywood's heyday with a bigger budged, longer battles, and more 'witty' one liners. Included in this is the contrived inclusion of a female love interest; I have my theories for why this is the case that go deeper than demo pandering, but i digress.

It was on the whole very well directed, though the battle scenes were pretty damn impersonal. My attention drifted often. Everything was a bit too rational and 'neat'.

I'm not going to bother to rate it for the reason stated above, but if I had to characterize it 'bland' comes to mind. Like all 'period' pieces (including the Iliad itself) it reflected our time more than it did that of the than that of the source material ; the post-9/11 analogues were difficult to miss. The one point of comparison I will make between the Iliad and Troy is that, as an objective preference, I preferred the more subtle character development of Homer over the 'whiny', outwardly articulated self discovery of 'Troy'; I was never immersed in either another world or other characters. It wore its Hollywood revisionism to easily i suppose.


----------



## TracerBullet42 (May 16, 2004)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, unlike _LotR_ and _Braveheart_, _Troy_ had a script that I wouldn't use for toilet-paper.




So you would use the scripts from _LotR_ and _Braveheart_ as toilet paper then?  For shame, I say.  For shame.

I don't know why I bothered to chime in just to say that, but it struck as odd when I read it.

I suppose that as long as I am here, I might as well give my take on _Troy_ as well.  I guess I enjoyed the movie.  I do not regret seeing it.  The battle sequences were pretty cool, capped with the Achilles/Hector fight that was pretty awesome.  Like someone before mentioned (sorry, forgot who original writer was...), there was something about the way Pitt moved about the battle.  Not sure why, but it just worked in an unusual way.  And the flaming spheres of death (trademark pending) rolling through the fire arrows were WAY cool.  I was confused at first at the random firing of the fire arrows...but then the payoff came.  And was way cool.

Catch a matinee...it's worth the discounted price, but I wouldn't recommend much more than that.


----------



## LightPhoenix (May 16, 2004)

TracerBullet42 said:
			
		

> So you would use the scripts from _LotR_ and _Braveheart_ as toilet paper then? For shame, I say. For shame.
> 
> I don't know why I bothered to chime in just to say that, but it struck as odd when I read it.



Hahaha...  

Er... didn't quite come out how I meant it.  But then, I'm really picky about what I use in the bathroom, so...


----------



## Agemegos (May 16, 2004)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, unlike _LotR_ and _Braveheart_, _Troy_ had a script that I wouldn't use for toilet-paper.




Interesting observation. _Lord of the Rings_ had a script that I _would_ uses as toilet-paper.


----------



## Dark Jezter (May 16, 2004)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> Hahaha...
> 
> Er... didn't quite come out how I meant it.  But then, I'm really picky about what I use in the bathroom, so...





Same here, I only use Charmin Quilted Braveheart.


----------



## Chain Lightning (May 16, 2004)

Just saw it.

I can totally see the division in the audience. Some laughed at moments, some took it seriously. I think it depends on taste really, not whether or not the makers messed up or not.

I liked the movie. There are a few nit picky areas I could....well, that I could nit pick. But I won't. They're very minor. I had fun watching this movie. It was enjoyable. And yes, the Hector vs. Achilles fight was worth price of admission alone. IMHO.

It goes into my list of top ten movie sword fights (or melee weapon fights..whatever).

Dark Jezter wrote:







> I hated Paris, though. I just plain found it impossible to like the prissy little fop. If he were a character in Braveheart, he would have been thrown out the castle window by Longshanks.




Yeah I agree that this is NOT a negative on the movie. Saying you hate Paris doesn't mean the movie is flawed. If you hate these types of characters, its there for you to hate. Do you have a need to "love" every character? Every character has to be a big macho skilled man of war for it to be cool? Yeah....I've seen this so often. Distain for a character simply because he's a pretty boy, slight, etc, etc.

If that's what the character is suppose to be, that's what he's suppose to be. If you like the more kick-butt action types. There's plenty in the movie. Hector, Achilles, Ajax, etc, etc.  The movie would've really 'made it' for you if they re-wrote Paris to kick butt and be more macho in the way like your leading men?

I liked Paris because of the drama his naive actions bring to the dynamic of his family. And of Troy. A big contrast to Hector. That's what he's there to do.  You're suppose to feel that way about him. Yeah yeah, you suspect that the makers of the film wanted you to like him in a more leading protagonist "Hollywood" way....but I think they hit the spot on what they wanted.  He is what he is. It is actually Helen herself that trys to disuade the notions the audience has for him to make him seem more a worthy man. Not because he's a great hero....but perfect for what Helen looks for in a man. Obviously not the same things we look for in a hero.But that's the point of her speech to him right?

Okay, so I said this movie is cool. What if anything do I not like about it? Well, if I had to name some things, it would be just one really. And that's the music score. James Horner....yet again proves he shouldn't be hired anymore until he can come up with new music.

Music does not compliment the visuals that well at all. Plus, Horner is going on with his usual rifts. If you really want to have the full effect of realizing how lame Horner is, do the following: listen to the "Willow" soundtrack, then the "Enemy at the Gates" soundtrack, and then....go see "Troy". 

You notice how he keeps using that same "Da Na-na-NA!" music sting? ( heh heh, like I can describe it in words over the internet ) But if any of you are soundtrack buffs out there reading this, you know what I mean don't ya?

Regardless, still a fun movie to watch. Soundtrack may not help it, but it doesn't totally ruin it. C'mon guys, we're D&D players....of course we'll see Troy and walk away with at least some stuff to inspire us in our games right?


----------



## Thanee (May 16, 2004)

The cool thing about Achilles and especially the fight between Achilles and Hector was, that he seemed so extremely superior to everyone else (even Hector, who was basically superior to everyone else, tho he had some trouble with Ajax ). He just was completely ahead in terms of fighting prowess (Achilles would have beaten Ajax without dropping a sweat, much like the guy in the beginning). Very cool.

Also the difference between Hector and Paris... both had to face their respective enemy in a swordfight, but those were so drastically different.

Hector was just _so_ LG. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## TracerBullet42 (May 16, 2004)

Oh...and the guy fighting with the BIG hammer was cool, too...


----------



## shilsen (May 16, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> The cool thing about Achilles and especially the fight between Achilles and Hector was, that he seemed so extremely superior to everyone else (even Hector, who was basically superior to everyone else, tho he had some trouble with Ajax ). He just was completely ahead in terms of fighting prowess (Achilles would have beaten Ajax without dropping a sweat, much like the guy in the beginning). Very cool.




Nah, Hector just got lucky with the big guy  

I was actually hoping that Ajax was going to hurl a rock at Hector at some point, just because it would be a nice allusion. In the _Iliad_, Homer is explicit about the fact that Ajax is a better warrior than Hector, and in both of their one-on-one encounters Ajax ends up hurling a stone at Hector, flattening him once (Apollo puts him back on his feet) and knocking him out the other time.



> Hector was just _so_ LG.




You mean Lawful Stupid, right?


----------



## El Ravager (May 16, 2004)

shilsen said:
			
		

> You mean Lawful Stupid, right?





Interesting you would say that.  To me, in the movie Hector seemed like the only sane person in Troy.


----------



## Chain Lightning (May 16, 2004)

I think Shilsen meant that ... usually players that tend to pick LG as an alignment end up playing it like 'lawful stupid'. Not saying Hector was stupid. 

Although Shilsen, I think that generalization is meant more for Paladins specifically right?

But I agree, Hector was the only sane person in Troy.


----------



## Thanee (May 16, 2004)

shilsen said:
			
		

> You mean Lawful Stupid, right?




No, Lawful Good. He was everything but stupid.

He was extremely honorable (only when he killed Menelaus, one could say, that wasn't really honorable, but then again, he told him that the fight is over before ).

The only time, where you could rate his behaviour as 'stupid', is when he faced Achilles. He knew, he would die (actually he knew it the day before already), yet he chose the honorable path.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Dimwhit (May 16, 2004)

I thought Hector (and Eric Bana's portrayal of Hector) was the best part of the movie by far.

Definitely LG.


----------



## shilsen (May 16, 2004)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> I think Shilsen meant that ... usually players that tend to pick LG as an alignment end up playing it like 'lawful stupid'. Not saying Hector was stupid.
> 
> Although Shilsen, I think that generalization is meant more for Paladins specifically right?
> 
> But I agree, Hector was the only sane person in Troy.



 Exactly. I noticed after I posted that I forgot to add the smiley, but was hoping enough people have seen the "Paladin as Lawful Stupid" threads to be able to pick up the tongue in cheek aspect.

There's no denying that in both the movie and the epic, Hector is one of the very few sane people in Troy (in the movie, he's the only one). He does what he has to simply because of loyalty, to king, family, and country. And he does it knowing full well that he is going to die, his son is going to be killed, and his wife will become a slave. Achilles may be the hero of the _Iliad_, but Hector in many ways is emblematic (as Odysseus is) of the newer, civilised world, where war for the sake of glory is somewhat outmoded. I've always thought that it is entirely fitting that the last words of the epic refer not to the wrath of Achilles but to the funeral of Hector, tamer of horses.


----------



## Thanee (May 16, 2004)

Ah ok, I didn't see that comment as being totally out of context. 

Speaking of paladins... I think the behaviour of Hector is pretty much like I envision a paladin (minus the occasional blasphemic remarks, of course). 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## evildmguy (May 17, 2004)

shilsen said:
			
		

> * Aeneas. Hah!




I thought the movie was very good but that line made it great for me!  LOVED IT!  I love Roman history and this was so sweet for me!  

Great movie!

edg


----------



## WayneLigon (May 17, 2004)

Went to see it today. I liked it quite a bit; I'll probably go back to see it again during the week, as a matter of fact. I though everyone was quite good in it, esp. Bana and Pitt. I esp. love Agamemnon's scheming; hard to beleive that was the same guy that played Stryker in X2. 

Didn't matter to me that Bloome used a bow; they mention several times that Trojan archers are the best in the world, so it's no surprise he's good enough to kill someone with a bow. Not like it was his decision to use a bow or not, anyway; seems like some people just want something to complain about.


----------



## Krug (May 17, 2004)

Well Paris is supposed to have killed Achilles with a bow and arrow, though with some divine aid.
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/p/paris.html



> While Achilles and his allies bring Hector's body back into Troy for a funeral, Paris take a bow and arrows and shoots it at Achilles. Apollo guides his arrow so that it hits Achilles's foot, in the famous Achilles tendon. Achilles dies. Paris is soon killed afterwards in the war.


----------



## Banshee16 (May 17, 2004)

*The Illiad - Troy - possible spoilers*

I saw the movie last night and thought it was pretty cool.  It didn't have the gut impact of the LotR movies, Gladiator, or Braveheart, but I definitely enjoyed myself.  Achilles was awesome in his battles at the temple, followed by his duel with Hector.

I agree with a lot of other posters here....Hector seemed like the most noble person in the film.  My girlfriend wasn't familiar with the Illiad, and through the movie, she was cheering for Hector, thinking he was the hero, and Achilles was the villain....and then was pretty upset when he was killed.

However, I'm not sure if my copy of the Illiad is shortened or what....but I just finished reading it about a year ago, and my copy ends with the funeral of Patroclus followed by the funeral of Hector.  I had known about the Trojan horse, but it's not even in my copy.  Is there another book, or another source that talks about what happens after Hector is killed?

Did Menelaus actually get killed by Briseis?

One thing I seem to remember is that Hercules was in the Illiad, but he didn't appear in Troy....is that correct?

And did Paris kill Achilles with a bow?

Banshee


----------



## buzzard (May 17, 2004)

The Illiad ends with Hector's death. 

The story continues with the beginning of the Odyssey. Therein is the tale of the Trojan Horse and the slaying of Achilles. 

buzzard


----------



## The_lurkeR (May 17, 2004)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> I agree with a lot of other posters here....Hector seemed like the most noble person in the film.  My girlfriend wasn't familiar with the Illiad, and through the movie, she was cheering for Hector, thinking he was the hero, and Achilles was the villain....and then was pretty upset when he was killed.
> 
> However, I'm not sure if my copy of the Illiad is shortened or what....but I just finished reading it about a year ago, and my copy ends with the funeral of Patroclus followed by the funeral of Hector.  I had known about the Trojan horse, but it's not even in my copy.  Is there another book, or another source that talks about what happens after Hector is killed?
> 
> ...




I don't remember off hand about your other questions, but yes the Iliad does end with Hectors funeral, and Paris does kill Achilles with an arrow.

I saw the movie yesterday at the matinee, and I rated it an 8. It's no Braveheart, but definately reminiscent of the old "sword & sandals" epics of the past.

You also have to check your love and or knowledge of the actual story at the door. I usually have a hard time doing that, but I was able to enjoy this movie for what it was. It may have helped that they stayed true to the nature of the characters they focused on, even if they did take liberties with their story.

I guess I was just happy they didn't make Achilles into some lovable Superman, and did play out the books sympathetic view of Hector.


----------



## shilsen (May 17, 2004)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> I agree with a lot of other posters here....Hector seemed like the most noble person in the film.  My girlfriend wasn't familiar with the Illiad, and through the movie, she was cheering for Hector, thinking he was the hero, and Achilles was the villain....and then was pretty upset when he was killed.




Depending on the definition, Hector can be seen as the hero of the _Iliad_. Then again, PB Shelley claimed that Agamemnon was the hero of the _Iliad_, so depending on definition may not be that good an idea either   



> However, I'm not sure if my copy of the Illiad is shortened or what....but I just finished reading it about a year ago, and my copy ends with the funeral of Patroclus followed by the funeral of Hector.  I had known about the Trojan horse, but it's not even in my copy.  Is there another book, or another source that talks about what happens after Hector is killed?




There are a number of other sources about the Trojan War. Besides Homer's _Odyssey_, Apollodorus, Dictys, and Dares the Phrygian are all authors who write about varying aspects of the war. Various perspectives are also present. For a long time, the English claimed descent from a descendant of the Trojans called Brut (hence, the word Britain and British) and in early English literature the Trojans were described as the good guys (as opposed to Homer).



> Did Menelaus actually get killed by Briseis?




You mean Agamemnon (Menelaus is killed by Hector in the film), and the answer is no. He gets home and his wife Clytemnestra gets him in the bathtub with an axe.



> One thing I seem to remember is that Hercules was in the Illiad, but he didn't appear in Troy....is that correct?




Hercules is not in the _Iliad_. He is mentioned because he had earlier defeated Troy single-handed.



> And did Paris kill Achilles with a bow?




Yes. Not in the _Iliad_, again.


----------



## Agemegos (May 17, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Funny tho,
> 
> 
> 
> ...




That is both in keeping with the sources and probably historical, 



Spoiler



siege engineering isn't really prominent in the historical record until the Classical period about 700-1,000 years later


 (depending what date you take for the Trojan War. Though I have read one de-mythologising version that speculated tht the Trojan Horse is a confused account of a 



Spoiler



sort of early siege-tower, with long base for stability, a high neck to reach the top of the walls, and a snout for soldiers to cross safely to the ramparts


.


----------



## Agemegos (May 17, 2004)

The_lurkeR said:
			
		

> You also have to check your love and or knowledge of the actual story at the door.




Homer's version no doubt took liberties with earlier epics, and I expect that when he wrote it there were people saying "Homer's _Iliad_ is very good, but you have to check your love of the actual story at the door".

_Troy_ is [a version of] the story of the Trojan War. It is not the story of the wrath of Achilles.


----------



## Banshee16 (May 17, 2004)

shilsen said:
			
		

> Depending on the definition, Hector can be seen as the hero of the _Iliad_. Then again, PB Shelley claimed that Agamemnon was the hero of the _Iliad_, so depending on definition may not be that good an idea either
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Now, are the events of the Illiad completely a myth, or is there historical evidence etc. about there actually being a Trojan War, Helen, Achilles, etc.?  Obviously not the mystical stuff....but some of the people, the Trojan Horse, etc.?

Greek history is something I never really studied in school.  Lots of stuff about Roman history, as well as Egyptian, but for some reason, not Greek.

Banshee


----------



## Mistwell (May 17, 2004)

I saw it this afternoon, and really liked it.

My complaints, which are few, include both Helen and Paris.  

The woman who played Helen was a poor actress.  Nor is she the face that launched a thousand ships.  She's a modern model, and not what I would expect of what is supposed to be the most important female role in this movie.  Polydora was played by a FAR, FAR better actress in this movie, who was also much better looking, able to portray the emotions (such as love), and I think she should have played Helen instead.

As for Paris, I know he is supposed to be a big sissy.  And yet, I just thought the role was beyond Bloom.  He looked like a child (physically).  Nor did I buy most of his emotive scenes, whether they were fear, anger, love, or anything.  I didn't feel the chemistry between him and Helen (though that was as much Helen's fault as his).  He was just there...

Beyond those two, the acting was excellent, the directing was good, and I liked the pacing and the music (enough to buy the score when it comes out).


----------



## Agemegos (May 17, 2004)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Now, are the events of the Illiad completely a myth, or is there historical evidence etc. about there actually being a Trojan War, Helen, Achilles, etc.?  Obviously not the mystical stuff....but some of the people, the Trojan Horse, etc.?




Well, the city on the site known as Troy has been destroyed at lest seven or eight times: earthquakes might have been responsible a few times, but it was probably sacked a number of times.

I have a vague recollection that I came across some mention of diplomatic correspondence preserved at Babylon or Assur or somewhere like that that includes tantalising hints of what might be a quarrel between the Mycenaean empire and the Trojans over slaving raids in Greece, and at about the right time. But I seem to recall that you had to kind of squint to make it out. The only things I recall about this source is that the character in Paris's role was from context clearing a warrior and raider of some experience.


----------



## Agemegos (May 17, 2004)

Agemegos said:
			
		

> I have a vague recollection that I came across some mention of diplomatic correspondence preserved at Babylon or Assur or somewhere like that that includes tantalising hints of what might be a quarrel between the Mycenaean empire and the Trojans over slaving raids in Greece, and at about the right time.




It was Hittite records. You have to be able to admit the following correspondences:

1. The place being attacked was _Wilusa_. (Homer calls the city that was the capital of the Trojan state "Ilios", and there is no "w" in Greek.

2. The people doing the attacking were the _Ahhiyawa_. (Homer uses the term 'Achaioi' for the confederation lead by Agamemnon, whom the translators call 'Greeks'.)

3. The ruler of Wilusa was Alaksandu (and 'Alexandros' is one of the names by which Paris was known in versions other than Homer (Disparis is another)).

4. There was somebody making trouble called "Piyamaradu". Could this be Priam? Unfortunately he doesn't seem to be a Trojan, but either an Ahhiyawa or a Hittite renegade.

See the following websites:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2004/troyqa.shtml

http://www.archaeology.org/0405/etc/troy3.html


----------



## barsoomcore (May 17, 2004)

Well, I rated it a 5. Mrs. Barsoom liked it considerably more than I did (go figure), but we neither of us have any desire to see it again.

I agree with those who found it bland. It was indeed, very, very bland. Very bland. Bland-o-rama. Whole lotta bland. Blllaaaaaannnnnndddd.



I think the evidence on Orlando Bloom is pretty conclusive -- boy needs to learn how to act. Seriously. He's got that "wrinkly forehead determined stare" thing down -- if he had three or four more expressions he'd have a veritable palette to work with. I like the kid, and I bet he's the sweetest guy in the world, but somebody work with him a little and get him acting, willya?

And there were multiple points in this film where I sat back, annoyed at how bland it all was, and said, "Peterson, you're a hack."

I love _Das Boot_ as much as the next guy, but that was a LONG time ago. And since then? _Enemy Mine_, _In The Line of Fire_, _Outbreak_, _Air Force One_, _A Perfect Storm_, and now this. None of them really awful films, but all of them sort of... bland. Sort of, "Who cares?" Sort of, "Why am I watching this?"

The contrast between this film and _Return of the King_ could not be more stark, I think. The inside of Troy looked like a set. The inside of Minas Tirith looked like a place where people had been living for centuries.

And we've been seeing big lines of non-existent people run into each other for a while, now. Since _The Mummy Returns_, at least. I don't know what makes people think that particular shot gets MORE exciting everytime we see it. And for swords-and-sandals cheeseball thrills, give me the Rock anytime.

Not a film made by people who seemed to have the slightest passion for the material. It just felt stitched together cynically, without much concern for the details, without any guiding dream or vision behind it.

Maybe one more shot of Brad Pitt's torso is what I needed. 

Here comes the summer. Next up is _The Day After Tomorrow_, I reckon. Nothing like a disaster film to perk me right up.


----------



## Hand of Evil (May 17, 2004)

Okay to be fair I had to force myself to this movie and I wish I did not go.  Maybe it was going into it with the that attitude but the movie just did not impress me.  

4 - Could have waited.


----------



## shilsen (May 17, 2004)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Now, are the events of the Illiad completely a myth, or is there historical evidence etc. about there actually being a Trojan War, Helen, Achilles, etc.?  Obviously not the mystical stuff....but some of the people, the Trojan Horse, etc.?
> 
> Greek history is something I never really studied in school.  Lots of stuff about Roman history, as well as Egyptian, but for some reason, not Greek.
> 
> Banshee



 A lot of people have spent substantial time and effort trying to find historical evidence of the war in the _Iliad_, but there just hasn't been anything even close to conclusive found yet. All we can say for sure is that Troy did exist and was destroyed a number of times. Anything else is pretty much speculation. Part of the problem is that a lot of archaeologists and historians grab onto every new discovery in that area and time period and immediately try to link it to the Trojan War.


----------



## Thanee (May 17, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> And we've been seeing big lines of non-existent people run into each other for a while, now.



 Were those really non-existant?

 I've read about the huge number of statists used in the movie somewhere...

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (May 17, 2004)

Couple of things...



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> ...and Paris CG...



No offense, but you're kidding, right?  CN on his best day.  One could argue that he was CG and *incredibly* dumb.  But I don't buy it.  No one lacks forethought to that degree.  He was selfish and found ways to get what he wanted while appearing conflicted about it.

The only change in the story that really, _really_ bothered me is 



Spoiler



that we are to assume he and Helen got away and lived free at the end.


  Aside from this (I think, singular) willful break with *both* the letter and spirit of the source material, that's just a dreadful, dreadful injustice.



			
				Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> ...Every character has to be a big macho skilled man of war for it to be cool? Yeah....I've seen this so often. Distain for a character simply because he's a pretty boy, slight, etc, etc...



Not the problem.  The problem is that he's endlessly selfish, yet the movie insists on treating him as a hero.  He is 50% responsible for the whole mess that leads to the deaths of thousands, including his father and brother.  He makes several pathetic and half-hearted attempts to make up for this and consistently succeeds only in making things worse.  I mean... 



Spoiler



If accountability meant anything, he should be #1 on the Hollywood "Is a jerk, and will therefore die" list.  They killed Agamemnon *against* the source material for comparable sins while leaving Paris alive against both the source material and the sin-o-meter.



One other issue, I've noticed at least one complaint here (and a number in the reviews) that the actress is "not believable as 'the face that launched a thousand ships.'"  I ask you, who could possible be believable in that role?  I challenge you to find a single woman who even 100 people will agree is the "most beautiful woman in the world."  Besides, the way the movie played out her beauty and Menelaus were secondary to Agamemnon's greed.  So she didn't need to be "the face that launched a thousand ships."


----------



## Thanee (May 17, 2004)

Paris just has an incredibly low wisdom score. 

I don't think he could foresee what he would break loose by taking Helena with him. His brother could, but in the end he still didn't turn around, because that would have been a sure death for both of them.

He just lacks the confidence of his brother. He often is on the right track, but simply unable to achieve anything in the end, like when he wants to challenge Menelaus to end the war.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## shilsen (May 17, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> The only change in the story that really, _really_ bothered me is
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It's not really the kind of break (or as much of a break) from the source material that you think it is. Remember that 



Spoiler



Paris is not actually slain in the _Iliad_, because the epic ends after the funeral of Hector. In most of the other texts which do deal with the end of the war, Paris is slain by an arrow from the bow of Hercules, which is brought to the war by Hercules' former companion Philoctetes (long story). But there are also certain traditions that Paris is only wounded and manages to fly to Mount Ida, where his festering wound is healed by his original wife Oenone, whom he had deserted. Admittedly Helen doesn't escape with Helen in this version, but in another version she isn't even in the war, having been transported to King Proteus of Egypt on Zeus' orders, while Paris carried off a phantom version created by Hera, ensuring that the Greeks would attack Troy.


 So there are a lot more versions of the source material both in letter and spirit, than is commonly known.


----------



## shilsen (May 17, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> The only change in the story that really, _really_ bothered me is
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It's not really the kind of break (or as much of a break) from the source material that you think it is. Remember that 



Spoiler



Paris is not actually slain in the _Iliad_, because the epic ends after the funeral of Hector. In most of the other texts which do deal with the end of the war, Paris is slain by an arrow from the bow of Hercules, which is brought to the war by Hercules' former companion Philoctetes (long story). But there are also certain traditions that Paris is only wounded and manages to fly to Mount Ida, where his festering wound is healed by his original wife Oenone, whom he had deserted. Admittedly Helen doesn't escape with Helen in this version, but in another version she isn't even in the war, having been transported to King Proteus of Egypt on Zeus' orders, while Paris carried off a phantom version created by Hera, ensuring that the Greeks would attack Troy.


 So there are a lot more versions of the source material both in letter and spirit, than is commonly known.


----------



## Agemegos (May 18, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> If accountability meant anything, he should be #1 on the Hollywood "Is a jerk, and will therefore die" list.




Interesting that you should say that. I have been re-reading the _Iliad_, and was just struck by the bit where Hector says "Paris, you pretty boy, you woman-struck seducer; why were you ever born?... the Trojans are too soft. Otherwise you would have been stoned to death long ago for the evil you have done."


----------



## Mistwell (May 18, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> One other issue, I've noticed at least one complaint here (and a number in the reviews) that the actress is "not believable as 'the face that launched a thousand ships.'"  I ask you, who could possible be believable in that role?  I challenge you to find a single woman who even 100 people will agree is the "most beautiful woman in the world."  Besides, the way the movie played out her beauty and Menelaus were secondary to Agamemnon's greed.  So she didn't need to be "the face that launched a thousand ships."




As I said in my post earlier, there was a woman already in the movie that should have played Helen instead, Polydora, played by Siri Svegler.  Siri is a better actress, better looking, and all around better for the role.

My opinion that the person playing Helen was not appropriate for the role is not alone.  It's mentioned in many professional criticisms of the movie as well.  The person who played Helen, Diane Kruger, is primarily a german model, not an actress (and she only acted for the first time last year).  Wolfgang Petersen fell in love with the look of some model, and cast her in this role.  That was it.  Diane Kruger shouldn't be in this movie...and only a Director thinking she is beautiful got her this role.


----------



## Agemegos (May 18, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> One other issue, I've noticed at least one complaint here (and a number in the reviews) that the actress is "not believable as 'the face that launched a thousand ships.'"  I ask you, who could possible be believable in that role?  I challenge you to find a single woman who even 100 people will agree is the "most beautiful woman in the world."  Besides, the way the movie played out her beauty and Menelaus were secondary to Agamemnon's greed.  So she didn't need to be "the face that launched a thousand ships."




Just so. And besides, the "face that launched a thousand ships" line is from a 16th-century English play (Marlowe's _Tragickal History of Doctor Faustus_). Given that every writer since Homer (and probably before: I have just read a learned opinion that the character of Hector was created by Homer in defiance of existing tradition) has given his own version of the material, and that none of them is consistent with any of the others, the makers of this version were free to ignore Marlowe's version.

Helen only needs to be the most beautiful woman in the world in versions of the story that start with the Judgement of Paris (Homer does not, and although some parts of Book XXIII are consistent with it, parts of Book III are inconsistent with it). The movie doesn't have any gods in it at all, and therefore no Judgement of Paris, and therefore no need for Helen to be the most beautiful woman in the world. I thought that the 'actress' playing Helen was certainly attractive enough that a youngster like the film's version of Paris might well become besotted with her. And that is all the film's plot required.


----------



## johnsemlak (May 18, 2004)

> I think the evidence on Orlando Bloom is pretty conclusive -- boy needs to learn how to act. Seriously. He's got that "wrinkly forehead determined stare" thing down -- if he had three or four more expressions he'd have a veritable palette to work with.




Haven't seen the movie yet, but I'm going this weekend despite some negative reviews.

I think this was a predictable outcome with Orlando Bloom.  He became incredibly popular as Legalos, espeically with the teenage girl demographic.  He didn't have to act much in the LotR movies, so I'm sure the public is unaware of any weaknesses there.  So when filmmakers had a chance to cast him as Paris in Troy, they probably couldn't resist.  He was a sure draw.


----------



## Agemegos (May 18, 2004)

shilsen said:
			
		

> The Achilles-Odysseus friendship (runs completely counter to the book)




Does it? I am just re-reading the _Iliad_ (haven't touched it in about twenty years, except to pack and unpack it each time I have moved house), and came to a part in Book IX in which Achilles twice says that there are no two Achaeans that he loves more than Odysseus and Aias Telamonides (Big Ajax). And that is within hearing of Patroclus, too.

Besides which, even if that is true, is it relevant? There is not one 'the book'. The monomythic version of the legend of the Trojan War that we have is stitched together out of pieces of different classical versions that were not consistent with one another. One classical source says that Helen was placed among the stars by her father Zeus. Another that she was united with Achilles (that's right: Achilles) in the Elysian Fields after her death. And another that she was the daughter not of Zeus but of Tyndareus, and that after the death of her husband Menelaus she was driven out of Sparta by the widows of the men who died in the War, fled to Rhodes, and was murdered on the orders of Queen Polyxo. So if the movie is going to be based on the novel idea that 



Spoiler



Helen loved Paris (rather than Menelaus) and ran away from Sparta voluntarily (rather than being kidnapped 'with her goods'), it might as well go on to conclude that she lives with him ever after, as happily as may be under the circumstances.


----------



## shilsen (May 18, 2004)

Agemegos said:
			
		

> Does it? I am just re-reading the _Iliad_ (haven't touched it in about twenty years, except to pack and unpack it each time I have moved house), and came to a part in Book IX in which Achilles twice says that there are no two Achaeans that he loves more than Odysseus and Aias Telamonides (Big Ajax). And that is within hearing of Patroclus, too.




I haven't looked at the _Iliad_ in over a dozen years either, so perhaps I was remembering subtext rather than text, but IIRC, during the overtures to Achilles he quite explicitly rejects Odysseus' wordy and diplomatic approach in favor of the more simplistic but honest Ajax.



> Besides which, even if that is true, is it relevant? There is not one 'the book'. The monomythic version of the legend of the Trojan War that we have is stitched together out of pieces of different classical versions that were not consistent with one another.




I was referring very specifically to the _Iliad_ and not other aspects of the Trojan War myth. And I don't think I even implied it was a problem. Just an observation about a directorial choice which actually worked quite well for the film. In my posts above I've been saying the same thing as you about the different classical versions.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (May 18, 2004)

shilsen said:
			
		

> ...So there are a lot more versions of the source material both in letter and spirit, than is commonly known.



Absolutely.  But I'm assuming Homer as a primary source.  As you said, the Illiad doesn't go into the end of the war, but iirc (and it's been a long time, so I'm probably at least partially wrong) the summary of the end of the war given in the Odyssey includes 



Spoiler



mention of Paris' death


.  Of course, now I'm doubting whether said summary was the work of Homer (insofar as anything can be said to be the work of a potentially imaginary author) or of the publisher.

Now I have two books to re-read.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (May 18, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Paris just has an incredibly low wisdom score.



Fair enough.   That's certainly one possibility  

Personally, I think you're falling victim to the cute puppy effect.  There are two possibilities: 1) He's a self-serving little jerk; 2) He's just dumb.  Were he ugly or greasy or had they shown him in his "girl in every port" stage before Helen, everyone would assume he was a self-serving little jerk.  But he's attractive, and we only see him when he's theoretically in love, so people go, "Awwwww... He's so _cute_" and treat him like a puppy.  Only when this puppy piddles on the floor, 50,000 or so Greeks show up.  And nobody so much as bothers to roll up a newspaper or stick his nose in it!


----------



## Dark Jezter (May 18, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> Fair enough.   That's certainly one possibility
> 
> Personally, I think you're falling victim to the cute puppy effect.  There are two possibilities: 1) He's a self-serving little jerk; 2) He's just dumb.  Were he ugly or greasy or had they shown him in his "girl in every port" stage before Helen, everyone would assume he was a self-serving little jerk.  But he's attractive, and we only see him when he's theoretically in love, so people go, "Awwwww... He's so _cute_" and treat him like a puppy.  Only when this puppy piddles on the floor, 50,000 or so Greeks show up.  And nobody so much as bothers to roll up a newspaper or stick his nose in it!



 Best. analogy. ever.


----------



## barsoomcore (May 19, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> I'm assuming Homer as a primary source.



Which is fair enough, seeing as how he's listed on IMDB as a writer of the film:  "Homer (Poem)"

Which makes me giggle. Wonder if they'd make an Oscar statuette for the old geezer?


----------



## Agemegos (May 19, 2004)

shilsen said:
			
		

> I haven't looked at the _Iliad_ in over a dozen years either, so perhaps I was remembering subtext rather than text, but IIRC, during the overtures to Achilles he quite explicitly rejects Odysseus' wordy and diplomatic approach in favor of the more simplistic but honest Ajax.




I have just re-read it. 



Spoiler



He rejects both.

He rejects Agamemnon's public apology and acknowledgement that only Achilles to defeat Hector. He rejects seven tripods untarnished by the flame, ten talents of gold, twenty gleaming copper cauldrons, twelve champion racehorses, seven Lesbian women of great beauty and skill at handicrafts, his pick of the gold and bronze of Troy to the extent that his forty ships will carry, twenty Trojan women of his choice (conditional on eventual victory, and Helen excluded), his choice of Agamemnon's [surviving, let's not forget Iphigenia] daughters in marriage (with the largest dowry ever paid, and no bride-price to pay), kingship of seven rich towns of Agamemnon's land, and guaranteed status the equal of Agamemnon's son Orestes. He rejects Briseis, even though Agamemnon has not slept with her. And he goes to bed with Diomede the daughter of Phorbas, whom he kidnapped from Lesbos.



This guy needed some work if he was going to be admired or even tolerated by modern audience. And that's without even thinking about the way he 



Spoiler



treated Hector's body


. Homer's Achilles is a monster: faithless, lawless, murderous, sacrilegious, and self-destructive. It is a real eye-opener that Alexander the Great admired him so much.

On another point, I have read on since I last posted, and come to the bit where that discursive old windbag Nestor descibes how he and Odysseus 



Spoiler



recruited Achilles (and Patroclus) into Agamemnon's army


. (There is no mention of the compact of Helen's suitors here.) The film-makers indeed took liberties with the material (which was perfectly within the terms of their dramatic licence, and no more than previous authors did). But having Odysseus 



Spoiler



recruit Achilles


 is not one.

By the way, I would like to apologise for my rather tangential response to your post: I was aware of your previous indications that you understood the diversity of the sources for the Trojan War. I ought to have made it clearer that I was addressing the readership at large, and simply taking one of your turns of phrase as a jumping off point to address a misconception that I know you do not share.


----------



## Agemegos (May 19, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> Absolutely.  But I'm assuming Homer as a primary source.  As you said, the Illiad doesn't go into the end of the war.




It doesn't start at the beginning, either. The movie is plainly informed by a wide range of sources on the Trojan War, and I think they made a silly mistake to suggest that the _Iliad_ was the only one, or even more important than any of the others. It doesn't even make a lot of sense as a marketing ploy, as I'm sure "the Trojan War" rings ever bell that "Homer's _Iliad_" does, and more.

Of course, the IMDB listing Homer as an author of the work is far more asinine than the credits listing his _Iliad_ as an inspiration. I wonder whose doing it was.


----------



## shilsen (May 19, 2004)

Agemegos said:
			
		

> I have just re-read it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Thanks for the synopsis. You had me a little worried when you mentioned Diomede, because I read is as Diomedes for a moment 



> This guy needed some work if he was going to be admired or even tolerated by modern audience. And that's without even thinking about the way he
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Definitely. The Greek (esp. Hellenic) conception of heroism was very far away from the modern conception. I always thought it would have been interesting to see the response if the "Hercules" TV show had depicted Hercules the way he was described in the original myths, which make Achilles look like a choirboy in comparison.



> On another point, I have read on since I last posted, and come to the bit where that discursive old windbag Nestor descibes how he and Odysseus
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Right. I thought of that when I was seeing the scene in the movie. I can't recall if that's the one in the _Iliad_, but IIRC there is a tradition wherein Achilles is disguised as a woman and placed among many others to hide him from the "recruiters". But Odysseus cleverly provides them a number of gifts, which include a sword, and Achilles immediately reaches for the weapon and reveals himself.

On a related note, Odysseus himself pretends to be crazy earlier to avoid the war. He is found out when someone places the baby Telemachus in the furrow Odysseus is ploughing and the supposedly insane man carefully ploughs around his son. Apparently Troy wasn't that popular a destination with all the Greeks.



> By the way, I would like to apologise for my rather tangential response to your post: I was aware of your previous indications that you understood the diversity of the sources for the Trojan War. I ought to have made it clearer that I was addressing the readership at large, and simply taking one of your turns of phrase as a jumping off point to address a misconception that I know you do not share.




No apology needed. I just thought you might have missed the earlier posts. 



> It doesn't start at the beginning, either. The movie is plainly informed by a wide range of sources on the Trojan War, and I think they made a silly mistake to suggest that the Iliad was the only one, or even more important than any of the others. It doesn't even make a lot of sense as a marketing ploy, as I'm sure "the Trojan War" rings ever bell that "Homer's Iliad" does, and more.




Yeah. I'm just glad that they named the movie "Troy" rather than "Iliad". Funny anecdote - on the way into the movie, I passed a couple who had evidently just left, and this lady seemed very surprised while the guy was explaining to her that there was actually a book and some historical evidence and it wasn't all made up by the film-makers. Then again, maybe that's not funny so much as scary for what it says about the level of education and general knowledge in this country.



> Of course, the IMDB listing Homer as an author of the work is far more asinine than the credits listing his Iliad as an inspiration. I wonder whose doing it was.




Asinine? You are a polite man!


----------



## Djeta Thernadier (May 19, 2004)

Galeros said:
			
		

> I realy did not like it.  I was on the verge of falling asleep many times during the movie.  i would have rather seen VanHelsing again than this movie.




Care to eleborate? 

I'm seeing it Saturday. Looking forward to it. Looks good.  I'll post my thoughts this weekend.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (May 19, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Which is fair enough, seeing as how he's listed on IMDB as a writer of the film:  "Homer (Poem)"
> 
> Which makes me giggle. Wonder if they'd make an Oscar statuette for the old geezer?



That may be the silliest thing I've ever heard.  Well, in the top 10, anyway.



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Best. analogy. ever.



/bows floridly/  I live to serve, my barbarian friend.


----------



## Andrew D. Gable (May 19, 2004)

I give it a pretty darn solid 9.  I wasn't overly concerned with the differences from the Iliad.  The only downer for me was a few too many shots of Brad Pitt's ass for my liking.  But, hey...


----------



## barsoomcore (May 20, 2004)

Agemegos said:
			
		

> ...seven Lesbian women of great beauty and skill at handicrafts...



A) talk about strength of will. Don't think I could turn down such a gift.
B) wanna take bets as to what those "handicrafts" were?

Sorry, Good barsoomcore's not available today. Evil barsoomcore will be filling in.


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (May 20, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Sorry, Good barsoomcore's not available today. Evil barsoomcore will be filling in.



 Waitaminute, there's a Good barsoomcore?

 I give it an 8.  Excellent battle scenes, maybe not as gory as I like but I'm a gorehound.  I got just enough of Paris and Helen to want to smack the crap out of the both of 'em.  Brad Pitt was better than he had any right to be.  Eric Bana was AMAZING.  Peter O'Toole classed up the joint nicely (his scene in the tent with Brad Pitt was great) and Brian Cox delivered his lines as only he can: with gritted teeth and intense looks.

 I really liked the actress who played Briseis.  What else has she done?


----------



## Agemegos (May 20, 2004)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> I really liked the actress who played Briseis.  What else has she done?




Her name is Rose Byrne. Check out her IMDB filmography.


----------



## Agemegos (May 20, 2004)

Andrew D. Gable said:
			
		

> The only downer for me was a few too many shots of Brad Pitt's ass for my liking.  But, hey...




I got to go to the film with three attractive young women, which is not a treat I get very often. They had never heard of the Trojan War*: they were going along for a chance to see "Brad with no knickers". So I can't complain.


* One of them wants to borrow my (translated) copy of the _Iliad_ as soon as I have finished re-reading it, so that is about to change.


----------



## Agemegos (May 20, 2004)

Andrew D. Gable said:
			
		

> The only downer for me was a few too many shots of Brad Pitt's ass for my liking.  But, hey...




I got to go to the film with three attractive young women, which is not a treat I get very often. They had never heard of the Trojan War*: they were going along for a chance to see "Brad with no knickers". So I can't complain.


* One of them wants to borrow my (translated) copy of the _Iliad_ as soon as I have finished re-reading it, so that is about to change.


----------



## Krug (May 20, 2004)

Average score of 7.28 after 60 votes..


----------



## johnsemlak (May 24, 2004)

Just saw it.

Troy began with some really wooden acting IMO, though
it did get better towards the end.  Really cood have
used better acting and a better screenplay in some
scenes though.

I did like the battle scene between Hector and Achilles, it had the feel of an epic deul.  Hector's wife's sadness watching her husband was well done, as was Priam's later request to Achilles to take back his son's body.  I hated how the battle was initiated though, with Achilles simply approaching the walls and screaming 'HECTOR!'.  It may have been like that in the Iliad (I forget) but it doesn't work well on the screen.  The film should have brought out Achilles' rage more as well.  The Rage of Achilles is, after all, the center of the story.

It's good to see LotR and realize it is possible to
make a great movie from a great epic story.  I think
Peter Jackson could have done better with this
material.

I rated it a 5.

EDIT, oh, forgot, I was disappointed to see theat Julian Glover made such a brief appearance in the film.


----------



## shilsen (May 25, 2004)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> I hated how the battle was initiated though, with Achilles simply approaching the walls and screaming 'HECTOR!'.  It may have been like that in the Iliad (I forget) but it doesn't work well on the screen.  The film should have brought out Achilles' rage more as well.  The Rage of Achilles is, after all, the center of the story.




I agree. In the _Iliad_, Achilles massacres the Trojan troops and sends them fleeing towards the city. He gets held up for a bit, with the river Scamander/Xanthus (who is a god in the Greek scheme of things) trying to drown him and Apollo taking the shape of Hector and drawing him away. This gives the fleeing Trojans time to get to the city, but Hector stays beyond the gates to fight him. Some variation thereof could easily have been pulled off in the movie.


----------



## Kai Lord (May 25, 2004)

Just saw it yesterday, I give it an 8.

Very entertaining.  Its main weakness was in having Achilles be the focus of the story.

That being said, I was _extremely_ impressed with Brad's take on the character.  Pretty boy Brad Pitt really sold the illusion of being a guy who can rouse an army by charging ahead of them on the battle field.  Like several others on this thread, I really like how he carried himself and moved in battle.

Eric Bana's Hector was indeed the most interesting character and compelling character, and I really think some of the scenes with Brad and his love interest/prisoner should have been cut in favor of some pre-Sparta establishing scenes with Hector.

Both men were the fiercest warriors of their people, but Hector was Lawful while Achilles was Chaotic.  One fought for genuine love of his country, one for glory, and the younger, prettier sibling/cousin that they would die for was a nice tie that bound them together outside of their battlefield prowess.

Achilles was careless in watching over his young cousin, and his cousin died because of it, killed by Hector.  In contrast, Hector was very dilligent in watching over his young brother, keeping him alive, who then became the downfall of Achilles.  I really like that aspect of the story and how it was captured on screen.  It just would have been nice to have seen equal buildup of Hector's character to get even more payoff when it was all resolved.

Helen was sufficiently beautiful, even if it would have been nice if they had found a distractingly stunning actress like Kate Beckinsale, but right now all the most beautiful women in Hollywood (Beckinsale, Jessica Biel, Katie Holmes) seem to be brunettes.  Diane Kruger was definitely a better choice than any known actress I can think of.

The battles were great, and the D&D geek inside me couldn't help but smile with glee at just how reminiscent Achilles, Hector, Ajax, et al seemed to be of badass Player Characters strutting their stuff in the midst of NPC class mooks.  LOTR had that, but these guys had even more of the super-heroism that D&D characters tend to gravitate toward.

A mixed bag, definitely no ROTK, but significantly more impressive than the lackluster Gladiator.  Looking forward to owning the DVD.


----------



## Kai Lord (May 25, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> And we've been seeing big lines of non-existent people run into each other for a while, now. Since _The Mummy Returns_, at least.



No, in The Mummy Returns only one side was CGI.  The Phantom Menace had an all digital battle, but it didn't feature a scene with both sides running toward each other, a la Braveheart.  The Two Towers sort of had it, when the Uruk-hai breached the wall and Aragorn led the elves in a charge against them.  Really the only significant example before Troy was in the recent ROTK, during the battle of Pellenor Fields.

But even so, is this technique somehow off limits now?  That's how medieval armies fought, but filmmakers can't show it but once or twice?  How else are movies going to depict epic battles?


----------



## Kai Lord (May 25, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> I hated Paris, though.  I just plain found it impossible to like the prissy little fop.  If he were a character in Braveheart, he would have been thrown out the castle window by Longshanks.



And if Longshanks were a character in Troy, he'd be bowing before Agamemnon like a prissy little fop.  Your point?


----------



## Alaric_Prympax (May 25, 2004)

I saw it Sunday with my girlfriend who has not read the _Iliad_ and was surprised at some things.  I like the battle scenes and the armor, especially the shields of the Trojan horsemen.  At first I didn't like that half shield until I saw them riding.  Being a classicist I was really looking forward to this film and thought it was a good movie but not a good adaptation.  Way too many changes for me, I think I would have given it a higher score if I already didn't know the story.

The best character in the movie was Hector- Eric Bana did a superb job, also Hector was my favorite character in the _Iliad_.  Bloom pulled off the role of Paris well IMO- a pretty boy who really did not know war nor how to fight in one.

I rated it a 7, a good film that could have been better.  Worth seeing in the theater but not twice but will buy the DVD when it comes out (because I've too much of geek not to want that in my DVD library to watch it whenever I want too    ).


----------



## johnsemlak (May 25, 2004)

I agree Eric Bana was good.  I wasn't impressed at first, but he seemed to grow on the role, and I think the movie suffered from screenplay problems more than acting early on.

That said, I think Russell Crowe could have been masterful as the stoic Hector.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (May 26, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Helen was sufficiently beautiful, even if it would have been nice if they had found a distractingly stunning actress like Kate Beckinsale, but right now all the most beautiful women in Hollywood (Beckinsale, Jessica Biel, Katie Holmes) seem to be brunettes.  Diane Kruger was definitely a better choice than any known actress I can think of.



This is the Helen problem in a nutshell.  You need someone very genera-hot, in order to appeal to the widest possible audience.  The three actresses you listed are substantially less generic looking than Kruger.  Beckinsdale is probably the closest to generic, but the other two rely upon a fairly narrow attractiveness niche.  As a result, a small percentage of the population who especially digs that niche will find them more attractive than Kruger, but most will find them less.  Personally, I think Katie Holmes is gorgeous, Beckinsdale is hot, and Biel is ugly as sin.  Someone else mentioned Angelina Jolie.  Angelina Jolie is very, very hot to a subset of the population.  And very, very unattractive to another subset.  I can think of few less attractive women, personally.  Her face makes me physically ill.

So, you're casting "the most beautiful woman in the world."  Do you choose someone who is stunning to maybe a third of the population, bland to a third, and very unattractive to a third?  Or do you choose someone who maybe 80% will say is very attractive, though they stop short of being flattened by her?


----------



## Arnwyn (May 26, 2004)

I thought is was good, but not great - I rated it a shakey 7.

I enjoyed it no more and no less than Van Helsing (though I knew exactly what to expect from Van Helsing, so that helped a lot).


----------



## barsoomcore (May 26, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> No, in The Mummy Returns only one side was CGI.



I believe you're thinking of the final battle scene, as opposed to the opening battle scene (with the Rock), in which there were definitely shots in which both sides were digital. Not done using quite the same techniques as nowadays (I believe they digitally "copied" live plates to create the crowds -- rather than generate the little fellas out of whole cloth) but very much the same sorts of shots. And still non-existent people. 

I wasn't specifically bemoaning CGI effects.


			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> But even so, is this technique somehow off limits now?  That's how medieval armies fought, but filmmakers can't show it but once or twice?  How else are movies going to depict epic battles?



They can show it as often as they like. I'm just saying it's not in and of itself jaw-dropping any more, and I definitely felt that the battle scenes in _Troy_ lacked because of anything ELSE being provided. The lack of tension was not at all counteracted by seeing impressive special effects, because they just aren't that impressive any more.

The first few times you see a particular TYPE of effect (which "large numbers of people" is) you're impressed by the effect alone. But if there's not some serious story-telling going on that the effect is in support of, then once you've gotten used to the effect itself, it has no... er, effect.

That sounded smarter when I started that sentence. I hope you get the point. 

I think the story-telling in _Troy_ was not what it should have been, and because of that, the shots that were so impressive in RotK carried much less impact. My comment was really just a jibe at Peterson, implying that he expected me to be so impressed with the effect alone that he didn't bother trying to invest it with very much emotion, as Jackson so triumphantly did. Watching _Troy_ one of my most common reactions was, "Well that wasn't as good as the same shot in _Return of the King_." Which suggests that the story-telling in _Troy_ wasn't getting the job done, because shouldn't I be so caught up in the story that such things don't occur to me?

Then we get into "It's the audience's fault if they're not paying attention" battle and I've already fought that one, thank you very much.

A final clarification -- I'm not objecting to the _situation_ of armies clashing in a particular manner -- I'm just saying that this particular _depiction_ of that situation is no longer a new and exciting thing to see in and of itself. Again, I felt that many of the shots in _Troy_ were pretty much just LIFTED from _RotK_, only with Greek guys instead of orcs, Rohirrim, Gondorians and so on.

If you haven't got powerful story-telling, give me new fireworks. But limpid storytelling combined with "seen-it-before" shots equals snore.


----------



## Kai Lord (May 27, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I believe you're thinking of the final battle scene, as opposed to the opening battle scene (with the Rock), in which there were definitely shots in which both sides were digital.



You're right, I was thinking of the end battle with the Magi and Anubis warriors.  I'd totally forgotten about the opening, in fact my memory is still pretty hazy on it.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> They can show it as often as they like. I'm just saying it's not in and of itself jaw-dropping any more, and I definitely felt that the battle scenes in _Troy_ lacked because of anything ELSE being provided.



Ah, I see what you were getting at.  For me the whole movie was about the buildup of the individual character showdowns, and in that I felt it paid off.  The mass battle sequences I'd call "passably cool", but far, far below exquisite combination of drama, visual splendor, and dynamic cinematography of the ROTK Pellenor Fields sequences.  But if every movie had to be ROTK, that means no more appreciating Braveheart, Gladiator, and so on.  I recognized that Troy wasn't a grand slam by Wolfgang Peterson, and while I can see how it'd be amusing to look down at it in light of ROTK, I can still enjoy it for what it was.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> If you haven't got powerful story-telling, give me new fireworks.



Hear hear.


----------



## barsoomcore (May 28, 2004)

I have to say I find something slightly... sinister in the whole "Well, it wasn't very good but I'm not going to complain because I had low expectations," approach to art. It smacks of accepting mediocrity.

I appreciated _Troy_ for its good qualities. It certainly possessed some. That's why I gave it a 5. That doesn't mean I won't call it down for its flaws. It deserves to be called down for its flaws, like all movies do. Statements like "I can still enjoy it for what it was" don't seem to carry much meaning, and veer dangerously close to, "I'm not going to think that hard about it."

Saying that a movie wasn't as good as RotK isn't the same as saying it possesses no redeeming qualities. Saying that a film isn't perfect isn't the same as saying it's worthless. And saying, "Well, it wasn't perfect but I enjoyed it for what it was," feels like dismissing the value of discussing its flaws.

I mean, if people don't want to discuss art to that degree, that's cool. If you just don't want to think that hard about it, I can't complain. I know that the truth has always and will always be that most people aren't that interested. I'm still determined to fight for critical analysis and defensible arguments. For tough criticisms and trenchant observations (I'm not 100% sure what "trenchant" means, but I've always wanted to use it). For the little people. The big people. The cats. The blue-footed boobies.

What was I talking about? Oh, never mind. I take movies pretty seriously. You probably figured that out, though, right?


----------



## Dimwhit (May 28, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> What was I talking about? Oh, never mind. I take movies pretty seriously. You probably figured that out, though, right?




Well, and that's kind of the key there, isn't it?  Most of the time, I just want a good, entertaining movie. I don't take it that seriously, and I'm easily entertained. I really enjoyed Van Helsing and Troy. They were both excellent. I don't even agree with many of the complaints/gripes people have against those movies, much less care. And I don't see it as accepting mediocrity. Just enjoying an entertaining movie. 

But I do see, and respect, your point.


----------



## Berandor (May 28, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> So, you're casting "the most beautiful woman in the world."  Do you choose someone who is stunning to maybe a third of the population, bland to a third, and very unattractive to a third?  Or do you choose someone who maybe 80% will say is very attractive, though they stop short of being flattened by her?




You would probably choose one that represented Helen, type-wise. I would have gladly accepted someone with a more mediterranean look, someone less bland, no matter whether I found her attractive, personally.

And I haven't noticed how much I agree with barsoomcore before his little speech. Good words!


----------



## Viking Bastard (May 28, 2004)

Troy gets a heartfelt 'Meh!' from me.

It was the best of films, it was the worst of films.

Excluding Brad Pitt (surprisingly!) this movie was held together by the great actors.
Every actor gave a better performance than the last, that is, except for Mr. Tyler
Durden. Even Orlando Bloom, after the blandness of his performance in PotC, gave
us a stellar Paris. Brian Cox gave us a man you love to hate, yet with surprising
depth, Peter O'Toole gave us more with a sad look in his eyes than with 100 lines 
of dialogue and Eric Bana... well, I knew he was good, but *this* good?!? Whoah.
Every scene with Hector pulled at my heartstrings.

As for Brad Pitt. He looked like Achilles (although I had imagined him a tad bit more 
buff, but nevermind), but he was no Achilles. Brad Pitt has an problem with these kinda
'Oscar Part Roles'. He's terrific in the non-mainstream indie films and less serious work, 
where he cuts loose, but when ever he takes on Potentional-Oscar-Winning-Roles(tm) he
screws it up. He tries to pull a Shakespear. He's not an Shakespearian actor, it doesn't 
fit him. Stop trying! Be yourself! You're great!

Now, as for the rest of movie, it's pretty poor. It's much too long and the pace is way off.
Despite the great work of the actors, the film feels mostly void and emotionless. It's dull.
Actually, after the death of Achilles's nephew the film finally seems to come to life, with 
the magnificent Achilles/Hector fight and the aftermath of that, but it doesn't last as the 
climax and ending feels like a total cop out.

I said it as well after The Perfect Storm, Wolfgang Petersen, Hollywood doesn't suit you.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (May 28, 2004)

Berandor said:
			
		

> You would probably choose one that represented Helen, type-wise. I would have gladly accepted someone with a more mediterranean look, someone less bland, no matter whether I found her attractive, personally.



Why should she have the only mediterranean look in the movie?    

For a film about a war in Asia Minor with primarily Greek characters, the cast was pretty Anglo.

Oh, yeah.  Hollywood.  Go figure.


----------



## Agemegos (May 29, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> Why should she have the only mediterranean look in the movie?
> 
> For a film about a war in Asia Minor with primarily Greek characters, the cast was pretty Anglo.




Look a some classical and Helenistic Greek statues some day. Those models didn't have modern Mediterranean looks. Read in the _Iliad_ about 'golden-haired Achilles' and 'red-haired Menelaus'.

There have been some population movements since 300 BC.


----------



## Wombat (May 29, 2004)

Personally, I miss having the gods  

It's a pretty good action/war film, but never feels totally like either Greek mythology or history.

I give it about a 6.5, lean to 6 in case of error.


----------



## The Goblin King (May 31, 2004)

Penny Arcade sums up my feelings on the matter.


----------



## Babette (May 31, 2004)

i really enjoyed the movie...i also really enjoyed reading peoples opinions.


----------



## Berandor (May 31, 2004)

Agemegos said:
			
		

> Look a some classical and Helenistic Greek statues some day. Those models didn't have modern Mediterranean looks. Read in the _Iliad_ about 'golden-haired Achilles' and 'red-haired Menelaus'.
> 
> There have been some population movements since 300 BC.



 Yeah, and if Hollywood doesn't stick close to history or facts, the only thing they'll do "as realistic as possible" is the casting 

I don't mind non-mediterranean actors in the movie, but if you're gonna cast a talentless doll for Helen, at least cast an exotic beauty


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (May 31, 2004)

Agemegos said:
			
		

> Look a some classical and Helenistic Greek statues some day. Those models didn't have modern Mediterranean looks. Read in the _Iliad_ about 'golden-haired Achilles' and 'red-haired Menelaus'.
> 
> There have been some population movements since 300 BC.



Actually, I was thinking in terms of the Mediterranean look coming from representations on pottery close to the theoretical Trojan War time period, and secondarily from later sculpture.  While rather different than modern "Mediterranean" appearance, these are still not as Anglo as the movie's cast.

Plus, if any of you is a scholar on the subject, I'm willing to accept that Homer's Achilles may have had red hair, but my gut reaction is to assume that it was a deliberate translation distortion.  It's certainly not uncommon for texts to be doctored in the translation process to make them more palatable for the intended audience, and Anglicization (sp?) is a common issue.


----------



## haiiro (Jun 7, 2004)

I gave it a 3, and it's already become the butt of recent jokes in my gaming group. IMO, the best part takes place in the first few minutes, and after that it's just long, weepy, and overly sentimental.

And I agree with The Goblin King: Penny Arcade had it right.


----------



## shilsen (Jun 7, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> Plus, if any of you is a scholar on the subject, I'm willing to accept that Homer's Achilles may have had red hair, but my gut reaction is to assume that it was a deliberate translation distortion.  It's certainly not uncommon for texts to be doctored in the translation process to make them more palatable for the intended audience, and Anglicization (sp?) is a common issue.




I've been studying Greek mythology for a long time, and though I can't read Greek myself I've spoken to a number of people who do, and I'm quite certain it isn't a translation error. Achilles as blonde and Menelaus as red-haired does seem to be a genuine reading of the original text. There are also some lesser characters who have similar descriptions, though I can't recall any off-hand. I think Euphorbus (IIRC), the one who wounds Patroclus before Hector kills him, was red-haired too.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 7, 2004)

shilsen said:
			
		

> I've been studying Greek mythology for a long time, and though I can't read Greek myself I've spoken to a number of people who do, and I'm quite certain it isn't a translation error. Achilles as blonde and Menelaus as red-haired does seem to be a genuine reading of the original text. There are also some lesser characters who have similar descriptions, though I can't recall any off-hand. I think Euphorbus (IIRC), the one who wounds Patroclus before Hector kills him, was red-haired too.



I stand corrected.  I've got a friend in Art History I should drag into this.  He's quite fond of pre-Hellenistic pottery, though it's not really his area of expertise.  I was channeling some of his opinions.  Now I've got another area to educate myself in.  Who knew a thread on a Brad Pitt movie would lead me to so much self-improvement?


----------



## John Crichton (Mar 26, 2005)

Just because a thread is 9 months dead, doesn't mean I can't post in it, right?  

*****************************************************************

Preface:  Just watched Troy on DVD.  Right after watching The Incredibles for the second time.  That was a mistake.

Perhaps it was the pacing.  Or perhaps i was the dead acting by many of the actors but unless Brad Pitt was onscreen.  Maybe because many of the actors did it better in Braveheart?  Could it have been the accents?  Maybe it was the really boring first act (sans Achilles' fight).  Whatever it was, this movie really didn't do it for me.

There were some cool parts and some entertaining one-on-one fights.  But mostly that was 2 hours and 40 minutes of spears and sandals that could have been so much more.  Mind you, I have never read the Iliad.  I did know the basic story (how could you not?).  There was no style to the film.  No balls.  Whenever it built up a little steam it quickly fizzled.

Whenever they cut to Agamemnon, I just knew I'd get more ranting along the lines of, "Achilles hates me!!  He can't be controlled!!  I like power!! Bow before me and bring my pudding!!"

Paris:  "I am such a wuss."

Helen:  "But you're my wuss."  *smoochy smoochy*

Throw in some stuff about Gods and worshipping them.  Add in lots of gratuitous Brad Pitt near-nekkid scenes.

Bleh.

Makes me want to go out and read the Iliad just to get the real skinny.  They tried to milk Gladiator and Braveheart (with a little LotR) which were far superior films and really fell short.  Even the score annoyed me which is rare because I typically love Horner's work.  I don't blame him, tho.  The music was good but it overly dramatic.  I almost wish the film hadn't taken itself so seriously.  Then maybe it would have been more fun.  

Oh well.

I hope Alexander was better than this.  I missed that one in the theater, too...


----------



## Capellan (Mar 26, 2005)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> I hope Alexander was better than this.




No.  No it wasn't.


----------



## Orius (Mar 27, 2005)

Hmm, resurrected thread?

Well, didn't see it in the theaters, but saw it about a month ago on DVD, so I'll add my thoughts.

Gave it an 8, I liked it.  There are some strange changes in the story, 



Spoiler



like the war lasting all of two weeks, Menelaus getting killed by Hector, Paris surviving and running off with Helen at the end, and Agamemnon getting killed at the end


.  But these changes did not diminish my enjoyment of this film.

To me it looks like they took the Iliad, stripped out the divine elements of the story, and focused on the mortal characters.  I'd say they did a pretty good job of presenting they story in this manner.  Agamemnon was great as a power hungry king seeking to rule the whole world, and Achillies' disdain for him was good too.  Hector was portrayed very well too.  I liked the "Sword of Troy" element in the story, especially in the end when Paris hands the sword off to Aeneas.  I can fully appreciate the meaning behind that with my knowledge of classical mythology, but even someone who doesn't understand the significance there should be able see that not all is lost for the Trojans.


----------



## Orius (Mar 27, 2005)

Agemegos said:
			
		

> Well, the city on the site known as Troy has been destroyed at lest seven or eight times: earthquakes might have been responsible a few times, but it was probably sacked a number of times.
> 
> I have a vague recollection that I came across some mention of diplomatic correspondence preserved at Babylon or Assur or somewhere like that that includes tantalising hints of what might be a quarrel between the Mycenaean empire and the Trojans over slaving raids in Greece, and at about the right time. But I seem to recall that you had to kind of squint to make it out. The only things I recall about this source is that the character in Paris's role was from context clearing a warrior and raider of some experience.




I know many historians generally think the Trojan War probably occured over a power struggle between the Mycaeneans and Trojans over control of the Aegean.  There seems to be a nod to this in the movie with Agamemnon using Helen as a pretext for another war to fight.

Still, the mythological events in the Iliad make a more entertaining story so we got a film based on that.  To those who say they missed the gods:  in the Iliad the gods basically bicker and fight over both sides to a silly extent, and often pull their favorites out of danger when they're threatened.  Since deus ex machina really isn't appreciated by modern audiences, I think it's good that they did not present any divine intervention in the movie.


----------



## Orius (Mar 27, 2005)

shilsen said:
			
		

> Right. I thought of that when I was seeing the scene in the movie. I can't recall if that's the one in the _Iliad_, but IIRC there is a tradition wherein Achilles is disguised as a woman and placed among many others to hide him from the "recruiters". But Odysseus cleverly provides them a number of gifts, which include a sword, and Achilles immediately reaches for the weapon and reveals himself.




I for one would have liked to see Brad Pitt in a cross dressing scene along those lines.


----------



## John Crichton (Mar 27, 2005)

Orius said:
			
		

> I for one would have liked to see Brad Pitt in a cross dressing scene along those lines.



 You are a sick man, indeed.  On that note, I agree.


----------



## Orius (Mar 28, 2005)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> You are a sick man, indeed.  On that note, I agree.




Yes I am.  However the reason for it is that I think it would decrease his sex appeal among women, which I see as a good thing.


----------

