posted
I have a confession to make. I haven't actually read the Iliad. I guess that I don't mind the changes in the story so much because I was only somewhat familiar with the story.
One thing I found amusing is the change in the role of Patroclus. I don't know what the Iliad said about him, but I remember reading in Symposium that Patroclus was Achilles' lover, not his cousin (I think that would also imply that Patroclus is older than Achilles). Of course, that would probably offend a lot of people, so they changed Patroclus to a cousin so that Achilles would still have a reason to avenge his death.
I did notice that the music was reminicent of Stargate. It was very distracting.
Why did they kill off Agamemnon? I mean, it was nice to see Briseis get him after all that happened, but he's supposed to be killed by Clytemnestra when he gets home.
Achilles dying after being shot in the ankle was a brilliant way of alluding to legend without actually claiming that his only vulnerable spot was his heel. I also liked what he told the boy at the beginning of the film when asked if he was unkillable: "If that were true, I wouldn't be bothering with the armor, would I?"
I wonder if they'll make the sequel. Odysseus didn't get much of a big part in this movie (he wasn't even in the Iliad, right?)
Isn't Wolfgang Petersen supposed to make Ender's Game? If so, I'm not surprised OSC gave Troy favorable ratings. He must like Petersen's work already.
quote:It takes a very secure man to let his woman ogle Pitt and Bloom in this film.
Anyone else think that it was Hector who was the really hot one? The way he said goodbye to his wife and baby... But yes, there were lots of scantily-clad muscular men.
Most of the acting was good, in my opinion. Even Orlando Bloom pulled off a decent job this time.
posted
Is it legal to copy and paste OSC's column here? My work system considers it porn, and I didn't see it on the Rhino Times website. I don't really have any input besides what's already been said, but I'd like to read the column.
Posts: 1090 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought the movie was terrible actually. I haven't read the Illiad so I don't know what kind of changes were made, but... I don't know. I thought it was great entertainment and little more. I just didn't care about the characters at all. I didn't care when Patroclus died. Even though it was a huge motivational factor for Achilles, I just didn't feel a thing. I think that was my main problem with the movie. It didn't make me care enough about the characters to be excited for them.
I thought the beginning was horribly rushed, and Orlando Bloom has to be the worst actor EVER.
Peter O'Toole and Sean Bean were perfect though.
Posts: 739 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Setting aside my personal opinion about Orlando Bloom's acting, who else do you think is pretty enough to stand next to the chick who played Helen?
Posts: 1090 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The understanding I had of Patroclus is that he was Achilles' "boy", not the other way around. So no, he should be younger than Achilles. Unless I misunderstood your meaning.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Patroclus, IIRC, is both Achilles' younger cousin and his lover.
Odysseus is in The Iliad, and is responsible for coming up with the whole Trojan Horse scheme. The Odyssey, in fact, is all about his return home from the war.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love the story of Troy so much. It's one of my favorite stories in the world. (My dear sister, on the other hand, departed in the middle of a battle scene in disgust because the story was so stupid. Go figure.)
Overall I thought they handled the story very well. My friend Diwen, who worships Orlando Bloom, was hissing nasty epithets at him the whole time, so that's definitely a plus. Eric Bana and Sean Bean were the best, I thought, but then I always liked Hector & Odysseus.
Yeah, what the hell was up with Agamemnon? I mean, it's nice and all for Briseis to get to kill him and such, but really.
I was also sad about the whole Patrocles-Achilles thing... Did anyone else wince every time they said Achilles the Greek way? I kept thinking, How nice it would be if someone said Ash-eel.
Good movie. I do recommend it.
Posts: 910 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*laugh* You know, Orson Scott Card fans are probably the ONLY people in the world who think pronouncing "Achilles" the Greek way sounds wrong. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I recall correctly, the Illiad doesn't actually have the story of the Trojan Horse in it - it ends with Achilles relenting and letting them bury Hector.
posted
I still have no clue why they would want to un-involve the gods. To the ancient pagans, the gods *were* real, they waded into battle, had direct interaction with people. Several of the offenses on either side were headed by Ares Athena and Apollo marching into battle. The possibility for an awesome CGI god to make the movie spectacular was huge, shouldn't that have been obvious? Besides, without the gods there is no story of Troy, you cannot sepetate them. I mean, Achilles is the *SON* of an immortal. Heh, I bet the movie doesn't include the several-year hiatus Achilles goes on to leave and pout to his mother who then goes to Zeus and tells him to sabotage the Greek war effort just to make them suck up to Achilles.
posted
I would imagine there's a simple, two-fold answer:
1) Many Americans, being Christian fundamentalists, would be offended by the presence of non-Christian gods as characters.
2) As the movie attempts to present itself as "historical," rather than fantasy or a straight retelling of the epic, it would have been very difficult for them to include as characters gods who never actually existed.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand the Christian point, but I certainly think that, especially in the area of movies and entertainment, the presence of non-Cchristian gods as characters do *not* offend Christians, especially since the specific plot of Troy is fiction anyway, it simply serves to add more interesting flavor to a modern-day mock-up of Ben Hur. And like I said, to the pagans, sure the gods took human form occasionally, but their default forms *were* the things they were gods of. Zeus became the sky after Oranos, Poseidon became the sea. Ares *was* war, Athena was victory at battle, etc. From what I've heard though the movie did not even try to use them that way. You see, this is what makes them an absolute integral part of the story, for which it makes no sense without, otherwise you shouldn't try to call it Troy and have the characters from the Iliad in it.
posted
I think they left the gods out because of Clash of the Titans. They didn't want to risk looking like that.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
UofU, yeah, I am old enough to remember how horrid that was, but with such awesome CGI tech. available today, there was no chance of that kind of thing. I still laugh when I think about that old guy supposed to be Poseidon gliding under the water to release the Kracken.
Posts: 369 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think they did include the gods in the movie - just not on the literal level, where we're used to seeing them. Even if you never see them physically manifested, they do move the plot, and they influence the choices of the characters.
Paris is moved by Aphrodite to take Helen. Eris is present among the Greeks - you can feel her in every scene between Achilles and Agamemnon. Ares fights beside every soldier, and you wonder sometimes whether it's Achilles you see in battle, or Ares himself. Perhaps Ares bestowed his likeness on Patroclus, to fool Achilles's men into following him and to punish Achilles for his refusal to fight. Athena may as well be leading Odysseus around on a leash. When Priam begs Achilles for the body of Hector, it may as well be Apollo and Ares disputing which concessions civilized men must make to each god in war.
I especially liked how they handled the character of Thetis, Achilles's mother. She appears on the beach to be talked to - by the water, like a sea goddess would. All the other women are associated with man-made structures - Briseis and the temple of Apollo, Helen in the palaces of Sparta and Troy, Andromache with the walls of Troy. But Thetis has no connection with anything man-made. Her gift to Achilles of a shell necklace is a gift of the sea. She knows the future without consulting an oracle or interpreting bird signs. She's completely safe wandering around by herself, while every other woman in the movie must be protected by some man. In fact, for all we know, she could be a figment of Achilles's imagination - no one else seems to see her, and no one else talks to her. Every other character has a social existence. They managed to make her Unlike other women without going into a 5-minute explanation of how she's a goddess, but not an Olympian goddess, and how she's not really as powerful as some of the other gods but is still more powerful than men, etc.
Anyway, I thought it was a decent and overall satisfying treatment of the "How do we deal with the gods, anyway?" problem that comes up in this sort of movie. You can find the gods in the story if you want to, or you can see the story without the gods. It's presented to make sense on both levels.
Posts: 188 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Many Americans, being Christian fundamentalists, would be offended by the presence of non-Christian gods as characters.
Oh, no way. First, I can't believe it because of Xena and Van Helsing and Bruce Almighty and, oh, everything. Secondly, I don't believe that because even if a majority DID, I doubt they'd change the movie to respect that.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Could Troy have been made with the gods involved and still been entertaining, heroic, moving? Sure.
But I liked it this way. This could have happened. The gods' influences weren't ruled out, after all, they just weren't characters. If you want to believe that Apollo guided the arrow to Achilles, go right ahead.
But King Priam's scene in Achilles tent was so moving and powerful that including the deific influence would have lessened it. In the myth, the god Hermes sent Priam to do it with assurances of protection and advice on exactly what to say. Big deal. In the movie we saw Priam brave the enemy camp to enter the tent of his worst enemy and plead for his son's body. He did it unprotected, with guile and stealth and unmatched bravery. As Achilles said, he was more of a king than the one Achilles fought for. That scene works precisely because there was no assurance of help from the gods.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's nice, maybe the producer's should change the name to "a lovely, poignant tale about heroics and great deeds based loosely around characters from greek mythology," because that's sounding about as close as this movie actually comes. The entire point of the trojan war was that mortals were at the complete whim of the gods and that the gods ruled human fate absolutely, that *is* history whether or not those gods exist. From the the sounds of things and the previews I've seen, this movie protrays too much of the events as results of human desires. If hollywood wants to do that fine, just don't call it "Troy" or say that it's the story of the Trojan war.
Posts: 369 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't mind the reinterpretation. Considering that different authors added plays and fleshed out events with the same characters (Ancient Fan Fiction!) for hundreds of years after the Iliad and Oddysey were probably composed, this is merely yet another installment and interpretation of an old, old story. The Trojan War and its aftermath is like the ultimate add-to-the-story party game for our civilization.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its been years since I've read the Illiad, but I do believe Odyseus was in it. He was a cheiftain who was often called the "Willy Odyseus". I remember one scene where he led a band of warriors into the Trojan camp and slit their throats at night. He was mentioned there, and his future as creator of the Horse was also mentioned.
But the Illiad ends well before the final battle. The fall of Troy is brought to us in other ancient literature, mostly the plays.
Agamenon is killed? That is wrong. Some of the best ancient drama revolves around Agamemnon and his children, his death and their revenge.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes he is. He doesn't have a starring role, but he's definitely a part of the story. He's one of the people who goes to Achilles and tries to talk him into getting back into the action, for example, along with Aias and...oh, who is it? Kind of a mentor of Achilles, and older guy. Not Nestor. I want to say Phoenix, but I'm sure that's not it. Probably a name that makes me *think* of the word "Phoenix". I'll go look for it.
posted
Odyseus is not mentioned in the Iliad, but Ulysses is.
quote:Then Nestor answered, "Most noble son of Atreus, king of men, Agamemnon. The gifts you offer are no small ones, let us then send chosen messengers, who may go to the tent of Achilles son of Peleus without delay. Let those go whom I shall name. Let Phoenix, dear to Jove, lead the way; let Ajax and Ulysses follow, and let the heralds Odius and Eurybates go with them. Now bring water for our hands, and bid all keep silence while we pray to Jove the son of Saturn, if so be that he may have mercy upon us."
posted
Chris, I am saying that whether the pagan gods were real or not, the entire reason the trojan war occured was that the people believed the gods directly caused it. You can argue there's no proof of this, but the only way the trojan war has ever been present in our history and stories is with that context. In short, there is no evidence that the gods weren't the sole driving factors of the peoples.
Posts: 369 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is telling, I think, that the movie was not named The Iliad. If it was I think you'd have more of a complaint about the changes made. Instead it's a story of the fall of Troy that uses Homer's poetry as a major source.
And the peoples' belief in the gods are still in there. Priam made a major mistake because he believed that Apollo favored an attack. The horse was accepted because his advisors believed it to be an offering to Poseidon. They're in there. We just don't see them in their togas staring over the tops of the clouds.
[ May 17, 2004, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Brian, it isn't the only thing that the Iliad was about. Even without the gods, this movie had themes (what makes a warrior, love, loyalty, power) that were present in the original story. An exploration of those themes is a legitimate interpretation. It's not all encompassing, but it doesn't need or pretend to be.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And all those other things were the tools by which the gods constantly manipulated the peoples with directly.
It doesn't matter if the movie isn't named the Iliad or not, a movie called "Troy" that involves the Trojan war and some characters that we know about from ONLY the Iliad might as well be called the Iliad.
posted
I'm not being stubborn, I am trying to communicate what poetry and classics professors spend months trying to communicate: the pagans truly believed the gods controlled all things, both emotions and externals.
I have yet to see another piece of literature by a different author than Homer before say, 1000 AD, that talks about Menelaus, Hector, and others.
posted
But that's not the story these filmmakers wanted to tell. You can't dictate the stories other people want to tell.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then the filmakers are committing copyright infringement and material disalignment with one of the oldest works of fiction in mankind. If they want to create whole new characters and not steal half the plot and leave the rest out then that's fine, but I really hate their prositution of Homer's epic.
Also, just because others have done this to Homer throughout history does not make this instance anymore right or aesthetically pleasing.
posted
I watched some of the Troy stuff on A&E last night. The search for the city part was interesting, but the last hour was physically painful to watch. They kept using scenes from the movie to illustrate parts of "history." Not as a story someone wanted to tell.
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have yet to see another piece of literature by a different author than Homer before say, 1000 AD, that talks about Menelaus, Hector, and others
Homer may have been the first, but he wasn't the last to deal with these characters. TROY is part of a long, long tradition of retelling this story. Do you have the same objections to Euripedes?
You can't prostitute a story that's slept with every sailor off the boat. And I'm pretty sure that after 2500 years and a dubious claim to authorship in the first place, the copyright's expired.
quote:I have yet to see another piece of literature by a different author than Homer before say, 1000 AD, that talks about Menelaus, Hector, and others.
Brian, what difference does that make? Seriously, I'm not trying to be snarky--I don't understand your point.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I'm saying is no matter how many others used those characters as devices in their own plots and twists of Troy, it still comes from Homer, the fact that there have been other versions since then does not negate the instance of the original. I am not trying to be technical, or sophistic, I am trying to draw an aesthetic line that provides for keeping a wonderful old tale from turning into a boring D&D tabletop game. This is why people, even heirs like Tolkien's son, shouldn't try to continue to write in the "tradition" or "character setting" as someone before them with a hugely popular story did.
posted
If all future copies of the Iliad had the gods scrubbed out, then you'd have a point. But they won't. This movie doesn't erase the original. It's part of a long, long tradition of retelling this story.
Some of the world's greatest literature has been Fan Fiction. Yay for Trojan Women!
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you feel that modern authors shouldn't be free to change elements of the story, or modify character's traits if doing so suits the story they're seeking to tell?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's still a cheaper, mediocre wanna-be copy of the original. Don't make me get out the milquetoaste shtick, OK?
Posts: 369 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doesn't OSC deal with this all the time? He's based many of his books on various works of scripture, and holds that if you don't like his interpretation, that doesn't matter because his interpretations don't change the original.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
