Troy

[workin hard]

I saw this movie twice this weekend and I thought it was a wonderful movie. Not to mention Brad Pitt is so hot in this movie..

 

[sleuth]

I saw this movie twice this weekend and I thought it was a wonderful movie. Not to mention Brad Pitt is so hot in this movie..

Uggg...

I thought the movie was horrible.

This movie had the opportunity to live up to the epic. This should have been a Lord of the Rings type film. It should have been beautiful, and the plot should have been enough to carry the film.

Instead we got a watered down, 10 day version of the Trojan War. We got Brad Pitt playing a shallow version of Achilles, and Ajax looking like a choad. We got Helen, Agamemnon, and Menalaus, who are some of the most controversial figures in history, turned into single-minded buffoons. The only interesting character development was Priam, Paris, and Hector, and even their development barely met expectations. Odysseus (Ulysses), the mastermind of the Greek's victory, had such a minor role it wasn't even funny.

I wish Peter Jackson could have had a crack at this film.
He could have taken the Iliad, the Odyssey, and... I forget what the 3rd big epic was... and made it into an amazing trilogy of films. If I remember correctly, if told sequentially, they do tie in together in chronological terms and share some characters.

I was so disappointed with this... this fluff film.
I suppose it was ok at best in terms of pure entertainment value if you're not familiar with the mythology and if you like watching Brad Pitt lay around half-naked for an hour and a half.

But since I don't care much for a naked Brad Pitt... and because I do know the myths... this movie just plain sucked.

 

[Mikeinsmd]

Uggg...I thought the movie was horrible.

Haven't seen it but I heard the reviews were'nt very flattering either.

 

[sleuth]

Haven't seen it but I heard the reviews were'nt very flattering either.

I rarely agree with critics, but this one was a stinker just as they said.

 

[mAlice]

Somebody shoot me. I agree with sleuth.





The fight scenes were great. I especially liked the balls of fire that were rolled down to the beach. The greek islands are always beautiful. Outside of that, it fell short of being quality entertainment. I'm glad I didn't rent or buy it.

 

[sleuth]

Somebody shoot me. I agree with sleuth.





The fight scenes were great. I especially liked the balls of fire that were rolled down to the beach. The greek islands are always beautiful. Outside of that, it fell short of being quality entertainment. I'm glad I didn't rent or buy it.

it's ok elaine...
We actually agree on lots of things.

I just remembered the name of the 3rd epic, that Peter Jackson could have used to complete the trilogy: The Aeneid.

 

[SamSpade]

I wish Peter Jackson could have had a crack at this film. He could have taken the Iliad, the Odyssey, and... I forget what the 3rd big epic was... and made it into an amazing trilogy of films. If I remember correctly, if told sequentially, they do tie in together in chronological terms and share some characters.

The Iliad is --- Homer.
The Odyssey is ---- Homer.

The Aeneid is ---- *Virgil*. It's Rome's way of saying "see? Our whole *race* is descended from heroes! Really! We're in there, too! It has about as much to do with the Trojan War as "Halloween III" had to do with the other films (which is to say, nothing).

Roman writing was always greatly inferior to Greek writing, at least as far as fiction is concerned. I think bringing the Aeneid to screen would bore the hell out of me.

 

[sleuth]

The Iliad is --- Homer.
The Odyssey is ---- Homer.

The Aeneid is ---- *Virgil*. It's Rome's way of saying "see? Our whole *race* is descended from heroes! Really! We're in there, too! It has about as much to do with the Trojan War as "Halloween III" had to do with the other films (which is to say, nothing).

Roman writing was always greatly inferior to Greek writing, at least as far as fiction is concerned. I think bringing the Aeneid to screen would bore the hell out of me.

You're kinda right...

I pasted a summary below. I guess Homer and Virgil's epics aren't tightly related, as the stories would almost stand on their own independently. But it does follow chronologically, and Aeneas did fight in the Trojan War. That's what I meant by there being a "trilogy" of films. Aeneas is mentioned in The Odyssey, I believe, although in a very minor context.

Summary of Book I of the Aeneid
The Trojans Land near Carthage

Aeneas is a Trojan leader, son of Venus and the mortal Anchises. He suffers as did the other Trojans from the wrath of Juno, after the judgment of Paris favored Venus [?and the desecration of her temple]. The book begins with the Trojan fleet sailing from Sicily and now near Carthage, 7 years after the fall of Troy. Juno bribes Aeolus to unleash storm winds on them, and they founder near Carthage. Venus appeals to Jupiter for their salvation and he reassures her of their glorious future and a golden age to come (the first of many prophecies and futurity scenes). Venus appears to Aeneas disguised as a Carthaginian huntress, tells him of Queen Dido and the settlers from Tyre who have formed the colony at Carthage, surrounded by potentially hostile peoples. A scouting party led by the visible Ilioneus observes the temple under construction (Aeneas is hidden by a shield of invisibility provided by Venus). Dido reassures and hospitably welcomes them and Aeneas eventually appears. Venus arranges for her son Cupid, in the form of Aeneas' s son Ascanius, to cause A. and Dido to fall in love, to ensure his safety. Dido puts on a feast and her passion rises.

 

[Tonio]

The Iliad is --- Homer.
The Odyssey is ---- Homer.

The Aeneid is ---- *Virgil*. It's Rome's way of saying "see? Our whole *race* is descended from heroes! Really! We're in there, too! It has about as much to do with the Trojan War as "Halloween III" had to do with the other films (which is to say, nothing).

Roman writing was always greatly inferior to Greek writing, at least as far as fiction is concerned. I think bringing the Aeneid to screen would bore the hell out of me.

That's accurate.

I think I would be disappointed by Troy, since it seems to have none of the mythological background from Homer's stories.

 

[aps45819]

Watched it this weekeknd, kind of lame. Anybody else notice that when the alarm is sounded for the arrival of the Greek fleet in Troy and everybody in the market place starts bugging out, some guy leads a couple of Lamas out?
Don't think that animals indigenous to South America were in ancient Troy.

 

[Larry Gude]

rented it today...

...I agree with sleuth:

If you care about and know your Greek history, don't watch. You'll spend 2 1/2 hours yelling at the screen. 'That's not right!'

If you don't know or don't mind some fairly heavy duty changing of the story, it works for entertainments sake.

There is plenty of conflicting versions of Greek history, including Achilles story, so I didn't care to much.

If they did this true justice it would have been 5 hours long.

 

[vraiblonde]

Did someone say "naked Brad Pitt"?

I'm so there!

 

[Tonio]

If you care about and know your Greek history, don't watch. You'll spend 2 1/2 hours yelling at the screen. 'That's not right!'

That's an important point. I think historical fiction should strive to be as accurate as possible within the movie format. James Cameron did a good job of that in "Titanic."

Why is that important? Generations of moviegoers saw "Gone With the Wind" and assumed that it accurately depicted the history of slavery and the Civil War. Not necessarily because the moviegoers were stupid, but because the visual image is much more powerful than the printed or spoken word. I've read that the spoken word represents only 20 percent of the information taken in by the brain.

This stuff goes on with science fiction, too. It's impossible for explosions in space to be heard, since a vacuum can't carry sound waves. But that didn't bother George Lucas from showing deafening explosions whenever X-wings and Tie fighters and Death Stars blew up. In fact, he once told Alan Dean Foster there was a lot of money tied up in these movies and people expect to hear the boom, so he supplied the boom.

 

[vraiblonde]

Generations of moviegoers saw "Gone With the Wind" and assumed that it accurately depicted the history of slavery and the Civil War.

What part of GWTW is inaccurate?

 

[Larry Gude]

Gwtw...

...is a love story and stays nicely, for the most part, out of situations where historical accuracy could raise a fuss.

The only 'biggee' is it is implied that Union forces burned Atlanta. The retreating Army of Tennessee, Rebel army, did the burning.

A smaller fish is the slave/owner relationship. Most slaves couldn't wait to be free. There were certainly some who remained faithful to their owners but GWTW gives a very soft view of slavery in the O'hara family and wuss Ashleigh; "I was going to free them all anyway after father passed away".

"I was gonna give away all our property and do the work myself". Right.

They, lastly, could have made a bigger deal that Southern honor wasn't so much at stake defending the homeland. the South attacked several US arsenals, national property, long before Sumnter and fired on US warships trying to assist Sumnter, specifically, the Star of the North (if memory serves) long before April when Sumnter was attacked for good.

The South instigated and started the fight.

 

[vraiblonde]

The only 'biggee' is it is implied that Union forces burned Atlanta. The retreating Army of Tennessee, Rebel army, did the burning.

Rhett actually tells Scarlett, during the escape from Atlanta, that Confederate soldiers set the munitions and supplies warehouses on fire to prevent them from falling into the hands of the Union.

"I was going to free them all anyway after father passed away".

That is actually true to Ashley's character. Notice they didn't have Scarlett say something like that? In the book they mention that Scarlett's father had a slave whipped for not caring for his horse properly.

The South instigated and started the fight.

They go into this at the Wilkes picnic, when Rhett laughs at all of them, delivers a speech about how stupid they all are and walks out.

The book is much more in depth about the actual war itself - in the movie, it's more of a backdrop to Rhett and Scarlett's relationship.

Stupidity for you:

When I was in high school, I aced my Civil War final because of GWTW (the book, not the movie). I knew things like which side General Beauregard was on because Melanie Wilkes' son was named after him, as that was the fashion back then - to name your son after your husban'ds commanding officer. Scarlett's son was named Wade Hampton Hamilton, because of you-know-who. I got that one right, too.

 

[workin hard]

The book is much more in depth about the actual war itself - in the movie, it's more of a backdrop to Rhett and Scarlett's relationship.

In the book Scarlett actually has like 4 kids, one by each husband. I wonder why that part didn't make the movie.

 

[Tonio]

...is a love story and stays nicely, for the most part, out of situations where historical accuracy could raise a fuss.

The only 'biggee' is it is implied that Union forces burned Atlanta. The retreating Army of Tennessee, Rebel army, did the burning.

A smaller fish is the slave/owner relationship. Most slaves couldn't wait to be free. There were certainly some who remained faithful to their owners but GWTW gives a very soft view of slavery in the O'hara family and wuss Ashleigh; "I was going to free them all anyway after father passed away".

"I was gonna give away all our property and do the work myself". Right.

They, lastly, could have made a bigger deal that Southern honor wasn't so much at stake defending the homeland. the South attacked several US arsenals, national property, long before Sumnter and fired on US warships trying to assist Sumnter, specifically, the Star of the North (if memory serves) long before April when Sumnter was attacked for good.

The South instigated and started the fight.

Good reply, Larry. I agree with most of what you said. But I feel the slave/owner relationship is a much bigger fish. The movie does much more than present a "very soft view of slavery." It strongly implies that slaves were happy in their servitude and treated just like family. I haven't read Mitchell's novel, but supposedly it goes even farther and portrays slavery as all sunshine, lollipops and rainbows. Is that correct?

 

[vraiblonde]

In the book Scarlett actually has like 4 kids, one by each husband. I wonder why that part didn't make the movie.

She had three and the reason the other two didn't make the movie is because they don't have any real plot that involves them. Bonnie getting killed is central to the story of Scarlett and Rhett.

<----GWTW geek right here!

 

[vraiblonde]

The movie does much more than present a "very soft view of slavery." It strongly implies that slaves were happy in their servitude and treated just like family.

And many of them were. In fact, many slaves fought for the Confederacy and stayed with their owners after the war.

I haven't read Mitchell's novel, but supposedly it goes even farther and portrays slavery as all sunshine, lollipops and rainbows. Is that correct?

Larry hasn't read the book so he wouldn't know. GWTW is told from a certain viewpoint - merely historical fiction. Not every plantation was Tara and not every southern belle was Scarlett. Read "Roots" for a different perspective - the story of Chicken George is particularly poignant.