Whitemithrandir Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 That's exactly what it is. Troy is a 1960's style sword-and-sandal epic of the very best calibre. were you expecting anything more? I had fun, and I think if you put the notion that TROY is suppose to be an artistic feat out of your mind, you'll end up enjoying it too Word economics To express my vast wisdom I speak in haiku's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellester Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 What was Brad Pitts last good movie? Was that Fight Club? That, and Seven. Yea, even though Pitt Life is like a clam. Years of filtering crap then some bastard cracks you open and scrapes you into its damned mouth, end of story. - Steven Erikson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roshan Posted July 11, 2004 Author Share Posted July 11, 2004 Phosphor, the way I see it Troy tried to show the greeks as being not so bad by removing the war crimes they committed at the end. There was no such thing as a war crime during that time period. The victor could do as he pleased with those he captured or defeated. Violation of tradition was deemed far worse than things like murder or rape. Exactly, so why did the movie remove these things? The movie was just plain idiotic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roshan Posted July 11, 2004 Author Share Posted July 11, 2004 That's exactly what it is. Troy is a 1960's style sword-and-sandal epic of the very best calibre. were you expecting anything more? I had fun, and I think if you put the notion that TROY is suppose to be an artistic feat out of your mind, you'll end up enjoying it too Sorry, but I actually expected that the story of the movie would at least resemble the illiad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'JN Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 Exactly, so why did the movie remove these things? The movie was just plain idiotic. Why would they include them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Product of the Cosmos Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 Troy was good IMO. What would the people who didnt like it change? Some porn? Lightsabers? lol... j/p But really, I don't see what was so bad about it. I dont know about the history of Troy.. But IMO the movie was quality. And IMO Brad Pitt is a hellofa actor. 12 Monkeys, Snatch, fight club... 3 great movies IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerslave Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 It is NOT stated in The Iliad that Achilles and Patroclus were lovers, BTW. Homer merely states that they were best friends, and for some odd reason everybody just seems to jump to the conclusion that they are lovers. It is also a public misjudgement that Agamamnon was the uber-warmonger that is shown in the film. "...then every son of Troy will die" is one of the greatest possible HOLLYWOOD cliches a guy can find in the film. As for the mix of cultures in the Greek army...I can tell you for sure that the Greeks wouldn't be 150kg fleshbags full of hormones with dark skin, scars on their faces and no hair at all, shouting at the enemy like animals. I stand by my opinion that Greeks are shown like Northmen who are about to pillage their next Christian settlement. But as already stated this is a Hollywood film and everybody pretty much just does what he thinks will sell more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Product of the Cosmos Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 Ahh.. I can see how the movie would be dissapointing then.. I guess if I knew more about what actually happened @ Troy I would have been somewhat dissapointed too. But I dont see it as a history lesson. I see it as entertainment. I give the movie 9/10 personally. Wasn't the 'war monger shown in film' killed by his wife for being a **** tho? lol.. Im not sure as I am not aware if I was alive at that point or not, but thats what I heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitemithrandir Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 You see? You see? This is what happens when you walk into a hollywood movie expecting something great. For your own sake, DON'T! It'll only end up making you depressed and disappointed. Me? I went in there expecting "wow cool, big battle whoopeee!!!!" and I got what I wanted and I was a happy camper. Moral of the story: be an optimist and you'll always be disappointed. Word economics To express my vast wisdom I speak in haiku's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roshan Posted July 11, 2004 Author Share Posted July 11, 2004 I think that the Greeks were portrayed as blond etc due to the ignorance of americans and other people who dont know what greeks look like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roshan Posted July 11, 2004 Author Share Posted July 11, 2004 Exactly, so why did the movie remove these things? The movie was just plain idiotic. Why would they include them? Because its part of the story, and it would have made the movie better. I didnt sit in the theater for 3 hours in order to watch that idiotic and melodramatic ending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerslave Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 Wasn't the 'war monger shown in film' killed by his wife for being a **** tho? Indeed he was. He was murdered by his wife, Clytemnestra, and her lover, Aegisthus. Clytemnestra was already mad at Agamemnon for sacrificing their daughter, Iphigenia (so that the Greek fleet would be able to sail to Troy), and then she finds out that Agamemnon is bringing home another wife, Cassandra. Immediately after their return from Troy, both Agamemnon and Cassandra were murdered by Clytemnsetra and Aegisthus. (See the Greek tragedy "Agamemnon" for more info). After some time they were both killed by Agamemnon's son, Orestes. The fact that Agamemnon was for some reason murdered in the middle of the film is yet another deviation from the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 The opposite is sort of true for King Arthur, Hollywood critics slam it for rewriting the tail, when its the most historically accurate one so far. Doesn't say much considering, but that is a different story. uh, given that the whole king arthur thing is myth (well, mostly myth, some fact), to refer to it as 'historically accurate' is a bit of a misnomer. the only 'true' part of the myth is that there is legend of a warring tribal leader in the first millenium that fought in and around eurpope and england. whether or not he was a 'king' that united england is another question... just about everything else was added a thousand years later (malory, tennyson, et. al.) taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'JN Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 Because its part of the story, and it would have made the movie better. I didnt sit in the theater for 3 hours in order to watch that idiotic and melodramatic ending. That's exactly what you did. Everyone else did too, but they didn't seem to mind. Hollywood always caters to the masses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumquatq3 Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 Troy reminded me of Starship Troopers with swords. BTW, who was dissing Bana? He was the lone bright spot in the movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderAndrew Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 The movie had a great cast and a great director. And when you're dealing with the whole of Trojan mythos, you have to focus on one aspect of the story. Many people have changed the story a bit to fit their version of the tale. What gets me is that despite great visuals, great acting (from everyone but Brian Cox), a good score, and carnage galore, the movie didn't completely do it for me. It was good. I'd give it 7 or 8 outta 10. The movie lacked a fitting climax, and lacked a true villian. It was a bold move to try and be objective in telling the story with no clear protagonists and antagonists. However, I think it was a foolish move, and one that ultimately failed. Brad Pitt was much better than I expected, but his character is still an ass. It's hard to develop a whole lot of sympathy and support for him, where as Hector is a noble everyman, and a loving father. Paris is an impudent and moody chump. He brought down the mass carnage, and survived by being a coward. Yet, ultimately it is he who has the happy ending, and bests the mighty Achilles. Then again, I can nitpick and point out plenty of flaws in Return of the King, and I love that movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Product of the Cosmos Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 Im kinda glad it didnt have the 'super villian' 'super hero' structure. It could have been a lot better I agree.. But overall I am very satisfied with the immersion factor I felt by seeing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nexus Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 It is NOT stated in The Iliad that Achilles and Patroclus were lovers, BTW. Homer merely states that they were best friends, and for some odd reason everybody just seems to jump to the conclusion that they are lovers. It is also a public misjudgement that Agamamnon was the uber-warmonger that is shown in the film. "...then every son of Troy will die" is one of the greatest possible HOLLYWOOD cliches a guy can find in the film. As for the mix of cultures in the Greek army...I can tell you for sure that the Greeks wouldn't be 150kg fleshbags full of hormones with dark skin, scars on their faces and no hair at all, shouting at the enemy like animals. I stand by my opinion that Greeks are shown like Northmen who are about to pillage their next Christian settlement. But as already stated this is a Hollywood film and everybody pretty much just does what he thinks will sell more... Cool, another person who has read The Iliad. I finished re-reading it a week ago. It says in it quite a few times that Achilles has a longing and liking for Briseis, the slave girl, who was taken from him by Agamemnon. Still haven't seen the movie. Maybe I'll wait until I can rent it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'JN Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 Achilles' issue with Agamemnon taking away Briseis had less to do with his attachment to her and more to do with the fact that she was simply being taken away. Love never seemed to be central in Homeric epics, it was usually used as more of a backdrop - something that either sets up the story or concludes. The love story in the movie was just typical Hollywood tripe. A lot of people think of Achilles as a big baby, who hates not getting what he wants and will inconvenience everyone else when he doesn't. I did however think it was wise of him to allow Briseis to be taken away, and was a little surprised by Achilles' reaction in the movie. I guess that sort of fit the image that the movie painted a little better though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oerwinde Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 Were you expecting something else? It had Brad Pitt and Eric Bana in it. Come on and grow a clue. Hey, don't be dissing Brad Pitt. I hate how everyone rips on him because he's pretty. Most of his movies are good (Fight Club, Snatch, Legends of the Fall, Interview with the Vampire, Se7en, 12 Monkeys, Kalifornia, Meet Joe Black, etc.) And Eric Bana was the best part of the movie. Personally I loved Troy. I got home and said "Man, I wanna see that again" As did everyone else I know who saw it. I went in to see an entertaining movie, and thats what I got. It didn't even claim it was based on the Illiad so I don't know why people say it butchered it. Right there in the credits: "Inspired by". When a movie says its based on something they usually stray more than Troy did, and they just claimed to be inspired by it. I wish A)People would stop seeing movies they know they won't enjoy, then bitching that they didn't enjoy it. And B)Hollywood would kill all film critics because none of them know a good movie when it kicks them in the face. Didn't see a single positive review for butterfly effect, and have not met a single person who didn't think it was awesome. The area between the balls and the butt is a hotbed of terrorist activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now