Discussion in 'Off-Topic Chat' started by stabbyjnr, May 19, 2004.
i think its a wrong renactment of greek mythology my self but a good film with a few mistakes...
Find more discussions like this one
I didnt even realise it had been released yet. too busy revising FISH to wory bout the cinema at the moment.
i voted good.
not seen it yet, but lets face it.... brad pitt and orlando bloom in the same film (and in short skirts!!!) well. its too much for a girl!!!
Sklipped along yesterday and had the cinema to myself for the midday screening. Good movie, unsure of how accurate it is. Why do leading actors think they have to have sex scenes all the time?? The movie would have been just as good without the "sacrificing of the virgin" or the "seduce the other king's queen" scenes.......just to see Orlando slip up the stairs to Helen was indication enough they was gonna get jiggy wif it!
Erm... mythology means it's mostly made up anyway, and has changed throughout the years as people have adapted the tale. I don't think there's much wrong with them using a bit of artistic license on this one!
It isn't actually mythology. Its an idea that has taken it's inspiration from the homeric poems the Iliad and the Odyssey and Virgil's Aeneid. There can't actually be any mistakes because it isn't truely based on one account of the battle of Troy (even the Iliad and the Odyssey have inconsistences).
I am disappointed that they missed out the gods, but I think it would have been difficult to fit that story even in 21/2 hours.
Who cares?! I'm just going to see Brad, Orlando and Eric with their legs out..... :wink:
Aha! But Brad's legs aren't his...
Without meaning to be a semantic pedant, it most definitely is mythology, coming from the oral tradition of epic cycle poetry, for which Homer is the surviving source of evidence. It was used by later Greeks as an example of their lost bronze age, for defining hero cult etc etc, so in the sense that it is used by later Greeks as a means of explaining their past it has to be mythology. As you say, though, there are various versions of the myth, but the "standard" (for most Classical Greeks too, ok, only because it was the epic version that got written down!) was the Iliad.
I haven't seen the film yet, but will be interested to see how the Hollywood treatment creates its own variant. A version with no gods is difficult to imagine; I suppose Brad Pitt does the business with no help from anyone. Sigh. I imagine it to be more like Mission Impossible than Greek epic ...
No, mythology is the study of myth, which is a fictional series of events used to explain an unexplainable phenomenon. This is legend, which is different in that it is an embellishment of historical fact. The film is based upon at least three accounts (and possibly more, modern historical accounts) of the battle of Troy and its aftermath - including Virgil's Aenid, which is a Roman epic poem (okay, based heavily on the homeric story) so it is not purely Greek in its ideas. The Battle of Troy does have some historical basis therefore it cannot be myth.
Consider yourself super-semantic pedanted.
I've not seen it but will do and hopefully will not be disappointed. The Ilyiad is accepted by many to be the first real novel in a "modern" format. Although there is historical basis, people should should not confuse the story with gospel truth. If the film is inaccurate, it will be at fault in my view for not following the book as opposed to be historically inaccurate. I hate it when books are made into films badly. Does my nut. But not as much as historically inaccurate films that are supposed to portray real events.... (Titanic, U-571 etc... :evil: )
Totally agree. I mean, the historical fact I refer to is that there was a city that was besieged at the same time and in roughly the same place as Troy was supposed to be. Chances are Homer (or whoever) probably made up the name "Troy" and most of the story.
U-571 was a tragedy - I mean the cheek of putting out a film that claims the Americans found and deciphered the enigma code, which is just blatantly wrong - there were far too busy building the bomb. I thought the potrayal of the captain in titanic was totally unfair too. Don't get me started on Pearl Harbour....
The strict distinction between myth and legend isn't recognised by all scholars. Be that as it may, the historical basis of any sort for the Battle of Troy has always been, and will always be, seriously disputed. The archaeological evidence from mound VII at Hisarlik, for example, is far from incontrovertible as is any of the other evidence - archaeological, historical and linguistic. In the end, believing that the/a Battle of Troy ever took place is largely a matter of faith and so, therefore, any distinction between myth and legend becomes even more meaningless.
Well it depends how you view it. What we know is that a battle and seige of a large, well-defended city in Asia Minor occured around the time that the iliad is supposedly set. I think it is highly likely that a large battle of this kind would generate stories and that these stories would be used in the generation of epic poems - judging by the proliferation of other stories of this period. I would think it would be more unlikely that this battle did not influence the writing of the iliad.
I would personally not group the iliad in the same category as the early greek myths concerning the behaviour of the gods and how the world came to be. IMHO a myth is some fictional explaination of something that is observed but cannot be explained by reason at the time, i.e. myths were a way for the Early Greek people to understand the world around them - the iliad is not that.
But we are probably going off topic so we'll agree to disagree.
Your last post prompts various other reasons why I believe the myth-legend distinction is not useful in this context, however ...
... that seems fair! Thanks for the discussion, though, I rarely get to talk Classics these days.
Damn Ancient History A Level and I never got to take the exam either.
I suppose Troy's alright, but Marina is prettier :shock: :wink:
Back on topic: I've not seen the film yet but from what I hear they seem to have done all the usual Holywood tricks of changing the story round - female love interest in one case rather than the original male, characters staying alive who should die, and omitting the role of the gods, who are so important in the original.
It's as if they just want a handle to hang things on and to attract people in the first place; it strikes me it would be more honest just to commisson an original story of their own, but that would probably be much harder to market!
i know in the great scheme of things it doesnt matter if they change the story etc but argh! its so annoying! :x menelaus (and whats with "menelouse" and "preeeeam"?!) can't die - thats the whole point that paris broke the laws of hospitality so he cant go trotting off into the sunset with helen! and why is priam single? and whats with the roman style shield formations? and how do they make the whole thing be in 20 days instead of 20years? and whats with the whole bit at thessaly at the beginning? and....ok, sorry!
i realise that changes for dramatic tension, fitting into 2 1/2 hours etc are necessary, but its still bugging! and IMHO many are unnecessary as then they could have concentrated more on character etc. the battle scenes just werent as impressive after LotR! nice set and costumes tho! and i thought all the actors were good with what they had - it just grated a bit when hector would say "agamemnon doesnt care about helen, he just wants to sack troy", cut to agamemnon "i dont care about getting helen back, i just want to get troy" argh!
the hector storyline was done well...
brad pitt looked v nice 2!
It's a fantastic film, so revolutionary in terms of technology and effects. Sure the plot's a bit ropey, but look at the action sequences - EVERYONE recognises the light cycles!
Hang on, I've misread again haven't I...
Hehe Nick - very good...
Not out here til next week, so will reserve judgement (probably scathing) till then
Separate names with a comma.