Anyone seen the Troy trailer (merged)

[Dimwhit]

Since the only "history" we have on Troy is ambiguous archeological data and Homer's account, the question of whether or not the movie Troy is mythological or historical seems kinda silly.

True, but I think the movie will face criticism if it doesn't live up to the 'accuracies' of Homer's account, which is really all there is. True, archeological data has proven/disproven much of Homer's story, but his is really "THE" version of Troy, and it will be the standard by which the movie will be judged, I suspect.

The advantage that the movie has is that the story has become such a legend/myth that changes can be made without many people noticing or caring.

Originally posted by Mistwell
Do we really need two identical threads on this, in the same forum, with some of the exact same comments?

Nothing a Mod can't take care of in a matter of seconds. Bring on the merge!

(Myself, I just posted in the first "Troy" thread I saw.")

 

[Wombat]

Indeed. This seems to be the trend, what with the forthcoming King Arthur also being done in a historical rather than mythological manner. Lots of epic goodness next year it seems. Woot!

Then again, considering we cannot pin down when or where Arthur lived, or whether or not he was a king, not to mention to problems surrounding the careers of many people connected with the legends, "historical" becomes, to say the least, problematic as a concept.

 

[CCamfield]

Since the only "history" we have on Troy is ambiguous archeological data and Homer's account, the question of whether or not the movie Troy is mythological or historical seems kinda silly.

Not entirely. As I understand it, the film does not show any of the Greek deities.

That certainly doesn't make it historical, but they're taking a more "realistic" approach than, say, Clash of the Titans.

Considering they seem to be trying to show the entire war in a single film, I'd say that is not an unreasonable cut. Some interventions of the gods, like Athena stopping Achilles from slaughtering Agamemnon on the spot during their quarrel, could be interpreted as Achilles having a second thought about it.


I am a big mythology buff (including Homer) and have been looking forward to the film, but it may very well be a lot of splashy scenery without being a good film. I was just looking over the films he's directed, and I agree Petersen hasn't directed anything GREAT since Das Boot.


By the way, I don't know how 'up' you guys are on archaeological developments, but there was some news earlier this year that some scientists believe a big bay near the site of Hissarlik (the place believed to be Troy) has silted up over the centuries, which would have left a spit of land the Greeks could have camped on, and references to the battle swinging back and forth in the Iliad would make more sense. Also, there is an ongoing excavation there too, and evidently the city was much larger than what Schliemann found. I'm going to be seeing a talk about these digs in the early new year, which I'm really looking forward to!

(On the other hand, I agree with those scholars who say that the Iliad and Odyssey culturally reflected more their own times or an idealized/heroic version of their own times, rather than 13th-12th century Mycenean society.)

 

[Desdichado]

True, but I think the movie will face criticism if it doesn't live up to the 'accuracies' of Homer's account, which is really all there is. True, archeological data has proven/disproven much of Homer's story, but his is really "THE" version of Troy, and it will be the standard by which the movie will be judged, I suspect.

I'm not sure what archeology has proven, to be perfectly honest with you, other than the fact that Troy was, in fact, burned around about the time the Trojan War was supposed to have taken place. There's a lot of debate about the details, though. Is Troy VI the Troy of the Trojan War, which would jive fairly well with Homer's account (more or less?) Was it destroyed by earthquake and subseqently razed by the Greeks, or was there actually a Trojan horse or not? Or is Troy VI not the Troy of the Trojan War at all, and instead Troy VIIa is the one? If so, that doesn't jive very well with Homer's account, and it makes the Greeks little more than pirates who preyed on an already beseiged and downtrodden city. Were there really any such people as Menelaus, Paris, Helen, etc? Was there even a High King at Mycenae capable of marshalling the Achaean Greeks into an army? Where does the neighboring Hittite Empire fit into this, since Troy was arguably a vassal (or even a satellite city-state) of the Hittites? I've even seen conjecture that the sacking of Troy was a move in a "cold war" between the Myceneans and the Hittites.

There's a good book (and BBC video series) about Troy by a fellow named Michael Wood that explores a number of the possibilities. He's clearly in favor of Homer's account being as historically accurate as can be, so he looks for evidence to support that thesis. Everything he finds is circumstantial at best, though. At the end of the day, we know very little about the Trojan War and can't even firmly declare that there was one, so everything about it is legendary by default.

Granted Troy (the movie) can be done (and I hope it will, actually) as a historically-styled movie, with things that are all reasonably possible regardless of whether they actually happened or not. I suppose maybe that's what posters here mean when they call the movie "historically accurate." Actually, I think that's the movie I'd most like to see, everything else being equal.

 

[Dimwhit]

I'm not sure what archeology has proven, to be perfectly honest with you, other than the fact that Troy was, in fact, burned around about the time the Trojan War was supposed to have taken place. There's a lot of debate about the details, though. Is Troy VI the Troy of the Trojan War, which would jive fairly well with Homer's account (more or less?) Was it destroyed by earthquake and subseqently razed by the Greeks, or was there actually a Trojan horse or not? Or is Troy VI not the Troy of the Trojan War at all, and instead Troy VIIa is the one? If so, that doesn't jive very well with Homer's account, and it makes the Greeks little more than pirates who preyed on an already beseiged and downtrodden city. Were there really any such people as Menelaus, Paris, Helen, etc? Was there even a High King at Mycenae capable of marshalling the Achaean Greeks into an army? Where does the neighboring Hittite Empire fit into this, since Troy was arguably a vassal (or even a satellite city-state) of the Hittites? I've even seen conjecture that the sacking of Troy was a move in a "cold war" between the Myceneans and the Hittites.

There's a good book (and BBC video series) about Troy by a fellow named Michael Wood that explores a number of the possibilities. He's clearly in favor of Homer's account being as historically accurate as can be, so he looks for evidence to support that thesis. Everything he finds is circumstantial at best, though. At the end of the day, we know very little about the Trojan War and can't even firmly declare that there was one, so everything about it is legendary by default.

Granted Troy (the movie) can be done (and I hope it will, actually) as a historically-styled movie, with things that are all reasonably possible regardless of whether they actually happened or not. I suppose maybe that's what posters here mean when they call the movie "historically accurate." Actually, I think that's the movie I'd most like to see, everything else being equal.

Honestly, I'm not up on the archeological data regarding Troy either, I just know people have been trying to find evidence for a while. But I agree with you for the most part.

I was an English Lit major, so naturally I spent a good deal of time studying The Iliad and The Odyssey. I've always viewed Homer's stories as literature. The "historical accuracy" of the story is fairly irrelevant to me. In fact, I would have to say, without knowing much of the physical proof, that the story of the Trojan War is largely, if not entirely, fabrication. You're right, we can't even prove for certainly that there was a Trojan War. Remember that The Iliad is believed to be an orally transmitted epic poem (at least it was last time I studied it) that was passed on through generations. It wasn't until much later than it was put down in a book form. So certainly, to hold the story to any historical accuracy is a great injustice.

This is why I think the movie has a very strong advantage. There is no reason whatsoever to feel compelled to conform the movie to any particular mold, other than good storytelling. Because that's all Homer's Illiad was--good storytelling. Sure, it would be nice it they tried to stick with Homer's vision, but only because that's the version we know. This is one case where I'm perfectly willing to let the filmmaker go off on his own a bit, as long as it's good storytelling. Honestly, there are aspects of Homer's Iliad that would just be silly in a serious epic today.

So, basically, I'm willing to be very flexible on this movie. If it's entertaining, I'll be happy. I don't think it's fair to judge it on historical accuracy when we don't know what the true history is. As to historically-styled, like you mention, they can certainly do that. And like you, I think that's what I'm hoping for. But if it tells a good story, I'll be happy.

 

[Desdichado]

Absolutely. I expect to be entertained regardless of how they actually do this movie.

 

[uv23]

Then again, considering we cannot pin down when or where Arthur lived, or whether or not he was a king, not to mention to problems surrounding the careers of many people connected with the legends, "historical" becomes, to say the least, problematic as a concept.

Doing King Arthur as historical rather than mythological is likely more about making it a realistic movie, rather than a fantasy as most other King Arthur movies have been. It's not about doing it as factual history, as King Arthur likely never existed.

 

[Desdichado]

I agree, it's just a misnomer.

 

[barsoomcore]

Wolfgang Peterson is cause for caution in my book. Nothing I have seen about this film relaxes my caution yet.

 

[Uzumaki]

Wolfgang Peterson is cause for caution in my book. Nothing I have seen about this film relaxes my caution yet.

I'm with ya, bro. Until I saw the trailer, I hadn't seen much in the way of hype for this film. BUt as the camera panned back to reveal the huge fleet of ships, my first thought was "Right..."