Rate Troy

[Agemegos]

I have a vague recollection that I came across some mention of diplomatic correspondence preserved at Babylon or Assur or somewhere like that that includes tantalising hints of what might be a quarrel between the Mycenaean empire and the Trojans over slaving raids in Greece, and at about the right time.

It was Hittite records. You have to be able to admit the following correspondences:

1. The place being attacked was Wilusa. (Homer calls the city that was the capital of the Trojan state "Ilios", and there is no "w" in Greek.

2. The people doing the attacking were the Ahhiyawa. (Homer uses the term 'Achaioi' for the confederation lead by Agamemnon, whom the translators call 'Greeks'.)

3. The ruler of Wilusa was Alaksandu (and 'Alexandros' is one of the names by which Paris was known in versions other than Homer (Disparis is another)).

4. There was somebody making trouble called "Piyamaradu". Could this be Priam? Unfortunately he doesn't seem to be a Trojan, but either an Ahhiyawa or a Hittite renegade.

See the following websites:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2004/troyqa.shtml

http://www.archaeology.org/0405/etc/troy3.html

 

[barsoomcore]

Well, I rated it a 5. Mrs. Barsoom liked it considerably more than I did (go figure), but we neither of us have any desire to see it again.

I agree with those who found it bland. It was indeed, very, very bland. Very bland. Bland-o-rama. Whole lotta bland. Blllaaaaaannnnnndddd.



I think the evidence on Orlando Bloom is pretty conclusive -- boy needs to learn how to act. Seriously. He's got that "wrinkly forehead determined stare" thing down -- if he had three or four more expressions he'd have a veritable palette to work with. I like the kid, and I bet he's the sweetest guy in the world, but somebody work with him a little and get him acting, willya?

And there were multiple points in this film where I sat back, annoyed at how bland it all was, and said, "Peterson, you're a hack."

I love Das Boot as much as the next guy, but that was a LONG time ago. And since then? Enemy Mine, In The Line of Fire, Outbreak, Air Force One, A Perfect Storm, and now this. None of them really awful films, but all of them sort of... bland. Sort of, "Who cares?" Sort of, "Why am I watching this?"

The contrast between this film and Return of the King could not be more stark, I think. The inside of Troy looked like a set. The inside of Minas Tirith looked like a place where people had been living for centuries.

And we've been seeing big lines of non-existent people run into each other for a while, now. Since The Mummy Returns, at least. I don't know what makes people think that particular shot gets MORE exciting everytime we see it. And for swords-and-sandals cheeseball thrills, give me the Rock anytime.

Not a film made by people who seemed to have the slightest passion for the material. It just felt stitched together cynically, without much concern for the details, without any guiding dream or vision behind it.

Maybe one more shot of Brad Pitt's torso is what I needed.

Here comes the summer. Next up is The Day After Tomorrow, I reckon. Nothing like a disaster film to perk me right up.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Okay to be fair I had to force myself to this movie and I wish I did not go. Maybe it was going into it with the that attitude but the movie just did not impress me.

4 - Could have waited.

 

[shilsen]

Now, are the events of the Illiad completely a myth, or is there historical evidence etc. about there actually being a Trojan War, Helen, Achilles, etc.? Obviously not the mystical stuff....but some of the people, the Trojan Horse, etc.?

Greek history is something I never really studied in school. Lots of stuff about Roman history, as well as Egyptian, but for some reason, not Greek.

Banshee

A lot of people have spent substantial time and effort trying to find historical evidence of the war in the Iliad, but there just hasn't been anything even close to conclusive found yet. All we can say for sure is that Troy did exist and was destroyed a number of times. Anything else is pretty much speculation. Part of the problem is that a lot of archaeologists and historians grab onto every new discovery in that area and time period and immediately try to link it to the Trojan War.

 

[Thanee]

And we've been seeing big lines of non-existent people run into each other for a while, now.

Were those really non-existant?

I've read about the huge number of statists used in the movie somewhere...

Bye
Thanee

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Couple of things...

...and Paris CG...

No offense, but you're kidding, right? CN on his best day. One could argue that he was CG and incredibly dumb. But I don't buy it. No one lacks forethought to that degree. He was selfish and found ways to get what he wanted while appearing conflicted about it.

The only change in the story that really, really bothered me is

Spoiler

that we are to assume he and Helen got away and lived free at the end.

Aside from this (I think, singular) willful break with both the letter and spirit of the source material, that's just a dreadful, dreadful injustice.

...Every character has to be a big macho skilled man of war for it to be cool? Yeah....I've seen this so often. Distain for a character simply because he's a pretty boy, slight, etc, etc...

Not the problem. The problem is that he's endlessly selfish, yet the movie insists on treating him as a hero. He is 50% responsible for the whole mess that leads to the deaths of thousands, including his father and brother. He makes several pathetic and half-hearted attempts to make up for this and consistently succeeds only in making things worse. I mean...

Spoiler

If accountability meant anything, he should be #1 on the Hollywood "Is a jerk, and will therefore die" list. They killed Agamemnon against the source material for comparable sins while leaving Paris alive against both the source material and the sin-o-meter.

One other issue, I've noticed at least one complaint here (and a number in the reviews) that the actress is "not believable as 'the face that launched a thousand ships.'" I ask you, who could possible be believable in that role? I challenge you to find a single woman who even 100 people will agree is the "most beautiful woman in the world." Besides, the way the movie played out her beauty and Menelaus were secondary to Agamemnon's greed. So she didn't need to be "the face that launched a thousand ships."

 

[Thanee]

Paris just has an incredibly low wisdom score.

I don't think he could foresee what he would break loose by taking Helena with him. His brother could, but in the end he still didn't turn around, because that would have been a sure death for both of them.

He just lacks the confidence of his brother. He often is on the right track, but simply unable to achieve anything in the end, like when he wants to challenge Menelaus to end the war.

Bye
Thanee

 

[shilsen]

The only change in the story that really, really bothered me is

Spoiler

that we are to assume he and Helen got away and lived free at the end.

Aside from this (I think, singular) willful break with both the letter and spirit of the source material, that's just a dreadful, dreadful injustice.

It's not really the kind of break (or as much of a break) from the source material that you think it is. Remember that

Spoiler

Paris is not actually slain in the Iliad, because the epic ends after the funeral of Hector. In most of the other texts which do deal with the end of the war, Paris is slain by an arrow from the bow of Hercules, which is brought to the war by Hercules' former companion Philoctetes (long story). But there are also certain traditions that Paris is only wounded and manages to fly to Mount Ida, where his festering wound is healed by his original wife Oenone, whom he had deserted. Admittedly Helen doesn't escape with Helen in this version, but in another version she isn't even in the war, having been transported to King Proteus of Egypt on Zeus' orders, while Paris carried off a phantom version created by Hera, ensuring that the Greeks would attack Troy.

So there are a lot more versions of the source material both in letter and spirit, than is commonly known.

 

[shilsen]

The only change in the story that really, really bothered me is

Spoiler

that we are to assume he and Helen got away and lived free at the end.

Aside from this (I think, singular) willful break with both the letter and spirit of the source material, that's just a dreadful, dreadful injustice.

It's not really the kind of break (or as much of a break) from the source material that you think it is. Remember that

Spoiler

Paris is not actually slain in the Iliad, because the epic ends after the funeral of Hector. In most of the other texts which do deal with the end of the war, Paris is slain by an arrow from the bow of Hercules, which is brought to the war by Hercules' former companion Philoctetes (long story). But there are also certain traditions that Paris is only wounded and manages to fly to Mount Ida, where his festering wound is healed by his original wife Oenone, whom he had deserted. Admittedly Helen doesn't escape with Helen in this version, but in another version she isn't even in the war, having been transported to King Proteus of Egypt on Zeus' orders, while Paris carried off a phantom version created by Hera, ensuring that the Greeks would attack Troy.

So there are a lot more versions of the source material both in letter and spirit, than is commonly known.

 

[Agemegos]

Spoiler

If accountability meant anything, he should be #1 on the Hollywood "Is a jerk, and will therefore die" list.

Interesting that you should say that. I have been re-reading the Iliad, and was just struck by the bit where Hector says "Paris, you pretty boy, you woman-struck seducer; why were you ever born?... the Trojans are too soft. Otherwise you would have been stoned to death long ago for the evil you have done."