Did troy come out in Britain today? Has anyone seen it?

I'm from Sweden and I saw last Saturday, so I guess that it has been launched in Britain also...

Don't have to much expectations of it though. I thought that the trailer were actually better than the movie. Brad Pitt does a remarkable bad effort as Akilles. He acts somehow like a stoned bay watch star.

Thats a sham, because I'm really looking forward to it. I'll probably still go see it though.

Well, its out in Australia for sure...and it was good. No thanks to Brad Pitt though. Is it just me, or did everyone think that Eric Bana was brilliant as Hector?

I watched it last Friday and the positives are:


1. very good battles except from the duel of Hector and Achilles, which I believe that it was too much "dancing" at least for my taste.
2. Good costumes.
3. Nice acting by Brad Pitt and the guy who plays Hector.

The negatives are:

1. Many, far too many inaccuracies and changes. The worst was that the war lasted just 15 days.
2. He failed to present the characters correctly, he twisted the characters of Agamemnon and Menelaus and he failed to show how tragic characters Hector and Achilles were. The only characters that he presented successfuly were Paris and Priamus.
3. There were points were the script was ridiculous. For example when Hector kills Patroclus and realizes that he wasn't Achilles he says to Odysseus "Enough blood is spilled today, let's continue tomorrow", Odysseus agrees and the battle stops.
4. Bad acting from the model, who plays Helen.

Someone from Greece should know. ;)

Indeed, there are too much changes. They die in the wrong place, wrong time, wrong situation. Just don't bother and it'll be fine.

Troy came out in the UK ages ago

For entertainment value, it's decent enough, however, the story is so butchered that it's barely recognizable.

Being a fan of classical literature, I knew that Hollywood would butcher the story, but I didn't think that it would be butchered to the extent that it had been.

I agree with BOC's opinions.

IMO, the inaccuracies in Troy are worse than those that were in Gladiator.

I saw it yesterday and indeed Eric Bana was brilliant! And so was Orlando. Pit was a bit dissapointing this time. But it was a nice movie!

Yes Eric Bana was amazing in it, and saved the movie. I quite liked the battle between Achilles and Hector.

They changed a whole load of stuff that just either made me cringe or get annoyed. The first one was the whole thing with Patroclus. Why the hell did they make him Achilles cousin!? And Briseis was not royalty and maybe not a Priestess of Apollo, though I'm not sure. She was a slave girl taken from a surrounding village that the Acheans attacked before hitting Troy.
And lets just rewrite myth shall we!!! Agamemnon was murdered by his wife upon his return to Mycenie, not Briseis in Troy. And the Danaans were there for 10 years not a couple of weeks. Nestors role of Advisor was played down. If I can remember correctly, Agamemnon sends 3 men to convince Achilles to rejoin the war.
That reminds me of another thing - Achilles tells Patroclus to fight the Trojans away from the ship if he wants and lets him lead the Myrmadons into battle... God, the list just goes on....

If I've made any mistakes (except spellings - its been a while) please correct me) ;)

I hate Hollywood sometimes.

Very good movie - brilliant battles anyhow.

However, the bookstores near the movie theatre haven't learnt the art of cashing in. Neither of them had The Iliad or The Odessey :mad:

Maybe a bit offtopic but the part with the Minotaur in the Labyrinth did this happen before or after Troy?

I think that was King Minos in Crete...and it happened after Troy. At least I'm pretty sure it happened after Troy. Maybe before even. Hell, it could've been during Troy, but rest assured - Brad Pitt was not there!

@SleepleSS

The adventures of Theseus (labyrinth included)took place before the war of Troy.

BOC, I don't think the model who played Helen was cast for her acting ;)

@Erebus

That's true but it can't be an excuse for her acting or for those who have chosen her. There are real actresses, who are more beautiful and can play this role with success (Monica Belucci and Liv Tyler for example).

Did any of you see the television version on A&E called "Helen of Troy?" I thought it was pretty good. The guy that played Achilles was much tougher and cooler than Braddie boy! Actually, the guy that played Achilles could play Minsc in a BG live action film!!! Take a look:

Helen of Troy (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0340477/)

Here's a pic of the guy that played Achilles, he's midway down the page, on the right, with a picture of Helen on the left:

Achilles and the Helen of Troy TV movie (http://www.genreonline.net/Helen_Of_Troy_USA.html)

That's true but it can't be an excuse for her acting or for those who have chosen her. There are real actresses, who are more beautiful and can play this role with success.I have to agree with this. Kruger couldn't act, she may be beautiful but not beautiful enough to launch a thousand ships.

1. Eric Bana did a good job as Hector.
2. I also like Peter O'Toole and Brain Cox's acting as Priam and Agamemnon, respectively.
3. Sean Bean had a great character, but sadly he has a lousy script.
4. Butt Pitt, I mean Brad, was more like there to make the girls swoon. Although, I have to admit that some of his moves were really cool.
5. If Troy wasn't derived from Iliad or any other literature, it is a great movie. But as a movie based on Homer's work, it's nothing Homeric.

Did any of you see the television version on A&E called "Helen of Troy? I saw it one week before the release of "Troy" and the only think that I liked was the actress who played helen. She was very good and actually she was just as I imagined Helen the first time I read Iliad. As for the guy who played Achilles...
Achilles a skinhead? Well since I saw that I wouldn't be surprised if they make him a mohican in the next movie about Troy :mad:

Basically, I was wholeheartedly disappointed in this film. There was nothing Homeric about it at all and certainly nothing epic either. One of the worst mistakes IMO was - as it seemd to me at least - making the film about Achilles more than anything whereas The Iliad itself was moreso about the whole war and most everybody involved. Certainly someone better-suited to the role of Achilles could have been found for crying out loud.

I am a little irritated by all these critics harping on the accuracy of the film (I'm not referring to anyone in particular from this thread, but it is something I see everywhere I go). The Iliad, while an extremely important piece of literature, is highly flawed as a story. If they created the movie exactly as written in the Iliad, the movie would be incredibly ridiculous and unlikeable.

Most of the changes made in Troy were necessary. For instance, in the Iliad, Hector runs! He doesn't stand up to Achilles. This is probably the most anti-climatic event in the history of literature. The Iliad focuses on Achilles, an unsympathetic anti-hero instead of the real hero, Hector. The move to make Achilles a tormented character allowed accessiblity for western audiences. Also they left the Gods out. Thank God! "Clash of the Titans," anyone? The deaths of Menelaus and Ajax were of little consequence to the overall story. I did find it disagreeable that Agamemnon was killed, since he had such an interesting backstory (that was not detailed).

Of course they had to make Patroclus Achilles' cousin. They had to strengthen the bond between the two in order to make Achilles' rage believable. A western audience would have a hard time accepting that Achilles' rage was the product of homosexual love.

The only major criticism I have is that they went overboard on the whole Briseis-Achilles romance. Perhaps it would have been wiser to focus on Andromeche and Hector. And where was Kassandra?

Apparently I'm alone on this, but I though Brad Pitt was a kick--- Achilles.

-end rant

[ May 25, 2004, 17:18: Message edited by: Ankiseth_Vanir ]

The movie was grouse, go and see it now because it rocks.

I was a bit unsure of whether to include the possibility of Achilles being homosexual as my lecturer was staunchly against the idea - though I think he was. But what if they had made Patroclus, Achilles companion through simple friendship, rather than blood relation. They could then have left hints that there was more 'there' between them and what if they restored the original scene of Achilles instructing Patroclus to lead the Myrmadon's into battle. Then his agony of Patroclus' death would be deeper - as blame would partly be on Achilles. Instead, they wished for Brad Pitt to have a macho image, avenger of murdered family and impaler of women.

I don't recall Hector running away from Achilles - but like I said before - its been a while since I read the Iliad. However, if he did run, why was it changed. Ankiseth, you mention changes were necassary, why? The removal of the Gods was a good thing, but I feel that altering key elements in the story reduced the depth of the characters.

Last post was written in anger shortly after seeing the movie, so it didn't make much sense.

@ Ankiseth_Vanir

You claim people are pretending to be scholars but from what I've read elsewhere it seems people are just discussing what the think about the movie and how closely it follows the Iliad from what they remember. In my posts for instance, I offer no definate evidence, just my opinions which I formed whe I studied Classics. Does this make me a wanna-be-scholar? I, like many others here at SP, value peoples opinions as they help improve understanding of a given subject. Critisizing others' thoughts, theories and speculations can be viewed as arrogance and/or jealousy. What if no one voiced their views. Would there be a single topic on this website?

I know you said you were not targetting anybody here, but to be honest, it doesn't matter. You brought up several things I had said and I appreciate that - I did not appreciate you labelling everybody who has read the Iliad and made references to how it is different from the movie as pseudo-scholars. When you mention critisizing the accuracy of the film - why not do this? As far as I am concered (personal opinion) Troy should have at least portrayed the characters as they are represented in the Iliad rather than changing them to suit the actors and the western mindset.
Anyway, I'm in a rush to get to work so I'll have to cut this short.

oh yes Hector runs, he is chased around troy by Achilles, until Athena tricks him to stop and fight Achilles. probably why the cut that scene, since they removed the gods.

But i don't understand why you (Ankiseth_Vanir) call hector a hero. what he did to Patroklos after his death, was not what I would call Honorable.

@ Ankiseth_Vanir

Since you claim that the changes were necessery could you explain to me why the "greatest war ever" became a two weeks raid? Why the King of Myrmidons became a chieftain of mercenaries? Why Ajax, the King of Salamin, became a barbarian warrior? Why Aeneas, one of the greatest warlords of Troy, became a servant boy? And this list can go on forever.

Also, Hector had to run and this is one of the points where the movie failed to show the tragicness of Hector and Achilles and the differences of these two characters. Achilles was brave by nature, a natural born killer. On the other hand Hector was brave because he had to be brave since he was the prince of Troy. So when Hector runs, he is just revealing the fact that he is a simple mortal human, who is facing a semi-god, and not a fearless superhero. Moreover Achilles was a tormented character and this becomes apparent when his lust for revenge is over with the killing of Hector.

Last time I put a tongue-in-cheek comment into a post at this site. My God.

@ Ankiseth_Vanir

Since you claim that the changes were necessery could you explain to me why the "greatest war ever" became a two weeks raid? Why the King of Myrmidons became a chieftain of mercenaries? Why Ajax, the King of Salamin, became a barbarian warrior? Why Aeneas, one of the greatest warlords of Troy, became a servant boy? And this list can go on forever. All those changes are of no consequence to the overall direction of the story. Besides, the movie is called TROY, not THE ILIAD.

A ten year war simply doesn't work in a movie context. To begin with, it barely even makes sense in the book.

Also, Hector had to run and this is one of the points where the movie failed to show the tragicness of Hector and Achilles and the differences of these two characters. Achilles was brave by nature, a natural born killer. On the other hand Hector was brave because he had to be brave since he was the prince of Troy. So when Hector runs, he is just revealing the fact that he is a simple mortal human, who is facing a semi-god, and not a fearless superhero. Moreover Achilles was a tormented character and this becomes apparent when his lust for revenge is over with the killing of Hector. That's all well and good, but picture something. Imagine how *absolutely ridiculous* the movie would be if Eric Bana was chased around the walls of Troy by Brad Pitt. It would be completely ludicrous to think a 21st century Western audience would buy that.

But i don't understand why you (Ankiseth_Vanir) call hector a hero. what he did to Patroklos after his death, was not what I would call Honorable. Of course Hector is the hero. He is the defender of his country, a good husband and father, etc. Let me ask you a question, if Hector isn't the hero (or most heroic) of the Iliad, who is?

[ May 25, 2004, 17:31: Message edited by: Ankiseth_Vanir ]

@Ankiseth_Vanir

Some of the minor people, like Ajax, Odysseus, Diomedes and Patroklos,who only died because of Apollo, its Apollo who beats him three times and in the end removes his armor so the "hero" Hector can kill him, Hector then dishonor his body and when Achilles want's revenge he begs Achilles not the dishonor his body if he should loose and promise Achilles the same, why should Achilles spare the man who dishonored his mentor? Hector his not only a coward, he also lags honor

That's all well and good, but picture something. Imagine how *absolutely ridiculous* the movie would be if Eric Bana was chased around the walls of Troy by Brad Pitt. It would be completely ludicrous to think a 21st century Western audience would buy that.If this is ridiculous (IMO it isn't), Achilles standind out of the gates of Troy and calling Hector to get out and face him is much more ridiculous. Also, the fact that Hector finally comes to face Achilles, because he feels guilty
for death of Patroclus (this is absoluty ridiculous), is one of the points where Hector's character is butchered, since he would never put his pride above his country.

It would be completely ludicrous to think a 21st century Western audience would buy that. The 21st century audience buys that a soldier armed with a machinegun can annilihate an entire division without getting a single hit (remember Rambo?) or that a firefighter can fly to space in order to destroy a meteor, so...

A ten year war simply doesn't work in a movie context A simple cutscene with the narrator telling that they were fighting for ten years could be the most simple solution to this.

BOC, you seemed to have missed the point entirely. Why should the *movie* "Troy" have to stick exactly to the *book/epic/song* "The Iliad"? Why?

Obviously, the answer is that the people who made the movie "Troy" have absolutely no obligation to follow the Iliad at all - they are free to make the movie they want to make. They worked with the Homeric characters and sculpted them in such a way to make the best movie they possibly could. Why can't they do this?

I agree with Ankiseth completely.

This isnt' about an Iliad remake, here. The people are telling a separate story based on the events described in the Iliad. Who cares if they change things? It's their movie, let them do what they want. I enjoyed it, myself. Brad Pitt was decent as Achilles. Orlando Bloom was well cast as the wussy-ish pretty boy Paris. And Eric Bana was INCREDIBLE as Hector.

I mean, not liking the movie based on its own merits is one thing, and it wasn't exactly an oscar contender. It was good, but not great. But disliking a good movie because it doesn't conform with a preconcieved notion of what it was supposed to be like seems silly to me. Your loss, I suppose.

Anyway, I liked how they depicted the battle as being more of a clash of heroes then a clash of armies. Achilles wasn't just an extraordinary soldier in the greek army; he WAS the greek army. They couldn't win without him. Same with Hector; he represented Troy itself, the hero who wants peace but is forced into battle. The fight between the two is more epic because of what it represtents: the battle that would decide who wins the war.

Of course Hector is the hero. He is the defender of his country, a good husband and father, etc. Let me ask you a question, if Hector isn't the hero (or most heroic) of the Iliad, who is?Odysseus? He did end the war. And besides, Homer's next literature was about him.

Why should the *movie* "Troy" have to stick exactly to the *book/epic/song* "The Iliad"? Why?That's really a good question, but the answer is probably no different from those of these questions: "Why should the movie maker get an existing story and give a face-lift to make it look like it's thier own work? Why didn't they just write a completely new story? They obviously have the talent for it." Whether anybody here can tell you why the movie should stick to the Homer's work, there would be as much reason why it shouldn't. It's just going to end in a stale-mate.

I guess what I'm trying to impart is that you can't expect anybody not to compare this movie with the original work. Everybody knows what Hollywood is doing, and be it a masterpiece or crap, Westerner and Eaterners would still buy the ticket. Which would actually make face-lifting stories a redundant process.

Anyway, I liked how they depicted the battle as being more of a clash of heroes then a clash of armies. Achilles wasn't just an extraordinary soldier in the greek army; he WAS the greek army. They couldn't win without him. Same with Hector; he represented Troy itself, the hero who wants peace but is forced into battle. The fight between the two is more epic because of what it represtents: the battle that would decide who wins the war.In the point of view of the movie, you are right and I agree with you. It sure did add some trills to see two heroes clash. But to Homer's fans, these two heroes died before the war ended. And Homer never intended Achilles to be the one to represent the Greeks for all posterity. His invincibility was probably Homer's vehicle to teach everyone that you can't win a war simply because you are great. And the Greeks did win the war without Achilles. In the end, it was still a bunch of "lesser" warriors that won the war for the Greeks. Come to think of it, Tolkien also did the same, it was a Hobbit who won the war for Middle Earth... not a wizard, not an elven prince, not even a human king.

Umm Odysseus is NOT the hero of the Iliad. The Trojan Horse has nothing to do with the Iliad, the Iliad ends before that.

Umm Odysseus is NOT the hero of the Iliad. The Trojan Horse has nothing to do with the Iliad, the Iliad ends before that.Really? You just given me more reason to criticize the movie "Troy". hehehe.

Why should the *movie* "Troy" have to stick exactly to the *book/epic/song* "The Iliad"? Why? Because in my opinion when a movie is based on a book or on a real story, it has to be as close to the book as possible.

My main problem with the movie is not the changes (some of them were indeed necessary like the absence of gods) but that it twists the characters and the whole meaning of the myth. In Homer's "Iliad" as well as in other versions of the myth the case was never good guys vs bad guys. It wasn't good Priamus against evil Agamemnon, good Paris against evil Menelaus etc. Although, Petersen led the movie towards this direction in order to give another "bad guys vs good guys" movie with the only difference that this time the bad guys win in the end.

Because in my opinion when a movie is based on a book or on a real story, it has to be as close to the book as possible. But WHY? Clearly, there is no real answer why they have to stick with an original story. You're disagreeing with me just to disagree with me, no other reason.

Because of respect to the original, because someone, who sees the movie and doesn't know the story, will believe that the movie version of the story is the correct. I'm not disagreeing with you just to disagree with you, I simply have a different opinion.

Those aren't acceptable reasons. Anyone stupid enough to think that a Hollywood version of "Troy" (which, by the way, only claimed to be inspired by the Iliad, not based on it) is beneath are worries. Furthermore, as I mentioned above, this movie needs show no respect to Homer's Iliad. This movie was an interpretation of the Trojan war. The Iliad was merely set in the Trojan war - the focus of the Iliad was Achilles' Rage. "The Iliad" and "Troy" are different entites with only some degree of overlap.

What the hell are you talking about!? Since Troy is not based on the Iliad in any way I renounce my earlier statements and now greatly applaud hollywood on its very original characters it made up all by itself. Oh, wait.... the Trojan War is mainly known in modern society due to the Iliad. The characters, plot developments, everything is copying the Iliad.... except not done very well.

Alternative ending you'd probably enjoy more. (http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2004/20040524l.jpg)

:D :grin: :shake: