Achilles, Alex, Leonidas... who's next?

[Rosacrux]

Well, it's not a bad thing per se. I mean, it's Olympics year, Olympics are held in Greece (returned to their ancient cradlle blah blah http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-juggle.gif ) and a few hollywooe flicks about "them Greeks" shouldn't be all that bad. Not to mention that and after the undisputed box-office success of "The Gladiator" Hollywood has found another holy cow to milk http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif

But I wonder how deeply, ruthlessly, royally they will screw up historical facts and data to serve their sole purpose (which is to make an extra buck or two).

Troy doesn't sound bad, judging from the trailer at least. The "oh gosh how many ships" scene nearly stopped my heart beating... breathtaking, really.

So does Alexander, even though they made him blonde (blonde, ferchristsake).

Gates of Fire... dunno, is it going to be shot? Klooney as Leonidas seems the best casting up until now in that line of movies...

Alright, I am a bit confused here. I can see the good side (historical big-budget movies means lots of chances for top-notch historical action, and we love history, some of the greatest battles in history become alive) but I can't neglect the "evils".

What do you think? Is Hollywood's recent obsession with ancient Greek history a good thing? Or a bad thing? Or both.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]What do you think? Is Hollywood's recent obsession with ancient Greek history a good thing? Or a bad thing? Or both.
Both.

The pros:
Big-budget movies have the hability to show us the grandiosity that small-budget movies can't. The aestetic realism might be greater if the director and photographing director are great. The dialogues and script might be made by someone really good. Most of the times, the cast has some very good actors for the main roles. SFX are generally good.

The cons:
Hollywood is always ready to sacrifice Historical or Author accuracy, to big-budget dumb explosions or tear-flooding mushiness. They might spend the right money in the wrong places (big star's contracts). The aestetic realism might be abysmal if the director and photographing director are incompetent and hasty. The dialogues and script might be made by someone really bad. Most of the times, the cast has some very well known actors for the main roles, making us think:

"Nice hair, Brad Pitt" instead of "Agamémnon was a tiranic bastard"

SFX might be exagerated and unrealistic (let's hope we don't have nuclear blast-style explosions in 1250BC). http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif

[The Scourge]

Pretty sure Alexander was in fact blond ,or at least fair of hair ,if I remember rightly.
As for the Illiad.Well it's probably mostly myth anyway,so I supose it's alright for any director to interpret it anyway he or she wants to.
Historical accuracy isn't everything anyway.Did Shakespeware give a crap about it?
Imo,most of these big-budget films fall flat ,not because of anything to do with historical accuracy ,but the simple fact of being baddly written predictable rubbish.
I'll still go and see them anyway.

btw.One thing that always does piss me off ,is seeing stirrups on horses in films set in the Ancient world.
Nine times out of ten you'll see it ,and it's always one of the first things i look for.Just can't help it.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]Pretty sure Alexander was in fact blond ,or at least fair of hair ,if I remember rightly.
But for a 5th century BC Greek, "blond" isn't what a 21st century AD "global" person thinks. We know Scandinavians, they didn't. We have access to a multi-ethnic global society, they din't. Their view, accordingly, was much narrower. Quite a lot of Historians say "Blond", for a 5th century BC Greek, was something like Light Brown hair.




Quote[/b] ]As for the Illiad.Well it's probably mostly myth anyway,so I supose it's alright for any director to interpret it anyway he or she wants to.
No. Respect for Homer's work is necessary, even if it is fantasy. Respect for the author is paramount. We can't make something like a musical out of this.




Quote[/b] ]Historical accuracy isn't everything anyway.
Not just for the sake of Historical accuracy, respect for the original writer is everything, or almost...




Quote[/b] ]but the simple fact of being baddly written predictable rubbish
You have a point here.




Quote[/b] ]One thing that always does piss me off ,is seeing stirrups on horses in films set in the Ancient world.
Nine times out of ten you'll see it ,and it's always one of the first things i look for.Just can't help it.
Me too. But, see? That's Historical accuracy. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif

[Rosacrux]

Aymar has got more than just a point right here. The making of historical films is for me more than just "good". It's great. Historical films about ancient Greece... all the better. Big-Budget Hollywood films, though... might just be too over the edge to actually convince me that they are anything but "fun for the masses".

No, I don't expect a 100 mi. dollar film to be put on trial for historical innacuracies - if they flop the B.O. they'll lose a fortune, I'll just lose 7 euros (and 7 for spouse, and 2 for popcorn and 4 for colas, not to mention the parking http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-dizzy2.gif ). So they usually go down the lowest common denominator and... may god help us http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-glasses2.gif

Of course they do their homework (they've got a bunch of guys doing research http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif ) but then either an ignorant director or executive jumps in and states "uh, that's lame... let's add some coold stuff" and all the sudden you see Achileas weilding some light saber and Alex doing the Karate-Matrix stuff on Hector http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif

[The Scourge]

Fair enough points.
I'll tell you what though.They could have a black man or a Chinese ,or anyone one you care to mention.The most important thing for me would be ,that here is a man who could lead men to the ends of the earth .In other words the actor has good enough to pull off a part like that.
I recently saw a new film called "Julius Ceaser."
Now they had to cram quite a life into two hours or so worth of film.
It wasn't that bad as far as historical accuracy went ,but the man(Whose name I forget.)they got to play Ceaser ,was so wooden as an Actor.Come on this was supposed to be man who strode the earth like a Colussus.
Same goes for another recent film about Napoleon.Well at least the Actor lookéd like Napoleon ,and that was about it.Good battle scenes though.

[Spino]

Sorry, as much as my Greek & Italian blood wants to enjoy a sweeping epic Mediterranean romp featuring the history of my ancestors I'm going to skip most of these ancient epics. I'd sooner read a good book or watch a decent documentary on the relevant period than fork over $10 so I can be subjected to material intended for ADD diagnosed teens and shockingly dim adults whose IQs are anchored near the bottom of the bell curve.

I can do without most of these Hollyweird epics simply because the overwhelming majority of them are garbage. Braveheart, despite its decidedly revisionist take on history was somewhat of an exception to the crap rule and was a nice little epic romp. However I cannot forgive the producers for that nauseating crap-all-over-history Scot rebel impregnates the French princess scene. The movie could have worked just fine without that nonsense As if the actual history behind those people was so boring that Hollyweird had to come up with something equally outrageous But the crux of the problem are movies like Gladiator. Barring the 15 minutes of carnage in the arenas that movie sucked.... royally, and yet it made an obscene amount of money. I realize the Oscars are as much a political and lobbying game as actual politics but I still can't believe they gave the Best Picture award to that piece of crap. Braveheart may have brought back the the epic but Gladiator set a terrible example that all subsequent epics are sure to follow.


Quote[/b] ]No, I don't expect a 100 mi. dollar film to be put on trial for historical innacuracies - if they flop the B.O. they'll lose a fortune, I'll just lose 7 euros (and 7 for spouse, and 2 for popcorn and 4 for colas, not to mention the parking ). So they usually go down the lowest common denominator and... may god help us

So basically we have to pray for a modern day David Lean or Stanley Kubrick ("Eyes Wide Shut" being the awful exception to his life's work) to come around who can persuade the powers that be in Hollyweird to finance quality epics that don't cater to the average idiot? No thank you. I firmly believe you can make a popular, quality epic that isn't dumbed down for the masses. The problem is that nowadays there are so few people capable of, let alone inclined, to make such films. I want quality NOW otherwise I'll simply save my money and catch these crappy epics on cable.


Quote[/b] ]I'll tell you what though.They could have a black man or a Chinese ,or anyone one you care to mention.The most important thing for me would be ,that here is a man who could lead men to the ends of the earth .In other words the actor has good enough to pull off a part like that.

Sorry, I can do without 'creative' casting. An actor must not only play the part but look it as well, at least as much as ability and make-up will allow. Having actors that 'look the part' has always been part of the equation needed to draw an audience into the illusion. Given your logic would a young Tojiro Mifune been perfectly suited to play Shaka Zulu? How about Max von Sydow as Geronimo or Al Pacino as Yoshimune? Sorry, you've lost me there.

Creative casting was alive and well in the 'old days' of Hollyweird but there was also an atmosphere and mentality that actually believed there was room for quality as well as the usual fare aimed at the lowest common denominator. While the movies of that age may not have been much better than those of today at least they tried to pull it off as best they could. There was an interesting (and controversial) Playboy interview with John Wayne back in the early 70s where he blasted the Hollywood establishment of that era for their blatant disregard for morals, let alone quality. I can only imagine what he would think of the industry nowadays. During Wayne's heyday as a movie star the studio heads were known to be huge fans of cinema as well as being astute business men. The generation of studio executives that took over the industry sometime in the mid-late 60s didn't really give a damn about quality, morality or anything else so long as the $$$ kept coming in. This mentality continues to this day and isn't limited to Hollyweird either. "Enemy at the Gates" was a European home brewed and financed epic that positively stunk to high hell. After the opening scene that movie took a massive nosedive into a mile high pile of sh|t.

Even taking into account the mentality of the average studio executive qualitatively speaking Hollyweird and the film genre in general is at a low point in its history. Unlike the moviemakers of yesteryear too many creative people (directors, writers, actors, etc.) received their education from television, watered down literature and comic books and it really shows. Combined with the apparent lack of taste, maturity and intelligence of the average moviegoing idiot things won't be getting better anytime soon.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-sunny.gif FANTASTIC POST, SPINO http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-sunny.gif

Nothing of what you said is wasted. ALL true http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-grin2.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif

I totally agree with you. My thoughts exactly http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-grin2.gif

[The Scourge]

All right Spino ,point taken(T'was a sweeping generalization.) ,but i stand by the general point that the most important thing is the quality of the actor that counts.
Just had a look at the other thread about Alexander.Now I've seen some of Colin Farrels stuff ,and he's not a bad actor ,but as Alexander? Just don't see it at all.
In fact ,try as i might.I can't think of anyone for the part.

[biguth dickuth]

Quote[/b] ]
The generation of studio executives that took over the industry sometime in the mid-late 60s didn't really give a damn about quality, morality or anything else so long as the $$$ kept coming in.


"Morality" is not necessary in a movie if you mean it with the classical sense of it. I mean, there were great films in the 70's like the "Clockwork Orange" that didn't have much to do with morality...
However, if you are refering to morality as the self-respect that the studio executives should have, in order to make quality films who have something true to say, instead of the usual idiotic, propagandistic crap, then i totally agree with you
I agree with the rest of your post too http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

The reason for the decline of quality and the rise of blockbusters in the late 70's is mainly to be found in the following situation:
By that time, most of the old studios had gone bankrupt and had been bought by multinational companies (and still are...). The new guys that took over didn't know that much about cinema nor did they really care about it. They care for one thing solely: money. So they set on projects for movies that would be very profitable, leaving all other aspects of filmmaking behind. And of course these companies are getting on very well with the current system (the one of free market and "democracy") and so their films are usually crammed with the "necessary" propaganda.
This is what i think has brought us here, looking for the exception of a good film among piles of bullshit...

Well, all right It seems i'm getting a little furious against those filmmaking companies... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-furious3.gif
However, this is what i dug up trying to find out the reasons why... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif

I'd like to know what you think about it.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ] looking for the exception of a good film among piles of bullshit...
LOL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

[Papewaio]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Jan. 16 2004,00:26)]
Quote[/b] ]Pretty sure Alexander was in fact blond ,or at least fair of hair ,if I remember rightly.
But for a 5th century BC Greek, "blond" isn't what a 21st century AD "global" person thinks. We know Scandinavians, they didn't. We have access to a multi-ethnic global society, they din't. Their view, accordingly, was much narrower. Quite a lot of Historians say "Blond", for a 5th century BC Greek, was something like Light Brown hair.




Quote[/b] ]As for the Illiad.Well it's probably mostly myth anyway,so I supose it's alright for any director to interpret it anyway he or she wants to.
No. Respect for Homer's work is necessary, even if it is fantasy. Respect for the author is paramount. We can't make something like a musical out of this.




Quote[/b] ]Historical accuracy isn't everything anyway.
Not just for the sake of Historical accuracy, respect for the original writer is everything, or almost...
First there is the act of translation from one culture to another.

Surely unless we go to the length of actually having the entire movie in the native tongue of the time then a change from blond BC to blond 2000 AD is a minor change which has more to do with translation.

Respect for the authour? Yes and No. If the original work is the sole effort of the authour then it should be as closely followed in essence as possible. However it should be noted that it is difficult to translate things like what the players where thinking... unless you want thought bubbles in the middle of an epic http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

If the work is not an original then it should not be butchered but at the same time it should not be seen as some sort of holy tome in which every blade of grass has significance.


In the end of the day if I enjoy a film that is the main point.

If I get something intellectual/emotional/spiritual out of it, that is a bonus.

If the film inspires people to read and research then even better.

[Spino]

Quote[/b] ]FANTASTIC POST, SPINO

Nothing of what you said is wasted. ALL true

I totally agree with you. My thoughts exactly

Ah, thank you kindly. Nice to see someone else is on the same frequency... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif


Quote[/b] ]All right Spino ,point taken(T'was a sweeping generalization.) ,but i stand by the general point that the most important thing is the quality of the actor that counts.
Just had a look at the other thread about Alexander.Now I've seen some of Colin Farrels stuff ,and he's not a bad actor ,but as Alexander? Just don't see it at all.
In fact ,try as i might.I can't think of anyone for the part.

Sorry if I sounded a touch combative in my post but I guess you can tell I'm fed up with the status quo of modern cinema. You'll get no argument from me on the subject of actors. I'll take talent and skill over looks and attitude anyday. Farrell's an ok actor but he's definitely underqualified for the role of Alexander the Great. But I seriously doubt the studio would have let Stone cast a virtual unknown in the role. So long as we're invoking the Hollyweird of old isn't it funny how Peter O'Toole was a virtual unknown when he did Lawrence of Arabia and became a household name immediately afterwards? These studio executives seem to have forgetten how to make a star out of a great actor. Maybe they should follow in the footsteps of the popular music industry... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif No, wait... that's a terrible idea


Quote[/b] ]Morality" is not necessary in a movie if you mean it with the classical sense of it. I mean, there were great films in the 70's like the "Clockwork Orange" that didn't have much to do with morality...
However, if you are refering to morality as the self-respect that the studio executives should have, in order to make quality films who have something true to say, instead of the usual idiotic, propagandistic crap, then i totally agree with you

Well biguth dickuth I was referring to the part of Wayne's interview where he mentioned the disappearance of gangster movies in the early 20th century. Those movies were incredibly popular with audiences but some kids were beginning to emulate the bad guys they watched on the silver screen. Obviously acts of 'youthful indiscretion' must have made for some startling headlines back in those days. However the outcry was not so great that the studios had to stop production on those films. They simply could have ignored the flak and kept making those kinds of movies but the studio heads actually got together and agreed they didn't want to negatively influence America's youth in this manner and ceased production on all gangster films They did this without pressure from the government, censors, religious groups or parent organizations This would NEVER happen today

Personally I feel some of the best films are made when they can address all the unpleasantries of life, within reason of course. I'd sooner let parents shoulder the burden of raising their kids, not studio executives and certainly not the government. But the fact that these studios willingly engaged in self-censorship for what they believed to be the betterment of all is something to think about. But the crux of my argument is about the alarming lack of quality in cinema nowadays, not morals.


Quote[/b] ]The reason for the decline of quality and the rise of blockbusters in the late 70's is mainly to be found in the following situation:
By that time, most of the old studios had gone bankrupt and had been bought by multinational companies (and still are...). The new guys that took over didn't know that much about cinema nor did they really care about it. They care for one thing solely: money. So they set on projects for movies that would be very profitable, leaving all other aspects of filmmaking behind. And of course these companies are getting on very well with the current system (the one of free market and "democracy") and so their films are usually crammed with the "necessary" propaganda.
This is what i think has brought us here, looking for the exception of a good film among piles of bullshit...

The 70s are a bit of an unusual landmark on the roadmap of American cinema. In the late 60s the studios were in bad shape as the viewing public had enough with the usual fare of the previous decade and movie attendance was suffering. Along came a small independent film called "Easy Rider" which became a huge success and created massive waves in the industry. Studio heads at the time were so desperate to cash in on these 'alternative tastes' that they threw money at independent filmmakers (Coppola, Spielberg, Lucas, Scorcese, etc.) in the hopes of recreating Fonda's success with Easy Rider. Because of this we have great movies like The Godfather I & II, Apocalypse Now, The Conversation, The French Connection, Raging Bull, etc. Movies the likes of which are really hard to come by nowadays.

While there was also plenty of crap being made in the 70s it wasn't until the phenomenal success of movies like Jaws and Star Wars in the late 70s/early 80s that those 'new guys' you mentioned who were running the studios changed gears once more and pursued a 'lowest common denominator or bust' strategy. Tragically the independent filmmakers that breathed new life into American cinema wound up playing a big part in bringing it to the sad state it is in today

[magnatz]

What Spino said http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif

As for historical accuracy, the sad fact is that the intended target audience of hollywood blockbusters does not have the slightest knowledge of ancient history, their reference frameworks being mostly Xena the warrior princess and Bugs Bunny, and they wouldn't spot a mistake even if they cared, which isn't the case. So the producers can get away with a level of crass ignorance, stereoptyping and disrespect for other cultures that would be unthinkable in a movie about American history (just imagine Lincoln saying "the US were founded as a kingdom", or the Native Americans dressing as Indians of India).

Basically as long the movie has explosions and hot chicks people will like it and defend it, and it is not like Roman, Greeks and Egyptians can sue. :(

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Very interesting points by biguth dickuth, Spino and magnatz http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif


Quote[/b] ]"Morality" is not necessary in a movie if you mean it with the classical sense of it. I mean, there were great films in the 70's like the "Clockwork Orange" that didn't have much to do with morality...
Sorry. But "Clockwork Orange" is a satyr that focuses on the relative concept of morality and amorality. So it has everything to do with it.





Quote[/b] ]As for historical accuracy, the sad fact is that the intended target audience of hollywood blockbusters does not have the slightest knowledge of ancient history, their reference frameworks being mostly Xena the warrior princess and Bugs Bunny, and they wouldn't spot a mistake even if they cared, which isn't the case. So the producers can get away with a level of crass ignorance, stereoptyping and disrespect for other cultures that would be unthinkable in a movie about American history (just imagine Lincoln saying "the US were founded as a kingdom", or the Native Americans dressing as Indians of India).

Basically as long the movie has explosions and hot chicks people will like it and defend it, and it is not like Roman, Greeks and Egyptians can sue. :(
Yeap, that's really sad. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-cry.gif
If the movie industry today, had real concerns about moral or cultural values, it would focus much more on quality and would allow for a bigger "educational" service to the society.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying they should substitute school or something like that. But they could arouse the people's curiosity, about diverse matters, in a correct and unadulterated fashion: historical, cultural or otherwise. They could hint people, to try and educate themselves about particular subjects, instead of fooling the viewers. They could contribute for people to leave the cinema thinking, insted of discussing which explosion was the best... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif

[Red Peasant]

Personally, I would like to see a feature film about Alcibiades. A brilliant, flawed and enigmatic man. His life reads like a melodramatic movie script: general, lover, orator, statesman, warrior. In fact, you probably couldn't make it up. I won't relate his life, it's all there in the sources, especially Plutarch.

As for the Troy movie, if what you say is true about the Greeks looking more like a band of marauding Vikings, that is unsettling. Not because they don't look like 'Greeks', as that would not have been the intent, IMHO, but it would indicate another stereotypical West vs East Hollywood piece of propaganda. Bluff and hearty fair-haired, blue-eyed westerners attack some sly, swarthy eastern chaps for some perceived wrong they did. Sounds all too familiar to me. The subliminal message is all too clear....I wonder if Priam will look like Osama, or maybe Saddam Hussein.... I just hope a Bush-a-like isn't playing Agamemnon.

[magnatz]

Alcibiades would be interesting, but Hollywood probably would ditch the project because the average Gladiator fan wouldn't be able to memorize his name, let alone understand the political context of V century BC Athens. Kingdom and empires are easier to manage and you can put hot princesses in the story, which doesn't hurt either.

I am not sure about the propaganda angle, but basically every recent conflict movie (Star Wars and Lord Of The Rings included) has been characterized as evil Western racist propaganda, so why not this one too ? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif

[biguth dickuth]

Quote[/b] ]
I am not sure about the propaganda angle, but basically every recent conflict movie (Star Wars and Lord Of The Rings included) has been characterized as evil Western racist propaganda, so why not this one too ?


I agree with you on that. It's possible that it will be.

However, when i mentioned proganda, i didn't mean films like "lord of the rings" but films like "armaggedon" or "independence day" and such...

[magnatz]

I passed on both movies, and frankly I don't regret it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif

Mars Attack was good anti-alien propaganda though http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif

[biguth dickuth]

Quote[/b] ]
Mars Attack was good anti-alien propaganda though


xexexeexe lol http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

[iostephanos]

Quote[/b] (magnatz @ Jan. 16 2004,05:01)]Basically as long the movie has explosions and hot chicks people will like it and defend it, and it is not like Roman, Greeks and Egyptians can sue. :(
oh trust me, the greek lobby gets involved (which can be a mixed blessing); from what i understand "we" placed so much pressure as to make antonio banderas back out of playing kemal...

steph

[Komutan]

Quote[/b] (iostephanos @ Jan. 22 2004,10:10)]oh trust me, the greek lobby gets involved (which can be a mixed blessing); from what i understand "we" placed so much pressure as to make antonio banderas back out of playing kemal...
I think the turks have to be grateful for that. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Banderas was physically not a good choice.Mustafa Kemal was blond and his eyes were blue.

[Komutan]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Jan. 15 2004,09:26)]No. Respect for Homer's work is necessary, even if it is fantasy. Respect for the author is paramount. We can't make something like a musical out of this.
Why not?Creativity should not be limited.A while ago I read "Illium", a science fiction version of Illiad written by Dan Simmons, and it was quite good.

[magnatz]

A deliberate transposition is one thing, and if it is well done there is nothing wrong with it. For example my favorite version of Shakespeare's Richard III is the movie by Richard Loncraine, which is set up in some fictional nazi-like England.

On the other hand, stuffing a pretended historical movie with inaccuracy and anachronisms is not a symptom of creativity, more like crass ignorance and box-office stunts. Of course it is impossible to reach absolute 100% historical accuracy or render the Iliad word-by-word, but this doesn't mean that it should necessarily be dumbed down, rewritten for political correctness, and sprinkled with gladiator-level bloopers in order to make it more interesting for the TV public.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]On the other hand, stuffing a pretended historical movie with inaccuracy and anachronisms is not a symptom of creativity, more like crass ignorance and box-office stunts. Of course it is impossible to reach absolute 100% historical accuracy or render the Iliad word-by-word, but this doesn't mean that it should necessarily be dumbed down, rewritten for political correctness, and sprinkled with gladiator-level bloopers in order to make it more interesting for the TV public.
Precisely. You've explained it very well. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif

[Komutan]

Quote[/b] (magnatz @ Jan. 22 2004,18:01)]On the other hand, stuffing a pretended historical movie with inaccuracy and anachronisms is not a symptom of creativity, more like crass ignorance and box-office stunts. Of course it is impossible to reach absolute 100% historical accuracy or render the Iliad word-by-word, but this doesn't mean that it should necessarily be dumbed down, rewritten for political correctness, and sprinkled with gladiator-level bloopers in order to make it more interesting for the TV public.
I agree.But what disturbs me is, people looking for historical accuracy in Troy.

Illiad itself is not a historical telling, but a legend which is probably based on an actual event.Therefore, Troy doesn't have to be as historically accurate as Braveheart, Gladiator or Alexander.I consider it more like John Boorman's Excalibur.

If Akhilleus single handedly slaughters 100 warriors, that is fine by me.

[magnatz]

Good point. I think that the problem may be split in three parts:

1. Historical accuracy.
The Iliad is probably based on a real event, and it is set up in a real historical period, so the best thing IMO would be to try to be reasonably accurate. I would not have problems with a deliberate transposition in another period either, (or even with a mixup à la Jesus Christ Superstar http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif), as long it is clear that the director wanted it this way. However I'm afraid that things like stirrups, crossbows, explosions, Trojans dressed up like Saracens and black generals in the Greek army only count as pointless mistakes.


2. Respect of the original.
It is not possible to replay every single verse in the movie (for one thing it would be boring), so of course a part of the original won't make it to the screen. However the part of the storyline that they do put in the movie should not be messed with too much. Luckily Homer provides enough characters and love stories as is, so if they just can hold off the warrior princesses and the cute smart kids and don't mess with the plot it should be ok.


3. Realism.
Homer's Iliad is a legend, so it is bound not to be realistic at some point - for one thing there are deities messing around the battlefield, and the battles are clearly exaggerated. It is absolutely ok for the movie to do the same (expecially since noone could blame the director for respecting the original story, as opposite as pulling stuff from his, erm, imagination). It is called "suspension of disbelief" and it is an important aspect of movies, expecially fantasy and science fiction. So if Hector wants to kill 100 persons it is ok, as long he doesn't use a laser sword that is http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Very good post, magnatz http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif

You've put in few words the points I agree upon. Not just Historical Accuracy, but also Realism and Respect for the Original Work. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_bow.gif

[Plantagenet]

Quote[/b] (magnatz @ Jan. 23 2004,05:44)]3. Realism.
Homer's Iliad is a legend, so it is bound not to be realistic at some point - for one thing there are deities messing around the battlefield, and the battles are clearly exaggerated. It is absolutely ok for the movie to do the same (expecially since noone could blame the director for respecting the original story, as opposite as pulling stuff from his, erm, imagination). It is called "suspension of disbelief" and it is an important aspect of movies, expecially fantasy and science fiction. So if Hector wants to kill 100 persons it is ok, as long he doesn't use a laser sword that is http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Those are some of my favorite parts of the Iliad...Olympian gods present on the battlefield. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[Aleksandr Nevsky]

The thing is...is the movie based on the Iliad?

I mean I don't know, if it says it is then by all means it must be accurate to the story AS Homer says it.

The Iliad is just Homer's way of telling a cultural story that to the Ancient Greeks was meant to be shifted around and changed according to the message that the teller of the story is trying to get across. The basic story may remain the same but there are multitudes of Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic Greek poems, plays and what not about the Trojan war, and NONE of them are the exactly same.

Just as an example some say Helen went willingly with Paris for instance. Some say she was seduced. Some say it was the god Aphrodite that "coaxed" her to go with him (doubly determined actions). Some say that Helen was kidnapped. And others say that it wasn't even Helen who went to Troy but a fake created by the gods so they could start a war and enjoy the show, while the real Helen was locked up somewhere.

That is just an example of how many different tellings of the story of fall of Troy there are in Ancient Greek culture. And ALL of them are "historically correct" as it is just a story based on culture passed down mouth to mouth since it happened. It is the heroes of the story who should get the most respect in terms of how they make the movie, not necessarily Homer (unless of course they actually say the movie is based on the Iliad).

The goal of these heroes portrayed in these stories was to have ever lasting glory, and the fact that we still read about them and make blockbuster movies about them shows that they have achieved exactly that. Even the characters who get chopped down in the Iliad by the droves, the fact that they are named in the Homer's work is a testament to their glory. Thousands of years afterwards we still read about them, we know their names...we argue about their historical accuracy.

As far as I am concerned as long as the movie isn't too wacky, and as long as it isn't just simply poorly acted, badly written and lame in the sense of Hollywood then it should be a very enjoyable flick.

[Aleksandr Nevsky]

Well I just looked on IMDB and it IS based on Homer's poem...so they say, so yes they should try to remain accurate to the story the way Homer told it. I doubt they will though.

The cast of characters in the movie lists Thetis so there must be gods But she is the only one that they list, surely they have to have the other gods right?