Why hollywood killed Menelaus and Agamemnon ?

**Knight Templar** · 10-22-2005, 16:14

Troy....Good movie but it historically sucks, there are over 15 big mistakes in the film (no gods, no some essential characters (Neoptolem, Filoctet), by the time of Troian war cavarly didn't exist in that way (man riding on a horse)). Hector's death was also showed awfully in the movie.

To answer your question, Menelaus got lost on his way to Sparta, he was roving for 8 years, IIRC, (and been to Egypt while roving) before he returned back to Sparta. He and Helena got a child, Hermiona, who later married to Orest (Agamemnon's son).

**KSEG** · 10-23-2005, 07:02

Originally Posted by Knight Templar

Troy....Good movie but it historically sucks, there are over 15 big mistakes in the film (no gods, no some essential characters (Neoptolem, Filoctet), by the time of Troian war cavarly didn't exist in that way (man riding on a horse)). Hector's death was also showed awfully in the movie.

To answer your question, Menelaus got lost on his way to Sparta, he was roving for 8 years, IIRC, (and been to Egypt while roving) before he returned back to Sparta. He and Helena got a child, Hermiona, who later married to Orest (Agamemnon's son).

Um, "historically sucks"?
Since when did Iliad became a history book?

**Rosacrux redux** · 10-23-2005, 07:51

Anything aspiring to flesh out a written piece, has to bear at least some similarities to this piece. Especially when we are talking about the most intriguing and plainly interesting epic ever produced by any ancient culture.

And Petersen's Troy has absolutely nothing to do with the material it was based upon. So, in terms of (plain) accuracy, it sucks indeed.

It's a very superficial movie, that fails miserably to catch even the slightest of the homeric spirit, and massacred the original text in order to provide the movie-consumers with some sorts of happy-ending.

And that's the answer to the original question - why did Hollyweird killed Menelaus (and why it killed Agamemnon and didn't let his wife to handle that job as it should):

[i]Because the films is aimed at a massive audience and the Morons-In-Suits (Hollyweird executives) decided that this audience wouldn't like the version where the two less sympathetic characters return to home unscathed, seing as the same audience probably has never heard about Aeschylus and his tragedies to know what fate fell upon the butchers of the Trojans. When it comes down to the question "more money or accuracy", Hollyweird always takes the money (and runs).

**caesar44** · 10-23-2005, 12:56

Thanks for your answers .

[QUOTE=Rosacrux redux] Especially when we are talking about the most intriguing and plainly interesting epic ever produced by any ancient culture.

Just add - "Imo" and than "Especially when we are talking about the most intriguing and plainly interesting epic ever produced by any ancient culture."
Ah ? One could say "the Bible" , another could say "the Indian sagas" , just a thought .

**Gregoshi** · 10-23-2005, 17:41

Originally Posted by caesar44

One could say "the Bible" , another could say "the Indian sagas" , just a thought .

One could say so...with the obligatory "IMO" tacked on.

**Spartakus** · 10-23-2005, 17:48

I'm going to be a little mean here now.

First I must state my obvious bias as I truly enjoyed this movie, several times even, all the while in full knowledge of its historical incorrectness. Indeed, I possess this unique gift of being able to judge a movie's quality without first consulting the history section of the local library.

Why did they kill of Agamemnon at Troy, instead of having him assassinated by his wife? The answer is quite simple; dramaturgy. Making a movie is a bit like writing a poem, you can't just add lines to it without it fitting in with the rest. If Agamemnon had lived through the siege, they would've had to include another dramatic scene, with him being home and then killed by his wife. This dramatic scene would have to take place some time after the final one with the Trojan horse, which means after the oh so important climax of the movie. That is not good dramaturgy.

Well, now. Couldn't they just not show him being killed at all then? By no means. Making big budget movies requires big budget incomes, you need to please the general public, and the general public more than anything wants to see that guy, especially that guy, dead. But this is where the history buffs join in, "we're the only ones who know what the movie should have been like, the general public is vulgar and ignorant for not spending all their time studying history, the movie is made to please such idiots and thus the movie is idiotic too." What the history buffs are in truth saying, is that they are displeased with Hollywood not making movies that answer the expectations of their truly minimal group of potential viewers, instead choosing to please a larger audience.

Am I the only one who sees how ridiculous that is?

**Geoffrey S** · 10-23-2005, 18:08

Originally Posted by Spartakus

Why did they kill of Agamemnon at Troy, instead of having him assassinated by his wife? The answer is quite simple; dramaturgy. Making a movie is a bit like writing a poem, you can't just add lines to it without it fitting in with the rest. If Agamemnon had lived through the siege, they would've had to include another dramatic scene, with him being home and then killed by his wife. This dramatic scene would have to take place some time after the final one with the Trojan horse, which means after the oh so important climax of the movie. That is not good dramaturgy.

Well, now. Couldn't they just not show him being killed at all then? By no means. Making big budget movies requires big budget incomes, you need to please the general public, and the general public more than anything wants to see that guy, especially that guy, dead.

Did the audience wish to see Achilles or Hector dead? Presumably not. Yet it fit in with the superficial message the movie attempted to portray using the shell of the Iliad, and was left in. Following this theme wouldn't it have had a far more powerful effect on the audience to allow the obviously evil villains of the movie, Agamemnon and Menelaos, to escape unpunished for their crimes? There was also no obligation to include the death of Agamemnon at the end of the movie as you suggest; following such a logic would mean the sacrifice of Iphigenia would have to be added at the start, or the death of Paris at the hands of Philoctetes.

Originally Posted by Spartakus

But this is where the history buffs join in, "we're the only ones who know what the movie should have been like, the general public is vulgar and ignorant for not spending all their time studying history, the movie is made to please such idiots and thus the movie is idiotic too." What the history buffs are in truth saying, is that they are displeased with Hollywood not making movies that answer the expectations of their truly minimal group of potential viewers, instead choosing to please a larger audience.

Am I the only one who sees how ridiculous that is?

Nice attempt at a strawman. Besides, would you prefer a movie that caters to the masses or a movie that actually has something thoughtful to say?

As I said in my previous post, Troy was a flawed film even without viewing its butchering of a great work, due to bad acting, bad production, and even worse scripting.

**Spartakus** · 10-23-2005, 18:46

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Nice attempt at a strawman. Besides, would you prefer a movie that caters to the masses or a movie that actually has something thoughtful to say?

As I said in my previous post, Troy was a flawed film even without viewing its butchering of a great work, due to bad acting, bad production, and even worse scripting.

Please forgive me if I'm rude, intentionally or not, but as much as you may possess a great understanding of the Iliad and all it represents, your knowledge of the cinema is in my opinion less extensive.

Your comment about the "masses", a term always to be interpreted in the least positive regard, as someone less worth catering to than the learned elite you percieve yourself as part of is exactly the kind of rhetoric I was critizising history buffs for in my last post.

**caesar44** · 10-23-2005, 20:31

[QUOTE=Spartakus]
Indeed, I possess this unique gift of being able to judge a movie's quality without first consulting the history section of the local library.

I want that gift too !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now , If I have not read the Iliada I would say that the movie was good - the drama was very good , the scene of Achilles calling Hector to fight , the music , Troy itself , the navy , even the battles , but why to change the story , think of it , the Iliada is a magnificent story (imo

) just because of the story ! Menelaus survived , make it so !!! and the hell with the audience...(Me so naive) .

**Quid** · 10-23-2005, 09:53

Originally Posted by KSEG

Um, "historically sucks"?
Since when did Iliad became a history book?

Actually, I would argue that it CAN be considered as a history book of some sort. After all, Schliemann did use it to 'find' Troy (or at least Hisarlik at which we now think Troy stood). It could be argued, of course, that the Iliad is more of a classical romance novel but then often fictional accounts are often based on truth...

Just my

**Geoffrey S** · 10-23-2005, 17:50

Originally Posted by Knight Templar

Troy....Good movie but it historically sucks...

It was a bad movie, period. The fact that it missed the point of the Iliad entirely only added to an already mediocre mess. Any meaning the Iliad contained was lost in a mish-mash of Hollywood conventions.

**Kraxis** · 10-23-2005, 18:11

Honestly who does a movie have to be a slave to a book such as the Illiad? The Illiad itself is a mish-mash of contradictory information and useless bickering. To slave a movie to the work Homer would be a financial suicide.

I was happy that they chose to remove the gods. In terms of the movie it would have been a movie within the movie, severely detracting from the interesting conflic of men. The gods interacted with each other and only helped a bit in the battles (since the battles were still won by the mortals). To include them would mean to create a another wholly seperate plot for another very different set of beings. Not very compatible.
Better to do it as humans believing in the gods, expecting them to help (Apollon anyone?).

Personally I might have liked to see the bad guys actually make it, but I also understand why that wasn't so (see Spartakus' post).

**Steppe Merc** · 10-23-2005, 19:15

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Honestly who does a movie have to be a slave to a book such as the Illiad? The Illiad itself is a mish-mash of contradictory information and useless bickering. To slave a movie to the work Homer would be a financial suicide.

I was happy that they chose to remove the gods. In terms of the movie it would have been a movie within the movie, severely detracting from the interesting conflic of men. The gods interacted with each other and only helped a bit in the battles (since the battles were still won by the mortals). To include them would mean to create a another wholly seperate plot for another very different set of beings. Not very compatible.
Better to do it as humans believing in the gods, expecting them to help (Apollon anyone?).

Personally I might have liked to see the bad guys actually make it, but I also understand why that wasn't so (see Spartakus' post).

Yeah, removing the gods was fine. But the movie was horrible, regardless of the story. I did not see Helen as the hottest women ever. Perikles and Achilles relationship was stupid. Either cut him out, or show him as his lover as he was.

The movie was a waste of my money, it wasnt any good at all.