Why hollywood killed Menelaus and Agamemnon ?

[caesar44]

Just saw Hollywood's "Troy" (I know 1.5 years later...) , it was good but the end , damn ! The end...
Homerus wrote that Menelaus took Helena back to Sparta and that Agamemnon survived the war , why does Hollywood must have "bud guys" and than kill them , where is the sophistication here ?
Btw , what happened to the 3 above after the war ? They lived as happy ever after ? I call all of you Greeks !!!
Ah , another one - Agamemnon was a General in Menelaus's army (Homerus) or the king of Mycenae (Hollywood) ?

[Sjakihata]

Agamemnon was king of Mykene AND the Commanding Officer in the battle of troy. He was killed by his wife Klytaimenstra when he returned from the war.

[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).

[KSEG]

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]

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).

[Quid]

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

[caesar44]

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]

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

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

[Steppe Merc]

They did have cavalry, some Scythians I believe fought in the Trogan war supposedly...

Oh, and I hated Troy. So dumb...

[Spartakus]

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]

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.

[Geoffrey S]

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.

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.

[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).

[Spartakus]

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.

[Kagemusha]

I enjoyed the movie as an movie.But im stll wondering would it be ever possible for Hollywood to take a risk and give a chance to amateur screen writer like Homeros to actually use his writing as a base for a movie, and not editing it so much that the actual story chances? Im sure he doesnt mind what kind of movies are made from his original texts, but if his little story has been read by quite a few people before movies were even invented.And these people read the story like it was maybe few people could even also watch a screenplay that is loyal to the original epos?

[Steppe Merc]

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.

[Geoffrey S]

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.

Once I've got a bit more time I'll write up a more extensive post as to why I didn't enjoy Troy and view it as a bad film.

And no, it's not interpreted as rude; to be honest, looking back at my previous post I could have struck a more polite tone myself, my apologies for that.

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.

"The masses" as such I didn't intend to have understood in a negative sense, indeed I consider myself very much part thereof (obviously!); rather, it's intentionally designing a movie to appeal to as many people as possible at the cost of what makes a movie good I object to, which is what I see in Troy. Besides, aren't the makers of Troy showing just such a disrespect to audiences when removing any thought provoking elements from the story if they want the movie to have as broad an audience as possible?

[Kraxis]

Hollywood is a moneymaking area. Do not expect any chances beyond LotR... Which was not all that big a chance anyway.

Imagine the situation where a screenwriter comes into the office of a major producer.

Screenwriter: "I have a great idea for a movie!!!"
Producer: "Cool! What is it?"
S: "Vergil's Aeneid..."
P: "Yeah! That is indeed a great idea" *producer comes with points that would increase the attendance*
S: "Noooo... The uninformed and ignorant should be shown the story as it is."
P: "It is a very controversial story to say the least... How much money were you thinking of?"
S: "I don't know... 100 million+?"
P: *gasps for air* "Are you crazy?!?!? Do you expect people to come to the movie in drowes to watch Aeneas trudge around the world and have a fling with a Phoenecian girl?"
S: "Well... That is the story. We can't compromise it's general outline."
P: "Two words: No way!"

[caesar44]

[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) .

[caesar44]

[QUOTE=Kraxis]


S: "I don't know... 100 million+?"
P: *gasps for air* "Are you crazy?!?!? Do you expect people to come to the movie in drowes to watch Aeneas trudge around the world and have a fling with a Phoenecian girl?"


100,000,000+ for that ? no way ! But Aeneas did more than that...ha ?

[Kraxis]

If you want to make a movie epic in Hollywood it has to be 100 million+, otherwise it will just be a footnote. It is pathetic really. But 100 million is not at all anywhere near the limit.

And my point wasn't so much about Aeneas and his travels but about situation between the screenwriter and the producer. I could have used the Jomsvikings instead... but the subject itself was not the point.

[conon394]

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).

Good Post, It's not like the classical or Hellenist authors (or poets or dramatists, etc) regurgitated Homer unchanged either. Euripides is a prime example of cutting and pasting bits of the Homeric myths for his own purposes. For me the real problem is (already noted here several time) that Troy was just a bad movie.

In passing I thought the fight between Hector and Achilles was one of the few time the sound track actually worked. But the movie had given me no reason to feel Hector was about as good a warrior as mortal skill (and still be a complete person: father, leader, etc) would allow - facing a man who was nothing but the ultimate warrior.

[econ21]

But the movie had given me no reason to feel Hector was about as good a warrior as mortal skill (and still be a complete person: father, leader, etc) would allow - facing a man who was nothing but the ultimate warrior.

Strangely, that part of the film worked for me. Hector was the most sympathetic fighter in the film - dutiful brother, son, prince etc so a "complete person" - and I did not doubt he could fight. Brad Pitt had his faults as Achilles, but there was no danger of him dying in that fight, so he passed the "ultimate warrior" test for me.

[yesdachi]

I liked the movie. I had low expectations and came away pleased. I viewed the entire thing as fantasy and tried to forget my preconceived ideas of what should happen and just enjoyed the show. A self-imposed ignorance is bliss standpoint if you will.

It’s the same reason I liked Gladiator, Bravehart, and many other “history” based movies. If I want facts and historical accuracy I’ll read a book or watch the history channel (keeping in mind that they are not always 100% accurate either).

Honestly, I have a harder time with movies made from comic books.

[English assassin]

Perikles and Achilles relationship was stupid. Either cut him out, or show him as his lover as he was.

Perikles having Achilles as a lover could certainly have changed the history of the Peleponnesian war...

But seriously, in a way almost the opening scene (where we find Achilles in bed with two women, presumably in case anyone fears he might be gay) lets you know what you are in for. Though you might have thought anyone who knew that Patroclus and Achilles might have had a physical relationship wouild not have cared, and for anyone who didn't know, his anger at being deprived of Briseis would have painted him as heterosexual enough anyway.

Anyway, "This is not the Illiad". It was a film, and I thought close enough. In fact the characterisation of Hector I thought was very good. Although it has to be said I was annoyed when Menelaus was killed, as it seemed gratuitously inaccurate, (unlike the death of Agamemnon, who, having been set up as the villain, more or less had to die.)

[Kommodus]

I'll chime in with those who enjoyed the movie, regardless of its faithfulness (or lack thereof) to Homer's epic or historical fact. "Historical accuracy" is irrelevant in this case concerning how little we know of the actual events surrounding the fall of Troy. As for the Illiad itself, I made it about halfway through before dropping it from boredom. The same fight scene and accompanying dialogue can only repeat itself so many times before I lose interest. Of course it has thought-provoking elements, but to have them buried in so many pages of meaningless nonsense and fantasy is a bit of a turn-off.

So, why change the story, when it's already such a "good" tale? I can see plenty of reasons right on the surface:

1. For length reasons, they had to cut a lot out. They did the same with LotR: many of the events in the books didn't make it into the movies. I can point out dozens of deviations between Tolkein's works and Peter Jackson's screenplay, but I still think Peter absolutely nailed it.

2. The Illiad doesn't tell the whole tale of the fall of Troy: it doesn't even come close. It begins in the ninth year of the siege and ends with Hector's death. The reasons for the conflict, and its resolution, are outside the scope of the book.

3. The drama with gods in Homer's tale really doesn't make much sense, and would likely have made the movie a convoluted mess had they tried to include it. They made it a more "human" story, and more continuous, by leaving it out.

4. Has anyone else noticed that in the Illiad, when important Greeks are struck, they are usually only wounded and soon return to the fight, while important Trojans are far more easily killed? A war so one-sided stretches credibility. This partially explains the Hollywood-invented deaths of Greeks such as Ajax, Menelaus, and Agamemnon (although as others have pointed out, there are other reasons).

Those are just a few of the major reasons; as for their reasons for changing minor elements, I won't attempt to guess. It was an entertaining movie, and made no presumption to follow history or myth.

[Redleg]

Its a movie made to make a profit - not to be historically correct.

Just like several other hollywood movies based upon historical writtings.

[Kagemusha]

Basicly the only problem i got with Hollywood movies is,why they always need a happy end?The greek´s understood and appreciated tragedy,also many of the best novels ever have been tragedy.

[conon394]

Kommodus

It is really another thread but...

Peter Jackson's screenplay, but I still think Peter absolutely nailed it.

Aside from the first movie, I have to completely disagree. By the third movie Peter Jackson and his staff proved themselves to be completly modern ‘Hollywood ‘ types with very little feel for JRR’s story.

The Illiad doesn't tell the whole tale of the fall of Troy: it doesn't even come close. It begins in the ninth year of the siege and ends with Hector's death. The reasons for the conflict, and its resolution, are outside the scope of the book.

Homer seemed to feel his audience could deal, the interesting thing is that 3000 years later Hollywood could not credit it's audience with as much intelligence.

[Kraxis]

Strangely, that part of the film worked for me. Hector was the most sympathetic fighter in the film - dutiful brother, son, prince etc so a "complete person" - and I did not doubt he could fight. Brad Pitt had his faults as Achilles, but there was no danger of him dying in that fight, so he passed the "ultimate warrior" test for me.

Same for me... Hector looked like he was a man who had been forced into warfare, and his movements and style displayed that. He looked like a man that had been forged in battle, he had learned the trade in battle. His style was the direct and effective.

Achilles in the movie looks much more tutored, perfected for individual combat. He uses moves that can't normally be learned in a battle. He was thus the willing warrior. His style was the stylish and smooth.

Btw, doesn't Ajax actually die as one of the few Greek heroes in the Illiad? I often hear him mentioned as a pitiful and quite tragic character. It would only fit too well with him dying.