Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, that is your choice. Of course, that I have demonstrated the ridiculousness behind each of your points, and you don't seem bothered to answer them, will only make it clear to everyone else how silly your position is.A position that keeps changing, of course. At first you said that they should have made it just like the Iliad. Then when a load of people say how silly that is, because of its limited timescale, after you display your ignorance of what is in the Iliad by quoting events that never happened in it, now you have changed your story to say 'why don't they make it like ALL the writers who ever wrote anything about Troy?'
Quite aside from the silliness of that view in the first place, seeing as each new writer took a different inspiration and interpretation, the fact is that while there is such a thing as Trojan mythology, like Arthurian mythology, it is very vague, and there is no such thing as a set original form. The Iliad is the central part of that myth. This film is inspired by the Iliad, based on that myth, and created its own story out of those characters and events- like ALL the writers in Greek and Roman times did. And why the heck SHOULD the film care about what other writers have said? Why can't they just pick and chose from the myth? That's all anyone else has ever done, when making stories out of just about any myth ever, including this one. That is how myths work.
You say if they are going to do it, they should do it right. Well, they DID do it right. They did their best to make an entertaining film out of a well-known piece of mythology (and to be frank, like it or not, it would have been worse if they had tried to cling to a lot of that stuff).
You don't like the story. That is of course your opinion. But to claim that they have made some form of storytelling travesty by not directly copying what you falsely perceive as an original is simply ludicrousness.
So there we have it. A new film, based on an old myth, that has as much right to claim accuracy as any other interpretation ever made- from Homer onwards. It only claims inspiration, not adaptation. Inspired it so is.
And that is pretty much the facts as they are. People who take issue for it butchering either history or Homer... simply don't know what they are talking about.
Sorry for the inconvinience
I'm sending my reply directly to u, edited (as far as I good)..
Dear Ush...
I don’t know how old are you, but during my day I have other things to do except for surfing in the internet (that’s why i didn’t answer sooner)
I really don’t know what to say, you seem to have studied history and mythology.
You are from UK: imagine if one director took Romeo and Juliet (Shakespeare - Great) and at the end the parents of Juliet and Romeo die and her nanny dies before she brings the news to Juliet (about the wedding)
Would you like it? It would misrepresent what we knew, and it’s just a book.
Imagine of one of your wars and your great warriors…
It’s the same for us too.
I didn’t say that the movie wasn’t entertaining but there are some people, even greeks, that don’t know the story and they’ll end up knowing nothing true (only the basics).
I’m very proud of our civilization, and may be it’s the only thing we can be proud of.. except for our food (that’s what tourists say)
I don’t want it to be ruined…
Sorry if I offended anyone
We're not talking about inspiration, we're talking about how to make a film profitable, that's different, how to wax the role of Achileas (Brad Pitt) by not killing him before, and kill the bad guy (he trully wasn't) Agamemnon..And this is art? I prefer watching the depressing but more smart (it's such a same the director is european!)
Sorry if I offended you or your taste with my first opinion...(although your critic was much worse)