...and man, did it blow. First, the stuff historically they got wrong:
The Greeks were not known as horsemen.
Why is it in the retelling of ancient stories such as Troy and Gladiator, Hollywood always feels the need to show the heros on horseback. The Romans (who by the way, conquored the Greeks) marched everywhere. Remember the roman legions? Well, they were the reason behind the major roads in Europe. They needed to be able to march their armies to anywhere in their kingdom whenever conflict would break out. The Monguls eventually conquored most of Rome and defeated their armies. Want to guess how they did it? They invented the sturrup, which allowed them to form the first calvaries and ride down the Romans. This, mind you, was roughly a thousand years after the Romans had defeated the Greeks on foot. So seeing the Romans on horseback in a war situation (let alone the Greeks) is akin to having a helicopter or a tank in a civil war film. It's that big of a leap in technology over the soldiers of the legions. And while we are on the subject of Rome...
The Greeks did not fight in formations or with much disipline
In one scene, the Greeks form a "tank formation" by crouching together and slowly advancing on the enemy. They hold their sheilds tightly together in front and above them w/their spears sticking out towards the enemy. Um, sorry to burst your bubble, but the Romans were the first to use such tactics against opposing forces. It is, in fact, one of the main reasons they were able to defeat the vast majority of Europes armies for so long. They were the first army to employ cowardinated attacks on a large enemy force. They did Sparta one better. They took the disipline that Sparta was known for in it's training and applied these priniple to the feild of battle. Before the Roman legions, most wars consisted of both sides slugging it out in individual combat. If you will read the Illiad, it's evident that soldiers from both side would even stop fighting to watch two great champions battle to the death. Not so w/the Romans. In fact, the Romans made short work of the Greeks because the Greeks were uncowardinated, formationless, and undisiplined, while the romans fought together as a "team", so to speak. And Speaking of Sparta...
There were no elaborate artworks in Sparta.
Ever heard the term, this place is very Spartan? That usually means the walls are plan and undecorated, as is the rest of the room. The Spatans weren't into art, they were into function over form. They did not have elaborate murals carved from stone in their dining halls.
Thats it for now. I'll return later to point out the other shortcomings in this film, including, but not limited to blatantly ripping off Gladiator, Braveheart, and ROTK. And also how they complete changed the events in and around the Trojan war itself. You gotta love Hollywood sometimes.
In fact the greeks were so undisciplined that they would often break the fight to loot the corpse of the enemy they had just killed, as shown in the Illiad when there's a battle to recover Patroclus' body to get Achilles' armor and weapons.
...none of the ancient Greeks used formations in battle, and that it was an invention of Roman military leaders. I did a search for it and couldn't find anything, and I've read several books on the Greeks and the Romans and I can't recall formation fighting ever being mentioned.
The Spartans did leave all children deamed "too weak" in the hills to die, and the rest joined the military, which they would belong to for the rest of their lives. The Spartans were known for their extensive training. They were always preparing for war. But as I've said, I haven't found mention of coordinated attacks and troop formations, which are always discussed when mentioning the Roman Legions.
Achilles was dead before they used the Trojan Horse.
He did not return to Troy to "find his trojan lover". He was already dead, and his ghost appeared to instruct the Greeks to burn the city to the ground after they had invaded.
Achilles didn't have a love interest during the war.
Sorry ladies, it didn't happen.
Achilles could only be injured by striking his heal.
He died from a foot injury. Paris shot that arrow into his foot, but he did not proceed to fire 3-4 more arrows into his chest. They would have simply bounced off. He was divinely protected. His mother had dipped him in a river as an infant and he had been granted invincibility by the waters. Everywhere the water touched, no weapon could harm. Unfortunately, his mother had to hold him somehow and she did by his heal. So it was the only spot on his body that he could be injured.
The war lasted 10 years.
Seemed like a couple of weeks in the movie. Also, when Achilles killed Hector, it was over a week before Hectors father snuck into the Greeks camp to beg for the return of his son's body so that he could give him a proper burial. Poseidon helped him sneak unnoticed into the Greek camp. And Speaking of the Greek Gods...
Where were the Gods during all of this?
They had active roles in this war. Zeus, Apollo, Aries, Poseidon, and Athena all helped and/or fought in the war. Zeus allowed the other Gods to "mettle" w/the humans and their affairs. They had previously been banned from that sort of thing. Also, several "fallen" heros returned as ghosts to give advise from the grave to both sides. They were also completely omitted.
Hector's wife was hotter than Helen in the movie.
Helen was supposed to be the most beautiful woman in the world. Her face launched "a 1000 ships". I thought the actress playing Hector's wife was better looking. Not good casting.
The real Trojans were generally spiteful towards Helen.
After all, she and Paris started the entire war. It's their fault so many people died. The movie makes it seem like they accepted her w/open arms.
I'll post part 3 soon. Now that I've covered both history and the Illiad, the next installment will be about the other films Troy blatantly ripped off. Damn, this film sucked.
Actually Achilles did have a love interest during the war but it was Patroclus but hey, they could hardly make a bisexual out of brad pitt it would have gone slightly against the marketing plan.
Aside from the historical / mythical innacuracies, was it a good movie?
Since most of this mythology is entirely foreign to me, will I enjoy the movie for what it is? Did it have good fight scenes? (I understand it ripped of some other epic battles)
I just wanted to get all of the historical inaccuracies out of the way. I'll post later about all the other bad stuff. I too was pumped for this film, and it fell horribly flat.
The Greeks did use limited formations and "shield walls", at least during the Persian Wars. Truth is, no one knows what kind of military tactics were used during the Trojan War because the Illiad is the only surviving record. In fact most scholars didn't even think the Trojan War really happened until some (German?) adventurer found what appears to be Troy in the 1950's.
All the Illiad really mentions is chariots, spears, and lots of smashing of heads with large rocks. Reading it, you really don't get the feel of organized warfare.
I can't imagine Hollywood could do a story that timeless justice, anyhow. I would rather see the story of the Spartans at Thermopylae, but am kind of glad Hollywood hasn't butchered that yet. To me, that is the greatest story in military history.
A woman's voice singing a sad song as armies ride towards each other, or commiting widespread acts of violence.
I believe LOTR, Gladiator and Braveheart all used this method of scoring in their films, but in different ways. Sometimes they built up the music as the tension built, but others times played a beautiful simplistic song over scenes of carnage. It felt like I was watching something I'd already seen. The way the scene was shot (where Troy used this effect) must have been very similar to the other mentioned films, because it really did look like a battle scene from another movie had been lifted and inserted into the middle of Troy. It didn't look or feel any different.
The CGI was crappy
Whenever the big sweeping battle seens were shown, all of the characters seemed blurred, but not in a "realist fast motion" way. It was more like a "not enough money for better imaging" way. Also when the armada arrived, you could tell they were digitally inserted into the film. They should have spent more money, it all looked pretty fake.
The acting was flat
I guess Pitt took the part of Achilles a little to literally because he certainly was a heal. I like Brad Pitt. He was great in Fight Club, Snatch, Se7en, and 12 Monkeys. However, he seemed almost board in this role, and it showed throughout his performance. And as he is the lead, it was as if the rest of the cast tried to make up for his pedestrian perfomance by overcompensating. Everyone else seemed to overact their parts (except for Hector, he was a lone bright spot).
Truth be told, I've forgotten the other stuff that was bad in this movie. It obviously didn't leave the impression on me that I got after watching Braveheart or Gladiator. Nothing really stood out from Troy like it did from those movies. Anyways, save your money on this one. If you must see a big effects movie, go see "The Day After Tommorrow" when it comes out. It's the same guy who did ID4, which means annoying things like acting and a desernable plot shouldn't get in the way of the FX.
J, you said you though Hector's wife was hotter than Helen. That's your opinion. I thought Helen was good looking, not the hottest woman in the world. She kinda look like LeeLee Sobiaski. But I can see where you are going with your statement.
But all the other points you made were good.
"Aside from the historical / mythical innacuracies, was it a good movie?
Since most of this mythology is entirely foreign to me, will I enjoy the movie for what it is? Did it have good fight scenes? (I understand it ripped of some other epic battles) "
I think you will. I'm in the same boat. The fighting was great. The battles were massive, as close as you can get to the scope of something like LotR when working within the parameters of reality and the time period. It was a lot of fun.
Helen was supposed to be the fairest in the land. Hector's wife was comprable in beauty in the movie. While I thought she was better looking (and yes, that is only my opinion), she shouldn't have even compared to Helen. Helen was supposed to be super-model hot, and the other woman more like Sex in the City hot. Hope that clarifies my earlier train of thought.
The CGI was bad. The "epic" battlesceens were nowhere near as breathtaking as Return of the King or Braveheart. I remember saying "holy shit!" to myself when I saw the elephants, or even the first pan back in ROTK. I kept thinking, "why is this out of focus?" in Troy. I'm glad you liked the film, Dante. To each his own. I still think it's complete garbage. But then again, I liked Hudson Hawk, and I think that makes me one of only 12 people who like that film.
While I agree that the scenes were no where near as impressive as those in RotK, like I said, one is grounded in reality. RotK is fantasy, so you can take liberties with elves, elephants, ogres, and the like. Within the parameters of the souces material, I thought they looked great.
One is grounded in reality? Which film is grounded in reality. Troy, where theyre not totally sure TROY existed, because it's based in most part on a legend that incorporates Cyclops', Gods, and Sea Creatures?
Well, you like the stone temple pilots. figures. If you knew anything about immediate history, like in, the area of Music, you would laugh at your poor taste, if you're over 17. I knew eventually hollywood would cater to that big Multi Billion dollar Swords and Sandals demograpgic. That always happens.
You make some great points. Some I know of from college classes, but other stuff you discuss...I'm not so sure. I'm not saying you're talking out of your ass or anything, but can you list some references or primary-secondary resources which readers can follow up on? I also think Hollywood twisted and stretched the historical facts. Still, it was an entertaining movie; if it piques people's interest to explore history, even better. Hope to hear from you soon. Bye.
MY FRIEND YOU ARE VERU WRONG.... AS A HELLINAS (GREEK FOR YOU ) I CAN SAY TWO THINGS ....
FIRST SPARTANS WERE FIRST TO IMPLEMENT TACTICS ON THE BATLLEFIELD AND TIGHT FORMATION SPECIALLY WITH SPEARS ,, THE PRIMIRAY WEAPON OF A HELLIN HOPLITE WAS THE SPEAR AND THE SWORD WAS THE SECONDARY WEAPON THUS THE SWORD WAS NOT VERY LONG IT WAS CALLED SPATHA AND WAS LIKE A VERY BIG KNIFE ... THE DID SEVERAL TACKTICS .. ONE OF THEM WAS THAT THEY ATTACKED IN A FORM OA A PERFECT TRIANGLE ... THE TOP WAS INVADING THE CENTRE OF THE ENEMY AND WHEN THE ENEMY WAS LOST BY THIS TACTIC THE 2 BASES OF THE TRIANGLE WERE SURROUNDING THE ENEMY ... THEY HAD TACTICS FOR HORSES FOR CHARIIOTS (READ ABOUT THE PERSIAN CONFLICT ) .... MANY TACTICS .... WHICH WERE COPIED FROM OTHER ARMIES .. SO IN FEW WORDS THE SPARTANS WERE THE BEST FIGHTING MACHINE IN ITS ERA ,, THE ATHENIANS ( ATHENS ) WERE THE BEST NAVY IN THE ERA ( TRIIRIS CLASS SHIPS ) AND SO ON ...
ARE WE BACK TO THIS!!! LOL!!! I DIDN'T GET THE MEMO!!! LOL!!!
IS THERE A REASON YOU TYPED YOUR WHOLE POST IN CAPS, GREEK PERSON? IS THERE A REASON YOU REFUSED TO FOLLOW GENERAL RULES OF GRAMMAR AND PUNCTUATION? YOU MAY NOT REALIZE IT, BUT IT CALLS INTO QUESTION ALL OF YOUR FACTS AND MAKES PEOPLE WONDER IF YOU AREN'T 11!! LOL!! TRY PROOFREADING NEXT TIME AND TAKE THE CAPSLOCK OFF SO IT DOES NOT SEEM LIKE YOU HAVE INVOLUNTARY VOICE IMMODULATION AND MAYBE, JUST MAYBE WE'LL TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY...EVEN WHEN YOU BUMP AN ANCIENT THREAD.
We really need to post a rules section around here. Really basic, simple stuff about bumping expiration dates, usage of caps, questions that have been asked a million times, etc, etc.
I nominate Marney, Hep C and Me Bossy to write the rules. They all have seniority on me and are "movie bored members" in good standing (except for the fact that the latter two rarely post here anymore).
Formatted Text Signatures are generally retarded. Thanks for sharing, though. - fyi
However getting a conclusive decision between the three may be difficult I say we just go with Marney to write it and then the reset comment on any additions that may need to be added.
Some people would break the rules just because there is no one to enforce them. I really have no interest in becoming a figurehead moderator. I also have no interest in becoming an actual moderator unless I have absolute authority, and then I would just delete everyone I didn't like. There would be 4 of us left and who wants to see that? Under my rule the Ju^^alos thread would have died in infancy.
I was thinking more like the rules outside a public swimming pool. Nobody reads or pays attention to them, but they are there and somebody put some time and effort into them. We need some rules that the kids will ignore. Just for posterity's sake.
And no running! Damn kids and their hifalutin internets!
Formatted Text Signatures are generally retarded. Thanks for sharing, though. - fyi
