Quote:
what about Arthur KIng of the Britons???
Looks mighty interesting...
|
Do you know it is a Jerry Bruckheimer film? [img]graemlins/no.gif[/img] "Pearl Harbour"? [img]graemlins/no.gif[/img] But at least it will be a lot of well-made action. And I really don't care about King Arthur, it is mithology based in mediocre Literary work, so they can do with it whatever they want.
Quote:
|
By all account Troy is based more on the literary version than the historical version.
|
There is no historical version of Troy... there's a city in Hissarlik, Turkey that at the end of the Bronze Age was a huge, fortified port that was destroyed by a war and fire. Some Hitite texts now tells us that it might have been called Ilium or Ilión. Now we know: Troy did exist. But there's no way to know who was king or who fought in that war...
Quote:
|
and obviously it has been americanised.
|
It has been
ruined. Maybe not historically speaking. But Homer's "Iliad" was desicrated horribly in some aspects, most importantly the one you mention. Patroclus was not Achilles' cousin and was not an unexperienced warrior. Come on! This is 2004! No one would be bothered if the film mentions what everybody has known since 3.000 years ago: Achilles was gay and even if he had a wife and many concubines, the love of his life was Patroclus. It actually makes more sense. Otherwise, who loves his cousin
that much?
Besides, in "Troy", the moron that wrote the script kills who shouldn't be killed, doesn't kill who should be killed and kills who should be killed when they shouldn't be killed! And worst of all, the Trojan war that lasted 10 years, it seems like two weeks in the film... [img]graemlins/no.gif[/img]
But it was quite good for a Hollywood film.
[ 18. May 2004, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: General der Infanterie Friedrich H ]