« Home | I hate these discussions » | Powell: Troops would leave Iraq should Iraqis ask » | Melbourne location, Thai cuisine, French letters » | The Weapon Project » | Troy debrief » | Couldn't have said it better » | No, sunshine and rainbows wouldn't fit the templat... » | Public service announcement » | "The photographer was the abuser" » | Poor sad cat » 

Saturday, May 15, 2004 

Fine, let's do this

If you haven't read this, read it before you read the rest of this post.

1. "Missed point"
I know that no offense was intended, but I was offended by that. I didn't miss your point. If your point was that a movie like Troy causes irreparable damage to its source material, you didn't make it. You said the problem with the movie is that most people would be left thinking that's what Homer is like. And you might be right. But, they do say 'inspired by.' Anyone who reads that in the credits and then assumes it's a faithful interpretation does not understand what the terms mean. And anyone who is interested enough in the story after seeing the movie to go back and read the Illiad will quickly find that Homer's work is something else altogether. I don't see the damage.

2. "Was it a good story? Yes, except for a few dodgy lines. The battle between Hector and Achilles almost had the resonance it should have had, and was magnificent."
We agree on that much.

3. "But given how much was changed, why must Hollywood insist on calling it the same story? Why not admit they've invented a new, valid story?"
They didn't call it the same story. First, they called it Troy, not the Illiad. Second, they didn't claim the movie was based on it, they claimed it was inspired by it. While they used other sources, the Illiad was the primary one and credited it with an 'inspired by' tag. If that wasn't enough, what would have been?

4. Who cares? It's a bloody movie that we each obviously feel very differently about. We're not going to agree on this, so why don't we drop it?