Talk:Troy (film)

Historical accuracy

I have changed the title of the subsection from "Historical Accuracy" to "Deviations from Homer's version of the myth" since the former is misleading; there is no "historical" accuracy for a legendary tale, just different versions of the myth. The actual events regarding the archaeological remains associated with the myths in Iliad are extremely uncertain at best. See for example [1] - kostas

What that misses is the section also discusses how accurate the movie was to what life and war may have been like in the time of the Trojan war. So your new title obscures that. Perhaps those parts should be split into separate sections. Historical accuracy and "Deviations from Homer's version of the myth"

I feel the change is in place. I've added your explanation to the article. If enough information is gathered, you can always add an additional section. Spikeballs 19:01, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Of course the change is in place. It was changed and has not been reverted. That says nothing about whether it is correct or not. All you're doing is changing the meaning of what was there and changing the heading to go along with that. The beginning paragraph and the end paragraph about the gods could be seen as assessing the historical accuracy of the film. Well at least they used to. See this diff from only about two months ago. - Taxman 13:34, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I feel this was a natural evolution of the section, though.
How about "Historical Accuracy and Comparision to other Versions" for a section title? Or something of the sort, anyway. Spikeballs 14:10, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Taxman what do you mean "The beginning paragraph and the end paragraph about the gods could be seen as assessing the historical accuracy of the film"? I've looked at the history and found nothing of that discusses or ever discussed anything regarding the historical accuracy of the film. You don't seriously believe that there were gods intervening in some wars at the Aegean that were taking place around 1300 bc? The difference is simply that in Homer's version of a myth (that could possibly be based on oral tradition of some events that did actually take place, of which however there is scarce archaeological evidence) the gods had a central role, while in the movie their existense in only implied. Again, look at the reference I gave above to see what I mean. - kostas

I changed "no historical accuracy" to "very little if any historical accuracy", since although it hasnt been conclusivley proven it is likely that the Iliad had its orgins in reality, but the degree that this is true is unknown- hence the ambiguity in the edited statement.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 07:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

There seem to be several discrepancies between the disputed facts in this article and the mythology in the Achilles article. For example in the Achilles article it clearly says that in one version of the story Hector killed Patroclus thinking he was Achilles, in this article there was a sentence saying that he knew it wasn't Achilles when he killed him. I removed this sentence because i remember it from the Illiad, however there are several other disputed facts that I saw in some of the other greek mythology articles. I am hesitant to delete these though because I dont recall those details from the original story.

-- I took out the part about Hector's piety and non-belief in omens as being inaccurate... In the Iliad, Hector does balk at his seer's words, when the Trojans are at the gate of Achaean's camp, the seer sees an eagle with a snake in its talons, but the snake bites and kills the eagle. Anyway, at this point Hector blows off the seer and his omen and says one of the best lines in the Iliad, "Fight for your country, that is the first and only omen!"

Deviations from Homer's version of the myth

This section makes the articles unreadable. Let's make it three-times-shorter and more to-the-point. Spikeballs 17:39, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

How about organizing them "chronologically" and/or using a side by side comparrisson between the two. I feel that would improve matters. Or it could be divided into additions, omissions, and deviations

Separate article? 129.170.202.34 21:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I learned recently that Achilles and Patroclus were actually not cousins but lover.--ddebiasi/ddebiasi

• Then you shoved the unsourced claim into the cast listing. Wrong place and wrong manner to include it in the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

There are so many lines in this section that read "in mythology", yet there are various sources for these myhts (most notably the Iliad, Odyssey and Aeneid of course). This should be rewritten to include these as refrences, i.e. instead of saying "in mythology..." have it read something along the lines of "in The Aeneid...". This would clarify for people not familiar with these stories, and if they wanted to look into them more, this would provide the opportunity. KurtFF8 05:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Another good source you might want to look at is The Oresteia, though I don't think there's anything here that needs that particular trilogy of plays. Anyway, I changed something which (basically) said patroclus and Achilles were unrelated, because they were 1st cousins once removed ;)--68.32.206.71 23:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of paragraphs beginning with 'in the movie'. I think that this section needs at least a good copy-edit.

Also, would Homer's use of the Greek pantheon be considered 'dei ex machinis'? I think at least some reference should be made to the literary device. -- Sasuke Sarutobi 22:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This is obscene. The section on deviations is over 2,500 words. The entire entry on the Iliad itself is just over 3,500; the combined comparison sections for all three LotR films is sizably less. This needs some severe abridging. Which has been done. If anyone has a problem, they can say something; this isn't a place to post an essay on all the sundry differences between the Iliad and Troy, and people can read the movie synopsis and the book summary without them both being compressed into one passage.Malichai 02:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Biggest innacuraccy is that as far as I do remember Homer, Achiles died BEFORE Trojan horse and was not part of Troy fall. This was to do epic death while speaking to loved one (again dieing way too long) and is pure Hoolywood. That kind of kills the movie as myth to movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rastavox (talk • contribs) 06:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I've been watching this movie (and others) possibly a bit too much. While reading Achilles (the Wikipedia page), my imagination made my own cut of the movie starring Angelina Jolie as Penthesilea (with a wink and a grin, I categorically deny that her role in Beowulf has anything to do with it.) Memnon, predictably enough, was played by Samuel L. Jackson, and Cressida was Maureen O'Brien reprising the role from her earlier experience. In the actual movie, I'm a little disappointed after reading of Asteropaeus wounding Achilles in the elbow, that they should have had one of Boagrius' spears nick him there; it would have been a fitting companion to his line for the Messenger Boy (I like to capitalize that because of how he says "That's why no one will remember your name") "I wouldn't be bothering with a shield, now would I?" It was obviously inevitable that that Nathan Jones went down early and hard; I wished he had lasted as long as he did in Fearless. But Ajax going down early at the hands of Hector really sucked. It isn't just how it differs from Iliad, but I really liked his character and Tyler Mane's portrayal. I think if directed properly (sorry, Mr. Peterson) Ajax/Tyler Mane and Odysseus/Sean Bean could have tag-teamed with an even more passionate and ruthless Achilles/Brad Pitt and made a movie just as unforgettable as the war itself, even if it would still be a dramatization of a dramatization. Featherwinglove (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

One thing that might be worth mentioning somewhere in the article is how Troy is more secular in tone than the original Iliad. In the Iliad, the gods appear as characters and influence the story's action, but the movie has none of that. Characters make reference to the gods, but there's no indication that the gods exist. There's no mention of Thetis being a nymph or a sea goddess, nor is there any reference to the golden apples or the judgment of Paris (instead we're just told that he and Helen are having an affair). Anyone else think these are points worth making? I hate to just plop it into the article if I'm the only one who thinks it's relevant. Moloch dhalgren (talk) 00:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

David Benioff talks about his decision to omit the gods from his screenplay here: http://www.screenwritersutopia.com/article/d158312f. Moloch dhalgren (talk) 01:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

modernization arguements?

Right now this constitutes original research. Add some citations or I will delete 129.170.202.3 08:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Music

Article says nothing about music in this movie (tracks? composer?). I`m interested because, in my oppinion, music is (quite often) strikingly simmilar to that from "Enemy at the Gates ", as if it is a variation of the latter: music heared during battles seems as if derived from music heared during the Red Army`s disasterous charge from the beginnning of "Enemy at Gates". Also, several tones heared often in dangerous situations or twists in "Enemy at Gates" (notably when Zaitsev finds Maj. Koning`s cigarette) is often heared in "Troy" as well (also in dangerous situations). Any other oppinions?

Veljko Stevanovich Dec. 28. 2005. 18:45 UTC+1

Ok, so James Horner wrote the music for both films. That explains a lot.

Veljko Stevanovich Jan. 1. 2006. 20:05 UTC+1

James Horner is known for reusing the same melodies and such for many projects. It can be either interesting or frustrating, depends on the user. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 20:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That "danger theme" is always used when James Horner has no more ideas and needs to fill the scene with some music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surten (talk • contribs) 05:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Unused Score

About Yared's rejected music, the article says a bootleg copy can be found in the internet. I beg to differ. A friend of mine has a recording from a German studio, with Yared's original score. --200.76.103.98 (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Surten

Neoptolemus

Is the "side-note" about Neoptolemus really necessary? He's not in the movie, and this section seems to take the myths way too literally. Neoptolemus suffers from soap-opera-child syndrome, and I don't think it's useful to try to explain the story logically (especially not here where it's completely irrelevant). Adam Bishop 16:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. It is irrelevent mentioning about Neoptolemus as this article concentrates on the film. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Paris and Hellen ages

It says that Hellen must be a generation younger that Paris, but in one version, Paris sees Hellen in the eyes of Aphrodite and falls in love. This means that Hellen wasn´t a generation younger than Páris. Maybe Achilles were, but not Hellen.

Plane in film

In the film a plane is spoted I dont have a picture but when Brad Pitt decaps the statue at the temple a plane can be seen over his right shoulder so should this be added as trivia or even be added at all

I'm watching the film right now- pausing and rewinding... there is no plane.

-G

In fact there is no plane in the movie. I too paused and rewinded the movie a lot of time. The plane is only in a photomontage which was repeatedly posted in Internet Alaksandu 02:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph removed

I removed this paragraph for the "Deviations" section:

The movie Troy cast a conventially good-looking blond, blue-eyed, fair-skinned German actress in the role of Helen. In mythology, Helen was "the most beautiful woman in the world", and described by the English playwright Christopher Marlowe in Doctor Faustus as "the face that launched a thousand ships." Modern critics snidely quipped that while Helen of the film Troy could have launched 100 ships, she wasn't beautiful enough to launch 1,000.

I think this paragraph is ridiculous, opinionated, and irrelevant. First of all, this is not a difference between the film and the book. It's just someone saying that Helen isn't as beautiful in the movie as they had pictured while reading Homer's poem. Second, what's with that last line? I never read a review of this movie that stated that. It's a line that some random person made up. In any case, this paragraph has no place in this article. Period. 2Pac 23:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what you said, that paragraph was stupid. Good job. :)

Yoda921 04:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Yoda

I agree with that, too. Spartan198 (talk) 08:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

Helen's Beauty

From the changes in this page it looks like there's been a lot of discussion about how beautiful Helen was in the film as opposed to how beautiful she should be, and I think we need to accept that it's a film, she's an actress, none of the actors are really Greek and move on. It's irrelevant that she's German or blond. In particular, I'm referring to the paragraph:

"However, the movie makes a point in a key silent scene on why this Helen (and perhaps the historical one, too) was considered so beautiful. In the scene, after running away with her, Paris is escorting Helen on a chariot through Troy for the first time. Here, there are shots of dark-haired, dark-eyed, tanned-skinned women dominating the features of Troy's female population. The women all look testily on the movie's Helen, perhaps jealous of her different coloring, perhaps upset that war is coming over her."

In the Iliad, Helen is referred to as 'golden', but it's not clear whether this means she's blonde, or if she's wearing a lot of gold, as the Greek women of that age did. In any case, such a loaded discussion of her 'coloring' is a bit dodgy, and I think we're better off not reading into it that much; it's not referred to at all in the film and seems unnecessary here. Unless someone can come up with a compelling argument to keep it, please remove.

Archaic Greek poet Ibycus expressly says that Helen was blond-haired (S 151 Davies)Alaksandu 02:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC))

Apart from the fact that it's just a film, blond hair can be found among us Greeks-it is nearly as frequent as red hair is in most north European countries-our percent is relatively low, however it's not negligible.

Homosexual Overtones

The comments re: Patroclus and Achilles being lovers are not exactly accurate. When the story was put on paper around 750 B.C., homosexuality as a social norm wasn't widely practiced. The fact that the Classical Greeks viewed Achilles and Patroclus as lovers reflects an interpretation shaped by the society of the day. Homosexual pairings arose around the 600s in partial response to the sweeping reorganization of the city-state. Those nuances extended to other older myths as well-- Zeus and Ganymede for instance. Achilles also states fairly clearly in the text that he loves Briesis. So yes, while the movie does not follow the true plot of the "Illiad", it's unfair to fault it because Achilles and Patroclus weren't gay. Just some thoughts.Ea10 08:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC) ea10

It's not a faithful reference, but I remember hearing once that with the greeks, it wasn't ill-viewed that a man would have a male lover, and still have a family with a wife and kids. That would explain Achilles and Patroclus' relationship.

The paragraph says that at the beginning of the movie, Achilles is shown sleeping naked with a male and a female, I have seen that section in slow motion, over and over, and I am pretty convinced that its two females he is sleeping with. Anybody else notice that? Saurabh Rahurkar 14:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely two women. The Director's Cut clearly shows female anatomy. Spartan198 (talk) 08:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

One thing is clear: the screenwriter David Beniof, obviously thought that Achilles and Patroclus were lovers, as he went to such great lengths to recast their relationship in a heterosexual context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorzu (talk • contribs) 08:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Orlando Bloom and Sean Bean

Does anyone else agree that it should be mentioned somewhere in this article that this is the second time that Orlando Bloom and Sean Beanhave worked together? I would think it's very notable, considering that it was only, what, three or so years since they acted together on The Lord of the Rings, with Sean as Boromir and Orlando as Legolas. Do I have permission to add this? WickedWitchoftheWest 03:24, 04 January 2007

Well it's not necessarily important. In fact, it doesn't seem important at all. However it could be placed under trivia if you felt it needed to be mentioned. Just my opinion.

Yoda921 04:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Yoda

You're using the wrong word for this---"important" / "unimportant". The word you guys want is "relevance". Is Bloom and Bean having worked together 3 years ago in Jackson's Lord of the Rings relevant to this movie Troy?

Nope. Nothing to do with Troy. It's nothing more than a typical Wikipedian fixation with a particular actor or two. The person who said it doesn't seem important but could be placed in the trivia section: man, you completely miss the point of WP. Wikipedia is not a repository for the personal fixations and irrelevant trivia of contributors. If it has no relevance to the topic it has no place in the article. Simple, really.

The ironic incongruity of WP's film articles is the triumph of contributors in doing just the opposite by building up a steady mound of fluff in "Trivia" sections in each film article. Those Trivia sections are really special sections set aside for contributors who love to add irrelevant garbage. Please stop navel-gazing guys and stay on-topic. Arbo (talk)

erm, is this wiki material?

"Achilles wrestles her down and kisses her lustfully while moving his hand down her bare thigh. (He's naked himself.) Achilles and Briseis have sex."

I think the above should be changed to something a little more subtle. Seems like something you'd find on literotica.com ... not that I know anything about that sort of thing :X . --Flvg94 22:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Llamas in the Movie

At the start of minute 34 of the movie there is a scene in a street market where some llamas passing by can be seen. Llamas are animals natural from Peru, a country located in the east central part of South America, and by no means lived in the Midle East at the time of Achilles. Apparently this was a mistake by the movie makers due to their lack of knowledge about these animals.

LAJT

I don't think the llamas in the movie is a mistake. Maybe it's true that those animals are from Peru, but that time Troy is the richest city in the world that is why Agamemnon was so eager to conquer it. Furthermore, Troy is located near the Aegean Sea which was the center of trade at that time, and those llamas may probably brought by traders on the other side of the Aegean.

Scalpelexis23 (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)scalpelexis23 June 2, 2009 10:00 AM

I don't think that makes sense. The Aegean Sea is a relatively small bit of the Mediterranean between Greece and Turkey. I doubt anyone in that part of the world was trading with South America during the Bronze Age when the Trojian War is supposed to have happened. Considering llamas have never lived outside of the Americas without being imported I'd say it's probably a plot hole. Maybe someone wasn't thinking and just wanted an exotic yet domesticated looking animal.

Having said all that though it's a relatively small point and probably not worth adding to the article. Danikat (talk) 08:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely not worth including in the article, but I just need to add that Llamas were unknown in the old world until the arrival of the conquistadors in South America: so it's definitely a plot hole.--Life in General (Talk) 21:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

External links

I would like to add a link to the MythiMedia research project (Bologna University, Italy) http://www.mythimedia.org/. The project explores the presence of Greek mythology in today's culture, and contains an article entitled "Leaves of Homeric Storytelling: Wolfgang Petersen's Troy and Franco Rossi's Odissea" (http://www.mythimedia.org/Leaves_of_Homeric_Storytelling.html) [this is the address that should be linked], by American scholar Martin M. Winkler, who also edited a book on the movie Troy, published by Routledge. The site is written entirely in English Fallingdrapery 00:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Ajax the Greater

Why is Ajax killed in this movie? It is obviously the big man with the hammer although to my knowledge his name is never mentioned in the film, but old descriptions of the man match the actor in the film. He shouldn't be killed at Troy, does anyone know why the director decided to do so? Mallerd 19:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not? They didn't get anything else right either. Adam Bishop 19:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, they did manage to depict Achilles' insanity well, although that is my opinion. Mallerd 20:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ajax dies at Troy. He falls on his own sword, which is caused by Odysseus not himself being named as Achilles's successor. For obvious reasons, he cannot outlive Achilles only to die later - the whole drama would be spoilt. He did fight with Hector, and I agree that killing him off was a good call. He is named: Achilles speaks to him briefly. Fuzzibloke (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ajax was killed to show the bravery of Hector and how Heroic and strong he was in battle. Ajax was a very strong fighter and they wanted to show him strong against Hector, but not as smart. (Username: Chiodos2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiodos2008 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Biased

Doesn't anyone else think this movie is at all biased toward the Greeks? It's so clear! In the sacking of the city, the Greeks are posed as barbarians, but does anyone actually know this happened? Shckleford (24/10/2007)

I agree, but I don't know why. Sorry. But Agamemnon is undeniably a "bad guy" - only Odysseus and Patroclus are "good" Greeks. Fuzzibloke (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. If it had been reversed, and the Trojans were sacking Mycenae, they'd have done pretty much the same thing to the Greek populace. It was just the way things worked back then. But, nonetheless, Wikipedia's not a forum. Spartan198 (talk) 08:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

You claim that the movie is biased towards the Greeks, but why would the director and his team glorify the Trojans? They lost! Look at all the historical documentries around focusing on WW2, they are nearly all biased towards the Allies. Reason being is that they won! Also, you don't lose thousands of men in the succesful capturing of a city just to walk away after you're done, leaving the place standing and possibly able to rise to power again. Any ancient force would sack the city for wealth and honour back home. And of course, any force would look like barbarians in the process. As Spartan said, that was how things worked back then. No international media around to scrutinise their actions. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 20:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think even in the comments above there's confusion--my reading is that the first writer is alleging a bias against the Greeks, not for them. In any case, I think there's a certain point of view bias in favor of the Greeks, not that there's anything wrong with that. For all the changes, the story is essentially based on the Iliad. The Iliad was a Greek epic, it naturally takes their point of view. I think what is interesting is that Homer is full of praise and admiration for Priam and especially for Hector, despite Hector's cowardice at the very end. While the Iliad is told from a Greek view point Homer has a fairly neutral view in terms of laying blame or making moral judgments on either side as a whole; morally he spends more time reflecting on the individual heros of both sides rather than 'Greeks v. Trojans'. I thought the movie did an excellent job of bringing out the moral ambiguity, especially in the director's cut. Agamemnon is practically demonized; Greeks are shown as murderous pillagers, the Trojans are given a certain nobility in defeat. That said its still undeniably, like the Iliad, centered on the Greek view, especially with the focus on Achilles as a protagonist and the admiring treatment of Odysseus. I think _Troy_ can be criticized for many thing but one of the things it did right was to reflect the Iliad's tacit neutrality.

Incidentally, the destruction of the city and murdering of the babies etc. is definitely a recorded part of the original legend, to answer the original question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.62.46 (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Plot

The plot section is already way too long...people keep adding to it, seemingly only for the purpose of turning the Achilles and Briseis section into pornography. The whole section needs pruning. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It is arguable that the w hole depiction of the Achilles and Briseis relationship in this film is offensive in itself, because it romantisizes the relationship between a potential rapist and his victim who goes on to develop Stockholm Syndrome. jessicamh — Preceding unsigned comment added by JessicaMH (talk • contribs) 18:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC) JessicaMH (talk) 11:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)JessicaMHJessicaMH (talk) 11:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, lady, it's Stockholm Syndrome for sure.¬¬¬¬workoutsforbreakfast¬¬¬¬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Workoutsforbreakfast (talk • contribs) 09:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

That is a point best left to a reception section (where we can note the countless reviews that made the same observation) or a themes section. In the plot section, we report what's on the screen and not our interpretations of those events. If the writers/director made comments to that effect, then we could note it in the plot with a ref pointing to the source where they said such. If the two actors mentioned that point, it would be a good item to include in a cast/casting section. I suggest looking over the film project manual of style and WP:FILMPLOT for more information. Millahnna (talk) 09:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, can you point me to reviews that made the same observation about Stockholm Syndrome? I could do with reading them, e for a project of my own? This lady's reference to it's the first I've come across on the web despite typing in key words. Thanks in advance. Workoutsforbreakfast (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)workoutsforbreakfastWorkoutsforbreakfast (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I don't have any links handy I just remember reading it a lot at the time of the film's release. I agree with the assessment myself, but since it wasn't a plot point that was elaborated on it would just be viewer interpretation to include it here. I'm guessing that "troy film reviews stockholm" should turn up results. I think a couple of the reviews I read at the time touched on the concept but without using the actual phrase, though, so it may be a bit harder to track down. 09:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Millahnna, for your compliment on my article on 'Briseis and Stockholm Syndrome' in 'thefword'. I wish I could use it for a seperate atricle on this site, but the copyright now belongs to 'the f word' editorial team, I believe. I'm glad you and Workouts agree with that interpretation. JessicaMH (talk)JessicaMHJessicaMH (talk) 11:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

If there's a wikia out there that covers the film, it might go very well there. I know some months back the film project here discussed movie wikias in connection to another issue (long film plot summaries) but I can't recall if such a site was listed. Definitely something to look into. Millahnna (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• The F word is not a reliable source and can't be used on the site, regardless of copyright. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Death of Agamemnon

Reading through the discussion page, I see that there was once a section describing how the film deviated from Greek and Latin accounts of the events of Troy. Perhaps it was too long, too bloated, I don't know. Apparently this section no longer exists.

While I don't think it's necessary or desirable to detail every single way in which the film differs from the Iliad, I think it should at least be mentioned somewhere that the death of Agamemnon was a RADICAL departure from Greek mythology. In any event it contradicts the Iliad, the Odyssey, and the Oresteia, making it impossible for Agamemnon to return and be murdered, invalidating any revenge by Orestes, leaving no conclusion to the curse on the House of Atreus. You would think that would merit at least a passing mention in the article. zadignose (talk) 10:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Correction in the plot about Achilles weakness...

Achilles is not invulnerable in the movie, he says so himself in the beginning of the film and has no weak spot in his heel (his heel is of course as vulnerable as any other part of his body in the movie, that includes being pierced by arrows).

I replaced the original paragraph << Paris manages to find Achilles and shoots an arrow that goes straight through Achilles' fatal weakness, his heel. Crippled, he is then hit in the chest by several more arrows, but is able to remove them. Though the wound to his ankle proves decisive. >> with this one << Paris manages to find Achilles and shoots an arrow that goes straight through Achilles'heel. Crippled, he turns to face him but is hit in the chest by several more arrows, despite pleads from Briseis. Though he removes them, he is fatally wounded and unable to fight. >> . Achilles is killed by being shot 3 times in the main body, not from the one shot in his heel (which still cripples him of course)

Achilles knowledge of his death

I removed this line

"*The premise that Achilles goes to Troy knowing he will die in exchange for glory is contradicted in Book XI of the Odyssey, where the ghost of Achilles tells Odysseus "I would rather be a paid servant in a poor man's house and be above ground than king of kings among the dead."Homer. The Iliad & The Odyssey. Trans. Samuel Butler. p. 568. ISBN 9781435110434"

as, while it is true Achilles says that in the Odyssey, that is after he died, and is regretting it. In the Iliad he is aware that he will die there, but thinks that the glory he will gain is worth it. Unless someone can show me something to the contrary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldaran (talk • contribs) 03:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we expand "Reaction"

So far, I'm enjoying reading all of the 'talks' happening here. Just wanna pass by and say 'hi'.

-Janella E.

I'm more specifically interested in seeing the reviews of several critics, why it was a box office disappointment in the U.S., Etc. etc.

I agree. I'd like to see some of the more critical reviews of the time by critics of such a commercialised travesty of The Iliad. I thought the Achilles as played by Pitt was a real character assassination of the Achilles of Homer. I know a couple of academics claimed to take it seriously at the time, not sure how serious they were. People ignorant of The Iliad really thought that the action of the film was all according to Homer. User: Charley Kinraid 29 November 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 09:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC).

Obviously it also mutilated the Iliad, but was there another reason outside that? --Pstanton (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Not just mutilated, it's a travesty, and as this is presumably a neutral point of view, shouldn't the dismissive reviews be mentioned here as well as the accolades? [[Charley Kinraid (talk) 08:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)]]

Sorry guys, I know this may be a bore for most men, but I have to put this bluntly - I thought that the film romantisied the 'potential rape victim and potential rapist' relationship between Achilles and Briseis. It is arguable that Briseis is suffering from 'Stockholm Syndrome'. I had an article published in the women's ezine 'The F word' on that. To give a broader picture would there be any objections to my adding it somewhere in the external links? [[2]].

I added to the synopsis that Briseis fears rape and that Achilles is violent to her at one point. User Talk: jessicamh —Preceding undated comment added 13:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC).

• Your opinion on it doesn't belong in the article. The e-zine (aka blog) won't pass WP:RS and you can't use your own article to support your own opinion WP:SPS and WP:COI (unless you were a recognized expert in the field). Niteshift36 (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

*Given that the article has a section called "Accolades", I would be interested in seeing a section called "Criticism", and this sort of thematic issue, as well as perhaps some of the major deviations from the Illiad that have been previously noted but are currently missing could go there.

Also, though the "the f-word" website uses the term blog in the title, it appears to have an extensive editorial staff and would make a reasonable source if referenced in an area of the article where analysis and criticism is appropriate (i.e. not the plot summary). Netmouse (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, many films that have a section about multiple awards calls it "accolades", so I don't see that as being that undue. If there is criticism from a third party beyond the normal critic stuff, then it's worth discussing. I don't support the notion of having a criticism section just because we think balance demands it. I would imagine a criticism section being reliable third party sources talking about historic inaccuracies etc. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Your tone is rather abrupt!! My additions you deleted aren't based on any subjective opinions, but on facts in the film. It is made obvious Briseis fears Achilles as a rapist initially (t he fate of all War Prizes) and he is shown being violent to her. I don't see why these facts have to be glossed over? Of course, in modern terms neither Agamemnon nor Achilles had any right to her, though of course, in 'The Iliad' Homer didn't question it. The ezine in question (which isn't my personal blog) isn't used to substantiate these alerations. I merely asked if I can quote my article in an ezine as an external source, not as a form of backing up alterations. If ezines are not seen as reliable sources, so be it, though I don't understand why Wolfgang Petersen's website is in any way a reliable source!

Can I request arbitration on these matters? My complaint, you can see, is that I am accused of wanting to use my web article as verification of facts I put in the article, which I dispute. Thnak you.jessicamh

• Have you read WP:RS or WP:SPS yet? Please read those, as they will answer most of your questions about why your article can't be used. As for the rest, the plot summary is supposed to do just that, summarize the plot. NOT interpret or analyze the plot. Nor should it included every detail from the plot.You need to read WP:NPOV. You clearly are trying to advance a point of view about how you feel the females were portrayed and how violence against women was portrayed. That is not the purpose of the article. If a reliable third party source discussed it, then it could possibly be included, as long as it was presented in a NPOV manner and was relevant to the overall article. Using your article won't work because the e-zine easily fails WP:RS. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Niteshift, I have been trying to make the point that I wasn't using my article for that reason, but as an 'external link' of possible interest to readers. I think you are being less than perfectly civil in your abrupt manner of addressing me. What is left out in discussions is often more telling than what is depicted. jessicamh

• Jessica, I haven't been uncivil with you at all. External links still have to be reliable and the ezine isn't. see WP:ELNO. It is also considered poor form to remove large parts of your post and rewrite pther parts after it has been responded to. It alters what people see me responding to. So far Jessica, you haven't presented any policy based argument on including what you want included. I have explained, with policy, why it doesn't belong. If you find that "abrupt", well.....that's your problem. Wikipedia functions on policy and reliable sources, not feelings. I've tried to help you by linking you to the appropriate policies, which you don't appear to have even read. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought my previous post too waffling, which is why I deleted some of it, not through an undehand desire to score points. Could you explain why my putting in some words about Achilles violence to Briseis can't be included, but that 'romantic' sentence about his 'last look' is more relevant, as no editor has deleted that as 'an opinon'? By the way, I did read the user guidlines. I didn't intend to use the ezine article as an objective source beacuse I am not quite that tautological in my arguments, it was an additional query I made originally on the lines of 'this provides such and such an analysis of the film'.JessicaMH (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)jessicamhJessicaMH (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• See, this is a good example. Did I say you altered your post because of any underhanded anything? No. I simply imformed an inexperienced user (you) that such actions were considered poor form. But you read into what was actually said. Look at what I say, not what you think I "really" mean, ok? I haven't looked at the other recently, but what you added was what we call WP:OR.......it was your opinion (or interpretation) of what happened. Did you read WP:ELNO? Specifically #11 Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.) The ezine, by virtue of accepting articles from users and having no apparent editorial oversite, is really a blog. And what Wolfgang Peterson's site are you talking about? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

*Just to agree with Niteshift36, it is considered inappropriate to go back and revise earlier comments on Talk pages, whether or not you find them cringeworthy when you re-read them later. Please don't do that.Netmouse (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Nitwatchman, where I come from it's not manners to say, 'That's your problem' to a woman. If Wicki dismisses ezines as 'unreliable sources' because they are not printed 'aka blogs' you said, Wicki itself is just a big blog, not a 'reliable source'. Lol.Workoutsforbreakfast (talk) 09:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)workoutsforbreakfastWorkoutsforbreakfast (talk) 09:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• First off, who is Nitwatchman? If you can't be bothered to at least be close on the name of the person you are talking to, why should you be taken seriously? Second, you act like I said that right out of the gate. It was said after several exchanges in which the editor engaged in some WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior and tried to foist her incorrect analysis of what I said on me. Lastly, you need to read some policies. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. It can't be used as a reference to itself. Like Jessica, you need to read some policies. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Re; Netmouse's comments above, some people have mentioned that they would like to expand the criticism and thematic discussion; How can this be done if some disagree? {[Charley Kinraid 20 November 2011}}

Director's Cut Run Time

I'm confused about the run time of the director's cut, some say it's 196 minutes, but the article of the ultimate collector's edition in amazon.com says it is actually 201 minutes. Are these two different versions of the film? Scalpelexis23 (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)scalpelexis23 June 01, 2009 11:30 AM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scalpelexis23 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Expand "Cast"

The "Cast" section is so lame. I think we should expand it by adding the history of each actors on how they got the role and their reactions being included in the cast, and not just a plain table like:

Brad Pitt Achilles Eric Bana Hector

These list are pretty awkward that the readers already know it, and thus expecting for more useful information. Aside from the actors, we could also add brief information of the character themselves like:

Achilles - Son of Peleus of Phytia and Thetis. King of the Myrmidons and considered the greatest warrior of his time. (Correction: Achilles was not a King; his father, Peleus, was still alive and indeed outlived him). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.159.78 (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Hector - Prince of Troy and the eldest son of King Priam. He is the brother of Paris and the husband of Andromache.

121.96.60.141 (talk) 08:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)scalpelexis23 June 01, 2009 4:37 PM

Article split: Troy: Differences between the movie and the mythos

Does this article really need to be separate from this one? It looks to me like the person who did the split did it unilaterally, without consulting anyone, and WP:SIZE certainly does not justify it at this point. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that person does not seem to be willing to discuss, so I undid everything and initiated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troy: Differences between the movie and the mythos. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

ireally like this movie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.251.79.119 (talk) 03:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

What's a "mytho"? Norum 15:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Priam's Death

Contrary to what is asserted in the Main Differences Between Myth and Film section, Priam does not actually die in the Iliad, which ends with the return of Hector's body to the Trojans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.143.86 (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Priam does not die in the Iliad, but the Iliad only covered a period of less than a year of the whole war. The film covers it from start to finish. Priam does indeed die when Troy is sacked, as the film depicts. However, he is not killed by Agamemnon, as in the film, but by Achilles' son Neoptolemus (not depicted in the film). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.159.78 (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Differences between the Myth and Film

Look, for the people that decided to move this section because it had no "references" why don't you go and site the Illiad articles of Wikipedia and that'll be good enough.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

1) Because Wikpedia is not a reliable source and 2) even if it were, me comparing the movie to a reliable sources and saying "these are the differences" would be original research - analysis based on MY observations and 3) a mere list of the differences does nothing to help the reader understand the topic of this article, the movie Troy. We would need a source describing how the non-mythical death of character X at this point in the script helped increase the emotional tension of the film, or the director stating that he didn't have so-and-so die as he does in the myth because he promised the actor a bigger part or hypothetically 50 years from now a researcher finds that a common cultural belief about Achilles/Odyseus/The Trojan war can be traced back to its first appearance in this film or the film being banned in a certain country because the non-mythical portrayal of X in the film shows their cultural hero in a bad light or something along these lines.

Find third party sources that make these claims about the movie if you think they are important to the article. MM 207.69.137.25 (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You must have missed point 1) and point 2). Wikipedia is not a reliable source and a wikipedia editor making comparisons is original research. MM207.69.137.27 (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Than why has it been done for other articles?173.95.138.76 (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Stax IGN Script Review

• "The Stax Report: Script Review of Troy." IGN. November 14, 2002.

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

What of Briseis?

Was not Breis, like Cassandra not only a prietess of Apollo but had the power of clarivoyance? Was she not violated in the same manner as Cassandra by Aganemnon? If both these women were so "graced" with the same fateful circumstance, why is it that Bresis does not have the power to see the future therby knowing the fate of Troy and Achilles (Yes, achilles does know his future. Still....). Is there some reference in the Illiad of Homer, the Orestes I Trilogy (Aganemnon, or any other classic greek work that resolves this questions? And did Briesis indeed survive the the sack of troy and escaped with Anaeas Special:Contributions/talk) 19:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Veryverser

• Where in the movie did it suggest Breseis was clarivoyant? And who in the movie was Cassandra? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

No, no, no, sir. Not your synoposis. I put the question whether or not she was in Homer's epic. What I was referencing was Asclyus' play Aganemnon, juxtaposing Cassandra with Breseis; They both were high priestesses of the diety. (Did they infact knew each other, or were related, since royalty was a sole qualifyer forthe devotion?) And alleged that as long as they kept their virginity, were enpowered with future vision. This led me to ponder whether "Homer" was remissed editiorially on this fact. -if Breisis was clarivoyant, prior ot Troys's invasion can it be assumed that she knew of the impending invasion, calamity, and for that matter Paris' betrayal of both his countrymen and Greece; or did the "gods" prevented this second sight? -We knew that the caveat in the legend of Cassandra was that when she was raped by Aganemnon, Apollo cursed her with the knowlege that anyone who she warned of coming doom would not believe her. (In this-once again-I see a commonality with Greek, Persian, and Hebrew legends (Noah and the Flood, for example). Please pay attention. Only good works can come from this. -When she was accosted by Achilles did the same fate fall on Breisis? Or did it matter, since Achilles already knew he would die at Troy, and that it was his own choice. And too, since the protracted war was at a stalemate, could Breseis have forecasted Odysseus' plan to break it? Perhaps you should stop being defensive, sir, and learn to appreciate other people's insight and contribution as a help to the ongoing disscussion. If you but took a wise breath before making this statement, you would obviously see the opportunity AND possibility for new, and fresh expanded prose and stage treatment on what may be an intriging anamoly in Homer's epic. Since both Asychlus and Homer were allegedly centuries apart, and undertanding that the latter was the true pas "Cassandra" of of his time, warning of the diaster of war and scocio-ecomonic disintergration of Athens and the rest of Greek civilization as it stood then with him and his comtempoaries, you would be relieved that yet another question was raised that might unveil furhter mysteries. Isn't that what great drama and poetry is all about? Now, pardon me. I must check my local newspaper and web to see if there are any oritorios of Handel, and possibly Ascylus' great "PROMETHEUS BOUND" performing locally. 69.126.238.184 (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Veryverser

Troy = Troyans or Trojans?

The English title of the movie, as well as the name of the place itself, is Troy. It spells with a "j" in number of other languages. Now, my questions is, if the place is called "Troy" in English, shouldn't the residents be referred to as Troyans, instead of Trojans as it is shown throughout the movie? Norum 03:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Well that would be logical, but that is not how language works. Troyans, in any case, are from central Bulgaria. --Luftschiffritter5 1 (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Aeneas did NOT found Rome

The article states here that Aeneas eventually founds Rome, however this is not accurate: Aeneas migrates to Latium and founds Lavinium, also on the River Tiber. Rome was founded by Romulus and Remus, matrilineal descendants of Aeneas through Rhea Silvia (their father was the Roman god Mars). Some Romans, such as the gens Julia, could claim patrilineal descent also: they were Alban nobles (see Alba Longa) who were incorporated into the Roman people some time after the founding of the city.

I do not want to remove the details on Aeneas, because they are useful for those viewers unfamiliar with the legend who may not realize the significance of Paris handing him the sword (When I first saw the film I personally thought Paris was just handing the sword to some random nobody so he wouldn't have to worry about dying shamefully with it). How, though, should it be reformed?--Luftschiffritter5 1 (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Critical reception

Having only the negative review from Ebert is a bit one-sided. Is there a way we can add in a positive review accordingly with WP:UNDUE? Greedo8 00:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Troy (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100124063338/http://www.moviemusicuk.us:80/troygycd.htm to http://www.moviemusicuk.us/troygycd.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Grammar correction?

I'm a little confused about the line: "In order to keep their spirits up, he gives Briseis to the Greek soldiers for their amusement." Does anyone think this would read better as "In order to keep his soldiers' spirits up, he gives Briseis to them for their amusement?"72.239.133.237 (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Another review

Found in the Honolulu Advertiser http://web.archive.org/web/20040613181328/http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/May/14/en/en18a.html

Might be a good source WhisperToMe (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Whitewashing?

Months ago, this article was given citations about criticism toward the film for whitewashing and absence of greek actors in favor of white actors. Why were these passages removed? H.AFI.17 (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)H.AFI.17H.AFI.17 (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)