Three things
"Because I'm comfortable with the way they've updated the myth for modern audiences."
Ahem.
They haven't updated the myth. They have created a new myth, and are passing it off as the old - or at least that's the effect it's going to have. They can disingeniuously use the term "inspired by" instead, but that's only going to make a difference for a minority of the audience.
"Just that I think Troy works."
I don't think Troy works, actually. It's just not a terribly good script, separate entirely from the Iliad. It's a fun movie to watch (once) because the horribly shitty cliche bits at least don't get in the way of the action, and because the actors work above the level the script requires (especially Bana, who was good enough I think he deserved to be in a better movie). But even if I'd never read Homer and didn't give a shit about him, I would still think it's a bad script, and a bad movie. Just intermittently enjoyable.
"Does this mean that Homer's interpretation of the myth of Troy is sacred and that none should dare trying to update the myth unless they preserve the spirit of his work? Come on. Homer doesn't own the myth."
So fidelity to your source material is a horrible, horrible thing to have? If you don't want to preserve the spirit of your source, if you want to create something new, why do you want to work with a source in the first place? Why not just, you know, create something new? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely curious about the rationale behind this.
The point is ultimately this:
You can update the myth/story/legend/whatever (and I'm talking generally here, not just about the Iliad) without violating what makes it work. You don't owe Homer (or any other author) that respect, but you owe it to the work. Homer doesn't own the myth, of course, but when an artist makes the decision to update or work with a piece of art, they have a responsability to that art. Doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't change things (there were many, many changes in the movie I didn't mind, that I thought worked, etc), but you absolutely should not violate the integrity of the work, especially to make yet another blockbuster movie. Benioff and Peterson have failed in this respect. That's what upset me. There are good adaptions and bad adaptions, and this is a bad adaption. No "inspired by" cop out can plaster over that. Sure, the pundits you'll see talking about the film all over the internet (such as, erm, us) will know the difference. But most of the audience won't. And yes, that is important.
Ahem.
They haven't updated the myth. They have created a new myth, and are passing it off as the old - or at least that's the effect it's going to have. They can disingeniuously use the term "inspired by" instead, but that's only going to make a difference for a minority of the audience.
"Just that I think Troy works."
I don't think Troy works, actually. It's just not a terribly good script, separate entirely from the Iliad. It's a fun movie to watch (once) because the horribly shitty cliche bits at least don't get in the way of the action, and because the actors work above the level the script requires (especially Bana, who was good enough I think he deserved to be in a better movie). But even if I'd never read Homer and didn't give a shit about him, I would still think it's a bad script, and a bad movie. Just intermittently enjoyable.
"Does this mean that Homer's interpretation of the myth of Troy is sacred and that none should dare trying to update the myth unless they preserve the spirit of his work? Come on. Homer doesn't own the myth."
So fidelity to your source material is a horrible, horrible thing to have? If you don't want to preserve the spirit of your source, if you want to create something new, why do you want to work with a source in the first place? Why not just, you know, create something new? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely curious about the rationale behind this.
The point is ultimately this:
You can update the myth/story/legend/whatever (and I'm talking generally here, not just about the Iliad) without violating what makes it work. You don't owe Homer (or any other author) that respect, but you owe it to the work. Homer doesn't own the myth, of course, but when an artist makes the decision to update or work with a piece of art, they have a responsability to that art. Doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't change things (there were many, many changes in the movie I didn't mind, that I thought worked, etc), but you absolutely should not violate the integrity of the work, especially to make yet another blockbuster movie. Benioff and Peterson have failed in this respect. That's what upset me. There are good adaptions and bad adaptions, and this is a bad adaption. No "inspired by" cop out can plaster over that. Sure, the pundits you'll see talking about the film all over the internet (such as, erm, us) will know the difference. But most of the audience won't. And yes, that is important.
