Talk:Troy: Fall of a City

Ratings

A section should be created detailing the abysmal ratings and viewership this series has received. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:4200:A6C:9459:D3F9:E9FF:76D (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

this would be a useless work, since the series is "so freely interpretating" that literally "nobody" is watching it. bad fighting-choreographies, bad dialogues, bad storytelling and GODDAMN TOO MUCH TALKINGS. greetings from germany, this show is useless & will be flopping for SURE. --37.201.5.154 (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

oh, and besides of all of this... a black bisexual achilles??????? seriously?????????????? bisexual works out for ancient greece, but putting an african actor onto this role is just faiiiiiiiiiiiiiil! xD sorry i'm drunk but honest! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.201.5.154 (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, if you read Patroclus wikipedia page, in ancient Greece, even Plato considered "the relationship between Patroclus and Achilles is discussed as a model of romantic love." About black africans in greek world, that bothered me too first. But I checked wikipedia and apparently there were Ethiopians warriors led by their king, Memnon who joined Troy side... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:60A6:A000:CC04:C782:4DB8:10D4 (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Nah. Typical left-wing SJW bullshit. You cast a black gay transgender disabled actors to give a rep-re-sin-ta-tion, you get high reception from bought critics, but the viewers don't need this so your tolerant piece of crap gets 17% it deserves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.158.156.209 (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

"Ethiopian" in Homer's work didn't have the same definition as today. Ethiopia was located by the Greeks in the -700BC somewhere in near eastern coast. But whatever it doesn't change anything, Achilles wasn't black, same with Patroclus, Zeus,... . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:50C5:4A00:F1B8:2830:EF05:A39D (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Paris/Alexander

It seems that despite the description in various sources and the IMDB, the character of Paris is actually called Alexander in the series.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

In regards to the last paragraph in the "Changes from earlier adaptations" section

In the "Changes from earlier adaptations" section, when referring to the cast of the black Achilles and Zeus I believe the paragraph has some incredibly biased aspects. For starters, Greeks did have a relative variety of skin tones but this has little to do with them being of sub Saharan descent. This is a very weak argument and I doubt that any scholar used it. Same with the existence of Ethiopians in Greece. People from sub Saharan descent did exist in the ancient Greek area as with people from MENA and other regions of the Mediterranean but this has little to do with Achilles being portrayed to have sub Saharan descent. It is debated whether Ethiopians were considered Greeks in the first place (as they saw them more like something exotic), but even if they were, there are countless examples that (with the exception of Memnon), ancient Greeks had characteristics which encompassed overwhelmingly "Mediterranean-olive to pale-white" skin tones (and quite a bit tanned in the summer), that would in turn place them very close to many of today's modern Greeks and not to people with descent from Sub-Saharan Africa.

Same with the argument about Greek admixtures; of course such a thing as "admixtures" existed in any time period you look into but this in no way says that Achilles and Zeus were black. Honestly, this is the "Black Cleopatra trend" all over again but at least then the scholar community explicitly said that Cleopatra was of Greek-Macedonian descent. Honestly the lengths some people will go to justify this choice of casting are at best questionable and at worst intentionally inaccurate and wrong. It is one of the reasons so many people start to feel a disgust towards such identity politics an their proponents when they start trying to distort history and show those opposed as scape goats. Because even if there is merit to what is written in that paragraph and to all those terrible articles concerning "why this is a brave and accurate choice" (all with the same assumptions and weak arguments by the way), it sincerely goes against much of what we know about the genetic history of people like the Greeks.

All this is in par with arguments like "Greeks didn't perceive race as we do", "Ethiopians existed in ancient Greece" and other such things. And don't get me wrong, I am not saying that such topics can't have much discussion and that they aren't at least somewhat true, but to abandon most of what we know of ancient Greece in favor of this discourse of defense towards this choice is just plainly stupid from my point of view. But even if I am wrong on this (as I am not an expert), and even if there is merit in all those arguments that I am somehow missing however hard I try to see it, my opposition to this paragraph can be summed in one sentence: the discourse to this argument is far more factual and logical than the defense and if all the people who write such articles and paragraphs fail to see that I sincerely feel sorry. The show on its own is bad as well. They claim to have made an accurate depiction with the Black cast but they fail in many other aspects just as they fail with this one. It is utterly ridiculous to me how anyone can support this production for any reason whatsoever, more so when it comes to its depictions.

Furthermore, allow me to mention that I am generally not one who will be too quick to judge something for being a result of "Political correctness" or "Cultural appropriation" just for having certain aspects that would lead one to believe that this is the case, but dear god, there are some places where you must put on a threshold and I am entirely sure that this is one of them. In all honesty, they could have extremely more easily gone the 'Hamilton way" and admit that these depictions aren't really realistic and the majority of people would be fine with it, but no, they just had to go the length to try to make a sense out of this using more than questionable data and attributing them to "scholarly opinion" that in reality goes against much of what has been established regarding our knowledge of history and specifically of Ancient Greece. This is something troubling that I see more and more happening around me and more so in Wikipedia and for that I feel sad.

This "deal with it" attitude, but not for actual historical facts but for misleading depictions and inaccurate assumptions just for the sake of saying that "it's all about perception" and "your perception is flawed, you see" is something that in my honest opinion should worry everyone, and more so when its proponents are gaining ground in more and more media. Political views are one thing, but when you use such a discourse so inaccurately and with such a gaslighting approach, it becomes just so obvious that people should be against it that just acknowledging those who oppose it as "backlash" not only isn't it enough, it's a bloody insult, and that is especially true when you refer to only one side of an argument that so obviously isn't the one with the best arguments. Anyway, as I said even if I am that much wrong about this and my perception of the topic, there could have been at least a thorough mention of all the people and scholars that disagree with that choice apart from plain "backlash" as it is written and I so often see people mention. That's my take. Cheers.