Warning: Clash of the Titans (the new one) spoilers:
Differences Between Clash Of The Titans And Greek Mythology
Posted on April 7, 2010 by kevin
The new action movie Clash of the Titans is entertaining as a popcorn flick. But students of the Greek classics will probably feel their brain explode at all the liberties taken with the myth of Perseus. The original 80s version was already pretty out-there. The new version strays even farther from the source material. Below are a few of the most glaring changes:
The Greek gods and prayers
In the movie, the gods require the prayers of mortals to fuel themselves. No such concept exists in the myths. Rather, the gods are petty and violent and screw with the lives of mortals with no consequence. God of War captures this aspect particularly well.
Hades is not a villain
In the movie, Hades is antagonistic to the other gods as well as humankind. He seeks to usurp Zeus, dresses in all black, and is pretty much Voldemort with a beard.
In the myths, Hades is the most fair, just, and politically neutral of all the gods. He never actively tries to kill people, as he is just a ruler of the dead, not its messenger. Death is personified as Thanatos. As for Hades’ appearance, the ancient Greeks believed gems and minerals come from Hades’ domain (the underground). So the god was often depicted as very wealthy. Also, in the myth of Perseus, Hades actually lets him borrow his helmet of invisibility.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Danae and Acrisius are daughter/father
In the movie, King Acrisius rebelled against the gods and tried to attack Olympus. So Zeus decided to be tricky and impregnate Queen Danae, resulting in the conception of Perseus. Zeus later struck down Acrisius with a lightning bolt and Hades turned him into a demon. Perseus cut off his hand and his blood spawned scorpions. Eventually, he is killed by Perseus.
In the myths, Danae was actually King Acrisius’ daughter, not his wife. Motivated by a prophecy that his grandson would one day cause his death, Acrisius locked his daughter in a tower so she could never conceive a child. But Zeus visited her as a shower of gold (ewww) and impregnated her. When Acrisius discovered this, he threw them into the sea. Both mother and child survive and Acrisius is never punished by Zeus. But he is eventually killed by Perseus in a random discus throwing accident, fulfilling the prophecy.
Who the hell is Io?
In the movie, Perseus’ love interest is Io, a woman who resisted a god’s advances and was cursed with immortality. Io accompanies Perseus along the journey, often times showing up to save his ass and offer sage advice. They live happily ever after.
In the myths, Io is completely unrelated to Perseus’ journey. She’s a woman that Zeus slept with and then turned into a cow to hide from his wife Hera. Rather, Perseus’ female guide is the armor-clad war goddess Athena and they do not have a romantic relationship.
The motivation for hunting Medusa
In the myths, Perseus slays Medusa and obtains her head at the request of some dick named Polydectes who was actually trying to get him killed so he could marry his mom. Perseus returns and turns him to stone. In the movie, the goal is an elaborate plan to defy the gods and save Argos from destruction. Yeah, I think I can see why this plot point was changed.
Pegasus’ origins
In the movie, the winged horse Pegasus comes out of nowhere and aids Perseus. In the myths, Pegasus literally flies out of Medusa’s headless corpse. He is Medusa’s child. You see, Medusa was a mortal woman who was cruelly transformed into a monster after being raped by a horse (who was actually Poseidon in disguise). So that’s why her child is a winged horse. Makes sense, sort of.
The Kraken
In the myths, Zeus didn’t “release the Kraken” to destroy Argos for its insolence. The Kraken isn’t even in Greek myths. It comes from later folktales and resembles a giant octopus (i.e. Pirates of the Caribbean).
What prompts the unleashing of the sea monster?
In the movie, Queen Cassieopia of Argos boasts that her daughter Andromeda is more beautiful than Aphrodite, prompting Hades to go batshit crazy. In the myths, Queen Cassieopia is from Ethiopia and compares her daughter to the Nereids (sea nymphs). This causes Poseidon (god of the sea) to get pissed off and release a whale-like monster called Cetus. It certainly makes more sense for a sea god to release a sea monster to uphold the honor of his sea nymphs than for Hades to do it because he’s eeeeeevil.
Andromeda is black
In the myths, Andromeda is the princess of Ethiopia. So technically, she’s supposed to be black.
Perseus and Andromeda’s relationship
Another difference is that everything in the movie leads to Andromeda’s sacrifice. In the myths, Perseus never even met Andromeda prior to rescuing her. He was actually just flying around with Pegasus (or winged sandles in some versions) for a completely unrelated reason and notices her chained to a rock. Then they get married. The end.
Djinns
These ‘genies’ are actually from Arabic folklore. Aladdin summons one from a magic lamp. They seem to have been added to the movie in order to sell toys.
Stygian Witches
In the movie, Perseus finds the Stygian Witches to learn the location of Medusa. In the myths, there are no Stygian Witches. Rather, he visits the Graeae (gray ones) who are beautiful sea goddesses in the guise of old ladies. They lead him to Hera’s orchard to obtain some epic weapons.
Wow, that’s a pretty long list of changes. So in the end, what did Clash of the Titans do right? Well, they did manage to depict Hades with a beard.
"It is a matter of grave importance that Fairy tales should be respected.... Whosoever alters them to suit his own opinions, whatever they are, is guilty, to our thinking, of an act of presumption, and appropriates to himself what does not belong to him." -- Charles Dickens
"Or rather, it's possible that Jesus seems very forward thinking because his teachings are the basis for contemporary morality."
Yet the contemporary world has rejected Christian metaphysics, without which, as Nietzsche saw, you're not entitled to Jesus' ethics. They are not self-evident.
Or rather, you and Nietzsche are right about christian ethics not making sense without christian metaphysics, but because they've become absorbed into the culture they've become a sort of default, even if they don't necessarily make sense anymore from an academic perspective.
I don't know if there can be an ultimate rational basis for ethics, but I do know that most of the atheists I've met who claimed to be Nietzscheans were insufferable, so, you know, point to Team Jesus there.
Regarding Christian ethics being specifically Christian, though, there are overlapping principles found in other religions such as Buddhism and Islam. Not identical, but overlapping. Evidently there are other possible metaphysical bases from whence you can derive the notion of giving to the poor, for example. >The new action movie Clash of the Titans is entertaining
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
"Regarding Christian ethics being specifically Christian, though, there are overlapping principles found in other religions such as Buddhism and Islam. Not identical, but overlapping. Evidently there are other possible metaphysical bases from whence you can derive the notion of giving to the poor, for example."
There's definitely many overlapping principles found in almost all the religions. Variations on the Golden and Silver rules are pretty common, for one. To paraphrase the J man, most the laws of the religions hand on these two ideas."
Of course the Golden and Silver rules are often considered incomplete by themselves, hence why religions go into more detail. Not to mention all the other rules that fall outside how to treat people, but could still be considered vital to the religion or even everyday life.
>The new action movie Clash of the Titans is entertaining
THIS PART IS WRONG
Yeah, I should have added that...
Even if there was some sort of device that made me completely forget the myths. There where some aspects that where pretty bad and lots of it didn't make any sense.
With the myths, the movie is just pretty grating. I was laughing at how bad it was through most of the beginning and end.
And who thought it was a good idea to cast Liam Neeson as Zeus? Neeson is too...fatherly for Zeus.
Like, a good father type who tells you to eat your vegetables and make sure you're tucked into bed at night. Sure Neeson was a great Ra's al Ghul, but Zeus should be a powder keg of emotion.
And why the hell is Hades always portrayed as the devil himself?
...OK I think I answered my own question. But still, it's like everyone who is the lord of some underworld or another is Satan himself.
I look forward to the new Hobbit movie where the 14 evil dwarfs are sent from their underground layer by the demonic dwarf king to fetch treasures after they kidnap Bilbo Baggins...
Granted, Peter Jackson wouldn't let that happen...
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
^^I don't think it's that so much, it's just more that irreligion covers A LOT of ground. Stuff like atheism and agnosticism get lumped in, sure, but then so does forms of theism that don't really require a religion and types of spiritualism.
I'm not sure how this started, but "irreligious" is how nations like to lump together these groups.
Justice, I'm on this other forum and some of the more religious people are bitching that secularism leds to atheism and irreligion because they assume the 3 are all totally the same.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Justice, I'm on this other forum and some of the more religious people are bitching that secularism leds to atheism and irreligion because they assume the 3 are all totally the same.
Huh. I think "secularism" and "irreligion" have pretty fluid definitions. And I certainly wouldn't call the three things "the same". Secularism is often just separation of Church and state, and it should be kinda obvious by now that there are some non-secularist states that are even more secular than the ones that practice secularism.
I'm reading the Torah.
Like an actual Jewish version? Or the first few books of the Bible?
Huh. I think "secularism" and "irreligion" have pretty fluid definitions. And I certainly wouldn't call the three things "the same". Secularism is often just separation of Church and state, and it should be kinda obvious by now that there are some non-secularist states that are even more secular than the ones that practice secularism.
Nice that the author had the good sense just top make it a "List of 10" over a "top 10".
Some faves:
Don’t invite a tribe of Blemmyes to dinner — unless you want to be on the menu. Originally thought to be from Africa, Blemmyes are often called acephalous monsters, referring to the headless nature of their human bodies. Their lack of head, however, doesn’t mean they lack a man-eating mouth. Their eyes and mouths just so happen to be in the middle of their chests. These cannibalistic creatures were first mentioned in the ancient world by Greek historian Herodotus in the 5th century BC, and they were later noted in the work of Roman author Pliny the Elder. Blemmyes-like creatures were also mentioned as the Anthropophagi in Shakespeare’s Othello. They continue to pop up in modern literature, sometimes with traits that include a special language or armed with weapons such as blow darts and spears.
Move over, Godzilla — here comes Gashadakuro. This behemoth beast of Japanese folklore, also known as Odokuro, is a giant human skeleton. Gashadakuro’s bones supposedly come from starvation victims and are part of a monster that is said to stand more than 80 feet tall. Gashadakuro’s main goal is biting the heads off humans, and don’t bother trying to keep an eye out for his arrival. The only way you know he’s coming is by a ringing in your ears.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
They actually had two creatures on the list.
...and, well, Japan mythology can get pretty damn weird.
Kasa Obake
(傘お化け?, "umbrella obake"), or Karakasa Obake (唐傘お化け?) or Karakasa Kozo (唐傘小僧?), are a type of Tsukumogami, a folk legend about a form of Japanesespirit that originate from objects reaching their 100th year of existence, thus becoming animate. Karakasa in particular are Spirits of Parasols (umbrellas) that reach the century milestone. They are typically portrayed with one eye, a long tongue protruding from an open mouth, and a single foot, generally wearing a geta.
ThePetavatthu is a Theravada Buddhist scripture, included in the Khuddaka Nikaya of the Pali Canon's Sutta Pitaka. It is composed of 51 verse narratives describing specifically how the effects of bad acts can lead to rebirth into the unhappy world of petas(ghosts) in the doctrine of karma.[1] It gives prominence to the doctrine that giving alms to monks may benefit the ghosts of one's relatives (see Ancestor worship).
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
The Titans where a diverse group of mythological entities that raged war against the Greek gods, in the movie where characterized by a uniform group of dudes in grey body paint.
I think Friday and I ended up exchanging "WTF?!" glances the entire movie.
Honestly, I watched "Immortals" not more than a couple months ago and it took me a while to remember what horrible deviation from the original myth happened in which horrible attempt at bringing Greek myth to the theaters
I'm not sure why movie writers decided it's necessary to hand-wave the Greek gods not intervening as if they giving a shit is something they're well known for. I can accept that not everyone is familiar with their "I only care about humanity if it pertains to ME" attitude, but it'd be nice if writers just told it as it is, or straight up just referenced, at most, the gods, a la Troy.
Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
I don't even know where the non-intervention thing comes from, in many old Greek texts like the Metamorphoses all the gods DO is whatever the hell they want.
That said I liked the movie because it was basically a series of animated Renaissance paintings.
"It is a matter of grave importance that Fairy tales should be respected.... Whosoever alters them to suit his own opinions, whatever they are, is guilty, to our thinking, of an act of presumption, and appropriates to himself what does not belong to him." -- Charles Dickens
When I watched Immortals at your house, I don't think my head stopped hurting until I read some Ovid.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
As far as I know all the major ones do to SOME extent. Many passages in the New Testament are thought to replace parts of the OT, and some are thought to reaffirm parts.
As far as I can tell, the Anglican Church has a pretty typical view of the OT:
Regarding the New Testament, Anglicanism views all 27 of its books, as commonly received, to be canonical. Like most Christians, Anglicans interpret the Old Testament as consistent with the New, seeing both as offering salvation in Christ. The Old Testament offers eternal life as promise, the New as fulfillment. The Mosaic Law remains applicable to Christians, but only in part: specifically, the moral laws. Laws regarding ceremonies and rites do not bind Christians, and civil laws do not bind any civic government. This is a conventional Christian explanation for adopting some, but not all, of the Mosaic law; this is based in part on biblical passages such as Mark 7:14-22, in which Jesus declared all foods clean, thus overturning the Mosaic regulations.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Like "everybody" everybody, or the different sects?
The sects have to justify their doctrines using the Bible somehow, though this can still result in some pretty different looking doctrines depending on how the Church decide a verse should be interpreted.
Individual people, of course, run the gamut. Especially, if they're unaffiliated and pulling from their personal beliefs, which they may not have bothered to establish with much in the way of reading the scripture.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Eh, I'd say it's a bit more complex than people just picking what they want.
Most people still belong to some sect or another, so they're likely have some beliefs that are based on their church doctrine and not just personal preference. No doubt many disagree with their church on a few issues, but that doesn't mean they came to the decision lightly, or merely chose to disagree without finding good reasoning of some sort to backup in their belief.
Others, without much in the way of spiritual guidance probably do "pick and choose", but I'd say that's more out of not having a source or drive to actually reconcile their personal beliefs with any source. I'd certainly have trouble comparing this to the people mentioned in the above paragraph without considering the idea of "picking and choosing" a very broad statement about the nature of human behavior that's borderline platitude.
To be honest I've always found the suggestion that you "choose" your beliefs slightly insulting. I mean, it's true if you don't care whether your beliefs are accurate at predicting reality, maybe? Or if you're just willfully ignorant?
Point being, it amounts to an accusation of stubbornness or contrariness, which is a rather rude thing to presume about other people's beliefs.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
^^That was kinda my thinking as well. I'll admit I don't believe everyone has put their personal belief system through "the rigors", as it where, but I've talked with enough religious people and seen enough material on the internet to suggest quite a few people spend ample time spending energy on insuring what they believe is more than whatever is merely convenient.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
^^ You're not the first person I've encountered who has had this problem. There has been research that shows that religion does have a biological component. I often wonder if situations like yours, where one wants to believe but find they can't, has a biological aspect to it.
Doctor Who reference in Pokemon B2W2? Headcanon accepted.
It's generally considered that Christ's death on the cross was the "tearing of the veil" (the boundary between God and man in the old temple) where nearly all the little rules governing how things went along in the OT were tossed to the wayside. This included animal sacrifices for atonement and dietary laws (except blood, that's still verboten.) Nowadays we don't bring a few doves to hack up at church to fix a sin and Christians are allowed a ham sammich or fried catfish. While many of the OT laws are considered obsolete, that doesn't mean the book itself is. The OT is considered a necessary compliment to the New Testament (especially lineage leading up to Christ) as well as a vital history of how we got from point A to B. It also provides a striking contrast and setup for how God reacted to things in the OT and how Jesus's arrival and crucifixion was to smooth this out.
As for how Judaism moved past many of these stipulations, such as animal sacrifice, I don't know.
Doctor Who reference in Pokemon B2W2? Headcanon accepted.
Well plenty of rabbis know how to kill an animal kosher style which I'd think that's the same way they'd go about the whole sacrifice deal, but I have no idea.
Comments
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Topic shift: http://kevinsung.org/2010/04/differences-between-clash-of-the-titans-and-greek-mythology/
I love when Mythology nerds get snarky.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Yet the contemporary world has rejected Christian metaphysics, without which, as Nietzsche saw, you're not entitled to Jesus' ethics. They are not self-evident.
Regarding Christian ethics being specifically Christian, though, there are overlapping principles found in other religions such as Buddhism and Islam. Not identical, but overlapping. Evidently there are other possible metaphysical bases from whence you can derive the notion of giving to the poor, for example.
>The new action movie Clash of the Titans is entertaining
THIS PART IS WRONG
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Yeah, I should have added that...
Why do people equal secularism with irreligion?
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
I'm reading the Torah.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
http://english.mashkulture.net/2009/10/20/the-anatomy-of-japanese-folk-monsters/
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
That said I liked the movie because it was basically a series of animated Renaissance paintings.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Which Christian sects follow the Old Testament because I am like 99% sure the Anglican Church doesn't.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Point being, it amounts to an accusation of stubbornness or contrariness, which is a rather rude thing to presume about other people's beliefs.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
It's generally considered that Christ's death on the cross was the "tearing of the veil" (the boundary between God and man in the old temple) where nearly all the little rules governing how things went along in the OT were tossed to the wayside. This included animal sacrifices for atonement and dietary laws (except blood, that's still verboten.) Nowadays we don't bring a few doves to hack up at church to fix a sin and Christians are allowed a ham sammich or fried catfish. While many of the OT laws are considered obsolete, that doesn't mean the book itself is. The OT is considered a necessary compliment to the New Testament (especially lineage leading up to Christ) as well as a vital history of how we got from point A to B. It also provides a striking contrast and setup for how God reacted to things in the OT and how Jesus's arrival and crucifixion was to smooth this out.
As for how Judaism moved past many of these stipulations, such as animal sacrifice, I don't know.