What was the point? What were they even doing there? The narrative would be improved a thousandfold without literal deus ex machinas out of the ass and muh ALL ACCORDING TO KEIKAKU Zeus bullshittery
Why did Homer use them at all?
Think of them as similar to a greek chorus. They mirror the action of the central plot using a different set of metaphors and give it another dramatic layer using the relationships between the characters.
Just don't it too literally, man. This is literature.
the consequential world of men is mirrored by the inconsequential world of the gods, whose games and petty rivalries are our wars and tragedies, and who wield mortals like toys to spite one another and amuse themselves
I actually liked that film. Flawed, sure, and it could never be very faithful, but I thought it captured Hector and Achilles pretty nicely. Felt like there were some nice nods to the source too, like when Achilles tells his men they are lions.
It amazes me that /his/ is too stupid to ask these questions, and that /lit/ is too self involved to place themselves in another society or mindset.
Dark age Greece is alien to your conceptions. Gods literally existed for them. Shit, in the second century AD magic was a given. You cant come at this from the perspective of a 21st century autist.
They are there to explain the inexplicable, crazy events that take place.
The reason Achilles was so different from the rest of the characters is because he was acting like a God. He didn't think about the consequences of his actions, he just did what he wanted, regardless of who got in his way. He was completely self-assured, and just wanted to have the most glory (sounds familiar, right?).
For drama. It's implied that bards back then didn't really focus on making their own completely new stories, but taking existing popular known stories and presented them in their own polished-verse and few added unique details to impress others. Just like how he refers to other mythical events of the Theban War and the accomplishments of Heracles. The Gods also likely played a huge role in the main-source he took from, as it was probably remembered more as "that war where the Gods got involved and chose opposing sides of each other" instead of that "war where Achilles kicked a lot of ass".
From an anthropological standpoint, it's common for people in early developing civilizations to make-up myths to rationalize the world and workings around them and why they occur.
As a loose adaptation for the lay person it was an excellent attempt, especially when you consider what has been done in mythology/historic films.
The exclusion of the Olympians saved it from becoming a clusterfuck of plot points and made the plights of the Achilles and Hector more potent and absolute.
It would be a very different film if Achilles+Patroclus theorists had been indulged.
one interpretation, which happens to have historical evidence backing it up, and one which I find interesting, is that the gods of Olympus were a metaphor for the oligarchs and tyrants of pre-classical Greece who, through their incessant, irrational war warfare, plunged Greece into a dark age which for around 300 years. During this time the Mycenaeans lost their language and literature, until they adopted the Phoenician alphabet. It's what people in the /lit/ biz call kind of a big deal.
What does that have to do with anything? It's relative, we're not comparing ourselves to Brazilian natives we're comparing ourselves to the Greeks, and it is undeniable that there are major cultural differences - regardless of whether or not there are greater differences between us and other cultures.
And since when is law justice?
Use the right term, it doesn't cost anything.
You mean the ones that eat human flesh or the ones that collect shrunk human heads?
Time, nigga, nowadays space theoretically doesn't make any difference. Even with all our differences we can still easily relate to the ancient greeks a thousand times more than to some dumbfuck in the middle of the jungle today.
Is this something that should require an explanation?
Idk man, that might fit but people really believed in the gods. Plutarch speculates extensively on the obsolescence of the gods in his lifetime, before that it is generally regarded that the gods would appear and speak to men, to the degree that matters of politics could be swayed by reports of a peasant encounter with Pan. A story without gods would probably ring hollow to ancient Grecian ears.
Source? If your evidence is just that "oligarchs and tyrants of pre-classical Greece" " through their incessant, irrational war warfare, plunged Greece into a dark age which for around 300 years", then I'm calling bullshit.
(Mind, Herodotus presents the idea that Homer and Hesiod were inventors of the gods.)