Nobody likes a gay story and Gilgamesh and Enkidu were gay as frick.
Also they were both really hairy so it is not appealing to put on a screen.
If you are going to do homosexual action heroes stick with the greeks because Achilles and Troy and shit were at least aesthetic.
>Gilgamesh and Enkidu were gay as frick.
Was there a fanfic written thousands of years afterwards that mentioned this? Was it by the same author as the Achilles one that everyone sites despite meaning nothing?
I have read the entire epic. That's why I am confident in calling Gilgamesh and Enkidu gay. >neither ever has a female love interest >following the untimely death of Enkidu Gilgamesh goes to the end of the universe to try and bring him back > they are both very hairy
Enkidu literally fricked a woman for like ten days straight and that's how he learned to speak. Gilgamesh was banging the wives of Uruk before even the husbands had their chance.
real talk, how would you handle the ending? gilgamesh literally accomplished nothing
You are reading (watching) the story 4000 years later. Gilgamesh lives on.
Not everything you paid $100,000 to learn at university is true, sweaty. Try thinking outside the identitarian box.
Also, you quite clearly failed to understand the point of the story. Though Gilgamesh physically died, the story is bookended with mention of Uruk, in particular how he built the walls of Uruk - and in that, in his fame, he acheived a form of immortality. That he is sufficiently famous that a bunch of morons now discusses whether he was a homosexual or not is just more of the same.
>Enkidu and Gilgamesh fricked women so they couldn't have fricked each other afterwards
anon Achilles and Patrokles also slept with women, achilles had a son but they still were lovers. Bisexual heroes are an ancient trope
>Bisexual heroes are an ancient trope
And yet nowhere in Homer's writing is such a thing mentioned. You're basing it entirely off what Greek gays five hundred years ago said in the gym. And what does this have to do with Gilgamesh anyway.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Achilles pouring dirt over his head while rocking on the ground watching Patrokles about to die, his whole rage aganist hector for killing him and staying in his tent mourning him. They rise late in the day from the same tent together using the same language to imply they slept together like Homer did to imply the also slept/raped their captured women who are also in their tent. > And what does this have to do with Gilgamesh anyway
Do you really think Homer wasn't influneced by the the gilgamesh legend? Patrokles and Achilles are clearly modeled off of Gilgamesh and Enkidu down to being lovers. Whether Homer shaped the myth for that to be the case or if achilles and patrokles myth simply grew from gilgamesh and Enkidu is unknown. but theres an abvous connection
7 months ago
Anonymous
Could you provide some actual analysis of the Greek? Or any serious historical sources? You're just making bold claims and saying it's obvious.
Homer explicitly describes them as sleeping in separate beds of the opposite side of their tent. If anything he was making a thing out of them NOT being gay lovers. They were interpreted as lovers in later Hellenistic works, so it's not a modern invention, but in Homer they don't appear to be lovers.
On the other hand, there is no argument whatsoever for Gilgamesh and Enkidu being gay. As the other anon said, Enkidu has an entire passage about being seduced by and fricking a woman. There is nothing comparable to suggest a romantic or sexual relationship with Gilgamesh. Interpreting any kind of male bond as gay is applying our modern sensibilities on an ancient text (which, funnily enough, comes from "gay panic" reactions to homosexual liberation).
It was. Hence why pederast almost exclusively refers to male on male paedophilia. Also look up the etymology of the word and have your socks blown off.
I think Gilgamesh's flood, Noah's ark, and Atlantis are all closely related.
Gilgamesh lived around 2700BC supposedly, and his flood story was based on a earlier version, so there must have been a pre-bronze age flood castastrophe, but it was largely forgotten by the time of the trojan war.
Around 1600s BC the island of Santorini implodes from the volocano and most likely creates a tidal wave that affects the coastal areas.
New testament was written 1600BC-440BC so they most likely based their flood story of Noah on Santorini, but lifted elements from the earlier flood event.
Plato's story of Atlantis supposedly was heard from Egyptian priests, he lived around 1000 years after the supposed disaster at Santorini,
I think the most likely conclusion is that the Egyptians wrote about "Atlantis" much earlier than the 400s, but the earlier books were lost or destroyed. I have a feeling they are all related.
I read the Epic 39587349 years ago, but doesn't Gilgamesh learn about his own mortality or something? I'm sure you can turn that into a decent, sad ending.
Seeing as the israelites appropriated the myth into their religion, its impossible to portray because you'd be calling the israelites out on a scale never before attempted
The story is shit though. The morals in it are garbage. Rememver this is from the same culture that gave us the oldest recorded law "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth". Theyre uncivilised animals and nobody would watch this shit. Thats right anon, YOU are a nobody so of course youd watch it
What's wrong with that law exactly? I have never harmed someone in my entire life, I would never do something to someone that it wouldn't want don't unto myself, Is that really hard to ask of an individual?
Accidents happen.
That law doesnt take into account intent which is a factor.
If you hit a jaywalking pedestrian with your car, by that law whatever injuries sustained to the victim must be dealt to you. Thats not fair. Fairness is a human trait. Only animals and sith deal in absolutes.
the inanna parts would be too saucy and based for modern viewers as it's a celebration and warning of b***hes and prostitutes. completely inappropriate for today
>classic story, simple, timeless, redemption arc, friendship, courage
Vs >overworked story that makes no sense, too long, hundreds of characters nobody cares about, reads like the fan fiction of a child where millions of warriors fight millions of demons and are all given power level rankings, Han fisted philosophy lessons mixed in, dharma this Brahman that blah blah blah
Too niche for western audiences, even Greek or Roman sword and sandle movies struggle to draw an audience. Iraqis don’t seem to care about their pre Islamic heritage to make one themselves. Correct me if I’m wrong there is probably some good awful version from the 60s or w/e
Dude, THE first kino in human history was Gilgamesh.
Because we don't have the full story.
Nobody likes a gay story and Gilgamesh and Enkidu were gay as frick.
Also they were both really hairy so it is not appealing to put on a screen.
If you are going to do homosexual action heroes stick with the greeks because Achilles and Troy and shit were at least aesthetic.
Arab/Aramaic gay story = not hot = unfilmable and ugly
Mycenaean/Anatolian gay story = not = filmable and hot
yeah
you got a problem with that gay?
Yeah kinda
You could shave them, I don't think anybody would mind.
wouldn't be authentic 🙁
>Gilgamesh and Enkidu were gay as frick.
Was there a fanfic written thousands of years afterwards that mentioned this? Was it by the same author as the Achilles one that everyone sites despite meaning nothing?
>two men are friends
>NO THAT'S GAY I WON'T READ IT
I have read the entire epic. That's why I am confident in calling Gilgamesh and Enkidu gay.
>neither ever has a female love interest
>following the untimely death of Enkidu Gilgamesh goes to the end of the universe to try and bring him back
> they are both very hairy
You are in denial and you are not a scholar.
Enkidu literally fricked a woman for like ten days straight and that's how he learned to speak. Gilgamesh was banging the wives of Uruk before even the husbands had their chance.
You are reading (watching) the story 4000 years later. Gilgamesh lives on.
Gilgamesh dies. That is literally one of the bases of the story being told. You are trying to co-opt foreign mythology for your own purposes.
Gilgamesh and Enkidu were homosexuals. Gilgamesh lives forever by avenging his lover. It is not hard to interperet.
What foreign mythology?
sumerian
Not everything you paid $100,000 to learn at university is true, sweaty. Try thinking outside the identitarian box.
Also, you quite clearly failed to understand the point of the story. Though Gilgamesh physically died, the story is bookended with mention of Uruk, in particular how he built the walls of Uruk - and in that, in his fame, he acheived a form of immortality. That he is sufficiently famous that a bunch of morons now discusses whether he was a homosexual or not is just more of the same.
>Enkidu and Gilgamesh fricked women so they couldn't have fricked each other afterwards
anon Achilles and Patrokles also slept with women, achilles had a son but they still were lovers. Bisexual heroes are an ancient trope
>Bisexual heroes are an ancient trope
And yet nowhere in Homer's writing is such a thing mentioned. You're basing it entirely off what Greek gays five hundred years ago said in the gym. And what does this have to do with Gilgamesh anyway.
Achilles pouring dirt over his head while rocking on the ground watching Patrokles about to die, his whole rage aganist hector for killing him and staying in his tent mourning him. They rise late in the day from the same tent together using the same language to imply they slept together like Homer did to imply the also slept/raped their captured women who are also in their tent.
> And what does this have to do with Gilgamesh anyway
Do you really think Homer wasn't influneced by the the gilgamesh legend? Patrokles and Achilles are clearly modeled off of Gilgamesh and Enkidu down to being lovers. Whether Homer shaped the myth for that to be the case or if achilles and patrokles myth simply grew from gilgamesh and Enkidu is unknown. but theres an abvous connection
Could you provide some actual analysis of the Greek? Or any serious historical sources? You're just making bold claims and saying it's obvious.
Homer explicitly describes them as sleeping in separate beds of the opposite side of their tent. If anything he was making a thing out of them NOT being gay lovers. They were interpreted as lovers in later Hellenistic works, so it's not a modern invention, but in Homer they don't appear to be lovers.
On the other hand, there is no argument whatsoever for Gilgamesh and Enkidu being gay. As the other anon said, Enkidu has an entire passage about being seduced by and fricking a woman. There is nothing comparable to suggest a romantic or sexual relationship with Gilgamesh. Interpreting any kind of male bond as gay is applying our modern sensibilities on an ancient text (which, funnily enough, comes from "gay panic" reactions to homosexual liberation).
He is trolling, don't sperg out.
It was a different time, kissing your bro on the lips wasn't gay
It was. Hence why pederast almost exclusively refers to male on male paedophilia. Also look up the etymology of the word and have your socks blown off.
I think Gilgamesh's flood, Noah's ark, and Atlantis are all closely related.
Gilgamesh lived around 2700BC supposedly, and his flood story was based on a earlier version, so there must have been a pre-bronze age flood castastrophe, but it was largely forgotten by the time of the trojan war.
Around 1600s BC the island of Santorini implodes from the volocano and most likely creates a tidal wave that affects the coastal areas.
New testament was written 1600BC-440BC so they most likely based their flood story of Noah on Santorini, but lifted elements from the earlier flood event.
Plato's story of Atlantis supposedly was heard from Egyptian priests, he lived around 1000 years after the supposed disaster at Santorini,
I think the most likely conclusion is that the Egyptians wrote about "Atlantis" much earlier than the 400s, but the earlier books were lost or destroyed. I have a feeling they are all related.
>New testament was written 1600BC-440BC
...anon are you okay
It's metric.
They weren't gay, just a little zesty is all
>Also they were both really hairy so it is not appealing to put on a screen.
What if you turn them into bishounen
>What if you turn them into bishounen
A finger of the monkey's paw curls up.
Cultural appropriating the Babylonians is not cool.
real talk, how would you handle the ending? gilgamesh literally accomplished nothing
It would have to be a bit more artsy to get the theme across. You couldnt make it a straight action adventure blockbuster like Troy.
>gilgamesh literally accomplished nothing
many such cases
I read the Epic 39587349 years ago, but doesn't Gilgamesh learn about his own mortality or something? I'm sure you can turn that into a decent, sad ending.
Seeing as the israelites appropriated the myth into their religion, its impossible to portray because you'd be calling the israelites out on a scale never before attempted
The story is shit though. The morals in it are garbage. Rememver this is from the same culture that gave us the oldest recorded law "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth". Theyre uncivilised animals and nobody would watch this shit. Thats right anon, YOU are a nobody so of course youd watch it
What's wrong with that law exactly? I have never harmed someone in my entire life, I would never do something to someone that it wouldn't want don't unto myself, Is that really hard to ask of an individual?
Accidents happen.
That law doesnt take into account intent which is a factor.
If you hit a jaywalking pedestrian with your car, by that law whatever injuries sustained to the victim must be dealt to you. Thats not fair. Fairness is a human trait. Only animals and sith deal in absolutes.
Be more careful your inconsiderate oaf. How many people have you killed?
None unfortunately. Im close though
>I have never harmed someone in my entire life,
its actually frightening that there are people who think this
Why are you so malicious towards others?
excuse me?
>not watching Sands of Ishtar: The return of Gilgamesh
>6 right arms
>5 left arms
How dumb an image.
I'm no expert but
Hollywood -> israelites and they must have a religious reason not to like it
Heracles was gay with Iolus, his nephew, in the original mythos.
the inanna parts would be too saucy and based for modern viewers as it's a celebration and warning of b***hes and prostitutes. completely inappropriate for today
I'm more of a girugamesh guy
bump
>brutally mogged by The Mahabharata
>tell me if I am a slave or not and I will act accordingly
I guess that explains why their thousand year temples are all prostitute houses now.
>classic story, simple, timeless, redemption arc, friendship, courage
Vs
>overworked story that makes no sense, too long, hundreds of characters nobody cares about, reads like the fan fiction of a child where millions of warriors fight millions of demons and are all given power level rankings, Han fisted philosophy lessons mixed in, dharma this Brahman that blah blah blah
Yeah nah
>final scene is Utnapishtim watching the credits of the very movie you just watched
>he sighs
>"why does Hollywood make everyone gay and black now?"
HUNGARIAN TV MOVIE GILGAMESH KINO FOR ALL INTERESTED PARTIES:
wait what the frick the White Slaves of Chinatown 3D Youtube channel was shut down? This sucks.
Too niche for western audiences, even Greek or Roman sword and sandle movies struggle to draw an audience. Iraqis don’t seem to care about their pre Islamic heritage to make one themselves. Correct me if I’m wrong there is probably some good awful version from the 60s or w/e