MovieChat Forums > The Trojan Horse (2008) Discussion > Should have been set about a decade into...

Should have been set about a decade into the future, at least

posted 16 years ago by Synergy-5
7 replies | jump to latest

I personally think the main problem with the story is that they set the story as of last year. I think that if they set it around 2017-2018, it could have been a lot more plausible (especially with there being two Canadian PMs who came in). I mean, I know it's fiction, but really, this sort of story does need a pretty high degree of realism, and things like that could have made a big difference. A hypothetical future set distant enough to make it seem it might happen. And with a more complicated plotpoint than Canada selling water to the U.S. leading to the loss of Canada altogether. I'm not sure why Paul is so hung up, even obsessed it seems to me, with water. Don't get me wrong, I adore Paul Gross, and Tom Skerritt is also really good I'd say and overall I'd say "Trojan Horse" so far is pretty good. The ideas this show has are good, but what could have made it better was more of a sense of plausibility.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (4184863) 16 years ago

I agree, the lack of realism made it seem cheesy. Many of the England scenes were obviously not England; steering wheel on the wrong sidem, etc.

Man this party is like an orgy at a campsite......its ***king in tents.

[–] Synergy-5 16 years ago

Yeah, they could have paid more attention to details. Also, Paul, and all others who may be considering writing "what if" stories, especially of this sort, a "what if" future, especially in this case, is a much better way to go than a "what if" present, which can come off as cheesy and stupid. It's even better than a "what if" past, if done right. Hypothetics work much better with more unknown variables.

[–] devilly49 16 years ago

Actually, I read an interview with Paul where he said that Trojan Horse was set slightly in the future.

[–] Synergy-5 16 years ago

I remember them saying the referendum for the merger was in 2007.

[–] ralpheous 16 years ago

It was, but then the very next scene after the vote goes through there is a caption that says "two years in the future."
It's not much in the future, but it is a little bit.
I agree that a more distant future would have been better.

[–] mcgehee-4 14 years ago

"...they could have paid more attention to details."

One glaring mistake that stood out for me and my wife was having McLaughlin giving speeches in front of the 50-star flag after six new states had been admitted. Whenever a new state is admitted to the U.S., new stars are added to the flag on the following July 4.

Considering that he's a Canadian politician running for president of the U.S. one would hope enough time would have passed for the stars to have been added.

[–] Xcalat3 15 years ago

I was thinking the same thing, it would have been much better if set 10 years in the future

When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...