M.C. Swag said:

---

There's been no explanations. You interjected that i was searching for racism when asking a user to expound on the 'why' of the casting choice being bad.

---

This thread is full of explanations. You really think there have been no explanations as to why some people are critical of her casting in this film?

That being said, it's silly we are even debating this because zero peoples' minds will be changed. You will always think she is perfectly cast...and others won't. Only one group gets attacked/mocked on here for their stance though.

William Foster said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

You are projecting so hard right now

---

By your logic, why not cast a fat woman if she's not supposed to be pretty in CN's interpretation? If she is in fact supposed to be unattractive/damaged goods, or whatever?

---

My logic is that it's not relevant at all in this story as explicitly highlighted by Meneleus on screen. So yes, a fat woman could have been Helen IN THIS INTERPRETATION.

William Foster said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

There's been no explanations. You interjected that i was searching for racism when asking a user to expound on the 'why' of the casting choice being bad.

---

This threa is full of explanations. You really think there have been no explanations as to why some people are critical of her casting in this film?

---

I was asking Tom Kazansky for his.

pic.twitter.com/5y3CMQs8HA

— The One (@B3gin2B3li3v3) July 20, 2026

I love how any positive review are totally non biased, objective and from a verified critic. While every negative review is clearly review bombing, unverified, and gnashing of teeth.

M.C. Swag said:

---

William Foster said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

You are projecting so hard right now

---

By your logic, why not cast a fat woman if she's not supposed to be pretty in CN's interpretation? If she is in fact supposed to be unattractive/damaged goods, or whatever?

---

My logic is that it's not relevant at all in this story as explicitly highlighted by Meneleus on screen. So yes, a fat woman could have been Helen IN THIS INTERPRETATION.

---

Yall would have dunked all over this...even though she kinda looks Greek...Don't lie...haha.

Which sock do you belong to? You activated this account 3 weeks ago to post rage bait? Have a good one man.

M.C. Swag said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

YouBet said:

---

I enjoyed the movie, but Matt Walsh's takes are largely correct. I think many are overlooking that Nolan made this movie a modern message about war and PTSD instead of sticking to the story. Both takes can be true. I can like it and recognize what was done with the film.

And, I think most are missing that because very few have read the story since high school and simply don't recall the original.

FTR, I really have no idea who Matt Walsh even is since I'm not on social media. I know he's a conservative talking head and that's it.

---

Just curious, but can an interpretation of the Odyssey ever make any changes to the source material? I realize you said you liked it so I'm not really critiquing you, but more the Matt Walsh's of the world.

The gnashing of teeth over the casting and emphasis in the story is just absurdly stupid. This is not a religious text. It's an oral tradition eventually written and adapted across millennia. Hell, the Romans went to town and wrote a fan fic based on the Iliad and Odyssey. The translations and obsessions over appearance that these chuds seem fixated on were products of the 19th century.

---

Of course it's allowed. It's also allowed for us to roll our eyes at an ugly Helen. It was an artistic stretch and hasn't hit from some opinions.

---

lol you really should watch the movie because Meneleus specifically addresses the 'face that launched a 1000 ships' aspect that you and others seem so hung up on.

---

I watched the movie Sunday. That whole scene was laughable and pretty brutal from a dialogue standpoint.

---

Setting aside whatever you thought of the dialogue, why was it an artistic stretch to cast Lupita as her?

---

Because she isn't attractive.

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

YouBet said:

---

I enjoyed the movie, but Matt Walsh's takes are largely correct. I think many are overlooking that Nolan made this movie a modern message about war and PTSD instead of sticking to the story. Both takes can be true. I can like it and recognize what was done with the film.

And, I think most are missing that because very few have read the story since high school and simply don't recall the original.

FTR, I really have no idea who Matt Walsh even is since I'm not on social media. I know he's a conservative talking head and that's it.

---

Just curious, but can an interpretation of the Odyssey ever make any changes to the source material? I realize you said you liked it so I'm not really critiquing you, but more the Matt Walsh's of the world.

The gnashing of teeth over the casting and emphasis in the story is just absurdly stupid. This is not a religious text. It's an oral tradition eventually written and adapted across millennia. Hell, the Romans went to town and wrote a fan fic based on the Iliad and Odyssey. The translations and obsessions over appearance that these chuds seem fixated on were products of the 19th century.

---

Of course it's allowed. It's also allowed for us to roll our eyes at an ugly Helen. It was an artistic stretch and hasn't hit from some opinions.

---

lol you really should watch the movie because Meneleus specifically addresses the 'face that launched a 1000 ships' aspect that you and others seem so hung up on.

---

I watched the movie Sunday. That whole scene was laughable and pretty brutal from a dialogue standpoint.

---

Setting aside whatever you thought of the dialogue, why was it an artistic stretch to cast Lupita as her?

---

Because she isn't attractive.

---

What would that matter in Nolan's movie? If her beauty was objectively improved, how would that be less of an 'artistic stretch'? (your words)

I give this thread a 9/10.

I can't imagine the movie being as entertaining as this.

veryfuller said:

---

Yes, its not the critique of the movie or adaptation that bothers me. Its the woke-washing of it. Its like, to some, because he makes some choices in adaptation, and because he is trying to apply the themes he took from the poem to a modern audience, then the movie is trash and there is nothing to be gained from it. I don't think people are being overly defensive of Nolan or the movie to argue against that perspective.

Honestly, the discourse around the movie could benefit if people watched the movie and thought, hmmm I wonder how this applies to me today....

---

Well, because he modernized it there is nothing there to apply that hasn't already been done a million times in other avenues of entertainment. I think would have been more insightful, interesting, and valid if he had adhered to source material.

As an example, there are dozens of war movies and others that address PTSD and trauma far better than this movie did that are far more relevant than this. That message has been done ad nauseum.

Throw some ancient western culture / philosophy/ etc at a modern audience and then let that sink in for people and then relate that back to the modern day. Much more impactful IMO because most people don't recall the details of The Odyssey and I doubt anyone under 35 or so has probably even read it.

M.C. Swag said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

YouBet said:

---

I enjoyed the movie, but Matt Walsh's takes are largely correct. I think many are overlooking that Nolan made this movie a modern message about war and PTSD instead of sticking to the story. Both takes can be true. I can like it and recognize what was done with the film.

And, I think most are missing that because very few have read the story since high school and simply don't recall the original.

FTR, I really have no idea who Matt Walsh even is since I'm not on social media. I know he's a conservative talking head and that's it.

---

Just curious, but can an interpretation of the Odyssey ever make any changes to the source material? I realize you said you liked it so I'm not really critiquing you, but more the Matt Walsh's of the world.

The gnashing of teeth over the casting and emphasis in the story is just absurdly stupid. This is not a religious text. It's an oral tradition eventually written and adapted across millennia. Hell, the Romans went to town and wrote a fan fic based on the Iliad and Odyssey. The translations and obsessions over appearance that these chuds seem fixated on were products of the 19th century.

---

Of course it's allowed. It's also allowed for us to roll our eyes at an ugly Helen. It was an artistic stretch and hasn't hit from some opinions.

---

lol you really should watch the movie because Meneleus specifically addresses the 'face that launched a 1000 ships' aspect that you and others seem so hung up on.

---

I watched the movie Sunday. That whole scene was laughable and pretty brutal from a dialogue standpoint.

---

Setting aside whatever you thought of the dialogue, why was it an artistic stretch to cast Lupita as her?

---

Because she isn't attractive.

---

What would that matter in Nolan's movie? If her beauty was objectively improved, how would that be less of an 'artistic stretch'? (your words)

---

Because he's horny as hell apparently. That's what it really comes down to. Since he first started posting here all he's been doing is *****ing that the female characters weren't hot enough for him.

Hey, Tom, go watch this version instead. You'll be much more satisfied...

I'm a little concerned about what that pig is doing in a porno.

Queued.

M.C. Swag said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

YouBet said:

---

I enjoyed the movie, but Matt Walsh's takes are largely correct. I think many are overlooking that Nolan made this movie a modern message about war and PTSD instead of sticking to the story. Both takes can be true. I can like it and recognize what was done with the film.

And, I think most are missing that because very few have read the story since high school and simply don't recall the original.

FTR, I really have no idea who Matt Walsh even is since I'm not on social media. I know he's a conservative talking head and that's it.

---

Just curious, but can an interpretation of the Odyssey ever make any changes to the source material? I realize you said you liked it so I'm not really critiquing you, but more the Matt Walsh's of the world.

The gnashing of teeth over the casting and emphasis in the story is just absurdly stupid. This is not a religious text. It's an oral tradition eventually written and adapted across millennia. Hell, the Romans went to town and wrote a fan fic based on the Iliad and Odyssey. The translations and obsessions over appearance that these chuds seem fixated on were products of the 19th century.

---

Of course it's allowed. It's also allowed for us to roll our eyes at an ugly Helen. It was an artistic stretch and hasn't hit from some opinions.

---

lol you really should watch the movie because Meneleus specifically addresses the 'face that launched a 1000 ships' aspect that you and others seem so hung up on.

---

I watched the movie Sunday. That whole scene was laughable and pretty brutal from a dialogue standpoint.

---

Setting aside whatever you thought of the dialogue, why was it an artistic stretch to cast Lupita as her?

---

Because she isn't attractive.

---

What would that matter in Nolan's movie? If her beauty was objectively improved, how would that be less of an 'artistic stretch'? (your words)

---

Because if she's beautiful it make it more believable.

The war's premise was a beautiful woman stole away and caused a bunch of **** and that was the main engine for war hungry kings to wage war.

No one is starting a war for the actress chosen.

For the record, same reason Circe and Calypso should be good looking. Heroes don't lose focus on getting home to beautiful wife and kids for gutter trash hags.

It's a central theme to the story. Even Nolan's version. The casting took away from that. Objectively.

Wait, never mind, Tom. It has a black chick in it, and I know how much they turn you off.

Even porn has gone woke!

Gross!!!

Quote:

---

No one is starting a war for the actress chosen.

---

This thread says otherwise

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

YouBet said:

---

I enjoyed the movie, but Matt Walsh's takes are largely correct. I think many are overlooking that Nolan made this movie a modern message about war and PTSD instead of sticking to the story. Both takes can be true. I can like it and recognize what was done with the film.

And, I think most are missing that because very few have read the story since high school and simply don't recall the original.

FTR, I really have no idea who Matt Walsh even is since I'm not on social media. I know he's a conservative talking head and that's it.

---

Just curious, but can an interpretation of the Odyssey ever make any changes to the source material? I realize you said you liked it so I'm not really critiquing you, but more the Matt Walsh's of the world.

The gnashing of teeth over the casting and emphasis in the story is just absurdly stupid. This is not a religious text. It's an oral tradition eventually written and adapted across millennia. Hell, the Romans went to town and wrote a fan fic based on the Iliad and Odyssey. The translations and obsessions over appearance that these chuds seem fixated on were products of the 19th century.

---

Of course it's allowed. It's also allowed for us to roll our eyes at an ugly Helen. It was an artistic stretch and hasn't hit from some opinions.

---

lol you really should watch the movie because Meneleus specifically addresses the 'face that launched a 1000 ships' aspect that you and others seem so hung up on.

---

I watched the movie Sunday. That whole scene was laughable and pretty brutal from a dialogue standpoint.

---

Setting aside whatever you thought of the dialogue, why was it an artistic stretch to cast Lupita as her?

---

Because she isn't attractive.

---

What would that matter in Nolan's movie? If her beauty was objectively improved, how would that be less of an 'artistic stretch'? (your words)

---

Because if she's beautiful it make it more believable.

The war's premise was a beautiful woman stole away and caused a bunch of **** and that was the main engine for war hungry kings to wage war.

No one is starting a war for the actress chosen.

For the record, same reason Circe and Calypso should be good looking. Heroes don't lose focus on getting home to beautiful wife and kids for gutter trash hags.

It's a central theme to the story. Even Nolan's version. The casting took away from that. Objectively.

---

Well, Calypso lived up to billing at least. Theron and all.

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

YouBet said:

---

I enjoyed the movie, but Matt Walsh's takes are largely correct. I think many are overlooking that Nolan made this movie a modern message about war and PTSD instead of sticking to the story. Both takes can be true. I can like it and recognize what was done with the film.

And, I think most are missing that because very few have read the story since high school and simply don't recall the original.

FTR, I really have no idea who Matt Walsh even is since I'm not on social media. I know he's a conservative talking head and that's it.

---

Just curious, but can an interpretation of the Odyssey ever make any changes to the source material? I realize you said you liked it so I'm not really critiquing you, but more the Matt Walsh's of the world.

The gnashing of teeth over the casting and emphasis in the story is just absurdly stupid. This is not a religious text. It's an oral tradition eventually written and adapted across millennia. Hell, the Romans went to town and wrote a fan fic based on the Iliad and Odyssey. The translations and obsessions over appearance that these chuds seem fixated on were products of the 19th century.

---

Of course it's allowed. It's also allowed for us to roll our eyes at an ugly Helen. It was an artistic stretch and hasn't hit from some opinions.

---

lol you really should watch the movie because Meneleus specifically addresses the 'face that launched a 1000 ships' aspect that you and others seem so hung up on.

---

I watched the movie Sunday. That whole scene was laughable and pretty brutal from a dialogue standpoint.

---

Setting aside whatever you thought of the dialogue, why was it an artistic stretch to cast Lupita as her?

---

Because she isn't attractive.

---

What would that matter in Nolan's movie? If her beauty was objectively improved, how would that be less of an 'artistic stretch'? (your words)

---

Because if she's beautiful it make it more believable.

The war's premise was a beautiful woman stole away and caused a bunch of **** and that was the main engine for war hungry kings to wage war.

No one is starting a war for the actress chosen..

---

It makes this story with cyclops, giants, and monsters more believable? lol aight man


And you just completely missed the point of the movie. The war was not started because of her or for her. It was explicitly stated as such.

M.C. Swag said:

---

William Foster said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

YouBet said:

---

I enjoyed the movie, but Matt Walsh's takes are largely correct. I think many are overlooking that Nolan made this movie a modern message about war and PTSD instead of sticking to the story. Both takes can be true. I can like it and recognize what was done with the film.

And, I think most are missing that because very few have read the story since high school and simply don't recall the original.

FTR, I really have no idea who Matt Walsh even is since I'm not on social media. I know he's a conservative talking head and that's it.

---

Just curious, but can an interpretation of the Odyssey ever make any changes to the source material? I realize you said you liked it so I'm not really critiquing you, but more the Matt Walsh's of the world.

The gnashing of teeth over the casting and emphasis in the story is just absurdly stupid. This is not a religious text. It's an oral tradition eventually written and adapted across millennia. Hell, the Romans went to town and wrote a fan fic based on the Iliad and Odyssey. The translations and obsessions over appearance that these chuds seem fixated on were products of the 19th century.

---

Of course it's allowed. It's also allowed for us to roll our eyes at an ugly Helen. It was an artistic stretch and hasn't hit from some opinions.

---

lol you really should watch the movie because Meneleus specifically addresses the 'face that launched a 1000 ships' aspect that you and others seem so hung up on.

---

I think it's funny that everyone knows she is "mid" and has no business playing a greek demigod of "unrivaled beauty", but a segment of this group has to pretend she is perfectly cast, because of their political leanings or something?

Yall don't have to pretend...just admit that she is oddly cast but it still doesn't take away from the movie for you.

---

She's not oddly cast at all in this interpretation. In the movie, we are introduced to Helen via Meneleus. It is explicitly stated that Helen was used as an excuse to invade Troy by Agamemnon who doesn't actually care about her at all. That is a Nolan interpretation (and also an interpretation in the 2000s movie Troiy). The 'face that launched a 1000 ships' is then mocked by Meneleus as he reveals that Helen has a horrible scar down half her face. Her beauty was never a factor in the battle of Troy or even revered but it is some cruel irony that a woman's beauty was blamed as the catalyst of the war and that very beauty was marred by it.

Nolan isn't telling some romanticized story of 'beautiful Helen'; he's telling a war story where Helen is 1 of many traumatized victims and in that version, Helen could be literally anyone (including Lupita).

---

This is peak deflection. Let me explain all the reasons this casting makes sense without acknowledging that it makes no sense. Her color of skin is not the issue, but it just is and it's ok to say that. Helen of Troy isn't some fictional Disney princess open to interpretation. Homer's Odyssey goes back thousands of years in a very specific time period in a very specific region with very specific people. One is in textbooks, the other is merchandise. I can understand both sides of the Ariel thing, but Helen of Troy? Come on. This was a coordinated effort to create division with the soul intent of selling more tickets. Some say critics are proving Nolan's point but that was never his point. Nolan's point was he can do whatever TF he wants at this point, it all works in his favor. She's just a piece of flare. Ya know, the nazis had pieces of flare, but they made the Jews wear them.

BigPete3281 said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

William Foster said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

YouBet said:

---

I enjoyed the movie, but Matt Walsh's takes are largely correct. I think many are overlooking that Nolan made this movie a modern message about war and PTSD instead of sticking to the story. Both takes can be true. I can like it and recognize what was done with the film.

And, I think most are missing that because very few have read the story since high school and simply don't recall the original.

FTR, I really have no idea who Matt Walsh even is since I'm not on social media. I know he's a conservative talking head and that's it.

---

Just curious, but can an interpretation of the Odyssey ever make any changes to the source material? I realize you said you liked it so I'm not really critiquing you, but more the Matt Walsh's of the world.

The gnashing of teeth over the casting and emphasis in the story is just absurdly stupid. This is not a religious text. It's an oral tradition eventually written and adapted across millennia. Hell, the Romans went to town and wrote a fan fic based on the Iliad and Odyssey. The translations and obsessions over appearance that these chuds seem fixated on were products of the 19th century.

---

Of course it's allowed. It's also allowed for us to roll our eyes at an ugly Helen. It was an artistic stretch and hasn't hit from some opinions.

---

lol you really should watch the movie because Meneleus specifically addresses the 'face that launched a 1000 ships' aspect that you and others seem so hung up on.

---

I think it's funny that everyone knows she is "mid" and has no business playing a greek demigod of "unrivaled beauty", but a segment of this group has to pretend she is perfectly cast, because of their political leanings or something?

Yall don't have to pretend...just admit that she is oddly cast but it still doesn't take away from the movie for you.

---

She's not oddly cast at all in this interpretation. In the movie, we are introduced to Helen via Meneleus. It is explicitly stated that Helen was used as an excuse to invade Troy by Agamemnon who doesn't actually care about her at all. That is a Nolan interpretation (and also an interpretation in the 2000s movie Troiy). The 'face that launched a 1000 ships' is then mocked by Meneleus as he reveals that Helen has a horrible scar down half her face. Her beauty was never a factor in the battle of Troy or even revered but it is some cruel irony that a woman's beauty was blamed as the catalyst of the war and that very beauty was marred by it.

Nolan isn't telling some romanticized story of 'beautiful Helen'; he's telling a war story where Helen is 1 of many traumatized victims and in that version, Helen could be literally anyone (including Lupita).

---

Helen of Troy isn't some fictional Disney princess open to interpretation.

---

My guy, she is 100% complete fiction.

I'm howling right now - just when i think this thread can't deliver any more...

correct, a fictional person....but one that is universally believed by scholars to have been at least loosely based on several ancient queens and/or noblewomen...in that region

My guy, you understand the difference. Surely. One is DISNEY. Here I'll clean it up for you. Ugh...slow-minded people.

YouBet said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

YouBet said:

---

I enjoyed the movie, but Matt Walsh's takes are largely correct. I think many are overlooking that Nolan made this movie a modern message about war and PTSD instead of sticking to the story. Both takes can be true. I can like it and recognize what was done with the film.

And, I think most are missing that because very few have read the story since high school and simply don't recall the original.

FTR, I really have no idea who Matt Walsh even is since I'm not on social media. I know he's a conservative talking head and that's it.

---

Just curious, but can an interpretation of the Odyssey ever make any changes to the source material? I realize you said you liked it so I'm not really critiquing you, but more the Matt Walsh's of the world.

The gnashing of teeth over the casting and emphasis in the story is just absurdly stupid. This is not a religious text. It's an oral tradition eventually written and adapted across millennia. Hell, the Romans went to town and wrote a fan fic based on the Iliad and Odyssey. The translations and obsessions over appearance that these chuds seem fixated on were products of the 19th century.

---

Of course it's allowed. It's also allowed for us to roll our eyes at an ugly Helen. It was an artistic stretch and hasn't hit from some opinions.

---

lol you really should watch the movie because Meneleus specifically addresses the 'face that launched a 1000 ships' aspect that you and others seem so hung up on.

---

I watched the movie Sunday. That whole scene was laughable and pretty brutal from a dialogue standpoint.

---

Setting aside whatever you thought of the dialogue, why was it an artistic stretch to cast Lupita as her?

---

Because she isn't attractive.

---

What would that matter in Nolan's movie? If her beauty was objectively improved, how would that be less of an 'artistic stretch'? (your words)

---

Because if she's beautiful it make it more believable.

The war's premise was a beautiful woman stole away and caused a bunch of **** and that was the main engine for war hungry kings to wage war.

No one is starting a war for the actress chosen.

For the record, same reason Circe and Calypso should be good looking. Heroes don't lose focus on getting home to beautiful wife and kids for gutter trash hags.

It's a central theme to the story. Even Nolan's version. The casting took away from that. Objectively.

---

Well, Calypso lived up to billing at least. Theron and all.

---

Definitely. She was great.

The movie definitely addresses PTSD, but the themes of the movie are about how we treat each other. How if we let go of the things that make us who we are in the name of victory, we are actually creating our own defeat. There have definitely been films addressing this sort of thing before. And fine you don't like it, but it still doesn't make my point here have less meaning.

This thread has jumped the shark.

I'm genuinely confused how the complaints about Page are that they didn't look like a Greek warrior, when the whole point of the character is that they shouldn't have been a Greek warrior.

M.C. Swag said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

YouBet said:

---

I enjoyed the movie, but Matt Walsh's takes are largely correct. I think many are overlooking that Nolan made this movie a modern message about war and PTSD instead of sticking to the story. Both takes can be true. I can like it and recognize what was done with the film.

And, I think most are missing that because very few have read the story since high school and simply don't recall the original.

FTR, I really have no idea who Matt Walsh even is since I'm not on social media. I know he's a conservative talking head and that's it.

---

Just curious, but can an interpretation of the Odyssey ever make any changes to the source material? I realize you said you liked it so I'm not really critiquing you, but more the Matt Walsh's of the world.

The gnashing of teeth over the casting and emphasis in the story is just absurdly stupid. This is not a religious text. It's an oral tradition eventually written and adapted across millennia. Hell, the Romans went to town and wrote a fan fic based on the Iliad and Odyssey. The translations and obsessions over appearance that these chuds seem fixated on were products of the 19th century.

---

Of course it's allowed. It's also allowed for us to roll our eyes at an ugly Helen. It was an artistic stretch and hasn't hit from some opinions.

---

lol you really should watch the movie because Meneleus specifically addresses the 'face that launched a 1000 ships' aspect that you and others seem so hung up on.

---

I watched the movie Sunday. That whole scene was laughable and pretty brutal from a dialogue standpoint.

---

Setting aside whatever you thought of the dialogue, why was it an artistic stretch to cast Lupita as her?

---

Because she isn't attractive.

---

What would that matter in Nolan's movie? If her beauty was objectively improved, how would that be less of an 'artistic stretch'? (your words)

---

Perhaps, some people realize that he is doing his own version of the movie which may "water down" the story in their eyes. One of the main points to Helen of Troy is that she is supposed to be a beautiful and universally desired Greek demigod. Christopher Nolan clearly said "to hell with that".

No one here has a single problem with Lupita...numerous people who are critical of this casting decision have praised her acting abilities. People seem to have issues with CN's direction...and if anything should be open to critique in a film, it should be that.

It's just crazy that this thread keeps raging on because so many of you have problems with others having problems with CN's decisions. Or his version of the story.

fig96 said:

---

I'm genuinely confused how the complaints about Page are that they didn't look like a Greek warrior, when the whole point of the character is that they shouldn't have been a Greek warrior.

---

I don't know how to make it any more simple for you man...she's awkward in it, in every way. It feels forced/artificial to many of us. Always knew Nolan was loyal...didn't know he was THIS loyal. This would be like Nick Saban putting in a guy who runs a 5.3 second forty at Running Back just because he's family friends with him. Non-familial nepotism is what it comes across as.

William Foster said:

---

fig96 said:

---

I'm genuinely confused how the complaints about Page are that they didn't look like a Greek warrior, when the whole point of the character is that they shouldn't have been a Greek warrior.

---

I don't know how to make it any more simple for you man...she's awkward in it, in every way. It feels forced/artificial to many of us. Always knew Nolan was loyal...didn't know he was THIS loyal. This would be like Nick Saban putting in a guy who runs a 5.3 second forty at Running Back just because he's family friends with him. Non-familial nepotism is what it comes across as.

---

That's the dumbest analogy I've ever heard in my life.

Bruce Almighty said:

---

William Foster said:

---

fig96 said:

---

I'm genuinely confused how the complaints about Page are that they didn't look like a Greek warrior, when the whole point of the character is that they shouldn't have been a Greek warrior.

---

I don't know how to make it any more simple for you man...she's awkward in it, in every way. It feels forced/artificial to many of us. Always knew Nolan was loyal...didn't know he was THIS loyal. This would be like Nick Saban putting in a GIRL who runs a 5.3 second forty at Running Back just because he's family friends with HER. Non-familial nepotism is what it comes across as.

---

That's the dumbest analogy I've ever heard in my life.

---

Actually, casting Elliot Page is crazier, you're right. My bad.

Fixed the analogy though.

veryfuller said:

---

The movie definitely addresses PTSD, but the themes of the movie are about how we treat each other. How if we let go of the things that make us who we are in the name of victory, we are actually creating our own defeat. There have definitely been films addressing this sort of thing before. And fine you don't like it, but it still doesn't make my point here have less meaning.

---

I've heard this movie compared to a Vietnam war flick by multiple people.

Is it like Nick Saban being asked to put in a woman that transitioned for his starting running back because there is a requirement for it making the playoffs.

fig96 said:

---

I'm genuinely confused how the complaints about Page are that they didn't look like a Greek warrior, when the whole point of the character is that they shouldn't have been a Greek warrior.

---

Yeah that part didn't hold up.

The little brother underage weakling that shouldn't have been there survived the Trojan war? Till the end? Through 10 years?

FL_Ag1998 said:

---

veryfuller said:

---

The movie definitely addresses PTSD, but the themes of the movie are about how we treat each other. How if we let go of the things that make us who we are in the name of victory, we are actually creating our own defeat. There have definitely been films addressing this sort of thing before. And fine you don't like it, but it still doesn't make my point here have less meaning.

---

I've heard this movie compared to a Vietnam war flick by multiple people.

---

Wtf