People may not "need" to see someone who looks like them, but for many it does seem to help them connect more sometimes.

FL_Ag1998 said:

---

Just to play devil's advocate, and because i legitimately like to have good discussions between opposing viewpoints....

Does your stance above mean did every movie going forward should strive for diversity in its casting so that as many people across the entire world can feel connected to the characters? (Yes, an extreme to prove my point how Nolan's weak argument falls apart at the first stiff breeze)

Will future Black Panther movies have white people and asian people and hispanic people playing major roles as Wakandans, so that white, asian, and hispanic audience members can connect to the Black Panther story?

The problem with Nolan's argument is that it reduces people to their skin color. It implies that people primarily, or possibly only, relate to other human beings based on whether they are the same skin color as themselves. What he's saying is that BIPOC people can't relate to character motivations, only to character's skin colors.

It's an outdated, fraudulent, racist line of thinking that should have gone away a long time ago during the civil rights movement but is being brought back around primarily by "progressive" white people.

Nolan just lost a lot of respect in my eyes, but he doesn't know me and couldn't care less about my opinion.

---

It's not really a "stance."

It's simply a fact of life that certain people feel more connected / respond more positively when they see "themselves" reflected back in the art/content they consume, be it in the form of their culture, skin color, life experience, profession, etc. Do these people "need" to see themselves reflected in order to enjoy/appreciate whatever it is they're watching/consuming? No, of course not. But to deny that it helps at times is to deny documented testimony / human nature / reality. I don't understand how this is remotely controversial or in question.

Also, it's not that Nolan believes people CAN'T "relate to other human beings based on whether they are the same skin color as themselves," it's that he believes the movie has a better chance of connecting to more people if more types of people are reflected back to the audience.

There's a difference.

Now, that doesn't mean I'm at all a proponent of DEI initiatives or diversity quotas. I'm not, and I've been very clear/consistent about that. Nor do I think "every movie going forward should strive for diversity in its casting." Most movies should be free to cast/portray whoever the hell they want. But again - we've been over this ad nauseam - do I think that movies of THIS scale/budget have a financial responsibility to reach the widest audience possible? Yes. And one way studious believe they can accomplish that is casting diversely so as to raise the chances of selling more tickets diversely. In other words, the more races/cultures/genders they have in their blockbusters, the more races/cultures/genders they believe they'll sell tickets to, worldwide. I know some of you vehemently disagree with this approach, but it is what it is. Either way, it's an approach that becomes less important the smaller the budget gets.

As for this argument…

Quote:

---

Will future Black Panther movies have white people and asian people and hispanic people playing major roles as Wakandans, so that white, asian, and hispanic audience members can connect to the Black Panther story?

---

… you're assuming an even playing field, when it's not at all. Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, etc are referred to as MINORITIES for a reason. Because, obviously, white people are the MAJORITY. Thus, "marginalizing" minorities - in American filmmaking - is a completely different thing than "marginalizing" the majority. The latter is more accepted because the latter has been catered to cinematically over the past 100 years FAR more than the former. Like, it's not even close.

Does that mean we should then come up laws/rules to force diversity? Again, absolutely not. But it's perfectly fine if someone like Nolan values reaching a wider audience / telling a more "timeless" story (in the way he wants) more than he values historical accuracy. You placing more value on the latter is a personal preference, and the opposite isn't the "progressive" screed you're making it out to be.

What if this one does $800M to a $1B+? Will you actually admit you were wrong in this instance?

Quote:

---

They were primarily both the talent and customers for the vast majority of Hollywood's history.

---

You're saying exactly what I'm saying.

Maybe "catered to" isn't the exact right terminology, but the point is literally the exact same… for the past century, the majority of movies were made by white people, starred white people, and were for white audiences. That's not me trying to make "whitey" out to be the bad guy or whatever, I'm simply stating a statistical fact that's in line with my majority/minority point.

Otherwise, whatever else you're rambling on about is complete nonsense.

Good lord, why are some of you always so ******* angry all the time?

Hopefully it'll be released online in the coming days.

I can confirm there is a new trailer for THE ODYSSEY attached to DISCLOSURE DAY. It’s the longest and best trailer yet.

— Dan Marcus (@Danimalish) June 11, 2026

Fenrir said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Quote:

---

They were primarily both the talent and customers for the vast majority of Hollywood's history.

---

You're saying exactly what I'm saying.

Maybe "catered to" isn't the exact right terminology, but the point is literally the exact same… for the past century, the majority of movies were made by white people, starred white people, and were for white audiences. That's not me trying to make "whitey" out to be the bad guy or whatever, I'm simply stating a statistical fact that's in line my majority/minority point.

Otherwise, whatever else you're rambling on about is complete nonsense.

Good lord, why are some of you always so ******* angry all the time?

---

What can I say, I dislike stupid hypocritical stances and you're overflowing with them. Catered to is a loaded term and it's revealing of your opinions.

You're arguing for artistic laziness. Imagine how pathetic the magnificent seven would be if they literally just put white dudes in as samurai and called it a day. That's the creative extent of the vast majority of American film making engages in when race swapping. Recreating a prior storyline with different people in a new setting is an ancient practice, but in the pursuit of maximum income with minimal creative and financial input, Hollywood has a tendency of going the most lazy paths possible.

I'm not even saying that's the case for the odyssey, I just tire of seeing the defense of lazy creative practices.

---

I simply disagree that it's "artistic laziness" to have Helen of Troy - a fictional character being interpreted through a modern/"timeless" lens - be black. Call me hypocritical all you want, coming from you I could not care less.

And if you think the "vast majority of American filmmaking engages in race swapping," I don't know what to tell you. Seeing as that's an objectively untrue/insane statement.

Cliff.Booth said:

---

Disagreeing with Nolan's approach doesn't mean we are angry. You read a lot into statements that don't have any all-caps or bold-printed language or anything to imply escalation. It's literally just dudes responding on a message board.

---

I wasn't talking about you.

I was specifically talking about Fenrir and a couple others like him, who are never not overly negative, *****ing about whatever political bull****, or posting angry rants. The kind of posters who bring absolutely zero joy/positivity/insight to this board.

I may fundamentally disagree with on just about everything under the sun, and think you're stubborn as hell, but I don't find you to be an angry person at all.

Quote:

---

First, his excuse for not using an orchestra was so pathetic, nonsensical, and inconguent with his other choices that I still can't believe he said it out loud.

---

I'm ignorant here. What exactly does this mean because his past movies used music to an extremely beneficial effect. Notably, Interstellar. That movie doesn't hit like it does without the music.

This is like saying he's going to forego an established actor and hire me instead.

FL_Ag1998 said:

---

If the sole reason for the diversity of the cast is to reap bigger profits, then that's

1) still racist no matter how politely and softly its phrased because its still built on the assumption that non-white people can only relate to people who look like them, and

2) sad that for some extra money in their pockets (supposedly due to appealing to a more diverse audience) filmakers and execs have decided not only to alter stories along racial lines but in the process promote racism by telling their audience "We view you primarily by your skin tone and in turn have made assumptions about what you like based purely on your skin tone." Because that's literally the argument they're making - "Hey black people, we know if we cast a couple of black people in this movie you'll flock to see it, so we cast a couple!".

---

AGAIN, there is NO assumption that non-white people can ONLY relate to people who look like them. That's an argument/framing that YOU'RE injecting. Like I just got done saying...

Quote:

---

Also, it's not that Nolan believes people CAN'T "relate to other human beings based on whether they are the same skin color as themselves," it's that he believes the movie has a better chance of connecting to more people if more types of people are reflected back to the audience.

There's a difference.

---

And there IS a difference.

As for your second point, that's... literally how capitalism works. For the most part, every company wants the maximum amount of people/demographics to buy their products. It's why various commercials/products cater to as many different people - and types of people - as possible. But for some reason it's suddenly bad when Hollywood does it?

TCTTS said:

---

Hopefully it'll be released online in the coming days.

I can confirm there is a new trailer for THE ODYSSEY attached to DISCLOSURE DAY. It’s the longest and best trailer yet.

— Dan Marcus (@Danimalish) June 11, 2026

---

Not in my showing.

Did you see it in IMAX? If not, maybe it's only an IMAX thing?

It was in my showing, but I tried to not pay attention.

It was in my showing. I was just in Dolby

I did.

Why waste money on Gorasson at all when the authentic Greek composer of our time would probably do it for free?

There was a new trailer at my showing at an IMAX Laser theater.

Before that was:
The Social Reckoning
Mutiny
Heart of the Beast
The End of Oak Street
One Night Only
The Fast and the Furious re-release
The Dog Stars

I think I got that exact trailer list, minus the Odyssey trailer.

Having worked at a movie theater in the distant past, I recall that trailers were typically sent separate from the films. Which trailers were attached to which films were up to the theater. Of course, this was with film reels, so with digital projection that might have changed. I know that I've seen discussion on here for other movies regarding which trailers posters saw, but then I didn't get that trailer when I saw said movie.

I'm seeing Disclosure Day this afternoon in the Dolby (non-IMAX) auditorium.