Adding Juno to the cast as a Greek soldier is just f'ing stupid. I think I even got TCTTS to agree on that some 20-30 pages back. And I say that as someone that did not at all buy the internet troll rumors that Juno was playing Achilles in whatever capacity. Is this actor even relevant in Hollywood? I can't recall seeing her in anything since an X-men film. She was a cute kid then. Shoehorning her into The Odyssey serves absolutely no other purpose than to put a trans person in this film. None.

I don't really care about the black chicks cast. For me, it's predictable and pandering. I just kind of chuckle. I have very low expectations for film these days.

That said, I can't help but not notice the conflicting arguments made by the same people. On one hand, the fervent defense of casting black actors because "this is Nolan's interpretation" then on the other, the backhanded qualifier "it's just 2-3 minor roles stop freaking out". All the while, Damon and Holland have the lead roles and are probably the two safest, whitey, actors you could find for a summer blockbuster. Super safe!

Why not cast Idris Elba as Odysseus? Everyone loves Idris. I love Idris. Dude is cool as cool gets. Come on, show some real balls and go all the way. Why not? If Athena can be black, and Helen of Troy can be black, why not? Nah, gonna stay with the safe bet here and go with Damon (for the record I like Matt Damon).

I remain hopeful it's an enjoyable film. I think it will be. I'm sure it will do well financially as well. Gen Z boys are likely going to pan it and much of Europe is simply going to hate it. But it should perform well. And we get the comic relief, planned or not, of Juno in armor.

Well at least we are coming to some sort of clarity. The accusation has been that those of us asking for people to wait and see the movie before pilling on are goal tending or against people having different opinions. But as you just said, it's really you have to be critical of the choices made in this adaptation, without seeing them in their full context, or your opinion is garbage (not your words just my interpretation of them). Is that a correct interpretation?

edit* you edited your post to soften it a bit after I was already replying. Still have the same question tho.

I've got tickets for next Friday morning, and I truly hope that this matches the exact style and substance of the completely vague memory I have of this story from when I read it 20something years ago.

Good lord people are exhausting.

veryfuller said:

---

Well at least we are coming to some sort of clarity. The accusation has been that those of us asking for people to wait and see the movie before pilling on are goal tending or against people having different opinions. But as you just said, it's really you have to be critical of the choices made in this adaptation, without seeing them in their full context, or your opinion is garbage (not your words just my interpretation of them). Is that a correct interpretation?

edit* you edited your post to soften it a bit after I was already replying. Still have the same question tho.

---

sure, we'll wait and see....I'm sure it gets much better once the movie is delivered to theaters. I for one was beyond stoked when this was originally announced. I'm not opposed to changing my tune if Nolan somehow wows us after the fact. But, the tea leaves aren't suggesting that's going to be the case here. The tea leaves all suggest that this brilliant director has also fallen victim to the insanity of 21st century Hollywood and has let that insanity stain what should have been a brilliant epic film.

Guess we'll see in 8 days time, but I'm not holding my breath.

I don't think of this as Romeo + Juliet, but I think it's more like A Knight's Tale, just more serious.

Max Power said:

---

I honestly don't understand why it matters to anyone who plays Helen of Troy, a Greek warrior, or a Greek god/goddess in a film based on an epic poem written thousands of years ago.

---

I think you have to consider some peoples' fatigue or annoyance with modern woke Hollywood, where in recent years racial/DEI quotas have entered the chat, and several qustionable casting decisions have been made. I don't know if that is what is happening with this one, but I can't blame people for being suspicious. I would think everyone on here could at least understand that, and take a live-and-let-live/agree-to-disagree approach.

Secondly, you have to make Helen of Troy hot. Like someone who is universally considered beautiful by virtually everyone. She was supposed to be desired by all, and have unparalleled beauty. Whether you make her white, black, latina, asian, whatever...you have to make her hot. Someone like Zoe Saldana would make a much more beautiful and universally appealing demigod. There are many ethnic actresses that would fit in this regard.

This woman is not at all ugly, and some might think she is hot...but I don't think the entire greek world would have been lusting after her, and I don't think most of America will think she is stunningly beautiful either.

veryfuller said:

---

Its not an inability to see the difference, its that different people have different ideas and expectations when it comes to adaptations. You are expressing that you would hope, given the setting, that it be more historically accurate. That is your opinion to have. Others don't draw the line in that same place. Its not that people aren't intelligent enough to agree with you, its just that they don't have the same preference or expectation. Can you respect that differing opinion as legitimate as well?

---

That hasn't been this thread. It's been people with opinions similar to mine voicing them. Then people with opinions like yours basically calling us crazy, deranged, or otherwise telling us we have no right to have these opinions because we haven't see the movie, yet. We get called F16ers, in a derogatory way.

And I also reject the "respect that differing opinion as legitimate as well" statement. It's this common BS I see all the time that we should respect everyone's opinions. That is stupid. I respect your right to have an opinion. I respect your right to defend your opinion. However, if I truly respected your opinion, then that would mean I have analyzed the opinion and found it to be correct. The exact opposite is the case, so why would I then respect an opinion I find to be wrong?

veryfuller said:

---

Well at least we are coming to some sort of clarity. The accusation has been that those of us asking for people to wait and see the movie before pilling on are goal tending or against people having different opinions. But as you just said, it's really you have to be critical of the choices made in this adaptation, without seeing them in their full context, or your opinion is garbage (not your words just my interpretation of them). Is that a correct interpretation?

edit* you edited your post to soften it a bit after I was already replying. Still have the same question tho.

---

It's more the over-the-top "angry" responses people are getting on here as a result. Several posters, which I will not name, seem genuinely angry with peoples' opinions on the castng decisions CN has made. Resorting to name calling, insults..raw anger over something so freakin petty in the grand scheme of things.

I'll never understand it. They say that adverse opinions or social commentary is ruining the board, but they add fuel to the fire by lashing out in a way they never would to anyone's face...over such trivial stuff. This thread would go a lot differntly if there weren't angry disgruntled gate keepers lashing out over adverse opinions.

100%. I'm not sure where in the timeline we started teaching that all opinions should be respected. You nailed it - we should respect everyone's ability to form their own opinions, but broadly respecting all of those opinions is insanity. It's just more of the participation trophy line of thinking that has us where we are today.

You left out "viruses" lol

I just went to check out the actual entire cast, and I am now more convinced than ever that the "Romeo & Juliet" modernized angle is what Nolan is going with. It's very diverse. Like someone plucked 25 people off the streets of Manhattan.



I didn't draw the circles, just FYI.

You can respect someone as intelligent, analytical, and still disagree with them vehemently. I don't think all opinions are respectable. But I do think, in a debate or argument, if you aren't doing your best to understand the logic and reasoning that is getting someone to their opinion, respecting that process, then there is no way you can argue your own point effectively. So, what I mean by respect the opinion, is respect the process that got someone to their opinion. If you can't do that, then you basically are saying only people that think like you have valid opinions worth listening to, which is boring.

I do think there has been plenty of mudslinging on both sides of this. There has been plenty of name calling, mocking, etc. from the haters and the defenders. I hope that the movie is so good it shuts down the whole debate , but I find it hard to believe that some of the negative posters are going to go into seeing this with an open enough mind to even enjoy it.

There have been people on here that say others shouldn't critique the movie because we haven't seen the movie yet.

Those people are ignoring the reasoning why others formed those critical opinions. Trailers, casting decisions, translations, accuracy to the source material, etc. all are valid reasons to form an opinion on the movie before the movie has been released.

Quote:

---

I hope that the movie is so good it shuts down the whole debate , but I find it hard to believe that some of the negative posters are going to go into seeing this with an open enough mind to even enjoy it.

---

There also is the flip side to this coin. I don't want the movie to flop at all, quite the opposite, but there are so many sunshine pumpers out there that shout down any negative criticism that if the movie did flop it would hopefully open the minds of the sunshine pumpers that alternative opinions can be valid too.

if it is a Romeo + Juliet style adaptation....it wasn't marketed as such from the jump. And, who the hell would want that for The Odyssey anyways? You're talking about one of the most iconic and recognized epics of all time. Romeo and Juliet has been done a million different ways across movies, books, theater, tv, comic books, etc. So, that radically modern adaptation served a purpose.The Odyssey hasn't been done a bazillion times. The last rendition was what, 1997? I think 99.9% of the planet wanted a movie that was at least mostly historically accurate with the brilliance of 2026 technology.

I think most are asking people to stop pilling on/posting unconfirmed or false news/connecting critiques to culture war. And every time that is asked, its made out like having a negative opinion of the casting/costumes/etc. is not allowed, which is not the same thing. Conflating the two often feels intentional, because it has been spelled out multiple times by multiple people, and yet is ignored.

Understanding how someone got to their opinion is one thing. Respecting how they got there is different.

I have already called out the jump in logic many have taken on this thread. I have called out specific logical fallacies and why I take issue with those. No one who I call out for their fallacies truly cares that they made logical jumps or completely ignored logic in their arguments. But the fact I call them out is proof I actually read their posts and try to understand how they came to their conclusion.

And Tea Party hit the nail on the head so there's no reason for me to reiterate it.

If your stance is: "I see the casting choice. I see why you take issue with it. For me, personally, it is not an issue." Then I literally have nothing with which to argue, and nor should anyone else unless they are just upset with people for ignoring the culture war or not seeing the importance of the culture war. You stated you can clearly observe what we observe but you don't take issue with it. If that was the statement from those on your side of the argument, this thread would be less than half the length.

There have been many who have posted things similar to this and no one is calling them out for it or arguing with them.

However, there seems to be this idea that those making arguments that align with mine should only get to voice their negative opinion once. After that, any subsequent critique about the topic of a thread, even if it's based on a recent post, video, news, etc, is a sign of us being deranged. There is then an appeal to this notion that we shouldn't be allowed to have opinions because we haven't seen the movie, though our opinions are not about the overall quality of the movie but instead in the casting choices. I reject that.

I think 99.9% of people want a cool Christopher Nolan movie more than they want a perfectly historically accurate Odyssey adaptation. We aren't getting the later, but hopeful we get the former.

veryfuller said:

---

I think 99.9% of people want a cool Christopher Nolan movie more than they want a perfectly historically accurate Odyssey adaptation. We aren't getting the later, but hopeful we get the former.

---

I said mostly historically accurate. I'm fine with it not being perfectly historically accurate, especially since it's fiction anyways. My fear is that it's going to be egregiously historically inaccurate to appease the crazies.

Hardcore Greg said:

---

I just went to check out the actual entire cast, and I am now more convinced than ever that the "Romeo & Juliet" modernized angle is what Nolan is going with. It's very diverse. Like someone plucked 25 people off the streets of Manhattan.



I didn't draw the circles, just FYI.

---

Don't they get "Oscar" points for being diverse these days?

hunter2012 said:

---

the costume design in Nolan’s “Odyssey” is somehow even worse than anyone of us imagined

like what are we even doing anymore man https://t.co/ikgjK2ZfuR pic.twitter.com/FD55SWAJyl

— Melian Refugee (@escapefrommelos) July 8, 2026

---

Bernthal's bald cap is a bit distracting

Cliff.Booth said:

---

Those who say preposterous things about Nolan’s The Odyssey like it’s a “refreshingly modern approach” were never interested in ancient myth to start with.

They just want to see 2026 with helmets.

— Alice Smith (@TheAliceSmith) July 8, 2026

---

My response: So?

GoAgs92 said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

I just went to check out the actual entire cast, and I am now more convinced than ever that the "Romeo & Juliet" modernized angle is what Nolan is going with. It's very diverse. Like someone plucked 25 people off the streets of Manhattan.



I didn't draw the circles, just FYI.

---

Don't they get "Oscar" points for being diverse these days?

---

AI answer:

Movies do not get extra "points" for diversity to win an Oscar; instead, they must pass a mandatory minimum checklist to be eligible for the Best Picture award. To qualify, films must meet at least two out of four diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) standards established by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. [1, 2, 3, 4]
The four categories films are evaluated against include: [1]

• On-Screen Representation and Narratives: Having underrepresented groups (such as women, people of color, LGBTQ+, or people with disabilities) as lead actors, supporting actors, or central to the film's plot/themes. [1, 2, 3]
• Creative Leadership and Crew: Hiring individuals from underrepresented groups for key behind-the-scenes roles, such as directors, writers, department heads, or a certain percentage of the overall crew. [1, 2, 3]
• Industry Access and Opportunities: Offering paid internships, apprenticeships, or training programs to underrepresented groups. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• Audience Development: Having diverse teams working in film marketing, publicity, and distribution. [1, 2, 3]

Passing these criteria simply unlocks eligibility; it does not grant bonus votes or directly influence who wins the awards. The actual winners are still determined by the votes cast by Academy members based on artistic merit and performance. [1, 2, 3, 4]

There is one person calling people deranged. I don't agree with that person on most things, and you can see we have had it out on several threads in the past as well.

But do you not see how much negative pilling on has happened on this thread about stuff that is unconfirmed or assumed (not just the casting choices)? And the wait and see argument isn't about the things in the trailers or the promotion, its about the making of this movie into some culture war lightning rod. I think the wait and see crowd just is baffled by that when the movie hasn't even come out yet.

Is there much to criticize in the marketing of the movie, sure. But I still think Nolan is going to deliver what he always does, an entertaining movie that speaks to themes that everyone can relate to. I don't think its going to be some preachy woke treatise. And I just continue to ask that we all reserve judgement on debating that until we see the actual film that he has made, not what its being packaged as by the studio.

zgolfz85 said:

---

GoAgs92 said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

I just went to check out the actual entire cast, and I am now more convinced than ever that the "Romeo & Juliet" modernized angle is what Nolan is going with. It's very diverse. Like someone plucked 25 people off the streets of Manhattan.



I didn't draw the circles, just FYI.

---

Don't they get "Oscar" points for being diverse these days?

---

AI answer:

Movies do not get extra "points" for diversity to win an Oscar; instead, they must pass a mandatory minimum checklist to be eligible for the Best Picture award. To qualify, films must meet at least two out of four diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) standards established by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. [1, 2, 3, 4]
The four categories films are evaluated against include: [1]

• On-Screen Representation and Narratives: Having underrepresented groups (such as women, people of color, LGBTQ+, or people with disabilities) as lead actors, supporting actors, or central to the film's plot/themes. [1, 2, 3]
• Creative Leadership and Crew: Hiring individuals from underrepresented groups for key behind-the-scenes roles, such as directors, writers, department heads, or a certain percentage of the overall crew. [1, 2, 3]
• Industry Access and Opportunities: Offering paid internships, apprenticeships, or training programs to underrepresented groups. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• Audience Development: Having diverse teams working in film marketing, publicity, and distribution. [1, 2, 3]

Passing these criteria simply unlocks eligibility; it does not grant bonus votes or directly influence who wins the awards. The actual winners are still determined by the votes cast by Academy members based on artistic merit and performance. [1, 2, 3, 4]

---

^^^This is an example of a topic that has been discussed ad nauseam on this thread but keeps getting dragged up

veryfuller said:

---

I think 99.9% of people want a cool Christopher Nolan movie more than they want a perfectly historically accurate Odyssey adaptation. We aren't getting the later, but hopeful we get the former.

---

I've refrained from posting on this thread for the past day and a half and merely enjoyed it from afar, lol, but I can't stay quiet here. I'm gonna have to jump in to refute your estimate of 99.9% agree with your viewpoint. That's you projecting. Clearly there's more than 0.01% of the potential audience that wants a historically accurate version (yes, yes, as historically accurate as one can get with a myth).

veryfuller said:

---

zgolfz85 said:

---

GoAgs92 said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

I just went to check out the actual entire cast, and I am now more convinced than ever that the "Romeo & Juliet" modernized angle is what Nolan is going with. It's very diverse. Like someone plucked 25 people off the streets of Manhattan.



I didn't draw the circles, just FYI.

---

Don't they get "Oscar" points for being diverse these days?

---

AI answer:

Movies do not get extra "points" for diversity to win an Oscar; instead, they must pass a mandatory minimum checklist to be eligible for the Best Picture award. To qualify, films must meet at least two out of four diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) standards established by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. [1, 2, 3, 4]
The four categories films are evaluated against include: [1]

• On-Screen Representation and Narratives: Having underrepresented groups (such as women, people of color, LGBTQ+, or people with disabilities) as lead actors, supporting actors, or central to the film's plot/themes. [1, 2, 3]
• Creative Leadership and Crew: Hiring individuals from underrepresented groups for key behind-the-scenes roles, such as directors, writers, department heads, or a certain percentage of the overall crew. [1, 2, 3]
• Industry Access and Opportunities: Offering paid internships, apprenticeships, or training programs to underrepresented groups. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• Audience Development: Having diverse teams working in film marketing, publicity, and distribution. [1, 2, 3]

Passing these criteria simply unlocks eligibility; it does not grant bonus votes or directly influence who wins the awards. The actual winners are still determined by the votes cast by Academy members based on artistic merit and performance. [1, 2, 3, 4]

---

^^^This is an example of a topic that has been discussed ad nauseam on this thread but keeps getting dragged up

---

I was just answering dude's question

veryfuller said:

---

zgolfz85 said:

---

GoAgs92 said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

I just went to check out the actual entire cast, and I am now more convinced than ever that the "Romeo & Juliet" modernized angle is what Nolan is going with. It's very diverse. Like someone plucked 25 people off the streets of Manhattan.



I didn't draw the circles, just FYI.

---

Don't they get "Oscar" points for being diverse these days?

---

AI answer:

Movies do not get extra "points" for diversity to win an Oscar; instead, they must pass a mandatory minimum checklist to be eligible for the Best Picture award. To qualify, films must meet at least two out of four diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) standards established by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. [1, 2, 3, 4]
The four categories films are evaluated against include: [1]

• On-Screen Representation and Narratives: Having underrepresented groups (such as women, people of color, LGBTQ+, or people with disabilities) as lead actors, supporting actors, or central to the film's plot/themes. [1, 2, 3]
• Creative Leadership and Crew: Hiring individuals from underrepresented groups for key behind-the-scenes roles, such as directors, writers, department heads, or a certain percentage of the overall crew. [1, 2, 3]
• Industry Access and Opportunities: Offering paid internships, apprenticeships, or training programs to underrepresented groups. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• Audience Development: Having diverse teams working in film marketing, publicity, and distribution. [1, 2, 3]

Passing these criteria simply unlocks eligibility; it does not grant bonus votes or directly influence who wins the awards. The actual winners are still determined by the votes cast by Academy members based on artistic merit and performance. [1, 2, 3, 4]

---

^^^This is an example of a topic that has been discussed ad nauseam on this thread but keeps getting dragged up

---

I agree on this point. Nolan didn't cast who he cast in order to meet some sort of offical Oscar quota.

This is tongue and cheek man.

Remember when we all though this movie was going to be a helicopter movie?

That wasn't specifically aimed negatively at you, just quoted to show what I was talking about.

I find it funny that so many people are getting bent out shape over the casting of Helen of Troy, when she is not a central character in The Odyssey. I think people are getting The Odyssey confused with The Iliad. She's probably going to have 5 minutes of screen time.

AustinAg2K said:

---

I find it funny that so many people are getting bent out shape over the casting of Helen of Troy, when she is not a central character in The Odyssey. I think people are getting The Odyssey confused with The Iliad. She's probably going to have 5 minutes of screen time.

---

she's still supposed to be the most beautiful woman in the ancient world....not sure what screen time has to do with it.

veryfuller said:

---

This is tongue and cheek man.

Remember when we all though this movie was going to be a helicopter movie?

---

Yes.

And I still want to see Nolan's take in Blue Thunder

veryfuller said:

---

But do you not see how much negative pilling on has happened on this thread about stuff that is unconfirmed or assumed (not just the casting choices)? And the wait and see argument isn't about the things in the trailers or the promotion, its about the making of this movie into some culture war lightning rod. I think the wait and see crowd just is baffled by that when the movie hasn't even come out yet.

---

There are most definitely people negatively piling on to an extent I may not necessarily agree with. But I can only be held responsible for things I've posted, opinions I have, or words I've used. Basically, you're appealing to the nature of an internet forum. There are many people with differing opinions, which is too many nuanced opinions for everyone to keep track of, so posters bifurcate everyone into two groups and argue vague ideas with the opposite group.

It becomes a complete mess. A lot of it I don't engage with. But when I read something that I specifically disagree with, I reply to it directly and voice why I take issue with it.

My actual opinion:

I was excited when The Odyssey was announced as Christopher Nolan's next project because (A) I love epics and (B) I love Christopher Nolan films (all except Tenet and The Dark Knight Rises).

When casting was announced, I was immediately let down by the casting of Helen of Troy. I understand Christopher Nolan has generally stayed out of the Culture War, but this felt like him finally dipping his toes into it. I have never made a claim about Nolan's actual motive for this or his expectations of this casting. I simply take issue with the raceswapping we have been getting out of Hollywood and feel betrayed by a director whom I love seemingly joining the culture war on what I consider to be the wrong side.

Am I truly upset and living my entire day cursing at the heavens? No. I post an opinion on an internet board then get back to work. Sensationalizing my feelings on the matter when only one person on this board actually knows me, is ridiculous.

These casting situations were coming up at the same time as a few lackluster trailers. I get Nolan is probably trying to not reveal too much, so the lackluster trailers never bothered me too much by themselves. It was the combination of the trailers and the seeming culture war casting. From past experiences over the last decade or so, this pattern has led to completely ****ty movies and shows that have flopped. Does that mean Nolan will fall into the same pitfall? I don't know. I have made no claim one way or the other, I have only pointed towards the pattern. Again, we are humans and pattern recognition is a fundamental human attribute. The only opinion I have been consistent on is that I hope it is good.

For these reasons, I have also concluded that, even if the movie turns out to be great, it will be in lieu of the horrible casting choices. Example: Dazed and Confused is one of my favorite movies of all time. I have seen it countless times and love it so much. This is in lieu of the god-awful choice of the actor for Mitch Kramer constantly grabbing the bridge of his nose. It's annoying. It takes me out of the movie because I find it so annoying. The exact same thing will happen for me every time I see Nubian Helen of Troy or a tiny confused woman playing a Greek soldier.

AustinAg2K said:

---

It's too bad the internet wasn't a big thing back when Leo and Claire Danes did Romeo and Juliet. It would have been such fun to hear everyone complain about the modern setting and wrong races for all the actors.

---

Really like that adaptation, also love Cold Mountain as a reimagining of The Odyssey. Personally, I like a solid effort toward an authentic adaptation (as much as possible), and I like a truly daring/wild adaptation. What Nolan seems to have done here is something in the middle that I don't like. It is meant to have the vague feel of a movie set in the past...but the cast, wardrobes, settings are all ****ed up. Not in a cool left-field reintepretation but in a lazy, uninspired way that just pulls you right out of immersion.

FL_Ag1998 said:

---

veryfuller said:

---

I think 99.9% of people want a cool Christopher Nolan movie more than they want a perfectly historically accurate Odyssey adaptation. We aren't getting the later, but hopeful we get the former.

---

I've refrained from posting on this thread for the past day and a half and merely enjoyed it from afar, lol, but I can't stay quiet here. I'm gonna have to jump in to refute your estimate of 99.9% agree with your viewpoint. That's you projecting. Clearly there's more than 0.01% of the potential audience that wants a historically accurate version (yes, yes, as historically accurate as one can get with a myth).

---

I think anyone arguing for a historically accurate version needs to be able to immediately give a generally accurate recap of the plot, settings, and characters of the original.

Because I'd bet that eliminates 99.9% of the people complaining about it.