fig96 said:

---

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.

---

You don't remember enough about The Odyssey that you read in AP Lit as an 11th grader? I'm sorry, that means you get this slopified version and have to like it!

Cliff.Booth said:

---

fig96 said:

---

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.

---

You don't remember enough about The Odyssey that you read in AP Lit as an 11th grader? I'm sorry, that means you get this slopified version and have to like it!

---

You don't like it, more power to you. But if you're complaining about the accuracy of something, it's not unreasonable to expect that you actually know what's inaccurate.

A lot of people are hopping on the "historically inaccurate" bandwagon while having zero actual knowledge of what they're talking about.

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.

---

John Leguizamo was also in Romeo + Juliet.

Shared universe?!

Hoping Kang the Conqueror makes an appearance.

Cliff.Booth said:

---

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.

---

100%. well said. I'm fine with one or the other -- I don't know anyone who would want an in between. Either give us Gladiator or give us Romeo + Juliet.

It really doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to know things like, what a Greek looks like, what a Greek deity looks like, what armor/clothing from roughly that time look like, what their naval vessels looked like, what the Mediterranean in general looks like.

I actually have a decent threshold for artistic liberties that serve a purpose. Braveheart is in my top 10 and takes SO many liberties, but unless you're a medievalist expert or Scottish history purist, it largely doesn't matter because it tells an amazing story and puts you into that world. They made changes, but they were thoughtful and the end product worked.

Odyssey seems to have gone off the rails.

For the love of god touch grass

M.C. Swag said:

---

For the love of god touch grass

---

Can someone give me TLR summary for why people are upset? Is it as simple as historic figures being portrayed by black men and women, or characters being gay?

fig96 said:

---

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.

---

What about the crowd that I may fall into...One that had zero interest in reading it when I was less mature in HS, and was hoping for a somewhat accurate depiction so that I could finally be brought up to speed and see what all the fuss was about.

El Mero Mero 14 said:

---

Can someone give me TLR summary for why people are upset? Is it as simple as historic figures being portrayed by black men and women, or characters being gay?

---

We are annoyed that we are being called "crazy" and all sorts of names and being accused of being racist for thinking they could have cast "the most beautiful and desireable demigod woman in all of the ancient world" as someone other than this...



Would have been fine with Halle Berry or Zoe S personally.

Do you find her insanely beautiful? If so, you are likely in the minority. Feels like a DEI hire fosho. Looks like the slightly prettier sister of Biden's press secretary imo...doesn't ooze "intoxicatingly beautiful greek goddess" to me or most others but whatever...

Interesting, didn't think of it that way, but agreed

Cliff.Booth said:

---

It really doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to know things like, what a Greek looks like, what a Greek deity looks like, what armor/clothing from roughly that time look like, what their naval vessels looked like, what the Mediterranean in general looks like.

I actually have a decent threshold for artistic liberties that serve a purpose. Braveheart is in my top 10 and takes SO many liberties, but unless you're a medievalist expert or Scottish history purist, it largely doesn't matter because it tells an amazing story and puts you into that world. They made changes, but they were thoughtful and the end product worked.

Odyssey seems to have gone off the rails.

---

Do you really think an average person could point out what's wrong with the armor or clothing of a particular character, or what a ship should look like, without googling? Because I don't.

Hell, a whole lot of people took issue with Pedro Pascal playing a character in Gladiator whose statue he literally matched.

I'm just saying the people like to get outraged, generally about things that mostly meaningless like this, and the majority that do so are just hopping on a bandwagon for clicks or because they like to argue on the internet.

Will this suck? Be good? Who knows? (Though Nolan has a pretty good track record.) But I doubt that the skin color or wardrobe choices are going to be the reason either way.

If you hate it because of actual historical inaccuracies, knock yourself out.

Cliff.Booth said:

---

fig96 said:

---

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.

---

You don't remember enough about The Odyssey that you read in AP Lit as an 11th grader? I'm sorry, that means you get this slopified version and have to like it!

---

Ha exactly...although I am hoping you are wrong and this surprises me.

Yeah dude, the Viking longships, Xena-looking armor that is brand new, no wear and tear, the bleak drab look in a region bursting with color, and the DEI casting are all obviously wrong. I get that there are some people who flat out don't give a ****. Those same people wouldn't have cared if Hardy was piloting a F4-phantom in Dunkirk. But, I'm just saying that all of the people expressing disappointment with how Odyssey looks are not just complaining for fun, it really does look bad. Even if the cast was right I would still feel like this movie looks pretty bad.

Just read this

The most historically accurate part of the movie is that Anne Hathaway is only 13 years older than her "son" Tom Holland.

One Eyed Reveille said:

---

Just read this

The most historically accurate part of the movie is that Anne Hathaway is only 13 years older than her "son" Tom Hollad.

---

You should avoid Oliver Stone's Alexander

amercer said:

---

One Eyed Reveille said:

---

Just read this

The most historically accurate part of the movie is that Anne Hathaway is only 13 years older than her "son" Tom Hollad.

---

You should avoid Oliver Stone's Alexander

---

Alexander the Great? More like Alexander the Bottomed Out

Hardcore Greg said:

---

El Mero Mero 14 said:

---

Can someone give me TLR summary for why people are upset? Is it as simple as historic figures being portrayed by black men and women, or characters being gay?

---

We are annoyed that we are being called "crazy" and all sorts of names and being accused of being racist for thinking they could have cast "the most beautiful and desireable demigod woman in all of the ancient world" as someone other than this...



Would have been fine with Halle Berry or Zoe S personally.

Do you find her insanely beautiful? If so, you are likely in the minority. Feels like a DEI hire fosho. Looks like the slightly prettier sister of Biden's press secretary imo...doesn't ooze "intoxicatingly beautiful greek goddess" to me or most others but whatever...

---

Who did they cast?

FancyKetchup14 said:

---

amercer said:

---

One Eyed Reveille said:

---

Just read this

The most historically accurate part of the movie is that Anne Hathaway is only 13 years older than her "son" Tom Hollad.

---

You should avoid Oliver Stone's Alexander

---

Alexander the Great? More like Alexander the Bottomed Out

---

Well if your mom is only 11 months old when she gives birth to you, I think we can expect some personality quirks

WELP!! I cannot unsee this image comparison; dead on accurate.

Hardcore Greg said:

---

fig96 said:

---

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.

---

What about the crowd that I may fall into...One that had zero interest in reading it when I was less mature in HS, and was hoping for a somewhat accurate depiction so that I could finally be brought up to speed and see what all the fuss was about.

---

I would say let's wait and see what's in the actual movie?

Quote:

---

Hardy was piloting a F4-phantom in Dunkirk

---

OOOOH, I want this movie so bad. A sequel to The Final Countdown, perhaps.

This movie came up at a 4th of July gathering last weekend, and I was reminded that it's pointless to even mention seeing it due to people who will pretend to be offended that someone else watched it much less possibly even enjoyed it (the horror!!!). We'll see about the latter part soon enough.

Imagine being such an insufferable ***** that you have to dissect a cast of characters in a fictional script because they don't fit within your small worldly view. And then allow that to disrupt what should be an awesome film with a extremely trustworthy film maker.

SECcess12 said:

---

Imagine being such an insufferable ***** that you have to dissect a cast of characters in a fictional script because they don't fit within your small worldly view. And then allow that to disrupt what should be an awesome film with a extremely trustworthy film maker.

---

imagine doing a movie on the 1992 dream team and casting it with all white, asian and hispanic guys, as well as a couple of trans. And, instead of fellow humans on other Olympic basketball teams, the other teams are made up of robots and animals that have been trained to play basketball. Oh, and instead of being played in Barcelona, the Olympics actually take place in the lost city of Atlantis.

sorry that the dissection is over your head.

SECcess12 said:

---

Imagine being such an insufferable ***** that you have to dissect a cast of characters in a fictional script because they don't fit within your small worldly view. And then allow that to disrupt what should be an awesome film with a extremely trustworthy film maker.

---

Hollywood and the left have been doing this for many years. It's only a problem with it's done from a white or western point of view. It's only "cultural appropriation" when it's a white person taking anything from a brown, black, asian, etc. When it's the other way around, it's insufferable and racist to point it out.

I see...

May sound fine to you. For me, that logic does not compute.

I could be wrong, but I don't think cultural appropriation has been a big thing for a while now. Most people, rightfully so, thought it was pretty silly.

But if you spend enough time online, I'm sure you'll find examples to rile you up.

The internet of course isn't the real world. Most people out there are not extreme. They're going about their lives, getting along fine. And they're not getting worked up about what "the left" or "maga" are doing.

Lathspell said:

---

SECcess12 said:

---

Imagine being such an insufferable ***** that you have to dissect a cast of characters in a fictional script because they don't fit within your small worldly view. And then allow that to disrupt what should be an awesome film with a extremely trustworthy film maker.

---

Hollywood and the left have been doing this for many years. It's only a problem with it's done from a white or western point of view. It's only "cultural appropriation" when it's a white person taking anything from a brown, black, asian, etc. When it's the other way around, it's insufferable and racist to point it out.

I see...

May sound fine to you. For me, that logic does not compute.

---

At what point does the color of skin matter in a fictional story about Greek mythology?

If they were all white, you could argue that its still culturally inaccurate. I guess he should found a bunch of non A listers to put this thing together that were from Greece to make a real impact.

I, for one, would prefer to just enjoy the story, enjoy the cinematography and what should be good music as well, versus worry about what the characters look like.

And I will call out the race-swapping when it happens because I am fatigued.

Looks like we can agree to disagree. See how easy that is? If you post something with an opinion that doesn't outright attack another person, it doesn't drag the discussion out across 20 pages.

double aught said:

---

I could be wrong, but I don't think cultural appropriation has been a big thing for a while now. Most people, rightfully so, thought it was pretty silly.

But if you spend enough time online, I'm sure you'll find examples to rile you up.

The internet of course isn't the real world. Most people out there are not extreme. They're going about their lives, getting along fine. And they're not getting worked up about what "the left" or "maga" are doing.

---

Not going to touch this because that leads to a culture war discussion without The Odyssey being the focus. If you want to discuss culture war stuff for the sake of arguments on the culture war, feel free to start a thread. I will say, your claim has no basis. You're simply assuming because it sounds good or it is your anecdotal experience. That is not a good argument.

I have said his point before, and ask it again: Technically the whole thing is race swapped. None of them are greek. So where is the line supposed to be on this?

I understand the argument that Hollywood has been doing this for a while, etc. But there are two competing arguments you are making. It can't be historically accurate and have an all white cast.

SECcess12 said:

---

Imagine being such an insufferable ***** that you have to dissect a cast of characters in a fictional script because they don't fit within your small worldly view. And then allow that to disrupt what should be an awesome film with an extremely trustworthy film maker.

---

Imagine thinking of yourself as inclusive, except for people that have a different view on things and thinking you have some moral or intellectual superiority over them. So shallow that you think diversity is labeled through skin color, and not through the collective of intellect, culture, and experience. That would suck to be that small.

I guess it could be the difference of "brain off -> watch movie" versus "brain on -> watch movie".

If you are just going into the movie for eye candy, then yes you are absolutely right that it is a waste of time to discuss the small nuances of a film.

But if you go into the film looking for things that entertain and also stimulate your brain, whether that is accuracy of lore or character choices or cultural ties, then there could be areas that may please or displease a viewers experience.

Neither are bad, just a personal preference.

veryfuller said:

---

I have said his point before, and ask it again: Technically the whole thing is race swapped. None of them are greek. So where is the line supposed to be on this?

I understand the argument that Hollywood has been doing this for a while, etc. But there are two competing arguments you are making. It can't be historically accurate and have an all white cast.

---

now that I agree with. It's a very blurred line, especially when you're talking about mythology. I think the egregious examples, while isolated, are what are ruffling most feathers. But, let's be honest -- the majority of the controversy hinges on the elliott page stuff.