He was real yellow.
D'oh!
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if the very first version that Homer ever recited to people was very different from the version that was eventually written down.
Yeeaaahh, I've been waiting for that.
Probably in some cases, sure. But absolutely NOT in every case. Certainly not in my case. It should be possible to discuss this without someone throwing the standard blanket accusation. There can be other reasons, whether you can imagine them or not.
I doubt that very much, I'm pretty sure Nolan cast the movie based on who he wanted to work with and who fit the roles. I find it very hard to believe he's really so petty that he would cast people in the movie just to piss off his potential audience.
By Nolan? That’s absurd.
Perfect.
Musk's basic aesthetic judgment, to dignify his gibberings about her suitability for the part, is utterly worthless. He approved the Cybertruck design.
I personally feel that the Helen character would likely have been served better by casting someone of a more Mediterranean variety. But what to I know?
As for the historical accuracy of the armor and vessels used, Hollywood frequently seems to sacrifice accuracy for "kewl factor". In the 1981 film Excalibur, for example, Gabriel Byrne's Uther Pendragon, Morgana and a number of other characters wore full plate armor. Uther was said to have lived around the 5th or 6th century, but plate armor didn't come into use by soldiers and knights until around 13th to 14th century. It's farby* and suspension of disbelief is necessary if one happens to know a little about history when watching these things.
* "Farb" (noun) and "farby" (adjective) is a (bit of a pejorative) term used in historical reenacting/living history circles towards newer members of units who have inappropriately modern-looking uniforms and/or equipment. This usually happens when it's hard to find something that looks good/right or is too expensive. The term "farb" comes from the longer sentence, "Far be it for me to tell you, son, that what you're wearing is NOT period-correct." God help them if they whip out a cell phone to take pictures in the middle of a tactical demonstration with spectators.
I agree with your point regarding Excalibur as far as it goes. However, I think it's a mistake to classify Excalibur as demonstrating any aspirations of being a historical film on any level in the first place. It's pure fantasy, start to finish. Accordingly, it has no aspirations to have fidelity to any historical period, nor does it require them. Anyone who's "pulled out of the film" because the armor is not supposedly period accurate is blind to far more serious ahistorical elements, mainly such as the essential role in the story of magic and the supernatural. The choice of armor should be a cue, one cue among others, that we shouldn't be trying to place it in any historical period. It's meant to be timeless and other-worldly. There's no conceit that it "could have happened".
This is a really enjoyable and informative video from someone who's read The Odyssey ten times in the last decade and has read five different translations of the text who absolutely rips apart some of the more idiotic critiques on the Nolan trailer ("Tell me you've never read a single translation of 'The Odyssey' without telling me you've never read a single translation of 'The Odyssey'" ).
She basically calls out and tears apart the notion the Emily Wilson translation of the text, which is the one Nolan supposedly referred to, was somehow sanitized and modernized to modern politically correct sensibilities, as claimed by a popular YouTuber that she doesn't name (the critical drinker). She points out that the Wilson translation is actually considered to be the one that is most accurate to the original text. Misogynistic language, words such as "bitch" and "whore", that are present in the translations written by men are not actually a part of the original text in any way. She also goes on to point out that, the Wilson translation didn't sugarcoat words such as "slave" by replacing it with the word "handmaiden", like the male translations do.
She then goes on to rip the trailer apart on her own terms as someone intimately familiar with the text.
She offers some different perspectives that I hadn't considered and questions a number of Nolan's choices (the Batman armor comes up more than once). In the comments section, someone commented, "Can you imagine what kind of movie we could have gotten if a director treated 'The Odyssey' with the same care and attention that Peter Jackson treated 'Lord of the Rings'?", and she replied with, "We could only dream.
"
And I have to say I empathize with that. Peter Jackson did strive to set a standard in his adaptation, and I know how I would have felt as a fan of the books if he had done otherwise.
And she doesn't necessarily agree with all of Nolan's casting choices, either. She would have reversed the casting of Anne Hathaway and Lupita Nyong'o characters, and doesn't see the point of Nyong'o also playing Clytemnestra because then there would be two faces that "launched a thousand ships". However, and I give her her due for this, she's not going to pass any kind of final judgment until she's seen the final product. Good on her.
She basically calls out and tears apart the notion the Emily Wilson translation of the text, which is the one Nolan supposedly referred to, was somehow sanitized and modernized to modern politically correct sensibilities, as claimed by a popular YouTuber that she doesn't name (the critical drinker). She points out that the Wilson translation is actually considered to be the one that is most accurate to the original text. Misogynistic language, words such as "bitch" and "whore", that are present in the translations written by men are not actually a part of the original text in any way. She also goes on to point out that, the Wilson translation didn't sugarcoat words such as "slave" by replacing it with the word "handmaiden", like the male translations do.
She then goes on to rip the trailer apart on her own terms as someone intimately familiar with the text.
She offers some different perspectives that I hadn't considered and questions a number of Nolan's choices (the Batman armor comes up more than once). In the comments section, someone commented, "Can you imagine what kind of movie we could have gotten if a director treated 'The Odyssey' with the same care and attention that Peter Jackson treated 'Lord of the Rings'?", and she replied with, "We could only dream.
"And I have to say I empathize with that. Peter Jackson did strive to set a standard in his adaptation, and I know how I would have felt as a fan of the books if he had done otherwise.
And she doesn't necessarily agree with all of Nolan's casting choices, either. She would have reversed the casting of Anne Hathaway and Lupita Nyong'o characters, and doesn't see the point of Nyong'o also playing Clytemnestra because then there would be two faces that "launched a thousand ships". However, and I give her her due for this, she's not going to pass any kind of final judgment until she's seen the final product. Good on her.
Last edited:
With the possible exception of Pedro Armendariz. He wasn't Asian to my knowledge, yet he came off relatively well anyhow.
That was brought up by one or two people early on but got washed away with all of the Lupita Nyong'o discourse.
I understand why some people have that issue but the only time I've ever had that problem was in a couple of scenes of Tenet. And I say that as someone who has some minor hearing issues.