Can someone explain me the casting controversy around this film?
I've only heard a trans actor was cast as Achilles, which is, if you actually know the Illiad, a choice that absolutely makes sense.
Don't know what the other controversy is about though.
Lupita Nyong'o is black and plays Helen. The original poster in the meme thinks this would be fixed by casting the above actress who, if you've wver been to Greece, looks way more caucasian/white than your average Greek.
Had to Google her but Helen's main thing is that she is one of the most beautiful women in the world, so once again absolutely defendable casting.
I don't know why I would join in in such stupid non-discussions anyhow, as if any maga idiot would be convinced by rational arguments, or as if I should care as a European.
When you don't have a horse in the race (I'm Asian), both sides are absolutely hilariously dumb. Studios do racebait viewers. The only reason this movie is discussed so much and the attention is diverted from the godawful costumes and production value in general is because people are discussing races of actors. Racists bite, start bitching and moaning about it, then the other side joins the discussion. The only winner is hollywood
I thought you were gonna cook until you said both sides then I said ahhhhh but then I kept reading and I kind of agree with you. Also the only winner besides Hollywood… is those that enjoy the product lol. Me a black guy, am happy to see Lupita play Helen. That’s a win for me
Nah, one side are objectively evil detestable human beings. And I understand that "both sides" is in dogwhistle territory at this point so I get your initial reaction
Also the only winner besides Hollywood… is those that enjoy the product lol. Me a black guy, am happy to see Lupita play Helen. That’s a win for me
Nah, one side are objectively evil detestable human beings.
Sorry can you clarify what the sides are and which one youre on then?
I thought one side was "casting good" and the other "casting bad".
In the "casting bad" camp you have a split between the "historical accuracy" types and the racists. It's muddled by the racists pretending to be the former. If you criticize Helen, Matt Damon, Tom Holland and Batman style costumes youre likely former. If you focus on Helen only you're likely latter.
Presumably this is the "objectively evil" side even though you seem to be part of the non racially motivated historical accuracy camp.
In "casting good" camp, they rightfully point out that the most vocal of the "casting bad" camp are being pretty vile and racist. They will sometimes annoyingly play dumb towards historical arguments and paint them in the same camp as the racists. This appears to have happened to you which is why youre now turning on the historical group and doing the same to separate yourself from the racists.
I see no issue with historical accuracy — it's Odyssey. We'll see sea monsters, cyclopses (what's plural for cyclops?), witches, gods. Historical accuracy was never in the picture. I think people crying "historical accuracy" are just racists
I think I should clarify — terrible costumes and historical accuracy are two separate things. I want certain level of immersion, the costumes look ass and I'll think about the costumes being ass the entire time if I go see the movie
And I see no problem in a black actor/actress playing a character. My favorite piece of media on greek mythology is Hades and if you played that game... half of the pantheon are black people
I don't like this particular actress but it's neither here nor there since that's not my issue with the discourse (or the movie)
I simply refuse to believe that the casting was made without them knowing this will cause a shitstorm. And I think they did it intentionally anticipating the shitstorm. It's free publicity and allows for certain details to be overlooked. And I don't think that the political climate worldwide is healthy enough to fan the flames when it's not needed
I see no issue with historical accuracy — it's Odyssey. We'll see sea monsters, cyclopses (what's plural for cyclops?), witches, gods. Historical accuracy was never in the picture.
That comes across to me as somewhat bad faith. Of course it is fantasy, but it is fantasy from a historical culture.
My ideal for a story like this is that the story should be as true as possible to how the early iron age Greeks would have pictured the story in their heads when Homer first told it.
Anachronisms are "fine" to me in this story if they're portraying bronze age from an iron age perspective. Less so if theyre using Roman perspectives.
Thats the angle I'm personally coming from when discussing "historical accuracy" in a fantasy.
I think people crying "historical accuracy" are just racists
I guess thats me now huh?
Why does criticizing Tom Holland as "too american" come across as racist?
I think I should clarify — terrible costumes and historical accuracy are two separate things. I want certain level of immersion, the costumes look ass and I'll think about the costumes being ass the entire time if I go see the movie
I guess I should clarify i dont see them separate at all? Historical inaccuracies aren't bad unless I notice them. Any historical issue is either immersion breaking or not noticed. My issue just like yours is immersion.
"Good" Roman costumes aren't what I want to see.
And I see no problem in a black actor/actress playing a character. My favorite piece of media on greek mythology is Hades and if you played that game... half of the pantheon are black people
No one worth talking to has the issue with them playing a character. I think this conversation is more about which characters and in which context.
Helen's casting is not nearly as bad as having Tom Holland or Matt Damon but I think we all know why she's the center of discourse.
I personally would not hold Hades to the the same expectations of being faithful to the source material as a direct adaptation like Odyssey should in my mind. I would like to see Nolan make the story of the Odyssey, not a Greek fanfic.
I have no problems with greek fanfics if thats the story, Hades or Percy Jackson or Kaos and would not come from the same "historical" angle for those
That's just not what I am interested in for this story.
I simply refuse to believe that the casting was made without them knowing this will cause a shitstorm. And I think they did it intentionally anticipating the shitstorm. It's free publicity and allows for certain details to be overlooked
I tend to agree with you, but I find it interesting people in this thread are accusing you of promoting a white replacement theory and saying you must be racist for it in the same way you're casting my historical critiques as racist.
Im wondering if there's more nuance and good faith people have learned not to speak lest be grouped together with racists.
It seems like youre looking for a benefit of the doubt for your particular view "not being racist" but not giving it out to others.
Helen's casting is not nearly as bad as having Tom Holland or Matt Damon but I think we all know why she's the center of discourse.
Oh yeah, totally. The entire cast is garbage when you try to match looks to what you would imagine the Odyssey to be. I prefer to view it as "theater vs cinema" thing. Theaters rarely have actors playing characters who visually match them. And that's one of the reasons why I don't particularly enjoy theater. But that's not really about historical accuracy
Tom Holland will be Telemachus, right? I don't see it at all. And Matt Damon as Odysseus doesn't click with me either
I guess thats me now huh?
First of all, I haven't seen you express any opinions on that matter. And if you did in your previous comment, I must've misread it. Second, I think I might need to adjust my previous statement: "People who cry "historical accuracy" when talking about the casting of Helen and her only are racist". And let's face it, those are the majority
are accusing you of promoting a white replacement theory
That's reddit. The world is on fire and people are on edge. While we're having this discussion I have another conversation here on reddit with a nazi explaining to me that Russian people are being replaced by migrants in a grand conspiracy. I'm not joking, you can open my profile, the last comments are mocking the imbecile. So people here accusing me of parroting rightwing opinions are hilariously off the mark. But it's okay, I understand the sentiment. The world is on fire, people tend to have kneejerk reactions to anything that might be perceived as aligning with nazis
I prefer to view it as "theater vs cinema" thing. Theaters rarely have actors playing characters who visually match them. And that's one of the reasons why I don't particularly enjoy theater. But that's not really about historical accuracy
Oh yeah theater production gives no shits about historical accuracy and very few complain.
I think there is a bit of a difference as theater is inherently retelling the same story with different casts by design of having to put on a different show every night.
Movies are rewatched so there's more effort to have a "definitive version" that gets everything perfect for the next decade at least. There is no singular actor who plays Hamlet over decades in theater the same way Wolverine is played in a cinematic universe.
In theater if you dont like this current cast wait till next season.
Tom Holland will be Telemachus, right? I don't see it at all. And Matt Damon as Odysseus doesn't click with me either
Thats right. Terrible casting in my opinion. Lupita is third behind them in the badly casted department from my perspective, and its why after Tom and Matt I don't really have much to say besides this movie that on paper is made for no one else but me isn't for me at all.
First of all, I haven't seen you express any opinions on that matter.
I haven't in the thread sorry. I just do tend to care about "historical accuracy" in historical settings. A movie that is entertaining but also educational is always going to interest me over one simply made to be entertaining.
Again, I have no issue with A Knights Tale or 1996 Romeo and Juliet, or Inglorious Basterds not being true to history. They have their place. Not every movie has to be accurate to history.
I just think some movies like the Last Duel or Gladiator of even The Odyssey have more responsibility.
Its kinda a vibes thing thats hard to explain.
Second, I think I might need to adjust my previous statement: "People who cry "historical accuracy" when talking about the casting of Helen and her only are racist". And let's face it, those are the majority
I would say that's fair. Helen is the face of a discussion she's not nearly the worst offender on. And that's because this is a culture war battle, not history nerds like me expressing critiques.
The studio didn't do casting, Nolan did, he's a popular enough director to just pick who he wants for parts. You say you're somehow above this, but fall into the rhetoric muck of conservative peabrains.
And? It contradicts what I said how exactly? Or do you think I literally mean "studio" as a defined set of people working for a studio that somehow exclude the director?
You say you're somehow above this
Aaaand can you point to where exactly I say that?
but fall into the rhetoric muck of conservative peabrains.
If conservative peabrains will start chanting "eating leafy greens and drinking enough water is good for your health", I won't disagree just because conservative peabrains are saying that
And AFAIK conservative peabrains think this whole thing is about some grand replacement conspiracy or pushing "agenda", my view different from them in that I recognize that it's Hollywood stirring shit so that people talk about it
And if anything you can't fault me for falling for this bs. Because even in the comment you replied to I pointed out the shitty production value we see in the trailers
Calling it a studio decision makes it sound like a soulless corporation casting to cause controversy.
Saying Nolan cast non-white actors to hide poor production quality and make idiots mad sounds around as smart as "replacement theory."
What's a simpler and more common sense explanation: the multi-billion dollar director making a 250 million dollar film cast minorities in his film which he has full control over just to hide that he makes bad costuming choices and "racebait." Or he just likes those actors and thinks they will give an interesting performance.
You say "I don't have a horse in this race" and refer to "both sides." It implies you're not in either side, and you're seeing things clearly. But the assertion of the right is that these actors are not cast genuinely or sincerely- it's not because of their ability or any artistic vision, it's to "cause controversy." Your perspective is just their perspective with a little smugness on top.
Saying Nolan cast non-white actors to hide poor production quality and make idiots mad sounds around as smart as "replacement theory."
If you think Nolan doesn't concern himself with Hollywood meta, you must be blind. If you think he's in the game purely for artistic expression, I suggest you watch his recent-ish interview and the way he speaks about Star Wars. He's a human being, he can have and does have motives other than artistic expression
It implies you're not in either side, and you're seeing things clearly
I do. "Above this" — no, more like "with a different perspective". Because I'm detached from the issue and don't have any apparent bias... because... you know... I'm not white or black
But hey, it takes two sides to culture war tango. And if in the year of our shitshow two thousand and 25 you haven't figured out that media stokes the flames to get your attention, I guess I envy the bliss
Actually the right attitude would be to recognize they're trying to stir up a culture war by purposely miscasting and calling them out on it, not pretending like it's a good casting.
151
u/SosseV 13d ago
Can someone explain me the casting controversy around this film? I've only heard a trans actor was cast as Achilles, which is, if you actually know the Illiad, a choice that absolutely makes sense.
Don't know what the other controversy is about though.