Cliff.Booth said:

---

TC, doing what he does best, name-calling just because some people have a criticism he doesn't share. If you would prefer a different treatment of a topic, you're a history dork killjoy. OK.

---

Oh no!

I offhandedly/non-directly referred to a collective group of people as "dorks"!

How will you survive?

Where I kinda got the idea. Offers a different style to tell a familiar story, but also might allow for weird time stuff the Nolan likes

wangus12 said:

---

I'm starting to wonder if we see the Odyssey through Telemachus's ears as he journeys around the Aegean trying to find his dad. And then all the scenes are of Odysseus are actually the recounts of his exploits as known from what others have heard.

I'm also still wondering how they fit it all into 1 movie. There is so much to it.

---

Would make sense based on how the prologue is structured.

I made a comparison video of the Odyssey trailer in Scope (standard) vs Flat (Dolby, Digital IMAX & other PLFs). It’ll be even more grand in 1.43 IMAX. Can't wait to watch it on the big screen next year pic.twitter.com/yfaLnkiRTS

— LA Flame (@utopianrager) December 22, 2025

Cliff.Booth said:

---

TC, doing what he does best, name-calling just because some people have a criticism he doesn't share. If you would prefer a different treatment of a topic, you're a history dork killjoy. OK.

---

Yall are a bunch of harpies

Just so you know, every time you post about a Nolan movie in IMAX you piss me off a little more because the closest true IMAX to me is 4 hrs away in Miami.

Worth the drive.

Since you’re asking in total sincerity, it’s a strong choice with a clear visual contrast that allows for clean action scenes and striking imagery in various modes of lighting.

It also evokes Greco-Roman clay pottery decorations, just one form through which these stories endure. https://t.co/JGaxGSdIhz

— Darren Mooney (@Darren_Mooney) December 23, 2025

Finally, in a film that seems likely in some way to be about pop mythology (even the IMAX prologues opens with, “you’ve heard the story about the Horse?”), it provides a clear tether to our own pop mythology of “Star Wars.”

Which Nolan narrated to his classmates as a kid. pic.twitter.com/FjWVsFFE3Y

— Darren Mooney (@Darren_Mooney) December 23, 2025

AGinHI said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

Right now it seems like it is stuck somewhere between realistic and impressionist. Some things look like they tried to be period accurate (ships and Odysseus) and some things look like a modern interpretation (Agamemnon). If you are going for modern interpretation, than commit to that and lean in, you can't do it half way.

---

And that's the rub.

It's not about "historical accuracy truthers" (or nerds, whichever you prefer) as much as somebody wants to quip and belittle people pointing out an oddity.

The story, you yourself are telling, occurs in a particular period which you show us, gods and mythological beings aside. It's a period we are accustomed to. The swords, armor, clothing, ships, all have a particular look that we are familiar with. Nothing over the top.

And then we see this silly modern Batman armor that stands in stark contrast to everything else you've shown us. It's odd.

That's all.

---

Except it's not just "pointing out an oddity."

Most of it is actively and annoyingly complaining, if not outright mocking, without having seen the movie in-full yet, which this board is notorious for.

Also, calling it an "oddity" and "silly" is your opinion (just like I'm stating mine). It's not an objective fact the costuming doesn't match the "period," because - again - this "period," wherein there were literal gods and monsters, never existed. Comparing it to, say, the real-life Troy, and "pointing out" that the helmets or whatever should honor either that real-life history, or your subjective, pre-conceived notion, while simultaneously giving a pass to the existence of the giant, one-eyed cave troll, just doesn't make sense. It's inconsistent, if not hilarious, to cry "That's not what the helmets looked like!" while then shrugging your shoulders at the existence of a cyclops.

I usually love your perspectives, but this one is way off.

"doesn't match the "period," because - again - this "period," wherein there were literal gods and monsters, never existed."


Homer absolutely set his fictional work "in a period". In this case the Late Bronze Age (around 1200 BCE), after the Trojan War. Just because the work is old doesn't mean the writer didn't originally have a time period in his mind when he wrote the work of fiction. If someone did a remake of Interview with a Vampire, with vampire hunters in the 1800s in full modern day Navy Seal gear, People might legitimately comment on it saying, "wow that was distracting to the story to see Navy Seals running around in the 1800s."

It would not be a sane response to say, "well that time period didn't actually exist. We're talking about a movie with vampires".

For one, nothing in this trailer is "modern" or the equivalent of "Navy Seal gear," so that comparison isn't quite apt.

Second, every rebuttal continues to ignore the existence of the fantasy elements. When, "around 1200 BCE," there were no Greek gods, no Cyclops, no Scylla, no sirens, etc. Therefore, this is an alternate universe. A myth. And in this alternate universe/myth, whatever influences, conditions, or sorcery led to the existence of Cyclops could have just as easily led to, say, architectural columns being square instead of cylindrical (one of the complaints mentioned above). That's the whole point. Even if Homer had a specific *year* in mind, you simply can't cry "historical inaccuracy" when it comes to the columns/helmets while ignoring the existence of fantastical monsters. That's just straight up inconsistent, disingenuous, nonsensical, hypocritical, etc, etc...

Disagree. The original story was set in our world with fantastical gods, creatures etc. not in an alternative universe with square columns and robocop helmets.

This is Nolan's take, and he has decided to put his own spin on it, which seems completely unnecessary and distracting. Ala his buddy Ridley Scott deciding to have fighting baboons and Rhinos in Rome when they didn't exist. I'm completely willing to see where this goes because I like Nolan, but I can understand why this is irksome to some people. It's a legit criticism and Nolan defenders are being as obstinent in his defense as his attackers are IMO.

Apache said:

---

Disagree. The original story was set in our world with fantastical gods, creatures etc. not in an alternative universe with square columns and robocop helmets.

This is Nolan's take, and he has decided to put his own spin on it, which seems completely unnecessary and distracting. Ala his buddy Ridley Scott deciding to have fighting baboons and Rhinos in Rome when they didn't exist. I'm completely willing to see where this goes because I like Nolan, but I can understand why this is irksome to some people. It's a legit criticism and Nolan defenders are being as obstinent in his defense as his attackers are IMO.

---

This sentence makes no sense. It's pure contradiction.

"Our world" does not have, nor has it ever had, "fantastical gods, creatures (like the one in the book), etc."

Therefore, it cannot be our world.

Therefore, it's an alternate world.

Similar? Yes.

"Ours"? No.

A lot of people complain about the "historical inaccuracy" of the armor in The Odyssey. They are wrong. Why?

Because Nolan is being historically accurate to the way the Greeks were historically inaccurate. For one, Google the "Siren Vase," which was made almost 400 years after… https://t.co/xTfBvjnqhu

— Adrian Chmielarz 🧙‍♀️🔥 (@adrianchm) December 22, 2025

Quote:

---

A lot of people complain about the "historical inaccuracy" of the armor in The Odyssey. They are wrong. Why?

Because Nolan is being historically accurate to the way the Greeks were historically inaccurate. For one, Google the "Siren Vase," which was made almost 400 years after Homer. It shows Odysseus and his ship versus the Sirens -- and nothing checks out. The ship is too modern, as are the hairstyles and the headbands of the crew.

Greeks, including Homer, always wanted the heroes of the Odyssey to look like, well, heroes. A weird dude in a wild boar's tusk helmet wouldn't cut it. That is why they always made the heroes look current. Nolan is just paying tribute to that, making sure we also see them as heroes rather than some weird forest crew.

And don't get me started on how Homer himself was highly inaccurate with the armor, confusing bronze with iron all the time...

---

TCTTS said:

---

AGinHI said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

Right now it seems like it is stuck somewhere between realistic and impressionist. Some things look like they tried to be period accurate (ships and Odysseus) and some things look like a modern interpretation (Agamemnon). If you are going for modern interpretation, than commit to that and lean in, you can't do it half way.

---

And that's the rub.

It's not about "historical accuracy truthers" (or nerds, whichever you prefer) as much as somebody wants to quip and belittle people pointing out an oddity.

The story, you yourself are telling, occurs in a particular period which you show us, gods and mythological beings aside. It's a period we are accustomed to. The swords, armor, clothing, ships, all have a particular look that we are familiar with. Nothing over the top.

And then we see this silly modern Batman armor that stands in stark contrast to everything else you've shown us. It's odd.

That's all.

---

Except it's not just "pointing out an oddity."

Most of it is actively and annoyingly complaining, if not outright mocking, without having seen the movie in-full yet, which this board is notorious for.

Also, calling it an "oddity" and "silly" is your opinion (just like I'm stating mine). It's not an objective fact the costuming doesn't match the "period," because - again - this "period," wherein there were literal gods and monsters, never existed. Comparing it to, say, the real-life Troy, and "pointing out" that the helmets or whatever should honor either that real-life history, or your subjective, pre-conceived notion, while simultaneously giving a pass to the existence of the giant, one-eyed cave troll, just doesn't make sense. It's inconsistent, if not hilarious, to cry "That's not what the helmets looked like!" while then shrugging your shoulders at the existence of a cyclops.

---

Hey,

You know I don't like Agamemnon's armor?

I'm going to be waiting for him to sound like a Death Trooper when he walks.

[heavy raspy breathing] You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain [/heavy raspy breathing]
- Agamemnon, probably

TCTTS said:

---

A lot of people complain about the "historical inaccuracy" of the armor in The Odyssey. They are wrong. Why?

Because Nolan is being historically accurate to the way the Greeks were historically inaccurate. For one, Google the "Siren Vase," which was made almost 400 years after… https://t.co/xTfBvjnqhu

— Adrian Chmielarz 🧙‍♀️🔥 (@adrianchm) December 22, 2025

Quote:

---

A lot of people complain about the "historical inaccuracy" of the armor in The Odyssey. They are wrong. Why?

Because Nolan is being historically accurate to the way the Greeks were historically inaccurate. For one, Google the "Siren Vase," which was made almost 400 years after Homer. It shows Odysseus and his ship versus the Sirens -- and nothing checks out. The ship is too modern, as are the hairstyles and the headbands of the crew.

Greeks, including Homer, always wanted the heroes of the Odyssey to look like, well, heroes. A weird dude in a wild boar's tusk helmet wouldn't cut it. That is why they always made the heroes look current. Nolan is just paying tribute to that, making sure we also see them as heroes rather than some weird forest crew.

And don't get me started on how Homer himself was highly inaccurate with the armor, confusing bronze with iron all the time...

---

---

So you think it'll be Mechascylla?

Or more of a historic scylla Scylla?

Quote:

---

This sentence makes no sense. It's pure contradiction.

"Our world" does not have, nor has it ever had, "fantastical gods, creatures (like the one in the book), etc."

Therefore, it cannot be our world.

Therefore, it's an alternate world.

Similar? Yes.

"Ours"? No.

---

Dude I've seen your posts on the UAP thread. Anyway, I'll leave that alone

I'm having a difficult time putting thoughts to words on this RE "Alternate Universe"
I suppose what I mean is if a director sets a movie during a particular timeframe/setting, that timeframe/setting has rules at least loosely. You jack with the rules too much (like riding rhinos in ancient Rome), things get goofy.

I'll see the movie, I generally like Nolan. It just seems a little weird to put the strangely modern molded helmets & other stuff into the show. Certainly their are other anachronisms (The necessary English for one) but this is one that is very easy to get at least somewhat right and not be a visual distraction.

Sapper - no need to apologize for Nolan! I get that it is a myth & it is his interpretation. The square column temples kinda irked me, way more than the armor. Granted, classical Greek architecture was like 500 years after Homer, but never did the Greeks have square columns. It looks off.

Anyway, my earlier post made it sound like I care way more than I actually do. I'm done on this. I'm more concerned the acting, story and CGI are good & that the movie isn't so dark I can see what's going on.

I don't care much about historical accuracy. I didn't understand Homer in high school English and still don't. All I see is Nolan does Gladiator/Ben Hur with the Nolan all-stars cast and that ****ing Ludwig bass synth pulsing. Not gonna miss out on imax tickets like last time. All in.

TCTTS said:

---

A lot of people complain about the "historical inaccuracy" of the armor in The Odyssey. They are wrong. Why?

Because Nolan is being historically accurate to the way the Greeks were historically inaccurate. For one, Google the "Siren Vase," which was made almost 400 years after… https://t.co/xTfBvjnqhu

— Adrian Chmielarz 🧙‍♀️🔥 (@adrianchm) December 22, 2025

Quote:

---

A lot of people complain about the "historical inaccuracy" of the armor in The Odyssey. They are wrong. Why?

Because Nolan is being historically accurate to the way the Greeks were historically inaccurate. For one, Google the "Siren Vase," which was made almost 400 years after Homer. It shows Odysseus and his ship versus the Sirens -- and nothing checks out. The ship is too modern, as are the hairstyles and the headbands of the crew.

Greeks, including Homer, always wanted the heroes of the Odyssey to look like, well, heroes. A weird dude in a wild boar's tusk helmet wouldn't cut it. That is why they always made the heroes look current. Nolan is just paying tribute to that, making sure we also see them as heroes rather than some weird forest crew.

And don't get me started on how Homer himself was highly inaccurate with the armor, confusing bronze with iron all the time...

---

---

This is lazy goaltending. Just use the clothes, armor, and costuming from the epics (tunics, leather, some metal on shields, and clearly not everyone is adorned head to toe in armor). It's not hidden what that was all made of, he's very explicit. No need to un ackshually an unrelated object to prove a point.

Edit for some of what's below: there are characters with armor and it's described by Homer. There's a place for stylizing parts of it with lots of freedom; warriors drag the vanquished off and strip them of what's valuable to keep, sharing with their men the spoils. Some have armor made for them or gifted to them, if they're high enough rank.

I'm one of those history nerds, but for something like this, I'm not concerned about it. Firstly, it's because I am not deeply educated on this era of world history. Secondly, it's Christopher Nolan. Thirdly, from what I'm reading, it's got some fantastical elements to it, ergo, not history.

Nolan did well with some WWII history with both Dunkirk and Oppenheimer. With Dunkirk, I could quibble a bit on the depiction of the men on those beaches - from Nolan's film, one would think that the Allies did not evacuate 200K+ soldiers, but rather more like a couple of thousand, and one might think that a handful of boats crossed the Channel to evacuate those men. None of that was the case, but that inaccuracy didn't impact the film itself.

Then contrast something like 2001's Pearl Harbor, with only a tenuous connection to actual history, vs 2019's Midway, large parts of which appeared to have been lifted right out of the Midway book Shattered Sword, and depicted events largely as they happened (although I did and still do take issue with their Star Wars-y depiction of the dive bombing).

For me, it's something I noticed and filed in the "odd" category.

As a history dork - I'm not an historian, just an avid reader and obsessive about some topics - I normally would prefer accuracy when it comes to costumes, sets and props because, usually, the narrative isn't accurate.

Having said that, I think Nolan has earned "wait and see" status. There could be a number of reasons he chose this. I'm excited to see it, even though Nolan is hit and miss for me.