The Collective said:
So much angst about so many things... I'm just worried about being able to understand most of the dialogue.
I am as well. I just don't have the ear for hard Boston accents and that Kenyan clicking thing that they do.
*** THE ODYSSEY *** (Christopher Nolan)
210,363 Views |
2148 Replies |
Last: 46 sec ago by RikkiTikkaTagem
I am as well. I just don't have the ear for hard Boston accents and that Kenyan clicking thing that they do.
Thunderstruck xx said:
The reason we have these horrid casting decisions is obviously because Nolan must do it if he wants this movie to be considered for the Best Picture Oscar. So basically, you can all thank the Academy for this **** show, and Nolan for caving to this absurdity.
The Academy's rules for Best Picture consideration:
" Representation and Inclusion Standards
To promote diversity, the Academy has established representation standards for films vying for the Best Picture category. Films must meet at least two of the following four standards:
Standard/Description
A1 At least one lead or significant supporting actor from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group.
A2 At least 30% of all actors not submitted for Oscar consideration from at least two underrepresented groups (e.g., women, racial or ethnic groups, LGBTQ+, people with disabilities).
B1 The film's story must focus on underrepresented groups.
B2 The film's creative leadership team must include individuals from underrepresented groups."
Why did you choose to not include all the criteria?
https://www.oscars.org/awards/representation-and-inclusion-standards
Seems like a low bar to meet.
And Oppenheimer had only one non-white actor.
CC09LawAg said:
This can't be real
Straight from the horse's mouth:
https://www.oscars.org/awards/representation-and-inclusion-standards
Hope that helps!
Peter Piper said:Thunderstruck xx said:
The reason we have these horrid casting decisions is obviously because Nolan must do it if he wants this movie to be considered for the Best Picture Oscar. So basically, you can all thank the Academy for this **** show, and Nolan for caving to this absurdity.
The Academy's rules for Best Picture consideration:
" Representation and Inclusion Standards
To promote diversity, the Academy has established representation standards for films vying for the Best Picture category. Films must meet at least two of the following four standards:
Standard/Description
A1 At least one lead or significant supporting actor from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group.
A2 At least 30% of all actors not submitted for Oscar consideration from at least two underrepresented groups (e.g., women, racial or ethnic groups, LGBTQ+, people with disabilities).
B1 The film's story must focus on underrepresented groups.
B2 The film's creative leadership team must include individuals from underrepresented groups."
Why did you choose to not include all the criteria?
https://www.oscars.org/awards/representation-and-inclusion-standards
Seems like a low bar to meet.
And Oppenheimer had only one non-white actor.
Those seemed like the relevant casting criteria. Hence why we have unattractive, vapid, and black Helen of Troy.
veryfuller
Joined:
Jul 2, 2018
Posts:
936
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
AG
We have been over this, ad nauseam. Those rules were put in place as a virtue signal without any real teeth. Please go back in time and tell us which movies would have been excluded from Oscar nominations because of these rules in the last 10 years. Oh wait thats because:
1) the movie would meet these requirement without diversity casting. There are more than 30% speaking parts that are women in this movie, easily. The race of those women wouldn't matter to meet requirement A2.
2) Nolan's wife is his producing partner. She won the best picture Oscar for Oppenheimer. His films will then automatically meet B2.
But that doesn't fit the narrative you want around the movie. It can't be that Nolan just wanted to cast Nyong'o for his particular interpretation of the movie? That isn't a vast conspiracy against the audience, so that can't be the explanation.
Quote:
No mainstream movie has actually been disqualified from the Oscars under the new diversity rules, because the standards are designed to be easily met through behind-the-scenes studio operations. The Academy's Representation and Inclusion Standards (enacted for the Best Picture category) only require a film to check two out of four broad benchmarks.
Even if a movie features an entirely white, male cast and crew on-screen, it can easily qualify by meeting behind-the-scenes criteria. This includes Standard C (offering paid internships or training to underrepresented groups) and Standard D (having women or minorities on the studio's executive marketing and distribution teams).
1) the movie would meet these requirement without diversity casting. There are more than 30% speaking parts that are women in this movie, easily. The race of those women wouldn't matter to meet requirement A2.
2) Nolan's wife is his producing partner. She won the best picture Oscar for Oppenheimer. His films will then automatically meet B2.
But that doesn't fit the narrative you want around the movie. It can't be that Nolan just wanted to cast Nyong'o for his particular interpretation of the movie? That isn't a vast conspiracy against the audience, so that can't be the explanation.
How did Oppenheimer qualify and win then?
Thunderstruck xx said:Peter Piper said:Thunderstruck xx said:
The reason we have these horrid casting decisions is obviously because Nolan must do it if he wants this movie to be considered for the Best Picture Oscar. So basically, you can all thank the Academy for this **** show, and Nolan for caving to this absurdity.
The Academy's rules for Best Picture consideration:
" Representation and Inclusion Standards
To promote diversity, the Academy has established representation standards for films vying for the Best Picture category. Films must meet at least two of the following four standards:
Standard/Description
A1 At least one lead or significant supporting actor from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group.
A2 At least 30% of all actors not submitted for Oscar consideration from at least two underrepresented groups (e.g., women, racial or ethnic groups, LGBTQ+, people with disabilities).
B1 The film's story must focus on underrepresented groups.
B2 The film's creative leadership team must include individuals from underrepresented groups."
Why did you choose to not include all the criteria?
https://www.oscars.org/awards/representation-and-inclusion-standards
Seems like a low bar to meet.
And Oppenheimer had only one non-white actor.
Those seemed like the relevant casting criteria. Hence why we have unattractive, vapid, and black Helen of Troy.
Or cherry picked to fit your argument.
Nolan could've casted all white actors and still meet the criteria to have the film eligible for Best Picture.
Despite my fondness for the Homeric epics, I will honor his request and not see "his movie."
“Things weren’t gentle and politically correct in those days. We weren’t candy asses. Okay?”
-Frank Borman
“Who are you to doubt El Dandy? ‘Cause this guy’s a serious professional.”
-Bret Hart
-Frank Borman
“Who are you to doubt El Dandy? ‘Cause this guy’s a serious professional.”
-Bret Hart
Apparently the "modern audience" is too stupid to appreciate or understand Homer, frankly I find this statement shocking, Nolan has never been concerned with hand holding the audience before, that's what I really liked about him. Thankfully we'll have this dumbed down version for the fly over bumpkins.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/hollywood/christopher-nolan-defends-taking-creative-liberties-in-the-odyssey-says-its-for-those-who-know-nothing-about-homer-101783306817028.html
https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/hollywood/christopher-nolan-defends-taking-creative-liberties-in-the-odyssey-says-its-for-those-who-know-nothing-about-homer-101783306817028.html
Quote:
He added, "For me, we're making the film for people who know nothing about Homer and this epic poem, and we make it for people who are very interested in that world and love it. You have to make it work for everybody."
veryfuller
Joined:
Jul 2, 2018
Posts:
936
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
AG
How is this saying its dumbed down? Its movie making 101. You make it for the broadest audience possible. There are going to be lots of people who have no idea about the story, so you have to cater to them. And he also said he is making it for people who know and love the world. He didn't say anything about dumbing it down.
Yes the rules are easy to meet, but if the rule stifles part of the entertainment industries audience and the rule isn't even effecting the movies award eligibility over the past decade or so, then isn't the rule doing more harm than good to the industry?
The Odyssey would have one less talking point working against it as shown above.
The Odyssey would have one less talking point working against it as shown above.
veryfuller said:
We have been over this, ad nauseam. Those rules were put in place as a virtue signal without any real teeth. Please go back in time and tell us which movies would have been excluded from Oscar nominations because of these rules in the last 10 years. Oh wait thats because:Quote:
No mainstream movie has actually been disqualified from the Oscars under the new diversity rules, because the standards are designed to be easily met through behind-the-scenes studio operations. The Academy's Representation and Inclusion Standards (enacted for the Best Picture category) only require a film to check two out of four broad benchmarks.
Even if a movie features an entirely white, male cast and crew on-screen, it can easily qualify by meeting behind-the-scenes criteria. This includes Standard C (offering paid internships or training to underrepresented groups) and Standard D (having women or minorities on the studio's executive marketing and distribution teams).
1) the movie would meet these requirement without diversity casting. There are more than 30% speaking parts that are women in this movie, easily. The race of those women wouldn't matter to meet requirement A2.
2) Nolan's wife is his producing partner. She won the best picture Oscar for Oppenheimer. His films will then automatically meet B2.
But that doesn't fit the narrative you want around the movie. It can't be that Nolan just wanted to cast Nyong'o for his particular interpretation of the movie? That isn't a vast conspiracy against the audience, so that can't be the explanation.
Either way it is bad. If he really didn't need to make those casting decisions, then what other bad decisions were made in this movie? Or maybe he's just increasing his chances of being accepted for best picture.
Either way, just terrible.
veryfuller
Joined:
Jul 2, 2018
Posts:
936
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
AG
I honestly don't think he cares about winning Oscars at this point. He just won a few and had cart blanc to make whatever he wanted. This is what he chose to do. I get the critiques of the casting, but I just don't think his motivation is awards this time around. I think he is making the movie he wanted to make. Just sounds like its not the movie you wanted him to make, which is totally fine. It just doesn't have to be a culture war issue when you don't like his creative choices, thats my point.
Francis Ford Coppola's Megalopolis was eligible for Best Picture but didn't receive a single nomination from the Academy and I'll tell you why that is, it was anti-Italian discrimination. Disgusting.
veryfuller said:
I honestly don't think he cares about winning Oscars at this point. He just won a few and had cart blanc to make whatever he wanted. This is what he chose to do. I get the critiques of the casting, but I just don't think his motivation is awards this time around. I think he is making the movie he wanted to make. Just sounds like its not the movie you wanted him to make, which is totally fine. It just doesn't have to be a culture war issue when you don't like his creative choices, thats my point.
Here's where I'll jump in to say that yes, Nolan is simply making his version. However, his preferred version is what has made this a "culture war". I will add the caveat that the following are assumptions, but assumptions based on a lot of comments from Nolan and the actors.
Nolan's preferred version introduces characters and storylines not in the original specifically to show us a more feminist version of the story. His version made specific casting and dialogue choices to reflect a modern diverse world. You can't deny his choices venture into territory that's ground zero for the current "culture war".
So, its a little disingenious to say, "This is just Nolan's version" then blame one contingent of the audience for making this a culture war issue when in reality Nolan intentionally did that himself with his choices.
veryfuller
Joined:
Jul 2, 2018
Posts:
936
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
AG
Talking points against a movie? The movie isn't running for political office or trying to convince of some policy. Its a movie. Why are there talking points against it? Oh, right, because there is an active online campaign against the movie, that hasn't been released in theaters yet and seen by the masses.
Also, I don't see why the Academy's rules have anything to do with The Odyssey. The Odyssey didn't make up the Academy's rules and isn't saying one way or the other whether its actively trying to follow them. But as I posted earlier, its not hard to do. Its not like they are marketing it as "eligible for Best Picture per the Academy's DEI RULES!". You are drawing the connection between the two, assuming that Oscars is what they are chasing, etc. I could argue that you are grasping for talking points against the movie because you want to, instead of just waiting to see the actual movie first.
Also, I don't see why the Academy's rules have anything to do with The Odyssey. The Odyssey didn't make up the Academy's rules and isn't saying one way or the other whether its actively trying to follow them. But as I posted earlier, its not hard to do. Its not like they are marketing it as "eligible for Best Picture per the Academy's DEI RULES!". You are drawing the connection between the two, assuming that Oscars is what they are chasing, etc. I could argue that you are grasping for talking points against the movie because you want to, instead of just waiting to see the actual movie first.
veryfuller
Joined:
Jul 2, 2018
Posts:
936
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
AG
What audience tho? No one has seen it. Its all assumptions.
And you are conflating "modern" with "feminism and woke". We are still talking about the same director who gets criticized constantly for under-writing female characters, right? I just don't understand this at all. Please point to his history of preaching feminism and woke-ism in his past work. Clearly, with the uproar, he MUST have been doing this all along if we are to make these leaps and assumptions.
And you are conflating "modern" with "feminism and woke". We are still talking about the same director who gets criticized constantly for under-writing female characters, right? I just don't understand this at all. Please point to his history of preaching feminism and woke-ism in his past work. Clearly, with the uproar, he MUST have been doing this all along if we are to make these leaps and assumptions.
"All art is propaganda." - Upton Sinclair
We're going to need about 12 different threads once this movie comes out.
- I saw it and want to talk about the film Discussion Thread
- I saw it and know that it's making less money than it should have even though I have no actual proof Discussion Thread
- I saw it and Elliott Page raped my childhood from the screen Discussion Thread
- I saw it and I got a case of "woke" and now my family won't talk to me Discussion Thread
- I saw it and couldn't stop vomiting from motion sickness when they panned down Lupita Nyongo's forehead in the IMAX format Discussion Thread
- I saw it and only counted 27% of the cast being non-white men Discussion Thread
- I saw it hoping to see a sneak preview of "Paw Patrol: Dino Dogs" and they didn't show it and now I'm pissed Discussion Thread
- I didn't see it, but I need to counter everything TCTTS posts, so I'm pretending I did see it Discussion Thread
- I saw it and loved it but I can't admit that on TexAgs so I am saying I hated it Discussion Thread
- I saw it and am going back to see it again because of the Matt Damon/Cyclops love scene that garnered the "R" Rating Discussion Thread
- I saw it, and while I'm not a mysoginist, I hated everything about Lupita Nyongo, Charlize Theron, Anne Hathaway, and Zendaya's characters, look, the way they breathed air Discussion Thread
- I saw it with my brother, who is a metallurgist, and he confirmed that the giant's armor is fake as s8it Discussion Thread
veryfuller said:
What audience tho? No one has seen it. Its all assumptions.
And you are conflating "modern" with "feminism and woke". We are still talking about the same director who gets criticized constantly for under-writing female characters, right? I just don't understand this at all. Please point to his history of preaching feminism and woke-ism in his past work. Clearly, with the uproar, he MUST have been doing this all along if we are to make these leaps and assumptions.
Okay... now you're being intentionally obtuse.
With what little we do know, it is not outrageous for people to be apprehensive about this movie ranging into "The Message". We've literally seen reviews with words like "subversive" and "modern". There are reports of the version of the Odyssey he has chosen to adapt. He's casting women to play men. He cast a black Helen of Troy.
Again, you may see all this and think that doesn't point to anything. The rest of us, who have witnessed similar messaging, similar unforced casting errors, and similar discussions around many other movies, see these signs as reason to expect a woke mess. It's called pattern recognition. This is a basic human ability and not some grand conspiracy theory. We have been conditioned to expect complete trash when TV shows and movies are surrounded by these kinds of things.
Literally the ONLY reason I'm still holding out hope, and I would assume this is the same with most others who continue to discuss this movie, is because it's Christopher Nolan. If this was not a Nolan film, I would have written it off completely. Because it is, I still want to see it and hope it's great.
TCTTS said:
Why do followers equal legitimacy in your mind? The point is they're all either accredited critics or legitimate journalists officially invited to press screenings, meaning they're professionals in their field. But just because they're professionals doesn't mean they all have big social media followings. That's not a prerequisite for the job, nor does it validate their opinions.
A professional critic who posts their reviews on X should have followers. That's just basic common sense if they are legit. I would buy "maybe they don't have big social media following" if their publishing was in other forums and they don't leverage X. I think a number of these are just random yahoos who probably didn't even see it
veryfuller said:
What audience tho? No one has seen it. Its all assumptions.
And you are conflating "modern" with "feminism and woke". We are still talking about the same director who gets criticized constantly for under-writing female characters, right? I just don't understand this at all. Please point to his history of preaching feminism and woke-ism in his past work. Clearly, with the uproar, he MUST have been doing this all along if we are to make these leaps and assumptions.
Here's where you fall back on "his previous movies didn't make these choices so there's no way he'll ever make at least one movie with feminist or progressive choices!" That's a very weak argument, and it relies on ignoring every bit of comentary we've gotten straight from the actors and people involved.
Go look at Zendaya's instagram pic of her holding up Emily Wilson's translation and read what makes Wilson's translation different from previous translations. Go listen to Nyong'o's interview responses. Read the reactions from last night that call it subversive and modern. Stop pretending that just because Nolan doesn't explicitly shout from the rooftops, "THIS VERSION HAS A MORE MODERN, PROGRESSIVE, INCLUSIVE VIEWPOINT!" that its not true.
Have we seen this movie yet? Nope. Have we gotten plenty of evidence? Absolutely. At this point you're the one choosing to argue from a stance of voluntary ignorance when it comes to Nolan's choices in this movie. I'm not saying it won't be good, and majestic, and epic, and moving, and everything listed in those early reactions. I'm simply arguing that we should stop pretending this version isn't told from an angle that's bound to stir up "culture war" debate.
The goaltending on this movie is just as extreme as the attacks on it.
Woah, that's a whole lot of assumptions there... Talking points don't have to be political or cultural. It can be anything such as the Sonic original bad CGI or the decision to do live action remakes instead of original content. It's just things for people to discuss.
I won't speak for Thunderstruck, but assumed he was being tongue-in-cheek when he said it was obvious the casting choices were solely to meet the DEI requirements.
The point is if there are DEI requirements for a prestigious award, and a prestigious director makes questionable casting decisions, it could raise questions from the audience. It certainly doesn't mean those dots are connected, and Nolan certainly has earned the benefit of the doubt, but handwaving it away in it's defense is disingenuous.
I still want the movie to be great, but it's not a great start when I would have prefered he stuck closer to the source material. Just my opinion which is worth nothing in the grand scheme.
I won't speak for Thunderstruck, but assumed he was being tongue-in-cheek when he said it was obvious the casting choices were solely to meet the DEI requirements.
The point is if there are DEI requirements for a prestigious award, and a prestigious director makes questionable casting decisions, it could raise questions from the audience. It certainly doesn't mean those dots are connected, and Nolan certainly has earned the benefit of the doubt, but handwaving it away in it's defense is disingenuous.
I still want the movie to be great, but it's not a great start when I would have prefered he stuck closer to the source material. Just my opinion which is worth nothing in the grand scheme.
You people are mad at the wrong thing. Why is Michael Caine not in this Nolan film?
FL_Ag1998 said:
The early reaction tweets for any movie have become almost meaningless to me because it appears to be more or less groupthink these days. On top of that its obvious that each one of these people are trying to outdo themselves with the praise or criticism so they can have their tweet go viral.
I think the movie will be exactly what everyone has been predicting....a spectacle. Every Nolan movie is one. The only question will be whether you like Nolan's version of the story, which at this point we know is an updated modernized retelling with different perspectives from Homer's original. I find Lupita Nyong'os comments in the recent interview extremely ignorant and arrogant. They just prove that she's never actually done her homework on the original story and is only concerned with her modern feminist perspective.
And I'd argue christopher nolan is not right wing, he's merely kept his political ideals out of his movies until now. But I'd also say that's an argument for a different thread.
I'm already on record saying I disagree with his casting choices. That's because I'm disappointed with the motivation behind them - which is Nolan using this opportunity to tell a modernized version that falls in line with his current perspectives and sensibilities. I'd much rather he use his filmmaking gifts to respect a story that's grander and more epic than anything he could ever come up with on his own; I'd rather he simply film Homer's vision, not his own (or Emily Wilson's vision).
But I'll see it and try to judge it for what it is. I may walk away convinced it was a colossal swing and a miss and a missed opportunity. Or it may be an incredible movie which simply needs to be classified as its own story that's merely "inspired by" Homer's Odyssey.
Look, here's the thing. This movie is historical fantasy based on a 3000 year old text (and whose oral tradition likely predates that by hundreds of years) that almost certainly wasn't even written by Homer (if he even existed at all) or any single individual. There is a cyclops, a hydra, sirens, depictions of the gods and afterlife that literally nobody today believes in anymore, etc. Nearly every character in the story is almost certainly fictional.
With all that established, I propose that anyone wound up about casting choices on the basis of ethnicity/race or sexual orientation WANTS to be wound up about it. They are looking for a reason. If the movie is great and you find yourself complaining about the fact that Helen of Troy is played by a black actress, that's your issue to deal with. This idea that it would a legitimate criticism of an otherwise great movie with great acting is just ridiculously transparent. We all understand what's happening there so let's please just stop pretending.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
veryfuller
Joined:
Jul 2, 2018
Posts:
936
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
AG
How is clarifying language being obtuse?
Also, apprehensive is an understandable posture, but that is not how I would describe your posture at all. You have already created a narrative around the choices that Nolan has made and are banging on about it on this thread, even after those arguments have been addressed several times. That type of behavior would fall under obtuse in my opinion.
Also, apprehensive is an understandable posture, but that is not how I would describe your posture at all. You have already created a narrative around the choices that Nolan has made and are banging on about it on this thread, even after those arguments have been addressed several times. That type of behavior would fall under obtuse in my opinion.
I just hate all the pretending. It's just a ubiquitous feature of our modern discourse on all sides, people pretending to not understand or having motives other than the incredibly obvious.
The criticism of this movie prior to it ever being seen by anyone is entirely the result of conservative influencers taking certain casting choices and running with a narrative to generate content. That's all this is. For some to pretend it is anything else is an insult to the human intellect. It's a stupid childish game.
The criticism of this movie prior to it ever being seen by anyone is entirely the result of conservative influencers taking certain casting choices and running with a narrative to generate content. That's all this is. For some to pretend it is anything else is an insult to the human intellect. It's a stupid childish game.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Ahhhh, the old, "Its just a fantasy story with a Cyclops in it, so we know your complaints are really just because you're racist!". So glad you circled back around to that. We haven't had that outstanding argument in at least 10 pages!
veryfuller
Joined:
Jul 2, 2018
Posts:
936
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
AG
I am not goal tending the movie. I am making a counter-argument to the "its always the narrative" critiques.
I mean, we had PAGES of conversation about Ellen "Elliot" Page being Achilles in the movie and all that meant....and turns out, thats not true. No one has said ooops or apologized or anything for that, but we all had to endure that if we were following this thread. And anyone who said, lets just wait and see if that news is confirmed before freaking out? We were "goal tending".
What happens if the movie comes out and you think its a masterpiece and think, man it was so silly to get so worked up about it beforehand? We won't see anyone say that on this thread. But for those of us who are just asking, begging, for people to chill out on the culture war critiques until they at least see the movie? We are crazy and ruining the thread and goal tending.
I mean, we had PAGES of conversation about Ellen "Elliot" Page being Achilles in the movie and all that meant....and turns out, thats not true. No one has said ooops or apologized or anything for that, but we all had to endure that if we were following this thread. And anyone who said, lets just wait and see if that news is confirmed before freaking out? We were "goal tending".
What happens if the movie comes out and you think its a masterpiece and think, man it was so silly to get so worked up about it beforehand? We won't see anyone say that on this thread. But for those of us who are just asking, begging, for people to chill out on the culture war critiques until they at least see the movie? We are crazy and ruining the thread and goal tending.
"Modern" and "Woke"/"feminism" are generally synonymous in current discussions. To act like they aren't is silly. It's not a retelling of the Odyssey, like O Brother Where Art Thou. When people say "modern" it is understandable to read that as made for modern sensibilities. That generally means some kind of cultural thing. Unless they mean the dialogue is modern, which would be a weird thing to point out because everyone knows that to be the case.
And, no... I'm apprehensive. There you go trying to tell ME what my own feelings are. What narrative have I "created"? Again, I'm responding to what has been reported and what I'm able to read and see with my own eyes. That's pattern recognition.
What do you mean "after those arguments have been addressed"? What arguments? How have they been addressed?
Also, I don't think you know what "obtuse" means. Refusing to accept that the common parlance means "modern" and "woke" can mean the same thing is being obtuse.
And, no... I'm apprehensive. There you go trying to tell ME what my own feelings are. What narrative have I "created"? Again, I'm responding to what has been reported and what I'm able to read and see with my own eyes. That's pattern recognition.
What do you mean "after those arguments have been addressed"? What arguments? How have they been addressed?
Also, I don't think you know what "obtuse" means. Refusing to accept that the common parlance means "modern" and "woke" can mean the same thing is being obtuse.
Tea Party said:
Woah, that's a whole lot of assumptions there... Talking points don't have to be political or cultural. It can be anything such as the Sonic original bad CGI or the decision to do live action remakes instead of original content. It's just things for people to discuss.
I won't speak for Thunderstruck, but assumed he was being tongue-in-cheek when he said it was obvious the casting choices were solely to meet the DEI requirements.
The point is if there are DEI requirements for a prestigious award, and a prestigious director makes questionable casting decisions, it could raise questions from the audience. It certainly doesn't mean those dots are connected, and Nolan certainly has earned the benefit of the doubt, but handwaving it away in it's defense is disingenuous.
I still want the movie to be great, but it's not a great start when I would have prefered he stuck closer to the source material. Just my opinion which is worth nothing in the grand scheme.
I didn't say you were a racist, I said what you're doing is transparent and not rooted in any genuine concern or criticism. It's to push a social narrative about the liberal, woke mindset continuing to infiltrate all aspects of our society. I dont think the vast majority of people who do this actually hate black people or any other racial/ethnic demographic. I think they have a worldview and are latching onto something being pushed by social commentators they listen to to reinforce it, just like nearly everyone else on all sides of the political spectrum these days.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dummble said:
You people are mad at the wrong thing. Why is Michael Caine not in this Nolan film?
Why!? Because he has a vowel at the end of his last name, Caine, that's why.
veryfuller
Joined:
Jul 2, 2018
Posts:
936
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
AG
IDK you so idk how you are feeling. I wasn't talking about your feelings at all. I called it a posture for a reason. You may FEEL apprehensive, but the way you are engaging in this conversation is not that. It seems more like you are campaigning against the movie because it personally offended you. Which is why I continue to push back. If thats not how you feel, then perhaps you should consider changing how you are posting?
The argument about the Oscars is just the latest example of that.
And it seems like we are not going to agree on the use of the word modern. I see it, at least the way Nolan is using it, as 100% meaning modern sensibilities. Again, because we can only judge someone's motivations by their past behavior, this is most consistent with who he has been. Now the movie may very well be some feminist/woke opus. That would be truly surprising and I would definitely not be into it and say so....when I see it for myself.
The argument about the Oscars is just the latest example of that.
And it seems like we are not going to agree on the use of the word modern. I see it, at least the way Nolan is using it, as 100% meaning modern sensibilities. Again, because we can only judge someone's motivations by their past behavior, this is most consistent with who he has been. Now the movie may very well be some feminist/woke opus. That would be truly surprising and I would definitely not be into it and say so....when I see it for myself.
veryfuller said:
I am not goal tending the movie. I am making a counter-argument to the "its always the narrative" critiques.
I mean, we had PAGES of conversation about Ellen "Elliot" Page being Achilles in the movie and all that meant....and turns out, thats not true. No one has said ooops or apologized or anything for that, but we all had to endure that if we were following this thread. And anyone who said, lets just wait and see if that news is confirmed before freaking out? We were "goal tending".
Most of that was mocking the idea of a trans Achilles. The fact is she is still cast to play a Greek soldier. Give me a break. And what? Apologize? Many of us mocking it have consistently said "we'll see". The goal-tending accusation is because yall see these things and won't even admit how ridiculous they are.
You can call out that kind of stuff and still be interested in seeing the movie and hope it is good. Literally my stance this ENTIRE thread. But then you jump in and say, "Nuh uh! You want the movie to fail!" (paraphrasing).
Quote:
What happens if the movie comes out and you think its a masterpiece and think, man it was so silly to get so worked up about it beforehand? We won't see anyone say that on this thread. But for those of us who are just asking, begging, for people to chill out on the culture war critiques until they at least see the movie? We are crazy and ruining the thread and goal tending.
I've literally already said, even if it turns out to be a masterpiece, the casting is still stupid. Black Helen of Troy is stupid. Casting a woman to play a man, unless it's part of some joke, is stupid.
There have been only a couple of posts from people hoping the movie fails. The majority of the most vocal critics of the messaging and casting choices have all claimed to be Nolan fans, plan to see it, and have said they hope it's good.
Objective Aggie
Sitting next to Coach Eli Drink at a hotel bar in FL…
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
15