Just FYI, neither of these people saw the movie. You're posting bogus reactions from rando girlie accounts who have a deranged history of publicly hating on Tom Holland.

Pretty weird and pathetic.

Huh?

They're literally reviewing the movie / posting as if they've seen it.

They're objectively lying.

I merely posted reactions from people who *have* actually seen it.

What are you even talking about?

hunter2012 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Just FYI, neither of these people saw the movie. You're posting bogus reactions from rando girlie accounts who have a deranged history of publicly hating on Tom Holland.

Pretty weird and pathetic.

---

Sorry they weren't on your pre-approved and totally unbiased critics list.

---

It has nothing to do with me.

They straight up didn't see the movie.

TCTTS said:

---

Huh?

They're literally reviewing the movie / posting as if they've seen it.

They're objectively lying.

I merely posted reactions from people who *have* actually seen it.

What are you even talking about?

---

Huh?

Which of your posts were from people who saw the movie? I went back and looked at the last eight pages and did not see any. But could have missed it.

There are 2 or 3 from the last two pages that "say" they have seen it…..and think poorly on it

f burg ag said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Huh?

They're literally reviewing the movie / posting as if they've seen it.

They're objectively lying.

I merely posted reactions from people who *have* actually seen it.

What are you even talking about?

---

Huh?

Which of your posts were from people who saw the movie? I went back and looked at the last eight pages and did not see any. But could have missed it.

There are 2 or 3 from the last two pages that "say" they have seen it…..and think poorly on it

---

I posted 30-40 authentic reactions to the movie Monday afternoon, right after the embargo lifted. They were unanimously positive. This was followed by six-ish pages of discourse / people desperately trying to rationalize why said reactions shouldn't be taken seriously.

Do you guys just copy and paste that now, ad nauseam?

Because it has absolutely nothing to do with this specific conversation.

Quote:

---

They straight up didn't see the movie.

---

Prove it

Quote:

---

Starting to think tctts is on the Texags payroll. Paid by the post.

How do I get in on this?

---

Try joining Staff. Who's in on like 60posts on this shtshow.

You might say it's like a siren calling you and you can't resist being sucked back into the wreckage.

This thread has some serious potential when the movie actually comes out.

Especially if we can keep Redstone on a roll.

Redstone, the last two above me, I have awarded blue stars.

“It is a spectacular sight and a brilliant, subversive adaptation… A refreshingly modern approach… Redefining the journey of…”

With this kind of linguistic gymnastics, all the chosen critics will desperately try to salvage this abomination.

You don’t redefine Homer. You… https://t.co/TMu0kXd883

— Victor Kyriazakos (@VKyriazakos) July 8, 2026

Why not make any other movie unless if the point was to erase and rewrite the Odyssey for the "modern audience"? Adaptations are like copies of a copy and the quality will degrade even with the best adaptations over time.

I'll say this with certainty, the poem will be around a hundred years from now, this movie may not have any rewatch value after a decade. In the end it's just the degraded and corrupted copy.

1/ The biggest flaw in the discourse surrounding Nolan’s The Odyssey is a total failure of immersion. Because Anglo-American audiences lack historical context, they treat Bronze Age Hellas like a generic fantasy sandbox. They think they are watching The Lord of the Rings.

— I know things (@polemios) July 8, 2026

hunter2012 said:

---

“It is a spectacular sight and a brilliant, subversive adaptation… A refreshingly modern approach… Redefining the journey of…”

With this kind of linguistic gymnastics, all the chosen critics will desperately try to salvage this abomination.

You don’t redefine Homer. You… https://t.co/TMu0kXd883

— Victor Kyriazakos (@VKyriazakos) July 8, 2026

Why not make any other movie unless if the point was to erase and rewrite the Odyssey for the "modern audience"? Adaptations are like copies of a copy and the quality will degrade even with the best adaptations over time.

I'll say this with certainty, the poem will be around a hundred years from now, this movie may not have any rewatch value after a decade. In the end it's just the degraded and corrupted copy.

---

I don't think I've read the word "subversive" so many times than I have in the past week or so leading up to this movie. It's like all these "critics" who have "seen the movie" have all been fed the same script to praise The Odyssey. Really makes you think.

hunter2012 said:

---

“It is a spectacular sight and a brilliant, subversive adaptation… A refreshingly modern approach… Redefining the journey of…”

With this kind of linguistic gymnastics, all the chosen critics will desperately try to salvage this abomination.

You don’t redefine Homer. You… https://t.co/TMu0kXd883

— Victor Kyriazakos (@VKyriazakos) July 8, 2026

Why not make any other movie unless if the point was to erase and rewrite the Odyssey for the "modern audience"? Adaptations are like copies of a copy and the quality will degrade even with the best adaptations over time.

I'll say this with certainty, the poem will be around a hundred years from now, this movie may not have any rewatch value after a decade. In the end it's just the degraded and corrupted copy.

---

"I'll say this with certainty..." about a thing you haven't even seen for yourself yet = the problem with this board in a nutshell.

Convenient how you're choosing to ignore interview after interview where Nolan has underlined just how faithful he's attempting to be to the source material as well. Yes, he wants to update certain elements to appeal to a modern audience, that much is a given too. And him being a modern filmmaker who wants to reach a modern/global audience, I completely understand his approach. It's not wrong. It's just not what you would do.

That said, I totally get that you and others want a more faithful telling. And I don't fault you for that at all. That's absolutely your prerogative.

Rather, it's how weirdly determined some of you are to **** all over this thing before seeing it for yourselves that baffles the hell out of me. It's as if Nolan's apparent telling is not only the worst cinematic sin of the century, y'all increasingly come across as determined to string him up in the town square for his lashings or something.

Again, for something you haven't even seen for yourselves yet.

In short... wanting a more faithful adaptation? Perfectly understandable. Feeling the need to spend days/weeks/months relentlessly/gleefully/angrily tearing down a piece of entertainment you haven't even seen yet? Bizarre as hell.

Make fun of me all you want for defending "my side" with the vigor and post count I do. But you guys are ALSO here day after day after day after day on a never-ending quest to **** all over something you haven't even given a fair shake. From one of the greatest directors of all time. There's just a rabid quality to y'all's desperate need to see this thing fail that borders on disturbing, in a way I've honestly never seen before, given the full context.