The last twenty-years have taught me one thing about motion-pictures: it's to take the reviews of a 'professional' movie critic (irregardless of the outlet they write for) with a massive dose of salt.

I won't be watching this under any circumstance.

The initial critics and reviews come from the paid industry schills. Meanwhile, Helen of Detroit opened her mouth and said that Homer didn't write enough about the women involved and other stupidity. So questionable story from a wacky feminazi writer and translation of the source material, with modern slang, and very questionable casting choices. Not a recipe for success but the final determination is this film a success or not will be the box office. I don't think it will be a Supergirl flop, but it won't be an Oppenheimer either.

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:
I won't be watching this under any circumstance.

Yeah, and I'm starting to think I won't watch it even once it is streaming on one of my channels.

It's too bad cuz he was my current favorite director. What a sellout.

quote:

Originally posted by jsbcody:
The initial critics and reviews come from the paid industry schills.

Not in this case. Nolan was strict and didn’t want the paid industry schills and inthluencers involved or to have access to the premiere. We will know 100% in just over a week’s time as first IMAX showings were sold out a year ago.

quote:

Originally posted by Prefontaine:

quote:

Originally posted by jsbcody:
The initial critics and reviews come from the paid industry schills.

Not in this case. Nolan was strict and didn’t want the paid industry schills and inthluencers involved or to have access to the premiere. We will know 100% in just over a week’s time as first IMAX showings were sold out a year ago.

They were hand picked corporate critics (yeah no influencers or podcasters) and just reading some of the “elegant wording” of their reviews is not inspiring, it is the similar doublespeak of the Obummer and Bidet era. Enjoy it if you want and the box office will tell, but the studio expects a billion and at least 700-800 million to break even.

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:
I won't be watching this under any circumstance.

Yes, as a Nolan fan that have watched every single of his films in movie theaters, I have zero desire to see this turd. The casting alone, all by itself is just horrible, a debacle.

quote:

Originally posted by jsbcody:

They were hand picked corporate critics (yeah no influencers or podcasters) and just reading some of the “elegant wording” of their reviews is not inspiring, it is the similar doublespeak of the Obummer and Bidet era. Enjoy it if you want and the box office will tell, but the studio expects a billion and at least 700-800 million to break even.

Hell I won’t watch it until November. That’s when the 4k disc will be released. Fuck that theater and them phones. I just trust Nolan’s work. This isn’t politics and Obama, or Biden, it’s a film. The reality is the Academy changed their rules for nominations, etc.
https://www.oscars.org/awards/...-inclusion-standards
He is playing those rules against themselves. To get nominations and to get funding. His work as a director has been Kubrick-esque. I highly doubt his highest cost film to make, ever, is some turd. If this was a Bible story, some true story of say WWII or something I’d be saying what others are saying. It’s fiction though. This and that casting, meh, it’s all about the director and the film itself. Actors and actresses are pawns in the game. If it’s typical Nolan then I don’t give a fuck about the casting because film quality, the direction, story, etc, is absolute shit these days. It’s not like this is some Disney film. I also have zero skin or money in the game. If it makes 2 billion, doesn’t affect me. It’s not like I’ll make a red cent. If it loses its ass, same thing, zero effect here. The politicization of a fiction film is funny though. All that matters is if it’s a POS or an outstanding film. All I’m interested is if Nolan sold out or not. I’m hypothetical betting the answer is no.

Does Nolan due work on the side for these guys under an alias?

quote:

Originally posted by Prefontaine:
All I’m interested is if Nolan sold out or not. I’m hypothetical betting the answer is no.

The dude already fucking did.

You don't care about casting. Wow.

And compare him to Kubrick? Might as well compare him to Welles, Kurosawa or John Ford while you're at it .

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:

The dude already fucking did.

You don't care about casting. Wow.

And compare him to Kubrick? Might as well compare him to Welles, Kurosawa or John Ford while you're at it .

He did? Which film? This one? Have you seen it? You don’t know. Oh you mean some casting stuff. Oh my, in a fictional story LMAO.

I didn’t say he was Kubrick. He is, like Kubrick did, switching genres and slamming grand slams with intelligent films. Science Fiction (Interstellar). War (Dunkirk), etc. This new one is supposed to have some horror elements. He isn’t Kubrick, but he’s in the ballpark at least, IMO anyway. Kubrick-esque, is what I said. All that means is he has “some” of the talents of the man, certainly not all. “WOW”.

And fuck no I don’t care about casting in some fictional story. I’ve got bills and shit. Films have been made for over a century at this point. Pale faces used to play Injuns, Mexicans, Middle Easterners, etc. Males playing women in the theater before that because women weren’t allowed to act. Getting all “worked up” over the flip side is a bit hypocritical. I mean if it’s a true story and it’s done, sure. But this is fucking fiction man. So many “mad about it bro” and only a few people have even seen it. If anyone can pull this shit off, it’s Nolan. I already posted the rules of that stupid Academy above. Well that extends to studio funding for any film, as well, especially some expensive film. This director has to play by those silly rules to get shit made. So yeah I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt before viewing and if it sucks, it sucks. We shall see.

We live in the age of outrage. I remember when Zero Dark Thirty came out. People whining and saying it was Pro-Obummer, when in fact there was a big diss right in the middle of the film, and in reality it was the opposite of Pro Obama. Same thing when First Man came out and in the film you see the American Flag planted on the Lunar surface. If I want to be outraged about something it will be Gen Z and their phone/tik-thot addictions, having to deal with it on the roads, the gym, at work, grocery store, etc. Or my property taxes going up. Not some film. I’m not going to see ANY film in the theater anyhow due to the previously mentioned. I had no interest in this latest Super-Ho film, Superchick, but I didn’t get in some thread on my gun forum and lose my shit over another POS being made.

Movie posters are out.

Soldiers in what looks like medieval armor give me pause. None of that shit in any of the severalv main history museums i’ve visited in Europe or elsewhere.

Big and surprised WTF moment when i saw these.

0-0

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Question. That whole Ellen Page as Achilles seems like it might not be true. The girl playing Helen of Troy is true. The Ellen Page thing I don’t seem to be able to confirm. Anyone have the hard facts on this one?

You can look on IMDB. Lupita Nyong'o is credited as "Helen of Troy/Clytemnestra", so she has two roles?

Elliot Page is credited as "Sinon". I wonder if all the people who got worked up over Page as Achilles feel relieved or hoodwinked for taking the rage-bait hook, line, & sinker.

For all those complaining about historical inaccuracies and woke agenda, you should keep in mind that the Trojan War occurred about 500 years before Homer's time. When he wrote the Iliad & Odyssey, they were already full of historical inaccuracies, anachronisms, creative liberties, & writer's embellishments.

quote:

You can look on IMDB. Lupita Nyong'o is credited as "Helen of Troy/Clytemnestra", so she has two roles?

Elliot Page is credited as "Sinon". I wonder if all the people who got worked up over Page as Achilles feel relieved or hoodwinked for taking the rage-bait hook, line, & sinker.

Helen of DeTroy is playing twins (just found out that she said she had never heard of Homer, The Iliad or The Odyssey, so much for a Fine Arts Master's degree from Yale ) . As for Ellen/Elliot Page, who knows it may have been originally cast as Achilles and then re-written and re-shot scenes when test audiences hated it. All I know for it to be playing a Greek Warrior, well that is beyond a stretch.

I can't possibly understand how there is any debate about whether to watch this or not.

quote:

Originally posted by iron chef:

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Question. That whole Ellen Page as Achilles seems like it might not be true. The girl playing Helen of Troy is true. The Ellen Page thing I don’t seem to be able to confirm. Anyone have the hard facts on this one?

You can look on IMDB. Lupita Nyong'o is credited as "Helen of Troy/Clytemnestra", so she has two roles?

Elliot Page is credited as "Sinon". I wonder if all the people who got worked up over Page as Achilles feel relieved or hoodwinked for taking the rage-bait hook, line, & sinker.

Sinon is not a character in the Odyssey but originally appeared in Virgil's Aneid, which is a separate retelling of the Trojan War but about the warrior Aeneas. Sinon is a Greek soldier who pretends to have been ostracized by Odysseus, tricks the Trojans into believing that the giant wooden horse on the beach is a tribute to Athena, and if the Trojans destroy it then they will be destroyed but if they bring it to the altar in the temple then Athena will bless them.

quote:

Originally posted by jsbcody:
As for Ellen/Elliot Page, who knows it may have been originally cast as Achilles and then re-written and re-shot scenes when test audiences hated it.

It's possible, but it's more likely that Page was never cast all along, and that someone "leaked" that Page is Achilles to spark outrage against Nolan's film. Have there been any reports of reshoots? On a movie this big, it'd be hard to keep that stuff a secret.

quote:

All I know for it to be playing a Greek Warrior, well that is beyond a stretch.

Achilles is a demigod and represents the ideal warrior, which I can understand why people would have a hard time buying Page cast as Achilles. But why is it so hard to accept Page as a Greek soldier? You don't think any small stature Greeks took part in the Trojan War?

Audie Murphy didn't fit the physical mold of a great warrior, but we know how that turned out.

quote:

Audie Murphy didn't fit the physical mold of a great warrior, but we know how that turned out.

Ok, comparing a 5 foot nothing biological female who is only known for surgical/chemical cosplaying as a man with an actual man who is also a war hero....yeah that is something I never thought to see.

Let's just remember that the warriors of that time engaged with extreme close combat with swords, spears, and shields, and there was an attitude of extreme fitness (hence the Olympic Games). Sure, a warrior could be short and wiry and get the job done but it is doubtful. Granted the part Page is playing is the spy/defector (also related to Achilles and part of his cohort, so had to be a decent fighter) who got Troy to bring the Trojan horse into the city. Why cast Page unless it checks a DEI box. This movie might be Hollweird's last attempt to show woke brings in money. If it is, I hope it fails completely.

As for re shoots, we almost never hear what they re-shot or re-edited. There was an early cast list in IMBD that listed Page as Achilles, along with "leaks" from the production. If the movie fails, we will hear all about it, just like the current finger pointing for Super Brat flop.

And since there are no Greeks in the movie, tough to know if a small one could be a Greek Warrior.

quote:

But why is it so hard to accept Page as a Greek soldier?

Probably this is why.

There are six people on that stage, and only the guy to Page's right could be argued to pass more convincingly as Greek soldier.

I realize it must be hard for many of you to believe, but the Trojan War took place some time between 1200-1300BC, and the average Greek soldier resembled Elliot Page's build a lot more than the Spartans depicted in 300.

quote:

Ok, comparing a 5 foot nothing biological female who is only known for surgical/chemical cosplaying as a man with an actual man who is also a war hero....yeah that is something I never thought to see.

Let me explain in a way an 8 y/o would be able to understand.

Murphy was 112 lbs when he enlisted. WWII was 80+ years ago. People on average were significantly smaller then. The Trojan War was 3,200+ years ago. People were substantially smaller than. It's not a stretch for someone 5'1", 106 lbs to play a Greek solder from that era.