BQRyno said:

---

If you can look at the cast and say with a straight face that he wasn't influenced by Hollywood DEIism, then we just live in different realities and debating isn't worthwhile. Go with God.

---

"DEI" is one thing. Spending $250M on a blockbuster and needing a large/diverse audience to show up to cover the cost of your movie is a whole other thing. Thus, in the case of the latter, casting people of color in hopes that more people of color buy tickets, etc. This isn't rocket science. Every time someone in Hollywood cast a black person in a role you think they shouldn't, it doesn't mean they're trying to shove their "agenda" down your throat. That doesn't mean agendas don't exist. They obviously do. But first and foremost Hollywood is a business that needs to ensure it's maximizing profits at every turn, especially on movies this expensive.

The one thing you can always count on Cliff to do is twist your words to fit his argument/complaining.

Again, I know nuance isn't your thing, but you're of course leaving out the part where I said "on social media and message boards." As in, when it's only text, just a super angry sentence or two, etc.

BQRyno said:

---

I don't think this is always true. It's not always about money first. Sometimes it sure seems like money be damned, they want to make a point. The easy example is to look at some of the clowns Disney has handed over the reigns of extremely popular brands to. It's not because they think that's going to make the best product that makes the most money. It's so they can pat themselves on the back for how wonderful and moral they believe they are. You probably don't agree, but that's my read on it. Then those projects tank and eventually Kathleen Kennedy gets canned because oh yeah, maybe money should matter. But I think she's proof that sometimes it doesn't, at least until reality strikes.

---

I didn't say "it's always about money first." Rather, I was trying to make the point that, in general, Hollywood values money over agendas. By and large, money first, agendas second. And that in the case of most massive blockbusters, casting people of color is in the pursuit of money, not agendas.

AGAIN, yes, agendas exist, and Disney is absolutely guilty of pushing them, especially in things like Star Wars. But AGAIN, it's not absolute. Sometimes it's about agendas, more often than not it's about money.

In the case of Christopher Nolan, a director who has never once bowed to the woke mob, especially on Oppenheimer, it's pretty clear we're dealing with "we need more people of color in order to justify the cost" as opposed to "we need more black people to in order to preach at and piss off conservatives."

Cliff.Booth said:

---

So...why do you need to bring up that "other side" if you're not seeing anyone on this thread or others being explicitly racist? Why not wait until you actually see someone say something of that nature to make that "nuanced" accusation? Easier way to shut down a conversation you just don't ever want to have.

---

Have you visited F16? More than once, I've seen people there refer to Michelle Obama as an ape. If you don't think there's at least a small percentage of racists on that board, I don't know what to tell you. In other words, it's not at all out of the realm of possibility that, for a lightening rod of a thread like this one, some of them will make their way over here. Especially when I see people get genuinely upset that Helen of Troy is being played by a black woman, one can't help but wonder what's driving such a strong response.

All of that said, I was talking IN GENERAL earlier, hence my "social media" comment. Where you see lunatic after lunatic ranting and raving about a black Helen of Troy. Where it only stands to reason that that level of fervor/passion leans more into the "racist" camp than not.

BQRyno said:

---

You didn't say it's always about money first?

"But first and foremost Hollywood is a business that needs to ensure it's maximizing profits at every turn, especially on movies this expensive."

You literally said first and foremost…

---

Broadly speaking, Hollywood values money (first) over agendas (second). There is no disputing that. That's what I meant by "first and foremost." While disagreeing with the "always" in your initial sentence. Hence me agreeing multiple times now that, yes, Hollywood DOES push agendas, just not ALWAYS.

Good Lord.

Once again for the cheap seats...

Hollywood isn't a monolith.

You're mocking it like it's one person, Mr. Hollywood, calling all the shots, who's changing his mind on a whim.

When, in reality, it's an organism made up of hundreds of thousands of different people across multiple different studios, production companies, and agencies, each with their own unique set of priorities at any given time.

What I'm saying is that, if you held a gun to the head of every single person/studio/company in the industry, and made them choose, the vast majority of them, by a large degree, would choose money over agendas. Not all of them. Most of them. There's just no question.

That said, yes, there are no doubt more people at, say, Disney prone to choose agenda-pushing over money, while Christopher Nolan, and his friends at Universal, almost assuredly wouldn't.

Cliff.Booth said:

---

I don't spend much time on politics board, just don't find it that interesting.

I still don't think people finding a sub-saharan African HELEN OF TROY ridiculous and unnecessary comes from racism. If the same people watch and enjoy other shows featuring people of color, and like historical epics set in other regions where race-swapping in a white person would seem weird, they just want movies and shows cast differently.

That preference is debatable, but I just don't think it's as bat**** crazy as you often seem to react as though it is.

---

Dude, you're arguing with a phantom at this point.

It's kind of astonishing.

NO ONE here, especially me, is saying what you're saying in bold above.

Rather... I'm saying SOME people who find "a sub-saharan African HELEN OF TROY ridiculous" are racist.

SOME.

Not anywhere even remotely close to all.

And becomes SOME of those people exist, especially on social media, and to a way lesser degree on F16, upon first glance, with only text and two or three sentences to work with, it's hard to distinguish between "racist" and "not racist," when the complaining is passionate and irate.

You can have an issue with a black Helen of Troy all you want. Knock yourself out.

It's when that opinion is expressed angrily and incredulously and repeatedly, as if the movie is objectively/retroactively deciding history itself, that - again, on first glance - it's sometimes easy to wonder, "Is this anger coming from a place of racism or is it coming from a more rational place?"

That's all I was saying in an off-handed comment at the end of a larger point I was making.

Cliff.Booth said:

---

I ask this in all earnestness, so would appreciate a non-sarcastic response.

If Nolan is more interested in financial success of the movie than fulfilling an agenda for whatever reason (personal, Academy considerations etc), haven't there been plenty of historical epics set in European civilizations with more realistic casting that have gone on to do well and make money? Does he/studio executives in general really think that a decent number of minorities won't show up unless they see minority representation (even in a story/region that they wouldn't have been in. I get that Gladiator had an African character and that was historically realistic, but otherwise it's a pretty Anglo/European cast)? Some of my non-white friends love stuff like Gladiator I and 300, because it's badass, not because of representation.

---

Yes, this is what they believe.

I'm not saying it's right. I'm not saying it's wrong.

I'm simply saying this is how much of the industry thinks and operates.

And sometimes all it takes is one person of color, in the case of Denzel, if he's a big enough star. In fact, I would argue that more black people probably paid to watch that Gladiator II than they otherwise would have had that role been cast white. That doesn't mean that black audiences aren't capable of loving and appreciating plenty of "white" movies. I'm just saying that he probably did, indeed, lead to more money coming from the black community. Enough to make a difference? Who knows.

Now, if The Odyssey were made for $100M as opposed to $250M? Perhaps Nolan & co would have rolled the dice and gone with an all white/Greek cast. That's what he did on Oppenheimer, which had a budget of $100M. But when you get into that crazy $250M range, and the movie HAS to be a massive global success in order to turn a profit, that's when studios start wanting to minimize risk more, in every way they can. And one way of potentially doing so - at least in their minds - is casting more people of color in hopes that more people of color will show up.

Good lord, dude. I was talking about the haters on X & Youtube, etc. You have some anger issues you should see a therapist about. And you obviously haven't paid attention to this thread if you think I'm just now joining it.

FL_Ag1998 said:

---

Good lord, dude. I was talking about the haters on X & Youtube, etc. You have some anger issues you should see a therapist about. And you obviously haven't paid attention to this thread if you think I'm just now joining it.

---

There was no joke in your original post. But, nice try at recovering...I guess?

At the risk of talking about the actual film, I watched the trailer on Imax last night, and I think what's actually bugging me is that Matt Damon seems little boring for the main role. I really like him and have seen loads of his movies, but it feels like Odysseus should be an extremely emotional role. Damon seems to excel at charm, earnestness, and humor. I think Odysseus should be more haggard and sinewy looking given the nature of the journey.

I'm not sure who I would have cast instead. Christian Bale could do the acting, but he's such a Nolan guy it would be hard to detach him from his Batman character. A performance in line with Ethan Hawke in the Northman is maybe what I'm thinking about.

Tom Holland's casting also feels like a distraction, although that might just be that I've never seen him in anything but Spiderman. He's a great Peter Parker, but I have no idea if he can do anything else.

I think the roles I'm most excited to see at Pattison as Antinous and Charlize Theron as Calypso.

Also if you guys want to fly into a rage again, the casting list says there's a Korean guy named Wil Yun Lee in the cast as another of Odysseus's crew members, paying homage to the long-standing ancient alliance between Greece and Korea that existed in those days.

You can be very against DEI but still have no issue with Nolan's casting or any multi ethnic casting in fictional tales.

Is this like the time everyone got all pissed that they cast a black woman as a mermaid?

Fun fact: Helen of Troy is exactly as real as mermaids

Huh?

TCTTS said:

---

Huh?

---

Maybe he thinks children of Zeus actually roamed the earth?

TCTTS said:

---

Huh?

---

The Greeks believed many of the deities and characters were so real that they worshipped them. Heros faded after death when sacrifices were no longer offered to them. These temples were the center of life in the ancient world, with the town oriented around them. Much of the world (ancient and not - consider Japan) believed deities conceived children, thus divine emporers (and yes, there are ceremonies for this type of things where the king, half divine, is possessed and conceives with a temple priestess, etc.). Giant warriors like Ajax aren't far removed from Goliath in Christian sources.

The point being, to say 'herp it's mythology' it's to misunderstand it and the people that birthed it entirely. It's lazy and assumes they're all idiots to not just repeat stories but offer sacrifices and devote themselves to something that doesn't exist.

Add to it that many Hollywood stars dabble in witchcraft and you'll see the double standard, the motte and bailey of its fake but I still practice. Elizabeth Olson talked about other people onset and screen that gave her crystals, etc. I mean is that really any more farfetched?

Dude.

How the hell did "Hollywood stars who dabble in witchcraft" and "crystals" make its way into this conversation?

No one is mocking mythology, the people who birthed it, the people who believed it, or the people who are currently interested in it.

We're laughing at middle-aged dudes on social media and message boards who get their panties in a bunch over the skin color of fictional fantasy characters in modern movie adaptations made for mass entertainment.

Chill.