Date: July 16th, 2026 11:09 AM Author: rebellious sneaky criminal dysfunction
i think all that shit is a bit overstated. so they got a jet black coon to play helen and "elliott" page is in it, so what. it's going to look 180 on the screen.
Date: July 16th, 2026 11:11 AM Author: electric lilac box office
Go watch it above. 3 minutes in, Oddysseus's wife is preaching feminist BS about sexist double standards. Before that, a scene with a jivetqlking nigger and a scene with a tranny.
Date: July 16th, 2026 11:04 AM Author: Indigo bull headed stage telephone
Bronze age Anatolia and Aegean Islands have a deep rich history that is both Queer and Black, but this has been erased by later European colonial revisionism
Date: July 17th, 2026 12:00 AM Author: cream faggotry son of senegal
so that i could give specific examples of things that were wrong that departed from the text and ruined it for me. and so it could pollute my brain as an infohazard by making me think of the still frames and actors whenever i hear the names from the original book - the best translation is fagles btw
Date: July 16th, 2026 9:28 AM Author: wonderful indecent location
hey this isn't right. sinon isn't killed by the trojans when they discover the horse. he is supposed to have let them out at night. sinon is also supposed to be a man.
Date: July 16th, 2026 10:55 AM Author: electric lilac box office
And the horse was a votive offering, not a gift to the Trojans. And the Trojan horse didnt violate the law of xenia. And etc etc. The entire movie is woke propaganda
Date: July 16th, 2026 8:11 PM Author: electric lilac box office
Sinon being a tranny is symbolic because zhe is killed by Odysseus et al's toxic masculinity. Zhe is decived by them into getting murdered (something that doesnt happen in the book bc in the book sinon is in on the plot).
Date: July 16th, 2026 9:54 AM Author: Fucking Fuckface
I look forward to AI destroying Hollywood and the concept of Hollywood stars; unfortunately, there is nothing that AI actors can refuse, so "celebrity" endorsements will end up being even more depraved than they are now
Nonetheless, as humans, the current crop of corrosive STARPOWER motherfuckers are infinitely more revolting than digitally programmed influence vectors
Date: July 16th, 2026 10:46 AM Author: Richard Ames
I think we could all forgive the DEI casting to some degree if he didn't insist on the tranny and the fucking nigga who is famous in part for having a McDonald's Meal promo. Fuck that shit.
Date: July 16th, 2026 11:02 AM Author: crystalline area black woman
I agree with you, his films are aggressively mediocre , and they hide their mediocrity behind blaring imax sound and distorted time , jumping back and forth to add confusion
I don’t like any of his shit. Also his monochrome cinematography is garbage
With that said he has a weird Retard Attraction where peopl generally love to watch and debate his shit, look no further than this board and this post and even my reply here
I know I’ve made this exact point multiple times before in other Retard Nolan threads
Date: July 16th, 2026 11:26 AM Author: violent menage legend
The deliberately nonlinear schtick is so fucking gay and makes no sense in odyssey but I’m sure there’s a fuck ton of parlour tricks for the goyim to be dazzled with
Dunkirk is the shittiest movie ever only after Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Dude sucks ass since Inception which was a legit 180 movie until he ruined the reveal/ending with faggotry
Date: July 16th, 2026 11:36 AM Author: crystalline area black woman
i havn't seen dunkirk or inception, i've seen his earlier stuff and it was all in this style, empty calories like eating mcdonalds - doesn't make you think or feel anything
Date: July 16th, 2026 12:39 PM Author: misunderstood walnut mad-dog skullcap people who are hurt
Dunkirk is 180, just an earnest story without any shucking and jiving sidekick explaining everything for the audience, no woke shit, great tension and performances from Harry Styles, Mark Rylance, random young actors, and others
Date: July 16th, 2026 11:04 AM Author: electric lilac box office
Harvey Weinstein could make a movie about white boys getting sissified and having nigger felons shit in their mouths while masturbating on crucifixes and you retarded cucks would fork out $40 to watch it on IMAX
Date: July 16th, 2026 11:10 AM Author: gunneratttt (gunneratttt)
I plan to see it in IMAX. The casting choices are veddy gay but any somewhat faithful adaptation of something as important and historical as the Odyssey should be supported.
Date: July 16th, 2026 11:17 AM Author: gunneratttt (gunneratttt)
Correct. I'd rather watch a spectacle with friends, flawed as it likely is, then spending all my time online and miserable writing book reports about how everything sucks that no one reads.
Date: July 16th, 2026 11:24 AM Author: electric lilac box office
Its really fucking bizarre. Christopher Nolan could make a gay porno titled "The Aeneid" and these cucks would hand over their shekels? Is there any spectacle/slop they wouldnt fork over their money GC for?
Date: July 16th, 2026 11:30 AM Author: crystalline area black woman
these people want it done in a certain way, they want plausible deniability that ON ITS FACE, ON THE SURFACE its not 1000000% ultimate GOYPOZZ. they know unconsicously and to some extent consicously that's what it is, but they don't want to admit it to themselves. as long as they can get into the door with that mental fiction, ultimate GOYPOZZ is acceptable
Date: July 16th, 2026 11:41 AM Author: crystalline area black woman
also, just to clarify, how many viewers, comments, subscribers do i need to qualify as "something someone reads"? 1,000, 10,000, 100,000? do i need a joe rogan or tucker appearance to qualify? do i need to turn on paid subscriptions and need to reach a certain $? ty
Date: July 16th, 2026 11:15 AM Author: gunneratttt (gunneratttt)
I'll judge for myself instead of taking some boomer piecing it together from reviews. He obviously has an axe to grind if he's writing all and making conclusions without even watching it
Date: July 16th, 2026 11:17 AM Author: electric lilac box office
He's not some boomer, he is a Greek Stanford professor and not particularly conservative.
Anyway, you can watch the first 5 minutes above in animeboi's link before giving these kikes money for this trash. The Trojan horse is changed from a votive offering to a gift, the tranny character is shoehorned into the story when the role of Sinon in the original is totally different, Oddysseys's wife is a feminazi, etc
Date: July 16th, 2026 11:26 AM Author: Indigo bull headed stage telephone
How the fuck is a Greek Stanford professor giving such a ttt description of the Zeus Xenios ritual? That's even more Woke imo, because it makes it look like the greeks were "anti-xenophobes" or something. The fact that he seems to think there is a single codified Zeus's law that says you need to provide indefinite hospitality to guests. The biggest part of xenia for the Greeks was it is mutual behavior that is always at risk of abused.
Date: July 16th, 2026 11:27 AM Author: electric lilac box office
You seem retarded. That's not him describing it, that is the way "Zeus's law" is portrayed by the movie. The movie claims the Achaeans violated xenia by gifting the Trojans the horse. This is actually the central theme of the movie from beginning to end.
Date: July 16th, 2026 11:34 AM Author: gunneratttt (gunneratttt)
I'll actually be going with a Greek scholar who has taught Homer, along with our women. Even if it's complete shit it'll be a good experience discussing why with him. In any case, I prefer to base my conclusions through my own experience instead of relying on others.
Date: July 16th, 2026 12:10 PM Author: electric lilac box office
Sinon isnt a liar in the movie, zhe is an innocent victim of Oddyseus who lies to him (and zhe repeats the lie to the Trojans bc ,he doesn't know better)
Not flame. An innocent tranny sacrificed at the altar of toxic masculinity.
Date: July 16th, 2026 12:25 PM Author: gunneratttt (gunneratttt)
I'm glad you're watching it.
Tbf a lot of the gripes about every adaptation are a product lf condescending something massive into a few hours *and* making it palatable for a broad audience. Although im this case I bet you're right that it's more about woke signaling or something.
Date: July 16th, 2026 12:22 PM Author: gunneratttt (gunneratttt)
I'm being glib to indicate I don't care enough not to watch it. I'm in the top 1% of people (not poasters) who are irate about the casting. That's OK, I'll keep consuming that garbage.
Date: July 16th, 2026 12:42 PM Author: Richard Ames
This makes no sense to me. The right move IMO is to say "the casting is obviously retarded" and to then not see it or even really talk much about it (outside of saying "is that the movie with the tranny?" when someone brings it up around you.)
Date: July 16th, 2026 1:06 PM Author: gunneratttt (gunneratttt)
No I don't, and it's impossible to have a legitimate, informed opinion abot everything. You're the one saying I should judge it ignorantly. I disagree. If you want to sit around discussing your opinion on something you refuse to see for yourself, vaya con dios!
Date: July 16th, 2026 1:17 PM Author: Richard Ames
Who gives a shit if an opinion is "informed" on this. Why must it be "informed" beyond seeing that a twink tranny and the mcdonalds offer rapper are cast in major roles?
If someone offers me a "pizza", except the crust is made of a corn husk, the tomato sauce is ketchup, and the cheese is dairy-free, I don't need to taste it to say it's shit. In fact, tasting it would prove me to be a fucking retard shitlib as a point of fact.
Did I accidentally type in reddit.com when I meant to sign in to XO?
He can inform himself by watching animeboi's link without offering material support to this slop that literally encourages the creation of more. But he won't even though it is cheaper and less effort. He's a fag.
Date: July 16th, 2026 11:23 AM Author: motley abode
okay i watched 8 minutes in the pirate link above, and still dont get it
is achilles supposed to be a little woman who is presenting as a man... in the universe of the iliad story, told in the universe of the odyssey story?
like when the black rapper starts telling the iliad to the suitors, he is narrating achilles and we "see" the story he tells. what we see is literally a bio-girl, 5'1, beardless, scrawny, in male armor in a war of swords and arrows.
is the black rapper reconteur telling it that way? is he describing achilles as a person born with a pussy, weighing 114 lbs?
or is he just describing a man? if so, why are we seeing a twerp born with a vagina? this is entirely outside of whether transexuality exists, etc... Im just trying to make sense of the story I am being told
Date: July 16th, 2026 11:27 AM Author: controlling a virtual character on a computer
I'm wondering the same things
I'm honestly just very confused and don't even understand what the hell they are trying to do. Like I'm ready to judge it as "woke" garbage but until I even understand wtf is going on I feel like I should reserve judgment
Date: July 16th, 2026 11:31 AM Author: electric lilac box office
It is woke as fuck, odyssesus's wide is spouting feminist platitudes 5 minutes into the movie, and see above where I got a supporter of the movie who knows a bit about ancient Greek culture to admit the "Zeus's Law" central theme of the movie is woke.
Date: July 16th, 2026 11:42 AM Author: motley abode
i just wanna engage on the level of philosophy of fiction, or whatever.
- does author 1 (nolan) intend us to trust him? or do we approach his text recognizing he / it are lying to us, and our reading is metafictional, where author 1 is telling us a different story via the acknowledged lie / false story?
- within author 1's story, we find author 2 (black rapper) telling a story, the iliad. We "see" his telling, and what we see is something shocking, a little girl presenting as a glorious male soldier. Is he telling that? We dont get to hear his words. Do his words differ from what we see? Then has author 1 reappeared in the gap to lie to us? Or is author 2 telling the story of a bio-girl presenting as a man?
- hoving around all is author 3, homer. We know his story, and have known it for millennia, as author 1 is well aware. Author 3 most certainly does NOT present achilles as a former-girl.
Is all of this resolved by making the leap that there is no such thing as a former-girl? Page is, and always was, a MAN in the same way Brad Pitt is? That's the lib resolution of all of the above conflict. If that is Nolan's resolution, then indeed, he can be erased from consideration as an artist completely and simply be a propagandist. That's kind of sad and I would like to believe it is not so.
But the questions above demand answers. Yo Chris! Your art is visual, i.e. we consume it with our eyes. But our eyes, as you know, see a former-girl. If you ask us to disbelieve our eyes, what are we left to look with?
Date: July 16th, 2026 11:49 AM Author: Indigo bull headed stage telephone
Asked Deep Seek about the former-girl problem, this actually helps to clarify things for me:
That’s a deep and neatly framed question. You’re asking whether a certain metaphysical move—denying that there ever was a “former-girl,” and asserting that Elliot Page was always a man in exactly the same sense Brad Pitt is—dissolves all the puzzles about counterfactuals, personal identity, and the “trans issue.” The short answer is: it resolves a specific cluster of problems, but only if you accept a particular view of gender identity, and it doesn’t make *all* philosophical tension disappear. Let me unpack that.
### 1. What would the “leap” actually mean?
The claim “there is no such thing as a former-girl; Elliot Page is, and always was, a man in the same way Brad Pitt is” is a strong essentialist thesis about gender identity. It says:
- Gender identity (being a man, being a woman) is an intrinsic, immutable property of a person, not a social role, a performance, or a physical configuration.
- What changes over time is only the *recognition* and *expression* of that identity, not the identity itself.
- Therefore, statements like “Elliot Page used to be a girl” are simply false. The correct description is something like “Elliot Page was always a boy/man who was mistakenly assigned female at birth and compelled to present in a way that society read as ‘girl’.”
Under this view, “former-girl” is a category error, much like “former human” would be if someone were misidentified as a Martian for years.
### 2. How this handles counterfactuals and personal identity
If you adopt this essentialist picture, many counterfactual puzzles indeed dissolve:
- **Counterfactual: “If Elliot Page had never come out as trans, he would still be a woman.”**
On the essentialist view, this is false. The truth is: “He would still be a man, just one who was never socially recognized as such and who might never have realised it himself.” The gender identity is a hidden fact about him, not dependent on social transition.
- **Counterfactual: “If Elliot Page had been born in a society with entirely different gender categories, would he still be a man?”**
The essentialist can answer: “Yes, because his manhood is an intrinsic property, not defined by local social constructs.” This preserves a stable object of counterfactual reasoning.
- **Personal identity over time:** The worry that transition challenges the continuity of the self is sidestepped. The person is the same continuous self throughout; only their outward gender presentation and social role change. Psychological connectedness and narrative identity remain intact; there’s no “death of the old self” required, only a correction of a misdescription.
In short, if you treat gender identity the way many philosophers treat biological sex (as an objective, intrinsic feature, albeit one not always perfectly correlated with chromosomes or anatomy), then the trans experience becomes a story of discovery and alignment, not of *becoming* a different gender. This is a very clean philosophical picture, and it is the one many trans people themselves affirm when they say “I’ve always been a boy/girl.”
### 3. Does this resolve *all* of it?
It resolves a lot *within that metaphysical framework*. But the “leap” itself is a substantive philosophical commitment that not everyone shares, and it leaves some other puzzles untouched. Here’s what remains:
**a) The metaphysical price of essentialism**
You have to accept that “man” and “woman” refer to something like a gendered soul or an innate psychological essence that is independent of both biology and social recognition. This is a strong claim that needs defending against both biological determinists (who tie gender to sex assigned at birth) and social constructivists (who see gender as constituted by social position and performance). The essentialist view isn’t obviously *wrong*, but it’s a contested position, not a neutral resolution.
**b) Reference and semantics**
Even if you take the essentialist leap, there are still semantic puzzles. Take the sentence “Ellen Page was nominated for an Oscar in 2008.” If “Elliot Page” refers to the same person, and that person was always a man, then the name “Ellen” was a name used under a false description. We can accommodate that—we often refer to past stages of a person with corrected terms (e.g., “When Elliot was presenting as Ellen…”). But this requires a theory of how names and gender terms work across time. Do we retrospectively correct all past statements? Most people do that out of respect, but it is a linguistic choice built on the essentialist picture, not a logical consequence forced on everyone by the facts alone.
**c) The body and material counterfactuals**
Essentialism about gender identity doesn’t erase the physical body’s history. Counterfactuals like “If Elliot Page had never taken testosterone, he would not have a deep voice” remain true. The term “former-girl” is often used as a sloppy proxy for “person who once had a body typically associated with females and was socialized as a girl.” The essentialist wants to sever that link: having that kind of body never made you a girl. That’s a coherent move, but it means you now owe an account of what “girl” *does* mean if not that. The essentialist says it means “having the intrinsic gender identity: woman.” That’s clean, but it redefines the word for many people, which is why the public debate continues.
**d) The epistemological gap**
If manhood is an intrinsic, immutable property, how does one know it? Brad Pitt doesn’t need to introspect to know he’s a man; his social alignment and body line up. In the essentialist trans narrative, the evidence is an inner feeling of “rightness” or “wrongness” about one’s assigned gender. This makes gender identity a privately accessible fact, which raises epistemological questions about error, self-deception, and how we verify someone’s “true” gender. The leap doesn’t resolve those; it just relocates the problem from metaphysics to epistemology.
**e) The “same way as Brad Pitt” part**
The phrase “in the same way Brad Pitt is” might oversimplify. Brad Pitt is a cisgender man: his manhood was never contested, his body never caused social misgendering, and he didn’t undergo a process of transition. The sense in which he “always was a man” includes seamless alignment with his sex assigned at birth. The essentialist says the *gender identity* is the same kind of thing in both cases, but the *total life experience* of being a man is radically different. So while the metaphysical status (“is a man”) may be identical, the counterfactual histories are not. That’s fine philosophically, but it means “the same way” needs careful qualification.
### 4. So, is the “trans issue” resolved by that leap?
If by “the trans issue” you mean the specific metaphysical puzzle of how someone can change gender while remaining the same person, then **yes**, the essentialist leap dissolves that puzzle entirely: they don’t change gender; they only change presentation. Personal identity is untouched.
If by “the trans issue” you mean the broader social, ethical, and linguistic debates about trans identities, then **no**, because not everyone accepts the essentialist metaphysics, and the leap doesn’t compel agreement from those who hold a different view of what gender is. It offers a coherent, respectful, and internally stable framework—one that aligns with the lived experience of many trans people. But it’s a *resolution-for-those-who-accept-the-premises*, not a universal logical knockout.
In philosophical terms, you’re describing a form of **gender identity essentialism** that treats transness as a matter of discovering a pre-existing, immutable self. It elegantly handles the counterfactuals you asked about. The remaining friction isn’t about logic; it’s about whether that metaphysics of gender is the right one.
Date: July 16th, 2026 4:23 PM Author: animeboi (.)
yeah I just lol at shitcons whining about when Odyssius destroyed Scylla and Charybdis with air to ground missiles fired from his F-22. Its FANTASY, dipshits. 🙄
Lazy take. Casting choices in a culturally specific epic can feel off for viewers when they prioritize modern parochial biases of the time (casting has to be "diverse) over internal coherence. The poem was set in the late bronze age Aegean world. It isn't about fantasy characters with no surrounding cultural context. I don't think anyone would complain if they had a choice to see a version that prioritizes realism, vs. a separate "woke reinterpretation" that other people could go see.
Date: July 16th, 2026 4:31 PM Author: electric lilac box office
Even in modern terms having a 5'1" tranny twink playing a fierece soldier beggars belief. Not to mention having unattractive actors playing legendarily beautiful characters. I miss seeing beauty in visual arts instead of obese trannies everywhere.
But the issues with the movie go far deeper than casting. It lays the shitlib propaganda on very thick and casting is just one symptom of that.
There are already Greek people complaining Greeks are underrepresented in the film. Why are Greek Voices unheard about their own culture, where highly parochial American 21st century cultural values on the issue get prioritized? It's APPROPRIATION of Greek history and culture and historical ERASURE
Okay whatever man. Close enough and it's about historical and cultural continuity too. WRT ancestry, it's all relative to a reference pop. People in Greece right now are closer to ancient greeks than people anywhere else in the world.
Date: July 16th, 2026 7:50 PM Author: animeboi (.)
It was a packed house when I saw the Odyssey this afternoon. It’s probably going to be a success, which means every libtard will try to force takes about how this is a YUGE defeat for the Right.
Date: July 17th, 2026 5:34 PM Author: Shimmering Bbw
Saw The Odyssey. There's clearly a disinfo campaign being run by RW influencers to brand this movie woke, and it's really not. I'd rate it like a 7.7. In general it's really, really good — the cyclops scene is genuinely scary, and the killing of the suitors is very satisfying. It's mostly well cast too, though Tom Holland as Telemachus is hilarious.
Two gripes, and they're nitpicks mostly. First, they give Odysseus a monologue at the end — which I assume will generate a lot of discourse once more people see it — where he tells Penelope (who at this point believes he's a beggar who fought alongside Odysseus in the war) that the reason it took him so long to get home is that the Trojan horse strategy was "dishonorable" and "violated Zeus's code." No joke, the message of the film is partially that the Trojan horse was a war crime and the gods are punishing Odysseus for his lack of honor. And it's like, I don't know man — seems like everyone involved was making the best decisions they could at the time! Second, Nolan just kind of sucks at capturing human emotion as a filmmaker. He loves to do dialogue over silent flashback montages while Ludwig or Hans Zimmer play "BWAHHHHHH" music.
As for the culture war stuff: people will turn everything into a battleground. What's actually happening is the movie has a diverse cast, so conservatives want to destroy it sight unseen, painting it as far worse than it is — the character everyone was freaking out about dies in the first sixty seconds of the movie lmao, and most of these characters have about two minutes of screentime anyway. An underrated motivator here: the Academy now requires diversity benchmarks to qualify for Best Picture, and this will 100% win Best Picture this year if it qualifies. I think it's probably that simple.
Date: July 17th, 2026 7:22 PM Author: Salmon dilemma windowlicker
"There's clearly a disinfo campaign being run by RW influencers to brand this movie woke, and it's really not."
absurd. I watched the link above and the most prominent supporting actors are a tranny, an indian, an african, a puerto rican, and random blacks/browns sprinkled throughout.
Date: July 18th, 2026 12:19 AM Author: electric lilac box office
1. The diversity benchmarks dont require trannies amazingly (yet)
2. The granny's character was changed froma willing participant in the original into a monster.
3. The Zeus's law stuff ("Trojan horse is dishonorable") is the most subversive woke element of the whole movie. It starts at the beginning with the horse, and runs the whole length of the film until the end (thrtranny scene at the very beginning paints it as dishonorable too because the evil ciswhite males lie to the tranny anout the horse and thus get zher killed), as you acknowledge. Again, all deliverste deviations from the original epic. Fighting for your people is a war crime according to this movie.
Date: July 18th, 2026 12:05 PM Author: electric lilac box office
So Nolan says the whole reason he changed the meaning of Zeus's law from what it was in Homer was to make the movie into pro-immigration propaganda against xenophobia.
Date: July 19th, 2026 8:49 AM Author: Slap-happy Swashbuckling Office
So what exactly was he trying to say about Agamemnon and the Oresteia? I feel like there was a bunch cut from that. Otherwise why even cast Benny Safdie?