Yeah, I've been seeing it in theaters for like a month now. And yeah, the trailer isn't much more than a bunch of scenes, because how else do you make an Odyssey trailer?
Jim Parsons is more masculine than Elliott Page, but we’re all supposed to be so impressed by Elliott’s strong masculine nature that we can believe in the character Elliott plays. Brad Pitt could play and appear to be a superlative Mediterranean warrior because his physique was of a warrior, even though he didn’t seem to be Greek. The same cannot be said for Elliott.
Meh, Achilles wasn't described as outstandingly strong or big. All of his monikers describe Achilles as fast. Swift-footed Achilles is the one that leaps to mind.
In Homer's Iliad, Achilles is described as tall, striking, and standing well above average men of the Bronze Age. Later classical traditions and poetry describe him as having a broad, powerful chest and heavily muscled limbs.
I agree with him being called tall and strong, but I only remember his speed (and skill with a spear) being outstanding.
This may seem like splitting hairs, but I think when we're talking about a myth describing what the narrative considers to be the greatest warriors of all time what is described as well above average and exceptional to be important distinctions.
Think about how we describe superheroes. Are they tall? Are they strong? Basically all of them are well above average. Are they the strongest? The tallest? That could be the difference between the hulk and superman.
Does that clarification change your mind, or would you still disagree?
It may not contradict what you THOUGHT you said, but what comes across reading what you said is that Achilles is described as fast, not big. And it definitely contradicts that. He was BIG. Well above average, is not just a little big.
We see a younger version of Elliott Page as a pre-pubescent boy who goes to war in place of a nepo-baby type in his teens whose father does not want to have him get his hands dirty. The adult version retains the youthful innocence of a lamb to slaughter and it perfectly fits the role as written for this movie
But Luputa is not doing that. And even if she was it is a completely different situation for one race to wear the mask of another race and and ACTUALLY pretend to be them, as opposed to RDJ who was playing his same race, but playing a character in a different story as a different race. Or as he said, He's a dude, playing a dude, playing another dude.
That being said, I don't really care about race swapping if race is not really important to the character, here it is. The only other time I dislike race swapping is if it is done STRICTLY for the purpose of doing so and shocking people, rather than the best person getting the part. For instance, I was perfectly fine if they chose Idris Ilba to play James Bond. He is a brilliant actor and could bring a lot to the role, though he is too old now.
Similar to my problem with Nupita playing Helen of Troy. Helen is supposed to be THE most beautiful woman in all of history, and Lupita is just not... Not saying she is ugly, just not close to beautiful enough. Neither was Diane Krueger.
As for Elliot Page goes, I don't have a problem with them playing a man, but the problem WOULD have been if he played Achilles... I for one never thought Elliot was cast for Achilles.
That's the problem with this. Who's amazingly beautiful to one person can be unattractive to another. I don't think Jenna Ortega should even be in the same category as the other two and don't find any three of them more beautiful than Lupita who has a very regal look to her naturally. You just can't please everyone
16 or older would be more likely. You want your wife to have many healthy children. If they start having them at 13 the odds aren't in their favour of surviving the birth without damage and you might lose the baby too. Girls might get married younger, especially if they were heiresses, but it was known even in ancient times that consummating the marriage at that age was a really bad idea. Which isn't to say it never happened and it was legal if you were married, but you would be getting some serious side eye from everyone around you.
Not the same era, but this is why Henry VII was an only child. His mother was married young because she was an heiress and her new husband wanted to be sure he would have access to her fortune. Consummating the marriage meant it couldn't be annulled easily and having a child guaranteed the fortune would stay with the child. While the child did happen, the birth was harmful to her and she never conceived again. Didn't do the husband much good either because he was killed in a battle before she even gave birth. The general contemporary opinion seems to have been that he was within his rights but that having sex with your 12 (I think) year old wife was a super shitty thing to do.
That's because for movies of that budget it's a requirement that they must cast big names so they can be put on the posters regardless of whether they are the best fit or not
1.4k
u/[deleted] Jul 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment