Huan and Lúthien approach Sauron at Tol-in-Gaurhoth, FA 465
No title available

ellievsbear
Acquired Stardust

JBB: An Artblog!

Origami Around

blake kathryn
Misplaced Lens Cap

pixel skylines
styofa doing anything

Kiana Khansmith
RMH

No title available
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
almost home

oozey mess
🪼
One Nice Bug Per Day

#extradirty
wallacepolsom
Xuebing Du
seen from Türkiye

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from China
seen from United States

seen from Türkiye
seen from Canada

seen from Singapore
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Russia
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from New Zealand

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States
seen from Germany
@elthbe
Huan and Lúthien approach Sauron at Tol-in-Gaurhoth, FA 465
I think my thing about quality adaptions is that I expect the person doing the adapting to have a genuine love for the source material. and I don't just mean an awareness of its quality, or even just an in-depth understanding. imo, if you're adapting something into a novel/tv show/movie, I expect you to be obsessed with it. like, you're creating this adaptation because you're so full of love for this thing that it manifests through creation.
and that is why I think nolan's odyssey isn't going to be a good adaption. I think he is definitely intelligent enough to have understood the odyssey, it's like the foundational text of the western canon after all. so it's not failing because he isn't capable of understanding what's wrong with saying stuff like "not even the gods can stand between me and my home," or dressing the characters up in pants, and inaccurate dull armour. it's going to fail because he does not respect, let alone love, the original text.
It makes me unbearably sad when a much beloved story is adapted by someone whose clearly only using the IP to write their own BULLSHITT fanfiction. Its something loved by so many people, a million bits of art and stories are created from it, whole communities are born in celebration of this thing and then the responsibility of adapting this much beloved thing is thrust into the hands of a butcher
The Odyssey except it's set in Nolanland
(because, according to people arguing in favour of this film, Greece isn't real)
Just because a mythological epic is fictional doesn't mean it has no historical, societal and cultural importance for the people that created it.
It's completely normal for Greeks to have opinions on this film and it is absolutely valid when they're negative.
I find it funny when people claim to be woke yet refuse the most basic respect to those who have every right to be upset when some big director with a big ego butchers a part of their culture.
Nolan's The Odyssey real problem
The most irritating thing for me about this adaptation is the fact that the main problem with all these reinterpretations and retellings is not touched upon: that is, the appropriation of Greek heritage without any kind of respect, understanding, or care.
There are many right-wing American men who say this adaptation is "an attack on Western civilization" and "white culture"; that Nolan is "rewriting history."
The fact is that history has already been rewritten, by Western European intellectuals during the Enlightenment, and not by Christopher Nolan in 2026.
The Enlightenment thinkers of Western Europe (England, Germany, France) were obsessed with classical culture (Greek and Roman) and began the "Grand Tour" to visit the cradles of these ancient civilizations.
If they loved the ancient Greeks and Romans very much, the same cannot be said for the descendants of these populations: they openly hated both modern Greeks and Italians, calling them too passionate and lacking in self-control; incompatible with progress and corrupted by the warm climate, which they believed made Greeks and Italians "lazy"; in some cases they defined Greek men as "submissive" and Italian men as "effeminate", while fetishizing Greek women as tragic figures with a statuary appearance and Italian women as seductresses devoid of morality. They thought of Italy as an uncivilized place more akin to Africa (against which they had, clearly, a racial prejudice) than to them; and in the same way they regarded Greece as part "of the east".
Italians and Greeks were not white enough to be included in the new concept of "West" and "Europe", even though those same intellectuals appropriated the classical legacy belonging to these peoples as the foundation of "Western civilization". They stole, either explicitly illegally or by exploiting moments of political instability in these countries, statues, artifacts, even entire pieces of temples, to take them to their museums, where they washed them with aggressive chemicals, ruining them to "preserve" the myth of classicism as "white, colorless" despite it being clear that those statues and artifacts were painted, ruining forever something they shouldn't have even had in their hands and that they still, to this day, refuse to give back. They even went so far as to say that neither modern Italians nor modern Greeks were truly descendants of the ancient Romans and Greeks, that our blood was corrupted or that those ancient civilizations went extinct and that we "replaced" them, declaring instead that THEY were the true heirs of classicism. And finally, after having despised and robbed the children of the ancient peoples whom they "admire" so much, they also altered and distorted the history of those civilitations, erasing the connection they had with the other civilitations of the Mediterranean and how they were influenced by them; only in this way could the classical world become "white", "European" and "Western", because those racist and xenophobic intellectuals would never have taken as the foundation of their "superior civilization" two civilizations deeply connected to civilizations they considered inferior and so THEY "rewrote" history!
All this to say that this desire to call classical culture "white", "European", "Western" arises from acts of zenophobia towards the very heirs of those cultures and racism towards the other peoples who helped form those cultures, without whom we would never have had Ancient Greece and Rome, because the Mediterranean is a place of connection between peoples and even today it is possible to see in small cultural aspects how we Mediterraneans are very connected.
History has already been rewritten by the Western European Enlightenment thinkers and if Nolan is doing anything it is simply keeping that rewrite intact: there are only Anglo-Saxon and American actors), no Greeks, no Turks, no Italians, no Mediterranean, yet the Homeric poems speak about us, but we are erased and we must be fine for someone who looks nothing like us to "represent" us in the founding poems of our civilizations (even if for now Roman mythology is still quite safe, even though Roman history is constantly distorted by their films) because according to them we are all now "white" (and it is true that Greece and Italy now have access to the privileges of being Western, European and white, but this doesn't change the whole problematic nature of how these concepts were formed and should make us reflect on how they initially excluded us and how our legacy and history have been distorted in a way that only now we are finally starting to see).
On the other hand, the people who defend this cast are equally blind to the problem, because they compare mythology to modern fantasy, without even knowing that these are different genres.
Mythology is a historical tale that presents fantastical elements that serve to explain what the ancients failed to understand, in addition to the fact that ancient peoples were extremely religious and their worldview was deeply connected to divinity.
People who listened to this story didn't believe the characters were "fictional," we in modern times today believe that!
For the people who heard that story, everything was true, every character was real, and that was the story of their civilization, of their ancestors.
Modern fantasy is completely fictional and therefore must not meet canons of historical accuracy, because it does not speak of real history, but of a story and a world invented by the author!
it's clear that neither the first ones, that until it was announced that a talented black actress had a role that is also quite marginal beyond anything else, were enthusiastic about this film and calm with the cast of Anglo-Saxons and zero Greeks; nor the other ones, who don't even know the basic difference between mythology and fantasy, care anything about these poems and this mythology; Most of the actors said they hadn't even read the odyssey and didn't know what it was before this adaptation and I know that this reflects a lot of American (and English) society and that all the people who talk a lot, both bad and good, of this film so far (or at least most of them) they have never even read the Odyssey or any other epic poem, and this for me is perhaps another of the most problematic aspects, because in both cases the country with the most power in the world appropriates something that it doesn't care about.
Americans have no right to take everything; if someone announced the film of a Nigerian myth, for example, but the cast only included African Americans, it would be equally offensive and problematic, because there is a difference between Nigerians and African Americans, and Americans have no right to appropriate the culture of others and erase their rightful heirs as clear as it is that culture belongs to everyone, as we are all humans and it is wonderful to connect through our stories.
This, however, should be done with the utmost respect and care, something the United States is not always capable of doing, from its perspective of profit and domination; this Odyssey will be a distorted version, made of individualism that fails to understand ancient religiosity and the value of community, in addition to the fact that Odysseus' masculinity is somewhat different from that typically Anglo-Saxon, because in general Mediterranean masculinity is different from Nordic masculinity, but this aspect will also be completely altered to please a certain segment of the American male audience.
Finally, I think it's controversial that there isn't even an effort at historical verosimilarity; it's not a fact of not being "historically accurate," but do we really want to pretend that it's right to put Viking ships, pants, and medieval armor with a cast of Anglo-Saxon actors in ancient Greece? What message does it send me to want to include a culture belonging not only to a different people and geographical area, but also to another era, while pretending that that is Ancient Greece?Were the clothes of ancient Greece not beautiful enough? weren't the ships of ancient Greece beautiful enough? weren't the Greek actors good and handsome enough? because this seems like the message of this movie, like this: "Your story is good, but I don't like your people, so I'll change history with my culture instead of yours by continuing to pretend we're in ancient Greece" which considering the whole story of cultural appropriation and xenophobic hatred towards the Greeks, carried out precisely by Western Europe (Nolan is English), certainly takes on a rather problematic nuance; they stole statues, rewrote history and now they also replace people visually, it's unfair!
It would have been much more interesting and beautiful if Nolan had taken all the artistic freedom he possesses and actually made a Norse version of the Odyssey, that would have been a much more appreciable creative move than imposing the Nordic scenario in the Mediterranean.
Or at least point out that this is an American/Anglo-Saxon/Nordic version of the Odyssey and that it doesn't really adapt the actual Greek Odyssey, because that's what it is and I thought so right from the moment this adaptation was announced.
There are many other things that could be talked about this adaptation and about the American obsession with Greek mythology (and Roman history) in general, but as far as this film is concerned, in my opinion this aspect is the most problematic.
Homer's Odysseus: Ok, I stopped on another island and I'm gonna be praying to the gods while being aided by them on my journey
Nolan's Odysseus: Uhhh, yeah I'm gonna get home and not even the gods will stop even though that's the opposite point of the story, uhhh oh hey look at my shitty brown armour!
In the official document which shows that the Greek state granted 6.5 million euros directly from citizens' taxes as a subsidy to Chris Nolan's production, we read that the film was originally titled "CHARLIE'S TALE" and not "ODYSSEY", a title it was later changed to. Additionally, the Greek Ministry of Culture classifies it as "Fiction". Chris Nolan can cast a black Helen and Athena, a Mexican Eumaeus, a transgender Achilles or Elpenor, a Batman-like Agamemnon, space marines as the Laestrygonians, or a black rapper as a Greek poet. He can base the script on the worst possible translation, one that distorts the entire meaning of the Homeric poems, and even replace Argos the dog with a cat. But it will never be the Odyssey. It will be "Charlie's Tale".
...i have so many questions the more stuff about this film get exposed
Just so we're fair, this is just a distortion of the facts by an X account, and we know X is not the best site to rely on. "Charlie's Tale" was just the code name Nolan used for the Odyssey project while it was still processed in full secrecy. He does this with all his movies apparently, in order to ensure information does not leak in the press. For example, his Batman movie had the code name "Rory's First Kiss"! Therefore I assume some of the changes, like that Argos was a cat, were just code as well. In the latest trailer we see that Argos is a dog. (BTW was it me or the dog looked CGI wtf) As for Elliot Page, I think he plays Elpenor who is killed early and then Odysseus meets him in Hades and I don't see a problem with this casting. Elliot Page can pass for a Greek more or less and playing a young, maybe less robust man than the rest seems fine to me. Also the Mexican actor playing Eumaeus seems passable to me. Not ideal but possible. A young rapper that is not even a professional actor playing an old ancient Greek bard because Nolan thinks rap is the modern form of ancient rhapsodies is ridiculous. Batman Agamemnon is insanity, so are the space Laestrygonians as well. I am actually okay with Zendaya as Athena. Lupita N'yongo I don't like, despite her being stunning and all, because I cannot accept that we're pretending that it's politically sensitive to cast as the most beautiful Greek a woman that is explicitly neither Greek nor even Mediterranean. That's like saying the prettiest woman of the Greeks had to look like a non-Greek (or as an as atypical Greek as possible, for the snowflakes out there) in order to be the prettiest, because Greeks / Mediterraneans are ugly as hell apparently??? This is actually very insensitive for Mediterranean people (and I want to remind to all that Mediterranean people have WAY LESS visibility than black people in Hollywood so don't come at me with your visibility card). I know that's not what Nolan intended this to come through as, but this is unfortunately what it IS coming through as. Nolan strived so much for American political sensitivity that he ended up culturally insensitive both for Greece and the whole Mediterranean region. That's why people should not forget that having balance and measure in your expression is the most important thing, and not becoming so radical for your cause that you ignore and thus shit in all other causes out there... Not only that, but being radical only provokes bigots and radicals from the opposite side to become even more vocal and get more people on their side, so Nolan and Nolan apologists, you aren't winning this way, mates, only most of you are too dumb to understand this. You're also too dumb to understand that you rallying for Nolan's casting will only make Nolan's (a white middle aged man's) pockets fill even more. White privilege is not the "bad" Greeks asking for accurate representation. Nolan is the white privilege, and by manipulating you into giving him more money, he keeps enjoying his white privilege even more. But like I said, a lot of people are too dumb to get this. Someone will get mad at me again, but we're living in a mad world so who cares..
There are so many additional problems with this adaptation (and with retelling in general).
Like how North Europe has appropriate Greek and Roman heritage has their own, while hating modern greeks and italians and stealing our artifacts (also washing them with chemicals that ruined them so they would look more "white" and "cleaned"), how they've rewrite our history to erase the rest of the Mediterrean and how deeply connected (and influenced by) greek and roman culture were with all the other mediterrean populations (Egypt, Assyrians, Phoenician, Babylonia and even Persia!) because to them those populations were "inferior"; not to mention the horrible discrimination italian and greek immigrants went throught in the United States (and in North Europe as well) and now they take our culture, make it all completely Anglo-Saxon and erase everything about the Mediterrean: our faces, our colours, our clothes, our stories. And to them that's fine because we are all "white" now, so they can erase us from our stories because we are supposedly the same, while our countries become their playground. And it's frustrating seeing people claiming that "mythology" is the same as "high fantasy"; they take something without even knowing what that something is!
And I hate the "it's not a documentary" crowd; people have now so many misconceptions about history because of cheap inaccurate american films (like how the Middle Ages were a colourless dark age) and their philosophy is "presentism", They don't allow us to develop a historical memory, so we can't understand how the problems of the present have their roots in the past. We can't learn from history because the only way they represent it is as an eternal present, with present values, present ideals, present culture, and present politics, and of course is the present of the United States.
There is so much more about it that people think!
And also they could have just said that it is an AMERICAN version of it, instead it has to be "the best possible version", "the most accurate version", while it is clear that the individualistic full of anglo saxon actors, against the gods which betrays the whole point of the original story colourless dark film that makes the mediterrean look like the fucking Baltic will not be accurate: at this point he could have made a whole new version of the Odyssey set in north europe with the norse as the characters, it would have been much more interesting and creative (and it seems he wanted to do that since he put anglo-saxons, pants and viking ships in fucking ancient Greece); even a post-apocalyptic world where people act on the same old tale once again would have been much more of an interesting take (and even "Interstellar" to me was already an incredible take of the Odyssey), but of course not, money and profit are the most important things ever today.
And don't get me started on how he compared the Homeric poems to fucking Marvel.
YES IT IS THAT DEEP
"lupita nyong'o can't be helen of troy because helen was greek and there weren't black people in ancient greece"
DO YOU THINK THESE MOTHERFUCKERS DIDNT HAVE BOATS. THIS ENTIRE MOVIE IS ABOUT ONE OF THOSE MOTHERFUCKERS AND HIS BOAT
do you think these people can read
Memnon was a black king that was summoned by Troy to help them win against the Greeks. Memnon was a warrior king notably on equal footing with Achilles and was the only one to ever injure Achilles before Achilles died even if he died in the process, his army was big enough to turn the tide of war but it scattered after his death meaning he didn't accomplish much.
Still there's a few things to note, him and his people being black was notable, he's portrayed as a exotic king from a far off land. So that means that whilst black people were known in bronze age they were considered very rare and that makes sense.
The Mediterranean was a highway, a quick route for trade. The Sahara was the opposite, it was a giant roadblock. So much so that we still refer to black Africans as Sub-saharan Africans, cause it caused a genetic divide between the north Africans and the southern Africans. It's why even to modern day there's such a large difference in skin tone between the average Moroccan and Senegalese. There was one trade route between Northern and Sub-saharan africa and that was the Nile river and that's why Egypt was historically a very mixed population and had great relations with Ethiopia and the kingdom of Kush. But regardless it wasn't an avenue that lend itself well to mass migration.
So yeah because of the reasons listed above, black people were a rarity above the Sahara and whilst they definitely did go north to trade and sometimes live. Mass migrations in history only happened when people were displaced by either a natural disaster or an invading people (like the Migration Period when many germanic and Slavic tribes were pushed out of eastern and central Europe by Attila The Hun and his army of steppe nomads). Still if a mass migration happened in Sub-Saharan Africa, they wouldn't cross the dessert if they could avoid it, they'd be forced to follow where the water and food was.
Furthermore Helen wasn't Troyan, she was the daughter of Zeus and a Aetolian (the mountainous part of northern mainland Greece) princess who was a consort to the Spartan king. Even Homer himself refers to Helen repeatedly as White-armed (this was also a testament to never having developed a tan I.E. never having to have worked outside a day in her life but also only works if she's naturally light skinned) and Sappho described her as golden haired.
And whilst I'm not against a black person playing Helen of Troy, pretending that Africa is a mono ethnic place where everyone had the same skin tone since forever even if that isn't even the case today nor congruent with all the records we have describing the people of Africa at all. That if all of africa was Sub-Saharan African black that means Greece was also black because it's "close" and that means a mythological character born to a god and a woman from mainland mountainous Greece was black despite being described as light skinned by the author of the book. And that it's therefore more "historically accurate" is more than a bit of a stretch.
It's racist and insensitive to attack an actor/actress for portraying a character of another race as long as it's done with sensitivity and care.
It's an entirely different pill to swallow when you go "but it could be historically accurate cause Greece is close to Africa and all Africans look the same anyway" cause that's basically what you're saying.
And just so you have an idea of how big the Sahara dessert actually is.
-Sahara 9,200,000 km², the USA (without Alaska and other overseas territory) 8,080,464.3 km²
People thinking the past was dark and monochromatic when in reality life has never been more devoid of colour is PISSING ME OFF. Look around yourself. Everything is something shade of gray or neutrals. Cars, interiors, exteriors, clothes.
The Greek statues were painted, and their clothes were dyed rich colours. Odysseus was dressed in purple. People of the middle age LOVED colour. Do you realise how prevalent colour symbolism was in the medieval times? I so wish people would stop idolising this washed out version of history. It was so so vibrant, once
Thingol what's the point of having a wife called "Melian THE WISE" if you're NEVER going to listen to her advice. Seriously
Kinda hard to explain but there's just something about the character deaths especially the Noldors' that make total sense in The Silmarillion. Like of course the Spirit of Fire who could never be truly content with what he had would burn to death whilst ensuring his sons would continue his legacy of vengeance. Of course Finrod friend to all no matter the divide bleeds out in a dungeon defending the love between elf and man. Of course Fingon famed for constantly taking risks eventually runs out of luck and gets buried in the mud like any other common soldier. They may all be doomed but the way it manifests in each character is calculated and perfectly tailored and the only way it was ever gonna end
Maedhros and Nerdanel :"(
hi i’m tolkien here are my ocs. i call them Elves (not elfs!!! if you call them elfs i will block you) they look like humans but they’re tall, live forever, and have pointy ears. that’s it bye
cs lewis: are you alright with constructive criticism? i dont want to sound mean
tolkien: no go ahead i want to hear it
cs lewis: they fucking suck
tolkien: thats not constructive criticism
cs lewis: here’s my OC, it’s jesus but he’s a lion tolkien: Furry cs lewis: blocked
Tolkien: lamp posts don’t exist in fantasy worlds Cs Lewis: ok you know what fuck you
CS Lewis: I could beta for you if you want. help you trim the fat on your stories
Tolkien: what do you mean
CS Lewis: I just. you describe a lot of trees. are trees that important
Tolkien: just you fucking wait. trees are SO important.
~and that day, Tolkien invented ents~
@urulokid
CS Lewis: Not more trees.
Tolkien: This one’s based on you.
casual reminder that Lewis and Tolkein almost completely ended their friendship over Lewis having Santa make an appearance in The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe because Tolkein hated it so fucking much.
LOTR Heritage Post
These are some divas and I respect it so much
This is still my favorite feud, came to mind as soon as I saw the op
In my previous drawing, Maglor looked too sad, so I decided to comfort him🥺 happy blorbo
Luthien
A short comics about Idril for the character ask I joined recently.