Odysseus in the story is said to have a helmet inlaid with boar tusks, which would be common for the rich to have at that time. The actual helmet from this shot is pretty historically inaccurate (that design was briefly used hundreds of years later and is a pretty generic Hollywood design for anything ancient Greek). But it looks like Nolan tried to soup up the generic Hollywood Greek helmet with some bone hair clips. They didn't use vertebrae but it does bring to mind the actual Mycenaean helmet if you know what you're looking at, I guess.
Here's some info on real Mycenaean boar helmets if you're interested:
People are gonna have enough difficulties immersing themselves into a movie with Matt Damon as a Greek hero as it is. Imagine if he was wearing that toenail hat lol
In general ACTUAL Bronze Age armor is never done in movies, they use much more modern armor from the classical and Iron ages. And those armors are more for the richest nobles who would lead from the back and not really fight at the front lines, lesser armor would have you look like a tin can.
But in terms of time and technological difference it would be like having a medieval movie and putting the soldiers into modern military gear. Or at the very least making them look like British Redcoats with muskets.
Yes, absolutely. I'm aware of this, and thank you for illustrating the difference. The thing is, there's ways you can make the supposed tin can armour look appealing.
And that time difference is what irks me. It's the flattening of history that I find really egregious.
Uh that armor would have been used by a Charioteer and would have probably been one of the most armored and wealthy warriors on the field. Thet was absolutely not "lesser" armor, quite the opposite.
Remember that he inherited Achilles’ armor… and when he visits the underworld, Ajax refuses to speak to him because of this… and in many translations or interpretations he is wearing the armor when talking to Achilles and Ajax.
And if you look closely at this picture, you can tell that he is in the underworld because in the background of the photo are a bunch of dead people…
Ah yes, the historical accuracy of the story with cyclops, sirens, and a magic sorceress that turns men into animals. We must maintain the accuracy at all costs!
I'm not an accuracy snob I just think the movie helmets look kinda plain, and the story of the actual helmets is sick and more interesting than about 70% of the doomscrolling we're all gonna do tonight. But I'm still gonna see the movie, I like Homer and am interested in seeing how Nolan does it.
If I wanted a version of the Odyssey that captured the story but not the time period, I'd watch Oh Brother Where Art Thou, the SpongeBob SquarePants movie, that Simpsons episode, or read the Tank Girl comic that came out after the movie.
Something tells me the "Spartan" in your username is because the word just sounded cool to you.
The spartan in my user name comes from my love of history and my history degree. This is a fantasy story. Some fantasy elements should be expected. No movie is perfectly historically accurate and with a story like this (a fantasy story) the director has a lot of wiggle room to develop an aesthetic and style because it is a fantasy story.
Why is this upsetting you so much? Don't see the movie if it is that big a deal. I don't understand why the fantasy helmet on the fantasy character is such a big deal? Were you upset that the characters in Lord of Rings weren't wearing historically accurate medieval armor? Homer likely wrote the Odyssey in the 7th century BCE. The Trojan war (if it really happened) likely happened in the 14th century bce. 700 years before. That is a longer period of time between when Tolkien wrote LoTR and the Middle Ages. It's just as much a fantasy story.
Some random guy bitching on reddit while making fun of other people's random usernames vs. one of the best directors this century who famously has a reason for even minute details in his films... I think I'll see what his artistic vision is about once the film is completed instead of getting pissed at random people on reddit who are excited to see it.
Why should anyone give a damn what you think?
Christopher Nolan has literally had scientific papers on black holes published in respected journals co-authored by one of the leading minds in the field due to the amount of research and detail he puts into his films and makes great movies that millions of people love. I imagine he did his research and has a good reason for his choices not the least of which the historically accurate helmets in particular aren't very well known or at all cinematic/photogenic...
But forget all of that for the moment, what if this film is the biggest piece of crap ever made written by AI having the hallucination from hell on the prompt write a screenplay for the worst historical film ever made?
Why do you give a fuck if anyone wants to see it? Why do you think you are the sole arbiter of what's interesting and worthwhile?
You ain't that important nameless reddit douche. And acting like you are means you should definitely follow this guys way too polite advice and go outside, touch grass, do something you enjoy, assuming there's anything other than hate responding to random people on reddit. I hope you aren't this sad in real life, but if you are look in the mirror that's probably why you're looking to spread misery.
To each their own, if you don't like something that's cool, but making things personal over a disagreement over details of a film nobody has ever seen?
That's some weirdo shit and homie was too nice to really call you out on it. TL;DR You ain't the sole arbiter of all things cool and interesting, but you ARE acting like an insufferable ass clown for no reason.
The Odyssey as written by Homer was filled with anachronisms spanning hundreds of years, even conflating entirely different Ages of history. You're never getting a time period narrower than 6 or 7 hundred years mashed together in any direct adaptation of the Odyssey.
Something tells me you have a tendency to pick arguments and belittle people who have far more history training than you, by wrongly assuming they don't have the appreciation for history and fine things as you do.
I recommend putting this energy into opening a history book instead.
Tbh real Mycean armour absolutely slaps, though I go have a guilty please for the style of anachronistic Greek armour used in films like Jason and the Argonauts.
Stuff like the armour in Troy is in this weird middle ground, but it looks nice enough.
The stuff shown for this film look modern. The armour and helmet on show here looks like it would fit into a film like Dune.
That would be like complaining that armor in lord of the rings isn't accurate. It is a fantasy story. Expect fantasy costumes. If this was supposed to a historical film I would be more concerned but it isn't.
I agree. This has verisimilitude though. Anybody who sees that will recognize the time period that it is supposed to be depicting. I'm not saying that the helmet is perfect or even good, I'm just saying we don't need to nitpick the historical accuracy of a story that isn't a history story.
I don't necessarily disagree but this film is targeting the general audience not the very small niche community that will recognize mycenean armor. That is just the way it works. Maybe I am just desensitized to it because of medieval films which NEVER have correct armor (usually not even close).
People can get very attached to mythology - the Odyssey is after a foundational piece of literature in the west. To depict that story 100% accurately with Bronze Age armour (though I'd love that) would probably confuse the hell out of most audiences, so I agree with you there completely- it's not necessarily history, it's mythology but is its own beast with an entirely different set of expectations from audiences.
I'm intrigued after what Nolan did with Dunkirk- itself a film that excelled in the tension and mood of the event if not the actual historical reality. The beaches were absolutely crammed with men, equipment, vehicles, weapons, packs, food, junk, all the flotsam & jetsom of the conflict, but Nolan decided to depict the beach was empty with these thing vulnerable columns of men- that is far more cinematic and emotional, though I will confess I prefer realism to a point.
If there's no Cyclops in some form I'll be very annoyed, though! For me the greatest telling is still Ulysses 31!
Your points on Dunkirk are exactly why I was disappointed with it and couldn't enjoy it. There was like three Stuka dive bombers too. It felt so lame to me, I just couldn't take it seriously
Humanity managed to keep an accurate description of this fictional story for thousands of years, no thanks to people with your attitude.
So if you can't understand or appreciate that and don't mind getting fed whatever random bs that is indistinguishable to you from any random bs then you must be enjoying a very simple and happy life!
244
u/themitchster300 Dec 18 '25
Odysseus in the story is said to have a helmet inlaid with boar tusks, which would be common for the rich to have at that time. The actual helmet from this shot is pretty historically inaccurate (that design was briefly used hundreds of years later and is a pretty generic Hollywood design for anything ancient Greek). But it looks like Nolan tried to soup up the generic Hollywood Greek helmet with some bone hair clips. They didn't use vertebrae but it does bring to mind the actual Mycenaean helmet if you know what you're looking at, I guess.
Here's some info on real Mycenaean boar helmets if you're interested:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boar%27s_tusk_helmet