Estás usando un navegador desactualizado. Es posible que no muestre este u otros sitios web correctamente. Deberías actualizar o usar un navegador alternativo.
Nolan's The Odyssey - Potentially could be epic or an epic flop.
IMAX screens selling out while regular screens aren't in this economy sounds suspicious to me (are there even Odyssey popcorn buckets to begin with?). Gives me Captain Marvel vibes in how the ticket sales didn't match up with actual butts in seats. Anyone who's actually seeing it in IMAX needs to report back the audience numbers to quash that notion.
K shaped economy is real. People who are interested in saving money and have families arent interested in this movie. Meanwhile urban affluent childless people either dont care about culture war aspects or view it as a positive but will only see it the "premium" way.
Oppenheimer worked partially because Dad could go see it along with older kids while mom saw Barbie with the daughters.
it honestly looks more impressive than it looks enjoyable. Can I even take in that much screen without missing stuff? Also, are they always flush to the floor like that? Traditional cinema screens are higher up meaning that it's less of an issue when someone stands up to walk out.
Maybe I'm wrong and IMAX is great - happy to be told otherwise. But I think I'd feel like Alex in that scene from A Clockwork Orange. Ver archivo adjunto 9275363
Honestly, it's mostly just a gimmick. The theater setup is certainly memorable because of how they arrange the seats and the size of the screen, but it's not something that makes for an enjoyable viewing experience. They weren't even really considered an appropriate setup for mass movie viewing until the late 90s when the corporation started pushing them to the theater companies like United Artists (now Regal).
Honestly, it's mostly just a gimmick. The theater setup is certainly memorable because of how they arrange the seats and the size of the screen, but it's not something that makes for an enjoyable viewing experience. They weren't even really considered an appropriate setup for mass movie viewing until the late 90s when the corporation started pushing them to the theater companies like United Artists (now Regal).
When IMAX first came out the screen was shaped like an ultrawide monitor (a rectangle). It made sense because the seats towards the bottom of the screen could see fairly well. The latest IMAX I saw (Dune with horrid sound, ironic) was a smaller theatre with a taller square screen. It was bizarre. I'll have to hunt for the DC IMAX thread to compare but I remember it being differently shaped and because of that it was worth the price and sound back then.
When IMAX first came out the screen was shaped like an ultrawide monitor (a rectangle). It made sense because the seats towards the bottom of the screen could see fairly well. The latest IMAX I saw (Dune with horrid sound, ironic) was a smaller theatre with a taller square screen. It was bizarre. I'll have to hunt for the DC IMAX thread to compare but I remember it being differently shaped and because of that it was worth the price and sound back then.
Back when I was a kid, the only theater that had an IMAX screen was the natural history museum in town. This worked really well for the nature or travelogue type of movies they featured because of how those are filmed, but for a regular movie, especially an action movie with lots of cut scenes, it's inherently uncomfortable to watch.
Where I live when a new movie opens by now the 6 and 7 pm showings are sold out(there is only one theater in the county I live in so people have to use it or drive 90 minutes to another one)but so far it looks like only one group of four people have bought tickets.
MOTU was more sold out than this.
To put this in prespective I had to get tickets for an afternoon showing on Sunday when I tried to preorder tickets for a friday showing on Wednessday to see Oppenhiemer a few years ago because all the thursday, friday, and Saturday showings were all sold out.
I'm having trouble imagining this movie to be good, there's a chance it could be but everything about it just looks bad. Casting/Dialog/Costumes/Sets, what's left? If it does somehow end up being good I will use AI to whitewash it so if I ever rewatch it Helen will be huwhite.
Which of you is going to sprain your neck on an IMAX screen to let us know if this movie is worth watching at all?
For the "intellectuals" who hate fantasy unless it's just rape, swearing, and murder because they're too above magic. Same thing that happened to Game of Thrones.
I have yet to see a single Western adaption of Russian literature that's actually on-point. For some reason Russia's flavor of nihilistic humor which is prevalent in most of their literary classics is inordinately difficult for non-Russians to put on the screen.
(By nihilism I mean the actual historical movement and not the average college student's understanding of what nihilism is.)
So I expect a Nolan adaption of War and the World (which is the actual title and not War and Peace) to miss the point even harder than usual.
Even in writing, most translations of Russian literature miss the vibe. They're always pushing the pevear/volokhonsky translations of Dostoevsky even though at times they are just doing word to word translations without care for the feel or broader meaning. Garnett did a much better job of capturing the feeling in their translation.
Nolan doing an adaption of any work of Russian literature would be a disaster, he's too literal he gets hung up on the stupidest things ("there weren't orchestras in Ancient Greece")
If it wants to just make a movie about the October Revolution or a remake of the 1997 animated movie Anastasia (minus the singing) then maybe he could do something with that and hopefully the fact we have pictures/videos of the people alive in Eastern Europe at the time would keep him from casting jeets and blacks.
Though casting a negro as Lenin would be possibly very funny.
Nerdrotic plainly trying to outrage farm by pushing Chris Gore's comments into the most negative possible framing. But that aside, Chris Gore is still pretty negative. Says it's overlong, bad pacing and then just burying it with mild criticisms now).
Just random reveals, I'll spoiler though I don't think anyone cares:
Elliot Page is Sinon and Odysseus meets her in Hades instead of Achilles
Elliot Page very prominent. Both saying she might get Best Supporting Actor sheerly out of Academy spite.
Atrocious American accents and modern colloquialisms everywhere. "Fuck off, Odysseus." for example. Very distracting.
Film is all about PTSD.
N'yongo barely in the film. They've disfigured Helen with facial scars!
Pattinson is one of the few decent performances.
The gods are "in your head". No Poseidon, Cyclops not the son of Poseidon. You get Athena, Calypso, Zeus is referenced.
Yeah, I know a lot of right wing grifters are trying to capitalize on it, but I don't even get the feeling that there's a backlash or anything. It's just indifference. They've been trying to pretend that Nolan is on Spielberg's level but he's clearly not. Spielberg's movies always had a mass appeal to them.
Nerdrotic just brought this up on his stream now. Mentioned that you have to jump through a lot of hoops to leave an audience review, proving that you saw the film and other things. And that all of this was introduced with Captain Marvel to deal with negative reviews from the audience. So he actually thinks audience score will also be high due to this being fixed. Chris Gore saying that the way Rotten Tomatoes works is weird. He says even though "Film Threat" is on there, he personally isn't; that sometimes if a movie isn't doing well, a studio will reach out to him to sound him out about whether he might give it a "fresh" rating.
Rotten Tomatoes has no value. I never go there. It exists for studios to point at and claim popularity.
It seems they've combined this 'Sinon' character with Achilles, that way they can have Elliot Page play a version of Achilles - 'greatest soldier ever known' - but also be able to say "No Ellen did not play Achilles, Achilles wasn't in the film."
Very little has lasted across various cultures and languages for like 3,000 years in the way stuff from The Iliad and The Odyssey have - people just culturally know what a 'Trojan Horse' means but dont know where its from, they know what it means for a person to have an Achille's heel but may not know where that's from.
If you're depicting the siege on Troy with the Trojan Horse and everything, it seems off you'd leave out an Achilles' heel moment.
@urr13 account In the movie it seems that Elliot Page as Sinon is left outside the Trojan horse as some kind of bait and sacrificed by the trojans, and then later confronts Odysseus about it in Hades.
But with how much of this sounds like Nolan is toying with it being PTSD and flashbacks and the gods are "in your head", who knows if even Hades is presented as real.
Doing the Odyssey as a "gods are in your mind" / "unreliable narrator" thing will be, for me personally, one of the greatest crimes about this movie if true.
Nerdrotic plainly trying to outrage farm by pushing Chris Gore's comments into the most negative possible framing. But that aside, Chris Gore is still pretty negative. Says it's overlong, bad pacing and then just burying it with mild criticisms now).
Just random reveals, I'll spoiler though I don't think anyone cares:
Elliot Page is Sinon and Odysseus meets her in Hades instead of Achilles
Elliot Page very prominent. Both saying she might get Best Supporting Actor sheerly out of Academy spite.
Atrocious American accents and modern colloquialisms everywhere. "Fuck off, Odysseus." for example. Very distracting.
Film is all about PTSD.
N'yongo barely in the film. They've disfigured Helen with facial scars!
Pattinson is one of the few decent performances.
The gods are "in your head". No Poseidon, Cyclops not the son of Poseidon. You get Athena, Calypso, Zeus is referenced.
I wish the rumour about this movie being a stealth adaption of James Joyce’s Ulysses was true. Then at least the modernisms wouldn’t be so fucking jarring.
People saying some good things about it I find credible. Nolan is a competent and experienced director. Some people enjoying it I will sadly say they have no taste but it is what it is. Someone saying they absolutely love it, it's great, profound, etc... No, opinion dismissed.
People saying some good things about it I find credible. Nolan is a competent and experienced director. Some people enjoying it I will sadly say they have no taste but it is what it is. Someone saying they absolutely love it, it's great, profound, etc... No, opinion dismissed.
It's weird, usually Alan Ng (Alan hated it), Gore (so far iffy), and Jahns tend to agree and I trust them. But we'll see I guess. It seems like it'll be fairly good from most reactions, and I'll take that. It doesn't seem like the worst fears I had. Not going to see it in theater like I rarely do, but will watch I'm sure later.
