Nolan's The Odyssey - Potentially could be epic or an epic flop.

With how some Kiwis here already mentioned the Epic Musical by Jorge, I wonder if this movie will end up boosting popularity for that series. If Nolan's creative liberties end up pushing some fans the wrong way, they'll end up finding out about Epic and how it showed more respect to the source material.
 
1784226963975.png
I'm not sure if this has been brought up ITT, but apparently the translation of the Odyssey that Nolan enjoyed reading the most was written by this woman, Emily Wilson, in 2017.
“I think it’s the Emily Wilson translation that begins, ‘Tell me about a complicated man’,” Nolan tells Empire. “The genius of the character, the cleverness, the inventiveness of him, that was a huge part of what interested me. He’s not just a soldier. He’s an amazing strategist, a very wily person.”
(source)
In an interview with Financial Times, the controversial translator called Odysseus a "conman."
Wilson argues that the way “he is constantly reinventing himself” helps explain why Odysseus is a character for our times. “There are so many stories about cons, deception, manipulation and persuasion on TV right now. The Odyssey jives with those somehow. He’s a different kind of conman, of course, he’s heroic and fame-hungry as well.”

:story:
1784228748061.png

This article (archive) seems to cover the arguments against her translation reasonably well. I suppose it's fitting that this film is based on the translation of a feminist. Can't wait for Reddit Letter Media to tell me that the movie is a masterpiece.
 
Última edición:
after watching I'm now 100% sure that Ellen Page was supposed to just be Achilles, but they re-dubbed it after the backlash to this other name.

It's not a great film, it's very....Christopher Nolan. But's it's not that terrible. I'm sure enough normies will slurp it up for it to break even at least. No doubt the culture warriors will scream that it's a victory for their side no matter the outcome anyway. My opinion would be the woke casting was just solely so they could qualify for Oscar nominations as the nigger and Page are barely in it.

Over all I would give it 5/10 it's pure mediocre film making along with everything that you'd expect in a Nolan film.
 
Okay, I found this publicity shot:
1784208291518.png
I know the horse is in the Odyssey, but I really don't like they're using it as the promo when most people would remember the Cyclops, to me, the most memorable part.

I don't understand any of this. A wooden horse isn't going to sink half-way into the beach in the water. Hell, a wooden horse would float away in the water. So did they half-bury it whilst the tide was out so that it wouldn't float away when the tide came in? But why not just leave it further up the beach? I'm so confused!
What I don't like it's that it's so clean and polished, as if they broke one from home in case they needed one.

2b11941.jpg
The one from Troy looks like they made it from scraps, which is believable.

images-33.jpg
Look at all of the horses. They all look like people can be inside realistically. The new one feels so uncomfortable.

Ancient peoples typically regarded anyone outside of their specific tribe as literally subhuman.

I strongly doubt Gaul barbarians got PTSD.
It's not just for killing, but for the psychological effect of everything involving warfare, the things you do or see.

We could force the story and say that all the punishes of the gods is just an explanation of the trauma sinking in and Odysseus' outburst and arrogance is an effect of it, but nobody really wants to see that because nobody wants to sit through a therapy session in a story that's about mythological monsters.

Life of Pi did that, they showed trauma via fantasy but that's the point of the story, how we choose to believe in the fantasy because reality is too painful and sometimes the fantasy helps us moving on, but that's not what the Odyssey is about.
 
2b11941.jpg
The one from Troy looks like they made it from scraps, which is believable.

If you look at it, it's built from the parts of the ships that were wrecked/burned in the final fight. You can see the prow and the hull sides that were taken from the boats. Just one more reason why Troy is far superior to this drek.
 
Wait, they actually do this? This is fucking retarded. How can people eat this low effort shit up??

ETA: holy shit
Ver archivo adjunto 9279944Ver archivo adjunto 9279950

FilmThreat's review. The comments are being brigaded by redditor arguments.
Ver archivo adjunto 9279922Ver archivo adjunto 9279918
Ver archivo adjunto 9279921


ETA: 4chan came through on the CAM
Would it be too much to ask for someone to upload this somewhere else? Piece of shit site doesn't open up for me
gofile.png
 
Hey hey hey now. Those first two Pirates of the Caribbean movies fucking rule.
My point is that both movies actually used CGI well. The worms and giant bugs in King Kong is actually good. The actors portray terror well even though it’s all fake and even though it’s CGI I can suspend my disbelief when the giant bug crawls up Adrian Brody.

Pirates was pure fun. It was 100% what it wanted to be and the CGI was almost seamless. The skeletons and Dutchmen crew looked great. The sets and actual ships looked great. Even 3 has good parts. Beckett’s death with his ship exploding around him is cool. You hate fun if you can’t enjoy the over the top metaphor of his life being blown apart as it literally happens.
 
Última edición:
The problem ain't CGI or practical FX, both can be good when used right. Jurassic Park did both and the movie still holds well today. Same for Pirates. The issue is that movies made 40 years ago look much better than modern current movies with astronomical budgets for their FX. How is that possible? There are fan projects that look much better and have better stories.

If you look at it, it's built from the parts of the ships that were wrecked/burned in the final fight. You can see the prow and the hull sides that were taken from the boats. Just one more reason why Troy is far superior to this drek.
Yeah, I caught that when I first watched it. They don't even need to tell you, you know.
 
Peopl stop saying this movie uses CGI, Nolan doesn't use it even when it would make is movie better.

In Dunkirk he wouldn't even use it to expand the crowds so it looks like all those ships came their to save a couple of dozen guys.

One of the reasons this movie cost so much and looks so bad is that Nolan refuses to use computers in any way.
This is just factually untrue, and it's not even worth explaining why. Just do the bare minimum research instead of taking Nolan at his word for everything he says.
 
images-33.jpg
Look at all of the horses. They all look like people can be inside realistically. The new one feels so uncomfortable.
I would love to do this with Polypheme and various other movie and TV show cyclopes, even Rell from Krull and the ones from the 50s sci-fi films World Without End and The Cyclops. Keep in mind that the first Odyssey adaptations were silent (1905 and 1911).

Wooden horse 1956 and 1961 should be switched BTW. I know my sword and sandal.
 
This is just factually untrue, and it's not even worth explaining why. Just do the bare minimum research instead of taking Nolan at his word for everything Nolan is know fpr forbidding CGI in his films, if ypu have proof it was used here show it.

Nolan is known for fobidding the use of CGI in his films, you have proof it was used here then post it.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo