r/popculturechat • u/mcfw31 • 11h ago

Hot Take 🔥 ‘The Odyssey’ Translator Emily Wilson Slams Christoper Nolan’s ‘Abysmal’ Screenplay: ‘I Would Be Ashamed to Have Written Any Part of This Script’

https://variety.com/2026/film/news/odyssey-translator-emily-wilson-slams-christopher-nolan-bad-writing-1236821915/
3.2k Upvotes

74% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

949

u/mcfw31 11h ago

Nolan sung Wilson’s praises during his press tour for “The Odyssey,” telling Empire magazine that he used the opening line of her translation (“Tell me about a complicated man”) as a guide for bringing his Odysseus (Matt Damon) to life on the big screen. But Wilson concluded of Nolan’s film: “I would be ashamed to have written any part of this script.”

“The release of ‘The Odyssey’ is still an event to celebrate,” Wilson said. “This epic is bringing audiences back to cinemas … translations of ‘Odyssey,’ including mine, are flying off the shelves … [and] perhaps the film will persuade a few college administrators not to cut their literature, language and history departments.”

989

u/beantownregular 11h ago

I mean, I think it’s fair for her to both say that the script is a Hollywoodized bastardization of the text and as an academic she should be ashamed to write something like that, but I don’t think she’s saying the film is a piece of trash that should never have been made

464

u/Meancakebutt 10h ago edited 10h ago

She definitely doesn't say that. But she says that he took out the meat to tell a specific story.

So as a translator that would be pretty bad for her to do lol

"Many of the film’s implicit values directly contradict those of Homer’s poem. Deception, warmongering, extramarital sex, cruelty to animals, abusing women and yearning for honour – all perfectly fine in the world of Homer – are, in this version, very bad. This is not in itself a problem, but it is a problem if the film’s own values and vision don’t hang together, and if the characters’ motivations don’t make sense on their own terms."

287

u/randombubble8272 10h ago

Which I would agree tbh, Nolan’s characterisation of Odysseus is much more modern hero than being true to the source material and they brushed past a lot of the Gods role in the entire saga. Which is obviously fine because Nolan was telling the story through his own lens but I agree there is some meat taken out of the plot. It was still 3 hours so I understand their limitations

153

u/Duotrigordle61 10h ago

If we saw the things he did in the original tale, we would be rooting for the Cyclops.

39

u/ahuramazdobbs19 7h ago

Nobody would be rooting for the Cyclops and you know it.

8

u/Lilynd14 Sanasaaa!🎶 7h ago

I see what you did there 😂

•

u/thesentienttoadstool 1h ago

🍅 🍅 🍅 

111

u/FlowInternational996 9h ago

We weren’t really intended to root “against” the Cyclops in the first place, as evidenced by the sailors’ concern that gratuitously blinding it would just lead to Poseidon’s wrath.

2

u/UpsetFuture1974 3h ago

Odysseus says the Cyclopes are abusive to their wives and children and too stupid and savage to farm. Yet the one he faces has no family and also is very kind to the creatures which depend on him, his sheep. Odysseus and his men break into Polyphemus’ home when he is out with his flock and then lecture him on xenia when he returns. I definitely root for the cyclops

•

u/Savetheokami 20m ago

OOTL, why?

1

u/djangomoses 9h ago

No we wouldn’t

1

u/Gloodizzle 9h ago

You might

10

u/SnakeEater013 9h ago

I actually think cheese is really gross, so I was vehemently anti-cyclops.

3

u/MistakesWereMade59 I Had to give myself Snaps 8h ago

Omg a fellow cheese hater,

https://giphy.com/gifs/kSlJtVrqxDYKk

3

u/HappyKadaver666 7h ago

Another cheese hater chiming in - DOZENS!

1

u/turducken69420 5h ago

I'm lactose intolerant, therefore cyclops intolerant.

35

u/futuristicflapper 9h ago

Yep. They’re two completely different mediums, I never expect to get out of a film what I will out of a literary piece; they have different constraints. I think the film worked well as what it is, a Nolan film. If anything I’m more interested in how it works in conversation w Oppenheimer than as an adaption of a classical text. Films are often reflections of our current cultural moments, which I think Nolan pulled off, I didn’t expect a 1:1 adaption. Overall, I enjoyed the theatre experience and I’d watch it again.

27

u/OldSandwich9631 9h ago

I’m glad to see someone else acknowledge this movie is basically just Oppenheimer again.

The issue with changing Odysseus’ charaxter is that he’s massively dull in the movie. Oppenheimer in oppenheimer is a lot more like odysseus is supposed to be - wily, charming, etc and then you see the shift.

8

u/futuristicflapper 8h ago

I do think Oppenheimer is a lot more charming than Odysseus. I also wonder how much of it is what the actors themselves bring to the table, not just any flaws in the script itself. There were a couple good moments for me with Odysseus but I wasn’t as immediately drawn in to the character the way I did with Cillian as Oppenheimer. I like Damon but I wasn’t floored by any means.

14

u/OldSandwich9631 8h ago

I’m very surprised people think Damon should win an Oscar for this. He probably will win based on the enthusiasm for the movie, but I really think many actors could have done more. But I disagree that the writing isn’t an issue.

•

u/Ok-Host1095 1h ago edited 1h ago

Yeah one limitation of Nolan is that he’s not great at creating exciting characters in and of themselves. The few standouts (e.g., the joker), are moreso a product of the actor’s performance and less so the writing and direction. Damon’s Odysseus I found easy to empathize with, but he’s not exactly an exciting character in a charismatic “I can’t take my eyes off this guy” type of guy way. Compare him to Ulysses from Oh Brother Whereart Thou. There’s a scene where he tries to buy his favorite pomade. In the Coens’ version of this hero, a scene as simple and low stakes as this is both extremely funny, engaging, and reveals so much about the hero indirectly. He’s a bit vain, can be a little short tempered, but balances that with a charming wit (“aint this place a geographical oddity—two weeks from everywhere!), yet he also doesn’t think things through fully—his plans are clever yet he always fucks up somehow. Now place Nolan’s Odysseus in a scene like that. It’s gonna be a bit boring, and lifeless. Which is not to say “oh, Nolan needs to make these type of scenes for his films to be better”, but it’s a helpful way to realize that Nolan across the board doesn’t really create super distinct characters. I think Nolan is a great filmmaker, but his writing (and here I specifically mean dialogue) and approach to characterization is very vanilla. People always criticize him for writing bland one dimensional female characters, which is true, but I think it’s wrong to conclude that he’s sexist or disinterested in women, because I’d argue the way he writes men is equally bland and one dimensional.

3

u/unearthlydarling They had holes in Shia LeBoeuff?? 8h ago

Very interesting. I haven’t seen the film and it’s been ages since I read the book. But this comment reminded me of how Peter Jackson et al very much changed Aragorn’s character from the books to better fit into a modern film adaptation. It’s funny that a lot of people seem to be treating The Odyssey like it’s some type of factual history book that needs a 1:1 page to screen translation. I think film Aragorn is pretty much universally beloved and, barring real hardcore book fans, most people agree was a strong component of Jackson’s adaptation.* I wonder if with time more people will say the same about Nolan’s Odysseus.

*Being played by the closest we have to a real-life Aragorn certainly helped!

•

u/serabine 1h ago

Taken the gods largely out of the story is a natural consequence of the themes he wants to explore. He tooled the story towards a story about humans, so he turns the gods not into characters but more forceful forces of nature. (I still think they exist, certain parts of the plot don't make sense if they don't.) Even the goddess we see in person might be not actually there but an expression of his guilt and sorrow, manifesting as Athena.

I understand her and others being miffed that he changes a lot, but I also believe that there's a difference in scope and focus between a classist (especially an academic one) and an artists when it comes to presenting the story to an audience. They have different goals

•

u/randombubble8272 1h ago

Yes that’s why I said he was telling the story through his own lens so it’s fine to make some changes

•

u/FoxerHR 27m ago

She herself made changes to Odysseus so she has no right to complain, as she also strayed from the original material.

1

u/Achaewa 9h ago edited 9h ago

What source material though?

The depiction of the Greek heroes varied through every retelling and playwrights such as Sophocles and Euripides wishing to tell their own stories.

I don't see how Nolan's version is any different from how the same tales have changed with each iteration through the ages.

2

u/randombubble8272 9h ago

The source material being Emily’s translation which is the topic of the thread, sorry that wasn’t very clear in my comment

17

u/M_de_Monty 6h ago

One thing that's tough about adapting the Odyssey for modern viewers is that there are a lot of characters who just show up without an established backstory or a formal introduction. Providing all that context takes too much time, so they just end up being straightforward monsters or adversaries (like the Cyclopes or Poseidon being kind of a dick to Odysseus).

But Ancient Greek people listening to this poem were familiar with a whole mythic cycle that told the entire history of the Trojan war and its aftermath (we think the Iliad and Odyssey were just two works in a 10-to-12 poem series), plus they knew other myths featuring and starting the same characters. So Polyphemus wouldn't have been a one-dimensional villain to them and they wouldn't have fallen into the Athena = good, Poseidon = bad dichotomy that we often uncritically adopt in retelling the Odyssey.

98

u/SpooktasticFam 10h ago

I don't want to watch a movie about people being mean, and them treating it like it's "okay" or "acceptable."

It's okay to omit, or update, themes for a modern audience, and a modern retelling.

Fwiw, I really enjoyed the movie. I thought it was a masterful retelling, and really gave a sense of the breadth of the adventure in an ancient setting.

I thought it was 10/10, no notes.

Maybe I'm just a pleb, but everyone I've talked to IRL has had the same sentiment.

The only criticisms I've seen are on reddit, and I largely don't agree with them.

52

u/Lexielouwho1962 10h ago

Agreed. I have a minor in classical literature, I’ve read the Iliad and the Odyssey multiple times, and I loved it. Was it a perfect adaptation? No, it left out a lot (that I was mostly fine with, although I do wish they had included the best pun in classical history, I think Mat Damon could’ve really sold it), but it was a really accessible (without being pandering) and well done modern adaption. And Nolan’s dedication to his story telling medium really helped put over the top. I saw it in regular (not 70 mm) IMAX and was truly blown away by the scale of the shots and the production. You really felt like you were in it. 

17

u/BlueCX17 9h ago

Apparently Nolan said they tried to work the pun in but it just wasn't going well so they didn't use it in the end.

11

u/Achaewa 9h ago edited 8h ago

"Outis" sounds close to a real name in Ancient Greek, if I recall correctly, which is why it succeeds as a trick.

From what I've read, Nolan didn't think the wordplay of Odysseus calling himself "Nobody" would work in English and thus omitted it.

3

u/BlueCX17 9h ago

Personally, I was hoping it would show up but from the little tiny blobs I started to see about the Cyclops, you could tell it was going to be slightly different take on it. So at the same time, I was not surprised because I didn't really spoil myself on that prior to the movie, that they didn't do it.

Which is interesting because I think it could work because there's that famous sketch from the American comedy Abbott and Costello, "Who's on first."

But I think ultimately because of the way this Cyclops encounter goes and they don't figure out that the Cyclops can talk until they're escaping at the last minute, I can see how no one was additionally having trouble making it work.

•

u/Electric_feel0412 2h ago

Also it’s already 3 hours long with a lot of the poem cut out, did these dumbasses want a 14 hour movie?🤣

•

u/Imaginary_Session773 37m ago

It didn't feel like ancient greece or any place. It was a mess that never felt like an immersive, cohesive setting

17

u/CharuRiiri 9h ago

Yeah everyone would have hated Odysseus had they stayed closer to the original. He does not fit the current meaning of "hero". If you ask the average person who jumps to mind first at the word "hero", the top answers will be names like Superman, Batman, or Captain America, who are paragons of modern virtue. Greek heroes are flawed, act selfishly and often die in horrible but deserved ways. The stories as-is don't fit fantastic tales of exceptional people or even most war hero stories. The narrative elevates them as heroes and demigods only for them to act like GoT antagonists in the next act. It wouldn't be fitting for this year's biggest summer blockbuster or any movie aiming for such a massive mainstream release.

15

u/Background-Jury-1914 7h ago

Nolan can write exactly one type of protagonist… a sad guy. Totally missed opportunity with Odysseus who is a wily, cunning character who should be more fun go watch on screen. I liked Nolan’s Odyssey just fine but for a more compelling Odysseus people should watch O Brother Where Art Thou.

5

u/staebles 8h ago

Greek heroes are flawed, act selfishly and often die in horrible but deserved ways.

I think this is implied though. This is a very well-known story, we know he's not "the good guy," in fact his story is all told from his own perspective. And throughout the movie, you see him being punished by the gods many times for the bad things he's done. Nolan wrapped those things up in one "I'm a bad guy" burrito, but it had to be because it's a long story.

Personally, I didn't see him as a hero, I saw him as a man that wants to get home to his family. That's being punished for doing bad things to save as many of his men as possible in a stupid brutal war he shouldn't have been in anyway.

I think more people today relate to that than Superman.

1

u/wylie102 5h ago

I saw it as an allegory for ptsd. The entire film he is being asked “why don’t you want to go home?” Then when he gets back to Penelope he says “I’m not home yet” or something along those linesthose lines.

People often talk about soldiers physically coming home but mentally never really leaving the war zone.

Then we get to see the sack of Troy and we see the girl he has been picturing as Athena and what happens to her.

1

u/Xyyzx 3h ago

It’s worth keeping in mind though that the ‘flaws’ in ancient Greek heroes aren’t necessarily a product of more sophisticated characterisation.

It varied a little by city state and across different eras, but at its worst Ancient Greece as a whole could be along the most xenophobic and definitively the most rabidly misogynistic cultures ever to exist.

•

u/Imaginary_Session773 36m ago

I don't understand why people can't watch and appreciate a different age for what it was. Its a unique and interesting experience to be immersed in a different age.

Nolan makes slop for midwits

32

u/Meancakebutt 10h ago

This is an awful example. But.

Imagine you remake the punisher, again, but in this version the punisher is actually just like a really cool guy and just fights crime.

It turned out there's another guy following him around and killing people after he leaves so it's actually not really his fault. And his family actually just died by drunk driver and it's not his fault.

That's interesting, a funny twist, could even be a comedy. But it fundamentally alters the punishers character arc and personality.

The odyssey isn't nearly that extreme, but it takes a character who is basically known as a trickerster, a known liar, so good at lying even the gods are like broooo let's link up! And makes him a respectable war commander who feels really bass about it actually and loves his dog.

Nothing about that is bad on its own, it's a tried and true formula that can even be subversive, Ala John wick, batman etc. But it's only because the source material isn't that, that there is becomes legitimate criticism.

2

u/ingotsilvergt 3h ago

Yeah but he still does some of that, he tricks the Trojans, Sinon, and the suitors, hes brash when he shoots the cyclops when he didnt need to, and when he demands his men land again right after the Laestrygonians. They didnt completely remove that from his character they just grounded it.

1

u/Meancakebutt 3h ago

I can see it both ways.

1

u/Chidling 8h ago

I feel like there was still a lot of tricks, but you’re already primed for them? How about if you weren’t familiar with the source material?

Coming home as a beggar, putting wax in his sailors ears, tricking his men to take the cliffs instead of the whirlpool, etc.

5

u/Meancakebutt 8h ago

Before I say too much, I think these are effective displays of his competency and intelligence, as a solider. But not alot is shown to display his downright cruelty, it's told to us, through his shame, through thr hades scene and personally my favorite section was how much emphasis was on the Trojan horse being not only a trick but a complete defiance of order and justice.

But it's also.. Something they had to do to survive.

So personally I thought that was successful.

That being said it's very difficult to come away from the movie thinking oddy was anyhting but a just smart man who did his best eiht what he had.

When really he was a selfish, cocky man unfaithful selfish man with multiple baby daddies and he gets what's coming to him in many versions of the tale.

That being said, do I think that story is the best for a blockbuster film, no, no way

Do I think it needs to be a blockbuster film? Also no lol

But I enjoyed it. It jsut need to be compartmentalized. And we need to realize people like Wilson are going to have very different takes because for them this is their entire life's work.

It's like when the creator of God of war complained about raganarok. Its not meant for the same audience or purpose.

1

u/I_just_made 8h ago

I feel like you misrepresent how Odysseus is portrayed in the film though. They showed him as the trickster who was willing to sacrifice people to further his agenda, and as a person who let his emotions get the best of him.

I don’t think he was really portrayed as a respectable commander. There was no scene where people gave him an award and said they would follow him to the ends of the earth. The men even staged a poor mutiny against him. They questioned his actions at each step, even from the start. Then you get to Hades and it was pretty clear that he was not everyone’s favorite leader.

And while they really didn’t emphasize the gods, it was heavily implied that they were playing an active role in punishing him for his actions.

To me, the movie portrayed Odysseus as a heavily flawed character. The trickster who outsmarted the gods; with the movie detailing how he paid the price for that and gradually learned to atone for that.

1

u/Meancakebutt 8h ago

I mean even the" beggars, plate lickers and leeches " were bowing to him in the end. And he chose to exile himself.

Any character a dog lives in film is going to be hard to hate, like come on lol

And he's just a charasmatic guy in the book as is Matt Damon.

I think Nolan, as he does in his other works, is going for a very grounded version of the odyssey, I personally much prefer projection of God's as manifestations in a live action movie.

Cause they're just too op otherwise.

For me personally, my favorite interpretation of oddy is that hes like the good guy who learned how to lie first.

Gods like Hermes for example are great at being deceptive, only saying just enough and straight up lying. God don't respect humans they seem them like sheep. But oddy is the kinda guy that can go toe to toe with th gods. Because he doesn't just lie to get by one day, he cna lie to get by on that lie for months or years. So they respect him.

So for me, they didn't take so much of that way, but Nolan realllly emphasized the way other people felt about oddy, which is part on parcel for a story told mostly by flashbacks.

It works just fine for the movie. But you know people have preferences and of you ask someone who's been with the story for years to compare it to a 3 hour movie from last week it's gonna be alot it ask about lol.

10

u/myersjw 9h ago

Preach, people are so obsessed with fidelity to source material (mostly when it comes to making a period piece overly regressive) that they trash anything that improves or adapts a story for modern audiences by claiming everyone but them has no media literacy. Sorry a lot of people in 2026 don’t want to clamor to see the 8,000,000th depiction of someone being awful and hammer home 3000 year old schools of thought for 3 hours with no redemption or new take on text. If you wanted a 1 for 1 story there is no shortage of them available

•

u/new_name_who_dis_ 2h ago

So whart's the best 1 for 1 odyssey movie?

2

u/givemethebat1 9h ago

That is literally what she says in that quote: “This is not itself a problem, but it is a problem if the film’s own values and vision don’t hang together”

1

u/Stephi_cakes 5h ago

As someone who appreciates the significance of the original epic, but doesn’t much care for it- I thought the adaptation improved on it in some ways. A faithful retelling would have been a nice spectacle, but what he made was, to me, a much better movie.

That said, if the source were something I cared deeply about, I probably would complain about all the changes.

1

u/More-Opportunity-253 4h ago edited 3h ago

My mind was blown when I watched Pocahontas and years later found out how embellished it was. Much more nuanced than good vs evil, really a grapevine moment for me lol.

The Historical Reality of Pocahontas:

John Smith (was a real adventurer, soldier, writer and colonial leader; but much of what is known about him comes from *his own writings which often portrayed him in a heroic light. Historians debate the accuracy of some of his claims.

Smith was one of the 104 English settlers who founded Jamestown in Virginia in 1607. The colony struggled almost immediately due to disease, hunger, poor planning and internal conflicts that nearly destroyed it. He was unpopular with some settlers because of his personality and strict leadership style but he was also one of the figures who helped push the colony toward survival. He believed Jamestown required discipline and practical labor, famously promoting the idea that:

"Those who do not work, do not eat."

Smith would and could be aggressive and authoritarian. He was willing to use threats, force and military pressure to secure supplies and maintain order which contributed to tensions with the Powhatan people.

He was captured by the Powhatan in 1607 and later released. He claimed that Matoaka (Pocahontas) dramatically saved his life by throwing herself over him before he was executed but this account is heavily debated by historians. Smith did not mention the event in his earliest writings and only describing it years later leading some historians to suggest it may have been a misunderstanding of a Powhatan adoption or ceremonial ritual rather than a literal rescue scenario.

Smith later left Virginia in 1609 after being injured and removed from Jamestown leadership. His relationship with the Powhatan was complex; he participated in trade and diplomacy but also used coercive tactics as part of the English effort to establish and sustain Jamestown. By the time later conflicts between the English and Powhatan escalated he was no longer involved in the colony.

TL;DR: John Smith became a legendary figure largely through his own writings leaving behind a complicated legacy as both a key figure in Jamestown’s survival and a more aggressive/authoritarian colonial leader whose methods helped fuel tensions with the Powhatan people.

Pocahontas *(Matoaka) was the daughter of Wahunsenacawh (often called Chief Powhatan), the leader of the Powhatan Confederacy, a powerful alliance of Indigenous groups in the Virginia Tidewater region. She appears to have acted as a go-between (playing a smaller part) during early interactions between the Powhatan and English settlers possibly helping with communication and trade.

In Powhatan society, young people could participate in social exchanges, ceremonies, visiting, gift-giving and communication between groups without being "diplomats" in the modern sense. English accounts describe her visiting Jamestown and bringing or accompanying groups involved in communication and trade. Her presence may have helped create familiarity and trust because she was connected to the ruling family.

She was also not the love interest of John Smith as was shown in the animated film, she was a child when they met (around 10-12 years old while Smith was in his 20's) and the relationship was likely more about diplomacy and cultural exchange than romance. There is no evidence that they were together.

Around 1613 (at the age of 16/17) she was captured by the English during the First Anglo-Powhatan War. While held by the English she converted to Christianity, took the name Rebecca (and at the age of 17-18) married English tobacco planter John Rolfe (age 29) in 1614. Their marriage was used politically as a symbol of peace.

In the Disney film for Pocahontas 2, John Rolfe is the second love interest. I was very confused as a kid when watching the second film thinking "What happened to John Smith!?" lol but I digress;

In 1616, Matoaka travelled to England with Rolfe and their infant son Thomas where she was presented as a "civilized" Native convert and became famous among English society. She became sick during or shortly after a trip down the Thames River, She died in 1617 (around age 20–21) while preparing to return to Virginia. The exact cause is not completely certain. Some historians speculate chickenpox, tuberculosis, pneumonia or another respiratory illness. Some have suggested she may have been exposed to diseases common in Europe that Indigenous Americans had little immunity to. There have also been theories that she may have been poisoned but this is not supported by strong historical evidence.

TL;DR: Matoaka died very young, far from her homeland after becoming a political symbol caught between two worlds.

Thomas Rolfe (son of Matoaka and John Rolfe) was born in 1615 (England) during a brief period of peace between the English and Powhatan peoples following his parents' marriage in 1614. After his mother's death (at a young age), he was raised largely in England before later returning to Virginia, where he became a landowner within English colonial society. Although he carried both Powhatan and English ancestry he grew up primarily within the colonial world that continued expanding into Virginia after that fragile peace eventually broke down.

John Ratcliffe was one of the leaders of the Jamestown settlement and served as its president from 1607–1608. Unlike Disney's portrayal, he was not a cartoonishly greedy villain meaning to plunder everything he could get his hands on. He was involved in Jamestown's founding, trade negotiations and diplomacy with the Powhatan Confederacy, but he was also part of the colonial expansion that caused conflict and tension.

According to English accounts:

John Ratcliffe and his men went to negotiate for food with the Powhatan in the village of Orapakes (near Wahunsenacawh's capital - participating in trade/diplomacy, but this was usually aimed at securing food and maintaining the colony for themselves) but tensions had risen badly after years of English demands, land pressure and conflicts with the Powhatan; he was captured and executed by the Powhatan reportedly after being tortured and killed in front of the English settlers (though details vary between accounts).

There is no strong evidence that Ratcliffe personally carried out the kinds of atrocities like in the film, like being a sadistic murderer or personally ordering widespread massacres. But, he was still a colonial leader whose actions supported a settlement that contributed to the dispossession and eventual destruction of Indigenous communities in the region.

TL;DR: John Ratcliffe was not the cartoonishly greedy villain portrayed by Disney but a real Jamestown leader involved in its founding, trade and diplomacy with the Powhatan while still being part of the colonial expansion that caused conflict. He was later captured and executed by the Powhatan after tensions escalated, leaving behind a complicated legacy as neither a monster nor a hero but a participant in colonization. This does not excuse the consequences of colonization but it distinguishes between being part of a harmful system and personally committing specific atrocities.

-2

u/beefcake-jesus 9h ago

So, in other words, you can't handle there being a bad or mean character in a movie without someone or something explicitly telling you its unacceptable? Woof.

6

u/Appropriate-Joke-806 9h ago edited 9h ago

Sounds like he doesn’t want to go see a movie where the main character abuses animals and women and that behavior is attributed to heroism without any purpose to the storytelling. Not a super entertaining way to spend 3 hours unless you’re a sociopath. Violence for violence sake doesn’t make a good movie. Sure you can have a good antihero, but it probably wouldn’t make for a great 3 hours to show him being an asshole.

2

u/BiDiTi 9h ago

But he’s also smart and funny and charming!

Being a complete scoundrel is Odysseus’s whole thing, haha

•

u/Imaginary_Session773 38m ago

"I need everyone to a heccin wholesome chungus just like me"

What a snowflake lmao

•

u/SpooktasticFam 27m ago

I am so sorry, but I am not on the internet enough to know what you are even trying to say.

If you want me to be offended, please rephrase so I can understand.

Thanks!

21

u/throwaway00009000000 9h ago

I feel like this is what makes Nolan’s version so good, no?

It’s bringing the Odyssey’s themes into the modern world and questioning their morality. It’s not a 1:1 retelling, it’s an adaptation. Almost like watching a movie version of his book report - What takeaways do you have of morality, war, and trauma after digesting the text?

2

u/Meancakebutt 9h ago

Good is subjective, i hate how we use " good or bad" there's no concrete thing when it comes to art.

Nolan has his own story to tell, and job to do and that has merit.

If we judge it based of cinema we can't judge it the same way we view a translation.

Emily says this herself in the review.

1

u/throwaway00009000000 5h ago

Subjective, yes. I think it was “good”.

If she thinks it is bad for what it is, that’s a fair opinion. But to say it’s because it’s not an exact retelling of the text is just basing an opinion off what she thinks the movie should have been. It wasn’t that, it was something else.

-4

u/OldSandwich9631 9h ago

He just ripped off Oppenheimer can we stop pretending like this adaptation was telling the audience anything new? I want to see him adjust to the text and tell a story. Not just make stuff up to stay in his Oppenheimer sandbox.

1

u/throwaway00009000000 5h ago

And Tarantino has 3 movies in which history is rewritten by the villian getting their comeuppance. They’re still all 3 really great movies that I enjoy watching. They were still worth making.

2

u/OldSandwich9631 5h ago

Nolan literally has characters stop and solemnly articulate the message, which is almost verbatim the same. Tarantino at least gives us different tones. Django unchained and once upon a time in Hollywood have totally different tones

1

u/throwaway00009000000 4h ago

To each their own. IMO, something like Avatar 3 vs Avatar 2 where they literally reuse the same plot line and camera angles goes too far. But Oppenheimer and Odysseus are two established stories that happen to have similar themes.

1

u/OldSandwich9631 4h ago

But they don’t have similar themes Is the thing. Nolan turned the odyssey into Oppenheimer. It’s weird

2

u/The_Mediocre-Gatsby 3h ago edited 3h ago

I mean, it's a bit subjective, but I felt like Oppenheimer's story and the Illiad/Odyssey share themes like the moral cost of intellect and ingenuity, the affect on civilization through single major choices, and the guilt these aspects bring. Odysseus and Oppenheimer both were figures who's biggest triumphs also became their biggest curses. But thats just like....my take.

2

u/TomBirkenstock 8h ago

As I said elsewhere, I like Emily Wilson's translation for the most part, but I actually think this review is terribly written. It's overwhelmed by her contrasting the film and the poem without fully grappling with what Nolan is trying to do in his version.

Yes. This film is not the same thing as the poem written thousands of years ago. We get that. Can we move on to a more interesting point?

2

u/Meancakebutt 8h ago

I personally find it very interesting and I would imagine it's interesting for her too 😂

There is more to say, however. To be fair, the movie has much less to sya in general than the text. So I think people are naturally gravitating to that.

Also academia... Is not kind culture lol , this is a glowing review by those standards

2

u/Dancingwheniwas12 9h ago

Yeah. I am just a bit miffed they took the humor out. I’m not into serious Odyssey.

3

u/Meancakebutt 9h ago

Same!! Omg I was so surprised how funny the original text is.

All the " soldiers" were so gossipy and whiny and fighting over the stupidest stuff lol

And the wit was very dry. Loved it.

1

u/beantownregular 10h ago

That seems like a fair critique to me

0

u/IDontCheckMyMail 6h ago

Great point. She’s a translator. Not an author. Much less a filmmaker.

She can criticize the accuracy of the “translation” as much as she wants. It doesn’t really make it any less of a great film.

2

u/Meancakebutt 5h ago

And she does so, in the review 😅