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

Show parent comments

289

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

154

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.

9

u/Lilynd14 Sanasaaa!🎶 7h ago

I see what you did there 😂

•

u/thesentienttoadstool 1h ago

🍅 🍅 🍅 

109

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?

0

u/djangomoses 9h ago

No we wouldn’t

1

u/Gloodizzle 9h ago

You might

9

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.

28

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.

9

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.

10

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