• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

The Odyssey (2026) Trailer

Why are people up in arms about 'historical accuracy' when the poem is mythical in nature? Sorry haven't kept up with the discourse surrounding this film so was wondering what I am missing.

I'll just echo what Angry_Megalodon Angry_Megalodon said. Although the poem is mythical, it is set in a real world time period.

There is some evidence that the Trojan war actually happened. It would have been nothing like it was described in the Iliad, but it would have formed the inspiration for this poem.

It's like somebody making a new film adaptation of Beowulf, but people are wearing 15th century Milanese plate armour and 19th century waistcoats, when the story actually takes place in the real world 6th century Scandinavia.
 
Last edited:
I'll never understand all the hype around Nolan. He's incredibly overrated and most of his films are boring or just dumb. I lump him with Zack Snyder. Both hugely popular but uninteresting.
 
I'll never understand all the hype around Nolan. He's incredibly overrated and most of his films are boring or just dumb. I lump him with Zack Snyder. Both hugely popular but uninteresting.
His previous films up to Interstellar where great films. The problem is that after that film his films are ok at best and he is just cashing out on his previous successes.
An important factor I think is the absence of his brother on the writing part of his films after Interstellar.
 
Historically accuracy like armors and helms shit sometimes goes against good storytelling. Saw the Trojan horse scene during the Avatar 3 and damn I think it works. The daunting no face all grim looking armor posing sells the current scene he wants to paint. Really excited for this movie.
 
His previous films up to Interstellar where great films. The problem is that after that film his films are ok at best and he is just cashing out on his previous successes.
An important factor I think is the absence of his brother on the writing part of his films after Interstellar.

His films were always only OK at best, unless you are seriously trying to tell me that three superhero movies qualify as life-altering experiences.

Batman Begins was… OK.

The Dark Knight was good but mostly because of Ledger's performance.

The Dark Knight Rises was borderline laughable. Some of the fight scenes were genuinely sketchy and Marion Cotillard's death scene was pure cringe. It should have been cut entirely. The whole movie felt like amateur hour.

Inception was a pretentious, mumbo-jumbo nonsense movie for dumb people and nowhere near as "smart" as Nolan (or his fan base) wanted people to believe.

Memento was… OK.

Tenet was incredibly forgettable and mediocre.

Interstellar had a brilliant OST, looked beautiful and it was fine until...the whole "power of love" absolute bullshit completely undermined the whole G'damned film.

Dunkirk was a bore. Easily one of the most boring WWII movies ever made, even if it did look good.

Oppenheimer was another dull film that, in my opinion, did not even need to exist. I will not dwell on the reasons, because that would inevitably involve politics.

Following was… eh.

He has to be one of the most overhyped directors in existence. His work ranges from OK-ish to good-ish, and that is about it. He makes blockbusters, not genuinely thought-provoking cinema, despite what his fans claim. In my view, he makes movies for "normies", the same crowd that routinely elevates Netflix-produced slop into the platform's weekly Top 10.

Someone previously asked me whether I thought Villeneuve was a better director, most likely as a "gotcha". My answer was, and still is, yes. While Villeneuve also makes "not thought provoking art house cinema", he at least puts far more emphasis on cinematography, atmosphere, and visual storytelling. His body of work is simply stronger than Nolan's filmography, any day of the week.

As for the Odyssey...yeah, I'm not holding my breath.
 
I love Dunkirk, watched it 2 times at IMAX and those 90 minutes felt like 30. But I agree with Tenet being mediocre at best. I guess people have different tastes.
 
Last edited:
His previous films up to Interstellar where great films. The problem is that after that film his films are ok at best and he is just cashing out on his previous successes.
An important factor I think is the absence of his brother on the writing part of his films after Interstellar.

Good point. On the other hand, Jonathan Nolan co-wrote the screenplay of The Dark Knight Rises ... That was a piece of shit I'd like to forget. Horrible movie.
 
Last edited:
His films were always only OK at best, unless you are seriously trying to tell me that three superhero movies qualify as life-altering experiences.

Batman Begins was… OK.

The Dark Knight was good but mostly because of Ledger's performance.

The Dark Knight Rises was borderline laughable. Some of the fight scenes were genuinely sketchy and Marion Cotillard's death scene was pure cringe. It should have been cut entirely. The whole movie felt like amateur hour.

Inception was a pretentious, mumbo-jumbo nonsense movie for dumb people and nowhere near as "smart" as Nolan (or his fan base) wanted people to believe.

Memento was… OK.

Tenet was incredibly forgettable and mediocre.

Interstellar had a brilliant OST, looked beautiful and it was fine until...the whole "power of love" absolute bullshit completely undermined the whole G'damned film.

Dunkirk was a bore. Easily one of the most boring WWII movies ever made, even if it did look good.


Dunkirk didn't even look that good. Nolan was so obsessed with the idea of not using CGI that those Dunkirk beaches looked empty because there were so few people on them. There should have been tens of thousands of soldiers crowding that beach but instead it looked barren and deserted. No sense of scale.

The movie Atonement (2007) did a much, MUCH better job at showing what Dunkrik was like. It had far less extras but that movie did portray the chaos on that beach before the evacuation. Just look at this long take, the wonderful soundtrack. That was true cinema, not the trash job Nolan did with the crazy loud soundtrack/ticking noises, the needless switching between different timelines, the bland interchangeable characters, the embarrassingly stupid final scenes of that Spitfire landing, etc.



I agree completely on Interstellar. I saw that movie once and have no intention of ever rewatching it, but I love the soundtrack. It was ridiculously loud in the cinema though. Both Interstellar and Dunkirk were so loud that friends I went with complained about the over the top volume in the cinema.

IMO Nolan's best movie is The Prestige.
 
Last edited:
Dunkirk didn't even look that good. Nolan was so obsessed with the idea of not using CGI that those Dunkirk beaches looked empty because there were so few people on them. There should have been tens of thousands of soldiers crowding that beach but instead it looked barren and deserted. No sense of scale.

I remember trying to explain to some friends that I rather disliked Nolan's Dunkirk because it does such a piss-poor job of representing the enormous scale of the operation and therefore the massive coup for the British that it was at all successful. All I got were blank stares.

vindication-brooklyn99.gif
 
I remember trying to explain to some friends that I rather disliked Nolan's Dunkirk because it does such a piss-poor job of representing the enormous scale of the operation and therefore the massive coup for the British that it was at all successful. All I got were blank stares.

vindication-brooklyn99.gif

Over a million men from all three armies hammering the absolute shit out of each other around a town and beachfront the size of Blackpool. Six destroyers sunk as well.
 
Top Bottom