[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

QuickTidal, on 20 July 2026 - 04:57 PM, said:

Spoiler

I think it's two-fold.

Odysseus is deep in PTSD and coming home was simply not something he could bring himself to do as the inhumanity he watched on display not just in Troy but ahead of Troy in the horse (that was HIS idea) wore him raw...coupled with guilt for leaving his wife and child...he has closed himself off to the notion of going home and his subconscious basically walled him off into making choices that landed him in trouble after trouble (whether the intent was to die or not is up for discussion). This part was obvious, it's a movie about guilt first and foremost. A film about "what have I done?".

It then compounds this notion by suggesting that the rumour of the "people from the sea" said to being about the end of that age...who were marauding around the Mediterranean...were them. It's not until Odysseus accepts that in the moment that Athena disappears. The age he was born into and became a supposed "hero" of...has rotted away and he's a big part of why that has occurred.

It's not a mistake in costuming that Agamemnon is attired like Greek Darth Vader...and is this "presence" more than anything else...he's the bad guy. Odysseus sees him as this...but then you see him without his armour and he's smaller, and damaged, and in Hades when he speaks he's shown for the false thing he was.

So take that and combine it with the key message in the Odyssey as a poem, that of Zeus's Law and the film is about the realization of inhumanity and how left to their own devices Circe was right, Men will do and be terrible things and forget Zeus's Law when it's convenient for them. Which is a message that resonates today with what's happening in the USA...humanity is being left behind to focus on wants and desires and not life.

Odysseus KNOWS his son will be a better man and ruler than him, because Telemachus was not raised by him but instead by his clever and stalwart mother Penelope who held off a kingdom of men for a decade...he knows this and chooses exile and making his amends in the west for his transgressions.

It actually works VERY well on the back of Oppenheimer (a narrative prologue to this) Oppenheimer is a man realizing that what he wrought made the world worse off in every way, something he could not see when he was in the throws of making it happen driven by his own science...Then the Odyssey is the post-realization atonement for that, a man who step by step realizes his error and sets about correcting it to the level he is able, and HOPING the cycle does not repeat. Hell he knows this early in the ten year trip home, but every time he tries to "save" his men, he makes things worse. And by the time he's making better decisions his men have begun making bad ones in his place.

"Zeus's Law" is not a thing in the poem. And wasn't a thing in ancient Greece.

Emily Wilson, who wrote the translation that the movie was supposedly inspired by, has been critical of the movie's misrepresentation of the poem. And so have other scholars and translators:

Quote

The divide between scholars and critics seems in part a matter of whether the balance should tilt toward Nolan or Homer. Wilson and fellow [Odyssey] translator Daniel Mendelsohn [... b]oth speculated that his desire to make a "Christopher Nolan" movie led to unfortunate decisions.

[...] Mendelsohn [...] faulted the director for giving us an Odysseus with "no cleverness, no humor, no wily charm." One of the Western canon's formative tricksters has been transformed, he contended, into the kind of haunted protagonist featured in such previous Nolan movies as "Oppenheimer" and "Memento."

[...] "Nolan has merely remade Homer's hero in his own image."

[...] Author Gareth Hinds, whose graphic novel adaptation of "The Odyssey" has also received a sales bump from the movie, had a response similar to Mendelsohn's [...] For Hinds, Nolan's film raises the question of how much you can change a story's main character before the story itself is changed entirely.

[...] Wilson, a professor of classical studies at the University of Pennsylvania, said she didn't want to come across as a "snobby," nitpicking expert at odds with any deviation from the original text. But she questioned a range of omissions and other choices, from the absence on screen of the Gods Zeus and Poseidon [...] to the "incoherent" messaging that condemns both war and physical cowardice. She found Penelope's role so thinned out that it endangered "any possibility of believing in this marriage." Wilson also that thought parts of the movie, notably the scenes with Odysseus' dog, Argos, "catered towards modern sentimentality."

"Everybody's a sucker for a dog," she said.

https://apnews.com/a...3824bd7e8de8abe

Nolan is drastically misrepresenting the Odyssey for his own anti-technology propaganda campaign.

Of course that doesn't mean it can't also be an entertaining (and a moving) movie, or that the morals he's trying to beat audiences over the head with until they solemnly nod along are completely wrong (particularly as they pertain to war and lastingly injurious treatment of others). But if a movie about a societal issue moves you, it's best to step back from it afterwards and examine the issue rationally, instead of letting yourself get swept up in the emotion of one particular fictitious narrative.

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: Yesterday, 05:57 PM

[Cause]

I’ll come back and discuss this further. Don’t disagree with you on much but in regards to this as a Magnum Opus. I wouldn’t say this movie stands heads of shoulders above Oppenheimer as an example. It’s a good film. I’m not sure it’s his standout best work for which he will be remembered by everyone.

For some this will be his best work, for others Oppenheimer, dunkirk, interstellar or even memento will be. Again, I don’t think this can be said to so Cleary and Unambiguously be considered his greatest and ultimate expression of his art. Maybe that’s a mark against the film or speaks to the strength of his work overall.

[Tiste Simeon]

I'm fairly sure we had some very similar arguments here when Oppenheimer came out TBF I think QT even said it was Nolans best at the time. Hah, life is a circle.

[QuickTidal]

Tiste Simeon, on 20 July 2026 - 06:06 PM, said:

I'm fairly sure we had some very similar arguments here when Oppenheimer came out TBF I think QT even said it was Nolans best at the time. Hah, life is a circle.

I may have, the difference here is that I will happily rewatch the Odyssey many times, but I have no interest in putting myself emotionally through Oppenheimer wringer again...but that could be subject matter.

[QuickTidal]

Azath Vitr (D, on 20 July 2026 - 05:55 PM, said:

"Zeus's Law" is not a thing in the poem. And wasn't a thing in ancient Greece.

What the heck are you talking about? Xenia (the law of hospitality) was indeed a thing in Homer's original poem...AND in ancient Greece. Zeus and Athena were its patrons. Hence the translation being Zeus's (XENIA) Law.

Maybe see the movie and understand what Zeus's law IS in the movie...before you try to come at me?

Azath Vitr (D, on 20 July 2026 - 05:55 PM, said:

Emily Wilson, who wrote the translation that the movie was supposedly inspired by, has been critical of the movie's misrepresentation of the poem.

And? the original was sung before it was ever written down. Trying to suggest that anyones "version" is the accurate one is an exercise in silliness. That includes Emily's. And not even scholars can claim perfect accuracy on such a piece of art...it's THAT old and there have been THAT many interpretations of it.

Azath Vitr (D, on 20 July 2026 - 05:55 PM, said:

And so have other scholars and translators:

Cool...AND? I fail to see why this version, which is Christopher Nolans' version of the tale, is any less viable than anyone else's...FFS The Cohen Bros. made a version that didn't get this trounced on by the "well; ACKSHUALLY" crowd.

Azath Vitr (D, on 20 July 2026 - 05:55 PM, said:

Nolan is drastically misrepresenting the Odyssey for his own anti-technology propaganda campaign.

LMFAO. My gods, go outside man.

Azath Vitr (D, on 20 July 2026 - 05:55 PM, said:

Of course that doesn't mean it can't also be an entertaining (and a moving) movie, or that the morals he's trying to beat audiences over the head with until they solemnly nod along are completely wrong (particularly as they pertain to war and lastingly injurious treatment of others). But if a movie about a societal issue moves you, it's best to step back from it afterwards and examine the issue rationally, instead of letting yourself get swept up in the emotion of one particular fictitious narrative.

You haven't seen it. So how would you know what it is or isn't? Is being a jerk in the way you speak to people part of the AI thing, or what? I tire of it.

[QuickTidal]

Cause, on 20 July 2026 - 06:04 PM, said:

I’ll come back and discuss this further. Don’t disagree with you on much but in regards to this as a Magnum Opus. I wouldn’t say this movie stands heads of shoulders above Oppenheimer as an example. It’s a good film. I’m not sure it’s his standout best work for which he will be remembered by everyone.

For some this will be his best work, for others Oppenheimer, dunkirk, interstellar or even memento will be. Again, I don’t think this can be said to so Cleary and Unambiguously be considered his greatest and ultimate expression of his art. Maybe that’s a mark against the film or speaks to the strength of his work overall.

I think there's re-watchablity here that does not exist in OPPENHEIMER, and a Sand & Sandal epic (even a deeply philosophical one) is going to do better with broader audiences in the long run than a political drama I think.

Only time will tell, but 70mm IMAX screenings are just as sold out for this as they were for OPPO.

[Macros]

My 2 pence.
I won't rewatch Oppenhiemer, it's too much.
But if there's any value in Oddyssey I will 100% rewatch purely because of the setting.

Regards the rest, meh, Homer probably wasn't a person as we understand writing The Illiad or Oddyssey (people have this vision of shakespear in a toga, it just wasn't), so the meaning is likely well marred from what its original author(s) between a totally different culture and attitudes now, coupled with most likely disparate creators, the mangling of oral traditions, possible mis transcribings and then translations well after the fact that simply could not be 100% accurate of a spoken tale that the translator never heard let alone account for how rapidly language can change over a few hundred years.

So arguing about the true meaning is like pissing into the wind, the true meaning? the true meaning that you took from it from a translation done a few hundred years ago by someone so far removed from events (the very loose real events that inspired the myth) they have no frame of reference beyond their OWN moral values and feelings.

Short version, its a film based on a story made up 2500 years ago.

[Macros]

Hoping to convince wife to go see it in IMAX (PLF is IMAX right? IMAX is like a brand name?) this weekend

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

QuickTidal, on 20 July 2026 - 06:32 PM, said:

Azath Vitr (D, on 20 July 2026 - 05:55 PM, said:

"Zeus's Law" is not a thing in the poem. And wasn't a thing in ancient Greece.

What the heck are you talking about? Xenia (the law of hospitality) was indeed a thing in Homer's original poem...AND in ancient Greece. Zeus and Athena were its patrons. Hence the translation being Zeus's (XENIA) Law.

Sure, xenia was a thing, but it's not what you're describing in your spoiler. And it wasn't called "Zeus's Law". Epithets are important in Homer. Even if the movie had correctly been describing xenia, completely making up an epithet with no counterpart in the poem would be irritating. Especially when people come away from the movie thinking "Zeus's Law" is a term in the study of ancient Greek religion or art.

The Trojan horse did not violate xenia. Homer never says that it did, Emily Wilson never said that it did, and classical scholars seem to agree that it didn't. That's Nolan's misrepresentation of ancient Greek culture.

Quote

Maybe see the movie and understand what Zeus's law IS in the movie...before you try to come at me?

It's true that I haven't seen the movie and I'm relying on your descriptions, which might not be fully accurate. Feel free to correct me (in spoilers) about that.

Disagreeing with you and attempting to correct apparent errors in your posts---especially in a largely neutral and dispassionate way---is not "coming at you".

Quote

Azath Vitr (D, on 20 July 2026 - 05:55 PM, said:

Emily Wilson, who wrote the translation that the movie was supposedly inspired by, has been critical of the movie's misrepresentation of the poem.

And? the original was sung before it was ever written down. Trying to suggest that anyones "version" is the accurate one is an exercise in silliness. That includes Emily's. And not even scholars can claim perfect accuracy on such a piece of art...it's THAT old and there have been THAT many interpretations of it.

There is only one surviving version of the Odyssey in the original Homeric Greek (not counting differences in spelling).

Nolan apparently claimed that his version is largely accurate to the original, with a few minor cosmetic changes. It's not.

And you're clearly not suggesting that Nolan heard one of these hypothetical alternate versions from some Greek singer who passed down a never-before-written-down version of the ancient Homeric oral tradition.

Granted, if he had made it clear (as the Coen Brothers did, and many others have) that it was his own idiosyncratic version, with no aim to be accurate to the original or to ancient Greek culture more generally, that would have been better. And far fewer people would have come away from the movie misinformed.

Quote

Azath Vitr (D, on 20 July 2026 - 05:55 PM, said:

Of course that doesn't mean it can't also be an entertaining (and a moving) movie, or that the morals he's trying to beat audiences over the head with until they solemnly nod along are completely wrong (particularly as they pertain to war and lastingly injurious treatment of others). But if a movie about a societal issue moves you, it's best to step back from it afterwards and examine the issue rationally, instead of letting yourself get swept up in the emotion of one particular fictitious narrative.

You haven't seen it. So how would you know what it is or isn't? Is being a jerk in the way you speak to people part of the AI thing, or what? I tire of it.

Going by your description and various reviews.

And for the "being a jerk" part---I guess you're objecting to the text you bolded. To be clear, I was making a general statement about movies that have clear "moral messages" about controversial societal issues; I wasn't assuming or suggesting that you'd allowed your emotional response to the movie to persuade you, because you no gave clear indication that it did. I'm saying that movies with a "message" that may be wrong aren't all so bad (from an ethical standpoint) provided people remember to examine the issues rationally instead of letting their emotional response to one particular contrived imaginary narrative determine their ethical positions or actions.

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: Yesterday, 08:09 PM

[Cause]

 Macros, on 20 July 2026 - 07:36 PM, said:

My 2 pence.
I won't rewatch Oppenhiemer, it's too much.
But if there's any value in Oddyssey I will 100% rewatch purely because of the setting.

Regards the rest, meh, Homer probably wasn't a person as we understand writing The Illiad or Oddyssey (people have this vision of shakespear in a toga, it just wasn't), so the meaning is likely well marred from what its original author(s) between a totally different culture and attitudes now, coupled with most likely disparate creators, the mangling of oral traditions, possible mis transcribings and then translations well after the fact that simply could not be 100% accurate of a spoken tale that the translator never heard let alone account for how rapidly language can change over a few hundred years.

So arguing about the true meaning is like pissing into the wind, the true meaning? the true meaning that you took from it from a translation done a few hundred years ago by someone so far removed from events (the very loose real events that inspired the myth) they have no frame of reference beyond their OWN moral values and feelings.

Short version, its a film based on a story made up 2500 years ago.

Agreed regarding that the original meaning is almost impossible to understand, 3000 years is a long time. My favorite example is that in the Iliad and odyssey Homer uses descriptions such as describing the ocean as wine dark. That makes no sense to our modern earns because the colors don’t match but back then they didn’t describe or talk about color the same way we do today.

Similarly today ‘hero’ means Superman. He fights for what’s good and justice. A Greek hero was simply a man who was exceptional and had the autonomy to take action. Morality as we understand it didnt enter the equation.

That said not sure the original meaning matters too much outside of a Greek history professors classroom.

Spoiler

I didn’t quite catch the whole poem I forget why but I got distracted but dismisses say something along the lines of the story will have to be sung because they can’t write it? I didn’t understand that at all but think I misheard or missed too much

This post has been edited by Cause: Yesterday, 08:11 PM

[Tiste Simeon]

We all know the truest and most accurate retelling is David Gemmell's Lord of the Silver Bow series. Nolan should have adapted that...

[Macros]

Oh man I would LOVE that as a series on The Illiad

[Whisperzzzzzzz]

Macros, on 20 July 2026 - 07:37 PM, said:

Hoping to convince wife to go see it in IMAX (PLF is IMAX right? IMAX is like a brand name?) this weekend

Maccy, this page on the official site is very helpful for understanding the different versions: https://www.odysseym...xplore-formats/

tl;dr PLF is going to be way cropped compared to the IMAX 70MM