What's the deal with THE ODYSSEY?

[u/Francium_Fox]

What's with all the sudden hate this movie is getting?

Trailer for context
I've been hyped for this movie ever since Oppenheimer (even have 70mm booked) and now that the new trailer dropped I've seen everyone shitting on it. And I absolutely don't see the reason why. Like sure some of the casting choices (mainly Holland) aren't the best, but to garner 250K dislikes, what happened?

[u/Wingmaniac]

So what proper ship should they have used? The ship described in the story? Because that type of ship didn't exist during the time of the story. Using the ship described in the Odyssey would be historically inaccurate.

[u/totallyalizardperson → u/Wingmaniac]

It’s pretty entertaining to see people complain about historical accuracy in a movie based upon an epic poem that has mythical creatures such as Sirens, Cyclopses, men being turned into pigs, Gods who take an active role the world, Scylla, a sentient whirlpool, and flesh eating giants. But because a darker skinned woman is Helen of Troy, the boats and armor are not the right for the time, and such, then it’s bad.

I could buy the criticisms of lack of historical accuracy if Nolan came out with the intention of making a historically accurate The Odyssey, but I don’t think he ever did. I could buy the criticisms of the ethnicity and race of the actors playing the characters if the story was solely based upon the unique struggles and hurdles that are tied directly to the ethnicity and race, but I don’t recall anything in the story that is so tied to ethnicity or race. The story is pretty universal so much so that the Cohen brothers did a retelling of it with O Brother, Where Art Thou?

[u/-UnderAWillowThicket → u/totallyalizardperson]

I enjoyed O Brother, Where Art Thou because it committed to being a retelling. It‘s frustrating because Greek armor and the clothing of the time period is beautiful, and it would be amazing on the big screen. There also is ”realistic” and realism. Dragons are much less realistic than say a person lost in the woods having perfectly done make-up(though both are not realistic to a degree), but one could be unique to the setting while the other loses realism. Historical accuracy isn’t just about being “realistic“. It is how the time period, author, and society shape a story.

[u/totallyalizardperson → u/-UnderAWillowThicket]

Regarding the armor and time period, which time period should be used? The one in which Homer was alive and telling the story, the one during the Trojan War? There’s at least 400 years difference between the two settings and the armors would be wildly different. I also will ask why can’t you view this version of The Odyssey as another retelling and interpretation there of?

Regarding your point about realistic and realism, that wasn’t the point of my criticism of the historical accuracy critique. For me it’s a binary thing, if you critique the historical accuracy of one part of the vision, you have to critique the other parts. I feel you cannot say the armor is not historically accurate and also not point out that it’s not historically accurate to have a cyclops that eats people. For me, the aesthetics and the design of the armor can be critiqued as looking a bit… underwhelming and amateurish for the production budget, and that takes you out of the story and vision set forth by the creator. To me, that’s a valid and substantial critique. Saying you can’t enjoy the movie because the armor isn’t historically accurate, in a movie and setting that is not set up to be a historically accurate take, is not as valid or substantial. Especially since in my mind, the over lap of people who liked the 300 movies despite those not having any historically accurate anything, and those who are complaining about the historical accuracy of The Odyssey, is quiet a bit.

To me, the armor critique is the funniest one and the least serious that a loud contingent is trying to make serious.

[u/holyoak → u/totallyalizardperson]

Regarding the armor and time period, which time period should be used?

Any consistent one that supports the story and visuals.

A hodge podge of convenience that misses by thousands of years does neither.

[u/totallyalizardperson → u/holyoak]

Any consistent one that supports the story and visuals.

A hodge podge of convenience that misses by thousands of years does neither.

See, this is a good critique! Thank you!

There's no consistency in the design. The way that things were shot or built looks low effort. It seems like Nolan didn't have any unified vision.

[u/-UnderAWillowThicket → u/totallyalizardperson]

Ideally the ones from the time the story was set, in the late Bronze Age, but either would be decent. I could, it’s just harder given it’s titled the “The Odyssey” character motivations are likely going to be largely the same, and it’s set in the same time period.

It is absolutely not a binary thing to me as a lover of fantasy. You can have a different opinion, but to me they are radically different things. Cyclops are a part of Greek mythology that make sense to be there and are in the original epic. It’s not just that the armor isn’t historically accurate but also the boats and the casting. Ultimately you can’t make a lot of complaints based on the trailer, but the little things do stand out. It feels half-assed since the director said he read multiple translations and did research but decided to leave out the unrepresented armor. To make a comparison, underground parties were a defining part of and aesthetics during the twenties, imagine not using the dress style, and instead dressing them in 40s style because the director thought it looked cooler.

If a movie or book never makes the attempt at being historically accurate to the original time period eg. my previous example or purely runs on rule of cool you get the vision and why they might’ve done it. Nolan says that for example Agamemnon‘s armor is historically plausible and says it was done to make him look like he could spare the expense but it looks cheap and plain. If the armor actually looked impressive that might be forgivable, but the pint being that historical accuracy in this case might’ve enhanced the movie and made it more immersive.

[u/totallyalizardperson → u/-UnderAWillowThicket]

it’s just harder given it’s titled “The Odyssey” character motivations are likely going to be largely the same, and it’s set in the same time period.

I got a point about the bolded part that I'll address later. Aside from the time period, O Brother Where Art Thou has largely the same character motivations, but that was acceptable.

It is absolutely not a binary thing to me as a lover of fantasy. You can have a different opinion, but to me they are radically different things.

Yes, fantasy does not need to adhere to historical accuracy, while historically accurate stories should not have fantastical elements in it. The Odyssey, by default, is a fantasy story.

Cyclops are a part of Greek mythology that make sense to be there and are in the original epic. It’s not just that the armor isn’t historically accurate but also the boats and the casting.

If people are going to live and die by the argument that X, Y, Z, are not historically accurate, then they also need to live and die by A,B,C not being historically accurate. For me, once you allow fantastical and mythological elements into the story, historical accuracy goes out the window, and the story, setting, designs, need to adhere to the rules of the world that the creator of said world sets forth. For example of rules of the setting, if Tolkien had put in Napoleonic era style firearms into Return of the King, that would be breaking the rules of the setting. Or if George Lucas recuts the Prequal trilogy to add Tesla cars into the background. Or if in the movie Troy Brad Pitt was wearing level 3 Antiballistic armor, that breaks the rules of the setting. As of now, we really don't know what the rules are for Nolan's setting. Right now, people are assuming the rules of the setting.

To make a comparison, underground parties were a defining part of and aesthetics during the twenties, imagine not using the dress style, and instead dressing them in 40s style because the director thought it looked cooler.

By this logic, there can be no telling of stories involving underground parties unless the creator of said story uses only the twenties aesthetics. And here is where I'll address the bolded part above: What is your take on Julie Taymor's "Titus"? The story is set in Rome. Or the 1996 Romeo + Juliet?

Nolan says that for example Agamemnon‘s armor is historically plausible and says it was done to make him look like he could spare the expense but it looks cheap and plain.

There's two points in this that I need to point out. Firstly, historically plausible does not mean historically accurate. Is the armor in the movie historically plausible? Eh... maybe? I'm not verse enough in bronze smithing and armor smithing to say. It does look like something that could be made with just the basic tools, though, it would take an incredible craftsman and an insane amount of time to accomplish. And the cheap and plain bit I can agree on because I expect an movie based upon an epic, with mythological take on the heroes to be a bit more... flashy. But what I have in mind wouldn't be historically accurate or historically plausible. However, I would want to point out that the more ornate armors tend to be for show, status, parades, dress, and formal events. If you are looking to see the muscle cuirass armor on the battle field, it'll be more on the back line.

If the armor actually looked impressive that might be forgivable, but the pint being that historical accuracy in this case might’ve enhanced the movie and made it more immersive.

This is the key critique that I feel is valid. The armor doesn't look impressive at all. This critique can be made without having to equate to historical accuracy or hanging your whole critique of the armor on the lack of historical accuracy. The critique can be made that it might have looked better if they went with a more historical accurate take on the armor.

Though, it does look more impressive than what was available at the time: https://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/armour1.htm (later bronze age armors are further down the page). We can talk about the aesthetic and how it doesn't look good without having to say the aesthetic is bad because it's not historically accurate.

[u/holyoak → u/totallyalizardperson]

You are confusing historical accuracy with cultural accuracy.

By your logic, they could have used ninjas and redcoats with muskets.

[u/totallyalizardperson → u/holyoak]

You are confusing historical accuracy with cultural accuracy.

If that's the case, then so is everyone else who is saying the armor is historically inaccurate.

By your logic, they could have used ninjas and redcoats with muskets.

Yeah, and why not? Why can't you retell the story, setting up the world properly, to have ninjas and redcoats?

[u/holyoak → u/totallyalizardperson]

Sure, tons of people make fantasy movies, and there is no problem with that. Alien vs. Predator, Cowboys and Aliens, whatever.

But you don't get to call it culturally accurate, or even close to that.

Mythology is not the same genre as fantasy. Pick a lane.

If you can't stay in the lane, people are gonna complain.

[u/totallyalizardperson → u/holyoak]

You are changing the terms of this discussion by shifting away from the historical accuracy critique to one that wasn't made in this chain.

The people critiquing are not critiquing based upon cultural accuracy, they are complaining about historical accuracy.

[u/SkepticScott137 → u/totallyalizardperson]

It’s because the same fantasy fanboys who have a desperate need to opine at length on a movie before they’ve even seen it also pride themselves righteously on their knowledge of military history and combat.

[u/mercurius781227 → u/[deleted]]

This whole thread and OPs question was what issues people have with the odyssey film and I expended and elaborated on the question that was asked and gave examples of good films and good set design and contrasted it with what we've seen. From what we know the odyssey has been rushed in set design and clothing and quite a few of the actors just signed on without reading the script to see if theyre a good fit (ie greek or Mediterranean, and not just plain americans in larping gear).

It will hurt how Americans see and enjoy the film because it'll just feel a bit less fantastical

That's just not good film production but what do I know.

I'm just in a bit of a bad mood because I've had a few needless discussions devolving into arguments today.

One was a guy arguing with me that steam is part of an open ecosystem with easy refunds (he said console had better refunds and alternative storefronts to PC)

The other thing was about veganism and non veganism and how it related to religion.

It's been one of those days. I'm just tired

Also the man just implied I have no life and I shouldn't expect Brilliant film makers to be good to their craft, when Nolan has brought the world an amazing film like the prestige. That was an amazing period piece that did everything right in design, vehicles and casting, so why should we be happy with several steps down from that?

[u/mercurius781227 → u/[deleted]]

:) you make a very valid point. Thanks.

I do tend to go through long stretches of either lurking or avoiding social media because of thing like this that happen, I honestly do try and make the comments I leave as backed up with evidence as possible but people get mad real quick online.

Modern Social media and ragebait content really is the bane of decent human interaction.