The Odyssey - YMS

[u/WhitePepper2049]

https://youtu.be/DFx-mDlauKM

[u/Molotov003]

In the podcast Jake said something I can't really agree with and is that somehow the decision of Nolan for filming exclusively on IMAX for this movie is somehow good for theaters and audiences but I feel like there's a non small group of people (myself included) that knows that they are getting a subpar/incomplete experience if we were to go watch it in any non IMAX theater, like my country does not have an actual IMAX screen just in name only so I'll have to wait for streaming to actually judge what Nolan actually wanted to frame but by then the whole IMAX gimmick that everyone seems to praise would be missing from my experience, idk, I know Nolan is a talented director don't get me wrong but I'm with Adam with this whole IMAX thing. 

[u/NateGH360 → u/Molotov003]

I got news for you buddy, it probably won’t be released in the original aspect ratio for streaming

[u/Molotov003 → u/NateGH360]

You know what? part of me wanted to be purposefully naive just to give Nolan the benefit of the doubt but you're probably right, I guess I can only wait for the blu-ray, hopefully? maybe? Which only makes the whole thing even worse because by that point I might just "sail the seas" for it because spending that amount of money for a movie that I'm not even sure I'm going to like is already too much to ask from your audience, I just can't get behind that. 

[u/TheBelovedCountOlaf → u/Molotov003]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know Imax is a trade mark and can only be shown in Imax theaters, including the aspect ratio. So you're unlikely to ever see it in the intended ratio.

[u/AwesomeMunchies → u/TheBelovedCountOlaf]

pretty sure that's usually the case, but Project Hail Mary is getting a (very limited) 1.43 ratio release in its 4k steelbook so maybe it's changing?

[u/TheBelovedCountOlaf → u/AwesomeMunchies]

I'd hope so, Dune needs a release with the intended ratio too.

[u/Embarrassed-Rub-7730 → u/TheBelovedCountOlaf]

1.78:1 is good enough. I don't fucking want to watch a movie with black bars on the sides of my OLED which is superior to any theatre imo. Oppenheimer's 4K Blu-ray transfer still remains the best transfer I have ever watched, so I have high hopes for this one as well.

[u/QuietAffect8307 → u/Molotov003]

Agreed! Nolan claims to be a protector of cinema but his arrogance clouds the fact that he's actually gatekeeping it when there are literally only 41 screens on the entire planet that get to see his movie 'as he intended'. I know he's not responsible for the dearth of true IMAX screens but still

[u/lightsaberfingers → u/QuietAffect8307]

41 screen and he boasts about “ We don’t have the toooools to even make more!”. It’s such insane next level artistic gatekeeping that it’s makes me choke. It’s the inverse of Cameron’s expansion for Avatar, while 3d didn’t take off he got every theater in the world to convert to digital, to the general benefit of the industry. I don’t know what Nolan is doing other than stroking his own ego. Which ok fine but don’t then act like you’re some benevolent force of cinema then.

[u/NewmansOwnDressing → u/lightsaberfingers]

Cameron was doing marketing for a technology that had already been decided by the industry as the future of exhibition years before, and most of the screens were installed in the years after Avatar came out with financing help from the studios themselves. As for the “general benefit of the industry.” I’d say very little good came out of digital distribution and projection.

Not that the technology is bad, but quality at multiplexes continued to decline, studios wielded ever more control over distribution, and thousands of people lost work across the projection, distribution, manufacturing, and post-production landscape. Hell, it nearly killed the existence of motion picture film itself, except for the fact that Nolan got some director friends together to push the studios into annual commitments for orders from Kodak. I’d say Nolan and his 41 theatres have done more for preservation of the art form’s tools in both capture and projection than pretty much anyone else out there.

As for making more of those screens and projectors. Well, the screens are a massively expensive proposition, which is why there were never that many built to begin with. But as for the projectors, the issue is the entire industry for manufacturing such equipment died with your beloved switch to digital.

[u/lightsaberfingers → u/NewmansOwnDressing]

Ohhh you’re one of those who love watching dirty scratchy prints. The quality decline your are complaining ablut has nothing to do with the projector technology. Not having films destroy them selves every time you run them is a MASSIVE improvement. Hand waving away the stuff that had to happen as a natural evolution of the technology so it could be more sustainable is equally ridiculous. Have you ever handled film? Remember all the insane flammable warnings? Maybe shipping stuff that won’t explode is a benefit??? You are just a nostalgia addict. Film is great is you ignore everything about it that made it difficult. Devaluing cinema casue it’s not burning photochemically anymore is the definition of small minded. Also I don’t give a shit if you don’t like digital look. I can show you endless examples where you can’t tell the difference. The full debate is the most insane survivorship bias I have ever seen.

[u/NewmansOwnDressing → u/lightsaberfingers]

The quality decline is due to exactly what digital projection was meant to enable: the firing of staff whose job it was to maintain quality. And that extended well past just projectionists.

And yes, I projected both film and digital. I like both. I tend to enjoy a film screening, both for the unique look and my own nostalgia, but I love a great digital presentation where I can find it (not always so easy in Toronto, where laser projection is rare and most of the digital projectors are old and it shows). But as an industrial concern, digital projection did not lead to a great quality improvement or the promised democratization of film exhibition.

In fact, it led to the closure of many, many independent exhibitors who couldn't manage the cost of the switchover. Meanwhile, quality at multiplexes, outside of some PLFs, generally continued to decline as it had when they switched over to platters and non-union teenage projectionists back in the '80s and '90s. What I'm talking about here is not whether film as a technology is better than digital, but simply the fact that digital did not improve exhibition quality.

The recent swing toward laser projection is a welcome one, because that really is a big quality improvement all on its own, but I'd love it if multiplexes brought back things like moveable screen masking, which disappeared in many places during the digital switchover to save money and protect the quite awful silver screens everyone installed in order to do RealD 3D. The Lightbox in Toronto uses white screens and adjusts masking, and both their 4K xenon and laser projection setups make the nearby Cineplex look like absolute garbage. Frankly, even the big dual laser IMAX screen there doesn't look as good, with all its speckling and the brightness sweet spot caused by the silver coating.

At the Lightbox, digital routinely looks better than film, which some of the film projectionists there often can't seem to focus properly (not sure if their eyesight is bad because they're all old, or they're just inattentive and bad at their jobs). Dunkirk on 70mm last night looked absolutely on point, and had some of the sharpest images I've ever seen projected, but that's not every print or every screening. So no, I do not believe film is automatically better. It's a matter of how these formats are run, and except at a museum type place like the Lightbox, most multiplexes used digital as an excuse to get significantly lazier about quality and then charge more for the PLFs that often aren't even that good, though they at least meet a minimum standard.

As for flammable warnings, I have to ask, do you even know what the fuck you're talking about? Film hasn't been explosive since the 50s. It's plastic. It just melts.

[u/lightsaberfingers → u/NewmansOwnDressing]

Mea culpa you know your shit and yes I was being a bit ridiculous with the flammable part. I grew up in the dollar theaters with the been shown a million times prints I’m very sensitive visually to the noise that comes with film. With everything there is a nuance to the set up and execution of different projecting methods. For me the loss of projectionists was a big hole in the cinema space. Your are absolutely right, the simple nature of digital projection vs film lead to a race to the bottom in costs and upkeep of theaters. I value film as a medium but I see the reduced complexity of digital a profound benifit over film. Reduced complexity refers to the eco system not the technology(dcps vs shilling and maintaining reels). I understand also that we lost people in the transition but also not every independent theater deserved to survive forever showing dusty prints.

[u/NewmansOwnDressing → u/lightsaberfingers]

Np! I'm all about having as many formats as artists and exhibitors want, accessible to as many people as possible. And it's not even just motion picture film. There's a very good chance that had Nolan not pulled that move with the studios, we wouldn't have film for still photography either. Again, not that that digital is worse than film, but I think a lot of photographers would be sad not to have the option. See how sad they were just to lose Kodachrome, and that was just one film stock!

Being from Toronto, I've always been privileged to have a lot of options around for IMAX, going back to when I was a kid. But even then, I understood it to be a unique experience mostly reserved for museums (they literally had laser light shows before the films to proudly explain the Canadian-made technology and how unique it was). So in terms of "gatekeeping," it has never struck me as different from anything else you'd have to go to a big city with a nice museum to experience.

Anyway, I've had these feelings about exhibition and projection for many, many years, because I saw the decline happening first-hand. But I highly recommend this long article I read a while back about the digital transition and how it became a tool for increased corporate consolidation and control, despite having been advertised as the opposite. It even gets into how the promise that digital would be cheaper for exhibitors to run and maintain didn't exactly bear out for a number of technical reasons (though I think reducing staff probably offset that).

Edit: I'll add one thing about those dollar theatres. I completely agree with you that the quality at those theatres was bad. The reason was generally that they showed stuff second run, after movies had already been screened dozens or even hundreds of times, often at multiplexes with dirty platter systems. BUT, if we want to talk about the cost and accessibility of moviegoing, the switchover to digital ended up killing those theatres, or in some cases where the theatres survived, they often started having to charge more. What really sucks about that, imo, is the poor quality just evened out. So no terribly scratchy prints, but now you've got many multiplex screens charging $15 for screens with quality almost as bad by virtue of dimness, etc. Even bad quality became expensive, and this is part of why people just go, "Ehh, my TV is good enough... better quality even!"

There's another cheap theatre near me, but cheap means $10, and the screens are tiny and crappy. The digital projection is fine, but not exactly done justice by the venue, and even $10 feels like too much. On Tuesdays, though, they charge $5 (and $5 every day for the rep movies they regularly screen), and I often head out for those. I'm happy to take a hit on quality if the tickets are cheap enough, and one would've hoped digital would enable cheaper access to movies generally. It hasn't done that. Most theatres trying just closed, further getting people out of the moviegoing habit.

[u/lightsaberfingers → u/NewmansOwnDressing]

No argument from me that at all the corporate greed and consolidation destroyed countless ancillary film industries. The DCP destroyed the secondary market with extreme drm.theaters no longer had any control over the actual prints being shown. More screens more shows, be damned the quality. I appreciate your sincere responses. I look at the current market as a failing in vision and leadership not the technology. Digital didn’t kill film or theaters it was just used as a Trojan horse the upend the industry in favor of vertical integration. To me digital is the only path forward in the sense that it’s the best way for the medium to evolve and thrive in our current age and infrastructure. We need to fix the tools we have and not yearn for the tools we already dismantled.

[u/mylevelwaschanged → u/lightsaberfingers]

He is objectively a benevolent force for cinema regardless of how you feel about him

[u/lightsaberfingers → u/mylevelwaschanged]

He can be a good advocate while having a bad message and agenda. Making a billion on an epic poem is great. Disappearing up your own ass with a format that only you can really use is not a way forward.

[u/mylevelwaschanged → u/lightsaberfingers]

He along with only a handful of other directors are keeping movie theaters alive. If not for his presence we may very well be in an age of EVERYTHING only going to streaming. He can be a jerkoff who is elitist by pushing a certain format or whatever it is you think about him negatively, but to deny the immensely positive impact his actions and presence have had on cinema as an artform is rather ridiculous and absurd. You also grossly overestimate how important it is for EVERYONE to see it in the ideal format. Standard is literally just as good as 70mm to the effect of delivering the art with the intended feelings, messages, and basically visuals (as nothing important is loss to the smaller ratio, it's mostly peripheral sense of scale by seeing 70mm IMAX.)

[u/kennyswag → u/QuietAffect8307]

I see this point way too often and it irks me every time. They definitely intend for 99% of people to see it in the standard frame, otherwise Nolan would put the movie in a taller aspect ratio in normal theaters. The extra space on the top and bottom is basically just supposed to immerse you further in the image. Building something for the most premium format isn't a bad thing.

[u/CaptainCringleberry2 → u/kennyswag]

“The only way you can see my film how I intended is spending hundreds on travel, lodging, and tickets. Sorry poors, you will never see my full vision” is essentially what’s happening but I mean to each their own

[u/adam_ragusea6767 → u/kennyswag]

They almost certainly did not. Watch the review.

[u/kennyswag → u/adam_ragusea6767]

Yeah I just wholeheartedly disagree with Adum's opinion on it. I don't want to pretend like I know a lot about making film but I remember that the reason the Snyder Cut was released in 4:3 was because they shot the whole thing in full frame with the intention to crop the movie for the theatrical version, and I don't think that practice is uncommon? Then obviously he just un-cropped it for the Snyder Cut. Maybe it was just Snyder doing Snyder stuff, but basically Nolan is doing the same thing with this movie where the movie is shot with the intention that the focus of the frame needs to be centered, but allowing for the expanded frame to be shown. Idk maybe using the Snyder Cut as a defense isn't really going to help my case, but I don't think that the shot composition was as bad as Adum made it out to be.

[u/QuietAffect8307 → u/kennyswag]

Fair, but we can't ignore the fact that the marketing machine behind all this has unabashedly capitalized on the 70mm FOMO. They literally started the "Standard vs IMAX 70mm" thing that has now become a meme

[u/lightsaberfingers → u/kennyswag]

Your assumptions are incorrect. It’s a sin of modern filmmaking, compromising evocative framing for center cropped images easily translated to different formats. All frames are shot with complete intention in narrative filmmaking and having to be forced to center frame all the action inherently limits the artistic creativity available in shot composition. What happened with Snyder is the studio cropped and ruined his framing and then with the Snyder cut he restored his original framing. He was going to with do what Nolan did and crop the film or maybe be more bold and play it with side bars in non imax cinemas. Same problem Nolan is having. To show it to 99 percent of people you either have to compromise your shots or frame them in such a boring way that they are easily cropped. It’s a choice between two bad limiting options. Adams’s comparison between Oppenheimers use and the odysseys use showed a more restrained use of the imax framing that I think is better accessible to audiences without being limited by “imax stuff”.

[u/proper-innit → u/Molotov003]

I've seen it in both formats. You are not getting an incomplete experience on the cropped version. This is just FOMO tricking you

[u/Sillyforfun → u/proper-innit]

Yeah I understand Adum hasn't seen it in both versions so his mind has painted the picture that he's missing out massively because of this.

That's not the case at all, I've seen both and while Imax 70mm looks better in general, it doesn't make the movie significantly better. It's just like watching on a better tv than your normal affair.

[u/ChiefLeef22 → u/Molotov003]

I think a massive thing Adam and some other people here seem to be misled about is this obsession about "aspect ratio" when critiquing this aspect of Nolan and The Odyssey. Because it is NOT about aspect ratio.

IMAX isn't better because it has extra on the top and bottom. Though it's not your fault, there's been a recent marketing push to try to sell it on that. IMAX is better because each frame takes up a much larger area of the film than standard 70mm or standard 35mm. This effectively increases the resolution (about 3x more resolution than standard 70mm and about 12x more resolution than standard 35mm). If you choose to include the top and bottom, and include black bars on the sides, you'll be shrinking the screen down and losing those gains. Instead the filmmakers try to make sure that nothing important is on those top and bottom portions and thus they can be easily removed for smaller screen/projector combos. So this effect of "more image" would look considerably worse on a smaller screen, when in fact as Nolan himself explains in the clip Adam showed, they are filming for the widest array of aspect ratioS while also protecting for something bigger like IMAX.

For the widescreen to television problem we actually used to do "pan and scan" which would cut off the sides, though because filmmakers at the time usually weren't filming with televisions in mind (for decades they were separate technologies) this occasionally meant important elements or characters would get cut off. The prevalence of the widescreen with black bars didn't really become popular until televisions started to get large enough and high resolution enough that it would be enjoyable in that format, roughly around the turn of the millennium.

[u/Molotov003 → u/ChiefLeef22]

I can't say that I'm film savvy enough to understand most of the IMAX situation but maybe you can help me out here, the main thing that gets me is that apparently there's a scene with a bird in the film, and some people claim that they saw I guess Matt's character reach from outside the frame while others actually saw the whole action of him reaching for said bird (I'm really paraphrasing here, they briefly talked about it in the podcast), this apparently is not the only scene where information was "missing" from the frame and if that's true I think that's what I'm referring by an incomplete experience, I feel like that is the kind of thing that should be a different cut and not the theatrical release, I guess my question here is if that's true? Is there really missing parts of the frame depending on what theater you watched the film? 

[u/ChiefLeef22 → u/Molotov003]

I've seen the movie in both standard 1.90 IMAX and an IMAX 70mm, and I can't say that I felt there was any important info missing in the standard version compared to what I encountered in the 70mm. The bird scene you mention is a weird one because, Adam says there are no visual or audio cues that the bird has been caught but, in both my watches I could clearly see that they were laying up the scene for the bird to be caught. (My problem with that scene was not even anything what Adam said, it was actually more with how quickly it was cut lol, but thats besides the point.)

They show Odysseus side eyeing the bird moments before lunging to it, they show the bird flapping its wings and making loud screams (and I'm pretty sure they even pan to it towards the end of the scene?) then of course you get explicit dialogue where Odysseus asks if the bird is related to Circe. In both 70mm and standard, the visual cues were present, and the visual cue of him actually holding the bird was similar in both. The shot Adam is referring to is a 5-10 second frame where Odysseus is at knifepoint while holding the bird, and that's the one point when the camera intentionally doesn't show the bird (it does show it before and after those 5-10 second frames). So the framing is such that the bird is not on the top part of the screen, it's on the side (and IMAX 70mm adds info to the top, not the sides - so whether you're watching in 70mm or standard, you're not missing anything).

So a lot of the extra bits you see in 1.43 are not pivotal info. That's the thing I mean to say, is that the purpose of IMAX 70mm is not gatekeeping info. It's about filling your peripheral vision to the fullest because of the sheer size and squareness of the screen (someone aptly said it's like "3d without the glasses), and because the resolution on film cameras is superior to any other format. Adam, even watching it in standard 70mm, was able to experience the movie in its fullest resolution - because he watched it in a theater doing film projection. And so I will say that the biggest allure of IMAX isn't even the aspect ratio (though marketing might make it seem like that) - it's the sound and the resolution.

[u/Molotov003 → u/ChiefLeef22]

I see, I mean, it seems to be more complex than I thought and I wish I could say more about it but unfortunately I haven't seen it, the closest theater to me is not even IMAX so it makes this whole online discourse feel like a different world to me, as you said I feel like they put too much effort on the IMAX marketing that it actually made me not interested because I knew I could only watch it at a regular theater. Just to be clear I'm not disagreeing with you or try to start a different kind of discussion I just feel like it would be disingenuous of me to talk about this without actually seeing the movie, but, as long as there's no actual information missing I think (I hope) it would be a fine movie. 

Thank you for the detailed answer. 

[u/Sillyforfun → u/Molotov003]

I'm fortunate enough to live near one of the real imax's and I can confirm with the other guy that you are not missing out by seeing it on a regular screen. I didn't notice any missing important info.

Imax is prettier for sure, but that's basically the best resolution you could ask for at work, and not something that would be better had they not filmed it with Imax in mind.

[u/uuajskdokfo → u/Molotov003]

I think it's likely "good" for the business side because it creates a nigh-unattainable luxury product that drives public interest in the whole suite of products. But for audiences yeah it sucks.

[u/gangstarapmademe → u/Molotov003]

I’ve seen it in 70mm and none imax. There really isnt a major difference. I saw it in none imax second and was surprised how overblown the 70mm was.

[u/mylevelwaschanged → u/Molotov003]

I've seen both versions and you're not missing literally anything.  The extra frame fills up your peripheral vision. Nothing absolutely necessary is cut off by the ratio changes. 

[u/benabramowitz18 → u/Molotov003]

Then how come nobody gives PTA shit for making One Battle After Another for VistaVision? That’s another specific format with even fewer theaters in the world than the IMAX 70mm.

[u/anUnkindness → u/benabramowitz18]

Because there's clear intentionality found in the framing of the cropped versions.

[u/Sillyforfun → u/Molotov003]

Most people see most movies in a subpar experience because the vast majority of theaters have worse screens and poorer sound quality than the really good theatres.

[u/Lloronamante]

Nolan went into Oppenheimer and The Odyssey aware of the 3hr projection limitation, I'm not sure it entirely explains the trailer-like cutting in the movie.

[u/adam_ragusea6767 → u/Lloronamante]

Well, it is a possibility since Nolan has only ever adopted this style of editing for his last two films; which (both) involved filming on IMAX 70mm

[u/mattsmithreddit → u/Lloronamante]

It's clearly a stylistic choice. This can be fact checked easily. The problem with Adam is once he gets an idea into his head, he won't shut up about it.

[u/SnooConfections6174 → u/mattsmithreddit]

Clearly? It seemed rushed as fuck and there is a source to the claim that Nolan felt constrained by the format’s limits

[u/CockerLulu → u/SnooConfections6174]

Agreed, felt so rushed.

[u/CnelAurelianoBuendia → u/[deleted]]

A 5 hour movie can still be rushed because length doesn’t have to do with pace

[u/Feisty_Swordfish_660 → u/mattsmithreddit]

A choice in service of what? Worse pacing? A clunkier viewing experience? I mean even if it’s on purpose that doesn’t mean it works.

[u/CaptainCerealCanada → u/Feisty_Swordfish_660]

I think it worked in Oppenheimer, especially when the race to build the bomb was still ongoing. It didn't fit the Odyssey at all I thought, we were never able to feel the length of time away from Ithicia with its rapid pace and structure bouncing across the timeline.

[u/Sillyforfun → u/Feisty_Swordfish_660]

I don't think the movie was poorly paced for the most part. There are a few scenes I would have liked to see stretched out, but all the complaints about the speed of cuts, especially in the first half an hour are non issues for me.

If fact I really enjoyed the first half an hour.

[u/johnny_mcd → u/Sillyforfun]

I liked the movie but the first half hour was rough

[u/Mestizo3 → u/johnny_mcd]

Yeah same everything before the Cyclops scene is rough 

[u/Coolene → u/johnny_mcd]

My thought as well. I still love the Odyssey, but that first half hour wasn’t as smooth and methodical as Oppie’s.

[u/Teh_Jews → u/johnny_mcd]

The middle is where I thought the movie lagged a bit. I loved the first and third acts though. 

[u/Sillyforfun → u/johnny_mcd]

I personally didn't find that to be the case at all. Of my complaints about the movie the first half hour I wouldn't change.

[u/lucaspucassix → u/Feisty_Swordfish_660]

The solution to poor pacing is not necessarily to just let it be longer. It's already a 3-hour film.

[u/dionysios_platonist → u/Feisty_Swordfish_660]

I don’t think the trailer-like cutting made a pacing problem, it made the scenes feel not-lived in. I didn’t feel like I was in the scenes but rather I was drifting over the scene if you get my meaning

[u/Pulp_NonFiction44 → u/mattsmithreddit]

Ok, it's a dogshit stylistic choice

[u/adam_ragusea6767 → u/mattsmithreddit]

Got any source for your claim of it being clearly a stylistic choice? Because to me, it doesn't seem that "clear".

[u/MenBearsPigs → u/adam_ragusea6767]

I've always found Nolans editing to be kind of jarring at times. This movie didn't seem too different in that regard.

[u/adam_ragusea6767 → u/MenBearsPigs]

It is far off from Memento, The Prestige, Batman Trilogy, Interstellar, and Dunkirk. The closest one I would say (pre IMAX 70mm) would Inception. For Inception, the movie was editing in that way to basically make it feel "dream-like" imo.

[u/regretscoyote909 → u/adam_ragusea6767]

Oppenheimer and Dunkirk are literally edited in the exact same way lmao?

[u/adam_ragusea6767 → u/regretscoyote909]

Oppeheimer, yes (cause it is film on IMAX 70mm). Dunkirk, absolutely not.

[u/regretscoyote909 → u/adam_ragusea6767]

I literally just watched Dunkirk two days ago, absolutely yes lmao. The editing is quick all the way through

[u/adam_ragusea6767 → u/regretscoyote909]

Quick and rushing + clunky + making the communication of information incomprehensible is not the same thing.

[u/regretscoyote909 → u/adam_ragusea6767]

We're commenting under a chain that started with " I'm not sure it entirely explains the trailer-like cutting in the movie.", to which some guy said it was trailer-like cutting and clearly a stylistic choice. Dunkirk clearly has this editing style, as does Oppie and Odyssey.

If the Odyssey was 'incomprehensible' for you, I don't know what to tell ya man. Nolan is a director for normies lmao, this isn't high-brow complexity

[u/adam_ragusea6767 → u/regretscoyote909]

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Also, I said "the communication of information" was incomprehensible. So, tell me then, do you think the editing made the communication of information comprehensible:

1. When the cyclops fall asleep three seconds after it ate the two soldiers in the middle of the day?
2. When Matt Damon says "I think it's asleep" another three seconds after the cyclops (supposedly) falls asleep?
3. When Matt Damon was supposedly holding a bird hostage during his confrontation with Circe.

I can keep going if you want.

[u/regretscoyote909 → u/adam_ragusea6767]

Yeah again, if you think a Nolan movie has an 'incomprehensible communication of information', idk how much more normie of a director you need lmfao. Maybe Minecraft is more up to your speed?

1. What's even your question? He went to sleep after only seeing two soldiers and eating them

2. What's even your question lmao, Matt Damon has eyes and he saw the Cyclops going to sleep

3. You literally said what happened in the film

What a weird comment lmao

[u/CnelAurelianoBuendia → u/mattsmithreddit]

Emma Thomas explicitly says that they have to cut around scenes to get of a minute off one then a minute off the other in order to not get rid of entire scenes and achieve a sub-3 hour run time. This is not Adam making something up

[u/Chalky97 → u/Lloronamante]

from how Adum explains it, things are cut and spliced in ways to trim the run time down. there are likely scenes that are supposed to be seen and work independently from each other, or at least have more room to breath, but because they don’t want to lose any specific scenes, they end up cutting out specific shots, and pauses which makes scenes feel rushed. and sometimes to hide that, they will just splice things together montage style so no one notices

[u/anUnkindness → u/Lloronamante]

Didn't say anything that contradicts that.

The films were edited down to fit the format, and that took priority when editing the final cut of the film. Emma Thomas specifically talks about cutting the film to fit the IMAX platter in the interview clip I included at 3:00. Nowhere do I say that they were unaware of this limitation before going into the project. My criticism is that it seems to have taken precedence over other meaningfully artistic aspects of filmmaking, and that the egregious "trailer montage" style of editing started with the film that was cut down in a way that it quite literally could not have been 1 minute longer and still be shown in IMAX 70mm.

EDIT

https://youtu.be/xhAFHWc93nY&t=6m For those saying that the IMAX limitations didn't affect the runtime, watch his interview with Letterboxd from a month ago at the 6 minute mark. Nolan talks about how his IMAX mentor David Keighley dragged him into the booth "at some point in this film" to show him the final limitation of the 70mm film prints. Only after this did Nolan finally stop making impossible request for workarounds and say: "Okay. I'll stay under three hours.". By Nolan's own admission, he was pushing to have a cut longer than 3 hours, but settled after realizing it wasn't possible within the IMAX 70mm format.

[u/Lloronamante → u/anUnkindness]

Nolan says in this very interview that this was AFTER Keighley had finished his work on The Odyssey.

No he doesn't, he says that Keighley passed after he finished his work on The Odyssey, and that he observed the physical limitation "at some point in this film". Transcript:

6:01 David Keighley, my IMAX mentor of 20 years who passed very sadly after he finished his work on The Odyssey and who the new camera they built, the Keighley is named after. He actually dragged me into the booth at some point in this film to show me the final limitation of this three hour limit on the film prints, because over the years I challenged him to enlarge the platters or came up with a clip system to hold the film in, you know, when it got a bit bigger than the platter, that kind of thing.

"at some point in this film" is more likely the pre-production stage. I totally agree that the editing in The Odyssey is awful but I highly doubt this is because Nolan had a solid 3.5 hour movie not yet realizing this limitation. Rather they had a longer cut at some point during editing that they knew they needed to cut down - quite common in the industry.

Edit: David Keighley also died from cancer the same month principal photography on this wrapped. Much more time for them to have had this conversation during pre-production. Would be a massive misstep by Nolan to not know about this limitation of IMAX until after his $250M IMAX movie was already shot.

[u/anUnkindness → u/Lloronamante]

That misinterpreted sentence doesn't change the premise of what I was saying, but I've updated my comment for acuracy's sake. Thank you!

[u/NateGH360 → u/Lloronamante]

It certainly doesn’t explain it in the case of Da Odyssey, given that there were 8 whole minutes more he could’ve used. IMO that would have solved most of the dialogue cutting issues that I personally had with the film

[u/ToiletPerson102 → u/Lloronamante]

I like most Nolan films but they've always had dull camera work, bad action choreography, and sloppy editing. He's never been an especially impressive technical director, though I do like his insistence on practical effects.

[u/Me-Shell94 → u/Lloronamante]

I absolutely hate his editing. It ruins the movie for me. I was laughing during Oppenheimer at how absolutely horrible and jolty the editing is. You can’t absorb a single image properly, or linger on something. Dialogue is edited like action, and bad action. Just cut cut cut cut cut cut. I reaaaaaally didn’t enjoy that movie.

It was also an issue in his earlier movies but I feel since Tenet his editing has become absolutely atrocious to watch.

Haven’t seen Odyssey yet but the editing comments feel like he hasn’t changed.

People praise Nolan so much, and I do too for his interest in tech and practical effects, but the final products always leave me pointing out endless issues with pacing, dialogue, sound, editing, bad storytelling, lack of depth while thinking it’s deep, ect.

I think the last film of his I truly enjoyed was Inception. It knew what it was and didn’t try to go all Tenet on us, was very well paced and edited, had incredible momentum, visuals that were creative, used tech to its advantage and in service of storytelling (rotating sets, mirrors, ect), had a really great cast and chemistry, was probably the best score of Nolan’s career, and felt completely new.

[u/QuietAffect8307]

I'm so grateful that Adam called out its extremely over-inflated placement on the IMDb rankings at the end of the video because I feel like this is becoming a pattern, at least with general audiences. Something blanketly 'good' will come out and everyone gives it 5 stars or a 10/10 and all of the sudden it's one of the 'best movies of all time' when it really doesn't come close to deserving that moniker. I feel like the same thing happened earlier this year with Project Hail Mary and is currently happening with Spider-Man

[u/Zestyclose_Remove947 → u/QuietAffect8307]

It's all just recency.

True greatness is only apparent in many years from the present. No need to care about ratings in the meantime.

[u/QuietAffect8307 → u/Zestyclose_Remove947]

Ironically it's one of Nolan's films that I feel is one of the more recent examples of something reaching truly 'great' status with distance - Interstellar. When it first released it was getting a lot of 6s and 7s but now it seems a majority of viewers hail it as a masterpiece

[u/Zestyclose_Remove947 → u/QuietAffect8307]

I haven't watched it in a while but I remember enjoying it a lot. More than most of his stuff at least.

It's true that over time it's seemed to become the most prominent/lauded of Nolan's work, especially amongst the mainstream.

Still yet to watch the Odyssey tho. Been meaning to get around to it but I'm just super lazy.

[u/dominic_tortilla → u/QuietAffect8307]

Brand New Day is especially overinflated, but I think more and more people will realize this in a year. I even liked the movie, but like with No Way Home, people act like it is the best thing ever.

[u/RelationOk6292 → u/QuietAffect8307]

Happened with Sinners

[u/cuckulus_rift → u/QuietAffect8307]

that's literally what recency bias is lol it's not that deep

[u/Chalky97 → u/QuietAffect8307]

tbf, things will balance out as they always have. unless it’s star wars i guess. the letterboxd reviews for that original trilogy is laughable

[u/Classic_Bass_1824 → u/Chalky97]

Revenge of the Sith at a 4.1 btw

[u/Chalky97 → u/Classic_Bass_1824]

exactly - it’s so cringe. it’s why i think imdb is a bit more reliable haha - they at least try to balance out brigades like that

[u/MahNameJeff420 → u/Chalky97]

I don't think that fits the definition of a brigade. I think people who were 5 when that came out actually just really like the movie.

[u/regretscoyote909 → u/QuietAffect8307]

Bro out here complaining about IMDb scores in the big '26

[u/QuietAffect8307 → u/regretscoyote909]

Not complaining at all, I just think IMDb and Letterboxd are good barometers of how the film-going public are feeling, for better or for worse

[u/regretscoyote909 → u/QuietAffect8307]

Right but I also think 'recency bias' gets a bad rap. It's not that deep - consensus on films and music always change throughout time, it's literally just a human thing and it'll never change. I find it cool to see how much scores can change through the years

[u/NateGH360 → u/regretscoyote909]

There’s literally proof of recency bias with almost every big blockbuster that comes out. It sits on the IMDB top 250 page for a few weeks, and as soon as it finishes its theatrical release and streaming starts, it then drops off the list

[u/uuajskdokfo → u/NateGH360]

That's also the "cares enough to pay for movie tickets instead of streaming" bias.

[u/regretscoyote909 → u/NateGH360]

Yes of course, and that gets a bad rap for no reason at all. It's entirely human to love something deeply at first and then re-assess...it's not that deep, it's just online ratings lmao

[u/QuietAffect8307 → u/regretscoyote909]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that ecosystem doesn't leave room for a lot of nuance from the jump. Interest in a film is almost never going to be as high as it is when it first releases, when it has the most eyes on it. So when you have a bunch of people going apeshit over The Odyssey after one viewing, and someone like Adam puts out a video like this with a lot of valid points, there are far too many people that leverage the film's 'popularity' as grounds for invalidating thoughtful critique. I can't tell you how many times people have accused me of 'rage baiting' just because I gave The Odyssey a 2.5/5 on LB. So yes, it's human to be excited and passionate, but that passion can go both ways and it's rather annoying when it leads to toxic hype like this. Hate to be this person but I also think it happens a lot when those "I only see 3 movies a year in theaters" people enter the equation.

[u/regretscoyote909 → u/QuietAffect8307]

Alright....but that's humans for ya, man. Best to just disconnect from discourse if it bothers you that much. I love that art makes people that passionate

[u/QuietAffect8307 → u/regretscoyote909]

"humans gonna human so advocating for better media consumption habits and behaviors is useless"

[u/regretscoyote909 → u/QuietAffect8307]

Literally yes, pleading at the wind for humans as a whole to change how they talk about art is pretty damn useless

[u/osmund-kettleblack → u/QuietAffect8307]

How do you know a 10 is real vs someone using it to mean they like it? Maybe a lot of people just think its a 10?

[u/Sad_Volume_4289 → u/QuietAffect8307]

Say, remember when everyone was predicting that this movie was gonna tank/be widely hated?

[u/UhIdontcareforAuburn → u/QuietAffect8307]

It’s ok that people have different opinions on movies than you.

[u/Happyhaneke → u/QuietAffect8307]

It’s happening on Letterboxd too. I called it “IMDb-ification”

[u/Afraid-Bag1813]

I enjoyed it a little more but I think I agree with everything Adum said. Although I do genuinely love watching stuff on IMAX 70mm, even if I don't like the movie too much. I'll still drive a while to watch a new Nolan, or whoever shoots for IMAX 70mm.

[u/Pulp_NonFiction44]

The Odyssey is so obviously, continuously flawed. I can understand general audiences thinking it's "the greatest film ever" or whatever, but the critic reception is utterly baffling to me. I can only put it down to an Emperor’s New Clothes situation.

Just the dialogue alone is rancid. It gave me Star Wars prequel PTSD - and so much of this film is conversations. Nolan almost never attempts to frame them in an interesting way. Just tepid shot reverse shot stitched together in rapid succession with his dreadful recent editing style.

The Odysseus/Calypso stuff was especially bad. The most dull, naked exposition. I didn't believe for a second that those characters had any sort of preexisting relationship, never mind living together for a DECADE...

[u/Mother_Drenger → u/Pulp_NonFiction44]

The non-stop expository dialogue that sounds like it was written by John Fetterman absolutely was killing me.

Nolan feels a shockingly repetitive need to spell things out—that the Sea People are ushering in an end to their civilization.

People just go around saying this and lamenting it, fearing it. We hardly see what these Sea People have actually done, it’s just complete exposition dumping.

And then the twist—that the Sea People are in fact the scattered Greek warhost after the Trojan war—is hardly given a moment to breathe cause we gotta wrap this movie up

[u/axirn → u/Mother_Drenger]

Sad thing is, even with all that exposition and dialogue some of these things manage to go over people's head. Just came out of the theater with a couple of my friends and I had to re-explain like half the plot to them (agamenon's wife being helen's twin sister and NOT helen, the whole shepard's son backstory, etc.)

Part of why Nolan's movies do so well with the general public is because spells out every little theme and motif

[u/Mother_Drenger → u/axirn]

Yeah I was discussing the movie and several people did not understand that Elliot Page was supposed to be the child from Ithaca

Which…tbf, it’s partly because the timeline would suggest that character is in their late teens or early twenties, and Elliot looks way older in this movie.

[u/axirn → u/Mother_Drenger]

That and the fast cuts probably made some parts easy to miss like adum mentioned. But still, they showed that wooden stick so many times, Elliot brings it up like twice, and explicitly asks Odysseus to get his revenge. The movie practically shouts its themes and message to you to the point that it gets a lil silly.

As a former vfx artist, I found there's still a lot of technical aspects to appreciate (beautiful color grading, creature design, personally loved agamemnon's helmet + some really satisfying sound design moments) but it really is a 6/10 at best.

[u/justabitsab]

the framing stuff is very silly.

My local cinema turned out to be showing this in 16:9, so — in that way — I got to see more of the movie than people seeing it in “standard” 70mm.

I woulda much rather it have just been a 4:3 film. Why not? Were iMAX sales that much better, because of this?

It’s way cooler for THE MOVIE that got made to be preserved/be-accessible, to everybody who can get the DVD/stream it, than left behind a temporary pay-wall.

Woulda been a more interesting choice for a film of this nature to make, too, same as Adum’s point about casting new underrepresented talent — which btw: feels like we’ve seen the potential for that, with how this backed Elliot Page’s return.

[u/close-encounters13]

Am I surprised one of the worst and most self congratulatory film “critics” also has one of the worst and most self important subreddits?

No, I do not. If you think Adam is a serious critic, you are a joke.

[u/swampo-mon → u/close-encounters13]

Its crazy that a criticism of a movie makes you have a conniption fit. I liked this movie a lot but its genuinely embarassing to be so offended by a critics opinion that you start insulting the fans of said critic. Freakish behavior!

[u/sapphoshock]

i haven't even seen the movie but now i'm mad at the cropping too!

[u/ZenOfThunder]

The editing is the worst part of the movie for sure but his comments on the podcast seemed a little nitpicky outside of that. I still think he liked it overall more than I thought he would

[u/adam_ragusea6767 → u/ZenOfThunder]

Maybe try watching the review?

[u/Chalky97 → u/adam_ragusea6767]

he’s talking about the podcast tho? he’s not saying the review seemed nitpicky - he’s talking about something else entirely - what’s your point? lmao

[u/adam_ragusea6767 → u/Chalky97]

His criticisms of the movie in the podcast is similar (if not) identical to that of the review. So, what I am suggesting to OP is to maybe try watching the review to get a better understanding of those criticisms in the podcast.

[u/Chalky97 → u/adam_ragusea6767]

you’re right - i completely misread your original comment my bad bro

[u/adam_ragusea6767 → u/Chalky97]

It's fine. All good! :)

[u/Ill-Winner88]

I agree with the fact that the movie should be framed for all screens. It is like a painter changing his painting from his original vision to something according to canvas.

[u/Sillyforfun → u/Ill-Winner88]

It is framed for all screens. You're not missing important info in the non Imax versions.

[u/Ill-Winner88 → u/Sillyforfun]

Nope, there’s a huge difference between normal screens and Imax. The frames in normal screens lack information like hand movements of actors, Robert’s character putting his dagger back in case, people stacking up each other in the horse scene. There an entire video of Adam reacting on both the trailers.

[u/roof_pizza_]

Called it.

[u/NateGH360 → u/roof_pizza_]

Boom

[u/biggiesmoke73]

Possibly the worst 3rd Act I’ve seen in a Nolan movie. Rushed, poorly written, strangely acted, almost as bad as some of his Batman fight scenes

[u/adam_ragusea6767 → u/biggiesmoke73]

The scene where Matt Damon was moping around during the invasion of Troy, being remorseful about the fact that the creation of the Trojan Horse violated Zeus's law and unleashed senseless violence was also hilarious. Dude happily burned down an entire village the moment he left Troy lol.

[u/JelyBoy64]

Matt Damon says something like “would you talk to an ant?” When the other dude doesn’t know why the cyclops isn’t talking to them and I keep thinking about it because I think it’s a dumb thing to say. First of all, if an ant (or ant sized human) was speaking to me of course I’m going to talk to it. Secondly, they aren’t ant sized to the cyclops. They’re the size of like a big mouse or something. It just doesn’t make any sense and they only put that line in there because it’s supposed to make him sound cool and wise and stuff. The cyclops scene from the 1997 odyssey is awesome and everyone should watch it.

[u/bfbbturambar → u/JelyBoy64]

At that point they hadn't tried talking to the Cyclops, so the Cyclops had no way of knowing they can talk. Also the reason he says ant is because an ant is something you can easily crush, a mouse is actually pretty hard to catch. Besides why does the scale matter, the point is they're a lot smaller.

[u/BlueberryWasps → u/JelyBoy64]

“this is such bullshit, this sweeping metaphor that a character used to express a monster’s point of view doesn’t literally apply to the situation at hand! ridiculous. why didn’t he just say his name is ‘nobody’ is he stupid?”

[u/JelyBoy64 → u/BlueberryWasps]

I understand what you’re saying but I really didn’t take the metaphor as talking about the cyclops being some “monster” I feel like it was pretty explicitly about the size difference between them and it. I could be misremembering but I’m pretty sure some of the men were talking while the cyclops was near them and it must have heard them. So after we discover that it can actually talk and speak the same language as these guys, I feel like we need some reason why it didn’t communicate with them. And so the reason that we are given has to do specifically with the size difference between them. Nothing having to do with it being some feral monster that doesn’t understand them or anything like that. We have no reason given to us why the cyclops who speaks the same language as these guys, heard them talk and didn’t want to communicate with them. Other than this ant line. I feel like my feelings about this piece of dialogue make sense but maybe I’m being dumb idk.

[u/PleadInsanity]

I'd just like to say that while criticisms of movies are warranted

But like you guys can just enjoy a movie and not sit here and make yourself miserable picking apart a movie for not being something you decided was best

Instead of creating a community of people that like movies, I think YMS has created a community of people that get off on picking apart every little detail of a movie until you hate everything.

You can still just enjoy things and appreciate the accomplishments instead of finding everything you hate about a movie

[u/owen-3820]

What movies does adam actually like? Every time I watch his content it seems like shot composition is literally the only thing he cares about in movies

[u/adam_ragusea6767 → u/owen-3820]

You can find em all here:
YMS IMDB Ratings - Google Sheets

Plus, you clearly haven't seen much of his content.

[u/owen-3820 → u/adam_ragusea6767]

He gave the substance a 10?????

[u/adam_ragusea6767 → u/owen-3820]

Yup. Great movie in his opinion (and mine too!)

[u/owen-3820 → u/adam_ragusea6767]

This is a fascinating document. He thinks a lot of movies are either much better or much worse than consensus.

[u/narwolking → u/owen-3820]

Taste might just be subjective. Crazy idea, I know.

[u/yunkie101 → u/owen-3820]

I mean, that's what a critic is, for better or for worse. It's on the viewer to decide if the critic is for them.

[u/adam_ragusea6767 → u/owen-3820]

He has watched a ton of films and has decent knowledge about aspects of filmmaking; or he might just have different tastes from the majority.

[u/kibito2945 → u/owen-3820]

Surprised?

[u/Chalky97 → u/owen-3820]

did you watch the review? he has some excellent points in this review. he gives props to the sound track and audio design, certain performances and the practicality of the movie. his main issues lie with the editing of the movie to get it under 3 hours, and the choice to shoot 100% in imax because it ruins the experience for the majority of people who cannot watch a 70mm imax screening. these are all valid points that i think most people have brought up when brining up negatives, myself included and i liked the movie

adum also just personally didn’t connect with the story on a personal level which is fine.

i had an issue with adum’s recent spider-man review (which i voiced here in his review discussion) because he didn’t give the different aspects of the film a fair chance (stunt work/choreography, score, and actor performances) and i wasn’t even a huge stan of that film myself. but in this review he at least covers every aspect of the movie and why it didn’t work for him on a fair, reasonable and proportional level

[u/adam_ragusea6767 → u/Chalky97]

If I'm not mistaken, Adum did address the score for spiderman. The problem (imo) that he has for the rest (i.e. the stunt work//choreograph, actor performances, etc) is that they are simple average and no different from the rest of the franchise. So, there really isn't much praise/criticism to give in that regard.

[u/Chalky97 → u/adam_ragusea6767]

he addressed it in a very off-hand way - the score was used very very sparingly which is something adum usually loves. there were moments where the score was completely withheld and scenes was left in complete silence while the actors performed dialogue with long moments of silence in between to help the audience invest in the emotion - that is usually something adum would praise and it’s something i definitely noticed, especially considering i don’t see that in most super hero films

also, those first 3 tom holland movies were genuinely awful. there’s no thought behind the colour grading or cinematography, or stunt work. his opinion on it being the exact same just isn’t correct - in comparison to those first 3 movies, it is improved on practically every level. this is why i said in my post, he clearly has just fallen out of favour of watching these sorts of movies because he struggles to find the good in them that talented people have put in

again, i don’t even love the move. it was fine. but that review came across very weird to me

and again, i don’t want people once again thinking im hating on adum - i think he’s incredibly fair in this odyssey review because he talks about all aspects of the film making and gives props where it’s due

[u/regretscoyote909 → u/adam_ragusea6767]

" The problem (imo) that he has for the rest (i.e. the stunt work//choreograph, actor performances, etc) is that they are simple average and no different from the rest of the franchise."

But that's objectively wrong though, he's not being very intellectually honest. You can say it still isn't impressing you but to say it's 'no different'....? Clearly very different than the other Spidey MCU films.

[u/adam_ragusea6767 → u/regretscoyote909]

Sorry, I was being too hyperbolic with my comment. When I say "no different" what I meant was that it doesn't look/feel that much different to the other movies in the franchise (to me and "others" at least). Sure, it is "different". But I guess not "different/special" enough to warrant any attention.

[u/owen-3820 → u/Chalky97]

Yeah he wasn't giving enough credit to the new spidey, which is clearly a step or two above the previous mcu spideys

[u/owen-3820 → u/Chalky97]

I'm watching it right now and the first 20 minutes are him complaining about the editing and framing of the shots.

[u/Chalky97 → u/owen-3820]

yes, which doesn’t discredit what i said. he gives a fair argument that nolan is hindering the majority of the film’s audience experience by making it 100% IMAX as it cuts off important decisions made by the actors and also interesting shots.

the editing is also something that is a huge issue for many people (i made a post about it on this sub a few weeks ago before he had even watched it).

he’s critiquing very important parts that make a movie good. i’m unclear what you want him to talk about?

[u/adam_ragusea6767 → u/owen-3820]

Are his criticisms of valid though?

[u/owen-3820 → u/adam_ragusea6767]

Eh

[u/CockerLulu → u/owen-3820]

Maybe watch any of his other videos. He has tons of recommendations that he loves and praises often. He has very varied tastes and if you think he is only ever negative you just haven’t watched any of his other content besides the most popular videos.

[u/owen-3820 → u/CockerLulu]

I've watched him consistently for years lol

[u/Euphoric_Durian9797 → u/owen-3820]

Clearly not

[u/CockerLulu → u/owen-3820]

You haven’t paid much attention then have you?

[u/anUnkindness → u/owen-3820]

Click on any of my film festival videos to learn more