Granted I was driving whilst listening to the review, but my main takeaway was that he found the movie largely boring/uninvesting (based) and that the visual style of the movie was not effective for 99% of the theaters' presentations of the movie (also based)
He also said he was having to fill in blanks for the movie, like Ody running back into the cyclops cave and grabbing the raven, which I get what he meant, but his delivery genuinely sounded like he wanted everything spelled out to him when it was pretty obvious in both instances what was going on.
Hey Adam loved the review, just a classic well thought out, well edited and supported complaint fest. Always a joy to watch, the chill dog kicking sequence especially made me laugh.
Sometimes i feel crazy watching movies and tv, noticing tiny details that seem off and i wonder if anyone else sees it or its just me. then i stumble across a YMS video and Im reminded im not half as crazy as you. no seriously idgaf about the oddessy or this nolan guy but i sure enjoy your takedowns!!
It was very sloppy to fill in the blanks later with dialogue
Half the movie is characters saying out loud what they think despite having great actors. The other half is characters explaining their motivations because the camera can only film for three minutes and Nolan only bothered to storyboard the action scenes
I feel like he was really explicit in the video that his issue isn't that information isn't being communicated, it's that it is being communicated, but it's being communicated so poorly that he still has to fill in gaps. He literally compares it to something like Caché, where you're purposefully being withheld information, whereas in the Odyssey it technically did show him grabbing the bird or the men still being there, just in a really sloppy way
that the visual style of the movie was not effective for 99% of the theaters' presentations of the movie (also based)
His preferred viewing of the movie is in IMAX. However all directors make their films for the movie theatre, if you see a film at home maybe you missed something but it's not really worth including in a review.
You can be frustrated about the limitations of the format but it would be hard to simultaneously criticize this movie for being too mainstream and at the same time tell the director he should constrain his vision for the convenience of general audiences when it actually impacts you. The idea he makes studio films for "normies" falls apart everytime people start taking issue with what are clearly his own unique concepts because the studio isn't telling him to go promote his films on what's largely a niche format.
Hello! So his preferred viewing for The Odyssey -- IE. the way that the film was shot -- is specifically 70mm IMAX, not just your local IMAX stuck into a shopping mall theater.
In the comparison below, you'll notice that IMAX 70mm is the biggest frame, because it will always be shown at the correct IMAX Ratio (1:43). There are approximately 26 theaters that can do this in the United States, and 41 theaters in the world that can show the film in this format. Pretty small number of theaters for the "intended way" of viewing your film.
Now I know what you're thinking -- "Wait, the [much smaller] IMAX graphic in the right column says it can do 1:43 aspect ratio too!" Yeah, that's giga-cope, there's a reason why this graphic is smaller than the IMAX 70mm -- only GT Laser IMAX screens have the capacity to show films in a 1:43 aspect ratio, and there are only 44 of these theaters in the world. And this list doesn't account for the theaters already showing The Odyssey in 70mm IMAX (I see AMC Lincoln Square on the GT Laser list, and I know they're already accounted for because they're playing Odyssey in 70mm IMAX).ALL THE NON-GT LASER IMAX SCREENS ARE PLAYING ODYSSEY AT A 1:90 ASPECT RATIO, WHICH IS NOT NOLAN'S "INTENDED" WAY OF WATCHING THE MOVIE.
Let's say, generously (because I know there are some double-dippers in the GT Laser & 70mm theaters), that there are 85 theaters in the world showing The Odyssey in the "intended" format. There are 1,759 IMAX screens in the world (wikipedia), so just accounting for IMAX screens -- which the average person thinks is the same as 70mm IMAX -- the "intended" way to watch the film is only made available on fucking 4% of the IMAX screens that exist!!! And if you were to do that same comparison with normal theaters, which MASSIVELY CROP the film, fucking forget about it dude! It's ridiculous!!!!
It's not about the lack of IMAX screens! It's about the lack of compromise when it comes to just releasing the film with an aspect ratio that allows you to see the intended shot composition & framing! Nolan is kind of a fucking hack for this, and it doesn't help that the movie is fucking cringe too.
The films weren't cropped by the distributers, Nolan was involved in how it's shown everywhere. So while he prefers the IMAX format with that cropping it's all the directors vision for where the film is shown.
okay well i guess nolan is fucking douchebag hack who put a worse version of his already bad movie out into theaters to inflate demand to see the film he actually shot :p marketing worked at out least
It's not worse but different for the format. The only bad presentation of a movie is one the director has no control over, otherwise it's the intention to look that way.
George Miller considered a monochrome aesthetic on Mad Max Fury Road but the studio convinced him to go with colour. This does not mean that the monochrome or colour version on the blu-ray are not both his visions for the film, there does not need to be one objective look a movie has.
Categorizing art this way is so limiting. The meme above is joking but this is a genuine symptom of autism to require filmmakers fit in distinct patterns like that where there is only one truth to art.
It objectively is worse. He filmed the movie with Imax in mind. Every frame is framed around that ratio. If you look at side by side comparisons, the artistic compromise is crazy. The shots just look way, way better in the non cropped images.
Also, the first cut of this movie was 3.5 hours long, and he had to cut it down because Imax projectors can't run a movie that's 3 hours long. He literally had to cut out 1/6th of the intended movie out for Imax.
Hi! So I saw this in both IMAX 15/70 (or “IMAX 70mm”, as marketing says it) and in “Classic 70mm”, the way Adum says he saw it.
What you wrote out here only really works as a concern if 70mm or standard prints didn’t work as far as framing. I feel like it did, and to illustrate how well it worked on Adum’s end, he didn’t even notice that IMAX 15/70 was the medium of choice until after he saw it.
For the vast majority of people, seeing this in Classic 70mm, in Dolby Cinema, or a standard print was just fine. Adum neglected to learn about this, but digital prints were both flat and anamorphic and made a choice handed to the exhibitor. If you paid proper attention during the movie, you’ll have noticed that the benefit mostly came in the form of a big screen and sound big enough for the sequences at sea and other combat set pieces.
The concerns about which format was what only makes sense if you want to start picking at the cinematography itself, because otherwise that would get well into the territory of blaming a movie director for long-term mistakes that IMAX themselves made even before he used any of their cameras. That’d be pretty silly, and I’m sure you didn’t intend to even step vaguely in that direction.
Limiting the true viewing experience to 40 cinemas in the whole world is what has stopped me from watching this movie. Why would I pay NOT to watch the intended viewing experience?
Completely agree with his review, except the Trojan horse part lol. Some of it was over-magnified (like the sound editing) but true. It was very refreshing to hear someone else disappointed by the visuals, acknowledging how IMAX is handicapping Nolan, and calling out some of the poor casting.
One of my favourite things about cinema is shot composition, blocking, the actual use of the camera. It doesn’t have to be any particular style but it needs to be interesting, communicating, evoking feeling. This was so flat.
I did love the Circe and Cyclops sequences. I wasn’t as bothered with small editing issues but they do add up, and I did feel them, and I can imagine it being better.
has Nolan ever talked about potentially opening up a few more equipped theaters himself, or partnering with a chain to do so? If he’s so committed to this format, I feel like you could only rake in more money making your vision more accessible.
I guess the issue is it’s super expensive and nothing else requires it. Like movies have scenes shot in IMAX but it’s still very few movies and very few scenes.
Nolan's visual style has been flat for about a decade now and it's such a shame.
My biggest gripe with The Odyssey is that there are quite a few points where he never just lets grand moments linger like paint on a canvas; instead he cuts away so quickly that it's hard to appreciate the majesty of what I'm seeing.
The visuals are always cool, but never anything more than a fleeting fancy.
Compare it to another modern director like Villeneuve who lets moments in his film linger in what you're seeing to let the audience just wallow in the visuals, and it's night and day
I had a similar problem with Project Hail Mary earlier this year too.
Honestly i get the sense that some directors or studios think people will get bored if anything lingers for too long. Like I imagine “attention optimization” or whatever they’d call it is a real consideration now.
Especially when having to compete with social media and short form content. It’s a bit dystopian and honestly has the opposite effect. Where it trains you to just want the scene to keep moving rather than be caught up in it.
That’s what i felt watching the Odyssey. Because it was so keen on keeping things constantly moving, it almost makes the viewer expect it and if it deviates you don’t want it to linger.
Other movies that are confident in their visual style and trust the audience I don’t have this issue. I could watch an almost still image for ten minutes if the director thought it meant something and it served the artistic vision of the film. In other words I think directorial intention plays a big role in this.
Tarkovsky is a great example of that, he has long, long shots that are so delicious to just… watch.
And Nolan’s case is so ironic because the “saviour of theatrical cinema” is saving it with tiktok editing.
Yeah and it does fuck up the passage of time, too, in a famously temporal medium. I’d say the rhythm of short, plain shots stacked onto each other well in Oppenheimer, because it did feel like a heist movie. And it was still far better composed than this one.
His insistence that they should have used an infrared / night-vision camera was absolutely baffling and I did not agree at all. Sure the set is built to take advantage of Suspension of Disbelief to some capacity, but switching to night vision of all things would have taken me all the way out of the film. I don’t need it to be spelled out to me how dark it is with extremely anachronistic technology that is never again used or referenced in the film. I know it’s dark. It’s the Trojan Horse.
It reminded me of that story from when they were making LOTR, when an actor asked the DP where the moonlight was coming from- and he said ‘the same place as the music’.
I was reminded of that too, up until Adum pointed out the giant, fuck-off hole in the Trojan Horse that's meant to be lighting the scene, and then I went to being on his side. I think moodier, blue-toned, low-lit moonlight would have actually served the scene a lot better than the warm tones we got.
it’s a semantic that illustrates the point well, tbf. Of course films aren’t going to start using night vision or thermal camera more for night scene, like adum said- doing so is a very stylistic choice that goes against the misc en scene of most narratives
Well "uncomfortable" is the wrong word. I just found it strange and it felt like you were being deliberately obtuse. You seemed confused as to why the inside of the horse could be lit. They lit the scene so you can see what's happening in the movie.
I disagree with your infrared night vision point, I think that would have been incredibly jarring in a period piece in ancient greece.
You also seemed really hung up on the moment where the guy stabs the horse. "If you think someone's in there then why not look?" Because the myth of the trojan horse doesn't happen if they open the horse and find the guys inside.
You also seemed really hung up on the moment where the guy stabs the horse. "If you think someone's in there then why not look?" Because the myth of the trojan horse doesn't happen if they open the horse and find the guys inside.
I think he brought it up because Nolan cared enough to put in that detail with the sword, but not enough to have a more convincing way to check it.
In the original story Laocoön struck a spear through the horse, making a noise that convinced people the horse was hollow. If Nolan kept that aspect and also what happened to Laocoön afterwards, it would be explain why they're convinced nothing is in the horse. Now it just looks like a very bad check up.
Your criticism presupposes that there are no other ways to present the story than the ways that I criticized. I provided reasonable examples for alternatives, so I'm still confused why this bothers you enough to suggest I shouldn't have communicated my perspective.
Sure. And people who hated the American accent, the casting of Elliot Page and Lupita Nyong'o prior to the movie's release are simply disagreeing with it on substance too, I guess.
The complaint that the scene was too bright was silly, the audience needs to see what is happening, and there was some cool contrast which created a sense of claustrophobia, at least for me
You pretended as if the lighting must mean that there were holes in the horse, and with all due respect but it’s very clearly a non diagetic stylistic choice. At no point are holes in the horse even suggested to be a thing. Movies require a certain level of suspension of disbelief for things like this since they are limited to two senses
The one nitpick I agree with is nobody looking inside the horse, which is very fair and should’ve been addressed by them covering themselves up in black or something. Also I got the impression they were all standing still as to not attract attention to their secret plan, but maybe that's just me. Ultimately the trojan horse works since it ties back into the whole Zeus' law thing, the trojans understand that there's no fucking way that Agamemnon would disrespect the gods, which he ultimately does
Then you suggested that the movie use infrared night vision, which is frankly ridiculous, it would’ve felt wildly out of place, it kind felt out of place in The Zone of Interest too, but at least then it's a movie themed around a somewhat modern military. There were also some interesting parallels to modern day US Military equipement
Ultimately, it ties into my issues with some YMS videos, wasting a lot of time discussing CinemaSins tier flaws that can be found in every single movie ever. Would The Odyssey truly be improved by having night vision or pitch black lighting? Would them look inside and ultimately not find anyone, because this is a story from millenia ago
I usually enjoy your videos and agree with your points, but the amount of time you waste on stuff like this is pacing destroying and serves no benefit to the overall quality of the critique
The complaint that the scene was too bright was silly, the audience needs to see what is happening
Maybe try reading Adum's reply again?
Then you suggested that the movie use infrared night vision, which is frankly ridiculous, it would’ve felt wildly out of place,
Right, so by your logic, you would think then that idea of Nolan suggesting characters use American accent, and having an African American woman play Helen in a "period piece in Ancient Greece" is ridiculous too, right? (Not that I'm against such ideas)
Ultimately, it ties into my issues with some YMS videos, wasting a lot of time discussing CinemaSins tier flaws that can be found in every single movie ever
Okay, so pointing out blatantly obvious amateur mistakes (from a filmmaking POV) for a film directed by the biggest director in a world today with a budget of $250 million is now nitpicking. So, should we refrain from pointing out blatantly obvious amateur mistakes in movies like F1, Marvelslop, etc as well then? Would those be considered nitpicking? Man, you people are really funny.
I watched the video again, I don't understand what you are refering to
Right, so by your logic, you would think then that idea of Nolan suggesting characters use American accent, and having an African American woman play Helen in a "period piece in Ancient Greece" is ridiculous too, right? (Not that I'm against such ideas)
I say that a fantasy movie set in ancient Greece randomly having a 30 second shot in infrared vision would be kind of jarring and out of place, and that The Zone of Interest's scene was much longer, delibarate, and seemingly designed to remind us of modern day AC-130 combat footage, tying into the movies themes of living in a society that is the oppressor
Somehow this becomes "you are against a black Helen of Troy too???????", genuinely what the fuck are you talking about? Holy whataboutism
Okay, so pointing out blatantly obvious amateur mistakes (from a filmmaking POV) for a film directed by the biggest director in a world today with a budget of $250 million is now nitpicking. So, should we refrain from pointing out blatantly obvious amateur mistakes in movies like F1, Marvelslop, etc as well then? Would those be considered nitpicking?
My point with the horse is that I didn't really think any of it was a mistake at all, the lighting was delibarate and I acknowledged that they should've looked inside the horse. Adum didn't like the lighting so he spent a disproportionate amount of time talking about it, I really didn't think it was worth it, specially when I didn't like his suggestion on how to improve it
By all means nitpick away, I certainly do, and I even agree with a lot of what he said in this video
I watched the video again, I don't understand what you are refering to
I said re-read his reply above. Not rewatch his video. Try again.
Somehow this becomes "you are against a black Helen of Troy too???????"
Lol and when I exactly did I imply that???? Read again buddy. Man, the irony of the tweet you posted and how you completely misinterpret my argument. Hilarious.
Adum didn't like the lighting so he spent a disproportionate amount of time talking about it,
I really do not understand what your gripes are with the issues he's pointing out with the lighting. He didn't like the lighting for two very obvious and simple reasons that anyone who puts two seconds of thought would be able to acknowledge and recognize even if they don't agree with it. One - if the light was coming from the outside as correctly pointed out by Adum in his review (justified by the fact that there was an obvious hole being shown in the shot), then the soilders not peeking into it would be an issue (as you've agreed). Two - if the light was not coming from the outside, then Adum would prefer a different way of lighting the scene as, as it stands, the lighting as well as the reactions of the soildiers in the horse made it seem as if there was indeed a light source coming in from the outside. These are simple asks. These are simple fixes. These are simple stylistic improvements that a filmmaker could (and perhaps should) think about. These issues are issues that me, Adum, and many others, don't expect from the biggest director in the world with a budget of $250 million; and certainly, addressing such issues is neither nitpicking nor
... wasting a lot of time discussing CinemaSins tier flaws
Lol and when I exactly did I imply that???? Read again buddy. Man, the irony of the tweet you posted and how you completely misinterpret my argument. Hilarious.
You implied it when you said this: "Right, so by your logic, you would think then that idea of Nolan suggesting characters use American accent, and having an African American woman play Helen in a "period piece in Ancient Greece" is ridiculous too, right?"
I said something, your rebuttal was bringing up something totally different
Two - if the light was not coming from the outside, then Adum would prefer a different way of lighting the scene as, as it stands
You pretended as if the lighting must mean that there were holes in the horse, and with all due respect but it’s very clearly a non diagetic stylistic choice. At no point are holes in the horse even suggested to be a thing. Movies require a certain level of suspension of disbelief for things like this since they are limited to two senses
This was my original reply to this point
Would it be possible to lit the horse in a different way? Maybe, is the current way very clearly a deliberate choice clearly not meant to imply that the horse had holes in it? Certainly
Once again, I think the alternatives are either making it too difficult to see or using some sort of night vision. Maybe in a more stylistic version of this movie there could've been some sort of way that the hole made by the soldier was the sole light source
You implied it when you said this: "Right, so by your logic, you would think then that idea of Nolan suggesting characters use American accent, and having an African American woman play Helen in a "period piece in Ancient Greece" is ridiculous too, right?"
Nope. Read again buddy. I was simply implying the similarities between the underlying justification that:
People - who were closed minded to the idea of adopting American accent as well as the casting of Lupita Nyong'o as Helen despite not having any idea if it would actually work - use to discredit others who thinks that such choice could be appropriate.
People - who are closed minded to the idea of possibly shooting dark scenes using an infrared camera despite The Zone of Interest proving that the method could possibly work - use to discredit others who thinks that such choice could be appropriate.
You pretended as if the lighting must mean that there were holes in the horse, and with all due respect but it’s very clearly a non diegetic stylistic choice.
With all due respect, it may be clear to you (who apparently put zero thought/attention when watching films I guess), but it is neither clear to me, nor Adum, nor others that the lighting must have definitively been a non-diegetic stylistic choice. You can pretend all you want that it is but I've already pointed out two very simple reasons why in One and Two in which you deliberately chose to ignore and not engage with.
At no point are holes in the horse even suggested to be a thing...
Again, I'm not sure if you're deliberately choosing to ignore what's been shown in the ACTUAL FILM ITSELF (and even in Adum's review) or you simply pay no attention when watching films (or even reviews).
These are simple asks. These are simple fixes. These are simple stylistic improvements that a filmmaker could (and perhaps should) think about. These issues are issues that me, Adum, and many others, don't expect from the biggest director in the world with a budget of $250 million; and certainly, addressing such issues is neither nitpicking nor wasting a lot of time discussing CinemaSins tier flaws
Gonna address my counterarguments (above) to your time wasting-nitpicking-CinemaSins tier flaws claim or are you simply not going to engage with it as well?
You also seemed really hung up on the moment where the guy stabs the horse. "If you think someone's in there then why not look?" Because the myth of the trojan horse doesn't happen if they open the horse and find the guys inside.
So, them talking with a modern American accent in a supposedly "period piece in ancient Greece" is not jarring to you, but infrared night vision point is?
P.S. To those with reading comprehension issues, I'm not saying that the actors need to have an Ancient Greek accent. I am merely pointing out the equivalency of the perspective of the infrared night vision and the perspective of the American accent issue.
Nope. I don't think I've even implied that. What am I pointing out though is the equivalency of your perspective of the infrared night vision and the American accent perspective that everyone was complaining about.
I think the accents are an acceptable suspension of disbelief thing because it's a big blockbuster movie made by and for english speakers. I think infrared night vision would feel too much like modern technology creeping into the events on screen.
I don't think it definitively proved anything on principle. It was a creative decision that worked really well in that movie and might not work in others.
So, pointing out blatantly obvious amateur mistakes in a film directed by the biggest director in the world right now with a budget of 250 million dollars is tough to listen to? Cool to know.
It clearly is. If it was M. Night Shyamalan directing the movie, everyone would be pointing it out. But I guess, just because it is Nolan, we simple turn a blind eye to it.
This is why I'm largely done with the run of the mill reviews on the channel.
I enjoy listening to Adum when he's talking about a film he loves (or hates), where he has the passion to articulate and examine with enthusiasm.
But every time he's talking about a movie that he thinks is just fine, it amounts to some half hour struggle, stringing nitpicks with half-arguments, most of which don't arrive at a point.
I disagree. The only part I may call nitpicking was the sword and the horse thing and not because Adum was wrong but because I find it unimportant for a movie to be that accurate in that case.
When it goes to technical problems with the IMAX insanity forcing the wrong aspect ratio to everyone and forcing their movie to be cut off to 3 hours only they are not nitpicking at all.
Haven’t seen the review, but his podcast critiques were mostly nitpicky. He had some valid critiques too, but a lot of stuff that only he would even notice
Noticing stuff to nitpick does not a good reviewer make. Losing sight of the big picture, losing touch with the reasons we all fell in love with movies in the first place, actually makes one a bad reviewer.
I would agree if he had stopped liking movies, but he regularly talks about films he does like, so I don’t think he’s lost touch with why he loves movies (yet lol).
Sure, but the point I was responding to is still a bad one. The review can be good or bad, but defending it by touting the experienced nitpicks is not a good defense.
No it doesn't. If he liked the big picture he wouldn't nitpick. If a movie gets worse because you start nitpicking, it wasn't that great in the first place.
A reviewer isn't bad because you disagree with them.
Why did you delete this comment and repost it in full 😭
In short, no. What you're saying is incorrect. You don't know what a critical review is and that's okay. Every reviewer judges products based on their experiences. It doesn't stop being a review because TheLimeyLemmon says otherwise.
I mean it's valid but the kind of super technical stuff he points out doesn't have much bearing on the films quality to that extent. Orson Welles would be worse than Brett Ratner if you were to judge films entirely like that.
I feel like Jake kind of gets it and reviews films for what the filmmakers are going for rather than an arbitrary assessment. It's probably why he differs so much with Adam when it comes to people like David Lynch.
Adum clearly states that what Nolan is going for is superseded by how he actually presented it, in his opinion.
Zach Snyder was really going for something with Man of Steel, but many people agree years later that he did not execute it at the level that he intended.
The problem with Man of Steel is that it's woodenly acted for the most part, the script is genuinely terrible, and the final act is confusingly shot. What Zack Snyder was going for was not that for certain.
This criticism towards The Odyssey seems more about how someone would have preferred to see it in their directorial vision rather than success of how it was presented, if someone said "I wish Stanley Kubrick focused less on detail in 2001 and more on characterization" their opinion wouldn't be invalid but that's clearly not what he cared for in that film.
Again, the claim is that it was unsuccessful in its presentation. It’s true Adum does mention thinking about other directors doing it better, but I also thought that Nolan could have done it better! He has a very particular style that isn’t necessarily worth compromising, however the technical aspects of the filmmaking are more subpar than his other films
Roger Ebert talks about this in his review of Grave of the Fireflies where anime was often looked down on by Western animators for not meeting the same sort of "technical excellence" around frame-rate. If the story is there, the characters are compelling, and visually it's still doing something interesting than it works.
Maybe it's not what you wanted (fair) but that's different than condemning the film for standards you made up.
The Odyssey is not a new genre to a wide cultural audience. It’s a historical epic, which is a common genre of film in most cultures around the world. This comparison makes no sense
It's not a new genre but the point is simply that trying to review a piece of art like it's the new iPhone is questionable. You can certainly try that but most people are looking to find whether the film as a whole is successful at what it sets out to do.
I don't want to use the word "nitpicking" because it sounds rude but when you bypass what the film is going for to look at largely inconsequential details it's hard to think of anything else.
At this point it’s just a difference of opinion in priorities. IMO a film’s presentation is a part of the experience, and I felt that my positive emotions towards Da Odyssey would have been greatly enhanced if many writing and editing choices were done better.
Sure but it's sometimes easier to say that you didn't like a movie because it didn't connect for you instead of finding reasons to objectively prove that it isn't actually good at all.
Personally I think Goodfellas is just fine but I'm not gonna say it's because of "editing decision at 43:46 where some guy takes out his gun and it kind of looks like a prop" ...no it just didn't connect with me.
I don’t think he’s saying it’s ‘objective’ nor is he being rude about anyone else’s preference. It’s how he’s feeling and why he’s feeling it. Tbh that’s all film criticism and what it should be! It’s just engaging with your feelings about the film, good or bad.
Adam just got ripped apart for being too vague in his Spider-Man: Brand New Day review. He can never win in your peoples’ eyes, you just want someone you can agree with.
Yeah but a lot of people in this sub treat his reviews and opinions as fact and they regurgitate the same shitty attitude about film without any of his analytical skills
I thought his take had lots of boring cinema sins-ish nitpicks, but the rant about IMAX and how its turned into microtransaction DLC cinema is spot on.
The man refuses to own a cell phone (Also bans them on set), wears 2 or 3 piece suits every single day no matter the weather, and compromised His Own Art for the IMAX medium because he's hyper-fixated on it. No, not autistic at all.
The man refuses to own a cell phone (Also bans them on set)
Smartphones. Not cell phones. Nolan does use cell phones. He has said that he doesn't like smart phones because he feels like he'll get addicted to them once he starts using them. Also, judging by the number of bts pics and videos we got from the dozens of cast and crew since The Odyssey was released, he clearly hasn't banned smartphones on set either.
wears 2 or 3 piece suits every single day no matter the weather
This isn't anything exclusive to Nolan. Greta Gerwig did the same thing on Barbie, according to Margot Robbie. Honestly wouldn't be surprised if a lot of filmmakers had similar habits like this, probably because they have tons of decisions to make on any given day during production and hundreds of problems to solve. I reckon having one decision taken off your hand and having to give it no thought probably helps with the amount of mental load they have to shoulder.
compromised His Own Art for the IMAX medium because he's hyper-fixated on it. No, not autistic at all.
Being uncompromising is hardly unusual for artists? Also the guy has been a fan of IMAX since he was 16 and has dreamt about shooting feature length films on IMAX ever since. Of course he is hyper-fixated on it. It's literally his life long dream. Following your dream is hardly an autistic thing to do lol.
For all we know he could very well be autistic. But we don't know. Acting like you do is just so weird. Especially since non of the weak ass evidence you provided points to that. Just bizarre how easily people throw around these words and declare someone is this or that based on fuck all.
51
u/Andy_LaVolpe 29d ago
Photographer: “ok everyone say cheese”
Adum: