veryfuller said:

---

Except it's not what he did. He adapted the story into a movie and focused on the things he wanted to from the story. He isn't just totally making it whatever he wants.

Maybe go see it before opining on what Nolan is and isn't doing with his adaptation?

---

Based on multiple reviews since I haven't had a chance to see it yet, it appears that Nolan did completely change -

* Odysseus' character traits
* Odysseus' motivations
* The female characters motivations

That's not simply focusing on what he wanted from the original story and cutting out a few things; that's reshaping the story to fit Nolan's moral that he wants the audience to take away.

veryfuller said:

---

Well that feels like a conversation for another thread.

I think general audiences are smarter about entertainment than you are giving them credit for but I guess there is no way to prove that point other than this movie being a success and Supergirl and Moana being flops.

---

Well that's just because this movie looks like a lot of fun if nothing else, meanwhile Supergirl and Moana both looked like warmed over dog crap and even a blind person could see that. The reception of these movies had nothing to do with the general audience being intelligent.

FL_Ag1998 said:

---

veryfuller said:

---

Except it's not what he did. He adapted the story into a movie and focused on the things he wanted to from the story. He isn't just totally making it whatever he wants.

Maybe go see it before opining on what Nolan is and isn't doing with his adaptation?

---

Based on multiple reviews since I haven't had a chance to see it yet, it appears that Nolan did completely change -

* Odysseus' character traits
* Odysseus' motivations
* The female characters motivations

That's not simply focusing on what he wanted from the original story and cutting out a few things; that's reshaping the story to fit Nolan's moral that he wants the audience to take away.

---

Yeah I agree with you. Don't think there is any argument that Nolan didn't adapt the story and try to shape it to how he wanted it to be told. The entire guilt angle and how it ruined the world and then how they leave is all departure from the source material.

He basically made Oppenheimer theme with odyssey characters.

4.5/5 stars.

Had I watched this on a streaming platform at home, I'd probably rate this a full star lower....but I didn't watch it at home. I watched it on a 70mm IMAX screen and I literally turned to my buddy at one point and and laughed "what the ****" incredulously at the cinematic marvel occurring in front of me. This movie is why people go to the movies. So...go. Immediately.

I am actually envious of some of your abilities to really enjoy something like that. That's about as close to a compliment you'll get from me. Nobody asked of course.

FL_Ag1998 said:

---

veryfuller said:

---

Except it's not what he did. He adapted the story into a movie and focused on the things he wanted to from the story. He isn't just totally making it whatever he wants.

Maybe go see it before opining on what Nolan is and isn't doing with his adaptation?

---

Based on multiple reviews since I haven't had a chance to see it yet, it appears that Nolan did completely change -

* Odysseus' character traits
* Odysseus' motivations
* The female characters motivations

That's not simply focusing on what he wanted from the original story and cutting out a few things; that's reshaping the story to fit Nolan's moral that he wants the audience to take away.

---

It had enough of the characters and the linear plot to call it the Odyssey, but yes, he did reshape the character motivations and therefore some aspects of the story.

Just saw it tonight.

Simply put, it's a masterpiece.

Quote:

---

and where the hell is cliff booth? he take the day off?

---

Hahahaha literally 300+ posts, 10+ pages, then nowhere to be seen the entire opening weekend .

If that's not trolling, I don't know what is.

Rigs said:

---

Quote:

---

and where the hell is cliff booth? he take the day off?

---

Hahahaha literally 300+ posts, 10+ pages, then nowhere to be seen the entire opening weekend .

If that's not trolling, I don't know what is.

---

His last post was Saturday night at 7:03 pm.

https://texags.com/account/profile/283636

Just because he stays off TexAgs for one day doesn't make him a troll.

Normally I'd suspect a temp ban by moderators, but I don't see any edited posts from him. Maybe he made a replay, it was deleted, and he received a temp ban? We'll have to wait for him to return to find out the truth.

Saw it on Sunday in IMAX. It is very good, but not a masterpiece. I will catch it again on HBO, but it just didn't hit with me.

7/10

Saw it on Saturday and still processing it. It might be one of the best explorations of war and trauma that I have ever seen.

birdman said:

---

Just saw it tonight.

Simply put, it's a masterpiece.

---

It was really well done.

Gets an A/A- from me due to the casting. Obviously Helen and Elliot page were too distracting, but Circe is supposed to be good looking and Matt Damon, while he is a great actor, wasn't as believable as Odysseus kept seeing Matt Damon.

The costumes and all the shots were so cool. The way the story was told was cool too. Nolan is a genius but the casting was pretty sub par.

Thought Penelope, Antonious and Telemachus were great.

For me, the best acting in the movie were Anne Hathaway and Pattinson. Damn was Damon, which is neither distracting nor outstanding, for me.

Lathspell said:

---

For me, the best acting in the movie were Anne Hathaway and Pattinson. Damn was Damon, which is neither distracting nor outstanding, for me.

---

Both were great. I might have to give the nod to Pattinson from the layman's view of how could that guy ever play Batman? Dude has good range.

Interesting that we heard a lot of costume and armor complaints prior to release, then in the actual film there's pretty much unanimous agreement that they all looked great.

YouBet said:

---

Lathspell said:

---

For me, the best acting in the movie were Anne Hathaway and Pattinson. Damn was Damon, which is neither distracting nor outstanding, for me.

---

Both were great. I might have to give the nod to Pattinson from the layman's view of how could that guy ever play Batman? Dude has good range.

---

Pattison played the false bravado mixed with petulance so well. John Leguizamo was also outstanding.

fig96 said:

---

Interesting that we heard a lot of costume and armor complaints prior to release, then in the actual film there's pretty much unanimous agreement that they all looked great.

---

I personally never had an issue with the costumes and armor. Back to my comment somewhere on one of these threads about hints of Excalibur - the whole giants scene with the kid and that armor was one portion of the movie that gave me John Boorman vibes.

fig96 said:

---

Interesting that we heard a lot of costume and armor complaints prior to release, then in the actual film there's pretty much unanimous agreement that they all looked great.

---

It seems like the marketing team just didn't do a great job for this movie. None of the trailers looked great or really sold the movie. If it wasn't a Nolan movie, this could have been completely overlooked

TXAG 05 said:

---

fig96 said:

---

Interesting that we heard a lot of costume and armor complaints prior to release, then in the actual film there's pretty much unanimous agreement that they all looked great.

---

It seems like the marketing team just didn't do a great job for this movie. None of the trailers looked great or really sold the movie. If it wasn't a Nolan movie, this could have been completely overlooked

---

I prefer very limited trailers and being mostly blind going into movies. Elaborate trailers have ruined the movie going experience, IMO.

I mean, the R rated movie made $125 million opening weekend. Its hard to argue they didn't market it well.

I think people were just expecting Nolan to fall on his face after the success of Oppenheimer, and were pre-positioning themselves as seeing it coming. I mean it definitely was a big risk, but it felt, to me, like people were rooting for the movie to fail and looking for reasons it would in advance. Nothing that was pointed out felt glaring to me, or outside the norm for most movies. But this marketing was particularly being picked apart, and it felt more like tearing down someone at their peak than actual criticism most of the time.

Backyard Gator said:

---

Rigs said:

---

Quote:

---

and where the hell is cliff booth? he take the day off?

---

Hahahaha literally 300+ posts, 10+ pages, then nowhere to be seen the entire opening weekend .

If that's not trolling, I don't know what is.

---

His last post was Saturday night at 7:03 pm.

https://texags.com/account/profile/283636

Just because he stays off TexAgs for one day doesn't make him a troll.

Normally I'd suspect a temp ban by moderators, but I don't see any edited posts from him. Maybe he made a replay, it was deleted, and he received a temp ban? We'll have to wait for him to return to find out the truth.

---

Maybe he got warned to stop being a troll so he logged into his other profile to do so.

I'm sure this has been covered, but I'm trying to avoid spoilers. Is this a must see in IMAX? I couldn't go this weekend but think i want to this week and have some free time.

Rigs said:

---

Quote:

---

and where the hell is cliff booth? he take the day off?

---

Hahahaha literally 300+ posts, 10+ pages, then nowhere to be seen the entire opening weekend .

If that's not trolling, I don't know what is.

---

He posted several times over the weekend. I can't remember what he said but he somewhat apologized to the board yesterday. I'm not as active on the weekends when there isn't much pbp sports on.

CowtownAg06 said:

---

I'm sure this has been covered, but I'm trying to avoid spoilers. Is this a must see in IMAX? I couldn't go this weekend but think i want to this week and have some free time.

---

Depends...lol

If I'm being honest, for a majority of regular movie going people, any theatre experience is fine and whatever differences exists is marginal.


But if you're someone who wants to be surrounded by people actively SEARCHING for the best venue to consume the movie the way the Director intended, i think it's a must. Beyond the technical marvel, I found it fun just to be in a room full of people truly hyped to be there.

CowtownAg06 said:

---

I'm sure this has been covered, but I'm trying to avoid spoilers. Is this a must see in IMAX? I couldn't go this weekend but think i want to this week and have some free time.

---

Which IMAX? Actual 70mm then I would say yes, if you are near one, but wouldn't go out of my way for it. Redstone will judge you though if you don't see it in 70mm.

Outside of that, I would find the best, newest theater you can to see it. I think it's a theater watch regardless of format as long as you see it in a newer theater with good sound.

I saw it in IMAX with Laser which is no different than any other newer theater using laser as far as I know.

The aspect ratio is a huge difference, imom

Lathspell said:

---

The aspect ratio is a huge difference, imom

---

Yeah, but unless you are near a 70mm it's pretty much the same everywhere, right? Maybe not; I've stopped trying to understand the various differences in theaters at this point. It's all noise to me.

My EVO IMAX with Laser screen looked no bigger than a normal theater screen.

YouBet said:

---

TXAG 05 said:

---

fig96 said:

---

Interesting that we heard a lot of costume and armor complaints prior to release, then in the actual film there's pretty much unanimous agreement that they all looked great.

---

It seems like the marketing team just didn't do a great job for this movie. None of the trailers looked great or really sold the movie. If it wasn't a Nolan movie, this could have been completely overlooked

---

I prefer very limited trailers and being mostly blind going into movies. Elaborate trailers have ruined the movie going experience, IMO.

---

I'm with you on that, don't like the trend of trailers showing pretty much the whole movie. I meant more the actual appearance of the movie in the trailers, like the armor initially not looking good, and that nothing I saw in the trailers made me excited for it. In my opinion they leaned too much on "hey this is Nolan doing The Odyssey"

I could be wrong, just the way I saw it.

veryfuller said:

---

I mean, the R rated movie made $125 million opening weekend. Its hard to argue they didn't market it well.

I think people were just expecting Nolan to fall on his face after the success of Oppenheimer, and were pre-positioning themselves as seeing it coming. I mean it definitely was a big risk, but it felt, to me, like people were rooting for the movie to fail and looking for reasons it would in advance. Nothing that was pointed out felt glaring to me, or outside the norm for most movies. But this marketing was particularly being picked apart, and it felt more like tearing down someone at their peak than actual criticism most of the time.

---

It could be as simple as being a Christopher Nolan movie. He is essentially Steven Spielberg circa 1984 - 1998, with name recognition and a solid body of work that draws audiences.

fig96 said:

---

Interesting that we heard a lot of costume and armor complaints prior to release, then in the actual film there's pretty much unanimous agreement that they all looked great.

---

Not to be argumentative, but I've read and heard the complete opposite from quite a few reviewers. That the costumes looked like something from a cheap tv production.

FL_Ag1998 said:

---

fig96 said:

---

Interesting that we heard a lot of costume and armor complaints prior to release, then in the actual film there's pretty much unanimous agreement that they all looked great.

---

Not to be argumentative, but I've read and heard the complete opposite from quite a few reviewers. That the costumes looked like something from a cheap tv production.

---

You didn't like the GigaChad armor?

Is that a knight or a cockatoo?

Depends on the specific IMAX theater. 70mm IMAX is 1:43:1. There are some laser IMAX screens that are that exact ratio and some that are 1:90:1. The difference between a 70mm and a laser IMAX, of the same aspect ratio, is the resolution.

Interesting indeed. I went on a full blown social media blitz yesterday for fun just to see what kind of reactions I would get.

I would premise that I love all of Nolan's work excluding Oppenheimer. That I was super excited to see this movie as both a Historian and a Greek. That nobody wanted this movie to be great anymore than I did. I just said it wasn't very good in all that context.

Almost all the negative feedback I got was that I just wanted the movie to fail, I hate Nolan's movies and I'm just mad that it is blowing out the box office.

No reading comprehension. I am not sure who they are arguing with, but it seems like it's an argument that started months or even years before this movie ever premiered. Marketing genius on a level I've never seen before.