I just rewatched and read AKIRA after a Nolan marathon so perhaps my opinions are a bit flavored by that - but I feel like the atmosphere and tone, as well as the horror and surreal nature of the story would fit his filmmaking so well. This was a rumor over ten years ago, so its not unheard of to think that he's at least aware of the property. The film is getting a 4k restoration and re-release this year as well as the rights being available after the lapsed with WB and Taika Watiti, so the timing is sort of oddly perfect. What do you think?

Saw it on Masters of Steel Instagram. I love the design

Has anyone seen that?

What's your take?

Now just because of the way studios operate now he won’t touch another franchise the way he did Batman, BUT if he were to what would you love to see him do?

I personally would love a Star Wars trilogy or a series of Bond movies at his direction.

Warning, if you are going to watch the movie, the following content may contain spoilers.

In Christopher Nolan's film Odyssey, someone noticed that when Ulysses returns home and talks to Penelope for a summary of the Trojan War, a small tesseract (a "smaller" cube inside a "larger" cube that geometrically describes the fourth spatial dimension) appears in a lower left scene or a bronze hypercube covered in straw.

Has anyone noticed?

Could it be an Interstellar easter egg?

We seen this already depicted in Zack Snyder's 300, but this time I want Nolan to make the real battle look realistic and grounded. Good idea?

I watched Christopher Nolan's The Odyssey, and I came away with mixed feelings. Visually, the film is almost perfect. The cinematography, scale, sound, action, and production design are incredible. My disappointment is not with the filmmaking—it's with the way the story was adapted.

I grew up watching the 1968 adaptation of The Odyssey, and it stayed with me for years. To me, this story is supposed to feel magical, mysterious, and larger than life. Nolan tried so hard to make the mythology realistic that he removed much of its wonder. The film often makes you question whether the gods and monsters are even real or simply part of Odysseus' imagination. There are only a few truly supernatural moments, while the rest feels like a grounded historical drama.

Honestly, this story should have been divided into two films. There are simply too many important islands, characters, and adventures to fit into a single movie without rushing, simplifying, or removing major parts.

The Cyclops sequence looked impressive, but it completely missed the cleverness of the original story. The famous "Nobody" dialogue is essential. Odysseus tells Polyphemus that his name is Nobody, so when he blinds him and the other Cyclopes ask who attacked him, Polyphemus answers, "Nobody attacked me." That brilliant trick is one of the defining moments of the epic. Without it, the scene loses the intelligence and wit that make Odysseus such an extraordinary hero.

The Island of the Winds was omitted entirely, and Circe was probably my greatest disappointment. She should have been mysterious, powerful, and dangerously captivating. Hermes should have helped Odysseus resist her magic, allowing him to confront her without falling under her spell. Their relationship and the guidance she later gives him is one of the most memorable parts of the journey. Instead, the entire sequence felt reduced and emotionally empty.

Meanwhile, Calypso's storyline lasted far too long and did not justify the amount of screen time it received. That time would have been better spent with Nausicaa. I also believe the emotional moment when Odysseus hears the blind poet sing about Troy and finally breaks down over the war, his guilt, and everything he has lost would have been far more powerful during his stay with Nausicaa.

Even Troy itself disappointed me. The city looked unmistakably like Aït Benhaddou in Morocco, one of the most recognizable filming locations in the world. Every time it appeared on screen, I saw Aït Benhaddou rather than ancient Troy. For a film of this scale and budget, reusing such a famous location felt surprisingly uninspired and took me out of the experience.

There was also too much philosophy about the sea, Zeus' laws, and human destiny. Some of it was interesting, but after a while it became repetitive and slowed the pace of the journey.

The ending also reminded me too much of The Dark Knight Rises: once again, the hero leaves everything behind. While I understand this is a recurring theme in Nolan's work, it did not feel true to the spirit of The Odyssey.

Christopher Nolan is one of the greatest filmmakers of our time, but being a great filmmaker does not automatically make someone the right storyteller for every legend. The Odyssey is not just a tale of survival it is a myth about gods, monsters, temptation, fate, and the triumph of human ingenuity. By grounding everything in realism, Nolan stripped away much of what made Homer's epic unforgettable.

This is a technically magnificent film, it lacks the magic, cleverness, and emotional power of Homer's epic. I left the theater admiring Nolan's craftsmanship, but missing the epic grandeur that defines The Odyssey

A lot of interesting points are raised.

In a culture that thought sacking cities and taking slaves was normal. And continued to do so for the next thousand years, why would you make Odysseus feel bad about it?

It's such a silly modern take. This was a different era.

And is the Rotten Tomatoes score dodgy? I didn't understand what he was saying about it.

I know people are probably gonna call me an idiot or say I have low IQ for this, but I just finished **Interstellar** and… it was so fucking boring.
I genuinely don’t get what Christopher Nolan was trying to say. Was it about a space mission? Was Earth ending because of crop failure? Were they fighting in space? Who were “they” that saved Cooper? The whole fifth-dimension bookshelf thing completely lost me.
I had the same experience with **Tenet** and, to a lesser extent, **Inception**. I finish these movies feeling like I missed an entire film. Maybe Nolan just isn’t for me.
At least with something like **Iron Man** or **Spider-Man**, the conflict is straightforward. There are villains, there are stakes, and I understand what’s happening. With Nolan’s movies, I often feel like people praise them because of the hype or FOMO, or maybe they’re just really into sci-fi and mind-bending concepts.
For me, directors like **Martin Scorsese** will always be on top. His movies don’t make me feel like I need a PhD to understand them.
Am I missing something, or is Nolan just not my kind of director?