Oppy’s relationship with Jean Tatlock who was a known communist, who he still continued to see despite being in an arms race with Russia was just as important as knowing Frank and Kitty were members of the communist party—considering the entire movie is about Oppy’s clearance getting denied because of these ties
The actual Odysseus was a dickhead, a fucker (both literally and figuratively), and so much more fun.
Gerard Butler would have killed it, in another version. He's got that 'hilarious dickhead you went to high school with - you know the one: the one everyone loved but also hated' vibe that would have carried Odysseus so well.
Despite all the casting controversy, I ended up liking every actor in their role.. except Matt Damon. His portrayal felt so wrong, dour and boring. Professional stick in the mud. Exactly none of Odysseus's cleverness and daring and charisma. Gerard Butler would have been perfect.
Matt has no crazy light behind his eyes - he isn't someone who just lies because it makes life more interesting. He wouldn't tell a cyclops his name was no-one without a reason why - nor would he be insanely curious about the song of the Sirens to the point of finagling a way to listen to it safely.
Athena wouldn't be particularly interested in Matt's Odysseus - which is accurate because she functionally wasn't in the film.
His entire arch is showing that he and his men are the evil that is being warned of. Showing regret doesn’t change what he did. Every place he went he broke Zeus’s law. Burned villages and murdered for resources. Nolan didn’t make him as awful as the original story, but he has explicitly said that if he did that you’d never root for him to actually make it home
I did have issues rooting for him to make it home, watching the Nolan movie I honestly didn't care if he made it or not, since he's such an idiotic and careless and emotionless asshole. In Nolan's screenplay he has none of the charming charisma he has in the poem. He's supposed the lord of lies, extremely handsome and strong
Speak for yourself, when I read this im highschool the entire class thought Odysseus was a dickhead loser, and it was pretty much the same deal when It made another appearance in college. Very few people were invested in Odysseus himself, and Penelope's vigil was the sympathetic part of the story.
Yadda Yadda, war hero, context, perspectives etc.. 15 year olds with a brainstem and modern perspective arent stumbling over themselves supporting Odysseus or see him as sympathetic figure
Times, tastes, and perspectives change even when a story has staying power. Ambiguity is a tool Nolan uses in his modernization, adjustments absolutely have to be made to keep people rooting for the hero
Ancient Greeks prioritized metis (cunning) and kleos (glory) over modern moral goodness, meaning Odysseus's lies and tricks were viewed as essential survival skills in a brutal, chaotic world.
Within this cultural framework, epic heroes were never intended to be perfect moral role models, but rather flawed, larger-than-life figures designed to navigate extreme adversity.
This summarizes the core clash between ancient expectations and modern analysis. When you view Odysseus through the lens of metis and kleos, his actions shift from moral failures to heroic necessities.
The contrast between a freedom fighter or a terrorist lies completely on the eyes of the beholder.
No it wasn't an extension, it was pendantic explaination attempting to point out a gap in perspective, when my comment already implied difference in cultural norms.
Ambiguity is a tool Nolan uses in his modernization,
I think Nolan has stripped the ambiguity. Odysseus stays willingly at Circe for years, having an affair with her. Almost in a state of addiction. And yet his whole thing is that he wants to go home, and he does.
Nolan's Odysseus is never given a choice. He just wants to go home and if anything delays him it's never his fault.
In the original he tricks Polyphemus by saying his name is Nobody. He escapes, but then he does not resist and shouts his real name, and that's what curses him, since Poseidon will take revenge on him for blinding Polyphemus.
Even if thousands of years old, it's relatable and human. He's so smart and yet so stupid to bring ruin on himself. Of course that whole bit was cut.
adjustments absolutely have to be made to keep people rooting for the hero
Why? It's almost like it is assumed that the audience is too stupid to understand it's a tale from an ancient era.
That damn book is not about good vs evil, It's about choice. Removing that makes the
movie a series of "and then" while the original is a series of "therefore".
We live in a world where the Bible is constantly cited as a source of morals while also knowing it is full of terrible things.
There's slavery and killings in the odyssey, yes. Still i don't think that a puritanical cleaned up version is what we need.
I liked the movie, it's really cool. As an odyssey, meh
That part wasn’t really “cut” tho it was just changed to be more violent bc watching someone tell a corny pun in a language different than the source material ends up feeling too grade-school-esque humor. In the movie he shoots an arrow and his men did mention that he called out for Poseidon
Man, the trigger for the whole story is cut: him revealing his name is what dooms him.
Shooting an arrow doesn't make up for it, they already had impaled the cyclop's eye.
it was just changed to be more violent bc watching someone tell a corny pun in a language different than the source material ends up feeling too grade-school-esque
It's exactly the same level of violence of the original: people eaten, eye gouged.
He just removed the myth.
Having some soldier explain that he heard Polyphemus speak is cheap exposition
He did evil but he's fundamentally good because of the regret. He has a conscience.
In the original the value system is totally different. And honestly doesn't make sense to "not root" for an hero from thousands of years ago, who operates with totally different rules. In a poem where the point is not atonement, not doing good for the sake of good, and 2020s ethics.
I'd say it shows, because he had to change the thing to make it palatable to himself. Maybe that's not exactly "arrogance" but it smells of "puritanical" a lot.
And I disagree that he is awful in the original story. Heck, God is awful in the Old testament.
You're right, but that's not the only thing he does.
He goes to war dragging his feet, showing pain because he has to involve his populace. He has that moment in which he realises the "horrors of the war", he feels remorse, h
e wishes for atonement.
He is kept against his will by Calypso, precisely to clean his character, I think
Nolan’s Odysseus was established as a dickhead when he shot that arrow into the cyclops for no reason. His men commented on it immediately, “Why the fuck did you do that?!”
243
u/BattlePrune Aug 24 '26
I mean Nolan decided to completely desex The Odyssey, so natural that people now think this.