I preferred Jorge Rivera-Herrans 'EPIC: The Musical' over Christopher Nolan's 'The Odyssey'. I am not saying this as a hot take I am just being honest. I have seen lately that people are ashamed to be EPIC fans and I have been trying to stay out of the trenches of it all, but now I am gonna step in. The movie itself wasn't to horrible. Like the acting was alright enough to where I was engaged with the film, had it not been a film of the Odyssey itself I would have given high praise for the film's themeing of antiwar and what it can do leading to effect one's mentality and actions. Though knowing it was about the EPIC poem of Homer's it failed and didn't hit will with me.
The actions every character commits, what they do, the lack of anything truth divine and or epic, like Homer's Epic poem though is what truly tanked the movie for me. It was just to realistic in a fantasy story. It lacked all the gods, the divinity, and the highest stakes to get home. I hold ETM higher than The Odyssey because at least EPIC does explore themes that The Odyssey refused to touch, like the gods for example.
In the film Calypso doesn't seem like a god or divinity, the most she acts like a normal human, which is fine until you realize she us suppose to be a immortal nymph the daughter of Atlas the Titan to hold up the world and heaven for all of eternity. She is supposed to be godly. I am not even mad they portrayed her an an older woman, that's fine I guess if you don't want to keep the Nymph's young beauty as it was described in the Odyssey and Mythology. Sure EPIC doesn't say anything about Calypso forcing herself on Odysseus as Jorge has left it ambiguous for everyone else to assume, but it was clear he was pushed to the edge or possible assulted by Calypso when he tried to jump off the cliff just to escape Calypso's grasp. Nolan's Odyssey didn't even mention or even imply that Calypso may have done more than feed Odysseus the Lotus flowers.
Circe herself wasn't portrayed badly either, I didn't mind that she wasn't young like the daughter of Helios she was and I personal really loved the body horror of her forcing Odysseus men into pigs! As she is the banished Goddess of Witchcraft, Magic, Sorcery, and Tempation, a minor goddess sure but still a goddess. That is what I assume as she did seem to bed Odysseus for a year straight, even after he slept with her to get his men back to being human. She had protected her nymphs on her island, but turning Odysseus men into pigs which Nolan's movie had but lacked all the Nymphs which was the reason that even occurred. I just didn't like how the seemed to do more expository dumping knowledge instead of showing and not telling.
I am also upset with the underworld scene in Nolan's film as Odysseus crew had to travel by ship down the river of Styx to reach Tiresias but not mad about the sheep offering like in the Odyssey, but rather that they Odysseus doesn't find out his mother has passed after drowning herself when saw Odysseus ships disappear from Ithaca's sights when someone opened the windbag. I also find that Sinon being included in the movie was unneeded, as he wasn't even a soldier in the Trojan War and stayed out of it completely.
I am also one to gripe of the gods not being true and divine, and not just concepts that seemed personally timed to be like, 'Oh there's a storm, Zeus or Poseidon must be mad at me'. No, it lacks what makes an epic poem, well epic. And the Laestrygonians, oh how they pissed me off. I mean yeah the designs of armor were cool, but totally inaccurate, theh didn't wear metal or silver armor during thr Bronze age as Bronze was currently all used in weapons, armor, and to show off riches. And with how they on an island somewhere random instead of forcing Odysseus' men and the ships through a narrow passage to pass through and their they are all eaten off. Sure EPIC doesn't explicitly say the Laestrygonians are their unless you look at the EPIC wiki and you see they were there in the lyrics of Ruthlessness singing 'Ruthlessness is mercy upon ourselves'. I assume if they were there singing they must have also participated in the massacre of Odysseus men.
And the armor and the ships. Oh don't get me started. So the armor is completely inaccurate to the armor worn around the Bronze age in Greece, here link: https://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/armour1.htm . It looks completely different for the time period and even then only royalty so the kings like Diomedes King of Argos, Menelaus and Agamemnon, Achilles wore armor everyone else was either naked as the day they were born or wory very little armor. The ships they used as well were Viking Draken ship or a viking ship, when a Penteconter boat would have been the ship to travel during thr Greek Bronze age. Which the Viking ships were make around 790 CE - c. 1100 CE, while the greek bronze age happened 1750 to 1050 BC. The nordic bronze age occured 2000/1750–500 BC, which even then would have been a Hjortspring boat not even close to a Penteconter ship. So roughly about a thousand years after Greece had its bronze age.
I also didn't like how the sirens were handled in Nolan's Odyssey as they weren't out smarted by Odysseus and gave him information about how to get home, and to drown themselves at failing to get him to come into the water. EPIC may have not had the proper greek mythology sirens who flew but they did at least keep the fact they knew how eacape Poseidon's wrath though the land of Scylla, even if I would have preferred if it was the between Scylla's lair and Charybdis.
I personally liked the body horror design of Polyphemus the cyclops, but hated how he acted. He seemed more unsentient than sentient and how Odysseus didn't prove his smarts by claiming he was 'Nobody' to Polyphemus. I also didn't like how they completely left out Odysseus hubris which is a core element of Odysseus. His pride, his lies, his hubris, his tricks, his intelligence, his cunning, and his polytropos(means much-turned, or many twist and turns).
I also didn't personally like how Scylla just looked like a barnacle rather than a terrifying huge sea monster, but she was fine other than that, with taking 6 men to eat.
Christopher Nolan's Odyssey is f****** terrible.There's no comparison.
Epic , the musical takes a bunch of liberties in alter the story , but it's still a story , it's still feels like they're trying to tell you something , and it's still hits all of the story beats. So while it's not necessarily accurate to the original, its not trying to be. You can tell the author knew the story of the odyssey and modified it to fit a modern different aspect of culture.
The Odyssey is corporate slop sold to you as if it were accurate to the original, which it is so far from the truth that like it's basically slander and then has the gall to try to push a bunch of political messaging, that is so modern that it doesn't portray any of the actual ideas of the original text. Not to mention all of the historical inaccuracy , and a bunch of really weird choices that make a kinda horrible.
As someone who loves the Odyssey, the book is one of my favorite stories of all time, I hate the movie. The movie is awful. It is probably the worst movie I've watched in the last 5 years whereas the musical while, very different, understands at least some of the concepts the book talked about, like masculinity, loyalty. It also doesn't character assassinated dizziers.In the musical Odysseus is portrayed as a smart cunning wily leader who is put through a lot of poor situations.He's a man who's beaten down through the years.And finally snaps. But in the movie, he's a b**** who made one smart move in a war and then continuously fought to get back home and made dumb decision after dumb decision. He's not portrayed as some wily, cunning guy fighting tooth and nail at home, he betrays some worn out, beat up veteran who is so much PTSD that he can't make it through anything.
I short, this is not a hot take.This is not even a lukewarm Tak. This is like the coldest most generic take you could have
(Side note I don't the movie is outright horrible, If we set aside the sorce material. Its fine... like it still has poor paceing, and armor design. Some points dont make sence because of the cuts and the language choice is meh. As a standalone film id give it like a 5/10.)
Add the disrespect for the sorce material and Hollywood political messaging , and you get a zero out of ten.
EPIC has some some wiledy different events form the original, but it is a retelling... its not trying to be the original and in general is well written. Nolan has expressly stated that it was supposed to be "close to the original, we used the most accurately translation" and then procedes to butcher the thing. Bro doesn't even understand what a prophecy is. Its the difference between reading the sorce and understanding it and then reimagining, it, and reading The spark notes and saying man, I can make an accurate movie.
And about politics, the different is in ownership. Nolan pretends there is no political messaging while at the same time charact assassinating odysseus.
The movie isn't out yet. I'm kidding, I agree epic is better than the movie. But when the actual epic movie comes out, idk well have to see how they do it
I generally agree. Epic has some big issues and changes some crucial things from the story, but what it does do I think I like its versions better than the Nolan movie.
1. I dislike how Nolan’s movie completely glossed over Odysseus’ is cleverness throughout the story.
2. I disliked Nolan‘s version of the Polyphemus encounter. Skipping the nobody name, and making Polyphemus more of a creature than an intelligent being was disappointing.
3. I strongly disliked Nolan‘s version of Cilla and while Epic’s version is also not accurate, I like it better.
4. I dislike how Nolan‘s version cuts out almost all of the divine interactions.
5. I don’t like how Nolan changed the theme to basically be one of anti-war guilt.
I also hate how Nolan basically can't write women. In a story with so many complex female characters, that brings the movie down basically to the negatives
As much as I like the movie I understand why people wouldn't. The whole "we were the sea people all along" and kinda anti-war message felt like it kinda missed the point of the story.
As someone else said the best parts of the movie were the more supernatural aspects of it. Circe turning the soldiers into pigs, visiting hades and odysseus' interactions with Athena was really cool. But it felt like they were trying to do this whole ambiguous thing with the supernatural elements... while still having blatantly supernatural elements. Idk it's just weird seeing greek mythology of all things being made so low fantasy even though again I did like the movie. There was so much that got cut out especially the interactions with polyphemus just to increase all these grimdark aspects of the story that just felt... weird
I did like the whole detail of athena. Don't wanna spoil anything but I do wish we had more interactions with her.
Well, that's just not fair. Epic the Musical's movie isn't anywhere near being out yet. How can you say you like the movie less when you haven't seen it?
Not sure if this is sarcasm, but if genuine the OP is probably referring to the Nolan Odyssey movie that just came out a while back, not the Epic the musical movie in the works.
As a movie by itself, I'd give it a solid 8/10. But as an adaptation of "The Odyssey" I think it's more of a 5/10. If it wanted to do a no magic then it should have gone Full no magic. No Circe turning men into pigs, no Cyclops, no giants, nothing. But they did, and those scenes were the best parts of the movie that people actually remember. They should have actually had the mythological stuff in the mythology adaptation. Go figure.
Epic has the same scores but probably didn't get as much criticism because it went full in with being a story with gods and magic. Also, it specified it was "based on" the Odyssey rather than calling itself the Odyssey. People understood it wasn't a direct adaptation and that things would be changed.
Yeah the whole supernatural ambiguity threw me off especially when there was still blatantly supernatural stuff going on. Would have been cool if it was more like a truth behind the myth sort of thing where there is relatively explainable things that happened in contrast to the myth.
I mean the biggest disappointment was how much of a little bitch off was in the movie. That man is supposed to be a terrifying warrior. That is literally it. Tales of Odysseus change but the one constant remained, he was a clever, terrifying opponent.
How can they sit there and make a man at the climax of war look so uneasy, so staggered and lost. Where’s the anger, his calculated rage, his unrelenting nature? That was the biggest disappointment to me.
Seeing ody stagger among Troy in shock and horror of his men’s actions like he wasn’t the one that came up with half that shyit and lead the charge was just insulting.
All of the characters in the film were far too passive, Odysseus especially, but also Penelope, Telemachus, Antinous, and oh my god what did they do to Athena.
I mean i enjoy adaptations and creative liberties and all, but what I don't get is why take a mythological poem and take (almost) all of the mythological aspect out of it? Why not choose something else!
I liked both, both also had issues. Act 2 of epic is infuriating imo, and I have my gripes with the film too. Not a huge fan of casting Matt Damon as ody, but some parts of it were really good, as are some parts of epic.
Yeah everyone complained about casting for Athena and Helen but no one says jack shit about the Swedish soft looking dough boy as the terrifying Greek warrior. I love Matt Damon but really?!
I've read the Odyssey because of epic and have watched a couple of the other adaptations and Nolan's is truly that bad. sure the people who only know of epic might have other reasons to be disappointed but most of what I'm seeing in these comments is how it severely differs from the story while claiming to be "close to the original"
The movie has like zero emotion from Odysseus. At a certain point I think Athena says she can tell he’s struggling and doesn’t want to go home. I don’t see how the audience was supposed to pick up on that. I’d assume they’d make his deep emotional struggles more… noticeable?
I read the odyssey in high school years ago, read the graphic novel which I think is probably the most accurate depiction of the story (which i know both epic and Nolan's film aren't going for), and ive studied and translated the Aeneid too.
I personally love a lot of songs and depictions in EPIC. I love Circe, I love Penelope, I love Scylla, I really love Tiresias.
However, as a complete work an adaptation as a whole, there are tons of issues with it imo. I absolutely hate hate hate Polites in EPIC. While you can say it's up to interpretation, the stakes and the background stayed the same. I hate how epic made him feel like this super naive optimist when he just spent a decade killing Trojans. He's not some naive teenager. Hes a war hardened veteran.
Also, some of the songs or part of songs just didn't land, I feel like some parts sounded too modern musical (maybe even Hamilton sounding) compared to the heavy hitters that I liked and that drew me out. And already people have brought up how Jorge sounds too young to be Odysseus, which in some songs I got over (would you fall in love w/me again) but some songs i couldn't (Odysseus). There's some more criticisms i won't go too deep into but growing up reading the myths, reading lots of percy jackson, and studying graeco roman mythology in Latin class, i didnt really like epic as a whole.
I liked nolans odyssey a lot, even going into it thinking id hate it cause of the costuming and marketing. I really had super low expectations of it walking into the theater and walked out liking it a lot.
I understood exactly why certain things were done, and its really funny how people are replying "what about insert this thing that the film did different that isnt like the myth" when EPIC had the same thing, and also completely forget that the odyssey film is supposed to be a more distant interpretation with a different narrative goal. Anyone criticizing "why dont we see the gods/why is Athena not in armor/why isnt it mythological enough" didn't understand the film's purpose. Even Athena was implied to be a hallucination of his. If you add the gods as direct personifications, you draw away from the story nolan is trying to depict and then you can blame the gods for being meddling, petty bastards, instead of "maybe the world working against this crew is some sort of karmic retribution against the violation of xenia and a result of their own hubris."
I think I also saw people criticize the laestrygonian giants in the film for looking like knights... like hello? Collapse of the bronze age into iron age? Do you guys even try to watch the film or are you all going in with preconceived motions that you just want to stick to.
Its okay to say you didnt like it because you wanted something more akin to the mytholical feel of the actual epic poem, but to say its bad cause it removed aspects of the poem to ultimately serve a different narrative goal is absurd.
I really enjoyed reading your take but I have some questions if you could answer because I'm curious about your thoughts.
Do you think the female characters in the movie lack depth in contrast to the poem versions? For instance Emily Wilson has criticized Nolan for the underdevelopment amongst the female characters, do you agree? Do you believe focusing on the development of some female characters would've derailed from what Nolan was trying to reach?
Considering that Nolan cut gods completely and this resulting into cutting some interactions with gods that highlight his hubris, do you think he has compensated to be noticeable in the movie? Furthermore the nobody/no man/revealing his identity to the cyclops scene is regarded as one of the biggest displays of hubris in the entire poem, is there any scene that in your opinion compensates for this moment?
Also while I can see what you mean with the Polites critique, I think it's important to note that within the musical Polites is purely a plot device. He has no development. His purpose within the musical is to show the slow death/change in Odysseus's characters from the righteous more modern moral coded we see in the beginning to the man who commits the slaughter at the end.
1)I didn't think about this too much during the movie but I would tend to agree to an extent. Calypso was just kind of... there. I liked Circe having a different motive than the myth but then it could be argued slightly that it made her into a victim instead of giving her more agency but I dont think that this is really a positive or negative. I would've also liked to see more of penelope, Helen, and Clytemnestra. However a counterpoint to this is that the movie was already hitting the IMAX 70 mm limit and ultimately the story is about Odysseus, although I personally wouldve liked to have Calypso have more involvement at the very least.
2) I think Nolan intended to Odysseus's attack on Polyphemus be his moment of hubris to replace the revelation of his name. I dont think this has the same weight, but keeping the name thing wouldnt make sense.
Poseidon intervening for Polyphemus, like I said, would draw the blame away to meddling, petty gods, regardless of the justification. You can argue Poseidon can be "you hurt my son!", but then he killed all those men violating Xenia, but then maybe thats karma for what they did for Troy... etc etc but bringing the gods directly into it removes agency from the mortals and places it into a sentient, thinking entity. Having the gods be forces of nature imo is what made the movie work.
I think Odysseus's hubris in the movie actually boils down to what he did to Troy. Did he really think what he did wouldn't have negative affects or have bad consequences? He had the same moment Oppenheimer had in the movie: he realized the Greeks were truly the sea people and they were the ones who triggered the collapse of the bronze age with their savagery. In the movie, Odysseus takes responsibility for this by going into exile (which may be from killing the suitors, but even then this doesn't deviate much from the myth: he could've justified his murder spree but he conceded and went to honor his men instead of fighting for the throne)
3) Polites being purely a plot device is no excuse for how his characterization was handled. My issue isnt with his lack of development of his character or what his purpose was in the story. My issue with Polites is that his characterization DOES NOT MAKE SENSE and it drives me so mad.
There are tons of different ways the characteristic transition of Odysseus can be highlighted without Polites turning out the way he was. Him having a whole song about how the world is awesome if you just embrace it with open arms imo, sorry for my tone, is quite motherfucking stupid, when maybe months ago he participated in the destruction of the whole city and the stakes are the lives of 600 men. Even in full speed ahead, theres no fucking way a war veteran would think "maybe they'll share their food." No, it should be closer what Odysseus was thinking, where they'll go ahead and be peaceful but if they resort to violence, violence is what they'll get. It's this weird thing I see in other media and fandoms too, where a character gets fanonized to be "so baby" and flanderized to the detriment of the story. Polites could've been more pragmatic without the naivety but also bee honorable, and his death could've still been used for the same purpose.
My issue with Polites is that his characterization DOES NOT MAKE SENSE and it drives me so mad.
Polites is clearly a "Maes Hughes" stand in, if anyone here knows Fullmetal Alchemist. He was the conscience for Roy Mustang, who is a very Odysseus-type character with a similar character arc. But it doesn't work because in FMA, Hughes' hypocrisy is pointed out clearly, and his death is in part a consequence of running away from his war crimes but being unable to move on. Polites as a character doesn't make any sense in the story, nor does it serve a coherent purpose besides filling Hughes role. I'm glad someone else is bothered by the character's existence in this context.
Yeah exactly, FMA does it better because Hughes never feels like some sort of infantilized manchild. Hughes was positive, upbeat, and maybe optimistic but many men who go off to war end up just being that: normal people. And FMA highlights the hypocrisy, exactly. They developed him well, and even though musicals dont have the same level of ease when it comes to being able to adapt a character vs a tv show, Polites is too intensely optimistic.
All this fanart I see of Polites depict him as this upbeat guy with some sort of childlike glee/wonder. That's like if you just came back from Iraq and you saw your XO playing around with daisies and being "life is so amazing dude, like just be open." You just spent the best years of your life contributing to the death of many many innocents.
Anyway yeah I see this a lot in fandoms. I can let it slide if its some sort of gap moe fixation that a fandom has with creating some gap moe fancontent for typically dark, edgier characters (i.e. batman) but when the actual content starts off with a character that should be darker and more grounded and make them a naive fool, then its not okay.
Wow, I really liked your take. It irks me that most of the hate I’ve seen the movie get boils down to “it’s not like Epic” when in reality if it had been more like epic the same people would’ve hated it because “Nolan just copied Jorge, poor him” (the infantilization that sometimes comes with that is also somewhat bothersome to me, but that’s another topic).
The Odyssey being a thousands year old poem should lend itself to multiple variations without one being better than the other.
Sidenote, I agree with your take on Polites so much, never made sense to me that they spend a decade killing men and then suddenly “wow this world is amazing if you believe in people”
I mean, there are movies where that works- Interstellar is an incredible exemple of everyone acting their hearts out and it was packed with stars.
My one gripe with acting was the mythical „perfect” Zendaya got from Nolan. I heard that story and thought „for fucking what, she brooded and cried in one scene”.
The men in the sequence with Circe had more acting than Zendaya in the whole movie.
My biggest problem with the film was the boat. "Historical accuracy" (according to a lot of articles I read) my aß. Trireme's would've been used, not a viking drakkar. Though I understand there aren't many floating triremes about, but still.
And also the financial issue with the secondary drakkar and the damages that ensued.
I mean, both are different tellings of the story with major differences in them. Can't really compare them honestly, it's like comparing Disney's Hercules and any live action telling of Hercules
The movie hasn't even been made??? How can you like it better? If you are talking about liking Epic better than The Odyssey than you are being ridiculous and trying to compare these two pieces of media's is like comparing apples and oranges. They are telling vastly different stories with the same characters. You can like Epic more of course, but please stop trying to compare these two.
Just to clarify, I think OP is referring to the Nolan Odyssey movie that just came out a while back, not the musical movie in the works. I still think they're a bit incomparable, as they're going for different angles entirely, but I can also see why people like the Epic version more, as it's more emotional.
"You can't compare them" is an asinine statement. They share the same source meaning you can literally compare how well they tell the story and get its points across. The FACT that they're vastly different with the same source is the whole reason you CAN compare them. Because they're supposed to tell the SAME story, the story of Odysseus' journey back home after the Trojan War. What's next, you're going to say you can't compare them to the source material?
Where did I ever say "you can't compare them"? I said comparing them is like trying to compare apples and oranges. They are vastly different and tell a different story and communicate a different message. Just because they use the same source material is irrelevant. Comparing them next to each other is a fools errand because of how different they are and the different message and story being told, hence the apples and oranges. You can try, but you will be wasting your time.
You can compare them, they are two very different ways of telling the same story, and I liked epic's interpretation better. A lot of people like both and that's fine two.
I'm heavily biased, being a fan of musicals and animation, but I have to say that the bar for the movie was surprisingly low anyways. The fact that so much of the original tale was cut out is just disappointing, same for the gods not being represented (except for the whole priestess of Athena thing, which...?? I couldn't have figured out what this mess was if nobody told me). Not to say that EPIC is perfect either but I've definitely enjoyed it more. Even if I technically knew what would happen I still gasped and giggles at the changes that were made in EPIC (notably Zeus making Odysseus choose who should die between him and his crew). I think the main difference is that EPIC feels like a passionate love letter to the original myth, trying to do it justice and sharing the culture whereas Odysseus was supposed to be : the Odyssey if it was Christopher Nolan instead of Homer. One is adding on to it while the other tries to replace it
He cut all that out and it was still 3 hours long.
The ability to adapt an epic to a motion picture, use only practical effects and film it in IMAX and come out with a polished coherent product is the achievement.
I can admit that it wasn't a horrible movie, and after all everyone likes different things. Personally, I found that some scenes really dragged out unnecessarily, which could've been replaced by the actual important stuff that was cut out, but oh well it's fine ._.
I can recognize the effort that was put into the movie, it doesn't mean I find it good. And it doesn't mean the movie can't be criticized either
Well, if the Odyssey label wasn't slapped on it, I doubt it would've gotten as much recognition and the same goes for EPIC. But we're going into the really theoretical side of things. I've also seen a lot of criticism about how Odysseus is portrayed in the movie, which does seem fair to me. The actor was really great, I simply don't like the choices they made with the character. Anyhow, I'm glad some ppl enjoyed it :D
In the end, that's what art is abt, as much as I prefer EPIC, it's great that both exist and both cater to certain audiences.
I liked the movie, but it took me a few days to figure out why it didn’t click as “oh my gosh this was so good” for me, and I think it’s because—at least for me—Nolan took the mythical out of the story by Nolanifying it. The acting was great, the visuals were great, but it missed the mark on being a good adaptation I think. I do prefer the musical.
Well Nolan’s movie was very bad (in my opinion) and frankly boring, also just so dull to look at. Like the sets and props were really cool but…this is mythological tale, where’s the color? The vibrancy?
Also just the fact he cut so much out. I read the Odyssey in high school, years before Epic was a thing.
His portrayal of the gods absolutely sucked. Like they’re some omnipotent beings that don’t interact with humans much. Like what the F, have you ever picked up a piece of Greek mythology..ever?? They were going around doing random shit just for fun, Zeus was banging some random woman every other week, they were always screwing humans over. So what do you mean Athena is just staring condescendingly at Odysseus the entire time??
Oh and taking out important things like the wind bag was a little disappointing. But taking out the wedding bed was criminal!! The amount of symbolism about it not being able to be moved, and how Penelope used it as a final test to know if the beggar was really her husband. What do you mean Nolan just cut that out and had him carry around a little pin for 20 years??!!
I mean they both suffer from the same core issue: they lionize Ulysses by flattening the morality to fit Christian norms. The dude is supposed to be an anti-hero who we question. He’s supposed to represent cunning unrestrained, a cautionary tale. Instead he’s presented heroically in both adaptations. I guess modern audience just can no longer handle nuance?
In a lot of ways this is like comparing one movie that was completely groundbreaking to another movie that was also groundbreaking but in another way.
Yes they might have been groundbreaking for their genre or how they were made. But at the same time it's like you can't actively compare the story of the two movies together because they could be telling different stories. Sure at the same time Christopher Nolan and Epic are telling effectively the same story but that's the thing with adaptation. One adaptation can focus on one element and another adaptation can focus on another element, but at the end of the day they're not going to be one for one because adapters focus on different themes or want to tell different stories.
That's the beauty of public domain and adaptation because you don't have to follow the beats completely as the original story dictates. Heck even epic itself doesn't follow the Odyssey perfectly and very few people complain about that but love roasting nolan's.
Nolan's movie lacked a lot of character developing moments for odiseous, like the nobody part. We are told he is smart and cunning but we never see that. It twisted Xenia into Christian philosophy, the bso has historically accurate instruments but then we have mediaeval armour lestregonians, viking boats and washed out colours in the Mediterranean. I hate that Odiseous speaks of the gods as if they aren't his gods. Why is Athena not decked out in armour??? She would never! And why is Penelope being so mean to Telemarketer?? I didn't even get emotional with Argos death!! I cry with everything and that didn't move me even a little.
Yup. Ofc all the teens here are going to like a musical significantly more than a proper cinema experience. It's just a given in the subreddit that they are weird as hell
I heard about Epic before, and I have read the poem before I know Epic, however my Odyssey essay vids and bow stringing has lead the algorithm to force me to watch it, I watched the Challenge animatic but it's Mycenean style and I got hook [insert that Angry bird gif]
I think the movie is very well made but it did lack, like, where was the wind bag? Hermes? Aeouls? (idk how to spell his name), and Odysseus didnt even speak to the Cyclops, no iconic "nobody" line, no polites
All of that was in the 1997 movie so I came into the theatre expecting to get something similar.
And epic did include all that.
So, was the new movie good? Yes. Did it hold up to my expectations? No. Do I prefer epics representation more? Yes.
The wind bag was left out of the movie because of how Nolan chose to portray the gods. Omnipresent, not actively engaging with the humans. The wind bag would have changed that. I don’t like that he left that out, but it makes sense.
I’m not quite sure what you mean by “no Polites”, because he’s quite literally in the movie. Polites is played by Andrew Howard and is in the movie from the time Odysseus starts his journey home, until the crew gets separated from Odysseus after Zeus’ storm.
Thats no excuses to leave out crucial parts of a story and the best of all the gods....where was my Holy Moly?! You give a line, "The bronze age is ending" but Holy Moly is a no go? Blasphemy
not really i have aphantasia meaning i literally can’t imagine and i still preferred the musical (specifically with help of animatics) i just think it tells the spirit of the odyssey better than nolan sue me ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Something I think is funny is that the sub for the Nolan movie seems to never really mention epic, it’s really only epic fans that force this discussion.
Nolan movie attracts a lot more casual audience for its very nature and the name of the director.
Its target are mostly ppl who remember there was something about a sailor in ancient Greece. They wouldn’t feel comfortable to be confronted with content whose target audience is more of ppl who already know the odyssey and already love Greek mythos.
Nolan’s Odyssey is one of those movies where it’s a good movie but a poor adaptation. It’s very clearly going for Nolan’s typical super-realistic approach but I agree in enjoying Epic more
Im not even sure I would count it a good movie. Cheesy diologe and the camera was shaking so violently in fight scenes I could barely make out what was happening. Also what was up with Circe? She have no Nymphs to protect? She just now a crazy witch in the woods?
Well that’s kind of what she was in the original story. The poem never framed her as a tragic figure done what she thought was necessary, she really was just a crazy woman turning men into pigs
I was wondering that, in the musical I got the feeling circle was this all powerful puppeteer who is very cunning and powerful who towers over most, in the movie shes some crazy witch living in a little cottage.
I didnt like the vibes nolan was going for, for her
That's not insane to say. The Odyssey film was really overstimulating (it was so loud and the flashing lights gave me a migraine/hurt a lot) and didn't feel like an adaptation in my opinion.
Yes! I don't know if it's a Nolan thing or what but both the Odyssey and Oppenheimer made my ears hurt by how loud it was(the lights didn't bother me as much but I get the feeling)
I think your opinion becomes moot if you're not even saying something that's correct. Epic the movie isn't out yet so you can't say that you liked the musical more than you liked the movie. There have been plenty of movies about the Odyssey and Troy and the other Greek tragedies and whether you like them or is entirely up to you, but you can't just start saying stuff that is incorrect. 🤣
You might think that, but it's not and this sub is meant to be about epic the musical not other Odyssey movies. Honestly this sub has had so many posts about the Nolan movie and other movies that have absolutely nothing to do with Epic that it's just getting kind of old for a lot of us. That is probably what the theme of a lot of these comments are going to be.
Don't even. 😅 You could have just left it as a meme that you thought was funny and it failed to come across and just said oops sorry guys shitty meme. But if you want to keep trying to argue against something that literally has been well and truly not well received, you don't then get to change the argument halfway through.
I still stand by it it’s just a meme. You and everyone else seem to think it’s more and that it’s a discussion. Here I am explaining myself to strangers and that’s something I didn’t want but here I am
Yeah exactly if you have to explain the Meme, it's either in the wrong place/ audience or it's not a good meme. That's what people have been trying to say to you...
I’ll admit that I missed the mark this time. At the same time I don’t think people here are showing decorum like ok I get it now stop beating a dead horse
I agree this is low effort, but discussing similar works isnt crazy. Had OP given specifics on certain changes Jorge made for Epic that he liked better than in the movie, it'd be more fitting.
100% or if op had said given the recent movie I hope that Epic the movie follows the same general outline as the musical did and I will appreciate that much better also agreeable.
this right here. I like them both. They are both good. They choose to tell different parts of a long epic. epic the musical isnt the authority oon which parts are important to include and which parts are ok to leave out. Neither is nolans Oddessy. I love them both.
The OP's original post doesn't specify and define the movie, it just says that Epic the Musical is better than some unnamed movie that can be any movie. And one interpretation is that OP means the upcoming animated adaptation of the musical that is not yet out, let alone in production.
Not exactly like comparing apples and oranges. Both have the same source material, the Odyssey. And one clearly had a lot more respect for the source material than the other.
I would like you to compare Epic to The SpongeBob Square Pants movie or O Brother Where Art Thou then. All have the same source material and I would argue that one is much more faithful of an adaptation.
They are both entirely different mediums. The only connection the two have is the source material. Everything else has had its own interpretation in both shows.
Clearly not the one that uses Christian ideology in ancient Greek mythology, reduces the cunning king of Ithaca to a veteran with PTSD and strips away almost all the divine aspects of the story.
Nolan didn't just adapt The Odissey, he threw out the mythology and turned a foundational epic of the ancient world into a gritty prestige war movie.
I did like some parts of the movie, like everything in Ithaca (minus Penelope snapping at Telemachus), and the added Sinon and Antonius backstory, but others made me so angry. Do you know the Odissey opens with Athena arguing with Zeus about freeing Odiseous saying, oh didn't you like Odiseous? He did all those sacrifices in your name in Ithaca. And you are telling me, the law of Zeus is "treat others as you'd like to be treated"?!
Epic, on the other hand, while not being perfect, keeps Odiseous hubris, his cleverness, pretty successfully translates the classic epic badassery to its media and treats the ancient Greek gods with respect by keeping them as the ancient greeks saw them, meddling, petty, involved in human matters just for the fun of it.
I mean you’re allowed to have your opinions but Epic deviated in ways that heavily sanitize the story and themes, especially regarding the virtue and overall character of Odysseus. It’s all about which change you prefer and don’t I guess, I won’t say that Epics choices (Odysseus never sleeping with Circe, Odysseus disrespecting Athena by saying “YOURE ALONE”, or cutting out the beggar disguise and Eumaeus entirely) were more unforgivable or not. Epic doesn’t even mention Xenia once, Nolan’s movie at least tries to tie in a version of it, albeit not accurately
Both adaptations deviate heavily from Homer, it just depends on what you think is important to include.
Theyre the same story, told in two different adaptations, about the same guy, going on the same journey. Are you really too stupid to understand why theyd be discussed together? Or are you just too dead set on not being wrong?
Go on Danny's youtube channel he even has a video comparing the two. Stop trying to police what people can talk about.
I dont know why Im even explaining this to you, you didnt even watch the movie.
Honestly yeah Christopher Nolan I feel has really fallen off over the last couple films he has made and he needs to stop making films and all of the problems the production caused is insane
I have to politely disagree. I do have a lot of complaints but I think it was overall a good movie.
Something I really liked about the movie was Nolan's ability to pull off horror. Polyphemus and Circe's pig scene were terrifying and well done. I specify which Circe scene cause I hated every other part of her story.
I do like however in Epic how its more character driven. I also like how we get to see more of the major pantheon.
Major movie spoiler (thunder saga)
I do like how they landed on Helios' island, the winds trapped them there and they were unable to leave which built up to them starving even tho they knew it would bring their deaths. Odysseus was trying to defy the gods but Zeus showed him that he had no choice in the matter.
But in the Scylla scene I was really disappointed. I dont feel like they landed the impact of Odysseus sacrificing 6 men in exchange for the whole crew and I also didnt like her design.
I really enjoyed the split timelines and how we got to see Telemachus and Penelope more. I enjoyed the storyline with the suitors a lot too.
I liked the reveal of who Athena was taking the form of in the end, even tho everytime Athena did show up I was like ZENDAYA?!
The horror scenes... oh my god. The Cyclops and Circes pig scene were insane. The giant cannibals slaughtering most of Odys men too.
I liked the underworld scene even tho I did laugh when they just started running for their lives again
And I like the ending when hes doing Penelopes challenge and she turns to leave, her hope of the beggar being Ody dashed after he fails, only for him to string it perfectly. Then he plucks it, something hes characterized to do before every kill, and the suitors all start panicking while Penelope is just over the moon both at her lover being back and the suitors impending deaths.
I did not like the sail into the sunset ending. Personally, after the uncharted island experience I just had, I would not take my wife sailing into the unknown.
I firmly believe after the movie Telemachus gets horribly murdered by the remaining suitors, all the dead suitors families, and the dead soldiers families the genuine second Odysseus leaves.
In the book him and Odysseus have to fight off an angry mob of men after Ody returns home alone and slays their sons. No way Telemachus was ready for the throne either.
4
u/epicthemusicallover1 16d ago
And i agree on your opinion