Fantasy Christopher Nolan's The Odyssey

[squeekness]

The more I'm seeing the more jazzed I'm getting. Hopefully this is as good as it looks.

 

[NotToday]

What do you consider supernatural?

I was just using the word that was quoted. I assume the film won't have much (if any) of the creatures that don't actually exist.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I was just using the word that was quoted. I assume the film won't have much (if any) of the creatures that don't actually exist.

Based on?

 

[NotToday]

Based on?

Nolan's filmography. And his own quote.

 

[BatLobster]

Nolan's filmography. And his own quote.

Nolan is not going to give away the whole game yet. This is the first interview he's given for the project, he's just teasing out what he's doing like always at this phase. The Harryhausen reference is the thing to keep your eye on.

IMDB shows there is a creature shop and miniatures unit on this movie, and additionally there have been reports about puppets being used. The description of the prologue from this very same article says you see the cyclops at the end. This movie will clearly have his trademark naturalism, but that doesn't mean there won't be visual depictions of the supernatural. The combination of the two is what is exciting.

 

[Filmfreak]

If the supernatural elements are depicted but can still be explained scientifically, according to the Nolan quote, the only thing I can think of is, at least partly, hallucinations and paranoia caused by the Trojan war and the myriad challenges Odysseus faced while trying to go home.

Like it's dark and he hears the wind in the cave and imagines a giant. He's captivated by women's beauty and singing and he imagines them as otherworldly creatures because it's the only thing that makes sense in his head as to why he's so enchanted by them.

But, you know, in a way significantly less dumb than how I just described it.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Nolan's filmography. And his own quote.

You know he made The Prestige and Tenet right? Explaining the supernatural with science, doesn't change it's nature. He's being coy for a reason.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

If the supernatural elements are depicted but can still be explained scientifically, according to the Nolan quote, the only thing I can think of is, at least partly, hallucinations and paranoia caused by the Trojan war and the myriad challenges Odysseus faced while trying to go home.

Like it's dark and he hears the wind in the cave and imagines a giant. He's captivated by women's beauty and singing and he imagines them as otherworldly creatures because it's the only thing that makes sense in his head as to why he's so enchanted by them.

But, you know, in a way significantly less dumb than how I just described it.

Vibe I get is we see the sun, wind, lightning. They are things we can see. What is their source? Back then, the people believed it was the Gods. What if that's true but in perhaps not the more fantastical way it's displayed in some fiction, with Zeus throwing lightning bolts from his hands. What if someone created a cyclops. But it's more mechanical. That kind of stuff.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Christopher Nolan explains how he approached the mythological aspect of THE ODYSSEY:“One of the things I needed to crack was how to approach mythological elements in a sort of real-world way. The big breakthrough creatively in thinking about the gods was that everything that is now explained by science was once supernatural. Lightning, thunder, earthquakes, volcanoes... people are literally seeing gods everywhere; not even the evidence of gods, they're seeing the actions of gods. I don't want to say too much about it beyond indicating that yes, the evidence of the supernatural is all around these people. It's very much part of their lives. And I think it's quite a lot of fun to tap into that.”

Maybe Nolan is really going big on the "magic vs. science" theme with people in the movie being split, some who absolutely believe in these gods and those who think its all a bunch of bull****. Basically people debate it like people debate religion vs. science in the real world.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

The bare minimum for the supernatural is something comparable to The Northman where its visualizing the spiritual beliefs of the characters and how they influence their perception of the world they live in. Still sounds a lot more literal to me than that, though.

 

[:eek:]

Everything will be revealed as being a dream within a dream and the movie is actually Inception 2.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Everything will be revealed as being a dream within a dream and the movie is actually Inception 2.

 

[BatLobster]

I think something like Oppenheimer's quantum visions can apply here too. It plays as what he's seeing in his head, but it also plays in a way where you get the sense that we're peering into the quantum "world", almost like seeing through the looking glass of reality vs. 'just' a fanciful imagining. I'm not saying that's how it will play here, but yeah, I think it might be fair to say that different layers of reality could be on the table as an option.

It's so interesting to me how people react to Nolan as if his mission as a filmmaker is just to be a reductionist when I find him to be the complete opposite. I think his mission is to tackle big, impossible ideas in a way that makes them feel more tangible. Which tends to make for a more immersive experience.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

I think something like Oppenheimer's quantum visions can apply here too. It plays as what he's seeing in his head, but it also plays in a way where you get the sense that we're peering into the quantum "world", almost like seeing through the looking glass of reality vs. 'just' a fanciful imagining. I'm not saying that's how it will play here, but yeah, I think it could be fair to say that different layers of reality could be on the table as an option.

It's so interesting to me how people react to Nolan as if his mission as a filmmaker is just to be a reductionist when I find him to be the complete opposite. I think his mission is to tackle big, impossible ideas in a way that makes them feel more tangible. Which tends to make for a more immersive experience.

A lot of this is rooted in old fandom bitterness about him doing his own very unique spin on Batman that was very much its own thing, I think. The perception of him as a boring, realist kill-joy always feels like it's still stemming from that.

 

[BatLobster]

A lot of this is rooted in old fandom bitterness about him doing his own very unique spin on Batman that was very much its own thing, I think. The perception of him as a boring, realist kill-joy always feels like it's still stemming from that.

I think that's the case for some of it for sure. To be fair, I remember a lot of people, critics, not just fans that have been critical of stuff like Inception for not depicting the dream world as weird enough, and the overall general complaints about him being a "cold" filmmaker, etc. I think it's all a version of the same thing whether or not it's a disgruntled Batman fan or not.

I get that his sensibility is not gonna be for everybody, but I also think he's been making movies for quarter century at this point- I wish people would try to engage on a deeper level than "he's not making the movie the way I want him to!"...when they don't even know what he's actually doing yet. But then again that's not what social media is designed for, which is where I'm seeing all the bashing.

 

[NotToday]

Nolan is not going to give away the whole game yet. This is the first interview he's given for the project, he's just teasing out what he's doing like always at this phase. The Harryhausen reference is the thing to keep your eye on.

IMDB shows there is a creature shop and miniatures unit on this movie, and additionally there have been reports about puppets being used. The description of the prologue from this very same article says you see the cyclops at the end. This movie will clearly have his trademark naturalism, but that doesn't mean there won't be visual depictions of the supernatural. The combination of the two is what is exciting.

True, they did mention cyclops. I'm skeptical of how much we're going to see him, though.

Of course there will be references, but Nolan isn't Harryhausen; and he's going to do what he's actually good at. He's already going somewhat outside is usual wheelhouse, I just doubt how much farther he's going outside of that.

You know he made The Prestige and Tenet right? Explaining the supernatural with science, doesn't change it's nature. He's being coy for a reason.

Vibe I get is we see the sun, wind, lightning. They are things we can see. What is their source? Back then, the people believed it was the Gods. What if that's true but in perhaps not the more fantastical way it's displayed in some fiction, with Zeus throwing lightning bolts from his hands. What if someone created a cyclops. But it's more mechanical. That kind of stuff.

Okay? I don't think we disagree here.
I just don't think the visuals of the more fantastical elements (specifically the monsters) are going to what some people are expecting (like Clash of the Titans). That's not Nolan's strength. But of course, we'll have to wait and see. It'd be a pleasant surprise if I'm wrong.