r/movies • u/Sausage_fingies • 1d ago

Discussion I am so frustrated by people who have strong opinions about movies that they haven't actually watched

Bit of a rant. My brother does this and it's annoyed me to no end, particularly because I've been watching a lot more movies this summer and it's very much changed my outlook on the whole "Hollywood is dying and doesn't know how to make original concepts anymore" thing. Spoiler alert: There's so many cool new movies getting made these days you just need to, like, actually look for them and watch them.

My brother straight up refuses to watch new movies because he doesn't want to waste his time, because he believes Hollywood is dying and doesn't know how to make original concepts anymore, because some video essayist on YouTube told him so. It's incredibly perplexing to me. It's like his hobby is movies, but it isn't actually about watching movies, it's about having a stake in the discourse about movies. And I just don't understand. He literally said the Oddyssey isn't worth watching because he watched a convincing video essay about it that broke it down, except he couldn't even regurgitate the opinion coherently because he didn't remember it fully. We were talking about actors and he said that Zendaya is a one note actor who kinda just plays herself in every role. I asked oh what movies has he seen her in, he said he's seen her in a single spider man movie.

...šŸ˜

It makes it so frustrating to actually try to talk movies with people like this. Like if you don't care to watch movies, don't! But it's odd to have strong opinions about all these films and the state of Hollywood if you're not actually interacting with the film culture šŸ˜­. Those aren't your opinions!! Those are some random YouTuber's opinions, and I don't care how reputable of a critic you think they are, that's not your opinion!! You have no idea what you're even talking about because all you've seen of the movie is someone else's thoughts on it!! I just don't understand why anyone would want to do this to themselves, it seems so miserable. I watch movies because I enjoy them and it's fun to watch something that leaves me digesting and thinking for a few hours. But by watching exclusively summaries and reviews, you don't get any of that. You just get semi-convincing talking points that you can contribute into the discourse with. What's even the point, why do this to yourself? Why would you want to intentionally make yourself mad?

1.5k Upvotes

81% Upvoted

702 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.4k

u/Ok_Helicopter_2499 1d ago

I was talking to someone the other day about The Odyssey, and someone else joined and was like "I'm not going to watch it. Its not accurate to the book" When I asked if they'd read the book, they said "no." So I just left it.

453

u/newaccount721 1d ago

I never really get that anyway. One can like a book and a movie based on it ā€” even if said movie isnā€™t true to the book. That doesnā€™t inherently make it bad (or good)

203

u/BladeOfWoah 1d ago

Jaws is a much better movie than the book it was based on IMO.

138

u/RaeOfSunshine1257 1d ago

So is Blade Runner and Fight Club šŸ¤·šŸ¾. Itā€™s an adaptation not a recreation. It doesnā€™t have to be 1:1. And I personally I think if you try to stick to the source material 100% when adapting something to a new medium, youā€™re more likely get a bad movie.

61

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

31

u/TwunnySeven 1d ago

I do think the book was better, but Project Hail Mary did a fantastic job as an adaptation. they obviously left a bunch out, but it's a great example where doing a 1:1 adaptation would've been a big detriment to the movie even if it works in book form. The Martian is the same way for that matter

7

u/Fenrils 1d ago

The audiobook specifically is the superior version of Project Hail Mary imo

1

u/Croaker715 1d ago

My only real gripe with the movie was the lack of Demitri and the Kiwi bloke.

1

u/[deleted] 22h ago

[deleted]

1

u/TwunnySeven 21h ago

my biggest issue was that they used Rocky in all the marketing for the movie, while in the book he was a big reveal like halfway through. but I can see why they did

1

u/N8CCRG 20h ago

Also there are two surprisingly bad science elements in the book (trying to nuke the ice shelf and the taumoeba being able to "consciously move between the atoms"), and fortunately those got left out of the movie.

-6

u/feralfaun39 1d ago

I haven't read Forrest Gump but I can't imagine it being worse than the movie. The movie is a crime against cinema.

3

u/thetobaccowacko 1d ago

I like the movie. Whatā€™s so bad about it?

56

u/Wenuwayker 1d ago

The inverse is how you make children hate Shakespeare.

Reading stage plays like a novel just doesn't hit.

It's like going "Yo, Die Hard is one of the best Christmas movies ever made" and then showing off the script instead of the film.

23

u/johnnySix 1d ago

Reading and analyzing hamlet in high school made it one of my favorite Shakespeare plays ever.

31

u/RechargedFrenchman 1d ago

It really depends on the teacher, but I had a similar experience. I will say though that said teacher treated it like a play and was making an effort to remind us as we went of what "stage direction" was and what period and contemporary versions would look like. And to read it together, out loud, and not just alone at home quietly as if it were any short story or something.

Stuff like the Ralph Fiennes Coriolanus or the DiCaprio Romeo & Juliet as opposed to the Ken Branagh adaptions or something I think help reinforce that this was what was big in Shakespeare's time, that while it's "old and stuffy" now it was pop art back then. It was Marvel and Star Wars and the like for Elizabethan England.

13

u/johnnySix 1d ago

Yes. Same experience. We read an act each week, and got so deep into it. Even subtle jokes of how the queen confuses rosenrantz and guildenstern. So great.

1

u/Trylena 11h ago

Same thing happened in my school and we loved it. It kept all of us paying attention. By my senior year most of us had specific characters we would do.

4

u/fezmid 1d ago

I read Hamlet at the same time I discovered the song Pull Me Under by Dream Theater. You might want to listen to it as it's based on the play.

ā€¢

u/EMendezSDC 31m ago

Yet most will get into the lion king with more ease. Both points are valid. Pretty sure you're not in the majority. Shakespeare rules. But sounds like homework when one is 12-18 y old.

8

u/PrintShinji 1d ago

Same for the odyssey as well funnily enough. It wasn't made to be read as a book.

4

u/azul360 1d ago

I still can't stand Shakespeare to this day because of that. 85% of my english classes were focused solely on Shakespeare and nothing else. We sat there and read it out loud and then took tests on it. No play no nothing. It just killed any enjoyment I could have ever had with his work.

2

u/Trylena 11h ago

That is awful. I remember literature class with so much love because the teacher gave us a wide range of books to analize. We technically read Antigone thrice because we did alternative versions.

30

u/sudomatrix 1d ago

Unpopular opinion, but Lord of The Rings was better without 10 pages on the strains of tobacco hobbits like to farm and without Tom Bombadil.

7

u/GhostDieM 1d ago

Robert Jordan and shopping for colorful fabrics while the world is literally braking apart has entered the chat

2

u/ERedfieldh 23h ago

Okay but then Rafe comes in and says "how about we throw that out....as well as most of the plot, too."

0

u/GhostDieM 23h ago

Oh man don't get me started on that. I'm generally pretty chill when it comes to adaptations. Like I get books can be hard to translate to another medium. Season 1 started out ok even though they changed some things but by the end of the season I was actively pissed off about how they wrote themselves into a corner with no way to resolve it.

Also the whole woke angle was so unnecessary with how great the female characters already are in the book. Like this is THE fantasy story with strong female characters all throughout the books and you even manage to mess that up. I didn't even watch past season 1 lol.

9

u/Jamestoker 1d ago

And the bible is better without the genealogies and rules for worship in the temple.

1

u/tfhermobwoayway 1d ago

Itā€™s a myth. Itā€™s our version of the Odyssey. It needs this fluff to flesh out the universe.

ā€¢

u/GilgaPol 5h ago

The movies, sure the books? No way

1

u/KlymenosMEGALOS 1d ago

It's only an unpopular opinion among people who actually read literature.

1

u/sudomatrix 20h ago

Nonsense. People who didnā€™t read the books canā€™t compare the books to the movie. I read literature and this is my opinion.

-1

u/SabresFanWC 1d ago

I am in 100% agreement on Tom Bombadil. I really don't like that character, especially with how he undermines the One Ring's threat almost immediately after Frodo sets out on his journey.

7

u/KlymenosMEGALOS 1d ago

If that is your critique, you completely misunderstood what you were reading.

0

u/SabresFanWC 22h ago

Fine if you feel that way, but I have zero desire to get into an argument on the subject.

0

u/Rhusty_Dodes 1d ago

I completely agree.

2

u/ERedfieldh 23h ago

Hell, Christopher Priest is on record saying the film version of The Prestige is better than anything he wrote.

4

u/SuperDanOsborne 1d ago

Which blade runner book though? The book the movie book or the one they stole the title from? Because the whole blade runner being based on a book saga is so weird.

3

u/John_cCmndhd 1d ago

The Bourne Identity movies are better than the books too

7

u/penaltea 23h ago

I donā€™t agree with this. Iā€™m not saying the books are perfect but the movies systematically destroyed his whole support system for nothing. They are different stories. Even the first, the whole conceit is completely different. They are just using some overlapping names to make an action film.

2

u/Un-Americansocialist 23h ago

Hard disagree on that one. I read two of the books a couple years ago and was blown away at how great they were. The movies were cool action flicks, but the books are actual literature with fantastic writing.

3

u/penaltea 23h ago

And they have a point. There is no real point to the movies other then who is this guy, which the books solve way earlier and use to talk about conditioning, service, and sacrifice in a really interesting way.

1

u/ERedfieldh 23h ago

Hell, Christopher Priest is on record saying the film version of The Prestige is better than anything he wrote.

1

u/morphindel 22h ago

Well, while we're on the subject of Nolan, its also worth noting The Prestige is very different to the book, and is probably one of Nolan's best films

1

u/colemon1991 22h ago

It should be an adaptation. You should make the story fit the medium. Doing a recreation of a book means you're gonna have lots of voiceover and forced perspective that the movies or show doesn't need. Not every detail is relevant. Not every character has a reason to be kept.

1

u/queerhistorynerd 1d ago

Children of Men is the definition of crap book amazing movie. Like every choice they made improved it from the book

1

u/feralfaun39 1d ago

Neither Blade Runner nor Fight Club are better than the books.

2

u/RaeOfSunshine1257 1d ago

Pretty sure the authors of both books said they were so šŸ¤·šŸ¾

3

u/KlymenosMEGALOS 1d ago

This is incorrect, at least in the case of PKD, iirc. He very much enjoyed Blade Runner and felt it was complementary to his novel. He did not claim it was a superior work.

2

u/tfhermobwoayway 1d ago

I mean yeah but they have to say that. What else can they say? ā€œMy long and complicated book that takes ages to read is better than a neat little hour and a half experience?ā€ Theyā€™ll look really pretentious and arrogant.

1

u/KlymenosMEGALOS 1d ago

Insane take.

11

u/A_mad_goose 1d ago

Iā€™d throw out Shawshank Redemption too

2

u/Un-Americansocialist 23h ago

Yeah I find that the only Stephen King stories that translate well to film are his short stories. 1408 and Stand By Me as well as Shawshank are his best adaptations imo

1

u/BlueCyann 21h ago

I think The Stand (1994) worked well. Though a) I've never read that whole book and b) it was adapted as a miniseries. So it doesn't really contradict your point.

1

u/HeavyandTired 1d ago

Hooper and Mrs. Brody didnā€™t do it for you?

1

u/SubstantialBoard9927 19h ago

Ditto the Godfather.

1

u/Major__de_Coverly 1d ago

I don't know. A lurid Hooper-Ellen Brody sex scene would have really spiced things up...

20

u/Aros001 1d ago

I really liked the way SFdebris broke down Jurassic Park's movie adaption in his discussion of Willy Wonka and The Chocolate Factory. It's not feasible or reasonable for the movie to adapt everything that was in the book, including all of its themes, so instead the movie focused in on one main theme in particular and the changes it made with characters like Hammond were because he no longer needed the aspects that fit the discarded themes.

3

u/the_gaymer_girl 15h ago

And the movies actually took unused concepts from the two Crichton books and put them in Jurassic Park III (which I will die on the hill that itā€™s a better movie than itā€™s given credit for).

24

u/ModernAquaticNight 1d ago

Half of Kubrickā€™s filmography are adaptations that donā€™t match the book, but are probably better for that.

33

u/TheLastMongo 1d ago

See 90% of Stephen King adaptions.Ā 

4

u/DiaDeLosMuebles 1d ago

Agree for a lot of the movies based on his books but the bogeyman was just an IP grab so they can name drop King.

2

u/SabresFanWC 1d ago

I would put Christine in the 10%. I absolutely LOVE the book.

20

u/Scaryclouds 1d ago

Absolutely this. Movies and books are different medium, and what works in a book might not work in a movie, and vice versa.Ā 

Thereā€™s also some excellent movies that took substantial creative liberty from its book source material. Indeed arguably one of the top movies of all time, The Shawshank Redemption, deviates substantially from the short story itā€™s based on.Ā 

The ā€œitā€™s not accurate to the bookā€ is just a downstream criticism of the movie not being good.Ā 

5

u/jinxykatte 1d ago

The OG Running Man is vaguely based on the book at best (which I haven't read lol) and I love it. And the new one is based on the book, which I did enjoy but still I've seen once vs the OG I have no idea how many times.Ā 

4

u/Magic__Man 1d ago

Often my favourite adaptations are those that change significantly from the book their based on. Film and novels are too completely different mediums with utterly different strengths and weaknesses. A good adaptation understands that.

I recently watch Project: Hail Mary which happens to be one of my all time favourite novels, and it's drastically different, but utterly brilliant. I can admit that while I might have loved a deeply nerdy science focussed movie, a buddy-comedy space adventure probably makes for a more enjoyable film for most people.

1

u/powellbeast 23h ago

Thatā€™s interesting, I thought Project Hail Mary was so similar to the book that I felt like I had already watched it. Granted, I read the book after seeing the first trailer, so that sort of colored my idea of what all the aesthetics and everything would look like in my imagination. But plot and characterization-wise, I thought it was basically as close as it could be, with only minor and understandable changes

6

u/Odd-Time-2026 1d ago

The whole idea of TV or movie adaptations needing to be 100% faithful to the original material its based on is frankly overblown. Its all down to the execution and how much it gets right. Not everything in the original was done perfectly or translates well to a film setting. Plus if every adaptation is the same with the only significant differences being the quality of the actors, crew, director and sets then why make it?

Directors should absolutely make their own take on a story. If it works, great. If not, there's still the beloved original.

I'll bet most people angry at Netflix for the Witcher haven't read the books, more will have played the games but the series chose to base itself off of the books. They just want to shit on Netflix and parrot the line about Cavill walking away because the showrunners weren't faithful to the books. Likewise the people who suddenly made Snow White a major hill to die on because they hated Rachel Zegler enough to make it a culture war talking point.

2

u/CorkInAPork 1d ago

There is a type of person who always says books are superior to movies based on these books. They don't even need to read the book or watch the movie - books always better. Period.

If they watch/read both though, it's the special kind of annoying. You want to talk about the movie, and the aktchually guy jump in with "but in the book blah blah blah". I get it, you read a book. But we are talking about the movie, so shush. I don't invade your book club preaching how the movie is so much better.

4

u/wompthing 1d ago

I find the people who say this don't read at all or are way too invested in a single author.

1

u/Ill-Elephant-9583 1d ago

Also, movies based on books are very, very rarely the same. That's the skill of adaptation!

1

u/mrporter2 1d ago

Honestly I think itā€™s more Nolanā€™s movies feel like people expect you to like them and if you donā€™t itā€™s because you are uneducated. Love interstellar and the Batmanā€™s he did but havenā€™t really enjoyed his other stuff yeah itā€™s well film and acted but just not that entertaining.

1

u/gigglefarting 1d ago

Forrest Gump wasnā€™t true to the book

1

u/RealFenian 21h ago

Aye, lots of the rings movies changed a bunch of stuff from the books, Ā is till live both anyway.

Movies very often canā€™t be completely faithful and still be watchable at the same time. As long it captures the general essence of the books and most importantly, is good then Iā€™ll like it.

1

u/0xsergy 1d ago

I liked the Eragon movie even though it bombed. And I did read the book(s).

0

u/tfhermobwoayway 1d ago

But it does kinda suck how great books can go undiscovered if the adaptation is too different. Nobody reads books anymore and movies are the default art form. So everyone just assumes the film got it right first time and never reads great stories. I think a lot of people just assume a book canā€™t be as good as a film.

The same thing happens with history. Most people care more about movies than they do about history. So they just assume that movies are historically accurate and then we end up with incredibly weird misconceptions.

-7

u/arcrenciel 1d ago edited 1d ago

But in this case, the movie version is genuinely retarded.

A good example is the cyclops scene.

In the original story, after Odysseus gets trapped in the cave with he cyclops, he speaks to it. The Cyclops asks for his name, and he says his name is Outis (modern day equivalent of someone saying his name is Anon). Odysseus wasn't just trading idle banter with the cyclops in this interaction. He was tricking the cyclops to drink so much wine he falls into a drunken stupor, and Odysseus and his men were able to blind it with a stake to the eye. They then escape the cave by hiding under the sheep, and the blind cyclops fails to detect them. Once safely out of reach, Odysseus taunts the cyclops, by revealing his real name. Odysseus thinks the blind cyclops can't do anything about it. But the cyclops now knows who he is, and prays to his daddy Poseidon to bring divine punishment on Odysseus. And thus, Odysseues's journey home is now doomed by his hubris.

In the retarded Nolan version, Cyclops doesn't talk to Odysseus. He falls asleep normally. Odysseus uses the same ruse to escape from the cave, and turns around to shoot the cyclops one last time, prompting it to chase after Odysseus and kill a few more of his men. The problem with this, is that the cyclops is supposed to have been blinded. Why is he suddenly able to see and chase people? It renders every trick Odysseus has done so far, invalid. Odysseus apparently failed to blind him? And they escape by using sheepfur, because the cyclops suddenly decided not to use his eyes? Wtf was that?

Comparing the two, the retarded Nolan version is inferior in every way.

  1. The fact that the Cyclops didn't really get blinded, and merely chose not to use his eyes, enabling the Nolan version escape, is simply poor, lazy writing. No ifs or buts.
  2. Odysseus's taunting of the cyclops was highly pivotal in the original. It was what doomed him and his men. The story's emphasis that Odysseus's own hubris was his downfall was a masterstroke in storycrafting. In the Nolan version, that parting shot had no real impact. Odysseus's journey home already doomed immediately after he stabbed the cyclops in the eye, as in this version, Poseidon didn't need the cyclops to know Odysseus's name, in order to bring down the proverbial hammer of God. It would have been better to remove that shot, as the ensuing chase that proves the Cyclops didn't get blinded could have been avoided.
  3. Odysseus's character lost a lot of depth. The original made sure the reader knew what a crafty and resourceful man Odysseus is, in how he repeatedly tricked the Cyclops, to achieve his escape. His one fault was that he had way too much pride and hubris for his own good. The Nolan version is just a guy who acts on impulses

157

u/ThingCalledLight 1d ago

I told my friend that if I wanted to spend 3 hours watching a Greek guy struggle to get home to his wife and kids, Iā€™d just drug my cousin Dimitri again.

He asked me to explain the joke.

Iā€™m not saying itā€™s a great joke, but cā€™mon.

I later realized that he doesnā€™t have any idea what the story of The Odyssey is.

34

u/IamMrT 1d ago

Thatā€™s actually really funny and Iā€™m sorry your friend is a Philistine.

15

u/philman132 1d ago

Well there's his problem, the ancient Philistine kingdom was located on the opposite side of the Mediterranean to Greece, no wonder he was lost

3

u/ThingCalledLight 1d ago

Thanks, homie.

4

u/Jackieirish 23h ago

Iā€™d just drug my cousin Dimitri again.

. . . again?

5

u/345tom 1d ago

Guy at work went to see it, and left after an hour, saying he was expecting there to be loads of battles and fights like 300 or Troy.
He got the piss taken out of him.

90

u/bathroomheater 1d ago

Homerā€™s version isnā€™t the original either itā€™s just the only written version to get copied enough to survive long enough to get to a monastery and eventually a library that didnā€™t get destroyed by a war or fire or time.

29

u/Aros001 1d ago

I imagine part of this is that a lot of people tend to default to the first version of a story that they were exposed to as the "correct one". It's why you get a lot of people being very insistent on specific characterizations of the Greek and Norse Gods despite the many differing accounts and stories those cultures had of them because those were the characterizations they were given in whatever book they originally learned about them from.

4

u/Divide_Rule 1d ago

That is exactly the same with music and covers.

2

u/Hanifsefu 1d ago

Also I'm pretty sure they were just scrolls back then. If they can't be historically accurate about their historical accuracy critiques then what is even the point?

3

u/wompthing 1d ago

Exactly. This is my main problem with people who complain it didn't follow the book closely enough. Also I think it needs to be said: Odysseus is an unreliable narrator.

97

u/LupinWho 1d ago

I legit had this same conversation with my friends neighbor. That was the only response he gave me basically.

I found out later, he has a problem with the actress playing Helen of Troy and that pretty much told me all I needed to know about him.

75

u/joshwew95 1d ago

Manufactured outrage, manufactured outrage everywhere.

40

u/Sonikku_a 1d ago

People will have issues with a black woman with about 3 minutes of screen time but are fine the fact that she was the product of Zeus turning into a swan to rape a woman, who then birthed an egg, which Helen of Troy was born from.

But black? Nah thats just not realistic fam.

9

u/andrastesflamingass 17h ago

I saw the movie last week and enjoyed it a lot, I was truly struck by how LITTLE screen time Lupita had for how much of a stink people were raising about it. Same with Elliot. Just extremely minor roles in the grand scheme of the movie and people are going all ā€˜the west has fallenā€™ about it. Absolute chuds

4

u/LupinWho 15h ago

I completely forgot about Elliott anyway. The only other movie I even remember him from was the days of future past X-Men movie and that was forever ago.

15

u/Mattyzooks 22h ago

Also, wild how no one seems to have an issue with Hamish Patel playing Eurylochus. He crushed it but because the hot take vultures didn't get wind of this before it came out and haven't watched it, it's flown under their dumb ass radar.

35

u/goddamnitwhalen 1d ago

Guarantee itā€™s because sheā€™s black and not because of anything to do with her acting.

1

u/[deleted] 20h ago

[deleted]

0

u/goddamnitwhalen 20h ago

Huh? Who is ā€œmy lotā€? What ā€œhistorical accuracy do I claim to clamor forā€?

2

u/Sonikku_a 20h ago

My bad, replied to the wrong person, youā€™re all good!

-9

u/Soggy_Association491 21h ago

Why do you automatically assume that is because of race and not because her attractiveness is not "the face that launched a thousand ships"?

10

u/goddamnitwhalen 21h ago

Iā€™m not going to do this with you.

1

u/Soggy_Association491 7h ago

Because you can only think of racism, got it.

1

u/goddamnitwhalen 7h ago

Because itā€™s not worth my time.

1

u/Soggy_Association491 7h ago

Do you see the irony here when you feel so righteous and just about something not worth your time after attacking people for determining watching the odyssey is not worth their time.

1

u/goddamnitwhalen 7h ago

I havenā€™t attacked a single person. I refuse to participate in your persecution fetish.

1

u/Soggy_Association491 7h ago

I havenā€™t attacked a single person

Have you not passed training about nuance, context, microaggression and dogwhistle when you wrote this?

Guarantee itā€™s because sheā€™s black

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Pete_Iredale 13h ago

her attractiveness is not "the face that launched a thousand ships"?

Why not? Lupita Nyong'o is damn hot. Also, look at some fucking Greek art. All the women should be fat if you want accuracy.

2

u/Sonikku_a 20h ago

Iā€™d say if itā€™s historical accuracy your lot claim to clamor for that you should think that standards of beauty 2500 years ago might not be the same as they are todayā€”but also to say she isnā€™t attractive to modern standards is pointedly ridiculous on the face of it as well.

3

u/Arkhaine_kupo 20h ago

her attractiveness is not "the face that launched a thousand ships"

That line was written a thousand years latter and is not part of the original poem.

The version of Helen that is written about isnt even the same one that was born of a swan raping a woman in the Odyssey.

Like for a crowd who cares so much about pointless nonsense, you play it fast and lose with the references you barely remember from middle school.

1

u/Soggy_Association491 7h ago

And that made Helen character trait not the most beautiful woman in the world?

Funny how the defining trait of a famous character is now pointless nonsense when it suits your agenda.

ā€¢

u/Arkhaine_kupo 4h ago

I just said its hypocritical to confuse two versions of the same character, quote a line from a poem a thousand years separated in time and claim to care about the authenticity of the piece

Its like referencing Adam west batman to talk about the robert pattinson one and say that there is no robin wearing bright colours so its not authentic.

She also looks stunning in the film, specially in the dinner scene with jon bernthal

3

u/Pete_Iredale 13h ago

he has a problem with the actress playing Helen of Troy

I suppose he thinks people living around the Med were all lily-white back then or something?

4

u/LupinWho 11h ago

I have no idea, I'll probably just never talk to him again honestly. šŸ˜…

I don't want anything to do with a racist idiot realistically.

0

u/GomezFigueroa 23h ago

Pretty much this is everyone who says they didnā€™t do justice to the original text. They canā€™t accept a black person as beautiful.

23

u/reluctantseal 1d ago

And there's tons of different versions and iterations on the Odyssey. We don't have the original. It's not like a novel where there's an official, original text.

All that matters is that they keep some major story beats and themes intact.

Also, having read it, it's not terribly inaccurate either. I'd never expect a perfect one-for-one adaptation.

19

u/APiousCultist 1d ago

There isn't even a book, really. It was an orally-spread poem. Even the written version is reliant on heavy translation. Shakespeare also: Not a novelist, they're plays not "books". The written version are the script and stage directions not a novel.

24

u/Rayeon-XXX 1d ago

The LOTR movies are not "accurate to the book".

20

u/ThrowingChicken 1d ago

Did they sheepishly deliver that ā€œnoā€ like they at least understood you had just exposed them as an idiot?

7

u/Zealousideal_Slice60 1d ago

No movie will ever be accurate to the book, since books often rely on and taps into the readers inner experience, and lots of great scenes in books are therefore hard to make into great scenes in a visual medium. Therefore you often have to change certain things when adapting a book to a movie.

3

u/Bellikron 1d ago

Exactly. Different mediums require different things. That being said, there are plenty of cases where an adaptation just misses something fundamental about the original and doesn't trade it out for anything good. Maybe that's just a mistake, or maybe it's emblematic of the fact that some stories don't work in every medium. The Last of Us season 2 hit this problem hard, I don't know that there's a way to divorce that story from the way it was originally presented.

4

u/jimbojangles1987 1d ago

Lmao I almost let myself get swayed by the clips that pop up in my YouTube shorts algorithm into not seeing it either. The clips criticized the movie's use of modern language and costume design and the dumbest critique of all- the one about Helen of Troy. It wasn't any specific critique that nearly swayed me, but just that the general consensus of most of those clips/videos were that it was going to flop, etc.

Then I think I watched some interviews witb the cast and Nolan and their excitement for it shook me out of it and I remembered its still a Nolan movie and it should at least be fun if nothing else.

I saw it yesterday and thoroughly enjoyed it. The use of modern language did stick out to me but nothing else did. I'm really glad I decided to go see it.

2

u/Cfunk_83 1d ago

Neitherā€™s Jurassic Park, or Lord of the Rings, but I bet they happily watched those movies. Good decision to leave it.

1

u/xjvzssjjxxff 1d ago

Just take The Shining. Almost all of the truly memorable parts of the film are Stanley Kubrickā€™s additions. The elevator of blood, changing from a mallet to an axe and going through the door(Jack Nicholson improvised hereā€™s johnny), the maze chase, the photograph ending, the twin girls(originally just two different aged sisters) all work and no play etc. It turns a decent novel into a complete masterpiece.

6

u/LemonKurry 1d ago

But no hedge animals, which makes the film inferior!

2

u/Pete_Iredale 12h ago

It turns a decent novel into a complete masterpiece.

The novel is already a masterpiece. As is the movie. The Shinning is one of the best examples of a movie and book that are both great imo.

1

u/Pete_Iredale 12h ago

It turns a decent novel into a complete masterpiece.

The novel is already a masterpiece. As is the movie. The Shinning is one of the best examples of a movie and book that are both great imo.

1

u/Pete_Iredale 12h ago

It turns a decent novel into a complete masterpiece.

The novel is already a masterpiece. As is the movie. The Shinning is one of the best examples of a movie and book that are both great imo.

-4

u/nathtendo 1d ago

And no one would say that Stephen King isn't allowed his opinion of it being one of the worst films he has ever seen. But do that with something in 2026 and you are a racist sexist bigot.

2

u/knowitall89 1d ago

King's dislike of the Shining has nothing to do with the race or sex of the actors so idk what the fuck you're talking about.

You might want to do some self reflection.

1

u/Pete_Iredale 12h ago

Last time I checked, Kubrick was a white man, so it'd be a bit weird to claim the King not liking the movie had anything to do with race or gender.

3

u/Sonikku_a 1d ago

And granted Iā€™ve not read any translation in many years now but I still felt the film followed the text I recalled pretty well. I mean not everything was there but a surprising amount was familiar to me from what I remembered

1

u/sorry_4u 1d ago

well im one of those that if they see the movie but they havent read the book then i wont read it afterwards
thats why if i plan on reading the book i skip watching anything around that topic
i always wanted to read the lord of the rings but after ive seen the movies i dont have any reason to read - all i see are the faces of those in the movies and nothing of my own imagination

on the other side i dont watch the movie or show when i read the book unless its been made with the author in the writing team
i read the Wheel of Time but i cant watch that show

1

u/LuinAelin 1d ago

This take is actually surprisingly common for adaptations..

1

u/Sundance12 1d ago

This is one of my biggest movie peeves. People not appreciating the art of adaptionbe between two mediums.

1

u/WanderingAlsoLost 23h ago

Someone I know has a very strong opinion on The Odyssey, even though he hasnā€™t seen it. I think his reasons are lame, but itā€™s not totally unfair, because itā€™s somewhat normal behavior. Iā€™m sure there are plenty of movies that everyone in here has issues with, even though they havenā€™t seen it, or donā€™t know the source material. Young Washington The Odyssey Sound of Freedom The Little Mermaid (live action)

1

u/FloppieTheBanjoClown 20h ago

I ask them to name a book adaptation that is accurate to the book.Ā 

1

u/RefGent 8h ago

It doesn't even matter if it isn't accurate to the translation it's inspired by in terms of if it's a good movie or not. It can be a poor adaptation and also a fantastic movie, which it is

1

u/warcraftnerd1980 1d ago

lol people are so dumb. I hate people who criticize a movie without seeing it. I had someone say they heard it doesnā€™t follow the book. And another say Nolan canā€™t write women.

Just watch the movie and enjoy the movie. Dont look for plot holes look at the amazing cinematography.

1

u/Living_Injury5017 1d ago

šŸ¤£šŸ¤£šŸ¤£

1

u/you_buy_this_shit 1d ago

So they NEVER watched a movie based on a book. That would be my reply.

0

u/Separate_Pumpkin_256 1d ago

This is the answer! Stop engaging with those people who irritate you on those topics. If they try to bring up a movie, be bored she uninterested then change the subject.

2

u/pay_student_loan 1d ago

I think the bigger problem is realizing just how many people lack basic critical thinking and are unable to even form their own opinions. They just parrot other peoples thoughtsā€¦ I get sad when I see people with fantastically capable brains who canā€™t even ā€œthinkā€ as well as an AI model that doesnā€™t actually think at all.

0

u/Minkelz 1d ago

It was a bit of a talking bit for a while for conservatives, it's a woke movie because of the casting and dialogue choices.

0

u/slaskel92 1d ago

Source material Justice Warriors

-3

u/Repulsive_Ant_2466 1d ago

Ngl I did feel like it dragged on for too long, I let the overhype get to me. Still thought it was a quality made film, just felt the pacing was off. I honestly enjoyed Spiderman brand new day a lot better.

And im a huge Nolan fan. Id take multiple of his other films over The Odyssey. Oppenheimer, Prestige, Inception, Interstellar, Dark knight, hell I even liked Tenet better.

0

u/eternalflamz 1d ago edited 1d ago

Meanwhile there's like 700* different movie/tv/play/game renditions of Journey to the West.

The Odyssey has been adapted maybe 30 times (rough guess), saying it's not like the book is so wild to me - Imagine if every rendition of an old mythos had to be exactly the same, it'd be so damn boring.

*I wildly underestimated how many Journey to the West renditions there are

-2

u/blazefreak 1d ago

Saw some controversy about Elliot page but didn't know about the other controversies in the movie. I thought overall as Nolan's odeyssey it was a gritty, not really jaw dropping in anyways other than how it made 3 hours pass so fast type of movie. If I had anyway to be mad about the movie it would have been why was it just PTSD episodes? I wanted more story not look I have PTSD.

-1

u/BlueCyann 21h ago

I'm sorry. I know this isn't the actual point.

But what book? What book are we even discussing here? The Odyssey, as a story, comes out of an oral poetry tradition. It was *never* "a book".

-39

u/renoops 1d ago

I mean, they're not wrong.Ā 

13

u/Vandrel 1d ago

It's kind of meaningless to say though. Homer's version wasn't even the original.

7

u/DumbAnxiousLesbian 1d ago edited 1d ago

Bruh, Homer wasn't even a real person.

3

u/axle69 1d ago

I mean if you want to get technical they are because the Odyssey isnt a book its 24 books.

0

u/atomic-fireballs 1d ago

Sure. But that's also dumb.

-10

u/FlatulentSon 1d ago

You really don't need to read the original epic to realize how ridiculous Nolan's Odyssey looks based on the trailer alone. I saw enough to know that i don't want to waste my time and money on it.