The never-ending battle against woke Hollywood and SJW infused entertainment media [trigger warning]

The Drinker made a good point with the "modern language" comment, it really does date a movie and not in a good way. Sadly this movie seems to be coming off with the vibe of current movie makers wanting to modernize the classics. They really want my wallet to stay firmly closed.

BrotherSutek said:

The Drinker made a good point with the "modern language" comment, it really does date a movie and not in a good way. Sadly this movie seems to be coming off with the vibe of current movie makers wanting to modernize the classics. They really want my wallet to stay firmly closed.

Click to expand...

Absolutely... the usage of modern language in what is meant to be a historically (or in this case, mythologically) accurate production ruins the potential for immersion in the period. It may not appear an issue to start with, but as it goes on and you hear further modern colloquialisms and verbal anachronisms, it does start to grate on you, and adds to the impression that the actors are, indeed, just actors trying to portray historical and mythological figures, rather than actually being those figures, embodying those figures on screen. More than that, depending on the point of view you take, it has the potential to make the filmmakers look all the more incompetent (sloppy and wanting to skimp on the script to get the production out quicker), or just plain disrespectful to us as the audience (as if the filmmakers think we, as viewers, are not intelligent enough to comprehend the spoken word from earlier times).

This has only been an especially recent issue too... films and series from the 2000s and even the 2010s have still maintained dialogue that is accurate to the period in which it is set, very often to further acclaim - whereas I've noticed modern dialogue starting to creep into other productions dated more recently, such as the BBC's King and Conqueror (which was largely fine and not as bad as some say, but the modern dialogue was one of the big downsides).

It's also not a good sign that Nolan has opted to use a very recent translation of the Odyssey, written by a known feminist out to put women front and centre on things.

I think the Christopher Nolan Batman movies are timeless classics, or at least the first two are. The Dark Knight Rises is not bad per se, but it's not on the level of it's predecessors.

And I liked Inception which was a movie that Nolan was able to create more or less exactly as he wanted without executives over his shoulder giving him notes.

But in this day and age, I don't give any director, writer, actor, or franchise my blind loyalty. I need to see what trustworthy critics think. I take my Greek mythology very seriously. Greek mythology was my gateway into fantasy and a major inspiration for Scarterra.

I got a handful of online reviewers I trust, Critical Drinker among them.

Scalenex said:

I think the Christopher Nolan Batman movies are timeless classics, or at least the first two are. The Dark Knight Rises is not bad per se, but it's not on the level of it's predecessors.

And I liked Inception which was a movie that Nolan was able to create more or less exactly as he wanted without executives over his shoulder giving him notes.

Click to expand...

And this is a key point... Nolan seems to be at his best when making sci-fi and superhero films, from what I've heard. Settings like that of Inception he is able to be a lot more creative with, and make up as his own thing. Indeed, that's one of the reasons why I myself am drawn toward Steampunk and Dieselpunk sci-fi settings for wargaming, as it allows you to play around with history and science, and change things to your will. Nothing wrong with being imaginative where it's appropriate.

Making a historical film, or a mythological film focusing around a particular legend, however, requires you to do the opposite, certainly if you want your effort to be taken seriously. Play around with something you're not meant to, and people will call you out on it (as with Ridley Scott and Napoleon most recently... I enjoyed that film for what it was, but even I could see inaccuracies... and Napoleonic War button-counters went completely banzai - wish more Medieval historians would do the same for far worse trash like Braveheart). I absolutely despised Nolan's Dunkirk, partially for this reason - alongside portraying the historical situation and the behaviour of British troops at the time inaccurately, the film spent far more time mucking around with story threads happening concurrently and character developments that went nowhere, and far too little time covering the grand scale of the event. Nolan played around with things when he shouldn't have done. From what the Drinker said about Oppenheimer, Nolan again seemed to play around with it, adding in love stories that shouldn't have existed and were poorly acted to boot. He just doesn't seem to be the sort of person who is capable of sticking to an already-existing pre-established thread, which doesn't matter nearly so much for sci-fi or superhero films, but is the bread and butter of a quality historical production.

I'm still willing to open my mind to Nolan's sci-fi films, but I'm very reluctant to try another historical (or semi-historical in this case) film from him. Once bitten, twice shy and all that.