Artemis

I'm a bisexual anti-capitalist, artist, & aspiring propagandist. We're not free until we're *all* free.

Guillermo del Toro fan account. Anarchist pep-talks are provided free of charge. Solidarity forever!

Profile pic & banner are images of GI Robot from Creature Commandos

#nobot

Location: In your dreams
Pronouns: she/her, they/them

Public Key

npub1hpk989vztnk8wg536j7zyld778nf8jd96j6u95hw95xq98ah8dmsum88gd

NIP-05 Address

[email protected]

Profile Code

nprofile1qqstsmznjkp9emrhy2gaf0pz0kl0re5nexjafdwz6thz6rqzn7mnkacprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumt0d4hhxarj9ecxjmntqyqqf27f33

Publishing to

relay.momostr.pink

Author Public Key

npub1hpk989vztnk8wg536j7zyld778nf8jd96j6u95hw95xq98ah8dmsum88gd

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-07-20 16:17:15 CEST

- reply

As much as I would disagree with the Nolan "super fans", I don't think it's even them who frustrate me when it comes to these guys.
While I think his filmmaking skill is overrated & that *a certain subset* of his fans tend towards an annoying level of pseudo-intellectualism (SOME not ALL), I don't think that there's much point in arguing with someone that they shouldn't love certain films just because I personally find them a bit deficient.
That would be rather mean-spirited.

2026-07-20 16:07:09 CEST

- reply

Of course Nolan is the film industry's great Messiah. Of course so many in every area (cast, crew, media, producers) want to be associated with this success.
He makes goddamn blockbusters with an absolutely ridiculous rate of consistency. He brings in both the money & the Oscar nominations. If you are in the business of film, what's not to love?

2026-07-20 16:03:25 CEST

- reply

Listening to Matt Damon, Anne Hathaway, & Tom Holland (Robert Pattinson too, although I would say to a less extent) just repeat in interview after interview how much of a genius "Chris" is, how disciplined, how visionary, I can't help but think that these people have every reason not just to say these things (marketing, duh) but to believe them—to believe what it means for them as artists & celebrities that they are in some of the greatest films ever.

2026-07-20 15:58:16 CEST

- reply

I was watching a bunch of pieces of his films while talking about them, & though I can pick them apart artistically or notice the shallowness of the perspective, I can't lie, I find some of his films quite enjoyable.
I've found his newer films less & less enjoyable over the years, but it's not like he can't competently put together a film that engages your attention. He certainly can!
I do think his work is starting to collapse under the weight of his supposed "genius" though.

2026-07-20 15:58:16 CEST

- reply

I've been asking myself how these people are so persuaded that he is simply the *peak* filmmaker, but the answer has been staring me in the face: they are in a little networking/media bubble where they repeat to themselves & others that this guy is the fucking greatest.
I've gotten plenty of responses to my recent threads from people who really enjoy Nolan's films, & it's clarified for me that people liking to watch his stuff is definitely NOT what bothers me.

2026-07-20 15:53:08 CEST

- reply

That's the truth: the most obnoxious Nolan "fans" are all the interviewers on the press junket falling over themselves to call him one of the greatest filmmakers of all time & bombarding the cast with questions about how wonderful it is to be in a movie created by such a genius.
To them, Nolan is a great Messiah. It's fucking bizarre, but it's also self-reinforcing. Everyone in that sphere keeps talking about his self-evident greatness, & they convince themselves & each other of the profundity.

2026-07-20 15:50:01 CEST

- reply

I think one thing I haven't made clear about my feelings about Nolan is that I don't think it's bad to like his films.
They are broadly likable. This is factually true: lots of people really like his films. Many love them.
I don't really take issue with that.
I take issue with mistaking interesting brainteasers with profoundly thought-provoking art. Frankly, I don't think most people who enjoy Nolan's films make this mistake.
A portion of Hollywood worships the guy though.

2026-07-20 15:45:20 CEST

- reply

But what interests me now is that my brain was very actively involved in Nolan films, but I was not occupied with very interesting questions.
I wasn't being challenged to form a perspective on something strange & complex. I wasn't being asked to engage with something that might change me or recontextualize my world: I wasn't even being asked to thoroughly enter the emotionality of the thing, to empathize deeply & resonate on a personal, human level with something nuanced or hard to comprehend.

2026-07-20 15:45:19 CEST

- reply

But yes, I think perhaps my biggest gripe with Nolan as a filmmaker is that I have often left his films with questions I was eager to explore but they are never interrogations of the deeper themes that are implied to surround the narrative. They are always "how does that mechanically work?" & "what factually happened at that specific point or with that specific character?"
It tickles the brain pleasantly. When I did enjoy Chris Nolan, this was why. My brain felt actively involved.

2026-07-20 15:38:20 CEST

- reply

The observation should be credited to Damien Walter on YouTube.
Damien does great commentary on sci-fi media. I don't always share his perspective (though I largely do in this case), but he engages with the media of his favorite genre in such a critical & analytical way that I have to admire it.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=W47W6onFRMc

2026-07-20 15:34:10 CEST

- reply

Making safe films that don't really challenge you to think about their subject beyond their framework isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Nothing wrong with just having a good time, after all.
But Nolan films don't really have a perspective. Nolan doesn't have anything to say about dreams or the unconscious mind in Inception. It's just a big movie with some narratives being intercut in cool ways.

2026-07-20 15:34:10 CEST

- reply

That's not bad, but the only thing a Nolan film ever makes me think about is the mechanics of the premise & how it is applied to the plot.
"Did the top fall? Was he still in the dream world?" is really the least interesting question you could come away from a movie about shared, active dreaming with. A question about what factually happened to one character.
Inception doesn't invite reflection on the weirder elements of the human psyche. In fact, it avoids those elements entirely.

2026-07-20 13:18:11 CEST

Saw someone saying that in Inception, Christopher Nolan took the wild & weird great collective unconscious & turned it into a corporate training seminar, & I can't stop thinking about it.
Because it's true. Nolan's films often take absolutely *wild* concepts, but they never get weird with them.

2026-07-17 21:49:58 CEST

- reply

He's not concerned with whether or not you can understand the dialogue in his films if you are not in a theater with high-quality sound.
If this is an artistic choice, then one of the things it says is "I don't make art for peasants."

2026-07-17 21:46:36 CEST

- reply

I mentioned that his choices feel very elitist.
This quote from a 2017 interview with IndieWire fucking upsets me.
On the one hand you could say "he's an artist! He just wants to make the absolute best art he can!"
But it speaks to who he sees as the audience for his art, & it's not poor schmucks in a cheap theater.
https://cdn.masto.host/dicecamp/media_attachments/files/116/937/037/956/403/860/original/c66e52e65885156e.png

2026-07-17 20:57:23 CEST

- reply

"The Odyssey is Nolan's most ambitious film yet."
I dunno, I don't think he's ever made a more ambitious film than Memento.

2026-07-17 20:51:10 CEST

- reply

Being easy to watch doesn't make a film bad. Being hard to watch definitely does not necessarily make a film good.
But I think I would be much more interested in Nolan as a filmmaker if Nolan was as interested in challenging his audience to understand what is unfolding as he was then (& challenging himself to deliver complex narratives in ways that are comprehensible).

2026-07-17 20:47:58 CEST

- reply

His best film imo (Memento) relies on quite a bit of visual storytelling & requires the audience to pay attention & fill in information to make the backwards narrative even make sense.
There isn't a bunch of exposition holding your hand through it.
But Memento is a fucking challenging film. It's not friendly to casual viewing. It takes effort to watch & understand.

2026-07-17 20:37:08 CEST

- reply

I think Nolan overcomplicates his stories in ways that any filmmaker would struggle to really visually convey & then—predictably—he struggles with it.
He creates challenges for himself that he isn't quite up to.
That could be considered admirable ambition, but it also could be simply biting off more than he can chew.

2026-07-17 20:32:18 CEST

- reply

It's interesting—isn't it?—that Nolan is known for visuals, but he's also known for using very clunky exposition to explain necessary information to the audience.
What's going on there?
I get that a visual filmmaker might struggle to write good dialogue (& vice versa), but does Nolan use visuals to carry his stories?

2026-07-17 19:25:31 CEST

- reply

Like, you want to see a film & try to guess the twists & turns, but you're not actually all that surprised by "surprise! The mentally ill & the cognitively different are evil!" Nolan is a better bet than Shyamalan.

2026-07-17 19:22:43 CEST

- reply

I think for some people Chris Nolan may be basically "less disappointing M. Night Shyamalan."

2026-07-17 19:15:31 CEST

- reply

Other than admiration of his visuals, Nolan gets praised more as puzzlemaker than a storyteller.

2026-07-17 19:11:47 CEST

- reply

I keep emphasizing that a filmmaker doesn't have to be good at *everything*, but what's frustrating with Nolan is that his dialog is not great, he leans heavily on exposition, his plots tend to be hard to follow & not all that engaging, his characters are often wooden without much growth & personality, & his films generally don't tackle deep, complex themes with nuance & insight.

2026-07-17 19:04:03 CEST

- reply

So a question arises in my mind, does Nolan's style allow him to create compelling, effective transitions between scenes?
You don't want every transition to be like that, but there are a lot of such editing techniques that make a film feel dynamic when used effectively.
The example I gave is humor, but similar editing can be done to surprise you or suggest how to feel about something. It could draw parallels between dissimilar things or give a sense of time or change the mood or... you get it.

2026-07-17 19:04:02 CEST

- reply

Fun example of film editing I find effective & enjoyable:
A tiny little thing I really enjoy in Superman is when Hawkgirl drops Ghurkos & before he goes splat the film cuts to Steve Lombard dropping a fizzing tablet in a glass of water.
It's one of those nice editing moments where we change scenes but the motion from the last shot still pays off.
It's pretty common. Hardly a James Gunnism, just a fun, popular technique, but I laugh every time.

2026-07-17 18:47:53 CEST

- reply

Fury Road fucking surprised the hell out of me, because I usually find car chases to be hands-down the most boring part of action movies.
I have so much respect for that film because it taught me that a car chase could be so fucking engaging that I'd watch a movie-length one with excitement.

2026-07-17 18:40:20 CEST

- reply

Compare George Miller's Mad Max: Fury Road for an example of expert use of the eye movement of the viewer to maintain continuity & create a feeling of continuous motion.

2026-07-17 18:23:24 CEST

- reply

Other things I'm watching for: editing, blocking & camera movement.
Given how short most of his shots are, I'm guessing I won't see a lot of interesting camera movement, but let's see if I can find how the editing serves the storytelling.

2026-07-17 18:23:24 CEST

- reply

My feeling is that his tendency to centre everything may hinder his ability to create contrast in the edit.
It allows for continuity because the eye is always in the same place, but thanks to that, transitions may not feel particularly meaningful, & he may struggle with creating visual emphasis or juxtaposing specific things through cutting from one to another.
If nearly everything is dead center, then the edit can't take advantage of the movement of your eye.

2026-07-17 17:45:37 CEST

- reply

I'm moving in from Batman Begins for a bit. I've seen enough to know that my hypothesis is worth further testing, so we'll start moving forward in his filmography to make sure I'm not hung up strictly on early work.
As I move on, perhaps I will see progression. That's how it often works. Artists mature over time.

2026-07-17 17:41:51 CEST

- reply

I'm hung up on this with Nolan because I constantly see him praised for his visual style. His films are visually "breathtaking" I have been told on many occasions.
So my question is...
Are they?
Not every filmmaker majors in aesthetics. Some are more into plot & character or establishing theme & mood. There is no one right way to make a film.
But I'm told Nolan's visual style is a big part of his greatness, so that's what I'm looking at.

2026-07-17 17:19:41 CEST

- reply

Times when Nolan's habit of centering everything feels detrimental to the storytelling:
it's kind of boring that when Ra's al Ghul is teaching Bruce about the art of distraction & deception that everything is right there in the center of the frame.
This seems like a time that would call for slightly more visual complexity. It also feels like we should just see *more*. These are just very short little insertions with a Liam Neeson voiceover in the middle of a fairly visually dull swordfight.

2026-07-17 17:10:50 CEST

- reply

If it wasn't bad enough to cast a white man to play Ra's al Ghul, Nolan had to pick a fucking violent racist.

2026-07-17 16:59:25 CEST

- reply

Frankly, a lot of what Nolan gets praised for often sounds like "It's a premium format, & I could tell it was very expensive to make." 😬

2026-07-17 16:53:31 CEST

- reply

The difficulty & expense of filming in IMAX like he does means that a film shot in this format must have fucking tons of money behind it & a huge crew to manage everything.
Sure, it can look pretty cool, but how could that possibly be the future of filmmaking?

2026-07-17 16:51:12 CEST

- reply

He talks about IMAX like it's the ultimate in filmmaking, but filming, editing, & projecting IMAX is a horribly inconvenient & expensive process.
The reels of film are so huge & heavy that they require loads of special equipment to assemble & move.
The cameras are so loud that they had to build a gigantic soundproof shell around them to film dialogue scenes. The shell around the camera was so huge that they had to use mirrors so the actors could see their scene partners around the camera.

2026-07-17 16:46:40 CEST

- reply

His use of IMAX film may also encourage this sort of quick editing style.
Each reel of IMAX film is only a couple minutes long. If he had a tendency to try for lots of longer, lingering shots, using a format that requires such frequent film changes would likely become a pain in the keister.

2026-07-17 16:42:19 CEST

- reply

This tendency to have a short shot length may be part of why he didn't think the costumes for The Odyssey needed detail.
I haven't seen that film, but if it follows his other filmography, the camera probably rarely invites you to take in detail, instead moving from image to image, shot to shot, at a brisk pace.
The costumes look shit when you stop & look, but my guess would be that The Odyssey rarely does, unless it's a departure from his usual habits.

2026-07-17 16:35:48 CEST

- reply

One might suspect one reason for such quick editing is that long, lingering shots invite the audience to scan the whole frame & take it in. If he isn't interested in setting up & framing things, preferring simply to centre everything, that speed may be necessary.
If the camera lingers, there may be nothing new for the audience to take in. All that matters has already been seen.

2026-07-17 16:35:48 CEST

- reply

Nolan's editing is typically very quick.
Best I can tell from a quick look around his average shot length (ASL) hangs out in the range of 3 - 3.5 seconds, only slightly longer than Michael Bay.

2026-07-17 16:26:45 CEST

- reply

There is something about every shot being centred like this that does feel like being spoonfed as an audience-member. You are never in doubt of where to look.
Much of the time this is good (it's not better to be inscrutable), but it feels too *easy*. It requires so little visual engagement from me.

2026-07-17 16:19:10 CEST

- reply

I don't actually have that much sympathy for Thomas & Martha Wayne in this film. Their wealth is obscene.
Bruce Wayne as a character has always been wealthy, but I think Nolan takes that to the *far* upper end of the spectrum.

2026-07-17 16:15:33 CEST

- reply

12 minutes into Batman Begins: so far, so centred. (I'm spelling "centre" the UK way for Nolan).
Side note: Nolan emphasizes the Wayne's family's lavish wealth from the beginning. It's giving me the ick.

2026-07-17 15:55:50 CEST

- reply

By the way, one does not need to master every single possible artistic aspect of filmmaking to create a film that is very much worth watching & enjoying, but I think Nolan's stature & very lengthy critically & financially successful career make it reasonable to scrutinize him closely.
I am being critical of Nolan in a way I simply *would not be* of a smaller filmmaker.

2026-07-17 15:49:10 CEST

- reply

In addition to my faves, I should probably pick something else from an "auteur" that I'm not as biased towards myself.
Name a director you think creates dynamic shots that make great use of the whole frame.
It's not cheating to compare Nolan with the greats in this case, so don't hold back. Suggest a proper auteur if you want. Nolan is hailed as a visual genius as a filmmaker. Making comparisons is reasonable.

2026-07-17 15:49:09 CEST

- reply

I will, of course, have to look at some films from other directors to determine by comparison if this is actually more pronounced in Nolan's work.
I think most fair for me to make a personal aesthetic judgement would be to compare a couple films by my favorite directors, so that I can be sure I'm not criticizing something in Nolan that I would never complain of in the work of my faves.

2026-07-17 15:33:49 CEST

- reply

Again, having specific tendencies that are consistent across your filmography isn't bad by definition. Filmmakers develop their own styles.
But at some point we might ask if simply centering everything significant in every shot (if this is indeed what he does) is less a style than it is a lack of style.
It's obvious & easy. It's what you would do if you just didn't want to be bothered with certain complexities of visual storytelling.

2026-07-17 15:26:32 CEST

- reply

No wonder he prefers an aspect ratio closer to a square.
Widescreen formats don't let you *really* center everything, because the height isn't there to fill the bottom & top around whatever is centered.
To me, The Odyssey trailer looks great in its original aspect ratio, but kind of bland & cramped in any other format because he simply doesn't seem to have framed or blocked things with widescreen in mind.

2026-07-17 15:16:09 CEST

- reply

What do you think? Do you think putting everything smack dab in the middle of the frame is Nolan's default? How do you think this compares with the styles of other "auteur" filmmakers?
If you see this tendency in Nolan, how do you feel about it? Do you like it or even prefer it? Or does it put you off?
My first thoughts are that it seems safe, boring, & maybe a wee bit lazy artistically, but I dunno. A lot of people *really* like his style & think his films look incredible.

2026-07-17 15:11:46 CEST

- reply

The first scenes of Batman Begins are doing nothing to disprove the hypothesis.
There isn't anything inherently wrong with the idea. I think some people would consider it part of Nolan's "naturalistic" style.
But if it is as unvarying as I suspect, it may grow boring over time & Nolan may miss opportunities to create dynamic images or use provocative visual storytelling.

2026-07-17 15:03:08 CEST

Listening to Christopher Nolan talk about how he didn't worry about all the different aspect ratios The Odyssey will be shown in because all of the important stuff happens in the center of the frame (or "centre" I suppose he might say), I have developed a hypothesis that needs testing.
Hypothesis: throughout Nolan's filmography whatever is most significant in the shot will be centered by the camera the vast majority of the time.

2026-07-17 15:03:08 CEST

- reply

If this appears on first blush to be true when looking at a film or two of his, I'm considering covering up the sides of my TV screen with cardboard & seeing if I'm able to watch a Nolan film that way without missing anything.
Spouse said based on scenes he can think of, he believes this hypothesis may be correct, but there is only one way to find out, right?

2026-07-16 17:50:08 CEST

- reply

Chris Nolan's next film is going to be shot so that the "true viewing experience" can only be achieved by watching it at the Sphere in Las Vegas.
I assume.

2026-07-16 17:08:35 CEST

- reply

Spouse is going to be so annoyed when I make him drive me to the theater so I can see this on a standard screen & get mad about it. 😄
(Not saying I'm going to do that, but I'm headed down a dark path here).
Honestly, I really don't like Nolan. I think he exploits & overworks his employees (Pattinson described how "broken" & exhausted the crew on The Odyssey were at the end of every day), & I'm not remotely impressed by his personal mythology.

2026-07-16 17:00:46 CEST

- reply

Also, how much IMAX stock do you think Chris Nolan owns?

2026-07-16 16:52:24 CEST

- reply

Assuming the website I am referring to is correct:
- 30 IMAX 70mm screens in the US (8 of which are in California)
- 9 in Canada
- 3 in the UK
- 1 in Australia (Melbourne)
- 1 in Belgium (Brussels)
- 1 in the Czech Republic (Prague)

2026-07-16 16:42:36 CEST

- reply

I'm sure the real richie-riches have home theaters where they can watch it in the proper aspect ratio at least.

2026-07-16 16:39:19 CEST

- reply

The "true" format of The Odyssey tells you who this movie is for—who the desired audience is—& it's not for most of us plebes.
I mean, what tf is that?
I'm lucky though, there's one 70mm IMAX theater under 100 miles from me (97 miles in fact). A mere 1 hour 40 minutes to be able to see this film.

2026-07-16 16:25:33 CEST

- reply

It looks like there are maybe 45 total 70mm IMAX theaters in the whole world, 30 of which are in the US.
Why tf would you make a movie which can only be "truly" experienced by people with geographical & financial access to these things?

2026-07-16 16:17:00 CEST

- reply

When I watch the trailer in the true aspect ratio it was filmed in, the images are pretty striking. Change it to any other ratio, though, & that unique vibe disappears entirely.
The difference is stark enough that I'm pretty sure that if you don't see this on IMAX 70mm, you're not really seeing the movie. Love it. A movie that is geographically & financially locked.

2026-07-16 16:08:40 CEST

- reply

So it's less a "blockbuster" and more a "premium experience". Ew.

2026-07-16 16:07:24 CEST

- reply

Or if not cramped, then certainly not visually unique. It looks like any other action film when cropped down for other formats.
I had not seen the trailer with the full uncropped image in the correct aspect ratio, & it looks better than the formats I previously watched the trailers in (in theater & on YouTube). I see how visually engaging the film might appear when seen that way.
Almost no one will see the film in that format though, not even IMAX theater-goers.

2026-07-16 16:02:42 CEST

- reply

On the official website for The Odyssey, you can play the trailer & swap back & forth between different formats, & I'll grant you, I bet it *does* look amazing in IMAX 70mm. Unfortunately, almost no one will be seeing it in that format.
Even the cropping for regular IMAX makes a lot of stuff look more cramped than the "intended format".
https://www.odysseymovie.com/explore-formats/

2026-07-16 15:43:22 CEST

- reply

"If it bothers you so much, stop thinking about it."
No. That's not the point. Maybe I *want* to think about something that makes me angry.

2026-07-16 15:39:11 CEST

- reply

I really enjoy being mad about unimportant things sometimes...

2026-07-16 15:38:37 CEST

- reply

Reminder: I am using this movie & Christopher Nolan as my emotional-support irritating topics.
Sometimes you gotta be mad at something, & this works. Gotta scream about something that isn't the end of the world sometimes, ya know.

2026-07-16 15:31:17 CEST

- reply

Okay, nah... After looking at a comparison of all the different ways The Odyssey might be cropped depending on the format you see it in, I'm really thinking this will *really* not look like the same movie to everyone.
https://movieweb.com/the-odyssey-viewing-formats-compared/

2026-07-16 15:05:35 CEST

- reply

I'm genuinely curious...would they still be "blown away" without the premium experience?

2026-07-16 15:03:12 CEST

Ok, now show me reviews from critics who saw The Odyssey in a theater that isn't IMAX.

2026-07-16 13:42:33 CEST

"oh, but you have to see it in IMAX!"
If you *have* to see it in IMAX, how good of a movie is it?
I've never watched anything in IMAX & that will probably never change. Bigger does not excite me.

2026-07-15 19:51:00 CEST

I'm such a whiney, persnickety bitch today (as previously stated, whining about pop culture is a stand-in for freaking out over much more distressing bullshit, but I'm reading these glowing, 98% positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, & I can't find any evidence that those fucking cheap-ass costumes look better on screen than they do in the stills we've already seen.
What a thing to be mad about, right? But lazy costuming in an "epic" movie just fucking pisses me the hell off, ok?

2026-07-15 17:13:43 CEST

- reply

I'm really tired of the idea that to make great art a filmmaker must demand inhuman levels of effort from his underlings. If that's what it takes, you're doing it wrong. That's fucking bullshit.
If all of your workers are completely exhausted & spent at the end of the day, "broken" as Pattinson put it, something has gone very wrong.
Everything else aside, that is not how you should treat your fucking employees.

2026-07-15 17:06:18 CEST

- reply

Ok, not related to production design/pre-production, I've just got to ask about this...what the HELL?
"At the end of every day people were broken".
Filming can be exhausting, but Pattinson has been in enough stuff by now that if he's remarking on this, then that hasn't been HIS normal experience at least.
I hate this. I said I like to see the love of artists in a film. This makes me worry we'll be looking at their pain instead.
https://www.gq.com/story/matt-damon-robert-pattinson-tom-holland-cover-interview-summer-2026
https://cdn.masto.host/dicecamp/media_attachments/files/116/924/611/104/654/325/original/3385e2c16d7b5f6d.png

2026-07-15 16:57:20 CEST

- reply

Not every film needs a lengthy period of pre-production, but for a piece like this I have to ask: if at the beginning of June they had not yet started "thinking practicalities", when did they approach &/or sign production designers & artists to start the process of conceptualizing this visual world of a film which they would begin filming in February of the following year?
When did concept art for this great "masterpiece" of an "epic" start getting made?

2026-07-15 16:57:19 CEST

- reply

I'm getting curious about pre-production & I found that Nolan's wife & producer, Emma Thomas, was reported as saying this in late May of 2024:
>I would say it’s very exciting. This is the moment where the possibilities are sort of limitless, we haven’t started thinking practicalities, or anything,”
Filming began in February 2025, but by June of 2024 they "hadn't started thinking practicalities."
So when did pre-production for this "epic" even fucking start?

2026-07-15 16:34:37 CEST

- reply

At what point in pre-production did costume design even begin in earnest?
For an epic "historical"/fantasy piece, it should be anticipated that costuming will be *extremely* time consuming & require a great deal of resources.
That's the nature of the beast.

2026-07-15 16:31:05 CEST

- reply

One thing I wonder is whether Nolan failed to even consider how much time & effort the costumes for a film like this would require, both the detail for the main cast & the at least passable costuming for background/extras.
The Prestige was a period piece, but even then, it's unlikely that *everything* needed to be designed & made from scratch. Oppenheimer is also technically a period piece but I am SURE they did not have to fabricate all of the costumes for that.

2026-07-15 16:25:15 CEST

- reply

Costume designer for The Odyssey:
"working on it was the most spectacular, singular experience."
"Audiences will be blown away.
"He built one of the most extraordinary worlds I’ve ever seen in my career."
"If you go to see it, you will go on the ride of your life."
And the costumes? What was the process of designing them like? What did you try to accomplish or avoid? How does the costuming contribute to the story being told?

2026-07-15 16:16:56 CEST

- reply

She says she's "not at liberty" to say much, but she wouldn't have to give any information about the film to talk in general about the design process, what she's excited about in the costumes, what challenges they had to work around.
Based on the interviews I read/watch with costume designers who worked on films I really like, I find this fucking odd.

2026-07-15 16:14:09 CEST

- reply

I was whining yesterday about how disappointing the costumes for The Odyssey appear to be (from production images & trailers: bear in mind that I have NOT seen the film to attest to what they look like on screen).
This is from an interview with Ellen Mirojnick, the costume designer for The Odyssey. It's the only question about The Odyssey in the piece, & I have to say, I find it strange. Maybe Mirojnick just doesn't like talking about her work, but she doesn't actually talk about her work here.
https://cdn.masto.host/dicecamp/media_attachments/files/116/924/406/130/867/603/original/6bddc8e0ee575d97.png

2026-07-15 16:00:01 CEST

- reply

Movies that master both the big & epic & the small & intimate are pretty great though.
Jackson's Fellowship of the Ring comes to mind (personally, my favorite of the trilogy). There are lots of big shots that invoke awe & wonder, but it's not just those shots that look fucking amazing. The rest of the film is also a visual feast.

2026-07-15 15:57:10 CEST

- reply

But I'm really just not the audience for "epic" IMAX movies. Movies that seem to be primarily intended to look "big" are not my bag.
Making a film that looks cool & telling a visual story are not the same thing unless the visual story is "look at this; it's cool."

2026-07-15 15:50:52 CEST

- reply

I don't know that I would argue that Nolan is a bad filmmaker, but I certainly would argue that he isn't a "great" one.
Michael Bay is ALSO a master of incredible epic visuals but very few people would call him a great visionary filmmaker. Too many other things in his films are undercooked.

2026-07-15 15:44:01 CEST

- reply

Honestly, it feels to me that the shit Nolan is best at is the shit that people perceive as "singular genius."
He's not known for the performances of his actors. He's not known for detailed & creative production design. He's known for his little plot-puzzles/surprises (did the top fall? Is whats-his-name still in a dream?) & big, fancy IMAX shots.

2026-07-15 15:40:43 CEST

- reply

The praise I hear for Nolan is usually related to things that I find only secondarily important in film behind primary concerns such as (but not limited to) plot & characters.
Typically praise for Nolan centers on a few narrow aspects of the visual presentation of a film. For all the praise of his visual prowess, it's not like he's known as a master of subtle detail or creating a feeling of depth & history in his worlds.

2026-07-15 15:36:28 CEST

- reply

To me, Nolan's work—even when it is visually stunning—typically feels pretty lifeless.
Other than Ledger's Joker, which a) should be credited to Heath Ledger & b) was greatly mythologized due to the circumstances of his death, I can't really think of *characters* from Nolan's films that anyone speaks of with excitement.

2026-07-15 15:33:41 CEST

- reply

I once really liked The Prestige, but I think even in one of my more favored Nolan films, the performances are a little distant & stiff.
Inception's characters, likewise. There isn't a lot to chew on in those characters or their relationships to each other, & I don't think the actors could have saved that if they wanted to.

2026-07-15 15:29:18 CEST

- reply

He's never struck me as an "actor's director", & that's my preference in a filmmaker.
I like directors who really help the actors shape & envision their characters so that their performances are dynamic & true-to-life (at least "true-to-life" within the world of the film.
Films that look cool but aren't anchored in dynamic performances from actors who inhabit & breathe life into the film don't do it for me. In my experience Nolan is not good at getting those kinds of performances in his films.

2026-07-15 15:29:18 CEST

- reply

He is capable of interesting set-pieces, but I find his characters largely underdeveloped.
Maybe that has improved in the films since I gave up on him. The last film of his I watched was Interstellar, & I must admit that I gave up in boredom before the end, so I cannot judge the work as a whole, because I couldn't be arsed to watch it in its entirety.

2026-07-15 15:21:04 CEST

Gotta be honest, I just don't like Chris Nolan. Not the man. Not the artist.
I will give him Memento. I will grant that I greatly admire that work, & I do believe that *he* must have been pretty damn clever & creative to make that a functioning film.
I find however that his body of work as a whole is fundamentally conservative in outlook & messaging, & I am exhausted by the hype around his "greatness".

2026-07-14 20:46:31 CEST

- reply

Tell me that's the very first mockup at least. I hope so. Please let that be the case. That can't be a real costume for a major character in a giant big-budget film. Please don't let it be real.
What IS that?
Is he trying to evoke the feel of a college production of a play? This would count as competent costuming in some contexts under certain limitations, of course. Blockbuster movie shot on extremely high def film is a weird one though.

2026-07-14 20:41:11 CEST

- reply

If I were trying to be fair, I should really wait to form a judgement of the film, but I'm struggling mightily with that.
I believe this is a real image of Tom Holland in his costume. It's killing me to look at it.
I know being a Guillermo del Toro fan girlie means I'm pretty obsessive about movie details, but if this is really the costume? Yikes. It's far more fucking low effort than the costuming in so many low budget, schlocky films.
https://cdn.masto.host/dicecamp/media_attachments/files/116/919/793/738/160/420/original/87128d33579f778b.jpg

2026-07-14 20:26:34 CEST

- reply

I don't think I'm very interested in watching this movie, but I am considering whether it's worth the expense of getting the "making of" book that's coming out just to find out what the production process actually (supposedly) was.
It's horrible to be this cynical I guess, but I wanna know how much attention & care went into what areas.

2026-07-14 19:35:44 CEST

- reply

Maybe that's just a bad impression & the real thing will dispel that notion, but I currently am wondering what the hell all the fancy technical stuff is for if it's capturing less than stellar detail.

2026-07-14 19:35:44 CEST

Ok, but explain to me, when the armor looks like cheap molded plastic, what the extreme high definition is for in Nolan's Odyssey.
Based on what we've seen in trailers & production images, it doesn't look like deep care was given to creating costumes & sets with depth & detail.

2026-07-14 15:30:22 CEST

Me: casting Matt Damon as Odysseus is ridiculous. If you're going to cast some white, definitely-not-Greek dude, you could at least cast someone who can sell the wit & charm of a trickster kind of character like this. George Clooney would be a far better Odysseus.
Me, remembering that Oh Brother, Where Art Thou? exists: oh yeahhhhh

2026-07-14 15:16:34 CEST

- reply

Seriously, from everything I've seen, this movie is likely hijacking ancient Greek culture to fit with a mythology of "Western" greatness that reeks of underlying white supremacy & Imperialism.
Matt Damon is Odysseus? Tom Holland is his son? They filmed a bunch in Scotland & used Viking longboats?
Yeah, I don't think conservatives need to be so fucking worried about a Black Helen of Troy. This movie seems likely to be a fundamentally a "conservative" work.

2026-07-14 15:16:34 CEST

Racism is fucking ridiculous because they are like "you can't cast Lupita Nyong'o as the most beautiful woman in the world," & it's like, I'm pretty sure a whole lot of people have agreed she's literally one of the most beautiful people they have ever seen.
I'm not interested in watching a Christopher Nolan film, but casting one of the most beautiful people in the real world as one of the most beautiful people in a world of fiction seems like a fucking tame choice.

2026-07-14 14:47:11 CEST

- reply

Some of this clown show of propping up this ailing elderly man whose body & mind are both failing him is about political control of course, but I think as more of these fucks die off from the inevitable physical failures of old age, they are going to struggle to cope with their reality.
Many don't want to admit this dude is nearing the end of the line because they desperately try to convince themselves that for them there is no end of the line.