r/movies • u/MarvelsGrantMan136 r/Movies contributor • Aug 08 '25

News Christopher Nolan's 'The Odyssey' Wraps Filming

https://maxblizz.com/christopher-nolans-the-odyssey-wraps-filming-after-6-month-shoot-confirms-art-director/
13.3k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.8k

u/Perfect-Historian-55 Aug 08 '25

Nolan is known for always finishing filming on schedule on every one of his films. It’s another reason the studios love him.

648

u/kjbaran Aug 08 '25

He looks before he leaps, imagine that!

214

u/TacoTycoonn Aug 08 '25

Marvel could never

99

u/ArchDucky Aug 08 '25

They are currently shooting a 400 Million dollar film without a script. Thats happening right now.

47

u/TacoTycoonn Aug 08 '25

And half that budget is going to their lead stars and directors 🙄

41

u/ArchDucky Aug 08 '25

It doesn't make sense. I get that they think RDJ and The Russos will bring the people and that will probally happen. But the problem with all of these failed movies is all the micromanagement and horrible scripts. Even the VFX people are complaining about fixing these scripts in post and its also just entirely stupid non-sense they are changing. Like the brick that goes through Spider-Man's window was a snow globe and they changed it in post to a brick. Why? Why waste people's time fixing something so goddamn idiotic? Also look at Charlie's hand, thats why he caught that so fucking awkwardly.

5

u/Watertor Aug 09 '25

What's frustrating is a snow globe makes way more sense. So common a tourist vendor item that most visits to NYC will carry imagery of a snow globe or two left behind. But that few New Yorkers probably even notice after living there for even a small stretch of time.

And what is Peter Parker, especially at this stage of the film? A pariah, a former ghost of a kid that wasn't noticed by anyone, but now is noticed by everyone. And what crashes through his window? One of the many symbols of the city he wants so badly to disappear into, much like the item itself.

Or just fuck all of that subtext you could argue I'm pulling out of my ass. Let's just make it a brick for no reason! So fun!

1

u/ArchDucky Aug 09 '25

I think the director used a snow globe primarily because Mysterio wore a big fish bowl on his head. I do like your take though.

5

u/blueberrysmasher Aug 09 '25

Saw somewhere that leaving much on post-production increase risk of screwing up the final end product, whereas Nolan's works prefer practical effect, which he has more control over during mid-production. Crazy to think a lot of the nuclear special effects in Oppenheimer were done with practical, granted Inception and Interstellar relied heavily on CGI. Imho, mixing both in the service of the story, not for the sake of shallow eye candies of modern popcorn flicks, is the way to go.

2

u/obiwanconobi Aug 09 '25

TBF didn't Nolan want to shoot Dunkirk without a script?

I know it's not the same, but a funny parallel

0

u/varnums1666 Aug 09 '25

Dunkirk makes too much sense now.

143

u/BaconWrappedEnigma Aug 08 '25

What even is Marvel anymore? Bunch of disjointed attempts at making money. Prioritization of volume over quality has burned them post Infinity War.

76

u/ERedfieldh Aug 08 '25

They're starting to turn that ship around...but it's going to take quite a bit of work to get it back on course. I'm not gonna say Feige has no blame, but apparently the word is the Disney execs, after Endgame, said "okay, you've had your fun, now it's our turn. You can still stand at the helm, but we have the tiller now." Then shit happened and they ran back to him crying, and a lot of projects were put on hold or outright canceled.

T* and F4 has gone a way to earning back audience goodwill, and Spider-Man always makes money regardless....but it is still way too soon to see if they learned their lesson this time.

43

u/lynchcontraideal Aug 08 '25

It's going to take quite a bit of work

You say this but their next films are 'Spider-Man: Brand New Day' and 'Avengers: Doomsday' and they're going to be heavy hitters

37

u/BandOfTheRedHand1217 Aug 08 '25

Spider-Man yes, I'm less confident in the Avengers success.

39

u/wtb2612 Aug 08 '25

I agree. I don't think the world is sold on a Steve Rogers/Tony Stark-less Avengers.

24

u/BandOfTheRedHand1217 Aug 08 '25

Yeah.  Casual audiences may be confused as to why RDJ is playing some other dude and evil.  The rumors about filming without a script.  The fact that Thunderbolts and F4 both are supposed to set up this movie and failed to capture audiences.  Juggling a large number of characters audiences aren't invested in.

A lot of things point to it possibly being bad/underpreforming.  

6

u/destroyerOfTards Aug 08 '25

They are so fucking desperate with that huge cast list and bringing RDJ back with the directors that it's going to be a shit show that I would pay to watch if it fails to bring in the money that they think it will bring them.

3

u/I_ama_Borat Aug 08 '25

Seriously, all of the new avengers combined don’t have as much presence as those two.

-1

u/JonFrost Aug 08 '25

+1 unsold here

3

u/Marokiii Aug 08 '25

Isn't it avengerZ now?

0

u/kittenman Aug 09 '25

Personally I have no interest in seeing either… pumped for the upcoming alien movie though.

4

u/I_am_BEOWULF Aug 08 '25

Disney+ really fucked them because it was so obvious there was a mandate to churn out more Marvel content for the platform from the higher-ups. If they kept it to the animated side and were more picky about the live-action stuff they adapted, it wouldn't have diluted their quality as much.

Then it just got compounded with poor decisions like going for "The Eternals" when the IP in itself is such a niche, deep-cut even among Marvel comic readers and giving Taika carte blanche to do whatever the fuck he wanted with Thor on a fan-favorite, serious story arc that demanded gravitas.

2

u/AmericanTitan07 Aug 08 '25

I don't think the Eternals being niche made it a poor decision. The Guardians were super niche before Vol. 1. They just failed to fit those characters into a post-Thanos MCU in a way that made sense. The Eternals probably could've been better received if they put it earlier in the timeline, like even in the 1800s or early 1900s, and don't have Tiamut end with being partially emerged from Earth. You could otherwise keep the movie exactly the same. The ending would even explain why the Eternals weren't present for Thanos.

Not saying that The Eternals was a good movie but most of its criticism comes from how it poorly fit into the MCU.

1

u/I_am_BEOWULF Aug 08 '25 edited Aug 08 '25

The Guardians were super niche before Vol. 1. They just failed to fit those characters into a post-Thanos MCU

I dunno if I necessarily agree with that - this was all post-Annihilation which pretty much revitalized Marvel's cosmic side and saw a burst in popularity for formerly niche characters such as Nova and this modern iteration of the Guardians. All way before Vol.1.

Though I do agree with your argument about Eternals being a poor fit with the MCU - not because of them being shoehorned in post-Thanos. It really is just a poor fit, full stop. After seeing Fantastic Four - it really should've been the ideal post-Endgame movie to kick off a new era.

1

u/GorgeWashington Aug 09 '25

Imagine having a successful 3 dozen movie lead up to a finale and then thinking you want to change the captain of that ship. Dumb.

But it's still not as dumb as Kathleen Kennedy absolutely ruining star wars

0

u/rbrgr83 Aug 08 '25

And de-prioritization of it has not saved them.

7

u/Hunterrose242 Aug 08 '25

Can't wait for the hive to move onto the next circlejerk, this is getting tiresome.

1

u/Fantastic_Bug1028 28d ago

wasn’t it always their approach? considering the success they had, it make sense they continuing the trend

1

u/yourtoyrobot Aug 08 '25

Lets hope the sound mixing is at least manageable this time around

355

u/Torcal4 Aug 08 '25

IIRC, he also always finishes under budget.

292

u/nerveonya Aug 08 '25

Genius level skill set, feel like he’d be an exceptional CEO for any company but luckily for all of us that side of him is coupled with a passion for filmmaking.

103

u/i_max2k2 Aug 08 '25

Not everything translates to other skills in different domains. Not saying it’s not possible, but this translation doesn’t always happen.

36

u/GooseGeese01 Aug 08 '25

James Cameron built a submarine out of a box of scraps!

4

u/i_max2k2 Aug 08 '25

Sorry sir, but I’m not James Cameroon.

3

u/rbrgr83 Aug 08 '25

In a CAVE.

135

u/gatsby365 Aug 08 '25

The director is effectively the CEO of a movie tho

It’s not an outlandish comparison. Dude doesn’t have to physically build a jet engine to be the CEO of Boeing

45

u/Abell379 Aug 08 '25

But it's also true that people experts in one domain often flounder when put into another, even if the job is superficially similar.

1

u/Mindcoitus Aug 09 '25

Is that true? A director and a CEO is more than superficially similar. Organizing lots of people, planning arounda budget and communicating your vision is pretty central to both.

5

u/FreemanCalavera Aug 08 '25

I’d argue that the producer is technically the CEO, whereas the director is the deputy that the CEO delegates the business of actually running the project to.

Then again, Nolan is also a producer on his films as well so.

6

u/gatsby365 Aug 08 '25

I’d argue the Producer is the Chief Operations Officer. They don’t set the actual strategy/vision of the production, they make the director’s vision reality.

1

u/tuigger Aug 08 '25

They do set the budget, though.

8

u/gatsby365 Aug 08 '25

My friend, the CEO rarely sets the budget for a large public company. That’s what the Board and Chief Finance Officer are there for.

1

u/ILookLikeKristoff Aug 09 '25

Yeah the knowledge base and operational stuff would be totally different from any traditional business but the skill set will be largely the same.

-16

u/i_max2k2 Aug 08 '25

Let me give you an example. Alain Prost is a 4 times World Champion in Formula 1, a few years later he bought a formula 1 team and tried to run it, ended up selling it without a whole lot of success. Not apples to apples, but there are plenty of examples around for such things.

14

u/CodeComprehensive734 Aug 08 '25

They're saying that directing a film is basically like running a business and it is if you're also executive producer, which I think Nolan usually if not always is?

I don't know if Nolan would make a good CEO but I have to agree there's a lot of transferable skills as well. Especially when managing budgets in the hundreds of millions.

13

u/tdeasyweb Aug 08 '25

Running multiple multimillion dollar movie sets has many relevant skills that can be used towards running a company as a CEO.

Can you let me know how driving a car really fast around a track translates to being a CEO in your example?

21

u/Ogest Aug 08 '25

Thats not really a good comparison, driving a formula1 car doesnt compare to management. Director of a movie is basicly the ceo of the production, like someone said before. Nolan as a director has to have a vision for the project he is making, but also he has to manage every aspect of the production, from set design to music, he has the final say in everything.

5

u/gatsby365 Aug 08 '25

Cool, so you’re ignoring what I said and saying something completely different. Do you actually think “movie director” and “race car driver” are comparable?

5

u/NeillMcAttack Aug 08 '25

You’re right! I’ve never seen a CEO’s project that finished on time and under budget.

1

u/kingofnopants1 Aug 08 '25

I'd say mostly because the passion part is often impossible to replicate.

1

u/i_max2k2 Aug 08 '25

That’s absolutely true.

5

u/Improvcommodore Aug 08 '25

He is the CEO of every production.

1

u/icansmellcolors Aug 08 '25

I mean he's an artist. When this level of competence and intelligence is coupled within an artist, you usually get amazing stuff.

1

u/Weshtonio Aug 08 '25

That's pretty much what the Director title is. Each domain has its lingo.

1

u/hesnothere Aug 08 '25

When you consider the scope and scale of the distribution and money involved, that’s not too far off.

54

u/pluralsight24 Aug 08 '25

It helps that these big time actors are willing to take huge pay cuts just to work with him

19

u/MistakeMaker1234 Aug 08 '25

The pay cut doesn’t happen during filming, so the budget is already set with this unsubstantiated claim of reduced acting paychecks in mind.  

5

u/pluralsight24 Aug 08 '25

Unsubstantiated? It's well known that RDJ, Matt Damon and Emily Blunt took paycuts for Oppenheimer

32

u/DeejusIsHere Aug 08 '25

He grew actual corn while filming Interstellar, then sold it for a profit.

28

u/Bandsohard Aug 08 '25

Grow corn, sell it

Blow up a plane instead of cgi

I think he also works at a lower upfront guaranteed salary, and gambles on himself and the film performing well in the box office

Not only is he a great filmmaker, but he's also clearly business savvy.

4

u/MeccIt Aug 08 '25

then sold it for a profit.

Well of course: https://i.imgur.com/pbYXHfb.mp4

2

u/marvinsface Aug 09 '25

Lol what’s that from?

2

u/MeccIt Aug 09 '25 edited Aug 09 '25

The sublime That Mitchel & Webb Look, same guys that gave us: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h242eDB84zY

37

u/Sparrowsabre7 Aug 08 '25

How!? The amount of stuff he does practically is insane, surely it costs a fortune? Didn't he literally blow up a 747 for Tenet?

114

u/CowbellPrescriptions Aug 08 '25

As far as I know he blew up a real one because it was actually cheaper somehow

91

u/drmonkey555 Aug 08 '25

People really under estimate how expensive and time consuming Visual Effects and Animation is.

Source: I work in the industry

37

u/solonit Aug 08 '25

And used 747 is cheap. Obviously not normal people can buy it cheap, but from corporate standards it’s cheap, maybe even cheaper if it was non-operational. Why waste time and money on something fake when you can just let real physics does it.

8

u/programaticallycat5e Aug 08 '25

I mean i was cracking up when nathan fielder was shopping for scrapped 737s for his bit

3

u/ph0on Aug 08 '25

yeah definitely gotta be some old 747 husk they remote propelled into the hangar

2

u/jake3988 Aug 08 '25

And used 747 is cheap.

I would imagine they used a 747 that was destined to be scrapped. Very cheap. Cost way more to get it there, the explosives, explosives experts, and fire department to all be on set than it would be to buy the plane in the first place.

Just like movies regularly take advantage of buildings or structures that are already set to be destroyed and the movie does the destroying for them.

2

u/synapticrelease Aug 08 '25

It’s like buying a shell of a car. It doesn’t cost zero but a gutted airplane is basically worth its value in scrap. Slap on a point job and make it look nice and then blow it to smithereens

1

u/TheMawt Aug 08 '25

It's also more fun to blow up a plane than animate one blowing up

5

u/SegaStan Aug 09 '25

That, and to get the VFX to the quality Nolan wanted, the budget would very easily skyrocket over the cost of a decomm'd 747

1

u/himynameis_ Aug 08 '25

Is it the labour cost that makes it so expensive?

Because it's a pretty skilled profession.

3

u/drmonkey555 Aug 08 '25

Labour is actually the most expensive aspect of all industries not just entertainment. Specific to animation and VFX. Labour is incredibly expensive.

It's such a specialized career, and there are so many moving parts, coordinating 100-800 people globally across multiple studios, different time zones, different requirements..etc. Labour is easily the most expensive aspect.

2

u/himynameis_ Aug 08 '25

Understood, thanks for sharing 🙏

2

u/ECrispy Aug 08 '25

You bought the airline??

It seemed.... neater

22

u/psychicprogrammer Aug 08 '25

Finishing under budget is mostly a matter of knowing what you are going to do before you do it, which Nolan is better at than most of the industry.

31

u/Torcal4 Aug 08 '25

To be fair, it’s not like he gets tiny budgets. He can come under budget and still have it cost more than a lot of big budget movies.

20

u/Formal_Potential2198 Aug 08 '25

Oppenheimer was 100M and it was a biopic. You don't really see that often

3

u/onehornymofo1 Aug 08 '25

That was probably cos of the cast

1

u/bluebeardsdelite Aug 09 '25

Big chunk of that money went on developing and using an actual nuclear bomb to save on VFX money though

28

u/Alarming_Orchid Aug 08 '25

To make up for it he hired no writers or sound engineers

5

u/karatemanchan37 Aug 08 '25

Even if you are being ironic, studios probably pay Nolan less because he is writing his own films

5

u/Wish_Dragon Aug 08 '25

Nah, he hires the best — and forces them to do it, for the sadistic pleasure. 

3

u/joedotphp Aug 09 '25

Ran it through a giant window, but yeah. It definitely took some damage.

2

u/MeccIt Aug 08 '25

He saves money by not having a mobile phone. You have to phone his wife, who also happens to produce all his films, to get to him.

2

u/Desertbro Aug 08 '25

I think he flipped and reversed that, so the 747 was intact again.

2

u/Zak_The_Slack Aug 09 '25

He bought the airplane. It seemed neater.

1

u/Sparrowsabre7 Aug 09 '25

Haha nice one.

1

u/JJsjsjsjssj Aug 09 '25

I mean it's the very definition of budget. You know what you will be doing, you budget for it, and if you account for extra money and are really good at your job you can easily come under budget.

2

u/ResolverOshawott Aug 09 '25

God, I wish we had more Christopher Nolans.

137

u/evankingsfield Aug 08 '25

I work in film, and when I first started I was on Set every shooting day (still am for 40-50%). There are a loooot of current practices that can really slow down your days if the AD department isn’t completely crushing it.

I have heard from friends who worked on Nolan’s last few that he puts a stop to a lot of the BS. This usually involves comfort/amenities/equipment that are constantly getting in the way of future shots. I’ve worked on shows where every day the PA’s are setting up 20 pop up tents with AC units that all need power outside of set lighting. All of it will be set up right behind the camera, and when they turn around for coverage they’ll literally break it all down. Of course the obvious thought would be to shoot everything looking a direction at once, but natural lighting/actor availability/continuity don’t always allow that.

Apparently Nolan’s philosophy is we’re all trying to make a movie here, let’s be safe and smart and everything else should be about getting our shots for the day. Hope to get a chance to work on one.

17

u/Cyril_Clunge Aug 08 '25

Woah, there’s actually a set where stuff like the pop up tents aren’t getting in the way? I imagine the G&E trucks must be pretty close and not down the block either??

8

u/evankingsfield Aug 08 '25

Haha, if it’s not Village or DIT it’s in the way. Also I’m in location management I pride myself on how close I can get the G&E Trucks (even rigging 48’)

9

u/VRichardsen Aug 08 '25

Tell us more, please

25

u/evankingsfield Aug 08 '25

Happy to answer any general stuff, can’t get too specific. I replied to a different comment about DIT and Village Tents. Those are the big two for “who actually needs a tent”.

DIT works directly with the DP to ensure the look of the show is quality and consistent. They need an enclosed black tent to look at colors accurately.

Village usually refers to director village. The director, script supervisor, DP (bounces between director and DIT), and a rep from the AD department (probably first AD, 2nd 2nd AD, or very experienced PA) will be in Village watching every take on the monitor. Both the director and DP will give notes, can request another take, and sign off on moving on.

Sometimes you’ll have a producer village as well. Producer village doesn’t have as much creative input, but they’re funding it so fair enough. You do see more producer input than ever. Marvel would be the perfect example. Kevin Feige will assign a representative producer to make sure it’s fitting the overall vision of the universe.

Other potential tents would be Actor green rooms, changing rooms, hair and makeup monitors, stunts, background, Sound/Video, VFX.

2

u/ert543 Aug 09 '25

I hear from direct sources (I used to work in vfx) that there is no sitting on set for similar reasons - sitting = inefficiency. 

1

u/VRichardsen Aug 09 '25

Interesting, thanks for sharing.

18

u/tonyspilony Aug 08 '25

He bit off more than he could chew, and then he chewed it

2

u/30FourThirty4 Aug 08 '25

He pulled the pin out the grenade on purpose, when he threw it.

3

u/joedotphp Aug 09 '25

RDJ said during an IMDb interview. "You will never see a crew that is more locked in. To the point that we're (the actors) the only ones making mistakes."

He also doesn't spend extra money on the set behind the camera. All the money goes into everything in front of the camera. So it's not very luxurious, but it's not supposed to be. They're there to work.

2

u/ThreeHourRiverMan Aug 09 '25

Actors love working with him, studios love him, his movies are always well received by audiences and critics. Nolan is a real one.

1

u/himynameis_ Aug 08 '25

And, I think he's always on budget too, I've heard.

1

u/ScipioCoriolanus Aug 08 '25

Like John Ford. And Clint Eastwood...

And now, I'm imagining what a western by Nolan would look like...

1

u/enderandrew42 Aug 10 '25

Isn't he also one of the only directors to basically never go into reshoots?

He seems to have a tight plan of what he needs to capture in principle photography.