It is not enough that people are talking. The real question is what they are saying, and whether any of it is grounded in the work they claim to be discussing. Too much of these conversations have moved around Homer rather than through him, becoming a debate about cinema, identity, politics, and audience reaction while the poem itself remains somewhere in the background.
We have also had enough of one-line verdicts in different comments on social media, dismissive emojis, and commands telling people to stop speaking. “Because I say so” is not criticism. It is what people resort to when they have no argument to offer. Lack of argument, ignorance, and lack of thought often travel together, becoming loudest when they have nothing solid to stand on.
Another problem in media is that many people still cannot distinguish mythology from fantasy. The most repeated defence throughout these debates have been: “It is not real, so he can do whatever he likes.” That argument collapses the moment you test it against any other mythological tradition.
Put Excalibur in Achilles’ hands and then claim that nothing is wrong because neither King Arthur nor Achilles was a historical figure. Of course a filmmaker can do it. Nobody is stopping him. But the moment Excalibur enters the Homeric world, you are no longer presenting Homer’s story, you are presenting your own invention dressed in Homeric clothing. Excalibur belongs to the Arthurian tradition just as Achilles belongs to the Homeric one. The fact that both are mythological does not make them interchangeable. If everything belongs everywhere, then nothing belongs anywhere.
Had Nolan said that his film was merely inspired by the Odyssey, expectations would have been different. Inspiration allows greater freedom. read more here
https://www.goldenwaymediafilms.com/nolans-the-odyssey-but-at-what-cost/
An interesting perspective. I think adaptations often spark the best discussions when they encourage people to revisit the original work rather than replace it.