Epic does have its origin in poetry, but a more modern epic is distinctly different from an ancient one. Unfortunately, I'm not sure where that difference lies. That may have something to do with the 5 1/2 hour bus ride back. Help, please?
I'll check my old reliable source, the Oxford English Dictionary (the 600,000 word full version, that is, not the standard abridged one.)
Alright, it's a Greek word, meaning word, narrative, or song. But as for the usage:
A: Adjective
1.) Pertaining to that species of poetical composition (see Eros), represented typically by the Iliad and Odyssey, which celebrates in the form of a continuous narrative the achievements of one or more heroic personages of history or tradition.
2.)Such as is described in epic poetry
B: sb.
1.)An epic poet (obsolete)
2.)An epic poem
b.)transf. A composition comparable to an epic poem.
3.) fig. A story or series of events, worthy to form the subject of an epic.
Though apparently 'transf.' means 'transferred sense' and 'fig.' figurative. sb., apparently, signifies a noun, as opposed to the first two which are adjectival in sense.
So, I suppose, the modern sense would fit in the sections B.b.) and B.3.), but me... I would still be wary of putting even Lord of the Rings in the place of true 'epic'. The Lay of Leithian, sure: it's a long poem that details the exploits of a great hero, but Lord of the Rings is a little more iffy. A point I'd exempted from the above quote was another defenition of 'epic dialect', which is the dialect of Greek used in the composition of the Iliad and Odyssey. It was to that I was more speaking when I made my comments, that 'epic' seems to have a certain style and dialect of language apart from the vulgar, and for that reason anything written with colloquial dialogue is greatly up for question in the realm of 'epic'. By sheer scale, and the semi-poetic style concerning the exploits of heroes, things like Lord of the Rings just might, perhaps, be on the fringe. But once you begin changing the language too much, you've lost one of the defining features of epic.
Personally, I'd say that to me, what defines an epic is heroics, scale, and the form of the speech. Anyone notice why Brad Pitt's acting (or Agamemnon's, for that matter) seemed so odd in context? It was more colloquial than should have been. It would be improbably in this age, of course, to make something fully old-style in speech and all, so I suppose some concessions need be made. That allowed for, we can have things like Gladiator being epics, to some extent. They follow a hero (often a tragic hero), concern themselves with matters on a grand scale, and have dialogue that is more speech like, at times. It may be just me, but I think that 'epic' is a term far overused these days... much like 'Elves' has been bastardized in the last fifty years.
