Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

boldfox88 said:But the guy was a trained NASA pilot.🤷

They didn't reach out because they didn't even know if he was alive. The world was in total chaos back then, and there wasn't a Pep Guardiola around to save the day.

Besides, why waste screen time on trivial flight prep details like they did in Rocky, when there were much more important things to cover before the movie ended?

I guess it seems unlikely they wouldn't know if he was alive when the guy lived just a few miles from the hangar. Even if things were messy, people were driving Jeeps and had access to smartphones and laptops. Since his kids were in school, there's usually some local municipality or census data available. Maybe they're just looking for excuses for a movie made by people who were being quite lazy.

brightpilot6 said:If you swap out that monolith for some old man with a white beard, you basically have a space-age sci-fi version of the Bible. That was my takeaway the first time I sat through the movie, and honestly, I haven't been able to shake it since.

The old man with the white beard jumpstarts intelligent life on Earth, then steps back to watch whether that life actually "qualifies" for the next stage of existence. He leaves behind these artifacts we can't quite wrap our heads around, which act as breadcrumbs guiding us toward that next level. Even the events in the room feel less like science fiction and more like a purgatory before a final rebirth into some higher state of being.

In that sense, I don't really see any profound existential depth in the film, because Odyssey suggests our journey is initiated by a higher power, overseen by that same entity, and concludes only when it decides it's over. And why is it all set up this way—why were we created in the first place (are we just playthings, perhaps an ant farm in some divine nursery?) and why are we forced to struggle while being watched instead of simply being helped? It’s all as logically straightforward as the Bible. There isn't much to ponder there; it just is what it is.

By comparison, I find Interstellar to be far more challenging and resonant, primarily because it engages with the relationship between the individual and the collective, our responsibilities to our neighbors and the rest of humanity, and the interplay between our current lives and the future legacies we leave behind.

I notice people keep bringing up how "sentimental" or pathetic it is. Personally, I don't see Interstellar as being overly dramatic or leaning too hard into cheap emotions. To me, it depicts very standard, everyday feelings that serve as the actual catalysts for human action.

Love or goodness acting as a fundamental element of the universe? Why not? Is it because you guys are soccer fans? Lol. Almost everything we do, from our smallest gestures to our greatest achievements, is driven by love for something, whether directly or indirectly. Sure, we could reduce everything down to cold naturalism and selfish genes, but I don't see why that should be treated as a punchline or something to mock out of hand.

@ruggedjackal46

You seem to interpret those long sequences versus the rapid jumps as a way of showing how insignificant we are in the cosmos. But here is the flip side: that sudden, lightning-fast leap from primates to space travel could easily be read the exact opposite way. It shows just how little time it took us, on a cosmic scale, to go from monkeys to having established bases on the Moon. Monkeys, CAP! Bases on the Moon, CAP! We’re already at Jupiter. Someone watching that progression might see it not as a display of our insignificance, but as proof of how inherently superior humans are to their environment.

If that hack of a director had actually edited it well, I wouldn't have anything to say.

The dialogue is just sappy; everything that female astronaut says feels totally fake.

And that ending? Total melodrama. He meets his daughter, who basically carries the weight of the whole movie, and then she just walks away after three seconds. Everything feels insincere to me. Honestly, the father-daughter scene in *Contact* was handled a hundred times better.

Even the son disappearing at the start... he seems important for a second, but it feels like Christopher Nolan only threw that in so MMC could drop two or three lines about the Moon landing to that professor. It’s a completely pointless subplot, much like the son's role in the entire film.

Patrick Martin said:Prometheus is basically just ripping off Interstellar with its dialogue☕

Black guy singing Stephen Stills🙏

Jessica Gonzalez said:I guess it seems unlikely they wouldn't know if he was alive when the guy lived just a few miles from the hangar. Even if things were messy, people were driving Jeeps and had access to smartphones and laptops. Since his kids were in school, there's usually some local municipality or census data available. Maybe they're just looking for excuses for a movie made by people who were being quite lazy.

I suppose I'll take the bait on that one. A few miles? The guy spends his entire day and part of his night on the road, so isn't it entirely possible he’s actually a thousand miles away?

Sure, the world is a mess. There's no internet, no cell service, and no military presence. A census? Please. When people are struggling just to find enough to eat, who would ever bother paying taxes to the government for such absurd expenses?

Even NASA would have managed to launch without him; they had pilots, sure, but they were essentially just playing with simulator training rather than having any real-world experience.

The only thing that feels totally unrealistic is that cowboy-style drone hijacking with the laptop at the very start of the movie 🤣🤣

But honestly, the scene is so damn good that I can look past it. ☕

boldfox88 said:Are you thinking about that little robot Matt Damon used to get rid of? That's just a tiny fraction of the plot.

Flynn has been looking closely at IQ tests—those things that supposedly measure intelligence. Tell me, do you honestly think our social fabric has improved compared to how things were fifty years ago? We might have made massive leaps in technology, but when it comes to our quality of life and social cohesion, we haven't moved an inch.

IQ tests aren't some absolute, flawless measurement of intelligence—not even when you're just looking at logical reasoning—but they serve as a solid benchmark. Over the last 50 years, the standard of living in developed nations like the US has climbed steadily. Regardless of your personal take on it, technological progress has fundamentally improved life in these societies. We have better living conditions, easier access to information, and instant connectivity with people all over the country. From an evolutionary standpoint, this shift has triggered a massive jump in average IQ scores. It leads to a pretty straightforward conclusion: society plays a massive role in driving an individual's intellectual advancement.

What kind of mess are we dealing with here? Is it a heap of factual errors, logical fallacies, or just plain bad writing?

Purely cinematic nonsense, if you ask me.
Who actually wants to sit there listening to some character deliver a lecture while they're wrapped up in some sci-fi space flick 🤷

Just show me the action, man, don't hit me with a damn theory lecture.
I didn't pay for a movie ticket just to listen to her ramble on while she's slumped back in some spaceship pilot chair.

They hop into the ship and suddenly they're deep-diving into cosmic phenomena like they're giving a TED Talk, all while claiming their goal is "saving humanity." 🙏

vivideagle7 said:If that hack of a director had actually edited it well, I wouldn't have anything to say.

The dialogue is just sappy; everything that female astronaut says feels totally fake.

And that ending? Total melodrama. He meets his daughter, who basically carries the weight of the whole movie, and then she just walks away after three seconds. Everything feels insincere to me. Honestly, the father-daughter scene in *Contact* was handled a hundred times better.

Even the son disappearing at the start... he seems important for a second, but it feels like Christopher Nolan only threw that in so MMC could drop two or three lines about the Moon landing to that professor. It’s a completely pointless subplot, much like the son's role in the entire film.

When it comes to the sincerity of their relationships, isn't it all just a matter of personal perception? To me, the bond between Cooper and his daughter felt genuine, a connection rooted in the fact that beyond being father and child, they share a similar intellect. He didn't have that same intellectual bridge with his son, whose perspective was far more limited—that whole thing regarding the Moon was specifically tied to his daughter.

Furthermore, regarding what you said about the son—it feels to me like those are conclusions drawn from a general negative bias toward the film, where one searches for flaws even where they don't exist, which only serves to reinforce the initial negativity in a circular loop.

If one weren't approaching it with such a skeptical lens, perhaps they would see that the son is significant because his sick child is the reason she keeps returning to the old house, something she wouldn't bother doing if she were just living at the base. Moreover, through those brief glimpses of him and his family, we witness the escalating decay of conditions back on Earth. Ultimately, he does serve a purpose in the narrative, regardless of how minimal it may seem.

As for the reunion with his daughter, what exactly are people expecting? For them to go grab a picnic? She was exhausted, after all... For the sake of the story, it is enough that he returned and fulfilled the promise he made to her. Some might find it sentimental, but I certainly didn't.

boldfox88 said:The only thing that feels totally unrealistic is that cowboy-style drone hijacking with the laptop at the very start of the movie 🤣🤣

But honestly, the scene is so damn good that I can look past it. ☕

But from that moment, we can tell he isn't just some unrefined amateur ☕

It’s clear he possesses both the technical skill and the physical coordination required, showing he's a capable leader who stays well-informed ☕

brightpilot6 said:If you swap out that monolith for some old man with a white beard, you basically have a space-age sci-fi version of the Bible. That was my takeaway the first time I sat through the movie, and honestly, I haven't been able to shake it since.

The old man with the white beard jumpstarts intelligent life on Earth, then steps back to watch whether that life actually "qualifies" for the next stage of existence. He leaves behind these artifacts we can't quite wrap our heads around, which act as breadcrumbs guiding us toward that next level. Even the events in the room feel less like science fiction and more like a purgatory before a final rebirth into some higher state of being.

In that sense, I don't really see any profound existential depth in the film, because Odyssey suggests our journey is initiated by a higher power, overseen by that same entity, and concludes only when it decides it's over. And why is it all set up this way—why were we created in the first place (are we just playthings, perhaps an ant farm in some divine nursery?) and why are we forced to struggle while being watched instead of simply being helped? It’s all as logically straightforward as the Bible. There isn't much to ponder there; it just is what it is.

By comparison, I find Interstellar to be far more challenging and resonant, primarily because it engages with the relationship between the individual and the collective, our responsibilities to our neighbors and the rest of humanity, and the interplay between our current lives and the future legacies we leave behind.

I notice people keep bringing up how "sentimental" or pathetic it is. Personally, I don't see Interstellar as being overly dramatic or leaning too hard into cheap emotions. To me, it depicts very standard, everyday feelings that serve as the actual catalysts for human action.

Love or goodness acting as a fundamental element of the universe? Why not? Is it because you guys are soccer fans? Lol. Almost everything we do, from our smallest gestures to our greatest achievements, is driven by love for something, whether directly or indirectly. Sure, we could reduce everything down to cold naturalism and selfish genes, but I don't see why that should be treated as a punchline or something to mock out of hand.

@ruggedjackal46

You seem to interpret those long sequences versus the rapid jumps as a way of showing how insignificant we are in the cosmos. But here is the flip side: that sudden, lightning-fast leap from primates to space travel could easily be read the exact opposite way. It shows just how little time it took us, on a cosmic scale, to go from monkeys to having established bases on the Moon. Monkeys, CAP! Bases on the Moon, CAP! We’re already at Jupiter. Someone watching that progression might see it not as a display of our insignificance, but as proof of how inherently superior humans are to their environment.

Never actually sat down to watch Christopher Nolan, but based on how you're spinning this... why does this concept get a pass while The Odyssey doesn't? You're talking about pretty basic, recycled themes that don't really require a movie to trigger a thought process.

individual vs. society... whatever.
humanity's impact on life... please.

Look, "our" impact on "our" own lives? That's just a baseline, boring-ass statement at its core.

brightpilot6 said:If you swap out that monolith for some old man with a white beard, you basically have a space-age sci-fi version of the Bible. That was my takeaway the first time I sat through the movie, and honestly, I haven't been able to shake it since.

The old man with the white beard jumpstarts intelligent life on Earth, then steps back to watch whether that life actually "qualifies" for the next stage of existence. He leaves behind these artifacts we can't quite wrap our heads around, which act as breadcrumbs guiding us toward that next level. Even the events in the room feel less like science fiction and more like a purgatory before a final rebirth into some higher state of being.

In that sense, I don't really see any profound existential depth in the film, because Odyssey suggests our journey is initiated by a higher power, overseen by that same entity, and concludes only when it decides it's over. And why is it all set up this way—why were we created in the first place (are we just playthings, perhaps an ant farm in some divine nursery?) and why are we forced to struggle while being watched instead of simply being helped? It’s all as logically straightforward as the Bible. There isn't much to ponder there; it just is what it is.

By comparison, I find Interstellar to be far more challenging and resonant, primarily because it engages with the relationship between the individual and the collective, our responsibilities to our neighbors and the rest of humanity, and the interplay between our current lives and the future legacies we leave behind.

I notice people keep bringing up how "sentimental" or pathetic it is. Personally, I don't see Interstellar as being overly dramatic or leaning too hard into cheap emotions. To me, it depicts very standard, everyday feelings that serve as the actual catalysts for human action.

Love or goodness acting as a fundamental element of the universe? Why not? Is it because you guys are soccer fans? Lol. Almost everything we do, from our smallest gestures to our greatest achievements, is driven by love for something, whether directly or indirectly. Sure, we could reduce everything down to cold naturalism and selfish genes, but I don't see why that should be treated as a punchline or something to mock out of hand.

@ruggedjackal46

You seem to interpret those long sequences versus the rapid jumps as a way of showing how insignificant we are in the cosmos. But here is the flip side: that sudden, lightning-fast leap from primates to space travel could easily be read the exact opposite way. It shows just how little time it took us, on a cosmic scale, to go from monkeys to having established bases on the Moon. Monkeys, CAP! Bases on the Moon, CAP! We’re already at Jupiter. Someone watching that progression might see it not as a display of our insignificance, but as proof of how inherently superior humans are to their environment.

But why swap the monolith for a bearded old man? If Kubrick had wanted an old man, he would have just cast Morgan Freeman and put him right in front of the lens. Instead, he chose the monolith. And we never get any definitive confirmation as to whether that thing is the product of some intelligent consciousness influencing humanity (the proverbial "bearded old man") or not.

Love or goodness as a fundamental element of the universe? Why not? Is it just because you guys are soccer fans? Lol. Almost everything we do, from the massive life shifts to the tiny daily habits, is driven by love for something—directly or indirectly. Sure, we can reduce everything to naturalism and selfish genes, but I don't see why that should be treated as a ridiculous thesis that needs to be mocked right out of the gate.

Look, love is important, fine, but the idea that love is a physical energy transcending space and time—literally, as if it were pulled straight from the creative bedroom of Pharrell Williams—is a stretch.

@ruggedjackal46

You’re interpreting those long sequences versus the quick cuts as a way to show how insignificant we are in the cosmos. But here’s the flip side: that sudden, jarring jump from apes to a space station could be read as the exact opposite. It shows how incredibly little time it took us, on a cosmic scale, to go from primates to having bases on the Moon. Apes, CAP! Bases on the Moon, CAP! We’re practically at Jupiter already. Someone looking at that pacing might see it not as a slow evolution, but as proof of how much humans actually dominate their environment rather than being dwarfed by it.

That’s a solid take. It doesn't contradict mine; it's just as valid a perspective. Humans have developed incredibly fast within the context of the universe compared to other beings. Yet, the fact that this cosmic "blink of an eye" feels so agonizingly long to us individuals just goes to show how fleeting a single human life really is.

Walter Grant5 said:Never actually sat down to watch Christopher Nolan, but based on how you're spinning this... why does this concept get a pass while The Odyssey doesn't? You're talking about pretty basic, recycled themes that don't really require a movie to trigger a thought process.

individual vs. society... whatever.
humanity's impact on life... please.

Look, "our" impact on "our" own lives? That's just a baseline, boring-ass statement at its core.

The whole Odyssey concept is just basic creationism at its core. There isn't much point in debating it further.

Walter Grant5 said:Never actually sat down to watch Christopher Nolan, but based on how you're spinning this... why does this concept get a pass while The Odyssey doesn't? You're talking about pretty basic, recycled themes that don't really require a movie to trigger a thought process.

individual vs. society... whatever.
humanity's impact on life... please.

Look, "our" impact on "our" own lives? That's just a baseline, boring-ass statement at its core.

Sure, fine. These are the ultimate themes, aren't they? Is the survival of an entire species more important than your own life? Does the existence of future generations outweigh the lives lived by yours? Do you value one life shared with your family more than the hypothetical lives of people who haven't even been born yet?

If you think these ideas are so overdone, please, go ahead and give me some movie recommendations that tackle these subjects with actual depth, and I'll gladly watch them.

Quote:Thor says:
humanity's impact on life, blah blah.I suppose I didn't frame my point about "humanity's impact on life" clearly enough—what I was really getting at is the film's thesis that human agency is what truly shapes our reality, even when we convince ourselves it's the work of gods or mere coincidence. Isn't that a compelling thought?

ruggedjackal46 Asks:
And why on earth would anyone want to swap out the monolith for some bearded old man? If Kubrick had truly wanted an elderly figurehead, he would have simply cast Brad Pitt and put him right in front of the lens. Instead, he chose the monolith. We aren't left with any definitive confirmation as to whether that object is actually the product of some higher intelligence influencing the course of humanity—much like a divine figure might—or if it is something else entirely.

I don't even need to go looking for a comparison to the Bible to see how much this mirrors those ancient stories.

I’m just saying—if Kubrick had cast some bearded old man in that role, wouldn't you have felt like you were watching the Ten Commandments?

When you really sit down and consider the monolith, you start to realize just how much philosophical depth is actually packed into there. Isn't it fascinating how a single object can trigger such profound contemplation?

If there really is some kind of intelligence lurking behind that monolith, you could probably infer it just from its shape—to paraphrase one massive cinematic masterpiece, nature doesn't exactly deal in straight lines. ☕The whole concept involves staging a sequence of events, starting with landing on the Moon and eventually moving toward Jupiter, all while broadcasting a radio signal directed straight at the gas giant.

brightpilot6 said:

ruggedjackal46 Asks:
And why on earth would anyone want to swap out the monolith for some bearded old man? If Kubrick had truly wanted an elderly figurehead, he would have simply cast Brad Pitt and put him right in front of the lens. Instead, he chose the monolith. We aren't left with any definitive confirmation as to whether that object is actually the product of some higher intelligence influencing the course of humanity—much like a divine figure might—or if it is something else entirely.

I don't even need to go looking for a comparison to the Bible to see how much this mirrors those ancient stories.

I’m just saying—if Kubrick had cast some bearded old man in that role, wouldn't you have felt like you were watching the Ten Commandments?

When you really sit down and consider the monolith, you start to realize just how much philosophical depth is actually packed into there. Isn't it fascinating how a single object can trigger such profound contemplation?

If there really is some kind of intelligence lurking behind that monolith, you could probably infer it just from its shape—to paraphrase one massive cinematic masterpiece, nature doesn't exactly deal in straight lines. ☕The whole concept involves staging a sequence of events, starting with landing on the Moon and eventually moving toward Jupiter, all while broadcasting a radio signal directed straight at the gas giant.

If Kubrick had put Roger's bunny in the Hala instead, we'd all think we were watching a cartoon. I really don't get why we're overanalyzing this stuff.

But that monolith brings up some incredible philosophical depths.

The idea that there's some kind of intelligence behind the monolith seems plausible just based on its shape (to paraphrase a certain famous movie, nature doesn't exactly work in straight lines☕), not to mention it being placed first on the Moon and then on Jupiter, accompanied by a radio signal pointing right at Jupiter.

I never viewed the monolith as something someone just armed, loaded onto a spacecraft, and installed somewhere. To me, the monolith is much more convincing as a symbol where neither the characters nor the audience can tell if it's a physical object or just a collective hallucination from a higher power. In that sense, it feels more like a product of perception.

ruggedjackal46 said:If Kubrick had put Roger's bunny in the Hala instead, we'd all think we were watching a cartoon. I really don't get why we're overanalyzing this stuff.

But that monolith brings up some incredible philosophical depths.

The idea that there's some kind of intelligence behind the monolith seems plausible just based on its shape (to paraphrase a certain famous movie, nature doesn't exactly work in straight lines☕), not to mention it being placed first on the Moon and then on Jupiter, accompanied by a radio signal pointing right at Jupiter.

I never viewed the monolith as something someone just armed, loaded onto a spacecraft, and installed somewhere. To me, the monolith is much more convincing as a symbol where neither the characters nor the audience can tell if it's a physical object or just a collective hallucination from a higher power. In that sense, it feels more like a product of perception.

I’d argue it’s definitely (i) a physical object. After all, the apes actually touch it, and it was discovered on the Moon via technical equipment, entirely independent of any human perception.

ruggedjackal46 said:If Kubrick had put Roger's bunny in the Hala instead, we'd all think we were watching a cartoon. I really don't get why we're overanalyzing this stuff.

But that monolith brings up some incredible philosophical depths.

The idea that there's some kind of intelligence behind the monolith seems plausible just based on its shape (to paraphrase a certain famous movie, nature doesn't exactly work in straight lines☕), not to mention it being placed first on the Moon and then on Jupiter, accompanied by a radio signal pointing right at Jupiter.

I never viewed the monolith as something someone just armed, loaded onto a spacecraft, and installed somewhere. To me, the monolith is much more convincing as a symbol where neither the characters nor the audience can tell if it's a physical object or just a collective hallucination from a higher power. In that sense, it feels more like a product of perception.

I have a feeling even that would have carried some profound, hidden meaning, wouldn't it? ☕

brightpilot6 said:I’d argue it’s definitely (i) a physical object. After all, the apes actually touch it, and it was discovered on the Moon via technical equipment, entirely independent of any human perception.

I have a feeling even that would have carried some profound, hidden meaning, wouldn't it? ☕

You’re taking a movie way too literally, when it’s pretty obvious you aren't supposed to take everything at face value all the time.

I’m certain there would be some deep meaning behind that, too. ☕

So, does any meaning found by anyone else just become an illusion simply because you don't see it?

ruggedjackal46 said:You’re taking a movie way too literally, when it’s pretty obvious you aren't supposed to take everything at face value all the time.

I’m certain there would be some deep meaning behind that, too. ☕

So, does any meaning found by anyone else just become an illusion simply because you don't see it?

How is it that I see nothing? I’ve clearly laid out my own perspective. Surely my interpretation holds as much weight as yours, doesn't it?

ruggedjackal46 said:You’re taking a movie way too literally, when it’s pretty obvious you aren't supposed to take everything at face value all the time.

I’m certain there would be some deep meaning behind that, too. ☕

So, does any meaning found by anyone else just become an illusion simply because you don't see it?

Fair point. I suppose the spaceship doesn't actually exist either, and the entire film is just some fever dream being had by that monkey who got hit with the ink at the start?

The Monolith is basically a multi-purpose tool from a super advanced civilization. I guess Clarke and Kubrick intentionally avoided showing that civilization or its inhabitants, maybe because they felt a black monolith with such a perfectly geometric shape would be enough to signal to us that it’s an artificial object. It seems like it's designed to stir up a mix of fear, awe, and curiosity.

brightpilot6 said:The whole Odyssey concept is just basic creationism at its core. There isn't much point in debating it further.

Sure, fine. These are the ultimate themes, aren't they? Is the survival of an entire species more important than your own life? Does the existence of future generations outweigh the lives lived by yours? Do you value one life shared with your family more than the hypothetical lives of people who haven't even been born yet?

If you think these ideas are so overdone, please, go ahead and give me some movie recommendations that tackle these subjects with actual depth, and I'll gladly watch them.

Quote:Thor says:
humanity's impact on life, blah blah.I suppose I didn't frame my point about "humanity's impact on life" clearly enough—what I was really getting at is the film's thesis that human agency is what truly shapes our reality, even when we convince ourselves it's the work of gods or mere coincidence. Isn't that a compelling thought?

Nah.

Yeah, whatever. These are basically the big questions. Is the life of an entire species more important than yours? Is the life of future generations better than what your generation’s got going? Does one life with your family matter more than the lives of people who haven't even been born yet?

Is the universe more important than your life? Or the life of a species? Or all species combined?

Is the universe the ultimate question?

how
What's so overdone about this? Give me some actual movies that deal with these themes and I'll check them out.

Individual vs. community? Look, at first glance, there's The Mist. It's nothing special. But there are tons of movies exploring that. These are universal themes. Just saying—I'm not against you, I'm just applying your logic to a movie you actually like. You trivialize it and then act like it's nothing.

I didn't explain "human impact on life" well enough—I meant the idea from the movie that human activity is what shapes our reality, even when it feels like gods or random chance are doing it. That's an interesting thought.

Human activity shapes reality just as much as the environment that triggers that activity. The Odyssey deals with those external forces too, which you're calling creationism, but that interpretation is baseless. The Odyssey shows the superiority of the universe, sure, but it doesn't show God.

Walter Grant5 said:Nah.

Yeah, whatever. These are basically the big questions. Is the life of an entire species more important than yours? Is the life of future generations better than what your generation’s got going? Does one life with your family matter more than the lives of people who haven't even been born yet?

Is the universe more important than your life? Or the life of a species? Or all species combined?

Is the universe the ultimate question?

how
What's so overdone about this? Give me some actual movies that deal with these themes and I'll check them out.

Individual vs. community? Look, at first glance, there's The Mist. It's nothing special. But there are tons of movies exploring that. These are universal themes. Just saying—I'm not against you, I'm just applying your logic to a movie you actually like. You trivialize it and then act like it's nothing.

I didn't explain "human impact on life" well enough—I meant the idea from the movie that human activity is what shapes our reality, even when it feels like gods or random chance are doing it. That's an interesting thought.

Human activity shapes reality just as much as the environment that triggers that activity. The Odyssey deals with those external forces too, which you're calling creationism, but that interpretation is baseless. The Odyssey shows the superiority of the universe, sure, but it doesn't show God.

It’s pretty widely accepted that it is.

The Monolith generates intelligence, the Monolith illuminates the path, and the Monolith elevates us to a higher plane.

There are actually three distinct roles here: 🙏🙏🙏

The first—the creator—is God, the second—the one who guides the way—is Jesus, and the third—the force that uplifts—is the Holy Spirit.