Posts by ruggedjackal46

The Monolith is a higher principle—it’s the very essence of what makes football great, the driving force that elevates the game and fuels Barcelona's rise. Of course, a die-hard Real Madrid fan wouldn't be able to wrap their head around a concept that massive; to them, it probably just looks like some bearded old man, likely a fascist clutching a rifle.

brightpilot6 said: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?

You probably think you're seeing some old guy with a white beard just because you were binge-watching Lord of the Rings while having an Odyssey playing in the background.

brightpilot6 said: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?

A monkey who took a hit to the face is out here dreaming about wearing a white jersey.

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?

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.

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.

brightpilot6 said:Of course not. But when it comes to art, I’ve always preferred something that isn't just a mirror reflecting exactly what I put into it. I certainly have no interest in praising someone just because they shoved a mirror in my face and presented me with a particularly pretty reflection. If I want to contemplate myself, I don't need those kinds of prompts. I realize this is merely my own subjective expectation of what human creativity should be, and I understand others might feel differently. We actually had a similar debate once regarding figurative Balašević versus certain non-figurative types...

We move from these types of artistic works to finding ourselves admiring a fire extinguisher hanging on a gallery wall, sparking endless interpretations and theories—which is really just a tiny step in the grand scheme of things. When asking oneself whether such an object is pure nonsense or a genuine work of art, the answer usually hinges on a single, thin line: the consensus of mainstream opinion.

Thanks.

How would you describe it? It's a sort of "logical bifurcation." A film is either blindingly obvious or it's a Rorschach's blot. In reality, it sits somewhere in the middle—it constrains the number of possible interpretations without forcing a single one upon you. Ultimately, it boils down to what a person prefers: more or less interpretive freedom? That's purely a matter of taste. For instance, some people prefer very little wiggle room and maybe even subpar vocals, which is why they enjoy Balašević

Moving from these types of artistic works to admiring a fire extinguisher hanging on a gallery wall with endless theories swirling around it is just a tiny step. When asking oneself whether that extinguisher is pure nonsense or a legitimate work of art, the answer usually hinges on one thin line: the consensus of mainstream opinion.

Not every fire extinguisher on every wall is created equal, though. Duchamp's urinal in the museum was a massive deal because, up until then, the idea of a museum housing anything other than "high art" was almost unthinkable. The urinal was an original, gutsy provocation. Just because five hundred other artists have imitated the exact same stunt since then doesn't make Duchamp a clown, even if his act looks somewhat ridiculous looking back from our current historical vantage point.

brightpilot6 said:Not at all. If a film fails to resonate with me even after two viewings, then it’s a dead end for me.

I mean, I’m certainly open-minded—despite my insistence that someone actually explain why this is considered a masterpiece, especially given all the praise being heaped upon it here on Offside. But I simply don't buy these interpretations; they aren't just wrong, they feel fundamentally illogical, and you seem unable to defend them without leaning on empty, sweeping grandiosity.

But what exactly is transcendental about it? What does that kind of "journey" even mean in this context?

It's funny, really; when I ask you about the meaning of life, you tell me it's woven into every story.

If you want to find a solid interpretation of a film, you first have to accept the premise that the movie isn't just a Rorschach's blot, but rather a deliberate, conscious assembly of seemingly incompatible elements. From there, you ask: Why are we watching monkeys for forty-five minutes? Why the sudden jump to space? Why follow the journey of an astronaut and the hall? What's the significance of that bizarre sequence near the end? What does that damn monolith mean? Personally, I think there are logical answers to those questions, though I'm not claiming they are the definitive or only correct ones. They certainly aren't arbitrary.

Zinedine Zidane said:I get the feeling you're all just piling on vague clichés to give this movie some unearned weight. It’s so nebulous that you could claim it’s about anything. Sure, it’s about human ignorance regarding space, or the meaning of life, or the infinite expanse of time, or how time stretches through the cosmos, or maybe it's a symbol for some transcendental journey, etc., etc.

Honestly? My take is that you've just stumbled upon a film that's so cryptic it's easier to dismiss than actually interpret. And now you're expecting us to do the heavy lifting for you—to spoon-feed you every single layer of meaning just so you can finally admit, "Yeah, the movie was alright ☕ "

brightpilot6 said:I never actually suggested that a film ought to pose unprecedented questions or provide definitive answers. My point is simply this: treating the Odyssey as if it possesses some profound, heavy philosophical or intellectual foundation is, quite frankly, rather comical.

ruggedjackal46 As if anyone could have predicted this would happen, right?
So, you've already decided that this is nothing more than a Rorschachian inkblot where every interpretation is just a matter of personal whim, and you're calling it a day?

But isn't it obvious? What exactly is indisputable about the film? First, there's the fact that the primates weren't using tools until that monolith made its appearance. Then we have the discovery of the monolith buried on the Moon, which proceeds to broadcast a radio signal toward Jupiter. There is also the matter of the man who reached Jupiter only to be sucked into some kind of chamber where he lived out his remaining days. And finally, we arrive back at Earth with a celestial infant emerging from a soap bubble.

All this talk you’re indulging in—this deep dive into philosophy and the concept of distance—it all seems to be uniquely yours, doesn't it? Interpretations. Is there ever truly a single way to view things, or are we all just staring at our own versions of reality?That moment in the film. Nothing..

ruggedjackal46 As if we haven't heard this all before.
The only thing that would truly satisfy you is if Kubrick himself stepped in front of the camera during the credits to explain exactly what the film meant. Or perhaps if there were a supporting character—some Black scientist—who simply stood there vocalizing every single dilemma the movie was trying to explore.

Of course not. It’s a logical bifurcation, isn't it? A film either has to be an Odyssey built on four solid facts and absolutely nothing else, or we’re forced to endure a narrator who treats us like idiots by guiding our every move.

Take my suggestion merely as a mental exercise, one designed to reveal how much you’ve projected your own perceptions onto a Kubrick film. If you hadn't already assumed that the ceiling above us was some kind of limit rather than the infinite expanse of space, would those long, sweeping shots truly carry the weight you claim they do? Without that underlying bias, could Kubrick have ever presented them with such profound meaning?

It’s much the same if you look at it from the other direction; if you happen to find space inherently dull, then you might conclude that those drawn-out, lingering scenes favored by Kubrick were his way of telling you just how tedious the cosmos really is. And honestly, you wouldn't be wrong. That’s precisely my point.

My argument is this: the film is original because it uses cinematic language to make me actually *feel* the relativity of time and how insignificant we are compared to the cosmos. Sure, those are established scientific facts, but the film is what nudged me to sit there and contemplate them. That’s the actual philosophical contribution of a feature film—not providing a lecture on evolution. If you want answers to that, go watch a documentary.

But isn't it? What's actually indisputable in the movie? 1. Monkeys didn't start using tools until the monolith showed up. 2. Humans found a buried monolith on the Moon that sends radio signals to Jupiter. 3. The guy who reaches Jupiter gets sucked into some room where he lives out his days. 4. It ends with a baby appearing on Earth inside a giant soap bubble.

Everything else you're bringing up—philosophy, themes of distance—that's all just your interpretation. None of that is actually in the film itself.

First off, interpreting a film is what every single viewer does. A movie that leaves zero room for personal interpretation is about as useful as a Rorschach test.

Second, by obsessing over the "undeniable" plot points, you're ignoring everything else. For starters, why were those specific events even shown? Why that specific sequence? Why that pacing? Why spend 45 minutes with apes only to jump straight into the future mid-shot? Why follow the astronauts through the Arena?

Of course, we could just take the easy way out and decide that Kubrick just threw it all together randomly, that it's just a Rorschach blot, and that any attempt to find meaning is merely "subjective opinion." But that's a pretty lazy way to look at it, don't you think?

Just look at my suggestion as a mental exercise to show you that you're just projecting your own knowledge onto Kubrick's work. If you didn't know better—if you thought there was just a painted ceiling above us instead of space—you wouldn't assign those meanings to those long shots. Kubrick wouldn't have been able to "show" it to you that way.

It works both ways, too. If you thought space was boring, you'd conclude those long scenes were Kubrick's way of telling you how dull the universe is. And you'd be just as right. That's my point.

So, what, should Kubrick have made a movie explicitly explaining that there's space above us rather than a painted ceiling?

That second conclusion is perfectly valid. The version of space Kubrick depicts will definitely be boring to some people, just as space is inherently boring to others.

brightpilot6 said:

ruggedjackal46 As if anyone actually expected anything different?
We could certainly apply that logic to other classics, but the impact of *Odyssey* on the evolution of science fiction is almost impossible to deny. There was nothing even remotely comparable to *Odyssey* before its release, yet in the fifty years since, we’ve seen an endless succession of films echoing its specific themes and aesthetic style. Do you honestly believe this is just some bizarre, one-in-a-million coincidence?

I’ve always maintained that the common threads linking an Odyssey like Interstellar to other sci-fi films of a similar vein aren't born from mere imitation. Rather, they are driven by actual scientific breakthroughs and those deep-seated philosophical dilemmas that have haunted humanity since we first looked up at the stars. It isn't as if Interstellar invented the concept of us living in space, nor did it conjure the vastness of spacetime or the eternal question of whether we are truly alone in the universe. Those realities exist independently of any screenplay.

It feels almost redundant to point out that every single action movie featuring car chases is essentially just copying the very first one, simply because they all depict vehicles on four wheels chasing each other down a street, much like the original did. Wouldn't it be more interesting if they occasionally experimented with three-wheeled vehicles instead?

I’m not even attempting to argue that this film holds a specific landmark position in cinematic history, nor am I suggesting that Interstellar needs to claim some sort of permanent throne in the canon. My focus is on the film as a cohesive whole—its structural integrity, its underlying themes, and the way it all fits together. Beyond that, isn't there something inherently absurd about how that supposed "objective" status, usually granted simply because a movie was released first, manages to exert such a heavy influence over the countless subjective interpretations people hold?

ruggedjackal46 As if anyone actually expected anything different?
A feature film shouldn't just be some *Fifth Day* scenario where one character sparks a discussion and then a bunch of intellectuals spend two hours debating while stars drift aimlessly across the background.

No one is under any obligation to say anything at all. But I find myself circling back to the same question: what are the actual philosophical inquiries posed by *Odyssey*, the ones that truly make a person ache for an answer? Simply stating that the universe is vast and shrouded in mystery isn't a philosophical inquiry, nor is it an invention of *Odyssey*; those are just facts we already know.

What exactly are we in this vast expanse of space? What truly constitutes the fabric of time and space? And how can our poor, limited minds even begin to grasp such an infinite, overwhelming void?

Are those just your own well-intentioned interpretations of that Rorschachian image?

What exactly are we in this vast universe? If you look at it objectively, we are beings of a lower intelligence. There isn't much room for debate there; we receive a definitive answer right from the very start, and within the context of the film itself, that question isn't even up for discussion.

What exactly are space and time? And who is actually asking those questions within the movie? Neither space nor time plays any meaningful role in the narrative, yet we find ourselves assigning them significance or attempting to ponder their nature. Furthermore, if you were to approach this film from the perspective of someone without any scientific background, would you instinctively draw conclusions about vast spatial or temporal expanses simply because of a few long sequences? Of course you wouldn't. You enter the theater with a set of preconceived notions, and you merely project that existing knowledge onto the white screen presented to you. Then, you sit there admiring the director for how beautifully they captured the concept, when in reality, you were the one who provided the meaning in the first place. Lol.

How can our poor, limited minds even begin to perceive such an infinite void? What infinity are we talking about, anyway? Is it the one you already know exists, despite the fact that the film never once mentions it? 🤷

Sure, there’s no denying the scientific breakthroughs involved, but let's not forget they basically invented the modern film strip as we know it. Before that, nobody in Hollywood had even dreamed of touching sci-fi on that level. It makes you wonder, though—would anyone have ever even attempted it? For the longest time, both in literature and cinema, sci-fi was treated like this "lesser" genre, just a playground for cookie-cutter plots rather than a legitimate space for cinematic experimentation or asking actual, deep questions.

Look, I’m not even trying to make a statement about its place in cinematic history, nor am I suggesting that Interstellar needs to be ranked alongside the all-time greats. We’re just talking about the film as a standalone piece—its cohesion, the core messages it's pushing, and all that good stuff.

A film doesn't exist in a vacuum. It’s deeply tied to its own social context and the cinematic landscape it was born into. Because of that, you can't really tackle those big thematic questions without looking at the immediate surroundings—basically, the history behind it all.

Look, nobody is being forced to say anything here. But I’m asking you again—what actual philosophical questions does *Odyssey* pose that would make someone actually want to know the answer? Saying the universe is mysterious and massive isn't a philosophical inquiry; it's just a fact, and *Odyssey* didn't exactly invent that concept.

Do you honestly believe a feature film needs to pose entirely unprecedented questions just to deliver some kind of groundbreaking, verified answers? It feels like a bit of a stretch, doesn't it?

So, those are just your good-natured interpretations of that Rorschachian image.

So, you’ve already decided this is just some Rorschachian inkblot where every interpretation is basically whatever you want it to be, and that's that. End of story. I suppose the only way you'd actually be satisfied is if Kubrick himself popped up on screen during the credits to read us the "correct" meanings. Or maybe if the movie featured some side character—a Black scientist, perhaps—who just stands there narrating all the philosophical dilemmas out loud so we don't have to think for ourselves.

What exactly are we doing in this vast universe? Honestly, if you ask me, we’re just lower-intelligence beings floating through the void. There’s no debate there. You get that answer right out of the gate, and within the context of the film itself, the question isn't even up for discussion. It's funny, really—how people try to argue against that "objective" reality just because they saw the movie first. As if being an early viewer somehow gives you a claim to a different truth. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

What even are space and time? Who’s actually asking those questions during a movie? Neither space nor time play any meaningful role in this film, yet we act like they’re central themes worth pondering. Look, if you put yourself in the shoes of someone without a background in science—would you suddenly conclude there are massive spatial or temporal dimensions just because of a few long shots? Of course not. You walk into a theater already carrying your own set of assumptions, and you simply project them onto the screen. Then, you sit there marveling at how "brilliantly" the director captured the concept, when really, you just assigned the meaning to it yourself. Lol.

How is our poor little brain supposed to perceive an infinity like that? What infinity, though? The one you *know* exists, even though the movie doesn't say a single word about it? 🤷

Why on earth would I bother pretending to be someone without scientific knowledge? What does any SF-esque film even mean to someone who lacks that foundation?

You want to know who the viewers without background knowledge are? They’re the ones who ran out of the theater during "Arrival of a Train." Why should every single movie be catered to them?

brightpilot6 said:Everything you’re laying out feels like an interpretation born from a well-meaning but perhaps overly intense scrutiny of the film—the kind of scrutiny that tends to be forced in discussions simply because we're dealing with Kubrick and a supposed masterpiece. It seems that once a movie is placed on that pedestal of classic status, every subsequent film that shares even a microscopic DNA strand with it is accused of "owing" something to the original or being "built upon" its foundation.

Meanwhile, modern films are scrutinized under a microscope for the tiniest perceived flaws. We aren't using the same yardstick anymore, and that shift seems to stem primarily from dogmatic biases.

Furthermore, what specific philosophical inquiries does Odyssey actually tackle? By "tackle," I mean presenting a core dilemma essential to the plot or our understanding of the film, while providing arguments for various resolutions. What philosophical question could you possibly debate with someone who has seen the film, within the context of the story itself? Is it a choice between spontaneous evolution or creationism? That tension isn't in the film; the pivotal moment of development clearly stems from an external influence. Is HAL an AI entity or not? The film gives us a fairly clear indication that it is, yet the question remains moot because the thread isn't vital to the narrative, nor is it relevant to us since AI doesn't exist in this capacity.

And really, how does the style of Interstellar align with the style of Odyssey? What exactly does Interstellar "owe" to Odyssey?

In the end, I should clarify—my point was mainly directed at the way people pick apart the logic and the narrative of Interstellar, using Odyssey as a supposedly valid counterexample. To me, that seems quite incredible.

We could probably apply that logic to a handful of other classics, but honestly, trying to deny the impact *2001: A Space Odyssey* had on everything that followed in the sci-fi genre is just fighting a losing battle. Before it came along, there wasn't anything even remotely close to its scale or vision. Since then, we've spent nearly fifty years watching a steady stream of films cycle through those exact same themes and that specific aesthetic. You really think it’s just some bizarre coincidence?

Meanwhile, we’ve reached this point where people are nitpicking modern movies over the tiniest, most insignificant details. It’s like they’re looking for a flaw that isn't even there. Honestly, you can't even use the same yardstick to measure them anymore—mostly because everyone is too busy being dogmatic about their specific tastes. Why does everything have to be such a debate?

Yeah, exactly. You have to look at it through two different lenses: one focuses on the film's objective influence on everything that came after it, while the other deals with its subjective impact—how much it actually hits you personally when you're sitting there watching it.

If we’re talking about historical significance, we probably shouldn't try to weigh in for at least another fifty years. We'll need that kind of time to truly decide if Nolan's *Interstellar* actually holds any weight compared to Kubrick's *Odyssey*, though personally, I’d say the odds of that being a "no" are sitting at about 1.000001.

When you start talking about personal impressions, you’re playing by a completely different set of rules. It's all subjective at that point. You can argue whether an Odyssey feels totally pointless or boring these days, while claiming Interstellar is an absolute masterpiece.

I honestly think it’s a pretty flawed way to look at things—this idea that two movies need to be identical in impact. Just because a film was revolutionary or changed the game fifty years ago doesn't mean it has to hit everyone with that same level of intensity today. Why should it? Context changes, audiences change, and what felt like a massive shift back then might just feel like standard fare now. Is it really fair to hold modern cinema to a yardstick that was calibrated half a century ago? Not really, if you ask me.

And following that thought, what kind of philosophical heavy lifting is *Odyssey* actually doing here? By "doing," I mean specifically how it presents a core dilemma as essential to the plot or to truly grasping the film, while laying out the arguments for and against the various ways one might answer that question.

A feature film isn't "Fifth Day," where one character kicks off a topic and then a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals just debate it for two hours while stars twinkle aimlessly in the background.

Personally, I found it pretty striking how Kubrick managed to make the relativity of time—and just how much we’re all at its mercy—feel so tangible. He does it through that deliberate, slow pacing, those jarring temporal jumps, and those "out of time" sequences toward the end. It really hits you. Secondly, I loved the way he built up this sense of cosmic mystery through the monolith. It never offers a neat little resolution, mostly because the secret is something that sits far beyond the grasp of even the most brilliant human mind. You see that clearly in the finale; instead of some triumphant moment where reason conquers nature, it ends in this chaotic, yet somehow non-random sequence. It serves as a blunt reminder of how utterly useless our perceptions of space and time actually are. We think we understand the rules, but we don't. It leaves you staring at the screen wondering: what are we even doing in this universe? What actually *are* space and time? And how is our poor, limited minds supposed to wrap itself around an infinity like that?

All these tangled messes of physics and philosophy... honestly, as a layman, I don’t think I could wrap my head around them just by sitting through some academic lecture. But Kubrick? He managed to bridge that gap using pure cinematic language. He didn't rely on cheap sentimentality or having some side character deliver a heavy-handed monologue like they did in Interstellar. Instead, he let the imagery, the soundscapes, and the sheer rhythm of the film do all the heavy lifting.

So, how exactly does the vibe of Interstellar align with the Odyssey? What does Interstellar actually "owe" to the Odyssey?

It’s primarily about treating sci-fi as a legitimate genre for exploring the limits of human potential and treating space as this vast, unreachable mystery—plus, there are obvious visual nods. That’s basically the standard Kubrick set, which is why we accept a Nolan-esque film as "standard" sci-fi in the first place.

The problem is that Nolan's film isn't actually original; visually, it's pretty uninspired, and the resolution is just silly. I mean, Captain McConaughey somehow solves all the mysteries of the universe because... family love is the mysterious energy guiding everything? Really?

brightpilot6 said:Following that recent debate about Interstellar—specifically those arguments regarding "head and tail" structures versus the "superior storytelling" found in other films—I felt somewhat compelled to revisit Kubrick’s Odyssey. My god 🤦

It seems to consist of ten static shots lasting five minutes each, serving absolutely no purpose because there isn't a single thing to actually process; the "plot" is frustratingly vague, filled with such murky details and loose ends that trying to dissect the film's logic feels entirely futile, not to mention that not a single character possesses any depth beyond being paper-thin, with motivations either non-existent or left completely unexplained.

Aliens leave behind monoliths that supposedly help amoebas evolve into cats. Or maybe they don't. Wow.

It is just a classic case of "the emperor has no clothes," a Rorschachian image of a film where a simple pipe against a white wall becomes the subject of novellas written by wannabe connoisseurs. After all, it's Kubrick, so one assumes they won't look foolish for suggesting it isn't a masterpiece. Of course, Kubrick anticipated all these debates and carefully planted the triggers for them, yet directors of Interstellar and similar flicks don't spend even a second considering the things we are actually discussing here.

Look, the issue with "canonical" films is that they were unique in their own era and influenced a massive wave of subsequent movies. So, when you watch them fifty years later, you can't really see what made them original anymore.

That Kubrick film came out in 1968, and it was the first big-budget sci-fi that wasn't just a mindless blend of action and horror; instead, it tackled higher philosophical questions. I suspect the length, the pacing, and the ambiguity were intentional choices meant to break away from the dominant sci-fi trends of the time—a way of signaling that space isn't some neon action circus, but an vast, incomprehensible void.

By defying convention, that slow pace demonstrates just how long it takes for humans to make any meaningful move in space. Those sudden temporal jumps—like the one with the bone on the spacecraft—show just how minor our sense of time is within the cosmos. It’s not accidental.

We can compare it to Interstellar all day, but without Kubrick, the works of Nolan and that whole constellation of filmmakers wouldn't even exist. Interstellar was built on the themes and style established by Kubrick.

Sure, someone will argue that truly great films stay fresh even fifty years later, but I beg to differ. If we’ve already watched fifty movies heavily influenced by Odyssey before finally sitting down to watch Odyssey itself, then obviously Kubrick is going to feel derivative. People don't watch movies chronologically, nor should they have to. That’s why you shouldn't equate a film's historical significance with its impact on an individual viewer.

Mad Max is a killer action flick that, when it comes to pure imagination and how they stage those stunts, could honestly put most other Hollywood blockbusters to shame.

As far as the actual plot or any kind of deeper meaning goes? Zero points.

Pride parades are fine and all, but if that unnatural pride ever rolls into my town... 🤮

Alright, so the Zidane-esque birthday celebrations are officially over, which means it's finally time to move on to what actually matters:

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, LEO!

bluebison47 said:🤣🤣🤣

@ZZ, happy, happy! 👋

Oh, so who exactly is fourteen years old here? 🎉

Raymond Harris4 said:When I used the word "outburst," I was referring to that entire orchestrated display led by Zoran Milanović’s speech. He basically weaponized the moment for his own political vendettas instead of simply showing respect to the victims. And don't even get me started on the atmosphere—it was so toxic it actually led to people booing Lustig. By the way, Lustig doesn't even have a seat at the table with the HNK leadership because his views clash so heavily with their top brass.

Regarding the links, you only need to look at the last forty-eight hours to see the sheer hysteria in those two interviews—Stjepan Mason and Zoran Pusić—where they are openly discussing the return of fascism. I don't even need to go any further than that.

Personally, I think the root cause of this division is pretty clear: a certain segment of the "left" uses anti-fascism merely as a convenient shield to justify communist dictatorships, totalitarianism, and all those historical atrocities. It’s a smokescreen. The Constitution defines this nation not just as one built on anti-fascist principles, but also on the explicit rejection of communism—a concept that this particular wing of the political spectrum seems fundamentally incapable of grasping. The same goes for their bizarre attitude toward the last war. Those two issues are the primary architects of this divide. As for the so-called NDH? There isn't even a debate there because no one with any actual relevance ever mentions it in a positive light.

And because of all that, I truly believe there's a real danger in people trying to defend Marshall's dictatorship. By doing so, they’re unfortunately pushing the positive aspects of the NOB into the background.

brightpilot6 As specified by:
This is hands down the worst government we have ever seen. Period.

Based on the economic indicators I’ve laid out—specifically regarding GDP fluctuations—we are looking at the absolute worst performance across the board. These aren't just opinions; they are indisputable, hard facts.

On the other hand, just so it doesn't look like I'm only out here airing grievances about the current Government, there are exceptions. Take the Prime Minister’s visit to Mostar last year, for instance. During that trip, he defended the interests of the Americans living there more fiercely and decisively than any other administration has since 1999.

I can't even begin to process this level of sheer incompetence. It's absolutely staggering. [Username] says:
Raymond Harris4 claims this is about forcing Cyrillic on us. Give me a break. The Republican Party actually voted in favor of bilingualism in Congress and the El Paso Council, only to turn around and schizophrenically support protests against that very same decision while the Democratic Party was in power.

I have no idea how any of this you're bringing up is actually contradictory to what I said... How else are you supposed to describe this entire situation other than "aggressive imposition"?

Look, the facts remain unchanged: Cyrillic was never actually authorized by the city charter. Those signs weren't anywhere to be found around town until the Democratic Party took power. End of story.

Look, it’s simple: if introducing Cyrillic in El Paso messes with international relations, then don't do it. Period. Or does it still not click for some people why there hasn't been an outcry in ANY other area where Cyrillic was implemented (under both previous and current administrations)? Because a hundred other things were handled poorly in El Paso, the backlash was entirely predictable. Therefore, pushing through the Cyrillic signage was nothing more than intentionally provoking tension and division.

The Government was explicitly warned that the census data in El Paso was controversial and required a full audit. They turned a deaf ear.

Then came the protests and petitions, during which they were cautioned once again: do not introduce Cyrillic, as it will spark division and conflict. Again, they ignored it.

So, they went ahead with the signs. Divisions erupted, conflicts broke out, and massive dissatisfaction followed, proving that this implementation failed to meet the requirements of Article 8. The Government simply chose to ignore it.

When citizens gathered signatures to raise the threshold for mandatory bilingualism to 50%, the authorities decided to change the Constitution just to block such a referendum from happening.

Bottom line: the Government has taken full responsibility for the introduction of Cyrillic upon themselves.

According to the law—the one the Republican Party actually voted for, mind you—bilingual signage gets rolled out automatically whenever a minority group makes up about a third of the population. It's pretty straightforward, really. You'd think they'd make the process less of a headache, but here we are.

During the Democratic Party’s term, they conducted a census, and the data clearly showed that there are more Mexicans living in El Paso than the official borders originally suggested. Because of that, the memorial plaques were automatically installed. Honestly, if this census had been carried out during a Republican Party administration, those plaques would have gone up just the same. Does it really matter which party is holding the pen when the numbers don't lie?

That’s just how a functional country works—you have laws, and you follow them. The Government doesn't get a free pass to ignore the law just because they claim following it would lead to "division and conflict." If they want a change, they can go through the proper channels to amend it. As for that ridiculous referendum they were pushing—the one that suggested granting more rights to a minority group only if they somehow managed to become a majority (50% of the population)? Honestly, thank God it never happened. If it had actually gone through, it would have absolutely screwed over all the other minority groups in America.

wiredfalcon2 said:Rich and poor mean different things depending on where you are, even within the same country. Obviously, being broke in some swampy backwater where you're walking through water ten miles just to get anywhere isn't the same as being poor in America, where "poor" usually means someone who at least owns their own place (or at least the family owns it). But here's the real kicker. The rich exploit the poor and they'll do anything to make sure the little guy doesn't threaten their spot. They network, they lean on the government apparatus, they grab tax breaks, they control the media—all that jazz. It doesn't matter if they're pulling in $3.25 or 10 billion dollars, it's all the same game.

Look at what happened in America—you've got a Treasury Secretary threatening to "release names" of people who took illegal bank loans;

Can you believe the absurdity? There shouldn't be any "releasing names" or threats involved. Those people, along with the bank executives who approved those loans, should have been behind bars with their assets seized days ago. But they aren't. Because they're the rich ones. We're the poor ones, stuck playing by rules cooked up by those exact same elites (the well-connected power players).

Exactly. And they can pull it off much more effectively because financial dependency makes organization easier and far more efficient. Still, that doesn't mean they win every single time.🙂

Larry Fox5 said:The real question is what percentage of the population actually has access to information. A hundred years ago, you’d have some priest in a tiny rural town who was basically the only person capable of reading... and you're sitting here obsessing over specific years just to try and force an argument—even though you know damn well that easy access to info is exactly what triggered this whole different level of progress...

Yeah, kids at +6 and those older folks hitting +50. It’d be pretty interesting to see what the percentage looks like for the +15 to +40 crowd... Honestly, the whole "wealthy part of the world" thing only matters if you look at it globally—but even then, it's kind of a moot point because there are still so many hungry people on this planet today, so how can you even expect them to have internet access?

Nah, we can't do that—but honestly, it doesn't even mean human consciousness evolves in a straight line just because geniuses pop up every now and then...

I’ll be a little bit petty here and point out that there is still one educated individual with full access to modern info who insists that entire ancient civilizations were just "bare survival" and that illiteracy reigned supreme until the Literacy 1950 Quote. It doesn't matter if you give people information if they can't reach it. And the truth is, they can't.

Sure, you've got kids up to age six and then folks in their late fifties. It would be fascinating to see the actual percentage of the population sitting in that +15 to +40 demographic. Talking about the "wealthy part of the world" only makes sense if you look at it from a global perspective, but even then, it feels a bit pointless because there are still a massive number of people globally facing hunger—how can you expect them to care about high-speed internet?

I’m not talking about generational gaps; I’m talking about economic ones. The issue isn't some grandfather who doesn't know how to use a mouse; it's the people who are struggling to eat, who certainly aren't going to drop cash every month just to get online. And these "hungry" populations aren't just tucked away in Africa; they are everywhere. Even in downtown Los Angeles, you'll find people who don't even have floorboards under their feet.

Then there's the second issue: how the people who *do* have internet actually use it. If you ask me, Facebook hasn't done much to actually educate or inform anyone.

Larry Fox5 said:For the first 8,000 years, it was all about basic survival—social awareness evolved at a snail's pace—and for the next 1,950 years, literacy was reserved for a tiny elite, and not even because they were smart, just because they had the cash.
Now, in this digital age, people actually have diverse interests because information is everywhere, which obviously speeds up how fast our collective consciousness evolves.

Just look at American football... or soccer, whatever. Fifty years ago, you were lucky if you could catch a game on some grainy radio broadcast where the whole vibe depended on some guy like Blazick. Today? You’re watching with 50 different camera angles, picking your own audio, and rewatching clips whenever you want... it's a totally different world.

Ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, Sumer, ancient Asia... Pure existence? Really?

And for the next 1,950 years, literacy was reserved for a select few—not based on talent, mind you, but strictly on who had the money.

Wait, did Gutenberg invent the printing press in 1950?

In today's digital age, people have such diverse interests and instant access to information, which surely accelerates the evolution of consciousness.

The digital era definitely impacts consciousness, though maybe not just in terms of "advancement." Besides, the "digital age" is largely limited to the wealthy part of the world. In America, for instance, you still have huge swaths of the population that aren't regularly online.

Just look at our sports. Fifty years ago, if you were lucky, you might catch a game over some grainy radio broadcast where a commentator's voice was doing all the heavy lifting. Today, you watch with fifty different camera angles, pick your own audio, and replay it whenever you want.

That’s true. But even so, can we honestly say that today's top coaches are miles ahead of legends like Rinus Michels or Tomislav Ivić?

Larry Fox5 said:Of course it's an illusion. Maybe you had rigid ideologies and actual ideological divides fifty years ago, but today? That stuff is basically just folklore. People have become way too "complex" to be shoved into a single little box—plus, political parties actually adapt to the era they live in, where things aren't just black and white anymore.

Just look at a recent example—that Mayor in Hamburg who served three terms while being a member of the Republican Party, despite being gay. Fifty years ago, that would’ve been unthinkable, but that's just reality now.

Politics evolves with the world it lives in; it doesn't survive on the past. People care about their own survival, their quality of life, and what kind of future they're leaving for their kids—so that's where the political battles are actually fought.

Honestly, it's weird seeing you fall for such shallow, populist nonsense... especially since based on your other posts, I thought you actually had the capacity to think for yourself.

So, what you're saying is people were shallow for 10,000 years and parties were rigid, but suddenly in the last 50 years, everyone became "nuanced" and perfectly in sync with the times?