Posts by Walter Grant5

you know what the internal logic fails at?

it’s that whole setup where they present this modern world—where some guy in a bat suit acts like he’s some kind of authority—and they try to show us reality (like Bruce Wayne flying a private jet to Tokyo), but then all that real-world influence just evaporates the second the action hits Gotham. It’s basically just Chicago, right? But once those characters start tearing through the streets with high-tech gadgets, explosions, and all that crap, any trace of the modern world just vanishes. The cops, the military... everything "real" just disappears overnight once that little group starts messing around. The movie is stuck in a trap it built for itself.

brightpilot6 said:What exactly do you mean by that? That we're dealing with "cartoon characters"?

Is that where this "paradoxical logic" comes from?

So, are you suggesting one should view the film strictly as a standalone cinematic work, ignoring its comic book roots entirely, yet somehow still find fault with the fact that they are "cartoon characters"?

Look, the movie doesn't follow its own internal logic. It uses caricatures but tries to present them—and a non-realistic world—as if everything is grounded and real. Get it? In this day and age, calling someone a "cartoon character" is just describing their nature. I don't see them that way because they evolved from comics to video games, but because they're just caricatures at their core. Trying to force them into some modern social context is just plain stupid.

But I see where you're heading with this, Prika. What happened to you?

brightpilot6 said:I’m talking about cinema as its own entity here, rather than constantly measuring a film against its comic book source material or how strictly it adheres to the panels.

To be honest, ever since I finished Nolan’s trilogy, I just can't bring myself to watch the older Batman movies anymore.

By the way, what exactly is so illogical about *The Dark Knight*?

Look, I’m talking about the movie as a standalone piece of cinema. Because let's be real—even Burton’s Batman flicks didn't actually hold up to the source material.

Honestly, once you've seen Burton's second one, I just can't get into Nolan's Batman movies. Can't do it.

Pretty much what Rob says.

brightpilot6 said:Well, Nolan left it that way on purpose just so you could marvel at the sheer absurdity of life itself. I don't understand how people miss that; not everything is required to follow strict logic, is it?

So now we have someone looking for rigorous logic in a film adaptation of a superhero comic book. How about that.

I’m not looking for logic. Honestly, I actually dig it when cartoons are nonsensical. What really gets under my skin is when people try way too hard to make them "logical," only to end up pissing off the very crowd they're trying to impress. It’s exactly what Christopher Nolan keeps pulling—that constant, desperate grasping at being profound that just misses the mark.

If *The Dark Knight* wasn't trying to be a Batman movie, I might’ve actually liked it. It feels like they're trying to force this caricature through some "gritty realism" filter, which honestly just cheapens the whole concept. But hey, Nolan’s got that one specific blueprint he tries to jam into everything he touches. That formula just sucks the soul out of the story. The last time I felt any actual magic from him was *The Prestige*. Everything else lately? Just a desperate attempt at logic and realism that doesn't even work.

It’s actually a decent flick, if you consider how much of a complete train wreck the last installment in the series was.

Why would some logic-defying blockbuster even make it into a top 100 list

Jessica Gonzalez said:Moving right along:
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/201...s-the-old-ones
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/201...american-films

I guess I have to ask, where did "Interstellar" go? It seems to be missing from the list entirely.

That’s why Batman is the benchmark for relevance here. 🙄

I’m with Jessica Gonzalez on this one. The real issue is that there’s zero alternative to these massive blockbusters. Look, I don't have anything against those kinds of flicks personally—they might even hold up okay in their own niche—but man, they just choke out every other decent idea trying to get made. It sucks, but hey, it's all about the bottom line. Nothing we haven't seen before.

I honestly don't get these global internet trends. Like, people photoshopping every random stupid thing onto a picture of Pluto, or acting like Jared Leto being the Joker is some life-altering event—when he basically just shows up for three seconds in the trailer. Or how a two-minute Batman vs. Superman teaser becomes this massive global phenomenon overnight...

Emily Ward3 said:

🙏

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa 😂

Look, I think you're just bullshitting me about how much these questions were bothering you. It feels like you're just throwing out these points because you're desperate to justify why you hated the movie. You didn't like it, plain and simple, and you can't find any better way to say that than "it was slow and boring."

Look, isn't it freaking obvious that the Monolith represents some higher intelligence? And honestly, it doesn't matter which one. It’s about the motive. That's what's driving everything.

Asking about HAL? Give me a break. That trope is so old it probably wasn't even fresh back in the Odyssey.

brightpilot6 said:Is sarcasm really the most extreme reaction I could have to the answers you provided, especially considering you were the one who asked me to start asking questions in the first place?

Man, you just don't get how extreme your questions are.

Seriously, who built the monolith? Some higher power. It doesn't show. Does it matter? You might as well ask who created monkeys at the start of time.

What’s Hall’s role? You want to know what your question is actually doing? I'll tell you—it's a provocation. Hall's purpose in the movie is dead obvious. It's about AI development and the inevitable clash with humanity. That trope is so old it's practically prehistoric; honestly, it's embarrassing you're even asking.

You're either asking total nonsense or those "how did anything begin" type questions. Basically, you're asking things you don't deserve an answer to, or deep philosophical mysteries nobody has solved, then blaming the movie for not giving them to you. Your whole argument is built on nothing.

Cut the sarcasm.

brightpilot6 said:Who exactly is placing these monoliths?
How do they actually function?
Why do their agents provide us with a tiny nudge forward, only to wait millions of years for spontaneous evolution without any further intervention?
Did the influence apply only to those who physically touched them, or did it affect the entire population?
If it was the latter, why didn't it affect other living creatures?
And why wasn't a monolith found on Earth, but rather on the Moon instead?
What is the connection to the alignment with the Sun—or rather, the star (though perhaps it operates on solar energy)?
What role does HAL play in all of this?
Why did he malfunction?
Is the ultimate purpose of all these monoliths simply to lead us into some room where we live out our days until death?
What did that stay in the room do to the man that resulted in him being reborn as that celestial infant?
Why didn't they just use a monolith to create whatever it was they made for him?

My creationist theory involving the Bible actually provides me with the most coherent explanation, yet you all insisted that the movie has nothing to do with it.

So, I am speaking strictly about the film, the narrative, and the internal logic of the movie itself, not Clarke's novel.

And I don't believe that every film with unanswered questions is inherently bad. For the umpteenth time—I am talking about the cohesion of the story.

Who's actually out there building stuff in space? Seriously.

How do they actually work?

Just asking. Purely out of curiosity.

Why do their suppliers toss us a tiny little crumb of an incentive just to get the ball rolling, and then expect us to hit full speed through pure "spontaneous growth" without any more help? It’s a joke. Expecting massive progress after one small nudge is just bad business. Typical.

There’s zero proof anyone’s actually watching us. None. It’s just curiosity driving the whole thing.

Whatever. Why's it like this?Yeah, well, we're living that question right now.

Did it only hit the people who actually touched it, or was the whole damn country affected?
If that were actually true, why didn't it mess with anything else alive?
Why'd they put the monolith on the Moon instead of right here on Earth? Makes zero sense if you think about it too long. Just seems like a massive detour.
What’s the deal with this alignment with the Sun—or whatever star we're calling it today? I mean, fine, maybe it pulls some solar energy or whatever, but what's the actual point?

It was like hitting a guy who’s used an abacus his whole life with a Pentium 133. Total system shock. Overkill.
He was on Earth.

What's Hall's actual deal?

What’s even the point of acting, man? Seriously. It’s the same question we've been asking since we first started building fancy tech. What’s the actual role of a human being in all this?

Why'd things go south so fast?
So, what's the point of all these monoliths? We just trek through everything just to end up stuck in some room until we die? That's it?

Yeah. That’s exactly why we dig. We research until we drop dead, and after that? Who knows. Our experience tells us there's nothing left once you hit the limit.

What did that hotel stay do to him? Man, he came out of that room looking like some kind of alien baby from a sci-fi flick.

A baby is just symbolism.

Why didn't they just make whatever he's got out of a single monolith? Just one solid piece. Seems easier.

Look, we don't know what the Monolith actually is or what it can technically do. Honestly? Who cares. It doesn't matter. What matters is the way that thing messes with your head. That’s the only part worth watching.

My whole creationist theory using the Bible still feels like the best explanation to me, even if you guys keep insisting the Odyssey has nothing to do with it.

It doesn't. It just shows there's a higher intelligence at work.

And I don't think a movie is bad just because it leaves things unsaid. For the nth time—I'm talking about narrative cohesion.

But the story keeps going. A new life cycle. If it were some cheap thriller, my mom would be bugging me afterward asking what happened to the guy who killed her, or what happened to the kid...

Look, brightpilot6, let's break this down. What part of the Odyssey is actually confusing you?

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

...

?

brightpilot6 said:Nothing at all. I was simply meeting the argument on its own level. After all, what else can one say to "there are websites online" without descending into a series of endless, pointless essays?

The entire Eco section sums it up perfectly. To the fans, this is a masterpiece, and apparently, every single rule—or lack thereof—within the film serves only to prove its status as a masterpiece. Every interpretation reinforces its brilliance. Every plot hole is just more proof of its genius. Even every criticism is interpreted as further validation. Does the monolith only appear when celestial bodies align? A masterpiece. Doesn't show up at the start of the film? Clearly, there's a deeper meaning, making it a masterpiece. Do you claim it isn't a masterpiece? Then you must be a fool, and if a fool claims it isn't a masterpiece, then it surely must be one.

🙏🙏🙏

seems like you viewers spend way too much time building up this image of a movie in your heads

Hey brightpilot6, what’s this "it’s on some website" 🙏 nonsense? You actually think you're being clever with that one?

Man, watching this movie just makes you realize how much everyone's out here playing favorites and acting fake. Hilarious. 😂

Anyway, I'm with Alex Brown50 on this one.