Posts by Walter Grant5

brightpilot6 said: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.

To people who don't know what "common knowledge" even means—or just the trolls—it isn't.

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.

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:You talk about this "transcendental journey," but I’m sitting here wondering what that actually entails. I assume you mean some sort of path toward enlightenment, but since you keep using terms like "transcendental trip," I have to ask for clarification. Then you claim it’s a "transcendental tripping trance." What exactly is transcendent about it? What is this supposed realization you're chasing? You just tell me that man's perception of the universe is abstract, mentioning meta-systems and other nonsense.

For God's sake, 🤣

You just throw out these massive words and then try to "explain" them by layering even more massive words on top.

The truth is, you just don't know how to articulate your own thoughts.

And let's be honest—you ruin the experience of art by insisting that others need to understand it through your lens of meta-systems, transcendentals, and oxymorons, where a movie is simultaneously a story about a man in space and some non-human-like adventure. It’s funny, really; an average person could probably describe the essence of a feeling better than you can describe why a standard movie works for you.

Just a fire extinguisher on the wall.

He realized the unknowability of the universe. At the end of the day, definitions are so stupidly simple that we can only rely on axioms. That's basically what I said in my first few posts on this thread. People love precise terms. They use them to explain how things and the world work. When they run into an experience like this movie, they want to be told that A + B = C. But that's not how it works. Realization happens in simple stages of deduction, but once you go deeper looking for precision, the effect becomes increasingly contradictory.

Cut the jargon. The movie barely uses any. It's like you think concepts don't exist unless there's a word for them.

By "non-human-like adventures," I meant the kind of stories our planet tells, which in modern times just get moved into space. Stuff like Star Wars or Star Trail. This isn't that kind of movie.

You say I can't verbalize what I'm thinking? You know what? You're right. If I could verbalize it, the movie would be a total failure. You can't verbalize this movie either, but for a different reason: you'd want to explain it using every mathematical formula available, but if you actually could, the movie wouldn't make sense anymore. The universe would just look ridiculous and overly simplistic.

Are you seriously not fascinated by how much of a baby a human looks like compared to the universe? In those proportions, despite all our progress, we aren't even a toy car on a highway.

And yeah, don't try to verbalize the experience. Just experience it. Language follows thought. It doesn't work the other way around.

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.

It's what you clearly don't want to accept. Space is abstract. You're looking for straight answers, like it's some cheap whodunit thriller where everything needs a neat little bow. This is about how humans actually grasp the cosmos after all our progress and bullshit adventures. Whatever.

So, I'm asking you about the meaning of life, and you say it's woven into every story.

You called the movie blurry. I’m saying it’s only blurry in certain spots, but those parts tie together in that trance scene. Of course it doesn't give up all its secrets. The concept itself isn't vague—only the details are.

I don't get you, brightpilot6. People will literally vape just to feel something, getting high on these hyper-complex systems wrapped in flashy presentations, yet when they see a movie that perfectly captures the entire meta-system—the system of all systems—the reaction is just... meh?

You know what I have to say to that? Meh.

The concept is pretty straightforward: A SPACE ODYSSEY. It’s about man in relation to the cosmos, human perception within cosmic frameworks (if I can even find a better way to say that without sounding weird). Just because space itself isn't "clear" doesn't mean the director failed. The vision is baked right into the sense of adventure; the rest is just pure fascination. Total mind-blow. There aren't any hand-holding directions leading to specific conclusions. That's the damn beauty of it. The movie is shot so that the subject itself—space—is so massive it defies any single directorial signature. This is the only film about space and life that actually communicates with the viewer this way. Everything else is just some fancy little human drama set against a sci-fi backdrop. Those other movies? Their version of space is basic as hell.

That transcendental journey stuff? That’s just part of the three-legged trance.

The meaning of life is woven into every single story. It isn't some question this movie tries to answer—that's a universal question forced upon us just by existing.

The film doesn't hand you any conclusions on those deep topics. And honestly, why would it?

brightpilot6 said:I think you're looking at the relationship between literature and film through a rather one-sided lens. From my perspective, wouldn't one argue that it's actually intellectually lazier to consume pre-packaged images and sounds than it is to construct your own mental imagery based on nothing but written words?

And I don't believe you're quite right in assuming that the written word must always produce decisive, crystal-clear imagery.

Look, I don't think it's a hard rule, but people have become conditioned to have everything pointed out to them. They can't handle watching slow shots and trying to connect audio to visuals on their own—they need a narrator to hold their hand. People actually have the capacity to get it; they're just lazy.

You can't say that, because I'm not even bashing books as a medium. I'm saying books give you this layer of specific concepts woven into sentences that really let your imagination run wild. A movie gives you a clearer picture, sure, but that doesn't mean it kills the interpretation. If someone finds it "shallow," that's on them.

Look, aside from the whole transcendental journey bit and the meaning of life, nothing else is actually confusing. And those abstract existential questions? You shouldn't even be looking for answers there. If we actually knew, we wouldn't be here. Everything else just boils down to how humans aren't the center of the universe, despite what we want to believe. A good question is what drives all progress. The monolith is a great question. The movie itself is a monolith to the viewer.

The whole "issue" with an Odyssey like this is how much people obsess over technicalities and jargon. Modern folks can't connect to anything without a glossary or some fancy terminology. They won't grasp a concept, won't remember a thing, won't feel anything unless there's a label attached. Honestly? They get it, they just too lazy to actually put in the work. That's the real kicker. It’s easier to just read it in a book, then they can parrot those exact words to a friend or their spouse. If a movie doesn't spoon-feed you everything through dialogue or explicit directions, the visuals and sound alone aren't enough for them—it just feels boring. Can't blame 'em, really. Most people today live in a blur of constant verbal chatter and high-speed chaos. In that kind of headspace, a film like an Odyssey comes off as empty or dull, even when it isn't. You just gotta tune your eyes and ears differently. Nothing more to it.

Hold up. It’s not that the book is some "inferior" part of the story; honestly, it’s way beyond the reach of your average viewer. If people feel like they have to read the source material because they're too lazy to piece together the answers from a perfect blend of visuals and sound design, that’s on them. Like any real art, a movie has its own language—you just have to know how to speak it. A film doesn't leave you hanging with massive gaps in the logic; it’s just less heavy-handed than a book that basically hammers the conclusions into your skull.

Of course they're blowing this out of proportion. I was just pointing out that they revoked his lifetime pass, which the guy paid good money for.

AA and Aviva? They’re dead to me.

that's basically a superpower

If this turns out to be true, they deserve to be packed into one first-class jet and tossed out at whatever altitude keeps them breathing until they hit the pavement. No parachutes, obviously.

George Diaz63 said:Just caught this absolute masterpiece on PBS
NNW 🙏:

I'll take R any day, ten times over.🙏

Jessica Gonzalez said:It feels like people spend way too much energy overanalyzing scenes and theories that probably didn't take the writers more than a few minutes to come up with.

you're seriously overdoing it

Eric Fox7 said:I mean, I guess a director's whole job is to actually hook the audience, right? 🤷

To me, Kubrick's films are about as engaging as a broken record.

A director's real job—just like any other artist—is self-expression. The industry part is just a byproduct, not the point.

Besides, "keeping an audience interested" is some vague bullshit. You can't define interest when you don't even know what the hell people actually care about.

Boredom is basically just an emotional dead zone. It’s what happens when you stop giving a damn about whatever's going down around you, no matter how deep or complex the drama actually is.

Inception is actually smart. It’s pretty damn original considering how much junk we get lately—endless book adaptations, video game movies, kids' toys, sequels, prequels, spinoffs, you name it. Too bad the mainstream audience killed any chance at a deeper layer because of the visual style. If it wasn't so heavy on the action and explosions, there'd be more room for the brain teaser stuff the script throws at you. I won't make a direct comparison since they aren't the same beast, but The Matrix is the one I respect more. Specifically the first one.

The movie copying the look of The Matrix is Equilibrium, but if you look at the themes, it's basically a retread of THX 1138 or Fahrenheit 451.