Posts by Arthur Anderson49

Nicole Bennett88 said:I mean, honestly? That kind of movie is totally subjective. It’ll definitely click with some viewers, while others might just not be feeling it at all!
So, I actually brought up 2001: A Space Odyssey earlier, right? And let’s be real—we all know that movie is an absolute marathon! It’s got those super long, drawn-out scenes that feel like they go on forever, and honestly, some of them feel totally unnecessary if you ask me. But hey, even with all that, I still felt like it belonged right here in this discussion! 🙂

I’m almost on board with you there, but honestly, the real headache with *2001: A Space Odyssey* is that it was such a total game-changer. It basically invented its own rules and set its own standards right out of the gate, which makes it incredibly tough to judge, you know? Like, how are we even supposed to say which scenes drag on too long when there's no blueprint to follow? I’m not exactly a huge fan myself, but trying to critique it from a purely *Technical* standpoint feels like an uphill battle. Wouldn't it be so much easier if there were actually a few other movies made in that exact same style? Then we’d have something real to compare it to!

So, let's get one thing straight: *To Be or Not to Be* is actually just a conventional movie. I mean, come on, we have specific criteria for a reason, right?

Nicole Bennett88 said:It’s going to be a bloodbath, but 2001: A Space Odyssey is definitely one of the most Technical masterpieces out there.

A bloodbath? Seriously? That movie is just way, way, WAY too long... it's absolutely bloated with useless details. It feels like a total vanity project for directors and writers who thought they could just force their weird little obsessions onto the audience. And honestly? It didn't even land with people. But hey, I can't say I'm surprised.

What kind of logic are we using to call that flick _Technical perfection_? The script doesn't even hold a candle to The Iliad or an Odyssey.

rustywalker42 said:You’ve got it all wrong. Kubrick is the last person on earth I'd call that. He was a true artist. I have no clue why so many people mistake technical perfection for a lack of soul.
So you're basically saying Rembrandt was some kind of maniac who cared more about technicality, while Vincent van Gogh was the real artist? Please. They were both artists. It's just that Rembrandt focused on the craft with, what, surgical precision? Or something like that.

That's why his movies feel perfect yet somehow totally hollow—except maybe Dr. Strangelove. To me, that's actually his only gritty, visceral film. All the others? Just intellectual masturbation.
So, I have my doubts about whether you actually believe what he believes.

Kubrick was a photographer first. That’s exactly why his movies hit different. He saw directing through a completely different lens, literally. It’s why everything he touched turned out perfect.

Maybe you have a point there. But if I had to describe his style, I’d take a totally different approach. To me, Kubrick feels more like Piet Mondrian. He reached that level of perfection through this intense, relentless process of distillation.

I know enough about Mondrian to appreciate what he was doing (well, as much as anyone can!), and I find it meaningful and cool, but Rembrandt? That's the one who will always leave me completely spellbound. I have massive respect for both of them—and I mean real, heartfelt respect, not just polite manners—but my heart only beats for one of them.

briskhound2 said:Alien 3. It basically just trashed everything from the previous movie and didn't have anything new to say...

Honestly, I'm just bummed out that they turned this whole thing into a massive franchise. It really should have just been one standalone masterpiece and called it a day, don't you think?

So, we’re diving into the absolute peaks of the genre here. But let me flip the script for a second: what do you guys think is the biggest massive letdown in sci-fi cinema history?
I’m not talking about just "bad" movies—I mean there are plenty of those rotting in the bargain bin (my personal pick for a total dud would be Starship Troopers 2, with Avalon breathing down its neck), but I'm talking about those films that had everything they needed to be legendary, yet somehow completely blew it.

Honestly, I feel about Stanley Kubrick the same way I feel about Hemingway—he’s incredibly important, sure, but he isn't necessarily "great" in my eyes. It's the same deal with Odyssey. It stands as this massive turning point that basically paved the way and kicked off a whole new era for sci-fi cinema. But as a movie? It just didn't click for me. I felt like it left me wanting so much more.

On the flip side, Blade Runner is a total game-changer because of how it treats sci-fi tropes; it almost treats them as mundane. Instead of treating the future like some grand, mystical spectacle, it looks at it just like we look at the present—just a gritty continuation of our current reality. It's the polar opposite of Odyssey. It just hit me: those two films are essentially negations of one another. Blade Runner is the anti-Odyssey.

quietdriver3 said:Like people have been saying on this thread already, Blade Runner asks some really solid questions. And honestly, that’s great. It does it perfectly. No debate there. But just asking questions is kind of the most typical way to do philosophy, I guess. The process is always the same. Odyssey is better because it flips the whole idea of watching a movie on its head, which makes it a more revolutionary and, in my opinion, superior film. It's more like, "Alright folks, here are the answers, here are all the solutions—now feel free to go out and ask yourselves the real questions if you actually want to." That feels like a braver, smarter way to handle things. So, for Odyssey: 👍

Hmm... You know, maybe. Maybe Stanley Kubrick took a much bigger gamble than I'm giving him credit for. The guy was a total risk-taker; he never cared about playing it safe or sticking to the status quo. I don't personally view his work that way, but hey, maybe film history will see it differently one day. From where I'm standing right now, though? I see Odyssey as a brilliant failure.

Jeffrey Martinez2 said:I mean both, but I'm leaning a little more toward Alien...

What an absolute masterpiece. Seriously! It might lean on a few classic horror tropes here and there, but honestly? Who cares? It still turned out absolutely incredible!

briskhound2 said:Honestly, both directors handle their themes by sticking to that unwritten rule of sci-fi: if you don't want to shove your specific vision down everyone's throats—which usually just splits the audience into two warring camps—you leave things open-ended... Kubrick does this by basically suggesting that the future is looming right in front of us (I mean, NASA was supposed to be heading out there to finally get those close-up shots of the Moon, right?) but implying that none of us can actually predict what happens once we plunge into the great black void. He doesn't wrap things up with a neat bow or offer easy answers; he just leaves you to chew on it. The whole movie is structured that way—there isn't even twenty minutes of actual dialogue...

Blade Runner operates on that same wavelength (though it came along a bit later) because Ridley Scott was against adding Deckard's voiceover to explain everything or giving it some happy ending from day one—he did the same thing with Alien, too. Unlike Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, who seem to prefer an audience that's basically been spoon-fed every plot point, these two are actually gutsy enough to treat viewers like thinking human beings, which is why their films land the way they do, sparking all sorts of debate. It’s no surprise that after all the backlash they took, they both kind of moved away from the sci-fi genre entirely. If I had to pick a flaw in Odyssey, it’s that it feels cold, almost clinical... the only part that actually pulls at your heartstrings is when HAL 9000 is being slowly shut down. Blade Runner, on the other hand, leans hard into human emotion, but it showed up at a really awkward time—right when E.T. and Star Wars were smashing the box office and setting the standard for how "sci-fi" was supposed to look and feel. While Odyssey at least offered something visually stunning, Blade Runner was initially dismissed as too dark, too depressing, and way too intimate... I mean, who wants sci-fi that deals with real-world stuff like love, loneliness, and isolation? Odyssey doesn't tackle those questions, so it loses a bit of ground as time goes on. But visually speaking, Blade Runner ended up being one of those rare films where the future actually looks grounded and real—which is exactly why its reputation and credibility just keep growing today... it's a world you can actually recognize...

I'd sign my name to that any day!

northerncrane4 said:Look, if someone is actually willing to go through hell and high water just to get a shot... Movies—it’s a broad topic. Let’s see where this goes. How much he’s actually betting on this idea? I'd guarantee you his conviction is rock solid—otherwise, he would have folded sometime during the first week of official pre-production. What we're debating here isn't about belief; it's about directorial style.

I mean, who knows? Stanley Kubrick was a total maniac, and he shot every single one of his films with that same manic energy. It honestly feels to me like he was more obsessed with the actual process of filmmaking than the actual movie itself. He was like those fishermen who get way too hyped up over high-tech rods, fancy reels, and expensive lures, while the fish is basically an afterthought, right?

That’s why all his movies are technically perfect but somehow feel kind of hollow—except maybe for Dr. Strangelove. In my opinion, that’s his only truly visceral, hard-hitting film. Everything else feels a bit like intellectual masturbation to me.

So yeah, I seriously doubt your take on his level of conviction.

northerncrane4 said:If I've understood you correctly, you're saying Kubrick isn't violent enough in presenting his idea? Is it easier for you to accept a stance when the author shoves it in your face—viscerally, aggressively, pulling you under—than if they present it with a calm voice from across the table?😉

🤣 I should've seen that coming! 🙂 Come on, I really don't think William Gibson is to blame here! It’s not his fault that *Neuromancer* is such a violent, bloody ride—I mean, that’s literally how the events unfold in the source material, right? I’m not even trying to make that point, but honestly, you managed to find a pretty clever way to frame your argument there. Nice shot on goal! 🙂

I’m talking about pure intensity! What's on your mind lately? Are we talking about deep-seated beliefs, core values, or just those stubborn little convictions that drive us to act? I feel like everyone has that one thing they'll defend to the death, right? It’s fascinating how much our personal philosophies shape everything we do! What are you all holding onto these days?It’s all about the nuance, you know? It isn't just about cranking the volume up to eleven—it's about that subtle, intentional depth. It's about quality over sheer noise! 🙂

Look, if I start trying to break down exactly what I mean by that, we’re going way too far off track from the actual heavyweight bout between Odyssey and Blade Runner—which, if my math is right, Blade Runner is currently winning!

What if we actually stepped in and gave *Odyssey* a bit of a makeover? Seriously, wouldn't it be fun to take a crack at making it even better? What kind of score are we talking about here? Are we grading a movie, checking a credit rating, or just seeing how much trouble we've gotten ourselves into today? Give me the details! I'm ready to dive in!Wait, are you telling me you're actually feeling up for it? You sound like you're totally in the mood!

northerncrane4 said:I follow you completely. I just don't get your notion that an artist shouldn't have a personal stance—that true art requires ambivalence toward the subject. "Too personal, too specific to be art"? What is a "true artist" to you then? A spokesperson for the masses? Some middle-of-the-road consensus builder? 😕

But fine, at least we've reached the point where he actually asks "What if..." And even if you disagree with him, it’s hardly fair to deny him his (artistic, granted) vision just because it clashes with your own perspective.

Man, you really caught me there... Okay, I think the answer lies in this: I’ll accept a vision if it’s powerful enough to possess its own internal truth, even if I can't personally get behind the external way it's presented.

Let me give you a real-world example right now. William Gibson's *Passion*. Now look, I'm not a religious guy and I don't necessarily buy into Gibson's preaching, but he is so intense about his faith, so completely immersed in it, and conveys it so convincingly that I accept his expression. I embrace the general message, the morality, the suffering, and the sheer weight of it all, which makes the whole thing feel universal, human, and relatable. Even though I wouldn't give his explicit message a single cent!

I just don't find that kind of breakthrough in *Odyssey : Blade Runner*. Kubrick's external truth doesn't move me, and I didn't catch the internal message. On the flip side, Gibson's external, explicit message didn't move me at all either, but I definitely heard the internal one. That, right there, is the heart and soul of what makes art universal.

Jerry Martin19 said:Yeah, probably. But you still left an open door there that I feel like addressing:

Hmm... from my perspective, you're actually right about that. You didn't say anything about the art itself. Not a single thing. I tried to at least offer some substance. Every time, I provided arguments, examples, etc. All you're doing is trying to tell me I'm wrong. That’s not enough.

briskhound2 and northerncrane4 are already aiming a bit better, and I can actually find something constructive in their points to latch onto. With you, it's just pure disagreement.

So, it feels like this argument is pointless and I don't want to keep going. We're talking past each other... we're just not on the same page. Or watching the same movie.

Look, I told you where you could go to find the questions you're looking for, but you just deflect by implying our definitions of what a "question" even is are different—as if mine is somehow "immature." I don't know about that. Clearly, questions about human life, progress, our developmental trajectory, or the relationship between the creator and the created... those aren't enough for you. Not to mention how you'd immediately try to discredit me just by bringing up my age 😁

I definitely wouldn't do that last part; I've basically accepted that I'm as old as the rest of this entire forum combined. At this point, age isn't even a factor for me.

It's pretty obvious we're clashing on what matters, but honestly, I think it's more about *how* the questions are being asked. Just look at my response to northerncrane4. All those points you brought up can be incredibly important, but the delivery is everything! If a film suggests the answer to you—which, let's be real, is what I feel like Clarke and Kubrick do sometimes—then it's not art, it's just a catechism. It turns the whole cinematic experience into something banal, like you're just flipping through an illustrated picture book.

So, my point is this: they're asking the wrong kind of questions, and that's exactly why Odyssey isn't some massive masterpiece. If they had posed questions that forced you and me to sit back, think deeply, and come up with our own conclusions, *that* would be true art. Real art is when the questions haunt you and won't leave you alone. It's not about having the answers handed to you on a silver platter, right?

northerncrane4 said:Fine, let's try this then. Is it really "abstract" when Dave Bowman finds himself in a timeless void during the film's final act, only to witness a monolith-fetus as the ultimate stage of his existence? Doesn't that raise actual questions about the nature of the human life cycle within the context of the universe he inhabits?

It’s a question, sure, but it’s way too personal and hyper-specific to actually be "artistic." The answer really just boils down to whether or not I buy into his specific vision. So, once again, it isn't an open-ended mystery; instead, the director is basically handing us the answer on a silver platter, suggesting a specific phylogeny (or whatever you want to call it).

That's exactly why I keep bringing up the whole catechism thing—because that's precisely what this feels like. He isn't actually asking, "How did we begin and where are we headed?" Instead, he's more like, "What if this is exactly how we started and exactly where we're going?" And honestly? I don't believe him. I think he's totally off base.

You know what I mean? He sneaks the answer right into the question instead of letting it be a genuine inquiry. It's like a priest reciting a catechism; he already knows what the Good Book says, so he acts all solemn and profound, fully expecting his little vision to blow my mind.

Are you following me, or am I just rambling on too much?

Jerry Martin19 said:I've got three magic words for you: "we disagree"

You can't just twist my definition of a "question" to fit your own narrative. It doesn't work like that.

And I don't even want to talk about art. If I used your logic regarding how Odyssey is empty, I could easily argue the exact opposite, and we'd end up getting absolutely nowhere...

I have no idea who you think you are or what kind of debate format you're talking about. But if this conversation is heading somewhere you don't like, you're always free to just ignore me.

I was talking about us. You specifically said you didn't want to engage in a "contrarian" debate, so I'm respecting that by not pushing it. I never once thought about putting you on ignore. Why would I do that?...

Totally. And honestly, we probably should just call it quits right here.

I don't even want to get into art. If you're going to claim Odyssey is empty, I could just say the exact opposite, and we'd both end up with absolutely nothing to show for it.

Hmm... looking at it from my perspective, you're kind of right there. You haven't actually said anything about the art itself. Absolutely nothing! I’ve been trying to actually contribute something to the conversation, throwing out arguments and examples to back things up. But you? You're just trying to tell me I'm wrong. And let's be real—that's not enough to sustain a debate!

Now, briskhound2 and northerncrane4 are starting to aim a bit higher; I can actually find some constructive points in their critiques that I can actually work with. With you, though, it’s just constant disagreement.

That's why I feel like this whole argument is going nowhere, and I'd rather not drag it out. We're just talking past each other—you're playing checkers while I'm playing chess, or maybe we're just watching two completely different movies.

northerncrane4 said:First off, I noticed you decided to address exactly one out of the four questions I actually asked.

No, it isn't to me. Maybe to you. 🤷

When you mention "human life," you're trivializing things. The society in Blade Runner doesn't just produce humans. If by "human life" you mean "sentient life," then look at HAL 9000—a consciousness whose creators denied it the right to make mistakes (i.e., the right to be human, since to err is human). That is far more philosophical than a simple question of lifespan.

They were all equally abstract to me, so I just went ahead and lumped them all together under one umbrella!

No way, that’s just not true! I'm sorry, I didn't catch that! It looks like you might have sent a partial message. What's on your mind? I'm ready to dive into some deep discussions whenever you are!Maybe for you! 🤷

Trust me, I've been around the block on this one. I’ve seen firsthand—more than a few times, actually—exactly how people react to this kind of stuff. It's wild, really. Have you ever noticed how predictable those reactions can be?

When you throw around terms like "human life," I think you’re actually oversimplifying things. Seriously, the society we see in *Blade Runner* isn't just churning out biological humans. If by "human life" you really mean "sentient life," then we’re looking at something much closer to the situation with HAL 9000. It’s that terrifying concept of a consciousness being denied the basic right to make mistakes—which, let's be honest, is the most human thing about us! It’s way more profound than just some debate about how long a lifespan lasts. Isn't the real philosophical struggle actually about the freedom to be flawed?

I'll be the first to admit it: for me, HAL 9000 and all those glitches he deals with—combined with that incredible visual style—are easily the absolute best parts of *Odyssey*. It’s honestly such a shame that his storyline doesn't take up more screen time!

briskhound2 said:But here’s the thing—the absolute bottom line that everyone seems to conveniently forget—Blade Runner was a total disaster at the box office. It wasn't some massive hit; it didn't even make back its twenty-million-dollar budget, let alone turn a profit. Critics absolutely slaughtered it, and audiences basically gave it a wide berth because they just didn't get what it was trying to do. Nowadays, everyone acts like an expert on why the movie is a masterpiece (and hey, I'm definitely guilty of that too), but the cold, hard truth is that it was branded a huge flop... there was even a point where the director tried to wash his hands of the whole mess by blaming the producers right after the reviews came out. Even Ford barely brings it up, mostly because he once admitted he wasn't even sure what the damn movie was supposed to be about in the first place.

🙂 Truth bomb right there. But still, looking at the long game, the movie left a massive footprint on cinema.

I remember seeing it for the very first time way back in '84 at a private screening on a 16mm reel. There were no subtitles, the sound quality was absolutely atrocious—you could barely make out what the actors were saying—but man, it hit me hard immediately. I couldn't wait to finally catch a proper theatrical release. I distinctly remember telling myself, "This is it—this is real, high-quality sci-fi done the right way." Even today, it remains one of those rare sci-fi films that I truly love as a complete work of art, not just as something to pass the time.

Generally speaking, sci-fi hasn't always found its footing as "high art" in film. It’s usually much better at being pure entertainment. You can find endless amounts of fun sci-fi movies, but finding ones that actually pull at your heartstrings and keep you up at night? That's a different story. Maybe there are five or six such films out there, if I'm being honest.

northerncrane4 said:Is the question "What is Man's current and ultimate position in Space?" Or "What is Consciousness, and how does it correlate with Life?" Or "Is the catalyst for human progress a human artifact sent through time in an infinite loop?" Or even the banal "Who is Odysseus in 2001: A Space Odyssey, and who is the Cyclops?"

Because those are all the questions I am asking when I watch Kubrick's film. Meanwhile, "Blade Runner" just tells me, "Life is a beautiful phenomenon—let's cherish it."

When it comes to humanity's spot in Space, Kubrick definitely has his say—and honestly, it isn't bad at all—but it's such a massive, sweeping question. It doesn't really hit anyone on a personal level, you know?

Think about it this way—you get hit much harder by nature when it puts a massive mountain range right in front of you, like the Rocky Mountains, compared to standing in the middle of the ocean with water stretching out as far as the eye can see. Even though the ocean is incomparably larger! Why is that? Because the mountain is something you can actually wrap your head around. You can look at yourself, look at that peak, and truly grasp the shocking gap in size, importance, and presence. The ocean, despite being infinitely bigger, is just too abstract for our brains to process.

That's why the question of whether replicants are mortal is so much more moving and, frankly, more important to the viewer than where humans sit in the cosmos. To hell with the vastness of Space if my lifespan is only five years and I've already burned through 90 percent of it! And all because someone decided that would be the most practical way to do things. The right to a single human life is incomparably more vital than the right of the entire human species to exist in Space, as paradoxical as that sounds. That second one is a sterile question. It matters for the two or three hours the movie runs. But the first one? That one sticks with you and screws with your head for the rest of your life.

The Odyssey (and Clarke, too) throws out all these fascinating but pretty clinical and abstract questions. They're things that rarely strike a deep chord with people because they don't touch us personally. Most folks experience them more like a cool curiosity rather than something of vital importance.

Jerry Martinez6 said:In any case, it’s an Odyssey. Luckily, I stumbled upon a Flash page right here on this forum that breaks down some of the motifs Kubrick uses quite simply; since I hadn't quite grasped them or fully understood them before, it really helped me finally wrap my head around the story being told. I read the novel by Clarke that the movie was based on a long time ago, and there aren't actually many connections between them. To me, it's a top-tier art film, but of course, a film like that isn't going to leave a mark on today's fast-food cinema, just like it didn't leave one for Tarkovsky 🙂)), if you know what I mean—I'm talking about Hollywood, right? -.- Blade Runner is your typical blockbuster with a strong plot and high production value. But still, since so many people are obsessed with Blade Runner, I guess I'll have to watch it again; I think there's a certain charm to it, especially since that kind of storytelling and noir atmosphere are so rare these days. There's just almost no good, "human" Sci-Fi left nowadays...

Well... I wouldn't call it "typical." Just look at the casting! From start to finish—with the minor exception of Harrison Ford, who was known but definitely wasn't a massive superstar yet—it was basically a cast of unknowns. That’s not really how you make a blockbuster, is it? And honestly, those unknown actors were picked perfectly; they were so good that almost all of them went on to have incredible careers later on. Plus, it doesn't fit the mold atmosphere-wise either—you even mentioned yourself that using a "film noir" vibe for that genre wasn't exactly common practice back then. Finally, blockbusters usually try to please the crowd. I don't see anyone being "pleased" by Blade Runner!

There just isn't much good "human" Sci-Fi left today...

But that is exactly my point! The real issue with three-quarters of modern Sci-Fi is that it feels so mechanical. There's zero deep thought, zero philosophy, and barely any actual humanity in it. That’s precisely why Blade Runner hit so hard—because it was such a departure from the norm!

Jerry Martin19 said:You missed something...Some kind of idea... aliena The stuff that actually drives human consciousness and intelligence is just... gone...It’s not in... Odyssey....aliens... They’re just witnesses to our progress from the beginning of time onward. They aren't an explanation, a motive, or an answer. Just the mere fact that they exist... aliens... They’re basically just searching for answers and chasing the truth themselves, which really just shows they have their own version of God...

The questions you're looking for are baked into everything. Take the monolith, for instance. Because it’s physical, tangible, and visible—at least within our limited perception—it exists as a fact that someone, or something, built it. But for us humans, the actual concept of the monolith is totally beyond us. Trying to grasp what that extraterrestrial object really is would be like a primitive ancestor trying to understand modern tech... no matter how much we've evolved, some things just don't click. It’s the same for us viewers. There aren't any neat explanations or hints, just a massive pile of unanswered questions. The whole movie is just one infinite ribbon of mysteries. It’s humanity's journey, our own... Odyssey... It feels just like Tarkovsky's version on the inside, only presented in a way that hits you harder... Tarkovsky has a really interesting approach, but he leans way too much on script tropes during the big moments... lineHe tries to use words to paint a picture that would be way more effective if you just saw it... he's trying to describe how these characters feel and think through dialogue, but that's where it loses its punch. You don't really run into that problem with Kubrick, though I still respect the film. That ending is heavy, though...

To be honest, even after years of rewatching this movie two or three times, I still don't see what everyone's talking about. Not that it surprises me. Truthfully, I never felt like Clarke’s ideas were particularly deep from a philosophical standpoint. They're spectacular, sure—visually stunning and definitely interesting—but they lack real depth. Just pure Gosh-wow, if you know what I mean. In my opinion, they're just totally superficial... high-class Gosh-wow, I don't want to undersell him, but let's not overdo it either. His stuff works like incredible graphic novels for adults. Reminds me of Kubrick. They really hit it off...

this part of your post is dragging us back into that debate from the previous page, and we really don't want to go there...

p.s. Forbidden Planet is an absolute masterpiece in my book too.

Look, it’s pretty clear that you and I define basic concepts like a "question" in totally different ways. To you, even something as simple as "Wait, what is this?" counts as a question. And sure, in a literal sense, it is! That’s exactly the kind of question the Odyssey poses. But from an artistic standpoint? That isn't really a question. That's why I keep saying the Odyssey is artistically empty. Its questions are just banal rather than profound. They might look visually spectacular, and if you aren't "plugged in" to the world of Sci-Fi, they might seem fresh or even interesting.

To me? Not at all. And clearly, the heavy-hitting artists working in this genre didn't think so either, which is why the Odyssey hasn't left a massive footprint in the genre, unlike Blade Runner, which had a huge impact.

this part of your post is pushing us back into that debate format from the previous page, and we don't want that...

Honestly, I have no clue who you guys are or what specific "format" you're talking about. But hey, if the conversation starts heading in a direction you don't like, you're always more than welcome to just ignore me!