Posts by Arthur Anderson49

Jerry Martin19 said:Obviously, Solaris by Tarkovsky is a given. I think it's good and I respect it, but it’s nowhere near Odyssey.

I actually have a question for you. It wasn't meant to be provocative, even if it sounds that way. How does the datedness of those worn-out Sci-Fi tropes in Solaris not bother you? Especially since it was made after Odyssey, and based on an idea much older than Clarke's. Let me clarify. The namesake novel by Stanisław Lem that the Solaris movie is based on came out in 1961, while Odyssey (book and novel) is based on short stories by Arthur C. Clarke written way before Solaris. One of those stories, which specifically served as inspiration for Kubrick's film, was written all the way back in 1948. Not trying to lie to you—it's all on Wikipedia. And honestly, even if I'm wrong, I still want to know why those things don't bug you in Solaris when they clearly bother you in Odyssey?

As for the whole "asking questions" thing, Kubrick's film does it just as skillfully—so skillfully that there are no answers. That ending was designed to be vague and impossible to pin down. The only real answer the director gives us at the end is precisely that we actually don't know anything. Arthur C. Clarke once said: ''If you understand 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) completely, we failed. We wanted to raise far more questions than we have answered.'' (c/p from IMDb)

The answer is actually pretty simple—just because an idea is old doesn't mean it's outdated or irrelevant. It’s not about how long something has been around; it's about whether it still works! Someone once explained this to me on another sub, and it really clicked: look at Plato’s philosophy. I mean, that stuff is nearly two and a half thousand years old, yet it still keeps thinkers totally hooked, and philosophers are still out there churning out massive essays based on his framework today. So, you can't exactly call it "worn out," right?

So, I’ve been sitting here chewing on this little idea... what do you guys think? Just a random thought that popped into my head! I can't believe I'm actually sitting here typing this out, but we seriously need to talk about the sheer scale of what we're discussing! Is it just me, or does every single deep dive into this topic feel like we're spiraling deeper into a rabbit hole? Honestly, it's kind of thrilling, isn't it? I mean, when you really stop to think about the implications of everything being laid out on the table, it’s enough to make your head spin! Who even knew things could get this intense? Honestly, I feel like the stuff meant to spark human consciousness or push our intelligence forward is just completely tapped out. At least on that basic, fundamental level, there's nothing left to say! I mean, come on—*Odyssey* doesn't actually offer anything new that that crazy German guy with all those wild theories about ancient South American civilizations hadn't already thrown at us. [EDIT: von Däniken]

So, Kubrick launches into this whole concept, clearly trying his hardest to blow our minds with it. But honestly, what's the actual payoff here? Is he actually hitting the mark, or is it just all style and no substance? So, what are we actually looking at here? What are the real-world implications? When you start peeling back the layers on this, it’s pretty wild how much everything shifts! Are we talking about a massive ripple effect that touches every single part of our lives, or just a minor hiccup in the grand scheme of things? Honestly, I can't stop thinking about how this could change the whole game for us! What do you guys think? Is this going to be a total revolution or just more of the same? What about all those big ideas? Where exactly are they leading us? Is this just going to screw us over in the end? And honestly, how are we even supposed to find our footing in all of this? You know what? None of that actually matters. There's no point in worrying about it. All we really have is what Americans call... Gosh-wow! It’s all about the effect, right? You sit there staring at this absolutely breathtaking visual, and honestly, it just blows your mind. It's stunning! But here's the thing—is that actually enough? Sure, being dazzled is great, but if there's no real intellectual meat on the bones, what are we even doing? Where's the challenge for your brain?

You know, if you look at how Stanisław Lem approaches things—and then even Tarkovsky, though he does it in his own unique, haunting way—they’re asking questions that haven't been exhausted yet. They dive deep into the demons we manufacture inside our own minds, and that terrifying possibility that those internal monsters might actually break free and manifest as something much more tangible than just a digital glitch or a psychological concept. Honestly, I’m worried this is going to remain one of those eternal, unsolvable dilemmas, even though Sci-Fi has been obsessively tackling it for decades, both in literature and on the big screen. Just think back to how brilliant *Forbidden Planet* was all the way back in 1956!

When it comes to actually asking those big, heavy-hitting questions, Kubrick does it so incredibly well. I mean, he’s so skillful at posing them that you honestly can't find an answer anywhere. Even that ending? It was clearly designed to be ambiguous and totally impossible to pin down. I think the only real message the director leaves us with at the end is the realization that, at the end of the day, we really don't know anything! As Arthur C. Clarke once said:If you’re walking away from *2001: A Space Odyssey* feeling like you didn't get enough answers, then honestly, we totally missed the mark! The whole point wasn't to hand us a neat little summary on a silver platter, right? We were supposed to be left staring at the screen, drowning in way more questions than we actually have answers to!'' (I can't believe I'm actually doing this! I'm going to copy and paste everything right here for you guys! Get ready! (from IMDb)

To be totally honest with you guys, even after all these years—and I’m talking about my first, second, and third viewings—I still don't see those deep philosophical layers everyone keeps talking about. But hey, I’m not even surprised! If I'm being real, I never felt like Clarke's ideas were particularly profound on a philosophical level. Sure, they are spectacular? Absolutely. Are they incredibly engaging? You bet. But truly deep? Not really. It’s just pure "Gosh-wow" factor for me. They feel totally superior in scale, but that's about where the depth ends, you know what I mean? high-class Gosh-wow, I really don't want to sell him short, but honestly, I can't go any further than that! These are just absolutely stunning visual books for adults. They pair together perfectly, much like Kubrick's work. They really found their perfect match, didn't they?

Jerry Martin19 said:I’d rather compare Solaris with 2001: A Space Odyssey. The movies feel more alike, which makes them better candidates for a comparison...

Just to be clear, if I were taking this poll, I'd be clicking on 2001: A Space Odyssey in a heartbeat.

Man, we really do have wildly different takes on art, don't we? If it were me, I’d pick Solaris in a heartbeat. (And yeah, I'm talking about the one by Tarkovsky, just so we're clear!) It's that kind of movie that doesn't feel the need to explain itself or spell everything out for you. It just hits you with the big questions and leaves it at that.

northerncrane4 said:When you weigh how both films handle the relationship between creator and created cognitive being—and I mean this with all due respect to Blade Runner, which I absolutely love—Blade Runner feels like a children's picture book by comparison.

I don't know about that. I’d say the approach in Odyssey is more like a catechism—it just lays out what's happening. It's like Genesis in the Old Testament. So, where's the intellectual challenge in an artistic sense there?

Blade Runner hits closer to home regarding that issue—it shows just how bloody and messed up being part of that whole process really is. And honestly, isn't that exactly what art is supposed to do?

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:Both of these films really dive deep into what it means to be human... in the Odyssey, you've got these alien gods pulling the strings, whereas in Blade Runner, it's actually the humans who feel out of place...

The first one is pretty straightforward—everything gets sorted out through this next big leap in evolution—so it doesn't leave you drowning in endless riddles or existential questions...

But the second one? That’s classic film noir with a sci-fi twist, and just like any good noir, nothing is ever truly clear until the very end, if it's even clear then...

Khmmmm... could someone argue that it's actually kind of intellectually shallow? 🤣

rustywalker42 said:2001: A Space Odyssey isn't for everyone. That's why most people hate it—or just pass out by the end.

Blade Runner is basically the more accessible version of 2001: A Space Odyssey (not the plot, obviously). It's easier for people to wrap their heads around.

I've seen both movies countless times. Honestly, I lost track. Both are masterpieces, so comparing them is kind of a stupid exercise, but if you’re forcing me to pick? It’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, hands down.

I don't even know what to say about 2001: A Space Odyssey. I can't shake the feeling that anyone voting for Blade Runner probably only watched 2001: A Space Odyssey once, and half-assed at that.

I’ve seen it four times myself. Two of those were in the theater!

Jerry Martin19 said:Maybe everyone else was just staying out of this one, but if you want my take... maybe. I'll try not to get ahead of myself though...

If I said that watching something "intellectually vacuous" makes you an idiot, I’d be calling myself one too. I’ve always been able to enjoy movies that have absolutely zero substance, and honestly, I still do it all the time. Take Michael Bay, for instance... I’d happily sit through any of his flicks, even if they basically insult your intelligence every single frame...

Depends on how you like to experience what we've already dubbed... Supposedly an "intellectually vacuous" movie...Yeah, I'm digging it too... garbage... Horror movies and stuff like that... I guess my way of enjoying them is just a bit different than how most people do... Odyssey...

I'm with you on that, but honestly, that's just me... Not really... Found it in 2001: A Space Odyssey. To me, that one feels... a bit preachy. Like a pamphlet. Too much lecturing, like some kind of catechism. It doesn't really challenge you. Contrast that with Blade Runner, which was stuck in my head for months, and honestly, I'm still chewing on certain parts today. It actually grabbed me—emotionally and intellectually. It wasn't just preaching at me; it slowly let its toxins seep under my skin, where they just sat there and matured long after the credits rolled...

Maybe it's just a matter of opinion, since you're claiming you didn't find it in there... Odyssey...Look, maybe it’s just my subjective take, but I think the way Kubrick handles a retelling isn't just about technical mastery... you know, the cinematography, the sound design, the production value, or the effects. It goes deeper than that... Odyssey... Even if you find it empty, the ideas and the way they’re retold give it this symbolic, narrative weight that actually makes you think... When you're stuck on something you don't get, the only real question worth asking is "why?"...

Just look at how hard it is to tell who the hero is and who the villain is in that movie. And honestly, that ambiguity is exactly why it works. The whole film is basically about the breakdown of rules, clarity, definitions, and that sense of security we all cling to...

Sounds like you're talking about me... Blade Runner... I didn't dispute the quality. Honestly, I haven't even said a word about him on this thread yet. I get what you're getting at, and I'll sign off on that without hesitation, but don't you feel it too... Odyssey... That vague, heavy realization... that as a human being, you’re basically incapable of grasping the true essence of existence...

Look, let's be real... Blade Runner... Brilliant movie. Honestly, I don't think it's any worse or better than Kubrick's... Odyssey... Honestly, I don't even like comparing them...

Reputation? It's all about that insane production value. That's just how Kubrick's movies work. Every single one is a spectacle that hits you like a freight train and sticks in your brain forever... but none of them actually leave a legacy as a blueprint. None of them have a successor. Why? Because they’re sterile. They're perfect—perfectly complex, perfectly polished, like Faberge's eggs. But just like those eggs, nothing grows from them. They exist just to be admired...

but a lot of people worship him for the core stuff, the intangible elements, so I don't buy that he "enjoys" a high reputation solely because his crew were perfectionists.

For me, they do. I get a kick out of some of them—I'll watch Star Wars once a year, basically in one sitting. But as for finding deep intellectual stimulation in them? Not really...

See, for me they aren't.

You missed the mark there. An argument has to stand on its own, independent of the people debating it. If it relies on someone's status, it isn't an argument. I could be a total moron, but if my point holds water, it holds water.

Fair enough, but you also said you didn't find any depth in Odyssey. Doesn't that make your argument dependent on your own status, effectively making it invalid?

What's so weird or offensive about my claim? Obviously, what's an intellectual challenge for a connoisseur will be something else for a casual viewer. That's just basic culture. To someone who knows little, the surface layers are exciting. A connoisseur looks deeper. And if there's nothing deep there, well, damn, the connoisseur won't find it interesting. But the casual viewer will.

That doesn't strike me as strange or revolutionary to me. And certainly not offensive. If someone knows less about Sci-Fi than I do, why is that a problem?

I don't take it personally when someone knows more about history or quantum mechanics than I do. That would be ridiculous. If I go on a safari with a pro hunter, I'll be fascinated by the orchids, the colorful birds, and the monkeys swinging through the trees, while the hunter ignores all that to focus on things I can't even see. That's just how it works.

The "intellectually empty" part was what rubbed me the wrong way, though I didn't think you were trying to attack me personally or anything. Why did it bother me? Because I view this film with immense respect and consider it vital. Isn't it an insult to call something like that "worthless" through an "argument"? It implies I'm "worshipping" junk. Makes me look like a fool who got swindled.

Anyway, let me ask you: what would you ask a Sci-Fi expert who considers Odyssey to be intellectually profound?
Otherwise, I don't really care about specific genres. For me, it's about the message—whether it lands, whether it's right, and how much it hits home. That's my focus, regardless of the genre.

Look, if you don't think my take on those two movies holds any water, hey, that's totally fine; it's your right to feel that way. Think whatever you want! I’ve laid out my cards on the table. Honestly, this whole thing is starting to feel like a pointless tug-of-war. It feels less like we're actually talking about cinema and more like you're just trying to hammer your opinion over mine, which is getting super off-topic at this point. I'm really not in the mood to go back and forth like this with you. I'm calling it—I'm bowing out of this so-called "discussion."

Charles Martinez17 said:Look, 2001: A Space Odyssey is just in a league of its own...

Every single one of these movies is a king in its own right. I mean, how can you even try to compare them?

One thing is for sure though, Blade Runner is gonna take the win.

I'm with you there. I don't think you can really compare them on much besides just pure fame, you know?

Jerry Martin19 said:Maybe you didn't mean to stir the pot, but you definitely did... at least that's how it came across to me. I mean, if you're looking for deep meaning in a movie that's basically brainless, you're just asking for trouble...

There's a difference between being stupid and just lacking knowledge. Don't mix the two up...

I'm with you on that. Intelligence and knowledge aren't exactly the same thing, but you can't really get to the knowledge part without the intelligence first. If we're taking this further...

2001: A Space Odyssey is a masterpiece, but its... intellectual... Content is thin...

Sounds like you're actually talking about intelligence here, not just raw knowledge...

So, let me run that back: Odyssey is basically built on a handful of Sci-Fi concepts that had already been totally exhausted in literature by the time the movie even hit theaters. In terms of actual ideas, the film didn't bring anything new to the table... In the realm of Sci-Fi...Sure, he could’ve been an intellectual trip for someone who was just getting into Sci-Fi. For someone totally lost in the genre. And honestly, fair enough, since those concepts are pretty gripping. It's just that even back then, they weren't exactly groundbreaking...

Space, infinity, that endless human drive to wrap our heads around existence... yeah, we've seen those tropes played out a thousand times before. They're old news. But the specific angle this one brings to the table... Odyssey... It’s special, though. Honestly, how innovative an idea is doesn't matter nearly as much as the delivery—how you actually pitch it to people. It's all about the expression... and that's where the magic happens... Odyssey... It’s all about being powerful and influential. Don't get it twisted—I'm not saying innovation doesn't matter. Of course it does. But what I'm getting at is that even the most cutting-edge theory is basically useless if the presentation sucks. You need a narrative. You need layers. You need impact...

Total bullseye for people who don't know anything about Sci-Fi. Intellectually and visually? Sure, it hits the mark. But for someone like me who grew up on this stuff, the movie didn't really offer much beyond a pretty picture book. To a guy like that—relatively speaking—the whole thing felt intellectually shallow. Not exactly a mental workout...

Hope you actually have some proof for that, because I don't see how you're gonna explain it... Odyssey... She built that reputation back then, and honestly, she still carries it today. I get that some people weren't really into Sci-Fi at the time, so it probably all felt groundbreaking and fresh to them. But there were definitely fans who actually knew their stuff and were praising the movie for the right reasons... Or are you trying to say every critic who loved it was just clueless about the genre? Even Arthur C. Clarke wasn't exactly an expert on everything...

And what about Star Trek, Star Wars, or any other project that puts its own vision of space on screen? Are they "intellectually empty" too?

Why do you think it needs to be proven? This isn't a contest of "who knows more Sci-Fi," it's about which of these two films is bigger, better, or more significant. I've stated my case and backed it up. If you disagree, lay out yours. It's a forum; it's meant for debating. If we aren't going to clash with arguments here, where else are we supposed to go?

To claim that Odyssey is good, you'd have to be some total Sci-Fi amateur, so maybe explain why you're qualified to say that before people take it personally. I gave you my reasoning, so hopefully you'll try looking at this from a few different angles instead of just skimming the surface...

Well, it looks like others didn't take it that way! And honestly, that wasn't my intention at all, as I mentioned before. You're kind of twisting my words a little bit here, don't you think?

If I claimed that finding depth in an "intellectually empty" flick is the same as being an idiot, then I'd have to call myself an idiot too—because I've always loved getting lost in movies that are totally devoid of substance, and I still do it all the time! For instance, I'll happily sit down for any Michael Bay movie, even if they're basically an insult to our collective intelligence.

Sure, themes like space, infinity, and the human drive to understand existence have been explored forever, but the specific angle offered by Odyssey is something else entirely. Besides, the novelty of an idea isn't nearly as vital as the delivery—the way you actually convey it to the audience. That’s where Odyssey really shines and leaves its mark. Don't get me wrong, "innovation isn't everything," obviously, but what I'm getting at is that even the most cutting-edge theory falls flat if it's poorly presented. It needs narrative, it needs layers, it needs impact...

I hear you, but that's exactly what I didn't find in the Odyssey. To me, it feels... a bit preachy. Like a manifesto. Or a catechism. It's all very declarative, without much of a challenge. Compare that to Blade Runner, which lived rent-free in my head for months and still trips me up today. That movie engaged me both emotionally and intellectually. It wasn't a lecture; instead, it subtly lets its toxins seep under your skin, so some of those ideas don't truly "settle in" and mature until long after the credits roll.

Just look at how hard it is to pin down who the hero is and who the villain is in that film. And isn't that ambiguity exactly what makes it work? The whole movie is essentially about that—the breakdown of rules, clarity, definitions, and certainty.

I hope you have some receipts for that claim, because it's going to be a tough sell to explain how Odyssey built such a massive reputation back then that it still holds up today. I'll give credit to the fact that some people might not have been "into" Sci-Fi back then, so it all felt fresh and groundbreaking to them, but surely there were Sci-Fi buffs who recognized its greatness at the time... or are you suggesting all those critics who praised it were just total Sci-Fi amateurs? Even Arthur C. Clarke wouldn't have known what hit him...

Reputation? Sure, for production value. All of Kubrick's films are like that. They're all sensational; they slap you in the face and stay with you forever—but not one of them leaves behind a legacy as a blueprint. None of them have true successors. Why? Because they're sterile. They are perfectly complex, perfectly rounded, and perfectly polished, just like Faberge's eggs. But much like those eggs, nothing grows from them. They exist solely to be admired.

Wait, so what about Star Trek, Star Wars, and all those other projects that project their own specific vision of space? Are they also "intellectually empty"?

Personally? Yeah, I think they are. Don't get me wrong, I have a blast watching some of them—I usually sit down and binge-watch Star Wars about once a year. But if you're asking if I find them intellectually stimulating? Honestly, I can't say I do.

When you decide you're qualified to claim that Odyssey Quote is only good for Sci-Fi newbies, you really ought to explain why you're the expert here, otherwise people are just going to feel insulted without reason. I've laid out my arguments, and I'm hoping you'll try looking at this with a bit more breadth and depth instead of just focusing on how long you can drag things out.

I think you've missed the mark a little bit there. An argument should stand on its own, regardless of who's making it. If a point only holds weight because of someone's "status," then it isn't actually an argument! I might be a total dummy, but if my logic is sound, then it's sound, right?

What's so weird or offensive about what I said? Of course a connoisseur is going to find something intellectually challenging while a casual viewer won't. That's just basic culture 101! For someone who doesn't know much, the flashy surface layers are super exciting. But a real fan looks deeper. And if there's nothing deep there? Well, damn, then the fan isn't going to be interested! Meanwhile, the casual viewer will still have a great time.

My take doesn't seem strange or revolutionary to me at all. And it's definitely not insulting. If someone knows less about Sci-Fi than I do, why is that a bad thing?

It's not like I get offended when someone, say, knows way more about history or quantum mechanics than I do. That would be ridiculous! It’s like if I go on a safari with a pro hunter; I’m going to be fascinated by the orchids, the colorful birds, and the monkeys swinging through the trees, while the hunter ignores all that stuff just to track what I can't even see. That's just how it works!

Jerry Martin19 said:I meant to address the whole thread, but this was just getting out of hand.

So, people who actually find meaning in a movie with "minimal intellectual substance" are just stupid?

Basically an amazing flick for people who don't know anything about Sci-Fi. Just a flashy picture book for those who actually do.

And how exactly does one prove they "know" Sci-Fi?

And just like that, the thread is dead... NOT 🙄

No way! I didn't even hint at that, let alone actually say it!

Look, there's a massive difference between being stupid and just lacking knowledge, right? I was talking about actual expertise and information here. Let's not go mixing those two things up!

So, let me lay it out one more time: *2001: A Space Odyssey* is basically built on a handful of Sci-Fi concepts that had already been totally exhausted in literature by the time the movie even hit theaters. Honestly, if you're looking for groundbreaking, revolutionary ideas, this film didn't really bring anything new to the table! When you really dive deep into the world of Sci-Fi, isn't it just endless? There’s so much to unpack!Sure, I mean, he could definitely be seen as an intellectual powerhouse for someone who was just getting their feet wet with Sci-Fi. If you were relatively new to the genre and didn't really know your way around the tropes yet, his work probably felt like a total mind-bender! And honestly, I get it—those concepts are genuinely fascinating to chew on. But let’s be real for a second: even back then, weren't those ideas already starting to feel a little bit "been there, done that"?

Honestly, this movie is an absolute bullseye for anyone who isn't already deep into the world of Sci-Fi. I mean, visually? It’s a total knockout. Intellectually? It definitely hits those marks for most people. But look, if you grew up watching the classics and actually lived and breathed Sci-Fi back in the day, does it really offer much more than just a gorgeous picture book? For someone like that—relatively speaking—the whole thing feels kind of intellectually thin. Is it actually pushing any boundaries? Not really. It doesn't exactly present a unique challenge for the hardcore fans out there.

How can you even tell I know my stuff when it comes to Sci-Fi? Seriously, does it really take much convincing?

But why does it even have to be visible? Look, the whole point isn't some "who knows more about Sci-Fi" trivia contest; the question is which of these two movies is actually bigger, better, or more significant. I’ve already laid out my take and backed it up with my reasons. If you think I'm wrong, then hey, step up and give me yours! This is a forum, right? It's literally built for debating. If we aren't going to go head-to-head with actual arguments here, then where exactly are we supposed to do it?

slywolf45 said:It’s Blade Runner, obviously.
I mean... what is there even to debate here?😳🤷

Man, I love it when I spend a thousand words trying to make a point, only for someone else to come along and nail it better in just ten... 😢

hollowsailor19 said:So, which one actually takes the crown and why?



Blade Runner has been hailed as the ultimate Sci-Fi masterpiece. It’s still sitting at the top of most lists today—a story where the lines between hero and villain are completely blurred, leaving you questioning who the real good guys are.

2001: A Space Odyssey is just on another level philosophically. Once you sit through it, it honestly changes how you look at life, death, and everything in between.

Man, the only thing it changes is my perspective on my own ego! It isn't deep at all. Honestly? It’s just a gorgeous picture book built on a few Sci-Fi ideas that had already been totally exhausted in literature by then. In terms of the genre, this movie didn't bring anything new to the table. As a cinematic experience, sure, it captured that naive sense of wonder regarding space travel. But in books? You couldn't sell that anymore because it had been done and dusted for thirty years prior. The only reason it felt fresh was the technology—finally, we had the tools to make it look spectacular on screen.

While 2001: A Space Odyssey is beautifully made, its intellectual substance is pretty thin. The "challenge" it offers is really only for people who get off on pretty space vistas or folks experiencing Sci-Fi for the very first time.

So, it’s an incredible film for people who know nothing about Sci-Fi. For anyone who actually knows their stuff, it’s just a flashy coffee table book.

Now, Blade Runner? That is much heavier, more layered, and way more complex. I truly believe it will remain relevant as art for much longer. It introduced an entirely new paradigm to Sci-Fi, which eventually paved the way for the whole cyberpunk movement. It delivered one of those rare subgenres that actually still makes sense in the 21st century. It was a straight-up revolutionary film.

Just look at the massive footprint it left on the genre. Meanwhile, the Odyssey barely left a trace. It stands alone as what it always was—visually striking, but artistically and conceptually pretty empty.

nimblerider12 said:It’s not really sci-fi... It leans more towards horror (think vampires and stuff), so sorry if that doesn't quite fit the vibe of the post
but Night Watch and Day Watch are absolute bangers.
They're from somewhere like Russia or Belarus, but they speak English in them.

The author is a Kazakh filmmaker, Timur Bekmambetov. He's actually been working in Hollywood for a few years now. I think the only one of his Hollywood flicks that really made waves over here was Wanted. Honestly? That movie is wild in its own unique way. It's definitely worth a watch even if it's not exactly your cup of tea!

And man, Night Watch and Day Watch? Those are total classics already.

So, I’ve gone through a ton of ideas over the years. I’ve actually pulled the trigger on a few of them, while others just sat on the shelf because I was broke, busy, or life just got in the way. Out of the ones I actually went for, about two-thirds were what you’d call "successes," and the other third... well, not so much. But hold on, what does "success" even mean in this game? That’s the million-dollar question right there.

Look, you can have a killer idea and execute it perfectly, and honestly? It still might not amount to jack. To really make it in the entrepreneurship world, you need like twenty different qualities and twenty specific conditions to line up just right—and even then, you never know which unexpected curveball is going to come out of nowhere and absolutely wreck your plans. What are you supposed to do when you launch something that works flawlessly for a few years, brings in the big bucks, and scales like crazy, only to suddenly fall apart later on? And the kicker is, it happens every single time for some completely different reason.

At the end of the day, launching your own business is totally worth it simply because being an entrepreneur feels like the most natural thing in the world. You don't have some boss breathing down your neck, you do things exactly how you think they should be done, you've got total freedom, and nobody is there to stifle your creativity. If that kind of lifestyle clicks with you, then entrepreneurship is definitely your calling, and even a massive failure won't stop you from getting back up.

But let me tell you something: if you aren't genuinely enjoying the grind and the sheer freedom it provides, stay far away from this life. Being an entrepreneur is easily one of the hardest paths you can take. Why? Because it demands an insane variety of skills and abilities, and it is just so damn unpredictable.

But man, when things are clicking? There is nothing better. It’s almost better than sex.

goldenhound32 said:So why isn't Avalon working for you? I mean, sure, I saw it maybe 7 or 8 years ago, but it stuck in my head as a solid 6 out of 10.

@Carol Brown77/">@@Carol Brown77
Possession isn't even sci-fi, and let's be real, it doesn't have that Eastern Bloc vibe either.🙂

Bad production, bad acting, and honestly, just a bad concept (at least from what little I can recall).

Carol Brown77 said:Hmm... there’s also that newer American sci-fi flick, the one from the US and Japan... the 🤔 Avalon attempt. I actually tried watching it twice, but I ended up passing out halfway through both times! 🤷 Guess I’ll have to give it one more shot...

Honestly, the only sci-fi movie worse than Avalon that I've ever sat through (and trust me, I've been around the block!) was
Starship Troopers 2.

Anthony Smith3 said:I mean, if you look at how it actually performed with critics and audiences, the movie definitely exceeded expectations... we're talking maybe 60% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 6.4/10 over on IMDb...

Yeah, but honestly? It pulled those numbers mostly because it was specifically shot for 3D. People who saw it in theaters are saying the whole experience is just absolutely spectacular in that format! Plus, you’ve got that relatively charming Fraser acting style to sweeten the deal—it's totally worth a watch.

'The Third Man' is hands down sitting at the top of the perfection ladder. I mean, you've got 'The Good, the Bad and the Ugly' right up there too. But honestly, I think there are some absolute gems that get overlooked just because they catch you off guard in their genre, even though they are crafted to absolute perfection. Take 'My Melancholy Song,' for instance. That movie is just flawless. No notes, no flaws, nothing.

When it comes to my all-time favorite American classics, I'd have to go with 'Birch.' Maybe throw in 'Kaja' alongside it? And oh, we can't forget Berković's 'Rondo.'

James Lee77 said:But look, the sun doesn't need to learn how to count just to tell the difference between helium and hydrogen. I mean, the whole thing basically boils down to the number of protons anyway.

So, yeah, numbers exist on the sun even if there aren't any people there to "learn" them.

See, you're assuming the core issue is just about numerical values. But wouldn't it be more likely that Los Angeles perceives things in a completely different way?

James Lee77 said:But wait, did natural laws actually start that way? Like, did Newton invent his laws or just discover them? Are the laws of physics actually objective things? And I wonder, are these laws fundamentally mathematical, or could they be expressed without math? Could Newton's law of gravity even be explained without using equations?

I’m totally convinced they could! Honestly, we could describe them in ways that wouldn't even look mathematical to us. You can explain basically anything in nature—even our own logical frameworks—using several different accurate methods. Just look at the classic wave-particle duality debate, for instance.

It's just like describing a hunt: saying a hunter aimed his rifle, pulled the trigger, and took down a rabbit is just as technically accurate as saying some pale wizard pointed a thunderbolt staff at the rabbit and cast a death curse that left the poor thing dead on the spot.

rowdyotter25 said:Let’s swap out the word 'exist' for 'real.' My take is that the patterns math describes are real—meaning they work perfectly fine regardless of whether we stumble upon them or invent some fancy way to write them down. Think about it: if some alien creature halfway across the galaxy decided to compare a circle's circumference to its diameter, they’d end up with the exact same value we call Pi, no matter how they perceive it, how they record it, or if they even bother calling it a ratio. Even in a cold, dead universe void of any intelligent life, that mathematical truth would still hold sway as a fundamental law, even if there isn't a single soul around to notice it.

There’s Pi as a human convention, sure, but then there’s Pi as the actual relationship it represents. And that underlying reality? That part is completely independent of us.

Okay, I think you nailed it. Honestly, I don't see any holes in that logic! I totally buy into the idea that these relationships exist in nature, whether we label them as numbers, ratios, or whatever else. I'm also on board with the idea that their properties should be identical for any observer you can imagine. In other words, you've totally sold me on the idea that numbers exist objectively in nature, not just subjectively in our heads. Thanks for breaking that down!