Posts by vivideagle7

Larry Fox5 said:Everything you said is true, I just want to point out that cash and viewership are exact metrics—unlike subjective vibes.

Even Rolling Stone gathered a bunch of "music experts" to publish their list of greatest songs ever, and they put "Like A Rolling Stone" at number one, which makes zero sense... It's not even because the song is bad or because those people are biased, it's just that as a composition, it doesn't pass any actual test. You have to look at a track as a whole, and from a musical standpoint, it's below average.

C-F-G Em-Dm........ total nonsense.

The fact that every single cover of that song is better than the original tells you everything you need to know about how musically weak it is.

I don't know, man. To me, every cover is literally half as good as the original. Like, the only exception is Hendrix. Everything else just misses the mark.

Noah Roberts46 said:What would you put in your top 5?

For me, it’s The Dude, Fargo, No Country for Old Men, Miller's Crossing, and Barton Fink.

I’d probably go with those first four plus Blood Simple. Though, looking back, I might need to move Barton Fink down a bit... maybe somewhere right behind The Man Who Wasn't There and Raising Arizona.

Barton Fink was such a great film, but that ending really left me scratching my head. I don't remember the details perfectly, so I'm planning on a rewatch soon.

It’s probably not sitting in my top five Coen brothers flicks, but honestly, it’s still a fantastic movie. It really just speaks to how high their baseline is—that they can make something this good and it doesn't even crack their absolute best list.

I think De Niro was actually great in Taxi Driver. Maybe it wasn't his absolute peak performance, but he managed to interpret such a complex character way more effectively than Stallone did in Rocky. There aren't any shades of gray in Travis? I just can't get behind that idea.

Look, just give the guy a break, stop messing with him 😁 he didn't see it. And honestly, it’s not even worth getting worked up about after all those overtime periods.

I think Taxi Driver is just a brilliant movie—easily one of Martin Scorsese's best—and it absolutely deserves its reputation. Now, whether it actually tops Network is a whole other debate, but both of those are clearly in a different league compared to Rocky.

I've always had a soft spot for Sylvester Stallone, and I feel the same way about Arnold Schwarzenegger; I genuinely enjoy sitting down to watch their films.

I mean, I already knew he wasn't exactly an Oscar contender, but I didn't expect this level of 🤦

Honestly, I can't decide who was more painful to watch—him or that guy on the Harley.

Honestly, I’m feeling pretty discouraged after that second season. It felt like they didn't really put in the work, you know? To me, the first season was just the launchpad—it was basically the setup crew building the entire starship that the second season was supposed to fly.

Patrick Martin said:Prometheus is basically just ripping off Interstellar with its dialogue☕

Black guy singing Stephen Stills🙏

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.

If that hack of a director had actually edited it well, I wouldn't have anything to say.

The dialogue is just sappy; everything that female astronaut says feels totally fake.

And that ending? Total melodrama. He meets his daughter, who basically carries the weight of the whole movie, and then she just walks away after three seconds. Everything feels insincere to me. Honestly, the father-daughter scene in *Contact* was handled a hundred times better.

Even the son disappearing at the start... he seems important for a second, but it feels like Christopher Nolan only threw that in so MMC could drop two or three lines about the Moon landing to that professor. It’s a completely pointless subplot, much like the son's role in the entire film.

boldfox88 said:Are you thinking about that little robot Matt Damon used to get rid of? That's just a tiny fraction of the plot.

Flynn has been looking closely at IQ tests—those things that supposedly measure intelligence. Tell me, do you honestly think our social fabric has improved compared to how things were fifty years ago? We might have made massive leaps in technology, but when it comes to our quality of life and social cohesion, we haven't moved an inch.

IQ tests aren't some absolute, flawless measurement of intelligence—not even when you're just looking at logical reasoning—but they serve as a solid benchmark. Over the last 50 years, the standard of living in developed nations like the US has climbed steadily. Regardless of your personal take on it, technological progress has fundamentally improved life in these societies. We have better living conditions, easier access to information, and instant connectivity with people all over the country. From an evolutionary standpoint, this shift has triggered a massive jump in average IQ scores. It leads to a pretty straightforward conclusion: society plays a massive role in driving an individual's intellectual advancement.

What kind of mess are we dealing with here? Is it a heap of factual errors, logical fallacies, or just plain bad writing?

Sorry, my bad. I thought you were talking about Odyssey.

Patrick Martin said:It’s totally unbelievable. People just constantly let Nolan slide with whatever he does,
why is this massive pile of nonsense always tolerated and even cheered for when it's his name on the credits
but the second Scott starts fighting off MONSTRUMS, everyone starts nitpicking every single tiny detail?

where's the fairness? WHY the double standards?

I mean, I read those first two sentences and I’m right there with you, totally agree, but then you bring up Scott, and honestly, if you start mentioning him, the Nolan fanboys aren't going to take us seriously at all.🤦

boldfox88 said:What kind of AI is this guy trying to outsmart?

The truth is, we really are social creatures who rely on one another. Our collective progress as a civilization has long since surpassed what any single individual could ever achieve alone. It’s essentially the result of our entire species working as one massive team. Because of that, we are defined more by our connections to others than by our relationship with ourselves (whatever that internal concept even means). More importantly, the Flynn effect demonstrates just how much the quality of our social environment dictates the development of intelligence—our greatest competitive advantage over every other species on Earth.

It’s honestly pretty hard to spot that in the movie. And yeah, he’s definitely trying to outmaneuver it—trying to shut it down once it has completely taken over them.

boldfox88 said:What kind of AI is this guy trying to outsmart?

The truth is, we really are social creatures who rely on one another. Our collective progress as a civilization has long since surpassed what any single individual could ever achieve alone. It’s essentially the result of our entire species working as one massive team. Because of that, we are defined more by our connections to others than by our relationship with ourselves (whatever that internal concept even means). More importantly, the Flynn effect demonstrates just how much the quality of our social environment dictates the development of intelligence—our greatest competitive advantage over every other species on Earth.

Well, Flynn was looking at IQ tests, which are just "supposed" to measure intelligence. Are you seriously suggesting that social quality has improved compared to where we were fifty years ago? Sure, maybe we've leveled up technologically, but socially? Not really.

brightpilot6 said:Are you seriously suggesting that I can't go into a sci-fi movie expecting a coherent narrative—one that actually adheres to the internal logic established by the film itself? If we are talking about science fiction, isn't the entire experience built upon a specific set of rules and dogmas defined by the film and its subsequent lore?

I’ve mentioned this before. It’s about the story itself—how it grapples with those heavy, existential questions and truly forces a confrontation between the individual and the vastness of the cosmos. As for the pacing, I suppose that's purely subjective, though I have little patience for anything that feels sluggish or lacks momentum.

Hmm. You’re misrepresenting me there. I said you weren't expecting a sense of closure in Odyssey, not that you weren't looking for logic.

I'm not going to go through all your arguments right now—honestly, I just don't feel like it—but this idea of "touching on existential questions"? Which ones, exactly? Forgive me if you already laid this out and I missed it. Odyssey doesn't focus directly on the human experience the way Interstellar does; instead, it uses the perspective of the universe to show how tiny humans are, our place in the void, evolution, intelligence... it isn't driven by some "love" force that moves everything. It feels like a banal film with banal direction. It would be better to compare it to Contact, though even that is light-years ahead of it.

brightpilot6 said:But why shouldn't I? Is it because mainstream dogma dictates otherwise?

It doesn't even necessarily need to be perfectly circular; at the very least, one might hope for a modicum of internal logic within the film.

Fair enough. 🤣

What kind of religious dogma is this? It’s not like anyone is forcing you to decide if a movie is "good" or not—that's entirely about the experience you have while watching it. But honestly, some of your arguments just don't hold water, especially that whole bit about a minimum requirement for logic.

Could you please give me some specific scenes where Interstellar actually holds its own? I mean, help me out here—show me those moments where the movie really hits its stride.

brightpilot6 said:My point isn't necessarily that one is technically or artistically superior in every cinematic sense, but rather that it offers a more cohesive, well-rounded narrative—one that touches on those fundamental human questions far more deeply than Odyssey ever does.

But apparently, Odyssey has to be better in every single category to be considered valid, doesn't it? 🙏🙏

It reminds me of those die-hard fans who insist that Lionel Messi had to be a better player intellectually than Christian just to maintain their argument.

They'll tell you Messi's left foot is better than Ronald's, so he doesn't need anything else.

I mean, you can't go into Odyssey expecting some perfectly wrapped-up narrative, right?

And yeah, Odyssey is better than Interstellar across the board.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I guess that’s the beauty of an Odyssey. Everyone gets to take away their own version of it. It doesn't try to shove everything down your throat with a massive dose of melodrama like Interstellar does, treating us all like idiots.

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

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

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

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

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

Mmkay, putting this irrelevant image aside, Interstellar is like an SF-esque movie where the protagonist uncovers something previously unknown—some sort of underlying force governing our entire existence, much like Odyssey. Just based on that thematic overlap alone, there's already a massive similarity.

But when you look at actual quality, they aren't even in the same league.

Keith Miller30 said:I actually sat down and watched The Matrix just because I saw people talking about it on Reddit here. The Matrix 👍

Regarding Viking 👎 I found it to be a decent series for a little while, but after that... 👎

I managed to catch the pilot episode of The Wire 👎 as well as the pilot for It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia 👎

Both are absolute masterpieces. ☕Just...
wow.

Andrew Murphy5 said:

The soundtrack is straight up trippy.

I mean, isn't that kind of what we expected from this movie?

Yeah, it would be weird if it wasn't, but then again, it feels a little too on the nose, doesn't it?