Posts by Jerry Martin19

Slumdog Millionaire 0% 🙂

David Price5 said:Isn't that just classic Hollywood?

So I'm just not allowed to give an actual critique and say the movie doesn't deserve all the hype it "gets"? 🙂

So, the screenwriter picks up an Oscar for the script and goes on about how this guy was his absolute hero because he fought for their rights and all that. Honestly, the whole movie feels like straight-up propaganda, which I’m not a fan of. It’s too targeted—you don't really get the freedom to look at the situation objectively as a viewer since they just serve you their specific take on the issue. And honestly, leaning that hard into the liberal angle shouldn't be used to steer the audience like that... it's just not right.

James Garcia58 said:Are we talking about a "neutral impression" regarding the movie itself, or specifically about Milka's character?

Both, honestly. But mostly the movie.

Look, I get it—it’s all propaganda and whatever, but if Harvey Milk is supposed to be this ultimate liberal who fights against every kind of discrimination, from racial to gender, then why doesn't he maintain that neutral vibe he claims to have?

I’m not a fan of discrimination either, so I’ve got no beef with anyone being sidelined. Honestly, "discriminating against the audience" doesn't even bother me when we're talking about an auteur's vision—sometimes that's just part of the art. But that’s definitely not what's happening here.

Watched it last night and honestly, I think the movie is totally overrated. Where do I even start? Look... I can't stand it when films tackling discrimination don't offer an objective viewpoint, but instead try to "force" you to feel sympathy for the victims and give them a "shoulder to cry on." I just don't vibe with that kind of "morally pathetic" approach toward the audience. Second, which ties back to my first point, I hate it when a story is too one-sided—when the viewer is funneled into seeing things through exactly one lens, the one the writer dictates. I didn't feel any sense of freedom here; if anything, it felt like being coerced into looking at things from the specific angle "they" wanted me to see. And no, I'm not some homophobe, I just don't want this kind of author-to-viewer relationship. Given that the subject matter is literally about discrimination, having a biased narrative is the last thing this should be doing...

To be fair, it’s not all bad. There are some good parts. Mainly, the acting by Brilliant Sean Penn is nothing short of incredible. I was actually surprised by how well he controlled the character, keeping him grounded in reality even when it seemed like he might slip, though he's always been a great actor. Josh Brolin is also really solid, and as far as the rest of the cast goes, I think everyone hit their mark.

Bottom line: the movie is okay, but it could have been much better, much more open, and less one-sided... I think it would have worked way better if the film wasn't basically just targeted gay propaganda.

Look, I get that you can't just delete posts if someone wants them gone, but I’ve never understood why we can't just permanently ban them if that's what they're asking for. It’s probably just a handful of people, and then everyone stays happy 🤷

Unless banning someone is some massive, complicated ordeal... which I highly doubt...

That supposed admin Anderlon is just a clone of ris. Not only should his admin and mod privileges be stripped immediately, but he needs a permanent ban along with an IP block too... ☕

2001? 😕

Not sure, tough call for me. Maybe even the one below, but I'll have to sleep on it. Hard to pick a side...

That series is actually perfect, honestly—I’m a huge fan. I just noticed everyone was getting all worked up over titles because of the comparisons, so I brought up The X-Files and it felt like it came off with a bit of a negative
vibe...

All we need now is a mention of The X-Files 😁

edit: I know it’s minor, but it’s spelled Odyssey with a "y"... if anyone feels like fixing the title, that'd be great 🙂...

Just wanted to ask you guys something. Why does everything in Odyssey have to be so grimy and filthy, trying way too hard to be "realistic" like in Blade Runner? What's the logic behind making a relatively new spaceship—built specifically to explore uncharted territory—look beat up and battered, like it just crawled out of some cosmic war zone? I mean, it’s not exactly Han Solo’s Millennium Falcon 🤷
...

Arthur Anderson49 said: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.

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 😁

Arthur Anderson49 said: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!

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?...

Arthur Anderson49 said: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?

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.

Arthur Anderson49 said: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.

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)

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.

Alright, I get it. You made some solid points, but you basically shot yourself in the foot by admitting that you didn't actually find anything in that movie. No offense, but that just turned this into an off-topic argument... cheers.

Arthur Anderson49 said: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!

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.