Posts by Jerry Martin19

Arthur Anderson49 said: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?

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...

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

Arthur Anderson49 said: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.

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?

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

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

I don't think you have a clue 🙂

Clean this up a bit (😁). If you hadn't dropped those images in the OP, you'd be sitting here with maybe three lines of text, and these movies have enough depth to fill entire libraries. Give me some actual reasoning on how you're comparing them—and don't just say "genre." I'm holding my vote until I see some substance...

So you think you're being "constructive"? yawn, what a drag ☕

If everyone on this board was like the guy above, we could probably cap everything at 100 characters and call it a day ☕ 😬

Just kidding. I can't remember the last time I actually sat down to write more than a few sentences, but I get the point. Some people here love to ramble on forever, posting wall after wall of text because they just don't know when to quit 🙂

Henry Hall said:At the end of the day, quality is everything. Runtime doesn't matter—if a great movie happens to be long, even better. But a bad movie that drags on? That just leaves you exhausted. Though, I guess there's always a way to deal with that...

you just gotta know how to play the game ☕

Anthony Smith3 said:is he Goodman or just bad...

what if he's Goodman, bad, or just evil? 😬

You could've just asked "do you like them" instead of "can you stand them." Now it sounds like we're barely tolerating them while suffering through it... 😬

I posted on this thread last night and deleted it pretty quick because I didn't want to get dragged into the drama, but if there's a "con" side, someone's gotta present the "pro" 😁

The level of trolling Groucho was pulling in that thread was next-level provocation—even the biggest trolls on this forum wouldn't be that obnoxious. Honestly, northerncrane4's approach was actually a decent move, even though the user ignored the good-faith warning and just kept pushing buttons. It’s not even hard to see what kind of trolling we're talking about when someone claims the foundation of a movie should be changed to fit "reality"—which is basically stripping away whatever makes the film unique in the first place. Imagine trying to scientifically dismantle the fantasy elements of a story. It’s like halfway through Harry Potter, suddenly someone starts explaining that Harry isn't doing magic, he's just shooting fireworks out of his sleeve. (🙂) He got handed a card featuring a catatonic beaver, and honestly, it was deserved. Since the user kept being provocative, they "earned" those cards. Actually, things went pretty smoothly considering how some moderators act; usually, they don't even warn you or ask for your reasoning before they just hit you with a strike. The mods over at "Cinema" are actually pretty chill and approachable, so there isn't really much ground to stand on for an appeal like this. If it were up to me, this whole topic would've been shut down from the jump 🙂

goldenhound32 said:It’s simply incomparable. There was significantly less wine in the glass than when we last saw her, and then there was that awkward three-second delay between the doorbell ringing and the door actually opening.
First, we have to address the technical oversight, and then there is the matter of what isn't.

I find myself wondering about the mindset of certain viewers: are you actually watching the films, or are you just hunting for mistakes? Don't get me wrong, we all spot a little continuity error or a technical slip-up from time to time, but obsessing over them to this degree feels utterly futile.

It seems to me that this entire debate regarding whether we actually need something or if it’s just an obstacle is becoming entirely pointless.
Whether something is actually realistic or not—well, that’s a whole different conversation entirely. But that's exactly why I felt the need to open this thread in the first place.

I think there was a list there, like, a serious list. Look closer. They're even driving cars that hadn't even been manufactured yet (back in "that" era)😁

"it feels like arguing about whether it should bother us or not is pointless.
but whether it's realistic or not—well, that's a different story. And that's why this thread exists."

Alright, let's start listing the inconsistencies. ☕

rustywalker42 said:What am I even supposed to say? It's been way too long since I last watched him. And honestly, even if I sat down to watch him right now, I probably wouldn't pay any attention anyway.

For me, it’s not even a question of choice.
That plot hole hits me right in the eye. Like, seriously? It’s that obvious. 🙂 Robert Wilson, honestly? Someone knocking on my door after only three seconds feels like someone just shoved a finger straight into my ribs.

My advice? Just stop watching movies.👍

I don't recall them either, but here's some proof of the logic gaps and mistakes found just in the first godfather 1,2 - soprano. Source is the ultimate authority, IMDb 🙂

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068646/goofs

I mean, are people actually watching movies, or just hunting for errors? We all spot a little "mistake" once in a while, but obsessing over this stuff is honestly pointless. Real flaws are things like bad directing, bad acting, weak scripts, terrible characterization, or sloppy editing. Now *that* is worth talking about🙂

Besides, I barely even notice these glitches in "serious" films anymore. In other stuff—like trash movies or TV flicks—they stick out like a sore thumb and almost add to the fun vibe of those movies. This thread would be way better if we just kept it light and shared funny bloopers like:

Robert Wilson said:Or maybe just the sheer cliché of it all—whenever you hear "shoot the gas tank" in every single movie, it starts getting on my nerves. Honestly, I feel like just farting in the tank and watching the car go to hell would be more effective at this point.
And don't get me started on those horror tropes where some hideous monster chases a girl around. The villain moves at a snail's pace, which the whole movie emphasizes by showing how slow he is, yet the poor girl keeps tripping over her own feet. They just keep cutting back and forth between her and him, and then, in the grand finale, the famous bad guy catches her (probably because he hit the nitro when the camera wasn't looking, and then turned it off once he did).

Then there's that ridiculous physics where a villain gets hit with a 9mm Beretta—which is basically a standard movie trope where the lead actor shoots some side bandit and the guy gets knocked clean off the set by a single bullet. It’s unbelievable.

When I say "realistic," I mean realistic within the context of that specific film. To me, that means whether the movie actually provides an explanation for its logic, even if it is sci-fi or pure fiction.

For instance, there was one movie where the lead had a specific handgun, and in just a few seconds of screen time, he mentions he modified it to hold more ammo. Within the world of that movie, that feels realistic because they actually gave us an explanation. On the other hand, in other movies I've watched, you wouldn't believe for a second how much ammo could actually fit in a 16-round magazine.

To clarify what Jessica Rogers2 was getting at: I doubt anyone here is talking about real-life physics or things happening in the real world. Take a Superman movie, for example. Personally, I don't think it's great, but hey, I'm no critic. He flies around lifting buildings and destroying stuff, but the movie explains *why* he can do that, even if it's only for a few seconds. Because those answers are provided, the movie stays "realistic" on its own cinematic level.

Still, there are exceptions. When it comes to Superman, it always drove me crazy how he puts on that suit and suddenly nobody recognizes him, when in reality, he just took off his glasses... Give me a break. It's like an >.

🙂

Dolph Lundgren is under "someone else." Is there anything else I need to add? ☕

goldenhound32 said:It isn't about whether he knows or doesn't know; it's about whether he bothered to mention it.
I happen to know the things others don't, and vice versa.

So, we're just repeating obvious clichés in the face of criticism.

Perhaps there are people out there who wouldn't bother pointing out the obvious before they've even seen the opponent.

So that would mean it doesn't have to be unrealistic for the hero to drop a cliché right in front of the bad guy. There, problem solved... 😁

goldenhound32 said:Every time you bring up something that nobody actually does, you're just cluttering up this thread.

But can you say with 100% certainty that her reaction is illogical? 🤷

Which reaction?

Furthermore... talking to oneself. I don't know anyone in real life who does that, yet I see it constantly in films.
I'm not even counting characters seeing people who aren't there, those with mental illnesses, sleep-talking, or "conversations" with inanimate objects (like Christine). I can accept all of that.

But a perfectly normal character, alone in the room, staring straight ahead, just uttering sentences to thin air? It feels surreal. Or does it?

That’s just "on-topic spam." I mean, does anyone actually believe a car explodes just because it hits something?...🙄Honestly, pointing stuff like that out is just redundant...

What kind of reaction...?

Repeating the same old mistakes right before a total disaster...

goldenhound32 said:I don't overlook them. I binged all three godfather films in two days about seven years ago, so my memory isn't exactly sharp. If there are similar issues in the godfather movies, feel free to point them out.

You wouldn't even know half of these things if you hadn't started digging into them.

What am I supposed to say if I already know more? lol.

Honestly, it drives me crazy when someone comments on a movie like that. In fact, I don't even watch movies with people like that.

Fair enough. As for me, I just eat while I watch.

You already got your answer to all of this in an earlier message.

Aha, so you're just repeating yourself and calling it a day? fine.
🙂

When I say "it bothers me," I mean it's unpleasant, not that I'm pulling my hair out.

And I find myself getting dragged into all sorts of debates, too.😢
Let me repeat myself:
"It seems to me that debating whether or not something should bother us is pointless.
But whether something is realistic or not—well, that's a different story altogether. And that's exactly why this thread is open."

Why and how did you conclude that? 😕

Risk mitigation.

I pulled you in. On purpose... 🙂

Like I said...
Feels like this whole debate about whether we actually need it or not is just pointless...
Whether it’s actually realistic or not... that's a whole different conversation. And honestly, that's exactly why I started this thread...

It’s pretty vital because if you go that route, you could pull examples from like 99% of movies... do you realize how massive that really is?...

Risk mitigation...

But you can't say for sure that her reaction wasn't totally irrational... 🤷

goldenhound32 said:Incorrect.
I am speaking from memory here. I haven't always had a massive selection of films to choose from.
As for the whole thing about leaving cars unlocked, I see that quite often. It’s actually a nice touch that modern characters usually have remote keyless entry; they just press a button and lock the car. That makes things much more efficient. 🙂

You completely misinterpreted the part about the shotgun... it's actually quite simple.
In reality, someone who has a gun in mind will likely use it immediately to repeat the shot, rather than waiting until they are staring directly into their opponent's eyes.

So you don't even bother. Makes me wonder why you said...

goldenhound32 said:Just another bit of nonsense that grates on my nerves...
People don't bother locking their cars. Why that is, I haven't the slightest clue. 🤷

Furthermore...

Person A is talking on the phone with Person B... Person B hangs up... Person A can't handle the rejection and slams the receiver down, acting as if pressing a button could somehow change the outcome... 😕
I find myself wondering where this cinematic trope even originated.

? 🤷

I see this whole thing about forgetting to lock the car all the time. It's great that most people have remote keyless entry these days where you just hit a button and the car's locked. Easy enough... 🙂

Finally, some good news. Now you might actually get some sleep... 😁

You completely butchered that part about the shotgun... it's actually pretty straightforward...
In reality, once he figures out how to use it, he’s gonna start pulling it out constantly... not just waiting until he's staring down his opponent...

What makes you say that? And based on what...? 😕
I'll definitely throw that right back in their face if I get the chance... ☕

Maria Roberts said:I actually struggled with that logic myself for a while, so I eventually rationalized it by deciding that if you aren't the lead actor, there's no guarantee you'll make it to the credits. Essentially, the director (or whoever is calling the shots) already knows exactly who survives and who is going to be the face of the story, so the entire film naturally revolves around them. Honestly, that felt like a much more solid explanation in my head 🤣 😁 which would imply that the movie isn't necessarily happening in real-time while we watch, but rather acts as a reconstruction of events.

that was a response to:

Sophia Grant39 said:It’s all nonsense. Completely unrealistic, but 99% of the audience doesn't even notice. For me, the dumbest part is how the good guys end up with 90 out of 100 wounds right in the shoulder. Of course, they just wrap it up with one bandage. Every single car crash results in an explosion, and if someone fires a shotgun, the hood just flies off into the air. But who cares... I guess that's why they're called movies and not documentaries.

basically a joke 🙂

p.s. the only time these kinds of mistakes would actually bug me is in movies that try to go full realism. then every little slip-up would really stick out...

goldenhound32 said:It could happen, but it isn't a necessity. There are too many variables at play.

besides, what the fugitive is actually carrying matters. if he's got a handgun and the other guy is lugging a shotgun that requires "constant" reloading, then who is really doing the chasing? 🤷

"Constant"? That depends entirely on the shotgun.

p.s. the original post didn't specify anything about the villain being armed 🤷

But let’s assume he is. It's a fair assumption, given how often villains in these things are armed.

and yeah, I'd love to see an example of a scene like that if you happen to have one 🙂

Maybe one exists, but I couldn't tell you. Not that it really matters. What matters is how reality gets bent just to make the hero look cooler. Take a show like The Wire, for instance; they don't do that. There's one guy with a shotgun who just fires—no dramatic reloading sequences required.

so we're back to the point that what kind of movie it actually is is what matters most 🙂

Precisely.
I haven't seen a car explode after a collision in quite some time. That's mostly because I tend to avoid action movies altogether.

so, when one person is neutralized, are we supposed to wait as long as it takes for the other one to arrive?

Wait for him to arrive?

With so many variables at play, there are just as many ways to look at it. That situation you mentioned in your first post doesn't necessarily have to be a logical flaw...

"Every once in a while"? Depends on how much of a hack the writer is...

So when the hero pulls a gun on the villain, I guess we just ignore the whole concept of marksmanship...

But let's say he's armed. It’s a fair assumption since the bad guys usually carry something...

Wait. Why wouldn't we just assume it isn't?...

You mentioned that scene in the intro post. Can you give an example of a scene like that being totally illogical?...

Maybe it exists, but who knows. Doesn't even matter. The point is how they wreck reality just to make the hero look cooler... If you watched *The Wire*, you'd see they don't do that. There's this one guy with a gun, he just fires, no repetitive nonsense...

Maybe that hero is actually... sweet...?

Haven't seen the series, so I've got nothing to say...

Exactly.
It’s been forever since I’ve seen a car actually explode after a crash. That's mostly because I steer clear of action movies...

Just stay away from them if you don't want those movie "mistakes" getting on your nerves...

When is he coming?...

I skimmed this too quickly and totally missed what you guys were saying (that whole thing about the instant phone connection and the door opening when someone rings). My bad. Sorry...

Emily Thomas3 said:I’m currently diving into One Hundred Years of Solitude, and I can already see some of you guys losing your minds if they ever made a movie out of it—not even because of the blasphemy, but just because the whole book is packed with surrealism disguised as everyday reality.

I’d honestly be laughing my head off, just living my best life while "goldenhound32" over here whines on the forum about how unrealistic it all is...☕div>

Sophia Grant39 said:It’s all nonsense. Completely unrealistic, but 99% of the audience doesn't even notice. For me, the dumbest part is how the good guys end up with 90 out of 100 wounds right in the shoulder. Of course, they just wrap it up with one bandage. Every single car crash results in an explosion, and if someone fires a shotgun, the hood just flies off into the air. But who cares... I guess that's why they're called movies and not documentaries.

And how does the main guy always manage to stay alive just to face the big bad at the end?

p.s. not true. they get shot in the leg all the time.

goldenhound32 said:You clearly aren't reading closely enough. I specifically wrote 'armed.'

Wouldn't an armed fugitive turn around at some point and fire a shot just to throw the hunter off? And the hunter would obviously return fire. Besides, what they're carrying matters. If he’s got a pistol and the other guy is stuck reloading a shotgun every single time, who's really doing the chasing here? 🤷

p.s. the original post didn't mention anything about an armed villain 🤷

And yeah, if you happen to have an example of a scene like that, I'd love to see it... 🙂

goldenhound32 said:Of course a glaring script error bothers me more than an unlocked car. But that doesn't mean I should just overlook the car. Every detail in a film matters to me.

You realize you can just skip over the filler scenes, right? Like when a character is just sitting around waiting for someone else after a phone call? 🙂

Have you noticed how Fox Mulder and Dana Scully sometimes zip through several cities in just a few minutes while trying to crack a case? 😁

Those two aren't the same thing. You don't see Scully eating or using the restroom, but a scene involving a phone call is vital—even if it's brief—and therefore needs to happen in real time.

We're back to the idea that it really depends on what kind of movie we're talking about... 🙂

These two things aren't the same. You don't care to see how Scully eats or goes to the bathroom, but the phone scene is important (and short), so it has to be in real time.

So, when one person finishes up, are we supposed to just wait forever for the other person to show up? Sure, he has to wait, but unless we want to sit through ten minutes of him just "hanging out" in the apartment, directors are going to cut the fluff and get back to the actual plot. I don't see the issue, unless you've got an example that proves otherwise. Can't think of any similar scenes right now... 🤷