Posts by brightpilot6

Walter Grant5 said:Look, I’m talking about the movie as a standalone piece of cinema. Because let's be real—even Burton’s Batman flicks didn't actually hold up to the source material.

Honestly, once you've seen Burton's second one, I just can't get into Nolan's Batman movies. Can't do it.

Pretty much what Rob says.

What exactly do you mean by that? That we're dealing with "cartoon characters"?

Is that where this "paradoxical logic" comes from?

So, are you suggesting one should view the film strictly as a standalone cinematic work, ignoring its comic book roots entirely, yet somehow still find fault with the fact that they are "cartoon characters"?

I’m talking about cinema as its own entity here, rather than constantly measuring a film against its comic book source material or how strictly it adheres to the panels.

To be honest, ever since I finished Nolan’s trilogy, I just can't bring myself to watch the older Batman movies anymore.

By the way, what exactly is so illogical about *The Dark Knight*?

Walter Grant5 said:It’s actually a decent flick, if you consider how much of a complete train wreck the last installment in the series was.

Well, Nolan left it that way on purpose just so you could marvel at the sheer absurdity of life itself. I don't understand how people miss that; not everything is required to follow strict logic, is it?

So now we have someone looking for rigorous logic in a film adaptation of a superhero comic book. How about that.

Honestly, the mere fact that it isn't even cracking the Top 20 says everything you need to know about how relevant these rankings actually are.

It’s a masterpiece, truly, in every sense of the word.

Film critics tend to behave much like sports journalists; they mostly just exist to condescend to the average person enjoying the show.

Does anyone happen to have any recommendations for some solid independent films worth watching?

The truth is, they’re actually admitting they missed the mark, provided you have any grasp of cinema at all; most people are just rushing to praise it because nobody wants to be the one to admit they were left completely in the dark. 🤦

On a different note, I can't help but wonder what people living a hundred or two hundred years from now will make of all this, especially when they look back on our entire cinematic history as nothing more than one singular, condensed "classic era."

Good grief, what a pretentious, hipsterish collection of half-baked theories and lists this turned out to be. 🤣

The questions were clearly framed in a way that invited reasonable answers, much like the one provided by Matthew Young35.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/presidential-election-updates/382295/?foto=8

Headline 🤣

James Anderson5 said:I don't think you've actually read their interviews, and it feels like you're just being stubborn, kind of like how you were about Interstellar. You seem to be writing about things without looking into them enough before forming an opinion, though I still enjoy reading your posts. Actually, M&S definitely did dive into the archives. Here's a quote from the website of their US publisher: "Imprimatur is a novel based on true archival material that was often inaccessible to the public, which Rita Monaldi and Francesco Sorti spent over ten years collecting."

And here's a snippet from one of their interviews: "In the spring, we finished 'Mysterium,' the fourth title in the saga started with 'Imprimatur.' We spent three years researching in Vienna, Rome, and Paris, even employing a ten-person team to work for us, but it was still incredibly exhausting and time-consuming archival work."

Yet you're still insisting they don't use archives and that they're mostly just recycling non-fiction. They literally hired a whole team for a single book. There are plenty of quotes out there proving my point if you bother to look online...

And please, what exactly makes Imprimatur a copy of The Name of the Rose? I haven't heard a comparison like that in ages. The only similarity is that the Church is central to the plot, but The Name of the Rose is set in the late Middle Ages and focuses on murders in a monastery, while Imprimatur is set during the Baroque era and deals with European espionage and Pope Innocent XI. Saying it's a copy is like saying Interstellar is a copy of the Odyssey just because it takes place in space...

🤣

I suspect I’ve likely combed through every single interview that you have.

If you truly believe it’s realistic for those two—who, let’s be honest, aren't exactly trained historians—to spend just a few years poking through well-known archives across the country between their regular day jobs and somehow unearth four, or potentially even seven (!) massive historical lies with such staggering implications, then I can only tell you that you're mistaken.

It’s a truth that many self-proclaimed, serious historians will never quite manage to grasp, even if they spend their entire lives searching for it.

I’ll stand by my word on this one: I don't buy for a second that they unearthed these narratives just by digging through old archives; it feels much more like they simply scavenged them from existing research. As for the actual historical accuracy—well, the first two novels might hold some water, but the latter two? It's hard to take them seriously when you consider a plot involving a banker conspiracy—likely targeting Jewish financiers—aimed at assassinating an enlightened Austrian leader destined to become a French Emperor just to prevent global peace. Throw in some fabricated antiquity and entirely made-up centuries, and you have to wonder what exactly we're supposed to be reading here. 🤷 Before we dive into the conspiracy theories—and I have certainly spent my fair share of time reading up on this particular one, both before and after the fact—one has to wonder where the line actually sits?Fomenko 🙏🙏I find this subject incredibly compelling, but I’m going to need some actual historical facts to back it up—please? It would be nice to have something to go on regarding its credibility and originality.

Oh, they certainly did their homework on the background details for those novels—good grief, even Hemingway went through that level of rigor. They were obsessed with capturing the exact atmosphere of the eras they wrote about, meticulously studying the key historical figures, the social hierarchies, and even the smallest, most trivial nuances of daily life just to get the setting right. But in all that pursuit of authenticity, they tended to overlook the most vital elements, didn't they? And honestly, let them have their little distractions. 🤷

I’m honestly not quite sure why you reacted so defensively, as if suggesting they didn't uncover these stories through their own investigative work was some kind of personal insult. My intention wasn't to imply their quality is lacking—certainly not on par with someone like Brown—but rather to point out that they utilized a similar methodology, and that’s really where the comparison ends. Their final product is, by any measure, significantly superior.

Shouldn't we admit that Eco didn't really need to lean into that kind of sensationalism in his books, nor did he require those flashy publicity stunts that brands like Macy's pull off so effectively during their campaigns? It’s just an objective fact, isn't it?

James Anderson5 said:I don't think you've actually read their interviews, and it feels like you're just being stubborn, kind of like how you were about Interstellar. You seem to be writing about things without looking into them enough before forming an opinion, though I still enjoy reading your posts. Actually, M&S definitely did dive into the archives. Here's a quote from the website of their US publisher: "Imprimatur is a novel based on true archival material that was often inaccessible to the public, which Rita Monaldi and Francesco Sorti spent over ten years collecting."

And here's a snippet from one of their interviews: "In the spring, we finished 'Mysterium,' the fourth title in the saga started with 'Imprimatur.' We spent three years researching in Vienna, Rome, and Paris, even employing a ten-person team to work for us, but it was still incredibly exhausting and time-consuming archival work."

Yet you're still insisting they don't use archives and that they're mostly just recycling non-fiction. They literally hired a whole team for a single book. There are plenty of quotes out there proving my point if you bother to look online...

And please, what exactly makes Imprimatur a copy of The Name of the Rose? I haven't heard a comparison like that in ages. The only similarity is that the Church is central to the plot, but The Name of the Rose is set in the late Middle Ages and focuses on murders in a monastery, while Imprimatur is set during the Baroque era and deals with European espionage and Pope Innocent XI. Saying it's a copy is like saying Interstellar is a copy of the Odyssey just because it takes place in space...

Is there anything else they share?

1. The narrative framework is practically identical—we have a narrator who, after several years, comes into possession of an original manuscript and decides to lay it all out for us.
2. The protagonist is a monk who possesses sharp detective instincts while simultaneously juggling significant political responsibilities.
3. He is accompanied by an inexperienced young man acting as his second.
4. This very sidekick eventually writes the manuscript that recounts the entire story told by our narrator.
5. The monk seems almost detached from standard human desires, whereas the sidekick, unable to resist temptation, ends up losing a woman.
6. The mystery unfolds within a closed environment, a sort of isolated setting where nobody can enter or leave, featuring a strictly limited cast of characters.
7. In both instances, the monk is tasked with investigating a murder within this confined space.
8. There also exist secret passages in both stories, which turn out to be used by many of the inhabitants of the enclosed community.
9. Running parallel to the detective work is the monk's ongoing political mission.
10. There is a dense collection of minor motifs: relic sellers peddling skulls, and various codes and ciphers that the detective duo must hunt down and crack—one hidden within a labyrinth, another embedded in music.

Walter Grant5 said:Cut the sarcasm.

Is sarcasm really the most extreme reaction I could have to the answers you provided, especially considering you were the one who asked me to start asking questions in the first place?

I appreciate you all providing such specific answers.

Walter Grant5 said:Look, brightpilot6, let's break this down. What part of the Odyssey is actually confusing you?

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

...

?

Who exactly is placing these monoliths?
How do they actually function?
Why do their agents provide us with a tiny nudge forward, only to wait millions of years for spontaneous evolution without any further intervention?
Did the influence apply only to those who physically touched them, or did it affect the entire population?
If it was the latter, why didn't it affect other living creatures?
And why wasn't a monolith found on Earth, but rather on the Moon instead?
What is the connection to the alignment with the Sun—or rather, the star (though perhaps it operates on solar energy)?
What role does HAL play in all of this?
Why did he malfunction?
Is the ultimate purpose of all these monoliths simply to lead us into some room where we live out our days until death?
What did that stay in the room do to the man that resulted in him being reborn as that celestial infant?
Why didn't they just use a monolith to create whatever it was they made for him?

My creationist theory involving the Bible actually provides me with the most coherent explanation, yet you all insisted that the movie has nothing to do with it.

So, I am speaking strictly about the film, the narrative, and the internal logic of the movie itself, not Clarke's novel.

And I don't believe that every film with unanswered questions is inherently bad. For the umpteenth time—I am talking about the cohesion of the story.

ruggedjackal46 said:Just because the plot, the internal logic, and the core themes are essentially spoon-fed to an Interstellar viewer doesn't mean it’s a superior film to 2001, which actually demands a bit of intellectual heavy lifting from the audience.

And don't even get me started on the philosophy. To me, 2001 offers a pretty stark look at the absolute chaos of the human condition, whereas Interstellar just suggests that parental love can somehow overpower a black hole. It’s basically the philosophy of an American sitcom.

My response to that is that the movie's story is essentially a Rorschach test; people project whatever intense interpretations they want onto it, and then layer arbitrary takes on filmmaking technique on top of those interpretations. When I offered some perspectives that contradicted yours, ruggedjackal46, you actually admitted they were valid. So, where did I go wrong?

Just because a film allows for multiple interpretations doesn't make it completely random. Arbitrariness and blatant one-dimensionality are two different extremes, and 2001 sits somewhere comfortably in the middle.

If you approach every Hollywood production from the jump as nothing more than a frivolous crowd-pleaser, is it any wonder they never seem to ""show"" you anything?

For my part, "Interstellar" didn't exactly ""show"" me anything new; rather, it just nudged me back toward pondering those same old questions I've likely already written about a hundred times. And no, it certainly didn't provide any tidy answers to them.

After finishing "The Odyssey," I was left merely wondering who exactly is placing those monoliths and what the ultimate purpose behind it all might be. But then again, isn't that less of a philosophical inquiry and more of a fascination with the cosmos itself?

Alex Brown50 said:Funny enough, I actually find Eco to be a prime example of literary fluff and pretension—like, he’s got less substance than Borges, just more ego (and more pages) 😛

And look, Kubrick is basically an artist in his own right, you know? If he's not your cup of tea, that's fine—but it's a bit much to claim everyone else seeing depth in those Odyssey vibes is just staring at a blank canvas. Maybe do a little homework before dropping takes like that.

I mean, I'd never deny Eco has massive intellect, great prose, and a sense of humor—that's true. It's just that I don't see enough there to justify wasting my time.

And? Look, I love Eco, and I truly believe he has penned two or three masterpieces, but I’m certainly not going to try to convince you that in certain works—even some of those few gems—there isn't any filler for readers who expect something entirely different from literature. Some people just couldn't care less about medieval theological tangents. And I’m not going to spend my energy explaining away every single one of those pages with supernatural justifications. Nor will I argue that his crime plots are superior to, say, someone like Jo Nesbø (as a rising star). At the end of the day, he’s just a man, much like Kubrick was.

If I had to guess, I’d say you aren't even capable of grasping that, given how hard you're rooting for your side. Generally speaking, both you and Jessica Gonzalez have shown a rather unruly streak in this discussion. Let's be clear: I couldn't care less about the chaos; when things get messy like this, the conversation just becomes total garbage.

Jessica Gonzalez said:I wonder what kind of philosophical questions
"Interstellar" is actually trying to ask. It feels like maybe it's just tackling the same ones we saw in "Armageddon."

One really shouldn't get too caught up in that line of thinking, especially if one takes a moment to look at the film's actual plot. It's hardly a masterpiece of philosophy, is it?

Walter Grant5 said:seems like you viewers spend way too much time building up this image of a movie in your heads

ruggedjackal46 said:Honestly, you might find yourself right there in Ecov’s quartet of enthusiasts. To you, this movie is just a giant Rorschach test; you're desperately hunting for some sign of genius, yet you dismiss every single interpretation as "arbitrary" because, well, the movie is a "Rorschach test." Apparently, your specific take is the only one that isn't arbitrary, simply because you've decided the film is just a blank blotch and therefore you're somehow above the whole exercise.

Good grief, all I was suggesting is that the narrative and logic feel more cohesive in *Interstellar* than they do in *2001: A Space Odyssey*, and that it poses—at least to my mind—more profound philosophical questions regarding humanity and the cosmos.

And yet, here comes the crowd to tell me otherwise, insisting that since *2001* is a masterpiece, it must be superior in every conceivable way, claiming its story is better even though nobody can actually recount that plot without referencing Arthur C. Clarke’s novel or some Wikipedia entry. Not even two people describe the sequence of events the same way, do they?

In response to that, I argued that the film functions as a Rorschach test; people project these intense interpretations onto the plot, and then layer arbitrary technical analyses on top of those subjective readings. When I offered perspectives that contradicted yours, ruggedjackal46, you admitted they were valid, didn't you? So, where exactly did I go wrong?

By the way, at no point did I claim the film was flawed simply because it was ambitious. I was merely echoing that Rorschach sentiment in light of your arguments about the film's structural integrity, especially when the philosophical foundation feels somewhat shallow given the heavy-handed creationist undertones.

Walter Grant5 said:Hey brightpilot6, what’s this "it’s on some website" 🙏 nonsense? You actually think you're being clever with that one?

Nothing at all. I was simply meeting the argument on its own level. After all, what else can one say to "there are websites online" without descending into a series of endless, pointless essays?

The entire Eco section sums it up perfectly. To the fans, this is a masterpiece, and apparently, every single rule—or lack thereof—within the film serves only to prove its status as a masterpiece. Every interpretation reinforces its brilliance. Every plot hole is just more proof of its genius. Even every criticism is interpreted as further validation. Does the monolith only appear when celestial bodies align? A masterpiece. Doesn't show up at the start of the film? Clearly, there's a deeper meaning, making it a masterpiece. Do you claim it isn't a masterpiece? Then you must be a fool, and if a fool claims it isn't a masterpiece, then it surely must be one.

🙏🙏🙏

It’s funny how you keep swinging at me, first coming for my takes on Real Madrid and now turning your sights on some random guy from a web forum 🙏🙏

James Anderson5 said:Critics tend to place them somewhere between Dan Brown and Eco, but I don't think they're copies at all. Their books feel much more provocative regarding history, and honestly, they're better researched than Eco's stuff. They spent years digging through actual historical archives and texts to build the foundation for everything they write. The best part about their work is how they lean so heavily into real facts

For instance, they wrote about how the Jesuits were essentially the most powerful spy network in the world back in the day, or how the Borgias were basically smeared just for financial gain, and so on... When it comes to depth, credibility, and original historical theories, Eco is a total amateur compared to them. He’s more of a general intellectual, whereas they are like top-tier alternative historians...

Their debut, Imprimatur, is essentially a carbon copy of The Name of the Rose.

To suggest any comparison with Dan Brown is an insult in its own right.

What they actually share with Brown is the tendency to scavenge through existing non-fiction works—those pieces that lament over controversial historical truths—and simply repackage them into fiction. This isn't the result of their own original research, nor do they spend time scouring historical archives. And when it comes to actual knowledge of the Middle Ages, is it not likely that Eco forgot more than M&S will ever know? ☕

The prose quality, the rhythm, and the depth of characterization all fall significantly short of Eco's standard. The scope is narrower, and the humor lacks his wit. Furthermore, for Eco, a specific historical event or setting serves as a subtle backdrop for the narrative rather than its entire backbone. A novel can certainly stand on its own without relying on a bombastic, global conspiracy to drive the plot.

That isn't to say it isn't enjoyable, educational, or intriguing to read some of the theories M&S wrap inside a historical novel. Personally, I found Mysterium to be exceptional; that was the one moment where I truly felt Eco's influence, whereas everything else felt a step below. It isn't bad, per se, but it hardly reaches greatness.