Posts by brightpilot6

It seems Monaldi and Sorti are doing nothing more than mimicking Ace... they might be losing ground here and there, but they rarely actually manage to capture his essence.

ruggedjackal46 said:"Oh, so you guys don't read Umberto Eco or Foucault either?"

“The world seems to be populated by four distinct categories of people: cretins, fools, morons, and lunatics. Cretins aren't much for dialogue; they mostly just mumble and stumble through existence. Fools, however, are always in high demand, particularly at cocktail parties, where they manage to embarrass the entire room while providing endless fodder for gossip. A fool won't insist that a cat barks, but they’ll certainly insist on discussing cats when the rest of the party is focused on dogs; they exist to break the unwritten rules of etiquette, and when they truly succeed, it’s almost impressive. Then we have the morons, who rarely commit an error of action, but rather an error of logic. Think of the man who argues that since all dogs are pets and all dogs bark, and cats are also pets, it must follow that cats bark. Occasionally, a moron might actually stumble upon a truth, though they almost always arrive there via a flawed premise. Finally, there is the lunatic, who is simply a moron who has lost his way. While the moron attempts to prove a thesis through a twisted kind of logic, the lunatic abandons logic entirely, operating instead through mental short circuits where every coincidence confirms his delusions. You can spot a lunatic by their blatant disregard for common sense, their erratic bursts of 'inspiration,' and the inevitable moment they start rambling about the Knights Templar. Of course, some lunatics avoid the Templar topic altogether, but those who don't are arguably the most dangerous; they appear perfectly sane until, quite suddenly, the mask slips...”

Alex Brown50 said:So, you’ve got this guy—basically a genius when it comes to the intellectual, artistic, and technical stuff—who makes sure every single frame actually serves a purpose, right? And he ends up filming three hours of aimless hallucinations about something that could’ve been summarized in a couple of pages. I mean, obviously 🙏
.
The internet is absolutely flooded with sites trying to decode the movie, and there are endless little details you can pick apart. Like, who is Bowman from an astrological standpoint, and where is he actually aiming that arrow? Or why does the monolith always show up and "activate" right after some magical celestial alignment—except for at the very start? Is it just waiting to transform us right under our noses? Yeah, all that stuff.

But honestly, none of that matters if you don't just experience the movie spontaneously—it's hard to tap into those higher brain functions when you're too busy obsessing over the Yankees. Still, there's always hope.

There are endless sites on the web 🙏🙏

It reminds me of that group from an old academic seminar on Foucault’s theories. 🙏🙏

A blank canvas.

little baby 🤣

It’s probably a good thing Kubrick wasn't around to film Barcelona's trophy run; I imagine we would have been subjected to hours of agonizingly slow shots of clock hands spinning, eventually culminating in some rococo parlor where Tom Henning Ovrebo spends an eternity atoning for his sins.

boldfox88 said:That’s exactly why we’re backing them. We’ve already pulled off three this season alone. ☕

The idea that your giants are untouchable is nothing more than a perception—a collective illusion born from the perceived might of an organization like the UEFA. ☕

Just to be clear, we’re basically dropping monoliths all over the place.

When ruggedjackal46 catches sight of an offside call, he reacts like he’s just stumbled upon a burning bush, approaching the posts with a look of pure dejection to take the news.

ruggedjackal46 said:You probably think you're seeing some old guy with a white beard just because you were binge-watching Lord of the Rings while having an Odyssey playing in the background.

A monkey who took a hit to the face is out here dreaming about wearing a white jersey.

If Kubrick were directing an Odyssey today, would he even bother with a costume design phase? Wouldn't the monkeys simply start the film clad in red and blue jerseys, only to transform into pure white once that monolith finally makes its appearance?

Walter Grant5 said:Nah.

Yeah, whatever. These are basically the big questions. Is the life of an entire species more important than yours? Is the life of future generations better than what your generation’s got going? Does one life with your family matter more than the lives of people who haven't even been born yet?

Is the universe more important than your life? Or the life of a species? Or all species combined?

Is the universe the ultimate question?

how
What's so overdone about this? Give me some actual movies that deal with these themes and I'll check them out.

Individual vs. community? Look, at first glance, there's The Mist. It's nothing special. But there are tons of movies exploring that. These are universal themes. Just saying—I'm not against you, I'm just applying your logic to a movie you actually like. You trivialize it and then act like it's nothing.

I didn't explain "human impact on life" well enough—I meant the idea from the movie that human activity is what shapes our reality, even when it feels like gods or random chance are doing it. That's an interesting thought.

Human activity shapes reality just as much as the environment that triggers that activity. The Odyssey deals with those external forces too, which you're calling creationism, but that interpretation is baseless. The Odyssey shows the superiority of the universe, sure, but it doesn't show God.

It’s pretty widely accepted that it is.

The Monolith generates intelligence, the Monolith illuminates the path, and the Monolith elevates us to a higher plane.

There are actually three distinct roles here: 🙏🙏🙏

The first—the creator—is God, the second—the one who guides the way—is Jesus, and the third—the force that uplifts—is the Holy Spirit.

ruggedjackal46 said:You’re taking a movie way too literally, when it’s pretty obvious you aren't supposed to take everything at face value all the time.

I’m certain there would be some deep meaning behind that, too. ☕

So, does any meaning found by anyone else just become an illusion simply because you don't see it?

Fair point. I suppose the spaceship doesn't actually exist either, and the entire film is just some fever dream being had by that monkey who got hit with the ink at the start?

ruggedjackal46 said:You’re taking a movie way too literally, when it’s pretty obvious you aren't supposed to take everything at face value all the time.

I’m certain there would be some deep meaning behind that, too. ☕

So, does any meaning found by anyone else just become an illusion simply because you don't see it?

How is it that I see nothing? I’ve clearly laid out my own perspective. Surely my interpretation holds as much weight as yours, doesn't it?

ruggedjackal46 said:If Kubrick had put Roger's bunny in the Hala instead, we'd all think we were watching a cartoon. I really don't get why we're overanalyzing this stuff.

But that monolith brings up some incredible philosophical depths.

The idea that there's some kind of intelligence behind the monolith seems plausible just based on its shape (to paraphrase a certain famous movie, nature doesn't exactly work in straight lines☕), not to mention it being placed first on the Moon and then on Jupiter, accompanied by a radio signal pointing right at Jupiter.

I never viewed the monolith as something someone just armed, loaded onto a spacecraft, and installed somewhere. To me, the monolith is much more convincing as a symbol where neither the characters nor the audience can tell if it's a physical object or just a collective hallucination from a higher power. In that sense, it feels more like a product of perception.

I’d argue it’s definitely (i) a physical object. After all, the apes actually touch it, and it was discovered on the Moon via technical equipment, entirely independent of any human perception.

ruggedjackal46 said:If Kubrick had put Roger's bunny in the Hala instead, we'd all think we were watching a cartoon. I really don't get why we're overanalyzing this stuff.

But that monolith brings up some incredible philosophical depths.

The idea that there's some kind of intelligence behind the monolith seems plausible just based on its shape (to paraphrase a certain famous movie, nature doesn't exactly work in straight lines☕), not to mention it being placed first on the Moon and then on Jupiter, accompanied by a radio signal pointing right at Jupiter.

I never viewed the monolith as something someone just armed, loaded onto a spacecraft, and installed somewhere. To me, the monolith is much more convincing as a symbol where neither the characters nor the audience can tell if it's a physical object or just a collective hallucination from a higher power. In that sense, it feels more like a product of perception.

I have a feeling even that would have carried some profound, hidden meaning, wouldn't it? ☕

ruggedjackal46 Asks:
And why on earth would anyone want to swap out the monolith for some bearded old man? If Kubrick had truly wanted an elderly figurehead, he would have simply cast Brad Pitt and put him right in front of the lens. Instead, he chose the monolith. We aren't left with any definitive confirmation as to whether that object is actually the product of some higher intelligence influencing the course of humanity—much like a divine figure might—or if it is something else entirely.

I don't even need to go looking for a comparison to the Bible to see how much this mirrors those ancient stories.

I’m just saying—if Kubrick had cast some bearded old man in that role, wouldn't you have felt like you were watching the Ten Commandments?

When you really sit down and consider the monolith, you start to realize just how much philosophical depth is actually packed into there. Isn't it fascinating how a single object can trigger such profound contemplation?

If there really is some kind of intelligence lurking behind that monolith, you could probably infer it just from its shape—to paraphrase one massive cinematic masterpiece, nature doesn't exactly deal in straight lines. ☕The whole concept involves staging a sequence of events, starting with landing on the Moon and eventually moving toward Jupiter, all while broadcasting a radio signal directed straight at the gas giant.

Walter Grant5 said:Never actually sat down to watch Christopher Nolan, but based on how you're spinning this... why does this concept get a pass while The Odyssey doesn't? You're talking about pretty basic, recycled themes that don't really require a movie to trigger a thought process.

individual vs. society... whatever.
humanity's impact on life... please.

Look, "our" impact on "our" own lives? That's just a baseline, boring-ass statement at its core.

The whole Odyssey concept is just basic creationism at its core. There isn't much point in debating it further.

Walter Grant5 said:Never actually sat down to watch Christopher Nolan, but based on how you're spinning this... why does this concept get a pass while The Odyssey doesn't? You're talking about pretty basic, recycled themes that don't really require a movie to trigger a thought process.

individual vs. society... whatever.
humanity's impact on life... please.

Look, "our" impact on "our" own lives? That's just a baseline, boring-ass statement at its core.

Sure, fine. These are the ultimate themes, aren't they? Is the survival of an entire species more important than your own life? Does the existence of future generations outweigh the lives lived by yours? Do you value one life shared with your family more than the hypothetical lives of people who haven't even been born yet?

If you think these ideas are so overdone, please, go ahead and give me some movie recommendations that tackle these subjects with actual depth, and I'll gladly watch them.

Quote:Thor says:
humanity's impact on life, blah blah.I suppose I didn't frame my point about "humanity's impact on life" clearly enough—what I was really getting at is the film's thesis that human agency is what truly shapes our reality, even when we convince ourselves it's the work of gods or mere coincidence. Isn't that a compelling thought?

boldfox88 said:The only thing that feels totally unrealistic is that cowboy-style drone hijacking with the laptop at the very start of the movie 🤣🤣

But honestly, the scene is so damn good that I can look past it. ☕

But from that moment, we can tell he isn't just some unrefined amateur ☕

It’s clear he possesses both the technical skill and the physical coordination required, showing he's a capable leader who stays well-informed ☕

vivideagle7 said: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.

When it comes to the sincerity of their relationships, isn't it all just a matter of personal perception? To me, the bond between Cooper and his daughter felt genuine, a connection rooted in the fact that beyond being father and child, they share a similar intellect. He didn't have that same intellectual bridge with his son, whose perspective was far more limited—that whole thing regarding the Moon was specifically tied to his daughter.

Furthermore, regarding what you said about the son—it feels to me like those are conclusions drawn from a general negative bias toward the film, where one searches for flaws even where they don't exist, which only serves to reinforce the initial negativity in a circular loop.

If one weren't approaching it with such a skeptical lens, perhaps they would see that the son is significant because his sick child is the reason she keeps returning to the old house, something she wouldn't bother doing if she were just living at the base. Moreover, through those brief glimpses of him and his family, we witness the escalating decay of conditions back on Earth. Ultimately, he does serve a purpose in the narrative, regardless of how minimal it may seem.

As for the reunion with his daughter, what exactly are people expecting? For them to go grab a picnic? She was exhausted, after all... For the sake of the story, it is enough that he returned and fulfilled the promise he made to her. Some might find it sentimental, but I certainly didn't.

Jessica Gonzalez said:I guess it seems unlikely they wouldn't know if he was alive when the guy lived just a few miles from the hangar. Even if things were messy, people were driving Jeeps and had access to smartphones and laptops. Since his kids were in school, there's usually some local municipality or census data available. Maybe they're just looking for excuses for a movie made by people who were being quite lazy.

I suppose I'll take the bait on that one. A few miles? The guy spends his entire day and part of his night on the road, so isn't it entirely possible he’s actually a thousand miles away?

Sure, the world is a mess. There's no internet, no cell service, and no military presence. A census? Please. When people are struggling just to find enough to eat, who would ever bother paying taxes to the government for such absurd expenses?

Even NASA would have managed to launch without him; they had pilots, sure, but they were essentially just playing with simulator training rather than having any real-world experience.

Jessica Gonzalez said:I have my own theory on how he found that hangar. What feels a bit off to me is how the entire command center just smiles and tells him he’s leading humanity's biggest mission tomorrow after he shows up. If they already knew who he was, why didn't they just call him earlier? Why didn't he go through months of training? It's like some guy walks off the street and suddenly becomes Neil Armstrong x 1000. I guess it works because it's Nolan, and Nolan knows what he's doing. He seems to prioritize style over basic plot logic in almost all his movies.

I suppose time will tell. In 50 years, Odyssey might be just as respected as it is today, but I'm not quite sure how influential Interstellar will be.

He actually did complete the training for that flight. The movie shows it happening at the beginning, and it's reinforced later on.

It isn't as if he ended up there by accident, nor did his journey happen to conclude at that exact moment by sheer luck.

Who is to say the launch was set for the very next day? How much real-time were we actually supposed to witness between his arrival at the hangar and the actual liftoff?

If I wanted to get a bit more poetic about it, I might suggest that leap serves as a subtle illustration of just how insignificant we truly are compared to the vastness of the universe. 😳