Posts by brightpilot6

If you swap out that monolith for some old man with a white beard, you basically have a space-age sci-fi version of the Bible. That was my takeaway the first time I sat through the movie, and honestly, I haven't been able to shake it since.

The old man with the white beard jumpstarts intelligent life on Earth, then steps back to watch whether that life actually "qualifies" for the next stage of existence. He leaves behind these artifacts we can't quite wrap our heads around, which act as breadcrumbs guiding us toward that next level. Even the events in the room feel less like science fiction and more like a purgatory before a final rebirth into some higher state of being.

In that sense, I don't really see any profound existential depth in the film, because Odyssey suggests our journey is initiated by a higher power, overseen by that same entity, and concludes only when it decides it's over. And why is it all set up this way—why were we created in the first place (are we just playthings, perhaps an ant farm in some divine nursery?) and why are we forced to struggle while being watched instead of simply being helped? It’s all as logically straightforward as the Bible. There isn't much to ponder there; it just is what it is.

By comparison, I find Interstellar to be far more challenging and resonant, primarily because it engages with the relationship between the individual and the collective, our responsibilities to our neighbors and the rest of humanity, and the interplay between our current lives and the future legacies we leave behind.

I notice people keep bringing up how "sentimental" or pathetic it is. Personally, I don't see Interstellar as being overly dramatic or leaning too hard into cheap emotions. To me, it depicts very standard, everyday feelings that serve as the actual catalysts for human action.

Love or goodness acting as a fundamental element of the universe? Why not? Is it because you guys are soccer fans? Lol. Almost everything we do, from our smallest gestures to our greatest achievements, is driven by love for something, whether directly or indirectly. Sure, we could reduce everything down to cold naturalism and selfish genes, but I don't see why that should be treated as a punchline or something to mock out of hand.

@ruggedjackal46

You seem to interpret those long sequences versus the rapid jumps as a way of showing how insignificant we are in the cosmos. But here is the flip side: that sudden, lightning-fast leap from primates to space travel could easily be read the exact opposite way. It shows just how little time it took us, on a cosmic scale, to go from monkeys to having established bases on the Moon. Monkeys, CAP! Bases on the Moon, CAP! We’re already at Jupiter. Someone watching that progression might see it not as a display of our insignificance, but as proof of how inherently superior humans are to their environment.

vivideagle7 said:What kind of religious dogma is this? It’s not like anyone is forcing you to decide if a movie is "good" or not—that's entirely about the experience you have while watching it. But honestly, some of your arguments just don't hold water, especially that whole bit about a minimum requirement for logic.

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

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

vivideagle7 said:What kind of religious dogma is this? It’s not like anyone is forcing you to decide if a movie is "good" or not—that's entirely about the experience you have while watching it. But honestly, some of your arguments just don't hold water, especially that whole bit about a minimum requirement for logic.

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

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

vivideagle7 said:They'll tell you Messi's left foot is better than Ronald's, so he doesn't need anything else.

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

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

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

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

vivideagle7 said:They'll tell you Messi's left foot is better than Ronald's, so he doesn't need anything else.

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

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

Fair enough. 🤣

Patrick Martin said:Those guys actually think Interstellar beats 2001: A Space Odyssey 🙏

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

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

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

You talk about this "transcendental journey," but I’m sitting here wondering what that actually entails. I assume you mean some sort of path toward enlightenment, but since you keep using terms like "transcendental trip," I have to ask for clarification. Then you claim it’s a "transcendental tripping trance." What exactly is transcendent about it? What is this supposed realization you're chasing? You just tell me that man's perception of the universe is abstract, mentioning meta-systems and other nonsense.

For God's sake, 🤣

You just throw out these massive words and then try to "explain" them by layering even more massive words on top.

The truth is, you just don't know how to articulate your own thoughts.

And let's be honest—you ruin the experience of art by insisting that others need to understand it through your lens of meta-systems, transcendentals, and oxymorons, where a movie is simultaneously a story about a man in space and some non-human-like adventure. It’s funny, really; an average person could probably describe the essence of a feeling better than you can describe why a standard movie works for you.

Just a fire extinguisher on the wall.

ruggedjackal46 said:Honestly? My take is that you've just stumbled upon a film that's so cryptic it's easier to dismiss than actually interpret. And now you're expecting us to do the heavy lifting for you—to spoon-feed you every single layer of meaning just so you can finally admit, "Yeah, the movie was alright ☕ "

Not at all. If a film fails to resonate with me even after two viewings, then it’s a dead end for me.

I mean, I’m certainly open-minded—despite my insistence that someone actually explain why this is considered a masterpiece, especially given all the praise being heaped upon it here on Offside. But I simply don't buy these interpretations; they aren't just wrong, they feel fundamentally illogical, and you seem unable to defend them without leaning on empty, sweeping grandiosity.

Walter Grant5 said:That transcendental journey stuff? That’s just part of the three-legged trance.

The meaning of life is woven into every single story. It isn't some question this movie tries to answer—that's a universal question forced upon us just by existing.

The film doesn't hand you any conclusions on those deep topics. And honestly, why would it?

But what exactly is transcendental about it? What does that kind of "journey" even mean in this context?

It's funny, really; when I ask you about the meaning of life, you tell me it's woven into every story.

ruggedjackal46 said:My argument is this: the film is original because it uses cinematic language to make me actually *feel* the relativity of time and how insignificant we are compared to the cosmos. Sure, those are established scientific facts, but the film is what nudged me to sit there and contemplate them. That’s the actual philosophical contribution of a feature film—not providing a lecture on evolution. If you want answers to that, go watch a documentary.

But isn't it? What's actually indisputable in the movie? 1. Monkeys didn't start using tools until the monolith showed up. 2. Humans found a buried monolith on the Moon that sends radio signals to Jupiter. 3. The guy who reaches Jupiter gets sucked into some room where he lives out his days. 4. It ends with a baby appearing on Earth inside a giant soap bubble.

Everything else you're bringing up—philosophy, themes of distance—that's all just your interpretation. None of that is actually in the film itself.

First off, interpreting a film is what every single viewer does. A movie that leaves zero room for personal interpretation is about as useful as a Rorschach test.

Second, by obsessing over the "undeniable" plot points, you're ignoring everything else. For starters, why were those specific events even shown? Why that specific sequence? Why that pacing? Why spend 45 minutes with apes only to jump straight into the future mid-shot? Why follow the astronauts through the Arena?

Of course, we could just take the easy way out and decide that Kubrick just threw it all together randomly, that it's just a Rorschach blot, and that any attempt to find meaning is merely "subjective opinion." But that's a pretty lazy way to look at it, don't you think?

Just look at my suggestion as a mental exercise to show you that you're just projecting your own knowledge onto Kubrick's work. If you didn't know better—if you thought there was just a painted ceiling above us instead of space—you wouldn't assign those meanings to those long shots. Kubrick wouldn't have been able to "show" it to you that way.

It works both ways, too. If you thought space was boring, you'd conclude those long scenes were Kubrick's way of telling you how dull the universe is. And you'd be just as right. That's my point.

So, what, should Kubrick have made a movie explicitly explaining that there's space above us rather than a painted ceiling?

That second conclusion is perfectly valid. The version of space Kubrick depicts will definitely be boring to some people, just as space is inherently boring to others.

Of course not. But when it comes to art, I’ve always preferred something that isn't just a mirror reflecting exactly what I put into it. I certainly have no interest in praising someone just because they shoved a mirror in my face and presented me with a particularly pretty reflection. If I want to contemplate myself, I don't need those kinds of prompts. I realize this is merely my own subjective expectation of what human creativity should be, and I understand others might feel differently. We actually had a similar debate once regarding figurative Balašević versus certain non-figurative types...

We move from these types of artistic works to finding ourselves admiring a fire extinguisher hanging on a gallery wall, sparking endless interpretations and theories—which is really just a tiny step in the grand scheme of things. When asking oneself whether such an object is pure nonsense or a genuine work of art, the answer usually hinges on a single, thin line: the consensus of mainstream opinion.

ruggedjackal46 said:My argument is this: the film is original because it uses cinematic language to make me actually *feel* the relativity of time and how insignificant we are compared to the cosmos. Sure, those are established scientific facts, but the film is what nudged me to sit there and contemplate them. That’s the actual philosophical contribution of a feature film—not providing a lecture on evolution. If you want answers to that, go watch a documentary.

But isn't it? What's actually indisputable in the movie? 1. Monkeys didn't start using tools until the monolith showed up. 2. Humans found a buried monolith on the Moon that sends radio signals to Jupiter. 3. The guy who reaches Jupiter gets sucked into some room where he lives out his days. 4. It ends with a baby appearing on Earth inside a giant soap bubble.

Everything else you're bringing up—philosophy, themes of distance—that's all just your interpretation. None of that is actually in the film itself.

First off, interpreting a film is what every single viewer does. A movie that leaves zero room for personal interpretation is about as useful as a Rorschach test.

Second, by obsessing over the "undeniable" plot points, you're ignoring everything else. For starters, why were those specific events even shown? Why that specific sequence? Why that pacing? Why spend 45 minutes with apes only to jump straight into the future mid-shot? Why follow the astronauts through the Arena?

Of course, we could just take the easy way out and decide that Kubrick just threw it all together randomly, that it's just a Rorschach blot, and that any attempt to find meaning is merely "subjective opinion." But that's a pretty lazy way to look at it, don't you think?

Just look at my suggestion as a mental exercise to show you that you're just projecting your own knowledge onto Kubrick's work. If you didn't know better—if you thought there was just a painted ceiling above us instead of space—you wouldn't assign those meanings to those long shots. Kubrick wouldn't have been able to "show" it to you that way.

It works both ways, too. If you thought space was boring, you'd conclude those long scenes were Kubrick's way of telling you how dull the universe is. And you'd be just as right. That's my point.

So, what, should Kubrick have made a movie explicitly explaining that there's space above us rather than a painted ceiling?

That second conclusion is perfectly valid. The version of space Kubrick depicts will definitely be boring to some people, just as space is inherently boring to others.

Thanks.

Walter Grant5 said:The whole "issue" with an Odyssey like this is how much people obsess over technicalities and jargon. Modern folks can't connect to anything without a glossary or some fancy terminology. They won't grasp a concept, won't remember a thing, won't feel anything unless there's a label attached. Honestly? They get it, they just too lazy to actually put in the work. That's the real kicker. It’s easier to just read it in a book, then they can parrot those exact words to a friend or their spouse. If a movie doesn't spoon-feed you everything through dialogue or explicit directions, the visuals and sound alone aren't enough for them—it just feels boring. Can't blame 'em, really. Most people today live in a blur of constant verbal chatter and high-speed chaos. In that kind of headspace, a film like an Odyssey comes off as empty or dull, even when it isn't. You just gotta tune your eyes and ears differently. Nothing more to it.

I think you're looking at the relationship between literature and film through a rather one-sided lens. From my perspective, wouldn't one argue that it's actually intellectually lazier to consume pre-packaged images and sounds than it is to construct your own mental imagery based on nothing but written words?

And I don't believe you're quite right in assuming that the written word must always produce decisive, crystal-clear imagery.

vivideagle7 said:But I guess that’s the beauty of an Odyssey. Everyone gets to take away their own version of it. It doesn't try to shove everything down your throat with a massive dose of melodrama like Interstellar does, treating us all like idiots.

That is precisely why I refer to it as a Rorschachian image.

Whether a work is perceived as a confusing mess where anything goes (and I’m not claiming that’s the case with Odyssey, mind you) or as a masterpiece where one can truly find themselves depends heavily on the hype, dogmatic interpretations, and the weight of "legacy." There are plenty of people who, because of those very factors, feel embarrassed or afraid to say, "I don't see anything here," or worse, "I just see a few cheap tricks," simply because they don't want to look foolish in front of the mainstream.

As for Interstellar, it clearly didn't hammer its point home enough; many viewers fail to grasp much of what the film is actually doing, both in terms of the plot and the deeper themes beneath it.

ruggedjackal46 said:Sure, there’s no denying the scientific breakthroughs involved, but let's not forget they basically invented the modern film strip as we know it. Before that, nobody in Hollywood had even dreamed of touching sci-fi on that level. It makes you wonder, though—would anyone have ever even attempted it? For the longest time, both in literature and cinema, sci-fi was treated like this "lesser" genre, just a playground for cookie-cutter plots rather than a legitimate space for cinematic experimentation or asking actual, deep questions.

Look, I’m not even trying to make a statement about its place in cinematic history, nor am I suggesting that Interstellar needs to be ranked alongside the all-time greats. We’re just talking about the film as a standalone piece—its cohesion, the core messages it's pushing, and all that good stuff.

A film doesn't exist in a vacuum. It’s deeply tied to its own social context and the cinematic landscape it was born into. Because of that, you can't really tackle those big thematic questions without looking at the immediate surroundings—basically, the history behind it all.

Look, nobody is being forced to say anything here. But I’m asking you again—what actual philosophical questions does *Odyssey* pose that would make someone actually want to know the answer? Saying the universe is mysterious and massive isn't a philosophical inquiry; it's just a fact, and *Odyssey* didn't exactly invent that concept.

Do you honestly believe a feature film needs to pose entirely unprecedented questions just to deliver some kind of groundbreaking, verified answers? It feels like a bit of a stretch, doesn't it?

So, those are just your good-natured interpretations of that Rorschachian image.

So, you’ve already decided this is just some Rorschachian inkblot where every interpretation is basically whatever you want it to be, and that's that. End of story. I suppose the only way you'd actually be satisfied is if Kubrick himself popped up on screen during the credits to read us the "correct" meanings. Or maybe if the movie featured some side character—a Black scientist, perhaps—who just stands there narrating all the philosophical dilemmas out loud so we don't have to think for ourselves.

What exactly are we doing in this vast universe? Honestly, if you ask me, we’re just lower-intelligence beings floating through the void. There’s no debate there. You get that answer right out of the gate, and within the context of the film itself, the question isn't even up for discussion. It's funny, really—how people try to argue against that "objective" reality just because they saw the movie first. As if being an early viewer somehow gives you a claim to a different truth. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

What even are space and time? Who’s actually asking those questions during a movie? Neither space nor time play any meaningful role in this film, yet we act like they’re central themes worth pondering. Look, if you put yourself in the shoes of someone without a background in science—would you suddenly conclude there are massive spatial or temporal dimensions just because of a few long shots? Of course not. You walk into a theater already carrying your own set of assumptions, and you simply project them onto the screen. Then, you sit there marveling at how "brilliantly" the director captured the concept, when really, you just assigned the meaning to it yourself. Lol.

How is our poor little brain supposed to perceive an infinity like that? What infinity, though? The one you *know* exists, even though the movie doesn't say a single word about it? 🤷

Why on earth would I bother pretending to be someone without scientific knowledge? What does any SF-esque film even mean to someone who lacks that foundation?

You want to know who the viewers without background knowledge are? They’re the ones who ran out of the theater during "Arrival of a Train." Why should every single movie be catered to them?

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

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

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

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

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

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

ruggedjackal46 said:Sure, there’s no denying the scientific breakthroughs involved, but let's not forget they basically invented the modern film strip as we know it. Before that, nobody in Hollywood had even dreamed of touching sci-fi on that level. It makes you wonder, though—would anyone have ever even attempted it? For the longest time, both in literature and cinema, sci-fi was treated like this "lesser" genre, just a playground for cookie-cutter plots rather than a legitimate space for cinematic experimentation or asking actual, deep questions.

Look, I’m not even trying to make a statement about its place in cinematic history, nor am I suggesting that Interstellar needs to be ranked alongside the all-time greats. We’re just talking about the film as a standalone piece—its cohesion, the core messages it's pushing, and all that good stuff.

A film doesn't exist in a vacuum. It’s deeply tied to its own social context and the cinematic landscape it was born into. Because of that, you can't really tackle those big thematic questions without looking at the immediate surroundings—basically, the history behind it all.

Look, nobody is being forced to say anything here. But I’m asking you again—what actual philosophical questions does *Odyssey* pose that would make someone actually want to know the answer? Saying the universe is mysterious and massive isn't a philosophical inquiry; it's just a fact, and *Odyssey* didn't exactly invent that concept.

Do you honestly believe a feature film needs to pose entirely unprecedented questions just to deliver some kind of groundbreaking, verified answers? It feels like a bit of a stretch, doesn't it?

So, those are just your good-natured interpretations of that Rorschachian image.

So, you’ve already decided this is just some Rorschachian inkblot where every interpretation is basically whatever you want it to be, and that's that. End of story. I suppose the only way you'd actually be satisfied is if Kubrick himself popped up on screen during the credits to read us the "correct" meanings. Or maybe if the movie featured some side character—a Black scientist, perhaps—who just stands there narrating all the philosophical dilemmas out loud so we don't have to think for ourselves.

What exactly are we doing in this vast universe? Honestly, if you ask me, we’re just lower-intelligence beings floating through the void. There’s no debate there. You get that answer right out of the gate, and within the context of the film itself, the question isn't even up for discussion. It's funny, really—how people try to argue against that "objective" reality just because they saw the movie first. As if being an early viewer somehow gives you a claim to a different truth. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

What even are space and time? Who’s actually asking those questions during a movie? Neither space nor time play any meaningful role in this film, yet we act like they’re central themes worth pondering. Look, if you put yourself in the shoes of someone without a background in science—would you suddenly conclude there are massive spatial or temporal dimensions just because of a few long shots? Of course not. You walk into a theater already carrying your own set of assumptions, and you simply project them onto the screen. Then, you sit there marveling at how "brilliantly" the director captured the concept, when really, you just assigned the meaning to it yourself. Lol.

How is our poor little brain supposed to perceive an infinity like that? What infinity, though? The one you *know* exists, even though the movie doesn't say a single word about it? 🤷

Why on earth would I bother pretending to be someone without scientific knowledge? What does any SF-esque film even mean to someone who lacks that foundation?

You want to know who the viewers without background knowledge are? They’re the ones who ran out of the theater during "Arrival of a Train." Why should every single movie be catered to them?

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

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

Of course, I’m in no position to judge, but wouldn't it have been wonderful if I could have just sat down with you after my first or second viewing to pick your brain about all these layers you find in the movie? I mean, before stumbling upon all those pretentious interpretations floating around the internet or diving into the Clarkean source material.

Jessica Gonzalez said:The only thing those two movies really have in common is that they both take place in space. I guess you could say *Odyssey* is an auteur film that isn't exactly trying to please everyone. If it were, maybe all those unanswered questions would have been explained away so clearly that even the simplest Asian person could follow them. But *Odyssey* isn't some big Hollywood blockbuster; it’s more of a film about silence, using that quietness to highlight the sheer scale of the universe and the mysteries surrounding us. There aren't any forced romance subplots, and since the computer is the only real character, there's nothing particularly "relatable" there—but I suppose that's not really the point. You don't see the usual tropes like kids or tear-jerker moments just for the sake of it, nor does it feel like it's checking boxes for diversity only to kill characters off immediately. There isn't even a Matt Damon losing his mind just because he needs a standout role. It doesn't try to be a social commentary either. Maybe those things are just trivial distractions when you're trying to tell a story about space and evolution.

I guess *Interstellar* feels like one of those modern movies that tries way too hard to please everyone while being fundamentally hollow. I never really felt like anything about it was serious or even remotely plausible. From the plot beats to the characters, nothing seemed grounded in reality. For me, once they stumbled into that hangar and he somehow became the mission leader to another star by the very next day, the whole thing just fell apart. It honestly felt like the people making the movie were just being lazy and didn't really care.

Personally, I think the film only seems foolish to those who conclude that their arrival at the hangar was merely an accident.

ruggedjackal46 As if anyone actually expected anything different?
We could certainly apply that logic to other classics, but the impact of *Odyssey* on the evolution of science fiction is almost impossible to deny. There was nothing even remotely comparable to *Odyssey* before its release, yet in the fifty years since, we’ve seen an endless succession of films echoing its specific themes and aesthetic style. Do you honestly believe this is just some bizarre, one-in-a-million coincidence?

I’ve always maintained that the common threads linking an Odyssey like Interstellar to other sci-fi films of a similar vein aren't born from mere imitation. Rather, they are driven by actual scientific breakthroughs and those deep-seated philosophical dilemmas that have haunted humanity since we first looked up at the stars. It isn't as if Interstellar invented the concept of us living in space, nor did it conjure the vastness of spacetime or the eternal question of whether we are truly alone in the universe. Those realities exist independently of any screenplay.

It feels almost redundant to point out that every single action movie featuring car chases is essentially just copying the very first one, simply because they all depict vehicles on four wheels chasing each other down a street, much like the original did. Wouldn't it be more interesting if they occasionally experimented with three-wheeled vehicles instead?

ruggedjackal46 said:We could probably apply that logic to a handful of other classics, but honestly, trying to deny the impact *2001: A Space Odyssey* had on everything that followed in the sci-fi genre is just fighting a losing battle. Before it came along, there wasn't anything even remotely close to its scale or vision. Since then, we've spent nearly fifty years watching a steady stream of films cycle through those exact same themes and that specific aesthetic. You really think it’s just some bizarre coincidence?

Meanwhile, we’ve reached this point where people are nitpicking modern movies over the tiniest, most insignificant details. It’s like they’re looking for a flaw that isn't even there. Honestly, you can't even use the same yardstick to measure them anymore—mostly because everyone is too busy being dogmatic about their specific tastes. Why does everything have to be such a debate?

Yeah, exactly. You have to look at it through two different lenses: one focuses on the film's objective influence on everything that came after it, while the other deals with its subjective impact—how much it actually hits you personally when you're sitting there watching it.

If we’re talking about historical significance, we probably shouldn't try to weigh in for at least another fifty years. We'll need that kind of time to truly decide if Nolan's *Interstellar* actually holds any weight compared to Kubrick's *Odyssey*, though personally, I’d say the odds of that being a "no" are sitting at about 1.000001.

When you start talking about personal impressions, you’re playing by a completely different set of rules. It's all subjective at that point. You can argue whether an Odyssey feels totally pointless or boring these days, while claiming Interstellar is an absolute masterpiece.

I honestly think it’s a pretty flawed way to look at things—this idea that two movies need to be identical in impact. Just because a film was revolutionary or changed the game fifty years ago doesn't mean it has to hit everyone with that same level of intensity today. Why should it? Context changes, audiences change, and what felt like a massive shift back then might just feel like standard fare now. Is it really fair to hold modern cinema to a yardstick that was calibrated half a century ago? Not really, if you ask me.

And following that thought, what kind of philosophical heavy lifting is *Odyssey* actually doing here? By "doing," I mean specifically how it presents a core dilemma as essential to the plot or to truly grasping the film, while laying out the arguments for and against the various ways one might answer that question.

A feature film isn't "Fifth Day," where one character kicks off a topic and then a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals just debate it for two hours while stars twinkle aimlessly in the background.

Personally, I found it pretty striking how Kubrick managed to make the relativity of time—and just how much we’re all at its mercy—feel so tangible. He does it through that deliberate, slow pacing, those jarring temporal jumps, and those "out of time" sequences toward the end. It really hits you. Secondly, I loved the way he built up this sense of cosmic mystery through the monolith. It never offers a neat little resolution, mostly because the secret is something that sits far beyond the grasp of even the most brilliant human mind. You see that clearly in the finale; instead of some triumphant moment where reason conquers nature, it ends in this chaotic, yet somehow non-random sequence. It serves as a blunt reminder of how utterly useless our perceptions of space and time actually are. We think we understand the rules, but we don't. It leaves you staring at the screen wondering: what are we even doing in this universe? What actually *are* space and time? And how is our poor, limited minds supposed to wrap itself around an infinity like that?

All these tangled messes of physics and philosophy... honestly, as a layman, I don’t think I could wrap my head around them just by sitting through some academic lecture. But Kubrick? He managed to bridge that gap using pure cinematic language. He didn't rely on cheap sentimentality or having some side character deliver a heavy-handed monologue like they did in Interstellar. Instead, he let the imagery, the soundscapes, and the sheer rhythm of the film do all the heavy lifting.

So, how exactly does the vibe of Interstellar align with the Odyssey? What does Interstellar actually "owe" to the Odyssey?

It’s primarily about treating sci-fi as a legitimate genre for exploring the limits of human potential and treating space as this vast, unreachable mystery—plus, there are obvious visual nods. That’s basically the standard Kubrick set, which is why we accept a Nolan-esque film as "standard" sci-fi in the first place.

The problem is that Nolan's film isn't actually original; visually, it's pretty uninspired, and the resolution is just silly. I mean, Captain McConaughey somehow solves all the mysteries of the universe because... family love is the mysterious energy guiding everything? Really?

I’m not even attempting to argue that this film holds a specific landmark position in cinematic history, nor am I suggesting that Interstellar needs to claim some sort of permanent throne in the canon. My focus is on the film as a cohesive whole—its structural integrity, its underlying themes, and the way it all fits together. Beyond that, isn't there something inherently absurd about how that supposed "objective" status, usually granted simply because a movie was released first, manages to exert such a heavy influence over the countless subjective interpretations people hold?

ruggedjackal46 As if anyone actually expected anything different?
A feature film shouldn't just be some *Fifth Day* scenario where one character sparks a discussion and then a bunch of intellectuals spend two hours debating while stars drift aimlessly across the background.

No one is under any obligation to say anything at all. But I find myself circling back to the same question: what are the actual philosophical inquiries posed by *Odyssey*, the ones that truly make a person ache for an answer? Simply stating that the universe is vast and shrouded in mystery isn't a philosophical inquiry, nor is it an invention of *Odyssey*; those are just facts we already know.

What exactly are we in this vast expanse of space? What truly constitutes the fabric of time and space? And how can our poor, limited minds even begin to grasp such an infinite, overwhelming void?

Are those just your own well-intentioned interpretations of that Rorschachian image?

What exactly are we in this vast universe? If you look at it objectively, we are beings of a lower intelligence. There isn't much room for debate there; we receive a definitive answer right from the very start, and within the context of the film itself, that question isn't even up for discussion.

What exactly are space and time? And who is actually asking those questions within the movie? Neither space nor time plays any meaningful role in the narrative, yet we find ourselves assigning them significance or attempting to ponder their nature. Furthermore, if you were to approach this film from the perspective of someone without any scientific background, would you instinctively draw conclusions about vast spatial or temporal expanses simply because of a few long sequences? Of course you wouldn't. You enter the theater with a set of preconceived notions, and you merely project that existing knowledge onto the white screen presented to you. Then, you sit there admiring the director for how beautifully they captured the concept, when in reality, you were the one who provided the meaning in the first place. Lol.

How can our poor, limited minds even begin to perceive such an infinite void? What infinity are we talking about, anyway? Is it the one you already know exists, despite the fact that the film never once mentions it? 🤷

Jessica Gonzalez said:The story is probably the strongest part, but it feels much more fleshed out in the book. In the movie, I guess a lot of things are left up to the audience to interpret however they want.

So, if the story is actually the highlight despite being somewhat underspecified on screen—leaving one almost needing the book to tie all the loose ends together—what does that say about the weaker segments of the movie?

If that's the best part, how much worse are the flaws?

vivideagle7 said:





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

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

The 🤷style

The spacesuits in both films are essentially just replicas of real-life gear, aren't they? And circular spacecraft represent the only functional design where centrifugal force can effectively "simulate" gravity. When you consider that a close-up of a person in a helmet is the only way to convey facial expressions, one starts to wonder if we are seeing anything more than mere technicalities, rather than some distinct visual legacy that subsequent films might actually build upon.

vivideagle7 said:





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

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

That applies to about 90% of all science fiction, doesn't it? The difference is that in the Odyssey, no one is actually discovering anything through active inquiry; the man has absolutely no idea why he is traveling all the way to Jupiter until he views the footage after deactivating the Arena. Even then, he isn't any wiser or more enlightened; he simply ends up acting like some sort of experimental lab rat.

ruggedjackal46 said:Look, the issue with "canonical" films is that they were unique in their own era and influenced a massive wave of subsequent movies. So, when you watch them fifty years later, you can't really see what made them original anymore.

That Kubrick film came out in 1968, and it was the first big-budget sci-fi that wasn't just a mindless blend of action and horror; instead, it tackled higher philosophical questions. I suspect the length, the pacing, and the ambiguity were intentional choices meant to break away from the dominant sci-fi trends of the time—a way of signaling that space isn't some neon action circus, but an vast, incomprehensible void.

By defying convention, that slow pace demonstrates just how long it takes for humans to make any meaningful move in space. Those sudden temporal jumps—like the one with the bone on the spacecraft—show just how minor our sense of time is within the cosmos. It’s not accidental.

We can compare it to Interstellar all day, but without Kubrick, the works of Nolan and that whole constellation of filmmakers wouldn't even exist. Interstellar was built on the themes and style established by Kubrick.

Sure, someone will argue that truly great films stay fresh even fifty years later, but I beg to differ. If we’ve already watched fifty movies heavily influenced by Odyssey before finally sitting down to watch Odyssey itself, then obviously Kubrick is going to feel derivative. People don't watch movies chronologically, nor should they have to. That’s why you shouldn't equate a film's historical significance with its impact on an individual viewer.

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

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

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

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

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

Following that recent debate about Interstellar—specifically those arguments regarding "head and tail" structures versus the "superior storytelling" found in other films—I felt somewhat compelled to revisit Kubrick’s Odyssey. My god 🤦

It seems to consist of ten static shots lasting five minutes each, serving absolutely no purpose because there isn't a single thing to actually process; the "plot" is frustratingly vague, filled with such murky details and loose ends that trying to dissect the film's logic feels entirely futile, not to mention that not a single character possesses any depth beyond being paper-thin, with motivations either non-existent or left completely unexplained.

Aliens leave behind monoliths that supposedly help amoebas evolve into cats. Or maybe they don't. Wow.

It is just a classic case of "the emperor has no clothes," a Rorschachian image of a film where a simple pipe against a white wall becomes the subject of novellas written by wannabe connoisseurs. After all, it's Kubrick, so one assumes they won't look foolish for suggesting it isn't a masterpiece. Of course, Kubrick anticipated all these debates and carefully planted the triggers for them, yet directors of Interstellar and similar flicks don't spend even a second considering the things we are actually discussing here.

Jessica Gonzalez said:The story behind The Matrix is just incredible, especially considering it was an entirely original script rather than some adaptation of a book, comic, or whatever else. I guess they unfortunately messed up the sequels by leaning too hard into endless action scenes and melodrama just to please the crowds. The original is definitely one of the most unique films of the modern era. I wouldn't say it's the greatest of all time, nor would I call someone silly for not liking it, but it has qualities I really value: originality, a compelling plot, and a believable world. You could argue Inception is an original film, but conceptually, it feels a bit like a second-rate version of The Matrix. They even seemed to borrow the whole "limbo" idea, which feels like a copy of that space between reality and a computer program. 🤦 for both concepts. I suppose the only thing the other film did better was casting, since Keanu Reeves has about as much acting range as a street lamp.

Second-rate? 🤣

Inception mimics The Matrix in almost every way, except for the total number of films in the franchise.

And when you call something a "conceptual copy," I assume you're only saying that because both movies deal with dreams? Even though there are a million fundamental differences—differences that exist right at the very core of the film's concept?

Matthew Young35 said:Jebatelex, anyone who has read a single sci-fi novel or has a passing interest in math already knows stuff like that.

And let’s be honest, that group represents a tiny fraction of the general audience.

By the way, I find myself agreeing with Matthew Anderson4 regarding how Remilly reacted. If he hasn't completely lost his mind—though one might wonder if those sudden disappearances from the conversation were his way of checking out—then a total state of mental numbness seems like the most plausible outcome.

vivideagle7 said:Are you really splitting hairs over 🙂

Anyway, did you buy into that whole sequence where they discover the space base and everything leading up to that departure?
GQ was just being dramatic because they wanted to drive home how naive that moment felt (assuming we're even talking about the same scene ☕)

And what else am I supposed to latch onto if not the words themselves? Facial expressions?

vivideagle7 said:Are you really splitting hairs over 🙂

Anyway, did you buy into that whole sequence where they discover the space base and everything leading up to that departure?
GQ was just being dramatic because they wanted to drive home how naive that moment felt (assuming we're even talking about the same scene ☕)

Why on earth would I find that hard to swallow?

vivideagle7 said:GQ is definitely leaning into their usual habit of exaggerating things, but I guess there's some truth to it.

It’s a bit surprising that you’d ask if I actually swallowed that scene described by the QG in the first place, only to pivot now and suggest they didn't describe it so much as "hyperbolize" it. If that's the case, which specific scene are we actually discussing here, so I might be able to repeat it?