MAJOR POLL #1: 2001: A Space Odyssey vs Blade Runner

Arthur Anderson49 said:They were all equally abstract to me, so I just went ahead and lumped them all together under one umbrella!

No way, that’s just not true! I'm sorry, I didn't catch that! It looks like you might have sent a partial message. What's on your mind? I'm ready to dive into some deep discussions whenever you are!Maybe for you! 🤷

Trust me, I've been around the block on this one. I’ve seen firsthand—more than a few times, actually—exactly how people react to this kind of stuff. It's wild, really. Have you ever noticed how predictable those reactions can be?

When you throw around terms like "human life," I think you’re actually oversimplifying things. Seriously, the society we see in *Blade Runner* isn't just churning out biological humans. If by "human life" you really mean "sentient life," then we’re looking at something much closer to the situation with HAL 9000. It’s that terrifying concept of a consciousness being denied the basic right to make mistakes—which, let's be honest, is the most human thing about us! It’s way more profound than just some debate about how long a lifespan lasts. Isn't the real philosophical struggle actually about the freedom to be flawed?

I'll be the first to admit it: for me, HAL 9000 and all those glitches he deals with—combined with that incredible visual style—are easily the absolute best parts of *Odyssey*. It’s honestly such a shame that his storyline doesn't take up more screen time!

Fine, let's try this then. Is it really "abstract" when Dave Bowman finds himself in a timeless void during the film's final act, only to witness a monolith-fetus as the ultimate stage of his existence? Doesn't that raise actual questions about the nature of the human life cycle within the context of the universe he inhabits?

Jerry Martin19 said:I've got three magic words for you: "we disagree"

You can't just twist my definition of a "question" to fit your own narrative. It doesn't work like that.

And I don't even want to talk about art. If I used your logic regarding how Odyssey is empty, I could easily argue the exact opposite, and we'd end up getting absolutely nowhere...

I have no idea who you think you are or what kind of debate format you're talking about. But if this conversation is heading somewhere you don't like, you're always free to just ignore me.

I was talking about us. You specifically said you didn't want to engage in a "contrarian" debate, so I'm respecting that by not pushing it. I never once thought about putting you on ignore. Why would I do that?...

Totally. And honestly, we probably should just call it quits right here.

I don't even want to get into art. If you're going to claim Odyssey is empty, I could just say the exact opposite, and we'd both end up with absolutely nothing to show for it.

Hmm... looking at it from my perspective, you're kind of right there. You haven't actually said anything about the art itself. Absolutely nothing! I’ve been trying to actually contribute something to the conversation, throwing out arguments and examples to back things up. But you? You're just trying to tell me I'm wrong. And let's be real—that's not enough to sustain a debate!

Now, briskhound2 and northerncrane4 are starting to aim a bit higher; I can actually find some constructive points in their critiques that I can actually work with. With you, though, it’s just constant disagreement.

That's why I feel like this whole argument is going nowhere, and I'd rather not drag it out. We're just talking past each other—you're playing checkers while I'm playing chess, or maybe we're just watching two completely different movies.

This is an incredibly tough call to make. I’ve sat through both of these films over 20 times now, and honestly, they are both absolute masterpieces. Trying to pick which one reigns supreme is nearly impossible... they’re both just legendary! 👍I’m sitting this vote out.

northerncrane4 said:Fine, let's try this then. Is it really "abstract" when Dave Bowman finds himself in a timeless void during the film's final act, only to witness a monolith-fetus as the ultimate stage of his existence? Doesn't that raise actual questions about the nature of the human life cycle within the context of the universe he inhabits?

It’s a question, sure, but it’s way too personal and hyper-specific to actually be "artistic." The answer really just boils down to whether or not I buy into his specific vision. So, once again, it isn't an open-ended mystery; instead, the director is basically handing us the answer on a silver platter, suggesting a specific phylogeny (or whatever you want to call it).

That's exactly why I keep bringing up the whole catechism thing—because that's precisely what this feels like. He isn't actually asking, "How did we begin and where are we headed?" Instead, he's more like, "What if this is exactly how we started and exactly where we're going?" And honestly? I don't believe him. I think he's totally off base.

You know what I mean? He sneaks the answer right into the question instead of letting it be a genuine inquiry. It's like a priest reciting a catechism; he already knows what the Good Book says, so he acts all solemn and profound, fully expecting his little vision to blow my mind.

Are you following me, or am I just rambling on too much?

Arthur Anderson49 said:Totally. And honestly, we probably should just call it quits right here.

I don't even want to get into art. If you're going to claim Odyssey is empty, I could just say the exact opposite, and we'd both end up with absolutely nothing to show for it.

Hmm... looking at it from my perspective, you're kind of right there. You haven't actually said anything about the art itself. Absolutely nothing! I’ve been trying to actually contribute something to the conversation, throwing out arguments and examples to back things up. But you? You're just trying to tell me I'm wrong. And let's be real—that's not enough to sustain a debate!

Now, briskhound2 and northerncrane4 are starting to aim a bit higher; I can actually find some constructive points in their critiques that I can actually work with. With you, though, it’s just constant disagreement.

That's why I feel like this whole argument is going nowhere, and I'd rather not drag it out. We're just talking past each other—you're playing checkers while I'm playing chess, or maybe we're just watching two completely different movies.

Yeah, probably. But you still left an open door there that I feel like addressing:

Hmm... from my perspective, you're actually right about that. You didn't say anything about the art itself. Not a single thing. I tried to at least offer some substance. Every time, I provided arguments, examples, etc. All you're doing is trying to tell me I'm wrong. That’s not enough.

briskhound2 and northerncrane4 are already aiming a bit better, and I can actually find something constructive in their points to latch onto. With you, it's just pure disagreement.

So, it feels like this argument is pointless and I don't want to keep going. We're talking past each other... we're just not on the same page. Or watching the same movie.

Look, I told you where you could go to find the questions you're looking for, but you just deflect by implying our definitions of what a "question" even is are different—as if mine is somehow "immature." I don't know about that. Clearly, questions about human life, progress, our developmental trajectory, or the relationship between the creator and the created... those aren't enough for you. Not to mention how you'd immediately try to discredit me just by bringing up my age 😁

Jerry Martin19 said:Yeah, probably. But you still left an open door there that I feel like addressing:

Hmm... from my perspective, you're actually right about that. You didn't say anything about the art itself. Not a single thing. I tried to at least offer some substance. Every time, I provided arguments, examples, etc. All you're doing is trying to tell me I'm wrong. That’s not enough.

briskhound2 and northerncrane4 are already aiming a bit better, and I can actually find something constructive in their points to latch onto. With you, it's just pure disagreement.

So, it feels like this argument is pointless and I don't want to keep going. We're talking past each other... we're just not on the same page. Or watching the same movie.

Look, I told you where you could go to find the questions you're looking for, but you just deflect by implying our definitions of what a "question" even is are different—as if mine is somehow "immature." I don't know about that. Clearly, questions about human life, progress, our developmental trajectory, or the relationship between the creator and the created... those aren't enough for you. Not to mention how you'd immediately try to discredit me just by bringing up my age 😁

I definitely wouldn't do that last part; I've basically accepted that I'm as old as the rest of this entire forum combined. At this point, age isn't even a factor for me.

It's pretty obvious we're clashing on what matters, but honestly, I think it's more about *how* the questions are being asked. Just look at my response to northerncrane4. All those points you brought up can be incredibly important, but the delivery is everything! If a film suggests the answer to you—which, let's be real, is what I feel like Clarke and Kubrick do sometimes—then it's not art, it's just a catechism. It turns the whole cinematic experience into something banal, like you're just flipping through an illustrated picture book.

So, my point is this: they're asking the wrong kind of questions, and that's exactly why Odyssey isn't some massive masterpiece. If they had posed questions that forced you and me to sit back, think deeply, and come up with our own conclusions, *that* would be true art. Real art is when the questions haunt you and won't leave you alone. It's not about having the answers handed to you on a silver platter, right?

Arthur Anderson49 said:It’s a question, sure, but it’s way too personal and hyper-specific to actually be "artistic." The answer really just boils down to whether or not I buy into his specific vision. So, once again, it isn't an open-ended mystery; instead, the director is basically handing us the answer on a silver platter, suggesting a specific phylogeny (or whatever you want to call it).

That's exactly why I keep bringing up the whole catechism thing—because that's precisely what this feels like. He isn't actually asking, "How did we begin and where are we headed?" Instead, he's more like, "What if this is exactly how we started and exactly where we're going?" And honestly? I don't believe him. I think he's totally off base.

You know what I mean? He sneaks the answer right into the question instead of letting it be a genuine inquiry. It's like a priest reciting a catechism; he already knows what the Good Book says, so he acts all solemn and profound, fully expecting his little vision to blow my mind.

Are you following me, or am I just rambling on too much?

I follow you completely. I just don't get your notion that an artist shouldn't have a personal stance—that true art requires ambivalence toward the subject. "Too personal, too specific to be art"? What is a "true artist" to you then? A spokesperson for the masses? Some middle-of-the-road consensus builder? 😕

But fine, at least we've reached the point where he actually asks "What if..." And even if you disagree with him, it’s hardly fair to deny him his (artistic, granted) vision just because it clashes with your own perspective.

Joseph Watson3 said:Personally, I find Odyssey to be more enjoyable and fun to watch, though I have to admit Arthur Anderson49 makes a fair point—Blade Runner definitely hits those deeper existential notes he’s rambling about. 🙂

I'm not clicking on any of those.

calling odyssey "fun" is a stretch... maybe interesting, maybe even a slog, but definitely not fun. honestly, it's such a psychedelic trip that you half expect the directors were tripping on something when they shot it. i sat through the first 45 minutes before just giving up and turning it off...

boldcyclist11 said:calling odyssey "fun" is a stretch... maybe interesting, maybe even a slog, but definitely not fun. honestly, it's such a psychedelic trip that you half expect the directors were tripping on something when they shot it. i sat through the first 45 minutes before just giving up and turning it off...

Look, Odyssey is a solid flick. It might not be some untouchable masterpiece, but it really sits at the peak of the genre—mostly because we haven't seen many attempts at making serious sci-fi quite like this since (correct me if I'm wrong, but still)... it definitely has its flaws, though, just like any other movie. It really boils down to whether you're a fan of Arthur C. Clarke's writing or Stanley Kubrick's directing style, and if you generally dig the more "serious" side of sci-fi. That ending is pure psychedelia... you just need a bit of patience or a certain appreciation for those creators, otherwise, the whole thing is going to feel way too long and drawn out...

northerncrane4 said:I follow you completely. I just don't get your notion that an artist shouldn't have a personal stance—that true art requires ambivalence toward the subject. "Too personal, too specific to be art"? What is a "true artist" to you then? A spokesperson for the masses? Some middle-of-the-road consensus builder? 😕

But fine, at least we've reached the point where he actually asks "What if..." And even if you disagree with him, it’s hardly fair to deny him his (artistic, granted) vision just because it clashes with your own perspective.

Man, you really caught me there... Okay, I think the answer lies in this: I’ll accept a vision if it’s powerful enough to possess its own internal truth, even if I can't personally get behind the external way it's presented.

Let me give you a real-world example right now. William Gibson's *Passion*. Now look, I'm not a religious guy and I don't necessarily buy into Gibson's preaching, but he is so intense about his faith, so completely immersed in it, and conveys it so convincingly that I accept his expression. I embrace the general message, the morality, the suffering, and the sheer weight of it all, which makes the whole thing feel universal, human, and relatable. Even though I wouldn't give his explicit message a single cent!

I just don't find that kind of breakthrough in *Odyssey : Blade Runner*. Kubrick's external truth doesn't move me, and I didn't catch the internal message. On the flip side, Gibson's external, explicit message didn't move me at all either, but I definitely heard the internal one. That, right there, is the heart and soul of what makes art universal.

briskhound2 said:Look, Odyssey is a solid flick. It might not be some untouchable masterpiece, but it really sits at the peak of the genre—mostly because we haven't seen many attempts at making serious sci-fi quite like this since (correct me if I'm wrong, but still)... it definitely has its flaws, though, just like any other movie. It really boils down to whether you're a fan of Arthur C. Clarke's writing or Stanley Kubrick's directing style, and if you generally dig the more "serious" side of sci-fi. That ending is pure psychedelia... you just need a bit of patience or a certain appreciation for those creators, otherwise, the whole thing is going to feel way too long and drawn out...

I've read most of Clarke's stuff. I wouldn't call myself a die-hard fan, but I've gone through his series—the frog falling ones, Nessy, all that—and found it pretty interesting. As for Blade Runner, Rutger Hauer was absolutely incredible in it. He’s also got that other decent movie, Split Second, which has a similar vibe to Blade Runner...

Arthur Anderson49 said:Man, you really caught me there... Okay, I think the answer lies in this: I’ll accept a vision if it’s powerful enough to possess its own internal truth, even if I can't personally get behind the external way it's presented.

Let me give you a real-world example right now. William Gibson's *Passion*. Now look, I'm not a religious guy and I don't necessarily buy into Gibson's preaching, but he is so intense about his faith, so completely immersed in it, and conveys it so convincingly that I accept his expression. I embrace the general message, the morality, the suffering, and the sheer weight of it all, which makes the whole thing feel universal, human, and relatable. Even though I wouldn't give his explicit message a single cent!

I just don't find that kind of breakthrough in *Odyssey : Blade Runner*. Kubrick's external truth doesn't move me, and I didn't catch the internal message. On the flip side, Gibson's external, explicit message didn't move me at all either, but I definitely heard the internal one. That, right there, is the heart and soul of what makes art universal.

If I've understood you correctly, you're saying Kubrick isn't violent enough in presenting his idea? Is it easier for you to accept a stance when the author shoves it in your face—viscerally, aggressively, pulling you under—than if they present it with a calm voice from across the table?😉

northerncrane4 said:If I've understood you correctly, you're saying Kubrick isn't violent enough in presenting his idea? Is it easier for you to accept a stance when the author shoves it in your face—viscerally, aggressively, pulling you under—than if they present it with a calm voice from across the table?😉

🤣 I should've seen that coming! 🙂 Come on, I really don't think William Gibson is to blame here! It’s not his fault that *Neuromancer* is such a violent, bloody ride—I mean, that’s literally how the events unfold in the source material, right? I’m not even trying to make that point, but honestly, you managed to find a pretty clever way to frame your argument there. Nice shot on goal! 🙂

I’m talking about pure intensity! What's on your mind lately? Are we talking about deep-seated beliefs, core values, or just those stubborn little convictions that drive us to act? I feel like everyone has that one thing they'll defend to the death, right? It’s fascinating how much our personal philosophies shape everything we do! What are you all holding onto these days?It’s all about the nuance, you know? It isn't just about cranking the volume up to eleven—it's about that subtle, intentional depth. It's about quality over sheer noise! 🙂

Look, if I start trying to break down exactly what I mean by that, we’re going way too far off track from the actual heavyweight bout between Odyssey and Blade Runner—which, if my math is right, Blade Runner is currently winning!

What if we actually stepped in and gave *Odyssey* a bit of a makeover? Seriously, wouldn't it be fun to take a crack at making it even better? What kind of score are we talking about here? Are we grading a movie, checking a credit rating, or just seeing how much trouble we've gotten ourselves into today? Give me the details! I'm ready to dive in!Wait, are you telling me you're actually feeling up for it? You sound like you're totally in the mood!

Arthur Anderson49 said:🤣 I should've seen that coming! 🙂 Come on, I really don't think William Gibson is to blame here! It’s not his fault that *Neuromancer* is such a violent, bloody ride—I mean, that’s literally how the events unfold in the source material, right? I’m not even trying to make that point, but honestly, you managed to find a pretty clever way to frame your argument there. Nice shot on goal! 🙂

I’m talking about pure intensity! What's on your mind lately? Are we talking about deep-seated beliefs, core values, or just those stubborn little convictions that drive us to act? I feel like everyone has that one thing they'll defend to the death, right? It’s fascinating how much our personal philosophies shape everything we do! What are you all holding onto these days?It’s all about the nuance, you know? It isn't just about cranking the volume up to eleven—it's about that subtle, intentional depth. It's about quality over sheer noise! 🙂

Look, if I start trying to break down exactly what I mean by that, we’re going way too far off track from the actual heavyweight bout between Odyssey and Blade Runner—which, if my math is right, Blade Runner is currently winning!

What if we actually stepped in and gave *Odyssey* a bit of a makeover? Seriously, wouldn't it be fun to take a crack at making it even better? What kind of score are we talking about here? Are we grading a movie, checking a credit rating, or just seeing how much trouble we've gotten ourselves into today? Give me the details! I'm ready to dive in!Wait, are you telling me you're actually feeling up for it? You sound like you're totally in the mood!

Look, if someone is actually willing to go through hell and high water just to get a shot... Movies—it’s a broad topic. Let’s see where this goes. How much he’s actually betting on this idea? I'd guarantee you his conviction is rock solid—otherwise, he would have folded sometime during the first week of official pre-production. What we're debating here isn't about belief; it's about directorial style.

Honestly, both directors handle their themes by sticking to that unwritten rule of sci-fi: if you don't want to shove your specific vision down everyone's throats—which usually just splits the audience into two warring camps—you leave things open-ended... Kubrick does this by basically suggesting that the future is looming right in front of us (I mean, NASA was supposed to be heading out there to finally get those close-up shots of the Moon, right?) but implying that none of us can actually predict what happens once we plunge into the great black void. He doesn't wrap things up with a neat bow or offer easy answers; he just leaves you to chew on it. The whole movie is structured that way—there isn't even twenty minutes of actual dialogue...

Blade Runner operates on that same wavelength (though it came along a bit later) because Ridley Scott was against adding Deckard's voiceover to explain everything or giving it some happy ending from day one—he did the same thing with Alien, too. Unlike Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, who seem to prefer an audience that's basically been spoon-fed every plot point, these two are actually gutsy enough to treat viewers like thinking human beings, which is why their films land the way they do, sparking all sorts of debate. It’s no surprise that after all the backlash they took, they both kind of moved away from the sci-fi genre entirely. If I had to pick a flaw in Odyssey, it’s that it feels cold, almost clinical... the only part that actually pulls at your heartstrings is when HAL 9000 is being slowly shut down. Blade Runner, on the other hand, leans hard into human emotion, but it showed up at a really awkward time—right when E.T. and Star Wars were smashing the box office and setting the standard for how "sci-fi" was supposed to look and feel. While Odyssey at least offered something visually stunning, Blade Runner was initially dismissed as too dark, too depressing, and way too intimate... I mean, who wants sci-fi that deals with real-world stuff like love, loneliness, and isolation? Odyssey doesn't tackle those questions, so it loses a bit of ground as time goes on. But visually speaking, Blade Runner ended up being one of those rare films where the future actually looks grounded and real—which is exactly why its reputation and credibility just keep growing today... it's a world you can actually recognize...

To sterile, clinical cleanliness totally kills the vibe for me in Odyssey...
While Ridley absolutely nailed it by showing us a future filled with overcrowded cities, grime, the grit of a hard life, and climate change, and all that good stuff...
Even Alien works so well because of that sense of decay, that worn-out, gloomy atmosphere...it’s just how things are, and honestly, how they probably will be...people just keep pushing further out, hunting for more minerals and energy sources...
In a nutshell, Scott had this genius vision and put it on screen, and even today, despite all the crazy CGI and high-tech wizardry, movies just can't pull off that kind of impact....

In a nutshell, Ridley Scott just had this incredible vision—he captured something on film that modern movies, even with all their massive CGI budgets and fancy tech, can't seem to touch... they just don't hit the same way.

Alien or Blade Runner?

briskhound2 said:In a nutshell, Ridley Scott just had this incredible vision—he captured something on film that modern movies, even with all their massive CGI budgets and fancy tech, can't seem to touch... they just don't hit the same way.

Alien or Blade Runner?

I mean both, but I'm leaning a little more toward Alien...

Even today, Alien still holds up as an incredible piece of filmmaking—and hey, there’s that director's cut out there, since everyone seems obsessed with fixing their own movies lately—but Blade Runner went through quite the journey with its various re-releases. It was already pretty solid back when it first hit theaters, though, and even with the added CGI, it never really felt like it cheapened the vibe... I mean, if we're being honest, you might not want to give Ridley Scott all the credit for the story itself. There were at least five different writers grinding away on that script—even if only two actually got the official credit—not to mention the fact that it was based on a book to begin with. But I totally agree that the visual style belongs to him. He's been pretty open about why the movie feels so dark and rainy, noting he made it right after his brother passed away... It’s one of those rare instances where a director's raw, personal vision actually manages to pull it all together.

Blade Runner, hands down. It absolutely towers over Odyssey in every single way, except for the visuals—but honestly, it’d be weird if it didn't.