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

Just wanted to ask you guys something. Why does everything in Odyssey have to be so grimy and filthy, trying way too hard to be "realistic" like in Blade Runner? What's the logic behind making a relatively new spaceship—built specifically to explore uncharted territory—look beat up and battered, like it just crawled out of some cosmic war zone? I mean, it’s not exactly Han Solo’s Millennium Falcon 🤷
...

Jerry Martin19 said:Just wanted to ask you guys something. Why does everything in Odyssey have to be so grimy and filthy, trying way too hard to be "realistic" like in Blade Runner? What's the logic behind making a relatively new spaceship—built specifically to explore uncharted territory—look beat up and battered, like it just crawled out of some cosmic war zone? I mean, it’s not exactly Han Solo’s Millennium Falcon 🤷
...

That’s just the influence of Battlestar Galactica. If the ship isn't scuffed up, it isn't a real ship. 😁

northerncrane4 said: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.

I mean, who knows? Stanley Kubrick was a total maniac, and he shot every single one of his films with that same manic energy. It honestly feels to me like he was more obsessed with the actual process of filmmaking than the actual movie itself. He was like those fishermen who get way too hyped up over high-tech rods, fancy reels, and expensive lures, while the fish is basically an afterthought, right?

That’s why all his movies are technically perfect but somehow feel kind of hollow—except maybe for Dr. Strangelove. In my opinion, that’s his only truly visceral, hard-hitting film. Everything else feels a bit like intellectual masturbation to me.

So yeah, I seriously doubt your take on his level of conviction.

briskhound2 said: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...

I'd sign my name to that any day!

Thanks. I’m a huge fan of both movies, and seeing that you are too makes this an easy conversation to have... It’s been a solid discussion—definitely one that was overdue for us sci-fi fans who prefer something a bit more substantial than just flashy, mindless blockbusters.

Like people have been saying on this thread already, Blade Runner asks some really solid questions. And honestly, that’s great. It does it perfectly. No debate there. But just asking questions is kind of the most typical way to do philosophy, I guess. The process is always the same. Odyssey is better because it flips the whole idea of watching a movie on its head, which makes it a more revolutionary and, in my opinion, superior film. It's more like, "Alright folks, here are the answers, here are all the solutions—now feel free to go out and ask yourselves the real questions if you actually want to." That feels like a braver, smarter way to handle things. So, for Odyssey: 👍

Jeffrey Martinez2 said:I mean both, but I'm leaning a little more toward Alien...

What an absolute masterpiece. Seriously! It might lean on a few classic horror tropes here and there, but honestly? Who cares? It still turned out absolutely incredible!

quietdriver3 said:Like people have been saying on this thread already, Blade Runner asks some really solid questions. And honestly, that’s great. It does it perfectly. No debate there. But just asking questions is kind of the most typical way to do philosophy, I guess. The process is always the same. Odyssey is better because it flips the whole idea of watching a movie on its head, which makes it a more revolutionary and, in my opinion, superior film. It's more like, "Alright folks, here are the answers, here are all the solutions—now feel free to go out and ask yourselves the real questions if you actually want to." That feels like a braver, smarter way to handle things. So, for Odyssey: 👍

Hmm... You know, maybe. Maybe Stanley Kubrick took a much bigger gamble than I'm giving him credit for. The guy was a total risk-taker; he never cared about playing it safe or sticking to the status quo. I don't personally view his work that way, but hey, maybe film history will see it differently one day. From where I'm standing right now, though? I see Odyssey as a brilliant failure.

Arthur Anderson49 said:Hmm... You know, maybe. Maybe Stanley Kubrick took a much bigger gamble than I'm giving him credit for. The guy was a total risk-taker; he never cared about playing it safe or sticking to the status quo. I don't personally view his work that way, but hey, maybe film history will see it differently one day. From where I'm standing right now, though? I see Odyssey as a brilliant failure.

A lot of critics lately have been talking about how Odyssey kind of shows the exhaustion of the material—that sealed-off, hermetic feeling you get from that whole genre (and we're talking about those movies centered on first contact with alien intelligence here). They argue that visual and technical perfection alone isn't enough to keep a movie like this at the top tier for decades when there are better versions out there—films that are actually clearer, which is pretty much a prerequisite if you want to stay on the "all-time greats" lists forever. I’m mostly thinking of James Cameron's The Abyss, which tackles that same first contact theme but in a way that's way more accessible...

All we need now is a mention of The X-Files 😁

edit: I know it’s minor, but it’s spelled Odyssey with a "y"... if anyone feels like fixing the title, that'd be great 🙂...

Jerry Martin19 said:All we need now is a mention of The X-Files 😁

edit: I know it’s minor, but it’s spelled Odyssey with a "y"... if anyone feels like fixing the title, that'd be great 🙂...

Is anything really missing from that series? You can't just take two films of that caliber—what people call the heavy hitters of hardcore sci-fi—and expect them to be summed up in a single sentence. You have to look at the directors behind them since they're the ones responsible for that level of success... plus, you need to make some comparisons just to explain what you're talking about, otherwise you'll always run into some smart-ass asking, "Oh yeah? Give me one example that proves your point." When you talk about those two movies, you're essentially talking about the entire sci-fi genre, because they basically set the gold standard...

That series is actually perfect, honestly—I’m a huge fan. I just noticed everyone was getting all worked up over titles because of the comparisons, so I brought up The X-Files and it felt like it came off with a bit of a negative
vibe...

Honestly, I feel about Stanley Kubrick the same way I feel about Hemingway—he’s incredibly important, sure, but he isn't necessarily "great" in my eyes. It's the same deal with Odyssey. It stands as this massive turning point that basically paved the way and kicked off a whole new era for sci-fi cinema. But as a movie? It just didn't click for me. I felt like it left me wanting so much more.

On the flip side, Blade Runner is a total game-changer because of how it treats sci-fi tropes; it almost treats them as mundane. Instead of treating the future like some grand, mystical spectacle, it looks at it just like we look at the present—just a gritty continuation of our current reality. It's the polar opposite of Odyssey. It just hit me: those two films are essentially negations of one another. Blade Runner is the anti-Odyssey.

Jerry Martin19 said:That series is actually perfect, honestly—I’m a huge fan. I just noticed everyone was getting all worked up over titles because of the comparisons, so I brought up The X-Files and it felt like it came off with a bit of a negative
vibe...

I guess it came off that way. But hey, I'm a fan too. Sometimes you gotta drop other titles in just to make a point, or maybe to let people know there's actually a better movie out there than the ones being discussed... okay, maybe this is a slightly tougher case, but if we were talking about Michael Bay and big action flicks, those comparisons would be totally necessary. If you thought I was bringing up The Abyss to be weird, my bad—it just feels much closer to 2001 to me since they share similar themes, so the connection felt pretty natural, at least in my head.

So, we’re diving into the absolute peaks of the genre here. But let me flip the script for a second: what do you guys think is the biggest massive letdown in sci-fi cinema history?
I’m not talking about just "bad" movies—I mean there are plenty of those rotting in the bargain bin (my personal pick for a total dud would be Starship Troopers 2, with Avalon breathing down its neck), but I'm talking about those films that had everything they needed to be legendary, yet somehow completely blew it.

briskhound2 said:A lot of critics lately have been talking about how Odyssey kind of shows the exhaustion of the material—that sealed-off, hermetic feeling you get from that whole genre (and we're talking about those movies centered on first contact with alien intelligence here). They argue that visual and technical perfection alone isn't enough to keep a movie like this at the top tier for decades when there are better versions out there—films that are actually clearer, which is pretty much a prerequisite if you want to stay on the "all-time greats" lists forever. I’m mostly thinking of James Cameron's The Abyss, which tackles that same first contact theme but in a way that's way more accessible...

Uh, uh, I'd never say anything against Cameron, but I just don't see how that comparison works. 😉

And I'm not really sure why people describe Odyssey as being so cold? It doesn't feel cold to me at all. I think the tension between these two films basically boils down to poetry. 😁 Which one is more poetic: the dying gasps of the "Daisy" lullaby, or "moments vanishing like tears in the rain"?

On paper, I'd pick the latter, but on celluloid—and we are talking about a movie here, after all—it's always going to be the former. 😉

Arthur Anderson49 said:Actually, I feel about Kubrick the same way I feel about Hemingway—he's important, sure, but maybe not actually *great*. And Odyssey is like that for me. It’s significant because it was a turning point that arguably opened up a whole new era for sci-fi cinema. But as a movie? It just didn't quite click for me. I felt like it gave me too little.

To be a bit cliché, I guess Kubrick achieved what every artist dreams of: making life start imitating art. I mean, I don't think there's a smart speaker today that isn't essentially a clone of HAL 9000 (that cold, monotone voice of a rejected, repressed lover, if I remember Pauline Kael 😁 describing it that way correctly).

quietdriver3 said:Uh, uh, I'd never say anything against Cameron, but I just don't see how that comparison works. 😉

And I'm not really sure why people describe Odyssey as being so cold? It doesn't feel cold to me at all. I think the tension between these two films basically boils down to poetry. 😁 Which one is more poetic: the dying gasps of the "Daisy" lullaby, or "moments vanishing like tears in the rain"?

On paper, I'd pick the latter, but on celluloid—and we are talking about a movie here, after all—it's always going to be the former. 😉

To be a bit cliché, I guess Kubrick achieved what every artist dreams of: making life start imitating art. I mean, I don't think there's a smart speaker today that isn't essentially a clone of HAL 9000 (that cold, monotone voice of a rejected, repressed lover, if I remember Pauline Kael 😁 describing it that way correctly).

For me, it feels cold because I just don't care about the characters. I mentioned before that the scene where HAL gets disconnected is probably the most emotional part of the whole thing, but generally, I just don't give a damn about the people involved—what happens to them afterward doesn't move me. Compare that to when I watch Blade Runner, where I'm always left wondering what happened next. It's a lucky break that there isn't a sequel, honestly, because it keeps people intrigued. In that sense, 2001: A Space Odyssey feels cold to me (even the lead actors weren't exactly unforgettable) whereas Blade Runner feels warmer, more like a human story. I’ll vote for the end of Blade Runner; that monologue Rutger Hauer delivers is pure genius—the guy actually improvised it on set—and I totally agree that 2001: A Space Odyssey left us with that motif of a machine turning against humanity, which was pretty unique for its time.

Arthur Anderson49 said:So, we’re diving into the absolute peaks of the genre here. But let me flip the script for a second: what do you guys think is the biggest massive letdown in sci-fi cinema history?
I’m not talking about just "bad" movies—I mean there are plenty of those rotting in the bargain bin (my personal pick for a total dud would be Starship Troopers 2, with Avalon breathing down its neck), but I'm talking about those films that had everything they needed to be legendary, yet somehow completely blew it.

Alien 3. It basically just trashed everything from the previous movie and didn't have anything new to say...

briskhound2 said:For me, it feels cold because I just don't care about the characters. I mentioned before that the scene where HAL gets disconnected is probably the most emotional part of the whole thing, but generally, I just don't give a damn about the people involved—what happens to them afterward doesn't move me. Compare that to when I watch Blade Runner, where I'm always left wondering what happened next. It's a lucky break that there isn't a sequel, honestly, because it keeps people intrigued. In that sense, 2001: A Space Odyssey feels cold to me (even the lead actors weren't exactly unforgettable) whereas Blade Runner feels warmer, more like a human story. I’ll vote for the end of Blade Runner; that monologue Rutger Hauer delivers is pure genius—the guy actually improvised it on set—and I totally agree that 2001: A Space Odyssey left us with that motif of a machine turning against humanity, which was pretty unique for its time.

I don't know, I think it depends on the context. Rutger Hauer had all those human qualities that make you actually feel for him, whereas Stanley Kubrick makes you feel bad for a blinking red light. To me, that feels like a much bigger achievement.

quietdriver3 said:I don't know, I think it depends on the context. Rutger Hauer had all those human qualities that make you actually feel for him, whereas Stanley Kubrick makes you feel bad for a blinking red light. To me, that feels like a much bigger achievement.

In 2001: A Space Odyssey, Kubrick is focused on humanity and consciousness—not some individual's emotions.