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

northerncrane4 said:In 2001: A Space Odyssey, Kubrick is focused on humanity and consciousness—not some individual's emotions.

Yeah, I get that, I really do. I'm not trying to tear down a legend or anything, I just think 2001: A Space Odyssey is a pretty cold movie. I guess HAL's death is just one tiny part of what the whole film is actually offering.

quietdriver3 said:Yeah, I get that, I really do. I'm not trying to tear down a legend or anything, I just think 2001: A Space Odyssey is a pretty cold movie. I guess HAL's death is just one tiny part of what the whole film is actually offering.

You know what the deal is with Blade Runner? It gives you a pile of cool quotes. Personally, I think "Too bad she won't live. But then again, who does?" is great. Same goes for Hauer's monologue. But I much prefer when Kubrick shows us exactly what Hauer talks about fifteen years later—that stuff "you people wouldn't believe." Not that I need to believe it—I've already seen it through Bowman's eyes.😎

northerncrane4 said:You know what the deal is with Blade Runner? It gives you a pile of cool quotes. Personally, I think "Too bad she won't live. But then again, who does?" is great. Same goes for Hauer's monologue. But I much prefer when Kubrick shows us exactly what Hauer talks about fifteen years later—that stuff "you people wouldn't believe." Not that I need to believe it—I've already seen it through Bowman's eyes.😎

Spot on, I couldn't agree more. 👍

I guess I’d add that, in my opinion, 2001: A Space Odyssey really makes better use of what cinema can actually do. Don't get me wrong, Blade Runner is great—it's a fantastic story, a solid drama, all that stuff. But, you know... 2001 is just pure cinema. It's a massive achievement. Like you were saying earlier, Kubrick shows you things that you could only ever read about, or maybe even dream about.

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.

At the end of the day, it’s just about how you personally experience a movie—everyone's got their own take, and you've gotta respect that. Maybe I just find it easier to connect with characters who have actual human traits, but if you look strictly at the film, Blade Runner sort of suggests that "humanity" is defined by those who lack it... which is why you end up feeling for Hauer and his character's end. Then you have 2001: A Space Odyssey, which basically teaches you that if something breaks, you just shut it down. I think the whole HAL 9000 situation was handled way better in the sequel—technology demands honesty, and it’ll give you exactly what it gets. HAL maintains control of the Discovery right until the very end, and that question—"David, will I dream?"—it taps into emotion and empathy much more deeply than his initial shutdown, even though that scene was pretty heavy too...

briskhound2 said:Alien 3. It basically just trashed everything from the previous movie and didn't have anything new to say...

Honestly, I'm just bummed out that they turned this whole thing into a massive franchise. It really should have just been one standalone masterpiece and called it a day, don't you think?

Arthur Anderson49 said:Honestly, I'm just bummed out that they turned this whole thing into a massive franchise. It really should have just been one standalone masterpiece and called it a day, don't you think?

Man, Aliens is just such a killer movie... honestly one of those rare sequels that actually manages to live up to the original—though I know people can get pretty heated about that part. But after that, the franchise really should have just called it quits. It’s got this perfectly solid payoff, a great final showdown, and wraps the whole story up just right. And don't even get me started on stuff like Alien vs Predator... we seriously need a separate thread just for all those bad movies...

Arthur Anderson49 said: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.

Spot on! Both movies share that heavy dystopian undertone, but while "2001: A Space Odyssey" stays within the lines of hard science fiction—veering into more metaphysical territory in that final act—Blade Runner uses its futuristic setting as nothing more than a foundation. The sci-fi elements don't even dominate the universal themes being explored through the story...

Arthur Anderson49 said: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.

You’ve got it all wrong. Kubrick is the last person on earth I'd call that. He was a true artist. I have no clue why so many people mistake technical perfection for a lack of soul.
So you're basically saying Rembrandt was some kind of maniac who cared more about technicality, while Vincent van Gogh was the real artist? Please. They were both artists. It's just that Rembrandt focused on the craft with, what, surgical precision? Or something like that.

That's why his movies feel perfect yet somehow totally hollow—except maybe Dr. Strangelove. To me, that's actually his only gritty, visceral film. All the others? Just intellectual masturbation.
So, I have my doubts about whether you actually believe what he believes.

Kubrick was a photographer first. That’s exactly why his movies hit different. He saw directing through a completely different lens, literally. It’s why everything he touched turned out perfect.

rustywalker42 said:You’ve got it all wrong. Kubrick is the last person on earth I'd call that. He was a true artist. I have no clue why so many people mistake technical perfection for a lack of soul.
So you're basically saying Rembrandt was some kind of maniac who cared more about technicality, while Vincent van Gogh was the real artist? Please. They were both artists. It's just that Rembrandt focused on the craft with, what, surgical precision? Or something like that.

That's why his movies feel perfect yet somehow totally hollow—except maybe Dr. Strangelove. To me, that's actually his only gritty, visceral film. All the others? Just intellectual masturbation.
So, I have my doubts about whether you actually believe what he believes.

Kubrick was a photographer first. That’s exactly why his movies hit different. He saw directing through a completely different lens, literally. It’s why everything he touched turned out perfect.

Maybe you have a point there. But if I had to describe his style, I’d take a totally different approach. To me, Kubrick feels more like Piet Mondrian. He reached that level of perfection through this intense, relentless process of distillation.

I know enough about Mondrian to appreciate what he was doing (well, as much as anyone can!), and I find it meaningful and cool, but Rembrandt? That's the one who will always leave me completely spellbound. I have massive respect for both of them—and I mean real, heartfelt respect, not just polite manners—but my heart only beats for one of them.

Stanley Kubrick was one of those perfectionists who wouldn't leave a single frame to chance—and honestly, Ridley Scott is cut from the exact same cloth. Both of them worked on their films in a way that probably drove producers and crew members absolutely insane... so much so that there's really no middle ground when it comes to them today. You either love their movies because they're pure reflections of their specific visions, or you can't stand them because you think they're just pretentious types overcomplicating perfectly simple stories. Here’s a little bit of random trivia for you: Blade Runner actually serves as this weird little bridge between the two legends. That "happy ending" that got cut from the film? It was actually unused footage taken straight from Kubrick's The Shining. And if the rumors are true, Kubrick actually liked Blade Runner... which goes to show that even the greats tend to see eye to eye on things like this.

Sorry about the Odyssey
—but honestly, I’ve always had a soft spot for Blade Runner, even if both films are absolute masterpieces