Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

brightpilot6 said: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.

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.

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.

Zinedine Zidane said:I get the feeling you're all just piling on vague clichés to give this movie some unearned weight. It’s so nebulous that you could claim it’s about anything. Sure, it’s about human ignorance regarding space, or the meaning of life, or the infinite expanse of time, or how time stretches through the cosmos, or maybe it's a symbol for some transcendental journey, etc., etc.

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 ☕ "

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?

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.

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.

I don't get you, brightpilot6. People will literally vape just to feel something, getting high on these hyper-complex systems wrapped in flashy presentations, yet when they see a movie that perfectly captures the entire meta-system—the system of all systems—the reaction is just... meh?

You know what I have to say to that? Meh.

The concept is pretty straightforward: A SPACE ODYSSEY. It’s about man in relation to the cosmos, human perception within cosmic frameworks (if I can even find a better way to say that without sounding weird). Just because space itself isn't "clear" doesn't mean the director failed. The vision is baked right into the sense of adventure; the rest is just pure fascination. Total mind-blow. There aren't any hand-holding directions leading to specific conclusions. That's the damn beauty of it. The movie is shot so that the subject itself—space—is so massive it defies any single directorial signature. This is the only film about space and life that actually communicates with the viewer this way. Everything else is just some fancy little human drama set against a sci-fi backdrop. Those other movies? Their version of space is basic as hell.

brightpilot6 said: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.

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.

It's what you clearly don't want to accept. Space is abstract. You're looking for straight answers, like it's some cheap whodunit thriller where everything needs a neat little bow. This is about how humans actually grasp the cosmos after all our progress and bullshit adventures. Whatever.

So, I'm asking you about the meaning of life, and you say it's woven into every story.

You called the movie blurry. I’m saying it’s only blurry in certain spots, but those parts tie together in that trance scene. Of course it doesn't give up all its secrets. The concept itself isn't vague—only the details are.

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.

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

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.

brightpilot6 said: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.

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.

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. 🤣

brightpilot6 said: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.

Fair enough. 🤣

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.

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.

brightpilot6 said: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.

He realized the unknowability of the universe. At the end of the day, definitions are so stupidly simple that we can only rely on axioms. That's basically what I said in my first few posts on this thread. People love precise terms. They use them to explain how things and the world work. When they run into an experience like this movie, they want to be told that A + B = C. But that's not how it works. Realization happens in simple stages of deduction, but once you go deeper looking for precision, the effect becomes increasingly contradictory.

Cut the jargon. The movie barely uses any. It's like you think concepts don't exist unless there's a word for them.

By "non-human-like adventures," I meant the kind of stories our planet tells, which in modern times just get moved into space. Stuff like Star Wars or Star Trail. This isn't that kind of movie.

You say I can't verbalize what I'm thinking? You know what? You're right. If I could verbalize it, the movie would be a total failure. You can't verbalize this movie either, but for a different reason: you'd want to explain it using every mathematical formula available, but if you actually could, the movie wouldn't make sense anymore. The universe would just look ridiculous and overly simplistic.

Are you seriously not fascinated by how much of a baby a human looks like compared to the universe? In those proportions, despite all our progress, we aren't even a toy car on a highway.

And yeah, don't try to verbalize the experience. Just experience it. Language follows thought. It doesn't work the other way around.

brightpilot6 said: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?

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.

Hmm. You’re misrepresenting me there. I said you weren't expecting a sense of closure in Odyssey, not that you weren't looking for logic.

I'm not going to go through all your arguments right now—honestly, I just don't feel like it—but this idea of "touching on existential questions"? Which ones, exactly? Forgive me if you already laid this out and I missed it. Odyssey doesn't focus directly on the human experience the way Interstellar does; instead, it uses the perspective of the universe to show how tiny humans are, our place in the void, evolution, intelligence... it isn't driven by some "love" force that moves everything. It feels like a banal film with banal direction. It would be better to compare it to Contact, though even that is light-years ahead of it.

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.

In every single part.

brightpilot6 said: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?

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.

Man, what "putting things in perspective"?
They make cruising through the Milky Way, or a black hole, or whatever hellscape you want to call it, look like a freaking ride at a local carnival.
Characters are staring at each other through bookshelves because they can't even reach out since they're stuck in some weird dimension or different point in time. 🙂

Look, Kubrick nailed it—he showed just how much tiny little mice we actually are compared to the vastness of space and time.☕

Seriously, didn't you guys just write a whole thread claiming everyone is entitled to their own opinion on movies? Fast forward a few pages and now you're attacking someone just because they didn't think a movie was their all-time favorite or because they preferred something else over whatever masterpiece you've collectively decided is the gold standard.
Take me, for instance—I actually get what ZZu is trying to say here, even if we don't see eye to eye on everything. Odyssey is an incredible film because of that massive "wow" factor you feel once the credits roll (at least for me), even if it doesn't blow my mind while I'm actually sitting in the theater. I mean, visually, it's absolutely brutal, especially for its time. The scenes are stunning and all that, but honestly, it’s just way too slow and gets pretty boring in certain spots.

But look, if you're forcing me to choose between those two films to eat for the rest of my life, I'd go with Interstellar any day.

brightpilot6 said: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.

Thanks.

How would you describe it? It's a sort of "logical bifurcation." A film is either blindingly obvious or it's a Rorschach's blot. In reality, it sits somewhere in the middle—it constrains the number of possible interpretations without forcing a single one upon you. Ultimately, it boils down to what a person prefers: more or less interpretive freedom? That's purely a matter of taste. For instance, some people prefer very little wiggle room and maybe even subpar vocals, which is why they enjoy Balašević

Moving from these types of artistic works to admiring a fire extinguisher hanging on a gallery wall with endless theories swirling around it is just a tiny step. When asking oneself whether that extinguisher is pure nonsense or a legitimate work of art, the answer usually hinges on one thin line: the consensus of mainstream opinion.

Not every fire extinguisher on every wall is created equal, though. Duchamp's urinal in the museum was a massive deal because, up until then, the idea of a museum housing anything other than "high art" was almost unthinkable. The urinal was an original, gutsy provocation. Just because five hundred other artists have imitated the exact same stunt since then doesn't make Duchamp a clown, even if his act looks somewhat ridiculous looking back from our current historical vantage point.

brightpilot6 said: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.

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.

If you want to find a solid interpretation of a film, you first have to accept the premise that the movie isn't just a Rorschach's blot, but rather a deliberate, conscious assembly of seemingly incompatible elements. From there, you ask: Why are we watching monkeys for forty-five minutes? Why the sudden jump to space? Why follow the journey of an astronaut and the hall? What's the significance of that bizarre sequence near the end? What does that damn monolith mean? Personally, I think there are logical answers to those questions, though I'm not claiming they are the definitive or only correct ones. They certainly aren't arbitrary.