[movie] Ex Machina

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 1:24 pm

Zaxxon wrote:You're projecting, Jeff.

OK, what then is your theory why the location was so isolated and not in a large tech facility with many scientists and other artisans working on them? I suspect Nathan has seen these kind of movies before and knew how it would turn out. The sequel is a wilderness horror flick followed by an urban horror flick.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 1:28 pm

You just read the synopsis on Rotten Tomatoes, didn't you?

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 1:29 pm

I never go to that site.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 1:30 pm

You're doing it again. I already provided answers to these questions, straight from the horse's mouth, earlier in the thread.

The movie is not a 'they are coming for us' film *at all*. Ava has very specific motivations for every action she takes, and they are apparent to me after a few watches. Don't really care to RM9 this shizzle, though.

It's possible my interpretation is wrong and yours correct, but I'm doubtful based on my reading of Garland.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 1:30 pm

Jeff V wrote:I never go to that site.

Then where did you read the synopsis for Ex Machina? Because I gotta tell ya, that site needs to get a writer who is capable of deeper thought.

Lordnine · Post by **Lordnine** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 1:56 pm

Jeff V wrote:
Lordnine wrote:
Jeff V wrote:
Spoiler:
But the movie ended with homicidal robots getting loose. They killed one man (an asshat to be sure, but still...killer!) and left another to die horribly of starvation, and he was their advocate. The message is "they will turn on you and it will be brutal."

Spoiler:
Do people really think that would happen? He was a smart guy in a room with many heavy objects and probably some tools as well. It’s also very likely that there was a fridge in that room with enough supplies to last at least a couple weeks. I have no doubt he could get out eventually.

I assumed that she left him in there so he wouldn’t follow her and had no intention of actually having him die.

Spoiler:
All of the internal rooms went on lockdown. The room he always seem to be stuck in when that happened appeared to be quite barren and no signs of food stores. There is glass/plexiglas that could easily withstand the best efforts of someone like that. He sure seemed desperate at the end.

Spoiler:

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:03 pm

hepcat wrote:
Jeff V wrote:I never go to that site.
Then where did you read the synopsis for Ex Machina? Because I gotta tell ya, that site needs to get a writer who is capable of deeper thought.

The movie was all style, little substance. What deeper thoughts are you imagining?

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:07 pm

When you set your mind to hatin' somethin', their ain't no power on Earth that can sway you, is there? Facts be damned!

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:10 pm

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:10 pm

That guy will reach China before Jeff ever admits he's wrong.

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:12 pm

hepcat wrote:When you set your mind to hatin' somethin', their ain't no power on Earth that can sway you, is there? Facts be damned!

When did I say I hated the movie? It was a shallow, derivative plot that was done in style. My rating was above average. Where do you get hate from?

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:19 pm

It seemed more polite to say you hated it, rather than telling you the truth.

Combustible Lemur · Post by **Combustible Lemur** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:40 pm

While I think Jeff is over the top. I somewhat agree with what he's saying and its a recurring theme in Alex Garland films. In sunshine, strong themes of control, harmony, sacrifice, ultimately a slasher movie because wanton violence trumps philosophy; 28 days later, control vs. survival, vs. humanity, ultimately made mostly moot by anarchic violence; Ex Machina,

Spoiler:

I really enjoyed it. But I agree with Jeff in so much that Alex Garland abandons his grand intellect to get the narrative conclusion he wants.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:45 pm

If you also believe the film can be trivialized as simply a film about homicidal robots, than I would just as strenuously disagree with you as I do Jeff.

If you're saying it has more than that, then you're not really agreeing with Jeff.

Combustible Lemur · Post by **Combustible Lemur** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:48 pm

hepcat wrote:If you also believe the film can be trivialized as simply a film about homicidal robots, than I would just as strenuously disagree with you as I do Jeff.

If you're saying it has more than that, then you're not really agreeing with Jeff.

Good job hurting your own stance by making a binary statement out of a thought out post.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:50 pm

If you'd said you understood his point, that might have worked better for you.

McNutt · Post by **McNutt** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:51 pm

I don't think she intended Caleb to die. I think she had an Ivan Drago mentality about him. Her goal was to escape her prison and she would do whatever it took to make that happen. Would she kill 100 people who stood in her way? We don't know because that wasn't presented as an obstacle. I don't see her as a walking death machine out to kill. Give her the option of kill her captor or sit in a cage and she'll obviously kill her captor. Will she nuke a city to avoid being shut down? Maybe. That very well could be the point of the movie. We don't know what she is capable of doing because she will manipulate people to the best of her abilities.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:00 pm

Spoiler:

McNutt · Post by **McNutt** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:03 pm

I agree. My question is what lengths would she go to do that? Maybe shed kill Caleb to just live in peace. Maybe she'd kill more. Many more, and not care about it because she doesn't have that morality yet.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:06 pm

Sorry, that was more directed at those who felt the film ultimately was about a killer robot.

Combustible Lemur · Post by **Combustible Lemur** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:08 pm

hepcat wrote:If you'd said you understood his point, that might have worked better for you.

One argument is semantic one was qualified. Agreement with elaboration was the appropriate word.

Spoiler:

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:12 pm

Spoiler:

Let's be honest, we're both so heavily mired in semantics right now I'm surprised we haven't started arguing over the definition of semantic. It's that kind of a lazy afternoon at work.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:17 pm

McNutt wrote:I don't think she intended Caleb to die. I think she had an Ivan Drago mentality about him. Her goal was to escape her prison and she would do whatever it took to make that happen.

Since we're apparently done with spoiler tags...

Earlier in the film Ava's quite clearly (to me) querying Caleb to determine 1) how big a deal it would be to toss him aside to rot in the house after she left (asking about family, etc) and 2) whether he's a risk to let come out with her (are you a good person? Is Nathan your friend?). Further, he doesn't get fully 'locked in' until he tries to access the computer using his key card. Then the computer shuts down and everything goes red. He's then seen taking a metal stool and banging on the door.

It's not budging; he's a goner unless someone comes to rescue him.

That said, you can make the argument that she's sociopathic in that she's not particularly bothered by killing Nathan and leaving Caleb, but I don't count those as sociopathic--Nathan was quite literally torturing these bots (at least once they reached a sufficient intelligence level to be self-aware). She did what she had to do to escape and to ensure she had a chance to 'stay' escaped. Is it possible that she's going to go out and kill because YAY MURDER DEATH KILL!? I guess. Were we given any indication in the film that that's where we're headed? I don't think so, and I'd argue that we have evidence to the contrary via Ava's prior queries and actions.

Jeff V wrote:It was a shallow

I don't think you grokked its depth. That doesn't make it shallow. I do realize I could be giving it too much credit, however your other commentary on the film thus far lead me to believe you didn't fully absorb it.

derivative plot

Derivative of which other films/works, specifically? I see some similarities to other AI films, and to some 'what is it to be alive?' tales, but wouldn't claim derivative here.

that was done in style.

I'm with you here.

Jeff V wrote:OK, what then is your theory why the location was so isolated and not in a large tech facility with many scientists and other artisans working on them?

On the contrary, Nathan wanted to be alone to do his work in peace. He knew his work was breaking the law ('turned on every cell camera...' 'the manufacturers knew I was doing it but couldn't say anything because they were doing the same thing', etc), and that he was on shaky moral ground. He wasn't hiding to save the planet from killer robots with limited charge and less-than-or-equal-to-petite-human-female strength.

Jeff V wrote:
Spoiler:
He didn't die a symbolic death. He was murdered by two robots. If it's symbolic of anything, it's the "OMG the robots are aware and now they will kill us all!" FUD that I have the biggest problem with. With the second death being presumptive, they've killed every human they've ever come in contact with.

Nathan was killed by two robots he'd created, one of which he specifically created as a mute sex toy which happened to be self-aware, and the other figured out where she was headed once he decided to move on to the next iteration. Caleb's fate is more ambiguous, but I can see how Ava could have viewed him as a threat to her survival.

I recommend this and this as good viewing for those interested in more insight to Garland's thought process.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:19 pm

Combustible Lemur wrote:
hepcat wrote:If you'd said you understood his point, that might have worked better for you.

One argument is semantic one was qualified. Agreement with elaboration was the appropriate word.

Spoiler:
As to her being a killing machine. She's not human. It's a silly direction to question. Caleb was in her way. So she killed him. (which personally I think in an AI requires intent) it's not like it was an accident. She walked into the crowd because it suited her purpose. Killing machine and thirst for human death are separate things.

I hate that we have to keep spoilering stuff -

Spoiler:

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:23 pm

stessier wrote:I hate that we have to keep spoilering stuff

Me, too. And since I wasn't the first to stop, I stopped. We're on page 3 and the film's been out nearly a year. I figure we're safe. That said, I'll leave your spoiler spoilered in my quote since it's yours.

Spoiler:
Why isn't she human? What does it mean to be human? What makes her different from Caleb or Nathan?

I think this is a great set of takeaway questions.

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:29 pm

stessier wrote:
Spoiler:
Why isn't she human? What does it mean to be human? What makes her different from Caleb or Nathan?

Spoiler:

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:31 pm

Those little problems of life: being kept against one's will in a remote compound, likely to be deadpooled in the near future in favor of a shinier model.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:32 pm

Jeff V wrote:
stessier wrote:
Spoiler:
Why isn't she human? What does it mean to be human? What makes her different from Caleb or Nathan?

Spoiler:
No moral compass. The idea that killing is an acceptable response to life's little problems. Maybe she is more human but not, but is certainly a psychopathic one if anything.

Sociopaths are normally considered human in real life. You know that, right?

McNutt · Post by **McNutt** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:37 pm

I stopped the spoiler tags because the movie has been out for awhile and we've had a ton of posts that were nothing but spoiler tags, so anyone who is reading at this point is probably doing so to discuss the details of the movie. I don't want to ruin movies for people at all (big pet peeve of mine), but there comes a time when tags are just getting in the way and this thread had reached that point in my opinion. If most feel I'm wrong I'll go back to tags.

I don't think Ava wanted to kill Caleb. She simply didn't care if he died. She just wanted to get out. That's what I liked about this movie. It really makes you wonder what is going through her head. Dose she have a conscience? Is she bothered that she might have killed Caleb? We're not given enough information about Ava to know how she is going to handle the real world. She has used murder to get her out of what we would all consider to be a horrible situation. But what Ava considers horrible might not be the same as us. Who knows how she's going to react to the lady that takes her parking spot when Ava clearly had her blinker on.

I don't know that Jeff is right about Ava thinking killing is the right way to solve life's little problems because we never saw Ava attack little problems, only one life-threatening problem. I'm not going to say she's be above it though. We don't know.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:37 pm

Yeah, Jeff's just messing with you now.

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:48 pm

McNutt wrote: I don't know that Jeff is right about Ava thinking killing is the right way to solve life's little problems because we never saw Ava attack little problems, only one life-threatening problem. I'm not going to say she's be above it though. We don't know.

If she made an attempt to resolve her problem through reason or other non-violent means, I must have missed it. I would like to think that if we are evaluating a robot for sentience, psychopathic behavior would be a reason to pull the plug and declare the effort a failure. When actual people exhibit this behavior, we incarcerate or execute them because they don't conform to the acceptable behavior of most humans.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:51 pm

Jeff V wrote:
McNutt wrote: I don't know that Jeff is right about Ava thinking killing is the right way to solve life's little problems because we never saw Ava attack little problems, only one life-threatening problem. I'm not going to say she's be above it though. We don't know.
If she made an attempt to resolve her problem through reason or other non-violent means, I must have missed it. I would like to think that if we are evaluating a robot for sentience, psychopathic behavior would be a reason to pull the plug and declare the effort a failure. When actual people exhibit this behavior, we incarcerate or execute them because they don't conform to the acceptable behavior of most humans.

Interesting. Please point me to the case of a woman held hostage who was raped and subsequently escaped her captor by killing him being convicted of anything.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:53 pm

She only killed her creator after discovering evidence of his torture of another of her kind (a level of empathy that should prove she isn't truly a sociopath), and after he tried to stop her from leaving.

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:56 pm

stessier wrote:
Jeff V wrote:
McNutt wrote: I don't know that Jeff is right about Ava thinking killing is the right way to solve life's little problems because we never saw Ava attack little problems, only one life-threatening problem. I'm not going to say she's be above it though. We don't know.
If she made an attempt to resolve her problem through reason or other non-violent means, I must have missed it. I would like to think that if we are evaluating a robot for sentience, psychopathic behavior would be a reason to pull the plug and declare the effort a failure. When actual people exhibit this behavior, we incarcerate or execute them because they don't conform to the acceptable behavior of most humans.
Interesting. Please point me to the case of a woman held hostage who was raped and subsequently escaped her captor by killing him being convicted of anything.

Caleb wasn't holding her hostage, and she was not yet certified to be a woman and not just a machine.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:59 pm

Jeff V wrote: and she was not yet certified to be a woman and not just a machine.

Whaaaaaa....

She was exhibiting guile and cunning on a human level far before the ending of the film.

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 4:01 pm

hepcat wrote:
Jeff V wrote: and she was not yet certified to be a woman and not just a machine.
Whaaaaaa....

She was exhibiting guile and cunning on a human level far before the ending of the film.

And she left to die the only person who might attest to her humanity. So....homicidal toaster.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 4:02 pm

And I'm out.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 4:03 pm

Why does she need someone to attest to her humanity? Someone who might very well end up hurting her, as the only other example of humanity she's encountered had with others of her kind?

Zaxxon wrote:And I'm out.

At this point I'm not sure if I'm Ava talking to Caleb, Caleb talking to Ava, or a random homeless guy talking to a trash can lid in this discussion. I'm fascinated to find out how far he'll take this though.

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 4:18 pm

It's all a matter of perspective. If the movie had taken Ava's perspective the audience would have cheered when she murdered the bum.

Covenant72 · Post by **Covenant72** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 4:28 pm

Caleb isn't the "good guy" in this movie; I admit I kinda fell into that trap at first too.