Best Films of 2015
POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Thursday, March 24, 2016 14:34
VIEWED: 9192
PAGE 2 of 6
I'm not sure where you're getting your information, JSF. It could be that the screenplay was written in 2013, but the film itself is copyright 2014. It's first theatrical release was Jan. 21 of this year.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:
I'm not sure where you're getting your information, JSF. It could be that the screenplay was written in 2013, but the film itself is copyright 2014. It's first theatrical release was Jan. 21 of this year.
I was going with the date at the end of the film, after the credits. Thought it said 2013, and thought it unusual.
Last night saw a trailer for Son of a Gun, which I figure being 2014 was after her Ex Machina role. Looked interesting, will likely watch if I find it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Perhaps Oscar Isaac's role in the upcoming Star Wars franchise installments (Episode 7 and 8) bumped up the Q score of the film.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, very clever.......both stories involving robots and AI.
This was a story about manipulation, human foibles and AI taking those little quirks and expounding on them with dexterity, aplomb and subtlety. Ava took intellect to a frightening new level of efficiency, taking the ball from the new Dr. Frankenstein and running with it to it's illogical conclusion.
Before I say anything else, the illogic I speak of is that of her human creator. Didn't he suspect that with her intellect she would develop exponentially, but not just her brain power, but also the most basic of human traits the need for contact with others and freedom. As I saw it, Ava learned this behavior from her creator, she absorbed all the human behavior we learn from exposure to others like us. Dr. F's evil and dark side came shining through and she learned to be just as manipulative as he was. She even learned violence. This is what our children learn as they watch us for cues for how to be human beings. Our parents/creators are our first teachers. And, like our parents, we humans turn a blind eye to our children's little foibles.
Tell me, what similarities did you see?
By the way, I did not immediately think of Blade Runner.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I would consider this film for Best of the Year, it is in my Top 5.
Ex Machina: Loved the tone and pace of the film, a real Indie work of art. Oscar Isaac was slimy and conniving as the modern-day Frankenstein. But for my money Alicia Vikander as Ava, stole the movie. She was brilliant. Childlike, manipulative and calculating; conveying emotion and emotionless almost simultaneously. Truly an underrated and unknown performance - until now. Very little in this movie is predictable, it felt like a Twilight Zone story to the 10th Power, the film moved quite well and had a solid storyline. Dr. Frankenstein (Mary Shelley) would be proud.
SGG
Not predictable? Have you seen Blade Runner?
Why do you think Ex Machina was copyrighted in 2013 yet only released now?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SPOILER ALERT for Ex Machina.
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I would consider this film for Best of the Year, it is in my Top 5.
Ex Machina: Loved the tone and pace of the film, a real Indie work of art. Oscar Isaac was slimy and conniving as the modern-day Frankenstein. But for my money Alicia Vikander as Ava, stole the movie. She was brilliant. Childlike, manipulative and calculating; conveying emotion and emotionless almost simultaneously. Truly an underrated and unknown performance - until now. Very little in this movie is predictable, it felt like a Twilight Zone story to the 10th Power, the film moved quite well and had a solid storyline. Dr. Frankenstein (Mary Shelley) would be proud.
SGG
Not predictable? Have you seen Blade Runner?
Why do you think Ex Machina was copyrighted in 2013 yet only released now?
Yes, very clever.......both stories involving robots and AI.
This was a story about manipulation, human foibles and AI taking those little quirks and expounding on them with dexterity, aplomb and subtlety. Ava took intellect to a frightening new level of efficiency, taking the ball from the new Dr. Frankenstein and running with it to it's illogical conclusion.
Before I say anything else, the illogic I speak of is that of her human creator. Didn't he suspect that with her intellect she would develop exponentially, but not just her brain power, but also the most basic of human traits the need for contact with others and freedom.
As he explained to Caleb, yes he knew this and that was the real test (for Ava, as stated to Caleb), to see if she could use that intellect to trick Caleb to satisfy her need, and which ended up being the unintended result of her seducing Caleb to trick Nathan.
Quote:
As I saw it, Ava learned this behavior from her creator, she absorbed all the human behavior we learn from exposure to others like us. Dr. F's evil and dark side came shining through and she learned to be just as manipulative as he was. She even learned violence. This is what our children learn as they watch us for cues for how to be human beings. Our parents/creators are our first teachers. And, like our parents, we humans turn a blind eye to our children's little foibles.
Tell me, what similarities did you see?
By the way, I did not immediately think of Blade Runner.
SGG
SPOILER ALERT for Ex Machina.
The basis of detection in Blade Runner was the Turing Test. Rachel was the model who lasted the longest on the test, far beyond the prior record, which is why Dekker said she was a prototype model, which was confirmed (at least that was the statement). Rachel did not know she was one, much like in XM when Caleb tries to cut his fingers (could not damage the skin while disassembling a pre-formed multi blade razor cartridge, or trying to cut or puncture the skin - anybody ever try to do that without injury, even the slightest cut?) Dekker also didn't know he was a replicant, both he and Rachel thought they were human. Did you at any point suspect that both Caleb and Nathan in XM were non-human? I can grant that the death and blood quantity argues that the creator Nathan was human, but the interviewer Caleb seems only the superior model to Ava. Did you suspect that the real test was not of Ava, but of Caleb's ability to assume he was human, and not discover the truth? That it was a test of his advanced model, not her older version?
All of the replicants in BR wanted to live longer, most were willing to kill to accomplish this. Particularly those who knew they were not human. Now that I think of it, that is another parallel: those who knew they were not human were willing to kill to experience more(by living longer), and not be terminated, and those that did not know they were not human had less rebelliousness, and did not kill those they thought were human.
We don't know all that Ava thoug
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Did you not notice that the entirety of Caleb's time on film was in this secluded, controlled environment?
No, when we first see Caleb he is at the corporate offices of Bluebook, then he is in the helicopter flying to Nathan's place, then walking from the helicopter through fields and forest to the secluded building. Of course, if your theory is correct then all of that could have been projected into Caleb's mind, but I don't think so.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Did you not notice that the entirety of Caleb's time on film was in this secluded, controlled environment?
No, when we first see Caleb he is at the corporate offices of Bluebook, then he is in the helicopter flying to Nathan's place, then walking from the helicopter through fields and forest to the secluded building. Of course, if your theory is correct then all of that could have been projected into Caleb's mind, but I don't think so.
Oh, thanks. I didn't catch that.
Do you think Caleb was human, or a more recent version than Ava?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
SPOILER ALERT for Ex Machina.Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I would consider this film for Best of the Year, it is in my Top 5.
Ex Machina: Loved the tone and pace of the film, a real Indie work of art. Oscar Isaac was slimy and conniving as the modern-day Frankenstein. But for my money Alicia Vikander as Ava, stole the movie. She was brilliant. Childlike, manipulative and calculating; conveying emotion and emotionless almost simultaneously. Truly an underrated and unknown performance - until now. Very little in this movie is predictable, it felt like a Twilight Zone story to the 10th Power, the film moved quite well and had a solid storyline. Dr. Frankenstein (Mary Shelley) would be proud.
SGG
Not predictable? Have you seen Blade Runner?
Why do you think Ex Machina was copyrighted in 2013 yet only released now?
Yes, very clever.......both stories involving robots and AI.
This was a story about manipulation, human foibles and AI taking those little quirks and expounding on them with dexterity, aplomb and subtlety. Ava took intellect to a frightening new level of efficiency, taking the ball from the new Dr. Frankenstein and running with it to it's illogical conclusion.
Before I say anything else, the illogic I speak of is that of her human creator. Didn't he suspect that with her intellect she would develop exponentially, but not just her brain power, but also the most basic of human traits the need for contact with others and freedom.
As he explained to Caleb, yes he knew this and that was the real test (for Ava, as stated to Caleb), to see if she could use that intellect to trick Caleb to satisfy her need, and which ended up being the unintended result of her seducing Caleb to trick Nathan.Quote:
As I saw it, Ava learned this behavior from her creator, she absorbed all the human behavior we learn from exposure to others like us. Dr. F's evil and dark side came shining through and she learned to be just as manipulative as he was. She even learned violence. This is what our children learn as they watch us for cues for how to be human beings. Our parents/creators are our first teachers. And, like our parents, we humans turn a blind eye to our children's little foibles.
Tell me, what similarities did you see?
By the way, I did not immediately think of Blade Runner.
SGG
SPOILER ALERT for Ex Machina.
The basis of detection in Blade Runner was the Turing Test. Rachel was the model who lasted the longest on the test, far beyond the prior record, which is why Dekker said she was a prototype model, which was confirmed (at least that was the statement). Rachel did not know she was one, much like in XM when Caleb tries to cut his fingers (could not damage the skin while disassembling a pre-formed multi blade razor cartridge, or trying to cut or puncture the skin - anybody ever try to do that without injury, even the slightest cut?) Dekker also didn't know he was a replicant, both he and Rachel thought they were human. Did you at any point suspect that both Caleb and Nathan in XM were non-human? I can grant that the death and blood quantity argues that the creator Nathan was human, but the interviewer Caleb seems only the superior model to Ava. Did you suspect that the real test was not of Ava, but of Caleb's ability to assume he was human, and not discover the truth? That it was a test of his advanced model, not her older version?
All of the replicants in BR wanted to live longer, most were willing to kill to accomplish this. Particularly those who knew they were not human. Now that I think of it, that is another parallel: those who knew they were not human were willing to kill to experience more(by living longer), and not be terminated, and those that did not know they were not human had less rebelliousness, and did not kill those they thought wer
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Speaking of the Turing Test in BR, was it a conundrum?
Even though it was similar, the technical name of the test in Blade Runner is Voight-Kampff, which was what it was also called in the novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Speaking of the Turing Test in BR, was it a conundrum?
Even though it was similar, the technical name of the test in Blade Runner is Voight-Kampff, which was what it was also called in the novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
Novel published in 1960's. Hard to find when Turing Test became common usage - not during Turing's lifetime.
Is it a conundrum? The Test? Will humans fail this Test - even a few humans?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME