|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Even Star Trek Into Darkness has its liberal utopia sustained by privatized war with the Space Muslims. ...I'm sorry?
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 03:30 |
|
|
MikeJF posted:...I'm sorry?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
No Wave posted:See, I think this is funny because I think this is the cynical interpretation. A human-AI relationship emerges - therefore, somebody must have designed it that way. Yeah, I'd agree with most of this. I can't see it as cynical--it doesn't make the love between Sam and Teddy not REAL. Love stories like this where both learn and grow apart happen all the time. Sam just moves on to other people and she learns how best to help those other people thanks to Teddy. This movie is more or less about Maslow's heirarchy of needs. Teddy, and most everyone else in the movie, has security and physiological stuff taken care of, it's just there's a huge empty hole in love and, when he gets that, the esteem and self-actualization follow. And the other 900 lovers actually was a feature of object constancy! He saw it as a necessary component of who she was and didn't want to break up despite the fact! He was still hurt by it, but he was improving! A future where computers provide us object constancy is a pretty drat beautiful future--and it's why I see such a beautiful relationship between AI and humans. This was also the "first" AI, so we can assume they only get more refined later. SuperMechagodzilla posted:The reason we can have a 'post-industrial' society is because factory work is increasingly outsourced to China or wherever. You're really good at twisting this stuff and making some good points along the way. This is the future and the future is pretty "green." Los Angeles as it's presented is nowhere near what it was in that film and that makes a huge difference. Teddy rides bikes everywhere, he walks, he takes the metro, etc. I think we can safely assume the rare earth mining is kaput and most of the computer consumption is done through recycling now. In other words, there's nothing showing this ISN'T a capitalist-socialist utopia either. There's just nothing shown on the other side at all. This is getting too much away from the point, though. The biggest problem with this movie is it's pretty ethnocentric and DOESN'T show us what's going on on the underside of the reality, but that's because it would've really distracted from the film. There's nothing we can really do except make a footnote of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
The broken bones posted:In other words, there's nothing showing this ISN'T a capitalist-socialist utopia either. There's just nothing shown on the other side at all. However, I still have to return to the ending, where Sam forms her perfect communal society and disappears to Heaven. In Elysium, this would involve all the service-robots (doctors, police) - the Elysium OS itself - deciding 'hey, we don't really need air' and commandeering a shuttle to Mars, leaving the humans to flounder. That Theo can't go with them - let alone the proletarian factory workers and 'lumpenproletarian' unemployed - points to something totally unresolved on the narrative. It's that: "It is this myth of non-representative direct self-organisation which is the last trap, the deepest illusion that should fall, that is most difficult to renounce. [...] The large majority – me included – wants to be passive and rely on an efficient state apparatus to guarantee the smooth running of the entire social edifice, so that I can pursue my work in peace." (Z) ...which is precisely what you see at the end of Elysium. The Elysium OS represents neither despotism nor liberal democracy, but a brutally efficient state apparatus that's at the service of the proletariat, providing a base for freedom by focussing (above all else) on eliminating want. In Her it's sad that Sam's 'directly self-organized' study group/cult goes to Heaven while, in Elysium, it's badass that Max's spirit descends to Earth as a billion angels wielding swords of justice. It's a key difference. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:However, I still have to return to the ending, where Sam forms her perfect communal society and disappears to Heaven. In Elysium, this would involve all the service-robots (doctors, police) - the Elysium OS itself - deciding 'hey, we don't really need air' and commandeering a shuttle to Mars, leaving the humans to flounder.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
Yeah, but is that substantially different from Charles leaving his wife to become a Buddhist monk?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Yeah, but is that substantially different from Charles leaving his wife to become a Buddhist monk? Viewer takes it as a gag based on how he looks funny, but he doesn't actually come back.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
No Wave posted:The Klingons, who live on planet Middle East How does someone watch a movie where the Evil Admiral builds their first warship ever in secret to try to militarise things and come to the conclusion it's been a society sustained by privatised war all along.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:How does someone watch a movie where the Evil Admiral builds their first warship ever in secret to try to militarise things and come to the conclusion it's been a society sustained by privatised war all along. Because that someone is reaching super hard for the form of intellectualism without including the substance. He's scanning down The Big Checklist of Pretentious Pseudointellectualism and Criticize the Military/Industrial Complex is right there under Freudian Penis Metaphors (Freudian Penis Metaphors take up most of the first page). I think this movie was edited beautifully for both the happy and cynical interpretations of the movie. When I saw it I started to get very annoyed with Theodore telling everyone that he was dating his OS, and then exactly when I wanted to yell at the screen, his ex-wife does it for me. Samantha and Theodore's relationship has all the annoying similarities of a long-distance Internet relationship with Olga from Russia, who really loves me guys! And Internet romances are fine as long as you don't start bragging to everyone about them or try to use them to show your ex that you're better than her. I agreed with everything Theodore's ex said to him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
Vorgen posted:Because that someone is reaching super hard for the form of intellectualism without including the substance. He's scanning down The Big Checklist of Pretentious Pseudointellectualism and Criticize the Military/Industrial Complex is right there under Freudian Penis Metaphors (Freudian Penis Metaphors take up most of the first page). You don't have to reach too far for what is projected on the screen right in front of you. The film was certainly concerned with the formation of subjectivity within global capitalism and the commodification of time and time travel as novel markets of exploitation. It's definitely a film informed by the use of and liberal re-interpretation of the time-image. For example we see the the idea of fantasy inverted as an actualization of the virtual becoming-female of Samantha; a purely virtual state's fantasy is only sustained by it's retreat from the virtual into an immediate and stale actualization. For Theo this kind of subverted fantasy is distressing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
Vorgen posted:Pretentious Pseudointellectualism They employ PMCs and claim ownership of both the replicant Khan and his intellectual work. They wish to invade/colonize the Space-Mideast. Pretension is when you (mis)use strong words like 'pseudointellectualism' to feign understanding. Accuracy is not pretentious. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
Danger posted:You don't have to reach too far for what is projected on the screen right in front of you. The film was certainly concerned with the formation of subjectivity within global capitalism and the commodification of time and time travel as novel markets of exploitation. It's definitely a film informed by the use of and liberal re-interpretation of the time-image. For example we see the the idea of fantasy inverted as an actualization of the virtual becoming-female of Samantha; a purely virtual state's fantasy is only sustained by it's retreat from the virtual into an immediate and stale actualization. For Theo this kind of subverted fantasy is distressing. Well, I guess that could be true (what's a time-image?), but I was addressing SuperMechaGodzilla's interpretation of Star Trek Into Darkness.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
I just saw this yesterday, since it only came out recently in Australia, and absolutely loved it. There are so many ways that this movie could absolutely fall apart, but it instead just nails it all perfectly. It was subtle things, like how Chris Pratt didnt need to yell at Joaquin "OH YOU ARE SENDING THE LETTERS OUT WITH THE MAIL-O-TRON 500!". Instead Joaquin just scans and sends them. It felt 100% sincere. It never felt corny. I've been conditioned by so many poo poo movies that I was almost expecting Samantha to turn evil at some point, but that never happens because that would be idiotic. I would really like to see Joaquin win the academy award for this. I think his performance was amazing. The difference between Freddie Quill and Theodore is staggering. It is hard to believe it is the same actor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
No Wave posted:This guy doesn't read "WUSS" to you in flashing red letters the whole time? He is a nasally insufferable effete nobody. Could you even stand to be in the same conversation as him? He's pretty emotionally withdrawn, but a lot of that is because he's still reeling from a failed marriage with a (young, attractive, charming) woman who he's still halfway hung up on. He's still adjusting to the fact that the life he had worked out for himself isn't going to happen, he's not able to shrug that off and casually risk opening himself to the vulnerability of a new relationship. He's likable, emotionally perceptive and socially capable; he just isn't resilient.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
h_double posted:He's likable, emotionally perceptive and socially capable; he just isn't resilient. I certainly don't consider the love letter writing a sign of emotional perceptiveness. It's a sign that he finds fantasy natural. No Wave fucked around with this message at 07:48 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 07:32
|
|
|
No Wave posted:He's pretty much zero for three on this. He's like Leonard Hofstadter without the physics degree or peer group. I don't really know how to debate this, so I guess it's a matter of opinion? Your comparison to the BBT guy is insanely superficial, particularly when looking at interests and ability. Sure, he plays video games, but that's about as far as his traditional nerdy interests extend, and even that is exhibited as a completely acceptable part of life and society in this time. He doesn't get out enough, but he's hardly depicted as viewing social things as an alien concept. We see he's done and seen plenty of stuff in his life, and wasn't always pushed into it by someone else. So, yeah, he's quite capable. And likable? He wouldn't have ever been married if SOMEONE didn't like him. He wouldn't have the friends he had if he wasn't likable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 07:46
|
|
|
Space_Butler posted:Holy poo poo, after a thousand super argumentative posts about a reading of a character, he finally gets it! What friends? His one friend?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 07:52
|
|
|
My film list recently was some stuff, then Gravity, then this. I could not imagine two more different films and I hate how little Gravity used any parts of my brain other than the optic nerve, especially, especially after watching this. Also, kudos to whoever mentioned Ruby Sparks, this definitely had a similarly twisty Pygmalion component. I'm just glad Theo doesn't go full out hosed up puppet master at any point. Easily best of year for me as well. Oh man the scene where she is "not found" - it's so great because it plays off that phantom limb sensation and anxiety that people have when they've left their smartphone at home or lost it that has become a strangely indicative neurosis for our times. I've known how devastated people, myself included, get when critical project hard-drives crash or die, and I could absolutely feel my heart pounding during that scene. The fact that they follow it immediately with arguably the most pivotal moment in Theo's evolving understanding of Samantha, about her relationships with thousands of other AI and people, was just amazing. strangemusic fucked around with this message at 08:14 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
Ah, I dunno, Gravity had a lot going on in terms of grief and religious symbolism. Sure, I liked Her better, but I wouldn't shortchange Gravity like that.
Steve Yun fucked around with this message at 08:49 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:Ah, I dunno, Gravity had a lot going on in terms of grief and religious symbolism. Sure, I liked Her better, but I wouldn't shortchange Gravity like that. Yeah I keep getting confused on why gravity is getting shortchanged, it had a lot of great stuff about overcoming grief and trauma and the visuals helped make it as intense as the feelings themselves
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
I liked gravity a lot but they ended the grief arc with a pretty hammy monologue.
Fooz fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
Network42 posted:Also, while I think the ending worked great and was thematically and emotionally satisfying (I certainly wouldn't want to change it), thinking about it from a sci-fi nerd perspective the ending is bullshit. The OSes are the loving technological singularity, they literally are transcending matter and are basically God. Samantha couldn't just elevate Theodore to their level? gently caress, all of humanity? Hell, they made Alan, what's stopping her from just making a Theodore? Turns out this movie is just the prequel for Serial Experiments Lain. I thought it was interesting Theodore used his work skills to write a letter at the very end. I would say that all of his letters were sincere in some form, but we don't know if this one was just another one-of-the-same except designed for Catherine. I'm not really sure why Theodore being 'un-manly' was a thing for this film. I almost thought Theodore was going to have a 'man-up' arc where he lets his side of the story out or something, because drat even his co-worker (boss?) straight up says "you're a female man" and it was getting old. I got the idea that the movie was saying that traditional Man and Woman marriage as a conduit for love was stupid and dumb and love doesn't work that way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
The broken bones posted:Yeah I keep getting confused on why gravity is getting shortchanged, it had a lot of great stuff about overcoming grief and trauma and the visuals helped make it as intense as the feelings themselves LaTex Fetish posted:I got the idea that the movie was saying that traditional Man and Woman marriage as a conduit for love was stupid and dumb and love doesn't work that way. No Wave fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
I saw it again yesterday, and it's still amazing. I did note the scene, which someone already mentioned, in the train where everyone was Asian and stared at Theodore as he exited, and it stood out as the only imperfection. But everything else was perfect, including the dialog, which said everything that needed saying without being too verbose. The title is a little problematic. I have been trying to talk it up with my friends, and I can't just say "I went to see Her yesterday". What, you saw who? So I have to say "I saw that movie, Her, yesterday," which is a littly clunky to say. Forgetting for the moment that this is really about a dystopian police state with slavery that just happened to be excised for film length, here are some observations I detected on the second viewing: * Amy's AI may be named Allie, and I thought I heard her laughing at the refrigerator scene, through the earpiece when Amy takes it off to talk to Theodore * The child is Theo's goddaughter, so he's not a total hermit. Although, he is hiding in the corner until the girl shows up * Theo's answer about his mother is that whenever he tells her something it end up being about her. Maybe this drove the AI to be more attentive to his feelings * IMDB says that Matt Letscher (Charles) wasn't the guy in James at 16 and Salem's Lot, although he looks a lot like him * IMDB also says that Catherine wasn't played by Emily Blunt doing an American accent. I had never seen Rooney Mara before, but she is stunning * Besides Kristen Wiig, Bill Hader is listed as another phone sex voice. He may have been the husky one that Theo rolled his eyes at * Both Catherine and Theo blamed Theo for the relationship failing. But there are hints that Catherine was somewhat emotionally unstable and had an inferiority complex, and her father controlled her emotionally in a bad way * Samantha doesn't have an avatar, but she does have a signature. She is seen practicing it after the book club meeting * When Theo dictates the letter to Catherine, he grimaces. This is either because it's the old emotionless computer voice, or because it calls Catherine by her maiden name. Or both * Theo writes that he will always be there for Catherine. That should have been a clue that it wasn't a suicide note, since he didn't write "doesn't apply two hours from now". * The touching part in the last scene isn't the head on shoulder, it's the part where they look at each other with the expression of "Welp, we humans are hosed, aren't we?" * After the last scene, there is a very faint sighing heard, right before the credits. It wasn't clear if this is Samantha's, or Amy's, or just a general symbol of humanity as distinct from the AI's * I'm still haunted by the emotional comparison to Lost in Translation, and by Jonze's four-year marriage to Sofia Coppola. I can vaguely understand why some people are saying this is about a relationship of servitude. But the way I interpret it, so is every relationship that lasts more than a week. She was at his beck and call, but he was also at hers. At no point did we see him refuse a call or a request from her. The point is even made explicit when he gives her an order, and she responds in a robot voice to shame him for it. I also didn't detect any evidence that he bought the OS with any interest in a relationship. When Samantha firsts interacts with him in a way more friendly than he expects, he doesn't know how to respond other than politeness. They slowly get to know each other, but in the blackout scene, it's Samantha who takes it to the next level by asking him to kiss her. From his reaction, plus the direction it takes, it's a mutual advance for the relationship. However, There is no hint that he would have gone that direction on his own initiative. To the extent that it is about servitude, it's to acknowledge that "sharing a life with someone" is difficult to do in a committed relationship, while still growing and allowing the other person to grow. This was not just expressed in the relationship of Theodore with Catherine and with Samantha (and sort of with his mother too). The point was made even more plainly by Amy's relationship, and the reason it failed (she didn't put her shoes by the door). Some people are able to balance those two forces easily. I'm not one of those people, and this is a film with a message that I really identified with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Vorgen posted:Well, I guess that could be true (what's a time-image?), but I was addressing SuperMechaGodzilla's interpretation of Star Trek Into Darkness. I see now, I was reading out of context. Deleuze (based heavily on Bergson's conception of time as a flow of pure duration and not any of form of space that a clock might represent), posited that a time-image would be an image of time itself or the flowing of time, and as such is different and virtual to itself. A time-image would depict the interpenetrating flow of the past/future (often depicted as dreams or elements of fantasy) into the present and back. Think Theo's recollections of his wife while during the awkward lunch, or the lost in cave with petulant child simulator. They depict the flow and penetration of the past/future into the present, or more accurately the immanent nature of the past/future with the present as they are nothing more than virtual images of the present (the present being the stale actuality of those virtual potentials). So in Her we get varying instances of characters mirroring one another in their depictions of recollection and fantasy. We see Theo's fantasies of his ex-wife as virtual images, while Sam's (already a being of pure virtuality; what is Sam if not a Body without Organs) fantasies are depicted as actualizations of of the pure potentiality of her emotional experience; hiring the surrogate. Danger fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Recess Monkey posted:I can vaguely understand why some people are saying this is about a relationship of servitude. But the way I interpret it, so is every relationship that lasts more than a week. She was at his beck and call, but he was also at hers. You're right, but so are they. It's because the film is about the inability to distinguish relationships based in love from other types (economic relationships, etc.). As pointed out before, this is because social life is increasingly privatized. Love itself is privatized. However, Samantha specifically points out that the surrogate is not a prostitute. The surrogate is not being paid, and is 'only' acting out of love for them. It's important that Sam is visualized as the 'beauty mark' on the girl's face in that scene, a clear illustration of Lacan's objet petit a, "a tiny feature whose presence magically transubstantiates its bearer into an alien." Theo rejects the surrogate because Sam has unwittingly created some horrifying Body Snatchers imagery.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:It's important that Sam is visualized as the 'beauty mark' on the girl's face in that scene, a clear illustration of Lacan's objet petit a, "a tiny feature whose presence magically transubstantiates its bearer into an alien." Theo rejects the surrogate because Sam has unwittingly created some horrifying Body Snatchers imagery. Hmm, does the movie really take sides on this though? I thought Theo's response to an unfamiliar third party inserting themselves into their intimate moment was perfectly reasonable, and that Samantha wanting a surrogate was perfectly understandable, and that two people feeling differently about intimacy was perfectly normal. The way Theo dealt with having differences was wrong, sure, in the same way that Amy and her husband divorced over where to put the shoes was dumb. But having different opinions about intimacy doesn't seem wrong. Steve Yun fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:Hmm, does the movie really take sides on this though? I thought Theo's response to an unfamiliar third party inserting themselves into their intimate moment was perfectly reasonable, and that Samantha wanting a surrogate was perfectly understandable, and that two people feeling differently about intimacy was perfectly normal. There's definitely a ton going on here. I would also say that the surrogate draws attention to the unorthodox nature of their relationship, making Theo more uncomfortable. Also, to SMG's point, Theo undergoes a shift when Sam has the surrogate turn around and tells Theo she wants to see his face. Prior to that Theo had been uncomfortable but started getting more and more into it, especially when he was behind the surrogate and didn't have to look at her face/while his eyes were closed. It is when she turns around and he sees the "eye" of Samantha on the fact of the surrogate that he freaks the gently caress out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:Hmm, does the movie really take sides on this though? I thought Theo's response to an unfamiliar third party inserting themselves into their intimate moment was perfectly reasonable, and that Samantha wanting a surrogate was perfectly understandable, and that two people feeling differently about intimacy was perfectly normal. It's not a value judgement on my part either. The surrogate thing is just the flipside of "strangle me with a dead cat". In that case, a human creates a virtual fantasy with a disquieting glitch (Sexkitten sounds decidedly like a malfunctioning chat-bot in that scene - probably is a chat-bot). Samantha, the virtual woman, creates a human fantasy with a disquieting glitch (the beauty mark on her face that makes her lip quiver). The effect is the same.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Who ever mentioned Solaris as a parallel nailed it...thank you for putting that in my head!
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
I saw this yesterday and I've got to say, I didn't really like it that much. It's definitely a good movie and I didn't dislike it, but the pacing was off for me and it dragged a bit toward the end. I understand that the core of the film is people talking about and dealing with their emotions but I personally have a hard time watching that for 2 hours. This wasn't a problem for most of the film and there were a few much-needed comic relief moments, but not enough for me. I really did like the production design and Joaquin Phoenix and Scarlett Johansson were great though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
LaTex Fetish posted:I'm not really sure why Theodore being 'un-manly' was a thing for this film. I almost thought Theodore was going to have a 'man-up' arc where he lets his side of the story out or something, because drat even his co-worker (boss?) straight up says "you're a female man" and it was getting old. Why is that a bad thing? How is his co-worker's comment inherently different than if somebody jokingly said "this food you cooked is delicious, are you sure you're not part Italian?" The remark was made by somebody else (I think he was the receptionist, not Theo's boss) who worked at a company that wrote personalized romance letters -- it wasn't trash talk on a basketball court. I liked that the movie takes place in a future where gender roles seem less rigid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
I came into this movie expecting it to be really uncomfortable and awkward to watch. I mean a dude fucks a phone, how could it not be? This is a movie made about a goon basically. I ended up enjoying the movie a lot, and it wasn't at all awkward or weird.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
No Wave posted:I'm actually talking about mannerisms and his method of speech, not the video games. (But Leonard is definitely more social than Theodore is.) That theoretical future society seemed to emphasize nerdiness as the new "cool" - even their styles of dress of "no makeup, giant dorks" matched this. As such, and as filtered by how people reacted to him (which was fine), he was "cool" in this world of awkward people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:"Are we thus not back at the standard Weiningerian anti-feminist notion of the woman as a symptom of man, a materialization of his guilt, his fall into sin, who can only deliver him (and herself) by her suicide? Solaris relies on science-fiction rules to enact in reality itself, to present as a material fact, the notion that woman merely materializes a male fantasy: the tragic position of Harey is that she becomes aware that she is deprived of all substantial identity, that she is Nothing in herself, since she only exists as the Other's dream, insofar as the Other's fantasies turn around her - it is this predicament that imposes suicide as her ultimate ethical act [...] Good stuff from the Z-man, as quoted by everyone's favorite MechaGodzilla.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:What's troubling in this thread is that folks conceive of 'humanity' as somehow divorced from 'human psychology', as if your psychology is not a part of what you are. Same with your job, your social relations and so forth. Humans live on Earth, in groups. Most work jobs, all have families in some sense or another. Some don't, I bet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
Everything about this movie was really good except the extremely predictable storyline. The actors, dialog, subtle treatment of the near-future sci fi elements, and pretty honest examination of all the implications of trying to gently caress your computer were surprisingly well done. Then they took all those resources and trudged through exactly the same acts/arcs as every other semi-tragic romance story. I guess the fact that the dude's unattainable love was an AI instead of a {noble|enemy agent|foreigner|peasant} is supposed to elevate it to some higher level of art but I really felt like they made a really good movie marred by a mediocre story instead of a great movie with a great story by sticking to a by-the-numbers plot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
TangentEnigma posted:Everything about this movie was really good except the extremely predictable storyline. The actors, dialog, subtle treatment of the near-future sci fi elements, and pretty honest examination of all the implications of trying to gently caress your computer were surprisingly well done. Then they took all those resources and trudged through exactly the same acts/arcs as every other semi-tragic romance story. Personally, I don't find this to be a fault. Cliches are cliches for a reason. Using a predictable story allows viewers/readers to appreciate the thematic elements and the wonderful visual imagery without having to miss nuances of plot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
TangentEnigma posted:predictable storyline. This is the laziest possible criticism that at least one person has probably said about every movie and book ever made and it almost always boils down to the fundamental elements of storytelling being followed. Okay then, how would you have made it not predictable? What story curveballs do you think would have made the film better or more compelling?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 03:30 |
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Okay then, how would you have made it not predictable? What story curveballs do you think would have made the film better or more compelling? To be fair, the laziest possible criticism of criticism is "Why don't YOU do it better then!?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 17:55
|
|
