Movies
Related: About this forumyallerdawg
(16,104 posts)The end of Kubrick/Spielberg "AI" killed it for me. The universe doesn't seem to be a very friendly environment for life. Our future is in what we create, 'artificial' intelligence, we are much to fragile and psychotic for prolonged survival. Let's just hope we can weed out the bad characteristics, not end up like HAL.
mainstreetonce
(4,178 posts)Is it worth seeing.?
I want a good story not just a lot of special effects.
Silver Gaia
(4,852 posts)And it's definitely worth seeing!
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Have the camera pull back, and the narrator saying, "Eventually, the batteries in the vehicle ran down, and David sat in the darkness pleading, over and over, to be made into a real boy. After a long time, the batteries in David ran down, and he sat, lifeless, in the darkness."
Yes, it's a downer ending -- which is why I suspect Spielberg didn't use it -- but it's a more honest ending.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Almost all scientists agree space travel - for humans - is not possible. Traveling thru worm holes like "Interstellar" depicts, with a little 'deus ex machina' thrown in, is science fiction and I love it.
The ending of "AI: Artificial Intelligence," depicted how 'we' could continue in a hostile universe - which ,if humanity has one consistent trait seems to be overcoming a hostile universe through intellect, we have to adapt the shell, the vessel, we are in, our essence being our non-corporeal 'ghost in the machine.'
We will inevitably, and relatively soon, cross into the AI singularity, self-aware artificial intelligence. If we pass on our humanity, the best of us, we could have an AI ending.
Or a "Her."
Or we can have "Skynet."
Or we can have the ending you prefer.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)In this he is attempting to prove that true artificial intelligence -- something which could reliably pass the Turing test -- is unattainable. There is a bookmark about three quarters of the way through my copy, at the point where I lost the train of his extremely mathematical argument.
The real problem I had with this book was that one of Arthur Clarke's three laws kept going through my mind while I was reading it, the one which says "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)These are essential elements of fiction and film - entertainment. "Interstellar" relies on these hopeful 'devices' as plot points and 'scientific' credibility.
Then, there is always reality. We don't like it, we devise our own twists. We are hopeful and have faith that it will all work out, that there is a way. We explain gaps in our understanding with 'something' out there. We just don't accept that there is 'nothing' out there.
In science fiction, HG Wells and Spielberg point out in "War of the Worlds" evolution here, on this planet, has made us what we are. Just as the aliens with their terraforming and space travel couldn't survive here, we couldn't survive there. There will be no Star Trek Class M planets we can flit about looking for a new home.
We are a finite species. The historical record here on earth and our observations of the universe confirm this. If it were even possible to go somewhere else, our time would be limited there, too.
I'm hopeful we have the Spielberg ending of AI in the future, rather than your more likely version of batteries running down, and fade to black.
hunter
(38,933 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking have both warned about the future AI. Evolution is a violent species-ending process.
Would dinosaurs have evolved into 'intelligent' adaptations - and extinction level events interceded? I'm sure dinosaurs didn't look around and say, "We can do better than this." And then there was 'man.'
So, knowing our shortcomings and the inevitable future, can we really expect to control our evolution?
hunter
(38,933 posts)Interstellar did not.
Both movies are about fuck-up fathers fucking-up in fucked-up civilizations.
I think the trans-dimensional beings in Interstellar who made the wormhole and the gravity-temporal-communication-device-in-the-black-hole also made the blight that was killing off all the human crops. They wanted humans to get the hell off the planet but didn't want to completely exterminate us. In my imaginary movie ending I'll bet the wormhole snaps shut forever just as soon as Matthew McConaughey flies through on his way to reunite with Anne Hathaway. The human race goes on surviving on an inaccessible crappy desert world in another galaxy and as fleas in earth's solar system, with the earth itself forever protected by an advanced flea treatment of alien origin.
In The Machine, however, the fuck-up father saves (in an unusual manner) his true love and his daughter, who are both destined to become something greater than their fuck-up father and his fuck-up civilization. Yet the human sense of curiosity and wonder and appreciation of physical existence are clearly preserved.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Chris Nolan seems to have this thing about the redemptive power of Anne Hathaway. Hitchcock had Tippi Hedren. Maybe this will become a recurring theme in Nolan movies!
hunter
(38,933 posts)...it's a violent, disturbing movie set in a grim hospital treating returning soldiers who have severe brain injuries.
I'm more often a fan of surrealistic comedy.
The fantastic science fiction I enjoy tends to Dr. Who or Star Trek: Next Generation.
I don't like blood in the movies, or in real life.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Very good sci-fi story and hopeful AI ending, just as you said.
Not all that much blood!
Thank you for recommending!
Chalco
(1,357 posts)I found that it captured my attention and that's good because I don't tend to like science fiction. I kept wanting to leave to use the restroom but kept thinking I'd miss something so I didn't. That being said, I think about 30 minutes could have been cut. Some scenes just dragged on. There were plot twists which helped. The main problem, however, was the sound. I often had to keep my fingers poked in my ears because the background sound was so loud. Even my husband who has to use hearing aids in both ears took them out because it was so loud. In the midst of the loudness you also had the characters talking which at times were hard to hear because of the distracting background noise--which was music.
mainer
(12,179 posts)The music drowned it out. And Matthew McConaughey is a horrible mumbler. About half of what he said during the first 30 minutes, in the farmland scenes, were too mumbled for me or the rest of my party to hear. I've discovered that a lot of critics have complained about the same issue.
jambo101
(797 posts)Continually waiting for something to happen,it never did.
First half of the movie was a total waste of time,
i thought the acting and cinematography was great but seemed to be wasted on feeble plots and story lines. best scene in the movie for me was when he walked out into the circular orbiting life habitat, wow i'm thinking Rendez-Vous with Rama.
aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)Not much to the story, which to me is everything.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)The story wasn't incredible or anything. But I thought this was one of the better space flicks I've seen. I thought the acting and cinematography was well done.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Enjoyed Hathaway, Caine, and Chastain's performances, and the cinematography was very well done.
But the story was, on the one hand, WAY too complicated for the average viewer - I mean, you need to have a grasp of quantum physics - with its parallel universes and the underlying theory behind wormholes - in order to really follow what's happening, and even with that, as a non-scientist, I had trouble.
And on the other hand, there are definite, obvious plot holes that have been discussed on IMDB and Amazon.
So a mixed bag, but sort of fun.
Ilsa
(62,239 posts)Felt like it was plodding along for the first hour, even though there was thought-provoking dialogue about Apollo program, value of space/science vs basics.
I'm glad one character went insane. Makes sense. But it seems like the program would have worked on that aspect better.
The science was too confusing to my mother-in-law. Hubby had to try to explain basics to her. The one particular concept that has me messed up is the paradox, chicken/egg thing over the contact with the past using gravity in the tesseract. And then by humans after they learned how?
Overall, I give it 7/10. It made me think about our planet's prospects and humanity's ability to survive when so many in power have their heads up their asses.
Matthew McConaughey's twang was too heavy and tiresome, IMO. I was aggravated hearing his voice.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Can you speak up now?
NRaleighLiberal
(60,501 posts)Great music. Interesting premise.
Matthew M - "mumble mumble mumble"
Michael Caine - "mumble mumble mumble"
Robot looked like a bizarre walking pack of cigarettes. And yes, awful robot dialog too!
My wife and I kept looking at each other and saying..."what did they say"?
then we broke out into giggles.
I love this type of movie, ordinarily. But Gravity and this one had me laughing and doing an MST3K thing far too much!
Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed