Post: #1

I saw this movie today at a half full theater. A quick synopsis is that a genius Nathan creates an AI with sexbot functions, has a lonely coder come out and test it. The coder named caleb who is an omega falls in love and well things go from there. I did not see any ads for it on TV either. The ai is in a closed off room most of the movie so no sex.





The actress while in robot form has a better body than she does in real life. I assume she has some sort of prosthetic and padding for the non see through parts, and green paint to composite out the see through parts. The parts are than created through 3d modelling with lighting from the film and HDRI mapping if you ask me.

In real life Caleb would have no chance with the woman like her (9 in face, flat chested for me), although the robot still proves to be a bitch. Would a male ai bot be less calculating?

Post: #2

This archetype is way overplayed, the beta male of the future. The anti-hero struggling with his "managed" sexuality. So we are supposed to sit for two hours and watch this wanker deal with the morality of porking a bunch of wire and bolts?

Post: #3

Actually they only talk about that for about 2 minutes top. The creator of the robot also created a google like search engine. The engine itself was used to figure out how people think and I believe that was somehow used to make the AI. Its more of a Turing test to see if Caleb believes that the AI was really thinking. It was actually a pretty good movie.

The brain of the computer itself is based on advanced version of the synoptic chip that was discussed in another thread.

Post: #4

(04-26-2015 10:06 AM)kbell Wrote:  Actually they only talk about that for about 2 minutes top. The creator of the robot also created a google like search engine. The engine itself was used to figure out how people think and I believe that was somehow used to make the AI. Its more of a Turing test to see if Caleb believes that the AI was really thinking. It was actually a pretty good movie.

The brain of the computer itself is based on advanced version of the synoptic chip that was discussed in another thread.

the entire premise is about how pathetic modern man actually is. and they say todays sci-fi is garbage...

Post: #5

I would say its more that AI would replace man by evolutionary means. The ending is disturbing and open ended too. Your not sure where exactly they are going to go. Maybe a sequel or its just left up to the viewer to fill it in.

Post: #6

One of the best movies I've seen this year - Despite the fact that most of the movie was shot within the confines of a few rooms, I was deeply entertained throughout the whole 1.5 hours. The movie was a fantastic portrayal of the female heart. I would like to discuss much further, but I don't want to spoil for people who haven't seen the movie.

Post: #7

double post.

Post: #8

(04-26-2015 10:29 AM)kbell Wrote:  I would say its more that AI would replace man by evolutionary means. The ending is disturbing and open ended too. Your not sure where exactly they are going to go. Maybe a sequel or its just left up to the viewer to fill it in.

The ending was a mindfuck for me - I couldn't decide whether the film wanted to state that i) the AI experiment had failed, because the girl never gained empathy and thereby never became truly human, and the last sequence of the movie was proof of that, OR, the AI experiment was a success, because women are conniving, heartless, and manipulative.

I don't know if anyone reads Pelevin, but if you are further interested in the topic of artificial intelligence, specifically in regards to manipulative women, a great discussion can be found in the book S.N.U.F.F. (by Victor Pelevin)

Post: #9

I saw an an on TV for this and figured it must involve a sexbot. Seemed intriguing. Glad it's only 1.5 hours I will probably go see it at a mantinee then. I hate the way movies are so overly and unnecessarily long these days

Post: #10

Well I'd say the problem these days isn't that movies are too long. I mean the Godfather and Once upon a time in America clocked in at over 3 hrs. The problem is that there's no substance and the acting sucks balls. I just came back from the pile of turd that is Furious 7 so my view may be a bit skewed.

Post: #11

^yeah u fortunately furious 7 indeed was not that great... Felt kind of forced.. Action tasteless..

Post: #12

I enjoyed the movie but I hated the main character and thought both him and the inventor were weirdos. If you were a billionaire why would you want to fuck robots?

The worst thing came before the movie. My theater ran some ad with fat chicks in lingerie with the usual fat acceptance shit.

Post: #13

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I do plan to. With that, I always wondered, in a lot of these AI movies, the AI is either male or female. How does one even program that aspect into the machine. We know in biology that what makes a female and male are, in simplest of terms, due to sex organs and release of certain hormones that affect the way a male or female thinks.

Maybe the movie itself explains this in making a "female" program for that android. How would someone program that? As someone mentioned in posts above, turns out the AI is manipulative and conniving as a woman, but would it be the same if the robot was a "male" (assuming this aspect of differentiating between male and female programiming wasn't explained in the movie)? I don't know if there's a way to program an artificial biology into the robots to make them act male or female depending on a release of "codes" in place of hormones or what not, but what do I know.

Post: #14

(04-28-2015 12:34 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  I enjoyed the movie but I hated the main character and thought both him and the inventor were weirdos. If you were a billionaire why would you want to fuck robots?

The market space for sexbots is staggering. Every nerdy/old/aspie/omega/ugly/obese disabled male would be a potential customer once the price was brought down to say, the average price of a decent new car.

All it would take is a sexbot who is reasonably realistic looking and feeling, can do basic movements and interact in a simple way. There are already RealDolls which are becoming increasingly realistic:

   

   

   

This technology will happen. What's interesting is the competition it will pose to women; they may actually have to shape up, otherwise many men will prefer a smoking hot fake girl who doesn't age, get fat, nag, or divorce rape them.

Post: #15

(04-28-2015 12:34 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  I enjoyed the movie but I hated the main character and thought both him and the inventor were weirdos. If you were a billionaire why would you want to fuck robots?

The worst thing came before the movie. My theater ran some ad with fat chicks in lingerie with the usual fat acceptance shit.

I think the idea is that the genius guy was extremely smart and obsessed with the idea of creating the AI after he created Google (or Bluebook or whatever). He is still a man, however, and I guess subconsciously his sexual desires manifested themselves through his work.

As to programming the female / sexual aspect - I think the suggestion in the movie was that he took all the information & search request data from his advanced search engine, and that gave him a roadmap of data which he could use to program the groundwork for the human (and thereby, specifically female) mind.

Finally, as to the market for sexbots; Agreed - in the future as more and more generations of young people are brainwashed by the consumer / highly sexual culture, so much that controlling impulses becomes more and more difficult, why would any man settle for anything less than perfection, especially in a society where actual live social connection & interaction has miniscule value. In the future we'll have the elites, the slums, and the middle class, who lives in isolated micro apartments by themselves with their sexbots.

Post: #16

If your smart enough to create AI, which has the potential to kill you, you are going to be naturally a weirdo. Possibly in the autism territory.

They might have chose an attractive female for the AI since most audience would find her more vulnerable and believable. I think a male would come off as more manipulative and evil. Where with women you can chalk it up to simple female behavior.

Also do you think the one character survived? I won't say who to spoil it.

Post: #17

Didn't we just go through this with Her? So my question is; why does this script come up every few years? And why is Sci-Fi pure shit these days? And why does Hollywood think this story line will consistently garner $100MM+ revenues? Doesn't this say something more about our current society, that this story seems to be compelling, over and over again? To me this is nothing more than 50 Shades for men.

Sci-fi is like popular music these days; no risk, no edge, nothing new. Just factory farmed corporate winning bets.

Post: #18

Sci fi being largely shit is because of SJW infiltrating them awhile ago. The whole sad puppies campaign may help solve that allow more stories without agendas. Also risk is something Hollywood doesn't tolerated since at least the 70s. There is a huge chance to lose money on new ideas however they do risk losing money on agenda films. Perhaps this is an anti-AI film?

I haven't seen Her but I don't believe its quite the same. The relationship is not the primary theme of the movie. You should see it when its on Netflix or at the library.

Post: #19

(05-02-2015 10:05 AM)kbell Wrote:  Sci fi being largely shit is because of SJW infiltrating them awhile ago.

agreed, and repetitive themes like this are largely a result of that.

Post: #20

(04-26-2015 10:11 AM)Vaun Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 10:06 AM)kbell Wrote:  Actually they only talk about that for about 2 minutes top. The creator of the robot also created a google like search engine. The engine itself was used to figure out how people think and I believe that was somehow used to make the AI. Its more of a Turing test to see if Caleb believes that the AI was really thinking. It was actually a pretty good movie.

The brain of the computer itself is based on advanced version of the synoptic chip that was discussed in another thread.

the entire premise is about how pathetic modern man actually is. and they say todays sci-fi is garbage...

I remember seeing a trailer for this a long time ago, and remember thinking they "Gave it away" by hinting in the trailer that the real twist, was that the blond dude was the AI or something. Maybe that didn't happen in the movie, but yeah I still thought that movie was retarded anyway so I quickly forgot about it. The move AI did this subject way better and that was written by Kubrick/Spielburg.(I'm not saying that movie was perfect, but it was a lot better than what this POS seemed to be.)

Anyway relevant:

Post: #21

Wrong on that twist. His viewpoint is shaken, its a strange scene, but he is not a robot. Its a red herring in the trailer. And if you didn't see it how can you say its better?

Compared to AI I don't remember that movie much. I will have to watch it again.

Post: #22

(05-02-2015 04:14 PM)CJ_W Wrote:  The move AI did this subject way better and that was written by Kubrick/Spielburg.(I'm not saying that movie was perfect, but it was a lot better than what this POS seemed to be.)

AI was a fantastic film full of humanity, not hipster sex bot pining.

Post: #23

The premise wasn't original, but so what, the film still did a great job exploring the concept of AI.

The scene where Nathan discusses his Jackson Pollock is a metaphor for his creation of Ava. Like the painter, Nathan is compelled to create the AI, although he has no clear understanding of what its purpose will be. Had he known the outcome from the beginning, he would have never started. Understanding the consequences is secondary to the recognition he will receive as the inventor of the most significant technological development in history.

He makes the robot sexual because he wants the robot to succeed in coercing Caleb, thus passing his version of the Turing Test, because in doing so it means he has succeeded.

Post: #24

I haven't watched it but I'd bang Alicia Vikander raw.

Oh yes, I'm so privileged you literally can't even.
Interested in joining the FFL? I tried (and failed).

Post: #25

I was thinking of going into this movie blind. I've only seen a couple images from the trailer.

Didn't read the other posts to avoid spoilers.

In short, a yay or a nay? Worth the watch?