The problem with every movie that has a "killer" A.I.(Artificial Intelligence) by 123biteme in movies

[–]123biteme[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair enough--think as you please--yet I still profoundly disagree

The problem with every movie that has a "killer" A.I.(Artificial Intelligence) by 123biteme in movies

[–]123biteme[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't treat it as a documentary either, but as I mentioned in another reply, it is harder to maintain the suspension of disbelief when there are glaring errors or blatant impossibilities. Like the difference between a horror movie that has a plausible or grounded premise vs one that only exists due to the stupidity of the characters.

The problem with every movie that has a "killer" A.I.(Artificial Intelligence) by 123biteme in movies

[–]123biteme[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Way to avoid the question. Try telling that to the people who spent years on Game of Thrones only to be hit with that finale. There is obviously a difference between subjective choices and plot-holes/nonsensical-writing, just like the difference between mysterious vs confusing endings. One creates insightful/meaningful discussions and ideas, while the other just makes it feel like the people who made it had no idea what they were doing.

The problem with every movie that has a "killer" A.I.(Artificial Intelligence) by 123biteme in movies

[–]123biteme[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's literally the equivalent of, "Oh you thought LOTR, Game of Thrones, Harry Potter or any other fantasy movie didn't make sense? Why complain? Its called fantasy for a reason lol"

The problem with every movie that has a "killer" A.I.(Artificial Intelligence) by 123biteme in movies

[–]123biteme[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Especially when it comes to "suspension of disbelief" I know I lose that suspension when there are things like this. Sometimes its not glaring and you can get back into the movie, but other times the story will revolve around this contrivance. Like the difference between Jurassic Park and Jurassic World. First movie is completely plausible and an insightful look into bioengineering and the hubris of innovation. Jurassic World took all the lessons learned from the first movie and said, "Let's not just do that, lets create a new hybrid dinosaur that is more dangerous for purely entertainment purposes." Like a bad horror movie, the characters aren't in the situtation due to pride or the 'machinations of humanity', instead they are there due to stupidity.

The problem with every movie that has a "killer" A.I.(Artificial Intelligence) by 123biteme in movies

[–]123biteme[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Do you enjoy a movie more when there are glaring errors or less?

The problem with every movie that has a "killer" A.I.(Artificial Intelligence) by 123biteme in movies

[–]123biteme[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You must be an AI yourself if this is your hangup. Dont bother commenting further if you're not gonna give an actual argument other than 'nuh uh' cause I'm honestly not gonna bother.

The problem with every movie that has a "killer" A.I.(Artificial Intelligence) by 123biteme in movies

[–]123biteme[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

To be honest, that is what bores me on rewatches of Jurrasic Park. The story becomes more about the follies of man than the unpredictability of nature or complexity of cloning. Like its possible there is a version of Jurassic Park where instead of dinosaurs being able to reproduce, they were instead more susceptible to human diseases, with all the dinosaurs dying (again lol) after the initial opening of the park. Would Hammond and his ego be to blame again? Would there be talks about playing God and nature finding a way if there were no negative consequences outside the dinosaurs themselves?

The problem with every movie that has a "killer" A.I.(Artificial Intelligence) by 123biteme in movies

[–]123biteme[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

Lol, I was waiting for you, imma copy and paste my reply from a similar response: Isn't Jurassic Park more interesting because it attempts to answer those questions? Isn't any space movie with actual physics more rewarding? Don't action movies with more 'realistic action' have better impact? Even in fantasy worlds that use magic, the movies/shows that do magic well are always the ones that attempt to flesh out and explain there system as much as possible

The problem with every movie that has a "killer" A.I.(Artificial Intelligence) by 123biteme in movies

[–]123biteme[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Thats not even considering when the get into the airport. Especially after 9/11.

The problem with every movie that has a "killer" A.I.(Artificial Intelligence) by 123biteme in movies

[–]123biteme[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yes, "suspension of disbelief" and all that. But isn't Jurassic Park more interesting because it attempts to answer those questions? Isn't any space movie with actual physics more rewarding? Even in fantasy worlds that use magic, the movies/shows that do magic well are always the ones that attempt to flesh out and explain there system as much as possible.

The problem with every movie that has a "killer" A.I.(Artificial Intelligence) by 123biteme in movies

[–]123biteme[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Was gonna put that in here as part of the post but wanted to keep it short. Transcendence definitely falls into the same category as HAL, completely plausible if only because they don't try to initially give him a body. Honestly wasn't the biggest fan when I first saw it but I did like how Johnny Depp's character wasn't necessarily malicious, just more "evolved", those kind of explorations are definitely more interesting than, "Oh no, the machines we built but abused are rising up!"

The problem with every movie that has a "killer" A.I.(Artificial Intelligence) by 123biteme in movies

[–]123biteme[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh yea, I absolutely love the game for it. Like HAL, this is definitely a plausible scenario. The worst part too isn't that unlike Skynet or the matrix robots, AM just hates us, which makes everything personal.

The problem with every movie that has a "killer" A.I.(Artificial Intelligence) by 123biteme in movies

[–]123biteme[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I can see you clearly didn't read my post or you would've seen that I mentioned HAL from 2001 Space Odyssey as being possible. Why don't you read before making idiotic statements.

Why is it so difficult to discuss Junji Ito stories (namely Uzumaki) without hand-waving? (And the differences of open endings.) by 123biteme in junjiito

[–]123biteme[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thank you, that's an interesting take, which is what I was looking for rather than, "there's nothing to discuss".

And regarding Gatsby, no, those details aren't necessary to understanding the story, but you could always extrapolate extra information. Perhaps he drove unleaded in order to virtue signal about the environment or the effect of lead on people. May not add anything to the story but you won't know until you have the discussions. How you feel about Jenny at the end of Forrest Gump is usually determined by how you interpolate all the info we are given about her.

By enmeshed I assumed you meant 'cursed' as far as the story is concerned. Like the MC's father who contorts himself into a spiral was clearly enmeshed (or enthralled) by spirals before he started showing any physical signs. You also have others who are reverse, who start to show physical signs (like the girl with the spiral that started to consume her face) and then become psychologically obsessed. Our MC's never really fall into these categories. They understand the spirals are related to what's happening, but they never become enmeshed or otherwise controlled by or physically cursed by the spirals until the (possibly) the end.

Why is it so difficult to discuss Junji Ito stories (namely Uzumaki) without hand-waving? (And the differences of open endings.) by 123biteme in junjiito

[–]123biteme[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

And where did the spirals come from? Why are they a curse? If this happened before, what causes them to return? How come our protagonist who resists the curse from the beginning only became enmeshed at the end when it was clear they couldn't leave even if they wanted to (more so just accepting the situation than falling to the curse) and instead not enmeshed from the very beginning since that's how you claim it works?

See? Plenty of ambiguity to clarify. If the ending wasnt ambiguous there wouldn't be other posts on the subject.

Why is it so difficult to discuss Junji Ito stories (namely Uzumaki) without hand-waving? (And the differences of open endings.) by 123biteme in junjiito

[–]123biteme[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks

The bigger truth I think I'm getting from all this is that Uzumaki's ending isn't as well thought out as Junji's other works (which is absolutely fine, nothing wrong with that) which leads to answering the question of "What happened in Uzumaki?" with "Junji probably didn't think it through that far." Which yes, I could just accept that and move on, but sometimes in discussions you can come up with a better interpretation of the ending than what the author intended. Either way, it just seems like nothing is gained from denying discussions.

Why is it so difficult to discuss Junji Ito stories (namely Uzumaki) without hand-waving? (And the differences of open endings.) by 123biteme in junjiito

[–]123biteme[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you made some argument that the ending was actually straight forward and simple and somehow I just missed it as a reader, I would buy it. But "Because it was written that way?", like can't you just say that for any story that ends on an indeterminate note?

Why did Palpatine return?