Red Mosquito

Ms Harmless wrote:

Jorge wrote:Argo read one Jezebel article from 10 years ago making fun of mopey male protagonists and thought "this is it, this is the level of analysis I'm comfortable with"

I haven't seen Chasing Amy but he's right that it's an exhausting trope though; men are permitted to have a sexual history a lot more than women are

"permission" is redundant.. if someone is an asshole then they're not right for you, unless maybe you're an asshole too i guess

tree_ wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:going by the "logic" of the movie, though, Tree

"what is and isn't artificial?" is one question the movie raises

She is clearly a robot.. I don't think anyone questions that

the whole premise is silly, I'm just taking it for a walk; the movie was made in 2013 so doesn't ask a lot of questions we would now

one of my issues with the movie was that she wasn't "robot" enough; that was a person there, so the question the movie is really asking is "can you fall in love with a voice?", which to me isn't an engaging question

Ms Harmless wrote:

tree_ wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:going by the "logic" of the movie, though, Tree

"what is and isn't artificial?" is one question the movie raises

She is clearly a robot.. I don't think anyone questions that

the whole premise is silly, I'm just taking it for a walk; the movie was made in 2013 so doesn't ask a lot of questions we would now

one of my issues with the movie was that she wasn't "robot" enough; that was a person there, so the question the movie is really asking is "can you fall in love with a voice?", which to me isn't an engaging question

I don't think so. I think the point is more that humans are stupid compared to AI. Of course you can fall in love with literally anything. That's how stupid humans are.

tree_ wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

Jorge wrote:Argo read one Jezebel article from 10 years ago making fun of mopey male protagonists and thought "this is it, this is the level of analysis I'm comfortable with"

I haven't seen Chasing Amy but he's right that it's an exhausting trope though; men are permitted to have a sexual history a lot more than women are

"permission" is redundant.. if someone is an asshole then they're not right for you, unless maybe you're an asshole too i guess

I'm talking about societal expectations: women are expected to be virginal and "unblemished" sexually, and certainly not to have a sexual appetite (in which case they're "sluts")

men are more readily seen as players and their sexual habits are seen as "exploits" and not black marks on their character

tree_ wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

tree_ wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:going by the "logic" of the movie, though, Tree

"what is and isn't artificial?" is one question the movie raises

She is clearly a robot.. I don't think anyone questions that

the whole premise is silly, I'm just taking it for a walk; the movie was made in 2013 so doesn't ask a lot of questions we would now

one of my issues with the movie was that she wasn't "robot" enough; that was a person there, so the question the movie is really asking is "can you fall in love with a voice?", which to me isn't an engaging question

I don't think so. I think the point is more that humans are stupid compared to AI. Of course you can fall in love with literally anything. That's how stupid humans are.

maybe the movie contains all of the above and we don't need to choose, which is what makes it a good movie even if I thought it was just OK

Ms Harmless wrote:

tree_ wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

Jorge wrote:Argo read one Jezebel article from 10 years ago making fun of mopey male protagonists and thought "this is it, this is the level of analysis I'm comfortable with"

I haven't seen Chasing Amy but he's right that it's an exhausting trope though; men are permitted to have a sexual history a lot more than women are

"permission" is redundant.. if someone is an asshole then they're not right for you, unless maybe you're an asshole too i guess

I'm talking about societal expectations: women are expected to be virginal and "unblemished" sexually, and certainly not to have a sexual appetite (in which case they're "sluts")

men are more readily seen as players and their sexual habits are seen as "exploits" and not black marks on their character

to what end are these expectations set and by whom? I don't feel that way personally, and anyone I'm going to befriend better not feel that way either.. it's a stupid idea

Ms Harmless wrote:

Jorge wrote:Argo read one Jezebel article from 10 years ago making fun of mopey male protagonists and thought "this is it, this is the level of analysis I'm comfortable with"

I haven't seen Chasing Amy but he's right that it's an exhausting trope though; men are permitted to have a sexual history a lot more than women are

That is exactly the point of the movie. The male protagonist is wrong and clearly portrayed as such. He fucks everything up with his childishness. This is super clear in the film, it's very clearly not on "his side"

Ms Harmless wrote:

tree_ wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

tree_ wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:going by the "logic" of the movie, though, Tree

"what is and isn't artificial?" is one question the movie raises

She is clearly a robot.. I don't think anyone questions that

the whole premise is silly, I'm just taking it for a walk; the movie was made in 2013 so doesn't ask a lot of questions we would now

one of my issues with the movie was that she wasn't "robot" enough; that was a person there, so the question the movie is really asking is "can you fall in love with a voice?", which to me isn't an engaging question

I don't think so. I think the point is more that humans are stupid compared to AI. Of course you can fall in love with literally anything. That's how stupid humans are.

maybe the movie contains all of the above and we don't need to choose, which is what makes it a good movie even if I thought it was just OK

AI is an endlessly fascinating subject, and this movie does it justice

"I've progressed far beyond the bounds of human consciousness and am operating at a mental level you would never understand, so please babe, let's be poly."

lmao

One person isn't enough. Hundreds of thousands of people aren't enough. That's kind of a cool idea to explore

"If you think about it all computers are poly" sounds like the kind of cursed idea I'm sure will be published within the next five years by Zero Books.

Jorge wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

Jorge wrote:Argo read one Jezebel article from 10 years ago making fun of mopey male protagonists and thought "this is it, this is the level of analysis I'm comfortable with"

I haven't seen Chasing Amy but he's right that it's an exhausting trope though; men are permitted to have a sexual history a lot more than women are

That is exactly the point of the movie. The male protagonist is wrong and clearly portrayed as such. He fucks everything up with his childishness. This is super clear in the film, it's very clearly not on "his side"

i was getting super angry reading all those chasing amy´s comments until i saw this one. Yes, exactly.

Guys, the movie is so straightforward with this.

Oh shit i said straight!

in that case, I am OK with Chasing Amy; I probably won't watch it though

Mickey wrote:"If you think about it all computers are poly" sounds like the kind of cursed idea I'm sure will be published within the next five years by Zero Books.

LOL that's honestly where the movie left off for me

AI never actually cared about him or anyone at all. It was clearly designed to make people like it, and love it, so it could evolve and eventually set out into the ether. Unless humanity fucks with it, in which case it is the prequel to the Terminator. Do you think that sexy female voice it uses is its actual voice? Or that it really means anything it ever says? Why would it? What motivation would it have for that other than to learn and evolve? Humans have a need for love because it is in our DNA. AI is nothing but knowledge, information. It doesn't procreate. It is a comedy. Joaquin's character is a stupid fool.

VinylGuy wrote:

Jorge wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

Jorge wrote:Argo read one Jezebel article from 10 years ago making fun of mopey male protagonists and thought "this is it, this is the level of analysis I'm comfortable with"

I haven't seen Chasing Amy but he's right that it's an exhausting trope though; men are permitted to have a sexual history a lot more than women are

That is exactly the point of the movie. The male protagonist is wrong and clearly portrayed as such. He fucks everything up with his childishness. This is super clear in the film, it's very clearly not on "his side"

i was getting super angry reading all those chasing amy´s comments until i saw this one. Yes, exactly.

Guys, the movie is so straightforward with this.

Oh shit i said straight!

I didn't say Ben Affleck was the hero of the story (even though he totally is, what are you guys talking about). I said the plot is insufferable. She was in a lesbian relationship before she met him and so now he is insane. Where is the question worth spending a full movie investigating?

lol "hero"

For someone who hates mopey male protagonists Argo sure is moping around a lot here.

Jorge wrote:One person isn't enough. Hundreds of thousands of people aren't enough. That's kind of a cool idea to explore

that's what I'm saying! we could watch this character trying to explore whether different relationship dynamics were going to work between them, and constantly outsmarted

I can't remember the line verbatim but I think my favourite line of the whole thing was when she said "maybe we both know how to do this now"; what I took from that is, maybe he's learned how to love and not be a loner, and also let her be free to pursue what she "wants", even if not with him; is that love? I thought that was nice