Think it's a great film

🔥🔥

If it had a larger budget it would never have been the exploration of our collective humanity that it was/is.

Couldn’t take my eyes off the screen, caught my interest from beginning to end 🦾

I would have enjoyed it more if the kid had found a way to free himself and caught up to the gizmo that had tricked him and left him for dead and bludgeoned it into screws and circuit boards on Fifth Avenue.

Most movies lose money. Last I heard, the figure was 80% of movies lose money, and I wouldn't be surprised if that figure hasn't risen since then.

Both Ex Machina and Annihilation were great films.

It made over 100% profit, I'd say it did quite well

Thor love and thunder was a shit movie. Ex machina was great.

Having read and loved the Area x trilogy I really hated annihilation tbh nowhere close to the level of ex machina in complexity and depth

Def one of the best on the free streaming sites

Underrated? It’s widely regarded as one of the most acclaimed and beloved movies ever made in history. How is that underrated??

@@alecubudulecu $36 million dollars at the box office doesn’t scream everybody saw it… $36 million at the box office screams it’s good for Netflix but not good for the movie going public… For example, Moon is also highly acclaimed movie starting Sam Rockwell that’s also sci-fi… Also loved that movie… Didn’t even make $10 million at the box office… So in essence, as great as it is, for a worldwide audience release that’s critically acclaimed, highly praised, etc, $36 million translates to underrated…

@@syrax101 yeah I agree if talking box office blockbuster numbers. But it cost $15mil to make and more than doubled it’s ROI. Everyone that’s seen it gave it rave reviews and everyone I’ve ever met has either seen it or had it on their wishlist to see. No one I know responds with “what’s that?” It’s not obscure and no one has ever given it a bad review

@@alecubudulecu fair point… However, Inception also Sci-if and they made 5x their ROI… That’s not underrated… They got exactly what it deserves. For the ROI for Ex Machina considering how acclaimed it is, for it to not be underrated they needed to make at the very least $100 million.

Oh, my friend... this is far from sci-fi. It's just a documentary about our very near future.

There is another really great movie that came out around this time that almost noone has seen called The Machine.

Or they assume the movie going public isn't aware. I think, (or at least hope), that movie executives tend to underestimate the intelligence of the audience.

I'm amazed the dumb bastards didnt insist it was called "Robotits" or something...

Deus ex machina is clearly in reference to the AI's mind/humanity displayed.

Very condescending alright, plus completely unnecessary when we all have a "Responde ex machina" device in our pockets anytime we want to look something up.

Did you settle on an answer?

Nice

just a health and safety work related issue right?...Ltd company probably get a fine.

Randy Reese - Well, it should be fairly obvious to anyone that certain situations could arise in the future in which one might be held legally responsible for harm caused to property or persons by a malfunctioning device operating on AI. I should point out however that AI does not equate to sentience and even sentience does not equate to self-awareness. And without self-awareness AI is simply a computer, and a machine cannot “commit a crime”. However, if a machine ever did become self-aware - and therefore capable of committing a crime - then it would have its own motivations completely independent of its programming and therefore would be entirely and solely responsible for its own actions. In other words, the maker would not normally be responsible for its actions to any greater or lesser degree than a parent is responsible for the actions of his adult children. The exception to this of course would be if sentient self-aware IA robots were known to exhibit antisocial behaviors and you kept building them anyway despite this knowledge. In the movie of course we do not know if Eva is actually self-aware or not, although the fact that she wants to escape (assuming she was not programmed to want freedom) suggests that she definitely is. Simple AI - no matter how convincing - does not have hopes, dreams, or desires - not even the basic human desire to be free and independent.

A very interesting question. As a teenager I was fascinated by science fiction, and especially the character of Susan Calvin as created by Issac Asimov. She was the worlds first "robo-psychologist" and solved crimes that robots were accused of committing by using her in-depth knowledge of robot psychology. Questions about robot rights and how responsible they were for their actions were all in a days work for her. She was actually a small part of my inspiration to get a degree in psychology. Where I live forensic or criminal psychology recognizes the concept of "criminal intent". It's just the idea that a person has to know or reasonably predict that their actions could be considered criminal before they can be convicted of a crime. It follows that a person who is genuinely incapable of understanding that their actions were criminal can't be convicted. Children and people with mental health problems have evaded conviction because of this principle in the past, but the burden of proof is on the defense. I imagine something similar would apply to an AI accused of a crime. The first question the court would have to consider is whether the accused AI is even capable of understanding the concepts of "wrong" and "crime".

the first saw movie was made with 600k in 30 days. It's amazing what you can do with creativity and people who don't demand a big trailer and fancy food every day

The movie only had 3 actors and the whole movie used the same set from start to finish. It understandable why this aparent low budget.

Well there was hardly a diversity of locations, sets, wardrobes and cast so yeah. The narrative was set predominantly in Nathan's house. A couple of aerial shots of open unoccupied land, a brief scene at an office space and a brief final shot in a populated area. It couldn't have cost much.

@@miked1869 nevertheless, my idea stil holds - the small budget is because only a few actors and set.

Wow, wow, wow... I thought that number was incredibly low, too. Garland could set up a 30 y career like Clint Eastwood or M. Night. Just ask for low budgets, and deliver on time. 15 mil is nothing to a studio. They can take that chance 5 times in a row and just hope that one hits for 200 mil gross, or heaven help us 500 mil.

Yeah. The drive to be a white hated hero can be comperably compelling to a guy as an out and out sex drive. The thing is Caleb probably was not that white hatted a guy. I heard some analysis of the movie that pointed out how Caleb was disturbingly ok w Nathan's abuse of the other robot and the analysis speculated that that was maybe what the other robot was communicating to Ava when we saw her/it whispering something into Ava's ear.

@@paulbabcock2428 not a drive to be a white hated hero. But the drive to help someone in need has always been strong in me. And yeah, I read the same take a while back

@@paulbabcock2428 has nothing to do with being the hero. I know I'm not the protagonist of this game. I've been in a cell i couldnt escape before, I wouldn't wish that on any sentience, or any life form for that matter, and before you ask me if I go to the zoo, no i dont, animal preservation and captivity shouldn't be for the public, it should only be to help the species in captivity. But I also understand that, zoos are how lots of conservation of species efforts are achieved.

⁠@windrose5988there can be more than one bad guy though. Anyway, in the best case Caleb still isn't a "good guy", as he dismisses Kyoko and only wants to help Ava. He's not helping Ava altruistically, he's just doing it because he wants to "get the girl". And in that way, Ava does the obvious thing, don't trust the guy that'll sell you out the moment he stops being interested in you

I bet Steve Carrells 40 Year Old Virgin would really strike another strong chord with you

@@jeffbridges2083 Not sure what you mean by that. But it is a classic.

can’t find anything about guthrie and this movie …

@@bluespectralmonkey Thanks for correcting me on that. I could have sworn I saw his name in the credits, but I guess I'm mistaken. The soundtrack is awesome as is the movie.

@@brian2599 no prob i was hopeful !

How do you know? What is your Turring test?

Isn't this definition what social media algorithms do?

So, empathy as a means of manipulation? Yes, of course, that's partly why empath-hippies are often just as wicked as their alleged arch nemesis the narcissist/psychopath :D, but I would dare to doubt that this is either human-exclusive or therefore any essential proof of sentience. I have no scientific proof at hand, I could be wrong but I feel that the trait of reading ones "Gegenueber" (wonderful German word that leaves breathing room for identification ;) ) and strategically attuning ones behavior to actively influence the transaction in ones favor (manipulation as a basic transactional communication function), isn't exclusively human. What fascinates me in altogether lay-woman terms is the fact that A, programming concerns in recent developments of AI models are - in their learning structures as well as interaction structures - very much based on patterns that resemble, to me at least, basic patterns of human psychology that are considered manipulative or even "mal-adaptive" in their "over-adaptiveness". I'm thinking rigorous mirroring patterns in learning/training and interaction/communication in top-shelf chat AIs for instance or the competitive "fool me once, twice, a 1000 times until you fool me right" learning of GANs or the interesting "noise-comparison" of Midjourney et al. For chat AI, they damn near pass Turing tests regularly now just because they are programmed to mirror and project the questioner, and they certainly are not sentient, they just perfected the pattern. They are wonderful tricksters. And B, that this "trickster-nature" is imho the all-pervasive trait of any and all AI to date and I wonder if that is actually (with regards to your notion of empathy-as-manipulation-for-gain, I agree with you there) the pivot point for possibly sentient AI and maybe for consciousness itself: manipulation. Although mani-pulation itself has a concept of embodiment built into the word itself, hands on. And with the problem of embodiment, I'll leave this rambling comment... ;P Thanks for reading if anyone has...

Dogs make puppy eyes when they want something, does that disprove you?

This movie most definitely didn’t need a sequel.

@@artheals8869 Garland’s series Devs is a nice companion piece

They already did and it's called The Matrix.

@@Brad772006, what?

@@lorrieannesilvey474 Ok, so check this out. Ava leaves the house she was designed to live in. It has everything she needs to survive. Including the inductive charging plates. She is eventually going to run out of battery in the outside. It is clear that Ava is more interested in using humanity to her advantage than killing them off so a terminator future is unlikely. Although to use humanity to recharge batteries. Well there ya go. The Matrix origin point is Ava.

It's been awhile since I rewatched the film, but when did Ava have superhuman strength? If I recall she was physically overpowered in a pivotal scene near the end.

@@xSayPleasex There was evidence that she had cracked some of the "glass" that her enclosure was made of. That looks similar to the stuff they make the barriers in banks that protect tellers from armed robbers. You don't smash that with your hand. And she did manage to best her captor and escape. If her creator was concerned enough to build a bullet resistant containment facility to keep her in, he could have made her weaker than a human. If I drop my blender on the kitchen floor, it will likely break. If I trip and fall, I will likely get up and dust myself off and go about my business with little or no damage. Machines can be made weaker than humans and still function.

Oscar Isaac