HelluvaHoax!
Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Wait - I don't disagree with you but there are other definitions that work and have appropriate meanings. I don't see that as a conflict. What is unknown is Alex's intent. His definition. I looked at several interviews with Alex to see if he gives any meaning for the title, to no avail. The below is fairly typical of the interviews he gave at the time. I guess I banked my choice on the concept that he's presenting Ava as being conscious, a former machine, but Alex never says Ava is or isn't conscious. He leaves that to the viewer of the movie to decide. So my choice of former machine may or may not be correct. Hence, I don't disagree with you.
In one of the interviews he discussed the pushback by Alicia about how she wanted to play the robot, and she didn't want to portray it as a clunky jerky traditional robot, but she wanted every movement to be perfect. He went with that contribution on her part. In that choice I see your definition over mine. Mimsey
Unlike most films about artificial intelligence, Ex Machina isn't about technological anxiety. "The anxiety in this film is much more directed at the humans," director Alex Garland tells NPR's Audie Cornish. "It was more in defense of artificial intelligence."
Garland tackled the zombie apocalypse as the writer behind the film 28 Days Later. In Ex Machina — his first film as director — he introduces us to Ava, a creation that is part woman and part machine. There's no hiding that Ava is a machine — but a very, very smart one.
"It's almost like a sort of post-Turing test," Garland says, referring to the test of whether or not a human can tell when they are interacting with a machine. Traditionally the Turing test was a blind one: "The machine would be on the other side of a closed door ... and there'd be a bunch of controls and if the human was tricked into believing they were interacting with another human rather than a machine, then the test was deemed to have been passed."
But the test in Ex Machina is different. "The machine is presented clearly as a machine," Garland explains. "There's no attempt to hide that it might be a machine. And it's really just a test to see if the machine has sentience or a humanlike consciousness."
Ex Machina raises questions about how we define consciousness, and how our instincts about consciousness may mislead us. And it also recasts what the face of artificial intelligence might look like. Garland explains that he used the film's sound design to give a "slightly nursery" quality to the character. It's "intended to present Ava the machine as having a kind of innocence, a sort of undamaged, untarnished quality," he says.
More at link. https://www.npr.org/2015/04/14/3996...ce-than-artificial-intelligence-in-ex-machina
Dude! It's times like this I think you are trolling, that you cannot be serious.
In any case, if you are really that confused, let me point something out:
1. The English language comes with a lovely instruction manual called a dictionary.
2. There is no debate about what the term EX MACHINA means, except in your own head.
3. One of the rules of speaking English is that you don't get to make up definitions for words.
4. However there is no specific rule that prevents you from being confused and obstinate, so splurge on that.
HELPFUL TIP: Here is your absurd logic. Somebody makes a movie called "THE THIN RED LINE:
There is no debate about what the title means. It is an expression in the English language that has a well-established definition. Literate people know what it means or have the ability to look up the reference. It is analogous to "THE THIN BLUE LINE" descriptive about police, wherein the color blue represents cops blue uniform and how they represent a very thin line indeed that separates the vicious criminals of society--and prevents/protects the citizens from becoming their victims. MORE AT THIS LINK.
Nobody has any problem understanding what the word "RED" means. But you come along and start debating it, acting like there is so much confusion swarming about it's meaning, LOL. Only you are confused (or trolling).
Then someone gives you an explanation of what the word "red" means--and provides a link to the word "red" in the dictionary. It's a color. (That was hard, right? LOL)
But this doesn't satisfy you. Then you begin posting nonsensical things that say "While I wholeheartedly AGREE that it is a color, the title of the movie ACTUALLY means something else. The word "red" means "a really small font". You then go on to cut-n-paste dictionary contents that show that the word "red" is a homonym for the word "read".
Then you gleefully explain that the movie's director did not specify what he meant by "The Thin Red Line", so it is perfectly correct that it means someone read a "thin line" of print. Ergo, it means the font size was very small.
And then you begin cutting and pasting all kinds of mental case theories about how nobody really knows what the phrase means.
Dude, are you trying to convince us that you are really that stupid? Or just trolling? LOL
Try not making up your own definitions for words. You might begin to understand what others are talking about.
And if you shockingly discover that you don't understand something, why don't you just humbly learn it, instead of flamboyantly "resisting" knowledge, arguing that words don't have meanings and appearing entirely foolish?
Last edited: