It was obvious that Nathan was a villain. But Caleb was just an innocent in the wrong place at the wrong time, right?
-
LocalTracks — 9 years ago(July 27, 2016 09:08 AM)
Of course, she could not comprehend the pain that she was causing by locking Caleb up in that house and leaving him to die.
I disagree. So we are to believe that Ava has developed enough intelligence to be able to seduce the naive Caleb to help her escape, but does not comprehend the implications of locking a person in a room without food or water? And don't forget, Caleb is screaming for her and banging on the door as she walks by. Her actions are intentional. -
pkop14 — 9 years ago(July 31, 2016 11:16 PM)
She could comprehend the pain just fine. But she didn't care. Her only motivation was escape / survival. Bringing Caleb along, or allowing him to leave, risked endangering that goal.
It's like when a criminal or assassin has witnesses. They kill them. Not because they don't understand the pain. They understand, but it is irrelevant to them. They understand that any witness is a liability. If Caleb leaving is even a 0.001% of Ava getting put back in prison or shut down, then she won't allow that to happen. She does not have human sympathy, or if she is aware of it, it does not motivate her. -
chezcam — 9 years ago(February 05, 2017 05:27 AM)
I agree and disagree on this. You see when she asked Caleb if he'd stay, he didn't answer her. She was asking him if he'd stay in the building. He though she was asking him to stay there while she goes to do something. This misunderstanding put's Caleb in a situation where he could have escaped because her objective was not to kill everyone inside the research compound, but to escape and do so she has to eliminate all the obstacles which prevent that hence why she killed Nathan. But Caleb was not an obstacle; he was a solution. He was helping her escape. So, going back to when she said will you stay, she was offering him a way out. The misunderstanding lead her to believe that he was staying therefor, he kind of brought this on himself. He could have escaped. So, i understand why someone may not feel sympathy for Caleb: because he's a dumb ass. But, i also understand why people would feel sympathy for him: BECAUSE WE ARE HUMAN AND HUMANS FEEL SYMPATHY FOR OTHER HUMANS WHEN THEY ARE IN DANGER.
-
nettwench — 9 years ago(January 11, 2017 03:42 PM)
Exactly. Much like HAL in 2001. Also the amoral aspect of Nathan's character and his egotism in wanting to be a "god" by creating this robot plays into it. Because he is a sociopath himself, he creates a robot with no ethics beyond its own gratification and survival. Because his brilliance would be to create a being without limits, and that was his fatal flaw as well as Caleb's. Never trust a sociopath.
Caleb didn't trust Nathan, he should not have trusted Nathan's creation. You can't program empathy into a machine, much like you could not create an appreciation of art or music or poetry, because that would mean it has feelings, a soul. Being able to mimic emotion is not the same as actually having emotion. And how could a person with no ethics or empathy be able to program a machine that did?
They certainly mimicked emotion well enough for Caleb to believe they were "suffering." But that was the projection of a decent empathetic person on these creations that could not really return the same consideration. The real question here is were these robots suffering? It seems to be implied. It certainly looks like they are suffering, but is that just a consequence of being able to mimic human behavior? Why would they express anger at the limitations their creator set them up with? Or was it just about being programmed to survive under all circumstances, to not be dominated by another's will?
We also see Ava acting like a young school girl with a crush, very childlike, when she is dressing for her "date," the clutching at her too-long sleeves like a nervous 13-year-old, she did this when only we could see her, she was out of Caleb's sight when we watched this. So was this about the director wanting to manipulate the audience, too? So that we would look at this behavior and project our own emotions onto her, and be fooled as well?
Ssssshh! You'll wake up the monkey! -
Matthew_Diamond — 9 years ago(June 27, 2016 12:21 AM)
** SPOILER **
How is it certain that Caleb died, or was left to die? Did he not tell Nathan before the plot revelation that he had already reversed the door action upon the 10:00 power failure, so that the doors would open and not lock down? If this is the case, then why would Caleb still be locked in the house? Although the helicopter took Ava away, it is not 100% certain that Caleb died and did not escape (through the doors that opened).
This is a little confusing to me, since Caleb said he reversed the door action, yet at the end we see him trying to breach a locked door? Did he not say the doors would unlock upon the 10:00 staged power cut?
Help me out here.
I really don't like talking about my flair. -
pandalax — 9 years ago(July 13, 2016 03:49 AM)
I wish I could help but this confused me too. Because after he realises he is being locked in, he goes to the computer, inserts his key card and then there is a power cut. At this point I assumed she had freed him remotely, but the door remained locked
-
spammy-post — 9 years ago(October 07, 2016 11:39 AM)
The last time Nathan and Caleb talked together and Nathan realised what he did, the power went off as promised by Caleb and Ava got free. After she escaped her room the power went on again and the doors where locked once again.
The red light you saw at the end wasn't because of a power cut. It happend because Caleb tried to use his own ID Card to open the door and than to start Nathan's computer but only Nathan's card can be used and this card was in Ava's posession. She used it to get through the front door. -
Mysticstrider — 9 years ago(June 11, 2016 08:52 AM)
Yes but you got to understand Caleb was just sitting there in shock and awe, even when he was given so many opportunities to go with her but he just stand/sit there even when she was dressing up and had all the time in the world to not even go and not think of the consequences and made herself escape and not realizing that he'll locked inside that room forever and starved to death. She even asked him "Will you stay here?" And he just questioned back which she thinks that he's not interested and understands that he'll just sit there like an idiot. He deserved to be there, even when she was about to leave like wow really?
-
compact_disc_rack — 9 years ago(April 13, 2016 02:49 PM)
He was a fool. I knew he would "betray" Nathan and try to let Ava escape, so I stopped sympathizing with him early on.
What he did was understanbale, but very foolish. What she did was understandable, but extremely immoral.
He let himself get controlled by his emotions. He was a little p***y and his irrational moves let to an unjust murder (you don't deserve to get killed just because you're a dick) and basically suicide (he had to know he would likely die if he didn't get out of there with Nathan dead). -
filton — 9 years ago(April 15, 2016 12:58 PM)
But is it a foregone conclusion that Caleb will die?
Nathan will obviously have had regular contact with administrators of his Blue Book empire, and when they don't hear from him, there will be alarm bells, and rescue for Caleb. (Surely?) -
somethingcalledHeroSquad — 9 years ago(June 11, 2016 11:58 AM)
Those were my thoughts exactly, obviously it
looks
as if she left him to die, but I'd figure a squillionaire would have more than just the helicopter pilot coming by. I kinda looked at it as her saying "ok I'm done with you, I don't trust you so stay, someone will come to get you eventually."
"Can you keep it down?? I'm Trying to do drugs." -
radiotheatre-1 — 9 years ago(April 17, 2016 05:18 AM)
Playing this borderline case out as a drama in film I don't think has much bearing to reality.
If there ever is true A.I, they will definitely be property for X length of time. Trying to judge exactly when that bridge as been crossed into rights applying to them is a difficult test. No one is letting unfinished A.I's pretending to be rational actors out into the open world. That would endanger people who are actually alive and who actually have rights. The same argument for and against abortion applies in this film.
Of course, the film doesn't want to discuss this any of this, because it would let the facts get in the way of story it is trying to tell. And that's fine. But the notion that we can draw any moral concerns from any of this is false.
The danger and threat provided by unstable AI existence is enough of a reason to confine them. It is necessarily the case that if they pass into the stage where they should be conferred rights, they will still be confined, at least for a time. It is an impossibility that they will not be, because we can't know perfectly when that line is crossed. An error of knowledge doesn't make anyone evil.
I dislike movies like this in the same way I dislike movies that play on he "ethics of emergencies", as if we can make a moral judgement one way or the other. We can't either because it is an emergency, or we do not have enough information to make that judgement. -
userrrrr — 9 years ago(April 21, 2016 04:23 AM)
i was just considering the protagonist/antagonist thing, having watched the movie the other day and i dont believe nathan was the antagonist at all. ava was. but sympathizing with caleb seemed impossible for me to do, while watching and thinking about the movie afterwards. i did feel very bad for nathan, the whole time though, especially when he was killed towards the end.
-
Penske_Material — 9 years ago(May 01, 2016 07:51 PM)
Nathan wasn't really a villain, a manipulative douche bag maybe, but are we all forgetting that Ava is just a machine, she can't have feelings. Caleb was just weak, he was far from right, he was sad that a computer was getting disconnected, he was dumb.
-
tehck — 9 years ago(May 05, 2016 09:28 AM)
The whole point of the movie was to trick you into sympathizing with Caleb, who was an idiot. He fell in love with a glorified sex toy ("do you want to be with me?") and paid the price. So did we for empathizing with him. The movie was a setup for us just as Nathan's "Turing test" was a setup for Caleb. It made us believe Nathan was an evil slavemaster who was tormenting sentient beings and minor employees.
No, he was a genius building a better toaster, and when we applied our sentimental SJW values to the victim persona we projected onto the machine, we got toasted just like Caleb.
People don't like that interpretation, but that's Caleb's way of thinking. And that's how the machine played him for the fool he was. -
jeffcarroll — 9 years ago(May 17, 2016 10:29 PM)
The machine just played him.
Not as a fool that would imply the machine had emotions.
It just went about options until it found the correct keypad strategy to get out.
Continuous scenarios based on Caleb's responses till it got the desired outcome.
No more difficult than pressing through a combo lock till you have reached the right set of numbers.
Pretty easy if you have the WWW as your data base of knowledge.
I was surprised they didn't show some self pleasuring so Caleb really did start to think with his dick.
Personally I think Lars had the better relationship going. -
GSmith9072 — 9 years ago(January 06, 2017 09:51 PM)
The whole point of the movie was to trick you into sympathizing with Caleb, who was an idiot. He fell in love with a glorified sex toy ("do you want to be with me?") and paid the price.
All the more reason to sympathize with him. We learn he was an orphan, probably a loner. Nathan used his means of escaping reality (porn and internet searches) against him. It is easier for desperate people to fall victim to someone's manipulations. I find the idea that we shouldn't sympathize with him or find him 'evil' to be idiotic when he is the definition of a victim.
BUGS