Board 8 > Did you like the movie A.I.?

(+) Yeah! (+)

the one directed by stephen spielberg, i really liked this movie, myself
---

I like the one directed by Steven Spielberg.
---

It's not bad. Deff worth a watch. I haven't seen it in years but the ending always seemed kinda random

Extremely underrated and possibly Spielberg's last great film.

I liked it
---

I liked the promo websites for it.
---

I liked it, but it had some plot holes. Also the ending was kind of weird.
---

No. But I haven't seen it in years and I wonder if it was underrated.
---

That movie was the first one to make me cry like a bitch I think
---

guffguy89 posted...

I liked it, but it had some plot holes. Also the ending was kind of weird.

What plotholes?
---

Corrik7 posted...

guffguy89 posted...

I liked it, but it had some plot holes. Also the ending was kind of weird.

What plotholes?

Computers don't exist
---

The biggest one that comes to mind is that no other company would've made childlike AI at some point. There are like dozens of valid reasons to make them, and yet not one company felt compelled to monopolize that industry. With the exception of some cooky scientist whose base was a half submerged building in the ruins of New York.
---

Those aren't really plotholes.
---

Not really, but I might need to rewatch it to give it a fair shake
---

how is that not a plothole? The idea that a child AI was so unusual in that time just makes no sense.
---

guffguy89 posted...

how is that not a plothole? The idea that a child AI was so unusual in that time just makes no sense.

A plothole means something that cannot make sense based on the story. It is possible in that world that a single producer of AI existed.

A plothole would be like the movie saying that Microsoft can make AI in the first ten minutes then at the end of the movie explaining that only that AI was ever made because even Microsoft cannot figure out how to make them.

This is an inconsistency and plothole.

Just because the world is different than you would expect it to be doesn't create plotholes.
---

It is when it goes up against logic. This isn't me just saying, 'oh, i think it should be this way in this future dystopia'. This is me saying that it makes no sense that they would have not created any children AI at all. To use your words, it 'does not make sense based on the story' as the story presents a world where there is literally an AI for everything. I have the feeling though that you're just being argumentative at this point, so I'll end this here.
---

I mean, okay? You are arguing because the world doesn't exist to the logic you have that it is a plothole. That is not what a plothole means. You just found it unrealistic or silly. You are arguing against the entire premise of the movie and saying it is a plothole.

I mean, if you found it dumb and unrealistic due to that point. That's a criticism you can have. That is not what a plothole is though so you are using the wrong term to describe it.

It doesn't matter the reasoning for why child AI is only made by that specific person. The fact is that in the world set up, that is how it is. Whether it is because no one else can create a lifelike creation of it, find it unethical, no market for making a profit for it, etc. It doesn't matter. The point is that is the set up of the movie and that is not what a plothole is.

I am not being argumentative. I am just trying to say like "Yo, that isn't what a plothole is!".
---

Yeah that's not a plot hole.

You could argue that's a dumb world setting but yeah. The plot is internally consistent it's just not consistent with what you think should make sense.

I don't much like the movie myself. The ending kinda ruins it for me. Well the ending and the tail end of the path to get there it's just kind of a letdown.
---

Lopen posted...

Yeah that's not a plot hole.

You could argue that's a dumb world setting but yeah. The plot is internally consistent it's just not consistent with what you think should make sense.

I don't much like the movie myself. The ending kinda ruins it for me. Well the ending and the tail end of the path to get there it's just kind of a letdown.

I like the ending but the fairy portion was goofy lol.
---

It would have been better if it just ended with em freezing under the sea

But yeah honestly I didn't care for the journey leading em that way anyway. Kid and the bear should have just hung with the scoundrel dude and done something more interesting.

I liked it up through getting to Google I think though.
---

Ugh, why do I get myself into these discussions. A plot hole is a more generalized term than you may realize and is not limited to internal inconsistencies/contradictions. Yes, that is one kind of plot hole, but that is not the sole definition of a plot hole.

You seem to surmise that if the screenwriter creates a plot in the movie intentionally, than it cannot be a plot hole. But that is not necessarily true. For example, the popular Deus Ex Machina references are a type of plot hole that are often intentionally created by the screenwriter.

The core definition of a plot hole is something that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot. This can manifest itself many different ways, and is not limited to internal contradictions in the established plot, but also include if anything within the established plot seems illogical, especially compared to the rest of the established plot.

Yes, some declared plot holes can be a bit subjective, but if you want to argue my claim that it's a plot hole, your response should be more along the lines of "It's perfectly logical for nobody to have created A.I. children because...." instead of "that's not what a plot hole is!"
---

I wouldn't call a failure of writing/imagination/appraisal of consequence that breaks suspension of disbelief a plothole, but I wouldn't argue that it isn't
---

I just feel like you can't declare an entire movie a plothole. Which is what I feel deeming that as a plothole would do. At best, it is just something that is unexplained.

As someone who spent countless hours arguing star wars plotholes that had support of thousands / tens of thousands as a plothole against those who say none of them exist, I just think not much exists to support the argument here in your case, and I have not seen this argument ever presented as a plothole prior or by any others.

I think you just disagreed with the setup of the story itself. In my opinion.

We can just disagree about it though. No big deal.
---

So, anyways, just to dive a little deeper.

I feel like it was sort of implied throughout the movie why they did not already exist. This is solely from memory on a movie I haven't watched in years so bear with me if I miss anything.

1. This seemed to be a new design. I remember a kid remarking on how it was different early on.

2. Society seemed to view robots and other ilk as tools/possessions/entertainment/etc. They served a use and were not treated with compassion as say a human would be. This is noticed throughout the movie with the mistreatment of the main character, the stadium scenes, etc.

3. The main character is the only one that I notably remember that likely could have passed a Turing Test.

4. The difference in a children model and the others are that the children model really serves no purpose. It is something created to be treated as part of a family. As if a human. This is an entirely different purpose of all the others I remember seeing. It also differs in that it has to understand emotion and have emotion, as well. Also, encompassing a childlike understanding of the world. I imagine this would be hard to create / imagine.

5. In the end, it was a failure and a success. It successfully emulated that childlike quality. However, the family could never view it as a real part of the family no matter how much it tried. This is further cemented with how the family breaks from the main character in the end. It was inhumane, yet the main character can do it and us not view this character we view as good and noble as evil for it because the character could never truly fulfill the role as a human child. Thus, it stands to imagine this was just a prototype / new model that was trying to be perfected and was imperfect as it was.
---

I haven't seen A.I. in a long time, but are there really no other children androids? I thought the point was that it was just the first child android to be able to love.
---

Mythiot posted...

Extremely underrated and possibly Spielberg's last great film.

Catch Me If You Can was better
---

guffguy89 posted...

The core definition of a plot hole is something that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot. This can manifest itself many different ways, and is not limited to internal contradictions in the established plot, but also include if anything within the established plot seems illogical, especially compared to the rest of the established plot.

I just don't see how you can say the starting premise of the movie goes against the flow of logic established by the movie's plot. Like in what way does it? I agree that sometimes plot holes are intended and that writer intent doesn't make a something not a plot hole, but this is like, basically saying an assumed truth consistently followed throughout the plot is a plothole. Just seems like a misappropriation of the term.

It'd be like saying Star Wars has a plot hole because lightsabers are considered to be super badass but blasters are guns that exist everywhere and guns > swords yo cause like how can a Jedi deflect 90 guys shooting guns at em. I mean that's dumbing it down a lot but it seems like the same kind of thing you're arguing here.

If you want something that imo is actually a plot hole of sorts I feel like the bear robot shows too much loyalty and emotion for the child to really be something that exceptional, conceptually, in terms of being humanlike. Like the bear robot seems to be everything the child wants to be other than looking like a child, so the child's AI doesn't seem like it should be something considered super notable cause this random bear robot seems to love the child.
---

Like if you want a Star Wars example that I think really illustrates plot hole vs not plot hole:

Hyperdrive. So in The Last Jedi the Hyperdrive suicide crash that totally wrecks that giant ship. Also hyperdrive tracking. With that stuff existing, particularly the former, it creates a sort of overarching plot hole in all sorts in that space combat throughout the series no longer makes sense-- why had it never been done, why isn't it being done all the time to save manpower for space combat?

What you're arguing is more like, what if The Last Jedi never existed, why couldn't they do that stuff? The plot to any movie in the series never claimed or implied it could be done at any point so there's not really a reason to assume it should be even if the movie doesn't go into depth refuting that point-- you thinking maybe it should be able to be done does not make it a plot hole. That's just you overanalyzing and trying to force your view of what the plot should be rather than just taking in what's presented.
---

100% no. This is like fundamentally a flawed movie on almost every level right down to how it was planned.
---

Lopen posted...

Like if you want a Star Wars example that I think really illustrates plot hole vs not plot hole:

Hyperdrive. So in The Last Jedi the Hyperdrive suicide crash that totally wrecks that giant ship. Also hyperdrive tracking. With that stuff existing, particularly the former, it creates a sort of overarching plot hole in all sorts in that space combat throughout the series no longer makes sense-- why had it never been done, why isn't it being done all the time to save manpower for space combat?

What you're arguing is more like, what if The Last Jedi never existed, why couldn't they do that stuff? The plot to any movie in the series never claimed or implied it could be done at any point so there's not really a reason to assume it should be even if the movie doesn't go into depth refuting that point-- you thinking maybe it should be able to be done does not make it a plot hole. That's just you overanalyzing and trying to force your view of what the plot should be rather than just taking in what's presented.

I argued til I was blue in the face about the hyperspeed ramming.
---

Lopen, I'm not sure how you're not understanding this. This isn't just me having wishful thinking on what the plot should be like. I am looking at the plot IN RELATION to the world it is set in - a world in which there is A.I. prevalent throughout society in just about every service line and walk of life. And these aren't just service robots. Several of them have a human relations element, like Gigolo Joe and the nanny. The fact that in a free market society where A.I. robots are prevalent and profitable, nobody capitalized on the market for childlike A.I. robots is a glaring plot hole. One that only exists so that the main character could be even more unique than he already was.

This is just like your hyperdrive example. If the technology, means, and demand were there, then why wasn't it being done?

I mean look, if you personally don't think that it's a plot hole, then you have the right to that opinion. But to say that i am misusing the term plot hole, that is where you are wrong.
---

I just watched it again a few weeks ago. It's a good movie. But just weird. Like it felt like two different movies put together.
---

guffguy89 posted...

This is just like your hyperdrive example. If the technology, means, and demand were there, then why wasn't it being done?

It was not done because it could not be done. It's only a plot hole if the movie breaks the set of rules it establishes in its setting or plot. I'm not saying you can't assume anything-- for instance what you said about androids being all over the place does imply there should be research into stuff like the kid, but the kid being a new experimental model-- pretty sure that's the lead in to the plot of the movie!

The movie does not need to thoroughly rule out every potential possibility in your head to not have plot holes. You being able to nitpick "well this should have been" is not a plot hole. It's potentially an underdeveloped world depending on how nitpicky you are being but yeah.

Also to elaborate a bit

StealThisSheen posted...

I haven't seen A.I. in a long time, but are there really no other children androids? I thought the point was that it was just the first child android to be able to love.

I'm pretty sure this is actually why the child android was so special btw. It's not just a human relations android but one with AI advanced enough that it can have the feel of a real child that actually loves you. Actually think the movie for the most part does pretty well with making the other robots feel more "robotic" than the kid. Ironically as said earlier I think the bear, who is not an android and at a surface level is the least "human" of the robots cause it's a stuffed bear, is the reason why there's a bit of a plot hole in the movie, cause the bear robot is a little too humanlike at times.
---

i don't really see how lopen's question is more of a "plot hole" than guffguy's. i was reading a bit about hyperspace ramming on reddit and i found plenty of explanations (like "hyperspace ramming is super expensive so it isn't used much"). also, just because we haven't seen it before TLJ doesn't mean it hasn't been used before, just that we haven't seen it before in the canon space battles. i assume there's been a ton of space battles in a galaxy far, far away we don't know of.

also, given that TLJ is chronologically the last movie in the series, can't this simply be explained away by saying that hyperspace ramming is a new technique that hadn't been invented yet before? i guess it creates an inconsistency with TFA as that movie is from the same era but the other movies, not so much.

obviously, there's a level of subjectivity to what a "plot hole" is, but to me it's an inconsitency in the plot that you can only explain away by coming up with something completely ridiculous. for example, in the blues brothers, why do the good ole boys arrive many hours too late at bob's country bunker for their show?? this in itself isn't necessarily a plot hole (maybe their vehicle broke down and it took a ton of time to repair or something), but it IS a plot hole that they seem to think that they can still play their show as normal. i guess you can explain this by saying "the good ole boys are totally insane and think they can still play the show, even though they're a gazillion hours late, the bar is already closed and everyone's left," but that's REALLY reaching.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

"hyperspace ramming is super expensive so it isn't used much"

That's a terrible explanation because we literally see tons and tons if ships get destroyed in space combat by a single giant cruiser in the early movie as they try to get in position to bomb it.

How can it be more expensive than traditional warfare. Is there an extra cost beyond lost ships? Cause you're cutting losses on that front

Mr Lasastryke posted...

hyperspace ramming is a new technique that hadn't been invented yet before?

I buy that with the tracking thing potentially but ramming isn't exactly plausible for no one to have thought of for like 80 years or whatever it was between ep1 and ep8
---

Lopen posted...

guffguy89 posted...

This is just like your hyperdrive example. If the technology, means, and demand were there, then why wasn't it being done?

It was not done because it could not be done. It's only a plot hole if the movie breaks the set of rules it establishes in its setting or plot.

Now you're talking about his ability to "love", which was the unique factor about him that is not illogical. It sounds like that kind of technology was just appearing. But the ability to create a child-like A.I. would have been available for decades.

And look, I already explained earlier how your narrow definition of a plot hole is inaccurate. As Lasastryke said, opinions of plot holes can be subjective and argued. But you don't argue that the person isn't using the term plot hole correctly. You argue that what they are suggesting is not illogical to the plot. At this point we are just circling now. Can we just end this and let bygones be bygones or are you going to continue to try to beat the dead horse here?
---

Lopen posted...

That's a terrible explanation because we literally see tons and tons if ships get destroyed in space combat by a single giant cruiser in the early movie as they try to get in position to bomb it.

perhaps they didn't expect to lose that many ships? >_> you don't always have to assume that the rebels are perfect and everything they do makes total sense...

I buy that with the tracking thing potentially but ramming isn't exactly plausible for no one to have thought of for like 80 years or whatever it was between ep1 and ep8

how is that different from "it's not plausible that nobody would have thought to make childlike AI"? though if there were other children androids (like SEP said) this doesn't apply, yeah.
---

guffguy89 posted...

Now you're talking about his ability to "love", which was the unique factor about him that is not illogical. It sounds like that kind of technology was just appearing. But the ability to create a child-like A.I. would have been available for decades.

I mean if the argument is that "The ability to create a child-like A.I. should have existed already and so this is a plot hole," I don't really think it is and I think Corrik kinda nailed it. There wasn't a high demand for super life-like androids because the people in the universe clearly viewed them moreso as tools and objects, and either weren't interested or outright feared an emotional connection with them. As for the child-like A.I., I repeat my question of did it really not exist? I thought the whole point was just that David was a special kind of child-like A.I., not that he was literally the only one. Like, I could be misremembering, but in the stadium scene, the crowd only turns against the idea of destroying him when he starts showing shockingly realistic child-like fear and emotion, thus causing them to think he's a real child. It's that capability to "love" and all that which makes him appear far more human-like than the other androids, so the universe has a pretty consistent detail of what level the technology/capabilities were like at that time, and what David is capable of/a prototype for.
---

I disagree with the notion that people clearly viewed them as tools and objects. Obviously some people did, but several A.I. were created specifically for human compatability (sex robots, nanny bots, etc.). The notion that everybody saw A.I. as just tools is quite an assumption, especially how popular robots were in the sex industry.

And no, there were no other children A.I. aside from David. I can confirm that. It wasn't just his unique life-like skills that made him unique. It was also that he was a child.
---

HashtagSEP posted...

Like, I could be misremembering, but in the stadium scene, the crowd only turns against the idea of destroying him when he starts showing shockingly realistic child-like fear and emotion, thus causing them to think he's a real child.

I was going to bring that exact scene up yeah. To me that implies that there probably were robots that looked like children at a basic level.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

how is that different from "it's not plausible that nobody would have thought to make childlike AI"?

The movie establishes that he's special

Hyperspeed ramming is only special to the audience because "wow that looks cool." There's actually no elaboration or anything in the plot for why that's not more often done, why it can be done while normal hyperspeed must have some sort of intangibility aspect or something otherwise space debris would be killing everyone making jumps.

The difference is you have to jump through the hoops as a viewer to rationalize hyperspeed ramming-- AI gives you the hoops to jump through to accept that this situation is the state of androids in the world, but guffguy doesn't want to jump through them. That's ultimately on him, not the movie.
---

guffguy89 posted...

were created specifically for human compatability (sex robots,

...I mean, sex robots would commonly very much be seen as "tools" or "objects" >_>

EDIT: Really, same with nanny robots. They perform a function the parent can't or doesn't want to do.
---

Why create them to be so life-like though if they are just seen as tools? Not just the sex robots, but robots in general. You see in the news even nowadays how some idiot married his sex doll. Obviously, those guys are wackos. But give the sex doll a sophisticated A.I. and human appearance...it's not a stretch to imagine people having an emotional attachment. Or children developing an emotional attachment to their robot nanny that looks and acts just like or almost like a real human. The bigots at the flesh fair were obviously a vocal anti-robot group, who viewed them with nothing but contempt, but it's clear that not everyone thought along those lines as the robot business was booming.

Anyway, I'm not bothered by this kind of back and forth discussion because we are arguing over the merits of whether no other child A.I.s is a valid plot hole or not versus someone telling me I am not using the term correctly.
---

I just rewatched the scene on Youtube, and the crowd doesn't at all seem shocked to see a child android, so even if they didn't exist, the crowd isn't actually interested. Only when David starts pleading for his life does somebody stand up and go "Mecha don't plead for their lives, that's a real boy!" and the crowd turns on the fair.

If child A.I. wasn't a thing, it's reasonable to assume there just wasn't a market for it. Like, yes, you COULD have an emotional connection to a sex robot, but it's more likely things like sex robots are just going to be seen more as "objects" for their functionality, not "Oh man I want to take an emotional connection with an android so I better go seek out a sex robot."
---

I like how you are putting a lot of stock in the reaction of people attending the flesh fair and projecting it as a reasonable reaction for people of that time. That would be like me going to a underground dog fighting match and analyze the crowds actions as normal for that entire civilization.
---

guffguy89 posted...

Or children developing an emotional attachment to their robot nanny that looks and acts just like or almost like a real human.

That's different, though. That's also a necessary "function" because otherwise a child's going to hole themself up in their room out of fear if it's just acting like a robot. A child being able to connect with a robot and an adult being able to are very different aims/priorities.

As for the "why make the sex robots so lifelike," well... I'd think that should be pretty obvious. People will pay more to have sex if it seems closer to the real thing than a super obvious "I'm fucking a computer." Like, you brought up sex dolls. Sex dolls are a thing because there's more of a market for them than just sticking it in a cube with a hole.

There's not really much to suggest the androids were built for companionship over function, and most of the reactions of people in the movie suggest function was the primary desire/goal.
---

guffguy89 posted...

I like how you are putting a lot of stock in the reaction of people attending the flesh fair and projecting it as a reasonable reaction for people of that time. That would be like me going to a underground dog fighting match and analyze the crowds actions as normal for that entire civilization.

I mean, even the main mother character's first reaction is basically "I don't want to connect with this thing wtf."

I think it's weirder to go "Sex robots clearly exist for companionship and not just their function of... having sex"
---

Hell, another example is the pool scene, when the parents are staring and the children just flat out treat David as an object and something to mess with with no repercussion. That's clearly learned behavior.
---

I didn't say they were made exclusively for companionship, but that ultimately became one of their functions. gigolo joe would boast how he had many women who he made fall in love with him.

I mean, if you want to be cynical about it, we can say that humans today treat every other human like tools, if you present it in that light. Your employers treats you like a tool. Your wife treats you like a tool....
---

guffguy89 posted...

I mean, if you want to be cynical about it, we can say that humans today treat every other human like tools, if you present it in that light. Your employers treats you like a tool. Your wife treats you like a tool....

Exactly. And the movie is a universe where they have literal tools to do the stuff that people used to treat each other as tools for.

I think the movie does a pretty good job of at no point really suggesting that there'd be a market for child androids to exist, since there's no real point where anyone is like "Heck yes this is great!" Hell, David's driving motivation the entire movie is to be shown affection that he has to go find a "magical fairy" to get. He's seeking something the world in the movie clearly doesn't provide on any common or consistent basis at all. Like, you can say "Logically, there should have been a desire for child androids," but the movie does nothing to suggest there is, and does the opposite moreso than not.
---