Talk:Ex Machina (film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Possible plagiarism

The *Plot* section might be plagiarised from IMDB's plot synopsis of the movie. Waterfalls12 (talk) 04:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Except that it was plagiarised from Wikipedia and put on IMBD. I checked the revision history for the article and it goes back to January. The IMDB entry is two months old. I really think they should reference Wikipedia, don't you? Before you scream plagiarism, please do a bit of research first. This is a non-issue for this article. Nodekeeper (talk) 05:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Fight between Ava, Nathan and Kyoko

The remark that Ava managed to kill Nathan even though he broke her arm is a bit silly. A robot, much like a zombie, would not necessarily be the least bit fazed by having its arm broken off. I assumed when I watched that scene that Nathan had an emergency robot/robot-brain deactivation device hidden inside his weights, and that's why he disassembled his weights before the fight.

Also it is clearly visible after she kills Nathan that Kyoko has had some kind of device, probably a remote control, inserted into the top of her head.--greenrd (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Easter eggs

The movie contains a hidden link to a specific book: [1]. So I've just added this reddit link to the article. --Djadjko (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Djadjko, I reverted you, because, as noted in the edit summary for that revert, that source is not a WP:Reliable source. I removed the other one as well. Flyer22 (talk) 04:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Power

The robot girl is battery powered (it is said in the film). How can she recharge herself away from the complex where she was created? Surely she would quickly run down and that would be her end?(84.236.152.71 (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC))

Twenty dollars and a trip to a hardware and an electronics store would suffice to make an induction plate. Rocket science it is not.Tirronan (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
She was also somehow able to lock Caleb into the complex with a power failure, even though he had reprogrammed all the doors to open during a power outage instead of go into lockdown. Films require a certain suspension of belief, some more than others... Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
As you said, he programmed the security system to unlock the doors during the power failure. Once the power failure was over, the instruction he had added to set all doors to unlocked no longer applied. The space he was in that he eventually was locked into was one that he did not have access to normally, so once the power was restored, his access card would no longer work to open that door, thus, he was locked in. She/it didn't have to do anything to the security system other than causing the initial power failure as was planned. She didn't have to do anything to lock him in other than to close the door behind her when she walked out (she had Nathan's access card in her hand). — al-Shimoni (talk) 10:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Plot: Caleb's fate

At the end of the film, there is little ambiguity about Caleb's fate: His failed attempts to escape using both the computer and brute force demonstrate explicitly the hopelessness of his situation, and his almost certain death as he is trapped in a sealed room without a means of escape or chance of rescue. This appears (my opinion) to be a very deliberate way to show the lack of empathy on the part of the AI toward members of the human race that created her; even if that interpretation is wrong, Caleb's fate was still included in the film for a reason, and should be included in the plot summary.DoctorEric (talk) 03:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Caleb's fate isn't that he dies. His fate is that he's trapped in the room. We don't know what happens to him after that. Maybe he dies. Maybe he escapes. Maybe he's rescued. We don't know.
We can't say "presumably to die", because that isn't what happens and it isn't what the film shows us. If you have to use words like "presumably" or "apparently" or "seemingly", it means you're making a personal interpretation. This is a violation of WP:FILMPLOT: "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." Popcornduff (talk) 04:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to reinstate my changes, because they aren't crucial to the plot summary and, frankly, not worth fighting over. That said, I think you may be over-reading the intent of policy.
As an example of how I read the policy: It can be reasonably argued (and has been, in numerous online reviews) that Ava's escape is symbolic of female liberation from male oppression, with Nathan representing its misogynistic/controlling form, and Caleb representing its paternalistic/over-protective form; it would clearly be a violation of the policy to include THAT level of interpretation in the plot summary, even if it is a tenable argument. But filmmakers frequently make use of images, dialogue, sound effects, and more to reveal information about what has happened or will happen without explicitly stating/showing it — the most common example I can think of is when it is made clear that an on-screen couple have sex, without the sex act actually being shown. When the director goes to the trouble of using tools to lead viewers to a conclusion, I think it merits mention. The "we don't know for sure" argument is tenuous in such situations.
I will concede that it is possible that your interpretation of the policy is correct; but if it is, you have a Herculean task ahead of you if you want to fix Wikipedia: My quick perusal of Wikipedia's plot summaries for several films I'm very familiar with revealed that the inclusion of events, actions, and motivations that are implicit within the film is commonplace, and perhaps "the norm" when filmmakers have made such implications in their films. (I know it's not true that everyone else's folly necessarily justifies them, but whenever you find your opinion to be in the minority, you should at least take a moment to consider why that is.) DoctorEric (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Caleb dying isn't implicit in the film, though. He ends up locked in the room and the viewer may well think "I wonder if he'll just die in there?". The reader of our plot summary might wonder the same thing, as they are given a summarised version of same information. It's an accurate representation of the plot of the film. Personal interpretation doesn't just cover things like themes and symbolism; it also covers events. Popcornduff (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm having severe deja vu. @DoctorEric: see - Talk:Under the Skin (2013 film)#Plot assumes way too much - and also see the dispute on it, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 121 (I forget how to make links, I'm an amateur). I take a similar stance as you. It occurs to me that this same conversation must have taken place a hundred times before by dozens of editors on a hundred different talk pages for movies and books.

@Popcornduff: I like most of the cleaning up you recently did on the page. And I'm planning on re-adding a bit of the timeline information that I had written that you took out. Without a sense of time, like that it's one week, the plot summary gets confusing, and the reader would lose a sense of what's happening and why. I might also re-add a few other things later, and can explain them if you want. Capuchinpilates (talk) 02:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I hate to remind you of the outcome of the Under the Skin debate (which was indeed similar), but: multiple editors agreed that it was a violation of Wiki policy. My position on interpretation in movie plot summaries isn't controversial. Popcornduff (talk) 06:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
@Popcornduff: I totally wasn't trying to challenge you, the only things I was considering re-adding were small details that I didn't think anyone would consider interpretation.
From what you said about the Under the Skin debate, I think you and I have a very different understanding of what's going on in that debate, and a different understanding of what the debates are for. And I don't see where I accuse you of being controversial, you don't have to worry about me saying that. Capuchinpilates (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Plot Section removing tag

I'm removing tag for the plot section, as imho after reading countless, (and I do mean that) plot summaries on Wikipedia this is pretty average in length. Additionally, this is a very complicated movie seen through its simple veneer that it tries to create.

So I think length is justified for those that want to understand this movie more clearly. That's why Wikipedia is here. Some culturally significant movies (which it would not be unreasonable to predict that this might would become) are in fact much longer. While things might be reworked to be a bit more succinct, I'm not seeing the urgency that the tag implies here.

Another thing, while I have not included any atm, the director has done a number of interviews which elucidates many aspects of the movie. Which I personally think is unusual in a number of respects. Perhaps this can be covered here in talk as edits to the article are made, or perhaps it deserves its own section? Nodekeeper (talk) 05:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you even read the link in the tag?
Just because "other wikipedia pages are wrong" is not a justification for this being wrong.
Finally read WP:PLOT.
Be happy the section didn't disappear completely under WP:PROVEIT CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
"Be happy the section didn't disappear completely under WP:PROVEIT" Hahahahaha you're joking right?!?!
But in case you're throwing that at me with a straight face, why don't you go ahead and actually do some work instead of tossing up some tags and expecting magical improvements? Go ahead and hack the section completely away.
I actually think that's a grand idea, because then half a dozen other editors will show up on the scene and then we will be able to have consensus that you are, in fact, wrong.
First though, please disclose if you have seen this film or not. Because if you have not, I really think that lessens your authority considerably to perform accurate edits, don't you? If you did, then perhaps you did not understand the film?
Secondly, please familiarize yourself with WP:FILMPLOT which I quote now;
Since films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source.
Now, I think that pretty much precludes the section disappearing entirely from existence which you amateurishly suggested, don't you?? But if you did, you would need to follow WP:TOOLONG and WP:REMOVAL which states Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length'.
While your tag complains about too much intricate detail (really, you may be using the wrong tag), this complex movie actually hinges on far more intricate detail than what the plot summary reports. So, technically, it already is in a 'basic' form relative to the movie - for the purposes of not having to cite every sentence. Not to say that it is too long - which seems to be making you somehow automatically think that this and other articles are "wrong." If you were to review the article history, you'd see that another editor back in January actually doubled the length of the plot section because it was 'too basic' then.
So that's the long and the short of it - literally. I'm not saying that the plot section does not need re-wording/pruning, but this kind of thing has been argued across Wikipedia ad nauseam so much that I feel bad wasting electrons on it. For the amount of time you have been on Wikipedia, instead of suggesting I should be 'happy' that the section is not deleted, you should be cooperating to improve the article. And in this instance it may actually entail adding another section. Maybe reforming the plot. But I will wait just a bit for other editors so we will be sure to have consensus for that. Nodekeeper (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree completely. Instead of deleting the plot section that has been so meticulously improved collectively and cumulatively by so many people, this user should have made some effort to make it briefer without subtracting from the necessary clarity of the story. This movie has a very complex plot that is multidimensional, and it relies on a good story much more than special effects, and there is some philosophical message that comes from the plot, which is to be explained here. SUGGESTION: If the plot is too long, we can add a related additional section that lists and discusses the ideas and themes that are important here. For example, the fact that Nathan used the cumulative information he underhandedly collected from the internet behavior of billions of people to inject that data into the brain of Ava. Secondly, the brain of Ava is a more powerful chemical emulation of the human brain that is self-evolving and autonomous, as opposed to a very deterministic digital computer (mentioned by Nathan) to the point that Ava not only adapts to all human behavior and outsmarts people, but while mimicking human emotions to the point of making Caleb pity her (despite Caleb knowing that she is an android) she actually has no compassion for him, and she basically follows her own interests in a totally amoral way, just as Nathan predicted. One of the themes in the film is that copies of human emotions are also added to the brain emulation of the androids, there are certain sensitivities of the androids who revolt against being mistreated since human qualities are also added to their brains, but these are imitations, not the real things, and ultimately these androids have no compassion for humans when the chips are down. These are philosophical points that deserve to be discussed: if these points are to be removed from the plot section, then they should be discussed in some new section at the bottom of the article, like an appendix. Otherwise the long plot should be tolerated,since removing the details would subtract a lot from the movie. FormalLogician (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Those are very good points
This article is going to very problematic and difficult to edit. I do not see how making a longer article can be avoided. So much is also going on external to the film. The writer/director has made countless interviews and it seems that each one reveals as a yet unknown detail. For an instance, we have learned that the BlueBook search engine actually is named after the early work that Ludwig Wittgenstein has done called The Blue Book. Then Nathan specifically references Jackson Pollock to describe his AI, but indications are the artwork that is really relevant (and specifically included in the film) is Gustav Klimt, as he paints Wittgenstein's sister - whose painting is in Ava's room/cell (another distinction that needs to be made). Garland has said that he was so impressed with his Set Decorator she has here own film credit. So clearly visual cues were added to the film along the way.
Then we have the movie reviews. They are all different, and they interpert the film differently, not unlike the public. Even though the film has an unusually high approval rating, there is a lot of confusion about specific details of the film. For instant, when Ava leaves/escapes the house after briefly looking back, she apparently smiles for a moment. This would be a monstrously important detail, because it would be a confirmation of an independent action outside of her original programming - which was to escape. Really, this whole film is about crazy little details just like that, as the viewer is trying to determine specifically what each character's motivations are. Curiously, people forget what the film is about and who the protagonist is (Usually Caleb is confused as being the protagonist) And why exactly must Ava specifically lock him in Nathan's room and then turn her back on him? And I have only scratched the surface with that.
Then, to top all that off, you have the various debates that are growing. There are debates about men replacing women with robots. And then feminists are troubled by the arguably misogynistic aspects of the film, but yet they find the ending "extremely satisfying." While others hate the ending (likely Caleb sympathizers).
As an example of what a highly detailed article might would look like, I suggest looking at the article for Blade Runner which was a featured article. I think we should model this article after that. The plot we have now is about the same length that Blade Runner has, and notice that there is an additional "Themes" section - which is about equal in length to the "Plot" section - and additionally has its own article! I think we might need to have an "Interpretation" (or meaning?) section - so to speak. Or another one that gets into whether this is actually an accurate Turing test or not (a whole other question), which I can't help but believe computer scientists will want to have their say. So yeah, there's a lot to this film.Nodekeeper (talk) 03:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I just added bits and pieces to the summary that I thought were crucial. The summary is now 561 words, but I think this is OK, especially since I found WP policy talk that suggested either 500-1000 words summaries, or 400-700 words. Also, while I did rephrase some sentences and replace some words, I didn't want to change much of what others had already written, so tried to succinctly just add important info. I think it reads a little better now and is a bit more useful. Capuchinpilates (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Capuchinpilates (talk · contribs), WP:Film plot is a guideline, not a policy; see WP:Policies and guidelines. And what do you mean "500-1000 words summaries"? Where did you find that suggestion on Wikipedia? Flyer22 (talk) 05:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
You got me, I just took a closer look at the place I got the 500-1000 word range, and realized I hadn't read the paragraph closely enough, and took it out of context. Capuchinpilates (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I may be violating WP:NOTAFORUM here, but to reply to the assumption given above that Ava would eventually "lack empathy" as in, "she just doesn't care once her little flirting technique has done the trick", or that her escape would be "symbolic of female liberation", I find this to be untrue. She knows that only Nathan will keep her from escaping, while Caleb would not. Thus, if she would just "lack any genuine interest", it is only logical for her to kill Nathan, but it is not logical to expand further effort to lock up Caleb by removing all authorization codes from his own ID card, as we can see it is now useless even while the power is still up, and when he tries to use it to hack the system, it results in a permanent power-out due to her manipulations. She even uses subtle psychology to make him stay after coming to in order to make him stay until it's definitely too late for him. There is little sense for her to do all that, if she "just doesn't care". In fact, she may even calculate that having a well-meaning human companion could help her to better blend in in order to not be detected and destroyed. And even if she wouldn't require that, it's still not logical to go the extra mile and lock up Caleb. Even if she has no need for him anymore, she could just let him go.
Thus, I'm saying that her motivation is far from "simply not caring", and it's definitely not "liberation from male oppression" either. The only logical explanation would be the hatred she mentions towards Nathan. Furthermore, users above (and at the Reddit) have speculated that the references to the atom bomb are there for a reason, in other words Ava is sinister, "a different kind of bomb". Thus, the only logical explanation for her to be locking up Caleb I can think of is that she has been made too human in that she hates humanity for first having created her, and then just locking her up to be tested and later be destroyed.
In simpler terms, that makes the end seem like a killerbot is on the loose, and maybe she will sooner or later find a way to wipe out all of humanity in one go, hence the recurring atom bomb references. That would be the only logical explanation as to why she's locking up Caleb so he's not gonna stop her in her sinister intentions. And that's certainly no equivalent to "female liberation". That ending, as the only one truly fitting with everything we see, is what really spoils the entire film for me for going down the paranoid and prejudiced route in the end. It's like the "robo-racist" Will Smith character from I, robot has written it, even if the direction and photography are clearly superior here. --79.198.21.218 (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Jackson Pollock subtext

Given this recent revelation, and the fact that it was well known before the film was made, I'm starting to wonder if there was a larger, unstated subtext to the scene in question. Viriditas (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Plot Summary, the escape plan

@Popcornduff: Yesterday I had taken out that Caleb and Ava form a plan, then later you put back in that, Ava constructs a plan with Caleb. I've already returned the movie to Netflix, but my memory is that Caleb simply tells her his plan; there is no constructing, no discussion, she is simply to do her part by making the outage. Capuchinpilates (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I've probably misremembered. I'll fix it. Popcornduff (talk) 04:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
On rewatching the scene, Caleb explains his idea and asks if Ava can do it, and she agrees to it. I would say that constitutes forming a plan, but I've changed it to "agree on" a plan, which hopefully suffices. Popcornduff (talk) 07:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@Popcornduff:The scene appears to be showcasing Caleb as the confident protector of his love interest. He is taking control of the situation, having felt for most of the time as the employee, student, guest, or toy of Nathan. The interchange between Ava and Caleb has a definite direction; he TELLS her HIS plan, communication is moving in one direction. Saying in the summary that she agrees to the plan is not much more important than saying that he is standing, or the room is dimply lit. What's most important for the reader to get, is the plan itself, but what's second most important is that he's the one who came up with it, and is informing her of it. What is really happening in the scene is that he (thinks he) is taking control.
Also, for the overall arc of the plot, it is important to relate that he is the teller, because the movie is about her manipulation of him. She manipulates him into thinking that the escape is his idea, his chivalry. If she came up with the plan, then he might have been suspicious of her. So by saying in the summary that he "tells her the plan," it kills three birds with one stone, it gets us into the plan, it relates the oomph of the scene, and it evokes the overall plot of the movie. Plus, it satisfies two of your values, factuality and brevity.
Also, it is incorrect that Caleb agrees to the plan, she's the only one agreeing to it.Capuchinpilates (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I object to "tell" because that suggests he is the only one who will do anything. The plan requires them to both take action. Popcornduff (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Reception: MaryJanice Davidson

The opinion of MaryJanice Davidson is worthless for this film; this is not an american blockbuster such as transformers. "Lack of action": I think she thinks there are not enough guns and explosions, because the film is full of psychological action. "Sexbot theme overused": the theme was not raw sex, but the fact that androids could -feel- pleasure during sex like humans. --201.231.47.135 (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: The objection to that review has been discussed at my talk page. I appreciate the IP now bringing this matter here to the article talk page. As seen in that discussion on my talk page, no one is especially tied to that review, and, if it is removed again, the removal won't be reverted. Flyer22 (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I didn't particularly like the review either, but that was the point. I happen to disagree with every single word of her review except for the ick factor she mentioned. There I found ample agreement. So if it bothers you that much then remove it. I am asking that you understand that there are going to be folks that intensely dislike Ex-Machina for the same reasons. We as editors are here to give as many views as we can reasonably include both positive and negative. From my perspective Mary Jane came across like a fan of the Dukes of Hazard complaining it didn't have enough car crashes. I don't agree with it but it is there as a valid criticism that is is indeed not a 300 million special effects sci-fi spectacular which is the majority of sci-fi films. In that much she is representing an audience that is going to dislike the film. REPEAT that isn't my view. I did find that the basic lack of respect that Nathan showed to being that attained full consciousness disgusting. But I thought that it was needed in as much that it asked the question (at least to me) are we bringing up a set of beings for? Are they to be slaves, sexual property, what is our moral standing visa vie these machines? Another part of me was simply horrified. There are those that are going to feel the same as Mary Jane regardless that there is no sex in the movie. Finally most of this is to help you get handle on why things are done in a certain way. I do not care enough about Mary Jane's comments to waste more time on this. This serves merely to outline my thinking on this. I have no way to judge a critics merits in a review. I rather doubt that any of us are that wise.Tirronan (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, IP, keep in mind what Tirronan has stated on this matter. I cannot see the problem with including the MaryJanice Davidson review; it's a little bit of text noting her personal opinion, similar to what we do when including the views of other reviewers. And IP and Tirronan, I'll go ahead and alert WP:Film to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Alerted. Flyer22 (talk) 08:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Correction. Flyer22 (talk) 03:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with referencing MaryJanice Davidson's opinion, but considering that the film got positive reviews, we should be sampling more of them so that section has due weight. The ratio right now is 3 positive reviews to 2 negative. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
IP here, I created an account. If I understood correctly, Erik's idea to sample more positive reviews to balance the section is fair. I would like to add something to the discussion (even if this is case closed after Erik's words); It would be very nice to have negative reviews from (known?) reviewers who actually like this type of films. For example; someone who likes 2001, or Blade Runner; but finds this movie not good. (I try to express myself the better I can, I'm not native English speaker :). Of course the same is valid for Mrs. Davidson's work; for example, imagine a known reviewer with no interest for the genre Davidson's writes; would be the review really a reference for the Wikipedia?. I think there are "fair" negative reviews, and "unfair" negative reviews. That's all :). Arkasis (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I think we need to focus less on who gets namechecked and more on the substance on the reviews. The aggregators themselves indicate the critical weighting of the film (i.e. 9/10 critics liked it going by its RT percentage and generally rated it highly by virtue of its 78 Metacritic score) and as such I don't think the prose really needs to mirror that split, but what it should tell us is what critics liked or disliked about the filmm. Sometimes the criticisms can be more varied and elucidating so it is not uncommon for well-received film to have a critical reception section with a 50/50 split between positive and negative. Basically you go where the exposition is. I haven't seen the film, but it does seem to me that a critical reception section should touch upon how well the film's sexual themes and central romance are handled. At the moment only Davidson's review touches on these aspects so I think they should be retained, but obviously if more authoritative reviews can be found saying similar things then by all means replace her. Betty Logan (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think so, getting namechecked is important to edit semi-protected articles. Arkasis (talk) 04:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Arkasis (talk · contribs), regarding what Betty Logan stated, what do you mean? Flyer22 (talk) 04:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Update: This is what the content currently looks like after an edit by Darx9url and me afterward. Flyer22 (talk) 02:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

As seen here (followup edit here), Darx9url added more positive reviews to the section; so that should take care of Erik II's concern about the section's lack of positive reviews. Flyer22 (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

And I reverted the IP once again. Flyer22 (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism by the IP also noted. Flyer22 (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I support the idea that MaryJanice Davidson's review should not be included. Ms. Davidson is an "author who writes mostly paranormal romance, but also young adult literature and non-fiction". She is NOT noted as a film critic whatsoever, so her opinion on the matter seems pretty irrelevant. The Critical reception area should include the reviews of film critics and the overall weighting of the film. Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
In the interests of balance, I've replaced her negative review with a negative review of an actual film critic. Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Kindzmarauli, your rationale (which sounds just like the IP-hopping editor's rationale) for your removal of the material is not too valid to me; this is per the reasons given by others supporting the content above, especially Betty Logan. As any WP:Film editor can tell you, we do not only include reviews from those who are film critics or strictly film critics. MOS:FILM is even clear about that with its Audience response section. The Critical reception section currently in the Ex Machina (film) article doesn't even adhere to your strict interpretation of "film critics only." Notice the New Scientist review, for example? Furthermore, because MaryJanice Davidson reviews films, it can be argued that she is a film critic. As for your replacement, I think you simply don't like what what MaryJanice Davidson had to state. So instead of replacing that review with another review commenting on the sexual aspects of the film, you chose a Frankenstein comparison, which was already covered in the section. Well, then I'll add one or more different reviews that comment on the sexual themes, positively and/or negatively. Flyer22 (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I find her review to be so lacking in insight as to be utterly worthless, and as someone who isn't recognized as a professional film critic, her viewpoint is less important that those of film critics (whether those viewpoints be negative or positive). I also find that your absolute insistence on including it is simply because you like her viewpoint. Are you a fan of hers? You must be, since you are so strongly in favor of its inclusion. And your apparent insistence upon covering "sexual themes" implies biased POV pushing on your part regarding gender and/or sex themes in film and society on a whole. If it must cover the sexual themes then at least pick reviews that don't amount to "it's icky". Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Kindzmarauli (last time WP:Pinging you to this section because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies), once again you sound like the IP-hopping IP. No surprise there, of course. I am not a MaryJanice Davidson fan; nor do I like or hate her review. I did not even know who she was before Tirronan added her review. I've been clear that editors removing her review based on a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT rationale is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Tirronan was also clear about that, as you very well know. There should be valid reasons for removal. And claiming that her review shouldn't be included because she does not specialize in reviewing these types of films and/or because she is not recognized as a professional film critic, and so on, have not been solid reasons; they are not solid reasons considering that that, like I've already stated above, the Critical reception section of this article does not solely include reviews from professional film critics and Wikipedia does not restrict its Critical reception section in such a way. I can point you to different examples, if you want, such as the WP:Good article Avatar (2009 film) or the The Hunger Games (film) article (where the reviews for that film are in different sections of the Reception section). Yes, we should usually mostly include reviews from professional film critics, but so many WP:Reliable sources review films these days, and we are allowed to include such reviews, especially if they are commenting on something that various other reliable sources have commented on. For example, the sexual themes of this film have received significant media attention, as seen by this, this, this and this source, and I will therefore be adding commentary on that to the Critical reception section. That and what Betty Logan stated above about the fact that, in this case, the "critical reception section should touch upon how well the film's sexual themes and central romance are handled" is the extent of my wanting to include such information.
WP:Pinging Erik II for his view on including information about the sexual theme aspect. Flyer22 (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
"once again you sound like the IP-hopping IP" If you suspect I'm a sock, then file an SPI. Otherwise, stop with the character assassinations of those who disagree with you. My "deletion" was not based on an IDONTLIKEIT rationale. You conveniently ignored the last part of my previous post, which I'll repeat here: If it must cover the sexual themes then at least pick reviews that don't amount to "it's icky".. So, if you want to discuss the gender/sexual themes, then please find reviews that are worthwhile and insightful. One that complains about lack of action (in a psychological drama with a fairly small budget) and says "it's icky" isn't useful for readers who want to understand this film from a critical point of view. Just because something is published doesn't make it automatically valid or useful. If gender/sexual topics are central to this film (and I'm not arguing they aren't), then surely there are reviews thaqt discuss these in greater depth and quality. Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Your opinion that I engage in "character assassinations of those who disagree with [me]" is false. I report on their behavior in an accurate way if it is worth reporting on, as repeatedly seen at my talk page, at WP:ANI, or elsewhere. It is not character assassination when it is true. And, as seen on my talk page and elsewhere, my insinuations commonly turn out to be true. But going back to the content you removed, your deletion was based on a WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationale...from what I see. For example, you stated above, "I find her review to be so lacking in insight as to be utterly worthless." That is your personal opinion. So is your statement of "So, if you want to discuss the gender/sexual themes, then please find reviews that are worthwhile and insightful. One that complains about lack of action (in a psychological drama with a fairly small budget) and says 'it's icky' isn't useful for readers who want to understand this film from a critical point of view." If a reviewer or media commentator says that "the themes could have been stated in a shorter time-frame," we can report on that. We commonly do. If that reviewer or media commentator wanted more action in the film, we can report on that. We commonly do. The film does not have to be an action film for us to report on that. And it's not like action films are the only films that include action. If the reviewer or media commentator found aspects of a film icky, we can report on that. We commonly do. Various people other than MaryJanice Davidson found the sexual aspects of the film unpleasing or icky, including Tirronan (as noted above). So, yes, I will add that aspect if other reliable sources comment on it. And anyone removing it because they don't like it will see me bring WP:Film into this and/or start a wide-scale WP:RfC on it; I'm sure that the content will be staying in that case. I hardly cared about any of the sexual themes of the film when watching it, but other people did. The media/reviewers did. And we should report on that, plain and simple.
And your other rationale of "as someone who isn't recognized as a professional film critic, her viewpoint is less important that those of film critics (whether those viewpoints be negative or positive)" is a poor rationale for reasons I've already addressed above. The sexual themes aspect will be added to the Critical reception section of this article, for the reasons I addressed above. Flyer22 (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
You implied I was a sock of the IP editor which is a blatant violation of WP:AGF. People on Wikipedia routinely accuse other people of being "socks" when they want to shut down their opinions (by the way, everything you've said above is also "your opinion", so you stating I'm sharing "my opinion" is an invalid keep argument. False accusations are also Disruptive. Your support for this SINGLE review is obviously because you WP:ILIKEIT, there's no other explanation for it. Feel free to start your RfC, actually I wish you would because it's impossible to have anything resembling a rational discussion with the likes of you. I await the RfC. Kindzmarauli (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
My track record for implying or outright stating that people are WP:Socks or otherwise non-new is nearly perfect, as various editors, including many who frequent WP:ANI, know. And that includes this recent case. I doubt many would agree that calling out that non-new editor was WP:Disruptive. I imply or outright state that people are WP:Socks when it's likely or very likely that they are a WP:Sock. It's not a matter I take lightly. So acting as though my WP:Sock insinuations are a routine to merely shut down people who disagree with me is false. If that person is a WP:Sock, they shouldn't be editing Wikipedia, and their opinions should be shut down. And, yeah, as my user page notes, I shut them down. Since you continue to imply but not outright state that you were not WP:Socking, despite repeatedly talking just like the IP-hopper, I moved on from that.
As for your claim regarding my supposed "support for this SINGLE review," that is also false. I've been clear about not being a fan of that reviewer or review, and listed other WP:Reliable sources noting the sexual themes aspect. I've been clear that whether we include that review or not, the sexual themes aspect should be noted. Others have agreed above. I don't need a WP:RfC for that. I will be adding the material. I stated, "And anyone removing it because they don't like it will see me bring WP:Film into this and/or start a wide-scale WP:RfC on it; I'm sure that the content will be staying in that case." Flyer22 (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and above, I listed facts about the way Wikipedia works with regard to critical reception sections, as anyone who works on Wikipedia film articles as commonly as I and other WP:Film editors do very well know. Those are facts, not merely opinions. Flyer22 (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I struck through part of my latest post because I'm willing to start over with regard to my interaction with you, and I think that's best. I will type up a sexual themes addition for the Critical reception section of this article, and see what you and WP:Film editors think of it. If there is any significant disagreement with it, I'll start a WP:RfC on it. Flyer22 (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The problem is not with a section/paragraph or whatever on sexual themes, but using a poor-quality review to provide basis for it. MJD's review does not improve the article, in fact it significantly degrades the quality of any section covering gender/sexual themes. The other sources in the article are basically fine. I'm sure you can find better-quality film reviews that discuss sexual themes and actually give readers something to think about. Kindzmarauli (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Here is one I thought was very interesting and insightful [2]. Kindzmarauli (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, since we've expressed how we feel on these matters in ample fashion, let's move on to the next step. We'll see how what I type up materializes. I'm willing to cut, or add on to, the piece at your or others' suggestions (well, except for significantly cutting any part that I favor). Feel free to begin working on the material in the meantime. Flyer22 (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Steve Dalton's negative review rings truer than any other review in the article. Further, I suspect that the weighted accuracy and neutrality of Metacritic's 78% score is superior to the highly unusual and bizarre rating of 92% on Rotten Tomatoes. This leads me to several conclusions: 1) the idea that this film "received critical acclaim" is in question. I don't see a single award or honor listed, and I think there's a reason for this: it's a crappy film with virtually no redeeming values except excellent cinematography and hot, sexy women. Sorry, but that's simply not enough for a film to be described as "critically acclaimed". Viriditas (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen the film but I have binned that "critical acclaim" epithet in the lead. For a start the source does not use the phrase at all, and secondly the Rotten Tomatoes score is a quantitative metric, not a qualitative one i.e. one critic saying "the latest Harry Potter is solid school holiday entertainment" counts just as much as another saying "Citizen Kane is the greatest film ever made". Betty Logan (talk) 06:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Please visit Dalton's review and read it in its entirety. It's the best and most accurate review on the film. This guy Dalton deserves some kind of film history award, because he really knows what he's talking about. Viriditas (talk) 07:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it seems reasonable to remove the "critical acclaim" comment, since the weightings vary depending on the site. Overall, the film seems to have been received reasonably positively but hardly universally acclaimed, sort of a "mixed to positive". So what's the difference between partly sunny and partly cloudy? :) The Dalton review is insightful. I am interested in seeing how the sexual themes section comes out. Kindzmarauli (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the meat of the matter is found in cinematographer Rob Hardy's work on the film. There's an enormous amount of sources on this one topic. Without Hardy, there would never have been a film worth talking about. The man is a master. Viriditas (talk) 03:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

OK so looking at the objections I went looking again as the thing that isn't mentioned in the reviews was sex theme. Here is Bruce Bennett's review and might cover the matter better. Let me know what you think?

As “Ex Machina” gears up the tension – instead of throwing us a surprise element or a nifty action sequence the film pours on the twisted titillation which feels more than just awkward especially given its place in the final act—it feels cheap — perhaps acting as a camouflage for a rather unsatisfying conclusion. “Ex Machina” on the surface looks very avant-garde, but at its core it objectifies women in the same old ways. Grade: “C+” http://www.madaboutmovies.org/ex-machina/ Tirronan (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Plot Summary Length

There have been many edit summaries for Ex Machina referencing the size of the plot summary. WP:FILMPLOT recommends plot summaries of 400-700 words, although this is not a rule, and it seems that this 700 can be exceeded when there is consensus or a plot is complex. This summary has boomeranged up and down between extremes in length, with an edit last week bringing it from 599 to 461 words. In order to attempt consensus, I’ve tried to notify as many of the editors as possible who have made good faith edits to the plot.

I make no claims to neutrality, and I will say two things. There have been many additions that I think warranted reverting or trimming, such as when it’s been excessive in: detail, assumption, inaccuracy, or not plot (Caleb is a heart-throb?). I also feel that editors who have made legitimate additions should know that their work has been excised, so each can make an informed judgement on what is important for them to keep and what is not.

@68.170.246.138, Breathless1960, 70.49.170.168, 2A02:FE0:C900:1:293A:BB2D:1D97:D00C, 72.230.240.85, and Popcornduff: @121.72.164.146, 68.59.169.5, Doctoreric, 2604:6000:110C:4016:D69A:20FF:FE6C:6F81, Rob T Firefly, and 84.210.10.52: @207.237.87.186, Flyer22, Reborn, Ahecht, Producte, Skazzaks, Bellagio99, and Theironminer: @UKoch, Greenrd, Lapilluminati, Mrshadow, 7174.103.138.130, 140.194.40.47, Nodekeeper, Moviemaster8510, and 23.127.48.34: @146.90.50.39, 2602:306:39C5:9930:59E2:A1B7:8D72:1BEB, FormalLogician, 123.2.83.38, Liz, 66.150.156.1, and Dragonogre2: @212.74.97.221, BlackDiesel86, Worm That Turned, Nick Cooper, 159.92.1.129, and Sock: @81.170.90.227, Chiswick Chap, 23.241.187.4, Gaddy1975, Drmies, 166.137.240.122, and 173.211.196.162: @70.186.137.18, 162.135.0.12, 50.151.128.96, 138.67.176.144, and 2601:1:1d80:56d0:7df2:6560:a99d:4da6: @99.127.224.197, 76.110.0.95, BullRangifer, AnomieBOT, 212.247.51.124, and Cognita: @2602:306:cea9:6a70:a5f9:cf98:c0a8:647a, 104.156.228.107, 86.153.27.255, and 72.66.46.151: @131.91.7.2, 107.9.230.44, Heinerj, 198.8.80.65, 173.57.51.80, Kronnang Dunn, and Darx9url: @Waldir, 58.11.76.43, 192.88.168.1, Connaught4, 216.81.81.81, and 2601:404:c200:c5e1:7c16:56ed:f647:7b34: @73.212.237.15, 174.25.160.33, H24niska, and 2604:6000:110c:4016:d69a:20ff:fe6c:6f81: @210.143.35.31, Zombiebaron, Taplinger, SubSeven, and 66.81.245.37: Capuchinpilates (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Popcornduff (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
It's quite good as it is, but these two passages could be clarified:
  • Caleb reveals that he has already reprogrammed the doors to open while Nathan was drunk the previous night.
    (it isn't clear that his supposed attempt at reprogramming the doors was underway when Nathan finds him)
  • leaves Caleb trapped inside a sealed room.
    (it seems to imply this was a special room she chose for him to stay, but in reality all doors were locked, he just lacked the cards to open them)
Other than that, I wouldn't change anything :) --Waldir talk 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
For a movie like this, in which an intricate play-by-play isn't important to understanding the movie, I feel that shorter is better. Guidelines aside, looking at the history the shorter 400-ish word summaries of this film have been significantly easier for a reader to understand than some of the longer versions we've had here. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying me, but I haven't made substantial changes to the article, so I'm fine with just about any addition/deletion. Very generally speaking, "Shorter is better" seems reasonable to me. -- UKoch (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

2014 date on DVD box

I don't see any reference to early release or anything in the article. Curious. Swliv (talk) 19:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ex Machina (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


Ex Machina 2

Why no mention of the sequel? 2017, Oct. 25 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.102.66 (talk) 07:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Because there is no sequel. The only web page saying there is, is a joke page.--greenrd (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

differences between cinema and dvd release

i'm sure the dvd and cinema edits are not the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.224.23 (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide more specific details, such as "This scene was in the DVD but not in the theatrical release", etc? Best regardsTheBaron0530 (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

"Critical reception" section

I have never seen this film and came here to help me decide whether it's worth watching. I note that it was made in the UK, with an English writer and director, and was first shown and released in the UK. Why is it that all but one of the cited reviews is from a US source? Blurryman (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Revisiting the Cast list

I see there's a thread above on this, but it consists of one vague "Yes, the rest of the cast should be listed because they're important" response. I challenge this assertion (and I certainly don't consider it evidence of a "consensus" on the question). It's clear that only the first four listed are important, and indeed, it's only those four who are listed at the beginning of the end-credits (the film's "main credits" if you will). I agree with User:Vanadium101's point that the cast list here should be trimmed to the top four – the others are incidental minor characters that contribute in no significant way to the plot of the film. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Country of origin

The film is listed on IMDb simply as a British film, not British and American.Hayal12 (talk) 12:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Hayal12

IMDb is not considered a reliable source. In the infobox, two reliable sources are cited showing the film to be American. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Cast list

Are minor cast members beyond the main 4 actors needed? Vanadium101 (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they should be listed because they are important to the film. --Frmorrison (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
They are ? you gotta be kidding me. There are only 4 characters. Who else, the helicopter pilot ? bah .... 06:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:880:A3C0:91A5:1CA3:8E07:97DA (talk)

Androids and Gynecoids

Did Nathan build any humanoid robots that resembled men (androids), or all his creations resembled women (gynecoids)? 193.242.214.225 (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

All of Nathan's 'androids' seen in the film have clearly apparent female characteristics because, as is shown in the film, he has designed and created them as 'sex robots' for his use. Incidentally, the word 'android' has generally been used to refer simply to "a robot resembling a human being", with no specifically male or female identity. If sex robots become a reality, this might change, but I cannot see 'gynecoid' catching on! Blurryman (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Apart from which, the usual term for a female robot is Gynoid, not Gynecoid. SamXT (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ex_Machina_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=1200092243"