Plaidophile

So, the monthly "Movie Night" vote was a dead heat between The Matrix and Ghost in the Shell. So the host decided he'd have a vote before starting the movie.

Everyone there had already seen The Matrix.

Almost nobody there had seen Ghost in the Shell.

So of course, we watched The Matrix.

But here's the kicker... nobody wanted to see GitS because whenever someone asked him what it's about, his response was, "Oh, it's a Japanese film which is basically the same as The Matrix."

You'd think that someone whose research is in automated fiction comprehension would know the difference between TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT STORIES.

Yeah, an action movie about a simulated world is so totally identical to a philosophical story on the meaning of consciousness and human evolution!

That and when he took the vote, he asked, "Who wants to see the Matrix?" which isn't necessarily exclusive with the question "Who wants to see Ghost in the Shell?" but he didn't ask the second question because everyone (but me) raised their hand on the first one. Had he asked the second question, then maybe, just maybe everyone would have raised their hand, including me.

This is the same host who, on introducing Blade Runner for the first movie night, went and explained every little nuance of things which the viewer is supposed to notice and went and explained their meaning, and when Dr. Pfeiffer and I pointed out that some people in the audience may not have seen it (as a hint that he shouldn't be giving away spoilers), he said, "Oh, that's right," and then took that to mean he should explain the significance of the unicorn and the final scene.

KFJEHSLKESGHWLGhWLIGhWLKGHW

He also seems to seriously think that Blade Runner is CS-related because of "the Turing test" (which any AI researcher should know is no longer seen as relevant), and that Sneakers (the second movie we saw) doesn't have anything to do with CS because it's "just about hacking" (never mind that hacking and encryption are important topics to a lot of people in CS, and that the point of the movie was to show that no matter how secure an algorithm, the weakest point in security are human factors). When I took him to task on the first one, he said, "But they're androids!" and I pointed out that no, in the movie they're genetically-engineered, and he said, "But the story it's based on is 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?'" and I said, "Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that in the movie they're genetically-engineered," and then he said, "But the basis of the test for a replicant is like a Turing test!" and blah blah blah.

When I told him that I felt that Sneakers was much more CS-related than Blade Runner, his response was to get offended.

Oh, and his interpretation about Blade Runner is that Deckard is a replicant, "because Ridley Scott thought so." Not because of any evidence in the movie or otherwise, but because Ridley Scott said so. Yay, way to use that critical thinking skill! You are a credit to PhD students everywhere.

(FWIW, I can interpret it either way. The movie really doesn't give much insight into that bit anyway.)

Oh, and this host seems to think that because I find Blade Runner very badly-paced means that I "wouldn't like Brazil," because it's "also slow and boring" (which he says in a mocking tone). Um, okay, thanks dude.

Anyway. Time to finish listening to the awesome three-way Albumfight from a few Songfight veterans. (I got my copy today. I got signed copy 42/50, but they're out of the limited-edition signed ones. Sucks to be you.)