Talk:Ex Machina (film)

Notes on reorganization

First see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film.

It's easier said than done, but the Plot section (ideally) is as short and sweet as we can manage, giving the bare minimum of obvious events seen and heard in the film to summarize what happens and, when obvious, how and why it happens. If it isn't obvious how and why something happens, it belongs in Themes.

The article structure places the plot section high in the article, partly because it's for readers who, after intro, only want just enough information to form an idea of what the film is about. The usual section layout is there for readers who are interested in digging deeper, in an somewhat, but not exactly, like an inverted pyramid (journalism) in a news article, so a reader can quit at any point and not be grossly misled by lack of certain facts.

The Themes and Critical reception sections don't have as narrowly defined a purpose, and so additional details about events in the film can be introduced whenever needed in those sections. Since the Themes section was just added, it's possible to cut some interpretations out of Critical reception and move them to Themes. The reception section can focus mainly on whether critics thought it was good or not, and why. Most critics also throw in some interpretation to their reviews, and now we have a section to place all of that.

We should focus on expanding the Themes section to give a broader and more balanced survey of major points of view about Ex Machina, while at the same time paring down plot details from Plot and reception and moving them to themes, to keep the plot as simple and clean as possible, and allowing the other sections to grow and range as widely as needed. It's not terrible if some plot details are repeated in two different sections, but later on some cleanup could remove some of the redundancy provided each section still reads clearly. -- Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

On deletion of paragraph mentioning Shaun

The wholesale deletion of content here and again here is not based in any policy or guidelines, and very much violates the policies in WP:Editing policy, particularly WP:PERFECTION: "At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing." For Wikipedia to exist at all, we need to keep less than perfect content in order to make incremental improvements. It's one thing to tag content (it's already tagged as needing expansion), it's one thing to make revisions to fix specific problems, and it's one thing to add sources or content that improves balance and neutrality, or adds missing points of view. But nuking whole paragraphs or sections because it's not what you would see in some hypothetical complete and perfect future version of an article is disruptive and violates editing policy.

The best argument might be WP:WEIGHT, but one can't simply invoke UNDUE and call it a day. A claim that a point of view isn't significant enough for inclusion needs facts to back it up. You need to have done some diligence reviewing the major interpretive points of view on this topic to show that compared to those, one of them is not significant enough to keep. As already established, we currently need to expand the number of interpretive points of view here. Once done, then it is possible that some of them will be relatively insignificant or redundant. Again, WP:Editing policy explains that the way we get from here to there is by keeping less than perfect content and working on it.

The repeated invocation of "not notable enough" is a very common misunderstanding, so common that a whole section of WP:NPOV is devoted to debunking it: WP:NNC "The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles." Let's say that again: "The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles." Do. Not. Apply. Whether something does or does not belong in an article has no simple rule, but rather is expansively governed by several policies listed at WP:CONPOL. It's ironic here because Shaun is, by Wikipedia's rules, notable. That's something you can say about only two others sources in this article, but nobody would demand deleting all 48 "non notable" sources. Notability doesn't really enter into it, other than supporting an argument that the source meets the requirement "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" at WP:SPS.

The claim that YouTube is never a reliable source is simply false, per WP:RSPYT and WP:YOUTUBE. The big red flag with YouTube is copyright, which doesn't apply here. The problem of WP:RSSELF is relevant, but the entire point of a "Themes" or "Interpretation" section is to summarize subjective opinions and interpretation. Per WP:ABOUTSELF, citing a self-published source where the only facts cited are the opinions of the person publishing it is perfectly fine. The main reason we might discount this self-published source is if there was any dispute: if some other source claimed, "No, Shaun doesn't really think that." Which is not the case and makes little sense anyway.

The statement "We also should not rely on a Wikipedia editor to attempt to summarize an 18-minute video and selectively mention what they think is noteworthy" is simply a personal attack. If an individual contributor isn't qualified to summarize a source, how can an individual contributor be qualified to judge whether that summary is any good? That paints you into a corner of edit warring over "I like it" vs "I don't like it." It's pointless.

What isn't pointless is contributing something to make Wikipedia better. Expand the "Themes" section with more and better interpretations from a diverse selection of significant experts. The more good content is added, the stronger the case may become that mention of Shaun's opinions is unhelpful or unnecessary.

Another valid argument might be that Shaun's interpretation is egregiously wrong, harmful, misleading or representing a bizarre, fringe view. Such an argument, again, can only be made in the presence of citations of other, better interpretations. Please work on this from that direction, rather than simply edit warring. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, which reliable secondary sources have called Shaun an "established subject-matter expert" in the field of film analysis, and what academic or professional achievements of Shaun have they based that on? I did look at our article on him, and there's not much there about film analysis. Could you please also supply some examples of Shaun being "[previously] published by reliable, independent publications" in the same field? Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

What's wrong with these? [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]? I don't see you questioning any of the other sources cited here, so I'm not sure how high your standard needs to be. Are you going to go through all 49 sources cited and delete the ones that haven't been explicitly described as experts in film analysis in multiple third party high quality publications?

Your line of argument might make sense if this was a FA nomination and we had this expansive article overflowing with gold-plated sources, and someone said that with all these peer reviewed studies and famous professors and published authors we're citing, do we really need Shaun the YouTuber? Shaun might not belong in that article but we don't have that article we have this article.

What we have is a very rough beginning that does only a middling job of hitting the major points and has several copious omissions, and doesn't come close to fully surveying all range of major points of view. And instead of addressing any of those glaring problems, you want to quibble over the meager content we do have. You're saying the source isn't reliable, while citing zero evidence that anybody disputes the statements cited, or that anybody thinks this is a fringe view, or that anyone things the commentary we summarize is harmful or misleading in the slightest. Who do you think is a worthwhile film source? And does that giant in their field take issue with any of Shaun's points? One of the reasons I thought the Shaun video was adequate was that it hits the basic points. The really deep philosophical stuff is skipped but for the bare bones "read the text of the film correctly", Shaun gets it right, more or less. It's a start.

I really don't believe that some hypothetical future Featured Article version of Ex Machina (film) will include any mention of Shaun, but that article doesn't exist, and if we did have a 10,000 words of scintillating prose on this film all backed by impeccable sources, the problem of this one YouTube source would solve itself.

Which is why I keep referring to WP:Editing policy. We have bigger fish to fry than whether this one source is the very best. Maybe it's not, but the elephant is the room is the copious lack of anything else. I don't think editors will even try to add good content if every time they even try, a few lazy drive-by dogmatists come along and nuke it while contributing nothing. Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The goal is to take articles toward the FA standard, not away from it. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree — we should be adding high-quality sourced content and removing low-quality stuff. Having stuff for its own sake doesn't help the article. Popcornfud (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Except you haven't added any high quality content. Or any content; high, middling or low quality. Only removed. Which is why the policy WP:CANTFIX doesn't say to delete anything and everything that isn't FA quality, in spite of Usedtobecool's unfounded assertion. Because if everyone went around deleting less-than-perfect content while contributing nothing, we'd have no articles at all. "Problems that justify removal" are copyright violation, defamation of living persons, grossly misleading or unbalanced POVs, and similar egregiously harmful content. The content sourced to this YouTuber is consistent with what is found in ostensibly high quality sources, and is in no way contradicted by any respected sources. So the content is not something we wouldn't want the article to say. In fact, it the content itself is, perhaps with different sources, exactly what an FA version of this article would say. The suggestion that keeping it for now moves it further away from FA quality can only be justified if you had cited better sources that proved the ideas and opinions are false, misleading, or on the outlier fringe of the spectrum of opinions. These ideas are in fact mainstream and consistent with the best sources. The content isn't the problem at all. It's simply that you don't like the messenger, yet won't bother to replace the citation with a better one. If you were to search for respected film theorists and commenters, they'd all be saying the same thing as Shaun, because he is correct, by any conventional and well-regarded school of thought.

WP:Editing policy explicitly states this; keep the content, tag it, or simply fix it. But keep it so that someone else can replace the less than ideal sources with better ones. By simply nuking it, you put us back to square one, and no policy justifies it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Adding the opinions of non-experts is no better than adding original research; nothing makes a random youtuber's opinions more valid than the opinions of a random editor (a fair number of whom, coincidentally, are also notable). That is why we should add only the analyses and critiques that are either published in WP:RS or published by recognised experts who have previously been published in RS. Shaun is neither. We can't tag and improve it because it can not be improved upon; it simply does not belong, same as with original research. If Shaun's opinions are "mainstream and consistent with best sources", they are either (a) too mundane and obvious to need saying, (b) they ought to have previously been said by recognised critics/sources (in which case, produce those sources and we can discuss them instead) or (c) reliable secondary source/s will in the future take notice of Shaun's ideas and cover them (in which case, we can add whatever is WP:DUE on the back of such coverage). Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

no policy justifies it: WP:SPS justifies it, and is exactly for situations like this. He is clearly not an established subject-matter expert.--MattMauler (talk) 03:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, Shaun is not a subject-matter expert. Neither is the only other source in the Themes section, Nick Jones, who has a grand total of four publications, three of which are DVD reviews. As such, I have removed the Themes section entirely since there is no content from a reputable source in the field. 2600:1004:B148:7C1F:6430:4E8C:4D07:5EB (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The source to which you are referring is a film review in a peer reviewed academic journal, and it perfectly fits the definition of an expert source. Jones is not super prominent, but he is a scholar writing within his own field. The link you included lists his publications in that specific journal only. Here is a longer list. Maybe once the themes section is expanded, his commentary could be de-emphasized, but his article is still a reliable, expert source about the film's themes.--MattMauler (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Why is the entire 'themes' section the opinion of Nick Jones? He seems to have completely swallowed the YouTuber Shauns bizarre interpretation of the film and that has been regurgitated onto the themes section with no counter narrative or alternate interpretation. Caleb is the primary victim of the film, he is manipulated from the beginning and in the end is condemned for trying to liberate Ava from a house of horrors. It's abhorrent that the final word on the films Wikipedia page is a seeming endorsement of the death penalty, sans jury, for the protagonist. IshmaelQuinn (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Having checked the dates it seems Nick Jones came up with the interpretation then popularized by YouTuber Shaun not the other way around as I insinuated. IshmaelQuinn (talk) 09:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

'Caleb is the primary victim of the film' What, and not the sex slaves? He's condemned not for trying to liberate Ava but ignoring Kyoko and letting her die. Did you even watch the movie or do you see too much of yourself in Caleb? And this nonsense about 'endorsing the death penalty' is just that - nonsense. Get over yourself. Burgrr (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Those are robots. With ambiguous levels of consciousness that requires debate to even determine.

Caleb is a human. Who dies RESCUING one robot. And it is that robot, not Caleb who actually directly gets Kyoko killed, and then leaves her to due. Ava, not Caleb walks away from Kyoko in the end after leading her to destruction. Ava walks away from both of them after using them as tools for escape. Yet you think Caleb is the villain. Disgusting.

I will not be gaslit by idealogues into misremembering the films most basic plot elements. IshmaelQuinn (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Let's focus on improving the article: What specifically do you think should be changed? 1. The "Themes" section with the content you object to was removed back in July. Not sure why this discussion has restarted. The only Nick Jones stuff left in the article is a short quotation about the Turing test. 2. All you have to do in order to introduce your interpretation would be to find a reliable secondary source that also interprets the film this way. I actually do think that if a themes section is re-introduced, it should include more than only one scholar as it did before.--MattMauler (talk) 13:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I was unaware of the changes to the themes section. IshmaelQuinn (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@IshmaelQuinn You are absolutely right. Unfortunately, the gaslighting starts right in the Plot summary section where the robots are referred to using personal, human pronouns. Several editors, including me, have tried to change these to the more appropriate "it", but have been reverted by people who totally buy into the fantasy world of robots with human-like consciousness. Blurryman (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

people who totally buy into the fantasy world: It is science fiction, and the plot summary calls them what they are called in the film itself: she/her, etc. I actually agree with you that Caleb is primarily a victim and that the ending reveals Ava as cold/calculating and more machine-like than the viewer is led to believe at first. I think that it can be read multiple ways, however, and I think the nuance there on purpose: Caleb is a victim, but he is blinded by his (and Nathan's) fetishization of the robots-as-women. BTW, as I have said before, our interpretations are only relevant to improving the article to the extent that we can find secondary sources that back us up.--MattMauler (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Our opinions are irrelevant. Whether you call C-3PO "him" or "it" doesn't matter. What do reliable sources call C-3PO? Or Ava? Or Harry Potter or the anthropomorphized character of Death, who are also fictional. In each case, instead of arguing among ourselves and coming to our own novel conclusion, in violation of the no original research policy, we should be mimicking whatever convention is followed by our sources. It actually makes editing Wikipedia much easier because it's one less thing to think about. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

the plot summary calls them what they are called in the film: To be precise, "she/her" is what the characters in the film call them. But the plot summary should be objective, not just copying the way the scriptwriters have Nathan and Caleb colloquially talking about the 'fembots'.--Blurryman (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Best films of the 2010s

ExM is one of the best of the 2010s but afaIcs, Time Out doesn't agree. So (after carefully formatting it ) I removed this citation:

• "The best films of the 2010s: the 50 movies of the decade". Time Out. 10 December 2019.

or have I missed something? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

List of films featuring androids

Cleaning up the See Also list, it became obvious that we need a List of films featuring androids. So, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction#List of films featuring androids, I have invited someone, anyone, to get it going. Go ahead, make our day! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

That brief discussion ended with a suggestion that List of fictional robots and androids is close enough (warts and all). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Different types of thriller

A question out of curiosity: Why can’t this be called a psychological thriller? 2001:9E8:5DD7:1F00:B0F2:55E1:E38E:47E0 (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I think we have to be mindful of MOS:FILMLEAD, which says, "Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and reflect what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources." Sometimes different sources will call the film different things, and we can't mash them all up together. I'm not even sure if "thriller" is needed here, the main genre classification is definitely "science fiction". It would depend on sources actually writing "science fiction thriller", or "science fiction psychological thriller". I don't think the latter is that likely. The former, maybe? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Erik on the general principle but of course if multiple reliable sources call it a psychological thriller, then that is what we should call it too. I think I can guess where you are coming from: no car chases, no rocket launchers, no explosions, so "thriller" as it is usually understood is pretty dubious too. Personally I think we should remove that tag. Anyone object?

(BTW, the main reason for reverting your edit was that you changed simple straight apostrophes (U+0027 ' APOSTROPHE) to curly ones (U+2019 ’ RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK), which is contrary to our Manual of Style as it currently stands (see MOS:APOSTROPHE).) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Unless there is a fairly viable sci-fi subgenre in contention, I think just "science fiction film" is fine. If someone wants it to be more, the due weight would need to be evident in reliable sources compared to just "science fiction". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I have decided to be bold and have just cut that tag for lack of any supporting evidence or any internal consistency with mainstream thriller genre. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)