Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Old Momo-tan. Her old chassis is adorable!

14 (23%)

New chassis! She could become a regular cast member!

26 (42.6%)

She needs some more upgrades.

1 (1.6%)

New chassis - if only to tick off Pintsize

14 (23%)

MOAR TOASTERRRRR!!!

2 (3.3%)

Toaster - only because we like waffles.

4 (6.6%)

Total Members Voted: 56

[SirDudley]

*Been busy for the past few days. Cut me some slack for catching up*

Man, A.I. really is a crapshoot in QC. Let's hope this doesn't go down the Clinton path. At least this new character isn't trying to dry-hump Marigold's leg or something. Yet.

I only ask Jeph to resist the breast missile add-on for Momo's new chassis. The electricity is perfectly fine.

[DSL]

@Akima ... yeah, I wish Hyams hadn't done that; the Chinese space mission was the best part of the book for me, from the sheer audacity of it as described (we need huge water pumps? Get them from the firehouse!) to Dr. Chang's final, fatal report on the Europan creature. From what I remember reading about the movie, the decision to "airbrush it out" was made early on, to the point they never seriously considered what the spaceship Tsien should look like, except for one faintly humorous scribble of a Chinese-food take-out box with a rocket motor attached.

[Throg]

I liked 2010 -- both the movie and the book.  The movie was definitely not Kubrick but it had its own deliberate pace that was a lot more studied than a lot of the usual sci-fi space opera BS. 

IIRC, they also played up the Cold War aspect of things a lot more in the movie.  How ancient that seems: who woulda thought that the Soviet Union would fall about fifteen years before 2010. 

[TheBiscuit]

It had style, no doubt about that. I like those aspects, but I don't like it as a film because... I can't really get a handle on the narrative.

Deliciously ironic. Did you mean to do that?

If it was clever, of course. Now, what did I do?

In all seriousness I don't know the film well enough to have intended any intelligent wordplay.

[Method of Madness]

You mentioned the narrative of a film that's about 90% silent.

[gangler]

The narrative require sound now? I think you might be confusing it with narration.

[TheBiscuit]

The narrative require sound now? I think you might be confusing it with narration.

While I agree with you, he also does have a point that the concept of "narrative" is largely foreign to 2001.

[gangler]

Is it? That surprises me. The concept is pretty all inclusive. Does it not tell a story at all?

[Method of Madness]

The narrative require sound now? I think you might be confusing it with narration.

Yeah, I uh...I don't have an excuse for that.

[TheBiscuit]

Is it? That surprises me. The concept is pretty all inclusive. Does it not tell a story at all?

I would say it does not. I would even say it makes no attempt to do so. Instead it attempts to present a series of visually stunning sequences which can be interpreted in conjunction with the novel to form a story, but no story is inherently present in the film.

No doubt many would disagree.

I will acknowledge that several individual scenes do effectively tell part of a story, but no overall story is formed and I genuinely believe it was not the intention that one should be. Regardless of this I still consider it a directorial masterpiece. I believe Kubrick achieved what he set out to do, which appears to have been the creation of an experience rather than a narrative.

There's an audience for that.

It just isn't me.

Aww... my postcount increased, and I'm not an Emoticontraindication anymore.

[Akima]

they never seriously considered what the spaceship Tsien should look like, except for one faintly humorous scribble of a Chinese-food take-out box with a rocket motor attached.

Ha fucking ha! I didn't know about that thigh-slapper, but it would be par for the course. After all, the spaceship is named after a Chinese scientist treated disgracefully by the US government.

[westrim]

Wow. That actually is pretty impressive. I didn't realize all that came from that movie. "This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it." in particular I would not have assumed to have any particular origin. Just something you say in those types of situations.

Sounds like whether or not HAL is famous or recognizable, it was at the very least very culturally influential.

I'm sure that similar words were said many times in the past (as well as many apologies for not being able to do something), but that specific phrasing is now nearly almost always used as a reference to 2001 in media.

Not even something along the lines of: "I've got this pain in the diodes down my left side?"

Nope.

Other widely known 2001 quotes include "good morning Dave," "open the pod bay doors, HAL," and "This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it." It also gave us a lot of indelible imagery, like the monolith, the protohumans fighting, bone becomes spaceship match cut, Dave's helmet cam, and probably some other stuff, but aside from HAL's optical sensor they don't have much to do with AI.

And don't forget "Thus spake Zarathustra", the famous opening music.  Not to mention watching the space station revolve to the Blue Danube waltz...

I didn't, thus "include" and "like" (as bolded) to indicate this was a nonexhaustive list. I just wanted to present a couple more quotes and imagery to jog the memory of references to it that had never been recognized as references at all.

Well, I know "Thus spake Zarathustra" and "Blue Danube" but don't associate them with 2001, not having seen it. (I watched the beginning once because people rave about it, and was so underwhelmed by the "bone becomes spaceship match cut" that I gave up.)

Ah, the insidious hype backlash.

Ha fucking ha! I didn't know about that thigh-slapper, but it would be par for the course. After all, the spaceship is named after a Chinese scientist treated disgracefully by the US government.

Freaky. Not two weeks ago I read his obituary that I had cut out of a newspaper (ikr?) and saved long ago, in the course of checking my folder of interesting articles to read and tossing ones that were no longer interesting. It was one of only four or five pieces that I read in its entirety and it was very frank about how badly we screwed him over. At least he didn't end up like Turing (in before mudslinging about who did what to which important scientist to screw them over.)



Regarding comments concerning its entertainment value, I admit regarding it as plodding and sometimes incomprehensible. My father, who has read the book, says that most of what's confusing about the movie is explained by the book and vice versa. I have neither seen the entire movie in one sitting nor read the book (I have it but have not yet read it) to confirm the veracity of that claim. I have however read up on it and  seen all the parts at one time or another, so I recognize most cultural references that I encounter.

[TheBiscuit]

My father, who has read the book, says that most of what's confusing about the movie is explained by the book is explained by the movie and vice versa. I have neither seen the entire movie in one sitting nor read the book (I have it but have not yet read it) to confirm the veracity of that claim. I have however read up on it and  seen all the parts at one time or another, so I recognize most cultural references that I encounter.

I can not only confirm what your father has told you, but I can state that Arthur C. Clarke fully intended that this be so. I've seen clear statements to this effect in an interview. I wish I could offer a link, it is really rather fascinating. The relationship of book to film, and film to book changed somewhat during development, but the book cannot properly be called the original version, or the source material. They were developed in parallel.

By the end of the project, the film and the book had been consciously crafted to complement each other.  You only get the full picture by taking both in conjunction. This is part of why I find the film so unsatisfying. I also don't have much appreciation for scenes of vast visual beauty which are not relevant to the plot, so... that explains my distaste for the film. For me it just doesn't tell a story. It merely works as a visual and auditory companion work to the novel. Mind you, although it approaches blasphemy for me to say it, even if the narrative of film and book were presented in medium and style I could enjoy more, I find that Clarke has covered much of the same ground and in a more satisfying way in his other books.

At the same time I have an immense admiration for Clarke and I can't help but admire the work even if I don't enjoy it.

It's an important and fascinating work, but I'll never be able to appreciate it.

[westrim]

My father, who has read the book, says that most of what's confusing about the movie is explained by the book is explained by the movie and vice versa. I have neither seen the entire movie in one sitting nor read the book (I have it but have not yet read it) to confirm the veracity of that claim. I have however read up on it and  seen all the parts at one time or another, so I recognize most cultural references that I encounter.

I can not only confirm what your father has told you, but I can state that Arthur C. Clarke fully intended that this be so. I've seen clear statements to this effect in an interview. I wish I could offer a link, it is really rather fascinating. The relationship of book to film, and film to book changed somewhat during development, but the book cannot properly be called the original version, or the source material. They were developed in parallel.

That's what my dad said, although I didn't specifically mention he did. Mind you I didn't disbelieve my dad, but he taught me to confirm what even he says before claiming it as fact, so outside confirmation is still cool. That's what the veracity bit was about.

By the end of the project, the film and the book had been consciously crafted to complement each other.  You only get the full picture by taking both in conjunction. This is part of why I find the film so unsatisfying. I also don't have much appreciation for scenes of vast visual beauty which are not relevant to the plot, so... that explains my distaste for the film. For me it just doesn't tell a story. It merely works as a visual and auditory companion work to the novel. Mind you, although it approaches blasphemy for me to say it, even if the narrative of film and book were presented in medium and style I could enjoy more, I find that Clarke has covered much of the same ground and in a more satisfying way in his other books.

At the same time I have an immense admiration for Clarke and I can't help but admire the work even if I don't enjoy it.

It's an important and fascinating work, but I'll never be able to appreciate it.

See, I disagree. A movie soundtrack can still be awesome without the movie, Garfield is even better when Garfield isn't speaking, and I've seen performance art pieces with music or vocals that would still be compelling without them. I figure at some point I'll read the book, then sit down and watch the movie while reading the book and get the full experience. Until then, I will probably never watch the movie as a whole piece, but I can still appreciate the separate scenes and join them in my mind with the silent parts on fast forward.

But hey, everyone experiences things differently and your experiences are just as valid as mine.

[musicalsoul]

You know.... I saw 2001 at Wal-mart for five dollars last week and I was very tempted to get it, cause I've never seen it, and I've always heard it was amazing.

I ended up not getting it, but all this talk on here about it, just makes me wish that I had.

[TheBiscuit]

See, I disagree. A movie soundtrack can still be awesome without the movie, Garfield is even better when Garfield isn't speaking, and I've seen performance art pieces with music or vocals that would still be compelling without them. I figure at some point I'll read the book, then sit down and watch the movie while reading the book and get the full experience. Until then, I will probably never watch the movie as a whole piece, but I can still appreciate the separate scenes and join them in my mind with the silent parts on fast forward.

But hey, everyone experiences things differently and your experiences are just as valid as mine.

When I listen to music I'm normally doing something else as well. What gets to me about 2001 as a movie is that I have to just sit through all this stuff. I don't don't do very well at that. I like books and comics because I can advance them at my own pace. I get by with most visual media to the extent that the pace keeps up with my boredom threshold. Not everyone is the same, nor should they be. That's why the film doesn't work for me. It probably does work for people who are more comfortable with a slow pace.

That said, I consider the ideas behind 2001 to be somewhat of a retread of Clarke's earlier work. Not to the extent that he is telling the same story, but certainly I feel that the same thought processes gave rise to this as to some of his earlier works. Accordingly I believe that 2001 is notably primarily for the stunning visuals, which is the one level on which I really don't enjoy it.

That's a bit convoluted, but do you follow what I'm saying? As a story, I don't consider it a great work. Certainly not the author's magnum opus. As a film, it stands above other films, I can recognise this even though I don't enjoy it. Before I started to post about it here, I wasn't entirely cognizant of my own feelings regarding the film, so that was interesting...

[gangler]

Is it? That surprises me. The concept is pretty all inclusive. Does it not tell a story at all?

I would say it does not. I would even say it makes no attempt to do so. Instead it attempts to present a series of visually stunning sequences which can be interpreted in conjunction with the novel to form a story, but no story is inherently present in the film.

No doubt many would disagree.

I will acknowledge that several individual scenes do effectively tell part of a story, but no overall story is formed and I genuinely believe it was not the intention that one should be. Regardless of this I still consider it a directorial masterpiece. I believe Kubrick achieved what he set out to do, which appears to have been the creation of an experience rather than a narrative.

There's an audience for that.

It just isn't me.

Aww... my postcount increased, and I'm not an Emoticontraindication anymore.

Well the fact that such a case can even be made is certainly telling, and the info about the book definitely paints a picture. Fair enough.

[0kamisama]

One question pops into mind...

Why do all the other AIs have similar chassis to the one Pintsize has? I thought he had a rare military grade model (with a super laser, since removed), and even Marigold mentioned that the chassis looked strange in her debut comic. Is this a combination Apple store/military surplus warehouse?

Also, I'm looking forward to seeing Momo-tan 2.0! Maybe Jeph will save that for the big 2K!

[westrim]

That's a bit convoluted, but do you follow what I'm saying?

Yep.

Before I started to post about it here, I wasn't entirely cognizant of my own feelings regarding the film, so that was interesting...

It's often the case that however much we may have mulled them over in our minds, our ideas and conceptions still change greatly when expressed.

Why do all the other AIs have similar chassis to the one Pintsize has? I thought he had a rare military grade model (with a super laser, since removed), and even Marigold mentioned that the chassis looked strange in her debut comic. Is this a combination Apple store/military surplus warehouse?

His chassis is just an ordinary default, like the way that most computer towers look virtually the same. The military thing was the equivalent of making what looks like an ordinary tower, but has a titanium case and liquid cooling with LEDs/ a frikkin laser beam. He still has the titanium case, but no piping and lights.

... I now claim Piping and Lights as a band name.

[Vurogj]

Re: The signs in the background.

(click to show/hide)

The right board text in panel 2 read "This sign doesn't actually say anything", with part of actually later deleted for whatever reason.

[Is it cold in here?]

I had just hit the button to ask about that and got the red notification that someone had posted. Thank you!

[TRVA123]

Obviously Charlotte is kept back by the toasters because she is a Cylon.

[westrim]

Oh god, the references! The nerdy, nerdy references! Eye spye a Cylon (toasters), a Geth (from Mass Effect), Izumi is from Lucky Star, and I just realized that the shirt Marigold's been wearing says XKCD. What's the red thing in the third panel? And are the only differences between the deluxe and basic models hair heatsink and skin casing color changes and a bigger rack rack?

So, they really are looking for a human-sized one. Please tell me they get the one from Momo's Sven fantasy, please please pleaaaaaaaase? 

[TheBiscuit]

They ask for "more personality", and get one with a bigger rack-mount server? The only difference between the regular and the deluxe is the (ahem) buffer size?

Also, what's with Charlotte / the last chassis design's hair?

[akronnick]

... What's the red thing in the third panel? ...

You mean the red robot? That would be Red Robot from Diesel Sweeties.

[pwhodges]

Being picky, I would have thought the personality was an aspect of the installed AI rather than the chassis.

[bicostp]

Eye spye a Cylon (toasters)

Something else comes to mind as well...

[St.Clair]

[Geth do not intentionally infiltrate.]

[snubnose]

Naked Waffles win ! Naked Waffles win ! WE WILL TOTALLY GET NAKED WAFFLES !

Nothing much to say about todays Comic, it was funny.

[snubnose]

2001 isnt exactly a very enjoyable movie, it drives modern watchers nuts with its slowness.

Speak for yourself! Regardless of the merits of 2001, quotations from HAL's dialogue are instantly recognisable to the point of cliché more than 40 years after the movie was released. I can't think of anything that Data or C3PO said that has the same recognition now, and we'll have to wait to determine how much they're remembered after 40 years. Actually, the only other AI/robot lines I can think of that approach HAL's for recognition in pop culture would be "Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!"

Meh.

That it drove me nuts for its slowness doesnt mean I havent watched it.

Either way you're disgressing because the argument is about who is the most famous AI and HAL 9000 definitely isnt it.

[Akima]

[Geth do not intentionally infiltrate.]

All of the above, and... Is that a Transformer in the bottom right of the last panel? Is Charlotte's super-neat hair a shout-out to AI? And Charlotte demonstrates that Pintsize is not the only robot filled with mischief.

[Tova]

Being picky, I would have thought the personality was an aspect of the installed AI rather than the chassis.

Referring to the chassis, I think she means 'personality' in the sense of 'individuality' rather than in the sense that applies exclusively to a person/character. It is pretty common to refer to inanimate objects as having some 'personality' in the former sense.

[Skewbrow]

I don't know what to make out of the fact that I noticed the most prominent difference between the regular and the de luxe models in the first panel only on my third reading.

My favorite fictional AI? R. Daneel Olivaw, of course. HAL is ok, I guess. Ahead of the StarWar simpletons, but behind Marvin. 2001? I never saw the movie, and the book is relatively old meaning that I was capable of only reading a Finnish translation at the time, so no HAL quotes from me. Or may be one from 2061 (or was it 3001?). "Remember us, if we fail to download" (HAL and Bowman had merged personalities at the time, hence the plural pronoun).

[Tova]

I don't know what to make out of the fact that I noticed the most prominent difference between the regular and the de luxe models in the first panel only on my third reading.

I am so glad it wasn't just me. I almost posted asking why the heck the deluxe model's only difference was hair colour...

I'm not going to read much into it in my case... it almost certainly just means that my observational skills are crap.

[idontunderstand]

I don't know what to make out of the fact that I noticed the most prominent difference between the regular and the de luxe models in the first panel only on my third reading.

I didn't notice until I read this! 

[DSL]

Perhaps we are enlightened males, those of us who are male. 

I wonder if Charlotte and Leda get to use those chassis at work, but transfer into their own equivalent-of-Ford-Escort chassis for going home. Does Charlotte switch herself among the store's chassis as a prank? I can see where she might find that fun.

[Odzs]

It's been said already but GETH!!

Time for Steve to relive his action-packed past. Steve Shepard! And how about Faye Williams and Marten Alenko?... Anyone? 

[Mr. Doctor]

Charlotte looks really cute on the last panel.... Hopefully this won't sound creepy  

[TheBiscuit]

Perhaps we are enlightened males, those of us who are male. 

Speak for yourself. For all my erudition I'm also an inveterate lecher and no plans to change.

[Doc]

Yay for the Konata Izumi model.

[jc2011]

Also, what's with Charlotte / the last chassis design's hair?

I'm not 100% sure, but my first thought was that it is the hairstyle from Jude Law's character in the movie A.I.

[mike837go]

I'd say we ship Charlottte and Pintsize...

MAYHEM ENSUES!

[Skewbrow]

But Momo seems to have grown tired of the Japanese schoolgirl look? That's a little bit suprising given that she was designed to appeal to the otaku. A brave little explorer of possibilities! Wonder what she wants? I guess we will learn later this week.

[Border Reiver]

She's gonna want the Number 8 model (comes with Tahmoh Penikett's phone number).

The toaster reference did it for me - my wife and I have been introducing our 12 year old to BSG....

[TinPenguin]

I am going to miss that kawaii little chassis if it goes.

I am hoping this arc will end with Momo realising she is happy just the way she is, after all.

[Skewbrow]

Seconded.

[iduguphergrave]

Just noticed Momo clinging to Marigold's arm in the last panel...too cute.

I hope she doesn't get a chassis like the sales-robot has; I think it'd be a little awkward for Marigold to have what essentially amounts to another adult woman living in her room with her. I mean they probably don't have the space for it in that apartment. And what will Angus think?

(sorry if this point's been brought up already; didn't feel like double-checking the thread)

[snubnose]

My favorite solution would Marigold getting a chassis like she had in this comic. That one was really cute.



Oh, and I didnt get what "de luxe" was about either. I think its mostly because those titts are simply grossly oversized. Marigold already has the biggest size that is still looking natural and the "de luxe" model has like 2-3 times bigger ones. Thats nothing thats still attractive.

[kent_eh]

Eye spye a Cylon (toasters)

Something else comes to mind as well...

Actually, the first thing that I thought when I saw the toasters was Red Dwarf

[Sylentknight]

I can understand how Momo is done with the whole Japanese schoolgirl look, (not to mention the scary realities as to why that model is VERY popular). Regardless of her maturity the schoolgirl look hinders her efforts at being taken seriously, and while a Miko design may be cute, it wouldn't help her case. Then of course there is the question of gender, but I don't think Jeph will change that.