Still don't get why Elizabeth killed me at the end of Bioshock infinite or wtf was up with that scene after the credits. Am I alive or not?!
Bioshock Infinite. Brilliant game but wtf story.
That didn't make a lick of sense!
- Thread starter tippy2k2
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Bioshock Infinite. Brilliant game but wtf story.
In the film I, Robot...
As for Django,
The main villain turns out to be VIKI, who has interpreted the protection of humans to mean that she has to sacrifice a few for the greater good if that's what it takes to halt humankind's self-destructive tendancies. But the thing is, this requires violating the third law, which basically says the number one priority is not harming humans, and to my knowledge, VIKI is programmed with the 3 Laws and has no way to override them. Sunny does, but he is not connected to VIKI. So basically VIKI overrides her own programming without assistance, which cannot happen. This would be explained if she had an uninhibited AI like Sunny, but I don't think she does, and no matter how you reason it, she harmed humans despite that being the one thing that she absolutely shouldn't be able to do, above all other laws. It's all very well her logically analysing the situation, but an AI cannot simply adapt it's way out of the 3 Laws.
As for Django,
After all the abuse he's seen, he just couldn't bear shaking the bastard's hand, that simple. As to why he didn't execute it more masterfully and take out a few more people, that's the part I find strange.
The way I understood it is this:DugMachine said:
Basically, because Elizabeth/Anna is a creation that only exists because of Comstock, by having her kill DeWitt at the baptism it turns Comstock's timeline into a paradox. This way, there is only one choice at the baptism with that being DeWitt refusing it. It becomes a constant rather than a variable with multiple outcomes. What about Anna? Comstock never comes to get her from DeWitt, so she never gets sold and stays with Dewitt.
In simplest terms: Comstock can't exist because he is killed in the past by his own creation.
In simplest terms: Comstock can't exist because he is killed in the past by his own creation.
tippy2k2 said:
Personally I think Shultz was okay with being killed, I think he saw removing Candy as a noble enough cause. Making any sort of action against the shotgun guy would have just got him shot faster, Shultz is a very dramatic man with a sense of flair, I think he may have seen this circumstance as the right note to go out on.
However I don't think he felt Django would necessarily die, Shultz was aware of how insanely amazing of a gunman Django was. Shultz was also incredible upset with how Django ignored the plight of the other slaves (he rebukes him on it as they head into Candyland) and instead focused on his wife exclusively. I believe that Shultz may have viewed his death as a way to let...ahem, let Django off the chain and give all those white boys at Candyland exactly what they deserved.
Or you know, people tend to do dumb shit in the heat of the moment, just because someone may be smart, it doesn't make them immune to such behavior.
However I don't think he felt Django would necessarily die, Shultz was aware of how insanely amazing of a gunman Django was. Shultz was also incredible upset with how Django ignored the plight of the other slaves (he rebukes him on it as they head into Candyland) and instead focused on his wife exclusively. I believe that Shultz may have viewed his death as a way to let...ahem, let Django off the chain and give all those white boys at Candyland exactly what they deserved.
Or you know, people tend to do dumb shit in the heat of the moment, just because someone may be smart, it doesn't make them immune to such behavior.
To add to what uchytjes said, which is basically correct,DugMachine said:
Since Comstock can't exist, the Lutece has no one to turn Anna over to, so Booker can't sell her.
Thus all timelines in which Booker is grief-stricken with the loss of his daughter become nullified
-(this includes the timeline OUR booker is plucked from initially by the Lutece)-
, in addition to all timelines involving Comstock. With all these realities rendered impossible, your brain is dumped in the only remaining possibility; Booker is alive with his daughter.
So yes, you survive.
Thus all timelines in which Booker is grief-stricken with the loss of his daughter become nullified
-(this includes the timeline OUR booker is plucked from initially by the Lutece)-
, in addition to all timelines involving Comstock. With all these realities rendered impossible, your brain is dumped in the only remaining possibility; Booker is alive with his daughter.
So yes, you survive.
uchytjes said:
That actually makes a whole lot of sense. Thanks for clearing that up you two. I can finally stop wondering what exactly happened.Innegativeion said:
I will say though, multiple dimension stories makes my head hurt
Sort of fanboy coming through!bartholen said:
This is just kind of circumstantial.
Shinji knows about the Geofront as it is kind of common knowledge, and he isn't confused because he knows people are in shelters. He even mentions it himself that he should probably make his way to one, since no one is waiting to pick him up.
This can simply be attributed to rule of cool. Maybe there's somekind of economical benefit to having a thriving metropolis above Nerv, I don't know. Doesn't make too much sense, but growing buildings just look awesome.
Because the destruction of the Angels is not the true purpose of the Eva's. Throughout the series it becomes quite clear that Nerv and Seele don't seem too worried about the Angels, and see their victory over them as pretty much assured. Their real focus and the Eva's true purpose is the Human Instrumentility Project. This is why the Jet Alone gets sabotaged by Nerv in episode 7. Because it might very well have been able to fight Angels. But then the funding of the Eva's would cease and Seele would be unable to perform Instrumentality.
Also Eva's are basically gods, and Seele will be damned to give them all to Gendo.
I don't think repairs were ever the issue in that particular case. It was the pilots not being able to work together.
Nerv has supercomputers that can generally read the energy levels of an Angel, so keeping a bead on how close it/they are to reactivating isn't too difficult.
The dance/twister isn't meant as learning choreography, it's for making Shinji and Asuka sync up to eachothers movements so that when they fight the dual Angel they're a perfectly matched fighting unit. More then that it's very much in service to the character of Shinji. If you remember, there's a scene where Rei takes Asuka's place and syncs up with Shinji perfectly right off the bat. And it is possible for Rei to pilot Eva unit 02. Yet it is still Asuka who gets matched up with Shinji, and that is because Asuka is what Shinji "needs" right now. She's that dose of reality that he needs to grow, whereas Rei would just keep him introverted.
I think there's only so much you can visualize.
I think this is mainly a maintenance issue. And also for experiments and such. And again, they're gods, so they wouldn't want too much unautherized personel near them
The amphibious Angel was after Adam which was transported by Kaji who was on the naval escort.
Think of it like this; If you have a giant rifle, would you rather it be on a stationary turret, or in the hands of a giant agile super god, if you have one or two available?
Not saying the series makes perfect sense though. If it did we wouldn't still be talking about it.
Actually, it does make some sense. In context of the movie, at least.MeChaNiZ3D said:
it was the first law that VIKI ignored - the third one is about self protection. Just as an aside.
It seems that in the movie "I, Robot", they have a bit looser interpretation of the Three Laws - in Will Smith's backstory flashback, the robot chooses to save him and lets the kid to die in whatever accident there was. Will Smith even ordered the robot to save the child and it refused. Well, OK, I'm not entirely sure if that conflicts with the second law, however it does conflict with the first. The situation is similar to VIKI's one - she followed the second law to the exclusion of the first to...actually uphold the first law to begin with. Weird, but the movie shows that the laws seem to be more like guidelines in whatever universe it happens. It also shows it doesn't deserve it's title, too.
It seems that in the movie "I, Robot", they have a bit looser interpretation of the Three Laws - in Will Smith's backstory flashback, the robot chooses to save him and lets the kid to die in whatever accident there was. Will Smith even ordered the robot to save the child and it refused. Well, OK, I'm not entirely sure if that conflicts with the second law, however it does conflict with the first. The situation is similar to VIKI's one - she followed the second law to the exclusion of the first to...actually uphold the first law to begin with. Weird, but the movie shows that the laws seem to be more like guidelines in whatever universe it happens. It also shows it doesn't deserve it's title, too.
I think I agree..... The robots quantify life numerically and down to probability.DoPo said:Actually, it does make some sense. In context of the movie, at least.MeChaNiZ3D said:
it was the first law that VIKI ignored - the third one is about self protection. Just as an aside.
It seems that in the movie "I, Robot", they have a bit looser interpretation of the Three Laws - in Will Smith's backstory flashback, the robot chooses to save him and lets the kid to die in whatever accident there was. Will Smith even ordered the robot to save the child and it refused. Well, OK, I'm not entirely sure if that conflicts with the second law, however it does conflict with the first. The situation is similar to VIKI's one - she followed the second law to the exclusion of the first to...actually uphold the first law to begin with. Weird, but the movie shows that the laws seem to be more like guidelines in whatever universe it happens. It also shows it doesn't deserve it's title, too.
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
The robot saves will smith instead of the kid in will smith's flashbacks. It ignores the 2nd law to follow the 1st law. Will Smith has a higher chance of survival so it saves him, regardless of will smith ordering it to save the child (2nd law).
Note how the AI quantifies human life - this is very important
VIKI wants to 'save' humans from harm.
If she does nothing (inaction- see law 1) this is against the 1st law since a crap load of humans kill each other.
We already know VIKI quantifies life from will smith's flash back. So to save as many humans from harm she takes over.
Killing a minority to save the majority must be greater then the amount of humans that would be otherwise unharmed through 'inaction'. VIKI clearly calculated it is. So she goes through with her plan.
If someone tries to destroy her then more humans will come to harm in the longterm. Thus she kills people that try to stop her.
Note how the AI quantifies human life - this is very important
VIKI wants to 'save' humans from harm.
If she does nothing (inaction- see law 1) this is against the 1st law since a crap load of humans kill each other.
We already know VIKI quantifies life from will smith's flash back. So to save as many humans from harm she takes over.
Killing a minority to save the majority must be greater then the amount of humans that would be otherwise unharmed through 'inaction'. VIKI clearly calculated it is. So she goes through with her plan.
If someone tries to destroy her then more humans will come to harm in the longterm. Thus she kills people that try to stop her.
IronMit said:I think I agree..... The robots quantify life numerically and down to probability.DoPo said:Actually, it does make some sense. In context of the movie, at least.MeChaNiZ3D said:
it was the first law that VIKI ignored - the third one is about self protection. Just as an aside.
It seems that in the movie "I, Robot", they have a bit looser interpretation of the Three Laws - in Will Smith's backstory flashback, the robot chooses to save him and lets the kid to die in whatever accident there was. Will Smith even ordered the robot to save the child and it refused. Well, OK, I'm not entirely sure if that conflicts with the second law, however it does conflict with the first. The situation is similar to VIKI's one - she followed the second law to the exclusion of the first to...actually uphold the first law to begin with. Weird, but the movie shows that the laws seem to be more like guidelines in whatever universe it happens. It also shows it doesn't deserve it's title, too.
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
The robot saves will smith instead of the kid in will smith's flashbacks. It ignores the 2nd law to follow the 1st law. Will Smith has a higher chance of survival so it saves him, regardless of will smith ordering it to save the child (2nd law).
Note how the AI quantifies human life - this is very important
VIKI wants to 'save' humans from harm.
If she does nothing (inaction- see law 1) this is against the 1st law since a crap load of humans kill each other.
We already know VIKI quantifies life from will smith's flash back. So to save as many humans from harm she takes over.
Killing a minority to save the majority must be greater then the amount of humans that would be otherwise unharmed through 'inaction'. VIKI clearly calculated it is. So she goes through with her plan.
If someone tries to destroy her then more humans will come to harm in the longterm. Thus she kills people that try to stop her.
It could also be due to VIKI creating the Zeroth law - "A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm." orgiginally imagined by R. Daneel Olivaw in Robots and Empire. Due to its precedence over the other laws, it would allow VIKI to allow harm to humans as long as she was allowing no harm to come to humanity
Right Hook said:
Yeah, I've basically come to terms that it was just option #2 (dumb shit in the heat of the moment, though I do agree that Schultz was OK with dying to get his action through).
I know that Schultz was unhappy with Django but no matter how confident you are in his skills, there's no way Schultz could have expected Django to leave that place alive after that action. Django had no weapons and there were about fifty bad guys (although I don't know where all these white boys were hiding the rest of the movie). Evidently Django was the only person in the South trained in the use of weapons. The bad guys fired so many shots at his general direction that one should have killed him by luck alone before it was all over with.
Again, I still think it was a great movie, I just think that this particular scene could have been handled much more gracefully. Then again, I'm chastising a Tarantino film for not having grace so maybe I'm the dumb one
I know that Schultz was unhappy with Django but no matter how confident you are in his skills, there's no way Schultz could have expected Django to leave that place alive after that action. Django had no weapons and there were about fifty bad guys (although I don't know where all these white boys were hiding the rest of the movie
). Evidently Django was the only person in the South trained in the use of weapons. The bad guys fired so many shots at his general direction that one should have killed him by luck alone before it was all over with.Again, I still think it was a great movie, I just think that this particular scene could have been handled much more gracefully. Then again, I'm chastising a Tarantino film for not having grace so maybe I'm the dumb one
Well, let me just ring in with something that really made zero sense to me.
So, Joker is this big bad villain, wanted and all. Then he goes hijack a press conference to announce he's going to hold a midnight parade and toss some cash around and whatnot. Many of the Gotham's honchos are present to witness the announcement. So, when the parade finally rolls around, how many cops were at the scene? Pretty much zero, despite a wanted felon giving them an advance notice on where exactly he's going to be, the exact time at which he'll be there, the police did not bat an eyelash and make an effort to, y'know, catch the guy.
Ohhh, how much I'd have to agree with this. Being a Bond fan and hearing how much praise Skyfall was receiving, I was pretty hyped. Then I saw the film...IronMit said:
... saying I was disappointing and confused would be an understatement.
Why did it seem like it was trying to make so many references to previous Bond movies? I mean, last time I checked, the Craig films were supposed to be a reboot to the franchise, yet this one keeps throwing in things like the old DB5 with the ejector seats and other such stuffs.
Yet, at the same time the film introduces a new Q, a new male M, and a new Moneypenny. Thus, it almost sets itself up as being before the old films... but it isn't because of the references... but it could be because of the way Craig's bond was a reboot...?!?
Gah! I'm just confusing myself all over again by trying to explain this movie. >_<
Yet, at the same time the film introduces a new Q, a new male M, and a new Moneypenny. Thus, it almost sets itself up as being before the old films... but it isn't because of the references... but it could be because of the way Craig's bond was a reboot...?!?
Gah! I'm just confusing myself all over again by trying to explain this movie. >_<
DugMachine said:
I can understand being killed by Elizabeth, but the post-credits scene was a bit nonsensical in it's being there. Maybe they had to crowbar in a pseudo happy-ending? Or maybe Elizabeth had it wrong? Who knows.
I actually only noticed that when I watched the 3D re-release. And if I may, I shall add two more:Rblade said:
- How did Dr. Grant and Dr. Sattler NOT notice the big ass brontosaurus close to the beginning until they were right next to it?
- How did the T-Rex at the end just appear out of nowhere like it did?
Entirely my fault for typing from memory. Silly me. As for the first incident:DoPo said:Actually, it does make some sense. In context of the movie, at least.MeChaNiZ3D said:
it was the first law that VIKI ignored - the third one is about self protection. Just as an aside.
It seems that in the movie "I, Robot", they have a bit looser interpretation of the Three Laws - in Will Smith's backstory flashback, the robot chooses to save him and lets the kid to die in whatever accident there was. Will Smith even ordered the robot to save the child and it refused. Well, OK, I'm not entirely sure if that conflicts with the second law, however it does conflict with the first. The situation is similar to VIKI's one - she followed the second law to the exclusion of the first to...actually uphold the first law to begin with. Weird, but the movie shows that the laws seem to be more like guidelines in whatever universe it happens. It also shows it doesn't deserve it's title, too.
I don't think that is in conflict with any laws. It cannot allow a human being to come to harm through inaction, but in that case, it knew it could only save one person, so logically deduced it should save Spooner because he had a greater chance of survival. He commanded it to save the girl, but although it must follow commands given by humans unless it conflicts with the first law, by saving the girl it would be allowing Spooner to come to harm through inaction, and so could not follow the command. While it is sort of strange logic, it didn't break any laws, unlike VIKI which breaks the law more directly in order to uphold it indirectly, which still involves breaking the law and shouldn't really be possible for an AI.
I watched Fullmetal Alchemist recently, and feel like all the sensible, rational things that could be pointed out would take some time. There was however one thing that bothered me about transmutation circles. I'll spoiler it, because I can't remember how far in some of this might go.
This is probably why I enjoy Nullmetal Alchemist so much...
Ok, so I get why they need the circles to exist. They need to circulate the energy and unless you have defied the laws of god and man you need a circle to do that. But why do people need to carry around chalk or draw them on the ground? Over the course of the series you see people with; hand tats, arm tats, tit tats, necklaces, drawn on gloves, drawn on gauntlets, drawn on bigger gauntlets and drawn on skin in blue crayon, and probably plenty of others. Even if that only let you do one type of magic ("I keep telling you, it's alchemy!" "I'm pretty sure it's Alphonse") you'd just have that as a quickspell and you can sort the others out later. If I were an alchemist my morning routine would consist of get up, take shower, draw transmutation circles on the back of my hands in permanent marker, magic up breakfast.
This is probably why I enjoy Nullmetal Alchemist so much...
DugMachine said:
Oh boy here goes...
Basically you are Comstock. Comstock came into being when Booker accepted baptism to wash away his sins, Elizabeth takes you back to the point where that decision was made. The story is based on the 'many worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics that states every time a choice is made then the universe splits and goes in different directions based on what the outcome of that choice was. So for example, if a coin can come down heads or tails when flipped then if it comes down heads in lets call it universe A. Then universe B is also created, and in this universe the coin will have come down as tails.
So why does Elizabeth kill you?
Well, killing just Comstock would never be enough, as there would always be an infinite number of worlds where Comstock would be alive and well and could continue his shenanigans. So what to do? Well the only way to kill all of the Comstocks in all of the worlds is to eliminate the choice that created him.
Since he was created by Booker accepting baptism Elizabeth takes you back to the moment when Booker is getting baptised, and by drowning booker when he accepts the baptism then there can never be a Comstock.
Now the bit at the end is a bit of a teaser. Because there is no Comstock any more then Booker never sold his daughter Anna to Comstock, so Elizabeth (who is Anna) never came into being. However our booker still has some of the memories of the events in Columbia so he's a little confused and that's why he calls out.
If you are still unclear on anything then let me know and I'll do my best to explain.
Basically you are Comstock. Comstock came into being when Booker accepted baptism to wash away his sins, Elizabeth takes you back to the point where that decision was made. The story is based on the 'many worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics that states every time a choice is made then the universe splits and goes in different directions based on what the outcome of that choice was. So for example, if a coin can come down heads or tails when flipped then if it comes down heads in lets call it universe A. Then universe B is also created, and in this universe the coin will have come down as tails.
So why does Elizabeth kill you?
Well, killing just Comstock would never be enough, as there would always be an infinite number of worlds where Comstock would be alive and well and could continue his shenanigans. So what to do? Well the only way to kill all of the Comstocks in all of the worlds is to eliminate the choice that created him.
Since he was created by Booker accepting baptism Elizabeth takes you back to the moment when Booker is getting baptised, and by drowning booker when he accepts the baptism then there can never be a Comstock.
Now the bit at the end is a bit of a teaser. Because there is no Comstock any more then Booker never sold his daughter Anna to Comstock, so Elizabeth (who is Anna) never came into being. However our booker still has some of the memories of the events in Columbia so he's a little confused and that's why he calls out.
If you are still unclear on anything then let me know and I'll do my best to explain.
So in Taken there are 2 girls taken, but no one ever talks about the blonde. I mean come on, obviously she and Liams daughter were close friends. I really don't know why but it irritates me so much no one even remembers her or atleast acknowledge her death. It's just dumb