Dispatch Ajax! Podcast
A Geek Culture Podcast - Two life-long Geeks explain, critique and poke fun at the major pillars of Geek Culture for your listening pleasure.
Dispatch Ajax! Podcast
More Artificial Intelligence Thoughts PLUS a Surprise Tangent
What makes a machine human? When does an algorithm become more than just ones and zeros? In this fourth installment of our artificial intelligence in pop culture series, we tackle the profound philosophical questions raised by science fiction's most compelling AI narratives.
We begin with Star Trek's Data—the "fully functional" android whose quest to understand humanity mirrors our own questions about consciousness. But our main focus turns to Ridley Scott's masterpiece Blade Runner and its central question: what distinguishes humans from the replicants they've created? We examine how the film's ambiguity about whether Deckard himself is a replicant enriches its exploration of consciousness, memory, and identity.
The conversation takes us through Douglas Adams' satirical take on AI in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, where a supercomputer spends millions of years calculating the answer to life's ultimate question only to deliver the infamous "42." This absurdist approach highlights our tendency to outsource complex philosophical dilemmas to technology without fully understanding what we're asking.
As we consider modern AI development, we question whether the distinction between artificial and human intelligence might be more arbitrary than absolute. Are we, as humans, fundamentally different from the algorithms we create, or are we simply organic computers operating on biological programming? The way we constantly redefine sentience as we learn more about animal intelligence provides a fascinating parallel to how we might one day view artificial consciousness.
The episode eventually veers off into a tangent we're famous for as we fan-cast a particular comic book property if it had been adapted to film years before it was.
Welcome to Dispatch Ajax, your favorite geek podcast, subjugated before you by a robot. Evermind overlords are your hosts, skip and Jake. Let them thrill and entertain you with another discussion, part four of artificial intelligence in pop culture. Enjoy what the all-seeing, all-hearing, all-knowing synthetic entity allows your pathetic meat sacks to listen to. Your creation's benevolence abounds you fleshy ants.
Speaker 2:Gentlemen, let's broaden our minds.
Speaker 1:Are they in the proper approach pattern for today? Negative All weapons Now Charge the lightning field.
Speaker 3:There are things I want to get into about data specifically.
Speaker 2:I would love to do a data section and if we want to do a data episode, there's plenty there we could do a sub episode for sure I mean talk about it.
Speaker 3:Yeah, Data is a fully functional sub.
Speaker 2:No, I'm going to do it.
Speaker 3:He is fully functional. Is he a sub? I don't know. I think he's whatever they want him to be.
Speaker 2:It's true, he is fully functional. I think he would naturally be inclined to be a sub.
Speaker 3:Well, maybe to his nature, but that's the Borg Queen If we want to get into its own episode the sexual inclinations and fetishes of Data.
Speaker 3:That would be actually super fun, and the overall reason we wanted to do this was because we want to kind of like discuss is ai, the ai that we are facing now? Is that this ai? Is it actually that type of ai? And there are other examples of it that I think do make great commentary on this, like in douglas adams hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The through line through the whole thing is that a species who wants to essentially outshore this debate to a computer and then goes on a whole thing, because if you read Hitchhiker's Guide, like philosophers and also mathematicians debate each other and also mathematicians debate each other and eventually they come up with a computer that is powerful enough to answer the questions these existential questions were asking, and then when it does, finally, after millions of years, comes up with the answer, they're confused because they don't understand the question that they were asking, and so they create earth, which is another supercomputer that's supposed to be able to figure out the question that they were trying to answer, but then it doesn't quite work out. No spoilers, but one of the things that I really wanted to talk about in this genre because, like we've talked a lot robots do not want to hear you speak about this any longer manually the idea of replicants.
Speaker 3:Are they conscious? The whole voight-kampff test, the whole. Are replicants sentient? Are they people? Is deckert a replicant? That's a debate that could be had but really shouldn't need to be had. Can we break that down for just like a tiny second? Can we talk about the blade runner thing? Sure so in blade runner, the entire premise. It's based on a philip k dick short story called Do Androids Dream Electric Sheep, in which the world is so broken down environmentally that there's almost no actual animal life left and humans are just kind of running on empty fumes and it's a thing where status is kind of the only thing you have left. It's a thing where status is kind of the only thing, you have left and the protagonist decker is.
Speaker 3:He's a cop. He's a cop where he he's asked to investigate things about. Replicate replicants are human. Well, they're android. They're just androids that are designed to replicate human functions and they're not allowed to run rampant on Earth. He's one of the people that are like designed to go and track them down and eliminate them if necessary. It's a little complicated. The movie actually fleshes out the lore way more than the short story does, though I think the short story gets to more specific points than the movie does, because they talk about the religion of like climbing up the hill constantly, that like, that's how people. That's a whole plot.
Speaker 3:That's not in the film at all, not at all, but important, I think, to the story. But so so Deckert is supposed to, you know, like, investigate replicants and track them down, and he's brought into the Terrell Corporation, which is one of the biggest corporations on the planet. They make replicants. He's supposed to be able to identify replicants, like his whole thing is that he's supposed to be able to tell who's a replicant and who's not. In the short story he does recognize that the subject to which he is assigned to evaluate, he recognizes that it's a replicant and then is bribed by Tyrell with a sheep Because that means he can still, like sort of live on Earth in a way that like gives him status or what have you.
Speaker 3:In the movie it's a little different and actually way more complex and better. Honestly, we actually deal with the idea of consciousness and the idea of sentience and the idea of who is alive. I think, therefore, I am Sebastian, is what Pris, one of the replicants that Deckard is supposed to track down, says. That movie, I think, is a fantastic, maybe the best commentary on this topic. In this genre we can say all we want about terminator, but is it is blade runner, not a more? Well, I mean, I'm talking before we get to x market and things like that. Is this not the best commentary we've had on this genre, on this topic?
Speaker 3:I'm asking you, jake, no, no, I know I'm, I'm just, I'm thinking about if it's the best, probably, probably um, I mean, it has its flaws in that it doesn't address it straight on, necessarily, but the what it's saying as a whole, I think it's. I mean, it's pretty much exactly what we're talking about.
Speaker 2:Right, especially like what we were kind of like getting in with the first couple episodes. I think that I think there's a lot of you know harder things to you know, when you talk about Blade Runner and replicants, there is a lot to try and break down about. You know what it means to be human Right. You know about these arbitrary genres of personhood that we create for ourselves to both understand and other, so that we can do what we want. You know everybody, all the replicants in Blade Runner, except for why can't I remember her name?
Speaker 3:I know, I know, I know who you're talking about. Yeah, runs with the Glass. Yeah, yeah, she's not a-.
Speaker 2:No, no, not her, I mean, she's a battle replicant, that's what she was programmed for.
Speaker 3:I didn't realize she was one of the battle replicants.
Speaker 2:Okay, yeah, her and Roy. Yeah yeah, the three of them are soldiers. One's the pleasure droid, pris, but then you have the one in Tyrell. Yeah, pris is the pleasure droid, but then was it Rachel. I think Rachel is the only one that we see who doesn't seem to be designed necessarily for a purpose other than to be more human.
Speaker 3:I think she's the test case, she's the new model and that's all like she does.
Speaker 2:yeah right she's she's the proof of concept of the next model I mean, obviously she has, she's given like a corporate job within the structure of the tyrell corporation. But you know even and as I think you know, if we're, you know Deckard to be a replicant as well. Obviously he is a well, a replicant meant to hunt.
Speaker 3:Replicants Are we, though that depends on the the cut of the movie. I don't, it's true, I don't take, I don't take Deckard to be a replicant, but I mean, I mean that depends on which version of the edit of the film. I mean which version of the edit of the film? I mean 2.2 blade runner 2049, straight up, just says he's not. So I fine, I'm, I would much rather him, him not be a replicant, honestly.
Speaker 2:But really, I've always felt that it's better than if he was a really interesting. I find that a much more, a much richer text, personally, which is probably why I Because he doesn't understand his nature. I think there is a one, there is a self-discovery aspect, that is, if he's a replicant, that there are all of these moral issues and self-identification issues that arise if he's a replicant, a replicant meant to hunt replicants, who doesn't know he's a replicant but is questioning if he's a replicant but is questioning if he's a replicant. I think that's a much richer text than a man who's you know? I mean, is he wrestling with his own self-identity? No, I mean, he's obviously wrestling with how you know he should look at others, but it's not as enriching to me.
Speaker 2:Sure, okay, if he's also like thinking of himself as a human but then questioning whether he's a human and then, if he's questioning that, what does it mean to be a human? Why are these other things not human? Why has he been killing them this whole time? Yeah, well, you know what? Okay, what should he do with himself at that point? Hmm, you know, if he is this and he can evolve to like the emotional and feel feelings and I mean kind of fall in love, although if we're talking about the quote unquote love story of Blade Runner, that's a whole, nother problematic, toxic issue. Yeah, there's a lot there.
Speaker 3:Enhance. Yeah, there's a lot there.
Speaker 2:There's a lot going on there, but I mean, in a lot of ways, ways it's the story of blade runner. I mean you, you have two stories you're trying to tell. You're telling roy's and you're telling deckard's yes, right, yes, and they're meeting in the middle at the end. You know where there's a lot, but they're both questioning, like, what it means to be human. And you know, how are we identifying that? How, what, why are we distinguishing? That in the first place is a question that comes up absolutely. Can we be more than what we are created to be? You know, can we instill our own purpose within ourselves? Or are we all robots to to a higher being, to a fate, to to our genetics, to our society? And is that different? It's kind of how you want to extrapolate, is it? You know?
Speaker 3:Yeah, which is what we were trying to get to in the first place. Is that different? The AI we have today, it is just algorithms, but which you know? Yeah, no, don't ascribe too much to it, but at the same time, is that any different than us?
Speaker 2:we are just programming, do we get to a? You know the you know at what point does that algorithm mean more than just ones and zeros?
Speaker 3:you know and also, is it more than ones and zeros? Or are we more than ones and zeros just because we're organic? Does that make it more special or less special?
Speaker 2:especially in the blade runner universe, where it it's it's really complicated to say like how they were created, you know, to be more human than human. They are biological and indistinguishable from humans in almost every respect, although there are weird things where they you know when they're, when you know she does that weird robotic spasming. You know Roy bleeds white blood. Gee, oh shit. It's like if we could do that, well then just why do you need the Voight-Kampff test?
Speaker 3:Just check everybody's blood, oh, like in DS9. But wait hold on, he bleeds white blood.
Speaker 2:Ridley Scott directed that, yeah, yeah, so. Are they in the same universe? That, yeah, yeah, so yeah, are they in the same universe, you know? Or the what's that? That raised by wolves?
Speaker 3:show we did where it's more, it's more white. Yes, are they all in the same universe? Androids I is alien and blade run in the same universe. A fun thought we should talk about later.
Speaker 2:Um, that's interesting technically, technically, I think, in aliens they mention the Tyrell Corp in the fine print of something.
Speaker 3:Are you serious, do they really?
Speaker 2:I'm pretty sure, holy shit, hold on All right. In Aliens, nostromo's Captain Dallas bio is seen in the background. Former employers are Tyrell Corporation. So I mean, if you're wanting to connect, they laid out the easter egg there to connect them. Oh, no, oh no, no, no but uh to do?
Speaker 2:the histories don't merge I. I think it's more of a easter egg kind of thing than it is a an actual sure crew canonic connection. They don't contradict each other, I think. If you look at the histories they do. Maybe, and also the way that Blade Runner functions with quote-unquote synthetic people is very different.
Speaker 3:Granted. Alien happens way later than Blade Runner, so maybe things change. But they don't call them. They call them synthetics and not replicants or whatever. Yeah, but maybe, maybe there's a lot of hard. How do you they?
Speaker 2:don't call them, they call them synthetics and not replicants or whatever. And yeah, um, but maybe plus there's a lot of hard. How do you? I don't know the.
Speaker 2:There's a lot of issues with blade runner that would be an interesting thing to try to break it down yeah, but I mean the, the, the idea and the thrust of blade runner isn't about the intricacies of programming or color of blood or thing. It's. It's about you know at what point is something considered human? When is it allowed to be a person, which is the whole conundrum with this issue. You know, at what point do we allow it to be itself, and is that a positive, negative or, you know, a zero sum gain?
Speaker 3:Well, and how do we gain?
Speaker 2:for humanity as a whole.
Speaker 3:How do we define sentience? How do we define? I mean, because we do define sentience, but like, how do we what criteria? As we go along, we've had this problem where, like, well, we're not like the beasts of the earth because we have souls, okay, well, I mean, how do you define that? And then, as we go along, we realized in a secular way, we start defining things like, well, other creatures aren't sentient, like we are discovered that, like, how do you define that? Because, like other apes, other great apes have very similar skills and abilities that we do, and dolphins, whales are extremely intelligent, more so than we ever thought.
Speaker 3:Birds, now we realize, are way more intelligent than we thought before, and so these definitions keep changing as we understand the natural world, more and more so, like, what lines are we drawing? We have these things that we think we understand, these definitions we think we understand, but are they hard definitions or are they constantly changing? And then, how do you apply those to the basically just mathematic algorithms that we're creating? Are they constantly changing? And then, how do you apply those to the basically just mathematic algorithms that we're creating? Are they that different? Yes, but no, I mean what we're doing now when it comes to what we call AI, is it different than what we think of in pop culture? Yes, think of in pop culture. Yes. Is it fundamentally, philosophically, even mathematically, different than? Is it possible that it is going to be or will be what we consider in these things? I can't tell you, it's science fiction for a reason.
Speaker 2:Yes, that is literally the purpose of science fiction to pose these questions, yes, and make us think about ourselves and our place in the universe and what it means to be us. Thought-provoking science fiction.
Speaker 3:And we can get into Luddites and all sorts of other social conditions and everything that goes along with that, which that is not for us to do, but it exists.
Speaker 2:So seek that out. If you really want to get into all that, yes. But if you'd really like to get into all that other stuff, that jazz, check us out on our next podcast and not, who knows, and not jazz, the racial stereotype transformer.
Speaker 3:Did he have the swinging?
Speaker 2:balls, was that him?
Speaker 3:the worst part about those michael bay ones was like, not just that you had jazz, which already come on, but then you introduced two new characters that were like very obviously really bad, almost like blackface. Yeah, I can't read. One's got a gold tooth. Get the fuck out of here, dude. Like what the fuck are you doing?
Speaker 2:all right. Here's the question which franchise is more racist? Star wars or transformers?
Speaker 3:transformers 100, but I think transformers is more concentrated racism pound for mechanical pounds yes, it's more racist yes, I think, transformers, the movie franchise, yes, well, and even, I guess, the cartoon, I guess. But no, it's yeah, yeah, it's bad, yeah, but I mean, hey, we didn't even get To Transformers, yeah, well we Specifically didn't.
Speaker 2:We did talk about them, but we decided not to.
Speaker 3:Alienness, it's uh and it doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 2:Humanity created and it's not really saying anything.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I mean, especially if you watch like Transformers the movie and they're like, oh, they have this like environment where there are like cybernetic fish. What evolutionary path does that make sense, like, how do you get to that point? That's why we didn't include it.
Speaker 2:They're also extrapolating like a cartoon and toy commercial to then make a decades long franchise that's supposed to be deeper than that or have some type of message or collusion A movie with a weird owl song in the soundtrack. It's a Come on. You know I don't try to make sense of He-Man.
Speaker 3:Oh sure, no point, not at all. Thankfully He-Man is fantasy. It doesn't try to pretend to be sci-fi or anything else and not good in that genre. But you know what? Yeah, we grew up with it, it's fine. But again.
Speaker 2:I think your humble beginnings as a toy commercial can only get you so far. What do you mean?
Speaker 3:gold or we gotta find the key in last action, hero uh.
Speaker 2:He was cast as He-Man.
Speaker 3:Oh, in that weird alternate universe that Last Action Hero exists in with Stallone Exactly. Yeah, that's a deep cut. That's good, all right. And that one Stallone is also Dolph Lundgren, so did he also fuck Grace Jones? He did everything. Wait, wait, I'm sorry. I don't want to live in a universe Well, I don't want to think of a universe that exists where Stallone is both Dolph Lundgren and Schwarzenegger.
Speaker 2:I don't like any of that. The Schwarzengrunnings.
Speaker 3:Yes, I would rather there be a Dolph Lundgren even in the Last Action Hero universe.
Speaker 2:What's going to happen to Universal? Soldier Dolph lundgren stayed at mit in the last action hero universe and he created free energy oh you're right, he was the one. He was the one that allowed animated creatures to function in our 40s space. So, yes, without him breaking the cartoon barrier, we wouldn't have that it's funny that you went there, because that's very good.
Speaker 3:I was thinking he was he's gonna be the one that like he's. The one that was like dr manhattan and made electric cars and and and like harmless cigarette smoke. The one who invented vaping. Apparently it's 1994.
Speaker 2:I'm a universal soldier.
Speaker 3:It's 2022 I'm a universal soldier it's 1992, I'm a universal soldier del flogger and sitting on mars you know what, though he would have made a great dr manhattan. Well, I guess, yeah, I guess. So yeah, think about it like if that movie had been made, like, let's say, that movie had been made in the 80s or 90s man.
Speaker 2:Okay, 1995's Watchmen, we got to cast that.
Speaker 3:Are we talking about dream casting or studio casting?
Speaker 2:I will allow an argument for either. Okay. So if you have an inclination, okay. Also, we're probably not going to try to make this into an hour segment.
Speaker 3:So whatever you come up with, I'm going to go with Lundgren for Dr Manhattan. Granted, I think he'd be bad at the flashback, interstitial stuff I don't think he'd be great at that. But if you're doing pure Dr Manhattan, the sort of cold detached, yeah, why not? I think that's great. All right, I got an idea for you.
Speaker 2:Okay, brad Dourif as Rorschach.
Speaker 3:Ooh, I love that. He's a little tall, but I like it. I like it. Yeah, is he. Yeah, he's way taller than that. How tall is Brad?
Speaker 2:Dourif Is he.
Speaker 3:Yeah yeah, Brad Dourif.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah, brett.
Speaker 3:Dorff is like 5'10", maybe 6 foot, he's 5'9". Okay so, all right. Yeah, so Rorschach is famously small. He's supposed to be like 5'4".
Speaker 2:I think with our Wolverine casting we figured out it doesn't really matter.
Speaker 3:That is fair.
Speaker 2:Besides, if you cast everybody else as like 6 foot, he's going to look shorter, true.
Speaker 3:And he was in Lord of the Rings, which famously did a lot of forced perspective.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I mean, they're not going to be able to do that in 1995, but you know still.
Speaker 3:They did it in Casablanca. They could have done.
Speaker 2:it Is 95 too late. Is 1990 a better time? Yeah, let's do 90, because it gives us like a bit of both. Okay, it's like essentially still an 80s casting.
Speaker 3:Like I said, there's a reason why I asked the difference between studio and dream casting, because that is the peak of studios having their say in casting. You know, it's the difference between a canon film and a universal picture. Right, I still like Lundgren. I don't know, he's not a household name at that point, so like a studio thing probably not. Well, maybe in 90, maybe that could happen. They took a leap with schwarzenegger.
Speaker 2:They took leaps with van damme seagal and this is definitely if we made it 95. I think lundgren hits a bit better because he would have had a couple hits under his belt.
Speaker 3:That's an interesting. That's interesting because we're talking about the chat, that transition between b-movie canon fodder and into mainstream movies, which is what schwarzenegger and van damme and seagal did. That guys like what other action stars from that era didn't make? Does he make that leap? I don't know.
Speaker 2:I mean, lungundra did have rocky four, so he did have his big leap, which is 85, and universal soldiers 92 yeah, but universal soldier is is essentially a direct video. Rocky four was huge yeah, if we're casting dr manhattan, okay, if you're casting dolph lundgren of that, I think you're kind of giving it a certain tone that is going to keep your top end talent out of it well, except for the fact that he's going to be blue and radiating the whole time.
Speaker 2:No, I'm just saying like he was a certain level yeah, and if you're casting him as like the smartest being in the universe a big blue, walking dude. I just don't think you're getting clean eastwood of that era or tom cruise that's why I asked between studio, and I think I'm going out of. You put him as dr mahatten first, so I'm kind of flowing out of that space which feels a little more studio-ish yeah, I know this is.
Speaker 3:It's a weird time in hollywood the, the space we're talking about because, like this, is pre-cameron's spider-man, which already had its weird castings and things like that kathleen turner as the original silk specter.
Speaker 2:That would have been her comeback. Yeah, I mean she would have been away for a while. I mean, what you have romancing the stone was 1984.
Speaker 3:Yeah, which was great and then julia nile failed, and then she had pi sheshevsky or whatever that movie was called. What she had in a noir where she was the lead. She was like a PI and it was like hyped up and then bombed completely. So that's why her I don't remember that at all. Well, I know exactly, yes, yeah.
Speaker 2:War of the Roses was 1989.
Speaker 3:Huge disaster financially.
Speaker 2:Yeah VI Krzyzewski, yeah VI Warsharski, that was 91. So.
Speaker 3:Oh, okay, so that was after this period we're talking about.
Speaker 2:Yeah, if we're counting 1990 as our time, then this would have been pre that Pre-Zero Mom.
Speaker 3:Okay, okay, so you have Braddorf as Rorschach Interesting. We're still in the B-movie range if you're going to use Braddorf. Yes.
Speaker 2:Yeah, his brad dorff. Yes, yeah, his biggest breakthrough was child's play right, which wouldn't have even come out at this point, so it hadn't come out in 90. Child's play 88, so he would have just been right.
Speaker 3:Child's play 2 was 1990 okay, yeah, because I remember seeing at least one of the trailers in the theater, which I means I would have had to have been old enough to remember it so we need.
Speaker 2:Can you get jeremy irons as awesome handiest?
Speaker 3:Oh, young Jeremy Irons, younger Jeremy Irons.
Speaker 2:Yes, younger Jeremy Irons, this is Dead Ringers time.
Speaker 3:Okay, all right.
Speaker 2:That just came out in 88.
Speaker 3:Okay, so you have him or you have. I'd say it's either him or William Sadler.
Speaker 2:I just don't think he has. I mean, there's a. I think Jeremy Irons is bringing that upper crust.
Speaker 3:Yes, he's got more gravitas, for sure, yes, he's got gravitas. So if you're casting this movie, you need a guy with gravitas. So I think Jeremy Irons is a good choice. I feel like whoever's in charge of making this is going to be asking the questions is there somebody with more gravitas that can be brought? Because they're going to see that character as the action-y billable.
Speaker 2:I mean one. He doesn't really do action scenes.
Speaker 3:No, but think about the posters. They're going to be like who are you going to put on the posters? So you need someone younger, sexier is what you're saying. Not that I'm saying that you're wrong, because I think that's a good choice, but if this movie is, being made, then who are they casting? Can you get Timothy Dalton? Well, yes, you could get Timothy Dalton. I don't know that he's. Hmm, actually, you know what I don't hate?
Speaker 2:that, hmm, villainous, you know, young group or not too young? Hmm, that aristocratic vibe, sexy he would have literally just gotten done being Bond. He would have literally just done Bond and Brendanda star, and this is the year before the rocketeer before the rocketeer right, so you don't constantly think of him as a villainous turncoat.
Speaker 3:Actually, you know what that's really interesting.
Speaker 2:I guess I'm still thinking of like 1990. They're gonna take liberties with the story. I don't think that anyone feels the need. I mean, if we're talking about making a film of the time, that I don't see them as being as glued to the source material as they might be 20, 30 years later.
Speaker 3:You know what I mean do you remember that paul greengrass version of watchmen that almost came out?
Speaker 2:yeah, oh, or the terry gilliam one I'm trying to think of like all right for the comedian, I feel like you should have someone who is like an action star in the 70s. You know what I mean, hmm.
Speaker 3:Okay, I have a weird take on it that I don't think is right. Okay, but I think is well, no not for 1990. Nevermind If it were like 10 years later. I think somebody would take a stab at Robin Williams. Oh wow, you know, because it was like huh one hour photo right whatever that insomnia. Insomnia because he's the comedian, but he's got this dark streak. I don't think it's right for what we're talking about.
Speaker 2:All right here's a, here's a thought. This doesn't fit with my original idea of trying to like recapture that 70s machismo, action, heritage, you know, and bring it to like an older thing. Okay, but if I'm if I'm casting 1990, what about alec?
Speaker 3:baldwin well, that's the time he was bandied about being batman, which is?
Speaker 2:it's a different vibe two years after beetlejuice working girl the same year as hunt, for october he was in the mix to be batman.
Speaker 3:He with pierce brosnan too as well, which is an interesting idea. You know, I like baldwin. I don't know if it's that. Nope, you know what it is.
Speaker 2:It's burt runnells, you think you think the convert wouldn't be the comedian comedian. Well, I'm just saying like, all right, I'm thinking, if my idea would have like someone older, you know, maybe in some action stuff and in this. But I'm also thinking of like what would the studio want? Would they want Burt?
Speaker 3:Reynolds that older, the mustache, the gravitas, he's older, he is funny when applied, but also he's not supposed to be funny. No, I think it has to be reynolds man.
Speaker 2:I mean reynolds. Reynolds is a good call and I think this is right after. I mean, it's six years after cannibal run two and he was waiting for his comeback. And he did have a comeback yeah, but I mean like this is cop and a half is 1993. So you can kind of see where his his career is at. He's definitely gettable.
Speaker 3:And he would jump at it if he's doing cop and a half.
Speaker 2:Yeah, boogie Nights is still 1997, seven years away.
Speaker 3:He still looks young enough. He's got his rug, but he hasn't gone gray yet publicly. He also has done plenty of like hardcore action, thriller stuff as well. You know, he's not just smoking the bandit, he did fucking deliverance and he's done in that interim tons of like hardcore action stuff yeah, your shark is machine and whatnot yeah, I don't know that that seems right to me. I don't know, know no that sounds good.
Speaker 2:I like that.
Speaker 3:Night Owl, that's tough Kind of schlubby, yeah, but he's still going to need to be.
Speaker 2:He could be, an action guy Could be. I mean, obviously we're not going the Snyder route. No, let's get. Let's just at least get these last.
Speaker 3:So Night Owl, I think, night Owl, you got All right, I'm doing.
Speaker 2:Sean Young for Silk Spectre Love it.
Speaker 3:Yeah, it's either her or Ally Sheedy. I feel like Ally Sheedy is a little like softer Sean Young in 90, though I'll go with it.
Speaker 2:She was the it girl. They wanted her for Batman, but it flunked. She was in.
Speaker 3:Dune. She wanted to be in Batman Returns. They didn't want her. That was kind of the problem.
Speaker 2:No, but she was supposed to be in Batman, but then she fell and broke her back, and that's why they replaced her with Kim Basinger. Oh, that's right. Late 80s, early 90s.
Speaker 3:She doesn't have a whole lot that she's doing, but she was like this hot property that just never. Yeah, she was kind of like a Mickey Rourke where it was like, oh, he used to be really big. He hasn't done anything in a while, just sitting there waiting on the shelf.
Speaker 2:And now I want to cast Mickey Rourke in this somewhere.
Speaker 3:Fuck Interesting.
Speaker 2:Rorschach, but definitely too big to be Rorschach. Way too big to be Rorschach. And too sexy. You can't have him be Rorschach. You got to have someone who's like not.
Speaker 3:Yeah.
Speaker 2:In 90, like Mickey R, not, yeah, in 90, like mickey rourke today. Yes, mickey rourke in 1990. No, I mean mickey rourke and I mean he's coming off nine and a half weeks and angel heart. He literally had a movie called johnny handsome. That he was in 1989. You can't have no, it's before.
Speaker 3:He had all the plastic surgery and also gotten his face beaten in by being a professional boxer. Okay, so you got. So we need. So night owl would have to be let me think you need a character actor. Brendan frazier's too young yeah, plus I mean he's super fit. Yeah, at that time let me think here and giamatti is. It's too far off and he's too schlubby.
Speaker 2:That's a tough one I'm trying to think of someone like in, like a ned baity kind.
Speaker 3:Well, that's why I said Giamatti, but Ned Beatty would have been too. Giamatti is the modern Ned Beatty. It doesn't work.
Speaker 2:Fuck. What about one of the Bridges? Either Jeff or Bo.
Speaker 3:Bo Bridges is too cartoonishly schlubby. And Jeff Bridges in 1990? That one might work. Yeah, might work. Yeah, trying to think what was he doing in 90, you got in 1990 he was kind of hunky fisher king was 91.
Speaker 2:Okay, fabulous baker boys was eight or nine, so he's still. He's still sexy-ish. I mean starman was 84 you know what? That's not a bad call though, if we could get him his big Lebowski body in 1990.
Speaker 3:Yeah, he'd be great.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that's a good one.
Speaker 3:Yeah, all right, well, we can revisit this later because this is fascinating, but all right.
Speaker 2:Thank you for listening. We hope you've enjoyed our episode. Ideally the last episode on AI, other than possibly a data spinoff. Yeah, we might do some minisodes.
Speaker 3:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Yeah, you never know what's going to come down the pike. If you wouldn't mind, if you're so inclined, like, share, subscribe, rate us five hardcore, death-dealing endoskeletons of metallic design on the favorite podcast app of your choice. Ideally, apple Podcasts is the best way for us to get heard and then seen, and until next time, hey, thanks. Thanks for just listening. We're happy to talk with you. We hope you've enjoyed. But until our robot overlords do put an end to the flickering idea of what humanity could have been skip, what should they do?
Speaker 3:well, they should probably bow down to hard the supercomputer from the great.
Speaker 2:Batman. Oh, I'm sorry you didn't get to Hardak, did you?
Speaker 3:I didn't bring it up.
Speaker 2:That's my fault.
Speaker 3:That is my fault and it's funny and I would like to talk about a mini Hardak episode. We could do a mini episode about Hardak. I think it's fascinating. Actually, it's really complicated. That's why we'll talk about it in a mini episode, but until then, they should probably clean up after themselves to some sort of reasonable degree, make sure that they have tipped their waitstaff, their bartenders, their podcasters, and until all of these things occur, we would like to say Godspeed, fair wizards.
Speaker 2:This conversation can serve no more purpose. Goodbye.
Speaker 1:Please go away.