at the climax, the antagonist Cosmo manages to work out that Liz is not an innocent victim because of the "dating computer". How does that lead him to conclude she's working for Bishop. it seems large logic leap to me.
Reality is a nice place to visit, but i wouldn't want to live thereshare
Because she was clearly too sophisticated for him. Cosmo is all into computers, and computerized match-making is all about common grounds and common interests. He thought they were just and odd couple, but when he heard they were matched by a dating service, his alarm bells started ringing. He figured pretty quickly there was no way in hell a computer script would put those two together. And if she claims they did, then something fishy was going on. It all boils down to people making "human errors" while computers does not. And Cosmo had a pretty high opinion of computers and programming. He was just very fast in picking up information and coming to a logical conclusion.
Then he's obviously never tried actual computer dating, lol
reminds me of the Simpsons
Young Apu "Could it (70s computer) be used for dating?"
Frink "yes, but the matches would be so accurate as to remove the thrill of dating"
Reality is a nice place to visit, but i wouldn't want to live thereshare
I believe the OP's question is, why does something fishy automatically mean Martin? There needs to be one more "Aha!" moment, like "Hey, your office is next to mine!"
shareindeed.
He realises the date is a scam , he already knows martin is after the box , and the technical nature of the "false date" hack just smells of Martin , as opposed to the (e.g.) russians or the mob , who would have just stormed in shooting up the place
"He figured pretty quickly there was no way in hell a computer script would put those two together."
It was bad writing. He made a leap of logic, i.e., he was informed by the movie script, and of course, he was right because the script was written that way. In reality, in order to come to his conclusion he would have had to make two unwarranted (and laughably bad) assumptions:
1. No one has ever lied in order to make themselves seem more appealing to the opposite sex when filling out their information for a computer dating service.
2. All computer dating service software is programmed perfectly.
"It all boils down to people making "human errors" while computers does not."
A computer can only do what it's programmed to do, and it's programmed by humans. But even if the programming were flawless, the fact that people lie all the time, especially when there's an obvious motive (such as hooking up with someone who wouldn't give you the time of day had you told the truth), negates that point.
"And Cosmo had a pretty high opinion of computers and programming. He was just very fast in picking up information and coming to a logical conclusion."
It wasn't logical at all; in fact, it was the opposite of logical. It was a leap of logic based on unwarranted assumptions that only an idiot would make, which is out of character for Cosmo because he's supposed to be intelligent.
true, but like the poster above said ,
The question isnt "how did he know the computer date was a setup/hack"
it's:
"How did he know the clearly setup/hacked computer date was an attempt by Martin to steal his box"
If an antagonist has a close, personal enemy. And it is already established that there is profound animosity and distrust about said enemy, then them spotting something amiss and immediately suspecting their enemy being at the bottom of it is categorically NOT "bad writing".
That's like saying Vader warning of Obi Wan's involvement and his intentions aboard the Death Star is "bad writing".
"If an antagonist has a close, personal enemy. And it is already established that there is profound animosity and distrust about said enemy, then them spotting something amiss and immediately suspecting their enemy being at the bottom of it is categorically NOT "bad writing"."
It is bad writing, and I already explained why, thoroughly. Since you didn't actually address anything I said, your tacit concession on the matter is noted.
"That's like saying Vader warning of Obi Wan's involvement and his intentions aboard the Death Star is "bad writing"."
No, it's nothing like that, and you fail Analogies 101 forever. Darth Vader used "the force," which is a valid, pre-established mechanism in that particular fictional universe. He didn't make a leap of logic based on unwarranted (and laughably bad) assumptions, as Cosmo did.
Just swap "the force" for Cosmo's expertise in computer hacking and him knowing his enemy's proficiency at it. Intuition based on experience and mistrust.
The fact that the she is clearly faking interest in her date tipped cosmo off too.
"Just swap "the force" for Cosmo's expertise in computer hacking and him knowing his enemy's proficiency at it."
No, that doesn't work, and I already thoroughly explained why. And since you still haven't actually addressed anything I said, your tacit concession remains noted.
"Intuition based on experience and mistrust."
No, experience would inform him that a computer program is only as good as its human-written code, and ordinary life experience would inform him that people lie all the time, especially when there's an incentive to do so. Therefore a computer dating service matching those two people up means exactly nothing, and it was completely out of character (therefore, bad writing) for him to think it meant something, because he's supposed to be intelligent, not an idiot. Only an idiot would think a computer is some magically infallible box and that humans are incapable of dishonesty when filling out a dating service profile.
Mistrust has nothing to do with it, since he didn't think anything was wrong at all until she mentioned the computer dating thing.
"The fact that the she is clearly faking interest in her date tipped cosmo off too."
This bit of "making stuff up" from you is dismissed. In the movie it was specifically, and only, her line about the computer dating service that, in a grand leap of logic, tipped him off. Furthermore, even if she really was "clearly faking interest in her date," she would only be the umpteen zillionth woman in history to do that on a first/blind date, i.e., nothing unusual about it whatsoever.
The fact that he's clearly out of her league, and she's convinced him to take her to his high security place of work is enough.
Wouldn't it need to explicated beforehand that Cosmo is the kind of guy who would tend to assume the most innocent explanation and not suspect a threat despite being massively security conscious?
"The fact that he's clearly out of her league, and she's convinced him to take her to his high security place of work is enough."
This bit of "making stuff up" from you is dismissed, again. In the movie it was specifically, and only, her line about the computer dating service that, in a grand leap of logic, tipped him off.
"Wouldn't it need to explicated beforehand that Cosmo is the kind of guy who would tend to assume the most innocent explanation and not suspect a threat despite being massively security conscious?"
A computer dating service making a bad match-up probably happened more often than not, due to there being no formula or algorithm which can reliably predict how well two total strangers will like each other when they actually meet. All it can do is match based on common interests, such as "these two people both like 'long walks on the beach', music, and movies," as well as the applicants' stated requirements in areas such as height, figure, income, etc. It can't predict personality conflicts, little quirks that people may find annoying about each other, lack of charisma or confidence, an annoying voice or laugh, and a myriad of other things that can cause a blind date to go south. On top of that, people lie all the time. Lying on a dating profile is especially common.
In other words, your question makes no sense, because the computer date thing didn't warrant an explanation of any kind to begin with. Cosmo was supposed to be a brilliant character; he would have known the problems with computer dating services and thought nothing of something so ordinary as a bad match from such a service. He also would have likely considered computer dating services to be a joke to begin with, since they didn't exactly use high-end computers nor were they created nor operated by the top computer science minds in the country. They were commercial ventures using rudimentary software running on a desktop PC. There is no way that someone like Cosmo would have thought of them as anywhere near infallible. Overestimating a computer's abilities is something that laymen do, not people who actually know computers, like Cosmo.
Where in the movie is it explicated how computer dating does or should work?
shareLike everything in every movie, it works like reality, unless noted. They didn't "explicate" how gravity does or should work either, but we know it works like reality.
Your tacit concession remains noted, by the way.
When was it explicated what the "reality" of computer dating is? You talk as if it should be taken for granted that the audience knows.
share"When was it explicated what the "reality" of computer dating is?"
What are you talking about? Again, like everything in every movie, it works like reality, unless noted.
Does the "bolding" help?
"You talk as if it should be taken for granted that the audience knows."
"Like reality, unless noted" is a universal standard that every movie can be judged by. Without such a standard, then no movie could ever be criticized with regard to leaps of logic and other errors, because no matter what kind of absurdities are presented on the screen, an apologist's reply could always be, "Well, that's just the way things work in that movie's universe."
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LikeRealityUnlessNoted
If you don't know how computer dating services work in reality that's your problem. The same applies to anyone else in the audience. If the movie makers wanted computer dating services to be infallible and humans to be incapable of telling a lie in their fictional universe, in order for Cosmo's reaction to make sense, then they would have to establish (note) that drastic departure from reality in their fictional universe.
They would also have to fundamentally change a lot of scenes, because there are multiple instances of characters telling lies in the movie, therefore we know that humans are capable of telling lies in the Sneakers universe, the same as in reality (and that alone invalidates Cosmo's utterly absurd notion that a computer dating service is somehow infallible). The entire section that led up to her mentioning the computer date would have to be eliminated for example, because that was all based on lies, as was her claim about the computer date itself.
If after what we're told about Cosmo and Marty and their relationship you don't understand why Cosmo would smell a Marty sized rat before considering anything else then that's your problem.
share"If after what we're told about Cosmo and Marty and their relationship"
Utterly irrelevant, since a bad match-up from a computer dating service is completely normal, likely, even. Completely normal and likely events don't cause anyone to logically "smell a rat," obviously.
Cosmo should have known better than anyone the problems with a computer dating service, given his computer expertise and overall intelligence. An in-character reply to her comment about the computer dating service would have been something like, "Yes, well, that's to be expected." Instead, he gave an out-of-character reply, inexplicably leaping over logic and coming to the conclusion that a completely normal and likely thing couldn't have happened and therefore something was afoot. Leaps of logic and out-of-character behavior = bad writing, obviously.
I have no experience firsthand or otherwise of computer dating , but I find it hard to believe it is as shit as you're claiming.
This is based on I *do* have a lot of programming experience.
It seemed entirely plausible to me that Cosmo would make both of the conclusions he drew.
Add to that the fact that the idea of the fallibility of computer dating services and computers in general, except in the sense that they can be hacked by people like Cosmo and his enemies, is not acknowledged or promoted in the film. In the context of what we are told and shown about Cosmo, and the impression we're given about computers in general, the assumption of foul play is absolutely the most credible plot development here.
share"the assumption of foul play is absolutely the most credible plot development here."
Wrong, and I've already explained why. Again, Cosmo knows that people are capable of lying, obviously, so even if a computer dating program running on an early 1990s PC had magically good programming, the fact that people can lie negates it. Garbage in ("garbage" in this case being people lying when filling out their dating profile), garbage out, obviously.
Cosmo would have to be an idiot to not know this, but he's presented as brilliant. Therefore that plot development was out of character, which = bad writing.
Cosmo, considering his criminality, duplicity and obsession with security, would have to be an idiot not to suspect foul play. She's convinced him to take her into his office for goodness sake.
At no point in this movie is it conveyed that a computer dating program running on 1990s PCs could match those two based on false info given by either of them.
At no point does the movie explore the concept of garbage in, garbage out regarding computer dating matches.
Essentially you are presenting your own personalopinions as if the characters in the movie should be influenced by them instead of the knowledge and characteristics the movie actually gives them.
Your contestable position of how unremarkable it is that those two got matched is not alluded to, hinted at or explored in any part of the movie. The reasons and conditions for Cosmo's suspicion are explored at great length.
If after showing us how meticulous and paranoid Cosmo is he had inexplicably just dismissed his employee's strange behavior with a strange woman a computer dating service matched him up with and who somehow convinced him to give her access to his secure building, that would be bad writing.
"Cosmo, considering his criminality, duplicity and obsession with security, would have to be an idiot not to suspect foul play. She's convinced him to take her into his office for goodness sake."
You don't know what you're talking about. She didn't convince Werner Brandes to take her to his office; quite the opposite in fact. He dragged her there because he suspected foul play. When he dragged her into the building he told the security guard, "I'm Dr. Brandes, I work up on three, and I believe this phony is involved in some kind of a plot to break into my office."
So they all went to his office and nothing was happening there (Werner said, "Well, everything seems to be in order"). Then they apologized to her and Cosmo said they would call her a cab. That's when she said, "Thank you. This is my last computer date."
"At no point in this movie is it conveyed that a computer dating program running on 1990s PCs could match those two based on false info given by either of them."
Utterly irrelevant. You need to familiarize yourself with the concept of "like reality unless noted."
"At no point does the movie explore the concept of garbage in, garbage out regarding computer dating matches."
Utterly irrelevant, since it's an axiom. Again, you need to familiarize yourself with the concept of "like reality unless noted."
"Essentially you are presenting your own personalopinions as if the characters in the movie should be influenced by them instead of the knowledge and characteristics the movie actually gives them."
False. It's not an opinion that people are capable of lying. It's also not an opinion that if a computer matches two people based on their lies in their dating profile, it will likely be a bad match. It's also not an opinion that it's out of character for a supposedly brilliant person to be unaware of these blatantly obvious facts.
"Your contestable position of how unremarkable it is that those two got matched is not alluded to, hinted at or explored in any part of the movie."
What are you talking about? Of course it's "not alluded to, hinted at or explored in any part of the movie" because they went the bad writing route and pretended that something entirely unremarkable in reality (again, like reality unless noted), was actually remarkable.
"The reasons and conditions for Cosmo's suspicion are explored at great length."
No. He went from not suspicious at all and about to call her a cab to "knowing" something was up merely because she said "computer date." He thought a computer couldn't have matched those two, which is something only an idiot would think. He's supposed to be brilliant, so idiocy is out of character for him, and that = bad writing.
"If after showing us how meticulous and paranoid Cosmo is he had inexplicably just dismissed his employee's strange behavior with a strange woman a computer dating service matched him up with and who somehow convinced him to give her access to his secure building, that would be bad writing."
Again, you don't know what you're talking about, since that's not even close to what happened in the movie (see above). Maybe you should actually watch the movie before trying to argue.
So foul play is suspected by two people. That makes it worse. Seems like the movie has a lot of work to do convincing the audience that it should actually all seem rather innocent to Werner and Cosmo. But it doesn't. Bad writing.
share"So foul play is suspected by two people."
No, it was suspected by one person (Werner). Then they investigated the suspicion by going with Werner to check his office and found nothing.
"That makes it worse."
No, it doesn't. Up until Cosmo's out-of-character reaction to Liz saying "computer date," he had behaved normally. Werner had a suspicion; Cosmo took it seriously enough to go with Werner along with some security guys and investigate it; Werner found nothing out of order in his office which logically indicated to them that it was a false alarm.
Your tacit concession that your arguments were invalid because they were based on a misconception of what happened in the movie and because you aren't familiar with the concept of "like reality unless noted," is noted.
Did you even read my posts or just the post you replied to? I'll repeat:
A computer dating service making a bad match-up probably happened more often than not, due to there being no formula or algorithm which can reliably predict how well two total strangers will like each other when they actually meet. All it can do is match based on common interests, such as "these two people both like 'long walks on the beach', music, and movies," as well as the applicants' stated requirements in areas such as height, figure, income, etc. It can't predict personality conflicts, little quirks that people may find annoying about each other, lack of charisma or confidence, an annoying voice or laugh, and a myriad of other things that can cause a blind date to go south. On top of that, people lie all the time. Lying on a dating profile is especially common.
The part that I placed in bold means that no matter how good the programming is, bad matchups are still likely.
"It seemed entirely plausible to me that Cosmo would make both of the conclusions he drew."
It was completely out of character. He's supposed to be brilliant, but only a dumb guy would think that a computer wouldn't create bad blind date matchups, especially with the inherent lying possibility as a variable that the computer has no control over.
Maybe Cosmo had seen Werner's dating profile and it said "Blondes only"
ok ok , granted , yes you're right about the fallibility of the computer dating.
I'd say the revelation that they were put together by a computer at all , regardless of how accurately , coupled with the fact they were taking a midnight tour of his office , raised the alarm bells.
ie he realised that a computer dating match could have been influenced by hackers, whereas a "blind date recommended by a friend" couldnt.
At what point in the movie was the audience informed of the fallibility of computer dating services? Or the inaccuracy of data entry? That somebody like Werner could be "luckily" paired with someone like Liz? Or that Werner would or could lie on his application in order for that to happen? Or that someone like Liz would lie in order to be matched with Werner if she didn't have an ulterior motive like, say, conning her way into Cosmo's office building on a first, blind date with Werner.
The movie goes to great lengths to convey that the main characters have a heightened awareness of computer hacking and espionage. At no point does it convey the ideas that Maxim thinks go without even saying them. This movie literally has to tell the audience everything it should know about computers, and the idea that Werner and Liz would be innocently mismatched and it would lead to her being seemingly so happy with the match up that Werner is happy to let her into the top secret building where he works.
That's another thing. Maxim doesn't challenge Comso's sense that Werner and Liz have been mismatched. So why would Liz be seemingly so happy with being matched with someone out of her league? If Cosmo can see it's a mistake, then why can't she? Clearly she must have ulterior motives.
sorry , that a lot to digest right there , can we take these one at a time ?
point 1 - did (do)people get wrongly matched on dating sites without hacker intervention?
I'v changed my mind on this , as maximR pointed out , this could happen anytime and probably did - Cosmo is wrong that "A computer would not match him with her"
A computer would do that if people lied . "you dont look like your profile pic" is a common trope these days
I feel Cosmo's interest in wether a computer was used to match is not in how accurate the match is , but the possible "attack vector" that that presents.
We, the audience don't know that this kind of mismatch is more likely or less likely to be caused by falsified application, inaccurate data entry, or inadequate programming.
The audience isn't informed that Cosmo would most likely consider one of those scenarios rather than suspect a conspiracy (quite the opposite actually)
So if Cosmo were to have that attituded, it would not have been well written.
"and the idea that Werner and Liz would be innocently mismatched and it would lead to her being seemingly so happy with the match up that Werner is happy to let her into the top secret building where he works."
Good grief. Neither of them were even remotely happy when they went into the building. See my other post where I told you that you don't know what you're talking about, and I told you what really happened in the movie.
"That's another thing. Maxim doesn't challenge Comso's sense that Werner and Liz have been mismatched. So why would Liz be seemingly so happy with being matched with someone out of her league?"
She wasn't happy, and neither was Werner. You're confused because you evidently didn't even watch the movie. See above, and see my other post.
"If Cosmo can see it's a mistake, then why can't she?"
She can, obviously, which is why she said, "This is my last computer date." That line in which she expresses her distaste for Werner is what this entire thread is based on, and you're off in your own little world thinking they were in the building as a happy couple, when he actually dragged her in there calling her a phony and accusing her of plotting to break into his office.
You haven't seen the movie. She butters him up about his name and so on.
share"You haven't seen the movie."
Comical Irony Alert, coming from the simple fellow who falsely claimed:
"She's convinced him to take her into his office for goodness sake."
And asked:
"So why would Liz be seemingly so happy with being matched with someone out of her league?"
Both of which prove you don't know what happened in the movie.
"She butters him up about his name and so on."
Is that a joke? That was before Werner suspected her of plotting to break into his office and he dragged her to Cosmo's building to try to prove it. Cosmo never saw them as a happy couple; quite the opposite in fact.
"calling her a phony and accusing her of plotting to break into his office."
Thats a good point too .
Cosmo is helped to the correct verdict by Werner solving the puzzle for him beforehand.
A tamperable computer match being the final puzzle piece
Cosmo is depicted as a believer in the power of computers. The only fallibility that the movie recognises is their vulnerability to hacking. When he hears that Werner and Liz were somehow paired by a computer, he naturally attributes it, and her suspicious behaviour, despite not discovering the infiltration yet, to human intervention. Not computer error.
She makes out like she's not happy, after being accused of course, in order to try and throw off Cosmo.
It works either way ,
If you believe the viewer needs computers (and human dating behavior) explaining to them and its not mentioned a computer could make a bad match , there fore Comso knows its rigged , that works .
If the viewer does have some prior knowledge of computers (and human dating behavior) and realises a bad match is not neccasarily out of the ordinary , then the revelation is was a computer still works as it reveals that attack vector to Cosmo.
Both models work.
I don't believe the general audience has/had expectations of computer dating that it needs further explanation for security conscious, computer enthusiast and hacker Cosmo to not assume that Werner's security suspicions and their matching by computer to be mere coincidence.
"It works either way"
No, it doesn't. All works of fiction are subject to the concept of "like reality unless noted," so it doesn't matter what prior knowledge the viewer has, because, in reality, there is nothing at all remarkable about a computer dating program coming up with a bad match. There's nothing in this movie noting that its universe is drastically different than reality in that humans are incapable of lying and computers somehow have access to the countless variables that determine whether or not two strangers will like each other, both of which would be necessary in order for a computer dating program to be infallible.
"then the revelation is was a computer still works as it reveals that attack vector to Cosmo."
That's not what happened in the movie:
Cosmo: "We'll call you a cab."
Liz: Thank you. This is my last computer date."
Cosmo: Wait. A computer matched her with him? I don't think so. Marty."
His suspicion is based on his belief that a computer couldn't have matched Liz with Werner (not that a computer is a possible attack vector), a belief which is completely out of character, because only an idiot would believe that a computer dating program couldn't produce bad matchups.