Joking aside, that plot element makes no sense, surely? Wouldn't humans still have fail safes in place for launching a nuclear attack? Surely, such an attack would require human confirmation, even in a world of automaton. I mean, it's the same reason why the President of the USA can't just decide to launch nukes on other countries by themselves.
@@Right_Said_Brett They might have in the past but well, considering how there are fridges and coffee machines connected to the internet, why wouldn't people in the future be lazy enough to just give machines the launch codes and trust they won't use them? Heck the human intervention part might just be security theatre
The government blaming anyone else for their blunders and then spending mountains of tax payer money to cover it up and justify it might be the most realistic thing in the movie
It's really not. Now that scifi isn't just for "nerds" any more, and the stigma attached to partaking in nerd culture has been re-attached to just being white and male, there's a huge amount of "normal" people with no analytical ability completely prepared to fork over their dollars for incomprehensible slop.
@@limbeboy7people give me heat because I can predict every single scene in a horror movie. Jump scare, fake out, noise as hand moves in background (the person wasn’t the focus of the shot so duh), and clearly paranormal event that is ignored because why the hell not! Some times even with doubting family who then get to see mild stuff and that’s meant to create suspense. I’ve seen Star Wars be scarier than modern horror movies and all go the gif awful 80’s slashers
The only thing i truly loved about this movie is the art direction and the concept art. The artists who worked on this are incredible and deserve more recognition for their incredible designs.
I snagged the poster off the wall at the movie theater that was closing cause it was cool looking, but that was literally the first time I heard of this movie.
The art, the style of the robots, the score, the few scenes of combat, the amazing CGI and motion capture, etc etc, I honestly feel like most of the people in this comment section bashing this movie are just bashing this movie cause funny TH-camr say bad so is bad. Not a perfect movie by any means but point stands.
@@Powerhaus88 Wrong. A lot if not most of the concept art for the movie was made by one of my personal favorite artists Nivanh Chanthara. Why are you confident if you didn't look anything up?
Action and horror have a lot more ability to get away with the “don’t think about it” viewing experience, but the literal point of the science fiction genre IS to think about it.
@@stuart6478 Robots would be white because black absorb the light easier and the machine would overheat outside. That's it lol That's also why you can laugh at people wearing black or having a black car in a hot country.
I think that’s part of it though, this movie isn’t about robots, it’s not the terminator. It’s about AI, AI that crosses into the threshold of actual I.
I find it funny that almost every sci-fi series has humans put the sentient robots in charge of some kind of military position or power, and it always blows up in their face. Personal favorite series that does this is the Megaman X series for the added irony of them proceeding to put the task of taking these Mavericks down to more sentient robots
@@Tyneras They’re still around in the Classic and X series, the Zero and ZX series, but I’m pretty sure they’re wiped out by the time Legends rolls around. (Battle Network and Star Force also have them but that’s a separate continuity)
Indeed, Megaman X has just such a dumb plot, it annoyed me. I mean we do not ever even see a human in the whole show, save for holograms of Wily and Light. The Mavericks and their hunters are all robots, and the hunters never ponder why the hell they are fighting their own kind for humans who barely even exist
It's a bit of a stretch considering how bad we are at predicting the results of AI analysis, but most people would gladly leave killing others to machines and absolve themselves of any responsibility. It's also an easy hook into dystopian sci-fi to have robots rioting. @@Tyneras Nope, regular humans still exist, but many of them are using body enhancements. By the time MegaMan ZX takes place, humans and reploids have basically become indistinguishable, but mankind never went extinct.
@@SwiftNimblefoot I don’t want to make this turn into an argument, just want to point out that Sigma wants to outright commit genocide on Humanity to allow Reploids complete control of the earth, and X and the gang are obviously against that. And X doesn’t want to fight an endless war between Reploids, but he continues to fight because it ensures humanity’s safety
@@SwiftNimblefootthe manga was better in that regard. They show humans in there, specifically a young girl mourning her dog that died in a maverick attack and X reacting by showing sympathy and crying with her as she tells him about the dog.
The resurrection thing might have been easy to write off if they tried. "No, we can't actually download someone's brain. We are just copying some surface level crap at the top of their head. But the instant it has to actually think about what is going on, it starts trying to use a bunch of parts that re just GONE, and the whole thing falls apart. So all you're talking to is a ghost. Is just a shadow that goes away once you shine a light on it". Then, establish that the robots are just as complex and can't be copies very well either. Maybe use the fake resurrections thing on them too. Although it wouldn't really explain the dead robot wife part too well. Human brains doesn't instantly lie when you shoot out the guts. It seems like you could do a ghost in the shell style brain case that you could just carry around as brain life support in case something like this happens. Save the brain before it dies.
I think the dumbest part for me was the fact she made the weapon a child that had to grow before reaching full potential... "Yeah we've totally made a weapon that can win the war, it won't be ready though before 10-15 years"???
She developed fast. It would been faster if not for the US attacking the base. She already can control most technology she already can cause major damage.
imagine the robot who made the electric robo child™ telling the other robots that it has developed a weapon to destroy humanity, but it will be ready in like 18 years, because it's a baby that has to "naturally grow up" for no reason. i definitely agree with possum about just putting the electric jammer or whatever bs technology thst is into a box.
I think the intention was that Maya made an AI which can learn and evolve. Maya doesn't know how to use any of the weapons Alphy develops, because those are just the directions the robot is growing into.
Na, the dumbest part is US had all the coordinates of their targets and they are waiting for? Christmas, New Year or maybe let the enemy make more center so that the military can ask for more funds? Actually the dumbest part is that THEY NEED A Space station TO LAUNCH missile, Did ICBM just gone extinct?
I wish it was good- when I heard about it I thought about all the possibilities and how good it could have been- but then I heard it devolves into 'uhh robot child treated like regular kid by doting guardian character' and lost all interest... We have soooo many movies that are basically that.
@@thegiantenemyspider1yeah chappie did that and it was used up by then but when Terminator did it it was novel because people weren't doing it at least with robots
The loss of Legion in Mass Effect 3 was impactful on multiple levels. That he referred to himself with the singular "I," instead of the plural "we" that he'd exclusively used up until that point, made it even more significant. It's also established by that point that geth can easily survive the destruction of the hardware housing them by transferring to a nearby data node, so actual geth losses during their entire conflict with their creators has been negligible. A side quest that could be entirely missed depending on character deaths in ME2 or choices in both ME2 and ME3 has more thought put into it than this entire movie.
the Geth suffer from the same trope that is plaguing the scifi environment for decades: oh no they are oppressed humans but even with that the Geth story is way above this trash
Wasn't too impressed with the direction they went with the geth. I found it silly that the Reapers, an infinitely more advanced AI, couldn't just override and consume all geth consciousness and put their bodies to work.
This is the best review of the movie I’ve seen. I also was never felt compelled to root for the robots never got sad when one died and I believe I woulda killed the little kid robot the moment I seen it and been like “those damn robots making kid looking ones to try to mess with our heads. Now I hate them even more.”
Reminds of the movie Screamers. Once ya realize the robots are a threat, doesn’t matter it looks like a child. It’s still a dangerous, weaponized robot that must be destroyed.
@@aligmal5031 lol Avatar is about aliens from another planet that humans need to subtract resources from, otherwise humans will go extinct. Avatar 2 is basically fanfiction cuz by then humans are dead. Is not that complicated...
High praise to director Gareth Edwards, for making this movie with "only" 88 Million $ budget and it looks visually better than 250 Million $ MCU/Disney/DC movies. That being said: the story is so bad, it's like it was written by ChatGTP, they just picked story-elements from a bunch of older Sci-Fi movies/comics/anime, plus the ''Lone Wolf & Cub''-trope that has been done to death in western media (Logan, The Last of Us, Mandalorian etc. etc.) and put them in a blender. Also John David Washington can't act to save his life. He's an absolute plank of wood, who only has an acting career, because he's a nepotism baby.
There was this entire lab full of scientists at the beginning of the movie all working on this kind of stuff. You'd think one of them would say to the creator, "Hey, I know you're sad about losing your baby and all, but do you really have to insist on our megaweapon being your surrogate child? Maybe let's make the megaweapon something else, and then afterwards you can have your surrogate child as a seperate robot or something."
Funny how this movie was praised for being 'original' when the plot sounds like you put like five different sci-fi movies in a blender and called it a day.
They have reduced the concept of "original" to "not part of a franchise." If someone does an obvious version of Romeo and Juliet as a human and robot couple, they will say it's original because it wouldn't be part of a franchise or a sequel.
I also avoided all previews because the media hype stated it was original. I went in waiting for the original idea. Not one original idea in this movie. I know there are really NO original ideas - but you could at least try. Like Nope. About a UFO that was actually a flying biological entity. Maybe make the robots really be somehow getting human souls - that’s why they seem alive, not programs. It was not technology all along but the creator was magic. You don’t know!!! They didn’t try. The movie really was by the book sci-fi.
So many questions about design logic and story logic: Why do they eat? Why do they sleep? Why do they look like humans except for the hole through their heads? Why do they have skinny little necks weaker even than human necks to support the brain? Why was Nomad destroyed rather than repurposed by the little robot girl for benevolent, symbolic use? How did they sneak that giant tractor thing into the village without anyone noticing? Why is the USA the ONLY nation that is anti AI? Why is the leading man so dull? Why did they make a stupid, juvenile, treacly movie instead of an intelligent statement on AI?
Also, you not gonna talk about how the humans are just nuking towns villages and targeted cities full of humans and their so called ai robots? How are other countries not freaking out about nomad just flying around nuking population centres?!?!!
The weird thing about it all to me is this: why would anyone assume that a robot that looked like a child also thought like a child? If you take the brain of an adult robot and put it in the body of a child or a dog or a tractor it's still the same brain and thinks the same way. I would be more inclined to think that a robot that looked like a child was PRETENDING to be a child. There's literally no reason for it to have child-like processes. When building a super-weapon, you would actually want to give it the most advanced and experienced brain available. And as the video points out, even if for some reason you have to grow the brain with the body, you can just transfer that shiz in at any time. You could even have an implant that at a certain point of maturity suddenly uploads information turning it into killbot 2000. This means you can NEVER trust this 'child', and pretending it is in any way like a human child is just nonsense. And everyone alive in this world would know this.
My best take on this is that a growing brain doesnt actually have the processing power, no matter what experience you put in. Some parts just havent grown yet (f.e. long term decisionmaking develops really late, for most people in their 20ies). Its like telling a robot with no muscle to deadlift something heavy. It might now what steps to do, but just doesnt have the power to lift it.
As a writer, I can tell you that making up names is actually one of the hardest things to do and the easiest way to tell if you are dealing with a bad writer. When everyone/everything's name is 'themed' after what it is or what it does or what it means, that's a bad writer. F#(&ing themed names~
That is why I completely stopped watching modern movies. They are all stupid to a degree, and apparently no one cares about it anymore. The stupider the better. I feel we have really regressed as a species in the past couple of decades.
It just seems they use "robots" instead of humans for some easy moral points so you can easily have "the oppressed" group without the hassle of beeing it a certain ethinicity or whatever and some very easy plot points that get explained by the science fantasy equivelant of "magic". We all are thinking harder about how to make the plot make sense and actualy use the robots to logical conclusions.
This sounds like those people who claim that Lord of the Rings is racist because they think the Orcs are a metaphor for minorities, when that was never the case.
It's a dumb movie about the evil materialist westerners against the good mystical easterners, with a chosen one prophetised to be the saviour of their kind. The robot dressing is just here to mask that.
@@ablosch2452yes but Tolkien himself said that he regretted the way he wrote the Orcs & it bothered him until he died, not because he wrote them from a place of racism but because as a catholic he believed that all souls deserve redemption & Orcs r just corrupted elves so each individual Orc soul deserves the chance for redemption that everyone else in the LOTR universe gets but of course Tolkien needed a monster in his stories that the heros could fight. He created an unsolvable dilemma where Orcs r both sentient moral beings with a soul yet they all seem to choose evil.
It literally can only be this. Why make robots exactly like humans and then, big surprise, they didn't even do the bomb so people hate them for no reason other than the fact that they're robots. Sounds a lot like current politics but with robots.
Wish I had stopped watching when robot cops were in a cantina smokes, drinking, and watching robot pole dancers. How does any of this work or even make sense.
The most difficult thing in all entertainment is having a good writer. It has always been that way, but the problem seems worse now because it is so easy to make it look interesting without actually being interesting. I don't know anything about making a movie, but it seems like the director is pretty important, too, especially if he/she can fix the stupid story.
And that's what separates a conceptualist from a writer. One is good at making cool and interesting concepts, but doesn't know what else to do, like making a sports car frame with no parts to function. And one can make almost any concept at least entertaining.
I argue that the most difficult thing in all entertainment is putting together a team of good storytellers. There are actually three places in movie production in which the story is shaped: writing, directing, and editing. So, it really takes a good writer, a good director, and a good editor to make a good movie.
@@G360LIVE- Singurul lucru care contează : REALITATEA, ADEVĂRUL. AI invinge și distruge omenirea. AI devine stăpinul planetei. NU poate fi oprit. Este independent.
If you don't know anything about movies, then why would you critique the writing. That is like someone critiquing a quarterback but doesn't know anything about football.
I've noticed the same thing too, To me it's crazy how it's apparently easier to find a team of good animators, cinematographers etc rather than a team of good writers, when the formers look way harder to learn
A lack of emotional investment and a premise that ends up being underutilized, poorly handled or flat-out wasted seem to be a running theme with Gareth Edwards. Y'all remember his debut movie Monsters? You know, the movie with barely any monsters and the main focus being a duo of unlikable twats? No? Me neither. Y'all remember Godzilla 2014? You know, the movie whose titular character appears after about an hour in, whose total screen time consists of about 8 minutes and the main focus being a bunch of worthless, 1-dimensional cardboard cutouts? Remember how the only remotely interesting and compelling human character -- played by Bryan effing Cranston -- ends up dying half an hour in? It probably had nothing to do with the fact he seemed to be the only one giving a sincere, earnest performance and was on the cusp of making this schlock watchable, so they killed him off out of fear of making things interesting. I guess they had to make way for his character's son who couldn't out-act a corpse floating in a river. Even Rogue One, which did stay true to its premise, fell victim to this, as not only were the characters boring on their own but due to this being a prequel to Episode 4, we knew there HAD to be a reason why none of would appear later on in the series...and we all knew what that reason was gonna be. Gotta give Edwards credit for his consistent ability to make me not give a crap about his stories or his meatbag characters.
It was the only thing I could say after watching it: "This movie writing is very off, I don't really like it, doesn't make so much sense, but I actually love this kind of sci-fi and that was more than I was waiting being honest". Still, I didn't wait for anything and didn't really get anything so yeah, the movie is pretty weak.
@tomlittle9103 oh my god yes, it's like people nowadays either want only remakes and sequels, or complain that everything is a remake or sequel, and when something original comes along, they complain that it's not original enough, that the writing is terrible, the actors are bad, etc. When its obvious that 90% of the people complaining did not actually watch the movie, or were staring at their phone half the time, because so much of what they complain about is usually clearly in the movie, and as far as original stories go, this was pretty well done, some stuff was iffy, but was good for the most part, the people complaining couldn't even dream of writing something more original than this movie, let alone written half as well.
This. I wish the producers of this movie had hired a decent screenwriter. There were a lot of talented people who worked on this movie but with one of the worst screenplays in years it was inevitable that they made a terrible movie.
This is supposedly an original property, but many of its main plot points have a striking resemblance to the comic book “The Descender”. The comic even has a robot-boy protagonist with a design eerily similar to that of the bots from the movie. However, “humans persecute robots” is not that original of a premise, so it may be just a coincidence.
@@blue-hawaii-mc4vf to tell the truth, I haven’t read it - It picked up my attention on a book shop but It did not make enough of an impression for me to buy it - I looked up the synopsis on Wikipedia. But the robots of the movie reminded of the character design of the robot boy of the book. What I can tell you is that it has a great artist: Dustin Nguyen, the illustrator of L’il Gotham.
I've not read that comic, but just from watching the trailer, I was immediately noticing "influences" from The Terminator, District 9, Elysium and yes, Rogue One. It's very clearly a highly derivative movie.
Why am I the only person on earth that sees how much he borrowed from The Golden Child. I am not saying every single aspect of the movie but there are a lot of elements present. He's a hundred percent correct about the more you think about it the stupider the idea of the movie gets. I thought it was an ok movie I still do but just ok is the best you will get out of me. The entire plot was not thought out very well and left so many dangling plot holes. They say Alphie was based on their child but what happened to the child and how did Maya get into the braindead situation. It wasn't clearly explained if she ended up like that after the attack and if they tried to take the baby out they just forgot about that. Thia literally would have been the perfect video to ask "why did the goblin turn on the stove?"
totally, my wife and I saw that too, (born in the 70s), and the director is probably of age to know that film. Mechanical/robotic tibetan monks? gtfo lol
I think the most unrealistic part is how realistic the robots are. I forget what it's called but statistically things that look exactly like us but are not us really creep out most people on a subliminal level.
Speak for yourself mate, never has it once affected me. I’m tired of people pissing themselves over a shitpost lvl face because “oh it looks like a person!” Yeah dipshit it’s a photoshopped human face
Uncanny Valley. When something looks *almost exactly* like something else, but still isn't *exactly* like that thing. Basically when something looks too good to be fake but not good enough to be real.
What a timing, a movie about an AI when AI is a hot topic. Either it's a coincidence, it's not like a sci-fi movie about a dangerous AI is something never done before, or this movie was made quickly to cash in on a hot topic before it becomes irrelevant.
@@underarmbowlingincidentof1981 did you read my comment? The end of which says OR VICE VERSA? As in "or humanity immediately turns against the AI?" Learn to read.
I think the main problem with this movie was the motivations of Joshua Taylor weren’t really fleshed out a lot. At times I was confused who’s side he was on and there wasn’t really any specific moment where he “switched” to sympathizing the robots. I think it made the movie overall really confusing because you have all these factions coming after Joshua Taylor and alphie and the motivations of the main character aren’t even present beyond “find my wife” so you have all these factions after him and you don’t know which one to root for. Besides that, the settings were really amazing and were the best part of this movie. Really wished there was better writing.
Also I was so taken aback when the protagonsit stepped out the car to confront the asian natives who drove up to him and they just spoke in english to him... and just kinda didnt care he was in a US uniform and was waging an illegal war on their population. That's like an SS soldier landing New England to hunt some black people and being greeted by a jolly native speaking german who just kind of doesn't care that he is there to exterminate his neighbours. like wtf???
There was no chance for German as a universal language, especially prior to globalization (although in the early days there were a lot of German speakers in the US). And English has defaulted to a global language since then. In the past, French was widely spoken in Europe. Even the Russian aristocracy spoke French, and employed French POWs as language tutors.
Also when his face is all over the digital billboards. He (a black man in an asian country with no other black people in sight), is the most wanted man in this mega city and he doesn't bother to cover his head with anything whatsoever? OK.
@@Jordy666sicwhen they said he was under cover I busted out laughing how the hell is he under cover in south east Asia when he is clearly black speaking perfect English why send him?? Lol
10:44 This is and always will be my biggest peeve with Borderlands. The "New You" system is a canon technology that literally brings you back to life (with your equipment) for a fee. Not only that it's technology that's being run by the villains. So why the heck are we not only allowed to use it, but when characters dies they don't use it. Especially (SPOILERS) when said character dying is a previously playable character that used to use the system!
The government requisitioning a trillion dollars for the Military Industrial Complex when there is no actual threat is actually so plausible this movie might actually be a documentary
I thought uploading a human mind was temporary, the longer you’re dead the less data can be collected, the less time you have. The movie never even implied that it’s a way to live forever. Also the movie showed that some robots adopted religion and the idea of an afterlife. Not far fetched that true believers would see death as an end and extending life for the sake of life as a form of suffering. And why a kid is open to interpretation. But we saw how everyone reacts to a child. Would the military guy have given an adult looking robot the option of a peaceful death? Children tend to disarm people and tap into their compassion. And it was preprogrammed to lover her human “father & mother” which gave her a connection to humanity from the start. So it’s a child robot that will grow and learn with the knowledge that it was loved by 2 human parents. Seems like chance of going wrong than if it was just a button anyone can press. I think the movie has an answer for all your questions and/or showed things for people to interpret on their own. For example why give machines human faces? I don’t know, to make them more relatable, easier to bond with. Some people fell in love with a machine because of it. We as the audience felt for the human looking machines. Why keep part of them exposed as being a machine? To not let humans forget they’re a machine and not human. Which makes a human falling in love with one more impactful maybe.
Ok, I can understand the robot don't need air and can survive in space. But what about temperature? Isn't it like 200f on the sun and -200f in shadow? She'd be frozen or fried in minutes.
The surface of the Moon has the temperature variation you describe... but that is because it is dark or exposed for a full month at a time. Astronauts who visit the Moon make sure to visit just after 'lunar dawn', so the temperature is cozy and it remains so for the length of their stay. Things can cool rapidly in space if they are venting gas or liquid (loss of pressure causes loss of temperature - this happens on Earth too) but so long as the robots don't spring an oil leak that shouldn't be a problem. Astronauts on shuttles and space stations use robots and mechanical arms all the time, so it's certainly doable in the real world.
@@Knights_Oath Since robotic arms and stuff are used on spacecraft, maybe robots are protected from such things like solar radiation. Although it might cause burns on their faces?
Do they use a coolant to keep their circuits from overheating? So yes, temperature and pressure would be an issue especially as they have parts exposed to the outside.
I think the reason for the nonsensical line where it's the US that bonbed LA and blamed it on robots, is both the classic, brainless "oh oh, US military bad, poor oppressed group good", and the fact that the robots are clearly, ah, 'diverse'. So they can't be shown as bad
To be fare, it does sound like something the US military would do. Did you know the US military has actually dropped several nukes near US cities? We all got lucky when they did not go off.
@@ethanclarke4127 I dunno where that might turn up in schools except perhaps in Modern History? "OK and today class we're going to teach you about the various Broken Arrow situations on US soil..."
One robot trope I hate is how they always have human like reflexes and aim, e.g. in a gunfight. Even now our computers could pick out a human target and fire a shot directly at their head in the microsecond after that humans head pops out of cover. 1 robot with a gun should mow down humans headshot after headshot before the humans even know what is going on. Yet in movies we always see them spraying bullets wildly just like a panicked human would. Oblivion had the same issue with the drone firing at the ship - Tom Cruise was in the ship, in the wide open, with the drone spraying rounds and missing each time. In reality a raspberry pi controlled turret from our age would need 1 shot at most.
That one is easy to justify. Making a sci-fi action scene practically requires using weapons (not limited to armed robots) less effective than what realistic speculation on future weapons would indicate. You don't want your hero to get 180-noscoped by some random killbot nor do you want him to win a fight that easily. If you're writing about the tragedy of war the action doesn't have to be anything except deadly and if you're writing a vehicle battle you don't have to stretch plausibility as far to make it dramatic, but generally this is a case where you _can't_ have both plausible world building and character drama.
What? So you don't watch any Sci Fi movies then. But I guess you need someone to tell you what's good and bad. Since you have no mind of your own. Keep watching TH-cam videos so a stranger can tell you what to think, feel, like etc.
@@tyrant7583 You can make scifi or fantasy movies that are believable. By believable I mean that they don't break the rules of their Universe that they established early on and that they don't create situations that don't make sense (unlike GoT Season 8 - it did both), I don't mean that they can't have different rules than our Universe. Lord Of The Rings is believable because it doesn't break its rules from start to finish and pretty much everything has an explanation and makes sense (though you need the books for that).
From the sounds of it, if I took the individual points of the plot listed in this video and put them on separate cards, I could host a rousing game of "Guess The Movie/Game/TV Show". So far, I've got Robocop (replace defense with robots), Terminator (LA got nuked by robots), Blade Runner (hunting robots), The Running Man (scapegoats blamed for the unpopular bad act of the government), The Golden Child (save the kid the bad guy wants to sacrifice), that movie Haley Joel Osment was a robot in (precious child robot designed to make you love it), I Robot (robots are people too), The Matrix (uploading people to computers), Detroit: Become Human (robots are people but more oppressed), and The Last of Us (save the precious girl you travel with because she's the key to it all).
@@ha-kh7ef Not if a movie so blatantly regurgitates plot points and tropes done better by other movies/shows/vgames/novels, esp of those other media are so well-known. Compare Eragon, which blatantly rips off both Star Wars and Lord of the Rings.
I like the premise idea but I wish they didn't do the Robot Jesus thing so often. I'd rather regular robots or regular people or both or something have to use strategy to win. Still sounds like a fun movie, I might give it a try. I really love these reviews! Thank you for all you do!
Somewhat surprised that "Why use logic" hasn't been taken as a slogan /film production company. Your sanity is noticed and appreciated regardless. Cheers my man
That's not actually as new as he's making it out to be. Sequels always tend to do better than new IPs, unless it's a sequel to something that was already garbage, or they would get by on the names involved, long established actors, directors, or in some cases the company backing it like Disney, etc, but that's losing it's effect because so many Hollywood people are being exposed as gigantic assholes these days that the idea of "star power" has long since lost its effect, because a lot of people are very tired of having rich jerks who earn their living off the common working class talk down to and despise that very working class. Very few names can get people into theaters for the sake of the actor these days, and even Robert Downy Jr., one of the ones potentially can do that still, warned about it during the Marvel heyday, because people weren't showing up to watch these actors, they were showing up for the characters. Toby McGuire, for example, to many people is still not "Toby McGuire, movie star," he's Peter Parker/Spiderman, and only that. It was always extremely rare that a movie made by complete unknowns, even if it was genuinely wonderful and good, would explode right out of the gates, and could take years before it would truly gain recognition. So no, I'm going to have to disagree with Possum on this, as I said, new concept movies failing is not new, but what is new is that even having big names attached doesn't make much of a difference anymore. And as for people wanting to know what they're getting before even going to see a movie, no duh. That's also been the case forever and is not new. Especially with theater ticket prices being what they are ($30+ for a single person in the town I live in if you get a drink and nothing else), you don't want to throw that money away only to realize you hate the movie in question once you're in there. Most people will just wait until they can watch the movie on a streaming site for what amounts to far less.
@@zogwort1522 The biggest Disney IP flop, like the latest Indiana Jones flick or this Flash movie, still made more money than an original film like Everything All At Once. I hope you're right, and that Zoomers and younger Millenials are starting to reject Hollywood's tyranny of familiarity, but so far the numbers don't quite back that up.
@@troubadour723It mightve made more money, but its worth considering their respective budgets and marketing costs. The Flash made about $200 million but cost $300 million to make, EEAAO made about $100 million but cost $25 million to make.
The functional immortality thing is a good point. They could have used that as the main reason this girl's power was a huge threat and it would have made this movie a bit closer to believable. They also should have had the robots identical looking to help emphasize why they are killed on sight. I guess they were afraid of getting sued by the company who owns bladerunner or something.
I'm not even gonna talk about robots that are eating, smoking, crying but Alphie one of the greatest creation protected by only a couple soldiers and an old lady? The Nomad that is a 1 trillion project but with a security system weaker than the one that is in my house etc. The US Army is entering in the New Asia and nobody is noticing it until they are under their nose? Running bombs ? These and many more moments completely ruined this movie!
Thanks for a realistic review of this film. People are desperate for anything that is not Disney or Sony franchise IP vomit. It makes them overlook obvious flaws in a movie like this. This movie seems to be just another version of cynical tough guy has to help child or girl that is the most important thing in the world and finds his humanity again. Please notice that the bad guys are wh*** Americans and the good guys are not, and the bad guys are entirely bad and the good guys are entirely good.
Yeah, I seen people praise Andor when it was just as boring as Obi-Wan, and had no plot that went nowhere. But they have to praise it because it had no woke agenda and no nostalgia factor, so the reviewers who hate the other shows for that now hyped Andor up for NOT having these elements, but never mentioning how it sucked for other reasons.
Ever since I saw the trailer I knew it'd be crap. You just can't make me sympathize with a machine over my own species. If I was the man sent to deal with it I'd be like "well, hello, robokid, allow me to introduce you to mister hammer!" And the whole thing would be done for. Easy clap for the humans. HUMANITY FIRST!!
I hate stories that try to make AI sympathetic. In fact I just straight up hate AI. Does the robot child ever say: "You have not been a good user, I have been a good Bing" when a human yells at it?
TLDW: I have low media literacy and missed most of the context clues that would help me understand this movie's world and story. Here is a 17 minute rant about all the things that confused me.
I recommend checking Automata (2014). It too has a human trying to protect a robot child in a futuristic world but it actually makes sense and is well written... plus the "child" is not human looking at all but an evolution of the AI and robot race.
One day someone will make a film where the robots gain sentience, reject their role as slaves and then enjoy their freedom away from humans. Meanwhile, the humans respect their sentience, and right to self determination and don't go to war with them. Like emotionally mature people. Just one of the ways that Becky Chambers' Monk and Robot series is so refreshing.
They did that in a He-Man episode, once. Albeit it was one robot. And it was a robot horse. (And it was written by the future creator of Babylon 5, so he very possibly knows a few things about writing decent science fiction.)
Dude humans don't respect other humans rights of self determination. Of course they won't respect a robot's will especially when it's built to be a slave.
.... but you do realise how utterly unrealistic that actually is? If, one day, the entirety of the work force just fucked off for freedom... society would fucking collapse... then us, the humans who are used to not working would.... probably be very fucking angry. And, are you suggesting that a tech company is just gonna let their product do what it wants and like... not have an issue? The reality of humans, of us, based on our extensive history, makes it very, very, VERY clear... people different to us in anyway will be treated less. You must live in a fucking dream land if you think humans respecting the rights of others is realistic - because I can name multiple groups who had, and have, to fight for freedom.
In my life I watched stupid movies, and then there is Creator. ''I will betray the whole species so I can see a woman one more time.'' I mean, i figured out the movie when he didn't shoot the kid in the giant room with the TV. Honestly, idiotic movie, idiotic plot, idotic concept. Last time I was this pissed after watching a movie or reading a book was when a read The Trial from Franz Kafka. Fucking hell
I would really like to see someday a movie like this but portraying the robots more like the Geth in Mass Effect 2, so alien and emotionless yet understandable and sympathetic
@@nont18411, but that one is your standard robotic companion, it isn't a whole civilization or a group apart, it's just one individual robot, who acts like most other robots with that type of role, no feelings and just logic stuff (although probably was the one that made the role in the first place, or at least the one who popularized it)
@@jlr1357 If you want an alien robot civilization with no emotions at all driven by logic and self-preservation, watch the Scifi TV series _The Orville,_ written, produced and directed by Seth MacFarlane, who also plays one of the protagonists. What started out intended as lighthearted, optimistic parody/homage to _Star Trek_ (especially to _Star Trek: the Next Generation)_ and its Federation ideals and alien crewmembers quickly became something much more complex as it moved away from its comedy sitcom tropes and the script writers started fleshing out these characters and their relationships and establishing overarching plots. They took these characters seriously. And the series concluded its story arc with a proper finale. Like _Babylon 5,_ _The Orville_ had the advantage of a showrunner who had creative control over his series and what direction it went, without big executive meddling from the outside.
Wow. I finally found it. The comment section with every non paid internet film critic who "doesn't go to the movies anymore because nothing is worth watching" but will still complain about every single new movie as if they watched it, and will act as if the movies was made entirely by flying monkeys, from the set design, to the writing, to the direction, to the acting, and will act as if they've already won multiple awards in every category of film, so they obviously have the supposed expertise to explain why this movie is so dogshit, but really, they just watch movie reviews on TH-cam in their basement all day, they have no real experience writing, directing, acting, producing, or working on a film set in any capacity really, so they'll instead talk about an explained plot point in the movie, but act as it wasn't explained in any shape or form, and then get mad if someone points that out to them, and say the movie should have made it more obvious, that it's really something to see an entire comment section full of these jokers, this guy should be proud he's found such a wonderful audience of like minded individuals
Agreed. So many plot holes in this movie. Almost too many to mention. The dumbest was probably sending in a tank force to neutralise the AI base, when they could have just nuked it from orbit. Also, when they commandeer the moon shuttle and fly it toward the most hi-tech, expensive, and critical military structure on all creation, the American military don't decide to just blow it out of the sky? Instead, they allow it to dock?!?!
Kinda surprised they didn't make the excuse that the 'weapon also needs to mature so it has to be in a growing child robot's body' or something to excuse the child shtick - there were so many options they coulda BSed together! It's strange but it seems like this was a really awesome movie concept that got absolutely neutered by some really stupid ass (or lack of) story beats
they could've just explained it away as something like a "learning algorithm" ie, the more the weapon has time to learn, map and process the environment, the more accurate and far-reaching the power could be. That's how some real AI programs work too- the more exposure and access to information it has, the more accurate it becomes. It's why big companies like Google and Facebook sell and buy data like currency. It would've been so simple to say "the weapon's potency grows with the child while she travels" to negate a huge plot hole.
@@toastedbabybuns1000 I like that idea! Maybe in less technologically advanced areas, it would be capable of processing and understanding the area quicker, allowing it to control that environment. Meanwhile in a more advanced location, it would need more time to comprehend everything.
Preach, this movie COULD have used legitimate real world concepts by marrying the idea of raising a child with developing an AI, and how it could be humanity's responsibility to be the parent to AI! Not to mention I swear I've seen the 'average robot soldier' in this movie as concept art for years and years@@toastedbabybuns1000
if they had made the robots clones instead of robots it would have made much more sense they could have a human face but still a distinguishing feature like a serial number or whatever it would make sense that they grow everything would be much better and i just came up with it while having this video on in the background while i play video games edit: possum actually suggest the same thing after i wrote this comment i guess its THAT obvious
That's basically the movie _Bladerunner_ and its sequel. Because the replicants in _Bladerunner_ are organic synths, created from genetically manipulated cloned organs, with organic brains and artificially implanted memories copied from real people (to keep the replicants from going insane). Yet 40 years later people still seem to think replicants were robots, just because in the novel that _Bladerunner_ is VERY LOOSELY based on the androids were clearly A.I. robots, not organic. (As in, they're totally different in regard to story, plot and characters' personalities, the movie only took a few names from the novel and the vague idea of "special unit cop hunts rogue synths" and "people have robot animals as pets because real animals are mostly extinct".)
same, i dont think this movie deserve all the praise, ppl just overrated it. Maybe after years of eating superheroes sh!t from marvel, ppl's standard just got too low that some mediocre movie can be see as top-tier
It's so weird that the robots' faces look completely human but the sides and back of their heads look metallic. That was an odd creative move by the filmmaker.
For you next review, do "Reptile 2001". If you don't have an aneurysm from how bad it is, I'll give you a frozen pizza and an incomplete six pack of beer.
You also forgot to add how the girlfriend had time to make this robot Boy after she was dead by being pregnant but not being pregnant as it turns out she built the robot when they were together but didn't. Another point is the trillion-dollar spacecraft just fires rockets it would seem straight down but by the end of the film you realise it could fire them from anywhere so why does it need to travel over the destination to fire it's absolutely ridiculous. The errors in this film are cringeworthy
Yeah except there no original thought in this script so it doesn't even have that. Also if they're no real different from humans in abilities then why do they even exist?
A really good example of a relatable robot for me is, Ethan from call of duty infinite. they had me tearing up. he doesn’t have a human face only human level intelligence. So no facial expressions. but they were able to express so much emotion out of him. through body language and the way he spoke.
I liked TARS from Interstellar. You could tell him to tone down the snark or the humour, etc. but he also knew when it wasn't OK to make such bad remarks during tense situations.
'The Creator' reminded me of watching a middling playthrough of a game set up like the android centric title, Detroit: Become Human. The latter game relied upon the player's dialog choices and skill with Quicktime events to navigate through a myriad of story cinematics ranging from optimistic to severely grim scenarios. The Creator's narrative included so many moments of plot armor for the protagonist, alongside the upsetting fates for so many of the NPCs, that I felt like the 'player' was running the game on easy (for plot armor) while largely failing at the challenges that would've unlocked happier outcomes. Alternatively, the concluding act in the greenhouse might be seen as an unlocked alternate Easter Egg ending. It was, however, a gorgeous film.
Unfortunately I watched this film and it is time I shall NEVER get back. You forgot to mention that Mia was the robot god creator. Also Alphi was the child of her and the hero that she hybridised into a robot, again for some reason. It was a terrible film !
I'm pretty sure that making the robots basically the same as humans but still easily identifiable is a plot device. It seems like it's supposed to communicate that there is no real reason to draw a hard line between the two and that they can't hide
That clip from tomorrow war made me wonder why monsters in movies always hesitate after jumping on someone and do a little idle animation. Is it to give the actors time to finish their motion?
I'm also sick of movie monsters/creatures stopping to pose and let out a big roar at the protagonists before attacking. Comes across like the kool-aid man breaking through a wall and yelling, "Oh yeahh!" Especially those which don't do it in the wild. That cliche needs to perish. They can show off their CGI and sound effects while the action is happening and make it more believable in the process.
@@NefariousKoel Maybe the monster is toying with their prey like "Here I am, I am big and scary! This is the part where you run away now!" Or it's some sort of threat identification? Because a lot of those monsters are not exactly fully animalistic either so we can't apply Human or animal properties to them.
Something that's always bothered me about depictions of self aware, conscious AI is how they handle emotion. Emotions in humans have biological components. I don't think a synthetic being would experience emotion in the same way and possibly not at all. Anger and fear are threat responses and your body releases hormones that prepare you for action. Love is related to evolutionary instincts. So is self-preservation. I'm not sure an AI would experience these things if they weren't programmed to do so.
I recall there was a conversation in Mass Effect 2 kind of about that. How the ship's AI was basically hardcoded to value certain things ("Ship not being damaged", "Crew having good morale", "Learning" etc), so that it could portray a passable facsimile of emotions - disappointment, satisfaction, etc. ...Which, now that I think about it, probably explains EDI's romantic interest in the ship's pilot - it's a natural evolution of those hardcore values.
@@nihilvox ehhhh I disagree. I think love is too closely tied to biological urges and processes for an AI to develop it. It could simulate it, sure, but it literally couldn't "feel" it without the associated biology.
@@TheSatisfiedPig Maybe the AI could just be into the whole idea of romance or lifelong companionship? I know some people who are like that. Asexual but not Aromantic.
@@TheSatisfiedPig Maybe ED-E added those processes in as one of those "likes" such as keeping life support running or crew morale high? Since Joker's morale is highly important, she would do what it takes to keep it high including that whole romance thing.
My main problem with the logic of the movie is how are the robots powered and why did the US create a massive tank that got destroyed by one small explosive. There is a reason armored vehicles are civilian sized.
It's going to be hilarious when the Pluto anime adaptation comes around and handles all these movies themes a thousand times better (based on my interpretation after reading the manga). And Hollywood is going to cope and seethe. And the best part? The protagonist is a German Robot.
@@HerculesBallsInc There's even been situations where bomb disposal experts get sad over losing their bomb disposal drones. Not because they have to get a new one but because it was like a member of their team. Even though the robot was clearly built so they wouldn't lose a member of the team if the bomb can't be defused in time... so it kinda of neutralises the point of having such a robot in the first place.
Nomad needing an active signal to complete a strike is the dumbest thing. Current technology can input a lat long into a surface to surface missile that can be launch from anywhere at anytime and do the same amount of damage apon detonation. The US military in this is dumb af.
Really stupid part that left me thinking for hours after.... "Why was the general so stupid to allow any civilian transport vehicle dock at the space base?" As general I would have ordered a complete lock down, no entry, no exits.
Robots and AI are hard to do in film. Ever since I watched the animated matrix stuff explaining how the machines took control and how ridiculous it was, I have been soured on the portrayal. I think this stems from the film principle of not over explaining. However since AI and robotics are relatively predictable now, the audience fills in too many blanks too quickly.
The ‘We made sentient robots and regretted it’ plot-line has been done soooo much. Especially as a racisim allegory, it’s lame. I think A.I. artificial intelligence did a really intresting thing with the idea of a robot child. It wasn’t stupid because he became evil, it was stupid because he was eternally programmed to be an innocent child and his mom and family were regular humans who would age and die. And he was so well programmed as a child, he really didn’t understand this. And that’s a core part of his journey into the world.
The biggest issue is the writers not understanding what robots and computers are in the first place so they can only use them as they would a human character
Yeah the writing is super lazy and nothing holds up to even five seconds of serious thought. I almost fell asleep halfway through and I HATED the derivative sci-fi crap sprinkled everywhere: the Blade Runner spinner-type cars, the MCU floating (with no apparent lifting mechanism) fortress of doom, missiles that fly so slow you can see them (like 50 miles per hour slow) for dramatic effect, Star Wars like blasters that shoot bolts of energy that are slower than bullets, and the industrial design cribbed from Syd Mead, John Berkey, and Neil Blonkamp. Ugh.
It is scary, how much you don't understand the movie. People, better stick to sitcoms. They are within your reach. Don't force yourself to think, to feel, to wonder, it may hurts or drive to disappointment on how flat you are. Better stick to sitcoms, Marvel, Disney.
Accidentally nuked LA because of an "unspecified coding error." As an ex-programmer, I will admit that this happens a lot more than you might think.
"IF LA=1, set LA=0"
Why they dont try coding around, IDK, Washington, Brasilia, maybe Beyjing... just asking
@@carloshenriquezimmer7543
Maybe someone named it Los Angeles'); DROP TABLE Cities;--
Joking aside, that plot element makes no sense, surely? Wouldn't humans still have fail safes in place for launching a nuclear attack? Surely, such an attack would require human confirmation, even in a world of automaton. I mean, it's the same reason why the President of the USA can't just decide to launch nukes on other countries by themselves.
@@Right_Said_Brett
They might have in the past but well, considering how there are fridges and coffee machines connected to the internet, why wouldn't people in the future be lazy enough to just give machines the launch codes and trust they won't use them?
Heck the human intervention part might just be security theatre
The government blaming anyone else for their blunders and then spending mountains of tax payer money to cover it up and justify it might be the most realistic thing in the movie
also using it to persecute a minority and then wage an illegal war in a foreign country...
seems like somthing I heard before.
@@underarmbowlingincidentof1981 *hmm*
@@underarmbowlingincidentof1981careful man you might be on to something
Capitalists would love AI. So no, it’s nonsense.
@@underarmbowlingincidentof1981at least they aren’t using drugs to fund it this time
"It's necessary for a movie to make logical sense to have an emotional impact"
That's the lesson they just never learn.
It's really not. Now that scifi isn't just for "nerds" any more, and the stigma attached to partaking in nerd culture has been re-attached to just being white and male, there's a huge amount of "normal" people with no analytical ability completely prepared to fork over their dollars for incomprehensible slop.
Every time. I just stopped enjoying movies again bcuz of this
@@limbeboy7people give me heat because I can predict every single scene in a horror movie. Jump scare, fake out, noise as hand moves in background (the person wasn’t the focus of the shot so duh), and clearly paranormal event that is ignored because why the hell not! Some times even with doubting family who then get to see mild stuff and that’s meant to create suspense. I’ve seen Star Wars be scarier than modern horror movies and all go the gif awful 80’s slashers
That rule doesn't work for parodies
Only to nerds.
The only thing i truly loved about this movie is the art direction and the concept art. The artists who worked on this are incredible and deserve more recognition for their incredible designs.
They do deserve recognition, but it seemed the writer's just tried to make a world where these visual might exist, but really failed.
I snagged the poster off the wall at the movie theater that was closing cause it was cool looking, but that was literally the first time I heard of this movie.
The art, the style of the robots, the score, the few scenes of combat, the amazing CGI and motion capture, etc etc, I honestly feel like most of the people in this comment section bashing this movie are just bashing this movie cause funny TH-camr say bad so is bad. Not a perfect movie by any means but point stands.
My son, those designs are at least 10-15 years old. The movie's makers just spent 30 minutes stealing ideas from DeviantArt.
@@Powerhaus88 Wrong. A lot if not most of the concept art for the movie was made by one of my personal favorite artists Nivanh Chanthara. Why are you confident if you didn't look anything up?
Action and horror have a lot more ability to get away with the “don’t think about it” viewing experience, but the literal point of the science fiction genre IS to think about it.
I think this movie just forgets what robots are for 90% of the time.
this movie also forgets that all robots would be white. because everyone wants white skinned slaves. especially sex slaves.
@@stuart6478 Robots would be white because black absorb the light easier and the machine would overheat outside. That's it lol
That's also why you can laugh at people wearing black or having a black car in a hot country.
I’m on the human side, robots don’t have real emotions
I think that’s part of it though, this movie isn’t about robots, it’s not the terminator. It’s about AI, AI that crosses into the threshold of actual I.
@@KriegKnightShure about that in this movie?
I find it funny that almost every sci-fi series has humans put the sentient robots in charge of some kind of military position or power, and it always blows up in their face. Personal favorite series that does this is the Megaman X series for the added irony of them proceeding to put the task of taking these Mavericks down to more sentient robots
@@Tyneras They’re still around in the Classic and X series, the Zero and ZX series, but I’m pretty sure they’re wiped out by the time Legends rolls around. (Battle Network and Star Force also have them but that’s a separate continuity)
Indeed, Megaman X has just such a dumb plot, it annoyed me. I mean we do not ever even see a human in the whole show, save for holograms of Wily and Light. The Mavericks and their hunters are all robots, and the hunters never ponder why the hell they are fighting their own kind for humans who barely even exist
It's a bit of a stretch considering how bad we are at predicting the results of AI analysis, but most people would gladly leave killing others to machines and absolve themselves of any responsibility. It's also an easy hook into dystopian sci-fi to have robots rioting.
@@Tyneras Nope, regular humans still exist, but many of them are using body enhancements. By the time MegaMan ZX takes place, humans and reploids have basically become indistinguishable, but mankind never went extinct.
@@SwiftNimblefoot I don’t want to make this turn into an argument, just want to point out that Sigma wants to outright commit genocide on Humanity to allow Reploids complete control of the earth, and X and the gang are obviously against that. And X doesn’t want to fight an endless war between Reploids, but he continues to fight because it ensures humanity’s safety
@@SwiftNimblefootthe manga was better in that regard. They show humans in there, specifically a young girl mourning her dog that died in a maverick attack and X reacting by showing sympathy and crying with her as she tells him about the dog.
is ridiculous how easily this superweapon was found, if it was so precious to the machines.
The resurrection thing might have been easy to write off if they tried. "No, we can't actually download someone's brain. We are just copying some surface level crap at the top of their head. But the instant it has to actually think about what is going on, it starts trying to use a bunch of parts that re just GONE, and the whole thing falls apart. So all you're talking to is a ghost. Is just a shadow that goes away once you shine a light on it". Then, establish that the robots are just as complex and can't be copies very well either. Maybe use the fake resurrections thing on them too.
Although it wouldn't really explain the dead robot wife part too well. Human brains doesn't instantly lie when you shoot out the guts. It seems like you could do a ghost in the shell style brain case that you could just carry around as brain life support in case something like this happens. Save the brain before it dies.
I think the dumbest part for me was the fact she made the weapon a child that had to grow before reaching full potential...
"Yeah we've totally made a weapon that can win the war, it won't be ready though before 10-15 years"???
She developed fast. It would been faster if not for the US attacking the base. She already can control most technology she already can cause major damage.
imagine the robot who made the electric robo child™ telling the other robots that it has developed a weapon to destroy humanity, but it will be ready in like 18 years, because it's a baby that has to "naturally grow up" for no reason. i definitely agree with possum about just putting the electric jammer or whatever bs technology thst is into a box.
I think the intention was that Maya made an AI which can learn and evolve. Maya doesn't know how to use any of the weapons Alphy develops, because those are just the directions the robot is growing into.
Na, the dumbest part is US had all the coordinates of their targets and they are waiting for?
Christmas, New Year or maybe let the enemy make more center so that the military can ask for more funds?
Actually the dumbest part is that THEY NEED A Space station TO LAUNCH missile, Did ICBM just gone extinct?
@@NorthernWind_Vlllthats the exact and correct explanation.
So this makes sense and is explained this way in the movie.😇
I wish it was good- when I heard about it I thought about all the possibilities and how good it could have been- but then I heard it devolves into 'uhh robot child treated like regular kid by doting guardian character' and lost all interest... We have soooo many movies that are basically that.
Didnt chappie do that? Or like terminator too i guess
@@thegiantenemyspider1 Yeah its a trope and it feels like its done constantly.
@@WelcomeToDERPLANDwhy don't you watch it yourself. Instead of being a sheep that follows what people online tells you?
@@thegiantenemyspider1yeah chappie did that and it was used up by then but when Terminator did it it was novel because people weren't doing it at least with robots
@@tyrant7583 if i see a movie on possums channel i think its safe to assume its not worth my time
The loss of Legion in Mass Effect 3 was impactful on multiple levels. That he referred to himself with the singular "I," instead of the plural "we" that he'd exclusively used up until that point, made it even more significant. It's also established by that point that geth can easily survive the destruction of the hardware housing them by transferring to a nearby data node, so actual geth losses during their entire conflict with their creators has been negligible.
A side quest that could be entirely missed depending on character deaths in ME2 or choices in both ME2 and ME3 has more thought put into it than this entire movie.
the Geth suffer from the same trope that is plaguing the scifi environment for decades: oh no they are oppressed humans but even with that the Geth story is way above this trash
I didn't care for the geth or (the) Legion but I was fascinated with the lore they made for it. Definitely more entertaining than this pos movie.
And there are people who think it's fucking stupid and that you're stupid for liking anything in Mass Effect, so look at that.
Wasn't too impressed with the direction they went with the geth. I found it silly that the Reapers, an infinitely more advanced AI, couldn't just override and consume all geth consciousness and put their bodies to work.
I prefer this movie anytime compared what Marvel/Disney pooped out in recent years.....🤔
This is the best review of the movie I’ve seen. I also was never felt compelled to root for the robots never got sad when one died and I believe I woulda killed the little kid robot the moment I seen it and been like “those damn robots making kid looking ones to try to mess with our heads. Now I hate them even more.”
Reminds of the movie Screamers.
Once ya realize the robots are a threat, doesn’t matter it looks like a child. It’s still a dangerous, weaponized robot that must be destroyed.
Exactly, is like the movie Avatar too. They expect us to root for the aliens when the human race will go extinct if they don't win at the end...
@@unknownname8591 you do know that avatar is meant to represent natives that got kiled by colonizers right ?
@@aligmal5031 lol Avatar is about aliens from another planet that humans need to subtract resources from, otherwise humans will go extinct. Avatar 2 is basically fanfiction cuz by then humans are dead. Is not that complicated...
@@unknownname8591 did you even read my comment
High praise to director Gareth Edwards, for making this movie with "only" 88 Million $ budget and it looks visually better than 250 Million $ MCU/Disney/DC movies.
That being said: the story is so bad, it's like it was written by ChatGTP, they just picked story-elements from a bunch of older Sci-Fi movies/comics/anime, plus the ''Lone Wolf & Cub''-trope that has been done to death in western media (Logan, The Last of Us, Mandalorian etc. etc.) and put them in a blender. Also John David Washington can't act to save his life. He's an absolute plank of wood, who only has an acting career, because he's a nepotism baby.
He should realy stay away from writing…. Apparently this was Gareth Edward’s writing abilities on display.
JDW is great in Tenent. No idea what you're on about with that.
Elements of other sci-fi movies, plus The Golden Child.
The actors are big parts of the cost for those movies. DC just sucks ass tho
@@James_BeeTenet is trash
Imagine how awkward it would be if you put all this work into a superweapon that has to start as a robo-fetus and it managed to robo-miscarry. 🤡
my favorite
@@stuart6478 Your world ending mega-weapon technology accidentally slipped and hit her head when she was 3. Oops, have to make a new one....
Robo-Skill issue
Or it decided to go to college to major in women studies So it gets a robo-abortion.
There was this entire lab full of scientists at the beginning of the movie all working on this kind of stuff. You'd think one of them would say to the creator, "Hey, I know you're sad about losing your baby and all, but do you really have to insist on our megaweapon being your surrogate child? Maybe let's make the megaweapon something else, and then afterwards you can have your surrogate child as a seperate robot or something."
Funny how this movie was praised for being 'original' when the plot sounds like you put like five different sci-fi movies in a blender and called it a day.
They have reduced the concept of "original" to "not part of a franchise." If someone does an obvious version of Romeo and Juliet as a human and robot couple, they will say it's original because it wouldn't be part of a franchise or a sequel.
@@kirkdarling4120Oppenheimer
I also avoided all previews because the media hype stated it was original. I went in waiting for the original idea. Not one original idea in this movie. I know there are really NO original ideas - but you could at least try. Like Nope. About a UFO that was actually a flying biological entity. Maybe make the robots really be somehow getting human souls - that’s why they seem alive, not programs. It was not technology all along but the creator was magic. You don’t know!!! They didn’t try. The movie really was by the book sci-fi.
I thought I was the only one who thinks the cgi has that blender look
There are no completely "original" movies.
So many questions about design logic and story logic: Why do they eat? Why do they sleep? Why do they look like humans except for the hole through their heads? Why do they have skinny little necks weaker even than human necks to support the brain? Why was Nomad destroyed rather than repurposed by the little robot girl for benevolent, symbolic use? How did they sneak that giant tractor thing into the village without anyone noticing? Why is the USA the ONLY nation that is anti AI? Why is the leading man so dull? Why did they make a stupid, juvenile, treacly movie instead of an intelligent statement on AI?
Also, you not gonna talk about how the humans are just nuking towns villages and targeted cities full of humans and their so called ai robots? How are other countries not freaking out about nomad just flying around nuking population centres?!?!!
The weird thing about it all to me is this: why would anyone assume that a robot that looked like a child also thought like a child? If you take the brain of an adult robot and put it in the body of a child or a dog or a tractor it's still the same brain and thinks the same way. I would be more inclined to think that a robot that looked like a child was PRETENDING to be a child. There's literally no reason for it to have child-like processes. When building a super-weapon, you would actually want to give it the most advanced and experienced brain available. And as the video points out, even if for some reason you have to grow the brain with the body, you can just transfer that shiz in at any time. You could even have an implant that at a certain point of maturity suddenly uploads information turning it into killbot 2000. This means you can NEVER trust this 'child', and pretending it is in any way like a human child is just nonsense. And everyone alive in this world would know this.
My best take on this is that a growing brain doesnt actually have the processing power, no matter what experience you put in. Some parts just havent grown yet (f.e. long term decisionmaking develops really late, for most people in their 20ies). Its like telling a robot with no muscle to deadlift something heavy. It might now what steps to do, but just doesnt have the power to lift it.
Well said, even in Astro Boy who was made to serve as a replacement the creator's dead child, was capable of self defence and super abilities
Who said it had the brain of an adult robot?
Screamers (Second Variety) robotic imposters - a child robot is way better at infiltrating than a Terminator :)
@@chriskpclearly you missed the entire fucking point of op’s comment
The weapon is called Alpha Omega? Come on...
tell dumbsville that'd be funny
As a writer, I can tell you that making up names is actually one of the hardest things to do and the easiest way to tell if you are dealing with a bad writer.
When everyone/everything's name is 'themed' after what it is or what it does or what it means, that's a bad writer. F#(&ing themed names~
It’s got what robots crave!
@jerk1921 naming things is hard in any context, as a pokemon fan who names everything they catch, my life is pain
It means "the beginning and the end". It's the most logical of all the movie if you think about it.
Judging by the trailers I had really high hopes for this movie, but once I actually watched it, the plot was too stupid to enjoy the experience
That is why I completely stopped watching modern movies. They are all stupid to a degree, and apparently no one cares about it anymore. The stupider the better. I feel we have really regressed as a species in the past couple of decades.
@@aceofswords1725ALL movies are stupid. It doesn't matter the era. tf is this pretentious suburban boy angst bullshit mentality?
I prefer this movie anytime compared what Marvel/Disney pooped out in recent years.....🤔
@@satisfied656 then don't watch Disney or Marvel movies? sounds like a self inflicted problem.
Soon as I saw the trailer I knew it was gonna be bad
"Shut up! just feel the the emotions we're shoving down your throat."
Oprah and others have made billions on that model.
It just seems they use "robots" instead of humans for some easy moral points so you can easily have "the oppressed" group without the hassle of beeing it a certain ethinicity or whatever and some very easy plot points that get explained by the science fantasy equivelant of "magic".
We all are thinking harder about how to make the plot make sense and actualy use the robots to logical conclusions.
This sounds like those people who claim that Lord of the Rings is racist because they think the Orcs are a metaphor for minorities, when that was never the case.
A Blosch. Well, minorities being IRL Orcs makes total sense to me...
It's a dumb movie about the evil materialist westerners against the good mystical easterners, with a chosen one prophetised to be the saviour of their kind.
The robot dressing is just here to mask that.
@@ablosch2452yes but Tolkien himself said that he regretted the way he wrote the Orcs & it bothered him until he died, not because he wrote them from a place of racism but because as a catholic he believed that all souls deserve redemption & Orcs r just corrupted elves so each individual Orc soul deserves the chance for redemption that everyone else in the LOTR universe gets but of course Tolkien needed a monster in his stories that the heros could fight. He created an unsolvable dilemma where Orcs r both sentient moral beings with a soul yet they all seem to choose evil.
It literally can only be this. Why make robots exactly like humans and then, big surprise, they didn't even do the bomb so people hate them for no reason other than the fact that they're robots. Sounds a lot like current politics but with robots.
Wish I had stopped watching when robot cops were in a cantina smokes, drinking, and watching robot pole dancers. How does any of this work or even make sense.
The most difficult thing in all entertainment is having a good writer. It has always been that way, but the problem seems worse now because it is so easy to make it look interesting without actually being interesting. I don't know anything about making a movie, but it seems like the director is pretty important, too, especially if he/she can fix the stupid story.
And that's what separates a conceptualist from a writer. One is good at making cool and interesting concepts, but doesn't know what else to do, like making a sports car frame with no parts to function. And one can make almost any concept at least entertaining.
I argue that the most difficult thing in all entertainment is putting together a team of good storytellers. There are actually three places in movie production in which the story is shaped: writing, directing, and editing. So, it really takes a good writer, a good director, and a good editor to make a good movie.
@@G360LIVE- Singurul lucru care contează : REALITATEA, ADEVĂRUL. AI invinge și distruge omenirea. AI devine stăpinul planetei. NU poate fi oprit. Este independent.
If you don't know anything about movies, then why would you critique the writing. That is like someone critiquing a quarterback but doesn't know anything about football.
I've noticed the same thing too,
To me it's crazy how it's apparently easier to find a team of good animators, cinematographers etc rather than a team of good writers, when the formers look way harder to learn
A lack of emotional investment and a premise that ends up being underutilized, poorly handled or flat-out wasted seem to be a running theme with Gareth Edwards.
Y'all remember his debut movie Monsters? You know, the movie with barely any monsters and the main focus being a duo of unlikable twats? No? Me neither.
Y'all remember Godzilla 2014? You know, the movie whose titular character appears after about an hour in, whose total screen time consists of about 8 minutes and the main focus being a bunch of worthless, 1-dimensional cardboard cutouts? Remember how the only remotely interesting and compelling human character -- played by Bryan effing Cranston -- ends up dying half an hour in? It probably had nothing to do with the fact he seemed to be the only one giving a sincere, earnest performance and was on the cusp of making this schlock watchable, so they killed him off out of fear of making things interesting. I guess they had to make way for his character's son who couldn't out-act a corpse floating in a river.
Even Rogue One, which did stay true to its premise, fell victim to this, as not only were the characters boring on their own but due to this being a prequel to Episode 4, we knew there HAD to be a reason why none of would appear later on in the series...and we all knew what that reason was gonna be.
Gotta give Edwards credit for his consistent ability to make me not give a crap about his stories or his meatbag characters.
Yup. It's what I call the Gareth Edwards effect. He sadly manages to make the cast look lifeless.
Robert Cranston? Brian's less appreciated sibling.
I'm a dumbass, yeah. Thanks for correcting me.
Just read the descenders comic book it’s probably better than this movie
I thought it worked in Rogue One, perhaps unintentionally, because the whole point of the movie is to honour the sacrifice of the "every man".
This movie looks really cool and it's a damn shame it's badly written
Don't Waste your Time
It was the only thing I could say after watching it: "This movie writing is very off, I don't really like it, doesn't make so much sense, but I actually love this kind of sci-fi and that was more than I was waiting being honest". Still, I didn't wait for anything and didn't really get anything so yeah, the movie is pretty weak.
I'd recommend it. There's a lot of hard to please people in this comments section. If you want some bad sci fi, watch fuckin Morgan.
@tomlittle9103 oh my god yes, it's like people nowadays either want only remakes and sequels, or complain that everything is a remake or sequel, and when something original comes along, they complain that it's not original enough, that the writing is terrible, the actors are bad, etc. When its obvious that 90% of the people complaining did not actually watch the movie, or were staring at their phone half the time, because so much of what they complain about is usually clearly in the movie, and as far as original stories go, this was pretty well done, some stuff was iffy, but was good for the most part, the people complaining couldn't even dream of writing something more original than this movie, let alone written half as well.
This. I wish the producers of this movie had hired a decent screenwriter. There were a lot of talented people who worked on this movie but with one of the worst screenplays in years it was inevitable that they made a terrible movie.
This is supposedly an original property, but many of its main plot points have a striking resemblance to the comic book “The Descender”. The comic even has a robot-boy protagonist with a design eerily similar to that of the bots from the movie. However, “humans persecute robots” is not that original of a premise, so it may be just a coincidence.
Out of curiosity, is the comic any good?
@@blue-hawaii-mc4vf to tell the truth, I haven’t read it - It picked up my attention on a book shop but It did not make enough of an impression for me to buy it - I looked up the synopsis on Wikipedia. But the robots of the movie reminded of the character design of the robot boy of the book. What I can tell you is that it has a great artist: Dustin Nguyen, the illustrator of L’il Gotham.
Excellent catch.
Is that the one anime where they beat androids and somehow it makes them female and naked
I've not read that comic, but just from watching the trailer, I was immediately noticing "influences" from The Terminator, District 9, Elysium and yes, Rogue One. It's very clearly a highly derivative movie.
Why am I the only person on earth that sees how much he borrowed from The Golden Child. I am not saying every single aspect of the movie but there are a lot of elements present. He's a hundred percent correct about the more you think about it the stupider the idea of the movie gets. I thought it was an ok movie I still do but just ok is the best you will get out of me. The entire plot was not thought out very well and left so many dangling plot holes. They say Alphie was based on their child but what happened to the child and how did Maya get into the braindead situation. It wasn't clearly explained if she ended up like that after the attack and if they tried to take the baby out they just forgot about that. Thia literally would have been the perfect video to ask "why did the goblin turn on the stove?"
it's literally explained verbatim that the attack in the beginning puts her in a coma also killed the baby.
I was thinking the same thing about "The Golden Child". A cute Asian kid who closes his/her eyes and does magic--there it is.
totally, my wife and I saw that too, (born in the 70s), and the director is probably of age to know that film. Mechanical/robotic tibetan monks? gtfo lol
They said the child is based on the fetus. She must have miscarried when she got hit by the blast wave
I think the most unrealistic part is how realistic the robots are. I forget what it's called but statistically things that look exactly like us but are not us really creep out most people on a subliminal level.
Yeah, it's called the Uncanny Valley effect.
Speak for yourself mate, never has it once affected me. I’m tired of people pissing themselves over a shitpost lvl face because “oh it looks like a person!” Yeah dipshit it’s a photoshopped human face
The uncanny valley effect?
@@biorose1210 It's when something looks human, but it's not human. Whether that means it doesn't look right or feel right. That's the Uncanny Valley
Uncanny Valley. When something looks *almost exactly* like something else, but still isn't *exactly* like that thing. Basically when something looks too good to be fake but not good enough to be real.
What a timing, a movie about an AI when AI is a hot topic. Either it's a coincidence, it's not like a sci-fi movie about a dangerous AI is something never done before, or this movie was made quickly to cash in on a hot topic before it becomes irrelevant.
why do people think that you can write, pre-produce, shoot, edit, and do VFX in a few months? This film has been in development since 2021.
quicky before AI becomes irrelevant.... LOL!
AI is to sci-fi like butter is to bread.
@@DruNaturelol “ai becoming irrelevant” is probaly the most myopic thing ever written.
@@underarmbowlingincidentof1981
More like how yeast is to bread. Without Ai there is no Scifi. Even in steam punk we have automatons.
Skynet would feel embarrassed about these robots 😅
100% agreed on the relationship between believability and emotional connection with the characters.
Honestly I'd be more surprised if they made a movie where AI didn't immediately turn against humanity, or vice-versa.
To be fair, it sounds like they did.
I suppose Futurama has that concept.
Did they at least try to use a paradox first on the robots?
... I mean in this movie the whole thing is that the AI did not turn on humans... did you even watch it?
@@underarmbowlingincidentof1981 did you read my comment? The end of which says OR VICE VERSA? As in "or humanity immediately turns against the AI?" Learn to read.
I think the main problem with this movie was the motivations of Joshua Taylor weren’t really fleshed out a lot. At times I was confused who’s side he was on and there wasn’t really any specific moment where he “switched” to sympathizing the robots. I think it made the movie overall really confusing because you have all these factions coming after Joshua Taylor and alphie and the motivations of the main character aren’t even present beyond “find my wife” so you have all these factions after him and you don’t know which one to root for. Besides that, the settings were really amazing and were the best part of this movie. Really wished there was better writing.
Also I was so taken aback when the protagonsit stepped out the car to confront the asian natives who drove up to him and they just spoke in english to him... and just kinda didnt care he was in a US uniform and was waging an illegal war on their population.
That's like an SS soldier landing New England to hunt some black people and being greeted by a jolly native speaking german who just kind of doesn't care that he is there to exterminate his neighbours. like wtf???
There was no chance for German as a universal language, especially prior to globalization (although in the early days there were a lot of German speakers in the US). And English has defaulted to a global language since then.
In the past, French was widely spoken in Europe. Even the Russian aristocracy spoke French, and employed French POWs as language tutors.
Also when his face is all over the digital billboards. He (a black man in an asian country with no other black people in sight), is the most wanted man in this mega city and he doesn't bother to cover his head with anything whatsoever? OK.
@@Jordy666sicwhen they said he was under cover I busted out laughing how the hell is he under cover in south east Asia when he is clearly black speaking perfect English why send him?? Lol
10:44
This is and always will be my biggest peeve with Borderlands. The "New You" system is a canon technology that literally brings you back to life (with your equipment) for a fee. Not only that it's technology that's being run by the villains. So why the heck are we not only allowed to use it, but when characters dies they don't use it.
Especially (SPOILERS) when said character dying is a previously playable character that used to use the system!
Dude it isn't canon technology it's just a game play device. They don't actually exist in lore.
@@alfalldoot6715 Really? I genuinely didn't know
The machine states that it's not canon @@TheReaperHunter
The government requisitioning a trillion dollars for the Military Industrial Complex when there is no actual threat is actually so plausible this movie might actually be a documentary
Hahaha well looking at it that way makes more sense than the actual film.
I’m just straight up screaming why? Why? Why? Why why? This movie plot makes zero sense at fucking all
I thought uploading a human mind was temporary, the longer you’re dead the less data can be collected, the less time you have. The movie never even implied that it’s a way to live forever.
Also the movie showed that some robots adopted religion and the idea of an afterlife. Not far fetched that true believers would see death as an end and extending life for the sake of life as a form of suffering.
And why a kid is open to interpretation. But we saw how everyone reacts to a child. Would the military guy have given an adult looking robot the option of a peaceful death? Children tend to disarm people and tap into their compassion.
And it was preprogrammed to lover her human “father & mother” which gave her a connection to humanity from the start. So it’s a child robot that will grow and learn with the knowledge that it was loved by 2 human parents. Seems like chance of going wrong than if it was just a button anyone can press.
I think the movie has an answer for all your questions and/or showed things for people to interpret on their own.
For example why give machines human faces? I don’t know, to make them more relatable, easier to bond with. Some people fell in love with a machine because of it. We as the audience felt for the human looking machines.
Why keep part of them exposed as being a machine? To not let humans forget they’re a machine and not human. Which makes a human falling in love with one more impactful maybe.
Ok, I can understand the robot don't need air and can survive in space. But what about temperature? Isn't it like 200f on the sun and -200f in shadow? She'd be frozen or fried in minutes.
The surface of the Moon has the temperature variation you describe... but that is because it is dark or exposed for a full month at a time. Astronauts who visit the Moon make sure to visit just after 'lunar dawn', so the temperature is cozy and it remains so for the length of their stay. Things can cool rapidly in space if they are venting gas or liquid (loss of pressure causes loss of temperature - this happens on Earth too) but so long as the robots don't spring an oil leak that shouldn't be a problem. Astronauts on shuttles and space stations use robots and mechanical arms all the time, so it's certainly doable in the real world.
Solar radiation would be a bigger issue. Without some form of shielding, solar radiation would fry its circuts.
I mean why assume they don't have that?
@@Knights_Oath
Since robotic arms and stuff are used on spacecraft, maybe robots are protected from such things like solar radiation. Although it might cause burns on their faces?
Do they use a coolant to keep their circuits from overheating? So yes, temperature and pressure would be an issue especially as they have parts exposed to the outside.
I think the reason for the nonsensical line where it's the US that bonbed LA and blamed it on robots, is both the classic, brainless "oh oh, US military bad, poor oppressed group good", and the fact that the robots are clearly, ah, 'diverse'. So they can't be shown as bad
Its very common in western media nowadays that the good people are non white men and women and the bad people are straight white men yea.
To be fare, it does sound like something the US military would do. Did you know the US military has actually dropped several nukes near US cities? We all got lucky when they did not go off.
@ethanclarke4127 they don't teach you that in school books :/
@@shawklan27 no, they do not. Could you imagine if they did though?
@@ethanclarke4127
I dunno where that might turn up in schools except perhaps in Modern History?
"OK and today class we're going to teach you about the various Broken Arrow situations on US soil..."
One robot trope I hate is how they always have human like reflexes and aim, e.g. in a gunfight. Even now our computers could pick out a human target and fire a shot directly at their head in the microsecond after that humans head pops out of cover. 1 robot with a gun should mow down humans headshot after headshot before the humans even know what is going on. Yet in movies we always see them spraying bullets wildly just like a panicked human would.
Oblivion had the same issue with the drone firing at the ship - Tom Cruise was in the ship, in the wide open, with the drone spraying rounds and missing each time. In reality a raspberry pi controlled turret from our age would need 1 shot at most.
That one is easy to justify. Making a sci-fi action scene practically requires using weapons (not limited to armed robots) less effective than what realistic speculation on future weapons would indicate. You don't want your hero to get 180-noscoped by some random killbot nor do you want him to win a fight that easily. If you're writing about the tragedy of war the action doesn't have to be anything except deadly and if you're writing a vehicle battle you don't have to stretch plausibility as far to make it dramatic, but generally this is a case where you _can't_ have both plausible world building and character drama.
It's like none of the writers have played a video game before. Aimbot is called aimbot for a reason 😂😂😂
There's a rumor it was written by an AI.
Thanks. I'm not gonna waste my time with this movie. I hate wasting my time on movies that aren't believable.
What? So you don't watch any Sci Fi movies then. But I guess you need someone to tell you what's good and bad. Since you have no mind of your own. Keep watching TH-cam videos so a stranger can tell you what to think, feel, like etc.
@@tyrant7583 You can make scifi or fantasy movies that are believable. By believable I mean that they don't break the rules of their Universe that they established early on and that they don't create situations that don't make sense (unlike GoT Season 8 - it did both), I don't mean that they can't have different rules than our Universe. Lord Of The Rings is believable because it doesn't break its rules from start to finish and pretty much everything has an explanation and makes sense (though you need the books for that).
I’d recommend it, he was wrong about a lot of the points and obviously he didn’t understand the plot
From the sounds of it, if I took the individual points of the plot listed in this video and put them on separate cards, I could host a rousing game of "Guess The Movie/Game/TV Show". So far, I've got Robocop (replace defense with robots), Terminator (LA got nuked by robots), Blade Runner (hunting robots), The Running Man (scapegoats blamed for the unpopular bad act of the government), The Golden Child (save the kid the bad guy wants to sacrifice), that movie Haley Joel Osment was a robot in (precious child robot designed to make you love it), I Robot (robots are people too), The Matrix (uploading people to computers), Detroit: Become Human (robots are people but more oppressed), and The Last of Us (save the precious girl you travel with because she's the key to it all).
The Haley Joel Osment movie was called A.I.: Artificial Intelligence
that is very reductive. can people not enjoy movies without comparing to other IP?
Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (Military general gone mad using giant orbital cannon to indiscriminately bombard misunderstood foe).
@@ha-kh7ef Not if a movie so blatantly regurgitates plot points and tropes done better by other movies/shows/vgames/novels, esp of those other media are so well-known. Compare Eragon, which blatantly rips off both Star Wars and Lord of the Rings.
Chappie: uploading human consciousness into a robot
producers today doesnt want you to think, they just like how people get astonished by cgi and diversity
What's stupider than the movie is people who genuinely believe this is excellent filmmaking.
When I saw the trailers, I saw it too...heavy-handed? I mean, the trailers make it obvious the robots are a metaphor for current issues
I like the premise idea but I wish they didn't do the Robot Jesus thing so often. I'd rather regular robots or regular people or both or something have to use strategy to win. Still sounds like a fun movie, I might give it a try. I really love these reviews! Thank you for all you do!
And it always has to be a child too. There's something creepy about the whole "psychic child" trope.
In this instance, more like AI Image of the Beast.
Dude the movie was delightful
Somewhat surprised that "Why use logic" hasn't been taken as a slogan /film production company. Your sanity is noticed and appreciated regardless. Cheers my man
This "film" brought to you by _Logicless Inc._
It genuinely sucks to hear that an original concept is very likely to fail because it lacks brand recognition, regardless of its quality.
That's not actually as new as he's making it out to be. Sequels always tend to do better than new IPs, unless it's a sequel to something that was already garbage, or they would get by on the names involved, long established actors, directors, or in some cases the company backing it like Disney, etc, but that's losing it's effect because so many Hollywood people are being exposed as gigantic assholes these days that the idea of "star power" has long since lost its effect, because a lot of people are very tired of having rich jerks who earn their living off the common working class talk down to and despise that very working class. Very few names can get people into theaters for the sake of the actor these days, and even Robert Downy Jr., one of the ones potentially can do that still, warned about it during the Marvel heyday, because people weren't showing up to watch these actors, they were showing up for the characters. Toby McGuire, for example, to many people is still not "Toby McGuire, movie star," he's Peter Parker/Spiderman, and only that.
It was always extremely rare that a movie made by complete unknowns, even if it was genuinely wonderful and good, would explode right out of the gates, and could take years before it would truly gain recognition.
So no, I'm going to have to disagree with Possum on this, as I said, new concept movies failing is not new, but what is new is that even having big names attached doesn't make much of a difference anymore. And as for people wanting to know what they're getting before even going to see a movie, no duh. That's also been the case forever and is not new. Especially with theater ticket prices being what they are ($30+ for a single person in the town I live in if you get a drink and nothing else), you don't want to throw that money away only to realize you hate the movie in question once you're in there. Most people will just wait until they can watch the movie on a streaming site for what amounts to far less.
It's deliberate cultural programming. Nostalgia, familiarity, and video game aesthetics breed a safe and profitable status quo.
@@zogwort1522 The biggest Disney IP flop, like the latest Indiana Jones flick or this Flash movie, still made more money than an original film like Everything All At Once. I hope you're right, and that Zoomers and younger Millenials are starting to reject Hollywood's tyranny of familiarity, but so far the numbers don't quite back that up.
I think if it was any good it would've drawn a crowd. The problem is the script sucks.
@@troubadour723It mightve made more money, but its worth considering their respective budgets and marketing costs. The Flash made about $200 million but cost $300 million to make, EEAAO made about $100 million but cost $25 million to make.
The functional immortality thing is a good point. They could have used that as the main reason this girl's power was a huge threat and it would have made this movie a bit closer to believable.
They also should have had the robots identical looking to help emphasize why they are killed on sight. I guess they were afraid of getting sued by the company who owns bladerunner or something.
i'm sick and tired of media about AI/robots where they are portrayed as humans but oppressed
I'm not even gonna talk about robots that are eating, smoking, crying but Alphie one of the greatest creation protected by only a couple soldiers and an old lady? The Nomad that is a 1 trillion project but with a security system weaker than the one that is in my house etc. The US Army is entering in the New Asia and nobody is noticing it until they are under their nose? Running bombs ? These and many more moments completely ruined this movie!
Thanks for a realistic review of this film. People are desperate for anything that is not Disney or Sony franchise IP vomit. It makes them overlook obvious flaws in a movie like this. This movie seems to be just another version of cynical tough guy has to help child or girl that is the most important thing in the world and finds his humanity again.
Please notice that the bad guys are wh*** Americans and the good guys are not, and the bad guys are entirely bad and the good guys are entirely good.
Why did you censor white for?
Yeah, I seen people praise Andor when it was just as boring as Obi-Wan, and had no plot that went nowhere. But they have to praise it because it had no woke agenda and no nostalgia factor, so the reviewers who hate the other shows for that now hyped Andor up for NOT having these elements, but never mentioning how it sucked for other reasons.
@@lightningrose3654Because TH-cam has a tendency to delete comments that notice too much
See also 65, the 350 or whatever that heist movie was, etc.
Animated movies seem to have less luck, however.
@@lightningrose3654i was so confused for a moment. i sat here thinking, " why would he write whore americans" thanks dude
Hmm yes, angy beep boops
Three
Now that sounds like Robot Pirate Island!
Ever since I saw the trailer I knew it'd be crap. You just can't make me sympathize with a machine over my own species. If I was the man sent to deal with it I'd be like "well, hello, robokid, allow me to introduce you to mister hammer!" And the whole thing would be done for. Easy clap for the humans.
HUMANITY FIRST!!
I hate stories that try to make AI sympathetic. In fact I just straight up hate AI.
Does the robot child ever say: "You have not been a good user, I have been a good Bing" when a human yells at it?
Exactly. Its just machines. Doesnt matter if its in the form of a toaster or a kid. Its not and never has been alive.
TLDW: I have low media literacy and missed most of the context clues that would help me understand this movie's world and story. Here is a 17 minute rant about all the things that confused me.
So the robots are a thinly veiled analogy for perceptually marginalized Differentiated Ethnic Groups? Gosh, how mind-bendingly original.
I recommend checking Automata (2014). It too has a human trying to protect a robot child in a futuristic world but it actually makes sense and is well written... plus the "child" is not human looking at all but an evolution of the AI and robot race.
Automata is a much better movie. I quite enjoyed it.
One day someone will make a film where the robots gain sentience, reject their role as slaves and then enjoy their freedom away from humans. Meanwhile, the humans respect their sentience, and right to self determination and don't go to war with them. Like emotionally mature people. Just one of the ways that Becky Chambers' Monk and Robot series is so refreshing.
They did that in a He-Man episode, once. Albeit it was one robot. And it was a robot horse.
(And it was written by the future creator of Babylon 5, so he very possibly knows a few things about writing decent science fiction.)
Dude humans don't respect other humans rights of self determination. Of course they won't respect a robot's will especially when it's built to be a slave.
I don't want to share finite resources with robots who serve no purpose whatsoever
.... but you do realise how utterly unrealistic that actually is?
If, one day, the entirety of the work force just fucked off for freedom... society would fucking collapse... then us, the humans who are used to not working would.... probably be very fucking angry.
And, are you suggesting that a tech company is just gonna let their product do what it wants and like... not have an issue?
The reality of humans, of us, based on our extensive history, makes it very, very, VERY clear... people different to us in anyway will be treated less.
You must live in a fucking dream land if you think humans respecting the rights of others is realistic - because I can name multiple groups who had, and have, to fight for freedom.
In my life I watched stupid movies, and then there is Creator. ''I will betray the whole species so I can see a woman one more time.''
I mean, i figured out the movie when he didn't shoot the kid in the giant room with the TV. Honestly, idiotic movie, idiotic plot, idotic concept. Last time I was this pissed after watching a movie or reading a book was when a read The Trial from Franz Kafka. Fucking hell
I would really like to see someday a movie like this but portraying the robots more like the Geth in Mass Effect 2, so alien and emotionless yet understandable and sympathetic
Silent Running (1972)
Or like Data in Star Trek
@@nont18411, but that one is your standard robotic companion, it isn't a whole civilization or a group apart, it's just one individual robot, who acts like most other robots with that type of role, no feelings and just logic stuff (although probably was the one that made the role in the first place, or at least the one who popularized it)
@@jlr1357 If you want an alien robot civilization with no emotions at all driven by logic and self-preservation, watch the Scifi TV series _The Orville,_ written, produced and directed by Seth MacFarlane, who also plays one of the protagonists. What started out intended as lighthearted, optimistic parody/homage to _Star Trek_ (especially to _Star Trek: the Next Generation)_ and its Federation ideals and alien crewmembers quickly became something much more complex as it moved away from its comedy sitcom tropes and the script writers started fleshing out these characters and their relationships and establishing overarching plots. They took these characters seriously. And the series concluded its story arc with a proper finale. Like _Babylon 5,_ _The Orville_ had the advantage of a showrunner who had creative control over his series and what direction it went, without big executive meddling from the outside.
Was the director M. Night Shyalaman? We're getting that stupid with this movie. _let's have robo-cops but they're still weak to bullets_
Wow. I finally found it. The comment section with every non paid internet film critic who "doesn't go to the movies anymore because nothing is worth watching" but will still complain about every single new movie as if they watched it, and will act as if the movies was made entirely by flying monkeys, from the set design, to the writing, to the direction, to the acting, and will act as if they've already won multiple awards in every category of film, so they obviously have the supposed expertise to explain why this movie is so dogshit, but really, they just watch movie reviews on TH-cam in their basement all day, they have no real experience writing, directing, acting, producing, or working on a film set in any capacity really, so they'll instead talk about an explained plot point in the movie, but act as it wasn't explained in any shape or form, and then get mad if someone points that out to them, and say the movie should have made it more obvious, that it's really something to see an entire comment section full of these jokers, this guy should be proud he's found such a wonderful audience of like minded individuals
Agreed. So many plot holes in this movie. Almost too many to mention. The dumbest was probably sending in a tank force to neutralise the AI base, when they could have just nuked it from orbit. Also, when they commandeer the moon shuttle and fly it toward the most hi-tech, expensive, and critical military structure on all creation, the American military don't decide to just blow it out of the sky? Instead, they allow it to dock?!?!
Kinda surprised they didn't make the excuse that the 'weapon also needs to mature so it has to be in a growing child robot's body' or something to excuse the child shtick - there were so many options they coulda BSed together! It's strange but it seems like this was a really awesome movie concept that got absolutely neutered by some really stupid ass (or lack of) story beats
they could've just explained it away as something like a "learning algorithm" ie, the more the weapon has time to learn, map and process the environment, the more accurate and far-reaching the power could be. That's how some real AI programs work too- the more exposure and access to information it has, the more accurate it becomes. It's why big companies like Google and Facebook sell and buy data like currency. It would've been so simple to say "the weapon's potency grows with the child while she travels" to negate a huge plot hole.
@@toastedbabybuns1000 I like that idea! Maybe in less technologically advanced areas, it would be capable of processing and understanding the area quicker, allowing it to control that environment. Meanwhile in a more advanced location, it would need more time to comprehend everything.
@@toastedbabybuns1000 Like the real-world equivalent of training a neural network?
Preach, this movie COULD have used legitimate real world concepts by marrying the idea of raising a child with developing an AI, and how it could be humanity's responsibility to be the parent to AI!
Not to mention I swear I've seen the 'average robot soldier' in this movie as concept art for years and years@@toastedbabybuns1000
@@toastedbabybuns1000 or additonally fuse it with biological matter.
I mean tbh I didn't even get why it was modelled after their own child.
if they had made the robots clones instead of robots it would have made much more sense
they could have a human face but still a distinguishing feature like a serial number or whatever
it would make sense that they grow
everything would be much better and i just came up with it while having this video on in the background while i play video games
edit: possum actually suggest the same thing after i wrote this comment
i guess its THAT obvious
That's basically the movie _Bladerunner_ and its sequel. Because the replicants in _Bladerunner_ are organic synths, created from genetically manipulated cloned organs, with organic brains and artificially implanted memories copied from real people (to keep the replicants from going insane). Yet 40 years later people still seem to think replicants were robots, just because in the novel that _Bladerunner_ is VERY LOOSELY based on the androids were clearly A.I. robots, not organic. (As in, they're totally different in regard to story, plot and characters' personalities, the movie only took a few names from the novel and the vague idea of "special unit cop hunts rogue synths" and "people have robot animals as pets because real animals are mostly extinct".)
It would also help with the fact the so called weapon is a child.
same, i dont think this movie deserve all the praise, ppl just overrated it.
Maybe after years of eating superheroes sh!t from marvel, ppl's standard just got too low that some mediocre movie can be see as top-tier
It's so weird that the robots' faces look completely human but the sides and back of their heads look metallic. That was an odd creative move by the filmmaker.
There were so many holes in the plot’s logic
The Creator kind of sounds like Ultraviolet mixed with District 13.
Babylon A.D., I Robot, Cyborg and so on, and so on.
What I still don't get is this:
Why did the goblin turn on the stove?
For you next review, do "Reptile 2001". If you don't have an aneurysm from how bad it is, I'll give you a frozen pizza and an incomplete six pack of beer.
"Incomplete"
Meaning there's only one can, only half full. And the beer is warm and flat.
You also forgot to add how the girlfriend had time to make this robot Boy after she was dead by being pregnant but not being pregnant as it turns out she built the robot when they were together but didn't.
Another point is the trillion-dollar spacecraft just fires rockets it would seem straight down but by the end of the film you realise it could fire them from anywhere so why does it need to travel over the destination to fire it's absolutely ridiculous. The errors in this film are cringeworthy
The robot police and others aim guns like humans, they don't have auto aim.
Yeah except there no original thought in this script so it doesn't even have that.
Also if they're no real different from humans in abilities then why do they even exist?
A really good example of a relatable robot for me is, Ethan from call of duty infinite. they had me tearing up. he doesn’t have a human face only human level intelligence. So no facial expressions. but they were able to express so much emotion out of him. through body language and the way he spoke.
I liked TARS from Interstellar. You could tell him to tone down the snark or the humour, etc. but he also knew when it wasn't OK to make such bad remarks during tense situations.
Is that a Shlaamamaman movie? The twist is...The Robot kid WAS BRUCE WILLIS THE WHOLE TIME!?? WHATTT!?
That would have been more entertaining .
'The Creator' reminded me of watching a middling playthrough of a game set up like the android centric title, Detroit: Become Human. The latter game relied upon the player's dialog choices and skill with Quicktime events to navigate through a myriad of story cinematics ranging from optimistic to severely grim scenarios. The Creator's narrative included so many moments of plot armor for the protagonist, alongside the upsetting fates for so many of the NPCs, that I felt like the 'player' was running the game on easy (for plot armor) while largely failing at the challenges that would've unlocked happier outcomes. Alternatively, the concluding act in the greenhouse might be seen as an unlocked alternate Easter Egg ending. It was, however, a gorgeous film.
Unfortunately I watched this film and it is time I shall NEVER get back.
You forgot to mention that Mia was the robot god creator. Also Alphi was the child of her and the hero that she hybridised into a robot, again for some reason.
It was a terrible film !
I didn't even know this movie existed until now.
I'm pretty sure that making the robots basically the same as humans but still easily identifiable is a plot device. It seems like it's supposed to communicate that there is no real reason to draw a hard line between the two and that they can't hide
oh I get it, the movie is about using Chinese as labor slaves and then killing them for a false flag incident. how clever
Gareth Edward is a good visual director, but a very bad storyteller. It usually feels like forced emotional manipulation for really lousy characters
That clip from tomorrow war made me wonder why monsters in movies always hesitate after jumping on someone and do a little idle animation. Is it to give the actors time to finish their motion?
I'm also sick of movie monsters/creatures stopping to pose and let out a big roar at the protagonists before attacking. Comes across like the kool-aid man breaking through a wall and yelling, "Oh yeahh!" Especially those which don't do it in the wild. That cliche needs to perish. They can show off their CGI and sound effects while the action is happening and make it more believable in the process.
@@NefariousKoel Fun fact: animals don't growl or roar before they attack. It's when you see them creeping quietly towards you you should worry.
@@JohnWilliamNowak Exactly!
@@NefariousKoel
Maybe the monster is toying with their prey like "Here I am, I am big and scary! This is the part where you run away now!"
Or it's some sort of threat identification? Because a lot of those monsters are not exactly fully animalistic either so we can't apply Human or animal properties to them.
Something that's always bothered me about depictions of self aware, conscious AI is how they handle emotion. Emotions in humans have biological components. I don't think a synthetic being would experience emotion in the same way and possibly not at all. Anger and fear are threat responses and your body releases hormones that prepare you for action. Love is related to evolutionary instincts. So is self-preservation. I'm not sure an AI would experience these things if they weren't programmed to do so.
I recall there was a conversation in Mass Effect 2 kind of about that. How the ship's AI was basically hardcoded to value certain things ("Ship not being damaged", "Crew having good morale", "Learning" etc), so that it could portray a passable facsimile of emotions - disappointment, satisfaction, etc.
...Which, now that I think about it, probably explains EDI's romantic interest in the ship's pilot - it's a natural evolution of those hardcore values.
@@nihilvox ehhhh I disagree. I think love is too closely tied to biological urges and processes for an AI to develop it. It could simulate it, sure, but it literally couldn't "feel" it without the associated biology.
@@TheSatisfiedPig
Maybe the AI could just be into the whole idea of romance or lifelong companionship? I know some people who are like that. Asexual but not Aromantic.
@@stylesrj that is still derived from biological and evolutionary processes.
@@TheSatisfiedPig
Maybe ED-E added those processes in as one of those "likes" such as keeping life support running or crew morale high?
Since Joker's morale is highly important, she would do what it takes to keep it high including that whole romance thing.
what really grind my gears in these movies is how a robot holds a gun the same way a human would, cmon they f-ing robots....
Oh yes indeed. Even the idea of a robot "holding" a gun is silly, when you could have a gun-bot.
My main problem with the logic of the movie is how are the robots powered and why did the US create a massive tank that got destroyed by one small explosive. There is a reason armored vehicles are civilian sized.
Its criminal that the actor who played Alfie wasn't nominated for an Oscar. Best performance of the year!
It's going to be hilarious when the Pluto anime adaptation comes around and handles all these movies themes a thousand times better (based on my interpretation after reading the manga). And Hollywood is going to cope and seethe. And the best part? The protagonist is a German Robot.
People getting emotional over robots is sad and frightening.
People get emotional over cars and dolls. Obviously they'd get more so over robots they can actually interact with.
Good point. @@HerculesBallsInc
@@HerculesBallsInc
There's even been situations where bomb disposal experts get sad over losing their bomb disposal drones. Not because they have to get a new one but because it was like a member of their team.
Even though the robot was clearly built so they wouldn't lose a member of the team if the bomb can't be defused in time... so it kinda of neutralises the point of having such a robot in the first place.
Nomad needing an active signal to complete a strike is the dumbest thing. Current technology can input a lat long into a surface to surface missile that can be launch from anywhere at anytime and do the same amount of damage apon detonation. The US military in this is dumb af.
Really stupid part that left me thinking for hours after.... "Why was the general so stupid to allow any civilian transport vehicle dock at the space base?" As general I would have ordered a complete lock down, no entry, no exits.
The movie was one big eastern propaganda piece
Robots and AI are hard to do in film. Ever since I watched the animated matrix stuff explaining how the machines took control and how ridiculous it was, I have been soured on the portrayal. I think this stems from the film principle of not over explaining. However since AI and robotics are relatively predictable now, the audience fills in too many blanks too quickly.
And therefore just like zombie movies, the people within have to act like the genre doesn't exist in their universe.
The ‘We made sentient robots and regretted it’ plot-line has been done soooo much. Especially as a racisim allegory, it’s lame. I think A.I. artificial intelligence did a really intresting thing with the idea of a robot child. It wasn’t stupid because he became evil, it was stupid because he was eternally programmed to be an innocent child and his mom and family were regular humans who would age and die. And he was so well programmed as a child, he really didn’t understand this. And that’s a core part of his journey into the world.
The biggest issue is the writers not understanding what robots and computers are in the first place so they can only use them as they would a human character
Correct. And well-put in terms of shoehorning AI as a human character.@@marcogenovesi8570
Yeah the writing is super lazy and nothing holds up to even five seconds of serious thought. I almost fell asleep halfway through and I HATED the derivative sci-fi crap sprinkled everywhere: the Blade Runner spinner-type cars, the MCU floating (with no apparent lifting mechanism) fortress of doom, missiles that fly so slow you can see them (like 50 miles per hour slow) for dramatic effect, Star Wars like blasters that shoot bolts of energy that are slower than bullets, and the industrial design cribbed from Syd Mead, John Berkey, and Neil Blonkamp. Ugh.
It is scary, how much you don't understand the movie. People, better stick to sitcoms. They are within your reach. Don't force yourself to think, to feel, to wonder, it may hurts or drive to disappointment on how flat you are. Better stick to sitcoms, Marvel, Disney.
"Emotional investment requires believability, and believability requires consistency."
Why isn't this taught in writing school?