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
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?
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.
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
When I first saw the trailer, I assumed they were going to pull a Screamers / the Second Variety, and have the weapon be a robot girl as a form of infiltration, have the weapon be a child so that the enemy inherently grows attached to it and has difficulty attacking it.
Pfft, as if government have any hesitation slaughtering children. Communist governments have genocided TENS OF MILLIONS OF CHILDREN. Only someone with a conscience and guilt would care. It is a fact more governments these days are run by sociopathic pedos.
I literally couldn’t stop thinking about why the robots didn’t have better reflexes and agility. All the stuff you brought up was in the back of my mind making it impossible to let down my suspension of disbelief. It looked good but there wasn’t much else to it.
Omg I knooow. There was robots with old faces hobbling while they run for their lives. Like seeing a grandma sprint like Austin Bolt is some real robot shit. Why would a machine have the extreme physical limitations of a human body?
There's this scene where a bunch of cop robots need to extract the kid from the living room after they ordered ice cream, and they have their guns pointed at the child while the squad leader interrogates it. It would have been so much more impactful if their red (orange) laser sight dots would've been dead stable on the kids head (instead of wobbly as fuck like a human being trying to aim steadily). Like why are the's POLICE robots so clunky. You'd expect them to have incredible reflexes and stability.
@@TheMPExperience what’s the benefit of having a robot need to hobble around like a grandma? It makes no sense to create tools with built in disfunction. It would be like designing a computer that can only display on half the screen or work a few hours a day. They called the characters robots but then made them identical to humans. Dumb.
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 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.
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
@@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.
@@demiurgos9800they were bamboozled and spell bound. 😂😂. It's not every day a bomb runs right into your hide out, cslmly introduces itself and explodes.
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.
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.
2:32 this sign reads 募集中 which means wanted as in "looking for hire" they really just slapped "wanted" into google translate and ran with the first result
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...
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~
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.
@@amentco8445 Probably saves on weight and parts as you don't need all those squishy organic bits... but then they still do need to engage in squishy organic activities so... I dunno...
I think the stupidest thing about the movie is that the US has an unchallenged military advantage over all of Asia. I can understand if they are fighting 3rd world countries but all of Asia? Seriously? And also, Asians are the ones continuing to use AI and they are at a disadvantage? Not a single country had an issue with the US building an orbital weapon and had no countermeasures for it? To me, this is the worst part of the movie.
The whole motivation and writing for the "bad guys" in this movie seemed pretty stupid or at least lazily written. It seemed very 2d - as if they were trying to get easy sympathy points for the "good guys".
About halfway through this movie I realized I didn’t care how it ended. I didn’t care about which side won or lost, or who died and who survived. That’s how you know a story isn’t doing its job.
@@CharlieHathaway thats not at all what it means. Not being able to decide who to root for, or rooting for both is not the same thing as not caring who wins. If you don't care, the story is not compelling and not actually doing its job.
@@CharlieHathaway It’s just garbage storytelling bruh. I’ve seen some pure B tier movies but this is the first I’ve ever walked out on because of how stupid it made me feel.
I thought the plot was too convoluted to enjoy, but one little thing I'll note, is Ken Wantanabe says the nuke was a human error that got blamed on AI, but they never explain it beyond that, which annoyed me more than if the AI actually did it.
by FAR the worst part of the movie. Like i KNEW there was gonna be some sorta twist explanation, and all we got was “it wasn’t the AI that did it! imagine that!” and then it was never brought up again. It completely nullifies the entire impetus of the film! That means there’s some sort of conspiracy to uncover! But the movie doesn’t care.
That honestly was the point where I stopped caring entirely, because it took the story from "both sides have made mistakes" to "Humans(specifically the US) are entirely in the wrong and monsters, and robots(which represent whatever minority you wanna pick at the moment) are innocent of everything." just pure propoganda.
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."
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
The whole movie doesn’t make sense, you’re saying these people are smart enough to make AI robots but not smart enough to build air defences or not build their bases on beaches. You have AI yet no facial recognition technology on security cameras and rely on inept security guards. Where is the opposing military force? It seems like they only have a crappy police department ran by robots dumber than humans. The thought process, plot and character portray of this film is so childish. Bad guys are cartoonishly bad, protect the innocent child is such an over done trope. Then you’re forced to follow this annoying main character who’s a simp that will do anything for love while being beat over the head with imperialism bad as the bad guys rampage through a bunch of helpless NPCs. The film tries to make you feel bad for the characters but you don’t like anybody cause they’re either stupid or an over used trope.
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.
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.
So this is just a mediocre "racism = bad" movie with a tired "AI vs humans" plot? Someone should tell Hollywood, that simply not being based on a pre-existing franchise doesn't make something original.
And the whole thing is extremely unoriginal. How many times do we need to do this super special star-child crap? It's like a weird cult dedicated to worshipping some child god
@kyleames77 I've seen plenty, not much shitty Sci fi but enlighten me on those movies if there are so many. The movie did a lot of good, especially with the cinematography. Even if it was more of the same, still a fun watch better than anything disney/marvel/star wars has put out in recent years
@@xopasstheaux6617 if you're looking to Disney and Marvel as a standard for movies I'm not going to even bother, you need to go back a few decades and check out some of those movies before you start calling these kinds of movies good, this is the bare minimum for a movie "plot"
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?
One of the major problems i had is the concept of "off". It's not equatable to death. In some instances it may fit but alot of the time you can fix a machine, hell you can backup an AI. In short their existence is not nearly as fragile as ours is when it comes to harm and ailment. Like gut shot bot could totally get fixed. Not even close to dead.
What's annoying is that studio executives are gonna blame it's poor reception on it being a medium budget standalone, when the real problem is that the writers are just using ai to write.
There is no such thing as "ai" if we do actually achieve a sentient computer being what are you going to call the fancy search engines you're calling 'ai" now?
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.
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.
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!
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.
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 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.
my guess with the "unspecified coding error." was that AI in charge of the targeting system was updating something, and didn't follow the correct process. ergo it was the fault of an AI, but more in a Human error way, and the US/UN figure that the AI potential made more 'Mistake' like that again. granted in a system like that there should being multiple failsafe, even if it was a only 'fission' (I'm not 100% sure a fusion reactor can have a meltdown). it seem to be a throw away to 'Oh look, Humans are bad, because they have fear reaction' which is actually really bad writing
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.
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!
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.
They're trying to use the psychology of the face against us. . its like dogs having forward facing eyes and us loving them for it. . .they dont want us to fear A.I. so they make it soft and cuddly. . .its just acclimation.
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?!?!!
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.
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
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.
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.
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
@@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.
The robot was the most powerful development not because of what it could do. It was because it can grow and learn, that's why the military dude when looking at her was not amazed by her abilities, but by the fact that she can grow. Every other robot in the movie as based purely off of a human personality. The protag was based on a fetus. But can still talk and learn new things...
As a data analyst, I was like wtf on the whole concept. Even Today's AIs like chatGPT can learn. Since most AIs run on some cloud service, they can even grow in terms of compute capacity, memory and neuron network size. In fact, that is the main difference between chatGPT 3.5 and 4.0. Not to mention, most AIs run on servers not inside two legged machines. Shooting down a robot controlled by an AI remotelly does not hurt the AI in any sense.
@@otapi The way I understood it was this: In terms of todays comparisons, imagine the human personality being uploaded into the body. This personality would act like the internet, a body of information for the AI to scrape through. In theory, it can't grow because its a set amount of information that it can "read" from. And for simplicity sake lets say that once the "program/personality" has been uploaded, it cant be upgraded/changed externally via humans or something. Imagine if instead of programmer's making ChatGPT 4.0 from 3.5, the AI was able to make those advancements on its own and release it, without direct human interference. These are my thoughts on the subject, at the end of the day. Its a movie, its not grounded in reality, so I can understand why it would be off putting for programming bros.
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.
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.
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
One of the many things that bothered me with the movie was seeing religious robots. So Humanity has worked for centuries to develop science and engineering, fought to get out of the limiting religious dogmas of the Dark Ages in order to become more rational and enlightened, and yet the super advanced AIs we created decide to go backward and worship Gods, even becoming monks... lol seriously?
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 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.
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.
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.
Sounds familiar - viz. Template for TV series "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea": 1 - We got this scientist on board to do neat research 2 - Monsters attack everyone & everything 3 - Do you thing that scientist is connected to this mess? 4 - Stuff happens and everything is OK for to make the next episode...yes, really Repeat next episode with above.
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
Saw the movie last night. Had all the same thoughts. Great review. Adding to your comment about robots being essential no different than humans, that was the biggest error to me in the film. Humans are functionally described as nothing more than machines with data that can be downloaded. There is no hint of anything immaterial about us, no spirit, or soul, or anything that differentiates. I assume that was not an accident. It seems to be a major point of the film. In short, the whole film seemed to be a slap at the concept of the Imago Dei, being made in the image of God. The title, the snippet from Genesis, etc. As you said, "human bad, robot good" seems to be the primary message. Thanks for the review!
11:14 I was on a project to convert an organisation from manual paper based systems to a computerised one. When the consultants came on the first time, they were like Ooooo. Their initial thought was we were converting from a computerised, albeit primitive system to their more updated advanced one. And yeah, we eventually went live with the computerised system but it was a heck of a lot or work and time to get things on initially. So I understand your point completely.
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..."
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.
Apparently there is a scene where a human is strangling a robot and it does some gurgling sounds as if it's actually being strangled, that just sounds incredibly dumb. EDIT: hehe you mentioned this later on in the vid :D
@@mugwump7049Brain is full of ideas and you want to write it down before you forget what you thought by the end of the video. I was loosely associated with an IT department and the saying was "Document Document Document. You are never as smart tomorrow (or 3 mins later) as you are today." 😁
@@markusgorelli5278 It never ceases to amaze me how people these days have such a low attention span. If they need to write something down because they won't remember it 5 minutes later, then they have a major problem.
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.
'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.
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".)
What kind of plan is to make your immediate weapon a child?! Like they made a weapon they needed right then. That won't be at her full potential till she's a adult. It'd make more sense to make a few adult soldiers. Or not even put it in a robot at all! Put it in a laptop and carry it round in a bag. Make it a crystal ball you talk to.
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.
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.
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.
Literally the only reason I watched it is that nothing better is coming out. It's the blandest most generic shoot-em-up sci-fi that carelessly mashes together so many different tropes to give a serviceable, but perfectly forgettable movie.
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 !
... so you only took in the surface themes of that movie huh? Tell me you don't understand story-telling, metaphors, themes and philosophy without telling you don't know storytelling, metaphors, themes and philosophy.
Just to try to counter some of you claims: 1. You said the robots are exactly the same as the humans so why even make them robots? Well, this is only true for the stimulants, the human-looking robots. The others were slightly different. 2. The device used to copy a human’s mind was possibly rare an expensive and only used by the government. Just because it could fit into a backpack doesn’t mean in’s common. 3. At one point you mentioned that a robot was straggled to death but he was only strangled so that someone else could shoot him, so he actually died from a bullet. However all your other points were valid, but I still thought is was an entertaining, well-made movie with a flawed plot but still a good one.
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.
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
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
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
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
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.😇
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.
"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.
When I first saw the trailer, I assumed they were going to pull a Screamers / the Second Variety, and have the weapon be a robot girl as a form of infiltration, have the weapon be a child so that the enemy inherently grows attached to it and has difficulty attacking it.
They did
Babylon A.D. did that before this let-down of a sci-fi.
Would have made for a better plot if she turns into some armored monster robot at the end.
Pfft, as if government have any hesitation slaughtering children. Communist governments have genocided TENS OF MILLIONS OF CHILDREN. Only someone with a conscience and guilt would care. It is a fact more governments these days are run by sociopathic pedos.
@@SwiftNimblefoot a robot girl turning into a armored Core and nuking shit would have been cool tbh
I literally couldn’t stop thinking about why the robots didn’t have better reflexes and agility. All the stuff you brought up was in the back of my mind making it impossible to let down my suspension of disbelief.
It looked good but there wasn’t much else to it.
Omg I knooow. There was robots with old faces hobbling while they run for their lives. Like seeing a grandma sprint like Austin Bolt is some real robot shit. Why would a machine have the extreme physical limitations of a human body?
80 millions , youll need more cgi to do that , so just use what the actor already had its free.
There's this scene where a bunch of cop robots need to extract the kid from the living room after they ordered ice cream, and they have their guns pointed at the child while the squad leader interrogates it. It would have been so much more impactful if their red (orange) laser sight dots would've been dead stable on the kids head (instead of wobbly as fuck like a human being trying to aim steadily). Like why are the's POLICE robots so clunky. You'd expect them to have incredible reflexes and stability.
Wow what a stupid take. The robots were engineered to help humans with everyday life, they were manufactured to be super weapons.
@@TheMPExperience what’s the benefit of having a robot need to hobble around like a grandma? It makes no sense to create tools with built in disfunction. It would be like designing a computer that can only display on half the screen or work a few hours a day. They called the characters robots but then made them identical to humans. Dumb.
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 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.
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
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?
is ridiculous how easily this superweapon was found, if it was so precious to the machines.
They lost me at the point when a "running bomb" crossed the bridge.
And they just watch it just like an NPC with dumb cheat activated
Right, and that weak bang. That big ass thing should blow like a nuke.
They tried to shoot it with everything they had to stop it. It was heavily armored. Stop lying.@@demiurgos9800
sentry buster mvm
@@demiurgos9800they were bamboozled and spell bound. 😂😂. It's not every day a bomb runs right into your hide out, cslmly introduces itself and explodes.
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.....🤔
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
Viewer: "if you can put a human mind in a robot, can't you put a robot mind into another robot?"
The Creator: "Don't be ridiculous."
it's the dumbest concept second to time travel.
Robocop did it way better.
@@stuart6478 How is time travel a dumb concept, exactly?
@@mugwump7049 Look up Stephen Hawking on time travel.
@@mugwump7049 because media is really bad at doing the concept in a fun but new way
2:32 this sign reads 募集中 which means wanted as in "looking for hire"
they really just slapped "wanted" into google translate and ran with the first result
The murican hates AI but using AI for translating 🤯
Ok, who gives a shit.
well maybe they want to hire him after they catch him
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
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.
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.
There's something disconcerting about a human face with a hole straight through the middle.
It's more disturbing and alien than the Xenomorphs.
I just wanna try and toss something through the damn hole lol
what was the design advantage of that? making it easier to recognize a robot?
yes
@@amentco8445
@@amentco8445 easier to humanize with a robot face. Also less surface area to hit.
@@amentco8445
Probably saves on weight and parts as you don't need all those squishy organic bits... but then they still do need to engage in squishy organic activities so... I dunno...
The guy in the last act screaming "HIT THE BUTTON, HIT THE BUTTON!" probably had the most genuine emotion out of all the actors
Hit the button PLEAASE!
please.
I think the stupidest thing about the movie is that the US has an unchallenged military advantage over all of Asia. I can understand if they are fighting 3rd world countries but all of Asia? Seriously? And also, Asians are the ones continuing to use AI and they are at a disadvantage? Not a single country had an issue with the US building an orbital weapon and had no countermeasures for it? To me, this is the worst part of the movie.
The whole motivation and writing for the "bad guys" in this movie seemed pretty stupid or at least lazily written. It seemed very 2d - as if they were trying to get easy sympathy points for the "good guys".
About halfway through this movie I realized I didn’t care how it ended. I didn’t care about which side won or lost, or who died and who survived. That’s how you know a story isn’t doing its job.
Personally I think this is a good thing as it shows both sides have an argument that stands for there cause
@CharlieHathaway no it means I equally don't give a shit about them
Yeah, even if both sides are not sympathetic, people would stick around if the story enganging and appealing. Not "who won" but "what happen next"
@@CharlieHathaway thats not at all what it means. Not being able to decide who to root for, or rooting for both is not the same thing as not caring who wins. If you don't care, the story is not compelling and not actually doing its job.
@@CharlieHathaway It’s just garbage storytelling bruh. I’ve seen some pure B tier movies but this is the first I’ve ever walked out on because of how stupid it made me feel.
I thought the plot was too convoluted to enjoy, but one little thing I'll note, is Ken Wantanabe says the nuke was a human error that got blamed on AI, but they never explain it beyond that, which annoyed me more than if the AI actually did it.
I left with like 20ish minutes left and wondered if they would ever bring it back up, thank you! This movie was so dumb.
Watanabes character could just have lied.
by FAR the worst part of the movie. Like i KNEW there was gonna be some sorta twist explanation, and all we got was “it wasn’t the AI that did it! imagine that!” and then it was never brought up again. It completely nullifies the entire impetus of the film! That means there’s some sort of conspiracy to uncover! But the movie doesn’t care.
That honestly was the point where I stopped caring entirely, because it took the story from "both sides have made mistakes" to "Humans(specifically the US) are entirely in the wrong and monsters, and robots(which represent whatever minority you wanna pick at the moment) are innocent of everything." just pure propoganda.
... bruh, it really wasn't that hard to follow in tbe slightest.
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."
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
The whole movie doesn’t make sense, you’re saying these people are smart enough to make AI robots but not smart enough to build air defences or not build their bases on beaches. You have AI yet no facial recognition technology on security cameras and rely on inept security guards. Where is the opposing military force? It seems like they only have a crappy police department ran by robots dumber than humans. The thought process, plot and character portray of this film is so childish. Bad guys are cartoonishly bad, protect the innocent child is such an over done trope. Then you’re forced to follow this annoying main character who’s a simp that will do anything for love while being beat over the head with imperialism bad as the bad guys rampage through a bunch of helpless NPCs. The film tries to make you feel bad for the characters but you don’t like anybody cause they’re either stupid or an over used trope.
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
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.
So this is just a mediocre "racism = bad" movie with a tired "AI vs humans" plot? Someone should tell Hollywood, that simply not being based on a pre-existing franchise doesn't make something original.
And the whole thing is extremely unoriginal. How many times do we need to do this super special star-child crap? It's like a weird cult dedicated to worshipping some child god
I don’t get the hate or that point, was a very good watch imo
@@xopasstheaux6617 doesn't sound like you've seen very many movies to me, this is a copy paste plot of like 20 different movies we've already had.
@kyleames77 I've seen plenty, not much shitty Sci fi but enlighten me on those movies if there are so many. The movie did a lot of good, especially with the cinematography. Even if it was more of the same, still a fun watch better than anything disney/marvel/star wars has put out in recent years
@@xopasstheaux6617 if you're looking to Disney and Marvel as a standard for movies I'm not going to even bother, you need to go back a few decades and check out some of those movies before you start calling these kinds of movies good, this is the bare minimum for a movie "plot"
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?
One of the major problems i had is the concept of "off". It's not equatable to death. In some instances it may fit but alot of the time you can fix a machine, hell you can backup an AI. In short their existence is not nearly as fragile as ours is when it comes to harm and ailment. Like gut shot bot could totally get fixed. Not even close to dead.
Well yeah, off doesn't imply any sort of permanence
What's annoying is that studio executives are gonna blame it's poor reception on it being a medium budget standalone, when the real problem is that the writers are just using ai to write.
How do you say "tax write-off"?
There's something ironic about that lol
There is no such thing as "ai" if we do actually achieve a sentient computer being what are you going to call the fancy search engines you're calling 'ai" now?
@@spencerstevens2175 I agree and we should call stuff we’re calling AI now VI
You give audiences way too much credit
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.
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.
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
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.
"Shut up! just feel the the emotions we're shoving down your throat."
Oprah and others have made billions on that model.
100% agreed on the relationship between believability and emotional connection with the characters.
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 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.
my guess with the "unspecified coding error." was that AI in charge of the targeting system was updating something, and didn't follow the correct process.
ergo it was the fault of an AI, but more in a Human error way, and the US/UN figure that the AI potential made more 'Mistake' like that again.
granted in a system like that there should being multiple failsafe, even if it was a only 'fission' (I'm not 100% sure a fusion reactor can have a meltdown).
it seem to be a throw away to 'Oh look, Humans are bad, because they have fear reaction'
which is actually really bad writing
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.
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
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".
They're trying to use the psychology of the face against us. . its like dogs having forward facing eyes and us loving them for it. . .they dont want us to fear A.I. so they make it soft and cuddly. . .its just acclimation.
6:15 yup this is the only reason. . . pro A.I. propaganda.
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?!?!!
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.
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
"We need orginal movies again"
Also, "But we needs to make monay, so we must inject this cliche story because AI POWER!"
Skynet would feel embarrassed about these robots 😅
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 😂😂😂
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.
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._
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.
The robot was the most powerful development not because of what it could do. It was because it can grow and learn, that's why the military dude when looking at her was not amazed by her abilities, but by the fact that she can grow.
Every other robot in the movie as based purely off of a human personality.
The protag was based on a fetus. But can still talk and learn new things...
As a data analyst, I was like wtf on the whole concept. Even Today's AIs like chatGPT can learn. Since most AIs run on some cloud service, they can even grow in terms of compute capacity, memory and neuron network size. In fact, that is the main difference between chatGPT 3.5 and 4.0. Not to mention, most AIs run on servers not inside two legged machines. Shooting down a robot controlled by an AI remotelly does not hurt the AI in any sense.
@@otapi The way I understood it was this:
In terms of todays comparisons, imagine the human personality being uploaded into the body. This personality would act like the internet, a body of information for the AI to scrape through.
In theory, it can't grow because its a set amount of information that it can "read" from.
And for simplicity sake lets say that once the "program/personality" has been uploaded, it cant be upgraded/changed externally via humans or something.
Imagine if instead of programmer's making ChatGPT 4.0 from 3.5, the AI was able to make those advancements on its own and release it, without direct human interference.
These are my thoughts on the subject, at the end of the day. Its a movie, its not grounded in reality, so I can understand why it would be off putting for programming bros.
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.
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
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
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.
One of the many things that bothered me with the movie was seeing religious robots. So Humanity has worked for centuries to develop science and engineering, fought to get out of the limiting religious dogmas of the Dark Ages in order to become more rational and enlightened, and yet the super advanced AIs we created decide to go backward and worship Gods, even becoming monks... lol seriously?
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
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.
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.
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.
Sounds familiar - viz. Template for TV series "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea":
1 - We got this scientist on board to do neat research
2 - Monsters attack everyone & everything
3 - Do you thing that scientist is connected to this mess?
4 - Stuff happens and everything is OK for to make the next episode...yes, really
Repeat next episode with above.
I’m just straight up screaming why? Why? Why? Why why? This movie plot makes zero sense at fucking all
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.
Saw the movie last night. Had all the same thoughts. Great review. Adding to your comment about robots being essential no different than humans, that was the biggest error to me in the film. Humans are functionally described as nothing more than machines with data that can be downloaded. There is no hint of anything immaterial about us, no spirit, or soul, or anything that differentiates. I assume that was not an accident. It seems to be a major point of the film. In short, the whole film seemed to be a slap at the concept of the Imago Dei, being made in the image of God. The title, the snippet from Genesis, etc. As you said, "human bad, robot good" seems to be the primary message. Thanks for the review!
11:14 I was on a project to convert an organisation from manual paper based systems to a computerised one. When the consultants came on the first time, they were like Ooooo. Their initial thought was we were converting from a computerised, albeit primitive system to their more updated advanced one. And yeah, we eventually went live with the computerised system but it was a heck of a lot or work and time to get things on initially. So I understand your point completely.
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..."
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
Apparently there is a scene where a human is strangling a robot and it does some gurgling sounds as if it's actually being strangled, that just sounds incredibly dumb.
EDIT: hehe you mentioned this later on in the vid :D
...& then pair that with baby-bot running around in the vacuum of space... 🙄
So silly; what an oversight, either way you look at it!
I don't understand people who comment _before_ watching the video...
@@mugwump7049Brain is full of ideas and you want to write it down before you forget what you thought by the end of the video. I was loosely associated with an IT department and the saying was "Document Document Document. You are never as smart tomorrow (or 3 mins later) as you are today." 😁
@@markusgorelli5278 It never ceases to amaze me how people these days have such a low attention span. If they need to write something down because they won't remember it 5 minutes later, then they have a major problem.
A lot of your complaints seem to have been somewhat answered during the movie
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.
'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.
This looks like if DaFuqBoom scrapped together enough money to make a movie loosely based off the skibidi toilet
Underrated comment
try not to justify and rationalize incestuous relations: DaFuqBoom edition (impossible)
wha... huh?
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.
This movie tries to be a clever critique of society but obviously comes from a child like mind.
producers today doesnt want you to think, they just like how people get astonished by cgi and diversity
What kind of plan is to make your immediate weapon a child?!
Like they made a weapon they needed right then. That won't be at her full potential till she's a adult.
It'd make more sense to make a few adult soldiers.
Or not even put it in a robot at all!
Put it in a laptop and carry it round in a bag.
Make it a crystal ball you talk to.
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.
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.
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.
Literally the only reason I watched it is that nothing better is coming out. It's the blandest most generic shoot-em-up sci-fi that carelessly mashes together so many different tropes to give a serviceable, but perfectly forgettable movie.
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 !
Reminded me a lot of Avatar with how adamant it was about making the story have zero nuance other than "humans (especially American) bad and evil".
Apparently James C. says on Avatar 3 he'll show "evil" navis, let's see how true will be.
... so you only took in the surface themes of that movie huh? Tell me you don't understand story-telling, metaphors, themes and philosophy without telling you don't know storytelling, metaphors, themes and philosophy.
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_
There's a rumor it was written by an AI.
Just to try to counter some of you claims:
1. You said the robots are exactly the same as the humans so why even make them robots? Well, this is only true for the stimulants, the human-looking robots. The others were slightly different.
2. The device used to copy a human’s mind was possibly rare an expensive and only used by the government. Just because it could fit into a backpack doesn’t mean in’s common.
3. At one point you mentioned that a robot was straggled to death but he was only strangled so that someone else could shoot him, so he actually died from a bullet.
However all your other points were valid, but I still thought is was an entertaining, well-made movie with a flawed plot but still a good one.
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.
i'm sick and tired of media about AI/robots where they are portrayed as humans but oppressed
Consume product, don't ask questions, get excited for sequels, reboot and Hulu exclusive show.
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
It’s not even that original. Gareth Edwards has clearly played Fallout 4.
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
Gareth Edward is a good visual director, but a very bad storyteller. It usually feels like forced emotional manipulation for really lousy characters