Why The Creator matters
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ธ.ค. 2023
- Become a member of the Science Fiction community to continue the discussion
Website - damiengwalter.com
TH-cam - / damienwalter
Patreon - / damienwalter
Subscribe to the Science Fiction podcast feed for long-form commentaries on these video essays
damiengwalter.com/podcast/
Join the Science Fiction community on Facebook
/ 324897304599197
Equipment
Camera amzn.to/41DpI1I
Lens amzn.to/3tyH1nZ
Microphone amzn.to/3RZ3sfD
Laptop amzn.to/48eZDsf
Recommendations
Greatest scifi novel amzn.to/3GZgL9r
First scifi novel amzn.to/41DazgK
Worst scifi novel amzn.to/3S045FO
Most overrated scifi writer amzn.to/3NIchI9
A few of the issues I had with this movie:
1. If AI can manufacture lifelike faces and bodies, why not make ears too?
2. Show me any example of a weapon the US military has just one of.
3. Why would the US ARMY walking bombs use AI instead of being remotely piloted?
4. Undercover Army guy “goes native” but doesn’t know or learn the local language?
5. Army not only goes back to a man that seemed to have “gone native” to ask for help but also openly talks about plans at a hotel pool.
6. These are all pertaining to the main character’s prosthetic limbs: why does his arm piece look so bulky but then is barely sticking out when he’s in a t-shirt? Why does the arm kinda look like his real arm but the leg looks completely robotic? Why does he take off the arm to swim but not his leg?
m e t a p h o r
1- Because style. To show us theyre robots; The film makes no explanation but some sci-fi predicted what could be a in-world explanation as laws dictating robots shouldnt look fully human to prevent fooling/passing as one or impersonation; In the films east humans and robots live so mixed up such law wouldnt need to exist but at the same time theres no reason for then to lie their nature with their peers and theres a majority of robots without faces; Theyre not denying their nature
But theres also another thing that in the real world would be a HUGE motive (and also number 6 the leg): Price, resources. Logically such realistic skin so well emulated would involve more materials, time and even subdermal complexities to mymic not just texture but micro expressions and i guess also detecting touch. The heroes arm helps reflecting that where the upper arm and shoulder are robotic, leaving the most exposed part have the expensive skin, but the leg almost always covered could be done without (and heck, hes no swimming in money)
2- i agree makes no sense. Would make sense in a space opera but thats it. I can fanthom a better justification for such a plot element on earth- if its main thing was like a factory, not a bomber. As tech gets more complex requirments and logistics increase, we need way more special materials and parts and thats why today every machinery uses parts from all over; Even without globalization something 100% made in the same country would still be factories apart. Some real world tech if everything was plotted together would make for a factory larger then some of the great cities... being sci-fi the complexities could be explained as such and their needs so much (say it builds from foot soldiers to tanks and planes) that to have everything together would be problematic massive on earth; The jump to space (and its insane initial cost) could be justified by another thing thats real- mobility for warfare. We have real R&D e abandoned projects for mobile bases in the past, would be like a dream coming true- so much we made one kind, air carrier ships... Not only it can be closer to the frontline for quicker deployment and jump a hell of logistics of fuel and rations transportation into short trips it would make the backbone of your army a movable target instead of a sitting duck.... of course the major flaw(besides cost and everything in one place) is it flying over the enemy making for much shorter ranges, but then the magic of sci-fi could fix that like having such a great air defense only a massive in numbers and prep assault could hope to suceed- something the enemies wouldnt have time to prep up before it comes and goes away.
3- That makes a lot of sense. Remenber that in the film theres no easy hacking of any AI and ai isnt all one thing (so much we have individual robots, not one collective ai)- i mean, there is, the newly created super weapon kid and thats why the west is fearing it so much, a game changer. If they had that for years the story would be different, so without that makes all the sense- its every army dream to avoid the human and political cost of casualties of war, the human logistics are complicated (not only food but also rest, mental health and paying wages and supporting disabled veterans)... were already doing it with drones. You bet governments right now are dying to have robot tanks and even soldiers. Oh with the added bonus of zero risks of a coup from your own military (i mean, ai gone rogue aside)
4 and 5- agree completely nonsense. It gets worse, the operation shouldve ended at the start of the movie (when they find the child) and from what is show there was zero need for him in particular for that operation to suceed. The one thing where he mentions the kind of entry theyd use is the kind of intel the army would already have from reports of agents like him
6- besides the skin thing in point 1 my imediate tought was that he was training his real arm to be stronger (for example to make up for when the robot one is unavailable, damaged or recharging)... and now that i look back at it i just realized you probably cant swim without both- without legs you make up with arms(both), without arms you do so with the legs... just 1 of each i think its physically impossible. But idk, maybe it could work as a very slow and messy fumbling swimming style that nearly exaust all your stamina to move 6 inches a second.
I watched this movie and the AI stuff didn’t register but the whole time I watched the tanks, Nomad and the bombings and the whole “we are not at war with the people of new Asia” despite bombing the shit out of them, I keep thinking about our own military.
Can you be more specific, presumably you are an American?
Btw it is probably a reference to George Orwelles 1984 where there is constant war between a few power blocks Oceania, east Asia and another one that was probably a Russian stand in. In that world the state is so powerful that they literally change all of their written materials in short spans of time to change who they have been at war with. (They change it to "We have always been at war with East Asia" when they had previously warred with a different block.
There is also a scene where one of the missiles that regularly hit their cities leaves debris with markings that indirectly imply it is from their own military and what is likely happening is the wars between states either is entirely fictional and theyre being terrorised by their own militaries.
The combats between states would then be minor skirmishes between established states, kinda like how when French monarchy collapsed into revolution, other states even enemies within Europe like Britain, helped to re-establish the monarchy as they were afraid the idea would spread to their own people and they would also be deposed.
I mean the US was also at war with the Taliban not 'Afghanistan' and Israel is at war with Hamas, not 'Palestine' sure.
But... America was at war with the Taliban and not Afghan though, Taliban were not elected officials from the country?
Israel did declare war on Hamas after it was attacked. But it has gone too far since it has killed so many Palestinians.
I kinda wish there was a balanced look at Israel... Like without a doubt they should be held accountable and severely punished for their actions... But the people who criticise Israel tend not to have any solution for stopping Hamas from attacking them.
The argument will probably be "well Israeli shouldn't even be there, but the fact is that they are and of the answer isn't to find a way to integrate and coexist with Palestine's what happens to Israel? Does it not have a right to exist? If so, where do the Israeli people go?@@JR-kn6rs
A friend asked me what I thought of this movie and I couldn't quite put words to how I felt. I enjoyed it but it felt incomplete. This video does an excellent job of putting words to my feelings. There were interesting ideas brought up but no significant follow through on any of them.
I really liked the themes of the movie (critiquing the racism of American imperialism) but it was so clumsily done. I was constantly being taken out of the movie by how dumb the military was, how ludicrous their planning and mission execution was, and how inconsistent the technology was. I also could not for the life of me bring myself to care about any of the protagonists. It just made me want to watch District 9: an actually good sci fi movie about racism.
Due to plot holes, and conveniences I never felt the Creator was a truly great film, but I will say it’s one of the best science fiction films we have had in a long long time. I loved every minute of it
What was the plot hole?
I totally agree that the creator was clumsy. But there has been some really great sci fi in the last five years including "Sputnik", "Dune", "Everything, Everywhere, All at Once", "Prospect", and "Nope".
Yeah I generally don't think the creator is a good sci-fi movie. It's heavy handed to the point it dilutes it's own point and gets convolution.
I saw it as a criticism of superpower politics and insurgency, but I didn't like it because it uses the trappings of technology without working through the consequence of such technology. I don't think war would look like a familiar conflict given the technology that is available in the setting. They'd have been better off telling it as a fantasy movie or something. If you don't want to do the work of sci-fi don't tell a sci fi story.
Nothing new, stuck in the past. So waste of money. Only Japanese anime does highly futuristic war fare really well😫😫😫😫🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
@@hanniffydinn6019 Avatar was pretty good. That was an anti-insurgency operation.
@@nerag7459 avatar was watched because of its SFX. Otherwise it’s forgettable nonsense, that has zero cultural impact. The story is not original and done way better in other older movies! The sequel is even worse. I’ve watched them most have, but they are nothing anyone talks about. People are still making video essays & books about Star Wars 77. That had massive cultural impact, it still has. Same with blade runner it’s still endlessly discussed. There’s been nothing new in sci fi movies since the 80s. It’s a shame there’s tonnes of interesting sci fi books with amazing ideas still have no film adaptations, even old school sci fi like neuromacer still don’t have film adaptations. The current state of film sci fi is beyond dire! 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
@@hanniffydinn6019 Saying a movie is not original is poor criticism. It is technically amazing and the story is solid. Its far superior to Creator or say, Rebel Moon.
@@hanniffydinn6019 I'm sorry you can't be taken seriously. You are not worth a conversation. If you criticize a film like Ran because it isn't original you are just wasting my time.
I watched the film at a cinema in North America (im not american). And you could feel the discomfort and silence when they show what american soldiers do to brown kids in asia and the middle east. In my head i was thinking, "wow heres one movie that actually makes a point about american war crimes and colonialism"
Asians aint brown tho...
Dey yella
There have been hundreds and hundreds of media products criticizing US history of foreign policy and intervention. It’s actually kind of lazy, and in this movie, done in a very binary and simplistic way. I would have been much more impressed with a twist that exposed the problems of letting a sentient technology dictate global issues - or at least SOME amount of moral and philosophical nuance.
Hating America is always in vogue, but the idea that AI would somehow be morally superior than human beings is absurd and dangerous. This movie’s pessimism towards humanity was really off-putting to me, and the writing was clumsy and completely unoriginal.
Most foreign policy topics are incredibly complicated and do not have “good” solutions. You need to be careful about allowing one-sided ideological narratives drive your understanding of a complex world.
No, hating America is NOT "always in vogue", that is one sided simplification on your side.
@@artlesscalamity348this is science fiction not a documentary. It’s perfectly acceptable to present monolithic representations of certain concepts.
@@whlewis9164 It’s boring. I find “representations” more interesting when they care about nuance, complexity, gray areas. People are way too ideological and self-righteous and it creates simplistic thinking.
This movie was shallow. That’s why it failed.
My daughter loved it? I thought it was quite poor. Having an AGI child act like a human child was just plain silly. After that everything just gets sillier.
Two of the other best science fiction movies are usually not regarded as science fiction movies.
- GATTACA
- Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
"These are our stories. They tell us who we are."
Worf, to his son Alexander.
Some 1970s science fiction that I think are more relevant to my worldview and that come to mind for me far more often than 2001, Blade Runner, or Akira: Colossus: The Forbin Project (a major inspiration for the TV show Person of Interest), Zardoz (an exploration of what immortality might be like and why it might not be all that desirable), Rollerball (the 1975 version, dealing with transnational corporate bread and circuses), and Logan's Run
All memorable but not great. There is a Rollerball essay on the channel somewhere.
@@DamienWalter Found it. In your essay, you mention Rollerball seeming "prescient" and that's a important aspect to what I think makes great science fiction great and relevant to me and the world I see around me. I think there is roughly a zero percent chance of 2001, Blade Runner, or Akira being prescient of anything (though Akira was nearly prescient about the 2020 Olympics being in Tokyo) because fantasy elements are important to their plots. 2001, Blade Runner, and Akira are beautiful movies and fine films, but maybe that's why I've never been wowed by them like many others seem to be.
The value I place on prescience and relevance in science fiction is also why I keep being reminded of the 1981 Michael Crichton movie Looker which, despite being a so-so science fiction movie that relied on a fantastic element, was prescient about viewer manipulation and the use of artificially generated images at a time when the state of the art in computer graphics were what was seen in the movie Tron.
I do find your perspective interesting and maybe after viewing and reading more of your material, I'll get a better sense of why you elevate those three movies above all others. Thanks for the reply.
Demon seed 1977?!
@@nicktechnubyte1184 That movie definitely came to mind, too.
Hardware Wars!
I watch and read a lot of science fiction critique. You’re one of the few writers that I align with. Your take is spot on. Thank you for the insights, helpful with my own writing.
"What Starbucks is to coffee Star Wars is to culture; but sometimes some true myth gets smuggled past the Hollywood bureaucrats..."
I love this. It's cutting in its criticism yet optimistic.
After watching The Creator in the cinema I imagined shaking the director's hand to thank him for making an entertaining enjoyable movie then punching him really hard in the arm for taking great shots from other movies then wasting them. At first it was cute later it became annoying. But I'd definitely watch it again.
I loved this movie 🎬
Blade Runner came out 41years ago and was not received so well by the critics and box office yet, this move is considered required watching/and so open for discussion in most film schools/filmography 101 classes here in the US.
Speaking of smuggling in good material. Damien did a great video on how the director of the show Andor "accidentally" made a Marxist manifesto. Funnily enough the execs at Disney made public apologies for it and promised the next season wouldn't have any underlying themes. 😂😂😂
I feel like The Creator's biggest misstep was its fairly predictable plot. There's some dialogue that hints at a much more interesting and thought-provoking movie. Otherwise, it's hard to watch this and not see elements from other movies. This is basically Avatar meets Ghost in the Shell with a little Star Wars tossed in. Those influences can make for a great movie but it needed more polish in the scripting phase. The final product seems to be at odds with itself trying to decide what the actual points it wants to convey are. As a result, none of them fully hit home.
I love the movie it's not perfect but I enjoyed it a lot. My favorite sci-fi of recent time is Arrival by the way
Top notch
The failure of this movie is not due to the said uncomfortable depiction of colonialism in my opinion, but due to the awful lack of logic in almost every scene. Running bombs instead of missiles? Yup, it is a thing here, just as an example. I love sci-fi, but I found it difficult to finish the one.
metaphors aren't logical
@@DamienWalter “Metaphors” are not the issue. Plot holes are the issue, along with forced sentimentality, repetitive and overcooked sequences and ridiculous moralizing.
Edwards regurgitated Rogue One, replacing the rebels with AI. It’s not actually profound or clever - it’s bad, lazy writing.
@@artlesscalamity348 Commenting on videos you haven't watched is time wasting.
@@DamienWalter Metaphors do have their own internal logic, otherwise they don't work.
Also new asia would have retaliated against western strikes on on their soil
3:27 -- can somebody tell me: what's the approximate altitude and dimensions of this "orbital" platform?
There's no way it's carrying enough missile defense to keep itself from being shot down.
@@mrzfunk Sounds like a overextensive version of an aircraft carrier, which with missile development and drones piloted by AI doesn't sound like a great idea in future warfare! But as an idea, it symbolizes the great military power of the West versus New Asia choosing to use AI but without bringing any real technological, and so military too, advantage.
Despite the issues with the film, I actually really enjoyed it
So did I
Thanks for this review it had to be made, as no one is talking about the underlying symbols and messages this director tried hide/code within the film.. since Ai made it's contemporary presence on the planet last December Ive had more conversations of a fundamental religious nature than I've ever had and from people that usually wouldn't talk or care about religious mythos. I think the creator was an attempt to add to that conversation and also play extend and re-contextualise perspectives held in those conversations,though as you so insightfully put it " the creator pulled its punches ". Here's to a successful directors cut
@@Tom-sd9jbgreat I love salad 🎉
Science fiction explores how people react to and with a world that does not exist but could. Just as you must avoid historical anachronisms in historical fiction, so good science fiction relies on a well-build, plausible world setting. If a book, or movie, simply throws technobabble in to make it look "SF", then it's not good science fiction.
Then no science fiction is good science fiction, it is a Platonic ideal that has no worldly existence
Internal logic: all sci fi or fantasy must have it. If we're constantly being jolted out of the story by inconsistency than we can't appreciate the myth or metaphor.
@@DamienWalter Not true. Good science fiction - like any good fiction - established a world with a systemic logic and history, and then stays within that world. If you're writing a western set in the "old west" (circa 1870) you don't have diesel engines and automatic pistols, and you place the various races in their actual historical situations. If you're writing a period Victorian piece, you don't have the women dressing in miniskirts.
Same with SF. Generally, the accepted rule is that you're allowed a set of conventional improbabilities - usually FTL travel and aliens - simply to help the story setting, but otherwise you're expected to keep within known physics and extrapolate from it. Most importantly, like all stories, the subject should be how humans react to the situation and work within its constraints.
I highly recommend the "Expeditionary Force" series by Craig Alanson, the "Culture" series by Ian M. Banks, and the "Barayar" series by Louis McMaster Bujold as excellent examples of good SF writing, sometimes with uncomfortable premises. Also anything by John Ringo and David Weber.
Why is denzels son getting these roles he's literally cardboard box-man
That question answered itself
What about '95 Mamoru Oshii's Ghost in the Shell?
Brazil is THE best SF movie.
no no fvcking no, no amount of explanation can convince me of anything, this is the shit that is the final point of me ever going to the movies again.
I need to reconsider how good this movie is. I mean, it made me mad because it didn't commit but if it made you never want to go to the movies again....
@@nerag7459 Real reason for the salt is because he probably got served divorce papers at the theatre.
This? Get a life dawg 😭
This movie was about humanity looking at itself and not liking the reflection. It felt like a anti-war movie. I enjoyed it.
I have to wonder at the idiot idea of an android design with a Hole in The Head, where a brain is normally located. If the brain is in its arse the hole in its head can be used to chain it up.
m e t a p h o r
@@DamienWalterthe hole in its head is a metaphor for what?
I find your list of the greatest Science Fiction movies do not have Speilberg’s Minority Report. Add to that, I don’t wonder why an exploration of predestiny, the Christian obsession with self-sacrifice and the failed father who cannot ever attain achievement because he failed at the most important fight of his life (saving his child-trust me, not a spoiler)….. I think this is a master peace that time forgot. I’d be willing to throw it up there with one of the greatest.
I enjoyed this very flawed film on a surprising number of levels. In trying to put words to my feelings about it I’ve swung by many analyses and reviews, and this is by far the best. You have articulated a lot of the feelings I was left with after the movie. Well done!
The emphasis on myth sounds like a search for fantasy rather than science fiction. To me Back to the Future, or Eternal Sunshine, or Robocop qualify as science fiction.
An overt heroes journey isn’t likely to achieve greatness now that it’s been exhausted so much
All science fiction is fantasy
That depends on how you define science fiction. I like the one that goes "A story that could not have taken place without its speculative science content," but stretched to include the social sciences. The emphasis is on 'speculative'. Most films, including the ones you call 'great', are science fantasy rather than science fiction. Sure, they are all sub-genres of fantasy, but the distinction is important.
@@susanbooth6793 I agree with you. I’m grateful that this video making me aware of the sub genre/subculture of ‘science fantasy’ which I will now refer to it ✌️
Whoa...Damien, is that "Everything In Its Right Place" dubstep remixed with "Closer" at ~ 10:10? CRAZY
Say it with me slowly: Disney ruins everything.
I found the movie really tedious. I got no enjoyment out of it.
Definitely picked up on the messianic vibe...the parents were Jo-shua (Jo-seph) and Ma-ya (Mary). I found it odd that was the way it went. We created the AI...and then the AI started worshipping...itself?
Gnostic
there is another perspective , i think the film was a mix of buddhist/hindu and abrahamic/christian influences, the child is a blend of buddha and christ.
jesus in hebrew is yeshua of which joshua is a derivative name and Maya is the birth mother of buddha but also an important term in hinduism that describes amongst other concepts the flow of manifestation.
The tibetan buddhist symbolism is very deep, infact. i don't think this a coincidence, of the major religions buddhism seem more at ease with the concept of artificial intelligence.
@@donbroni Eastern practices care about the mentality not physical form
@@daycrow8651 thats not actually true but if you say so.
@@donbroni You don't think thay supports your point?
Loved the movie, but I still have no idea what the title refers to.
I have to listen to this again,
you ask great questions,
I have not seen the movie…yet,
But I will think about these questions when I do…
Thank you 🙏
I humbly submit that there are more than 3 Great Sci Fi movies (although I agree that the 3 you list are at/near the top of the list). I would add Terminator 2, the Star Wars Original Trilogy, and Starship Troopers. (And I'm glad you referenced some of them later in the vid).
T2 has Arnie, but also adds so much to the Terminator timeline and is a damn fun watch. Practically flawless as a film.
Star Wars should go without saying, yes it's technically a fantasy series, but a long time ago is really the future, space battles, laser swords, it is firmly "sci-fi" in the pulpiest way.
Starship Troopers belongs because it does what sci fi does best, help us examine ourselves. Verhoeven's satire of fascist militarism is a little too real, and a little too enjoyable. We all felt that moment at the end when Doogie Hauser proclaims, "It's afraid!" and we all do a little fist pump (at least I did, who am I?!).
On a good day, you could also include Jurassic Park and The Matrix.
Overall, I liked the Creator but it's not a great film. I love the vibe and aesthetic, but the conflict of the story was solved in a too predictable way.
Great is a very high bar.
What about Alien and Aliens?
I'm really surprised you didn't include the matrix in your top 3 sci fi films ever Damien.
It's definitely good, but not great.
I'm also wondering, but about Tarkovsky, tho.... (Spoiler alert: I am biased....)
@@DamienWalterwould love a video about how you classify "good" and "great" sci fi. I may disagree with you occasionally but I really like your explorations/explanations anyway.
@@victoriafelix5932are you referring specifically to "Stalker"?
@@mrzfunk More generally to Stalker & Solaris both, since I find it a hard task to choose either as being greater than the other.
I love the video!
Unrelated but does anyone know the song that begins around 11:01?
It's Kid A by Radiohead.
@@mrzfunk It's "Everything In Its Right Place" OFF the album Kid A, remixed with the coda to "Closer" by NIN about a minute earlier.
The original version is used in the movie
What’s the name of the remix in the background?
I believe "Kid A" by Radiohead.
X-wings are machines
I understand the critics' complaints about The Creator, but find them quite non-substantial. There is something special about this movie, I can't put in words. I have seen it four times already, and each viewing brought some new aspects and details. Each time, the sky fall of NOMAD evoked emotions stronger than the destruction of the death star in me. This happens only with great films, for example 2001, which never get boring.
I have doubts whether classical mythology is an appropriate way to understand AI in SF in our time. Conscious AI is right ahead of us, so I would start off taking things literal. Spiritual AI (the hidden theme of the movie!) will probably be the next step, see the book by Ray Kurzweil.
The first half hour of this movie is brilliant. Edwards is a great visual artist. But he can’t write for shit, and the story was a generic Star Wars riff with forced sentimentality and a nonsensical moral dichotomy.
The reason people are hard on this movie is because it was touted as a big deal that Hollywood green-lit an “original” property - but rather than reward that risk, this movie blows it. I can’t forgive that.
Bad movie is bad.
it had to be an anime, then all the wrong wouldnt be so bad maybe
Great breakdown. You've articulated all the things I was arguing with my friends about why I kind of enjoyed the movie, but found it derivative and watered-down.
There were only 2 Sci Fi movies I warched this year I can even remember what happened. The Wandering Earth 2 and The Creator. Either they all ware so bad that my brain refused to save the information or The creator was a really good movie or both. I really started the movie with very negative expectations and got surprised. The movie definitely flopped because 'Murricans don't want to be confronted with what their Empire means for 85% of humanity
I think it also flopped for very poor writing, abismal dialogue, uninspiring protagonists, plot holes you could drive an orbital missile carrier through...
@@mrzfunk half of the Top 10 movies of 2023 were much worse
@@OrkDiktator 2023 was a pretty bad year for sure. But you know most movies of any given year aren't great. We just remember the good ones and forget that for every good one there were a lot of mediocre or down right bad movies made at the same time.
finally someone who saw the obvious critic of the US Imperialism in this movie...Vietnam 2.0
I'd like to see a director's cut of this movie, there's clearly at least another relevant 30 minutes left lying around.
Having only just become aware of this channel, has this gentleman done a commentary on Akira? It's one of those odd movies, my friend said it was brilliant, visually I liked it, but something seemed undeveloped. Then I read the manga, and that's when I picked up an appreciation for the film, though I liked the source better.
How come new asia didn't retailiate against the west?
i learned nothing about the movie, i learned everything about the movie
I like the OSI in the background 🎶
And the bit about trying to solve the problems caused by machines with more machines being a recipe for destruction. Like how many think we're going to engineer ourselves out of climate change or environmental degradation generally. Or how libs and libertarians think more "progress" and liberalism is going to solve all our modern problems caused by liberalism.
I thought the little girl was a little boy. That's the depth to which I think about this movie. I'll try harder.
Nah, the Army doesn't give us nice stuff like that 😂
Rough draft as follows: I wouldn’t assert that Hollywood loves myth, if they did then they would respect poetic boundaries and respect authorship. I would assert that Hollywood loves and worships technology. Technology in their eyes and hands is that striving for transform materials into something gloriously “other”. This preference for technology will time and time again emphasise that stories of becoming are greater then being. Yes you can can ascertain this narrativisation of the science and technology as philosophy can call it a type of mythos, but it is a poor man’s version of morality. Which is why as you said punches are often pulled in stories that aim to be great. Even in 2001 the punches are pulled and the backhand slaps are only felt by a few who are seriously studied. I would agree that this is why Akira is the greatest science fiction film, because it has such an unbridled rage against the technology that has transformed modern man into a type of machine. One would be apt to note to that Akira begin a Japanese film that critiques the americanisation of Japanese culture, this Americanisation transformed Japanese culture into something other and for a time it did so but Japan did so at the cost of its soul.
The other thing to note is that Akira literally ends with mirroring 2001 visually and thematically. The last lines of the anime film "Akira" are as follows:
Kaneda: "Tetsuo...!"
Kei: "Look... The future is waiting for us."
These lines are spoken by Kaneda and Kei, two central characters in the film, as they witness the aftermath of the cataclysmic event caused by Tetsuo's powers. The lines convey a sense of hope and a belief in a brighter future despite the destruction and chaos they have witnessed. They suggest that, despite the immense challenges and hardships faced by the characters throughout the film, there is still a chance for redemption, growth, and the possibility of building a better world. Lastly and hopefully to tie certain loose threads here together, great stories empathise the “beingness” of characters and the importance of a moral system that does not contradict the state of nature but rather harmonises with it.
It is principle of morality that “the creator” lacks while it is busy trying to make a myth, it forgets to what the telos, the point and the narrative means universally and not in the particular.
Well said.
One of the real shortcomings of the Creator are the designs of the robots and their animation. The non humanoid robots look like Star Wars droids. The human like robots have huge holes in the back of their heads. Why? The best robots both in design and personality that I've seen are the Tachikomas in the animated Ghost in the Shell.
The hole is a motif that goes through all the machine designs. Nomad has a giant hole. Much of the architecture as well. I feel it might symbolise something like Buddhist emptiness.
I liked the movie, I felt it was too short if anything. I'd like to have seen the relationships between the characters developed more. John David Washington makes for a great protagonist and is an actor I can root for.
Ooooo, Closer, I hear. Nice taste in musical choice, Trent seems very appropriate.
Woo! Seen this a lot on twitter and I'm hype.
I had a problem with the people that were siding with the AI's the same way I had a problem with the people who sided or worshiped the Trisolarans in TTBP. Both felt very Luciferian and in some respects it was remiscent of the Scarlett Johansson film, Lucy.
My specific complaint with The Creator was that Alfie was brought back to life through no coherent method. The script just called for her to "resurrect," so she did. I lost me from that point on. I think this video puts why that bothered me so much (beyond the technicality of "how she's revived is never explained; Joshua just does it"): because it breaks the pattern of the Christ myth. I mean, at least in the myth, Jesus is resurrected through God's will and plan. That God can bring people back to life if he wants to is a consistent part of the myth's world. Joshua has no God powers in The Creator; his spontaneous resurrection of the Christ figure is illogical within the context of that story, and thus the whole vibe of the film is ruined.
DUNE is a great film
If part 2 lands, maybe, but not before
I don't remember not loving Blade Runner. I'm 58 for context.
No mention of Ghost in the Shell among best sci-fi in the first 90 sec review... I now there is no Arnie .. so sad. :D GJ anyway
AI=Socialism and its manifestation of Communism
New Asia=Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia during the American war in those locations.
Nomad=US Military-industrial complex
Spoilers below-
My major critique of this film is how the Nomad targeting system projects down to earth in a straight line from above. This would indicate that the large Nomad craft would always be above or at least near its targets. However, at the end, it launches all of the missiles from a single location (near LA, I believe). While these rockets are traveling across the earth, our two main characters are stopping the missiles and system together.
The film then shows places in new Asia with the blue targeting system locking on targets, but isn't Nomad over LA at this point? A lot of Hollywoodization happens here, with Joshua and Alphie being together on Nomad. This would indicate that the ship was flying from LA to New Asia all while they are on it in the climactic scene. Additionally, if the targeting system projected from above, why would all the missiles launch consecutively from LA. Why would the ship not go over each target and drop from above? I could be misremembering, but this is how I recall the ending events.
The blue targeting system from Nomad looked flashy and added to earlier shots, but they should have had the targeting system project down from remote drones, as this would have made a lot more sense. This part of the film bothered me.
Overall, I enjoyed the film. Maybe it will become more meaningful as time goes on.
Blade Runner is a beautifully designed and artistically conceived film, sets beyond impressive and inspired. Purely sublime vision and pre-cgi fx at the pinnacle of the industry's greatness. The sci-fi behind it not so much. The metaphysics is what makes the story transcendent
Scifi is metaphysics.
I enjoyed it overall, but found that some of the acting and some of the writing was pretty bad.
Even Stanley Kubrick hired a professional proper sci fi writer Arthur c Clarke for 2001… a director also writing is a big red flag!!! The recent rebel moon proves this also! 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🌍🌍🌍🌍
Christopher Nolan writes his own screen plays & makes original films, why is this a red flag? Directors are storytellers too.
& Stanley Kubrick adapted a book written by Arthur C Clarke, also have you read Clarkes oeveur? The Space Odyssey series rapidly falls into the clumsy and nonsensical in the sequels to the original.
Clarke is a classic Science Fiction author but don't be mistaken that he was the best writer in the world, a lot of his work doesn't age well & has flaws for the time it was written.
We should encourage more filmmakers to make original films!
@@dugebuwembo Nolan’s only decent film is inception, otherwise he’s a really terrible terrible writer, just look at tenet! Point is the best films have proper dedicated writers who know good writing deeply. You can’t find any decent writer & directors. You can count those in the whole history of earth in one hand! Writing takes a lifetime of dedication, directing films takes a lifetime of dedication. That’s why the best films have dedicated writing, and dedicated directors. When you try to do too much you get extreme nonsense like Rebel Moon. Snyder was only making good movies when he was just directing other writers work (300, watchmen). A great rewatchable film that impacts culture long term is a team sport. If you can’t see this obvious common sense fact you simply aren’t intelligent enough! 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
@@hanniffydinn6019 Nope some of the best films have been written & directed by people who haven't been trained in film making, rookies with big ideas.
& this claim that Christopher Nolan is a terrible writer and director... 🤷🏿♂️ 😪 Tenet is his only film that was a misstep with its convoluted plot & somewhat flat characters, however even then it's a visionary film that really gets going with THAT reveal half way through, it's the only film that has had me torn in 2, I hated the first half then went on to be suprised by and in awe after the half way mark. Christopher Nolan is a visionary, a director who takes & enjoys risks with a deep love and affection for the medium of cinema and film. He has many top quality films including the Dark Knight trilogy, the Prestige, Oppenheimer, Dunkirk & Interstellar. His stories focus on the human condition, he is unicorn in being able to pull huge crowds from very serious films as Oppenheimer has shown. What you said about him simply isn't true.
@@hanniffydinn6019 Writing takes a life time? There are many young writers with a raw & talented hand & by the way writing novels isn't the same as writing a screen play for film they are distinct mediums that have their own conventions, limitations and parameters. Writers who have switched between different mediums from novels attest to the fact that they had to learn to write effectively in that medium.
@@hanniffydinn6019 Rebel moon is a bad film, not because it was written & directed by the same person. Zack Snyder makes terrible films and doesn't know how to tell even the most rudimentary of stories.
Cinema is a medium and like all mediums it can and should include film makers who tell original stories within the medium. The film industry started with writer directors so why you think they can't exist today is baffling... 🤷🏿♂️ 😪
& by the way "dedicated writers" in Hollywood largely follow tropes because Hollywood is also a business & thus risk averse. It's rare to get to see films on the big screen that are truly unique with unusual and idiosyncratic story telling which is another reason why film makers like Christopher Nolan are so important! Even divisive films like Tenet are crucial because they take big risks in story telling & cinema that the powers that be often filter out because they worry about making a profit.
People hate it because its critical of Americanisim
I thought this weird crush all guys had on "arny" was over like 15 years ago...😅
Loved the review- I would ask though, was the point of the child not reaching full potential, the point? Not all who can be great, will be great. He just wanted to be a boy.
It's pretty clear that the theme (or one of the themes) of The Creator is the Vietnam War. I mean, the bulk of it was filmed in Indochina, with American war machines invading. To me, what makes a science fiction work, what makes it good or great, is its extension beyond its surface, comment on contemporary society or events, or philosophical subjects. I disagree with Damien Walter that reflecting myth makes a film good/great, a great work *can* reflect myth, but "Battle Beyond the Stars" reflects myth, and it's, um, not so good. By my own feeling, The Creator is good. Not every film can be 2001, but they can be better than most, and The Creator is.
It was mostly shot in Thailand but sure it strongle evoked the Vietnam War
I am not familiar with the Japanese Anime movie that you listed in the three greatest Sci Fi shows of all time, but I do agree with the other two, so I'll accept it on your say so. There is one other movie that sits alongside those movies, Alien. Regardless of all its sequels it is a standalone great in the annals of Sci Fi movie fare.
I loved it. ❤
Was wondering if I should watch this movie or not, you convinced me to give it a try.
Don't bother and watch District 9 or Bladerunner instead. Same theme infinitely better execution.
Watch it but don't expect to be blown away, it's a good move with many flaws, not a great movie
I very much enjoyed your analysis and am in total agreement. This movies premise was promising and cinematography, score, effects were incredibly decent. However some flaws in the script became apparent as some of the - orbital gun platform - concepts a tad contrived.
Eitherway, I too hope for a directors cut that might just elevate this films potential.
Newly subbed and looking forward to more of ur content 😊
I just wanted to know why there was an extra space in the title of this video
It needed proper Science Fiction writers to fill in some gaps in the future tech and the future world-building. It needs one simple change to take it from a good movie to a great movie. but that is a SPOILER. So go see it and only read on if you saw it.....
Spoiler Warning....
Odd that when all of Hollywood is working together to fight AI, that Garth Edwards made a movie about Sympathetic robots and AI. I get there are 100 movies when the AI are the villains. Really the movie would have been better if both sides of the war had super weapons and Josh and Alphie had to struggle against both sides. The AI child shouldn't have been so childlike, that is not how robots work. It would have made movie sense for the AI kid to act like a child to manipulate, All nit-picks as the movie was good, even if I think it needed a re-write.
I enjoyed this movie very much
I really wanted to like this movie but the main actor's acting was so flat😤! I don't know if that's what he is always like but that was one of it's big problems for me. Maybe that was the point to make you care more for the AI? Visually & musically it was pretty stunning though.
For me Creator came out somehow tasting way too recycle. Too similiar to things I read and watched through years.
But I think the biggest defect was weak editing.
Entire thing for me felt pulling apart visually.Too short scenes/too long scenes/scenes inapropriate in context.
The last straw was painfully melodramatic ending for Joshua.
Entire story screamed for him to be tragic figurem to be a little late, to lose something important for the cause. Nope. Edwards still gave him Maya back for anticlimax.
Just subscribed
I think the nomad is the pearl of truth in this movie, the day we bring guns into space they will point downwards and the human spirit will die. "Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave."
I thought The Creator was so shoddily written, with so many gaping plot holes, that it could barely hold up under one viewing. Warmed over Vietnam War stuff. Sad.
Lost me when you said there are only 3 great scifi movies. That is just wrong.
But true.
It was still better than Zack Snyder’s rip off of A Bugs Life!
Damien! It’s so great to see your videos getting tens of thousands of views within hours these days. Keep it up, my friend!
Thanks Paul!
I really liked how this cyberdeck turned out! The final form truly appears like a professional product 👌
I disagree with the premise of this review. The Creator went wrong within less than a minute of the first frame. Its a crap plot with a few pretty visuals.
everybody is talking about the Rebel Moon's director's cut that would transform a pillar of shit into a pillar of garbage, yet, you're the only one talking about the director's cut that would make a quite good movie into a great one. If we as a society will make "movie DLCs" a thing. Let's make it in order to elevate great cinema, not to rescue the mediocre ones
I don't see any chance of a Rebel Moon directors cut...that *was* the directors cut...people are just saying it because Snyder is so associated with them.
@@DamienWalter and because he said so, even before the release of the film. My question is. What's the point of a director's cut on a streaming platform, since time and demographics are not as big a concern as in theaters. I guess it's only a marketing stunt. BTW, love your channel since I discovered it last Thursday 😁😁😁
Number 4: Ergo Proxy ;)
It's uncomfortable to watch your Mirror image up on the Big Screen, while in the dark recess of your mind you steal nervous glances around you, Wondering how will they Judge You for your father's Past Sin's
Arrival not great sci fi?
I think arrival is good but not great mostly due to pacing issues and the absurd time traveling sequence at the end. But I really did like how they conveyed how complex language is and how it changes our perspective.
Your three tells me you haven't seen the 1972 film Solaris, or didn't have the patience for it. If you're interested in myth, I highly recommend you start learning to do koans: The mindset you'll learn will greatly enhance your relationship with myth and help you find words more easily. Good video so far. Enjoying.
It's interesting but it's not great
i hated the movie, because it was to real, it matters.
but i am not the one that needs this movie, and that is the problem of the creator. the ones that likes it dont get it, dont get why it matters.
alphie wasnt the christ figure. JD Washington was. and a highly romanticized version bc it was because of his love for his wife.
Alphie is the Golden Child, Joshua is Chandler, Maya is Kee Nang, Colonel Howell is Numpsa, and Nomad is The Thing. In stead of a Buddhist story about the good saving the child, Creator is a story about evil destroying the child. The Chosen One, Joshua is flipped to create a zero sum, game peace with humans, instead of irradiating evil in the Golden Child.
@@fidesign5924 yeah golden child also a good shout.
In my case my family is mixed, wirh westeners and Oriental, we loved our mix we enjoy our cultural
idiosyncrasy, and this movies tryes to enforced that my family ie an enemy of the other, i am deeply ofended by the subconscious meaasage, maybe half my family is traumatized by maos and the current chinas fenomenon, but i can tell you this with certanty, this mobie has CCP dna mind manipulatuon driping all over it. The issue sis that socialist europeans and the new american woke culture falls for the bullshit of gilring westerners in the Marxist deep undertone in this movie. If you dont get it we feel sorry for all that dont, we paulid foe the movie $19 and every family member left the room insulted. Westerners dont hate us orientals Oriental leaders want us to beleive that. 😢
Don’t agree with Damien, but appreciate the review.
‘It failed to be good because it was in pursuit of being great’
This is the best video I’ve watched in a long time. Thank you for the well researched and genuinely insightful and convicting art
I don't see a way this movie can get a redemption arc, because it has a fundamental flaw: it uses these "mythical" themes not narrativelly, but aesthetically. Everything in this movie is an aesthetical choice and nothing else. That's why the plot can't stand the most superficial analysis, and there's really nothing "greater" going on behind it to grant the viewers complicity across the lazy writing, besides this vague and vapid sugestion of "myth". I can't imagine any way a director's cut can be so radically diferent that could make me change my mind about it, but who knows...
Care to explain what's lazy about the writing? I get the sense it is, but can't formulate it.
@@etbadaboum I cant remember a lot about this movie 2 months after seeing it, thats how superficial it is. I recall it was about the US conducting a genocidal war against antropomorphic sentient machines in asia, where both sides should tecnically have superior means to end a conflict, but time and time again they choose not to for no apparent reason. I mean, the first thing I recall is that scene where they make sentient bombs (complete with arms and legs) run towards the enemy, and that somehow makes more tactical sense than just a missile strike or even a cannon blast. I get the elements are super lighthearted, but then the movie has the gravitas of Apocalipse Now, absolutelly jarring. About the characters and their motivations I seriously can't remenber a thing except being even more convoluted and nonsensical. I don't know, maybe the movie just lost me with the worldbuilding. Fore some recent "classic" sci fi dealing with "robots" and AI, I recommend Mars Express, a movie that's equally weird but knows how to bite just what it can chew
@@RADIOSUICIDIO Thank you for your answer and taking the time to write it. Indeed I greatly appreciated Mars Express.
The Creator is such a breath of fresh air. I am so tired of disney style movies. The Creator actually dares to be a real story.
The movie scene silly unengaging with stiff performances and personally I felt that the subtext was rather childish and delivered in a ham-fisted manner.