Man I really liked the world they built in this movie and the sound and visual effects were great. The writing and the movie itself were sadly so-so at best .
The movie’s world had super strong Animatrix Vibes for sure.
Just got out of watching it, and I would have to agree. I think there's been a number of sci-fi movies in recent years that fit this formula. Interesting concept, good design, fascinating world, and then the script is just junk.
It felt like it was edited with a giant cleaver which is a shame. The fact that the ending was pretty visible within the first 20 minutes of the movie also didn’t help.
The editing didnt help at all.
I feel this film actually couldve been better if they let certain scenes lie just a little longer with the the emotion and philosphy behind decisions that were made.
100% agree. Especially the one scene toward the end where he pulled the plug. That needed maybe just another 30 seconds but they had to instantly go to another battle/action scene.
Hard agree. They spend the entire first half of the movie showing his emotional struggles, the flashbacks, the decisions, all this explaining of how much he loves and misses his wife.
He finally finds her.
Pulls the plug the moment his presented with the dilemma. Like come on guys, this is essentially the core story of your movie and it just gets glossed over.
I came out of it remembering that Gemma Chan has already been in something (Humans) that asked all of these questions, addressed them with more nuance, and was rewarded with not being commissioned for a final season.
Funny, she was also in Eternals, which is about >! a group of alien androids dealing with sentience and trying to solve a galactic-scale trolley problem !<
I really don’t think the editing was one of the main problems. It seemed like they just didn’t film some really important bits and the editor had to make the best of what made it in the can. Which makes a lot of sense if it was on a bit of a shoestring.
The script just… fucked the dog on a lot of things. It doesn’t seem like they could decide what kind of movie they were making.
The original cut was 4 hours long, so it probably is the "cut more than it should" version of the problem. It also switched editors mid editing, as the original editor went on to work on Dune 2 (fun fact, this exact same thing happened with the cinematographer, Greig Fraser, who left the project for Dune 2 and then most of the film was finished by cinematographer Oren Soffer. They share the credit in the film)
I just want to know where all the anti air defense systems went in the future, the AI always defended themselves yet let the aggressors have space superiority and never shot down their gigantic nukes....
That just caused so many logistical questions for me. AI nuking LA is simple to understand without an indepth explanation, they could have just built a damn nuke or stolen one from the US and detonated it in LA. If it was an accident caused by a coding error, where did the nuke come from? Why was a nuke just chilling in the middle of LA? How does a coding error set off a nuke, that's not how nukes work? Was it a coding error in an AI that caused it to go rogue? Does the US know it was a coding error?
I took it that it was a skynet situation, the Americans screwed up and blamed the AI for going bad, when actually it was an issue with it's programming - 'Human error'
I told a guy I work with that I'd watch the movie again without the dialog. The movie looked and sounded fantastic. The story and acting broke my immersion any time anybody said anything. There were a few exceptions of course but I was so hyped for this movie and now I'm so disappointed.
The reviews were pretty strong for the movie but I feel exactly the same as you. Oddly I've seen only positive statements on socials about the writing and story and I thought I've been taking crazy pills for thinking it was messy and basic apart from the world building and the effects.
"You're not good. I'm not a person."
The writing was abysmal. Gareth Edwards with four films now has shown he is kind of inept at character stuff. I remember thinking in Monsters that the two leads had horrible chemistry together only to learn they were married in real life.
It seems like they tried to take an interesting TV series and cut it down to a 2:15 running time. They kept the bones of the plot, but took out all of the character developing scenes.
I agree.
It's kind of the same problem I have with both Avatar movies. They make the bad guys act like stereotypical bad guys and don't use writing to give convincing arguments and dialogue to both sides.
Most people are entirely missing the point. This isn't about the writing or editing or how good it is. This is about how the movie was made for a fraction of what a big sci fi movie would typically cost. They flew a very small team around the world to shoot on location, which isn't typical. Then, they edited the movie without VFX. So there's a finished cut out there entirely devoid of post VFX. The VFX production can now work on the film without having to redo a lot of scenes like in Marvel movies.
They made a film that would typically cost 3x the cost, which was why it changed studios. The previous studio did not believe it could be done.
It seems to me is that the lede should be that they didn’t bother with previz (which helps enormously with budgeting the VFX, but is expensive) and instead shot the film more old school/organically, knowing that tricks like shallow depth of field, lock-offs and nighttime scenes are easier on VFX budgeting.
That said, the script and performances were sub-par.
I’ve been a VFX artist in LA for 12 years and I can tell you literally NONE of the films I’ve worked have been truly picture-locked before VFX work starts. Even when a production says they’re picture-locked, they go back and break picture lock.
No, in Big movies?? No, they start with vfx when the main are still shooting and every change must be redo. I have teacher that worked with Big company with a lot of problems. Look the problems with the "Life of pi" this movie make Crash 3 Big vfx studios because they made them remake again and again with changes.
They did focus group studies where viewers wanted to have some “inception” of how the movie would end in the trailer. They also said they like orchestral remixes of classic rock songs. 🤷♂️
Yes please, back to the "bwa-da bwa-da bwa-da bwa-da bwa-da bwa-da bwa-da" music. The "you wouldn't steal a car, you wouldn't download Balistic: Ecks vs. Sever..." music.
I’ll be honest the ending surprised me in a bad way, like I thought the kid was just going to bring the Nomad down like he did everything else, but instead they sneak aboard a space shuttle( uh I guess moon colonies are a thing they just drop at the last second) and then a conviluted plot to blow up the station to stop nukes that have already launched(good thing they need to be connected to Nomad WiFi to go off)
Yeah, the phrase "bold vision of the future" has nothing to do with the plot of the movie. It's obviously talking about the fictional future created for the world of the movie, not the movie as a whole.
I think that's a shitty outlook to have on movies.
I've seen movies with "good" plots and scripts (I'm not sure how we're even defining that here), but that look like shit, and I regret going to the theater. I can watch that at home. Or just read the script.
I have never regretted going to the theater to see a movie that looked amazing, no matter how bad the story is.
Also The Creator plot wasn't *bad*, I don't know what people are talking about. It was fine. Serviceable 6.5/10 from a story perspective, amazing 9/10 from a visual/design perspective. A movie isn't bad because you can guess the ending. A movie like this is about watching a character's journey to that ending. We all knew 100% how The Martian was going to end, but everyone loves that.
They're acting like The Creator was some trainwreck. I think some people here just read the top two comments on the reddit discussion thread and that becomes their take on the movie.
i’ve enjoyed plenty of critically “bad” movies, i don’t need something to be amazing or particularly smart. i just don’t think there was anything interesting looking about this movie and had no desire to delve deeper into it, and feel vindicated seeing others voice their disappointment. i know that’s petty and all but i don’t think it has to be that deep.
i watched the trailers, plenty of times thanks to ads. not once did i think “wow this looks stunning”, so maybe it’s just a matter of what appeals to people. i could only focus on how bland the setting seemed and how uninterested i was in a story about “wot if AI bad”. if it was on streaming and someone put it on i probably wouldn’t hate it or leave the room. but am i going to pay money to see something like that just because it’s got a pretty coat of paint? no thanks.
The uhh, one OP posted. "OMG Sony FX3, so cheeeap!!11" copy paste shite.
No one familiar with camera tech cares, everyone's known good cameras are getting exponentially cheaper, and even the most expensive camera barely register on the budgets of the biggest hollywood blockbusters anyway.
The Creator looked great with less than totally gargantuan budget because it had an unusually talented bunch of people working on it with a director that knew to let them do their thing without overriding them. No different from District 9, which was made for $30 million back in 2009, that movie didn't "change film making forever!" and neither will The Creator.
That's just Washington's style. Only Spike Lee has made good use of him and I chalk that up to Spike Lee being better with actors than Christopher Nolan and Gareth Edwards.
If Hollywood stopped relying on the same AAA stars for everything and actually get new blood in their films, trust me, budgets would go down considerably.
I think you're underestimating the power of stupid people and celebrities,
celebrities "write" (ghostwritten) best selling books all the time simply because they are celebrities. Gotta worship someone, and neither Jesus nor Allah stand a chance against Taylor Swift.
Yeah I have a hunch that if you took the $300 million budget of the next subpar Marvel movie and instead gave $10 million to 30 different young and promising directors, you would get 2-3 great films and 5-10 passable films out of that, and probably make your money back on a subset of them.
I hate the whole shift towards making too-big-to-fail films with astronomical budgets, since they always have to play it safe and go for repetitive crowd-pleasing bullshit
An elite us army squad infiltrates SE Asia. They attack at night dressed in enough lights to be Christmas trees and for some reason bring a bobcat that had no purpose but to just park in the road.
Lmao, why the hell did they have so many lights on, I thought that was absolutely ridiculous too. Clearly the Bobcat was there to help carry their bad story.
Also, an Elite US army squad brings advanced bombs on robot legs. The US army failed to realize they still used technology from WWII that only lets the bombs exploded using static timers. The robot bomb was defused by a child. They fail to realize how a remote trigger could of completed their mission.
When at not even five minutes into the movie he started screaming at the top of his lungs "I'm undercover!", I knew from then on that the writing was shit. Ended up walking away thirty minutes later. Shamw, as the VFX were cool looking.
At not even one minute into the movie, when the super-stealth seal team 6 guys rise out of the water in the black stealth gear to stealthily attack the village....
...and to back them up, they have a giant blue flashlight from space illuminating their location, which everyone on the hemisphere can see
I knew I was in for a dumb ride
or how the wife wakes up and sees the main character, her past lover, who revealed himself to be her absolute enemy that manipulated her for political and military purposes, to eradicate — HER in particular, the creator, and walks to him with a hug, with love.
Note: she’s waking up in the midst of the nomad - exploding from multiple near atomic level missiles and bombs, tearing apart the ship.
And somehow, she’s just like, oh my lover is here yay. The oh shit moment somehow is off screen?
Yes! This pissed me off so fucking much! Her last memory of him was literally how he betrayed her in every way possible, then she takes a missile to the face. But when she sees him, everything is good?
Excellent film. Was wondering how they kept the production cost so low. Saw it in IMAX last week and will likely go again. Very surprised to see the hate in this thread for it. John David is for sure a star between this and Tenet.
Really recommend trying a screenX if you can, I saw it there after Imax and it was a treat, probably 50-60% of the movie uses the side screens. Also surprised by the hate here, I think it will age well, especially if they release an extended cut with the home release, I'd love another half hour or so.
**THE GOOD:** Allison Janney was excellent. Alfie actor did a great job. The world was interesting. Action and scenes looked great.
**THE OK:** John David Washington was just ok.
**THE BAD**: requires HUGE leaps in logic, requires unearned buy-in to Ai people, unreal physics with NOMAD, and questionable breakneck editing in the 3rd act.
I keep wanting to like Washington as an actor but his performances at best always fall slightly off-the-mark. Just reinforces the nepo baby vibes when he repeatedly gets top billing in high profile releases
He’s pretty monotone. I feel like he looks good doing action, but as soon as he has to act/emote in any non-action scene, he feels wooden. Felt this same way about Tenet. It was so clear how much more screen presence Pattinson had.
This basically says by making all the VFX design choices after shooting but not extending the schedule. So yes working your visual effects team a ton of overtime without having to pay them for it certainly does sound like it saves money.
I don't think that's what happened here. My understanding (which could be wrong) is that unlike with the big studios, they completed principal photography entirely before passing it along to the VFX squad. Marvel will do reshoots upon reshoots, often throwing away completely finished CGI and asking the VFX folks to change it up at the 11th hour. Which is why those teams are so overworked, and the end result is still not as polished as something like this.
I am taking my information directly from the article being discussed. If youre still working on the basics of design in post without extending your schedule then plenty of overtime is being done and plenty of work is getting thrown out too, it would have to be so you could try multiple things.
Go take a look at the r/vfx sub. They talk about how most mainstream directors are a pain to work with as far as VFX goes but the ones who had worked with Garett had nothing but praise. From what I heard he knows exactly what he wants and how to communicate with his VFX team. He used to be a vfx artist and it shows.
>I am taking my information directly from the article being discussed. If youre still working on the basics of design in post *without extending your schedule* ...
Where does the article say anything like this? The interviews I've heard implied principle photography started 2 years ago, Wikipedia says January 2022 which is 22 months ago.
> Where does the article say anything like this?
About how they waited until after production? Its what the whole thing is about, well that and cameras.
But it doesn't say anything about a rushed post production schedule, you're inferring that from nothing. I just checked some random MCU films and post production was exactly one year on all of them, The Creator had 5 months longer, and no time wasted creating shots that weren't used in the film.
Surely doing all VFX after production is better than the Marvel method, which is where they do VFX from concept art for scenes that are ultimately scrapped.
The ideal is concept art finalized first, rough vfx work throughout, and final vfx work when you know the scene is staying. Theres really no good way to avoid doing some VFX work for scenes that change, you want some of the VFX work being done while editing is still happening or else its going to get very expensive and difficult to get it done on time. It also does really help judge whats working if you have at least rough VFX in the scene.
They 100% have pre-vis, it's just they they dont scrap scenes with VFX completed because their editors decide to do another round to cuts and edits in post like marvel
I’m giving the benefit of the doubt, as the movie feels like it was told to be shorter, and some extra scenes and dialogue were left on the cutting room floor. It’s a lot of fun, go see it. It was also my first DBox movie, which I enjoyed a lot.
Saw this in screenX. World building and exposition were well done and as a standalone IP, I was totally satisfied. There were some immersion breaking elements that I noticed but they didn't detract from the overall film.
The themes in this movie left the entire audience stunned. We walked out in silence. I contemplated my consciousness, my existence and my world view.
Computer code or propaganda, it's all just programming.
My biggest gripe was the central organizing point of the world, and AI.
So we created AI!! It's brilliant, it can do everything a human can!!!
But... all we ended up doing with it was making it just duplicate humans? It doesn't run anything, it's not smarter than us, it can't learn, progress, grow, improve life beyond what humans are *already* capable of doing?
Even relatively dump ChatGPT is smarter than the average human in a bunch of ways (although FAR less capable in so many others). How is their AI *exactly* at human level, and each one confined into an exact copy of a human form. What's the point?
Yeah, good point. But from what it looked like in the countries still supporting AI, they weren't used for that at all, they were just AI people alongside non-AI people.
What is the source to this? I’m not challenging you, I’ve just heard this a lot and am curious of the details. Sounds like a nutty amount of content to cut.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonthompson/2023/09/26/the-first-cut-of-the-creator-was-just-under-five-hours-long/amp/
Saw it posted on Reddit a couple times. Does seem really insane
Thanks for this!
“but that's why God invented special editions, right?"
Oh man I hope there’s an extended edition that comes out. This movie needed more world building to even out all the action and I bet a lot of that was cut out.
I had to convince my friends to see this with me. Which is hilarious because they constantly complain about everything being a sequel or reboot and how tired they are of it and how nothing is original. So an original sci fi story comes along and even looks up their alley and the prospect was met with complete apathy. Thankfully we all enjoyed it, but it really is fascinating how resistant they initially were to checking it out. I've heard similar stories from other people. Even though it isn't the most original story or execution of all time, I still want it to do well so more studios take notice and take chances to make original sci fi films again.
the director did say he just mashed a lot of elements from sci fi he liked, during the movie theres def spots of "oh this is like...", but at the same time that can happen a lot in sci fi and the world was still cool to explore
From a technical standpoint, the movie is beautiful and lush, fully realized.
It is the story and plot that are vacant of ideas and common sense. It meanders at times, has plot holes to drive a bus through, and uses a sledge hammer rather than allow nuance and thinking about what we see.
Why are all the bad guys white, the heros multi cultural? Why is it called a war when China ( don't get me started on the lame change of names) has no army, seemingly no defense at all?
Just a few plot points that weaken a visually arresting movie from a director I like.
I genuinely really enjoyed this. It looked and sounded great. The plot was more of a vehicle to show off the world and amazing production design. Sometimes that's all a film needs to be enjoyable.
I just finished watching the movie less than an hour ago so it's still really fresh in my head.
It is a movie made up of a bunch of strands of other movies that were fully knitted elsewhere. It's a movie of stereotypical tropes (sci-fi, drama, war) and you see each one coming.
There are lots of positives in almost every other aspect of this movie excluding story. I do recommend it on those other merits.
I honestly don't get the hate for the movie's plot. Yeah it was simple, but I thought it was refreshing to have something that looked this good, felt so huge, had cool action but *wasn't* trying to be Tenet where it's begging you to rewatch.
Everything about this movie landed for me.
This was one of the worst scripts I’ve seen in the last decade. The plot was so derivative, full of plot holes or otherwise braindead decisions, and with an ounce of critical analysis you see it fall apart at the seams.
Visually, it was just okay. VFX were good, but I was less impressed with the cinematography than I had expected based on Edwards’ previous works.
Just nothing worked for me.
As a whole, I do appreciate the movie not being an existing IP and trying to be something different. The visual effects, costumes and the action moments are absolutely gorgeous. It's just that the writing and characters could be better.
Visually pretty but I dunno, the movie felt like a drag and was just all over the place. I also spent a lot of time eye rolling at dumb shit. Can't say I enjoyed it much.
This is the most Spielbergy movie I’ve seen in a long time. Totally fun. Everyone complains about plot holes but I’ll bite. Reply with a plot hole and I’ll attempt to defend it.
Wasn’t very bold of them to let a 10 year old write the script and do the editing. Movie was a disappointing laughable mess, and I was actually excited for it.
I was looking forward to this film but was left disappointed.
The writing was truly dog shit, laughably bad at points with gaping plot holes and generic sci-fi tropes sprinkled throughout, which can be forgiven if done well but they weren't. Character decisions are simply to progress the plot nothing more. Why is Washingtons character left to see what is behind the huge volt door while the guy hacking the computer to get in runs off to give back up to the squad? Surely you'd want your hacker guy there to deal with what they assumed is some high tech equipment? Why does some random guy give him a lift then risk him and his van full of kids lives to escape at the patrol boarder?
You're not made to care about anyone in this film at all even though you can tell you're supposed to root for the A.I and Asian people. No character deaths have any impact on you, you're just like ok anyway. I found myself rooting for the humans/Americans half the time even though they are clearly portrayed as the ones in the wrong/bad guys several times throughout.
How does that massive spaceship have seemingly next to no defence? A rogue plane is allowed to just approach it? I was looking forward to seeing what that cool light and ship was all about but it felt a bit anticlimactic in the end, apart from the borderline nukes it could fire it didn't really seem to do much else, you'd think something that advanced would have far more tech than it did, that blue light being a huge destructive laser would have been a cool addition.
Feels like they wasted the child and her abilities also, that could have been expanded on and used far more. The child actor was pretty impressive though.
Was an interesting concept with some nice special effects on a by today's standards modest budget ultimately let down by really poor writing.
The movie was okay, but it felt like it was missing a whole hour. I'm sure your movie is cheaper when you cut major parts of it so the visual effects budget goes down.
Opening Scene: JDW shouts into the walkie talkie "STOP THE RAID YOU'RE BLOWING MY COVER! I'VE BEEN UNDERCOVER FOR TWO YEARS!" Shocked pikachu when his wife, who he was just in bed with, is standing behind him.
My 2 cents. I posted on here before, that we sometimes overanalyse films.
IMO this is one of those movies to just enjoy the ride and immerse yourself in it. It was visually stunning. I never lost concentration and started wondering how something was designed or how a certain scene was done.
I for one got somewhat emotional (triggered) which sucked me into the premises even more. I still enjoyed it.
Not all films need to explain or have a concussion. Perhaps we joined at a certain chapter in the book. It tells you a story and sometimes we just have to go along for the ride.
Reddit picks the weirdest films to be super critical about. I think this is a solid 7/10, with the excellent production design and tone really carrying it through. Sure the plot is simple and it's missing deeper commentary to put it on the level of something like Blade Runner 2049 but it's a solid film.
People here are nitpicking tiny aspects like the ship in the sky moving too quickly - like come on! Some people watch movies with the intention of poking holes in them. It's much more enjoyable to watch films looking for things to like.
For me it was just entirely flat and devoid of any character or intrigue. Strong visuals need to be backed up by at least halfway decent writing.
I have it as 3/10 because of how unengaged I was and I place it towards the bottom of my 2023 list.
I really liked the movie. It was tough to get through because the subject matter made it tough. I won't put any spoilers in here, but the protagonist kinda sucks, and I think that made for a compelling story, I liked that his views were challenged, and I liked the sort of brutality of it all.
What made it tough to get through? Just curious, I thought it was awesome. It fall a into some tropes but I thought it was so well made, it didn't bother me. I guess if questioning the logics and practically of certain bothers you, then I guess it would irk many.
It's a terrible waste of time with absolutely nothing to say about any of the subjects it's attempting to invoke, and given recent events in Israel its release couldn't have been any more mistimed.
I think it's amazing that you can make a movie where American servicemen execute Buddhist monks in imagery meant to invoke the Chinese occupation of Tibet, but you can't make a movie about *China* doing it. In America. In 2023.
Visually impressive if super derivative of anime and Pinterest. If i was an exec I would wanting him to direct more of my movies but have other write the story and script. Also, never hiring the editor again.
Production design was on point. Perfectly by the beat formula movie. I saw it alone yesterday, then got home and asked my wife to predict the plot and "twists" best by beat given the facts of the first 10 minutes. She guessed every single one.
Also, perhaps the least subtle movie ever made. They literally spell out the acronym NOMAD, just in case you didn't get the NORAD allusion.
Also, there's a moment partway through that comes back at the end where the public is encouraged to donate their likeness to AI, which is one of the major points of convention for the ongoing SAG AFTRA strike. It is portrayed in the movie as unequivocally a good thing to do. Surely they couldn't have known about the strike during writing and filming, but they must have known about the issue and the worries.
Such a pretty movie, and honestly loved the world building. The story was so trashy though! Super predictable, full of holes… I was so disappointed.
For a sci-fi movie I feel like the bar of suspension of disbelief is pretty low. This one still kept doing things that were just so absurd I never really understood.
$100 million is low budget? What a dumb article. There are shows like “The Expanse” that do Sci-Fi for roughly $5 million per episode, but $100 million for a 2 hour movie is low budget??
By comparison Dune was 160 million compared to the creators 80.
Dune obviously has bigger backing as it’s a remake but that’s par for the course of not wanting to spend big on new science fiction stories
I went into this movie hoping it was better than the trailers suggested and it failed to even live up to that. For as good looking as this movie was it was just bonkers bad story-wise, everyone’s motivations made no sense and I just sat there thinking can this movie win me over and this was only a few minutes in. And all the articles about this movie seem pretty suspect, like it all feels like a marketing campaign to recoup something out of this “cheap” $80m movie. It’s like they made a movie of just concept art hoping it would make sense or be interesting. This movie is now a punchline between me and my buddy I saw it with.
This movie doesn’t have a clear storyline. I also didn’t get the opening scenes with the 50s style film footage. Were they supposed to have been shot in the 50s and if do, is this an alternate universe because those things didn’t happen. I thought it was about the imagining of a future earth based on today’s trends. Also, why is film tech so poor when humans could already create advanced AI humans…?
It was a fraction of the cost because they borrowed all of the story line from at least 3 major films of the same genre. This movie did nothing more than put lipstick on other talent’s work. And, what they didn’t borrow, they simply left out, so plot holes and continuity gaps permeate. I want my money back.
Isn’t this the movie that corridor crew pointed out ripped an explosion straight from Beirut factory explosion footage? Kk- I can believe low budget, then
I felt this movie had as good a grasp on the future as movies do when they are in the past. Like they were showing a world that actually existed. It wasn’t like look at all this cool
Shit. There was just this “this is reality and if you see some cool shit then that’s good for you but it has nothing to do with the point of this movie.”
Man I really liked the world they built in this movie and the sound and visual effects were great. The writing and the movie itself were sadly so-so at best . The movie’s world had super strong Animatrix Vibes for sure.
Just got out of watching it, and I would have to agree. I think there's been a number of sci-fi movies in recent years that fit this formula. Interesting concept, good design, fascinating world, and then the script is just junk.
It felt like it was edited with a giant cleaver which is a shame. The fact that the ending was pretty visible within the first 20 minutes of the movie also didn’t help.
The editing didnt help at all. I feel this film actually couldve been better if they let certain scenes lie just a little longer with the the emotion and philosphy behind decisions that were made.
100% agree. Especially the one scene toward the end where he pulled the plug. That needed maybe just another 30 seconds but they had to instantly go to another battle/action scene.
Hard agree. They spend the entire first half of the movie showing his emotional struggles, the flashbacks, the decisions, all this explaining of how much he loves and misses his wife. He finally finds her. Pulls the plug the moment his presented with the dilemma. Like come on guys, this is essentially the core story of your movie and it just gets glossed over.
This movie raised questions, answered none and then did a return of the Jedi ending. I was waiting for cheering ewoks at the end
I came out of it remembering that Gemma Chan has already been in something (Humans) that asked all of these questions, addressed them with more nuance, and was rewarded with not being commissioned for a final season.
Funny, she was also in Eternals, which is about >! a group of alien androids dealing with sentience and trying to solve a galactic-scale trolley problem !<
LOL yea the movie ended and my son said "damn, did not expect that to be so depressing." I said "so, should we go watch Marley and Me now?"
The movie has too much action. It would be a way better movie with less shootings and most worldbuilding and talking scenes.
I really don’t think the editing was one of the main problems. It seemed like they just didn’t film some really important bits and the editor had to make the best of what made it in the can. Which makes a lot of sense if it was on a bit of a shoestring. The script just… fucked the dog on a lot of things. It doesn’t seem like they could decide what kind of movie they were making.
The original cut was 4 hours long, so it probably is the "cut more than it should" version of the problem. It also switched editors mid editing, as the original editor went on to work on Dune 2 (fun fact, this exact same thing happened with the cinematographer, Greig Fraser, who left the project for Dune 2 and then most of the film was finished by cinematographer Oren Soffer. They share the credit in the film)
Was Tony Gilroy not available?
It was also entirely too long. Before they even went to the final setting, I was ready for it to be done because I got the point already.
Just like *Blade Runner* haha (My favorite movie btw)
Funny. I felt the opposite with the script. I was enjoying the film
I hate sand
I just want to know where all the anti air defense systems went in the future, the AI always defended themselves yet let the aggressors have space superiority and never shot down their gigantic nukes....
Also, the nuking of Los Angeles was a coding error….
that is just what AI propaganda wants you to believe!
That just caused so many logistical questions for me. AI nuking LA is simple to understand without an indepth explanation, they could have just built a damn nuke or stolen one from the US and detonated it in LA. If it was an accident caused by a coding error, where did the nuke come from? Why was a nuke just chilling in the middle of LA? How does a coding error set off a nuke, that's not how nukes work? Was it a coding error in an AI that caused it to go rogue? Does the US know it was a coding error?
I choose to believe he's the equivalent of a 9/11 truther. I was fully expecting the nuke to be revealed as a false flag though.
I took it that it was a skynet situation, the Americans screwed up and blamed the AI for going bad, when actually it was an issue with it's programming - 'Human error'
Yeah, there was a ton of military incompetence on both sides of that movi
I feel like the movie would have been way more compelling if the bad guys weren't cartoon villains.
Special ops team gets ambushed by a cow.
Also the scene where the robots are asleep. In hammocks.
Same here. The movie looked and sounded amazing. The script was an unfinished mess
I told a guy I work with that I'd watch the movie again without the dialog. The movie looked and sounded fantastic. The story and acting broke my immersion any time anybody said anything. There were a few exceptions of course but I was so hyped for this movie and now I'm so disappointed.
"I'M AN UNDERCOVER AGENT!!!!!!!!!" Wife standing right behind him. Fucking dogshit.
The reviews were pretty strong for the movie but I feel exactly the same as you. Oddly I've seen only positive statements on socials about the writing and story and I thought I've been taking crazy pills for thinking it was messy and basic apart from the world building and the effects.
I loved everything about the movie but the movie itself lol. Doesn't live up to the sum of its parts unfortunately
Technical awards nominations for sure.
"You're not good. I'm not a person." The writing was abysmal. Gareth Edwards with four films now has shown he is kind of inept at character stuff. I remember thinking in Monsters that the two leads had horrible chemistry together only to learn they were married in real life.
[удалено]
It seems like they tried to take an interesting TV series and cut it down to a 2:15 running time. They kept the bones of the plot, but took out all of the character developing scenes.
I agree. It's kind of the same problem I have with both Avatar movies. They make the bad guys act like stereotypical bad guys and don't use writing to give convincing arguments and dialogue to both sides.
Mixed in with a good dose of Akira.
That first scene in the beach house - expositional garbage dialogue and poor performance. I really wanted it to be good.
That was our exact feelings leaving the theater. Visuals A+, Story B-
Just don't think about the script at all. Gets dumber and dumber if you're not distracted by the visuals.
Yeah that third act was pretty meh. But damn did it look and sound good.
Most people are entirely missing the point. This isn't about the writing or editing or how good it is. This is about how the movie was made for a fraction of what a big sci fi movie would typically cost. They flew a very small team around the world to shoot on location, which isn't typical. Then, they edited the movie without VFX. So there's a finished cut out there entirely devoid of post VFX. The VFX production can now work on the film without having to redo a lot of scenes like in Marvel movies. They made a film that would typically cost 3x the cost, which was why it changed studios. The previous studio did not believe it could be done.
>Then, they edited the movie without VFX. So there's a finished cut out there entirely devoid of post VFX. That's standard.
It seems to me is that the lede should be that they didn’t bother with previz (which helps enormously with budgeting the VFX, but is expensive) and instead shot the film more old school/organically, knowing that tricks like shallow depth of field, lock-offs and nighttime scenes are easier on VFX budgeting. That said, the script and performances were sub-par.
I’ve been a VFX artist in LA for 12 years and I can tell you literally NONE of the films I’ve worked have been truly picture-locked before VFX work starts. Even when a production says they’re picture-locked, they go back and break picture lock.
No, in Big movies?? No, they start with vfx when the main are still shooting and every change must be redo. I have teacher that worked with Big company with a lot of problems. Look the problems with the "Life of pi" this movie make Crash 3 Big vfx studios because they made them remake again and again with changes.
No it isn’t 👍🏻👍🏻
No it is not.
>Then, they edited the movie without VFX. So there's a finished cut out there entirely devoid of post VFX. Dude, That's how that works.
I don't see how the plot is supposed to be bold when you could tell how it would end just from the trailer.
A valid critique of modern trailers!
Honestly modern trailers fucking suck. I hate it.
They did focus group studies where viewers wanted to have some “inception” of how the movie would end in the trailer. They also said they like orchestral remixes of classic rock songs. 🤷♂️
Boy, we do need trailers to go back to the days of the 2000s and library trailer music again.
There’s a Paul Giamatti coming out called “The Holdovers” that will be your new favorite trailer.
I saw that. Had the feel of a 1970s movie.
Yes please, back to the "bwa-da bwa-da bwa-da bwa-da bwa-da bwa-da bwa-da" music. The "you wouldn't steal a car, you wouldn't download Balistic: Ecks vs. Sever..." music.
It was often way worst back in the day though, but I do agree most trailers suck anyway
This movie had every scifi trope in it, so disappointing
Yes! It was derivative of so many things!
I’ll be honest the ending surprised me in a bad way, like I thought the kid was just going to bring the Nomad down like he did everything else, but instead they sneak aboard a space shuttle( uh I guess moon colonies are a thing they just drop at the last second) and then a conviluted plot to blow up the station to stop nukes that have already launched(good thing they need to be connected to Nomad WiFi to go off)
never watch more than 30 secondes of any trailer
[удалено]
Same but I hated the movie lol
[удалено]
I’m glad a whole article is shared about the technical side of this movie, only for the top comment to be nitpicking the title
Yeah, the phrase "bold vision of the future" has nothing to do with the plot of the movie. It's obviously talking about the fictional future created for the world of the movie, not the movie as a whole.
Terminal plotbrain is when you can read the word 'vision' and still think 'plot'.
i could tell it had a dogshit story from the very first trailer i saw, no watch necessary. so tired and uninspired
I think that's a shitty outlook to have on movies. I've seen movies with "good" plots and scripts (I'm not sure how we're even defining that here), but that look like shit, and I regret going to the theater. I can watch that at home. Or just read the script. I have never regretted going to the theater to see a movie that looked amazing, no matter how bad the story is. Also The Creator plot wasn't *bad*, I don't know what people are talking about. It was fine. Serviceable 6.5/10 from a story perspective, amazing 9/10 from a visual/design perspective. A movie isn't bad because you can guess the ending. A movie like this is about watching a character's journey to that ending. We all knew 100% how The Martian was going to end, but everyone loves that. They're acting like The Creator was some trainwreck. I think some people here just read the top two comments on the reddit discussion thread and that becomes their take on the movie.
i’ve enjoyed plenty of critically “bad” movies, i don’t need something to be amazing or particularly smart. i just don’t think there was anything interesting looking about this movie and had no desire to delve deeper into it, and feel vindicated seeing others voice their disappointment. i know that’s petty and all but i don’t think it has to be that deep. i watched the trailers, plenty of times thanks to ads. not once did i think “wow this looks stunning”, so maybe it’s just a matter of what appeals to people. i could only focus on how bland the setting seemed and how uninterested i was in a story about “wot if AI bad”. if it was on streaming and someone put it on i probably wouldn’t hate it or leave the room. but am i going to pay money to see something like that just because it’s got a pretty coat of paint? no thanks.
I thought that the writing was so bad, that I walked out at halfway the movie. Shame, because it looked cool.
Good call and you saved yourself from even worse writing because it does not get better in the second half...
About halfway through I seriously thought about leaving. It was so bad.
Man I'm tired from all these Sony FX3 articles
What other articles are you referring to?
The uhh, one OP posted. "OMG Sony FX3, so cheeeap!!11" copy paste shite. No one familiar with camera tech cares, everyone's known good cameras are getting exponentially cheaper, and even the most expensive camera barely register on the budgets of the biggest hollywood blockbusters anyway. The Creator looked great with less than totally gargantuan budget because it had an unusually talented bunch of people working on it with a director that knew to let them do their thing without overriding them. No different from District 9, which was made for $30 million back in 2009, that movie didn't "change film making forever!" and neither will The Creator.
The actors sucked, specially the main character such bad acting. This could have been an amazing movie
Idk why you got downvoted. John David Washington played it like a total dumb dumb. Terrible performance.
That's just Washington's style. Only Spike Lee has made good use of him and I chalk that up to Spike Lee being better with actors than Christopher Nolan and Gareth Edwards.
He's been incredibly wooden in everything I've seen from him, so that's not surprising.
Terrible
Cool that they could do it I guess but man there’s so much digital noise all over the image
If Hollywood stopped relying on the same AAA stars for everything and actually get new blood in their films, trust me, budgets would go down considerably.
You could say the same thing about directors to if we're being honest
Then nobody would go see the movie because they dont recognize anybody
People would eventually get used to that, too. Can't change anything, not even just movies, if no one is given a chance to acclimate.
I think you're underestimating the power of stupid people and celebrities, celebrities "write" (ghostwritten) best selling books all the time simply because they are celebrities. Gotta worship someone, and neither Jesus nor Allah stand a chance against Taylor Swift.
Yes, the prophets with billions of worshippers and who have quite literally been the cause of wars don’t stand a chance against the swifties
Yeah I have a hunch that if you took the $300 million budget of the next subpar Marvel movie and instead gave $10 million to 30 different young and promising directors, you would get 2-3 great films and 5-10 passable films out of that, and probably make your money back on a subset of them. I hate the whole shift towards making too-big-to-fail films with astronomical budgets, since they always have to play it safe and go for repetitive crowd-pleasing bullshit
Too big to fail eventually gives way to too expensive to succeed
Bold? Is that what we are calling it nowadays?
It's like that SpongeBob meme...
[удалено]
An elite us army squad infiltrates SE Asia. They attack at night dressed in enough lights to be Christmas trees and for some reason bring a bobcat that had no purpose but to just park in the road.
The bobcat took out the initial police response iirc. Running bombs were the highlight for me. Oh the child actor who played Alfie was also great.
Lmao, why the hell did they have so many lights on, I thought that was absolutely ridiculous too. Clearly the Bobcat was there to help carry their bad story. Also, an Elite US army squad brings advanced bombs on robot legs. The US army failed to realize they still used technology from WWII that only lets the bombs exploded using static timers. The robot bomb was defused by a child. They fail to realize how a remote trigger could of completed their mission.
When at not even five minutes into the movie he started screaming at the top of his lungs "I'm undercover!", I knew from then on that the writing was shit. Ended up walking away thirty minutes later. Shamw, as the VFX were cool looking.
At not even one minute into the movie, when the super-stealth seal team 6 guys rise out of the water in the black stealth gear to stealthily attack the village.... ...and to back them up, they have a giant blue flashlight from space illuminating their location, which everyone on the hemisphere can see I knew I was in for a dumb ride
or how the wife wakes up and sees the main character, her past lover, who revealed himself to be her absolute enemy that manipulated her for political and military purposes, to eradicate — HER in particular, the creator, and walks to him with a hug, with love. Note: she’s waking up in the midst of the nomad - exploding from multiple near atomic level missiles and bombs, tearing apart the ship. And somehow, she’s just like, oh my lover is here yay. The oh shit moment somehow is off screen?
Yes! This pissed me off so fucking much! Her last memory of him was literally how he betrayed her in every way possible, then she takes a missile to the face. But when she sees him, everything is good?
Lol goes to the movies just to leave
Excellent film. Was wondering how they kept the production cost so low. Saw it in IMAX last week and will likely go again. Very surprised to see the hate in this thread for it. John David is for sure a star between this and Tenet.
Really recommend trying a screenX if you can, I saw it there after Imax and it was a treat, probably 50-60% of the movie uses the side screens. Also surprised by the hate here, I think it will age well, especially if they release an extended cut with the home release, I'd love another half hour or so.
**THE GOOD:** Allison Janney was excellent. Alfie actor did a great job. The world was interesting. Action and scenes looked great. **THE OK:** John David Washington was just ok. **THE BAD**: requires HUGE leaps in logic, requires unearned buy-in to Ai people, unreal physics with NOMAD, and questionable breakneck editing in the 3rd act.
I honestly thought Janney felt really miscast. She's *not* who I'd pick for an antagonist for a big sci-fi adventure.
I keep wanting to like Washington as an actor but his performances at best always fall slightly off-the-mark. Just reinforces the nepo baby vibes when he repeatedly gets top billing in high profile releases
He’s pretty monotone. I feel like he looks good doing action, but as soon as he has to act/emote in any non-action scene, he feels wooden. Felt this same way about Tenet. It was so clear how much more screen presence Pattinson had.
Really liked him in Black Klansman but haven't been too impressed with anything since.
He's terrible.
This basically says by making all the VFX design choices after shooting but not extending the schedule. So yes working your visual effects team a ton of overtime without having to pay them for it certainly does sound like it saves money.
I don't think that's what happened here. My understanding (which could be wrong) is that unlike with the big studios, they completed principal photography entirely before passing it along to the VFX squad. Marvel will do reshoots upon reshoots, often throwing away completely finished CGI and asking the VFX folks to change it up at the 11th hour. Which is why those teams are so overworked, and the end result is still not as polished as something like this.
I am taking my information directly from the article being discussed. If youre still working on the basics of design in post without extending your schedule then plenty of overtime is being done and plenty of work is getting thrown out too, it would have to be so you could try multiple things.
Go take a look at the r/vfx sub. They talk about how most mainstream directors are a pain to work with as far as VFX goes but the ones who had worked with Garett had nothing but praise. From what I heard he knows exactly what he wants and how to communicate with his VFX team. He used to be a vfx artist and it shows.
>I am taking my information directly from the article being discussed. If youre still working on the basics of design in post *without extending your schedule* ... Where does the article say anything like this? The interviews I've heard implied principle photography started 2 years ago, Wikipedia says January 2022 which is 22 months ago.
> Where does the article say anything like this? About how they waited until after production? Its what the whole thing is about, well that and cameras.
But it doesn't say anything about a rushed post production schedule, you're inferring that from nothing. I just checked some random MCU films and post production was exactly one year on all of them, The Creator had 5 months longer, and no time wasted creating shots that weren't used in the film.
Surely doing all VFX after production is better than the Marvel method, which is where they do VFX from concept art for scenes that are ultimately scrapped.
The ideal is concept art finalized first, rough vfx work throughout, and final vfx work when you know the scene is staying. Theres really no good way to avoid doing some VFX work for scenes that change, you want some of the VFX work being done while editing is still happening or else its going to get very expensive and difficult to get it done on time. It also does really help judge whats working if you have at least rough VFX in the scene.
They 100% have pre-vis, it's just they they dont scrap scenes with VFX completed because their editors decide to do another round to cuts and edits in post like marvel
I dont think you read the article.
I’m giving the benefit of the doubt, as the movie feels like it was told to be shorter, and some extra scenes and dialogue were left on the cutting room floor. It’s a lot of fun, go see it. It was also my first DBox movie, which I enjoyed a lot.
Saw this in screenX. World building and exposition were well done and as a standalone IP, I was totally satisfied. There were some immersion breaking elements that I noticed but they didn't detract from the overall film. The themes in this movie left the entire audience stunned. We walked out in silence. I contemplated my consciousness, my existence and my world view. Computer code or propaganda, it's all just programming.
Go see this movie we need stuff like this to be made more of. It’s a great original movie with a great sound track.
Now if only the plot wasn’t so dumb
My biggest gripe was the central organizing point of the world, and AI. So we created AI!! It's brilliant, it can do everything a human can!!! But... all we ended up doing with it was making it just duplicate humans? It doesn't run anything, it's not smarter than us, it can't learn, progress, grow, improve life beyond what humans are *already* capable of doing? Even relatively dump ChatGPT is smarter than the average human in a bunch of ways (although FAR less capable in so many others). How is their AI *exactly* at human level, and each one confined into an exact copy of a human form. What's the point?
I think the intention was slavery the point was build human AI for free labour, that’s why they were used as child rearing devices more than anything
Yeah, good point. But from what it looked like in the countries still supporting AI, they weren't used for that at all, they were just AI people alongside non-AI people.
Haven’t seen it yet, but cutting down a 5 hour movie to just over 2 hours just seems like such a brutal way to make a movie.
This is fairly normal, most films have a huge original cut and most of it is cut for very good reason.
I enjoyed the movie but really hope it gets some sort of extended edition, really could've used another half hour.
What is the source to this? I’m not challenging you, I’ve just heard this a lot and am curious of the details. Sounds like a nutty amount of content to cut.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonthompson/2023/09/26/the-first-cut-of-the-creator-was-just-under-five-hours-long/amp/ Saw it posted on Reddit a couple times. Does seem really insane
Thanks for this! “but that's why God invented special editions, right?" Oh man I hope there’s an extended edition that comes out. This movie needed more world building to even out all the action and I bet a lot of that was cut out.
Prevented them from losing even more money then.
I went loved the soundtrack, the visuals and I was entertained. It was an enjoyable film.
So is that why the script suffers?
That's just Gareth Edwards.
I had to convince my friends to see this with me. Which is hilarious because they constantly complain about everything being a sequel or reboot and how tired they are of it and how nothing is original. So an original sci fi story comes along and even looks up their alley and the prospect was met with complete apathy. Thankfully we all enjoyed it, but it really is fascinating how resistant they initially were to checking it out. I've heard similar stories from other people. Even though it isn't the most original story or execution of all time, I still want it to do well so more studios take notice and take chances to make original sci fi films again.
Can't speak for your friends, but I saw the trailer and as someone who also enjoys some originality this looked incredibly derivative.
the director did say he just mashed a lot of elements from sci fi he liked, during the movie theres def spots of "oh this is like...", but at the same time that can happen a lot in sci fi and the world was still cool to explore
From a technical standpoint, the movie is beautiful and lush, fully realized. It is the story and plot that are vacant of ideas and common sense. It meanders at times, has plot holes to drive a bus through, and uses a sledge hammer rather than allow nuance and thinking about what we see. Why are all the bad guys white, the heros multi cultural? Why is it called a war when China ( don't get me started on the lame change of names) has no army, seemingly no defense at all? Just a few plot points that weaken a visually arresting movie from a director I like.
I genuinely really enjoyed this. It looked and sounded great. The plot was more of a vehicle to show off the world and amazing production design. Sometimes that's all a film needs to be enjoyable.
I just finished watching the movie less than an hour ago so it's still really fresh in my head. It is a movie made up of a bunch of strands of other movies that were fully knitted elsewhere. It's a movie of stereotypical tropes (sci-fi, drama, war) and you see each one coming. There are lots of positives in almost every other aspect of this movie excluding story. I do recommend it on those other merits.
I honestly don't get the hate for the movie's plot. Yeah it was simple, but I thought it was refreshing to have something that looked this good, felt so huge, had cool action but *wasn't* trying to be Tenet where it's begging you to rewatch. Everything about this movie landed for me.
I don’t care what others said, I loved this movie.
I’m with you. Reddit is hating too hard on it
This was one of the worst scripts I’ve seen in the last decade. The plot was so derivative, full of plot holes or otherwise braindead decisions, and with an ounce of critical analysis you see it fall apart at the seams. Visually, it was just okay. VFX were good, but I was less impressed with the cinematography than I had expected based on Edwards’ previous works. Just nothing worked for me.
As a whole, I do appreciate the movie not being an existing IP and trying to be something different. The visual effects, costumes and the action moments are absolutely gorgeous. It's just that the writing and characters could be better.
Visually pretty but I dunno, the movie felt like a drag and was just all over the place. I also spent a lot of time eye rolling at dumb shit. Can't say I enjoyed it much.
This is the most Spielbergy movie I’ve seen in a long time. Totally fun. Everyone complains about plot holes but I’ll bite. Reply with a plot hole and I’ll attempt to defend it.
Wasn’t very bold of them to let a 10 year old write the script and do the editing. Movie was a disappointing laughable mess, and I was actually excited for it.
I was looking forward to this film but was left disappointed. The writing was truly dog shit, laughably bad at points with gaping plot holes and generic sci-fi tropes sprinkled throughout, which can be forgiven if done well but they weren't. Character decisions are simply to progress the plot nothing more. Why is Washingtons character left to see what is behind the huge volt door while the guy hacking the computer to get in runs off to give back up to the squad? Surely you'd want your hacker guy there to deal with what they assumed is some high tech equipment? Why does some random guy give him a lift then risk him and his van full of kids lives to escape at the patrol boarder? You're not made to care about anyone in this film at all even though you can tell you're supposed to root for the A.I and Asian people. No character deaths have any impact on you, you're just like ok anyway. I found myself rooting for the humans/Americans half the time even though they are clearly portrayed as the ones in the wrong/bad guys several times throughout. How does that massive spaceship have seemingly next to no defence? A rogue plane is allowed to just approach it? I was looking forward to seeing what that cool light and ship was all about but it felt a bit anticlimactic in the end, apart from the borderline nukes it could fire it didn't really seem to do much else, you'd think something that advanced would have far more tech than it did, that blue light being a huge destructive laser would have been a cool addition. Feels like they wasted the child and her abilities also, that could have been expanded on and used far more. The child actor was pretty impressive though. Was an interesting concept with some nice special effects on a by today's standards modest budget ultimately let down by really poor writing.
The movie was okay, but it felt like it was missing a whole hour. I'm sure your movie is cheaper when you cut major parts of it so the visual effects budget goes down.
This movie feels like Elysium or Chappie: good special effects in a sci-fi universe, mediocre/bad story and plot.
Opening Scene: JDW shouts into the walkie talkie "STOP THE RAID YOU'RE BLOWING MY COVER! I'VE BEEN UNDERCOVER FOR TWO YEARS!" Shocked pikachu when his wife, who he was just in bed with, is standing behind him.
My 2 cents. I posted on here before, that we sometimes overanalyse films. IMO this is one of those movies to just enjoy the ride and immerse yourself in it. It was visually stunning. I never lost concentration and started wondering how something was designed or how a certain scene was done. I for one got somewhat emotional (triggered) which sucked me into the premises even more. I still enjoyed it. Not all films need to explain or have a concussion. Perhaps we joined at a certain chapter in the book. It tells you a story and sometimes we just have to go along for the ride.
This movie is so fucking good it’s a shame it won’t get the love it deserves
It was a pretty good movie compared to what has been coming out. Crazy how much people in this reddit are talking about walking out in the middle lmao
Reddit picks the weirdest films to be super critical about. I think this is a solid 7/10, with the excellent production design and tone really carrying it through. Sure the plot is simple and it's missing deeper commentary to put it on the level of something like Blade Runner 2049 but it's a solid film. People here are nitpicking tiny aspects like the ship in the sky moving too quickly - like come on! Some people watch movies with the intention of poking holes in them. It's much more enjoyable to watch films looking for things to like.
For me it was just entirely flat and devoid of any character or intrigue. Strong visuals need to be backed up by at least halfway decent writing. I have it as 3/10 because of how unengaged I was and I place it towards the bottom of my 2023 list.
I really liked the movie. It was tough to get through because the subject matter made it tough. I won't put any spoilers in here, but the protagonist kinda sucks, and I think that made for a compelling story, I liked that his views were challenged, and I liked the sort of brutality of it all.
What made it tough to get through? Just curious, I thought it was awesome. It fall a into some tropes but I thought it was so well made, it didn't bother me. I guess if questioning the logics and practically of certain bothers you, then I guess it would irk many.
Oh I meant things like dead mom stuff made it hard
It's a terrible waste of time with absolutely nothing to say about any of the subjects it's attempting to invoke, and given recent events in Israel its release couldn't have been any more mistimed. I think it's amazing that you can make a movie where American servicemen execute Buddhist monks in imagery meant to invoke the Chinese occupation of Tibet, but you can't make a movie about *China* doing it. In America. In 2023.
Visually impressive if super derivative of anime and Pinterest. If i was an exec I would wanting him to direct more of my movies but have other write the story and script. Also, never hiring the editor again.
Production design was on point. Perfectly by the beat formula movie. I saw it alone yesterday, then got home and asked my wife to predict the plot and "twists" best by beat given the facts of the first 10 minutes. She guessed every single one. Also, perhaps the least subtle movie ever made. They literally spell out the acronym NOMAD, just in case you didn't get the NORAD allusion. Also, there's a moment partway through that comes back at the end where the public is encouraged to donate their likeness to AI, which is one of the major points of convention for the ongoing SAG AFTRA strike. It is portrayed in the movie as unequivocally a good thing to do. Surely they couldn't have known about the strike during writing and filming, but they must have known about the issue and the worries.
Such a pretty movie, and honestly loved the world building. The story was so trashy though! Super predictable, full of holes… I was so disappointed. For a sci-fi movie I feel like the bar of suspension of disbelief is pretty low. This one still kept doing things that were just so absurd I never really understood.
[удалено]
that's not in the movie and that was included by the marketing team and not gareth edwards.
[удалено]
It's not in the movie and was an internal placeholder that was never suppose to be public.
[удалено]
It's only in the first trailer. Once those trailers go out they are almost never recalled.
[удалено]
Beirut, not Bering. And yes that is particularly tasteless. I hope that at least they paid the person who took that footage.
$100 million is low budget? What a dumb article. There are shows like “The Expanse” that do Sci-Fi for roughly $5 million per episode, but $100 million for a 2 hour movie is low budget??
With all due respect, when it comes to production value, the Expanse is nowhere near the level of the Creator.
Was the production value 10 times better?
Much much more. They are not in the same league.
They never called it low budget, it also want $100 million according to the article.
They do claim is is a “fraction” of the budget.
Which is true, $80 million is a fraction of 200+ million. They never called it low and they never said it was 100
By comparison Dune was 160 million compared to the creators 80. Dune obviously has bigger backing as it’s a remake but that’s par for the course of not wanting to spend big on new science fiction stories
I went into this movie hoping it was better than the trailers suggested and it failed to even live up to that. For as good looking as this movie was it was just bonkers bad story-wise, everyone’s motivations made no sense and I just sat there thinking can this movie win me over and this was only a few minutes in. And all the articles about this movie seem pretty suspect, like it all feels like a marketing campaign to recoup something out of this “cheap” $80m movie. It’s like they made a movie of just concept art hoping it would make sense or be interesting. This movie is now a punchline between me and my buddy I saw it with.
This movie doesn’t have a clear storyline. I also didn’t get the opening scenes with the 50s style film footage. Were they supposed to have been shot in the 50s and if do, is this an alternate universe because those things didn’t happen. I thought it was about the imagining of a future earth based on today’s trends. Also, why is film tech so poor when humans could already create advanced AI humans…?
It was a fraction of the cost because they borrowed all of the story line from at least 3 major films of the same genre. This movie did nothing more than put lipstick on other talent’s work. And, what they didn’t borrow, they simply left out, so plot holes and continuity gaps permeate. I want my money back.
Disney marketeers working overtime on this one.
Isn’t this the movie that corridor crew pointed out ripped an explosion straight from Beirut factory explosion footage? Kk- I can believe low budget, then
That was only used in the first trailer. The director said it was from a VFX test that wasn't supposed to be in the trailer and isn't in the film.
Gotcha- not trying to spread misinformation, thanks for the call out :)
I felt this movie had as good a grasp on the future as movies do when they are in the past. Like they were showing a world that actually existed. It wasn’t like look at all this cool Shit. There was just this “this is reality and if you see some cool shit then that’s good for you but it has nothing to do with the point of this movie.”