October 7, 2023 • 48 mins
Prepare for an enlightening foray into the cinematic universe of Gareth Edwards' 'The Creator.' We've dissected this low-budget gem to reveal the secret ingredients that helped it beat the odds and emerge as a sleeper hit. You'll also discover how it carefully straddles futuristic and post-apocalyptic themes, carving out a unique niche in a crowded genre. From drawing parallels with iconic movies like Blade Runner and Terminator, to appreciating the nuanced performances of child actress Madeline Yuma and John David Washington, we've got it all covered.
In a world of stereotypical villains, 'The Creator' paints its human antagonists with shades of grey, offering justified reasoning for their prejudice against AI. Our discussion throws light on this unique portrayal and the power dynamics between humans and AI in the movie. We also dissect the pivotal events that act as a catalyst for the inevitable conflict, drawing comparisons with movies like Avatar. Despite the serious themes, the movie doesn't get preachy, focusing more on the action and the heart of its story.
Gareth Edwards' background in VFX proved to be an ace up his sleeve in overcoming budget constraints and delivering a visually stunning masterpiece. We delve into how this expertise, coupled with creative techniques like practical lighting and minimal crew, tricked the audience into believing they were watching a big-budget spectacle. Wrapping up the episode, we explore the cultural impact of 'The Creator' and its contrast with its "twin movie". The final segment takes a step back from the movie itself and sparks a conversation about the broader theme of film and ambition. So buckle up for a roller coaster ride through the making and impact of 'The Creator.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Ice cream delivery.
Here you go.
I'm speaking in English, eventhough I am in Neo Vietnam.
Please leave a review.
Stand by hey Konnichiwa.
Hello.
Ni hao Lü de languageconfiguration.
Hello, welcome to a new episode.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
The people listening are just going to be like what
the hell is happening to you.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
If only you guys watched a movie as well which
you definitely should to get thereference.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
Hey everyone and welcome to Movies Worth Seeing.
I'm Michael Pishoneri, joinedby Martin Jung for another
episode.
Today we are reviewing theCreator, directed by Gareth
Edwards.
This is a bit of a sleeper hit,in a way.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
Oh yeah, 100%.
Yeah, I mean, people aretalking about it, but it's gone
under some radars for sure.
I agree.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
I feel like people are talking more about this
movie due to its modesty as faras like its modesty with its
lower than usual budget for amovie of this epic scale and the
trailers did a very good job ofnot spoiling a lot about this,
and we're going to try very hardto not spoil it either and give
(01:13):
you guys a great insight intowhat you could expect from
watching the Creator.
I think there's a good mix of alot of futuristic,
post-apocalyptic type of filmsfrom this genre.
Neo cyber punky kind of future,yeah you got like Blade Runner,
Terminator 1 and 2 before it allwent to shit.
(01:35):
Irobot was another movie thatthe more I kept talking about
this review with Martin, themore I was like oh my god,
that's like iRobot and that'slike iRobot.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
And now with strong comparisons to Detroit Become
Human.
I think it's a PlayStationexclusive game, yeah.
And then we were discussing how, without spoilers, that a lot
of the story beats and tropesare kind of like things we've
already seen in past movies andpast mediums before.
It's not exactly reinventingthe wheel, but what it does do
(02:08):
you know, does very well.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
I thought that, even though the Creator uses a lot of
tropes from futuristic genrefilms, it did a great job of
standing out from those moviesdue to its own execution, its
own grittiness and worldbuilding and the performances
from Madeline Yuma, the childactress that plays this
(02:34):
artificial robot with real lifeemotions.
I feel like when you watch amovie with kids, it's either
going to be really shit or it'sgoing to be really great, and
this was.
This was definitely more Loganthan it was.
Jurassic World could be a goodexample here.
(02:56):
What other movies have terriblechild actors?
We went too crazy about BlackAdams child actor.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
Oh, I wouldn't know, because I still have not watched
Black Adam and I don't intendto.
Yeah, oh, you didn't watch it.
No, I still haven't.
No, why did?
Speaker 2 (03:11):
I suffer through that .
How did I let you on thepodcast and you didn't even have
to suffer through that crap?
I mean, I really wasn't missingmuch with that episode was
actually pretty funny becauseyou managed to take what we were
talking about and it almostfelt like you knew the movie.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
Yeah, I got the gist of it.
Yeah, for sure, for sure.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
Anyway, give him back to the creator for a brief
synopsis.
The creator is about Joshuatrying to remember the character
names here.
Joshua is James DavidWashington.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
John.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
David, ah, john, david Denzel Washington's son,
which I didn't know that, andneither I know that.
I'm like, holy crap, that isamazing to imagine having to
live through those footsteps.
How are you going to step?
Speaker 1 (03:59):
out of the shadow.
What a high bar A high bar.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
I would honestly probably go.
You know what, dad?
I don't want to be an actor.
I'm going to go serve ice creamto children at Baskin Robbins
for the rest of my life.
Speaker 1 (04:13):
Imagine how Michael Douglas felt when he first
stepped on a scene.
But you first knew him from theprotagonists and tenets, right,
yes, and the acting in thatmovie compared to this one.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
I knew him from Tenet .
I've seen him in other stuffblack clansmen.
He was in that with Adam Driver.
Speaker 1 (04:31):
Oh yeah, ah yes, yes, yes, I know that one, so that's
him.
Yes.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
He's someone that, like you can tell, is a good
actor.
He's a very good leading manand yeah he's been around the
block.
He's been yeah.
Speaker 1 (04:43):
A bit of a household name, for sure.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
You can see him evolving and you can see that
this is like he's really risingabove the ranks here.
Yeah, he's in mainstreamHollywood movies, For whatever
reason.
I didn't like Tenant and I feltwatching him.
In Tenant the acting was verywooden but I had a sense that
that was more to do withChristopher Nolan's directing
than it did with him as aperformer.
(05:05):
Fair enough, Fair enough, and Iwas right, because he was
phenomenal in this.
From the get-go, from theopening sequence of the creator,
it froze the character rightinto this emotional turmoil of
losing loved one and dealingwith the inner conflict, dealing
with the prejudice of how hefeels towards robots, AI,
(05:28):
whatever, the cyborgs, whateveryou want to call them.
We, the audience, withoutspoiling too much of the movie,
we are given this informationabout a very critical event that
happens to the world, which isthe catalyst for the division
between robots and humans,causing a war.
But it's not really a warbecause AI just kind of want to
(05:50):
live in peace and harmony andyou get the sense it's more like
the humans trying to attackthem, which is very similar to
Avatar.
You got the blue people justminding their own freaking
business and then all the humanscoming in.
They're like we got to gettheir resources, man, because
they got unobtaining and moreirate and whatever they called
(06:10):
it.
Then it became whale blubber inAvatar 2.
Speaker 1 (06:13):
Yeah, Just the same old.
Like you know, human conditionrearing its ugly head again of
you know, not tolerating, youknow, difference and just fear
of those people that are tryingto just coexist with us in peace
and the potential threat theypose to us and vice versa, and
so on.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
I really loved that the humans in the creator have a
completely justified motivationfor their prejudice, for their
hatred towards the AI, Whereasin Avatar you feel like the
humans are just this very onedimensional.
Speaker 1 (06:49):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (06:49):
Billions that just want to take over the world.
Speaker 1 (06:52):
Ultra capitalist resources, everything I've got a
quota, I've got a good exploitand extract and all we can from
this planet and its natives andabuse them.
But then, yeah, in this movie,about three quarters in, I think
we both got the sense.
I was like, yes, on thetextbook definition, the human
characters are the antagonists,that they fit the description.
(07:14):
But yeah, it's like we didn'treally get the sense that we
hated them.
It's like we hate them for allthey've done.
It's like we didn't feel likethey were somewhere we had to
feel emotionally against.
You know, it was like, yeah,yeah, as you said, it's like,
yeah, I get why they're goingagainst the robots.
So to this degree, you know, tosuch military, you know might.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
I mean, there was some initial moments where I was
like, ah, they're just going topresent the humans as the
absolute biggest pieces of shit.
There was one soldier that waslike he was holding a dog
hostage.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
Oh yeah, oh, that's right, that's right.
Yes, yes, yes, that was aparticular moment, but that was
the biggest moment of onedimensionality, though, and from
then on it was more gray area.
It's kind of like also in Gameof Thrones as well when you come
to the big battle, you're notsure, because you've been
following these characters allalong on their arcs you don't
know necessarily who you'resupposed to be rooting for.
(08:10):
Yes, and it is by definition,the humans are the antagonists,
but it gets only on a strictlydefinition basis, though.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
It's very odd as well , because you think, going into
this, that the AI, the robots,are going to have advanced
weaponry and they're going to bethe ones destroying the humans,
but somehow the humans havebetter technological resources,
which isn't very.
It's not explained in thecreator.
Speaker 1 (08:40):
That's actually true.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
I found that kind of interesting.
Speaker 1 (08:42):
That more military might for sure.
Speaker 2 (08:44):
Yeah, the AI are presented as like very what
would be the word?
I mean like peaceful soldiersthat are just dealing with their
resources.
They don't have like these hightech gadgets or anything like
that.
I guess it's very similar tothe blue people.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
I guess that comes from the fact that they're very
clearly drawing from real Iguess this is only very slight
spoiler, because I don't thinkthe trailers reveal this but in
terms of just the world building, we could see the obvious
inspirations they pulled from,which is the Vietnam War, how
the US army is the outsider withthe military might, and then
(09:23):
the AI people have given rise toa new civilization that has
been rebranded as New Asia, andthen this is like where the
movie takes place.
This is Neo Asia, neo Vietnam,with their own advanced
technology, but then they're akind of like pacifist.
They just want to coexist, andit parallels real history, and
(09:45):
so I could appreciate like thereal life inspirations that they
pulled from in that regard.
So that could explain why it'slike the humans are presented to
have all this military might,but then the AI, despite being
made of technologies, istechnically inferior, but in
terms of military though,they're always playing into the
irony of even though they're AI,they're still more human than
(10:08):
humans.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
They have more heart and soul and there's even like
there was one line of dialoguewhere someone was like, oh my
God, the AI have more heart thanyou guys do, and I was like,
okay, let's just leave it atthere and keep it at that level.
Let's not go any further withon the nose kind of commentary
here.
Speaker 1 (10:28):
And that brings into something that overall I thought
this movie like even though itdoes have its religious
allegories and its callbacks toreal life, contemporary issues,
like commentaries on Americanimperialism, the military
industrial complex, vietnam Warand then many retread tropes of
(10:49):
like does AI have souls?
And all that, I thought likeputting all of that aside, yeah,
this movie it still, you know,just has like grounds itself on
a simple story.
It's like it doesn't become toopreachy with those with any
sort of like more philosophicalthemes that it's trying to
scratch the surface on.
That's all it does.
It just scratches the surfaceof like religious allegories and
(11:12):
stuff.
There is one scene but I'm notgoing to talk about, which gets
a bit too on the nose about that, but every sort of like
philosophical sort of scene inthis movie they just scratch the
surface and move on and theyget back to the main crux of the
story, like there wasn't thegray area that I kind of wanted,
where who are the real bad guys?
Speaker 2 (11:34):
Is it the humans?
Is it the AI?
They both do horrible things,but they're both also justified.
Doesn't get to that point.
It still feels like strongly AI.
Robots are the heroes, humansare the villains.
Speaker 1 (11:48):
It still needed to be sub three hours, which is why I
think it necessitated notdelving too deep into having
philosophical arguments and allthat you know.
Keep it on the three hours, andif any longer, then they're
going to have to make itepisodic because, yeah, lots of
twists and turns in the story,almost to a fault, where, as the
(12:09):
movie was like three quartersin, I was wondering like, wow,
this is still going.
Like there's so many like fadeto black moments.
It's like, oh, wow, the plot isstill developing.
Geez, louise, how is this goingto keep on going?
Speaker 2 (12:22):
I mean I was enjoying the ride, but I was also like
it's getting, it's getting.
I could end here and then leadto a sequel.
I could end here, could endhere, and then it kept going on
and on and I was like all right.
Speaker 1 (12:36):
Okay, I mean it's what happens with the plot, but
it needed the runtime to tellthe story.
It was telling, but it wasgetting on quite a bit.
Speaker 2 (12:44):
You were thinking that there was going to be a
post-credits scene or somethingto set up something else, but
this is perfect as like a neatlittle package yeah,
self-contained you know, Did itleave us pondering any questions
like philosophical questions?
Not really.
Speaker 1 (13:00):
No, really it's like a nice to have, I suppose.
For what it is, I think at itsheart you're in it more for like
action rather than sort of likefood for thought, sort of like.
You know it's like thoughtprovoking sort of themes to take
home with you, to leave youlike wandering as you drive home
.
Whatever, it's not that type ofmovie.
I don't think it's more popcornkind of movie.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
I definitely did not expect it to have as much action
as it did, oh yeah, but therewas plenty of deaths and
explosions.
I mean, from the first 10minutes, straight away, it threw
us in the deep end of.
This is what you can expectfrom this war and the casualties
lost, and it's just it'sconstantly reminding you of the
(13:42):
emotional stakes involved, thehuman casualties like we don't
really get too attached withanyone before they're like oh,
they're gone, boom Blown away.
Speaker 1 (13:52):
No plot armor, maybe with the exception of the
protagonist.
The protagonist yeah, withoutspoilers.
Yes, quite a few close shaveswhere you would think, at the
very least you should have aruptured eardrum, you know.
Speaker 2 (14:03):
I mean like there's some tropes in this.
So to get into some of thetropes I mean not spoiling
anything from the trailer weknow that there's a child AI
robot and they're presented aslike the key to ending the war.
So there's that trope of likethe one.
They're the one, and we'renever quite given the clear
(14:29):
answer for why they're the one.
Speaker 1 (14:31):
Mind you, they do a kind of sort of explain, but,
like without, we're not going tosay what the answer is.
Speaker 2 (14:36):
Like you have to watch the movie, but for you it
flew over your head, it was kindof bullshit in my mind of like
no, I don't think that makessense and that's too
coincidental, and there was justa feeling of like everything
has to tie up even if it makesno sense to the story, Whereas
(14:56):
well, one of the otherintellectual properties we
brought up was that is verysimilar to this creator is the
last of us.
Speaker 1 (15:05):
You've got a child who is kind of the key to
unlocking everything or the keyto the future, and this male
protagonist who's veryreluctantly the reluctant
surrogate father figure, yes,who starts off with a frosty
relationship and then, you know,they bond over the duration of
(15:25):
the movie, you know, and thenthey have.
You know the emotional moments.
You know it's a, you know abeaten path.
You know, at this point, thissort of dual dynamic, of course,
which, as we said, is done inthis movie as well.
Is it done?
Well, yes, I would say yes, butnot to the caliber of, say,
logan and Laura, or Joel andEllie.
It's not as good as that.
(15:46):
It's still good, don't get mewrong.
Just not up to those levelslike last of us levels or Logan
levels.
Speaker 2 (15:52):
I think that what would have benefited this story
is the protagonist, josh.
When he gets introduced to thischild child robot, his
prejudice is kind of falls veryquickly.
I wanted to see more of himshowing how much he hates robots
, like when you watch iRobot.
(16:14):
Will Smith is like get out ofmy face.
Speaker 1 (16:17):
In iRobot.
Do they show why he's soprejudiced against robots?
Is there a backstory that'sshown on screen, or implied, or
because I haven't watched it?
Oh, it's great.
Speaker 2 (16:26):
He in iRobot Will Smith has a cybernetic arm and
we find out that.
What a coincidence.
He was in a car accident.
There was another car piledinto him and in the other car
was a child.
He was trying to save the childbut he couldn't get out of the
car.
A robot comes and saves Willand Will's like save the girl,
(16:48):
save the girl.
And the robot saves him becausehe made a calculation that his
character had a 38% chance ofsurvival.
And the kid had like a 5%, thecold hard maths, yeah so.
But like from the get go, whenyou meet that protagonist, he's
(17:10):
thrown his face in front ofrobots, he's talking shit about
them, he's shooting robots verynonchalantly.
I wanted to see that withJoshua in this, just for a
little bit.
They kind of do explain thereasoning for his prejudice.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
It's the same reason with a lot of characters we
won't say what the incitingincident is.
It's so much we have to skirtaround with our spoilers.
But it's not serviceable enough, you saying, and it gets
dropped too easily.
Speaker 2 (17:38):
It just comes back to .
If you make the prejudicereally strong, front and center
for that character, then it willmean more when his growth
happens, when he changes, whenhe has to change, when he has to
accept this person.
And the creator did somethingwith its story where it was kind
of like that, cheapened it,where it became oh well, that's
(18:00):
why he's so accepting of thechild.
Oh yeah, you know what I mean.
Speaker 1 (18:04):
Yeah, we can't say what it is, but that is
something that, if what yousuggested was done, then it
could have elevated this moviefrom pretty good to like
actually quite really good.
Yeah, I don't know how it'sphrased, but it's like well,
what I've done, though it'sstill serviceable.
But you know, just needs likejust a little.
Maybe minor tweaks would havereally elevated for sure.
(18:25):
Had they done like minor tweaks, I think the runtime would
still be around the same.
You know, Just needs a bit oflike clever sort of like
reshuffling.
Speaker 2 (18:35):
Just like a bit more pizzazz, a bit more spice.
Speaker 1 (18:38):
Yeah, of, like you know, character dies.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
Symbolism or moral ambiguity.
Joshua is introduced to us andit's clear he is the hero.
There's no moments where youthink to yourself, like you know
, he's going to learn the lesson.
There's no ambiguity about that.
Like when you watch BladeRunner and you see Harrison Ford
(19:01):
Deckard shooting replicantsvery cold and callous, and you
see his journey.
He does some stuff that youthink to yourself, wow, he is
not the hero, it's not ananti-hero.
I don't know what he is,because he is a flawed character
.
Speaker 1 (19:17):
Why should we root for the flawed character?
So then you watch on to findout what's he going to do to
redeem himself in our eyes, sortof thing.
If this movie had that kind ofarc, yeah, I would have liked to
see that.
Speaker 2 (19:29):
I think it would have made it a bit more exciting for
the ending.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
Fun is like safe enough that it's not preachy.
So then it can have a bit moreof license to maybe be a bit
braver and push the moralboundary, it's boundaries in
terms of, like, it'sphilosophical discussions and so
on Also like certain things areused to enhance the story.
Speaker 2 (19:51):
You think it's going to come back later and it
doesn't.
For example, joshua this isn'ta major spoiler.
Which moment Joshua has like anartificial leg?
It doesn't come into the storyat all, like it makes no
difference whatsoever.
There's no like superpower thatcomes out of it.
(20:11):
It doesn't get him through atricky situation.
Not that iRobot is like a 10out of 10 movie or anything like
that, but they show you theartificial limb.
It plays into the backstory,plays into the prejudice that he
has towards robots, but he alsouses it to even the playing
field when he goes one on oneagainst another, robot in hand,
(20:34):
to hand combat.
I was hoping to see that hereand it just didn't happen and I
was like what the hell's thepoint of giving him cybernetic
arms?
It'd be like imagine you playas Jax in Mortal Kombat and you
don't use any special powers.
Speaker 1 (20:50):
Yeah, that's a good sort of example to bring up Jax
from Mortal Kombat.
Whenever you have a characterthat has a physical ailment,
like they've lost a limb orwhatever, that actually plays
into their character arc.
They have to come to grips withthe fact that they are now one
arm less and then how do theyget around that?
And they plays into theiremotional arcs.
(21:10):
And then I was also suggestingmaybe it's like there'd be
scenes where the AI points outto Josh that, like you besmirch
us AI's all the time, but youyourself rely on technology for
battle prowess that you possesson the battlefield because it
contains I don't know, likemissiles or whatever the hand
(21:31):
can dislodge and outcomes likebullets and whatever.
You yourself are a hypocrite.
You know you always like goingbeing so prejudiced against us,
but yet you yourself relies ontechnological advancements.
What the hell?
And you know that's just one ofmany examples of like how we
could raise those kind of foodfor thoughts, kind of like
discussions in this movie.
That's just one method, though.
Speaker 2 (21:51):
It would have been a real good moment to have someone
point out the hypocrisy of thehumans.
Use this technology to theiradvantage, but when it feels
like it for them and when theyfeel like they're done with a
particular technology or thattechnology doesn't agree with
them, they just toss it asideand then, oh, now we've got to
(22:12):
destroy it.
Like you created the artificialintelligence but yet you take
no responsibility for whathappens after.
Like play into that Show.
The hypocrisy of humanity inthat regard.
Speaker 1 (22:24):
Yeah, and also too, you know, maybe like Joshua, has
phantom pains in his missingarms and legs, and then that's
always what reminds him of theinciting incident that gave rise
to his prejudice, you know, butManosah ever plays into the
point where I straight up forgotthat he has missing arm and leg
, you know, because, like theartificial one he puts on just
(22:46):
has the same skin tone.
Yeah, it's just like a littlebit of metal.
Speaker 2 (22:49):
It reminded me of when we were watching Mortal
Kombat Annihilation, and Jax wasgetting his ass whooped with
the cybernetic arms and then hejust takes them off.
I got everything I need righthere.
I got it all right here, man,and he just beats Matar.
Speaker 1 (23:06):
So it's like, if anything, what's that saying?
It's like Jax's robotic armswere actually holding him back.
What the hell Anyway.
Speaker 2 (23:14):
How did we get on Mortal Kombat Annihilation?
Speaker 1 (23:17):
But yeah, you know, there could be moments where
he's in a hostage situation andthen he has to make do without
his arm and leg and he has to beresourceful in how he escapes
the situation.
You know that was a missedopportunity.
Speaker 2 (23:31):
Well, there was going to be a moment where possibly
there was a final battle againstthe villain and the villain
takes his arm off to cheat inthe fight and get an advantage.
Speaker 1 (23:44):
Man I'm just thinking of, like Call of Duty Advanced
Warfare, and how the mainprotagonist also loses his arm
and how that plays into thestory, and how he has to
sacrifice that arm to defeatKevin Spacey's character.
Oh man, oh yeah.
Speaker 2 (23:58):
Kevin Spacey.
Speaker 1 (23:59):
Advanced Warfare.
Yeah, yeah, you remember thatgame.
Speaker 2 (24:01):
Oh man, no one's going to look fondly on that
game anymore.
Speaker 1 (24:05):
Again, just so many like familiar, you know,
character arcs, story beats,like movie tropes, that's you
know, very familiar.
But I think what really doeselevate, despite how familiar
this movie archetype is, is justGareth Edwards like VFX
background.
Fun little fact this movie wasshot on that camera, right now,
(24:28):
the Sony FX3.
Yes, for the past like yearplus, that we've been filming
your podcast on the Sony FX3.
And that's just amazing, like aconsumer grade camera that you
could buy over the counter atlike JB Hi-Fi and so on, is
being used in a multi-milliondollar mainstream Hollywood
project, if it's good enough forGareth Edwards.
Speaker 2 (24:50):
It's good enough for me.
Speaker 1 (24:51):
And I think, like Gareth Edwards, definitely is
someone that, like, no matterwhat camera he uses, he will be
able to sort of convey a senseof scale with his VFX mastery.
He's got a decade plus of itand you know he really put his
money where his mouth was.
Don't you agree that by thefact that he used a small
consumer grade camera ratherthan like a big red camera or
(25:12):
Well, just overall, I feel likethe creator looks better than
films with triple its budget.
Speaker 2 (25:21):
It looks better than Indiana Jones 5.
Any of the faster, furiousmovies.
I know that's probably notsaying much.
It looked on the level of likea Star Wars movie and ironically
, Gareth Edwards directed RogueOne.
Speaker 1 (25:36):
Yes, rogue One, you can see the VFX history of it.
Speaker 2 (25:40):
He does a good job of not overusing CGI to the point
where it's super obviously fake.
You kind of feel like you'reimmersed in these worlds.
Speaker 1 (25:50):
It seamlessly blended in the real world, like
photography that they capturedin the real world.
Speaker 2 (25:56):
What did I say to necessity braids creation?
So what?
Speaker 1 (26:00):
Ooh, I haven't heard that phrase, but I like it.
Speaker 2 (26:03):
Something about like when you don't have, what's the
gist of that phrase?
The gist of it is like if youdon't have the budget or
whatever, you're forced to getmore creative with how you
achieve those things.
Speaker 1 (26:13):
Yeah, it's like obstacles lead to innovation,
sort of thing.
I wonder if it's like aself-imposed obstacle that he
placed upon himself, though itdid lead to this project.
He did Rogue One on a modestbudget, yeah, with the backing
of you know Disney, LucasArts orI don't know LucasArts.
It was owned by Disney backthen.
This was, like I think, one ofthe first like sort of big Star
(26:34):
Wars movies, like spin-offmovies that was not of the
mainline episodic numbered StarWars movies.
It was before the days ofDisney Plus and this was like
fresh new territory.
It's like we haven't seen likefeature length, something that's
outside of the numberedepisodes.
Speaker 2 (26:51):
Rogue One was good, so I'm thinking that it must
have been pre-Disney purchase.
Okay, and then there was likesolo around Disney purchase time
, because that was that flopped.
Speaker 1 (27:05):
What a coenka dinky.
There's something coincidentallyabout, and it was quite good
though, and that's based onRogue One's universe.
So there's that silver lining,but what was the point I was
trying to make?
Oh, yes, but I was saying that,like you'd see, his VFX sort of,
let's say, signature, and whatI mean by that is that Gareth
Edwards is very good at sort ofconveying a sense of scale.
(27:26):
When we were talking about,like us being thrown into the
deep end, like you see, likemissile strikes from.
You know, the human technologyand the way to really convey the
destructive nature of it is toalways have something in the
composition before our humaneyes to compare to.
So when you have something morelike a, let's say, a mountain
(27:48):
or a tree or distant objects,like a human figure, we are able
to instinctively get a sense ofscale.
And so when we see the blastradius of like a missile strike,
and then you see a tiny likeSanpan dingy or something, and
it's like, oh wow, now we get asense of just how deadly this
concussive blast is, you know,and it's backed up by phenomenal
(28:09):
sound design and, you know,pretty riveting music as well,
would you agree?
Music was also quite grossing.
Speaker 2 (28:17):
I'm coming from dumb money, so coming from that
terrible soundtrack, this waswonderful.
Speaker 1 (28:24):
Oh look, an actual, proper cinematic experience, you
know, with proper orchestralscores.
What is the budget I'm tryingto say?
I think correct me if I'm wrongI believe the budget altogether
minus marketing is like 80million eight zero.
They made it look like 250 mils.
Is it really that low?
Yeah, and I'll explain why.
It's mainly, I think one of thebiggest contributing factors
(28:47):
was the fact that Gareth Evansused the Sony FX3.
This is just how phenomenallyresourceful the filmmakers were
because of the fact that they'reusing and you can tell my
camera, geekiness coming up.
But I have to go into the deepend with this.
Speaker 2 (29:00):
I know it's coming out when you start yelling.
Speaker 1 (29:05):
I just need to yell and then they'll get millions of
views.
But like Sony, fx3 weighs likeI don't know, let's say less
than five kilograms.
And so just by that alone andby the tiny form factor, it
means that you don't need tolike hire grips and gaffers to
rig up with techno cranes andjibs and all the other like
(29:26):
camera stabilizers to like thatare graded for like heavy
machineries, like the big Ari,alexa and so on.
It's just a tiny consumer gradecamera.
So because there is less heavymachinery, don't need to hire as
many crew members to operatethe jibs and the gimbals and so
on, and with less people youhire on, there's less labor cost
(29:47):
.
And also, too, sony is knownfor their low light performance.
We can turn all of these houselights off now and then crank up
the ISO to like 12,800 and itwould be able to see us like as
if it was daytime.
So they just pretty much usepractical lighting.
Speaker 2 (30:04):
That actually brings up a good point, because there's
a lot of nighttime.
Speaker 1 (30:07):
Yeah, you know, you know in night times, even in
sort of, for example, like asound of freedom.
It's like they have to.
They have to rig up moon lightsjust for the camera to be able
to see anything without it beingtoo grainy by turning up the
ISO, Because and here's a littlething cinema cameras mainly
operate at ISO 800.
But the Sony FX3 has somethingcalled a dual native ISO where
(30:29):
when you jump into, I think,12,800 ISO, it sort of like
makes the noise of the ISO goesaway.
You know how when you turn upthe ISO, you get really grainy
and stuff.
But when you jump up to like12,800, it like sort of resets
into a second circuitry and so,yeah, they just needed practical
lights, because everyone hadsuits with, like the lights
inside their helmet.
I was a good point and so yeah,and so it's like it's minimal
(30:52):
grains and so on, and so becauseof the ISO high ISO performance
they did not need to have asmany lighting rigs set up and
therefore less lightingassistance, less gaffers.
They literally just, I think,had like some flexible light on
a boom arm and then just had oneguy follow their protagonist.
And so the downsizing of a filmcrew really contributes to not
(31:13):
needing to spend so much, andyou could invest that back into
like location scouting andwhatever you know.
Speaker 2 (31:20):
Because a lot of the film is shot at night.
You can hide a lot ofimperfections.
You can hide the specialeffects.
Things can look better becausethere's less effort, because
it's not just out in the open ina brightly lit area.
Speaker 1 (31:36):
The only information you have is like the silhouettes
of, like the distant mountainsor something.
Speaker 2 (31:40):
Yeah, Well, like, even if you go watch Jurassic
Park, the T-Rex attacks scenelike it's raining and it's
nighttime.
Those were little things thatwere done to not bring too much
attention.
Speaker 1 (31:53):
Oh, okay.
Okay, I see what you mean.
You can't stand big drone shotsof like a sweeping landscape,
but it's daytime.
There's more VFX details youhave to add in.
Yes especially.
Whereas if it was nighttime,there's like you can just hide
it behind the fact that it'snighttime and it's dark.
Okay, I get what you mean bythat sense.
Speaker 2 (32:09):
Yeah, that's fair enough.
The same with characters likerobots.
Don't need as much detail.
Fair enough, Because thedarkness is covering half of it
anyway.
Speaker 1 (32:18):
You just need to have like a low texture sort of, and
then have them blurt out in thebackground.
Yeah, fair enough, fair enough.
Speaker 2 (32:24):
So things like that would have been very resourceful
ways to cut down on the budgetand video effects.
Speaker 1 (32:31):
Yeah, and also it helps that.
Another thing that helps isthat Gareth Edwards, like, said
in an interview straight from ahorse's mouth that, like the
color science of this camera,it's very malleable in color
grading, where he says, like theskin tone, it can be pushed
like approximate enough to likefilm Kodak film stock.
So he was a really big fan ofthat.
(32:51):
And how?
Yeah, because, like cameraKodaks, like you need it in a
production pipeline for it to behold up against like very heavy
color grades, push and pull andso on, and so if, like, a
camera has video Kodaks that canhold up to that, yeah, anyways,
I'm geeking out.
Speaker 2 (33:08):
I hope you add a lot of B roll to those sections
where you're talking, becauseI'm like I don't know what
you're talking about.
Speaker 1 (33:14):
We don't even know what color science is it's like
there's so much there's like awhole tech Color profiles.
Yeah, color profile S log two,three.
You know color grading withoutdestroying the image is what I'm
trying to say, and because wealso watch this on a big screen,
and on a big screen is whereyou can see if there are some
imperfections and so on, but thefootage held up very well,
especially, you know, at nighttimes.
Speaker 2 (33:35):
I also really liked the loudness of this movie
because it was so great.
Speaker 1 (33:41):
Explosions and stuff.
Speaker 2 (33:42):
Yeah, but also because we had a bunch of
dickheads in the back row wherewe were watching, making jokes
and during the trailers andstuff.
But then as soon as the moviestarted it was like they were
completely drowned out and I waslike, ah, this is great.
Speaker 1 (34:04):
Don't lean back on the chair.
Modern ever again.
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (34:07):
I mean you can if you want, oh, and I'm just not
going to save you.
It sounds like Batman in BatmanBegins is like I don't have to
save you, I won't kill you, butI don't have to save you.
You could put that in theB-roll.
That'll be funny.
Final grading for the moviewhat would you give the creator
out of 10?
Speaker 1 (34:28):
I think a seven out of 10.
Seven out of 10.
Like again lots of likephilosophical and religious and
contemporary sort ofcommentaries and allegories that
they scratch the surface on andlike sort of played it safe,
which I think could have some.
They could be a bit moreadventurous and push those sorts
(34:48):
of narratives Some more likenice to haves would be like to
have a more believable likebackstory as to why he's so
prejudiced and actually committo his prejudice rather than
just like ditch it so readily.
Really good acting from John,something.
Speaker 2 (35:05):
And Madeline Yuma, the child actress, was amazing.
Speaker 1 (35:09):
Yeah, something, something, washington.
Speaker 2 (35:12):
You forgot his name too Denzel Washington's son.
Speaker 1 (35:15):
Yeah, it's three words.
I'm Gemma Chan and RalphIronson, who I did not know was
in this movie, but he is greatin everything from like Final
Fantasy 16 to Assassin's Creed 4, which Michael's only just
started playing, even thoughit's been 10 years since the
movie came out.
Speaker 2 (35:28):
So, unfortunately, it's freaking awesome.
Black Flag is amazing.
I didn't think I would enjoysailing in pirate ships as much
as I do, but yeah, it's not likea phenomenal movie.
Speaker 1 (35:39):
It's close.
The things that knocked it downa few pegs is mainly a story,
as we discussed, and so, becauseof that, seven out of 10 for me
.
Speaker 2 (35:48):
Yeah, I think it will go 7.5 out of 10.
I think that the creator is amasterclass in resourcefulness
as far as like using a modestlylow budget.
Compared to all these otherHollywood blockbusters, I felt
the film was a breath of freshair.
(36:08):
It didn't come across as overlypreachy and, considering its
subject material, it didn't haveany wokeness, which was amazing
.
Always love that, and there'slots of emotional beats that
were done very well betweenMadeline Yuma and Washington.
Speaker 1 (36:32):
Something, john Dave.
Speaker 2 (36:33):
What the hell is it, I don't know, bloody killing me.
I gotta get this right.
It's three words, you know.
John David Washington, johnDavid Washington, john David
Washington.
I also really like that.
When you watch this for thefirst time, there's a lot of
ambiguity about who the villainis.
Yeah, great area Immediatelyset up where you know who the
(36:55):
villain is and they don't comeacross as a cartoon character.
I feel like the world buildingwas very good and I felt
immersed in this world.
I really like the imagery.
I liked little moments oflevity.
I just wish that the third actof the creator didn't go fully
(37:16):
over the top and overly bloatedwith its set pieces and its
action and I felt like it couldhave not tried to tie everything
up in a nice little bow, thateverything's connected.
Sometimes things don't have tobe necessarily connected, like
(37:37):
with Joel and Ellie from theLast of Us.
Like it means more that they'renot father and daughter because
he's a surrogate father that'slooking after this woman like a
reluctant hero, if that makessense.
I'm just saying you don'talways have to connect all these
little dots, and especially ifit loses sight of the story.
(38:00):
Cohesiveness, fair enough, fairenough.
Speaker 1 (38:05):
Sometimes some of the things they do does come to the
detriment of how well tiedtogether this movie is, for sure
.
Without spoilers, we can'treally say what specifically
does that.
You'll know straight away whenyou watch it.
You'll know what we mean.
You'll be like ah, I get it.
Some things do come to thedetriment of it, for sure.
Speaker 2 (38:22):
The creators definitely.
I put in, like iRobot fifthelement, that level of 7.5 out
of 10 sci-fi movies that I couldwatch again.
They're fun.
I suppose, but they're not asmemorable as your Blade Runners.
Your 2001 Space Odyssey like,not as philosophical.
Speaker 1 (38:46):
I think, if they could, they could be a bit more
ambitious and push thoseboundaries for sure.
Speaker 2 (38:51):
Especially when you take tropes that are used so
much, try and subvertexpectations by doing something
drastically different.
For example, there were twofilms released in 1998 about
like a meteor coming to EarthArmageddon and Deep Impact.
Armageddon, you know, involvesthese oil miners going up to
(39:15):
space and blowing up theasteroid.
Deep Impact just ended on aspoiler alert.
I mean it's a more than 20 yearold movie but spoiler alert.
Deep Impact just goes.
What if the Earth just exploded?
What if we lost?
What if the asteroid just hitsEarth and we die?
So they're both memorable fordifferent reasons.
(39:39):
Just makes you think if thosemovies were both released in the
same year and they both hadsimilar endings, they wouldn't
have the impact that they do.
But one movie went for the superduper happy ending and the
other went the complete nukingof the universe.
Speaker 1 (40:01):
Then again, if only one of those movies was released
in isolation and they didn'thave that like twin movie, that
was the complete opposite of it,I wonder if in isolation it
would stand out as much.
Because you know human beings,you know we notice patterns and
contrast.
Without the contrast Would itbe as poignant though?
That's my counterpoint to that.
(40:22):
Though, if you only had themovie that had the bad ending,
you know, is that still asimpactful?
You know, without the countermovie that had the good, happy
ending, would it still be?
Speaker 2 (40:35):
impactful, hard to say.
Would it still be as deep?
Speaker 1 (40:39):
of an impact.
Speaker 2 (40:40):
I think, that.
Speaker 1 (40:42):
Why are you not picking up the dad joke?
It was like the third attempt,dad, just because.
Speaker 2 (40:46):
I'm bald doesn't mean I'm a dad.
Speaker 1 (40:50):
Give it time.
Speaker 2 (40:51):
Give it time, I will pick up on the dad jokes.
I make the dad jokes, I don'tpick up on them.
Speaker 1 (40:58):
Well, okay, here's a dad joke for you.
Whenever you finish eating ameal at a restaurant and the
waiter comes up and goes, okay,you enjoyed the food, just reply
with well, can't you tell, Icompletely lost my appetite.
That's terrible.
Can't you tell, oh, I hated thefood.
I had to lick the plate clean.
How did we this end in the dadjoke fest?
(41:19):
I don't know.
But yeah, around 7.5 slash 7out of 10.
So you know, good can be muchbetter.
Speaker 2 (41:28):
Good movie, not the most memorable, but as far as
2023 is looking, I enjoyed thefilm.
Speaker 1 (41:33):
It's good not because of the usual oh, it's because
of these other movies that werereleased in 2023 that really
soured our expectations ofHollywood.
Not good in that sense.
Speaker 2 (41:45):
I'm talking like objectively good yeah 100% If
you liked Rogue One as well.
There's definite parallelsthere being from the same
director.
Speaker 1 (41:54):
Yeah, visual parallels for sure.
Speaker 2 (41:56):
And movies like Chappy we talked about.
Speaker 1 (41:59):
Neil Blumkamp.
Speaker 2 (42:00):
yes, yes, that grittiness to it.
Speaker 1 (42:03):
Yeah, it's like where the whole like the technology,
cyberpunkery, sort of like NeoAsia Future thing, they don't
like, yeah, go over the top withlike all the neon colors and
stuff.
It's still somewhat grounded,don't you agree?
Speaker 2 (42:18):
Oh yeah, it's not like the Matrix.
Speaker 1 (42:21):
Yeah, it's like, everything's like just like
touch screens, like beep boop.
It wasn't exactly that.
Actually there was one pointwhere I should add this to the
VFX bit.
Speaker 2 (42:29):
There was one point where someone was using a pay
phone and I was like what thehell is that shit?
Speaker 1 (42:35):
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, out in the like farm
lands and stuff, yeah, so thereis still some, some hints of
like the modern world, because Ithink this takes place in 2065,
I think, yeah, around there,yeah, still in the 2000s.
Speaker 2 (42:49):
That was very strange to me seeing someone use a pay
phone, though, in a world wherethere's AI robots and one that
can take down like all theseother robots and use EMP charges
and stuff like that.
But hey, man, we still need touse that pay phone.
Speaker 1 (43:07):
In this brave new future, you can have Japanese
people speaking Japanese to eachother but then talking English
whilst they're in Vietnam,surrounded by Japanese texts and
with the help of subtitles.
Everyone understands each other.
And you have robot Nepalesemonks who are religious for some
(43:27):
reason.
No spoilers, but you knowthat's some of the grapes that
we allude to.
Speaker 2 (43:34):
Yeah, they should have had like a AI Buddha, like
robot statue of Buddha.
Speaker 1 (43:40):
They kind of sort of did.
Speaker 2 (43:41):
yeah, they almost did .
But you could tell someone waslike, nah, that would be too
stupid, let's not do that.
Okay, let's not get too real.
But legit there was one pointwhere I thought a robot Dalai
Lama was going to come out andjust be like we are peaceful
Namaste.
Speaker 1 (43:57):
Yeah, the religious allegro was getting a bit too
close to real world resemblance,for sure.
And yeah, for ethical reasons Idon't, you shouldn't do that
now.
Anyway, I should add this tothe middle of the episode.
Speaker 2 (44:10):
Totally, totally so.
If you enjoyed this podcast,please leave a review at Movies
Worth Seeing and if you'rewatching us on YouTube, leave us
a like, share and subscribe tothe channel, recently reached
4,000 subscribers.
Thank you very much.
Killing it.
I'm continuing to experimentand try different stuff out.
(44:32):
I've been trying some AI videos.
If you like it, if you don't.
I know that people like tocomment and say negative shit
all the time, but if you couldtry this out for a change, write
something positive and don'twrite anything negative, just
(44:52):
try it.
Speaker 1 (44:53):
Comment below.
I know it's hard.
Speaker 2 (44:55):
I know it's hard with all the dog shit toxicity out
there on the internet, but justtry to write something positive
without having to write acritique.
Speaker 1 (45:06):
It's okay.
It's okay, you're speaking intothe void.
It's the internet.
Okay, people are going to becontrarians.
For the sake of it, justremember.
We're living in a digital agewhere everyone is a self
certified professional.
Okay, they have to contradicteverything you're saying.
Okay, you're always wrong.
They're always right.
Okay, it's okay.
You're speaking into the void.
Your words are falling on deafears.
It's going in one ear and outthe other.
(45:27):
Okay, it's a lost cause.
Just give up.
Speaker 2 (45:30):
One thing I was thinking would be funny is to do
a video where I look at all mynegative comments and read them
out and react to them.
Speaker 1 (45:38):
You're fanning the flames.
Don't do that, man, come on.
You're fanning the flames.
Speaker 2 (45:41):
Well, like you said, there's always going to be
negative comments anyway, so youmight as well have fun with it,
right?
Speaker 1 (45:47):
Man, you're becoming one of those toxic YouTubers.
Man, you're going into a deepend.
Okay, just be careful.
Speaker 2 (45:53):
Why is that toxic?
You're just reacting to themand just laughing at them.
Speaker 1 (45:57):
You're going into a vicious cycle, okay.
And then people are just goingto keep on feeding negativity to
you and that's going to get toyou, man, just be aware, all
right, okay.
Speaker 2 (46:05):
You sound like you've been through this.
You sound like that old guy inthose movies that's like oh man,
I've been through some shit.
Speaker 1 (46:14):
I've seen some shit.
I'm too old for this shit.
Speaker 2 (46:17):
Yeah, you sound like that.
Speaker 1 (46:19):
Comment below your thoughts on the creator.
Have you seen it?
Have you have?
Did you like it you guys are afan of, like Gareth Edwards or
the guy.
You as much of a camera nerd asme, you know.
That's what got me intowatching this movie at all,
knowing that it was the samecamera as the one Micro uses to
film his podcast.
And what I got out of it wasactually very enjoyable.
(46:40):
You know, action popcorn.
You know I didn't expect that.
And so, and then, now that we'vedone this episode, as I said, I
think they could have been moreambitious with this philosophy,
and so, and so just commentbelow if you agree that they
should have pushed moreboundaries in sort of like
thought provoking, sort of likethemes and so on in its
storytelling.
Speaker 2 (47:01):
Yeah, yeah, all right , bye, bye guys.
Speaker 1 (47:05):
Okay, see you next episode.
Hopefully not Snow White,hopefully not the Aquaman or the
Marvels or what's the other.
Speaker 2 (47:13):
Well, I want to watch Ninja Turtles, but you don't
want to watch it and on thatnote teenage Mutant Ninja
Turtles.
Teeny Minty Ninja Turtles,ninja and Down.
Ice cream delivery.
Here you go.
I'm speaking in English, eventhough I am in Neo Vietnam.
Please leave a review.
Stand by hey Konnichiwa.
Hello.
Ni hao Lü de languageconfiguration.
Hello, welcome to a new episode.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
The people listening are just going to be like what
the hell is happening to you.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
If only you guys watched a movie as well which
you definitely should to get thereference.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
Hey everyone and welcome to Movies Worth Seeing.
I'm Michael Pishoneri, joinedby Martin Jung for another
episode.
Today we are reviewing theCreator, directed by Gareth
Edwards.
This is a bit of a sleeper hit,in a way.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
Oh yeah, 100%.
Yeah, I mean, people aretalking about it, but it's gone
under some radars for sure.
I agree.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
I feel like people are talking more about this
movie due to its modesty as faras like its modesty with its
lower than usual budget for amovie of this epic scale and the
trailers did a very good job ofnot spoiling a lot about this,
and we're going to try very hardto not spoil it either and give
(01:13):
you guys a great insight intowhat you could expect from
watching the Creator.
I think there's a good mix of alot of futuristic,
post-apocalyptic type of filmsfrom this genre.
Neo cyber punky kind of future,yeah you got like Blade Runner,
Terminator 1 and 2 before it allwent to shit.
(01:35):
Irobot was another movie thatthe more I kept talking about
this review with Martin, themore I was like oh my god,
that's like iRobot and that'slike iRobot.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
And now with strong comparisons to Detroit Become
Human.
I think it's a PlayStationexclusive game, yeah.
And then we were discussing how, without spoilers, that a lot
of the story beats and tropesare kind of like things we've
already seen in past movies andpast mediums before.
It's not exactly reinventingthe wheel, but what it does do
(02:08):
you know, does very well.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
I thought that, even though the Creator uses a lot of
tropes from futuristic genrefilms, it did a great job of
standing out from those moviesdue to its own execution, its
own grittiness and worldbuilding and the performances
from Madeline Yuma, the childactress that plays this
(02:34):
artificial robot with real lifeemotions.
I feel like when you watch amovie with kids, it's either
going to be really shit or it'sgoing to be really great, and
this was.
This was definitely more Loganthan it was.
Jurassic World could be a goodexample here.
(02:56):
What other movies have terriblechild actors?
We went too crazy about BlackAdams child actor.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
Oh, I wouldn't know, because I still have not watched
Black Adam and I don't intendto.
Yeah, oh, you didn't watch it.
No, I still haven't.
No, why did?
Speaker 2 (03:11):
I suffer through that .
How did I let you on thepodcast and you didn't even have
to suffer through that crap?
I mean, I really wasn't missingmuch with that episode was
actually pretty funny becauseyou managed to take what we were
talking about and it almostfelt like you knew the movie.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
Yeah, I got the gist of it.
Yeah, for sure, for sure.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
Anyway, give him back to the creator for a brief
synopsis.
The creator is about Joshuatrying to remember the character
names here.
Joshua is James DavidWashington.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
John.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
David, ah, john, david Denzel Washington's son,
which I didn't know that, andneither I know that.
I'm like, holy crap, that isamazing to imagine having to
live through those footsteps.
How are you going to step?
Speaker 1 (03:59):
out of the shadow.
What a high bar A high bar.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
I would honestly probably go.
You know what, dad?
I don't want to be an actor.
I'm going to go serve ice creamto children at Baskin Robbins
for the rest of my life.
Speaker 1 (04:13):
Imagine how Michael Douglas felt when he first
stepped on a scene.
But you first knew him from theprotagonists and tenets, right,
yes, and the acting in thatmovie compared to this one.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
I knew him from Tenet .
I've seen him in other stuffblack clansmen.
He was in that with Adam Driver.
Speaker 1 (04:31):
Oh yeah, ah yes, yes, yes, I know that one, so that's
him.
Yes.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
He's someone that, like you can tell, is a good
actor.
He's a very good leading manand yeah he's been around the
block.
He's been yeah.
Speaker 1 (04:43):
A bit of a household name, for sure.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
You can see him evolving and you can see that
this is like he's really risingabove the ranks here.
Yeah, he's in mainstreamHollywood movies, For whatever
reason.
I didn't like Tenant and I feltwatching him.
In Tenant the acting was verywooden but I had a sense that
that was more to do withChristopher Nolan's directing
than it did with him as aperformer.
(05:05):
Fair enough, Fair enough, and Iwas right, because he was
phenomenal in this.
From the get-go, from theopening sequence of the creator,
it froze the character rightinto this emotional turmoil of
losing loved one and dealingwith the inner conflict, dealing
with the prejudice of how hefeels towards robots, AI,
(05:28):
whatever, the cyborgs, whateveryou want to call them.
We, the audience, withoutspoiling too much of the movie,
we are given this informationabout a very critical event that
happens to the world, which isthe catalyst for the division
between robots and humans,causing a war.
But it's not really a warbecause AI just kind of want to
(05:50):
live in peace and harmony andyou get the sense it's more like
the humans trying to attackthem, which is very similar to
Avatar.
You got the blue people justminding their own freaking
business and then all the humanscoming in.
They're like we got to gettheir resources, man, because
they got unobtaining and moreirate and whatever they called
(06:10):
it.
Then it became whale blubber inAvatar 2.
Speaker 1 (06:13):
Yeah, Just the same old.
Like you know, human conditionrearing its ugly head again of
you know, not tolerating, youknow, difference and just fear
of those people that are tryingto just coexist with us in peace
and the potential threat theypose to us and vice versa, and
so on.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
I really loved that the humans in the creator have a
completely justified motivationfor their prejudice, for their
hatred towards the AI, Whereasin Avatar you feel like the
humans are just this very onedimensional.
Speaker 1 (06:49):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (06:49):
Billions that just want to take over the world.
Speaker 1 (06:52):
Ultra capitalist resources, everything I've got a
quota, I've got a good exploitand extract and all we can from
this planet and its natives andabuse them.
But then, yeah, in this movie,about three quarters in, I think
we both got the sense.
I was like, yes, on thetextbook definition, the human
characters are the antagonists,that they fit the description.
(07:14):
But yeah, it's like we didn'treally get the sense that we
hated them.
It's like we hate them for allthey've done.
It's like we didn't feel likethey were somewhere we had to
feel emotionally against.
You know, it was like, yeah,yeah, as you said, it's like,
yeah, I get why they're goingagainst the robots.
So to this degree, you know, tosuch military, you know might.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
I mean, there was some initial moments where I was
like, ah, they're just going topresent the humans as the
absolute biggest pieces of shit.
There was one soldier that waslike he was holding a dog
hostage.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
Oh yeah, oh, that's right, that's right.
Yes, yes, yes, that was aparticular moment, but that was
the biggest moment of onedimensionality, though, and from
then on it was more gray area.
It's kind of like also in Gameof Thrones as well when you come
to the big battle, you're notsure, because you've been
following these characters allalong on their arcs you don't
know necessarily who you'resupposed to be rooting for.
(08:10):
Yes, and it is by definition,the humans are the antagonists,
but it gets only on a strictlydefinition basis, though.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
It's very odd as well , because you think, going into
this, that the AI, the robots,are going to have advanced
weaponry and they're going to bethe ones destroying the humans,
but somehow the humans havebetter technological resources,
which isn't very.
It's not explained in thecreator.
Speaker 1 (08:40):
That's actually true.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
I found that kind of interesting.
Speaker 1 (08:42):
That more military might for sure.
Speaker 2 (08:44):
Yeah, the AI are presented as like very what
would be the word?
I mean like peaceful soldiersthat are just dealing with their
resources.
They don't have like these hightech gadgets or anything like
that.
I guess it's very similar tothe blue people.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
I guess that comes from the fact that they're very
clearly drawing from real Iguess this is only very slight
spoiler, because I don't thinkthe trailers reveal this but in
terms of just the world building, we could see the obvious
inspirations they pulled from,which is the Vietnam War, how
the US army is the outsider withthe military might, and then
(09:23):
the AI people have given rise toa new civilization that has
been rebranded as New Asia, andthen this is like where the
movie takes place.
This is Neo Asia, neo Vietnam,with their own advanced
technology, but then they're akind of like pacifist.
They just want to coexist, andit parallels real history, and
(09:45):
so I could appreciate like thereal life inspirations that they
pulled from in that regard.
So that could explain why it'slike the humans are presented to
have all this military might,but then the AI, despite being
made of technologies, istechnically inferior, but in
terms of military though,they're always playing into the
irony of even though they're AI,they're still more human than
(10:08):
humans.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
They have more heart and soul and there's even like
there was one line of dialoguewhere someone was like, oh my
God, the AI have more heart thanyou guys do, and I was like,
okay, let's just leave it atthere and keep it at that level.
Let's not go any further withon the nose kind of commentary
here.
Speaker 1 (10:28):
And that brings into something that overall I thought
this movie like even though itdoes have its religious
allegories and its callbacks toreal life, contemporary issues,
like commentaries on Americanimperialism, the military
industrial complex, vietnam Warand then many retread tropes of
(10:49):
like does AI have souls?
And all that, I thought likeputting all of that aside, yeah,
this movie it still, you know,just has like grounds itself on
a simple story.
It's like it doesn't become toopreachy with those with any
sort of like more philosophicalthemes that it's trying to
scratch the surface on.
That's all it does.
It just scratches the surfaceof like religious allegories and
(11:12):
stuff.
There is one scene but I'm notgoing to talk about, which gets
a bit too on the nose about that, but every sort of like
philosophical sort of scene inthis movie they just scratch the
surface and move on and theyget back to the main crux of the
story, like there wasn't thegray area that I kind of wanted,
where who are the real bad guys?
Speaker 2 (11:34):
Is it the humans?
Is it the AI?
They both do horrible things,but they're both also justified.
Doesn't get to that point.
It still feels like strongly AI.
Robots are the heroes, humansare the villains.
Speaker 1 (11:48):
It still needed to be sub three hours, which is why I
think it necessitated notdelving too deep into having
philosophical arguments and allthat you know.
Keep it on the three hours, andif any longer, then they're
going to have to make itepisodic because, yeah, lots of
twists and turns in the story,almost to a fault, where, as the
(12:09):
movie was like three quartersin, I was wondering like, wow,
this is still going.
Like there's so many like fadeto black moments.
It's like, oh, wow, the plot isstill developing.
Geez, louise, how is this goingto keep on going?
Speaker 2 (12:22):
I mean I was enjoying the ride, but I was also like
it's getting, it's getting.
I could end here and then leadto a sequel.
I could end here, could endhere, and then it kept going on
and on and I was like all right.
Speaker 1 (12:36):
Okay, I mean it's what happens with the plot, but
it needed the runtime to tellthe story.
It was telling, but it wasgetting on quite a bit.
Speaker 2 (12:44):
You were thinking that there was going to be a
post-credits scene or somethingto set up something else, but
this is perfect as like a neatlittle package yeah,
self-contained you know, Did itleave us pondering any questions
like philosophical questions?
Not really.
Speaker 1 (13:00):
No, really it's like a nice to have, I suppose.
For what it is, I think at itsheart you're in it more for like
action rather than sort of likefood for thought, sort of like.
You know it's like thoughtprovoking sort of themes to take
home with you, to leave youlike wandering as you drive home
.
Whatever, it's not that type ofmovie.
I don't think it's more popcornkind of movie.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
I definitely did not expect it to have as much action
as it did, oh yeah, but therewas plenty of deaths and
explosions.
I mean, from the first 10minutes, straight away, it threw
us in the deep end of.
This is what you can expectfrom this war and the casualties
lost, and it's just it'sconstantly reminding you of the
(13:42):
emotional stakes involved, thehuman casualties like we don't
really get too attached withanyone before they're like oh,
they're gone, boom Blown away.
Speaker 1 (13:52):
No plot armor, maybe with the exception of the
protagonist.
The protagonist yeah, withoutspoilers.
Yes, quite a few close shaveswhere you would think, at the
very least you should have aruptured eardrum, you know.
Speaker 2 (14:03):
I mean like there's some tropes in this.
So to get into some of thetropes I mean not spoiling
anything from the trailer weknow that there's a child AI
robot and they're presented aslike the key to ending the war.
So there's that trope of likethe one.
They're the one, and we'renever quite given the clear
(14:29):
answer for why they're the one.
Speaker 1 (14:31):
Mind you, they do a kind of sort of explain, but,
like without, we're not going tosay what the answer is.
Speaker 2 (14:36):
Like you have to watch the movie, but for you it
flew over your head, it was kindof bullshit in my mind of like
no, I don't think that makessense and that's too
coincidental, and there was justa feeling of like everything
has to tie up even if it makesno sense to the story, Whereas
(14:56):
well, one of the otherintellectual properties we
brought up was that is verysimilar to this creator is the
last of us.
Speaker 1 (15:05):
You've got a child who is kind of the key to
unlocking everything or the keyto the future, and this male
protagonist who's veryreluctantly the reluctant
surrogate father figure, yes,who starts off with a frosty
relationship and then, you know,they bond over the duration of
(15:25):
the movie, you know, and thenthey have.
You know the emotional moments.
You know it's a, you know abeaten path.
You know, at this point, thissort of dual dynamic, of course,
which, as we said, is done inthis movie as well.
Is it done?
Well, yes, I would say yes, butnot to the caliber of, say,
logan and Laura, or Joel andEllie.
It's not as good as that.
(15:46):
It's still good, don't get mewrong.
Just not up to those levelslike last of us levels or Logan
levels.
Speaker 2 (15:52):
I think that what would have benefited this story
is the protagonist, josh.
When he gets introduced to thischild child robot, his
prejudice is kind of falls veryquickly.
I wanted to see more of himshowing how much he hates robots
, like when you watch iRobot.
(16:14):
Will Smith is like get out ofmy face.
Speaker 1 (16:17):
In iRobot.
Do they show why he's soprejudiced against robots?
Is there a backstory that'sshown on screen, or implied, or
because I haven't watched it?
Oh, it's great.
Speaker 2 (16:26):
He in iRobot Will Smith has a cybernetic arm and
we find out that.
What a coincidence.
He was in a car accident.
There was another car piledinto him and in the other car
was a child.
He was trying to save the childbut he couldn't get out of the
car.
A robot comes and saves Willand Will's like save the girl,
(16:48):
save the girl.
And the robot saves him becausehe made a calculation that his
character had a 38% chance ofsurvival.
And the kid had like a 5%, thecold hard maths, yeah so.
But like from the get go, whenyou meet that protagonist, he's
(17:10):
thrown his face in front ofrobots, he's talking shit about
them, he's shooting robots verynonchalantly.
I wanted to see that withJoshua in this, just for a
little bit.
They kind of do explain thereasoning for his prejudice.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
It's the same reason with a lot of characters we
won't say what the incitingincident is.
It's so much we have to skirtaround with our spoilers.
But it's not serviceable enough, you saying, and it gets
dropped too easily.
Speaker 2 (17:38):
It just comes back to .
If you make the prejudicereally strong, front and center
for that character, then it willmean more when his growth
happens, when he changes, whenhe has to change, when he has to
accept this person.
And the creator did somethingwith its story where it was kind
of like that, cheapened it,where it became oh well, that's
(18:00):
why he's so accepting of thechild.
Oh yeah, you know what I mean.
Speaker 1 (18:04):
Yeah, we can't say what it is, but that is
something that, if what yousuggested was done, then it
could have elevated this moviefrom pretty good to like
actually quite really good.
Yeah, I don't know how it'sphrased, but it's like well,
what I've done, though it'sstill serviceable.
But you know, just needs likejust a little.
Maybe minor tweaks would havereally elevated for sure.
(18:25):
Had they done like minor tweaks, I think the runtime would
still be around the same.
You know, Just needs a bit oflike clever sort of like
reshuffling.
Speaker 2 (18:35):
Just like a bit more pizzazz, a bit more spice.
Speaker 1 (18:38):
Yeah, of, like you know, character dies.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
Symbolism or moral ambiguity.
Joshua is introduced to us andit's clear he is the hero.
There's no moments where youthink to yourself, like you know
, he's going to learn the lesson.
There's no ambiguity about that.
Like when you watch BladeRunner and you see Harrison Ford
(19:01):
Deckard shooting replicantsvery cold and callous, and you
see his journey.
He does some stuff that youthink to yourself, wow, he is
not the hero, it's not ananti-hero.
I don't know what he is,because he is a flawed character
.
Speaker 1 (19:17):
Why should we root for the flawed character?
So then you watch on to findout what's he going to do to
redeem himself in our eyes, sortof thing.
If this movie had that kind ofarc, yeah, I would have liked to
see that.
Speaker 2 (19:29):
I think it would have made it a bit more exciting for
the ending.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
Fun is like safe enough that it's not preachy.
So then it can have a bit moreof license to maybe be a bit
braver and push the moralboundary, it's boundaries in
terms of, like, it'sphilosophical discussions and so
on Also like certain things areused to enhance the story.
Speaker 2 (19:51):
You think it's going to come back later and it
doesn't.
For example, joshua this isn'ta major spoiler.
Which moment Joshua has like anartificial leg?
It doesn't come into the storyat all, like it makes no
difference whatsoever.
There's no like superpower thatcomes out of it.
(20:11):
It doesn't get him through atricky situation.
Not that iRobot is like a 10out of 10 movie or anything like
that, but they show you theartificial limb.
It plays into the backstory,plays into the prejudice that he
has towards robots, but he alsouses it to even the playing
field when he goes one on oneagainst another, robot in hand,
(20:34):
to hand combat.
I was hoping to see that hereand it just didn't happen and I
was like what the hell's thepoint of giving him cybernetic
arms?
It'd be like imagine you playas Jax in Mortal Kombat and you
don't use any special powers.
Speaker 1 (20:50):
Yeah, that's a good sort of example to bring up Jax
from Mortal Kombat.
Whenever you have a characterthat has a physical ailment,
like they've lost a limb orwhatever, that actually plays
into their character arc.
They have to come to grips withthe fact that they are now one
arm less and then how do theyget around that?
And they plays into theiremotional arcs.
(21:10):
And then I was also suggestingmaybe it's like there'd be
scenes where the AI points outto Josh that, like you besmirch
us AI's all the time, but youyourself rely on technology for
battle prowess that you possesson the battlefield because it
contains I don't know, likemissiles or whatever the hand
(21:31):
can dislodge and outcomes likebullets and whatever.
You yourself are a hypocrite.
You know you always like goingbeing so prejudiced against us,
but yet you yourself relies ontechnological advancements.
What the hell?
And you know that's just one ofmany examples of like how we
could raise those kind of foodfor thoughts, kind of like
discussions in this movie.
That's just one method, though.
Speaker 2 (21:51):
It would have been a real good moment to have someone
point out the hypocrisy of thehumans.
Use this technology to theiradvantage, but when it feels
like it for them and when theyfeel like they're done with a
particular technology or thattechnology doesn't agree with
them, they just toss it asideand then, oh, now we've got to
(22:12):
destroy it.
Like you created the artificialintelligence but yet you take
no responsibility for whathappens after.
Like play into that Show.
The hypocrisy of humanity inthat regard.
Speaker 1 (22:24):
Yeah, and also too, you know, maybe like Joshua, has
phantom pains in his missingarms and legs, and then that's
always what reminds him of theinciting incident that gave rise
to his prejudice, you know, butManosah ever plays into the
point where I straight up forgotthat he has missing arm and leg
, you know, because, like theartificial one he puts on just
(22:46):
has the same skin tone.
Yeah, it's just like a littlebit of metal.
Speaker 2 (22:49):
It reminded me of when we were watching Mortal
Kombat Annihilation, and Jax wasgetting his ass whooped with
the cybernetic arms and then hejust takes them off.
I got everything I need righthere.
I got it all right here, man,and he just beats Matar.
Speaker 1 (23:06):
So it's like, if anything, what's that saying?
It's like Jax's robotic armswere actually holding him back.
What the hell Anyway.
Speaker 2 (23:14):
How did we get on Mortal Kombat Annihilation?
Speaker 1 (23:17):
But yeah, you know, there could be moments where
he's in a hostage situation andthen he has to make do without
his arm and leg and he has to beresourceful in how he escapes
the situation.
You know that was a missedopportunity.
Speaker 2 (23:31):
Well, there was going to be a moment where possibly
there was a final battle againstthe villain and the villain
takes his arm off to cheat inthe fight and get an advantage.
Speaker 1 (23:44):
Man I'm just thinking of, like Call of Duty Advanced
Warfare, and how the mainprotagonist also loses his arm
and how that plays into thestory, and how he has to
sacrifice that arm to defeatKevin Spacey's character.
Oh man, oh yeah.
Speaker 2 (23:58):
Kevin Spacey.
Speaker 1 (23:59):
Advanced Warfare.
Yeah, yeah, you remember thatgame.
Speaker 2 (24:01):
Oh man, no one's going to look fondly on that
game anymore.
Speaker 1 (24:05):
Again, just so many like familiar, you know,
character arcs, story beats,like movie tropes, that's you
know, very familiar.
But I think what really doeselevate, despite how familiar
this movie archetype is, is justGareth Edwards like VFX
background.
Fun little fact this movie wasshot on that camera, right now,
(24:28):
the Sony FX3.
Yes, for the past like yearplus, that we've been filming
your podcast on the Sony FX3.
And that's just amazing, like aconsumer grade camera that you
could buy over the counter atlike JB Hi-Fi and so on, is
being used in a multi-milliondollar mainstream Hollywood
project, if it's good enough forGareth Edwards.
Speaker 2 (24:50):
It's good enough for me.
Speaker 1 (24:51):
And I think, like Gareth Edwards, definitely is
someone that, like, no matterwhat camera he uses, he will be
able to sort of convey a senseof scale with his VFX mastery.
He's got a decade plus of itand you know he really put his
money where his mouth was.
Don't you agree that by thefact that he used a small
consumer grade camera ratherthan like a big red camera or
(25:12):
Well, just overall, I feel likethe creator looks better than
films with triple its budget.
Speaker 2 (25:21):
It looks better than Indiana Jones 5.
Any of the faster, furiousmovies.
I know that's probably notsaying much.
It looked on the level of likea Star Wars movie and ironically
, Gareth Edwards directed RogueOne.
Speaker 1 (25:36):
Yes, rogue One, you can see the VFX history of it.
Speaker 2 (25:40):
He does a good job of not overusing CGI to the point
where it's super obviously fake.
You kind of feel like you'reimmersed in these worlds.
Speaker 1 (25:50):
It seamlessly blended in the real world, like
photography that they capturedin the real world.
Speaker 2 (25:56):
What did I say to necessity braids creation?
So what?
Speaker 1 (26:00):
Ooh, I haven't heard that phrase, but I like it.
Speaker 2 (26:03):
Something about like when you don't have, what's the
gist of that phrase?
The gist of it is like if youdon't have the budget or
whatever, you're forced to getmore creative with how you
achieve those things.
Speaker 1 (26:13):
Yeah, it's like obstacles lead to innovation,
sort of thing.
I wonder if it's like aself-imposed obstacle that he
placed upon himself, though itdid lead to this project.
He did Rogue One on a modestbudget, yeah, with the backing
of you know Disney, LucasArts orI don't know LucasArts.
It was owned by Disney backthen.
This was, like I think, one ofthe first like sort of big Star
(26:34):
Wars movies, like spin-offmovies that was not of the
mainline episodic numbered StarWars movies.
It was before the days ofDisney Plus and this was like
fresh new territory.
It's like we haven't seen likefeature length, something that's
outside of the numberedepisodes.
Speaker 2 (26:51):
Rogue One was good, so I'm thinking that it must
have been pre-Disney purchase.
Okay, and then there was likesolo around Disney purchase time
, because that was that flopped.
Speaker 1 (27:05):
What a coenka dinky.
There's something coincidentallyabout, and it was quite good
though, and that's based onRogue One's universe.
So there's that silver lining,but what was the point I was
trying to make?
Oh, yes, but I was saying that,like you'd see, his VFX sort of,
let's say, signature, and whatI mean by that is that Gareth
Edwards is very good at sort ofconveying a sense of scale.
(27:26):
When we were talking about,like us being thrown into the
deep end, like you see, likemissile strikes from.
You know, the human technologyand the way to really convey the
destructive nature of it is toalways have something in the
composition before our humaneyes to compare to.
So when you have something morelike a, let's say, a mountain
(27:48):
or a tree or distant objects,like a human figure, we are able
to instinctively get a sense ofscale.
And so when we see the blastradius of like a missile strike,
and then you see a tiny likeSanpan dingy or something, and
it's like, oh wow, now we get asense of just how deadly this
concussive blast is, you know,and it's backed up by phenomenal
(28:09):
sound design and, you know,pretty riveting music as well,
would you agree?
Music was also quite grossing.
Speaker 2 (28:17):
I'm coming from dumb money, so coming from that
terrible soundtrack, this waswonderful.
Speaker 1 (28:24):
Oh look, an actual, proper cinematic experience, you
know, with proper orchestralscores.
What is the budget I'm tryingto say?
I think correct me if I'm wrongI believe the budget altogether
minus marketing is like 80million eight zero.
They made it look like 250 mils.
Is it really that low?
Yeah, and I'll explain why.
It's mainly, I think one of thebiggest contributing factors
(28:47):
was the fact that Gareth Evansused the Sony FX3.
This is just how phenomenallyresourceful the filmmakers were
because of the fact that they'reusing and you can tell my
camera, geekiness coming up.
But I have to go into the deepend with this.
Speaker 2 (29:00):
I know it's coming out when you start yelling.
Speaker 1 (29:05):
I just need to yell and then they'll get millions of
views.
But like Sony, fx3 weighs likeI don't know, let's say less
than five kilograms.
And so just by that alone andby the tiny form factor, it
means that you don't need tolike hire grips and gaffers to
rig up with techno cranes andjibs and all the other like
(29:26):
camera stabilizers to like thatare graded for like heavy
machineries, like the big Ari,alexa and so on.
It's just a tiny consumer gradecamera.
So because there is less heavymachinery, don't need to hire as
many crew members to operatethe jibs and the gimbals and so
on, and with less people youhire on, there's less labor cost
(29:47):
.
And also, too, sony is knownfor their low light performance.
We can turn all of these houselights off now and then crank up
the ISO to like 12,800 and itwould be able to see us like as
if it was daytime.
So they just pretty much usepractical lighting.
Speaker 2 (30:04):
That actually brings up a good point, because there's
a lot of nighttime.
Speaker 1 (30:07):
Yeah, you know, you know in night times, even in
sort of, for example, like asound of freedom.
It's like they have to.
They have to rig up moon lightsjust for the camera to be able
to see anything without it beingtoo grainy by turning up the
ISO, Because and here's a littlething cinema cameras mainly
operate at ISO 800.
But the Sony FX3 has somethingcalled a dual native ISO where
(30:29):
when you jump into, I think,12,800 ISO, it sort of like
makes the noise of the ISO goesaway.
You know how when you turn upthe ISO, you get really grainy
and stuff.
But when you jump up to like12,800, it like sort of resets
into a second circuitry and so,yeah, they just needed practical
lights, because everyone hadsuits with, like the lights
inside their helmet.
I was a good point and so yeah,and so it's like it's minimal
(30:52):
grains and so on, and so becauseof the ISO high ISO performance
they did not need to have asmany lighting rigs set up and
therefore less lightingassistance, less gaffers.
They literally just, I think,had like some flexible light on
a boom arm and then just had oneguy follow their protagonist.
And so the downsizing of a filmcrew really contributes to not
(31:13):
needing to spend so much, andyou could invest that back into
like location scouting andwhatever you know.
Speaker 2 (31:20):
Because a lot of the film is shot at night.
You can hide a lot ofimperfections.
You can hide the specialeffects.
Things can look better becausethere's less effort, because
it's not just out in the open ina brightly lit area.
Speaker 1 (31:36):
The only information you have is like the silhouettes
of, like the distant mountainsor something.
Speaker 2 (31:40):
Yeah, Well, like, even if you go watch Jurassic
Park, the T-Rex attacks scenelike it's raining and it's
nighttime.
Those were little things thatwere done to not bring too much
attention.
Speaker 1 (31:53):
Oh, okay.
Okay, I see what you mean.
You can't stand big drone shotsof like a sweeping landscape,
but it's daytime.
There's more VFX details youhave to add in.
Yes especially.
Whereas if it was nighttime,there's like you can just hide
it behind the fact that it'snighttime and it's dark.
Okay, I get what you mean bythat sense.
Speaker 2 (32:09):
Yeah, that's fair enough.
The same with characters likerobots.
Don't need as much detail.
Fair enough, Because thedarkness is covering half of it
anyway.
Speaker 1 (32:18):
You just need to have like a low texture sort of, and
then have them blurt out in thebackground.
Yeah, fair enough, fair enough.
Speaker 2 (32:24):
So things like that would have been very resourceful
ways to cut down on the budgetand video effects.
Speaker 1 (32:31):
Yeah, and also it helps that.
Another thing that helps isthat Gareth Edwards, like, said
in an interview straight from ahorse's mouth that, like the
color science of this camera,it's very malleable in color
grading, where he says, like theskin tone, it can be pushed
like approximate enough to likefilm Kodak film stock.
So he was a really big fan ofthat.
(32:51):
And how?
Yeah, because, like cameraKodaks, like you need it in a
production pipeline for it to behold up against like very heavy
color grades, push and pull andso on, and so if, like, a
camera has video Kodaks that canhold up to that, yeah, anyways,
I'm geeking out.
Speaker 2 (33:08):
I hope you add a lot of B roll to those sections
where you're talking, becauseI'm like I don't know what
you're talking about.
Speaker 1 (33:14):
We don't even know what color science is it's like
there's so much there's like awhole tech Color profiles.
Yeah, color profile S log two,three.
You know color grading withoutdestroying the image is what I'm
trying to say, and because wealso watch this on a big screen,
and on a big screen is whereyou can see if there are some
imperfections and so on, but thefootage held up very well,
especially, you know, at nighttimes.
Speaker 2 (33:35):
I also really liked the loudness of this movie
because it was so great.
Speaker 1 (33:41):
Explosions and stuff.
Speaker 2 (33:42):
Yeah, but also because we had a bunch of
dickheads in the back row wherewe were watching, making jokes
and during the trailers andstuff.
But then as soon as the moviestarted it was like they were
completely drowned out and I waslike, ah, this is great.
Speaker 1 (34:04):
Don't lean back on the chair.
Modern ever again.
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (34:07):
I mean you can if you want, oh, and I'm just not
going to save you.
It sounds like Batman in BatmanBegins is like I don't have to
save you, I won't kill you, butI don't have to save you.
You could put that in theB-roll.
That'll be funny.
Final grading for the moviewhat would you give the creator
out of 10?
Speaker 1 (34:28):
I think a seven out of 10.
Seven out of 10.
Like again lots of likephilosophical and religious and
contemporary sort ofcommentaries and allegories that
they scratch the surface on andlike sort of played it safe,
which I think could have some.
They could be a bit moreadventurous and push those sorts
(34:48):
of narratives Some more likenice to haves would be like to
have a more believable likebackstory as to why he's so
prejudiced and actually committo his prejudice rather than
just like ditch it so readily.
Really good acting from John,something.
Speaker 2 (35:05):
And Madeline Yuma, the child actress, was amazing.
Speaker 1 (35:09):
Yeah, something, something, washington.
Speaker 2 (35:12):
You forgot his name too Denzel Washington's son.
Speaker 1 (35:15):
Yeah, it's three words.
I'm Gemma Chan and RalphIronson, who I did not know was
in this movie, but he is greatin everything from like Final
Fantasy 16 to Assassin's Creed 4, which Michael's only just
started playing, even thoughit's been 10 years since the
movie came out.
Speaker 2 (35:28):
So, unfortunately, it's freaking awesome.
Black Flag is amazing.
I didn't think I would enjoysailing in pirate ships as much
as I do, but yeah, it's not likea phenomenal movie.
Speaker 1 (35:39):
It's close.
The things that knocked it downa few pegs is mainly a story,
as we discussed, and so, becauseof that, seven out of 10 for me
.
Speaker 2 (35:48):
Yeah, I think it will go 7.5 out of 10.
I think that the creator is amasterclass in resourcefulness
as far as like using a modestlylow budget.
Compared to all these otherHollywood blockbusters, I felt
the film was a breath of freshair.
(36:08):
It didn't come across as overlypreachy and, considering its
subject material, it didn't haveany wokeness, which was amazing
.
Always love that, and there'slots of emotional beats that
were done very well betweenMadeline Yuma and Washington.
Speaker 1 (36:32):
Something, john Dave.
Speaker 2 (36:33):
What the hell is it, I don't know, bloody killing me.
I gotta get this right.
It's three words, you know.
John David Washington, johnDavid Washington, john David
Washington.
I also really like that.
When you watch this for thefirst time, there's a lot of
ambiguity about who the villainis.
Yeah, great area Immediatelyset up where you know who the
(36:55):
villain is and they don't comeacross as a cartoon character.
I feel like the world buildingwas very good and I felt
immersed in this world.
I really like the imagery.
I liked little moments oflevity.
I just wish that the third actof the creator didn't go fully
(37:16):
over the top and overly bloatedwith its set pieces and its
action and I felt like it couldhave not tried to tie everything
up in a nice little bow, thateverything's connected.
Sometimes things don't have tobe necessarily connected, like
(37:37):
with Joel and Ellie from theLast of Us.
Like it means more that they'renot father and daughter because
he's a surrogate father that'slooking after this woman like a
reluctant hero, if that makessense.
I'm just saying you don'talways have to connect all these
little dots, and especially ifit loses sight of the story.
(38:00):
Cohesiveness, fair enough, fairenough.
Speaker 1 (38:05):
Sometimes some of the things they do does come to the
detriment of how well tiedtogether this movie is, for sure
.
Without spoilers, we can'treally say what specifically
does that.
You'll know straight away whenyou watch it.
You'll know what we mean.
You'll be like ah, I get it.
Some things do come to thedetriment of it, for sure.
Speaker 2 (38:22):
The creators definitely.
I put in, like iRobot fifthelement, that level of 7.5 out
of 10 sci-fi movies that I couldwatch again.
They're fun.
I suppose, but they're not asmemorable as your Blade Runners.
Your 2001 Space Odyssey like,not as philosophical.
Speaker 1 (38:46):
I think, if they could, they could be a bit more
ambitious and push thoseboundaries for sure.
Speaker 2 (38:51):
Especially when you take tropes that are used so
much, try and subvertexpectations by doing something
drastically different.
For example, there were twofilms released in 1998 about
like a meteor coming to EarthArmageddon and Deep Impact.
Armageddon, you know, involvesthese oil miners going up to
(39:15):
space and blowing up theasteroid.
Deep Impact just ended on aspoiler alert.
I mean it's a more than 20 yearold movie but spoiler alert.
Deep Impact just goes.
What if the Earth just exploded?
What if we lost?
What if the asteroid just hitsEarth and we die?
So they're both memorable fordifferent reasons.
(39:39):
Just makes you think if thosemovies were both released in the
same year and they both hadsimilar endings, they wouldn't
have the impact that they do.
But one movie went for the superduper happy ending and the
other went the complete nukingof the universe.
Speaker 1 (40:01):
Then again, if only one of those movies was released
in isolation and they didn'thave that like twin movie, that
was the complete opposite of it,I wonder if in isolation it
would stand out as much.
Because you know human beings,you know we notice patterns and
contrast.
Without the contrast Would itbe as poignant though?
That's my counterpoint to that.
(40:22):
Though, if you only had themovie that had the bad ending,
you know, is that still asimpactful?
You know, without the countermovie that had the good, happy
ending, would it still be?
Speaker 2 (40:35):
impactful, hard to say.
Would it still be as deep?
Speaker 1 (40:39):
of an impact.
Speaker 2 (40:40):
I think, that.
Speaker 1 (40:42):
Why are you not picking up the dad joke?
It was like the third attempt,dad, just because.
Speaker 2 (40:46):
I'm bald doesn't mean I'm a dad.
Speaker 1 (40:50):
Give it time.
Speaker 2 (40:51):
Give it time, I will pick up on the dad jokes.
I make the dad jokes, I don'tpick up on them.
Speaker 1 (40:58):
Well, okay, here's a dad joke for you.
Whenever you finish eating ameal at a restaurant and the
waiter comes up and goes, okay,you enjoyed the food, just reply
with well, can't you tell, Icompletely lost my appetite.
That's terrible.
Can't you tell, oh, I hated thefood.
I had to lick the plate clean.
How did we this end in the dadjoke fest?
(41:19):
I don't know.
But yeah, around 7.5 slash 7out of 10.
So you know, good can be muchbetter.
Speaker 2 (41:28):
Good movie, not the most memorable, but as far as
2023 is looking, I enjoyed thefilm.
Speaker 1 (41:33):
It's good not because of the usual oh, it's because
of these other movies that werereleased in 2023 that really
soured our expectations ofHollywood.
Not good in that sense.
Speaker 2 (41:45):
I'm talking like objectively good yeah 100% If
you liked Rogue One as well.
There's definite parallelsthere being from the same
director.
Speaker 1 (41:54):
Yeah, visual parallels for sure.
Speaker 2 (41:56):
And movies like Chappy we talked about.
Speaker 1 (41:59):
Neil Blumkamp.
Speaker 2 (42:00):
yes, yes, that grittiness to it.
Speaker 1 (42:03):
Yeah, it's like where the whole like the technology,
cyberpunkery, sort of like NeoAsia Future thing, they don't
like, yeah, go over the top withlike all the neon colors and
stuff.
It's still somewhat grounded,don't you agree?
Speaker 2 (42:18):
Oh yeah, it's not like the Matrix.
Speaker 1 (42:21):
Yeah, it's like, everything's like just like
touch screens, like beep boop.
It wasn't exactly that.
Actually there was one pointwhere I should add this to the
VFX bit.
Speaker 2 (42:29):
There was one point where someone was using a pay
phone and I was like what thehell is that shit?
Speaker 1 (42:35):
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, out in the like farm
lands and stuff, yeah, so thereis still some, some hints of
like the modern world, because Ithink this takes place in 2065,
I think, yeah, around there,yeah, still in the 2000s.
Speaker 2 (42:49):
That was very strange to me seeing someone use a pay
phone, though, in a world wherethere's AI robots and one that
can take down like all theseother robots and use EMP charges
and stuff like that.
But hey, man, we still need touse that pay phone.
Speaker 1 (43:07):
In this brave new future, you can have Japanese
people speaking Japanese to eachother but then talking English
whilst they're in Vietnam,surrounded by Japanese texts and
with the help of subtitles.
Everyone understands each other.
And you have robot Nepalesemonks who are religious for some
(43:27):
reason.
No spoilers, but you knowthat's some of the grapes that
we allude to.
Speaker 2 (43:34):
Yeah, they should have had like a AI Buddha, like
robot statue of Buddha.
Speaker 1 (43:40):
They kind of sort of did.
Speaker 2 (43:41):
yeah, they almost did .
But you could tell someone waslike, nah, that would be too
stupid, let's not do that.
Okay, let's not get too real.
But legit there was one pointwhere I thought a robot Dalai
Lama was going to come out andjust be like we are peaceful
Namaste.
Speaker 1 (43:57):
Yeah, the religious allegro was getting a bit too
close to real world resemblance,for sure.
And yeah, for ethical reasons Idon't, you shouldn't do that
now.
Anyway, I should add this tothe middle of the episode.
Speaker 2 (44:10):
Totally, totally so.
If you enjoyed this podcast,please leave a review at Movies
Worth Seeing and if you'rewatching us on YouTube, leave us
a like, share and subscribe tothe channel, recently reached
4,000 subscribers.
Thank you very much.
Killing it.
I'm continuing to experimentand try different stuff out.
(44:32):
I've been trying some AI videos.
If you like it, if you don't.
I know that people like tocomment and say negative shit
all the time, but if you couldtry this out for a change, write
something positive and don'twrite anything negative, just
(44:52):
try it.
Speaker 1 (44:53):
Comment below.
I know it's hard.
Speaker 2 (44:55):
I know it's hard with all the dog shit toxicity out
there on the internet, but justtry to write something positive
without having to write acritique.
Speaker 1 (45:06):
It's okay.
It's okay, you're speaking intothe void.
It's the internet.
Okay, people are going to becontrarians.
For the sake of it, justremember.
We're living in a digital agewhere everyone is a self
certified professional.
Okay, they have to contradicteverything you're saying.
Okay, you're always wrong.
They're always right.
Okay, it's okay.
You're speaking into the void.
Your words are falling on deafears.
It's going in one ear and outthe other.
(45:27):
Okay, it's a lost cause.
Just give up.
Speaker 2 (45:30):
One thing I was thinking would be funny is to do
a video where I look at all mynegative comments and read them
out and react to them.
Speaker 1 (45:38):
You're fanning the flames.
Don't do that, man, come on.
You're fanning the flames.
Speaker 2 (45:41):
Well, like you said, there's always going to be
negative comments anyway, so youmight as well have fun with it,
right?
Speaker 1 (45:47):
Man, you're becoming one of those toxic YouTubers.
Man, you're going into a deepend.
Okay, just be careful.
Speaker 2 (45:53):
Why is that toxic?
You're just reacting to themand just laughing at them.
Speaker 1 (45:57):
You're going into a vicious cycle, okay.
And then people are just goingto keep on feeding negativity to
you and that's going to get toyou, man, just be aware, all
right, okay.
Speaker 2 (46:05):
You sound like you've been through this.
You sound like that old guy inthose movies that's like oh man,
I've been through some shit.
Speaker 1 (46:14):
I've seen some shit.
I'm too old for this shit.
Speaker 2 (46:17):
Yeah, you sound like that.
Speaker 1 (46:19):
Comment below your thoughts on the creator.
Have you seen it?
Have you have?
Did you like it you guys are afan of, like Gareth Edwards or
the guy.
You as much of a camera nerd asme, you know.
That's what got me intowatching this movie at all,
knowing that it was the samecamera as the one Micro uses to
film his podcast.
And what I got out of it wasactually very enjoyable.
(46:40):
You know, action popcorn.
You know I didn't expect that.
And so, and then, now that we'vedone this episode, as I said, I
think they could have been moreambitious with this philosophy,
and so, and so just commentbelow if you agree that they
should have pushed moreboundaries in sort of like
thought provoking, sort of likethemes and so on in its
storytelling.
Speaker 2 (47:01):
Yeah, yeah, all right , bye, bye guys.
Speaker 1 (47:05):
Okay, see you next episode.
Hopefully not Snow White,hopefully not the Aquaman or the
Marvels or what's the other.
Speaker 2 (47:13):
Well, I want to watch Ninja Turtles, but you don't
want to watch it and on thatnote teenage Mutant Ninja
Turtles.
Teeny Minty Ninja Turtles,ninja and Down.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.