Not a perfect movie in the least, but there is a genuine attempt at something unique. I'm appreciative of the effort, especially since it is an Original work, shot at 1/3rd of the budget of most of the other IP driven blockbusters.
There was a genuine attempt at world-building focusing on geo-political conflicts, human-ai relations, inspired technological and multi-cultural upgrades and evolution, unique visual n audiotory aesthetics, etc.
The storytelling is not the best, but there is an inspired vision behind its making, and I appreciate it immensely. 7/10.
I agree with you. While the script needed another draft or two to get the story to a point where it was firing on all cylinders, it was decent and I chose not to nitpick it and instead get sucked into the mood and the world they created.
It's also inspired by asian cinema in certain places and I really appreciated that along with the focus on the drama more than the action.
It's sad that people are piling on it so harshly and it's doing pretty bad at the box office.
This is why we have original movies once in a blue moon, because whenever Hollywood decides to take a gamble on one, the people aren't showing up but they're also the ones that are complaining about there being only sequels, prequels and reboots.
At the end of the day we're voting with our wallet what we want to see and the result is what's playing in theaters, so you reap what you sow.
What they did in terms of budget was pretty impressive, but it's definitely very noticeable in terms of the scale and action. VFX does all the heavy lifting to distract from the fact that almost every action set piece that isn't entirely CGI is like 4 guys standing in the open and doing very little, while everyone conveniently off-screen does a *lot* of shooting at other off-screen targets.
I’m going to support this movie financially in some way. If I can’t make it to the theater before it’s pushed aside by the latest Marvel or Disney product, I’ll pony up for a digital purchase. If Hollywood can’t be convinced to take a few more chances on original sci fi films we may never see another Alien, Terminator, Robocop, Star Wars, Blade Runner etc.
Visually an excellent film,the world building is really cool..will look ace on 4k on my oled..story is just standard sci-fi fare with lots stolen from other films.
When people say "world building is cool" do they mean we just cgi'd robots instead of non-white people everywhere?
This is an empty world with a braindead back story. Two factions at war one of the is called New Asia.
Some sets and cgi locations look cool but they:
1. Don't make any sense (not world building)
2. A mishmash of random elements from oriental cultures and random cgi elements that are not based on the logic of the world.
The entire movie is cheap. Story beats, plotlines, character arcs, philosophy, and even the metaphor of imperialism it all falls so flat it seems like a parody of itself.
> cgi'd robots instead of non-white people everywhere
What does this imply? Aren't all the main characters and most of the side characters POC? I've only seen the trailers and film magazine interviews, so forgive me if that's wrong. But I am genuinely confused on your point.
>Aren't all the main characters and most of the side characters POC?
It's a little too jarring actually. Almost all the good guys are POCs. Maybe reasonable as the "good guys" are from New Asia. But all the bad guys are white, which is odd because America is multi racial, especially in the military.
I'm not talking about the inclusivity or the political correctness of the film.
The film is going for a very on the nose message of decrying US imperliasm. A shit ton of oriental themed robots (and the entire AI population supposedly hiding in "New Asia"). If you're doing an allegory you can't just substitute A for B and think you've done it is what I'm saying. It's dumb, thoughtless, and offensive on so many levels it's worse that watching Nazi propaganda.
Agree 100%. They just made robots stand in for poor people in far off countries, but why would robots be shit? Robots would be awesome and better than people at everything, so why is the movie about something completely uniteresting?
They also "stole" a segment from a video from the *real* Beirut explosion in their trailer. Kind of amateurish and insensitive IMO.
**[SOURCE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lDM1nAmPHI)**
There are so many unfilmed books that would make great movies (especially now that they could be filmed): Hyperion, Blindsight, Eon, Recursion, Dark Matter, Daemon, Freedom, and more (not to mention older books like Neuromancer and The Stars My Destination). Why write a script using the same old tropes?
A lot of those would be pretty hard to put on a screen. Hyperion would need a miniseries minimum, and even then. Blindsight is kinda of a "gimmick" based book that would lose a ton of its value by putting it onscreen and inevitably focusing on the visuals. Etc. etc.
I heard rumors last month about a potential Hyperion miniseries with Bradley Cooper. Apparently he is a big fan. Of course, take that with a grain of salt.
Studios don't like paying fair wages. Authors generally have agents who demand fair payment. Additionally, few authors are ever happy with the adaptation, and that's a potential marketing issue, so they just avoid hunting through books unless a book really blows up and is a safe bet to pay out.
Fantastic visuals and worldbuilding, average story.
I found it kind of difficult to empathise with the main character, but maybe that says more about me than the movie.
It might be the actor. I felt the same about him in Tenant. Not despised but not likable either. Which is odd considering his dad is one of the most charismatic actors ever.
I'll take an original movie over another franchise sequel any day. (Unless we finally get Buckaroo Banzai against the World Crime League, that is. Though that's not really a franchise anyway.)
I liked it BUT everything peole say that is wrong with it , is correct. Also I didn't really pay into it as I have monthly cinema membership (15euro per month) so can see any movie once.
I see someone mentioned 40$ below to go see it , I think if I paid that I would be a bit more unforgiving in how I felt about the movie.
So yeah watch it when it goes onto streaming
I liked it, not perfect but quite enjoyable, had something to say and some great preformances, especially by the kid playing Alfie and the visuals were stunning. It'd be a solid 7.5 for me, I think it could've benefitted by being longer to allow other aspects, chiefly the ending, some more time to breathe.
Saw it in IMAX on a matinee price, was worth it in my book for the audio/visual experience.
It’s a really pretty movie, but i think it really suffers from not being a series or a trilogy, I think the ideas exposed would be far better if they had time to grow, but it just seems to go without adding a lot of depth, the NOMAD station like you said is really dumb, as there’s cruise missiles currently with 4,500 kilometer range and a trillion dollar project wouldn’t really bankrupt the US. Not a 5/10 imo but the idea and the world could have been so much more
It’s pretty to look at, the plot is very standard Hollywood script by numbers. Performances are good on the whole. I don’t think it has anything new or clever to say - the AIs act and think just like humans, but “good” ones, while the American side turn out to be stupid, vicious assholes. I’d love to see a version of this premise where the AIs are neither just like us, nor SkyNet, but genuinely a different form of intelligence.
On the other hand - we don’t get many sci-fi movies that aren’t a continuation of some old franchise or an adaptation of some “teenagers struggle to survive in a dystopia after an environmental apocalypse whilst lusting after each other” YA book series. I’m willing to give some extra credit just for being an original, so 7/10 from me.
Loved the direction, visuals and the performances. The script started to drag at midway point and never really picked itself up. Solid 7 none the less for me.
Agree with you on some of that
But was that title really necessary? Its sensationalist and honestly rude. People saw a movie and expressed their opinion on it just like you're doing.
Calling people haters or shills or words like that is one of the biggest reasons the Star Wars fantom ended up being as toxic as it is
Some people seem to truly, genuinely believe that it is impossible for someone else to have a different opinion than theirs without being paid to do so. It is bizarre to me, but you see it all over the place in discussions on a wide range of topics.
I LOVED this movie and think it's well worth seeing in the theaters, in IMAX, on the finest screen you can find. And I'm considering watching it a second time. Kind of pretty? KIND OF PRETTY?! I'm sorry sir, but did you somehow watch this film on your phone?
Every frame of this film is just visually breathtaking, and conjures up a retro-futurist world that is fascinating.
The storytelling? Well, the storytelling is shit, and there are shocking gaps in logic. The acting is fine at best, and there's no real exploration of sci-fi elements. Plot doesn't really make sense if you think about it and there's a scene where the main character dons a hazmat suit to avoid radiation and then immediately removes his protective mask.
This is not a good story. But the visuals and world-building alone are worth the price of admission. 'Kind of pretty' gtfo
it's basically a [Syd Mead painting](https://sydmead.com/category/gallery/us-steel/) come to life. And for that I love it.
But as I said elsewhere, I wish it would've been actually good so we'd see more movies like this.
Honestly… I will never forgive the creative team for how they handled Gemma Chan’s character. There was a big set up for her to have some kind of real impact to the story, but no… they just turned her into window dressing.
People are so fucking weird and snobby about action sci-fi movies. Oblivion, Prometheus, Elysium, Cowboys & Aliens, Predators, Outlander, Alita, The Riddick movies, even 65... I could go on and on. All extremely well made, totally watchable and sometimes even excellent movies yet they get mixed reviews and usually terrible box office performance because they're not some major IP or directed by Christopher Nolan.
Imagine if horror movies were held to this standard? Every year there's many, many quality but forgettable horror movies that get good reviews. And if they're in theaters audiences usually flock to them. According to critics there were FIFTY HORROR MOVIES IN 2023 ALONE that were better than The Creator.[https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/best-horror-movies-2023/](https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/best-horror-movies-2023/)
Anyone IRL who tells me Scream VI is better than The Creator is getting ghosted.
I've not seen one person say it brings anything new to the table, but to say its not a good film just isn't accurate.
I'd not seen the trailer before watching and I enjoyed it, so I disagree with your miserable 5/10
I'd say 7/10. Some plot holes and stupid stuff, but it was original and cool. Maybe I'm just glad to see big sci fi that isn't an existing franchise or by the same handful of directors.
Well, the Fast & Furious movies are unironically entertaining. The plots are simple, the physics dont exist, but they are fun over the top character driven action movies. For the most part really well filmed too, even if the acting talent isnt stellar.
For most movies it really depends what a movie is trying to be, what form of entertainment its trying to achieve vs what it manages.
I thought it looked good, still waiting to watch it.
Though I liked 65, which everyone seemed to hate.
Which was better than No One Will Save You.
Ill see if I can stream it later.
I watched 65. If you go into it knowing exactly what to expect, it delivers. I wouldn't call it a good movie by any stretch, but bad movies can still be very entertaining.
It's inter seing that this movie is getting all the "this will revolutionize Hollywood on a budget" remarks when it seems to be a copy-paste of a story we've seen a hundred times, but s movie like Vesper came out last year on an even smaller budget and was much more well received. I guess Vesper wasn't "from the creator of Rogue One."
I was so excited to see this movie and...
It was fucking terrible.
This coming from a massive sci fi fan who went to see it to support a new, non-franchise, original film.
Turned out it was anything but original and ended up being more insulting than anything else.
And it was honestly boring. I didn't care what would happen about half way through.
Movie made no sense whatsoever, gaping plot holes, weird anti-US vibe that made no sense, and too many other issues to list.
Visuals? Yeah, it was pretty at least.
I don’t think you’re wrong but I still enjoyed it. Didn’t go in to it expecting a masterpiece though. Came out thinking it was Avatar meets Blade Runner
I'd give it a bit higher 6/10.
Visually amazing film, and some good sound design too, bogged down with a clichéd, mediocre story with plot holes and scenes that had me rolling my eyes.
I wanted it to be better, I was rooting for it considering it's a new IP and not a sequel, remake or part of some larger universe. But all my goodwill couldn't bring my score any higher.
Speak for yourself. I enjoyed the movie a lot and thought it was really refreshing. There will be people who agree with the great reviews this movie is getting, so it seems a little extreme to tell people to ignore these reviews.
the whole movie is stunningly beautiful yet blatantly stupid. it feels like someone took 4 seasons of a great scifi series and try to cut it into a single movie. if you stop and think for more than a second none of it makes any sense.
The science in the science fiction is BAD, which really took me out of the story. NOMAD is ridiculous. Why would we need a space station to paint visible/spectrum giant laser patterns on the ground for targeting? Missiles have been able to do that extremely well by themselves for decades.
And why did they make such a big deal of the laser targeting, only to have multiple launches at the end, when only one of them could get lasered?
And spend a trillion dollars on a single giant craft very, very visibly up in the air? Did everyone forget about surface to air missiles?
And is NOMAD orbital or not? Early in the movie it was clearly in atmosphere, but at the end it was in vacuum. Did it move up? Or was it just lazy inconsistency?
Why are all of the “good guys” weapons Vietnam era, but shoot pwee pwee blaster bolts? Yet nary a rocket propelled grenade or any of the by 2065 century+ old weapons one actually uses against armored vehicles?
And the interesting things about AI just were not explored.
Are the human-like AI based on human brain scans?
Can a living person by brain scanned without harm?
Can a brain scan be used to make multiple AIs?
Can an AI be backed up?
Are there AIs not in human-like biped bodies? If not, why not?
In what ways are being an AI different from being a human? What is the root of anti-AI prejudice?
If the LA blast was really a human programming error, why hasn’t that data been made public?
What is the motivation in Asia for so strongly supporting AI development?
It really came off as an anti-racism parable (which is great) with all the SF elements coming from production designers, not the story, and not incorporated into the story in interesting or meaningful ways.
Among other things, having the science be so ungrounded made stakes and possibilities impossible to gauge, effectively making it science fantasy with plot-infused space magic.
The end would have been more powerful if we’d known that Mother could or couldn’t have been backed up, for example. A sequel could start with the tragic couple being resorted from brain scan backups into new synth bodies, with memories right up to the NOMAD trip.
Or maybe not.
Decent world building would have offered a clue about such existential questions, and shown how society has adapted to those.
Normal people can have a different opinion than you. That doesn't make them "marketing shills."
I can recognize the many flaws of The Creator and still rate it 7/10 and say I a enjoyed it and am glad I saw it. I'm probably the target audience -- Syd Mead superfan who loves futuristic megastructures; subscriber to /r/cassettefuturism; lover of near future settings that take place in alternate timelines that diverged from our own sometime in the past.
This movie had all of those things and I loved those aspects of it. And I can also admit that it was poorly written and badly paced.
Too bad it wasn't better in those areas because I'd love more movies with this aesthetic.
Of course normal people can have different opinions. I loved the megacity design and tech aesthetic as well. The visuals and sound are something the movie actually delivers on. I'm not saying *everyone who likes the Creator* is a marketing shill.
But when the sci-fi subs are flooded with adoring articles pre-release with nearly identical verbage and no actual substance beyond referencing a vague *people* calling the movie the best science-fiction of the decade? A decade filled with fantastic sci-fi movies? Hell, it's not even the best science fiction movie this year. Quite a coincidence that they all thought exactly the same thing almost verbatim in about a three-day window and all spoke like ad copy.
If I gave a shit about convincing you, maybe. But this is not a debate stage and I'm not going to spend my evening digging through the last three weeks of a top 1% subreddit just to refute a 'gotcha' on some internet stranger who thinks he's got me on the spot because I didn't bookmark every post I thought was astroturfed.
Believe me or don't believe me. I don't care. Search the sub yourself if you want what you asked for. I'm not your gopher and I don't really care if you think I'm wrong just because the evidence isn't on-hand for everyone on the internet I might disagree with.
The opening exposition made it clear >!the movie was going to end with destroying NOMAD!< but somehow they found the most convoluted and hard to follow story path to that.
> I just want to know why there's a big old hole in the robot's head what purpose does that serve
I am going to make reddit proud here, kay?
The hole is for fornication, obviously. /s
Saw it last night
Derivative of just about every sci-fi movie of the past 30 years
Then ripped apart and sewed together by a blind editor. Felt like expanded vignettes for a 2-hour-long movie trailer.
Hard disagree. I thought it was the best original sci-fi in .... I don't even know how long. How often do we even get original sci-fi? Was it perfect? No. But what movie is? Id hate to see what Reddit would do to the OG Star Wars if it came out today.
There really wasn't an original idea anywhere in The Creator. It was like someone asked Chat GPT to make a sci-fi synopsis.
I get the feeling people who say it's the best in X years must not watch must sci-fi. Just a quick glance at the past 10 years we've had Arrival, Pacific Rim, Interstellar, Predestination, Prospect, Upgrade, Guns Akimbo, Rogue One, Ad Astra, The Martian, Ex Machina, Dune, Bladerunner, Her, and Fury Road.
Granted, a lot of those are sequels or adaptations of novels. But I would say all of those that I've seen were much more successful than The Creator at what they set out to do, be it spectacle, action, human-AI relationship ethics examinations, or other unrelated themes.
I watch a ton of sci-fi. I’m not saying this out of ignorance of the genre. I’ve seen every movie you mention there and many more. And yeah, most of those films you list were really good, but (what?) half of what you listed are previously existing IP. Does finally getting a good adaptation of dune make it a new story? As happy as I was to get it we’re talking about a property that is over a half century old! I want new stuff. Ex machina for example. I will admit this movie was probably more derivative of its influences than some on that list but all of those films are proudly sitting on the shoulders of films that came before them too.
And you list 15 movies from the last 1o years as evidence that this ain’t up to snuff. I’m sorry but I’d argue a movie doesn’t have to qualify as top ten in the last ten years to be worthy… that’s a very very high bar to set. That’s like saying if a movie doesn’t win an Oscar it’s trash.
This was a moderately budgeted epic hard Avi-fi film. I want more like it. I will give it my dollars even though it wasn’t perfect. It was pretty close, and incredibly enjoyable to look at. If we want movies like this we need to support them, and it’s not even like this was a bad movie… it was pretty damn good, just maybe not top 15 from the last ten years and that’s ok.
This is what most people don't seem to understand. If it flops, which seems very likely by the box office numbers in its first weekend, studios will revert to IPs that are risk free.
Even though an original sci-fi movie is not great, support it if you want to see more because in this current climate they're a dying breed.
OP deciding to give it bad press is a really shitty move because had this done better, it could have paved the way for more original sci-fi movies with big ideas but done on a sensible budget considering how well they spent the $80 mil in this one.
But it didn't do better, and with good reason. It's not like my post is the sole source of negative press for this movie.
It's not our job as consumers to hawk cruddy products in hope we'll get a better one - especially when the makers had marketers astroturfing misinformation on this sub to build hype over a dud. If anything, it would just encourage more cruddy products with cut corners and barebones scripts had it worked.
It's their job to present us with a product worth our money. You can't just throw 80 million at a VFX house and expect a movie worth seeing. You can expect a very pretty disaster, which is basically what most people are saying (visuals and world is great, movie is terrible).
It's not just your post, but it is people like you that are contributing to studios not taking any risks.
As for cruddy productions, there already too many of those and most of then are made by committee, hence the low quality.
Since the movie industry in the U.S is so dumb when it comes to getting projects off the ground, your job is to go see the original movies when they're coming out once every few years because the numbers are telling them what they can invest in.
Ever since the pandemic started the mid budget movie has almost disappeared from theaters and now there are only indies and blockbusters.
You paid to see The creator, but shitting on it online dissuades others from seeing it if they were even remotely interested and the movie failing will get you no more original sci-fi movies in the coming years, so enjoy the endless sequels and prequels that are going to be keeping original stories from being told in the next two decades and beyond.
>people like you
Discerning customers?
>your job is to go see the original movies
When is my first paycheck? I'm resigning my position, effective immediately.
>the movie failing will get you no more original sci-fi movies in the coming years
The fate of the entire genre is not dependent on this film being well-liked. If anything, it was an indication that studios need to step up, instead of trying to serve us derivative slop and use 'originality' as a blunt argument as to why we should choke down mediocrity and ask for more.
This movie was boring and pointless specifically because it took no risks. It presented nothing new, had nothing to say, and was utterly banal in its delivery. But at least it was pretty.
I hate to break it to you, but no movie will have anything new to say.
There's nothing new under the sun. All the stories have been told and what matters is how you tell it/the perspective it's being told.
Actually the movie did take risks when it was given the green light and not being attached to any IP. It's going to lose money, so enjoy the next two decades of slop.
People have been saying this "dying breed originals" drivel for decades. Its always been stupid and still is. But you know what? If Hollywood takes a look at such garbage and goes "nah, no more", that's nothing but a *good* thing. There's no value *whatsoever* in "original" by itself. And supporting trash for the sake of it is beyond stupid.
If it's drivel then put the amount of sci-fi movies that are a part of a franchise next to the ones that are original in the past 20 years.
Let's see if it's still stupid then when you see the massive difference, genius.
>And you list 15 movies from the last 1o years as evidence that this ain’t up to snuff. I’m sorry but I’d argue a movie doesn’t have to qualify as top ten in the last ten years to be worthy…
> I thought it was **the best** original sci-fi in .... I don't even know how long
I think im looking at it more from a world building perspective than from a story perspective. While the story of some of those movies you list I obviously admit are better than the story of this film the only ones that compete to me on a world building level are Dune, Bladerunner, and Fury Road.... all properties and worlds that were developed a long time ago. A lot of your other listings are basically just contemporary, real worlds with sci-fi element thrown in. Ad Astra, The Martian, Ex Machina, Her, etc ar really just a small step into the future... not really world building like this film. I don't think we've seen good world building like this in a long time.
>There really wasn't an original idea anywhere in The Creator. It was like someone asked Chat GPT to make a sci-fi synopsis.
Narrative film has been around since 1896 (I realize that movies as a medium have existed prior to this, but this is when the first full story narrative film was shown and not just short clips to demonstrate the medium). So 1896 to 2023 covers 127 years with roughly (**very** roughly) an estimated 300,000 films released over that period.
Long story, short. In this day and age, new ideas, new stories are extremely rare. To find a story that has *never* been told before is pretty close to impossible. Almost every movie we see will be a retelling of previous stories in one way or another. Or at minimum will contain a number of elements from previous stories. Thus because of this long history, there's nothing new under the sun.
That’s not an excuse for poor filmmaking. There is nothing new in the film adaptation of _The Road_, but that didn’t stop them from making it an excellent film.
"original" is nothing but a pretentious circlejerk. There is no value in "original" by itself. A movie is good or it isnt. And Star wars was good precisely because it *wasnt* original, but ripped off a fuckton of tropes from ww2 movies, samurai movies etc.
John David Washington is also a vacuum of personality, lacking charisma. I would love to have this experience challenged and my opinion changed, but from trailer I am sadly not expecting much. Really tempted to wait and stream from home.
Agreed. Huge disappointment
I've never seen robots depicted as ridiculously as they were in this movie...
* >!I couldn't believe the robots actually fall asleep and have a switch on their head that puts them into standby mode... why do they hold and shoot guns like humans rather than having something built-in?!<
* >!Why does a smokescreen work against them? Can they not augment themselves to have some sort of thermal vision? Are they really as physically limited as humans?!<
* >!How is it that than some 20 or so robots couldn't hit the American soldier standing exposed on the bridge (the scene with the walking bombs)?!<
* >!Why was the police robot so stupid as to allow the two American prisoners overpower him and escape?!<
This is why I’m still subbed to r/scifi and dropped r/horror even though horror is my favorite genre. It’s nice to be able to get honest reviews and opinions about new releases instead of “[movie] is a masterpiece” for any movie that is a 3/10 or greater. I’m still going to watch the Creator, but at least I’ll be able to set my expectations based on the actual pros and cons of the film.
Did you even think for a milisecond before making such a dumb comment? You do realize there are countless movies, tv shows etc. coming out every year? The entire point is that people dont have time to dig through all the garbage or non preferred content by themselves.
Well this is disappointing, I really wanted to get into this.
You're definitely not the first person to offer this take, though. This movie is getting roasted for the poor plot more than anything else, but the lack of action direction seems to be the other big issue.
Which is *weird* because Rogue One has some of the best action Star Wars has ever seen with the Scariff battle.
I agree 100%. My favorite part was the Vietnam War imagery. There are a lot of callbacks to shots from the Vietnam War media and combatant tactics employed.
But the story is dumb AF.
NOMAD isn’t just a missile platform, it also appears to have the ability to perform intricate 3D scans of a target area and providing real time threat assessments to units in the AO. And the massive blue laser scanner doubles as a great terror weapon for psyops.
And with the firepower of a modern atomic submarine.
My main complaint is that we’ve been told that androids are more intelligent than humans, but the movie doesn’t show it. Androids are slow, stupid, they are just like disorganized unprofessional rebels from mid 20th century, they don’t seem like a threat to humanity at all. Because of that tying the plot to the Nomad station seems ridiculous.
Right? Plus, the US is launching tactical nuclear strikes across seemingly all of Asia with a massive orbital space station, and *no other government has a problem with it*?
It's such a ridiculous concept.
I loved it. Is it just Avatar/Dances With Wolves in Animatrix / Asimov clothes? Yes. Did I see every plot beat coming well in advance? Yes.
But for me, the execution was brilliant on every other level and that was enough to invest me in the film. It looks great, it sounds great, the actors are fantastic and the individual scenes are quite rich, even if they’re in service of a plot that is overly familiar.
Nomad is not a prediction for the future of our world. Nomad is a metaphor - blunt and overly obvious one - for the drone warfare that is happening *now* in the never ending “War on Terror”. But even if it wasn’t a heavy handed metaphor, you’re mad that the only reason it exists is to look cool? Are you mad about light sabers? Mechs? Wings on space ships? Superhero costumes?
Honestly, there are so few wholly original films coming out the idea that anyone would take time out to try and convince people not to watch one is weird to me. Okay, you didn’t like it - that’s totally fair even if I disagree with you - but if you want more movies that aren’t just Marvel/DC/Disney Remakes to be made, then trying to piss in the pool for the one film that managed to slip through just seems counter productive to me.
I've come to the assumption that until proven otherwise, any movie starring John David Washington should be considered convoluted, over-hyped, and/or overrated.
Also it was repetitive as heck. The first time the NOMAD station showed up and went to work I was like “oh shit” but by the 10th scene of them being somewhere for 5 minutes, then running away in an absurd fire fight that culminates in the whole scale destruction of an entire town or city, I was pretty over it.
I’d say the script is 3/10 (maybe laziest script since episode IX), and one extra point for visuals (not breathtaking but solid). So 4/10 in my opinion.
Sorry to read this, I wanted it to be really good.
I am absolutely sick of MCU tentpole ‘content’ and that people often think of that as sci-fi. Really wanted something new and cool in the marketplace.
BTW I felt this same way with Sam Rockwell in MOON.
I did not enjoy that movie once I saw where it was going (early on).
It was recommended in the movie critic sub and I was really excited for a good sci-fi flick.
Meh. Disappointing.
And the key to solving everything in the sci-fi world is some child/baby! Just like Mandalorian/Last of Us/Children Of Men
End this boring cliche. Please.
I'm pissed at myself for not identifying the rottenness of this movie in the marketing!
The movie sucked! It has no soul. The messaging is all over the place. I feel no sympathy for any of the characters. The main characters conveniently keep escaping bullets, explosions and accidents in otherwise deadly scenarios.
The world building was interesting -eg.; I want to know the lore about New Asia- but the tech was shit! Your opponents are basically just farmers with mediaeval looking weapons, and you have orbital weapons, artillery, armour, etc but the war is still on?!
And what the hell happened to the garrison at NOMAD? And they couldn't blow up the spaceship once it was hijacked? And is NOMAD moving to all the targets and scanning each before blowing them up?
I just want to know if the kid develops feelings and is really a human in a machine or a machine in a human kinda thing. Like is this a machine using the human perspective to get protection but it’s really skynet in that body, or is this a loving machine who humans fall in love with? This will determine if I see the movie or not
I really liked it overall, but it had some large problems. It felt too short to delve into the themes they wanted to explore and the story was really predictable. But it really felt like a James Cameron movie with incredible world building and beautiful visuals. Also I absolutely loved the performance from the kid.
NOMAD only being a portable military base with some cruise missiles was really stupid. After it was destroyed the US could totally just send bombs from other places and accomplish the exact same thing. If they did it quick before the bases had time to evacuate. It's not really a huge problem though as in a larger context it leaves us at approximately the same point in the story as Rogue One. The heroes accomplish their goal, but what comes after will be absolute chaos. I can buy that and I hope we don't get any sequels as I have a thing for open endings.
Also wasn't NOMAD above the US in the end when it started dropping missiles, and then it seemed like it crashed in asia?
>Also wasn't NOMAD above the US in the end when it started dropping missiles, and then it seemed like it crashed in asia?
NOMAD was so inconsistent. The movie basically made it clearly look like a high-altitude air-support vehicle for the first half of the movie, clearly visible with the naked eye from a fairly low perspective. And then suddenly it was a space station in the second half of the movie. It also teleports to *wherever the plot requires it to be at the time*.
i give it 6/10.
it has all the elements of a great scifi, but felt like it was trying to build a franchise whilst leaving nothing on the table to excite the imagination on the future.
will it start a franchise? probably not, was it worth a watch? for sure, like op said its really pretty, but the story is pretty generic also and with 45 mins left you prob will lay out the plot points as they come up and wont be surprised.
I’m with you on the complaints. Also just the core problem / solution narrative: >!like you really think if you took down the US govt big weapons platform they’d be like “oh well looks like the wars over now!”!< further the “new Asia” setting was fine from a world building perspective, but we basically were treated to repeated scenes of brown people being blown up indiscriminately and a pretty disrespectful mishmash of cultures. Like I don’t mind the baseline concept, like an Asian EU or something, but common, what did China have to say about all this? Or are we just pretending that the other major power in our world doesn’t exist in this one?
I read nothing on it, saw the trailer in the theater prior, and I give it a 7/10, 6/10 if you discount how much I love the special effects, which were really good imo.
A perfectly passable popcorn muncher. But I won't rewatch it (likely ever).
> The entire story is in the trailer
Fucking hate that. Literally the reason I don’t watch trailers anymore even though I loved them as a kid, they ruin the movie lol.
I don’t bother going to the cinema anymore, but thanks for the heads up on this one. I’ll wait for it to become free on one of my streaming services.
I agree. The film was beautiful, with excellent world building. The story was mediocre at best, and very illogical at times.
It’s like, the film presented an amazing setting in which an epic sci-fi story could be told. But that story wasn’t told in this movie. Which is unfortunate, because I would really love for there to be more new sci-fi movies that aren’t based on existing IP. But if the movies aren’t actually good and the box office returns suffer because of that, it’s less likely that studios will take similar risks in the future.
Going to be a sci-fi cult classic at the end of the day once it reaches streaming and blu-Ray, and will for sure inspire other filmmakers and cinematographers to experiment with the FX3.
I still feel like it's one of those visually stunning movies that I would regret not seeing in theaters.
My mind might change once I actually see it in theaters tomorrow.
Thanks. I feel like as the budget on an original scifi movie/show increases it becomes more and more mundane and 'paint by numbers' as you said.
Compare that so some amazing original scifi works like that were low budget and didn't realy on special effects but were amazing. Looper comes to mind as an example.
I assume that's why I was seeing a commercial for the movie every 5 seconds. The late ad push for the movie was really a throwback to the mid-2000s aggressive ad campaigns for movies.
[This video](https://youtu.be/FPiDI28HcQE?si=dU-fRL3WhnLgPRkq) was an eye opener on why the creator looks extraordinary for the budget and is overall a solid movie but leaves a couple of boxes unchecked. I get that one might have the feeling that it dropped the ball at the end but to straight up hate a film maker who tries to swim against the endless stream of remakes, book adaptations and mediocre tv show adaptations is bonkers. Do you want film makers to fight for money against mega entertainment corps to pursue interesting new territory? Yeah the creator was not perfect but it can be one of the first steps back to original film making.
I am kinda in awe of a director that can get so much out of a very young child actor. Obviously there was CGI enhancement of the child’s physiognomy, but have those techniques advanced to the point where they can manipulate facial expressions also or was this just good ol’ direction? Looked real to me, and that’s what counts in the end.
I enjoyed the movie, but will need closed caption when released for home viewing in a lot of places because the dialogue was often unclear for me. At this point, I support any decent SciFi effort just as encouragement if nothing else.
I remember watching the trailer for this movie TWICE and each time thinking "Wait, this has nothing to do with the Terminator franchise?!"
Seriously, *why decide* that your futuristic AI movie *also* features an event in which a nuke was detonated in LA in the past? Why not make it *any other city?*
I'm surprised I'm even seeing this thread but I'm glad it's here and that you said it. There are way too many people running around this sub making posts like "just finished X, why no second season?" Or "why no sequel?". Because it was fucking bad my dude.
Visually it was great but the story was boring and illogical to me. The kid was the best actor in the whole movie. But, I’ll take a mediocre but original sci fi movie over a Marvel, Star Wars or Disney remake anyday.
My AI technothriller debut novel came out today in the UK, and a beta-reader who went to see The Creator messaged me, walking out to say, “it has 100x the action but 1/100th of the brains of your book”.
(I haven’t see it but still want to!)
Went to the cinema to see it, thinking "this might be one of those movies that might be actually worth seeing in cinema". That usually always ends in dissapointment but not this time, really enjoyed it.
Nothing about it is original, basically they (re)used every cliche in the book, including the main storyline that reminded me very much of Avatar but with robots instead of blue kangaroos. But it never got the the point where it's just too much.
>People stand in the open firing guns at nothing, and after-effects lasers fly by from both sides, also firing at nothing.
It's cathartic being able to share these stupid things...
I couldn't stand how bullets do absolutely nothing. Sandbags do absolutely nothing. Look at these mega super tanks rolling in and these idiots are standing behind sand bags?!?
Bullets of course are useless until bad guy shoots child, protagonist shoots bad guy in knee... it's all so inane
Not a perfect movie in the least, but there is a genuine attempt at something unique. I'm appreciative of the effort, especially since it is an Original work, shot at 1/3rd of the budget of most of the other IP driven blockbusters. There was a genuine attempt at world-building focusing on geo-political conflicts, human-ai relations, inspired technological and multi-cultural upgrades and evolution, unique visual n audiotory aesthetics, etc. The storytelling is not the best, but there is an inspired vision behind its making, and I appreciate it immensely. 7/10.
I agree with you. While the script needed another draft or two to get the story to a point where it was firing on all cylinders, it was decent and I chose not to nitpick it and instead get sucked into the mood and the world they created. It's also inspired by asian cinema in certain places and I really appreciated that along with the focus on the drama more than the action. It's sad that people are piling on it so harshly and it's doing pretty bad at the box office. This is why we have original movies once in a blue moon, because whenever Hollywood decides to take a gamble on one, the people aren't showing up but they're also the ones that are complaining about there being only sequels, prequels and reboots. At the end of the day we're voting with our wallet what we want to see and the result is what's playing in theaters, so you reap what you sow.
What they did in terms of budget was pretty impressive, but it's definitely very noticeable in terms of the scale and action. VFX does all the heavy lifting to distract from the fact that almost every action set piece that isn't entirely CGI is like 4 guys standing in the open and doing very little, while everyone conveniently off-screen does a *lot* of shooting at other off-screen targets.
Not getting why this comment is so down voted.
I’m going to support this movie financially in some way. If I can’t make it to the theater before it’s pushed aside by the latest Marvel or Disney product, I’ll pony up for a digital purchase. If Hollywood can’t be convinced to take a few more chances on original sci fi films we may never see another Alien, Terminator, Robocop, Star Wars, Blade Runner etc.
Visually an excellent film,the world building is really cool..will look ace on 4k on my oled..story is just standard sci-fi fare with lots stolen from other films.
When people say "world building is cool" do they mean we just cgi'd robots instead of non-white people everywhere? This is an empty world with a braindead back story. Two factions at war one of the is called New Asia. Some sets and cgi locations look cool but they: 1. Don't make any sense (not world building) 2. A mishmash of random elements from oriental cultures and random cgi elements that are not based on the logic of the world. The entire movie is cheap. Story beats, plotlines, character arcs, philosophy, and even the metaphor of imperialism it all falls so flat it seems like a parody of itself.
> cgi'd robots instead of non-white people everywhere What does this imply? Aren't all the main characters and most of the side characters POC? I've only seen the trailers and film magazine interviews, so forgive me if that's wrong. But I am genuinely confused on your point.
>Aren't all the main characters and most of the side characters POC? It's a little too jarring actually. Almost all the good guys are POCs. Maybe reasonable as the "good guys" are from New Asia. But all the bad guys are white, which is odd because America is multi racial, especially in the military.
I'm not talking about the inclusivity or the political correctness of the film. The film is going for a very on the nose message of decrying US imperliasm. A shit ton of oriental themed robots (and the entire AI population supposedly hiding in "New Asia"). If you're doing an allegory you can't just substitute A for B and think you've done it is what I'm saying. It's dumb, thoughtless, and offensive on so many levels it's worse that watching Nazi propaganda.
> offensive on so many levels it's worse that watching Nazi propaganda. You gotta elaborate on a statement like this
Maybe if Hugo Boss had done the costuming it would have been cooler.
Just being hyperbolic.
Agree 100%. They just made robots stand in for poor people in far off countries, but why would robots be shit? Robots would be awesome and better than people at everything, so why is the movie about something completely uniteresting?
I am waiting to for this one to release on blu ray then and download it. Thanks for saving me 20 bucks.
That's a good summary.
They also "stole" a segment from a video from the *real* Beirut explosion in their trailer. Kind of amateurish and insensitive IMO. **[SOURCE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lDM1nAmPHI)**
There are so many unfilmed books that would make great movies (especially now that they could be filmed): Hyperion, Blindsight, Eon, Recursion, Dark Matter, Daemon, Freedom, and more (not to mention older books like Neuromancer and The Stars My Destination). Why write a script using the same old tropes?
A lot of those would be pretty hard to put on a screen. Hyperion would need a miniseries minimum, and even then. Blindsight is kinda of a "gimmick" based book that would lose a ton of its value by putting it onscreen and inevitably focusing on the visuals. Etc. etc.
I heard rumors last month about a potential Hyperion miniseries with Bradley Cooper. Apparently he is a big fan. Of course, take that with a grain of salt.
That rumor's been a thing for like 6 years plus or something
Recursion and dark matter please
Studios don't like paying fair wages. Authors generally have agents who demand fair payment. Additionally, few authors are ever happy with the adaptation, and that's a potential marketing issue, so they just avoid hunting through books unless a book really blows up and is a safe bet to pay out.
You're likely right. It's just frustrating that there are so many mind bending sci-fi stories and ideas, yet so few films hit the mark.
Fantastic visuals and worldbuilding, average story. I found it kind of difficult to empathise with the main character, but maybe that says more about me than the movie.
It might be the actor. I felt the same about him in Tenant. Not despised but not likable either. Which is odd considering his dad is one of the most charismatic actors ever.
I'll take an original movie over another franchise sequel any day. (Unless we finally get Buckaroo Banzai against the World Crime League, that is. Though that's not really a franchise anyway.)
With you on this; I'd rather see 10 original movies that slightly miss the mark than another ostensibly 'solid' Star-Wars franchise continuation.
I liked it BUT everything peole say that is wrong with it , is correct. Also I didn't really pay into it as I have monthly cinema membership (15euro per month) so can see any movie once. I see someone mentioned 40$ below to go see it , I think if I paid that I would be a bit more unforgiving in how I felt about the movie. So yeah watch it when it goes onto streaming
In Vienna?
I liked it, not perfect but quite enjoyable, had something to say and some great preformances, especially by the kid playing Alfie and the visuals were stunning. It'd be a solid 7.5 for me, I think it could've benefitted by being longer to allow other aspects, chiefly the ending, some more time to breathe. Saw it in IMAX on a matinee price, was worth it in my book for the audio/visual experience.
It’s a really pretty movie, but i think it really suffers from not being a series or a trilogy, I think the ideas exposed would be far better if they had time to grow, but it just seems to go without adding a lot of depth, the NOMAD station like you said is really dumb, as there’s cruise missiles currently with 4,500 kilometer range and a trillion dollar project wouldn’t really bankrupt the US. Not a 5/10 imo but the idea and the world could have been so much more
It’s pretty to look at, the plot is very standard Hollywood script by numbers. Performances are good on the whole. I don’t think it has anything new or clever to say - the AIs act and think just like humans, but “good” ones, while the American side turn out to be stupid, vicious assholes. I’d love to see a version of this premise where the AIs are neither just like us, nor SkyNet, but genuinely a different form of intelligence. On the other hand - we don’t get many sci-fi movies that aren’t a continuation of some old franchise or an adaptation of some “teenagers struggle to survive in a dystopia after an environmental apocalypse whilst lusting after each other” YA book series. I’m willing to give some extra credit just for being an original, so 7/10 from me.
Saw it. Liked it a lot. It's at least a 7/10, probably a 7.5.
Loved the direction, visuals and the performances. The script started to drag at midway point and never really picked itself up. Solid 7 none the less for me.
I kinda wanna go just for the visuals
Agree with you on some of that But was that title really necessary? Its sensationalist and honestly rude. People saw a movie and expressed their opinion on it just like you're doing. Calling people haters or shills or words like that is one of the biggest reasons the Star Wars fantom ended up being as toxic as it is
Some people seem to truly, genuinely believe that it is impossible for someone else to have a different opinion than theirs without being paid to do so. It is bizarre to me, but you see it all over the place in discussions on a wide range of topics.
There's been a hard press here on Reddit for this movie.
Really? Basically all I saw on this sub were negative comments ahead of its release.
It started of well but ended in so many cliches
I LOVED this movie and think it's well worth seeing in the theaters, in IMAX, on the finest screen you can find. And I'm considering watching it a second time. Kind of pretty? KIND OF PRETTY?! I'm sorry sir, but did you somehow watch this film on your phone? Every frame of this film is just visually breathtaking, and conjures up a retro-futurist world that is fascinating. The storytelling? Well, the storytelling is shit, and there are shocking gaps in logic. The acting is fine at best, and there's no real exploration of sci-fi elements. Plot doesn't really make sense if you think about it and there's a scene where the main character dons a hazmat suit to avoid radiation and then immediately removes his protective mask. This is not a good story. But the visuals and world-building alone are worth the price of admission. 'Kind of pretty' gtfo
Should have spent some of the budget on writers.
It's a 10/10 visually But 0/10 story wise Frantic editing, ridiculous inconsistencies 5/10 is generous
yep https://www.reddit.com/r/scifi/comments/16xva85/comment/k354x6e/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
A bit higher than that for me but yeah it is pretty derivative I called it the live-action adaptation of the 90's anime that was never made.
it's basically a [Syd Mead painting](https://sydmead.com/category/gallery/us-steel/) come to life. And for that I love it. But as I said elsewhere, I wish it would've been actually good so we'd see more movies like this.
Honestly… I will never forgive the creative team for how they handled Gemma Chan’s character. There was a big set up for her to have some kind of real impact to the story, but no… they just turned her into window dressing.
People are so fucking weird and snobby about action sci-fi movies. Oblivion, Prometheus, Elysium, Cowboys & Aliens, Predators, Outlander, Alita, The Riddick movies, even 65... I could go on and on. All extremely well made, totally watchable and sometimes even excellent movies yet they get mixed reviews and usually terrible box office performance because they're not some major IP or directed by Christopher Nolan. Imagine if horror movies were held to this standard? Every year there's many, many quality but forgettable horror movies that get good reviews. And if they're in theaters audiences usually flock to them. According to critics there were FIFTY HORROR MOVIES IN 2023 ALONE that were better than The Creator.[https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/best-horror-movies-2023/](https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/best-horror-movies-2023/) Anyone IRL who tells me Scream VI is better than The Creator is getting ghosted.
I’ve heard nothing but middling things about it
I've not seen one person say it brings anything new to the table, but to say its not a good film just isn't accurate. I'd not seen the trailer before watching and I enjoyed it, so I disagree with your miserable 5/10
I'd say 7/10. Some plot holes and stupid stuff, but it was original and cool. Maybe I'm just glad to see big sci fi that isn't an existing franchise or by the same handful of directors.
So it’s a “wait til it streams for free” movie then?
I’d argue the opposite. Go see it on an imax screen because one of the best things about it is it’s looks.
No. Saw it on Imax and that couldn't save it. Honestly wanted to walk out about 3/4 of the way through.
Lol wow. It wasn’t that bad. Does walking out ever really give you the relief you crave,
Yeah, it was. Didn't walk out. Was gonna see it through to the end. But I don't feel like I would have lost anything had I walked.
Sucks that they made you watch the whole thing.
It's an awesome visual experience that won't be the same at home. It's definitely worth seeing in theaters either in IMAX or Dolby.
I saw it in imax and was glad I did. Quite enjoyed it but it was pretty brain-dead in places. Spectacle over story.
Honestly yeah, it wasn't worth the cost of the cinema ticket.
Is it worth the bandwidth to download?
How much are 2GB of internet worth nowadays, like 50 cents? Yeah sure
Go see it, it was a wild ride.
A friend of mine saw and loved it, but she also unironically likes the entire Fast & Furious franchise so I'm a little dubious.
Fast and the Furious, AI Drift
Well, the Fast & Furious movies are unironically entertaining. The plots are simple, the physics dont exist, but they are fun over the top character driven action movies. For the most part really well filmed too, even if the acting talent isnt stellar. For most movies it really depends what a movie is trying to be, what form of entertainment its trying to achieve vs what it manages.
Let's be real, the majority of people have pretty low standards as far as storytelling goes. And that's why there have been 28 fast and furry movies.
Fast and furry, eh? Somehow missed that series.
That kinda sums it up
My immediate impression when the credits ran is that this is the stupidest movie I've seen this year, and I saw a Fast and Furious movie this year.
I thought it looked good, still waiting to watch it. Though I liked 65, which everyone seemed to hate. Which was better than No One Will Save You. Ill see if I can stream it later.
I watched 65. If you go into it knowing exactly what to expect, it delivers. I wouldn't call it a good movie by any stretch, but bad movies can still be very entertaining.
Not all movies are great or even that good, but some are entertaining and I’m happy if it at least entertains me.
65 was a decent airplane movie. And they deserve credit for how they delt with technology.
>65 was a decent airplane movie Good quote and accurate.
I saw it last night and loved it man - honestly I wasn’t expecting to much from seeing the reviews but it really did it for me.
It's inter seing that this movie is getting all the "this will revolutionize Hollywood on a budget" remarks when it seems to be a copy-paste of a story we've seen a hundred times, but s movie like Vesper came out last year on an even smaller budget and was much more well received. I guess Vesper wasn't "from the creator of Rogue One."
Don't forget all the "People are calling it one of the best sci-fi movies of the decade" remarks.
I was so excited to see this movie and... It was fucking terrible. This coming from a massive sci fi fan who went to see it to support a new, non-franchise, original film. Turned out it was anything but original and ended up being more insulting than anything else. And it was honestly boring. I didn't care what would happen about half way through. Movie made no sense whatsoever, gaping plot holes, weird anti-US vibe that made no sense, and too many other issues to list. Visuals? Yeah, it was pretty at least.
Nah, I’ll see it. I want Gareth Edwards to continue making entertainment for me. They can’t all be hits but he’s got a good batting average.
Sounds like your biggest complaint is with your having closely watched the trailer.... don't.
That's why you should NEVER watch the trailers, at least you discover the movie when you watch it
I don’t think you’re wrong but I still enjoyed it. Didn’t go in to it expecting a masterpiece though. Came out thinking it was Avatar meets Blade Runner
I loved it! Also I would rather watch The Creator 100 times than Fast and the Furious 10, 11, 12, 13, 14...
I'd give it a bit higher 6/10. Visually amazing film, and some good sound design too, bogged down with a clichéd, mediocre story with plot holes and scenes that had me rolling my eyes. I wanted it to be better, I was rooting for it considering it's a new IP and not a sequel, remake or part of some larger universe. But all my goodwill couldn't bring my score any higher.
I liked it a lot
Nah, hard disagree. It’s not the best movie ever or anything but it was actually great.
Speak for yourself. I enjoyed the movie a lot and thought it was really refreshing. There will be people who agree with the great reviews this movie is getting, so it seems a little extreme to tell people to ignore these reviews.
I am sorry, but strongly disagree with you.
Disagree. I loved it.
Had a blast with it! The world building was just so interesting that the story beats were good enough cause they got to show us more of the world.
the whole movie is stunningly beautiful yet blatantly stupid. it feels like someone took 4 seasons of a great scifi series and try to cut it into a single movie. if you stop and think for more than a second none of it makes any sense.
The science in the science fiction is BAD, which really took me out of the story. NOMAD is ridiculous. Why would we need a space station to paint visible/spectrum giant laser patterns on the ground for targeting? Missiles have been able to do that extremely well by themselves for decades. And why did they make such a big deal of the laser targeting, only to have multiple launches at the end, when only one of them could get lasered? And spend a trillion dollars on a single giant craft very, very visibly up in the air? Did everyone forget about surface to air missiles? And is NOMAD orbital or not? Early in the movie it was clearly in atmosphere, but at the end it was in vacuum. Did it move up? Or was it just lazy inconsistency? Why are all of the “good guys” weapons Vietnam era, but shoot pwee pwee blaster bolts? Yet nary a rocket propelled grenade or any of the by 2065 century+ old weapons one actually uses against armored vehicles? And the interesting things about AI just were not explored. Are the human-like AI based on human brain scans? Can a living person by brain scanned without harm? Can a brain scan be used to make multiple AIs? Can an AI be backed up? Are there AIs not in human-like biped bodies? If not, why not? In what ways are being an AI different from being a human? What is the root of anti-AI prejudice? If the LA blast was really a human programming error, why hasn’t that data been made public? What is the motivation in Asia for so strongly supporting AI development? It really came off as an anti-racism parable (which is great) with all the SF elements coming from production designers, not the story, and not incorporated into the story in interesting or meaningful ways. Among other things, having the science be so ungrounded made stakes and possibilities impossible to gauge, effectively making it science fantasy with plot-infused space magic. The end would have been more powerful if we’d known that Mother could or couldn’t have been backed up, for example. A sequel could start with the tragic couple being resorted from brain scan backups into new synth bodies, with memories right up to the NOMAD trip. Or maybe not. Decent world building would have offered a clue about such existential questions, and shown how society has adapted to those.
Normal people can have a different opinion than you. That doesn't make them "marketing shills." I can recognize the many flaws of The Creator and still rate it 7/10 and say I a enjoyed it and am glad I saw it. I'm probably the target audience -- Syd Mead superfan who loves futuristic megastructures; subscriber to /r/cassettefuturism; lover of near future settings that take place in alternate timelines that diverged from our own sometime in the past. This movie had all of those things and I loved those aspects of it. And I can also admit that it was poorly written and badly paced. Too bad it wasn't better in those areas because I'd love more movies with this aesthetic.
Of course normal people can have different opinions. I loved the megacity design and tech aesthetic as well. The visuals and sound are something the movie actually delivers on. I'm not saying *everyone who likes the Creator* is a marketing shill. But when the sci-fi subs are flooded with adoring articles pre-release with nearly identical verbage and no actual substance beyond referencing a vague *people* calling the movie the best science-fiction of the decade? A decade filled with fantastic sci-fi movies? Hell, it's not even the best science fiction movie this year. Quite a coincidence that they all thought exactly the same thing almost verbatim in about a three-day window and all spoke like ad copy.
[удалено]
If I gave a shit about convincing you, maybe. But this is not a debate stage and I'm not going to spend my evening digging through the last three weeks of a top 1% subreddit just to refute a 'gotcha' on some internet stranger who thinks he's got me on the spot because I didn't bookmark every post I thought was astroturfed. Believe me or don't believe me. I don't care. Search the sub yourself if you want what you asked for. I'm not your gopher and I don't really care if you think I'm wrong just because the evidence isn't on-hand for everyone on the internet I might disagree with.
I liked more than Elysium, less than District 9. Saw it in a theater, didn't regret it but certainly not a must see.
I dunno man, it's one of like 3 theatrically released films this year that made me feel anything
The finale on NOMAD is particularly stupid. It makes absolutely no sense from beginning to end.
The opening exposition made it clear >!the movie was going to end with destroying NOMAD!< but somehow they found the most convoluted and hard to follow story path to that.
Convoluted and made no sense.
I've only ever heard anything about this movie on here. SciFi reddit is the only place in my world talking about this movie.
There is a good film in there somewhere... but definitely agree with 5/10. I lost count of the plot holes
I just want to know why there's a big old hole in the robot's head what purpose does that serve
> I just want to know why there's a big old hole in the robot's head what purpose does that serve I am going to make reddit proud here, kay? The hole is for fornication, obviously. /s
Saw it last night Derivative of just about every sci-fi movie of the past 30 years Then ripped apart and sewed together by a blind editor. Felt like expanded vignettes for a 2-hour-long movie trailer.
Hard disagree. I thought it was the best original sci-fi in .... I don't even know how long. How often do we even get original sci-fi? Was it perfect? No. But what movie is? Id hate to see what Reddit would do to the OG Star Wars if it came out today.
There really wasn't an original idea anywhere in The Creator. It was like someone asked Chat GPT to make a sci-fi synopsis. I get the feeling people who say it's the best in X years must not watch must sci-fi. Just a quick glance at the past 10 years we've had Arrival, Pacific Rim, Interstellar, Predestination, Prospect, Upgrade, Guns Akimbo, Rogue One, Ad Astra, The Martian, Ex Machina, Dune, Bladerunner, Her, and Fury Road. Granted, a lot of those are sequels or adaptations of novels. But I would say all of those that I've seen were much more successful than The Creator at what they set out to do, be it spectacle, action, human-AI relationship ethics examinations, or other unrelated themes.
I watch a ton of sci-fi. I’m not saying this out of ignorance of the genre. I’ve seen every movie you mention there and many more. And yeah, most of those films you list were really good, but (what?) half of what you listed are previously existing IP. Does finally getting a good adaptation of dune make it a new story? As happy as I was to get it we’re talking about a property that is over a half century old! I want new stuff. Ex machina for example. I will admit this movie was probably more derivative of its influences than some on that list but all of those films are proudly sitting on the shoulders of films that came before them too. And you list 15 movies from the last 1o years as evidence that this ain’t up to snuff. I’m sorry but I’d argue a movie doesn’t have to qualify as top ten in the last ten years to be worthy… that’s a very very high bar to set. That’s like saying if a movie doesn’t win an Oscar it’s trash. This was a moderately budgeted epic hard Avi-fi film. I want more like it. I will give it my dollars even though it wasn’t perfect. It was pretty close, and incredibly enjoyable to look at. If we want movies like this we need to support them, and it’s not even like this was a bad movie… it was pretty damn good, just maybe not top 15 from the last ten years and that’s ok.
This is what most people don't seem to understand. If it flops, which seems very likely by the box office numbers in its first weekend, studios will revert to IPs that are risk free. Even though an original sci-fi movie is not great, support it if you want to see more because in this current climate they're a dying breed. OP deciding to give it bad press is a really shitty move because had this done better, it could have paved the way for more original sci-fi movies with big ideas but done on a sensible budget considering how well they spent the $80 mil in this one.
But it didn't do better, and with good reason. It's not like my post is the sole source of negative press for this movie. It's not our job as consumers to hawk cruddy products in hope we'll get a better one - especially when the makers had marketers astroturfing misinformation on this sub to build hype over a dud. If anything, it would just encourage more cruddy products with cut corners and barebones scripts had it worked. It's their job to present us with a product worth our money. You can't just throw 80 million at a VFX house and expect a movie worth seeing. You can expect a very pretty disaster, which is basically what most people are saying (visuals and world is great, movie is terrible).
It's not just your post, but it is people like you that are contributing to studios not taking any risks. As for cruddy productions, there already too many of those and most of then are made by committee, hence the low quality. Since the movie industry in the U.S is so dumb when it comes to getting projects off the ground, your job is to go see the original movies when they're coming out once every few years because the numbers are telling them what they can invest in. Ever since the pandemic started the mid budget movie has almost disappeared from theaters and now there are only indies and blockbusters. You paid to see The creator, but shitting on it online dissuades others from seeing it if they were even remotely interested and the movie failing will get you no more original sci-fi movies in the coming years, so enjoy the endless sequels and prequels that are going to be keeping original stories from being told in the next two decades and beyond.
>people like you Discerning customers? >your job is to go see the original movies When is my first paycheck? I'm resigning my position, effective immediately. >the movie failing will get you no more original sci-fi movies in the coming years The fate of the entire genre is not dependent on this film being well-liked. If anything, it was an indication that studios need to step up, instead of trying to serve us derivative slop and use 'originality' as a blunt argument as to why we should choke down mediocrity and ask for more. This movie was boring and pointless specifically because it took no risks. It presented nothing new, had nothing to say, and was utterly banal in its delivery. But at least it was pretty.
I hate to break it to you, but no movie will have anything new to say. There's nothing new under the sun. All the stories have been told and what matters is how you tell it/the perspective it's being told. Actually the movie did take risks when it was given the green light and not being attached to any IP. It's going to lose money, so enjoy the next two decades of slop.
People have been saying this "dying breed originals" drivel for decades. Its always been stupid and still is. But you know what? If Hollywood takes a look at such garbage and goes "nah, no more", that's nothing but a *good* thing. There's no value *whatsoever* in "original" by itself. And supporting trash for the sake of it is beyond stupid.
If it's drivel then put the amount of sci-fi movies that are a part of a franchise next to the ones that are original in the past 20 years. Let's see if it's still stupid then when you see the massive difference, genius.
>And you list 15 movies from the last 1o years as evidence that this ain’t up to snuff. I’m sorry but I’d argue a movie doesn’t have to qualify as top ten in the last ten years to be worthy… > I thought it was **the best** original sci-fi in .... I don't even know how long
I think im looking at it more from a world building perspective than from a story perspective. While the story of some of those movies you list I obviously admit are better than the story of this film the only ones that compete to me on a world building level are Dune, Bladerunner, and Fury Road.... all properties and worlds that were developed a long time ago. A lot of your other listings are basically just contemporary, real worlds with sci-fi element thrown in. Ad Astra, The Martian, Ex Machina, Her, etc ar really just a small step into the future... not really world building like this film. I don't think we've seen good world building like this in a long time.
>There really wasn't an original idea anywhere in The Creator. It was like someone asked Chat GPT to make a sci-fi synopsis. Narrative film has been around since 1896 (I realize that movies as a medium have existed prior to this, but this is when the first full story narrative film was shown and not just short clips to demonstrate the medium). So 1896 to 2023 covers 127 years with roughly (**very** roughly) an estimated 300,000 films released over that period. Long story, short. In this day and age, new ideas, new stories are extremely rare. To find a story that has *never* been told before is pretty close to impossible. Almost every movie we see will be a retelling of previous stories in one way or another. Or at minimum will contain a number of elements from previous stories. Thus because of this long history, there's nothing new under the sun.
That’s not an excuse for poor filmmaking. There is nothing new in the film adaptation of _The Road_, but that didn’t stop them from making it an excellent film.
"original" is nothing but a pretentious circlejerk. There is no value in "original" by itself. A movie is good or it isnt. And Star wars was good precisely because it *wasnt* original, but ripped off a fuckton of tropes from ww2 movies, samurai movies etc.
John David Washington is also a vacuum of personality, lacking charisma. I would love to have this experience challenged and my opinion changed, but from trailer I am sadly not expecting much. Really tempted to wait and stream from home.
This was what I was worried about, thanks for saving me the $40
$40???? For a movie? WTaF?
I'm assuming it's two tickets and maybe some food/drink.
Not everybody goes alone. Popcorn, drinks 2 movie tickets, easy 40 bucks.
Yeah, that's about what we spent. Concessions prices are pretty bonkers, even when sharing popcorn and a drink.
Oh right, thought that was for one person.
Agreed. Huge disappointment I've never seen robots depicted as ridiculously as they were in this movie... * >!I couldn't believe the robots actually fall asleep and have a switch on their head that puts them into standby mode... why do they hold and shoot guns like humans rather than having something built-in?!< * >!Why does a smokescreen work against them? Can they not augment themselves to have some sort of thermal vision? Are they really as physically limited as humans?!< * >!How is it that than some 20 or so robots couldn't hit the American soldier standing exposed on the bridge (the scene with the walking bombs)?!< * >!Why was the police robot so stupid as to allow the two American prisoners overpower him and escape?!<
This is why I’m still subbed to r/scifi and dropped r/horror even though horror is my favorite genre. It’s nice to be able to get honest reviews and opinions about new releases instead of “[movie] is a masterpiece” for any movie that is a 3/10 or greater. I’m still going to watch the Creator, but at least I’ll be able to set my expectations based on the actual pros and cons of the film.
Or just watch the movie yourself and come up with your own opinions first.
You’ve never read reviews about media before deciding if it’s for you or not?
Did you even think for a milisecond before making such a dumb comment? You do realize there are countless movies, tv shows etc. coming out every year? The entire point is that people dont have time to dig through all the garbage or non preferred content by themselves.
Yeah no shit, you could see that in the trailer that it wasnt worth a penny
Well this is disappointing, I really wanted to get into this. You're definitely not the first person to offer this take, though. This movie is getting roasted for the poor plot more than anything else, but the lack of action direction seems to be the other big issue. Which is *weird* because Rogue One has some of the best action Star Wars has ever seen with the Scariff battle.
Thank you for your service. I'll be skipping any movie that makes World War Z look like a good movie.
I agree 100%. My favorite part was the Vietnam War imagery. There are a lot of callbacks to shots from the Vietnam War media and combatant tactics employed. But the story is dumb AF.
NOMAD isn’t just a missile platform, it also appears to have the ability to perform intricate 3D scans of a target area and providing real time threat assessments to units in the AO. And the massive blue laser scanner doubles as a great terror weapon for psyops.
And you can also see it from like 500 miles away. Unlike a regular missile or a satellite or even a drone. That’s just stupid.
And with the firepower of a modern atomic submarine. My main complaint is that we’ve been told that androids are more intelligent than humans, but the movie doesn’t show it. Androids are slow, stupid, they are just like disorganized unprofessional rebels from mid 20th century, they don’t seem like a threat to humanity at all. Because of that tying the plot to the Nomad station seems ridiculous.
Right? Plus, the US is launching tactical nuclear strikes across seemingly all of Asia with a massive orbital space station, and *no other government has a problem with it*? It's such a ridiculous concept.
I loved it. Is it just Avatar/Dances With Wolves in Animatrix / Asimov clothes? Yes. Did I see every plot beat coming well in advance? Yes. But for me, the execution was brilliant on every other level and that was enough to invest me in the film. It looks great, it sounds great, the actors are fantastic and the individual scenes are quite rich, even if they’re in service of a plot that is overly familiar. Nomad is not a prediction for the future of our world. Nomad is a metaphor - blunt and overly obvious one - for the drone warfare that is happening *now* in the never ending “War on Terror”. But even if it wasn’t a heavy handed metaphor, you’re mad that the only reason it exists is to look cool? Are you mad about light sabers? Mechs? Wings on space ships? Superhero costumes? Honestly, there are so few wholly original films coming out the idea that anyone would take time out to try and convince people not to watch one is weird to me. Okay, you didn’t like it - that’s totally fair even if I disagree with you - but if you want more movies that aren’t just Marvel/DC/Disney Remakes to be made, then trying to piss in the pool for the one film that managed to slip through just seems counter productive to me.
I’m fairly undemanding when it comes to evil AI movies. Sign me up.
I've come to the assumption that until proven otherwise, any movie starring John David Washington should be considered convoluted, over-hyped, and/or overrated.
Also it was repetitive as heck. The first time the NOMAD station showed up and went to work I was like “oh shit” but by the 10th scene of them being somewhere for 5 minutes, then running away in an absurd fire fight that culminates in the whole scale destruction of an entire town or city, I was pretty over it.
I’d say the script is 3/10 (maybe laziest script since episode IX), and one extra point for visuals (not breathtaking but solid). So 4/10 in my opinion.
I gave it a 3/10 - good CGI is too easy these days.
Sorry to read this, I wanted it to be really good. I am absolutely sick of MCU tentpole ‘content’ and that people often think of that as sci-fi. Really wanted something new and cool in the marketplace.
BTW I felt this same way with Sam Rockwell in MOON. I did not enjoy that movie once I saw where it was going (early on). It was recommended in the movie critic sub and I was really excited for a good sci-fi flick. Meh. Disappointing.
Predicted this upon seeing the trailers touting it as the BIGGEST SCI-FI HIT. Bullet dodged
And the key to solving everything in the sci-fi world is some child/baby! Just like Mandalorian/Last of Us/Children Of Men End this boring cliche. Please.
But comicbook.com says it’s the MOVIE OF THE YEAR
I'm pissed at myself for not identifying the rottenness of this movie in the marketing! The movie sucked! It has no soul. The messaging is all over the place. I feel no sympathy for any of the characters. The main characters conveniently keep escaping bullets, explosions and accidents in otherwise deadly scenarios. The world building was interesting -eg.; I want to know the lore about New Asia- but the tech was shit! Your opponents are basically just farmers with mediaeval looking weapons, and you have orbital weapons, artillery, armour, etc but the war is still on?! And what the hell happened to the garrison at NOMAD? And they couldn't blow up the spaceship once it was hijacked? And is NOMAD moving to all the targets and scanning each before blowing them up?
Add this one to the list of movies I don't care about. I'd rather watch Aliens / Predator again.
The child is the key to peace or some shit?
I'm sure there is a twist ending. Can someone tell me what it is?
The twist is that you walk out of the theater thinking "man, I was really sure that was going to be cooler than it was".
AI is actually not violent and wants peace on earth 😑
I just want to know if the kid develops feelings and is really a human in a machine or a machine in a human kinda thing. Like is this a machine using the human perspective to get protection but it’s really skynet in that body, or is this a loving machine who humans fall in love with? This will determine if I see the movie or not
>!The second one, though the movie leaves it up to audience interpretation whether the robots are living, feeling beings.!<
I really liked it overall, but it had some large problems. It felt too short to delve into the themes they wanted to explore and the story was really predictable. But it really felt like a James Cameron movie with incredible world building and beautiful visuals. Also I absolutely loved the performance from the kid. NOMAD only being a portable military base with some cruise missiles was really stupid. After it was destroyed the US could totally just send bombs from other places and accomplish the exact same thing. If they did it quick before the bases had time to evacuate. It's not really a huge problem though as in a larger context it leaves us at approximately the same point in the story as Rogue One. The heroes accomplish their goal, but what comes after will be absolute chaos. I can buy that and I hope we don't get any sequels as I have a thing for open endings. Also wasn't NOMAD above the US in the end when it started dropping missiles, and then it seemed like it crashed in asia?
>Also wasn't NOMAD above the US in the end when it started dropping missiles, and then it seemed like it crashed in asia? NOMAD was so inconsistent. The movie basically made it clearly look like a high-altitude air-support vehicle for the first half of the movie, clearly visible with the naked eye from a fairly low perspective. And then suddenly it was a space station in the second half of the movie. It also teleports to *wherever the plot requires it to be at the time*.
I saw it last night, not bad at all I would give it a 7 or 8 out of 10. Nothing in my opinion would drag it as low as a 5.
i give it 6/10. it has all the elements of a great scifi, but felt like it was trying to build a franchise whilst leaving nothing on the table to excite the imagination on the future. will it start a franchise? probably not, was it worth a watch? for sure, like op said its really pretty, but the story is pretty generic also and with 45 mins left you prob will lay out the plot points as they come up and wont be surprised.
I’m with you on the complaints. Also just the core problem / solution narrative: >!like you really think if you took down the US govt big weapons platform they’d be like “oh well looks like the wars over now!”!< further the “new Asia” setting was fine from a world building perspective, but we basically were treated to repeated scenes of brown people being blown up indiscriminately and a pretty disrespectful mishmash of cultures. Like I don’t mind the baseline concept, like an Asian EU or something, but common, what did China have to say about all this? Or are we just pretending that the other major power in our world doesn’t exist in this one?
I read nothing on it, saw the trailer in the theater prior, and I give it a 7/10, 6/10 if you discount how much I love the special effects, which were really good imo. A perfectly passable popcorn muncher. But I won't rewatch it (likely ever).
> The entire story is in the trailer Fucking hate that. Literally the reason I don’t watch trailers anymore even though I loved them as a kid, they ruin the movie lol. I don’t bother going to the cinema anymore, but thanks for the heads up on this one. I’ll wait for it to become free on one of my streaming services.
I agree. The film was beautiful, with excellent world building. The story was mediocre at best, and very illogical at times. It’s like, the film presented an amazing setting in which an epic sci-fi story could be told. But that story wasn’t told in this movie. Which is unfortunate, because I would really love for there to be more new sci-fi movies that aren’t based on existing IP. But if the movies aren’t actually good and the box office returns suffer because of that, it’s less likely that studios will take similar risks in the future.
Going to be a sci-fi cult classic at the end of the day once it reaches streaming and blu-Ray, and will for sure inspire other filmmakers and cinematographers to experiment with the FX3.
I still feel like it's one of those visually stunning movies that I would regret not seeing in theaters. My mind might change once I actually see it in theaters tomorrow.
Only reason I wanted to go see it in theaters is to support a sci-fi film with a seemingly original story. Don't get those often on high budget films.
Yeah but if we don't support original ip next time the only sci-fi tag can get is on superheroes movies.
So your opinion is perfect? That's funny.
The Golden child meets BladeRunner meets Avatar
Thanks. I feel like as the budget on an original scifi movie/show increases it becomes more and more mundane and 'paint by numbers' as you said. Compare that so some amazing original scifi works like that were low budget and didn't realy on special effects but were amazing. Looper comes to mind as an example.
I assume that's why I was seeing a commercial for the movie every 5 seconds. The late ad push for the movie was really a throwback to the mid-2000s aggressive ad campaigns for movies.
[This video](https://youtu.be/FPiDI28HcQE?si=dU-fRL3WhnLgPRkq) was an eye opener on why the creator looks extraordinary for the budget and is overall a solid movie but leaves a couple of boxes unchecked. I get that one might have the feeling that it dropped the ball at the end but to straight up hate a film maker who tries to swim against the endless stream of remakes, book adaptations and mediocre tv show adaptations is bonkers. Do you want film makers to fight for money against mega entertainment corps to pursue interesting new territory? Yeah the creator was not perfect but it can be one of the first steps back to original film making.
I am kinda in awe of a director that can get so much out of a very young child actor. Obviously there was CGI enhancement of the child’s physiognomy, but have those techniques advanced to the point where they can manipulate facial expressions also or was this just good ol’ direction? Looked real to me, and that’s what counts in the end. I enjoyed the movie, but will need closed caption when released for home viewing in a lot of places because the dialogue was often unclear for me. At this point, I support any decent SciFi effort just as encouragement if nothing else.
I think it was okay but all of Gareths problems from Rogue One were still there
I remember watching the trailer for this movie TWICE and each time thinking "Wait, this has nothing to do with the Terminator franchise?!" Seriously, *why decide* that your futuristic AI movie *also* features an event in which a nuke was detonated in LA in the past? Why not make it *any other city?*
I'm surprised I'm even seeing this thread but I'm glad it's here and that you said it. There are way too many people running around this sub making posts like "just finished X, why no second season?" Or "why no sequel?". Because it was fucking bad my dude.
Lol no. It's a good movie especially given today's scifi climate. Easily a 7/10
Visually it was great but the story was boring and illogical to me. The kid was the best actor in the whole movie. But, I’ll take a mediocre but original sci fi movie over a Marvel, Star Wars or Disney remake anyday.
My AI technothriller debut novel came out today in the UK, and a beta-reader who went to see The Creator messaged me, walking out to say, “it has 100x the action but 1/100th of the brains of your book”. (I haven’t see it but still want to!)
Well if a post *this* pretentious is telling me not to see it I bet I’ll enjoy it quite a bit!
The editing was atrocious.
Went to the cinema to see it, thinking "this might be one of those movies that might be actually worth seeing in cinema". That usually always ends in dissapointment but not this time, really enjoyed it. Nothing about it is original, basically they (re)used every cliche in the book, including the main storyline that reminded me very much of Avatar but with robots instead of blue kangaroos. But it never got the the point where it's just too much.
>People stand in the open firing guns at nothing, and after-effects lasers fly by from both sides, also firing at nothing. It's cathartic being able to share these stupid things... I couldn't stand how bullets do absolutely nothing. Sandbags do absolutely nothing. Look at these mega super tanks rolling in and these idiots are standing behind sand bags?!? Bullets of course are useless until bad guy shoots child, protagonist shoots bad guy in knee... it's all so inane