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.
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.
Ice cream delivery. Here you go. I'm speaking in English, even though I am in Neo Vietnam. Please leave a review. Stand by hey Konnichiwa. Hello. Ni hao Lü de language configuration. Hello, welcome to a new episode.
Speaker 2:The people listening are just going to be like what the hell is happening to you.
Speaker 1:If only you guys watched a movie as well which you definitely should to get the reference.
Speaker 2:Hey everyone and welcome to Movies Worth Seeing. I'm Michael Pishoneri, joined by Martin Jung for another episode. Today we are reviewing the Creator, directed by Gareth Edwards. This is a bit of a sleeper hit, in a way.
Speaker 1:Oh yeah, 100%. Yeah, I mean, people are talking about it, but it's gone under some radars for sure. I agree.
Speaker 2:I feel like people are talking more about this movie due to its modesty as far as like its modesty with its lower than usual budget for a movie of this epic scale and the trailers did a very good job of not spoiling a lot about this, and we're going to try very hard to not spoil it either and give you guys a great insight into what you could expect from watching the Creator. I think there's a good mix of a lot of futuristic, post-apocalyptic type of films from this genre.
Speaker 2:Neo cyber punky kind of future, yeah you got like Blade Runner, Terminator 1 and 2 before it all went to shit. Irobot was another movie that the more I kept talking about this review with Martin, the more I was like oh my god, that's like iRobot and that's like iRobot.
Speaker 1:And now with strong comparisons to Detroit Become Human. I think it's a PlayStation exclusive game, yeah. And then we were discussing how, without spoilers, that a lot of the story beats and tropes are kind of like things we've already seen in past movies and past mediums before. It's not exactly reinventing the wheel, but what it does do you know, does very well.
Speaker 2:I thought that, even though the Creator uses a lot of tropes from futuristic genre films, it did a great job of standing out from those movies due to its own execution, its own grittiness and world building and the performances from Madeline Yuma, the child actress that plays this artificial robot with real life emotions. I feel like when you watch a movie with kids, it's either going to be really shit or it's going to be really great, and this was. This was definitely more Logan than it was. Jurassic World could be a good example here. What other movies have terrible child actors? We went too crazy about Black Adams child actor.
Speaker 1:Oh, I wouldn't know, because I still have not watched Black Adam and I don't intend to. Yeah, oh, you didn't watch it. No, I still haven't. No, why did?
Speaker 2:I suffer through that. How did I let you on the podcast and you didn't even have to suffer through that crap? I mean, I really wasn't missing much with that episode was actually pretty funny because you managed to take what we were talking about and it almost felt like you knew the movie.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I got the gist of it. Yeah, for sure, for sure.
Speaker 2:Anyway, give him back to the creator for a brief synopsis. The creator is about Joshua trying to remember the character names here. Joshua is James David Washington.
Speaker 1:John.
Speaker 2:David, ah, john, david Denzel Washington's son, which I didn't know that, and neither I know that. I'm like, holy crap, that is amazing to imagine having to live through those footsteps. How are you going to step?
Speaker 1:out of the shadow. What a high bar A high bar.
Speaker 2:I would honestly probably go. You know what, dad? I don't want to be an actor. I'm going to go serve ice cream to children at Baskin Robbins for the rest of my life.
Speaker 1:Imagine how Michael Douglas felt when he first stepped on a scene. But you first knew him from the protagonists and tenets, right, yes, and the acting in that movie compared to this one.
Speaker 2:I knew him from Tenet. I've seen him in other stuff black clansmen. He was in that with Adam Driver.
Speaker 1:Oh yeah, ah yes, yes, yes, I know that one, so that's him. Yes.
Speaker 2:He's someone that, like you can tell, is a good actor. He's a very good leading man and yeah he's been around the block. He's been yeah.
Speaker 1:A bit of a household name, for sure.
Speaker 2:You can see him evolving and you can see that this is like he's really rising above the ranks here. Yeah, he's in mainstream Hollywood movies, For whatever reason. I didn't like Tenant and I felt watching him. In Tenant the acting was very wooden but I had a sense that that was more to do with Christopher Nolan's directing than it did with him as a performer. Fair enough, Fair enough, and I was right, because he was phenomenal in this.
Speaker 2:From the get-go, from the opening sequence of the creator, it froze the character right into this emotional turmoil of losing loved one and dealing with the inner conflict, dealing with the prejudice of how he feels towards robots, AI, whatever, the cyborgs, whatever you want to call them. We, the audience, without spoiling too much of the movie, we are given this information about a very critical event that happens to the world, which is the catalyst for the division between robots and humans, causing a war. But it's not really a war because AI just kind of want to live in peace and harmony and you get the sense it's more like the humans trying to attack them, which is very similar to Avatar. You got the blue people just minding their own freaking business and then all the humans coming in. They're like we got to get their resources, man, because they got unobtaining and more irate and whatever they called it. Then it became whale blubber in Avatar 2.
Speaker 1:Yeah, Just the same old. Like you know, human condition rearing its ugly head again of you know, not tolerating, you know, difference and just fear of those people that are trying to just coexist with us in peace and the potential threat they pose to us and vice versa, and so on.
Speaker 2:I really loved that the humans in the creator have a completely justified motivation for their prejudice, for their hatred towards the AI, Whereas in Avatar you feel like the humans are just this very one dimensional.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Billions that just want to take over the world.
Speaker 1:Ultra capitalist resources, everything I've got a quota, I've got a good exploit and extract and all we can from this planet and its natives and abuse them. But then, yeah, in this movie, about three quarters in, I think we both got the sense. I was like, yes, on the textbook definition, the human characters are the antagonists, that they fit the description. But yeah, it's like we didn't really get the sense that we hated them. It's like we hate them for all they've done. It's like we didn't feel like they 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 going against the robots. So to this degree, you know, to such military, you know might.
Speaker 2:I mean, there was some initial moments where I was like, ah, they're just going to present the humans as the absolute biggest pieces of shit. There was one soldier that was like he was holding a dog hostage. Oh, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1:Oh yeah, oh, that's right, that's right. Yes, yes, yes, that was a particular moment, but that was the biggest moment of one dimensionality, though, and from then on it was more gray area. It's kind of like also in Game of Thrones as well when you come to the big battle, you're not sure, because you've been following these characters all along on their arcs you don't know necessarily who you're supposed to be rooting for. Yes, and it is by definition, the humans are the antagonists, but it gets only on a strictly definition basis, though.
Speaker 2: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 be the ones destroying the humans, but somehow the humans have better technological resources, which isn't very. It's not explained in the creator.
Speaker 1:That's actually true.
Speaker 2:I found that kind of interesting.
Speaker 1:That more military might for sure.
Speaker 2:Yeah, the AI are presented as like very what would be the word? I mean like peaceful soldiers that are just dealing with their resources. They don't have like these high tech gadgets or anything like that. I guess it's very similar to the blue people.
Speaker 1:I guess that comes from the fact that they're very clearly drawing from real I guess this is only very slight spoiler, because I don't think the 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 with the military might, and then the AI people have given rise to a new civilization that has been rebranded as New Asia, and then this is like where the movie takes place. This is Neo Asia, neo Vietnam, with their own advanced technology, but then they're a kind of like pacifist. They just want to coexist, and it parallels real history, and so I could appreciate like the real life inspirations that they pulled from in that regard. So that could explain why it's like the humans are presented to have all this military might, but then the AI, despite being made of technologies, is technically 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 humans.
Speaker 2:They have more heart and soul and there's even like there was one line of dialogue where someone was like, oh my God, the AI have more heart than you guys do, and I was like, okay, let's just leave it at there and keep it at that level. Let's not go any further with on the nose kind of commentary here.
Speaker 1:And that brings into something that overall I thought this movie like even though it does have its religious allegories and its callbacks to real life, contemporary issues, like commentaries on American imperialism, the military industrial complex, vietnam War and then many retread tropes of like does AI have souls? And all that, I thought like putting 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 too preachy with those with any sort of like more philosophical themes that it's trying to scratch the surface on. That's all it does. It just scratches the surface of like religious allegories and stuff. There is one scene but I'm not going to talk about, which gets a bit too on the nose about that, but every sort of like philosophical sort of scene in this movie they just scratch the surface and move on and they get back to the main crux of the story, like there wasn't the gray area that I kind of wanted, where who are the real bad guys?
Speaker 2: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, humans are the villains.
Speaker 1:It still needed to be sub three hours, which is why I think it necessitated not delving too deep into having philosophical arguments and all that you know. Keep it on the three hours, and if any longer, then they're going to have to make it episodic because, yeah, lots of twists and turns in the story, almost to a fault, where, as the movie was like three quarters in, I was wondering like, wow, this is still going. Like there's so many like fade to black moments. It's like, oh, wow, the plot is still developing. Geez, louise, how is this going to keep on going?
Speaker 2:I mean I was enjoying the ride, but I was also like it's getting, it's getting. I could end here and then lead to a sequel. I could end here, could end here, and then it kept going on and on and I was like all right.
Speaker 1:Okay, I mean it's what happens with the plot, but it needed the runtime to tell the story. It was telling, but it was getting on quite a bit.
Speaker 2:You were thinking that there was going to be a post-credits scene or something to set up something else, but this is perfect as like a neat little package yeah, self-contained you know, Did it leave us pondering any questions like philosophical questions? Not really.
Speaker 1:No, really it's like a nice to have, I suppose. For what it is, I think at its heart you're in it more for like action rather than sort of like food for thought, sort of like. You know it's like thought provoking sort of themes to take home with you, to leave you like wandering as you drive home. Whatever, it's not that type of movie. I don't think it's more popcorn kind of movie.
Speaker 2:I definitely did not expect it to have as much action as it did, oh yeah, but there was plenty of deaths and explosions. I mean, from the first 10 minutes, straight away, it threw us in the deep end of. This is what you can expect from this war and the casualties lost, and it's just it's constantly reminding you of the emotional stakes involved, the human casualties like we don't really get too attached with anyone before they're like oh, they're gone, boom Blown away.
Speaker 1:No plot armor, maybe with the exception of the protagonist. The protagonist yeah, without spoilers. Yes, quite a few close shaves where you would think, at the very least you should have a ruptured eardrum, you know.
Speaker 2:I mean like there's some tropes in this. So to get into some of the tropes I mean not spoiling anything from the trailer we know that there's a child AI robot and they're presented as like the key to ending the war. So there's that trope of like the one. They're the one, and we're never quite given the clear answer for why they're the one.
Speaker 1:Mind you, they do a kind of sort of explain, but, like without, we're not going to say what the answer is.
Speaker 2:Like you have to watch the movie, but for you it flew over your head, it was kind of bullshit in my mind of like no, I don't think that makes sense and that's too coincidental, and there was just a feeling of like everything has to tie up even if it makes no sense to the story, Whereas well, one of the other intellectual properties we brought up was that is very similar to this creator is the last of us.
Speaker 1:You've got a child who is kind of the key to unlocking everything or the key to the future, and this male protagonist who's very reluctantly the reluctant surrogate father figure, yes, who starts off with a frosty relationship and then, you know, they bond over the duration of the movie, you know, and then they have. You know the emotional moments. You know it's a, you know a beaten path. You know, at this point, this sort of dual dynamic, of course, which, as we said, is done in this movie as well. Is it done? Well, yes, I would say yes, but not to the caliber of, say, logan and Laura, or Joel and Ellie. It's not as good as that. It's still good, don't get me wrong. Just not up to those levels like last of us levels or Logan levels.
Speaker 2:I think that what would have benefited this story is the protagonist, josh. When he gets introduced to this child child robot, his prejudice is kind of falls very quickly. I wanted to see more of him showing how much he hates robots, like when you watch iRobot. Will Smith is like get out of my face.
Speaker 1:In iRobot. Do they show why he's so prejudiced against robots? Is there a backstory that's shown on screen, or implied, or because I haven't watched it? Oh, it's great.
Speaker 2: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 piled into him and in the other car was a child. He was trying to save the child but he couldn't get out of the car. A robot comes and saves Will and Will's like save the girl, save the girl. And the robot saves him because he made a calculation that his character had a 38% chance of survival.
Speaker 2:And the kid had like a 5%, the cold hard maths, yeah so. But like from the get go, when you meet that protagonist, he's thrown his face in front of robots, he's talking shit about them, he's shooting robots very nonchalantly. I wanted to see that with Joshua in this, just for a little bit. They kind of do explain the reasoning for his prejudice.
Speaker 1:It's the same reason with a lot of characters we won't say what the inciting incident is. It's so much we have to skirt around with our spoilers. But it's not serviceable enough, you saying, and it gets dropped too easily.
Speaker 2:It just comes back to. If you make the prejudice really strong, front and center for that character, then it will mean more when his growth happens, when he changes, when he has to change, when he has to accept this person. And the creator did something with its story where it was kind of like that, cheapened it, where it became oh well, that's why he's so accepting of the child. Oh yeah, you know what I mean.
Speaker 1:Yeah, we can't say what it is, but that is something that, if what you suggested was done, then it could have elevated this movie from pretty good to like actually quite really good. Yeah, I don't know how it's phrased, but it's like well, what I've done, though it's still serviceable. But you know, just needs like just a little. Maybe minor tweaks would have really elevated for sure. Had they done like minor tweaks, I think the runtime would still be around the same. You know, Just needs a bit of like clever sort of like reshuffling.
Speaker 2:Just like a bit more pizzazz, a bit more spice.
Speaker 1:Yeah, of, like you know, character dies.
Speaker 2:Symbolism or moral ambiguity. Joshua is introduced to us and it's clear he is the hero. There's no moments where you think to yourself, like you know, he's going to learn the lesson. There's no ambiguity about that. Like when you watch Blade Runner and you see Harrison Ford Deckard shooting replicants very cold and callous, and you see his journey. He does some stuff that you think to yourself, wow, he is not the hero, it's not an anti-hero. I don't know what he is, because he is a flawed character.
Speaker 1:Why should we root for the flawed character? So then you watch on to find out what's he going to do to redeem himself in our eyes, sort of thing. If this movie had that kind of arc, yeah, I would have liked to see that.
Speaker 2:I think it would have made it a bit more exciting for the ending.
Speaker 1:Fun is like safe enough that it's not preachy. So then it can have a bit more of license to maybe be a bit braver and push the moral boundary, it's boundaries in terms of, like, it's philosophical discussions and so on Also like certain things are used to enhance the story.
Speaker 2:You think it's going to come back later and it doesn't. For example, joshua this isn't a major spoiler. Which moment Joshua has like an artificial leg? It doesn't come into the story at all, like it makes no difference whatsoever. There's no like superpower that comes out of it. It doesn't get him through a tricky situation. Not that iRobot is like a 10 out of 10 movie or anything like that, but they show you the artificial limb. It plays into the backstory, plays into the prejudice that he has towards robots, but he also uses it to even the playing field when he goes one on one against another, robot in hand, to hand combat. I was hoping to see that here and it just didn't happen and I was like what the hell's the point of giving him cybernetic arms? It'd be like imagine you play as Jax in Mortal Kombat and you don't use any special powers.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's a good sort of example to bring up Jax from Mortal Kombat. Whenever you have a character that has a physical ailment, like they've lost a limb or whatever, that actually plays into their character arc. They have to come to grips with the fact that they are now one arm less and then how do they get around that? And they plays into their emotional arcs. And then I was also suggesting maybe it's like there'd be scenes where the AI points out to Josh that, like you besmirch us AI's all the time, but you yourself rely on technology for battle prowess that you possess on the battlefield because it contains I don't know, like missiles or whatever the hand can dislodge and outcomes like bullets and whatever. You yourself are a hypocrite. You know you always like going being so prejudiced against us, but yet you yourself relies on technological advancements. What the hell? And you know that's just one of many examples of like how we could raise those kind of food for thoughts, kind of like discussions in this movie. That's just one method, though.
Speaker 2:It would have been a real good moment to have someone point out the hypocrisy of the humans. Use this technology to their advantage, but when it feels like it for them and when they feel like they're done with a particular technology or that technology doesn't agree with them, they just toss it aside and then, oh, now we've got to destroy it. Like you created the artificial intelligence but yet you take no responsibility for what happens after. Like play into that Show. The hypocrisy of humanity in that regard.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and also too, you know, maybe like Joshua, has phantom pains in his missing arms and legs, and then that's always what reminds him of the inciting incident that gave rise to his prejudice, you know, but Manosah ever plays into the point where I straight up forgot that he has missing arm and leg, you know, because, like the artificial one he puts on just has the same skin tone. Yeah, it's just like a little bit of metal.
Speaker 2:It reminded me of when we were watching Mortal Kombat Annihilation, and Jax was getting his ass whooped with the cybernetic arms and then he just takes them off. I got everything I need right here. I got it all right here, man, and he just beats Matar.
Speaker 1:So it's like, if anything, what's that saying? It's like Jax's robotic arms were actually holding him back. What the hell Anyway.
Speaker 2:How did we get on Mortal Kombat Annihilation?
Speaker 1:But yeah, you know, there could be moments where he's in a hostage situation and then he has to make do without his arm and leg and he has to be resourceful in how he escapes the situation. You know that was a missed opportunity.
Speaker 2:Well, there was going to be a moment where possibly there was a final battle against the villain and the villain takes his arm off to cheat in the fight and get an advantage.
Speaker 1:Man I'm just thinking of, like Call of Duty Advanced Warfare, and how the main protagonist also loses his arm and how that plays into the story, and how he has to sacrifice that arm to defeat Kevin Spacey's character. Oh man, oh yeah.
Speaker 2:Kevin Spacey.
Speaker 1:Advanced Warfare. Yeah, yeah, you remember that game.
Speaker 2:Oh man, no one's going to look fondly on that game anymore.
Speaker 1: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 does elevate, despite how familiar this movie archetype is, is just Gareth Edwards like VFX background. Fun little fact this movie was shot on that camera, right now, the Sony FX3. Yes, for the past like year plus, that we've been filming your podcast on the Sony FX3. And that's just amazing, like a consumer grade camera that you could buy over the counter at like JB Hi-Fi and so on, is being used in a multi-million dollar mainstream Hollywood project, if it's good enough for Gareth Edwards.
Speaker 2:It's good enough for me.
Speaker 1:And I think, like Gareth Edwards, definitely is someone that, like, no matter what camera he uses, he will be able to sort of convey a sense of scale with his VFX mastery. He's got a decade plus of it and you know he really put his money where his mouth was. Don't you agree that by the fact that he used a small consumer grade camera rather than like a big red camera or Well, just overall, I feel like the creator looks better than films with triple its budget.
Speaker 2:It looks better than Indiana Jones 5. Any of the faster, furious movies. I know that's probably not saying much. It looked on the level of like a Star Wars movie and ironically, Gareth Edwards directed Rogue One.
Speaker 1:Yes, rogue One, you can see the VFX history of it.
Speaker 2:He does a good job of not overusing CGI to the point where it's super obviously fake. You kind of feel like you're immersed in these worlds.
Speaker 1:It seamlessly blended in the real world, like photography that they captured in the real world.
Speaker 2:What did I say to necessity braids creation? So what?
Speaker 1:Ooh, I haven't heard that phrase, but I like it.
Speaker 2:Something about like when you don't have, what's the gist of that phrase? The gist of it is like if you don't have the budget or whatever, you're forced to get more creative with how you achieve those things.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's like obstacles lead to innovation, sort of thing. I wonder if it's like a self-imposed obstacle that he placed upon himself, though it did lead to this project.
Speaker 1:He did Rogue One on a modest budget, yeah, with the backing of you know Disney, LucasArts or I don't know LucasArts. It was owned by Disney back then. This was, like I think, one of the first like sort of big Star Wars movies, like spin-off movies that was not of the mainline episodic numbered Star Wars movies. It was before the days of Disney Plus and this was like fresh new territory. It's like we haven't seen like feature length, something that's outside of the numbered episodes.
Speaker 2:Rogue One was good, so I'm thinking that it must have been pre-Disney purchase. Okay, and then there was like solo around Disney purchase time, because that was that flopped.
Speaker 1:What a coenka dinky.
Speaker 1:There's something coincidentally about, and it was quite good though, and that's based on Rogue One's universe.
Speaker 1:So there's that silver lining, but what was the point I was trying to make?
Speaker 1:Oh, yes, but I was saying that, like you'd see, his VFX sort of, let's say, signature, and what I mean by that is that Gareth Edwards is very good at sort of conveying a sense of scale. When we were talking about, like us being thrown into the deep end, like you see, like missile strikes from. You know, the human technology and the way to really convey the destructive nature of it is to always have something in the composition before our human eyes to compare to. So when you have something more like a, let's say, a mountain or a tree or distant objects, like a human figure, we are able to instinctively get a sense of scale. And so when we see the blast radius of like a missile strike, and then you see a tiny like Sanpan dingy or something, and it's like, oh wow, now we get a sense of just how deadly this concussive blast is, you know, and it's backed up by phenomenal sound design and, you know, pretty riveting music as well, would you agree? Music was also quite grossing.
Speaker 2:I'm coming from dumb money, so coming from that terrible soundtrack, this was wonderful.
Speaker 1:Oh look, an actual, proper cinematic experience, you know, with proper orchestral scores. What is the budget I'm trying to say? I think correct me if I'm wrong I believe the budget altogether minus marketing is like 80 million 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 the biggest contributing factors was the fact that Gareth Evans used the Sony FX3. This is just how phenomenally resourceful the filmmakers were because of the fact that they're using and you can tell my camera, geekiness coming up. But I have to go into the deep end with this.
Speaker 2:I know it's coming out when you start yelling.
Speaker 1:I just need to yell and then they'll get millions of views. But like Sony, fx3 weighs like I don't know, let's say less than five kilograms. And so just by that alone and by the tiny form factor, it means that you don't need to like hire grips and gaffers to rig up with techno cranes and jibs and all the other like camera stabilizers to like that are graded for like heavy machineries, like the big Ari, alexa and so on. It's just a tiny consumer grade camera. So because there is less heavy machinery, don't need to hire as many crew members to operate the jibs and the gimbals and so on, and with less people you hire on, there's less labor cost. And also, too, sony is known for their low light performance. We can turn all of these house lights off now and then crank up the ISO to like 12,800 and it would be able to see us like as if it was daytime. So they just pretty much use practical lighting.
Speaker 2:That actually brings up a good point, because there's a lot of nighttime.
Speaker 1:Yeah, you know, you know in night times, even in sort of, for example, like a sound of freedom. It's like they have to. They have to rig up moon lights just for the camera to be able to see anything without it being too grainy by turning up the ISO, Because and here's a little thing cinema cameras mainly operate at ISO 800. But the Sony FX3 has something called a dual native ISO where when you jump into, I think, 12,800 ISO, it sort of like makes the noise of the ISO goes away. You know how when you turn up the ISO, you get really grainy and stuff. But when you jump up to like 12,800, it like sort of resets into a second circuitry and so, yeah, they just needed practical lights, because everyone had suits with, like the lights inside their helmet.
Speaker 1:I was a good point and so yeah, and so it's like it's minimal grains and so on, and so because of the ISO high ISO performance they did not need to have as many lighting rigs set up and therefore less lighting assistance, less gaffers. They literally just, I think, had like some flexible light on a boom arm and then just had one guy follow their protagonist. And so the downsizing of a film crew really contributes to not needing to spend so much, and you could invest that back into like location scouting and whatever you know.
Speaker 2:Because a lot of the film is shot at night. You can hide a lot of imperfections. You can hide the special effects. Things can look better because there's less effort, because it's not just out in the open in a brightly lit area.
Speaker 1:The only information you have is like the silhouettes of, like the distant mountains or something.
Speaker 2:Yeah, Well, like, even if you go watch Jurassic Park, the T-Rex attacks scene like it's raining and it's nighttime. Those were little things that were done to not bring too much attention.
Speaker 1:Oh, okay. Okay, I see what you mean. You can't stand big drone shots of like a sweeping landscape, but it's daytime. There's more VFX details you have to add in. Yes especially. Whereas if it was nighttime, there's like you can just hide it behind the fact that it's nighttime and it's dark. Okay, I get what you mean by that sense.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that's fair enough. The same with characters like robots. Don't need as much detail. Fair enough, Because the darkness is covering half of it anyway.
Speaker 1:You just need to have like a low texture sort of, and then have them blurt out in the background. Yeah, fair enough, fair enough.
Speaker 2:So things like that would have been very resourceful ways to cut down on the budget and video effects.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and also it helps that. Another thing that helps is that Gareth Edwards, like, said in an interview straight from a horse's mouth that, like the color science of this camera, it's very malleable in color grading, where he says, like the skin tone, it can be pushed like approximate enough to like film Kodak film stock. So he was a really big fan of that. And how? Yeah, because, like camera Kodaks, like you need it in a production pipeline for it to be hold up against like very heavy color grades, push and pull and so on, and so if, like, a camera has video Kodaks that can hold up to that, yeah, anyways, I'm geeking out.
Speaker 2:I hope you add a lot of B roll to those sections where you're talking, because I'm like I don't know what you're talking about.
Speaker 1:We don't even know what color science is it's like there's so much there's like a whole tech Color profiles. Yeah, color profile S log two, three. You know color grading without destroying the image is what I'm trying to say, and because we also watch this on a big screen, and on a big screen is where you can see if there are some imperfections and so on, but the footage held up very well, especially, you know, at night times.
Speaker 2:I also really liked the loudness of this movie because it was so great.
Speaker 1:Explosions and stuff.
Speaker 2:Yeah, but also because we had a bunch of dickheads in the back row where we were watching, making jokes and during the trailers and stuff. But then as soon as the movie started it was like they were completely drowned out and I was like, ah, this is great.
Speaker 1:Don't lean back on the chair. Modern ever again. Yeah.
Speaker 2:I mean you can if you want, oh, and I'm just not going to save you. It sounds like Batman in Batman Begins is like I don't have to save you, I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you. You could put that in the B-roll. That'll be funny. Final grading for the movie what would you give the creator out of 10?
Speaker 1:I think a seven out of 10. Seven out of 10. Like again lots of like philosophical and religious and contemporary sort of commentaries and allegories that they scratch the surface on and like sort of played it safe, which I think could have some. They could be a bit more adventurous and push those sorts of narratives Some more like nice to haves would be like to have a more believable like backstory as to why he's so prejudiced and actually commit to his prejudice rather than just like ditch it so readily. Really good acting from John, something.
Speaker 2:And Madeline Yuma, the child actress, was amazing.
Speaker 1:Yeah, something, something, washington.
Speaker 2:You forgot his name too Denzel Washington's son.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's three words. I'm Gemma Chan and Ralph Ironson, who I did not know was in this movie, but he is great in everything from like Final Fantasy 16 to Assassin's Creed 4, which Michael's only just started playing, even though it's been 10 years since the movie came out.
Speaker 2:So, unfortunately, it's freaking awesome. Black Flag is amazing. I didn't think I would enjoy sailing in pirate ships as much as I do, but yeah, it's not like a phenomenal movie.
Speaker 1:It's close. The things that knocked it down a few pegs is mainly a story, as we discussed, and so, because of that, seven out of 10 for me.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think it will go 7.5 out of 10. I think that the creator is a masterclass in resourcefulness as far as like using a modestly low budget. Compared to all these other Hollywood blockbusters, I felt the film was a breath of fresh air. It didn't come across as overly preachy and, considering its subject material, it didn't have any wokeness, which was amazing. Always love that, and there's lots of emotional beats that were done very well between Madeline Yuma and Washington.
Speaker 1:Something, john Dave.
Speaker 2: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, john David Washington, john David Washington. I also really like that. When you watch this for the first time, there's a lot of ambiguity about who the villain is. Yeah, great area Immediately set up where you know who the villain is and they don't come across as a cartoon character.
Speaker 2:I feel like the world building was very good and I felt immersed in this world. I really like the imagery. I liked little moments of levity. I just wish that the third act of the creator didn't go fully over the top and overly bloated with its set pieces and its action and I felt like it could have not tried to tie everything up in a nice little bow, that everything's connected. Sometimes things don't have to be necessarily connected, like with Joel and Ellie from the Last of Us. Like it means more that they're not father and daughter because he's a surrogate father that's looking after this woman like a reluctant hero, if that makes sense. I'm just saying you don't always have to connect all these little dots, and especially if it loses sight of the story. Cohesiveness, fair enough, fair enough.
Speaker 1:Sometimes some of the things they do does come to the detriment of how well tied together this movie is, for sure. Without spoilers, we can't really say what specifically does that. You'll know straight away when you watch it. You'll know what we mean. You'll be like ah, I get it. Some things do come to the detriment of it, for sure.
Speaker 2:The creators definitely. I put in, like iRobot fifth element, that level of 7.5 out of 10 sci-fi movies that I could watch again. They're fun. I suppose, but they're not as memorable as your Blade Runners. Your 2001 Space Odyssey like, not as philosophical.
Speaker 1:I think, if they could, they could be a bit more ambitious and push those boundaries for sure.
Speaker 2:Especially when you take tropes that are used so much, try and subvert expectations by doing something drastically different. For example, there were two films released in 1998 about like a meteor coming to Earth Armageddon and Deep Impact. Armageddon, you know, involves these oil miners going up to space and blowing up the asteroid. Deep Impact just ended on a spoiler alert. I mean it's a more than 20 year old movie but spoiler alert. Deep Impact just goes. What if the Earth just exploded? What if we lost? What if the asteroid just hits Earth and we die? So they're both memorable for different reasons. Just makes you think if those movies were both released in the same year and they both had similar endings, they wouldn't have the impact that they do.
Speaker 2:But one movie went for the super duper happy ending and the other went the complete nuking of the universe.
Speaker 1:Then again, if only one of those movies was released in isolation and they didn't have 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 it be as poignant though? That's my counterpoint to that. Though, if you only had the movie that had the bad ending, you know, is that still as impactful? You know, without the counter movie that had the good, happy ending, would it still be?
Speaker 2:impactful, hard to say. Would it still be as deep?
Speaker 1:of an impact.
Speaker 2:I think, that.
Speaker 1:Why are you not picking up the dad joke? It was like the third attempt, dad, just because.
Speaker 2:I'm bald doesn't mean I'm a dad.
Speaker 1:Give it time.
Speaker 2:Give it time, I will pick up on the dad jokes. I make the dad jokes, I don't pick up on them.
Speaker 1:Well, okay, here's a dad joke for you. Whenever you finish eating a meal at a restaurant and the waiter comes up and goes, okay, you enjoyed the food, just reply with well, can't you tell, I completely lost my appetite. That's terrible. Can't you tell, oh, I hated the food. I had to lick the plate clean. How did we this end in the dad joke fest? I don't know. But yeah, around 7.5 slash 7 out of 10. So you know, good can be much better.
Speaker 2:Good movie, not the most memorable, but as far as 2023 is looking, I enjoyed the film.
Speaker 1:It's good not because of the usual oh, it's because of these other movies that were released in 2023 that really soured our expectations of Hollywood. Not good in that sense.
Speaker 2:I'm talking like objectively good yeah 100% If you liked Rogue One as well. There's definite parallels there being from the same director.
Speaker 1:Yeah, visual parallels for sure.
Speaker 2:And movies like Chappy we talked about.
Speaker 1:Neil Blumkamp.
Speaker 2:yes, yes, that grittiness to it.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's like where the whole like the technology, cyberpunkery, sort of like Neo Asia Future thing, they don't like, yeah, go over the top with like all the neon colors and stuff. It's still somewhat grounded, don't you agree?
Speaker 2:Oh yeah, it's not like the Matrix.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's like, everything's like just like touch screens, like beep boop. It wasn't exactly that. Actually there was one point where I should add this to the VFX bit.
Speaker 2:There was one point where someone was using a pay phone and I was like what the hell is that shit?
Speaker 1:Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, out in the like farm lands and stuff, yeah, so there is still some, some hints of like the modern world, because I think this takes place in 2065, I think, yeah, around there, yeah, still in the 2000s.
Speaker 2:That was very strange to me seeing someone use a pay phone, though, in a world where there's AI robots and one that can take down like all these other robots and use EMP charges and stuff like that. But hey, man, we still need to use that pay phone.
Speaker 1:In this brave new future, you can have Japanese people speaking Japanese to each other 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 Nepalese monks who are religious for some reason. No spoilers, but you know that's some of the grapes that we allude to.
Speaker 2:Yeah, they should have had like a AI Buddha, like robot statue of Buddha.
Speaker 1:They kind of sort of did.
Speaker 2:yeah, they almost did. But you could tell someone was like, nah, that would be too stupid, let's not do that. Okay, let's not get too real. But legit there was one point where I thought a robot Dalai Lama was going to come out and just be like we are peaceful Namaste.
Speaker 1:Yeah, the religious allegro was getting a bit too close to real world resemblance, for sure. And yeah, for ethical reasons I don't, you shouldn't do that now. Anyway, I should add this to the middle of the episode.
Speaker 2:Totally, totally so. If you enjoyed this podcast, please leave a review at Movies Worth Seeing and if you're watching us on YouTube, leave us a like, share and subscribe to the channel, recently reached 4,000 subscribers. Thank you very much. Killing it. I'm continuing to experiment and try different stuff out. I've been trying some AI videos. If you like it, if you don't. I know that people like to comment and say negative shit all the time, but if you could try this out for a change, write something positive and don't write anything negative, just try it.
Speaker 1:Comment below. I know it's hard.
Speaker 2:I know it's hard with all the dog shit toxicity out there on the internet, but just try to write something positive without having to write a critique.
Speaker 1:It's okay. It's okay, you're speaking into the void. It's the internet. Okay, people are going to be contrarians. For the sake of it, just remember. We're living in a digital age where everyone is a self certified professional. Okay, they have to contradict everything 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 deaf ears. It's going in one ear and out the other. Okay, it's a lost cause. Just give up.
Speaker 2:One thing I was thinking would be funny is to do a video where I look at all my negative comments and read them out and react to them.
Speaker 1:You're fanning the flames. Don't do that, man, come on. You're fanning the flames.
Speaker 2:Well, like you said, there's always going to be negative comments anyway, so you might as well have fun with it, right?
Speaker 1:Man, you're becoming one of those toxic YouTubers. Man, you're going into a deep end. Okay, just be careful.
Speaker 2:Why is that toxic? You're just reacting to them and just laughing at them.
Speaker 1:You're going into a vicious cycle, okay. And then people are just going to keep on feeding negativity to you and that's going to get to you, man, just be aware, all right, okay.
Speaker 2:You sound like you've been through this. You sound like that old guy in those movies that's like oh man, I've been through some shit.
Speaker 1:I've seen some shit. I'm too old for this shit.
Speaker 2:Yeah, you sound like that.
Speaker 1:Comment below your thoughts on the creator. Have you seen it? Have you have? Did you like it you guys are a fan of, like Gareth Edwards or the guy. You as much of a camera nerd as me, you know. That's what got me into watching this movie at all, knowing that it was the same camera as the one Micro uses to film his podcast. And what I got out of it was actually very enjoyable. You know, action popcorn. You know I didn't expect that.
Speaker 1:And so, and then, now that we've done this episode, as I said, I think they could have been more ambitious with this philosophy, and so, and so just comment below if you agree that they should have pushed more boundaries in sort of like thought provoking, sort of like themes and so on in its storytelling.
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah, all right, bye, bye guys.
Speaker 1:Okay, see you next episode. Hopefully not Snow White, hopefully not the Aquaman or the Marvels or what's the other.
Speaker 2:Well, I want to watch Ninja Turtles, but you don't want to watch it and on that note teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Teeny Minty Ninja Turtles, ninja and Down.