@8:52 That on the pyramid! That's NOT Arabic! This is a bunch of Arabic letters, not properly connected and not the right way around. That's like writing "Cable" in English as "E L B A C"! Sorry, I had to point that out.
I always took the twins trying to buy the rights to play as Cable as the front of some criminal organization looking to fix the gambling angle. Because you just know there's gambling going on, and $100,000,000 is no small fee for 2 random groupies to get their hands on.
The basic problem with the "prisoners compete in death arena to earn their freedom as a prize" is always the same: It doesn't work because you're essentially training the most dangerous, murderous, psychopatic individuals alive to be the ultimate killers and promise that the most bloodthirsty of them all will be let loose upon society who will never see it coming until these human-mowing killbots have killed dozens unopposed.
I justified the deaths in the movie by pretending that the setting is in a future when society has an overpopulation problem. Having criminals killing criminals would be an enticing form of population control that the upper class would exploit for their own benefit. As a bonus, I also realized that releasing a murderer as dangerous as Cable would be intentional for the rich with the expectation that he will just kill again and be forced back into the game. I really wish the movie explored these areas more. It would have been so much more fascinating and thought-provoking.
It's Deadman Wonderland but instead of being a hellish gauntlet that does untold trauma onto prisoners such that even if they are released, they'd basically be PTSD afflicted shut-ins, it's action man actions his way through action so he can attain . There's not so much a critique of why the games in universe themselves are basically torture porn snuff films, but they go over the top and make the villain want to mind control the world, when clearly he's already doing the evil by making AR games where real humans face real consequences because of people taking away their bodily autonomy. When even The Purge does a better job explaining the state of the world and why such an unethical thing would even be tolerated, that's a problem. On top of that, Gamer has virtually nothing of worth to say about eSports culture, the psychosocial factors of massive multiplayer life simulations and the reasons they're enticing, and the games themselves just... Aren't as fun as actual videogames. It's basically Dexter wants to control the world, , Gerard Butler must survive The Hunger Games. Plus literally no prisoner would ever be released because even the best players in the world don't go 30 matches without a single death. Which might be the point but still. Human error happens to the best of us, professional athletes misstep all the time and cost themselves their best performance through some slight miscalculation.
You're missing the point: it's not a rehabilitation program, it's blood sport. Training brutal murderers is precisely what they're trying to accomplish. The reward of freedom motivates the contestants, but the game is almost always rigged in such a way that it is effectively impossible to win. In the rare event it isn't, there's usually some backup plan for what to do with winners that is usually not to just let them loose on the street.
This....it's been a while since I've seen the movie, but wasn't the turning point when he realized the game was fixed and that he wouldn't be allowed to leave?
This isn't an irreconcilable flaw. You're right, a "Most bloodthirsty among you goes free" competition is a Bad Idea. However, it can be justified if it comes from a place of greed/apathy/stupidity on the part of a character or group framed as corrupt/elite/stupid. This aspect of the setup can go onto inform stakes and characterization, if the main character is ruthless but not bloodthirsty and fights not only for his freedom, but also to protect society from his bloodthirsty opponents. This may be especially potent if the main character has something they care about in the outside world, and if the main antagonist within the competition threatens that something. If anything, trying to address the consequences on society of this genre basically write a story for you. A person gets put in a death arena for literally any reason other than bloodlust. He's separated from a loved one in the process. He kills bloodthirsty psychopaths because he wants to escape and also doesn't want bloodthirsty psychopaths running loose. The strongest of the bunch threatens to kill his loved one if he wins at some point before they're the final two in the arena. If you're lazy, he wins and the flawed system persists. If you care a bit more, he wins and also kills an antagonist within the system. If you're going for gold, he dismantles some of the system that created this deathmatch, possibly with the help of the other guy, who can be redeemed, redeemed with his final breath, or just killed before the rampage against the system begins. The only shame is that this aspect doesn't get adressed, leading to a stupid structure being endorsed as less stupid than it is because the creator is stupid for the same reason.
While I agree that the movie is boring, sadly I probably will never be able to forget this movie--for entirely different reasons. When Gamer was released, I, unfortunately, had been the recent victim of sexual assault, an experience I was still coming to terms with. Mix that with the fact I was in the middle of a six-year-long abusive relationship, and this movie was a bit distressing. Especially being blind sighted by the game 'Society'. I went to see Gamer with my then-best friend, his girlfriend, and his younger brother, because we saw the ads on TV and thought "A Death Race but with video games--cool." Society was never featured. So having the explicit scenes with Society was a bit...shocking, to say the least. Yes, yes, I realize it was done for the wife's plot for the movie, and it was weak commentary about society and done for shock value. I realize not everyone had the same reaction to it that I had. (Which is a good thing) Myself, I remember this movie upsetting me to the point that once the credits finished rolling, I ran to the theater bathroom and vomited. It took me six months to even watch ANYTHING that had Terry Crews in it. I remember having a full-on panic attack in the parking lot (because it was the last showing/movie that night), and my friends having to stay with me for TWO HOURS before I was okay enough to drive home. I swear, I have a point to all of this. The issue I have with Gamer honestly isn't even that (though, I do think it's a good idea to have SOME hint of it in your previews just as a head's up for consumers), but the fact that none of it amounts to anything other than to gross/shock out the audience. With no deep concept. Ultimately, for me, movies like Gamer end up being usually unsatisfying for that reason. I don't mind shocking imagery, but make it MEAN something. I realize I'm probably reading too much into this, especially for a movie like Gamer, but it's just something that bugs me. I felt like with Death Race, we had the commentary about the U.S. prison systems and the cliched message about society's obsession with violence, and honestly, as far as the message of living through someone else, I think Surrogates with Bruce Willis illustrates that better than Gamer. Add in the issues mentioned here with half-assed subplots of the hacker Humanz and the reporter (I forgot poor Kyra Sedgwick was even in this), as well as the clunky editing (yes I know they were going for a specific style, does not mean I have to enjoy it), and Gamer was just a mess of a movie. ...And I'm sorry for leaving such a long comment on here. Great video though!
Good points, and I’m sorry about your experience. It’s almost offensive to me when serious societal issues are used as meaningless shock value, because it’s almost disrespectful to those in real life who have fallen prey to those issues. All the best for the future :)
I agree. I haven't had such intense personal experiences myself, but I found the entire "society" aspect of the movie intensely disgusting and I hated how none of it was even hinted at in the advertising. I came to watch an action movie, but instead got a dreadfully slow action mystery revolving around a concept that belongs in a more graceful film.
It really sucks that the movie emphasized trauma in your own experience. I hope that you're doing better now (though, this timeline hasn't really been kind to a lot of folks, unfortunately). You're right and valid to want to criticize the film to improve upon it's faults as that can only help to increase your media literacy. If a film (or any piece of art) was worth talking about, then perhaps it made you hope that it was something better, and exploring the reasons why is a good thing. :)
I just want to thank you for the gamergate episode (that dont have comments I assume because some people are hogwasch) Im an old gamer woman that played in from 87 and forward (go nes !). I dont like playing with others/strangers online and missed the hostiles. This put my missing parts in the history together. My asumption was that gamers was friendly nerdy folks that had no grudges to OTHER gamers. I guess I was wrong...people are idiots
This easay pretty much gets at why Ready Player One was so bad. I'm in the theater watching this…thing…and within the first few minutes it's apparent that nobody with any degree of creative control had any knowledge of game mechanics, or even how players interact with each other. They made a nebulous non-game that nobody would want to play, then tried to pass it off as Bigger Than Minecraft. Doomed from the start.
All I remembered from this movie was the main character puking alcohol into a cars gas tank, and me being a dumb 12 year old, thought that was the most badass move ever.
How does you channel not have more views/subscribers? I feel like your content is very well put together, and you're clearly educated/informed. So where is the return? Is this a sub channel?
I watched this movie a few years ago and I never cared to watch this movie again, as you said. The problem is that I wouldn't mind watching it again now I've seen your take on it to follow the points you make more thoroughly
Remember that Cable is still a very skilled man, who is very healthy and strong and smart. This kid piloting him is chastised more often than my neice when shes on Xbox. Cable is doing most of the heavy lifting, which is why the kid is downplayed and the game is downplayed.
Society is 100% Sims, not Second Life. It's commentary on the voyeuristic nature of people that play those games/watch reality tv/etc. But man, the creepy stylized overly large sweaty gamer guy was super gross and unneccessary. Honestly, I don't think this movie was for people who love games. I think, like you said, it was just used as a framing device to address the morality of entertainment that caters to various human vices, and your usual themes of the corruption of capitalism and how it dehumanizes the underprivileged and makes commodities of them. But I do agree that something about it is forgettable, because I really did enjoy the movie, but it took your analysis to make me remember what even happened in it, other than Gerard Butler working with his player to save his wife.
The problem is in Sims, you get to watch fake characters interact as a omnipresent being with degrees of control over the environment and characters. Society, however, doesn't fit the bill, all you can see or control is through the lens of a single person, so Second Life really is the better comparison of the two.
ciao, sorry for the very late comment but i just discovered your channel and wanted to share a thought. leaving aside that gamer is a sub-par movie and has a level of structural critique comparable to a primetime sit-com on a major national channel (here in italy I would say 'rai uno', i think that in the us the equivalent would be the abc channel), i reckon that, in the fictional world of the movie the appeal of 'society' doesn't derivate from the sensorial experience but rather from the power-drunkness that comes with the idea of controlling a human being. i may be wrong but personally i thought that the idea that that was the appeal of both society and the shoot-em-up game that's at the core to the plot was the only original and subversive element of that otherwose dispensable movie.
I was honestly surprised to realize that I NEVER saw this movie! I mean, I've been aware of it's existence since it came out. I know I intended to see it, and I honestly thought I had. I've watched this video, before, and I remembered all of the scenes that are shown in this video. But no, I've never seen the movie. I mean, I SORT OF have seen it. That scene of Gerard Butler, picking up the dirt. Isn't that in "Gladiator"? So much of this film feels like other movies, and it feels like just by hearing the plot, my mind was easily able to construct the entire movie. That's... bad?
Like, is there a part where Kable has the player kid, like, give him back control of his body, or something? Can they talk to each other? It feels like they would need to. Imagine "Innerspace" if Quaid and Short couldn't communicate. That would be... Less good?
In my experience the better movies about gaming are the ones that don't depict playing a game, but adopt the structure of video games and don't even refer them to as being games.
2012 Dredd made me think a lot about this. I mean, the whole movie is about a guy who's ascending levels of an enclosed space (building), fighting stronger and stronger enemies, trying to reach the (literal) boss at the top... What could be more videogame-y, right?
I'm commenting on a years-old video about a years-old movie I vaguely remember watching, but it occurs to me an aspect that might have been missed in the analysis of this is the potential of sadism as a motivating factor for playing these games. I might be attributing too much cynicism on the part of the film-makers, but the sense there was meant to be a predatory aspect to the players humiliating and harming the actors.
The story and plot elements sound like it would have probably worked better for a Lexx episode. Maybe if the makers of the film were more willing to embrace its ridiculousness and go over the top absurdist they'd of created something that was more watchable, but it would still need better script writing.
As someone who plays “hardcore” shooters and has to deal with the worst people on the internet slayer would 100% appeal to those people. It wouldn’t be a huge game but it would definitely do beginning Tarkov or pre 1.0 Hunt Showdown levels of cult following
I thought that, too. You would think that, since experiencing the world of a video game is one of Sword Art Online's core appeals, it would make sure that the games it depicted were thought out properly or something. They have screwed up four games so far (SAO, Alfheim Online, Gun Gale Online and Ordinal Scale).
Teenage fans wanting to do something that would make them unpopular if they were allowed to do it is not at all unrealistic. I see that kind of behaviour regularly in fandoms.
Have you thought revisiting this like you did with Legend of Chun-Li? I'm not gonna go on a limb and say "Gamer is good actually" but looking at the movie now I think a lot of the stuff it was trying (and failing) to say is a lot more applicable to the current cultural moment than where we were like a decade ago. Ex. Micheal C. Hall's bad guy is incredibly on the nose of everything that makes Elon Musk an awful person, and "Society" being this place of reveling in making other people do miserable things so you can gawk and laugh feels far more persistent of shit like "irl streaming" and onlyfans.
I mean I would say "Society" is more the Sims than Second Life. Second life is really fantastical (furries, flying, etc) whereas the Sims generally has people control a dollhouse of humans where they can enact whatever human story they want to. This seems more like society where people enjoy flirting, having their sims go out for drinks, etc even when they themselves aren't doing those things. People enjoy that with the Sims so I don't see why they wouldn't enjoy that with Society.
Most of the complaints about the Sims also fit for Society. "Waiting in line, limited clothing options, etc but people still play and enjoy the game. Back in the day the Sims was the best selling PC game ever and continues to be generally successful even with the limitations you mentioned. Additionally "Misery, Tourism and Pornography" fits Sims pretty well.
Ready Player One was just okay. I didn't hate it. Spielberg is a master, but this was Lesser Spielberg. Fun & forgettable. B- Initially, Spielberg as director for this seemed like such a gift. A dream come true. But the more I think about it, the more I think Spielberg was actually part of the problem. Ready Player One was a love letter to the 80's, written by a guy who was a teenager during the 80's. Spielberg, crucially, was not a teen during the 80's. He can't possibly have that same feeling about the decade, and it shows.
Hey, i know. its old. like, really old. That stamp there says 2012. The Value of Cable, noted by the twins, I believe is in the fact that he is still a very, very capable Macho Murder Machine. He was a warrior before this tragic experiment right? And the avatar himself still has miles of experience, which, not all of the gameplay is based in the user, remember these humans in the avatar are not a controlled enviroment for the most part, Cable is a peak/near peak human, physically capable of reducing the inputlag from the user. Cable even has the game-sense (lol) to communicate with his user and offer tactical adive to a tactically stupid child (the kid sucks at battle scenes, i mean just look at his map positioning most of the time.) Cable is reducing risks by teaching the idiot between the keyboard and the chair. Unlike that crack dealer who killed sixteen kids, burned down a church at the same time, and is always on heroine. You got so wrapped up in the Sword Art Online part (which is a huge problem with this movie, as a gamer would tell you.) But as a gamer who understands that ticket buying families don't want to go to the theater to watch their son play video games at home.... i get it. I'm so sorry for commenting on this old shit.
It's rather late, but another problem with the scene where those two bimbos try to buy cable is that it is a totally out of place reference of the praxis of buying high level characters for real money. Cable is only special through to the success of his player, he has no real adventage as a "character" over anyone else. In a real Videogame, there is character progression that puts successful players in adventage over less successful players. In World of Warcraft at that time for example, a highly progressed character has a high adventage over other player character in every game mode. They have a higher level of armor, which means that they generally do more damage, have more live or can cast better heals than a character with a lower level or quality of gear. In many shooters, more expansive weapons also deal more damage or have a higher ammo capacity, which gives their owners adventages. I also felt that the whole premise of the film was an insult against the demographic this game wanted to pander too. It portrayes video gamers as sociopaths, who feel no empathy for living humans beings and have no problems with abusing or killing them. This in itself is already contradicted by the hugh success of heavily storydriven franchises which play with moral questions or have an high emphasis on the characterization of their characters. Games like Metal Gear Solid are not only popular for their gameplay, but also for their rich stories and characters. In reality, gamers forge a bond with their characters. Gamers feel empathy for characters like Psycho Mantis oder Sniper Wolf in their last living moments. Gamers cried over the death of virtual, fictional characters like Aerith Gainsborough in Final Fantasy 7, because they forged a emotional bond with her, just like people feel emotionally connected to characters lik books, screenplays and movies. Gamers hate Villains because they despise their immoral actions and standpoints. When many gamers can already cry about fictional beings like Aerith, when they can feel guilt about killing non-human enemies like the Colossi in Shadow of the Colossus or Sif in Dark Souls, how could games that only work under the sole premise of abusing real humans ever become that successful? It also puts no moral ambigiouty into the plot, which is normally the premise when confronted with new technologies. The game would have worked better with sentient machines as player characters, rather than humans. It would have put a moral dilemma into the story, when the gamer protagonist discovers that the avatars they abuse, rape and kill have human feelings on their own.
I kind of feel like an analysis of the game in the movie misses the point that this is in fact a movie not a game... more over... the specific flaws you listed about this being a bad game are not true for all games, just most of them and would probably not be applicable to this game even if they did apply to normal games of this type... case and point... rogue like games. and the Sims!
