https://old.reddit.com/r/8BitGuy/comments/1x8 … l_movie_is_now/

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2026-10-21, 20:17:

I watched it. I really cant congratulate him on it. It looks like many of the scenes only made it to the final cut because he made them but didnt know what was wrong with them and that they should have been regenerated.

If you know you know, if you dont then there is no point explaining it.

He has a long way to go.

The main problem with this "movie" isn't even the AI. It's the awful script.

You have a main character with no character arc or personality "rescuing" a hot goth girl with a traumatic past and then thinks he can fix her and get her to like him by showering her with kindness. The whole thing gives off creepy nice guy vibes.

It could work if he'd leaned into it as a horror movie (like Obsession or Misery), but that would require a different level of awareness for how this whole thing comes across.

Munx wrote on 2026-10-21, 20:07:

Considering all the shenanigans he posted with the guns and Teslas and whatnot, the guy appears to have a very hard time reading the room. Hes likely quite a bit far on the spectrum.

That could explain a lot. A lot of Youtube and Reddit comments are commenting on how creepy the whole thing is. It clearly wasn't intended to be that way, but makes sense if it's an accidental byproduct of someone who doesn't pick up on those vibes.

Overcoming that would require a complete rewrite of the script and creating a sympathetic main character the audience can identify with. Instead we get this self-insertion Gary Stu type character.

Um, in which way does this differ from some of these weird 80s movies?
To me this looks like an oldschool "nerd saves the day" kind of movie.
The goth thing matches the stage here (80s or early 90s setting), at least.

Please excuse my ignorance, but many US do's and dont's seem strange to me/are unknown to me.
The whole social norms and what's considered morally right and not.
I also don't get the drama about what seems rather trivial at surface level.
I guess that's also because I'm from Europe, but I'm not sure.
Maybe it's also a generation thing, not sure.

Anyway, if such a movie was being shown at the cinemas in the 80s or 90s, would it have been socially acceptable in its time?
What were the social norms back then? Would it have been very questionable?
And are self-inserts in dreams and novels a part of human nature or are they not?

I mean, for comparison, the whole Donkey Kong or Super Mario Bros. concept was about the player saving a "damsel in distress".
And it was socially being accepted in the 80s and 90s, albeit things were slowly changing in the 90s.
Back then, I suppose, it was waved away as a men's hero phantasy or as a nerd/geek thing, a sub culture etc.
Nowadays, not so much anymore. Now the kidnapped girl/woman/princess saves the hero, of course.
Or tells him what to do, not sure.

Edit: What about a gender reversal?
What if a smart wallflower girl was trying to "fix" a handsome soldier/biker guy who had a traumatic past?
Would that be considered less creepy by society, maybe?

Jo22 wrote on 2026-10-22, 17:10:

Would that be considered less creepy by society, maybe?

The movie you are describing is called "Misery"

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100157/

Munx wrote on 2026-10-22, 18:13:

Jo22 wrote on 2026-10-22, 17:10:

Would that be considered less creepy by society, maybe?

The movie you are describing is called "Misery"

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100157/

Hi, I do remember that one, I already watched that movie years ago.
The, um, lady in that movie is a psychopath/sociopath who holds the man hostage/captive and tries to mentally break him.
It's basically a real world depiction of hospitals, in which old people are being mistreaten or indignified.
That nerd/goth movie doesn't have these elements, or maybe I didn't notice them.
I've sped up the playback (I've watched it because of all the criticism).

Jo22 wrote on 2026-10-22, 17:10:

Um, in which way does this differ from some of these weird 80s movies?
To me this looks like an oldschool "nerd saves the day" kind of movie.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of a "nerd saves the day" kind of plot.

The problem with The Tech Support Guy is the main character is far from a nerd. He's good looking, fit, super smart, super skilled, has a cool job and lives in a fancy complex. His only "flaw" is he's not an actual super hero. But in every other way, he's idealized.

If you want to have a character the audience can identify and sympathize with, you need to give him some character flaws. Make him an actual nerd: shy, socially awkward, lacking in self confidence, etc. Then you can have a story where the character is presented challenges requiring them to overcome their flaws in order to succeed. In other words, an actual character arc.

The other problem with what is depicted in this movie is there is no explanation as to why anything is happening for the first 15 minutes. The main character just rescues / kidnaps this hot supervillain goth girl and then decides to rehabilitate her by showering her with kindness. There is no motivation provided for any of his actions.

She's also supposed to have this severely traumatic past, but I guess playing in a swimming pool and attending a Christmas concert is enough to overcome that?

Like I said previously, it comes across as this creepy "nice guy" trope where a guy is infatuated with a girl and thinks all he has to do to win her over is just shower her with kindness.

Even more baffling is the revelation she is a murderer including killing the parents of one of the superheros. But they hug it out at the end, so I guess it's all good?

And are self-inserts in dreams and novels a part of human nature or are they not?

Sure, they can be. But it only works if the character is interesting and sympathetic to the audience.

For example, Mark Watney from the Martian is apparently based on the author, Andy Weir. The difference is that Andy Weir is funny and personable.

What if a smart wallflower girl was trying to "fix" a handsome soldier/biker guy who had a traumatic past?
Would that be considered less creepy by society, maybe?

There already is a trope like this: the Manic Pixie Dreamgirl.

Maybe not a wallflower per se, but it's a similar idea: male character with issues finds a woman who comes along and "fixes" him. It's generally considered to be problematic as well, mainly in cases where the female character doesn't have any other motivation beyond just fixing the man. In that respect, it's also a male wish-fulfillment fantasy.

Munx wrote on 2026-10-22, 18:13:

Jo22 wrote on 2026-10-22, 17:10:

Would that be considered less creepy by society, maybe?

The movie you are describing is called "Misery"

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100157/

There is that one scene in revenge of the nerds

Tech Support Guy was a registered mark of Cermak for 3 decades… oops

Shponglefan wrote on 2026-10-22, 14:48:

The main problem with this "movie" isn't even the AI. It's the awful script. […]
Show full quote

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2026-10-21, 20:17:

I watched it. I really cant congratulate him on it. It looks like many of the scenes only made it to the final cut because he made them but didnt know what was wrong with them and that they should have been regenerated.

If you know you know, if you dont then there is no point explaining it.

He has a long way to go.

The main problem with this "movie" isn't even the AI. It's the awful script.

You have a main character with no character arc or personality "rescuing" a hot goth girl with a traumatic past and then thinks he can fix her and get her to like him by showering her with kindness. The whole thing gives off creepy nice guy vibes.

It could work if he'd leaned into it as a horror movie (like Obsession or Misery), but that would require a different level of awareness for how this whole thing comes across.

Shponglefan wrote on 2026-10-22, 14:49:

Munx wrote on 2026-10-21, 20:07:

Considering all the shenanigans he posted with the guns and Teslas and whatnot, the guy appears to have a very hard time reading the room. Hes likely quite a bit far on the spectrum.

That could explain a lot. A lot of Youtube and Reddit comments are commenting on how creepy the whole thing is. It clearly wasn't intended to be that way, but makes sense if it's an accidental byproduct of someone who doesn't pick up on those vibes.

Overcoming that would require a complete rewrite of the script and creating a sympathetic main character the audience can identify with. Instead we get this self-insertion Gary Stu type character.

I would agree with you on the whole lot there.
The writer has no idea that people would see it opposite to how he did.

Its not a bumpster fire of a movie, its a motorway pile up.
It shows the ideas of the writer, how they see themselves... Its clear given character depth or lack there of that they see themselves as the main "hero". They strongly identify with David the "unsung everyday guy."
hes got no flashy superpowers, but he does have "science, chemistry and computers" while the superheroes are portrayed as shallow and arrogant media sweethearts who look good on talk shows while he does the actual work in the basement.

In the end, its not superpowers that save the day its David cloning radio signals from a phone, and the team openly admits that hiring David was the only smart thing they ever did.

The writer is constructing a classic validation fantasy trope... The overlooked technical person finally getting public acclaim from the institutions and cool kids that neglected him blah blah blah.

Thats one thing, and as tropes go its ok, but then comes the car crash which you mentioned above.
Stealing her away and keeping her prisoner in the basement bunker.
Stripping her down to treat her injuries and then giving her a nice cuddly t shirt a sandwich...
The writer didnt realise what that will look like to somebody who doesnt understand the intentions of the David character, which never get explained, not really. You the viewer are left assuming them, and more people wont assume good intentions from somebody espeically when the story starts like that, because watching it he washes her face and removes her clothes... (this is where he should have used a different model to make the scenes as WAN would have been better here but not YT safe), because thats the scene that was in the writers mind, or should have been, but the AI couldnt create. because it doesnt show any reason to remove her clothing at all otherwise. But you need to remove them to be able to simp to her later on...
And you know here to its beta male acts as she is Amazonian assassin who wouldnt meet nice guy kindness with what it ends up as.
Its completely unreal and not believable. Lazy writing... no real psychology in there at all on the part of the character that is supposed to drive the story forwards. You start off with a glimmer of an idea but then dont see it through to tell the actual story, you want to get to the interesting part of making the movie, giving her a form that you can see... But then he didnt even use the right inference model to do that!

And its here you know its a personal daydream brought into life because there is no agency on her part. no character depth on his.

I dunno, I feel like it's easy to pipe off on here one way or another. I just appreciate them sharing what they're doing. WIthout them the world would be a lot less interesting. I don't expect to like or be interested in every video a creator puts out. Honestly that would be boring. I much rather them feel empowered to explore and try new things, you never know what might happen.

Think about how much courage and effort it takes to make anything at all in the first place. If what you're doing catches interest of viewers, then you're going to get sucked into wanting to do more, but then there comes the pressure to keep it up. That's got to be exhausting. Then there's the possibility of "making it a full time thing" like Adrian has. That's awesome and all, but I hope that he's still enjoying himself because i can see how making it "full time" can suck the fun and excitement out of it. Someone that comes to mind is Phil (Philscomputerlab) who totally stepped back from it a while back.

I dunno, no one has to do any of this stuff. I'm just grateful that they do. Someone that I'm not particularly interested in may inspire someone else to start making content that I would be interested in! You never know!

I watched it out of curiosity, only because it was brought up here specifically. Not going to make drama about it like some do, though I'll probably forget about it in a week. A.I. is surely glitchy, besides things already mentioned, not sure if anyone mentioned the thing about Viper / Cindy being shown without lipstick in one segment when they were in firefighter uniforms.

Some time ago, I came across a weird TV channel that apparently has A.I. news reporter. That monotone voice, unnatural attempts at hand gestures (don't know how to describe it...)...this movie reminded me of it.

A.I. in general is just causing more chaos than anything TBH (or rather people behind it...).

UCyborg wrote on 2026-10-23, 21:19:

I watched it out of curiosity, only because it was brought up here specifically. Not going to make drama about it like some do, though I'll probably forget about it in a week. A.I. is surely glitchy, besides things already mentioned, not sure if anyone mentioned the thing about Viper / Cindy being shown without lipstick in one segment when they were in firefighter uniforms.

Some time ago, I came across a weird TV channel that apparently has A.I. news reporter. That monotone voice, unnatural attempts at hand gestures (don't know how to describe it...)...this movie reminded me of it.

A.I. in general is just causing more chaos than anything TBH (or rather people behind it...).

There are a lot of continuity errors in it.
Like I said, there are a lot of scenes that should have been regenerated.

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2026-10-22, 23:24:

The writer didnt realise what that will look like to somebody who doesnt understand the intentions of the David character, which never get explained, not really. You the viewer are left assuming them, and more people wont assume good intentions from somebody espeically when the story starts like that, because watching it he washes her face and removes her clothes...

That's where the biggest flaw in the script is a lack of an opening act that sets everything up. A good script will set up the characters, situation, and motivations in the beginning so the audience knows what is going on.

It wouldn't take that much to fix this script in that regard. You could have an opening where we meet the David character at work where he's a lonely tech support geek supporting super heroes. He's not highly regarded while always hearing about the amazing adventures of the superheroes. He feels inadequate because he has no powers, doesn't feel valued, and wishes he could have similar adventures.

During the initial act, he starts uncovering something sinister going on which leads him to learn about the secret project Beowulf. This leads him to learn about Viper, the fact she's product of genetic engineering (among other super heroes / villains) and that they are being killed off. During a big battle between the super heroes and villains, he has a chance to rescue Viper and keep her from being killed. His motivation is knowledge she is really a victim in all of this, and that she can help expose the conspiracy regarding project Beowulf. This information being previously given to the audience during the opening act.

From there you have the two characters gradually learn to work together, maybe have some hints of romance blossoming (though far less creepy / heavy handed than what was depicted). As the events unfold and Nova Squadron is captured, David gets to become the hero who helps the save the team, defeat the big bad, gets the girl, etc, etc.

This sort of story has been told countless times. There is a formula to it which works, it just needs to be followed.

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2026-10-23, 23:42:

There are a lot of continuity errors in it.
Like I said, there are a lot of scenes that should have been regenerated.

I wonder if some of the issues with generative AI could be fixed with crediting editing. Crop and zoom to hide issues, quicker cuts, etc.

Another option would be to lead into the absurdity of some of it by having the characters make some self-aware 4th wall jokes or something. Though that would require more sophisticated writing to pull off.

A third option would be rendering if a different style. I know in his original video, the author talked about experimenting with animated styles. That might help deal with the uncanny valley effect of trying to render realistic looking scenes that invariably have weird AI artifacts.

Shponglefan wrote on 2026-10-24, 16:23:

I wonder if some of the issues with generative AI could be fixed with crediting editing. Crop and zoom to hide issues, quicker cuts, etc.

Another option would be to lead into the absurdity of some of it by having the characters make some self-aware 4th wall jokes or something. Though that would require more sophisticated writing to pull off.

A third option would be rendering if a different style. I know in his original video, the author talked about experimenting with animated styles. That might help deal with the uncanny valley effect of trying to render realistic looking scenes that invariably have weird AI artifacts.

Just remember this is now the floor and worst things will be. There will be continued improvements going forward. Though we are unlikely able to get rid of everything.

Corridor Crew just released an updated version of their AI green screen compositor that's open source and competing with the professional stuff. Some things it does worse, some better. The latest Youtube video going over how they started implementing temporal support and the other choices was very interesting. But even then they there are Pro level VFX artists pointing out errors in it, and the other "Pro" level tools.

A great script and made people ignore problems, and some editing can skirt around glaring issues.

A recent insightful option on monetizing was a possibly with Elon purchasing Skydance. There would be the option of he AI being able to use Warner characters Loony Toons, DC, Harry Potter. Let me make the fan stuff, and have ad sharing. You already have the viral stuff like the Harry Potter female Malfoy. Let those things run wild and rack in a windfall.

Shponglefan wrote on 2026-10-24, 16:23:

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2026-10-23, 23:42:

There are a lot of continuity errors in it.
Like I said, there are a lot of scenes that should have been regenerated.

I wonder if some of the issues with generative AI could be fixed with crediting editing. Crop and zoom to hide issues, quicker cuts, etc.

Some of the best AI work out there is definitely stuff that's been treated by human editing.

On the matter of the movie, people are entitled to do what they want obviously but in this situation it's more of a credibility thing than even an AI usage thing for me. If you're a public figure in a space that has long required manual work and a large part of the value is derived from that manual work, it's hard to just pass it off as a "one time thing" and expect everything to continue as it was. Especially since he's also in the space of making games for older systems, now you have to pause and wonder about everything. For example, there was something the other day in which just the game's artwork was labeled as AI-assisted. But at that point, it's hard not to question the whole project.

sunkindly wrote on Yesterday, 17:56:

Shponglefan wrote on 2026-10-24, 16:23:

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2026-10-23, 23:42:

There are a lot of continuity errors in it.
Like I said, there are a lot of scenes that should have been regenerated.

I wonder if some of the issues with generative AI could be fixed with crediting editing. Crop and zoom to hide issues, quicker cuts, etc.

Some of the best AI work out there is definitely stuff that's been treated by human editing.

On the matter of the movie, people are entitled to do what they want obviously but in this situation it's more of a credibility thing than even an AI usage thing for me. If you're a public figure in a space that has long required manual work and a large part of the value is derived from that manual work, it's hard to just pass it off as a "one time thing" and expect everything to continue as it was. Especially since he's also in the space of making games for older systems, now you have to pause and wonder about everything. For example, there was something the other day in which just the game's artwork was labeled as AI-assisted. But at that point, it's hard not to question the whole project.

Hi, what also comes to mind about modern movie making vs. classic movie making: The art of lighting.
Great films such as Blade Runner had a great "feel" (sensibility) for/or emphasis on for selecting the right lighting setup in each scene.
That's why modern film production lack so much depth sometimes, despite all the hi-tech special effects done in post-processing (and because of lack of story ofc).
The right lighting (incl. shadows, flickering flames of fire) isn't being spent much thinking on.

Edited: Hippos fixed. Hopefully.

Jo22 wrote on Yesterday, 21:21:

That's why modern film production lack so much depth sometimes, despite all the hi-tech special effects done in post-processing

More like because of it.

In so many cases CG are not used to enhance an image, they are there to save time and money