Movie Rant: Cowspiracy

 
Thanks to the ever increasing power of Netflix, the documentary 'Cowspiracy' has really taken off. The documentary is now getting this reputation of being a vegan bible, smashing down the meat industry with powerful statistics and cutting interviews, creating many new followers of the vegan lifestyle. I have to say that it does a great job of bringing the issues behind the now global meat industry into the fold, and the way it likes to throw punches at various targets irrespective of status is a strategy I find admirable. I do genuinely believe that producer Kip Anderson wants to make a difference, and I admire his whistle-blower attitude when it comes to this pressing issue. I can't say the same towards his personality, and wearing baseball caps indoors during professional interviews is not a sign that I take this man's points seriously, but then as we're about to discover this man has no sense of perspective. 'Cowspiracy' parades itself as a factual documentary, not some advert from a pressure group, which seems increasingly suspect when you consider that the word 'conspiracy' is integrated into the title. Most conspiracies rely on assumptions to arrive at a plausible narrative that detracts from the stone cold facts. This position of ignoring context is really where everything starts to go downhill.

At its core 'Cowspiracy' is full blown propaganda. Instead of creating a balanced, or even coherent argument to raise awareness for a huge issue, the creators of this so called documentary have fabricated statistics, misrepresented studies, and approached this topic with the sophistication and integrity of deluded activists. It's quite clear why this has had such an impact on the radical vegan community when it bears greater resemblance to 'Mein Kampf' than any serious documentary I know of. Every possible issue surrounding the environment is looked at in the same narrow minded perspective that demonises the meat industry and attempts to convert every human into veganism or face imminent destruction. It presents no realistic solutions, but instead chastises those who believe that meat eating is acceptable. That's a deplorable attitude for a powerful piece of media that should initiate a debate, not slander the opposition by any means necessary.

The worst part is that the slander is so obvious. The interviews that were in favour of the argument were clearly edited to make those involved look like martyrs, whereas the interviewees on the con side of this argument were chopped up to make sure they look like stuttering idiots. Anyone who did come up with a counter argument was just instantly dismissed, namely Allan Savory, who famously instigated a huge elephant cull in Zimbabwe; a forty year old mistake which coincidentally is very similar to the argument put forward in this film, only Savory's cull would be on a much smaller scale. Somehow this single mistake makes every single one of his views irrelevant despite the fact that he might actually know something, instead of being the one who got the idea of making a documentary through a friend's email. The rest of 'Cowspiracy' was almost the same, rejecting any other view on this issue, only stalling to bombard statistics at the viewer. For someone who is easily manipulated this method is obviously going to start ringing alarm bells, but for those who actually bother to verify the statistics used in this documentary there are some very dirty secrets hiding under the apparently untouchable veil of veganism.

Those statistics certainly are alarming, almost too perfect for the narrative of this film. Well, that's certainly the case as almost all of that is either bollocks or just plain misleading. Let's start with that huge '51% of global greenhouse gas emissions' figure. That comes from a flawed UN study that hugely over-exaggerated the ecological footprint of cattle farming and underplayed that of the transportation sector, sampling solely emissions, and not the actual energy intensive process of how that fuel gets in the vehicle. The figure used in this study was so far off the truth that it's since been revised to 14.5%, and that's for all livestock as opposed to just the beef industry. Depending on which source you use this is roughly the same amount that transportation is responsible for, although again this is a figure for raw emissions, and so doesn't take into account the complex process of how that fuel gets in the vehicle. The bottom line is that these refined figures are in the right ballpark, where as '51%' is miles away from the truth There's even been papers written to highlight how ridiculous that 51% figure is. It's not just that figure that's hugely over-exaggerated either, as methane production too is much lower than the level produced by industries, and that figure is including organisms such as termites and horses that produce huge amounts of methane without providing humans with food; well, unless you shop at 'Tesco'. The misleading statistics continue when you consider that the water that goes into that theoretical hamburger predominantly originates from precipitation, with the exact statistic being almost 97%. That statistic about the amount of waste also ignores the fact that cow manure is primarily used as a fertiliser. I don't recall ever seeing any of these clarifications in the documentary, which is more than happy to plainly mislead viewers with statistics that don't represent the true issue.

Another thing I hated about the arguments presented in 'Cowspiracy' was its apparent hatred for charities. This is such an unbelievably hypocritical stance to take when you consider that 'Cowspiracy' itself was crowdfunded; essentially making it a charity. I'm sure the creative team behind 'Cowspiracy' can bang on all they want about how not to trust charities in relation to meat farming, but in reality he's just explaining why this self interested documentary shouldn't be trusted either. And let's face it, on the evidence we have to go by they're in no fucking position to be criticising others about being trustworthy. If you're exclusively funded by a niche market then of course you're going to reproduce the argument they want to hear. It's a real shame the results are slanderous bigotry because if you look at the other side of the argument you get the benefits of a fantastic debate that covers manure fertilisation, the breakdowns of agriculture waste, the positive effects of pastures on an ecosystem with respect to nutrient cycles, and most of all some tasty BBQ ribs that can be mine for a fraction of income. That's the approach an analytical and serious documentary would revolve around, but here every time a positive aspect about cattle farming was brought up it was quickly dismissed in favour of more one sided doom and gloom that fits into the biased narrative far better.

Don't get me wrong, 'Cowspiracy' is an eye opening documentary that sheds light onto an issue rarely touch, even if by doing that we get a one sided debate. However the harsh reality is that this so called documentary is pure slander; a bloodstain on the art of making a factual film. Where's the debate, or at least compromise that a good documentary would set up? This was a unique opportunity to give an in depth look into a relatively ignored issue, but instead they had to manipulate their audience with solutions that just aren't viable and certainly not sustainable. Now I'm not saying all art has to have a positive impact, and trust me I love controversial pieces, but in a film where the creators preach responsibility and searching for the truth I find it very hypocritical that they then find it acceptable to just fabricate information and treat the issue with about as much responsibility and integrity as a moronic activist. How about you treat people's diets with respect instead of just broadcasting a slanderous ideology that goes about its fastidious business by flat out lying to its audience. That is something I cannot tolerate about a film that disregards environmentalists on the sole basis that they eat meat, and this is why 'Cowspiracy' should be disregarded as a serious documentary when it can't even find the heart to include factual information despite taking the moral high ground at every fucking opportunity.

Christoforge vs Creationism: Baraminology

It turns out that in their disillusionment over scientific methods creationists are trying to establish their own way at classifying life. In fairness to them biological classification is a widely debated topic in various scientific fields today and there are many flaws to the classic Linnean system that is most commonly used. 'Baraminology' as this method is known is essentially a criticism of scientific classification in that it doesn't treat life on Earth in relation to evolutionary mechanisms, but rather in terms of when God created life on Earth. But let's actually get a justification from our old friends over at 'Answers in Genesis', who will happily explain to us why scientific classification is wrong.
____________________________________________________________________
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/classifying-life/
____________________________________________________________________

I'm sure many people would have already spotted the flaw in that 'The Bible' never explicitly explains how everything should be classified, and so therefore should never be used as evidence. Already the confines behind this theory are so restrictive, and the sole source revolves around a single book, meaning we have a study method that cannot evolve. This group of creationists forget about the combined works of scientific reasoning over the centuries because it said at one point in a work of literacy that man was created differently. For all we know apes and indeed many other species might well have been created in the same image as humans but because it wasn't explicitly stated in 'The Bible' it therefore cannot be true. 'The Bible' sure as hell never states that apes or other organisms not individually mentioned were created as inferior to humans, so that just leaves us in an awkward middle ground where we have to rely on guesswork and inferring as scientific reasoning instead of actual evidence. A prime example of this guesswork is just the plain rejection of evolution in this paragraph. Does this source use scientific reasoning or even a rational argument to disprove an argument? No, it just dictates something it believes to be true, despite the scientific fact that the similarities in the molecular information of organisms can easily be mapped and shown directional changes. I'd say that's a much better starting point than referencing anecdotal evidence. But no, apparently there are reasons why humans can't be classified as apes which this source explained in the paragraph below:

So just because humans allegedly have a spirit, this means they can't be classified with this system. What fucking use is a scientific method of classification that is defeated by a metaphysical philosophy? What if we find that other species have a soul as well? Sure it doesn't say any other organisms have a soul in 'The Bible', but it also doesn't say Jesus went for a shit, so obviously not everything detail was included in this book, and because it isn't a constantly evolving source of evidence, we'll never find out these crucial details. Surely it would be far more logical to state that humans and apes are related when they share so much in common with each other rather than relying on metaphysical evidence that can't be scientifically proven. This is visual evidence as well, not just pseudo-scientific bullshit that relies on hypotheticals and guesswork to make any sense. But it turns out that 'Baraminology' has found a way to classify other animals not referenced in 'The Bible'.

Yes that's right, the method they do use looks very tenuous. What a surprise. I'm not saying that scientific classification isn't without its problems, and as for phylogenetic studies, well they're always in conflict with each other, but this creationist method is just so basic that it can't at any stage be used as counter evidence for the theory of evolution. I hate to go back to the example of humans, but if you really are distinguishing organisms based on genetic information and breeding studies then surely you must be aware that the similarities between us and apes are alarming. I don't care that humans are supposed to have souls, because that is theoretical and hasn't been proven, unlike scientific classification. However if what you're saying is that any organisms that can interbreed are part of the same 'baramin' then that's a fucking useless way of going about things because there's going to be loads more groups than in traditional classification, because I can tell you that very few species can form hybrids with each other, and it's only organisms with very similar genes that can breed. Surely it would be far more logical to conclude that years of evolution were responsible for this incredible diversity in life rather than a 'special creation'. Not that there's any real reasoning behind this. Even this source admit that the groups may or may not be accurate, which is just an admission of guesswork. And yet even after admitting that this method is flawed 'Answers in Genesis' still go onto explain how this is a better method than the ones currently used by science.

It's all very well disagreeing with the idea of a single, common ancestor, but I can't see that displayed in this virtually identical system. The only difference is that this single, unknown, common ancestor originated with God. There seems to be this horrendous double standard of rejecting an idea that's almost entirely the same method as yours and then claiming that decision is based on a lack of evidence, when this creationist method is dictated by a single source. Surely what this source is describing is the process of evolution, just happening at a much faster rate, which is incredibly obnoxious from the people who flat out reject evolution. This classification system is just clutching at straws here, even creating what they define as an 'orchard', which again is almost identical to the mechanisms of evolution. Looking at a phylogenetic tree it becomes apparent that this is the same fucking thing. However this creationist method contains a huge gap in logic. What about species that appear to be in two different animal groups? You state that phylogeny and common ancestors are bollocks, so where would you classify egg laying mammals or transitional fossils such as the archaeopteryx? The alarming similarities between differing groups in nature, or clades as science calls them, makes this creationist explanation implausible, unless of course you believe in convergent evolution, which I somehow doubt this source does.

For speciation to happen at the rate this source is describing there would be huge visible changes happening in organisms worldwide on a frequent basis, but then creationists don't believe that changes over time are caused by evolution, so we're just back to the start of the argument in a huge circular gap of logic that can't be used to explain anything. Apparently this is still more logical than believing each organism descended from a common ancestor, which is incredible considering that the creationist method is just an impossibility. Natural selection is a process of evolution that takes a long time due to only affecting individuals, yet having effects on whole populations. That's a lot of genetic material needing to change for visible evolution to be apparent, and the only way this can occur is through the changing of random mutations, the majority of which have a negative influence on a population. In humans for example the rate of mutations deemed harmful is roughly around four per X chromosome. Now if the speciation of homo sapiens was to be sped up to the rate that creationists claim that would leave us with two problems. The first is that the gene pools of each species would be absolutely fucked, and the most likely scenario would be that humans simply wouldn't be able to exist unless some miracle adaptation happened, that guess what would require the process of evolution. This just doesn't add up when you consider that serious genetic diseases are a large minority in the diverse human population, as well as a rarity in other organisms. The second problem is that this goes against the lines of succession that we see in the fossil record, but of course our creationist friends have an explanation for that too:

Well that's certainly a gross oversimplification of a now widely accepted scientific theory. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that a number of dinosaurs had feathers, that although like the majority of science is contested, is far more plausible than your plain denial. Sure, you may not always be able to see full feathers formed like in the well preserved fossils of Archaeopteryx, but you can clearly see where they attach. If this is the creationist alternative to scientific methods then I just don't see the problem with interpreting the evidence based on man's own perceptions. Clearly the evidence here easily trumps the dismissive points based on speculative evidence. All Baraminology encapsulates is proof that an allegorical work of literature should not be used as evidence to conflict with the constantly evolving world of science and understanding. In the words of H.L Mencken "It is hard for the ape to believe he descended from man."

The State of Student Politics

Politics is a hugely divisive issue in almost any section of society today, and it's an issue treated with respect and integrity. Well except for one section of society who feel the need to use politics as a tool to drag their members by their feet through a massive pool of shit. These are the student unions of Britain who feel the need to challenge the right to free speech in order to brainwash their members. As a libertarian I take this issue very seriously, and if I'm honest it's becoming a worrying and radical trend that is unfortunately seeping into the public eye, and even more worryingly politics in general. To make my point we'll take a look at the University of Sussex's Student Union. In terms of British universities Sussex is seen as a radical left wing establishment, heavily emphasising policies regarding equality and diversity. In actual fact I have the introduction to their roles right here:

This utilitarian approach to running the students of a university sounds fine to me, and in fact there appears to be a minimalist approach to political movements that would appear to contradict what I said in the introduction, but let's see how this operational policy stands up when we look further into their policies voted for by the students themselves. May I suggest remembering the line 'We will not tolerate any form of discrimination':

No it turns out I was 100% correct. This Student's Union are a bunch of fucking hypocrites. Maybe I would be slightly more sympathetic if they'd simply forgotten about such an outdated policy, but they actually decided to retain the damn thing without editing it in 2013. How is it humanly possible to read this policy and for some reason not see that even by definition this policy is purely discriminatory against men? Hell it's even in the fucking wording. Again, may I remind this Student's Union that they are committed to not tolerating 'any form of discrimination', unless of course it turns out that that this discrimination plays out advantageously to their biased agenda in which case it's apparently fine, and even fucking supported. 'Positive discrimination'. Surely the alarm bells must be ringing when you have to word one of your policies like that.

This policy becomes even more ludicrous when you actually look at the statistics. Apparently it's fine to 'positively discriminate' in favour of underrepresented women even when 54% of students at Sussex University are female, which follows the national trend, and despite all the full time Student's Union officers at Sussex University being women. Unless I'm missing something here how the fuck are female students underrepresented at this university? This may have been the case in 1974 when the policy was first drawn up, but in 2008 this is just an absurdity that clearly isn't true. It doesn't matter if the Student's Union claim this will equalise the level of discrimination because at the end of the day what you're doing is still discriminating, with your only justification based on a fallacious argument about the greater society as a whole. As my mum always said to me 'two wrongs don't make a right'; especially when those two wrongs make you sound like a hypocrite. You may be thinking this policy is just a one off. Well let's see some more of this 'Sussex equality' then shall we?

Oh dear this sounds all too familiar. Let me guess, do we now need to positively discriminate in favour of women to counter the general trend of society? The fact is that although violence against women may be silenced by customs, this Student's Union are in no position to take the moral high ground when they themselves silence the violence against men. At no point in their policies do this Student's Union even mention issues surrounding their male students, and I don't want to sound like one of those 'Men's Rights Activists' but the statistics show that a significant portion of men also suffer from violence. Yes that figure of 4.5% witnessing domestic violence is marginally lower than it is for women, but surely it's still significant enough for you to even mention it. I don't know if anybody has ever told this Union what the word 'equality' means in their policies, but they signs so far are that this is a very biased political organisation.

Once you get past the stupid policies you arrive at what is in my opinion the worst thing by far about the majority of universities now. That very cancer is the 'safespace' policy, which if you're a student you will hear all the time at any political gathering. But what is the 'safespace' policy you ask? Well let's head back to Sussex for them to prove once and for all why student politics is so fucked at the moment:

May I just remind you that this is a centre of higher education; albeit a centre where serious intellectual debates cannot occur thanks to the Student's Union. To have the audacity to say that every point in an argument will be respected equally when you actively ban people you consider to have racist or offensive views is so profoundly ignorant it baffles my mind. Can this Student's Union honestly say that it doesn't tolerate discrimination when their organisation is centred around a policy that refuses to allow people deemed offensive to express their opinions? It's clear that anyone who doesn't have the same political agenda is being marginalised with the Union even going as far as to claim 'The alarming rise of fascist activity in the South of England. Racism/sexism/homophobia in all forms should be actively and consistently opposed'. And that 'The Union resolved to take steps to defy the government attacks on no-platform and defend existing NUS policy and to prevent speakers, e.g. Enoch Powell, with a record of racist ideas and incitement to racial hatred from speaking in students' union rooms or using union property.' To be honest I would be very surprised if Enoch Powell, a man who's been dead for nearly twenty years, showed up to do a speech. But even a man with profoundly right wing views such as Powell must surely speak towards a considerable demographic, otherwise how did he reach national fame and get elected into parliament? But that's exactly the sort of thing this oxymoronic safe space policy is preventing, and it's destroying the world of student politics by simply catering for a radical group of self-centred morons who simply ban ideas they don't like.

It's not just Sussex Student's Union with this attitude. This is the trend throughout the country, with people deemed offensive being banned for the most stupid of reasons by an apparently inclusive system. Is it any wonder why people don't take Student politics seriously? Even the universities affiliated with these Student Union's couldn't give a shit about these imbecilic policies. Take 'The violence free science policy' implemented by our old friends in Sussex in 2008. This policy claims the Student's Union "condemned the use of the most repeated and out of date experiments on animals." Well that policy is so well adhered to that as of 2012, 3369 animals were still kept on the campus with the nature of their experimentation not revealed, so you can see how well this policy is taken seriously. Are people honestly expected to follow such stupidity passed by people who clearly have no fucking clue what they're talking about? The University of Southampton take their Union so seriously that they've elected a cat as the honorary president. Back at the University of Sussex they've gone so far as to ban making an innuendo, making an offensive gesture towards another person, or even making a sexual noise.  They've even decided to take an active role in wars and ban the sale of Israeli goods, because apparently that's not discrimination either. This is all very rich coming from a University with a Barclays bank located on campus, who are noted for not being ethical, but I'll stop there in case I give these morons another motive to censor things they disagree with. When you start reading about this level of stupidity you would be forgiven for thinking that this is a nursery school and not a serious intellectual establishment. Maybe the Student's Union should instead be telling its members to just grow up instead, although as we've already established that probably wouldn't be taken seriously. The only things it seems Student Unions can do well is ban things, which is all you really need to know about the dire state us students find ourselves in.

It's clear to me that at institutions were the broadening of ideas should be displayed and promoted, there is a dark underbelly that seeks to cripple the idea of free speech by the political censorship of thought. This is an active war against the very radical behaviour that gave students and minorities a chance to stand up and speak out against the social norm, and so I now find it simply unacceptable to just dismiss and ban ideas that you don't agree with. My real issue however is this horrific double standard in which the Student's Union is all too keen to bring up controversial topics that they themselves support and then censor different ideas that it doesn't agree with. Now to me that sounds like a facist regime, a power hungry dictator on a power trip, with the results being that there is clearly not an equality in the validity of arguments. Evidently students now study in areas where ignorance and discrimination are actively supported and that is why this regressive attitude towards free speech at universities must be challenged.

Morons of the Internet: Ntokozo Qwabe

This is the segment where I scour my favorite forums around the internet and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs told in the words of my favorite human beings.

In this edition we have a post from a man who's genuinely one of the biggest assholes I've ever seen. This is not so much a critique of a work, and more a rant at a disgustingly racist human being who's so ignorant and delusional it actually pisses me off.

The man in question here is Ntokozo Qwabe, who for reference is a leading figure in the 'Rhodes Must Fall' campaign at Oxford University which seeks to remove statues of Cecil Rhodes for reasons that irritate me greatly. The thing is that Qwabe is himself a Rhodes Scholar, so the only reason Qwabe is being given prestigious education right now is because of Cecil Rhodes and a university funded by white people. I don't know why Qwabe is seeking to end this process in his delusional mind, but as we're about to find out he's a self centered bigot, so this gap in logic isn't at all surprising.
 
Qwabe's Facebook page is full of crap, but here we're focusing on a hilarious anecdote that is of course centered around your lordship - Ntokozo Qwabe. Well, Qwabe and his radical non-binary trans black activist friends, or cunts as I believe they're more commonly known. Anyway, for some reason this transgender person believes that decolonisation is a good thing to happen for transgender people despite the fact that South Africa and countries owned by colonial European powers are the only sovereign states in Africa where transgender people have any rights at all. Funny how the already decolonised nations simply persecute people who identify as transgender, so why the hell these people want to embrace a system where the LGBT community are actively discriminated against is beyond me. It's clear these people are just idiotic activists who for some reason feel their contributions will save the world, but so far they haven't actually done anything to properly piss me off. Oh how quickly that's going to change.

No that's right, you read that quite astonishing paragraph correctly; I haven't tampered with this in any way. These fucking morons blame an innocent waitress at a random restaurant for the atrocities committed towards a whole race. Let's fuck the reasoning that these atrocities almost certainly occurred before this waitress was even born, because of course this random woman is the source of racial hatred and not idiots like yourself. The only reason these pathetic humans decide to launch a racial attack is because the person in question is white, irrespective of her role in their issue. What fucking assholes. This poor woman is trying to make a living and all you want to do is make stupid political statements for a viral story at the expense of this poor lady. Why the fuck are you hassling a waitress of all people about owning land; she's a waitress, how much fucking land do you think she owns? I seem to recall it wasn't waitresses who caused the untold suffering of your ancestors, but for some reason that still makes her a number one target for your racist regime. This isn't activism; this is being a grade-A cunt, sparking racial hatred in the name of equality. But he then continues with his delusions as if this wasn't already enough. He genuinely thinks he's doing this lady a favor. A favor. In what fucking world is making someone cry in this context a favor?

Another thing I hate about Qwabe's actions is how he throws the race card around like it's nothing. If you want rational people to take your activism seriously then I suggest you stop with your clearly racist views Mr. Qwabe. You can't just target innocent people with your hateful actions because you fail to see the issue through your racist perspective on the world that only serves to act as a platform to broadcast nothing but your own ego. It's also surprising to note the lack of clarity in this piece. Are you sure your an Oxford educated student, because the standard of English in this piece is appalling? I know this is only a post on social media, but is proof reading not a thing at Oxford? If I was making a serious political statement I would at least care about what I'd written enough for it to actually make sense.

Wait, where the fuck did that 'moral' come from? What hellish fable is this? If there is a lesson to be learned from this story then it's surely not to make the mental jump from somebody being a dick to a white waitress to the claim that all white people need to be punished. Surely this is a sign that if anything you should stop with your actions because they're just plain racist. You can be tired of the 'not all white person' stigma all you want, but I'm fucking tired of this racist tirade in the name of racial equality when in reality it's a vanity project for your own self centered ego. Your pathetic excuse to try and gain land back that you yourself have never owned, and are all to eager to move away from to exploit an education system, does not excuse this vile behaviour comparable to that of an ethnic cleansing regime. I respect your right to have these opinions but I do not respect what you do with them, and judging by the backlash neither do many others.

Do you know what, Fuck it. I will happily support your claim to take back land your ancestors once called their own. I personally don't want someone with your disgusting attitude anywhere near a country that only has a high standing in the world because of colonialism. You can give back your Rhodes Scholarship whilst your at it, as surely someone seeking to end colonialism wouldn't be profiting from a scheme based around that very thing, because that would be hypocritical wouldn't it? Surely when you were offered the chance at a Rhodes Scholarship you wrote back to Oxford University saying you would take the education funded by a white minority when they give back the land owned by your ancestors, but of course you didn't because that wouldn't benefit your egocentric agenda. Anyone who thinks that this school of thought is not just as bad as the colonialism you fight against has got their heads buried in the sand. You ask where the land is? Well it sure as hell isn't at Oxford University. You don't want hostility towards black people; then don't be such a cunt you ignorant fuck.

Top 10 Movie Robots

As it's just occurred to me that robotics are a big part of films these days, I thought I would countdown my ten favourites. There were many artificial hulks of metal to choose from in films that brought many happy times to my childhood, so to avoid any sci-fi snobbery this is just a list of physical creations controlled by robotics alone, listed into order of how awesome I thought they were as a kid.


#10 Marvin (The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

"Incredible... it's even worse than I thought it would be."

Marvin is the always lovable depressing robot from 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'. Built as a personality robot Marvin always has a depressed and bored view of every event due to his huge brain and relative intelligence. That intelligence however is used to pull out some great one liners, and many a scene in the film is greatly improved by this robot's cynical view on proceedings. Marvin originally looked like something you'd leave in a bin when he first appeared in the television series, but when the much larger budget of the film was put to good use he was given a sleek redesign and was masterfully voiced by the late Alan Rickman,who really did manage to give this emotionless robot one of the best personalities in all of sci-fi.

Alan Rickman's version of Marvin managed to pull off the trick of getting the audience to care about such an average and depressing character, and as such propelled Marvin to become the star of the film in my opinion. Marvin's greatest asset however is his unique gun that gives others a depressing view of the world, forcing them to loose the will to fight. The science behind that wacky creation probably involves a digital version of a 'Radiohead' album, which coincidentally Marvin helped to inspire. Clearly Marvin's depression has had a big impact on pop culture, and in fact the original Marvin was also a musician and released some singles that actually charted. They even sound better than the majority of crap out there today, so all in all Marvin is a bit of an understated hero really.


#9 Optimus Prime (Transformers)

"Autobots, roll out!"

You have to give it to Optimus Prime, even after being ruined as a character by the awful directing of Michael Bay he still has the reputation of a robotic god. I'm sure you can all debate about which of the Autobots really is the best, but the fact is that Optimus Prime is the best by a long way. That may be because he's the most badass robot on this list, repetitively kicking the shit out of everything and leaving areas in a ball of explosions, yet still looking great at the end in a way that no other children's toy manages. That's one thing I will give Michael Bay; he made Optimus Prime look fucking cool, and if you do watch his 'Transformers' films then you can at least respect the hell out of the visuals. In those films Optimus Prime is 28 feet of metallic mastery that likes to dish out a good speech as well as looking really cool.

Prime's deep and smooth voice coupled with his immense screen presence have made him an icon to many young kids over the years, with his noble attitudes towards liberty only being toppled by his love of blowing shit up in fanciful ways. As a poster boy, or poster robot I suppose, he's an absolute gem in the 'Transformers' franchise, always at the centre of their films, no matter how bad they end up being. Optimus Prime usually takes the form as a truck, which doesn't sound too fanciful, but when he's had enough of sweaty Americans ruining his interior, just like they do to your mum, then he likes to save the world from other big and menacing robots that may or may not be making an appearance on this list. Optimus Prime however has become such a memorable character over the years, but when slicing other robots into pieces is on your resume it becomes hard to forget the actions of this giant robot.


#8 The Iron Giant (The Iron Giant)

"I am not a gun."

The Iron Giant is, well quite self explanatory actually. It's a fifty foot robot made out of iron, but just describing him as simply as that doesn't do justice to a very complex character. Nobody really knows anything about this creation, and for some reason it fell out of space to befriend a boy who persuades him to be a robot of good instead of evil. It's such a great story actually, and the moment when the boy convinces him to save the world is one of the most heart-wrenching moments of my childhood. The original plan for the character was that Pete Townshend of 'The Who' would create a musical film around this story, probably because he likes watching sensitive videos of young children, but thankfully he didn't go ahead with that plan, as the last thing The Iron Giant needed was an unnecessary rock soundtrack that just doesn't fit with his character at all.

The Iron Giant is so well crafted as a character and looks fantastic in this well designed film. The animation itself is computer generated, but nevertheless The Iron Giant blends into the film beautifully and look just like an animated drawing. In my opinion this film was far better than watching superheroes in underpants doing dumb shit to save the Earth, and the irony of this character was that he had more heart than any human character in the film despite his aspirations to be like them. That's all very surprising considering he's voiced by the almost talentless Vin Diesel, who thankfully only had to say 53 words in total, voicing an emotionless character effectively despite saying so little. The Iron Giant is such a great symbol of turmoil in war, and as such is instantly relatable to a wide audience, even if this cult hero isn't the most famous robot on the list.


#7 Megatron (Transformers)

"Even in death, there is no command but MINE!"

I'm sorry but Megatron is so much better than Optimus Prime. I know as a kid I'm supposed to support the 'Autobots', but the Megatron led 'Decepticons' are far more awesome in their quest to enslave humanity. Just like Optimus Prime he's ridiculously overpowered, often using his laser cannon to blow up just about everything in the vicinity like a nuclear bomb. Megatron is a ridiculously tough gladiator that can beat the shit out of anything, and the child version of me was scared shitless by this monstrous machine. In my opinion Megatron looks just as good if not better than Optimus Prime in the latest Michael Bay films, although unlike Prime he can transform into random weapons instead of a rather boring articulated lorry. That's a lot cooler if you ask me, and when you sound as commanding as Megatron does then it becomes clear who the better Transformer is. Suck it 'Autobots'.


#6 General Grievous (Star Wars)

"Crush them! Make them suffer!"

Yeah he really is as fucking awesome as that picture makes him look. The fact that he has four lightsabers, I repeat four lightsabers, was enough to make me cream myself senseless as a kid. Grievous' fight with Obi Wan in the third chronological 'Star Wars' film was just so awesome that he had to have a place on this list despite his rather minimal contributions to the 'Star Wars' franchise as a whole. Even though Grievous has an apparent chest infection and trouble breathing, he was just what the third film needed, and viewers started to actually give a shit about the droid army, which just hadn't been the case in the previous films. His four iconic lightsabers, and I really can't stress enough how cool that is, were actually collected from fallen Jedi; so yeah, this guy's pretty badass. He's also ruthless as well and enjoys people's suffering; so yeah, not a nice cyborg either, but an awesome one nonetheless.


#5 R2-D2 (Star Wars)

I'm sure there would be rioting if such an iconic robot as R2-D2 wasn't included on a list of best robots, even though he's technically a droid, but in all honesty I just don't care. His iconic beeps and whistles are now something of sci-fi legend, and in fact there's even a translator programmed by someone who I would hate to invite round my house for dinner. Clearly you would have to be the loneliest person in the world to be able to translate what this metal heap is saying, but the clever thing about R2 is that audiences can easily interpret him thanks to the strong characterisation from Lucas' script.

R2 may just be the most loved character of the 'Star Wars' franchise, and that's saying a lot considering how many characters there are in the 'Star Wars' universe that unlike R2 can actually talk. R2's fame is so widespread that he's even being inducted into the robot hall of fame, which may have something to do with his now iconic status in the 'Star Wars' storyline, saving every main character at least once. His role is actually sort of like a pocket knife, and despite looking like a futuristic fire hydrant, this little droid contains about every useful implement you could ever possibly need. It's hard to imagine that in the original 'Star Wars' films there was somebody actually stuck inside that box, but I personally want to thank them for bringing to life such a lovable character in such a lovable franchise.


#4 Robocop (Robocop)

"Come quietly or there will be... trouble." 

Now Robocop is a cool looking police officer. Peter Weller was the man inside the suit and sent this creation into Hollywood legend. The first time he donned the armour plating in the original film is by far the most memorable moment of the franchise, and since then he's dished out many an ass kicking to the comparatively pathetic criminals of America. He's just a fucking badass, which is a good thing when you have to deal with the worst Detroit has to offer. It's a good job then that Robocop has his own fucking arsenal that includes an assault cannon, a rocket launcher, a jetpack, a minigun, and various explosives. Eight year old me got sexually excited at the mere sight of this hero, and looking at his weapons now is bringing it all back.


#3 C-3PO (Star Wars)

"Sir, the possibility of successfully navigating an asteroid field is approximately 3,720 to 1"

This gay and gold creation from the ever impressive 'Star Wars' universe was one of the many reasons I and many fans fell in love with the original films. His now iconic relationship with the aforementioned R2-D2 was enough sexual tension to put your mind off the constant incest partaken by other members of the Rebel Alliance, and together as a duo their unique chemistry made the original film so pleasant to watch. This was a simple friendship of just great characters that never felt like a forced relationship we get in the latest films.

Anthony Daniels was the man who gave this creation that amazing voice, and over the years it's become iconic and such an irreplaceable role in the 'Star Wars' franchise. To this day Daniels is still going strong and is still the guy that walks around in the suit, still whipping out some belters in the new film despite sprouting a red arm for some reason. Aside from irritating everyone in the films at least once he's also a useful translator, and on many occasion he's been an essential part of the plot. For this reason I genuinely think C-3PO is one of the forgotten heroes of 'Star Wars', and without his iconic appearances we just wouldn't have that great 'Star Wars' experience we do today.


#2 Roy Batty (Blade Runner)

"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain... Time to die." 

The man, or rather robot, that caps off a great film with one of the all time best speeches in cinema history. Batty goes from total badass and the intentions of kicking the shit out of Harrison Ford to the world's greatest ever philosopher in a matter of moments. It's quite an astonishing transformation for any character, yet alone a robot, and it proves that Batty is far more than just the main antagonist for Harrison Ford to run away from. Batty only appears in the film for a very short amount of time, but is still the one character who leaves the greatest impact with an unforgettable performance.

Despite his looks Batty is a fully fledged AI known as a 'Replicant'. The idea is that the robot is meant to look like a human, and the story goes that Batty is created specifically for combat and intelligence; so as you can imagine he's not something you want to meet in a dark alleyway. Batty is insanely good at beating the shit out of everyone and looking like a boss in the process. Even Harrison Ford gets fucked up by this guy whose only motive for this killing spree is to try and extend his lifespan. If the 'Blade Runner' franchise was a real story then Batty should have been created by now, as the film states he was incepted on the 8th January 2016, but thankfully for all of humanity he's just the brilliant creation of a brilliant film.


#1 The Terminator (Terminator)

"Hasta la vista, baby."

I know that in this film franchise a 'Terminator' is simply an indestructible robot soldier that seeks to wipe out humanity, so this is specifically an entry for the T-800 model made famous by Arnold Schwarzenegger. His version of the robotic hitman is the sole reason why the series gained the popularity it did in the first place, and even in Arnie's extensive career this is probably his most famous role. The reasons for success are simple; has anyone made robots look as cool as Arnold Schwarzenegger? No is the answer to that one. And so not surprisingly 'The Terminator' is by far the most infamous robot on this list.

'The Terminator' is essentially a programmed hitman that behaves exactly like a human being. 'The Terminator' can sweat, read, speak, in such a way that only dogs can tell the difference between these robots and humans. As an audience we can tell them apart due to 'The Terminator' having some brilliant lines, and over the years the roles of 'Terminators' and humans have been blurred many a time. Arnie himself has been everything from a cool protector to a hitman hellbent on destruction, but in both roles he remains as badass as it gets. He can destroy walls, repel bullets, and just generally look like a machine not to be messed with. The version from the second film is the best however, in which we get a great performance from Arnie despite a lack of emotion or drama in one of the most action packed testosterone filled rides in recent times. His fight with the T-1000 model, which coincidentally is another awesome robot, is robotic legend for cinema, and helped cement the status of 'The Terminator' as a robotic god.