or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Elysium - movie of the year
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Elysium - movie of the year - Page 6

post #151 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoey67 View Post

Can't take credit for this but had to post it

...if Michael Moore had an opportunity to make a science fiction movie it would probably turn out a lot like this."

Sorry, Michael Moore has his agendas. For solid documentary, try The Gatekeepers.

Back to the movie, saw it this morning and enjoyed it as pure entertainment, checking my politics at the door; my 2nd entry entry to the cinema this year (the other is Star Trek). Surprise that the volume was OK, no need for ear plugs.

Similar to his other movie, the ghetto scene looked quite familiar. Matt and Jodie are solid. The story is rather generic but I enjoyed the pacing and the gorgeous space station. Although I've only seen about 10 movies this year, I would not consider this the Movie of the Year. Star Trek is better IMO.

Probably buy it on BR when released.
post #152 of 489
Actually Alex Jones appears in the very good sci-fi movie "A Scanner Darkly" with Robert Downey Jr., Woody Harrelson and Winona Ryder. He's all over the map politically but fun to listen to. "A Scanner Darkly", based on the Philip K Dick story and made with some help from his daughter is very topical given our current events.

The Wired reviewer thought Elysium might be a candidate for a "director's cut" because he thought there was too much action, usually the result of the demented studio execs, and not enough story. I wouldn't be surprised and will find out this week since I don't like to attend crowded theaters which their rude and crude audiences. Hmm, I must be elitist. Don't let Alex know.
post #153 of 489
{chemtrail}......................................................................................................{/chemtrail}
Edited by darthrsg - 8/11/13 at 1:14pm
post #154 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonbud0 View Post

Sorry, Michael Moore has his agendas. For solid documentary, try The Gatekeepers.

Back to the movie, saw it this morning and enjoyed it as pure entertainment, checking my politics at the door; my 2nd entry entry to the cinema this year (the other is Star Trek). Surprise that the volume was OK, no need for ear plugs.

Similar to his other movie, the ghetto scene looked quite familiar. Matt and Jodie are solid. The story is rather generic but I enjoyed the pacing and the gorgeous space station. Although I've only seen about 10 movies this year, I would not consider this the Movie of the Year. Star Trek is better IMO.

Probably buy it on BR when released.

Didn't Moore do a scifi movie already about how Cuba was better than the USA? smile.gif
post #155 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by TyrantII View Post



If I wanted realism in my fiction sciencey fantasy I'd pick up a textbook or read a paper on the net.
It's fine if you want your "science fiction" to be "fantasy", but my post was in response to another one about hard science fiction, which, as the name implies, is supposed to be based on hard science.
post #156 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

It's fine if you want your "science fiction" to be "fantasy", but my post was in response to another one about hard science fiction, which, as the name implies, is supposed to be based on hard science.

Wrong. Hard SF is either based on current known Science, or on a convincing extrapolation of current Science. There is NOTHING in Elysium which is not believable for the year 2154.

Allow me to note that 140 years is more time than passed between the Wright Brothers flight and today. More time than passed between Robert Goddard and the Space Shuttle. The shuttles in Elysium had an unexplained power system, but certainly it was not an unbelievable extrapolation in a 140 year span of years.

I insist upon my definition rather than yours because by your definition, there have never been any true "Hard SF" movies, and 2001 A Space Odyssey is a Fantasy - unless you can explain to me the Science of the Black Monoliths. I refuse to believe that time passes without technological advances, it's not credible.

Then there are matters of taste, where we understand that the movie maker departed from Science in order to make a better film. Such as the Cameron film The Abyss, which happens to be a particular favorite of mine. Everybody knows the Science of breathing mixtures at ocean depths requires a Helium/Oxygen mixture - but I agree with Cameron in that having everybody quacking like ducks during the entire movie would have been too much reality, and would not have worked.

I questioned just one aspect of Elysium which did not meet with my knowledge of Science: Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I believe that the atmosphere on the Elysium space station either needs a physical roof over the inner surface, or a depth of 100 miles at one gravity to create one atmosphere of air pressure. Somebody promised me an explanation but it was not forthcoming.

Therefore I'm chalking up that one to "Bad Science", just as today, one can nitpick the Science in 2001 A Space Odyssey or in Destination Moon. Some people can master Physics as a school subject, but appear incapable of using it to explain the world around them. Whomever the Science adviser to Elysium was, he should have caught that one.

Edited by Gary McCoy - 8/12/13 at 3:00am
post #157 of 489
I haven't seen the movie yet, but not having a roof over the station means more than just the atmosphere blowing away. The occupants would soon be barbecued by solar radiation as well. Good thing they've got that cancer-curing tanning bed thingie!
post #158 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

I haven't seen the movie yet, but not having a roof over the station means more than just the atmosphere blowing away. The occupants would soon be barbecued by solar radiation as well. Good thing they've got that cancer-curing tanning bed thingie!

LOL! biggrin.gif
post #159 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post


Wrong. Hard SF is either based on current known Science, or on a convincing extrapolation of current Science. There is NOTHING in Elysium which is not believable for the year 2154.

What about having to download a program into someone's brain and having to personally deliver it? If science hasn't gotten beyond that by 2154, the future is bleak. There are other aspects of the film that are simply unbelievable from a science perspective, but I don't wish to bring them up and give away too much of the movie for those who haven't seen it.
post #160 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by fookoo_2010 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post


Wrong. Hard SF is either based on current known Science, or on a convincing extrapolation of current Science. There is NOTHING in Elysium which is not believable for the year 2154.

What about having to download a program into someone's brain and having to personally deliver it? If science hasn't gotten beyond that by 2154, the future is bleak. There are other aspects of the film that are simply unbelievable from a science perspective, but I don't wish to bring them up and give away too much of the movie for those who haven't seen it.
There are spoiler tags just for these types of things. Just like Gary (and others) used.

larry
post #161 of 489
I thought it was good.

Important subject matter. I suggest reading Zubrin's Merchants of Despair.

Orbital mechanics were a joke, though. Plot was sort of predictable as it went on. And not terribly subtle.

I also thought it should have been in 48fps or higher if they could get the CGI human and animal motion mechanics good enough. Hobbit's state-of-the-art were still lacking for HFR when the action heated up.
post #162 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reticuli View Post



Orbital mechanics were a joke, though.

I would have to agree.
I enjoyed the movie for the most part, and will look forward to this director's next effort.
I normally am not one to nit pick a film like this, ( and there are many nits to pick smile.gif ) - - but given the social theme of the film, I was struck by the thought- Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
To send "cure-all" and possibly "live forever" machines down to a heavily over populated, polluted and struggling to feed itself planet may not be doing them any favors.
post #163 of 489
After watching Oblivion on BR tonight, it is a better story and movie than Elysium.
post #164 of 489
Quote:
Wrong. Hard SF is either based on current known Science, or on a convincing extrapolation of current Science.

I see nothing in that definition that contradicts what I said. Perhaps you misunderstand what I mean by “hard science”. I mean the hard sciences such as physics, biology, chemistry, etc., as opposed to the “soft sciences”, such as psychology, “political science”, etc.
Quote:
There is NOTHING in Elysium which is not believable for the year 2154.
I never said otherwise. I haven’t even seen the movie yet.
Quote:
I insist upon my definition rather than yours
There is no “rather” because there is no contradiction between what you said and what I said.
Quote:
by your definition, there have never been any true "Hard SF" movies
There have been a number of them—Destination Moon, Forbidden Planet, Robinson Crusoe on Mars, Silent Running, Logan’s Run, etc.

Quote:
2001 A Space Odyssey is a Fantasy - unless you can explain to me the Science of the Black Monoliths.
You say that as if you’re contradicting something I said. Where did I even mention 2001? As for the Monolith technology being fantasy, feel free to think that. Others may choose to think that Arthur C. Clarke viewed them as an application of his Third Law, which states: "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".
post #165 of 489
post #166 of 489
^^^ Funny! However, there's a good chance that Manborg didn't have 166 total viewers, let alone 166 people who saw it and reviewed it. If Manborg is free streamed from somewhere, maybe I'll be viewer #8 or #9 some time soon. smile.gif
post #167 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by PooperScooper View Post

^^^ Funny! However, there's a good chance that Manborg didn't have 166 total viewers, let alone 166 people who saw it and reviewed it. If Manborg is free streamed from somewhere, maybe I'll be viewer #8 or #9 some time soon. smile.gif
I promise you more than 166 saw it.
Edited by darthrsg - 8/13/13 at 2:29pm
post #168 of 489
post #169 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcruiser View Post

Just curious, which sci-fi movie made in this century that you thought would be true hard sci-fi movie but didn't turn out to be?
I'll have to think about that one. smile.gif
post #170 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcruiser View Post

Just curious, which sci-fi movie made in this century that you thought would be true hard sci-fi movie but didn't turn out to be?
I'll have to think about that one. smile.gif
Sounds like a good topic for a new thread.

larry
post #171 of 489
Just saw it, it s an OK scifi movie. But not as good as District 9.

I didn't care that much for the characters in this one, and the ending wasn't that satisfying.


But in terms of productions values, it was fantastic. And really good acting by Sharlto Copley.
post #172 of 489
I saw Elysium yesterday afternoon and enjoyed it. The only problem might be Sharito Copley's accent is a bit hard to follow especially when his dialog is during a noisy action. I need to check my District 9 disc because I think they put subtitles on his dialog there. Elysium is very much a metaphor about .... NOW.
post #173 of 489
Thread Starter 
Ha Ha, good one jokester...don't quit your day job.. If his accent was the only problem Elysium will win 14 Oscars including best picture. There's a lot more to it than that, starting with all the major performances which were mostly dialed in and stunted. Not Damon or Foster's fault but thanks to the half heart-ted and juvenile script. That's just scratching the surface.
post #174 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoey67 View Post

Not Damon or Foster's fault but thanks to the half heart-ted and juvenile script. That's just scratching the surface.

Exactly! I saw Elysium today and, despite the lowest of low expectations, was a little disappointed. The film's ensemble cast was remarkably talented and did the best they could with what they were given. Unfortunately, though, the screenplay was biblically awful. It's a shame because the film was a waste of brilliant visual and aural filmmaking by Blomkamp and a herculean effort by a fine cast. At the end of the day, I generously gave Elysium 7 Stars out of 10 because of what was good about it. Still, Blomkamp's muddled screenplay was a mess. He needs to leave the screenwriting in the hands of others and stick to giving us great images and wonderful sound that depicts a dystopian future or anything else that appeals to him for that matter.
post #175 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoey67 View Post

Ha Ha, good one jokester...don't quit your day job.. If his accent was the only problem Elysium will win 14 Oscars including best picture. There's a lot more to it than that, starting with all the major performances which were mostly dialed in and stunted. Not Damon or Foster's fault but thanks to the half heart-ted and juvenile script. That's just scratching the surface.
And what's your day job? Bean counter? I was just mentioning what stood out especially in some scenes where effect made his dialog hard to hear. I wasn't suggesting at all that it's an Oscar winning film. But perhaps as in prior posts you don't like the movie for ulterior reasons. biggrin.gif
post #176 of 489
Watched today.

Not as much depth as I was hoping for.
Sociological, political, economic implications were all surface material.
The movie doesn't dig in for a deeper look and, therefore, doesn't live up to its promise.
Instead, settles for rote action sequences of a typical summer blockbuster.
D9 went deeper IMO.

While Damon turns in a decent performance, Jody Foster is miscast.

A good movie, but not a great one.
I prefer Oblivion.
post #177 of 489
so oblivion is the sci fi king of the year, so far


wish i could get the br on redbox
post #178 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wally View Post

so oblivion is the sci fi king of the year, so far


wish i could get the br on redbox
Oblivion was more satisfying (if that makes any sense).wink.gif
post #179 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

no way am I paying my hard earned cash to watch a ludicrous political fantasy
No need to worry about that.
The political element is very very light.
D9 was WAY more "political."

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoey67 View Post



this movie some preachy numb down parallel to our problem with immigration and the Mexican border. The end act is what destroyed the whole thing. It was so hokey-pokey liberal wishy-washy view of what they think should happen to those trying to cross the border.
1. The year is 2154.
2. The city is Los Angeles (have you been? wink.gif)
3. The U.S. Census bureau has already weighed in on the future of American demographics.
4. Hispanic immigration is one of, if not THE, political debate going on in this country.

I can't see where you think NB is overreaching...
Edited by oink - 8/19/13 at 11:30pm
post #180 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Watched today.

Not as much depth as I was hoping for.
Sociological, political, economic implications were all surface material.
The movie doesn't dig in for a deeper look and, therefore, doesn't live up to its promise.
Instead, settles for rote action sequences of a typical summer blockbuster.
D9 went deeper IMO.

While Damon turns in a decent performance, Jody Foster is miscast.

A good movie, but not a great one.
I prefer Oblivion.

We mostly agree, I think. I thought Damon and Foster's performances, along with Blomkamp's riveting images, were all that saved Elysium from disaster. In my opinion, though, those strong points convinced me to rate it at 7 Stars out of 10. Come to think of it, 7 Stars out of 10 is exactly what I rated Oblivion, this year's other science fiction blockbuster disappointment. Unlike some others, I saw no particular political message in Elysium.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Elysium - movie of the year