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 11

post #301 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky View Post

I could buy that, but then I think...wonder how many awards and/or nominations will get showered on this one by the Hollywood elite?... I think that will pose an interesting context to your use of the term "anyone". wink.gif Would also be interesting to get the Hispanic viewpoint on this one...

What I really came back to this topic today about was to say that the more I think about it (plus the vid reviews posted earlier by zoey67), this movie really does seem like a full-on and genuine propaganda piece, cleverly (or not so cleverly) skinned as a "sci-fi" film, that was snuck in along with the other regular blockbuster films of the year. I guess I'm saying there is a "whiff" about this one that is just not right, despite it being legitimized by top-shelf production value and actor roles.

Maybe a case of taking a project to get the promise of another? Not unheard of.
post #302 of 489
Damon and Foster would be that desperate? Don't they have F-U money at this point?...they don't even "have" to make another movie if another one doesn't come along (but I somehow think that would not be likely). ...but I'll give them a break on this one. It wasn't a tit for tat proposition for them, I reckon. They simply read the script and saw nothing at all wrong with the theme. wink.gif
post #303 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky View Post

I could buy that, but then I think...wonder how many awards and/or nominations will get showered on this one by the Hollywood elite?... I think that will pose an interesting context to your use of the term "anyone". wink.gif
I feel safe in predicting ZERO awards/nominations (excepting possibly something on the "technical" side).

Quote:
Would also be interesting to get the Hispanic viewpoint on this one...
So would I.wink.gif

Quote:
What I really came back to this topic today about was to say that the more I think about it (plus the vid reviews posted earlier by zoey67), this movie really does seem like a full-on and genuine propaganda piece, cleverly (or not so cleverly) skinned as a "sci-fi" film, that was snuck in along with the other regular blockbuster films of the year. I guess I'm saying there is a "whiff" about this one that is just not right, despite it being legitimized by top-shelf production value and actor roles.
I can't say what was in NB's mind, but whatever it was nothing changes the fact the movie is a stinker IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky View Post

They simply read the script and saw nothing at all wrong with the theme. wink.gif
To be fair, what they first read and what ended up on the screen may be 2 different things.
post #304 of 489
Yes, that could be true. I give you that. smile.gif Somebody slick-willied somebody, somewhere along the line on this.

...and I might add, that aspect might be THE most interesting behind-the-scenes look to the film out of it all. smile.gif
Edited by Mr. Hanky - 12/22/13 at 11:29am
post #305 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky View Post

...and where did the labor unions go,
They weren't around 140 years ago, so they may not be around 140 years from now.
post #306 of 489
When did the (now uber-cliched) thing start where suddenly everything goes quiet, a flashback starts or it goes into slow-mo, and the string pads start with an Indian singer wailing away over them? I can't count the number of times I've seen that used in movies in recent years. It's reached the point of almost being annoying due to it's overuse.
post #307 of 489
I'm not exploring all the political/propaganda/hidden agenda crap. I just want to see more of Sharlto Copley in some substantial roles. The guy is talented.
post #308 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by sb1 View Post

I'm not exploring all the political/propaganda/hidden agenda crap. I just want to see more of Sharlto Copley in some substantial roles. The guy is talented.

Exactly. That's why Foster needed to be ejected and let Kruger run the show
post #309 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcruiser View Post

They weren't around 140 years ago, so they may not be around 140 years from now.

...and yet factories with inhumane working conditions, 140 yrs from now, are entirely believable? That's one of the really stupid things about this movie...it just nonsensically picks and chooses things that will or will not be to create this contrived future premise. Like how do they got these awesomely mobile and effective droids running around, but they still need humans in a factory to push around pallets and pull levers???
post #310 of 489
They have these awesomely mobile and effective droids which they have to finance building, while humans reproduce themselves and cost them nothing, and are far more disposable than robots. As to labor unions, they only showed up when a working middle class began to appear, when they had enough economic clout to start fighting back. When things are really hard and the folks keeping you down have all the advantages solidly locked up, there's always someone willing to suck it up in order to eat, if you want to go out and protest (and get shot.)

Some folks believe that Rome, for instance, never developed water power because they had slaves almost for free. Once Rome fell, and people in Western Europe with vastly less infrastructure and means were left to fend for themselves, they developed water power to a quite advanced level. They didn't have slaves, so they had to utilize technology to help get it done. They HAD water power in Rome, but they didn't necessarily have the incentive to utilize it fully, because slaves were easily available and disposable pretty much.
post #311 of 489
They built a freakin' space station (presumably luxury accommodated) for an entire class of people in space...do you think financing is an "issue"? However, I would agree with you that the implied economical system to make what we see in the movie possible seems pretty nonsensical, too. I don't believe for a second that it is more resource intensive to run an army of droids than an army of human slaves (and fwiw, they weren't slaves, so much as lesser-regarded employees, so they certainly cost more than "free"). The premise of the movie alone clearly demonstrates that humans are more trouble than they're worth, as far as a labor resource. wink.gif

...though, maybe we are keen to be unaware of the Elysium "prequel" which involves a droid revolution to end the era of droids as slaves? tongue.gif

That brings me to another thought I had earlier that I imagine an Elysium sequel called, ahem, Elysium 2, where the "haves" go and build a 2nd space station for themselves to inhabit because the new "citizens" eventually turned the first one to utter $h1t in about 7 yrs. tongue.gif
Edited by Mr. Hanky - 12/22/13 at 6:46pm
post #312 of 489
They built the space station because they felt they needed to do it. That doesn't necessarily mean they found it well within their budget. Enough droids to run all the support industries on earth would be a lot of metal and manufacturing, which they could only get from earth and would have to manufacture on earth. And every robot that wears out has to be replaced at their expense. The people who wear out cost them almost nothing to replace. And no, the folks working for them aren't 'slaves', but they obviously also aren't exactly being paid well and the number of people vs. number of jobs pretty much means that you are disposable if you don't cooperate in any way, as Is demonstrated in the movie. It's a pretty thin line between that and effective slavery, particularly as regards the point I was making, i.e. cost and compliance of labor.

It's only in a world where human worker have enough clout to demand a wage that makes them more expensive than machinery that machinery tends to be used instead of humans, or where machinery can do things that humans aren't capable of course.
post #313 of 489
Is Eylsuim so hard to believe when you look at our current state? Hasn't waste and ridiculous decision making just grown worse as the years go on? Fast forward 100+ years and I'm sure it'll just be even more impressive.
post #314 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post

It's only in a world where human worker have enough clout to demand a wage that makes them more expensive than machinery that machinery tends to be used instead of humans, or where machinery can do things that humans aren't capable of course.

Hence, the Earth-humans need only to halt supplies and Elysium is brought to its knees in a week. There is no reason why the Earth-humans would in any way need to be subservient to a space station, to go on with life. It would be the other way around.
post #315 of 489
Well, I don't want to get tied up this argument, but it's easy for those who either didn't exist at the time or who don't investigate the reports of those who did to forget how bad the past was in its own way. Only a bit more than a decade before I was born the world almost destroyed itself in a five year long, world wide conflict, and another horrible one only a couple decades before that. There was horrible discrimination, two large countries fell down the hole of Communism, we spent massive bucks on nuclear weapons which we knew we couldn't actually use, we destroyed multiple other smaller countries in proxy wars between the US and Russia, etc...

It wasn't exactly Elysium back then either. I'd say we've come forward quit a ways in many areas. It's just that back then it was a bit easier to hide corruption and bad decisions from the general public than it is now.
post #316 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky View Post

Hence, the Earth-humans need only to halt supplies and Elysium is brought to its knees in a week. There is no reason why the Earth-humans would in any way need to be subservient to a space station, to go on with life. It would be the other way around.

And what would be Elysium's reaction to that? Pick a few cities and incinerate them with nuclear weapons? And of course you leave aside the fact that you'd actually have to get all the population to cooperate with this objective, and you'd do this how? It isn't exactly a world of organized cooperation or anything. You are accusing them of over-simplification but you are indulging in the same thing in your attempt to argue against their plot.

Not that I want to find myself in the position of the protector of the script writers, since I thought it could have almost been churned out by standard Hollywood action script generation software, but I think you are calling the kettle simple here.
Edited by Dean Roddey - 12/22/13 at 7:37pm
post #317 of 489
Yes, I accuse them of over-simplification. Hence, I don't need to offer explanations any more elaborate than that level.

Why would they have nuclear weapons? They didn't even have the forethought of having even the most basic offensive weaponry on a space station (where evidently, they have mastered medical science to a level where they can heal people at a molecular reconstruction level)? The best they could figure is to call someone on the ground with an armory in sleeper minivan to fire some shoulder-launched missiles to hit something in space??? That was a WTF moment for me in the movie, for sure! Anybody else? If they can have drones to go from space to Earth to track down a particular person, why not just have space drones to defend the space station, altogether? What?...drones are morally against firing missiles, too? They sure have no problem dicing up humans, right?

Nuclear weapons could be threatening, but ultimately, if the endgame results in wiping-out your labor force and irradiating the territory of supporting any life for hundreds of years, what could you possibly accomplish with the threat? So it seems to me, the nuclear option is not an option, if they are so reliant on Earth-people to man their factories. wink.gif I reiterate an earlier point, that this movie premise is so horse$h1t stupid, it's ridiculously easy to premise how it shoots itself in the foot, given any attempt to rationalize it.

...and why not just colonize the moon???
Edited by Mr. Hanky - 12/22/13 at 7:51pm
post #318 of 489
Two cities on earth were wiped out with nuclear weapons. It didn't destroy the planet, only those two cities. Everyone else was still quite capable of going to work, and people still live in those cities today. And of course the threat would likely make it unnecessary to actually carry out, and that assuming that the humans on the planet could ever reach that level of wide spread cooperation that would make the threat necessary, which seems unlikely to me.

As to the shoulder launched missles, it was my understanding that it was at least partly done that way so that it wouldn't require use of weapons from the space station itself, i.e. keep it quiet, not because they don't have missiles of the same sort on the space station, which I'm sure that they would have.
post #319 of 489
...because radioactive particles know how to selectively stay in the city they became active in, right? "That" kind of immigration might be considered rude, of course. I think they might spread around a bit and cause more havoc than just "2 cities"...stuff like wind currents, waterways, disruption of eco-systems, 3-headed bear, maybe even Man-Bear-Pig. tongue.gif I'm sure a nuke couldn't be handled "quietly", either. So call the bluff. Evidently, some populace aboard Elysium would frown upon nuking Earth people, if it was so important to blow some illegal transport ships into shrapnel "quietly".

None of this stuff makes sense, really. They just sloppily pick and chose little plot devices to make a contrived "situation" as it suits the need, right?

...and let's say they did nuke 2 cities. Don't you think that might create some harsh feelings? It doesn't engender people to suddenly agree to work for you in your awesome droid factory. More likely, they might be thinking of asymmetric warfare...maybe send something back that blows the $h1t out of Elysium? What about the rest of the world? Did they suddenly become compliant, too? Attacking Earth with nukes might be taken unkindly from other Earth forces, too...or are we to assume Los Angeles of all places ended up being the last bastion of intelligent life on the planet? Really, L.A.?! That's little self-congratulatory, I think....and where did all the Chinese people go? 140 yrs into the future, I think China could blow a space station out of the sky. If not that, they could certainly provide supplies to Elysium at lower cost...hence making those unruly Los Angeleans a moot point, altogether. tongue.gif
Edited by Mr. Hanky - 12/22/13 at 8:20pm
post #320 of 489
OK, whatever. It's just a movie, and I'm sure you can come up with endless justifications for your position. I was just pointing out that they weren't as obvious as you seem to think they are. I'm not going to get into a long, drawn out argument about it.
post #321 of 489
not just a movie,
a stupid drawn out movie
... but i 'm biased because i hate south african accents in movies
post #322 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky View Post

...because radioactive particles know how to selectively stay in the city they became active in, right? "That" kind of immigration might be considered rude, of course. I think they might spread around a bit and cause more havoc than just "2 cities"...stuff like wind currents, waterways, disruption of eco-systems, 3-headed bear, maybe even Man-Bear-Pig. tongue.gif I'm sure a nuke couldn't be handled "quietly", either. So call the bluff. Evidently, some populace aboard Elysium would frown upon nuking Earth people, if it was so important to blow some illegal transport ships into shrapnel "quietly".

None of this stuff makes sense, really. They just sloppily pick and chose little plot devices to make a contrived "situation" as it suits the need, right?

...and let's say they did nuke 2 cities. Don't you think that might create some harsh feelings? It doesn't engender people to suddenly agree to work for you in your awesome droid factory. More likely, they might be thinking of asymmetric warfare...maybe send something back that blows the $h1t out of Elysium? What about the rest of the world? Did they suddenly become compliant, too? Attacking Earth with nukes might be taken unkindly from other Earth forces, too...or are we to assume Los Angeles of all places ended up being the last bastion of intelligent life on the planet? Really, L.A.?! That's little self-congratulatory, I think....and where did all the Chinese people go? 140 yrs into the future, I think China could blow a space station out of the sky. If not that, they could certainly provide supplies to Elysium at lower cost...hence making those unruly Los Angeleans a moot point, altogether. tongue.gif
Mr. Hanky, your post looks like it's begging you to watch this movie again. You know, to get answers to questions...smile.gif
post #323 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post

When did the (now uber-cliched) thing start where suddenly everything goes quiet, a flashback starts or it goes into slow-mo, and the string pads start with an Indian singer wailing away over them? I can't count the number of times I've seen that used in movies in recent years. It's reached the point of almost being annoying due to it's overuse.
Dean, you weren't supposed to notice that....biggrin.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by darthrsg View Post

That's why Foster needed to be ejected and let Kruger run the show
I am not sure that would have helped too much...
Frankly, I think the real problem with this movie is the WRITING.
It's just not clever enough or as polished as it should be and everything suffers because of it: characters, plot, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky View Post

...and yet factories with inhumane working conditions, 140 yrs from now, are entirely believable? That's one of the really stupid things about this movie...
Are you implying humans will evolve to the point of actually acting humanely to other humans 140 years from now?

Quote:
and it just nonsensically picks and chooses things that will or will not be to create this contrived future premise. Like how do they got these awesomely mobile and effective droids running around, but they still need humans in a factory to push around pallets and pull levers???
This is what SciFi is all about: IMAGINING.wink.gif
post #324 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post

They built the space station because they felt they needed to do it. That doesn't necessarily mean they found it well within their budget. Enough droids to run all the support industries on earth would be a lot of metal and manufacturing, which they could only get from earth and would have to manufacture on earth. And every robot that wears out has to be replaced at their expense. The people who wear out cost them almost nothing to replace. And no, the folks working for them aren't 'slaves', but they obviously also aren't exactly being paid well and the number of people vs. number of jobs pretty much means that you are disposable if you don't cooperate in any way, as Is demonstrated in the movie. It's a pretty thin line between that and effective slavery, particularly as regards the point I was making, i.e. cost and compliance of labor.

It's only in a world where human worker have enough clout to demand a wage that makes them more expensive than machinery that machinery tends to be used instead of humans, or where machinery can do things that humans aren't capable of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky View Post

Hence, the Earth-humans need only to halt supplies and Elysium is brought to its knees in a week. There is no reason why the Earth-humans would in any way need to be subservient to a space station, to go on with life. It would be the other way around.
I hope you 2 guys appreciate the irony of your conversation; you have put more thought into film than the actual filmmaker.biggrin.gif
post #325 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post


Are you implying humans will evolve to the point of actually acting humanely to other humans 140 years from now?

Probably not, considering how things are trending. Which is the point of the movie, a point some folks seem to have missed. It's not political per se, although some people like to make that of everything. It's just how we're wired as animals who evolved in a dog-eat-dog world. The haves will always take as much advantage of the have-nots as the latter will allow.

Nothing new there. The game is the same, the only thing that's changed is the way it's played. Carefully designed and targeted propaganda has taken the place of brute force as we become more "civilized". It's no longer enough that the downtrodden know their place; they now have to be persuaded to like it.

Education is the wild-card, always has been. That's why the Roman Catholic priesthood forbade the European peasantry to learn to read or write, under penalty of death, during the thousand year dark ages and why Muslim extremists today are determined to keep women in a state of [hopefully blissful] ignorance by doing the same. Knowledge is power, and it's also dangerous.

If subjugation is all you know and all you've ever known, controlling you is a lot easier. This movie had more to say about the modern age than some folks give it credit for.
post #326 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

Probably not, considering how things are trending. Which is the point of the movie, a point some folks seem to have missed. It's not political per se, although some people like to make that of everything. It's just how we're wired as animals who evolved in a dog-eat-dog world. The haves will always take as much advantage of the have-nots as the latter will allow.

Nothing new there. The game is the same, the only thing that's changed is the way it's played. Carefully designed and targeted propaganda has taken the place of brute force as we become more "civilized". It's no longer enough that the downtrodden know their place; they now have to be persuaded to like it.

Education is the wild-card, always has been. That's why the Roman Catholic priesthood forbade the European peasantry to learn to read or write, under penalty of death, during the thousand year dark ages and why Muslim extremists today are determined to keep women in a state of [hopefully blissful] ignorance by doing the same. Knowledge is power, and it's also dangerous.

If subjugation is all you know and all you've ever known, controlling you is a lot easier. This movie had more to say about the modern age than some folks give it credit for.

Yep.
post #327 of 489
This thread is more interesting than the dang movie.

My problem with the "earth" portrayal was that it looked like Escape from L.A. without the hookers and tasty tidal waves. No fun at all.
post #328 of 489
Protagonist doesn't get the girl AND takes one for the team; totally un-Hollywood. Too bad that's all they got right.
post #329 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by rezzy View Post

Protagonist doesn't get the girl AND takes one for the team; totally un-Hollywood. Too bad that's all they got right.
It also had cool guns, and William Fitchner's character was great. I loved his line "Don't, breathe on me." Otherwise I agree, the movie was basically a mess. The pimped out Nissan GT-R was totally incongruous.

jeff
post #330 of 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

Probably not, considering how things are trending. Which is the point of the movie, a point some folks seem to have missed. It's not political per se, although some people like to make that of everything. It's just how we're wired as animals who evolved in a dog-eat-dog world. The haves will always take as much advantage of the have-nots as the latter will allow.

Nothing new there. The game is the same, the only thing that's changed is the way it's played. Carefully designed and targeted propaganda has taken the place of brute force as we become more "civilized". It's no longer enough that the downtrodden know their place; they now have to be persuaded to like it.

Education is the wild-card, always has been. That's why the Roman Catholic priesthood forbade the European peasantry to learn to read or write, under penalty of death, during the thousand year dark ages and why Muslim extremists today are determined to keep women in a state of [hopefully blissful] ignorance by doing the same.
If subjugation is all you know and all you've ever known, controlling you is a lot easier.
Truth.

Quote:
Knowledge is power, and it's also dangerous.
The problem is a LITTLE bit of knowledge passes for wisdom and certainty.
Nothing is more "dangerous."wink.gif

Quote:
This movie had more to say about the modern age than some folks give it credit for.
It's still not a good movie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greenjp View Post

The pimped out Nissan GT-R was totally incongruous.
Agreed.
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