Discussion in 'Misc. Films' started by Thread Manager, Aug 5, 2013.
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]337989[/split]
Neill Blomkamps New Sci-Fi Film is Called Elysium; Reps Say He Wont Direct The Hobbit
OK, first up, no great surprise that when Neill Blomkamps representatives finally spoke up about the rumor that he would direct The Hobbit, their response was, uh, no.
At the end of last week a report from The One Ring, firmly characterized even there as rumor, suggested that Blomkamp was the choice to direct The Hobbit. Easy to see where that would come from, given his prior experience working with Peter Jackson on District 9. But Vulture talked to an insider from Blomkamps agency, WME, who said that he isnt directing and hasnt even been contacted.
But the more interesting news to come out of Vultures report is that the sci-fi film Blomkamp has talked about over the past year is called Elysium. A recap on details about that one after the break.
Vultures report that nixes the Blomkamp in the Shire rumor says that hes working on Elysium, an original sci-fi script of his, for Media Rights Capital.
That makes Elysium the name of the film that he mentioned back in October,
"Hopefully, this will be a bit unique, very much a reflection of me. It is absolutely another science fiction film, quite different from `District 9, but some of the blending of genres and the tone might be within the same realm."
Which also seems to be the same film he discussed at Comic Con last year when premiering District 9,
"Ive got one science fiction idea that Im absolutely in love with, which Im pretty sure is going to be my next film. 99% sure
Its totally original, its my own story
Its set on another planet, but its cool. Its violent, very violent, and very unique hopefully. Well see."
Hes also said of the film,
"it is science fiction and it has many sociopolitical ideas that interest me. Those ideas are wrapped up inside something that is like a Hollywood action film
The setting for the next film takes place 150 years from now. There are two cities that Im choosing between. They would play as themselves. They are not in South Africa."
That last comment seems to contradict the set on another planet aspect, but no big deal. Its his story things can change.
More important is the Media Rights Capital part of the equation, which cant really be over-emphasized.
When that deal was announced, we heard that not only would MRC finance the film, the company will give Blomkamp creative freedom and an ownership stake in the film. Thats a big deal. That sort of deal is also part of why hes expressed a lack of interest in doing massively-budgeted studio films. Why work on a $200m production with a dozen suits looking over your shoulder every day when you can have total freedom on your own project? Sure, Elysiums last budget report pegged it as being in the $30-40m range, but we saw what Blomkamp can do with that budget on District 9. Hes in perfect territory.
10 minutes shy of 2 hours is pretty much the same thing. It felt way longer than 2 hours though. I can't count how many people in my row at the IMAX theater were snoring.
I won't be adjusting my expectations for this, but I will definitely wait until I see the film to consider and dissect it.
I can understand it feeling longer then it is. I have sat through more then a few films like that. But as a general rule, I feel like there is a significant difference between a 2 hour film, and one that runs 10 mins longer or shorter.
I'll put it this way, Elysium could have been an 80 minute movie and it would have lot nothing in terms of storytelling. That's why those +/- 10 minutes don't matter in this context. It's dead air.
But is there enough Kruger?
It's not a "need to read" but its certainly an interesting read. How many non-American or British filmmakers get handed 100 million dollar budgets to make films that they admit are largely in part their comment on America? An article in which he explains the origins of those views is certainly worth reading I would say.
Intent and action are two different things of course but intent does exist as context for action.
Viewership is a collaborative effort. You bring your own understanding and context to the material and are of course free and encouraged to rate the film on that basis but I do not agree it is the only context that matters when constructing a reading of the material.
Media can certainly include meanings not directly intended by their originators, films are often thoughtlessly sexist or jingoistic for instance, but race and class are central to this movie and are indeed things the director has thought through so I would say his thoughts on the matter are indeed pertinent to a discussion about the films themes and messages in that regard.
For me there was too much. It just got ridiculous. And Copely went off the rails with it. I don't want to divulge spoilers.
From your links:
a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics
of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background
Explain the difference.
Also, where you live, U.S. or Canada or Antarctica, "Race" and "Ethnicity" are not scientific terms. They are layman terms that are often used interchangeably that have no scientific definitions. Also, if you believe in your definitions, why are you calling this film "racist" and not "ethnicist"?
You can feel however you want but I judge a movie on its own merits. A story has to stand up completely independently without the help of interviews, press notes, prequel comics, featurettes, etc, etc to expound on the story presented on the screen.
They have no largely biological significance but they are not necessarily laymans terms nor are they interchangeable. Race represents a category in which people are place and such categories are largely determined by the society at large. They are very subjective in that way.
Ethnicity however is more literally fact based in that it is more rooted in actual family history, where your ancestors come from and the cultural traditions you yourself practice. It is far more of a matter of self identification rather than a category placed from on high without context.
I refuse to believe such a thing is possible.
Actually, you judge a movie on how you interpret its merits. It is the same for everyone really.
Just remember that the viewer also brings their own baggage to a film.
If someone is bored by the Godfather, is that the Godfather's fault?
But I understand what you mean. Sucker Punch flounders no matter what Zach Snyder has to say about it though it doesn't help that he can be nausiatingly inarticulate about his own work.
Why are you picking and choosing the only sentence that applies to the point you're trying to make? Look at the entire definition:
a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock
a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics
an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species
a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits
That means race is defined at a genetic level. And you also missed the point of why it has become obsolete. It's not because scientists were "wrong" 200 years ago it's because the races that were once defined are now mixed on a global scale. That's why ethnicity was defined in the 1950s, to help create distinctions OUTSIDE of the genetically attributed connotations.
Because I don't think the director did a good job of portraying ethnicity. He went the racial route, segregating ALL of a people as one thing and ALL of another people as something else. Like when you put South Americans, Hispanics and Latinos all together and pretend there isn't a difference. That's what they did in this movie. That's why it felt racist to me.
Oh absolutely people bring baggage in. I'm not disputing that. What I guess I didn't explain properly is what you say in that last sentence.
Preaching to the choir
Really this doesn't surprise me given Blomkamp's problematic treatment of Nigerians in District 9.
I don't know what you could possibly mean. Sucker Punch was full of deep and thoughtful meaning. It was cool, and very cool. Not to mention the cool.
It's also a matter of a lot of people rate films on how well they think it lived up to its aims. We live in a time when filmmakers readily discuss what those aims are.
That is by no means the ideal metric by which to evaluate media, as some aims represent a pretty low bar, and such a metric assumes much pre-meditation on the part of the content creators.
It is full of attempted deep meaning.
To be honest I heard about that controversy but didn't really pick up on it until this week when I rewatched D9. If you're looking for it, it's very noticeable.
The thing that D9 had that this one doesn't is aliens. Because the aliens are foreign to everyone that makes them relatable to everyone. Different people can in their own way relate to them. In Elysium there are no aliens. It's basically Latinos/Hispanics on Earth and Caucasians on Elysium. And the only reason we're given to relate to the people on Earth is they're poor. Rich white people went to elysium because they could afford it, and we're supposed to fault them for it. I don't understand that mentality.
That isn't cool man.
Really? You are just going to leave that out there?
Leave what? What exactly is wrong with that statement? I think you're focusing on words that I'm saying instead of the theme of what I'm saying. Elysium has cookie-cutter peoples without distinct characteristics that are necessary to make them relatable. The aliens in D9 were treated with more care than the people in this movie.
Poni Boy behaving like an a** for no reason. Why are you still in this thread if it's just to spit your venom at the movie. You keep trashing the movie, and not even being discreet about it.
What is your problem? You gave your opinion, now let it go, we get you hate the movie, don't have to harp on about it for pages and pages.