Neill Blomkamp’s next project... ELYSIUM?

[Boom]

Give this man Metal Gear Solid.

Blomkamp's Cyborg Ninja would wreck the space/time continuum.

 

[addison81]

And to think this will be R rated. They can't even show the best stuff. The weaponry doesn't look very friendly!

 

[Still Wynning]

And to think this will be R rated. They can't even show the best stuff. The weaponry doesn't look very friendly!

R-rated? Isn't that kind of financially risky ($90 million)?

Not that I'm complaining, mind you.

 

[addison81]

It'll definitely hurt it's potential money wise, but considering the rest of the summer movies budgets, Elysium has a small budget. And I bet this makes more than Oblivion and After Earth, 2 PG-13 sic fi summer films.

 

[Boom]

I'm going to tell everybody about this movie.

 

[superherofan777]

I heard the budget for this is only around $100-120 million! Only that, and he makes it look better than most blockbuster film do with twice that budget. The man knows how to stretch the dollar.

To put it into perspective, Box Office Mojo lists The Avengers production budget at $220 million, Star Trek Into Darkness at $190 million, and Iron Man 3 at $200 million. Yet, the CG and production values of those films don't look nearly as good as they do in this film. If I was just an Average Joe, and was told what film looked more expensive, I would hands down pick this film.

If Blomkamp can make something that looks like this for only half of most major blockbusters, imagine what he could do with a full, blockbuster budget! I mean, the sheer scale and quality of that film would be astounding!

Thats f***ing extraordinary. I can`t believe Iron man 3/avengers cost so much, Elysium`s CGI is honestly awe inspiring. Imagine the sequnce when matt damon spaceships into Elysuim!

...Oh god I wanna see this film BAD. t:

 

[jacobed]

Give this man Metal Gear Solid.

Blomkamp's Cyborg Ninja would wreck the space/time continuum.

And then Halo

 

[Boom]

**** Halo. Fox and Universal had their chance .

 

[redhawk23]

R-rated? Isn't that kind of financially risky ($90 million)?

Not that I'm complaining, mind you.

Faith in the audience that hopefully will be rewarded.

But R rated films have done pretty well in August the past few years, with Expendables films, District 9 and Inglourious Basterds cleaning up quite well in 09, and Tropic Thunder the year before that.

 

[Still Wynning]

Thats f***ing extraordinary. I can`t believe Iron man 3/avengers cost so much, Elysium`s CGI is honestly awe inspiring. Imagine the sequnce when matt damon spaceships into Elysuim!

...Oh god I wanna see this film BAD. t:

Actually, after doing a bit more research, apparently the budget for this film is $90 million.

That's even more impressive.

Faith in the audience that hopefully will be rewarded.

But R rated films have done pretty well in August the past few years, with Expendables films, District 9 and Inglourious Basterds cleaning up quite well in 09, and Tropic Thunder the year before that.

I really hope this film starts a new trend for more, big budget R-rated films.

 

[redhawk23]

I don't know why studios act like they are unheard of, there is at least 1 extremely succesful r-rated film each year, even if they are just comedies.

Django and Prometheus both made over 400 million world wide last year on sizable budgets. Both made more than what Captain America did and only slightly less than Thor.

 

[kvz5]

DAT TRAILER!

I can't deal with it. It looks SO, SO GOOD.

 

[Figs]

Just saw the trailer, I'm gonna stick my neck out and say this is going to be a sci fi classic that joins the elite.

I'm so pumped for this film and I'm happy as all hell that it's going to be on Imax.

 

[Kaleb]

This and Man of Steel are the only 2 films I want to see this year.

Hmm suddenly going to see Man of Steel doesn't seem like a priority anymore.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I thought it was funny how the trailer says "we live on Earth".

Rich people watching this trailer must be like "we?"

 

[Kaleb]

On a side note,this looks like Matt Damons best work in ages (possibly ever)

 

[Eggyman]

On a side note,this looks like Matt Damons best work in ages (possibly ever)

Damon has become one of the finest actors of his generation.

This looks incredible. I'll be at the front of the line when this opens and can already see where it'll be sitting in my bluray collection.

 

[Kaleb]

I'm really hoping they screen it at the Durban Film Festival here in South Africa (they did it with D9 a few months before release)

 

[Gianakin_]

Oh, this is gonna be a masterpiece.

 

[dark_b]

trailer

activate Kruger

 

[dark_b]

Peter Jackson needs to call Blomkamp up immediately and ask for his help because he needs it big time.

and in 10 years when Blomkamp will do a movie that we dont like we will say to the new young director that he should help him. circle of life

 

[dark_b]

That, my friends, is how CGI is done.

.

it looks 102% real. but not every movie should look dirty/rusty/dusty with direct strong sunlight and dark shadows. thats one of the reasons why it looks real. plus filming on location. one of the reason why Spielberg's movies have realistic CGI.t:

but whats this obsession with realistic cgi in the last years? in the 80's and 90's we all enjoyed fake looking practical effects and fake backgrounds and miniatures. t:
i noticed that every week we complain about the realism in action and scifi movies. is this a new trend?

 

[Octoberist]

It's because in the 80's, that's all you had and the audience just accepted it. Also, due to the limitations, directors had to work around optical effects when they can, in creative ways. That's why I feel like directors were more skillful and meticulous back in the day, where as you have Roland Emmerich or yes, modern day George Lucas, CGIing everything, as far as the eye can see.

Now, with CGI, it's a tool that inherently is suppose to create PHOTO-REAL effects, oppose to optical effects of the past.

That's why people are harder on CGI because the resourses are nearly unlimited, but it depends on the execution and the time given to make sure they look good..which is kinda rare. CGI in commericals tend to look better than the CGI in movies because studio heads will cut any corner to make sure the movie (and effects) gets done on time.

 

[Octoberist]

The director in whom truly understand how to make CGI work (mostly) would be Neil Bloomkamp, Speilberg (except for Indy 4), JJ Abrams, Chris Nolan, G. Del Toro, and yes even Michael Bay. Even Roland Emmerich is very good with CGI.

The directors who don't know how to work with CGI would be Stephen Sommers..Stephenn Sommers..and Stepehn Sommers.

 

[dark_b]

It's because in the 80's, that's all you had and people accepted it. Also, due to the limitations, directors had to work around optical effects when they can, in creative ways.

Now, with CGI, it's a tool that inherently is suppose to create PHOTO-REAL effects, oppose to optical effects of the past.

That's why people are harder on CGI because the resourses are nearly unlimited, but it depends on the execution and the time given to make sure they look good..which is kinda rare. CGI in commericals tend to look better than the CGI in movies because studio heads will cut any corner to make sure the movie (and effects) gets done on time.

but some directors are on purpose making it look fake. they are going for an artistic vision. a fake world where they have 100% control about everything. light,placement of mountains,clouds,sun,buildings,....
i think the problem is that a lot are not used to see 50/50 fake real movies. 300 is a 100% stylized movie. District 9 is a 100% realistic looking movie. some movies are in between.

Pacific Rim is a movie where Del Toro said f... this. i am going after my vision. the fight in Hong Kong looks like a cartoon. f... yeah. t: