From the trailers they are so pure that Damon fights robots, thus not killing mooks, mercenaries or even the 1 percent until the other cyborg shows up while the rich just shot down refugees rather then stopping them and returning them to earth.
Elysium - grade/review and spoilers - also controversy
- Thread starter DarthTom
- Start date
From the trailers they are so pure that Damon fights robots, thus not killing mooks, mercenaries or even the 1 percent until the other cyborg shows up while the rich just shot down refugees rather then stopping them and returning them to earth.
In short if true, this film will be District 9 in reverse. In District 9 most of the humans are the evil ones whereas the aliens are the ones subjugated [the small 1%]. In Elysium the 99% are the have nots and the 1% are the evil ones.
Blomkamp must like rinse repeating the same plot structure.
Yes, none of us have actually discussed the quality of the film itself yet. Based on District 9 though, I am definitely interested in giving this movie a try.
Oh definately here too as a sci-fi fan. In fact, I'll give it the full treatment, IMAX - good or bad reviews.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
So a filmmaker expresses a political opinion in a film. Holy shit.
Could we please start to distinguish between a piece of entertainment and politics?
A successful science fiction film is not going to ruin anyone's election campaign, which is what FoxNews is apparently afraid of and why they criticize it so vehemently.
The hope with THEY LIVE! is that it would influence the 88 election in favor of ANYbody but the Reps, but it came out the same week (3 days late I think), so there was no time for it to do anything of the sort.
Oliver Stone had a film he wanted to make about IranContra but once it was clear it wouldn't finish in time for the 88 election, he bailed on it.
There's a book from several years back I need to get that explores how US intel has had fingers in all the studios since WW2 to keep anybody from putting real good spin out in a timely manner. Unfortunately the HC goes for about 80 bucks.
Well for a few more hours the 99 percent of us can only talk about the political controversy, unless animals were killed in the production. It is the thing which the OP asked for in the thread title.
It would be hypocrisy if he didn't pay his local taxes which support public schools. I can afford to use FedEx and UPS, that doesn't mean I'm a hypocrite for supporting the Post Office.
Yeah, given that he is a celebrity sending his kids to public school would be kind of reckless so I can't blame him for using private schools.
Studies have shown that this isn't a caricature
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/02/income-and-ethics/
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/are-rich-people-more-ethical/254689/
Good point
Also public services exist to make sure everybody have access to the bare minimum of necessary services (like education). Demanding better public education while using a private school is not hypocritical. It's about caring for the less fortunate.
So that brings us to the political controversy of the movie. In effect what makes his kids special? Because he is part of the 1 percent?
His kids are in Elysium Middle School while the rest of us have ours in 18th Street('s) School
So that brings us to the political controversy of the movie. In effect what makes his kids special? Because he is part of the 1 percent?
His kids are in Elysium Middle School while the rest of us have ours in 18th Street('s) School
His kids aren't "special". They are lucky. Public services exist so people don't become victims of bad luck. I have no problem with the 1% spending money, its the hoarding of wealth and privilege that is the problem.
So that brings us to the political controversy of the movie. In effect what makes his kids special? Because he is part of the 1 percent?
His kids are in Elysium Middle School while the rest of us have ours in 18th Street('s) School
His kids aren't "special". They are lucky. Public services exist so people don't become victims of bad luck. I have no problem with the 1% spending money, its the hoarding of wealth and privilege that is the problem.
Just as any resident born into, married into or however they got into Elysium. They are specialy serviced because they were lucky
That's a false equivalency. Everyone's child has access to education (granting the quality of that education can vary depending on the area you live in.) Damon has chosen to send his kids to a private school likely for security reasons -him being a celebrity and all- but he still pays taxes to fund private education and supports it in principle. It's just not suitable for HIS situation. I wouldn't blame him for cruising around town in a $100,000 Mercedes while I'm in a $17,000 Ford Focus.
The "idea" in Elysium seems to be that the "other 99%" DON'T have the basics of life and civilization and the 1% DOES. (Again, citing the trailers showing Matt Damon's character close to death from a treatable illness while people in Elysium have access to cancer-ridding machines in their living room.)
So it'd be more equal to say that if the only way you can get your kid an education is by paying out the nose for private school. If you can't afford it then you kid goes uneducated.
Which speaks to the larger problem we have in society when it comes to the "1%" getting away with all sorts of things and having access to things that the rest of us don't. The economy was crashed 5 years ago because the other 99% dicked around with the rules so much. What happened? By and large a stern talking too, a slap on the wrist, and tax-payer money to go and fix things, resulting in huge bonuses to the very men who ruined things in the first place.
You or I cheat on our taxes? We get huge fines and go to prison. Those elite do it or do insider trading they get slapped on the wrist. It's a disparity.
Going back to Matt Damon he's not saying "Public schools are for suckers and my kids are going to get a good, wholesome, QUALITY education of private school" he's just saying, "look I can afford it and my kids would likely be a disability to a learning environment in public school. It's a great service for people to use but it doesn't work for my situation."
Again, I can see the argument the movie wants to make and I also think I mostly agree with it as the whole 1%/99% think I see the argument behind. It's a huge disparity and half our country and elected officials have been fighting against people getting something as simple as health care.
It is a big problem we have in society.
Do I think the movie is trying to make the argument? I'm not sure. I'm also not sure "District 9" was a commentary to Apartheid.
Special implies a unique trait hence justified being set apart. Luck is not a trait. You can't earn it, give it, receive it, or hold on to it.
I'm am not sure when wanting basic rights and privileges for everyone in society became a part of the socialist agenda. Wanting a basic standard of living for everyone does not equal everyone having the same standard of living.
When: Since the dawn of time. Social justice has always been part of liberal/progressive/socialist agenda. Conservatives believes in "rugged individualism" and "I've got mine, screw you-ism"
Well said. The millions of poor people out there aren't asking to live in mansions or drive expensive cars or anything. They just want basic access to services, the ability to support their families, and to not have to send their kids to bed hungry every night.
And yeah I know, "capitalism doesn't work that way, yadda yadda," but at a certain point corporations and the rich are going to hoard so much of the money there won't be enough people left who can afford to keep the machine going, and it'll just grind to a halt.
Probably around the same time the Supreme Court said the states couldn't keep black kids out of white schools.
I'd like to be interested in the movie and support its obvious agenda, but much like In Time, I'm having difficulty with the concept. Surely it'd be far easier, and much more appealing, to construct and defend a colony for the super-rich on some tropical island paradise than to construct and maintain an orbital facility. Granted, then you wouldn't have the literal top-to-bottom visual metaphor, but...
Unrelated to the social issues on this film - I'm noticing a pattern regarding what appears to be decent films e.g. Pacific Rim and others that have failed this summer [ which potentially is also Elysium] and IMO there seems to be a lack of creativity in the marketing departments to promoting these films.
Trek, World War Z, Obvilion and others were promoted well across several media platforms.
Pacific Rim and After Earth were promoted very badly.
Trek, World War Z, Obvilion and others were promoted well across several media platforms.
Pacific Rim and After Earth were promoted very badly.