MovieChat Forums > Elysium (2013) Discussion > Even The DIRECTOR Said He *beep* Up The ...

Even The DIRECTOR Said He beep Up The Movie!

posted 10 years ago by General_Haberdashery
33 replies | jump to latest

I respect his honesty and I absolutely agree with him.

Even if some of the fans try to paint this film with a golden brush it is clearly not up to snuff and he knows it.

"I *beep* It Up" Neill Blomkamp Says.

"I feel like ultimately the story is not the right story. I still think the satirical idea of a ring filled with rich people hovering above the impoverished Earth is an awesome idea. I love it so much, I almost want to go back and do it correctly. But I just think the script wasn’t… I just didn’t make a good enough film is ultimately what it is. I feel like I executed all of the stuff that could be executed, like costume and set design and special effects very well. But ultimately it was all resting on a somewhat not totally formed skeletal system, so the script just wasn’t there…"

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/i-f-cked-it-up-neill-blomkamp-s ays-he-wants-to-go-back-to-elysium-and-do-it-correctly-20150226

If there was any lingering doubt that Elysium was a mediocre film from a very talented director I hope this clears that up.

[–] psdhart 10 years ago

i agree too, could have been better

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Royalcourtier 9 years ago

He is being honest. If you think that is "crying like a prick", I feel very sorry for you, you must have some major issues.

[–] osubuckeye420 9 years ago

I agree with him. The movie was fine, but it could have been so much more.

Visually it was a solid movie. The performances were adequate, for the most part.

You had your main plotline, which was that Damon was dying and he needed to get to Elysium. That's all well and good.

Where it all fell apart, was in the details and secondary characters. The "good guys" behaved a lot of the time like bad guys. The "bad guys" motivation for being bad was never really fleshed out. Why wouldn't they share their medical resources? Was there a finate number of times that they could be used?

The movie made sense at the basic level, but when you started to pick away at it's layers, it all fell apart.

Anyways, it wasn't a terrible movie... it just could have been a lot better if more attention would have been paid to the details/secondary characters and plotlines.

[–] Jnbfwc 9 years ago

"The movie made sense at the basic level, but when you started to pick away at it's layers, it all fell apart."

Keep in mind that it's not an average movie because later on we all thought about it and realized that it doesn't hold water; it's an average movie because as you are watching it, you are not feeling anything more than the superficial rush of decent action sequences and a mild mystery.

[–] Clouseau2 (164) 3 years ago

"Why wouldn't they share their medical resources?"

There are enough resources in the United States to feed, clothe, house and provide medical care for every single person. But that isn't happening for similar reasons as in "Elysium."

Simple example: it would cost $20 billion to eliminate homelessness in the USA. Just one person, Jeff Bezos, increased his considerable wealth almost 4 times as much that amount in 2020.

[–] Verfed (24) 3 years ago

The cities and states throwing the most money at homelessness are the ones with the greatest growth in homeless population. It's not a money issue, never was.

[–] RoboReCop (3294) 3 years ago

Though I dislike the guy, Bezos is worth $20 billion, he doesn't have $20 billion. js

[–] The LA Baker (971) 2 years ago

Throwing money at homelessness has not and will not fix it. The homeless who want to recover have had the resources to do so for decades. Mental health and drug addiction along with no desire to participate in society keep people homeless. Believe it or not many homeless people choose to be homeless.

In just the past 3 years in California alone they have allocated over $12 billion to fight homelessness.
Money won't fix it.

[–] Clouseau2 (164) 2 years ago

So that's $4 billion a year when a lot more is needed. Also much of the money spent is to deal with the effects. It costs $106,000 per year to imprison someone, a lot less to house, feed and clothe them outside of prison.

[–] The LA Baker (971) 2 years ago

So, do you think more money will fix it?

[–] Clouseau2 (164) a year ago

It's not just that it would take "X money" to "fix it," it's that US society (and many others) is engineered to benefit the rich at the expense of everyone else.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out if rents & housing prices keep going up faster than wages that eventually you end up with homeless people.

In 1985, when many baby boomers were entering their peak earning years, it took 30 weeks of median MALE worker pay (female was 45) to pay for the median basic living costs (housing, education, transportation & healthcare) for a family of 4.

That's before any avocado toast or a cable TV bill.

In 2018, that increased to 53 weeks. The median female worker needs to work 66 weeks to earn enough to pay these expenses. There are 52 weeks in a year.

I remember I worked part-time in college and full time during the summer in the early 1990s to help pay for my education. I couldn't cover 100% but I could cover quite a bit. In the 1970s it was possible to cover 100%. It's virtually impossible today.

[–] The LA Baker (971) a year ago

You live in a delusional world completely devoid of pragmatism or any problem solving skills.

You have no answers other than, we need to do more.

Fuck that. THEY need to do more for themselves if they can, and if they can't will they ever become not homeless?

Seems you want to dump resources into a population that mostly doesn't care about anything than getting high, whether to dull the pain or self medicate, and have no desire to contribute anything at all.

At least a dozen times I have seen a hobo with a "hungry. anything will help" sign and instead of handing them cash, went to the deli and got them a primo sandwich/chips/drink. I go back and hand it to them and they literally throw it on the ground.
They are not desperate. They are not hungry. They do no need shelter.
They have everything they need already. They want cash for booze/drugs.
They lie to get it.
They have no real appreciation.
They are the dregs of society and should be shunned and banished.

[–] Clouseau2 (164) a year ago

I provided basic facts (which can easily be verified online) to back up my claims you're operating on pure emotion and anecdote. Which one of us is the one devoid of pragmatism?

There are people who will become & remain homeless drug addicts no matter how much you help but I'm not talking about that group.

I'm talking about the fact that it has become much harder simply to live in this society compared to decades ago. That's going to take a toll on people who are barely making ends meet and for some that will result in life spiraling out of control when that could have been prevented in the first place.

[–] The LA Baker (971) a year ago

I operate on pure pragmatism and honesty(and i have that reputation among my peers/friends/family/associates and I am glad) to the point it is probably a detriment. Had you said something along those lines I would have probably agreed, but instead you went the absolute retard route and claimed the exact opposite of reality.

[–] Clouseau2 (164) 5 months ago

You calling me names really convinces me that I am wrong and that you are correct. Ciao!

[–] The LA Baker (971) 4 months ago

I called your method of rhetoric retarded. I never said you were retarded. Regardless, I do not want to change your mind. I am simply recording fact and refuting nonsense.

Did you run away to your safe space?

If you cannot handle insulting language, you should probably stay in the kid friendly parts of the internet, or just log off for good.

[–] basterd7 9 years ago

Well, at least he has the guts to admit he wrote and directed a steaming pile of crap. Better luck next time, Blomkamp.

[–] Eve_of_Destruction 9 years ago

I think he is blaming the script.

[–] Mr_Recchia 9 years ago

Screenwriters, actors and directors have historically been the worst critics of their own product. Some of the greatest masterpieces of all time are despised by their makers. For example, Marlon Brando thought he was terrible in On The Waterfront and the screenwriter of Anie Hall stated he'd go back and give it a million re-writes. It's part of being an artist, the work is never good enough in their mind no matter how hard they try.

Try again. Something as common as a director not being satisfied with their work doesn't clear anything up.

Officially Canadian for 27 years. Never heard "aboot."

[–] fede_4488 8 years ago

Even the director know it's crap, don't try to spin it, fanboy

If I don't reply, you're most likely on my ignore list

[–] criztu 9 years ago

Elysium was a mediocre film from a very talented director

from a very bad writer... dude writes Christian Sci-Fi:

District 9 : Father Christ(opher) and his son have to ascend to heavens - a ship in the sky - to get salvation for his kin, fallen into a miserable way of life on Earth

Elysium 9 : Maxican has to ascend to heavens - a ship in the sky - to get salvation for his kin, fallen into a miserable way of life on Earth

These two movies are basically the same Christ story, with random variations.

[–] OLD_ACCOUNT_skribb_Mk2 9 years ago

There was nothing reliigous at all about D9 or Elusiym. They were both clearly socio-political.

---
Mouthal smell is a form of sensory input. See, if you listen carefully, you can hear the mouth.

[–] bwiggins-1 8 years ago

Lazy, plot-driven script writing. Stereotypical characters with virtually no development and depth. The acting choices from everyone, Foster especially, ranged from hammy to nonsensical. Given the unquestioned talent and experience of the director and cast, it's weird how so much could go so seriously wrong in the making of this film.

Even The DIRECTOR Said He *beep* Up The Movie!

Even The DIRECTOR Said He beep Up The Movie!