Elysium (Page 1 of 3)

The computer code website I referenced in the commentary:   http://moviecode.tumblr.com/

What are you doing, movie-now with twice as much hate

I cannot fathom how anyone can care that much about coding.

The irony. It burns.

Q: How many Screenwriters does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: THE LIGHT BULB??? But that's the best part!!!

FTFY

I'm not calling anyone a nerd. Coding is something that the vast majority of people don't understand. When it's on screen it's just there to let the audience know that some computer shit is going on; shows and films don't really have the time to take a break and explain to everyone the innerworkings of fictional hardware and software. The idea that some sci-fi movie/show needs to be called out because it featured 20 frames of C++ instead of it's own made up programming language is kinda crazy. It's such a minuscule element of television and film that it's bordering on pointless. It'd be like me dissecting every baseball scene in media and bitching about the grip the pitchers have on the ball.

Now, if you wanna bitch about the illogical aspect of something like two completely incompatible devices linking together (Independence Day) or computers doing things in the present that fucking impossible (every network cop show ever), that's something I could at least understand.

The Social Network is about someone who specializes in computer code, that's vastly different than some futuristic hacking system in The Matrix.

Also, I'm not saying the code itself has to be accurate, because you're right that you won't spot that stuff in the moment (usually, though I was ecstatic to see proper shell commands being used in Social Network). The bigger question is the design/look of that stuff, which tends to be over-engineered graphical bullshit flying all over the screen, which bears no resemblance to actual coding (Skyfall is the most recent culprit of this crap).

Just toning that stuff down, or making something visually believable, goes a long way.

You mention the Matrix, and while the vertically scrolling matrix character stuff makes no sense, the way it's presented visually is simple and consistent enough that you can buy that this is just how the machine-engineered code works, and that the human operators have gotten good enough at looking at it that they can pick up on what's going on. It also doesn't hurt that the "in-world" hacking we see Trinity doing in those movies is actually pretty believable too. Wachowski's did their homework.

Last edited by bullet3 (2014-02-19 22:23:57)

If you assume that people won't care, then eventually they won't care as laziness breeds laziness. Every time you think that people won't notice, you're just giving yourself an excuse. Stories function not just as entertainment, but as a means of teaching people about all sorts of things (love, life, happiness, morality, friendship etc.). Movies should aspire to make people want to notice the details and the accuracy, and inspire the viewer to want to find out more. I think that if you care, so too will your audience.

The other side of this is the prevalence of misinformation in movies and its potential danger. Like it or not, films have tremendous power and influence over a lot of people, and every time these misrepresent something - whether it be history, science or cultural - they shape or reinforce views. Thus if the information retrieved is false or incomplete, the damage can be irrevocable (first impressions tending to persist).

And whilst you can argue that something like Hackers is rather harmless in its portrayal of hacking as some ubercool magic VR nonsense, the insidious false reality of most films appears to go unnoticed. Take Braveheart for instance, a film that is utterly irresponsible in how badly it portrays actual history events and has the gall to have a narrator tell you that it's the 'true story' and that the English are lying.

Such is the nature of Robert Rodriguez's work as the years go by.

This is generally how I feel about the sad state of affairs that is spelling and grammar, but I digress.

Getting on topic about the actual film, the panel talks about the flashbacks with the love interests as children, thus establishing their relationship and how much they love each other, and how you don't need those scenes because you can easily get all of that across in their interactions as adults.

For me, Elysium pulls this kind of crap IMMEDIATELY. It opens with info-text, explaining how bad things are on Earth and then SHOWS us the poverty-stricken conditions people are living in. The next thing we see is more info-text, telling us about the privileged, ring-world of Elysium, in space. Then, they SHOW IT! I don't know if this was a studio mandate or a pre-existing thing in the script but much like the theatrical cuts of Blade Runner, Dark City and Looper, this film treats the audience like they're dumber than soup mix, with opening info-dumps via text or narration that we don't need because THAT'S WHAT THE MOVIE IS FOR! THEY'RE CALLED MOTION PICTURES FOR A REASON! Or, in short, SHOW DON'T TELL!

I think that's one of Elysium's core problems. It's redundant as all hell. That's why the Mini-Boss gets killed, only to be resurrected so he can BE KILLED AGAIN! And for what? Michael Bay's version of Mike Tyson's Punch-Out? Oh, and swords! Don't forget swords! It's that mentality that a lot of filmmakers have these days (Robert Rodriguez, Edgar Wright, Paul W.S. Anderson, McG, Michael Bay, etc.), where they're so obsessed with doing things because it's cool or clever, they stop worrying about what's necessary or practical for the sake of their characters, story and plot.

Hopefully, this will just be a case of the Sophomore Slump for Blomkamp and his next venture will lean more towards smart, insightful science fiction and he can fulfill the promise he showed with District 9.