• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Meh...I think the overtones were more "haves and have nots" and less ethnic.

Definitely classist, there was one bad token Indian guy. But have to admit the bad people were mostly honkeys and Asians. Yeah, I'm probably beating a dead horse with this one.

South Africans make for great bad guys. The main bad dude from D9 was really awesome.

I did notice the ram logo on the military attack ship thingy, same logo from D9.
 
I did notice the ram logo on the military attack ship thingy, same logo from D9.

I think you are referring to the kudu head graphic worn by the MNU soldiers in D9. A few of the troops in Elysium had it on their armor as well as on the side of the ship Kruger was in

image.jpg
 
I think you are referring to the kudu head graphic worn by the MNU soldiers in D9. A few of the troops in Elysium had it on their armor as well as on the side of the ship Kruger was in

View attachment 13862

Man where do you come up with all this stuff Papa. Yeah thats it but as well on the side of the attack ship there was a ram or kudu perhaps.

What did you think of the chem rail gun?
 
Man where do you come up with all this stuff Papa. Yeah thats it but as well on the side of the attack ship there was a ram or kudu perhaps.

What did you think of the chem rail gun?

Attention to detail , it's been a life long job requirement that bleeds over I guess. There was a profile shot of the Kudu head on the ship towards the front. But I do believe you are right, there was a brief moment where I think there was what looked like a rams head on some of their kit as well.
 
I guess it really depends on just how important it is to you. If I'm going to buy ammo components or rifle parts, I don't really care too much about the politics and beliefs of the guys making the parts. Over the years I've met some people who make parts I absolutely stand by as top quality, but interacting with them I quickly found out they fall into my "wow, you believe some crazy shit" category. Does that mean I refuse to buy from them? No, because I don't judge the quality of their products by their personal qualities, but I'm not going to go out of my way to hang out with them, that's for sure.

Actors are fucking actors - they play a role and for many of them they like to choose roles that challenge them or people's expectations of them. I'm going to take a wild guess here, but I doubt that Anthony Hopkins supports serial killing and cannibalism. And while some action stars may not share your fervent support of the 2A, should it really matter to us how their personal politics align with the roles they play? If so, Stephen Baldwin thanks you for your support. What about the grocer in your neighborhood? Does he have a lifetime NRA card? Or that smiling guy you bought your truck from? Do you preface your emails to EBay sellers with "if your politics do not align with mine, I won't buy from you"? If you're not going to apply this approach absolutely, then why are you cherrypicking on actors in a movie? And if you are prepared to be so absolutist about it, I think it's safe to say you're well on your way to living in a self-induced bubble.

Sorry Dogtown, but I have to disagree. The problem with your argument is that my grocer, the guy I buy my truck from, and EBAY sellers' opinions have nothing to do with the business I do with them. It's easy to separate. I don't get a can of beans or a tv dinner from the grocery store that preaches political dogma or has social undertones. The problem is actors and directors' personal opinions are not so easily ignored, they are often tied directly to their art(by their choice.) This is especially true in this day and age where marketing and hype give them a soap box. I do not fault them for having their opinions, they are entitled to them. The problem is when they use their fame to sway people to what many here view is the wrong mindset, a mindset very much against principles and freedoms we hold dear.

What bothers me even more than hypocritical actors who use firearms in movies and then act like that makes them an expert, is when directors decide to use their sway to "ruin" a movie with their own, not-so-subtle opinions that are blatantly intended to spoon feed the masses. It's hard to let go and check out and enjoy a movie when the director is putting obvious political themes in place that are disingenuous and a real distortion of facts. Especially when you take into account the very real issue of mass media doing this with real-life incidents, I think it's understandable that people would get fed up with seeing it even in their entertainment and from the "entertainers."

I will not be seeing this movie in theaters, not because I am boycotting Matt Damon, but because I honestly don't think I would enjoy it from the previews I saw and the theme the director chose. Maybe his reality was apartheid, but it's not the worlds' and it's not mine. I don't care to buy in to a story that seems flawed in it's premise because I won't enjoy it.
 
Sorry Dogtown, but I have to disagree. The problem with your argument is that my grocer, the guy I buy my truck from, and EBAY sellers' opinions have nothing to do with the business I do with them. It's easy to separate. I don't get a can of beans or a tv dinner from the grocery store that preaches political dogma or has social undertones. The problem is actors and directors' personal opinions are not so easily ignored, they are often tied directly to their art(by their choice.) This is especially true in this day and age where marketing and hype give them a soap box. I do not fault them for having their opinions, they are entitled to them. The problem is when they use their fame to sway people to what many here view is the wrong mindset, a mindset very much against principles and freedoms we hold dear.

What bothers me even more than hypocritical actors who use firearms in movies and then act like that makes them an expert, is when directors decide to use their sway to "ruin" a movie with their own, not-so-subtle opinions that are blatantly intended to spoon feed the masses. It's hard to let go and check out and enjoy a movie when the director is putting obvious political themes in place that are disingenuous and a real distortion of facts. Especially when you take into account the very real issue of mass media doing this with real-life incidents, I think it's understandable that people would get fed up with seeing it even in their entertainment and from the "entertainers."

I will not be seeing this movie in theaters, not because I am boycotting Matt Damon, but because I honestly don't think I would enjoy it from the previews I saw and the theme the director chose. Maybe his reality was apartheid, but it's not the worlds' and it's not mine. I don't care to buy in to a story that seems flawed in it's premise because I won't enjoy it.

Well said.
 
Art isn't designed so that you can check out when viewing it . . it's rather the opposite, as you've proved here. It's about expereince and engagement; whether the art is challenging, uncomfortable, or even if it is re-affirming of your beliefs is certainly a personal thing but I don't know that any of that is problematic. People don't arrive at their opinions in a vaccum; art helps us figure out what we think. Maybe the principles and freedoms we hold dear could use some challenging from time time, lest we start thinking in tautologies.

Maybe you should see it . . .
 
Maybe the principles and freedoms we hold dear could use some challenging from time time, lest we start thinking in tautologies.

These days, it seems the less moderate people prefer more and more to insulate themselves ideologically, shielding themselves with confirmation bias and doing everything they can to reinforce their cherished beliefs, no matter how narrow. And I've said this several times before: actors often take roles that are at odds with their beliefs or ideology because it challenges them. It's not a stretch actingwise when you're being who you are, like Nic Cage in "Leaving Las Vegas." ;) Anthony Hopkins didn't play Hannibal Lecture because he likes serial killers and neither did Charlize Theron. So I have a hard time faulting someone for being anti-gun while playing a shooter any more than an anti-drug crusader playing a dealer. But I do agree that with other things it's easier to strip away the ideology from the service or product - there's a reason my trash bin from time to time had a black and white "Extremely Right Wing" bumper sticker in it. But with a movie, who do you fault? The director? The studio? The actor? The writer? From my experience in Hollywood, you rarely find a production team that is ideologically in lockstep, as much as that may go against the modern conservative narrative.
 
Art isn't designed so that you can check out when viewing it . . it's rather the opposite, as you've proved here. It's about expereince and engagement; whether the art is challenging, uncomfortable, or even if it is re-affirming of your beliefs is certainly a personal thing but I don't know that any of that is problematic. People don't arrive at their opinions in a vaccum; art helps us figure out what we think. Maybe the principles and freedoms we hold dear could use some challenging from time time, lest we start thinking in tautologies.

Maybe you should see it . . .

That's a fair point Limedust, and in some cases you're right about not checking out. Sometimes it absolutely is the point though, especially with certain genres like science fiction, to just go forget about your cares and worries and enjoy a story of another time and place. That idea aside, more to your point, I just think it is a shame that the large majority of the artists in cinematography (both directors and actors) seem to be very much on one side of the political spectrum and that is reflected both on and off screen. I enjoy thought provoking movies, and have actually gained valuable insights and learned from other perspectives in many films. I do not fear people being challenged and thinking through issues, I fear that the discussion in this medium seems biased in various degrees towards one side of the spectrum.

I probably will see it on DVD or a "cheap" theater matinee but will not spend money on a full priced movie ticket for the experience of watching a story that seems to be one sided and simplistic in it's premise. I may be pleasantly surprised and end up enjoying it, if not for the story, for the great effects and action. Maybe the story will end up being more thought provoking than I hoped, but from what I have seen and heard it is kind of the same ol' "white capitalists are bad and will be the end of us" schtick that we have seen in film after film lately.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like another propaganda piece, white man bad, rich people bad, everyone else good and pure of heart. Will wait to check it out on a plane, not paying a dime to advance the cause of people that hate me. Thanks for the reviews gents, disappointed this is how it turned out.
 
I must say Jodie Foster played the biggest c u next tuesday I have ever seen. I thought the movie was pretty decent. I got a kick out of the Bugatti space shuttle.
 
These days, it seems the less moderate people prefer more and more to insulate themselves ideologically, shielding themselves with confirmation bias and doing everything they can to reinforce their cherished beliefs, no matter how narrow. And I've said this several times before: actors often take roles that are at odds with their beliefs or ideology because it challenges them. It's not a stretch actingwise when you're being who you are, like Nic Cage in "Leaving Las Vegas." ;) Anthony Hopkins didn't play Hannibal Lecture because he likes serial killers and neither did Charlize Theron. So I have a hard time faulting someone for being anti-gun while playing a shooter any more than an anti-drug crusader playing a dealer. But I do agree that with other things it's easier to strip away the ideology from the service or product - there's a reason my trash bin from time to time had a black and white "Extremely Right Wing" bumper sticker in it. But with a movie, who do you fault? The director? The studio? The actor? The writer? From my experience in Hollywood, you rarely find a production team that is ideologically in lockstep, as much as that may go against the modern conservative narrative.

In agreement with you. The writers, directors, and producers of a film are the architects of a narrative, the actor is merely a tool that is utilized by that system.

Ok how about this? An anti gun actor plays an action adventure hero who shoots the crap out of every bad guy. This is really the case in this particular film! If they (Matt Damon) were truly anti gun they would not star in such a violent film. For it really is the gun (modified Ak variant) in Elysium that helps level the playing field. It in a way proves the point, only the man yielding a firearm can truly be free or aspire towards it. Hollywood is a paradox for propagating this notion, it proves that on the bottom line sometimes only a firearm can fix a particular problem. As well I do subscribe to the idea that life and art imitate one another, they are intertwined. So for me it's important to make and see films that resonate with my value system. When I make a film it can only be something I believe in, in this case this was the value system of that director. I can always agree to disagree. It's probably easiest to keep an open mind.

Hats off to anyone if they can truly vote with every one of their dollars, and if your standards are so high that you will never yield in principal. As much as I did not agree with the directors distopian vision I was still curious enough to go out for some visceral entertainment. It's hard to know if your value system will align usually until it's too late. You have already seen the film by that time.
 
Last edited:
I think that actors who depart productions on ideological grounds, i.e. Mandy Patinkin, etc., may find further roles harder to come by.

I suspect the system can exert significant pressure on its members to conform to arbitrary and perhaps political standards. It doesn't take much more than a 'doesn't play well with others', or a 'he's/she's just not quite right(/left?)' rumor mill citation to curtail a career.

Voting with dollars tends to be a hollow effort. Products and their sources, in part and in the whole, are nearly untraceable in our global economy.

I audition well less than half of my movies in theaters. If I like the buzz, I will buy the BD/DVD. This can cost more, but I also usually get what I'm looking for more often.

Greg
 
Last edited:
Art isn't designed so that you can check out when viewing it . . it's rather the opposite, as you've proved here. It's about expereince and engagement; whether the art is challenging, uncomfortable, or even if it is re-affirming of your beliefs is certainly a personal thing but I don't know that any of that is problematic. People don't arrive at their opinions in a vaccum; art helps us figure out what we think. Maybe the principles and freedoms we hold dear could use some challenging from time time, lest we start thinking in tautologies.

Maybe you should see it . . .

Nice!

I have to admit as in life some things can grow on you, perhaps a film sometimes? But, in reading this thread a second time it re affirmed my belief that there are some deep thinkers amongst the SH community. Great read.
 
Saw it last night, I liked it and my girlfriend really loved it.

I just wish they would put a warning label on movies that use shakey cameras, I spent the rest of the night trying to keep my dinner down, and it completely prevented the after date activities. =(
 
My wife and I saw it tonight. We both really liked it. Good characters and development. Excellent visuals. I recommend seeing.
 
I'm a pretty big geek/nerd, but movies like this and Avatar really upset me. Most of the technology represented in these movies point to a post scarcity society, yet the setting isn't and "surprise" the humans end up being the bad guys again.
 
Wow, thats a pretty action packed trailer, hopefully that wasn't all of the action/best parts of the movie. It looks interesting for sure but I also get a very heavy district 9 themed vibe from it, I hope its just not a rehashed version of that film and that the director has more range in him than that.

Don't want to make this a spoiler thread, but for me, I think the director did all of this with District 9 and better. But for the majority of the public that didn't see the first film, this will be just fine (overwrought screenplay aside).
 
Art isn't designed so that you can check out when viewing it . . it's rather the opposite, as you've proved here. It's about expereince and engagement; whether the art is challenging, uncomfortable, or even if it is re-affirming of your beliefs is certainly a personal thing but I don't know that any of that is problematic. People don't arrive at their opinions in a vaccum; art helps us figure out what we think. Maybe the principles and freedoms we hold dear could use some challenging from time time, lest we start thinking in tautologies.

Maybe you should see it . . .

Limedust, you'd dig the series "This is Civilization" which is finally on DVD. Starts with the premise that art says "this is Us. This is who We are."
 
Sounds like another propaganda piece, white man bad, rich people bad, everyone else good and pure of heart. Will wait to check it out on a plane, not paying a dime to advance the cause of people that hate me. Thanks for the reviews gents, disappointed this is how it turned out.

Well, coming from a director who grew up under Apartheid, it's not hard to see where he would draw his themes from, much as Ayn Rand's writings are anti-communist.