Talk:Elysium (film)

Marketing
I think it is too early for a "Marketing" section, but if there is more coverage of the film's ARG campaign that emerged at Comic-Con, this can be used to provide some detail. I'd like to see the marketing campaign covered by more mainstream publications since movie websites tend to cover every single promotion to be had. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Stanford Torus
Clearly the design of the station, based on the concept art, is a Stanford Torus. While it is certainly desirable to have a reliable source that says so, this fact is not contentious or controversial so I see no reason why it should be excised from the article. WP:V notes that "material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material," but I don't see such a challenge as very likely. A "citation needed" tag could be added if necessary, but I see no reason to remove the information. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The Stanford Torus wasn't the first concept for a toroidal centrifuge. The basic architecture goes back decades before the Stanford study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Bias Plot Summary
"The people of Earth are desperate to escape the planet’s crime and poverty, and they critically need the state-of-the-art medical care available on Elysium – but some in Elysium will stop at nothing to enforce anti-immigration laws and preserve their citizens’ luxurious lifestyle."

It is pointedly obvious that this line seems to have been written by someone trying to make a political statement about certain parties in the United States. I find the snarky, tongue-in-cheek statement (which I've highlighted in bold) to be in bad taste. If the producer wants to make a political statement, great. However, such thinly guised bias as found here degrades the quality of the article and disinterests me from seeing the movie. I don't particularly care how it's changed as long as the bias isn't as blatant as it now is. Perhaps "but some in Elysium will stop at nothing to defend their station and preserve the luxurious lifestyle of their citizens."
 * No, there's no political statement. That's the plot.  Perhaps it is you who is bringing your politics to the table.  Viriditas (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I checked out the official movie site. The plot reads similarly enough to what's posted here. My apologies. I guess it is a movie trying to make a political statement, which is fine with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.120.154 (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, but these are classic science fiction tropes. In other words, it's all been done before, hundreds of times.  As Ronald D. Moore has observed, this is just a morality play.  What Blomkamp seems to be bringing to the table is the unification of character, plot, and CGI, to the point where the audience forgets they are watching a film and is fully immersed in a fantasy world.  Most filmakers fail to unify these elements, and you're reminded that you are watching a film in a dark room. Viriditas (talk) 03:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is this even a Discussion

The theme of plot is quite similar to District 9 : 9 deals with European/African problem & Elysium deals with Mexican/Latino European problems

In 9 the Aliens are a metaphor for Immigrants (Nigerian Kenyan Zimbabwean) And Black/European Economic Parity in SA. In Elysium Earth-Dwellers are a metaphor for Mexicans and Latinos

It should be pretty obvious Blomkamp makes politically charged movies to highlight Economic Dis equality and Social Injustice. District 9 Hemorrhages with this theme — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.179.43.227 (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with what the other comments say. As it said in the wiki itself "Although set in 2154, Elysium's director has stated that it is a comment on the contemporary human condition. "Everybody wants to ask me lately about my predictions for the future," the director says, "No, no, no. This isn't science fiction. This is today. This is now." He's pointing out the current condition, of the wealthy ruling everything and living perfectly, while there is poverty down below.. At least that's what I think — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.248.139.103 (talk) 06:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Battle Angel Alita
just like Battle Angel Alita it's very similar  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.129.139 (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There's definitely a "nod" to a lot of other films going on here. But considering this is Blomkamp, I have a feeling we're going to get our minds blown.  He hasn't let us down yet. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation
I added a disambiguation link because nowhere in this article does it mention what the word Elysium means - there should be a link to the main Elysium article somewhere. There is a need for explanation and a disambiguation link serves this purpose. Chockyegg (talk) 10:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Reception
Reviews for the film have been mixed. The "Fresh" term is no longer used on wikipedia nor are the top critic ratings. Editor opinion's like "received positive reviews" aren't meant to be used anymore either. This can be discussed in the relative talk page for films. The best example to see how this has been but into effect is The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey or Warm Bodies, where Variety, BBC and The New Zealand Herald are quoted at the beginning of the section. Thanks - Jak Fisher (talk)
 * Something specific that could be done is to unpackage the Metacritic score. It assesses 25 reviews to be positive, 16 to be mixed, and 4 to be negative. Reporting that could give readers a good idea of the distribution, especially in contrast with Rotten Tomatoes, which only operates on a positive-negative dichotomy. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea all right. Thanks - Jak Fisher (talk)

Since the movie is nearing the end of its run, I think it's safe to add a note that the film was a bomb, or at very least a financial loss (97 mil on 115 mil production costs, you can extrapolate 100 million more in publicity makes this quite a bomb.) Further, this is the latest in a string of left-wing political movies to bomb at the box office (have any since F9-11 even broken even?) 71.180.244.67 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? It was a resounding success. It made $286 million.MartinezMD (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Reception Vandalism
One editor keeps changing the reception from mixed to positive. This is fair enough, except they haven't provided any source or valid reasoning behind the changes, except their own, which is that reviews have been positive, which is opinionated and biased. This is becoming quite disruptive and an annoyance. If you have a reason, discuss it, instead of starting an edit war. If any other editors have the same opinion on the matter, I would appreciate the input. Thanks - Jak Fisher (talk) 00:20, 21 August, 2013 (UTC)

Themes
I don't want to engage in an edit war, but as it stands I'd recommend that the entire 'Themes' section be deleted. The first two cited references merely point out that the science fiction film is making a comment about contemporary issues, which really should go without saying and lacks relevance as most works of science fiction do this.

Then the next two cited quotes in the section represent a very limited interpretation of the film's "themes," the authors of which are both affiliated with fringe websites VDARE and Taki's Magazine. While an argument could be made to 'balance' out this section with an added variety of thematic interpretations, the mere presence of these views on the article gives them undue weight that compromises the neutrality of the article: the online publications and authors these originate from are politically focussed, and don't offer legitimate cinematic analysis relevant to this particular film; instead they've simply used the film as a platform to disseminate their already held political views.

Just as the opinions of the Boy Scouts of America, The Country Women's Association or your Uncle Bob do not belong in this article, neither do they. Yes, the film has political connotations, but that alone does not mean just any political commentator belongs on this page, whether or not you agree with them. Unless a much more in-depth and widely represented section can be written, I think we can do without "themes." --Ian.mav (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The Themes section should probably be retitled "Critical Reception" or somesuch name and expanded. What are your criteria for "legitimate cinematic analysis", Ian.mav?


 * I think the Kirkpatrick and Sailer reviews are informative and develop their points well. That said, they actually take opposite tacks on the film's message regarding immigration. Kirkpatrick claims: Elysium is "a dystopian morality play oblivious to its own absurdity, earnest to the point of kitsch, equally self-righteous and sentimental. ... Ironically, Elysium inadvertently concedes that today's 'nativists' are right." Sailer, on the other hand, see no obliviousness or irony in the film: "The new movie Elysium, another science-fiction fable from young Boer refugee Neill Blomkamp about the horrors of mass immigration and nonwhite overpopulation ..." To Sailer, the film "is one of the funnier pranks played on the American culturati's hive mind in recent decades" and "virtually no critic has noticed that he does not share their [liberal] worldview."


 * I do agree that Kirkpatrick's and Sailer's views are probably minority perspectives on the film but I don't see how that warrants their exclusion from an encyclopedic discussion of the film's meaning(s). IMO, Sailer's argument is especially intriguing and persuasive. In closing, to reiterate, the section should be expanded to bring in other perspectives but that goal is best achieved, I think, by adding, not subtracting, content. Mox La Push (talk) 00:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

--

The themes section appears to consist exclusively of a viewpoint offered by a fringe group which ignores the overwhelmingly negative presentation of the isolationist faction within Elysium and the comparatively positive and even heroic portrayal of the 'immigrants'. As well as the generally more positive depiction of the film's non-white characters. Sailer's whole (daft, paranoid) article is based on the premise that mainstream interpretation of the film depicts it as favourable to open borders. The themes section needs to either acknowledge that these views are (by the admission of their authors) held in opposition to mainstream reception of the film or, better still, present that mainstream reception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.93.72 (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

As the reviews are not presented as impressions, but instead seem to be speculative commentary on the director's intentions I can't see they are encyclopedic. If the quotes themselves were properly sourced, or were from notable publications, they might be worth including (whether right or wrong). They are just a fringe group's attempt to put a spin on the film to give weight to their own agenda. The "reviews" are pointless gum-bashing until someone can come up with evidence blomkamp was making such points about immigration policy, in all his interviews he clearly says the point he is making is that segregation is a possible outcome of economic/social failure, and here's what it will look like. But he's very clear it's not meant as a prediction. This makes the section rather pointless, instead of just misnamed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.175.65.148 (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Currently
Edit request. Please fix the Critical response section. WP:RELTIME The word "currently" should not be used when writing for an encyclopedia (almost never). See also WP:RTMC, the number of reviews used to create the score provides the necessary context, there is no need to mention date or time at all. -- 109.79.221.209 (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 August 2013
The line "As of August 26, 2013, Elysium has grossed $69,667,94 in the domestic box office" should read "As of August 26, 2013, Elysium has grossed $69,667,942 in the domestic box office". Notice that the final digit (2) of the dollar amount was truncated.

204.195.174.68 (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done RudolfRed (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Sentence in the Plot section
"Spider and Max reach Elysium's main datacenter 'and Max', and realize that the activation of the program will kill Max."

I think this sentence needs to be fixed. I haven't watched the movie so I don't know what exactly went on. But the grammar in the original sentence is messed up. I think either 'and Max' needs to be deleted or it needs to be re-written as such:

"Spider and Max reach Elysium's main datacenter, and Max realizes that the activation of the program will kill him."

But both imply different meanings, so whichever one is better should replace the original sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.148.26.78 (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Similarities to the game Deponia
There is a German point-and-click adventure game series called Deponia that has a very similar setup: Earth is a dump and there's the space station where the wealthy people live - there's even a person with important data stored in her head that the "upper" people need to get back. I wonder how the two stories are connected, i.e. is there a common ground (e.g. a book) for both, or is one copying the other's? In any case, I think a link should be added to the game, and maybe someone can add some more information about the relationship of the quite similar stoies? Tempel (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, isn't it quite obvious that the film is a rip-off of the video game? Just very much the same as Harry Potter is a plagiat of Ponder Stibbons. --2003:70:CF41:7700:2C62:6238:F222:BD0F (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Spanish / French Dialogue
Why is there no discussion about the how the movie had so much unintelligible dialog especially in the scences with the younger version of Matt Damon? You couldn't understand what the actors were saying, and there were no subtitles. When I saw it in a theater, several people walked out and many more yelled at the screen. I'm very curious as to why the direction decided to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.228.116.228 (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That must have been a glitch in your theatre, because the entire opening is most definitely subtitled.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  04:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Just watched it on Blue Ray, and the parts of the movie with the gibberish did not have subtitles. Apparently the director intended to keep his unintelligible nonsense a secret. I wish this article explained why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.219.110.179 (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the writers were just too lazy to actually write dialog so they had the characters just spout nonsense? Or, did they run out of money so they had to leave in their verbal version of "lorem ipsum." It would be interesting to know why considering the movie had a $115 million budget. That seems like it would be a large enough budget to be able to write the dialog and add subtitles to those parts even if they couldn't afford to reshoot with actual real dialog. Instead, the audience is left wondering what in the heck is going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.194.62.140 (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

It's strange that the Wiki page doesn't mention the flashbacks at all. The unintelligible dialog during the flashbacks was really annoying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.163.67 (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The language the children were speaking in the flashbacks was Spanish. Many of the inhabitants on Elysium were speaking French. As the dialogue in both sections was very simple, the writer likely believed that multicultural American audiences would be familiar with the vocabulary and would not need subtitles. Mhbeals (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I wish I could put a LOL emoji here, right where it says "multicultural Aemrican audiences". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.147.19.1 (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

After the Heist?
"Carlyle and most of Max's allies are killed, while Max himself is wounded. He heads to the house of his childhood friend Frey". I'm not 100% certain, but I think that is wrong. He heads the hospital to find her there, I believe. 31.53.52.167 (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Bermuda Triangle
"Release dates: August 7, 2013 (Bermuda Triangle)" Is it a joke? --213.196.212.1 (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's old vandalism from February 2015. I fixed it.  Thanks for pointing that out.  I never noticed it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Disappointment
"It was a modest success and received generally positive reviews from critics, even though many considered it a disappointment after Blomkamp's first film District 9 but a good box office return."

Maybe not grammatically wrong, but the end of the above sentence from the lead section feels somewhat unclear and a little "off" idiomatically to me. I initially thought the sentence was referring to District 9 having a good box office return, instead of Elysium. Also, perhaps a source would be beneficial for the claim that "many considered it a disappointment" — I certainly don't think that claim is wrong, just seems like something that could use a source. --Sjnickerson (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Error
I've detected an error in the plot section but I had a bad experience trying to contribute to wikipedia before because of the aggressive way you treat newbies so I guess I will leave it as it is. 31.221.162.28 (talk) 13:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)