"Elysium" Online Analysis -- SPOILERS

analysis
#1

I thought this was an interesting statement from the perspective of a director who is willing be honest, but also from the standpoint that the story/script behind the movie is the most important thing. All the rest is basically window dressing if there’s no foundation to rest it on…

“…I feel like I fucked it up… 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…”

I haven’t seen the movie (mostly because I was afraid the movie was going to go off the tracks). Does anyone have an idea what went wrong?

#2

It’s been a while since I’ve seen it (I forgot the movie almost as soon as I left the theater), but from my memory there were a LOT of problems. Everything from them strangely re-dubbing every line of Jodie Foster’s dialogue so that it looks almost out of sync, to the story just not coming together in the way that it should - the storyform either wasn’t complete, or it was jumbled.

But it’s not a movie that I would recommend to anyone. It was surprisingly boring, and just not engaging in the slightest. Also Sharlto Copley, who has always had a bit of a dodgy time doing accents, confused me for most of the movie - I had no idea what accent he was doing, it sounded South African like usual, and then every now and then it sounded like a really poor Scottish.

The script was the worst of the errors, but there were a LOT of wrong elements in this movie.

#3

Yes, but understanding WHY the story didn’t work might be a good exercise. Is there anyway an analysis of the film, using the theory, might help shed light on what went wrong. That’s something I’d definitely be interested in.

#4

I don’t think there’s any issue with doing it ourselves right here, is there? Is Elysium in the queue for a formal theory analysis? I’d love to do something like that in the light of what the director said about his own film.

#5

You’re free to do one here if you would like. I don’t believe it’s on any official list. My impression is that it is in an incomplete Storyform – in much the same way that District 9 was (if my memory serves me correctly). I haven’t seen the movie, just guessing on his past performance and from reviews of people I trust.

The District 9 analysis is part of the old forum which I do have on my list to drag over here as soon as I can.

My only suggestion is to make sure you pick someone to be a moderator, otherwise the thread will die out and chaos will reign!

#6

I elect @Writegeist for moderator. It is, after all, his idea to begin with.

#7

Very well, very well… And I’d like to thank all the little people who made this possible… Crap! Now I’ll need to watch the movie! Does this one come with RiffTrax commentary? Probably not, huh?

Okay, The weather is supposed to be kind of rainy this weekend, so I’ll rent it and watch the movie. That way it’ll be fresh in my mind.

And thanks, Jim… I think the whole point of this is to find out what went wrong with the script and that usually lends itself to being an incomplete storyform.

I’m sure there’s no right or wrong way to do this, so I’ll just plunge in and we can figure it out as we go along. I’ve watched a few of the recorded ones that Jim has done, so I’ll follow his pattern.

Let anyone else know who’s interested in helping out.

#8

:scream: EDIT: The following contains spoilers!!! Scroll down if you haven’t seen the film. :scream:

Woke up asking myself a question. What’s it about?

Elysium is, on one hand, a story about a guy who gets screwed by the system and wants to fight back, stick his fist in the master’s face. That’s a strong emotional core: rage against an indifferent system, rage against abuse and injustice.

But I guess the screenwriter, or somebody somewhere, said, “Wait a second, that’s too dark. The hero has to do something nice so we can sympathize with him.” And I think it’s that decision that screws up the story, because now it’s a story about a guy making a selfless act, fighting to save a poor, dying child, which flies in the face of the story"s emotional core – destroy the system.

:scream: EDIT: End of spoilers!!! :scream:

Anyways, before starting the analysis, I thought it might be a good idea to voice what we feel is wrong with the story. Let the heart guide the brain.

#9

Excellent idea. I’m going to watch it this weekend (for the first time; and, no, I’m not worried about spoilers). I’ll post something once I finish viewing it. Whole different experience when you watch a movie with a pad and pen.

#10

Oops! Sorry about that, should’ve added a spoiler warning.

#11

Nope, not a problem. I really wasn’t going to watch the movie at all until I read the director’s quote. I read a lot of science fiction, and I’m always amazed at how viewers get so excited about pretty worn out S-F tropes. I’m watching this one purely… for science!

#12

I just finished watching Elysium… Wow! Did this one ever jump the tracks… However, that doesn’t stop us from not only finding out what is here, but maybe even offering some ways that the story could have been fixed. From my first reaction, I’m not convinced this is a complete story, just like Jim said. It seems like a tale, a fable even. But we can discuss it as we try to fill out the story engine settings.

#13

What do you mean by that exactly?

#14

I agree with JamJam that the storyline was jumbled.

However, I still loved the movie because of the amazing visuals and designs. Blompkamp has such amazing attention to detail when it comes to the nuts and bolts of how futuristic tech would look like, while still keeping it visually believable.

#15

@Sean normally we do this one step at a time, not dumping a full story engine on everyone like that. We do it together, debating & arguing each point one by one so we can all develop a better understanding of Dramatica. Also, we always follow the moderator’s cue, which in this case is @Writegeist.

#16

@Sean, not to belittle your effort (which is nice), but @Jerome is right. The idea is to discuss and debate as we go along. We may all agree in the end with your assessment, but it’s the reasons behind each one that’s really most important. I’m not convinced the movie really does have a single storyform. So call me a skeptic :smile:

#17

So, let’s begin… I’m new at directing these story analysis sessions, but I assume we just pick a point and make our case for it, then move on to the next one, point by point. For now, let’s work with a clean storyform setting sheet. I’ll try to set one up like Jim has done for the Story Assembly thread and I’ll keep it up to date on our decisions… It looks like we have @Jerome, @Sean, @Writegeist (Me :blush:)… Anyone else? @jamjam1794, did you want to be included in the cycle? … I’ll go ahead and drop in Max DeCosta as the Main Character. Considering we follow him for the majority of the movie, I would consider him the MC.

#18

What I meant was that the focus jumped around so much and for no clear reason. My biggest problem was with the emphasis put on the character of Kruger and his pals. They didn’t start out as being a big part of the final solution, but suddenly they are the prime movers as they start causing all sorts of mayhem… Then that fight scene at the end… Sheesh!

#19

I haven’t seen it in a while and I’m not sure I can force myself to watch it again, so I’ll sit this one out, I think.

#20

@jamjam1794 Understood… I’ll probably watch it again for the sake of science, but it sure could use a RiffTrax commentary.

1 Like