Any movie depicting anything different than that for the future is a wispy dream.

I read the poster for that and just groaned. I don't mind class difference themes, but this one, at least from it's moviefone description, sounded even less subtle than In Time.

They didn't leave. They still rule all the rest of us remotely via robots and those in their employ.

It isn't Randian, it's quite the opposite. It's totalitarian dystopia and view the rich as insulating themselves from reality and pain, and it appears that this happens at the cost of slave labor.

I would reevaluate your rating there, bub.

It'd be nice to have one of the Elysians get shown what life is like for the lower classes and have a realistic response:

1. Horror at how anyone could live like that.
2. Justification at their own lifestyle because the people like the protagonist are obviously lazy or deserving of their fate for not working hard enough or for making the right decisions in life.

Many times throughout history, the wealthy have fled unstable countries, taking with them as much as they could, but they couldn't really take enough to make much of a difference. And the countries they fled may have been chaotic for a while after the initial collapse, but the remaining middle and lower class citizens somehow managed to stabilize things without the help of the ultra-rich.

Do I think technology will one day give the wealthy who see themselves as "elite" the power to set up their own little Eden in space or on another planet? Sure, it's possible. Do I think this will have any huge impact on those left behind? No, nothing lasting, really.

For one thing, there aren't a whole lot of really rich people. It's one of the things that fool them into thinking they're "better" than the "common" people. They wouldn't be able to take a lot of resources with them. They'd need the willing cooperation of many laborers to acquire, process and ship their swag. (Ayn Rand understood this, which is why she had her rich asshole protagonists actively destroy natural resources instead of hoarding them)

Even if they did somehow manage to rob us of our resources, human beings are remarkably adaptable and we would figure out how to use those resources we still had access to to better effect. It might not be the same world from a technological standpoint, but it wouldn't necessarily become a Mad Max survivalist's wet dream or one huge slum.

"They wouldn't be able to take a lot of resources with them."

Go to any city in America. Look at some of the biggest buildings there. Go look at the nearby land that has mineral rights for sale, the airwaves you watch TV on, your ISP, hell, even a lot of the homes and rental properties.

The people who own them? They don't live near you. They might not even be in the same country.

"They wouldn't be able to take a lot of resources with them."

Again, it's ownership and having enough money to enforce it. If you were going to build a space station, the laborers wouldn't live there. A shipping conglomerate would set up the resource handling. If you wanted to protest, you'd hit the same wall you do today when some company wants to pump crap into the water or wants to kick out your mom & pop stores in favor of a Wal-mart: You don't own the thing you're disputing, and enough people benefit (or think they will and tell you so) that your protest is laughed off.

I think I'll go with the guy that was born and grew up in South Africa when it comes to knowing how the rich will separate themselves from the poor while still managing to exploit them.

What SolRo said.

The rich cannot be trusted. AFTER THEM MY CYBORG HUNK!

It's from and by Neill Blomkamp, not fuckin Michael bay.

Michael Bay does not own explosions.

FAKE!

I want pretty badly to deduct punishment stars for people's outrageous love for Blomkamp, but Nu'man made me smile.

I feel you. Still, I think his movies are better than 99% of the "sci-fi" shit that's coming out of Hollywood.

At the very least, they are well shot, and they are real sci-fi (they extrapolate psychosociological ideas and possibilities onto an imagined future, and not just excuses to have people shoot at each other like most action films that get dubbed "sci-fi" just because cars fly or whatever).

That said, District 9 had its problems. For all the cool setup with an interesting world with interesting problems, during the second half or final third it devolved into a Hollywood shootathon. It was still ok to watch, but I felt it deserved more.

This film seems to follow the exact formula: set up an interesting, extremely detailed and meticulously realized world, a fairly engaging story, and then... give the guy robo arms and devolve the whole thing into a Hollywood shootathon. I'm sure it will be good enough, but it's a bit of a shame.

Children of Men to me is one of the gold standards. It's got its share of thrilling action, but it never felt gratuitous.

His shorts rock, he should never be given a feature film. Like Peter Jackson, had Jackson ever been known for making high quality short films.

His movies are not the second coming of Christ, but they are certainly MUCH better than I Robot, Battleship, Transformers, Oblivion, etc. etc. etc.

It's PoESyndrome, where all forms of entertainment are rated as either utter shit or absolute perfection. There is nothing in-between.

Also applies to people that make those movies, unless -all- of their works are 'absolute perfection', then the one almost perfect movie makes -all- previous and future works 'utter shit'.

I wonder if these people refuse to have sex or masterbate because one time it wasn't completely awesome so it must all be horrible and should be avoided.