Full District 9 Theatrical Trailer
As you may know, we’re pretty excited about Neill Blomkamp’s District 9 here at Film Junk, but although the first trailer was extremely impressive, there are clearly still a number of unknowns surrounding this project. Sure, the faux documentary style looks completely convincing and the social allegory is thoughtful, but what is the actual story here? How will it play out? Are we just going to be watching 90 minutes of fake news footage?
Well the full theatrical trailer for District 9 just went online over at Yahoo! today, and it attempts to answer a lot of these questions for us. I don’t want to spoil anything, but let’s just say that the latter half of the trailer should convince anyone that this is a must-see movie that rightfully belongs alongside all the other summer blockbusters. The comparisons to Cloverfield are going to run rampant, but I say, bring ‘em on! District 9 hits theatres on August 14th; check out the new trailer after the jump.
» Related Link: Yahoo!: District 9 Theatrical Trailer
Comments (70)
Halo sucks!
Whoops, forgot where I was there for a second.
Posted by Matt Gamble on July 8th, 2009great! now I got a boner I can’t get rid of….oh wait, I watched the Revenge of the Fallen trailer and it went away.
Posted by rus in chicago on July 8th, 2009Can’t fucking wait to see this.
Posted by Henrik on July 8th, 2009Damn straight – this will be the biggest and best movie of the year.
Posted by Jonathan on July 8th, 2009Holy shit sauce! This looks fantastic.
Posted by swarez on July 8th, 2009It also looks like the documentary look is only a fraction of the story and the rest is “regular”.
Reading through the plot synopsis, it seems the film is even more Alien Nation then I originally thought. Not that that is a bad thing by any means. Especially with a trailer that looks that fantastic.
Posted by Matt Gamble on July 8th, 2009This is the only film i’ve been waiting for all summer. This trailer delivers in so many ways.
Posted by dunk on July 8th, 2009I can’t wait. I just saw Moon and loved it so I’m hoping this is the summer of proper quality sci-fi.
Posted by ToeFu on July 8th, 2009I loved the documentary style of the early trailers, but this one seems more action orientated. Hope the movie will be a perfect mix of the two.
Posted by Raph on July 8th, 2009Looks so damn good.
Posted by Brett on July 8th, 2009this trailer is fan-frickin-tastic and i cannot wait to see this movie – i love the style and the effects look awe-mazing.
if anyone doesnt mind possible SPOILERS -
(if you do DONT READ ON and dont complain that i spoiled anything, i warned you and this is just throwing a shot in the dark)
- it seems that if you take a slower/closer look at the trailer you’ll find the dude that gets sprayed in the face might play a pretty life-changing role…if you get my meaning.
Posted by Dexter Morgan on July 8th, 2009I’m not loving it as much as the teaser. Still going to see it.
Posted by Glendon on July 8th, 2009Ahhhughhhaughhauyou folks have a towel?
Posted by Neil M on July 8th, 2009This is going to be awesome, and it appears to be quite a unique take on the alien from space type of film.
Posted by Steven C. on July 8th, 2009This might be the movie that drags me out to a proper, non-second-run theater this summer.
Posted by mrbenning on July 8th, 2009Awesome! Thank god an original idea managed to get through hollywood, and it’s rated r for violence, which is so rare for sci-fi movies these days. God I hope this thing becomes a huge hit.
Posted by bullet3 on July 8th, 2009pleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleaseplease
gimmegimmegimmegimmegimmegimmegimmegimmegimmegimmegimme
NAAAAOOOOWWWW!!!!
Posted by fatbologna on July 8th, 2009Finally, I get to be the a**-hole that rains on everyone’s parade. So far, District 9 looks like an amalgamation of Alien Nation, Independence Day, Transformers, and The Goblin Man of Norway. With the size of the ship, I would bet that this movie is also playing fast and loose with science. Have Jay and Sean got you guys brainwashed? Ha ha.
Glendon, what is it about the trailer that makes you apprehensive about it now? Is it the action elements?
Posted by Reed Farrington on July 8th, 2009This is a good looking trailer but it also looks more conventional than I’d originally hoped.
Posted by Rusty James on July 8th, 2009Maybe it’s inconsequential but I’m disappointed they dropped the pixilated faces and no subtitles.
Sorry Reed yer obsolete now. What does CumOnAss have to say about it? that’s the question on everyone’s mind.
Posted by Rusty James on July 8th, 2009Oh Mr. Farrington… your parents never taught you the meaning of the word ‘fun’ did they?
Posted by fatbologna on July 8th, 2009Rusty: There are still subtitles in this trailer.
Reed: “Playing fast and loose with science”? I am hoping you can expand on this for us.
Posted by Sean on July 8th, 2009No no, I liked it better in the first trailer without the subtitles.
Of course it all depends on the context it’s presented in the film. Maybe there’s a good reason for it.
Posted by Rusty James on July 8th, 2009you guys need to take Reed out on a Friday night and have him “Playing fast and loose” with the ladies. AND FILM IT PLEASE!! Seriously, Jay needs to get Reed in public and interacting with women like David Letterman does with Biff Henderson. Reed – I guarantee you would not regret it.
Posted by rus in chicago on July 9th, 2009Hey Reed, it’s hard to put into words. It seems like the creators have dropped some of my favourite elements to make the movie easier to digest. As the action picks up the trailer loses all of its documentary styling. Which would be fine if the action impressed me. Beyond the truck ramming the alien, the alien catching the missile, and the bound alien getting socked in the face, the action looks like an incoherent mess. Worst of all most of the social elements regarding how aliens mesh with society seem to have been sidelined into exposition instead of being given serious attention like in the teaser. Before anyone jumps on me, I’m critiquing the trailer, not the movie which I haven’t yet seen.
Posted by Glendon on July 9th, 2009I am glad that there is action in this movie. I loved the action in Alive in Joburg, and I would not be interested in some extremely low-budget ‘fake-news-reports-about-aliens’-feature film. That’s skit material. This looks like a kickass movie, with a slightly interesting social issue. But if you really want films that deal with social issues in a deep way, I recommend you don’t look for them among the american summer blockbusters featuring alien invasions! So a little is just fine, it’s the action and visual effects that is the backbone of this.
Posted by Henrik on July 9th, 2009@ if you really want films that deal with social issues in a deep way, I recommend you don’t look for them among the american summer blockbusters featuring alien invasions!
This is a recent idea that’s entered into conventional wisdom. That scifi / alien invasion films must necessarily have little of substance to convey.
Posted by Rusty James on July 9th, 2009Historically, scifi has been a great avenue for relevant biting social commentary and satire.
I’m not expecting this to be Spaceship Rwanda, nor do I want it to be. But the clash of aliens and humans represented through more than just violence, as well as the documentary format with which it’s presented, was what made the teaser fascinating. The humans in the teaser are much more interesting to me than the ones in this one. Maybe it’s just the editing choice to show such quick snippets of action that I can’t tell what’s happening. Compare that to the end of the other trailer where it dwells beautifully on the spaceship from the view of the helicopter.
Posted by Glendon on July 9th, 2009Lets not kid ourselves Rusty, while I agree with what you write, what scifi movies are really that deep? Discounting 2001 as a beast on its own, is stuff like The Day The Earth Stood Still or Godzilla that extraordinary? I don’t think so, I think they exist as extravaganzas first, anything else second. Just as Dawn of the Dead isn’t really about consumerism, it’s really about zombies.
Posted by Henrik on July 9th, 2009I think Paul Verhoven’s films are pretty first rate social satire. Some people would say the same of Brazil.I think Tarkovsky made at least one deep scifi film. I just saw Moon the other night and there’s a lot of food for thought there.
In fact, upon further reflection, despite todays predominient trends, there’s still people doing smart relevant scifi. Children of Men, A Scanner Darkly, Wall E (I know, I know, you hate pixar. But this isn’t supposed to be a list of Henrik’s favorite movies) BSG ( which you don’t like it for political reasons but is a well done show).
You know what’s a really clever well done satirical scifi show? Futurama, probably one of the best comedy shows ever as well as a great scifi show.
And in sci-fi literature and comics there’s even more relevent voices.
Harlan Ellison, Arthur C. Clark, PK Dick, Heinlien, Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman, Robert Anton Wilson, Stanislav Lem. Regardless of what you may think of those people they all had a lot to say. And of course HG Wells, the father of sci-fi. And Mary Shelly the mother of sci-fi.
And Dawn of the Dead is about Consumerism. It’s a great movie because it works so well on two levels. Just like Robocop.
Posted by Rusty James on July 9th, 2009Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.
And I love Rod Sterlings Twilight Zone.
Posted by Rusty James on July 9th, 2009To elaborate on my statement that District 9 will be “playing fast and loose with science”, anytime you deal with large spaceships in the Earth’s atmosphere and close to the ground, you need to consider the pressure that is exerted underneath it in order to keep it in the air. This pressure would exist regardless of the method used by the aliens to keep the ship in the air.
In his book “Beyond Star Trek,” Lawrence Krauss did some conservative calculations for the ships in Independence Day and he determined that the ships could crush buildings just by flying over them. Even ships one-sixth the size of the ones in Independence Day would be able to crush buildings.
Henrik, movies like The Day the Earth Stood Still and Godzilla are deep. There are simple core ideas in each of them that provoke the imagination. In the former, we have the notion that we are not alone in the universe and that our actions have consequences outside of our local concerns. In the latter, we have the notion that playing God with nuclear science is dangerous and may upset the balance of nature.
Posted by Reed Farrington on July 9th, 2009But RoboCop could not exist without the guy in the metal armor with the big gun, fighting crime. This is what I mean. I love RoboCop to death, but if I did not care for the action in it, I would not love it. All of these films might come with interesting ideas, but they all get put on hold for extended periods of action and violence. Children of Men you say? People seem to talk about the action scenes more than anything in that movie. BSG definitely puts whatever ideas it might put forward on hold for melodrama concerning not-dead pilots, close-ups of ears and lips during sex scenes, and intrigue surrounding double agents. The existentialism in RoboCop is completely forgotten about in the car chase, or in his first appearance to the public as a superhero. Do you see what I mean? It’s not that these films don’t have anything to say, it’s that they are compromising what they have to say in order to be more palatable and pleasing, and I love the good ones for it as much as the next guy, I’m just saying you better realize that is what they are, and if you think Children of Men is as deep as it gets, you’re terribly understimulated.
Tarkovsky is a good one though. Got me there.
Posted by Henrik on July 9th, 2009I haven’t seen Moon, but even an attempt like Sunshine, which seemed promising and had many interesting parts, had to put stuff on hold for plot scenes made to build suspense and make us care about characters. These scenes either work or they don’t in the film, which very well may determine if it’s good or bad, but fact is they are there.
Posted by Henrik on July 9th, 2009Even the most hard core of science fiction novels have scenes in them that try to get the reader into caring about the characters. In fact, well written characters and an engaging plot is what separates good science fiction from technical manuals. The same is applied in movies.
With District 9, my primary desire is to see a good movie, even a good sci-fi flick since Moon is probably not getting any sort of wide release. How many liberties it takes with the physical laws of nature is of little importance. I’d rather see a well-wrought tale.
Posted by Dave on July 9th, 2009” In the latter, we have the notion that playing God with nuclear science is dangerous and may upset the balance of nature.”
Which Godzilla are you talking about? Are you talking about the Toho films, because as far as I known those were just Japan’s response to American bug and monster films, which themselves played on nuclear phobia. There was very little science about any of those movies, the psychology of them lost to most people, and if any films are released for the lone purpose of making a quick buck, monster movies fit that bill. Shit, even Cloverfield was just a modern day Toho homage.
Now, if you’re talking about Roland Emmerich’s film. . . .
Posted by Dave on July 9th, 2009“With District 9, my primary desire is to see a good movie, even a good sci-fi flick since Moon is probably not getting any sort of wide release. How many liberties it takes with the physical laws of nature is of little importance. I’d rather see a well-wrought tale.”
I agree 100%. The only thing I see ruining this film for me, is if I have to hear assholes praising it for being the deepest most challenging sci-fi film to clear the skies in an era of non-challenging films.
Posted by Henrik on July 9th, 2009Well, you might want to separate the film from its fans if that’s the case. How *you* would go about doing this is something only you can figure out. I just tune out the white noise of fandom, except to tweak the noses of Transformers fans. That’s just fun.
Posted by Dave on July 9th, 2009Read this on You-Know-Who’s site about this trailer:
“Like I always say… don’t get too excited about a great looking trailer… The Phantom Menace may be the best trailer of all time… and look how that turned out.”
Straw man created; straw man destroyed!
What. . a. . .douche.
Posted by Dave on July 9th, 2009Voldemort has an opinion on District 9, and its “I cant give anything this guy does any props without a negative qualifier”
Posted by Goon on July 9th, 2009I never really understood his whole hate on the Halo thing. I mean, he must be really terrible at the game. Or maybe he was made fun of by a bunch 12 year olds on Xbox Live. I’d actually pay money to hear that.
Posted by Dave on July 9th, 2009The discussion here about science and ideas in these films has been something I’ve been thinking hard on for the last week. I listen to this great podcast out of Santa Monica called The Business, and the latest shifts in Hollywood due to full corporate control and zero credit is very sobering:
http://www.kcrw.com/etc/programs/tb
Anyway, I feel that great films in sci fi that both entertain and expand discussion & ideas have always been a push / pull between the purist creators and the suits. It seems with Corp. Hollywood’s reduce slate of films and the dependence of tie-ins it is going to be even harder for sci fi films with good science and ideas to slip through. Basically the way I see it, filmmakers have always been forced to sneak in thought provoking ideas around the bugs, spaceships and humanoids.
I must admit this latest trailer for D9 does have some evidence of water downed ideas and a “suits” push for more action. Let’s hope for the best.
Posted by rus in chicago on July 9th, 2009trailer looks amazing! i have this feeling that this movie will start a trend of some sort with alien movies or sci fi movies in general. can’t wait to watch this!
Posted by modesilver on July 9th, 2009Yeah but the “suits” here would be Sony and I think they had as much “influence” over this film as New Line had over Lord of the Rings. Blomkamp is a visual effects director with some interesting ideas for how to present a story, hence why I’m into the guy. Plus, all this science talk is kind of irrelevant. District 9 is about segregation of an alien race and their apparent attempt to escape from a society that has imprisoned them as outcasts. What will be interesting to see is how humans even came up with the idea to segregate them into ghettos and what could possibly make them think it was a good idea. It’s socio-political ideas wrapped in a sci-fi shell, the same way that Children of Men was more about the break down of society than the science of reproduction.
If you want a pretty decent science fiction story told visually, well, hate to say it but you should play Half-Life 2. Yeah it’s a game but a pretty damn good one and more of a science fiction based story than most movies released commercially.
Posted by Dave on July 9th, 2009Alright, here’s something to discuss. Some dude left this comment on Voldemort’s site regarding D9:
“Second is that this was a damn good trailer & a movie that I was only, possibly, gonna matinee on a morning I don”t work is now gonna get a full price ticket outta me.”
Why is paying a matinee price for what looks like a good movie a bad thing? Does paying full price for an 7:00 show enhance the movie? I know the crowd will be bigger but damn if isn’t modern movie crowds (at least in the city I live in) that aren’t ruining the experience for me. In the interest of full disclosure, Andrea (my fiancee) is a manager at a local Regal and I see all my movies for free and (sometimes) in private screenings. Still, I used to pay to see movies in theaters, and imagine that one day I will again. I was brought up on matinees. When I was a kid you spent the afternoon watching a movie, not the evening. Maybe that’s the difference between childhood and being an adult, but I don’t buy it. The movie is the same no matter what time of day you see it.
Thoughts?
Posted by Dave on July 9th, 2009“New Line had over Lord of the Rings”
- you should listen to the podcast I linked, they talk about the studios holding firm on Tintin that is Jackson and Spielberg!! Lord of the Rings is ancient history in terms of the current economic climate and the shift that is going on.
“Plus, all this science talk is kind of irrelevant District 9 is about segregation of an alien race and their apparent attempt to escape from a society”
Posted by rus in chicago on July 9th, 2009- I don’t understand your point, all sci fi is about science and relating it tangentially to the here and now. D9 talking about immigration through the lens of sci fi is basic stuff.
I was more referring to Reed’s comment and the way the thread proceeded from that, leading up to your own. Tintin is one thing; District 9 might as well be a small indie film, though with its rather aggressive marketing both on-line and in LA I don’t think Sony is putting it out with the trash.
Also, I don’t understand your point in saying exactly what I said with different words. You were talking about science in science fiction. District 9 is sci-fi, not exactly the same thing. That’s why I said all this talk about “science” is just spinning wheels. Again, I was more talking about the thread since Reed.
Posted by Dave on July 9th, 2009Moon is a small indy (and good example of indy sci fi), District 9 is not.
Posted by rus in chicago on July 9th, 2009District 9 simply has a larger budget then MOON, but it is an Indie film.
Posted by Matt Gamble on July 9th, 2009Aaaaa, no its not
District 9 – Peter Jackson, WingNut Films and TriStar Pictures,
* In 2004, TriStar Pictures was relaunched as a marketing and acquisitions unit
* The label will have a particular emphasis on genre films
* Recent releases include: Not Easily Broken
* Upcoming releases include: District 9
Moon -
Sony Pictures Classics
* Sony Pictures Classics specializes in the acquisition, marketing, and distribution of prestigious foreign and American independent films
Posted by rus in chicago on July 9th, 2009* Recent releases include: Adoration, Tyson, and Every Little Step
* Upcoming releases include: Moon, Whatever Works and Soul Power
Check out this lame post:
http://themovieblog.com/2009/07/the-michael-bay-district-9-trailer-experiment
“The point is that if Neill was the “real deal” then showing someone a trailer of Neill’s work with Bay’s name on it would get a reaction of “Wow, Bay is actually doing something I like”
Instead people are lemmings and they see Bay and assume its trash and mock it, but they see Jackson’s lapdog’s name on it and like the sheep they are they assume its pure genius.
Amazing that people who thought it was a Bay film were willing to trash it. But the “real deal” made it and even with a fake credit people were not impressed by it.
I am not impressed at all. Looks amateurish and “film school” looking.”
Posted by Jay C. on July 9th, 2009Why do you guys keep wasting your time with the movie blog? Is it a surprise that they still trash Neill Blomkamp? Seriously, get over those fatass religigous jerkoff nutjobs over there, and talk more about how great the trailer looks. Even when they’re not here they succeed in bringing the mood down, I suggest somebody make an anti-themovieblog.com website and you can all go complain there.
I mean, you’re all free to do what you want of course, but I’m annoyed that people still talk about themovieblog.com as being anything but retarded nonsense not worthy of thinking peoples time.
Posted by Henrik on July 9th, 2009Henrik: You are right. In fact, it’s probably the most sensible thing you’ve said.
Having said that, Michael Bay is getting his cock handed to him with this trailer. Anybody who can’t tell the difference between what’s going on here and the mess that is Transformers needs to get their head examined.
It reminds me of an old Tom Green sketch called ‘Undercutters’, in which he would dress up as a pizza guy and follow around another pizza guy as he’s making deliveries. Tom would then try and undercut him by offering a better pizza at a lower price to the customers, resulting in some pretty hilarious reactions.
Neil Blomkamp has undercut Michael Bay in the most glorious of ways.
Posted by Jay C. on July 9th, 2009Undercutters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykw_8ocONDM
Posted by Jay C. on July 9th, 2009TriStar is a division of Sony. Sony is the distributer of both the films, but it is not the production company behind either. They were independently financed, and sold their distribution rights to Sony for them to market and distribute. TriStar and Sony Picture Classics are just the labels they are using to market the films under.
District 9 had the bigger budget (~25-30 million), bigger names attached, and had a bigger FX company behind it, so the general assumption is it would appeal to a wider audience, thus Sony chose to distribute it under the banner of the bigger name of TriStar which people still think is a large production house.
Posted by Matt Gamble on July 9th, 2009Heh, one of Rodney’s posts, and my response to it has been deleted. Probably because I was correcting him on a factual error. How dare I.
Posted by Matt Gamble on July 9th, 2009Henrik, you literally caught me in the middle of some argument with Campea.
And the thing is, I know better. I’ve already been banned from there once.
Posted by Rusty James on July 9th, 2009“I suggest somebody make an anti-themovieblog.com”
I call that filmjunk.com. It also goes by the name blog.filmrot.com.
Posted by Dave on July 9th, 2009Anybody who can’t tell the difference between what’s going on here and the mess that is Transformers needs to get their head examined.
Just looking through the post regarding this, did John ever ask how many people he showed it too? Sample size is incredibly relevant in polling, as well of a host of other information. Yet the general idea seems to be I showed this to a handful of people (possibly mental incapacitated or brain dead) and the people who were concious liked it, and the ones clinically insane didn’t.
It doesn’t actually prove anything, except TMB’s blatant bias.
Posted by Matt Gamble on July 9th, 2009Hey Matt, where did you get that reported budget? I’ve been looking for that.
Posted by Rusty James on July 9th, 2009“Just looking through the post regarding this, did John ever ask how many people he showed it too? Sample size is incredibly relevant in polling, as well of a host of other information. Yet the general idea seems to be I showed this to a handful of people (possibly mental incapacitated or brain dead) and the people who were concious liked it, and the ones clinically insane didn’t.”
I think the whole idea falls apart simply based on the fact that apparently the people shown the trailer have no idea what the major summer blockbusters are, have obviously never heard of District 9, obviously don’t know or don’t care about Michael Bay’s filmography, and can’t put two and two together and realize that Michael Bay is not releasing two blockbuster films in one summer.
Not exactly the typical movie fans that would give a fuck about who’s directing what.
Posted by Jay C. on July 9th, 2009I’ve only found mentions that it was made for under $30 million, no exact figures other then that. Our booker doesn’t even know an exact number. It sounds like they are trying to be pretty tight lipped on the whole thing, perhaps they are worried the public will look down on it if they hear it isn’t a $100 million film?
Posted by Matt Gamble on July 9th, 2009Not exactly the typical movie fans that would give a fuck about who’s directing what.
Oh I agree. But I can see John just falling back on a “This guy reads TMB, so clearly he knows people who love films” type of strawman argument. Pointing out the flaws in the methodology is a far more difficult thing for him to defend, which is why I’m sure he won’t.
Posted by Matt Gamble on July 9th, 2009“It sounds like they are trying to be pretty tight lipped on the whole thing, perhaps they are worried the public will look down on it if they hear it isn’t a $100 million film?”
You know something else they don’t want the public to think, that it’s an independent film. So stop saying it is. Sony and Jackson have been in bed on this from day one that’s a far cry from independent:
http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_16865.html
“The film is scheduled to begin shooting in Spring 2008 in South Africa. Details of the film’s plot are being tightly guarded while pre-production is underway.
Bill Block says, “Amy Pascal, Michael Lynton and Jeff Blake and the entire team at Sony really understand this film and we couldn’t be more excited to be in business with them. They are completely committed to the unique vision Neill and Peter have for ‘District 9.”
Posted by rus in chicago on July 9th, 2009“I think the whole idea falls apart simply based on the fact that apparently the people shown the trailer have no idea what the major summer blockbusters are, have obviously never heard of District 9, obviously don’t know or don’t care about Michael Bay’s filmography, and can’t put two and two together and realize that Michael Bay is not releasing two blockbuster films in one summer.”
I’m going to say it: John Campea is LYING and the “experiment” is his own with his own theoretical conclusion. The logic falls apart on its face as you have quoted, and this ‘long time reader’ goes uncited.
Clear and present bullshit.
Thats Bee You Double Ell Ess Aych Eye Tee.
Posted by Goon on July 9th, 2009So maybe Rusty’s line of debate should have been centered around that? He’d have a much weaker defence if he’d been called out on making a story up just to get clicks. I mean, he didn’t even name the “movie webmaster” he got on Skype(!) with to perform this little experiment.
I used to think he’d crossed into Nancy Grace country, but Rodney planted his flag there a long time ago. John hovers between O’Reillyville and Hannityland. That’s got nothing to do with his politics and everything to do with his boorish behavior and constant need to appear either as right or the victim.
Posted by Dave on July 10th, 2009You know something else they don’t want the public to think, that it’s an independent film. So stop saying it is. Sony and Jackson have been in bed on this from day one that’s a far cry from independent:
Fox has been in bed with Lucas for 30 years, that doesn’t change the fact the Star Wars films (outside of A New Hope) are Independent films as well.
Is District 9 a rare example? Yup. Not many Indie films have that much star power, money and production power behind them. Jackson and Lucas are basically their own institutions. But they still finance the films with their own money, and merely use studios to distribute their films. Sony hasn’t put a dime into the production side of the film, and doesn’t own any rights to the actual film (the same goes for MOON or another similar example would be The Fall) thus claiming the film is a studio film is more then a little ridiculous.
And funny enough, they probably don’t want people to know it is an Indie film. Their are stigmas attached, especially the idea of a low budget Independent sci-fi action film, that they are right to be concerned about public perception when they are trying to push it as a summer blockbuster.
Posted by Matt Gamble on July 10th, 2009hmm…I may be late to the party here, but I was actually much more intrigued by this movie before I saw mechs jumping around and catching rockets. I’m hoping they are over-emphasizing the action aspect for the trailer to draw people in because I would much rather see a thoughtful exposition on borders with actual alien’s as proxies than another Starship Troopers.
Posted by Justice on July 13th, 2009Has no-one yet realised that the film will most likely be a blend of the trailer AND the teaser? Jeez, if it’s too much of the trailer, it’s too Bay-ish, if it’s too much of the teaser, it’s too ‘deep.’ Can one never win? And has no one figured out that the themes are: xenophobia (South African apartheid by implication), multi-national corporations and arms deals/manufacturing?
Give it some time people. Wait for the film to actually RELEASE before judging it. This trailer has EVERYONE talking, and that is a good thing, if not for Blomkamp and Jackson, then for the South African film industry, of which I am a part.
Posted by EyeGod on July 13th, 2009I would give this movie 3 stars – it wasn’t very good)
Posted by xerocomix on September 30th, 2009Leave a Reply