• Neill Blomkamp's Oats Studios "Volume 1" - Teaser Trailer
    14 replies, posted
[video=youtube;zoiezEB9n2Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoiezEB9n2Q[/video] [video=youtube;fjIYBQ4P9us]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjIYBQ4P9us[/video] Neill is making some experimental short films for Steam that might later get developed into full length feature films a la Tetra Vaal and Alive in Joburg [media]https://twitter.com/NeillBlomkamp/status/851239375396413440[/media]
They look neat, but then again, Neill's film's always do. It's the plot that inevitably falls apart
So he's working with Valve? Sucks that the writer for the Half-Life series is gone because then they could have finally given him something to do.
Some other teases [video=youtube;NPnFN7KzJ5c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPnFN7KzJ5c[/video] [video=youtube;LgF0C-yWID4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgF0C-yWID4[/video] [media]https://twitter.com/NeillBlomkamp/status/864287017630261248[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/NeillBlomkamp/status/865668732831490048[/media]
[QUOTE=StrykerE;52288586]Some other teases [/QUOTE] Those presidential things are just a riff on Trump at least that's how he's tagged it on instagram.
Im a bit skeptical because well...Neil Blarpkamp... Though, i welcome films like this. More independent shit that tries to do new things that big film Studios are too scared to try, the better.
[QUOTE=StrykerE;52288586] [video=youtube;LgF0C-yWID4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgF0C-yWID4[/video][/QUOTE] why would a Marine be on the flightline as air force one takes off aaaa triggered
[QUOTE=cccritical;52288912]why would a Marine be on the flightline as air force one takes off aaaa triggered[/QUOTE] who says it's taking off
[video=youtube;1mtInkJObXk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mtInkJObXk[/video] New trailer is up I spot Sigourney Weaver and Dakota Fanning
The first release is supposed to be on June 21 [media]https://twitter.com/NeillBlomkamp/status/872142441922547713[/media] I'm looking forward to seeing what they came up with. The trailers are bizarre.
im kinda suspicious about the whole "experimental" angle. Seems like its just to say they are gonna do strange topics and thats it.
Looks fantastic, really looking forward to it.
Elysium and Chappie wasnt great but Neil is still one hell of a director. Give him a good script and studio and he'll make gold.
[QUOTE=autodesknoob;52329593]im kinda suspicious about the whole "experimental" angle. Seems like its just to say they are gonna do strange topics and thats it.[/QUOTE] Honestly? That's what we need in movies right now. More truly weird shit. I don't believe an original story can be told anymore. They've all been told. There's a limit to story structures that human beings have developed and discovered. We're pretty much at the wall of originality in many ways. There's more books written in the last 100 years than any person would be able to count, in those tomes are more stories and tales than one can imagine. There's not much left to find in terms of new ground, if anything at all. The value is in the strange, the obscene and obscure, the weird and the oddities. We'll find new ground there. [editline]8th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=mark6789;52330071]Elysium and Chappie wasnt great but Neil is still one hell of a director. Give him a good script and studio and he'll make gold.[/QUOTE] Chappie was marred by Die Antword and people not liking either of those two characters, but it's actually not bad, I enjoyed it. Maybe that's because I enjoy Sharlito Copley so much.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52330234]Honestly? That's what we need in movies right now. More truly weird shit. I don't believe an original story can be told anymore. They've all been told. There's a limit to story structures that human beings have developed and discovered. We're pretty much at the wall of originality in many ways. There's more books written in the last 100 years than any person would be able to count, in those tomes are more stories and tales than one can imagine. There's not much left to find in terms of new ground, if anything at all. The value is in the strange, the obscene and obscure, the weird and the oddities. We'll find new ground there. [editline]8th June 2017[/editline] Chappie was marred by Die Antword and people not liking either of those two characters, but it's actually not bad, I enjoyed it. Maybe that's because I enjoy Sharlito Copley so much.[/QUOTE] Neill did an interesting postmortem interview on Chappie recently [QUOTE][B]What are your thoughts on the making of Chappie, now that it's been two years?[/B] Chappie was unbelievably painful for me. That was difficult on several levels. But the thing with Chappie was, it felt like it was extremely close to the film I had in my head. Up until the film came out, I felt like I had given my all, and that I'd tried my hardest to make the film I had in my head, and I felt like I achieved that. It put me in an interesting place, where I was needing to decide how I felt, when I create a piece of artwork that I feel positive about, and then the audience really rejects it - what does that mean? That puts you in an incredibly interesting space. I'm not judging the film based on box office merits or pure Rotten Tomatoes scores. I'm doing it because I love it, and I'm basing how I feel about it on what it makes me feel. So when the audience turns their back on it, it raises really interesting questions about whether it delegitimises in general. Does that mean it holds no value? Because it still holds value to me. If I react to that, so I'm only try to please the audience, then what value does the artwork have at all? So it put me in a very strange place for a while. I think that I completely came out of it making the right choice, which is that I'm just going to do stuff that I love. And that could actually lead to me living in the gutter. I mean it could literally lead to complete and utter collapse. But I would rather live in a dumpster, I think, being creatively honest and true to myself than not. So I think overall the result of Chappie crystallised or congealed ideas in my head in a good way. But I'm still upset the fact that it didn't work. I wish that it did, but it just didn't, and I still love it. I don't know what else to say, but the audience didn't get what I was going for. It didn't work. [B]But history's full of films that came along at the wrong time. You think of The Thing, you think of Blade Runner, there are dozens of them. What a lot of critics seemed to miss was that it was about the nature-versus-nurture thing, about how an innocent creature is the product of its environment. I thought all that was incredibly powerful.[/B] There are millions of things that were missed. But that could have been done by me in the same way - it was directed in such a way that some ideas didn't come across. For whatever reason, there were many elements that critics in general didn't pick up on them. One of them is that it's an artificial intelligence film, and it isn't. It's not about AI. Ex Machina's about AI. Chappie's not about artificial intelligence - it's meant to be asking questions about what it means to be sentient. That doesn't mean AI, that means sentient at all. If you are sentient, if you are conscious, first of all, what does that mean? Because you're watching the birth of consciousness with Chappie. And the idea of experience is a huge, huge part of it. I chose AI because it was an easier way to say, "If say is something else is sentient or conscious, is it any more or less important than a human consciousness or sentience?" To me, the answer is an obvious no. Like, everything that is aware is as valuable as any other thing. So on one hand, missing that it's not about AI is a big deal. And the nature versus nurture discussion, the birth of a family, the birth of a soul, those are the things the film is about. The second thing - and this is the much more subtextual, bigger concept, is that when you talk about ideas that have to do with some of the biggest discussions about what it means to be alive at all, the idea of how the hell experience and sentience come about at all, when you talk about something that deep, if you talk about it head on, there can be a ridiculous level of pretentiousness and importance around the way you do it, and I just didn't want to get into that. The main reason for Chappie existing in my mind is because it has the most farcical, weird, comic, non-serious pop-culture tone, that is almost mocking or making fun of the fact that it's talking about the deepest things you can talk about. The fact that those two things exist in the same film is what the film is about. Because that's what the experience of life is about. It's an unknowable question, and no one's going to answer it for you. So it's almost a grand joke, in a sense. That was the main thing. People confuse that by saying the film was tonally all over the map. And it's because they couldn't comprehend that the tone was existing as one, united thing; it was saying, "Here's the most important thing you can talk about, wrapped up in a farcical giant joke that looks like we're all having a big laugh." And that was the point. Because that's how I view life in general. [B]Existential absurdity.[/B] We could go on for hours about Chappie and where it sits. But it definitely hurt several parts of my career, I think. Those are all secondary to just the repositioning myself as an artist and just thinking about that. I mean, Elysium, I didn't feel that way. I feel like Elysium wasn't actually that good. That's the difference. I feel like I got it right with Chappie, and then when the audience turns on you, that puts you in a different place. [/QUOTE] [url]http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/chappie/49924/looking-back-at-chappie-with-director-neill-blomkamp[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.