WATER for their SWIMMING POOLS???
-
slade4ever — 11 years ago(March 28, 2015 08:13 AM)
The movie definitely did not explain how it worked, I'll give you that.
I just assumed a LOT of the questions about the place can be summed up in two words: Future Technology.
Maybe the special features of the blu-ray/dvd go into more detail?
Well, I've got news for you pal, you ain't leadin' but two things: Jack and sh*t and Jack left town -
vortexrider — 10 years ago(April 14, 2015 12:30 AM)
I agree with another comment which says that futuristic technology is kind of believable even if not explained , but that there are somehow these greedy people with supposedly tons of resources and best technology they refuse to share? That's less believable than the invisible atmosphere shield.
I supposed some shield like that might be possible with very powerful magnetic fields or some kind of particle beam matrix. There is nothing known today that could do this.
Heat on the station and the delivery of water is much easier to explain. Since we see they gave these relatively small ships that can go into orbit in like 15 minutes or less we can only assume they use some kind of engines that exist only in the future. Maybe nuclear, maybe photon engines. I read a book by Mitchio Kaku who discussed which popular culture science fiction technologies are very possible and which aren't very likely to be possible. The book is called Physics of The Impossible. Various engines can be done. Same way they could have at least nuclear engines at the station that would provide unlimited power and heat. Also there is the energy they can collect from the sun which is quite a lot if collected efficiently.
Realistically I think something like the conceptually possible space elevator would be more realistic because it could bring cargo and people up and down the orbit platform. Conceptually they have been possible for a number of years as a result of science papers by Arthur C. Clarke who wrote the scenario for 2001 Soace Oddysey, was the first to write about a circular space station and artificial gravity around the circumference, and I believe he was the first to write the concept for satellites in Earths orbit. His paper was published 2-3 years before Sputnik. -
comedyfish — 10 years ago(June 25, 2015 04:14 AM)
somehow these greedy people with supposedly tons of resources and best technology they refuse to share? That's less believable.
How often do you lend out your phone to homeless people you see in the street. Or even a random stranger who asks for it.
Is your wifi locked?
That's how the world is. It's very believablefin
-
vortexrider — 10 years ago(June 26, 2015 04:07 AM)
You're trying to make an argument you can't win. By asking me whether I would give a phone to a homeless person or give free wifi to someone, you're implying that since I, as an individual would not do it, then no one else would do it, whether it is a company or a government.
It's a failed argument because in many countries of the world, including the U.S., the government is setup in what's called a welfare state in which the things they consider essential are provided to those who cannot afford it (They do not have to be homeless). However imperfect, the welfare state systems exist, whether in countries leaning strongly toward a capitalist market or socialist style governments like in Scandinavian countries.
You may hear the people who contribute the most money to these programs (the "rich") complain the most, but you don't see them protest or wall themselves out and keep the technology to themselves.
In the U.S. In particular, since the film takes place in futuristic LA, you do have access to medical services. Children in families below poverty line get free medical care in almost every state, if not in every state. Adults above age of 18, in some states 21, once they go off the free insurance can still get essential treatment and comprehensive care if their life is in danger. If they do not have money they apply for more state programs and at worst owe the money back to the state and are obligated to make monthly payments.
Note: personally I don't think any state or a country owes free services or medical care to the poor. It is a privilege we are able to enjoy while the government has any money at all. "Rich" people don't owe the poor people anything. They should owe something to their own conscience. Thankfully many rich people are philanthropists.
How I know this is because I had a cancer myself at age 25. I am ok now, but as before as now I don't have the money to afford any of the cancer treatments I received. This is in California.
Basically everything we have today is unlike what future of Elysium. Elysium also makes a bad moral argument. The movie fails to establish at all how it is that the rich people at the space station owe something to poor people below. There is even no claim made that somehow they have robbed the poor. One space station, however large could not fit all poor people of the earth, so why should the residents of future LA have the privilege of sneaking up there to steal the hardware to send it down?
The people in Elysium also could not have just stolen all the available technology from below since the earth is so huge. It would be safer and faster for anybody below to infiltrate and steal things somewhere on earth than to risk lives to float people up. Instead they just fly up, take advantage of the havoc created by the corrupt officials above and the crazy soldiers and steal whatever they need. -
comedyfish — 10 years ago(June 26, 2015 01:26 PM)
I'm going to be honest and say I didn't 100% read your very lengthy reply. Mainly because of your patronising tone (you come across as quite young to me, intelligent adults don't put their points across like that)
(Yes I'm aware I'm doing the same now, that was on purpose. If I had to guess I would suggest you are a younger brother, you sound like one and I think this would have wound my little brother up so I'm doing it for effect because I found you rude)
Anyway I'm from England you don't need to tell me what about welfare states.
I wasn't singling you out with the iPhone thing. I doubt many people would do that (I wouldn't). That was my point.
As for using what is happening nowadays to back up your argument for what is happening in the established rules of the film. That's just silly. They didn't share in the film. That is the whole point of the film. Is that possible? I think the point of the film is it's taken a situation that is being seen now (the rich poor divide) and exaggerated it.fin
-
The Shrike — 10 years ago(April 16, 2015 07:39 PM)
Theoretically it can work, but it would require a structure many times larger than the one depicted in Elysium.
The gold standard is the one described in Larry Niven's Rinworld novels.
That structure has approximately three million times the surface area of earth.
I think an enclosed structure like a dyson sphere would make more sense though. -
vortexrider — 10 years ago(June 26, 2015 04:17 AM)
When you say theoretically possible, do you refer to the ability to get enough energy from the sun, or enough gravity to hold air in open space?
Spraking of science fiction books and concepts in Elysium, you mention a Dyson sphere. I read Mitchio Kaku describe that, a sun surrounded by spherical surface that would most efficiently harness the energy of the sun. He said he thinks it is one of those Type 3 civilization requirements which he says is only thousands of years into the future if we are still around. http://youtu.be/6GooNhOIMY0
I also read Arthur C. Clarke's Rendezvous With Rama in which a giant enclosed cylinder has an artificial gravity and atmosphere inside designed for life. -
MrCottonsParrot — 10 years ago(November 15, 2015 03:10 PM)
I was hoping to find out the answer to the OP's question, about the water too.
There are huge quantities of water! Not just for swimming pools but for lakes too. What did they do? Strap 50 space ships to a giant iceberg? lol!
And there were even mini mountains with houses dotted around them. How did they get the millions of tons of rock and earth up there too?!
It would have been more believable for the rich to have collonized another planet.
"Look at it this way; in a hundred years who's gonna care?" -
cosmic_surveyor — 9 years ago(July 29, 2016 10:25 AM)
By progression, technological advances allowed those who could afford to fly into outer space to capitalize on the resources out there asteroids, minerals and frozen methane.
Soon enough, some bigwigs think there is no need to deliver these resources back to Earth. Let's use them to build a home out here above Earth. Historically, science and money have done the improbable. The only limit was our imagination.
Est modus in rebus sunt certi denique fines quos ultra citraque nequit consistere rectum Goldilocks