The Michael Bay – District 9 Trailer Experiment

This was just far too funny and interesting at the same time to not share with you guys. As you know, the new trailer for District 9 just came out, and in my opinion it looks REALLY good. However, a long time Movie Blog reader sent this to me today and just howled. Here’s the good part:

So me personally, I wasn’t as taken with the trailer (District 9) as you. I decided to do a little experiment. I used my Vegas editing program to take the District 9 trailer and just edited out Neill Blomkamp’s and Peter Jackson’s names and inserted Michael Bay’s name. When I got to work I showed a couple of people the version with Jackson’s name and then some other people the version with Bay’s name. The results were sad.

Every single person I showed the trailer to with Jackson and Blomkamp’s name on it (I explained who they both were) loved it and thought it was awesome. When I showed the exact same trailer with Bay’s name on it instead, people said it looked awful. The only change I made was the name on it. Nothing else.

So anyway, i got on skype with another movie webmaster friend of mine and shared this little story and we both watched the trailer again and in our minds just replaced the names of Jackson and Blomkamp with Bay… and holy shit he’s right! Suddenly the trailer didn’t seems all that great… it was actually bad.

How much of a mind fuck is that?

Try it... tell me what you come up with.

Comment with Facebook
Sending
User Review
0 (0 votes)

93 thoughts on “The Michael Bay – District 9 Trailer Experiment

  1. The comment on “The Short Works Of… Neill Blomkamp” is exactly what I think:

    “If this commercial didn’t exist, Michael Bay’s Transformers never would have happened… plain and simple.”

    Neill Blomkamp made the great Citroen C4 commercial with the dancing car/transformer.
    Blomkamp shows and showed that he has a lot of talent, knows his trade – as a 3D animator/designer and as a director.
    Even Hitchcock wasn’t born the best director in history. And most certainly Jackson wasn’t. Have you ever seen his first films? But Jackson had a lot of imagination and tons of brilliant ideas. Any film with fresh ideas is most welcome to me.

    The fact that Bay’s name made people say “what a crappy trailer” only shows me that Bay has a bad reputation that ruins anything.

    Besides that – nobody here has seen the film yet. We’ll see what people say after they’ve seen it. Everything else is plain… you name it.

  2. I just wanted to say that I feel almost MORE stupid reading Rusty James’ remarks. THAT’S a direct insult, buddy.

    And because I must..er..stay on topic…

    (Keep in mind I skipped everyone’s posting..since I did indeed lose some brain cells over R.J’S nonsense) I just learned about this kinda psychological trigger of the mind (how we view things) in a class this past year. This really is pretty cool.

  3. @ But it is amazing how many people suddenly are not impressed when the find out (falsely) that its Michael Bay

    No, it’s not amazing. Who were these people? how many of them were there? The anonymous email doesn’t say.

    This whole drama of people worshiping Pete Jackson is all in your head. I seem to recall him a bunch of grief for King Kong.

  4. I think if a persons work can generate over $2.6 billion world wide he must be doing something right. Like him or not, he seems to know how to draw people in to see his movies. I am a fan and I also liked Transformers 2.

  5. It feels like you guys seem to have a personal vendetta against Neill Blomkamp. Ever since he was dropped for Halo, The Movie Blog has been on a “i told you so” rampage. Give the guy a break! As a first time feature director himself (non doc) I would have expected John to cut him some slack!

    Love the blog!

    1. Hey Jacob,

      Why would I have a grude against Neil Blomkamp?!?!?! He’s doing EXACTLY what I’ve been saying for years he needs to do. Direct a smaller film first to cut his teeth on feature films BEFORE trying to do a Halo. He’s doing exactly the right thing here. It’s a solid trailer. I’ve said repeatedly that it’s really good.

      There is nothing in this post that suggests otherwise.

    2. “Suddenly the trailer didn’t seems all that great… it was actually bad”

      Maybe it wasn’t your intention John, but this post pretty much comes across as trying to make people watch the trailer and find fault with it.

      You can’t fool yourself into thinking this is a Michael Bay film to get the true effect of this “experiment”. But what you’re asking people to do is watch the trailer and focus on the negatives they wouldn’t like about it, and they will then find the trailer “really bad”.

      1. The post was pointing out that maybe some people are all jonsing for this hard because its trendy to think that Peter Jackson is without flaw and therefore his opinion of his protege cannot be challenged either.

        People rave about this trailer like its the second coming, however if they see Bay’s name on it (another person who it is trendy to bash) they suddenly can see all these glaring faults. He isn’t asking you to focus on the bad in the trailer. But it is amazing how many people suddenly are not impressed when the find out (falsely) that its Michael Bay

        1. I don’t see any of these ‘glaring faults’ at all. This trailer looks very very good, albeit with a low budget part docu style, which won’t work for everyone. The acting looks solid, the effects and designs look stunning, plot looks interesting and it might have something real to say about humanity.

          Then again, coming from the guy who called this director a ‘nobody hack’ I wouldn’t expect anything less …

          1. Your ‘choice’ quotes on Mr Blomkamp:
            “that nobody hack effects artist Neill Blomkamp / The guy doesn’t deserve the praise and studios are not willing to take a dive for him. / how does THIS GUY deserve to handle Halo?” / He is a 3d effects artist who found himself curled up in Jackson’s lap. Nothing more. / have seen them both. Both are uninspired film school crap. Honestly. / I have friends currently IN film school doing their BFA that are producing better than those. / And sir, please do not presume I havent seen his dribble / Peter Jackson dick up your ass or not / hell, Uwe Boll makes movies, so this hack has just as good a shot.”

            I mean seriously Rodney? Did this guy kill your dog? Sleep with your wife? What’s with this obvious and seething level of hate? With quotes like that, I don’t think you can really deny it, I just want to know WHY? When there are so many more people out there deserving of your hate.

            There’s no reason to be bitter about this guy. He lost Halo, went back to the well and gained more experience making landfall, which was critically praised and starting a new film. Losing Halo must have been a massive personal blow to him and to come back with a smart sci fi movie must have taken some balls, considering he was being blamed for the movie not coming out.

          2. I was more than willing to give the guy a chance but the best anyone can say is “DID YOU SEE YELLOW??” or naming any of his other short film efforts. None of which impessed me at all. He is not an established director and this is his chance to show what he has. And so far… I am not feeling it.

            Trailer looks weak. Effects are decent (expected nothing less as he is an effects artist) but thats about it.

    3. “Maybe it wasn’t your intention John, but this post pretty much comes across as trying to make people watch the trailer and find fault with it.”

      Actually, the point of this post was to point out how people’s views are warped dependent upon the name of the director at the beginning of the trailer. Just because people are misinterpreting that, does not mean the post is at fault. If anything, the post is making fun of the audience not the movie’s director. First time viewers of the trailer sees Bay’s name attached to it they think it looks like shit, they see Jackson’s name and Blomkamp’s name they think it looks great. I don’t know how people decided that it was John and the post attempting to discredit or insult Blomkamp.

      Leave your excess luggage at the door and see what the post was meant to do before you start jumping to conclusions that are not there. All you guys are doing is proving the point of this post about how biases can bring in misinterpretations and skew views from reality.

    4. If any other director’s name had been used in the mock up other than Bay, there would have been similar results of different views being expressed dependent on the name of the director. All the hate in many of these comments would have been avoided if somebody other than Bay had been used. There is so much animosity towards Bay these days that people’s biases lead to them interpreting the point of the post as being a comparison of Blomkamp’s work to Bay’s… WHICH IS EXACTLY NOT WHAT THE EXPERIMENT DOCUMENTED IN THIS POST WAS ABOUT!!!

    5. Jeremy, like I said, it may not have been John’s intention, however the tone of the post comes across as an attempt to make people not like the trailer. It’s telling people to watch this trailer and try to imagine that it was being made by a director they don’t like (though personally I really like Michael Bay, but the post was reliant on a recent trend to hate on Bay) so that they focus on all the negatives in it.

      “holy shit he’s right! Suddenly the trailer didn’t seems all that great… it was actually bad…. Try it”

      I’m not misinterpreting what was said in the post. John has told people to try watching the trailer and find fault with it. The conclusion of the post is not about how people’s bias effect their perspectives, or how you could apply this technique to so many other things. Instead the conclusion drawn was “holy shit he’s right” the trailer is “actually bad”.

      John has explained that this wasn’t his intention. Fine. But the original post still reads as telling people to watch the trailer and find unnecessarily fault with it. I can see why people read the post on it’s own and see it as an attempt to attack the director and this film.

    6. You pretty much have to have a bias to not see this post for exactly what it was. I’m very clear in it. Someone would have to already be convinced I had it out for Neil to see it as anything than what it really was.

    7. John, maybe we’d understand your post better if you explained why you think the trailer is worse when you pretend it was directed by Bay.

      Personally, I don’t see it. All I got from doing it was greater appreciation for a welcomed alternative to bay’s low brow sci-fi.

      Of course, it’s not like I actually thought Bay directed. Because I can’t actually forget things on demand. A fact that only makes the point of the excercise more confusing.

    8. Rusty,

      Why would I discuss anything with you at all? You’ve already shown that you have a severe bias in this and have already made up your mind on what I THINK. You put words in my mouth, twist everything I say, and ignore all the direct statements I make. Why would I discuss anything with you on this? Move on.

    9. You seem content to have the exact same argument we had yesterday.
      What do you think theyre gonna say that different than the points again and again.

      And I didn’t ignore. I heard you. You don’t agree with me. You don’t think you’re attacking the guy. You’re looking forward to the movie.

      You posted on the internet and I have an opinion,

      1. But when you cannot back up your “opinion” it just becomes a “wild guess to start an argument”

        You cannot justify or even clarify HOW John has illustrated a bias toward the guy. If anything John has said that he has been impressed with Blomkamp’s first attempt at a feature film and hopes he lives up to the accolades people blindly credit him for.

        I disagree with John in this and I don’t find this film to be at all appealing based on the trailer. I had hoped I would. But that is NOT what John had ever said about this at all.

        1. It has been backed up how the ORIGINAL post has come across as reading like a criticism of the trailer and the director. I have acknowledged that John said that wasn’t his intention, however quite a few people have shared the opinion that the original post appeared to have a negative bias against Blomkamp.

          The post indicates that if you look at the negatives in the trailer it is no longer good. You can’t fool yourself into thinking Michael Bay has directed this when you know otherwise. This exercise could only work effectively in the way the original experiment was conducted, if you did not already know the truth. After “trying” this himself, John’s conclusion in the post was not that he is still looking forward to the film. The conclusion was the trailer was “actually bad”. The post concluded with John seemingly having changed his earlier positive opinion of the trailer, by deciding Blomkamp’s film looked like a Michael Bay film.

          It’s not hard to see why people have interpreted a post finding fault with something and ending with the conclusion that something is “actually bad” was taking a negative approach to the subject being discussed.

        2. I’m not really getting where you’re coming from Rodney because from where I’m standing it seems like you agree this post is an attack on the movie.

          “People rave about this trailer like its the second coming, however if they see Bay’s name on it (another person who it is trendy to bash) they suddenly can see all these glaring faults.”

          First of all, again with the cult /messiah language. I don’t get this
          Second, so people are only claiming to like this because of the name on the trailer, not the footage. That is a criticism. And one without good basis.
          Lastly, It’s amazing how many people aren’t impressed when M. Bay’s name on the credits?
          Really? How many people did say that? 100? 1000?

          It’s just more anonymous testimony from the intertubes. I’m certainly not going to judge an upcoming movie based on what I heard people might say if they thought it were from a different director.

          1. No. I don’t let my personal opinion about the film enter into this at all. I stated that in spite of the fact that I cannot see ANYWHERE that John says he dislikes the film.

            John and I are both willing to give Blomkamp a chance on his first film, and so far I am not optomistic. It looks weak.

            You are just going out of your way to make a fight where there isnt one Rusty.

          2. Actually Rodney, I’m surprised my comment ended up being so inflamatory. I thought, and still do, that it was pretty clear John has a grudge against the guy. There’s no shame in it, most people seem to have at least one director they hate. I can’t stand M. Bay, Terry Zwigoff or Abbas Kiarastami.

            You seem to have a rigid idea of what constitutes an attack. Yes, John never insulted the guys mom or called him “gay” or anything like that.
            I’ve detailed which of his remarks I think are an attack; messiah, crazy kool-aid, less experienced than a coffee boy (ridiculous), never worked on a film (not true), his shorts are bad (at least debatable)…
            he constantly hits the same refrain, “I said the trailer is great”. But even in that post he’s comparing it to TPM and warning people not to get their hopes up. Sure that’s not technically an attack, but show me the Trans 2 trailer post with a similar disclaimer.

            And this post concludes with “it’s actually bad”.
            John INSISTS that I’m ignoring his words (though I’ve quoted him directly severly) in favor of reading some hidden message into them but truthfully, that comes across as glib:

            “I also never compared him to a coffee boy. I said, as an analogy, that a coffee boy has more experience on set of a feature film than him”

            See what I mean. Did you know my thesaurus lists “comparison” as a synonym for “analogy”? But that’s just a crazy factiod I’m throwing out there. Don’t try to draw any conclusion from it.

            Not too mention your own remarks that Blomkamp is a “nobody hack”, has a “dick up his ass”, is Jackson’s lapdog, that no one would give him a job, and that his fans are lemmings.

            I mean, what do you want people to think?

            I’m glad to hear you don’t let any of this cloud your opinion. Like I said before, I’d like to get a review from you. It’ll be interesting.

          3. Really? A grudge? Sounds to me in his post that he said he was looking forward to seeing District 9. Yup. Right there in the post. He likes how its shaping up.

            You seem to have an idea that repeating your lack of a point means you have one. John has repeatedly said he has nothing personal against the guy but that he should do smaller films before being handed a massive project with a budget like Halo. And here he is doing it… which John is applauding him for and is looking forward to seeing his efforts.

            An analogy is a specific TYPE of comparison, and in no way is a direct comparison. Try a dictionary instead of vaguely trying to reference a thesaurus.

            I disagree with him. But I still don’t have anything against him. Just that he is unproven and no one would know who he was if not for Jackson talking him up. Simple.

          4. I agree completely. John is not the one up with the grudge, RODNEY is the one with the grudge, using the insulting and dismissive language. If Blomkamp had nothing to do with Peter Jackson or the doomed Halo project, if he was just a hotshot commercials-and-shorts director, you’d give him more of a chance. But Jackson’s patronage, and his affiliation with the failed Halo film, seem to make you hate him and dismiss him to no end.

            Neill Blomkamp may not be the next Zack Snyder, but if Snyder can come out of nowhere and remake Dawn of the Dead, what’s to stop another hidden talent from getting into Hollywood? What’s with the elitism? Why all of the inflammatory language?

    10. For the record John, I really don’t have any opinion on Blomkamp as a director, as I’ve never seen any of his shorts or commercials, but I’m simply looking forward to the film based on the trailers and have no preconceived ideas about the director at all. From the marketing so far, this seems to be a very original approach to an alien invasion film. I would have that opinion regardless of any directors name attached to it, because I’ve formed that opinion based upon the material alone.

      So I don’t have any sort of bias either way. While I acknowledge that you’ve since said it was not the purpose of this post, I can clearly see why the post on it’s own without that clarification, comes across as someone trying to clutch at straws to find a reason to not like the trailer. You might not have meant it, but it does appear that way.

  6. John, I must say that I don’t buy the argument that working on a feature film is the only sort of work that qualifies you to work on a special effects blockbuster like Halo.

    Would work on a low budget romantic comedy feature film make him more qualified to direct such a project, than an extensive history of work on shorts and commercials? How does the length of the final product diminish the fact he worked on similar material?

    As for this “experiment”, I think Matt Gamble pointed out the cause of the outcome. He has swayed their opinion prior to showing them. It’s like if you showed 2 groups of people the same trailer, but just introduced it differently; “check out this totally AWESOME trailer…” or “look at this load of shit…”

    Truth be told, the general public really don’t care about directors. Ask most people who directed Transformers and they wouldn’t know. Ask them who directed Spiderman, they wouldn’t know. Most people couldn’t spot a certain directors style over another, and certainly not in a trailer.

  7. well w/e the case all this seem to be assuming….i dont care if u are defending johns blog or going on the attack…all you all are doing is assuming…u havent seen this and plus its a stereotype…just like people hating the twins in transformers (which to me is perfect stereotype of the hip hop mtv generation…and i dont see 2 hood niggaz i see 2 retarded youth) put a different name or soundtrack people assume differant things…..get over your self (o should take my own advice) and stop beating a dead horse witha stick…people like what they like and your (or who ever’s opinion) shouldnt play a role in what a viewer likes…….end of fucking story

    1. “just like people hating the twins in transformers (which to me is perfect stereotype of the hip hop mtv generation…and i dont see 2 hood niggaz i see 2 retarded youth) ”

      Same.

  8. It’s simply their track records. Blomkamp doesn’t have any real status yet so he’s kind of on a clean slate. Jackson’s name is huge and well respected. Bay on the other hand, just check out the amount of comments you read saying “It’s a Michael Bay movie, what did you expect?”. People know that Bay’s movies aren’t generally anything more than action so when they see a trailer with his name on it they assume that’s what the movie’s going to be about.

  9. Actually it was Rodney that spouted the most direct hate towards Blomkamp calling him a “hack nobody”. A hack indeed.

    1. Rodney is skeptical of Blomkamp’s inexperience, which is notable. But all of his highly negative language- calling Blomkamp is a hack, saying that he has Peter Jackson up his ass, etc. is very unprofessional and shows a clear bias.

      There’s gotta be some underlying reason for Rodney’s bile.

  10. I don’t see the big deal. Of course, when someone sees a name it introduces bias, but I don’t think the results would be as clear-cut with the actual movie. This kind of bias may influence somone’s view on a 2-and-a-half minute trailer, but I don’t think the name would change their view of the movie as a whole.

    For example, if you did this little experiment with the movie when it comes out, I don’t think the name would influence them as much.

  11. Yeah, Michael Bay Bitches!!!

    I admit I like most of Bays work, I find it entertaining overall and that is why I watch his movies.

  12. Every single person I showed the trailer to with Jackson and Blomkamp’s name on it (I explained who they both were) loved it and thought it was awesome.

    Yikes is this ever bad polling. By having to explain the backstory’s of the director/producer of one group you are inserting bias into the process and thus invalidating the results.

    Even John’s question of asking to envision this is from a bad director (which he is presumably infering in regards to Bay) inserts bias. He might as well have said “Now imagine the director of this trailer shot and killed your mother. What do you think of it now?” An extreme example to be sure, but inserting bias into the equation and then asking people to judge based on it is a terrible way to ask for opinions from people.*

    Also, sample size? If he isn’t polling in the neighborhood of ~1000 people the poll really isn’t worth much, as data sets can wildly fluctuate before a decent sample size is reached. Experiments are nice and all, but the data you are gathering from this one won’t really mean anything. Its just statistical noise.

    *For a funnier version of bias in polling refer to the Mitch Hedberg joke, “Have you ever tried sugar or PCP?”

  13. There are women on screen who aren’t waving there asses in the air!
    The story deliberately recalls apartied!
    The trailers not scored to Linkin Park!

    It’s impossible to imagine this as a bay trailers.

  14. John, this is a long way to go to shit all over this movie.

    There’s no way to know now, but I don’t think I ever would’ve fallen for this prank. There’s more artistry in the first two shots of the trailer than Bay has ever shown himself capable of. And what about all the black people on screen who aren’t whacky pot smoking car jackers. Nope, dead giveaway.

    Also I’m a fanatic Bay hater, but usually think his trailers look good.

    1. Hey Rusty,

      What the holy fuck are you talking about? Where exactly am I “shitting on this movie”?!?! I’ve said in this post and in the original post that I think this trailer looks really good.

    2. @ He’s the real deal??? Based on what? A trailer that looks bad to you if you envision another name on it? How good can the trailer be? I mean… it looks solid to me… but this makes me wonder.

      I don’t know man, what else would you call that?

    3. I’d call it being realistic. To me the trailer looks great. I’ve said that 3 times. But yes… when the perception of a trailer can change so drastically just by changing a name, I’d stop short of calling it the “real deal”.

      Just because I like the trailer doesn’t mean I’ve drunk the insanity kool aide.

      So me saying “This trailer looks REALLY good” is shitting all over it huh? You have a really strange definition.

    4. Saying you haven’t “drunk the insanity kool-aid” is another way of shitting on the film.

      I mean, do you really think I’m being unfair here. It seems pretty obvious that you a grudge against this director and this film. I’m surprised we’re arguing about.

      Maybe I just don’t get your point in this post: Someone told me the trailer looks bad if you pretend michael bay directed it and therefore…..
      what?

      And as I said below, I did the experiment and found it impossible to suspend disbelief. Michael Bay would never make a movie about Aparthied. Or if he did it would have women shaking their asses in booty shorts and wacky black guys dancing and saying ‘awww heeelll nah!”

    5. Not too mention your constant declarations that Blomkamp never worked on any film in any capacity.

      Although infact he’s done effects work on several films and directed his own award winning shorts and commercials.

    6. Seems more like you have a grudge against me and are determined to somehow twist my direct words (I really like this trailer) into something negative.

      Why would I have a grude against Neil Blomkamp?!?!?! He’s doing EXACTLY what I’ve been saying for years he needs to do. Direct a smaller film first to cut his teeth on feature films BEFORE trying to do a Halo. He’s doing exactly the right thing here. It’s a solid trailer. I’ve said repeatedly that it’s really good.

      But no, just because it’s a good trailer does not mean I’m really to pronounce him a great director yet. I just wanna see the movie first.

      You’re REALLY stretching things here.

    7. Rusty, I think your the only person who thinks John has anything against this movie. How many times does he got to tell you that he thinks the movie looks interesting? He just posted this because he thought people would find it interesting how views can be skewed when the director’s name is changed. Its like an optical illusion. JOHN IS NOT BASHING THE MOVIE!!! THIS POST WAS NOT EVEN ABOUT BASHING THE MOVIE!!! Your letting your “I’m a Bay hater fanatic” attitude interfere with your interpretation of what this post was trying to show.

    8. Rusty,

      You said:

      Not too mention your constant declarations that Blomkamp never worked on any film in any capacity.

      Although infact he’s done effects work on several films and directed his own award winning shorts and commercials.

      I don’t know where you think you’re getting your information from, but no, he’s NEVER worked on a feature film before. Ever… in any capacity. That is a fact.

      And shorts and commercials are not features.

      These are the very reasons I’ve said (correctly so) for years that he needs to do a film smaller than a $200 million blockbuster first to cut his teeth and prove himself a bit. AND HE’S DOING EXACTLY THAT. He’s totally doing the right thing by doing this movie. I totally support him doing this film… it’s the right movie for him. Why on earth would I have something against him for doing what I’ve been saying for years he needs to do?!?!

    9. You don’t need to declare him a great director. In fact, I’ve agreed with some of your points about. I don’t love all his short works and I think his resume was light for a $200 million.

      But you insist on bringing the dude up just to make disparaging remarks about him. What else is the point of this post? Seriously, if I’m missing the point just explain it too me. Because right now it seems like your saying “to all you crazy kool aid drinkers out there, looks like i’ve showed you. What if M. Bay’s were on this instead hmmm, makes you think”

      Just because you punctuate the post with “but I can’t wait to see it” doesn’t undo the rest of the post.
      But I do love kool-aid though. So that’s a good point.

      And for the record, I don’t believe anyone at all cinema-literate ever mistook this for a Bay trailers. The differences are too overt. Anyone who follows film would at LEAST know that Bay doesn’t have a film coming out a month after Transformers 2.

    10. Rusty,

      Please quote one single disparaging remark I’ve made about him in this post.

      The point of this post was about how our perceptions of things like this can change depending on who we believe made it. Simple.

      Why you felt the need to go out of your way to make it seem like I was “shitting” on the movie (when I’ve said over and over again I’m looking forward to it and I really like the trailer) is beyond me.

    11. I’ve already directly quoted two. The “insanity cool aid remark” and your first comment in this post. Plus, like I keep saying, the whole tone of this post seems to be to find some out on a limb premise to attack the trailer (which does not resemble a Bay film at all). As you yourself said in the comments:
      ” it looks solid to me… but this makes me wonder.”

      Really? Makes you wonder about what exactly? Maybe I’m missing it, what’s the point of this story about anonymous gullible strangers falling for some prank?

    12. Ok Rusty… so let me get this straight…

      Me saying I’m not ready to anoint him messiah is a “disparaging remark”?!?!?! Seriously? Dude you’re really stretching reality here to make it look the way you want.

      You’re throwing out all the DIRECT things I said, and inserting your own twists on what you perceive to be hidden meanings in my words.

      So essentially, there’s no arguing with you on this since you’re just ignoring my words.

    13. And another disparaging remark you’ve persistently made about the guy is that he has zero experience working on films. In fact, you’ve compared him disfavorably to a guy who gets coffee on a set.

      There’s a secret internet world wide web computer site that only I know about called IMDB. It list peoples film credits and on Blomkamp’s page it lists a movie called 3000 Miles To Grace Land for which he did effects work.
      That counts dude! One is a much bigger number than zero. That is one feature film that he has worked on in greater capacity than coffee gopher.
      Never mind that he’s worked for several effects and animations through out Africa and N. America so he’s probably worked on several films that imdb doesn’t. Nevermind all his TV, commercial, video game, animation and short film work which he is acclaimed for. I don’t understand all of this doesn’t count towards anything but…
      All of that aside he has worked on at least one feature length film in some capacity beyond gopher.

    14. @ Me saying I’m not ready to anoint him messiah is a “disparaging remark”?!?!?!

      That remark that I just posted is an example of you shitting on Blomkamp, yes.
      Mocking him as some kind of self appointed messiah worshiped by cult members counts as a disparaging remark.

      Who are these raving fanboys who worship him as their messiah? I’ve never heard of such a person. But apparently they’re all over the place nowdays.

      And I’ve two of your posts directly, referenced several of your persistent comments over the years and asked to elaborate on the point of this post if I misunderstood.
      So I don’t see where you’re coming from saying I’m ignoring you.

    15. Rusty,

      Pointing out a fact is not disparaging nor positive… it’s just stating a fact. He hadn’t worked on a movie before. Fact.

      HOWEVER… you are correct. He did work as an animator on 3000 Miles to Graceland. I stand corrected on that point. However… please do note he was an animator… never on set… not visual effects supervisor… an animator.

      So yes, you are correct… he did ONCE do more than goffer.

      I stand by my original assertion that he lacked the experience to do a $200 million dollar feature as his very first feature film experience.

      I apologize that I missed his gig as an animator on 3000 miles to Graceland. You are correct on that point. I don’t think it changes my point much… nor was it “disparaging”, but technically you are right about that and I concede the point.

    16. “asked to elaborate on the point of this post if I misunderstood”

      It’s already been posted multiple times, your just failing to read it. The point of this post was to show how people views of the trailer are effected depending on the who is listed as the director at the beginning of the movie. Plain and freaking simple. NO BASHING INVOLVED THERE!

      As far as his previous movie credits that you listed. There is major difference from taking the helm of a movie as the director and doing some effects. Sure he has directed/created some shorts that are pretty cool, but that does not mean his ability to direct will transfer to a feature length movie.

      District 9 will be his chance to show the world what he can do with a feature length movie. Neither John or this post is bashing him for that, John is merely waiting for the proof that he is can step it up a bit and show his talent in a feature length flick. AND JOHN ALREADY SAID THE TRAILER HAS GOT HIM INTERESTED!!

    17. Rusty, you said:

      That remark that I just posted is an example of you shitting on Blomkamp, yes.
      Mocking him as some kind of self appointed messiah worshiped by cult members counts as a disparaging remark.

      Dear god you really will do anything to make it look like I’m bashing the guy won’t you.

      You continue to ignore my plain, simple, obviously statements: “I’m looking forward to this movie”, “I think the trailer looks REALLY good”, “The point of this post was about how we perceive these things differently depending on who we thing did them” and you want to continue to insert your own meanings and make it out like I’m bashing him.

      Go nuts.

    18. Just so I’m clear on what’s going on in this debate

      RUSTY: “You’re bashing this movie”

      JOHN: “No you misunderstand. I can’t wait to see it and I think the trailer looks really good. Neill Blomkamp is doing just the right thing by doing this movie and I think this is a good move for him”

      RUSTY: “no no no, you’re bashing it”

      Is that just about right?

    19. Yes, obviously Graceland 10 years ago is not the most impressive credit of all time. That’s why people point to his award winning shorts and commercials.
      Doesn’t his TV /video game/animation count for more than coffee gopher? I think to demean his work like that is disparaging.

      @ I stand by my original assertion that he lacked the experience to do a $200 million dollar feature as his very first feature film experience.

      And I agree with you. I wouldn’t have invested in that project with him at the helm. But that project died 3 years ago and it seems like you’re still fighting the battle. Comparing his supporters to cult memebers, dismissing his body of work, even though it’s grown in those three years. He hadn’t done Landfall 3 years ago which went on to win awards at Cannes.
      He won an award at Cannes and your still comparing to a coffee boy.

    20. Rusty,

      You’re the one who keeps bringing up stuff (correct stuff by the way) I said about him back when we were talking about Halo.

      And when I talked about coffee boys it was ALWAYS in terms of Feature film experience. I was never ambiguous about that at all.

      And no… when it comes to feature film experience, shorts and commercials do not count… because they are not features. I’ve never denied he had commercial experience (he made one of my favorite commercials of all time). I’ve never denied he had short experience (although I honestly have not been impressed with his shorts, but that’s neither here nor there). I’ve ALWAYS talked in terms of his feature film experience.

      And I’m sorry… but one trailer… no matter how good it may look, is not enough for me to stand up and say “now I know this guy is the REAL DEAL”. And you say just because I said that, I’m “bashing” him. Nonsense.

    21. But John, you can say “I think the trailer looks REALLY good” while still attacking the guy. You keeping bringing that up and I get it. But you’re also attack the guy.
      Are you really not trying to insult the guy when you call him a self proclaimed messiah and cult leader?!

      I think Bay’s trailers look good. But his films are unwatchable and I think he personally is a piece of shit. But his trailers are good!

      @ The point of this post was about how our perceptions of things like this can change depending on who we believe made it. Simple.

      I don’t think this story is a good illustration of that point. Anyone who could mistake a sci-fi film based on aparthied for a Bay film is not informed.
      The REAL trailer could have Bay’s name on it and I wouldnt believe it.

    22. Oh for fucks sake Rusty… I have NOT attacked the guy. I’ve said this movie was the right and smart move for him.

      I’ve never said he sucked
      I’ve never said he can’t do it
      I’ve never said he’s talentless
      I’ve never said he’s a failure
      I DID say this movie looks good
      I DID say I really liked the trailer
      I DID say I’m looking forward to seeing this

      The MOST I’ve said is that he lacks the experience to helm a $200 million dollar film as his very first gig in the feature film world. And that’s fact.

      Please cut the hyperbole. This is just getting flat out stupid.

    23. But why are you comparing him to a coffee boy at all. He’s a Cannes Film Festival Award winner!
      The comparison itself is loaded!

      I’m not digging back years to find this stuff:

      “Neill Blomkamp was the centre (and continues to be the centre) of a lot of debate (a debate I won by the way… damn I can be a snarky bastard can’t I?) when it was announced the he… a guy who has not only never directed a movie before in his life… he had never actually worked on ANY movie in ANY capacity (not an assistant director, not a cinematographer, not a coffee boy) in his life (aside from being an animator on 3000 Miles to Graceland, but even then he was never on set), was being handed the reign to direct Halo. It was just another sign that the Halo project was doomed… and sure enough, it died.

      My argument was that Blomkamp should be given the opportunity to direct something a bit smaller first before dumping a huge a major tentpole project like Halo on him. I’m sorry… but the dancing car commercial doesn’t mean he can direct a major blockbuster with… you know… actors and dialog and story. Give he a chance at something else first… THEN maybe hand him something bigger.

      Well… with District 9 he’ll have that chance… sort of. The movie is obviously shot in a fake documentary style which I’m VERY curious to see… but even if it turns out well it doesn’t actually give us any indication if he can handle real narrative or not. Whatever, I’m still looking forward to this.”

      That’s from you May 7th (I didn’t include a link because that causes problems sometimes).

    24. Rusty,

      Just stop. I’ve already CLEARLY said the coffee boy analogy was in reference to his experience on a feature film set. And I’m not incorrect.

      You can say it’s “loaded” all you want, but you’re still choosing to accept your own interpretation of my post instead of my CLEAR DIRECT WORDS. I did not bash him. I did not attack him. I stated facts. facts that you yourself have said you agree with. So just drop it.

      You keep saying I’m attacking him. I’m straight up telling you I’m not. You say I’m shitting on this movie. I’m straight up telling you I’m not. So what the fuck is your point?

      You know what… never mind. You’re not listening so there’s no point in continuing this particular conversation.

    25. My point? Seriously?

      My point is that while I agree there are many examples of you saying “I’m not attacking the guy” there are also a number of examples of you attacking the guy.
      You accuse him of having a messiah complex and of being a gloried coffee boy.
      Comparing him unfavorably to a coffee boy is not as you claim “just stating the facts”.
      First of all, it’s not true! He has worked creatively on a feature film (you’ve acknowledged this mistake and I respect that).
      And secondly, calling a Cannes Award winning director a coffee boy, or comparing him to one, is insulting.

      You also seem to think that the trailer (which you say is awesome) wouldn’t be as good if it had someone else’s name on it. And I see no support for that claim.
      I don’t know what to make of you watching this trailer while pretending it’s directed by Bay and then declaring “This Sucks!”
      At your suggestion I tried this ridiculous experiment myself and it was laughable. Every time I saw a black person or a woman appear on camera without being demeaned I laughed out loud. The very idea of Bay approaching the subject of Apparthied is hilarious.
      Was that the point of the post? That the very idea of Bay approaching a serious subject with respect and intelligence is funny? That the notion of Bay being able to make cinema this intruiging is absurd? If that was your point then you are right and I apologize.

    26. Ok Rusty… here we go:

      You accuse him of having a messiah complex and of being a gloried coffee boy.

      Ummm… no I didn’t. I said I didn’t drink the Kool aid and I specifically clarified that to you saying that one good trailer does not instantly make me think he’s a GREAT director. You’re putting words in my mouth… again. I also never compared him to a coffee boy. I said, as an analogy, that a coffee boy has more experience on set of a feature film than him.. which by the way is true.

      And secondly, calling a Cannes Award winning director a coffee boy, or comparing him to one, is insulting.

      See above. Never once called him a coffee boy. Again you put words in my mouth. And all my points are were about him not having feature film experience.

      You also seem to think that the trailer (which you say is awesome) wouldn’t be as good if it had someone else’s name on it. And I see no support for that claim.

      AGAIN you put words in my mouth. I VERY CLEARLY said when you change names people perceptions can change. That’s all I said. Look again.

      I don’t know what to make of you watching this trailer while pretending it’s directed by Bay and then declaring “This Sucks!”

      Again, the post is about perceptions we have. Nothing else like you’re trying to make it out to be.

      Was that the point of the post?
      I’ve already said several times… it’s about how our perceptions can change by who we think did something. Said that about 8 times in this conversation… but you refuse to listen.

      So again we see you keep putting words in my mouth, make arguments against things I never said, ignore my direct statements and insert your own interpretations. This conversation is done now. Move on.

  15. I never really pay attention to who directed or produced a movie, if it looks good fine if not so what, District 9 makes me think of several video games! Nice lookin trailer can’t wait to see the movie! Who gives a crap who did what as long as they do it right!

  16. I’m looking forward to District 9. I liked the original teaser better, left more to the imagination. Do the MB experiment here, just made me think this was a Michael Bay film and nothing much else. Bay is predictable, as any director is the more movies they make…even Spielberg and Howard are getting predictable. Whatever though. I’ll see this and I’ll try to see Transformers 2.

    by the by to: melbye…Bay is only capable of what he does because of the financial backing and talent of those he works with.

  17. they are not judging the quality of the footage.

    they see bays name and decide purely on that that its crap. in fact I bet as soon as bays name comes up their minds are made. it has nothing to do with the actual material.

    plus anyone who has the time to do what this guy did has waaaaaaaay too much of it.

  18. I must be the last of my kind but I still like MB. I didn’t like the transformers but every other movie of his that I have seen I like. I loved The Island! I thought it was a fun movie with good action and a good story, I loved The Rock, and I liked Pearl Harbor. I didn’t like the last 1/3 or so of Pearl Harbor but I loved the directing of these movies.

    When I tried to imagine the trailer with MB I got a different opinion but not a “oh that looks like crap”. The action seemed to be more bold and the dialogue seemed to be less engaging but is that because I was trying to be critical of the trailer of because of MB? I still thought it looked good though.

  19. Why is that a bad thing? A directors credibility is the number one reason why i get excited about anything. If a director consistently makes shit, it’ll most likely be shit. If a director is known for being creative and making great movies, then that’s a great reason to be excited about a movie.

  20. so his friends are retards? i dont see the point of this, it could say uwe boll but i’d still think this was an awesome TRAILER.

  21. Yep. After thinking Bay all I saw was over the top action and little story. Rather than seeing cool Half-Life style I saw crappy “The Island” style.

  22. Good movies (trailers) are good, Bad Movies (trailers) are bad, it dosn’t matter who’s name is on it. How about this, Michael Bay puts out a comic book (graphic Novel), and does the art and story. Which is worse and which is better, the art or the story?

    I haven’t seen the new trailer, but the teaser looked like crap to me. I saw the short film, and for what it was I was mildly impressed, but that was about it.

  23. I liked the teaser better, the new trailer does look a little more Bay-ish. This experiment wouldn’t have worked on the teaser.

    1. He’s the real deal??? Based on what? A trailer that looks bad to you if you envision another name on it? How good can the trailer be?

      I mean… it looks solid to me… but this makes me wonder.

    2. A bunch of shorts and commercials are not what I would consider making a person the “real deal” personally. And what did someone of Peter Jackson’s caliber touting him as the next big thing accomplish? Getting the Halo movie put on hiatus. Not that I am complaining, as I am not a fan of Halo.

    3. 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.

    4. That’s not true…why wouldn’t a director get you excited about it. When Michael Bay got the Transformers movie, i was disappointed, because i knew what he would do with the source material. He makes great looking trailers, all his movies look great when you only see a portion of them set to high octane music. But i know better because i’ve seen Michael Bay movies and know what to expect. Besides is there something so wrong with getting excited about a new director making something we’ve never seen before??

    5. “I am not impressed at all. Looks amateurish and “film school” looking.”

      I don’t know what fantasy land you live in Rodney but they’ve got some amazing film schools there.

    6. @Rodney
      I think thats exactly what they try to achieve here, a very amateurish look. To get you the docu feel – like in (how is the name of the monster movie in New York with the DigiCam look the whole time through?)

    7. I bet if the trailer had J.J. Abrams’ name attached Rodney would be all over it praising it as Cloverfield pt 2.

      Rodney is a straight-up Blomkamp hater and Halo fanboy. If Blomkamp had had nothing to do with the Halo movie Rodney would be praising him as the hottest new thing to sci-fi, which he is.

  24. Maybe theres a trailer or maybes its a featurette but i saw something in theaters that made the movie look awesome.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *