District 9

Merkles wrote:

Whatchoo talkin' bout, Willis?

I always think of the very special "just say no" episode starring Nancy Reagan...I often thought about it at the Melk Weg in Amsterdam trying hash brownies.

For some reason I can't get the Punky Brewster "Just Say No" episode out of my head after 25 years. I was watching it as an 8 year old and was utterly bewildered when the last 5 minutes broke character and turned into a doco on Soleil Moon Frye's crusade against drugs. I guess it stayed with me because I didn't understand (a) that you could do stuff like that and (b) why on earth you would do that.

Michael Barnes wrote:

For example, does it make any sense to you that a group of what, 50 or so Nigerian crooks could pretty much run District 9 when there's 2.5 million bigger and meaner aliens there? Doesn't make sense, does it?

They supplied the residents of D-9 with stuff they wanted. If you accept that they can't get out of D-9 to get what they want then the Nigerians become useful, and even powerful given the cirucmstances.

So yes.

And why would 2.5 million aliens simply let themselves get pushed around and why the hell would they care about Earth laws and administration?

Because they majority of them were worker types. If they were smarter or more organized then they probably wouldn't have all ended up in D-9 in the first place.

OK, well, there's another assumption that you either buy into or the whole story falls apart. And the whole "they're workers/drones" thing doesn't hold up, because they're revealed to be hostile and aggressive when attacked.

How does that at all counter the worker/drone explanation? Lower-class uneducated worker types don't ever get aggressive when provoked?

And what about the rest of the world, are they simply ignoring the fact that there's all these aliens in Johannesburg? How is it that South Africa appears to be the only nation involved whatsoever with the events described in the picture? Even MNU seems to be completely staffed and run by South Africans.

Apparently. Again, why is it so difficult to believe that other countries would gladly ignore what seemed to be mostly a problem for South Africa?

I also think that a lot of it kind of had the same problem as X-FILES did in its later seasons..."let's write this now, and explain it later".

What needs explaining? I don't want details spoon fed to me. The reality of that world is what it is. The parts important to the plot are explained enough and the rest is ambiance. That's how it should be. What you see as laziness I see as respect for the audience.

That does not fly in a feature film. THE MATRIX did that, but they had the whole story mapped up from the first pitch-

Really? You believe that?

DISTRICT 9 relies on the assumption that there's going to be a sequel

It really doesn't. I don't care if there is a sequel. I'd almost rather not see a sequel as the story is great how it is.

ing. Like the whole thing with Christopher somehow needing three years to do whatever it is he was going to do. Makes no sense, and makes that story point completely dependent on a sequel.

No, it doesn't. It served its purpose in the movie by creating a conflict between Wikus' personal issue and Christopher's. If it was only going to take a few days do you think Wikus would lose his shit?

I'd bet you pickles to prawns that the answer to that question isn't even written yet.

A) there is no question
I sure hope it isn't written yet - this movie doesn't need a sequel.

After its success at the box office last week, they're probably just now starting to think about it.

Perhaps, but the story has already been told and should be left to stand on its own.

The last 20 minutes or so was the best part

You really saw a very different movie than I did.

-MMM

Do I need to watch District I through VIII before I watch this latest one? Or does it pretty much stand on its own?

Octavian pretty much sums up what would be my rebuttals to Barnes, but I didn't bother posting them as they are there if you want to see them (due to having a fanboi love of the film) but if you don't like the film they are just hinderances and you won't want to see the explanations, however workable albeit paper-thin they may be.

I kept thinking that the aliens that were stuck on Earth were, to steal from Douglas Adams, "The B Ark". They get to Earth and can't even figure out how to open their own doors, there are basically only three of them that are doing anything to help their situation (and one is a kid)... They have all this weaponry (man, I loved those battlesuits!) but can't use it because they're out of refined Black Liquid.

I thought it was pretty spectacular, but I'd be interested in hearing from Blonkamp [sic?] about why the aliens didn't use the hand weapons to better their situation, instead selling them to the Nigerians for catfood. Maybe they were pacifists, maybe they were passive-aggressive Minnesotans, maybe they were just dumb.

433 wrote:

I thought it was pretty spectacular, but I'd be interested in hearing from Blonkamp [sic?] about why the aliens didn't use the hand weapons to better their situation, instead selling them to the Nigerians for catfood. Maybe they were pacifists, maybe they were passive-aggressive Minnesotans, maybe they were just dumb.

I thought one of the "experts" explained that it was believed the aliens were divided into separate castes and only certain castes could use them.

Here's the deal- I liked DISTRICT 9. I thought it was fun, and a pretty decent low-budget SF picture. However, I also think the "sophistication" and "intelligence of the film, along with its originality in terms of story are being GROSSLY overstated. I think what people are really responding to, and they may not even be aware of it, is that this is the first SF film in quite a while that had some nerve and a touch of rawness in terms of style and aesthetic.

The film is _stupid_. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but to think that just because it draws a parallel to apartheid and has completely in-your-face messages about racism that the movie is somehow smarter than the average SF picture is ridulous and short-sighted. The morality of the film is literally on an ABC afterschool special level. There's no depth or quality of moral questioning in the story or its events whatsoever. It is what it is, and to go searching for more than it gives is a fool's errand. I thought the film was at its best when it was honest, and steered away from these dopey, obvious political stances that would have had much more resonance 30 years ago.

As for the idea that the film is something new...The story isn't original at all- they've just stuck aliens in there instead of a human opressed minority. I mean, seriously, the whole "turning into an alien" thing is so 1950s SF it's not even funny. And there's a liberal dose of Cronenberg's THE FLY in there, right down to specifics like the teeth and nails falling out. And the racial transformation idea is equal parts WATERMELON MAN and BLACK LIKE ME. AVATAR appears to have a similar story conceit, strangely enough. But unoriginality isn't necessarily a problem either- inspired homage and bringing forward successful ideas into new contexts should be encouraged. I think the movie did that OK overall. But it wasn't anything "new".

What was new though, was the format. The mixed media collage technique was brilliant, and if there's any complaint I have about it is that I wish that they had taken that concept further. The whole film could have been constructed without traditional narrative cinema, and it probably should have been. Interviews, surveillance footage, newscasts, documentary...the film was at its best when it was bringing together different types of visual input to generate a single feed.

But back to the negative the idea that the film isn't "spoon feeding" us information by intentionally witholding key elements that are needed to make the story work, that doesn't make sense to me. Should I go into a movie expecting the screenwriter and director to wilfully leave out the "B" in A+B=C, and then assume that I am being respected as an audience for filling in the B for myself at the expense of a weaker, less coherent story?

The bottom line is that I think there is a distinct hunger for smart, edgy SF and DISTRICT 9 proves it. However, it also proves that audiences at this point are in a "take what you can get" mode, and are willing to fete any SF film that tries to do something beyond TRANSFORMERS as some kind of messianiac return of "good SF". DISTRICT 9 is a good movie, but that's it. At the end of it all, people _want_ to like it so much that I think a lot of its really obvious failures are being compeltely glossed over.

Do I need to watch District I through VIII before I watch this latest one? Or does it pretty much stand on its own?

No, but you should see LEONARD PART 6 before you see DISTRICT 9. Then you really will believe that it is "the best SF film since 2001" and all that crap.

Michael Barnes wrote:

The morality of the film is literally on an ABC afterschool special level.

Do not dismiss afterschool specials. If it weren't for those shows I'd be slightly more insensitive than I am now

And the racial transformation idea

Michael Jackson anyone?

are people really saying this is the best sci-fi film since 2001? cuz that is RIDICULOUS.

Aliens still holds that title for me. I have yet to see a better sci-fi movie since that.

hmm...i'm pretty biased. I guess it has to go to E.T., right? And actually, it has to be said that Alien is a much better SCI-FI movie than Aliens. Although I think Aliens is the better film.

Empire Strikes Back was pretty good too, yo. Star Wars was also amazing. The other 4 SUCK

What grinds my gears is all the love that Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind gets when conversations about best sci-fi ever come up. I say NO to that movie. Same goes for Minority Report, Metropolis and all that caca

I think the best sci-fi movie I've seen in recent history is probably Children of Men. Does the Host count?

Now, CHILDREN OF MEN was smart, sophisticated, and high-minded science fiction. But it didn't get this nerd orgasm that DISTRICT 9 is getting. Why? Because it's not in-your-face pulp like D9. No aliens, spaceships, or anything like that. Very subtle genre fiction that has more in common with classic SF literature than STAR WARS.

ALIENS and ALIEN both are great SF films, and the second is one of the greatest action films ever made to boot. Between ALIENS and today, the only wholly great, genre-defining SF film we've seen has been THE MATRIX. Period.

Same goes for Minority Report, Metropolis and all that caca

MINORITY REPORT has a host of problems, but I think it's been given short shrift...there's some great futurist concepts in it and there's a lot of Dickian elements, but blah blah blah...hey wait a minute, METROPOLIS is caca??? That's just ridiculous, Barney!

That movie is the freaking source! There so much amazing in that movie it puts movies made _almost a hundred years later_ to shame. Yeah, there's some cheese-dick melodrama in it, but still...so much of what 20th century SF is goes, literally, straight back to METROPOLIS. That ain't caca.

lol, i was hoping to get called on something and I'm glad it was that one. i've never been able to get through Metropolis but I've never tried as an adult. Maybe I'd actually like it.

Anyway, that movie totally ripped off Star Wars cuz the metal chick looks like C3P0.




...and Wizard of Oz ripped off Twister



I still say District 9 is a fantastic movie, 9/10. But nowhere near making a top of the year or a top ten of best sci-fi movies ever. It just very very good and I loved it.

Moon was better.

Black Barney wrote:

are people really saying this is the best sci-fi film since 2001? cuz that is RIDICULOUS.

Aliens still holds that title for me. I have yet to see a better sci-fi movie since that.

2001 the year. Not 2001 the movie.

-MMM

District 9 was violent fun. I think the real problem is that people are attributing way more depth to it that it truly has. It was a cool sci-fi flick from South Africa and a good step up from the ususal brainless shit we get subjected to.

Who else out there thought all the previews before Distric 9 were fucking painful? The whole audience was groaning in disgust by the end.

-Will

They were horrible previews.

District 9 is being hated on because the first hour was really awesome, and then it went, as you said, into very straight ahead sci-fi action.

Loved the ending though.

Gary Sax wrote:

District 9 is being hated on because the first hour was really awesome, and then it went, as you said, into very straight ahead sci-fi action.

Loved the ending though.

This I can get behind. When it turned into balls-to-the-walls action it was entertaining, but my interest dipped a bit as it signaled an end to the exploration of the situation the movie's world presented.

I don't understand Barnes' critique because he expressed exactly the opposite of what you said - that the movie was only good when there was action. Different strokes indeed.

-MMM