The plot of District 9 was mediocre. And its racial depictions are very dubious. Having an antihero who wins (and suffers too, giving us Conquering Hero and Suffering Hero in one fell swoop,) instead of a hero who is saved, may be more satisfying personally, but is that really superior moviemaking?
District 9- The Movie Avatar wasn't
- Thread starter Garm Bel Iblis
- Start date
District 9 got a few Academy Award nominations this morning, including Best Picture. Friggin' awesome! 
District 9 got a few Academy Award nominations this morning, including Best Picture. Friggin' awesome!
Wow, both Avatar and District 9 were nominated. Didn't expect this. But does this lower the likelihood of either of them winning the Oscar?
I was very happy to see that.
Thanks for pointing out my point again 23Skiddo. It seems to get overlooked most times.
One could say 'all' movies are indeed made for the big screen. The caveat is that Avatar was made using specific technology that requires specific visual aid to enjoy it properly. Those features have allowed its weak(sorry but its not deep for those insisting it has nuance, sorry you're seeing things that aren't there) story to be overlooked upon theatrical viewing.
Metropolis, Blade Runner or pick your F/X movie perhaps Pirates, Star Trek, Narnia:TLWAW, or Transformers all can be appreciated in the home environment. They weren't intended to utilize special viewing methods where clearly Avatar does.
Once you get home and put this on a 55" HD screen its still going to appear 'flat'. Sequences in the movie that dazzle will dull. The long, drawn out sequences of training and assimilation will bore you. The paper thin characterizations bordering on satire will show through.
District 9 has its share of problems but is still stronger and will hold up at home. The fact it got a best picture nod, even in the expanded field, says something to its credit. Wheras Avatar is just JC getting the nod for his visuals yet again.
Notice D9 gets an Adapted Screenplay nomination.
Avatar doesn't get any screenplay recognition...for a reason. Its mostly its techincal merits, and for a reason.
You can't pick and choose in your argument this way. You can't say that District 9 getting the nomination proves your point that it's a better film then Avatar, because guess what, Avatar got the same nomination, and is likely to win it. You are using the same criteria to hold District 9 up, as you are using to bash Avatar, and it doesn't work that way. Both were nominated because they were considered worthy. It's not like every JC picture out there is chosen for best picture, they were both judged worthy based on their merits.
If this is the case, that Avatar was nominated merely because of it's spectacle, why was Tranformers: Revenge of the Fallen, or even the first Transformers film not? I would say, minus Avatar, those have been the two biggest effects driven films of the last two or three years. If you think certain films are getting nominations based on specticle, where are the other examples of it?
While I will agree, that perhaps some of the granduer will be lost while watching the film at home, but the rest of of was strong enough to still be an great addition to my collection. There is some meaning to the story here though, and not eveything has to be some deep emotional or mental meaning. I mean, you have a Transformers quote in your sig. Is there ANYTHING AT ALL deep about that film? No, none. However you still enjoyed it none the less.
We have had arguments in the past ( I believe it was you, if it was not I apologize), when you say that Cameron is comparable to Michael Bay as a director. Are you sure some of your hatred of this film doesn't come from the fact that Cameron is getting all this recognition, while Bay is generally consided just a popcorn film director?
No, I qualified it by listing the following link. Why did you omit this? Is it because you knew it damaged you assertion I was 'picking & choosing' or just overlooked it.
D9 getting a nod for its screenplay speaks volumes to its merit for Best Picture nod. Obviously there aren't an equal amount of slots in both categories so being in both is a stronger indicator of a films merit.
I did enjoy the fist Transformers. I wouldn't argue it was tight writing but it held up for the purposes of putting a toyline on the big screen. The second, Revenge of the Fallen, is horrid, just bad.
I enjoy the occasional guilty pleasure. Not all film has to be deep and meaningful. Transformers wasn't billing itself as the film to change all of cinema either. Avatar didn't even need to be a deep film it just needed to be better in its script than it was.
I'm not some Bay fan or follower. I mearly stated in the recent past that for those bashing Bay for spectacle over substance are praising Avatar for the same thing essentially.
District 9 got a few Academy Award nominations this morning, including Best Picture. Friggin' awesome!
Wow, both Avatar and District 9 were nominated. Didn't expect this. But does this lower the likelihood of either of them winning the Oscar?
Probably not, since the BP ballot counting uses the ranked system, where counting is done in rounds. If your 1st choice is not amongst the top choices, your 2nd choice is counted. If that is eliminated, your 3rd choice. And so on.
So unless a D9 fan places Avatar last, and vice versa, they will most likely help each other.
However, just because Avatar did not get a screen play nod, doesn't make the script bad.
These two films are apples and oranges, with two completely different intentions. I don't know why people are comparing them just because they both have aliens. District 9's purpose, was to tell a story, and it did that brilliantly. The creatures and the environment were secondary to that. The story was the purpose, and the commentary it provided on the issues that one plagued Africa.
The point of Avatar was different. Avatar was, basically, a world building exercise. Cameron wanted to create a world all his own, and he and his VFX team did that brilliantly as well. He wanted to create a new universe, he, and others, could play in.
The one thing about Cameron which is unique as a director, is he is SO very involved with the art AND the science of film making, and visual effects technology. Whenever he makes a movie, is isn't just making a film to release, but he his creating a project that will push the bounds of what is possible with the current technology, in the hope that both he, and other filmmakers can reap it's benefits. He did it T2, he did it with Titanic, and he did it with Avatar. However, with the exoticness of the world he created, he used a well used and well known story to take the audience there. No it, and the characters weren't that deep and thought provoking (though much, much more so then you give it or them credit for), but that was never the point. Cameron has never really written deep characters, and they usually are some sort of extreme one way or another, but they are always a joy to watch, and he always makes sure they are well acted, and that their actions seem plausible.
I just really enjoy the mans work, and I do hold him in a very high regard, even over Spielberg and Lucas, because I always know that Cameron never makes small films. They are always an event, and Avatar is another one in the long proud line of Cameron films.
I lost respect for Cameron after I found out about the Harlan Ellison plagiarism thing. Then doing some research showed nearly all his films were plagiarized more or less. Aliens was just "Them!" in space, T2 is just T1 with better effects and lousier script, True Lies is a retelling of a french film, Titanic is way overrated. And now Avatar.
Yeah, I think you're right. My bad.
Plot problems in District 9 include the mystical properties of the oil; the inability of every alien but Christopher to act like anything but a savage; the intact ship allowing Christopher's escape.
Characterization problems in District 9 include the Nigerians; Wikus remarkable social isolation in what apparently was supposed to be his home country; Christopher's surprise at the dissection room; Wikus' unlikely reversal of character to help Christopher escape without him (no, I didn't believe it when I saw it); the guy who kept chasing Wikus became the black hat villain whose death scapegoated everything else.
The action sequences were well done but too long.
The MNU setting was incomprehensible.
It is amazing that District 9 got a writing nomination.
Characterization problems in District 9 include the Nigerians; Wikus remarkable social isolation in what apparently was supposed to be his home country; Christopher's surprise at the dissection room; Wikus' unlikely reversal of character to help Christopher escape without him (no, I didn't believe it when I saw it); the guy who kept chasing Wikus became the black hat villain whose death scapegoated everything else.
The action sequences were well done but too long.
The MNU setting was incomprehensible.
It is amazing that District 9 got a writing nomination.
District 9 has a nice central conceit but others have pointed out some of the more glaring plot issues in it. But overall, I enjoyed the film quite a bit. Solid effort, and the central conceit raises it to above average.
I haven't seen Avatar, and have no plans to. I've never liked "evil developer/wholesome locals" type stories - I tend to root for the bad guys in most movies (including in parts of District 9, though they make MNU suitably distasteful so as to prevent that from continuing throughout the movie).
I haven't seen Avatar, and have no plans to. I've never liked "evil developer/wholesome locals" type stories - I tend to root for the bad guys in most movies (including in parts of District 9, though they make MNU suitably distasteful so as to prevent that from continuing throughout the movie).
How does District 9 merit "Best Adapted Screenplay"? Are they going by the fact that it was based off of Blomkamp's short film? Because the script was original.
Just to address this point, if you watch the movie, you'll notice that Christopher and his son were the only green prawns in the movie, the rest being brown, yellow or red. As far as I've heard, this was done to imply that he was a member of the leader caste, instead of a worker or a soldier like the rest of the aliens that arrived on Earth. This goes along with the idea of the aliens having an insectoid, hive-like society.
what do you mean by this?
Cameron didn't plagiarize Ellison. Terminator doesn't remotely resemble either of the Outer Limits episodes that Ellison wrote outside of the time traveling. There might have been some inspiration there, but it most certainly was not plagiarism. You might as well acuse them both of plagerizing H.G. Wells.
I'm fairly certain that everything that Wikus said about the Prawns and their society was racist BS. He probably believed it, but that doesn't make it true. The Prawns' occasional violent outbursts are because they're being treated like Shit by the South African government, and have been for over twenty years. And despite this most of them are perfectly reasonable even when heavily armed murderers come to their homes to evict them.
Christopher just couldn't afford to rage against the machine; he had to protect the command module, keep it safe, and find fuel for it.
I'm referring to the entomologist near the beginning of the movie, who theorizes that their society is similar to that of bees or ants. I also read on TV Tropes that someone noticed the only aliens seen carrying weapons are the red ones, suggesting that they may be the warrior caste. It makes sense to me, anyway.
Similar threads
