District 9- The Movie Avatar wasn't

[Samurai8472]

I got the bluray. Amazing quality because of the 1.85:1 aspect ratio.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screenshot.php?movieid=7594&position=7

Notice the black bars are really thin so you get a fuller screen but it's still wide screen. So the quality really shines through on the 47 inch flatscreen.

Same goes for "The Dark Knight" when they switch to the IMAX shot scenes.

What I found dissappointing on my Iron Man dvd was even though it was bluray, the quality doesn't get to shine through since the black bars take up an inch on the top and bottom.



Back to District 9. I thought it was good but sometimes they backtracked.

Nigerians capture Wikus when he wants weapons. He escapes

Later Nigerians recapture Wikus after stopping the MNU convoy.

I hardly watch bloody movies but man lol. I got over it.


Now I find myself slipping into a Wikus accent from time to time

"It's cat food!"

"Fook!"

"That's bad yah?"


I just hope the "Avatar" bluray is rendered in a similar ratio otherwise it will look like about the same as regular dvd.

 

[Deckerd]

Apparently he wasn't an actor (until then). The Wikus guy. What a star. When he's pulling bits of skin off his body and starts to cry, I was totally sold. I believed it.

 

[Samurai8472]

I thought the scene where he watches the mothership leave was fantastic.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1663205/

He's been mostly a producer/writer and had a role in the short film before "District 9" "Alive in Joburg" as a sniper.

And now he's Howling Mad Murdoch in "The A-team" movie.

 

[milo bloom]

What I found dissappointing on my Iron Man dvd was even though it was bluray, the quality doesn't get to shine through since the black bars take up an inch on the top and bottom.

It has nothing to do with the format, it's simply how the movie was made. Some are made at 1.85 and and some are 2.35 (which will have black bars on the top and bottom, even on a 16x9 screen), and 1.33 Academy ratio/TV material will have black bars on the left and right on a 16x9 display. I honestly feel sorry for anyone who lets the black bars distract them so much from enjoying their movies. This was the same with DVD (and the now defuct HD DVD format) and will be the same for every future format as long as directors choose different aspect ratios for their films.

 

[Yoda]

I rented D9 on DVD a while back, and it did not hold up as well as the theatrical viewing. Some plot flaws became more obvious, but it was still good.

But I guess I have to go against "the general consensus" (in this thread, as declared by Yoda) - Avatar has been a much more rewarding rewatching experience for myself. And it has little to do with 3D.

Looks like roughly a 2 to 1 ratio for the Pro D9 camp in this thread... not sure what you're getting pissy about here. Or is it the whole 'general consensus' is a redundant phrase thing? It's ubiquitous, sue me!

I have to say, though, that the ridiculousness of the thread title is becoming more and more apparent to me.
Sure, "District 9- The Movie Avatar wasn't" is an accurate statement. But so is "Showgirls - The movie D9/Avatar wasn't".
It isn't a statement which means anything, other than the obvious. That they are different.

There's the pretty obvious implication that Avatar fell short of District 9 in that title. It's hardly ridiculous... when you read it did you not understand that the post was going to argue that District 9 was better than Avatar?

It just seems like you all of a sudden got rather angry for no apparent reason

 

[Hyperspace05]

Angry? How is what I wrote different from what I have written earlier in the thread? I suppose your use of "general consensus" seemed a bit excessive, since there appears to be no general agreement on the issue, even by this threads posters. A consensus implies more than a majority opinion. That is all.

 

[Yoda]

Well, the eye rolling and the ranting against the phrasing of the thread topic come to mind

 

[Hyperspace05]

I merely eye-rolled at the word you used. (general consensus) [as I explained in my edited post above]

 

[Yoda]

Angry? How is what I wrote different from what I have written earlier in the thread? I suppose your use of "general consensus" seemed a bit excessive, since there appears to be no general agreement on the issue, even by this threads posters. A consensus implies more than a majority opinion. That is all.

Courtesy of Dictionary.com:

That is all.

 

[The Borg Queen]

It's an okay movie, but Avatar is ten times better.

No, Avatar is ten times prettier.

 

[stj]

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.

By dividing the SF fan vote, DS9 will lower Avatar's chances of success in getting past the first round. Or at least the votes of those who can tolerate the idea that SF can be in some peculiar if limited sense, "good." It is widely held (in lieu of apology?) that Crash beat out Brokeback Mountain because Capote split the progay vote. And so on and so forth. The nominating process is rather more complex I gather and kind of mysterious. One has to wonder if District 9's nomination isn't something like this thread, undeserved praise intended to undermine a worthier opponent?

Any notions about District 9 being somehow deeper because of its sly subversion of apartheid and racism fail miserably because no one can figure out what the movie says that isn't contradicted by something else. I suppose that is District 9's attraction. Avatar at least has a point of view. I think that makes it hands down superior.

 

[Anwar]

It failed miserably just because it portrayed one group of Africans as psychos, even though real world history has shown individual gangs to act EXACTLY like that, and the movie did show other Africans NOT being like that?

Wikus' transformation WAS believable, because even in the end his every action was motivated to whatever small degree by his own best interests and not "the greater good". It wasn't much of a transformation other than growing a pair.

Avatar just took the easy way out in every way when it came to characters and plot.

 

[Kegg]

It failed miserably just because it portrayed one group of Africans as psychos, even though real world history has shown individual gangs to act EXACTLY like that, and the movie did show other Africans NOT being like that?

If a movie had a group of Mexicans who were universally villainous, would it be okay because there were some United States citizens who were heroic? After all, only one group of Americans were psychos, and the other group of Americans were NOT being like that.

This is an important point. There isn't a counterpoint to the Nigerians, because the sympathetic blacks are not Nigerian. Nigeria is a different country, these are foreign interlopers. Blame the migrants, why not.

 

[Anwar]

Does that really matter? They were all human, which was the point. National identity didn't really enter the movie.

 

[Kegg]

Does that really matter?

You did phrase it in a way that suggets it mattered. Showing bad Africans was okay because we also saw good Africans; this suggests that if that weren't the case there may be a problem.

 

[stj]

Wikus' transformation WAS believable, because even in the end his every action was motivated to whatever small degree by his own best interests and not "the greater good". It wasn't much of a transformation other than growing a pair.

I read the final scene between Wikus and Christopher as Wikus finally putting someone else's interests above his own. The alternative or complementary idea that Wikus could conclude that his own best interests would be served by Christopher's escape, because Christopher could be relied upon to come back to Earth and repair Wikus' humanity seems to me untenable. I don't think a racist like Wikus could bring himself to trust Christopher. I don't think a fool like Wikus could think objectively. I especially don't think a coward like Wikus could "grow a pair," even though the movie puts it on screen.

Reading the Nigerians as the movie's exemplars of all humanity's mad dog racists neglects that cannibalistic Africans are part and parcel of the crudest racist stereotyping. This is not some rich thematic ambiguity, it is gross confusion in artistic aim. It is egregious bad writing. A writing nomination for this script displays stunning critical incompetence. I emphasize the Nigerians most because it is the most offensive but I posted a whole list some ways back.

Wikus staying an alien could be read as just punishment for a racist; as a coward betraying humanity to doom when Christopher comes back with a fleet and even more weapons for revenge (it seems like the alien ship was an invasion vessel, given its massive supply of weapons); as a temporary condition until Christopher comes back and restores him; as a noble sacrifice because Wikus redeemed his racist self (which requires assuming being a "prawn" is in fact a terrible thing, by the way); as dramatic irony, where Wikus (read humanity) oppresses the alien and becomes the alien itself.

And there are probably more. But the same problem arises: Too many readings are not just complementary but diametrically opposed. Therefore it has no meaning. District 9 is the movie that only succeeds as an action piece.

 

[Anwar]

Nothing suggested Wikus was a true racist like Kobus was, he did his job at MNU to keep Prawns under control and evict them from their homes and get them to District 10. Nothing about what he did screamed "racist!", it screamed "ignorant over the situation" which could apply to anyone.

Wikus wasn't a fool either, not the bravest guy or the smartest but given his condition (you can't tell me someone undergoing what he did would stay rational the whole time) I can't find anything utterly foolish in what he did. Yes, not even the cell-phone call from wife thing.

It wasn't stereotyping with the cannibalism, since they really did that to humans in real life. There ARE criminal gangs who would do crazy ass stuff like that in the real world. Just because D9 bothered showing us that sort of behavior doesn't demean the film.

Wikus staying an alien is simply something that IS, it's not meant to be some single-aesop transformation. Yes, he'll be oppressed, yes he lost everything in his old life, but he saw in the end that he's already found kinship with the Prawns (they saved him from Kobus) and he has powers beyond those of a human. So reading "it's a punishment" is just being too basic.

And seeing how Chris refused to kill any humans even after he saw what MNU was doing, he'll just do what he said and get a rescue force to evacuate the Prawns.

Sorry, but Avatar will never surpass D9 no matter what you say. You can reply all you want but this is my stance and that's it.

 

[Samurai8472]

It was interesting that we didn't see any Prawn who would have been the equivalent of a President or leader.

They all looked like a bunch of aimless refugees with no leader.

 

[Harvey]

Reading the Nigerians as the movie's exemplars of all humanity's mad dog racists neglects that cannibalistic Africans are part and parcel of the crudest racist stereotyping. This is not some rich thematic ambiguity, it is gross confusion in artistic aim. It is egregious bad writing. A writing nomination for this script displays stunning critical incompetence. I emphasize the Nigerians most because it is the most offensive but I posted a whole list some ways back.

You'll find little disagreement from me. The most coherent defense of the Nigerian gangs in the film I've stumbled upon has been a someone claiming (without reference) that similar gangs operate in Tanzania. And that is only coherent if you allow for the patronizing Western notion that countries and people in Africa are interchangeable.

Stunning critical incompetence, though? I think the film has been rightly recognized for what it does well, which include a refreshingly ambiguous protagonist, a unique setting, and an effective use of the pseudo-documentary format. The Nigerians are, however, a rather damning flaw which should prevent the film from winning any awards for the screenwriting.

In any event, the Academy Awards are nominated not by critics, but by members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in the field being nominated. That is to say, writers nominate other writers for the two screenwriting awards. Writers who are aggresively courted by studio heads and film executives to the extent that any attempt to read the proceedings as fair or competent would be mad.

You're certainly welcome to take critics to task though, since they reviewed District 9 rather well.

And there are probably more. But the same problem arises: Too many readings are not just complementary but diametrically opposed. Therefore it has no meaning. District 9 is the movie that only succeeds as an action piece.

You dismiss the film as inferior because it is open for interpretation, and some of these interpretations contradict each other? This is nonsense. Would you also prefer the definitive text of Agatha Christie's sausage factory of crime fiction to the maddening ambiguity of, say, a Jim Thompson (I'm thinking of The Killer Inside Me)?

 

[Rii]

It failed miserably just because it portrayed one group of Africans as psychos, even though real world history has shown individual gangs to act EXACTLY like that, and the movie did show other Africans NOT being like that?

If a movie had a group of Mexicans who were universally villainous, would it be okay because there were some United States citizens who were heroic? After all, only one group of Americans were psychos, and the other group of Americans were NOT being like that.

This is an important point. There isn't a counterpoint to the Nigerians, because the sympathetic blacks are not Nigerian. Nigeria is a different country, these are foreign interlopers. Blame the migrants, why not.

The film's portrayal of Nigerians drags it down, there's no way around it. It wouldn't be nearly so bad - although I suspect Nigerians might disagree - if it didn't run directly contrary to the broader message of the film. But then District 9 wouldn't be the first seriously flawed film that I nonetheless hold in high esteem.