The District 9 Debate: Excellent Film… Or Overrated?
Aug 19, 2009 by Kofi OutlawAll right – to those of you who not only don’t think this film is great, but think it’s downright AWFUL: We’re calling you out.
We here at Screen Rant make it a point to stay engaged with our readers (if you haven’t seen our epic comment sections) and usually – albeit after much debate – our forums reach some kind of equilibrium of opinion – if only settling into the usual left, right, middle ground spectrum.
The reaction to District 9, Neil Blomkamp’s feature-film debut about refugee aliens living in Johannesburg, South Africa, has been surprising. While the movie is earning high praise from critics (including us) and enjoyed a strong opening weekend at the box office, there is still a minority opinion floating around that this film isn’t as great as people are saying it is. And, despite high praise from just about all of us on the Screen Rant staff, there have been some strongly expressed criticism from a considerable pool of our readership.
So let’s talk about it! What is so right (or so wrong) about District 9?
[WARNING: This Article Contains Heavy Spoilers about District 9]
THE ANALOGY APPROACH
Ok, so the elephant in the room to address first is the whole Alien/Refugee analogy that District 9 (purposely or incidentally – I’m sure it’ll be said to be both) inspires. This issue alone has sparked some strong differences in opinion about whether the film should have taken this particular narrative approach and/or whether it succeeds in it.
As to the question of whether or not the film SHOULD HAVE taken the analogous approach: not really anybody’s (but the filmmakers) place to say. However, I will say that sci-fi at its BEST has always been about analogous storytelling – something fantastic as hyperbole for something real and relevant – an whenever the genre leans too far toward the “something fantastic” end of things without accommodating the “something real and relevant” part, sci-fi becomes little more than a playground for geeks.
District 9 took a bold (risky?) step with its narrative angle. But after two viewings of the film I maintain that it succeeds – not only because it gets my mind thinking beyond the fantastic elements of sci-fi and about the world around me – but because it does so while never failing to provide plenty of nourishment for the imagination. District 9 also forced me to (for the first time) be critical of certain conventions of the sci-fi genre that (IMHO) have long gone unquestioned:
Why do we always assume that aliens who have advanced technology are automatically “better” than us?
What if alien society was as flawed and often dysfunctional as human society?
Blomkamp himself made it clear during the District 9 panel at Comic-Con this year that the “Prawns” were inspired by the concept of insects who have been separated from their leadership (forcibly emancipated in a sense) and are facing the challenges of thinking and fending for themselves.
So what if Aliens had to face the same individualistic choices and challenges we humans face? Some would kill, some wouldn’t; some would excel physically or mentally, some wouldn’t; some would be compassionate, some wouldn’t; they’d each make their own choices, have their own emotions, politics, etc…
ALIENS FOR THE 21st CENTURY
…I never realized until District 9 how easily (or for how long) sci-fi has been spoon-feeding us the notion of monotonous alien races. It’s mostly, “Hey we’re Klingons and we’re like this!” or “We’re Predators and we do this!” Then we eventually get that one autonomous alien who is the conflicted exception to the stereotype rule – or, at best, an alien culture split into fractions by some kind of superficial/ideological difference. What District 9 presented was a much fresher and challenging concept to deal with: an alien race that doesn’t have its s@#$ together.
Now, I’m not fighting some crusade for diversity rights for “alien actors” – don’t get me wrong. What I’m saying is that District 9 managed to present an interesting and (here is the important part) thought-provoking concept of individuals and society (alien or human) by holding it up against a worldly situation we can understand. That’s good sci-fi, and to write it off or not acknowledge it as such I believe is unfair.
But of course, some people have argued (you can check our comment thread) that (to paraphrase) ‘using aliens as a sort of bait-and-switch for a “Woe is Africa” message’ is the FARTHEST thing from originality.
I don’t think it needs to be debated that District 9 does in fact try to say something about South Africa (or maybe Africa as a whole?) and the experiences of its peoples. But hey, naysayers, all that stuff about a fresh look at aliens and new conventions introduced into the sci-fi genre, is also taking place in this film. The movie is always working on (at least) two levels; I know that a lot of people these days don’t bother to read great literature, but historically speaking, the greatest stories told are usually the ones that work on multiple levels while effectively relating a central tale.
District 9 – for better or worse – inspires new considerations about a fantastic concept (aliens) while simultaneously giving us new reason to consider the realities of our own world. Sounds like an accomplishment to me.
Continue reading The District 9 Debate
Around the web:
Loading ...
Kofi, great article
It is funny to hear ppl talk about the “plot holes”. Or they’re angry at characters on screen when they do something. But using your imagination, and putting yourself within the context of the movie, it all really does come together and the movie is full of mystery, real emotions, etc.
It’s awesome is what I’m trying to say.
Probably the best Sci Fi movie since Matrix. Not ground breaking however.
It is certainly not over-rated, since no one in their right mind is actually comparing it to Star Wars.
But, for example – the Ferngully, er, I mean, Avatar trailer debuted today.
James Cameron has stated his premise. “Yes, it’s essentially dances with wolves in space.”
Okay. So that is an unoriginal premise – b/c he can refer to a specific movie to give us much of his inspiration for his “story”.
District 9 is , make no mistake , revolutionary in its premise and execution. It’s an angry, unsettling film.
And I think any science fiction fan needs to take a walk through any inner city, or at least watch 1 broadcast of BBC or even Newshour – to see that this film has taken one giant leap
into making Science Fiction RELEVANT to the world we live in.
Star Wars – perhaps a veiled WWII parable, through the eyes of Joseph Campbell at best?
Doesn’t open your eyes to world we live in, or the human condition.
Someone could make the case that this is Slumdog Millionaire film-making meets Sci Fi.
And that would still be an envelope-pushing development.
Because the alternative- is more & more detailed CGI as an excuse for advancements of the genre. And – not to distract, but it’ll be interesting to see if Sam Worthington’s “This Feels Great!” can hold a candle to Shartro Copley’s “Where is my wife? I want to talk to my wife!”
It will be very, very interesting to see what Niell Blomkoff does next – and I can guarantee it will come out sooner, fresher, and perhaps more relevant than anything James Cameron spends other people’s money on.
But is D9 truly revolutionary in its execution and premise, or does it take elements from Alien Nation, as previously posted?
Wow.
Thanks for helping the dissenters say it more simply.
District 9. Awesome premise. Awful story.
BTW, the title of the blog entry is pretty misleading. You supported why you liked the film, and equated it with being “good.”
You didn’t do anything to examine the character and plot inconsistencies, or the use of a cinema verite style to “sell” the audience on a sense of realism, and afterword allowing the writing to regress into lame and predictable genre conventions, etc…
It’s amazing how people who like something so much are willing to be blind to its flaws just to convince themselves that they saw something amazing.
How is it an AWFUL story? lol It was a GREAT story, original, exciting, sometimes scary.
And all these “inconsistencies” you talk about are addressed by previous posters. There’s nothing “inconsistent” about them either; the story elements are open to interpretation. You interpreted them as inconsistencies but that does not make them so as there are perfectly logical explanations out there or the movie decided ON PURPOSE not to go into detail about those elements. How does that make it a bad thing?
And Splendic, I’d have to say it’s amazing how some ppl’s bias and dislike/hate of movies that are popular/well liked blinds them from enjoying that movie.
Finally saw it and really did not like it. I can’t get in to the style of the film it’s self. The story held up pretty well and at times was interesting. I just don’t like the way it was told especially the first half of the film. I really hate that style of filming and it eats away at me. I thought it was a decent story that was poorly shown to us. Not a terrible film just certainly nothing great or spectacular about it. With out all the hype I might of enjoyed it to a certain extent, but instead the hype hurt the film for me because I kept thinking “how the hell do people think this is amazing?”
I suppose I hear what you’re saying, there’s no such thing as “Flawed Masterpiece”. It’s got plotholes, sure.
But did the Alien franchise ever get around to explaining what those giant elephant looking things on their alien ship were up to?
I’m picturing it now.
“This new Alien film is no Star Trek. I mean – who would believe that Aliens would have two MOUTHS? And they never explain what planet they come from?”
I think the film’s non-cinema verite’ moments do diplay that Blomkoff is able to develop characters. It’s no masterpiece. It’s an opening shot.
Alien Nation, hm? I couldn’t get over those stupid potato head designs. Like cheap stuffed stocking Klingons. So – no – just because they dressed like Miami Vice, no, I wasn’t convinced that I was seeing something “relevant”. Dramatic, yes. Relevant, no.
I would say District 9 is closer to V: the Invasion (the movie) with its sociological treatment of both humans and a visiting alien force. But with a much smaller cast, nonetheless highlighting a diverse social strata on both sides.
We didn’t learn much about the aliens, but we did learn enough about the CG Prawn & his son to CARE about them.
THAT’S a cinematic revolution. Somehow, the way they moved, the way we were introduced to them in the context of the film – it was original. It couldn’t be compared to anything else. We wanted to see them escorted to safety. Not saved by humanity: Saved FROM Humanity.
THAT”S something that hasn’t been seen since the hey-day of the Outer Limits, at least.
So yes. It’s a fresh voice in the Stargate / Star Trek / Aliens vs Predator / Battlestar Galactica environment of Sci Fi we’ve been treated to lately.
It’s not Space Opera (Trek). It’s not Monster-Fi (Aliens/Pred). It’s note Serialized Sci Drama (Battlestar).
It’s, as one friend of mine labeled it: “Political Science Fiction”.
Some papers are calling it satire, with how it approaches familiar issues by re-contexting them in a familiar but strange world.
As “Alien” was believeable due to its “Truckers in Space” point of view, District 9 is essentially “BBCi -Fi”. So – it’s Sci Fi which has tapped into a broader audience that might not normally relate.
Basic Conflicts in Fiction (w examples):
Man vs Man (the Dark Knight)
Man vs Nature (Jaws, Perfect Storm, Old Man & th’ Sea)
Man vs Environment (2012, Day After Tomorrow)
Man vs Himself (Batman Begins)
Man vs Human Nature (If Christopher J. is the man, yes. He’s escaping the destructiveness of our human nature.)
In closing, I think this film’s innovative take on familiar themes is smart, fresh, and is showing many people something they’ve never seen before.
I think that no studio knew what to do with it is testament to the fact that it couldn’t be accurately described by “Hollywood” talk, i.e. – Star Trek meets Miami Vice (Alien Nation), or Godzilla meets Blair Witch (Cloverfield).
That it was marketed intelligently and successfully and has people thinking & talking afterward can’t be described as anything other than good.
And that you can’t really describe it accurately but to say – “You should just see it.” shows that it has something of value other than its effects, its plot, and – obviously – its star power.
Between this and “Moon”, I think many people who ‘used to’ like sci fi can safely say, it’s become interesting again. And we want to see these young directors succeed in bringing us more innovative work.
That’s about all there is to say. That and Gentleman Bronco’s looks too successfully lambast the state of “Science Fiction” Literature today. So – that, too is a welcome voice.
Because I live in the real world – and for my dollar, I want a fresh take on tried & true ideas.
District 9 delivered that. Avatar? Dun’t look like it’s gonna be anything but extremely detailed rehash of Ferngully or Dances with Wolves.
And hey – the other reason District 9 isn’t over-rated, is because EVERYBODY loves seeing an Underdog WIN. And exceeding its budget in the first weekend’s a pretty good start for a first time director.
Are naysayers not recognizing good film-making when they see it?
I say yes.
@splendic
I don’t recall anyone in ANY of the three discussions of this film stating it’s perfect or flawless. I, for example, loved the film and do think it is a magnificent example of movie-making, BUT every time I have recommended it to friends for the past few days, I have warned them that the South African accents are extremely strong, requiring a great deal of concentration, and that the alien weaponry is quite “messy” (my euphemism, usually said at times when people were eating, for the heavy gore-factor of the disintegration-style killings). Would I have enjoyed finding out more about the aliens? Certainly. Would it have been much less unsettling to have the kinetic action scenes toned down slightly? Probably.
These are flawed aspects of this film, at least to a certain degree and to, I’m sure, many viewers, but do they ruin the film? No. I find it amusing that the majority (admitting there are exceptions, of course) of posters who liked/loved the film tell why they enjoyed it without outright attacking those who did not, while the majority (again, with exceptions) of those who disliked/hated the film invariably begin with something akin to: “I think you’re wrong because…” or “how can you like it when…?” Ahhh, political venom infects the oft-tranquil Movieland…
BTW, as my posts often respond to a particular point or irritation, I freely admit to being guilty (sometimes) of the very same “amusing” behavior I mention above. I shall endeavor to do better. I am, however, only human (heh-heh).
For me this was easily the best movie of the year but then again I haven’t watched every single movie that’s been out. So far I’ve seen Fanboys, I love You Man, Hangover, Coraline, Star Trek, Wolverine, Adventureland, 500 Days of Summer and The Cove.
I do feel it does compare favorably to the movies mentioned by the poster Sean. The story is more sophisticated than some of those movies. Certainly the performance by the lead actor beats out most of the performances in any of the movies mentioned in Sean’s list. I do feel the social commentary makes the movie stand out and is thought provoking.
I don’t feel it’s been overhyped by critics but I do feel that moviegoers have rebelled against critics somewhat and that might affect the opinions of some moviegoers.
+1 @ Django about District 9
+1 @ Django about Avatar (District 9 will probably be way better movie and/or sci fi movie)
+1 @ Andrew.
And a big LOL at ppl complaining about the South African accents. The movie set where? Did you want more American actors in foreigner roles speaking with a slight British accent to make it “authentic”?
I had no problems understanding the accents and thought it was pretty funny when they were subbing one of the characters when he was speaking plain English with a bit of accent.
Goes back to the “spoonfed” theory. If it’s hard to understand then complain about it? Cmon
@ogb
For the record, I was not complaining about the accents; in fact, I enjoyed them…since the film takes place in South Africa. The flawed aspect is simply that so much concentration might be required to understand the actors that some of the subtleties onscreen might be missed. I had no problem understanding either; I am used to heavy accents as my parents are from another country. The reason someone would consider this a flaw is that American audiences have historically been less willing to stretch their ears (and eyes) than other people. Clearly, considering the success of the film, this has not been a problem, but it has traditionally been a consideration…hence, the American actors with bad accents or the British actors prtraying EVERY OTHER nationality…The point about being spoonfed is valid (and much too true for comfort), but it had nothing to do with my comment.
Reading the posts from this movie and the one’s from Transformers 2, (where Vic got lambasted for saying it sucked when most of those who saw it liked/loved it.)
It’s clear that we as an audience have changed. George Lucas commented on this when he said that audiences are smarter now, they’re more educated and are harder to please than before the advent of CG and better technical effects.
I’ve personally noticed that movie’s either fall into one of two catagories on this and other sites:
“It was TOTALLY AWESOME and the best movie I’ve ever seen!!!”
or,
“That was the worst movie ever made. Wait and rent it, save your money”
What ever happened to just enjoying a movie for what it is, good or bad instead of comparing it to a bomb or blockbuster?
If Vic disliked or even hated Transformers 2 that’s his right as a movie goer and critic. Personally, I dug it but that automatically doesn’t make him wrong and me right.
I say this because I got nailed by a comment solely because I stated even though I really liked D9 it was too slow and boring…for me.
I don’t think it’s always whether the movie worked or didn’t work, Judging from the posts on this site I think it’s how we react to each others opinions of those films.
(With the exception of, ‘The Day The Earth Stood Still’ which TOTALLY SUCKED! In fact, don’t even rent it, save your money!)
Speaking as a person whose husband dragged her to see this movie I’ll admit that I went into it preparing to hate it. And for the first half hour, I did. The documentary part was tortuously boring. Just like real documentaries. Then it went “off script” and the real story started. I was hooked. I thought it was fantastic and this really isn’t my kind of movie but it was so good. I had to stop hating.
I like the insight that the aliens didn’t have their stuff together. How many sci/fi movies have had Earthlings go to another planet only to have our asses kicked in spite of out technology? Nice to see the other guy getting it for a change. We can’t be crap here at home AND on other planets, can we?
Oh, and “consideration” should be “concern”…”prtraying” should be “portraying”. I demand careful writing/typing from my students and hope for it from the other posters, so I must myself accountable for the same.
I must HOLD myself accountable…Clearly, I need more sleep. I, too, thought it great that the idea of the aliens’ ineptitude (bad luck?) was brought up; I admit I hadn’t thought about it initially. I am also happy that more people are commenting on the fact that, in the end, we have the right to disagree and express our opinions for the public to experience. As long as we are all respectful of each other, I rather enjoy reading dissenting (or simply different) ideas as they are bandied about. That was a major component of my decision to continue coming back to this site and these discussion threads.
@Ken J
If you think that I have the “if you haven’t been to film school you don’t know anything” attitude it’s because you don’t know me which is forgivable, but more over you missed my point in that paragraph in which I say:”Anyone who has been to film school or taken classes on screenwriting should know that one of the worst things you can do is “spoonfeed” the audience.” It was an attempt to convey the filmmaker’s POV. It is the director and writers duty to get the message across over the entire period of the film, so they have to decide what is too much information and what is too little.
I did this because there appears to be a lack of respect for the process when those who see the film complain that they were left hanging because the film doesn’t explain where the aliens came from.
I can understand where folks are put off by the style of the film because honestly, not everyone is going to like it. That is one of the risks of film making. Most people understand this, however it seems there is a growing amount of people who go see a movie and hate it because it was too polished or not polished enough or the story wasn’t told the way they thought it should be.
It’s akin to going to a nice restaurant and having a horrible time because the menu didn’t have enough of the right food or the decorations were not to your liking.You’re supposed to go for the experience.
How many people go to the movies and just let the whole experience wash over them? I certainly do and I just love movies for what they are and appreciate the creative process. If the film invokes an emotional response from me it is because I buy into it and “suspend my disbelief”. Really it’s the only way to watch a movie or even a play for that matter.
Truthfully, there aren’t many movies I don’t like and the ones I don’t are usually because they had no value or were just plain bad. But then…one man’s rotten eggs is another one’s potpourri and that is really what this debate is about.
We are already crappy here at home and get our asses kicked by the everyday common cock roach.
Anyone who claims that the alien/refugee analogy is accidental is naive person.
The Aliens came from some where other than earth. origin mystery settled
.
John Holland, well put.
Andrew, yeah, I didn’t mean you were put off by the accents but you did mention it and I remembered of a few threads on IMDB and a couple of ppl in the theater complaining about accents. A little irritating (“Why don’t they talk like me”)
@Andrew
I don’t know, I know when people agree with your point of view you see them in a better light, but show me where you see that the majority of dissenters are aggressive toward those who liked it. Because to me, it seems fairly equal, except there are a few people who liked the film that everytime someone says they don’t like it, these same people will immediately reply scrutinizing everything they say as if people who don’t like something needs to “prove” that they have a “valid” reason to not like it…
I’m not one of these, I liked the film, just have stated the few criticisms of the film that I have, and even that got these individuals to get on my butt, it’s quite annoying, you like it, someone else doesn’t, get over it…
From what I’ve seen here and other threads, it’s typically the people who REALLY liked it that would attack anyone who doesn’t. Look at any Transformers thread, The Dark Knight, etc. etc.
The day that the “wonderful era” of “it’s only your opinion man” is over is the same day i will stop watching movies all together. I’d rather be able to have a say in what i like then be told what i’m supposed to like and consider epic. I liked this movie… Matter of fact enjoyed through and through the 3 times i saw it but the more i’m told to love it… the less i do.
@John Holland
And I think you’ve misunderstood my point…
“however it seems there is a growing amount of people who go see a movie and hate it because it was too polished or not polished enough or the story wasn’t told the way they thought it should be.”
And my point is, why is this wrong? The movie goer is paying HIS money to watch a movie that HE will enjoy (replace with gender appropriate pronoun as you see fit). If they want to enjoy a simple movie, hey, who are you, or anyone claiming to be some film scholar, to say they are wrong or “being satisfied with mediocrity?” Are you paying for that person’s ticket? No? Then that’s too bad then. You really have absolutely no say as to what’s right or wrong since it’s their own opinion that matters to them.
To use a specific or not specific example, a commenter here said that the movie was slow and boring for him (don’t mind the gender, just using as an example), people started attacking him as if he’s not entitled to that opinion. He even said FOR HIM, and not that it WAS slow or boring as a matter of fact… He even said that he thought it was a good film just not for him, and still people gave him crap. I think that’s pretty dumb.
“It’s akin to going to a nice restaurant and having a horrible time because the menu didn’t have enough of the right food or the decorations were not to your liking.You’re supposed to go for the experience.”
The ONLY way I would go to a “nice” restaurant is to impress a girl. I work 60 hours a week to make ends meet. I don’t go to a “nice” restaurant to pay for the “experience.” I go to a restaurant to “experience” food that I like going into my stomach, and the larger the amount of that “experience” the better. But that’s exactly what I mean, you’re more-or-less looking down on me and other like me because we can’t “appreciate” the so-called nice restaurant, which I simply call overpriced restaurants. Because by what standard makes it a “nice” restaurant? My taste buds and my hungry stomach don’t think so, it’s just some arbitrary standard set by people who believe their opinions are more important than “normal” people. Sorry, not my thing.
“How many people go to the movies and just let the whole experience wash over them? I certainly do and I just love movies for what they are and appreciate the creative process. If the film invokes an emotional response from me it is because I buy into it and “suspend my disbelief”. Really it’s the only way to watch a movie or even a play for that matter.”
Me too, but my point is simply that it doesn’t have to be high-brow to accomplish this. I feel that if this can be accomplished while being accessible to the normal viewer, then it’s better than any high brow arthouse movie that can only claim to be of great significance but if the majority of people can’t even sit through it, then what really was the point?
I’m not disagreeing with you, I mostly enjoy well-made movies as well, I’m mainly disagreeing with the attitude that people are “wrong” for disliking films that you might really like or consider it a film that falls under the category you have defined. I only say this because I’m sick of every time I say a criticism or say that I don’t like something that popular, every jumps on my ass about it. It’s very annoying. Heck, someone even got on my case for not being interested in a certain game. HELLO?? Grow up people, I never understood why some people need other people to agree with them for them to feel good about their decision to like something…
@Jago
Thank you, very well said, straight to the point.
@Jago
That’s exactly how I felt about The Dark Knight. I really liked the movie but the more I saw online how everyone was treating it like the be all end all of movies and how Heath Ledger is the best actor in the world, and how everytime someone said they didn’t like it, or that it wasn’t their number one movie that year, or if ANY little criticism is even suggested, everyone got on their case and accused them of being “too simple-minded” to “understand” TDK, blah blah blah, I started feeling the way you do, the mention of TDK started to annoy me a bit…
KEN J
So you like movies less based on what ppl say about them?
Not sure about the wording of your question, but I assume you’re asking if I would like a movie less because of what people say about it. It’s not WHAT they say, but the attitude people have toward it. A lot of people liked Iron Man too, I loved Iron Man, but those fans don’t attack people who didn’t like it. They express that they like it, and that’s the end of it. While for some movies, such as this one and TDK, there is this attitude that if you don’t like it, there must be something wrong with you.
Instead of just acknowledging that people have different opinions, they say that people who don’t like it must not “understand” it or something stupid like that. Basically it must make them feel better about themselves, makes them think they are smarter to have their opinion than people who have different ones.
Oh well, it’s pretty sad… I try to keep reminding myself to ignore how annoyed I am by these people and just like the movie for what it is, but it gets to the point sometimes where just the mention of the movie gives me that annoyed feeling. It’s starting to rear its ugly head for this movie, but I hope it doesn’t get any worse.
I know what you’re saying but there is a BUT
I had a friend that saw Donnie Darko and said he looks down on ppl who don’t understand it from watching it once. I did not understand it completely the first time I watched it. I watched it again and understood it. Since then I’ve watched it a bunch of times and love it even more.
I assume those are the type of ppl you’re talking about (my friend)? I’m saying you should try not to let them influence your initial opinion of the movie. If you really like a movie but talk to ppl who LOVE the movie and that makes you not like the movie as much, I think that’s a wrong way to go about it. You’re being influenced by a handful of ppl.
I understand they’re annoying but don’t let that ruin the movie for you or think less of it.
It’s not like I’m consciously going “well, these people ar annoying, so I’m going to like this movie less.” It’s like if you saw a movie for the first time, the movie was good, but your girlfriend just broke up with you that day and then someone wrecked your car so you’re in a really really bad mood while watching it, even though it was a good movie, you’re not going to want to see it again because it instills a bad feeling. You don’t control it, and that’s how this is, when I think about TDK, I feel like I’m obligated to like it, and even though I did like it, that gets on my nerves. But even worse is Pirates of the Carribean, because that wasn’t even such a great movie, it was OK at best, but people make it out to be like the best comedy adventure movie ever made, and it’s NOWHERE close to being that… That has caused me to not even watch the sequels and I have 0 interest in watching them…
Re: ” James Cameron should remake District 9.”
Judging from Cameron’s attitude toward unions in the film industry, I can’t imagine Cameron coming anywhere close to a Third World country, and getting close enough to actually interview people.
Here’s something interesting I just learned about D9:
Those documentary interviews with citizens, asking about the aliens?
THEY WERE ASKING THEM QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NIGERIAN REFUGEE CAMPS, AND SUBSTITUTED ALIENS TO BRING ATTENTION TO WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON DOWN THERE.
James Cameron – as evidence by his $240 million Video Game here – is in no way capable of making something as relevant, immediate and fresh as District 9.
Welcome to the Revolutionized world of the new Sci Fi. Not spear-headed by AVATAR.
But by the underdog: Niell Blomkoff.
(Just think about what those people said about their fellow human beings, and realize that, unlike the Prawns – those refugees aren’t getting on any ship to remove themselves. They’re unwelcome. They’re mistreated. They’re HUMAN. And they’re REAL.)
Use your $240 million to save some villages, dude. Or make 10 relevant films instead of THIS crap.