When watching Avatar, I was very impressed by the visual appeal of the movie. I was stunned by how gorgeous the scenery looked, how realistic the Na’vi were, and how rich all the visuals were. However, I thought the writing was terrible, the message heavy-handed, and the overall plot predictable and trite. Despite those flaws, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie even with those minor details: it was a good popcorn flick with not much more to it.
About a week later I sat down with Bartoneus and Sucilaria and watched District 9, probably my favorite movie of 2009. At this point I realized that District 9 shared quite a few ideas with Avatar and was curious as to why I favored one over the other. I decided to try and break it down. This article isn’t really meant to be a review but more of an analysis of the differences between these two very important movies.
Beware of spoilz for both movies.
In my mind there were three key differences between the movies. The first is the philosophy behind special effects. The second was the treatment of the alien race, how the aliens were portrayed and the message this sends. The last item I wanted to write about was the treatment of the human race and how they interacted with the aliens.
When I say philosophy behind the special effects, I don’t mean the quality of special effects but what their purpose was, whether to advance the story or communicate an idea. Avatar, as I said earlier, was beautiful. Every scene had stunning CG effects, brilliant motion capture, and everything just popped out from the screen. It was basically James Cameron having sex with my eyes and I liked it. District 9 on the other hand was shot in Johannesburg, on location, and involved very little use of the demanding special effects we see in Avatar.
What I found interesting was the way this panned out in my brain. District 9 became more realistic to me. The way the mothership just hung in the sky over Johannesburg, the way the prawns (sorry to not be PC) scrabbled about for trash, and even the way the more ridiculous items (robot catching an rpg!) fit into the whole movie. This made the story itself, the characters, all more relatable to me. Avatar’s use of special effects seemed to be an effort to cover up a lackluster story with lots of shiny. District 9 used special effects to convey a mood and managed to remain consistent with their message. Unfortunately, Avatar failed in that respect despite having a larger budget and better technology.
District 9’s prawns were disgusting creatures. No recognizable hierarchy, no drive, and no understanding of their situation. They were basically very intelligent animals that had the misfortune of landing in Johannesburg. Avatar’s Na’vi were all perfect specimens perfectly in tune with nature. I don’t really remember seeing a smudge of dirt on a Na’vi despite the fact that they lived in a big tree and wandered about the forest wearing loin cloths. All of them were noble magical natives. For the prawns the exceptional character was… well, truly exceptional. “Johnson” was a unique prawn able to formulate a long term plan, care for his son, and create some small friendships. As Wikus transformed and lost his humanity, we discovered Johnson’s humanity. It was an elegant formulation of the normal story. Avatar’s Na’vi were so blatantly “better” than people through their culture, physiques, relationships, and all of that so there was no question that Jake would want to be one. In fact, wouldn’t we all want to be a Na’vi? District 9’s treatment can give us insight into what it means to be human, so that we look at ourselves and the people around us differently. Avatar makes you just want to be a giant smurf.
What’s interesting to me is that the general ideas of District 9 and Avatar are very similar. A human man who is a relatable character goes native. There are some charismatic aliens who change the main character’s perception of the alien race and bring about a radical change. Within this a bunch of stuff blows up and cool stuff happens. Avatar however seems to not even take its own story seriously (Unobtainium? Really?). The human faction is basically a bunch of walking caricatures. Evil soldier/mercenary, greedy and spineless corporate whore, naïve scientist and plucky standup human were all there. It really seems like James Cameron’s writing never evolved beyond the early teens. While District 9 had some similar cliché elements they were still more interesting in the way they interacted with one another. It also had the evil soldier, greedy corporate guy, and a flawed yet relatable main character.
District 9 created a plausible story revolving around this bizarre alien settlement. It involved an impotent worldwide federation, a Blackwater corporation, and an evolving situation between South Africans and the invading alien species. All of this was framed around the horrific transformation of Wikus. The transformation itself was a plot point that involved deep psychological torment, the loss of all he loved, and the desperate hope he could go back to normal. Avatar plugs you in and you are better. There was never going back as far as the story was concerned.
Quite simply, Avatar was the really hot dumb chick from the bar. She’s attractive until she opens her mouth. District 9 is the woman with depth, worth talking to and retains a beauty that isn’t typical but still present. District 9 actually made me think and challenge a few perceptions I had as to humanity, our lives, and the way we view other creatures. Avatar was just fluff on some random weekday, forgettable in the long run, except when your friends bring up that really hot chick…
District 9 is so obviously a foreign film, not because of the budget, but the characters. Wikus is a hero that does not exist in American cinema. He’s twitchy, not particularly good-looking, and on the outset a right ass to the Prawns. George Lucas would have re-done the egg-burning scene or removed it altogether, because apparently heroes can’t be morally spotty.
In this case, it worked all the better. Wikus has real growth through the movie, tragic as this growth eventually is.
Also 100% with you on the aliens, with the Na’vi being perfect noble savages and Prawns being pitiful, filthy, directionless layabouts (and really, it’s understandable considering the situation! Human refugee shantytowns end up the same way.) I hope the perfection of the Na’vi is explained in the next movie: That environment and biosphere could NOT have originated through any means but deliberate design, and exploring that in Cameron’s next Avatar movie could be fascinating.
Nothing about Cameron is fascinating except his ego – which flocks of sheepish movie-goers seem to feed constantly with money from the entertainment portion of a seemingly ill-conceived budget. A budget which seems to have no other criteria for consumption except how “shiny” something appears to be.
P.S.
I totally agree with Josh. Avatar is better regulated to the realm of: Best 3 hour screen saver… like ever!
Each to their own, guys. Personally, I think District 9 sucked, and Avatar was the far better movie. The plot for District 9 didn’t make sense to me at all (are those aliens smart, or are they inanely stupid—I couldn’t tell. And you can’t have both!). And the whole premise of District 9 was not believable to me at all. Why would such a scientifically advanced species get stranded at all? (A race that scientifically advanced would have jury-rigged something right off the bat, or just taken it from the humans). On the flip side, humans would have exterminated those prawns–or tried to exterminate them–as soon as they took a dislike to them (they wouldn’t have bothered with bureaucratic bullshit). On top of it all, the special effects of District 9 and its dialogue were just plain cheesy. There is absolutely no contest between District 9 and Avatar. Avatar blows it away on all fronts–special effects and storyline. Avatar’s storyline might be predictable and a bit worn, but it is also BELIEVABLE. It is a storyline that has played out in history many times, including what happened to the Native Americans.
I see these as two completely different movies. In my 40’s, I still watch Disney films as Disney films–bright upbeat fairy tales which are fun. I did not go to Avatar expecting Lord of the Rings. I went to see cool effects build around a story which could be fed to the generic viewers–NOT to my gamer friends who might be able to digest a more complex, gritty tale. A friend of mine with native American blood wept (he’s 36) during Avatar and would have trouble seeing it again, and he loved it. Why does everything need to be “gritty, real life”? Can’t we dream of cool tribes of elves, or lions, or blue aliens, which are a little cleaner and less “real” than we are?
I liked both films. I will own both films. When I want gritty, make-me-think sci-fi with some fun action, and some nice humor, I will watch District 9. When I want eye candy and a simple Disney fairy tale for feel good happy-ending fantasy, I will watch Avatar.
Good post, it should cause a lot of discussion. I think a lot of us will debate you Josh, but that’s a good thing. It brings more ideas to the table and we share them here. I don’t agree with you much, but again, I don’t have to, to have enjoyed reading what you wrote and letting it get me thinking–to make me shape the “why” of my own opinions.
Come see us in March in Houston, for Comicpalooza!
Hey, thanks for the comments everyone. Dissenters will be shot.
@Slan: I had never thought of it as a foreign film but it’s not a bad comparison. Not sure I want to touch the creationism idea but if it actually becomes a plot point it could be really really cool.
@Tonester: I’m not sure we are allowed to agree on things…
@Mike: I actually think the way the humans dealt with the prawns is far more realistic as to what would actually happen. As far as the story being one that has played out multiple times in history, I hate to say it but the Native Americans did not win, they were brutally murdered and trampled upon. Generally technology trumps other things in the power game. If you see the prawns as a metaphor for racial tension that might make more sense. We as a race don’t generally commit genocide outright, we try to hide it in various ways. Also I think they make some allusion as to what happened on board the mother ship. The fact that they left it a mystery actually makes it all the more intriguing. What calamitous event could have caused such an advanced ship to fail?
@Greco: Thanks for the kind words. I definitely agree with you that movies can serve different purposes. The hype I heard revolving around Avatar built it up as an amazing film on all fronts, not just special effects. It also had some legitimately moving moments but for me, District 9 was just the more interesting film. All of that said, I’ll probably buy both movies as well.
This explains one of the major reasons much better than I can:
http://io9.com/5422666/when-will-white-people-stop-making-movies-like-avatar
One of the key excerpts:
“Think of it this way. Avatar is a fantasy about ceasing to be white, giving up the old human meatsack to join the blue people, but never losing white privilege. Jake never really knows what it’s like to be a Na’vi because he always has the option to switch back into human mode. Interestingly, Wikus in District 9 learns a very different lesson. He’s becoming alien and he can’t go back. He has no other choice but to live in the slums and eat catfood. And guess what? He really hates it. He helps his alien buddy to escape Earth solely because he’s hoping the guy will come back in a few years with a “cure” for his alienness. When whites fantasize about becoming other races, it’s only fun if they can blithely ignore the fundamental experience of being an oppressed racial group. Which is that you are oppressed, and nobody will let you be a leader of anything.”
Avatar is arguably the worst script/dialog of any movie I’ve ever seen. The script took 2 hours and the film took 4+ years.
If nothing else, this type of film shows just how shallow, uneducated, and completely ignorant our society has become. Sorry – I’m opinionated but I stand by it. When masses upon masses of people can not only see this film (I get it.. its worth “seeing”) but then to go on about how AWESOME it is for any other reason than how “shiny” it is and see it AGAIN… it really makes me feel like there is almost no salvation for this generation.
Its worse than watching a pool full of guppies swimming towards a shiny lure. Instead, its like watching a pond full of guppies swim towards a big giant neon sign flashing, “I’M A S*****Y MOVIE”, taking a bite out of it, and then having a guy come out from behind the sign with a giant club, hitting you over the head with it and telling you its STILL a s****y movie, and then having those same guppies take another bite out of it.
The movie is awful as anything other than a great step forward in special effects.
Story? Awful.
Characters? Awful.
Plot? Awful.
Creativity? Awful. Hello? Its a Smurf/Indian wuzzle.
I’m not saying the movie isn’t entertaining – my wife would like for me to clear that up. I’m very clearly stating it isn’t the best movie ever made (or anything even remotely close to it) and does not warrant people coming out of it like its the best movie they’ve seen in a long time.
I was entertained, but mostly because the effects are awesome and I saw it in 3D IMax.
It just isn’t a good movie by any stretch of the imagination in any other way.
Hey, I’m not saying Avatar is an award-winning script or anything. But the way it was presented was much more believable than District 9. I mean, come on, District 9 has a supposedly advanced alien race far superior to ours technology-wise showing up with the ability to cross galaxies, super-powerful weapons at their disposal, and exoskeleton-robotic technology, yet they can’t jury-rig something to get their ship moving again, or simply blow us away, or make us into slaves, or at least rebel? A small piece of that ship falls off, and they can’t go anywhere? Then they are portrayed as stupid animals with no redeeming value whatsoever, eating cat food, trading their guns and technology for cat food, eating and picking objects out of garbage, etc., putting up with human crap. Yet they are somehow, in secret, creating some advanced piece of bio-technology machinery?
Before watching the movie I heard about its premise (alien’s trapped on earth and placed in a concentration camp/ghetto) and thought “wow, that’s cool.” Upon seeing it, though, and how amateurishly its premise was butchered and portrayed, with little thought toward explaining freight-train-sized holes in its plot, I have to say it is nowhere in league with Avatar.
The first moment one of those aliens removed an arm from a human and killed them (as portrayed in the movie) humans would have wiped them out (or tried to). Now, if the directors would have put some more thought into it and made some of those aliens somehow identifiable to humans then, yeah, I could see humans might allow them to exist and throw them into a ghetto (ie because they can’t bring themselves to kill the likeable ones over the actions of unlikable ones). But, as it stands, the way the aliens are portrayed in the movie, I can’t bring myself to believe humans would allow them to continue to exist once an alien showed any violent tendencies, especially when the entire eco-system of the earth is at stake. For god’s sakes we wipe out all kinds of invasive plants and animals on earth right now, just because they come from another continent—let alone another galaxy. We’ve also committed genocide on other humans—who look like us—just because their skin looks different or they have beliefs. Yet these aliens are somewhat tolerated and given more leeway? Even when they are not cute and cuddly, or have any other redeeming value in our human eyes?
Don’t get me wrong, District 9 has a few humorous moments. Intentionally (or unintentionally) it made me laugh. As a cheesy sci-fi I see some value in watching it, and it at least provided me with some (marginal) entertainment. But brain food, it is not.
Here are just a few of the unbelievable/unexplained points I noticed (and there were many, many more):
• If they have such powerful alien weapons, why didn’t they use them?
• What was the purpose of throwing in that stupid exo-skeleton-robot thing except to add in a transformers-like element to a sci-fi movie? It just didn’t fit in. I felt like it was the only cool special effect they could come up with, so they thought, “hey, why not throw it in?”
• If the alien’s have such a powerful battle-suit why didn’t one of THEM use it?
• If they are so hooked on cat food, how can they possibly accomplish anything else? At least throw in an addictive premise showing some of them resisting the temptation to partake, perhaps entering an alien rehab or something.
• Why didn’t the humans dismantle the ship and de-engineer it when they were so easily able to get inside at the beginning of the movie? Then, years later, it is still hovering there untouched and operable?
All this brings me to my main point: the movie fails to create a believable premise that gives these aliens any kind of culture or cohesive nature. They are like cardboard cutouts: not portrayed as a viable, thinking, emotional race.
Maybe it would make more sense to have humans letting them live on earth if the aliens were shown to have some sort of redeeming value or use. For instance, they could have taken the time to show the aliens around a dinner table sharing catfood and chatting together, or enjoying a game of bug-slapping with their children. I don’t know. Something. Anything. Maybe show some of them are trying to be human-like and fit in but failing. Show diversity and make them at least somewhat believable. Give them some sympathy in human eyes so it is believable that the “do-gooders” of the world will not stand by and let them get massacred.
I believe the basic premise for District 9 could have worked if a believable cause-effect, action-reaction sequence was given. I am capable of believing in almost any kind of plot or fantasy, so long as the author or producer takes the time to make it believable. But they need to answer these types of questions and provide a more plausible framework and “reality” for me to feel its “real.” If you are going to do dramatic, unbelievable things you have to at least throw in a few explanations as to why things are the way they are.
• If they have such powerful alien weapons, why didn’t they use them?
To do what? Piss off the Joburg residents enough to call in the army and start a very short, very one-sided war?
• What was the purpose of throwing in that stupid exo-skeleton-robot thing except to add in a transformers-like element to a sci-fi movie? It just didn’t fit in. I felt like it was the only cool special effect they could come up with, so they thought, “hey, why not throw it in?”
I think Blokamp wanted this because he had one in the original short ‘Live in Joburg’, and face it, the thing was hella cool.
• If the alien’s have such a powerful battle-suit why didn’t one of THEM use it?
See point 1 above. What would they use it for? raid a catfood factory?
• If they are so hooked on cat food, how can they possibly accomplish anything else? At least throw in an addictive premise showing some of them resisting the temptation to partake, perhaps entering an alien rehab or something.
A clear parallel with drug use, which in shantys, often simply goes unaddressed and untreated, just as shown. Put this on top of an apparent worker-caste of aliens who simply don’t do anything useful unless ordered around by a superior, and you’ve got a dump filled with addicts who really don’t have any ambitions for anything else.
• Why didn’t the humans dismantle the ship and de-engineer it when they were so easily able to get inside at the beginning of the movie? Then, years later, it is still hovering there untouched and operable?
This is a good question, and is probably down to ‘South Africa doesn’t have the resources to properly pursue an aggressive reverse-engineering of the ship and isn’t letting anyone else play’.
And I totally disagree.
You totally missed the whole point of the movie. What you “saw” of the alien race is what was portrayed on the media in the movie. As soon as someone actually took the time to get to KNOW one of them, you see an entirely different side of the race – one that is intelligent, cares about its young, etc.
I guess we can go on and on in circles all day long. Its just so blatantly clear that unless directors bang you over the head with something, 99% of audiences just don’t get it… I guess you fit into that category or something.
I suppose you liked the ending to Spielberg’s War of the Worlds as well where he literally bangs you over the head with the “aha!” moment just in case you weren’t capable of grasping it with the clues throughout the movie?
Disctrict 9 was meant to be taken half seriously – look at the main character throughout the first half of the movie. Yet, look at him at the end of the movie? There is a believable transformation that takes part – not just physically, but emotionally and psychologically.
District 9 is much more based in realism. Its gritty, sarcastic, satirical, and yet, does the one thing that most “White Burden” stories fail to do – it doesn’t make the white guy who goes native somehow end up becoming the greatest icon of some society he doesn’t even belong to. He has to endure their shortcomings, deal with their oppression, face the same daily fears and subtleties they deal with, etc.
Avatar is a “been there, done that” story that has been rehashed soooooo many times, but this time.. *drum roll* IN 3D! Woohoo!
The entire thing is forgettable except for the special effects. Its a blatant ripoff of Cowboys vs Indians except the Cowboy becomes the most powerful Indian ever and saves them…. yea, its been done before like a billion times.
I just texted this to Josh, but I think it deserves repeating:
Avatar is a porn where someone substituted CGI for the sex scenes.
Some of the comments on District 9 lured this lurker out of hiding to just point out a few things:
The majority of the aliens from District 9 were a subspecies of drone workers with only enough intelligence to do their assigned jobs. Confronted with a situation where no leaders were available to boss them around they bascally sat down in the ship’s hull, not knowing what to do. When they were liberated they just settled down in a to them more or less comfortable extended shore leave: having sex, stuffing yourself with junkfood and the occasional brawl.
The alien Christopher Johnson, on the other hand, was part of the ship’s command and thus intelligent enough to fix the ship. He, however, was held back by having to keep hidden and a lack of available fuel.
As for why the humans didn’t just kill the aliens and demolish the ship? They found out rather quickly that they needed the aliens to figure out how their weaponry and machinery worked.
Shhh… you are making sense 🙂
I take issue with your initial premise; at the risk of sounding cliche, you might as well state that apples are better than oranges.
The only thing the two movies really have in common, as far as why someone might go to see them, is that they’re sci-fi flicks.
District 9 was relatively low-key; Avatar was a huge, massively-hyped blockbuster.
District 9 was an intellectual film with a message (though to be fair, the market-droids did cut the trailers to make it seem like an action flick, which only did the movie a disservice IMHO).
Avatar was really just a bunch of imaginative eye candy (though, to be fair, the media-droids went into a hype-frenzy over the supposed messages it held, which only did the movie a disservice IMHO).
.-= Asmor´s last blog ..Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 3rd Edition =-.
I loved both movies… for widely different reasons.
District9 was great speculative fiction by portraying how South Africa (ZA) would deal with an alien presence by copying what it did with the refugees from Zimbabwee. (Hell they filmed in the refugees camps!)
As mentioned before, it’s an awesome story how a non North-American lead character, based on ZA character tropes, evolves.
I loved Avatar for many, many different reasons, one of which was how under the Cliches and Chekov guns, many watchers don’t get that the aliens aren’t the savages in that story, the humans are. I lost the link to the awesome review but the movie reeks of reference that Pandora is a post-singularity planet (the advanced civilization moved on and/or returned to a simpler stage of life).
That Tree of soul WAS an AI, the aliens could jack in animals and control them, there were many ruins of ancient buildings (those arches for example) and hell even the Tree had a strand of DNA as a ramp to climb. I was actually calling the movie Bio-punk at one point.
So while I agree that the movie had a lot of surface cliches… and was eye candy (that I adored), it had deeper meaning for the trope hunter that I am.
So Josh, I hear ya and I get what you’re saying, I’m just saying both made it on my ‘best Sci-Fi movie lists of the last 5 years’ no contest.
.-= The Chatty DM´s last blog ..So Long and Thanks for all the Fish! =-.
Here, here, Chatty DM. I agree with you 100 percent. Avatar had a lot more depth to the story than some people are giving it credit for, for exactly the same reasons you mention. With that being said I will use the same defense Tonester gave for District 9 in reverse. Here are his flippant remarks right back at him, but in defense of Avatar:
“I guess we can go on and on in circles all day long. Its just so blatantly clear that unless directors bang you over the head with something, 99% of audiences just don’t get it… I guess you fit into that category or something.”
And, actually, to address your “excuses” and “explanations” to address holes in District 9, you actually came up with your own reasoning and explanations–these were not provided by the movie/directors. All it would have taken is a bit of dialogue or a scene or two by the movie to show why Aliens decided not to fight back–but the movie didn’t do that. Instead, the viewer is left to wonder why not?
When one human in a battle suit took out an entire armed force, and that same human with a single alien gun broke into a facility and easily wiped out a huge human force there as well, I wonder why can’t the aliens use all that high-tech weaponry to wipe out entire human armies? It appears to me they can. It still doesn’t make sense to me.
Your arguments also don’t work both ways. You’ve come up with what I think are weak arguments for why the aliens didn’t fight back, but then you don’t address why the humans don’t wipe THEM out as soon as they start harming us? It doesn’t make sense. The movie fails to provide a logical reason why.
My point is this (to repeat myself from an earlier comment): if the producers would have taken the time to answer obvious questions to their storyline the story would have been a lot more effective and believable and the movie COULD have worked. Instead, the viewer is left to making up reasons of their own. They could have made the aliens identifiable to us (the viewer) by having a few alien-interaction scenes that make them more likeable (again, to the viewer). It would still be obvious that the humans view them as nothing, yet the viewer would also see the flip side.
Actually, I love unanswered questions. That’s part of awesome movies.
It’s blatant plot holes that the directors hope the Rule of Cool will fill (and fail) that annoy me… of which both movies have in acceptable amounts. District 9 has a few ‘fortunate’ coincidences that make the movie possible while Avatar actually seems to play a game of ‘3 card monte’ with the viewer, blinding us with cliches while giving us peeks of what’s hidden behind.
That’s why so many movie freaks are going to see it 3 and 4 times, to get at the meat!
🙂
1) Which reasons are you saying we made up?
2) In the statement you quoted from me, how does it pertain to District 9?
3) I’m not saying Avatar isn’t entertaining, it is… it just isn’t anywhere near something that constitutes a well-made movie in terms of characters, story, plot, script, dialog, message, provocative, etc. Its a simpleton film. I get it for what it is… but nothing more.
4) When the aliens are somewhat integrated into society for that long, you can’t just nuke them, can you? I mean, when a couple bad apples rob someone in the ghetto, you don’t nuke the ghetto, do you? Oh wait – you do in Avatar!
5) And tell me this… if a group of humans went rogue and killed other humans – in large bunches no less, you think they just get to walk free because it was for a good cause… and illegal? Please don’t talk to me about unbelievable.
6) What makes District 9 unique in these “white burden” movies is that the “hero” loses. He doesn’t become the leader, he doesn’t get to somehow rise above their oppression and problems… he has to deal with them, nothing glamorous or heroic about it… it sucks.
7) Speaking of which… you could make an argument that Jake does what he does because his real life, the one where his brother died, he’s a nobody and a cripple to boot.
I’m sorry – its just so over the top worse than simplistic… its like a 4th grader wrote the script.
@joshx0rfz: in response to “I actually think the way the humans dealt with the prawns is far more realistic as to what would actually happen. As far as the story being one that has played out multiple times in history, I hate to say it but the Native Americans did not win, they were brutally murdered and trampled upon. Generally technology trumps other things in the power game. If you see the prawns as a metaphor for racial tension that might make more sense. We as a race don’t generally commit genocide outright, we try to hide it in various ways.”
Actually, if you look at historic facts, the Native Americans lost primarily not because of technology, but because of disease (which ran rampant through their societies, killing off 70-percent-plus of their population and causing there societies to reel from tragedy), and because Europeans were very adept at applying divide-and-conquer tactics, often playing one native tribe off another. History likely would have played out different, if those factors were eliminated.
And you are claiming “uncivilized” and “technologically backward” people never win? Oh, really. Take a look at the Vikings, the Visigoths, and the Mongols, just to name a few. All of them fought supposedly technologically advanced civilizations and won. And, as Chatty DM already pointed out, aliens of Avatar actually ARE portrayed as being highly advanced technology-wise in an eco-system sort of way: the entire forest was essentially portrayed as a computerized network.
And you are claiming “as a race we don’t generally commit genocide outright, we try to hide it in various ways…” Again, really? What about the Jews, the Tsutsi massacre of Rwanda, the Japanese massacres of Chinese during WWII.
I’m not arguing that SOMETIMES in history we have avoided genocide and opted instead to place other people in ghettos, etc. I’m not even saying that it’s not a plausible premise and solution to what District 9 was TRYING to portray. What I’m saying is the movie does a bad job of making sense and creating a believable situation, so that I can buy into its premise. I don’t see why the humans bothered to let them live. The writers/producers of the movie could have cured this easily by adding another character, for instance. Perhaps a human social worker who runs into Wikus while conducting his work in District 9, who interferes with his work, and keeps bringing up the rights of the aliens. This, at least, would have portrayed, clearly, to the viewer that there ARE humans who view the aliens differently. It would also have provided an opportunity to show the alien culture more in a few of their own scenes, so we (as the viewers, not as humans in the movie) could identify with their plight more. Hell, I might even root for them then; as a race, we humans can be jerks actually.
@Chatty DM: I think you already guessed this, but only the first part of my post on the 24th was directed toward you. After that, when I say, “And, actually, to address your ‘excuses’ and ‘explanations’…” From then on was actually directed toward the other posters slamming Avatar.
I also agree with you that some holes can be found in Avatar (hence why I said in earlier posts that I don’t think the script was an award winner). I also agree that occasional unanswered questions are fine. Too many, though, and the story tends to become absurd.
To address other posters, though, I still stand by my argument that there were fewer glaring flaws in Avatar than in District 9. District 9 (in my opinion, of course) had so many flaws and unanswered questions that I am unable to get past them–to suspend my disbelief and continue believing in that world/setting. With Avatar, at least, I was able to maintain my overall belief in what the producer was trying to create and suspend my disbelief. There were flaws, just not enough to ruin the movie for me.
That being said I do want to say I respect the opinions of everyone here (even if you’re wrong 🙂 , just kidding). I understand you like District 9, and you have your own reasons why, and the movie didn’t rub you the wrong way as it did me. But most of my opinions, and they are opinions, were made because this post had a highly opinionated headline ( “Why District 9 is Better Than Avatar”). That, I just can’t get on board with. My original intent was just to argue that District 9 is not better than Avatar. Of course, that, too, is an opinion!
@Mike, Chatty, & Tonester: First I’ll say that I thoroughly enjoyed both of the movies in question here, but I also agree with pretty much everything that Joshx0rfz said in his original post. I wouldn’t necessarily rate Avatar low because of this, I still thought it was a good movie and was extremely enjoyable to watch, but when I look at a movie as a whole I try to look at writing, story, dialogue, action, directing, music, art, and all of that together. Where Avatar fell flat for me was when all of the humans, except for the 3-4 main characters, were completely heartless bastards with no ability to change whatsoever. I agree with Phil that the humans in that story are the savages, but then you have michelle rodriguez as the only pilot, out of maybe 50 of them, to have a change of heart and then she goes and paints blue tribal markings on her face? That’s something I would have thought was quirky and funny as a kid, but as an adult that just smacks me in the face as amateur writing.
I’m very intrigued by a lot of what Phil said about Avatar, but it also feels to me like things he is applying himself to the movie rather than things the movie is portraying on its own. Just like the awesome idea in the earlier comments of this post about Pandora clearly having been designed by some kind of entity, a sequel addressing that idea would take Avatar into really interesting and good directions I think.
In the end I believe my whole take on this debate is that if you look at the writing and style of both movies, District 9 is more graceful and discreet whereas Avatar is smack you in the face and slap you silly. Mike I agree with you that there are some less clear things in District 9 that come to the surface, but would you rather a movie be smoothing over its plot holes or smoothing over its interesting concepts like Avatar did? Phil managed to see the interesting parts through the heavy-handedness of Avatar, and you’re seeing the plot holes in District 9 through the elegance of its storytelling. Where Tonester may be inferring logic to rule out plot holes, Phil is inferring interesting concepts to add a layer of complexity to Avatar. To me it’s the same thing, just I thin it’s a shame that Avatar had to hide what it should have been flaunting.
@ Tonester:
1) As I think I’ve said before, you’re not able to actually reference any scenes/instances IN THE MOVIE that actually show some humans empathizing or pitying the aliens. Without that, why am I to believe they would keep the aliens alive or not start a war or genocide? In reverse, no actual scenes in the movie explain why the aliens have all this technology but don’t fight back when one of their small hand-held weapons are capable of blowing away entire buildings, tanks, and planes. And one robot device can take out a huge force all by itself… Am I to believe the aliens only brought one of these robot devices with them? The movie shows that tens of thousands of aliens survived. An army that big with that kind of weaponry could take on the humans. Who would win, I don’t know, but no real reasoning is given for them to not try.
2) I’m referring to your comment “Its just so blatantly clear that unless directors bang you over the head with something, 99% of audiences just don’t get it… I guess you fit into that category or something.” To me that reads as if you are inferring that anyone like me who doesn’t like District 9 somehow doesn’t get it, that we aren’t as deep as you are, because we somehow don’t get it if the story is not banging us over the head with its message. Actually, I found the statement kind of insulting. To make it clear: I do understand what the directors were TRYING to do in District 9. I just don’t think they succeeded. Such an insulting argument, I am saying, can be turned around and used against you as it relates to Avatar. I could say, “Hey. You just don’t get the intricate plot of Avatar.” (as pointed out by Chatty DM) “It has a lot more thought and depth than you are giving it credit for, and it’s way over your head. Perhaps you just don’t get it. You must fit into that category or something.” In fact, the way I see it, the way District 9 is amateurishly presented by its directors it is even more simplistic than Avatar.
3) Again, I think you are not giving Avatar enough credit. As Chatty has shown, it has more substance and message than you’re giving it credit. Though it could have been improved upon, it’s definitely not what I’d call a “simpleton” film.
4) Actually, yes, if they are put in a concentration-style camp as shown in this movie (I saw no humans living with them) they would make a fine target for a well-placed nuke. The directors COULD have given us a reason that the humans wouldn’t do such a thing, but they don’t.
5) Not sure what you are referring to there.
6) Actually, if I remember right it was the native alien that saved the “white” guys butt at the end of the movie (the scene where he was gasping for breath and the human conquerors were about to win… but the native woman succeeds in taking out the leader and reviving Jake). And, in the end, the “white hero” comes to recognize the value in native society and native way of life, willingly giving up his own culture to become part of there’s (even giving up his “white” body to do so).
7) Why, yes he was…and he did. At first. That was why he was duping the natives and helping the military at first (because the military agreed to give him his body back if he’d help them exploit the aliens and grind them under their boot). As Jake’s experiences progress, though, he realizes his error, and his selfishness, and begins to understands the aliens and the alien way of life and their value under their terms–not his own. It is then that he shakes off the military’s offer for a new body and instead sides with the aliens no matter the cost. He has come to love the aliens, especially the one he has fallen in love with. He wants to become one of them.
So, you see, the plot is not as simplistic as you are making it out to be…
I totally disagree with Mike K-O… I think. Too much wall of text Mike, too much wall of text. Say your part then move on, good rule that.
District 9 was sublime. I can see how it would not appeal to people who have had their movie tastes trained by a strict Hollywood diet. That unfortunate situation often leaves an inability to appreciate things that stray from formula. District 9 does some excellent science fiction things not often seen on screen:
The unlikeable aliens. Fanstastic! Any true alien lifeform would be, well, alien. It would be extrmemely unlikely that humans could easily identify with them. District 9 walked the very fine line of conveying this directly to the viewer, making them feel it (show don’t tell), but also giving some room for the audience to start to make a connection as it progresses.
The hero has been discussed. But yes he is much more like a real, flawed person than your average screen protagonist.
The ship breaking down, and other unanswered questions; a major theme of the movie I think (or at least an important point of view) is that life is messy. Things go wrong, things get confused, and it rarely gets neatly sorted out by the ‘end’. Hollywood has trained most movie goers to expect complete resolution. D9 gave only partial resolution – and that is a good thing! But also a very un-american thing. Perhaps us Brits can go along with the South Africans more easily on this one, being on the whole more jaded and less idealistic than our transatlantic cousins.
D9 was one of the most believable alien contact movies I have seen. I left thinking, yes, if contact happens, it will probably be as messy and uncomfortable for everyone as shown there.
Avatar I’m not going to discuss, other to say that it is a fairy story. A great fairy story, but still.
@ Shilling: You just argued in favor of my point, and you’ve shown exactly why District 9 does not make sense to me at all. Here’s what you said:
“The unlikeable aliens. Fanstastic! Any true alien lifeform would be, well, alien. It would be extrmemely unlikely that humans could easily identify with them.”
I agree. So why would the humans bother to let them live at all? They are portrayed in the movie as being so unlikable to the humans (and dangerous) that no reason is given for keeping them alive. I addressed this earlier, by the way. Here is a snippet repeated:
“…as it stands, the way the aliens are portrayed in the movie, I can’t bring myself to believe humans would allow them to continue to exist once an alien showed any violent tendencies, especially when the entire eco-system of the earth is at stake. For god’s sakes we wipe out all kinds of invasive plants and animals on earth right now, just because they come from another continent—let alone another galaxy. We’ve also committed genocide on other humans—who look like us—just because their skin looks different or they have beliefs. Yet these aliens are somewhat tolerated and given more leeway? Even when they are not cute and cuddly, or have any other redeeming value in our human eyes?”
@Mike: It’s already been addressed in comments here but you’re wrong when you say the “prawns” had no other redeeming value in human eyes – they are necessary to operate their weaponry. It’s made pretty clear in the previews for the movie and in the film itself that the government is researching them to find out how to use their weapons, THEN perhaps the massive eradication would come.
I think the simplest, although it’s also kind of a scapegoat, answer is because District 9 is based on Apartheid. The aliens showed up on earth sick and leaderless (both things that are addressed in the beginning of the movie), and the humans granted them asylum but then things got out of hand pretty quickly. There are examples of this happening in history as well.
@ Bartoneus: You only need to keep a few of them alive to research them and their weaponry.
And I understand the movie producers were trying to create an Apartheid situation. It COULD have worked. I’m just saying the producers’ portrayal of an Apartheid situation is way too simplistic. Apartheid is not simple. Give us substance and meat! Show us subtlety. Show the true diversity of humanity. Give the aliens more depth than cardboard cutouts.
Maybe most humans view the aliens as worthless and disgusting, but throw in a few “do-gooder” characters who complicate the plot to show why the humans don’t try to kill the aliens. You could also show some scenes from the perspective of the aliens (or the do-gooder characters) to show that the aliens are actually more redeeming and docile than they seem to be.
Create a BELIEVABLE Apartheid situation. Show us why this situation would exist at all. The way the movie portrays the situation, though, it would result in war and extermination almost immediately. To be frank, it’s not an accurate portrayal of an Apartheid situation at all.
It makes it pretty clear that there are alien rights activists and sympathizers and that the aliens were utterly non-threatening and helpless when they arrived (so why instantly eradicate a helpless sapient species?) The mockumentary parts of the film contain many many details that are easily missed.
Anyway, I think this huge comments thread just goes to prove that tastes differ. Who would have thought it, eh?
@Mike: You really need to re-watch District 9, and pay more attention to some of the scenes: there are definitely scenes focusing on the prawns and their children that show you the “do-gooder” side of them. Also the entire Johnson character is very nice and seemingly doesn’t conceive what lying is or why anyone would do it.
I also can’t help but laugh that you’re arguing for “substance and meat” and “subtlety” when your opinion is in favor of a movie like Avatar. There is so little of any of those in it, the only subtlety is in details that don’t even matter to the story at all. The humans in Avatar are EXACTLY cardboard cutouts except for the 3-4 main characters.
In my opinion you’re mistaking District 9 for being simple because you either did not pay enough attention to it and therefore did not understand it. The movie does not portray every single prawn as being worthless and disgusting, and it only shows a handful of them committing violence against humans. Also the argument that “you only need to keep a few of them alive to research” doesn’t disprove what happened in District 9, it would be stupid for the humans to nuke a million of them away and only keep a handful when they have no idea how long it’s going to take them to figure out the weaponry. You could just as easily argue that they’d keep the shanty town there for continued weapons research, it’s just as easy to get rid of them once you’ve figured things out, and really if your opinion is so low of humanity why not believe that they’d keep beings imprisoned in a slum than give them the dignity of dying instead of living in filth and degradation?
@Bartoneus: All right, this is my last post because we’re at the point we’re just going round and round in circles.
I’ll go watch District 9 again as you suggest, to see if I missed any vital details that would make it more plausible and enjoyable. But, by the same token, I think you need to watch Avatar again. To use your own words against you: In my opinion you’re mistaking Avatar for being simple because you either did not pay enough attention to it and therefore did not understand it.
Actually, as has been shown earlier, Avatar’s story has a lot more meat to it than you are giving it credit.
The human characters of Avatar are not cardboard cutouts. Outside of those humans that don’t have speaking parts, each of them clearly expresses a differing agenda and motive. You can’t make every background figure in a movie have in-depth detail and a speaking part. You CAN, though, show a cast of major characters representative of the whole, each providing a viewpoint you can find among the masses (i.e. there are the human characters who view things scientifically, there are humans who just follow orders, there are the soldiers who think for themselves, etc.). If one character brings up a certain viewpoint, you can assume there are at least a few others who are questioning the same things and are holding to similar viewpoints.
The problem I see with District 9 is that it lacks a character or two (among the aliens and the humans) or a scene or two to show the differences found among the respective species. A simple scene in which demonstrators are outside the doors of the government demanding justice for the aliens would have done wonders. I don’t know. As it stands, though, the movie portrays all humans as looking down on the aliens the same way, and the aliens as acting only one way.
@Mike Karkabe-Olson: Was gonna say something, but couldn’t make it thru all your posts, so ya, don’t bad mouth D9, lol
Though I haven’t seen Avatar yet (I see most movies on DVDs since we have a 108in projector set up at our house), I definitely like D9, and this article (and commentators) do it a great deal of justice. It definitely had flaws, but I did enjoy it’s overall tenor and basic rhetoric. I’ve used similar style aspects in more than a few games I’ve run, particularly DnD (in fact, overused it to the point that regular players labeled one of my tropes). I was always wary of DnD’s blanket Good/Evil alignment assumptions so I often jiggered with many of the preconceptions, which is something I think D9 aimed at and at least modestly accomplished. I’ve always enjoyed playing with the concepts of Good people doing Bad things for Good reason or Bad people doing Good things for Good reasons (and all 25 other possible variations on that formula) as a nice way of keeping my player’s guessing, but I’ve often also tried to “humanize” some of the fodder races by at least explaining why they act the way they do. Goblins raid and loot because they never developed agrarian culture, living as nomads and scavengers throughout there history. Kobolds have always been the advance forces of Dragons looking for roosts which is why they so habitually “squat” on un-kept territory. Hobgoblins are a Stalinist-like reaction to the so-called “civilised” races unmitigated slaughter of their kin. I’ve also played out more than a few times about the redeeming qualities of Lawful Evil. Those rare few who make the hard decisions that would make most any one else sick. I’ve also like handing my players the no-good-win scenario (“would you like the Moral Failure, the Unethical Success, or the Pyrrhic Victory this time?”) though those are obviously hard to keep going and keep original. So in summary, I think my personal like of D9 is essentially it’s sticking to moral relativism and, in DnD i’ve come to calling it “Mortalism” as an alternative to “Humanism”. Yes, the prawns are kinda scummy, but does that mean it’s okay to treat them like scum? Do the ends sometimes, always or never justify the means? Does this apply to just you or everybody?
(BTW, The inclusion of the Nigerian scam artists was just purely hysterical for me)
personally, i felt the stories in both movies were completely predictable.
District 9: Apartheid meets Franz Kafka’s The Metaporphosis. “Racism, racism, facsism, oh no im turning into one myself, cue guns and shift in main character’s worldview!”
Avatar: Pocahontas meets Dances With Wolves meets Fern Gully. “Racism, corporate greed, evil white man, oh no now ive fallen in love with their culture and banged their princess, cue guns and shift in main character’s worldview!”
In the end, neither of them impressed me on the thematic or story levels, however i do think that Peter Jackson’s weta workshop approached the special effects and props on a more creative, and by far much less pretentious level. So go him.
@Mike Karkabe-Olson: Okay… so started re-reading some of your posts and this one really stuck out to me:
“…as it stands, the way the aliens are portrayed in the movie, I can’t bring myself to believe humans would allow them to continue to exist once an alien showed any violent tendencies, especially when the entire eco-system of the earth is at stake. For god’s sakes we wipe out all kinds of invasive plants and animals on earth right now, just because they come from another continent—let alone another galaxy. We’ve also committed genocide on other humans—who look like us—just because their skin looks different or they have beliefs. Yet these aliens are somewhat tolerated and given more leeway? Even when they are not cute and cuddly, or have any other redeeming value in our human eyes?”
So 1) These Aliens never showed any imminent threat to the ecosystem or planet aside from the potential of over populating, which the nice people at MNU diligently kept in check. And 2) The biggest defense against an attempted genocide (or in this case xenocide) is getting attention. A giant flying city gets a lot of damned attention. Theirs no way something that big wouldn’t set off every major powers varied detection systems immediately. What exactly would the MNU or officials of Johannesburg tell the US, UK, Russia, China, or any other 1st world nation was up with the giant floating city and early reports of bugmen? Do you think the likes of the US or China would skip a single heartbeat if they could use world opinion as a pretense to go in and snatch that puppy (or, if unable to move, “occupy” territory in South Africa until they were able to do so).
Theirs no way S.A. or the MNU would have been able to get away with outright annihilation of the entire group. The political costs from the super powers to the scientific community to civil rights watch groups would have been enormous, and there’s no way to cover it up.
The scenario you put forward requires a great deal more than just the prawns showing up. In most cases of genocide you have a rivalry of local cultures that sometimes spans millenia. We’re talkin’ Crusade level, “This is my Holy land”-“No, this is MY Holy Land” kinda build up of tension (Remember that the word “Ghetto” comes from the segregated districts that Jews were forced to live in for hundreds of years before the Nazi’s went ape-sh*t on the whole “racial purity” BS). It was made apparent in the movie that at the beginning most people were at least somewhat sympathetic, and the prawns didn’t start causing any kind of trouble until they had regained their strength after starving for months aboard the mothership
As for the aliens with no redeeming qualities, I’m kinda sad to report that you replace prawn with any number of epithets, and I can probably say I’ve heard those words out of a real live persons mouth. But none of these people would ever attempt a massacre. It takes more than just a low opinion of some group to justify eradication. Plus, you have to remember that one of those prawns could take almost a full clip from your average SMG and complain about the tickle. In a purely physically sense they were the “superior” species. An out right conflict with them could easily be foreseen as having potentially dire consequence. You don’t give your lower class a rally point. Don’t give them a REASON to get motivated, get organized, and mount a true defense. That’s exactly what the white powers in S.A. did with the natives. Keep them demeaned but not too much, keep them hungry, but not too much, and so on.
And my final point: Both these movies were written with obvious and stated intentions at at least one sequel, so the fat lady hasn’t sung on either of these IP’s. Maybe Avatar 2: Avatar Harder will have a deep and impactful rhetoric on the criticality of geo-politics in a nomadic versus agrarian culture collision. And District 9 II: The Return of WIkus might be 90 straight minutes of giant cockroaches kicking the living crap outta a bunch of pitiful humans (Or maybe we’ll get “District 10 vs. B13” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_B13] my god, I think I’d actually watch that).
@Mike: Hoping that you continue to read the comments here, I will definitely be watching Avatar many more times.
However, I’ve just gone back and watched the beginning of District 9 again and in the first 2 minutes of the film they say “the eyes of the world were on Johannesburg, so we had to do the right thing.” There’s your whole justification for and explanation for D9 right there, right up front.
I definitely hope you enjoy it more the second time through!
@HartThorn, A big part of the reason to see Avatar is to see it on the big screen and in 3d. I can’t recommend it enough in that format.
No matter what side of this argument you are on, not seeing it in 3d takes away from a part of this movie.
As my Fiance put it, I felt like I was reading a book. And that’s high praise from her.
@PinkRose: Oh, the projector is plenty big enough (and sound system plenty loud enough) to get at least near theater quality, and since I know this is definitely an “eye sex” movie, I’ll get the blu-ray and put it in the PS3. We’ve watched 3D on the projector before (which is I think 720 HD latent using and HDMI cable) and it worked out fine (Friday the 13th 3D and Night of the Living Dead 3D). And Pan’s Labrynth on Blu-ray was as well like eye sex… but like… sad break up eye sex, lol
I actually found the 3D to be distracting and from several people who have seen both, I heard its better and more appreciable in 2D. You lose some of the detail in 3D they tell me.
I haven’t read all of this and I’m not going to. Its a horse… and its beaten. We have differences of opinions – which is a good thing.
I could care less about plot holes – both movies had them and every movie has them. I’m not getting hung up on plot holes with either movie. I’m getting hung up on the fact that one movie has a plot at all while the other one doesn’t. 😉
Had to register because I couldn’t let this get away:
“A simple scene in which demonstrators are outside the doors of the government demanding justice for the aliens would have done wonders. I don’t know.”
Either you slept through the movie or you are just trolling. They DID have this scene. You REALLY need to rewatch it… several times, because you obviously missed 90% of the movie.
When do I use “love” and “like”. ahha> just like how people do feel to someone else-
I like Avatar, but I love District 9.
I LOVED Avatar. Actually,James Cameron is my favorite director, compared to all the idiot directors in america,such as Michael Bay,Quintin Tarantino,etc.
I also saw District 9, & I was expecting something like Transformers, but I was Blown away.
Both Films are on my top 10 list, but I wouldn’t compare District 9 to Avatar.
Its like Comparing The Godfather to lord of the rings.
Come on people cant we all just get along?