Support NeoGAF

[WarZombie]

Shit, it does still look mighty impressive. Hard to believe it's already been two years since the flick released. Hard to tell when the Prawns still look awesome. I hope that wasn't the last of the Blomkamp/Jackson duo we'll ever see.

 

[BobsRevenge]

Soderbergh's Solaris is great too, forgot about that.

Oh, hey, guess who it was that produced that flick for Soderbergh

hahaha, I know. He wanted to create the movie himself, I believe, but ended up deciding that Soderbergh had a better feel for the kind of vision that Cameron wanted for it.

I thought Soderbergh knocked it out of the park, but there was too much outside context for people to appreciate it for what it really was, and instead they made comparisons to Tarkovsky and Lem to show how "smart" they are. It was also kind of slow and cold for most of it.

 

[shuyin_]

Perhaps it was indirect characterization. Perhaps me saying "I am a man of medium temperament, a liberal, and like salsa dancing." is indirectly characterizing myself?

That would be direct characterization, where "the author tells the audience what a character is like via the narrator, another character or by the character him- or herself."

What is your point. You were wrong in saying it wasn't indirect characterization and now you're giving an example of direct characterization. What exactly is your point. I seriosuly don't understand it.

"The audience must deduce for themselves what the character is like" That is a key part of the definition you put up, and one which does not apply in this case as the audience does not have to deduce anything.

Seriosuly? Pinbacker's only lines are 'not your god..mine!' and "In the face of this, we are dust, nothing more. Unto this dust, we return. When he chooses for us to die, it is not our place to challenge God.". And you think the audience doesn't have to deduce what i said about him? Ok, i'm done. I'm sorry, i think you just want to annoy me. Or maybe you simply don't understand

 

[devenger]

Err, that wasn't meant for you.

Why the heck do i even bother with these people :/

No I undertsand, i was just pointing out that you seem to be getting really frustrated and requesting people not respond. That is more butthurt than anyone's responses.

I just took the assumed bits of your characterization as understood. In movie, we're told enough about Pinbacker to understand where he's coming from. It's not a total enigma.

I'm not butthurt. Seriously. I also respect your opinion. It just seems like you're saying you can take any rote, cliched action and make it meaningful with a little implied philosophy. In the end, you're still watching a non-character with one defining trait stalk and kill people in an enclosed space. That's a slasher film.

Also, I guess I'm going to have to break down and see Avatar.

edit: I don't want to fill the thread with green devils so I'll add this here.

See, that's the thing. We aren't told anything about Pinbacker directly. But from what he says, which is indirect characterization.

It's sitting on my shelf at home, I guess I'll have to rewatch it. I thought there was a couple of scraps of dialogue that told you what Pinbacker's problem was, but maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Dead]

^ If you do, watch the extended cut, its definitely more fleshed out, and should have been the cut released in theaters

hahaha, I know. He wanted to create the movie himself, I believe, but ended up deciding that Soderbergh had a better feel for the kind of vision that Cameron wanted for it.

I thought Soderbergh knocked it out of the park, but there was too much outside context for people to appreciate it for what it really was, and instead they made comparisons to Tarkovsky and Lem to show how "smart" they are. It was also kind of slow and cold for most of it.

I think thats also what led to Cameron having Kathryn Bigelow make his Strange Days script (aside from schedule)

 

[shuyin_]

No I undertsand, i was just pointing out that you seem to be getting really frustrated and requesting people not respond. That is more butthurt than anyone's responses.

I told him not to bother responding as a reaction to his post:

Glad someone else said this, I wasn't even going to bother responding. Characterization != telling the audience who a character is.

After all, if you don't know shit about something (engines to continue with the previous example) and want to make a comment like: ' i wasn't even going to bother responding to you, but engines != [insert false statement here]', then you're a fool not to expect a response in the same line.

I just took the assumed bits of your characterization as understood. In movie, we're told enough about Pinbacker to understand where he's coming from. It's not a total enigma.

See, that's the thing. We aren't told anything about Pinbacker directly. But from what he says, which is indirect characterization.

edit: i can see your point; you didn't like the 3rd act because it was basically a slasher movie. But the debate to which you replied was about whether or not it's direct or indirect characterization.

 

[devenger]

I liked Solaris's (Soderbergh's version) method of making everything mysterious and inexplicable. I would say Solaris is probably the best Sci-Fi movie of the last decade or so, because it uses the setting and such to sort of put forth a sincerely and devastatingly human story. The Sci-Fi isn't there to make it flashy, its there to provide a context with which to explore human feelings and spirituality more deeply.

Don't want to fill up the thread, but had to jump on this.

Solaris is so weird, because the average movie goer finds it too slow and cold, and the cinema elite compare it to Lem's and judge it as inferior.

It may be, I haven't seen the original, but I've read enough about it to know that the focus is completely different.

Soderbergh's version is so drop dead gorgeous, the soundtrack is incredible, and its got a very eerie feel. And as you said, as a remake, it takes a great little chunk of the original's scifi concept and concentrates more on the humans. Plotwise? Not really anything special, but I could just run this and Sunshine in the background for the ambience.

Not trying to derail the D9 love/hate, but I rarely find anyone who likes Solaris.

 

[JaggedSac]

Seriosuly? Pinbacker's only lines are 'not your god..mine!' and "In the face of this, we are dust, nothing more. Unto this dust, we return. When he chooses for us to die, it is not our place to challenge God.". And you think the audience doesn't have to deduce what i said about him? Ok, i'm done. I'm sorry, i think you just want to annoy me. Or maybe you simply don't understand

Pinbacker: For seven years I spoke with God. He told me to take us all to Heaven.

That line pretty much sums him up. And I will discontinue derailing this thread even farther than it already was.

 

[JGS]

Sci-fi doesn't mean that it has to stand up to intense scrutiny. Heck, most of what we consider science fiction is pseudo science that has no basis in reality. That's why we call it science fiction. It has elements of real world, but they push it further. But what makes District 9 a sci-fi movie to me is the social commentary that it has in it regarding apartheid. That in and of itself makes it far from a sci-fi "light" movie to me. But to each his own.

I would agree with this if not for you mentioning the subgenre of light sci-fi. If Star Trek is light sci-fi (& I would agree with that), District 9 is more so given the tone of the movie which is essentially a FPS in movie form.

The social commentary is bogus because it doesn't really reflect Apartheid, it pretends to while miraculously dehumanizing even more so those ones who were considered inferior- this is from the aliens and the actual black people in the film. The white guy saves the day as usual. That message is far more blatant in D9 actually. The connection with it's social commentary began and ended with the documentary. After that, it was an inferior action film.

I would much rather have a Star Trek that explores personal demons in a sci-fi setting over a movie that has faux social meaning in a real world "gritty" setting.

Avatar didn't have to work for anything. It's likely the most expensive movie ever made, it's made by James Cameron who has made some of the best action movies ever made. It was always trying to be a popcorn type blockbuster movie that used sci-fi settings to use a rehashed story that's been done at least several times. And I know Cameron has stuck up for the story some, but I think what he was really trying to do was to push technology forward by at least a generation. Which he seems to have done. And I don't hate Avatar, I just wouldn't include it anywhere near my top films of the last decade.

A big budget means nothing if it's not something that people want to see (poor Speed Racer ). If anything the risk was far greater for Avatar than a little piddly movie like D9 (budgetwise). It was always trying to be a world movie- one that was embraced internationally, so why condemn it for that?

If it tried to set itself as something lofty, then i would see the point, but not liking it because it turned out exactly as planned just means people that hate that sort of thing should have never watched it to begin with.

D9 was set up as a thinking person's sci-fi and it wasn't.

Avatar is one of my favorite movies, not because I don't realize it's a familiar story (Nearly every movie has a familiar story). It's because it was a familiar story told right- just like every good fairy tale. It having the visuals, action, and high production values all are supposed to blend in with what the audience actually wants to happen - the good guy winning.

On top of all of that, it had more and far better hard science science fiction elements than nearly any other sci-fi movie ever. It was amazing that it had all the bases it covered. D9 did not explain one. It's right up there with lightsabers

As far as originality, I can't think of too many sci-fi or other movies period that deal with apartheid. As far as the last act being totally different in feel from the first half, it's not unheard of. From Dusk Til Dawn did it, was still a great movie. That District 9 did what it did with about 10% of the budget of Avatar is pretty remarkable, I'd say.

Granted the premise is orginal as I've already admitted to. The failure is in the execution of that. It was horrible done. Unforgiveably so. It wasn't a different feel. The feel of the ending was the same as the rest of the movie. Mindless gunplay, corporate corruption, idiotic cardboard villians, & a schizophrenic hero with some voodoo gang leaders thrown in on the side (That was original but not in a good way).

 

[BobsRevenge]

Pinbacker had enough characterization for the character to technically make sense. Its just that the actions and history is so far-fetched that its silly and clashes with the rest of the movie. No one would ever be driven to something like that. Humans don't really work that way.

I love Sunshine, but I turn my brain off for that part. Danny Boyle knows how to make shit genuinely exciting and I'm always along for the ride.

 

[shuyin_]

Pinbacker: For seven years I spoke with God. He told me to take us all to Heaven.

That line pretty much sums him up.

Well, yeah, that he's crazy. I think you knew he was crazy since he started killing people.
I was clearly (and check my analysis) talking about his stance towards the missions and views (fundamentalism).

 

[Dead]

Pinbacker had enough characterization for the character to technically make sense. Its just that the actions and history is so far-fetched that its silly and clashes with the rest of the movie. No one would ever be driven to something like that. Humans don't really work that way.

I love Sunshine, but I turn my brain off for that part. Danny Boyle knows how to make shit genuinely exciting and I'm always along for the ride.

Don't forget dat score

 

[shuyin_]

Pinbacker had enough characterization for the character to technically make sense. Its just that the actions and history is so far-fetched that its silly and clashes with the rest of the movie. No one would ever be driven to something like that. Humans don't really work that way..

I'm not a psychologist. But in my opinion, it isn't far fetched that someone who breaks down mentally goes on a killing spree. Especially if his mission is divine - we have examples on Earth

Don't forget dat score

Addgio in D minor is better than Mansell's previous works, like Requiem for a Dream. Maybe Death is the Road to Awe, from The Fountain is as good.

 

[BobsRevenge]

I'm not a psychologist. But in my opinion, it isn't far fetched that someone who breaks down mentally goes on a killing spree.

I'd say someone who would be as scientifically inclined, and professionally vetted, as people on that ship wouldn't fall into the awkward sun-centered, sort of existential spirituality. Especially not to that degree.

It felt contrived. Especially the more horror-movie inspired aspect of his exposing himself to the skin until its gross and melty or whatever. That shit looks painful.

 

[BobsRevenge]

I would agree with this if not for you mentioning the subgenre of light sci-fi. If Star Trek is light sci-fi (& I would agree with that), District 9 is more so given the tone of the movie which is essentially a FPS in movie form.

The social commentary is bogus because it doesn't really reflect Apartheid, it pretends to while miraculously dehumanizing even more so those ones who were considered inferior- this is from the aliens and the actual black people in the film. The white guy saves the day as usual. That message is far more blatant in D9 actually. The connection with it's social commentary began and ended with the documentary. After that, it was an inferior action film.

I would much rather have a Star Trek that explores personal demons in a sci-fi setting over a movie that has faux social meaning in a real world "gritty" setting.

A big budget means nothing if it's not something that people want to see (poor Speed Racer ). If anything the risk was far greater for Avatar than a little piddly movie like D9 (budgetwise). It was always trying to be a world movie- one that was embraced internationally, so why condemn it for that?

If it tried to set itself as something lofty, then i would see the point, but not liking it because it turned out exactly as planned just means people that hate that sort of thing should have never watched it to begin with.

D9 was set up as a thinking person's sci-fi and it wasn't.

Avatar is one of my favorite movies, not because I don't realize it's a familiar story (Nearly every movie has a familiar story). It's because it was a familiar story told right- just like every good fairy tale. It having the visuals, action, and high production values all are supposed to blend in with what the audience actually wants to happen - the good guy winning.

On top of all of that, it had more and far better hard science science fiction elements than nearly any other sci-fi movie ever. It was amazing that it had all the bases it covered. D9 did not explain one. It's right up there with lightsabers

Granted the premise is orginal as I've already admitted to. The failure is in the execution of that. It was horrible done. Unforgiveably so. It wasn't a different feel. The feel of the ending was the same as the rest of the movie. Mindless gunplay, corporate corruption, idiotic cardboard villians, & a schizophrenic hero with some voodoo gang leaders thrown in on the side (That was original but not in a good way).

I remember when I used to have the energy to burn District 9 that bad. In fact, I said a lot of these same things. :lol

I think I used most of that up on trolling Inception threads though.

 

[Dead]

Man, I dont know. I dont think D9 is genius, but I still really like it. Though its definitely a film with an indentity crisis.

I think its essentially a very Verhoeven-lite sort of picture. The apartheid stuff is about as DEEP as the satire in Starship Troopers (less so even), and it has the wonderful over the top gore of something like Robocop.

I think Blomkamp has tons of potential and I can't wait to see his next movie.

 

[shuyin_]

I'd say someone who would be as scientifically inclined, and professionally vetted, as people on that ship wouldn't fall into the awkward sun-centered, sort of existential spirituality. Especially not to that degree.

It felt contrived. Especially the more horror-movie inspired aspect of his exposing himself to the skin until its gross and melty or whatever. That shit looks painful.

Well, if we're going to pass it through the filter of real life, yes of course it seems unlikely. I'm not going to argue that his mental decline is realistic; i'm just saying it is possible. A long voyage in an isolated (and relatively small) environment can make your mental health decline.

Anyway, i believe it worked well within the movie. IIRC in the director commentary, Danny Boyle said they had some scinetists from NASA as advisors and they said the sun can be addictive. Also, internal struggle and psychological breakdown are themes touched by the movie (and not only this movie, but other DB movies like 28 days later).
To me it makes sense within the context of the movie that Pinbacker went insane. You can see how drastic the situation is when the crew of Icarus 2 sends their messages to Earth; you can see how Mace almost goes berserk on Capa.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

I don't think Avatar was scientifically developed, in a sense. I'd think that sort of encyclopedia would be more like a series of scientific explanations as to why things would work more than developing as a natural sort of thing. For instance, the hair I/O function with the flying things and the spiritual stuff. Yes, you can explain those things "scientifically" after the fact, but that doesn't make it actually make sense evolutionarily.

You could nit-pick at Avatar's science-fiction all day though. There are tons of things that don't really make sense. However, they did put a lot more thought into it than most movies. In the end they were too ambitious and not mature enough with the execution.

Yeah there are obviously some concessions for the sake of the film. But Cameron went to a great deal of effort to make sure that if something contradicted scientific thinking, it was for an artistic purpose and not simply a case of (what a lot of sci fi films can be accused of) laziness.

It is definitely one of the most believably created worlds (as awe-inspiring and fantastic as it looks) thanks to the amount of thought they put into how that universe operates on a logistics level. As for the Na'vi, Cameron has said there is a reason why the Na'vi are the only bipedal creatures on Pandora and hinted that it will be revealed in the sequels.

You should REALLY give these two articles a read. An astrophysicist takes a good look at Avatar and measures how sound its science is.

Article 1: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43440

and then a follow-up to the article in which he interviews Cameron himself weeks later:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43923

 

[JGS]

I remember when I used to have the energy to burn District 9 that bad. In fact, I said a lot of these same things. :lol

I think I used most of that up on trolling Inception threads though.

Well, I'm not meaning to troll and the writing took no effort. Sadly, I always respond like that.

 

[hawkshockey11]

I must have been in the right mood when I saw D9 because I have never felt more connected to a setting and topic than with D9.

 

[GCX]

It's already been TWO years and the movie STILL looks good?

Man the world moves too fast nowadays. Kids and their internets.

 

[artist]

Avatar is THE most scientifically proven movie of all time, BAAAA!

 

[Dennis]

There are people praising the story in Avatar and dumping on District 9?

LOL

Avatar was a shitty, pussified, even more political correct version of Dances with Wolves.

And Avatar was scientific? GIANT LOL. As an actual scientist I have to laugh at the whole 'living planet fighting back' pseudo-spiritual nonsense.

About the CGI: both movies had fantastic CGI. They still look great and will for a long time.

 

[NaughtyCalibur]

It's like someone set some kind of crazy special effects challenge for the FX team.

Producers:
"So you are going to make visuals effects of quality of more typical $150 million dollars films.....

......at only 1/5 the budget."



FX Team:

Easy. Just fill the entire cast with no name actors and you've just saved nearly $100 million. They played this shit smart, because even with one B-lister taking the charge I'm betting the effects would have taken a noticeable hit.

This topic was kinda premature, though. Nearly 2 years? Let at least 5 pass, sheesh.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

Talk about a delayed bump. You guys been stuck in cryo for five years, nine months and twenty-two days?

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

And Avatar was scientific? GIANT LOL. As an actual scientist I have to laugh at the whole 'living planet fighting back' pseudo-spiritual nonsense.

Avatar is dumb because of unobtanium and the magical Avatar Psi-links, but a planet-wide neural network is at least possible if you assume the biosphere was engineered by aliens or something (chance of occurring naturally: near zero).

The ISV Venture Star (the ship they take to Pandora) was designed by Charles Pellegrino and is without a doubt the most realistic interstellar spacecraft ever committed to film. The SSTO shuttle they use violates no physical principles. Their in-situ manufacturing is plausible and smart. Even the mech suits, which are a bit silly, are at least possible because of Pandora's reduced gravity.

Avatar, compared to most SciFi, was surprisingly hard.

 

[JGS]

And Avatar was scientific? GIANT LOL. As an actual scientist I have to laugh at the whole 'living planet fighting back' pseudo-spiritual nonsense.

The funny thing is there was nothing mystical in Avatar (Well, outside of the Na'vi belief system). It was pretty clearly explained in the movie (Almost to an annoying degree) that the planet worked as one giant network.

Hopefully you laughed harder at prawn juice being capable of both space travel and bug tranformations.They should have just used uranium...or had a prawn wizard.

 

[Kinyou]

Talk about a delayed bump. You guys been stuck in cryo for five years, nine months and twenty-two days?

http://media.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/titles/avatar/13230/screenshot-lrg-02.png[IMG][/QUOTE]
That was really a great opening shot. The 3D added so much to the immersion instead of "bwaaaahhhh-in-your-face-3D"

 

[Discotheque]

That was really a great opening shot. The 3D added so much to the immersion instead of "bwaaaahhhh-in-your-face-3D"

Yep, the lens flare that ended up being a tear drop made me shit myself. I was fully convinced 3d was amazing after that opening scene.

And then all movies following that made me think the format sucked. It needs directors actually interested in the format, it's pretty obvious other blockbusters so far have just been coaxed into using 3d tech hence the reason why it's so uninspired.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

Yep, the lens flare that ended up being a tear drop made me shit myself. I was fully convinced 3d was amazing after that opening scene.

And then all movies following that made me think the format sucked. It needs directors actually interested in the format, it's pretty obvious other blockbusters so far have just been coaxed into using 3d tech hence the reason why it's so uninspired.

Don't think it was a tear drop, buddy. So much as a water droplet from being unthawed from cryo.

 

[Mr. Sam]

The best thing about Avatar isn't the CG, it's Zoe Saldana's performance. Just thought I might as well say it now or never say it.

 

[jett]

Talk about a delayed bump. You guys been stuck in cryo for five years, nine months and twenty-two days?

http://media.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/titles/avatar/13230/screenshot-lrg-02.png[IMG][/QUOTE]

Funny, for the first time I can tell that most humans in that shot are CG.

 

[54-46!]

I ended up hating District 9 simply because of the second half when it turned in to a bland movie with an asshole hero instead of a cool quasi documentary about alien refugees like the first part of the film was.

 

[kehs]

Talk about a delayed bump. You guys been stuck in cryo for five years, nine months and twenty-two days?

copy paste copy paste copy paste copy paste copy paste

what a technical feat!

 

[Discotheque]

I ended up hating District 9 simply because of the second half when it turned in to a bland movie with an asshole hero instead of a cool quasi documentary about alien refugees like the first part of the film was.

same. It started off really interesting too.

The only thing I liked about the second half was "I did not fook a creechah"

 

[AlteredBeast]

They are both quality special effects movies was. The only difference is one is a complete by the numbers shooze fest about how humans deal with unwanted creatures and the other one was called district 9.