Talk:District 9/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

correction in See Also

"Alive in Joburg, short film of which it's based on."

this is incorrect. It should read "Alive in Joburg, a short film on which District 9 is based."

"Of which it's based on" doesn't make sense, and there's no previous use of the title of the movie in this section, making the use of a pronoun ambiguous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sforte (talk • contribs) 02:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Include biotech industry response to film

Info regarding a campaign by the Biotechnology Industry Organization based on the film and the use of real-life biotech was included in an earlier version.

I think this is a legitimate industry response to the film and so I reverted and reworded to improve upon what was previously included:

"There has also been a direct response from the Biotechnology Industry Organization. The Biotechnology Industry Organization launched a site, District9Facts.com, which uses examples of on-screen science from the film to discuss the scientific reality of the technology with experts."

(Alevihnc (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC))

Prawn/Praun slur

The species of king cricket being referenced is related to several species found in New Zealand called "Wetas", from which Weta Digital derives its name. This, in addition to the fact that the aliens resemble crickets, is one of the reasons for the film's use of the slur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.129.250.4 (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this, especially since the film directly states that the slur "prawn" stems from the aliens' "bottom-feeder" resemblances and tendencies. Is there a source linking prawn and weta, or even "king cricket", for that matter? María (habla conmigo) 18:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with María. The film made it quite clear that the slur was derived from Prawns, not any sort of land-based insect. In addition, the aliens look much more like prawns to me than like crickets. Does anyone disagree, or have any reason for stating the slur is cricket-related? If not, let's ditch that text! waj (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

At first I tended to agree with the aliens being compared with just prawns, and not crickets, but seeing as there's this variety called 'Parktown prawn', being Parktown a suburb in Johannesburg, it's hard to ignore the relation. Also, this may be just me, but IMHO the aliens' faces look more like crickets than shrimp. Moreover, wetas (as in Peter Jackson's studio) being crickets only contributes to the idea. I'd say they're meant to be talking about crickets. BTW, see Parktown prawn and the image there. BTW2, wetas are native to Australia, where Peter Jackson is from, so no, Parktown prawns are not wetas. --uKER (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither Wetas, nor Peter Jackson, are native to or from Australia in any fashion or sense. Regardless, there is no evidence to suggest the reference is not to the aliens decapodal appearance, rather than anything to do with Orthoptera--Jaymax (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought I'd add that I just noticed that both wetas and Parktown prawns classify as king crickets. --uKER (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting, but please note that we need a reliable source stating as much; without an article, interview, or other RS specifically explaining that the aliens were inspired by, or meant to resemble, Parktown prawns, this information is original research. The information should and will be removed until such a source has been found. María (habla conmigo) 12:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added a reference. Neill Blomkamp and Sharlto Copley were interviewed on the Highveld Stereo 94.7 radio station's morning show on 19 August 2009, and Neill stated that the design of the aliens was based both on the South African "Parktown Prawn" and the NZ Weta bug. I actually think that Wikus's puking of black stuff was based on the Parktown Prawns too, since the PPs do tend to squirt nasty black stuff when threatened or squashed. Ick. Claidheamhmor (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent find. It was a sure thing that the reference would be established sooner or later. --uKER (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Box office numbers?

Since the film opened at #1 in the box office in the US, shouldn't this be added to the article? I would add it myself, but the page protecting isn't allowing me to. Commandr Cody (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I added a section at the end of the reception section. Is that what you were looking for? BOVINEBOY2008 :) 18:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

(moved from User talk:Jotun26)

{{editsemiprotected}} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_Nine

This sentence and its reference should be excluded:

"Kirk Honeycutt from The Hollywood Reporter gave District 9 a positive review but noted flaws in the film's storyline, "The MNU scientists want to kill Wikus. This makes little sense: Shouldn't Wikus —the only being who can operate alien weapons— be of greater value alive than dead? What do the scientists believe they can extract from his organs?"[13]"

The reason this should be excluded is that this criticism is not worthy of serious attention, since it is predicated upon a misunderstanding of the plot, which other users in the comments section of the Hollywood Reporter online review also have taken note of. (Also, to write that he "noted flaws" implies that his criticism is objectively true.)

Wikus is not "the only being who can operate alien weapons"--any of the aliens can, and MNU already has access to over a million of these aliens. What is special about Wikus is that his DNA is part-human and part-prawn. MNU wants to harvest his organs so that they can research the nature of this genetic relationship and replicate it in humans to the extent that they can operate the alien weapons themselves. They decide that they must kill him quickly because they realize that if they wait too long he will become a full-prawn and they will then probably not be able to harvest useful genetic information about his part-human/part-prawn nature.

 Done ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 04:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Apartheid allusions?

There are many parallels to apartheid South Africa, beyond the fact that District 6 was forcibly relocated. The use of torture, the forced abortions, the banning of economic activity, the racial slurs... That section of the article would be strengthened by inclusion of further examples of parallels. Aliljeho (talk) 06:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion would skirt the edge of OR or go over it. Let somebody in a notable reference make the comparison, and then we can include it. Ingolfson (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

External links

I cut down on the number of external links in this article. First of all, Allmovie does not contribute anything that IMDb (the more popular website) cannot already... its template will likely undergo TfD in the near future. In addition, FEARnet is linkspam (I've seen it solicited indiscriminately on other film articles), and trailer links are less critical to articles when the film is already readily available. Lastly, the last point... this film has some viral marketing, and its websites were added as external links to the article. I disagree with this because this needs to be an encyclopedic article that looks back on this film as retrospectively as possible. In a historical perspective, such viral marketing links are not very useful (and may even expire). Another way to include them is to use them as footnotes, where readers can visit the references for further information, like when reading a quote from a critic's review. I see that this is somewhat done in "Marketing", but the embedded links need to be removed; this practice should only be done for the "External links" section and not within the article body. —Erik (talk • contrib) 11:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

What an awesome movie, I can't believe this is locked haha --MosheA (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the reason for the protection?

Can somebody explain to me why is this article protected? I read all the comments on this page and I still don't get it. UltraEdit (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

IP Editors were repeatedly adding in "Spoiler Alerts." BAPACop (converse) 20:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't "Apartheid Rererences" reflect current issues?

I know only a little about South Africa, but I believe I see social commentary in the film about more contemporary issues than those currently stated in the "Apartheid References" section.

Specifically, I am referring to hostility and toward migrants and refugees who arrived in South Africa after the end of the policy of apartheid, the history of which is described in the Wikipedia article Xenophobia in South Africa.

The scenes in the movie in which South Africans of all races criticize the "prawns" seem to me to be a comment by the filmmakers on South African xenophobia and the risk of re-creating elements of the apartheid system as a means of controlling migration. Blomkamp has spoken about his awareness of anti-immigrant sentiment and resulting "black against black" violence, for example in a Salon interview [1] (search the page for "Zimbabwe").

I'm a little lost when it comes to meeting Wikipedia's standards when documenting social commentary so I'll just point this out to my betters. :-)

Pzriddle (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Policy is that if there are reliable sources discussing this theme, we should report what they discuss. T34CH (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Blomkamp an Unreal Tournament fan

Aliens looks, weapons and the blow-up body effect of them is a clearly tken from the Unreal Tournament game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.157.5.28 (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought the very same thing about the weapons, but without a source stating the link, this is just WP:OR. --uKER (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

UN reference?

Does anyone else feel as though the MNU alluded to the UN? In the first few shots of MNU workers even show them wearing blue caps. This might be worth mentioning when discussing real world allusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.10.184 (talk) 05:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the MNU is a military contractor and arms dealer operating outside the jurisdiction of national or international law, that's why they commit so many humanitarian abuses. Remember at Wikus's promotion party when his boss pulled him aside and criticized him for the poor handling of the eviction, saying the "UIO" is concerned? I'm guessing the UIO is supposed to be some kind of UN-like organization. VolatileChemical (talk)

Obesandjo

In the main article this name is mentioned without any prior explanation. This is confusing and unclear. Can someone update it?

"While attempting to buy some alien weaponry from the Nigerian gang, Wikus is seized by the paralysed Obesandjo's henchmen in an attempt to gain Wikus' ability to work the weapons." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmjue (talk • contribs) 16:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done --uKER (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

District 6

The movie does not reference 6 as a source of reference for the movie. Instead, it uses irony by reversing the number 6 to the number 9 to reference the Bantustans that were used as a tool to segregate the subordinate predominant black South African from the dominant minority whites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.6.187 (talk) 05:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't get your point. Are you denying the relation of the movie to the events in District 6 during the apartheid? --uKER (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The point is that it's not that the movie isn't tied to what happened in District 6 during the apartheid, but that the film does not reference it at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ObsidianWolf (talk • contribs) 17:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Fuel retrieved from other artifacts?

Is this really the case? I thought the story was them running out of fuel, and Christopher coming to Earth to harvest some more, but of course there wasn't any alien technology here. My guess is that the fuel is somehow distilled by Christopher (with the chemistry gear Wikus finds in his hut) from who knows what materials he managed to find here on earth, but nothing to do with alien technology here. I'm changing the article unless someone provides proof that says otherwise. --uKER (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(my recollection) On the dump, Christopher clearly states that they need to find discarded alien technology, because only alien technology contains the fluid.--Jaymax (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Jaymax is correct. Nothing is mentioned about coming to Earth to harvest what was already here. T34CH (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Then what was Christopher's reason to come to earth in the first place? There were no aliens here before he came down. --uKER (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe the movie ever stated the aliens' reason for coming to Earth, rather leaving it up to the viewer's imagination. The movie also never said that it was Christopher who took the aliens to Earth. And Jaymax and T34CH are correct, Christopher only wanted to find alien technology because it contained "the fluid", and the technology he finds is implied to be discarded by the other aliens, not that the technology was already on Earth. --Seb0910 (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Definitely agreed, they were scavenging alien technology on the dump. They are specifically shown discarding a piece of Earth technology because it wouldn't provide fuel. Inference will not add quality material to the article. We don't know why they came, we only know that Christopher (described as a bit sharper than the others but not necessarily the boss of any sort of mission) spent 20 years refuelling (and repairing? Maybe, but we're not shown any evidence for that) a vehicle which he hid under his hut. The vehicle got him back to the mothership and it appears that it was also capable of controlling the mothership (and other alien technology - for example the mech) both remotely and when attached directly to the mothership. I think it is to be assumed it could probably have done all that just as well while sitting under the shed had Wikus not launched it himself but I can't say for sure so it's not worth adding.

It's stated that the aliens were found severely malnourished after 3 months of sitting on the mothership. It seems they lost leadership catastrophically - probably in the command vehicle which broke off. I don't know what the occupants of the command vehicle did for the 3 months the world spent deciding what to do but I can't imagine they had a good time. Christopher shows extreme skill in controlling the ship, he's very deft and very fast with the controls so it's could be assumed he has experience of controlling the mothership from the days when it was travelling. So maybe he was part of the command crew (do they use crews?). I wouldn't even want to hypothesise what brought them to Earth - I think it was either a deliberate trip that went wrong at the last hurdle or it was never supposed to go to Earth but technical difficulties forced them to find a stopping place and they chose Earth. I'm only guessing. I don't think fuel was the problem - they seemed to have enough to get back home already on them and the mothership hovered for 20 years non stop. The problem seemed to just be getting enough fuel outside of the mothership to get up to the mothership and it seems that Earth is a terrible source of alien fuel. 86.143.63.65 (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Battle suit NOT remotely controlled

Some people keep adding the battle suit as remotely controlled. Before doing so again, I urge them to present their reasons for doing so. Never is the battle suit ever hinted at being controlled by Christopher's son. Also, when the battle suit is done with the Nigerians, the action cuts to Christopher's son in front of a panel that only shows schematics of the mother ship and nothing that relates him to what the battle suit just did. --uKER (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I came to a similar conclusion as you when I saw that someone had written that (I believe his son activated the mech suit and the suit's AI defended Wikus), I can see why they would think so. Christopher's son no doubt activated the mech suit, and some people probably believe that he controlled it as well. But what I think really confirms that his son isn't controlling the suit is that the audience sees through the suit's eyes when it takes out the first 3 guys. In short, I agree that the suit is not controlled by Christopher's son.Seb0910 (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I first question what an AI controller is doing on a mech that a pilot sits inside. It's one or the other, surely? If it was an AI why didn't it continue to fight (it does a better job without him inside than when he's driving since it can stop bullets in the air and Wikus gets shot to pieces) instead of stopping motionless and letting him look out the window for a considerable while. If it was an AI controlled robot it wouldn't need a pilot at all. We see a first person view because it's got a camera on the front. It needs to, the pilot is sealed inside behind armour and you can control it from inside the command vehicle, you need a camera to show what's around it. It's also shown to have microphones that pick up the soldier's instruction to kill Christopher, because again, sealed inside armour. It's a piloted suit that needs someone to point it at targets. It's sat in that warlord's front room for about 20 years because there's no pilots around.

I suspect that the remote controlled suit (which probably needs target designation -- why would an alien AI suit shoot all the humans *except* for Wikus?) is one of many things that the son needs to do as they are attempting to leave Earth. He's very busy, so he gets Wikus to control the robot instead. The son opens the suit up to let someone else control it and then he switches back to what he's working on - getting the mothership overhead as quickly as humanly possible.

Yes, we're not shown/told that the son painstakingly controlled every movement the suit made but we're also not shown the complex AI system that can fight autonomously. Frankly we're not shown that Wikus did much more than grunt and have lights flash in front of his face either - they obviously chose not to have the whole holographic mech gesture control cliche in this movie. Since it needs a pilot to make it fight then it must have had a pilot, we're showed the son pushing buttons and getting it to wake up and then it kills everyone. What part of that doesn't sound like remote control? 86.143.63.65 (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

With regards to part of the above comment, the suit was seen being operated by an alien earlier in the film when they sold it to the warlord for 100 cans of cat food, it hasn't been sitting there for 20 years out of use. I believe that the suit was functioning on it's own; the shot from it's perspective shows that it identifies Wikus as being 'friendly' (due to his alien DNA transformation?) and the Nigerians as being hostile, seemingly by itself. 123.211.187.63 (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead section

I would like to know why User:UKER keeps reverting my changes to the lead. From the looks of his edit summary, he has blindly reverted me without bothering to read the edits. His edit summary states that there was "extensive removal of information...release dates, people behind Alive in Joburg, title reference" when there were no such deletions. The only thing that was removed was the mention of the director and producer behind Alive in Joburg, which quite frankly isn't all that important to the lead since this is about District 9. Viriditas (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You drastically trimmed the lead section, allegedly on grounds of WP:LEAD. I thus encourage you to go over the more specialized WP:MOSFILM#Lead_section, which states "If the film is based on source material, that source material and its creators should be identified." ie detailing the movie's relation with Alive in Joburg and the people involved in the making of the latter, especially since both of its makers are also prominent in D9. "If possible, convey the general premise of the film in the paragraph and identify actors' roles in the premise.", ie detail the aliens' backstory as protagonists of the film and not just Wikus'. Also MOSFILM suggests "Succeeding paragraphs in the lead section should cover important aspects of the film detailed in the article body and not mentioned already in the first paragraph. These include [...] prominent themes", which would imply detailing the reference to District 6 in the movie's name, which you seem determined to omit despite the obviousness of it; also note that this reference is not established anywhere else in the article. Also, your wording makes it look like District 6 is the only area that had people relocated, which couldn't be further from the truth. Also, I don't think the lead is in any way oversized (based on common sense since there's no guidelines about it anyway), so I still don't get your need to hack it down. For this reason, I'm once again reverting. EDIT: I also don't get it why you think it's better to mention the publisher at the end, repeating the release date in the process. --uKER (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

About me reverting without reading and your edit only removing the mention of the makers of Alive in Joburg, I also object with:

• Despite removed mention of Blomkamp and Copley being involved in Alive in Joburg, you added date for Alive in Joburg, a much less relevant fact.
• Removed mention of movie's title being a reference to District 6, changed into loose, imprecise reference.
• Removed mention of process by which the aliens end up in the slum and Wikus gets assigned the task.
• Removed explicit statement that Alive in Joburg also references the apartheid.
• Relocated publisher to the end.

--uKER (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not edit war. Your observations are in error. I did not "drastically" trim anything. Practically the entire lead section was intact except for some of your wording which confused the direct parallel between the plot of District 9 and the historical parallel of District 6, which I fixed. As for the source material, it can certainly be identified, but keep in mind you are quoting a MOS, not a policy or a guideline, and in general, the source credits of an adaptation usually refer to sources other than the same director. The publisher and release date appear at the end - there is no repetition of the release date. Saying it is a 2009 science fiction film and saying it was released on August 14 at the end is not repetition; It happens to be a standard lead structure used in many film articles. Please learn to add and modify information rather than reverting. This is a collaborative website. I find your version of the lead less than accurate and I will make changes accordingly. You would do well to familiarize yourself with how lead sections are written for film articles. Here was my original edit:

District 9, abbreviated D-9, is a 2009 science fiction film adapted from the short film Alive in Joburg (2005). The film was directed by Neill Blomkamp and stars Sharlto Copley, Jason Cope and Robert Hobbs. Copley plays the role of Wikus van de Merw, a bureaucrat assigned to evict and move an alien species from one government refugee camp to another in Johannesburg, South Africa.

The title and premise of the film are inspired by historical events that took place in South Africa under apartheid. In 1966, an inner-city residential area in Cape Town named District Six was declared a "whites only" area by the apartheid government. For the next several decades, 60,000 people were forcibly removed from District Six and relocated to Cape Flats, 25 kilometres away.

Shot in the style of a mock documentary, the film makes use of interviews, news footage, and video from surveillance cameras to tell the story. A viral marketing campaign began in 2008 at the San Diego Comic-Con, and the theatrical trailer appeared in July 2009. The film was released on August 14, 2009 in North America by TriStar Pictures.

As you can see, I did not remove mention of the film title reference, but rather described it in detail. The process by which the aliens end up in the slum and Wikus gets assigned the task is not essential to the lead, but changes are always welcome. The lead states that the film was adapted from Alive in Joburg so the reference to apartheid is implicit. Adding the publisher and release date towards the end is standard lead structure for film articles. Furthermore, your revert removed mention of the marketing campaign and trailer, all of which should appear in the lead, so I'm adding this information back in. You are welcome to collaborate without reverting. Lastly, your attempt at summarizing the plot did not do so, and actually summarized the backstory instead. I think we can certainly add more information to the plot summary I added, but we really don't need more backstory. Viriditas (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for preserving plot content

One way to salvage some of the plot section is to move all the backstory out and into its own section. The director very briefly touches upon the backstory in a recent Creative Screenwriting podcast (recorded at Comic-Con) and we can at least expand it beginning with that source. There's not much there, but it is a start. Viriditas (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the same content is here:

Unfortunately, we don't go much into it in the film because there wasn't time. A lot needed to be figured out and to me there's this kind of ant hive that's had a queen that's died and they're these directionless drones walking around, so it kind of explains how all this technology could've been built and manufactured and thought up. But they don't have it together enough to use that weaponry on humans and turn their situation on its head. So they just keep getting stomped on for 30 years.

van de Merwe or Wikus?

Why should we name him by his last name? Particularly him having such a disruptive one for the text flow? I couldn't find any guidelines on the subject, and there are even examples in MOSFILM that refer to characters by their first name. --uKER (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It is traditional "house style" to use the last name (academic, encyclopedic, journalistic, etc.) but in this case, I think we should Wikus. There are always exceptions, and this is one of them. Calling him "van de Merwe" throughout the article isn't helpful, and most of the critical reviews use Wikus anyway. Viriditas (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I just started a discussion in Wikiproject film about this. Also in favor of calling him Wikus should be the fact that as far as I recall, he is rarely (if ever) called "van de Merwe" in the film. They either call him simply Wikus in the case of people close to him, or by his full name (most on TV). --uKER (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it back to "Wikus". As I said in my edit summary, seeing as how we're dealing with a fictional character, this is not a BLP or even biographical concern. We don't need to respectfully and neutrally refer to a character by his/her last name here. ;) María (habla conmigo) 14:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternate history?

I see that someone added the alternate history category to this film, but I don't see that as valid. Anyone? Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless it takes place after 2029, it's an alternate history film. When the story beings, The non-humans have been on Earth for 20 years. - JeffJonez (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So basically, you're using the definition (and category) very loosely, and arguing that any science fiction film that takes place on planet Earth during what we consider our past/present, is "alternate history"? I could agree with that if it concerned something historical in our past, such as the aliens arriving to change a historical event, but do we see that? No. We see a typical, science fiction film positing the arrival of aliens. How is this an alternate history? Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not an invalid application, IMO. There is some precedent for it, though alternate history is not a primary plot device in the film. It's not completely irrelevant; it redefines the past generation of human history although not in a global sense. It's not by any means the best example of alternate history, but it's still an example. It's just a category. If someone ventured to put "alternate history" in the lead sentence, I'd take issue with that. —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

See alternate history: "In writing an alternate history, the author makes the conscious choice to change something in our past. According to Steven H Silver, alternate history requires three things: 1) the story must have a point of divergence from the history of our world prior to the time at which the author is writing, 2) a change that would alter history as it is known, and 3) an examination of the ramifications of that change." I don't see the film meeting those requirements. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't fall under #3. That makes sense. Concur with you, then. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

There's that, but my main concern is with the point of divergence. Typical alternate histories will twist this point in a very overt way. For example, I would consider District 9 an alternate history if the aliens landed at District 6 in 1966 and displaced the people living there. In our history, those people were displaced by the South African government, not aliens. That's a poor example, but I think it illustrates a point of divergence. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Twenty years ago in their timeline, aliens came to the world. Obviously didn't happen in ours. This is a point of divergence before the writing of the story in recent years. That's all it is for that first criteria, in my opinion. In any case, we can agree the category does not belong since it does not meet all three. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but how does it meet the second criteria? I'll give you the first, even though I don't agree. :) Viriditas (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Aliens living with humans is history-altering. :) That's why I gave you #3 that the film did not examine the ramifications of alternate history. The film's story was a story in itself, not anything like "because the aliens arrived here, it affected the Cold War and the USSR". For example, Watchmen is alternate history because it clearly revises the historical elements as we know it, like the outcome of the Vietnam War and Nixon being President into infinity. In any case, we have our reasons outlined here if the category comes under discussion again... any general talk about the film we want to have should be done on user talk pages. :P —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a go; 1) The point of divergence is when the alien ship pulls in over Johannesburg, it happened in the D-9 'verse but not in ours. 2) I think having an alien ship landing on earth and making first contact and spending 20-odd years researching alien tech would count as "altering history as it is known". Plus you could imagine all the pseudo-/religious groups springing up. 3) The film (admittedly briefly) uses "news footage" of the resulting riots and segregation of the aliens as "an examination of the ramifications of that change.". I agree that it's not a major part of the film, atleast not to the same extent as the Watchmen example, but it is an aspect of it and should be mentioned somewhere. 124.169.112.178 (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"In 1982 ..."

I saw the movie twice, and perhaps I simply missed the detail, but I don't recall the movie ever stating that the aliens came to Earth in 1982, only that it happened 20 years before the present (2010). My reasons are that one of the reporters/narrators in the beginning of the movie states something like "after 20 years" the Africans were no longer content with the aliens living in such close proximity. Also, the movie takes place in 2010, so 20 years before that would be about 1989 or 1990. Someone please verify this. --Seb0910 (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, typo. The full date of alien arrival is April 14, 1989, and confirmed on the official site.[2][3] Viriditas (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the edit summary on a reason for the change and the ongoing discussion. In the movie itself, 1982 is shown as the date in timestamps in video footage. Specifically, 1982/06/01 is shown as the date when they decided to cut in (see here). Also 1982/07/05 is shown in the footage when they mention they decided to set up D9. About the website, I guess that with the website contradicting the movie, there's no discussing that the movie itself takes precedence. --uKER (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That's your evidence? A couple things: 1) How do we know that's from the final cut and not a frame from a pre-release version (which I believe is illegal to use as a source)? As for the official site for the film, it contains at least two pages detailing the date of arrival. Now, I don't know if this is an intentional mistake or not, but people who used timestamping on video in the 1980s often had the date set wrong. How do we know that 1982 is correct here? Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, looks like one version of the theatrical trailer confirms 1982 as the date ("they came here 28 years ago") so I'll revert it back to 1982. Now, why does the official site say 1989?? Viriditas (talk) 09:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The frame I posted is fom the "Arrival" movie clip, published on August 9, four days before the movie was released. In any case, I do have a bootleg (sue me) and it's the exact same dates all over, and no, it's not out of people having the incorrect date in the camera, as the date is seen in footage from at least three different sources. For the hell of it, here's a screenshot from the footage from them breaking into the ship on June 3, 1982. --uKER (talk) 09:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

About the website, mistakes happen, you know? The people making the website are not the very same people making the movie, and they may not be that much into the source material. BTW, if you think this is weird, what's even more awkward is that the movie never mentions the 28 years thing. The dates jump from 1982 to "twenty years later" ("and now, after twenty years, public pressure had forced the government to shove the aliens out of Johannesburg"), which would set the events with Wikus in 2002. --uKER (talk) 09:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What? The film takes place in 2010. I don't understand why you just changed 28 to 20 as that completely contradicts the entire point. I just finished explaining that the official trailer says the aliens arrived 28 years ago, which confirms the 1982 date in the film. So why would you change this to 20? That doesn't make any sense. Viriditas (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Man, this is about the movie. Trailers may be wrong. Websites may be wrong. The only thing that can't be wrong regarding information about the movie is the movie itself. I just quoted the movie saying the aliens' relocation started twenty years after the break in, which happened in 1982, and the movie never mentions 2010. Sad but true, going by the movie itself, Wikus entered the picture in 2002. If THE MOVIE has anything suggesting otherwise, feel free to bring it into consideration. --uKER (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the film is supposed to take place close to our present, not in our past. The trailer specifically mentions 28 years for this reason. When someone says "20 years after" there is no evidence that is intended to be literal. Neill Blomkamp himself rounds the number up to 30. This time, you're wrong. Viriditas (talk) 09:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm wrong based on what? Your assuming they must have rounded the number? 28 rounded to 20? In a movie? For what reason? Good luck with sourcing that. --uKER (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Blomkamp says in an interview that the aliens were oppressed for 30 years. He rounded up in casual conversation. Hopefully, you aren't taking things too literally. If I was to say the aliens were held in camps for three decades in a discussion, that wouldn't necessarily mean 30 years. It's an approximate number. Viriditas (talk) 10:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Blomkamp sayin it's 30 years. That seems fine. It's the movie saying it's 20 what bothers me. An interview (ie Blomkamp's sayings) don't have that much thought put into it. A movie is supposed to. Anyway, I guess we've come to an agreement. --uKER (talk) 10:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

But the movie doesn't say 20 years. That's an in-universe perspective based on the random opinion of someone who is not speaking factually about the film, and we don't write plot sections based on those opinions. Viriditas (talk)

Excuse me, but plot descriptions should have an in-universe perspective. If the director states what he intended but the film contradicts it, of course we can mention that in the article, but the film itself is the definitive reference for its own plot. --208.76.104.133 (talk) 06:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Not when the in-universe perspective is contradicting by various factors, such as a mock documentary, unreliable narrators, etc. The length of time here is being taken literally by Wikipedia editors, not by the plot of the film. There's a huge difference. Viriditas (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

About the discussion in my talk page, there seems to be two versions: 1) The aliens land in 1989 and the movie takes place 20 years later (2009). 2) The aliens land in 1982 and the movie takes place 28 years later (2010). Unfortunately, there's no source that entirely supports any of the two. The movie has landing=1982, events 20 years later (2002), with no mention of 28 years (and no, rounding 28 to 20 doesn't cut it) or 2010. The MNU viral site has landing 1989, which could only go with the 20 years later thing, unless we want the movie in 2017. Then there's the trailers with the 28 years thing, but no start date. So we're royally screwed. If we want something at least remotely coherent, we should mash together the arrival date from the movie, with the time jump from the trailers. If this is the case, maybe we should do it, but I'd say it would at least merit a "Time setting discrepancies" section in the article describing the mess that this is. --uKER (talk) 10:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that in the beginning of the film, a voiceover explains that the aliens have been separated into camps for 28 years. Viriditas (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's not the case. The reference given for the time lapse between the creation of D9 and the eviction is that sentence I quoted. On another note, I just found mention of 2010 in the movie, briefly seen in some surveillance cam footage during the evictions (see here), so I guess we can use that and disregard the guy saying it's 20 years, giving precedence to the trailer's 28. I'll change it back. --uKER (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, during all of this I've even seen date 2000 when the MNU capture Wikus after they discover his mutated arm, and 2029 in a security camera in a featurette for the movie. --uKER (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a copy of the voiceover I'm talking about here and I believe it was in the final cut. Viriditas (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I had heard that voiceover before, so I don't think it's in the movie, just like most of the interviews in the trailers aren't either. --uKER (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You might be right. Viriditas (talk) 11:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, it's been a week or two since I saw the movie last, so I can't remember details as well as I could a day or two after, but I could have sworn that both times I saw District 9, in the movie they state that the present year is 2010 and that the alien arrival was 20 years ago. This was the reporters/people being interviewed that said this, so I believe that their should dialogue should be taken as the truth, right? I mean a camera could be wrong, and information in a trailer could be changed by the final cut, but if it's people being interviewed in the movie, I'm pretty sure that they are the more correct ones. [EDIT] I've changed the article to state that the eviction takes place twenty years after the aliens' arrival. Regardless of what year they arrived, the twenty year gap is definitely made clear in the film.--Seb0910 (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The alien arrival was not 20 years ago, and I don't understand why you changed it. We certainly do not write plot sections based on the in-universe opinions of random people in the film. The director has confirmed it was closer to three decades, and the final trailer for the film says 28 years both in a voiceover and in a title. Viriditas (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Seb0910, please see my post here that starts with "About the discussion in my talk page". There is no source that entirely generates a consistent story. We're just trying to make it the best we can, but it is a fact that we'll never reach a full story that fits everything, as the movie contradicts itself. --uKER (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just come back from the my second watching of the film and paid particular attention to the dates; when we have the "handi-cam" footage of them breaking into the ship "1982" is clearly shown in the corner, security footage from inside MNU (when wikus starts to lose his fingernails and when he breaks in) clearly shows "2010". Wikus' comment about the shuttle hiding for "20 years" could have 2 possible explanations: 1) Character choice, most people would round up to 30 years, but Wikus chose to round down, plus he's clearly stressed from having just shot his way in and out of MNU, or 2) the shuttle fell in the year 1990 (or there-abouts), after staying in the spaceship for eight years, for either a) No reason, b)Christopher (or someone else) called it down or c) a security protocol kicked in. Personally I choose the first option as it's much more probable.

Also, interestingly enough when we see Wikus start to lose his fingernails we see a shot that looks to be through the security cameras, the date is on the lower right as 2010/09/08 (8th of September 2010) when Wikus and Christopher break in to MNU the date is shown on the security cameras to be 2010/13/08 (13th of September), four days later (roughly 96 hours). After escaping and going back to District 9 Wikus is captured and it displays "72 hours after exposure" on screen. It seems that they couldn't quite nail down the timeline before releasing the film. 124.169.112.178 (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why 20 years can't be accepted. Wikus and the person being interviewed in the beginning both said it, and the time of the movie is supposed to be closer to today, and the security cameras say 2010. I know the trailers keep being mentioned, but shouldn't the information in the actual movie (even though it is flawed) be used instead of information in a trailer? I know the camera in the beginning says they came in 1982, but none of the people say that; the date that makes sense timewise and as stated by Wikus and the interviewee is 20 years ago. The movie's only reference to 28 years ago is the 1982 camera. I propose that the page should show this information, since it's highly unlikely that two people would round eight numbers down. --Seb0910 (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Changing dates

Please stop changing the dates until this is resolved. For now, I've replaced the dates with the placeholders "late 20th century" and "several decades". Prior to this revision, the dates that appeared in the article were wrong and did not appear to be supported by any reliable sources. Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the consensus is the dates are 1982 and 2010, with 28 years in between (Blomkamp rounding it to 30 years in interviews). We're disregarding the viral website and the interviewee's comment in the movie, but I guess it's the only way to get it about right. In any case, as I said before, we can create a section exposing the discrepancies. --uKER (talk) 09:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion from User_talk:UKER

Couldn't the trailer be incorrect? The film clearly states that the eviction takes place 20 years after the aliens' arrival, and the film also DOES mention that it's the year 2010 (I know I posted something about this on the D9 talk page, but I noticed a mini discussion taking place here so I followed). Also, please don't take this as an insult or offense to your ability to observe, but in another issue on the D9 talk page you mentioned that you thought that the aliens came to Earth to harvest the fluid from alien technology already present on Earth; if you made an incorrect observation like this, couldn't it be possible for you to have missed the references in the movie that state that the present is 2010? Again, I really mean no offense I just want to get to the bottom of this inconsistency. --Seb0910 (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the trailer can indeed be incorrect. So seems to be the movie, contradicting itself, and so are the official viral websites. We're trying to put together a story that kinda fits, but as I said, we'll never make up a story that brings it all together, so we have to put some common sense into it and get one that goes with MOST of the material. My proposed timeline was landing in june 1982 (only contradicting the viral website), with evictions 28 years later in march 2010, which fits the trailers, the movie, and Blomkamp's interview, only questioned by the guy saying it was 20 years later (a sound tradeoff I'd say). I'll see into it again and check if there's some time in the middle that can account for that. About you discrediting me for the thing about them harvesting from alien tech, that was when I had only seen the movie once, and I was mostly going by common sense, trying to figure out the reason for Christopher coming down to Earth. After repeated viewing, yes, I saw it was stated that they were looking for alien tech, which rules out my assuming Christopher had to come down to distill the liquid, replacing it with an awesome total lack of reason for it. About the dates, if you had read my previous messages, you'd see I'm not going by memory on the issue. --uKER (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no evidence that there is anything incorrect or inconsistent about the trailers. I've heard several interviews with the director about the trailers and it basically boils down to not having enough time in the film to show everything. If you have any evidence that the trailer is "wrong" in any way, please present it. The trailers are intended to supplement the film, which I believe is somewhat of a novel concept. Viriditas (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I only said they COULD, but on second thought I think we haven't found the trailers posing any major contradictions at least regarding the time settings. The movie, on the other hand, I can guarantee has lots of inconsistencies. The coming is consistently in 1982, and then it jumps to the evictions in 2010, which is fine except for the guy saying it was 20 years later (and nobody rounds 28 to 20). And well, then there's that 2000 timestamp when Wikus is restrained in the MNU labs, and believe me I didn't re-watch the entire movie looking for more, which there probably are. About contradictions in the trailers, what's with Christopher in the interrogatory saying "How can we go anywhere if you have our ship?"? There seem to have been storyline changes since that trailer was made, doesn't it? --uKER (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the "20 years later" thing means anything here. It's just a passing comment and is not supposed to be taken literally. The timestamps, on the other hand, are all screwed up, and I don't get that at all. The interrogation scene is sound. The aliens are no longer in "control" of their ship, and remember, he's trying to buy time to power up the command module, which he has buried. Viriditas (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's two separate cameras showing 1982 and only one person (Grey Bradnam) mentioning the 20 years, so it's 2 to 1 in favor of 1982+28. --uKER (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the ship was floating arround and came to earth in 1982,the ship floated around the planet, and even if it stopped in 1982, the film says that they(being MNU) finally decided to cut open the ship. That would mean some time had gone by, maybe the 7 years between 1982 and 1989, making the 20 years more realistic, also I do not remember the 2000 timestamp, only the 1982 and 2010. --72.49.77.133 (talk) 02:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I love it when people make up stretches like this to make up for mistakes. There are video timestamps showing the ship above Johannesburg in 1982. Are you trying to say they got spotted in 1982 above Joburg but then they decided to take the ship for a spin around Earth and became stranded above Joburg again seven years later? You've got to be kidding. Also, june 1982 also is seen in the footage of the team breaking into the ship, so no. That's DEFINITELY not it. --uKER (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Link for expanding score section

Found here. It doesn't look like it has been transcribed yet, so it's just an audio file. Viriditas (talk) 08:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Theme section

Xenophobia, as confirmed by the director. Viriditas (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to say that's probably in the movie somewhere, "I love shooting prawns" etc. I'm surprised that even needed confirmed. 86.143.63.65 (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only person who thought there is an animal welfare theme to this movie? It deals heavily with speciesism (an animal rights concept) and also has several scenes devoted to experimenting on aliens. They also cull the aliens' young as part of population control. 82.35.102.252 (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Obesandjo (Eugene Khumbanyiwa)

Why is this name given as that of the Nigerian warlord? Is the name in parentheses the name of the actor? This name doesn't appear on the cast list in the article, so why is it listed in the article itself?--Seb0910 (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. That's the only actor name given in the plot section, and moreover it's unsourced. I'm removing it for the time being. --uKER (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I confirmed the actor being Obesandjo and so I added him into the Cast section. No source cited, being this a released film. --uKER (talk) 09:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

how were the aliens made?

Is it CGI or are they physical? Looked better than CGI. Didn't have that fake Jar Jar Binks look to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.44.253 (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

They are CGI (there's no way an actor could portray a creature with backwards bending knees and such a thin waist and frame ;)). Blomkamp has a history of incredibly believable CGI. See this. It's the first thing I knew from him, from about 2006 I think. BTW, when Wikus and Christopher enter the lab to steal the canister there's a little nod to it in the form of a Tetra Vaal sign there. --uKER (talk) 08:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Uker, are you going to start a section on the CGI? Viriditas (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, I wasn't planning on it. Why? --uKER (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Er, because this is a Wikipedia article about a science fiction film that relies heavily on CGI, and it requires material on the subject? Viriditas (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but I don't think I have any material available that's worth adding. The "Tetra Vaal" thing would better be fitted in Blomkamp's article perhaps, but I'd say it bears little relation to D9. --uKER (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI, there's loads of material online (interviews, articles) about the CGI in the film. Viriditas (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'll do it if I get the time. In the meantime, in case you don't want to do it yourself, if you come across any good source, feel free to post it here. --uKER (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

this may be useful. --uKER (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, we are supposed to be using the talk page to talk about how to improve the article. Do you want to help me write the section? Viriditas (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind response and good info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.44.253 (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

More info on CG here. --uKER (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Spelling of the protagonist's name

On the Wikipedia page, Wikus's surname is spelled "Van de Merwe", and it's spelled that way too on IMDB. However, the District 9 official website lists it as "Van der Merwe", and in South Africa, "Van der Merwe" would definitely be the correct spelling. So what's correct? I don't remember what the credits in the movie showed, unfortunately, but what's authoritative? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claidheamhmor (talk • contribs) 06:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm by no means acknowledgeable in Afrikaans, but Google's translator shows "wikus van de merwe" translating into something along the lines of "edge from the jungle", while "wikus van der merwe" seems to be recognized as a proper name, since when written in lower case, the translation is shown as "Wikus van der Merwe". In any case, what's your source for saying "van der" is "definitely the correct spelling"? --uKER (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"Van der Merwe" is a pretty common Afrikaans surname, originally derived from the Dutch. "Van de Merwe", by contrast, seems to be in use, but only very, very rarely - a quick Google search even had Wikus's surname as the #2 hit. In my 20-odd years of adulthood in South Africa, managing corporate network users and in daily life, I don't think I've encountered a single South African who spells their surname "Van de Merwe". On my corporate mail system, with something like 20000 email addresses, we have 94 with "Van der Merwe" and zero with "Van de Merwe". If "de" is what it's supposed to be, then that's what it's supposed to be. I'm just not sure what would be authoritative though - the official movie website ("der"), or IMDB ("de"); I guess IMDB got it from the film credits, which I suppose is first source (unless it's a mistake). Claidheamhmor (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, also I checked and the on-screen text in the movie also has him called "van de Merwe". --uKER (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

As a South African I hope I can shed some light on the topic. Its van der Werwe (van der being 'from the' or something equal to that) a very very common (think equal to Smith in America) Afrikaans surname, normally lower case 'v' is used unless it appears at the start of a sentence (which obviously means it must be a capital).

I've never met a 'van de merwe' but I know plenty of people with the surname 'van der merwe.' If there even is a surname like 'van de merwe' then it's a really rare surname over here in South Africa.--What shall i call it? (talk) 14:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Plot Puzzlers

I added this section just after the Plot section, but bovineboy2008 deleted it (without discussion). These are some huge plot holes that may have many viewers scratching their heads:

1. If the aliens are intelligent and can communicate with humans, why didn't the aliens explain their problem and ask for help?
2. Why do the humans treat the aliens like animals, when they are obviously more advanced than humans and could presumably share their knowledge?
3. Why are the aliens only semi-segregated? It fits the analogy with apartheid, but it doesn't make sense in the movie. If they just dig around in the garbage and have confrontations, why would this be allowed? If this is an allegory of apartheid, why aren't the aliens working at jobs and being exploited for cheap or dangerous labor? Is District 9 a prison camp, a refugee camp, or a housing district?
4. Why would gangsters be allowed to engage in commerce with the aliens?
5. Why do some of the aliens behave like animals, but some, like Christopher, don't? Aren't they being fed? Would South Africa really have to feed them all by itself?
6. Why does the fluid in the canister, which is supposed to be fuel or a power source, also cause genetic transformation?
7. If the power fluid is so hard to produce, why did they produce so much extra fluid that Wikus could spray an apparently huge portion of it on his face and still be able to power up their ship?
8. Did the aliens bring their weapons down from the mothership or build them in the camp? If the former, why would the humans allow this? They could have denied the aliens food and/or transportation to earth unless they turned over their weapons. If the latter, why are they living in shanties if they can build advanced technological devices? Wouldn't they be able to build a proper dwelling?
9. If the aliens are armed with advanced weapons, why do they allow themselves to be abused and their larvae burned?
10. Why can Christopher power up the lander and the mothership, but he can't transmit an SOS to his people?114.161.253.11 (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the section was added twice, but there's no denying that it has no place in an encyclopedia. At most you could start a discussion if you wished any of the points discussed in the article, but not much more than that. BTW, for me the biggest plot hole (together with the fuel causing Wikus to mutate) is why the ship got stranded in the first place. I thought it was it running out of fuel, but if that was the case, I guess they could have distilled it from their tech without ever coming down to earth. --uKER (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

That's the difference between a mystery and a plot hole. No one seems to know what happened on the ship to cause them to stop and the aliens to starve, but as you suggest, running out of power could be it, or some kind of conflict on the ship, a disease, who knows. I think viewers really wanted to know what happened, but we never find out. But a plot hole is when something happens that makes no sense or that conflicts with something else in the story.114.161.253.11 (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess we have to wait until some movie reviewer makes these points, then we can quote their review.... I hope they also point out how lame it is to set the story using a fake documentary, instead of actually telling the story. The beginning of the movie would have been a lot more interesting if the story had unfolded as it happened instead of being handed to us on an index card.114.161.253.11 (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The authoritative entity on likings just declared the movie lame. --uKER (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This smells like trivia and should be avoided. If you desperately feel that you need to bash the film, consider establishing a Criticism section - JeffJonez (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually liked the movie, but it could have been SO much better. As Roger Ebert put it so well, "Despite its creativity, the film remains space opera and avoids the higher realms of science-fiction."114.161.253.11 (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

And what dictates that making it more sci-fi and less drama would make it a better movie? That is YOUR LIKING, you know? Unless it's you making the movie, there's no reason why movies should be made according to your taste. You like it? Fine. You don't? Look elsewhere. That's how life is. Blomkamp's work is social drama with some sci-fi thrown in, not the other way round. --uKER (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

What Ebert and I are trying to say is that, with a little more thought, this could have been a really profound, well-made movie. It's still entertaining, but it's not 2001 or Bladerunner or Planet of the Apes. If he wanted to make a social drama, why not have the Africans go to Europe and colonize and subjugate the Europeans?114.161.253.11 (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, no offence but that numbered list has absolutely no place in a wikipedia article. It's not encyclopedic for one. Whoever deleted it was perfectly correct to. It does just sound like it's not your kind of movie. If you don't like movies framed as a documentary you probably shouldn't watch movies framed as documentaries and you probably shouldn't watch movies that are really more about inter-human relations as "what a strange thing for an alien to do." I think that's slightly missing the point. It is really messed up that squirting their power source in your face turns you into one of them, although that could be a joke about Americans and oil in some countries. I have a feeling it was probably different before it hit focus groups to be honest but that's what was put out. My biggest question was why didn't they put less fuel in the vehicle, just enough to get the lights on, and then direct the mothership with its tractor beam over to the vehicle? That's instead of finding fuel over the course of 20 years drop by drop and flying to the mothership, risking being shot down on the way. The obvious answer is that that would have been a less interesting movie. 86.143.63.65 (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The command module is never said to use the same fuel as the mother ship. It simply wasn't active before because there was no point in doing it. Its only use would be Christopher returning to the ship once he had enough fuel. --uKER (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, there's no indication they use the same fuel source but at the same time there's equally no indication that they don't. It could be something very clever with cold fusion and seawater or it could be human souls. You'd just have to make something up. The fuel is just to get the command vehicle up to the cross shaped dock on the mothership and letting the much larger engines deal with the heavy lifting of moving the whole vessel places. The fuel collected in the little canister seems to be all that's needed to power the vehicle and make it fly - the lights come on when you install it. What I wonder is is simply why they didn't remotely control the mothership to come and pick up the command vehicle, which is what finally ends up happening, from the beginning using a much reduced amount of fuel. This is the difference between turning the radio on and radioing for help, which needs a relatively low amount of fuel, and flying the plane, which needs greatly more fuel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.63.65 (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the plot holes wrt camp management can be explained by incompetent and corrupt government in South Africa. Things are heading downhill there...read the director's interviews and that is even a message of his...

I'm very surprised that no one else seems to have perceived what I believe to be religious - in particular, Christian - references in this film. I've made note of these in the "Themes" section. No, I am not some religious kook - but I do have some literacy in regard to religious traditions.75.60.185.176 (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

In an effort to show the uselessness of this section:

1. If the aliens are intelligent and can communicate with humans, why didn't the aliens explain their problem and ask for help?

The aliens are workers and not that bright (with the exception of Christopher and his son), it explains that they appeared to be leaderless when they arrived (Perhaps the leaders are the more intelligent ones).

1. Why do the humans treat the aliens like animals, when they are obviously more advanced than humans and could presumably share their knowledge?

Because the humans in this video see them as nothing more than animals. They don't see them as persons and the aliens do not wish to share the ability to use their technology with mankind.

1. Why are the aliens only semi-segregated? It fits the analogy with apartheid, but it doesn't make sense in the movie. If they just dig around in the garbage and have confrontations, why would this be allowed? If this is an allegory of apartheid, why aren't the aliens working at jobs and being exploited for cheap or dangerous labor? Is District 9 a prison camp, a refugee camp, or a housing district?

District 9 is essentially all of the above, they are semi segregated for the reason to fit that analogy.

1. Why would gangsters be allowed to engage in commerce with the aliens?

The gangsters are likely there illegally, but the MNU would probably prefer not to get involved with expelling them unless very necessary.

1. Why do some of the aliens behave like animals, but some, like Christopher, don't? Aren't they being fed? Would South Africa really have to feed them all by itself?

South Africa isn't feeding them by themselves, the UIO is doing it, it's likely a global venture. The film directly accesses that a lot of aliens aren't bright because they are likely meant to do menial labor and fight.

1. Why does the fluid in the canister, which is supposed to be fuel or a power source, also cause genetic transformation?

Likely because it, like the other alien technology works involving alien genetics.

1. If the power fluid is so hard to produce, why did they produce so much extra fluid that Wikus could spray an apparently huge portion of it on his face and still be able to power up their ship?

The fluid is in a compressed container, Wikus didn't use very much of it, nor do we know if they actually had enough fuel to reach the ship.

1. Did the aliens bring their weapons down from the mothership or build them in the camp? If the former, why would the humans allow this? They could have denied the aliens food and/or transportation to earth unless they turned over their weapons. If the latter, why are they living in shanties if they can build advanced technological devices? Wouldn't they be able to build a proper dwelling?

The aliens were likely once again, not the ones that knew how to manipulate their technology in such a way, but likely knew how to assemble technology for themselves (i.e. a soldier being able to assemble his rifle and take it apart), most weapons could likely be scavaged from wreckage. Also, as can be seen by the confiscations, the aliens were not allowed to have them.

1. If the aliens are armed with advanced weapons, why do they allow themselves to be abused and their larvae burned?

Because they were leaderless and for the most part, stupid. The aliens who fought against usually got shot and killed.

1. Why can Christopher power up the lander and the mothership, but he can't transmit an SOS to his people?

Perhaps there are limitations on the ability to communicate over the distance traveled.

Remember, when watching a science fiction movie, it is a fiction about science, not a scientific fiction. 96.30.173.183 (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, no more general discussion about the finer points of the film's plot. Plot holes are not encyclopedic without secondary sources because they entail interpreting, whereas the point of a plot summary is to provide context for readers to understand the rest of the article. Any further debate about details without the explicit purpose of improving the article accordingly will be removed, per WP:TALK. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Movie set how long after the events?

PLOT SPOILER:

Does anyone know how long has passed at the end of the movie since the mothership left Earth? 86.143.63.65 (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

who wrote it?

Article does not say who wrote it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.44.253 (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done --uKER (talk) 07:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Shake your manly hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.44.253 (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request

Sorry if this has been mentioned elsewhere but i couldn't see it. The first sentence contains a clear error: "District 9 is a 2009 documentary directed by Neill Blomkamp and produced by Peter Jackson." Shouldn't that read Mockumentary? Unless I've missed some serious news announcements... Palendrom (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Date linking

Uker, please stop linking the date in the lead. Erik, representing the films project, prefers the dates unlinked. Please take up the issue with him. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead is looking good

But, I think we should trim the apartheid metaphor a bit in the lead. I believe the director and others have mentioned that the analogy is only a minor subtext and we should treat it that way. Viriditas (talk) 05:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Really? I thought it was a pretty big deal... it seemed like film critics frequently mentioned it in their reviews. Maybe present it in a "Critics noted..." manner? Erik (talk | contribs) 05:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was surprised to hear that as well, but if you watch the film you'll see that it is true. The subtext is very minor, but perhaps thematically it becomes more pronounced. Viriditas (talk) 05:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Um? I didn't think so. Perhaps we should help show the relevance of the theme in the movie instead of whacking it down. Almost all of Blomkamp's work deals with African social issues, so I'd say we should get it as detailed as it can get. What I could agree on, is just hinting at it in the lead, and moving the content into a new section. --uKER (talk) 06:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, we are talking about this work, not his oeuvre, but you make an interesting point. Can you find a reference for that? If you can, it would be nice to have in the article. In any case, your proposal sounds good. Viriditas (talk) 06:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at what I just did and let me know if it works for you. I'll try to make a mention of it in the lead though. --uKER (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I understand what you are trying to do, but you are reverting to a previously disputed version of the lead section that you previously authored, a version that is much more wordy and rearranges the description of the plot in a way you know I disapprove. You know perfectly well how I am going to edit it, so I would prefer we not play these kinds of games. Viriditas (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

WHAHAAAAT? I copy/pasted that paragraph from the latest version of the lead into a new section and added a sentence at the end. Diff here. Are you complaining about me mentioning Copley being featured in AiJ or what? Because that's the only thing I changed in the lead. --[[User:UKER|uKER] (talk) 06:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the structure, which reflected your earlier changes that we talked about. If you don't like the version in the lead now, tell me and we'll work something out. Viriditas (talk) 07:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I just did things going by common sense. I don't even know what is the previous version it ended up looking like. Anyway, I don't have a problem with the way things are. Not that I understand your problem with the way they were before either. I do notice, however, that we lose the mention of Copley having been featured in AiJ, but well... --uKER (talk) 07:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so you think that should be in the lead? It's really awkward to write (and read), "In District 9, Copley, who also had a minor acting role in Alive in Joburg." If enough people think it is important to place in the lead, I would like to know. I personally, do not think it is important for the lead section, since we need to focus on this film. Of course, the article should mention it in the body. Viriditas (talk) 07:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to have it there just for establishing the link between the two projects. I think it's relevant enough to deserve mention. I don't intend it to be in the lead. If we agree on it deserving mention, it's a matter of finding a place for it. --uKER (talk) 07:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I just relocated the "Themes" section to be between "Cast" and "Production", as suggested by WP:MOSFILM. --uKER (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Extra Trailer Info?

In the first trailer starting at around 0:57 there is an interrogation scene. It gives rather important information that the movie itself does not give. Should this be included in the plot summery (with a reference and everything)? Should the fact that an entire important scene in the trailer is not included in the movie? --99.229.206.22 (talk) 07:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It has been established that for every scene in the trailer that was in the movie, there's one that was not. About the interrogation scene, the major problem with it is that it doesn't go with the plot in the final movie. In it, Christopher says the government has their ship, which isn't the case. What is the information that you would like to add? --uKER (talk) 07:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

These things are classified as deleted scenes and could appear in several different ways (backstory, deleted scenes, trailers, etc.), but they wouldn't be appropriate for the plot section. Uker, you are taking things much too literally with the "government has their ship" comment. The government most certainly "has" their ship, (after all, they cut into it to take the aliens out, and put them in camps) but there's no way they can use the technology. The comment isn't intended to contradict anything in the story, and appears to be a way for Christopher to assure the authorities he isn't a threat and is buying time to fuel the command module. I am not aware of any deleted scene that contradicts the story portrayed in the film. Viriditas (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why would they write Christopher saying that the government has his ship if they don't? It's the same as the thing with the dates. Movies aren't improv. Everything that is said is supposed to be thought out. What is the point of having characters talking figuratively or with blatant imprecissions? My take is them changing the plot on the fly, even after the trailers were out, but that may be just me. In any case, I still don't get what is it that you intend to add. --uKER (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I admit the thing with the dates is really weird, but apparently $30 million is considered small potatoes for a science fiction film these days, so who knows what happened there. I'm not following the inconsistency you see with the trailers, so if you could explain in more detail that would help. In any case, the director has spoken out quite a bit regarding the trailers, so we have material to go on and we can use it if necessary. Viriditas (talk) 09:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If the government has their ship, why would it be left parked dangerously over Joburg? Did Christopher have to fight any troops to regain control of the ship? The ship was just left there, abandoned, because, for some inexplicable reason, although they are able to communicate perfectly well with the aliens, the humans can't work out a deal with the aliens to get the ship running again and get the aliens off their planet. It could be that the humans want to steal their technology, and Christopher doesn't trust them, but if that's the case, it should be part of the freaking movie.114.161.253.11 (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you see the film? The humans do want to steal the alien technology and Christopher doesn't trust them at all, especially after visiting the medical experiment ward, where they were using his buddies for target practice and vivisection. Viriditas (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

← Let's not speculate... I think what is likely is that when the film comes out on DVD, there may be such deleted scenes and explanations to accompany them. If we can find sources about them now, great, we can use them... but it's not useful for improving the article to discuss the scenes so generally. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk page clean-up

I recently reorganized the discussions to be ordered by when they were first started, and I archived discussions started before August 2009 at Talk:District 9/Archive 1. While it's great to see a lot of activity on the talk page, we need to make sure that discussions are focused on improving the article. If visitors ask questions that cannot be explained in the plot summary, then direct them to a forum like the one at IMDb for the film. In addition, there are some useful resources provided by various editors on the talk page, so let's make an effort to put good real-world context in the article, especially "Production". For what it's worth, I'm less sure about "Themes" because these tend to surface in retrospect, as in several years later. What exists now is very light material and not truly in-depth (not like Interpretations of Fight Club, which is a beast). Erik (talk | contribs) 19:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Jason Cope's roles

What I'm trying to say is that Jason cope has basically TWO roles, not three. They are Grey Bradnam (who is the UKNR Chief Correspondent) and the aliens. I expressed that very same thing only using dashes instead of parentheses. Perhaps parentheses are better, but commas are definitely not the way to go. BTW, I'm not really crazed about the numbering thing either. --uKER (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense... the dashes didn't really explain that. :P The numbering approach was a little convoluted, I agree... it was a kind of a quick-fix approach. I amended it to be straightforward prose. Should read much better now. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm buying it. --uKER (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"From camp to another in Johannesburg"

In this edit you may have been looking to shorten the sentence, but you reintroduced a mistake I had corrected here, some 20 edits before. District 10 is NOT in Johannesburg as that was the whole point of moving them in the first place. --uKER (talk) 11:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The statement does not exactly imply that both camps are in Johannesburg, but I'll fix the ambiguity. The amount of detail describing the plot in the lead seems to grow daily and it needs to be short and sweet. Viriditas (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Made the changes. Let me know if you still dislike them. Viriditas (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's fine. My issue was making clear that the main intention was getting the aliens out of the city. --uKER (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the confusion. If you need to reword it, keeping it short and punchy at the same time, then please do so. Viriditas (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I made a minor change, changing the Johannesburg reference to be attached to the camp, and not to Wikus. I only had to add three words. See if you're OK with it. --uKER (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It's fine, but keep in mind, it is certainly possible to condense it even more by simply referring to the entire move as "segregation" or "resettlement". The advantage of continuing to condense the lead is that we can add more information about the film. To start with, for example, we should add the theme of xenophobia back into the lead. Viriditas (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Added themes back into lead and somewhat condensed lead. I, for one, don't feel terribly urged to keep whacking it down. --uKER (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason it keeps getting "whacked down", UKER, is because we keep expanding it, and there's a give and take with the material, where we condense and expand, condense and expand, making sure to get rid of needlesss words and make every word tell a story about the film. As you already know, I don't like how the adapted story keeps getting expanded in the lead at the expense of District 9. We don't need to talk about the actors from the adaptation or the theme from that film. We do need to talk about the actors and the theme in this film, and that should appear in the lead. So, I like what you did with the theme, but it should stick to illustrating this film, not the short film. Viriditas (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Aren't you getting confused with some other discussion? This one is about the statement about Wikus relocating the aliens, and has nothing to do with adding info about AiJ. --uKER (talk) 14:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

No, see this. That's what I'm talking about. You are illustrating the theme of Aij in the lead, rather than D-9. Mind you, I'm not against presenting AiJ in the lead in the right way, but we really need to focus on this film, first. Viriditas (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver Film School

I think we need more about the role of the Vancouver Film School in the article, probably in one of the production sections. At last count, it looks like ~40 former (and possibly some current?) students from VFS worked on the film. I'm going from memory here, so my numbers could be off. Viriditas (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Copley starring in Alive in Joburg

I hereby remind everyone that I think it's worth somehow making mention of Sharlto Copley having an acting role in Alive in Joburg. I had suggested adding it to the lead, but it got removed, so I leave it to you to make a suggestion about where to fit it in. --uKER (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't it appear in the cast section? Viriditas (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought of it, but I didn't like the idea of it spanning more than one line. --uKER (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's fine there. That's where it belongs, and you can certainly expand it. Have you looked at the cast sections in other featured class film articles? Otherwise, you can put it in a production subsection, such as development. Viriditas (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

How much real-world context could we have about Sharlto Copley and his role? What we could do with the "Cast" section is have a paragraph about him then list the rest of the actors and their roles, who I don't think will have context to them. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Such a paragraph about Copley can mention his past role and any details about his role in this film. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should also bring into consideration that Copley is a childhood friend of Blomkamp's and was also a producer in AiJ. --uKER (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

These details could be mentioned in one fell swoop in a background-focused sentence. I have not absorbed all the coverage about this film... are there any interviews with Copley about his portrayal or the writing of his character? These would be even more relevant details. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's a nice amount of that. Something that should also be added is that most, if not all of Wikus' lines during the eviction were improv. --uKER (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent find! We should definitely use that. We should be able to pull together enough for a paragraph about Copley and his role, then list the actors and roles below him. Is this alright with everyone? I'm kind of touch-and-go at present; can't really do any article-building till later today. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing of shooting locations

I had added a maintenance tag marking the information as needing sources and it got removed, I'm not sure why. --uKER (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It got removed because it is already sourced in the body of the article (see the filming section). Per Wikipedia:LEAD#Citations if it is already sourced in the body (and provided it isn't controversial, challenged, or a quote from someone) we don't need the reference. The shooting location is widely quoted, and now appears sourced in the body to the NYT. Viriditas (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Viriditas; as long as the information is cited in the article body, we do not need to repeat citations in the lead section. This is usually done for articles with controversial subject matter, and I don't think that this particular topic has much controversy to it. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

My bad. Hadn't seen it sourced in "Filming". --uKER (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it's my fault. I should have said something on the talk page about it. Viriditas (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Something that we're missing about the location is that the eviction shooting took place in an actual forsaken camp, from which people had actually just been evicted. --uKER (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Please expand the filming section with sources. Viriditas (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done --uKER (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Name reassignation

Perhaps it should deserve mention that the name reassignation underwent by Christopher Johnson is analog to the one made to immigrants to Ellis Island. --uKER (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Right. If sourced, that would go in the themes section. Viriditas (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It's also something that was done in the past in South Africa; blacks were given English or Afrikaans names like "Victoria" or "Petrus" because their white employers couldn't pronounce the Bantu names. Claidheamhmor (talk) 06:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide a reliable source for that? It would be good to add it. --uKER (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

themes section could be upgraded from director interviews

Blomkamp has given some revealing interviews. I think the themes section could be upgraded a lot, using those interviews for source as well as referencing critic's interpretation of the themes. Blomkamp says apartheid is referenced, sure. But there is a lot more to it than that. He's also referencing the growth of military contractors (started in SA), gated communiites, Zimbabwe refuges, Somalia refugees, Nigerian crime, existing government's issues, etc.

Me speaking now: There is a lot more complication to SA than the typical American thinks who just imagines the bad old days of apartheid and now everyone is living happily ever after in some morality play. Yes...it was bad of course and it is good that it ended...but things are very interesting there now...and there is the example of Rhodesia...as a post apartheid catastrophe. Also, Blomkamp has said HIS FAMILY left SA because of fear for their safety. This is not just a civil rights movie...it is also about the issue of safety and disorder.

I think some thoughtful (non POV, but using a brain) amalgam of the expressed views by Blomkamp and more incisive critics would add a lot to the article. No I don't want to do it, myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.44.253 (talk • contribs) 11:27, August 31, 2009

What are some interviews that are revealing? Can you link us to them? I find that the best resources for "Themes" sections are multi-page publications, rather than a quick newspaper review. I was hoping for a Film Comment review since they tend to be pretty comprehensive and touch on themes. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least you could point us towards the sources you mention. And BTW, you should sign your posts by adding four apostrophes (~~~~) or clicking the signature button in the toolbar. --uKER (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/neill-blomkamps-giant-apartheid-metaphor/article1250883/ I would not make too much of things. He actually said that he started out with the movie being even more metaphorical and then added a lot more fun to it...even satirizing the genre (ala Robocop) to help him loosen up. (this was from another interview.) Just do a Google search on Blomkamp interview. There is even a prominent critic who disliked the movie because the message was mixed on racial aspects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.44.253 (talk • contribs) 12:25, August 31, 2009