District 9

[Cathal]

The beautiful thing about opinions, there is no right or wrong for them.

I disagree with this as there are plenty of wrong opinions. But that's just being nitpicky. 

[Dave Gray]

^

I liked Avatar, as well.  I disagree very strongly that it had better acting or story, though.  And I think that District 9 is pretty original in the story (or at least the way that it's told), while I think that Avatar is pretty unoriginal and derivative, though I'm OK with that.  I think what made Avatar so great wasn't the story or acting, but how technology allowed for actors to give their emotions through 3D models where you were really capturing the performance.  I think that they took a very commonly told story (Pocahontas) and put it in a new setting.  But, they used special effects to do this in a way that wasn't possible before.

[Sunstroke]

Wait a minute...the message in Avatar was more original than the one in District 9?

I think both are modern takes on some very tried-and-true messages about how people should deal with other people.

I really liked both movies quite a bit...and would consider both to be top-5 for sci-fi movies over the past decade. I'll likely watch Avatar more times than District 9, but that's just because I have a thing for gargantuan sexy blue aliens rather than ones that look like bugs.

[Pappy13]

Wait a minute...the message in Avatar was more original than the one in District 9?

Not more original, simply better presented.  Avatar was original in it's presentation and consistent with the message throughout the movie.  District 9 had an original concept, but didn't follow through with it.  It fell back onto big explosions, high tech weaponry and car chases in the end and totally lost the point of the whole movie.

[Dave Gray]

Avatar was original in it's presentation

How so?

It was original in its setting, but it has the same presentation as Pocahontas, The Last Samurai, and Dances With Wolves.  The story plays out the same way, in the same fashion.

[Pappy13]

I liked Avatar, as well.  I disagree very strongly that it had better acting or story, though.  And I think that District 9 is pretty original in the story (or at least the way that it's told), while I think that Avatar is pretty unoriginal and derivative, though I'm OK with that.  I think what made Avatar so great wasn't the story or acting, but how technology allowed for actors to give their emotions through 3D models where you were really capturing the performance.  I think that they took a very commonly told story (Pocahontas) and put it in a new setting.  But, they used special effects to do this in a way that wasn't possible before.

Well it's odd then that you praised Avatar for it's story in your review.

http://whatwouldjesusview.com/avatar-2009.html

"Special effects aside, though, I found the story engaging, interesting, and pretty magical."

and

"With that out of the way, Avatar is a pretty amazing movie-going experience, and one that succeeds in just about every area"

No mention of it being unoriginal or derivative there.

Also you wrote that glowing review of Avatar but strangely, I don't see a review for District 9. Then in a piece about the 2010 oscars you barely mentioned District 9.

http://whatwouldjesusview.com/thoughts-academy-awards-2010.html

"I didn’t see several of the big Oscar-buzz movies this year, but I saw the big three: Inglorious Basterds, Avatar, and The Hurt Locker, which, though there were 10 nominees, were the only ones with a shot to win big. …and even then, it only felt like a 2 horse race. I also saw Up in the Air, Up, and District 9, which were in the conversation"

Looks to me like you enjoyed Avatar a bit more than District 9.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Pappy13]

How so?

It was original in its setting, but it has the same presentation as Pocahontas, The Last Samurai, and Dances With Wolves.  The story plays out the same way, in the same fashion.

Only in that it's on another planet and the reason for the conflict is a fictional mineral that is highly valuable.  No, it's not a completely original story, but it is slightly different.  And it was consistent throughout the movie.  Had District 9 stuck to it's premise, I would have enjoyed the movie a bit more.  That's what I was expecting.  That's what I was wanting.

The other disappointing thing about District 9 was that I thought part of the premise was that not all alien landings are about the aliens trying to take over the world and the resulting conflict that it causes.  So why in the world did these aliens have all this high tech weaponry in the first place?  And why didn't they use it even when their race was starving to death?  Not even to go kill a few cows?  And why didn't the government while clearly trying to exploit the alien weaponry to their own advantage, actually go through the trouble of you know removing the alien weaponry from the aliens?  They just leave it all lieing around for it to be gobbled up by the black market?  And if the aliens really wanted the cat food, why didn't they just use the high tech weapons to take the cat food?  And oh yeah the black market guys are trying to use the weapons by drinking the blood of the aliens?  And why is it exactly that humans turn into aliens when drinking their fuel anyway?  So I guess if aliens landed on earth and drank rocket fuel they would turn into humans?  And if this rocket fuel is so hard to come by, why is it that the aliens missed the sign that read "last spaceship refueling station for the next 100 million miles"?  And why is it that when the spaceship ran out of fuel it didn't crash into earth, just simply came to a stop hovering over the Earth?  And finally why didn't the government just give the aliens rocket fuel instead of cat food and turn them into humans?  Problem solved.

Sorry, I just didn't get it.

[Cathal]

And why didn't the US government...

Not to be a stickler, but wasn't it the South African government? Things are probably that bad because aliens arrived and there was no organization to speak of because aliens just arrived. Who knows, not every story has every single question answered. Their leaders could have been killed and they're just drones, like the Borg, who can't do anything about anything without them. I dunno. It didn't matter.

[Pappy13]

Not to be a stickler, but wasn't it the South African government?

Yes, sorry.  Fixed that.

[Dave Gray]

Well it's odd then that you praised Avatar for it's story in your review.

http://whatwouldjesusview.com/avatar-2009.html

"Special effects aside, though, I found the story engaging, interesting, and pretty magical."

That's true.  It was all of those things.  But I don't think it was original.
 

"With that out of the way, Avatar is a pretty amazing movie-going experience, and one that succeeds in just about every area"

No mention of it being unoriginal or derivative there.

I don't think that unoriginal or derivative is bad.  I think that Avatar re-told a popular archetype.  I don't think that's bad, though.

Also you wrote that glowing review of Avatar but strangely, I don't see a review for District 9. Then in a piece about the 2010 oscars you barely mentioned District 9.

http://whatwouldjesusview.com/thoughts-academy-awards-2010.html

I did write a District 9 review, but it was lost.  I also wrote a piece about 5 great Sci-Fi films that year (Avatar, Moon, District 9, Star Trek, and Avatar) that was also lost.  The site was pretty new at the time and it would crash and I would lose posts.  I've since started saving everything to word docs before I put them up.

"I didn’t see several of the big Oscar-buzz movies this year, but I saw the big three: Inglorious Basterds, Avatar, and The Hurt Locker, which, though there were 10 nominees, were the only ones with a shot to win big. …and even then, it only felt like a 2 horse race. I also saw Up in the Air, Up, and District 9, which were in the conversation"

Every word of that is true.  My favorite film of the year was Up in the Air.  When I say it was a two horse race, I meant that Avatar and The Hurt Locker were the only ones that had a chance of winning.  I think that Avatar deserved best picture, because it's a film that's important to film-making and is one that we'll be talking about for a long time because of its technical contributions to how movies will be made.  It's also something that was an event, that could be enjoyed by lots of different ages.  That said, I personally enjoy District 9 better.

Looks to me like you enjoyed Avatar a bit more than District 9.

I did not.  Although, I did like Avatar quite a bit, so I'm not going to dog it.

[Dave Gray]

Calling the black stuff "rocket fuel" misses the point.  The whole point was that it's not fuel in a traditional sense, that their weaponry and technology is powered by organic material.  You are actually doing a good job as expressing another theme of the movie -- trying to cram conventional thinking into non-traditional means.

As for how ridiculous it is to think that drinking alien blood or eating their flesh will give them powers, that is already a prevalent problem NOW in those parts of Africa.  The amount of superstition, especially surrounding what you eat and what it does to your body (all over Africa and Asia) is a big issue.

[Pappy13]

You are actually doing a good job as expressing another theme of the movie -- trying to cram conventional thinking into non-traditional means.

So in other words anything goes.  I asked in my first post for those of you that liked it what I missed.  This is apparently it.  That anything goes in this movie.  I don't have a problem with a little suspension of belief especially in a sci-fi, but personally I like a little more than just anything goes.  First and foremost, I gotta believe it to like it.  I didn't.  And no amount of suspension of belief was gonna fix that.

[Dave Gray]

I made a similar connection with Harry Potter.  "Anything goes" took the intensity away from some of the films.

As for District 9, I didn't feel that.  They set up those rules very clearly and followed them.  The power for their technology was DNA based.  The guns, "rocket fuel", way to control their ships, etc.  ....they all adhered to that basic rule, that was well established.

But I don't really know what we're arguing.  You didn't get it, like you said.  I did.

[Pappy13]

But I don't really know what we're arguing.  You didn't get it, like you said.  I did.

I think I'm a bit harder to sell than you.

Make sure you let me know the movies you don't like.  I'll be sure not to watch them.

[Pappy13]

Dave, I went and read some of your reviews from some other movies just to see how we matched up overall and surprisingly you and I are not off as much as it would seem.  Aside from a few notables, like District 9 , Kick-Ass and Inglorious Basterds, I think we are mostly on the same page and I think there might be some commonalities with the movies we disagree on completely, but that's not the point of this post.

I saw how you weren't a big Mel Brooks fan and someone had suggested Blazing Saddles.  You hit the nail on the head with your review.  It was kinda funny in it's time, but now it's just ridiculous. I also for the most part agree with your review of Space Balls.  But there is one of Mel's movies that does deserve merit and stands the test of time in my opinion.  I can still watch it today and laugh when it comes on.  If you haven't seen it you should really see Young Frankenstein.  In my opinion it's Mel's best work.  Gene Wilder is great as is Peter Boyle, Marty Feldman, Cloris Leachman and Teri Garr.  Gene Hackman even has a small role and is pretty funny teamed up with Boyle.  There's a few stupid jokes thrown in here as well, but there's also a lot of very funny comedic stuff.  Give him one last try.  If you don't like it, then don't watch another Mel Brooks movie, because nothing of his is better.

And you're just now seeing Pretty Woman?  For shame.