Stitch on 31/8/2009 at 14:29
Quote Posted by Ko0K
You're going to keep defending a shitty movie
(
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/district_9/) Morte isn't exactly the one here making outrageous claims in need of defense.
Queue on 31/8/2009 at 14:36
I love the one Shakespearean review, straight out of MacBeth's soliloquy in Act 5.
What a douche.
Scots Taffer on 1/9/2009 at 00:03
I should state for the record that I didn't hate this film - just that those points were the ones that stopped me from loving it. It's still a solid B+ movie. The blend of documentary/narrative movie was well done, the action was fantastic, some of the humour was spot on, it was a unique setting and a brave attempt at storytelling... just a pity that character sucked and a couple of big fat cliches got in there.
Ko0K on 1/9/2009 at 02:25
Quote Posted by Stitch
Link to someone else's reviews, as usual.
Hm, perhaps I should've expected you to come trolling after one of my comments here.
Get the fuck out of here. My assertions may not be popular, and I'm not blind to the fact that critics love the movie, but there is nothing outrageous about what I've said.
So you liked the laughable characters and predictable story progression; well, good for you. I don't expect you guys to just sit and take it when I assert that your beloved movie's characters suck balls and its scenarios laughable. However, that is my assertion, and at least I express my rationale for it in my own words.
Whatever those metacritics have to say about the movie is based on their own agenda, and whether you agree or disagree with them is your own business. However, don't expect me to give you one iota of credibility just because you can link to a wall of text.
Ko0K on 1/9/2009 at 02:45
Quote Posted by Morte
No, I'm not. You think that the director is just jerking the characters around. I disagree with your assertion that the characters' actions don't follow from what we're told about them and the plot, especially in that example. Yes, hitting Christopher over the head with a shovel was not particularly clever, but Wikus has a history of being not particularly clever, and weak.
He can't stomach the thought of turning prawn and waiting three years for a cure, has a vague conception of something that will fix him on the mothership and in his desperation hits the guy on the head. I find that more likely than him holding a gun to the kid's head, especially since even though he has patronizing racist attitudes towards the prawn, he still has lines he won't cross, and he has gained a modicum of respect for Christopher and his kid as people this point.
It's apparent that you are willing to explore that there is a shred of plausibility in the decision-making processes of the characters in this movie, but I personally have trouble doing that because I simply find them utterly unconvincing. Maybe I can go so far as to forgive that his father in law and his arch nemesis are cartoonish fiends, but the degree of underdevelopment the main character underwent simply makes it impossible for me to perceive him as a believable character, let alone identify with him.
Perhaps where I should concede is that what went wrong with the movie isn't entirely attributed to the rookie director, but a combination of multiple contributing factors. Either way, this movie could've turned out better if its characters were handled with finesse.
(edit) Okay, so maybe holding the kid hostage and coercing the father to oblige isn't any more likely, either, but what's this with 'not crossing the line out of respect' deal? When you bonk someone over the head with a hard object out of frustration, do you plan to use exactly the amount of force needed to knock him out while avoiding killing him? Bullshit. I'll tell you what really went on in that scene: shitty character development.
Andarthiel on 1/9/2009 at 03:46
I actually watched this one last weekend and I really liked it. The compositing was excellent and the story wasn't too bad either, had a good message too.
The only thing I didn't really like was the aliens themselves, could've been done better IMO, their design wasn't that great.
Morte on 1/9/2009 at 04:46
Quote:
but what's this with 'not crossing the line out of respect' deal?
A) the sequence on the weapon range shows that he's not a murderer, even if it's killing prawn B) when he overhears Christopher talking to his kid, he pauses and respectfully knocks, showing a shift in attitudes, at least with regards to those two. This makes it pretty fucking unlikely he'd make the decision to kill either one of them in cold blood.
Quote Posted by Ko0K
When you bonk someone over the head with a hard object out of frustration, do you plan to use exactly the amount of force needed to knock him out while avoiding killing him? Bullshit.
Yes. (
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main.TapOnTheHead) Is this your first movie? You might argue that using tropes like that doesn't quite gel with the quasi-documentary look, and you might even have a point. But even if Wikus had brained Chris, he'd have to have intentionally set out to kill him for it to be a cold-blooded murder rather than a terrbile decision because he's in over his head as usual.
Ko0K on 1/9/2009 at 05:54
Quote Posted by Morte
Is this your first movie?
Dude, if the situation at least escalated to that point through a more logical progression, maybe it wouldn't feel like so much of a stretch. The guy could've at least first grabbed the creature by the scruff and demanded that he keep his word, reminding the creature that he risked his own life by storming the death trap so that they could help each other. If met with stubborn refusal at that point, maybe what he did would have not only made sense, but would be expected in fact. Whether you can bring yourself to admit it or not, this movie is riddled with character design flaws. Seeing you still insist otherwise, I should be the one to turn that question of yours around.
I asked you if you'd identify with the scenario through your own personal experience, and you didn't answer that. The fact is that none of us can realistically visualize what we'd do under a similar circumstance, but we know enough about ourselves under duress to know what's realistic and what's not. I certainly didn't have to make it such a bitter pill to swallow by calling it a shitty movie, but the fact of the matter is that the characters in this movie blow chunks.
(edit) Well, okay, so it's not a matter of fact, but my assertion rather. Still, I defend it as though it is a fact.
Taffer36 on 1/9/2009 at 06:25
Quote Posted by Ko0K
(edit) Okay, so maybe holding the kid hostage and coercing the father to oblige isn't any more likely, either, but what's this with 'not crossing the line out of respect' deal? When you bonk someone over the head with a hard object out of frustration, do you plan to use exactly the amount of force needed to knock him out while avoiding killing him? Bullshit. I'll tell you what really went on in that scene: shitty character development.
Given the circumstances, as others have pointed out, it makes perfect sense that he would lash out at that moment. Basically, the alien that he's been awww bonding with has fucking betrayed him (to save his own race, but it's still understandable given that it's been established that the main character's drive is to get back to his wife, and he needs to go up in the ship and become human to do that).
As for the "crossing the line" idea, the point (as I see it, anyways) is that I don't think he'd do anything towards the child alien. He doesn't knock out the little guy or punt him out of the spaceship, and IMO that would be a line that he wouldn't cross. I don't think he was worried about the proper amount of force or whatnot. It was a violent outburst against daddy alien who had betrayed him.
Quote Posted by Ko0K
The guy could've at least first grabbed the creature by the scruff and demanded that he keep his word, reminding the creature that he risked his own life by storming the death trap so that they could help each other. If met with stubborn refusal at that point, maybe what he did would have not only made sense, but would be expected in fact.
I don't get it. You're literally saying that had they simply reiterated what already happened in that scene and extended it, everything would suddenly make sense? I only saw the film once so maybe I'm not recalling correctly, but I seem to remember it wasn't just a "sorry human, I'm betraying you." And then his response being to immediately knock the alien out. Didn't they go back and forth? I seem to remember the main character screaming for quite a bit about THREEE YEAARRS?!?!?!?!?! I think he probably said something about "I did my end of the bargain", or something of that nature as well.
You made this sound like a very drastic problem in the story, but your saying that had the same dialogue simply gone on for longer it would have fixed all of the problems in the scene makes it seem like a much smaller problem. Unless I'm misinterpreting.
P.S. I need to get out of the habit of posting hastily and editing heavily afterwards.
Ko0K on 1/9/2009 at 06:38
Quote Posted by Taffer36
I like how you instantly assume that the situation is ME for MOVIE IS PERFECT, YOU for MOVIE IS SHIT.
Where the fuck do you get the idea that I insinuated that you defending this movie automatically equated to you insisting that it is perfect?
Quote:
Given the circumstances...
No, it doesn't make perfect sense. It makes sense to you, but there's nothing perfect about that.
