Taffer36 on 1/9/2009 at 06:43
Quote Posted by Ko0K
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?
No, it doesn't make perfect sense. It makes sense to you, but there's nothing perfect about that.
Well shit, you hit reply before I started editing.
I misread your post at first, so I edited some chunks out and edited some new bits in.
Ko0K on 1/9/2009 at 07:06
Quote Posted by Taffer36
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.
It's not just about extending it, but following a more natural path in the overall character progression.
Also, while it does seem like I'm making that particular scene the centerpiece of my argument, my complaint is that all major characters in the movie have one critical flaw or another that render them rather unconvincing, and as the result turn the entire movie into what feels like an appeal to novelty.
That in itself isn't anything wrong, per se, but when combined with the confusion as to whether this movie is trying to be a social commentary or a sci-fi action flick, I get the impression that this movie is more of a sum of what it's not.
Taffer36 on 1/9/2009 at 07:22
Quote Posted by Ko0K
It's not just about extending it, but following a more natural path in the overall character progression.
My point was that, if I recall correctly (because at this point I'm going off of my hazy memory), they basically did what you stated. The main character didn't just go smashy smashy, he argued with the alien and I felt like it was apparent that the alien wasn't going to change its mind.
Sure, it wasn't a long discussion (keep in mind the bad guys were right outside), but I felt like it was enough to let it sink in that he had to act out in some way to achieve what he needed.
As a sidenote, I'm not trying to argue that the characters were amazingly multi-layered. I just feel like this particular scene was perfectly fine. There are other scenes that I'm sure could be analyzed and broken down with more success, but this one wasn't exactly the monumental suspension of disbelief that it's being argued as.
Morte on 1/9/2009 at 13:04
Quote Posted by Ko0K
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.
With you wearing your asshole pants, it came across as little more than an insult. So I ignored it, because I still wanted to adress your other objections to the scene.
Either you're not expressing yourself very well, or you're basically saying that because you wouldn't have done it it's not realistic, which is frankly a ludicrous objection. I've known enough people with a tendency for doing completely boneheaded things. Occasionally, I've done very shortsighted and not-clever things myself. Still, I probably wouldn't have made that decision. In fact, I'd probably never be anywhere near being put in that position -- Wikus is basically a guy in charge of making the trains to Auswitz run on time, and I like to think I'd have enough of conscience to stop, take a look at the big picture and quit at some point -- but that doesn't mean I don't think he works as a character, or that that scene was completely unbelievable. The important question is if it fits with how he's been prtrayed in the rest of the movie. In my opinion it does.
I'll grant you that District 9 is more concerned with putting you inside it's world than giving you well-rounded characters at every turn; the villains in particular are very thinly drawn. Wikus *is* a proper character though. He's just not a very likeable one, for most of the running time.
Stitch on 1/9/2009 at 13:22
Quote Posted by Ko0K
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.
My point, my dear internet warrior, is that the film is both a critical and popular success (the latter of which is indicated by box office results). There is nothing wrong with feeling that the film is overrated and stating why you think this, of course, but when swimming so severely upstream the onus is on you to argue the claims. Which you are generally doing, but using dismissive terms like "shitty" to discuss the overall quality of a film that is currently considered a highwater mark in popcorn cinema just reflects poorly upon you.
As does assuming that I'm calling you out because of some petty vendetta as opposed to the fact that you're occassionally an idiot. Welcome to the internet, champ.
New Horizon on 1/9/2009 at 13:34
Some people just can't get enough of themselves.
1. Shut up. You're opinions are yours, we don't need to have them rammed down our throats as if they're gospel.
2. It's a movie that's under 2 hours long. Sure, they could have drawn shit out longer...in a 2 1/2 to 3 hour movie. Aside from that, for the story, the characters behave in a believable way.
3. Every movie is flawed. (yet this is probably one of the least flawed films of the summer really)
4. Given your attitude, I would be very surprised to find out you weren't in your late teens or somewhere in your twenties. You just have that attitude I remember so well, and see so often. I learned growing up that other people have thoughts, and quite often they're a hell of a lot more intelligent than my own.
5. We've wasted too many words on you already.
Quote Posted by Ko0K
It's not just about extending it, but following a more natural path in the overall character progression.
Also, while it does seem like I'm making that particular scene the centerpiece of my argument, my complaint is that all major characters in the movie have one critical flaw or another that render them rather unconvincing, and as the result turn the entire movie into what feels like an appeal to novelty.
That in itself isn't anything wrong, per se, but when combined with the confusion as to whether this movie is trying to be a social commentary or a sci-fi action flick, I get the impression that this movie is more of a sum of what it's not.
Ko0K on 2/9/2009 at 00:14
Quote Posted by Stitch
My point, my dear internet warrior, is that the film is both a critical and popular success (the latter of which is indicated by box office results). There is nothing wrong with feeling that the film is overrated and stating why you think this, of course, but when swimming so severely upstream the onus is on you to argue the claims. Which you are generally doing, but using dismissive terms like "shitty" to discuss the overall quality of a film that is currently considered a highwater mark in popcorn cinema just reflects poorly upon you.
I got no issue with that.
Quote Posted by New Horizon
We've wasted too many words on you already.
Is that the royal "We"? Before you go around telling people to shut up, grow the wits and resources to make them. Given your poor attempt at guessing my age, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that you are sideshow freak at a carnival. Fuck off.
Ko0K on 2/9/2009 at 00:31
Quote Posted by Morte
...you're basically saying that because you wouldn't have done it it's not realistic, which is frankly a ludicrous objection.
What is so ludicrous about that? The main character is the portal through which the viewer is immersed in the movie's universe, and failing to connect to the viewer on a level that one can identify with him/herself is a critical flaw, as far as I am concerned. Even though he is a fictional character, his decision-making process could've benefited from more realistic ground rules, and what was presented seemed more mindful of the expected audience reaction than a real person's emotional response under duress.
Anyway, it's become apparent that respectful discord may be the way to go.
Scots Taffer on 2/9/2009 at 00:40
Quote Posted by New Horizon
Some people just can't get enough of themselves.
Yourself included. Thanks for that little laundry list on how we can conduct Internet Discussions In Your Opinion.
Morte on 2/9/2009 at 06:58
Quote Posted by Ko0K
What is so ludicrous about that? The main character is the portal through which the viewer is immersed in the movie's universe, and failing to connect to the viewer on a level that one can identify with him/herself is a critical flaw, as far as I am concerned. Even though he is a fictional character, his decision-making process could've benefited from more realistic ground rules, and what was presented seemed more mindful of the expected audience reaction than a real person's emotional response under duress.
Anyway, it's become apparent that respectful discord may be the way to go.
My problem -- aside from whether that was a thing that made sense, on which we'll have to agree to disagree -- is that you seem to be conflating two different things in your argument. Whether the viewer can identify with the character is not the same as whether the character behaves believably.
I get that disliking the characters can be a problem for some people, but it isn't necessarily a flaw. The characters behaving in way that doesn't make sense on the other hand is a problem.
I mean, I can't identify one bit with any of the characters in Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, but that doesn't mean I don't find them believable, or that it makes it a bad movie.
