Talk:District 9/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Very short article

It is still a very short article. Schuym1 (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

yeah but now its longer —Preceding unsigned comment added by IamironmanXD (talk • contribs) 20:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

ARG?

I have seen that there is an ongoing ARG with District 9. Should we provide any mention of this/is it relevant for Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halojedi20 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Prequel?

In the beginning of the article it says that the it's a prequel to the halo movie. What's the source for this? I haven't heard a thing about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.243.38 (talk) 02:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What I think what people meant by prequel to the halo films is that both peter and neill would, respectively, be producing and directing a halo film or so the rumours go. And so this is a prequel to the halo PROJECT and not the halo SERIES (caps added to make the point clear). This is something I have heard from other sources, im not sayin add this to the page, i just thought i'd clear it up for anyone interested. - CRSteAmigo 1

Toll-Free Number

In various benches in downtown LA, I've seen advertizements for this film with a toll-free number to report 'non-humans' using human only items. The number is 1.866.666.6001. Why isn't it mentioned? --96.229.116.155 (talk) 07:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

What happens if you press 0 to connect to a representative?—AndrewM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.104.225 (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The viral isn't the offical site

The official site is here: http://www.district9movie.com/ The D-9.com site is just a viral. I added a link to district9movie.com in the external links. --Blacklemon67 (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Funny thing I see this just minutes after correcting that very same thing. --uKER (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Plagarism?

The website http://www.district9movie.com/ contains what appears to be an identical synopsis for the film. Sony claims copyright over the page. Is the given synopsis on Wikipedia just a copy+paste from Sony's website? 64.22.217.2 (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed by now. --uKER (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Financing

What makes this film and financing section significant is that the financing for District 9 was entirely independant (see the referenced article on QED's involvement in the film financing from Nov 2007). Sony is only the distributor for District 9 and as such did not participate in the financing of the actual movie. Without independant film financing of this nature, we wouldn't have the wide variety of films that we have today, and not mentioning this aspect here gives Sony inappropriate credit for financing the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.14.31.133 (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

As pointed out above, independent films give the public a wider variety of genres and types of movies than what studios make. Sony did not green light this film, they bought distribution rights from QED, as referenced in the Variety article. The argument against stating the proper financier of the film is essentially implying Sony made the film, incorrect. It is relevant to include how independent films are financed and produced, as fans obviously desire more such films to be made. The distributor, Sony, did not make this film, but rather the financier, QED. On the Sony created fan facebookpage, www.facebook.com/district9, QED is referenced as the financier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.73.219 (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I very much understand your conviction for independent filmaking, and I definitely agree that "independent films give the public a wider variety of genres and types of movies than what studios make". However a very large portion of movies are made by various production companies, many of them independent, and then sold to big studios for distribution only. This is why in the film project infobox there are the "studio" and the "distributor" entries, and very rarely are these two entries completely identical. QED International definitely needs to be added as a production company under "studio". To keep the "financing" section relevant, it needs to be rephrased to emphasize the independent nature of the film, much like the arguments you made here, and less about the business details of QED acting as the sales agent to Sony/TriStar. It should be merged with the "production" section like all the other films pages on wiki, including films in the same situation as this film, since production details are relevant and not the legal/financier/sales agent details of the deals. In particular, the last sentence: "The announcement was jointly made by Peter Schlessel, President of Sony Pictures Worldwide Acquisitions Group, and QED International CEO Bill Block on November 4, 2007."....is not encyclopediac (the executives who signed off the deal). Imperatore (talk) 05:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have made the necessary changes as stated above. Now it is even more clearly indicated that the film is only distributed by Sony. I suggest you expand the production section to provide more details about the independent nature of the film. Imperatore (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

DNA

lol wut? DNA? By this do we mean to imply just whatever molecular replicator the aliens use to communicate their genes, or literally DNA? Please somebody tell me that the aliens don't literally have DNA in them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monroetransfer (talk • contribs) 13:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion page is not for movie speculation, but for improvement on the article. --Blacklemon67 (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think he is indeed talking about the article. And yes, the movie seems to imply the aliens have DNA too, which isn't too far-fetched. It is theorized that life on earth may have originated in primal unicellular organisms that came from somewhere else, brought here by asteroids, which could also have taken them to other planets, creating species which would have evolved in other directions. --uKER (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow your assumption. You do know DNA isn't just a human thing, right? The aliens can breathe air and metabolise meat. Is it unlikely that they are similar to life on Earth in other ways? 86.143.63.65 (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Article in RES

As soon as I saw the previews, I knew I'd seen something like this before. It was a shot in the Jan/Feb 2008 issue of RES magazine. It is a shot of a military guy looking onto the city as a saucer hovers over the city. There is a small article about it should that be mentioned here, or perhaps on the 'alive in Joburgh' page, under marketing or production? I think more mention should be made of the short film too. Tydamann (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Why would a small article published at the begining of this year have encyclopedic significnce? Bustter (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Born of the Halo Film?

Peter Jackson has said in an interview that this film is a result of Halo Chronicles demise. No budget was set for Halo, but the team were put together, once it fell through they decided to make this film.

"District 9 was definitely born out of the Halo film ruins, and we wouldn't have seen this movie if Halo had gone ahead. I have always felt that if fate is taking you somewhere, don't fight it. We realized that we had a real talent in Neill Blomkamp, so we decided to find a project for him and we decided to build a story around his Live in Joburg short film."

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/07/24/peter-jackson-tells-joystiq-about-the-halo-movie-video-games/

Hope that helps.

Tim.cutting (talk) 13:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Another: http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/07/district-9-rises-from-ashes-of-halo/ Freddicus (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Censored / Pixellated trailer

The article mentions that there is "an uncensored version of the film's trailer" in which "the alien's face is not pixellated." I am aware that the face was pixellated in an earlier version of the trailer, but I don't know why, nor do I understand the significance of later releasing an "uncensored" version. Can the article be improved to explain these things? 71.219.236.39 (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe the trailer was censored, it was just a part of the marketing campaign to do it that way. Especially since that trailer was for the exclusion from society, building on racial tensions angle, not the actiony angle the subsequent trailers where. Canterbury Tail talk 12:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that was In-Movie censorship. Example: The television in the restaurant that aired a picture of Wikus with an Alien, censored the face of the alien. I can't remember if the newspaper that turns up later in the movie with the same picture censored the alien's face or not...

Now, this last part of my post is me thinking on my own here, but I think it's kind of a jab at "when self-censorship goes too far", which Television News in the United States is VERY guilty of... You can't get ANY good information here from the television, you have to go on the Internet most of the time. Not sure if this is true for the rest of the world though... Generic2 (talk) 06:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Bad sentence

This sentence is clearly a mistake:

When this project turned didn't turn out, Jackson and those involved felt obligated to give Blomkamp financial support and a chance to direct another movie, and it was decided that the short film "Alive in Joburg" could be expanded into a feature instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neoform (talk • contribs) 04:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

M+ Rating?

What nation has such a rating? And do we really need to predict a rating on forthcoming movies? Bustter (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That's why I reverted the edit. BAPACop (converse) 19:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't know about M+ but the trailer indicates it will be R in the US and I can't imagine it sneaking lower in other countries. 59.167.50.32 (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it's been rated a 15 in the UK, and 16 in New Zealand both of which are considerably lower than a US R rating. Canterbury Tail talk 19:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

14A in Canada. -Taral —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.236.147.118 (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'm shocked this would get such a low rating in other countries without major editing. It can't possibly be good for a 14 year old to see as many dismemberments as there are in this film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.6.134 (talk) 09:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Lol.--Jaymax (talk) 01:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Release date?

The article says 13th of august, but the picture clearly shows 14th? 124.187.9.86 (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That's because the poster being used is the US release poster. The film is being released in many other places around the world on the 13th, prior to the US release. Canterbury Tail talk 13:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks :). Do you think we should also mention when it will be coming out for different countries? 123.211.238.200 (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The only problem with that is it gets a long list, then arguments over which countries are important enough to have their particular date included. WP:FILMRELEASE agrees on the first date that it is released on. Canterbury Tail talk 13:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't come out in the UK until September 04, 2009 - ScreenRush.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.93.17 (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Being released internationally on the 13th, but in the USA on the 14th. Isn't the USA part of the world?JohnC (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, it's being released on August 28 in South Africa, surely that's important enough, after all it's set in SA, the cast is mostly South African and so is the director.Part Time Security 15:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Common themes?

This movie has common themes and bears some similarities to Alien Nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.104.225 (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This review contains a side-by-side comparison of District 9, and the film/tv series/telemovies of Alien Nation WookMuff (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

New York Times Review

The New York Times reviewed the film in today's newspaper. The film was praised for its 'rich allegory,' among other things. As the United States' newspaper of record, I believe it is important to include this review in the article section regarding criticism. The page is locked, and I cannot do this myself. http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/movies/14district.html?hpw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.118.148 (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Plot Info

In the plot explanation, at the end it says, "She concludes it couldn't possibly be Wikus, no one has heard from him since he was last seen crawling from the mangled battle suit."

After having seen the movie just last night, I confirm this is incorrect. What really happens is that Wikus' wife is talking about how friends/family have told her to just throw that metal rose away, "that it couldn't possibly be him", and her dialog after confirms she knows he's alive and well somewhere. Sergeant Koopa (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I changed this section, also noting that the alien's left arm was bandaged. If anyone can recommend a nicer way to type out what I did, you can tell me here and I'll fix it. Forgotten hope (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I just added a note that Wikus' arm is broken during his eviction raids; without that information, the note about the alien's broken arm at the end has no context. Also, I changed "scientists ... harvest his DNA" to "scientists ... harvest his organs, so as to replicate his DNA." To someone who hasn't seen the movie, it would be confusing that someone flees from the possibility of having their DNA harvested... since all it takes is a strand of hair. But in the movie, the scientists specifically say, "We need everything," and starting listing organs for removal. He sounded pretty excited about it, too. Weirdo. Max (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Signage

There is no point using the jargony 'signage' when you can use 'signs.' Will someone with editing permission please make this change? The language in an encyclopedia should be as simple as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.53.198 (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Done Forgotten hope (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sequel?

I searched and found that Neill Blomkamp would love to do a sequel and that he is thinking about calling it "District 10". I have my source. http://www.scifiscoop.com/news/neill-blomkamp-talks-district-9-sequel/ Someone should add a sequel section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.156.236 (talk) 05:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No surprise there. Late in the movie, I felt they were practically announcing that there would be a sequel "in three years" and "District 10" does make such a convenient title. --Ajcomeau (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's the article referenced by the SciFiScoop article, for the sake of including a more "primary" source. An interview with Blomkamp himself: http://scifiwire.com/2009/07/district-9-director-alrea.php --ACabbageOrSomething (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's another one. --uKER (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Virus?

"contracts a mysterious virus"

I don't know if what happens to Wikus can really be called a "virus" since he essentially sprays spaceship fuel on his face. Yes, it appears to alter his DNA and cause him to slowly change into an alien, but it's not accurate to say "virus" as at no point is that mentioned in the film nor is it even implied. It's assumed that the technology the Aliens use is organically based and linked to their DNA. Perhaps someone can come up with a better way of describing it?

Deepcloud (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That was my main problem with the movie. What could possibly justify that spraying the ship's fuel on his face would turn him into an alien? Also, why did the mutation start with his arm? I guess there were changes in scripting that were only partially reflected in the finished movie. About the virus, I guess it would be the most logical explanation for something introducing controlled changes into one's DNA (ie, not just random mutation like radiation could produce). --uKER (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The movie never says what's in the canister is a fuel (to my knowledge), it's repeatedly described as a fluid. The only time fuel is used in reference is when Christopher's son says that it "fuels the ship" or something along those lines. My guess is that the aliens have a somewhat organic component to their machines, since that powered armor was leaking a lot of liquid near the end. Also my assumption with the mutation starting in his arm had to do with him getting it injured, since he would have more cells dividing (to heal his injuries) in his arm, mutation would happen faster there. Flimsy science notwithstanding. 75.135.86.95 (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Plot

What about dividing the plot into two sections; plot introduction and plot synopsis. This way, one can read about what the movie is about without risking any spoilers. 84.210.46.159 (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia's policy to not "censor" the article to withhold spoilers. See WP:SPOILER. --uKER (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

District Six

I'm not saying it needs more than a short paragraph, but the District Six reference has been demoted from the lead (where it didn't deserve to be) to the 'see also' which is ludicrous.

Can we have a paragraph or at least a sentence in the 'Plot' section.--Jaymax (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Done under 'Aparthied References' subhead under Plot. --Jaymax (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Minor detail

"An alien with a bandaged left arm is then seen standing in a junk yard inside District 9 fashioning a small metal rose out of scrap metal implying that Wikus is indeed alive, his transformation from human to alien is complete, and is still awaiting Christopher's promised return."

It doesn't specifically state where Wilkus is, and in the ending text it said District 9 was demolished. Wilkus would most likely be in District 10, given that the aliens were relocated and that WIlkus himself would be considered one. It should be either changed to District 10 or called an unknown location. 68.109.79.8 (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed text "inside District 9"--Jaymax (talk) 01:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Kirk Honeycut is wrong

Currently in the "Reviews" section, it is pointed out that Honeycut revealed "flaws" in the plotline, saying that the MNU scientists had no reason to kill Wikus as he is somehow valuable. This is mistaken. At some point he will just turn into an alien making him completely not interesting to MNU, regardless of the fact that he can operate alien weaponry (duh, because he is alien completely). They need to extract all the samples they can get before his transformation completes, as they explicitly explain in the movie. This is another example of a small-brained reviewer being unable to wrap his head around obvious explanations given by the filmmaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.179.8 (talk) 10:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Correction to plot summary.

It clearly states in the movie that it was not 3 years, but 3 months. Please correct this:

"It hovers above the city for three years without any contact..."

I'll do it, and I believe you are correct, having seen the movie as well. Seb0910 (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Spelling of alien Slur

In the movie, it is spelled "Prauns" not "Prawns" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.158.88 (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, only one sign in the movie says that, and it was written by an activist shown briefly, so the actual spelling is "prawn". Seb0910 (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Activists am dumb. HalfShadow 20:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's less that activists are dumb and more that prawn is just spelt with a w.

"Command Module"

In the plot summary, it says that Christopher had the command module under his house and flew to the mothership in it. However, in the movie it is implied that it's not a command module but some sort of ship, and the only reason Christopher needed it was to get to the mothership. If anybody has reason not to, I will change it to say that the command module is actually a ship. Seb0910 (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree --Jaymax (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

... Well will you explain why you disagree?Seb0910 (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

How can I point to something that's not there? I disagree that the movie implies that the command module is not the command module. How about instead you give the reasons why you think the movie does imply that the command module is NOT the command module. Also, see WP:OR - Your thinking something is implied does not make it an encyclopaedic fact. Finally, please do not modify your comments in talk once someone has replied. It is not good wiki-etiquette. Thanks. --Jaymax (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well, for one thing, there only appears to be the one. If it were a shuttle, you'd think there would be several. Also, it's big. HalfShadow 00:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is implied that the ship under Christopher's shack is the command module. At one point, Wikus says to Christopher, "This thing has been under your shack this whole time?!" (or something to that effect). Wikus was referencing the fact that they saw it fall from the ship, but never found it. On another note, the news anchor says that they speculate that it is some kind of "command module" during the footage of it falling from the ship. 12.210.64.97 (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The news reporters suggesting it's the command module is undeniable. It really being so, is. That said, the article should abide to just say what the movie undeniably says, nothing more. For all we know, the ship could have become stranded just because Christopher was the only one able to fly it. --uKER (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well my whole argument is that a module isn't a ship and the thing under Christopher's shack is, but then again I am not entirely sure what a module is. If a module is a ship or can be a ship then I agree (someone please verify), but also I would like to point out that the news anchor only speculated that it was a command module (actually I believe they said that "the theory is" that it is a command module). To go with my argument that its not a module but a ship, the fact that there was only one ship/module falling from the ship doesn't automatically mean that it's the only one; if Christopher and his friend were the only ones trying to get back to the mothership then it is possible that there were other ships but only Christopher deployed his. Seb0910 (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for earlier grump thank you for explaining. I don't see why the 'command module' shouldn't be capable of flight (like some combination captain's-launch and ship's-bridge in one). But it docks in the dead centre of the mothership, and the prawnlet is able to directly command both the mothership and the mechwarrior suit from within the command module. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaymax (talk • contribs) 21:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Also: Apollo Command/Service Module--Jaymax (talk) 03:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. I also did some looking around, and I suppose, given the referencing in the movie, command module is an appropriate term for the ship. Seb0910 (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The description of the thing under Christopher's shack comes from news reporters who, all due respect, sometimes struggle to grasp the rules of the sport they're reporting on - you just can't know everything. I think taking their account of what a previously unheard of object is from a quick glance from a news helicopter as gospel is to over state their knowledge of alien technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.63.65 (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)