Jump to content

Talk:District 9/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

About the Plot

A few days ago I changed and expanded the plot section in an effort to make it better. Unfortunately all my changes were reverted without discussion, twice ([1], [2]). Yes I'm aware that my version was over the "recommended" length for a movie plot, but frankly, so what? When I first read the plot as it was (and is now), I was quite disappointed by it, it didn't really capture what the film was about and missed some crucial points. So I would like to re-add this content; the current version is pretty sub-par and I think anyone comparing the versions will see that those changes make it a lot better. --Hibernian (talk) 01:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of disclosure I will point out that I was 203.206.85.236. WP:Plot summaries are not trying to "capture" a film, but simply retell events, all crucial points should be included, but the summary should not be expanded simply to include a non-important detail or in-depth character description, adding too much detail is a Copyright Violation. Someone reading the article should be able to go "oh! so this is the movie I was thinking of!" and very little else, it should not be a "blow-by-blow" or "shot-for-shot" retelling of every intricate detail. WP:INUNIVERSE shows that we should not use "excessive detail". To use one of your edits as an example changing "An exploratory team discovers" to "After cutting their way inside, an exploratory team discovers" is excessive detail; it is not crucial to the plot that they cut into the ship, there are no repercussions to the plot from the act of cutting, the cutting is never mentioned again and it is therefore excessive. Adding "Wikus, like most of the humans is quite prejudiced against aliens and believes that they are all criminals." is POV without a CITE. Changing "Panicked, Wikus overpowers his captors and escapes." to "In a panic, Wikus uses his new strength to overpower his captors, and escapes" is also excessive, as you are using more words to tell the same story. You'll notice that two other plot additions were also reverted. A plot summary should always be as short as possible. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Hibernian, I undid your reversion of some of the edits the others made following your original edits. I first of all want to say that I think this article is in much better shape since you started editing it, and I think I speak for everyone when I say that your work is appreciated. There are important things that you added to the plot summary that are still in the current version. Yes, quite a few things you wrote got trimmed down by other editors, but it's important to note that those editors also fixed mistakes and removed unnecessary details that were in the plot summary from before you started editing it. That's why I undid your reversion -- it removed a lot of editing effort made by others. If you think that some of the removed details belong back in the article, then let's hear specifics of what you have in mind! --Jonovision (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, ok fine. Firstly I'd say my opinion on plots is that they should not be "as short as possible", but instead "as long as necessary" (It's not like we're going to run out of space here). Ok, I accept that some of my additions were unnecessarily detailed (I wasn't thinking about length, just about what sounds better to read), certainly some of them can be trimmed down and still preserve the meaning. If you want specifics on what I think should be added, well... more information about district 9 itself (the camp), I think the current one sentence or so, is not adequate. As for stating that Wikus is prejudiced, how can you say that it is POV? Is it not glaringly obvious that that is one of the main points of the movie? He starts off as a racist and in the end learns to like the aliens (sort of). That is one of the crucial points in understanding the film and the main character in particular (and should definitely appear in any plot summary). As for citations of this (which frankly I think is a little much to ask for a movie plot), I'm not sure where one would go about finding sources, I don't read a lot of reviews, etc. One place I do remember critics talking about this was on Newsnight Review about 2 weeks ago, in which they discussed the racism issues in detail. Though it was a TV program, so I've no idea who you would cite that. --Hibernian (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I do agree with as long as necessary, but I don't view it as incompatible with as short as possible. I'm not going to mercilessly slash all Plot additions simply to keep it under some random number; but a {{plot}} tag was added and I shortened the section to the bare bones. One of the problems with as long as necessary is word-creep, if 50 editors add 10 words each that's another 500 words to the article, which is why the necessary is so important. If it is simply edits for readability then by all means WP:BE BOLD. The racism is explored later in the article in Themes and should be fully expanded there rather than Plot. As for the description of the district itself I wikilinked to slum which describes it pretty closely, plus I think most people know (at least vaguely) what a slum is and if not then they can click-through to slum. This is the main reason that plot should be as short as possible, because important parts of the movie can be discussed in their own separate section (like themes and production) rather than having a huge, intricately detailed but poorly structured plot section. Any and all useful information can be added to the article but it should be added to the appropriate section. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't agree that Wikus is racist, especially not compared to the other mercenaries. The movie starts with him being naive about the company's intentions, he seems to think that the relocation will benefit the aliens. I guess the subject is open to some debate, so I would agree with Sanguis that this would be better in the themes section. --Jonovision (talk) 11:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Why did the aliens come in the first place?

If Christopher went back to his planet to get help, then that means that there is a planet (it was destroyed or something). If that's the case, then why did the Aliens come to Earth in the first place?

Were they a colonization expedition? Were they out-casted? Criminals?

Anyone knows? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.62.200 (talk • contribs) 22:07, September 20, 2009

Film does not seem to explain it, so one can only speculate. We cannot do that here, though, since talk pages are for discussions to improve articles. I recommend asking at the film's forums at IMDb. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 02:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
There ship breaks down and in one of the trailers the alien says they didn't mean to break down on Earth, my guess the universe is a big place, there ship broke down between point A and point B and they went to the first habitable planet, where the command module subsequently broke off.
Oh and they do have a home planet, Christopher's son looks at it and asks how many moon it has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.238.4.85 (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


Well, there were several large star maps shown in the command module when Christopher and his son were tinkering around inside of it. Since the majority of the aliens seem to be unintelligent and violent, with some of the exceptions being ones like Christopher, I have the feeling that the navigation of the mothership to Earth was automated and controlled by the supercomputers in the command module. It simply chose one of the few planets in the galaxy with a survivable atmosphere and weather conditions and headed there. Once it arrived, the command module detached, and it got stuck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.95.50.61 (talk) 05:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if the aliens are actually unintelligent or if that was just the way they became after having lived in a ghetto for so long and not having much of a chance at receiving an education. Also, we don't know how many of the aliens in the movie were the original ones that came in the ship and how many are the children. Being that the aliens are living on Earth instead of their home planet their life span would probably be considerably less than if they were on their home planet because of the lack of access to medical equipment and people how know anything about how their biology works. If a lot of the aliens are the children they would have never had a chance to get an education before coming to Earth and ghetto living would be all they knew. It would be like going to a Human ghetto and assuming that all Humans are violent and unintelligent because the type of Humans that live in ghettos tend to be less educated and more prone to committing violent crimes than Humans who live in the suburbs. 71.61.250.56 (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The film actually states during one of the initial mock documentary interviews that most of the aliens who came appear to be "Drones", referring to how insects' hives and societies work. If that was the case (which may be since they cannot be ignorant or stupid as shown by a) their ultra advanced technology, and b) christopher's son was amazingly intelligent despite being and behaving like a child.) then only a few would be smart/leaders while the rest just smart enough to follow orer and execute but with no self initiative. The film aslo alludes to this by saying that the aliens seem disoriented and unorganized. Veritiel (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Character names

Recently there have been reverts trying to enforce the characters' names as "van der Merwe" instead of "van de Merwe" and "Kobus" instead of "Koobus". The subject has been gone over countless times, with several native afrikaans speakers complaining (see here and here). The fact is I have personally confirmed the movie to have the names wrong, so please cease to revert them just based on what the most popular form of the names is. --uKER (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, apologies, let's add a source for the unusual spelling/s then, since the listed citation just after the first mention spells the name "correctly". Greenman (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
No problem. It's not the first time someone has made that observation. --uKER (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Resources to use

Note: American Cinematographer has a "production slate" article on District 9 in its Sept. 2009 issue. Fangoria covers the film in issue #286, see some coverage here. Also, Cinefex will have coverage in its October 2009 issue. Erik (talk | contribs)

Updated 12:35, 3 Sept 2009 (UTC)

Cast highlighted in the opening paragraph

Is there any particular reason Robert Hobbs is mentioned alongside Sharlto Copley and Jason Cope in the introductory paragraph? His part in the film is comparatively minor. I would rather expect to see David James up there – his character plays a much more prominent role in the story (and gets twice as much screen time). ChibiKareshi (talk) 11:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I have tentatively replaced Hobbs with James in the opening paragraph and infobox by the above reasoning. ChibiKareshi (talk) 09:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

South African film???

The article states this as a South African film...I understood it was produced by a American/New Zealand/others company, budgeted with American money...etc. Surely with a Canadian director, Canadian effects work, and other associated Canadian involvement this film is just as Canadian as it is South African. The production companies seem to be based in New Zealand, with the only real South African link the story and location. You wouldn't call Saving Private Ryan an Irish film because it was filmed there? Of course I don't want it to be titled as a Canadian-South African-American-New Zealand- film but ultimately (as much as I hate to say it) i'm pretty sure it should be listed as an American film...Let's talk. Houghton11 (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Already discussed here. --uKER (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, but that discussion states it being "funded by Peter Jackson" aka: New Zealand, yet the current version of the article itself states that the production was fully financed by QED international, which after a little googling looks like it's actually based in Los Angeles. And a quick look at the production companies listed in the article reveal no South African based organizations. I'm not crazy here right? I'm just a little weary of people quickly labelling this as some sort of South African produced epic when it really isn't. I think people here are getting a little confused. I myself am :PHoughton11 (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the money did come from New Zealand... I don't really see americas part in it, and if they did have a part it was only financially (and as I say it was new zealand money). I think it's stupid that yanks get to take credit for a film that they had no part in making just because they funded it (and as I said, I'm pretty certain they didn't anyway.) So in all... I can't see how this is an american film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.111.194 (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually films are country classified by the nationality of their production company(s). In this case the companies that produced it where American and New Zealand. No South African production company was involved in the filming of this. Just because it was filmed in South Africa doesn't make it a South Africa film. Star Wars isn't a Tunisian film because it was partially filmed there. Filming locations have nothing to do with a film's nationality. And also neither does the funding country (most western films are funded with money from German financiers) nor the country that owns distribution rights. International film associations classify nationality solely by the nationality of the production companies that actually make the film.
The production companies that made this film where Wingnut Films (New Zealand) and Trilogy Entertainment {United States.)Canterbury Tail talk 03:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the main producer was Wingnut so to call it an american film does come off as really stupid; if we are going to list it with one nationality it should be New Zealand (especially since Peter Jackson is the producer). Also, it wasn't just filmed in SA, the actors were South African and the director / writer was a South African born Canadian who I believe spent most of his earlier life in SA - it's really nothing like Star Wars and Tunisia at all. Also, Star Wars isn't set in Tunisia. 89.243.177.22 (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

While Christophers shack was raided

I changed the "While Christophers shack was raided, Wikus discovers and removes the container... etc" line to "While raiding the shack of the alien that was helping Christopher, Wikus discovers and removes the container, accidentally spraying some of the liquid onto his face and his left forearm is injured by one of the aliens." because Wikus did not find the container at Christopher's house, it was at his lab partner's house... Have no idea the name of his lab partner though. That paragraph needs work in general though, because before that sentance it also states that Christopher resisted, which he didn't, he hid at the side of the building and told his lab partner to be nice, but the lab partner was not and got killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.86.141.133 (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Neil Blomkamp stated in the DVD that Christopher's lab partner was named Paul. I hope that answers your questions.

Plot begins in 1982???

Where does it state anywhere in the reference sources or in the movie itself that the plot begins in 1982? It seems from the movie that the plot is set sometime in the future around 2040-2050, meaning that the mothership would have arrived around 2010 onwards, hence the plot doesn't begin in the 1980s

I have changed the first line of the plot to "In the future".

Please correct it if necessary and reference the source for the first year of the plot.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.63.85 (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed at length here. The movie shows several timestamps in surveillance cameras suggesting that the ship arrives in 1982, with the movie taking place in 2010, but since there are a couple of timestamps with inconsistent dates thrown into the movie, a bunch of users have unilaterally decided to throw away all the dates in the article altogether. So that said, I won't be fixing the information. It should also be mentioned that one would think people should have access to repeated viewings of the movie before jumping in and changing what's established, thus avoiding things such as this, but there you go. --uKER (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

DVD released in October?

Article says "District 9 was released on DVD and Blu-ray Disc, as well as the 2-disc special edition version of District 9 on December 22, 2009." http://www.amazon.com/District-9-Two-Disc-Sharlto-Copley/dp/B002SJIO54/ says "DVD Release Date: October 16, 2009". Has amazon made a mistake, or was a 2disk version for sale in October? --EarthFurst (talk) 04:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Nah, Amazon messed up. Probably the date it was added to their catalogue. They make mistakes like that all the time. Canterbury Tail talk 04:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wife subplot

I think the plot should include more info on the subplot of Wikus not wanting to lose his wife, since this is specially relevant to the film's ending with the flower. I'll sleep over it and probably get it added tomorrow. --uKER (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Carolynne Cunningham

Carolynne Cunningham is the co-producer of District 9. Her name needs to appear next to Peter Jackson. I attempted to add it. Please do edit the html to properly reveal producer credits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58moon (talk • contribs) 19:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Final alien

The other users of Wikipedia never fail to amaze me. It doesn't require research or specific references in interviews to work out that the alien in the final scene is Wikus. Not including the implications made by the director mentioned in the article, who else could it be? An alien that just happens to have a bandage of the exact same colour as Wikus' on the same arm that Wikus injured that just happens to be making a metal rose that looks identical to the one Wikus' girlfriend received? I think that these all add up in themselves to prove the point that the final alien is Wikus. Grieferhate (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Came on to make the same comment. At the moment the "most likely Wikus" statement is embarrassingly unnecessary. The alien's identity is perfectly clear without it, whether or not you have seen the film. Have taken liberty of removing it. --Carl weathers bicep (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

On the DVD's Audio Descriptive Service narration, the narrator says:

Wikus, now entirely alien, sits among the smoldering wreckage of District 9. He carefully fashions a detailed flower from some of the wreckage around him, holds it up and forlornly looks at it. ITFC Audio Description by Alex Newman and James O'Haana.

— Alex Newman, District 9

Dagoth (takl | contibs | sbemail me) 12:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Dagoth, can you just add in that reference? The last sentence in its current page is just misleading at its finest.192.235.8.5 (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


Anyone paying attention has to assume that the alien in question is Wikus, but I suspect the fact that it's not explicitly mentioned in the film is reason enough not to include the essentially unsourced conclusion. The description should describe the movie, not conclusions... no matter how obvious. - JeffJonez (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with JeffJonez. Leaving conclusions to the reader is part of the magic of film. It's pretty obvious that the alien in question is Wikus, but the fact that it wasn't spelled out is intentional, so this article shouldn't pretend that it was. Rp (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Several sections of this article are written in a fashion that makes the implications less than obvious. In particular, the "filming" section does not make it completely clear that the violent uprisings were occurring during the filming, rather leaving the impression that it might be that the location was the site of violence during the time-frame of the story. Some simple tweaking of sentence structure and wording would alleviate this issue, but for some reason the powers that be in the putatively democratic wikiverse have deemed this article worthy of locking, preventing such contributions. 143.239.96.226 (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a shame that for the immaturity of a few, others like you are prevented from editing, but it's an unavoidable reality. However, you can remedy it by simply creating yourself an account. :) BTW, I'll make the clarification later today if nobody else has. --uKER (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary move

District 9 should not be moved to District 9 (film) because it is the primary topic. The two towns linked on the disambiguation page receive far, far less page views than the film article. Erik (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that D9 the film receives way more hits than the others is a matter of systematic bias. I don't think page views should be the sole determination as to what should be the primary topic. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the latter argument. --Kurtle (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Theme section

Does not need subsections. Viriditas (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Use of "Prawn"

In my opinion the linking with "prawn" is incorrect. "Prawn" should link to a page about the aliens w/in this film, not parktown prawns -- real Earth prawns -- because the aliens are the reference. However, under xenophobia where 'parktown prawn' is stated as the similarity to the aliens, that should (however currently isn't) be linked to parktown prawn.ManOnPipes (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done --uKER (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sequel info

Not sure if this is notable for inclusion but Weta revealed that they are in pre-production for the sequel at this time with filming set to start later this year. Source: [3] DrNegative (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the sequel section is very clear. It says that a sequel would be two years hence. Does that mean it may be released in 2012 or that production will begin in 2012? Moorglade (talk) 02:58, 3 May, 2010 (UTC)

Plot summary

The plot summary as it stands now could use considerable improvement. Here are a few things it does not explain adequately: Given that the prawns are capable of intergalactic travel and have advanced weaponry, how did they end up in a concentration camp begging for cat food? Why did they take their spaceship to earth but then hover over South Africa for three weeks without trying to communicate? Do the people of earth take any interest in learning about their planet and history? Why does rocket fuel turn humans into prawns?Sylvain1972 (talk) 13:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That's what the movie is about, not knowing why any of it really happened. Watch the movie, none of that is ever adequately explained, therefore should not be included in the plot summary. What you want reeks of OR
Also, read these articles if you're having trouble understanding what is and isn't included in a plot summary. WP:PLOT, WP:PLOTSUM, and WP:FILMPLOT. (Deftonesderrick 16:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC))
It is noteworthy to mention what is omitted that one might reasonably expect to be explained. There is nothing in the guidelines of WP:PLOT, WP:PLOTSUM, or WP:FILMPLOT that precludes that. It need not be evaluative--simple acknowledgment that these facts are excluded is adequate and does not constitute OR.Sylvain1972 (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, but the plot section is not the best place for what you want. This line of questioning is better left to a different section. The three pages I listed actually have this to say;
WP:PLOT - "Plot-only description of fictional works. Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is usually appropriate as part of this coverage."
WP:PLOTSUM - "Not only should a summary avoid a scene by scene recap... (but) do not attempt to recreate the emotional impact of the work through the plot summary. Wikipedia is not a substitute for the original."
WP:FILMPLOT - "Since films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source."" "If there are differing perspectives of a film's events from secondary sources, simply describe the events on screen as basically as possible in the plot summary and report interpretations in another section of the article."
So let's look at your questions.
1. "Given that the prawns are capable of intergalactic travel and have advanced weaponry, how did they end up in a concentration camp begging for cat food?" PLOT SUMMARY - Reports suggest that the craft became stranded after a command module separated from it and dropped to Earth. After three months, a team breaks into the ship, discovering a group of over a million arthropod-like extraterrestrials (apparently leaderless), who are then given refuge on Earth. The aliens, derogatorily referred to as "prawns", are confined to a government camp inside Johannesburg called District 9. The camp is secured with a massive police presence, and it soon turns into a slum.
2. "Why did they take their spaceship to earth but then hover over South Africa for three weeks without trying to communicate?" PLOT SUMMARY - In March 1982, a large alien mothership comes to Earth, hovering motionless above Johannesburg, South Africa. Reports suggest that the craft became stranded after a command module separated from it and dropped to Earth. This is never explained in the film. So no interpretation of what might have happened is included in the plot summary.
3. "Do the people of earth take any interest in learning about their planet and history?" - This has no relevance in a plot summary, it is only meant to relay the events of the movie, not the director's vision, meaning, or social commentary.
4. "Why does rocket fuel turn humans into prawns?" - Again, never explained in the film, so the plot summary reflects that.
Basically, if you want to really analyze the film, then you should expand the Themes section. (Deftonesderrick 17:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC))
I completely agree that no "interpretation of what might have happened" should be included in the plot summary. It would be contrary to the guidelines to offer an interpretation of why the director excluded salient information. But it is entirely permissible and appropriate to merely acknowledge that this salient information is missing, without speculating as to why.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I provided examples of how the plot summary already does that above. Please include here what you wish to add to see if it warrants inclusion. (Deftonesderrick 19:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC))
The plot summary does not do that, it simply does not address the questions at all. Furthermore, editors are not obliged to run their edits by you first on the talk page. But I'm not going to bother making any changes, because it's not worth the time and effort disputing this any further.Sylvain1972 (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I wasn't looking for hostility, I was looking to see if you could show what kinds of changes you were thinking of making, which I know is not uncommon. I never said anyone had to run anything by me first, that would be ignorant of me. What I see is proposed medium to large scale changes to an established and well written section, showing what you will change on the talk page is common practice. Also, simply saying it doesn't address your questions and "rage quitting" instead of explaining how EXACTLY it doesn't, isn't very productive. And if the changes aren't "worth the time and effort", then why propose them in the first place? I was genuinely insterested in what ideas you had, but so be it. (Deftonesderrick 15:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

Nigerians

The Nigerians are right to be upset about being skewered in the film. But that was not be accident and the director has noted that Nigerians do a lot of bad things in South African townships. It's at least a well known opinion of many black and white South Africans. There was some interview where he explained that. Nigerian sectoion would be better to include it. Go google it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.158.16 (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

If the Russians became deeply 'upset' everytime they were depicted in an even far more skewered manner than the Nigerians then they would have already started a nuclear war or engaged in the mass suicide of the entire nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.121.221 (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I personally think that many Russians find the way they are portrayed as criminals to be very manly or something to that effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omulurimaru (talk • contribs) 14:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Weapons of the MNU

Anybody recognise them? They look like white painted IMI Tavor TAR-21 or SAR 21s. Nath1991 (talk) 07:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

They look more like Vektor CR-21s to me (image in this link). — Life in General Talk/Stalk 12:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
More like a flooby-gibby-wob-wob. 150.203.223.24 (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Ending

Should we write that it is Wikus transformed at the end or just a prawn? It is never explicity shown that he is transformed as a prawn. But like, 99% obvious he is. --JTBX (talk) 03:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm rolling back your edits; "what appears to be a fully transformed Wikus" addresses the ending correctly, that it appears to be him although not explicitly stated. You also made a few mistakes; Koobus is not just "leading the operation," as Piet Smit said Wikus was "taking direct command" of the operation, so noting Koobus was leading the military side is more accurate. They never said Wikus was a "rogue criminal on the run" but that he was caught having sex with the aliens. It should also still say "Wikus' wife Tania..." since her character is not mentioned before that in the outline so clarification is needed.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I basically took an old plot and readded most of the stuff in, thanks for clarifying it.--JTBX (talk) 03:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC) I redited just now adding in my clarifications without touching the stuff you wrote about, that was completely unintentional.--JTBX (talk) 03:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for not being offended! You had one typo I'm correcting. Just a note, the plot is now at 671 words, so it's in danger of getting too long if you're thinking of doing any more editing.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem at all and completely understandable. Thanks again. --JTBX (talk) 03:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Reference of "Prawn"

I don't believe "Prawn" is a reference to the Parktown Prawn, but rather the shrimp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prawn) In the script a reference to the term confirms this

64 00:05:02,505 --> 00:05:05,966 The derogatory term Prawn is used for the alien, and obviously it implies

65 00:05:06,062 --> 00:05:09,936 something that is a bottom feeder, that scavenges the leftovers.

66 00:05:10,128 --> 00:05:12,275 I mean, you can't say they don't look like that.

67 00:05:12,371 --> 00:05:14,549 That's what they look like, right? They look like prawns.

68.198.13.18 (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you take a look at the Parktown prawn article? It states that "The Parktown prawn is a monotypic species of king cricket found in Southern Africa ... They have been seen feeding on dog food, cat food, dead birds, as well as dry oatmeal and fallen fruit. They are also known to chew on wooden floor boards and wooden furniture ... They are generally considered pests by most in South Africa, and are held in the same regard as cockroaches." Clearly their name does not refer to the crustacean, given the prawns' affinity for cat food and the fact that it was set in South Africa. SweetNightmares (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Also, the effect company (Peter Jackson's company) is called "WETA," which apparently is the name for the king cricket in New Zealand. Coincidence?! brain (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is.. WETA was founded in 1994. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.75.21.123 (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Languages

I hear (unfortunately) no Afrikaans in the movie, somebody does? So why is it at the languages section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.244.69 (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

herp derp.. cause Afrikaans names are not Afrikaans.. herp derp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.75.21.123 (talk) 07:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Budget

Isn't saying that thirty million dollars is a modest amount of money for making a film even these days POV?Kdammers (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

When was this filmed?

The production and filming sections make no mention of a year when this was filmed, let alone a time frame, yet includes vague references to a winter and a period of "unrest". Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 11:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

References to use

Subject line is pretty self explanatory.

  • Falconer, Daniel (2010). The Art of District 9: Weta Workshop. Auckland: HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-206430-1. Retrieved July 23, 2014.
  • Schürholz, Julian (2010). Mockumenting South Africa? Race and Segregation in "District 9". Norderstedt: GRIN Verlag. ISBN 978-3-640-67519-7. Retrieved July 23, 2014.
  • This URL is a hub for numerous sources involving monster culture and the apartheid allegories.

Corvoe (be heard) 12:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on District 9. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

White Saviour?

Why is there a link to white saviours in film and yet no explanation in the article? It sounds like an important enough theme to be explained - I thought Christopher was the Saviour with high tech and the promise to come back with a cure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.247.181 (talk) 07:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on District 9. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Genres in the lead

It seems to me that "science fiction film" is good enough per MOS:FILM. 100.0.6.143 added a few more non-essential genres in this edit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I concur that "science fiction film" is sufficient per WP:FILMLEAD. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on District 9. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Queen Mary University of London Education Project

Hi, we are, Omar Ismaiel Serafimaburavsky19 Jacoobfarrah97 Elena.valeri Rising Tsar93 Meliha Siddiqui editors as part of an Educational project--Meliha Siddiqui (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Meliha Siddiqui - great to see that you've started to introduce yourselves on the Talk page here! Please make sure you use the correct markup so that each of your usernames is hyperlinked to your user profile/talk page. That way other wikipedia users know how to be in touch with you. Don't forget to test out your ideas on the talk page first, by making suggestions and proposals about what you would like to change on the article to improve its scholarly quality. Last of all, make sure you are focusing on improving the scholarly quality of the article as your ultimate goal. This means especially paying attention to the quality of the sources, and in particular offering improvements through references to scholarly articles, books and book chapters. You can do this through the e-resources and databases available via the QM Library and Senate House that we talked about in week 4. See QMplus for more details about how to access these if you're not sure. Good luck and do get in touch if you have questions or need help. DrJennyCee (talk) 11:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi DrJennyCee , thank you very much for your reply! I've modified it using the correct markup. Elena.valeri (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
That's great, Elena.valeri! Although you've not actually linked to your user pages - only to new articles with your names on them. I've corrected the first name - Omar's - using the proper markup so that you can see how to do it. You can also look at the code on your own user name above to see an example. Hope that helps! Do make sure you keep sharing your plans for changes on the talk pages of the article so that you can show other users what you are planning. If you don't get a response, you can assume that this is tacit agreement. But do try to have those conversations (they don't count towards your word count) on the talk page as they will help you to make changes which stay. All the best, DrJennyCee (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello DrJennyCee, I should have done it correctly this time, was not really sure about how to do it, so thanks for your help! Elena.valeri (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:District_9/Archive_4&oldid=1201135617"