Talk:District 9

Battle suit NOT remotely controlled

Some people keep adding the battle suit as remotely controlled. Before doing so again, I urge them to present their reasons for doing so. Never is the battle suit ever hinted at being controlled by Christopher's son. Also, when the battle suit is done with the Nigerians, the action cuts to Christopher's son in front of a panel that only shows schematics of the mother ship and nothing that relates him to what the battle suit just did. --uKER (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I came to a similar conclusion as you when I saw that someone had written that (I believe his son activated the mech suit and the suit's AI defended Wikus), I can see why they would think so. Christopher's son no doubt activated the mech suit, and some people probably believe that he controlled it as well. But what I think really confirms that his son isn't controlling the suit is that the audience sees through the suit's eyes when it takes out the first 3 guys. In short, I agree that the suit is not controlled by Christopher's son.Seb0910 (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I first question what an AI controller is doing on a mech that a pilot sits inside. It's one or the other, surely? If it was an AI why didn't it continue to fight (it does a better job without him inside than when he's driving since it can stop bullets in the air and Wikus gets shot to pieces) instead of stopping motionless and letting him look out the window for a considerable while. If it was an AI controlled robot it wouldn't need a pilot at all. We see a first person view because it's got a camera on the front. It needs to, the pilot is sealed inside behind armour and you can control it from inside the command vehicle, you need a camera to show what's around it. It's also shown to have microphones that pick up the soldier's instruction to kill Christopher, because again, sealed inside armour. It's a piloted suit that needs someone to point it at targets. It's sat in that warlord's front room for about 20 years because there's no pilots around.

I suspect that the remote controlled suit (which probably needs target designation -- why would an alien AI suit shoot all the humans *except* for Wikus?) is one of many things that the son needs to do as they are attempting to leave Earth. He's very busy, so he gets Wikus to control the robot instead. The son opens the suit up to let someone else control it and then he switches back to what he's working on - getting the mothership overhead as quickly as humanly possible.

Yes, we're not shown/told that the son painstakingly controlled every movement the suit made but we're also not shown the complex AI system that can fight autonomously. Frankly we're not shown that Wikus did much more than grunt and have lights flash in front of his face either - they obviously chose not to have the whole holographic mech gesture control cliche in this movie. Since it needs a pilot to make it fight then it must have had a pilot, we're showed the son pushing buttons and getting it to wake up and then it kills everyone. What part of that doesn't sound like remote control? 86.143.63.65 (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

With regards to part of the above comment, the suit was seen being operated by an alien earlier in the film when they sold it to the warlord for 100 cans of cat food, it hasn't been sitting there for 20 years out of use. I believe that the suit was functioning on it's own; the shot from it's perspective shows that it identifies Wikus as being 'friendly' (due to his alien DNA transformation?) and the Nigerians as being hostile, seemingly by itself. 123.211.187.63 (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead section

I would like to know why User:UKER keeps reverting my changes to the lead. From the looks of his edit summary, he has blindly reverted me without bothering to read the edits. His edit summary states that there was "extensive removal of information...release dates, people behind Alive in Joburg, title reference" when there were no such deletions. The only thing that was removed was the mention of the director and producer behind Alive in Joburg, which quite frankly isn't all that important to the lead since this is about District 9. Viriditas (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You drastically trimmed the lead section, allegedly on grounds of WP:LEAD. I thus encourage you to go over the more specialized WP:MOSFILM#Lead_section, which states "If the film is based on source material, that source material and its creators should be identified." ie detailing the movie's relation with Alive in Joburg and the people involved in the making of the latter, especially since both of its makers are also prominent in D9. "If possible, convey the general premise of the film in the paragraph and identify actors' roles in the premise.", ie detail the aliens' backstory as protagonists of the film and not just Wikus'. Also MOSFILM suggests "Succeeding paragraphs in the lead section should cover important aspects of the film detailed in the article body and not mentioned already in the first paragraph. These include [...] prominent themes", which would imply detailing the reference to District 6 in the movie's name, which you seem determined to omit despite the obviousness of it; also note that this reference is not established anywhere else in the article. Also, your wording makes it look like District 6 is the only area that had people relocated, which couldn't be further from the truth. Also, I don't think the lead is in any way oversized (based on common sense since there's no guidelines about it anyway), so I still don't get your need to hack it down. For this reason, I'm once again reverting. EDIT: I also don't get it why you think it's better to mention the publisher at the end, repeating the release date in the process. --uKER (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

About me reverting without reading and your edit only removing the mention of the makers of Alive in Joburg, I also object with:

• Despite removed mention of Blomkamp and Copley being involved in Alive in Joburg, you added date for Alive in Joburg, a much less relevant fact.
• Removed mention of movie's title being a reference to District 6, changed into loose, imprecise reference.
• Removed mention of process by which the aliens end up in the slum and Wikus gets assigned the task.
• Removed explicit statement that Alive in Joburg also references the apartheid.
• Relocated publisher to the end.

--uKER (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not edit war. Your observations are in error. I did not "drastically" trim anything. Practically the entire lead section was intact except for some of your wording which confused the direct parallel between the plot of District 9 and the historical parallel of District 6, which I fixed. As for the source material, it can certainly be identified, but keep in mind you are quoting a MOS, not a policy or a guideline, and in general, the source credits of an adaptation usually refer to sources other than the same director. The publisher and release date appear at the end - there is no repetition of the release date. Saying it is a 2009 science fiction film and saying it was released on August 14 at the end is not repetition; It happens to be a standard lead structure used in many film articles. Please learn to add and modify information rather than reverting. This is a collaborative website. I find your version of the lead less than accurate and I will make changes accordingly. You would do well to familiarize yourself with how lead sections are written for film articles. Here was my original edit:

District 9, abbreviated D-9, is a 2009 science fiction film adapted from the short film Alive in Joburg (2005). The film was directed by Neill Blomkamp and stars Sharlto Copley, Jason Cope and Robert Hobbs. Copley plays the role of Wikus van de Merw, a bureaucrat assigned to evict and move an alien species from one government refugee camp to another in Johannesburg, South Africa.

The title and premise of the film are inspired by historical events that took place in South Africa under apartheid. In 1966, an inner-city residential area in Cape Town named District Six was declared a "whites only" area by the apartheid government. For the next several decades, 60,000 people were forcibly removed from District Six and relocated to Cape Flats, 25 kilometres away.

Shot in the style of a mock documentary, the film makes use of interviews, news footage, and video from surveillance cameras to tell the story. A viral marketing campaign began in 2008 at the San Diego Comic-Con, and the theatrical trailer appeared in July 2009. The film was released on August 14, 2009 in North America by TriStar Pictures.

As you can see, I did not remove mention of the film title reference, but rather described it in detail. The process by which the aliens end up in the slum and Wikus gets assigned the task is not essential to the lead, but changes are always welcome. The lead states that the film was adapted from Alive in Joburg so the reference to apartheid is implicit. Adding the publisher and release date towards the end is standard lead structure for film articles. Furthermore, your revert removed mention of the marketing campaign and trailer, all of which should appear in the lead, so I'm adding this information back in. You are welcome to collaborate without reverting. Lastly, your attempt at summarizing the plot did not do so, and actually summarized the backstory instead. I think we can certainly add more information to the plot summary I added, but we really don't need more backstory. Viriditas (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for preserving plot content

One way to salvage some of the plot section is to move all the backstory out and into its own section. The director very briefly touches upon the backstory in a recent Creative Screenwriting podcast (recorded at Comic-Con) and we can at least expand it beginning with that source. There's not much there, but it is a start. Viriditas (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the same content is here:

Unfortunately, we don't go much into it in the film because there wasn't time. A lot needed to be figured out and to me there's this kind of ant hive that's had a queen that's died and they're these directionless drones walking around, so it kind of explains how all this technology could've been built and manufactured and thought up. But they don't have it together enough to use that weaponry on humans and turn their situation on its head. So they just keep getting stomped on for 30 years.

van de Merwe or Wikus?

Why should we name him by his last name? Particularly him having such a disruptive one for the text flow? I couldn't find any guidelines on the subject, and there are even examples in MOSFILM that refer to characters by their first name. --uKER (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It is traditional "house style" to use the last name (academic, encyclopedic, journalistic, etc.) but in this case, I think we should Wikus. There are always exceptions, and this is one of them. Calling him "van de Merwe" throughout the article isn't helpful, and most of the critical reviews use Wikus anyway. Viriditas (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I just started a discussion in Wikiproject film about this. Also in favor of calling him Wikus should be the fact that as far as I recall, he is rarely (if ever) called "van de Merwe" in the film. They either call him simply Wikus in the case of people close to him, or by his full name (most on TV). --uKER (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it back to "Wikus". As I said in my edit summary, seeing as how we're dealing with a fictional character, this is not a BLP or even biographical concern. We don't need to respectfully and neutrally refer to a character by his/her last name here. ;) María (habla conmigo) 14:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternate history?

I see that someone added the alternate history category to this film, but I don't see that as valid. Anyone? Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless it takes place after 2029, it's an alternate history film. When the story beings, The non-humans have been on Earth for 20 years. - JeffJonez (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So basically, you're using the definition (and category) very loosely, and arguing that any science fiction film that takes place on planet Earth during what we consider our past/present, is "alternate history"? I could agree with that if it concerned something historical in our past, such as the aliens arriving to change a historical event, but do we see that? No. We see a typical, science fiction film positing the arrival of aliens. How is this an alternate history? Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not an invalid application, IMO. There is some precedent for it, though alternate history is not a primary plot device in the film. It's not completely irrelevant; it redefines the past generation of human history although not in a global sense. It's not by any means the best example of alternate history, but it's still an example. It's just a category. If someone ventured to put "alternate history" in the lead sentence, I'd take issue with that. —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

See alternate history: "In writing an alternate history, the author makes the conscious choice to change something in our past. According to Steven H Silver, alternate history requires three things: 1) the story must have a point of divergence from the history of our world prior to the time at which the author is writing, 2) a change that would alter history as it is known, and 3) an examination of the ramifications of that change." I don't see the film meeting those requirements. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't fall under #3. That makes sense. Concur with you, then. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

There's that, but my main concern is with the point of divergence. Typical alternate histories will twist this point in a very overt way. For example, I would consider District 9 an alternate history if the aliens landed at District 6 in 1966 and displaced the people living there. In our history, those people were displaced by the South African government, not aliens. That's a poor example, but I think it illustrates a point of divergence. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Twenty years ago in their timeline, aliens came to the world. Obviously didn't happen in ours. This is a point of divergence before the writing of the story in recent years. That's all it is for that first criteria, in my opinion. In any case, we can agree the category does not belong since it does not meet all three. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but how does it meet the second criteria? I'll give you the first, even though I don't agree. :) Viriditas (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Aliens living with humans is history-altering. :) That's why I gave you #3 that the film did not examine the ramifications of alternate history. The film's story was a story in itself, not anything like "because the aliens arrived here, it affected the Cold War and the USSR". For example, Watchmen is alternate history because it clearly revises the historical elements as we know it, like the outcome of the Vietnam War and Nixon being President into infinity. In any case, we have our reasons outlined here if the category comes under discussion again... any general talk about the film we want to have should be done on user talk pages. :P —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a go; 1) The point of divergence is when the alien ship pulls in over Johannesburg, it happened in the D-9 'verse but not in ours. 2) I think having an alien ship landing on earth and making first contact and spending 20-odd years researching alien tech would count as "altering history as it is known". Plus you could imagine all the pseudo-/religious groups springing up. 3) The film (admittedly briefly) uses "news footage" of the resulting riots and segregation of the aliens as "an examination of the ramifications of that change.". I agree that it's not a major part of the film, atleast not to the same extent as the Watchmen example, but it is an aspect of it and should be mentioned somewhere. 124.169.112.178 (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"In 1982 ..."

I saw the movie twice, and perhaps I simply missed the detail, but I don't recall the movie ever stating that the aliens came to Earth in 1982, only that it happened 20 years before the present (2010). My reasons are that one of the reporters/narrators in the beginning of the movie states something like "after 20 years" the Africans were no longer content with the aliens living in such close proximity. Also, the movie takes place in 2010, so 20 years before that would be about 1989 or 1990. Someone please verify this. --Seb0910 (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, typo. The full date of alien arrival is April 14, 1989, and confirmed on the official site.[1][2] Viriditas (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the edit summary on a reason for the change and the ongoing discussion. In the movie itself, 1982 is shown as the date in timestamps in video footage. Specifically, 1982/06/01 is shown as the date when they decided to cut in (see here). Also 1982/07/05 is shown in the footage when they mention they decided to set up D9. About the website, I guess that with the website contradicting the movie, there's no discussing that the movie itself takes precedence. --uKER (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That's your evidence? A couple things: 1) How do we know that's from the final cut and not a frame from a pre-release version (which I believe is illegal to use as a source)? As for the official site for the film, it contains at least two pages detailing the date of arrival. Now, I don't know if this is an intentional mistake or not, but people who used timestamping on video in the 1980s often had the date set wrong. How do we know that 1982 is correct here? Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, looks like one version of the theatrical trailer confirms 1982 as the date ("they came here 28 years ago") so I'll revert it back to 1982. Now, why does the official site say 1989?? Viriditas (talk) 09:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The frame I posted is fom the "Arrival" movie clip, published on August 9, four days before the movie was released. In any case, I do have a bootleg (sue me) and it's the exact same dates all over, and no, it's not out of people having the incorrect date in the camera, as the date is seen in footage from at least three different sources. For the hell of it, here's a screenshot from the footage from them breaking into the ship on June 3, 1982. --uKER (talk) 09:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

About the website, mistakes happen, you know? The people making the website are not the very same people making the movie, and they may not be that much into the source material. BTW, if you think this is weird, what's even more awkward is that the movie never mentions the 28 years thing. The dates jump from 1982 to "twenty years later" ("and now, after twenty years, public pressure had forced the government to shove the aliens out of Johannesburg"), which would set the events with Wikus in 2002. --uKER (talk) 09:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What? The film takes place in 2010. I don't understand why you just changed 28 to 20 as that completely contradicts the entire point. I just finished explaining that the official trailer says the aliens arrived 28 years ago, which confirms the 1982 date in the film. So why would you change this to 20? That doesn't make any sense. Viriditas (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Man, this is about the movie. Trailers may be wrong. Websites may be wrong. The only thing that can't be wrong regarding information about the movie is the movie itself. I just quoted the movie saying the aliens' relocation started twenty years after the break in, which happened in 1982, and the movie never mentions 2010. Sad but true, going by the movie itself, Wikus entered the picture in 2002. If THE MOVIE has anything suggesting otherwise, feel free to bring it into consideration. --uKER (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the film is supposed to take place close to our present, not in our past. The trailer specifically mentions 28 years for this reason. When someone says "20 years after" there is no evidence that is intended to be literal. Neill Blomkamp himself rounds the number up to 30. This time, you're wrong. Viriditas (talk) 09:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm wrong based on what? Your assuming they must have rounded the number? 28 rounded to 20? In a movie? For what reason? Good luck with sourcing that. --uKER (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Blomkamp says in an interview that the aliens were oppressed for 30 years. He rounded up in casual conversation. Hopefully, you aren't taking things too literally. If I was to say the aliens were held in camps for three decades in a discussion, that wouldn't necessarily mean 30 years. It's an approximate number. Viriditas (talk) 10:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Blomkamp sayin it's 30 years. That seems fine. It's the movie saying it's 20 what bothers me. An interview (ie Blomkamp's sayings) don't have that much thought put into it. A movie is supposed to. Anyway, I guess we've come to an agreement. --uKER (talk) 10:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

But the movie doesn't say 20 years. That's an in-universe perspective based on the random opinion of someone who is not speaking factually about the film, and we don't write plot sections based on those opinions. Viriditas (talk)

Excuse me, but plot descriptions should have an in-universe perspective. If the director states what he intended but the film contradicts it, of course we can mention that in the article, but the film itself is the definitive reference for its own plot. --208.76.104.133 (talk) 06:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Not when the in-universe perspective is contradicting by various factors, such as a mock documentary, unreliable narrators, etc. The length of time here is being taken literally by Wikipedia editors, not by the plot of the film. There's a huge difference. Viriditas (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

About the discussion in my talk page, there seems to be two versions: 1) The aliens land in 1989 and the movie takes place 20 years later (2009). 2) The aliens land in 1982 and the movie takes place 28 years later (2010). Unfortunately, there's no source that entirely supports any of the two. The movie has landing=1982, events 20 years later (2002), with no mention of 28 years (and no, rounding 28 to 20 doesn't cut it) or 2010. The MNU viral site has landing 1989, which could only go with the 20 years later thing, unless we want the movie in 2017. Then there's the trailers with the 28 years thing, but no start date. So we're royally screwed. If we want something at least remotely coherent, we should mash together the arrival date from the movie, with the time jump from the trailers. If this is the case, maybe we should do it, but I'd say it would at least merit a "Time setting discrepancies" section in the article describing the mess that this is. --uKER (talk) 10:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that in the beginning of the film, a voiceover explains that the aliens have been separated into camps for 28 years. Viriditas (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's not the case. The reference given for the time lapse between the creation of D9 and the eviction is that sentence I quoted. On another note, I just found mention of 2010 in the movie, briefly seen in some surveillance cam footage during the evictions (see here), so I guess we can use that and disregard the guy saying it's 20 years, giving precedence to the trailer's 28. I'll change it back. --uKER (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, during all of this I've even seen date 2000 when the MNU capture Wikus after they discover his mutated arm, and 2029 in a security camera in a featurette for the movie. --uKER (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a copy of the voiceover I'm talking about here and I believe it was in the final cut. Viriditas (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I had heard that voiceover before, so I don't think it's in the movie, just like most of the interviews in the trailers aren't either. --uKER (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You might be right. Viriditas (talk) 11:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, it's been a week or two since I saw the movie last, so I can't remember details as well as I could a day or two after, but I could have sworn that both times I saw District 9, in the movie they state that the present year is 2010 and that the alien arrival was 20 years ago. This was the reporters/people being interviewed that said this, so I believe that their should dialogue should be taken as the truth, right? I mean a camera could be wrong, and information in a trailer could be changed by the final cut, but if it's people being interviewed in the movie, I'm pretty sure that they are the more correct ones. [EDIT] I've changed the article to state that the eviction takes place twenty years after the aliens' arrival. Regardless of what year they arrived, the twenty year gap is definitely made clear in the film.--Seb0910 (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The alien arrival was not 20 years ago, and I don't understand why you changed it. We certainly do not write plot sections based on the in-universe opinions of random people in the film. The director has confirmed it was closer to three decades, and the final trailer for the film says 28 years both in a voiceover and in a title. Viriditas (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Seb0910, please see my post here that starts with "About the discussion in my talk page". There is no source that entirely generates a consistent story. We're just trying to make it the best we can, but it is a fact that we'll never reach a full story that fits everything, as the movie contradicts itself. --uKER (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just come back from the my second watching of the film and paid particular attention to the dates; when we have the "handi-cam" footage of them breaking into the ship "1982" is clearly shown in the corner, security footage from inside MNU (when wikus starts to lose his fingernails and when he breaks in) clearly shows "2010". Wikus' comment about the shuttle hiding for "20 years" could have 2 possible explanations: 1) Character choice, most people would round up to 30 years, but Wikus chose to round down, plus he's clearly stressed from having just shot his way in and out of MNU, or 2) the shuttle fell in the year 1990 (or there-abouts), after staying in the spaceship for eight years, for either a) No reason, b)Christopher (or someone else) called it down or c) a security protocol kicked in. Personally I choose the first option as it's much more probable.

Also, interestingly enough when we see Wikus start to lose his fingernails we see a shot that looks to be through the security cameras, the date is on the lower right as 2010/09/08 (8th of September 2010) when Wikus and Christopher break in to MNU the date is shown on the security cameras to be 2010/13/08 (13th of September), four days later (roughly 96 hours). After escaping and going back to District 9 Wikus is captured and it displays "72 hours after exposure" on screen. It seems that they couldn't quite nail down the timeline before releasing the film. 124.169.112.178 (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why 20 years can't be accepted. Wikus and the person being interviewed in the beginning both said it, and the time of the movie is supposed to be closer to today, and the security cameras say 2010. I know the trailers keep being mentioned, but shouldn't the information in the actual movie (even though it is flawed) be used instead of information in a trailer? I know the camera in the beginning says they came in 1982, but none of the people say that; the date that makes sense timewise and as stated by Wikus and the interviewee is 20 years ago. The movie's only reference to 28 years ago is the 1982 camera. I propose that the page should show this information, since it's highly unlikely that two people would round eight numbers down. --Seb0910 (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Changing dates

Please stop changing the dates until this is resolved. For now, I've replaced the dates with the placeholders "late 20th century" and "several decades". Prior to this revision, the dates that appeared in the article were wrong and did not appear to be supported by any reliable sources. Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the consensus is the dates are 1982 and 2010, with 28 years in between (Blomkamp rounding it to 30 years in interviews). We're disregarding the viral website and the interviewee's comment in the movie, but I guess it's the only way to get it about right. In any case, as I said before, we can create a section exposing the discrepancies. --uKER (talk) 09:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion from User_talk:UKER

Couldn't the trailer be incorrect? The film clearly states that the eviction takes place 20 years after the aliens' arrival, and the film also DOES mention that it's the year 2010 (I know I posted something about this on the D9 talk page, but I noticed a mini discussion taking place here so I followed). Also, please don't take this as an insult or offense to your ability to observe, but in another issue on the D9 talk page you mentioned that you thought that the aliens came to Earth to harvest the fluid from alien technology already present on Earth; if you made an incorrect observation like this, couldn't it be possible for you to have missed the references in the movie that state that the present is 2010? Again, I really mean no offense I just want to get to the bottom of this inconsistency. --Seb0910 (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the trailer can indeed be incorrect. So seems to be the movie, contradicting itself, and so are the official viral websites. We're trying to put together a story that kinda fits, but as I said, we'll never make up a story that brings it all together, so we have to put some common sense into it and get one that goes with MOST of the material. My proposed timeline was landing in june 1982 (only contradicting the viral website), with evictions 28 years later in march 2010, which fits the trailers, the movie, and Blomkamp's interview, only questioned by the guy saying it was 20 years later (a sound tradeoff I'd say). I'll see into it again and check if there's some time in the middle that can account for that. About you discrediting me for the thing about them harvesting from alien tech, that was when I had only seen the movie once, and I was mostly going by common sense, trying to figure out the reason for Christopher coming down to Earth. After repeated viewing, yes, I saw it was stated that they were looking for alien tech, which rules out my assuming Christopher had to come down to distill the liquid, replacing it with an awesome total lack of reason for it. About the dates, if you had read my previous messages, you'd see I'm not going by memory on the issue. --uKER (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no evidence that there is anything incorrect or inconsistent about the trailers. I've heard several interviews with the director about the trailers and it basically boils down to not having enough time in the film to show everything. If you have any evidence that the trailer is "wrong" in any way, please present it. The trailers are intended to supplement the film, which I believe is somewhat of a novel concept. Viriditas (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I only said they COULD, but on second thought I think we haven't found the trailers posing any major contradictions at least regarding the time settings. The movie, on the other hand, I can guarantee has lots of inconsistencies. The coming is consistently in 1982, and then it jumps to the evictions in 2010, which is fine except for the guy saying it was 20 years later (and nobody rounds 28 to 20). And well, then there's that 2000 timestamp when Wikus is restrained in the MNU labs, and believe me I didn't re-watch the entire movie looking for more, which there probably are. About contradictions in the trailers, what's with Christopher in the interrogatory saying "How can we go anywhere if you have our ship?"? There seem to have been storyline changes since that trailer was made, doesn't it? --uKER (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the "20 years later" thing means anything here. It's just a passing comment and is not supposed to be taken literally. The timestamps, on the other hand, are all screwed up, and I don't get that at all. The interrogation scene is sound. The aliens are no longer in "control" of their ship, and remember, he's trying to buy time to power up the command module, which he has buried. Viriditas (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's two separate cameras showing 1982 and only one person (Grey Bradnam) mentioning the 20 years, so it's 2 to 1 in favor of 1982+28. --uKER (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the ship was floating arround and came to earth in 1982,the ship floated around the planet, and even if it stopped in 1982, the film says that they(being MNU) finally decided to cut open the ship. That would mean some time had gone by, maybe the 7 years between 1982 and 1989, making the 20 years more realistic, also I do not remember the 2000 timestamp, only the 1982 and 2010. --72.49.77.133 (talk) 02:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I love it when people make up stretches like this to make up for mistakes. There are video timestamps showing the ship above Johannesburg in 1982. Are you trying to say they got spotted in 1982 above Joburg but then they decided to take the ship for a spin around Earth and became stranded above Joburg again seven years later? You've got to be kidding. Also, june 1982 also is seen in the footage of the team breaking into the ship, so no. That's DEFINITELY not it. --uKER (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Link for expanding score section

Found here. It doesn't look like it has been transcribed yet, so it's just an audio file. Viriditas (talk) 08:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Theme section

Xenophobia, as confirmed by the director. Viriditas (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to say that's probably in the movie somewhere, "I love shooting prawns" etc. I'm surprised that even needed confirmed. 86.143.63.65 (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only person who thought there is an animal welfare theme to this movie? It deals heavily with speciesism (an animal rights concept) and also has several scenes devoted to experimenting on aliens. They also cull the aliens' young as part of population control. 82.35.102.252 (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Obesandjo (Eugene Khumbanyiwa)

Why is this name given as that of the Nigerian warlord? Is the name in parentheses the name of the actor? This name doesn't appear on the cast list in the article, so why is it listed in the article itself?--Seb0910 (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. That's the only actor name given in the plot section, and moreover it's unsourced. I'm removing it for the time being. --uKER (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I confirmed the actor being Obesandjo and so I added him into the Cast section. No source cited, being this a released film. --uKER (talk) 09:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

how were the aliens made?

Is it CGI or are they physical? Looked better than CGI. Didn't have that fake Jar Jar Binks look to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.44.253 (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

They are CGI (there's no way an actor could portray a creature with backwards bending knees and such a thin waist and frame ;)). Blomkamp has a history of incredibly believable CGI. See this. It's the first thing I knew from him, from about 2006 I think. BTW, when Wikus and Christopher enter the lab to steal the canister there's a little nod to it in the form of a Tetra Vaal sign there. --uKER (talk) 08:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Uker, are you going to start a section on the CGI? Viriditas (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, I wasn't planning on it. Why? --uKER (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Er, because this is a Wikipedia article about a science fiction film that relies heavily on CGI, and it requires material on the subject? Viriditas (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but I don't think I have any material available that's worth adding. The "Tetra Vaal" thing would better be fitted in Blomkamp's article perhaps, but I'd say it bears little relation to D9. --uKER (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI, there's loads of material online (interviews, articles) about the CGI in the film. Viriditas (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'll do it if I get the time. In the meantime, in case you don't want to do it yourself, if you come across any good source, feel free to post it here. --uKER (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

this may be useful. --uKER (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, we are supposed to be using the talk page to talk about how to improve the article. Do you want to help me write the section? Viriditas (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind response and good info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.44.253 (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

More info on CG here. --uKER (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Spelling of the protagonist's name

On the Wikipedia page, Wikus's surname is spelled "Van de Merwe", and it's spelled that way too on IMDB. However, the District 9 official website lists it as "Van der Merwe", and in South Africa, "Van der Merwe" would definitely be the correct spelling. So what's correct? I don't remember what the credits in the movie showed, unfortunately, but what's authoritative? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claidheamhmor (talk • contribs) 06:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm by no means acknowledgeable in Afrikaans, but Google's translator shows "wikus van de merwe" translating into something along the lines of "edge from the jungle", while "wikus van der merwe" seems to be recognized as a proper name, since when written in lower case, the translation is shown as "Wikus van der Merwe". In any case, what's your source for saying "van der" is "definitely the correct spelling"? --uKER (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"Van der Merwe" is a pretty common Afrikaans surname, originally derived from the Dutch. "Van de Merwe", by contrast, seems to be in use, but only very, very rarely - a quick Google search even had Wikus's surname as the #2 hit. In my 20-odd years of adulthood in South Africa, managing corporate network users and in daily life, I don't think I've encountered a single South African who spells their surname "Van de Merwe". On my corporate mail system, with something like 20000 email addresses, we have 94 with "Van der Merwe" and zero with "Van de Merwe". If "de" is what it's supposed to be, then that's what it's supposed to be. I'm just not sure what would be authoritative though - the official movie website ("der"), or IMDB ("de"); I guess IMDB got it from the film credits, which I suppose is first source (unless it's a mistake). Claidheamhmor (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, also I checked and the on-screen text in the movie also has him called "van de Merwe". --uKER (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I've never met a 'van de merwe' but I know plenty of people with the surname 'van der merwe.' If there even is a surname like 'van de merwe' then it's a really rare surname over here in South Africa.--What shall i call it? (talk) 14:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Plot Puzzlers

I added this section just after the Plot section, but bovineboy2008 deleted it (without discussion). These are some huge plot holes that may have many viewers scratching their heads:

1. If the aliens are intelligent and can communicate with humans, why didn't the aliens explain their problem and ask for help?
2. Why do the humans treat the aliens like animals, when they are obviously more advanced than humans and could presumably share their knowledge?
3. Why are the aliens only semi-segregated? It fits the analogy with apartheid, but it doesn't make sense in the movie. If they just dig around in the garbage and have confrontations, why would this be allowed? If this is an allegory of apartheid, why aren't the aliens working at jobs and being exploited for cheap or dangerous labor? Is District 9 a prison camp, a refugee camp, or a housing district?
4. Why would gangsters be allowed to engage in commerce with the aliens?
5. Why do some of the aliens behave like animals, but some, like Christopher, don't? Aren't they being fed? Would South Africa really have to feed them all by itself?
6. Why does the fluid in the canister, which is supposed to be fuel or a power source, also cause genetic transformation?
7. If the power fluid is so hard to produce, why did they produce so much extra fluid that Wikus could spray an apparently huge portion of it on his face and still be able to power up their ship?
8. Did the aliens bring their weapons down from the mothership or build them in the camp? If the former, why would the humans allow this? They could have denied the aliens food and/or transportation to earth unless they turned over their weapons. If the latter, why are they living in shanties if they can build advanced technological devices? Wouldn't they be able to build a proper dwelling?
9. If the aliens are armed with advanced weapons, why do they allow themselves to be abused and their larvae burned?
10. Why can Christopher power up the lander and the mothership, but he can't transmit an SOS to his people?114.161.253.11 (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the section was added twice, but there's no denying that it has no place in an encyclopedia. At most you could start a discussion if you wished any of the points discussed in the article, but not much more than that. BTW, for me the biggest plot hole (together with the fuel causing Wikus to mutate) is why the ship got stranded in the first place. I thought it was it running out of fuel, but if that was the case, I guess they could have distilled it from their tech without ever coming down to earth. --uKER (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

That's the difference between a mystery and a plot hole. No one seems to know what happened on the ship to cause them to stop and the aliens to starve, but as you suggest, running out of power could be it, or some kind of conflict on the ship, a disease, who knows. I think viewers really wanted to know what happened, but we never find out. But a plot hole is when something happens that makes no sense or that conflicts with something else in the story.114.161.253.11 (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess we have to wait until some movie reviewer makes these points, then we can quote their review.... I hope they also point out how lame it is to set the story using a fake documentary, instead of actually telling the story. The beginning of the movie would have been a lot more interesting if the story had unfolded as it happened instead of being handed to us on an index card.114.161.253.11 (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The authoritative entity on likings just declared the movie lame. --uKER (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This smells like trivia and should be avoided. If you desperately feel that you need to bash the film, consider establishing a Criticism section - JeffJonez (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually liked the movie, but it could have been SO much better. As Roger Ebert put it so well, "Despite its creativity, the film remains space opera and avoids the higher realms of science-fiction."114.161.253.11 (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

And what dictates that making it more sci-fi and less drama would make it a better movie? That is YOUR LIKING, you know? Unless it's you making the movie, there's no reason why movies should be made according to your taste. You like it? Fine. You don't? Look elsewhere. That's how life is. Blomkamp's work is social drama with some sci-fi thrown in, not the other way round. --uKER (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

What Ebert and I are trying to say is that, with a little more thought, this could have been a really profound, well-made movie. It's still entertaining, but it's not 2001 or Bladerunner or Planet of the Apes. If he wanted to make a social drama, why not have the Africans go to Europe and colonize and subjugate the Europeans?114.161.253.11 (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, no offence but that numbered list has absolutely no place in a wikipedia article. It's not encyclopedic for one. Whoever deleted it was perfectly correct to. It does just sound like it's not your kind of movie. If you don't like movies framed as a documentary you probably shouldn't watch movies framed as documentaries and you probably shouldn't watch movies that are really more about inter-human relations as "what a strange thing for an alien to do." I think that's slightly missing the point. It is really messed up that squirting their power source in your face turns you into one of them, although that could be a joke about Americans and oil in some countries. I have a feeling it was probably different before it hit focus groups to be honest but that's what was put out. My biggest question was why didn't they put less fuel in the vehicle, just enough to get the lights on, and then direct the mothership with its tractor beam over to the vehicle? That's instead of finding fuel over the course of 20 years drop by drop and flying to the mothership, risking being shot down on the way. The obvious answer is that that would have been a less interesting movie. 86.143.63.65 (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The command module is never said to use the same fuel as the mother ship. It simply wasn't active before because there was no point in doing it. Its only use would be Christopher returning to the ship once he had enough fuel. --uKER (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, there's no indication they use the same fuel source but at the same time there's equally no indication that they don't. It could be something very clever with cold fusion and seawater or it could be human souls. You'd just have to make something up. The fuel is just to get the command vehicle up to the cross shaped dock on the mothership and letting the much larger engines deal with the heavy lifting of moving the whole vessel places. The fuel collected in the little canister seems to be all that's needed to power the vehicle and make it fly - the lights come on when you install it. What I wonder is is simply why they didn't remotely control the mothership to come and pick up the command vehicle, which is what finally ends up happening, from the beginning using a much reduced amount of fuel. This is the difference between turning the radio on and radioing for help, which needs a relatively low amount of fuel, and flying the plane, which needs greatly more fuel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.63.65 (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the plot holes wrt camp management can be explained by incompetent and corrupt government in South Africa. Things are heading downhill there...read the director's interviews and that is even a message of his...

I'm very surprised that no one else seems to have perceived what I believe to be religious - in particular, Christian - references in this film. I've made note of these in the "Themes" section. No, I am not some religious kook - but I do have some literacy in regard to religious traditions.75.60.185.176 (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

In an effort to show the uselessness of this section:

1. If the aliens are intelligent and can communicate with humans, why didn't the aliens explain their problem and ask for help?

The aliens are workers and not that bright (with the exception of Christopher and his son), it explains that they appeared to be leaderless when they arrived (Perhaps the leaders are the more intelligent ones).

1. Why do the humans treat the aliens like animals, when they are obviously more advanced than humans and could presumably share their knowledge?

Because the humans in this video see them as nothing more than animals. They don't see them as persons and the aliens do not wish to share the ability to use their technology with mankind.

1. Why are the aliens only semi-segregated? It fits the analogy with apartheid, but it doesn't make sense in the movie. If they just dig around in the garbage and have confrontations, why would this be allowed? If this is an allegory of apartheid, why aren't the aliens working at jobs and being exploited for cheap or dangerous labor? Is District 9 a prison camp, a refugee camp, or a housing district?

District 9 is essentially all of the above, they are semi segregated for the reason to fit that analogy.

1. Why would gangsters be allowed to engage in commerce with the aliens?

The gangsters are likely there illegally, but the MNU would probably prefer not to get involved with expelling them unless very necessary.

1. Why do some of the aliens behave like animals, but some, like Christopher, don't? Aren't they being fed? Would South Africa really have to feed them all by itself?

South Africa isn't feeding them by themselves, the UIO is doing it, it's likely a global venture. The film directly accesses that a lot of aliens aren't bright because they are likely meant to do menial labor and fight.

1. Why does the fluid in the canister, which is supposed to be fuel or a power source, also cause genetic transformation?

Likely because it, like the other alien technology works involving alien genetics.

1. If the power fluid is so hard to produce, why did they produce so much extra fluid that Wikus could spray an apparently huge portion of it on his face and still be able to power up their ship?

The fluid is in a compressed container, Wikus didn't use very much of it, nor do we know if they actually had enough fuel to reach the ship.

1. Did the aliens bring their weapons down from the mothership or build them in the camp? If the former, why would the humans allow this? They could have denied the aliens food and/or transportation to earth unless they turned over their weapons. If the latter, why are they living in shanties if they can build advanced technological devices? Wouldn't they be able to build a proper dwelling?

The aliens were likely once again, not the ones that knew how to manipulate their technology in such a way, but likely knew how to assemble technology for themselves (i.e. a soldier being able to assemble his rifle and take it apart), most weapons could likely be scavaged from wreckage. Also, as can be seen by the confiscations, the aliens were not allowed to have them.

1. If the aliens are armed with advanced weapons, why do they allow themselves to be abused and their larvae burned?

Because they were leaderless and for the most part, stupid. The aliens who fought against usually got shot and killed.

1. Why can Christopher power up the lander and the mothership, but he can't transmit an SOS to his people?

Perhaps there are limitations on the ability to communicate over the distance traveled.

Remember, when watching a science fiction movie, it is a fiction about science, not a scientific fiction. 96.30.173.183 (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, no more general discussion about the finer points of the film's plot. Plot holes are not encyclopedic without secondary sources because they entail interpreting, whereas the point of a plot summary is to provide context for readers to understand the rest of the article. Any further debate about details without the explicit purpose of improving the article accordingly will be removed, per WP:TALK. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Movie set how long after the events?

PLOT SPOILER:

Does anyone know how long has passed at the end of the movie since the mothership left Earth? 86.143.63.65 (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

who wrote it?

Article does not say who wrote it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.44.253 (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done --uKER (talk) 07:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Shake your manly hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.44.253 (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request

Sorry if this has been mentioned elsewhere but i couldn't see it. The first sentence contains a clear error: "District 9 is a 2009 documentary directed by Neill Blomkamp and produced by Peter Jackson." Shouldn't that read Mockumentary? Unless I've missed some serious news announcements... Palendrom (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Date linking

Uker, please stop linking the date in the lead. Erik, representing the films project, prefers the dates unlinked. Please take up the issue with him. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead is looking good

But, I think we should trim the apartheid metaphor a bit in the lead. I believe the director and others have mentioned that the analogy is only a minor subtext and we should treat it that way. Viriditas (talk) 05:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Really? I thought it was a pretty big deal... it seemed like film critics frequently mentioned it in their reviews. Maybe present it in a "Critics noted..." manner? Erik (talk | contribs) 05:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was surprised to hear that as well, but if you watch the film you'll see that it is true. The subtext is very minor, but perhaps thematically it becomes more pronounced. Viriditas (talk) 05:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Um? I didn't think so. Perhaps we should help show the relevance of the theme in the movie instead of whacking it down. Almost all of Blomkamp's work deals with African social issues, so I'd say we should get it as detailed as it can get. What I could agree on, is just hinting at it in the lead, and moving the content into a new section. --uKER (talk) 06:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, we are talking about this work, not his oeuvre, but you make an interesting point. Can you find a reference for that? If you can, it would be nice to have in the article. In any case, your proposal sounds good. Viriditas (talk) 06:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at what I just did and let me know if it works for you. I'll try to make a mention of it in the lead though. --uKER (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I understand what you are trying to do, but you are reverting to a previously disputed version of the lead section that you previously authored, a version that is much more wordy and rearranges the description of the plot in a way you know I disapprove. You know perfectly well how I am going to edit it, so I would prefer we not play these kinds of games. Viriditas (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

WHAHAAAAT? I copy/pasted that paragraph from the latest version of the lead into a new section and added a sentence at the end. Diff here. Are you complaining about me mentioning Copley being featured in AiJ or what? Because that's the only thing I changed in the lead. --[[User:UKER|uKER] (talk) 06:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the structure, which reflected your earlier changes that we talked about. If you don't like the version in the lead now, tell me and we'll work something out. Viriditas (talk) 07:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I just did things going by common sense. I don't even know what is the previous version it ended up looking like. Anyway, I don't have a problem with the way things are. Not that I understand your problem with the way they were before either. I do notice, however, that we lose the mention of Copley having been featured in AiJ, but well... --uKER (talk) 07:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so you think that should be in the lead? It's really awkward to write (and read), "In District 9, Copley, who also had a minor acting role in Alive in Joburg." If enough people think it is important to place in the lead, I would like to know. I personally, do not think it is important for the lead section, since we need to focus on this film. Of course, the article should mention it in the body. Viriditas (talk) 07:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to have it there just for establishing the link between the two projects. I think it's relevant enough to deserve mention. I don't intend it to be in the lead. If we agree on it deserving mention, it's a matter of finding a place for it. --uKER (talk) 07:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I just relocated the "Themes" section to be between "Cast" and "Production", as suggested by WP:MOSFILM. --uKER (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Extra Trailer Info?

In the first trailer starting at around 0:57 there is an interrogation scene. It gives rather important information that the movie itself does not give. Should this be included in the plot summery (with a reference and everything)? Should the fact that an entire important scene in the trailer is not included in the movie? --99.229.206.22 (talk) 07:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It has been established that for every scene in the trailer that was in the movie, there's one that was not. About the interrogation scene, the major problem with it is that it doesn't go with the plot in the final movie. In it, Christopher says the government has their ship, which isn't the case. What is the information that you would like to add? --uKER (talk) 07:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

These things are classified as deleted scenes and could appear in several different ways (backstory, deleted scenes, trailers, etc.), but they wouldn't be appropriate for the plot section. Uker, you are taking things much too literally with the "government has their ship" comment. The government most certainly "has" their ship, (after all, they cut into it to take the aliens out, and put them in camps) but there's no way they can use the technology. The comment isn't intended to contradict anything in the story, and appears to be a way for Christopher to assure the authorities he isn't a threat and is buying time to fuel the command module. I am not aware of any deleted scene that contradicts the story portrayed in the film. Viriditas (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why would they write Christopher saying that the government has his ship if they don't? It's the same as the thing with the dates. Movies aren't improv. Everything that is said is supposed to be thought out. What is the point of having characters talking figuratively or with blatant imprecissions? My take is them changing the plot on the fly, even after the trailers were out, but that may be just me. In any case, I still don't get what is it that you intend to add. --uKER (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I admit the thing with the dates is really weird, but apparently $30 million is considered small potatoes for a science fiction film these days, so who knows what happened there. I'm not following the inconsistency you see with the trailers, so if you could explain in more detail that would help. In any case, the director has spoken out quite a bit regarding the trailers, so we have material to go on and we can use it if necessary. Viriditas (talk) 09:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If the government has their ship, why would it be left parked dangerously over Joburg? Did Christopher have to fight any troops to regain control of the ship? The ship was just left there, abandoned, because, for some inexplicable reason, although they are able to communicate perfectly well with the aliens, the humans can't work out a deal with the aliens to get the ship running again and get the aliens off their planet. It could be that the humans want to steal their technology, and Christopher doesn't trust them, but if that's the case, it should be part of the freaking movie.114.161.253.11 (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you see the film? The humans do want to steal the alien technology and Christopher doesn't trust them at all, especially after visiting the medical experiment ward, where they were using his buddies for target practice and vivisection. Viriditas (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

← Let's not speculate... I think what is likely is that when the film comes out on DVD, there may be such deleted scenes and explanations to accompany them. If we can find sources about them now, great, we can use them... but it's not useful for improving the article to discuss the scenes so generally. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk page clean-up

I recently reorganized the discussions to be ordered by when they were first started, and I archived discussions started before August 2009 at Talk:District 9/Archive 1. While it's great to see a lot of activity on the talk page, we need to make sure that discussions are focused on improving the article. If visitors ask questions that cannot be explained in the plot summary, then direct them to a forum like the one at IMDb for the film. In addition, there are some useful resources provided by various editors on the talk page, so let's make an effort to put good real-world context in the article, especially "Production". For what it's worth, I'm less sure about "Themes" because these tend to surface in retrospect, as in several years later. What exists now is very light material and not truly in-depth (not like Interpretations of Fight Club, which is a beast). Erik (talk | contribs) 19:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Resources to use

• Interview: Neill Blomkamp at Variety
• Neill Blomkamp Talks District 9 at VFXWorld
• District 9: Bringing Back '80s Sci-Fi at VFXWorld
• District 9 Rises From Ashes of Halo at Wired
• Embassy on 'District 9' at CGSociety
• For Humans Only: A Look Back at District 9's Success Story at FirstShowing.net (First Showing, LLC)
• What's That in the Sky? Is it a Spaceship? No, it's a Metaphor! at The L Magazine (can't tell if it is reliable, but appears well-structured)
• Secrets of District 9's Grungy Alien Realism at Wired (video interview)
• Q&A: Sci-Fi Director Neill Blomkamp Describes Life in District 9 As No Picnic at Huffington Post
• Neill Blomkamp Explains the Origin of District 9's Aliens at Popular Mechanics
• Peter Jackson is back to basics on low-budget 'District 9' at USA Today
• Exclusive: District 9 Director Neill Blomkamp at ComingSoon.net
• After 'District 9,' acting is no longer alien to Sharlto Copley at USA Today
• Sharlto Copley in deep end with District 9' role at Kansas City Star (reprinted from Chicago Tribune)
• Sci-fi apartheid film 'District 9' opens in South Africa at CNN
• 'District 9's' Neill Blomkamp does more with less at Los Angeles Times
• Sharlto Copley moves in front of the camera for 'District 9' at Los Angeles Times
• District 9: South Africa and apartheid come to the movies at The Guardian
• Residents report mixed feelings towards film crew at The Guardian

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)

• Sharlto Copley bio at MonstersAndCritics
• Neill Blomkamp bio at MonstersAndCritics

Updated 12:35, 3 Sept 2009 (UTC)

Jason Cope's roles

What I'm trying to say is that Jason cope has basically TWO roles, not three. They are Grey Bradnam (who is the UKNR Chief Correspondent) and the aliens. I expressed that very same thing only using dashes instead of parentheses. Perhaps parentheses are better, but commas are definitely not the way to go. BTW, I'm not really crazed about the numbering thing either. --uKER (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense... the dashes didn't really explain that. :P The numbering approach was a little convoluted, I agree... it was a kind of a quick-fix approach. I amended it to be straightforward prose. Should read much better now. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm buying it. --uKER (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"From camp to another in Johannesburg"

In this edit you may have been looking to shorten the sentence, but you reintroduced a mistake I had corrected here, some 20 edits before. District 10 is NOT in Johannesburg as that was the whole point of moving them in the first place. --uKER (talk) 11:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The statement does not exactly imply that both camps are in Johannesburg, but I'll fix the ambiguity. The amount of detail describing the plot in the lead seems to grow daily and it needs to be short and sweet. Viriditas (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Made the changes. Let me know if you still dislike them. Viriditas (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's fine. My issue was making clear that the main intention was getting the aliens out of the city. --uKER (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the confusion. If you need to reword it, keeping it short and punchy at the same time, then please do so. Viriditas (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I made a minor change, changing the Johannesburg reference to be attached to the camp, and not to Wikus. I only had to add three words. See if you're OK with it. --uKER (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It's fine, but keep in mind, it is certainly possible to condense it even more by simply referring to the entire move as "segregation" or "resettlement". The advantage of continuing to condense the lead is that we can add more information about the film. To start with, for example, we should add the theme of xenophobia back into the lead. Viriditas (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Added themes back into lead and somewhat condensed lead. I, for one, don't feel terribly urged to keep whacking it down. --uKER (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason it keeps getting "whacked down", UKER, is because we keep expanding it, and there's a give and take with the material, where we condense and expand, condense and expand, making sure to get rid of needlesss words and make every word tell a story about the film. As you already know, I don't like how the adapted story keeps getting expanded in the lead at the expense of District 9. We don't need to talk about the actors from the adaptation or the theme from that film. We do need to talk about the actors and the theme in this film, and that should appear in the lead. So, I like what you did with the theme, but it should stick to illustrating this film, not the short film. Viriditas (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Aren't you getting confused with some other discussion? This one is about the statement about Wikus relocating the aliens, and has nothing to do with adding info about AiJ. --uKER (talk) 14:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

No, see this. That's what I'm talking about. You are illustrating the theme of Aij in the lead, rather than D-9. Mind you, I'm not against presenting AiJ in the lead in the right way, but we really need to focus on this film, first. Viriditas (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver Film School

I think we need more about the role of the Vancouver Film School in the article, probably in one of the production sections. At last count, it looks like ~40 former (and possibly some current?) students from VFS worked on the film. I'm going from memory here, so my numbers could be off. Viriditas (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Copley starring in Alive in Joburg

I hereby remind everyone that I think it's worth somehow making mention of Sharlto Copley having an acting role in Alive in Joburg. I had suggested adding it to the lead, but it got removed, so I leave it to you to make a suggestion about where to fit it in. --uKER (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't it appear in the cast section? Viriditas (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought of it, but I didn't like the idea of it spanning more than one line. --uKER (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's fine there. That's where it belongs, and you can certainly expand it. Have you looked at the cast sections in other featured class film articles? Otherwise, you can put it in a production subsection, such as development. Viriditas (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

How much real-world context could we have about Sharlto Copley and his role? What we could do with the "Cast" section is have a paragraph about him then list the rest of the actors and their roles, who I don't think will have context to them. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Such a paragraph about Copley can mention his past role and any details about his role in this film. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should also bring into consideration that Copley is a childhood friend of Blomkamp's and was also a producer in AiJ. --uKER (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

These details could be mentioned in one fell swoop in a background-focused sentence. I have not absorbed all the coverage about this film... are there any interviews with Copley about his portrayal or the writing of his character? These would be even more relevant details. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's a nice amount of that. Something that should also be added is that most, if not all of Wikus' lines during the eviction were improv. --uKER (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent find! We should definitely use that. We should be able to pull together enough for a paragraph about Copley and his role, then list the actors and roles below him. Is this alright with everyone? I'm kind of touch-and-go at present; can't really do any article-building till later today. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing of shooting locations

I had added a maintenance tag marking the information as needing sources and it got removed, I'm not sure why. --uKER (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It got removed because it is already sourced in the body of the article (see the filming section). Per Wikipedia:LEAD#Citations if it is already sourced in the body (and provided it isn't controversial, challenged, or a quote from someone) we don't need the reference. The shooting location is widely quoted, and now appears sourced in the body to the NYT. Viriditas (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Viriditas; as long as the information is cited in the article body, we do not need to repeat citations in the lead section. This is usually done for articles with controversial subject matter, and I don't think that this particular topic has much controversy to it. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

My bad. Hadn't seen it sourced in "Filming". --uKER (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it's my fault. I should have said something on the talk page about it. Viriditas (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Something that we're missing about the location is that the eviction shooting took place in an actual forsaken camp, from which people had actually just been evicted. --uKER (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Please expand the filming section with sources. Viriditas (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done --uKER (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Name reassignation

Perhaps it should deserve mention that the name reassignation underwent by Christopher Johnson is analog to the one made to immigrants to Ellis Island. --uKER (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Right. If sourced, that would go in the themes section. Viriditas (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It's also something that was done in the past in South Africa; blacks were given English or Afrikaans names like "Victoria" or "Petrus" because their white employers couldn't pronounce the Bantu names. Claidheamhmor (talk) 06:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide a reliable source for that? It would be good to add it. --uKER (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

themes section could be upgraded from director interviews

Blomkamp has given some revealing interviews. I think the themes section could be upgraded a lot, using those interviews for source as well as referencing critic's interpretation of the themes. Blomkamp says apartheid is referenced, sure. But there is a lot more to it than that. He's also referencing the growth of military contractors (started in SA), gated communiites, Zimbabwe refuges, Somalia refugees, Nigerian crime, existing government's issues, etc.

Me speaking now: There is a lot more complication to SA than the typical American thinks who just imagines the bad old days of apartheid and now everyone is living happily ever after in some morality play. Yes...it was bad of course and it is good that it ended...but things are very interesting there now...and there is the example of Rhodesia...as a post apartheid catastrophe. Also, Blomkamp has said HIS FAMILY left SA because of fear for their safety. This is not just a civil rights movie...it is also about the issue of safety and disorder.

I think some thoughtful (non POV, but using a brain) amalgam of the expressed views by Blomkamp and more incisive critics would add a lot to the article. No I don't want to do it, myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.44.253 (talk • contribs) 11:27, August 31, 2009 (UTC)

What are some interviews that are revealing? Can you link us to them? I find that the best resources for "Themes" sections are multi-page publications, rather than a quick newspaper review. I was hoping for a Film Comment review since they tend to be pretty comprehensive and touch on themes. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least you could point us towards the sources you mention. And BTW, you should sign your posts by adding four apostrophes (~~~~) or clicking the signature button in the toolbar. --uKER (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/neill-blomkamps-giant-apartheid-metaphor/article1250883/ I would not make too much of things. He actually said that he started out with the movie being even more metaphorical and then added a lot more fun to it...even satirizing the genre (ala Robocop) to help him loosen up. (this was from another interview.) Just do a Google search on Blomkamp interview. There is even a prominent critic who disliked the movie because the message was mixed on racial aspects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.44.253 (talk • contribs) 12:25, August 31, 2009 (UTC)

Nerdy and disillusioned?

When is Wikus shown to be nerdy? If anything I'd say he's goofy, but that's not exactly it either. And disillusioned? What's that supposed to mean? --uKER (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't worry about such flavorful wording; let's keep it vanilla and keep it as "a worker at the..." Erik (talk | contribs) 19:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done --uKER (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Official websites

I just re-added the links to the official websites, otherwise not mentioned in the article. The thing is I can't make my mind about somehow fitting them into the external links, or giving them a section of their own. --uKER (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I oppose the inclusion of these websites. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a link farm, and viral websites are particularly fleeting. I experienced the same situation at The Dark Knight (film) where there were even more viral websites, and now they no longer linger because the websites are in the past. I find it best to write prose about such viral websites and hold onto only the core official website, which is why I wrote about the websites in the "Marketing" section. I touched on this before at Talk:District 9/Archive 1#External links. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

About Wikipedia not being a link repository, what it's supposed to say is that we shouldn't link every other random review out there. Official links, however, I'd say deserve mention in one way or another, as they are sources for official information. About their volatility, the answer is the same as the reason there's access dates in refs: the Way Back Machine. --uKER (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with mentioning the viral websites in the article body, but they don't qualify as external links (beyond the main official site). At the end of the day, the websites are advertising for a film. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and while it's okay to mention websites so close to the primary source in passing, to highlight them so clearly in an "External links" section is not NPOV. Articles at their best should have very few external links, and the batch of viral websites contributes to an unnecessary link farm. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll see to add them in prose to the marketing section later today. --uKER (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Erik. I somehow forgot to do this and only remembered when I just saw your edit summary. Good work on that. --uKER (talk) 21:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ratings

I'm looking for ratings. Isn't that kind of basic information that could be included? Am I missing it somewhere? Tom Haws (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

MOS:FILM#Ratings may explain. Ratings are social standards that will run the gamut, so there's no compelling secondary sourcing when it comes to this film's rating, such as the rating being too strict or not strict enough or doing well at the box office for its given rating. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I guess the MOS:FILM#Ratings says something, though it's rather obscure. Omitting any information on ratings certainly reduces the utility of movie articles. Why can't we do like IMDB and have multiple ratings? Is it that simple, or am I crazy? Tom Haws (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That was a big part of the problem. Ratings were merely culled from IMDb without any context for the film. There used to be a template, but it was deleted: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 20#Template:Infobox movie certificates. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 21:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess in the consensus of some group that was a negative. I can accept that without understanding or agreeing, since I have not participated in the consensus building. Thanks for your respectful answer. Tom Haws (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. :) Happy editing! Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 16:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Referring to aliens as "prawns" in the plot

The term "prawn" is only used in the movie informally, and derogatorily at it. Wikus and most of the interviewees (formal talking) refer to them as aliens. --uKER (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually for the most part I recall Wikus using the term prawn. However, this person that is changing all the references (or at least a lot of them) to prawns is incorrect. The term should only be noted as a nickname; the term doesn't seem to be derogatory. They should be referred to in the article as aliens.

For now I have changed it back to UKER's last version, but changed "derogatorily call" to nickname. I'm guessing not everyone's gonna be content with that, but it'll do.

After further reading, I realize that the creature the name prawn is derived from is considered a pest, so I now agree with the labeling the nickname derogatory.--Seb0910 (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't have needed to go that far. In the movie itself it is said "the derogatory term 'prawn' is used for the alien, and obviously it implies something that is a bottom feeder that..." --uKER (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Somewhere in the movie it was written "praun". Don't recall the exact scene, somewhere in the first half. I did not go to the effort to change it in the article, if someone could verify it first that would be best. And yes, I agree that it was a negative term, but clearly in common use. 71.111.205.16 (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If it was written as "praun" it was clearly a typo. Why would you want to change it in the article!? Also, the term is an informal term. Formal people in the movie refer to them as aliens. "prawn" is definitely not the term we should use in the plot. --uKER (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The part where the word "praun" was shown was on the sign of a protestor in the beginning of the movie; it can be assumed he spelled it wrong. --Seb0910 (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikus the alien at the end

So far I have been defending the idea of leaving the possibility of ambiguity as to whether the alien at the end is Wikus, but after having just seen the movie again, I can't see how it could be more explicit about it being so. I mean: 1) The scientists clearly say Wikus will end up becoming a prawn. 2) The alien has his left arm bandaged just like Wikus did. 3) After Wikus was said to often give his wife handmade gifts, she finds the flower and then this alien is shown crafting metal flowers. I really don't think there was any intention to leave any trace of ambiguity (we can't expect the movie to freeze and a "Wikus" sign to pop up with an arrow pointing at the alien), so I guess I'll finally add it to the article (which will also end the hassle to revert the two or three people adding it every day). --uKER (talk) 06:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some more confusion here. The point wasn't to leave open the possibility of ambiguity, but rather to write an accurate plot section. Saying, Wikus is shown in a scrapyard isn't supported by the scene, and the only thing we have tying the two together is the bandage and the flower, which we are free to describe. As an audience, we can certainly conclude with some certainty that this is Wikus, but we aren't given that exact information. If you need help with how to write plot sections, please consult the films project. Viriditas (talk) 07:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do agree. My problem is that due to omissions made in the article's plot description for the sake of length (Wikus' bandages, clothing, his liking for hand-made gifts, etc), the description of the final scene holds a certain ambiguity not reflected in the movie, which does all it can to say it's Wikus, short of putting a sign there saying it in big red letters. Also, as I said, amid the movie the scientists already say (no mystery there) that he will end up being a prawn. --uKER (talk) 07:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind, you are watching the film over and over again on your computer, and this gives you a different perspective. Meanwhile, the average audience member is watching the film once, and only sees the last scene for the briefest moment, maybe a matter of seconds. While it is true that the scientists say he will end up like a prawn, don't ignore the interviews with other people who say he is dead, missing, or whatever. Our job is to highlight the major plot points, and that's it. We are informed that Wikus' fate is unknown, even though we can guess, as members of the audience, that the transformed alien at the end is indeed, Wikus, even though we only get a small glimpse. The purpose of the flower and scrapyard scene is to lend weight to this idea, so it is important enough to describe that the alien has a bandage just like Wikus, etc. Viriditas (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The truth doesn't vary according to the degree of exposure to the movie. Also, what's the point of analysis but to NOT keep things at what you catch at first glance? I'm just trying to reflect the certainty the movie conveys about the alien being Wikus, and since it would be inviable to make mention of all the numerous (blatant) hints that are given at it, I thought we'd be better of just saying it. --uKER (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but the truth of the matter isn't known, and the film is presented in a documentary style. Our job here is only to describe the most important plot points. We agree that the appearance of the alien is important here, and that's why we describe it. That's the best we can do. Viriditas (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

What does the documentary style have to do with it? The townspeople in the movie don't know Christopher promised to go back and help Wikus. We certainly do. What's your point? Also, if the final word is not explicitly stating the fact, I'd say we at least make the hints clearer. --uKER (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The documentary style sets the tone for the film, and we get different opinions on the matter from interviews, cams, etc. That's the whole point of not saying exactly what happens to Wikus; We don't know, and neither does anyone else in the film. You might have a point about adding the combined hints (you list them above) to the plot, but only if they are important. Viriditas (talk) 07:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I want to go ahead and add that the alien in question is wearing rags that are the same color as the last set of clothes Wikus wears. I feel that whether or not we state explicitly in the article that the alien is Wikus (I personally think it should be stated, as someone who saw the movie just once and caught on pretty quickly), that this particular piece of information is worth noting. 138.238.231.92 (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I also wanted the article to come as close to the movie in conveying that the alien is Wikus, while remaining as (not) explicit as the movie. Thus, I explicitly stated the scientists assuming he was in the process of becoming wholly an alien, and the description of the scene also details the alien having a bandaged arm. While I do agree that the rags match Wikus' clothes, I'm currently happy with the article as it is, as I think adding every single clue to the alien being Wikus would put too much weight on the description of a three-second scene. --uKER (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Waiting"

And you removed the waiting thing once again, why? What is the alien doing at the end of the film? This is just as important as the bandage and the flower. After all, Wikus has to wait three years. I believe the term "waiting" is essential here, and more importantly, is accurate. Waiting is commonly defined as "remaining inactive in one place while expecting something". That is exactly what we see in the last scene, and it resonates with the plight of Wikus. Please add it back. Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

What he is doing? He is making a metal flower. What is your base for saying he is waiting? Would you say a person who goes into prison spends every second waiting from the moment he goes in? The man is facing three years of living stripped from his humanity, away from his wife, and turned into a creature he despised until three days before. I'd say waiting isn't the only thing that goes through his mind. --uKER (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I just finished addressing your entire statement above; Did you not read what I wrote? Please describe exactly what happens during the last scene in the film. What is he doing? Is his body moving from one place to another? What is his head doing? What is he doing with his hands and for what reason? I believe you are using a different definition of "waiting" than the one I have given you. Viriditas (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

His head and hands? I don't know what you're talking about. He is seen crafting the flower, he finishes touching it up, he looks up and the film ends. I didn't see any expectant inactivity. --uKER (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

We see him waiting in a scrapyard. He isn't moving from one place to another. The camera shows him looking up because he is waiting for the aliens to return in three years in order to change him back into his human form, and he's crafting a flower for his wife because he misses her and can't wait to be with her in his human form. What other word than "waiting" could possibly be more accurate here? I don't understand why you have removed this word, as it describes exactly what we see. Viriditas (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Um. You haven't watched the movie lately, have you? He never looks into the sky. About the other stuff, would you also say he was waiting when he made that paper maché bowl for his wife? Because he probably wasn't walking around while doing it, and he wasn't beside his wife either, though probably longing for her. If we'll make up a poetic wordy explanation for the scene, we could say we see him excercising his newfound hobby of crafting stuff from scrap metal, which will be his way of making his wife remember him while he can't be with her; an interpretation which would be much more meaningful and less speculative. Again, the alien shows no sign of being in a waiting state, and he even seems kind of excited by his creation, as if he had embraced his new condition. --uKER (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You have an alternate explanation for why he looks up? He's not looking into the sky, then? Tell me, what is he looking at? Is the sky above your head? Is the sky above his head? Please let me know what he is looking at if it isn't the sky, you know, where the alien ship went? The fact is, he is clearly waiting by every definition and usage of the word, and he is waiting expectantly, which is the entire purpose of looking up and making the metal flower. There is simply no other word to describe it. What is your objection to the word? To recap, we see the alien waiting in the scrapyard, waiting for the other aliens to return in three years (looking up) and waiting to be reunited with his wife again (making the metal flower). What other word would describe these three things other than waiting? Do you disagree with any of these things? The alien shows every sign of waiting, in all known usage of the term. Viriditas (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Basically with all of them and no offense, but you keep confirming you don't recall the scene. The alien's sight never gets away from the flower. By looking up I meant looking at a higher level than he was looking before. That is, before he finishes the flower he was holding it at waist level, and when he finishes it he lifts it to eye level extending his arm and raises his sight, but he never looks at anything besides the flower. Also, his expression conveys excitement or awe over anything else. There is no sign of sadness or longing. About him "waiting" to return to his original condition, it's as valid as seeing a scene with a convict working out in jail and saying he is waiting because he is expecting to be released in three years. Maybe it's kind of true in a poetic way, but factually speaking it's just speculative blurb. --uKER (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You said "he looks up", not me. So, you aren't saying he looks up into the sky? Fine. He's looking at the flower. He's still waiting in the scrapyard for the aliens to return in three years. And, he's still waiting to be with his wife again. You object to these two things? How can you say there is no sign of longing? What exactly is he longing for, if not for his wife, by making the flower? You're saying that by making the flower, he doesn't long for his wife? And are you saying that Wikus isn't waiting three years for the aliens to return? What's the purpose of holding the flower up? Viriditas (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Point is, you saying he's waiting (a mental state) doesn't abide to neutral point of view. My view on the scene is that they wanted to convey a sense that despite surely missing his normal life, he's embracing his new form, and he even seems thrilled by his new "hobby", judging by the expression on his face and general body language. So if anything this has proven controversial. --uKER (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

As I previously explained, his "waiting" is not simply a mental state, but a description of his physical status in the scene, and the word directly resonates with the key plots points in the film, i.e. Wikus waiting for the aliens to return in three years and his waiting to be reunited with his wife after the aliens reverse the process and turn him back into a human. Descriptively, we see the alien (Wikus) waiting in the scrapyard. That's what he is doing, and there is nothing mental about it. The word operates on many levels. It would be simply impossible for you to read some kind of mental state from the description of his alien facial features, and beyond absurd to state that he is thrilled to be living in a scrapyard/concentration camp eating cat food, so I'm assuming that's your attempt at humor. Viriditas (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I said he "seemed thrilled by his hobby", not by living in a scrapyard. About eating cat food, it's not a matter of need. He is an alien and it's what he likes now. Nobody is forcing him to eat it. About my "humor", I don't see what sounds so ridiculous to you. He may have finally take it as an ironical life lesson, karma, or whatever you may call it. It's the most shallow thing to suggest that he only could be bitter about it. Finally, it's funny how you talk about what his body shows when you couldn't tell whether he looked to the sky or not. Again, no offense, but you should look at it again. The scene doesn't read as him being waiting. But I am aware that I won't make you change your mind just like you won't change mine, so I'd just wait for other people to make themselves heard on the matter. --uKER (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It is impossible for you say he "seemed thrilled by his hobby"; There is no way to read the emotions on the alien face, and those types of descriptions ("thrilled") are human, not alien. I suggest you pay closer attention to what life is like in the camps. I very much doubt any alien was happy to live there, what with their children being killed, their homes destroyed, their bodies being killed and eaten, or used for medical experiments. You remember the reaction of the aliens in the labs and Christopher Johnson's reactions to the threat against his child? Again, you were the one who said "he is seen crafting the flower, he finishes touching it up, he looks up and the film ends". You did not say he looked at the flower. The word "waiting" in this context is defined as "remaining inactive in one place while expecting something", which is exactly what we see, both by his physical stance and his expectation (hope) for being with his wife again, which is made clear with the use of the flower. There is no more accurate word to describe the scene and your objection to it is based on what exactly? Nothing that I can see. Viriditas (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"There is no way to read the emotions on the alien face, and those types of descriptions ("thrilled") are human, not alien." God. You're kidding, right? BTW, as I said, I won't waste any more effort in this and wait for external input instead. --uKER (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It is impossible to read any emotions on the face of that alien in that brief scene, and the word "thrilled" cannot be gleamed from any aspect of it. This is the type of face you are claiming to read emotions from in the brief scene that lasts seconds. It is impossible. You are welcome, of course, to show otherwise. What makes him "thrilled"? To me, it looks like you are trying to change the subject by avoiding my question. Your objection to the word "waiting" does not appear to be valid. Is the alien in the last scene of the film "waiting" in any sense of the word? Let's look at the scene: The alien remains inactive while crafting a flower in one place. Is that a form of waiting? What could he possibly be waiting for, anyway? Perhaps for the ship to return in three years, so that he can be changed back into human form and reunited with his wife, the wife he is crafting the metal flower for in the first place? Which is more likely, that the alien is waiting or thrilled? Viriditas (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Third. Party. Arbitration. --uKER (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Not needed in the slightest. Have I added the word into the article since this discussion has taken place? No. All I require is understanding of your position. For me, the shorter the plot the better, so I have no problem with cutting out as much as possible. Viriditas (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have already asked for it, since I also respect your having a different view. I do understand what you interpret from the movie and I respect it. I just don't think it's fit for an encyclopedic article, just like my interpretation of him embracing his condition isn't either. --uKER (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that you offered a straw man argument, not an alternative interpretation. The description of "waiting" fits the last scene, and when I gave you the very definition of the word and asked you why it didn't several times, you were unable to answer my questions. As I said, I am happy with a short plot section. Viriditas (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

← I do not have an opinion on whether or not to mention the final scene in question, but if we are to mention it, I suggest keeping it brief (just like the scene itself), something along the lines of, "In the final scene, an alien is seen making a metal flower." We don't need to inject motive or emotion. If necessary, back details of such a scene with a secondary source. I want to say this, though... I consider the plot summary the least important part of a film article. Too much time is wasted discussing the summaries' nuances; for all we know, this issue will re-surface long after both of you move on to other articles. It is more useful to contribute real-world context because a good portion of visitors are likely to have seen the film, where they are much less likely to be familiar with references that provide context. We have a lot of resources to use, listed a few discussions above. My $0.02. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I did provide my interpretation, and SEVERAL TIMES so, and it's equally valid (not that I'd ever intend to mention it in the article). I could call your arguments a straw man too, but I try not to be so close-minded. BTW, my intention is the same thing Erik is saying. Facts. No inferred intention or emotion. --uKER (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You offered a straw man intended to refute, not an alternative interpretation. There's a huge difference between the two. And saying that a character is waiting is not an inferred intention or emotion, but rather a description of the scene. It just so happens that it has multiple layers to it, resonating with the Wikus' character. Which is precisely why it is accurate. Viriditas (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Read "my opinion is perfect in all imaginable ways and your puny excuse for an opinion is hopeless in trying to refute it". Copy that. --uKER (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

uKER you plainly (and so obviously) offered a straw man argument, which you shot down to make what you thought was your point. That's not a valid interpretation or comparison. Do you understand? If you don't, please read the article. The very idea that you could read the emotions on an alien face (which cannot be read during the film due to the alien facial structure) in a matter of seconds and translate them into "thrilling" when there is nothing thrilling in the scene to begin with, is tantamount to absurdity. It's a classic straw man, not an interpretation based on the film. Viriditas (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

My take is that you saying that the aliens' faces don't convey emotion makes me question your sanity. --uKER (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The director is on record saying that they had to abandon his first choice for alien design because he was told that the audience would not be able to identify with them and this would impact the reception of the film. The replacement allowed for one human feature, the eyes. So, we cannot judge emotion from the aliens faces, but the audience may possibly identify with their eyes. In any case, I think you are putting me on, and enjoying it. Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Out of this Google search, I found these: 1234, just to cite a few, and particularly citing the last one, "Christopher Johnson might be the most expressive CGI creation ever to grace the screen." --uKER (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Expressive CGI, not face. Huge difference, there. And yes, the CGI is expressive in many ways. It does not mean in any way that you can infer that the alien thought he was experiencing a "thrilling" moment in the last scene. That's something you deliberately made up out of thin air and isn't in the film. Viriditas (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Your arguing that the aliens' faces aren't expressive is just ridiculous and won't waste any more time arguing over it. I'm out. --uKER (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Do any of those refs that you have offered discuss the expressiveness of the face? They talk about the eyes. The face doesn't really do anything in the film, nor can it express emotions like our face can. The emphasis on the eyes was intentional, as the team was concerned about communicating emotions, and the original design was so alien, people could not identify with it. Viriditas (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I deeply apologize. It had slipped my mind that the aliens' eyes were on their kneecaps and not on their faces. I now stand corrected. --uKER (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

They don't have human faces. This is precisely why their eyes are designed to be expressive. And yet, there is not a single frame in the film where our understanding of a particular scene depends on their eyes. Viriditas (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I didn't take the time to read the entire mass of words in this section, but did you ever get to the bottom of the "waiting" issue? --Seb0910 (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're talking about an agreement, I guess the answer is no. Basically, my take is that him being waiting is arguable, and Viriditas saying it's not just undeniable, but also somehow meaningful in many levels. Your view on the matter will be welcome. --uKER (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "waiting" is suitable for what the alien was doing. Waiting seems too vague, you might as well say standing. I think all that should be mentioned is that the alien is shown crafting the metal flower. --Seb0910 (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It isn't vague at all, because we know the alien is "Prawnkus" (see Shorter soundtrack), and we have already established that this means he is waiting three years for C. J. to return and restore his human body. We also know that the alien is waiting in the scrapyard while he crafts the flower for his wife, which means he is waiting to return to her, so the word has a specific meaning on several levels. Nevertheless, I prefer to keep the plot as short as possible, and if removing "waiting" works towards this goal, that's fine. Viriditas (talk) 04:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess we have to seperate the "what the movie shows" and "what the movie wants to tell us" views. The movie shows us that Vikus will transform totally into a Prawn and it also shows that Christopher promises to come back in 3 years to save Vikus and the other refugees. Plus, we know that Vikus' arm is injured because he heeled of his thumb. We also know from the plot that he likes hand-made stuff and his wife once says something like: "You know the real woth of self-made stuff if you are in a special situation" or something. So we know those few facts from the story.

Now, you are discussing about the last picture of the film and it seems some of you are mixing those two views. Well, lets analyse this picture this way:

- The movie shows an alien with Vikus' clothes and a bandaged arm.

- It wants to tell us that this is Vikus and he is alive.

- The movie shows us that he's fully concentrated in making a metal flower. Prior it shows how his wife holds it in her hands.

- It wants to tell us that he is the one who made this flower and layed it on his wife's doorway. It wants to tell us that he misses and thinks of her though he is no human anymore.

- The movie shows that he lives in District 10 now and has an old-new hobby and he does not show emotions.

- It wants to tell us that he kills time in making random stuff and waits for Christopher to come back.

Of course he does not show emotions. Did you see strong facial emotions on the other aliens faces? No, because it seems like they cannot smile or something but they have inner emotions like you could see in the scenes with Chris and his boy or when Christopher notices what MNU did to his mates in the lab.

As both of you, uKER and Viriditas, discussing, you cannot write he is waiting for Christopher in the plot summary of the article because you do not see it, you just know it because this is what the movie wants to tell us. I agree with you that this does not fit into the plot summary. The only way to put this between-the-lines part in the article would be to make a seperate "Interpretation" section. --AriesT (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm long out of the discussion, but anyway, just for the record, it baffles me how people who supposedly did see the movie can say the aliens don't show any emotion, even in the presence of critical praise for the animators for achieving that very same thing even with a non-human face. --uKER (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I did not see this discussion earlier. I wrote they cannot show strong facial emotions but they do can show physical and gestual emotions, thats absolutly right and I did not forget that. The animators did an awesome job. In fact, this maybe is the first movie I've seen in the last 22 years since I'm alive in which I had an emotional attachment and compassion to an alien because they are seem real and not "big bad evil" like in the most other scifi flicks. I guess you got me wrong with this. ;) --AriesT (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Country of origin

The article used to say the movie is American. Now some anonymous user changed it into "South African", which got me thinking. The movie is by no means American, but now that I think of it I seem to recall it's a New Zealander production. Can anyone confirm? ATM I can't do it but will do as soon as I can. --uKER (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Some sources say it is a co-production between South Africa and New Zealand, but most list it as a New Zealand film. Viriditas (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The best practice is that if the nationality is not clear, skip the mention in the lead sentence and mention throughout the lead section how different countries were involved in the film's production. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Blade runner homage

Philip French is one of the few critics who noticed the Blade Runner homage at the end (compare the flower with Gaff's origami).[3] Viriditas (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A critic making a comparison doesn't turn it into a homage. Given a source, I guess you can mention it, but it isn't a homage unless the makers intended the reference. --uKER (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This is no critic, this is Philip French, and it's a deliberate, obvious homage that every science fiction fan "got" the first time they saw the film. I have no intention of adding it unless there's more sources on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"Philip French is one of the few critics ..." and "This is no critic, this is Philip French". Viriditas, what do you mean? (and does it really matter?) Also, if the object made by Wikus/the alien at the end was an origami unicorn, I'd be happy to mention it as a direct homage. But it's just a flower made from metal, as a symbolic gift in the same way that Wikus used to make small gifts for his wife previously. Gaff's origami were not symbolic gifts at all; about all I can see they have in common is that they are both small, and handmade. There is none of the cultural heritage of origami in a metal flower. I can't see that this is either plausible or notable enough to make it into the article. YojimboSan (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

French did not use the word "homage", I did. He said, "District 9 ends on a touching scene that evokes Ridley Scott's Blade Runner, but it's an honest film that repays its debts." You are free to believe that Neill Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell were not paying homage to one of the greatest science fiction films ever made, but I won't be joining you. Viriditas (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't one think that had they wanted to make a homage they could have made a clearer one? A metal rose for a paper unicorn? If he had made some animal out of aluminum foil, even if it was not origami, I'd buy it. --uKER (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What does the flower represent? Why a flower? Viriditas (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a flower because he couldn't get paper maché in the scrapyard to make another bowl. Why must it have a deep thoughtful reason? --uKER (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Because, the entire film is an allegory. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I see. So the cat food must be some kind of allegory, perhaps to ALF who is also an alien and liked to eat cats himself. --uKER (talk) 01:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The general allegory is well documented in reliable sources, so you're just taking the piss, again. Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

So what's your point? The movie being an allegory of the apartheid automagically makes a metal flower into an allegory of an origami unicorn from a completely unrelated sci-fi movie from 30 years ago? Am I missing something? --uKER (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You're missing a hell of a lot. Look up trope, while you're at it. You're still trying to see things literally. Viriditas (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I know perfectly well what a trope is, and the Blade Runner thing still seems like a stretch, but of course, suit yourself. --uKER (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

In an interview with Danny Peary, Ridley Scott talks about the last major scene of Blade Runner (Batty's death scene) and how it resonates with the theme of apartheid.(Kerman,Retrofitting Blade Runner, 1997) Blade Runner and District 9 share many other similar themes, such as "what does it mean to be human?" (in comparison to an alien or replicant) and both have xenophobic elements. To get back to a previous question, the flower that "Prawnkus" (see Shorter's soundtrack) holds in his hand represents love, and in this case, love for his wife. This is interesting, since according to Thomas B. Byers, Batty saves (and spares) Deckard in the final scene because he loves life, showing that for a replicant, he can act more human than those sent to kill him. Love is, after all, one of the highest, defining human qualities. Byers goes on to talk further about Blade Runner, but simply replace that film title with District 9 and there's no difference: "Blade Runner further explores the indistinguishably of human being and humanoid, carrying it to the point where even the protagonist himself cannot be certain that he is human, and where the inhuman antagonist finally acts more humanely than the human beings. The deconstruction of the human-humanoid opposition is at the center of a critique of the economic and political arrangements of a future society that is an extension of our own." Viriditas (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm having a very hard time differentiating the subject of this thread from the million I-Spy sections we have where random people keep tacking what they take to be shout-outs to various bits of popular culture onto Simpsons episode articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that one is a major theme in science fiction that shows up again and again in films with non-humans, and the other is more akin to a visual Easter Egg or in-joke. Way back in the day, the primary entertainment value behind watching The Simpsons was to catch these references, although the vast majority of people didn't care or bother to use the pause button. This brings up an interesting point about watching and "reading" film. Good films have a significant depth to them, and pose more questions than answers. Viriditas (talk) 06:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I was actually referring to the review itself, which consists primarily of sentences going "ooh, that's sort of like this film" and the like. Using a snippet of said review as a rationale for making this article a dissertation on the treatment given to the meaning of humanity by science fiction would not seem to be appropriate IMO. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know which expert you are referring to here, French or someone else. Did you read the part at the top where I said, "I have no intention of adding it unless there's more sources on the subject"? If there were a significant number of sources discussing the themes of District 9, what exactly would you be objecting to here? Viriditas (talk) 07:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did, as it was surrounded by what looked to me like an insinuation that we should be treating what appears to be a rather subtle and incidental shout-out as a major theme on the basis that "every science fiction fan" thought it "deliberate" and "obvious". If that's not the case, then again I don't really see what the point of the thread was. To serve as a reminder to dig up references? There doesn't seem to be anything to discuss; if multiple references make a big deal of this then we should include it, and if they don't then we shouldn't. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I see things differently than you. Apparently, there is a lot to discuss and add to the article. Blomkamp claims he is heavily influenced by Ridley Scott, and several critics have noticed the similarities between Scott's films and District 9. I suppose it isn't a coincidence that he is represented by RSA as well. Viriditas (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd far rather that we lagged our sources (plenty more will be written about this film, which isn't even a month old yet) rather than picking a direction to head in and hoping to find references to back it up. But of course you've already said you'll do that, so we're really in agreement here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussing the influences on him as he wrote “District 9,” Blomkamp said, “I have a set list of my favorite science-fiction genre movies that had a huge effect on me. But the way I think of ‘District 9’ is, definitely when I was making it there was no one conscious film. It was more that all of the science-fiction that had an effect on me kind of got congealed into this nugget of sci-fi and then got put into Jo’Burg. It wasn’t any one particular thing, it was kind of everything that I liked. But… ‘Alien’ and ‘Aliens’ would probably be the two highest, and then ‘Blade Runner,’ ‘2001’ and ‘Robocop.’ Those are probably the staples.”[4]

• Ok, so we already know from other articles and interviews that Alien/Aliens influenced the design of the Prawns in the film. I'm curious about the other films, though. Viriditas (talk) 10:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Body horror

A link and description of the body horror genre still needs to be added, with sources attributing the development/influence of the horror aesthetic to Jackson's Braindead (1992). Viriditas (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Heavy drug use in oppressed population

Heavy drug use in oppressed population. I'm surprised that no one mentions the heavy drug use in the alien population. Everyone is assuming that the cat food is food. Look at what the aliens will do just to get a can of cat food while they have alternate sources of food, they don't fight for cow meat. "catnip but worse" They're addicted to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mithrang (talk • contribs) 16:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of social aspects that could be read into any film. We try to include information in the article that has been reported by secondary sources. Do you know of any sources that cover drug usage, particularly beyond a passing mention? Erik (talk | contribs) 16:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur. While the point is an interesting one, Wikipedia is no place for us to put our own analysis of the movie, and we should limit ourselves to citing reliable external sources. --uKER (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm new to contributing to wikipedia. Thanks for the insight. I'll see if i can find a source that validates my suspicion--Mithrang (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't explain why Wikus craves cat food prior to ever having eaten it before. Nor why an agency which has such an advantage hasn't managed to persuade any aliens to aid them in their research in 25 years, when the threat of withdrawal of a seriously addictive agent would make that trivial. A far simpler explanation is that processed meat is significantly more palatable and nutritious than raw chunks of cow and that the choice of cat food as the processed meat of choice rather than, say, SPAM was an editorial decision to highlight the differences between alien and human culture. At any rate I don't think that your assertion is likely to be borne out by any reliable sources, and we can't include our own speculation here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem Wikus' being attracted to cat food without having tried it before. While he probably hadn't tasted it, he obviously knew how it looked, smelled, its texture and whatnot, and after the mutation he simply became drawn to it. About the MNU not bribing the aliens with it, what makes you think they didn't try? But then, what would you think the MNU could get from them? Besides Christopher, the aliens seemed pretty savage and useless. In any case, I don't see how this invalidates the point about the cat food being a reference to drug use. --uKER (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Please keep discussion focused on improving the article. We have a possible topic to cover in the article, but if we cannot find any secondary sources to cover the topic, we should not go any further. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 14:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

All we know (and can source) is that the aliens liked canned food, and the Nigerians traded cat food for alien weapons. Viriditas (talk) 09:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I can find third party sources pointing out how the aliens are exploited in a similar fashion to other third-world poverty situations [5] and how Obesandjo represents a crime lord. I can't find a first hand account from the writer or director. I think it's a theme that is getting missed by the article. Everyone assumes that aliens are savages, they are victims of their situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mithrang (talk • contribs) 15:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't, but my point was that this alleged reference is not axiomatic enough to be presented without reliable secondary sourcing. Until we have some, it can't go in. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Mention of cast in plot

What the title says. Yes or no? I'm for no. --uKER (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you thinking about a comprehensive identification of all characters mentioned in the plot summary? I think that the mention is unnecessary because the key actor for the film is Sharlto Copley, and we do not need to go beyond this. I do not favor such mentions especially for secondary characters and because it is redundant with the "Cast" section. However, we can explore other ways to present the "Cast" section if it feels too bland. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 18:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm fine with the way it is. My problem was the stray mention of the actor playing Obesandjo, which I have just removed. --uKER (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Mock documentary

Extended content

The appropriate link in the lead should be mock documentary, not documentary. I'm not clear why it keeps getting changed. Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Agreed. It's not a documentary unless the events are in fact real, which I think we agree they aren't. --uKER (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC) I've changed it once - and explained in my edit summary - it is not satire, it is not comical, it does not "mock". Please also verify your information as I did not link it to documentary but to docufiction --Trödel 02:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Mock documentary does not mean that the film is satire or comical, and the term "mock" is commonly used to mean "imitation", and that's precisely how it used here. "Docufiction" is a neologism that was apparently just invented and is in limited use. The most common term in regards to this film is "mock documentary" not "docufiction". Viriditas (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC) I just reviewed about 15 reviews by "top critics" as identified by Rotten Tomatoes - none refer to the film as a mock documentary - several refer to it as a faux-documentary[6][7][8][9], two as a psuedo documentary[10][11] and several as a documentary style[12][13][14]. About 1/3 don't have the text "docu" in the review at all. It seems pretty clear to me that if we are going to describe it as docu anything it should be faux-documentary or style of documentary - as no major review that I spot checked referred to it as a mock documentary (granted I randomly spot checked only about 15). --Trödel 03:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Trödel, a "faux documentary" is a common synonym for a "mock documentary", and the term "mock documentary" has been in use by film critics for a long time. It is the established term. Now, I can easily prove that the correct term for District 9 is a mock documentary, but I'm curious what your criteria for acceptance is in this case. In other words, what kind of evidence will you accept? Viriditas (talk) 08:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC) There's no special criteria - just verifiable reliable sources. I note that the mockumentary is completely unsourced, and the first external link goes to a Webster's dictionary definition that is different that the definition above. Webster's claims a mockumentary is "a facetious or satirical work (as a film) presented in the style of a documentary" - District 9 is neither facetious nor satirical. However faux documentary is clear in its meaning without having the satirical or facetious undertones the term mock has. It also has the benefit of having been used by verifiable reliable sources in describing the film. --Trödel 17:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Trödel, there are dozens of verifiable, reliable sources describing District 9 as a mock documentary. And, you keep talking about the poor state of the mockumentary article on Wikipedia which has been changed beyond recognition by many editors and anon IPs. Have you taken a moment to look at older versions of the page? It clearly describes the "mock" and "false" (faux) documentary in the appropriate context. You might also take a moment to look through Google books to see how and why the terms "mock" and "faux" documentary are exactly the same. I'm still not clear on what your criteria is for accepting this, because I can easily provide the sources. I'm just surprised that after doing some research, you continue to ignore them. So, I can sit here and give you link after link to published sources on the subject, but you aren't giving me any guarantees that you will accept them. Film critics and historians have used the term "mock documentary" (same, exact term as "faux") for many years, and the literature on this extensive. If you had looked at Google books, you would have noticed that this topic (deciding on the terms) has been discussed before. Roscoe and Hight talk about it in Faking it: Mock-Documentary and the Subversion of Factuality (2001), and out of all of the terms on the subject, they explain why "mock-documentary" is the most appropriate term to use. The book is widely used as a textbook in documentary film studies.one example And we really see this reflected in the film literature. I see you have now added faux-documentary to the article, still not understanding that this is the accepted synonym for mock documentary. Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC) If other sources can be easily provided, I suggest you change the article with those sources and see if consensus agrees with that approach. And if you view them as synonyms then aren't we done - I mean one can use Big or Large to describe something - both are valid, and if the Reliable Sources use Large instead of Big - then we just use Large.... --Trödel 20:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC) I somewhat agree that "mockumentary" has a humorous undertone to it that would make it a particular case of faux documentary which D9 doesn't fit. My take is that given the intention to disqualify D9 as a mockumentary, one should first move the current "mockumentary" article to "faux documentary" and create a "mockumentary" section in it. Only then would D9 fit the given definition for a faux documentary and not a mockumentary. --uKER (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC) There appears to be some confusion about the term here, no doubt caused by the poor status of the mockumentary article, which apparently nobody actually bothered to read. In this case, "mock documentary", false documentary, and faux docuntary are all the same thing, and have long been part of the mockumentary article. For some reason or another, the entry on mockumentary was never merged into a parent topic, and instead, the reverse was true: The "mock documentary" style became part of it. "Mock", meaning imitation, does not necessarily have the same humorous connotation as "mockumentary", even though the terms sound similar. In fact, the term "mock documentary" is often used to refer to a serious film, such as District 9. It appears that at least one editor briefly glanced at the term (without reading the article or doing any research on the term) and decided that "mock documentary" and "mockumentary" were both references to a humorous style. This is not true. Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Regardless of how we try to define mockumentary or mock documentary it includes the word mock, which has a mocking or ridiculing connotation. Although imitation is included in the definition of the word mock, it is not a synonym for imitation, but a word that has a meaning close to imitation with connotations of ridiculing the subject. All the dictionaries I've consulted on the word Mock (on and off-line) give ridicule as a synonym not imitate. For example: Merriam-Webster : 1 : to treat with contempt or ridicule : deride, 2 : to disappoint the hopes of, 3 : defy, challenge, 4 a : to imitate (as a mannerism) closely : mimic b : to mimic in sport or derision Cambridge: (1) to laugh at someone, often by copying them in a funny but unkind way; (2) to make something appear stupid or not effective Thus there is no way that one can avoid the ridiculing connotation. Faux does not have this connotation but clearly communicates that it is not a true documentary. However, regardless of what I think of the word, the more important consideration is that third party reliable sources refer to the film as a faux documentary with much more regularity than any other term. So why are we still discussing this - is there some reason we should not use the term that is used by the references? Frankly I could care less about the internal battle over definition in the film industry or amongst film scholars. Using a definition that some editors think fits the movie rather than what the reliable sources have used is a clear example of WP:SOAP --Trödel 11:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Trödel, we are using the word "mock" as an adjective, not as a verb. Please stop confusing the two. Merriam-Webster supports the use of the adjective[15] and the adjective is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "not authentic or real".[16] This is why we use the term to describe Mock turtle soup, which is an imitation of turtle soup, mock combat an imitation of combat, mock trial an imitation of a real trial, Mock Tudor architecture, Mock-orange a shrub whose flowers imitate those of oranges, and a mock object in computer programming that simulates real objects. Please pay close attention to the fact that there is no "ridiculing connotation" in the use of the adjectival form. District 9 is described appropriately as a film in the mock documentary style, and this is the accepted and preferred use of the term in film studies. The reliable sources on both the film and the style support this term, and you appear to keep ignoring the sources I have offered you. How many sources will it take to change your mind? Viriditas (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC) I've tried to find some and you've failed to produce any RS --Trödel 00:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC) How many and what kind would you like? I've asked you this several times now, and you refuse to answer. I know you refuse to answer because you will move the goalposts when and if I meet your request. And, I've already given you at least one academic source that recommends using the term. So, how many sources and what kind would you like? Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC) The only source you've give is a general article that recommends usage and gives a description of what types of film they mean by the term. It DOES NOT use the term to describe District 9. Thus, if we use the term then we are writing original research. But you already know that and have some kind of agenda that doesn't involve actually improving this or the mockumentary article. --Trödel 02:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Trödel, I'm very interested in your theory. Tell me, what is my "agenda" here, and how is it related to the mockumentary link you keep removing from this article? You said you reviewed the top reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and didn't find any use of the term. That isn't true and you know it. You also continue to use the verb rather than the adjective. We aren't using the verb here. We know by looking at the top reviews by the top critics that the term mock documentary/mockumentary/mock-doc is used extensively. Yet, you claim that it isn't. So, you want me to give you the sources that you already said you looked at? Is that what you are saying? Why is there no article on a faux documentary, but an article on a mockumentary? Trödel, take a good look at your argument. The only agenda here is your own. You personally believed (without any evidence whatsoever) that "mock documentary/mockumentary/mock-doc" was the wrong term, and you removed it. In other words, you changed this article not based on the evidence that you claim to have looked at, but on your own personal beliefs. As I previously explained above, Roscoe and Hight recommend the term in Mock-Documentary and the Subversion of Factuality (2001), and this source is widely used in film studies, and we see the top film critics using it. The link you removed was appropriate and supported. Viriditas (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC) I have no idea - but to continue to argue rather than just provide reliable sources is seriously confusing to me. Why not just provide a link to your userpage instead of being a jerk. --Trödel 19:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Author Credentials Source Title Usage Date Notes Accomando, Beth Studied film at UCSD, President of San Diego Film Critics Society, covers film for NPR's Morning Edition and PRI's The World. Currently film critic for KPBS. KPBS District 9: New Sci-Fi Lives Up to Comic-Con Buzz "Blomkamp begins the film like a mock documentary/reality show but then allows for strictly dramatic scenes to play out...Blomkamp also mixes real news footage with mock reality footage to give the film the feel of a 24-hour news channel." 2009-08-14 [17] Axmaker, Sean Film critic. Master’s degree in Telecommunications and Film Studies from University of Oregon. Formerly with Seattle Post-Intelligencer, voter in the Seattle Film Critics Awards, contributing writer to Turner Classic Movies Online, DVD columnist for MSN Entertainment. Seattle Post Globe Film review: District 9 "District 9 opens in familiar mock documentary form: a brief history of alien arrival, the rescue of a helpless population from a disabled craft, the failed attempts to crack the DNA-enabled alien technology (specifically energy-blasting weapons that could makes billions for the lucky arms industry that finally harnesses it) and the increasing public hostility toward the stranded race that has been reduced to scavengers..And Blomkamp is not wedded to the mock-doc style and shifts to traditional narrative storytelling to follow the story of an alien activist (named Christopher, a wonderfully incongruous touch that reminds us how their very identities have been redefined by their human hosts-turned-overseers) and his son, whose destinies get tangled with Vikus." 2009-08-13 [18] Bodey, Michael Writer (Aussiewood (2005), Men's Style Australia), former editor of The Daily Telegraph (Australia), and film critic for The Age and The Australian The Australian Strangers in a strange land "It begins as a mock-documentary explaining how 20-odd years ago, an alien spacecraft came to Earth and parked itself, to humankind's obvious surprise, not above New York or Los Angeles, but Johannesburg. " 2009-08-12 [19] Bond, Matthew Film critic, member of The Critics' Circle. Currently film critic for The Mail on Sunday The Mail on Sunday Out of this world "Three factors contribute to the film's terrific impact. First is the sheer inventiveness displayed by director Neill Blomkamp, who manages to breathe real vigour into the potentially rather tired technique of mock documentary footage, which involves Wikus being pursued by a camera crew for most of the film's first half." 2009-09-06 Print only? Clarke, Donald Film critic for The Irish Times The Irish Times A breed apart "Beginning as a hybrid of mockumentary and drama, the picture invites academics and journalists to explain how a vast spaceship appeared in the South African sky during the mid-1980s." 2009-09-04 [20] Chang, Justin Recent graduate of the USC Annenberg School of Journalism, former editor of the Daily Trojan, freelancer for the Los Angeles Times, Secretary for the Los Angeles Film Critics Association, currently copy editor/film critic for Variety Variety District 9 Review "As scripted by Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell, the result reps a remarkably cohesive hybrid of creature feature and satirical mockumentary that elaborates on the helmer's 2005 short "Alive in Jo'burg," borrows plot points from 1988's "Alien Nation" and takes its emotional cues from 'E.T.'" 2009-06-28 [21] Corliss, Richard Writer for Time magazine, former editor-in-chief for Film Comment Time District 9: The Summer's Coolest Fantasy Film "What is more likely to grab viewers is the dynamic storytelling (partly in mockumentary form), the gruesome yet sympathetic aliens, the robot suit that briefly turns Wikus into Iron Man, and the surfeit of body parts exploding. Like David Cronenberg — especially in his masterpiece, The Fly — Blomkamp is fascinated by the ways our bodies morph, decay and betray us." 2009-08-13 [22] Ebert, Roger Syndicated film critic and screenwriter Chicago Sun-Times District 9 "This science-fiction fable, directed by newcomer Neill Blomkamp and produced by Peter (“The Lord of the Rings”) Jackson, takes the form of a mockumentary about van der Merwe’s relocation campaign, his infection by an alien virus, his own refuge in District 9 and his partnership with the only alien who behaves intelligently and reveals, dare we say, human emotions...It is also a seamless merger of the mockumentary and special effects (the aliens are CGI)." 2009-08-13 [23] French, Philip Film critic ( Cult Movies (1999); The Movie Moguls (1969;2005), formerly with The New Statesman, The Financial Times, and The Times, writer for Sight and Sound, jury Cannes Film Festival. Listed as 7 out of the 10 greatest film critics of all time. Honored by the British Academy of Film and Television Arts for his work in 2008. The Observer District 9 "A plausible mockumentary traces the story of the invasion from the mother ship's arrival up to the present. " 2009-09-06 [24] Gingold, Michael Journalist, screenwriter, actor, magazine editor for Fangoria Fangoria DISTRICT 9 (Mike's Film Review) "Parallels to apartheid and other ills of the region are obvious but unforced, and those implicit connections help make the environment and basic situation 100 percent convincing. Ditto the mock-documentary style, which by now is familiar but still works in this fresh context and makes us fully acquainted with the landscape before the specific story gets started...Stylistically, Blomkamp and cinematographer Trent Opaloch transition from the mock-doc aesthetics to the necessarily less vérité approach smoothly enough, and keep the proceedings pacey and exciting." 2009-08-14 [25] Jones, J. R. Film critic for the Chicago Reader Chicago Reader District 9 "The parallels to racial apartheid aren’t exactly subtle, but the mockumentary frame allows for plenty of talking-head segments that sketch out a satirical alternate history." 2009-08-06 [26] Keogh, Tom Arts writer/critic, formerly with the Seattle Weekly, Eastsideweek, The Herald and KUOW. Currently arts critic for the The Seattle Times and Film.com. The Seattle Times 'District 9': Is it sci-fi, drama or comedy? "...the film starts as a mock documentary about the eviction of a million-plus extraterrestrials from a South African shantytown." 2009-08-13 [27] Lee, Chris Staff writer for the Los Angeles Times Los Angeles Times 'Alien' bus-stop ads create a stir "They are part of a viral marketing campaign for Sony Pictures' documentary-style sci-fi thriller "District 9"...Filmed in a quasi-documentary style, "District 9," the $30-million special-effects-heavy film from newcomer Neill Blomkamp..."District 9" producer Peter Jackson took pains to elucidate the differences between the movie and another mock-documentary sci-fi thriller popularized by a much-blogged-about viral campaign..."it's not like 'Cloverfield.'" 2009-06-19 [28] O'Connor, Anthony Screenwriter (Angst (2000)) and film critic for Filmink Filmink District 9 "The movie itself plays out initially as a mock documentary and then...well, that would be telling." 2009-08-11 [29] Phillips, Michael Film critic for the Chicago Tribune Chicago Tribune 'District 9' -- 3 stars "The mock-TV-news footage depicts aliens hopped up on their drug of choice, cat food, or scenes of human/alien clashes in the shantytowns; the faux-distressed TV-news jiggle is ever-present." 2009-08-13 [30] Rea, Steven Writer, reporter and film critic for Entertainment Weekly, TV Guide, etc. Currently film critic for The Philadelphia Inquirer The Philadelphia Inquirer A sci-fi allegory of aliens and inhumanity "But at a certain point in District 9 - with its frenetic jumble of mockumentary reports, talking-head interviews and tag-along TV news-like footage - the story of a midlevel bureaucrat contaminated by an alien virus devolves into just another video-game shoot 'em up." 2009-08-14 [31] Rocchi, James Film critic, member of Los Angeles Film Critics Society, Online Film Critics Society and the Broadcast Film Critics Association. Currently film critic for MSN.com MSN Movies District 9 "Set in a parallel present, "District 9" begins with mock-documentary footage explaining how, 20 years ago, a huge spacecraft came to rest in the skies over Johannesburg...The mock-doc device is dropped and picked back up a little capriciously." 2009-08-13 [32] Romney, Jonathan Film writer (Short Orders (2000), Atom Egoyan (2008)) and journalist for The Guardian, City Limits, Sight & Sound and Time Out. Currently film critic for The Independent. The Independent District 9 "The film starts in familiar mock-documentary vein, as a report on the problems surrounding extra-terrestrial presence in, of all places, Johannesburg...Blomkamp and co-writer Terri Tatchell do a brisk job in the first half hour, using the mock-doc format to present the aliens' presence on Earth as perfectly everyday, while the humans expose their bigotry with cheerful dunderheadedness, and worse. 2009-09-06 [33] Scott, A. O. Journalist and film critic for The New York Times The New York Times "District 9 - A Harsh Hello for Visitors From Space" "A busy opening flurry of mock-news images and talking-head documentary chin scratching fills in a grim, disturbingly plausible scenario...The early pseudo-documentary conceit, which uses footage that pretends to have been harvested from news choppers and security cameras as well as some by the unseen crew accompanying Wikus on his tour of the prawn camp, fades away after a while." 2009-08-14 [34] Tookey, Chris Journalist and film critic. Formerly Chairman of British Film Critics’ Circle and film critic for The Sunday Telegraph and The Daily Telegraph. Currently film critic for Daily Mail. The Mail on Sunday District 9: Prawn cracker! "Stylistically, the start and finish of the film are shot as mockumentary, with implied satirical jabs at gabbling 24-hour news gatherers and pundits who dispense prejudice rather than information." 2009-09-03 [35] Viriditas - I really don't give a damn about this - I changed the wording as part of cleaning up some vandalism, and you came to my talk page with false accusations and no reliable sources other than some film book saying all films should be called such and such. Well I've seen enough references to pet projects that are trying to redefine terminology to wisely ask for additional references. Now you accuse me of not looking at rotten tomatoes in good faith - why - I spot checked your claim, explained what I did, and asked you for sources. Your response is "how many do I need to provide." How about starting with one instead of just arguing. BTW - thx for reminding me why I should continue my personal policy of ignoring talk pages completely. --Trödel 19:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Trödel, I think you nailed the problem. Since you rarely use talk pages, you aren't used to discussing your edits, which by the way, is best practice. I attempted to discuss this with you on your talk page and got absolutely nowhere. Now I understand why. Viriditas (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC) You didn't get anywhere because you choose to argue rather than provide reliable sources. Look I don't care how impeccable your logic is, and I don't even care if you're right because both don't matter, what matters is that we properly summarize reliable sources. You've misunderstood my aversion to talk pages - it isn't to avoid discussion, but to avoid unnecessary and useless discussion. This entire discussion is a complete waste of my time - and I don't appreciate you purposely wasting my time trying to persuade me or get me to justify my view, and accuse me of bad faith. All you had to do is provide reliable sources. Look at this from my point of view 1) you come to my talk page and demand that I "explain why you keep changing it?" (keep implying more than once, but I only changed it once) 2) you refuse to provide reliable sources, 3) you point to some random book that is advocating for the use of the term mock documentary - definitely not an unbiased source, 4) you ask me what my criteria is when I've clearly stated its reliable sources, 5) you assure me you have many such sources but only provide a biased one. That all looks suspicious to me - especially only providing a biased source to my request - leading me to believe that you agree with the book and are advocating for the use of this term. Add that the wikipedia article on the term sucks... if it looks like a duck, gives resouces like a duck, avoids direct questions like a duck ... what else can I conclude but that it's a duck. This entire conversation could have been avoided had you just changed my initial edit, included a reliable source, and written a brief explanation in the edit summary. There are plenty of things I disagree with on Wikipedia, but it isn't my opinion or how I feel about any topic that matters, but that it is properly sourced and well written. So you just waste my time while feeling superior to me because you "talk things out first" --Trödel 01:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC) It is the 'mimic' usage that is implied in mock documentary or mocumentary. See Mock turtle soup. It seems to me obvious that this misunderstanding is part of Trodel's and Viriditas' standoff argument, but it seems to me that mockumentary may be used more often in sources published where Viriditas lives, and mock documentary where Trodel lives? Anyways, I hope that clears things up a little. Anarchangel (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Thank you - I still think you can't avoid the negative connotation of the word mock, but at least you can point to 3rd party sources. --Trödel 19:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Please show me a negative connotation in the use of the word as an adjective. One example will do. Viriditas (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Calling Wikus an alien

"After being exposed to a substance that will slowly transform him into an alien, Wikus becomes a fugitive and helps the aliens escape the planet and perhaps save his humanity."

It looks like "alien" in this context is being used to mean extraterrestrial. No matter what transformation Wikus goes through, he is still an earthling on Earth. I don't know what else to call him, but "alien" seems to be a misnomer. Any thoughts/suggestions? TransOceanic (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that the statement may not be 100% accurate in a strictly literal and technical sense, I think we're getting too picky as anyone would understand what it's meant to be saying without a problem. --uKER (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Initially Hostile...

I don't recall Christopher ever being hostile towards Wikus. He just told him that he had to leave, he never made any threats or hostile gestures. Hostile implies that he would harm Wikus should he not comply with him, but I don't believe that was the case. --Seb0910 (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Eviction Date

In the article someone added the date of the eviction as August 9, 2010. Wouldn't this conflict with the concensus of the year of the arrival of the mothership and the year the movie takes place in? --Seb0910 (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say there's no such consensus. My take is that the ship came in 1982 (backed by two different surveillance cameras in the movie) and the evictions happen on the date cited, not by me, in the article (backed by the trailers saying it's 28 years later, and a surveillance camera during the evictions). But other people disagree. --uKER (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

What I meant by concensus was leaving the date at "late twentieth century". --Seb0910 (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Nigerian reception to the film

Those heavily involved in this article might be interested in this: BBC News - Nigeria 'offended' by sci-fi film. The Nigerian government is asking cinemas to stop showing a the film because it of what it believes are negative portrayals of the Nigerian people. "Information Minister Dora Akunyili told the BBC's Network Africa programme that she had asked the makers of the film, Sony, for an apology...[and that] the film portrays Nigerians as cannibals, criminals and prostitutes". Thanks, --81.153.219.191 (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are some other sources (mostly news websites) that might be useful:

Yahoo News

ABC News

CBC News

A Guardian (UK newspaper) aritcle by Nigerian writer Tola Onanuga defending the film

Hope these are helpful, --81.153.219.191 (talk) 15:57, 19 September 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 (UTC)

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)

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)

Speciesism / racism / xenophobia

Hi all, one of the movie's themes is xenophobia. The type of xenophobia shown in the movie is concretely speciesism:

• xenophobia is a general concept: "dislike and/or fear of that which is unknown or different from oneself"
• racism is about race: "belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities"
• speciesism is about species: "assigning different values or rights to beings on the basis of their species membership"

The concept of speciesism is not as well-known as the concept of racism, so in ethics typically racism is used to talk about speciesism. This movie's novelty is that, instead, it shows speciesism to talk about racism.

I think it would be good to include in the article a link to the concept of speciesism, where would this fit? how to phrase it? Thank you! ChaTo (talk) 07:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll very briefly repeat what I wrote before. Maybe you can work it into the article but I don't think it is necessary to explain that speciesism is the specific way they show the theme of discrimination. You may as well point out that it is an allegorical tale if you really feel it is necessary to get down to the fundamentals of it. Also I would urge you to make your point strong enough that you feel confident to make it without hiding it behind parenthesis. -- Horkana (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I was going to change the phrasing in the reference to the parktown prawn, and while at it, took a stab at adding the "speciesism" thing in. See if you people are OK with it, or feel free to revert otherwise. --uKER (talk) 02:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks good to me. Thanks uKER + Horkana ChaTo (talk) 07:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I suggest that the material at the page Eugene Khumbanyiwa be woven into this article and then that page redirected here. There seems to be little or nothing to be said about that particular cast member in addition to what might be said here about the movie and the controversy concerning it. In other words, while the movie and the controversy are certainly notable, the actor - standing alone - is not (yet). Thoughts, comments? JohnInDC (talk) 11:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

First, I oppose a merge because it is not fair to relate the person only with this film. Also, I think this person is notable enough for a stub article for now. This interview mentions some background for the actor not related to District 9, such as studying computer science and acting in several other projects. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 13:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Standing alone he plainly fails the notability requirements of WP:Entertainer. So the question is not really "merge or don't merge" his article, but "merge or delete"; and given that he has gained some individual attention by virtue of his playing the controversial role in this movie, merger seems more appropriate. Otherwise the only notable thing about him - so far - seems to be this one role and a standalone article can add nothing from a Wikipedia standpoint. (Having studied computer science and acted in other projects describes probably hundreds of thousands of other actors, and hardly distinguishes him.) JohnInDC (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate the article for deletion; merging is not appropriate because it ultimately means that his name redirects here, which I do not think is good practice. For what it's worth, I revised the article with the interview link so it is less focused on District 9. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 13:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, and efforts on the other article. I'll wait to see what others say about a merger. If it stays quiet, I won't merge it over your objection and will probably nominate it for deletion. JohnInDC (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If you nominate it for deletion it is HIGHLY likely that the outcome would be a mege/redirect to this article. Given that the biography only comprises one source, and only contains one substantial paragraph outlining the person's acting work, it could very easily be merged here. Without the District 9 role, it is highly unlikely that an article on this person would have existed, based on his previous acting work and corresponding lack of coverage. This indicates that he is only notable in the context of this one acting role. The actor's previous work is useful information in THIS article as well, as it provides context on the cast members. Most definitely a fuller article could be written later if there are further 3rd party sources on this person, or if he takes on more work which would serve to flesh out the current stub. I support a merge proposal, and would do the same if it were taken to AfD. Zunaid 15:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to oppose merging anything not related to District 9 here. It distracts from the topic, the film itself. If desired, a general redirect would suffice, and if there is additional significant coverage, the redirect can be undone, and new details can be added to those not related to District 9. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 15:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, if no one else has anything to say I'm going to create a redirect from Eugene Khumbanyiwa to here. There's little of note in that article beyond the fact of his acting in this film and the controversy about it in Negeria, both of which are already sufficiently covered here, and so I'm disinclined to try to weave in anything else here. Objections? JohnInDC (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want more eyes on this discussion, you could post a notification at WT:ACTOR. I post notifications at WT:FILM pretty often to forward discussions about film. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 17:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Here it is: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#Eugene_Khumbanyiwa. Thanks for the suggestion. JohnInDC (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I would oppose a merge. I think the article can hold its own, especially since he has acted in two other films with articles. A redirect discourages people from expanding the actor bio when more source material becomes available. For all I know, there could be enough sources to expand the article already. Besides, I don't think biographical information about the actors belongs in a film article. So my first choice would be the status quo, second choice, a redirect without merging. Regards, decltype (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. But still what we have is an actor with (what appears to be) a bit part in one film and another, larger one in this one - and that's it. (I think all would agree that, what's in the actor's article now is pretty much the sum and substance of it.) This falls so plainly short of the notability requirements of WP:Entertainer that something must be out of kilter - either this article or the requirements. I do agree about cluttering the movie article with actor info, and on reflection I think that a redirect would be more appropriate than a merge. Well - let's see what others have to say. JohnInDC (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Erik and decltype (to some extent). A biography article needs to be judged on its own merits, whether the outcome is delete or keep. Merging the content into a single film article removes the inclusion of the person from linking to other articles, and may, and probably will, place undue emphasis on the actor in the film article. I'm not really comfortable, for the same reasons, in redirecting a bio to one article when and if he appears in other articles. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This is actually the only article that links to him. His role in the other film appears to have been too minor to warrant mention. JohnInDC (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The sense I get though is that the group here would just prefer that, if I feel compelled to do something, it should be simply to take it to AfD. Is that about right? JohnInDC (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I nominated Eugene_Khumbanyiwa for deletion. Dicussion here. JohnInDC (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Koobus or Kobus

I haven't checked the District 9 official website, but I believe that "Kobus" would be the correct spelling (I've lived in SA all my life, am fluent in Afrikaans, and I've never met anyone named "Koobus" with a double "o").

While I don't doubt you for a second, the same thing happens with the movie calling Wikus "van de Merwe", vs the "popular" spelling, "van der Merwe". --uKER (talk) 06:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed, the movie credits him as "Koobus". --uKER (talk) 07:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no such name as Koobus! IT's Kobus--Bohemian Revolution 12:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

So the film got it wrong. It happens. We just put down what the credits say. Not a big deal. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 14:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Afrikaans?

The article lists Afrikaans as one of the languages spoken in this film, while I don't remember hearing it at any time. Could anyone please refresh my memory as to where it was used? Barnsoldat91 (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)