Slashdot Mirror


District 9 Rises From the Ashes of Halo

JohnSmedley sent in a story about what might be the last SciFi film worth caring about this summer. He writes "Wired has an interesting piece up on the upcoming District 9 release. District 9 rose from the ashes of a failed Halo movie and expands on 'Alive in Jo'Burg' which is a South African short film by Blomkamp. Both the short and full feature films expand and explore a premise in which aliens in space are treated as badly as illegal immigrants and the underclass. The story begins as a damaged alien craft lands in Africa. The foreign race is quarantined in a remote area called District 9, and from there are subjected to xenophobia, and the desire of a multi-national conglomerate to steal their technology. The film is an exploration of what would happen in terms of segregation between an alien race and humans, subjecting the stranded visitors to the very human condition of greed, fear, and exploitation. District 9 will be in theatres on August 14'th, and you can view the trailers from the viewpoint of Multi-National United."

14 of 207 comments (clear)

  1. It's just the opening scenes of Alien Nation by Culture20 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At least these aliens are slightly more alien, but they're still bipedal oxygen breathers with bilateral symmetry. I look forward to the District 9 TV series, but not to the romantic relationship between Detective Matt Sikes and (what is now) a giant bug living in the apartment next door.

    1. Re:It's just the opening scenes of Alien Nation by Jugalator · · Score: 4, Informative

      At least these aliens are slightly more alien, but they're still bipedal oxygen breathers with bilateral symmetry.

      FWIW, it took evolution billions of years to come up with that this is a very efficient way of moving intelligent beings with use of free appendages (arms + hands) around a solid earth crust with an oxygen atmosphere. I'm not so sure this is a "one in hundreds" of potentially useful evolutionary ideas, but rather one in very few. That it's symmetric comes from cellular division, and there is so far little supporting evidence that alternative mechanisms can support a two meter tall intelligent organism well.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    2. Re:It's just the opening scenes of Alien Nation by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Um 6 appendages with 4 legs and 2 arms would work just as well if not better.

      Add another pair of legs to a human, and see how well they do climbing trees.

      You know it would work just as well how? Because you created your own virtual earth and ran genetic simulations on it for a million years?

      Evolution is dumb, it does not care what is best, just what causes the longest survival to allow more evolution changes. It will allow stupidity to win if dumb is allowed to breed unchecked.

      Stupidity doesn't win, but you might need a bigger head to hold a bigger, more complicated brain in order to get more intelligent, and that might get you killed. Which is almost the same thing, but no, stupidity doesn't win. Intelligence just doesn't necessarily win either. Our brain's need for high blood flow is a liability...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:It's just the opening scenes of Alien Nation by wjousts · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Um 6 appendages with 4 legs and 2 arms would work just as well if not better.

      Nonsense, you are looking only at the (presumed) benefits of an extra pair of legs without considering the costs. An extra pair of legs requires more energy, it requires more neurons devoted to controlling the extra legs, etc. The benefits? You're slightly less likely to get knocked over?

    4. Re:It's just the opening scenes of Alien Nation by DarthVain · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because yes, if you have a choice of crash landing on a planet that is hospitable and contains life like your own, or on the toxic silicoid life sustaining one you should defiantly choose the one most unlike yourself, you know, just for the sheer challenge.

      Of course I don't know how desperate they were to crash, or what the range of the partially disabled craft was, or if they were low on fuel, because I am not an alien... and you know more importantly, I havn't seen the movie... and even more importantly, it is a freaking' movie.... you know, entertainment?

      On a conceptual level I generally feel the same way about most Science Fiction particularly in movies and tv where 99% of all life encountered is pretty much identical to us with the exception of some forehead ridges, colour, or perhaps some weird facial hair or antennae or something. There has been some exceptions like the Lava monster in old star trek, or stuff like crystalline entity or tar monster later on... Bottom line the reason this is likely the case isn't due to lack of imagination, but rather the reason is for entertainment purposes. James T Kirk can't exactly sleep with the lava monster can he? (well he could try anyway). So they make a green woman alien and call it a day. People need to be able to interact in some meaningful way for it to be entertaining. Why do you think everyone can also communicate so easily? Because it would really suck if you had to sit through an hour of confusion. I can barely comprehend the Japanese language, how the fsck can we comprehend a language developed on another world with no context? Magic technology of course... but again... movie magic.

  2. Re:That May Work as a South Africa Satire by Fieryphoenix · · Score: 5, Informative

    You can state, but that doesn't make you entirely correct. You do so have constitutional rights. The only constitutional rights you lack are the ones specifically granted citizens such as voting rights, or people born here, such as eligibility to be president, or a few age requirements. Everything else in there which applies to "the people" applies to you. Quoting the ACLU for examples because it's much easier than compiling myself:

    "every person in the United States has the right to due process and equal protection; to criminal proceedings that afford a right to counsel, a jury trial and freedom from double jeopardy; to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment; to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and to freedom of speech, religion and association."

  3. Re:Moon by Aqualung812 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Same could be said about "V for Vendetta" and "Equilibrium". Bah, just go read or watch "1984".
    However, watching or reading 1984 just flat drains the soul. The other two movies are more entertaining, have a happier ending, yet still deliver the core of the same message as 1984. Does it soften the message? Somewhat. However, they reach far more people, and those that watch it don't usually kill themselves during the closing credits.
    Respect the originals, yet keep refreshing it to new audiences. Often, those that like the new versions end up hungry to read about the original source material.

    --
    Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
  4. Re:Moon by agrif · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think the biggest thing about Moon is that it is the first hard science fiction film in a long time that has gained even the meager attention it has. Hard Sci-Fi is a dying breed, as far as I can tell from the last decade or so.

    Maybe Moon didn't introduce any new ideas. But it did present those ideas in a medium where it is easier to evoke an emotional response, if it's done correctly. Moon did it very well, at least in my opinion, and it reached a wider audience than most sci-fi.

    If Moon is playing near you, I highly recommend you see it.

  5. Re:Moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Besides, how are we all supposed to read 1984 when Amazon.com deleted it from all our Kindles?

  6. comment on website on 4th planet of canopus: by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Funny

    FWIW, it took evolution millions of years to come up with a wheel. this is a very efficient way of moving intelligent beings with use of biomagnetics (repulse + attract) around a solid water crust with a nitrogen atmosphere. I'm not so sure this is a "one in hundreds" of potentially useful evolutionary ideas, but rather one in very few. That it's trilaterally symmetric comes from cellular agglomeration, and there is so far little supporting evidence that alternative mechanisms can support a three meter tall intelligent organism well

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  7. Re:Interesting parallels by Bakkster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm still hoping that this movie will actually be a good, cerebral Science Fiction story; rather than just another disposable alien-action movie built on what would otherwise be a great plot to explore.

    Still crossing my fingers.

    --
    Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
  8. Re:Moon by ajs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fantastic? Meh. It was a rehash of a lot of ideas we've seen done in films and books over the past 20-30 years, with nothing particularly new added. Go re-watch 2001, Bladerunner and re-read some early John Varley instead.

    I'm getting so tired of this nonsense. Bladerunner was a film noir set in the future with robots. It wasn't new. Asimov did androids struggling with their (lack of) humanity in the 50s, and all Dick added was his drug addicted sense of a decaying reality to which Scott added a very provincially 1980s aesthetic. Go watch Metropolis and the Maltese Falcon. There, see how easy it is to throw stones at a good and viewing-worthy film?

    Fact of the matter is that premise doesn't matter. Every premise has been done. Every idea has been pushed through the salad-tosser that is the writer's pen. What remains is the actual writing, and in the case of film acting and directing. Moon is, as I've heard (and I really do want to go see it), well written, acted and directed. If the idea is also compelling, that's great, but do we go to see a murder-mystery because we've never seen a detective confront the suspects before? Do we go to see space opera because we've never seen ships shooting at each other before? No, we go because we, as humans, enjoy the act of story-telling. It's an art, and good art is good art, even when the subject has been painted/drawn/written about/sculpted or filmed before.

  9. Re:Moon by ianare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The whole point of 1984 is to make you feel like shit. If you were uplifted by a hollywood type happy ending, it would lose much of its power. Why is it that many people think a movie that makes you feel bad is a bad movie ?

    The two movies you mentioned are the typical hollywood stuff ... entertainment and almost nothing else. Not bad for blowing a couple hours, but nothing that will change the way you look at the world like 1984 has done for many people.

  10. Re:As badly as illegal immigrants?!?! by Jonny_eh · · Score: 4, Funny

    And how are space aliens supposed to enter the country legally?