This is my 2nd attempt at replying to this. I think that Cameron deserves a little credit for helping to develop the motion capture technology that was used to make the film, and to popularize the 3d technology. But that's about it. I enjoyed District 9 a lot more.
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Tracey de Morsella < tdli...@multiculturaladvantage.com> wrote: > > > *TV Watchtower: 'Avatar' vs. 'District 9'* > > *In a deeply divisive race, an argument as to why Neill Blomkamp deserves > the Oscar for Best Picture more than James Cameron (part 1) * > > *http://www.airlockalpha.com/node/7054* > > Posing this very controversial argument, I want to share why “District > 9[image: > http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2_bing.gif]<http://www.airlockalpha.com/node/7054>” > is more Oscar-worthy than the mega-hit “Avatar.” Surely, the virtually > unknown sci-fi film[image: > http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2_bing.gif]<http://www.airlockalpha.com/node/7054>that > was one of the few films to cross over the $200 million mark this past > summer deserves a little attention – and as the Producers Guild’s nomination > for Best Picture has proven, it is a worthy contender to watch out for > during this award season. > Cost v. Profits > > Looking first at the numbers, money talks. “District 9” cost only $30 > million to make and then went on to make more than $204 million in the > worldwide box office ($115 domestically). That is a return of six times what > it cost to make. > > Any way you look at it that is a phenomenal return on a mere $30 million > investment; and with a prestigious PGA nomination and further > DVD<http://www.airlockalpha.com/node/7054>sales racking up, this profit > margin will only continue to rise. > > As for “Avatar,” it cost $237 million to make, plus another $150 million > for marketing, and has grossed more than $1.6 billion world-wide to date. > That is not a bad return either. But it is only a profit margin of four > times its cost. However, given that “Avatar’s” resulting profit margin is > more than $1 billion, it is not a number to discount. I cannot imagine that > the investors for “Avatar” are displeased with such a modest return. > > So in the money game, both films are providing huge monetary profits for > their investors, with “Avatar” edging out “District 9” due to its boffo box > office sales. But it can never be said that “District 9” did not do well, as > it is one of a handful of films to ever cross the $200 million mark. > Realism v. Fantasy > > Looking next at which film was more realistic, “District 9” is hands-down > the winner in that category. Taking a page right out of last year’s Oscar > winner’s playbook, “District 9” was filmed in the actual slums of Chiawelo, > Soweto in South Africa. Not only did they film amongst the filth and > degradation of the slums, it was filmed simultaneous to the attempted > forced-relocation of the Abahlali baseMjondolo in District 6 in Cape Town, > South Africa. > > Thus, in an effort to make the film as realistic as possible, Neill > Blomkamp and Peter Jackson[image: > http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2_bing.gif]<http://www.airlockalpha.com/node/7054>literally > filmed what was really occurring in Chiawelo and made a sci-fi > film out of it. They just used CGI aliens in the place of real people who > were being relocated. Thus, the story was a mirrored-reflection of the > actual apartheid atrocities and discrimination that had been practiced in > South Africa for more than 45 years. > > Another element of realism that worked in “District 9’s” favor was its > portrayal of the aliens, aka prawns. The prawns looked like giant bugs > walking on two legs. They did not speak English or any other human language, > so there was a distinct language barrier. They were also gritty, repulsive > and overall disgusting. > > These were not the humanoid creatures used to depict aliens in classic and > modern sci-fi films. The prawns looked *alien*. It was like having a > colony of giant insects living amongst us. No one wanted to be around them > and it felt more natural to have them kept separate and secluded from the > rest of the human race. > > It was just unfortunate that their spaceship died while hovering right over > Johannesburg and they had nowhere else to go. Literally no one on Earth > wanted them here. > > As for “Avatar,” it went the route of traditional sci-fi and opted to > create a brand new world where everything was magnificent and glorious to > behold. Welcome to Pandora where there are mountains that float in the sky, > trees grow as tall as skyscrapers, plants glow rainbow colors in the dark, > dragons fly through the vast blue skies, and the humanoid inhabitants are a > brilliant turquoise blue that stand nearly 10 feet tall. > > Everything about this exotic paradise was meant to seduce us into their > world and make us fall in love with it. But it is simply too pretty. Too > good to be true. It was a fictional world created purely out of CGI in order > to fool the audience into thinking that there may just be such a fairy tale > place that exists out in the universe. > > But as any viewer perfectly knew watching the film, it was clearly not > real. You could simply not believe it. The Na’vi were too tall, too blue and > too pretty. > > In contrast, the slum-ridden background of “District 9” felt all too real. > We have seen just such places on Earth and know that they exist and avoid > them at all costs. This made it harder to distinguish that the prawns were > not real, for they look exactly like a larger version of the cockroach you > might find crawling out from a crack in your kitchen. > Micro-Story v. Epic Adventure > > There was also the scope of the stories explored in “Avatar” and “District > 9” that sets them apart. > > In “District 9,” the story was microscopically-focused on just a few > characters: Wikus (the hapless government relocation agent), Christopher > Johnson (the prawn that saved him), Wikus’ wife and Wikus’ father-in-law. It > was a tale of how the average man got swept up in events beyond his control > and how he inadvertently saved an alien race. > > He had no plan to do so, nor even a desire to do so. He was simply in the > wrong place at the wrong time and in order to survive, he was forced to help > Christopher Johnson save his race. It was a very narrowly focused story on > one man and one alien’s need to rely on each other to survive. > > In “Avatar,” there was a larger cast, which comprised of Jake Sully (the > marine grunt), Dr. Grace Augustine (the botanist), Trudy (the pilot), Norm > (the anthropologist), Col. Quaritch (the over-zealous Marine bully), Neytiri > (the Na’vi princess) and a whole host of other Na’vi. Like in “District 9,” > in “Avatar,” our hero was recruited to aid with the relocation of a foreign > species in order to placate our own desires. > > From the very first moment we saw Jake, we understood that he was in this > for himself as he had been promised to have his legs fixed in exchange for > taking his dead brother’s place in the avatar program to infiltrate the > Na’vi. In “District 9,” Wikus was simply doing his job and, it was only > after becoming exposed to a DNA-altering substance, that he became a man out > for himself. In “Avatar,” that is all Jake ever was: out for himself. Jake > wanted a new life and he used everyone around him to achieve it. > > In “District 9,” the last thing Wikus wanted was a new life. He was > perfectly content with his life and with being a part of the human race. > Whereas Jake seemed to resent being human and, in the end, traded in his > frail, puny-human body for the super-sized, Amazonian body of his avatar. > > In “District 9,” it was about pure survival: Wikus wanted to be human > again, and Christopher Johnson wanted to survive to take his son home. In > “Avatar,” Jake just wanted to preserve the avatar body and world he had come > to love. > > In scope, “Avatar” was more ambitious. It had more characters, more lush > beauty, more weaponry, more explosions, more big theoretical and political > ideas to throw about. It was a kitchen-sink film, it had a lot of > everything. But in “District 9,” they made do with what they had and kept it > simple. It was a story about two men (well, one was a prawn) trying to > survive and needing each other to do so. Wikus did not want to save anyone > but himself and get back to his wife. Jake ended up striving to save an > entire planet from foreign dominion and fighting back at corporate greed. > > Try to sum up each film into one sentence and see what you come up with. I > will bet that when you do this, you will see how much bigger in scope > “Avatar” is than “District 9.” For, in “District 9,” a man was infected with > a DNA-altering substance and he worked with an alien to find a cure, which > may in turn provided a way for the aliens to return home. > > In “Avatar,” a man infiltrated an alien world in order to achieve a forced > relocation and then became enamored with that life and turned on his human > employers. But, in the end, it is simple: Wikus embraced the human race and > Jake rejected the human-race. Wikus wanted to just go home. Jake wanted to > build a whole new home. In scope, “Avatar” took on a bigger story and > overwhelmed us with its audacity. Whereas, “District 9” kept its story > simple and sweet. > > (To be continued ... Please note that part 2 of this article will appear in > the next TV Watchtower column scheduled to run Jan. 27) > > *http://www.airlockalpha.com/node/7054* > > > > > -- Celebrating 10 years of bringing diversity to perversity! Mahogany at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/
<<image001.gif>>
