Film Junk Podcast Episode #231: District 9
0:00 – Intro
2:30 – Headlines: Robert Downey Jr. as Lestat, Godzilla Reboot, Bryan Singer to Direct BSG Reboot, Wall-E Wins Hugo Award, Death Race Prequel, Warner Brothers to do LEGO Movie, Frank Darabont to Direct The Walking Dead for AMC, Spielberg to Take Over Halo?, Ebert Defends Armond White then Retracts It
37:00 – Review: District 9
1:21:25 – Trailer Trash: Gentlemen Broncos, Legion, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
1:33:12 – Other Stuff We Watched: V: The Original Mini-Series, Starman, Play Time, Rip: A Remix Manifesto, Shanghai Kiss, Tokyo!, Alien Nation, Nursery University, The Pee-wee Herman Show, Shark Tank
2:11:50 – Junk Mail: Mirror Neurons, Suspension of Disbelief, Special Music Podcast, Poutine Village, Best Werner Herzog Films, The Smashing Machine, Experimental Films
2:38:05 – This Week’s DVD Releases
2:39:25 – Outro
Note: Our additional spoiler discussion of District 9 is now available here.
» Download the MP3 (74 MB)
» View the show notes
» Vote for us on Podcast Alley!
Subscribe to the podcast feed:
| Donate via Paypal: | Recurring Donation $2/Month: |
Comments (65)
Nice to see the podcast out earlier than normal.
Can’t wait for the bonus podcast.
Posted by Nick D on August 17th, 2009Two hours and forty minutes long AND a bonus podcast tomorrow?! AWESOME.
Posted by Nate on August 17th, 2009Just sent you guys a few trinkets via paypal.
I’m loving the recent trend of prompt Sunday night uploads.
Posted by Damndirtyape on August 17th, 2009like the Halo intro
Posted by pcch7 on August 17th, 2009Disctrict 9 was great.
Posted by bickle on August 17th, 2009To back up what Sean had said about audiences being turned off by the beginning of the film;
I went to a 12 noon showing on Sat morning. There were 6 people in the theater when the movie started. 2 people got up and left 10 minutes into the film.
They didn’t want to make the commitment. Their loss.
Hi Guys
Enjoyed listening to your reviews of District 9. I’m excellent at predicting plots, lines, etc but this movie had me on my toes not knowing what was going to happen next. The gritty realism was also unexpected, a little jarring at first but it grew on me by the film’s completion. Right now it’s the best movie I’ve seen this year.
Looking forward to your spoiler podcast!
PS. As of this podcast I’ve decided Reed has horrible taste in movies, but I’ll continue to enjoy hearing his reasons for disliking most films.
Posted by froggiegirl on August 17th, 2009Effects Guys HAVE made some good movies
Doug Trumbull – Silent Running
Posted by Kurt on August 17th, 2009Saul Bass – Phase IV
Terry Gilliam – MASSIVE FILMOGRAPHY (Time Bandits, Brazil, etc. etc. etc.)
I so want to see the BLU-RAY version of PLAYTIME. I’m upset I missed it when it screened at the Cinematheque when it played a while ago. I’ll probably buy the DVD and give it a whirl.
Posted by Kurt on August 17th, 2009On RiP. The title is MANIFESTO, the idea is that there is a thrust for a NEW business model. The idea is to push forward, the idea is to say that hundreds of years of the old model might require big change.
The whole point is for it to offer a radical view, not a ‘fair’ or ‘balanced’ review.
I had no problem with a ‘revolutionary’ giving me the idea. Of course the practical is going to be some sort of compromise, but might as well shoot for the stars.
Posted by Kurt on August 17th, 2009…I agree on the Girltalk thing though. His music is interesting, but he is definitely not well representated of the ‘Elvis Costello snippet’ And that yea, he uses big stretches and yea, a lot of his tracks aren’t even that good. But the idea of what he does is pretty awesome, and that idea/ideal is actually well represented with the Elvis Costello clip.
Quentin Tarantino might have been a better example like how he lifts entires scenes (City on Fire, Lady Snowblood, etc. etc.) and re-purposes them. And the results are new and interesting and relying in part on what the original scene meant.
Posted by Kurt on August 17th, 2009Also, if anyone is further interested in RIP: A REMIX MANIFESTO or intellectual property / copyright stuff, we did an entire podcast on RIP (http://www.rowthree.com/2009/07/28/cinecast-episode-132-tap-dancing-through-a-field-of-landmines/)
Posted by Kurt on August 17th, 2009and a review (http://www.rowthree.com/2009/07/13/review-rip-a-remix-manifesto/)
this podcast is like a handjob, I need you consummate the marriage and post the other half!!!
Posted by rus in chicago on August 17th, 2009Finally, JAMES HONG does indeed rule. Good call, Reed.
Posted by Kurt on August 17th, 2009“On RiP. The title is MANIFESTO, the idea is that there is a thrust for a NEW business model. The idea is to push forward, the idea is to say that hundreds of years of the old model might require big change.
The whole point is for it to offer a radical view, not a ‘fair’ or ‘balanced’ review.”
That’s all fine, but I would still criticize the choice to focus solely on this manifesto as a missed opportunity to explore the many grey areas of this topic. I don’t care about ‘fair’ or ‘balanced’, I just think the discussion has many interesting ‘double edged sword’ elements that would’ve made for a much more interesting conversation and inspired even more debate.
Posted by Jay C. on August 17th, 2009Furthermore, it’s easy to suggest that this hundred year old business model needs to change without actually providing any exploration into how it needs to change and what problems will be faced when it does change. Perhaps if the director wasn’t so upfront with his love of Girltalk, I wouldn’t have been so aware of how much time was spent on this single artist when there were so many other interesting questions the topic raises that weren’t addressed.
This could have done for the intellectual property argument what Tony Kaye’s ‘Lake of Fire’ did for abortion. An epic exploration of a topic that’s so dense, you actually find yourself being torn from either end by the constantly shifting legalities, logistics, morals and complications that make the topic so interesting to begin with.
Posted by Jay C. on August 17th, 2009@ Effects Guys HAVE made some good movies
Don’t forget that all of David Fincher’s film experience was in the fx department.
Posted by Rusty James on August 17th, 2009Agreed Jay, but the buggy whip makers didn’t have much time to prepare for their obsolescence. New media moves so fast that having a lot of that industry be ‘poor’ for a while is not exactly the end of the world.
Developing nations and ‘poor’ artists have been stealing from the bigger more established boys since the dawn of time, and the last 100 years the established conglomerates have been strangling the industry anyway.
I’m willing to throw many of them onto the pyre for the sake of progress. My only fear is the smaller mid-range indie studios and distribs that would be hurt in the fallout/collateral damage.
As I said above, RIP is a manifesto, not the defacto way it should go down. It is the ideal writ large. Eventual practice will be some sort of compromise anyway.
Posted by Kurt on August 17th, 2009And YES YES YES, I would have loved the ‘TONY KAYE’ mega-complete documentary on the subject. And yea, it generally annoys me when Doc-filmmakers insert themselves too much into the proceedings. Herzog and Moore excepted, because that is their their schtick.
Gaylor comes across as a bit of a smug fella when talking to a few of his subjects. Agreed.
(in an unrelated note, THE COVE is that very doc on the whole dolphin issue, worth a look)
Posted by Kurt on August 17th, 2009I guess for every David Fincher or Gilliam there is going to be a Pitof or a Bo Welch
Posted by Kurt on August 17th, 2009I think Reed needs to be phased out. He gets more ignorant every episode.
Posted by Kevin on August 17th, 2009“Effects Guys HAVE made some good movies
Doug Trumbull – Silent Running
Saul Bass – Phase IV
Terry Gilliam – MASSIVE FILMOGRAPHY (Time Bandits, Brazil, etc. etc. etc.)”
I wouldn’t call Saul Bass or Terry Gilliam effect guys, both illustrators and one an animator.
Posted by Swarez on August 17th, 2009For some reason everybody seems to forget that James Cameron was an effects artist.
I LOVE the Film Junk Podcast and the blog but Reed I can’t stand. His input is worthless. So bad it’s not even funny anymore. His senseless remarks made me yell at the iPod to shut the f up! I know I might be in a minority – but I was not able to listen to the entire episode. It made me mad. How Sean, Jay and Greg can restrain themselves from strangling Reed is amazing. In the future I will avoid any episode with Reed in it. Other than that I certainly will keep supporting Film Junk.
(btw: 2 working buddies also coulnd’t listen to Reed…)
Posted by Sly on August 17th, 2009Reed must be like the annoying scab eating neighbor kid you have been “friends” with since birth that all of your friends you met later in life cant stand.
Posted by Kevin on August 17th, 2009“Two hours and forty minutes long AND a bonus podcast tomorrow?! AWESOME.”
No kidding. I normally listen to all my podcasts while on walks, but with this fucking heatwave, and the new R3, and ANOTHER coming, I’m just swamped
I loved RiP quite a bit, even thought I’m in the middle on Girl Talk to an extent. I enjoy him quite a bit but he’s not the be all end all, I wouldnt even call him in the top 10 best electronic artists of the decade. SO much of his music is ’spot the sample’. At one point I really hoped Jay would jump in to the R3 debate on RIP/downloading, but I’d feel bad for him having to wander through our sludge.
Posted by Goon on August 17th, 2009Believe me, Reed is the kind of guy who seems perfectly polite and pleasant the first time you meet him, until, over time you get to know the dark side.
I do understand the frustration with Reed though. I think part of it is our fault for not really knowing how to handle him properly on the show. I personally try to justify it as though he’s there to give a point of view that is outside of the norm, but in reality he is best used as comic relief or some sort of offbeat colour commentary. Putting too much pressure on him to provide a well-articulated opinion is just asking for trouble.
I personally enjoy having him as a guest, but I don’t know that it makes for a better show. So while we will certainly not “phase him out”, we will mainly keep his wackiness confined to Cantankerous as we continue to try to find a place for his unique and polarizing personality.
Posted by Sean on August 17th, 2009I’m fine with bringing Reed on for a major event review or maybe on a completely dead week. If you do another TV preview this year he may be good for that.
Posted by Goon on August 17th, 2009People who can’t stand Reed lack sympathy for their fellow man. I actually think he made valid points in this, that Jay proceeded to take as the usual nonsense and attack fiercely. Why is it not valid for somebody to question a raygun, if that indeed disturbs their immersion in the film? Jays argument is the equivalent of: “It’s GIANT ROBOTS”, in that nothing has to make sense as long as it succeeds in entertaining. I think it’s perfectly reasonable for somebody not being entertained if they are curious about the technology, and feel like the filmmaker is taking advantage of all sorts of improbably stuff with the excuse that it kicks ass.
Posted by Henrik on August 17th, 2009I just dont know from what angle people are listening to Reed from. To me he’s our answer to Karl Pilkington.
Posted by Goon on August 17th, 2009And let me say that I much prefer the calm Reed in this show than the hyper-reed on earlier Filmjunk podcasts. But if he gets treated this way when he’s calm, I understand why he doesn’t like to be serious around Jay, since he basically gets told off no matter what kind of point he tries to make. I mean fuck, just because somebody actually reads a book and finds something interesting does not mean they haven’t thought about it themselves. When Reed said that he brought these viewpoints up without necessarily being completely convinced of them, because he thought they were relevant, that shows that he had thought about them, and wanted to gauge them in a debate with Jay and Sean, which spiraled into “YOU SHOULD JUST WATCH THE MOVIE AND BE ENTERTAINED AND GO AWAY WITH YOUR HEADSTUFF”, and wether or not it is because Jay is defensive, it’s still pretty fucking rude.
Posted by Henrik on August 17th, 2009Jay and Reed are the new odd couple!
Posted by froggiegirl on August 17th, 2009I’m sure Jay getting frustrated with Reed and Reed caving to Jay’s opinion to stop the argument is just the way their friendship works.
Both valid points and batshit crazy stuff has been uttered by Reed. That’s what makes him fun. I probably wouldn’t want to hear Reed on every podcast (cause it means less Greg) but having him on for some of the blockbuster releases amuses me.
Henrik:
First off, you are hardly one to be talking about what is rude and what isn’t. You’re a complete asshole. Hopefully that doesn’t come across as defensive, because it isn’t. It’s just the truth. I can also be an asshole.
Second,
“Why is it not valid for somebody to question a raygun, if that indeed disturbs their immersion in the film? Jays argument is the equivalent of: “It’s GIANT ROBOTS”, in that nothing has to make sense as long as it succeeds in entertaining”
I’m sorry but if I disagree with something, I’m going to vocalize my disagreement. I thought that was the whole point of discussing the films we discuss? If it comes out overly aggressive on the show, it’s for two reasons: 1. An awareness that we are in fact doing a SHOW, and 2. The fact that Reed can be infuriating when it comes to the discussion of films because he has already plainly stated in the past that he purposely disagrees with me on things for the sake of being contrarian.
Also, i’m not sure how me questioning the validity of Reed’s comments is any more rude than the many attacks he made regarding my intelligence. I certainly don’t take offense to that — he has openly taken shots at my intelligence in the past, in both a playful and serious manner — because we’re friends either way and I can handle having my intelligence questioned by an Asian computer programmer. He is smarter than me and I’m fine by that. I would also like to think that Reed doesn’t take offense to my disagreements with his D-9 comments, no matter how aggressive or defensive they may be. That is why we are friends. We keep each other entertained by thinking of ways to make the other look stupid. I’m joking.
Keep in mind Henrik, the hour and a half you spend with myself and Reed every six months is a drop in the fucking bucket in regards to the many discussions we’ve had. How about you put in the time I’ve put in with Reed and we’ll see how long it is before you say something rude? He is, self-admittedly, a complex person and a challenging guy to be friends with. He even warned me of this in the early stages of our friendship. This is one of the reasons why I’m friends with him. He plays hard to get.
Regarding the ray guns: my argument is NOT that things don’t need to make sense as long as it entertains. It’s all dependent on the context of the film. I didn’t think D-9 required any ray gun explanation. The point is that NOT EVERYTHING NEEDS TO BE EXPLAINED BY DEFAULT ALL OF THE TIME. If you can’t understand what I’m saying then I’m perfectly fine with you thinking I love giant robots or whatever it is you were saying.
Posted by Jay C. on August 17th, 2009Asians are so wierd.
Posted by Shut-Up Ed on August 17th, 2009Where’s the spoiler cast?
Posted by RJ on August 17th, 2009I think I did understand, my problem was with your lack of tolerance for Reeds alternative viewpoint, where having these things pop up unexplained disturbs the experience and seems cheap. I think it is a valid thought process that deserves more respect than “WATCH THE MOVIE STOP READING”.
I’m not that much of an asshole. If I ever was, it can be attributed to an awareness of being published online.
“How about you put in the time I’ve put in with Reed and we’ll see how long it is before you say something rude?”
Well, the comments section is only open for these particular conversations. I think Reed was significantly different from earlier appearances on this show, and much more cohesive, and he was still treated as a babbling baboon. That’s what I had a problem with.
“I’m sorry but if I disagree with something, I’m going to vocalize my disagreement.”
I don’t think I ever critisized you for doing this.
Let me say that I feel really weird defending a person I don’t know from one of his closest friends whom I also don’t know.
Posted by Henrik on August 17th, 2009I think a lot of people don’t really understand the friendship between Jay and Reed(including Greg) but I find it to be sweet in a way. I have a friend who shares a lot of the same interests but we disagree on EVERYTHING. We argue up and down about the most inane shit, and that’s a large part of why we’re friends. It’s fun! Arguing is fun if both parties understand that there’s no malice involved. You can rant and rave until you’re blue in the face and know that in the end there’s no hard feelings because you’re both aware that it’s all part of your relationship(if only I could get my ol’ lady to think that way).
You can tell a lot of the time that Reed is just playing devil’s advocate for Jay and because he knows exactly which buttons to press it works astoundingly well. Reed’s a strange dude and he can be off-putting to a lot of people. Hell, I didn’t see the draw either for the longest time; but he grows on you. He’s a pretty interesting guy in a very special way. I appreciate his involvement in the podcast when he’s on, even when I’m pulling my hair out in frustration at some of the shit he comes up with. Now, I’m not saying I’d like him on every week, but as the go-to guy for tearing apart what are supposed to be fun sci-fi flicks he’s perfect. I NEVER agree with him, but the exasperation he incites IS entertaining and of great comedic value.
So, don’t let the haters get ya down, Reed! Continue being the strange, beautiful, infuriating little character that you are!
Posted by Fatbologna on August 17th, 2009“I’m not that much of an asshole. If I ever was, it can be attributed to an awareness of being published online.”
Exactly. The same goes for doing a podcast that is published online.
“WATCH THE MOVIE STOP READING”
I never said this. I simply disagreed with the point he brought up. So did Sean. In fact, I didn’t even think it was that relevant considering it was in regards to sci-fi novels which have much more room to expand upon ideas and details that a film doesn’t have much room for. I didn’t simply disregard his point, I countered it with examples of my own, backing up my feelings on the subject. If that’s intolerant, than I am intolerant. So be it.
If there was any mention of Reed reading books, it was in reference to the fact that he is more interested in reading about movie than watching them, which we have discussed before. Perhaps any lack of tolerance I was expressing came from the fact that after 20 minutes or so, Reed had yet to get to a point of his own that could be considered a clear criticism of the film. This coming after much pre-podcast discussion about how disappointed he was in D-9.
If you think this discussion was harsh, wait until you get to the spoiler cast!
Posted by Jay C. on August 17th, 2009I look forward to scolding you again on that thread!
I think our retellings of the conversation on this thread is equally hyperbolic in each direction. Which examples did you bring up? I know you do a pretty crushing blow when you asked him to name one that didn’t have these problems and all he says is Transformers, which is ridiculous, so I guess he did undermine any thoughtfulness that actually went into his point. I guess film isn’t something Reed has any clue of how to grasp. Now I’m being rude!
“Perhaps any lack of tolerance I was expressing came from the fact that after 20 minutes or so, Reed had yet to get to a point of his own that could be considered a clear criticism of the film.”
The point is, his points and his points. Of his own. He brings them up himself, you should not exclude it because you know he read it somewhere, maybe there is something to it even if it was published in a book.
Posted by Henrik on August 17th, 2009The point is, his points are his points.*
This was a hard sentence.
Anyway, done with this now I promise. Can’t wait for the next podcast.
Posted by Henrik on August 17th, 2009Just for the record, I dont think anyone has a problem with Reeds difference of opinion. I think the problem (at least my issue) is that a lot of time is spent trying to get him to actually say SOMETHING of substance.
I love Cantankerous though, mostly because I expect that sort of shenanigans.
Posted by Kevin on August 17th, 2009Wow, reading these comments is better than therapy.
For the record and I may be repeating myself, I realize I have a communication problem not to mention a problem formulating arguments. I have a holistic approach to dealing with things rather than the need to group things into good or bad. (For an interesting read about how my Chinese culture may have had an influence on this, read “The Geography of Thought” by Richard E. Nisbett.) I like doing the podcasts so that I can try to improve my speaking abilities.
Also I like provoking people to think rather than giving them my opinions. And seriously, I find most movie reviews are based on personal opinion rather than any informed, incisive thought about what something means. Not that personal opinion isn’t valid or interesting, but it doesn’t really mean anything to me. And before you jump on my back, I cannot write reviews the way I like to read them. And I realize that Jay, like many of you, have a problem with the “academic” treatment of movies.
Henrik, I’m happy you noticed an improvement with my performance on this podcast.
I’d like to thank the Film Junk guys for inviting me on every so often even though there are many people like Kevin and Sly who don’t want me on the Film Junk podcast. I guess I’ll return to my duties in the Film Junk kitchen and laundry room.
Oh, btw, I did pronounce the word “banal” correctly.
Posted by Reed Farrington on August 17th, 2009It’s always a pleasure to hear you on the podcast Reed, it spices things up.
You and Jays bickering is great as comedic relief, and you actually do come up with some valid insight to the various discussions, albeit of a varying degree from show to show.
Posted by Kasper F. Nielsen on August 17th, 2009Reed’s point about science fiction focusing on science is incorrect though. The most highly regarded science fiction works are because they are great allegories, not because they focus on the science in the books. Even most of the most respected science fiction writer’s rarely focus on the science, especially not instead of plot.
The Man in the High Castle, one of the most celebrated science fiction novels of all time barely has a hint of science in the whole thing.
Farenheit 451? While it invents the television, that means absolutely nothing in the scope of the plot or the thesis of the book. Nor is it barely talked about in the book, let alone intricately explained.
Science fiction is hailed for its use of allegory and metaphor to discuss difficult subjects in a manner in which it is easier for people to digest (according to Reed this would mean it is a medium for idiots). Science fiction that is heavy in science speak and focuses on the science over the moral is typically viewed as the lowest form of the genre, and Reed’s vaunted Star Trek routinely fell in that hole. Technobabble, which Reed has admitted Star Trek routinely is guilty of, is considered poor form in the medium, and here is Reed trying to extol the virtues of such nonsense because he wants more of it in District 9.
He’s making an entirely disingenuous argument which does nothing to actually improve the conversation and discussion, but instead stalls it out. I’m fine with that in Cantankerous, but keep it out of the Film Junk podcast.
He brings them up himself, you should not exclude it because you know he read it somewhere, maybe there is something to it even if it was published in a book.
Harlan Ellison certainly doesn’t believe it. In fact he gets insulted when his artform is pigeonholed like that. And Reed has said previously that he will believe whatever Harlan says. Even more modern hard science fiction writers that lean to the tech side like Warren Ellis and Greg Bear don’t drop plot or themes simply so they can geek out on the science. Arthur C Clark, who damn near invented the form, didn’t either.
Also, if Reed is such a man of science then cite the work that he bases this “opinion” on.
And this is all irregardless anyways, as District 9 isn’t a hard science fiction film. Thus judging it on that criteria is simply a waste of time. He might as well have complained that it wasn’t a raunchy sex comedy. If Reed is incapable of enjoying any science fiction besides hard science fiction (a hard to fathom proposition since he loves Star Trek) then go watch Moon and don’t watch District 9.
Posted by Matt Gamble on August 17th, 2009“I think a lot of people don’t really understand the friendship between Jay and Reed(including Greg)”
Um…..what? I understand their friendship just fine. Jay says they are friends. Fine by me.
I don’t understand why everyone thinks I dispise Reed. It’s a show. He’s infuriating to talk to on the show. I may have threatened to physically assault him on numerous occasions, but I’ve never done it. When I see Reed outside of the podcast, he’s just a weird guy that I don’t really pay much attention to. Everyone that knows Reed knows that he acts the way he does to purposely get reactions. That’s his thing. I’m not surprised at the amount of people that have issues with the way he is, I’m more surprised at the amount of people that don’t.
Posted by Greg on August 17th, 2009I love Reed and want more of him. Haters can suck it.
Reed behaves that way knowingly and the remarks on the show are more for our entertainment than anything else. He’s the Gilbert Godfried of Film Junk, most people let him get on their nerves but a few see the humor in it.
As for Matts idea of Science Fiction I disagree with. In my mind Science Fiction is just that, stories that revolve around the science of things and ideas therein. To me Star Wars, Flash Gordon, Alien aren’t science fiction films, they are either drama, action or horror in a futuristic setting. Just because a story or a film has a space ship in it doesn’t make it science fiction. 2001, Blade Runner and Primer are science fiction because they revolve around ideas that are far beyond our own technologies. That is science fiction to me and that is why the Hugo award is a fucking joke if Wall-E won for best science fiction.
Posted by Swarez on August 17th, 2009I always look forward to Reed’s appearances on the show. Yeah his opinions are bizarre and incoherent, but at least he has the capacity to bring something different to the discussion. And yeah, I can imagine how frustrating it would be to try and debate the merits of a film with him, but your frustration is proportional to my entertainment. Seriously, it’s hilarious when you guys get frustrated with him. Not only that, I don’t think the D9 discussion would have been as comprehensive had everyone’s opinions been the same. I don’t know. Reed is just too quirky and harmless to be anything other than endearing. Although, I guess it’s easy for me to say that when I only hear from him every couple of months.
Posted by Neil M on August 17th, 2009Swarez is right regarding Reed. Here’s an idea: make Reed a permanent member of the show, but just edit out his parts and release two versions.
Posted by Neil M on August 17th, 2009The phrase “science fiction” doesnt really have much meaning anymore, I agree with swarez on a lot of those points, but I also think that if the sci fi community is fine with this and has a broader view of sci fi the way I have a broader view of what counts as a documentary, then fuck it, whatever, give Wall E the golden dingus, because otherwise the conversation is way too close to the “____ isn’t metal” “_____ isn’t punk” arguments that make me want to stab people.
Posted by Goon on August 17th, 2009Matt Gamble, I guess I didn’t explain myself correctly, because you’re interpretation of what I said echoes Jay’s misinterpretation, I think. I do agree with most of what you said.
Let me try to explain what I was getting at. In a science fiction story where you introduce science elements, you should make sure that the ramifications are apparent and consistent with what is described in your story.
In my opinion and I think most science fiction writers would agree with me, you should make sure your story somehow covers what a reader or viewer may be thinking that doesn’t seem right. For example, with the ray gun example, if you have a species that is capable of creating a ray gun and capable of interstellar travel, does it make sense that they would behave like idiots? (Hmm… I was just thinking about how humankind were able to put a man on the moon, yet… never mind.) Jay was right in that you shouldn’t bore the audience with a scientific description of how the ray gun works, but “good” science fiction shouldn’t introduce ray guns and just use them in order to show things blowing up really good.
At the very least, you shouldn’t describe or show something that is inconsistent. For example, using the ray gun again, if you show someone heating a rock with the ray gun in one case and then later on showing the ray gun exploding a building, then you have to wonder. I know, maybe the ray gun has different settings. Then you should see the character briefly doing something that makes it look like the ray gun has different settings.
With regards to District 9, I haven’t thought through any obvious inconsistencies, but I’m not the type of person who will dislike a movie based on these nitpicks even though I may have given that impression. I just think it’s interesting to discuss these things. Having read one interview with Neil Blomkamp, he doesn’t seem to be too concerned with scientific consistency in movies anyway.
Posted by Reed Farrington on August 18th, 2009“For example, with the ray gun example, if you have a species that is capable of creating a ray gun and capable of interstellar travel, does it make sense that they would behave like idiots? ”
I assume you’re talking about the Prawns, but have you considered that the Prawns in District 9 were the cast-offs of a species? I mean, the film doesn’t exactly go into detail as to why the ship came to Earth or why the inhabitants were so malnourished. Is it possible they were “sentenced” to exile on Earth? Could these D9 Prawns be the criminal element of an alien species who could give a fuck about how we would react? Christopher and his kid could be the exceptions for any number of reasons, not the least which being the film takes place 20 years after the ship comes to Earth and Christopher might have just “grown” into being more than just a typical Prawn. I don’t know. Like I said, the film does not give you a whole hell of a lot of backstory about the Prawns, so you seem to be wanting to fill in the blanks yourself. There is nothing wrong with that, but I think you’re asking the wrong questions.
Posted by Dave on August 18th, 2009Wow a lot here! Nicely written response Matt Gamble, I look forward to Reed’s Response. Oh I see its up now…
Reed is great in certain scenarios. I too started screaming at the CPU when he kept asking little questions at the beginning of the podcast and breaking up the “flow”. It seemed to me, maybe because I imagine how Reed’s life is right now, that he was excited to be out socializing for the first time in a while. I actually think Reed taking on Jay’s views was refreshing as Jay rarely gets challenged directly on the show
This is good because Jay’s defense of his views just shows more of his insight and rarely disappoints. In defense of Reed, the biggest mistake in the show was Jay’s constant use of North Africa instead of South Africa 
Reed stated in this podcast his Star Trek response was a big experiment in being contrarian or something. I don’t necessary believe that as it is a childlike way to cover what one determines was an embarrassing experience, “oh, I didn’t mean that to be taking seriously, I was just conducting an experiment”. Reed also does this by constantly writing about something after the fact and thinking his thought out written response is some enlightened and well informed item that covers for an awkward earlier spoken response. He very rarely acknowledges people as intelligent and skilled when they are able to function in a live debate and express views and opinions clearly the first time. He appears to only value the skills and type of intelligence HE possesses which is a shame.
Back to the Star Trek admittance, this whole “experiment” is interesting because that episode is where my view of Reed really shifted. It appears the rest of FilmJunk was not in on the joke/experiment /etc. as they agreed to allow Reed a column about Star Trek years in advance. When the first Star Trek podcast was disjointed they devoted another podcast to try in vain to save it. I hope everyone involved with the site, including Reed, can understand how frustrating this was from a listener’s standpoint and I would think as friends and colleagues Reed wouldn’t throw the rest of the group “under the bus” like that in the future.
My big problem with Reed is that he just isn’t current enough for being a regular guest. A lot of time is wasted when Reed asks questions about films already seen by the Filmjunk crew, and the listeners, that Reed won’t see until they come to the dollar bin. I feel if Reed wants to be a regular part of the show he has got to commit to the current environment of entertainment and see more new releases.
Reed mentioned this idea that “westerners” tend to prejudge a film or object and look for evidence to support their feelings. Reed is loading his argument here as this area of study has a more base level in the way humans mate. Humans tend to highlight what they like about a person and ignore physical traits they do not like or behavior that should cause them alarm. This is part of universal human behavior and making the leap to say easterners versus westerners act differently on such basic HUMAN respond is misguided.
AS far as the District 9 praise, I agree with everyone that it is a wonderful film and a great example for Hollywood. I think when the dust settles we can look at some of the areas in the film that were not quite up to par with the rest. (This is where Jay and I don’t see eye to eye as I can love a film and still use it as way to talk about little things that could be even better. I feel you can learn even more about film by deconstructing the really good ones.)
Anyway, I was disappointed with the choice to use all native Africans in the gangs. The director could claim to know more about the true Nigerian gangs and the fact in reality they might not trust people outside their own race, but he choose to break so many other science and plot rules I don’t know why it was necessary to keep this one. The whole movie as an allegory falls apart really quickly and Blomkamp has done press to cover himself. He has to, because the way it stands now, on the surface, violent cat food eating aliens are a stand-in for the native Africans of his homeland.
I’ve learned a lot about science fiction IN FILM reading Blomkamp’s views and some of the discussions about this film. I think like any piece of art everything is about levels, happy accidents, and depth. District 9 works because like a really engaging abstract painting it is the sum of the parts and not one or two brush strokes. Reed might have so much trouble with this because it is part of the human experience that can’t be quantified or measured. George Lucas has the famous quote, “films are binary, positive or negative, they either work or they don’t”. In saying that, Mr. Lucas was acknowledging no one really knows what a movie will do when the public gets a hold of it.
Some of the items in this film, such as, more AMAZING MATTER (like Star Trek) that well morph a human in to another species while running a HUGE FUCKING SHIP is a little hard to swallow. Really, it takes that little to run the ship BUT YOU GUYS STILL RAN OUT! NOT ONE RESERVE TANK! Like most, in a dark theatre, with a good spirited crowd, I didn’t care. Unlike Reed, I’ve held on to my childlike wonder when it comes to movie watching and allowed myself to dwell on these things after the fact. It doesn’t make me ignorant as Reed puts it but above average because I can control and partition my brain and allow for both an emotional and intellectual response to something.
I feel with a lot of science fiction and introducing big ideas in science fiction films it is a question of depth. I feel too many young filmmakers will read Blomkamps views of “big ideas in science fiction films” and take it the wrong way and as evidence of you don’t need big ideas. It is apparent Blomkamp is well read in scientific ideas and it is that depth of knowledge that allows him to make interesting stuff. In screenwriting you talk about “back story” and as a writer really knowing the character you are writing dialogue for so that character’s true voice is heard. The same thing can be said for sci-fi, you don’t have to introduce big ideas or explain every new technology, but those big ideas and new technology have to be grounded in the filmmaker’s understanding of those areas to come across as original and fresh. On the flip side you can watch a Michael Bay film and feel he doesn’t care at all about any science or big ideas under the surface of his films, and this is why he fails. It should be mentioned that in mysteries and creature features we praise filmmakers that leave more to the imagination of the audience, why this need to know everything in a sci-fi movie?
The middle of the film had some real pacing problems and started to drag. This might have been a “happy accident” as it made the end much more of a rush due to the boredom that I was starting to feel. I agree with some of the criticism that the 1.2 aliens seemed to be forgotten in the end and the film does a poor job of explaining what the lead alien was doing at the end. He claimed to be motivated to get back to the ship to stop his “people” from being used as medical experiments. Then he and his son go to the ship and it becomes this “I will be back in 3 years”?! I also didn’t buy the way all of the aliens didn’t react to their mother ship starting to move after 20 years. It had already been established that they were a very reactionary race so their lackluster response was surprising. The human response was also lacking in scale as it was clearly stated that Wikus was the “most valued human on the planet” – the procedural and tactical way they pursued him was not very well done. Now, I know the reasons for all this is budget, but if we are going to heap a ton of praise on this film for all it achieve with a small budget we can’t ignore the character and story holes that budget created.
Aside from the whole what to do with the aliens issue I didn’t mind the ending and a chance for a sequel.
All in all, a great film and it probably saved the entire summer for me.
Posted by rus in chicago on August 18th, 20091.) Phasing Reed out is preposterous. Shut up.
2.) I saw “Shanghai Kiss” at the movie rental place for $4 yesterday. TWO COPIES.
3.) I actually found myself somewhat agreeing with Reed’s review of “District 9″ since I seem to be one of the outsiders that wasn’t drooling/raving ecstatic with the film (it happens.)
4.) A separate spoiler review podcast? Really? Am I the only one that thinks that’s just a smidge silly? If you haven’t seen the film, skip that part of the podcast. Or am I the only one that does that?
Oooh well. Everyone’s really fired up this week, huh?
Posted by Falsk on August 18th, 2009Dave, the Film Junk guys actually had a little conversation about why the majority of Prawns seemed like idiots with only CJ and his son representative of “smart” aliens. (Maybe we should have a spoiler comment section.) I think the discussion is in the bonus podcast. Again, these questions aren’t meant so much as criticism, but rather curiosity. Not to sound defensive or maybe I am, but what kinds of questions should I be asking?
rus in chicago, I just wanted to address your statement that my statements about my “bad” Star Trek review are an excuse to cover a mistake I made. I was just trying to say that I knew at the time that people would jump on me for not really talking about the movie. But I have a problem reviewing movies that don’t inspire me. I knew that I couldn’t elaborate on some of the things that I could have said that people would “attack” me on. For example, and this goes with District 9, if I say that I didn’t like how the action was filmed, people would expect me to justify this. What can I say? That I thought the editing was too quick? That the camera placement was wrong? Obviously, it worked for other people, so why bother saying stuff that people will guffaw at?
Actually, I never thought about my “bad” “bad” (the double quoted “bad”s is not a typo) Star Trek review reflecting badly on Film Junk as a serious site for film criticism. For this, I sincerely apologize to Sean, Jay, and Greg. If sending out an international press release with my apology would make a difference, I would.
Posted by Reed Farrington on August 18th, 2009Let me try to explain what I was getting at. In a science fiction story where you introduce science elements, you should make sure that the ramifications are apparent and consistent with what is described in your story.
Point to one example in District 9 of scientific inconsistency. Please remember, District 9 is set in an alternate universe and not the one we live in, so standard physics and scientific conventions that we know will not apply, and thus can’t be used.
This means Reed, District 9 would have to lay out a principle, then blatantly break that principle. Find me one example of that in the movie. Because I can think of countless examples of the film reinforcing the scientific principles that it created.
but “good” science fiction shouldn’t introduce ray guns and just use them in order to show things blowing up really good.
What like Ender’s Game?
Having read one interview with Neil Blomkamp, he doesn’t seem to be too concerned with scientific consistency in movies anyway.
You are misinterpreting what he is saying, and then using it as the basis for why you don’t like the film. The film is consistent in the universe that District 9 exists in, but that universe is not consistent with ours. George Lucas has used a similar logic to describe how the ships in the Star Wars Universe can fly in space the way they do, by stating “Space in the Star Wars universe has oxygen.”
To me Star Wars, Flash Gordon, Alien aren’t science fiction films, they are either drama, action or horror in a futuristic setting.
Star Wars is set in the past. Suck on that, Iceland!
Posted by Matt Gamble on August 18th, 2009For example, and this goes with District 9, if I say that I didn’t like how the action was filmed, people would expect me to justify this. What can I say? That I thought the editing was too quick? That the camera placement was wrong? Obviously, it worked for other people, so why bother saying stuff that people will guffaw at?
Well if you articulate your opinions Reed Farrington won’t think you are an idiot. So, there’s that.
Posted by Matt Gamble on August 18th, 2009“He claimed to be motivated to get back to the ship to stop his “people” from being used as medical experiments. Then he and his son go to the ship and it becomes this “I will be back in 3 years”?!”
He didn’t want to come back to stop the experiments until after he learned about them in the second act. It was a shift in his motivation, which originally was solely to leave Earth and never come back. Honestly I’m not sure he gave a fuck about the rest of his kind *until* he learned what MNU was doing to them. As for coming back in 3 years, he made a promise to fix Wikus’ DNA but only after returning to his home system first. He says the line at the end of the film after Wikus’ sacrifices his safety so that CJ and his son can escape. CJ was reiterating his original promise to help Wikus for helping them. Regardless of how you feel about Wikus at the start of the film, you can’t deny that at the end he is completely different internally as well as externally.
Posted by Dave on August 18th, 2009Also, Reed, I am not going to dictate to you what questions you should be asking about a film. I was just hoping you would move away from the goofy technobabble and more into the expansion of the movie’s universe. Blomkamp has repeatedly stated the goal of this movie is entertainment first, and part of the fun of this kind of film is filling in the blanks yourself through speculation. None of it means anything and serves no other purpose than geek fellowship, but there it is.
Posted by Dave on August 18th, 2009“and part of the fun of this kind of film is filling in the blanks yourself through speculation. None of it means anything and serves no other purpose than geek fellowship, but there it is.”
quite right, people on these boards tend to jump all over people bring up issues with the film even after they have said they loved it when in reality most just want to geek out and enjoy the movie more by discussing it and ways it could be different.
Posted by rus in chicago on August 18th, 2009Holy crap! Matt Gamble, in discussing what makes a “good” science fiction film, I wasn’t saying that I disliked District 9 because of scientific nitpicks. Read the last paragraph of my comment 48 again. Get off my back, you Prawn!
And I’m not using Blomkamp’s views as a reason to dislike his film. Blomkamp seems to be a reasonably intelligent guy, who I don’t necessarily agree with. He just made a film that seemed ordinary to me. And before this goes too far, if I’ve said that I disliked District 9, then I didn’t really mean it. I gave it 2.5 stars on the Film Junk podcast. Oh, god help me if people start accusing me of backtracking. (And no, I don’t believe in god. Today, anyway.)
BTW, I read today that a Canadian visual effects company did the bulk of the visual effects for District 9. Apparently, WETA was too busy on Avatar. Everything is cheaper in Canada, even special effects. (Canada is the Third World of the Western nations.)
Posted by Reed Farrington on August 18th, 2009Reed, this is true, you really did like District 9. 2.5 stars is basically a 4 out of 4 in your world.
Posted by Sean on August 18th, 2009Reed – “I read today that a Canadian visual effects company did the bulk of the visual effects for District 9″ sounds like a new career path…just think of all the leftovers in the company frig. that are going to waste.
Posted by rus in chicago on August 18th, 2009Fuck this movie it was not that great! 1 out of 4.
Posted by jaime on August 22nd, 2009If you check out the blog http://www.mnuspreadslies.com written by none other than our favorite alien, Christopher Johnson, then you will see a lot of details that you didn’t get in the movie. It may help shed some light on the alien’s situation in District 9.
Posted by D.Wayne on August 22nd, 2009To make up for any lack of clarity in my voiced opinions of “District 9″ on the podcast, here are my lists of likes and dislikes.
Things I liked about “District 9″:
- Initial premise of dealing with a large number of compliant, “despicable” aliens.
- Visual effects.
- Cinematography.
- The ending of the film.
Things I did not like about “District 9″:
- The style in which it was shot, notably the hand-held camerawork.
- Dialog was ordinary.
- Story did not branch into interesting territory.
The other elements of the movie like the music didn’t make an impact on me. So based on all of these limited judgments, this is why I do not have enthusiasm for “District 9.”
One final thing. From the comments, I think I understand why I irk so many Film Junk podcast listeners. I’ve tried to improve, and I appreciate the guys accommodating me on the occasional podcast, but I have to concede that the Film Junk podcast is better off without me. Let the rejoicing begin.
Posted by Reed Farrington on August 23rd, 2009Hi,
Director Shane Abbess described the budget as “the catering budget on a Hollywood film” The film was shot for $150,000!! But it looks quite good though –
You were talking about “Legion” and I just want to mention Australian 2007 movie “Gabriel”. If you like low budget movies you would love this one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_Lp07USFr8&feature=related
So If you want to see some Angels with guns you should check this movie
Posted by Lukas (from Poland) on August 24th, 2009Hey Guys,
District 9 was phenomenal. All I really wanted to say was that I wish you guys would have Reed on more frequently or every episode because he’s the perfect antithesis and the interaction and rapport is fun to listen to.
Thanks.
Posted by Scott H. on August 26th, 2009Leave a Reply