Talk:District 9/Archive 3

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)

✅ --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. 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 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 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: Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 20. Erik (talk &#124; contribs &#124; 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 &#124; contribs &#124; 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)
 * The Film was funded by Peter Jackson and his company which makes it a New Zealand production, however the film was produced (built/constructed/made) in South Africa. I'll clarify that it's a joint New Zealand/South African production. 203.59.45.96 (talk) 08:04, 4 October 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). 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.”''
 * 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 &#124; contribs &#124; 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 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 &#124; contribs &#124; 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
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, two as a psuedo documentary and several as a documentary style. 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 and the adjective is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "not authentic or real".  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)


 * 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)

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 &#124; contribs &#124; 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 &#124; contribs &#124; 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 &#124; contribs &#124; 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 &#124; contribs &#124; wt:film) 17:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. Here it is:  Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers.  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 &#124; contribs &#124; wt:film) 14:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The countries involved
Hi Just wondering why it's listed as 'South Africa / New Zealand / US' - I don't think the US had that big a part in making the film at all but I think a few Canadians were involved, so shouldn't the 'US' be replaced with a 'Canada'? 78.149.159.84 (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Corporations and Privatization Section
This section presents the idea that MNU is a reference to the US government using Blackwater and other private contractors as a fact, but neither of the sources cited corroborate this. Neither one of the references even mentions Blackwater at all, and I think that they are both editorials. I think this specific section should be removed, as the sources are not at all authoritative nor do they even pertain to its subject matter. If anybody has a source of a director, producer, or writer saying this, that should be added and the section should be kept. -NotMM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.175.107 (talk) 23:39, 13 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)

When Wikus tries to call home he gets the voicemail recording of him and his wife and they say "tot ziens", which is Dutch for "see you later" and I assume is also South African. I'm Dutch, however, and not South African so a South African would need to confirm this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.137.168.12 (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The word in question is "totsiens". It is an Afrikaans word, not dutch. It would be similar to "goodbuy", or "see you later". SaneSerenity (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikus constantly swear in Afrikaans in the film. (Ag fok!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.202.114 (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I recall one of the interviewees speaking Afrikaans in the beginning of the movie. Also, there's the abovementioned "totsiens" and "fok" (although fok is an anglicism). 193.173.109.84 (talk) 07:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

When Kobus is about to shoot Christopher (right before the mecha scene) one of the men says "Skiet hom Kobus skiet hom", which simply translates to "Shoot him Kobus shoot him". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.238.4.85 (talk) 10:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The article currently lists the languages as English and Xhosa, which is odd to me, because I don't hear that much more Xhosa in the film than I do, say, Afrikaans, and even then the vast majority of the film's dialogue is in English. I could append much to the above list of instances of Afrikaans used in the film, but to be honest, I don't think it's appropriate to mention either. It's like saying an English film is English/French because there are a few utterances of French. ChibiKareshi (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You heard Xhosa? Are you sure it was Xhosa? :) IMDB lists the languages as English, Nyanja and Afrikaans, which I also find highly strange, but at least it's a source, so I'll use that for now. I don't know what the convention is in cases where a language is only spoken a bit, but the important point is to find a source for it rather than speculate. Until then I'm removing Xhosa, and restoring Afrikaans and the dubious Nyanja. Greenman (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I wouldn't know if it's Xhosa or Nyanja or Swahili for that matter. My point was that English is clearly the primary language of the film, and non-English languages, be it Afrikaans or whatever else, are used very little in comparison. Maybe I'm wrong and it didn't seem as intrusive to me because I understand Afrikaans. Before I saw the movie, though, the language list in the box confused me as it doesn't clearly specify the language of the expected audience. ChibiKareshi (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)