Avatar or District 9?

I'm not sure if this topic has already been done, but even if it has, I am doing it again. I have only seen District 9 and it was amazing, so that's where my vote is in.

District 9 overall. It had a more interesting story despite how it turns into an action film, a much better main character, and more interesting alien designs.

District 9 for me. Thats my favorite movie of the year. Avatar was great as well. Just not as good.

*Flame Shield on* Avatar

Avatar.

I liked both a lot, but Avatar was the best movie I have ever seen.

Avatar, and at that I would only score it a 7.5 or 8 out of 10. District 9, I could barely stomach. The script was beyond garbage, and I hated every single character. raven_squad

I'm guessing you were not a fan of Wikus:P I think he is one of the best characters of the year personally.

District 9 overall. It had a more interesting story despite how it turns into an action film, a much better main character, and more interesting alien designs.

Film-Guy

Story-wise District 9 has a much more interesting story that owes itself to the time of apartheid laws in South Africa while Avatar is just your generic action flick with a lackluster, generic story that attempts to compensate for with astounding visuals.

But that's not to say the effects in District 9 lack quality and it's are probably more astounding since they were created on a considerably smaller budget.

I'll have to go with District 9.

district 9 was really good except for it's terrible ending. avatar was alright, not very good though.

District 9 but I loved both.

the better movie. as in the better story being told.

District 9 tells a more interesting and poignent story.

Avatar is a visually spectacle, lots of imagination went into making the world. the RDA equipment, the planet Pandora, all the alien creatures as well.

problem with Avatar is it's a cliche story, the story is told well (imo), but it's still a cliche story.

Essentially Avatar and District 9 boils down to this.

D9 - Aliens come to Earth, Humanity treats em' like crap

A - Humans come to Alien World, treats Aliens like crap.

Both good movies though, just if your asking the question "The Better Movie", then i consider story before visuals (which is the entire point of the film medium).

the better movie. as in the better story being told.

District 9 tells a more interesting and poignent story.

Avatar is a visually spectacle, lots of imagination went into making the world. the RDA equipment, the planet Pandora, all the alien creatures as well.

problem with Avatar is it's a cliche story, the story is told well (imo), but it's still a cliche story.

Essentially Avatar and District 9 boils down to this.

D9 - Aliens come to Earth, Humanity treats em' like crap

A - Humans come to Alien World, treats Aliens like crap.

Both good movies though, just if your asking the question "The Better Movie", then i consider story before visuals (which is the entire point of the film medium).

SaudiFury

Cliche =/= bad. You seem to support this yourself by saying the story was 'well told'.

district 9 was really good except for it's terrible ending. avatar was alright, not very good though.

dackchaar

Something else I didnt like about District 9 was how it started out being a fake documentary, then stopped being one, then threw in a documentary ending. It wasnt bad but it did seem a bit thrown in. What didnt you like about the ending?

[QUOTE="SaudiFury"]

the better movie. as in the better story being told.

District 9 tells a more interesting and poignent story.

Avatar is a visually spectacle, lots of imagination went into making the world. the RDA equipment, the planet Pandora, all the alien creatures as well.

problem with Avatar is it's a cliche story, the story is told well (imo), but it's still a cliche story.

Essentially Avatar and District 9 boils down to this.

D9 - Aliens come to Earth, Humanity treats em' like crap

A - Humans come to Alien World, treats Aliens like crap.

Both good movies though, just if your asking the question "The Better Movie", then i consider story before visuals (which is the entire point of the film medium).

psn8214

Cliche =/= bad. You seem to support this yourself by saying the story was 'well told'.

Even though i prefer District 9 over Avatar I have to say I agree with you. Cliche doesnt make a film bad. If the film's story is told well it doesnt matter that much to me. Each film brings its own vision to the screen.

[QUOTE="dackchaar"]

district 9 was really good except for it's terrible ending. avatar was alright, not very good though.

Film-Guy

Something else I didnt like about District 9 was how it started out being a fake documentary, then stopped being one, then threw in a documentary ending. It wasnt bad but it did seem a bit thrown in. What didnt you like about the ending?

The whole time I was prepared for a big climatic scene or event of seeing the aliens home planet, or him to be healed, then it suddenly went from high energy action to a dead halt. It was such a dissapointing ending to me, and rarely do I find an ending that I out right hate. Other than the ending the move was really good, however.

[QUOTE="dackchaar"]

district 9 was really good except for it's terrible ending. avatar was alright, not very good though.

Film-Guy

Something else I didnt like about District 9 was how it started out being a fake documentary, then stopped being one, then threw in a documentary ending. It wasnt bad but it did seem a bit thrown in. What didnt you like about the ending?

[QUOTE="Film-Guy"]

[QUOTE="dackchaar"]

district 9 was really good except for it's terrible ending. avatar was alright, not very good though.

dackchaar

Something else I didnt like about District 9 was how it started out being a fake documentary, then stopped being one, then threw in a documentary ending. It wasnt bad but it did seem a bit thrown in. What didnt you like about the ending?

The whole time I was prepared for a big climatic scene or event of seeing the aliens home planet, or him to be healed, then it suddenly went from high energy action to a dead halt. It was such a dissapointing ending to me, and rarely do I find an ending that I out right hate. Other than the ending the move was really good, however.

I can understand that. I liked how it ended however, it was a bit ambigous but I liked how Wikus ended up.

Dude, District 9 has human actors. I've seen like over 9000 of those. None of them interest me.

Avatar is much better.

Hell, I liked Avatar much more than Dark Knight, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Gladiator, or any of those uninmaginative, dull, human-filled movies.

[QUOTE="SaudiFury"]

the better movie. as in the better story being told.

District 9 tells a more interesting and poignent story.

Avatar is a visually spectacle, lots of imagination went into making the world. the RDA equipment, the planet Pandora, all the alien creatures as well.

problem with Avatar is it's a cliche story, the story is told well (imo), but it's still a cliche story.

Essentially Avatar and District 9 boils down to this.

D9 - Aliens come to Earth, Humanity treats em' like crap

A - Humans come to Alien World, treats Aliens like crap.

Both good movies though, just if your asking the question "The Better Movie", then i consider story before visuals (which is the entire point of the film medium).

psn8214

Cliche =/= bad. You seem to support this yourself by saying the story was 'well told'.

[QUOTE="psn8214"]

[QUOTE="SaudiFury"]

the better movie. as in the better story being told.

District 9 tells a more interesting and poignent story.

Avatar is a visually spectacle, lots of imagination went into making the world. the RDA equipment, the planet Pandora, all the alien creatures as well.

problem with Avatar is it's a cliche story, the story is told well (imo), but it's still a cliche story.

Essentially Avatar and District 9 boils down to this.

D9 - Aliens come to Earth, Humanity treats em' like crap

A - Humans come to Alien World, treats Aliens like crap.

Both good movies though, just if your asking the question "The Better Movie", then i consider story before visuals (which is the entire point of the film medium).

majoras_wrath

Cliche =/= bad. You seem to support this yourself by saying the story was 'well told'.

I can post links too.

"Thoughtless use of monomyth structure is often blamed for lack of originality and clichés in popular culture, especially big-budget Hollywood films."

I've been trying to edit it to include this quote from the monomyth article but it ain't working.

Just because a movie is 'cliche' doesn't mean its not executed well or entertaining.

Just because a movie is 'cliche' doesn't mean its not executed well or entertaining.

psn8214

Clichés refer to something being used before. I don't see why that is bad. Also, the movie might not even be that cliché as you suggested in the first place. What parts were cliché? Most aspects of the movie were largely original.

Dude, District 9 has human actors. I've seen like over 9000 of those. None of them interest me.

Avatar is much better.

Hell, I liked Avatar much more than Dark Knight, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Gladiator, or any of those uninmaginative, dull, human-filled movies.

unholymight

[QUOTE="psn8214"]

Just because a movie is 'cliche' doesn't mean its not executed well or entertaining.

majoras_wrath

Just because a movie is 'cliche' doesn't mean its not executed well or entertaining.

psn8214

But doesn't cliche imply unoriginality and thus dictates that poor execution, on at least one significant plane of the work, has happened? Of course, the visuals were astounding but the story was cliche and, in the case of Avatar at least, one can consider excellent visuals as adequate compensation for narrative shortcomings but its entirely on a case-by-case basis that creates a wide variety of subjective opinions which usually pigeonholes material into the dreaded "love-it-or-hate-it" category.

[QUOTE="psn8214"]

Just because a movie is 'cliche' doesn't mean its not executed well or entertaining.

THE_DRUGGIE

But doesn't cliche imply unoriginality and thus dictates that poor execution, on at least one significant plane of the work, has happened? Of course, the visuals were astounding but the story was cliche and, in the case of Avatar at least, one can consider excellent visuals as adequate compensation for narrative shortcomings but its entirely on a case-by-case basis that creates a wide variety of subjective opinions which usually pigeonholes material into the dreaded "love-it-or-hate-it" category.

Well, it wasn't cliche in the first place.

But doesn't cliche imply unoriginality and thus dictates that poor execution, on at least one significant plane of the work, has happened?

THE_DRUGGIE

A tough one, but I'd go with Avatar.

A lot of people complain about the plot in this movie, and with good reason. There is a paper thin "anti-war" message and the story is fairly bland and derivative, but the latter can be said about many movies these days. We've been blessed with cinema for about 100 years now, pretty much every conceivable idea that would make a decent plot for a feature length film has been done. Take a look at Die Hard, there is no denying that's one of the best action movies ever made, and how many movies involve a "renegade cop who doesn't play by the rules". Avatar is no Die Hard, but both movies show that originality doesn't mean everything.

A tough one, but I'd go with Avatar.

A lot of people complain about the plot in this movie, and with good reason. There is a paper thin "anti-war" message and the story is fairly bland and derivative, but the latter can be said about many movies these days. We've been blessed with cinema for about 100 years now, pretty much every conceivable idea that would make a decent plot for a feature length film has been done. Take a look at Die Hard, there is no denying that's one of the best action movies ever made, and how many movies involve a "renegade cop who doesn't play by the rules". Avatar is no Die Hard, but both movies show that originality doesn't mean everything.

effena

Well the difference is that John McClane is a much better character than anyone in Avatar. John gets the crap beaten out of him sometimes, he is one of the least cliche action movie heroes around because he is more of a normal guy. With that said though I enjoyed Avatar, just not as much as some.

District 9. I thought about this long and hard for a while there. But I think it comes down to the feeling I get when I come out of a movie theatre. When I left D-9, I felt like I witnessed something amazing. Sure there are some plot holes and other stuff you can pick at, but throughout the whole thing I was just blown away. Part of that has to do with expectations as well. I went in knowing only that it was Neill's first film and his CGI is awesome, from seeing Alive in Joburg/Landfall.

Avatar was fun. It's a fantastic viewing experience, but District 9 felt more mind-blowing. I went into the theatre only knowing that it's supposed to have great effects, and it cost over 300 million to produce (a huge detail, in comparison to D-9's 30 mil). I didn't even know that it was 3D until I had to pay the surcharge lol. After I saw it, I wasn't disappointed, but it wasn't as hard-hitting as I might have expected.

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

[QUOTE="psn8214"]

Just because a movie is 'cliche' doesn't mean its not executed well or entertaining.

unholymight

But doesn't cliche imply unoriginality and thus dictates that poor execution, on at least one significant plane of the work, has happened? Of course, the visuals were astounding but the story was cliche and, in the case of Avatar at least, one can consider excellent visuals as adequate compensation for narrative shortcomings but its entirely on a case-by-case basis that creates a wide variety of subjective opinions which usually pigeonholes material into the dreaded "love-it-or-hate-it" category.

The testosterone-fueled, explosion-obsessed marine archetype (Aliens); the impression (for me, at least) that the aliens looked like anthropomorphic cats a'la Thundercate (but painted blue); The "man opposed to group but then learns acceptance" plot line via medical procedure turning him into one of them (mostly like Black Like Me) all seemed a little bit derivative.

[QUOTE="unholymight"][QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

But doesn't cliche imply unoriginality and thus dictates that poor execution, on at least one significant plane of the work, has happened? Of course, the visuals were astounding but the story was cliche and, in the case of Avatar at least, one can consider excellent visuals as adequate compensation for narrative shortcomings but its entirely on a case-by-case basis that creates a wide variety of subjective opinions which usually pigeonholes material into the dreaded "love-it-or-hate-it" category.

THE_DRUGGIE

The testosterone-fueled, explosion-obsessed marine archetype (Aliens); the impression (for me, at least) that the aliens looked like anthropomorphic cats a'la Thundercate (but painted blue); The "man opposed to group but then learns acceptance" plot line via medical procedure turning him into one of them (mostly like Black Like Me) all seemed a little bit derivative.

[QUOTE="effena"]

A tough one, but I'd go with Avatar.

A lot of people complain about the plot in this movie, and with good reason. There is a paper thin "anti-war" message and the story is fairly bland and derivative, but the latter can be said about many movies these days. We've been blessed with cinema for about 100 years now, pretty much every conceivable idea that would make a decent plot for a feature length film has been done. Take a look at Die Hard, there is no denying that's one of the best action movies ever made, and how many movies involve a "renegade cop who doesn't play by the rules". Avatar is no Die Hard, but both movies show that originality doesn't mean everything.

Film-Guy

Well the difference is that John McClane is a much better character than anyone in Avatar. John gets the crap beaten out of him sometimes, he is one of the least cliche action movie heroes around because he is more of a normal guy. With that said though I enjoyed Avatar, just not as much as some.

I guess that's what turned me off of District 9. It was an alright movie, but the protagonist was an arrogant, foul-mouthed douchebag, who I couldn't sympathize with at all. When they first introduced the guy in the film, I thought he was a comic relief charater of some sort.

EDIT: I also though that Stephen Lang's role in Avatar was great. He played one of the best movie villians in recent history