It’s not “necessary” to provide such an explanation for a plot hole in any movie, but it sure is nice to have.
Oh, and Miller, this is the type of stuff I was talking about: conjecture not addressed specifically by the movie. Yet one more example among the myriad in this thread.
Again, why does it need to be “addressed specifically by the movie”? Why isn’t it enough for the movie to allude to an answer and leave the details for the audience to figure out on their own (as is true of pretty much every single “plot hole” raised in this thread)?
It’s been pointed out repeatedly that the “plot holes” you’ve identified have perfectly reasonable explanations based on information provided by the movie itself - they just require a few seconds of active thinking. You know, that thing where you show up to a movie and don’t just automatically turn your brain off after the opening credits.
Wikus quickly mastering the mech? The movie repeatedly made the point that prawn tech is linked to their biology, at both a genetic and a neurological level.
MNU “trying to kill” Wikus? They weren’ - the only person who attempts to kill Wikus is the merc captain, who explicitly states that he’s breaking orders.
The mech coming alive just in time to save Wikus? Christopher’s son knew that both Wikus and his father were in imminent danger of death (IIRC, at the time, he wasn’t yet aware that Wikus had just brained Christopher) - of course he’s going to turn on the nearest alien death machine available! And the shot of the mech’s targeting system makes it pretty obvious that it has a programmed imperative to destroy anything threatening a prawn’s life. That includes Wikus.
The “magical tractor beam”? It’s obvious the giant spaceship has fuel - it’s been hovering over the city for 20 years without falling. The fuel that Christopher was creating was specifically needed to power the control node. No functioning node, no communication with base ship, no moving the base ship over the control node so the tractor beam can pull it up.
None of this is based on information outside of the movie. All of it was stuff I came up with during the movie itself. The fact that you apparently didn’t even bother to try isn’t the filmmakers’ fault.
Also: Regarding spoke-'s point about the weapons, it looked to me like the alien guns were put together out of scrap, including debris from the big ship as well as trash from the slums themselves. Throughout the movie, I had assumed that there were pockets of alien resistance against MNU, as is strongly implied by the multiple weapons caches Wikus discovers. Unfortunately for the prawns, their worker bee natures interfered with their ability to organize any sort of serious rebellion. Individual workers may have had the technical knowhow to build rayguns out of scrap metal, but running a guerilla war would require strategic thinking and leadership skills that were utterly beyond them.
*deleted
It doesn’t “need” to be; I never said it did. What I did say is the amount of plot holes, ambiguities, and contrivances detracted from what what could have been a stellar experience. I don’t see why I’m unable to expect more from a movie that held such promise.
Most of the raised questions, irregularities, and plot holes are conceptually dull. That is, they’re basic fundamentals that the movie could have covered better so more meaingful questions could be asked. A far superior movie, 2001: A Space Odyssey, also leaves open a lot of questions, except though are actually intellectually stimulating (as well as being tied much more into the movie conceptually). District 9’s are not, and instead distract and detract from the movie’s narrative focus.
An explanation doesn’t make it satisfactory. For the record, I inferred as much originally–I realize it was “explained” (in a half-assed manner) within the film. It still strikes me as a huge contrivance–a human alone couldn’t ever hope to grab something as fast as a rocket out of the air, so why would a suit so intrinsically linked to one’s body and mind be any more capable. Particularly when the thing seemingly has trouble just keeping itself up-right.
They were going to harvest his organs, including his heart! How does that not kill someone? (Also, why the hell wasn’t he strapped down or knocked out during that sequence?)
And it’s also a major contrivance. The suit gained significant functionality that hadn’t been even hinted at prior. That was an eye-rolling moment.
No kidding? I never disputed that.
I said as much earlier! I question why they hell they needed 20 years+ worth of liquid to fly the ship when clearly (or at least one would logically deduct) a much smaller amount would be necessary to simply power the console (as you stated), then use the ship’s tractor beam (which hadn’t been shown previous, fyi, hence the “magical”) to pull themselves up to it.
And that is but the tip of what’s been discussed in this thread. What about the “weapons” question posted above, where as RickJay stated, there could be one of “200 plausible reasons,” and then proceeded to make one up?
And now you’re making stuff up based on “assumptions.” This is typical fan-wankery–not that there’s anything inherently wrong with that, as surely we all indulge in it in some way. But to pretend it’s not is to be disingenuous.
Thanks for nitpicking my wording. “Assumed” may not have been the best choice there - as the very next clause in my sentence states, I was basing that particular bit of conjecture on the weapons stockpiles Wikus finds.
I do what I can 
I saw it yesterday, the one thing I noticed was that Wikus kept calling the fictional documentary camera operator “Trent”, and the Director of Photography was Trent Opaloch. Pretty unusual to have a DP operating the camera, though not unheard of.
I’m with early thread Red Barchetta on this one (before the shoutdowns made him/her bitter and angry ;)), good but not great movie marred by plot holes and, yes, DEM. To say that “it’s not the type of movie that holds your hand from a to b to c” is making a virtue of necessity. For me the fact that in the “documentary” there is not even any speculation as to why the aliens are there in the first place just rings completely hollow. In any documentary of this type the talking heads guessing as to the whys and hows of that craft coming to hover over the earth would absolutely be included. As to the cool weapons suit, the minute I saw it in the first act I knew it was going off in the third. That being said, when Wikus is about to get voodooed and the suit gets activated and saves him the actual words “Deus. Ex. Machina.” popped into my head. It’s not an unusual thing in films, I don’t know why everybody is so up in arms over the use of the term.
With due respect, the presence of weapons on the surface is not a “plot hole” even without an explanation. That’s not what a “plot hole” is. A plot hole is a problem with the logic and flow of the plot itself, not a technical detail. Deux ex machina isn’t a plot hole.
A plot hole, for instance: In “Die Hard II,” the planes circling over Dulles suppsedly cannot land because there’s np ILS and they can’t see the runway because it isn’t lit. When a plane explodes on a runway at the end, they happily land because, supposedly, the fire helps them see the runway. Except a plane EARLIER in the movie had done the same thing. So why didn’t they land there?
The fact that the planes wouldn’t have continued circling the airport to the point of being short of fuel isn’t really a plot hole - it’s stupid, but it’s not a plot hole. The fact that their landing amidst a plane’s fiery wreckage at the end of the movie contradicts that they could not do the same thing earlier IS a plot hole. If there’s a logical error right on screen, that’s a plot hole.
If this has been mentioned in the previous five pages of which I was only able to contain myself long enough to read one and a half, please forgive me, direct me to the post, call me an incosiderate post-wasting ass, ignore me, whatever . . . So I saw the movie last night and liked it well enough. Then at four a.m., I woke suddenly with the following thought, almost like the thought woke me. [SPOILER]The prawns were human-like at one time but were turned into prawns after being exposed to the fuel, poossibly as a result of the crash.
Why else would Christopher: 1. know that the fuel turns humans into prawns; 2. know about a machine on the mother ship that reverses the transformation? This works perfectly with the apartheid theme – they really are just like us, they only look different.
I’ll admit, this does leave a few questions, like why aren’t the other prawns as “together” as Christopher? I was able to reconcile the facts that the prawns were essentially captives despite having superior weaponry based on some reference in the moive to them being, essentially, worker bees good at following orders but not real sharp (e.g. Wicker takes notice that Chrisotpher, unlike the others, has an understanding of what’s going on during the evicition whereas the others were basically tricked into signing the eviction papers) But, if they are human or human like, then I need a new explanation for this. Does whatever transformed them into prawns also make them stupid, too stupifd to use their supeiror technology? [/SPOILER]
Anyway. Interesting movie. Worth a couple of watches. Compelling characters. Effective delivery.
I posted about this before, but I don’t think the movie is just about apartheid. There are more recent events that are referenced too.
If this has been mentioned in the previous five pages of which I was only able to contain myself long enough to read one and a half, please forgive me, direct me to the post, call me an inconsiderate post-wasting ass, ignore me, whatever . . . So I saw the movie last night and liked it well enough. Then at four a.m., I woke suddenly with the following thought:
[SPOILER]The prawns were human-like at one time but were turned into prawns after being exposed to the fuel, poossibly as a result of the crash.
Why else would Christopher: 1. know that the fuel turns humans into prawns; 2. know about a machine on the mother ship that reverses the transformation?
This works perfectly with the apartheid theme – they really are just like us, they only look different.
I’ll admit, this does leave a few questions, like why aren’t the other prawns as “together” as Christopher? I was able to reconcile the facts that the prawns were essentially captives despite having superior weaponry based on some reference in the moive to them being, essentially, a worker race, good at following orders but not real sharp. I figured Christopher was different physically/mentally/physiologically, a leader race if you will, and that he just didn’t have the resources to control the others - something on the mothership maybe (e.g. Wicker takes notice that Chrisotpher, unlike the others, has an understanding of what’s going on during the evicition whereas the others were basically tricked into signing the eviction papers). But, if they are human or human like, then I need a new explanation for this. Does whatever transformed them into prawns also make them (except Christopher and now Wicker) stupid, too stupid to use their superior technology? [/SPOILER]
Anyway. Interesting movie. Worth a couple of watches. Compelling characters. Effective delivery.
ETA: make that double post wasting ass
The fact that the movie doesn’t speculate why the aliens are there makes it hollow?
It doesn’t speculate why Wikus has a mustache, either. Hollow!
Citizen Kane doesn’t speculate why Rosebud is a sled, it leaves it up to you to figure out by inferring details given to you by the movie. And, really, it’s not that difficult in either case.
Because the very fact that you saw the weapons suit in the first act and knew it would be used in the third act completely undermines your claim of DEM.
Yes. You may only eat one pie, the “I saw it coming” pie or the “Deus Ex Machina” pie. You may not eat both pies.
Unless you wanted to bake a third pie, a “Deus Ex Checkov’s Gun” pie. That would be a silly pie, though.
Even if it exhibits characteristics that were not alluded to prior to the very scene where they were needed? It might as well have been something else in the room aside from the suit and it would still be just as ridiculous.
With due respect, I never said it was.
With due respect, I never said it was.
You make so many complaints about this movie, but then get so many details wrong, that it makes me wonder if you were even paying attention.
He *was *strapped down. At the last second before they cut into him, adrenaline/the will to survive/anger/whatever allowed his alien arm to rip through his restraints.
The MNU’s objective was *not *to simply kill Wikus. They wanted to harvest his organs/bio-material/blood/etc. and use them to study the DNA & create other human-alien hybrids, ones who would only have alien hands in order to operate the weapons. He would die as a result, but they would already have what they wanted by that point. If Wikus was just killed in the field, they would not be able to do this. Pretend you need a heart for a transplant. Do you want to take one from a body that’s been dead a long while, or one removed from a still living person? Who knows how the alien DNA actually worked. Perhaps they’d be fine taking samples from a corpse, but common sense would tell you to start by getting your bio material from a body that still has blood pumping through it.
Well then that’s the very opposite definition of a “deus ex machina.” There you have a “Chekov’s gun” scenario, something that is shown at the beginning to set you up for it being used at the end, *not *something that comes out of nowhere. It’s a pretty simple concept. If, for example, at the end an American military helicopter swooped down to save Wikus, *that *would be a deus ex machina.
Pray tell what else of the “many details” I got wrong?
Fine, perhaps I missed the restraints (must have been the pretty pathetic restraints though). I was distracted by the stupidity of the Doctors (who you would think are pretty smart guys) for not subduing him with some sort of drugs beforehand, particularly when the human is clearly exhibiting traits (and likely strength) of a Prawn.
Yes, I realize this. I always was specifically was referencing the surgeon scene–whether or not their “objective” to kill him was irrelevant as that would be the end-result. I still find it hard to hard to swallow that he wouldn’t be of more value alive than dead, but of course then that means they would have to had to come up with a different scenario.
I’m willing to accept your reasons for why they needed to harvest his organs, but it still seems a huge contrivance and I don’t even know if that’s scientifically sound, but hey, I’m not a scientist. However, your “heart transplant” analogy is really an apt one–in that case, there is nothing of the heart that can be used, I strongly doubt that would be the case for Wikus.
How is the fact that the suit can be enabled remotely and turned on auto-pilot not “something that comes out of nowhere”?