Specific Rim

Rot your brains, then rot our boards

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
clockworkmonk
I'm on a horse!
Posts: 649
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 12:53 am UTC
Location: Austin

Specific Rim

Postby clockworkmonk » Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:57 pm UTC

first off, here is the trailer.

It is a movie directed by Guillermo Del Toro where giant robots fight giant monsters.

And I am terribly excited, as I love absolutely everything about that sentence.
418 I'm a teapot

User avatar
ArgonV
Posts: 1792
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:08 pm UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: pacific rim

Postby ArgonV » Thu Dec 13, 2012 4:07 pm UTC

Seems like total pulp, but I'm so going to enjoy it! (I hope)

Question about trailer
Spoiler:
That female voice is GLaDOS, right?

User avatar
pseudoidiot
Sexy Beard Man
Posts: 5100
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:30 pm UTC
Location: Kansas City
Contact:

Re: pacific rim

Postby pseudoidiot » Thu Dec 13, 2012 4:21 pm UTC

I'm pretty sure, though the imdb page doesn't list Ellen McLain in the credits at the moment. It certainly sounds like her, though.
Derailed : Gaming Outside the Box.
SecondTalon wrote:*swoons* I love you, all powerful pseudoidiot!
ShootTheChicken wrote:I can't stop thinking about pseudoidiot's penis.

quantumcat42
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 6:06 pm UTC

Re: pacific rim

Postby quantumcat42 » Thu Dec 13, 2012 4:25 pm UTC

ArgonV wrote:
Spoiler:
That female voice is GLaDOS, right?

Yes. So awesome.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8565
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: pacific rim

Postby Zohar » Thu Dec 13, 2012 6:28 pm UTC

A bit reminiscent of Neon Genesis Evangelion. I would be pretty surprised if it actually does go that way and not just stay a campy action film. The tagline "so we created monsters of our own" may be promising.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Dobblesworth
Dobblesworth, here's the title you requested over three years ago. -Banana
Posts: 1429
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 12:06 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: pacific rim

Postby Dobblesworth » Sat Dec 15, 2012 5:39 pm UTC

Zohar, I saw this posted in r/anime today, which might be up your alley: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuNeWgCIGzo

Personally I'm hoping for Gipsy Danger to whip out a giant pair of angular sunglasses, arc-weld it to his hull before equipping the Deepwater Horizon and swimming down the Marianas Trench and close the breach.

I never cared for Michael Bay's Transformers - maybe because the internet told me to hate it I dunno - but I really enjoyed this trailer and hope the film is actually good.

User avatar
clockworkmonk
I'm on a horse!
Posts: 649
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 12:53 am UTC
Location: Austin

Re: pacific rim

Postby clockworkmonk » Fri Jul 12, 2013 9:39 pm UTC

I just saw this movie and it was exactly what I wanted and expected. The robots were glorious, the giant monsters were beautiful. There weren't any surprises.
418 I'm a teapot

User avatar
MyGfsDog
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:54 am UTC

Re: pacific rim

Postby MyGfsDog » Fri Jul 12, 2013 10:39 pm UTC

I'm sorry, but I think this looks like one of the worst movies ever. It sounds like a great premise (although it's a premise that is not original), and I simply love Del Torro, but I get cringe just watching the trailer. It sounds like it has the worst script ever and the cg isn't good enough to be believable. Sorry, but I simply will never watch this film. Pass pass pass.
Image

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: pacific rim

Postby eSOANEM » Sat Jul 13, 2013 10:15 am UTC

MyGfsDog wrote:I'm sorry, but I think this looks like one of the worst movies ever. It sounds like a great premise (although it's a premise that is not original), and I simply love Del Torro, but I get cringe just watching the trailer. It sounds like it has the worst script ever and the cg isn't good enough to be believable. Sorry, but I simply will never watch this film. Pass pass pass.


This is pretty much my opinion (although I am slightly less positive about the premise).
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
charliepanayi
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:26 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: pacific rim

Postby charliepanayi » Sat Jul 13, 2013 7:11 pm UTC

So far the opinion seems to be either 'sounds dreadful, won't even see it' or 'it's amazing!'. It's not really my sort of film so I'll probably swerve it, but a few people I know have raved about it.
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying"

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: pacific rim

Postby cephalopod9 » Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:30 am UTC

What are people seeing that this looks like a bad, stupid movie to them?

It's making me feel how hearing people saying they don't get Adventure Time makes me feel.

I saw it, and I want to go see it again on a bigger screen.

There's not a lot of fine detail, but there's tons of stuff crammed into one movie that makes me want a bunch of spin off material, and comic books, and maybe cartoons or video games.
Image

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: pacific rim

Postby eSOANEM » Sun Jul 14, 2013 9:46 am UTC

From the trailer at least, it just all seemed very generic and an excuse to have GIANT MECHA FIGHT ENORMOUS SEA MONSTER. The strapline about creating our own monsters is again a fairly common and obvious "twist" that they've then told everyone about beforehand (it could have worked a bit if it had emerged that it was true during the film rather than them shouting it at everyone in the publicity). I didn't see a single thing which stood out or made this film unique or different from any other generic summer sci-fi action movie which is definitely not what I expected from Guillermo del Toro.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
charliepanayi
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:26 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: pacific rim

Postby charliepanayi » Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:07 pm UTC

It's kind of hard to find anything unique or different in a trailer regardless of the film I find.
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying"

User avatar
sparkyb
Posts: 1091
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:30 pm UTC
Location: Camberville proper!
Contact:

Re: pacific rim

Postby sparkyb » Sun Jul 14, 2013 4:46 pm UTC

I just saw it not expecting much and had a great time. It is totally predictable but it knew how to get my adrenalin pumping and the effects were pretty good. I saw it in 3D (just because that's what the showtime I wanted happened to be) and it was the first movie where I actually enjoyed it being in 3D.

cephalopod9 wrote:There's not a lot of fine detail, but there's tons of stuff crammed into one movie that makes me want a bunch of spin off material, and comic books, and maybe cartoons or video games.


I totally agree. I'm not sure about those specific spin-off materials, but they do cram a pretty big story into a small time. I definitely would have liked to see some more of what happens before this movie, or more of some of these character, or other things I can't go into without spoilers.

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: pacific rim

Postby eSOANEM » Sun Jul 14, 2013 5:07 pm UTC

Lets take a look at the trailers of a few recent good sci-fi-ish (well, "genre") films:

Moon: Guy alone at a moon base. Finds another dude who looks like him. Creepy robot. Almost all of those things are not the norm for a sci-fi movies nowadays.

Source Code: so it's a sci-fi thriller involving time-travel-y parallel-universe-y possession. Gets across the different and interesting of "wibbly wobbly source codey".

Inception: it's a heist film except the thing being nicked is an idea and it takes place inside someone's head with all the weirdness that makes you expect (slight case of trailers always lie here, but it still gets across the "it's in their heads *bwaaaaaahm*" things that made it different).

District 9: Apartheid metaphor involving mankind and an alien race who came in piece in South Africa. Exploring human nature. Again, why it isn't just "EXPLOSIONS, GIANT MECHAS, ALIENS, EXPLOSIONS" comes across.

Cloverfield: shakycam fly-on-the-wall style horror/disaster movie. Whilst the shaky-fly-on-the-wall style was hardly new, it certainly was not the norm either.

Serenity: fugitives from a grand conspiracy; some of the fugitives beat up everybody; there are fast-zombie-like people; some guy is chasing one of the fugitives and he's a monster and knows this; Joss-y dialogue. The main sell here is going to be the Joss-y-ness but the combination of zombie tropes with the fugitive ones is interesting and unusual.

The Cabin in the Woods: ok, looks like a generic teens go to a lonely cabin in the woods and get murdered; what's that, you say the story's different? Huh, looks like there's a control room controlling the murder. And hey, some of the teens maybe go there. (Elaborating on the differences here and why it's a deconstruction would be kind of spoilerish but they illustrated them about as much as they could whilst avoiding spoilers)

Scott Pilgrim: Boy meets girl. Boy is in a band. Girl has hair like this *gestures*. It changes colour. Boy has to fight her 7 evil exes in over-the-top comic/video-game style and that aesthetic carries across into other bits of the film too. Again, the difference (here mainly the aesthetic) is obvious.

So I'm not sure it really is that hard, at least not when there actually is something unique or different to show off and you're not just combining a bunch of tired tropes which have been used with each other so many times before.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
charliepanayi
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:26 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: pacific rim

Postby charliepanayi » Sun Jul 14, 2013 6:52 pm UTC

So what you're saying is:

Film I watched and liked - this trailer is different and original.
Film I have no interest in seeing - this trailer is boring and generic.

This feels more like viewpoints on the films themselves colouring how you see the trailers in retrospect.
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying"

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: pacific rim

Postby eSOANEM » Mon Jul 15, 2013 9:03 pm UTC

No, what I'm saying is "here were some films which were different (and I liked), hey look, their trailers show off their different-ness". You made the case that it was hard to show off different-ness so I found examples of lots of films doing so with no significant apparent difficulty.

Now you are claiming that this lack of apparent difficulty and different-ness is solely post-hoc biases? That's possibly exaggerating the effect but I doubt it could produce such a marked effect from nothing. Furthermore, there are films I watched and enjoyed with trailers which were not different whose trailers did not show off any different-ness (the new star treks and some of the pre-avengers films come to mind).
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
Adacore
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm UTC
Location: 한국 창원

Re: pacific rim

Postby Adacore » Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:35 pm UTC

So I saw this last night, and sparkyb is pretty much spot on. It's one of the silliest, most predictable movies I've ever seen. You can see almost every plot point coming at least 5 minutes in advance*, the script is incredibly cheesy, and the movie fails the Bechdel test so hard it's laughable. But once you get past how utterly ridiculous everything about the movie is (which took me about the first 30 minutes), it's pretty fun. You can make a game of spotting the cliches coming in advance, and the more obvious/ridiculous ones are hilarious.

*Here's a small selection of the stuff I saw coming from miles away that I remember:
Spoiler:
- Giant robots need two pilots with an emotional bond, and pilots can't do it alone. Obviously we're going to see the co-pilot die.
- Commander guy tells mech pilots not to save the boat. So of course they save the boat. He also tells them it's too dangerous, so of course it's too dangerous.
- Mech program is shut down, but the replacement (naturally, since it sounds like nobody would believe it would ever work anyway) proves ineffective.
- Retired mech pilot has to go back to being a mech pilot to save the world.
- Mysterious person with head (and thus gender) concealed by umbrella turns out to be cute (Japanese) chick; literally the first woman we've seen so far in the film.
- Cute Japanese chick is awesome mech pilot, but isn't allowed to pilot, so naturally ends up as the co-pilot. Although I predicted she'd be the copilot as soon as I saw her boots (with gender concealed, so obviously cute and female, as above), so didn't really need the 'she's not allowed to copilot' bit as reinforcement).
- Having been told to stay back, and after going over how mechs must always follow instructions, the Australian mech disobeys instructions and doesn't stay back.
- The new shiny Australian mech gets into problems and is saved by the heros in the oldest mech, thus giving them respect with the Australians when previously they didn't have any.
- Despite it having been stated earlier in the film that the best mech pilot teams are the ones with the most shared memories, the best pilot team in the movie is the one of the retired pilot and cute Japanese chick, with literally zero shared memories until they met the previous day.
- The Chinese and Russian crews die in their first fight, meaning the only mech that can accompany the Australians is the one piloted by the retiree/rookie team they don't like.
- The annoying nerdy not-British mathematician guy (I assumed he was northern European, since his accent was kinda-British, but all wrong, in a way I've only ever heard from people from that region) and the nerdy biologist dude who hate each other end up working together to save the day.
- The commander who can't pilot a mech anymore or he'll die has to pilot a mech.
- The shiny Australian mech sacrifices itself to allow the heros to complete the mission instead.
- The retired pilot hero guy escapes at the last moment, appears to be dead, but then isn't really dead.

Just about the only thing in the movie I didn't see coming:
Spoiler:
- The retired mech pilot and cute Japanese chick don't kiss in the end, they just hug in relief and companionship. It's really sweet, and I think made for a much better ending than the stereotypical 'the heros get together at the end and kiss'.
Last edited by Adacore on Tue Jul 16, 2013 7:18 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Woopate
Scrapple
Posts: 503
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:34 am UTC

Re: pacific rim

Postby Woopate » Tue Jul 16, 2013 5:48 am UTC

This plot got a new skin. A shiny skin with good sound. And the formula was executed with good pacing and few screwups. If you have to make a safe movie that treads the same ground as all the others of it's type, this one was executed perfectly. Sometimes, that's all I want out of a movie (and this movie was robots vs dinosaurs, I mean really). I rate this slightly above Avatar.

Spoiler:
I am glad they didn't go down the love story route (and they only lightly implied that it existed at all). I'd expect any set of pilots to get really close, but I really appreciated that they kept it professional.

I think The Drift has some cool possible implications if a bold writer got their hands on the franchise. What if a pilot has a spouse who is not their copilot? What if two pilots hate each other but remain compatible? What if a pilot dies and his copilot needs to deliver the message to their family, and is wierdly familiar with all these people who don't know him? What if state secrets get shared with someone who had no authorization to know? Would mental addictions transfer? What about gender and sexual orientation? There's lots of cool room to explore(that never will be explored).

User avatar
Adacore
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm UTC
Location: 한국 창원

Re: pacific rim

Postby Adacore » Tue Jul 16, 2013 7:17 am UTC

Woopate wrote:I think The Drift has some cool possible implications if a bold writer got their hands on the franchise. What if a pilot has a spouse who is not their copilot? What if two pilots hate each other but remain compatible? What if a pilot dies and his copilot needs to deliver the message to their family, and is wierdly familiar with all these people who don't know him? What if state secrets get shared with someone who had no authorization to know? Would mental addictions transfer? What about gender and sexual orientation? There's lots of cool room to explore(that never will be explored).

Yeah, the one moment in this movie that really had genuine dramatic impact for me was when:
Spoiler:
The dad from the Australian father/son team was struggling to tell his son all the things he'd always wanted to say but never said, and the son said he already knew, because of the drift. That single moment really made me feel that if they'd decided to go in a more serious dramatic direction with the script there could've been some really interesting things to come out of the drift concept.

maybeagnostic
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

Re: pacific rim

Postby maybeagnostic » Tue Jul 16, 2013 10:38 am UTC

This might just be the most fun I've ever had watching this kind of movie (sci-fish summer blockbuster) which pretty much makes it (subjectively) the best summer blockbuster I've seen. It's the first movie that's actually made watching CGI kids' toys slug it out for two hours fun. I think it (narrowly) beats out both Avengers and Avatar in terms of how much I enjoyed it- very subjective but there's not much else to compare them on since all of them only aim to entertain.

That said, the movie doesn't try to be anything serious. It relies heavily on stereotypes, the support characters are caricatures, the main characters are cardboard cutouts (although I liked them a lot so I prefer to think of them as archetypes), and none of the potentially interesting topics (memory sharing, mind melding, pollution, aliens, war profiteering, genetic engineering) are explored in any depth. Still, the movie covers more story and ideas than most summer blockbusters, the script is quite coherent (unlike Superman, Star Trek, or Iron Man 3 where most characters' actions make no sense) and there are a few very subtle moments. Particularly, the conversation between the Australian team before the final mission where
Spoiler:
I'm pretty sure the father wanted to tell him he wasn't his biological father. I want to see that scene again just to make sure I didn't mishear or make it up. Did anyone else get that reading from it?
T: ... through an emergency induction port.
S: That's a straw, Tali.
T: Emerrrgency induction port.

User avatar
Intercept
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:15 am UTC
Location: An blue governed Missouri.

Re: pacific rim

Postby Intercept » Tue Jul 16, 2013 1:55 pm UTC

Saw this, had a great time.

From a *purely* critical perspective, it is not a great film. But it is a tremendously fun movie, and it's an homage to anime/Kaiju films, and as someone who loved those two things as a child, I loved this movie. If you do not appreciate those two things, you will probably not have nearly as much fun with this movie.
"I've always supported pudding, even when it was politically unpopular to do so."-Bill Nye Video

User avatar
Jesse
Vocal Terrorist
Posts: 8635
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Basingstoke, England.
Contact:

Re: pacific rim

Postby Jesse » Tue Jul 16, 2013 11:56 pm UTC

I don't get what you mean by from a purely critical perspective, because as a film major I'm holding this up as pretty much the blockbuster done perfectly.

The cinematography was beautiful. The action scenes conveyed everything clearly and excitingly. The mise-en-scene worked for me, managing to both make the world believable and give it a great sense of scale at the same time. Every line had a purpose, as did every scene so no shot was wasted. The characters were all well-developed and well-motivated with every actor giving a strong performance.

The only real failing I had within the film was the fact that I can recall only two female characters with speaking lines and neither of them speak to one another at any point so, from what I would refer to as a feminist critique, it very much fell down in that regard. However, the female co-lead was, at least, a strong woman capable of overcoming her own shortcomings and presented mostly on a par with the male lead, which is a step in the right direction.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: pacific rim

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jul 17, 2013 4:17 am UTC

Jesse wrote:The only real failing I had within the film was the fact that I can recall only two female characters with speaking lines and neither of them speak to one another at any point so, from what I would refer to as a feminist critique, it very much fell down in that regard. However, the female co-lead was, at least, a strong woman capable of overcoming her own shortcomings and presented mostly on a par with the male lead, which is a step in the right direction.


I don't use that rule particularly strictly...it is an interesting guide overall to show that movies are disproportionately male oriented, but it need not show that a specific movie is a failure in terms of gender roles. For instance, by a strict application of the Beschdel test, you could have a single protaganist who is a woman, and the plot simply doesn't call for interaction...and this would fail the test. I can think of at least a couple movies that are the opposite, with a single leading man who spends the vast majority of the movie not really interacting with anyone.

It gets even stranger in the sci-fi world, where gender is not necessarily clear or even relevant for all chars. Does Oblivion pass the test? Well, that depends...but the males drive the plot.

If it actually features capable women as well rounded chars, I'm generally pretty happy with the results. Walking Dead, on the other hand, can feature two women talking to each other, sobbing, waiting for the men to save them, and that really isn't worth a great deal, IMO.

Edit: Random musing...try applying the test to race. See how often movies have two clearly non white people talk to each other without talking about a white person. I bet the results are ugly.

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: pacific rim

Postby cephalopod9 » Wed Jul 17, 2013 9:56 am UTC

It definitely could have used more female characters, especially in the crowd scenes, and the over views of the pilots where it wouldn't take much character building.

I disagree that the characters were flat, barring the main character. They were mostly recognizable archetypes, and there wasn't much time to explore much depth, but they all had motivations and background.

On the treatment of Mako Mori
Spoiler:
I liked the part where she was in long sleeves and high waisted pants and got to check out the male lead's battle scars while he takes his shirt off. It was a small thing, but it was refreshing to have a character just be a young woman in appropriate clothing.


I was kind of surprised how the movie got to me. I tensed up during some of the dramatic parts, at the same time I was thinking about how ridiculous it was.
The good kind of ridiculous, but I guess if you can't buy into the premise and it's coolness, then you won't enjoy it.
(Though I'm starting to resent the apparent conflation of simplicity with stupidity)
Image

Chen
Posts: 5579
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: pacific rim

Postby Chen » Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:46 am UTC

I liked this. Enough plot and character development to not have to just turn your brain off and watch robots fight monsters. The action was well done and you could actually see what was happening for the most part (unlike Transformers for example).

Spoiler:
I had an issue with the end though. If nukes (even giant ones) were that effective against the Kaiju, why didn't they just create a structure around the breech to constantly drop nuclear mines whenever a new Kaiju was detected? It has to be cheaper than building Jaegers. They said it was $100 billion for Striker Eureka. I have to imagine you could build a WHOLE lot of nukes for that price. Hell just giant conventional explosives might work considering the Kaiju weren't even coming out of the breech that quickly (at first). Sure build a few giant robots as well, but at least bomb the crap out of them when they first come out so that they're at least injured before sending in your robots.

User avatar
charliepanayi
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:26 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: pacific rim

Postby charliepanayi » Wed Jul 17, 2013 1:49 pm UTC

Jesse wrote:The only real failing I had within the film was the fact that I can recall only two female characters with speaking lines and neither of them speak to one another at any point so, from what I would refer to as a feminist critique, it very much fell down in that regard. However, the female co-lead was, at least, a strong woman capable of overcoming her own shortcomings and presented mostly on a par with the male lead, which is a step in the right direction.


I'd rather have a film with virtually no female roles than one with female roles that are not very good at all. Glengarry Glen Ross and The Thing don't have any women at all as far as I can recall, but I wouldn't see that as a failing with those films.
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying"

User avatar
Jesse
Vocal Terrorist
Posts: 8635
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Basingstoke, England.
Contact:

Re: pacific rim

Postby Jesse » Wed Jul 17, 2013 2:45 pm UTC

Hmm, I feel like I haven't communicated properly here. My response was aimed at the idea that this couldn't be hailed as a good film 'critically'. I gave the 'feminist critique' as a counterpoint to my argument, that it could be seen to have failings there and even then I qualified that Mako's character was a cut above what many movies often give to a feminist critique. My own opinion is that this is one of the most finely crafted movies of all time.

User avatar
Adacore
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm UTC
Location: 한국 창원

Re: pacific rim

Postby Adacore » Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:10 pm UTC

Chen wrote:I liked this. Enough plot and character development to not have to just turn your brain off and watch robots fight monsters. The action was well done and you could actually see what was happening for the most part (unlike Transformers for example).

Spoiler:
I had an issue with the end though. If nukes (even giant ones) were that effective against the Kaiju, why didn't they just create a structure around the breech to constantly drop nuclear mines whenever a new Kaiju was detected? It has to be cheaper than building Jaegers. They said it was $100 billion for Striker Eureka. I have to imagine you could build a WHOLE lot of nukes for that price. Hell just giant conventional explosives might work considering the Kaiju weren't even coming out of the breech that quickly (at first). Sure build a few giant robots as well, but at least bomb the crap out of them when they first come out so that they're at least injured before sending in your robots.

There were a few things like this in the movie that made no sense, but I decided it wasn't really worth questioning plot-holes, because if you start looking for them, there are so many. If you do any kind of rational analysis, it's going to become obvious pretty quickly that giant mecha with human pilots are not the best way to stop Kaiju. Just off the top of my head, I can think of half a dozen better and cheaper options, but that would destroy the entire premise of the film.

The one plot point I did have an issue with in the film, because it was unresolved:
Spoiler:
So the governments of the world decided to cancel the Jaeger program, and build the giant sea wall instead. Now, it should've been obvious to everyone, as I mentioned before, that the sea wall wasn't going to work (Kaiju can walk through skyscrapers like they aren't there, a wall wasn't going to stop them), and the film hinted that the governments knew this when they built it. But that was never followed up on - if it was intended as a distraction project that was doomed to failure, why was it built, and what was it distracting from? If it wasn't intended as a distraction project, why wasn't the Jaeger program fully re-implemented immediately when the wall was shown to be ineffective in Sydney?

Also, they built a giant sea wall around most of the pacific coast, but didn't wall off Hong Kong?! Seriously? It wouldn't even have changed much in the movie - the Kaiju could've just busted through the Hong Kong wall in 20 minutes or something (obviously cut, with enough shown to build dramatic tension for when they break through), and the rest of the movie would've worked fine. Surely your top 5 Pacific cities to wall off must read something like Tokyo, LA, San Francisco, Shanghai, Hong Kong.

User avatar
sparkyb
Posts: 1091
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:30 pm UTC
Location: Camberville proper!
Contact:

Re: pacific rim

Postby sparkyb » Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:50 am UTC

Adacore wrote:*Here's a small selection of the stuff I saw coming from miles away that I remember


You forgot the one that I found the most predictable (or at least that I noticed most that I was predicting at the time):
Spoiler:
Scientist is confused that there are only 2 Kaiju when his calculations say there should be 3. Clearly there's a 3rd one that's going to show up unexpectedly and be the biggest one they've ever seen.

User avatar
Adacore
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm UTC
Location: 한국 창원

Re: pacific rim

Postby Adacore » Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:30 am UTC

sparkyb wrote:
Adacore wrote:*Here's a small selection of the stuff I saw coming from miles away that I remember


You forgot the one that I found the most predictable (or at least that I noticed most that I was predicting at the time):
Spoiler:
Scientist is confused that there are only 2 Kaiju when his calculations say there should be 3. Clearly there's a 3rd one that's going to show up unexpectedly and be the biggest one they've ever seen.

Spoiler:
Oh yeah, of course. Along with the fact that there were category 4 Kaiju and 'soon we'll be seeing category 5', that was totally inevitable, yeah.

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: pacific rim

Postby cephalopod9 » Thu Jul 18, 2013 6:43 am UTC

What are the consequences of detonating a nuclear bomb in the ocean?
Spoiler:
The one they set off made all the water go away for a minute. I figure that was mainly because that's what looked the coolest, but maybe the force of a nuclear detonation would be sufficient to make a giant bubble.
I don't know that much about how explosions work under water.
How much of the ocean would end up irradiated?

There's definitely good reason not to use nuclear warheads near populated areas. Although in the real world, and not the world of fighting robot movies, some kind of missile defense or tank array might be more efficient ways to fight gigantic animals than human shaped mechas. (It bothered me slightly that I didn't see any tazer type weapons, or poison attacks built into the Jaegars.)
Adacore wrote:
Spoiler:
Oh yeah, of course. Along with the fact that there were category 4 Kaiju and 'soon we'll be seeing category 5', that was totally inevitable, yeah.
I liked the nerds and their role in the story.
Spoiler:
They avoided the whole "It's off the charts!" thing.
Image

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: pacific rim

Postby Izawwlgood » Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:07 pm UTC

I have never left a film more satisfied.

It had some lame plot twists that were visible from miles away, and some of the camera action was a little on the jerky side. The side plot of the two scientists was pretty unnecessary or could have been done better. It evidently rains or snows every time the monsters attack. The notion of defunding the program that was clearly the only thing that was still stopping the Kaiju is pretty eyerolltastic. The-

WHO THE FUCK CARES IT HAD GIANT ROBOTS FIGHTING GIANT MONSTERS

GUYS. I'm serious here. The film had a motherfucking ROCKET ELBOW. What else could you POSSIBLY want from a movie?

I thought the memory montage with the little girl was beautifully shot. I thought the Drift was actually wonderfully handled. I was immensely curious about the aliens, and the design forms. The robots were epic.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
MyGfsDog
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:54 am UTC

Re: pacific rim

Postby MyGfsDog » Sun Jul 21, 2013 3:59 am UTC

cephalopod9 wrote:What are people seeing that this looks like a bad, stupid movie to them?


Obviously I can't speak for others, but for me...pretty much everything about the previews looks horrible. Terrible, cliche dialogue and inadequate CG. I will say that I'm very hard to impress when it comes to big blockbuster type movies. But this one just really takes the cake. It looks SO BAD. I feel ashamed just watching the trailers.

Not everybody likes retarded action-everything 'splosion type movies, and I'm one of them. If you like it - cool. For me, and many others, it just looks like another stupid movie.

I will also say that I've never seen Avatar for similar reasons as stated above.
Image

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: pacific rim

Postby Tyndmyr » Sun Jul 21, 2013 7:01 am UTC

MyGfsDog wrote:
cephalopod9 wrote:What are people seeing that this looks like a bad, stupid movie to them?


Obviously I can't speak for others, but for me...pretty much everything about the previews looks horrible. Terrible, cliche dialogue and inadequate CG. I will say that I'm very hard to impress when it comes to big blockbuster type movies. But this one just really takes the cake. It looks SO BAD. I feel ashamed just watching the trailers.

Not everybody likes retarded action-everything 'splosion type movies, and I'm one of them. If you like it - cool. For me, and many others, it just looks like another stupid movie.

I will also say that I've never seen Avatar for similar reasons as stated above.


The trailer, to me, looked like Battleship. The sort of movie that wasn't going to spend long developing chars or what not, but that delivered on explosions in spades. In fairness, both movies looked like they knew exactly what kind of movie they were, and at least didn't bother pretending to be something else. I like that. I'm not a frequent chaser of the mindless action movie, but I appreciate when trailers accurately depict the movie. It can be quite disappointing to go into a movie expecting a genre and style you enjoy and get something else entirely.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: pacific rim

Postby Izawwlgood » Sun Jul 21, 2013 1:20 pm UTC

MyGfsDog wrote:
cephalopod9 wrote:What are people seeing that this looks like a bad, stupid movie to them?


Obviously I can't speak for others, but for me...pretty much everything about the previews looks horrible. Terrible, cliche dialogue and inadequate CG. I will say that I'm very hard to impress when it comes to big blockbuster type movies. But this one just really takes the cake. It looks SO BAD. I feel ashamed just watching the trailers.

Not everybody likes retarded action-everything 'splosion type movies, and I'm one of them. If you like it - cool. For me, and many others, it just looks like another stupid movie.

I will also say that I've never seen Avatar for similar reasons as stated above.
While you can't argue opinions, this honestly strikes me as the same sentiment of 'I hate country music'. That is, it rather misses the point that there's a great deal of fantastic country music. If you don't like 'films with fun action and physical conflict', then sure, you're shit out of luck. I personally think you're limiting your movie enjoyment selection because you don't like the notion of a fist fight being quicker than talking about our problems.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
kinigget
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:56 pm UTC
Location: the wild wild west

Re: pacific rim

Postby kinigget » Mon Jul 22, 2013 4:13 pm UTC

about the whole defunding teh Jeager program thing:
They were starting to lose Jeagers and pilots, the Jeagers would be enormously expensive to maintain, and once they start getting the shit beat out of them they simply stop being cost effective. Quite honestly I think the walls were a good idea, it's just a pity they didn't work for shit.

I could talk about what I would have done, but I don't think anyone cares. Anyway, the point is that ending the Jeager program wasn't a completely stupid idea.

Also I really liked the movie, it actually managed to have some depth to it at the same time as being a straight-up action film
(also, just because you saw plot points coming doesn't make them stupid or overly predictable, it's possible that you're just really good at reading the direction a plot is going)
The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:I can tell from his word choice that he is using his penis to type.

Steax wrote:I think the courts are kinda busy right now. Something about cake and due process.

Chen
Posts: 5579
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: pacific rim

Postby Chen » Mon Jul 22, 2013 4:30 pm UTC

You'd think they would have tested a wall first. Like have a Jaeger lure a Kaiju into a big pre-constructed section of wall and see what happens. It looks like they made a HUGE wall without even trying to see if it worked. I assume the walls also had guns or something on them, otherwise I don't see what the plan was. Hope the Kaiju's get bored and just go back out to sea?

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: pacific rim

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Jul 22, 2013 6:13 pm UTC

kinigget wrote:They were starting to lose Jeagers and pilots, the Jeagers would be enormously expensive to maintain, and once they start getting the shit beat out of them they simply stop being cost effective.
I don't want to argue realism or practicality in a movie that has giant robots beating up giant monsters, but the scene where we saw a pan of the wall being constructed seemed to imply that A ) the world was becoming increasingly crippled by a war time economy ['Wanna eat? Go up top'], and B ) the wall was very much a last ditch effort, a sort of surrendering to the monsters, an admission that 'Yup, you beat us, we're just gonna hide here now, the rest of the world is yours'. There were also a few lines about wealthier people having better kaiju bunkers.

The movie wasn't devoid of social commentaries, is all I'm saying. And while I don't think building a thousand mile long wall of questionable efficacy was more prudent than, say, just moving all/most people to really fucking big mountain fortresses, it was more an effort to, I feel, underline that people were losing the fight.

And that wall seemed expensive as fuck too. Remember the defaced project sign that suggested it'd never be finished?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
MyGfsDog
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:54 am UTC

Re: pacific rim

Postby MyGfsDog » Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:19 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:While you can't argue opinions, this honestly strikes me as the same sentiment of 'I hate country music'. That is, it rather misses the point that there's a great deal of fantastic country music. If you don't like 'films with fun action and physical conflict', then sure, you're shit out of luck. I personally think you're limiting your movie enjoyment selection because you don't like the notion of a fist fight being quicker than talking about our problems.


Although it's and over-generalization, you're pretty much right. I don't like movies where people would rather fight than simply say, "hey let's work this out." It's too simplistic to just have people fighting all the time. Sorry, but I like to think about things when I watch a movie sometimes, rather than everything just being a visual slug fest (as in fists, not...snails, lol). Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of great action movies, but they are getting harder and harder to come by. It's the constant action-everything trailers that turn me away. I love the Batman films, and those are primarily action, but I go into it knowing that there is a lot more to it than just action, and most of the best parts do not involve action. And frankly, I love films with a lot of violence in them, but it can't be mindless. But I'm not referring to 'films with fun action and physical conflict.' I'm talking about action action action movies. They're just not for me. Not since I was a kid.

And you're right. I do hate country music because country music is god aweful. lol. Modern country, that is. I have not heard even one good country song made in the past 20 years, so why should I pretend to like it? Old country is something entirely different and much much better. Kinda like action movies!
Image


Return to “Movies and TV Shows”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests