-
I'm almost certain that the news footage update right at the start if the movie explained that the monsters were coming out of a hole, but I could be wrong, which is why I thought I maybe missed somthing. -
Hey Don, I'm enjoyed you last post, but I can't respond to everything now. I'll try in a bit!
One thing I did want to clarify is I never did get into the Japanese cartoons and have basically avoided them. As a kid I would try to watch them but I could not get into them. As an adult I've seen several of the classic feature movies (Akira and others) and it doesn't do anything for me. Miyazaki's movies are the only ones that stand out, but I've never liked anything in the classic Japanese action genre. I don't even like John Woo movies. (I don't even care for the Matrix movies which were only inspired by that stuff.)
I love LOTS of other Japanese films, especially ones by Kurasawa, Ozo and Miike, so it's not just that I don't like Japanese stuff. But the anime/cartoon/action stuff, no.
A lot of Pacific Rim feels like sloppy Hollywood to me, but I'll grant you the sword thing is probably a Japanese cartoon trope, because it didn't make sense to me internally or dramatically, so it makes sense that it was a reference of some kind.
I remember the first Godzilla movie, but not the details, I thought it was dull. I like the ridiculous ones better.Leave a comment:
-
>I can see what you're saying, but I don't think the characters were deeper or more realistic - they just seemed duller to me.
I didn't think they were deep or realistic either. I thought they were the standard action characters I've seen a zillion times. What I thought WAS unique was that they set the plot and setting up to explain WHY they were like that. Rather than just having them that way 'cos that's what always happens. I use the example of Maverick. Cocky, does his own thing, disregard the rules.... but he explains WHY; and it make sense. They call him out of retirement.... like they ALWAYS do.... becuase he's the best. And he's the best 'cos he's one of the first which gives him a lot of practical experience. And they take the chance on the washout.... like they always do.... because they don't have that many capable pilots. It's the same stuff that happens every film, but with good solid in story reasons.
>I don't think I need to see the main character suffering through his brother's death - I didn't particularly want to go down that road - because it's away from giant robots fighting monsters - but why even show us that road at all?
I take it you've never seen a proper, Japanese giant robot cartoon? They're ALL about the tragedy. WAY more than Pacific Rim. (If you want a good example.... and a durned good show.... check out Gundam 0080.) Hell; did you see Robotech back in the day? They kill off everybody's hero within the first quarter of the series.
>why even bother with the brother dying thing if it doesn't have a purpose?
That's a sneaky part. It DOES have a purpose 'cos the hero ISN'T the hero. His brother dying and him dropping out create the space that Mako; the ACTUAL hero fo the film, fills. She's the one who's story arc we see. Becket has already come to terms with things by the time they start the program back up. He's also mellowed and lost some of his spark. His story is done. He's the Obi-Wan to her Luke.
>I just think it would have been more fun with less of that junk and more robots hitting monsters.
Maybe. I really did enjoy the mayhem, but I'm okay with the rest of it too. But for me to REALLY enjoy something I need that edge. I need to not know what's going to happen. One of the things that attracted me and my friends to the Japanese stuff back in the day was that you didn't know how it would end. Heroes died. Bad guys were likable. Both sides would have good and bad points so that you didn't know who to root for sometimes.... It was complicated, and risky. (Same stuff people like about "Game of Thrones" nowadays.) So I'm okay with the bits that make it less "fun" by conventional standards. I would have liked to see more tragedy with it.... like of we'd got to know the Chinese and Russian pilots before their big fight.
>Maybe I'm just not in tune...
I think you are; but I don't think it's all your fault. The movie does a mediocre job of setting a lot of things up. A good story is a crime of collusion; both you AND the creators have to work together to make it happen. To that end the creators will set stuff up, priming the audience for things that happens later on. The best stories lead you by the nose, ensuring you draw the conclusions they want.... but they do it in such a way you don't know it happens. Pacific Rim didn't do that so much. There was a lot of stuff they assumed you'd know or notice and I think that sent mixed signals to a lot of viewers. LIke I said; you got the typical characters but they didn't act QUITE the way they normally do. I think for a lot of folks that made them feel off.... on a subtle, subconscious level. (They didn't like them, but didn't quite know why....)
>I believe they just toss that in without setting it up or earning the moment then they loose the effect. I shouldn't be asking "Why the hell didn't they use that before?!" when they pull out the magic sword
See; that's what I'm getting at. Giant robots ALWAYS have the super-awesome wonder weapon that they ALWAYS wait for the last minute to use. It's been like that for so long the fans accept it. Like how superhero fans never start screaming in the theater "IT'S CLARK KENT!! CLARK KENT YA DITZ!!! HE JUST DOESN"T HAVE HIS GLASSES ON!!!" Saving the wonder weapon is just as stupid, but there ya go.
FUN FACT: There USED to be a reason. In the older shows using the wonder weapon would pose a risk to the user. So the wave-motion cannon would disable the Yamato's engine. The fiery phoenix attack put trmendous strain on the Gatchaman team.... stuff like that. With each later permutation it became more and more understood, so that there didn't seem to be any reason Voltron shouldn't have whipped the Blazing Sword out right away, yet if they did folks would have found it offputting.
>if the characters don't feel strongly about themselves why should I care strongly about them?
This si where it gets tricky, 'cos you're talking cues. I thought the characters were acceptable in this. Not great, but I got the idea. I think they wanted something a little more grounded for the characters.... hence the lack of romance.... but in doing so they removed a lot of the cues that'd normally build the audience up.
>I'd argue that using all the cliche's of a romance plot, and not letting it develop into a romance isn't a real departure from cliche to me
That goes to the last point, 'cos I didn't REALLY see them building that up. They never felt like romantic partners to me. I think the problem there was that we've been climatized to expect the female and male leads to pair up; especially if they're rivals and/or hate each other in the beginning. So it feels like something's missing. Something that was never really there. But that's one of the things where the film assumed too much of the audeince's thinking. I think it would have played better if they'd framed it off all along more typically; so that they acknowledge that we're waiting for that kiss, and then have the big reveal (and metaphorical "wah-WAAAAAHHHH" trumets) at the end to let us KNOW we'd been had; rather than wondering if it was intentional on their part or bad writing.
>The movie goes out of it's way to establish that humans are using an incredibly sophisticated network for monitoring the globe to see where these creatures pop up next - it makes no sense when they only originate from one place.
Six years pass from Becket's brother dying to him joining back up. I thought in the beginning they didn't know, but by the time they cancelled the Jaeger program they'd found out. That's why they were walling off the Pacific. Once they knew the source they figured they could block it off.
>I'm mostly kidding about caring about this - but I kinda hate when science fiction movies promote science myths. I don't care that the Kaiju had two brains - that's fine - they're fictional. What ticked me off a bit was when Charlie Day specifically said that the Kaiju had two brains, just like dinosaurs. Which is something I think most kindergarden students could have corrected him on.
True; but it didn't bother me 'cos in this setting there was the implication that the dinosaurs and the kayjyu had the same origin. I'm not big on scientific accuracy with my sci-fi; I'm more concerned with internal consistency.
>Gimme a Godzilla movie where the characters are a couple of scientists, a woman, a small boy (for some reason), and a couple of tiny chicks in a bird cage. I don't care about their personal tragedies, I don't care about how they were raised, and if they have psychological issues.
You DO know that the original Godzilla is a love story? About a defeated scientist, and how he sacrifices himself in the end to sever the feelings of the woman who loves him so she can be with the guy who would make her happy? And the boy (and his mother) get squashed by Godzilla? ("Don't worry.... we'll be with father soon.")
Don C.Leave a comment:
-
Hey man - I just want to watch the giant monsters hit the giant robots without a bunch of nonsense. If that makes me the enemy - so be it!
Gimme a Godzilla movie where the characters are a couple of scientists, a woman, a small boy (for some reason), and a couple of tiny chicks in a bird cage. I don't care about their personal tragedies, I don't care about how they were raised, and if they have psychological issues. The characters in these movies should be running around and yelling about monsters - and then get the hell out of the way when the monsters start hitting each other.Leave a comment:
-
Hey Don!
I thought you might have a few things to say! (Side note: We should really try to meet up and see a movie some time - I think it will either drive us to insanity or be the most fun ever.)
Yeah, we disagree about the characters. I can see what you're saying, but I don't think the characters were deeper or more realistic - they just seemed duller to me. I don't think I need to see the main character suffering through his brother's death - I didn't particularly want to go down that road - because it's away from giant robots fighting monsters - but why even show us that road at all? I mean, why even bother with the brother dying thing if it doesn't have a purpose? Which I guess is basically your point, that the movie didn't use these standard plot points for the normal reasons. I just think it would have been more fun with less of that junk and more robots hitting monsters. Maybe I'm just not in tune... I don't easily dig japanese cartoons/comics either, which I know you're into, so that's more than likely the case.
The sword thing - I totally get they want that reveal at the right moment - I get that it's FOR dramatic effect - but I believe they just toss that in without setting it up or earning the moment then they loose the effect. I shouldn't be asking "Why the hell didn't they use that before?!" when they pull out the magic sword - I should be cheering "COOL! They're using the magic sword!!!" Not to harp on this, but I felt that lack of set up issue with the rest of the plot too. I don't care about a kiss at the end - I'm not in love with that cliche and I wanted to admire the fact that this movie DIDN'T force a romance into the plot just to make it more Hollywood, BUT if the characters don't feel strongly about themselves why should I care strongly about them? So maybe not a kiss - but SOMETHING. Something to get me to care if they live or die.
Also, I'd argue that using all the cliche's of a romance plot, and not letting it develop into a romance isn't a real departure from cliche to me - it's just doing the cliche part way. So, I can appreciate that you thought these things were twists to some degree - but to me it was just not working. Again - not 'in tune' probably.
I think maybe it's just Del Toro I'm not in tune with - because I liked Hellboy visually too - but Hellboy is A LOT more fun in the comics. He almost never broods or sulks in the comics - he mostly hits and shoots monsters and smokes cigars. FUN!!!
The Hole - come on man! The movie goes out of it's way to establish that humans are using an incredibly sophisticated network for monitoring the globe to see where these creatures pop up next - it makes no sense when they only originate from one place. It's like putting putting security cameras everywhere in a building except for by the only entrance!
Dinosaurs - I thought the gangloin theory was long tossed out - that fossils have long confirmed that the cavities didn't contain extra nerve tissue. Either way, the "dinosaurs have two brains" thing is a myth. I'm mostly kidding about caring about this - but I kinda hate when science fiction movies promote science myths. I don't care that the Kaiju had two brains - that's fine - they're fictional. What ticked me off a bit was when Charlie Day specifically said that the Kaiju had two brains, just like dinosaurs. Which is something I think most kindergarden students could have corrected him on.Leave a comment:
-
-
>I was really bored through all the character arcs, internal drama and relationship building stuff.
I thought the characters were functional. What I liked was that they took the standard action movie characters, stories and cliches and added reasons for them. Some of it dragged, but I think for me that's 'cos I wanted more monster fighting scenes.
>So maybe I was just thrown off early expecting the heroes to have something else to them, but instead they were humourless to me, and I just didn't find myself rooting for them.
That's an interesting point. I think what happened was that they primed you for typical, over the top characters and then went and made 'em more down to earth. So you're waiting for stuff that never comes. Like the end, when our two heroes DON'T kiss. Or a big scene with our hero where he grapples with the death of his brother.... which he'd alrady come to terms with before the real movie starts.
I think there was a lot of odd, almost subliminal twists that didn't quite register with the audience, which took away from the viceral effect of the film. Like the Maverick character not being the protagonist, and from that; the protagonist noit being the most macho, boisterous character. Things like that lend to an unfulfilled sense of expectation for an audience; they require the learning of a new template, and there wasn't a lot of buildup for them. So watching the movie is kind of like taking a test that you didn't study for.
....and I KNOW right now someone's preparing to write "yeah; and I don't want my movie to be a test! I just wanna turn my brain off and watch!" (Or something to that effect.) Which is half of a good idea. Anything new and/or different requires some effort from the audience. You've got to meet them half way. I think in this case they didn't. There was a lot of things.... small things, but LOTS of them.... that required the viewer to adopt a slightly different frame of refrence to the action film template, and I think they dropped the ball by not quite giving the viewer enough to go on to make the neccessary connections without some conscious effort. Like I said; the characters LOOKED like the standard action movie ones, but they were just different enough that the old expectations didn't quite apply.
I think this sums up how I felt about it; especially the conclusions:
....although I think a lot of the flaws they mention aren't. Stuff like the horribly slow plasma cannon. It is; but that's a flaw with the cannon. It's a legitimate story element: the technology just didn't exist to build a better one.
>What's the deal with the sword?! Why didn't they use that thing the whole time?
I don't think they had it at the beginning of the film; it was an add-on 6 years later when they rebuilt the Jaeger. As to why they saved it? That's a giant robot-ism: you only whip out the Blazing Sword at the end of the fight. 'Cos. Same reason the Hulk's pants stretch, (and turn into purpule corduroy) nobody ever removes Spiderman's mask, recognizes Superman out of costume, or sues Batman for property damage. It makes sense within the genre, but not anywhere else.
>why didn't they set up their defences around that stupid hole?
They were; but it's hard to build a stable barrier in the ocean. Surrounding the continents was the best they could come up with. It gave them a lot of warning in case of an attack, it'd be cheaper than a deep-sea operation, (which would have to build a barrier from the bottom of the ocean to the top to block a monster) and from the discussions at the beginning I got the impression that the Jaeger project had used up a LOT of cash. So the people needed a lower tech solution 'cos they didn't have the resources to develop anything new and high tech. There also seemed the be a growing sense of isolationism among the nations. The wall would make countries have to deal with the problem on their own.
>dinosaurs DO NOT have a second brain!
Not exactly. Some had an extra ganglion body (is that the right term?) that probably had some capacity for reflexual activity, but it's not really a brain. But the kaijyu weren't exactly dinosaurs (unless someone recently dug up a "holycrapasaurus") so it's possible that vestigial system had been adapted into something more functional by the alien monster guys.
Don C.Leave a comment:
-
One more complaint: any remotely qualified monster biologist would know that dinosaurs DO NOT have a second brain! That's a myth! And if being totally honest, as ridiculous as it might make me sound to complain about realism in a giant robot vs. giant monster movie, I'm only half kidding about that bugging me. Come on del Toro, you're better than that!Leave a comment:
-
I'm gonna get slammed, but I got around to seeing this and thought it dwelled way too long on the boring characters and their backstories. I was really bored through all the character arcs, internal drama and relationship building stuff. Which is weird, because now that I've seen it I've read through these comments and noticed people complimenting it for NOT spending time on that clichéd clunky stuff.
Charley Day was fun, as usual. The visuals were spectacular - and often surpassed my expectations - I guess the rest just wasn't fun for me.
With the news reel footage at the start explaining the jaeger celebrity status I was maybe set up for something more satirical about media and hero worship - I kind of picked up a Death Race 2000 vibe I guess. So maybe I was just thrown off early expecting the heroes to have something else to them, but instead they were humourless to me, and I just didn't find myself rooting for them.
Questions:
What's the deal with the sword?! Why didn't they use that thing the whole time? Did I miss something?
The humans seemed to know the kaiju were only coming from the one hole, why didn't they set up their defences around that stupid hole? Instead their plan was to build walls around the continents?! I must have miss something where they explained that? Right?Leave a comment:
-
I picked it up last week and watched it twice, what a fun movie! The figures are great too, just snagged the series 2 set from neca.Leave a comment:
-
I enjoyed this film also.
Eagerly await the blu-ray release but it's not out until November 11th over here.Leave a comment:
-
>Release date and content details for the Pacific Rim Blu-ray.
Interesting; especially the deleted scenes. I head there's a few that were kinda important but cut for time. (Such as more detail on the Chinese and Russian teams.)
One thing that bothered me about this, and a few new movies is that they went up for preorder before coming out in theaters! Was Spaceballs correct?
Don C.Leave a comment:
-
Release date and content details for the Pacific Rim Blu-ray.
Warner Bros has announced a release date of October 15th for the 3-D Limited Blu-ray, Blu-ray/DVD combo, and DVD. The special features on the Blu-ray will include the following
Audio Commentary by director Guillermo del Toro
The Directors Notebook
Drift Space
The Digital Artistry of Pacific Rim
The Shatterdome
Focus Points
Deleted Scenes
A Blooper ReelLeave a comment:
-
So;
Overall I thought it was a very good movie. Not great, but very good. It's REALLY typical, but they did two things I really liked:
-they didn't dwell on it. NOBODY gets a real intro in this, which works 'cos we already know these people. The second you see them, you know who the plucky young sidekick is gonna be, who's the cocky young hero, who's the ubermacho foil....
-they also set up REASONS why everyone is the way they are early. THAT was great! You NEVER see that! Maverick is the cocky, plays by his own rules guy who gets things done.... not 'cos he's Maveric but BECAUSE HE ACTUALLY HAS YEARS OF EXPERIENCE!
They also use reasoning.... which you never see. So the plucky young upstart gets her chance not 'cos the boss is moved by her heart; but because they really need a pilot and SHE'S DEMONSTRATED HIGH LEVELS OF COMPETENCE IN THE TESTS!
It's sneaky that the protagonist isn't who you think it is, and that they slip it in so sneakily you might not realize.
So it's not a stupid movie. BIG points for that. Most action films fall apart the second you think about them. This one didn't. While it's not a SMART film, it's definitely not dumb.
The action is pretty good. The fights are neat, and they come up with a few twists. I know a few folks who claimed to have trouble following them, but I didn't. (And I'M old....) The monsters are kinda generic and video-gamey, although there's a reason, and they are sufficient for the story. Same with the mechs; the action wasn't about "look at this thing" so much as it was about the actual action. Again, something you don't see too much. (Action scenes in films tend to be quick cuts of upcoming products with no coreography....)
So yeah, overall it was very good; and it was nice to see a story I haven't LITERALLY seen over and over. (Yeah Hollywood; it's been a few years. We need ANOTHER Batman origin.)
Don C.Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: