Pacific Rim

[HaemishM]

Trying to pick this movie apart on the basis of engineering is beyond stupid. GIANT ROBOTS HITTING MONSTERS. Fuck, how hard a concept is that to get behind?

[Merusk]

Apparently very.

It's nice to see the tanker thing on the list after I took such a beating for it prior to release.   

[jgsugden]

I call BS.

They had the choice to make it a cage match or a movie with a story.  They decided to give it a story, so they took it upon themselves to treat the story and characters appropriately.  They failed to do so.

This is the same BS that pisses me off about cartoons based on comics, about horror movies, and about a few thousand other 'genre' entertainment pieces.  The people making it say, "It is just a bunch of geeks/kids/other group watching it.  They'll watch it regardless of what we do.  Why bother with quality?"

Then, someone comes along and puts the effort into giving us characters that are more than skin deep, science fiction that seems 'realistic'*, and a story that has real depth - and suddenly we see recognition across the board - not just with the geeks... and we see the geeks go truly apeshit crazy.

There is no reason - whatsoever - that you can't do a monster versus robot story with real characters, 'realistic' science, and a story that drives the movie.   I was pissed because the reviews were making it sound like PR was that film - and it most decidedly was not.

* Realistic science, by the way, is not necessarily science that would work in real life.  It is science that doesn't take you out of the movie by being ludicrously unrealistic.  Realistic science is any science that doesn't distrct you during the film.

[Typhon]

So you were pissed because movie reviewers take payola (direct or indirect via advertising).  ... that said, I can't really blame reviewers for not going with, "not nearly as cartoonish as I assumed a movie about GIANT ROBOTS and even more GIANT monsters could have been", because I don't imagine that tag line would have appeared in any promo, which would have resulted in no additional page views.

I'm constantly amazed at how little lack of context posters in the f13 Movies seem to have.

Still, now I'm chuckling.

Lead Character: but soft, what light through yon giant robot eye breaks?
Target Audience Dude 1: SHUT UP!!!!1!!
Target Audience Dude 2: MOAR MONSTER PUNCHING!!!!1!!
You: SHHHH!! Character development!!!
Merusk: There's NO WAY that robot could have picked up that tanker and swung it like a sword.  Let's discuss briefly Euler-Bernoulli bending theory to explain why...
Target Audience Dude 1: SHUT UP!!!!1!!
Target Audience Dude 2: MOAR MONSTER PUNCHING!!!!1!!

(later)

Merusk: What the hell?!  NOW they pull out a sword?!  Why even waste your time with tanker when you can use...
Target Audience Dude 1: SHUT UP!!!!1!!
Target Audience Dude 2: TANKER SWORD IS KOOOL!!!!1!!
You: Suck it Mr Science, you get no logic if I can't have pathos!

[MediumHigh]

I call BS.

They had the choice to make it a cage match or a movie with a story.  They decided to give it a story, so they took it upon themselves to treat the story and characters appropriately.  They failed to do so.

This is the same BS that pisses me off about cartoons based on comics, about horror movies, and about a few thousand other 'genre' entertainment pieces.  The people making it say, "It is just a bunch of geeks/kids/other group watching it.  They'll watch it regardless of what we do.  Why bother with quality?"

Then, someone comes along and puts the effort into giving us characters that are more than skin deep, science fiction that seems 'realistic'*, and a story that has real depth - and suddenly we see recognition across the board - not just with the geeks... and we see the geeks go truly apeshit crazy.

There is no reason - whatsoever - that you can't do a monster versus robot story with real characters, 'realistic' science, and a story that drives the movie.   I was pissed because the reviews were making it sound like PR was that film - and it most decidedly was not.

* Realistic science, by the way, is not necessarily science that would work in real life.  It is science that doesn't take you out of the movie by being ludicrously unrealistic.  Realistic science is any science that doesn't distrct you during the film.

Define whats well done SciFi to you?

[WayAbvPar]

So you were pissed because movie reviewers take payola (direct or indirect via advertising).  ... that said, I can't really blame reviewers for not going with, "not nearly as cartoonish as I assumed a movie about GIANT ROBOTS and even more GIANT monsters could have been", because I don't imagine that tag line would have appeared in any promo, which would have resulted in no additional page views.

I'm constantly amazed at how little lack of context posters in the f13 Movies seem to have.

Still, now I'm chuckling.

Lead Character: but soft, what light through yon giant robot eye breaks?
Target Audience Dude 1: SHUT UP!!!!1!!
Target Audience Dude 2: MOAR MONSTER PUNCHING!!!!1!!
You: SHHHH!! Character development!!!
Merusk: There's NO WAY that robot could have picked up that tanker and swung it like a sword.  Let's discuss briefly Euler-Bernoulli bending theory to explain why...
Target Audience Dude 1: SHUT UP!!!!1!!
Target Audience Dude 2: MOAR MONSTER PUNCHING!!!!1!!

(later)

Merusk: What the hell?!  NOW they pull out a sword?!  Why even waste your time with tanker when you can use...
Target Audience Dude 1: SHUT UP!!!!1!!
Target Audience Dude 2: TANKER SWORD IS KOOOL!!!!1!!
You: Suck it Mr Science, you get no logic if I can't have pathos!

Good luck getting another $100m+ movie funded by excluding as many potential audience groups as possible. Pure vision is for indies. If you want to charge $15-$25 for an IMAX ticket, you had better be casting a wide net.

[Lakov_Sanite]

Lone Ranger got a couple hundred million and that movie appeals to um, 70 year olds?

[eldaec]

I thought we decided the target market for this is nerds?

If the target is nerds, it is reasonable to expect some effort to not say stupid shit about a cast iron hull and an 'analog' robot. That shit is just lazy.

If its a dudebro film then maybe its less insulting to the viewer's brain.

[MediumHigh]

Again anyone want to spring up examples of a well done scifi that does its math and isn't sprinkled with type characters?

[eldaec]

I don't need maths but appreciate it when they make the effort to do it.

I do need them to avoid bonejarringly dumb statements that a high school science student would find ridiculous, especially in the context of technobabble.

[MediumHigh]

So an example would be?

[Margalis]

Is an analog robot that crazy?

The robots are machines piloted by people, not independent. Assuming the motors and hydraulics and such are in the right place if the human brains can control everything what's the problem? Being analog would probably also make them less prone to disruption of various kinds.

[Merusk]

So an example would be?

Moon springs to mind first.

If you want to go big-budget, films that didn't have "wtf" moments for me include Robocop & Terminator, but nothing within the last 20 years immediately springs to mind.  Hell even T2 didn't have immediate WTFs and it broke most, if not all, of the rules the first movie established.

[Typhon]

I thought we decided the target market for this is nerds?

If the target is nerds, it is reasonable to expect some effort to not say stupid shit about a cast iron hull and an 'analog' robot. That shit is just lazy.

If its a dudebro film then maybe its less insulting to the viewer's brain.

I decided the target market was, "anyone who grew up watching giant robot cartoons or Ultraman and enjoys escapist fantasy", which seems like a larger demographic then "nerds".

As a gross generalization I wouldn't make anything for nerds because they don't seem to like anything made for them.  They're happiest when nitpicking.  It's kind of like dogs ass-sniffing.

[Miasma]

Is an analog robot that crazy?

The robots are machines piloted by people, not independent. Assuming the motors and hydraulics and such are in the right place if the human brains can control everything what's the problem? Being analog would probably also make them less prone to disruption of various kinds.

The article's main point is that if it is strictly 'analog' then it couldn't use computers or chips.  It would have to be like an all steam punk type contraption.  At the very least you couldn't drift.

[Merusk]

No, it's cool. That drift system was all vacuum tubes and gears.

[lamaros]

Is an analog robot that crazy?

The robots are machines piloted by people, not independent. Assuming the motors and hydraulics and such are in the right place if the human brains can control everything what's the problem? Being analog would probably also make them less prone to disruption of various kinds.

Eh? For what they do surely they would have to be biological or digital.

[Lakov_Sanite]

So an example would be?

Moon springs to mind first.

If you want to go big-budget, films that didn't have "wtf" moments for me include Robocop & Terminator, but nothing within the last 20 years immediately springs to mind.  Hell even T2 didn't have immediate WTFs and it broke most, if not all, of the rules the first movie established.

Robocop maybe but....Terminator?

[Merusk]

Consistency is key.  Terminator is out there sci-fi that doesn't break its own rules.  It's not High Science but it's sci-fi/ horror that doesn't make you stop and go, "wait.. wtf? No." in the middle of the experience.  Which was the question.

You'll never find a movie without tropes/ cardboard cutouts because that's how you TELL a story.  By bringing all the cultural relevance of that trope to the table without a shitton of exposition.

[Margalis]

The article's main point is that if it is strictly 'analog' then it couldn't use computers or chips.  It would have to be like an all steam punk type contraption.  At the very least you couldn't drift.

The most advanced computer on earth is analog. (This computer also controls an extremely complicated machine)

Also drifting is done with spinal taps and goo and stuff no?

I don't get analog = steam punk. Until recently cars were analog (except maybe the radio/cd player). A lawnmower is analog. There actually are analog robots that do simple tasks, and the reason they don't do more is that it's hard to make analog decision-making logic - but if the thing is not autonomous that's not a factor.

If you had a robot you piloted with a couple levers presumably you'd need a lot of logic to translate that into movement, correctly balance, etc. But if you control it with your brain your brain should be able to handle all that stuff without a computer helping. And analog computers are a thing anyway, though I presume by analog they probably mean to imply "doesn't use computers."

It definitely doesn't seem completely crazy to me. The brain sends impulses to the various parts to do the right stuff - there are replacement limbs today that work similarly. It's basically just a human body but the muscle is hydraulics and the nerves are wires.

Edit: Poor characterization, bad lines of dialogue etc take me out of a movie sure, but maybe I have a high tolerance for this sort of technical stuff. But I think that the science won't make perfect sense is implicit in the premise, whereas bad acting is not. If you walk into a robots vs monsters movie on some level you know the science is going to be off, but while you might suspect the acting and script will be bad that's not a requirement. I could say the same about a vampire movie. Nothing about a vampire movie requires cheesy acting (though that's what you're likely to get) but it does require some silly science.

[Miasma]

The article's main point is that if it is strictly 'analog' then it couldn't use computers or chips.  It would have to be like an all steam punk type contraption.  At the very least you couldn't drift.

The most advanced computer on earth is analog. (This computer also controls an extremely complicated machine)

If you want the definition of analog computer to be so broad as to include the human brain and biological systems then yeah it would be possible, that's what the kaigu are.

[Margalis]

Non-biological analog computers are a thing. But my point is more that you don't need a computer in a giant robot if the human brain is doing the work that a computer would otherwise do.

The concept doesn't strike me as much more crazy than people piloting giant robots to begin with.

[eldaec]

Is the human brain analog?

Would imply nerves don't communicate as definitive on/off signals but rely on amplitudes.

I have no idea.

[Samwise]

Is the human brain analog?

Would imply nerves don't communicate as definitive on/off signals but rely on amplitudes.

I have no idea.

My recollection from my one semester of cognitive science is yes, neurons can "fire" at different strengths.  (Same goes for neural nets in software, but that's of course being implemented on top of digital hardware.)

[Margalis]

Is the human brain analog?

Would imply nerves don't communicate as definitive on/off signals but rely on amplitudes.

I have no idea.

Neurons either fire or don't fire in binary fashion, but how often they fire falls across a continuous spectrum, as does how they react to the firings of other neurons. So the human brain is analog but it's frequency-based rather than amplitude-based - a stronger signal has higher frequency.

That's my understanding anyway. Apparently it's somewhat up for debate and a lot of it boils down to semantics.

[Kail]

Is the human brain analog?

Would imply nerves don't communicate as definitive on/off signals but rely on amplitudes.

I have no idea.

AFAIK (not an expert) it's analog in the sense that neurons seem to respond to firing frequency rather than a single firing.

edit: what margalis said

[Margalis]

I actually am a brain expert.  

(Not really)

Anyway, my main point is just that I don't find the idea of a brain-controlled analog device all that far-fetched. I'm not going to defend it as making perfect sense, but it's not any crazier than a bunch of other stuff. To me once you have brains connecting to each other and working in tandem to control robots whether it's analog or digital is kind of irrelevant.

[eldaec]

The bit about cast iron was the daft part.

Makes as much sense as making the Chinese one out of bamboo.

[Rendakor]

Again anyone want to spring up examples of a well done scifi that does its math and isn't sprinkled with type characters?

Primer?

[Ironwood]

He claims it's not Sci Fi.  I don't think it is either.

[Rendakor]

It includes some science, and is fictional. It certainly includes more science than Pacific Rim. What genre would you classify it as, and/or what makes it not Sci-Fi?

[Ironwood]

For my money, it's more a psychological study in how fucked up we are as a species.  I guess the lens of it is 'The Time Machine', but really, The Time Machine is kinda incidental to the story of these two chaps utterly fucking each other over.

[Rendakor]

Different strokes, I guess. For me it was about the implications of the time machine, and the possibilities presented by a world where you have a do-over for life's many situations. It's a much more intellectual movie than, say, the Star Trek reboots or Pacific Rim, and that's why I think of it as the best example of Sci-Fi done right.

[Samwise]

For my money, it's more a psychological study in how fucked up we are as a species.  I guess the lens of it is 'The Time Machine', but really, The Time Machine is kinda incidental to the story of these two chaps utterly fucking each other over.

To me that's the essence of good sci-fi.  Using technological macguffins to explore the human condition.  If the technological macguffins are interesting and somewhat believable in their own universes, so much the better.

[lamaros]

I actually am a brain expert.  

(Not really)

Anyway, my main point is just that I don't find the idea of a brain-controlled analog device all that far-fetched. I'm not going to defend it as making perfect sense, but it's not any crazier than a bunch of other stuff. To me once you have brains connecting to each other and working in tandem to control robots whether it's analog or digital is kind of irrelevant.

The other point - that expecting good science from a massive robot fighting movie is probably less reasonable that expecting decent acting - is also the case. Though with the way blockbuster films go at the moment 'ok' acting is probably the last thing to hang on to. Certainly characterization, plotting, etc expectations fall by the wayside.

Really all you'd be hoping for are good special effects, ok pacing, and some fun set pieces. Everything else is 'more fool you' complaints.

Edit: Just to give Marg something to jump on me about. The confusion about what is and isn't Science Fiction is part of the reason a lot of writers these days call it Speculative Fiction instead. Plus you get to lose the 'Hi-Fi' aping marketing slogan.