Pacific Rim

[tazelbain]

Show me one monster movie et al Godzilla that had good story, good character development and no gaping plot holes.

I think some of you just don't like the genre which is fine.

[Abagadro]

If you are going to rage against a film and expect a big response at least see it when it is in the theater when people actually give a damn.

[WayAbvPar]

He is right. It was a terrible movie.

[HaemishM]

If it was valid criticism, they might not be raging.

If it's not valid say why.

That's how discussion works.

You can go back and read my thoughts on the movie in this very thread, because any post besides this one I add will be nothing but rehashes of that and continual posts of "I disagree with what you said."

[Lakov_Sanite]

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
   
Hello friend!
« Sent to: Lakov_Sanite on: Today at 03:45:21 pm »
   Reply with quote Reply Remove this message
You probably shouldn't accuse other people of raging in a thread in which you rage incoherently.

Pro tip!

 

[Nevermore]

Show me one monster movie et al Godzilla that had good story, good character development and no gaping plot holes.

I think some of you just don't like the genre which is fine.

Cloverfield was a pretty good movie for the genre.

[lamaros]

Yes, Marg is a nut when you disagree with him. You're still a dickhead and look even stupider posting PMs here.

[Margalis]

Show me one monster movie et al Godzilla that had good story, good character development and no gaping plot holes.

I think some of you just don't like the genre which is fine.

I like the genre!

Godzilla movies don't have great characters or stories but they sometimes have interesting themes - for example the ending of Godzilla 2000 is much more contemplative and emotional than anything in Pacific Rim.

To me Pacific Rim took itself too seriously to work as pure fun genre schlock, but not seriously enough to justify the amount of time spent on plot and characters. I would have preferred more over-the-top fighting with more distinguishable monsters and Jagers (they did so much design work that is barely represented onscreen!), or else if you're going to try to make it a real movie with stuff like plot and characters and emotional beats really try.

I'd contrast it to something like Dredd. I think Dredd worked as a fun action film and what plot elements it had were fine given what it was, but it probably would have fallen apart had they tried to make the plot much more significant. I like a movie like Blade 2 which leans heavily on over-the-top archetypes - the characters aren't well-formed but they work on a fun broad level. This reminded me more of something like Hellboy 2, which had plot and character bits that added little to the film.

[Margalis]

If you are going to rage against a film and expect a big response at least see it when it is in the theater when people actually give a damn.

I don't expect a big response or any response - I just expect whatever response I get to not be incredibly stupid.

If people don't want to discuss it that's fine, but endless whining about nerd rage is worse than saying nothing at all. Appeals to nerd rage, hipsters and berets have become extremely tired ways to play too-cool-for-school - if you don't have anything intelligent to say just say one of those.

Yes, Marg is a nut when you disagree with him. You're still a dickhead and look even stupider posting PMs here.

I missed the part where Lakov disagreed with what I said, at least in a way that demonstrates the slightest bit of thought.  Wait, hold on!

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
  
Re: Hello friend!
« Sent to: Margalis on: Today at 03:47:21 pm »
   Reply with quote Reply Remove this message
Y u no liek movie? movie good good robt punch monster make die 5 starz

 

[Evildrider]

[Margalis]

See, is this ironic or not? I don't know anymore!

Edit: Looking through the thread agree 100% with what Schild said. Totally nailed it.

[Lakov_Sanite]

Well, that could have saved a lot of time.

[Margalis]

Well, that could have saved a lot of time.

So would you not endlessly making shit posts.

Done crying about how a meanie didn't like a movie?

[Rasix]

[Evildrider]

[Sir T]

[Paelos]

http://www.nme.com/filmandtv/news/guillermo-del-toro-confirms-he-is-writing-pacific/323670

They are going to do another one. Again, this movie worked in the only way that matters.

[Ironwood]

Are you the WUA replacement ?

Needs more cowbell.

[HaemishM]

http://www.nme.com/filmandtv/news/guillermo-del-toro-confirms-he-is-writing-pacific/323670

They are going to do another one. Again, this movie worked in the only way that matters.

They are WRITING a new script. No one has signed off on it, no one has greenlit it or said they'd finance it... so, maybe not.

[Abagadro]

It made money. They will do another one.

[Miasma]

With twice as many robots and 50% more kaiju!

They will have to fight against a rogue world government agency that creates an unholy robot/kaigu hybrid based on Charlie's research.  I'm going to go make a Pacific Rim 2 thread right now so we can get a head start on our inane arguments.

[WayAbvPar]

The robot parts were cool. The rest was gibberish. If they can write a good script to complement the cool parts, it has a chance. Pretty sure I said it earlier, but a prequel documenting the first kaiju invasion would be nice.

[Mattemeo]

Let me use as an example the bit with the monster crashing through the wall. So humanity is on the verge of being destroyed but is unwilling to fund the giant robot program, the only program that has been at all effective. World leaders would rather just not spend the money, because apparently ALL OF THE WORLD'S RESOURCES are being funneled into A FUCKING WALL? This wall doesn't appear to have any cannons on it, there doesn't seem to be any reason a monster couldn't just climb or fly over it. Meanwhile this Australian robot has awesome missile launchers that can take down a monster - how about you build those into the wall? (or into a fucking tank?)

If you really can't see the devastatingly subtle social commentary posed by THE WALL and its more than readily apparant functional uselessness, perhaps cogent criticism and/or Film Comprehension isn't for you.

[Khaldun]

Well, not to overplay this point, but this often becomes a sticking point in nerdrage fights about genre films--that a certain kind of geek can't stand it when governments, officials, etc. waste resources or do dumb things in what seem like obvious ways. "Why would anyone build that? If you had the resources to do that, why wouldn't you do this instead?" Or the local favorite, "Why would you build mechs when you could build tanks/something cheaper and more effective?"  That kind of reaction does seem to overlook the fact that governments and companies (as well as individuals) frequently do dumb, irrational, unproductive things, some of them very expensively so. "Oh my god, nobody would build an expensive, useless system of defensive fortifications when they could build a nimble set of armored war machines with offensive capabilities"? Um, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_Line. For starters.

Now you could argue that the film could choose to stop and make it completely clear, "The fictional governments in this fictional future are stupid assgoblins who are more or less surrendering the human race to the apocalypse by building an expensive symbolic fortification that they almost have to know won't work". Or make the plot of the film offer a much clearer kind of geek fanservice in which manly men and brilliant scientists deal with dickless bureaucrats who should have known better all along and eventually win out. (See: Independence Day). But I'm not sure that's the difference between a good movie and a bad one, more just between an obvious movie and a slightly-less-obvious movie.

[Margalis]

Well, not to overplay this point, but this often becomes a sticking point in nerdrage fights about genre films--that a certain kind of geek can't stand it when governments, officials, etc. waste resources or do dumb things in what seem like obvious ways.

In real life people say dumb-sounding things, but that's not an excuse for bad dialogue. In real life people act fickle and do crazy shit sometimes, but that's not an excuse for characters acting with no motivation.

Let me clarify the wall problems:

1. The wall is stupid
2. There is no reason for the government to believe it will work
3. There is no reason for anyone else, like the construction workers working on it, or the reporter reporting on it, to believe it will work either. (yet they seem surprised when it fails)
4. The wall plot is introduced and then discarded about 3 minutes later. It was clearly introduced to serve the script function of setting the the heroes up as discarded scrappy underdogs - it has no real plot relevance.
5. The reveal of the wall sucking was written for idiots. It's painfully heavy-handed, with a line almost certainly added in post to make it even more heavy-handed, and the guy who says "it busted through it like it was nothing" does some of the worst acting imaginable.

You can make up some justification for 1 & 2. Yes, the government sometimes funds boondoggles. I can brainstorm up my own reason why the government might invest in the wall. But the justification for 3 is what, that the aliens are shooting stupid rays at everyone?  Rank and file engineers and construction people also believe that a defenseless wall is a good idea, and not one of them ever says during lunch "hey guys, why don't we at least build a giant tiger trap next to the wall?" In this world has nobody worked at a zoo, a prison, or anything else with walls designed to keep something in or out?

4 and 5 are the biggest sins though. The writers clearly assumed the audience was quite stupid - if you're going to argue that the movie is subtle and leaves things unstated this is a terrible set of scenes to use as evidence, as it's some of the most ham-fisted writing around. The only thing missing from the scene with the wall breaking was a character looking at the camera and saying "hey audience Stacker Pentacost was right about the wall!"

Here's what I believe - the people writing the script wanted the heroes to be scrappy rebels who needed to prove themselves after the world had lost faith in them. Adding the wall bit allowed them to have a scene where world leaders essentially come out and state (I don't remember the exact dialog there) that the world has lost faith in jagers, and also put a timer and urgency onto the proceedings. (Which is completely pointless, as the Kaiju attacks increasing in frequency is another timer) Then, because the wall exists only for this script function, it's discarded in the very next scene and Stacker's view that the wall sucks compared to Jagers is redeemed.

You also have the Australian pilots stating that the problem with the Jager program is unskilled pilots - which again is extremely unsubtle and used to fuel another pointlessly contentious relationship in the movie and to set up more redemptive moments. (The pilot that was supposedly inferior saves the day, the guy being an asshole and calling him out makes a noble self-sacrifice) Almost all the conflict in the movie (beyond monsters vs humanity) is completely contrived just so the characters can have emotional moments later when they are proven right or have a change of heart or set aside their differences.

It's basic "I want to hit these beats in the script how do I accomplish it" writing handled in an artless fashion, and it's exactly the opposite of subtle or understated - when the wall idea is revealed and then discarded the dialogue essentially states the purpose of the scenes.

"People do dumb things" is true but in fiction something being "realistic" isn't always sufficient. Die Hard could end with Hans Gruber having a stroke - hey, people have strokes in real life, and maybe Die Hard is even based on a bizarre true story where a terrorist was defeated by a stroke. But if the movie hasn't set that up in an way that would probably be a terrible ending. People in real life sometimes do crazy shit for reasons nobody can understand, but in fiction characters acting without motivation is usually a bad idea.

But beyond that, even if you accept that yes, the government does dumb shit and that's enough for the government in the movie to do dumb shit, it still doesn't make the wall scenes good.

[Nevermore]

I think the whole premise of this movie is stupid too but dude, you're a psycho.

[Hutch]

tldr

Try this. Watch it with the commentary on. Del Toro never stops talking, and (among other things) lays out what he was trying to accomplish with the movie.

[Margalis]

I think the whole premise of this movie is stupid too but dude, you're a psycho.

Great post!

Try this. Watch it with the commentary on. Del Toro never stops talking, and (among other things) lays out what he was trying to accomplish with the movie.

That does sound somewhat interesting but there's no way I'm watching 2+ hours of this schlock again.

[Nevermore]

Succinct, wasn't it?

[Margalis]

Succinct, wasn't it?

You concisely objected to discussing things on a forum. Good job!

How's this for concise: fuck off.

[Nevermore]

But note that you've done nothing to dispel the notion that you're a psycho.  In fact, you're just reinforcing it.

Edit: Both here and in the PMs which seem to indicate that your very fragile feelings have been really, really hurt by an offhanded comment by someone on the internets. 

[Teleku]

[Samwise]

This might be an error, but I'm going to actually respond to one of the things just to provide a diversion from all the boring meta-commentary.   

6. If the monsters are clones why do they all look different and have incredibly different physiologies? Why did the script call for them to be clones anyway? It adds nothing. They could be an engineered army without being clones.

I'm not a biologist, but my understanding is that all multicellular organisms are built out of a consistent set of DNA that differentiates into different cells and organs during development.  This extends a bit further in the case of some colony insects (i.e. some species of ants and bees differentiate into physiologically different "castes" based on what they're fed as larvae).  So rather than engineer a bunch of monsters by building a new genome for each one from scratch, maybe another strategy would be to come up with a single very malleable genome that could grow into entirely different creatures depending on the conditions you subject it to.  

Kind of a weird concept to throw into a dumb monster movie IMO, but I guess the idea was that it was a clue that all these different monsters were being sent by a single intelligence, or they all came from the same hive, or something like that, and that provided the impetus to go through the rift and take out whatever that single point of origin was.

[Margalis]

Edit: Both here and in the PMs which seem to indicate that your very fragile feelings have been really, really hurt by an offhanded comment by someone on the internets. 

Let me ask you a question dummy: if you make a personal attack on me in a thread why should I feel bad making a personal attack on you in a PM?

Let alone an extremely silly "personal attack" I sent only to see if you would post it or mention it here.

You idiots are nothing if not predictable.

[Nevermore]