|
Lt. Danger posted:I'm fairly certain "Slattern" appears on screen on the little map thing back at base. As far as I can recall, the radar screen back at the base names all the Jaegers by name, but all Kaiju are labelled "KAIJU" on the screen. Underneath each "KAIJU" is a subtitle that says what category size it is. When the category 5 shows up, there is a "5" in a big red font with banners around it. It's ridiculous.
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 18:18 |
|
|
sean10mm posted:I dunno, GDT destroying Onibaba is a Japanese yokai monster. It's the equivalent of calling the monster Medusa. The fact that he chose a female-looking monster to name the Kaiju after might be up for discussion but it isn't the same as Slattern which is just a slur. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Jul 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 22:22
|
|
|
I'm curious how they come up with them. I assumed maybe they had a list ready (like for hurricaines) but then Knifehead, Bladehead are descriptions that they wouldn't know unless they already saw the Kaiju.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:When the category 5 shows up, there is a "5" in a big red font with banners around it. It's ridiculous. I never liked that particular script crutch either, but I eventually started deciding that arbitrary categories or classes for bad guys or dangerous phenomena are based on something immediately obvious, like weight. Oh, the Kaiju is more than 4000 tons? Then it's a class 5. Doesn't necessarily say anything else about the monster's abilities or danger level but it's enough to make everyone go "whoa". Panfilo posted:I'm curious how they come up with them. I assumed maybe they had a list ready (like for hurricaines) but then Knifehead, Bladehead are descriptions that they wouldn't know unless they already saw the Kaiju. They obviously have all sorts of cameras and radars and things floating around the breach, since they can tell the moment one starts to come through and even measure how wide the portal is, so I wouldn't put it past them to also have some regular video feeds we just don't see in the film. I like to believe there's a guy whose entire job is to look at the data and come up with a split-second snappy nickname. Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Jul 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 22:26
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:I never liked that particular script crutch either, but I eventually started deciding that arbitrary categories or classes for bad guys or dangerous phenomena are based on something immediately obvious, like weight. Oh, the Kaiju is more than 4000 tons? Then it's a class 5. Doesn't necessarily say anything else about the monster's abilities or danger level but it's enough to make everyone go "whoa". I thought it had to do with how far the rift opened- they give the two kaiju at the end catergories while looking at a projection telling them it opened 40 someodd meters for each.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
Naming a Kaiju "Onibaba" would be the same as naming it "Bogeyman" or "Chupacabra". quote:Onibaba (lit. demon hag) is an Oni from Japanese folklore that has the appearance of an old woman but is a yokai that feasts on humans. Variously known as the "Demon-Hag," "Old Hag,¡" "Mountain Woman," "the Goblin of Adachigahara," and "Kurozuka," the Onibaba has many stories behind her name. As for "Slattern", uh, well. Yeah. Not the best name choice? It's a male, and according to the Wiki "Guillermo del Toro likened the Slattern to the Devil and the character Chernabog from Walt Disney's Fantasisa short, Night on Bald Mountain." its all nice on rice fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Jul 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 22:31
|
|
|
Onibaba is not a word with sexual connotations. Also, slattern is arguable, since its usage in American language is so uncommon as to make it meaningless for most people, and its original usage was to describe a woman who is dirty in the mud/dirt/smelly sense, and didn't have sexual connotations until hundreds of years after its first usage (its roots are shared with slut, which also originally didn't have sexual connotation) THAT SAID, the names don't have to be sexual in nature to present us with the fact that these names are predominantly female and antagonistic. THAT SAID, they're toy names. These names were not given in the film. Criticism of the film should stick to what's in the film. And? The film gives us plenty of visual imagery to suggest that the enemy does have feminine characteristics (not exclusively feminine, there is plenty of male kaiju symbolism too). Even beyond the kaiju giving birth we have monsters coming to our planet through a giant intergalactic birth canal, entering the world through a giant yonic hole, which must be entered with the use of a giant penis sword. Steve Yun fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Jul 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:And? The film gives us plenty of visual imagery to suggest that the enemy does have feminine characteristics. Even beyond the kaiju giving birth we have monsters coming to our planet through a giant intergalactic birth canal, entering the world through a giant yonic hole, which must be entered with the use of a giant penis sword. Not necessarily. If Slattern had been blown the gently caress up, Gipsy wouldn't have had to grapple with it and the sword would not have been necessary. Just gotta hold the carcass in your hands and take a trip back into the womb. As much as I dislike associating the rift with a birth canal, it does look fairly organic on the inside, with membranes and villi and stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
anthraciteDragon posted:Not necessarily. If Slattern had been blown the gently caress up, Gipsy wouldn't have had to grapple with it and the sword would not have been necessary. Just gotta hold the carcass in your hands and take a trip back into the womb. The fact is, in the movie the giant sword had to be thrust through a giant baby coming out of the intergalactic birth canal and then pushed back in means that you know what I don't want to think about this movie anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
With all this Slattern talk, you think GDT named a Kaiju "Laputa" after the Miyazaki film and the floating continent in "Gulliver's Travels". Yes, it means "the whore" in Spanish, too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Then he probably shouldn't be marketing it to kids and talking about how he hopes they want to be Jaeger pilots, unless he's trying to say some really hosed up stuff. this is reaching so hard your hand may as well be on a fedora.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
anthraciteDragon posted:So men have dicks and women are dicks. That's what I'm getting here. Phallus is never strictly a penis. It represents a fundamental lack and it's associated power upon entering a symbolic system. It makes sense that films (which are nothing but metaphors) are rife with phallic imagery. Fangz posted:Having exhausted one flame war, we start another. Woo. Actual discussion about the film is leagues better than toychat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
We've gone from Fascism to Penises in as many days. Also, that portal was obviously a vagina. Is Cinema Discusso always this...for lack of a better word, pretentious? I mean, honestly, I won't hold this film up as a feminist beacon or anything, but considering we're now discussing the implications of obscure, slightly gynophobic names I wasn't even able to find on my first viewing of the movie and arguing over which giant, city destroying monsters are dicks as opposed to simply having dicks, I feel like pretentious might be the only operative word left to describe what's going on here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
The themes that have been mentioned are common topics in academia. Cultural fascism and psychoanalytic interpretation are kind of normal. Also slatternly is a pretty common English word. Slattern less so I admit. I don't think the interpretation that this film is pretty fascist with troubling themes is even remotely controversial, but that's just my opinion. euphronius fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Jul 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
Colon Semicolon posted:this is reaching so hard your hand may as well be on a fedora. Yes, it's completely reaching to say that Del Toro intentionally naming a monster what amounts to a slur was either a dumb thing to do or has very uncomfortable undertones in a movie he claims is designed to appeal to children. v  v I personally think it's more on the side of just "a dumb thing to do" but someone countered that they probably did it intentionally, which is what I was responding to there.
ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Jul 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 23:05
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:Is Cinema Discusso always this...for lack of a better word, pretentious? Not really, no, SMG is just reaching way down to the bottom of the barrel in this instance and other people are joining in for fun. He'd never trot out fascism allegory for any other movie, its the single laziest subtext to apply to an action movie there is and is usually below his efforts.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Yes, it's completely reaching to say that Del Toro intentionally naming a monster what amounts to a slur was either a dumb thing to do or has very uncomfortable undertones in a movie he claims is designed to appeal to children. v There's quite alot of that stuff in children's media because kids are not likely to care about such things and neither are parents. The people that do are not going to react negatively to it at all because they are socially adjusted and don't have knee-jerk reactions. Very few people are going to ever know the meaning of 'Slattern', and honestly, it's nowhere near as bad as that one Arthur episode that had the Swedish(?) song about getting drugged up and having sex as the catchy song that everyone wanted to listen to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
mr. stefan posted:Not really, no, SMG is just reaching way down to the bottom of the barrel in this instance and other people are joining in for fun. He'd never trot out fascism allegory for any other movie, its the single laziest subtext to apply to an action movie there is and is usually below his efforts. Can't forget the "everything is a phallus" stuff, which is like the easiest thing to pull out when you want to try to put a psycholanlytical spin on things. I mean, if you want to do the kind of psych stuff that only critics use, Jung had all sorts of things to say about being an individual and part of a whole as well that would make perfect sense applied to the jaegers, the nations of earth, and the Kaiju. But nope. It's all phalluses, all the way down.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
Colon Semicolon posted:There's quite alot of that stuff in children's media because kids are not likely to care about such things and neither are parents. The people that do are not going to react negatively to it at all because they are socially adjusted and don't have knee-jerk reactions. Very few people are going to ever know the meaning of 'Slattern', and honestly, it's nowhere near as bad as that one Arthur episode that had the Swedish(?) song about getting drugged up and having sex as the thing that everyone wanted to listen to. Actually, this is demonstrably incorrect. It used to be true that you could do something like that and nobody would know until it gets pointed out, but we live in the era of Google and other things like that. It's ridiculous easy to point to examples of "little things" which people actually notice after they kid googles something the creators thought would slip right above their heads. Yes, it isn't as bad as Rocko's Modern Life having an entire episode dedicated to Chokey Chicken but it's still pretty inappropriate and unnecessary. I'm not going BAN THE MOVIE or anything, all I said was that it was a dumb name to choose. v v
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 23:16
|
|
|
euphronius posted:The themes that have been mentioned are common topics in academia. Cultural fascism and psychoanalytic interpretation are kind of normal. I consider myself a moderately well read individual, but I've not once come across the word Slattern or any variation thereof before today, so eh. I don't really see a terribly compelling argument that the film is terribly fascist. The only thing I agree with is that the movie features a vast, non-negotiable threat that is met with force, but that's about it. There's no appeal to the superior culture of the humans, nor are humans even portrayed as having a single culture (doesn't poo poo like Starship Troopers and Ender's Game, for example, portray humanity as very mono-cultured?), I fail to see how the prominence of technology makes a work more fascist - considering the huge medical and societal benefits, things a socialist for example should value very highly, technology provides. Furthermore, rather than acting agressively against a presumably inferior enemy, the humans are fighting and nearly losing a war of defense initiated by the KaijuMakers. I mean, hell, the Kaiju are explicitly compared several times both to unthinking tools of warfare (the Jaegers) and equally unthinking acts of nature ('fight the hurricane'), and they make a point of saying that the enemy threat wasn't destroyed but simply cut off from the human world. You don't even have the Avengers problem of having the heroes kill even agressive sentient beings. If even the broadest hint of millitarism is enough to categorize a movie as 'fascist,' I would say the definition being used has been stretched so broadly that it is utterly meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 23:16
|
|
|
Lt danger made the fascist arguments way better than I ever could so I would point to those as my thinking on that subject.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
A Dirty Sock posted:Yeah Mako is so tied with the kaiju in history and visual identity. That red shoe is also Pentecost's promise to her that they would take revenge, so it represents more than one thing. (Little nice touch, she does lose it in the alley scene crying behind the dumpster but picks it back up after the crabjiu is dead.) The shoe also shows her growth, from the little helpless girl who sees in Stacker and the jaegar the embodiment of the power fantasy that is giant robots (catch her face as it goes from frightened to triumphant, almost exultant), to someone who now has her own agency. I don't know if it's in the novelization, but we are never shown if Pentecost kept the shoe to himself or if Mako knew. If he's kept it secret all this time, then that makes it an even more powerful scene. Crap from the book about the shoe and the significance of the sparring scene: There are obviously two shoes. Mako kept one which sits in her barracks room on a shelf. Pentecost had kept the other and after the sparring match he presents it to her in keeping with his promise that she would be a ranger. I don't believe Pentecost made any promise of revenge though, that was solely Mako's motivation. As Stacker stated that sort of drive is like an open wound and should not be brought into the drift, so I don't see him ever telling her during her upbringing that revenge should be something to harbor or encourage it. Sparring is a exercise Stacker instituted in the ranger program to determine drift compatibility. If either person wins too easily they would likely not respect the other as an equal in the cockpit fighting Kaiju. I believe Raleigh says in the movie 'it isn't a fight, its a dance' and the book says that during their match they did an excellent job anticipating each others moves, something that is reinforced in the drift and makes them a better team in the Jaegers. I don't think the way they fought was cocky or posturing. In both the movie and the book its said that neither would hold back their moves, and where before Raleigh had afforded his opponents the ability to reset after each point and come back 'fresh' against Mako neither did that scoring points one after the other which shows a directness in what they were doing. The reason both went through so many different stances at the beginning was out of respect and to feel each other out, where as Raleigh's other opponents underestimated him as a has been and rushed in for what they felt would be an easy win. The only mention of showboating in the book and I'm not sure if its in the movie is Raleigh winks at her after scoring a hit in an attempt to Mako angry and lose her composure. EDIT: I think this mirrors this thread perfectly. People interpret what they want, even if its not really supported by the source material. Blackchamber fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Jul 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 23:19
|
|
|
mr. stefan posted:Not really, no, SMG is just reaching way down to the bottom of the barrel in this instance and other people are joining in for fun. He'd never trot out fascism allegory for any other movie, its the single laziest subtext to apply to an action movie there is and is usually below his efforts. I don't read other films as being about fascism because they usually aren't. In this case, it's accurate. The film is conducive to being read that way. Pan's Labyrinth is about a girl who literally fantasizes about creatures loaded with yonic symbolism to cope with living in literally-fascist Spain. This is not Del Toro's first 'monsters versus fascism' film. Hellboy fought the nazis. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Jul 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:Is Cinema Discusso always this...for lack of a better word, pretentious? Usually, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
Knifehead should've been called Phallushead. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:What a bizarre opinion. Come on man now you're just stretching. Del Toro had one movie like that so all his movies are? That's just lazy reading and you are trying way too hard to make this work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
randombattle posted:Come on man now you're just stretching. Del Toro had one movie like that so all his movies are? That's just lazy reading and you are trying way too hard to make this work. I don't try. I am.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
Sexual psychoanalysis is not always correct. Erich Fromm misread the tale of the Little Red Riding Hood using the Brothers Grimm's flourishes that did not exist in the original folk version of the tale and diagnosing the authors based on that instead of the actual authors' tale: "Fromm interpreted the tale as a riddle about the collective unconscious in primitive society, and he solved it "without difficulty" by decoding its "symbolic language." The story concerns an adolescent's confrontation with adult sexuality, he explained. Its hidden meaning shows through its symbolism—but the symbols he saw in his version of the text were based on details that did not exist in the versions known to peasants in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Thus he makes a great deal of the (nonexistent) red riding hood as a symbol of menstruation and of the (nonexistent) bottle carried by the girl as a symbol of virginity: hence the mother's (nonexistent) admonition not to stray from the path into wild terrain where she might break it. The wolf is the ravishing male. And the two (nonexistent) stones that are placed in the wolf's belly after the (nonexistent) hunter extricates the girl and her grandmother, stand for sterility, the punishment for breaking a sexual taboo. So, with an uncanny sensitivity to detail that did not occur in the original folk tale, the psychoanalyst takes us into a mental universe that never existed, at least not before the advent of psychoanalysis." -Robert Darnton "Peasants Tell Tales: The Meaning of Mother Goose" Corek fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Jul 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 00:36
|
|
|
brawleh posted:The idea of this was too adorable to pass up, granted I rushed and there's lots wrong, but just for fun. Sir? Bless you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
 Seeing Japan hype up for Pacific Rim is oddly adorable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:
Oh, Japan. Never change.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
Xealot posted:Oh, Japan. Never change. The guy who owns that costume made it himself and runs a twitter where he posts in-character (as Knifehead) about how excited he is about his role in the film. It's so loving ridiculous and yet...  He's so happy about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 00:51
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:The guy who owns that costume made it himself and runs a twitter where he posts in-character (as Knifehead) about how excited he is about his role in the film. That's so adorable 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
PaganGoatPants posted:Knifehead should've been called Phallushead. Dickhead is a better name. Edit: I'd love a link to that Knifehead twitter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
Corek posted:Sexual psychoanalysis is not always correct. Erich Fromm misread the tale of the Little Red Riding Hood using the Brothers Grimm's flourishes that did not exist in the original folk version of the tale and diagnosing the authors based on that instead of the actual authors' tale: I'm a Lacanian not a Jungian (talking about collective unconscious stuff) and I am not 'diagnosing' Del Toro because I don't care about authorial intent. I am also not concerned about 'early, primordial versions' of the text, but about the text as it exists and is read today. This has effectively nothing to do with what I've written. Philosophy is not always correct. Since I read Zizek, I must adhere to Confucianism. Scientists are also not always correct. Since I use a computer, I must believe in phlogiston. This is stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 00:54
|
|
|
Corek posted:stuff That is not getting into the whole problem of whether it's necessary or meaningful to try to find the "old" meaning of red riding hood in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 00:56
|
|
|
It was not intended to disprove psychoanalysis, merely to provide an inaccurate reading of a text. This was not actually directed at SMG, despite his response to it and the part at the end. I actually supported the fascist reading earlier in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 01:00
|
|
Hellbunny posted:... not to be a poo poo or anything, but what do you mean exactly? How does it in anyway prove or disprove the idea of psychoanalysis? Because it seem like a simple error of whether the text chosen was correct or not, rather then anything regarding the idea itself. Is the idea that if he had the correct text, would he still produce an incorrect reading or...? He doesn't need to disprove psychoanalysis because it has already been largely abandoned as archaic and misleading by most actual psychiatric authorities.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
But Fromm clearly wasn't reading the original text and the intent of the original authors is both ludicrously out of reach and completely irrelevant to his reading.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 01:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 18:18 |
|
|
That reading is fairly sound anyways. The main issue is that he misidentifies the source of the text, which has little to do with the interpreting the obviously-symbolic story of a young girl protecting a fragile treasure from a beast by 'remaining on the path'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 01:08
|
|