|
If anyone really wants a 7" Gipsy Danger, and a Knifehead, Big Bad Toy store has them for pre-order. Expected in October. http://www.bigbadtoystore.com/bbts/product.aspx?product=NEC12351&mode=retail They also have hats. But they are baseball caps which look stupid on me so 
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 23:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 23:06 |
|
Solenna posted:If anyone really wants a 7" Gipsy Danger, and a Knifehead, Big Bad Toy store has them for pre-order. Expected in October. The Cherno Alpha dog tags look like just the thing for a friend's birthday, assuming they're in stock in time 
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
OldPueblo posted:I'm fairly certain I have only one brain. The Fountain's imagery/subtext/hoohah is recurring and obvious with its imagery and subtext. I don't have to make poo poo up and find alternate meanings that go nowhere except my own ego jar. If you literally see pots and pans riding on horses instead of knights, well good luck to you sir. How is Pacific Rim's not as likewise obvious? It is nothing but imagery and (sub)text. No one is making poo poo up, it's all there on screen. Literally.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
The very basic point of Pacific Rim is that humanity differs from the machine-monsters in its ability to symbolize. This is why Mako's phallic sword thing that she uses to overcome her trauma is one of the only successful parts of the film. Where the kaiju are directly connected to their universe, Mako experiences trauma, and... ""trauma" designates a shocking encounter which, precisely, DISTURBS this immersion into one's life-world, a violent intrusion of something which doesn't fit it. Of course, animals can also experience traumatic ruptures: say, is the ants' universe not thrown off the rails when a human intervention totally subverts their environs? However, the difference between animals and men is crucial here: for animals, such traumatic ruptures are the exception, they are experienced as a catastrophe which ruins their way of life; for humans, on the contrary, the traumatic encounter is a universal condition, the intrusion which sets in motion the process of "becoming human." Man is not simply overwhelmed by the impact of the traumatic encounter - as Hegel put it, s/he is able to "tarry with the negative," to counteract its destabilizing impact by spinning out intricate symbolic cobwebs. This is the lesson of both psychoanalysis and the Jewish-Christian tradition: the specific human vocation does not rely on the development of man's inherent potentials (on the awakening of the dormant spiritual forces OR of some genetic program); it is triggered by an external traumatic encounter, by the encounter of the Other's desire in its impenetrability. In other words, there is no inborn "language instinct": there are, of course, genetic conditions that have to be met if a living being is to be able to speak; however, one actually starts to speak, one enters the symbolic universe, only in reacting to a traumatic jolt - and the mode of this reacting, i.e. the fact that, in order to cope with a trauma, we symbolize, is NOT "in our genes."" -Zizek Saying the sword is not symbolic, but rather a mere component of the franchise universe that we immerse ourselves into, demonstrates a profound failure to understand Pacific Rim. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Aug 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 23:58
|
|
|
Zizek, through SuperMechagodzilla posted:""trauma" designates a shocking encounter which, precisely, DISTURBS this immersion into one's life-world, a violent intrusion of something which doesn't fit it. Of course, animals can also experience traumatic ruptures: say, is the ants' universe not thrown off the rails when a human intervention totally subverts their environs? However, the difference between animals and men is crucial here: for animals, such traumatic ruptures are the exception, they are experienced as a catastrophe which ruins their way of life; for humans, on the contrary, the traumatic encounter is a universal condition, the intrusion which sets in motion the process of "becoming human." Could you (or Danger) help me understand this part? Shouldn't it be the opposite: animals, having no concept of symbolic order, are constantly in an unmediated state of experience, whereas for humans trauma occurs when our lives are destabilized by experiences that don't fit into the symbolic order? So for animals there are no traumatic ruptures because there's nothing to rupture, whereas for humans intrusions are so traumatic because they are the exception. Or is he saying that the symbolic order only exists as a constant counter-reaction to the constant potential for trauma (with the constant quality making it not the exception)? Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Aug 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Could you (or Danger) help me understand this part? Shouldn't it be the opposite: animals, having no concept of symbolic order, are constantly in an unmediated state of experience, whereas for humans trauma occurs when our lives are destabilized by experiences that don't fit into the symbolic order? So for animals there are no traumatic ruptures because there's nothing to rupture, whereas for humans intrusions are so traumatic because they are the exception. Edit: Realise I'm neither of these two, but eh. I think it basically means that because animals often are built for specific environments and conditions, that sudden changes can fundamentally screw them over in a way that prevents recovery. If a bird's nest is gone, it might not make another. If a horse breaks a leg, that is generally all she's wrote for the thing. If someone builds a dam, so much for anything relying off the river. By contrast, a common expectation in society is that bad stuff happening to people is part and parcel of 'growing up'. You're expected to at some point cope and move on, with or without help. I think anyway. An analogy might be like comparing a glitch in Pokémon versus a glitch in Skyrim. If one happens in the former, its often seen as very bad and can potentially doom your game forever. In the latter, a lot of fans see them as part of the experience itself, partly due to downright hilarity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:This is why Mako's phallic sword thing that she uses to overcome her trauma is one of the only successful parts of the film. If you hate this movie so much, why do you keep talking about it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 01:05
|
|
|
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 01:34
|
|
|
Defiance Industries posted:If you hate this movie so much, why do you keep talking about it? He can't help it. He loves to watch himself type.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
PaganGoatPants posted:Slattern figure is up for pre-order. $469.99 Though it looks technically incorrect. Slattern had three nearly-equal sized tails, not one huge tail.  e: and also kickin' rad glowing blue godzilla spikes on its back!
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 01:39
|
|
Fly Molo posted:Though it looks technically incorrect. Slattern had three nearly-equal sized tails, not one huge tail. I thought there was something off about the tail. As it is, it make Slattern look like it's got tiny little legs, which is actually pretty 
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
Pacific Rim is about the patriarchy trying to destroy empowered femininity. Knifehead is the most obvious, as it tries to rape Gipsy Danger in a surprise attack utilising its massive penis thing, but misses the giant glowing vagina on Gipsy's chest. Otachi is a pseudo-female infiltrator, given a thinner, more fragile form to compare with the ultra-masculine Leatherback, uses a corrosive ejaculation weapon to cripple our favourite Russian lady, and artificially implanted with a fake baby to use as a weapon. Slattern, disguised with a female name, is the largest and most brutish of all, and is armed with three huge penis weapons that again try to rape Gipsy, only to be defeated when the raw power of feminism gushes forth from Gipsy's vagina. It's all very inspiring.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
The climax of the film is Gipsy Danger travelling through the urethra and exploding the testicles of a giant alien empire, preventing their sperm from colonising the Earth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
Fly Molo posted:Though it looks technically incorrect. Slattern had three nearly-equal sized tails, not one huge tail. The tail splits apart into several tentacles/tails, (you can see the grooves...) and the spikes on the back were a tease for something we never saw in the film. Probably a breath weapon. I scored the figures from Thinkgeek. My kid's going to have an awesome birthday. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 04:17
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Could you (or Danger) help me understand this part? Shouldn't it be the opposite: animals, having no concept of symbolic order, are constantly in an unmediated state of experience, whereas for humans trauma occurs when our lives are destabilized by experiences that don't fit into the symbolic order? So for animals there are no traumatic ruptures because there's nothing to rupture, whereas for humans intrusions are so traumatic because they are the exception. While animals carry on instinctively, according to how they've evolved, the human ability to speak can't be accounted for in evolutionary terms. There's no language instinct. Language is like a tool, an external prosthesis. As Marshall McLuhan pointed out, every prosthesis is also an amputation; when riding in a car, you lose the use of your legs (for example). So, when the prosthesis in question is the whole symbolic network, the flipside is the 'symbolic castration' Danger wrote about a few posts back. Humans are 'crippled animals' who have withdrawn from nature and need symbolic institutions, languages, cultures, tools, and whatnot to augment themselves. Animals, being already 'in nature' require no such augmentation. When trauma does eventually occur, it's just an accident - but for humans, it's a universal condition. Human subjectivity is an ongoing process of 'tarrying with the negative', creating a symbolic network that will withstand the constant threat of madness, dissolution, etc. Defiance Industries posted:If you hate this movie so much, why do you keep talking about it? I'm kaiju. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 05:45 on Aug 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 05:32
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I'm kaiju. I didn't know you were a woman.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 05:47
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:While animals carry on instinctively, according to how they've evolved, the human ability to speak can't be accounted for in evolutionary terms. There's no language instinct. Language is like a tool, an external prosthesis. I'm sure this is consistent with a continental philosophical outlook, but most things about this statement are suspect by most evolutionary bio or anthropological perspectives. The development of cerebral pathways responsible for language are most definitely an evolutionary adaptation. The evolutionary success of humans, in many theoretical models, is dependent on it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 06:23
|
|
|
The ability to use language evolved, but language itself as she is spoke is an invented technology. A relevant analogy might be the difference between a hand and a hammer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 06:26
|
|
|
Yeah, I worded that poorly but it's the covered in the last line of the original quote: "there are, of course, genetic conditions that have to be met if a living being is to be able to speak; however, one actually starts to speak, one enters the symbolic universe, only in reacting to a traumatic jolt."
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 06:42
|
|
|
Danger posted:How is Pacific Rim's not as likewise obvious? It is nothing but imagery and (sub)text. No one is making poo poo up, it's all there on screen. Literally. Let's use this thread's key examples. Phalluses, baby Kaiju's, and that Kaiju's are female. Now how much of the movie reinforced, reminded or recalled over and over those subtexts? Now how often did monsters punch robots and robots punch monsters? What about "loss" and "sacrifice" and "heroism" or "sweep the leg"? I mean do we really need to look past the pretty obvious and common sense meaning's of things to state "there's another phallus, my God they are everywhere they should call this movie Phallus Rim because there are so many drat phalluses everywhere! Oh wait no that's just a fork. But wait a fork can be a phallus let's talk about that for pages now because my hot pockets are still cooling down!" I'm pretty sure nobody is saying there is NO subtext or imagery, just that what is there is pretty plain to see and laid out very openly. Unlike the three mentioned earlier and many other ridiculous stretches. Get some hobbies please.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 08:11
|
|
|
OldPueblo posted:Let's use this thread's key examples. Phalluses, baby Kaiju's, and that Kaiju's are female. The imagery of things crawling in and out of fleshy slits recurs constantly. I just recently made a post explaining how Gipsy Danger's (symbolic) weapon loadout is directly analogous to the phallic/psychosexual imagery in X-Men 4 - a film overtly about human sexuality (esp. gay sex). Gipsy Danger obviously appears frequently in the film. The baby kaiju is literally a baby kaiju and is a major element in the storyline. Imagery associated with it also recurs at the end of the film, when the protagonists win. Since this is not subtext, you might be referring to the christological imagery and other basic theological stuff that pervades the film ("math is the handwriting of God," etc.). In the other hand, the things you listed (such as 'loss') are not subtext at all - demonstrating that you definitely have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 08:34 on Aug 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 08:26
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The imagery of things crawling in and out of fleshy slits recurs constantly. You know what else occurs constantly? Walking and clothes. And doors! So it's a quantity thing then, gotcha! quote:I just recently made a post explaining how Gipsy Danger's (symbolic) weapon loadout is directly analogous to the phallic/psychosexual imagery in X-Men 4 - a film overtly about human sexuality (esp. gay sex). Gipsy Danger obviously appears frequently in the film. Oddly enough the loadout is also analogous to literally every powerup 80's cartoon. You really went deep on that one! But you go ahead and rank it all up in the sexual spots if that's how you'd like to feel it in your bone(r)s. quote:The baby kaiju is literally a baby kaiju and is a major element in the storyline... Of course it's a major element, I mean that poo poo's all over every analysis and interview of the movie outside of this thread. It's not. And it's not. This is some serious Beautiful Mind poo poo right here. quote:Imagery associated with it also recurs at the end of the film, when the protagonists win. Since this is not subtext, you might be referring to the christological imagery and other basic theological stuff that pervades the film ("math is the handwriting of God," etc.). Maybe you should go read the definition of subtext then because you seem to have lost your anchor to the way human's communicate things to each other. Let me help you out. Seeing Jesus appear on a piece of toast isn't subtext. Looking at a cloud and seeing a toilet isn't subtext. That's you projecting your poo poo onto something else and then megaposting about it. OldPueblo fucked around with this message at 09:29 on Aug 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 09:25
|
|
|
More in relation to drifting and even the symbolism discussion, more specifically the relationship between the right hemisphere and left hemisphere symbolised through drifting and pilot control. The opening of the movie establishes this relationship on screen, a singular brain cannot pilot a Jaeger without eventually killing the pilot(neural overload). There are political and ideological relationships at play within drifting but also symbolic(Michael Gazzaniga: Your Storytelling Brain) ones in pilots having to verbally communicate despite being connected through the machine body. e:Lord Krangdar, SMG expanded upon your question, I feel this may also contribute(as will the source of the reference SMG pointed to). This is why I couldn't in many respects let the word symbolic be exchanged with Image, they have very different meanings(subjectively). For example, an Image can be a study or a drawing, a study is accurately trying to depict your subjective perception(life drawing for instance). When drawing you are drawing from that perception(study) but also wanting to say something subjective(illustrative, metaphor, symbolism) and there may be an unconscious, reactive and instinctive element to emotional(nature/nurture e.g cultural and social implications) reactions to and in making that drawing. This may have wider and deeper implications than simply what we perceive as the facts based upon an emotional response(comfort or certainty), for instance the above may be as wrong as it is right, it comes from a subjective emotional response but also patience and time will, through further thought and discussion, bear that out(subjectively/collectively) e.g distance from the immediate emotional response(the misunderstanding of phallus and skepticism of Freud despite Lacan being the reference, "sword=cock" may be saying something in and of itself). To bring it back to Pacific Rim, this(i've an interest in concept art) talks about the influences in wanting to depict the giants of Pacific Rim, there is something key and easily overlooked however. Guillermo del Toro didn't want to discuss reference and only wanted to talk about the designs in relation to Pacific Rim, unleashing the Id to some degree within the decision and design process of the greater drawing that would be Pacific Rim. brawleh fucked around with this message at 14:02 on Aug 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 09:56
|
|
|
OldPueblo posted:
Toast patterns and clouds are spontaneously created, whereas films are made by people communicating. They're not the same.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 10:09
|
|
|
Sometimes a movie about giant robots fighting giant monsters is just about giant robots fighting giant monsters. I honestly didn't see very much subtext when I saw it in cinemas but that might be because I was too entertained by robots punching monsters to care. EDIT: Obviously you guys are joking but, as stated, sometimes a giant robot is a giant robot. Testekill fucked around with this message at 10:23 on Aug 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 10:19
|
|
|
A human heart posted:Toast patterns and clouds are spontaneously created, whereas films are made by people communicating. They're not the same. Correct in stating they are spontaneously created, however people SEEING Jesus in the toast or toilet clouds is the making poo poo up part. So once again, did GDT create an underlying theme about these things? What proof is there to back that up? I can say "all that walking in the movie represents mankind's eternal walk towards progress" and I would look and sound like a dumbshit. Because I'd BE a dumbshit for saying that because it literally means nothing to anyone or anything and wasn't even close to the point to the movie, overt or covert. Also I'd be ruining a good thread, shame on me. Okay I'm probably done. I'm taking my share of the blame for perpetuating dumb things over what's really important. Toy chat, fan art, and growing up in the 80's feelings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 10:21
|
|
|
He said christological imagery, not " seeing Jesus". If you paid closer attention to what people are writing maybe you wouldn't struggle so much.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 10:34
|
|
|
euphronius posted:He said christological imagery, not " seeing Jesus". If you paid closer attention to what people are writing maybe you wouldn't struggle so much. Irony.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 10:55
|
|
|
OldPueblo posted:Correct in stating they are spontaneously created, however people SEEING Jesus in the toast or toilet clouds is the making poo poo up part. So once again, did GDT create an underlying theme about these things? What proof is there to back that up? I can say "all that walking in the movie represents mankind's eternal walk towards progress" and I would look and sound like a dumbshit. Because I'd BE a dumbshit for saying that because it literally means nothing to anyone or anything and wasn't even close to the point to the movie, overt or covert. Also I'd be ruining a good thread, shame on me. The proof is right on screen in front of you. Who cares whether GDT did it deliberately or not; though in the context of his earlier work it's pretty hairbrained to consider it accidental.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 14:12
|
|
Testekill posted:Sometimes a movie about giant robots fighting giant monsters is just about giant robots fighting giant monsters. I honestly didn't see very much subtext when I saw it in cinemas but that might be because I was too entertained by robots punching monsters to care. Well then you missed out on a lot of really important insights, such as
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 14:53
|
|
|
X is just Y. I know because most people think of X as Y. Therefore, X cannot also be Z. After all, Z is not obvious to me or most people. People who talk about Z are making poo poo up, or maybe joking. I don't know why you insist I even read what you have to say about Z. I don't need to bother trying to understand Z. I'll never buy into Z. I have Z-talkers on ignore. Since I already know for a fact that X is just Y, what's the point? Oh, sure, Z is so profound, you guys. Real life-changing stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 15:39
|
|
|
OldPueblo posted:You know what else occurs constantly? Walking and clothes. And doors! So it's a quantity thing then, gotcha! Do you mean that clothes are 'natural' and 'random', like a cloud? That would probably make the film's costume designers pretty sad. Jesus is real. Also, you really obviously haven't bothered to even do a cursory wikipedia google of the word 'subtext.' Why not? SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Aug 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 16:25
|
|
|
Why does the... "intentionality" of a thing so thoroughly override everything else anyway? You're so utterly focused on this idea. Does the concept of subconscious influences on multiple artists' work on a film not even occur to you? This imagery is so loving obvious to people who are actually willing to read and comprehend things they see constantly expressed without knowing the word for them. Recently I had a conversation with someone who had experienced 'gaslighting' and neither they nor the 'gaslighter(s)' were aware of the term and what it signified. By your stringent definition of "intentionality > all contextual evidence, imagery, consequences, so forth" that would mean the gaslighting events in question never occurred. They were some other thing limited by the vocabulary of the parties involved, frustrated at the cruel English language that hadn't seen fit to provide them with a word to describe their situation ('gaslighting' see above). Do you drive? Do you run over peoples' feet a lot or casually roll into them at a red light? "Oops, wasn't my intent. Thanks for understanding." "Well, then, be on your way sir!" SuperMechagodzilla posted:Do you mean that clothes are 'natural' and 'random', like a cloud? That would probably make the film's costume designers pretty sad. You know there's a really good chance that OldPueblo thinks costume designers only have the benchmarks of 'cool' or 'realistic' and largely just sift through the wardrobe and flip a few coins. That's what they all went to school and dedicated their lives towards after all. Random acts of non-expression. Maybe he knows about the Orange-Blue thing and considers that some pretty slick industry insider knowledge. Sarkozymandias fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Aug 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
Thanks for the explanations of the quote earlier, guys.Lightanchor posted:X is just Y. I know because most people think of X as Y. Therefore, X cannot also be Z. After all, Z is not obvious to me or most people. People who talk about Z are making poo poo up, or maybe joking. Where'd you find the script they're all using?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 16:31
|
|
|
"Racism? Heh, I don't 'see' race. I'm colourblind."
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
Ha. Didn't they realize the chainsaw was on the robot's DICK? Idiots. I hope somebody was fired for THAT blunder.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
Even though authorial intent doesn't matter etc., I think the words of Del Toro on the subject of the kaiju and how villainous they are do provide some insight. This is from the same Birth. Movies. Death. issue I quoted before.quote:Q:You've become known as maybe the biggest defender of monsters in cinema. Do you feel you're turning your back on the monsters by making them the bad guys this time around?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
Now I want Del Toro to do a movie about wrestling.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
He one-upped you there with a giant robot vs. monsters wrestling movie. There were moves during those fights right out of the best luchadore bouts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 03:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 23:06 |
|
|
A Dirty Sock posted:He one-upped you there with a giant robot vs. monsters wrestling movie. There were moves during those fights right out of the best luchadore bouts. They do share an interesting similarity in that in both of them, mundane foreign objects are surprisingly powerful weapons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 03:17
|
|