|
Cherno and Typhoon were fodder from the beginning and it's really weird people have spent so much time talking about their tactical abilities. I guess a shot or two of them kicking rear end in the past may helped, but it was pretty clear their role in the movie was to die. Maybe learn english next time suckers. SMG is right though, the best shot is the hand enveloping the cockpit, but it's so brief. As much as the movie tried to link the pilots and the Jaegers, they seemed to occupy spaces miles apart 99% of the time. That'd be OK if the moments where the video-game world of the kaiju and robots violently intruded into the real world of the pilots were a little more...impactful, but the few moments there were were hyperedited into a mush. The opening scene was the best about this - the tone is almost playful, they save the toy boat, easily dispatch the monster, but then hero guy's arm gets broken, hero-bro gets flung out an eyehole, and hero collapses back on shore. The link between robot and pilot seemed much more physical there than it was throughout the rest of the movie. And people keep harping on "It's the people, not the jaegers!" but is that really the case? Our sources of that line are cocky aussie guy (gets his rear end kicked in person, redeems himself in a robot) and leader (who bumbles his way through the movie until he's put back into a jaeger).
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 16:22 |
|
|
DStecks posted:By the expanded universe, Striker Eureka finished construction a few months before Gipsy Danger was destroyed by Knifehead, and the film heavily implies that Gipsy was the first Jaeger to ever fall in combat. They might have figured they wouldn't need any more than they had, at least for a long time, and all the money for new Jaegers got earmarked for the Wall. By the time Jaegers started falling, the budget was already set, and the circumstances just convinced the politicians that the Wall was a better project any way if the Jaegers couldn't win any more. Yeah I thought about that, but it still doesn't seem to make much sense. We are told let's say 8-12 months out from the end of the movie that they're discontinuing the Jaegar program and focusing on the wall, which seems to be a 'promising solution' or whatever, implying that at that point, sometime in 2024, they are in the early stages of wall building/investment. If you do look at the expanded universe, the Jaegar timeline shows them starting to steadily lose Jaegars beginning with Gipsy, with the result that something like 1/3-1/2 of them are destroyed by the time the Wall stuff even really comes into play - and in that time, none are built. Like, it makes sense that they would stop initially thinking it was enough. But when you start losing Jaegars and all the while Kaiju frequency and toughness are increasing...it's strange. And strange is fine, but they specifically mention that the rare of destruction/construction as a reason for abandoning the Jaegars for the Wall, and that's the part that in the context of everything else doesn't make any damned sense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 00:25
|
|
|
wyoak posted:Cherno and Typhoon were fodder from the beginning and it's really weird people have spent so much time talking about their tactical abilities. I guess a shot or two of them kicking rear end in the past may helped, but it was pretty clear their role in the movie was to die. Maybe learn english next time suckers. quote:And people keep harping on "It's the people, not the jaegers!" but is that really the case? Our sources of that line are cocky aussie guy (gets his rear end kicked in person, redeems himself in a robot) and leader (who bumbles his way through the movie until he's put back into a jaeger). Sure. Otherwise, why even have so many varieties of Jaegar if certain ones are just better than others? Was Cherno REALLY a better Jaegar than every other Mk 3 and Mk 4 that got destroyed before it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 00:32
|
|
|
wyoak posted:Cherno and Typhoon were fodder from the beginning and it's really weird people have spent so much time talking about their tactical abilities. I guess a shot or two of them kicking rear end in the past may helped, but it was pretty clear their role in the movie was to die. Maybe learn english next time suckers. There are a lot of weird decisions in presenting how the pilots interface with the machine. There is some rudimentary match-cutting - the pilots swing their fists, cut to Cherno's punch connecting - but it's not employed very often. Otherwise, the cutaway to the cockpit are usually fairly necessary. The fight scenes are just interrupted by pictures of dudes yelling. As noted before, the windshields are fairly opaque, so it's not really possible to see outside. There are no POV shots from the Jaegers or their pilots. Besides the one shot where Hero Brother cradles the holographic fishing boat in his hand, the HUD is pretty much a bunch of indiscernable flashing shapes. If the visual logic were consistent, shouldn't Cherno's pilots be throwing their punches at a holographic kaiju? Shouldn't we see a holographic landscape around their feet? Even basic stuff like the lighting and choice of camera angles is not always complementary to the CGI action. It's like if all the Matrix's fight scenes were rhythmically interrupted with pictures of Neo sleeping, and pictures of the green text. You're exactly right that the shots inside the cockpits are shots of people playing a videogame. They might as well be 1000 miles away, for all its worth, and all the shaking camerawork and shouting do not compensate for it. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Nov 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 00:39
|
|
|
Habibi posted:Yeah I thought about that, but it still doesn't seem to make much sense. We are told let's say 8-12 months out from the end of the movie that they're discontinuing the Jaegar program and focusing on the wall, which seems to be a 'promising solution' or whatever, implying that at that point, sometime in 2024, they are in the early stages of wall building/investment. If you do look at the expanded universe, the Jaegar timeline shows them starting to steadily lose Jaegars beginning with Gipsy, with the result that something like 1/3-1/2 of them are destroyed by the time the Wall stuff even really comes into play - and in that time, none are built. Like, it makes sense that they would stop initially thinking it was enough. But when you start losing Jaegars and all the while Kaiju frequency and toughness are increasing...it's strange. And strange is fine, but they specifically mention that the rare of destruction/construction as a reason for abandoning the Jaegars for the Wall, and that's the part that in the context of everything else doesn't make any damned sense. I think the problem here is that we're trying to put together the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that was never made to be solved. The gap between Gipsy being destroyed and the Jaeger program ending isn't what we're meant to see, we're meant to see a turn in the war followed by politicians making a stupid call on a fix that won't work. We're trying to find too much logic behind the scenes, when what GDT was focusing on was what the things we see mean. "All iron, no alloys" makes no real-world sense, but it conveys ideas of purity and strength. "Gipsy's analogue" makes zero sense, but the idea is that it's old but still reliable. Pacific Rim isn't written as a window into an alternate world, it's an artistic work that conveys feelings more than ideas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
DStecks posted:I think the problem here is that we're trying to put together the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that was never made to be solved. The gap between Gipsy being destroyed and the Jaeger program ending isn't what we're meant to see, we're meant to see a turn in the war followed by politicians making a stupid call on a fix that won't work. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 00:49
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:There are a lot of weird decisions in presenting how the pilots interface with the machine. There is some rudimentary match-cutting - the pilots swing their fists, cut to Cherno's punch connecting - but it's not employed very often. Otherwise, the cutaway to the cockpit are usually fairly necessary. The fight scenes are just interrupted by pictures of dudes yelling. quote:As noted before, the windshields are fairly opaque, so it's not really possible to see outside. There are no POV shots from the Jaegers or their pilots. Besides the one shot where Hero Brother cradles the holographic fishing boat in his hand, the HUD is pretty much a bunch of indiscernable flashing shapes. What we see of the interior of Cherno's cockpit shows thicker metal along the honeycombs and consequently smaller glass hexagons, but you can see the outside through it from one shot, as it seems their HUD works differently. quote:If the visual logic were consistent, shouldn't Cherno's pilots be throwing their punches at a holographic kaiju? Shouldn't we see a holographic landscape around their feet?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 01:01
|
|
|
Habibi posted:Oh yeah there was a whole lot of technobabble there I mentioned the dialogue (which DID hype them up, even if it was a few lines), the heroic music, the design, the camera work on the jaegers, AND the marketing. You focused on the marketing because it was extraneous to the film.. You also disregarded the lines about the jaegers (i.e. Cherno patrolling Siberia) which again DID build up the mystique of the characters. But look at this shot composition:  Yes, shooting from below emphasizes their size, but that's not the only thing going on. Sure, I suppose it's interesting to build these jaegers up and then pull the rug from under us and thwart our expectations, but the rest of the movie is so earnest in its tone, I don't buy it. I suppose he was expecting all the elements I described to get across their sheer power that he didn't have to sell it any more. But I think he did.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 01:04
|
|
especially since I've already pointed out that everything you need to see is clearly visible on the screen without needing to refer to anything else. And I only called out your marketing comment because your initial complaint specifically referenced the hype in the dialogue, and that's what I was responding to until you suddenly started talking about marketing. And as I said then, if you're going by marketing hype, I don't really care about it and I'm not going to get in the way of your complaining, so feel free. So ooh yeeah I'm obviously a big hypocrite whatever.
|
Cherno's power hat being melted by acid is an analogue to the lumbering metaphorical dinosaur of global socialism, in the form of a nuclear-powered ushanka(1), being melted by by the slick, invasive forces of imperialist colonialist capitalism(2), in the form of a corrosive acidic Coca Cola campaign into new markets, spouted by an actual giant dinosaur(3). (1) The ushanka became ubiquitous with the Soviet Union and socialism when it became part of the official winter uniform of the USSR. (2) The aliens are invading specifically to plunder our natural resources and kill all natives, aligning with the purest form of capitalistic disregard for externalities. (3) Although Otachi was not actually around millions of years ago, some form of Kaiju was.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 01:10
|
|
|
Wizchine posted:I mentioned the dialogue (which DID hype them up, even if it was a few lines), the heroic music, the design, the camera work on the jaegers, AND the marketing. You focused on the marketing because it was extraneous to the film.. You also disregarded the lines about the jaegers (i.e. Cherno patrolling Siberia) which again DID build up the mystique of the characters. I also didn't disregard the lines - I mentioned them. They were about the pilots.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 01:38
|
|
|
Habibi posted:Why do you think this would make for consistent visual logic? Consistent with what? I truly don't understand why holographic Kaiju in Cherno's conn room is consistent with anything else we see on the screen. The first fight against knifeguy establishes for the audience how the robots work (making the whole expository prologue unnecessary, but whatever). If the pilot wants the robot to pick up a boat, he interacts with a little blue wireframe of a boat on the holographic AR HUD thing. This establishes how the pilots perceive and interact with the world. This isn't consistent because... it's not consistent. The world only infrequently appears as a lil blue wireframe, and the characters are rarely shown actually touching these holograms. There is no such holographic visual when, say, they put a kaiju in a headlock. More than half the time, the screens display only abstract, raw data. Imagine if we cut from Cherno Alpha punching lizard guy in the face to the buff russian dude delivering jabs at a holographic lizard. Now, I would assume your response would be 'well, maybe each Jaeger canonically has a different operating system!' - but that doesn't have anything to do with the consistency of the visual presentation. If anything, it only underlines the point. It's not like there are meaningful differences between each robot OS - assuming such differences even exist. What if Cherno's cockpit had crummier low-poly graphics or something? That'd be a good gag. Your assertion that there was one throwaway shot of their transparent windscreen only further confuses things. Do they see through the windscreen, or with the HUD wireframe? If both, how do they align? Why are through-the-window shots largely eschewed after that first shot? Why are the windscreens semi-opaque most of the time? Who is using night-vision technology in the opening prologue? Why don't the robots use night-vision? Did they use cameras to scan the boat to get the wireframe, or like sonar? It all comes down to how the pilots - the characters we are supposed to care about, mind you - think, and feel, and see. If they see with Sonar, that's a pretty big deal. Like, check the ending of The Dark Knight. Sonar vision is not only used creatively, but it's crucial to the themes of the film. Perhaps there is a shot of the characters looking out a clear viewscreen. I certainly don't remember it. But it's easy to imagine a better alternative: what if a film were presented as found footage from the robot's dash cam? As less of an extreme: why don't we ever see anything remotely like a 'dash cam' POV? These are creative choices that mean things. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 01:53 on Nov 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 01:50
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The first fight against knifeguy establishes for the audience how the robots work (making the whole expository prologue unnecessary, but whatever). If the pilot wants the robot to pick up a boat, he interacts with a little blue wireframe of a boat on the holographic AR HUD thing. This establishes how the pilots perceive and interact with the world. quote:This isn't consistent because... it's not consistent. The world only infrequently appears as a lil blue wireframe, and the characters are rarely shown actually touching these holograms. There is no such holographic visual when, say, they put a kaiju in a headlock. More than half the time, the screens display only abstract, raw data. quote:Imagine if we cut from Cherno Alpha punching lizard guy in the face to the buff russian dude delivering jabs at a holographic lizard.  v quote:Now, I would assume your response would be 'well, maybe each Jaeger canonically has a different operating system!' - but that doesn't have anything to do with the consistency of the visual presentation. If anything, it only underlines the point. It's not like there are meaningful differences between each robot OS - assuming such differences even exist. What if Cherno's cockpit had crummier low-poly graphics or something? That'd be a good gag. quote:Your assertion that there was one throwaway shot of their transparent windscreen only further confuses things. Do they see through the windscreen, or with the HUD wireframe? If both, how do they align? Why are through-the-window shots largely eschewed after that first shot? Why are the windscreens semi-opaque most of the time? Who is using night-vision technology in the opening prologue? Why don't the robots use night-vision? Did they use cameras to scan the boat to get the wireframe, or like sonar? quote:It all comes down to how the pilots - the characters we are supposed to care about, mind you - think, and feel, and see. If they see with Sonar, that's a pretty big deal. Like, check the ending of The Dark Knight. Sonar vision is not only used creatively, but it's crucial to the themes of the film. quote:These are creative choices that mean things. You know what, I'm just going to check out of this discussion, because you've gone from arguing actual onscreen inconsistencies in the movie to, when those inconsistencies were shown to actually be pretty consistent with the onscreen antics, complaining about particular facets of the movie that you would for reasons of personal preference rather have had done differently, and trying to respond rationally and contextually to that would be even dumber. Habibi fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Nov 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
Habibi posted:At best, the only 'rule(s)' you can derive from that scene is that the HUD *can* display wireframe models, or perhaps that it only displays them for smaller objects that the Jaegar interacts with. You're basing your entire assumption on an erroneous oversimplification. It's not an assumption; I am not talking about how the robots work. I am talking about the film's visuals. Not the robots' OS. Not how the OS works. The film. I am talking about the visuals of the film. I repeat: I am not predicting how actually-existing combat robots will be operated in the future.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 02:52
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:It's not an assumption; I am not talking about how the robots work. I am talking about the film's visuals. Yes, I understand that. The assumption I am talking about is you taking one instance of a wireframe hologram to represent a real world object and extrapolating it to 'this is how they interact with the world [in the movie, to clarify]' even though we can see in that very scene that that is not a universal rule (because, if it was, there WOULD be a Kaiju hologram, see?). And given the difference in approach, the only rule that could be said to be established in that scene is that 'Jaegar pilots have varied ways of representing and interacting with the world.' e: Okay, for example: in the Otachi fight, there is no tanker hologram in the pilots' hands (there is a glow similar to when other weapons are armed) - so perhaps the hologram effect is only something they use when needing to delicately interact with something, like a ship whose crew they could throw off the boat with a careless movement. Who knows. But it certainly is not set up to be THE way they interact with everything. Habibi fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Nov 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 03:01
|
|
|
The illusion of the holograms is representative of the unreal world in which the characters are placed. It is, in effect, the end result of the applied premise; to examine it, it is nothing but smoke and mirrors. The characters are lying to themselves and to us, and we are both aware of this and encouraging it. Only the implicit surrealism of the whole setting allows us to carry on unfazed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 05:09
|
|
|
The difference is between 'would' and 'should'. The wireframe is much more effective at conveying information to the audience than the other stuff. it should be employed more frequently. Now, it can make sense that it would be a 'high detail mode' reserved for exceptional events, both in and outside of the diegesis. However, this exceptional and very-important high-detail image is the first thing we see in the film. Narratively, this is a bad choice. First impressions matter, and if you use the most interesting and compelling image in the first scene of the film... well, there's nowhere to go. Given that the pilots are directly connected to the computers, shouldn't the highest-resolution images appear at the end of the film, when the protagonists are really focussed and effective? By being the first scene, the fight against Knifehead also establishes more-or-less how these things go down. It's the generic template that illustrates both the win and loss conditions of your typical Pacific Rim Brand battel. You can argue that, canonically, this is a special and atypical event - but the film has provided no other frame of reference. This is the norm.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 09:35
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The difference is between 'would' and 'should'. Yeah, I don't really give a poo poo and am not even going to read past this. You made a claim about 'how it works' that yet again wasn't consistent with what the movie showed onscreen and have now once more moved the goal posts back to 'what I think should have been' instead of anything that made sense with what we're shown on screen, which is just mental wankery. I think this my curtain. Good night. Habibi fucked around with this message at 12:32 on Nov 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 12:29
|
|
|
The way the interface is visualized is not consistent, and should be more consistent. Your stance is that it doesn't need to be consistent so long as there is an underlying canonical plot explanation. You're not actually disagreeing with my point (that the presentation is not consistent (because the film continually switches from the characters interacting with holograms, to using a direct neural connection, to simply reading scrolling text and pressing buttons)).
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
A few things: There were almost no shots of the Rangers POV inside the Conn-Pods. There was some absolutely beautiful concept art that did this, which didn't end up in the movie. For example, in the artbook, there is a shot in Crimson Typhoon's conn-pod which is right behind the 'third' pilot's head. You can see the other two pilots from behind, the distinctive round yellow viewscreen, and the scenery beyond. Most of the conn-pod shots were facing the front of the pilots, showing them moving and talking (which does make sense) but it would have been nice to have more 'pilot's-eye' shots, to put the audience themselves in the Jaegers and imagine what it must be like in that moment. Shots like that are, to me very immersive and help connect whats happening inside the conn-pod with whats happening outside. Gypsy Danger was not the first Jaeger to get 'destroyed'. However, his battle against Knifehead did occur at a time when the tide was turning against the Jaegers. This was due to two reasons- in 2019-2020 there was a massive uptick in Kaiju attacks, and an increase in Category III. More and bigger Kaiju means its inevitable Jaegers are going to get destroyed. The different kill counts probably reflect the time period more than the skills of the pilots/Jaegers. Coyote Tango only had 2 kills, but this was actually consistent with most of the Mark I Jaegers. We are to assume that their 'slapped together' nature was more of a stopgap measure until better more reliable Jaegers could be built. Even in the heyday, with 5 shatterdomes along the pacific rim, its still hard to predict where a Kaiju will attack. This forces the PPDC to spread their forces comparitavely thin, meaning its likely that with the exception of the 3 Jaeger drop in Manila that Herc and Raleigh participated in, and the battle of Hong Kong, most fights were likely 1v1 which as the Kaiju get bigger and nastier steadily puts the Jaegers at a disadvantage. In addition, the Kaiju are always attacking from the ocean, and all the Kaiju are shown to be excellent swimmers. To keep the Kaiju from devasting the coastal cities, you have to fight them out in the ocean. However, that plays into their natural strengths. For example, even though Otachi was capable of flight the whole time, she didn't 'fly' to Hong Kong, she swam there. Movie logic aside, its established that once a Kaiju passes through the Breach, its going to arrive at its destination quickly, and only Jaegers that are in the vicinity are even going to be in a position to do anything about it. We don't know how fast the helicopters carry the Jaegers around, or how long it took the PPDC to ferry Striker Eureka from Sydney to Hong Kong (easily thousands of miles away)but we have to assume the Kaiju can swim faster than helicopters can carry Jaegers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The way the interface is visualized is not consistent, and should be more consistent. No, man, you're fabricating inconsistencies where none exist. Just because you see it working differently in different circumstances is not a sign of inherent inconsistency, sorry dude.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
No other jaeger interacts with an object the same way again so calling it inconsistent doesn't make any sense. It seemed a lot more like a "don't crush this" visual cue than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 19:43
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:Stuff Yeah I would have loved more in-Conn Room shots, but the thing is, the movie was so gorgeous that I could say that about a lot of things. And while, as a 32 year old, I have discovered that my inner ten year old had a surprising tolerance for beautifully conceived giant robots fighting beautifully conceived giant monsters, and would probably happily sit through a 4 hour scene of Cherno Alpha and Knifehead having a philosophical discussion, I realize they have to actually make a movie and stuff. But man it would be awesome if they released like mini films of part Jaegar fights or in-universe events. Not like a prequel as such, but more like what was done with Animatrix. Also, I always figured the fastest way for Striker to get to HK from Australia was to run most of the way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
Tezcatlipoca posted:No other jaeger interacts with an object the same way again so calling it inconsistent doesn't make any sense. It seemed a lot more like a "don't crush this" visual cue than anything else. Yeah I've been trying to get this across in like half a dozen different ways with no luck, so I give up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
Habibi posted:No, man, you're fabricating inconsistencies where none exist. Just because you see it working differently in different circumstances is not a sign of inherent inconsistency, sorry dude. I am (and have been) writing about visual consistency. As in design. You seem to have understood that as logical consistency, which is not really related. So: when I say the visuals could be clearer and less muddled, I am not saying the visuals are objectively impossible or 'inherently illogical' or whatever. I'm talking about how effectively information about the characters' experiences is conveyed to the audience. It is rarely clear, exactly, how the characters do basic things like 'see'. Consequently, it's unclear what the characters are experiencing in a given scene. For example: inside the drift, Mako has a hyperreal nightmare flashback thing where she re-enacts her childhood trauma. Hero Guy enters the dream too, and walks around inside it, like a fully immersive virtual reality. Do the pilots - given that their brains are directly connected to the robot's sensors - experience kaiju combat as a similarly fully-immersive full-colour dream-state? Or, do they use the windscreens to see - with the AR/HUD elements only supplementing their natural vision? Or, do the interactive AR holograms take precedence over natural vision? Is it like The Matrix, where they 'see' by interpreting raw data on monochromatic screens? This is important. Return to The Matrix's example: each way of perceiving reality has major implications. You have 'natural vision' in the real world, simulated vision inside the matrix, people watching the matrix's code on computer screens, and finally Neo learning to see the simulation's code 'from the inside', as a kind of manipulable untextured wireframe thing. Likewise, Pacific Rim has the key scenes where Hero Guy tells Mako which of her perceptions are real. ("This isn't real!" / "This is actually happening!"). It's fairly important to know which perceptions he's referring to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 07:03
|
|
|
Jesus Christ  (a) that post actually broke my awful app: (b) how far away you are now from your original posts is hilarious
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 07:48
|
|
|
Habibi posted:Jesus Christ He's been consistent from the start in talking about issues from a coherent film point of view; you seem wilfully ignorant about misunderstanding this. Yes, there probably are in universe explanations for most points but, taken as a whole, as a movie, they lead to a lot of confusing cues which don't help the audience interpret what's going on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 08:40
|
|
|
Joe_Richter posted:He's been consistent from the start in talking about issues from a coherent film point of view; you seem wilfully ignorant about misunderstanding this. Yes, there probably are in universe explanations for most points but, taken as a whole, as a movie, they lead to a lot of confusing cues which don't help the audience interpret what's going on. Yeah, given your 'in universe and explanations' comment, I am going to assume you either haven't read what I've been saying or you just tuned into this conversation and haven't seen where it's come from ("they don't even show acid on Cherno's windshield orvwater getting into the cockpit!"). If his initial point was simply 'some things were confusing,' rather than 'these things that weren't absent from the movie were absent from the movie (even though they weren't)' I wouldn't have bothered. But it wasn't. Habibi fucked around with this message at 11:40 on Nov 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 11:29
|
|
|
I wrote that: "The experience of Cherno's pilots is continually de-emphasized" since, during their only action scene, "the camera pans up briefly to show some drips from somewhere vaguely above them. There's otherwise no indication of how ... damage actually relates to the pilots". This was all specifically referring to the interior cockpit shots. Your responses have so far had little or nothing to do with the how the pilots' experience of the damage is emphasized in the interior cockpit shots. (Odd, since that's presumably the entire point of cutting to the interiors in the first place.) SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 12:41 on Nov 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 12:37
|
|
|
Habibi posted:Jesus Christ I haven't been following, and I loved the movie, but SMG is making sense to me and makes good points. His insights have value.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 14:55
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I wrote that: quote:When Cherno is hit with acid, suddenly they're exposed to the elements. However, you don't see the acid actually melt away their windshield. You don't see the wind and water suddenly affecting them. You don't see a hole where the wall used to be. You even don't get an earlier POV shot that establishes what the kaiju are undermining by tearing away the wall and all shoving their hand up in there. The experience of Cherno's pilots is continually de-emphasized for some reason - we watch them drown, but the film does not evoke the feeling of drowning. Which is a bizarre interpretation of events. When you see acid melting the top of their windshield, you see a small amount of water sprinkling into the cockpit. Then Leatherback jumps onto their back and starts tearing into Cherno from all sides and throwing chunks away, only after which you get a POV of them struggling in the cockpit as water is now really gushing in. The "experience of the pilots" may in your view be de-emphasized (probably more a function of them not being on screen very long during a very short fight), but the way you wound up there doesn't really make much sense in the context of the movie. Again why it's really more just "well I wish they showed more of this" rather than "it didn't make sense that..." You then suggested that their face plates should have fritzed out when Cherno got hit by acid, which was an assumption not consistent with anything else we see in the movie. You then further suggested quote:"a theoretical interior shot where you would see the wall melt away from the inside" You then said quote:There is no shot of Cherno's windshield cracking , "that analogy doesn't work because you see the face missing from the inside, not the outside" - as if that even matters as related to the damage it suffers.You also said quote:his is 'visualized' by the little thought-men yelling expository dialogue about how acid has melted the hat. The expository dialogue stands for a failure to visualize what is happening. The filmmakers could have easily shown them losing power with visual cues. (The lights dimming, a switch to a backup generator, things of that sort) So, again, whatever valid points in terms of the Robot/Pilot interaction you may have brought up, they were largely based on things that didn't happen how you thought they happened (which is why I suggested rewatching the movie, because I will say all of this stuff happens very fast and is hard to catch in real time), were actually represented by the movie, or were complete assumptions you made (face plate glitching, 'how the robots interact with the world' rule, etc...) that aren't actually consistent with anything else we see onscreen. Which is why I said that you were primarily engaged in just mental wankery about how the scenes or movie should have been different / more to your preferences rather than talking about actual inherent inconsistencies. Mind, there is nothing wrong with mental wankery, and I would have loved (as noted multiple times) to see more examples of robot/pilot interaction or of how the robots worked, etc... But you were trying to tie it in directly to what we see on the screen in a way that made very little sense for the reasons noted above. Habibi fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Nov 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
Greetings. I haven't actually watched the movie yet because I want to be sure before going in that there will indeed be rocket punches. I know the thread title explicitly mentions them but I was hoping someone could verify this and and confirm that the statement wasn't just overzealous speculation by the OP. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
There's an elbow rocket The Russian one has a punch on some kind of piston system that's pretty sweet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:There's an elbow rocket Those sound like some m. deece scenes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
James Hardon posted:Greetings. I haven't actually watched the movie yet because I want to be sure before going in that there will indeed be rocket punches. I know the thread title explicitly mentions them but I was hoping someone could verify this and and confirm that the statement wasn't just overzealous speculation by the OP. Thanks. There's rocket punches, piston punches, shipping container punches, leaping punches, two-handed hammer punches, "YEAH DAD! POWER MOVE!" punches, rotating blade punches. Punches come in all sizes! That's a fact, it's true! All the colors of the rainbow, from mauve to blue!
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
Habibi posted:There's rocket punches, piston punches, shipping container punches, leaping punches, two-handed hammer punches, "YEAH DAD! POWER MOVE!" punches, rotating blade punches. Punches come in all sizes! That's a fact, it's true! All the colors of the rainbow, from mauve to blue! There's also the baseball bat scene and "FOR MY FAMILY" so it's got it all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
Habibi posted:which is technically true, but doesn't make much sense in the context of your intent to demonstrate that we don't know how that area got destroyed given that there is a giant gorilla monster sitting on the robot, visibly tearing it apart (with hands the size of its 'hat'), and punching it in the head and chest. When I used a chimp attacking a man to illustrate that we wouldn't normally question the resulting physical chaos, your response was, It doesn't "matter" in the sense that it's not a deal-breaker, but it is the difference between a Star Trek episode where a ship gets pewwed and the interior representation is the camera shaking and the actors flinging themselves about versus a superior scene like Yancy getting physically removed from the cockpit. I don't think it ruined the scene or anything, and I wouldn't even call it lazy considering how much effects money they probably used on the scene as it was, but it certainly would have been better to break out of the vintage-SciFi way of doing things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 19:56
|
|
|
Habibi posted:it's really more just "well I wish they showed more of this" rather than "it didn't make sense that..." You seem to be confusing issues of clarity with alleged 'plot holes.' When I say the visuals are unclear, this has nothing to do with plotting or 'plot holes'. When I say that the tearing-open of Cherno's cockpit is presented in such a wide exterior shot as to essentially take place offscreen, I am not alleging that the plot makes no sense. Rather, I am saying that the presentation de-emphasizes the experiences of the characters. Likewise, when I say that the visual design of the man-machine interface is muddled, I am not alleging that the plot makes no sense. Rather, I am saying that the presentation does not clearly or consistently depict the experiences of the characters. If I were complaining about plot holes, I would refer to the plotting - and not such things as the editing, cinematography, and production design.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 20:02
|
|
|
You see the cockpits get torn apart in a wide exterior shots because Cherno and Typhoon are as much characters as the pilots, so they get treated the same way as a man getting ravaged by a monkey. Or maybe there is more to be read into the scene.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 23:05
|
|
|
I don't know why you're seriously arguing with someone who claimed that the scenes of Cherno's destruction didn't feature the feeling of drowning. SMG's not really bringing his A game to this thread and it shows.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 16:22 |
|
|
Milky Moor posted:I don't know why you're seriously arguing with someone who claimed that the scenes of Cherno's destruction didn't feature the feeling of drowning. Yeah, he tried to argue that the dog was female when the dog's giant balls bounce across the screen the first time he's introduced. A lot of his arguments are based on poo poo that is just flat out wrong. I feel like he hasn't actually watched the movie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 00:45
|
|