|
Kaiju Cage Match posted:Pacific Effect 3 endings: All three of those things already happened in Pacific Rim.
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 16:58 |
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:All three of those things already happened in Pacific Rim. Four if you count Cherno Alpha as the hyped up murder machine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:It's weird that I mostly/only get this reaction from the Pacific Rim thread. I do not receive similar complaints about Her or Star Wars, despite using exactly the same approach in those threads. I am pretty sure that the reason you are getting so much flak is that people are going to love the ever living poo poo out of this movie regardless of its merits as an actual film. FFS it has giant robots beating giant monsters. Seriously, that is all some people want. I am one of these people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
Tommy 2.0 posted:I am pretty sure that the reason you are getting so much flak is that people are going to love the ever living poo poo out of this movie regardless of its merits as an actual film. FFS it has giant robots beating giant monsters. Seriously, that is all some people want. There's not exactly a shortage on great recent giant robot/giant monster films. War Of The Worlds, Cloverfield, Skyline, Transformers: Dark Of The Moon, King Kong, Crank: High Voltage, District 9, Hellboy 2... And these are obviously closely associated with alien invasion pictures like Battle: Los Angeles, Man Of Steel and so-on. You can branch out further from there, even. Cop drama End Of Watch is extremely similar to District 9, despite having no sci-fi elements and taking place in the present day. And that's just in the last five years or so. But if you legitimately don't care about the quality of the film, outside the base fact that there's large things onscreen, why protest? You could just post stuff on Deviantart. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
quote:War Of The Worlds, Cloverfield, Skyline, Transformers: Dark Of The Moon, King Kong, Crank: High Voltage, District 9, Hellboy 2... And these are obviously closely associated with alien invasion pictures like Battle: Los Angeles, Man Of Steel and so-on. I don't think that one's a giant monster movie, no matter how buff Jason Statham is. Your post in the gbs film critic thread is hilarious btw.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:I don't think that one's a giant monster movie, no matter how buff Jason Statham is. Your post in the gbs film critic thread is hilarious btw. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yb682WbGgOA&feature=youtube_gdata_player 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:There's not exactly a shortage on great recent giant robot/giant monster films. War Of The Worlds, Cloverfield, Skyline, Transformers: Dark Of The Moon, King Kong, Crank: High Voltage, District 9, Hellboy 2... And these are obviously closely associated with alien invasion pictures like Battle: Los Angeles, Man Of Steel and so-on. Except half those movies are pretty bad and, in the case of Transformers, unforgivably awful?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
Yaws posted:Except half those movies are pretty bad and, in the case of Transformers, unforgivably awful? Nope.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
That Crank 2 scene is amazing. Anyway, this whole conversation about how "YOU DON'T ACTUALLY LIKE THE MOVIE." is pretty loving dumb. What's Pacific Rim's merits as a film? It's entertaining escapism. Pretty much the main purpose of movies. Some films challenge you a lot more, but I'd argue you're still entertained in some way even if the film is incredibly powerful. Maybe it's I'm a big dumb head dumb rear end, but sometimes I like watching a fun movie. A movie that isn't stupid, but still at the same time, is incredibly simple. Simple is a good thing, especially today. When you look at the Nolan films, he does those convoluted plots really well, while still keeping everything lined up and working. Other filmmakers look at that and feel the need to copy it...and then you end up with films like "Star Trek Into Darkness" , "Man of Steel", and "Transformers". Big messy films that don't line up at all, and leave you going "Wha? What was the point of that?" It's frustrating. Pacific Rim doesn't do that. You have clear good guys, and clear bad guys. You have a simple task with a simple and universally understandable goal. Kill the monsters, save humanity. It gets right to the point. It makes a few little statements here and there about politics, and war, sacrifice, acceptance, friendships, uniting to work together....but it doesn't try and force some insanely dark subtext into the middle of it all, because that's not the point. The point is to watch a fun movie about robots punching monsters to make you happy. If that's not your thing, that's totally understandable. But that's why I loving love Pacific Rim. Don't tell me otherwise. Also the score. The score is really, really cool. And awesome. And any other adjective that makes film major's head spin. I'm not against people scrutinizing the film...go for it, I guess. But don't get all frustrated when it frustrates people who do enjoy it, and want to discuss the more positive aspects. (Toys, fan-art, music stuff...ect)
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
Pacific Rim is not actually simple at all. For a simple good versus evil narrative, watch Only God Forgives.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
I love Pacific Rim, but it isn't simple. You're right that its plot is not difficult to follow, but that is not the kind of simplicity that has provoked scrutiny. It has a lot to say, and in so saying it evokes many difficult concepts. It seems most people in this thread want to tell SuperMechagodzilla that he shouldn't have tried to read the film at all, which is a very unusual thing to say in an internet forum about discussing cinema. Luckily there are still a few who'd rather tell him why they think he is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Pacific Rim is not actually simple at all. For a simple good versus evil narrative, watch Only God Forgives. If you don't mind me asking (and if it isn't too much of a derail) what did you think of Only God Forgives?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Pacific Rim is not actually simple at all. For a simple good versus evil narrative, watch Only God Forgives. Well, of course Pacific Rim wasn't for you, if this is the first movie yo go to for simple Good Vs Evil. Man... But we may have different views on what simple means. A simple film to me is something like Raiders of the Lost Ark, or Dredd. The plot goes in a straight line from A to B without much convolution. Hopefully that clears up what I was saying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
Raiders and Dredd are about as far from 'simple' good vs. evil as you could get. Both directly equate the heroes and villains and portray the whole adventure as a useless joke.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
I think you're misunderstanding me calling the film simple and suggesting that it's about Good Vs Evil. I'm not. But the plot is pretty straight forward. Perhaps "Straight Forward" is a better way to explain what I mean. Dredd- "Take down Ma-Ma to get out of the building alive". Raiders - "Get the Ark of the Covenant before the Nazi's do". I just suggested Pacific Rim is a simple(straight forward) film, and the characters are very clearly defined in their place among archetypes. Not that the film is a simple story of good Vs evil.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
Oh man I completely forgot about that scene! I need to rewatch the Crank films.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
Why is SMG making me feel bad for liking a film about big robots vs big monsters? SMG is the true monster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 13:32
|
|
|
That's an odd way of looking at it. Really, Pacific Rim itself is making you feel bad by not being a better film. If I were wrong about the film, it would be very easy to correct me - as when I misremembered the dog's name. The basic reason you see these volumes of weird complaints is because I write truthfully. Those opposed to truth can only resort to... whatever it is that they're doing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:I think you're misunderstanding me calling the film simple and suggesting that it's about Good Vs Evil. I'm not. But the plot is pretty straight forward. Perhaps "Straight Forward" is a better way to explain what I mean. This only becomes the plot of Dredd halfway through, and the Nazis are defeated despite getting the Ark. And what's Dredd's clearly defined place among archetypes? I fully do not understand what you are talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Dredd- "Take down Ma-Ma to get out of the building alive" Dredd is a coming of age story, what you've written is just the setting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Eh you know what? What I had to say wasn't interesting. Sorry, y'all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/NECA_TOYS/status/426488656325402624 NECA's Cherno prototype.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:This only becomes the plot of Dredd halfway through, and the Nazis are defeated despite getting the Ark. And what's Dredd's clearly defined place among archetypes? I fully do not understand what you are talking about. I think you kind of mixed up what I was saying a bit. I'm saying two different things here, responding to two separate points. Raiders is a from point A to point B story. Semantics aside, you can sum up every plot point that happens in one sentence. Same with Dredd. Doesn't mean the film is hollow, and doesn't have anything going on, but from a plot standpoint it's pretty tight and straight forward. That's all I was saying. And two, I didn't say Dredd was an archetype. I said the characters in Pacific Rim are the archetypes. "The hero with a dark past." "The cocky alpha male." "The stern leader/mentor". "The tough woman with a dark past." Simple characters we already know. I guess the point I was trying to make before it got all muddled was that just because someone doesn't like the movie doesn't mean they need to justify their problems by making everyone believe they themselves don't like it. I have no problem with people wanting to dig deeper. That's totally cool. But don't tell me I don't like the film because I'm saying it's a fun exciting movie that entertained me for 2 hours. Movies are allowed to do that, you know. It's not a crime.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:That's an odd way of looking at it. Really, Pacific Rim itself is making you feel bad by not being a better film. Whilst you're addressing criticisms directed towards you, could you please explain to me your reasoning behind your 'baby kaiju = baby jesus' reading again? I'd previously disagreed because the film never portrays the baby kaiju as anything but a mindless belligerent and found that hard to reconcile that with a reading where the protagonists have squandered opportunities to form an alliance or understanding with the kaiju. Aside from expectations of the genre, where do you get the idea that the baby kaiju is actually meant to be revolutionary figure meant to bring change? Because I'm just not seeing it in the film.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
WastedJoker posted:Why is SMG making me feel bad for liking a film about big robots vs big monsters? I hope you're kidding. Plenty of people,who are far more articulate and knowledgeable about film than SMG, have spoken highly of this film. The only reason he seems to be "winning" is because he's the only one willing to spend 7 pages worth of time on this subject. It's like a war of attrition but one side doesn't care as much. Really, there are far better and more interesting critics/reviewers than SMG (some in this very thread). Pay attention to the one who aren't openly seeking attention.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
WastedJoker posted:Why is SMG making me feel bad for liking a film about big robots vs big monsters? Just stick him on ignore, it's not like he really believes that poo poo. He's just saying he does to piss people off. Pacific Rim was a great movie, you have no need to feel bad for liking it, and no amount of SMG's writings can change that. If his arguments were seriously intended to make legitimate criticism of the movie, then I'd actually give a poo poo what he thinks, but since (as others have pointed out) he has a history of this kind of pointless contrarianism, I can cheerfully ignore his ramblings, since it's most likely not what he actually thinks anyway. All it does is poison actual discussion of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
Yvonmukluk posted:Just stick him on ignore, it's not like he really believes that poo poo. He's just saying he does to piss people off. SMG is the Armond White of SomethingAwful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
Goons: mystified at the concept of intelligent disagreement with their opinions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
Y Kant Ozma Diet posted:I hope you're kidding. Plenty of people,who are far more articulate and knowledgeable about film than SMG, have spoken highly of this film. The only reason he seems to be "winning" is because he's the only one willing to spend 7 pages worth of time on this subject. It's like a war of attrition but one side doesn't care as much. take it back to SASS, goono
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
WastedJoker posted:Why is SMG making me feel bad for liking a film about big robots vs big monsters? To discuss monsters, we created monsters. jscolon2.0 fucked around with this message at 01:45 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
A Steampunk Gent posted:Whilst you're addressing criticisms directed towards you, could you please explain to me your reasoning behind your 'baby kaiju = baby jesus' reading again? I'd previously disagreed because the film never portrays the baby kaiju as anything but a mindless belligerent and found that hard to reconcile that with a reading where the protagonists have squandered opportunities to form an alliance or understanding with the kaiju. Aside from expectations of the genre, where do you get the idea that the baby kaiju is actually meant to be revolutionary figure meant to bring change? Because I'm just not seeing it in the film. Baby Kaiju Jesus is the product of a literal virgin birth in exactly the same way Darth Vader is. They fill the same role in each story, so the comparison is instructive. Vader is the Force made incarnate. When he sacrifices himself, the Force dies with him. The Force that dies is the Force of the prequels, which is basically defined as the raw power of God, aka The Dark Side. It's associated with liberal capitalism, genetic engineering, westernized Buddhism, transhumanist rhetoric and whatnot. In Pacific Rim, the imagery is the same. The master aliens wield the dark side as their weapon. Baby Kaiju Jesus is the incarnation of their kaiju hive-mind and their genetic engineering program - but he is also an accidental, excremental byproduct. He appears disgusting, belligerent, abject, filthy and so-on because the film is told from the perspective of the 'Romans'. By drifting with the kaiju, Newt essentially receives prophecy of 'the future'. So, when Baby Jesus dies, he gives up his teachings to Newt. Newt now has an opportunity to be a Pauline figure, spreading the Light Side, aka the Holy Spirit - preaching alliance with the Kaiju, dictatorship of the proletariat and whatnot. And he fails. Instead of allying with the kaiju, the heroes simply strive to eliminate them. The prophecy is ignored, and they remain destined to become the enemy they hate. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
quote:Baby Kaiju Jesus is the incarnation of their kaiju hive-mind and their genetic engineering program - but he is also an accidental, excremental byproduct. Why do you think it was accidental if it's a Jesus allegory? And also akin to poo poo when it came out of a birthing canal in a movie where you keep discussing how obvious a crevice in the earth is as a metaphorical vagina birthing aliens? RBA Starblade fucked around with this message at 04:05 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
This was passe back with Kristeva, where excremental waste and the feminine body are two of the primal symbolic forms of abjection. It's the dissolving of boundaries into disavowwed zones of exclusion; a shift in perspective where the "alternate" dimensions are revealed as a degeneration of the solid State and a possibility of radical transformation by redifining the surfaces through the burrowing of worm holes. It's associated with that 'third space', or holey space.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Why do you think it was accidental? And also akin to poo poo when it came out of a birthing canal in a movie where you keep discussing a metaphorical birth canal? As in Jurassic Park and Man of Steel, this is 'life finding a way' imagery. Recall that Kal El is the first natural birth in centuries, and carries the blueprints of Krypton in his DNA. He's the same character as the Baby Kaiju. He's also the same character as John Connor (born of a time paradox), Arnold in T2 (who carries Skynet inside himself, and destroys himself), and Marcus in T:Salvation (ditto). The point in every case is that, regardless of how they were intended, they are examples of the system turning against itself and 'committing suicide'. In that sense, they are errors. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
Newt stops all the kaiju groupie stuff after his encounter with Otachi. He becomes much more focused on actually stopping them after each of his drifts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
I have no idea what "It's the dissolving of boundaries into disavowwed zones of exclusion; a shift in perspective where the "alternate" dimensions are revealed as a degeneration of the solid State and a possibility of radical transformation by redifining the surfaces through the burrowing of worm holes." is supposed to mean but I guess the idea is that babies are poo poo because they're born of women which are poo poo in our society?SuperMechagodzilla posted:As Danger pointed out, Jesus literally came out of a birth canal but is simultaneously a metaphorical 'piece of poo poo'. Leaving aside Marcus because I don't remember much of Terminator: Salvation, Arnold and the baby Kaiju were subverted by outside forces to humanity's benefit, unlike Superman and John Connor. Superman rejects his species in favor of humanity, unlike the baby kaiju who, like all other kaiju as they are one, tries to kill humans until it is dead. In addition, the Terminator did not commit suicide because it was incapable of it; the baby didn't commit suicide, it died because it was unviable outside the womb (it chokes on it's umbilical cord then gets back up and eats Ron Perlman then dies). They might share some passing similarities but it ends there. I'm not really sure if it counts as a virgin birth if you're your own father though. RBA Starblade fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:I have no idea what "It's the dissolving of boundaries into disavowwed zones of exclusion; a shift in perspective where the "alternate" dimensions are revealed as a degeneration of the solid State and a possibility of radical transformation by redifining the surfaces through the burrowing of worm holes." is supposed to mean but I guess the idea is that babies are poo poo because they're born of women which are poo poo in our society? Speaking of which, what is the symbolism of the post credits scene?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:I have no idea what "It's the dissolving of boundaries into disavowwed zones of exclusion; a shift in perspective where the "alternate" dimensions are revealed as a degeneration of the solid State and a possibility of radical transformation by redifining the surfaces through the burrowing of worm holes." is supposed to mean but I guess the idea is that babies are poo poo because they're born of women which are poo poo in our society? Danger is talking about abjection, which refers to things like gore and poo poo that cause revulsion. This is linked to social abjection; refugees, the homeless, etc. For one of the best recent examples of this in popular culture, see the aliens in District 9, who are violent and unruly, pissing and vomiting everywhere. Although we supposedly live in a 'multicultural', 'postracial' society that promises human rights for all, plenty of people are excluded and implicitly inhuman. That exclusion is disavowed. See, for example, those held without trial in various 'black sites.' Although physically alive, they are 'legally dead,' denied human rights. Abject imagery triggers revulsion because it's about dissolving boundaries, like when something stops being a part of your body. So the imagery of the disgusting, dead fetus-monster carries some revolutionary potential, depending on how it's interpreted. It allows you to see to the other side. "There is a nice Hitchcockian detail in Finding Nemo: when the monstrous daughter of the dentist enters her father's office in which there is the aquarium with fishes, the music is that of the murder scene from Psycho. The link is more refined than the idea that the girl is a horror to small helpless animals: at the scene's end, Nemo escapes by being thrown into the wash basin hole. This is his passage from the world of the humans to his own life world (he ends up in the sea close to the building, where he rejoins his father), and we all know the key role of the motif of the hole in which water disappears in Psycho (the fade out of the water disappearing in this hole to Marion's dead eye, etc.). The hole in the wash basin thus functions as a secret passage way between the two totally disparate universes, the human one and the one of the fishes. This is true multiculturalism, this acknowledgement that the only way to pass to the Other's world is through what, in our world, appears as the poo poo exit, as the hole into the dark domain, excluded from our everyday reality, into which excrements disappear. The radical disparity of the two worlds is noted in a series of details-say, when the father dentist catches the small Nemo into his net, he thinks he saved Nemo, from certain death, failing to perceive that what made Nemo so terrified that he appeared on the brink of death was his own presence... However, the wager of the notion of Truth is that this obscene-unnameable link, secret channel, between worlds is not enough: there is a genuine "universal" Truth that cuts across the multitude of worlds." (Zizek, my bolding) The baby kaiju died for our sins, offering up the Drift and the potential for communication. This potential is squandered because Newt does not follow Christ and unite the poor of both worlds. Jesus did not commit suicide himself - he had to be crucified. This is why the Terminator must use a loophole in his programming and kill himself, by asking John to. Baby Kaiju Jesus is likewise 'crucified' by the three men there. Magnus Condomus posted:Speaking of which, what is the symbolism of the post credits scene? SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 06:03 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 05:50
|
|
|
I see the basic idea, but I don't quite get how that links birth to poo poo (or at least, that as a unique thing then if all kaiju are "birthed" from the breach).quote:The baby kaiju died for our sins, offering up the Drift and the potential for communication. But it doesn't do that, it openly tries to kill humanity, and only begins trying to kill humanity when humanity tries to obtain the piece needed for communication. Its purpose is to try to deny us the ability to drift with them a second time. RBA Starblade fucked around with this message at 06:13 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 16:58 |
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:I see the basic idea, but I don't quite get how that links birth to poo poo (or at least, that as a unique thing then if all kaiju are "birthed" from the breach). Baby kaiju's mom is the only one we see attempting to communicate, though. It attempts to drift with Newt before the protagonists interrupt.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 06:12
|
|
