[McLovin]

Saw it and enjoyed. Del Toro inserts just enough character arc to pace the movie, but not enough to detract from the main show. Yeah the characters are 100% stock (the loner with a past, the eager newbie, the hotshot, the wise man, the grizzled vet, the wacky scientists, the sleazy crimelord, etc) but I still enjoyed them, especially the scientists and Ron Perlman. I liked the kaiju-corpse scavenging angle, that was a brilliant addition to the film. The scene of Mako's past, though again totally predictable, was nevertheless very well done.

And speaking of scavenging, am I totally off or was one of the guys who goes into the pregnant kaiju Del Toro himself? Sure looked like him.

Anyone else watch the crab Kaiju and have a craving for butter and lemon? Mmmmmmmmm....

Anyway, great fun for anyone who grew up on Spectraman, Ultraman, Voltron, Tranzor Z, and the like.

[QuickTidal]

Silencer, on 18 July 2013 - 11:34 AM, said:

Because large 3D-capable televisions are *so* much more expensive than regular ones? And continually dropping in price, too. And frankly not that many people have high-end home theatre setups, so the sound at least is unlikely to be comparable. Picture, sure, but that's HDTV for you. The main reason people still go to pictures, if you ask me, is the fact that it's an "outing", and that, yup, movies still release at the cinema months before they are available on DVD or Blu-ray (or in a decent quality for download). I seriously doubt 3D is pulling people to theatres - and if it is, then what is that doing to DVD sales, if your argument is really that people are choosing the theatre over watching at home? Besides which, you are presenting a false dichotomy in your argument - it's not either/or. It's "do I watch the movie at the theatre or wait and get the DVD/download?", and you can choose to do both - does the addition of 3D make any difference in most people's decision? *Especially* considering it is more expensive (never mind if you're getting fleeced for the 3D glasses every time, and haven't taken a couple of pairs home).

Besides which, I hardly have to "get used to it". Aside from the fact that such a terrible argument (never mind the overtones of "fuck consumer choice - you're getting 3D whether you like it or not" - and guess where that will end up? Oh yeah, no more cinemas) doesn't really add anything to the discussion, it's not like I *have* to see movies in 3D. Fortunately for film producers, they still provide the option to view regular screenings. So I get to actively place my money towards the experience I want - and I do. The second a movie is not available in 2D, unless it is the experience of the year AND the 3D is good, I'm just not going to watch it, period.

I'd actually be interested in some figures on the sales - and I mean proper figures, which include availability and proportion of screening times - of 3D vs regular films. Regardless of the numbers, it would be interesting to see.


And I'm going to have to disagree with the simple distinction about post-processed 3D. Yes, that is the worst type of 3D, but it is by no means solely guilty of being 1) unnecessary, 2) gimmicky or 3) poorly done. Real 3D has a higher hit rate, but when you're comparing to "uniformly atrocious" that's not hard to do. >.<


...it's been a while since you and I disagreed on something, Quick, lol!

I should note, though I've gotten used to 3D and enjoy it on big. bombastic movies where it's been done right...I am in no way a proponent that it's the BEST option to get people into the theatre.

The whole theatre-as-outing thing has lost heavy steam in the last decade. If that wasn't the case then you wouldn't be seeing 3D hang about for so long. I'll give you some context. The first time 3D showed up (in the 1960's) it was gimmicky and meant as such. Though it lingered with special releases over the 1970's and 1980's, the main drive of 3D in the 1960's was MAYBE 3 or 4 years tops. After that it petered out as the gimmick it was. But the recent 3D resurgence really and truly began with GHOST OF THE ABYSS (2003)...and that's ten years ago. Gimmicks don't stick around for ten years.

Now, I could go on about how they are here to stay and why, but others have said it better than I could, so here's an article with some stats.

http://www.businessi...ollywood-2013-1

It's not an accept this or die mentality. It's a 3D movies aren't going anywhere, so you either see the 2D option (which I'm sure will always exist) or you see the 3D option. What I fail to understand is the complaints about 3D. If I don't want to see it that way I don't have to (usually). So it's kind of a let it be and do your own thing deal.

As to the home video thing.

A. 3D tv's are actually pretty good. My brother-in-law has one and it wasn't too shabby.

B. Honestly I LOVE films. Love them. Always have. I spend upwards of $400 each year on the Toronto International Film Festival...but in the day of cell phones, inconsiderate theatre-goers and such...if you offered me the chance to watch the same movies at home on my HDTV even with my sound setup (basic surround) I would...in a heartbeat. That's an unfortunate state of affairs, but it's true. Hollywood is aware of this. 3D is the bullwark against the attrition level of home video watchers, downloaders ect.

Digital projectors (which became the DeFacto way to screen films in around 2002) are now running the films essentially exactly how you see them at home. There is no post-theatre cleanup required. It is literally a digital file sent to the theatres, and that exact same digital file is then copied/compressed onto a disc for home use. There is virtually no difference between theatre and home video any longer (speaking of BluRay, not DVD mind you) as both sound and picture quality of the film are present and perfect in the file. This is not lost on the suits in Hollyweird. As technology progresses, so does the big screen market. Again I've found that other's in that industry have said it better than I can, so here's Spielberg and Lucas talking about it:

http://www.cinemable...sion-38049.html

Now, their assertion that the film industry will die is premature, and most probably an extremist view by a couple of old-school filmakers feeling the gut-punch of the change to digital and the move to make big summer tentpole releases be as nutters and big as possible...in comparison with stuff like E.T. and INDIANA JONES which had big, but not overblown budgets. But they have a very good point. What our generation (I'll include you in that Silencer, even though you are far younger, you whipper snapper!) enjoyed in the outing to the theatre is not what the current youth generation and future youth generation will demand. A society of kids who literally have a handheld computer and movie screen that they walk around with day to day strapped to their fists simply won't accept old-school. In a few years when he's old enough if I sat my (currently 5 year old) nephew down and had him watch THE LAST STARFIGHTER (even on BRD) and then took him out to see a 3D flick on the big screen...I know exactly which one he'd like better. I realize that's not a great argument due to subjectivity from person to person, but I truly feel that the future generations, the ones who have grown up with iTunes and tablet computers would just be bored. Again, that won't be everybody, and there are going to be people who enjoy the quieter fare and don't need the 3D...but the box office of any given theatre is not made by the 42's or the THE BLING RING's, or the latest romantic comedy...they are made by the TRANSFORMERS, and the PACIFIM RIM's and the MAN OF STEEL's. In that regard 3D is not only big business (you get to charge more a ticket), but has become a defining feature for big budget movies. The only action-ish movie that I can even THINK of coming out without 3D in the last few years is SKYFALL. Whether pre- or post-converted to 3D the vast majorty of action movies and kids movies have been 3D since the mid-noughties.

It's not really a "fuck consumer choice" at all. It's a "we are doing this, and it's a big push, and this is how cinema is right now" fact. But like I said above you can always see the 2D version (though you may note it's harder to find the 2D version of these films)...but accepting that 3D is here to stay and you should get used to seeing it featured is not a "fuck you" thing, it's an acceptance thing.

And I've not seen a 3D movie that's been really badly (or distractingly done) since ALICE IN WONDERLAND. Anything I've seen recently (AVENGERS, IRON MAN 3, STAR TREK 2, MAN OF STEEL, THE HOBBIT: AUJ, PACIFIC RIM, THE GREAT GATSBY, OZ: THE GREAT & POWERFUL, DREDD, THOR, CAPTAIN AMERICA) have all been not only good 3D, but immersive and non-gimmicky (this meaning they aren't purposely throwing punches at you or firing arrows at the camera) 3D. In the case of most of these the 3D even helps delineate the action setpieces by adding depth. Best example for me was the different between AVENGERS in 3D and 2D...the last battle in 2D was a tad hard to follow....but in 3D it was easy as pie because you could watch all the distinct bits of things happening.

And yeah, we've not disagreed in a while ...we were due for it I guess.

/>

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 18 July 2013 - 01:45 PM

[QuickTidal]

McLovin, on 18 July 2013 - 01:30 PM, said:

And speaking of scavenging, am I totally off or was one of the guys who goes into the pregnant kaiju Del Toro himself? Sure looked like him.

The one who screams and then dies? Yep, it was him.

[Tapper]

QuickTidal, on 18 July 2013 - 10:58 AM, said:

Why 3D?

Well that's simple. Home BluRay set-ups have reached parity with theatres. You can get the same (and in some cases better) quality of picture and sound on your home set-ups....so Hollywood has had to step its game up and offer a bigger more bombastic experience to get people out to theatres.

I like going to the movies, but if you asked me if I'd rather pay to watch the movie at home....I would. in a heartbeat.

3D is at the top of the tier of offerings the film industry is doing to get people in seats.

It's not going away. You may as well get used to it.

/>

And as long as the 3D is done while the film is shot (and not post-converted), then it's usually done well.

But 3D does not make for better movies. If you want people to go to the cinema, make a movie that screams "chat of the week, see it or be a social pariah". The question is if it even makes for a better view because 3D projects towards the viewer, yet the screen is still set in such a way that scenes are primarily shown left-to-right (or the other way around - and okay, maybe at an angle) as that and top-down are about the only ways in which the viewer can see the whole of the action.

Actors and scenes don't generally interact with the public (the 4th wall is atm only broken in House of Cards, I think) and that makes objects "sticking out of the screen" a minor enhancement at best and a distraction at worst. Plus, the use is generally rather conventional: cars coming at you at high speed, the occassional projectile or weapon, et cetera.

Finally, it is budget that could have gone towards actors, locations, professionals, backgrounds, script writers and other things that might actually lift the movie's base quality up.

[Spoilsport Stonny]

These guys are always great for a critical analysis:

http://redlettermedi...ag-pacific-rim/

[QuickTidal]

Tapper, on 18 July 2013 - 04:04 PM, said:

But 3D does not make for better movies. If you want people to go to the cinema, make a movie that screams "chat of the week, see it or be a social pariah". The question is if it even makes for a better view because 3D projects towards the viewer, yet the screen is still set in such a way that scenes are primarily shown left-to-right (or the other way around - and okay, maybe at an angle) as that and top-down are about the only ways in which the viewer can see the whole of the action.

Actors and scenes don't generally interact with the public (the 4th wall is atm only broken in House of Cards, I think) and that makes objects "sticking out of the screen" a minor enhancement at best and a distraction at worst. Plus, the use is generally rather conventional: cars coming at you at high speed, the occassional projectile or weapon, et cetera.

Finally, it is budget that could have gone towards actors, locations, professionals, backgrounds, script writers and other things that might actually lift the movie's base quality up.

Disagree mainly because 3D is now acknowledged and a part mostly in pre-viz and storyboarding. Cinematographers and directors are aware of using that 3rd dimension now. They are making films that use it as part of the vehicle they are filming. It's no longer just about zooming cars past you, or projectile weapons....it's about immersion in any given scene. An early and good example is the opening shot of AVATAR. Aboard the crew ship and looking down the long crew quarter slips..and you feel like you are in the long room as well (instead of just looking at an image of one) and then that little droplet of moisture floats past the camera in front of your eye, and the immersion is totally complete. We could watch two cars revving up to race down a street as a 2d image, or we could be placed in between them as they rev their engines on either side of our heads. It's the difference between looking at a book full of stunning pictures, and being placed in the nose of a helicopter and seeing those places/events live on front of you.

And budget is only really affected if the film is post-converted (doesn't happen much anymore as most productions know from the outset they want to be 3d)...the majority of current 3D movies are merely shot with different 3D cameras, so that doesn't steal much budget.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 18 July 2013 - 07:19 PM

[McLovin]

Related to the present movie, I thought the wall construction scene was a pretty good use of 3D.

[BAD]

Saw this yesterday. Was great, not going to harp on about what everyone has said was great, predictable etc. Only thing else I have to say was the soundtrack was FRIKKIN' AWESOME. I will definitely be adding this to my soundtrack collection. Was a perfect mash between rock/orchestral/dance/videogame. When that main bass kicks in on the main theme. Fuck! Then the strings! Totally pumped! I don't think I noticed any shitty dubstep in it. Major bonus.

No Joke. One of the best matches of film and music I have seen.

[EDIT] - For those saying why they don't go to the cinema anymore because of better home theatre etc, I'm sorry you can't beat the sound system or the sense of immersion of that screen especially in 3D. I have an excellent 3D TV setup at home and cinema beats it every time for massive action/sci-fi type movies. And for the annoying people in the cinema just go when they aren't there. If you avoid the weekend any showing either early afternoon or late evening/night will be pretty damn quiet. The last times I have been to the cinema it hasn't even been close to a quarter full because of the off peak time. You can even book your actual seats now in most theatres in the UK for where you prefer to sit. Sometimes I have gone and we have been the only people in the cinema. That is very cool.

This post has been edited by BAD: 19 July 2013 - 01:01 PM

[QuickTidal]

BAD, on 19 July 2013 - 12:53 PM, said:

Saw this yesterday. Was great, not going to harp on about what everyone has said was great, predictable etc. Only thing else I have to say was the soundtrack was FRIKKIN' AWESOME. I will definitely be adding this to my soundtrack collection. Was a perfect mash between rock/orchestral/dance/videogame. When that main bass kicks in on the main theme. Fuck! Then the strings! Totally pumped! I don't think I noticed any shitty dubstep in it. Major bonus.

No Joke. One of the best matches of film and music I have seen.

[EDIT] - For those saying why they don't go to the cinema anymore because of better home theatre etc, I'm sorry you can't beat the sound system or the sense of immersion of that screen especially in 3D. I have an excellent 3D TV setup at home and cinema beats it every time for massive action/sci-fi type movies. And for the annoying people in the cinema just go when they aren't there. If you avoid the weekend any showing either early afternoon or late evening/night will be pretty damn quiet. The last times I have been to the cinema it hasn't even been close to a quarter full because of the off peak time. You can even book your actual seats now in most theatres in the UK for where you prefer to sit. Sometimes I have gone and we have been the only people in the cinema. That is very cool.

A. Yeah, the mashup of Tom Morello's crunching guitars and Ramin Djwadi's score was perfect!

B. The new sound system (point to point speaker to speaker) that Dolby invented DolbyATMOS was invented solely because home theatre systems can now easily to 7.1 Dolby Digital surround (or the DTS equivalent)...my point wasn't that people stay home because their set-up's are exactly as good as current....but that 3D and inventions like DolbyATMOS are meant to get you out to the theatre because Dolby Digital surround (even 7 point surround) wasn't cutting the mustard any longer. In a theatre running 7.1 Dolby Digital only and the movie is not in 3D....then I can absolutely match that experience at home.

And as far as "going when people aren't there"...yeah, I live in a big city. Unless the movie has been out for weeks already and I go on a Wednesday at 1PM....the theatre is going to be full enough to have some idiots in it. I actually once asked a guy to turn off his phone 3 times...and he nodded but left it on..and kept doing shit on it...and even when I ratted him out to the staff and THEY told him to shut it off, the girl had to come by a further 3 times to tell him to shut it off. People are so entitled these days that in any given group of people, unless you are lucky, you will find one. Booking seats (which we have in some theatres here now) doesn't work either...a person who is going to be on their phone or noisy is just as likely to sit beside you as a quiet respectful person....and the difference in that situation....you can't move to another seat as they are booked up by other ppl.

Basically I wish all theatre's operated like the Alamo drafthouse...who have a no texting or talking rule...first offense and you are out on your ear without a refund. No second chances. No being asked to be quiet.

[BAD]

QuickTidal, on 19 July 2013 - 01:18 PM, said:

BAD, on 19 July 2013 - 12:53 PM, said:

Saw this yesterday. Was great, not going to harp on about what everyone has said was great, predictable etc. Only thing else I have to say was the soundtrack was FRIKKIN' AWESOME. I will definitely be adding this to my soundtrack collection. Was a perfect mash between rock/orchestral/dance/videogame. When that main bass kicks in on the main theme. Fuck! Then the strings! Totally pumped! I don't think I noticed any shitty dubstep in it. Major bonus.

No Joke. One of the best matches of film and music I have seen.

[EDIT] - For those saying why they don't go to the cinema anymore because of better home theatre etc, I'm sorry you can't beat the sound system or the sense of immersion of that screen especially in 3D. I have an excellent 3D TV setup at home and cinema beats it every time for massive action/sci-fi type movies. And for the annoying people in the cinema just go when they aren't there. If you avoid the weekend any showing either early afternoon or late evening/night will be pretty damn quiet. The last times I have been to the cinema it hasn't even been close to a quarter full because of the off peak time. You can even book your actual seats now in most theatres in the UK for where you prefer to sit. Sometimes I have gone and we have been the only people in the cinema. That is very cool.

A. Yeah, the mashup of Tom Morello's crunching guitars and Ramin Djwadi's score was perfect!

B. The new sound system (point to point speaker to speaker) that Dolby invented DolbyATMOS was invented solely because home theatre systems can now easily to 7.1 Dolby Digital surround (or the DTS equivalent)...my point wasn't that people stay home because their set-up's are exactly as good as current....but that 3D and inventions like DolbyATMOS are meant to get you out to the theatre because Dolby Digital surround (even 7 point surround) wasn't cutting the mustard any longer. In a theatre running 7.1 Dolby Digital only and the movie is not in 3D....then I can absolutely match that experience at home.

And as far as "going when people aren't there"...yeah, I live in a big city. Unless the movie has been out for weeks already and I go on a Wednesday at 1PM....the theatre is going to be full enough to have some idiots in it. I actually once asked a guy to turn off his phone 3 times...and he nodded but left it on..and kept doing shit on it...and even when I ratted him out to the staff and THEY told him to shut it off, the girl had to come by a further 3 times to tell him to shut it off. People are so entitled these days that in any given group of people, unless you are lucky, you will find one. Booking seats (which we have in some theatres here now) doesn't work either...a person who is going to be on their phone or noisy is just as likely to sit beside you as a quiet respectful person....and the difference in that situation....you can't move to another seat as they are booked up by other ppl.

Basically I wish all theatre's operated like the Alamo drafthouse...who have a no texting or talking rule...first offense and you are out on your ear without a refund. No second chances. No being asked to be quiet.

Your city sounds terrible. I live in 3rd largest city in the UK and what I said about going to the cinema at those times holds true. I also find that people who go at those off peak times are people like me who don't want to put up with the inconsiderate majority of spakkers who cannot go two minutes without checking their phone. And even if they are there, there are at least 75% of the other seats to choose from because they aren't booked. Usher won't come and tell you to move back to your assigned seat if no-one complains. ;p

[QuickTidal]

BAD, on 19 July 2013 - 01:39 PM, said:

Your city sounds terrible. /> I live in 3rd largest city in the UK and what I said about going to the cinema at those times holds true. I also find that people who go at those off peak times are people like me who don't want to put up with the inconsiderate majority of spakkers who cannot go two minutes without checking their phone. And even if they are there, there are at least 75% of the other seats to choose from because they aren't booked. Usher won't come and tell you to move back to your assigned seat if no-one complains. ;p

Toronto. And yes, it's pretty bad. My fiance always comments how there is ALWAYS someone talking or using their phone. It's awful.

The good thing about my city is we host the 2nd largest International Film festival in the world (TIFF), and during those films you could hear a pin drop because they are film fans...the same is true of the recently built TIFF LIGHTBOX theatre...and on any given regular day in that theatre you'll never get idiots.

So I guess we have that.

[stone monkey]

Y'know, if you squinted really, really hard (and totally ignored that its action takes place on the wrong coast), you could consider Cloverfield to be an unofficial prequel to Pacific Rim... Just my two pennies worth

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Saw it, liked it a lot. My wife did too, in spite of herself. It had a lot of action movie tropes but pulled them off. The potential for a cool video game, whic will never happen in any satisfying sense, is incredible.

[Spoilsport Stonny]

Not as if it hasn't all been said already, but I liked this little post:

http://www.tor.com/b...ic-rim-thoughts

[Abyss]

QuickTidal, on 19 July 2013 - 01:18 PM, said:

...And as far as "going when people aren't there"...yeah, I live in a big city. Unless the movie has been out for weeks already and I go on a Wednesday at 1PM....the theatre is going to be full enough to have some idiots in it. I actually once asked a guy to turn off his phone 3 times...and he nodded but left it on..and kept doing shit on it...and even when I ratted him out to the staff and THEY told him to shut it off, the girl had to come by a further 3 times to tell him to shut it off. People are so entitled these days that in any given group of people, unless you are lucky, you will find one. Booking seats (which we have in some theatres here now) doesn't work either...a person who is going to be on their phone or noisy is just as likely to sit beside you as a quiet respectful person....and the difference in that situation....you can't move to another seat as they are booked up by other ppl.

Basically I wish all theatre's operated like the Alamo drafthouse...who have a no texting or talking rule...first offense and you are out on your ear without a refund. No second chances. No being asked to be quiet.

Do NOT get me started.... this traps into a level of hate even telemarketers don't get from me.

[Dolorous Menhir]

The cinemas in New York can be terrible for this. I had to listen to a group of young guys talk and laugh through Zero Dark Thirty. They didn't care about all the people turning to stare at them. And The Dark Night Returns was like going to an audience participation event. Not always that way, often it's fine.

I wish we could read Roger Ebert's review of Pacific Rim. He would have loved it.

This post has been edited by Dolorous Menhir: 28 July 2013 - 07:28 PM

[QuickTidal]

Dolorous Menhir, on 28 July 2013 - 07:27 PM, said:

I wish we could read Roger Ebert's review of Pacific Rim. He would have loved it.

Aww man, now I have a sad.

[polishgenius]

Just saw this, took me long enough.

To begin with a note on the 3D aside earlier on: I FUCKING HATE 3D. HATE HATE HATE HATE! Partly because of the gimmickry, and partly because I have one eye stronger than the other and therefore it doesn't work properly for me. And therefore I despite it when the only option is to see it in 3D, which is the case for a lot of films if I want to see them in English in Berlin.


Thankfully this was also in IMAX which seemed to alleviate the effects a little (helped I guess by Del Toro not being a twat showing it off as much as possible). I did still have problems in particular with full-screen transitions (so any time the camera submerged suddenly, or when it went from light to dark or vice-versa suddenly, which was a fair bit during the fights).


But aaaaaaanyway:



Other than that, really good. Just maximum geeky awesomeness. It's a daft film but a smartly made one - in that as noted the plot is kept as simple and broad-strokes as possible, which makes the characters quite cartoony but also means there's minimum possibility for stupid irritations to creep in. It's basically Top Gun, where the planes are robots and the Soviets are big fuck off giant monsters from an alien dimension.

The opening, before Gypsy Danger's first battle? Best. Tooling up scene. Ever.


And yeah, despite my problems with 3D, I was otherwise totally justified in my hope that Del Toro would handle the CG right. Perfect combo of effects and practical stuff. Someone before mentioned Jurassic Park - that's never been topped in that respect but this rivals it.

[Spoilsport Stonny]

I'm really glad you like it. I have to say, in a nice way, as a person who also thought at first that it was a pretty elementary film, that as daft as it seemed, I think it was smarter than we are supposed to initially think. There's a link I posted up there that explains it a little bit more, and htere's a link near the bottom to an even better blog critique.

I'll boil it down to this. As fans on this particular forum, for these particular books, that are (in)famous for utilizing the "show don't tell" method of writing, that Del Toro uses the same concept for this movie. There's a bunch of stuff that goes beyond just simple plot and cartoonish dialog, and since its a visual exercise, not a written one, it's a bit sneakier since our brains have to pick it up and sense it differently. I wouldn't be surprised if this movie is nominated for best picture or best direction. Its certainly not Del Toro's best movie ever, from a film standpoint, but the way he was able to inject visceral pleasure into a movie full of CGI and SFX shouldn't go unnoticed.

[Morgoth]

I went into the movie expecting great monsters and satisfying battles. I got that and an excellent soundtrack, so I am very pleased. A whole lot of fun. My only annoyance was the sword. Not that it existed, it was pretty cool, but that they had it all along but chose not to use it before then. It would have made short work of the first monster for one thing.