[Primateus]

I'm going to channel my inner "west-jutland peasant" here and say it's because Apt is from Copenhagen

[D'rek]

Looks semi-decent, but I see nothing that assures me that it will be any good. The trailer basically shows me it has potential but it could just as easily be another Transformers.

[Dutch]

Ok, I never heard of this before, but I'm in with the first posts.

So hyped now.

Kinda fun to see that they have to walk and move to control the robots instead of some power rangers robot where they just sit down and put some flimsy gadget swords in.

Summer 2013? Can't wait.

[QuickTidal]

D, on 13 December 2012 - 05:40 PM, said:

Looks semi-decent, but I see nothing that assures me that it will be any good. The trailer basically shows me it has potential but it could just as easily be another Transformers.

The pedigree of talent and crew behind this removes it from being compared to TF.



Aside from all else, the street where the little girl is standing and the jets fly over from the beginning of the trailer is four minutes away from my house (yes, this was shot in Toronto).

[polishgenius]

What's going to set this apart from Transformers is the take Del Toro's bringing on making it- not from a story standpoint necessarily, where the only new thing really that we've seen so far is the sheer scale of the thing for live-action, but visually and from a technical viewpoint. Like, as well as using as many practical effects as he can - a tactic I think I'm on the record as being in favour of - to the point where, for example, they replicated a whole Tokyo street and put it up on pneumatic shockers so it could vibrate in time with the monster's step without CG-ing it in, he's making the effort to integrate the digital sequences into the real shots; for example I read a little thing with him talking about how he instructed ILM or whoever to treat the digital viewpoint as if it was a real camera with practical concerns, like needing to set up a particular viewpoint to which you come back because, in general, real cameras can't just go anywhere in a single shot, and not to necessarily have to cleanly capture every frame but make it a bit wobbly, be chasing the action with your lens.


Essentially, it seems, the exact opposite of Blade II.

[Abyss]

Whisperzzzzzzz, on 13 December 2012 - 06:47 AM, said:

What is the backstory for this?

Aptorius, on 13 December 2012 - 07:04 AM, said:

... I would like some context. ...

Trailer!

TRAIIIIIIIIIIIL. ERRRRRRRRR.

TRAILER!!!!!!

TRAILERTRAILERTRAILER!!!!!

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 13 December 2012 - 06:53 PM, said:

What's going to set this apart from Transformers is the take Del Toro's bringing on making it- not from a story standpoint necessarily, where the only new thing really that we've seen so far is the sheer scale of the thing for live-action, but visually and from a technical viewpoint. Like, as well as using as many practical effects as he can - a tactic I think I'm on the record as being in favour of - to the point where, for example, they replicated a whole Tokyo street and put it up on pneumatic shockers so it could vibrate in time with the monster's step without CG-ing it in, he's making the effort to integrate the digital sequences into the real shots; for example I read a little thing with him talking about how he instructed ILM or whoever to treat the digital viewpoint as if it was a real camera with practical concerns, like needing to set up a particular viewpoint to which you come back because, in general, real cameras can't just go anywhere in a single shot, and not to necessarily have to cleanly capture every frame but make it a bit wobbly, be chasing the action with your lens.

Bolded for truth.

They did this specific scene you speak of at Nathan Phillips Square in front of our City Hall where there was a continuous section of space to set the hydraulics up on and wouldn't impede traffic on Queen Street or elsewhere....I can vouch for it because I watched them shoot it. It was...pretty damned cool.

Del Toro seems to come from the same camp as Peter Jackson when it comes to use of practical makeup and effects where possible....which I always endorse...even tho I support CGI heavy films as well....I think this attention to detail throws these directors into a camp with classic directors who HAD to shoot things this way. Bottom line, it makes me like them!

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 13 December 2012 - 07:21 PM

[stone monkey]

Aptorius, on 13 December 2012 - 07:04 AM, said:

Okay, it seems I have to be the voice of opposition here. Having not read or heard anything about this movie before seeing the trailer, I am a bit confused. Why are we building giant robots to fight monsters again? Are they immune to explosive damage or high velocity impact? Why are we not just firing tomahawk missiles at the things until they are a mountain of extra dimensional meat? If they are immune to the quite violent impact of a detonating explosive then why would it work to build a a robot to punch it if kinetic force does nothing to stop it?

I mean, sure, who doesn't want to watch a giant mech pummeling a giant monster, but I would like some context. Maybe if mankind had advanced to a point where we were living inside computers and building giant automated robots to serve us was already a thing it would make sense, but the level of technology that is implied in the production of these things is turn of the next century sort of stuff if not even later.

The answer to this question is so obvious that I feel kind of stupid to be articulating it, but here goes:

Because it's really,really, FUCKING COOL!!!

That is all.

[Mrs Savagely Wishy Washy]

Aptorius, on 13 December 2012 - 07:04 AM, said:

Okay, it seems I have to be the voice of opposition here. Having not read or heard anything about this movie before seeing the trailer, I am a bit confused. Why are we building giant robots to fight monsters again? Are they immune to explosive damage or high velocity impact? Why are we not just firing tomahawk missiles at the things until they are a mountain of extra dimensional meat? If they are immune to the quite violent impact of a detonating explosive then why would it work to build a a robot to punch it if kinetic force does nothing to stop it?

I mean, sure, who doesn't want to watch a giant mech pummeling a giant monster, but I would like some context. Maybe if mankind had advanced to a point where we were living inside computers and building giant automated robots to serve us was already a thing it would make sense, but the level of technology that is implied in the production of these things is turn of the next century sort of stuff if not even later.

Totally, absolutely right. Another Prometheus. The only thing I find marginally noteworthy is the fact that this time the monsters are coming from the deep sea and not deep space. Literature has picked up on that long time ago.
This is Ars* gratia ars***. Or *shit for shit's sake*. I know I said I don't swear but - hey, wtf.

[Abyss]

Miss Savage, on 13 December 2012 - 08:06 PM, said:

... Another Prometheus....

Not really a fair comparison.

Prometheus was the sequel (wait its not a sequel only its set in the same universe with overlapping character references and similar monsters ok its a sequel not it isn't yes it is ahhh all my childhood memories of Aliens the greatest movie ever are ruined waaaaaaaaaah) to an existing franchise that was trying to fill in backstory (or not) and did a piss poor job of it. It was not an action movie, barely a thriller, and only barely put the science in science fiction movie.

Pac Rim is a movie about giant robot suits fighting giant monsters and by all reports it's not trying too hard to be anything more than that.

It could tank, it could be great fun, but it's not trying to build on exploit ressurrect brutally gutfuck follow an existing property with artistic pretense.

[polishgenius]

Miss Savage, on 13 December 2012 - 08:06 PM, said:

Totally, absolutely right. Another Prometheus.

I can understand why some stone-hearted souls might have concerns that this movie won't be all that, but how in the fuck did you manage to come up with this comparison from? Idris Elba and some monsters are about the only things in common between the two from what we've seen so far.

[Mrs Savagely Wishy Washy]

Abyss, on 13 December 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

Miss Savage, on 13 December 2012 - 08:06 PM, said:

... Another Prometheus....

Not really a fair comparison.

Prometheus was the sequel (wait its not a sequel only its set in the same universe with overlapping character references and similar monsters ok its a sequel not it isn't yes it is ahhh all my childhood memories of Aliens the greatest movie ever are ruined waaaaaaaaaah) to an existing franchise that was trying to fill in backstory (or not) and did a piss poor job of it. It was not an action movie, barely a thriller, and only barely put the science in science fiction movie.

Pac Rim is a movie about giant robot suits fighting giant monsters and by all reports it's not trying too hard to be anything more than that.

It could tank, it could be great fun, but it's not trying to build on exploit ressurrect brutally gutfuck follow an existing property with artistic pretense.

polishgenius, on 13 December 2012 - 09:11 PM, said:

Miss Savage, on 13 December 2012 - 08:06 PM, said:

Totally, absolutely right. Another Prometheus.

I can understand why some stone-hearted souls might have concerns that this movie won't be all that, but how in the fuck did you manage to come up with this comparison from? Idris Elba and some monsters are about the only things in common between the two from what we've seen so far.

Fair points.
I thought Prometheus was one of the worst and most pointless movies I have ever seen and if not for the friend I went to watch it with I would have walked out. Now, not taking into account that P is meant to be a presequel or whatever you want to call it, for some reason simply watching the trailer to Pac Rim brought up similar emotions I had when watching Prometheus, so this comparison is really rather subjective and will not stand to reason. I'll just leave it standing out there.

Let me try again: I think that - even if the machines vs monster fights are going to be totally awesome - it's going to be meh. Transformers meet Godzilla. My concern is that- should I see it I'll walk away without having been touched in a way. I don't like that. I like watching movies which leave something behind. There are action movies that have done that too- Black Hawk Down. Or Alien. ConAir, off the top of my head.

So, to reconcile different points of view I would say as with all criticism of art forms, there is a hugely subjective component, and this is just my opinion which I freely share because nobody will pay for it.

[Dag]

I don't care if your arguments sound logical or how many "IMHO" fences you have built around them. Giant Kick-Ass Robots vs. Giant Lovecraftian Monsters smashing each other to pieces with del Toro directing...? Damn. I'm going to watch the shit out of this movie.

EDIT: The only thing I might find sliiiightly disappointing about it is if Idris Elba remains fully clothed for the whole duration of the movie... Though as they say, too much awesome can be bad for your health... and my poor heart is no longer the youngest and fittest...

This post has been edited by Dag: 13 December 2012 - 10:26 PM

[stone monkey]

Without wanting to sound too rude about it but... Holy Shit! Con Air Really? I see what you're arguing for, but that example doesn't do the argument much credit at all. I mean, it's the kind of film that's only emotionally affecting if you like your sentimentality laid on with a trowel.

But anyway:

Pacific Rim strikes me as the kind of film that is not about sentiment (or even worse, sentimentality). I think it would probably be a much worse film if it were. Hamfisted attempts at that were one of the many things that sank the Transformers films. There will presumably be some sort of plot and an attempt at some measure of character and possibly even a nod to some kind of an emotional arc. But, if we're honest, that's not really what we [the cinemagoing audience] are going to watch it for, is it?

I'll say this slowly: Giant.Fucking.Robots.Rocket.Fucking.Punching.Giant.Fucking.Monsters.In.The.Fucking.Face.

If you want an emotionally rich action movie, by all means watch Black Hawk Down; although tbh the primary emotion that one was about (for all its technical brilliance and directorial brio) seemed to be "Isn't it great that a bunch of US soldiers can demonstrate how manly and badass they are by bonding while they're shooting hundreds of brown people? For Freedom!" or something. Probably an overly simplistic reading, I know, but that's an argument for another day. I'm also assuming you meant Aliens as a] it's a classic and b] it actually is an action movie (unlike Alien) and c] Sigourney Weaver got an Academy Award nomination out of it. Con Air I think I've dealt with.

But I digress...

This film almost certainly does not have pretensions to any kind of Art - although del Toro has amply shown that he's capable of such in the past. It's about... well, we all know what it's about. As I so-subtly intimated before, films like this one are about spectacle (and awesomeness: I mean ffs, skyscraper-sized robots beating up Lovecraftian monsters is pretty much the definition of awesome in my dictionary - it's a strange dictionary, I admit). Arguably, as del Toro has the eye and skill of an artist, this will probably be a better example of the type. And that's what people are getting excited about. And giant monsters. And robots.

I, for one, am going to switch off the higher functioning parts of my brain, find the biggest screen I can to watch it on and enjoy. Or not. It could turn out be shit. Who knows?

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 13 December 2012 - 11:30 PM

[Mrs Savagely Wishy Washy]

Well, that's just your opinion. Our dictionaries are quite obviously based on different definitions, and scyscraper-sized robots beating up Lovecraftian monsters isn't the first image that comes up when I think of awesome.
Yes I did mean Aliens, and I'll leave the simplistic reading for another day, suffice to say I didn't enjoy it because white people were shooting brown people. I want to be clearly understood on that.

Let me know whether you liked Pacific Rim.

[Aptorian]

Am I the only one who has a problem with the "lovecraftian monsters" comparison. The point of lovecrafts style of monsters, like Chtulhu, is not just that they can be very big and weird looking, it's their nature. A lovecraftian monster should be something that assaults your mind and senses, something that it is absolutely abhorrent to everything you know and understand, maybe even to the laws of physics as you know it (Which admittedly any being of the size of a skyscraper is). But my point is. Lovecraft is sci-fi horror. This is sci-fi action. The monster we see in Pacific Rim is just a sea monster. Not an Elder One.

I don't want the lines of these things blurring otherwise we're going to start seeing the "Twilight of the Mountains of Madness" where we learn that the Shoggoth really are just misunderstood and that they shine in sunlight and are really good at baseball.

[Morgoth]

Aptorius, on 14 December 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

Am I the only one who has a problem with the "lovecraftian monsters" comparison. The point of lovecrafts style of monsters, like Chtulhu, is not just that they can be very big and weird looking, it's their nature. A lovecraftian monster should be something that assaults your mind and senses, something that it is absolutely abhorrent to everything you know and understand, maybe even to the laws of physics as you know it (Which admittedly any being of the size of a skyscraper is). But my point is. Lovecraft is sci-fi horror. This is sci-fi action. The monster we see in Pacific Rim is just a sea monster. Not an Elder One.

I don't want the lines of these things blurring otherwise we're going to start seeing the "Twilight of the Mountains of Madness" where we learn that the Shoggoth really are just misunderstood and that they shine in sunlight and are really good at baseball.

I'd imagine that the sex scene with the reformed Shoggoth and Kirsten Stewart would be interesting.

[polishgenius]

Aptorius, on 14 December 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

Am I the only one who has a problem with the "lovecraftian monsters" comparison. The point of lovecrafts style of monsters, like Chtulhu, is not just that they can be very big and weird looking, it's their nature. A lovecraftian monster should be something that assaults your mind and senses, something that it is absolutely abhorrent to everything you know and understand, maybe even to the laws of physics as you know it (Which admittedly any being of the size of a skyscraper is). But my point is. Lovecraft is sci-fi horror. This is sci-fi action. The monster we see in Pacific Rim is just a sea monster. Not an Elder One.

I don't want the lines of these things blurring otherwise we're going to start seeing the "Twilight of the Mountains of Madness" where we learn that the Shoggoth really are just misunderstood and that they shine in sunlight and are really good at baseball.

True enough, but I don't think that these monsters are meant to be Lovecraftian - they're Kaiju, a completely different monsterrific tradition. Some people are going to make the comparison purely because of Del Toro's known love for such things, but the portal in the Pacific seems specifically designed to explain why, as is traditional, Kaiju keep walking out of the ocean and over Japan.

When Del Toro does Lovecraftian we'll know. Because he'll tell us with great excitement and it'll have 'based on the story by HP Lovecraft' in the credits. Or possibly 'by Mike Mignola', since Hellboy features such things and the first movie already did so.

[McLovin]

Tiny lil McLovin, who used to watch Ultraman and Spectraman on the UHF channel coming out of Chicago, squealed with joy at seeing this trailer.

[QuickTidal]

Yeah, I said Lovecraftian because they are coming from another dimension and are (in essence) giant old creatures of some description. Kaiju translates as "strange beast" in fact.

I threw that out there because, like PG says...Del Toro is a big fan of that mythos, but also the dimension thing.

And I think my issue with Miss Savage's bizarre summation and comparison to Transformers (as well as Prometheus...a comparison that baffles me) urks me because if anything this is Old School Classic Big Robot Anime...something first crafted in the 1960's...and this film is Del Toro's love letter to that. Heck, you could even make small comparisons (as Silencer did) to Evangelion...

...speaking of....if this does well who wants to bet that the long gestating/in development hell/not enough cash... AD Vision and WETA live action Eva is the next project that is finally fast tracked? When I look at the robot design here and the look and reactions of them....I can see the tech has caught up enough to actually GIVE us a proper Eva movie!

NOTE: Writing this point reminded me that while he was here in Toronto shooting PACIFIC RIM, Del Toro took his daughter to the same screenings of Myazaki's MY NEIGHBOR TOTORO and KIKI'S DELIVERY SERVICE during the retrospective that I attended...and it made me smile to see him there in a capacity just as a Myazaki fan and a dad.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 14 December 2012 - 02:04 PM