[nacht]

Watched in IMAX 3D. good fun.

When I was kid, I used to follow this series called Giant Robot.
https://www.youtube....h?v=3VP3NjLIQkI

It reminded me of that, but all grown up.

Thanks for the reviews.

This post has been edited by nacht: 16 July 2013 - 04:38 AM

[tiam]

Saw it yesterday. It was ok though the human side of things (also known as the reason no one went to see it) wasnt very good. It was fun to watch.

I would also like to shake the hand of the man who invented those helicopters that could pick up those Jaegars.

[QuickTidal]

 Jean-Claude Van tiam, on 16 July 2013 - 07:33 AM, said:

Saw it yesterday. It was ok though the human side of things (also known as the reason no one went to see it) wasnt very good. It was fun to watch.

Hmmm.

But see, that's kind of not the point of it. This is homage to both Classic Giant Robot Anime, and Godzilla movies of the 1960's.

The closest movie that I can think of to fit is Independence Day (which was itself an homage to 1950's alien invasion movies)...it's about a ragtag group of people coming together (usually under some stalwart commander) and beating the odds. In that vein PACIFIC RIM is perfection. If it were ever a series of films, then I'd expect a slow ramping up of the human side of things...but since this is aping a classic b-movie style it fires on all cylinders as a confection in a 2+ hour film.

In fact, one would argue that some recent summer action films try too hard to inject heavy characterization to impress those looking for it...but that sort of thing usually leaves a movie like this too stuffed and overlong and the final product suffers.

By cutting out all the superfluous stuff other filmmakers might try to jam in, Del Toro has crafted a fine example of summer blockbuster. It's got a basic story, with basic character tropes...and there's little need for much else. Hell, even the tentative love story between Mako and Raleigh is only barely scraped.....because it's simply isn't required for viewing of this story.

There's just no need. If I saw in depth character work in a Godzilla-type film I think I'd be bored. This isn't Eva where the character stuff is almost more important than the giant robots, it's more in line with Voltron or Gundam where the battle with the baddies is the important bit.

And lastly, it's kind of incorrect to say that no one went to see it because of the "human side of things". The box office numbers were low because this is a VERY niche film. Basically if you enjoy anime and Godzilla this is RIGHT up your alley...but many theatre-goers are simply not in this demographic...and I expect WB and Legendary were aware of this and let Del Toro make it anyways. As to that a lot people who have seen it (who enjoy this type of thing and have a critical outlet) seem to be enjoying it as a modern fairytale and I think the numbers might continue to swell as the weeks of release go on...but the REAL numbers are going to come overseas. Japan especially is going to give this film BANANAS numbers...this is literally the culmination of like 75 years of TWO of their most iconic cultural icons (giant monsters, and giant robots) both of which originated there (nod to Lovecraft though)...in that vein you will see everyone from kids to grandmother's going to see it. The international box office is going to kick the domestic box offices ass methinks.

My two cents.

[amphibian]

QuickTidal is pretty accurate with that above post.

This movie is exactly what Transformers should have been. No Sam Witwicky focus, no incomprehensible action, no shiny human toys to distract from the lack of story.

[Spoilsport Stonny]

I just saw thi yesterday and was blown away. I think the adition of CHarlie Day in the cast was pretty cool. I was surprised when he showed up there.

As for the movie, even though the actors were nobodies, I think that worked better. Didn't distract from the real stars, the Robots. And also, And the characters actually do have arcs, despite them being simplistic, so its not like you don't get ANY emotional response from what they are going through. The memory scene with the young girl running from the Kaiju as its ripping through the city and everyone else was dying was actually pretty powerful and really well done, based on its context in the film. It wasn't just some silly flashback, it was a shared memory from the drift. Wonderful direction there.

As for the giant battles, well, shit all I can say is HOLY FUCK!

And I liked the ending. Its not like EVERYBODY lived.

Re: the pregnant kaiju. Its not too far off to think that's how they "clone" themselves. I don't think they have a genetic labratory on the other side of the breach. There has to be an organic way that they reproduce. And even though they all looked different, they were still genetically identical, so that didn't bother me at all.

I can't help but remember the movie Robot Jox while seeing this. Don't see Robot Jox. its not very good.

And yes QT, I believe the grosses in Asian countries are going to be breaking records. This movie will not flop, and I also think it will have a pretty good run in the US once word of mouth builds up a bit. Most people I see on facebook who have seen it are posting that they love it. Then the responses are like "Really?!? I thought it looked cheesy." "Well, yeah it was a bit cheesy, but it was AWESOME!" "Oh, ok, I guess I will go see it since I couldn't give two fucks about the Lone Ranger." "Great, I'll go see it again with you. HMU."

[Spoilsport Stonny]

Best part was when Otachi got bitch slapped with a cargo ship.

[tiam]

 QuickTidal, on 16 July 2013 - 01:04 PM, said:

 Jean-Claude Van tiam, on 16 July 2013 - 07:33 AM, said:

Saw it yesterday. It was ok though the human side of things (also known as the reason no one went to see it) wasnt very good. It was fun to watch.

Hmmm.

But see, that's kind of not the point of it. This is homage to both Classic Giant Robot Anime, and Godzilla movies of the 1960's.

The closest movie that I can think of to fit is Independence Day (which was itself an homage to 1950's alien invasion movies)...it's about a ragtag group of people coming together (usually under some stalwart commander) and beating the odds. In that vein PACIFIC RIM is perfection. If it were ever a series of films, then I'd expect a slow ramping up of the human side of things...but since this is aping a classic b-movie style it fires on all cylinders as a confection in a 2+ hour film.

In fact, one would argue that some recent summer action films try too hard to inject heavy characterization to impress those looking for it...but that sort of thing usually leaves a movie like this too stuffed and overlong and the final product suffers.

By cutting out all the superfluous stuff other filmmakers might try to jam in, Del Toro has crafted a fine example of summer blockbuster. It's got a basic story, with basic character tropes...and there's little need for much else. Hell, even the tentative love story between Mako and Raleigh is only barely scraped.....because it's simply isn't required for viewing of this story.

There's just no need. If I saw in depth character work in a Godzilla-type film I think I'd be bored. This isn't Eva where the character stuff is almost more important than the giant robots, it's more in line with Voltron or Gundam where the battle with the baddies is the important bit.

And lastly, it's kind of incorrect to say that no one went to see it because of the "human side of things". The box office numbers were low because this is a VERY niche film. Basically if you enjoy anime and Godzilla this is RIGHT up your alley...but many theatre-goers are simply not in this demographic...and I expect WB and Legendary were aware of this and let Del Toro make it anyways. As to that a lot people who have seen it (who enjoy this type of thing and have a critical outlet) seem to be enjoying it as a modern fairytale and I think the numbers might continue to swell as the weeks of release go on...but the REAL numbers are going to come overseas. Japan especially is going to give this film BANANAS numbers...this is literally the culmination of like 75 years of TWO of their most iconic cultural icons (giant monsters, and giant robots) both of which originated there (nod to Lovecraft though)...in that vein you will see everyone from kids to grandmother's going to see it. The international box office is going to kick the domestic box offices ass methinks.

My two cents. />

I cant tell if youve agreed with me about the human side not being good but not the point of the film or if you believe the human aspect of the story was well done as youve thrown in a load of other stuff that looks like bragging about being a huge fan of this subject. You seem to agree with me that the human side of things isnt really the focus of the film. I dont think it was very good i.e. Charlie Hunham isnt very good in it and neither is Idris Elba (the main stars) and I like both of them in SoA and The Wire respectively. So I didnt think the human side was good based on the acting. I didnt even say I wanted more character development I thought it was just bad yet,as I mention, it wasnt the focus of the film the focus was robots fighting monsters which was fun to watch as a spectacle.

Now I read it again I think youve misunderstood what I meant by the way. You seem to take my 'the reason why no one went to see it' as thats why the box office number are low. (side note- I had a look on wikipedia after id watched it and it was on just under 100 mil with a 190 mil budget on there with a uk release only being 2 days before though I have no idea how long its been out stateside). I meant that the human side of things wasnt going to be the draw of the film not that the human side of things was putting people off

No offence but you remind me of someone at book club meeting who challenges everyone elses opinion with loads of other references to other material to appear well read

[nacht]

I think Guillermo missed a chance to make this even more awesome.

What if,

A lot more monsters were launched out.
The first line of defense would be a submarine squadron (Who doesn't like Torpedoes :-)
The next line would be Naval carriers launching F/18 Hornets and then the final line of defense would be the Jaegers protecting the breach zone. I suspect that would make Apt happy />

Also it was pretty cool to give props to the russians and chinese by showing their Jaegers. But what the hell, where was the Japanese built Samurai Jaeger (with a fucking katana). And if he was alive, Mifune would be so perfect in the place of Idris Elba

And did anybody notice the rotary Krull style glaives on the Russian Jaeger. The was frickin cool

This post has been edited by nacht: 16 July 2013 - 05:17 PM

[QuickTidal]

Quote

I cant tell if youve agreed with me about the human side not being good but not the point of the film or if you believe the human aspect of the story was well done as youve thrown in a load of other stuff that looks like bragging about being a huge fan of this subject. You seem to agree with me that the human side of things isnt really the focus of the film. I dont think it was very good i.e. Charlie Hunham isnt very good in it and neither is Idris Elba (the main stars) and I like both of them in SoA and The Wire respectively. So I didnt think the human side was good based on the acting. I didnt even say I wanted more character development I thought it was just bad yet,as I mention, it wasnt the focus of the film the focus was robots fighting monsters which was fun to watch as a spectacle.

Now I read it again I think youve misunderstood what I meant by the way. You seem to take my 'the reason why no one went to see it' as thats why the box office number are low. (side note- I had a look on wikipedia after id watched it and it was on just under 100 mil with a 190 mil budget on there with a uk release only being 2 days before though I have no idea how long its been out stateside). I meant that the human side of things wasnt going to be the draw of the film not that the human side of things was putting people off

No offence but you remind me of someone at book club meeting who challenges everyone elses opinion with loads of other references to other material to appear well read />/>

I liked the human side for what it was...but it's a very thin thing to begin with was my point. So yes and no; I agreed and disagreed. These are VERY basic character templates and not a lot is required of the actor's portraying them. I think that Elba did a solid job in that respect, as did Rinko Kinkuchi (especially not in her native language), and even tho his role was small Burn Gorman (whose claim to fame is TORCHWOOD) was particularly good for the sheer fact that he played a bumbling, fopish, British scientist so well when it's SO far from his actual personality and speech. So I think in the vein of what the script calls for of these people, they did their jobs well...though I'll agree Hunman's was the weakest of them all.

And indeed the human's aren't the draw...so I'm not sure how that equates to "reasons people go to see it" I guess? I went to see giant robots and giant monsters bash the shit out of each other. So yeah, anyone looking for anything further would have been barking up the wrong tree. Actually I think we agreed on this point, but came at it from different angles. My point was that it's a niche film and I think that's what you were saying too. So...tie! />

No offence taken. I just like discussing this stuff. I'm probably that book club guy. LOL!

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 16 July 2013 - 07:52 PM

[stone monkey]

Saw this on the biggest IMAX screen in the UK; had a great time.

My personal feeling for a missed trick is:

Spoiler

What if the aliens from the other side of the Breach had actually been piloting the monsters themselves, like giant flesh robots?

[QuickTidal]

 stone monkey, on 16 July 2013 - 07:52 PM, said:

Saw this on the biggest IMAX screen in the UK; had a great time.

My personal feeling for a missed trick is:

Spoiler

What if the aliens from the other side of the Breach had actually been piloting the monsters themselves, like giant flesh robots?

Spoiler

Oooo. I'd have been down for that. Bio-monsters? Yes please. Good call. Maybe in the sequel?

[tiam]

 QuickTidal, on 16 July 2013 - 07:52 PM, said:

Quote

I cant tell if youve agreed with me about the human side not being good but not the point of the film or if you believe the human aspect of the story was well done as youve thrown in a load of other stuff that looks like bragging about being a huge fan of this subject. You seem to agree with me that the human side of things isnt really the focus of the film. I dont think it was very good i.e. Charlie Hunham isnt very good in it and neither is Idris Elba (the main stars) and I like both of them in SoA and The Wire respectively. So I didnt think the human side was good based on the acting. I didnt even say I wanted more character development I thought it was just bad yet,as I mention, it wasnt the focus of the film the focus was robots fighting monsters which was fun to watch as a spectacle.

Now I read it again I think youve misunderstood what I meant by the way. You seem to take my 'the reason why no one went to see it' as thats why the box office number are low. (side note- I had a look on wikipedia after id watched it and it was on just under 100 mil with a 190 mil budget on there with a uk release only being 2 days before though I have no idea how long its been out stateside). I meant that the human side of things wasnt going to be the draw of the film not that the human side of things was putting people off

No offence but you remind me of someone at book club meeting who challenges everyone elses opinion with loads of other references to other material to appear well read />/>/>

I liked the human side for what it was...but it's a very thin thing to begin with was my point. So yes and no; I agreed and disagreed. These are VERY basic character templates and not a lot is required of the actor's portraying them. I think that Elba did a solid job in that respect, as did Rinko Kinkuchi (especially not in her native language), and even tho his role was small Burn Gorman (whose claim to fame is TORCHWOOD) was particularly good for the sheer fact that he played a bumbling, fopish, British scientist so well when it's SO far from his actual personality and speech. So I think in the vein of what the script calls for of these people, they did their jobs well...though I'll agree Hunman's was the weakest of them all.

And indeed the human's aren't the draw...so I'm not sure how that equates to "reasons people go to see it" I guess? I went to see giant robots and giant monsters bash the shit out of each other. So yeah, anyone looking for anything further would have been barking up the wrong tree. Actually I think we agreed on this point, but came at it from different angles. My point was that it's a niche film and I think that's what you were saying too. So...tie! />/>

No offence taken. I just like discussing this stuff. I'm probably that book club guy. LOL!

Yeh Elba isnt bad I think I just expected more from him as hes so good in other things.

Yeh I think we agreed only wires crossed. I had no idea it was a potential flop though. It was enjoyable and SM idea would be a much better way for certain information to be found.

More extensive use of the sword would have been a good watch aswell.

[amphibian]

Oh, I forgot to say this: stick around for the credits to get an extra scene. The laugh is worth the time.

[tiam]

 amphibian, on 16 July 2013 - 08:57 PM, said:

Oh, I forgot to say this: stick around for the credits to get an extra scene. The laugh is worth the time.

Wish id read this before hand had to look it up online. Would have been worth the watch

[Silencer]

Brilliant, and pretty much spot-on for what it was. Heck, the filler-plot around it and characters were actually just enough to not be terrible filler while not slipping into the annoyingly forced-importance territory that totally detracts from the best parts of the movie.

Actually didn't mind the 3D in this one, either. It wasn't intrusive, and it wasn't gimmicky, it was just there. Which is exactly how 3D should be if you're going to waste time and effort on having it. Still pointless, but it at least managed not to be a negative, which is rare.

[QuickTidal]

This is going to be an unpopular opinion...but after all these films have started to be shot in proper 3D....I'm starting to like and desire films in 3D...I find myself disappointed now if they aren't.

[Silencer]

 QuickTidal, on 17 July 2013 - 10:48 AM, said:

This is going to be an unpopular opinion...but after all these films have started to be shot in proper 3D....I'm starting to like and desire films in 3D...I find myself disappointed now if they aren't.

If my comparative viewing of Pacific Rim in 2D is anything to go by, I might be in the same boat, lol.

I'm mostly joking, but whether it was being too close to the gigantic screen I saw it on, or the lack of 3D, the film was better the first time I saw it, which was in 3D. However, the sound the second time was superior, which gave me a lot more GLaDOS to fangasm over (she was a bit quiet/played over in the other cinema).

Still, 3D as a general rule is an atrocious idea. It's 90% used for gimmicky shots, which today are actually shoe-horned into films and account for 99% of the 3D in the movie (seriously, WHY?!?!), 9% for sensible-but-pointless effects (Pacific Rim) and 1% used properly to reasonable, if not stellar, effect (...yeah, can't think of a good example here, but I'll reserve it anyway. No, I'm not going with Avatar, because the 3D in that actually still mostly fell into the second category, imo...maybe one of those theme park movies which use it when they don't go overboard...).

I still actively avoid seeing movies in 3D if I can help it. Especially seeing as it adds to the admission price, when said prices are already ludicrously high down here (and Australia too). I think the main thing that bothers me are the vast majority of 3D movies which use it for "that one scene", honestly. If it was all done like in Pacific Rim, where it's there, but not in-your-face or stupid, unnecessary, blatantly added to justify the 3D, or otherwise forced in, then I wouldn't mind it. I still wouldn't *like* it, but I wouldn't have an actively anti-3D disposition. Because of those other films, however, (and the price hike, and the stupid glasses...though the ones I borrowed from Luci in Australia were pretty bloody good, honestly) I tend to really hate 3D. And try and boycott the 3D version where possible, in the hopes that it will stop being used/wasted in films where it isn't needed. XD

[tiam]

 Silencer, on 18 July 2013 - 03:34 AM, said:

 QuickTidal, on 17 July 2013 - 10:48 AM, said:

This is going to be an unpopular opinion...but after all these films have started to be shot in proper 3D....I'm starting to like and desire films in 3D...I find myself disappointed now if they aren't.

If my comparative viewing of Pacific Rim in 2D is anything to go by, I might be in the same boat, lol.

I'm mostly joking, but whether it was being too close to the gigantic screen I saw it on, or the lack of 3D, the film was better the first time I saw it, which was in 3D. However, the sound the second time was superior, which gave me a lot more GLaDOS to fangasm over (she was a bit quiet/played over in the other cinema). />

Still, 3D as a general rule is an atrocious idea. It's 90% used for gimmicky shots, which today are actually shoe-horned into films and account for 99% of the 3D in the movie (seriously, WHY?!?!), 9% for sensible-but-pointless effects (Pacific Rim) and 1% used properly to reasonable, if not stellar, effect (...yeah, can't think of a good example here, but I'll reserve it anyway. No, I'm not going with Avatar, because the 3D in that actually still mostly fell into the second category, imo...maybe one of those theme park movies which use it when they don't go overboard...).

I still actively avoid seeing movies in 3D if I can help it. Especially seeing as it adds to the admission price, when said prices are already ludicrously high down here (and Australia too). I think the main thing that bothers me are the vast majority of 3D movies which use it for "that one scene", honestly. If it was all done like in Pacific Rim, where it's there, but not in-your-face or stupid, unnecessary, blatantly added to justify the 3D, or otherwise forced in, then I wouldn't mind it. I still wouldn't *like* it, but I wouldn't have an actively anti-3D disposition. Because of those other films, however, (and the price hike, and the stupid glasses...though the ones I borrowed from Luci in Australia were pretty bloody good, honestly) I tend to really hate 3D. And try and boycott the 3D version where possible, in the hopes that it will stop being used/wasted in films where it isn't needed. XD

I watched it in 3d and as im a four eyes anyway im now sat there like some ocular behemoth with two pairs of glasses on which is annoying.

I agree and I also dodge 3d films to the extent that even with my unlimited cinema card, that ive had for one year now and now allows me to see 3d films for no extra cost, I still see them in 2d. It is usually simply for gimmick as you say. Like if a character has a spear you know damn well the spear is coming out of the screen towards you at some point.

[QuickTidal]

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.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 18 July 2013 - 10:59 AM

[Silencer]

 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.

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!