EPT[Movie][Spoilers] Pacific Rim / Pacific Rim 2 / & 3!! - Pa…
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
|
birchman
Sweden393 Posts
| ||
|
Hryul
Austria2609 Posts
On December 14 2012 04:43 TrickyGilligan wrote: Wait, so this trailer offends your common sense, while Avatar didn't? Alright, nevermind, enjoy your life friend. Frankly, he is not alone. I also always hate it when modern military equipment fails for no obvious reasons. I'm ok with aliens having shields which are not penetrable (like battleship) or jamming our satellites/electronic devices (like battlefield LA). I'm not ok with monsters who survive bombs that were build to destroy meters of concrete like cloverfield. This animal is more resistant than a bunker yet faster than a tank. WTF? A good movie should be able to bring awesome moments to the screen yet remain the illusion of "making sense". Otherwise I could watch 1h of explosions interrupted by John Cleese/Jim Carey telling jokes. So why should I take a "punch" with a rocket propulsion If I could take a real warhead? It. makes. no. sense. and it offends me in some kind because the moviemakers take me for some retard who just sits there and cries "awesome" if the explosion is big enough. + Show Spoiler + It also sucks if people get lost while they have a 3d model of the "building" they are in like Prometheus. | ||
|
CrazyBirdman
Germany3509 Posts
On December 14 2012 03:47 Warlock40 wrote: Why is the jet even there in the first place? Jets don't fly that close to buildings that they are attacking, much less gigantic moving monsters with reach. They have these things called missiles that can lock on from twenty miles away. Sure, we see them using cannons in the movie trailer, but those things still have a range of several miles. I get that this is a movie about giant robots and giant monsters, but this isn't a complaint about lack of realism, it's a complaint about lack of common sense. Same reason why Prometheus was absolutely terrible. I like Idris Elba and all, but he couldn't save that garbage, and I don't think he can save this one. Easy one, the jets were just flying out of range of a second monster when suddenly another one appeared directly before them giving them no other choice than to engage in order to give civilian ship that was neaby time to retreat out of the danger zone. I'm kidding but seriously these things are usually really easy to explain. But then again I also came up with such explanations for the original ME3 ending so I guess I just don't care for massive logic failures.  | ||
|
Dranak
United States464 Posts
On December 14 2012 07:45 Hryul wrote: Frankly, he is not alone. I also always hate it when modern military equipment fails for no obvious reasons. I'm ok with aliens having shields which are not penetrable (like battleship) or jamming our satellites/electronic devices (like battlefield LA). I'm not ok with monsters who survive bombs that were build to destroy meters of concrete like cloverfield. This animal is more resistant than a bunker yet faster than a tank. WTF? A good movie should be able to bring awesome moments to the screen yet remain the illusion of "making sense". Otherwise I could watch 1h of explosions interrupted by John Cleese/Jim Carey telling jokes. So why should I take a "punch" with a rocket propulsion If I could take a real warhead? It. makes. no. sense. and it offends me in some kind because the moviemakers take me for some retard who just sits there and cries "awesome" if the explosion is big enough. + Show Spoiler + It also sucks if people get lost while they have a 3d model of the "building" they are in like Prometheus. Even the "giant fists work but missiles don't" could conceivably be explained, such as the AT fields in Evangelion or personal energy shields in Dune. It can be impossibly fast/strong, after all it's an alien from another dimension so you jsut suspend disbelief and accept that. At that size, speed may be almost expected (if it covers half a city block in a single step, it'd be able to move pretty darn fast compared to a person even if each step is much slower than a person). Those can all be explained, but there's no way a modern fighter pilot is voluntarily getting within half a mile of a ground based monster. | ||
|
m4inbrain
1505 Posts
What happened to "just watch a movie"? I will thorougly enjoy this flick, because it sums up what i like. Robots, Monsters, Games (well, GlaDOS at least), Explosions, and stupid action. Its a gunporno which is directed to look cool, not to make sense. Sad if you need to discuss stuff like that, it will ruin an otherwise maybe awesome movie even before you watched it. Just my 2cents. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On December 14 2012 08:01 m4inbrain wrote: Are you people seriously discussing why it's unrealistic that there are fighterjets attacking between buildings and stuff? In a movie in which hugeassdinosauralienmonsterhulks from the deep sea attack and we defend ourselves with hugeassrobotmasterchiefcombatthingies? What happened to "just watch a movie"? I will thorougly enjoy this flick, because it sums up what i like. Robots, Monsters, Games (well, GlaDOS at least), Explosions, and stupid action. Its a gunporno which is directed to look cool, not to make sense. Sad if you need to discuss stuff like that, it will ruin an otherwise maybe awesome movie even before you watched it. Just my 2cents. For the last time, it's not about realism, it's about making the monsters look threatening. If a villain kills off a SWAT team with assault rifles, bullet proof vests, and sensible engagement tactics, then he looks like a badass. If a villain faces off against a dozen police officers who completely ignore their firearms and try to get into a fistfight one at a time, then he's just some guy beating up some idiots. Likewise, if the only way to make a monster seem "unstoppable" is to have military jets ram themselves into it Kamikaze style, then you might as well have a giant invincible brick. | ||
|
Hryul
Austria2609 Posts
On December 14 2012 07:54 Dranak wrote: Even the "giant fists work but missiles don't" could conceivably be explained, such as the AT fields in Evangelion or personal energy shields in Dune. It can be impossibly fast/strong, after all it's an alien from another dimension so you jsut suspend disbelief and accept that. At that size, speed may be almost expected (if it covers half a city block in a single step, it'd be able to move pretty darn fast compared to a person even if each step is much slower than a person). Those can all be explained, but there's no way a modern fighter pilot is voluntarily getting within half a mile of a ground based monster. yea, but why have I/you to come up with explanations for plot holes the movie makers put in there. I see the point in plot twists and all that stuff but I simply don't suspend my disbelief when a monster gets hit by a missile. I want a fucking explanation why the monster survives a full salvo of a B-2. (cloverfield). I don't know about Evangelion (yet to see a reason why mechas are better than tanks) and I don't know about this movie but I bet it will be something along the line: "We don't know why X doesn't work,but here are giant robots." Like these animals not only evolved to have personal shielding but are also able to absorb the momentum cause by said weapons so not every bone (?) in their body is shattered into a million pieces. Because you really need such stuff in "wild" nature. I adressed the "jet fighters" just briefly because I guess everything has been said about modern warfare. Nobody likes to get close when you have missiles that have a range of several km. E: On December 14 2012 08:11 WolfintheSheep wrote: For the last time, it's not about realism, it's about making the monsters look threatening. If a villain kills off a SWAT team with assault rifles, bullet proof vests, and sensible engagement tactics, then he looks like a badass. If a villain faces off against a dozen police officers who completely ignore their firearms and try to get into a fistfight one at a time, then he's just some guy beating up some idiots. Likewise, if the only way to make a monster seem "unstoppable" is to have military jets ram themselves into it Kamikaze style, then you might as well have a giant invincible brick. But I don't feel the threat if the whole SWAT team acts like morons. Joker vs Batman are great duels because they are(should be) both masters in their respective disciplines. Jet Pilots throwing their whole training overboard to engage a monster in close combat just feels dumb. They are like cops ignoring their firearms and trying to get into a fistfight | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On December 14 2012 08:42 Hryul wrote: yea, but why have I/you to come up with explanations for plot holes the movie makers put in there. I see the point in plot twists and all that stuff but I simply don't suspend my disbelief when a monster gets hit by a missile. I want a fucking explanation why the monster survives a full salvo of a B-2. (cloverfield). I don't know about Evangelion (yet to see a reason why mechas are better than tanks) and I don't know about this movie but I bet it will be something along the line: "We don't know why X doesn't work,but here are giant robots." Like these animals not only evolved to have personal shielding but are also able to absorb the momentum cause by said weapons so not every bone (?) in their body is shattered into a million pieces. Because you really need such stuff in "wild" nature. I adressed the "jet fighters" just briefly because I guess everything has been said about modern warfare. Nobody likes to get close when you have missiles that have a range of several km. In this situation you just have to imagine that the physics that apply on Earth to us dont apply to these monsters for whatever reason. Just think about it this way -- forget about the missiles, how does the thing breath or move blood? There are sensible reasons why animals cant get past a certain size. Gravity, blood pressure, caloric combustion. but the wider point, you just have to accept the fact that the giant monster genre has certain stylistic stereotypes. And one of those stereotypes is that airplanes have to fight like its 1914 and they can only shoot from visual range and have to circle the monster. Otherwise the entire movie would be just a guy behind a predator drone screen, launching missile after missile at the thing. | ||
|
EleanorRIgby
Canada3923 Posts
On December 13 2012 20:03 Sinensis wrote: The number of people hating on this trailer is staggering considering these are nerd forums. I'm really happy so many of you are too cool to enjoy a movie like this. I love being able to enjoy honest fun. The only way I see this movie being bad, is if all the robot combat was already showed in the trailer. A feature length movie with giant robots fighting hordes of kaiju from beneath the ocean? Directed by a famous Hollywood monster designer? How can some of you be so pessimistic? transformers | ||
|
Diavlo
Belgium2915 Posts
At this point, i'm really considering sending them my super scenario: Darth Vader, the Terminator T1000, the predator and Voldemort are send on the Jurassic Park island through a dimension portal (because, you know, that explains everything) to fight for the control of an orb that controls the Aliens ( they crashed on the island after going through a dimension portal). That orb will allow them to bring back the Aliens to their dimension to kill their opposition. Wolverine and John McClane are send to prevent that from happening. Also, Megan Fox. | ||
|
Hryul
Austria2609 Posts
On December 14 2012 08:49 Sub40APM wrote: In this situation you just have to imagine that the physics that apply on Earth to us dont apply to these monsters for whatever reason. Just think about it this way -- forget about the missiles, how does the thing breath or move blood? There are sensible reasons why animals cant get past a certain size. Gravity, blood pressure, caloric combustion. but the wider point, you just have to accept the fact that the giant monster genre has certain stylistic stereotypes. And one of those stereotypes is that airplanes have to fight like its 1914 and they can only shoot from visual range and have to circle the monster. Otherwise the entire movie would be just a guy behind a predator drone screen, launching missile after missile at the thing. Well dinosaurs could go up to 60m and maybe 60 tons. granted, they don't stand but walk on 4 feet, but hey there I am willing to suspend my disbelief somehow  Seems like I have to stick to the smaller monsters who hunt a pack of naive tourists through the jungle. Or watch the new Star Trek movie instead... + Show Spoiler + Darn they had the red monster on the ice planet. . . Maybe the problem is that they try to be "realistic" with the CGI and bring big clashes of giants onto the screen where you can see screws falling off the machine yet fail to account for the realism with jets. | ||
|
CrazyBirdman
Germany3509 Posts
On December 14 2012 09:03 Diavlo wrote: And yet again, Hollywood finds itself obligated to spawn its bi-annual eye-shattering, mind-fucking turd. At this point, i'm really considering sending them my super scenario: Darth Vader, the Terminator T1000, the predator and Voldemort are send on the Jurassic Park island through a dimension portal (because, you know, that explains everything) to fight for the control of an orb that controls the Aliens ( they crashed on the island after going through a dimension portal). That orb will allow them to bring back the Aliens to their dimension to kill their opposition. Wolverine and John McClane are send to prevent that from happening. Also, Megan Fox. Sounds good to me. Plot might be too complex though. | ||
|
m4inbrain
1505 Posts
On December 14 2012 08:11 WolfintheSheep wrote: For the last time, it's not about realism, it's about making the monsters look threatening. If a villain kills off a SWAT team with assault rifles, bullet proof vests, and sensible engagement tactics, then he looks like a badass. If a villain faces off against a dozen police officers who completely ignore their firearms and try to get into a fistfight one at a time, then he's just some guy beating up some idiots. Likewise, if the only way to make a monster seem "unstoppable" is to have military jets ram themselves into it Kamikaze style, then you might as well have a giant invincible brick. In your example, the SWAT Team would look stupid, and not the villain heroic. A monster looks threatening if it kills stuff in a "cool fashion" and seems to be unstoppable. Im quite sure there will be more stuff exploding than just jets, so again: whats the point discussing jets going melee on that thing? They do. Maybe they took retarded kids as pilots because the real ones were already dead, or they have an aura which turns your brain into goo and make you forget all your training, if you REALLY need a reason to explain why fighterjets attack between buildings. You could end the movie literally 5 Minutes after the first dinothing turns up if you want to be "efficient" and "realistic". You would use cruise missiles (or depending on where you spot it even nuclear weapons), blow it to pieces, done. THAT would look threatening, right? What an exciting movie that would make. But i guess you watched the film where i did not, because i actually can't judge the "amount of threat received" by these things just through a 2 minute trailer. I really think that they wreak quite alot more havoc. It's actually quite common to do that "trick", if you would open your mind. Starting at transformers in our age, to Godzilla (the first ones), King Kong etc etc - they ALL catched planes, they ALL were still threatening at their respective times. At least the older stuff. Of course, today we laugh at the old king kong, but ask your parents (maybe even grand parents) if they were laughing when that ape catched a plane. Even War of the Worlds (which i guess you did not like either, because the tanks went near these things) had something like that. Its called "being dramatic". Show that these things are not stoppable by normal means. Thats the point. And i mean that honest: if you really need to explain to yourself why stuff happens how it happens in these kind of movies, these kind of movies are just not for you. Its not even meant offensive. | ||
|
SuperYo1000
United States880 Posts
On December 13 2012 12:10 a176 wrote: you should hate xmen3 because it was an insult to the story and those characters. growing up with x-men comics int the 90's and with x-men cartoon being awesome I can tell you today xmen 3 was the worst movie of the decade....but dont fret, bryan singer is coming back to do xmen 4/firstclass 2 movie that is "days of future past" which if needs be can completely delete x-men3 because its all based on time travel and yes Pacific Rim has the potential to be awesome and the potential to be bad. I dont think it could be worse then xmen 3. They would have to intentionally want to make it bad | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On December 14 2012 09:24 m4inbrain wrote: In your example, the SWAT Team would look stupid, and not the villain heroic. And...yeah, I can basically ignore everything after this... The whole point is that if the Red Shirt good guys look like they're doing everything right, and still lose, it makes the villain look that much better/more skilled. The difference between a good summer blockbuster like Aliens and a complete flop like Battleship is how often the average audience takes the action seriously. And one of the easiest ways to do that is to write police/military poorly, so that a layperson thinks they would do a better job. | ||
|
Arkless
Canada1547 Posts
mY GOD Dix hard, can't fucking wait! | ||
|
Warlock40
601 Posts
Frankly, he is not alone. I also always hate it when modern military equipment fails for no obvious reasons. I'm ok with aliens having shields which are not penetrable (like battleship) or jamming our satellites/electronic devices (like battlefield LA). I'm not ok with monsters who survive bombs that were build to destroy meters of concrete like cloverfield. This animal is more resistant than a bunker yet faster than a tank. WTF? A good movie should be able to bring awesome moments to the screen yet remain the illusion of "making sense". Otherwise I could watch 1h of explosions interrupted by John Cleese/Jim Carey telling jokes. So why should I take a "punch" with a rocket propulsion If I could take a real warhead? It. makes. no. sense. and it offends me in some kind because the moviemakers take me for some retard who just sits there and cries "awesome" if the explosion is big enough. Glad it's not just me, then. But I do disagree with some points. For example, we don't know for sure that conventional explosives don't work on these monsters. Perhaps there are in-story reasons for why they decided to go with robots instead of regular explosives; so let's give them the benefit of the doubt for now. What happened to "just watch a movie"? I will thorougly enjoy this flick, because it sums up what i like. Robots, Monsters, Games (well, GlaDOS at least), Explosions, and stupid action. Its a gunporno which is directed to look cool, not to make sense. Sad if you need to discuss stuff like that, it will ruin an otherwise maybe awesome movie even before you watched it. Plenty of movies have all those elements and still end up looking like garbage. Just look at pretty much any movie ever made based on a video game. But you're right - we shouldn't go overboard with the criticism, since the movie isn't even out yet. The trailer might not be a fair representative of the movie; besides, it's really just two minutes of random footage. So yes, too early to tell. Like these animals not only evolved to have personal shielding but are also able to absorb the momentum cause by said weapons so not every bone (?) in their body is shattered into a million pieces. Because you really need such stuff in "wild" nature. Well, it is highly implausible, but "implausible" can be fine in sci-fi / fantasy, while "impossible" isn't. So as long as they come up with some logical (if farfetched) explanation in the movie itself, I'll be satisfied. but the wider point, you just have to accept the fact that the giant monster genre has certain stylistic stereotypes. And one of those stereotypes is that airplanes have to fight like its 1914 and they can only shoot from visual range and have to circle the monster. This is actually a fair point that I didn't even think of. It might not apply in-story, but as a stylistic reference to previous movies in the genre, I suppose it works. In any case, it's a much better argument than the "plots can substitute giant monsters for logic" one. For example, I'm willing to give Independence Day a pass over the computer virus because it's a wonderfully clever homage to War of the Worlds. Darth Vader, the Terminator T1000, the predator and Voldemort are send on the Jurassic Park island through a dimension portal (because, you know, that explains everything) to fight for the control of an orb that controls the Aliens ( they crashed on the island after going through a dimension portal). That orb will allow them to bring back the Aliens to their dimension to kill their opposition. Wolverine and John McClane are send to prevent that from happening. But Voldemort would obviously win because none of the other characters have any defence against the Killing Curse. Except maybe the Terminator (not alive) and Darth Vader (has the Force), but Voldemort could just use other types of magic. + Show Spoiler + :p | ||
|
HaZardous47
United States106 Posts
what does GLaDOS have to do with ANY of this? It's not aperture, valve or portal. GLaDOS has no place in it. Also, I hate to say that this movie looks like Michael Bay's first draft of Transformers 3's screenplay but he decided to scrap it because it wasn't good enough for him. Not good enough for Michael Bay. That's saying something. I won't buy the "but its robots and aliens and explosions" argument either. If that's what you're looking for, I'm glad to report that there are thousands of hours of bad explosion robot monster movies for your enjoyment and this one is no different from any of those others in any way whatsoever. I think I've seen (pretty much) that exact bridge scene 3 times before. tl;dr No. | ||
|
ChuCky.Ca
Canada2497 Posts
On December 14 2012 10:59 HaZardous47 wrote: wait, wtf. what does GLaDOS have to do with ANY of this? It's not aperture, valve or portal. GLaDOS has no place in it. Also, I hate to say that this movie looks like Michael Bay's first draft of Transformers 3's screenplay but he decided to scrap it because it wasn't good enough for him. Not good enough for Michael Bay. That's saying something. I won't buy the "but its robots and aliens and explosions" argument either. If that's what you're looking for, I'm glad to report that there are thousands of hours of bad explosion robot monster movies for your enjoyment and this one is no different from any of those others in any way whatsoever. I think I've seen (pretty much) that exact bridge scene 3 times before. tl;dr No. maybe the director is a fan of the games | ||
|
HaZardous47
United States106 Posts
On December 14 2012 11:01 ChuCky.Ca wrote: maybe the director is a fan of the games That's not a justification to include the character unmodified into a film. If I were a film director, It's not justified for me to add Jim Raynor in because I like Starcraft. It's fine to have a character that represents the same idea and personality, but its not okay if that character is wearing marine armor and voiced by the guy that does it in the game. | ||
| ||
