Pacific Rim

[TheOnes]

Go, go, power rangers!

I was thinking this the whole time! [spoiler]Especially when they used the sword, really [/spoiler]
Didn't really understand if they were aliens or just regular animals...their tactics seemed 'alien smart'.
[spoiler]I'll put this bit in spoilers. How can the Jaegers win any fight in water, wouldn't they be much heavier and slower than an amphibious creature, what about rust, also dropping using helicopters, they cant land on their feet all the time? What about water displacement...scienctific people will know better than me....also this started in 2020 and we had the technology/knowledge to build Jaegers and develop drifting?[/spoiler]
See, when brain is switched on, there are too many questions.

You're missing the point if you spend your time picking apart the logical consistencies of fantasy summer blockbusters. None of these questions matter in the slightest.

Fortunately critics seem to be liking this as much as I did. 81% on the tomatometer - I hope it does well at the Box Office.

To be honest, i think there is a huge chasm between "picking apart", and "logical inconsistencies", so much so it seems really archaic to have them in the same sentence

If something doesn't make sense in the world they create, then its going to take you out of the movie and ruin the ride. Granted some things are explained either so subtely and/or only once that missing it and questioning it does warrent a slap in the face and gets shoved into the category of "picking apart", but when you ignore logical inconsistencies and proclaim it "its just summer fluff, it doesn't matter", then we are pretty much giving a lack of effort in structure, storytelling and intelligence a free pass. Just because something has action in it doesn't mean it can't have intelligence (and infact that is so often the case as now when people see action in movies people assume it has no intelligence, which drives me insane), and likewise just because something comes out in the summer, we shouldn't hold it to a different standard of effort/logic than other movies.

[LondonCityNights]

If something doesn't make sense in the world they create, then its going to take you out of the movie and ruin the ride. Granted some things are explained either so subtely and/or only once that missing it and questioning it does warrent a slap in the face and gets shoved into the category of "picking apart", but when you ignore logical inconsistencies and proclaim it "its just summer fluff, it doesn't matter", then we are pretty much giving a lack of effort in structure, storytelling and intelligence a free pass. Just because something has action in it doesn't mean it can't have intelligence (and infact that is so often the case as now when people see action in movies people assume it has no intelligence, which drives me insane), and likewise just because something comes out in the summer, we shouldn't hold it to a different standard of effort/logic than other movies.

It's a fantasy movie about giant robots. Who gives a crap about logical consistencies? For example, pointing out that the robots shouldn't be able to travel to the bottom of the ocean is ridiculous. We see them travel to the bottom of the ocean in the film, therefore they can do it. This is the most facile way of criticising a film.

An actually intelligent way of critiquing Pacific Rim is to dissect the themes and symbols in the plot. What do giant monsters from the bottom of the ocean symbolise? What is the wider thematic relevance of having two pilots controlling one Jaeger? What is del Toro trying to say when he creates a multicultural and multinational team of heroes?

That's the interesting stuff! Asking about the water displacement of the Jaegers - who cares? There are no Jaegers. There is no water. It's a film. It's a pointless question.

[TheOnes]

If something doesn't make sense in the world they create, then its going to take you out of the movie and ruin the ride. Granted some things are explained either so subtely and/or only once that missing it and questioning it does warrent a slap in the face and gets shoved into the category of "picking apart", but when you ignore logical inconsistencies and proclaim it "its just summer fluff, it doesn't matter", then we are pretty much giving a lack of effort in structure, storytelling and intelligence a free pass. Just because something has action in it doesn't mean it can't have intelligence (and infact that is so often the case as now when people see action in movies people assume it has no intelligence, which drives me insane), and likewise just because something comes out in the summer, we shouldn't hold it to a different standard of effort/logic than other movies.

It's a fantasy movie about giant robots. Who gives a crap about logical consistencies? For example, pointing out that the robots shouldn't be able to travel to the bottom of the ocean is ridiculous. We see them travel to the bottom of the ocean in the film, therefore they can do it. This is the most facile way of criticising a film.

An actually intelligent way of critiquing Pacific Rim is to dissect the themes and symbols in the plot. What do giant monsters from the bottom of the ocean symbolise? What is the wider thematic relevance of having two pilots controlling one Jaeger? What is del Toro trying to say when he creates a multicultural and multinational team of heroes?

That's the interesting stuff! Asking about the water displacement of the Jaegers - who cares? It's pointless.

This is the thing that most people don't get. In order to dissect allegory and themes, it has to first work on a superficial and in-world level, otherwise its just a fallback. Its the same thing with the Season 7 finale of Buffy, 1 of those villains is indestructible, yet an entire army is easy to fight. Whedon said this doesn't matter because its about the emotion. Well we can't feel the emotion or care about what this represents if it doesn't work in that world. You can't just have an excuse of "its just science fiction, it has monsters in it, who gives a crap if it has logic in it?".

Logic doesn't really dictate that it has to make sense to us. OBVIOUSLY giant robots is ludicrous and will not happen, but you still have to make sure the world your creating can take it or offers some sense of cohesion in the plot and the monsters. Otherwise theres no effort, and people are going to smell it. My logical questioning was: "Where did they find the time to build these robots if they were constantly underseige". This was answered with: "Only 1 was coming through every month or so", and only now the attacks are getting more and more frequent with more numbers pouring through, and they are limited in the number of Jaeggers they have. This makes sense in the world and shows they have a finite number of resources

Fighting under water is not inconsequential or "not worth caring about", because there is a lack of disregard of physics. Fighting under water isn't about the displacement, its about the weight. Huge robots weigh a ton, add that to the enourmous pressure they are facing under there and they don't even have to exert more energy in their actions to get through it. How about an oxygen time limit or a finite number of time they have to be down there because the pressure gets crushed. Be more tactical if the tricks you used on the surface can't be carried off when you can't move as you normally would. This would add to the stakes of the film. But nope, its disregarded, and therefore is a hole in logic, and then we can't really care or b*y into this that much.

[cascy101]

Yep, that's why it's only to be watched with brain switched off and allowing everything to just happen! It was fun for what it was.

But, I think it's still OK to have questions, there's nothing wrong with wondering about the likelihood of things and what could happen. After all, aren't these futuristic films supposed to be based on what people suppose and think could be possible in the future based on todays techonology/information (obv. this film is very far fetched). It's still nice to know realities though.

[LondonCityNights]

Fighting under water is not inconsequential or "not worth caring about", because there is a lack of disregard of physics. Fighting under water isn't about the displacement, its about the weight. Huge robots weigh a ton, add that to the enourmous pressure they are facing under there and they don't even have to exert more energy in their actions to get through it. How about an oxygen time limit or a finite number of time they have to be down there because the pressure gets crushed. Be more tactical if the tricks you used on the surface can't be carried off when you can't move as you normally would. This would add to the stakes of the film. But nope, its disregarded, and therefore is a hole in logic, and then we can't really care or b*y into this that much.

But then you're criticising the film based on what you want it to be rather than what it is - you're making entirely subjective criticisms.

And anyway, they do have oxygen limits, they devote quite a few shots and bits of dialogue showing their oxygen meters running low. We also know that the Jaegers are not in danger of crushed by the pressure because no-one says they're in danger of being crushed by the pressure. That might seem like an oversimplification but it's really as simple as that.

It's much better that a work of fiction ignore the odd logical consistency in favour of strong themes, clear storytelling and beautiful imagery.

[LondonCityNights]

Yep, that's why it's only to be watched with brain switched off and allowing everything to just happen! It was fun for what it was.

But, I think it's still OK to have questions, there's nothing wrong with wondering about the likelihood of things and what could happen. After all, aren't these futuristic films supposed to be based on what people suppose and think could be possible in the future based on todays techonology/information (obv. this film is very far fetched). It's still nice to know realities though.

No, God no! Don't turn your brain off! Ask questions - but ask useful ones like the ones I listed above. What is the message of the film and how does the cinematography, sound design and narrative contribute to that message?

You've got to turn your brain firmly ON in a cinema, dammit - no matter what you're seeing.

[TheOnes]

But then you're criticising the film based on what you want it to be rather than what it is - you're making entirely subjective criticisms.

And anyway, they do have oxygen limits, they devote quite a few shots and bits of dialogue showing their oxygen meters running low. We also know that the Jaegers are not in danger of crushed by the pressure because no-one says they're in danger of being crushed by the pressure. That might seem like an oversimplification but it's really as simple as that.

It's much better that a work of fiction ignore the odd logical consistency in favour of strong themes, clear storytelling and beautiful imagery.

Ok, i do concede on those questions, but you just answered why the Jaeggers can fight underwater with logic and what the film told us (except for the crushing and how they can move normally with all that pressure around them), but still. Logical questions with logical answers. A slap in the face to me. But it still proves my point, this is not a "doesn't matter" issue if it came close to being explained

But i really don't think i'm criticising based on what i want it to be, i think i'm criticising based on what it could've been, or had the potential to be. Example: Take Star Trek: Into Darkness. It had the potential to be this big politics of war movie and really dictating and crafting shades of grey, even so far as provoking a war with the Klingons under mishaprehension....except none of these things happen or come close to happening, even though they had the perfect set up on all accounts but then just went over-simplified, over-cliched, stopped all story and development stone dead and made it a waste. The things they could've done and it was a huge missed opportunity.

Or Man of Steel, my big issue with that film is that it tried to be smart and failed. It tried to do this big psychological look at what it means to be Superman, what does an Alien living amoung the Earth solving Earths problems say about humanity and how he should be a silent God to them, etc. Except it fails at this because the scenes they use are clearly what they have seen or think is seen in smart movies, but they don't do anything smart with those scenes. They don't analyse the big questions at all, more of just say they are analysing without going deep into it. And the emotion and themes suffer for it because they are so messed up and missed in the film itself. It had the potential and the setup to be more than it was, and it staying in a comfort zone while clearly having greater ambitions was a big disappointment (also it had confused morals, such as how Jor-El wanted Kal-el to go to earth to find his own destiny, to not have to follow Kryptons rules and the pre-destiny that thrives on that society, yet when he gets to Earth he pretty much says he is pre-destined to be Earths Protector and has to be a God to them. Whoops)

Same thing with Pacific Rim. My biggest problem with it was it had this big setup of how bonding with a fellow team member makes you better at what you do. Knowing more about the other person and having two people with similar traumatic experiences can help heal the other, except this fails because we only get one scene of the Drift going haywire and all of a sudden she is fine (and cleared to Pilot a Jaegger again with nothing bad happening), lusting over the superficial qualities of the other person without lusting over what makes them a person (Main Man lusts after Mako and wants her on his team before he knows anything about her, or how good of a pilot she is), same with Mako, she peers through him with his shirt off which was just so childish and superficial that it just took me out of the movie).

If they did more with what they had, or did it better, i would've accepted the themes the movie was going for and it would've been really emotional and intelligent, but just saying it has these themes (either post-mortem, or via forced dialogue), doesn't really make up for the fact that the themes were not explored properly with good structure or filmmaking

[LondonCityNights]

Same thing with Pacific Rim. My biggest problem with it was it had this big setup of how bonding with a fellow team member makes you better at what you do. Knowing more about the other person and having two people with similar traumatic experiences can help heal the other, except this fails because we only get one scene of the Drift going haywire and all of a sudden she is fine (and cleared to Pilot a Jaegger again with nothing bad happening), lusting over the superficial qualities of the other person without lusting over what makes them a person (Main Man lusts after Mako and wants her on his team before he knows anything about her, or how good of a pilot she is), same with Mako, she peers through him with his shirt off which was just so childish and superficial that it just took me out of the movie).

If they did more with what they had, or did it better, i would've accepted the themes the movie was going for and it would've been really emotional and intelligent, but just saying it has these themes (either post-mortem, or via forced dialogue), doesn't really make up for the fact that the themes were not explored properly with good structure or filmmaking

Well, I agree with you about Star Trek Into Darkness and Man of Steel, although I'm a touch more positive about Star Trek.

That stuff about the drift in Pacific Rim is exactly the kind of stuff I like to chat about, and I think you've got some damn good points there. It is a bit weird how the film underlines the importance of a family connection, then undermines it a bit towards the end of the film. I see the film as being about the importance of co-operation and the necessity of breaking down barriers of gender, nationality, race etc to combat the effects of the worst aspects of humanity - which are symbolised by the Kaiju.

I think you're right when you point out that the way the plot develops does undermine the thematic punch of the film, but I don't think it's a critical blow.

[TheOnes]

Same thing with Pacific Rim. My biggest problem with it was it had this big setup of how bonding with a fellow team member makes you better at what you do. Knowing more about the other person and having two people with similar traumatic experiences can help heal the other, except this fails because we only get one scene of the Drift going haywire and all of a sudden she is fine (and cleared to Pilot a Jaegger again with nothing bad happening), lusting over the superficial qualities of the other person without lusting over what makes them a person (Main Man lusts after Mako and wants her on his team before he knows anything about her, or how good of a pilot she is), same with Mako, she peers through him with his shirt off which was just so childish and superficial that it just took me out of the movie).

If they did more with what they had, or did it better, i would've accepted the themes the movie was going for and it would've been really emotional and intelligent, but just saying it has these themes (either post-mortem, or via forced dialogue), doesn't really make up for the fact that the themes were not explored properly with good structure or filmmaking

Well, I agree with you about Star Trek Into Darkness and Man of Steel, although I'm a touch more positive about Star Trek.

That stuff about the drift in Pacific Rim is exactly the kind of stuff I like to chat about, and I think you've got some damn good points there. It is a bit weird how the film underlines the importance of a family connection, then undermines it a bit towards the end of the film. I see the film as being about the importance of co-operation and the necessity of breaking down barriers of gender, nationality, race etc to combat the effects of the worst aspects of humanity - which are symbolised by the Kaiju.

I think you're right when you point out that the way the plot develops does undermine the thematic punch of the film, but I don't think it's a critical blow.

Exactly!. But i am more interested in seeing how they can Co-Operate instead of just showing them cooperating, and learning about eachother and finding out about the other person in ways that goes beyond memories. How what we know and what we remember doesn't make us who we are. How just being in someone elses head doesn't make you understand them. And even using personal qualities to help heal sour memories and make the other a better person in a time of war. During that first drift sequence between the Man and Mako, i was so hyped because i thought the film was really going to dig deep into these issues and explore these two people interacting together. How we shouldn't define ourselves based on what we lost. But its all glossed over in favour of the Monsters (even that drift sequence that nearly destroyed the base was over-looked by both the characters and the film, as its all fine and dandy now without a proper buildup/exploration)

Or even how at a time of crisis we can be our own worst enemy in an attempt to maintain some sense of order. But what do we get for that? A Cardboard Cut-out asshole "rival" with some of the most over-used developments in the film. ("I'm going to start off hating you because your fresh, even mis-pronouncing your name to show my disrespect for you. But then by the end i will have changed for the better and you get my approval").

But i disagree about the importance between plot and themes. I would even say Plot is absolutely Critical in talking about the themes. A plot dictates how the themes and stories are told. It lays it all out and has to give it really good structure for them to be analysed in the whole film, otherwise you can just say any film has any theme even if they don't explore it in the plot. For example: You can say The Dark Knight is about how we should all get along and not fight anyway because he saved Joker, even though the plot was about Anarchy vs Order and maintaining that struggle in a way that its almost like a balance, how good in the world can only be defined if we have evil to compare it to. Thats what was explored and told with the plot and that was the theme of that movie as that is what was explored. Pacific Rim didn't really know what it wanted to say IMO

[Beate]

Quite frankly, I think this debate is more enjoyable than the film was!