Pacific Rim - Grading and Discussion

[Relayer1]

Well, the article makes some good points, but as a start, how about the premise of the movie :

Even if we (as we must in any giant creature movie, ignore that the monsters are simply too large to support their own mass, let alone move), in what sane universe is designing and building an enormous robosuit with built in weapons a better idea than spending the money on huge numbers of conventional/battlefield nukes/whatever was mounted on the Jaegers that can be positioned all around the coast ?

Why go to all the R & D costs and TIME required to design loads of different Jaegers ? Even aircraft carriers have standardised designs and production runs.

What materials could even take the drop from the air that the Jaegers do when deployed ?

How come the computer controlled Gipsy Danger is 'analogue' ?

If Gipsy Danger is the only nuclear powered Jaeger, what powers the others ?

There's no logic to it, even internal to the film.

As I have said, it is stupid, but it IS good fun...

 

[shapeshifter]

This is the kind of film Saturday matinees were created for. I expect great hordes of new kids are going to become Monster Movie fans over this just like I did as a kid with Godzilla. As evidenced at my screening they do love it.

As a grown up watching it I did have a few issues with it but screw 'em, my over-thinking demographic probably wasn't the primary target. Whenever something dumb happened/was said, the movie seemed to telegraph the message; 'yeah but you're still having a good time revisiting your childhood here so don't try to deny it '. It's true, I did. A+ from me despite the issues. The 3D is very, very good.

BTW, I didn't see a single commercial for it on TV, only as at theater previews. I wonder if WB underestimated how popular it would be with the older crowd. Heck, besides all the kids Senior Citizens were at my AM screen time!

 

[DarthTom]

I finally saw this movie over the weekend and gave it a B-. I'm having a hard time understanding how and why so many picky Star Trek fans who disliked, Trek XI for its numerous plot holes and Khan's, 'magic blood,' as well as disliked World War Z because of plot holes and zombies who can smell sick people - and folks who disliked Superman for various reasons absolutely love this film?

It was fair IMO albiet the effects in movie were outstanding.

Of my many nitpicks of this film:

- aliens from another dimension who have mastered genetic minipulation elect to use giant monsters to exterminate the human race as opposed to maybe well - a airbone pathagen that would kill us off among numerous other more effective ways to get rid of us? WTF

- The two nerdy scientists were so over the top IMO they were barely funny nor enjoyable. And their characters were riddled with cliches which I'm sure was the intent but it failed on many levels for me.

- Hannibal Chau - what a pointless and dumb character and without spoiling it for others the way he dies was completely predictable. Also IMO Pearlman's performance as Chau was less than stellar.

- Yea - lets build a wall to fence off land masses from creatures that can destory metal robots easily. Oh, and that also can fly. Roll Eyes

- Lets use the Fujita scale that measures tornadoes and translate that into monster sizes and strength. Roll Eyes

- We use high tech holograms to monitor the Yeagers but use a wall clock to announce when they might be coming back using old style numerical flip cards. Roll eyes

- This is a general nitpick for films that should stay 2-d but were made in 3-d and the film makers needs to go to James Cameron school on how to make it an incredible use of the technology. Why do other film makers have such a hard time like in Pacific Rim in making high quality 3-d pictures. All of the scenes in Pacific Rim where 3-d could have made this film even more visually amazing were missed.

I'll think of more - but this film as someone said above is not for everyone. For me it can be boiled down to the Transformers meet Godzilla. I see why its performing so badly.

edited to add:

- A premise in the film is that human beings have 'terra formed the planet' because of global warming into a hotter climate more fit for the aliens. In the flim they state the aliens came once before but the enviornment wasn't right.

A 5 second google search yielded the fact that the earth was considerably hotter when the dinosaurs lived.

Earth was hotter when the dinosaurs were around

So that whole premise falls apart as well.

 

[Agent Richard07]

I'm having a hard time understanding how and why so many picky Star Trek fans who disliked, Trek XI for its numerous plot holes and Khan's, 'magic blood,' as well as disliked World War Z because of plot holes and zombies who can smell sick people - and folks who disliked Superman for various reasons absolutely love this film?

As much as I enjoyed the film, it does seem to be having an unusual effect on people. The only other time I've seen people this giddy about a film was with Galaxy Quest. Clearly, it tapped into something. What, how or why, I don't know, but I consider it valuable insight into what resonates with people.

 

[DarthTom]

As much as I enjoyed the film, it does seem to be having an unusual effect on people. The only other time I've seen people this giddy about a film was with Galaxy Quest. Clearly, it tapped into something. What, how or why, I don't know, but I consider it valuable insight into what resonates with people.

Galaxy Quest was at least funny and a modern parody of sci-fi - specifically Trek. I put it in the same catagory as Space Balls but less funny yet enjoyable.

Pacific Rim on the other hand never intended to be amusing and most of the cliches IMO failed on many levels.

 

[The Doctor]

I finally saw this movie over the weekend and gave it a B-. I'm having a hard time understanding how and why so many picky Star Trek fans who disliked, Trek XI for its numerous plot holes and Khan's, 'magic blood,' as well as disliked World War Z because of plot holes and zombies who can smell sick people - and folks who disliked Superman for various reasons absolutely love this film?

It was fair IMO albiet the effects in movie were outstanding.

Of my many nitpicks of this film:

- aliens from another dimension who have mastered genetic minipulation elect to use giant monsters to exterminate the human race as opposed to maybe well - a airbone pathagen that would kill us off among numerous other more effective ways to get rid of us? WTF

Like any fantasy/sf story, the initial setup tends to be pretty silly. The test is how the film commits to its in-universe rules. I thought that 'Pacific Rim' was excellent at adhering to the world it created. It's no more ridiculous than Avengers, or Star Trek.

- The two nerdy scientists were so over the top IMO they were barely funny nor enjoyable. And their characters were riddled with cliches which I'm sure was the intent but it failed on many levels for me.

The scientific duo was hilarious. Burn Gorman was an absolute delight.

- Hannibal Chau - what a pointless and dumb character and without spoiling it for others the way he dies was completely predictable. Also IMO Pearlman's performance as Chau was less than stellar.

Someone like Hannibal would absolutely exist in that universe. And Ron Perlman was awesome.

- Yea - lets build a wall to fence off land masses from creatures that can destory metal robots easily. Oh, and that also can fly. Roll Eyes

1) It was clearly a move to placate the plebs while the people in power continued to fortify the central areas of their respective continents. There was dialog to that effect.

2) No one knew the kaiju could fly until Gypsy Danger went for a little ride.

- Lets use the Fujita scale that measures tornadoes and translate that into monster sizes and strength. Roll Eyes

Why the hell would that bother anyone? You're just making stuff up to be annoyed about now.

- We use high tech holograms to monitor the Yeagers but use a wall clock to announce when they might be coming back using old style numerical flip cards. Roll eyes

See above. There is literally no reason to be annoyed by the countdown clock.

- This is a general nitpick for films that should stay 2-d but were made in 3-d and the film makers needs to go to James Cameron school on how to make it an incredible use of the technology. Why do other film makers have such a hard time like in Pacific Rim in making high quality 3-d pictures. All of the scenes in Pacific Rim where 3-d could have made this film even more visually amazing were missed.

I can't speak to that because I saw it in 2D and it was amazing. The movie is quite dark as most of the fights occur at night or underwater, so I can see how 3D would be hard to take, as it really dims the picture.

I'll think of more - but this film as someone said above is not for everyone. For me it can be boiled down to the Transformers meet Godzilla. I see why its performing so badly.

You're so wrong on the Transformers reference it isn't even funny. And the movie isn't 'performing badly.' It's up to 180 million dollars worldwide. It'll be a break-even, at minimum, for the studio. Try not to be so US-centric.

 

[Set Harth]

A 5 second google search yielded the fact that the earth was considerably hotter when the dinosaurs lived.

Well, of course it was. It's well known that dinosaurs incessantly burned fossil fuels and drove around in SUVs.

 

[DarthTom]

Snip comments

I get it - you liked it a lot but I was disappointed after alll the hype in the forum. No offense, but most of your comments are opinions disguising themselves as facts. The American public has at least spoken and they weren't interested for the most part.

Like I said - considering all of the nit picks of Trek, Man of Steel and World War Z on this website it's surprising to me this film gets such a pass by so many on many of the same problems regarding plot.

 

[marillion]

Saw it yesterday and loved it... All nitpicks aside, I really couldn't find anything about it that bothered me to the point of comment.. Great popcorn fun, ala Independence Day... Money well spent!

 

[Relayer1]

Galaxy Quest was at least funny and a modern parody of sci-fi - specifically Trek. I put it in the same catagory as Space Balls but less funny yet enjoyable.

I loved Galaxy Quest.

Spaceballs wasn't even slightly funny. Not one bit.

 

[AvBaur]

Pacific Rim on the other hand never intended to be amusing (...)

Really? I for one am pretty sure that they absolutely intended for it to be amusing (among other things). I mean, it's clearly not a spoof/parody, but it's also not at all meant to be a serious, realistic movie (and I can't see anything wrong with that).

As for the nitpicks/plot holes: In my opinion, not all logic errors are created equal. Almost any sci-fi/fantasy movie will have some things that don't stand up to logical scrutiny and real-world science. But the only plot holes that really matter (to me, anyway) are the ones that affect the dramatic function of the story, creating incoherent character motivations and the like. Anything else can easily be ignored if the movie's suspension of disbelief works. And in Pacific Rim, it absolutely did (for me), while many other recent blockbusters (namely STiD, MoS) failed at this.

Film Crit Hulk wrote an interesting article about this: http://badassdigest.com/2012/10/30/film-crit-hulk-smash-hulk-vs.-plot-holes-and-movie-logic/

 

[The Doctor]

No offense, but most of your comments are opinions disguising themselves as facts.

Surely, even you are fully aware of the whacking huge dollop of irony that goes along with this comment.

Your nits have been nothing but opinions passed of as concrete factoids. Additionally, you ignore the overall boxoffice take of the film in a ham-handed attempt to call the movie a 'flop.'

 

[DarthTom]

Your nits have been nothing but opinions passed of as concrete factoids. Additionally, you ignore the overall boxoffice take of the film in a ham-handed attempt to call the movie a 'flop.'

I made it clear - these are my opinions. Hey man, if you like giant robots fighting godzilla like creatures with some quirky characters mixed in for good measure you're going to love this film.

If you don't - you will not. It was OK IMO but nothing to heap praises on as one of the best films of the summer.

Pacific Rim has made $68 million domestically on a budgt of $190 million

Pacific Rim flops in the UK on its opening weekend amking only 2.19 million pounds.

But lets leave it to the experts at Variety who do study and report on the film industry who have described the film as a flop since I'm assuming neither you or I study or work in the film industry as they do.

Can you find any Hollywood industry indsiders who cover box office totals who are describing Pacific Rim as a success?

 

[Noname Given]

Your nits have been nothing but opinions passed of as concrete factoids. Additionally, you ignore the overall boxoffice take of the film in a ham-handed attempt to call the movie a 'flop.'

I made it clear - these are my opinions. Hey man, if you like giant robots fighting godzilla like creatures with some quirky characters mixed in for good measure you're going to love this film.

If you don't - you will not. It was OK IMO but nothing to heap praises on as one of the best films of the summer.

Pacific Rim has made $68 million domestically on a budgt of $190 million

But lets leave it to the experts at Variety who do study the industry who have described the film as a flop since I'm assuming neither you or I study or work in the film industry since they do.

Um no - as of this posting Pacific Rim has made

Worldwide: $178,535,000 (link)

(And while that's not a hit - it shows the film will at least break even or show a profit down the road with Blu-Ray/DVD/Cable channels broadcast rights, etc.)

You want to see a true flop by comparison? I give you:

R.I.P.D. (Worldwide total: $19,563,000) (link)

And in comparison: Pacific Rim's worldwide opening weekend total worldwide was $90 million or so.)

Yep, it's not a big hit, but it's hardly a major flop; and in the end, all the studios care about is money made -- where it comes from doesn't matter.

 

[DarthTom]

Yep, it's not a big hit, but it's hardly a major flop; and in the end, all the studios care about is money made -- where it comes from doesn't matter.

Meh. Variety described it that way. And I dunno - they actually work and report on the industry.

But yes, R.I.P.D. and The Lone Ranger are much bigger flops.

As an aside, I read an article this morning that the Conjuring made $41 million this weekend on a budget of $20 million and Hollywood moving forward is likely to look for better stories rather than big films moving forward.

We'll see.

 

[DarthTom]

Here are some interesting comparisons BTW. Here are Paramounts two gambles for the summer both also costing ~ $190 million.

World War Z

Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $186,941,000 41.0% + Foreign: $269,500,000 59.0% = Worldwide: $456,441,000

Domestic Summary
Opening Weekend: $66,411,834 [(#2 rank, 3,607 theaters, $18,412 average) % of Total Gross: 35.5% > View All 5 Weekends[ Widest Release: 3,607 theaters In Release: 31 days / 4.4 weeks

Star Trek Into Darkness

Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $225,122,000 50.2% + Foreign: $223,500,000 49.8% = Worldwide: $448,622,000

Domestic Summary
Opening Weekend: $70,165,559 (#1 rank, 3,868 theaters, $18,140 average) % of Total Gross: 31.2% > View All 10 Weekends Widest Release: 3,907 theaters In Release: 67 days / 9.6 weeks

 

[The Doctor]

Your nits have been nothing but opinions passed of as concrete factoids. Additionally, you ignore the overall boxoffice take of the film in a ham-handed attempt to call the movie a 'flop.'

I made it clear - these are my opinions. Hey man, if you like giant robots fighting godzilla like creatures with some quirky characters mixed in for good measure you're going to love this film.

If you don't - you will not. It was OK IMO but nothing to heap praises on as one of the best films of the summer.

I never made any such assertion. I simply pointed out that the movie has almost made back it's budget after two weeks and that your criticisms were shallow and nonsensical.

Pacific Rim has made $68 million domestically on a budgt of $190 million

Pacific Rim flops in the UK on its opening weekend amking only 2.19 million pounds.

But lets leave it to the experts at Variety who do study and report on the film industry who have described the film as a flop since I'm assuming neither you or I study or work in the film industry as they do.

Can you find any Hollywood industry indsiders who cover box office totals who are describing Pacific Rim as a success?

Your favorite source, Variety, calls Pacific Rim neither a bomb nor a runaway success.

http://variety.com/2013/film/news/b...ing-at-38-million-for-the-weekend-1200562349/

 

[DarthTom]

I simply pointed out that the movie has almost made back it's budget after two weeks and that your criticisms were shallow and nonsensical.

I get it man - you liked the movie, but I was underwhelmed. My criticisms are my opinions and whether you agree with my criticisms or not is opinion as well.

 

[gblews]

Saw it this past week-end. I guess I just didn't get what it was that everyone else got that made them love this movie. I'm no giant robot aficionado but I did love Gigantor as a kid, the Iron Giant, and the first Transformers movie, but "Rim" didn't move me.

The characters were dull, as were their back stories. I did find the Asian woman mildly interesting but they didn't tell enough about her to really engage me. The acting by the young Jaeger operators was average and that is being generous. Even Idris Elba, who I usually love, seemed to be phoning it in.

I did enjoy watching the Jaegers punching the monsters, though. That never seemed to get old. In fact, I wish there had been some WWF body slamming. That would certainly have kept me awake.

 

[KGator]

Pacific Rim wasn't the greatest movie of all time but out of the summer flicks I saw (STID, MOS, WWZ, Oblivion and PR) it was probably my second favorite (the top three were all close in my mind).

That being said, I see it only making between $100-115 million domestically and $275-325 million overseas. Which isn't bad ($375-$440 million worldwide) but because of overseas gross receipts having a smaller portion going to the studio than in the US it will probably lose money before other rights are included. In the long run I think it turns a profit but not from box office revenue in relation to its budget.

Even if it made Transformers type money in China ($120 million) only a quarter of that would make it back to the studios.