Specific Rim

Rot your brains, then rot our boards

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Adacore
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm UTC
Location: 한국 창원

Re: pacific rim

Postby Adacore » Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:43 pm UTC

MyGfsDog wrote:Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of great action movies, but they are getting harder and harder to come by. It's the constant action-everything trailers that turn me away. I love the Batman films, and those are primarily action, but I go into it knowing that there is a lot more to it than just action, and most of the best parts do not involve action. And frankly, I love films with a lot of violence in them, but it can't be mindless. But I'm not referring to 'films with fun action and physical conflict.' I'm talking about action action action movies. They're just not for me. Not since I was a kid.

The only problem with that approach is that you just can't tell from trailers for most movies whether a movie is action-everything or not. I guess Inception's trailer had a few mindfuck-style scenes to tip you off that it was more interesting than your average action flick, but most of them use action shots for all/most of the trailer because that's what draws the most people in to see the film. You can't tell without reading a review or actually seeing the movie whether the bits of plot between the action sequences are interesting and clever, shallow and stupid, or completely nonexistant.

Not that Pacific Rim was a clever, intellectual action movie. In this case it really was mostly action-action-action, so if you don't like that kind of movie I don't suggest you see it. Personally, the only contant-action movies I've really hated for being nothing but stupid action were the Transformers films - this one at least has a much more solid filmatic framework around it than those.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: pacific rim

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:46 am UTC

MyGfsDog wrote:Although it's and over-generalization, you're pretty much right. I don't like movies where people would rather fight than simply say, "hey let's work this out." It's too simplistic to just have people fighting all the time. Sorry, but I like to think about things when I watch a movie sometimes, rather than everything just being a visual slug fest (as in fists, not...snails, lol). Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of great action movies, but they are getting harder and harder to come by. It's the constant action-everything trailers that turn me away. I love the Batman films, and those are primarily action, but I go into it knowing that there is a lot more to it than just action, and most of the best parts do not involve action. And frankly, I love films with a lot of violence in them, but it can't be mindless. But I'm not referring to 'films with fun action and physical conflict.' I'm talking about action action action movies. They're just not for me. Not since I was a kid.
I disagree with your opinion, but trying to talk to you about it seems sort of pointless. Shrug.
MyGfsDog wrote:And you're right. I do hate country music because country music is god aweful. lol. Modern country, that is. I have not heard even one good country song made in the past 20 years, so why should I pretend to like it? Old country is something entirely different and much much better. Kinda like action movies!
This is rather my point; I think you're being unreasonably judgmental on a whole genre of films, and incidentally, when you have that opinion, posting in a thread about a film that is pretty much that theme taken to the extreme for funsies, is pretty silly. I tend to dislike romantic comedies, but recognize that there are great movies that fall into that category; I suggest giving the film and the genre a chance, and thinking a bit more about what's going on.

When I was living back in Chicago, I belonged to a movie club. It tended to attract middle to older aged people who were kind of seeking a chance to feel sophisticated by watching movies they wouldn't be exposed to otherwise, but most weren't really 'movie buffs'. The head of the program was a pretty cool dude, and when Kung-Fu Hustle came out, he got an advanced screening. He preempted the audience by saying "Imagine it's an Opera, but instead of singing, they fight. All the other themes of classic stories are present, but the venue for conversation is flying fists." Most of the audience did not understand this point, and rather then have a conversation about some of the great themes and characters, it was basically a bunch of surly people griping about how it was too silly and violent.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: pacific rim

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jul 23, 2013 2:43 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:When I was living back in Chicago, I belonged to a movie club. It tended to attract middle to older aged people who were kind of seeking a chance to feel sophisticated by watching movies they wouldn't be exposed to otherwise, but most weren't really 'movie buffs'. The head of the program was a pretty cool dude, and when Kung-Fu Hustle came out, he got an advanced screening. He preempted the audience by saying "Imagine it's an Opera, but instead of singing, they fight. All the other themes of classic stories are present, but the venue for conversation is flying fists." Most of the audience did not understand this point, and rather then have a conversation about some of the great themes and characters, it was basically a bunch of surly people griping about how it was too silly and violent.


I have described Scott Pilgrim as "a musical, except with fighting instead of singing" on a few occasions.

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: pacific rim

Postby Derek » Tue Jul 23, 2013 8:38 am UTC

cephalopod9 wrote:What are the consequences of detonating a nuclear bomb in the ocean? [spoiler]The one they set off made all the water go away for a minute. I figure that was mainly because that's what looked the coolest, but maybe the force of a nuclear detonation would be sufficient to make a giant bubble.
I don't know that much about how explosions work under water.
How much of the ocean would end up irradiated?

The explosion will immediately vaporize a large quantity of water, which will presumably rapidly rise to the surface. In it's place, surrounding water will rush in. I don't know how long this takes, and that's about all I know about underwater nuclear explosions.

User avatar
Adacore
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm UTC
Location: 한국 창원

Re: pacific rim

Postby Adacore » Tue Jul 23, 2013 2:02 pm UTC

Derek wrote:
cephalopod9 wrote:What are the consequences of detonating a nuclear bomb in the ocean?
Spoiler:
The one they set off made all the water go away for a minute. I figure that was mainly because that's what looked the coolest, but maybe the force of a nuclear detonation would be sufficient to make a giant bubble.

I don't know that much about how explosions work under water.
How much of the ocean would end up irradiated?

The explosion will immediately vaporize a large quantity of water, which will presumably rapidly rise to the surface. In it's place, surrounding water will rush in. I don't know how long this takes, and that's about all I know about underwater nuclear explosions.

This is probably true in most bodies of water where you could detonate a nuke, but at the bottom of the pacific ocean, where the rift is located in the movie, the pressure is well above the critical pressure for water (more than double, perhaps as much as five times), so the concept of 'vaporization' doesn't really exist. The water would certainly heat up and expand a lot, but I'm not sure if it would physically be able to change state.
Last edited by Adacore on Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:22 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: pacific rim

Postby eSOANEM » Tue Jul 23, 2013 8:31 pm UTC

Adacore wrote:
MyGfsDog wrote:Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of great action movies, but they are getting harder and harder to come by. It's the constant action-everything trailers that turn me away. I love the Batman films, and those are primarily action, but I go into it knowing that there is a lot more to it than just action, and most of the best parts do not involve action. And frankly, I love films with a lot of violence in them, but it can't be mindless. But I'm not referring to 'films with fun action and physical conflict.' I'm talking about action action action movies. They're just not for me. Not since I was a kid.

The only problem with that approach is that you just can't tell from trailers for most movies whether a movie is action-everything or not. I guess Inception's trailer had a few mindfuck-style scenes to tip you off that it was more interesting than your average action flick, but most of them use action shots for all/most of the trailer because that's what draws the most people in to see the film. You can't tell without reading a review or actually seeing the movie whether the bits of plot between the action sequences are interesting and clever, shallow and stupid, or completely nonexistant.


See my rebuttal to this point on the previous page.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: pacific rim

Postby Derek » Tue Jul 23, 2013 10:17 pm UTC

Adacore wrote:
Derek wrote:
cephalopod9 wrote:What are the consequences of detonating a nuclear bomb in the ocean? [spoiler]The one they set off made all the water go away for a minute. I figure that was mainly because that's what looked the coolest, but maybe the force of a nuclear detonation would be sufficient to make a giant bubble.
I don't know that much about how explosions work under water.
How much of the ocean would end up irradiated?

The explosion will immediately vaporize a large quantity of water, which will presumably rapidly rise to the surface. In it's place, surrounding water will rush in. I don't know how long this takes, and that's about all I know about underwater nuclear explosions.

This is probably true in most bodies of water where you could detonate a nuke, but at the bottom of the pacific ocean, where the rift is located in the movie, the pressure is well above the critical pressure for water (more than double, perhaps as much as five times), so the concept of 'vaporization' doesn't really exist. The water would certainly heat up and expand a lot, but I'm not sure if it would physically be able to change state.

This is an interesting point I didn't consider. I'm not very familiar with supercritical fluids, but Wikipedia says that their density varies with pressure, so the supercritical water should still rise away, to be replaced by cooler water. What this would look like, I don't know.

This sounds like a good XKCD What If.

Cave Wizard
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 2:10 am UTC

Re: pacific rim

Postby Cave Wizard » Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:18 am UTC

Amen! This sounds like an excellent "What if?"

Also, are there any threads about the physical practicality of giant robots? Or the "what if" aspects of just-over-the-horizon super-materials?

I have one more thing to say: I think making a completely useless wall is exactly the kind of stupid thing that real people/politicians would do. When do real people act rationally about natural disaster preparedness? Hell, my readiness plan for a disaster shutting down the infrastructure in my city is to fill the bathtub with drinking water and hope that I coincidentally have enough flour and rice in the pantry to keep fed until trucks start rolling into town again

User avatar
sparkyb
Posts: 1091
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:30 pm UTC
Location: Camberville proper!
Contact:

Re: pacific rim

Postby sparkyb » Wed Jul 24, 2013 5:36 am UTC

For those of you that think Pacific Rim is a mindless, dumb robot explosiongasm, you should take a look at this article that makes a case that it has a depth to the visual storytelling that people are missing because we typically analyze films mostly linguistically, and the intelligence in this movie is not in the dialog or the plot.

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: pacific rim

Postby Derek » Wed Jul 24, 2013 7:21 am UTC

sparkyb wrote:For those of you that think Pacific Rim is a mindless, dumb robot explosiongasm, you should take a look at this article that makes a case that it has a depth to the visual storytelling that people are missing because we typically analyze films mostly linguistically, and the intelligence in this movie is not in the dialog or the plot.

From the article:
"I thought it was really cool how Mako dyed her hair to match her jacket that she wore in the flashback scene. It was like she was still thinking about that day and carrying it with her."

Mind blown.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: pacific rim

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jul 24, 2013 11:51 am UTC

Cave Wizard wrote:Amen! This sounds like an excellent "What if?"

Also, are there any threads about the physical practicality of giant robots? Or the "what if" aspects of just-over-the-horizon super-materials?

I have one more thing to say: I think making a completely useless wall is exactly the kind of stupid thing that real people/politicians would do. When do real people act rationally about natural disaster preparedness? Hell, my readiness plan for a disaster shutting down the infrastructure in my city is to fill the bathtub with drinking water and hope that I coincidentally have enough flour and rice in the pantry to keep fed until trucks start rolling into town again


Well, that's easy. They're not practical at all. In actual practice, a lot of sea floor is muck, or sandy, or otherwise incapable of supporting anywhere near that kind of weight/square foot. Hell, so is a lot of land. We use ships and tanks because they're a lot more practical in real life, and scaling up further only worsens the problem.

However, giant robots are cool.

User avatar
ArgonV
Posts: 1792
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:08 pm UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: pacific rim

Postby ArgonV » Wed Jul 24, 2013 1:38 pm UTC

Yeah, the whole film runs on 'Rule of Cool' as far as Jaegers and Kaiju are concerned. There's no way those Kaiju can even breathe with the oxygen content in our atmosphere, or support their own weight.

That said, I really enjoyed this film, since what I got out of it, was pretty much exactly what I expected

User avatar
DreadArchon
Posts: 464
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:29 pm UTC
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: pacific rim

Postby DreadArchon » Thu Jul 25, 2013 3:41 am UTC

This movie was awesome even if scientifically vapid. It was everything I hoped it would be.

Also, my thanks to sparkyb:

sparkyb wrote:For those of you that think Pacific Rim is a mindless, dumb robot explosiongasm, you should take a look at this article that makes a case that it has a depth to the visual storytelling that people are missing because we typically analyze films mostly linguistically, and the intelligence in this movie is not in the dialog or the plot.


Great link, worth reading thread to extract. Thanks.

User avatar
Adacore
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm UTC
Location: 한국 창원

Re: pacific rim

Postby Adacore » Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:19 am UTC

The Russian pilots were a bit too 'caricatured Russians' for me to be able to really appreciate the nuance of their character design and interaction. I completely agree on Mako Mori though - her character design was awesome, the scene from her memories was spectacularly well done, and it was beautifully linked to everything about the character and her choices for the rest of the film. If someone were trying to argue that this film has no intellectual merit at all, just get them to watch that memory sequence.

It was mentioned earlier, but by far the most interesting thing about this movie was the drift, memory sharing, and everything that would entail in its effects on the relationships both between the two (or three) people drifting and betwen those people and everyone else they know. I would've loved to see this explored further than it was.

User avatar
pseudoidiot
Sexy Beard Man
Posts: 5101
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:30 pm UTC
Location: Kansas City
Contact:

Re: pacific rim

Postby pseudoidiot » Mon Jul 29, 2013 6:21 pm UTC

I want to see a Pacific Rim video game that's played with 2 players, each using a separate controller to control a single Jaeger.
Derailed : Gaming Outside the Box.
SecondTalon wrote:*swoons* I love you, all powerful pseudoidiot!
ShootTheChicken wrote:I can't stop thinking about pseudoidiot's penis.

User avatar
clockworkmonk
I'm on a horse!
Posts: 649
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 12:53 am UTC
Location: Austin

Re: pacific rim

Postby clockworkmonk » Mon Jul 29, 2013 6:40 pm UTC

so like co-op mode of katamari?
418 I'm a teapot

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: pacific rim

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Jul 29, 2013 6:53 pm UTC

pseudoidiot wrote:I want to see a Pacific Rim video game that's played with 2 players, each using a separate controller to control a single Jaeger.
Pacific Rim specifics aside, I actually think 'division of labor' games will be really interesting as better communication and set ups start coming up. Things like SpaceTeam, Guns of Icarus, or that Spaceship Commander Simulator thingy are all immensely interesting to me.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: pacific rim

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 29, 2013 8:32 pm UTC

Finally got around to watching it last night, so now I can discuss it more in particular.

I had not originally planned to watch this movie, having seen the trailer and expecting it to be the equivalent of battleship. A big, dumb, punchy action movie. It is all of those things but dumb. It's not even just the visual stuff alone...it's that they simply put a level of polish on it that a lot of action movies don't get.

Think about it...how many action movies do you watch where you have at least one moment when you know, word for word, what an actor is going to say before he says it? There's a LOT of laziness in writing these things, and elements like the one liner frequently get added not because they are good, but because they are expected. Everything that is not Action is simply rote, included because it is felt to be necessary, including the obligatory romance. These things utterly lack quality, and people pretty much just wait for them to end.

Pacific Rim didn't bother with the unnecessary romance. It had dialogue that at least mostly sounded like real people talking. It had solid details that weren't critical to catch, but that improved the feel of the world...for instance, the marking on the Jaegers were very fighter-pilot like, and were clearly customized by the crew. Given the previous explicit comparisons, this is a detail that just feels right. There are a thousand such little things, and it is those little things that make a story feel compelling even if the premise is ludicrous. In fact, I think the little things are MORE important when the premise is ludicrous.

I hope this catches on, and people will no longer see the summer blockbuster as something they can be lazy with.

User avatar
Jorpho
Posts: 6290
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:31 am UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Specific Rim

Postby Jorpho » Mon Aug 05, 2013 4:49 am UTC

Having seen the film, I for one do not think there is anything in particular that elevates it above the likes of Starship Troopers or Independence Day. Or perhaps Battleship, though I haven't actually seen that one. I do seem to recall people railing against the latter and its perceived lack of originality, and I struggle to see how this film is different.

I guess in some small ways it feels a little more authentic? Perhaps it is some intangible quality of the acting. Having not heard of Charlie Hunnam before, I was kind of expecting to find out that he was yet another former underwear model (cf. Garrett Hedlund, Alex Pettyfer) – y'know, considering he has not one but two gratuitous shirtless scenes, plus the fight scene – but apparently he has actually acted before.

Also, I like the idea of the giant sea wall being built as a distraction for humanity at large when governments are faced with the spiraling and unsustainable costs of Jaeger construction and maintenance.

User avatar
charliepanayi
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:26 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: Specific Rim

Postby charliepanayi » Mon Aug 05, 2013 8:16 am UTC

Jorpho wrote:Having seen the film, I for one do not think there is anything in particular that elevates it above the likes of Starship Troopers or Independence Day. Or perhaps Battleship, though I haven't actually seen that one. I do seem to recall people railing against the latter and its perceived lack of originality, and I struggle to see how this film is different.

I guess in some small ways it feels a little more authentic? Perhaps it is some intangible quality of the acting. Having not heard of Charlie Hunnam before, I was kind of expecting to find out that he was yet another former underwear model (cf. Garrett Hedlund, Alex Pettyfer) – y'know, considering he has not one but two gratuitous shirtless scenes, plus the fight scene – but apparently he has actually acted before.

Also, I like the idea of the giant sea wall being built as a distraction for humanity at large when governments are faced with the spiraling and unsustainable costs of Jaeger construction and maintenance.


Starship Troopers is 1000000000000000000000000 times better than both those other films you mention.
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying"

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Specific Rim

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Aug 05, 2013 8:47 pm UTC

Jorpho wrote:Having seen the film, I for one do not think there is anything in particular that elevates it above the likes of Starship Troopers or Independence Day. Or perhaps Battleship, though I haven't actually seen that one. I do seem to recall people railing against the latter and its perceived lack of originality, and I struggle to see how this film is different.

I guess in some small ways it feels a little more authentic? Perhaps it is some intangible quality of the acting. Having not heard of Charlie Hunnam before, I was kind of expecting to find out that he was yet another former underwear model (cf. Garrett Hedlund, Alex Pettyfer) – y'know, considering he has not one but two gratuitous shirtless scenes, plus the fight scene – but apparently he has actually acted before.

Also, I like the idea of the giant sea wall being built as a distraction for humanity at large when governments are faced with the spiraling and unsustainable costs of Jaeger construction and maintenance.


Battleship was hilarious, and is definitely in a different weight class. I'd put it in "so bad it's good". It gives no craps about making sense, and simply relies on emotion. Emotion is not bad....but at some point, suspension of disbelief is going to suffer when you stop worrying about things making sense.

For instance, when they offhandedly describe how previous attempts to nuke the rift had failed. It wasn't important to explaining what they were going to do, but it WAS important in making the world feel real. If this really happened, someone somewhere would have gotten to "hey, let's toss some nukes at this" long, long before they got to giant robots and superwalls. In a less good film, they would have treated the nuke plan as something entirely new, possibly brilliant, and that would have been the end of it.

User avatar
Adacore
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm UTC
Location: 한국 창원

Re: Specific Rim

Postby Adacore » Mon Aug 05, 2013 11:21 pm UTC

I realise it's subjective, but Metacritic would rank the films as Pacific Rim (64%) > Independence Day (59%) > Starship Troopers (51%) > Battleship (41%). I've only seen the first two of those, and would've put Independence Day slightly ahead of Pacific Rim, but I probably overrate Independence Day (in considering it a pretty good movie) because it's a summer blockbuster that came out when I was 12 and was, therefore, awesome.

User avatar
Jorpho
Posts: 6290
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:31 am UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Specific Rim

Postby Jorpho » Tue Aug 06, 2013 1:17 am UTC

I was annoyed when people behind me started talking during the Big Monologue. Fortunately you can watch a version of it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... fhNDtSqPRA

[NOTE: Not the actual monologue. But better!]

Tyndmyr wrote:For instance, when they offhandedly describe how previous attempts to nuke the rift had failed. It wasn't important to explaining what they were going to do, but it WAS important in making the world feel real. If this really happened, someone somewhere would have gotten to "hey, let's toss some nukes at this" long, long before they got to giant robots and superwalls. In a less good film, they would have treated the nuke plan as something entirely new, possibly brilliant, and that would have been the end of it.
That's a pretty good point. I wish I could think of other examples, but right now I keep hanging on "It's nuclear! It's analog!" and "They have two brains, like a dinosaur!"

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Specific Rim

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Aug 06, 2013 1:28 am UTC

Jorpho wrote:That's a pretty good point. I wish I could think of other examples, but right now I keep hanging on "It's nuclear! It's analog!" and "They have two brains, like a dinosaur!"
The 'It's analog!' part made everyone in the audience burst out laughing. I think more than anything it was a tongue in cheek reference to BSG.

Honestly, the plot holes that the movie had weren't idiotic, they were just kind of gently plugged with unobtainium. Remember in Looper, when Bruce Willis is talking to his past self, and he goes "Look, time travel is confusing, and it'll make your head explode, so stop thinking about!"? Same idea; that's the movie saying 'Look, we have this silly plot thing we want to run with, and we KNOW it's kind of stupid, but just shutup and enjoy the ride'.

It's definitely a careful balance to strike; too stupid and we roll our eyes and feel like the movies being a jerkface. But when it gets it right, we should just chuckle and think to ourselves 'Okokok, keep telling the story... heh, analog...'
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
sparkyb
Posts: 1091
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:30 pm UTC
Location: Camberville proper!
Contact:

Re: Specific Rim

Postby sparkyb » Tue Aug 06, 2013 2:01 am UTC

Adacore wrote:I realise it's subjective, but Metacritic would rank the films as Pacific Rim (64%) > Independence Day (59%) > Starship Troopers (51%) > Battleship (41%). I've only seen the first two of those, and would've put Independence Day slightly ahead of Pacific Rim, but I probably overrate Independence Day (in considering it a pretty good movie) because it's a summer blockbuster that came out when I was 12 and was, therefore, awesome.

I agree that Independence Day was pretty good for its time, even if there were some weak points in the plot. I'd probably rate it better than Pacific Rim but it is hard to compare things so far apart. I haven't seen Battleship, but Starship Troopers was one of the worst I've seen.

Izawwlgood wrote:Honestly, the plot holes that the movie had weren't idiotic, they were just kind of gently plugged with unobtainium.

The one plot hole I can't forgive is if you're going to protect yourself with a giant wall, why do you try to surround the entire freaking continent so that when it fails the monsters are already trampling your cities instead of just building the wall around the rift, a much smaller circumference and more advanced warning when it fails?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Specific Rim

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 06, 2013 7:03 pm UTC

Jorpho wrote:That's a pretty good point. I wish I could think of other examples, but right now I keep hanging on "It's nuclear! It's analog!" and "They have two brains, like a dinosaur!"


The analog one I can kind of buy, as code for "it's old, and less vulnerable to EMP". Yes, I know analog isn't entirely the same as "not vulnerable to EMP", and nuclear doesn't require non-digital...but in the context, it appears that the newer ones were powered by some kind of super batteries, like an electric vehicle. So, it'd be like saying "this car runs on gas" to explain why it'd be less vulnerable than an electric car. Not terribly accurate, but the kind of technical description I hear people make every day. Dude's a pilot, not a techie. I'm ok with factual misstatements as long as it's in char.

If I had a line I had a beef with, it'd be his "Oh me yarm, we're doomed, we have no options left" bit, when she points out that the machine has a sword. I can wink at the fact that they didn't happen to use this weapon until now easily, but it is a bit odd that a dude who piloted this particular mech as much as he's claimed to just forgot about one of the weapons systems on it.

It is probably impractical to build a wall around the rift, given that it's at the bottom of the marianas trench. I mean, granted, it's not like giant robots are practical either, but I didn't find the wall(or, more likely, walls) to be all that wierd.

User avatar
pseudoidiot
Sexy Beard Man
Posts: 5101
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:30 pm UTC
Location: Kansas City
Contact:

Re: Specific Rim

Postby pseudoidiot » Tue Aug 06, 2013 7:05 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:If I had a line I had a beef with, it'd be his "Gee Willikers, we're doomed, we have no options left" bit, when she points out that the machine has a sword. I can wink at the fact that they didn't happen to use this weapon until now easily, but it is a bit odd that a dude who piloted this particular mech as much as he's claimed to just forgot about one of the weapons systems on it.
The implication I got was that the sword was a new edition that she'd had installed, Not something that had always been there.

Though why you wouldn't let the pilot know about all the new capabilities is a bit strange. But, whatever, it made for a fun surprise moment.
Derailed : Gaming Outside the Box.
SecondTalon wrote:*swoons* I love you, all powerful pseudoidiot!
ShootTheChicken wrote:I can't stop thinking about pseudoidiot's penis.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Specific Rim

Postby Diadem » Tue Aug 06, 2013 10:29 pm UTC

I think the reason I liked this movie a lot more than other nonsensical action movies (like Transformers) is that this movie didn't try to make sense. A movie not taking itself seriously makes up for a lot of ridiculousness.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

johnie104
Posts: 248
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 6:44 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Specific Rim

Postby johnie104 » Thu Aug 08, 2013 10:42 am UTC

I really REALLY enjoyed this movie. I think it is the best movie I've seen this summer.
Some random little things I enjoyed:
Spoiler:
How the water rushed back after the nuke explosion. It was something I didn't expect, but when it happened it felt very right.
How the sword comes into play the first time and that Mako says something in Japanese along the lines of "You've killed my family. Prepare to die". It was just so stereotypically anime and just so fitting.
How the rain is colored different neon colors in the battle in Hong Kong and these colors are kind of like an aura around the Jaeger.
How Mako and the guy (don't know his name) don't kiss at the end. This makes it way better. They know each others memories and they know what they've been though. They just saved the world. This screams comradery and not romance. It would have been really bad if they kissed there. But they didn't, so yay!
The Jaeger using a bloody Oil-tanker as a mace. That is probably the most brutal melee weapon I have ever seen.


Some random things that irked me:
Spoiler:
The nuke was like 2400 Megatons and still one Kajiu survives. Que?
The Drift would be extremely interesting for neuroscientists. How is it they have not tested this on interspecies stuff before? The technology existed 25 years in the movie, surely someone would have tried? And then it is a small step to try to connect to a Kaiju.
The wall doesn't really do it for me. I would have bought it better if they just started trowing increasingly big nuclear bombs and the premise would be: "We have to use the Jaeger to destroy the rift, before we have used so many nukes we won't be able to live here at all. The wall idea just seems really stupid, but I guess it is quite believable that that is the best politicians can come up with.
Why don't we get a few shots of Europe? I would like to see how the war in the Pacific has effected these countries.
If the Jaeger are controlled by the brains of the pilots, how come they still have to push buttons and shout commands? I guess it makes it more readable for the reader that they are actually doing something, but the entire benefit of having neurocontrols would be that the response is immediate.


So yeah, if you enjoy action movies, you will definately enjoy this movie.
Signature removed because of it's blinding awesomeness.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Specific Rim

Postby Diadem » Thu Aug 08, 2013 11:36 am UTC

The Jaeger using an oil-tanker as a melee weapon was utterly ridiculous (An oil tanker would break if you tried to lift it like that, let alone if you swung it at someone), but thoroughly entertaining.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8572
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Specific Rim

Postby Zohar » Thu Aug 08, 2013 12:27 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:The Jaeger using an oil-tanker as a melee weaponThe entire movie was utterly ridiculous(An oil tanker would break if you tried to lift it like that, let alone if you swung it at someone), but thoroughly entertaining.


Fixed that for you.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Jorpho
Posts: 6290
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:31 am UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Specific Rim

Postby Jorpho » Sun Aug 11, 2013 9:26 pm UTC

By the way, isn't it well-established at this point that there is no such thing as a practical energy-generating nuclear reactor design that can possibly set off the same kind of explosion as an atomic bomb?

Yes, of course we're dealing with questionable physics already here, but then one hardly wants to convince the public to the contrary.

User avatar
Woopate
Scrapple
Posts: 503
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:34 am UTC

Re: Specific Rim

Postby Woopate » Mon Aug 12, 2013 8:22 am UTC

Spoiler:
I just learned that the sequence with the Newton's Cradle was done with practical effects (they actually built a giant fist to punch the Newton's Cradle into activity.) Awesome.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Specific Rim

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Aug 12, 2013 8:53 pm UTC

Jorpho wrote:By the way, isn't it well-established at this point that there is no such thing as a practical energy-generating nuclear reactor design that can possibly set off the same kind of explosion as an atomic bomb?

Yes, of course we're dealing with questionable physics already here, but then one hardly wants to convince the public to the contrary.


Power wasn't necessarily important, though. They'd already established that bombs proper outside the rift did nothing. The key was to try inside the portal. So, maybe an reactor meltdown or whatever was enough to do it. Or maybe they have some future reactor. *shrug* The portal was all invented physics, and there's no contradiction of it's properties within the work itself, so I have really no way to say what would work and what wouldn't.

User avatar
Jorpho
Posts: 6290
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:31 am UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Specific Rim

Postby Jorpho » Tue Aug 13, 2013 5:09 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:So, maybe an reactor meltdown or whatever was enough to do it.
What I mean is that a typical reactor meltdown is not ever anything like a nuclear explosion. Right?

rmsgrey
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: Specific Rim

Postby rmsgrey » Tue Aug 13, 2013 7:45 pm UTC

Jorpho wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:So, maybe an reactor meltdown or whatever was enough to do it.
What I mean is that a typical reactor meltdown is not ever anything like a nuclear explosion. Right?

A typical reactor meltdown involves lots of effort being put into being as unlike a nuclear explosion as possible. Were you to somehow reverse those efforts, you might get somewhere...

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Specific Rim

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:30 pm UTC

Jorpho wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:So, maybe an reactor meltdown or whatever was enough to do it.
What I mean is that a typical reactor meltdown is not ever anything like a nuclear explosion. Right?


*shrug* Not really sure what kind of reactor they're using, or what the mechanism for self destruction is, but who knows. Sure, any reactor is going to be, pound for pound, vastly less effective than a bomb, because it's just not designed to go boom, but it apparently had a self destruct option built in, and with the right design, I have no doubt that someone could make a reactor self destruct with a certain degree of messiness. Enough to disrupt a magical-physics portal? Who knows....

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Specific Rim

Postby Diadem » Tue Aug 13, 2013 10:00 pm UTC

It would actually be extremely hard to make a nuclear bomb from a nuclear reactor. A reactor contains a lot more radioactive material than a nuclear bomb, but that's not all you need. You need immaculate timing as well.

Radioactive atoms are atoms that decay (= fall apart into pieces). When they decay they release radiation, and if this radiation happens to strike another atom, that atom may decay as well, releasing more radiation. Pack enough uranium or plutonium tightly enough together, and every decay event will trigger, on average, more than 1 other decay event, causing an increasingly powerful chain reaction. Sounds simple enough. The problem is that this reaction is extremely violent (duh! That's why it's a bomb), so it tends to blow the material in all directions. So the "enough uranium tightly enough together" part will only hold for a very short time. Not enough to get a really powerful explosion, unless you help it along. There are two ways to do this. One is to shoot two half spheres of uranium against each other, the other is to pack a sphere of uranium in a shell of dynamite, and explode the dynamite all at once. Both methods very violently push a lot of uranium together, and do this with enough force to make it last a while. The nuclear chain reaction has more time to build up, because the material isn't immediately blown apart, because it's actively being pushed together. So the chain reaction is a lot stronger, and you have a nuclear explosion.

This requires very good timing, and is basically impossible to do without very precisely controlling all the parameters. So this won't happen in a nuclear reactor, no matter what you do (unless you want to count 'taking the uranium from a reactor to build a nuclear bomb' as 'exploding a reactor').

That's not to say reactors aren't dangerous. They contain much more, and much stronger, radioactive material than a bomb. With enough time and malice you can do huge environmental damage with one. But causing environmental damage is not the same as causing a nuclear explosion.

Of course the rift is magical. Perhaps nuclear radiation seals it, and simply releasing the reactor contents in its vicinity was enough.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
WibblyWobbly
Can't Get No
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:03 pm UTC

Re: Specific Rim

Postby WibblyWobbly » Wed Aug 14, 2013 2:09 am UTC

That was a good post, Diadem. Thank you.

One thing that always surprised me is that everyone points to Chernobyl as the example of how ridiculously unsafe nuclear power can be, but from what I've read, it actually took quite a string of failures, oversights and defects for that disaster to happen - from graphite-tipped control rods displacing coolant to the reactor being kept in a highly unstable state to simply performing a risky test at the wrong time of day with the wrong people on-hand. And even then, the worst-case scenario for a reactor explosion seemed to happen - no nuclear explosion, but a violent explosion (hydrogen gas?) that ruptured containment and dispersed the highly radioactive material.

So yeah, basically reiterating what you said; the only real way to get a nuclear explosion from a reactor is "take the radioactive stuff out and make a bomb from it."

maybeagnostic
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

Re: Specific Rim

Postby maybeagnostic » Wed Aug 14, 2013 4:38 pm UTC

Of course, no one makes nuclear reactors with self-destruct capability in the real world because you never want one blowing up. Clearly whoever was in charge of retrofitting the jager with a nuclear reactor decided it needed to be capable of exploding and set a large team of experienced physicists and engineers on the months long task of figuring out how to build one that can. Maybe they figured when the jager was eventually defeated by a kaiju, the pilots could at least take their enemy with them... um, ok, so probably no one gave it that much thought. Nuclear reactors don't (and can't) go boom but most people think they can so they do in movies. In fact, pretty much all military hardware in movies is capable of self-destructing in a dramatic explosion even though nearly no real-world machines have a big red button that makes them go boom.
T: ... through an emergency induction port.
S: That's a straw, Tali.
T: Emerrrgency induction port.


Return to “Movies and TV Shows”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests