Pacific Rim (the big general thread)

[Killswitch]

If Godzilla bombs, the only people to blame is LP. Bottom-line, LP needs to put out a quality product, and both the timing of the release and the marketing has to be spot on.

I hope Pacific Rim does well. All the better for the genre!

[Hipster Thor]

O yes, lets forgo the opportunity for a new Godzilla franchise and settle for Godzilla making a cameo appearance in an unrelated film, assuming Toho would let that happen. It'll be great!

Jeez man, calm down. You call people on being naiive, but you're the one claiming the Godzilla franchise is over before either film is released.

Legendary has already made it clear that both films will be released, and I'm sure they have taken this into consideration.

Again, the reason why I cite superhero films as an example is that believe it or not before our market was saturated with them they too were a novelty. It wasn't until X-men and Spider-man exploded that the potential for comic book, and adaptation movies in general was realized. The very same could be seen for these films.

Let's just calm down a bit and atleast wait for more information before we start claiming the sky is falling.

Firstly, I never said the Godzilla franchise is over. I'm saying if the movie fails on a box office angle, the franchise is dead. No matter how good it is, if it fails at the box office, game over. Pacific Rim could be very harmful to Godzilla's returns.

On superhero films. Superhero films didn't suddenly explode with popularity when Spider-Man and X-Men came out. Its simply that superhero movies are convenient vessels to create blockbusters. They have marquis value, given the superhero's name, and offer up many special effects possibilities in which to further market it. Superhero films are easy and marketable. It doesn't have much to do wiht popularity so much as it has to do with convenience. Superhero movies make about as much as non superhero special effects films. If you really think about it, the amount of superhero movies on the market can be amounted to 3 franchises. X-Men, which may be over. Batman, which is the most popular. And The Avengers, and because of that little crossover experiment, the Avengers account for the majority of modern day superhero films. I think the upcoming Superman will do ok, but not great, and I think the next Spiderman will bomb to be honest. The Avengers movie will have a bigger opening weekend than TDKR.

[HayesAJones]

I agree. Can't we just appreciate this for what it is?

[KaneLocke]

I agree. Can't we just appreciate this for what it is?

Look at the history of this fandom.

As a whole, it cannot just take something for what it is.

[miguelnuva]

if pacfic rim is sucessful and Godzilla isn't LP will just cross the two over. that's what marvel has been doing and it's made their movies way more sucessful.

If you asked people would they rather see iron-man III, Thor 2 Captain America 2 and Hulk 2 or Avengers their going to want to see The avengers.

[shinmattiathekaiju]

I think getting all up tight whether Godzilla will be threatened or not by this movie is stupid.

Enjoy the fact we're getting a big budget monster movie. Sheesh.

Indeed.

I think it's more likely that an ignorant movie goer will look at both and say "Pffft. What a frickin' GINO rip off." But I firmly believe there's room for two. And obviously so does Legendary.

Fixed.

[Gorosaurus Rex]

Based on the information given so far, I wouldnt find it surprising that Godzilla and Pacific Rim could exist in the same universe. A crossover film could be alot of fun.

[Hipster Thor]

I don't see how you can claim that the success of a number of superhero films didn't lead to the plethora that have been coming out for the past decade or more. Spiderman's popularity in particular signaled to filmmakers that the public was eager to see superhero films. Yeah, they also happen to be convenient venues for special effects, but its the proven marketability of certain films such as Spiderman that opened the floodgate for a lot more, shall we say, bargain bin heroes to get their own flicks. I mean, the Green Hornet isn't exactly a hot cultural icon, and even some more interesting characters like the Watchmen were mostly only known to comic book fans. Did they get made simply because they offer special effects opportunities, or was it the public's recent interest in superheroes (see: success of Spiderman and other superhero films that followed) that gave them their chance in the spotlight?

Superhero films have a significant amount of recognition in terms of names. Audiences respond to name brands because you also get the added bonus of all the fans of the name. So with a Superhero film you can maximize profits. This is the same with ANY film from a recognizable franchise. Look at Star Trek, Land of the Lost, and even the god dammed Smurfs. Superhero films are the most frequent because there's so many damn superheroes. It has nothing to do with them being more popular, they're just convenient and accessible in a day where original story ideas are a liability.

As for Green Hornet, that was more of them marketing an action comedy while cashing in on an old show, rather than a superhero film. And Watchmen was based on a best seller and can be argued as an anti-superhero movie that came out at the right time. Counter culture if you will.

[Gorosaurus Rex]

We are aware of that, but the point I and numerous other users have been making is that Hollywood in general was not aware of this until the genre blew up in the earl 2000's with Spider-man and X-men.

[Hipster Thor]

We are aware of that, but the point I and numerous other users have been making is that Hollywood in general was not aware of this until the genre blew up in the earl 2000's with Spider-man and X-men.

So now they make them because they're convenient, not because the audience is demanding them. An average movie goer is just as content seeing Rise of the Planet of the Apes, as they would Thor.

Now you may say this would apply to Godzilla and Pacific Rim as well, but the problem is that they're too similar. An audience member is stupid. They associate a difference between Thor and Green Lantern because they're different characters in different environments with different powers, but really they're the same move.(Though Thor is INFINITELY better)An audience member is too stupid to associate a Giant Monster as a character, and GINO didn't help. Pacific Rim and Godzilla 2012 are too similar productions. One will fail, and I'm betting it will be whichever movie is released second. But even if Godzilla is released first, it still has the stench of GINO to shake off, plus its a reboot (of a very frequented franchise, mind you.), which people are just now beginning to realize are generally bad. It's fine in Godzilla's case because that's what the franchise is. Sequels and reboots adding more to the mythos, but the average movie goer won't know that.

Having another giant monster movie competeing with the make-it or break-it of Godzilla's career is a BAD THING.

[Hipster Thor]

Now, Donkun, exactly how do you know that audiences are "stupid" in that they see a difference between superheroes while ignoring the similarity of the movies but "too stupid" to view a monster as a character and, thus, see the differences between Pacific Rim and Godzilla?

1. I know audiences are stupid because Transformers 3 just grossed over One Billion worldwide
2. If Monsters were viewed as characters in the United States, I'm pretty sure there'd be more of them. If something doesn't talk or isn't cute or display some level of anthropomorphism, then it isn't relatable, and ergo, not a character. that's why monsters are usually the bad guy. American audiences think too one dimensionally for these sort of concepts. That Plinkett guy I love so much did a analysis of Avatar, he didn't hate the movie, but he dissected the whole Nav'i thing and focused on how the aliens were tailor made to manipulate the audience into relating and sympathizing with them purely on face value, and how underhanded and lazy it was. He drew parallels between District 9 and Avatar, saying district 9 was superior because the Prawns displayed nothing cute or human. They were kind of gross and stupid, except for Christopher, ut the directing was god enough to get people to feel bad fr them. This is what the Godzilla film NEEDS, but that still isn't going to put movie goers in the seats. Godzilla's even at a lesser disadvantage when you consider that Pacific Rim's main protagonists are humans, presumably in giant human shaped mech suits. That's easier for a stupid movie goer to wrap there mind around, rather than rooting for a giant, atomic, dinosaur who has no distinct motivation other than core emotions.

[shinmattiathekaiju]

Neither of those points leads to the conclusions you're making. Let me lay out your argument.

1. I don't like movie X
2. Audiences went to see movie x
3. Therefore audiences are stupid

... what?

Svistska is like Spoony!

[Gorosaurus Rex]

So...the Godzilla film wont feature human protagonists? Wow. This is news to me.

Your point about comparing Rise of the Apes to Thor also makes no sense at all in this context.

I thought we were talking about critics anyways? So the majority of the worlds film critics are idiots? I knew it! Now I know why stupid movies like King Speech always win Best Picture.

[Crocodile]

1. I know audiences are stupid because Transformers 3 just grossed over One Billion worldwide

This is how you know you are smrt, when you discredit the intelligence of others for disagreeing with you over movies.

LOGIC

[KaneLocke]

That's easier for a stupid movie goer to wrap there mind around, rather than rooting for a giant, atomic, dinosaur who has no distinct motivation other than core emotions.

Right. Because we know the LP film will give Godzilla no motivation.

And since when is it hard for movie goers to root for sheer, senseless destruction? It's Hollywood's bread-and-butter.

You're presenting opinion as fact and critical review as a source to show that a superficial movie won't/can't be successful, as well as assuming numerous facts about a movie we have NO specific information on. You're also generalizing. Oh, and you're comment about TF3 undermined your whole argument. TF3 is, by and large, agreed to be a shallow action movie with lots of explosions and what-not. Yet it grossed over a billion.

Give people lotsa explosions and sheer carnage, and do it on a massive level, and the film WILL make money.

[Giga Kaiju]

Pacific Rim might be a better movie but Godzilla could be more profitable since he is a big movie icon and people will see him for what he does, destroy and fight other monsters. It's possible to have them in 2013 similar how Disney and Dreamworks compete against each other with Antz and Deep Impact against Armageddon and Bug's Life in 1998.

This.

The Movies are going to compete with each other but both are from the same Studio, so instead of being Negative its
going to give them a lot of money. Instead of Saying Movie A is Better Thatn Movie B or Vice-versa we should be
glad that The Genre of Giant Monsters is getting back (Probably) and with so many options is something Really
Awesome. My Opinion of This.

[Gojira21]

Just because Transformers grossed over so much money, dose not mean that movie "audiences" are stupid. Plenty of actually great movies have done great in box office by these same movie audience goers. I sort of fine this argument stupid

[Hipster Thor]

Neither of those points leads to the conclusions you're making. Let me lay out your argument.

1. I don't like movie X
2. Audiences went to see movie x
3. Therefore audiences are stupid
4. Giant monster movies aren't that popular right now
5. Therefore, 3+4= audiences can't tell the difference between monster characters

... what?

I can post a list of god awful movies that have grossed millions-billions because audiences have no standards for entertainment. I think audiences today are stupid, and critical consensus backs that up. And I;ve already made it clear on how I feel that works by going way deeper than I should've had by discussing concepts of Universality and insignificance vs. reason.
It isn't my fault if you can;t follow my logic, especially when I was coming to two different conclusions.

Right. Because we know the LP film will give Godzilla no motivation.

I'll admit I'm going off history here. Godzilla in every film post 85, (Which are the Godzillas I most likely see the new one being modeled after)has really been acting on his own selfish, core, emotions. The only times I can think of him straying from this were when he went to collect baby Godzilla in Godzilla vs Mechagodzilla 2, and when he was pure evil and wanted to kill everything in GMK. Everything else has been cause and effect at its simplest form. Scenario A. occurs, Godzilla gets angry, leading to Scenario B. when you think about it, its quite funny. so many Godzilla plots are furthered just because Godzilla gets progressively angrier.

And since when is it hard for movie goers to root for sheer, senseless destruction? It's Hollywood's bread-and-butter.

I actually am of the minority that thinks explosions don't draw crowds. Ever since LOTR, I've been noticing this trend where every movie has to be "epic" and is marketed as such. It seems to me that movie goers are easily manipulated into that false sense of "Higher level filmmaking" with a few cinematic magic tricks. Characters that do, rather than be. Action that's there, rather than flowing. And its all dressed up as something more than it really is. And audiences cannot see through that.

You're presenting opinion as fact and critical review as a source to show that a superficial movie won't/can't be successful, as well as assuming numerous facts about a movie we have NO specific information on. You're also generalizing. Oh, and you're comment about TF3 undermined your whole argument. TF3 is, by and large, agreed to be a shallow action movie with lots of explosions and what-not. Yet it grossed over a billion.

I don't give a damn if I;m expressing my opinion as fact when someone asks me why I think a certain way. At least I'm attempting t back it up, no matter how poorly you find it, rather than making a flat statement. And as for Transformers, I made my opinions clear on why that was successful above.

Give people lotsa explosions and sheer carnage, and do it on a massive level, and the film WILL make money.

Now that's just as big a generalization as you're accusing me of.

[KaneLocke]

Now that's just as big a generalization as you're accusing me of.

First of all... GOD, I hate these segmented posts. /mini-rant.

Onto the meat of the matter.

It's not a generalization when it's backed up by data. Just because I don't feel like digging through the wikipedia to find the exact financial numbers to back it up doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But it's a fact that filmgoers have a short attention span. Bright lights and pretty colors, all side effects of explosions and carnage, catch their attention. The grander the scale, the more money the film will likely make. If the film itself isn't grand and over-the-top to that degree, then the marketing MAKES it into something grand and over-the-top. Why do you think action films are still one of the most popular genres and making the most money? Because people like it when things go boom, and the bigger the better.

[Hipster Thor]

You make a lot of indefensible, dismissive, blanket statements about audiences. And yeah, I remember. You think films can be scientifically proven to be good or bad. Unfortunately, that's still as laughable as when you first posted it, and your grasp of simple mathematical logic as well as concepts such as subjective vs objective is just as lacking.

And it's not that I'm not following your logic. It's that your premises are highly suspect, and even if they were true, your conclusions don't follow from them.

To return to a topic at least adjacent to the thread's, I'll reiterate that Pacific Rim coming out is a good thing. I see no reason to think it will be a detriment to Godzilla, but I do see a lot of promise in the film itself. GIT PUMPED :xilien:

I can make blanket statements about audiences when there's EVIDENCE to support this, as I've said. A movie like Tree of Life can never get a wide release, but the god dammed Smurfs can bank 40 mill opening weekend. I may not agree with Kane on the reason people see bad movies, but I can probably support the "data" as he says to prove that audiences DO see bad movies.

Yes, I do think films can be scientifically determined as valid or invalid forms of artistic expression, and as "laughable" as that assertion may be, you still haven't come up with anything to contradict it. If everyone says a movie is bad, then there must be a reason. If everyone says a movie is good, there must be a reason. Its simple. I do not care if you think the entire philosophy, I, and many others follow is laughable. Nor will I take offense, despite the ignorance comparable to mocking someone's religion.

Are my "Premises highly suspect"? Maybe. I have a poor way of iterating what I think, as my friends acknowledged earlier when I tried explaining why the Tron videogame was based off the film, not the other way around.

You know, I hope you're right and everything you hope happens happens, but it probably won't. I've never been wrong about this sort of thing, no matter how convoluted my logic may seem.