'Pacific Rim' (2013) - Guillermo Del Toro's Mecha VS. Kaiju film.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

I prefer my robots to be small and practical tactical mechs, or absolutely ludicrous big.
That IS actually kinda surprising. You'd think after all that money Avatar made, people would be more interested in making *big* sci-fi movies.

...oh wait. Prometheus was a thing. (sigh).

Prometheus wasn't an original movie (part of a franchise). The problem with Avatar was that while it made a lot of money, it was also very expensive, it was a big risk. And for every Avatar there's a John Carter that basically flops.

Though ultimately, I think the issue is that Hollywood is long on money, but short on ideas, or at least ideas it's willing to take risks on.

And why make a big original sci-fi epic when even something as terrible as The Green Lantern made back it's budget (even if the profit was non-existent). Super hero films are basically nearly risk free propositions.

Something to note further, many of the great sci-fi/fantasy epics being made right now do not originate in Hollywood. LotR and District 9 come to mind.

Of course, the profit from these sci-fi films pales in comparison to something like paranormal activity (193 million on a budget of $15,000!)

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Prometheus wasn't an original movie (part of a franchise). The problem with Avatar was that while it made a lot of money, it was also very expensive, it was a big risk. And for every Avatar there's a John Carter that basically flops.

Oh right. I forgot about that. (great now I have to remember the Alien franchise being made even dumber).



Though mind you with regards to bringing up John Carter. I think this is systematic of Hollywood REALLY not knowing why particular movies are successful, and why other ones bomb. Cause really. I don't think it bombed because it was just a so-so effects movie uninspiring plot and impressive effects. Lots of movies have that but manage to make a buck or break even.

John Carter was a huge failure because the marketing didn't tell people what it was about. It was afraid of looking like a pulpy sci-fi movie, so it ended up looking like nothing.

YouTube

https://youtu.be/yPBEBrAng34

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

Hollywood has a structural problem if it can't look at John Carter, and realize that the overwhelming flaw of the movie was one of marketing.

...fuck. When you think about it further, the reason THIS marketing fuck up happened, was because Hollywood couldn't figure out why a movie that came out a year before John Carter, Mars Needs Moms, bombed. The executives assumed that it was because the movie was set on mars, as opposed to it being a really shitty sounding movie that most people wouldn't want to see.

[kaito-kid]

I also hate those trailers these days. It's the same f*cking structure all the time. It's like they have a written book on how to make action/sci fi trailers. They are just too scared to try something else.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

Though mind you with regards to bringing up John Carter. I think this is systematic of Hollywood REALLY not knowing why particular movies are successful, and why other ones bomb. Cause really. I don't think it bombed because it was just a so-so effects movie uninspiring plot and impressive effects. Lots of movies have that but manage to make a buck or break even.

John Carter was a huge failure because the marketing didn't tell people what it was about. It was afraid of looking like a pulpy sci-fi movie, so it ended up looking like nothing.

I think it was also simply a bad movie. As a movie it's a bad concept, and furthermore they spent a lot of money on a director who had only directed animated features until that point. While his animated features were great (Wall-E FTW), directing animation and live action are too different.

Hollywood has a structural problem if it can't look at John Carter, and realize that the overwhelming flaw of the movie was one of marketing.

Though it was poorly marketed as well. Compare that to district 9's theatrical trailer:

It was better when I saw it in theaters, as the alien at the end was blurred and unsubtitled, lending it much more of an air of mystery.

Trailers these days tell audiences way too much. May as well not even bother going to see the movie...

Another thing that truly amazes was that district 9's budget was only 30 million. The budget of your average super-hero movie is 150 million. And yet, District 9 looked just as good (if not better...).

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Another thing that truly amazes was that district 9's budget was only 30 million. The budget of your average super-hero movie is 150 million. And yet, District 9 looked just as good (if not better...).

It's because they didn't have to build the slums.

[Dragonkid11]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

It's because they didn't have to build the slums.

Not sure if fortunate for the filmmaker or unfortunate for the local...

[james0246]

Another thing that truly amazes was that district 9's budget was only 30 million. The budget of your average super-hero movie is 150 million. And yet, District 9 looked just as good (if not better...).

Chronicle (a more recent good original sci-fi film released in America), was made for a budget of only 15 million, but looks like it was made for 90 million (if not more). It also had some quite fun viral ads and trailers. (Another recent film, Grabbers, which you might know about Don, was made for made for about 6 million US yet it looks like it was made for 40 million.)

Pacific Rim has a budget of 200 million.

Thankfully, Del Toro realized that this film could not be adequately rendered in 3D, so besides the IMAX experience (which is going to be a must for this film), the images we see are what we will get on the big screen. Additionally, Del Toro has gone out of his way to get some of the best visual effects artists in the business to work on this film (Hal T. Hickel, John Rosengrant, Shane Mahan, Clay Pinney and John Knoll). We are most likely going to see a truly beautiful film...visually at least.

[DonQuigleone]

Another impressive one was Moon, which was made for only $5 million.

[james0246]

Sad news everyone, it seems WB and Legendary will be converting the film to 3D. I understand why they are doing this (they are far more likely to recoup their money with a 3D film over a regular film, especially one that already costs 200&$ million), but Del Toro has gone out of his way to stress that the film has not been shot with 3D in mind. So, even with the best conversion technology, Pacfic Rim will now look stilted and akward. What's worse, there will now be no way to see the film is just IMAX (which is the theatre the film was made to be seen in), since all the chains will decide to only show the IMAX-3D.

This is really sucky news.

[Obelisk ze Tormentor]

Hm.....I'm glad that, here in my country, we always have the option to see it on 2D with cheaper ticket-price. Does the audience in North America really have no choice other than to see it in 3D?

If all sequence has been shot, I don't think the conversion will hurt the movie's 2D format. Just like Clash of the Titans still looks impressive in 2D after 3D conversion.

[Vexx]

Most films are offered in 2d and 3d at the same theaters. However, film conversions after the fact are just trasherific. There's the 50% lighting issue with 3d projection.

I saw Brave in 3d because the theater failed to differentiate in their ads the showtimes for 2d/3d. I.... thought it was totally unnecessary for the story. Hell, the only part of Avatar where it was marginally interesting was when the little air-jelly critters floated around. What it is translating to is simply racking up the ticket price with no additional value and often poorer quality visuals.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Obelisk ze Tormentor

Hm.....I'm glad that, here in my country, we always have the option to see it on 2D with cheaper ticket-price. Does the audience in North America really have no choice other than to see it in 3D?

You can still see the film in 2D, but IMAX theatres will undoubtedly only feature the IMAX-3D version of the film. Pacific Rim was made for IMAX in mind, so it is quite annoying that I will now be forced to watch the film in converted 3D. (And, to be fair, digital shots are rendered in 3D rather than converted to 3D, that is why big monster moments in Clash... still look good, while the moments with real people look bad.)

Originally Posted by Vexx

What it is translating to is simply racking up the ticket price with no additional value and often poorer quality visuals.

That is untrue...most of the time. The problem with many 3D films is that they are either not shot in 3D (converted after the fact) or they are not shot with 3D in mind (which is even worse). To give an example, 3D used in 'How To Train a Dragon' does not only help to convey the depth and power of the world the characters live in something 2D can does almost as well considering the eye can already account for onscreen depth cues quite well), but also the emotional power of the physicality of the characters interactions. The movements of Hiccup and Toothless, during their initial meetings, are all the more powerful due to the fact that we can see how they occupy and influence each others spaces (their interactions are all the more real and emotional specifically because their interactions "feel" more real). And that's not even discussing how the 3D influences the audiences perception of the character actions.

Suffice to say, 3D has a role in the artistic endeavor of film making, but it is often co-opted purely for business purposes (as is the case of Pacific Rim).

(Of course, this is just my opinion on the potentiality of 3D, even if the potential is often never met.)

[Obelisk ze Tormentor]

Originally Posted by james0246

You can still see the film in 2D, but IMAX theatres will undoubtedly only feature the IMAX-3D version of the film. Pacific Rim was made for IMAX in mind, so it is quite annoying that I will now be forced to watch the film in converted 3D. (And, to be fair, digital shots are rendered in 3D rather than converted to 3D, that is why big monster moments in Clash... still look good, while the moments with real people look bad.)

Ah, I see. Nice info.

Let's just hope for the best then. Also, if it becomes as good as Clash in the "monster fight" department, I won't complain much.

I will also check it later whether the IMAX here will force the audience to watch it in 3D or not.

[DonQuigleone]

I'm fairly confident that 3D is going to die soon. I haven't ever met anyone who's though when watching a movie "Wow, this sucks, I wish it was in 3D".

It's a gimmick, and it will die just like it did in the 50s and 80s.

Also, watching it makes my eyes hurt(and it barely even works). I'm sure I'm not the only one like that.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I'm fairly confident that 3D is going to die soon. I haven't ever met anyone who's though when watching a movie "Wow, this sucks, I wish it was in 3D".

To be fair, they said the same thing about sound in the 1920s and the same thing about CGI in the late 1970s...

3D has been around as long as film has (literally), so it is more than a gimmick. It's a constantly tested, often rejected, method of film making that requires a certain degree of technology before it is even possible to adequately view. For much of its history the technology simply did not exist, but now some of it is possible, and as the process becomes cheaper (which it will), the technology will fall into the hands of various auteurs who will completely revolutionize the medium.

As for the comment listed above, somebody needs to put this technology into the hands of Terrance Malik. He will create something amazing.

That being said, my 3D rant is now officially over .

[Vexx]

Someone needs to give the theaters a budget so they will run 3d properly then. Out of 10 or so 3d movies I've seen in various theaters, *TWO* were actually being projected properly and that's only because those two theaters were completely dedicated to 3d projection. From what I've read and what people in the business are telling me, they simply don't keep anyone on staff to properly set the things up.

And sadly, my 3d experience with "Dragon" was *not* one of the two winners. It was almost too dim to see what was going on in the night scenes (same problem with Brave). If I'm going to pay $3-$6 more per ticket, I kind of think I should get at least the visual quality I get in a 2d experience, not less.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by james0246

To be fair, they said the same thing about sound in the 1920s and the same thing about CGI in the late 1970s...

3D has been around as long as film has (literally), so it is more than a gimmick. It's a constantly tested, often rejected, method of film making that requires a certain degree of technology before it is even possible to adequately view. For much of its history the technology simply did not exist, but now some of it is possible, and as the process becomes cheaper (which it will), the technology will fall into the hands of various auteurs who will completely revolutionize the medium.

As for the comment listed above, somebody needs to put this technology into the hands of Terrance Malik. He will create something amazing.

That being said, my 3D rant is now officially over .

3d films will be great once the holodecks are invented.

[DonQuigleone]

3D has been tried twice before (50s and 80s), both times ostensibly to bring back cinema audiences in the face of competing technologies, namely first television, and then the VCR. You could say the modern wave has the same relationship with the internet and illegal downloading.

However, then, as now, 3D has several large disatvantages that prevent it becoming popular:

1. A large number of people can't see it: about 10% of the population cannot process the images to produce a 3D effect. 10% is a large audience share to lose, right out the gate. This includes myself, though I can see a bit if I concentrate.
2. It causes headaches for even more people (don't know the exact numbers, but I'd say most people will develop headaches after sufficient exposure). I definitely get some of this.
3. It reduces the image quality, due to the need for polaroid lenses, you basically are watching a movie through sun glasses, and getting the corresponding dimming.
4. It breaks immersion, the 3D effect basically reminds you that you're watching a movie. It brings you out of the experience, whereas 2D cinema draws you in, and you lose awareness of your surroundings. When you see a 3D effect you feel shocked.
5. It doesn't even work that well, now my eyes aren't good, so don't take my word for it, but I've heard that it doesn't even seem that 3D, as it's basically just layers at several different depths, rather then smooth gradations. It's basically like a pop up book, not true 3D.
6. It's expensive and difficult to shoot.

People are excited the first 1 or 2 times they see it and then get bored. It doesn't really add anything to the experience. The only people who love it are film executives, who see the possibilities for increased ticket prices, and electronics manufacturers, who see the chance to sell us new TVs now that everyone has HD television.

Now I'm not saying every new technology introduced is just a "gimmick". For instance, HD is great, I find Standard def cringe-worthy to go back to. Likewise, CGI is here to stay too, and I see it used in great ways. I even like Imax too. But 3D? Waste of time. If a bunch of guys come on here proclaiming their undying love for 3D movies, I might change my mind, but from my experience, most people are apathetic towards it at this stage. There's only so many times that seeing a ball be flung towards you can be shocking. Personally, I got my fill at Disney World at the age of 13. You get used to it pretty quickly though, at which point it simply becomes distracting.

EDIT: And it seems the cinema going public probably agrees with me.

[Ithekro]

The place where 3D might be awesome would be in CircleVision if it was scaled to IMAX sized CircleVision.

[DonQuigleone]

Personally, I think the big gap is actually touch not so much for movies, but for games. Our sense of touch is perhaps the most fundamental of our senses. Besides feeling buttons, an the occasional shock controller, it doesn't see much use in our gaming experiences.