The Big Picture: The New Originals
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
I have to tell you, I am lukewarm to disinterested in Pacific Rim. Kind of weird since I can like giant monster movies. But I didn't see Cloverfield, either. Turns out I made the right call on that one since they added man-sized monsters to the mix, which is bullshit. But Pacific Rim just doesn't look very good. It seems to always take place at night and the CGI doesn't look very real. The robots, the monsters, the water, the buildings, the ground, the fucking sky all look fake as shit. And it's dark, so we can't see very well anyway. One part of the movie where it's explained in the trailer that the two pilots have to mentally link and share memories to pilot the damn things, you know because that's how we drive cars and operate elevators too, is just stupid and a contrived way to have drama just appear into the story when the guy finds out his hot chick copilot has some shitty memories.
I get they're aping Japanese cartoons, but this is one aspect of them that I just don't get. Having multiple pilots for one robot seems unnecessary.
I could probably buy it if they were actually piloting the damn things instead of using a Wizdish.
It's hard to look cool when walking in place. This is why I never score on the treadmill at the gym.
So, yeah. I don't even care that it's an original brand, because it's not an original movie. It's based on and inspired by a whole genre of crap from Japan.
Actually, that gives me pause. Pacific Rim isn't an original movie by a long shot, but an original brand. Why does supporting an original brand matter? Especially when it's the same damn thing as previous brands. How is a new IP better than a gross reinterpretation like Lone Ranger and that fucking Superman movie? How is it different, actually? What is Bob advocating here? Because it appears to be a very shallow form of originality. It's something with a new name. otherwise, it's very familiar. It's a giant monster, giant robot movie. It's a genre. A rather specific subgenre at that. It's nothing new at all. It wouldn't matter if this were called "Evangelion." In fact, the way the latest film adaptations have been going, they could call it Evangelion. It would fit right in.
I get they're aping Japanese cartoons, but this is one aspect of them that I just don't get. Having multiple pilots for one robot seems unnecessary.
I could probably buy it if they were actually piloting the damn things instead of using a Wizdish.
It's hard to look cool when walking in place. This is why I never score on the treadmill at the gym.
So, yeah. I don't even care that it's an original brand, because it's not an original movie. It's based on and inspired by a whole genre of crap from Japan.
Actually, that gives me pause. Pacific Rim isn't an original movie by a long shot, but an original brand. Why does supporting an original brand matter? Especially when it's the same damn thing as previous brands. How is a new IP better than a gross reinterpretation like Lone Ranger and that fucking Superman movie? How is it different, actually? What is Bob advocating here? Because it appears to be a very shallow form of originality. It's something with a new name. otherwise, it's very familiar. It's a giant monster, giant robot movie. It's a genre. A rather specific subgenre at that. It's nothing new at all. It wouldn't matter if this were called "Evangelion." In fact, the way the latest film adaptations have been going, they could call it Evangelion. It would fit right in.
It's actually coming out on my birthday. So I'm going to go see it with my Dad, and my friends. Going to be a good birthday!
I'll tell you what, I wouldn't go see this film that will do spectacularly well (because, who are we fooling, it will do well without trying) and I'll instead use what little money I have for cinema trips to see Only God Forgives (which I'd argue looks to be more original than Pacific Rim) which will likely bomb in the box office because, like Drive, it will go under the radar.
Deal?
Deal.
Deal?
Deal.
In The Mountains Of Madness. Thats Del Toros pet project. He came close, had Tom Cruise signed up and James Cameron as producer, but it fell through. An then made Pacific Rim. So im hoping for this movie to be a massive success and they will let him make that other movie.Thunderous Cacophony said:
While I agree with Bob's general sentiment, I'm part of the crowd that is wondering just what, really, is so new about what Pacific Rim is doing. I mean, It's nice that we're getting a big budget fancy looking Hollywood version of the story, but it seems kind of disingenuous to talk like most of what Pacific Rim is doing/saying hasn't been done before. In fact, most of it has been done nearly note for note multiple times in multiple anime series.
So, big budget Hollywood version of various anime storylines and tropes by a decent director? Doesn't sound bad at all, but also doesn't really sound "new."
So, big budget Hollywood version of various anime storylines and tropes by a decent director? Doesn't sound bad at all, but also doesn't really sound "new."
Nice to know I wasn't the only one getting this vibe. I was kind of wondering if someone had seen the idea for the (now scrapped?) live action Eva movie and decided to make an expy of it.Zero Serenity said:
I think videogames could benefit from the same speech.
We need some more new IPs. Even something flawed like Remember Me is preferable to the same generic grey and brown FPS that comes out of the pipeline.
With that said, I find it ironic that MovieBob is the one saying it. He is the guy that constantly defends Nintendo redoing (because they are not really reboots or remakes) the same games for the last 15 years and calling Mario with a raccoon costume "originality". It also makes his advertisement of his SMB3 book extra ironic, since that game (while a masterpiece at its time) has been remade so many times that Nintendo has a group of people constantly employed in creating 2D Mario levels.
We need some more new IPs. Even something flawed like Remember Me is preferable to the same generic grey and brown FPS that comes out of the pipeline.
With that said, I find it ironic that MovieBob is the one saying it. He is the guy that constantly defends Nintendo redoing (because they are not really reboots or remakes) the same games for the last 15 years and calling Mario with a raccoon costume "originality". It also makes his advertisement of his SMB3 book extra ironic, since that game (while a masterpiece at its time) has been remade so many times that Nintendo has a group of people constantly employed in creating 2D Mario levels.
GIANT ROBOTS VS GOD-ZELLA(S)? ROCKET PUNCH? J-Girl with kunfu (she could be the next Alita;Gally) shit? Using ship as a make shaft bat against a giant monster? shit... the only thng we are missing is giant "inazuma-kick" with rocket booster + drill cleats...
SHUT UP AND Take my money!!!!
SHUT UP AND Take my money!!!!
While I support the your idea, I don't think Pacific Rim is something 'new' par se.MovieBob said:
It just screams "Godzilla vs. Mecha-Godzilla"-mentality from the bottom of the Ocean.
But Del Toro gave it the 2013 mashup-update nobody even dared to dream of.
That on the other hand, however is something 'fresh' and that's why I am going to see it.
cheers
Bob saw Pacific Rim last night and posted his reaction on Twitter. Naturally, he loved it.
The reviews I've seen have been surprisingly positive. The geek sites are going apeturds over it as expected, but the mainstream press is giving it a lot of love too (though acknowledging that it's far from perfect). It's being received as a refreshingly optimistic and fun blockbuster that celebrates old-fashioned, selfless heroism. If this movie makes money for its backers, it could go a long way towards reversing the current trend of dour GrimDarkness in tentpole flicks. And that, if nothing else, makes it worth supporting.
I don't think this movie is going to be either a flop or an out-of-the-park smash. It will likely do respectable but not spectacular business in North America, make its money back overseas, turn a tidy but not gargantuan profit, and prove that there is still room out there for a well-crafted, fun, original popcorn movie. If anything, the miserable failure of The Lone Ranger (and John Carter from last year) will be a much bigger clue to Hollywood that their current strategy of milking old properties dry is a losing proposition long-term.
Best of all, it will give a new generation of young geeks something to go nuts over, something that's THEIRS, rather than an older generation's warmed-up leftovers. Yes, it's not an entirely new concept, but so what? Star Wars was as derivative as a credit-default swap, but it still managed to become a cultural touchstone for an entire generation, because it FELT fresh and exciting. In the best-case scenario, this movie will do the same.
I can't wait for Thursday night.
The reviews I've seen have been surprisingly positive. The geek sites are going apeturds over it as expected, but the mainstream press is giving it a lot of love too (though acknowledging that it's far from perfect). It's being received as a refreshingly optimistic and fun blockbuster that celebrates old-fashioned, selfless heroism. If this movie makes money for its backers, it could go a long way towards reversing the current trend of dour GrimDarkness in tentpole flicks. And that, if nothing else, makes it worth supporting.
I don't think this movie is going to be either a flop or an out-of-the-park smash. It will likely do respectable but not spectacular business in North America, make its money back overseas, turn a tidy but not gargantuan profit, and prove that there is still room out there for a well-crafted, fun, original popcorn movie. If anything, the miserable failure of The Lone Ranger (and John Carter from last year) will be a much bigger clue to Hollywood that their current strategy of milking old properties dry is a losing proposition long-term.
Best of all, it will give a new generation of young geeks something to go nuts over, something that's THEIRS, rather than an older generation's warmed-up leftovers. Yes, it's not an entirely new concept, but so what? Star Wars was as derivative as a credit-default swap, but it still managed to become a cultural touchstone for an entire generation, because it FELT fresh and exciting. In the best-case scenario, this movie will do the same.
I can't wait for Thursday night.
yeah definitely going to go see this. Even if it sucks i still get to spend all of next week making Megas XLR jokes everywhere i go.
It's not you, Bob, it's me.
I adore you, and completely agree with you (and have had the same train of thought anyway). But the MPAA, and its affiliate studios have declared open war on the sharing community in order to keep its control on new media, and they've made it clear they're willing to take down (or lock down) the entire internet to win.
And the DoJ is their *****.
So no. Fuck Hollywood.
I just plain cannot accept that, so I'm not seeing any movies in the theater these days. Or, for that matter, on optical. Or stream. Not one.
But I completely agree with you: we need to continue to risk new IPs so that we're not making twenty Spiderman movies.
238U
EDIT: premature post.
I adore you, and completely agree with you (and have had the same train of thought anyway). But the MPAA, and its affiliate studios have declared open war on the sharing community in order to keep its control on new media, and they've made it clear they're willing to take down (or lock down) the entire internet to win.
And the DoJ is their *****.
So no. Fuck Hollywood.
I just plain cannot accept that, so I'm not seeing any movies in the theater these days. Or, for that matter, on optical. Or stream. Not one.
But I completely agree with you: we need to continue to risk new IPs so that we're not making twenty Spiderman movies.
238U
EDIT: premature post.
Everything about this episode leaves a bad taste in my mouth. From the assumption that original IP's selling well will cause more original movies (it won't, only the failure of preexisting brands as a safe investment will) to the call for supporting original ideas for the sake of originality regardless of quality, I'm not even sure I can articulate how wrong I find most of this.
For starters, supporting anything regardless of its quality is just begging to be exploited in the future. Or rather, it has already been exploited in the past. Let's travel back in time a bit.
Imagine if you will, it's 2004, and someone demands you go see the highly original [link:http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/moviebob/10354-Nightfall] M. Night Shyamalan's "The Village" by genius auteur M. Night Shyamalan, who made such great movies as "Sixth Sense" and "Unbreakable" [/link]. We've got to pull together and support these original ideas so we can stop seeing all these sequels and remakes they keep churning out- [link:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0304141/] one Harry Potter cranked out every year,[/link] unquestionably worse than the books, and [link:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0316654/]a sequel to the spider man movie[/link], which was also already an adaptation of a preexisting franchise. Or [link:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0378194/] Kill Bill vol. 2 [/link], another bloody sequel. God, aren't there any original ideas anymore?
I'm being facetious, but you see my point.
Originality =! good
Known Talent behind the camera =! good
Supporting anything, anything regardless of perceived quality = corporate explotation
For starters, supporting anything regardless of its quality is just begging to be exploited in the future. Or rather, it has already been exploited in the past. Let's travel back in time a bit.
Imagine if you will, it's 2004, and someone demands you go see the highly original [link:http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/moviebob/10354-Nightfall] M. Night Shyamalan's "The Village" by genius auteur M. Night Shyamalan, who made such great movies as "Sixth Sense" and "Unbreakable" [/link]. We've got to pull together and support these original ideas so we can stop seeing all these sequels and remakes they keep churning out- [link:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0304141/] one Harry Potter cranked out every year,[/link] unquestionably worse than the books, and [link:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0316654/]a sequel to the spider man movie[/link], which was also already an adaptation of a preexisting franchise. Or [link:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0378194/] Kill Bill vol. 2 [/link], another bloody sequel. God, aren't there any original ideas anymore?
I'm being facetious, but you see my point.
Originality =! good
Known Talent behind the camera =! good
Supporting anything, anything regardless of perceived quality = corporate explotation
Well, supposedly, but it's by the District 9 guy.Funcakes said:
Since humans have been telling stories for most of our existence, originality generally comes in the form of the telling rather than the theme. I'm pretty sure nearly every theme has been done.
Besides, class disparity is still pretty topical.
?[/quote]
Actually that's whats makes him an interesting voice on topics of social justice. After a while when reading feminist writing, especially amateur stuff in the internet, it can be really hard not to roll your eyes and say "Ok I get it, my life is in a never ending parade of authority and power where you are the most downtrodden being in all of existence. Can i go back to my crappy job while you get back to being paid to write about this stuff?". Approaching the topics from the perspective of artistic merit and pop culture helps combat blame fatigue.Toilet said: