Bagheera wrote:Yeah, and it makes up for it by being racist as fuck vs. Idris Elba and the Wei Tang triplets. I mean, not only did the black guy die, he swapped places with the white guy to do so. That's about as racist as it gets. And the triplets jobbed like fuck for the MC.

The racist trope is that the black guy dies first, mostly before any character development can settle in. Instead of that happening in Pacific Rim, a completely flashed out black character died last and nobly after having already leaving a strong impact on the rest of the character around him, more notably the man he was dying with in the scene. That’s not portraying racist view-points. That’s portraying heroism.

I’d accuse you of being racist yourself for not thinking that black people can’t also display loyalty to a cause and have a noble and impactful death scene just like any other important (typically white) character, but I think it just might be ignorance on your part in the tropes you’re arguing against. I mean, your point was way off. Don’t ever do that again.

Also, how is Transformers not racist? The stuff from that movie dealing with non-white people and mimicking non-white cultures looks like it came out of the Censored Eleven.

FreakyFilmFan4ever wrote:The racist trope is that the black guy dies first, mostly before any character development can settle in. Instead of that happening in Pacific Rim, a completely flashed out black character died last and nobly after having already leaving a strong impact on the rest of the character around him, more notably the man he was dying with in the scene. That’s not portraying racist view-points. That’s portraying heroism.

I’d accuse you of being racist yourself for not thinking that black people can’t also display loyalty to a cause and noble death scenes just like any other important (typically white) character, but I think it just might be ignorance on your part in the tropes you’re arguing against. I mean, that point was way off.

No, it wasn't, because I'm not talking about a fucking trope. I'm talking about representation. I'm talking about the fact that the only significant black character in the film died for the sake of the bland-as-fuck MC (and the fact that the plot contorted itself like crazy to make it happen) and his token Japanese girlfriend, and that not one but three Chinese characters (the only ones of note in the film) jobbed like fuck for the MC without getting any development at all.

If del Toro was serious about this the story would have been about Pentecost and Mako reconnecting as father and daughter and teaming up to kick monster ass (and there'd be fewer monsters and they'd be named onscreen and fleshed out and shit) and Becket wouldn't even be in it. But good luck selling that to Hollywood or the American public.

Bagheera wrote:and his token Japanese girlfriend

That would imply a romance. A romance that was never shown nor developed in the film. She’s never portrayed as the girlfriend, and the film goes out of its way to show that whatever physical interest they might have had in each other dissipated by the end of the film.

Look, I know that the best way to discredit something is to misrepresent it, but come on man. Enough’s enough!

But anyway, have fun watching your racist stack of Micheal Bay movies. No judgment here. I honestly can’t keep up with your spotty “logic.”

I liked Pacific Rim because GIANT ROBOTS AND GIANT MONSTERS.

I wouldn't say Stacker dying was racist or offensive. Yeah, he died, but he died sacrificing himself (and another white guy I might add) to save mankind, and without that sacrifice the mission would have failed and humanity would have been obliterated by Kaiju. Plus, he was a total badass through the whole movie. He wasn't stereotypical or offensive at all, and the whole "the minority dies" thing is kinda redundant when you consider that A: the Australian co-pilot died along with him, and B: Mako survived the mission, thus leaving the "white guy to minority" death/survival ratio for the mission balanced. He lived a badass and died a badass. I'd be proud to play a character like him.

I will admit that it was a shame the Russian and Chinese Jaegers went down so quickly, but then the whole point of that scene was to illustrate that these new Kaiju were like nothing they'd fought before. The destruction of Cherno Alpha and Crimson Typhoon certainly drove home that point.

Oh, and if Hollywood needs to give more representation to minorities, then by that logic Asian/Indian/Nigerian (Nigeria has, surprisingly, a thriving film industry) movies need to have more non-Asian/Indian/black characters in them. Media, for the most part, will always represent the majority of their home country- and that's never going to change. Same reason that Battle Royale doesn't have a bunch of Muslim kids in it, Bollywood stuff usually doesn't have black actors and you'll be hard pressed to find a white guy in a movie from country with a predominantly black population. But if I complained that Tsotsi (which, by the way, is a fantastic movie) didn't have enough white guys in it I'd be called racist.

TL,DR: Hollywood movies focus on white people for the same reason Bollywood movies focus on Indian people and Japanese movies focus on Japanese people, and only complaining about Hollywood doing it is hypocritical.

FreakyFilmFan4ever wrote:But anyway, have fun watching your racist stack of Micheal Bay movies. No judgment here. I honestly can’t keep up with your spotty “logic.”

At what point did I claim Michael Bay movies weren't full of casual racism and shit writing? I'm pretty sure I've never made any such claims.

Squigsquasher wrote:Oh, and if Hollywood needs to give more representation to minorities, then by that logic Asian/Indian/Nigerian (Nigeria has, surprisingly, a thriving film industry) movies need to have more non-Asian/Indian/black characters in them.

That's a false comparison since those industries are (largely) representative of their communities. If they did a global movie a la PR then yes, they should have a diverse cast in it, but if they're doing stuff located within their own countries not so much. And in any event I can't really complain about those industries since I'm not part of their communities. But I am a part of Hollywood's community, so I get to complain about that. The notion that I'm a hypocrite if I don't complain about communities of which I'm not a part is . . . well, bizarre, honestly.

Squigsquasher wrote:Oh, and if Hollywood needs to give more representation to minorities, then by that logic Asian/Indian/Nigerian (Nigeria has, surprisingly, a thriving film industry) movies need to have more non-Asian/Indian/black characters in them. Media, for the most part, will always represent the majority of their home country- and that's never going to change. Same reason that Battle Royale doesn't have a bunch of Muslim kids in it, Bollywood stuff usually doesn't have black actors and you'll be hard pressed to find a white guy in a movie from country with a predominantly black population. But if I complained that Tsotsi (which, by the way, is a fantastic movie) didn't have enough white guys in it I'd be called racist.

I agree with most of this. Though, America has a history of one race coming in and running out another race, whether unintentionally or sometimes intentionally. (When we refer to Native Americans we aren’t referring to white people.) America has also had a higher immigration rate than other countries and a not-so-pleasent history with racist slavery, and those issues do need to be recognized in our media as well. And quite a few movies have come up over the years focusing on just that subject. Something like Disney’s Peter Pan, which granted took place in England (even though it was based on a Scottish story), probably shouldn’t have a song explaining in their own words why the “red man is red.” That's disrespectful.

And there are movies made by people of darker skin that do explore the perspectives of non-white Americas. Spike Lee has made several movies to that effect as well as director Steve McQueen. (Quentin Tarantino is kind of the Uncanny Valley of racial discussion in film. Sometimes he’s okay, other times he’ll make a fool of himself.) And, whereas Micheal Bay has just as much right to be a part of the discussion of racial portrayal in film, he tends to just put his foot in his mouth more times than not.

(Just so we’re clear, the perspective on Peter Pan that I offered earlier came from my uncle, who is Native American, Onondagan from the Iroquois Nation, Eel Clan. We were watching it and he corrected the film, and then started to explain to be the traditions his people had. My grandmother adopted, which is why I am part of a family that isn’t all white. All that to say that looking from the perspective from other people helps me a lot when it comes to discussion film.)

Pacific Rim isn’t racist. Not by a long shot. The only reason why the non-white cast isn’t explored as much as the lead character is simply because they are supporting characters, not lead characters. (There are plenty of white people in the film that get even less exploration than the supporting cast.) In this sense, if we want to get super picky then its only fault is not casting a non-white as the lead character. Oddly enough, considering the thread in which this is being discussed, if you want a clear example of racism, just watch a Micheal Bay Transformers movie.

Bagheera wrote:At what point did I claim Michael Bay movies weren't full of casual racism and shit writing? I'm pretty sure I've never made any such claims.

At least you’re honest about what type of movies you like.

FreakyFilmFan4ever wrote:Pacific Rim isn’t racist. Not by a long shot.

Claiming it doesn't make it so, and nor does it change the patterns PR perpetuates.

At least you’re honest about what type of movies you like.

I haven't said anything here about movies I like, and I really wish you'd quit it with the snide remarks.

Bagheera wrote:I haven't said anything here about movies I like, and I really wish you'd quit it with the snide remarks.

Sorry. The type of movie (singular) that you like.

FreakyFilmFan4ever wrote:Sorry. The type of movie (singular) that you like.

I haven't said anything about that, either.

On the racism front, see here for an example of what I'm talking about. This one is also interesting, though it rambles a bit.

The supporting characters in Pacific Rim are the only interesting ones. The lead is the living embodiment of blandness. He could face down the guy from Godzilla in a blandoff and win.

Chuckman wrote:The supporting characters in Pacific Rim are the only interesting ones. The lead is the living embodiment of blandness. He could face down the guy from Godzilla in a blandoff and win.

If I can't have a Stacker/Mako movie I'd love one starring the Russians. Those guys were cool as hell.

Forget about the black dude or the Chinese triplets, I wanted to see more of the Russians pilots: an happily married couple that synchronize not thanks to blood relation but by the force of their mutual love that survived years fighting inside a crappy first generation model while everyone else have shiny Mark-3 or above, there was a golden potential of characterization here, and it go wasted by the first Category IV Kaiju coming their way, what a waste!

EDIT: Well, Bags beat me to the punch here!

Personally I hate that overused trope of the hero arriving in a organization full of other fighters like him that all get massacred at the first opportunity just for the sake of drama and make sure that the hero will take all the spotlight, especially when all said fighters are supposed to be seasoned veterans and the newcomers is a complete newbie. (although here Railegh is also a veteran)
What was the point of introducing Cherno Alpha and Crimson Typhoon and their respective pilots if it's to have them massacred barely five minute after their seen deployment in the movie?

On a side note, something that my sister (who studies Japanese language and culture) noted is that when Railegh asked Mako why she's so blindly loyal to Stacker, for once they avoided the typical cliché of acting "for honor", instead Mako said that it was out of respect for Stacker as an elder and the one who saved her and raised her, which according to her correspond more to what intergenerational relationships are in Japan. Needless to say, she was pleasantly surprised.



Anyway, back to Transformers 4, since it's the topic's subject after all, I saw it a couple of weeks ago, so here's my impressions:

- For once I didn't get the feeling to see a two and half hours long recruitment clip for the US Army, just that warrants a good point.

- 95% of the fights are between robots, that too warrants a good point. I was sick of the fierce and brave Rangers/US Marines/Navy Seals (delete as appropriate) having an higher killcount than the giant robots that fought the evil giant robots since millions of years.

- I don't know if it's because I only saw the previous movies in passing or because the movie is made for hardcore fans, but I didn't understand half of the things that was happening, notably about the characters: who the fuck is that Space Bounty Hunter Lord? Or the new Autobots, the Samurai, "smoking" Dakka obsessed guy or Mercenary, first time I saw them, or worse the Dinosaurs/Knights giants, who the fuck are these guys, Optimus former companion when he was a "Cybertonian Knight"? (whatever the hell it means) And those "Creators", if I understand correctly, they are the one who created the cybertonians as explorers, colonists and conquerors, right? Well then where the fuck were these guys in the previous movies when Sentinel Prime and Megatron were happily teleporting Cybertron to the other side of the galaxy, or better yet, when there was that giant Civil War that apparently completely ravaged Cybertron and made it need repairing (the whole motivation behind Sentinel's betrayal), did they just slept the whole time and woke up one day to see the planet of their creations ravaged and decided of an half-assed attempt to punish the responsible by sending one dude chasing a bunch of guys that essentially deserted millions of years ago? If that's the case then the Autobots and Decepticons must me down there in their list of priorities between clipping their toenails and deciding what they want for dinner!

- Speaking of the new guys, I hated them, that was one big ethnic stereotype after another: you have the Japanese samurai sprouting Haikus, the gruff smoking fat bearded guy carrying a whole arsenal with him (I suppose he's supposed to be inspired by Irish, no?) and the mercenary guy with his stupid metallic longcoat with his two Mauser pistols. All three grated on my nerves deeply, I was just hoping that those new Decepticons or that Bounty Hunter guy to rip off their head and end that suffering.

- The "humor", dear god. Between the three new guys feeling obligated to add puns and moronic metaphors to each of their phrases, the perpetually stoned/retarded human friend (God I was happy when that grenade carbonized him!), Bumblebee who apparently skipped again his appointment to get a brain surgery and thus is still acting like a retarded child (the worst being his "fit" in KSI when seeing the "next-gen" Transformers based on him) and that gnome Autobot captured to help with the creation of human-made Transformers that Just. Won't. Shut. The Fuck. Up. By the end of the movie I was hoping that this Bounty Hunter come back and slaughter as much of the cast as possible before his inevitable death. I think that the director failed somewhere when I end up cheering for the bad guys in the end!

- Speaking of the bad guys, for all the hype Galvatron and his new Decepticons got, his involvement was rather underwhelming: in the end we just saw him fight a minute or so, then he was just barking orders to his drones to find the "seed". Said drones who only served as cannon fodder for Bay's quota of big explosions and urban destruction.

- I know I almost don't know anything about the lore, but there was still some things I couldn't see as anything but plot holes: if I get it right, the "Spark" is the Transformers' soul and lifeforce, it serves as both a container for their memories and personality and as a power source, Optimus even talk about it with Cade, so logically without it a Transformer is just a pile of scrap space metal... then how the hell Galvatron and his drones can move, talk or even think if they don't have one!? Unless there a scene that I overlooked, nowhere it's stated that KSI managed to artificially replicate Sparks for their man-made Transformers!?
Second, at the beginning of the movie, Optimus is in really bad shape, like Megatron in the previous movie-level of feeling like shit, and needed to meet with the surviving Autobots to be repaired, he said it explicitly, that was the whole point of the first part of the movie. Then suddenly out of nowhere, they cross a truck and Optimus copy it and magically comes back at full shape in 20 seconds. Wat. Why Megatron didn't do that in the previous movie instead of staying as a giant metallic hobo?

- The chief of KSI turning sides felt forced as hell for me: he spends most of the movie obsessed by the "progress" and entering in history, almost giggles at seeing Autobots being melted to make his precious Transfornium, and in just one phone call where Cade cal him on his ethic and light that he knows he has deep down, search your feelings, you know it to be true, suddenly decides that maybe the whole thing he did until is actually evil and says that he should step down and think about what he's doing. At the face of the two CIA killers whom he conspired with and are only here in it the money.
I know that he's supposed to represent the brilliant scientist who genuinely want to better mankind and got so carried away that he didn't realized that what he was doing was immoral, but it felt too forced to be believable. And his gimmicks get tiring very fast.

- That's just one detail, but it just obsessed me, what the freaking hell is that sword/gun thing Cade uses, seriously!? All the Transformers blast each other with guns the size of cars and barrages of rockets that could very well be prop-guns seeing the actual damage they do, and that earthling with his metallic toothpick one-shot absolutely everything! What kind of ammunition that thing uses, mini-Nukes!?

- I am the only one who thought the boyfriend have a plastic card of the "Romeo and Juliet Law" on him to be incredibly creepy? Seriously it makes it as if it's not the first time he has to use that line of defense!

- The MLP Transfornium object. WHY MLP CAMEO. I'M SICK OF SEEING THOSE FUCKING PONIES EVERYWHERE.

- End of the movie, Optimus choose to go see those famous Creators by himself, probably to kick their creating asses, he has just next to him a giant spaceship with FTL travel full of the most insane, dangerous and insanely dangerous criminals of the Galaxy and the late Bounty Hunter Lord army of killers and hellhounds that it would be a really bad idea to keep them on Earth, just in case. What does Optimus decide to do, my fly by himself with his cute dorsal rocket the unspecified number of Light Years to meet the Creators of course!


Verdict: surprisingly better than the previous ones, by virtue of being a movie of giant robots beating the crap out of each others that actually have giant robots beating the crap out of each others instead of being a camouflaged clip to push the youth to enlist for the Army. The Bounty Hunter was cool, as well as his ship (I'm a sucker for the "Used Future" style of ship, that must have played at lot, Bebop rulez!), the rest is forgettable. A honest action flicker, nothing more, nothing less.

Bagheera wrote:I haven't said anything about that, either.

On the racism front, see here for an example of what I'm talking about. This one is also interesting, though it rambles a bit.

Jesus, those were legitimately painful to read. I should have bailed when I noticed the blog touting itself as being about "social justice" (AKA the most utterly retarded and completely useless "movement" ever) and the fact the article referenced Tumblr as a source (which is a bit like saying "it's true because a pot-smoking hobo told me"). Oh, and "people of colour". Jesus I hate that term. It sounds so condescending and politically correct.

The whole thing basically seems to be saying "it's not all about non-whites and there's white people in important roles, therefore it sucks and it's racist! Del Toro is a shitlord! Baaaaawwww!". Yes, Hannibal Chau is played by Ron Perlman. Here's a hint: it's because he's a good actor and he played the part well. Also, what with Hong Kong being much more influenced by the West than the rest of China, it's perfectly plausible that a white guy would be a crime boss in Hong Kong. Not everything is some kind of racist white supremacy patriarchy conspiracy. And accusing Mako peeping on Raleigh being racist? Really? It's a cheap gag about Raleigh's chest!

I could go on and on, but I can sum it up quite easily. What they're picking faults in aren't "racist". If it was actually racist, then Stacker would be incompetent and cowardly, and certainly wouldn't be giving inspiring speeches, and Mako would be speaking dreadful english through buck teeth. I think some of these
people need to watch genuinely racist or offensive films (or films about actual racism, like Mississippi Burning) and see if Pacific Rim still looks like the backwards, racist thing they're portraying it as. Racism- real racism that is- isn't something you can just sling about like that. As another example, the twins from Transformers 2- they're stereotypical, but they're not racist per se (heck, their portrayal was actually the idea of Mudflap's voice actor Reno Wilson, who is black himself). Heck, they were no more "racist" than Hound from AoE (who was a stereotypical white 'Murrican soldier type).

Want a mecha/kaiju movie with a non-white MC? Make your own! Nobody's stopping you! Just don't tell us how we have to make our movies and what movies we can and can't like! If you're offended by an unashamed homage to so-bad-it's-good kaiju movies (albeit with less crappy effects) then fine, be offended, but don't tell us we need to be offended too!

That's not how racism works, dude. And that's really not what they were saying. But this is a tired argument and I'm not the one who should be making it anyway so whatever. Think what you like.

LOL Baggy trying to argue PR is bad ‘cuz racism but actively tries to avoid discussing racism with Tranny because “I wanna watch it godmammit!”

Though, yes. The lead character in PR was a bit flat. I do find it odd that the most interesting character in the film were the supporting cast. That being said, the movie had an amazing and interesting supporting cast! So I find it hard to complain about it.

Meanwhile Tranny’s supporting cast was awful and supported an awful protagonist, none of which are deemed awful intentionally by the filmmakers. It’s just bad. And if the monster in Pr were boring, the robots (AKA the MAIN ATTRACTION to the film) were excruciatingly boing and only looked like piles of junk heaps throwing each other across the lawn. It is also bad. It is also shallow.

I know Chuckman tried to defend some sort of “hidden depth” to the Tranny films, but those “depths” are only deep into the rectum of the director and his deeply flawed philosophies. So, yeah. It’s “deep,” even if it’s only in the sense of the levels of celebration in depravity, flawed thinking, and lack of any other alternatives hidden behind his own but cheeks. (Or John Turturro’s butt cheeks. I can’t afford to be picky at this point.) Depth in it of itself isn’t justifiable, especially if I’m neck-deep in crap by the end of it. And when I do find myself neck-deep in crap, I don’t appreciate someone turning to me and saying “Dude, this is deep.” I don’t like being reminded of how deep the dung hole is that I’m standing in. It’d rather just get out, take a shower, and sit in the “shallower” whirlpool for a bit and relax in its warmth.

FreakyFilmFan4ever wrote:LOL Baggy trying to argue PR is bad ‘cuz racism but actively tries to avoid discussing racism with Tranny because “I wanna watch it godmammit!”

Er, no, not really. I'm just noting that PR has a lot of problems with racism and sexism and doesn't even come close to living up to the hype. If people praised with "Yeah! Robots and kaiju!" and left it at that I wouldn't have a word of complaint. But if you're going to talk about diversity and such (and lots of people did) it's fair to engage it on that level.

As for TF, what's to discuss? It's there, everyone's acknowledged it, so what's left?

Meanwhile Tranny’s supporting cast was awful and supported an awful protagonist, none of which are deemed awful intentionally by the filmmakers. It’s just bad. And if the monster in Pr were boring, the robots (AKA the MAIN ATTRACTION to the film) were excruciatingly boing and only looked like piles of junk heaps throwing each other across the lawn. It is also bad. It is also shallow.

It will really depend on whether or not we get a good look at them. The dinobot designs look cool, so if they get a decent amount of screen time I'll be happy. And of course, it's not like TF has any competitors in the giant transforming robots arena; if it did I'd probably have nothing to do with it. By contrast, PR is stomped flat by Godzilla in my mind, to say nothing of many other kaiju movies (the Gamera trilogy, Godzilla Against Mechagodzilla, etc), so that does a lot to hurt its case.

BTW, I love how your defense of PR here consists solely of ripping on TF, a movie that has nothing to do with, and has never been favorably compared to, PR (even in this thread). Nice derailment there.

Considering we're talking about Pacific Rim in a thread about Transformers, I don't think anyone really has the standing to bring out the derailment card, my friend.

Pacific Rim is awesome the first time you see it, but it's rewatchability decreases each time you see it again. Transformers, however, always has and always will suck.

Chuckman wrote:Pacific Rim would be a stronger film if Elba played the lead and the romantic subplot was cut. Then again, maybe the white dude winding up with the Asian girl was some kind of metaphor for cross-cultural pollination and its impact on pop culture as part of the larger narrative of a Western pastiche of a Japanese genre but the movie wasn't good enough for me to give a shit about that, to be honest.

Pacfic rim is far from a perfect movie, it doesn't have any real depth and is just a bunch of giant robots and monsters mashing each other up. That being said I enjoyed it a lot more then the bay transformers movies becausse it had human characters that didn't make me want to face palm every time they opened their mouths. Also the action imo was better done, but thats a secondery reason.

The real weakness in the bay films is this. I don't know how he does it, but he just can't do likeable human characters, there's not a single human in his movies I came close to liking. But you know, I don't think we can place all the blame on the bay films for this as the transformers franchise is something that at best during g1 was bad in a really entertaining way and at worst bad in a mind numbingly terrible way in its later incanrations such as transformers armada. Yet no matter how terrible it got people just ate it up, I can't think of a single incarnation of the transformers franchise that wasn't successful regardless of if it was good or terrible. Why is that? What is the answer to this mystery? IF a franchise is toyetic enough does that just make it immune to being unsuccessful regardless of how bad it gets?

Trajan wrote:Transformers, however, always has and always will suck.

As a franchises? Or do you mean just this particular movie?

Defectron wrote:
The real weakness in the bay films is this. I don't know how he does it, but he just can't do likeable human characters, there's not a single human in his movies I came close to liking.

Coming out in (slight) defense of Bay for a Moment. What about Bruce Willis in Armageddon? Or Will Smith in Bad Boys II? Those are really the only two movies of his I really like. That's only because I'm a Big fan of both actors. Mark Wahlberg has lots of fans, does it have something to do with that? Star appeal?

We know it sucks, So why do MILLIONS of people go see it? Again, back to the OP. Unless someone can give me a better argument, I HAVE to believe its because the Audience.

But we cant put the blame for bad movies succeeding and Good movies underperforming where it Belongs. Or else the critic is the bad person for even daring to point out the Elephant in the room. Because you're supposed to give the audience the benefit of a doubt, that the only reason they don't go see good movies is because they aren't available. That if you only made it available to them, the people would pick Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes over T4. But it's simply not the case. Audiences will eat whatever is put in front of them, regardless if whether it's fresh or rotten. and critics are seen as the bad guys because we even bother to point this out.

Bays part of the machine, but the Audience is the one who keeps putting Fuel in the tank. Without thinking about what they're doing to both themselves and the future of Blockbuster cinema in the process. You make a choice every time you buy a ticket. When you buy a ticket to a Bay movie you're basically telling Hollywood you want more of the same crap instead of something fresh and interesting.

But who am I kidding? It already made a billion nothing I write will turn the tide. I throw In the towel. People like what they like and the rest of us have to suffer 4 or 5 more movies of Bay ruining the potential of a good source material because or it.