Last movie watched...

[radiator]

I still don't see how any of this is relevant to Pacific Rim, a film that isn't gung ho or militaristic in the slightest. It's a live-action saturday morning cartoon about giant robots fighting giant aliens from another dimension.

[Jim_Campbell]

I'm obviously not explaining myself properly.

Given that you tried to explain your objection to a film by suggesting that's like a film it's nothing like, then admitted that you basically couldn't remember the first thing about the film you were objecting to (and the one thing you thought you could remember, you got wrong), I'd suggest that this line of argument was never going to go well for you.

Note, however, that I'm not in any way criticising you for not liking either ID4, or Pacific Rim, both of which are movies whose charm derives in no small part from their colossal stupidity. If you don't find the charm in that, then I can entirely see why you wouldn't enjoy the films.

Cheers

Jim

[Proudhuff]

Black Sea, good solid submarine movie. updated and Jude Law does a passable accent.

[JamesC]

I still don't see how any of this is relevant to Pacific Rim, a film that isn't gung ho or militaristic in the slightest. It's a live-action saturday morning cartoon about giant robots fighting giant aliens from another dimension.

That's partly the point. There are all these military characters and barrack room sets yet none of it is used to enhance the story or tell us anything about the characters (at least that I can remember).
In the other films I mentioned the squad banter is used to help us understand the characters and their situation.

In Aliens, the toughest talking most memorable characters in the barracks are probably Hudson and Vasquez. They're afraid of nothing (or so they try to convince us) which makes the contrast of their crap soldiering and crying all the more shocking. The humour early on sells the horror later on.

Starship Troopers does a similar thing as part of its satire. The characteristics most lauded back on Earth - strength, athleticism, ability to follow orders, are least useful in the actual war. Johnny Rico is the main man back home, but the misfit, Jenkins is arguably the most effective tool in the fight against the bugs.

In films like Dog Soldiers (a better example than Alien 3), the fear level is directly related to the level of bravado. When Spoons fights the wolf in the kitchen, his over the top aggression and insults help us understand just how scared he is. It helps us empathise with the character, it also makes us laugh and it's also horrific. It's a mix of emotions.


All of these things help to make military characters and settings more interesting.

This is a long and convoluted route to try to explain one of the reasons I don't like Pacific Rim. It doesn't have any of these things. It completely misses the opportunity to use these conventions to help us invest in the characters.
It can be difficult to argue for why the absence of something is 'wrong' (just in my opinion ). I could just as well complain about the lack of romance or something.
The point is, I think the film could have used any of these conventions to make for a much more entertaining end product. I don't care if an alien punches a robot. I do care if an alien punches a character that has made me laugh, or who I empathise with, or who I hate, or who I feel sorry for.

Anyway, I hope I got my point across. I'm not saying it's particularly insightful or interesting but at least I tried. Sorry it took me so long to get here - this is why I started with 'it's just terrible' - much easier and much quicker to read!

[radiator]

I'm not in any way criticising you for not liking either ID4, or Pacific Rim, both of which are movies whose charm derives in no small part from their colossal stupidity

Depends how you define 'stupidity'. My point is that, superficially dumb as PR and ID4 undoubtedly are, I consider them to be infinitely smarter films than say Jurassic World or Prometheus, because they can actually tell a coherent story, maintain a consistent tone, and aren't full of baffling plotholes, redundant characters and narrative dead-ends. Corny dialogue ≠ bad storytelling. On a mechanical, storytelling level I'd say they're pretty solid (if formulaic) and also deliver spectacle, which is all I ask from a blockbuster.

I was reading this article recently which really crystallised a lot of things I've been thinking for a long time.

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2015/06/25/movies-should-be-good

Obviously, I'm well aware I'm on shaky ground holding up a popularly derided film like ID4 as something to be aspired to, but that is how I feel about a lot of modern blockbusters. Don't worry, I'm not going to defend Emmerich's Godzilla.

[JamesC]

I'm obviously not explaining myself properly.

Given that you tried to explain your objection to a film by suggesting that's like a film it's nothing like, then admitted that you basically couldn't remember the first thing about the film you were objecting to (and the one thing you thought you could remember, you got wrong), I'd suggest that this line of argument was never going to go well for you.

Well when you put it like that it makes me sound really stupid! 
I think I did better on my last try.

[Professor Bear]

While I probably wouldn't put forward a defence that featured the term "good film", I've never really understood the ragging ID4 got.  I have half a theory that its reputation is a holdover from the pre-internet days of criticism when a thing's reputation for good or ill was defined by a small and insular band of professional critics rather than how long you and your mates were still talking about it in the pub afterwards.  ID4 is great fun there, though admittedly we tended to talk over all the mushy/family crap that seemed to account for 60 percent of it.

[Goaty]

ID4 is still fun to watch, but I so hate one little scene every time I watch it, very very awkward scene with that dog jump!

[CrazyFoxMachine]

Moonstruck

I'm not sure that I totally understand the high critical praise for this film (particularly from Ebert who normally seems on the money) but this '87 "comedy" film hasn't aged well to say the least. Tonally it's all over the place and really it should have focussed on the more interesting older cast as Cage and Cher are both excessively grating and Olympia Dukakis particularly is tremendously engaging. Her scenes with John Mahoney are the highlight of the film for me - the rest is sort of ridiculous.

[Jim_Campbell]

I was reading this article recently which really crystallised a lot of things I've been thinking for a long time.

I don't disagree with any of that.

(On a tangent, it's the same basic argument I've been making about the revived Dr Who since its return: how would its success or the things it does right be in any way diminished by doing some extra work in the draft stage of the script to make sure that the plot makes sense and the characters behave consistently?)

Cheers

Jim

[JamesC]

That's a sensible article that Radiator linked to and I don't think anyone would argue against it.

I think with the ID4 / Pacific Rim thing, we're arguing about whether the characters are interesting or not. For me the answer is no, they're so uninteresting that I don't care what happens to them and I can't invest in the rest of the film.

Doctor Who has almost the exact opposite problem. People absolutely love these characters. I'd go so far as to say that many Doctor Who fans are more fans of the characters than they are of the stories. This means that just seeing the characters on screen is enough of a thrill that they're prepared to excuse poor story telling.

[Theblazeuk]

Starship Troopers isn't ironic is satire and there aren't any military in Alien 3.

FTFY

Would love to see a slight tidying up of New Who, particularly something like the last Christmas special and its ending....

Doctor Who has almost the exact opposite problem. People absolutely love these characters. I'd go so far as to say that many Doctor Who fans are more fans of the characters than they are of the stories. This means that just seeing the characters on screen is enough of a thrill that they're prepared to excuse poor story telling.

Something that once held true for superheros - and to a certain extent still does. I am entertained by Age of Ultron's final act far more because it's scenes of the Avengers.

[Theblazeuk]

Whilst on the subject I would love for someone with time and the right DVDs to look at the tonal differences between Starship Troopers the source novel, Starship Troopers the movie and Roughnecks the animated series. The latter (for a kid's cartoon) always conveyed the sense of a seemingly hopeless war of attrition, each victory turned into a tragic setback, and of soldiers wearily fighting on as they are ground beneath the military machine.

[Jim_Campbell]

Starship Troopers isn't ironic is satire and there aren't any military in Alien 3.

FTFY

I know it's satire. That's why I said it wasn't ironic.

Cheers

Jim

[JamesC]

Starship Troopers isn't ironic is satire and there aren't any military in Alien 3.

FTFY

I know it's satire. That's why I said it wasn't ironic.

Cheers

Jim

Johnny's jock dream of glory turning to shit when he realises he's just cannon fodder is ironic though isn't it? Likewise, the handling of Jenkins's high school expectations in comparison to the final act.

Irony - a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often wryly amusing as a result

In my original post I wasn't suggesting that the entire film was ironic but that the handling of the military banter/relationships was. Those lauded as being the toughest of the tough, expectant of glory, turn out to be the least valuable assets in the field.