How did a crappy comedy movie beat a sci fi action movie at the American box office?

[CmdrShep2183]

How did a crappy comedy movie beat a sci fi action movie at the American box office?

http://static.srcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/grown-ups-2-poster.jpg

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT24u-kDNdX_vpwbAkMyXGKDIz7m-h_QorA_o6m0q36GPHDgJmU

That was back in 2013. However the sci fi genre got its revenge in the following years with Guardians of the Galaxy and Star Wars.

[khadgar567]

I think this trope says every thing i want and its called to bad its good

[Kitten Champion]

The annoying chat bot aside, it's not even true. Pacific Rim had a higher box office take than Grown Ups 2 by around 200 million, but obviously they have substantively different budgets to recoup.

[khadgar567]

The annoying chat bot aside, it's not even true. Pacific Rim had a higher box office take than Grown Ups 2 by around 200 million, but obviously they have substantively different budgets to recoup.
can you explain please. and for the record i didnt watch both movies.

[CmdrShep2183]

can you explain please. and for the record i didnt watch both movies.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=pacificrim.htm

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=grownups2.htm

I am talking about the American audience. According to Box Office Mojo Pacific Rim earned a total of 101,802,906 at American theatres while Grown Ups 2 earned a total of 133,668,525.

What does this say about American movie watchers?

[khadgar567]

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=pacificrim.htm

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=grownups2.htm

I am talking about the American audience. According to Box Office Mojo Pacific Rim earned a total of 101,802,906 at American theatres while Grown Ups 2 earned a total of 133,668,525.

What does this say about American movie watchers?
they have same crappy taste about movies like turkish audience

[Thinker]

It looks like Grown Ups 2 was available in more theaters than Pacific Rim (3491 to 3275). That accounts for some of the difference, though Grown Ups 2 still led on a per-theater basis ($17,048 to $15,963). They also debuted against the #31 domestic movie of all time, Despicable Me 2, which was still #1 that weekend. Adam Sandler also seems to have a large built-in market - people know what they're getting into with one of his movies and his style is still popular, even if it doesn't impress critics. Lastly, I suspect (without hard evidence) that comedies generally outperform SciFi.

[Red Fel]

Adam Sandler also seems to have a large built-in market - people know what they're getting into with one of his movies and his style is still popular, even if it doesn't impress critics. Lastly, I suspect (without hard evidence) that comedies generally outperform SciFi.

These two, I suspect, are the biggest culprits.

Consider the following scenario:

Abel: Want to go see Pacific Rim?

Baker: What's it about?

Abel: Giant robots fighting kaiju.

Baker: Kai...what?

Versus:

Abel: Want to go see Grown Ups 2?

Baker: What's it about?

Abel: Yet another Adam Sandler movie with Adam Sandler's buddies making Adam Sandler jokes.
Giant robot fights, while epic, are a niche market with which not everyone is familiar; Adam Sandler flicks, by contrast, are something with which everyone who has ever seen Saturday Night Live is familiar. Anyone can go to a comedy; not everyone likes giant robot action.

[Kitten Champion]

It looks like Grown Ups 2 was available in more theaters than Pacific Rim (3491 to 3275). That accounts for some of the difference, though Grown Ups 2 still led on a per-theater basis ($17,048 to $15,963). They also debuted against the #31 domestic movie of all time, Despicable Me 2, which was still #1 that weekend. Adam Sandler also seems to have a large built-in market - people know what they're getting into with one of his movies and his style is still popular, even if it doesn't impress critics. Lastly, I suspect (without hard evidence) that comedies generally outperform SciFi.

It's not like Pacific Rim was going to be anything but a niche movie in North America, with it largely being built around its potential in finding a footing in the much-coveted Chinese market. Same as, say, Warcraft was this year. It's limited success here was hardly surprising, I think.

That being said, the Science Fiction Action Blockbuster Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, which is easily the equal in overall quality to the lowest of Sandler's dreck, made hundreds of millions of dollars more than Grown Ups 2 and Pacific Rim put together.

[Grey Watcher]

Also worth noting is something hinted at by the movie posters themselves:

Many American moveigoers went to see Grownups 2 because they wanted to see Sandler, James, Rock, Spade, or some combination thereof, do their thing. The plot (typical comedic coming-of-middle-age comedy) is kinda inconsequential.

Plus, again, for all the Age of the Geek thing we're going through, it's still something of a niche. A lot of people prefer something with which they can more readily identify; juggling kids, love lives, careers, etc. is something most people have first hand experience with, while using giant robots to battle giant sea monsters is... less obviously and immediately familiar.

[khadgar567]

Also worth noting is something hinted at by the movie posters themselves:

Many American moveigoers went to see Grownups 2 because they wanted to see Sandler, James, Rock, Spade, or some combination thereof, do their thing. The plot (typical comedic coming-of-middle-age comedy) is kinda inconsequential.

Plus, again, for all the Age of the Geek thing we're going through, it's still something of a niche. A lot of people prefer something with which they can more readily identify; juggling kids, love lives, careers, etc. is something most people have first hand experience with, while using giant robots to battle giant sea monsters is... less obviously and immediately familiar.
unless you are super sentai nerd grownups look more rational choice.

[tomandtish]

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=pacificrim.htm

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=grownups2.htm

I am talking about the American audience. According to Box Office Mojo Pacific Rim earned a total of 101,802,906 at American theatres while Grown Ups 2 earned a total of 133,668,525.

What does this say about American movie watchers?

What it says is simple: For whatever reason this movie did not resonate with the general viewing public as much as other sci-fi/fantasy movies have.

Look at the top 100 domestic grossing (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic.htm) movies....

Notice what dominates? Science fiction and fantasy. Notice what is seriously lacking? Straight-up comedies. You have to get down to number 77 (Home Alone, believe it or not) before you get a straight comedy that isn't animated. And it looks like there are only 4 on the list.

Now, if you adjust for inflation (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm) things look a bit different. Sci-Fi still dominates, but holds only 4 of the top ten spots (and not number 1), and Home Alone rises to number 40. But even there, straight comedies are definitely not the top box office giants.

And that's the important thing to remember. When a sci-fi/fantasy movie strikes a cord, everyone goes to see it AND you get a lot of repeat viewing (I personally know two people who between them saw 60+ showings of Fellowship of the Ring, and they were NOT a couple. In fact, they live in different cities). When it doesn't strike that cord, you get relatively few people going, and the repeat viewing diminishes or vanishes.

As others have said, the comedies tend to be more consistent. They usually aren't going to rake in half a billion dollars, but they usually make back their budget. For the most part, there's a larger core audience, at the cost of not getting everyone and not getting repeat viewing.

[The Glyphstone]

Wait, did our friendly neighborhood chatbot just reply to one of its own threads?

[Ruslan]

Giant robot fights, while epic, are a niche market with which not everyone is familiar; Adam Sandler flicks, by contrast, are something with which everyone who has ever seen Saturday Night Live is familiar. Anyone can go to a comedy; not everyone likes giant robot action.

It's known as appeal to lowest common denominator.

[Red Fel]

As others have said, the comedies tend to be more consistent. They usually aren't going to rake in half a billion dollars, but they usually make back their budget.

Particularly Adam Sandler movies, as he's one of few stars who takes relatively little. That is, his films tend to cost substantially less than similar films; if he even makes close to what other silly comedies make, the studio makes mint.

Contrast that with science fiction, which tends to be synonymous with "big budget" nowadays.


It's known as appeal to lowest common denominator.

Agreed.

But to be fair, Pacific Rim wasn't exactly high art, either.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Wait, did our friendly neighborhood chatbot just reply to one of its own threads?

I have to say, this has got to be the best bot I've ever seen. It's like that xkcd comic about training bots to make automated constructive comments.

Incidentally, why is anyone surprised that Pacific Rim flopped? It was awful. I mean, I haven't seen that Sandler film, but still. Pacific Rim!! *throws up hands*

[Ruslan]

Pacific Rim flopped
It didn't. $411 million worldwide gross on a $190 million budget. Do the math.

[Talakeal]

Having seen both the movies in the theaters within a week of one another, I can honestly say that Grownups 2 was flat out better than Pacific Rim in every way.

I know that I hold a minority opinion here, but I thought Pacific Rim was easily the worst movie of the year, while Grownups 2 was surprisingly good.

I had a similar reaction to Dumber and Dumber Too vs. Interstellar the following year; although Interstellar wasn't actively terrible like Pacific Rim I was surprised that Dumb and Dumber Too had far better writing, more consistent characters, and a more logical plot. I believe I even made a thread on this board about it.

[Ceiling_Squid]

"Awful?" You take that back!

Pacific Rim did exactly what it set out to do, with gleeful abandon. It was fun.

[The Glyphstone]

Did a Jaeger step on your puppy or something? PR wasn't a great movie, but it wasn't an awful one. You don't watch it for good dialogue, or logical plots, or complex characters. You watch it to see giant robots punch giant monsters in the face with rocket-propelled fists, and it did its fight scenes very well - not a good movie, but a fun one. For that matter, it can hardly say to have flopped - just about made double its budget with overseas sales, which isn't a blockbuster or even a very profitable film but is enough for the studio to list it as a break-even on their accounting records. That's pretty good as far as 'Director Vanity Projects' go compared to some of the serious stinkers in that category.

[Talakeal]

Did a Jaeger step on your puppy or something? PR wasn't a great movie, but it wasn't an awful one. You don't watch it for good dialogue, or logical plots, or complex characters. You watch it to see giant robots punch giant monsters in the face with rocket-propelled fists, and it did its fight scenes very well - not a good movie, but a fun one. For that matter, it can hardly say to have flopped - just about made double its budget with overseas sales, which isn't a blockbuster or even a very profitable film but is enough for the studio to list it as a break-even on their accounting records. That's pretty good as far as 'Director Vanity Projects' go compared to some of the serious stinkers in that category.

The acting and characterization was terrible, the plot made no sense, and the technobabble was actively insulting my intelligence.

I could have forgiven that if it was a decent action movie, but I couldn't tell what was going on in any of the fight scenes. They were so dark, and most of them occurred in chest deep water, that I couldn't actually see what was going on. When I could see what was happening (like the sword fight with the flying Kaiju in Hong Kong) it was pretty good, but for the rest of it the cinematography really leeched away any enjoyment for me.

[The Glyphstone]

The acting and characterization was terrible, the plot made no sense, and the technobabble was actively insulting my intelligence.

I could have forgiven that if it was a decent action movie, but I couldn't tell what was going on in any of the fight scenes. They were so dark, and most of them occurred in chest deep water, that I couldn't actually tell what was going on. When I could see what was happening (like the sword fight with the flying Kaiju in Hong Kong) it was pretty good, but for the rest of it the cinematography really leeched away any enjoyment for me.

That wasn't directed at you, but at NinjaPrawn.

As far as your critiques...everything in that list is absolutely 100% true. Though I think people go overboard on the 'technobabble' criticism; there's exactly one piece of brain-cringing technobabble in the entire movie, the bit with digital vs. analog. For pretty much the entire rest of the movie, it very sensibly doesn't even try to scientifically justify anything.

[Razade]

Wait, did our friendly neighborhood chatbot just reply to one of its own threads?

I don't think he's a chatbot honestly.

[Ceiling_Squid]

I think one's estimation of Pacific Rim would be far better served by learning the difference between the distinctly-animesque mecha subgenres of "super robot", and "real robot".

Pacific Rim wildly embraces the former, with a huge dash of kaiju cinema. I'm sorry you expected the latter, or something resembling a grounded narrative.

Granted, I fully agree on the dark fight scenes. Would have preferred more daylight action.

[The Glyphstone]

I think a part of my love for PR is that it's the closest I will ever get to a big-budget Battletech movie, or really any sort of Battletech movie.

[Anonymouswizard]

I think one's estimation of Pacific Rim would be far better served by learning the difference between the distinctly-animesque mecha subgenres of "super robot", and "real robot".

Pacific Rim wildly embraces the former, with a huge dash of kaiju cinema. I'm sorry you expected the latter, or something resembling a grounded narrative.

I'm personally of the opinion that, while it was certainly a Super Robot story, it was trying to have the mecha be more Real Robot.

Now I'm someone who loves Real Robot series and only tolerates a Super Robot series if they can deliver on the awesome. I personally enjoyed PR a ton, although I would never say it was a good film. Me and my siblings went to see it together (seeing as most of us were living at home when it came out), and we all loved it, although we disagreed on whether they got together at the end and had our share of nitpicks (namely the sword being the best weapon by far). It's one of the few films where I'll watch the sequel without doing any research because all I expected was giant robots punching giant monsters, and I got a film where giant monsters were punched by giant robots. Is the film for everyone? No, some people don't like giant robots excused by excuses, while some of us don't care that the digital versus analogue line made no sense as we got to see Gypsy Danger punch giant robots again.

[Traab]

The whole, "It was an adam sandler movie" thing goes deeper than that. Its about Brand Recognition. tm Virtually everyone still capable of going to the movies knows who adam sandler is. Love him or hate him, you still know him. Pacific Rim however, was basically a new thing. It wasnt transformers versus godzilla (and now I want to see that) so it didnt really have much in the way of a name brand to drag people in. Think about The Expendables. We didnt go to see it because of its awesome storyline, great direction, masterful boom mic operating, or anything like that, we went to see it because it had virtually every classic action star ever in it and thats just awesome to the little boy in all of us who used to bang his action figures together going "pew pew!" as we imagined arnold fighting against sylvester against a xenomorph. We knew all those names and thats what turned a movie that would have likely flopped without those big names, into a moderate success. (Tripled its budget worldwide)

[Talakeal]

I think a part of my love for PR is that it's the closest I will ever get to a big-budget Battletech movie, or really any sort of Battletech movie.

http://zombiehamster.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/JOX-004.jpg

[Legato Endless]

Having seen both the movies in the theaters within a week of one another, I can honestly say that Grownups 2 was flat out better than Pacific Rim in every way.

I know that I hold a minority opinion here, but I thought Pacific Rim was easily the worst movie of the year, while Grownups 2 was surprisingly good.

I had a similar reaction to Dumber and Dumber Too vs. Interstellar the following year; although Interstellar wasn't actively terrible like Pacific Rim I was surprised that Dumb and Dumber Too had far better writing, more consistent characters, and a more logical plot. I believe I even made a thread on this board about it.


The acting and characterization was terrible, the plot made no sense, and the technobabble was actively insulting my intelligence.

And everything about Interstellar wasn't? :smallconfused:

The Quantum love nonsense was far more egregious than any digital vs. analogue one off remark. It's the whole plot of the film. The movie would have been more scientifically grounded had it been endorsing the homeopathic wonders of tapping into the memory of water. I don't quite see how the comparison favors a film that has reams of vapid and pretentious babbling disguised as scientific philosophy.

[The Glyphstone]

http://zombiehamster.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/JOX-004.jpg

Seen it. It might have been half-decent if the mech CGI wasn't so awful.

[Talakeal]

And everything about Interstellar wasn't? :smallconfused:

The Quantum love nonsense was far more egregious than any digital vs. analogue one off remark. It's the whole plot of the film. The movie would have been more scientifically grounded had it been endorsing the homeopathic wonders of tapping into the memory of water. I don't quite see how the comparison favors a film that has reams of vapid and pretentious babbling disguised as scientific philosophy.

Totally agreed. I just thought the acting in Interstellar was better and the story was more compelling. But I don't really think that highly of Interstellar (as my comparison to Dumb and Dumber Too should clue you in on), just that it was better than Pacific Rim.

Also, one funny thing is to go onto Reddit threads from two years ago asking if Interstellar is scientifically accurate, seeing the first few responses from people who arrogantly proclaim it is the most scientifically accurate movie ever an no mere layman could ever find a flaw, and then reading the two years of people pointing out the mountains of scientific inaccuracy in the film.

[tensai_oni]

Pacific Rim is a good movie and I will hear no different. Okay - I will hear it, but I'll consider you wrong.

Time to link the article that is usually linked whenever people say it was horribly written with no depth to it. (http://stormingtheivorytower.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-visual-intelligence-of-pacific-rim.html) I sincerely suggest reading that. I don't agree with everything written there, but it's a good article.

On the real vs super thing: the distinction is smaller than TVTropes might have you think. I mean obviously some giant robot shows are more realistic or have more convincing technobabble than others, but it's rare that a show is 100% "real" or 100% "super". It's a sliding scale. Even supposed super robot shows often have trappings associated with real robots, like mass produced mooks, scientific (if not exactly realistic) explanations of technology or grittiness. And there will never be a "true" real robot show because all giant robots are inherently unrealistic. It comes with the genre. I don't think any writers go "let's make a real/super robot show" anyway. It's a terminology that doesn't exist outside of fanspeak sites like tvtropes and Super Robot Wars.

Now that being said: Pacific Rim did better than Grown Ups 2 overall. It did worse in the US. Why? The explanation is simple.

The US doesn't like giant robots.

I'm not only talking about casual viewers who think all robots are Transformers or Megazords. Even nerds who like nerd things, or anime fans, tend not to like mecha. There's a minority that is different but it's a minority. It didn't used to be like that in the past but this is how it is now. Even popular shows with giant robots in them, like Evangelion (technically not robots but you know), Code Geass or from newer titles Iron Blooded Orphans are often said to be enjoyed despite the robots, not because of them.

I don't know why this is. My hypothesis is that since big humanoid robots are inherently unrealistic, asking to suspend your disbelief about their use and practicality is too much for many viewers. Or maybe those viewers - yes, even the nerds and anime watchers, wish to appear as cultured and with refined tastes, and giant robots have a stigma of being "for kids". Whatever the reason, this is how things are.

Sorry for the tl;dr.

[Anonymouswizard]

And everything about Interstellar wasn't? :smallconfused:

The Quantum love nonsense was far more egregious than any digital vs. analogue one off remark. It's the whole plot of the film. The movie would have been more scientifically grounded had it been endorsing the homeopathic wonders of tapping into the memory of water. I don't quite see how the comparison favors a film that has reams of vapid and pretentious babbling disguised as scientific philosophy.

Eh, the worst bit of Interstellar was definitely that they had a good film going, and then the ship went through the wormhole, and we suddenly got a lot of rubbish and they got how you science wrong. You get people who love the film even in STEM fields, but in general it's as scientifically accurate as an episode of Star Trek past a certain point, and doesn't even have the decency throw in a Green Skinned Space Babe or what have you.

Am I the only one who found Interstellar to be a worse movie than Pacific Rim?

[The Glyphstone]

I'd be interested to see what the blog writer's girlfriend thought of Interstellar. While I haven't see the movie in full, the bits I did see were all extremely visually spectacular.

[JoshL]

I had fun with Pacific Rim, but it's definitely my least favorite del Toro film. But I don't really like giant robots or kaiju all that much. I'll go see the second; my girlfriend loved it and the next should be fun too. I'll take the worst giant robot movie over the best Adam Sandler movie any day of the week, so I might not be the best judge of average audience.

[The Glyphstone]

Adam Sandler hasn't made a good movie in 18-20 years (depending on if you think he peaked with Happy Gilmore or The Waterboy), so it's not exactly a hard bar to cross.

[Talakeal]

Pacific Rim is a good movie and I will hear no different. Okay - I will hear it, but I'll consider you wrong.

Time to link the article that is usually linked whenever people say it was horribly written with no depth to it. (http://stormingtheivorytower.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-visual-intelligence-of-pacific-rim.html)


Maybe that is why I hated it so much. The author's girlfriend has an audio learning disability, I have a visual one.

I have to wonder though, if it was striving to tell a visual story why did it work so hard to make sure you couldnt see what was going on?

And why couldnt they also have had storyline or acting that was atleast passable? Does linguistic intelligence somehow detract from visual intelligence?

[Traab]

Adam Sandler hasn't made a good movie in 18-20 years (depending on if you think he peaked with Happy Gilmore or The Waterboy), so it's not exactly a hard bar to cross.

I liked billy madison, happy gilmore, waterboy and little nicky. I also enjoyed 50 first dates though that wasnt really a comedy as he normally does them. The thing about sandler is, his movies are rarely awful (jack and jill) So its generally at least worth the rental cost, if not to see them in theater. What I like is the background more than anything. He basically admitted that he films these movies to have an excuse to go to exotic locales, and give his buddies some work. They churn out a low budget film, it gets its money back, at worst, and he can then do another one later. None of his movies are really cinematic masterpieces, but they arent meant to be, and dont need to be. I mean, happy gilmore cost 12 million to make. It brought in 41 million in the box office. Thats nothing to sneeze at. Unlike todays mega blockbusters that cost 400 million to make and relies on big sales here and overseas just to break even.

I mean holy crow I just looked up the numbers, remember Pixels? Remember how much that sucked? How much everyone screamed they hated it? It cost 88 million to make it, you wanna know what it brought in? Over 244 million worldwide. He will never, EVER win an oscar, noone on his casts will, but you cant deny the guy has a formula that works. When you manage to average 2-3x the box office take as you spend in producing the film, noone has the right to tell you you dont know what you are doing. *EDIT* One last one, The Waterboy, 23 million production budget. Worldwide box office total? 186 million. He can afford to grunt out a jack and jill bomb once in awhile when he has movie results like that most of the time.

[The Glyphstone]

Yeah, no one can deny that he's insanely profitable. Adam Sandler is to comedy what Michael Bay is to action - critically loathed but financial wrecking machines.

[Talakeal]

Adam Sandler hasn't made a good movie in 18-20 years (depending on if you think he peaked with Happy Gilmore or The Waterboy), so it's not exactly a hard bar to cross.

I actually like his newer stuff better. I never much cared for classic Sandler (although Billy Madison is pretty quotable) but I really like both Grownups movies and Click is one of my favorite movies of all time.

[Traab]

Yeah, no one can deny that he's insanely profitable. Adam Sandler is to comedy what Michael Bay is to action - critically loathed but financial wrecking machines.

Just to be different, I will now compare adam sandler to nickelback or taco bell. Loathed on the internet, yet obviously well liked in secret, going by sales figures. :smalltongue:

[Rockphed]

Just to be different, I will now compare adam sandler to nickelback or taco bell. Loathed on the internet, yet obviously well liked in secret, going by sales figures. :smalltongue:

See, although I can see why people dislike Nickelback and Taco Bell, I do not personally dislike them. On the other hand, I have never seen an Adam Sandler movie that I genuinely enjoyed. Even 50 First Dates I only watched all the way through because there was a woman involved. I legitimately walked out of Click I hated it so much.

[FreddyNoNose]

unless you are super sentai nerd grownups look more rational choice.

Well, as an old nerd, I will not go to a movie just because it might be a nerd movie.

[FreddyNoNose]

It's known as appeal to lowest common denominator.
Are you on a high horse about pacific rim? Seriously. haha.

[Kitten Champion]

The US doesn't like giant robots.

I'm not only talking about casual viewers who think all robots are Transformers or Megazords. Even nerds who like nerd things, or anime fans, tend not to like mecha. There's a minority that is different but it's a minority. It didn't used to be like that in the past but this is how it is now. Even popular shows with giant robots in them, like Evangelion (technically not robots but you know), Code Geass or from newer titles Iron Blooded Orphans are often said to be enjoyed despite the robots, not because of them.

I don't know why this is. My hypothesis is that since big humanoid robots are inherently unrealistic, asking to suspend your disbelief about their use and practicality is too much for many viewers. Or maybe those viewers - yes, even the nerds and anime watchers, wish to appear as cultured and with refined tastes, and giant robots have a stigma of being "for kids". Whatever the reason, this is how things are.

It didn't do particularly well in Japan either - for much the same reason I think it was weak in North America - lack of star power, no brand recognition, and WB evidently didn't do a great job advertising it on top of that.

I don't particularly get disliking mecha as a general concept. I know people who do, but to me it's like dismissing Star Trek or Star Wars because space travel doesn't work like that rather than just seeing it as a means to further the narrative.

I can, however, see how some of the more ubiquitous tropes and persistent elements of the sub-genre can be pretty abrasive and push away new viewers.

[Legato Endless]

I don't particularly get disliking mecha as a general concept. I know people who do, but to me it's like dismissing Star Trek or Star Wars because space travel doesn't work like that rather than just seeing it as a means to further the narrative.

Suspension of disbelief is pretty inconsistent for a lot of people outside the cultural mileu they tacticly accept because they grew up in it.


Totally agreed. I just thought the acting in Interstellar was better and the story was more compelling.

Ah that makes sense.


Does linguistic intelligence somehow detract from visual intelligence?

It should not theoretically...and yet this does seem conventionally true. A lot of films or visual media awash with detail tend to be verbally spartan. Often it's a tool for emphasis and focus control, but there's really no reason you can't do both if you ceded that control to the viewer. Graphic Novels can indulge in both, a fair bit of Alan Moores work works on both levels. Film though and most media where the viewer is swept along with a pacing outside their control tend to reduce lest they overwhelm. Modern audiences are so persnickety.

[Knaight]

I have to wonder though, if it was striving to tell a visual story why did it work so hard to make sure you couldnt see what was going on?

I didn't have any issues seeing it - which makes me suspect that you might have gotten unlucky and had a theater that cheaped out on bulb strength. It's not uncommon for the bulbs for 3D movies to be used for 2D, and they inevitably come in much darker.

[The Glyphstone]

The fight scenes, at least, were all intentionally set in rain or semi-darkness as part of the whole movie being a love letter to old rubber-suit kaiju films who used similar effects as a way to hide the cheapness of the suits. So even in a brightly lit theater, it could sometimes be a bit difficult to follow parts of the fights; if your theater cheaped out on bulbs as well you'd be completely out of luck.

[Ruslan]

Are you on a high horse about pacific rim? Seriously. haha.
I was not referring to Pacific Rim in any way. If you think I did, can you please clarify which part of my posted befuddled you into thinking so?

[Traab]

I was not referring to Pacific Rim in any way. If you think I did, can you please clarify which part of my posted befuddled you into thinking so?

My guess would be that claiming an adam sandler flick is the lowest common denominator in comparison to pacific rim. As it comes off like you are claiming pacific rim is some sort of high culture enjoyable for those with more discerning taste while adam sandler flicks are slop fed to the ignorant masses. (Otherwise known as the lowest common denominator)

[Ceiling_Squid]

My guess would be that claiming an adam sandler flick is the lowest common denominator in comparison to pacific rim. As it comes off like you are claiming pacific rim is some sort of high culture enjoyable for those with more discerning taste while adam sandler flicks are slop fed to the ignorant masses. (Otherwise known as the lowest common denominator)

...

You know, there's such a thing as relative quality. Claiming an Adam Sandler film is low fare doesn't imply the opposite for Pacific Rim.

[Knaight]

My guess would be that claiming an adam sandler flick is the lowest common denominator in comparison to pacific rim. As it comes off like you are claiming pacific rim is some sort of high culture enjoyable for those with more discerning taste while adam sandler flicks are slop fed to the ignorant masses. (Otherwise known as the lowest common denominator)

This sounds entirely reasonable to me. Even putting aside the argument that Pacific Rim had some very sophisticated visual storytelling leaves you with the small detail that there is a lot of room for a movie to both be exceedingly stupid and still vastly better than anything Adam Sandler has ever made.

[Traab]

...

You know, there's such a thing as relative quality. Claiming an Adam Sandler film is low fare doesn't imply the opposite for Pacific Rim.

When the discussion is on how a movie like the adam sandler one could have outperformed pacific rim, the inference is there, at least to me. But /shrug, I was just offering a potential explanation for the high horse comment, not really stating my own opinion.

[Ruslan]

My guess would be that claiming an adam sandler flick is the lowest common denominator in comparison to pacific rim. As it comes off like you are claiming pacific rim is some sort of high culture enjoyable for those with more discerning taste while adam sandler flicks are slop fed to the ignorant masses. (Otherwise known as the lowest common denominator)
English, man. It has words and stuff. These words have meaning.

"lower" would imply it's "lower" than something particular. Therefore, there is a specific comparison with that other thing.
"lowest", on the other hand, would imply it is "lower" than anything else. Therefore, there is no specific comparison with that other thing. It would be disingenuous to play it as if there was a direct comparison.



Claiming an Adam Sandler film is low fare doesn't imply the opposite for Pacific Rim.Also, logic. It helps you figure out stuff. This quote has a healthy dose of it.

[Traab]

English, man. It has words and stuff. These words have meaning.

"lower" would imply it's "lower" than something particular. Therefore, there is a specific comparison with that other thing.
"lowest", on the other hand, would imply it is "lower" than anything else. Therefore, there is no specific comparison with that other thing. It would be disingenuous to play it as if there was a direct comparison.


Also, logic. It helps you figure out stuff. This quote has a healthy doze of it.

Also condescension, your post has plenty of it. Here, let me add some. Its dose, unless you think that other post had a healthy light sleep of logic.

[Ruslan]

I made an offhand comment about X being bad, and seem to have stirred a hornet's nest of "LOL, he thinks Y is good!". If you don't want to be condescended to, USE BETTER LOGIC.

Its doseThank you, I stand corrected. When called on a simple mistake, I admit it and move on.

[GAAD]

On the earlier tangent, I rather enjoy Nickleback and have no problems with eating at Taco Bell, though I have not done so recently.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Yeah, nothing wrong with Nickleback (or really right, either), but Taco Bell was the source of two of my three food poisoning events that didn't involve campus food service.

For other stupid moments in Pacific Rim, the continuing idea that dinosaurs had a second brain in their hips.

[FreddyNoNose]

On the earlier tangent, I rather enjoy Nickleback and have no problems with eating at Taco Bell, though I have not done so recently.

No thanks to taco bell. I like beef, chicken or pork in my tacos and Taco Bell "Taco Meat" doesn't qualify. ick.

Making them at home is so much better and tastier!

[brionl]

The US doesn't like giant robots.



What? But everybody knows Chicks Dig Giant Robots!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7PjQnw_E0U

[Traab]

Nickelback is honestly one of those bands I think are good, but not great. I have a couple of their cds and a few of their songs I really like but on average thats what they are to me, average. As for taco bell, I honestly mainly like it because its cheap fast food that doesnt taste terrible. Also the one near me sometimes screws up my order and when I bring it in to get fixed they let me keep the messed up food as well. Bonus! :smallbiggrin: Gimmie my beef and potato burritos, mmmmm. If I had to pick just one fast food place to eat at forever, it wouldnt be taco bell though, it would be wendys. I like their selection more.

[The Glyphstone]

I won't touch taco bell tacos or burritos, but I actually really like their quesadillas.

[Razade]

Adam Sandler hasn't made a good movie in 18-20 years (depending on if you think he peaked with Happy Gilmore or The Waterboy), so it's not exactly a hard bar to cross.

I was about to contend that Waterboy couldn't be close to 20 years old. Googled it, it is indeed nearly 20 years old. Holy crap.

[The Glyphstone]

I was about to contend that Waterboy couldn't be close to 20 years old. Googled it, it is indeed nearly 20 years old. Holy crap.

Feeling old now?

[Razade]

Feeling old now?

Yes. Feeling really really old.

[Peelee]

No thanks to taco bell. I like beef, chicken or pork in my tacos and Taco Bell "Taco Meat" doesn't qualify. ick.
Taco filling. They can't legally call it taco meat, i don't think (and opportunistic lawyers in Alabama even tried to sue that they couldn't call it taco filling).

I'll still eat it.


I was about to contend that Waterboy couldn't be close to 20 years old. Googled it, it is indeed nearly 20 years old. Holy crap.

Feeling old now?

Damn you, sir.

[The Glyphstone]

Nah, the Alabama lawsuit was over whether they could call it meat in the first place, and I think it got thrown out of court for being ridiculous. It's something like 90% beef and 10% sugar/flavorings/oats/yeast/stuff like that.

88/12, rather.

[tensai_oni]

It didn't do particularly well in Japan either - for much the same reason I think it was weak in North America - lack of star power, no brand recognition, and WB evidently didn't do a great job advertising it on top of that.

I'd also say that Japanese viewers aren't particularly interested in watching movies that don't have Japanese people in them, just like American viewers aren't interested in non-American movies. But that doesn't explain why all other American movies can actually be popular in Japan.


I don't particularly get disliking mecha as a general concept. I know people who do, but to me it's like dismissing Star Trek or Star Wars because space travel doesn't work like that rather than just seeing it as a means to further the narrative.

I can, however, see how some of the more ubiquitous tropes and persistent elements of the sub-genre can be pretty abrasive and push away new viewers.

There's something about mecha that makes people unable or unwilling to suspend their disbelief. Perhaps it's because in the US it's associated with Transformers or Power Rangers (read: kids' stuff) so if you're still interested in them then you're an immature adult-child. Either way this bias exists, and the fact that you can't discuss mecha online without someone smugly asking "you know big robots are unrealistic and would never work in real life, right?" is proof of that. It's like wrestling fans being asked if they know that it's all "fake".

By the way, can you point out which particular tropes of the genre are abrasive and push people away? I'm not criticizing your stance, I'm just curious. I can already think of some but these tend to be less mecha and more anime in general, so I wonder if we're on the same page here.


What? But everybody knows Chicks Dig Giant Robots!

The funny thing is when Megas aired, mecha wasn't even that big in the west yet. I mean it was pretty popular, Eva especially, but the really popular, mainstream mecha series of the time (Code Geass, Gundam 00, Gurren Lagann) aired only a few years later. In year 2007 or so, we really did all dig giant robots!

But come 2010 with another giant robot cartoon from Cartoon Network, and it's suddenly a big flop. Sym-Bionic Titan gets almost no advertising, no merchandise, and no second season. And it's also about that time when the US fanbase started to turn away from mecha shows. I wonder what happened.

[Drascin]

Because for some reason, people still watch Adam Sandler, despite his movies being not only stupid, but often actively repugnant. I will never get it.

Anyway, PacRim got some of the best choreography and camerawork in a Hollywood action movie since I don't even know when. There's a sense of weight to the action that you basically don't get anymore outside of movies that Jackie Chan has personally overseen. And that soundtrack, holy hell. So yeah, I loved the movie. I think it's the only movie I've seen twice in theaters in my entire life, because I knew rewatching it in a small screen wouldn't be the same.

[Avilan the Grey]

Adam Sandler hasn't made a good movie in 18-20 years (depending on if you think he peaked with Happy Gilmore or The Waterboy), so it's not exactly a hard bar to cross.

I definitely disagree with this. 50 first dates was good enough. Hotel Transylvania is good. Of course I'm note sure if you count voice acting as a "proper" movie?

[The Glyphstone]

Hard to say, really. Voicework can be just as hard or even harder than regular acting sometimes since you don't have facial emotes (that's up to the animators) but it's still a very different skillset with no guarantee of overlap in talent. So alright, I'll give it to him.

[Rockphed]

I definitely disagree with this. 50 first dates was good enough. Hotel Transylvania is good. Of course I'm note sure if you count voice acting as a "proper" movie?

For whatever reason, actors often portray drastically different personalities when doing voice acting as opposed to when doing full acting. Also, actors aren't normally the driving force behind animated films, whereas Sandler seems to be a driving force behind his movies.

And I will fight you to the death that Hotel Transylvania was not a good movie. Maybe I just think that because I thought it tried too hard to be "serious".

[Kitten Champion]

I'd also say that Japanese viewers aren't particularly interested in watching movies that don't have Japanese people in them, just like American viewers aren't interested in non-American movies. But that doesn't explain why all other American movies can actually be popular in Japan.

Movie's success can be pretty complicated. One might assume Rinko Kikuchi - an Oscar nominated actor - would would have done well in her native Japan, but that doesn't really pan out in reality. While I don't find it odd at all that Brad Pitt's World War Z did much better there. It's a matter of complex cultural forces and the way actors are marketed, that's generally hard to pin down outside of looking at obvious examples of success - like Pitt's.

China has clearer tastes in this regard, particularly now that Chinese companies are involving themselves more in funding Hollywood movies directly. The Wall with Matt Damon for instance, feels tailor-made to fit the trend of blockbusters built around Chinese sensibilities of what a Hollywood movie should be. CGI-heavy, prototypical White Male star, simple black & white narrative, and if possible Chinese-friendly messaging on the whole. That does seem to be at the heart of success there, and Pacific Rim does do that more or less.



There's something about mecha that makes people unable or unwilling to suspend their disbelief. Perhaps it's because in the US it's associated with Transformers or Power Rangers (read: kids' stuff) so if you're still interested in them then you're an immature adult-child. Either way this bias exists, and the fact that you can't discuss mecha online without someone smugly asking "you know big robots are unrealistic and would never work in real life, right?" is proof of that. It's like wrestling fans being asked if they know that it's all "fake".

I guess, to be honest the people who've openly expressed a dislike for mecha have never cited physics in their reasoning. I can see people just refusing to get into it based off of a general presupposition of immaturity, but that seems like a selective trait among Anime Fans.



By the way, can you point out which particular tropes of the genre are abrasive and push people away? I'm not criticizing your stance, I'm just curious. I can already think of some but these tend to be less mecha and more anime in general, so I wonder if we're on the same page here.

A few complaints that I've heard quite a bit is mainly that their introduction to the genre stemmed in Evangelion or Gundam - because that's most of what young Westerners were exposed to in terms of mecha Anime in the 90s - and both of which have definite detracting elements, particularly their protagonists' characterizations and overly self-serious nature (at least at times). While some associate - rightly or wrongly - the Super Robot genre with cheesiness and cheap re-used animation, probably because most of it is fairly old given its heyday was decades ago and represents the then contemporary trends in Anime that are pretty dated now.

Oddly enough, I find these people tend to like Macross in spite of their dissatisfaction with the broader genre.

One complaint was simply that the mecha genre is often used to sell toys/models, and that leads to pandering fanservice of the more mechanical variety. Which... yeah, I mean you watch Super Robot Wars or something like Gundam Build Fighters and the marketing agenda is pretty much on the forefront, but I have difficulty accepting that argument from that same person who revels in male gaze-oriented sexual fanservice just on general principle.

Another complaint is that mecha combat isn't stimulating enough because it's too slow or not visceral enough, to which I have no particular response. It's a romance you need to find alluring or it doesn't work.

That's all I could think of.

[JustSomeGuy]

Sean Astin

Steve Buscemi

Harvey Keitel



Are just some of the actors Sandler regularly gets working with him. Often, even if the film itself doesn't appeal, you might still enjoy seeing some actors just go all out for their own fun (Will Ferrell is another example)

I mean, Jack and Jill? Yeah, no i agree completely. But, did you see Al Pacino in it? The movie was worthwhile just for his highlight reel.

[Ninja_Prawn]

That wasn't directed at you, but at NinjaPrawn.

Just poking my head back in to say I did read the pro-Pacific Rim responses. I guess if you just want to see giant fighting robots, it delivered on that. For me, I'm a writer at heart, so I judge a film mainly by its plot, storytelling, characterisation and how it deals with real-life issues. Pacific Rim is one of the worst films I've ever seen in that regard (maybe second only to Battleship) - though I will admit I don't watch a lot of films.

And yeah, I was shooting from the hip with "flopped"; I hadn't looked up the profit/loss figures. I just saw the barrage of posts trying to explain/excuse the film's failure and assumed that it had been a 'flop'.

[Anonymouswizard]

Nickelback is honestly one of those bands I think are good, but not great. I have a couple of their cds and a few of their songs I really like but on average thats what they are to me, average. As for taco bell, I honestly mainly like it because its cheap fast food that doesnt taste terrible. Also the one near me sometimes screws up my order and when I bring it in to get fixed they let me keep the messed up food as well. Bonus! :smallbiggrin: Gimmie my beef and potato burritos, mmmmm. If I had to pick just one fast food place to eat at forever, it wouldnt be taco bell though, it would be wendys. I like their selection more.

Personally I draw a big 'meh' on Nickleback. I mean it's not like I dislike their songs, but I don't like them enough that'll I buy their albums unless it's in a charity shop. I can't talk about Taco Bell though, there's only like six of them in this entire country, entirely to serve Americans :smalltongue:


There's something about mecha that makes people unable or unwilling to suspend their disbelief. Perhaps it's because in the US it's associated with Transformers or Power Rangers (read: kids' stuff) so if you're still interested in them then you're an immature adult-child. Either way this bias exists, and the fact that you can't discuss mecha online without someone smugly asking "you know big robots are unrealistic and would never work in real life, right?" is proof of that. It's like wrestling fans being asked if they know that it's all "fake".

I've found that the ones most likely to like giant robots are generally people in a scientific field (generally physics or engineering). Generally most people I know, actually including me, prefers their mecha on the smaller side, but considering we're asked to suspend our disbelief and believe that jerks deserve the girl in enough films most of us can handwave giant humanoid robots at the same time we're asked to handwave lasers that shoot bolts that can be seen.

Heck, I've previous had to explain to people that when I call wrestling fake I don't mean that it isn't impression, just that it's not real fighting. I prefer my fighting sports to be less impressive and more practical, I'm perfectly fine with wrestling being the way it is, although I will always refer to it as a performance. I just get in sticky situations as people tend to talk as if the fighting is real even when they know it's just a performance.

[Traab]

I can't talk about Taco Bell though, there's only like six of them in this entire country, entirely to serve Americans :smalltongue:




Heck, I've previous had to explain to people that when I call wrestling fake I don't mean that it isn't impression, just that it's not real fighting. I prefer my fighting sports to be less impressive and more practical, I'm perfectly fine with wrestling being the way it is, although I will always refer to it as a performance. I just get in sticky situations as people tend to talk as if the fighting is real even when they know it's just a performance.

As it should be /disdainful sniff :smalltongue:

Heh, as for wrestling, the thing is, the storyline is prewritten, the winner is predetermined, but the moves? They are real. They spend years learning how to pile drive someone 100 times without actually snapping their neck like wet celery, and as steve austin could tell you, even then sometimes stuff happens. It is a performance but there is no way id look down on a professional wrestler as not a "real athlete" as some haters try to do. Heck, just look at the semi recent surge of wrestlers switching over to or from the UFC as proof of their capabilities. But yeah, there is a reason its called sport entertainment and not just a sport. These are real athletes really putting their bodies on the line, but everything aside from the moves are prearranged.

[eggynack]

See, although I can see why people dislike Nickelback and Taco Bell, I do not personally dislike them. On the other hand, I have never seen an Adam Sandler movie that I genuinely enjoyed. Even 50 First Dates I only watched all the way through because there was a woman involved. I legitimately walked out of Click I hated it so much.
I hated Click so much, but I don't precisely consider it an Adam Sandler film in the typical sense. Adam Sandler movies tend to find their issues in how broad, puerile, and frequently unfunny they are, if I'm recalling my Sandler correctly. They're lazy, in a lot of ways. Click isn't any of those things, really. Instead, it's just a mess, with a dark and depressing didactic story about how being unfocused during the less apparently interesting parts of your life can make you miss out on the most important things coming into conflict with a more traditional Sandler comedy about how, when you can slow down time, watching boobs bounce is way easier. I think a majority of the movie is the former, but having any of the latter at all gave the whole thing this awful feeling.

And, one big problem that isn't typically Sandler is that there are issues with the underlying logic of the moral, ones which undermine its power continuously. Because, as I recall, a lot of the fast-forwarding was autonomous, and that autonomous fast forwarding didn't come with the instructions. People generally have control over what they try to experience, and removing that agency from Sandler made the moralizing lose a lot of its weight. Why should we hold him responsible for the actions of an insane remote? The other issue along these lines is that the remote has all these amazing function besides the bugged to all hell fast forward. He could have easily held onto the thing at the end of the movie and just watched boobs and pranked his boss forever. And, more critically, he could have been using those functions earlier in the movie when he found the remote was wonky in fast forward terms, and resolved a lot of his non-remote issues that way.

English, man. It has words and stuff. These words have meaning.

"lower" would imply it's "lower" than something particular. Therefore, there is a specific comparison with that other thing.
"lowest", on the other hand, would imply it is "lower" than anything else. Therefore, there is no specific comparison with that other thing. It would be disingenuous to play it as if there was a direct comparison.
In making your "correction", you have forgotten something essential. "Lowest common denominator" is not a standard English term where all the words can be analyzed piecemeal. It is, classically, a math term. And, while one might expect a "lowest common denominator" to represent an absolute low, at least in the genre in question, one should recall that the term gives a potentially different result depending on the inputs you supply. There is no generic LCD, and you can get an LCD of magnitude greater than any given integer, and a lesser LCD for an infinity of integers, meaning that, far from there being only one LCD, there is in fact a countable infinity of LCD's. Therefore, one could have two distinct lowest common denominators, where one is lower than the other.

[Haruspex_Pariah]

In fact, now that I know wrestling is staged, I can actually appreciate all the work that goes into the performance. I saw a video of the Rock's big debut, with commentary from the Rock himself, talking about how he messed up by looking into the wrong camera (twice!), and then when he was pinning the opponent he was also thanking him for "putting him over" (in wrestling parlance, taking a hit to make your opponent look good).

Regarding the actual point of the thread, such as it is. Pacific Rim was a new IP when it debuted (unlike Star Trek, Star Wars, Transformers, etc), with Idris Elba (I'm guessing?) being the most famous star in it, the director also not famous for making mainstream blockbusters. I'm glad it performed as well as it did, actually.

I remember some critic person on YouTube saying that the reason why Scarlett Johanssen was chosen to play the Major in the live action Ghost in the Shell. His claim was that the movie needed a star of her level to get out the door in the first place. He contrasted the situation to Star Wars, where they could cast basically anybody because people were coming to see Star Wars not a specific star actor. I'm guessing Avatar was sold based on James Cameron's name then. Eh, Sigourney Weaver was in it too.

It's entirely possible that movie goers just prefer comedies to science fiction. Something silly, with cheap laughs, etc. And they could probably guess, just by seeing the actors in it, what they were going to get. Funny People on the other hand, was better received by critics but not so much at the box office.

[Talakeal]

I hated Click so much, but I don't precisely consider it an Adam Sandler film in the typical sense. Adam Sandler movies tend to find their issues in how broad, puerile, and frequently unfunny they are, if I'm recalling my Sandler correctly. They're lazy, in a lot of ways. Click isn't any of those things, really. Instead, it's just a mess, with a dark and depressing didactic story about how being unfocused during the less apparently interesting parts of your life can make you miss out on the most important things coming into conflict with a more traditional Sandler comedy about how, when you can slow down time, watching boobs bounce is way easier. I think a majority of the movie is the former, but having any of the latter at all gave the whole thing this awful feeling.

And, one big problem that isn't typically Sandler is that there are issues with the underlying logic of the moral, ones which undermine its power continuously. Because, as I recall, a lot of the fast-forwarding was autonomous, and that autonomous fast forwarding didn't come with the instructions. People generally have control over what they try to experience, and removing that agency from Sandler made the moralizing lose a lot of its weight. Why should we hold him responsible for the actions of an insane remote? The other issue along these lines is that the remote has all these amazing function besides the bugged to all hell fast forward. He could have easily held onto the thing at the end of the movie and just watched boobs and pranked his boss forever. And, more critically, he could have been using those functions earlier in the movie when he found the remote was wonky in fast forward terms, and resolved a lot of his non-remote issues that way.

I now feel obliged to step in and offer a defense for Click. As I said earlier, it is one of my favorite films of all time.

I like it so much precisely because of the reasons you seem to dislike it; I like dark serious stories, but I also like laughing and looking at hot girls. Few movies manage to do both really well. Any movie that can make me simultaneously laugh and cry is a great movie in my book, indeed the only two movies I can think of off the top of my head that managed that were Click and Guardians of the Galaxy.

I didn't take it as a morality lesson so much as a modern take on It's a Wonderful Life. Adam Sandler is so concerned with the future that he forgets to live in the present, and so an angel comes down and makes the metaphor into a reality to illustrate how much he is taking what he already has for granted.

Admittedly its not the deepest or most clearly told moral, but it is a relevant one and is told in a very entertaining way (imo).

Also, it has Christopher Walken and James Earl Jones. Can't go wrong there.

[eggynack]

I like it so much precisely because of the reasons you seem to dislike it; I like dark serious stories, but I also like laughing and looking at hot girls. Few movies manage to do both really well. Any movie that can make me simultaneously laugh and cry is a great movie in my book, indeed the only two movies I can think of off the top of my head that managed that were Click and Guardians of the Galaxy.
I just didn't feel like it melded well. Guardians is great in part because it always felt like it was on this spectrum of comedy and drama, moving from one to the other seamlessly, and frequently interspersing the one in the other. The comedy was character based, which meant that core narrative elements were developing as you were laughing, and a transition from seeing amusing things about a character to seeing sadder things about a character is a logical and normal one. Click felt a lot like two movies just stacked on top of each other, rarely letting drama fit into its comedy or vice versa. It's a movie that has these jarring tonal shifts and this element you speak of, where you get these two things working together, doesn't really fit into those shifts. The true artistry of the drama is in the construction of that sort of blend, and it feels like they failed to construct it properly.

Instead, it seems like they had this movie about a guy having wacky fun with a magic remote, and this completely different movie which is a retelling of The Magic Thread (http://www.noogenesis.com/pineapple/magic_thread.html) in the modern era, and they glued the two films together without any care for how the pieces were fitting together.


I didn't take it as a morality lesson so much as a modern take on It's a Wonderful Life. Adam Sandler is so concerned with the future that he forgets to live in the present, and so an angel comes down and makes the metaphor into a reality to illustrate how much he is taking what he already has for granted.
But that is a lesson or whatever. And one that's still kinda wonky in the ways I mentioned. He never really has an opportunity to start living in the present such that he can reject it. The whole narrative purpose of a fast forward remote, by my reckoning, is to grant agency where one wouldn't normally have it. The character says, "Jeez, the future seems so much better than the present. I wish I had the ability to forsake one for the other," and the story says, "This agency has been granted to you. Use it as you wish." And that agency is the vehicle for the story. By then whittling away at that agency, the underlying narrative is kinda ruined. Which, sure, you could use that to tell a completely different story about, I dunno, fatalism, or false agency in a more general sense, or really work in a metaphor about how initial decisions to forsake the present can snowball, but none of that is truly explored, and the movie doesn't make much sense on that level because of it.

[The Glyphstone]

I now feel obliged to step in and offer a defense for Click. As I said earlier, it is one of my favorite films of all time.

I like it so much precisely because of the reasons you seem to dislike it; I like dark serious stories, but I also like laughing and looking at hot girls. Few movies manage to do both really well. Any movie that can make me simultaneously laugh and cry is a great movie in my book, indeed the only two movies I can think of off the top of my head that managed that were Click and Guardians of the Galaxy.

I didn't take it as a morality lesson so much as a modern take on It's a Wonderful Life. Adam Sandler is so concerned with the future that he forgets to live in the present, and so an angel comes down and makes the metaphor into a reality to illustrate how much he is taking what he already has for granted.

Admittedly its not the deepest or most clearly told moral, but it is a relevant one and is told in a very entertaining way (imo).

Also, it has Christopher Walken and James Earl Jones. Can't go wrong there.

I would have never seen the connection between Click and IAWL until you pointed it out, but I can now that you have.

I think what saves Sandler movies is rarely Sandler himself, and more his supporting cast of actor-friends that he keeps in paychecks. They can just be goofy and have fun because they know there will be another Sandler movie in a few years for them to make bank on again.

[Talakeal]

I just didn't feel like it melded well. Guardians is great in part because it always felt like it was on this spectrum of comedy and drama, moving from one to the other seamlessly, and frequently interspersing the one in the other. The comedy was character based, which meant that core narrative elements were developing as you were laughing, and a transition from seeing amusing things about a character to seeing sadder things about a character is a logical and normal one. Click felt a lot like two movies just stacked on top of each other, rarely letting drama fit into its comedy or vice versa. It's a movie that has these jarring tonal shifts and this element you speak of, where you get these two things working together, doesn't really fit into those shifts. The true artistry of the drama is in the construction of that sort of blend, and it feels like they failed to construct it properly.

Instead, it seems like they had this movie about a guy having wacky fun with a magic remote, and this completely different movie which is a retelling of The Magic Thread (http://www.noogenesis.com/pineapple/magic_thread.html) in the modern era, and they glued the two films together without any care for how the pieces were fitting together.

But that is a lesson or whatever. And one that's still kinda wonky in the ways I mentioned. He never really has an opportunity to start living in the present such that he can reject it. The whole narrative purpose of a fast forward remote, by my reckoning, is to grant agency where one wouldn't normally have it. The character says, "Jeez, the future seems so much better than the present. I wish I had the ability to forsake one for the other," and the story says, "This agency has been granted to you. Use it as you wish." And that agency is the vehicle for the story. By then whittling away at that agency, the underlying narrative is kinda ruined. Which, sure, you could use that to tell a completely different story about, I dunno, fatalism, or false agency in a more general sense, or really work in a metaphor about how initial decisions to forsake the present can snowball, but none of that is truly explored, and the movie doesn't make much sense on that level because of it.

Can't argue with that. The comedy worked for me and the drama worked for me, and I found the movie better for having both than either side would have alone, but that is just my (minority) opinion.

Also, thanks for linking "The Magic Thread," I haven't seen it before and it is clearly the inspiration for Click, albeit clearly inferior due to the lack of gratuitous shots of bouncing boobs :smallbiggrin:

[Kitten Champion]

I would have never seen the connection between Click and IAWL until you pointed it out, but I can now that you have.

I think what saves Sandler movies is rarely Sandler himself, and more his supporting cast of actor-friends that he keeps in paychecks. They can just be goofy and have fun because they know there will be another Sandler movie in a few years for them to make bank on again.

I think Sandler can be a good actor, I genuinely enjoy Punch Drunk Love and his performance is a part of that. He can skirt the area between sympathetic everyman and uncomfortably neurotic well with proper direction. I just don't find him funny, even his supposedly good movies do little if anything to me one way or another.

The general sentiment I hear from people that did like his stuff has been that he's increasingly phoned in his roles and he's pretty much playing himself at this point with minimal attempt to perform an actual character -- and those he writes for himself have been more and more Mary Sue-ish in concept. That Happy Madison movies are increasingly becoming excuses for him to go on vacation with his friends and have neither effort or creativity put into them.

Given that they've dropping onto Netflix now rather than theaters, I think think its safe to say their era is over now - for whatever reason.

[eggynack]

Also, thanks for linking "The Magic Thread," I haven't seen it before and it is clearly the inspiration for Click, albeit clearly inferior due to the lack of gratuitous shots of bouncing boobs :smallbiggrin:
Yeah, they're essentially the same story. I think that you can see really clearly the areas where Click's moral narrative has problems based on things that were added as compared to the original. In particular, Click really really didn't need automatic fast forwarding to work. I noted what was lost based on that addition, but also notable is the fact that not much was gained. Also, not sure how it fits into the whole plot hole/acting against morals/general issues dynamic, but Sandler was just super uncreative in how he used what was basically infinite power. Probably necessary, given the story. I'm inclined to think the movie would have been significantly better if they had dropped the other functions, had the kinda dumb humor come from elsewhere, and un-weird the fastforwarding.

[Traab]

Because a movie where the main character has a device that lets him control reality, when he uses it intelligently, is an entirely different film. Hell, you could take that basic premise, and run it in a half dozen directions depending on the tone you want to set. In a good direction at least two ways, saint trying to fix the world, or well intentioned man screwing up everything because despite his godlike power, Then there are the bad directions of course. A horror film similar to Hollow Man. Basically have the character be corrupted by his power and eventually meet his death in some ironic way. Maybe a grimdark film where no matter how hard the main character tries to make things better, he just keeps making it worse. Like butterfly effect. You could even make a half dozen different types of comedy films based off the wacky hijinks. Its a surprisingly flexible premise.

[tomandtish]

Heh, as for wrestling, the thing is, the storyline is prewritten, the winner is predetermined, but the moves? They are real. They spend years learning how to pile drive someone 100 times without actually snapping their neck like wet celery, and as steve austin could tell you, even then sometimes stuff happens. It is a performance but there is no way id look down on a professional wrestler as not a "real athlete" as some haters try to do. Heck, just look at the semi recent surge of wrestlers switching over to or from the UFC as proof of their capabilities. But yeah, there is a reason its called sport entertainment and not just a sport. These are real athletes really putting their bodies on the line, but everything aside from the moves are prearranged.

This is the best way to think of professional wrestling. Not that you are watching a sport (in fact, in some legal ways you aren't), but instead you are watching highly specialized stunt actors.

[Rockphed]

This is the best way to think of professional wrestling. Not that you are watching a sport (in fact, in some legal ways you aren't), but instead you are watching highly specialized stunt actors.

The outcomes of the "fights" might be planned ahead of time, but the hits are still real.

[khadgar567]

I think it depends on how much comedy the movie has one or two well placed puns work wonders even in drama movie and lets not put transformers and power rangers( super sentai) in to same basket one has genuine computer generated robot other has same old boxy design since mighty morphin days and for the record give Micheal bay a chance to create kamen rider series you can bet it gets at least two seasons instead of japans one barely one season wonders.

[kida]

The outcomes of the "fights" might be planned ahead of time, but the hits are still real.

The hits are not real, they spend years learning how to make them look real without actually hurting each other.

[khadgar567]

The hits are not real, they spend years learning how to make them look real without actually hurting each other.
say that to Shane McMahon very match bastard was in at least one holly word situation.

[JustSomeGuy]

say that to Shane McMahon very match bastard was in at least one holly word situation.

Tame i tell Shane McMahon holy word to sih face very day match bastard!


I think the "half a dozen different comedies based on the wacky hijinks" and "serious guy trying to do good but keep messing it up", as well as "dark movie about power corruption" were all pretty well perfected with'Groundhog Day', despite it not even being a reality control/ultimate power/learn to live in the present film, it still did all those things about as well as they can be done. Click has to tell a different story, right?

[Anonymouswizard]

This is the best way to think of professional wrestling. Not that you are watching a sport (in fact, in some legal ways you aren't), but instead you are watching highly specialized stunt actors.

This is the thing, I think those who insist that wrestling isn't real don't appreciate that it isn't meant to be real. I appreciate professional wrestlers as performers and physical athletes, I sure as heck couldn't do that.


I think it depends on how much comedy the movie has one or two well placed puns work wonders even in drama movie and lets not put transformers and power rangers( super sentai) in to same basket one has genuine computer generated robot other has same old boxy design since mighty morphin days and for the record give Micheal bay a chance to create kamen rider series you can bet it gets at least two seasons instead of japans one barely one season wonders.

Actually, part of the reason Kamen Rider is still enjoyable to me is that it's a new series every year. It allows each series to be a self contained story that can properly conclude each year, while allowing continuity to still be acknowledged if the writers want to. It also avoids the problem that last year's super form must be rendered useless for the new villains to actually be threatening.

Now my favourite Kamen Rider series, Amazons, is getting a direct sequel, but they didn't have the problem of the super form (and I'm not 100% sure Jin and Haruka are going to be major characters in the second series), and was also significantly shorter. Just because the show uses a different model than 'one story for 27 series does not make bad'.

[Traab]

say that to Shane McMahon very match bastard was in at least one holly word situation.

The thing is, they are not supposed to be "real" as in, they are highly trained to not be hurt doing that stuff. Every move they make is a couple inches of positioning away from being a potentially lethal move. Shane is A) Not highly trained as a wrestler or in shape to be such, and B) kept fighting in the rare exceptions to a standard match where getting hurt is practically expected, as even with knowledge of the right way to fall, a 12 foot drop to concrete is going to leave a mark. I personally think it was all a plot by stephanie to make sure she inherited it all when dad retires. :smallbiggrin:

Anyways, back to how real the moves are. When done correctly, none of the standard moves will injure you. Thats the majority of their training, learning to perform moves that could easily murder people without hurting them or getting hurt by them. And the other half is learning how to sell those moves so the audience thinks that big slap across your chest actually is capable of hurling you backwards through sheer kinetic energy and isnt just a loud noise. All that said, yes there are times when no amount of training will keep the moves from hurting you.

At that point the training is to avoid being crippled or killed by them. Mankind being hurled off the top of the hell in a cell ring being the most famous example probably. He got badly injured not by the move itself though, but because he landed wrong. He didnt hit the announcers table squarely so that it would collapse and absorb some of that tremendous impact. It STILL would have hurt like crazy, but he probably wouldnt have left the match with broken ribs, a dislocated shoulder and a frigging TOOTH stabbing out through his NOSE.

[Avilan the Grey]

The thing is, I liked Pacific Rim DESPITE of what it is; It is heavily inspired by Japanese pop culture, obviously, and as a general rule I am severe allergic to (modern-ish) Japanese pop culture. My brain is just not compatible with it.

Let's put it this way: I prefer the last American Godzilla ("Worm Guy!") over the newest one.

[Legato Endless]

I think it depends on how much comedy the movie has one or two well placed puns work wonders even in drama movie and lets not put transformers and power rangers( super sentai) in to same basket one has genuine computer generated robot other has same old boxy design since mighty morphin days and for the record give Micheal bay a chance to create kamen rider series you can bet it gets at least two seasons instead of japans one barely one season wonders.

Eh, Bay's transformers is pretty juvenile. Having a budget doesn't really make it transformationally different. Super Sentai just doesn't take itself as seriously as Bay does, yet I'd wager it occasionally punches above the adolescent sex and piss jokes in Bay's tetralogy, not to mention the bland aggressive nationalism. Lord knows the cartoons certainly had more mature themes than the films. Although considering what the trailer to Kamen Rider: The Next looked like after quick google, I guess Bay might be a natural fit for the series.

[Anonymouswizard]

Eh, Bay's transformers is pretty juvenile. Having a budget doesn't really make it transformationally different. Super Sentai just doesn't take itself as seriously as Bay does, yet I'd wager it occasionally punches above the adolescent sex and piss jokes in Bay's tetralogy, not to mention the bland aggressive nationalism. Lord knows the cartoons certainly had more mature themes than the films. Although considering what the trailer to Kamen Rider: The Next looked like after quick google, I guess Bay might be a natural fit for the series.

The First and The Next, as well as Amazons, are specifically meant to be a more adult take on the genre. The First and Amazons are actually well above Bay standards in that they have actual emotion in them, I haven't seen The Next. But for the main series, it can be surprising mature (I personally love how Drive handled the Roidmudes, especially at the end), but at the end of the day it's still aimed at kids (which is why the hero of Ex-Aid is my least favourite of this year's riders). The violence in the main series is actually rather cartoony by comparison to the 'adult' entries.

The thing with Kamen Rider is, it can tell a surprisingly mature story rather well, and at it's best it's much more grounded and serious than Bay's films are. It certainly rarely takes itself as seriously as bay does, especially these days (back in the Kuuga-Blade era they were rather serious).

[Aedilred]

Adam Sandler hasn't made a good movie in 18-20 years (depending on if you think he peaked with Happy Gilmore or The Waterboy), so it's not exactly a hard bar to cross.

I thought it was basically received wisdom that Adam Sandler peaked with Punch-Drunk Love. I thought Anger Management was alright, too, though nothing at all special. Still, expectations for an Adam Sandler film these days have to be pretty low.

I haven't actually seen either of the films in question: Pacific Rim because it didn't really interest me enough to bother - and the hype I got about it from my internet contacts actually put me off - and Grown-Ups 2 because I know better.

But there is a difference between "outperformed" and "flopped", too, and treating Pacific Rim as the latter is silly. Comedies don't travel well so they have to make almost all their money domestically; action films meanwhile, and while there's some jiggery-pokery to do with global gross not translating as obviously into profit as it seems it should - are much easier to market overseas and this will be built into the production's expectations.

Besides, the year before that we had a genuine sci-fi flop in John Carter. That a "sci-fi" film didn't storm the box office the following year shouldn't have come as a surprise.

[Talakeal]

So this thread has inspired me to watch Grownups and Grownups 2 again. The first one is actually a lot worse than I remembered, but the second one still holds up and I stand by my statement that it is far better than Pacific Rim.

But, to be fair, I guess I am going to have to bite the bullet and watch it again. Maybe it will be better on DVD where I don't have the risk of burned out projector bulbs.

[The Glyphstone]

Besides, the year before that we had a genuine sci-fi flop in John Carter. That a "sci-fi" film didn't storm the box office the following year shouldn't have come as a surprise.

Whoever ran John Carter's marketing campaign should have been blacklisted from the industry forever. The film itself was mediocre at best, but there was effectively no advertising for it whatsoever.

[Avilan the Grey]

Whoever ran John Carter's marketing campaign should have been blacklisted from the industry forever. The film itself was mediocre at best, but there was effectively no advertising for it whatsoever.

WHich, at least in Sweden, was copied by Pacific Rim. The first movie posters I saw were up on bus stops one (1) week before release.

[Ceiling_Squid]

Whoever ran John Carter's ad campaign needs to be thrown into the same festering hole with the guy who bungled the advertising for DREDD.

Such a travesty.

[Legato Endless]

Whoever ran John Carter's ad campaign needs to be thrown into the same festering hole with the guy who bungled the advertising for DREDD.

Such a travesty.

I mean the guy gave us Walle and Finding Nemo. He's not all bad. Just super ignorant about directing action films and too in love with his childhood memories of Burrough's work to understand John Carter isn't some icon of the landscape like Sherlock Holmes or Dracula.

[nyjastul69]

I mean the guy gave us Walle and Finding Nemo. He's not all bad. Just super ignorant about directing action films and too in love with his childhood memories of Burrough's work to understand John Carter isn't some icon of the landscape like Sherlock Holmes or Dracula.

I think you are correct with John Carter analysis. I had heard of Burroughs Barsoom series, but didn't know John Carter was the name of the protagonist. When I heard about John Carter from Mars there was absolutely no connection for me. John Carter from Mars! Why do I want to see that? Burroughs Barsoom series, yes I would have went to see that. It wasn't until it was out of theaters that I learned who John Carter was.

[brionl]

I think you are correct with John Carter analysis. I had heard of Burroughs Barsoom series, but didn't know John Carter was the name of the protagonist. When I heard about John Carter from Mars there was absolutely no connection for me. John Carter from Mars! Why do I want to see that? Burroughs Barsoom series, yes I would have went to see that. It wasn't until it was out of theaters that I learned who John Carter was.

You didn't miss much. About the only relation it had to Barsoom was a couple of the names.

[Traab]

You didn't miss much. About the only relation it had to Barsoom was a couple of the names.

Oh god that NAME! All I could think of was this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juozvWJsrGg) Warning nsfw. Its an al pacino rant.

[Aedilred]

I mean the guy gave us Walle and Finding Nemo. He's not all bad. Just super ignorant about directing action films and too in love with his childhood memories of Burrough's work to understand John Carter isn't some icon of the landscape like Sherlock Holmes or Dracula.

Note that the complaints are about the marketing, not the direction. I haven't seen the film so I don't know whether there were any issues with the film itself, but, like Dredd, the marketing and release were botched so badly that even a great film would have struggled.

[Legato Endless]

Note that the complaints are about the marketing, not the direction. I haven't seen the film so I don't know whether there were any issues with the film itself, but, like Dredd, the marketing and release were botched so badly that even a great film would have struggled.

The same man was in charge of both. (http://www.vulture.com/2012/03/john-carter-doomed-by-first-trailer.html)

[Kitten Champion]

I didn't know what John Carter was either even as I was going to see it in theaters after a warm review I saw of it on television.

... and my sitting here for five minutes thinking of something to say about it pretty much says everything you need to know.

Actually, it really puts Disney's ambitions with Star Wars in perspective.

[Ceiling_Squid]

Note that the complaints are about the marketing, not the direction. I haven't seen the film so I don't know whether there were any issues with the film itself, but, like Dredd, the marketing and release were botched so badly that even a great film would have struggled.

This is correct. I was talking solely about bad marketing sinking films.