It's all about film nowadays being a money-making machine instead of a form of art. We keep getting all these reboots and sequels of past franchises because studios believe they are the safest bet for generating a profit. I think we need a new Star Wars-level epic. Some originality to rock the film world.
Originally posted by Lestov16
It's all about film nowadays being a money-making machine instead of a form of art. We keep getting all these reboots and sequels of past franchises because studios believe they are the safest bet for generating a profit. I think we need a new Star Wars-level epic. Some originality to rock the film world.
Oh, sequels and remakes have always been a thing, even some very old famous movies are actually second tries.
And Star Wars level epics just lead to more sequels of that epic!
Originally posted by Lestov16They spend A LOT of money to make movies now, it's ridiculous.
It's all about film nowadays being a money-making machine instead of a form of art. We keep getting all these reboots and sequels of past franchises because studios believe they are the safest bet for generating a profit. I think we need a new Star Wars-level epic. Some originality to rock the film world.
Originally posted by Kazenji
Pretty much...its not something as of recent that has become the "It" thingthey were doing it way back in the 80's.
80s? I was thinking 30s ^^
Though the 80s was a particularly sequel heavy time- look at all the horror franchises from then.
I will also comment movie making has always been a way to make money.
Originally posted by Q99
80s? I was thinking 30s ^^Though the 80s was a particularly sequel heavy time- look at all the horror franchises from then.
I will also comment movie making has always been a way to make money.
also got some remakes back then
The Thing which is a remake of The Thing From another world
Invaders from mars remake of the same movie
The Blob remake of the same movie
probably more.
Dr. No, the 'first' James Bond movie, which starred Sean Connery, was a reboot, there'd been a prior Bond movie.
Wizard of Oz was a reboot- before the famous '39 one, there was one in '25, and a couple Oz-related films before that.
The first Zorro sequel was in 1925, and there were two more sequels in the 30s.
'Dracula's Daughter' was in 1936, Son of Dracula '39, House of Dracula '45... all by the same studio as the famous Bela Legosi one. They did a share of Frankenstein movies too.
Hammer Films produced 9 Dracula movies from '58 to '74.
It all goes in phases, and there's always been sequels. And we still have a good deal of original ones- heck, we're talking about this in a Pacific Rim thread!
Oh yea, forgot that the first wasn't official.
Though, that does kinda bring up things adapted from other media. The Bond books were, obviously, super-famous. Gone with the Wind, The Maltese Falcon. A lot of the old classics that weren't sequels, weren't exactly original either, they were based on books everyone knew.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyojUV29xuQ
A cool youtube video with, among other things, a much-extended version of a clip of a jaeger/kaiju fight that was briefly in the opening (Romeo Blue punching a Kaiju, Hardship)
Just watched this movie. It was superb. DDM is a tard.
Originally posted by Lestov16
I do agree they can expand on a bit, but they did well and packed as much as they could in the limited timespan they had. Even though the plot wasn't complex, it was substantial enough to carry the film, and although there was a lack of major character arcs, I didn't mind because A) the characters had fleshed-out enough backgrounds to be relatable, and B) there was enough going on in the main plot that the extra arcs were not necessary.I find the plot to be exemplary for a film of it's simplicity, because it was not complex, but not weak either. It was substantial enough that although much wasn't happening, I was not at one point looking at my watch or wondering when the film was going to end. I was fully entertained throughout.
👆 *
Complaining that this movie had a weak plot is like complaining that a Godzilla movie had a weak plot. Or the Avengers. You're not watching it for the plot. This movies story was excellent in my opinion because of its simplicity. It doesn't try to be more than it needs to and carries the film perfectly from one stunning moment to the next. Raleigh doesn't angst throughout the movie about his personal shit and try to milk drama, he gets over it quickly and steps up to the plate in a very refreshing move. Likewise there is no forced love story between him and Mako. They become super close and thats it. It doesn't try to go above its purpose and become actively annoying in the process like a lot of crappy action movies. People mistake simplicity for being shit. Thats not true at all and is a sign of incredible immaturity.
Its a movie that was entertaining throughout and frequently skyrocketed into the awesome stratosphere and I applaud it for that.
* Pretty much all of this post was great but this stood out to me.
Ok, DVD's out, so I'm going to talk about it some more.
I think Stacker's plan was to drift with Raleigh for the breach mission.
Alright, Stacker went out of the way to recruit Raleigh, the only other solo-combat-pilot, but no other former pilots with missing partners or such. Which, sure, it's Ral's Jaeger, but he needs a partner, and the official candidates were not ready. Mako was not originally supposed to even test against him in the training room, he wanted her safe.
So since the original plan involved using Gipsy for only one mission, and not having Herc hurt along the way and thus needing an extra anyway, it strikes me as quite likely he was always planning on suiting up to go to the breach.
Awesome film, enjoyed it far more than I ever expected. Not worth thinking too deeply about it, naturally, but aside from the weirdness of world governments deciding to halt the robot program or to develop any other offensive/mobile defence strategies (drone robots? nano-tech viruses? railguns etc), the action and drama was great.
A couple of thoughts from watching the movie, didn't they think of trying to kill them with shampoo? It worked for Evolution, and they only had a fire-engine to work with!
Seriously though, the tech seemed quite a bit off. The big robots lacked for mobility and speed - when you consider the robots that DARPA (publicly) are testing now, the speed, agility and mobility at present is far better than that of the robots in Pacific Rim.
Also, a simple black-marketeer funds the whole operation for over 5 years? Hmm, so no big corporations working on a private funded project? No big billionaire tech guys conducting huge scale research on the creatures, trying to clone and override them?
Anyway, as I say, not worth thinking deeply about. It's hugely enjoyable as it is. More so than even The Avengers.
Would love to see a sequel.
This, Cloverfield and The Mist. Great films with a shared and very very interesting premise.