He is was a big fan of this type of movie.
You could level a similar criticism against pretty much any movie, I would say it is better than any of those movies you name including Avatar. Where did it rip Avatar off btw?
A CGI fight fest is a bad thing? :-D It had plenty of CGI because its kind of impossible to have done it any other way, however a lot of the sets were real, ie the cockpits.
I think that's a bit harsh anyway, there was a lot more to it than that and I thought it was well acted and I actually liked most of the characters.
I agree with everyone about Avatar. I don't think everyone went to see it for a complex and intriguing original story. I went to see it for one reason - what
does $300 million look like on screen?.
I was referring to the idea of neural interfaces with technology, a staple SF idea for many years and Avatar knobbled it too. Star Trek: Voyager has done it:
Alice
The Doctor's Tardis also has 'telepathic' circuits, so it's been around a while.. So to have it in
Pacific Rim is just another familiar SF routine and has long lost it's appeal with me. They probably didn't want to make the machines,say, artificially intelligent as that would be too close to Transformers. So I guess they had to use the old 'neural interface' idea but twist it a little so that you have two people in control. Still, it's just an old idea. A fun variation is a holographic interface which would act, stylistically, in a similar way to what is depicted in
Pacific Rim in so much as the operators movements would be copied by the machine. Here's it in action many moons ago....
Lost in Space (1998). Check out 1:44
Anyway,
Pacific Rim may be visually spectacular, but it has some glaring plot holes which don't follow any logic.Like if you have the level of technology to open a portal on the sea floor, then why not anywhere?. Building a wall is no defence
...