Del Toro's Pacific Rim

He speaks with a Voice of the Legion, which indicates direct mind control to some degree. Bare minimum, they are in the drivers seat for major parts of the plan and if he starts deviating from it they wrest control, conditioning him to just go along. The base problem with the complaint is that it assumes Newt is doing this of his own accord, he independently chose to keep drifting and serve the Precursors, when it's absolutely clear he is being controlled by them. He even whimpers "I'm not strong enough" when Gottlieb says to fight them. His pre-existing behavioral and personality quirks with being an established "Kaiju groupie" hid what was happening to him.

Regarding the black market Jaegers, the movie in general doubles down on the Super Robot Genre compared to the first film. The implication in the opening monologue is that other sovereign governments are looking to develop their own Jaegers because the world was still in conflict and Jaegers were THE new superweapons. Instead it has a teenage Gadgeteer Genius create her own Mini-Mecha in a warehouse and implies the Jaeger scavenging is primarily for splinter groups and terrorists cells. The obvious problem with that is those types of groups are known for small hand down munitions so they can do quick, hidden strikes and disappear. Jaegers are not easily hidden. It would be like a terrorist cell creating their own battleship out of old battleship parts.

The complaint is that 1 did not establish any type of brainwashing or influencing ability, thus this is the type of bad writing that gives a superpowers to the first film's antagonists off-screen just to set up an excuse plot for the sequel.

Complaints about linkage between 1 and 2 cannot be rebutted with evidence seen only in 2.

As for the film doubling down on Super Robot, well that's a darn shame.

You've said nothing about being controlled as part of the issue until now, and dismissed or ignored the laundry list of psychological problems evident in the first movie. I would say that having no unforeseen side effects from kaiku drifting would be a far worse problem, if only because no one but Newt liked the idea. Stacker rejected the idea and Hannibal berrated him because of the two way link, yet there was no real problem with doing so other than getting a fresh Kaiju brain.

The precursors getting into Newt's brain is certainly a new thing in the lore, but it was established that drifting with someone is a big deal. So the idea that doing it with a freaky purpose-built alien monster who wants to eat your face is going to have unfortunate side effects is a pretty reasonable extrapolation in my book.

What "laundry list of psychological problems" in the first movie? Newt had no psychological problems in 1. Drinks coffee and has tattoos of kaiju indicate all of nothing. Neither do standard generic psychic nosebleed symptoms that is presented as a physical strain, not a mental health issue.

And I've made no complaints about the control aspect?

I brought up Newt being the antag for stupid reasons, you defended it with the "control" aspect, and I've been complaining about your defenses of it ever since.

This proves my point. The first film did not indicate being influenced by the Precursors by drifting with a kaiju is even a thing. Stacker rejected because it sounded far too woo-woo compared to Herman's mathematical formulas, and Hannibal's only problem was that the two-way connection gives the Precursors information they wouldn't normally have. Newt also didn't really like the idea of drifting with it twice, he did it because it was necessary, not because he got hooked on it.

Just because this plot development happens to invoke tropes you like doesn't make it good writing. Having physical symptoms as a side effect from drifting with a kaiju would logically flow, because we see that in the movie. Having neurodegenerative side effects would logically flow, because that is just a cellular scale version of physical symptoms we've seen in the movie. Having it possible to be mentally influenced in the absence of anything indicating this is remotely possible just to have set up a twist in the sequel, that's just lazy writing.

I don't have a problem with Newt being possessed. It's a neat twist that I was totally blindsided by and thought was pretty cool. I just think they did a poor job of depicting it after the twist. We get that awesome moment where he's suddenly suave and cool, utterly in control of the situation and gloating about how easy it was to fool everyone. In this moment, he is unambiguously the Precursors acting through Newt, puppeting him like a vessel.

But then in the third act, he goes back to acting like a doofy idiot. He's alone so he isn't performing for anyone, but he spends the climax acting like Dorky Newt But Evil instead of the reveal's Suave Precursor Mastermind. His entire role in the third act is to just provide comedic relief by being an embarrassing goofball every time the film cuts over to him. He's basically just there to provide wacky commentary.

So what happened here? Why did his characterization suddenly revert back to the hilarious idiot?

Edited by TobiasDrake on Jul 11th 2018 at 1:05:19 PM

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

Your argument has been that the first film showed no signs of specifically that drifting is addictive. I've been arguing that the first film made it clear it is not a good thing for your psychological health (Newt had a bloodshot eye, bloody nose, cold sweat, nearly catatonic, the experience looked like an acid trip, both him and Gottlieb were jittery afterwards, ie the laundry list). The second film didn't fully explain what happened, but it being merely an addiction is a Red Herring until he has a Voice of the Legion.

Even still, introducing unforeshadowed twists to the lore is hardly bad writing in and of itself. Just saying such a thing is overly restrictive. Before it happens it was never said that Spock could transfer his soul via mind meld, that the arc reactor would slowly poison Tony Stark, or that the Delorean could go back in time from a stationary position. I agree with Tobias that Newt standing on a rooftop cheering for the Kaiju isn't particularly well done, but the twist itself works.

On a different note, addictions rarely happen from a positive first impression. In fact, most of the time when someone first tries smoking, alcohol or hard drugs it is a very negative experience. It becomes an addiction because it is a foreign feeling you don't get from your normal routine.

Wrong, the first film indicates there are physical symptoms, not psychological health ones. You are conflating two entirely different things.

Only in the sense that there aren't really hard and fast rules as to when exactly the unforeshadowed twist crosses the line into bad writing. In general, though, the closer you can draw an analogue to something that we know happens, the bigger leeway you have. Having an experimental implant you rigged up in a cave in a box of scraps adversely affect you physically, or having a species with psychic powers also be able to transfer their "soul" (or at minimum, their "consciousness"). Also, first installments and prequels can get away with introducing new things (being that by definition the audience is seeing this for the first time) that sequels cannot. Little if any mitigating circumstances exist for this twist.

If that's the route you're taking, then even the first "rush" of drifting with a kaiju is no longer evidence that it makes sense for Newt to get addicted to it, being that it's even further from the normal pattern of addiction, assuming acceptance of your premise. (Also, that first time usually has the negative aspect getting overweighed by the positive aspect of experiencing "forbidden fruit"; there's kind of a reason only a handful of things are addictive out of all the experiences that can possibly qualify for "foreign feeling you don't get from your normal routine").

You're just making broad statements that I'm wrong without actually addressing my argument via information within the movie itself.

The movie makes it very clear that drifting with someone changes you, especially in unique circumstances. Raleigh has a big reveal that drifting with his brother when he died was a terrifying experience. Herc ends up apologizing to Chuck because drifting with his son makes him assume nothing else needs to be said and he ends up acting distant outside of the drift. Physical and psychological problems are intertwined. Trying to say they have no relation is nonsense. Someone becomes paralyzed in a car accident, it tends to have an impact on their mental state. You use heroin or meth once, you can't go back to a place where you never used it at all. Someone close to you dies, it puts a physical strain on your body. The first film demonstrated that drifting is both physically and psychologically impacting.

When it comes to these types of fictional universes it doesn't matter if you introduce anything new, because everything is made up anyway. What matters is that it is internally consistent and not contradictory. The first film doesn't say one way or the other if drifting could be addictive, which left it open for the sequel to say it was. The movie doesn't even fully explain how it happened, so complaining about how it happened doesn't make sense.

Well, when your conclusions aren't supported by anything the movie tells us, what else am I to say other than "you are wrong"?

The drift "changes" you in the sense that it's a relatively intense and unique experience. If you're going to bring up Raleigh and Herc/Chuck, you're also going to have to consider Stacker, the Wei-Tangs, and the Kaidanovskies who do not appear to have any issues despite drifting for even longer than Raleigh did. Moreover, even Raleigh and Herc/Chuck did not have mental health problems because of it. Raleigh had an understandable doubts about drifting again due having his brother die in his head being a particularly unpleasant experience, he did not develop PTSD from it.

Getting into a car crash will put you in a different mental state after compared to before, yes. You're going to need a lot more justification for why a character who's been in a car crash suddenly decides they want to build a shrine dedicated to GM, Ford, and Chrysler, and sneaks off to the nearby bicycle factory for parts to build their own car.

As for the writing principles:

Not so, as with many thing, the correct answer is "it depends".

Not so, the first film establishes it not being addictive for the simple reason that of the ten characters who drift on a regular basis, not a single one exhibit any hint that the act itself is addictive. That's the wonderful thing about these kinds of detail oriented works, almost every fridge question (that isn't covered by the limitations of the creator, anyway) has some kind of answer that can be found inside the work itself as long as you care to look. Furthermore, "the first film didn't say it can't, so let's say it can" is a flimsy justification for...anything, really. After all, the first film also doesn't say whether Raleigh moonlighted as a male stripper in the years in between him leaving the PPDC and Stacker picking him up again, why not base an interquel about the riveting life of Bang-Bang Beckett? After all, it's not contradictory, is it?

It makes perfect sense, being that the first film provides zero evidence it can happen and a whole lot of evidence why it shouldn't happen, therefore having this drive the plot of the second film is poor writing. Only Thor can pick up his hammer. If we have a second movie where suddenly, someone else can also pick up the hammer, and this subsequently drove the plot because this other person stole the hammer by picking it up and running away, then we have a somewhat flimsy plot, but one that can still work with enough plotting. If we never get any explanation, on the other hand - this someone else is not another sufficiently powerful Asgardian, nor is he a human warrior who just happens to be Worthy, nor is he a class of being to whom the enchantment does not apply - that punts it squarely within the realm of Bad Writing.

Just because you like brainwashed and crazy enemy within antagonists doesn't make it good writing every time it shows up.

The drift is not addictive (though it does changes the people who drift, due to the strong emotions/bonds shared between - the creator of the drift herself underwent a rather extreme makeover as she found a partner who was drift-compatible who she shared experiences with).

No, the problem is on Newt and his obsessions getting the better of him in the preceeding years to Pac Rim, trying to experience the rush of drifting with the brain again and letting his mind open to the Precursor hivemind on the other side.

The movie does have an issue that the first film establishes and this one brushes aside, which is the physical sympthoms of drifting with the kaiju brain, which was clearly doing a number on both Newt and Hermann due to the strain of the bond.

The idea that Newt would drift with Alice god knows how often in the span of 10 years and not show a single sign of declining health is kinda hard to believe.

Still really don't get any of your logic. The absence of evidence CANNOT be a contradiction with newer facts, a contradiction has to be in opposition to an established fact. The Harry Potter series gave no indication that time travel, horcruxes or the deathly hallows were a thing in that world until it became important. That doesn't mean that anything goes, obviously, as you can break the tone of the work by deviating from established themes and premises.

And Newt revealed as the bad guy does not drive the plot. The mystery of Obsidian Fury is what drives the plot. Liwen Shao could have been revealed as a Kaiju cultist behind everything and you would have to change maybe 5 pages of the script. The reveal of Newt actually ties into the events of the first movie, the "consequences of drifting" theme and the established Hive Mind of the precursors/kaiju.

^ I don't think it's that bad. You could assume advances in drifting tech, better drifting tech overall (the stuff Newt used in the first film looked cobbled together from spare parts), putting it on a lower setting and Newt just being better accustomed to the experience.

Far worse is the breach creating lasers and mega-kaiju stitching robots, as those show up with no explanation. They could explain the lasers in that they were trying to better understand how the breach was created to begin with. The robots, I got nothing.

It is not merely an "absence of evidence" issue, but a themes and tone and sensibilities issue. Read the LOTR analogy here https://shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=28485

What "consequences of drifting" theme from the first movie? The drift, as it relates to themes form the first movie, has exactly 1 consequence - help us fight kaiju (with risks, but because we're the good guys, that's a risk we have to take). And the hivemind of the Precursors was also already accounted for, that's how they knew about the plan in the first place.

If we're going by the tone/themes/etc of the first film, improvements in tech should be a thing that *prevents* Newt from going brainwashed and crazy.

It's a nice quote, but generic and does nothing to support your argument. In fact saying "Drifting has one consequence, to fight Kaiju" is flagrantly ignoring all the tone, themes and subtext of the first movie in relation to the concept of drifting. It's like saying all of Star Trek is just just punching lizard aliens.

Drifting is a metaphor for making human connections, and all the emotional consequences that come with being vulnerable to another person. That's why most Jaeger pilots have a familiar or romantic relationship, and Herman deciding to drift with Newt symbolizes taking a risk opening up with someone. Raleigh lost his brother while drifting with him, and that's why he was afraid of getting close to anyone like that again. Herc tells Chuck he worries that drifting together makes it difficult to communicate in other ways (a concern many parents have that spending time with their children doesn't mean they have a real connection). Stacker even says in his big speech that putting their faith in each other is how they are going to win. THAT is the consequences of Drifting.

That's where Newts addiction/brainwashing/betrayal fits in. The precursors used the very thing that gave humanity their victory the first time, as drifting with Newt was a toxic and corruptive influence.

Nice post, KJ. Though you writing that highlights my other issue with Uprising. Man, they underused the drift and the importance of connections.

The cadets and their relationships, which should've been central to the narrative are just set dressing (also, wtf is that goddamn brain in a jar?!).

Jake and Nate are barely explored too.

They do kinda set up Jake and Amara, but the bare minimum needed for the third act (nothing like the bond that Raleigh and Mako developed).

The movie just drifted away from all the elements that made the first one one of my favourite movies.

I enjoyed the movie as a popcorn film, but yeah, all the above are very legitimate criticisms.

And like I said a few pages prior, I’m pretty sure if Uprising was a success, Legendary wouldn’t be doing a live action Gundam film, they’d follow on the Sequel Hook. But hey, it wasn’t terrible.

Edited by Beatman1 on Jul 25th 2018 at 9:58:55 AM

^^ Thanks. A recurring thing I have with a number of film school friends is that when the story starts coming together or reveals a particularly striking image we say "There's your movie." That's what I was thinking when Herman tells Newt that he is going to drift with him to share the neural load, which actually brought a smile to my face. It's the kind of stuff that makes a movie more than just punching giant monsters.

Uprising attempted to follow on with those themes, but didn't really bring it together because the giant robot action was more important. Jake mocks the "Cancel the apocalypse" speech before attempting his own, but because the movie didn't bother reconstructing the importance of a big speech after mocking it his speech falls flat.

"THAT is the consequences of Drifting."

The "THAT" you're referring to all falls under "helps us fight kaiju", proving my point (that the Drift now being bad runs counter to the themes and tone and overall sensability of the previous film), not yours (a thing that was previously presented as pretty unambiguously good now turns out to be bad!).

1 had themes. You are reading too much into them and placing undue emphasis on things not supported by 1 to justify your positive assessment of certain aspects of 2.

Reducing the drift to a thing that lets you fight kaiju is like reducing the Force to a thing that gives you psychic powers and lets you use laser swords. Yeah, the psychic powers and laser swords are certainly there and plot-important, but the more philosophical aspects are also significant.

Also, you seem to be taking "thing that was initially seen as good turns out to have a dark side in the sequel" as axiomatically bad, but I figure expanding on shit like that is a good thing, to keep a series' ideas from getting stale. If you've got phlebotinum based on forming connections with people, exploring the idea of using it to connect with a genuinely toxic asshole could be interesting.

Just to be clear, I don't want you to read this as me saying that Pac Rim II was a great film or anything, because I'm not. I find it merely okay, and a letdown from the first. I'm disagreeing with the specific points you're making, not defending the quality in general.

Philosophically, Drift is "humanity coming together to fight the apocalypse". It is diametrically opposed to "whoops, turns out that good thing was actually bad!"

It's not that "good thing turns out to have a bad side" is axiomatically bad writing, but that sequels necessarily have the themes, tones, and sensibilities of the previous work to keep in mind, and they can't get away with this kind of twist to nearly the same extent as stand-alone works. Soylent Green type stories are perfectly fine in and of themselves. It's when the previous movie had our characters develop Soylent Green specifically to solve a resource shortage problem out of their own dedication to science and bettering the human condition, and the movie in general had a theme of seeking knowledge to solve our problems, and then the sequel reveals that no, they didn't really discover a cool new product, Soylent Green is made out of people, that's what's problematic.

It would be great if we explore the ramifications of drifting with an asshole, provided that it maintained the sensibilities of the previous work. Except that wasn't what we got.

Drifting with people was portrayed as good. Drifting with a Kaiju was portrayed as bad in the very first movie. It immediately backfired the first time Newt tried it.

...no it wasn't, it was bad for Newt's physical health, but it worked out real good because it was how humans got any useful intelligence on the kaiju, precursors, and the portal in the first place.

Thematically, drifting with a kaiju brain wasn't a Bad Thing. Risky, yes, but a Risk We Will Have To Take, not a Bad Thing.

The entire Battle of Hong Kong happened because Newt drifted with a Kaiju brain, giving the Precursors his location and thereby siccing multiple Kaiju to hunt him specifically, smashing a city and multiple Jaegers in the process. Hannibal explicitly pointed out the connection went both ways.

Edited by Tuckerscreator on Aug 17th 2018 at 5:38:12 AM

That drift is also why the kaiju were prepared to counter the jaegers right out of the gate.

Mega Man fanatic extraordinaire

The funny thing about this whole argument is that I don't think anybody actually disagrees with this sentence. We're just fighting over which part of the thematic statement has more emphasis, because when you focus more on it being about humanity coming together, the idea that humanity coming together with a thing that wants to eat humanity's face is gonna go bad places is a lot easier to swallow.

Now here I'm a little confused, because I thought you were opposed to the idea of drifting doing bad shit in general. Do you mean that drifting with an asshole wouldn't necessarily lead to bad things, or that drifting leading to bad things would work better in a movie that sucked less in general, or am I just misreading you entirely?