Comments on: And I didn't see a single tentacle!

Question: And I didn't see a single tentacle!

sohcahtoa — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:43:08 -0800

Last weekend I saw Steamboy. I have questions that presumably will involve spoilers.

The movie was fun enough but I don't think it deserved generally great reviews.

I saw the english-dubbed-version (didn't have a choice) which apparently is 20 minutes shorter than the subtitled version. Maybe that missed something.

Questions:

1) What was the big deal? I've seen Akira (long ago, don't remember any of it) and am passingly familiar with "steampunk" and understand the ideas of alternate histories. All that being said, what does this movie /add/ to any of those genres? Although it was fun, I felt pretty let down by the writing. Did anyone Really Like It and care to tell me why?

2) What was the deal with the letter(s) Ray wrote home? This really felt like something that had been edited out. He wrote a letter home and gave it to his father, who either 1) disposed of it or 2) combined it with a letter of his own, which were both discarded after the father attempted to send them. Either way, Paris O'Hara got to see Ray's letter. Was the father writing letters home that were being intercepted, or was he lying about that?

By: gentle

gentle — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 11:55:23 -0800

I saw it last year here in Europe, so I don't remember enough of the film to answer #2, but as for #1: visuals. That's about it.

The plot is unoriginal, the characters largely uninteresting, but it's the realization of the wildly anachronistic Victorian steampunk age that saves the film from being a complete waste of time. There's absolutely nothing in this film that hasn't been done as well or better in, say, Moore's The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

I found it to be an enjoyable, but utterly forgettable experience, and spent the last repetitive half hour or so itching to get out of the theatre. Personally, I got the biggest kick out of the end titles, which show you some hilarious stills from a presumed (possibly hypothetical) sequel.

And the reviews haven't been all that great.

By: willmize

willmize — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:06:55 -0800

I haven't seen it, period, and probably won't, as there is better anime out there, but I believe the 'big deal' is that it's from a guy who hasn't done a film since Akira, and that was released in 1988.
It's one of those situations where the hype and the expectation and breathless antici-pation tend to blind the fanboys, while the rest of us are left scratching our heads and going "What's the big deal?"
For a better film, I'd recommend renting Patlabor WXIII, the third Patlabor movie, or even the second one.

By: picea

picea — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:09:51 -0800

First of all Steamboy looked great. The animation was gorgeous, some of the finest I've seen. The writing, however, was awful, awful, awful. The characters were dull (and Scarlett was insufferable) and the story just didn't go anywhere interesting. I was hoping the chase scene would be a hint of what was to come, but instead we get a 'climax' that lasted half the movie.

Why is it getting great reviews? My pet theory is because when it comes to things like this (anything sci-fi, fantasy or animated) people have just become accustomed to the fact that the writing is going to be piss-poor, so they'll concentrate on the visuals. As long as something looks good, it's a success. It's a shame and it's infuriating.

Steamboy seemed like an ego trip for Otomo, just as a similarly anticipated Ghost in the Shell 2 was for Mamoru Oshî. Otomo clearly couldn't give a shit about the story but spent years on making it look good, while Oshî didn't bother with look OR story instead deciding to make a dead, philosophical wankfest.

Seriously I wonder in these two cases if it's a matter of different cultural aesthetics, but I see just as many or more examples of a flimsy story attached to something visually stunning from western sources.

As to question #2, I assumed the O'Hara Foundation was blocking Ray's mail, and since Scarlett had carte blanche to do what she pleased, it followed that she saw the letters. I wasn't clear on whether or not Ray's father was deceiving his son or being deceived himself. His character was so empty, that it didn't seem to matter either way.

(Note, I also saw the dubbed version, sadly)

By: Sibrax

Sibrax — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:32:45 -0800

#1: Well, a lot of the animation was good. Some of the scenes (usually those with broken glass) were painfully detailed, but most of the landscape shots were very static. I thought that was odd.

#2: I also assume it was the Foundation. Why would Ray's father lie about sending letters home, when it would be obvious that they never showed up?

What baffled me, though, was what the heck was the giant flying building for? It seemed like Ray's father built it just because he could. Uh... okay, that's the best idea you can come up with to inspire people?

(I saw the subbed version, and I don't think it explains anything any better.)