• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Detective Pikachu Movie Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

XXD17

Draco rex
Sorry, but what? Why would it have fit any better? It's not like the Pokémon world is all Japanese people. As far as we know, Ryme City isn't even in the "Asian" portion of the Pokémon world.



I don't know, I feel like the Torterra scene was the one thing that broke my suspension of disbelief. I agree that the scene itself was great, but it just left me with too many questions. How did they dig themselves into the ground? How have they not destroyed the land around them? How do they not cause earthquakes simply by breathing? What do they eat? I loved the scene, but still.

There's actually a pretty easy way to explain this. You just need to understand how general metabolism and energy expenditure works. Energy can not be made or destroyed, just converted and acquired. As you can probably already tell, the fact that those Torterra are embedded in the ground means that they have been in the same spot unmoving for a very long time (definitely a few years). Why would that be? Because they are unnaturally gigantic that it takes a toll on their bodies to even move. Looking at all the land animals we have today, nothing gets much bigger than an elephant. The main reason is a because the bigger the animal, the more energy it needs to expend to move and hunt and mate, etc. The only way to get energy for animals is by eating. Since plant food is more common, plant-eating animals generally evolved to grow bigger than meat-eaters at the cost of having to eat all the time since plant food is harder to digest. When moving on land, you need even more energy to overcome gravity. This is why animals that live in the water can grow so much bigger since not only is there more food in the ocean, the buoyancy of the water assists with ease of mobility while alleviating some of the energy expenditure of gravity.

Now imagine these principles applied to a tortoise (an animal that already naturally has a slow metabolism) the size of a mountain. Do you realize how much energy it needs to just raise its head?! It probably used up a weeks worth of energy by just lifting itself off of the ground as a response to Psyduck's irritating blast. These torterra are also NOT NORMALLY this large so they are definitely not adapted to this sort of size, but rather they acclimate by expending as little energy as possible to route energy expenditure towards running their gigantic organs. As for where this energy comes from, keep in mind that Torterra are grass type meaning that they are part plant. That means they can probably get all of the energy they need from photosynthesis. However, photosynthesis is not the most energy efficient way of energy acquisition since it requires more energy to make glucose from sunlight than simply eating it. This is probably why plants never evolved to move or never evolved complex organ systems in the first place. It's a trade-off for being able to photosynthesize. These Torterra are probably this way too, but they are somewhere in between a plant and an animal where they are able to make their own food, but the trade-off will be even more severe since they do have complex organ systems like animals. They have grown so big that it has become impossible to survive by eating so they resort to 100% photosynthesis like trees. As a trade-off, they are in an almost constant state of torpor where the energy they acquire from photosynthesis is strictly routed towards their vital organs and they only choose to move in response to threats. This way, they can essentially live as eternally slumbering mountains while not disturbing the environment and even having ecosystems established on top of them while optimizing the allocation of energy.

This issue of over-expenditure can be seen in real life to. Take a look at giant dog breeds like Irish wolfhounds or Great Danes. These breeds usually live the shortest because in addition to a lot of congenital disorders, they are unnaturally large. The wolf body has evolved to be a certain size. Any size larger than that puts more stress on the body since it requires more energy to do the same things a smaller sized body does.
 
Last edited:

Bguy7

The Dragon Lord
There's actually a pretty easy way to explain this. You just need to understand how general metabolism and energy expenditure works. Energy can not be made or destroyed, just converted and acquired. As you can probably already tell, the fact that those Torterra are embedded in the ground means that they have been in the same spot unmoving for a very long time (definitely a few years). Why would that be? Because they are unnaturally gigantic that it takes a toll on their bodies to even move. Looking at all the land animals we have today, nothing gets much bigger than an elephant. The main reason is a because the bigger the animal, the more energy it needs to expend to move and hunt and mate, etc. The only way to get energy for animals is by eating. Since plant food is more common, plant-eating animals generally evolved to grow bigger than meat-eaters at the cost of having to eat all the time since plant food is harder to digest. When moving on land, you need even more energy to overcome gravity. This is why animals that live in the water can grow so much bigger since not only is there more food in the ocean, the buoyancy of the water assists with ease of mobility while alleviating some of the energy expenditure of gravity.

Now imagine these principles applied to a tortoise (an animal that already naturally has a slow metabolism) the size of a mountain. Do you realize how much energy it needs to just raise its head?! It probably used up a weeks worth of energy by just lifting itself off of the ground as a response to Psyduck's irritating blast. These torterra are also NOT NORMALLY this large so they are definitely not adapted to this sort of size, but rather they acclimate by expending as little energy as possible to route energy expenditure towards running their gigantic organs. As for where this energy comes from, keep in mind that Torterra are grass type meaning that they are part plant. That means they can probably get all of the energy they need from photosynthesis. However, photosynthesis is not the most energy efficient way of energy acquisition since it requires more energy to make glucose from sunlight than simply eating it. This is probably why plants never evolved to move or never evolved complex organ systems in the first place. It's a trade-off for being able to photosynthesize. These Torterra are probably this way too, but they are somewhere in between a plant and an animal where they are able to make their own food, but the trade-off will be even more severe since they do have complex organ systems like animals. They have grown so big that it has become impossible to survive by eating so they resort to 100% photosynthesis like trees. As a trade-off, they are in an almost constant state of torpor where the energy they acquire from photosynthesis is strictly routed towards their vital organs and they only choose to move in response to threats. This way, they can essentially live as eternally slumbering mountains while not disturbing the environment and even having ecosystems established on top of them while optimizing the allocation of energy.

This issue of over-expenditure can be seen in real life to. Take a look at giant dog breeds like Irish wolfhounds or Great Danes. These breeds usually live the shortest because in addition to a lot of congenital disorders, they are unnaturally large. The wolf body has evolved to be a certain size. Any size larger than that puts more stress on the body since it requires more energy to do the same things a smaller sized body does.

Not going to lie, I didn't even think of photosynthesis as being a possibility. Seems like a pretty obvious answer now.

However, the food thing was probably the least of my issues, but at least that's one problem solved.
 

WishIhadaManafi5

To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before.
Staff member
Moderator
Cool. Found an article that backs you up on it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottm...-wick-warcraft-rampage-avengers/#63ac04c0442c

Source: forbes

It's a bit behind, but it shows that it's making good money.

Is it enough to break even or cover up all the costs for making the movie plus advertising? I remember Doppelganger (or whatever their name was) mentioned in previous posts how this film doesn't seem like it's doing so hot, even more so with Endgame still around and John Wick 3 already in theaters.
 

WishIhadaManafi5

To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before.
Staff member
Moderator
Is it enough to break even or cover up all the costs for making the movie plus advertising? I remember Doppelganger (or whatever their name was) mentioned in previous posts how this film doesn't seem like it's doing so hot, even more so with Endgame still around and John Wick 3 already in theaters.
Here's to hoping it is. Even if it's not, it was still a good film.
 

BCVM22

Well-Known Member
Is it enough to break even or cover up all the costs for making the movie plus advertising?

$300 million internationally - which it will reach, without question - is probably enough to get it there, though the margin by which it will get there is a matter of reasonable debate until/unless we know the exact amount spent on the promotional budget.

Regardless, it's safe to ignore any noise that says the film is a box office failure. It definitely is not, even if it isn't necessarily a rousing success.
 

greninjamaster

Well-Known Member
Anyone saying the film is a box office failure is nothing but a troll. This is the first entry in the Pokemon Cinematic Universe and in 10 days it's reached a quarter of a million dollars and by next weekend will be well on it's way to $400 M.
 

BCVM22

Well-Known Member
This is the first entry in the Pokemon Cinematic Universe

Though I would say - as I have, repeatedly - that anyone assuming that this is going to be the start of some ten-film cinematic franchise should also probably hold off a bit. I'm aware a sequel was greenlit already but greenlit films often don't make it to production, and there's going to be more that goes into the decision to produce or not produce more Pokémon live-action films (seriously, read that aloud; "more" as in we actually got one) than just the box office numbers. And the box office numbers in and of themselves probably aren't going to get it there alone.
 

Pikachu Fan Number Nine

Don't Mess wit Texas
Saw the movie today. I really liked it.

And with the movie was the Sonic movie trailer. Of course that one would be used - it's another video game movie.
 

Kutie Pie

"It is my destiny."
I'm this close to just stop checking out the Tumblr tag altogether because the bullshit Tumblr agendas are cropping up more and I literally can't get it wrapped around my head that that's all some people want to talk about with this film. Let people enjoy it, stop trying to drag everything down and ruining the fun by bringing in shit no one wants to talk about in Pokémon because it has no place in Pokémon.

But in happier news, I saw the Detective Pikachu artbook is out now. I had pre-ordered it and got a confirmation from Amazon that I'm getting it in about a month, so I'm most looking forward to it. Also had pre-ordered the soundtrack, but for whatever reason it was getting delayed? Amazon doesn't charge you until it ships (so it says), but if it keeps getting delayed, I'll cancel the order and just go to the store and buy it there. I mean, I could just do that now, but I'm stupidly optimistic. I'm giving it to the end of the month anyway; it says I'm expecting it Friday, but I don't know anymore.
 

solarhorse

Member
Though I would say - as I have, repeatedly - that anyone assuming that this is going to be the start of some ten-film cinematic franchise should also probably hold off a bit. I'm aware a sequel was greenlit already but greenlit films often don't make it to production, and there's going to be more that goes into the decision to produce or not produce more Pokémon live-action films (seriously, read that aloud; "more" as in we actually got one) than just the box office numbers. And the box office numbers in and of themselves probably aren't going to get it there alone.

If a film franchise is the plan, doing a direct sequel to Detective Pikachu doesn't seem like the right way to go. The film is doing good but not outstanding financially, so why make a direct sequel to this film instead of focusing on an entirely new story in the Pokemon universe? As a film franchise, Pokemon faces some tough competition. Adults, young and old, want to go and see movies with their children so they'll want something reasonably friendly for kids but well made enough for them to enjoy too. They could take them to see Detective Pikachu, but that assumes that they had a personal attachment to Pokemon growing up. Furthermore, the movie is clearly a lighter affair than the kinds of movies they'd usually see. On the other hand, they could see movies like Endgame and Aladdin which, while banking on some amounts of existing knowledge going into the movie, manage to strike a happy medium between audiences of all ages with a combination of high stakes, fantastical worlds and an epic scope (I'm going off the trailers for Aladdin, I don't know if it's actually any good).

It's fine for a movie to be a fun, light-hearted affair, but should a movie like that cost 150 mil to make? If live-action Pokemon is going to compete, one of the following has to happen...
  1. Scrap Detective Pikachu 2 and adapt another Pokemon game that can allow for some real high stakes (an epic western that takes place in the Orre region in the style of Sergio Leonne would be a dream come true!)
  2. Make the focus of Detective Pikachu 2 about one on one Pokemon battles and not big, expensive CGI sequences like the Torterra Garden, pushing down production costs
  3. Don't make it live-action at all. Go for a unique artstyle by way of Spider-verse. This could keep production costs lower than if the movie was live-action
  4. No matter what, don't release next to the culmination of a beloved, long-running franchise. This should be obvious in any scenario
The worst case scenario is if it's decided that Pokemon doesn't belong in live-action and all hopes of a film franchise are dashed. Detective Pikachu, though not perfect, genuinely convinced me that live-action Pokemon can work and I think it's too soon to say it can't. It's just that the perfect approach has yet to be found.
 

BCVM22

Well-Known Member
It's fine for a movie to be a fun, light-hearted affair, but should a movie like that cost 150 mil to make?

...yes? What is there to say it "shouldn't" cost that much? Films cost money to produce.

Don't make it live-action at all. Go for a unique artstyle by way of Spider-verse. This could keep production costs lower than if the movie was live-action

We get an animated Pokémon film annually. Detective Pikachu would have minimal novelty as an animated film.

No matter what, don't release next to the culmination of a beloved, long-running franchise.

That's the sort of thing you can only help so much. They wanted the movie out this spring. Their choices were enter the market two weeks after Avengers: Endgame, or wait further and risk coming up against whatever other summer blockbusters will be coming out weekly basically from late April until mid-July. There's only so much of a window. And even with that, the film was only, what, five million dollars off of opening #1 in its first weekend?
 

WishIhadaManafi5

To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before.
Staff member
Moderator
I watched it this past week. It was an okay film that's good "for a Pokemon movie", but not something I'd recommend people go watch as an extraordinary cinematic experience. And it seems that's the general sentiment.

Hollywood has found loud, obnoxious spectacles that celebrate American excess tend to be what do well in China and East Asian markets. This movie was the opposite of that, and had to be.
I honestly appreciated that it wasn't loud and obnoxious. Don't really like those kinds of movies. A lot of action movies are like that, too loud. Theaters end up playing them at full blast and it gets me close to having a headache.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top