# Talk:Pacific Rim (film)

According to this, filming is scheduled to start in October. Let's keep an eye on news so we can start the article. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Filming has begun, see this reference: [1] The Editor 155 (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

After seeing the trailer, anyone else think that this is a combo between Godzilla and the Power Rangers? Kude90 (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it a gigantic Neon Genesis Evangelion rip-off. Word for word. Every trailer.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.89.196.161 (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC) 

Let's keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a forum. Talk pages are for discussing potential improvements to the article, not the perceived merits of the subject of the article. Rivertorch (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Why people insist on putting the studio names as the opening title in the lead I will not understand especially as every other source and posters etc has it referred to as simply "Pacific Rim". Not only does it make no sense grammatically as a so called title but even the legendary pictures source only refers to it as Pacific Rim. All of the other sources refer to who is producing/distributing the film and not the official title of the film - otherwise it would be on the movie posters.  MisterShiney ✉  22:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually it's in the film's promotional material. If you look closely on the film's  credits on its official website, as well as their promotional posters (e.g. poster 1 and poster 2), after "a Guilliermo del Toro film", it's written as "Warner Bros. Pictures and Legendary Pictures Pacific Rim" not just simply "Pacific Rim". It's also on the film's official trailer see (Youtube). It credits the distributors/producers in "Warner Bros. Pictures and Legendary Pictures present" and it is officially titled as "Warner Bros. Pictures and Legendary Pictures Pacific Rim" both in credits and logo (with "Warner Bros. Pictures and Legendary Pictures" in smaller text). It's quite similar to The Avengers (2012 film) which is officially titled as Marvel's The Avengers. Chihciboy (talk) 07:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, completely disagree. Its not entirely uncommon for studio names to have a mention before the official title of the film. Having the title of the film studios in a title of a film makes absolutely no sense what so ever! As for the trailer you can clearly see the title Pacific Rim first before any mention of the studio. It is clear that some bone head at some point along the line has forgotten to include "presents" on the media.
Please also note that as per BRD the Status Quo remains to keep the title as just plain "Pacific Rim" and not the studio nonsense before.   MisterShiney ✉  12:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Why do you think that this is nonsense? Titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources, including self-published ones. Since in its onscreen title is in its official trailer is Warner Bros. Pictures and Legendary Pictures Pacific Rim, not just Pacific Rim, and in its main credits it is referred to as such. I would agree to you if this is like Tron: Legacy, in which in their promotional materials "Disney" is above the "Tron: Legacy" logo, wherein in their credits and onscreen title it's just "Tron: Legacy" (see poster here). But the case is quite different with Pacific Rim since BOTH posters and trailers (see 2:28 of the trailer) It's Warner Bros. Pictures and Legendary Pictures present - A Legendary Pictures/DDY production - a Guilliermo del Toro film - "Warner Bros. Pictures and Legendary Pictures Pacific Rim". I don't think a bonehead accidentally did that because promotional material like that are quality checked. I am also perplexed by this as you. But Wikipedia is based on the idea of verifiability in reliable sources, not the personal opinions of its editors. The studios' names in the title may be considered as an alternative, but it still should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph, per MOS:LEADALT.  Chihciboy (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Give me another example where a film has been released as the film studios and then the rest of the title. It hasn't. Disney Tron Legacy was only ever known as "Tron Legacy". We don't put the studio's in the title. The Legendary Pictures site just refers to it as Pacific Rim. Yes it goes on to say "Warner Bros. Pictures and Legendary Pictures Pacific Rim." but it is referring to it being their production and it is not a part of the title. It's not my personal opinion to simply refer to the facts as they are seen.  MisterShiney ✉  14:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
A Christmas Carol (2009 film) - its full title is Disney's A Christmas Carol. Both the poster and the onscreen title have "Disney's A Christmas Carol" as the official title. Perhaps for literary or marketing purposes? And it seemed that they also had a similar discussion like ours in the article's talk page But it's about the article move. They didn't have any consensus, though. But they did put the official name on the page. Perhaps we should do it like that? Chihciboy (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
That opening borders on the comical, it is not also known as that, two of the sources two of the sources don't even say that, one is dead, the other two do not say it is it's title, the BBFC has it classified as Pacific Rim [2], it looks like a marketing thing, unless there is evidence it's actually being classified as that, it needs to go. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
The type of media that the BBFC rated in the database was a trailer, not the whole feature film. Chihciboy (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Note that BBFC also differs in some context since some American films were also released in UK and Ireland under an alternative title (e.g. from Marvel's The Avengers to Marvel Avengers Assemble) Chihciboy (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 There was good reason for that, there was a British TV series of the same name and so it was to avoid confusion. It is mostly likely to provide ownership of the film. Just like in the case of A Christmas Carol, as there was a Muppet version as well as umpteen others before it. Although why I for one will never get why they have done that in this case as there is not (to my knowledge) another film of the same name. I put the current opening in as it is in an attempt at mediation. It does look silly though.  MisterShiney ✉  19:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
When you go by posters you have to make allowances for "promotional" expression, which is why we tend to favor third party sources. Of course if Warner Bros. Pictures and Legendary Pictures Pacific Rim really is an alternative title we would include it, but is this title acknowledged by anything other than the promotional literature? In the case of A Christmas Carol, Disney actually copyrighted Disney's A Christmas Carol as an alternative title. You can check this at the Copyright catalog by searching on the registration number V3569D691. Pacific Rim hasn't been copyrighted yet, but it has bene pre-registered as Pacific Rim (reg no. PRE000006093), and Legendary Pictures has also registered two "alternative" titles: Still Seas and Mechanical Error. It's unlikely that Warner Bros. Pictures and Legendary Pictures Pacific Rim is an official title, since it would have been registered; it's not what we would call a WP:COMMONNAME title, since that is clearly Pacific Rim (see NYTimes, Allmovie & BBFC. Personally I think we should just go with Pacific Rim for the time being, and if it is actually released anywhere with any of these other titles they can be added then. Betty Logan (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
The trade mark application is for "WARNER BROS. AND LEGENDARY PICTURES PACIFIC RIM: TALES FROM YEAR ZERO", so differs from both suggested titles. The reason is that this relates to "Comic books and graphic novels", rather than films. I've removed the link on the basis that a) it's not about the film; and b) it doesn't work. I've also removed the link to the pdf, which is about the game, not the film itself. - SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Morning all! I was asked for my opinion on this, and here I am. I personally think it's quite silly including the production details in the title. Are any of the Bond films called Albert R. Broccoli's...? How about Pixar's Toy Story? As far as The Avengers is concerned, and as previously mentioned, a TV show existed previously so differentiation was necessary. Pacific Rim has never been marketed as WB AND LEGENDARY'S PACIFIC RIM any more than Avatar was marketed as James Cameron's Avatar, despite the poster saying so. drewmunn talk 09:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Even though Avatar was also marketed as "James Cameron's Avatar", it official title in the poster credits and MPAA is just Avatar, so that's different. Same thing can be said for the Bond and Pixar films since their titles were written without anything else. Other films such as Dracula (1992 film) and The Kid (2000 film) have their official titles written both in its posters (Dracula, the Kid) and the MPAA (Dracula, the Kid) as Bram Stoker's Dracula and Disney's The Kid. Chihciboy (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
But the posters for PR don't officially take ownership of the film for the production companies. They simply list them above the name. It's only in the cited credits that the name is ever officially listed as such. A quick search of the BBFC archive reveals one other film with a subtitle of "Pacific Rim", "BOYS ON FILM 6: PACIFIC RIM". It's entirely possible that the producers want to ensure differentiation, for taste or trademark purposes. On that note, BBFC specifically lists PR as "PACIFIC RIM". The title currently makes no sense as it is listed on the name; there is no ownership, so it's just a list of words. I could similarly title something "Drew Munn Bohemia", but that makes no sense. To me, it looks like nothing more than an attempt to ensure copyrightable naming. If it were "WB & Legendary Pictures' Pacific Rim", then I'd be more inclined to believe that its title is as such, but without that apostrophe, I'm not sold. drewmunn talk 09:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
As long as we don't start discussing the capitalisation of Rim....I am happy with the current version as it was edited by SchroCat.  MisterShiney ✉  09:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I can't say I like the secondary bold title. Pacific Rim is by far the most common name, and I'd rather mention Warner Bros. Pictures and Legendary Pictures as blue links in the lead section rather than tack on what is basically a corporate-stamped title. There's just no real value to it. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a discussion about corporate titles at WT:FILM, seen here. Editors are invited to participate. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

If Hideo Kojima's opinion counts, why was Go Nagai's one removed? The entire mecha genre can attributed to him.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.34.128 (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC) 

I have had to keep removing details of Kanye West's opinion from the reception section of the article. I have started this discussion on the talk page to explain why:
Kanye West
The Manual of Style for the reception section of film articles notes this:

Reliable sources should be used to determine how the film was received. For films, sources that are regarded as reliable are professional film critics, though notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited.
Kanye West fulfils none of these criteria. He is not a professional film critic. Although he may be a notable person, he has absolutely no connection to the film other than the fact that he has seen it. And he is not an expert on anything in the film or on anything related to it. He is essentially a celebrity who said he liked the film. If he was a dog groomer or a high school teacher or a racing driver who had seen the film early, his opinion would not be included in the article, so it should not be included simply because he is a celebrity.
Hideo Kojima
There may be some confusion as to why I have left Kojima's opinion in the article whilst removing West's, but again, the Manual of Style mentions the following:

Reliable sources should be used to determine how the film was received. For films, sources that are regarded as reliable are professional film critics, though notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited.
Kojima is a director, and while he is a director of video games rather than films, he is still a director. More importantly, many of the themes of Pacific Rim can be found in the Metal Gear series. And I am not just talking about the way both have walking robot tanks.
Pacific Rim owes a lot to the Kaiju genre. The original creation, Godzilla, is a metaphor for nuclear weapons, created in the aftermath of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Godzilla's backstory always involved radiation of some kind, and - at least to start with - he attacks Japanese cities. He is the personification of the Japanese fear of nuclear bombardment. Kojima's games tap into this as they are staunchly anti-nuclear; the antagonists always intend to use advanced nuclear devices to reshape the world in their image.
Given that Pacific Rim is so intertwined with the Kaiju genre - even if the origin of the kaiju in the film is different to the origins of the kaiju in the genre they share a name with - the critic consensus out of Japan is definately something that should be explored in the article. And the opinions of prominent Japanese directors goes hand-in-hand with that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Both fall in the "notable persons" category. I don't see any reason to question the inclusion of either. --uKER (talk)
There's a difference between being a notable person, and having notable views about a subject. Stephen Hawking's notable, but his announcing that he likes a film may not be.  drewmunn  talk  14:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
The guideline says "sources that are regarded as reliable are professional film critics, though notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited.". A) professional critics B) notable persons C) experts on the topic of the film. --uKER (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
If we started adding sections to film articles on the celebrities who liked the film, sooner or laters we'd have to split it off into its own article called "List of celebrities who liked Pacific Rim". And that would probably grow to be a larger article than the parent page.
Perhaps the best critical reception section I have seen on Wikipedia is in the Skyfall article. Rather than just list the critics who liked the film and why, and then list the critics who didn't like the film and why, the section is divided up so that the critical attention is focused on each element of film-making: the direction, the acting, the score, and so on and so forth. That's what we should be aiming for here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 Aye, but that information won't be available till the film is generally released this week. I agree the "celebrities" should be kept away, unless they have a direct link to the film or a history with these sorts of films in the past. The Hideo Kojima guy, well, given that he is a director of video games and this (to my knowledge) isn't a movie based on a game, should he really be included? -- MisterShiney ✉  07:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I outlined that above. Although he is a video game director and not a film director, many of the themes in Kojima's works are also found in Pacific Rim. Furthermore, given the way the film is indebted to the Kaiju genre, the opinions of prominent Japanese directors is definately something that should be included. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I just playing devils advocate :) hehe -- MisterShiney ✉  18:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Pacific Rim (film)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "mojo":
From Mama (2013 film): "Mama (2013)". Box Office Mojo. Amazon.com. Retrieved 10 April 2013.
From Hellboy (film): "Hellboy". Box Office Mojo. Amazon. Retrieved 2008-02-04.
From Biutiful: "Biutiful (2010) - International Box Office Results". Box Office Mojo. 2 January 2011. Retrieved January 26, 2011.
From Cronos (film): Cronos at Box Office Mojo
From Rudo y Cursi: "Rudo Y Cursi". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 11 January 2010.
From Gladiator (2000 film): Gladiator total gross, Box Office Mojo, retrieved February 27, 2009

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Article does not credit wizkid's tie-in of a heroclix line for the movie.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.67.236 (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC) 

Book knight (talk) 09:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC) NY Times and Forbes respectively give mixed and negative review to Pacific Rim. Scott Mendelson from Forbes writes "...For those who merely demand the surface pleasures of a film like Pacific Rim, there is little to quibble about.  The film indeed contains big-scale monster vs. machine fight sequences, and even the too-tight editing can’t completely negate the visual wonders on display.  The characters are paper-thin and the plot is almost non-existent, which is disappointing coming from a master storyteller like Guillermo del Toro. There is little of the haunting myth-making of Pan’s Labyrinth, the social commentary of Blade II (had the film delved into the populace more, it might have made a potent post-Global Warming allegory), or the humanistic warmth of the Hellboy films on display... It is merely a mega-budget feast for the eyes, but your brain and your heart will still be a little hungry afterward." [3]
While A.O. Scott from NY Times writes "So consider yourself warned. If you walk in expecting subtlety, or even novelty, you may find yourself more tormented than entertained. But “Pacific Rim” is also a reminder — either just in time or much too late — that this kind of movie can and should be fun. Some of those catchphrases are mildly clever. The lab coat mumbo-jumbo is amusing. The noble sentiments touch sweet chords. And who does not delight in seeing a robot punch a dinosaur every now and then — or pretty much constantly for two hours?" but he added "...This in itself is hardly unusual: most of the movies released by major studios from May to September cater to the childish impulses of the audience. But they also often aspire to be more than juvenile, puffing themselves up with money and fuzzy, heavy themes. Sometimes they succeed and find a measure of real grandeur. This summer, though, has so far largely been a parade of joyless bombast. In these circumstances Mr. del Toro’s exuberant nonsense comes as a relief." [4] 
I hope you can add their reviews to the article, I'm looking forward to read this page again as soon as you add them. Thank you in advance.Book knight (talk) 09:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed that the film is only mentioned as a Science fiction film (which it clearly is, don't get me wrong) but shouldn't it also be defined as a Science fiction Kaiju-Mecha film? The film itself does indeed deal with Kaijus and Mechas. Though they are not substantial characters, they are indeed the central focus of the entire film, they are the concept! Even the creatures themselves are referenced as Kaijus. Screenwriter Travis Beacham even confirmed via his twitter] that the Jaegers are not robots but Mechas. The consensus of dozens of sources even agree that the film is an homage to the Kaiju films that inspired the film in the first place. Should we re-define it as a Science fiction Kaiju-Mecha film? I believe we should. After all, it is a love letter to kaiju films. Armegon (talk) 06:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:FILMLEAD, the first sentence should identify the major genres the film falls under. "Science fiction" is a major genre and gives the reader an immediate impression of what sort of film it is. "Mecha" and "kaiju" are more obscure terms, and for most readers they won't be as illustrative. This is the reason The Dark Knight (film)'s opening line says it's a "superhero film", and not a "crime drama" or "vigilante film", which are strictly correct but would not really be helpful descriptions. Sometimes broad strokes are more effective. In any case, both kaiju and mecha are still mentioned in the opening paragraph. —Flax5 11:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Flax5. I think the terms are too obscure for the lead sentence, especially when such elements are uncommon in blockbuster films. It makes sense to instead have them somewhere in the lead section. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The plural of Kaiju is Kaiju, not Kaijus. This is similar to how the plural of Jellyfish is also Jellyfish, or how the plural of Samurai is still Samurai.
The article for Kaiju on wikipedia respects the convention of not adding an S to pluralized Japanese words, and so too should this article. Because the writers of the movie chose not to follow this convention is irrelevant, because it is a mistake on their behalf. Therefore, I'm changing "Kaijus" to "Kaiju".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.136.46 (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC) 

The kaiju genre which exists in reality is distinct from the specific fictional creatures identified as "Kaijus" in the film. It's neither appropriate nor accurate to apply real-world Japanese grammar to the term's fictionalised use within the film's universe. There's no evidence that the term's use in the film is anything but intentional, and any speculation to the contrary constitutes WP:OR. Do you think we should also disregard all official sources using the word "Jaeger" in favour of "jäger" just because that's how the corresponding German word is spelt? —Flax5 20:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Count me in for "kaiju". The plural is used in the film and it's never said with an S at the end. --uKER (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Are you sure the official (film-universe) term is "Kaijus"? The official website uses "Kaiju" as the plural, not "Kaijus". — Reatlas (talk) 08:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Quite sure. I distinctly remember being surprised in the cinema when they used the plural "Kaijus" – like the IP editor above, I'd assumed they would follow the Japanese grammar. There aren't any sources addressing this particular subject, but I have found a recent article where del Toro uses "Kaijus". [5] (Here's another: [6]) —Flax5 13:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure "Kaijus" is only used once or twice, with "Kaiju" in all other instances.—urutapu (talk • contribs) 03:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
The film's screenwriter has just spoken in on the matter, and he said he prefers using "Kaiju" as a plural, though he admits "Kaijus" is used at one point. Should that alter the plural use in this article? 199.19.146.231 (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I heard both "kaiju" and "kaijus" used when I watched the film so any kind of official stance is a good way to break the deadlock IMO. Siuenti (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to add to the list of awards that were won by Pacific Rim:
Hollywood Post Alliance, Outstanding Visual Effects: Lindy De Quattro, Eddie Pasquarello, Nigel Sumner, Derrick Carlin, Chris Lentz
Hollywood Film Awards, Hollywood Visual Effects Award: John Knoll
208.72.12.4 (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 21:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

please change "Approximately a hundred" to read "Approximately one-hundred" for correction of grammar. 
JohnRichard (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 Partly done: Although "a hundred" is incorrect, Wikipedia's Manual of style (see MOS:NUMERAL) only hyphenates numbers from 21 to 99; larger ones are not hyphenated. Arjayay (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Double Hi (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pacific Rim (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 00:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

1a. A pass throughout.
1b. Lead is crisp, however the "Video game" and "Music" sections need to be expanded, while the "Marketing" section needs to amend its bulleted format, and adopt paragraphs, as does the "Sequel" section.

 Done "Video game" section has been expanded as much as it could be. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 16:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Captain Assassin!, the music section is still too short (and doesn't have any paragraphs longer than two sentences), and the marketing and sequel sections are still bulleted. You only addressed one of QatarStarsLeague's points. Sock (The Editor Formerly Known as Corvoe) (be heard) 17:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Sock; I'm doing that too, I did the "Video game" section first and I mentioned here, now I'm going to expand "Music" section. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 23:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
@Captain Assassin!: Ahh, gotcha. You marked it "done", which you don't usually do until you've done all of it. I just wanted to double check. Great work so far! Sock (The Editor Formerly Known as Corvoe) (be heard) 23:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 Done Article's sections expanded and adopted paragraphs forms. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 23:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
2a. This complies with the layout standards.
2b. We need citations for the quote given by Del Toro regarding Day's character in the "Cast" section, the last sentence of the "Principal photography" section, and finally the last sentence of the first paragraph of the "Design" section. 

 Done All requested sentences are cited now. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 01:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
2c. No original research; passage granted.
3a. Its breadth touches upon all topics.
3b. It is comprehensive on a scale of great grandeur, however it does not descend down tangents.
4. It is impartial.
5. It appears stable.
6a.
6b.
This article is on the precipice of qualifying for GA status. It is superbly conceived, and, pending some amendments, will pass forthwith. Excellent work! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@QatarStarsLeague: @Sock: Is there anything else needs to be done? --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 17:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how to make this change but it would be great if you could add 'For the geographical designation see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Rim', because the wiki page for the film is the very first google result if you search for 'pacific rim'. 145.36.235.4 (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright, done. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 12:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Please change "jaeger" "kaiju" and "kaijus" to "Jaeger" "Kaiju" and "Kaijus." There are some forms of the words that are not capitalized when it should be.
24.119.230.23 (talk) 06:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 Done - If I missed any please be specific about where they are - there are 50 Jaegers and 79 Kaiju(s) - Arjayay (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

What about Pacific Rim Wiki being added? — 73.47.37.131 (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Pacific Rim (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130708092944/http://www.geekexchange.com/guillermo-del-toro-talks-pacific-rim-robots-monsters-cast-and-more-52179.html to http://www.geekexchange.com/guillermo-del-toro-talks-pacific-rim-robots-monsters-cast-and-more-52179.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109063253/http://emertainmentmonthly.com/2013/11/08/rob-kazinsky-talks-siren-pacific-rim-and-true-blood/ to http://emertainmentmonthly.com/2013/11/08/rob-kazinsky-talks-siren-pacific-rim-and-true-blood/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004223936/http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/agencia-efe/130630/del-toro-casts-perlman-segura-pacific-rim to http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/agencia-efe/130630/del-toro-casts-perlman-segura-pacific-rim
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120512210325/http://www.deadline.com/2010/05/legendary-pictures-re-teams-with-clash-of-the-titans-scribe-on-pacific-rim/ to http://www.deadline.com/2010/05/legendary-pictures-re-teams-with-clash-of-the-titans-scribe-on-pacific-rim/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130712054807/http://www.pacificrim-movie.net/news/860 to http://www.pacificrim-movie.net/news/860
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130716032806/http://www.reelz.com/trailer-clips/70267/pacific-rim-review/ to http://www.reelz.com/trailer-clips/70267/pacific-rim-review/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130716070650/http://www.reelz.com/trailer-clips/70236/pacific-rim-review/ to http://www.reelz.com/trailer-clips/70236/pacific-rim-review/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130907064407/http://www.pacificrim-movie.net/news/1152 to http://www.pacificrim-movie.net/news/1152
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131015165927/http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/10/14/3553287/cheap-shots.html to http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/10/14/3553287/cheap-shots.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pacific Rim (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130512184641/http://pacificrimbook.com/content/uploads/PacificRimSpread1.pdf to http://pacificrimbook.com/content/uploads/PacificRimSpread1.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I have noticed a recent edit mentioning Kaiju names needing sources. perhaps the official artbook can be a source? Visokor (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

While correcting some false information regarding Leven Rambin's nonexisting role in this film, noticed that the same anonymous user has added similar information to other film pages. I fixed the error in the cast section of this page but wanted to bring attention to the other errors (including more fictitious involvements in this page).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.179.188.22 (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC) 

DAISAZER RISEROSS COOL 2400:AC40:60B:54E8:6958:D210:EFC6:12F3 (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Mako Mori appeared in both films and is a very influential character, I think we should give her a character article. Dangervest69 (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Please read the notability guidelines WP:GNG. You can always start a WP:DRAFT and submit it for review but it seems unlikely that this character would have enough notability for a standalone article. -- 109.79.167.143 (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Note that we have had the article Mako Mori test with a subsection covering Mako Mori since 2019, nearly four years before this thread was started. If anyone is still interested in a standalone Mako Mori article (and I tend to agree that the character does not have independent notability), it would be better to work on that subsection until a split is merited rather than duplicate the coverage in a new draft article. Martin IIIa (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I've reworded a few portions of the plot summary in an attempt to increase its clarity and accuracy. Gaius Fulmen (talk) 08:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm replacing the statement that the fight between Raleigh and Mako was filmed like a sex scene. This is a tricky issue because we have contradictory statements from del Toro on the matter: In the cited source he indeed says it was filmed like a sex scene, while in the audio commentary he instead says it was filmed like a courtship scene at a dance. However, I'm favoring the dance interpretation for two reasons.
First, it makes far more sense to me personally. The scene is so completely lacking in anything sexual that for a viewer to interpret it as a sex scene seems to say a lot about where that viewer's head is at. By contrast, numerous elements of the scene fit with the dance interpretation: The grace of the fighters' movements, the frequent dialogue between them, their lack of any relationship prior to the scene, the crowd of onlookers, etc. None of these elements make any sense under the sex scene interpretation.
Second, the sex scene interpretation was suggested by the interviewer, while del Toro came up with the dance interpretation independently. Martin IIIa (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2025 (UTC)