At least one legitimate concern brought up in the novelization is the fact humanity has finite resources. I can't remember if this is brought up in the film or not.
Anyway, it's stated that the Jaegers are expensive and are lost in combat faster than they can be replaced much of the time, and there has been, so far, no end to the Kaiju. So the governments of the world are seeing the Jaegers as money gobblers that are only a short-term solution. The Wall, they believe, will be a long-term (perhaps even permanent) solution.
Rather annoyingly, though, while the Wall is a bad idea, it's never acknowledged in book or film that the governments are not necessarily wrong or stupid for wanting a permanent solution instead of just fighting the individual Kaiju whenever they show up, which causes massive damage and loss of life, and, as noted, eats money, crippling the economies of the nations funding the Jaeger program. It's interesting that they're portrayed as cowardly jerks when the only thing wrong is that their alternative to the Jaegers sucks.
Personally, I would've avoided this conflict altogether. Since it barely figures into the plot at all except at the very, very beginning, you could omit it entirely, or better still, since it's a fictional story about giant robots fighting giant sea monsters, have both. The Wall and the Jaegers, with the Wall as primary defense and the Jaegers as secondary defense if and when the first is breached, makes more sense. So much sense I'm surprised it's never offered as a compromise, with the movie making a "one or the other" argument and bizarrely insisting the two ideas can't work together.
I mean, really, how many times will you look under Jabba's manboobs?
reply
share