I expected the trailer to suck, and it did. It's just Bayformers with a big lizard instead of a robot. So we're rooting for cities to be destroyed, is that it? We're like those who go to see the latest Freddy movie, actively rooting to see young kids gruesomely murdered? We're six-year-olds mindlessly paying to watch someone spend 200 mil to pretend to stomp on a backyard sandbox city? ... Anyone else remember when sci-fi was about broadening our imaginations? When sci-fi made people think of visionaries like Bradbury?
In this case, the explanation is pretty simple. I had previously written the novelizations of The Dark Knight Rises and Man of Steel for Warner Bros./Legendary/Titan, so I assume that when Godzilla came up somebody said "Well, why don't we just get Greg again?" (Works for me!) To be more specific, my editor asked me if I was available, I said "Hell, yes," the nice folks at Warner agreed as well, and we were off and running . . . . Hope that answers your question.
That says it all. Ever heard of expectation bias? So you're rooting for movies -- and their audiences -- to be worthy of your contempt, is that it? Bradbury loved writing about dinosaurs. The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms was named after a story of his (later renamed "The Foghorn"). He was approached to do a rewrite on the screenplay, and when he pointed out that one of its scenes had similarities to his story, the filmmakers bought the rights to the story, used its title, and gave him story credit for the film. So one could say that Bradbury was one of the indirect inspirations for the Godzilla franchise. Anyway, the original Godzilla is a fine work of science fiction. The science is totally fanciful, but the film is a powerful allegory about important themes, a symbolic protest of the devastation wrought on Japan by American nuclear weapons -- not only the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which is powerfully evoked in the scenes following up on Godzilla's rampage, but the deaths caused by the ongoing nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands and the fallout that descended on Japan as a result. True, the majority of films in the Godzilla/daikaiju franchise have been cheesier and lighter, and none have matched the power of the original, but the best ones have had something to say.
Sci-fi has also been used for a very long time as a "warning" of social and/or scientific progress. Godzilla falls in the latter categorie, although the scientific progress adressed lies in the past. In the original movie, Godzilla was used to give the dangers of radioactivity a face. From what I hear, we still use nuclear power and are not decreasing the number of nuclear weapons. Therefore, the idea of Godzilla actually remains topical, especially so shortly after Fukushima. The producers, as well as director Gareth Edwards, have maintained that the movie will go back to the original message. Another thing which made the original movie more than just a monster b-movie, something that helped deliver the message, was the intensity, the showing of human suffering in relation to the monster's attack. They didn't do that in "Beast" or "Tarantula" or those other monster flicks. They also didn't do it in MoS, "The Avengers" or the "Transformers" movies. But we do see dead bodies lying around a wrecked train, we do see a crying Bryan Cranston, we do see the terror in the faces of people - not just panic, but terror - in this trailer. And I also felt the fear of that soldier jumping towards Godzilla. So, no, it's not new. In fact, it's sixty years old. But in comparison to what other blockbusters are showing us, it feels fresh, and it feels relevant.
Funny you should mention the human condition, given what Christopher has said: I remember that story. It's beautiful and evocative, using a silly, fantastical idea (a surviving dinosaur from deep in the ocean depths) to make a comment about the universality of loneliness as a part of the experience of consciousness. What I don't remember in that story is devastated cities, untold agonizing fatalities, gruff yet honorable murican! military types, and Bayformers-esque battles. Somehow I doubt there'll be much of Bradbury's spirit in this joint. More's the pity, especially for all the youngsters out there, who aren't exposed to writers like Bradbury by their parents and teachers as I was. (In other words, I'd love for my confirmation bias to be proven wrong here.) Sure, that's pop culture 101. But the last wartime use of a nuke was... Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Is there any reason to believe this flick will have anything to say? Or will it be another soulless remake a la Red Dawn '12, copying and pasting an old concept while losing any of the original's originality and adding nothing in its place? Look, I like stupid movies as well as anyone. I loved Battle: LA, in part because one could plausibly argue that, if only on a subconscious level, it was an attempt on the filmmakers' part to imagine what being in the thick of recent urban combat from other parts of the world might be like on our own home streets, albeit with a fantastical level. (Numerous reviews didn't call it "Black Hawk Down with aliens" for nothing.) So I'm not saying "let's never have stupid," but not all stupid is created equal, as anyone who's seen a Bayformers knows.
I never really ever gave a rats ass about the 'message' of Godzilla. As a kid, it was all about seeing cities getting stomped on and digging how 'cool' the Lizard King acted, but now, watching that with the knowledge of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster I gotta say that actually raised the hairs on the back of my neck. Well done! I wonder if this film dares make that incident this Godzilla's origin story?
Gaith, I'm not going to argue with you, because the only time it makes sense to argue about the quality of a movie is after the movie has come out. Until then, it's just sophistry and bluster and a pointless waste of effort. As for Godzilla's origin, I'm still holding out a vain hope that this movie, like virtually every other Godzilla movie since 1955, is in some respect a sequel to the events of the 1954 film. As I've mentioned before, even the Emmerich film implied that the Japanese people had previous experience with a giant reptile they called Gojira. I'm inclined to doubt it, since I saw a statement in an article today that this would be Godzilla's origin story, but I'm still hoping there's some kind of connection. To date there have been, by my count, as many as nine distinct Godzilla continuities, and yet almost all of them include some version of the 1954 film's events as part of their history, at least implicitly. I can't help feeling that's part of what makes something a genuine Godzilla movie.
The variant Japanese trailers have a different shot of Ken Watanabe's character: http://www.godzilla-movie.jp/
Strangely effecting trailer. I showed it to my wife on the big screen tv on youtube, she had no idea what it was and was sucked right in...she HATES Godzilla movies. RAMA
Nicely done trailer and the visuals look like they'll be a real treat, I love the roar, well most of it, it's effective and certainly imposingly loud but the trill effect on the end is weird, just for the trailer?
No, it's been heard elsewhere in promotional materials for this film. Godzilla's roar has almost always been characterized by an upward flourish at the end (the "onk" part of the usual spelling "Skreeonk!"), and in this case it's much longer and deeper, as if the sound had been slowed down (and otherwise embellished). Of course, the original Godzilla roar was already a slowed-down playback of the sound of a resin-coated leather glove stroking the loosened strings of a double bass.
It's been a while since I watched the movies, I had the entire classic movie collection on VHS around 1999-2001, they brought out a line of them then. I haven't watched the newer movies other than the American attempt at making one in 1996... Should really try and find them again before May next year.