Anyone Here Not Like The New Godzilla Film?

[Relayer1]

Let's face it, there aren't really that many good Godzilla movies.

The '54 original is probably the smartest, classiest, most poignant and thought-provoking monster movie ever made, but most of its sequels have been cheesy and often very silly.

It's certainly the best-made Godzilla movie ever, with the special effects conveying his size and majesty more convincingly than ever before.

And there's the elephant in the room - most Godzilla movies vary between infantile rubbish and just plain crap. I purchased a copy of the first one a while ago per Christophers recommendation, but stupidly, I'm yet to watch it. I've seen parts of some of the others though, and they were embarrassing.

I quire enjoyed the Devlin Emmerich version whilst appreciating that it wasn't exactly brilliant. The new one ? It was probably about as good as is possible for a movie about a giant monster...

 

[DWF]

Thoughout the late '60s and early '70s the Godzilla movies were aimed at a younger audience, from Destroy All Monsters to Terror Of Mechagodzilla they weren't as serious as they used to be. Much of the Showa era does have some silly plots but as it's pointed on out on the DVDs those movie made a sci-fi audience for Toho and allowed a great many other sci-fi movies to be made.

 

[BeatleJWOL]

Needed more Godzilla.

Bonus points though for the marketing making sure certain character deaths were COMPLETELY unspoiled; it was a nice WHOA moment in the theater.

 

[galleywest]

Olsen and whatever his name was were not interesting at all and sucked away any momentum the movie had. It's not really terrible, but it was boring and that is arguably worse.

This, this, this. I honestly can't remember what his name is either and can't be bothered to even look it up right now--he and Olsen were such meh, forgettable characters.

 

[martok2112]

While the Emmerich/Devlin Godzilla movie left quite a bit to be desired, I personally loved the monster in that movie.

Yeah, it was a really good monster design in a pretty lame movie. As long as you accept that it wasn't the actual Godzilla, just a different creature mistaken for it (as implied in Godzilla, Mothra, King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack a couple of years later), it works just fine. Indeed, that's implicit in the film itself -- the new creature is given the name Godzilla because a Japanese fisherman saw it and thought it was Godzilla, which suggests that the real Godzilla already existed as a separate creature.

I could accept that line of reasoning to a degree.

But, when I saw the movie, I took it as another reboot...that this was the first appearance of Godzilla. I'll need to rewatch this one to catch what you mentioned, that this was a creature who the fisherman named Godzilla because of a legend.

I have yet to see the animated series that was based on this take.

I only remember the one from the 70's. (Up from the depths, thirty stories high. Breathing fire, his head in the sky. Godzilla! Godzilla! Godzilla! ....and Godzoooookiiiiiii!-- brief fanciful music-- GodzilllaaaaaaaaAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!)

 

[mos6507]

Perhaps the problem with a movie like Godzilla is that the titular monster is too sentient (and real-world popular, for reasons which passeth understanding) to not be treated as a character, but too stupid to be an interesting dramatic player (it's a big-ass lizard, people)

This is misplaced expectations. There's no way a film like this can be anything other than very basic "world wrestling smackdown" style entertainment. It can't be high art or ultra-plausible. All you can expect from it is Godzilla will swoop in and save the day. The humans are merely spectators. Godzilla doesn't have to have shades of gray like Christian Bale's Batman to be a hero. His actions speak louder than words.

Why is it necessary to deconstruct why it is Godzilla seems to go out of his way to avoid collateral damage and seems driven to destroy monsters who do? You have to suspend disbelief to the point where you allow Godzilla to simply be a force of nature.

I felt the degree to which they attempted to rationalize Godzilla's behavior went overboard. Better to stick with the quasi-religious mysticism.

no absurd notion that it was any kind of hero or savior of children and archaeologists all along thrown in.

Your use of the word "absurd" is your own baggage. You're carrying into the film an expectation to be 100% plausible which just isn't going to happen in a movie like this. So there's no way it can satisfy you.

Heck, what's next - audiences going to see a movie about dump trucks that turn into thirty-foor Rock'em Sock'em Robots, expecting to see a legitimately good movie with memorable non-human characters? Surely no one would expect that, amirite?

Transformers, Cars, Herbie, Benji, Ol Yeller, Babe, Milo & Otis, The Black Stallion, Spirit, etc...

Anthropomorphism has been a staple of filmmaking for a very very long time. I get it. You don't like it. Many do.

 

[Starkers]

Olsen and whatever his name was were not interesting at all and sucked away any momentum the movie had. It's not really terrible, but it was boring and that is arguably worse.

This, this, this. I honestly can't remember what his name is either and can't be bothered to even look it up right now--he and Olsen were such meh, forgettable characters.

Aaron Taylor Johnson. Odd they're so forgettable in this given they're good in Age of Ultron. And he's Kick Ass for goodness sake.

Godzilla commits the cardinal sin, its boring. More Cranston and Watanabe may have helped and what a waste of Sally Hawkins, she just carries Watanabe's clipboard.

Godzilla himself, when we see him, is great but rooting for him seems akin to being thankful for a tsunami when your house is on fire.

That's two of that directors films that have bored me to tears now, it doesn't bode well for his SW film.

 

[Christopher]

And there's the elephant in the room - most Godzilla movies vary between infantile rubbish and just plain crap. I purchased a copy of the first one a while ago per Christophers recommendation, but stupidly, I'm yet to watch it. I've seen parts of some of the others though, and they were embarrassing.

Well, there are a few gems besides the first one, though nothing quite on its level. My recommended films from the series, besides the original, include:

• Mothra vs. Godzilla (1964)
• Destroy All Monsters (1968)
• The Return of Godzilla (or Gojira) (1984)
• Godzilla and Mothra: The Battle for Earth (1992)
• Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla II (1993)
• Godzilla vs. Destoroyah (1995)
• Godzilla vs. Megaguirus (2000)
• Godzilla, Mothra and King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack (or GMK) (2001)

(And the original Mothra is pretty good too.)

I could accept that line of reasoning to a degree.

But, when I saw the movie, I took it as another reboot...that this was the first appearance of Godzilla. I'll need to rewatch this one to catch what you mentioned, that this was a creature who the fisherman named Godzilla because of a legend.

Well, yes, it was meant as a standalone. The fact that the Japanese already had a legend of a creature named Gojira was probably just an homage. But it can easily be interpreted as an indication that Godzilla really existed in the past. That's the approach GMK takes -- it mentions that there was a recent sighting in New York of a creature believed to be Godzilla, but that it was probably mistaken identity. It's easy to fit the Devlin/Emmerich film and GMK into the same continuity. (Although I don't think the same goes for the animated series.)

 

[MacLeod]

Nostalgia could be playing a part, I like many others no doubt grew up on the Toho Godzillia films, they used to be run late at night on CH4 in the UK. And we can look back through rose coloured glasses. Would I have liked to have seen more of Godzilla in the recent movie, sure. Do I think Cranston should have been in it more, sure. Overal it was failry average movie with a few good highlights.

 

[TRON JA307020]

I quite like the film, but it's basically a Gamera movie and not a Godzilla movie. His character and role in the film is basically identical to that of Gamera in the 90's Gamera trilogy, right down to human characters who refer to him as nature's balancing force. All that's missing is a psychic connection to a teenage girl and he'd just be the 90's Gamera. Not that that's a bad thing, I love Godzilla... but the 90's Gamera trilogy are better movies than all in the Godzilla series with the exception of the '54 original.

I grew up watching repeated television of the corny 70s Godzilla. It seemed that's all they aired on the television when I was a kid. I like them still because of the nostalgia but when I saw the TOHO 90s versions I was blown away by the increase in quality and the amount of the big G we get to see as well as the human characters. I do agree with you that the 90s gamera was also quite good. Im sure we will see a American version of Gamera soon.

 

[Captain_Amasov]

If you're watching it on a Blu-Ray/DVD, or on TV, then there's also the issue of the transfer by Warner's being shite making it duller and darker than the theatrical release.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

While the Emmerich/Devlin Godzilla movie left quite a bit to be desired, I personally loved the monster in that movie.

Yeah, it was a really good monster design in a pretty lame movie. As long as you accept that it wasn't the actual Godzilla, just a different creature mistaken for it (as implied in Godzilla, Mothra, King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack a couple of years later), it works just fine. Indeed, that's implicit in the film itself -- the new creature is given the name Godzilla because a Japanese fisherman saw it and thought it was Godzilla, which suggests that the real Godzilla already existed as a separate creature.

You say this every time discussion about the Emmerich/Devlin film comes up, but it's not supported by facts. There is nothing in the film that implicitly asserts that giant monsters like Godzilla were something that already existed and were known about in the world. In fact the whole film goes out of its way to establish that Godzilla is an unprecedented phenomenon.

- Why is everyone so incredulous at the idea of a "dinosaur" (which is what they called it at first) roaming the streets of New York if Tokyo has repeatedly been the victim of these kinds of attacks before?

- Why would Nick's studies of radiation increasing worm size be considered so novel if there were already giant creatures born of atomic testing terrorizing Japan? You'd think the preeminent expert in that field would be aware of that and would start with something more significant than worms from Chernobyl.

- The Japanese fisherman never called the creature Godzilla, he called it "Gojira" and Harry Shearer messed up the translation in his rush to steal Audrey's story. So the fisherman is simply calling it a "gorilla whale" in his attempt at describing something he had never seen before. Audrey even corrects Shearer's reading of it in the film by saying "It's Gojira, you moron!"

- If the idea is that the Japanese somehow kept the prior Godzilla attacks secret, did they also keep it secret from the US government and military which had extensive bases in Japan at the time? That seems like an amazing stretch to be able to keep that quiet, especially if your goal is to stop atomic testing in the South Pacific done by the US and France. The US government was totally unfamiliar with and unprepared for this creature until the attacks started, hence bringing in the "worm guy" to explain things and having no contingency plans for dealing with it.

 

[Christopher]

You say this every time discussion about the Emmerich/Devlin film comes up, but it's not supported by facts. There is nothing in the film that implicitly asserts that giant monsters like Godzilla were something that already existed and were known about in the world. In fact the whole film goes out of its way to establish that Godzilla is an unprecedented phenomenon.

I thought I made this clear. I am not saying that the film itself intended to assert the prior existence of real kaiju. I am saying that it allows for us as fans to interpret it in that way. I'm talking "headcanon" here. It's a creative exercise in reconciling the film with the "real" Godzilla. Of course it's not a perfect theory, because it's not what the filmmakers intended. But as a fan retcon, it's not that much of a stretch.

After all, GMK itself does implicitly suggest that the Tri-Star movie took place in its continuity, even if it's just as an in-joke. I'm just saying that the Tri-Star movie itself does somewhat allow for that interpretation, without the need to squint too much. And since GMK is "real" Godzilla while the Tri-Star film was a weak imitation, I would rather follow GMK's lead.

Why is everyone so incredulous at the idea of a "dinosaur" (which is what they called it at first) roaming the streets of New York if Tokyo has repeatedly been the victim of these kinds of attacks before?

Ahh, but you see, GMK is set in a version of the universe where Godzilla has not been seen since 1954, and where the events of that original attack on Tokyo were largely covered up by the Japanese government in order to avoid making the recently-created Self-Defense Force look bad. So in that continuity, Godzilla was not very well remembered, considered a legend by many. In fact, in GMK, when the monster Barugon first appears, it is mistaken for Godzilla by bystanders.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I thought I made this clear.

No, you did not. Here's what you said:

Indeed, that's implicit in the film itself -- the new creature is given the name Godzilla because a Japanese fisherman saw it and thought it was Godzilla, which suggests that the real Godzilla already existed as a separate creature.

I am not saying that the film itself intended to assert the prior existence of real kaiju.

Then implicit is clearly not the right word to use, because that is suggesting that the movie did imply that these creatures had existed before, when it did not.

Your whole point is based on a misinterpretation of the name by an American reporter quoting a Japanese fisherman who's just describing the creature's unique features for the first time, not citing other creatures from memory. And was this guy involved in the coverup the whole time? Why wouldn't he go into more detail once he calmed down, like "It's like that monster that destroyed Tokyo in 1954 that they made me sign a non-disclosure agreement about, which is kind of a moot point now."

I am saying that it allows for us as fans to interpret it in that way. I'm talking "headcanon" here. It's a creative exercise in reconciling the film with the "real" Godzilla. Of course it's not a perfect theory, because it's not what the filmmakers intended. But as a fan retcon, it's not that much of a stretch.

It's a HUGE stretch. It's fine to have as your headcanon (I do the same thing with trying to combine movies like this and Cloverfield and Pacific Rim and others for fun, but I don't think the movies imply that they're connected), but that's not the way you framed it before I replied to you. You were clearly trying to suggest that it was implied by the film itself, when everything in the film overwhelmingly argues for this being an unprecedented phenomenon.

After all, GMK itself does implicitly suggest that the Tri-Star movie took place in its continuity, even if it's just as an in-joke. I'm just saying that the Tri-Star movie itself does somewhat allow for that interpretation, without the need to squint too much. And since GMK is "real" Godzilla while the Tri-Star film was a weak imitation, I would rather follow GMK's lead.

That's fine. But that's not what you said above, which was my objection.

Why is everyone so incredulous at the idea of a "dinosaur" (which is what they called it at first) roaming the streets of New York if Tokyo has repeatedly been the victim of these kinds of attacks before?

Ahh, but you see, GMK is set in a version of the universe where Godzilla has not been seen since 1954, and where the events of that original attack on Tokyo were largely covered up by the Japanese government in order to avoid making the recently-created Self-Defense Force look bad. So in that continuity, Godzilla was not very well remembered, considered a legend by many. In fact, in GMK, when the monster Barugon first appears, it is mistaken for Godzilla by bystanders.

I already addressed this in my post.

Even in a pre-internet world the existence of a giant lizard monster coming out of the sea and laying waste to a city the size of Tokyo could not be "covered up." Post-war Japan was not the Soviet Union with total control over all media, and even major events they tried to cover up that took place out on the remote desert steppe of Kazakhstan leaked out eventually. Likewise with China. Did the millions of residents in Tokyo and foreigners stationed or visiting there all decide to participate in the coverup and then not come forward when a new giant lizard monster started attacking New York?

The US military and government had extensive bases and facilities in Japan and the Tokyo area in 1954. Heck, the US occupation of Japan only officially ended two years earlier in 1952. The Japanese couldn't keep the event secret from people who could see it with their own eyes. Which brings up the question of why the US military needed advice from the "worm guy" on whether radiation can enlarge animal life and hadn't ever developed weapons or contingency plans to deal with the possible return of these kinds of creatures in the intervening 40+ years.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Ahh, but you see, GMK is set in a version of the universe where Godzilla has not been seen since 1954, and where the events of that original attack on Tokyo were largely covered up by the Japanese government in order to avoid making the recently-created Self-Defense Force look bad.

I thought all they covered up was using the Oxygen Destroyer to kill the original Godzilla.

 

[Christopher]

Then implicit is clearly not the right word to use, because that is suggesting that the movie did imply that these creatures had existed before, when it did not.

To clarify, what's implicit in the film is that the Japanese had prior belief in, or awareness of, something called Gojira. Maybe that was an ancient legend as the film asserted, maybe it was just a movie character, but it provides a basis for the notion suggested in GMK that maybe, just maybe, there was a real Godzilla that the New York creature was mistaken for. That's all I'm saying. And since GMK was the much better movie of the two, I don't see anything to be gained by giving priority to the Tri-Star film's reading.

As for the rest, please, just relax. This isn't a big deal or something to fight over. It's just an idea I like to play with. It's a silly thing to argue about.

 

[DWF]

Actually in GMK the guy in the briefing says that it was Godzilla and that we Americans just didn't know any better. And any event Godzilla Final Wars shows that 'Zilla was an alien kaiju and could last more than 30 seconds against the real Godzilla.

 

[beamMe]

Then implicit is clearly not the right word to use, because that is suggesting that the movie did imply that these creatures had existed before, when it did not.

To clarify, what's implicit in the film is that the Japanese had prior belief in, or awareness of, something called Gojira. Maybe that was an ancient legend as the film asserted,

Yes.

maybe it was just a movie character, but it provides a basis for the notion suggested in GMK that maybe, just maybe, there was a real Godzilla that the New York creature was mistaken for.

No.

 

[martok2112]

Actually in GMK the guy in the briefing says that it was Godzilla and that we Americans just didn't know any better. And any event Godzilla Final Wars shows that 'Zilla was an alien kaiju and could last more than 30 seconds against the real Godzilla.

(The following is not directed at DWF... just an observation about Godzilla Final Wars. )

Yeah, I heard about that sequence, and to me it looks like fanboy horseshite. "Ok, let's just show that absolutely noone approves of that thing that goes by Godzilla! Let's do it by having it destroyed in no time at all by the 'real Godzilla'! Let's do it for the 'true Godzilla fans'! " Sure, the movie may have been an official release, but it screams "Godzilla Fanboy!"

It would be like some jackass making a movie that showed the original Enterprise completely punking the Enterprise from the JJ Abrams movies.... or the classic Galactica completely wiping the floor with the newer Galactica. (Not that those haven't already been made on YouTube by malcontent fanboys.)

It's that whole horseshit of pandering to so-called "true fans" of the genre. They even have to justify just why Emmerich's Godzilla got unceremoniously punked... an alien kaiju? The Emmerich movie clearly demonstrated that Godzilla was created (accidentally) as the result of nuclear weapons tests, much the same as prior Godzilla.

And what would have happened had Emmerich's Godzilla been as popular as old Godzilla? Would it still have been punked by the so-called "true" or "real" Godzilla in that fanboy slugfest?

Again, DWF, this is not directed at you. You're just the messenger.

 

[Hound of UIster]

And what would have happened had Emmerich's Godzilla been as popular as old Godzilla? Would it still have been punked by the so-called "true" or "real" Godzilla in that fanboy slugfest?

The problem is that due to the movie's inherent structural flaws: it was not as popular as the original.