• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Godzilla 2014: Rumors, Pix and filming

Another interview with Gareth Edwards: http://www.totalfilm.com/features/g...e-learned-at-comic-con-2013/it-s-gotta-be-big

“We’re going to make the tallest Godzilla ever by far. We started doing bits of animation but if he was too tall – you’d see him straight away so we had to make him smaller. What we settled on he’s just taller than any other one so far. But you have to be able to hide him.” Says Edwards.
Click to expand...
The nuclear element is staying. We know Cranston’s character works in a nuclear plant so all signs point to this being the origin story of Godzilla though nuclear power is not the central theme.

“The heart of Godzilla is the nuclear thing, the original is an analogy for Hiroshima, we haven’t done anything directly related to Hiroshima but we have addressed it, some of those issues do become part of the movie.” Says Edwards.

But in terms of its core: “Man vs nature is the reoccurring theme. If you’re going to take on nature you will lose.”
Click to expand...
 
The nuclear element is staying. We know Cranston’s character works in a nuclear plant so all signs point to this being the origin story of Godzilla though nuclear power is not the central theme.
Click to expand...

That doesn't follow. In the Heisei series and a couple of the Millennium movies, Godzilla's mutation made him nuclear-powered and he needed to feed on nuclear reactors and high-energy sources, which is what drew him to civilization. Yet all those movies were sequels to the '54 original. So including a nuclear plant doesn't prove it's a rebooted origin story. It could be, but that particular piece of information isn't probative.
 
The impression I get from various interviews, and information from filming, is that this is the first appearance of Godzilla and other giant monsters in our world. I'm guessing people are putting two and two together, however this stems from when Gareth was asked about recent environmental disasters, and he hinted that events similar to the Fukushima nuclear incident could be a factor. Saying that, I think the plant that Cranston’s character works at just comes under attack from Godzilla, and is not actually responsible for his creation.
 
As I've said before, it's disappointing if it's a new origin story, a complete reboot, given that most Godzilla films have been sequels to the '54 original even when they've been in different realities from one another. Even the '98 Emmerich film implied that the Japanese had prior experience with a giant reptilian creature called Godzilla and mistook the film's star kaiju for that creature. So if this movie is definitively an origin story for Godzilla, that would make it the first ever Godzilla movie in 59 years that unambiguously cannot work as a sequel to the original. And that would be kind of a shame.
 
Oh, that explains it. I have animated images turned off by default in my browser, because I find them too distracting.

Judging from the footage, he looks good -- but it seems like they're not using The Roar, the trademark "skreeonk." (Which should really be more like "skreeeee-eeee-eeee-eeee-eeee-aw-wonk" if you ask me.) It's just not Godzilla without The Roar.
 
From reports, the roar heard during the panel at SDCC was different, but sounded like a blend of different Toho Godzilla roars from over the years; starting out breathy, then builds into an aggressive deeper tone, but still identifiably a proper Godzilla roar. At least there was nothing that sounded like an elephant in there.

Incidentally, I'd be fine either way with a new timeline or not. A new origin story would differentiate it from the other Godzilla films to date that's used the '54 film as the start, I think there is some merit to going that route. On the other hand we still don't know what role Akira Takarada is filling, it'd be interesting to see him playing Hideto Ogata again.

And what with nuclear testing carried out between 1960-1996, it'd have been easy for another Godzilla (or maybe the original regenerated) to appear again.
 
Last edited:
Christopher said:
Oh, that explains it. I have animated images turned off by default in my browser, because I find them too distracting.

Judging from the footage, he looks good -- but it seems like they're not using The Roar, the trademark "skreeonk." (Which should really be more like "skreeeee-eeee-eeee-eeee-eeee-aw-wonk" if you ask me.) It's just not Godzilla without The Roar.
Click to expand...
and don't forgent his variant roar first used in King Kong vs Godzilla- AAROOOAAAAH VEEERUMMM!:cool:
 
I must have missed this one before, but according to this interview the new Godzilla film is an origin story for the monster:

And this is a "Godzilla" origin story?
Yeah, it's an origin story. I mean, I think those moments in films where everyone learns about these monsters, you know, it's very difficult moments to show on camera. And especially when you have multiple characters. So, I think we've been very careful. I hope we have in the way that we portrayed that. And you know, you can't help but reference events like September 11th and the tsunami.
Click to expand...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...illa_n_3628321.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003
 
^ Yes, this movie is to reboot the franchise. I wouldn't call it a remake of the 54 movie but it is going on the premise that Godzilla has never been seen before.

Here is the head of the new Godzilla...this is part of the lighting experiments that they did.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
 
I'm glad they didn't go with the "T-Rex" looking head.

Incidentally, I came across this while watching the Godzilla Encounter thing on youtube:

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAnqRQg-W0k[/yt]

I actually didn't realise they'd been quite so many tests done, and that's only up to 1998.
 
Captain_Amasov said:
I'm glad they didn't go with the "T-Rex" looking head.

Incidentally, I came across this while watching the Godzilla Encounter thing on youtube:



I actually didn't realise they'd been quite so many tests done, and that's only up to 1998.
Click to expand...

I didn't know there had been so many tests either! I guess the movie does have many tests to go on!
 
What might we expect if there was ever a sequel?

Discussing a potential sequel to his upcoming "Godzilla" reboot, director Gareth Edwards stated, “With the exception of the 1954 original, I would say my second favorite film is Destroy All Monsters. I just love the idea of a monster island. Having a world with these creatures in it. I find that fascinating and would like to treat that realistically. I wouldn’t want to limit it to one other foe, I think it’s more fun to – this question will come back to haunt me if we ever do a sequel – but I think multiple creatures make better movies in terms of the image of Gojira.”
Click to expand...

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/movienewsandreviews/news/?a=84202
 
Not loving the design, nor even liking it. :weep: *My* Godzilla looks like the top middle here... http://i2.squidoocdn.com/resize/squ...le148066798photo_1297093887godzilla_faces.jpg

Christopher said:
Judging from the footage, he looks good -- but it seems like they're not using The Roar, the trademark "skreeonk." (Which should really be more like "skreeeee-eeee-eeee-eeee-eeee-aw-wonk" if you ask me.) It's just not Godzilla without The Roar.
Click to expand...

:sigh: Yet another reason to pass on this outing. Good thing I liked Pacific Rim cause I don't think I am going to get my monster fix fulfilled with this one.
 
The Keeper said:
Christopher said:
Judging from the footage, he looks good -- but it seems like they're not using The Roar, the trademark "skreeonk." (Which should really be more like "skreeeee-eeee-eeee-eeee-eeee-aw-wonk" if you ask me.) It's just not Godzilla without The Roar.
Click to expand...

:sigh: Yet another reason to pass on this outing. Good thing I liked Pacific Rim cause I don't think I am going to get my monster fix fulfilled with this one.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a reason to pass at all. A work can have imperfections yet still be worthwhile. And there's no telling whether what we saw and heard in the Comic-Con presentation accurately reflects what will be in the final film anyway. It's far too premature to judge whether the film will be worthwhile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top