Chris, if Santa Claus came down your chimney christmas eve would you just be surprised and happy or would you dress him down for using such outmoded transportation technology as a sled pulled by reindeer?
I saw Godzilla
- Thread starter Lookingglassman
- Start date
Chris, if Santa Claus came down your chimney christmas eve would you just be surprised and happy or would you dress him down for using such outmoded transportation technology as a sled pulled by reindeer?
ET may certainly be a tad overrated (and it's the Spielberg movie I probably rewatch the least), but I'm not exactly sure what there is to really hate about it.
And yeah it has it's sappy and sentimental moments, but I think that's balanced out quite a bit by the more grounded, everyday world it's characters live in. Unlike many of Spielberg's later movies like Hook which didn't seem to take place in the real world at all.
And yeah it has it's sappy and sentimental moments, but I think that's balanced out quite a bit by the more grounded, everyday world it's characters live in. Unlike many of Spielberg's later movies like Hook which didn't seem to take place in the real world at all.
Last edited:
Ah come on Chris...
ET is a FUN feel good movie!
Why does EVERYTHING have to have a deep dark script?
There needs to be more movies like this.
My best friend in college thought that E.T. captured the essence of childhood, and I could never agree with her on that. I thought it represented an adult's nostalgic fantasy of an idealized childhood. You want a film that more authentically captures the world that children inhabit, see To Kill a Mockingbird.
And how anyone ever thought that hideous creature could be endearing is beyond me.
To some extent, it's just that it was so overhyped that when I finally saw it, the high expectations made the letdown more crushing. (Although I'd read the novelization back when it came out, many years before I finally saw the film on TV, and found it tolerable in book form, at least at that age.)
For me, it just makes so little sense. E.T. is supposed to be a member of a highly advanced starfaring civilization, intelligent enough that it can somehow make a faster-than-light communication system out of household junk. So why does it act throughout the movie like a child or an animal? Why is it so damn stupid? For that matter, why are its people so stupid? Why did it even need to "phone home" to let its people know it had been left behind? How could the crew of a spaceship leave one of their own behind and not even notice? Nothing in the script made one damn bit of sense.
Plus there weren't any cast members for me to like. I have never found Dee Wallace to have a trace of charisma, and most of the other cast members were children who didn't do anything for me. And then there was that hideous monstrosity at the center of it all.
Ha ha, I agree ET is one hideously ugly creature (and the fact it's stiff mechanical movements are a lot more obvious now certainly doesn't help). Although I also can't help but admire the fact that Spielberg did make the centerpiece of his big budget family movie so incredibly unattractive and, well, alien.
It's probably not the kind of risk you'd see many studios or directors taking today.
As for the logic of the story, I agree it doesn't quite add up. But the movie was much more about a little kid's perspective and interaction with the alien than about whatever the aliens were actually up to, so I don't think it was ever that big of an issue.
It's probably not the kind of risk you'd see many studios or directors taking today.
As for the logic of the story, I agree it doesn't quite add up. But the movie was much more about a little kid's perspective and interaction with the alien than about whatever the aliens were actually up to, so I don't think it was ever that big of an issue.
I wasn't entirely clear on what Godzilla's character motivation was in this movie (I haven't seen the originals).
So, he wants to kill the MUTOs and he pretty much just ignores the humans. He doesn't care if they swim next to him, and he actually goes out of his way to avoid killing them. And then when the MUTOs are dead he just gets up and shambles back into the ocean.
But he doesn't eat them or anything. He doesn't do it so sustenance. They weren't threatening his life or territory. He just sleeps in the ocean apparently. So why does he do it?
So, he wants to kill the MUTOs and he pretty much just ignores the humans. He doesn't care if they swim next to him, and he actually goes out of his way to avoid killing them. And then when the MUTOs are dead he just gets up and shambles back into the ocean.
But he doesn't eat them or anything. He doesn't do it so sustenance. They weren't threatening his life or territory. He just sleeps in the ocean apparently. So why does he do it?
Because he's the hero we deserve, but not the one we need right now. So we'll hunt him, because he can take it. Because he's not a hero. He's a single guardian, a watchful protector. The Kaiju Knight!
I know I'm overanalyzing, but for me, part of the problem is that E.T. isn't truly alien at all. It's just a human shape put through severe distortion. It has all the human parts -- eyes, nose, mouth, ears, head, neck, shoulders, arms, belly, legs, hands, feet -- with only the proportions changed. Most "alien" designers in TV and movies just start with humans and modify them, and I've long found that tediously unimaginative.
Well, not entirely. He doesn't seem too concerned about the casualties from the flood he causes in Honolulu, or from tearing up the Golden Gate Bridge (note that only one of the many vehicles on the bridge was shown getting off beforehand). Ducking under the aircraft carrier may just have been about not wanting to run into a heavy and possibly painful object when it could be easily avoided.
Well, Dr. Serizawa's belief was that he existed to preserve the Earth's balance by keeping kaiju like the MUTOs from propagating out of control. Which sort of reflects the spiritual component in a lot of the Japanese films, which sometimes portray Godzilla as a sort of protective spirit of Japan -- or, in GMK, as a force of divine vengeance battling against the protective spirits Mothra, Baragon, and King Ghidorah. Either way, Godzilla is sometimes treated more as a cosmic force than an animal, and that seemed to be somewhat the case here. The scientific rationale was that he was the alpha predator whose appetites kept other species from overpopulating, but as you say, he didn't feed on the MUTOs here.
Then again, he was pretty badly injured and near death after the fight, so he didn't really have the opportunity to feed on them. Maybe he just retreated to the ocean to rest and recover. Takes less exertion to float in the water than to move on land, especially when you're that huge.
Hey, has anybody here seen the three Gamera movies from the 90s?
I was really quite impressed with those.
I was really quite impressed with those.
I own them, and yeah - those were pretty good.
I don't know - from the trailers, especially the early ones, I was expecting Godzilla to be more hostile toward mankind. Remember that shot of the crushed/wrecked train with all those bodies around it? I was really looking forward to seeing the big guy do things like that. Sadly, the version we got was almost benevolent.
Rob and Doug Walker (the latter being "The Nostalgia Critic" on "That Guy With the Glasses") review the movie in two videos.
The second one being a bit more spoiler heavy.
LINK
I think they both sort of expressed my thoughts pretty well. The movie had good points and bad points. For Rob I agree the movie not showing Godzilla much served it well rather than it being overwhelming with battles with Godzilla.
But Doug, is right two in that the movie abused the teasing. He points it out nicely that it builds up the Honolulu airport scene and then pulls the rug out from under us, rather than being all or nothing.
I disagree with them that the 1998 version's problem was showing Godzilla too much it's that what they *did* show wasn't enough. Godzilla causes little destruction himself rather than rampaging around the city. Both movies suffering from having uninteresting characters.
This movie should have made Cranston and Watanabe have been a lot more central, and Watanabe seemed to have some more back-story we didn't get into, and Bland Soldier Character #227B and his goals wasn't interesting enough to carry the human-side of the story.
The second one being a bit more spoiler heavy.
LINK
I think they both sort of expressed my thoughts pretty well. The movie had good points and bad points. For Rob I agree the movie not showing Godzilla much served it well rather than it being overwhelming with battles with Godzilla.
But Doug, is right two in that the movie abused the teasing. He points it out nicely that it builds up the Honolulu airport scene and then pulls the rug out from under us, rather than being all or nothing.
I disagree with them that the 1998 version's problem was showing Godzilla too much it's that what they *did* show wasn't enough. Godzilla causes little destruction himself rather than rampaging around the city. Both movies suffering from having uninteresting characters.
This movie should have made Cranston and Watanabe have been a lot more central, and Watanabe seemed to have some more back-story we didn't get into, and Bland Soldier Character #227B and his goals wasn't interesting enough to carry the human-side of the story.
I think onconsqiencial is more accurate. He just didn't notice is insignificant humans
Perhaps, but the Godzilla I know would have turned his wrath on that Navy battle group that was annoying him with their missiles and shells before moving on into the city. First time I've ever seen him run from a fight.
I think onconsqiencial is more accurate. He just didn't notice is insignificant humans
By "actually filmed" I trust you mean "created by the visual effects department." I think that any animated digital FX sequence wouldn't be completed unless it had already been decided that it would be in the final cut; after all, FX cost money. Generally any deleted FX scenes you see on a DVD are animatics or rough renders. Completing them for the director's cut isn't out of the question, but it would cost a fair amount of money.
Similar threads
