Godzilla 2012

Even King Of The Monsters got it pretty accurate, though.

Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — Watch

It tries it's best to not reference nuclear weapons or WWII past explaining the origins of the monster, making it about as effective as any other 50s giant monster movie... In KOTM, he was just a monster made from the bomb, in Gojira, he pretty much WAS the bomb.

I'll take your word for it; my memory of both is hazy and I haven't watched either since becoming a better critical viewer.

edited 4th Nov '10 7:33:47 AM by MadassAlex

Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — Watch

In Gojira there were many direct references to WWII and the bombs and these references make the Godzilla=Nuclear Explosion interpretation easier to come to whereas all of those scenes were either edited out or simply left untranslated, making KOTM more of a typical B-Monster movie. The people responsible for the edit, from what I remember, did this because they thought the original subject matter was a bit much and a touchy subject. It wasn't until 2004, that Gojira became as easy to find as it is now. 50 years after it's debut...

That would explain a lot.

Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — Watch

Isn't it ridiculously awesome how a man in a rubber suit can bear such a powerful message?

Proud member of the IAA What's the point of being grown up if you can't act childish?

I think giving Godzilla personality makes him stand out from a lot of other monsters. Especially his motivation for helping to save the world in the Showa movies and arguably any other "heroic" incarnation: He may be feared and hated by humans but it's all for the Greater Good. GMK Godzilla had nothing beyond the rage and hatred the ghostly hivemind had for Japan's Historical Revisionism.

And yet, Villain!Godzilla has much more personality and character than his heroic counterpart, not to mention a much stronger footing in actual expression.

Hero!Godzilla has nothing much to do with anything; he's just a malleable device rather than a character that actually stands for something. He doesn't have his own agency, so he just ends up reflecting the perspective of the protagonist.

For those reasons, Villain!Godzilla is always going to be the more powerful character in terms of cinematic experience. He represents the grief of a nation in turmoil and shock after losing a disastrous war and getting hit with the most powerful weapon mankind has ever produced in the process. Twice.

I hate to see Godzilla reduced by anything, because I feel as if it trivialises the suffering and social chaos of that time. And as much as Godzilla is a reminder of the evils of the entire situation itself, he has potential to be a much more jarring villain to those from what were the Allies of the 40s; they, after all, dropped or condoned the dropping of the bombs.

Making Godzilla the good guy falls under the same category as making the Xenomorph cannon fodder for the good guys — it's a bad narrative and cinematic choice, not only because it removes power from your antagonist and therefore reduce tension, but because it destroys the more implicit power the monster holds over the audience. There's a reason that some monsters are remembered and some, even basically good ones, fall underneath the general public's radar.

It isn't good enough for a monster to look cool and kick ass. If it doesn't stand for something, then it's got no hold over the audience, and then the audience has no reason to care.

I really like Godzilla, so I think it's important that he stands for something. And I think being a somber reminder of things gone horribly wrong, things done without due consideration and the chaos and pain that resulted from that is perfectly apt. We are, after all, speaking about the king of the monsters.

edited 4th Nov '10 11:40:01 AM by MadassAlex

Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — Watch

But Hero Godzilla never had "Save the Humans" as a primary goal, but save his turf and his planet. And when a Godzilla is rampaging, it's always because "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of man" be it to make a point about what the bomb did to nature, hunger for delicious energy sources or desecrating the corpse of a previous incarnation by turning it into a robot.

GMK Goji isn't nature's wrath, it's the wrath of the supernatural that doesn't just want to destroy the Japanese people, but probably bring down the islands themselves while he's at it (which of course is why the Guardian Monsters activated in the first place)

Why do you think the military is always futile against him? You can't kill the past, nor a force of nature.

Proud member of the IAA What's the point of being grown up if you can't act childish?

To be fair, Showa Gamera was laughably stupid...The Gamera Trilogy of the Heisei era on the other hand is some of the best kaiju (probably some of the best cinema in general) you could ever see.

That's because of his being a metaphor to the bombing of Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Nothing can stop him, he's a living explosion. Although the bomb metaphor was dropped, the indestructability was kept.

And some films have had other messages:

Smog Monster was about pollution.

Revenge (probably the worst of the franchise, but) was about standing up for yourself (with STOCK FOOTAGE!!!1!).

Megalon had something to do with saving the planet, but that was so confusing between Jet Jaguwa, the cockaroach with chrysler building for arms, and the KKK living in the earth's core...anyway...

I don't know if he really needs to have meaning in every movie. Sometimes his purpose is, and probably should only be limited to, being the protagonist. Maybe his meaning as a hero is to show the audience, and probably for the most part children(?), the value/impotance of courage and not giving up "when the chips are down."

Just look at a film like Terror of Mechagodzilla (or any of the first 3 MG films), there was no way Godzilla could win those fights, he didn't give up and call it a day. He showed courage and perseverance and took him down.

edited 4th Nov '10 5:23:37 PM by NULLcHiLD27

He'll be computer animated? Good, he won't look like crap that way.

"Religion isn't the cause of wars, it's the excuse." —Mycroft Next

Fixed it.

edited 4th Nov '10 6:26:30 PM by NULLcHiLD27

Seriously, a balance of practical effects and CG is something that's become way too forgotten in Hollywood these days.

^^^ HA HA HA—No.

I like the original and Heisei best.

edited 4th Nov '10 7:19:30 PM by Colonial1.1

Proud member of the IAA What's the point of being grown up if you can't act childish?

CG only works best when it's used as an enhancer (that's not a word) of practical effects. A CG Godzilla will most likely crash and burn, simply for the fact that it's CG and it doesn't need to be. Anybody that's seen ANY kaiju film from the 90s knows that.

Also, if you want to see a good example of what Figment Jedi is talking about, check out Gamera The Brave. Brought together CG and practical effects amazingly, they're blended together so well, you may not even notice.

edited 4th Nov '10 7:21:09 PM by NULLcHiLD27

I liked 1998 Zilla, but then again, I was young and impressible.

I want to see moar brawling this time.

Half-Life: Dual Nature, a crossover story of reasonably sized proportions.

That movie is good, but it's not much of a Godzilla movie in my opinion. I think Cinemassacre was the one that said it was more like a remake of The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms, I kind of agree.

edited 5th Nov '10 11:42:43 AM by NULLcHiLD27

Sorry, I forgot CG can't compete with REAL special effects...

Dayumn, that looks so much better than something that looks good!

edited 5th Nov '10 9:59:05 AM by EddieValiant,Jr.

"Religion isn't the cause of wars, it's the excuse." —Mycroft Next

Actually we're thinking about movies that weren't made specifically for ze kiddie vinkies

And all that video shows is how absurd the films became (for about 4 films out of 29), not how bad the suit looks, so it's irrelevant. That and I already posted that video.

Just more practical effects

For the hell of it.

And for the two or three people that aren't paying attention, I redirect you to posts #39 and #41.

edited 5th Nov '10 11:29:38 AM by NULLcHiLD27

First, I really, really don't think CGI is bad. There are a lot of good things that was made in CGI (gollum and King Kong are examples, but also the T1000, the Transformers, and countless others) and the "Godzilla should only be a guy in a suit because that,s what he was originally" argument is a They Changed It, Now It Sucks!.

That said, the key here is moderation. the Star Wars prequel is a good example of too much CGI - most of it 9especially the big clone army battles) don't feel real. Why? because NO CLONE SOLDIER is real. That's too much.

Like I said before, I would prefer, for Godzilla, a combination of CGI and animatronics, like the Iron Man armor or the Jurassic Park dinos. But not a guy in rubber suit. We can do much better than that. And, AFAIK, GINO was never really criticized for being unrealistic. Stupid and not looking like Godzilla, yes. But not feeling real, that I never heard.

I think Star Wars is a perfect example of us not doing better than that. Again, try reading posts 39 and 41. Does it need to be all suitmation? No. But to say that too much CG being a bad thing is to make the entire point against using it for this film, a film in which CG will most likely be used in a great amount.

Again, wish I could find a video of it, look towards Gamera The Brave as a reference for good meshing of the two styles. In fact just look at any Kaiju film made in the 90s. They're proof that it still works extremely well, enhancing that in areas with GC, using only CG in others parts, animatronics were in extensive use for the Heisei Gamera films anyway, those three thingswould work well together, but I don't expect to see that. And we are arguing about one of the points which is the least of my concerns.

My greatest concern is whether Hollywood learned from previous mistakes. Is it really going to be a Godzilla movie or is it going to be "monster that looks like Godzilla destroys New York and is killed by jets...again"?

By the way, I don't want you to think I'm trying to be antagonistic towards you, I'm not...but if I were you, I'd have used this video ages ago

But you have to admit, this isn't very good as he's got a very...I don't know, "jerky" movement and his skin looks like a cloth rather than skin...and his mouth is wierd.

edited 5th Nov '10 12:02:28 PM by NULLcHiLD27

Bu that's EXACT Ly what I'm proposing they use - part CGI, part Animatronics. As for guy in suits, maybe for a close shot or something, but we can to better than a 6 foot guy playing with toy cars.

And if you mean to say that we don,t do that kind of blend anymore, again you,re wrong. Iron Man is an example, as is most superhero movie. The abomination, if I recall correctly, was part CGI, part Make-up.

Again, I think they should do Godzilla like they did the T-Rex in Jurassic Park. I know of no lizard-like monster that looks better than this one, even almost 20 years later.

If they are silly enough to actually defeat Godzilla, then I'm joining the Torches and Pitchforks.

Proud member of the IAA What's the point of being grown up if you can't act childish?

...The T-1000 was about 75-80% practical stuff. You'd be surprised.