Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Darth Bob wrote:


I loved Pacific Rim, but it felt more like a Neon Genesis Evangelion film than a Kaiju movie.

This seems a very odd comparison. Could you expand a bit? Beyond maybe some hints in the visual design it seems like the fist-pumping, ra-ra humanity, affirmation of the power of determination and cooperation that was pacific rim could hardly be more removed from NGE.

 LordofHats wrote:
I fail to see why being made to appeal to a general audience is a bad thing.

I didn't argue that it was. I was arguing against the idea that this movie is more for diehard fans than the general audience.

Speaking of Pacific Rim, I'm with Del Toro. I'd watch a crossover flick where Gypsie Danger gets into a fist fight with the G-man Even just a short film for a TV special


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I fail to see why being made to appeal to a general audience is a bad thing.

I didn't argue that it was. I was arguing against the idea that this movie is more for diehard fans than the general audience.

Ahh, gotcha.

I prefer the tone of Edwards's movie to Del Toro's for the character of Godzilla. As I mentioned, I think Edwards's movie is probably the best kaiju film Hollywood is capable of making given the current market.

Just saw it.

It was awesome.

FemMUTO is definitely going to need some sore-throat medicine

 Manchu wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I fail to see why being made to appeal to a general audience is a bad thing.

I didn't argue that it was. I was arguing against the idea that this movie is more for diehard fans than the general audience.

I think the overblown and heavy-handed exposition certainly shows they were making concessions to the general audience, and it wasn't an audience they had much respect for. You just don't put in a bunch of long-winded descriptions of what you're very clearly showing in unsubtle ways unless you feel like you've got an obligation to water things down.

 Manchu wrote:
I prefer the tone of Edwards's movie to Del Toro's for the character of Godzilla.

I agree. Pacific Rim is a movie where the main character declares in the opening he feels like he can fight a hurricane and a win, by the end of the movie he does. That isn't remotely close to the right movie for Godzilla.

 Chongara wrote:

 Darth Bob wrote:


I loved Pacific Rim, but it felt more like a Neon Genesis Evangelion film than a Kaiju movie.

This seems a very odd comparison. Could you expand a bit? Beyond maybe some hints in the visual design it seems like the fist-pumping, ra-ra humanity, affirmation of the power of determination and cooperation that was pacific rim could hardly be more removed from NGE.

I was more or less referring to the bright visuals and very anime-style combat of the film than the story and themes. The NGE comparison was more or less because it was the first "giant robot anime" that popped into my head.

Got taken by a lass to go see this on Thursday, I enjoyed it.

Feel that there could've been MOAR monsters being the living snot out of each other.

Though I get why there was the Human side to the film.

@Chongara: You mentioned that earlier, about the monsters feeding on radiation. I thought Dr. Graham's line to that effect was helpful because she was explaining the origins of the creatures as central to their ecology. I thought that was a bit more "authentic" to the kaiju genre than Captain Call Of Duty's tragic tale of terrible travels.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Darth Bob wrote:
the bright visuals and very anime-style combat of the film

Yes good point, for example when gypsy danger suddenly has swords.

 Manchu wrote:
@nkelshc:

Here are some of my thought on Pacific Rim:

Spoiler:

 Manchu wrote:
That movie could not settle on whether it was serious and realistic or knowingly farcical. The resulting compromise is that it felt unwittingly absurd.

 Manchu wrote:
I also think the Pacific Rim monsters (and robots) were pretty bland.

That movie was for people who really, really like giant robots fighting kaiju. I mean, for people who like that sort of thing so much they are willing and able to overlook a lot of characteristics less acceptable to the general audience.

Pacific Rim was certainly kaiju flavored (think marmite). Godzilla, far less so -- it's meant to appeal to a broader palette.

I like Giant robots fighting kaiju and Pacific rim was a terrible movie which was not actually for fans of the genre. I almost walked out when the 'sword' button happened. The tech, monsters, premise was fine, the movie was *BAD*. You want to talk about watering down a movie for mass market appeal? that was Pacific Rim. It simply fell flat at it. It was garbage on every level.

And the thing is, there was a lot of on-screen monsters and fighting. But it was correctly limited to not be pointlessly gratuitous and repetitive. It wasn't exactly going to be an MMA fight of two skilled combatants who were sparring in an interesting fight. it really was monsters flailing around. To dwell on it, would have ruined the movie and added nothing. The critical showdown was shown as well as the actually interesting and meaningful altercations.

If anything Godzilla was better fight scenes, better depictions of actual monsters interacting with the story and situation and was way more emotionally driven and invested. Even the MUTOs had character and purpose. This is a way better film for Kaiju fans than Pacific Rim ever was and in no way felt diluted.

Again, if you can't imagine how kaiju can be interesting except by limiting their screen time then it seems you are simply not that interested in kaiju.

Pacific Rim wasn't great. To call it diluted garbage, however, is inexcusable hyperbole.

 Manchu wrote:
Again, if you can't imagine how kaiju can be interesting except by limiting their screen time then it seems you are simply not that interested in kaiju.

Pacific Rim wasn't great. To call it diluted garbage, however, is inexcusable hyperbole.

No, there was nothing redeeming about that movie. They actually ruined what could have been great giant robot action by making them simply pointlessly irrelevant. There is a reason why we didn't punch our prey to death when we became the apex predator and a reason robots don't punch monsters to death. The fight scenes were actually pretty terrible which was accentuated with the 'touching the swinging ball desk toy'. Taking robots out of the fight before it even started was also a giant waste.

It was totally diluted for mass market appeal and it failed in being a great fan film and having mass appeal. It was a terrible story with bad premise, bad acting and terrible characters. They could have made a reasonable story and depicted it all better and had a real film, but they chose to make popcorn munching crap and make it a jokey parody of the genre opposed to a legitimate attempt at it.

nkelsch wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
@nkelshc:

Here are some of my thought on Pacific Rim:

Spoiler:

 Manchu wrote:
That movie could not settle on whether it was serious and realistic or knowingly farcical. The resulting compromise is that it felt unwittingly absurd.

 Manchu wrote:
I also think the Pacific Rim monsters (and robots) were pretty bland.

That movie was for people who really, really like giant robots fighting kaiju. I mean, for people who like that sort of thing so much they are willing and able to overlook a lot of characteristics less acceptable to the general audience.

Pacific Rim was certainly kaiju flavored (think marmite). Godzilla, far less so -- it's meant to appeal to a broader palette.

I like Giant robots fighting kaiju and Pacific rim was a terrible movie which was not actually for fans of the genre. I almost walked out when the 'sword' button happened. The tech, monsters, premise was fine, the movie was *BAD*. You want to talk about watering down a movie for mass market appeal? that was Pacific Rim. It simply fell flat at it. It was garbage on every level.

And the thing is, there was a lot of on-screen monsters and fighting. But it was correctly limited to not be pointlessly gratuitous and repetitive. It wasn't exactly going to be an MMA fight of two skilled combatants who were sparring in an interesting fight. it really was monsters flailing around. To dwell on it, would have ruined the movie and added nothing. The critical showdown was shown as well as the actually interesting and meaningful altercations.

If anything Godzilla was better fight scenes, better depictions of actual monsters interacting with the story and situation and was way more emotionally driven and invested. Even the MUTOs had character and purpose. This is a way better film for Kaiju fans than Pacific Rim ever was and in no way felt diluted.

You are entitled to your oppinion even if it is wrong.

 Manchu wrote:
Again, if you can't imagine how kaiju can be interesting except by limiting their screen time then it seems you are simply not that interested in kaiju.

Or, you know, some people appreciate that sometimes less is more.

 Manchu wrote:
@Chongara: You mentioned that earlier, about the monsters feeding on radiation. I thought Dr. Graham's line to that effect was helpful because she was explaining the origins of the creatures as central to their ecology. I thought that was a bit more "authentic" to the kaiju genre than Captain Call Of Duty's tragic tale of terrible travels.

Certainly possible. My exposure to classic Kaiju films is limited, having only seen maybe 2 of the old Godzilla movies. However, I feel like for this movie we don't really need to be told their origins, there are fossilized remains of them deep underground. They take 15 years to hatch.They can send their mating call across thousands of miles of ocean and air. Godzilla swims for miles and miles giving 0-feths for the aircraft carriers around him, the greatest floating city-fortresses humanity has ever created. You don't need to tell me these are powerful primordial beasts, all that stuff showed me that about them. I don't need the doctor telling that they're powerful god-like entities we can't affect, the movie spends its entire running time driving that home with the events.

While I agree the main character was pretty dull and could have been done a lot better, I think him being a military man was a good call. In order to drive home that we are that small and powerless we need to follow events from the perspective of the kind of person we'd expect to be an extension of human power in the situation. I'd agree they failed to nail the execution on it, but conceptually he was the correct character to follow.

I appreciated that most of the sightings were from human perspective, either through watching TV or from their vantage point, up until the big rumble. It helped build the sense of vastness and futility when faced with such creatures. I'm also glad, for the most part, that it isn't a 'kaiju' film in the traditional sense; been there, seen that. Up to 20+ times.

 Darth Bob wrote:
Or, you know, some people appreciate that sometimes less is more.

You're talking about a production that judged the already massively overgrown Godzilla as not big enough. In this case, less is simply less.

 Ahtman wrote:
been there, seen that

Cloverfield.

 Manchu wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
been there, seen that

Cloverfield.

Is that a threat? Are you threatening to make me watch that again? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

@Chongara: You know one thing they didn't explain that I wondered about was

I think him being a military man was a good call. In order to drive home that we are that small and powerless we need to follow events from the perspective of the kind of person we'd expect to be an extension of human power in the situation.

In that case, he should have been a scientist or an economist.

 Ahtman wrote:
Is that a threat?

I thought it was the safeword?

 Manchu wrote:

 Darth Bob wrote:
Or, you know, some people appreciate that sometimes less is more.

You're talking about a production that judged the already massively overgrown Godzilla as "not big enough." In this case, less is simply less.

It's not as if Godzilla's size hasn't changed sporadically throughout the years. I hardly doubt that his increase in size (which wasn't that much of an increase from his previous appearances, mind you) was indicative of a "he isn't big enough for general audiences" philosophy, but rather a stylistic choice by the director. Godzilla's limited screen time is very in-line with the original Godzilla film; a film the director specifically said he was using as a model for what this film would be like. In fact, if you watch 2014, the film's pacing is very similar to the 1954 film, though the story line is much different. With that in mind, and having seen the director's previous film, I would say that this film did exactly what Gareth Edwards set out to do.

 Manchu wrote:

Spoiler:

what is up with Godzilla collapsing at the end? I saw the fight and everything but was he injured or just tired (all that swimming)? Is this something to do with his apparent reptilian qualities/metabolism?

I've already explained how the 1954 movie does not set a precedent for the 2014 one in terms of hiding Godzilla. You can keep saying that but you will just keep being wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Darth Bob wrote:

Spoiler:

Alternatively, you could say that it was a way for the director to fake out the audience and think "Awwwww Godzilla's dead?"

I think this is the right answer TBH. As Chongara points out, the script was set on explaining everything else.

 Manchu wrote:
@Chongara: You know one thing they didn't explain that I wondered about was

Spoiler:

what is up with Godzilla collapsing at the end? I saw the fight and everything but was he injured or just tired (all that swimming)? Is this something to do with his apparent reptilian qualities/metabolism?

In that case, he should have been a scientist or an economist.

. That makes a certain kind of sense I suppose, when you think about it. However, my first reaction when it comes to giant monsters probably wouldn't be "Holy crap. We need Janet Yellen" it's "FIRE ZE MISSILES!". I think it's really that initial reaction, not the more sensible one that the movie really needed to respond to.

If anything I'd say this movie is a sort of fusion of a traditional monster movie with Cloverfield. It abandons the shakey cam, which frees up the camera, but mostly keeps its human perspective focus through out the film. I can sort of by that Edward watched the 54 film, but I don't buy that it really fundamentally shaped the film.

In that case, he should have been a scientist or an economist.

@Chongara: Making Ford "Average" Brody a soldier really dodges the question of responsibility if the theme is actually about the futility of war and/or ecological humility. As I mentioned, Fords lack of interest in the kaiju mirrors the film makers' lack of interest and ultimately excuses the audience from the more uncomfortable themes of the genre.The motto of Whitey McProtagonists everywhere.

 LordofHats wrote:

Spoiler:

I can't help but come back to Joe being a much better candidate for the human focus of this film

Is that what being a human is about? Seems boring. Here's some interesting humanity for you:

 Manchu wrote:
I've already explained how the 1954 movie does not set a precedent for the 2014 one in terms of hiding Godzilla. You can keep saying that but you will just keep being wrong.

I actually missed your initial response on this subject because so many replies have been bouncing around. That being said, I don't think that your response takes into account that this movie isn't focused around just Godzilla. The original 1954 film only had Godzilla himself, so there was more room to give him screen time. In this film he shares the screen with two other monsters and an assortment of human characters. I won't make the argument that the human element was incredibly engaging and that it couldn't have been better; it definitely could have been better and I think the biggest thing that killed it was:

However, I think the assertion that more Godzilla would have made this movie better is blatantly wrong and unjustified. I just watched the original film before seeing the new film yesterday. While you could argue which Godzilla had a more powerful screen presence, the fact remains that neither had a lot of screen time proportional to the length of the film. That being said, I think both films do a good job balancing the human element and the Kaiju element. The thing is, and I can understand the frustration with this, in 1954 it was about 2/3 human 1/3 Godzilla. In 2014 it was 2/4 human, 1/4 MUTO. and 1/4 Godzilla. Half of the movie was still dedicated to Kaiju action, though I will concede that perhaps a smaller portion was dedicated to Godzilla himself than the original film (which I think is understandable considering there are two other monsters to make up for it). Still, I don't think that this is an inherent flaw in the film, but rather it is a new vision of the same template the original film created. This is quite the opposite of the template Del Toro seemed to follow when he made Pacific Rim, which seemed more in-line with the 80's and 90's films.

 Manchu wrote:
@Chongara: Making Joe "Average" Brody a soldier really dodges the question of responsibility if the theme is actually about the futility of war and/or ecological humility. As I mentioned, Joe's lack of interest in the kaiju mirrors the film makers' lack of interest and ultimately excuses the audience from the more uncomfortable themes of the genre.[spoiler]

I agree that they really missed some beats in that department. I still think a soldier was the correct choice for here, probably just not this soldier. I certainly wouldn't peg the futility of war as a theme for this movie, if that's integral to the Kaiju genre the statement this wasn't really a Kaiju film is probably a fair one.

@DarthBob

Yes, there is a lot more of human this and that in Godzilla (1954) than there is of Godzilla trashing Japan. And yes, that is also true of Godzilla (2014). But that doesn't tell us anything because the human end of the story in the '54 film has a much stronger connection to the monster end than in the '14 film. In the original, the human stories turn around the theme that Godzilla himself initially stands for -- the inexplicable capacity to destroy at such an astounding scale. The relationship between Serizawa and Godzilla became a transformational ritual for Japanese moviegoers in the 50s, whereby war guilt was transubstantiated into wisdom and maturity of pacifism. By contrast, there is no relationship between Ford and Godzilla, despite Edwards pretending they do with parallel action scenes and eye contact. In the '54 movie, Godzilla haunts the entirety of the action because he is the spirit of what the human characters have and are experiencing. This is not even slightly true of the 2014 film.

Moreover, Edwards hides Godzilla even while Godzilla is on screen. There is no precedent for this in the '54 film.

BTW, totally agree with your spoilered point above.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chongara wrote:
if that's integral to the Kaiju genre

The first thing to understand, I think, is that this movies does not give a gak about the kaiju genre. The only part of that it is willing to have anything to do with, and indeed the part it claims to have a special relationship with, is the '54 film. The main point of that film is the transformation of the Japanese from cruel aggressors to wise pacifists -- from being guilty of heinous atrocity to being a paragon of moral maturity. The philosopher's stone in this case is the atom bomb. The 2014 film is superficially similar but doesn't have or even attempt anything so sweeping. The somber tone is belied by thematic hollowness; it offers us no insight into destruction or responsibility or even humility (eye contact with monster, semi-smiling smug Godzilla at end).

I just don't agree that screen time for the titular character was the issue in this film. I absolutely agree that the human element very much hurt this film and that a more integrated and symbolic plot between the humans and Kaiju would have made a much stronger film and made up for the lack of screen time for Godzilla. I think that, if we want to "fix" this film, it would be by altering the human story, not by increasing the amount of time Godzilla is front and center. I think his screen time is fine but the human story's relation to him is the problem.

TL;DR: The human story is the fundamental problem in this film.




By the way, here's some fun facts that show just how well a good human element can make up for a lack of screen time for the film's main element:

Dinosaur Screen Time in Jurassic Park: Around 15/127 minutes.

Xenomorph screen time in Alien: Around 4/117 minutes.

Xenomorph screen time in Aliens: Around 11/154 minutes.

Hannibal Lecter screen time in The Silence of the Lambs: 18/118 minutes.

Beetlejuice screen time in Beetlejuice: 17/92 minutes.

I'm also pretty sure the screen time for the shark in Jaws is comparably low, though I couldn't find the exact screen time.

I really don't think the Titanic comparison is very apt, Titanic is a sappy love story mixed with a disaster movie. The story isn't about the boat itself as it's not a character but rather a location, the story is about the characters on board and when they all die. I normally enjoy Cameron's films, but Titanic sucked (as did Avatar). It may have been a huge box office hit but I felt like I wanted nothing more than a bullet through my head for almost the entire stretch of the movie. Even when the ship was sinking it was like good lord just get over with it already. It has a very thin coating of action but it's not an action movie, it's a romance survival theme, where Godzilla is action/disaster/survival.

You do not need to constantly have the key plot device present in ever scene to make the movie work. If that were the case you'd have Jaws in every scene in that movie, or in Indianna Jones you'd have the Ark in every scene, or in Star Wars/Return of Jedi you'd have the Death Star in every scene. So I'm going to call BS on your claim that Godzilla needs to be constantly present in order to remain effective.

Yes he's a major character, but at the same time he's a major plot device and a background instrument which is a very different role the protagonist characters in other films.


I do think that some of the human characters could have been handled a bit better, but at the same time it's about standard fare for most other Godzilla films, let alone other kaiju movies. Most characters are very flat and one dimensional, most completely lack any substance beyond whatever their on screen job is, they approach everything with an overly zealous state "I may be an engineer... but I will be the an engineer to the death!" as they have absolutely nothing else defining about them. There's usually no sense of them being human or having any concern other than completing some work related mission they are obsessed about. That's part of why kaiju stuff is always in the b movie field, outside of the monsters themselves the human characters always just suck which is disappointing because they occupy much of the actual film time. But it's Godzilla, so it's not like you are watching it for Oscar winning drama.


.

@DarthBob:

The human side of things has problems, yes, but I don't propose fixing them by putting more Godzilla into this film called Godzilla. I propose that solution to the problem of this film called Godzilla having too little Godzilla in it.

@Paulson:

The Titanic is not just a location, it's the fabric of the world in which the characters exist, i.e., what makes them possible as characters. Godzilla serves much the same function in the 1954 film. Serizawa has an intense character arc about moral culpability that is only resolved in the shadow of Godzilla's symbolic power. Meanwhile in 2014, Ford barely has an arc much less a meaningful connection to Godzilla.

Also I'm going to call BS on you characterizing my argument as Godzilla needing to be constantly present.