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.

I found the daughter the most tolerable of that awful family - but even she was a willing conspirator in the murder of friends and colleagues at the Mothra facility and the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of residents who happened to live near Rodan. Her age protected her from 'narrative justice'.

She was a pointless character.

She only existed for 3 reason;

-so that the mom's braindead decisions could be called out in some melodramatic way, which should have been obviously wrong even to the braindead so really the kid is just an excuse for a cheap turn around in the final act.
-So that she could do a stupid kid thing and completely ignore all the valid reasons even the braindead mom and villains didn't do the thing she decided to do that should have rightfully resulted in her getting stomped on and dead but she's a kid and kids are immortal unless its a flashback so really it's just more cheap melodrama.
-to tear up at the end of the movie like a good little cliche cherry atop a mountain of bland cliche icecream.

The actress playing the character wasn't bad imo, but the character was god awful. They all were except for the dad and some of the side characters, but the cheap family drama saturated everything so it all came out bad.

$385mm global final box office take (still on streaming note). Is that good?

https://comicbook.com/anime/2019/09/04/godzilla-king-of-the-monsters-ends-theatrical-run-box-office-385-million/

 LordofHats wrote:
She was a pointless character.

She only existed for 3 reason;

-so that the mom's braindead decisions could be called out in some melodramatic way, which should have been obviously wrong even to the braindead so really the kid is just an excuse for a cheap turn around in the final act.
-So that she could do a stupid kid thing and completely ignore all the valid reasons even the braindead mom and villains didn't do the thing she decided to do that should have rightfully resulted in her getting stomped on and dead but she's a kid and kids are immortal unless its a flashback so really it's just more cheap melodrama.
-to tear up at the end of the movie like a good little cliche cherry atop a mountain of bland cliche icecream.

The actress playing the character wasn't bad imo, but the character was god awful. They all were except for the dad and some of the side characters, but the cheap family drama saturated everything so it all came out bad.

Well, one could say that if she had three reasons to exist, she wasn't a pointless character. I thought the dad was the worst - he had only one reason: To keep repeating 'kill the monsters' over and over. To call him one dimensional is being generous. The kindest we can be about the parents is that they were the world's pro- and anti- monster views rendered down to a single family, with the daughter supposedly caught in the middle. But the daughter was a terrorist moments after we first met her and the parents had no depth, no shade to their one-dimensional views.

We can quibble about who was worst, but we can agree they were all terrible.

And did we we really have to drop Doctors Serizawa and Graham for the utter, utter, utter morons that replaced them?

I really liked Dr Get Out and Dr Punchable Face. The Mothra Fairy woman was okay, too, playing off certain characters. Some of the military characters also knew what kind of movie they were in. I'd be happy to see them all come back.

Coming back to the lack of hot chicks, I think the woman playing the Monarch colonel was unspeakably hot, and if she was the protagonist in the next Godzilla movie, I would probably complain about too much Godzilla screen time.

So for me the behaviour of the characters is a symptom of the larger tonal shift between King of the Monsters and Godzilla 2014 - the previous movie is a Godzilla movie happening in the real world, while the sequel takes place in the world of a Godzilla movie, the characters reflect that.

In 2014 Bryan Cranston wants to prove his nuclear plant was destroyed by something other than an earthquake because he thinks it could happen again - the film shows us how others see this as an obsession and a lot of care is shown to illustrate how far gone he's become - you almost wouldn't believe him if you weren't watching a movie called Godzilla.

In KotM, Thomas Middleditch rolls his eyes at the US Congress because he's in command of an aircraft carrier aircraft he invented that's the size of Rodan, multiple bases around the world, and probably a tank that shoots lightning. The film shows us that he is not crazy, that the world he lives in has giant monsters, infinite money to recover from said monster attacks, terrorist organizations that also have infinite money, and so on.

The central family argument then isn't an argument between people, but an argument between archetypes, the movie's themes as portrayed by actors. Dad argues that humanity must change the world to survive, mom argues that humanity can't sustain and must change itself (and allies with Charles Dance who argues that humanity must be allowed to die and not take the world with it), and the daughter is persuaded by both arguments but discovers her own agency because she can't bear to reconcile those abstract positions with the reality of the deaths they actually cause.

All of that ultimately means they don't act at all like actual people.

Which again, I'm fine with because KotM is embodying the those Godzilla movies, and not just referencing them. But it is a massive departure from what 2014 was doing.

MarkNorfolk wrote:
I thought the dad was the worst - he had only one reason: To keep repeating 'kill the monsters' over and over.

He was also there to have someone discover the mystery sound in the McGuffin Box was.... human! dun dun DUN

 Captain Joystick wrote:
So for me the behaviour of the characters is a symptom of the larger tonal shift between King of the Monsters and Godzilla 2014 - the previous movie is a Godzilla movie happening in the real world, while the sequel takes place in the world of a Godzilla movie, the characters reflect that.

In 2014 Bryan Cranston wants to prove his nuclear plant was destroyed by something other than an earthquake because he thinks it could happen again - the film shows us how others see this as an obsession and a lot of care is shown to illustrate how far gone he's become - you almost wouldn't believe him if you weren't watching a movie called Godzilla.

In KotM, Thomas Middleditch rolls his eyes at the US Congress because he's in command of an aircraft carrier aircraft he invented that's the size of Rodan, multiple bases around the world, and probably a tank that shoots lightning. The film shows us that he is not crazy, that the world he lives in has giant monsters, infinite money to recover from said monster attacks, terrorist organizations that also have infinite money, and so on.

The central family argument then isn't an argument between people, but an argument between archetypes, the movie's themes as portrayed by actors. Dad argues that humanity must change the world to survive, mom argues that humanity can't sustain and must change itself (and allies with Charles Dance who argues that humanity must be allowed to die and not take the world with it), and the daughter is persuaded by both arguments but discovers her own agency because she can't bear to reconcile those abstract positions with the reality of the deaths they actually cause.

All of that ultimately means they don't act at all like actual people.

Which again, I'm fine with because KotM is embodying the those Godzilla movies, and not just referencing them. But it is a massive departure from what 2014 was doing.

A change in directors will do that. Gareth Edwards' Godzilla (2014) has more in common with his film Monsters (2010) than Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) for how it approaches the notion of giant monsters, let alone pacing and plotting. Pacific Rim 2 suffered worse for lack of Guillermo Del Toro though.

Yes, PR2 was throw your popcorn at the TV level awful.
Per IMBD GKoTM is also the director for Godzilla vs. Kong. I am officially out if thats the case.

They seriously needed the Skull Island director for this.

The part of the family drama I hated was the trailers showed us mom was a bad guy, but the movie tries to play it off as an unknown surprise. Stupid trailers giving away the twists.

 Captain Joystick wrote:
So for me the behaviour of the characters is a symptom of the larger tonal shift between King of the Monsters and Godzilla 2014 - the previous movie is a Godzilla movie happening in the real world, while the sequel takes place in the world of a Godzilla movie, the characters reflect that.

In 2014 Bryan Cranston wants to prove his nuclear plant was destroyed by something other than an earthquake because he thinks it could happen again - the film shows us how others see this as an obsession and a lot of care is shown to illustrate how far gone he's become - you almost wouldn't believe him if you weren't watching a movie called Godzilla.

In KotM, Thomas Middleditch rolls his eyes at the US Congress because he's in command of an aircraft carrier aircraft he invented that's the size of Rodan, multiple bases around the world, and probably a tank that shoots lightning. The film shows us that he is not crazy, that the world he lives in has giant monsters, infinite money to recover from said monster attacks, terrorist organizations that also have infinite money, and so on.

The central family argument then isn't an argument between people, but an argument between archetypes, the movie's themes as portrayed by actors. Dad argues that humanity must change the world to survive, mom argues that humanity can't sustain and must change itself (and allies with Charles Dance who argues that humanity must be allowed to die and not take the world with it), and the daughter is persuaded by both arguments but discovers her own agency because she can't bear to reconcile those abstract positions with the reality of the deaths they actually cause.

All of that ultimately means they don't act at all like actual people.

Which again, I'm fine with because KotM is embodying the those Godzilla movies, and not just referencing them. But it is a massive departure from what 2014 was doing.

Good post.

MarkNorfolk wrote:
Well, one could say that if she had three reasons to exist, she wasn't a pointless character.

A fair point, but I'd propose the movie needed precisely none of those plot points and a character who exists for the sole reason of advancing pointless and unnecessary plot points is pretty much pointless themselves

We can quibble about who was worst, but we can agree they were all terrible.

True.

And did we we really have to drop Doctors Serizawa and Graham for the utter, utter, utter morons that replaced them?

I felt like Grahm's death added some nice weight to the severity of events, but Serizawa's was cheap with Tywin Lannister being little more than a backup bad to the braindead mom. I think the film really should have focused more on Serizawa and Tywin. They're actually interesting, and their differing views had something approaching depth to them relative to mommy and daddy's inability to cope like adults.

 AduroT wrote:
The part of the family drama I hated was the trailers showed us mom was a bad guy, but the movie tries to play it off as an unknown surprise. Stupid trailers giving away the twists.

Well, it wasn't really the twist. The twist was that the daughter was a bad guy too. The scene at the Monster Zero facility where the daughter backs away from her father and therefore give her explicit support and approval to the actions of her mother and the terrorists was a surprise (well, to me anyway).

Also, the people who put together the trailers are very rarely the people who put together the movie. They are given limited footage and next to no information to work with. Disney/Marvel seem to be the exception.

I didn't get that the daughter was in on plan initially. After the initial hit at the Mothra facility mom convinced her that what she was really doing was awesome and saving the world but as more things happened and the daughter got a better picture as to what going on she realized mom wasn't helping and turned on them.

The mom, who cost the world millions of lives, seemed to have been forgiven to easily at the end for causing all the death and destruction.

 Ahtman wrote:
I didn't get that the daughter was in on plan initially. After the initial hit at the Mothra facility mom convinced her that what she was really doing was awesome and saving the world but as more things happened and the daughter got a better picture as to what going on she realized mom wasn't helping and turned on them.

She knew Jonah's terrorist group was coming and she went along.
She saw her mum's colleagues and, one images, some friends murdered, and she went along.
She knew the Monster Zero staff were being gunned down. And she went along.
Her dad tried to rescue her and she backed away and said 'no'.
She was complicit in the release of Rodan.

 Ahtman wrote:
The mom, who cost the world millions of lives, seemed to have been forgiven to easily at the end for causing all the death and destruction.

Ah, the 'act of self-sacrifice that redeems god-knows-what atrocities at the end of a movie'. I think that, rather than society as a whole, that's more to redeem herself in the eyes of her daughter (and by extension the audience). She wouldn't be so fondly remebered if the facts of the events of the movie made in to the wider world.

MarkNorfolk wrote:
She knew Jonah's terrorist group was coming and she went along.

We don't know that and at no point is it said or even shown. The only thing known is that her mom took her there. She might have known but it is just as likely she didn't know as not enough information is given and it is just guesses at this point.

MarkNorfolk wrote:
She saw her mum's colleagues and, one images, some friends murdered, and she went along.

At that point she also was a hostage as far as she knew. What was she supposed to do rush the professional mercenaries that just gunned down people?

MarkNorfolk wrote:
She knew the Monster Zero staff were being gunned down. And she went along.

Her dad tried to rescue her and she backed away and said 'no'.

We know at least at that point the mom had been working her with the 'save the world' bit but it also shown she is starting to think something is wrong and questioning her moms reasoning. Nothing that happened at the Antarctic tells us that she knew her mom had joined in with Brother Nupsa back at the Mothra Camp.

MarkNorfolk wrote:
She was complicit in the release of Rodan.

By just being present? Seems a bit of a stretch.

It is possible but there really isn't enough information to make an absolute judgement as to how much she knew before being taken to the Antarctic.

I seem to remember the girl asking her mom if they could tell her dad, to which her mom said no (right at the start of the movie). It seemed heavily implied from the start that the daughter knew about what was going to happen before it happened.

 LordofHats wrote:
I seem to remember the girl asking her mom if they could tell her dad, to which her mom said no (right at the start of the movie). It seemed heavily implied from the start that the daughter knew about what was going to happen before it happened.

I don't recall that but it certainly would give an indication that she knew at that point.

 Ahtman wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I seem to remember the girl asking her mom if they could tell her dad, to which her mom said no (right at the start of the movie). It seemed heavily implied from the start that the daughter knew about what was going to happen before it happened.

I don't recall that but it certainly would give an indication that she knew at that point.

It could just as easily have been "We should tell dad we used the machine and research you two created together to control the monsters." rather than "we should tell dad you turned to the dark side."

Huh. Actually, that might more sense, cause I'm pretty sure the machine was there in the room while they were talking.

Mom has just brought it in and boasted to her about finishing it at breakfast. I take it that the suggestion is that they probably shouldn't tell her father that mom remade the machine they destroyed the prototype of, with the intention of using it to control giant monsters, when those are the things that dad hates the most.

Didn't she also reply to the message her dad sent saying she was concerned about mom?

 Ahtman wrote:
Didn't she also reply to the message her dad sent saying she was concerned about mom?

She types out something to that effect, but doesn't actually send it.