I enjoyed this film very much, the things that work about it are the satire, effects, political metaphors, the beautiful cinematography and seeing that Toho logo.
What makes this better than Legendary's Godzilla from 2014 ?
Godzilla 2014 had far too much silly Hollywoodish cliffhanger close-call stuff going on; and also the fact that Brody and his family were somehow always central to the Godzilla action; waaaay too many Hollywood style 'coincidences' that left me rolling my eyes in exasperation.
Shin Godzilla had a wonderful 'realistic' style that was refreshing. It seemed like OUR world, except that an enormous malevolent creature appeared in it, and no one was quite sure what to do about it.
One key thing I found was Godzilla's presence on camera. Whenever Godzilla was on camera in Shin Godzilla, he really stood out and the scenes were all awesome and terrifying. Even though he doesn't emote like the 2014 version, his dead zombie like appearance and the way it's shot gives this sense of dread when he's slowly walking and destroying everything around him like a slowly ticking time bomb that can't be stopped. In the 2014, we see a glimpse of Godzilla and then cut away right when it's about to get interesting in nearly every scene. I remember a lot of shots were just Godzilla's spines sticking out of the ocean while battleships escort him. Shots like those aren't very interesting and if you added more shots like those to give more screen time to him, it doesn't really make the film better. And the eventual "payoff" with a night fight just wasn't very interesting or viewable.
I'll also say I really hated how the 2014 movie focused more time and story on the MUTOs rather than Godzilla himself. And everyone cheering Godzilla at the end was ultra corny.
Yes. Its like godzilla was the star of his scenes in shin godzilla. The Hollywood version kept pretending the story was about the human characters yet the human actors wern't really telling a story.
shareI love them both.
But things I preferred in Shin Godzilla were...
The pacing - There is always forward momentum. Whether it be Godzilla rampaging, or all of the political figures discussing how to stop him, discussing their next move, getting past the next level of bureaucracy, etc
Godzilla's presence - Even when he wasn't on screen, he was constantly being talked about. But his presence ON SCREEN was rather easily spread across the entire film. In the 2014 movie most of his screen-time is relegated to the final act of the film.
Military vs Godzilla - Godzilla never fought/was attacked by the military in the 2014. Part of the fun of Godzilla is seeing him survive a military onslaught
The musical score - Using a ton of classic/memorable themes is a huge part of what made this truly have the iconic Godzilla 'feel' to it.
The character of this Godzilla incarnation works seamlessly, the music accompanying the film has artistic meaning, and the film is far more engaging and involving. That's just my BRIEF thoughts.
shareI don't mind the 2014 film at all, but as others have mentioned, it falls into a lot of Hollywood trappings.
It does a lot of things right, I love the chaos Godzilla causes just be being mobile, they did an excellent job in giving Godzilla a sense of scale, not over-using Godzilla in the film, the sky diving into the Godzilla hot zone was great, and the best atomic breath kill in the franchise.
I think the biggest mis-step in 2014 was killing off Bryan Cranston. The human element in the film completely vanishes with his character. Everything with Elizabeth Olsen, and kick ass fall flat.
I think the most glaring difference in the films is what they're about. While there was care put into the 2014 film, and the Godzilla character was respected, at the end of the day it's just about seeing Godzilla fight while buildings crumble.
Shin Godzilla is a reaction to the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami. As well as the resulting nuclear power plant disaster and Fukushima 50, with a scathing portrayl of old Japanese bureaucrats. A true re-imagining of the character of Godzilla franchise.
While I like both films, Shin comes from more integrity, takes more risks, and I respect it more.
Also, while 2014 has the best atomic breath kill, Shin Godzilla has the coolest atomic breath overall. The first use of it was a really memorable moment in Shin Godzilla, it was so devastating.
[deleted]
The Japanese Godzilla actually (rightfully) treats the concept of nuking the city to destroy the creature as a desperate last resort whereas I don't even think the people behind Legendary Pictures' version even blinked at the fact that they nuked a city in a movie adapting a Japanese character that was created as a coping mechanism for the Hiroshima bombings (especially considering it was America that dropped those bombs, which makes it even more tasteless as a solution).
share"even blinked at the fact that they nuked a city"
Technically they haven't nuked the city in the 2014 movie.
A nuke was detonated and nobody acted like it was a big deal afterwards, it didn't have the heaviness Shin Godzilla carried when it came to just talking about nukes as an option.
share"A nuke was detonated and nobody acted like it was a big deal afterwards, it didn't have the heaviness Shin Godzilla carried when it came to just talking about nukes as an option."
I don't think it was the case that "nobody acted like it was a big deal" as it was just people who were weary and were recovering from the shock/impact of the kaiju encounter (maybe not as emotionally heavy like the original, but it's there). It's not like after the kaiju battle was finished everyone was sitting at the park with a picnic basket in hand with smiles on their faces. On the contrary, the movie made it explicit that the damage left behind is incredible in scope and scale, with "thousands missing" and God knew how many dead. And that's not even discussing the repercussions of the nuke that detonated within the harbor. I mean, since it went off, would it mean that Godzilla would still be hanging around the area and the city itself to feed off of the residual nuclear energy? Would it end up summoning more "MUTOs"?
A nuke in a Godzilla film, a nuke in a film whose source material was created as a coping mechanism for the Hiroshima bombings: I'm not even talking about the ending itself, I'm talking about the fact that the immediate solution was to use a nuke in a Godzilla film (especially one that explicitly states that the faux-kaiju feed off of nuclear material to begin with) and there wasn't any sort of emotional heaviness in the decision. That is beyond culturally-insensitive given the history of the character, the lax behavior towards the fact that they were bringing nuclear weapons into the film is unsettling.
share"A nuke in a Godzilla film, a nuke in a film whose source material was created as a coping mechanism for the Hiroshima bombings: I'm not even talking about the ending itself, I'm talking about the fact that the immediate solution was to use a nuke in a Godzilla film (especially one that explicitly states that the faux-kaiju feed off of nuclear material to begin with) and there wasn't any sort of emotional heaviness in the decision. That is beyond culturally-insensitive given the history of the character, the lax behavior towards the fact that they were bringing nuclear weapons into the film is unsettling."
Given that nukes are the most dangerous weapons on the entire planet and the fact that government(s) have been trying to kill Godzilla for sixty years in the film without even putting a dent in him, it's not that much of a stretch to think they might resort to a bigger, more powerful variant of said-weapon in hopes of killing him. It wasn't really done with a lax attitude, either. Maybe not as heavily and emotionally as one would have hoped, but the gravity of it was there.
"Admiral William Stenz: [on mobilizing warheads] I know you don't agree with this. But my first priority is to safeguard our citizens.
[Serizawa shows Admiral Stenz a watch]
Admiral William Stenz: It's stopped.
Dr. Ichiro Serizawa: Yes. Eight-fifteen in the morning, August 6 1945.
Admiral William Stenz: Hiroshima.
Dr. Ichiro Serizawa: It was my father's."
One scene with a line referencing Hiroshima ≠the film appropriately handling the emotional heaviness of using a nuke in a Godzilla movie, you're still not getting it. And once again, if you establish that the creatures feed on nuclear energy then how is using a nuke a smart solution? Godzilla's had run-ins with nukes in the past, it was the entire basis for why the Heisei-era Godzilla was bigger and meaner than ever. That's like saying "The forest is on fire: throw some molotov cocktails into the fire!"
share"One scene with a line referencing Hiroshima ≠the film appropriately handling the emotional heaviness of using a nuke in a Godzilla movie, you're still not getting it."
No, I get it - it wasn't as emotionally heavy or handled in the same way as the original film when it came to the subject of radioactivity and its harmfulness. That said, the filmmakers weren't trying to make the original 54 film. There could perhaps be another cut of the movie behind locked bars that is a different movie entirely from the one we got, but since we're only looking at the current cut, we can only comment on what we've been given.
"And once again, if you establish that the creatures feed on nuclear energy then how is using a nuke a smart solution? Godzilla's had run-ins with nukes in the past, it was the entire basis for why the Heisei-era Godzilla was bigger and meaner than ever."
But this isn't connected with Heisei continuity. Possibly the 54 movie, but not the subsequent Showa or Heisei movies. This is a new universe altogether, presumably with its own rules. I don't know for certain. According to what was said in-film, though, the nukes used in the fifties were not as powerful as what they have today (scary thought), and neither Monarch nor the military had anything to suggest that Godzilla and co. were durable enough to even withstand the power of said-weaponry, be it the actual blast or its level of radioactivity. In fact, the military were going off of nothing but desperation and hope (and a bit of self-assurance/cockiness). And since said-creatures feed on radiation, it makes sense to use bait.
Whats worse is that they baited godzilla and the mutos into San Fransisco rather then leading them out intp the ocean or the boonies. Nope they intentionally went to San Fran vs Shin Gdozilla where he was already in Tokyo and the stike was gonna taker place there since thats where he was already.
shareMate, you've got no idea what you're talking about. Also, would you mind not doing that cancerous thing you're doing by...
"...just putting the reply in quotes..."
...instead of quoting properly like this...
"Mate, you've got no idea what you're talking about."
Did you even read what I wrote? No? Go back and read again. There wasn't anything I said that was wrong.
It's clear you didn't either. You're still doing your trademark cancer. What a joke.
And yes, I did. What you wrote was an excuse to give G'2014 some merit. Except it doesn't work.
"It's clear you didn't either. You're still doing your trademark cancer. What a joke."
What are you, the IMDB Proper Quotations Police? Get off your high horse. Considering the various users on this site and the various offenses they committed when it came to the general butchery of the English language, my not using your method of quotation is far from being the worst thing to have happened.
"What you wrote was an excuse to give G'2014 some merit. Except it doesn't work."
Not an excuse, just pointing out facts.
...It's clear you didn't either. You're still doing your trademark cancer. What a joke...
I was wondering what a good way to quote was on these boards. I noticed the [ qutote] [ / quote] tags don't work here and when I try to qutote some one it looks like I am making that statement.
Are there any tags that work here?
...."especially considering it was America that dropped those bombs, which makes it even more tasteless as a solution"....oh really? I guess you know nothing of the history of the events. America had no choice but to drop those bombs. Japan would have never surrendered, even if we had landed an invasion force.It would cost 1.7 - 4 million American casualties, including 400,000-800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese deaths. That's why it was an imperative to end the war immediately. Of course it was horrific. But we owe no one an apology.
As for the movie? I was disappointed. I felt I was seeing way too many board rooms, uniform changes, and not enough real scientific speculation on the creature.
And the creature? Well, the retarded fish-thing was just comical. I seriously only enjoyed the part where it trashed the B2 bombers and almost all of Tokyo. So, yeah...I go with 2014 all the way. And the tail was stupid.
The people of Japan didn't bomb Pearl Harbor, it was their military that carried out the strike: it doesn't matter who's right or who's wrong, the atomic bombings were catastrophic and the first Godzilla film was literally made as a coping mechanism. We don't owe them an apology, but if you're an American film company making an adaption of a Japanese character whose very existence was the result of said Americans bombing the Hell out of them it is tasteless to throw around the idea of using nuclear weapons as a solution lightly.
shareWell I guess it was the american military that nuked Japan as well and and not the people of America.
shareWhat an autistic and embarrassing post.
shareI think that the story was much better, it had characters that I cared about. I also like that Godzilla's screen time was much more spread out instead of mainly being at the end.
Come on Johnny, we're countin' on you to fly us to the promised land!
I think there was more of a pay-off as well. I mean, the cut at the airport in the 2014 movie was an interesting decision, even a bold one, but one would have thought that there would have been more, like we'd get to see something truly remarkable that hadn't been revealed by the trailers. As it is, the 2014 movie was okay (unless a different cut exists), but "Shin Godzilla" was a better movie.
shareboth are good, both have some issues
share