Stop motion and live action are completely different artforms and both King Kong and Godzilla perfected each aspect. It doesn't make sense to say one has better effects over the other because, frankly, the amount of detail in sets and effects in Godzilla is just as incredible to me as the thought and patience behind the stop motion in King Kong. Love stop motion animation, but to say the effects in Godzilla are a downgrade is wrong. Godzilla was a great influence and was regognized as a great achievement in the effects, especially under the great cinematography. King Kong is a classic and one of the best, but Godzilla is so much more different and unique with it's risky storyline (for its time) and the creative effects.
Oh, and about the cheesyness factor for both films, come on, King Kong takes the cake a little. The whole animatronic part with him raising his eyebrows. COME ON. But I liked the way Godzilla looked and was presented in the original. Always had a great deal of shadow on him, still looking mysterious even when we're looking straight at him, and there's a weirdness to him in the shots that have him from the chest up. It's an obvious different costume, but he looks bloody scary because he looks so awkward, the look of something that should not be, which is a bloody theme of the movie. An unreal ugliness manifested into something real and terrifying. Get what I'm saying? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Point being, I love the amount of work put into both movies. Why all the hate for the animation teams in the movies?
...... Now as for story, *beep*, Godzilla is much better. Nuclear bomb metaphor compared to what? What deeper meaning does King Kong have? Foreigners who live on islands are scary? Giant apes like white women too?
reply
share
Big G-2
12 years ago
...... Now as for story, *beep*, Godzilla is much better. Nuclear bomb metaphor compared to what? What deeper meaning does King Kong have? Foreigners who live on islands are scary? Giant apes like white women too?
In actuality, BOTH are man vs. nature allegories. Human kind has challenged nature with disastrous results.
However, while both may share a similar parable, it does not mean that they are one and the same and therefore comparisons are warranted and one must be chosen as the better. No. Merian C. Cooper wasn't setting out to make nuclear metaphor film. And Ishiro Honda wasn't striving for a tragic beauty and the beast tale. If one wants to compare the story of GODZILLA with a stop-motion monster, then Ray Harryhausen's THE BEAST FROM 20,000 FATHOMS is the better fit.
reply
share
TheMichael
12 years ago
You're right. 20,000 Fathoms is a better choice to compare Godzilla with, in the case that they both include a different cultural reflection of using atomic bombs. With Godzilla, he's the reflection of mother nature's revenge. A twisted figure molded through mankind's injustice to the world and eachother through war. The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms..... "We awoke a terrible creature because of the bomb. LETS NUKE IT TO DEATH! AMERICA!"
BUT. But. One thing. I wouldn't necessarily call Godzilla a "man vs. nature" story, just because that is most definitely not the message that is supposed to get across. Fits for King Kong and 20,000 Fathoms, but Godzilla isn't nature. He's not natural. He's the result of man going against nature, thus the movie isn't really a story of man fighting nature. Man is supposed to realize they're wrong by destroying nature.
..... That is all.
reply
share