MovieChat Forums > Godzilla (2014) Discussion > 1998 vs 2014(I know generic title but wh...

1998 vs 2014(I know generic title but whatever)

posted 8 years ago by DancingDestroyer
37 replies | jump to latest

I saw all the Godzilla movies in order and I was overwhelmed by the negative reviews of the 1998 version. I decided to see it with virtually no expectations and I was still very disappointed. I didn't think the movie wad terrible- it was a popcorn flick, like all Emmerich movies- but I was disappointed that they handled Godzilla poorly. It looked nothing like Godzilla. He didn't have atomic breath(he just breathed fire) and he was hunched over instead of standing still. There was also no monster to fight him and he got killed so easily with just missiles. In the TOHO movies, he was able to catch planes mid air and destroy them with his hands. Even though it represented Godzilla poorly, it wasn't that bad of a monster movie. I liked the 2014 version because they tried to mimick the first movie's serious tone and they represented Godzilla well enough. However, the transitions were kind of sloppy. Godzilla should have been shown a little more often but that's about it. In the end, even though they both have their mistakes, I would have to go with the 2014 version because of it's better representation of Godzilla. Feel free to tell my about your opinions but please don't be rude.

[–] coolyhooly2001 8 years ago

I was born in the 80's, and lucky for me, TOHO original versions were some that I managed to watch during my early movie-theater days. I agree, that Emmerich's '98 version was the most non-related and clueless movie ever to bear GODZILLA title. Why?? Because in that movie Godzilla was set as the lone villain creature, while in TOHO, Godzilla is always the hero creature who comes when a city is in distress and saves the day. Yes, he/it does come to scene with a little destruction, but that is unintentional, being part of the "out-of-my-way-and-let-daddy-work" thing. And that is job well done for this 2014 version for delivering that back. And the '98 version was just the drunk version of Godzilla, like watching Rambo: First Blood, only in this '98 version the Rambo-like character dies in defeat.

[–] RyanEvo9 8 years ago

I'm guessing you've never seen the 1954 film?

By the beard of Zeus!

[–] KthulhuX 8 years ago

Sounds like he's only seen films from the Shōwa series...and not even the first few of those.

In the Heisei and Millennium series, Godzilla, even when he fights monsters that are a greater threat, is rarely portrayed as benevolent. In Godzilla: Final Wars, he is only released as a weapon of last resort, after the aliens and the monsters they control have decimated much of the Earth.

[–] bond_98 8 years ago

Well at least the 98 Godzilla movie didn't kill off its best character 30 minutes in. Just to replace him with a totally waste of space. Not mention the 12 seconds of Godzilla screen time. Ive never felt more ripped off at the theaters in my life.

[–] Dan_Garten 8 years ago

Fun thread.

[–] Oceans300 8 years ago

For me, the '98 version.

Acting- '98
'14 has a FAR FAR better cast but because Gareth Edwards was inexperienced and still didn't know how to direct actors we have Ken Watanabe staring, Aaron Johnson as a piece of wood, and David Strathairn and Juliette Binoche failing to get noticed. Bryan Cranston was good but felt unfocused. '98 acting sucked hard except for Jean Reno and Kevin Dunn but at least that awful cast felt like PEOPLE and not bland interchangeable types.

Godzilla design- '98
Having seen every Godzilla movie we know what he looks like. We know how his skirmishes with the military go. We know what his powers and (functionally infinite) limits are. '98 gave us a new and imo cool design after 22 movies. '14 Godzilla walking into the sea at the end looked like one of the people-of-walmart lumbering down an aisle.

Directing- tie
I enjoyed the action choreography much more overall in '98 as G was agile and clever whereas in '14 the fights were merely passable imo until the very end. Also in '14 the military was never able to mount a large assault like it does in every other G movie. Imo '98 had much better shots of destruction (that shot of godzilla's legs walking down the street) and had cg that looked relatively better. However, Gareth Edwards earned his pay in the parts he was hired for: good shots of the monsters. The HALO jump, flare shot, and atomic breath shots were awesome, imo brings it to a tie.

Plot- tie
'98 is more focused on the G threat (love story aside). For me the nest storyline felt organic and was better handled than the lackadaisical egg burning in '14. The buildup was better imo in '98. '98 does have some stupid moments like the bit with the looters or G's eye in the tunnel though, '14 is generally tighter in that regard. '14 does kill off Bryan Cranston way too early though and had the stupid part in the middle with the train.

Imo neither one is great and both are victims of their time. '98 came out in a time when many movie were aesthetically stupid (acting, now dated cgi, general design, writing) and special effects began to trump story once hollywood discovered computers. By '14 blockbusters had been MOSTLY tightened up visually and aesthetically but easily fall into bland stoicism. Also, rushed schedules hurt production and studios hire cheap directors oftentimes.

[–] malley321 7 years ago

I'm glad I'm not the only person who preferred the '98 version. Both films are flawed, but in my opinion the only significant flaws with the '98 film are the bad casting of the two leads and the cheesy attempts at humour. I know a lot of people hated it because they changed the design of Godzilla an took away his atomic breath, and while I respect that opinion, I defend their decision to do that. The '98 film was clearly going for something unique and a bit more original than a standard Godzilla flick. I actually loved that they made it comparatively more realistic, it being a giant mutated iguana created by the radiation from nuclear fallout. This also draws a closer link to the theme in the original film about man causing their own destruction. Beyond that, there are a lot of things in the '98 film that I feel are sadly overlooked because people can't get over the change in creature design. I love the build-up to Zilla's reveal, and how we gradually discover along with the characters what is causing all this destruction, and how big it really is, instead of them already knowing about its existence like in the '14 film. The scene of the cargo ship and the fishing boats being attacked are very chilling and well-shot. The first scene of Zilla attacking New York is very well-done, and the cinematography is amazing. We get a great sense of scale with the way things are shot, always looking up, and I like how they don't clearly show it in its entirety despite all the destruction. The music is also much better in the '98 film in my opinion. Overall, the '98 film gives me a much greater feeling of awe then the '14 film does.

The '14 film was underwhelming to me in comparison. While the characters in the '98 film were annoying at times, they at least were distinctive and had personalities, and they tie in well to the story. The characters in the '14 film are as bland and forgettable as they come,, and it felt like they were included just because the plot needed human characters, but they seemed kind of out of place in the story. The MUTO monsters were also very bland and forgettable, like a poor-man's Cloverfield monster. And I find it lame and underwhelming that the film just begins with the characters already knowing about Godzilla's existence, without much explanation. There is no dramatic build up to his reveal, we are just meant to accept that he already exists. It's very underwhelming. Moreover, not only is he absent for most of the film, but there's no real payoff when he does showup. What exactly does he do in this film? He swims around for a bit, he destroys the Golden Gate bridge and then he fights the MUTO, but the fight is relegated to the background to put the human action up front. While a lot of people are just happy to see Godzilla go up against another giant monster, I don't personally see much difference between two giant monsters fighting and two regular monsters fighting. in the end, they are both the same size as each other, so what difference does it make? I find it much more exciting and thrilling to see a giant monster cause destruction and battle the military, which the '98 film delivers and the '14 film does not. Even when the '14 film has an opportunity to show this, it cuts away to a NEWS broadcast, which is incredibly annoying and lazy and a slap in the face to the viewers.

The main thing that makes me prefer the '98 film to the '14 film though, is that it actually centers on Godzilla like it should. The '14 film centers around the MUTO's and the lame human drama, and only has Godzilla come in at the end as a Deus-ex-Machina. It almost feels like they were trying to make a Clovefield sequel, and just decided to throw in Godzilla at the last second to draw in the audience.

[–] evolution_500_2 7 years ago

"The '98 film was clearly going for something unique and a bit more original than a standard Godzilla flick."

But it was neither unique nor original - it borrowed from other better films and tried to pass itself off as "Godzilla".

"I actually loved that they made it comparatively more realistic, it being a giant mutated iguana created by the radiation from nuclear fallout"

I don't mind filmmakers adding a certain degree of realism, but a giant three hundred foot animal that had been mutated from an iguana doesn't qualify as "realistic". "Shin Godzilla" did a better job.

"This also draws a closer link to the theme in the original film about man causing their own destruction."

...Except the 98 version didn't do that, either. Not only that, but it completely bastardized the chilling concept of Godzilla; rather than being this god/storm/nuclear disaster made into horrifying flesh, invulnerable to any sort of firearm, the 98 version made him into nothing more than an oversized rat, a pest. One that fled from the military despite being hundreds of feet tall.

[–] malley321 7 years ago

But it was neither unique nor original - it borrowed from other better films and tried to pass itself off as "Godzilla".

The overall concept is borrowed, yes. But the point is that it took the franchise and made it into something new and fresh. The best remakes (The Thing, Dawn of the Dead, The Fly, etc.) are the ones that strayed off from the original film.

I don't mind filmmakers adding a certain degree of realism, but a giant three hundred foot animal that had been mutated from an iguana doesn't qualify as "realistic". "Shin Godzilla" did a better job.

It's comparatively more realistic. An iguana egg contaminated by radiation producing an abnormally-sized mutant lizard, which then struggles to survive and behaves with realistic animal behaviour, is more believable than a 1000-foot tall humanoid reptile that breathes atomic radiation, is apparently millions of years old but has no discernible evolutionary ancestors and only shows up once in a while to fight other giant monsters that are apparently hiding out all over the world.

...Except the 98 version didn't do that, either. Not only that, but it completely bastardized the chilling concept of Godzilla; rather than being this god/storm/nuclear disaster made into horrifying flesh, invulnerable to any sort of firearm, the 98 version made him into nothing more than an oversized rat, a pest. One that fled from the military despite being hundreds of feet tall.

It did do that, because the Godzilla in the '98 film was created by man. And whereas you say it "bastardized" the original Godzilla, I say it re-envisioned it for a modern audience. The monster fleeing the military is, as I said above, realistic animal behaviour.

[–] evolution_500_2 7 years ago

"The overall concept is borrowed, yes. But the point is that it took the franchise and made it into something new and fresh. The best remakes (The Thing, Dawn of the Dead, The Fly, etc.) are the ones that strayed off from the original film."

But remakes such as "The Thing" and "The Fly" had more in the way of originality, intelligence and imagination, bringing new elements from their respective corners. In terms of the 98 version, it wasn't just the concept that was borrowed, though. It is one thing for a film, a remake especially, to borrow a concept in order to do something interesting and new while staying true to its source material, but the 98 "Godzilla" doesn't do anything "new" or "fresh" - it regurgitates material from other movies such as "Star Wars", "Aliens", "Jurassic Park" and so on and does nothing but make it a hollow shell with no sense of identity.

"It's comparatively more realistic. An iguana egg contaminated by radiation producing an abnormally-sized mutant lizard, which then struggles to survive and behaves with realistic animal behaviour, is more believable than a 1000-foot tall humanoid reptile that breathes atomic radiation, is apparently millions of years old but has no discernible evolutionary ancestors and only shows up once in a while to fight other giant monsters that are apparently hiding out all over the world."

It isn't realistic - it wants to think itself as being "realistic", but the movie isn't. An iguana egg contaminated by radiation producing a giant three hundred foot dinosaur/xenomorph-like creature - complete bollocks. Said-creature, a cold-blooded animal, travels for thirty years and suddenly heads up north to nest in New York where it's been faced with constant downpour rather than somewhere that would allow it to retain its heat and ensure survival of its young? Said-animal is capable of moving up to a hundred-three hundred miles an hour...but can't catch a tiny cab? Come on! And that's not even pointing out the absurdity the creature's physiology - according to the laws of physics, the legs of GINO would snap in half. Even though Godzilla in itself is unrealistic, the 2014 version is something that's slightly more plausible. Also, a three hundred foot animal wouldn't just flee from something that it could easily curb stomp. Christ, even bears and moose are more aggressive than this thing!
In terms of the 2014 Godzilla, a lot of his background was kept vague, possibly intentionally so with the hope of expanding it in subsequent sequels. All that was known was that for sixty years Monarch tried to kill him with nukes and that he managed to survive each and every single one without a single dent. It's apparent that he wasn't just going around fighting monsters during that length of time as well; you don't just start dropping bombs, let alone nukes, on something for no reason - you do it in the case of a threat. The fact that he had been bombed multiple times was indicative of his being a menace. In terms of his flame breath, animals have their own attack/defense mechanisms - spitting cobras, for example. Hell, in South America, there's a beetle that shoots flame from its butt, using the same kind of materials responsible for creating napalm. Is it inconceivable for a creature, even one as massive as Godzilla, to have such a thing, especially in an environment filled with other beings like him? In terms of size, he wasn't a "thousand feet tall" - NONE of the Godzillas in ANY of the Godzilla flicks ever stood that tall. In terms of "evolutionary ancestors" or lack thereof, one is given a vague impression that there possibly were within the 2014 film at the beginning when it showed the giant skeleton (which may either be another Godzilla species or an ancestor).

"It did do that, because the Godzilla in the '98 film was created by man. And whereas you say it "bastardized" the original Godzilla, I say it re-envisioned it for a modern audience. The monster fleeing the military is, as I said above, realistic animal behaviour"

The 98 version was created by man, but by the same token, it was in every sense of the word a bastardization of the original Godzilla. Godzilla is supposed to be this force of nature, a god/storm made flesh, so powerful that not even military forces could take him down. And before you say his running away is "realistic animal behaviour", it isn't realistic, especially when you consider the fact that said-animal is a three hundred foot predator with no equal. An animal that large wouldn't just suddenly run away like a rabbit from something smaller than its pinky - that's just bloody stupid.

[–] malley321 7 years ago

It is one thing for a film, a remake especially, to borrow a concept in order to do something interesting and new while staying true to its source material, but the 98 "Godzilla" doesn't do anything "new" or "fresh" - it regurgitates material from other movies such as "Star Wars", "Aliens", "Jurassic Park" and so on and does nothing but make it a hollow shell with no sense of identity.

Both the '98 film and the '14 film are majorly guilty of ripping off other films. '14 felt more blatant in this regard in my opinion though.

Also, a three hundred foot animal wouldn't just flee from something that it could easily curb stomp. Christ, even bears and moose are more aggressive than this thing!

We don't have much in the way of studies for this, but I would hazard to say that a bear being shot by ten men with firearms from multiple angles would probably make a b-line for the undergrowth, and likewise a giant lizard being shot at with missiles and heavy artillery from multiple angles would probably flee too. Hell, bears are driven away by firecrackers, airhorns, repellent and (if we're talking black bears) even waving your arms and shouting.

An iguana egg contaminated by radiation producing a giant three hundred foot dinosaur/xenomorph-like creature - complete bollocks. Said-creature, a cold-blooded animal, travels for thirty years and suddenly heads up north to nest in New York where it's been faced with constant downpour rather than somewhere that would allow it to retain its heat and ensure survival of its young?

I said it before and I'll say it again: it's still far more believable than an atomic breathing super-giant that apparently came into existence naturally, but has no evolutionary ancestors (nor would it realistically evolve even hypothetically, as it wouldn't fit into any ecosystem here on Earth), no mates or others of its kind, apparently does not need to eat and is content to just rest at the bottom of the ocean until humanity needs its services.

And that's not even pointing out the absurdity the creature's physiology - according to the laws of physics, the legs of GINO would snap in half.

The same - and much worse - can and has been said for Toho's Godzilla.

the 2014 version is something that's slightly more plausible.

That's a laugh.

In terms of the 2014 Godzilla, a lot of his background was kept vague, possibly intentionally so with the hope of expanding it in subsequent sequels.

A film should never rely on the assumption that there will be sequels to tell its story.

All that was known was that for sixty years Monarch tried to kill him with nukes and that he managed to survive each and every single one without a single dent. It's apparent that he wasn't just going around fighting monsters during that length of time as well; you don't just start dropping bombs, let alone nukes, on something for no reason - you do it in the case of a threat. The fact that he had been bombed multiple times was indicative of his being a menace.

And yet the public still doesn't know about his existence. If he had caused any noteworthy destruction in that time, there would be no way for the military to cover it up.

In terms of his flame breath, animals have their own attack/defense mechanisms - spitting cobras, for example. Hell, in South America, there's a beetle that shoots flame from its butt, using the same kind of materials responsible for creating napalm. Is it inconceivable for a creature, even one as massive as Godzilla, to have such a thing, especially in an environment filled with other beings like him?

I'm going to say yes. Atomic breath is a helluva jump from spitting cobras and bombardier beetles.

In terms of "evolutionary ancestors" or lack thereof, one is given a vague impression that there possibly were within the 2014 film at the beginning when it showed the giant skeleton (which may either be another Godzilla species or an ancestor).

But it still makes no logical sense. If there was a breeding population of such massive creatures that have existed for millions of years, we would have a huge and extensive fossil record of them. What do they eat? Where is its mates? And what the hell did it evolve from? And where have they been hiding throughout human history that we're only now beginning to see them?

it was in every sense of the word a bastardization of the original Godzilla. Godzilla is supposed to be this force of nature, a god/storm made flesh, so powerful that not even military forces could take him down.

Fair enough, the two are very different creatures, and the '98 "Zilla" is definitely much weaker than Toho's Godzilla. But the fact is that if '98 Zilla had come first, the Toho Godzilla would just be considered a comical exaggeration, or if "Zilla" suddenly showed up in real life, people would still consider it an astounding and destructive creature. So quite frankly, I think it's a cheap excuse to consider the '98 film worse on the grounds that the creature is different. Although I wonder if it would have been better received if the film was titled "Zilla" instead of "Godzilla." Most complaints seem based around the fact that it carries the title even though it's not the same creature.

And before you say his running away is "realistic animal behaviour", it isn't realistic, especially when you consider the fact that said-animal is a three hundred foot predator with no equal. An animal that large wouldn't just suddenly run away like a rabbit from something smaller than its pinky - that's just bloody stupid.

Actually it's not "bloody stupid". The thing was having anti-aircraft missiles, tank cannons, armor-piercing turrets, etc. fired at it, all simultaneously. I think you've seen too many monster movies.

[–] evolution_500_2 7 years ago

"Both the '98 film and the '14 film are majorly guilty of ripping off other films. '14 felt more blatant in this regard in my opinion though."

'14 didn't "rip" other movies off. It may have had some inspiration, but nothing within the movie itself was "ripped off" from other movies. The same isn't true with regards to "GINO", where whole scenarios and scenes are lifted.

"We don't have much in the way of studies for this, but I would hazard to say that a bear being shot by ten men with firearms from multiple angles would probably make a b-line for the undergrowth, and likewise a giant lizard being shot at with missiles and heavy artillery from multiple angles would probably flee too. Hell, bears are driven away by firecrackers, airhorns, repellent and (if we're talking black bears) even waving your arms and shouting."

There are tons of cases where animals would lash out, even during military battles or when they're really pissed off. Several years ago in Africa, a civil war caused baboons to attack buses filled with people. Even animals that are portrayed as being "cute" in Disney films like hippos and elephants can be downright vicious and scary f#ckers that would charge enemies down, armed or not.

"I said it before and I'll say it again: it's still far more believable than an atomic breathing super-giant that apparently came into existence naturally, but has no evolutionary ancestors (nor would it realistically evolve even hypothetically, as it wouldn't fit into any ecosystem here on Earth), no mates or others of its kind, apparently does not need to eat and is content to just rest at the bottom of the ocean until humanity needs its services."

A mutated iguana becoming a giant theropod/xenomorph is extremely unrealistic. In terms of the complaints about 2014 Godzilla's seeming lack of evolutionary ancestors, there's nothing to suggest that Monarch doesn't have fossils of said-ancestors stored some place. The only thing mentioned about Godzilla outside of the tests was that it came from an environment and time period where radiation levels were much higher than they are today. Very little in the movie suggested how it developed/evolved the way it did, but that wasn't the movie's focus - it was more about how no matter where people were small and powerless in the face of natural disasters.

"That's a laugh."

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1007531524040

The concept of a three hundred foot animal is in itself unrealistic, but between this version and the 1998 Zilla, the latter is especially problematic.

"A film should never rely on the assumption that there will be sequels to tell its story."

Indeed. However, it's possible there's another different cut of the film behind studio doors in the same way that the Richard Donner version of "Superman 2" differed from the Richard Lester version.

"And yet the public still doesn't know about his existence. If he had caused any noteworthy destruction in that time, there would be no way for the military to cover it up."

Sure they could, especially if it's some tiny Third-World $hithole no one cared about. We're talking about a secret organization with a sixty year history - who knows what happened during that extended period of time, let alone what they did to maintain secrecy. I think it would be interesting if for the next Godzilla film the filmmakers explored how Godzilla influenced history, if not the Cold War itself.

"I'm going to say yes. Atomic breath is a helluva jump from spitting cobras and bombardier beetles."

Not that much of a jump, especially if it's a whole environment filled with other creatures like Godzilla and were just as radioactive.

"But it still makes no logical sense. If there was a breeding population of such massive creatures that have existed for millions of years, we would have a huge and extensive fossil record of them."

That's assuming some of them hadn't been recovered by Monarch. Plus, as it was mentioned, these things were in deep, deep pockets close to "the planet's core", places where it's incredibly to difficult, if not downright impossible for human beings to explore.

"What do they eat? Where is its mates? And what the hell did it evolve from? And where have they been hiding throughout human history that we're only now beginning to see them?"

From the film: "Millions of years older than mankind. From an age when the Earth was ten times more radioactive than today. This animal and others like it consumed this radiation as a food source. As the levels on the surface naturally subsided these creatures adapted to live deeper in the oceans. Further underground. Absorbing radiation from the planet's core." In terms of "mates", it's heavily implied that Godzilla is the last of his species. In terms of how it "eats", who is to say that it does eat, at least, in the way we understand it? For all we know it absorbs radiation through its skin. "Shin Godzilla" actually did a fantastic job of explaining the various intricacies behind Godzilla.

"But the fact is that if '98 Zilla had come first, the Toho Godzilla would just be considered a comical exaggeration"

An incredibly fallacious argument, even down right ignorant, especially when you consider the history of the character and the socio-political climate that he was apart of. In the 54 film, he was the embodiment of the nuclear bomb, of war itself. He represented the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, something no other atomic age monster film had ever done. Oh sure, there had been "Beast From 20,000 Fathoms", but the thing with that movie and "Gojira" was that the former was made by a country who not only made the bomb but who also only witnessed its devastation from afar. The latter, however, was made by people and by a nation that experienced the trauma, the devastation brought on by the bomb, the movie itself a prolonged scream of agony. There was nothing at all comical about Toho's Godzilla in the 1954 film, nor even in his latest movie "Shin Godzilla".

"So quite frankly, I think it's a cheap excuse to consider the '98 film worse on the grounds that the creature is different."

The issue isn't that "it's different" as it is a poorly-written, derivative mess that rips wholesale from much better movies and mistreats its titular character by stripping away a lot of what made him distinguishable from all the other monsters in cinema.

"Actually it's not "bloody stupid". The thing was having anti-aircraft missiles, tank cannons, armor-piercing turrets, etc. fired at it, all simultaneously. I think you've seen too many monster movies."

It is when the creature is a predator, an agile one especially that is the size of a skyscraper.

[–] malley321 7 years ago

I don't have time to continue this debate beyond this and I've feel it's gone far enough, so I will only make this last post.

There are tons of cases where animals would lash out, even during military battles or when they're really pissed off. Several years ago in Africa, a civil war caused baboons to attack buses filled with people. Even animals that are portrayed as being "cute" in Disney films like hippos and elephants can be downright vicious and scary f#ckers that would charge enemies down, armed or not.

You seem to be under the naïve straw-man assumption that because animal attacks happen, it is their natural modus operandi to attack in all situations. An animals reaction if it is being attacked from multiple targets at once is not to stick around and fight if it doesn't have to. Hippos are aggressive because they are very territorial, elephants are aggressive when they are defending (or competing for) a mate, etc. I can tell you with 100% certainty though that “attack” is not the most common go-to for an animal that comes under threat. It might charge through its attackers if it is cornered (which Zilla does), but as soon as a path is cleared, there is no instinctual reason for it to stick around and fight.

"Millions of years older than mankind. From an age when the Earth was ten times more radioactive than today. This animal and others like it consumed this radiation as a food source. As the levels on the surface naturally subsided these creatures adapted to live deeper in the oceans. Further underground. Absorbing radiation from the planet's core." In terms of "mates", it's heavily implied that Godzilla is the last of his species. In terms of how it "eats", who is to say that it does eat, at least, in the way we understand it? For all we know it absorbs radiation through its skin. "Shin Godzilla" actually did a fantastic job of explaining the various intricacies behind Godzilla.

You seem to be turning a blind eye to how laughably hogwash all of that is. At the time when the Earth was “ten times more radioactive than today”, the only lifeforms were single-celled organisms at best. A gigantic atomic-breathing reptilian monster can’t just pop-out from that, it still needs a lengthy evolutionary track. And to say that it “doesn’t eat”, that one animal is “millions of years old”, that it “feeds on radiation” is ridiculously dismissive and doesn’t make any logical sense. It essentially comes down to “it is this way, just because.” I could just as easily say “my creature is made of rock, lives in magma and feeds off fear”, and it would make just as much sense. “Last of his species”: then again I ask, where is the fossil record for his species?

A mutated iguana becoming a giant theropod/xenomorph is extremely unrealistic.

But it is atleast a better explanation than a gigantic creature coming into existence in a time when only single-celled organisms existed, staying hidden without leaving a notable trace of its existence for billions of year, feeding on radiation, breathing atomic breath, living underground (which for a whole variety of reasons is ridiculous) and showing up on the surface once in a while to fight monsters because he’s a nice guy.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1007531524040

The concept of a three hundred foot animal is in itself unrealistic, but between this version and the 1998 Zilla, the latter is especially problematic.

The sources I have agree that both ae equally implausible in terms of biomechanics. They also agree that Zilla’s reflexes are too good for an animal his size. Beyond that, they agree that the Toho Godzilla is less realistic in every other regard, including behaviour, diet, habitat, and yes, it’s ability to withstand artillery. Most importantly, they also unanimously agree that the radiation breathe is ridiculously implausible.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/16/could-godzilla-exist-science-behind-that-question_n_5338036.html

http://gizmodo.com/is-it-scientifically-possible-for-godzilla-to-exist-1577016580

http://www.apeculture.com/movies/godzilla.htm

there's nothing to suggest that Monarch doesn't have fossils of said-ancestors stored some place.

And what of other paleontologists who would be stumbling across their remains?

Very little in the movie suggested how it developed/evolved the way it did, but that wasn't the movie's focus

Exactly. The film brushes it aside because it knows it can’t plausibly account for it.

Sure they could, especially if it's some tiny Third-World $hithole no one cared about.

Thankfully, not all of us are as ignorant or apathetic towards other countries as you are. There are still extensive logs of the histories and disasters of other countries that any schmuck can look into. An attack by a gigantic monster on a civilian population could not go unnoticed by the world.

The issue isn't that "it's different" as it is a poorly-written, derivative mess that rips wholesale from much better movies and mistreats its titular character by stripping away a lot of what made him distinguishable from all the other monsters in cinema.

Well I have already stated my opinion at length that the ’14 film does its titular character less justice by not even centering the film around him, reducing him to a prop to defeat the Muto’s. And as for “poorly-written, derivative mess that rips wholesale from much better movies”, I have the same feelings about the ’14 film (which isn’t to say that the ’98 film isn’t equally guilty, but the ’14 film is at least on the same level).

It is when the creature is a predator, an agile one especially that is the size of a skyscraper.

There aren’t many real world situations we can draw to for comparison in this situation. However, there are a few. There is, for example, whaling. The tendency for whales that are being harpooned is to dive, even if a harpoon is very small compared to their body size. There have been a couple notable exceptions (the Essex whaleship is one), but these were the exception rather than the rule, and even that whale retreated after its initial attack. Whenever a whale did attack a ship, it was treated with great shock and surprise, because it was so uncommon. However, probably the closest thing I can compare it to is a nature documentary I saw a couple years back, where an iguana fled its nest in a panic after it came under attack by fireants. I think this sums it up pretty well.

[–] evolution_500_2 7 years ago

"You seem to be under the naïve straw-man assumption that because animal attacks happen, it is their natural modus operandi to attack in all situations."

Not in all situations. It is naïve, however, to dismiss the idea of animals not possessing a killer instinct.

"And what of other paleontologists who would be stumbling across their remains?"

I imagine that Monarch, or some other organization, would have covered it up, be it through recruitments (involuntary or otherwise), bribery, disinformation, sabotage, intimidation tactics, maybe even assassinations, etc.

"You seem to be turning a blind eye to how laughably hogwash all of that is. At the time when the Earth was “ten times more radioactive than today”, the only lifeforms were single-celled organisms at best. A gigantic atomic-breathing reptilian monster can’t just pop-out from that, it still needs a lengthy evolutionary track. And to say that it “doesn’t eat”, that one animal is “millions of years old”, that it “feeds on radiation” is ridiculously dismissive and doesn’t make any logical sense. It essentially comes down to “it is this way, just because.” I could just as easily say “my creature is made of rock, lives in magma and feeds off fear”, and it would make just as much sense."

It is a matter of one's willingness to suspend disbelief, as you had noted. However, since we've only been given what amounts to basic cliff notes rather than full-on details, it's not unfathomable to assume that Monarch was holding back on other details. In terms of my saying maybe Godzilla does not eat, it's not entirely out of the question. For all we know, his body runs on nuclear fission like in "Shin Godzilla", with all-new features and elements.

"But it is atleast a better explanation than a gigantic creature coming into existence in a time when only single-celled organisms existed, staying hidden without leaving a notable trace of its existence for billions of year, feeding on radiation, breathing atomic breath, living underground (which for a whole variety of reasons is ridiculous) and showing up on the surface once in a while to fight monsters because he’s a nice guy."

Godzilla wasn't around for "billions of years". He also didn't show up on the surface once in a while to fight monsters because "he's a nice guy" - they specifically referred to him as an alpha predator. Also, nice guys don't trash bridges and flood entire streets, thereby killing hundreds of people.
In terms of GINO's origin being a "better explanation", it isn't, as it doesn't explain the sudden growth spurt to three hundred feet and the sudden shift to bipedalism. At least with the 2014 version it kind of made sense in that being a mostly aquatic animal its body was built for handling intense pressure. For all we know, those millions of years also contributed to his size and features. The problem with viewing Godzilla solely as an animal is that in a lot of ways, he's anything but that. The character is a freak, a walking disaster, possibly even an immortal one, that will not go away or even flinch in military presence - something that the 98 film fails to understand. If you want a movie that actually provides a better explanation for Godzilla and actually attempts at being realistic, watch "Shin Godzilla".

"Thankfully, not all of us are as ignorant or apathetic towards other countries as you are."

What I wrote wasn't ignorance or apathy, it's noting what would be the general view.

"There are still extensive logs of the histories and disasters of other countries that any schmuck can look into. An attack by a gigantic monster on a civilian population could not go unnoticed by the world."

Nowadays, with social media available and people recording everything with their cellphones, a giant creature like Godzilla wouldn't go unnoticed. But considering this is before social media's existence, that's a different matter entirely. How much of history would have been written and/or altered by those within power to tell a very different account of events? How many of those accounts from survivors, assuming there were any survivors, would have been dismissed as hallucinations/group hysteria or as tall tales/myths? Would the subaltern have a voice at all, or would they keep their mouths shut due to any number of reasons (ie pressured by certain parties with vested interests, bribery, etc)?

"Well I have already stated my opinion at length that the ’14 film does its titular character less justice by not even centering the film around him, reducing him to a prop to defeat the Muto’s. And as for “poorly-written, derivative mess that rips wholesale from much better movies”, I have the same feelings about the ’14 film (which isn’t to say that the ’98 film isn’t equally guilty, but the ’14 film is at least on the same level)."

He wasn't a "prop", he was a central element within the movie. Everything that happened within the film, from the existence of Monarch and the MUTOs to the tragedy that struck Ford's family, was all due to Godzilla's existence. The first five minutes, hell even first five seconds, was about Godzilla. The problem wasn't that "there was not enough Godzilla" (the amount of time he was featured within the movie is actually one of the longest within any Godzilla movie), the problem was the lack of an interesting lead. The 2014 movie did the character justice by acknowledging his being a force of nature, along with certain mystical aspects as well. Also, the movie wasn't exactly "derivative", not in the way the 98 version was where it lifted whole scenes/scenarios from other and much better movies.

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GasmaskAvenger 7 years ago

I recently rewatched Godzilla '98 and here's the big problem with it.

It sucks because even after getting away with altering so much of Godzilla beyond recognition, Roland Emmerich's final product is clearly a movie driven by cynical apathy.

It absolutely fails even as schlocky popcorn munching fun, it fails much of its cast (yes, it even failed the much derided Maria Pitillo, who probably would've done better with a creative team that cared) and even compared to other Roland Emmerich goofiness, it just fails to really bring anything to that table either.

Hell, even composer David Arnold clearly has no investment in the movie in hand, which resulted in a very subpar score that pales in comparison to his more inspired ID4 score.

If you compared Godzilla '98 to ID4, you would know even in its most cheesy, pandering moments, there's clearly a passion to that silliness with an emphasis on the cast's strengths while trying to hide some of the negatives. Godzilla '98 has no passion, no drive and is utterly just a glob of cynicism and desireless punch clock workmanship. A movie just to make a quick buck and, rightfully so, fell flat on deaf ears at the box office.

Godzilla 2014, on the other hand, flaws and all, actually has a passion for its source material and the material presented. Yes, MCU Quicksilver came off as a bit bland and Heisenberg was rather underutilized, but everything else is put together in a rather neatly wrapped bow.

Yes, the film does abuse its viewers with teasing Godzilla, but once in full display during the last act, Gareth Edwards and company does show off a truly awesome Godzilla that leaves an impact on its viewers, especially that jaw-dropping use of his atomic breath (on the contrary, I do believe losing Gareth Edwards for the sequel will benefit that film pretty well. We'll get another good US Godzilla movie without the first film's audience abuse).

Godzilla 2014 is not a perfect film. Quite flawed to be honest, but that film has the heart in the right place and does its damnedest to entertain viewers with an awe-inspiring take on The Big G with nary a pinch of cynicism anywhere.

These reasons are why I prefer Godzilla 2014 over Godzilla '98. I at least can say what pleased me about the former, whereas while watching the latter for the first time in years today, I wanted nothing but to shut it off and watch something more genuinely entertaining and less cynical garbage.

"What's the ugliest part of your body? I think it's your mind."

[–] malley321 7 years ago

Hell, even composer David Arnold clearly has no investment in the movie in hand, which resulted in a very subpar score that pales in comparison to his more inspired ID4 score.

I have to completely disagree here. I loved the score in '98, but I can't even recall a single piece from the '14 film.

There's not much else to say about the rest of your post except that I wholeheartedly disagree as well. '98 is stupid popcorn fun, and that is all it was meant to me. The new design and origins story, the slow build-up to Zilla's reveal, the fact that he actually delivers the action when Zilla shows up, shows that he put his heart into the film, and ultimately, it has more energy and thrust to it, as opposed to the slow-paced and monotone '14 film. The problem with the '14 film is that it is too pretentious and relies on the fact that its character is already established. They tried to make it story and character driven, except that the story wasn't compelling, the characters were bland and seemed forced into the story, and the heart was not in the right place - which is the titular character himself, who doesn't get much of any backstory, who's reveal is less dramatic then his enemy's, who twice gets the camera taken off of him just as he's about to make *beep* go down, and who's final fight is pushed to the backdrop. The '98 film at least makes its Zilla the star.

[–] evolution_500_2 7 years ago

"I have to completely disagree here. I loved the score in '98,"

Another example of regurgitated material, in this case derivative of the Tim Burton "Batman" movies.

"'98 is stupid popcorn fun, and that is all it was meant to me. The new design and origins story, the slow build-up to Zilla's reveal, the fact that he actually delivers the action when Zilla shows up, shows that he put his heart into the film, and ultimately, it has more energy and thrust to it, as opposed to the slow-paced and monotone '14 film."

The 98 version was stupid all the way around - a mindless, soulless movie that has nothing to do with Godzilla. The remark about it being a cynical production isn't entirely false, as Emmerich and co. were dismissive of the originals, contemptuously calling Haruo Nakajima and other suitmation actors "fat men in rubber suits".

"the heart was not in the right place"

The heart was very much in the right place - when you watch the film there's tons of little details and homages made to the originals, even to the creators. Edwards is clearly a fan. As a film, a Hollywood blockbuster even, it's one of the most restrained, which is simultaneously its greatest strength and weakness. Part of the problem is that people have been bombarded by so much scatological bull$hit presented by the likes of Emmerich, Michael Bay and so on that they've become desensitized to it all. It also depends on the kind of mindset you're going in with; both the 98 and 2014 versions are very different films. The 2014 movie isn't a perfect film, but it's far from being a bad film.

[–] Snamien 7 years ago

Like 98, but 2014 is excellent movie making, and superior, I think.

[–] lordzedd-75736 7 years ago

I like 1998 than 2014.

[–] DarthRoger (867) 6 years ago

I thought the 2014 movie was the best Godzilla movie since the original 1956 "Americanized" movie with Raymond Burr. It was a good story, without being campy or silly. The CGI was really good and the Mutos were better antagonists for Godzilla than many he's fought in past movies. I didn't really care that we didn't see as much of Godzilla at the start of the movie. That was more about the human characters.