What Is The Deal???!!!
-
julesrulesny — 11 years ago(May 20, 2014 08:49 PM)
I wouldn't redirect your opinion so fast.. I agree bc I think the 98 version with Broderick was AWESOME! a perfectly done fun film for what it was. The way this movie got trashed was totally out of sorts.. people having a predetermined opinion, even before they saw it..
same goes for the critics that didnt give it a chance.. as we see that time and time again.. critics who may even be paid by other competing film companies will trash a movie just to boost ratings of another competing film.. as I am sure this does happen. Its human nature and it happens in every single other genre, sector, industry from business to politics
Anyways.
This movie.. was Good entertainment and I enjoyed it ten times more watching it again a few months ago then I dod when I first watched it numerous times years and years ago.. to me the Godzilla of 98 got better. -
Dan_323 — 11 years ago(June 22, 2014 09:38 AM)
Wow, you sure changed sides fast.
A man without convictions is no man. I agreed with your original comment. But I also kind of agree with TheUnknown837-1. I don't want to watch the older Godzilla movies simply because of the fact they look like crappy, fake, toy dinosaurs with ancient special effects (which is reason enough for most people today actually) that only fan boys like him watch and blindly elevate to a position of divinity because of the unparalleled awe they experienced it as children. Then they berate anything new based on the same source and don't judge it on its own merits and continually keep comparing it to the older, crappy movies. These are just cinema hipsters, bud. I think the recent Godzilla movies are better simply because of the fact they look as real as they can get which is a big positive for me (and in fact most everyone else).
However, comparing the older Godzilla movies and the recent ones is kind of unfair, too, since there is a big technology gap between them and therefore a gap in the creators's means to present them. Anyway, who cares, the recent ones are unarguably infinitely better.
History is written by the victors.
-
megafauna005 — 11 years ago(June 22, 2014 02:29 PM)
I totally agree Godzilla 98 blows away all other Godzilla movies ever made including the 2014 garbage! I don't understand the negativity either! It'It's not an Academy award winner but it has 10 times the action and fun of the horrible 2014 Godzilla where nothing happens till the last 5 minutes!
Jesus NEVER existed! He is Judeo Christian MYTH! -
TheUnknown837-1 — 11 years ago(August 23, 2014 09:53 AM)
AngryDodgerFan, based on the anti-analytical nonsense imbeciles like this megafauna troll keep on spewing, I have to conclude these are the same people who would say "Independence Day" is better than "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" and would claim the characters and aliens of a movie like "Independence Day" are better and more developed than ones like in "Close Encounters" and that the Roland Emmerich movie is better than the Spielberg movie because we see the aliens a lot earlier in the film, that we don't have to wait until the last 10 minutes to see them. This is also the same kind of group who would probably claim the remake of "King Kong" is better than the 1933 original, that the remake of "Day the Earth Stood Still" beats the original 1951 masterpiece, or - gasp - the remake of "Psycho" trumps the Hitchcock classic simply because they are in color and have modern-day special effects.
There are fans of the 1998 movie that have put some genuine and intelligent thought behind their enthusiasm (OmegaMorph is one of them), but a lot of the noise, coming from anti-intellectuals like this megafauna loser, is just blathering from people who know nothing about art - no analysis, no depth, no attempt at at a discussion. I already posted a long list of detailed information about how the 1954 original artistically trumps this film (not my interpretation, stuff that actually occurs on-screen in the movie) and all he blathers about is the "fat man in suit is ancient" nonsense. -
J5iftY5iveXtreme — 11 years ago(February 22, 2015 12:21 AM)
blindly elevate to a position of divinity because of the unparalleled awe they experienced it as children. Then they berate anything new based on the same source and don't judge it on its own merits and continually keep comparing it to the older, crappy movies.
If we judge this film based on its own merits and judge the original 1954 Godzilla based on its own merits, then the original would still be better. The only thing better that this has are the special effects, and yes, the monster does look better, but it would be a shallow reason to think the whole movie is better. The 1954 original is still better when it comes to acting and storytelling, and those are the most important thing in making a movie good. The reasons that TheUnknown-837 gave for why the original is better were legit, and none of those reasons were that it is old. It's not a case of blindly elevating something to divinity. He even admitted that this film was better than some of the original Godzilla films so it certainly not blind nostalgia.
It is true that some of the older Godzillas are crappy, but the 1954 original is not one of them. Judging this movie based on its own merits, this is an amusing summer flick with neat special effects, but that's it. The 1954 original (and I mean the original, unedited version of it, not the American edit with actor Raymond Burr added into the plot) is not just a mere monster movie, it's an allegory for the horrors of nuclear warfare.