I still don't get it
-
Dreamcatcher9000 — 11 years ago(March 20, 2015 11:04 PM)
How did you figure out that he replied to me, Ben? Which he did actually, and got me confused!
I still don't understand though what he meant with "Godzilla 2014 fans are idiots who prefer the look of a man in a fat suit as opposed to a REAL looking monster like in Godzilla 98!". What does he mean when he says "Godzilla 2014", the new movie? But Godzilla looks like a real looking monster in BOTH movies, no matter if people hate the American versions or not. Although I'm a guy who's kind of tired of all these CGI effects in general, and prefer old school practical effects ("E.T.", "Gremlins", etc.), but I can't say that the old Japanese Godzilla effects and costumes are successful -
benGsboat — 11 years ago(March 21, 2015 06:30 AM)
How did you figure out that he replied to me, Ben?
Two ways: one, how the replies line up in the thread; two, I get a notification when someone responds to me.
As for Godzilla 2014yeah, he means the new movie. Go to that board and you'll see how often megamouth posted the same thing there, too. When someone like him has an opinion, it's like listening to an endless loop.
He's on ignore now, so I won't be reading his annoying words anymore. -
Dreamcatcher9000 — 11 years ago(March 18, 2015 10:13 PM)
megafauna005
"Godzilla 2014 fans are idiots who prefer the look of a man in a fat suit as opposed to a REAL looking monster like in Godzilla 98!"
Your sentence doesn't make sense. You say that the new Godzilla movie fans prefer a man in a suit as opposed to a CGI Godzilla? Butit was a CGI Godzilla in the new movie! So, how are they fans of it?
"It just shows "original" Godzilla fans are MORONS living in the 1950s!"
No fan is a moron. If some people prefer the old Godzilla movies, it's respectful. As it's respectful people who prefer the CGI versions. The morons are the obsessed fans of any kind who don't accept a different opinion. -
Dreamcatcher9000 — 11 years ago(March 18, 2015 10:18 PM)
rgon-1
"To put it simply, Tim Burton took a series of graphically violent trading cards depicting an invasion by skull faced martians and turned it into a kiddified spoof of alien invasion films."
First, the movie was fun. Second, I didn't know/remember it was based on those cards, and I don't care, because like I said, the movie was fun. What would you think of the movie if you never heard of the existence of those cards? -
numptyur — 11 years ago(January 10, 2015 09:25 AM)
This movie fails miserably as a Godzilla film as it has nothing to do with Godzilla. This movie fails miserably as a giant monster movie as the giant monster is a pussy that does nothing but run away from the military.
It's one of the worst movies ever made and an insult to any fan of Godzilla or giant monster movies. -
Dreamcatcher9000 — 11 years ago(February 02, 2015 09:10 AM)
This movie fails miserably as a Godzilla film as it has nothing to do with Godzilla. This movie fails miserably as a giant monster movie as the giant monster is a pussy that does nothing but run away from the military.
What did you want him to do? Throw rocks to enemies and then joyfully dance, like in the Japanese versions? It's a scared animal. Scared animals run and cause havoc.
It's one of the worst movies ever made and an insult to any fan of Godzilla or giant monster movies.
I strongly believe that there are at least 1,000 movies out there worst than this.
I don't judge any hardcore fan who was disappointed with this movie. But all this hate, calling it "one of the worst movies ever made", is somehow overreacting, in my opinion. It was a pop-corn movie like all the others. The "Transformers" movies, yes, they're terrible, especially 3 and 4, because it's all mindless bombardment of visual and sound effects, with ridiculous plot, annoying characters, and cheesy dialogues. I didn't see any of this in "Godzilla".
My only objection was Broderick, who can't fit in a blockbuster movie, he has a "rom-com" face. If the main character was someone "stronger", it would work better. -
J5iftY5iveXtreme — 11 years ago(February 21, 2015 01:59 PM)
It's a scared animal. Scared animals run and cause havoc.
It wouldn't be Godzilla anymore,then, if it runs away. Fans aren't necessarily expecting Godzilla to throw rocks or dance (and that only appears in one movie), but they at least want a Godzilla that fights back, whether it's the army or another giant monster. That's one thing the originals films are consistent on.
Godzilla is a unique monster with a specific behavior and characteristics, such as his trademark "atomic breath," which the monster in this movie lacks (yes, there's a scene where the monster seems to breath fire, but if you look closely at that scene, the fire is actually coming from the burning cars in front of the monster and not his mouth). Also, the monster in this movie is easily killed by missiles. In all the original films, Godzilla is a monster that cannot be killed by normal weapons(in the original film from 1954, it's the new, dangerous invention of a scientist that finally kills Godzilla, and it cost the scientist's life). This is really going back to what TheUnknown837-1 said about making Superman call the cops instead of fighting criminals and having him die from a switchblade.
This movie essentially created a new monster, which I think isn't too bad of a monster and is in fact actually cool on its own, but it only only looks different from the original, it acts different from the original and lacks the abilities that make Godzilla what he is. Godzilla is an established character with an established lore. Any adaptation of something will have to follow its source material faithfully, especially if there's a large fanbase for it. You know that if they make a new Batman movie, one that has nothing to do with the continuity of the previous films, it will still keep Batman's trademarks like his cape, cowl, utility belt, and bat symbol, because 70+ years of comics, movies, cartoons, etc. have established that that's what makes Batman who and what he is.
Not all Godzilla fans will say that this is the worst movie ever, but universally, they'll say that as a GODZILLA movie, it's bad. -
salimy3k — 11 years ago(March 01, 2015 03:19 PM)
"Can you explain to me why people hate this movie so much? This movie obviously wasn't made for people who like "Downton Abbey" or "Desperate Housewives", this movie was made for people who like "Godzilla" movies (and destruction-monster movies in general). So, what exactly did they expect to see? Ok, I agree, Mathew Broderick wasn't the perfect choice for the leading role. And? What else? What, they wanted to see more monsters? Ok, there weren't, it was just Godzilla fighting soldiers, air-crafts, helicopters and stuff. That was their problem? They didn't like how Godzilla looked? How he fights? What?"
You wanna know the REAL story why this movie disappointed at the box-office? The makers of the movie (Devlin-Emmerich) got into a fight with Speilberg when they released the first teaser trailer for 'Godzilla' which showed a huge foot stomping on a T-Rex skeleton in a museum (an obvious dig at 'Jurassic Park 2: The Lost World' which was released the previous year). Then they cast rotund actor Michael Lerner as Mayor Ebert in the movie while his sidekick is another actor named Gene (another dig at famous critics Siskel and Ebert, which was a TERRIBLE move that angered most film critics in the US - thereby ensuring that most critics panned the movie out of spite) so in two moves, Emmerich managed to tick off both his seniors in Hollywood AND the film critics as well. Nice.
The design of the monster was another sticking point: People were used to a guy in a fat suit, and what they got was something radically different. The smaller size of the monster was critiqued: It was too small when compared to previous incarnations. The funny thing is: If you watch the action sequences and understand the basic plot as to WHY 'zilla came to New York in the first place, the design makes perfect sense: The Monster wants to hide/build a nest and the tall buildings allows it to remain hidden from a distance. Plus most of the action sequences (which were better and more thrilling than most of the previous 'zilla movies) would NEVER have worked with a bigger monster.
Plus, the story went through a large number of re-writes. Initially Godzilla was the GOOD guy and had to do battle with another monster to SAVE New York - but the FX needed to render the second beast would have pushed the budget past the 150 Million mark (which the studio didn't want to spend - Godzilla '98 was already over budget by 30 Million when the initial budget was 100 Million) so re-writes were the order of the day. They also shoe-horned a love interest to attract females, which explains why the two leads were so awkward with each other. The only character that wasn't affected by the re-writes was Jean Reno's - which is why he was good while the others sucked.
Another reason why the film did badly was that the previous year, "The Lost World" was released. That was a horrible movie that disappointed a lot of people, and the sight of little baby Godzillas chasing the heroes down narrow stairways and office lanes too closely resembled the Raptors chasing the heroes down narrow corridors in the previous movie. People felt that they were watching a re-tread of the previous film instead of a true-blue Godzilla flick - which resulted in ZERO repeat viewings (this explains why the movie sank like a stone).
But the MAIN reason why the movie didn't do as well (which nobody talks about openly) is that it was a co-production between Japan and The USA - and the US movie industry is paranoid about NOT letting any movie which has foreign money in it do well at the box-office. The Hollywood Studios DO NOT want any competition at the domestic box office. That's why so many movies from (non-european) countries with strong domestic output get side-lined, edited to an unrecogizable mess, shafted to limited release or are left to die a natural death on a crowded weekend. Prime examples of these are Bulletproof Monk, Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within and the DragonBall movie. A more recent example is 47 Ronin which was shafted even before it's release and Seventh Son which got zero publicity and a limited theater release despite making oodles of moolah overseas - probably because both of them were foreign co-productions which had the bulk of their funding overseas while their Hollywood partners receive a limited stream of the revenue. And there you have it. -
RyanEvo9 — 11 years ago(March 04, 2015 09:27 AM)
Don't worry about it mate. You'll only hear the diehard Godzilla fans say it's one of the worst films ever. You know the guys who are obsessed with men in rubber suits using power ranger fighting styles to battle giant cyborg chickens controlled by space monkeys. lol.
Them and film snobs hate it, but to the average Joe like you and me it's actually a pretty decent disaster movie. A flawed one at that, yes. But a lot of people you'll see on the street actually don't mind it. You only hear of the extreme hate because it's the Internet and raging film nerds have nothing better to do than to go the Internet and hurl abuse at a movie or call you retarded because you like a film they don't. It's pathetic. But that's the Internet for you lol. -
-
Dreamcatcher9000 — 11 years ago(March 18, 2015 10:51 PM)
salimy3k
The makers of the movie (Devlin-Emmerich) got into a fight with Speilberg when they released the first teaser trailer for 'Godzilla' which showed a huge foot stomping on a T-Rex skeleton in a museum (an obvious dig at 'Jurassic Park 2: The Lost World' which was released the previous year).
Me too, when I first saw that teaser trailer back then, my mind went immediately to the very fresh "The Lost World". So what? They were different movies. I don't know if it was an obvious hint to "The Lost World", but I can see it as irrelevant, it's just like saying "forget about T-Rex, I'm Godzilla, and I'm bigger". You know, T-Rex existed in movies (and in reality, of course!) even before "Jurassic Park". "Godzilla" coming out a year after "The Lost World" was a coincidence. It would come out anyway. No?
Did Emmerich and Devlin really get into a fight with Spielberg about this?? As a fact??
And I think that that fuss with the Ebert-Siskel reference was exaggerating. I found it harmlessly funny actually. It was a fact that they weren't big fans of blockbusters like this, so they just put it as an inside joke. And the actors resembling to them made it even funnier!
http://media.baselineresearch.com/images/224821/224821_full.jpg
I don't understand why some people take some things so seriously
"The design of the monster was another sticking point: People were used to a guy in a fat suit, and what they got was something radically different. The smaller size of the monster was critiqued: It was too small when compared to previous incarnations. The funny thing is: If you watch the action sequences and understand the basic plot as to WHY 'zilla came to New York in the first place, the design makes perfect sense: The Monster wants to hide/build a nest and the tall buildings allows it to remain hidden from a distance. Plus most of the action sequences (which were better and more thrilling than most of the previous 'zilla movies) would NEVER have worked with a bigger monster."
I don't understand why people say that Godzilla was small in this movie. He wasn't small! He certainly looked bigger than the man in the suit Japanese versions! The new Godzilla looks significantly bigger, but what does it matter anyway? They were both big. Size doesn't matter! (Unlike what the poster of the '98 movie says!)
But reading your paragraph, I understand that you justify Godzilla's size, and you say that this was the right choice. No?
"But the MAIN reason why the movie didn't do as well (which nobody talks about openly) is that it was a co-production between Japan and The USA - and the US movie industry is paranoid about NOT letting any movie which has foreign money in it do well at the box-office. The Hollywood Studios DO NOT want any competition at the domestic box office."
SoI'm a head of a big Hollywood studioI make a movie with Japan co-producing itI put a lot of moneyand I want it to fail. So, what you're basically saying, is that the Columbia-TriStar guys were retarded. Right?
And anyway, the question wasn't why this movie failed at the box office. Many good movies fail at the box office for many reasons. The question was why all that hate. I think I hadn't seen a Godzilla movie in my life before I saw Emmerich's movie. And I had a great time. I saw a huge monster destroying a city, that's what I paid for. It wasn't a masterpiece, and it had its flaws, like Broderick (nothing wrong with him, he's just not for blockbusters), but I can't think of myself walking out of the theater saying "oh, what a terrible movie, I wasted my money!". Have you seen "Transformers 3 and 4"? THESE are terrible movies And they did awesome at the box office. That's life. -
salimy3k — 10 years ago(April 15, 2015 03:43 AM)
"And I think that that fuss with the Ebert-Siskel reference was exaggerating. I found it harmlessly funny actually. It was a fact that they weren't big fans of blockbusters like this, so they just put it as an inside joke. And the actors resembling to them made it even funnier!
http://media.baselineresearch.com/images/224821/224821_full.jpg
I don't understand why some people take some things so seriously"
Actually both Siskel and Ebert have been vocally supportive of blockbusters that have good scripts - it's just the brainless ones that irk them. At the time their show was the best known and most watched movie review show in the US so taking a pop at them was a cheap and dumb move - it alienated the reviewers who critique your movies and gave the perception that Roland Emmerich had gotten a bit too big for his boots.
"But reading your paragraph, I understand that you justify Godzilla's size, and you say that this was the right choice. No?"
Yes. The original Godzilla (which towered over skyscrapers) was a mutated dinosaur. By contrast, 'Zilla '98 was an iguana which was changed due to exposure to atomic radiation - it would have been ridiculous to make him bigger.
"SoI'm a head of a big Hollywood studioI make a movie with Japan co-producing itI put a lot of moneyand I want it to fail. So, what you're basically saying, is that the Columbia-TriStar guys were retarded. Right?"
Groan. No dude, At the time Columbia-TriStar was owned by Sony (which it still is) and Sony wanted to develop some of their Japanese properties into viable international blockbusters. The OTHER companies (which weren't owned by foreign investors) didn't want that to happen - so they launched a smear campaign against Sony Pictures.
P.S. Bizarre as it may seem, there ARE cases of studios wanting their own product to fail. For example, if a new studio head arrives, the first thing he does is dump the previous studio head's product. Case in point being Adam Fogelson the head at Universal Pictures, who greenlighted '47 Ronin' which cost 175 million to produce. After Adam was pushed out of his post, the movie was dumped at a crowded date with minimal publicity and was left to die a slow death at the box-office by the new heads at Universal. Why? So that the new heads can claim that THEIR upcoming product is better than the previous ones! Miramax head, Weinstein is another creep who edits non-European films until they are practically unrecognizable - all just to spite directors he doesn't like.
"And anyway, the question wasn't why this movie failed at the box office. Many good movies fail at the box office for many reasons. The question was why all that hate."
The heads of the studios didn't want competition from young upstarts like Devlin and Emmerich - Spielberg, Zemeckis, Ridley Scott and Tony Scott all had suffered some sort of commercial disappointment in the 90s. Also, the perception was that Emmerich had gotten too big for his boots and was incredibly arrogant. Plus, the funding for many of their movies cam from foreign sources - so most of the profits went overseas. Plus, Godzilla is a property that was owned by Toho, which was a Japanese company - if the property was a success, then the residuals would have gone to Japan instead of staying in the USA. Also, Hollywood is worried that if ONE foreign-owned property is a success, then the foreign entity holding the rights may suddenly grow a brain and realize that they DON'T NEED The American studios to produce their films - they'll seek financing elsewhere, produce the movies themselves and get foreign actors for the parts - shutting the Hollywood movie studios out. THIS is THE reason why they're so paranoid about allowing Foreign-owned properties from becoming Box-Office successes.
P.S. If you're wondering why they don't have a problem with producing a Godzilla movie NOW it's simple - the international box-office is greater than the US one for the Hollywood studios.
"I think I hadn't seen a Godzilla movie in my life before I saw Emmerich's movie.And I had a great time.I saw a huge monster destroying a city, that's what I paid for."
I saw a couple of Godzilla movies - on the small screen. Godzilla '98 was the first time I was the big lizard in all his glory on the big screen for the first time! Enjoyed it thorougly! In fact, I actually saw Godzilla '98 and the latest version of Godzilla back to back on my big-screen TV and safe to say, I enjoyed the '98 version more, believe it or not!
"It wasn't a masterpiece, and it had its flaws, like Broderick (nothing wrong with him, he's just not for blockbusters), but I can't think of myself walking out of the theater saying "oh, what a terrible movie, I wasted my money!" Have you seen "Transformers 3 and 4"? THESE are terrible movies And they did awesome at the box office. That's life."
Broderick was a recipient of the 'Bar Mitzvah' style ethnic nepotism prevalent in Hollywood, i.e., he got the lead role because he's a 'semite' in an industry run -
Dreamcatcher9000 — 10 years ago(April 18, 2015 04:58 PM)
salimy3K
What took you so long to reply?
Ok, I read and agree with everything you say, more or less. Just one clarification though (unrelated to Godzilla!).
"Miramax head, Weinstein is another creep who edits non-European films until they are practically unrecognizable - all just to spite directors he doesn't like."
You mean he did that when he was in Miramax, or now in The Weinstein Company, or both? So, why does he accept projects from directors he doesn't like to make movies in his company? -
mattiasflgrtll6 — 11 years ago(March 21, 2015 11:52 AM)
I haven't even seen the original Godzilla movies and I still thought this was terrible.
The godawful excuse for characters, the horrible acting (only redeeming standpoint was Hank Azaria, who wasn't in the movie nearly enough). the dreadful CGI and worst of all; IT NEVER ENDED! Jesus Christ, how did they manage to stretch it two hours long? Unbelievable.
Without comparing this to any other movie at all, it's an idiotic movie either case. I can sort of see how someone has it as a guilty pleasure, but a 9 or a 10? Come on now. -
Dreamcatcher9000 — 11 years ago(March 24, 2015 10:16 PM)
Who said this deserves a 9 or a 10?? I think a 6 is pretty ok. (I rated it with 7 just to boost it up a little bit, because it has received so much hate!)
I didn't see any dreadful CGI though. It was pretty decent, for 1998. Are you comparing it with today's standards?
And it was 2 hours and 19 minutes!
