I still don't get it
-
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!
