This falls under the assumption that the EMP is an attack (or a defense mechanism). The MUTOs may generate an EMP simply by being a highly radioactive creature.
Now, admittedly, the science isn't correct when it came to the EMP. But in films, especially films involving sci-fi concepts, the science is almost never correct.
One of the rules for cohesive story telling is for events and occurrences to make sense in the context provided by the narrative. This is what allows for the suspension of disbelief. The moment something contradicts its own world without being questioned or explained, then the illusion is broken. The expectation isn't for scientific accuracy, but narrative consistency.
I already addressed that electromagnetic interference as a byproduct of their radioactivity would have made sense in the film. However, there is a sequence in the film in which winged.MUTO slams its foot down to release an EMP when soldiers were accosting it. So it is done selectively and offensively, which is a problem only bevause this creature is supposedly prehistoric and the product of evolution.
Not at all. Even though they feed on radiation, that does not preclude the notion that an excessive amount of it would prove fatal to them.
There is merit to that consideration. I myself weighed the possibility that Godzilla could merely expose these creatures to a lethal dose. But then I considered Serizawa's speech about primeval earth and its high radioactivity and how these creatures evolved to live in and consume this high concentration of radiation. The film is unclear about this issue, and us rationalizing the "how" is evidence that the script did not do enough to address the issue. If se offer suppositions, there is no real way to confirm our suspicions. All we can work with is what is told or shown in the narrative.
And this is an opinion. Who decided whether whether the cuts manage to create tension or if they fail to do so? Why, the viewer of course. However, I'll agree that (IMO) there is too much of it in the film.
The narrative makes that determination. If you watch a horror film and just as the killer thrusts a blade into some person's chest, the sequence jumps to a dinner date, the moment becomes unsettling rather than peaceful. The characters on screen have no idea that they are in danger and now the viewer is tense, because when the couple returns home, the killer will be lurking in the dark, waiting. So there is this interesting use of contrast that should inspire levity, but instead makes the idyllic seem uncanny. This is one of the most overused sequence shifts for a smash cut, but still fairly effective albeit cliche.
When a monster fight is cut via smash cut and we see Ford's wife at home, does this add tension to the narrative? Does the script lead to any sense of peril or urgency for her safety? Do we get a contrast of a peaceful sequence against a prior sequence of suspense? Almost. Ford's wife had no clue how much danger Ford was in...until she looked at the television screen and saw the same event that the audience just saw, which means that the smash cut did not serve its purpose.
An appropriate choice would have been a match cut, which is a transition that shows similar subjects in two different scenes.
We see at the beginning of the film that MUTOs are parasites that leach off of and kill Godzilla's species. Godzilla hunting and killing the MUTOs as a preemptive act of self-defense is certainly implied in the film itself.
I had considered this explanation as well. Given that eight-lehged MUTO was to give birth, it would have put many species at risk if her brood had been born. However, Serizawa, the only character to state Godzilla's motivations, only expresses that Godzilla is an alpha predator that feeds on the lesser creatures of its ecosytem, to which the MUTO kaiju belong. Serizawa's only other rationale is that Godzilla's raison d'etre is to bring balance, a rationale so flimsy that an other character in the story dismisses it.
I am not going to dismiss the possibility of your claim, as it is rather reasonable. But again, it is not shown or said in the narrtive, so it can't be evaluated objectively, only speculatively.
And here you present your opinion. Whether a film's flaws break the narrative structure is predominantly up to the viewer.
If plot elements contradict or convolute the narrative as presented, then it can be said that the narrative has been broken or disrupted. Whether or not the audience realizes it is broken is an entirely separate matter. For instance, the Back to the Futute trilogy features a profound error which should cause the Delorean to cease to exist half way through the second film, but this error is often overlooked (including myself until a few years ago).
So, a broken narrative is not subjective. At least not if one is adhering to errors in the story and the impact of those errors. Now if one claim a narrative is broken because of a plot element that is disliked but not convoluted or contradictory, then yes, that is subjective.
Even works considered to be masterpieces are guilty of having broken narratives. Terminator is an excellent example as it features the grandfather paradox. Kyle Reese travels back in time and impregnates Sarah Connor, whom gives birth to John Connor, who grows up and becomes Kyle's commanding officer. The problem though is that Kyle, John's father, only impregnates John's mother because John sent Kyle back in the first place, meaning John Connor is responsible for creating himself.
The Terminator itself is a paradox because it is only with the arm remnant of the T-800 that Skynet technology is developed. Yet, Skynet sends a terminator into the past, an action that causes its own technology to exist in the past, leading to its own creation in the future.
So I am not picking on Godzilla. Plenty of well loved stories have narrative breaking elements. Now what is subjective is my own choice to ignore those elements and enjoy the primary idea of the narrative.
