Godzilla (2014) - - - - Part 13

Status
Not open for further replies.
Batman is an actual multi-dimensional character with a complex personality and character arc. Godzilla is a rampaging monster/force of nature. Comparing the two simply doesn't work.
 
So back to Godzilla.

Vice does have a good point about Tatapo's love interest.
 
Asking why Binoche and Olsen were in the movie is just plain idiotic, it's fairly obvious why the wives of the two main human figures in the film are in it...and I don't think it was marketed around Cranston at all, it was marketed around its non-human title character.

Olsen's character is pointless IMO.
 
Monster movies so often seem to disappoint me. I see the trailers, and get all excited about the massive scale and epic scope.... but then when I see the film itself, it too often just feels like empty spectacle. It happened with PACIFIC RIM last year,

It's like you were reading my mind. Have had the same experiences you have.
 
She wasn't pointless to the soldier that we're following throughout the movie, hence she's a fairly obvious part of the story.

A convenient part of the story and one who lacked any kind of development other than making a few sad faces along the way.
 
Of course, it's a Godzilla movie. The characters are only going to be servicable at best, it's a spectacle movie and they're there between the build up to the epic monster rampage scenes that why people actually watch these movies.

That's why the criticisms of 'empty spectacle' are quite surprising...of course it was.

I think those that love the movie would be more than willing to tell you that, this movie was never going to be very deep.
 
Batman was on the screen longer than 13 minutes. If I had to guess how long he was in it I would say at least half an hour maybe 40 minutes, thats three times as long as Godzillas appearance time. Point being Nolan put enough Batman action in their to satisfy me personally but even then I remember people complaining about the lack of Batman.

Batman's clocked screen time in TDKR is ~30 minutes in a film that runs for 165 minutes. That is only 18% of the film. Where as Godzilla has 13 documented minutes in a film that runs for 123 minutes. That amounts to 11% screen time. The difference is minimal in a broader scope. Though for that matter, I found TDKR to also be a disappointment.
 
Last edited:
Of course, it's a Godzilla movie. The characters are only going to be servicable at best, it's a spectacle movie and they're there between the build up to the epic monster rampage scenes that why people actually watch these movies.

That's why the criticisms of 'empty spectacle' are quite surprising...of course it was.

I think those that love the movie would be more than willing to tell you that, this movie was never going to be very deep.

"They're there to build up up to" ...... uhhhh yeah, that's what I'm saying and in this movie there was only 13mins of Godzilla so that left the load to be carried by the cast. Once Cranston died it wasn't even serviceable to me. It was empty.

Hate to break it to you but people watch these movies for all kinds of reasons. Bryan Cranston's involvement was being marketed heavily and it was giving off a different kind of signal than just some spectacle. Unfortunately it was a bait and switch.
 
I thought most of the human characters had no reason to be in this movie. Any EOD could have done what ford did, and if he wasn't in the movie it would have spared us that kid. OOOOOH mommy look! Dinosaurs! ugh.
 
She wasn't pointless to the soldier that we're following throughout the movie, hence she's a fairly obvious part of the story.
She was pointless. The story would have ended up the same without her.
The MUTO nest would have gotten blown up and Godzilla would have killed the MUTOs.
 
im okay with Edwards doing a film in between Godzilla films that means the sequel wont be rushed out for 2016 witch is very crowded.so I imagine 2017 3yrs in between sequels with seems to be the norm.
 
I'm trying to figure out who had more screen time, Juliette Binoche, or Godzilla. I'm guessing it was about the same.
 
Where as Godzilla has 13 documented minutes in a 11% screen time.

But how much of those 13 minutes is just his spines sticking out of water or his tail or something? The amount of time where you actually SEE Godzilla is way less than 13 minutes.
 
There was no need for Kick-Ass or Olsen to be in this movie, the two main human characters should have been Watanabe and Cranston. The monsters were criminally under used, and the constant cutting away from their battles makes no sense whatsoever. Edwards might argue that it was to build suspense, but there was no need to do it 3(?) times. And what was the deal with that young Asian kid on the train? Who allowed those scenes to make into the final cut? Utterly pointless.
 
Batman was on the screen longer than 13 minutes. If I had to guess how long he was in it I would say at least half an hour maybe 40 minutes, thats three times as long as Godzillas appearance time. Point being Nolan put enough Batman action in their to satisfy me personally but even then I remember people complaining about the lack of Batman.
I think at least when Batman appeared, he did something and we saw it play out. There wasn't a cut away as he ran away from the police on the batpod. Or when the gate closed to lock him inside the sewer with Bane. And on it goes.
 
Of course, it's a Godzilla movie. The characters are only going to be servicable at best, it's a spectacle movie and they're there between the build up to the epic monster rampage scenes that why people actually watch these movies.

That's why the criticisms of 'empty spectacle' are quite surprising...of course it was.

I think those that love the movie would be more than willing to tell you that, this movie was never going to be very deep.

This film doesn't get to coast on the whole "of course the characters suck its a spectacle" as it repeatedly cuts away and doesn't commit to the spectacle in order to follow the lackluster characters. It just doesn't excel in either regard.
 
There's plenty of spectacle at the end of the movie, it's cutting away so you get to see everything n the end.
 
There's plenty of spectacle at the end of the movie, it's cutting away so you get to see everything n the end.

Not really. The fight at the end doesn't make up for the constant cutting away in my opinion. Although Godzilla's finishing move is amazing.
 
There's plenty of spectacle at the end of the movie, it's cutting away so you get to see everything n the end.

You can't really tease in the middle of a battle and then move onto something else. It became unnatural transition and then eventually was "gratuitous" once the film cut away from Godzilla for the third time.

The movie would've been bettered served to not have had any battles at all between the MUTOS and Godzilla until the third act. I personally would've been fine with that, provided we got meatier roles from everybody else or Cranston made it through the whole film.
 
I personally hope that Edwards doesn't return for the sequel. The more I think about it, he's missed the entire point of a Godzilla movie.
 
I personally hope that Edwards doesn't return for the sequel. The more I think about it, he's missed the entire point of a Godzilla movie.

Don't worry. Disney already snatched his ass up.
 
Thomas Tull already said the plan was for Edwards to make another movie before Godzilla 2. Edwards is signed up for two more movies.

Agreed. 'Plenty' is being generous.

It's not, really. They're given enough fight time. And there's PLENTY of destruction and cool looking **** happening.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,359
Messages
22,091,758
Members
45,886
Latest member
Elchido
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"