by Jorzilla » Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:07 pm
My hated of this is well documented, but hey, lets get it out there and visible one more time.
I don't really care as a design element, but I fall in the a category of thinking they are distracting and tacky for the overall design. I DO care if they are functional and described as such in the movie either through function, description or god forbid lighting up akin to the back spines. I would put them in the same category of unnecessary and unwanted addition as:
*Feathers (I mean Godzilla was based on a dinosaur).
*Quils being an extension of the feathers comment since he's irradiated.
*Webbed feet or hands.
*Horizontal stance, though this isn't necessarily a deal breaker on a design, I just have a strong preference for a hominid shape.
The reason primarily as a reclassification of a Godzilla species in biological taxonomy, as well as what I would gladly admit is a slippery slope of: Well if gills make sense from a realism perspective since he's aquatic, then why not give him fins and webbed hands/feet? Which is why I believe realism shouldn't be a deciding factor in the design, or even my acceptance of a design if I believe it is bad. Before anyone calls me out on it, I see pro-biological taxonomy logic and my argument against realism in Godzilla as being distinct: a movie's universe should only follow believability, and violation of taxonomy breaks believability for me. You cannot have a reptile with gills. Reptiles have fully formed lungs.
I think we all have a line that we would cross of when Godzilla is no longer classified as such (Zilla is a great example), and for me, personally, I have a low tolerance for what I interpret as fundamental changes to the character and his origin. Less we see a Godzilla with all the features I listed above. I don't think many people would argue a monster was Godzilla if it was a horizontal T-Rex, with feathers, gills, webbed feet/hands and fins; yet individually I have seen designs or have heard recommendations which incorporate one or more of these elements. My tolerance for against radical change prevents me from liking the gills. I have a low tolerance for it.
Lastly my criticism is leveled from the perspective of, would I do it, or could I see any Godzilla fan making this addition? By in large I think the answer is no, I've never recalled seeing a piece of fan art with this feature prior to the initial leak of Godzilla's design. From that perspective it fails my internal test of whether or not it is a logical decision or progression of the design. I don't think anyone would argue that the addition isn't radical. To further illustrate where I'm coming from: I'd be curious to see if anyone believes that any classic Japanese Godzilla is actually IMPROVED by the addition of gills.
NOW: Before anyone says well G2K, GMK design is radical, or Godzilla has flown, stfu (responses I have fielded many times due to this opinion), I would like to point out that it is not what I am discussing in this topic. Those designs and elements have their own merits and faults within the context of their own movies and the overall franchise. I don't think a discussion on whether or not Godzilla should have 4 toes or 3 is what we should spend time discussing, I would gladly share my opinion on those matters in their respective threads. I WILL say that up until this point, and with the exception of Zilla, by and large previous Godzilla designs are remixes and re-imaginings of existing designs an element which may once be radical can eventually be accepted, such as jagged spikes. I see gills as a new element which exists outside what has been established as a trait for a Godzilla design, and something that I do not believe can or should be accepted as a standard trait going forward.
Now the question is: Will this discussion be kept civil?