Page 1 of 7

Legendary's Godzilla: science- or faith-based?

PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 10:07 am
by Sanchan
How much science, or lack of science, should be applied to explain Godzilla, his size, abilities, and practical invincibility?

It occurred to me that the creative minds behind Godzilla 2012 are (pick a term: struggling, considering, deciding) how to explain a phenomenon like Godzilla in the modern age. Or, like I asked, do they?

It seems to me that Legendary has two demographics crucial to G2012's success: the fan base and everyone else, (the group that arguably seduced D&E into reducing G98 to a giant JP rip-off, or misread.)

So, for discussion. Godzilla: science- or faith-based? Do you explain him at all and, if so, to what extent? And how will that play with the movie-going public?

PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 10:43 am
by MekaGojira3k

PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 10:47 am
by emeGoji
If they're not making him a nuclear allegory, I don't really see a need to explain his origins at all. Leaving it up to the audience's imaginations, similar to the way Cloverfield was handled, would be less distracting and ultimately more satisfying to the public at large.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 10:55 am
by MekaGojira3k

PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:10 am
by Benjamin Haines
Sadly, most of the general moviegoing public want things to be spelled out for them. One of the most oft-repeated complaints I heard from people when Cloverfield came out was that they didn't explain the origin of the monster.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:19 am
by jellydonut25
i'd hope they explain as little as possible...dinosaur, nuclear bomb

that's it.

no crazy explanations on how a dinosaur survived so long, no zany half-assed science about a nuclear-reactor heart, just dinosaur, nuclear bomb.

let Godzilla speak for himself, so to speak.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:25 am
by Legion

PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:36 pm
by leunames

PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:45 pm
by ebirahsmeg1

PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:14 pm
by Gojiraknight

PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:50 pm
by mrbluehair

PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:19 pm
by metal_bryan

PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 10:36 pm
by jellydonut25

PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 10:59 pm
by Cookie

PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 1:51 am
by jellydonut25

PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 9:56 am
by Gojiraknight

PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 2:05 pm
by mrbluehair

PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 2:39 pm
by MekaGojira3k

PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 3:01 pm
by Benjamin Haines

PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 4:12 pm
by Gojiraknight

PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 4:45 pm
by jellydonut25
The Joker isn't Godzilla (obviously).
The Joker isn't even supernatural or science-fiction.
Seriosuly, he's a human being with scars on his face, audiences don't think something like that NEEDS an origin.

Also, the aliens in ID4 have a fairly clearly defined origin/motive ("I saw...what they're trying to do...they move, from...planet to planet...until they use up all the resources. like locusts")

audiences (unfortunately) want things spelled out for them in the world of sci-fi/supernatural "where did the cloverfield monster COME from??" or "now we know where john connor's scar in the future comes from!! cool!!" or "the only thing i didn't like about inception was the end; did he wake up for real or not?" or "who are the space jockeys? we demand to know!!" or "why were the aliens in district 9 ...[seriously, fill in the blank here]??"

people want things spelled out for them, why do you think every single superhero has a damn origin movie???

PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 5:28 pm
by MouthForWar

PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 6:06 pm
by mrbluehair

PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 9:10 pm
by TerranigmaFreak

PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 12:08 am
by jellydonut25