by Gojiraknight » Fri Aug 06, 2010 9:56 am
Godzilla, like Batman, can be a great character whether he's good, bad, or somewhere in between.
But....
Even if he is great in all incarnations, he is better in others. Do I find the hokey 1960's Batman entertaining? Sure. But if the 1989 movie went that route, with Bill Murray and Eddie Murphy as the dynamic duo as originally conceived, it would've been a disaster. A funny one maybe, but a disaster nonetheless.
If Godzilla is a Hero it doesn't necessarily spell doom anymore than a Villain/Anti-Hero route spells success. But there is a greater potential for that (see reasons outlined above).
To translate a character from one medium (or culture) to another, you are best served by going back to the source material. What was Godzilla originally about? What made him popular in the first place?
He was bad. Make that BAD. The idea of a giant monster appearing out of nowhere, for no reason, and all of our most trusted institutions can do nothing to stop him is a terrifying premise. It's what the character is ultimately about. And the further you get away from that, the further you get away from the character. Why call it Godzilla at that point? Isn't that what went wrong with D/E's version?
So yes, I would be happy with any Godzilla movie (even if it sucked...no, really, I'm still excited). But I feel the character was fundamentally meant to be a antagonist and that's the direction this film should go.
Monster Zero's "Most Naive Person About 'The Business'" for 7 years running!