Empire has a write-up of Edwards' spolierific discussion about the movie;
THE DECISION TO KILL CRANSTON
“The decision was to kill Joe Brody, the character in the movie [not Bryan Cranston]. Then we were all, ‘Who’s going to play him?’ And you look around, and Bryan’s a phenomenal actor and we thought we’d be blessed if he did it. I’ll be honest with you: we tried versions in the screenplay where he survived. And in every one we did that with, there was nothing else that character could do without being silly. If he sticks with Ford, it becomes Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade, and the tone of the movie becomes fun, but not the tone we were trying to do. And if he sticks with the military guys, he’s like a fifth wheel. His job was done in the storyline there. And retrospectively, when you get to see the movie, I understand [why people are upset].
“We did try to make it work. It was “all ideas welcome”, even with Bryan. But as a story beat, he becomes redundant once he’s handed over the baton to the rest of the cast.
“I also wanted people to think, “Oh! They’re willing to do that… Wow, okay. Maybe this isn’t going to end how I think it will.” It throws people a bit. I like that in movies – when you stop thinking they’re going to everything you could predict.”
Also people highly overexaggerate on the cutting to news thing.there were two fights in the movie. He cuts away from the first one, but we see the second one. I really don't see the problem.
Thing is, when Steven Seagal died in Executive Decision, we had Kurt Russell. If you're going to write your best character so he dies early in the movie, you better have a Kurt Russell.
I was going to get it, but all the pages were cutaways.
I was going to get it, but all the pages were cutaways.
Saw it with my gf a second time. I liked it as much as the first time. A few observations:
- GF literally started crying when Binoche died. I have to agree that this moment is ridiculously emotional and it is so weird that the movie starts that way, with emotional tension without Godzilla even being involved.
- Cranston is perfect in the movie. I really can't believe the comments about overacting. On the contrary, Taylor - Johnson is too mundane, and his character is not interesting enough and that in the end drags the film down.
- While it is very interesting that Cranston's death happens so early, I believe that the writers should have found a way to keep him in the movie. I understand that it was sort of difficult as we're talking about biblical catastrophe - scale action (it wouldn't make sense for Cranston to chase Godzilla down while skyscrapers are collapsing), but it was the tragic death of Binoche that provided the movie with a dramatic basis. The journey should be one of redemption for Cranston.
Nevertheless, i really liked the movie. If it had a better screenplay I think it had the potential for a modern monster movie masterpiece, as it was it still is the surprise of the year for me, and it makes Pacific Rim feel so awful in comparison that it makes me feel shame about Del Toro.
He's making a joke about the film cutting away from Godzilla.So not worth it? What do you mean by cutaway?
About the bolded, I've seen/heard a few people suggestThink about it.Godzilla is his redemption incarnate.
I think most people who saw the film can agree that the human performances dragged the film down, whether you loved the movie or hated it. We can also probably agree that any moment featuring Godzilla himself was awesome.
The question then becomes does the good outweigh the bad, or vice versa? I still haven't made up my mind on that score.
WRONG! The first fight in Hawaii is only shown briefly on the kid's TV and the second fight (when Watanabe said "Let them fight!" and we see them square off) was cut away from as well.
Good to great:
- Godzilla
-MUTOs
-Godzilla/MUTOs fights
- Cinematography
- Some really great setpieces
- Serizawa's cheesy lines (only gets a pass for "let them fight")
- Finale
-Bryan Cranston
-Sound effects
Bad
- All characters except Bryan Cranston
-Plotting
-Pacing
-"Post-human perspective"
-Score
-Lots of cheesy moments
-Cliches out the ass
-So much exposition
-Themes
-Last shot
You fixed my opinion? Well, okay...Fixed!
You fixed my opinion? Well, okay...
I agree with what you're saying, but in the case of RLM...they actually know what they're talking about. When they dissect movies and point out flaws, they do so because they understand the pieces involved when putting a movie together and can articulate why something did or did not work. Your average movie goer will usually equate not liking something to mean it was of poor quality. This obviously isn't the case. When Jay and Mike break things down, they still appreciate when something is done right even if they didn't enjoy the movie as a whole.
They also recommend movies more often than not, despite appearing nitpicky. They both had plenty of issues with the new Hobbit films but both recommended them afterwards. They know the difference between preference and quality.
Ha! nice, thanks I'm heading over to pick it up now.He's making a joke about the film cutting away from Godzilla.
Enjoy. It's (fittingly) big.Ha! nice, thanks I'm heading over to pick it up now.
About the bolded, I've seen/heard a few people suggestThink about it.Godzilla is his redemption incarnate.
Sorry, but you're wrong.
They cut awayat hawaii and when they cut away that second time that's the fight that's going on when they do the Halo jump, so we in fact do see that
OK, so they cut away from one fight and the first 13 rounds of the second fight. THERE!
I am absolutely in agreement with the disappointed ones here.
The trailers were magnificent.
The film...?
I don't understand the decisions made here. For every glimmer of potential there was a ridiculous editorial decision to snuff it out. Why remove characters with depth to focus on a vacuum? Why have a ridiculous stuttering structure instead of just a steady build to a final set piece? Why half-humanise Godzilla but not go full King Kong? Why make dim political allusions but not link them coherently? Why devise a breathtaking and original set piece (the Halo dive) and then negate it with a script that runs out of dialogue after ten minutes? Why assemble a cast with Julienne Binoche, Bryan Cranston, Ken Watanabe and Sally Hawkins and either kill them off in the first act or force them to play what are effectively silhouettes of human beings?
I don't get this film. It wasn't fun enough to be kitsch. It wasn't clever enough to warrant the use of Ligeti or to half-arsedly nod to Fukushima. It was just a watered-down damp squib. Hollywood strikes again.
Don't know if posted yet, AVGN take on the new Godzilla movie: http://cinemassacre.com/2014/05/17/godzilla-2014-thoughts/
About the bolded, I've seen/heard a few people suggestThink about it.Godzilla is his redemption incarnate.
I am just glad the movie did well enough as it did so far with plans of a sequel already happening.
Surely Toho must be pleased with how Edward's version was faithful to the source material and perhaps this will pay off later. Toho might decide to let him have a go with creatures from the older movies that fans remember or like to see. Although with tweaks or a variation to their origin given the established explanation for the creatures in this movie universe.
I can understand why people feel teased with the Hawaii airport scene but I have been thinking on that since I saw the movie.Sure we see Godzilla roar at the creature once he arrives but how much fighting could there actually have been? The male and female MUTO's main imperative was to meet each other except for the male possibly nabbing nuclear resources for her along the way. Being that they act more animalistic the male cares more about flight than fight when it comes to Godzilla.
Following this trail of thought then it would make sense not to see the titular monsters go at it until the end of the film. The MUTOS meet up finally and build a nest for the eggs so their species doesn't die out as far as they are concerned. This also means they finally have a reason to stick around the area and defend the nest from any potential threats which in this case is Godzilla. Animals in nature usually behave in this manner when it comes to predators.
Surely Toho must be pleased with how Edward's version was faithful to the source material and perhaps this will pay off later. Toho might decide to let him have a go with creatures from the older movies that fans remember or like to see. Although with tweaks or a variation to their origin given the established explanation for the creatures in this movie universe.
How many times have you see the movie? This seems like making up things to complain about, as if we've already exhausted the more obvious "issues." Of course he spent more time fighting than roaring.
I can't recall the exact number, but it only happens when he confronts a MUTO and when he wins. So three times? Four?
oh, I definitely agree. What gives RLM's opinions weight vs. hyperbolic internet posters is RLM can articulate WHY something is bad because they understand the film making process. You see posters say things like "the fight scene was boring and stupid" or "X movie was trash" without having any idea why they feel that way.Yeah, I also share your point, I love RLM. What I was trying to say is that there's a lot of bad impersonators on the internet and message boards who think that nitpicking every single little flaw to end up with hyperbole as conclusion ("OMG there was a plothole somewhere in the middle, this is the worst shit since Manos: the hands of fate!") is rational argumentation, like RLM.
I've been seeing this all over Gaf with average or good fantasy movies lately. The Hobbit, Dark Knight Rises, Watchmen, Avengers, Man of Steel, etc. They're all worse than fucking Episode I to them.
Good to great:
- Godzilla
- MUTOs
- Godzilla/MUTOs fights
- Score
- Great cheesy moments
- Cinematography
- Some really great setpieces
- Plotting
- Pacing
- Serizawa's cheesy lines
- Themes: Forces of nature/family
- Post-human perspective
- Finale
- Last shot
- Sound Design
Okay
- Most characters
- Teasing. Hawaii tease was hilarious...rest not so much.
Godzilla: The Movie That Did No Wrong
Movie was shit. Some solid action but the script was absolute garbage and the acting was bad. Cranston was good of course but Watanabe and Taylor-Johnson gave cringe inducing performances. I think the asian kid plotline might be the dumbest one I've seen in a while. This shit will end up just like Pacific Rim. Lots of circle jerk for it for about 2 months until people realize how awful the movie really is behind all the CGI.
lmao those voices are spot on.
That mindset is the reason why we basically got no totally new monsters for 40 (!!!) years. Even Orga was just trying to be a Godzilla-hybrid. Every one of them was just a rehash of some sort. Maybe save for Dagahra but it's from the Mothra films.I hope for the sequel Toho releases the floodgates and lets WB/Legendary use the classic monsters.
Want Mothra, Rodan, Ghidorah. Jesus fuck just give me that WB/Legendary, fuck this MUTO garbage, I want the classic monsters.
hugh jackman was born to play solid snake.
good lord that movie would be pretty stupid though. i wish they played it straight and had kojima direct and then submit it to cannes lmao.
If you think he roared too much, that's fine. Out of all the Godzilla films I've seen, I don't think I've ever encountered that problem, but that's fine. What I was taking issue with was you saying there's more roaring than fighting. Obviously that's not the case.Is this how all slight criticisms are gonna be approached in this thread? condescension and "you're making things up" type remarks? I wasn't even using it as a means of belittling the movie, it was just something I was discussing. I'm one of the people who disliked it first time and actually really liked it second time but I still think it happens too much.
I thought it got most things right. Is that a problem?Godzilla: The Movie That Did No Wrong