So I just watched Shin Godzilla and 2014 was way better. Like it's not even a close match Shin was too different it was an ok movie but it wasn't really Godzilla. so if your not a die hard Godzilla fan stick with the American version that is clearly superior
shareI'd say they are on par.
Both got a lot right and both got some stuff wrong.
It comes down to the individual to decide.
Shin Godzilla was definitely better. Shin Godzilla is for people who like stories with theme, Godzilla 2014 is for people who like stories with special effects. I think this is a fair comparison between the two.
share"So I just watched Shin Godzilla and 2014 was way better. Like it's not even a close match Shin was too different it was an ok movie but it wasn't really Godzilla."
Oh come on, "Shin Godzilla" wasn't worse than the 2014 movie. The version featured in "Shin Godzilla" was Godzilla - get over it. It's a different take on the character, essentially the 54 version updated to current social climes.
It's interesting comparing the two movies. Both movies are based within the real world, but their approaches are vastly different with very different areas of focus; whereas the 2014 movie took a lot of cues from Fukushima, Hurricane Katrina and the Tsunamis of 2011 as a way of showing that no matter where people were small and powerless in the face of such terrible disasters, "Shin", while being about the Fukushima disaster itself and the impotency of Japanese bureaucracy, was also about exploring the effects of a creature like Godzilla on a socio-political level. It's the only Godzilla movie that is done entirely from the point of view of politicians as they try to deal with the various issues presented by Godzilla. Whereas the 2014 Godzilla was a prehistoric "alpha predator" that fed on radiation (like the standard Toho version) and looked like an actual animal with some attributes of a natural disaster, "Shin Godzilla" on the other hand was more of a nightmare, a freak, disaster squared (like the 54 version).
I did not even see Shin Godzilla. I decided not to after seeing the way he would be looking. For me, he just has to look good, at least for most of his appearances, which do not have to be many. Also, the portrayal of Godzilla as just a threat to humans, attacking them, is just not interesting to me.
"Do All Things For God's Glory"-1 Corinthians 10:31
I try doing this with my posts
"For me, he just has to look good, at least for most of his appearances, which do not have to be many."
Considering how he looked throughout the years, his appearance in "Shin Godzilla" was far from being the worst thing.
"the portrayal of Godzilla as just a threat to humans, attacking them, is just not interesting to me."
A downright stupid argument considering Godzilla is a monster, a radioactive one especially - of course he would be a threat!
Also, the portrayal of Godzilla as just a threat to humans, attacking them, is just not interesting to me.He doesn't, really. He's a new being just born who's acting instinctively. He attacks humans because they attack him first. One of the characters even reflects that humans are worse monsters than Gojira.
Godzilla 2014 is better than Shin Godzilla, but that's not saying much. Neither was very good.
share"Godzilla 2014 is better than Shin Godzilla, but that's not saying much. Neither was very good."
It's a good movie, but "Shin Godzilla" is a much better film. Also a very different type of film.
Two very mediocre movies.
share"Two very mediocre movies."
Not at all, especially "Shin Godzilla". Just because a movie isn't suited to your tastes doesn't make it a bad movie or even a mediocre one, that just means the movie isn't for you and there's nothing wrong with that.
Nah, very mediocre, especially "Shin Godzilla." Just because a movie is suited to your tastes, doesn't make it good or even a great one, it just means the movie is for you and that's great.
share"very mediocre, especially "Shin Godzilla.""
Not at all, not when you compare it to other movies within the genre that it's part of (giant monster movies) and budget. In comparison to a lot of similarly budgeted flicks and the genre that it's from, especially in comparison to stuff by Asylum, it is actually one of the better ones.
Maybe, maybe not, but it still does not make it a great movie. As long as you you enjoy it, that's all that really matters in the end.
share"Maybe, maybe not, but it still does not make it a great movie"
You have to look at it within the context of the best and worst giant monster movies and have a sense of proportion, because to say it's mediocre when there are so many other movies that are far guiltier of being that would be incredibly disingenuous.
"As long as you you enjoy it, that's all that really matters in the end."
To an extent I agree. I hope you find something that is what you're looking for.
Yeah, I look at it within the context of Godzilla films. This one failed to deliver, as opposed to some other godzilla films which were better and much more entertaining.
share"Yeah, I look at it within the context of Godzilla films."
The best and worst within said-series, including the Hannah-Barbera cartoons, or only those that you saw?
"This one failed to deliver, as opposed to some other godzilla films which were better and much more entertaining."
Depends on what sort of mindset you went in with. It's not an action film/vs-type film like the vast majority of them.
Yeah, I enjoyed some of Hannah-Barbera's cartoons more than this. It failed in whatever genre it was aiming for, at least for me. I suppose I was expecting to much. Ah well, on to the next one, which is allegedly going to be an anime. Should be interesting.
share"Yeah, I enjoyed some of Hannah-Barbera's cartoons more than this."
I don't see why, especially given how awful they were.
"It failed in whatever genre it was aiming for"
It's incredibly disingenuous to say that "it failed" when you consider some of the worst giant monster movies and Godzilla films in comparison, or even other remakes. As a remake that attempts at realism ("Shin" is arguably the most realistic Godzilla since the original), with none of the really outlandish stuff such as maser tanks, Super X hovercrafts, etc, it's done a good job all things considering, exploring not only how he functions, the political and legal complications in dealing with him, showing some of his impact on a societal and international level, even having the movie viewed entirely from the politician's pov among other things. It is an adult and intelligently done film, a welcome change from a lot of the kiddy crap from the 60s and 70s.
"Ah well, on to the next one, which is allegedly going to be an anime. Should be interesting."
Indeed. I'm actually curious in terms of what Toho is going to be doing. From the poster/cover image, it seems to be going for more sci-fish terrain, if not futuristic.
Cool story, bruh, you have so much material now, you can devote a couple of chapters to "Hanna-Barbera" and "Asylum" when writing your dissertation about why this movie is good and why I am dead wrong. I hope you're making progress. I look forward to reading it.
share"Cool story, bruh, you have so much material now, you can devote a couple of chapters to "Hanna-Barbera" and "Asylum" when writing your dissertation about why this movie is good and why I am dead wrong. I hope you're making progress. I look forward to reading it."
I don't need to "write a dissertation". You haven't really made any compelling arguments for it being mediocre, nor are you reflexive or proportionate in your summations of it being such.
I'm sorry I hurt your feelings concerning this movie. Well, you should because you are taking my dislike of this movie very seriously. It's hilarious.
share"I'm sorry I hurt your feelings concerning this movie."
You haven't. It's fine to not like a movie, but to declare a movie, a good movie even, as being mediocre or garbage without either giving a reason or even due consideration with regards to either budget, the genre that it's part of, the best and worst within said-genre, story, the country that it's from, film traditions of said-country etc is downright naïve and arrogant.
"Well, you should because you are taking my dislike of this movie very seriously. It's hilarious."
Again, don't need to. It's not your disliking the movie that is the problem, it's the glibness and arrogance which you exude from your posts. You gave no sense of proportion or reflexivity.
Clearly, your feelings were hurt because you keep coming back and harassing me over this movie. It's hilarious.
share"Clearly, your feelings were hurt because you keep coming back and harassing me over this movie. It's hilarious."
Not at all. I'm amused that the most thoughtful response you even give is for me to "write a dissertation" rather than explain in an intelligent manner what makes it a bad or mediocre movie.
Clearly, yes because you keep coming back. I already said I found it dull. Past Godzilla movies have featured distinct political criticism and satire without being so tedious and full of inaction. The political intrigue involving the US was ridiculous and comical. Spending the majority of the movie on inane boardroom meetings did not do this movie any favors. Political allegory in movies is not synonymous for quality movie. Repetitive, almost exclusively expository dialogue and outright bland characters devoid of any personality made this movie a real slog. The movie is preachy and unlike some of its predecessors, it is not entertaining. I did not enjoy the pacing of this movie as it did not flow well. Godzilla falling asleep in the middle of the city for 2 weeks, giving the government time to act was incredibly dumb and unoriginal. It shooting out lasers from all of its orifices was dumb as well. The original Godzilla, and Godzilla 1985, which was similar, handled solo Godzilla way better and both were much more entertaining. That all being said, I did not enjoy "Shin Godzilla" but you did, so good for you.
share"Clearly, yes because you keep coming back"
Not at all. I'm only curious to see if you'd actually reply with something thoughtful beyond "write a dissertation".
"I already said I found it dull. Past Godzilla movies have featured distinct political criticism and satire without being so tedious and full of inaction."
So you were unimpressed by its lack of action. You're an action junkie and you didn't get your fix - nothing wrong with that. That didn't mean the movie was "bad", just that it wasn't your type of movie.
"The political intrigue involving the US was ridiculous and comical."
Why? What made it "ridiculous" and "comical"?
"Spending the majority of the movie on inane boardroom meetings did not do this movie any favors."
Considering the movie is set in reality, done entirely from the POV of politicians and their trying to manage a crisis and is about the inefficacy of Japanese bureaucrats, it's fine. Not for everyone, though.
"Political allegory in movies is not synonymous for quality movie."
That is true in some cases. But what makes for a "quality" movie? Are movies such as "2001: A Space Odyssey" "bad" movies just because they doesn't live up to whatever preconceived notions of a "good" movie that you have?
"Repetitive, almost exclusively expository dialogue and outright bland characters devoid of any personality made this movie a real slog"
Characters had some personality, but the movie wasn't focused on the individual, it was more concerned about the bigger picture, the political and societal side of things. I can kind of understand having an issue with expository dialogue (to an extent), but at the same time, the movie is about problem-solving, not "BANG BANG YIPPEE KAY YAY, MOTHERF#CKERS!". This actually has me curious - what made the dialogue "repetitive"?
"The movie is preachy and unlike some of its predecessors, it is not entertaining."
Funny you say it's "preachy" when a lot of the predecessors of yore were just as guilty. From your use of the word "entertaining", you were evidently hoping for a more action and fantasy-based experience and not a grounded, thoughtful and realistic approach.
"Godzilla falling asleep in the middle of the city for 2 weeks, giving the government time to act was incredibly dumb and unoriginal."
Given that he sprayed the entire city and made it into a burning scar that could be seen even from space and they're trying to go for realism, it makes sense for him to recharge. "Unoriginal"? Why?
"The original Godzilla, and Godzilla 1985, which was similar, handled solo Godzilla way better and both were much more entertaining."
The movies weren't meant to be "entertaining" - they were meant to be terrifying. Plus, although politicians and the government were featured in those movies, they weren't the main characters.
Never said I was action junkie. I said other Godzilla movies handled the political satire and action in a better way. Doesn't mean the movie is "good" either.
Yeah, so basically, this movie was not about Godzilla, it was about the inefficiency in Japanese governance. Just because it is set in reality does not mean it needs to be dull. Guess I'm not pretentious enough to enjoy this aspec of the film.
None of the characters had personality. They were all flat. Going from one boardroom to another boardroom discussing the same thing over and over is reptitive.
The movie can be both entertaining and terrifying and this was not.
I said the other movies handled the preachy part in a much better way without being tedious and dull.
I'm capable of writing something more thoughtful but what for? It's just a dumb movie meant to entertain. I'm not into this whole idea of dissecting people's opinions about a movie. I found it dull, you found it great. Good for you. I'll save my thoughtful responses for issues that actually matter.
"Never said I was action junkie. I said other Godzilla movies handled the political satire and action in a better way."
Yet your emphasis on the words "action" and "entertaining" suggests that what you wanted wasn't something intellectually stimulating, but rather something to satisfy the inner child with kaiju destruction and to turn your brain off to.
"Doesn't mean the movie is "good" either."
Only if you ignore the details.
"Yeah, so basically, this movie was not about Godzilla, it was about the inefficiency in Japanese governance."
What on earth are you talking about? The entire movie was about Godzilla from start to finish. Yes, the movie was about the inefficiency of Japanese bureaucracy, but Godzilla himself was a representation of how small problems left unattended snowballed into even larger and more catastrophic ones with even more dire consequences.
"Just because it is set in reality does not mean it needs to be dull."
A person's mileage may vary when it comes to these kinds of films; "2001: A Space Odyssey" was a really good movie, but it's not for everyone. A person, a child especially, who went in expecting full-on monster action is going to be unsatisfied as it isn't that type of film.
"Guess I'm not pretentious enough to enjoy this aspec of the film."
It's not a question of being "pretentious enough to enjoy this aspect of the film", it's more of a question of your willingness to go along with the story and using your head to actually think about the movie's ideas, the stuff it's presenting, etc.
"None of the characters had personality. They were all flat."
The characters had some personality - Kayoko was an ambitious politician who's looking to step up her career to become the next President, Hanamori was the one forcing the Prime Minister’s hand to make a decision when he was racked with doubt and reluctance, etc - but the movie wasn't strictly about them. It was literally "Japan vs Godzilla".
Just wanted to ask - do stories have to have characters that are "relatable" or have a "personality"? Consider the stories by Arthur C. Clark and Stanley Kubrick, for example - both are cold when it comes to people; Clarke is simply indifferent to them, his characters are never more than names on a page, while Kubrick regards people with a minatory cruelty, a cynic when it comes to humanity or else his films seem like giant stage sets where the camera remains at a detached distance while actors barnstorm with theatrical regard.
"Going from one boardroom to another boardroom discussing the same thing over and over is reptitive."
I can understand the meetings being repetitive, but the dialogue wasn't repeated over and over like in certain anime shows. "Street Fighter V's" campaign is a cringe-worthy example of being such.
"I said the other movies handled the preachy part in a much better way without being tedious and dull."
The Godzilla movies in general weren't as grounded as "Shin"; this was a series that had aliens, psychics, robots, supernatural entities, maser tanks and all sorts of bizarre stuff, the human element in the vast majority of said-films a minor annoyance until the monster arrives. Here, the human element is a big part of the film, and a part of Godzilla himself judging from the ending. In terms of the movie being "preachy", it isn't as annoyingly overt and ham-fisted like some of the 60s/70s stuff or like the "Rebirth of Mothra" movies.
"I'm capable of writing something more thoughtful but what for?"
Why not? If you feel you can do better, by all means, go ahead and write the Godzilla movie that you want, be it in the form of a script, film (animated and/or live action), a comic, a video game or whatever. I'm not being facetious, I'm serious - I've seen tons of amazing things done by fans for different titles on YouTube and Deviantart that shows their love, dedication and talent in all these different mediums, and to see something for Godzilla, especially if it's really good and shows that same level of passion and talent, would be a real treat. The worst thing you can do as a fan - that is, assuming that you are a fan - is to do nothing.
"It's just a dumb movie meant to entertain."
Not at all. The movie feels like someone had poured a lot of time and research into the various elements within it, and that's heavily reflected. I think this might be the closest people are ever going to get to a hard sci-fi Godzilla movie, which is saying something considering the fantastical nature of the character.
"I'm not into this whole idea of dissecting people's opinions about a movie."
It helps to see where people are coming from in terms of what they like and/or dislike about a movie.
That's really fantastic. Like I said, I'll save my thoughtful responses for more relevant issues, not on popcorn flicks.
share"Like I said, I'll save my thoughtful responses for more relevant issues, not on popcorn flicks."
And that goes to show that what you had wanted in the end was a mindless popcorn flick, nothing more. You didn't get that, unfortunately, and I'm sorry you were expecting that. I hope you find something that appeals to your tastes.
I'll make it short, you don't know what you are talking about, certainly the extended fight (different from the theatrical release) makes Godzilla (2014) slightly better, but Shin Godzilla (2016) is far superior.
Shin Godzilla has good human character but the creature is too weak and is easily stopped. It's a good watch, but the American film is better. There is still human Drama but Godzilla feels Like Godzilla.
share"but the creature is too weak and is easily stopped"
Not at all. Godzilla was far from being "weak" - he completely devastated Tokyo. They weren't even able to kill it in the movie.
The American version suffers of the clichés that Hollywood has established for years and years, Godzilla (2014) really want you to be sympathetic and suffer, as the main characters do, without success. For that experience the Korean movies (not all) accomplish this in an effective manner, keep you at the edge of your seat, don't believe me? watch "20 years later" The chaser" "The Flu" That kind of acting and writing makes you feel the human character, do you want to feel the pain, Here, I'll give you just one movie from the USA "Alpha Dog" . And there was nothing easy defeating the monster on Shin Godzilla, I don't know if the subtitles on your viewing were completely accurate, and actually Godzilla wasn't defeated, and less, defeated "easily" on "G 2014" "G" passed out after the battle at night waking up next day, on "Shin", Godzilla is winning the battle discharging photon rays, and the humans used this to get Godzilla "spent" from his/her energy, so, then, with the stationary blast she gets buried under three skyscrapers and then being injected with the coagulant... and still she manages getting up! Ufff! nothing easy there, but a very elaborated team effort from the human element. Sorry kid, I have watched more movies than many, from every country, in every language, with all the plots and arguments, from silent to CGI.
One thing is certain I've been following Gareth Edwards since Monsters (2010), and he was the right choice to direct G (2014). I would advice you watch shin and G (2014) back to back, pay attention to detail. And revisit Interstellar, yes I read your review. Pardon my Grammar I speak two languages, an English wasn't my first.
Godzilla 2014 was very successful in making you feel for what the characters were suffering and having sympathy for them. Maybe you did not try putting yourself in their place or think of how you would feel if someone you cared about suffered similar things.
"Do All Things For God's Glory"-1 Corinthians 10:31
I try doing this with my posts
Blah, blah, blah, there's no point arguing with you, I "suffered" more watching "Bambi" for your comment I can see that you don't know much about movies, so bye, bye, I like smart arguments instead of reading whining, cry babies, useless replies.
"disregard the ignorant" 007 Luisifer 7:26 ...PM
I do this with morons
[deleted]
In what ways was the Shin Godzilla better then the 2014 Godzilla
share