i appreciate the devils advocate
it all goes back to tropes of storytelling in that the protagonist of the story always needs an event to happen that triggers his journey. In this case, Ford's journey was triggered by the death of his father, just like Joe's journey was triggered by the death of his wife 15 years pr
i cant deny this parallel. but still Fords character is as 2 dimensional as a SNES game. and not even just that he is a military trope, he has 0 character
most of the time protaganists are supposed to be either the smartest and most capable person in the film who plays by his own rules, or has some sort of destiny..
ford was none of these..
I think the filmmakers should be credited for having the balls to do something different here, because had this been like every other big-budgeted Hollywood cliched-filled movie it would have played out 2 ways. (1)Joe and his son go through this journey together and Joe dies at the end, but its ok because him and his son have reconnected when it mattered most, or (2) Joe lives at the end, and the whole experience has brought father/son together again and they are all one big happy family. By having Joe die when he did, this makes Ford realize his dad had been right all along and now he has to face the past head on and to stop "running away."
mehh. his father dieing early on is still also a trope..
he didnt really face anything though. he was brought to a meeting with Kens character and some top military brass..but why? hes a grunt with no knowledge of the monsters....
what would of been a nice turn is if ford died too. and cranstons character had to become the father (grandfather) to his sons child that he never was for his own son.
and through his knowledge save his daughter in law and grandchild, like he couldnt save his wife and son.. holy.. talk about a perfect circle. and would get rid of some of the tropes (albeit almost everything is a trope now)
Ford has been running from the past since his mother died and then by distancing himself from his father. Well, the past has caught up with him again in the form of the Mutos. They killed his mom, caused him to have a strained relationship with his dad, killed his dad, and now are threatening his family.Ford does end up being the "hero" in a way because he ended up being the savior of Godzilla (when the big guy was getting doubled teamed and Ford detracted the mother muto, blowing up her nest), savior of San Francisco (by sending the nuke out to the ocean away from the city) and savior of humanity (by eliminating possible extinction of mankind by the Mutos in destroying their nest).
his distancing himself from his father basically amounts to afew throw away lines of him criticizing his dad for still pursueing his crazy theory about his moms death...
Now if you want to criticize Johnson's performance because he was so low-key and not very interesting, fine. But Ford isn't supposed to be a Rambo-like over-the-top hero who does all these heroic deeds. He acts like how someone who really would act in that situation, stunned, confused, trying to make sense of what the hell is going on, etc.
nah i give almost 0 blame to johnson. his character was written poorly.. even the best theatre and classical actors cant elevate bad screenwriting.
indeed he is stunned and confused, and thats not why we watch action movies... if he is indeed all these, he is just like any generic grunt and hence not a real protaganist. protaganist and people who do things, not simply have them done to them.
and if he is this tunned everyman, the writer sure as hell better write him well enough to be deep in some way.
Throughout all this Ford actually becomes an avatar for which we as an audience sees the events unfolding through his eyes. Would I have liked to see more Cranston,or more character development from Ford, sure. But I do appreciate the filmmakers going outside the norm then what is usually expected from the typical Hollywood blockbuster.
well lots of characters could of replaced this "fish out of water character"
and would i rather see a film that is slightly more tropey ending (which could have been changed like what i said above if ford had died), but has one of the best actors in hollywood, playing a very interesting, relatable well fleshed out character with an arc we can cheer for and get joy when he figures out the mutos?
versus
a 2 dimensional archetypal everyman military grunt who only achomplishes things because the plot demands he has to rather than flowing naturally and organically?
hell i choose Cranston everytime. i choose cranston 10 times out of 10
reply
share
frankzane
8 years ago
I take it you really like Cranston:) I do to.
Like I said they could have went the route of Joe dying at the end, or living all the way through, and I would have been fine with that. But I don't have a problem with him going out at when he did. It may have been a trope. but really how many movies have you seen where the star actor is killed midway through, (besides Janet Leigh in Psycho)? Not many. I was a gutsy call regardless.
In regards to "that's not why we watch action movies..." This is all subjective of course, maybe the general masses agree with that, but I like to see something done differently instead of the same old thing, its refreshing to see the protagonist act like a real person as opposed to just "springing into action", the more human he acts, the more relatable he is to me.
As far as a protagonist is "someone who does things, not simply have them done to them." Again he DID do the things I mentioned, he destroyed the Mutos nest, and in the process saving Godzilla and S.F. as well as sending the nuke out to sea. I think I would have liked to have seen Ford have more conflict with say the military, that would have been cool. Still, I don't agree that you could replace him with any "fish out of water" character, then who would your protagonist be? You need someone to anchor the whole thing down.
I will say I like your concept of Ford dying and Cranston continuing on, now THAT would have been cool!!
Regardless, I still enjoyed the film for what is was and for not being the "same old thing". I like slow-burn movies, if I want a typical smash em up, CGI fest, Pacific Rim or Transformers fit that bill. I like filmmakers that take chances, even if the execution doesn't quite work. "Interstellar" for example. Love the concept, not so much the execution...but that's another conversation:)
Cheers!
reply
share
Ambianwinediet
8 years ago
I take it you really like Cranston:) I do to.
hell ya all the way back from malcolm in the middle days
Like I said they could have went the route of Joe dying at the end, or living all the way through, and I would have been fine with that. But I don't have a problem with him going out at when he did. It may have been a trope. but really how many movies have you seen where the star actor is killed midway through, (besides Janet Leigh in Psycho)? Not many. I was a gutsy call regardless.
may have been gutsy.. but those other movies give us new interesting characters..
In regards to "that's not why we watch action movies..." This is all subjective of course, maybe the general masses agree with that, but I like to see something done differently instead of the same old thing, its refreshing to see the protagonist act like a real person as opposed to just "springing into action", the more human he acts, the more relatable he is to me.
true it is subjective, but this isnt jsut with action, its the formula for almost all movies and storys. protaganists are people who do stuff and drive the plot forward. I found cranstons character far more relatable. And most people did too they hated when he died. but thats very subjective
As far as a protagonist is "someone who does things, not simply have them done to them." Again he DID do the things I mentioned, he destroyed the Mutos nest, and in the process saving Godzilla and S.F. as well as sending the nuke out to sea. I think I would have liked to have seen Ford have more conflict with say the military, that would have been cool. Still, I don't agree that you could replace him with any "fish out of water" character, then who would your protagonist be? You need someone to anchor the whole thing down.
the problem is in a 2 hour film, those things you mentioned happened in the last 15 minutes, maybe even 10...other than that he was a bystander.
our protaganist easily could of been ken watnabe's character. He could of brought things down to ground level. he would of been very out of his element and a fish out of water had he had to join the military team into the city. and also would of been interesting if he figured something out mid final godzilla vs muto fight. this scientist out of his element having to step up and save the city/ godzilla.. instead we get a military grunt who ahs been almost totally passive the entire film and done nothing, kicking into action in the last 15 mins in a 2 hour movie.Normally in godzilla films godzilla is the protaganist, but this one again didn't really give us much other than "hes hunting other mutos"
I will say I like your concept of Ford dying and Cranston continuing on, now THAT would have been cool!!
we have so many films now almost everything is a trope. but ya some twist on cranston having to step up would of been a change. you want a non trope?? his grandchild and daughter in law die too, possibly by godzilla even while fighting the muto. he has to make a final descision, despite all his hate and damage godzilla caused, to kill godzilla and the muto, or help godzilla who he resents but knows its their only hope against this and more potential mutos.
Regardless, I still enjoyed the film for what is was and for not being the "same old thing". I like slow-burn movies, if I want a typical smash em up, CGI fest, Pacific Rim or Transformers fit that bill. I like filmmakers that take chances, even if the execution doesn't quite work. "Interstellar" for example. Love the concept, not so much the execution...but that's another conversation:)
reply
share
frankzane
8 years ago
You did bring up a point I liked about Watnabe's character being a protagonist, as I wished he had some more screen time as well. I guess I just more open-minded and don't go into films with very high expectations. Everybody that was mad at Cranston being killed off and Godzilla not having enough screen time I totally get it as its valid. Regardless, I appreciated the filmmaker's choice for going a little outside the norm and giving us a little different Godzilla movie.
I enjoyed hearing your insight and interpretation of the film, and for having a rational conversation, much appreciated :).
reply
share
Ambianwinediet
8 years ago
http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a663350/bryan-cranston-didnt-want-his-godzilla-character-to-die-it-was-a-mistake-what-a-waste/
"That character dying at that time was a mistake," he said. "I knew it when I read it. When I read it I said, 'Oh, page 50 this character who was the emotional core at the centre, that was guiding the audience in the story up to that point - he dies?' What a waste.
never saw this before
.. i was going to say his death seemed so awkwardly done that it was a decision made in reshoots. because he seems fine, watanabe tells them to bring him on the helicopter. they say something about his condition in the helicopter, then all of a sudden he is dead when they arrived.. it seemed so jarring i was sure it had to of been a late descision but guess not :s but according to cranston it was in the script all along..
reply
share