Holy Shit

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
Huh.

I'm just hoping it's reasonably well put together (I'm looking at YOU Cloverfield) and tonally consistent (I'm looking at YOU Pacific Rim). So many disappointing giant monster movies lately. Sad that the only one that was remotely passable was the indie flick Monsters, and it just didn't have the budget to really carry through on its vision.

I mean, it's Godzilla, so a certain degree of camp is unavoidable, but if they can make it really dark and anxious I could see it being a fun watch. I've always had a soft spot for giant monsters, ever since I was a little kid. The idea of levianthanesque creatures that are like forces of nature. I dunno. It's neat. I just don't want a ra-ra spectacle film, which...I guess it's likely to be.

Geez just looked at the rest of this thread.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/escapism

Ironic, really, given the website we're posting this on. It's a trailer for a monster movie, supercritics. Calm your tits.

I'm sad I lived long enough to see the day when nerds became such embarrassing hipsters.
 

reiem531

New member
Aug 26, 2009
259
0
0
SecretNegative said:
Holy fuck that trailer was terrible, it basically went like this:

Horrible actor: Serious stuff!
You just called Bryan Cranston a horrible actor, credibility destroyed.
 

Kolby Jack

Come at me scrublord, I'm ripped
Apr 29, 2011
2,519
0
0
SecretNegative said:
Holy fuck that trailer was terrible, it basically went like this:

Horrible actor: Serious stuff!
BWAAAAAUUUHMMMMM!
Horrible Actor: I'm serious, serious stuff!
BWAAAAAAUUUHHHMMMMMM!
Horrible actor number 2: I am bad guy because I am denial!
Horrible actor: I'm hyping up stuff!
BWAAAAAUUHHMMMMMM!
Horrible actor: I need to hype stuff up for the trailer! This is serious guys!
BWAAAAAAAUUUUHHHHMMMMMMM!
BWAAAAAAUUUHMMMMMMMMMMMM!
Horrible actor: Most hype more so the fanboys get excited!
*shot of tons of special effects*
Horrible actor: MOAR CLICHÉ HYPE WORDS!
Inception asian guy: Background history
Female character: More backgroundssss!
Both: COMBINED BACKGROUNDHISTORY/HYPE! PHWOOOARRRR!
*Meanwhile the annoying score from the LSD-bit from 2001: A Space odessey if playing*
Horrible actor: THERE'S NOT ENOUGH HYPE!
Some people: Hype! Hype! Hype! Hype!
BHHAWWWWUUUUHHMMMMMM!
*HUGE SUDDEN EXPLOSION!*
*Trademark Godzilla roar for maximum hype!*

This, no kidding, looks like an asylum movie with decent special effects. All of you assholes who complain about cinema being dumbed down, you finally have your one example.

I mean, this movie looks like the dumbest piece of shit that's cynically trying to cash in on nostalgia for movies that were fucking terrible to begin with.

I'm seriously going to dare you to come up with a reason why this movie looks good other than "It's godzilla" or "it's a huge monster that destroys cities" that doesn't make you look like someone who enjoys Transformer or the fast and the furiious. Seriously, try.
And what's wrong with liking either of those? Go back to your cynical bunker of depression and solitude, eating 3 square meals a day of angst, with arrogance for dessert! IT'S FUCKING GODZILLA!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO I AM SO EXCITED NOW! :D
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
I'm not all that impressed, to me Godzilla is about the cheez (even if it's high quality cheez) and him fighting giant monsters and such. To me these kinds of movies fail when they focus too much on human drama (unless of course the humans are themselves fighting the monsters in giant robots, or bolo-like tanks) since that's not really what I'm coming to see at least. This was my problem with movies like "Cloverfield".


All me a purist of sorts, but for whatever unknowable reason motivates him I'm hoping this will amount to Godzilla fighting the other monsters on behalf of humanity because really, I kind of wind up cheering for Godzilla anyway.

As far as the realism involved the the way jets are being deployed here... it's a giant monster movie, I honestly don't care. That said Godzilla breathes radiation, and might basically be a walking EM field in this version. Your not watching this kind of movie with the expectation of realistic aviaonics, in fact the stupider they are in handling things like that the more amusing it becomes because really... that's sort of the point. I mean I've literally watched movies where the aliens wound up attacking the cocoon of a giant moth monster with heat rays, causing it to mutate all the faster... I'm sure you can all guess which one. The military exists in these movies to make a few over the top macho statements, express confidence in their super weapon of the moment, and then fail utterly. :)

Realistically no giant monster would survive battling an air force because there is no way it's likely going to be able to counter attack at the range jets would be bombarding them with missiles. To say nothing of the use of cruise missiles and similar things. Even if the monster was invulnerable to the attacks it would generally just wind up being pounded and not doing much back to a lot of the military at least... but that's not a lot of fun when your coming to see stuff get wrecked while laughing about how gloriously dumb (but still fun) the whole thing is.

It's sort of like how in a lot of these movies with giant monsters or invading aliens they tend to have the government authorize nuclear weapons, and then fire one nuke (and oftentimes a fairly small one) like it's a big thing all on it's own. It either has no effect, or even stupider in movies like "Skyline" does tremendous damage but then people just sit there and watch the bad guys regenerate while going "durrr" instead of you know like dropping a whole crapload of them... but again, your not watching this stuff for common sense as I said. In the end everyone else being so stupid sort of makes it seem almost plausible when the inevitable human scientist does something fairly obvious (or pulls it out of his keister) to sway the final results sometime, and is viewed as a genius for it. Taken in context... in the land of the brain dead, the man with one brain cell shall be king. :)
 

nuttshell

New member
Aug 11, 2013
201
0
0
Since when did an allegory make a movie - or anything at all - good or "loldeep" on it's own? It seems to me like it is used as a justification for enjoying something shallow. I don't think people should be ashamed of enjoying shallow, fun things.
 

Blitsie

New member
Jul 2, 2012
532
0
0
Looks like its going to be quite the fun movie to watch, looking forward to it.

Also SecretNegative, in your opinion, am I a lowly peasant for having the ability to just switch off and enjoy a movie, good or bad, for what it is? Also, for someone with such high standards I kinda expected more than just flinging vapid insults at a movie trailer (and an objectively fantastic actor), like actually seeing the movie first before deconstructing it. But that's just me, meh.
 

Mangod

Senior Member
Feb 20, 2011
829
0
21
My two thought on this:

1) Holy balls, that looks awesome!
2) How f-ing big is Godzilla supposed to be in this? Because that was one of the problems that I latched on to first with the Broderick movie; the giant lizard is apparently capable of shapeshifting.
 

DSK-

New member
May 13, 2010
2,431
0
0
I watched that trailer and all I could think of was Dave Bowman in the Obelisk once the music kicked in. That music makes anything you watch tense.

OT: Well it looks like it'll be better than that shitty Godzilla we had with Mathew Broderick.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
MarsAtlas said:
The director behind Monsters is also directing this, so the movie also has that going for it, although I think that another writer of this film happens to be the guy who did the Expendables movies.
Well that's interesting! Mildly worrisome about the writer, but wasn't Expendables sort of meant to be retarded? I never actually saw them.
 

Paradoxrifts

New member
Jan 17, 2010
917
0
0
The Madman said:
These monster movies sure seem to have a thing for destroying jet fighters. I mean in Pacific Rim we saw an F-35ish fighter strafing a Kaiju point blank with machine guns, which would never ever happen, and now we've got fighters randomly falling from the sky for some reason? That's not how these things work. Maybe back when King Kong was swatting down biplanes it would have sorta kinda made sense, but things have changed slightly since then.

Unless the fighters were somehow completely disabled at an extremely high altitude or stalled while going up, then their velocity and aerodynamic design would ensure they continue to fly (Or fall in this case) forward. Yet at the same time we see a pilot ejecting from one when it's nearly at the water, indicating they were only just disabled (somehow) and then immediately began falling directly downward. That doesn't make sense.

Jeez Hollywood, get it right.

Will not watch. 0/10 movie. Terrible!

(Seriously though, neat trailer. No clue what to think of it though, I'm taking a cautious wait & see approach.)

Rule of cool says it does. It also said that it has Physics tied up in it's basement in some sort of leather bondage saddle.

I do imagine that they'll make some halfhearted attempt at justification as to why the conventional military might is useless against Godzilla. I'm expecting that it'll be something like as if an EMP field and an AT Field from Neon Genesis Evangelion had an evil baby together.
 

faefrost

New member
Jun 2, 2010
1,280
0
0
Zontar said:
cojo965 said:
MarsAtlas said:
@the guys in the jet fighter talk

Its not beyond Godzilla lore to have flying monsters. I mean, looking at the first and second trailer, I'm like 99% certain that there's at least one other monster, and I counted what could be upwards of three different ones. I don't know how they're handling the designs of other monsters, so I don't know who, but I've basically determined this by going "wait a minute, that doesn't look like Godzilla..." and then comparing that piece of anatomy to the Godzilla figurine that has already been shown. Its by no means fallible, but I think the shots of the subway car getting torn apart, whatever it is that they cut to at 1:33, the claw thingy at 2:07 (looks like part of an insect), and obviously biological object at 1:28 that clearly is not gonna be Godzilla. It could also explain the goo over the radioactive/nuclear whatever it is at about the one minute mark. Of course none of that is confirmation that there's going to be another monster, but I think its safe to say that in this Godzilla-verse, there can be other monsters, based on the enormous skeleton shown at like 1:45.

So yeah, I expect giant monster fights, including at least one that can fly. They'd be incredibly stupid not to, after Godzilla 1998 being so bad for many reasons, including the fact that that film had no other monsters or any kind of monster fights.

Catfood220 said:
Also, you forgot to mention the destroyed Statue of Liberty which now seems to be a thing that you must have in every disaster movie based in America these days.
Since this isn't a widespread disaster flick, I expect a lot of the movie to occur in New York, and that they showed it specifically for the reason that everybody knows Statue of Liberty = New York. Its an easy way to setup the location of the film in a trailer, just like how the trailers to many films that take place in other countries often make note of architecture specific to that region of the world in the trailer. Its New York because its the biggest and most populous American city, as well as having the strongest ties of any american city to the eastern hemisphere - it'd be stupid to use any other city for what they're aiming to be the summer blockbuster of the year.
I feel that the damage in New York was not by Godzilla because confirmed attack sites have so far been centered on the Pacific at locations like Hawaii and San Francisco. So it's not out of the question that by the time the movie's plot kicks in monster (or MUTO) attacks have been on the rise perhaps due to becoming agitated by the rise of increasingly big monsters, with Godzilla perhaps at the heart of it by way of being the biggest yet.
Uh, I don't know why you guys seem to think it's the actual Statue of Liberty. There is very visible desert in the background and right before there was a shot of a devastated Vegas Strip. I think it's clear that the statue is the small Vegas one, not the real one.
Also even a quick casual glance leaves you with the feeling that the Statue of Liberty's face doesn't look right in the trailer. That's because it's the Vegas one, not the real one. The Vegas statue has a different face. ( the post office had to recall a ton of stamps last year because they used the wrong face from a stock photo.)
 

faefrost

New member
Jun 2, 2010
1,280
0
0
Mangod said:
My two thought on this:

1) Holy balls, that looks awesome!
2) How f-ing big is Godzilla supposed to be in this? Because that was one of the problems that I latched on to first with the Broderick movie; the giant lizard is apparently capable of shapeshifting.
If anything this one worries me that they may have overcompensated for the wimpy iguana Godzilla in the Broderick movie and gone more than a bit too big. In this trailer it looks not so much like a Hapanese monster showed up, as Japan itself, the whole major island, walked ashore and is wiping Los Angela's off his feet like a small pile of dog poop. Scaling is kind of important to this sort of thing. Godzilla needs to be big enough that he is a true and credible threat. But not so big that it starts interfering with suspension of disbelief.
 

Malty Milk Whistle

New member
Oct 29, 2011
617
0
0
It looks like a slightly more srs bsns Pacific Rim, so I will certainly be seeing it.

There is less than no problem with someone having 'refined' tastes. It's not ok to put down others for not sharing them.(this totally isn't aimed at a certain deceased equine) I really enjoy reading poetry and Byron+Keats' musings and bits of Romantic era writing, yet I don't act like a colossal douche to people liking different types of books (like Hunger Games or Harry Potter). Sometimes it's fun to stop thinking and watch a giant reptile wreck shit.
 

chozo_hybrid

Jund 'Em Out!
Jul 15, 2009
3,456
0
0
Wish people will give threads proper sorts of titles.

OT: I saw the trailer just the other day, it has piqued my interest. Plus it has Bryan Cranston in it.
 

Riverwolf

New member
Dec 25, 2013
98
0
0
nuttshell said:
Since when did an allegory make a movie - or anything at all - good or "loldeep" on it's own? It seems to me like it is used as a justification for enjoying something shallow. I don't think people should be ashamed of enjoying shallow, fun things.
That's a very good point, which got me to think about what makes a movie deep. A deep movie is a movie that has several different interpretations/meanings for different people, which allegory, by definition, prevents.

However, a movie need not necessarily be deep to be good. I think the original Godzilla handled the nuclear destruction allegory very well, primarily by showing us the human element. A deep story is timeless and never can become irrelevant; I HOPE Godzilla can become irrelevant someday.

...BUT, on the other hand, Godzilla need not necessarily be nuclear destruction, but the destruction caused by war in general. After all, Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't the only cities attacked; Tokyo was also firebombed and I understand it was pretty much reduced to rubble. Berlin was also pretty well destroyed at the end of the European front.

In the original film, Godzilla's origins are actually not clearly defined; it's only vaguely suggested that he could be the result of atomic testing. Otherwise he's essentially a natural disaster. So, perhaps not just destruction in war, but any sort of mass urban destruction, natural or otherwise, for which there is a possible prevention.

None of that makes the original movie "deeper", since the end result is still destruction, and considering the political climate of the time (the opening scene was directly inspired by the Bikini Atoll test exposing a Japanese boat to radiation) along with some of the post-attack imagery, it's pretty clear that it's supposed to be nuclear destruction being represented. Indeed, a quick wiki search reveals that this was the intention.

But just because a movie might technically be "shallow" doesn't mean it's unintelligent or just mindless fun. The original Godzilla is NOT fun; it takes itself quite seriously and I think is very justified in doing so considering the subject matter.
 

What Do I Care

New member
May 2, 2013
26
0
0
I see a few folk bashing the crap looking statue of liberty, but isn't the cheap version (maybe not that cheap) In Las Vegas, hence the roller coaster, desert and mountains in the background.

Just an observation.
 

Lilikins

New member
Jan 16, 2014
297
0
0
Am I the only one....who for some awkward reason, is reminded of the hobbit by that safety dance vid? Ive heard the song often enough, never seen the vid though...for some very odd, awkward reason it reminds me of the hobbit though...