Shin Godzilla

Will this Godzilla ever be topped?

probably by one of its sequels down the line

boring as all fuck

The film could have been better but its take on Godzilla renders all others gormless and unremarkable.

It wasn't that good as a Godzilla film though.
It was masterfully directed in terms of like how weak and useless the government was, and how the human resolve for alternative answers is strong.

But outside of that, the movie had a lot of shortcomings. The primary one being that the monster wasn't a monster. It was just an obnoxiously powerful being that "coincidentally" destroyed things as it passed. There was no maliciousness from it, there was nothing deep about Godzilla's character, or frankly any character in this movie for that matter. Godzilla, in this movie, was nothing more than a big animal going through some intense evolutionary transformations, and incidentally him existing causes destruction. That was just so shallow, and made for the "chaos" around Godzilla to be overlooked.

And the characters in the movie were awful. Starting with Yaguchi, literally every character was nothing more than an archetype to fit the never-ending realms of Japanese stereotypes. The catch being that there are "momentary" glimpses of them breaking from their archetype, like the super autismo girl showing emotion at the very end for that half a second frame. The characters desperately needed more depth to them. The one part where the characters felt depth was in the immediate aftermath of Godzilla's laser beam transformation and subsequent obliteration of half of Tokyo. There were some shots of the people that felt honest, and felt genuine panic and dismay from the destruction around them -- something of which that had been missing for nearly most of the movie.

And there are other things to complain about, but I'd rather not go on at this point. Just my opinion, but I didn't think this movie lived up to the hype. Was it well directed and choreographed? Yes. But on merits of a movie that's supposed to test man's emotion and be the construct of a villainous, grotesque monster's efforts, it failed in my eyes.

No.
It's a good movie. I have been able to rewatch it several times and still enjoy it.
Something I could not do with Godzilla 2014. Nostalgia wore off and beside Godzilla, it was a dark bore.
Even "Gino" """"""""""Godzilla""""""""""" is more enjoyable watch than 2014.
Make no mistake Gino isn't a good Godzilla film, but as its own monster movie it has its merits.

I hope a sequel for this never comes. Prefer it to remain a standalone film.

this movie was pure trash, the Japanese cannot make good films kurosawa was an anomaly. Funeral Parade of Roses was ok.

>the Japanese cannot make good films
Not so fast.

Godzilla 1954

>HEY IVE GOT IDEAR
>WE SHOW NIPPONESE POLITICIANU
>THEY HAVE ROTS OF MEETRINGS
>HALF OF MOVIE BECOME MEETRINGS OF POROTISHONS
>NOTHING EVAR GET DONE HAU HAU HAU HAU HAU
>O ARSO GORIZIRRA WIRR BE RANDOM TO ROOK AT HAU HAU HAUR HAUR

This the the shittiest Godzilla film ever made.
The original, and then the American reboot, are easily the best.

Everything else is camp and garbage, just like Shin Godzilla.

>>But outside of that, the movie had a lot of shortcomings. The primary one being that the monster wasn't a monster. It was just an obnoxiously powerful being that "coincidentally" destroyed things as it passed. There was no maliciousness from it, there was nothing deep about Godzilla's character, or frankly any character in this movie for that matter. Godzilla, in this movie, was nothing more than a big animal going through some intense evolutionary transformations, and incidentally him existing causes destruction. That was just so shallow, and made for the "chaos" around Godzilla to be overlooked.
I'd disagree with this. Godzilla's design is one evokes a sense of intense pain. It's rampaging, but it's borderline mindless in that it is simply lashing out against its environment as its body is ravaged by radiation. Godzilla feels more like a tortured monster here than elsewhere, and it's a nice contrast to the kind of prehistoric hero vibe the Showa era movies, and the Legendary films, go for

ITT: butthurt amerilards

actual brainlet

> It's rampaging, but it's borderline mindless in that it is simply lashing out against its environment as its body is ravaged by radiation.
But it isn't lashing out. It is simply walking, simply "being." There was no direct action it took to destroy other than having a magnificently humongous body. It showed no intense reactions unless provoked. And when it was provoked and react, the reactions were purely defense mechanisms. He was resistant against most direct attacks, and the ones that he wasn't, he found a counter to them via evolution.

>Godzilla feels more like a tortured monster here than elsewhere, and it's a nice contrast to the kind of prehistoric hero vibe the Showa era movies, and the Legendary films, go for
I suppose I partially agree with the "tortured monster" sentiment, but even then the anguish was severely underdone. And it never seemed like the anguish was directly leading him to destroy.

I just can't get past that; the destruction he caused felt completely incidental. As if just being so huge and powerful entitled him to destruction, and not that he was looking to fuck things up. Because in this movie he frankly wasn't. At least, not overtly. He made subtle movements (changing direction, slowing and speeding his pace, positioning himself) that indicated intentional acts, but it they felt weak.

I think my biggest issue is the lack of mayhem we get to observe. You would figure a monstrosity of his caliber would cause a greater level of destruction and catastrophe than the human mind can handle. The lack of emotion that most showed over him was kind of comical. Everything was so cut and dry, so sterile, so matter-of-fact when it came to the political drivel about him, and the actions people took.
>oh look, Yaguchi got mad and yelled a bit wow he's really upset
Wow great, really felt the emotional devastation. All those fierce emotions the movie had been building to that point within me really sure did boil over.

Probably not for a long time, if ever. It's not a flawless movie but I think it's right up there with the original.

i'm really not seeing how godzilla not being anthropomorphized emotionally is a shortcoming rather than a creative decision you personally don't like

>is a shortcoming rather than a creative decision you personally don't like
Actually it isn't, its just a creative decision I don't like personally. But there are other things that bounce off of it that are shortcomings, like the lack of emotional desperation or general tenor of anxiety. The emotional desperation that was there was weak as all hell and felt cheap.

because the first film is about wartime destruction and grief but shin is about modern day malaise and governmental calcification exposed in the wake of a natural disaster. to see what each film was trying to accomplish they need to be viewed in the context of the events that inspired them

>shin is about modern day malaise and governmental calcification exposed in the wake of a natural disaster
I get that much, but even off of that bar its still emotionally stunted and cheap in dramatics.
A lot of the emotional points felt like I was watching a B list movie.

And in both contexts, the emotional welfare of the state should be measured equally with the emotional welfare of the people, to which there was none in this movie.
The movie miserably undersold the "people"

>emotions matter in averting a national catastrophe

Go watch star wars ya woman. Shin Godzilla is great specifically because it doesn't talk down to the audience.

>no emotional welfare
>countless scenes of people who took the job just to be popular or to make money now forced to make choices that will save or cost thousands of lives

You're pretty stupid.

>emotions matter in averting a national catastrophe
Uh, in monster movies? Yes, yes they do.
And I didn't need it to talk down to the audience, but rather just give me something to fucking feel in this movie other than Japanese Nationalism.

>>countless scenes of people who took the job just to be popular or to make money now forced to make choices that will save or cost thousands of lives
And the measure of their emotional level throughout the movie is a constant level of underwhelming. It felt plastic, fake, not genuine.

You really fucking felt anything for the Agricultural minister making a couple passing complaints? Or about the emotional robot that is Yaguchi?

Yeah, no, that final sequence where yaguchi and his squad were """""in danger""""" of extreme radiation levels while those nameless, faceless fodders in the cranes were obliterated for the cause really did get me going, especially once we realized the gang on the tower was in no danger whatsoever at all afterwards.

the film wasn't about the people. it made no airs to being anything other than a film about the movement and structures of organizations in times of crisis, with a eye towards japanese national identity as it relates to the international stage. it's cool to just plain not like it, but it really seems like you're just put off it wasn't what you wanted.

>you're just put off it wasn't what you wanted.
I am, but even then, there's still failings there about the topics you mentioned. Again, it was extremely well designed and technically excellent when it came to getting those points across.

But the movie was lacking. Especially on the emotional front, regardless if whether the movie was about the fragility and impotence of governments and structures of organization in times of crisis.

/thread

My comment is the best in the entire thread.
Just an fyi.
If you know, you know.
If you don't, well sucks to be retarded

You're absolutely 100% wrong, but holy shit my sides.

>Uh, in monster movies? Yes, yes they do.

No, they don't. It's a pointless anchor for normies to stay interested. It never has any effect on the actual story or the plot. The only people shown in the movie are directly relevant to the resolution of the plot. Did you honestly want some little girl or boy to be the emotional focus of the movie? Why? So you could show her somehow constantly being effected by godzilla stomping over half the country killing thousands? The widespread destruction of a metropolitan area should IMPLICITLY have emotional value for you and for everyone. Do you just not care unless the camera gives a closeup of a sad face?

>It felt plastic, fake, not genuine.
Yeah, that's japanese society. Especially at the government level. If they wasted time crying and being all emotional women the whole fucking country would have been destroyed before anyone got anything done.

>You really fucking felt anything for the Agricultural minister making a couple passing complaints? Or about the emotional robot that is Yaguchi?
Of course, you fucking racist, there was a shitload of emotion in their expressions and in their voices. I'm sorry you only ever watch dubs and cannot hear it or see it.

>Yeah, no, that final sequence where yaguchi and his squad were """""in danger""""" of extreme radiation levels while those nameless, faceless fodders in the cranes were obliterated for the cause really did get me going, especially once we realized the gang on the tower was in no danger whatsoever at all afterwards.
How should that scene have transpired then, Mr. Scorsese?

>the film wasn't about the people.

FUCKING THIS. Good god. How fucking self-centered does someone have to be to think that something is sad ONLY when the camera shows people being sad? How could anyone think having your entire city destroyed isn't fucking sad?

Well quit bitching and describe how you would have done the movie to make it appeal to your feels?

>The widespread destruction of a metropolitan area should IMPLICITLY have emotional value for you and for everyone.

People are too desensitized. They don't know how to feel unless the movie tells them.

Yeah god forbid they take the most stale character franchise wise and try something new and terrifying with him. If you just replaced Shin with regular reptile Godzilla this film would have been terrible. Seeing something mutate on that large of scale and just anhilate everything was awesome. It’s the first Godzilla movie to be a horror film.

>but rather just give me something to fucking feel in this movie other than Japanese Nationalism.


> give me something to fucking feel
>Japanese Nationalism

This is the issue you and others who hate the movie don't seem to get. Do you see the issue there with what I pointed out? If no, think about it some more. If yes... why are not getting this movie wasn't meant for you?

This is an incredible review disguised as criticism.

If you want touchy feely human stuff then 2014 Godzilla is right up your alley. If you want to be that huge of a critic recommend a Godzilla movie that wasn’t absolute cheese that also went really deep with emotions.

>The primary one being that the monster wasn't a monster. It was just an obnoxiously powerful being that "coincidentally" destroyed things as it passed.

Oh dear god he doesn't even understand what godzilla represents.

It's the atomic bomb you fuck. It's not an intelligent agent. It just shows up and ruins your life without a care in the world that it did so.

>fragility and impotence
nope, the film affirms their power and importance even as it points out the flaws of blindly observed tradition and the massive harm they can do when poorly led. think about how they only end up containing godzilla with a complex plan involving international cooperation with multiple other governments. honestly in some ways i thought that was the most refreshing part of the film's approach.

>No, they don't. It's a pointless anchor for normies to stay interested. The widespread destruction metropolitan area should IMPLICITLY have emotional value for you and for everyone. Do you just not care unless the camera gives a closeup of a sad face?
In what fucking way is adding an emotional layer a bad thing you mega autist?

The pragmatic presentation wasn't bad, but it was sterile. The entire inception of a monster movie is to show the gravity of a situation that the monster inflicts upon you. Adding a layer of emotional depth only fucking helps.
>The widespread destruction of a metropolitan area should IMPLICITLY have emotional value for you and for everyone. Do you just not care unless the camera gives a closeup of a sad face?
I mean, you have to be shitting me. Of course scale matters in emotional development. The human mind doesn't feel the emotional gravity of a situation by watching a far away destruction of a building unless the building fucking MEANS something to you. In this movie, everything was pointless fodder for Godzilla's destruction, only other than to show that Japan's got a problem.

>Yeah, that's japanese society. Especially at the government level. If they wasted time crying and being all emotional women the whole fucking country would have been destroyed before anyone got anything done.
Wait a minute, so it's the Japanese shallow and superficial society that made the direction of the movie lack any emotional level whatsoever? Really? That's a garbage argument and you know it. And it wasn't as if the futility wasn't already fucking driven home within the first fucking 10 minutes of the fucking movie.

>How should that scene have transpired then, Mr. Scorsese?
Oh I dont know, maybe actually have put them in danger. If you provide the pretense of self-sacrifice, at least make it fucking mean something.

Yes, once Nobuhiko Obayashi finally get's his chance to make A Space Godzilla

>unless the building fucking MEANS something to you
i have a sneaking suspicion that a japanese audience might feel more attachment to the specific intersections and neighborhoos of tokyo they showed (with title cards no less) being destroyed than an audience that wouldn't know if they were completely fictional or not

>In what fucking way is adding an emotional layer a bad thing you mega autist?
it doesn't resolve the plot. It's for retards who cannot understand that thousands losing their lives and their homes is sad by default without the fucking movie having to go out of its way to explain such a basic fact of life. Autism indeed.

>The entire inception of a monster movie is to show the gravity of a situation that the monster inflicts upon you.
So you're saying a crying nip would be more poignant than this image of your country on fire and utterly devastated? Do you have to look at individual crying faces in california to know that the wildfires there are bad?

>he human mind doesn't feel the emotional gravity of a situation by watching a far away destruction of a building unless the building fucking MEANS something to you.

Unless you live in that city you cannot imagine the emotional gravity of it being destroyed? You cannot empathize with the people who supposedly live there without a shot of their fucking faces? Good lord what sort of mental disorder do you have that completely prevents you from associating with other people?

>In this movie, everything was pointless fodder for Godzilla's destruction, only other than to show that Japan's got a problem.
THAT'S WHAT A DISASTER IS LIKE, YOU FOOL.

>Wait a minute, so it's the Japanese shallow and superficial society that made the direction of the movie lack any emotional level whatsoever?
To you, yes. It's not an objective thing, you fuck. If you are familiar with the language or it's not the very first live action japanese movie you've seen or you've ever spoken with asian people you can quite clearly tell their subdued emotions through their facial expression and the intonation of their voices. Just because you are some kind of emotional void doesn't mean it wasn't there.

>you are only allowed to criticize something if you can offer a solution
Single digit IQ retards make this contention all the time.

A-fucking-gain, the futility of bureaucracy and how structures of organizations handle catastrophes is brilliantly done in this movie.
But the movie lacked anything BEYOND that. It's cheesy glances at emotional levity are awful. It's chance at describing international and domestic affairs beyond just the resolution for the Godzilla problem are basically non-existent. The impact that Godzilla has on their society is basically barely noticeable other than them fucking changing locations.

There was just so much more this movie was missing. Only having a movie about bureaucratic going-ons during a time of crisis was not enough.

Um, no. Godzilla is not "the atomic bomb" you retard, it's the ultimate construct of "what if your only solution is the atomic bomb, what then"?
It's a the result of humanity's atrocities boiling over, of experimentation with nothing but mass destruction pointing them towards other solutions.

I mean, did you not get Serizawa's self-sacrifice in the original?

I disagree, but respect both your opinion and argument.

>he wants godzilla to have motives
man, you were close but holy shit you didnt get the main point

>was not enough.
why is it not enough? because you didn't like it, because you wanted something else? a film sets out to do accomplish a specific goal in a specific way and is, by your own admission, brilliant at it. how is that anything but a glowing endorsement?

>Single digit IQ retards make this contention all the time.
Children discard it because it means they can't just complain without having to do any work.

>Um, no. Godzilla is not "the atomic bomb" you retard
No it literally is. The original creators fucking said it was. It has shifted from that in some of the other films, but since this was meant as a purist piece, it goes right back to those roots which is why it's so uncaring and so pointlessly destructive, because that's what an atomic bomb is, especially to the fucking japanese.

He won't say! He can't say! He doesn't know!

A point well taken, but not nullifying. Making an isolated film to appeal only to your domestic populace is doing yourself a disservice.

And I don't fully buy that it would engage the Japanese audience as emotionally as you'd think. There were some Japanese critics that said the movie prayed too much on the emotional state of Japan after the 2014 earthquake (hence the duality of the name "Shin"), and that through it it did not do enough in homage to the emotional state of the people.

>it doesn't resolve the plot. It's for retards who cannot understand that thousands losing their lives and their homes is sad by default without the fucking movie having to go out of its way to explain such a basic fact of life. Autism indeed.
Oh ye of moral superiority, how amazing it is that you are able to engage emotionally with those so far from you. Amazing your ability to connect with people, of which I call complete bullshit.

You never felt the emotional level of the people, don't even pretend to.

>So you're saying a crying nip would be more poignant than this image of your country on fire and utterly devastated? Do you have to look at individual crying faces in california to know that the wildfires there are bad?
The visual is appealing, but also what does it signify? The destruction of Tokyo? Wow, from a bird-eye view that is something.

But how the hell is that bird's eye view supposed to make me care more than anything other than "awe" at the scale of destruction?

Honestly, you act as if your ability to empathize with something so distant (something of which nobody else can do except you, going by their comments also), is normal.

その気持ちわからないけど

>Oh ye of moral superiority, how amazing it is that you are able to engage emotionally with those so far from you. Amazing your ability to connect with people, of which I call complete bullshit.
And now the petty cuntwailing begins as all your shit little points have been shot down.

>You never felt the emotional level of the people, don't even pretend to.
Oh right yeah i'm just out to get you, you poor little snowflake.

>The visual is appealing, but also what does it signify? The destruction of Tokyo? Wow, from a bird-eye view that is something.
You're literally only able to see it at the absolute most basic and surface level? You cannot realize that destroyed city = horrifically bad emotions and sadness for an entire nation? It just doesn't compute? You cannot understand it? What do you feel when you look at shots of the world trade center falling? "Oh it's too far away all i see are buildings collapsing BORING LOL" what the fuck is wrong with you?

>Honestly, you act as if your ability to empathize with something so distant (something of which nobody else can do except you, going by their comments also), is normal.

I guess i'm just a fucking newtype then, i didn't think it was uncommon and neither did anyone else who loved the movie.

Not a motive, but a deliberate intent.
The entire visage of a monster is to exhibit nothing but malcontent and malicious behavior.

Monsters are not meant to be catatonic with no purpose other than existing.
The viciousness of Godzilla is supposed to be a direct reflection of the viciousness of humanity as a result of their actions (i.e radioactively).

Godzilla is supposed to be a malicious consequence. Not an accidental occurrence.

There should be more to a movie than just its style. And that was what the movie was: style. It was all about the direction, the choreography, the visuals. It lacked anything beyond the technical.

>No it literally is. The original creators fucking said it was. It has shifted from that in some of the other films, but since this was meant as a purist piece, it goes right back to those roots which is why it's so uncaring and so pointlessly destructive, because that's what an atomic bomb is, especially to the fucking japanese.
The entire 1954 movie was a metaphor for the radioactive catastrophe of WWII, but Godzilla was supposed to be born from that woeful ignorance of man. It was literally "awoken" as a result of radioactive testing, and its entire point wasn't just to be an apathetic piece of weaponry like an Atom bomb, but to show the devastating effects of one, and how it is completely born from human malice.

Shin Godzilla takes a lot from the fukushima disaster, so of course there's no motive. It is simply destruction, accidentally created by oversight in the design of a nuclear reactor

it's not the responsibility of an artist to make their work more accessible to people outside of the intended audience (or really to any audience at all, but that's another debate all its own). concerns outside the purview of a work aren't valid criticism (outside of personal opinion)

>There should be more to a movie than just its style
even if you weren't wrong you'd still be wrong on this fundamental point

>The entire 1954 movie was a metaphor for the radioactive catastrophe of WWII, but Godzilla was supposed to be born from that woeful ignorance of man. It was literally "awoken" as a result of radioactive testing, and its entire point wasn't just to be an apathetic piece of weaponry like an Atom bomb, but to show the devastating effects of one, and how it is completely born from human malice.

If the original godzilla is not apathetic, then who is he trying to kill with his actions? You're confusing lore with the origin of the concept of the monster. Do you think the big bad wolf represents just attacks by wolves? Do you think the three pigs and their three different houses have no significance either?

>The entire visage of a monster is to exhibit nothing but malcontent and malicious behavior.
>Monsters are not meant to be catatonic with no purpose other than existing.

Explain the motives of Glaurung.

>The entire visage of a monster is to exhibit nothing but malcontent and malicious behavior.
Just out of curiosity, what's your native language?

>And now the petty cuntwailing begins as all your shit little points have been shot down.
You were the first to insult me. And you've done nothing to "shoot" any of my points down other than say that you felt some amazing level of emotion that apparently everybody else in this fucking thread didn't.

Seriously, not a single person other than you is contending that the emotional component was not a factor in the movie. It is only you.

And your "argument" for saying I should have felt some intense emotional perspective is by showing me a distant visual that shows the level of destruction godzilla was supposed to inflict. And that somehow, the emotional empathy within me is supposed to connect with the dangers the people below are feeling?

Are you serious? I completely reject that. We were never even connected with the city to begin with, we couldn't get a glimpse of what the people of Tokyo were even experiencing. Everything was just observed from 10,000 feet and through emotional stones that are the political faction the story was told though.

I legitimately don't understand how you can say there was any great length of emotion involved in the movie other than the cheap emotions played on the government characters.

How did you feel seeing Yaguchi looking at the destruction in Tokyo after Godzilla first appeared? Because that was a pivotal scene for me, he and the governments failure to act decisively were what lead to that destruction. How is that not an emotional core to the movie?

>Seriously, not a single person other than you is contending that the emotional component was not a factor in the movie. It is only you.
It was fully present in the movie, you just cannot understand human emotions unless they are blatantly spelled out for you.

>And your "argument" for saying I should have felt some intense emotional perspective is by showing me a distant visual that shows the level of destruction godzilla was supposed to inflict. And that somehow, the emotional empathy within me is supposed to connect with the dangers the people below are feeling?
He really cannot grasp that destroying a city effects the people in it and around it. I just cannot talk to this sperg.

>We were never even connected with the city to begin with
Because you're not fucking japanese. It's expected that the audience is already somewhat connected to their own country because they're not a bunch of miserable iconoclasts like most western societies are these days.

>Everything was just observed from 10,000 feet and through emotional stones that are the political faction the story was told though.

Again, tell me what you feel when you watch the twin towers fall from a distance. Anything? Anything at all? Can you not see beyond the concrete and glass to the lives it contains?

>I legitimately don't understand how you can say there was any great length of emotion involved in the movie other than the cheap emotions played on the government characters.

You've never spoken to an asian person, have you? There really is no other explanation to you being so blind to such obvious outpourings of emotion.

I'd point it out to you where they do it, but really that'd just make your problem worse.

Because they're japanese and they didn't have hoaky overblown expressions like they would in a western movie.

The first post I agree with in terms of what the movie was ultimately going for. And as I have admitted, the disliking of Godzilla's character is simply a matter of personal taste, not a fundamental critique of the movie.

I just disagree with that. If you make a movie too central to a domestic populace for the sake of appeasing nationalism or some other domestic quality, than I think you are doing a disservice to the work from a fundamental movie-constructing point of view.

The original Godzilla is not apathetic by any means. His inception was born out of malice. It was a being literally made to be destructive as a representative of the atom bombs and man's own inherent malice. The taking down of the tower with the news reporters epitomizes that frankly, he actively sought to take down the tower as he noticed there were occupants within it. It was born directly of illwill.

英語

Yaguchi had the only moments were the emotional got roiled up, but it only came in spurts.
You're talking about the scene where they're standing in the rubble and discussing cleanup procedures, right? That was a great moment for the emotional sphere of the movie. That is more of what I am talking about; that personal relationship the characters had with the destruction was more aptly felt in that scene.

And the scene in which Yaguchi was visibly frustrated, after Godzilla used his laser beam and then fell into hibernation/regeneration. That was another scene were the emotional level of the character felt like it was coming from their relationship to what was happening.

>The original Godzilla is not apathetic by any means. His inception was born out of malice. It was a being literally made to be destructive as a representative of the atom bombs and man's own inherent malice. The taking down of the tower with the news reporters epitomizes that frankly, he actively sought to take down the tower as he noticed there were occupants within it. It was born directly of illwill.

You're making the argument that Godzilla personally hates the tokyo tower and it's not just a running gag because japanese people thought it was a stupid rip off of the Eiffel tower?

Whew.

>a disservice to the work from a fundamental movie-constructing point of view.
there's no way you can argue international appeal is a fundamental aspect of art, that's completely insane

Unless he's a jew. That would explain the inability to relate to others suffering.

>And that somehow, the emotional empathy within me is supposed to connect with the dangers the people below are feeling?
Autism gets thrown around as a buzzword a lot on this board, but holy hell lad.

Why are you the only one insulting me? What the hell is wrong with you?

Everyone else, although disagreeing with me, is at least willing to engage with decent discussion, but you're the only one insulting me because you don't like my points.

And your incessant need to fucking talk about an emotional relationship with the movie only being palpable from an Asian point of view is ridiculous.
By that logic, no asian person could ever feel any emotional level from western movies that reference catastrophic western events. That's silly. Because the emotion in a movie is all about how you construct the movie and present it to the audience. This movie opted not to do much of it. And that city destruction point of view, for the "people", simply was not strong enough.

>Again, tell me what you feel when you watch the twin towers fall from a distance. Anything? Anything at all? Can you not see beyond the concrete and glass to the lives it contains?
Do you not get my criticism at all? The point is that I understand what the Twin Towers falling means because the "people"'s opinion is not overlooked, the people's emotional state is a thing that I can feel. Everybody around me being emotionally devastated about it, and having some personal ties to the catastrophe, help accentuate those feelings.

The movie lacked that kind of intensity except for parts like

>autism

Old Types

You misunderstood the entire point of my statement.
It was not that Godzilla hated the Tokyo Tower.
It was that Godzilla saw how the Tokyo Tower had occupants, how Godzilla realized that the Tokyo Tower was some kind of symbol to the populace of Japan, that the Tokyo Tower was emblematic of the kind of marquise destruction that "hits home" for anyone with even a surface level understanding of Tokyo, and that he actively sought to destroy it. He didn't just walk by it and incidentally destroy it like in this movie.

He made a deliberate move to destroy something that symbolically and emotionally meant something more Godzilla's destruction than just "being there", like so many buildings in this movie were.

>Why are you the only one insulting me? What the hell is wrong with you?
How do you know i'm insulting you when you can't see my face?

>Everyone else, although disagreeing with me, is at least willing to engage with decent discussion, but you're the only one insulting me because you don't like my points.
Because the vast majority of your points are based on your inability to relate to others and you subtly condemn us and the movie for that very behavior. Being able to relate to others is not a rare skill in the least bit. There is something wrong with you.

>By that logic, no asian person could ever feel any emotional level from western movies that reference catastrophic western events.
They typically don't. They think our movies are mostly stupid. It's the Bugmen chinese that love the transformers movies, not the japanese.

>Because the emotion in a movie is all about how you construct the movie and present it to the audience.
Oh bull shit do have any idea the difference in reception you'd get from showing Full Metal Jacket to a normie kid and showing it to a Vietnam Veteran? People bring their own experiences to the movies, they're not blank empty robots to be filled with meaning and value by a fucking screen.

>The point is that I understand what the Twin Towers falling means because the "people"'s opinion is not overlooked, the people's emotional state is a thing that I can feel. Everybody around me being emotionally devastated about it, and having some personal ties to the catastrophe, help accentuate those feelings.
Gee maybe that's why japanese people are sad about it? Put yourself in their shoes, can you?

>The movie lacked that kind of intensity except for parts like
To YOU. That's what's pissed me off so much about your opinion is that you're almost solipsistic in that you cannot understand that other people and other perceptions exist other than your own.

Maybe it is too apathetic a view, but I still don't think that kind of distant view of destruction brings nearly enough emotional disturbance as it should. For anyone.

It's frightening that he was capable of something so large in magnitude, but it didn't carry with it any tremendous amount of emotional weight.

>i can tell 9/11 was a tragedy because the people around me were sad
user, believe me when i say i'm not joking or memeing or just trying to insult you here, because this is genuinely autistic as fuck

But everything he stepped on and knocked into on the way wasn't intentional?

Your argument is extremely contrived.

You have to be told that there is emotional weight in thousands dying. How can you not see how pathological that is?

I see your "inability" to relate point as valid, but I still reject the premise that this movie can only be truly understood by an asian person.

That's silly. Even if there's a greater connection an asian person could have for the movie generated from personal experience, others can still be able to fully comprehend and appreciate what's going on. That's an extremely narrow-minded way of looking at the piece.

In the original? No. Because you knew he was deliberately walking into Tokyo for wanton destruction. You knew he was acting solely for the purpose of destruction. And seeking to cause as much mayhem as possible.

This Godzilla was like a giant Bear just walking through a house. It's huge and can be absolutely ferocious when provoked, but its not their specifically to hurt or kill you. It just happened to walk into your house.

>Um, no. Godzilla is not "the atomic bomb" you retard, it's the ultimate construct of "what if your only solution is the atomic bomb, what then"?
>It's a the result of humanity's atrocities boiling over, of experimentation with nothing but mass destruction pointing them towards other solutions.

But, in this case, you are both wrong as Godzilla is actually Fukushima. Men didnt't make necleaur power plants in order to perpetuate atrocities but still, atrocities can happen if the power we harvest isn't properly manageable. So it makes sense he is not inherently malicious, but is nonetheless devastating

>But, in this case, you are both wrong as Godzilla is actually Fukushima. Men didnt't make necleaur power plants in order to perpetuate atrocities but still, atrocities can happen if the power we harvest isn't properly manageable. So it makes sense he is not inherently malicious, but is nonetheless devastating
But that's at odds with Godzilla as a construct. Especially in this movie, where he was deliberately a construct of one doctor's significant fury at the death of his wife from the 45' bombs, and how nuclear resolve only led to more destruction. Its supposed to be a cruel wake-up call, in a way. Find a better solution, or continue to boil in the pot of nuclear destruction one way or another.

Meant for

>but I still reject the premise that this movie can only be truly understood by an asian person.
I'm not saying that, because i'm white as a sheet, but for someone like you that already seems to have difficulty relating to others of your own race you're probably going to have a much harder time interpreting the emotions of another race, especially one that has a culturally imposed poker face at all times.

>This Godzilla was like a giant Bear just walking through a house. It's huge and can be absolutely ferocious when provoked, but its not their specifically to hurt or kill you. It just happened to walk into your house.
Yes, it's a disaster. The most grating thing about a disaster is that it didn't even have a good reason for ruining your life. At least with a monster you get some satisfaction that it was fulfilling some malicious will, but not with a hurricane, and earthquake, a wildfire, a nuclear bomb, or a godzilla.

When we dropped the nukes on japan our intent was not do destroy any specific buildings nor to kill any specific people. It had almost nothing to do with any of their lives and it did not care about them really, they were just victims of a disaster.

That's what makes it tragic.

>Find a better solution, or continue to boil in the pot of nuclear destruction one way or another.

This is why you cannot just destroy Godzilla with warfare. It is an Avatar of warfare, it is Ares, it is Mars, it is a chinese fingertrap. You fight and you only make it stronger, as we see.

>I'm not saying that, because i'm white as a sheet, but for someone like you that already seems to have difficulty relating to others of your own race you're probably going to have a much harder time interpreting the emotions of another race, especially one that has a culturally imposed poker face at all times.
But you entirely miss the point I'm making: the movie didn't try to develop any deeper layer of emotion that the little that it did. The destruction of tokyo was sad and jarring.

But that was it. This was a movie constructed on the technical directing styles and skills. It was made to show the futility of organized governments and bureaucracy and how duress and destruction, coupled with significant loss, forces people to look harder and faster for better alternative solutions.
It took a very pragmatic approach, which I can appreciate. But that's all it did and I thought it was a failing on the movie's behalf.

>When we dropped the nukes on japan our intent was not do destroy any specific buildings nor to kill any specific people.
It very clearly was. We just misunderstood the scale of collateral destruction it would cause. But the bombs were, without a doubt, an action taken directly to cause destruction. Destruction that may have had good personal intentions, but not humanitarian ones. And that was the concept of the original Godzilla: a monster born from the selfish level of inherent malevolence within us.

>But you entirely miss the point I'm making: the movie didn't try to develop any deeper layer of emotion that the little that it did. The destruction of tokyo was sad and jarring.
Because there was no need to. What would they have shown? people picking through the rubble? That's such a pointless scene when it should be obvious that it's happening a thousand times over in the city and you could never properly appreciate it even if the entire runtime was dedicated to just that.

>But that's all it did and I thought it was a failing on the movie's behalf.
To you.

>But the bombs were, without a doubt, an action taken directly to cause destruction.
They were meant to convince the japanese government to cut their shit out right then and there because if they did not then we would either keep dropping the fucking things or stage a land invasion which would have resulted in millions of casualties and not thousands. it was humanitarian. Life is just not perfect enough to always allow a good outcome to come from good actions.

>It was just an obnoxiously powerful being that "coincidentally" destroyed things as it passed.
Until it gets bombed and starts going fucking crazy, I loved that. Its the low point of the movie for both our cast, and for Godzilla since its the first time he has been hurt.

>We just misunderstood the scale of collateral destruction it would cause
not at all.
>It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.

plus the us killed many times more people with conventional bombs than the atomic bombs ever touched

The music was melodramatic enough to make you feel bad for the damned thing as well.

>Because there was no need to. What would they have shown? people picking through the rubble? That's such a pointless scene when it should be obvious that it's happening a thousand times over in the city and you could never properly appreciate it even if the entire runtime was dedicated to just that.
I don't know, any number of things. That scene after the first time we see Godzilla rampage, we get this and that is the exact kind of thing I am talking about. A short, simple scene, but with a poignant purpose, designed to show the government characters attachment to the city, and by extension, how it most likely affects the people at large.

The movie severely liked quality scenes like that.

>To you.
And you as well. For anyone that watched the movie. Adding another layer to a movie, even a simple emotional one, it not a bad thing when done right.

And your point about the bombs is absolutely ridiculous. You don't drop a bomb unless you are specifically looking to cause destruction. They are weapons of mass destruction, their entire inception is that they do nothing but destroy and cause pain and suffering.

Even, as I said, the motivations behind the bombs were "good", they themselves were still a horribly malicious shortcut to solving a problem that had long lasting repercussions. You cannot sugar coat it.

That's exactly why the original Godzilla was created. That's exactly why Serizawa sacrificed himself in the original: no one can ever be able to replicate the level of pure destruction the Oxygen Destroyer creates, and I will die along with it to ensure that technology never comes to life. Because man is not to be trusted with tools of that potency.

>As long as breath flows from my mouth
>I may yet have the slightest chance
>A shaft of light is all I need
>To cease the darkness killing me

But again, you drop a bomb to cause destruction. That's the whole point. They are not created with good intentions, and they certainly aren't used with good intentions for all, but rather only for those a select interest (for example, the US's national interests).

>shortcut
at the point in the war that they were dropped, there was no realistic alternative that wouldn't have resulted in suffering and death for many many more civilians and soldiers on both sides, short of the japanese inner council suddenly reversing their refusal to capitulate

Ok, but then the point gets even more strongly stated: people make decisions and act in ways that are not inherently good, or if they are, are done for personal interest to the point they are willing to inflict harm on others.

Again: Man is bad. They do bad things. They destroy when they can, and usually for selfish reasons. Now here's a monstrosity born from that evil. Congrats, you did this to yourselves. Go ahead and find a solution that DOESN'T cause more destruction, or you'll find yourself in this situation again.

Or more simply: Nukes are bad. Don't use them, please.

>You don't drop a bomb unless you are specifically looking to cause destruction.

I'm done.

Wait a minute, are you actually saying bombs DONT cause destruction?

You're saying there is no subtlety to strategy. That "destruction" is the only goal for a bomb and not bringing about peace.

You don't understand anything. i hope you're young so you can still learn.

>You're saying there is no subtlety to strategy. That "destruction" is the only goal for a bomb and not bringing about peace.
Jesus christ dude, how the fuck do you not get this.

People do bad things. It leads to more bad things. Sometimes, people even act with the best of intentions, but they do bad things to achieve them. As a result, it's an endless cycle of bad things. And one way or another, some evil is born from it.

You don't drop bombs to bring peace unless you're, I don't know, in a fucking war. I can't imagine war to be a good thing. So to get to that point, you have to be engaging in destruction to begin with.

And those wars are probably caused by some selfish interest or disagreement in interests, and as a result you let your anger and fury take over, and resort to blows.

The. entire. fucking. point. of the original fucking monster is to accentuate this. You do this shit to yourselves.

So find a way to stop it without going to blows, or using something that causes more destruction.

The monster is not representative of ill human intent. That is not what monsters ever represent. They represent natural forces, including nuclear weapons.

>So find a way to stop it without going to blows, or using something that causes more destruction.
If we lived in a perfect world. But you can ask Carthage if we do.

t.gaijin

>The monster is not representative of ill human intent. That is not what monsters ever represent. They represent natural forces, including nuclear weapons.
>If we lived in a perfect world. But you can ask Carthage if we do.
Ok, but dude, do you understand the point of its inception. Especially from the utopian point of view.

Doing bad things to resolve a conflict, even if the bad thing is intended to be a good thing, will ultimately lead to bad things.
Take for example the nukes. The design was to end the war quicker and without more casualties mounting on both sides. That was a "good" design. Unfortunately, there was a high level of collateral damage. In the eyes of the movie, this particularly upsets one man. He's furious. His wife dies as a result. So what does he do? Radioactively incites a creature that is basically a weapon of mass destruction.

Turns out the good thing led to a bad thing because the good thing was done by bad means.
So then we get to the point where the US says, "fuck it, we'll just nuke the damn thing". A resolution done for the goof of all. The sooner they are rid of it, the better.

But then wait, the Japanese weren't happy, were they? Even the most stonewalled government characters were visibly furious at the prospect of another Nuke being dropped on Japan. Even if it meant getting rid of their current dilemma.

So let's say the US goes ahead and does it. Yay, Godzilla is dead, and Tokyo may be in ruin but other countries will help us rebuild. Problem solved. Well, maybe the Japanese are still upset about the whole thing. Maybe 50 years down the line, the Japanese get angry at the US for something, maybe they're in disagreement over something. And maybe they still remember that the US chose to waltz all over them again with the nuke of Godzilla, rather than letting them find an alternative solution.

Well, the Japanese aren't standing for this anymore. To war with the US. And a bad thing is born out of a good thing because the good thing was done with bad means.

maybe maybe maybe. It's all conjecture. But do you see where I am going with this? The whole point is that doing something bad even with the best of intentions, still means doing something bad.

And doing bad things will always have an outcome that is bad.
But in the Godzilla movies, the endings are always done to satisfy the alternative: resolving the solution by avoiding the bad. Whether that means avoiding nukes and just squirting some coagulants in Godzilla's mouth, or having the creator of a deadly weapon sacrifice himself in an effort to ensure the technology can never be replicated.

The actions done cause no more collateral damage. They cause no more harm to anyone other than godzilla. And they resolve the issue. Why? Because man is better than this. Man is better than just resorting to brute strength and destruction. If we truly appreciate ourselves, we can do things for the good of all, all the time.

>Doing bad things to resolve a conflict, even if the bad thing is intended to be a good thing, will ultimately lead to bad things.

So will not doing them.

>Turns out the good thing led to a bad thing because the good thing was done by bad means.
I hope you realize you sound on about the same level as the writing in episode 1 of star wars.

>But then wait, the Japanese weren't happy, were they?
They ended up being a technological giant instead of being decimated.

>Even the most stonewalled government characters were visibly furious at the prospect of another Nuke being dropped on Japan. Even if it meant getting rid of their current dilemma.
Just because of the radiation. They specifically say that cities can be rebuilt but not when they're made radioactive.

Again, what happened to Carthage? Do you know anything about history? Violence is the most effective means for change, always has been, always will be.

Seriously how old are you? You're not speaking your own thoughts. I can tell.

I'm just glad they made a discussable serious toned Godzilla film.

>So will not doing them.
The. Point. Is. To. Find. An. Alternative.
There's always a "good" option. Seek it out. No matter how taxing. It will pay off in the long run.

>I hope you realize you sound on about the same level as the writing in episode 1 of star wars.
Nobody said the inception of Godzilla and the moral dilemma around him was a complex one.

>They ended up being a technological giant instead of being decimated.
>Just because of the radiation. They specifically say that cities can be rebuilt but not when they're made radioactive.
That's way to realistic a view. The movies are idealistic.

>Again, what happened to Carthage? Do you know anything about history? Violence is the most effective means for change, always has been, always will be.
And the movie's point is that this kind of thinking is faulty logic. Idealistic movies, man.