Godzilla now has a rating from Rotten Tomatoes and it's good!

Madison and RateRex:

Or maybe the character development really ain't as important or distracting as the critics suggest. Apart from the very first Gojira in 1954, the human characters are of secondary importance for the sequels (with one or two exceptions). One does not go to a Godzilla movie to see whether Sally gets back with her boyfriend Steve or whether poor little joe can mend ties with his distant and cold father.  We see Godzilla movie for the big G and how he will stomp the living !@$%^& out of a city. If this movie can do that, then I can easily look past any weakness in the human characters.

Godzillatheking123:

I agree with you to an a point, but ALL good movies need character developement.  We loved Jaws because the characters, not because of the shark.  We cared for the men in that boat.  A movie without compelling characters is lifeless.  Take the Transformer movies, for example: all of them are boring despite all the explosions and fighting, because we don't care about any of them.  I would love to see Godzilla show up at the end of the upcoming Transformer 4 and blow the fuck out of everything with one massive blast of his atomic breath, therby ending that stupid franchise.

Ratedrex:

I disagree here. The Godzilla series has never really needed truly compelling characters. Yes, having compelling human characters sure would'nt hurt the movie (and I of course would welcome it), but its not necessary for the enjoyment of it. Look at the close to 30 Godzilla movies and tell me which one of them (apart from the first one) has really compelling human character that would rival the Godfather series. I mean, come on. The heart of the Godzilla story is Godzilla himself (and his foe). Sure, there has to be humans around to move the story along, but they are not ultimately central to the movie (again with the exception of Gojura 1954).

In any case (and no offence), I do begin to think you are being influenced by the critics more than you want to admit. Some critics say the characters are one-dimensional, but are they really? And does it really matter in the end? Remember, we are Godzilla fans, not film critics. We judge Godzilla movies a little differently from the rest. :)

Godzillatheking123:

No offense taken:  I used to be a movie critic 35 years ago for my college newspaper.  And I worked for a major movie studio from 1979 to 1999 before burning out and moving on to better things.

I agree that the Godzilla franchise has rarely developed any of the human characters.  But think about it, other than Godzilla 1954, every other Godzilla movie has flopped in the US.  I've already written about this.  Monster vs monster has never been a big hit in the US, in any form.  Character developement is usually essential to a good movie.  Watching Transformesr bang on each other for 90 minutes doesn't do it for me.  I want to see Godzilla, but I also want to have something else to attach myself to, as do most of the audience.  If human characters weren't important, you wouldn't have so many reviews commenting on the lack thereof.  

I will write my review next Sunday.

yeah i feel with all this talk about lack of substance, just a gut feeling, that the original GOjira will still be the better film overall, you know maybe not as enjoyable, but the better film overall. THat movie just had things RIGHT.

@Ratedrex

"But think about it, other than Godzilla 1954, every other Godzilla movie has flopped in the US."

Which is still not true, but you keep enjoying side-stepping that.

I'd also like to point out that the characters from Speilberg's Jurassic Park are hardly well developed. Interestingly enough they have more in common with characters from the Godzilla series than Speilberg's top heavy films.

Jurassic Park and the Godzilla series are more about character nuance. They're general players that move the story forward and have their feelings and emotions, but they're high calibar character studies. It works for both and it's not a bad thing, but to assume Jurassic Park's iconic characters are memorable due to some immense journey they take is a false assumption.

@GMAN2887

Which Godzilla did well?  Godzilla 1956 did ok.  It made about $2 million, which is $17.4 million in today's numbers, considering inflation.  King Kong vs Godzilla?  It made $1.5 million, which is about $10.5 million in today's numbers.  Godzilla 1985 bombed in the states, while Godzilla 2000 didn't do much better, and everything in between was worse.  Dont just look at the budget of a movie, it is misleading.  You also have to look at marketing and distribution, things the studios don't usually disclose. The only Godzilla film, other than Godzilla 1956, to make a little money was Godzilla 1998, and it barely broke even.  So what numbers are you coming up with to support your argument, and where are you getting them from?

I've already mentioned that you are incorrect with King King vs. Godzilla. It is recorded as the most attended Godzilla series in the world. Several books on the topic have recorded this including David Kalat's book and even the lowly Godzilla Compendium. You continue to cite a number for its gross that is incorrect. It was not a gross, but a theater rental charged to the distributor. Even if you were to take the average gross of most movies from 1963 based on the number if theaters brought with that money it would be close to $3-4 million equating to $25-30 million today.

Ghidorah: The Three Headed Monster also grossed $2 million in America, giving it a $10-15 million gross.

Meanwhile, I highly doubt American producers, no matter how small (in fact the smaller they are, the more credence it adds to their likely profit) would co-fund three Toho productions in the mid-1960s with the idea they wouldn't be successful overseas.

You are right though. Budget isn't the only thing that matters. The fact is distributors didn't put a lot of money into buying these films because they knew it would make a quick, fast buck for a hole in their schedule. Not unlike the cheap, found footage horror fad today that requires little effort or money to make profit. For example, King Kong vs. Godzilla's American budget was $12,000. Do you not think the distributors made back that money and then some?

This farce that Godzilla movies have never done well is simply that. If it were true UPA and other distributors wouldn't have kept bringing them to the states throughout the 60s, nearly one after another.

It is now at 88%!!!

@GMAN2887:

Here is a link to a recent article that speculated on Godzilla chances of flopping like the movie "John Carter" did a couple of years ago.  Scroll down to the fourth or fifth paragraph.  It supports some of the things that I have been writing.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/siliconangle/2014/01/23/hollywood-is-godzilla-the-john-carter-of-2014/

Also, remember every Godzilla movie did not play at the theatres.  Many of them went directly to television or video, because they couldn't get a distributor.

I don't why you take Godzilla's lack of box office success so personal.  I'm sure Godzilla 2014 will make a lot of money.

RatedRex-Don't mean to pile into you, but I have to agree with GMAN, its not really correct to say Godzilla are all box office duds in the US. Certainly the recent examples haven't done well, but not all of them if you go back to what GMAN said.

The reason why monster vs monster action hasn't done well of late is that the story wasn't well executed, not because the inherent concept has no appeal. Alien vs Predators attracted alot of attention from fans and had decent returns. But the movie wasn't well received. They had a crappy director and an uninspired script. The studio was to blamed for picking the wrong people for the job. Simply saying the idea doesn't work is just for them to deny responsiblity for their own fault. 

In any case, I think the focus on critic reviews is over-blown. Yes, some movies will do well thanks to positive reviews, but not always. And not just the rare exception necessarily. Transformers never enjoyed particularly good reviews but they always had decent box office returns. Why? Because there is a core group of fans that enjoyed it. Likewise, a movie may have relatively good reviews but still sink without a trace at the box office. Take Dredd for example. It had relatively decent reviews but diasppeared from the box office. 

Likewise, a movie may be greeted initially with a hostile reception from critics but later re-examined in a better light. Predator, when it first came out in 1987, wasn't well received at all. But it as underwent a rehabilitation of sorts from critics since then. So even if Godzilla 2014 has an overall negative rating from rottentomatoes or metacritic, that may not endure in the long-run. The key is whether it entertains as a film to the fans that matter...

Godzillatheking123

I don't mind you piling on.  You guys are Godzilla fans (like I am).  You have an obligation to support the Godzilla franchise

I did not say all of the Godzilla movies were flops, I said they did not do well. I went to the theatre to see  the Godzilla movies in the 60s.  The distributors made a little money off of them, but just a little.  By the 70s the genre had collasped.  When Godzilla 85 came out, I couldn't wait to see it, it was decent, but the movie ranked 126th, according to Box Office MoJo.  Godzilla 1998 eventually made money from cable and video rights.  All the Godzilla movies in the 00s flopped, which is why ToHo put the franchise in mothballs.

Did you read this article I found today?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/siliconangle/2014/01/23/hollywood-is-godzilla-the-john-carter-of-2014/

Regardless of the past, lets hope this Godzilla does $1 billion dollars.  I would love to see a remake of King Kong vs Godzilla.

BTW GMAN2887:

You seem to be talking worldwide gross for the Godzilla franchise, while I'm talking U.S. dollars.

It is difficult to ascertain how much movies made, worldwide, prior to 80s.

RatedRex- Yes I've read the article and I don't buy his argument. Pacific Rim did alright overseas. Even if you factor in all the ancillary cost involved, if you add in the DVD sales, Pacific Rim I don't think made an actual loss. The author is confusing genre popularity with how the actual film was made. I mean, if a big budget superhero movie in the near future becomes a flop, would it be correct to say the superhero genre is a flop? I don't think so. 

If all the recent Godzilla movies are flops as the author claims, Toho would never have made the millenium era Godzilla movies. After all, they would be all be losses. So the author's logic is flawed.