Legendary Godzilla:Spectacle vs Realism

well i think there should be a good mix of both specatacular fight scenes and gritty attitude when it comes to dialogue. i actually like pacific rim for its fight scenes but with dialogue and story it was lacking a bit. it would be awesome if they could mix the two

Well first off I don't think Edwards did balance good writing with monster battles. I think the screenplay was all over the place and in desperate need of another draft or two. And as fantastic as the monster fight was it did leave me desiring more.

That said, I don't think these movies will degenerate into something as far as the Transformers films. I think keeping the same serious tone will be easy. What concerns me more is will Borenstein repeat the same mistakes with his next screenplay and will Gareth not listen to the criticism he got?

The slow burn and playing "hide the bacon" won't work again. You can't tease on that kind of level again when the audience is expecting an all-out brawl between Godzilla and iconic monsters. I'm not saying it needs to be a CGI-fest all the way through and I don't want that, but if you look at a (likely) similar movie, Ghidorah: The Three Headed Monster, it balanced those four monsters beautifully with a character story arc that makes Godzilla '14's characters look like cardboard stands.

The first movie wasn't very realistic, but it did have a serious tone, I agree. I think maintaining that will be easy. I just hope Edwards, and especially Borenstein, figure out how to balance the monsters better with some decent character arcs.

^I agree.

I am probably in the extreme minority here, but I hope that we never see any of the other Toho monsters in the films.  Other than Godzilla himself, I've never particularly liked many of the others.  Rodan, Ghidorah, MechaGodzilla and particularly Mothra are all very silly creatures.  Their presence in a sequel would really cartoonize a relatively realistic looking but spectacular "movie universe" that Gareth and crew created.

I'd rather see new monters created to duke it out with the big guy.

I'd say you're very much in the minority. With the exception of perhaps MechaGodzilla, the above listed monsters are no more or less cartoony and silly as the MUTO which are less inspired and fairly boring despite being just as "out there".

I'm also not entirely sure why you're "hoping" since it's alreadt been confirmed that Legendary bought the rights to these monsters and they will likely make sure they're front in center in future movies so to not waste their own money.

Companies have spent money for the rights to intellectual properties to keep them from hitting the market before.  Im sure movies have spent money for the use of something and it's ended up on the cutting room floor.  It wouldn't be shocking if, as the script for the second film is worked out, they chose to not use the old monsters.

I'll take the MUTOs over a giant moth that communicates through fairies any day!  

Buying not 1 but 3 monsters(probably the most expensive ones at that) and leaving them out after announcing them for the sequel would be a pretty ballsy thing for legendary to do.

Yeah, that doesn't really make sense in this case. Toho isn't cheap with these things and buying the rights to monsters doesn't exactly mean they can't hit the screen with Toho's upcoming movies.

In addition Legendary made a big deal out of the fact that these monsters had been acquired at Comic Con. They also specifically confirmed future movies will feature them to hype up the sequel. Although I think which movies all three monsters are in could still be debated, they will be showing up in the future regardless.

And while I think you miss the point of the psudeo-religous undertones in Mothra in favor of bland creatures in MUTO, I also don't think Mothra is required to include the Shobijin should it be rebooted. Indeed it's all in how you use the characters. Legendary could potentially make Rodan, Mothra and King Ghidorah more "realistic" than the MUTO... Which would be a shame, really.

@Gman2887

I'm curious, why do you think the Mutos are bland? I'm not being mean or anything, I just want to know.

@GMAN2887

I think that you are underrating the MUTOs. I believe that the MUTOs are as important and valuable as any other creature in the Godzilla universe because of the Fukushima incident.

If you think about what happened with Fukushima, you kinda see simmilarities with the movie (and I am not just talking about Janjira). A natural disaster managed to damage on a Japanese nuclear plant. What followed was the fear of a nuclear disaster like the 1945 bombings. In the movie, The MUTO's (relatively young monsters to simbolize the 21st century nuclear related issues (nuclear weapons, the managing of nuclear wastes)) awaken and destroy a nuclear plant in Japan. Godzilla (an ancient creature that simbolizes the 1945 bombings) awakens to hunt the MUTO (simbolizing on how we need to remember 1945 in order to not make the same mistakes, which end up being represented by the monsters you all know).

Danielle and Joaoml02,
The MUTOs are extremely derivative of most Hollywood creatures today. Multiple apendiges/arms, hard-to-discern eyes, bland, ash-like colors, parasitic relations and attempts to stay away from tails and spikes. Cloverfield, Super 8, Star Trek (2009) and even the Korean film The Host all feature monsters with this design set and for whatever reason Hollywood is stuck in a rut with it.

It was cute the first couple of times, but now its redundant. The MUTO represent an obvious apex of these designs and I have no interest in seeing them again in any other films-- Especially the Godzilla series.

Furthermore the idea of the MUTO are somewhat nuetered since the film that introduced the monster has two of them. Because there's more than one it makes the creature less unique and obvious canon fodder. It becomes very clear that they were written simply to be killed by Godzilla.

Not to mention that it looks as if the female, confusingly, doesn't even need the male to reproduce. So what's the point of the male? Not only is the monster derivative, but clumsily written.

Now I understand their basic relation and metaphor to the Fukushima disaster. I even touched on it in an article. But that doesn't mean the actual creatures are interesting designs and characters themselves. What they mean is different from the monster characters they are.

Give me monster characters/designs that made an impact. Give me something colorful, varied and iconic. A giant moth, mutated flying reptile and three headed destroyer of worlds is lightyears more interesting than the MUTO in both design and concept. Less realistic? Debatable. I don't consider the MUTO more realisitic, just bland. This is the Godzilla series. He fights spectacular monsters. "Let him fight" the wonderful, classic foes that elevated his popularity. Don't restrain things so marvelous about him for the sake of damning "realism".

[/overlongrant]

@GMAN2887

What I want to say, is that Godzilla (2014) is an adaptation of an icon. The MUTOs, as uninspired as the creative process behind their design may have been, are still something new as a symbol of a recent manmade "mistake" worth covering by a Godzilla movie. Adding the new "symbol" to a more Hollywood and Nolanesque mood, although still not being the most original thing to do, it is still something new and not covered by the Godzilla series until now. Count me in on Godzilla 2 with Mothra, Rodan and Ghidorah to watch it right on the first day, but by adding such characters instead of creating another one (one that could be better designed than the MUTO's), may take away what makes Godzilla 2014 unique, and thereby, may take away the reason for the Legendary series to exist, unless they make a completely different approach to the characters as they did for Godzilla, but not only on the concept and looks, but also in the reason on why they exist on this particular universe.

As to wherever the realism takes away the fun factor, it comes down to whatever you like. I love the Christopher Nolan films and the several others that are following his approach to the blockbuster, where some people say that it takes away the fun of it, and you, where some people see goofy men in suits, you see Godzilla and Co., wrecking each other in over-the-top battles, which once again, is your preference, and everyone including me, can only respect that.

I completely agree that what the MUTOs stood for is excellent and the metaphors that Godzilla '14 covered are not only excellent but right at home in the Godzilla series. It doesn't excuse the creatures themselves.

As for Rodan, Mothra and King Ghidorah taking away from what makes Godzilla '14 "unique" or the reason the Legendary movies exist-- I think that is a stretch based solely on what one thinks makes the Legendary series unique. So far it's not a series. And so far the only thing that really makes it unique is the fact it's a Hollywood movie. Despite that Godzilla '14 still manages to be a Godzilla movie. And that's why it works. It's a movie with strong social commentary and rousing monster battles-- That's typically what makes a Godzilla movie a Godzilla movie. So how does it stand apart from every other movie? Because of the effects? Because of its so-called realism? I would argue it's not even the most "realistic" Godzilla movie in the series. Because of the themes? That's fairly shortsighted since several Godzilla movies target relevant themes for their times and are equally or better realized than the new movie. So I'm curious. According to you, what is so unique about Godzilla '14?

As for the approach to Rodan, Mothra and King Ghidorah needing to be different, Godzilla himself was handled like a cross of the late Showa and Heisei/Millennium Godzillas with a slightly tweaked background. So how far do you suggest the other three be tweaked exactly? They have all represented different social themes and dangers before. King Ghidorah alone has represented the fear of chaotic and unkown destruction, unchecked capitalism and forgotten generations. Why should we fear he not be used for yet another theme?

And to clarify I did not say realism takes away from fun. I insinuated realism could hinder the possibilities of the Godzilla series. Nolan is one of my all time favorite directors, but despite his focus on heightened realism (not necessarily realism) The Dark Knight films and Inception are plenty entertaining while taking enough liberties in their "realistic" worlds to make sure the fun of Batman isn't gone. Notice that he was able to bring back Batman's rogues gallery admirably. Why can't Edwards?