Gmkgoji
MemberRodanNovember 05, 2019In Godzilla king of the monsters, Serzawa uses a nuke to revive Godzilla, therefore allowing Godzilla to fight King ghidorah again. Simply put, the nuke is the one thing that is the saving grace in the movie. Burning Godzilla also practically nukes the entirety of Boston to kill Ghidorah, which, though Ghidorah was defeated, Boston was entirely destroyed. Also, the radiation fallout is seen as a good thing rather than a bad thing, as the titans leave behind radiation that bolsters plant life. HOWEVER, the original 1954 film portrayed the nuclear fallout as a horrific thing. The two films differ vastly in terms of the view Nuclear energy/power. Is Godzilla: king of the monsters saying Nuclear power is a nessacary evil?
Zwei Wing is the best singing duo. Change my mind.
I agree that I'd PREFER it, but I don't think it should be the defining thing of a Godzilla series. Fair points, though. Let's just agree to disagree
If people weren't lazy, we wouldn't try to be efficient. If we weren't efficient, we'd never get anything done.
Zwei Wing is the best singing duo. Change my mind.
Maybe KOTM should have ignored the nuclear theme and focused on just the climate change theme. That would’ve been better than pretending to have a anti-nuclear pretense while the writers have a more pro-nuclear stance in real life. I think it’s stupid to go against your principles just to appease other people. Now I personally don’t think Godzilla movies should show nuclear proliferation in a positive light in respect of the original. Maybe Godzilla films can do what the Lorax did and show both perspectives. They could take an anti-nuclear stance but they could have 3 dimensional, likable characters who take a pro-nuclear stance who make good points. That way they could stay true to the Original Godzilla but still have opportunity to explore a different perspective.
Angering the Godzilla fan base one take at a time
I know I'll get flak for being "that guy," especially after this seems to have reached a conclusion, but I think we may be reading too far into this. Why couldn't the plant regrowth and Burning powerup just be things they put in because they needed a way to quickly restore the status quo or thought it would be a cool reference and set piece. It just smacks of that "the curtains are blue" joke. But that in itself is a different long discussion entirely, so I'll skip over that and move on to my more relevant point.
Remember, Toho signed off on this. They were there in the creative process, and they let it go through as we got it. If Nuclear power being used for good was such an egregious offence against the core of the franchise, why didn't they change it? Where's the outrage from Japan and the announcement of "Godzilla 2020" to right the wrongs done to their IP? Toho has said they look forward to working more with Legendary and WB, and yes I know money is a big factor, but '98 made plenty of money, why didn't that get sequels? I just feel like this is less of an issue than some seem to be making it out to be.
"Why couldn't the plant regrowth and Burning powerup just be things they put in because they needed a way to quickly restore the status quo or thought it would be a cool reference and set piece."
Initially I was willing to give it that benefit of the doubt. But even if that were the case then it makes the filmmakers look tone deaf and incompetent. In which case I could let it slide, but it also speaks to how dumb the movie really is.
And then the audio commentary was released where Dougherty mentioned Chernobyl as an example of Mother Earth regenerating after radiation had left it uninhabitable for so many years. There's this false perception that Chernobyl is now a flourishing haven of regrowth--But that's not true. Radiation doesn't outright kill nature, it messes it up. To this day vegetation in Chernobyl can not rot, making it impossible for nutrients from dead plants to return to the ground. Birds are born with smaller brains and shorter lifespans. And predators that have left the radiation zone are poisoning plants and livestock, making it difficult to put this stuff on the market.
So not only does Dougherty seem to believe this stuff, but it feels like he's spreading misinformation.
"Remember, Toho signed off on this."
They signed off on GINO as well. And why? To get back in to the international market.
That said I don't believe what Toho thinks is what makes it an "egregious offense." That's pitting principles against the whims of business. But if the argument is really principles vs. principles, then clearly this pro-nuclear stance is in violation of franchises very foundation. It's part of what sets Godzilla apart from other monsters and other monster franchises and to alter that so drastically helps close the loop that now he's just another other big monster. I know some fans who have left the franchise/fandom entirely because of it and while I can't bring myself to stop enjoying the majority of what came pre-Godzilla: King of the Monsters, I understand why they think it's an end point for Godzilla--On multiple levels.
Titan Of Water
Exactly, but I think they should go further with that. The MAIN reason I'm in favor of the pro nuclear message in this one is so that they can make Godzilla a DESTROYER in another movie, like in GVK. It would show nuclear power on both sides of the spectrum, and set up the "Godzilla isn't quite a protector, he's a neutral force that usually ends up siding with us" type shtick which would exemplify nuclear power PERFECTLY.
If that didn't make sense, the main reason I support this pro-nuclear stance is so they can go back on it in GVK or a following Godzilla movie, and he'll be AGAINST us, as foretold at the end of KOTM. It'd show Godzilla, and nuclear power, as a neutral force, which is kinda what it is, and kinda what Godzilla was in the Heisei and Millenium eras. In my opinion, that would be kind of genius. Who knows, maybe in GVK Godzilla will be a "bad" guy again and Kong will be brought by Monarch to try and stop him? Maybe he'll be looking for some radiation fixes from nuclear plants since his home that was stocked with radiation was destroyed?
If people weren't lazy, we wouldn't try to be efficient. If we weren't efficient, we'd never get anything done.
Okay, so I'll admit I know very little hard facts about Chernobyl, but the Wikipedia page seems to imply that from the limited studies that have been done, while mutations are still more prevalent than normal, (I'd reckon due to all the quarantine) the wildlife populations are probably higher than before the disaster. So it might stink for humans, but "Nature" seems to be managing fine enough, which I believe is what people usually mean when they say stuff like that. I also found nothing on that plant bit and it frankly sounds incredibly suspect, but again I have done no real research, provide me some sources and I'll happily change my tune. I could easily propose a decent in-universe reason for the specific peculiarities of the Titan Radiation, but that's not really the point so I'll spare you the fanfiction.
Maybe, but what did they do after that? Mock it and denounce it, I haven't seen much of that for Legendary yet except in the US.
Toho is still the same company that made Shin, so they must have some integrity in there. And there's always the anime trilogy if you need something without all that Hollywood shlock gumming up the works. Also of note, when Godzilla was conceived nuclear power was just beginning to be explored, and it's first major use was in an act of war. Godzilla was made in response to that, not nuclear energy in concept. If the franchise at its core exists just to decry an entire branch of scientific and technological potential, than that's just backwards. Batman can be Batman without bringing up his tragic backstory every hour, the same goes for Godzilla. I imagine a similar falling out came after '98 for different reasons, yet here we are. One or two missteps does not invalidate everything that came before and can come after. If some bad writing and not shouting "Nukes bad" for the 35th time is what it takes for the whole franchise to lose it's appeal to someone, than...I don't know, but it just seems shallow. Why stop loving something because you didn't like the newest part of it?
Gomi: Ninja Monster
To add onto that, as mentioned at the end of KOTM, Godzilla will probably do something AGAINST humanity soon, therefore balancing out the good with bad and making him a neutral force. Once again, making nuclear power a neutral force, which is what it really is. It wouldn't be half bad if a Godzilla explored the pros and cons of nuclear power.
If people weren't lazy, we wouldn't try to be efficient. If we weren't efficient, we'd never get anything done.
TheLazyFish
Agreed, and I'd love if the MonsterVerse has been playing 4-D chess with us this whole time, but that remains to be seen. Personally, if the MV can make it past GvK I'm positive the Oxygen Destroyer will be coming back to bite them, along with the general message of "you invented this new thing just to kill without thinking about the consequences, now reap what you sow." It would perfectly retroactively contextualize how offhanded it's use was in KoTM, both lampshading it and integrating it into the world in a much more meaningful way.
Maybe the oxygen destroyer mutates something in the waters into Destoroyah? Maybe it makes Godzilla more aggressive towards humans, or it makes him need to consume more radiation, thus causing him to attack nuclear plants?
If people weren't lazy, we wouldn't try to be efficient. If we weren't efficient, we'd never get anything done.
"while mutations are still more prevalent than normal, (I'd reckon due to all the quarantine) the wildlife populations are probably higher than before the disaster."
The populations are up, but severely messed up, many of which are carriers that are effecting farms. And there's plenty of sources regarding the vegetation issue. Here's two major news/scientific sources regarding the plant nutrient problems:
Forests Around Chernobyl Aren’t Decaying Properly
30 years on, Chernobyl wildlife still feeling effects of nuke plant catastrophe
"...I'll spare you the fanfiction."
Which is the problem. It shouldn't be the fans' job to fill in the issues with these films. That's the filmmakers' job.
"Godzilla was made in response to that, not nuclear energy in concept."
Exactly. The Japanese had seen the devastation up close, not just from the war, but since it was sitting in between the two nations flexing their nuclear muscles. Godzilla is the side of the argument that decries this--Like it or not.
And why shouldn't it be? The argument is still going on and having something firmly represent and speak up for the side that was devastated is perfectly reasonable. After all, why do our dentists flee the room like their heads are on fire whenever our teeth are X-rayed? Within the plume of Three Mile Island there was up to 400% increase in lung cancer. 700% increase in Leukemia. Why do you think they haven't built one like those since the 1970s? Let's skip over the unpredictable earthquake issue which has plagued Japan multiple times and caused the Fukushima disaster. These plants pump out tons of nuclear waste and we have no idea what to do with the stuff. In the early 2000s plants from the US had 55 metric tons of nuclear waste and the number has only gone up. In the 1980s it was just dumped in the ocean, which is what Japan is now being forced to do with the waste left over from Fukushima. For a movie supposedly about "saving the Earth" and "nature's regrowth", being pro-nuclear certainly isn't very good for the environment--Unless you're retroactively making radioactivity good for it of course. I suppose it's the only way to get around the fact that writing a story that's both pro-nuclear and pro-environment is about as mindless as... well... the movie itself.
Sure, Batman can be Batman without bringing up his backstory. But if he starts fighting because he has fun doing it, instead of the higher cause based on that backstory, he's not Batman. Or at best, just Batman on a very surface level.
Well it could be argued that the radiation spewed by Behemoth is some sort of mystical healing radiation, because not all radiation is nuclear.
G.H. (Gman)
I think that the movie isn't saying "radiation is good for the environment." I think the whole radiation healing thing is meant to be a "mystical" element to the titans, and to reinforce why they're so important for nature. If it is pro-nuclear as well, which is still unconfirmed, it is meant to show the benefits of nuclear power from a war standpoint, and from one of the "cleaner" sources of energy we have. The main message, though, is to coexist with nature, not that radiation is good for the environment. Still, it might be more preferable to oil, BUT not the best option ever.
And, I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, but I think the pro-nuclear message in KOTM is set up for an anti-nuclear message in the next. The wide audience thought Godzilla was "good" in 2014, even though he was supposed to be neutral. So the same "pro-nuclear" argument could be made there, except MUTOS balanced it out to make it neutral. Now that Godzilla is the main radiation based Kaiju, how do they make nuclear power seem neutral when the big hero is a metaphor for nuclear power? Well, they double down, like in KOTM making him good, to set up him being practically evil in the next movie(s), which might be why MONARCH tries to get Kong to fight him, or something. I mean, they practically CONFIRMED it at the end of KOTM when the guy (forgot name of the guy lol) says "Glad he's on our side" and Dr. Chen says "for now." Then, for the rest of the series, he can remain a neutral force by accidentally or intentionally doing a bad thing per movie, followed by fighting a worse Kaiju. I feel like that's the angle they're trying to go for, to make Godzilla a neutral force rather than specifically good or bad. He just so happens to help us out of his own interest. I feel that kind of perfectly represents the viewpoints on nuclear power after the atomic bomb in Japan and America. In Japan, they began to fear it, resulting in Godzilla 1954 and Shin Godzilla (and basically all the other Godzilla movies, but mainly those two). In America, nuclear power helped them, but they still feared it in the Cold War, and recognized it wasn't an inherently good thing. I feel like that's how they portray Godzilla in the Monsterverse, as a neutral thing that ends up helping humans, or Americans in the context of WW2. Then if he does a bad thing, it would probably represent the Cold War or nuclear waste. I don't know, that's just my interpretation.
Also, once again, the metaphor for nuclear power thing could be a reference to WW2, as I said in my first comment. Just in case you weren't getting my references to WW2 because I ramble a lot, just go check that because I'm sleepy and too lazy to write it all again lol
If people weren't lazy, we wouldn't try to be efficient. If we weren't efficient, we'd never get anything done.
Okay, so I think the best way to end this segment of the discussion is to say that Nature is managing fine in spite of the nuclear radiation, not thanks to it, except in that it's made people leave the area alone. The state of things currently isn't nearly as hyperbolic as you make it sound, but yes things aren't completely normal there by any means. The plant stuff was very interesting, it's not invincible to decomposition but the radiation inhibits the microbes and slows things down considerably.
They specifically say "Their radiation" is what causes life to sprout, not nukes. Since this is a universe where ancient species fed off and ran on radiation, extrapolating that the Titan's radiation must be different from the kinds we know isn't really a stretch. Could they mention that somewhere officially? Absolutely, but I don't think it's to crazy to assume that might be the case in the meantime.
Again, I'm not arguing with that, I'm questioning if every portrayal of nuclear energy in a G-flick must always be bad if the real message is "don't use this to hurt people and the environment." The issue isn't the tech, it's how we use and dispose of it that's causing the problems. Saying a problem is bad doesn't help anybody if you're not also trying to find actual solutions, or at least inspiring others to do so. Preaching a halt in all nuclear power is stupid, because there isn't any sort of suitable alternative that can take that load right now. What should be done is acknowledging the benefits of nuclear energy and working to reduce the impact it leaves behind while we look for something cleaner. Pro-nuclear doesn't have to mean "put a reactor up everywhere," just like being pro-environment doesn't have to mean "screw humanity." There is a balance in there, we just have to find it(Hmm, like the message of the movie...)
Uh, I think we mixed the metaphors a bit here. Batman is a character, not a propaganda mascot. Gojira(1954) is an anti-nuclear proliferation film, but Godzilla himself is a character now, and characters are allowed to have different interpretations and motivations.
And no, I'm calling bull on that bit about Three-Mile Island. The general scientific consensus is that the effects of the accident were very low to negligible. Three or four dissenting studies from noted anti-nuclear sources does not a convincing counterargument make. Should further studies from many sources back that up in the future I'll consider it, but until then majority rules in science. Oh, and please excuse medical professionals for taking the proper precautions when dealing with something that can be dangerous if not administered properly. Also please excuse construction workers for not leaving their feet next to running jackhammers, they really should have more faith in their technology.
What if it was gamma radiation?
"the radiation spewed by Behemoth is some sort of mystical healing radiation, because not all radiation is nuclear."
"I think the whole radiation healing thing is meant to be a "mystical" element to the titans,"
"Since this is a universe where ancient species fed off and ran on radiation, extrapolating that the Titan's radiation must be different from the kinds we know isn't really a stretch."
This is great and all, but why isn't it mentioned in the movie? The reason this comes off as so egregious and utterly stupid is because the entire genre is based on creatures harboring radiation that has caused considerable harm in films both within and outside of the Godzilla franchise. When we think "radioactive monster" in this genre, we not only have images of something deadly, but something that has, and is, leaving something deadly behind. It's been a staple of Godzilla, Rodan, Frankenstein Conquers the World, Ultraman, etc. Simply saying "the titans' radiation heals the Earth," is such a such massive deviation from the norm that it needed further explanation--And the filmmakers were too inept to do it or realize it. Even general audiences/non-fans I've watched it with give me a weird look during that scene. A friend of mine took the time to lean in and say, "That's not how radiation works." I tried to explain the rest of the franchise isn't like that, but here we're supposed to take it for face value, because radiation = good.
"Preaching a halt in all nuclear power is stupid, because there isn't any sort of suitable alternative that can take that load right now."
Of course there is. Solar energy has been proven, not just during the day, but capable of storing energy for night as well. Electrical power and cars have proven to be both cost effective and practical, governments just prefer to burn oil. And given all the hot air I'm reading in defense of a blatantly dumb movie (because "Monsterverse!"), I think wind powered generators could keep cities running, especially if comes from around these forums.
"The issue isn't the tech,"
I assume you mean radiation itself, which I wouldn't lump under the term "tech" per-say. I'd argue that it, in its pure form, it is indisputably deadly. There's more going on here than how we use and disposes of it. Radiation is harmful. Radiation may save lives to kill cancer, but why is it used to kill cancer? Because it kills tissue. Heat from the sun? Obviously radiation, but if we didn't have an ionosphere, the planet would be uninhabitable due to it. There is no getting around that radiation is dangerous and there's no problem with an entire franchise being dedicated to that reminder.
"And no, I'm calling bull on that bit about Three-Mile Island. The general scientific consensus is that the effects of the accident were very low to negligible."
Thank you for making my point--This is exactly the kind of deaf ear that makes the Godzilla series a necessity. Early reports, particularly in 1990, saw little to no effects, but those reports didn't factor in a number of variables left in the wake of Three Mile Island.
A 1997 reevaluation reported by four doctors stated, "associations were generally larger considering a 5-year latency, but were based on smaller numbers of cases. Results support the hypothesis that radiation doses are related to increased cancer incidence around TMI."
Further health news items, linked an increase to the plume, but weren't widely distributed due to the incident being old hat.
Yes. Science indeed.
Was that from wikipedia?
"Why Isn't it mentioned in the movie?"
I think the directors either expected people to be able to make that distinction, especially when we see Mothra's radiation come out like "magic" stuff instead of actual radiation when she dies. The fact we can see a lot of the radiation makes it pretty obvious it's not the same as actual radiation, at least in my opinion. Also, B, if they didn't think people could make the distinction, then they also probably expected the same suspension of disbelief to have these creatures in the first place.
"And given all the hot air I'm reading in defense of a blatantly dumb movie (because "Monsterverse!"), I think wind powered generators could keep cities running, especially if comes from around these forums."
Really man? Real mature. Also, you did a misquote there, but anyways, I said it's one of the "cleaner" options, but also said it wasn't the best. It could just be an "interim" energy source between oil and before we manage to make solar power cheaper and widespread. I think that's the usual viewpoint for when people support it.
"I assume you mean radiation itself, which I wouldn't lump under the term "tech" per-say. I'd argue that it, in its pure form, it is indisputably deadly. There's more going on here than how we use and disposes of it. Radiation is harmful. Radiation may save lives to kill cancer, but why is it used to kill cancer? Because it kills tissue. Heat from the sun? Obviously radiation, but if we didn't have an ionosphere, the planet would be uninhabitable due to it. There is no getting around that radiation is dangerous and there's no problem with an entire franchise being dedicated to that reminder."
Dude, you can make that argument about ANYTHING, even frickin nutella and diet coke because those can give you cancer, the former due to friggin palm oil. In otherwords, I spent a couple years trying to get off of nutella... I still miss it... The point, saying that something is inherently deadly because it CAN, not usually will, but CAN cause death isn't a good argument, because then practically everything is deadly. And saying "it's inherently deadly because TOO MUCH can kill you, not that it will kill you in small amounts" is also bad, because even eating enough bananas (not sure why that's my example either) would kill you, it's really just a matter of scale.
Again, the main message is to coexist with nature, not that radiation is good for the environment. So this whole discussion we've been having is kinda moot.
If people weren't lazy, we wouldn't try to be efficient. If we weren't efficient, we'd never get anything done.
Alright, I think we can close the book on the Titan Radiation by saying it should have been explained further either in the movie or ancillary media and it relied a little too heavily on suspension of disbelief, so while it worked for some it derailed things for others. That sufficient for everyone else?
"Of course there is. Solar energy has been proven, not just during the day, but capable of storing energy for night as well. Electrical power and cars have proven to be both cost effective and practical governments just prefer to burn oil. And given all the hot air I'm reading in defense of a blatantly dumb movie (because "Monsterverse!"), I think wind powered generators could keep cities running, especially from around these forums."
Maybe so, but the key part of my argument was "right now." Setting up all of those alternatives will take a lot of time and a ton of energy, we can't just turn every nuclear plant and car off and limp along with what we have now, society will screech to a halt. I'm saying we need to use nuclear energy as a stepping stone to better things, but at this point in time, without it we will flounder. People didn't switch from candles to the lightbulb in a year, it took decades for the necessary infrastructure to be fully developed. Also, I know I've personally been getting pretty heated despite my attempts, but insulting people and calling something they like "dumb" is a Terrible way to deescalate a situation.
Yes, I meant nuclear energy, tech was the wrong word. And I'm with TheLazyFish on this one, something being dangerous does not keep it from being useful. Horses can bite and kick and trample and spread disease, but we figured out how to work around those hazards and unlocked their usefulness as a beast of burden and method of transportation. A horse can still kill a person in a number of situations, but overall the benefits outweighed the risks and here we are today. Where's the "Horses are dangerous" franchise? PSAs are for constantly bringing up the dangers of things we're already aware of, I'd rather not have Godzilla be reduced to that.
Did you not read the rest of my point? I have no problem if TMI proves to have had major lasting effects, but as I see it there isn't enough new information yet to properly topple the old consensus, so until then I'll stick with that Both sides seem to have missed several variables, so again further research is required. That's how science works, you use what you have until there's substantial enough evidence challenging it to warrant a change, rinse and repeat. The Paleontological world is in an uproar because a couple of recent studies completely shook up the way we view the Dinosaur family tree, and it's being rigorously combed over trying to make sense of the new perspective. Time will tell if this is just a misinterpretation of evidence or if it's the start of a scientific revolution, but until we're more certain we won't be throwing out the old models just yet.
Yes Monster_Zero 2112, I'm using Wikipedia for my general understanding of whatever comes up, but I'm reading G. H.(Gman)'s articles when he presents them. I'm not a scientist, but I am trying to keep an open mind.
