New Replies (Page 173)
The MonsterVerse Rodan is capable of creating a sonic "thunderclap" by smacking his wings together.
He can also survive intense heat, since he lives inside of a volcano and later survived Burning Godzilla's nuclear pulse.
"But doesn't implying that's what they're saying when it is not also a form of entitlement?"
No, calling out someone on arrogant and overly entitled behavior does not count as entitlement...
"The attacks on the series have been about the series. Your defense of the series using those words have been about the writers."
How does that make your arguments and criticism more valid than mine though?
"While I really do think that there's an argument here, the movie itself never makes it. The film shouldn't rely on fan conjecture to connect the dots, especially when the anti-nuke character doesn't really comment on the events outside of exposition."
This is an example of "Show Don't Tell", If the film had constantly repeated statements of "nukes are bad" and "the government is carless" over and over, then it would have been accused of being "preachy" and "annoying", the fact that the film keeps these statements to a minimal and keeps the message somewhat more subtle is, honestly, pretty smart. It allows the audience to find the meanings and come to a conclusion themselves, rather than beating them over the head with it and telling them what to think.
"I think the reason Ryfle chose to compare the 2014 film to the original was because the 2014 film made the conscious decision to be about nuclear proliferation."
The problem with his "comparison" is that it's too one sided and he doesn't attempt to compare the two. He blindly praises the original film for it's message, while relentlessly bashing the 2014 film for not following the same message. If his goal was to compare and contrast the themes of the films, he did a poor job at it. He completely ignores and writes-off the themes of the 2014 film, claiming that the movie is "about nothing". The article is mostly him claiming that the movie sucks because it's made in America and that America can't make a Godzilla movie. Honestly, I think if the 2014 film was made in Japan he wouldn't have been this harsh towards it.
"He does mention the sequels did not approach, "the import of the original," but that's a fairly understood statement. He very much enjoys other movies in the franchise."
So in other words, he gives the Toho movies a pass for not following the themes of the original, but then bashes the American movies for doing the same... That's pretty hypocritical...
"That said, I don't think Godzilla '14 is nearly as egregious as it's sequel. I've called King of the Monsters pro-nuclear before, but I concede that the 2014 film doesn't go that far."
As for the whole "King of the Monsters is pro-nuclear and disrespects the original" argument, I don't think that people understand how involved Toho is with these films. Ever since 1998, Toho has been extremely protective of Godzilla, and they've had more creative control over these newer projects, speaking out on anything they view as unfaithful to the franchise. In the script for King of the Monsters, the frightened Mothra larvae was going to attack and kill the Monarch soldiers, however Toho disapproved of this idea stating that Mothra was a defender and wouldn't purposefully harm people (although her actions in the 1961 film suggests otherwise). As a result Legendary was forced to change the scene to have the Mothra larvae trapping the Monarch soldiers in silk and webbing rather than killing them. The fact that Toho made Legendary change the scene shows that they had a lot of input on the movie, making them change a certain detail if they view it as too far removed from the character or the legacy of the series. With this in mind, if the Godzilla "revival" scene was as "egregious", "disrespectful", and "pro-nuclear" as you claim it to be, I'm pretty sure that Toho would have intervened and would have made Legendary change it. The fact that Toho allowed this scene to stay the same and never spoke out about it (the only complaints that I've seen are from certain elitist fans) implies that they actually approved of it.
I'm not trying to be overly sensitive, nor am I saying that Gman can't have an opinion (I have no problem with him comparing the MV Godzilla to Gamera, I've done the same thing), however I do think he's being needlessly antagonistic towards these films and constantly throwing too much hate at them (as if anything they do is wrong), when they don't necessarily deserve it. I've mentioned in previous posts that I strongly dislike the Polygon Anime Trilogy, however I don't constantly bash it any time it get's mentioned, I may explain the reasons I have for not liking it, but I'm not just throwing blind hatred towards it.
You claim that he’s not trying to be condescending and that he just has a strong opinion.
"I only see a lot projecting over taking someone else's word poorly, sorry. Maybe if you pointed out specific sentences or examples I'd be more inclined to engage."- G.H.(Gman)
Yes, because writing off someone's argument, while implying that they're poorly informed because they don't agree with your viewpoint isn't condescending at all...
My point is that he demands that people respect his opinions, while completely writing off and (in some cases) disrespecting the opinion of others simply because they don't fit his view points. He asks for proof to back up certain claims, yet when he gets it he immediately tosses it aside accusing it as nothing more than "fan conjecture" and "projecting" and ignores the argument completely. Yet when he makes a claim he immediately expects people to listen to it, no questions asked. It comes off as kind of hypocritical in away. Please note I'm not trying to start a fight with you or Gman, but at the same time I don't think fans acting like this should be the norm, if anything I think this behavior should be avoided.
I guess yeah.
you guessed right.
Also, I guess Rodan has a sharp beak and talons to grab other titans in battle.
Since there're all giants, they have super strength? I know behemoth has tusks as weapons', and Scylla has its legs for advantage.
Ya know what? Throw in all of the other secondary titans from the MonsterVerse. Methuselah, Scylla, behemoth, and Titanus Jinshin Mushi. I know Mushi has her sonic breath also.
I always thought he could shoot fire out of his mouth or something.
Yeah of course he flies fast he kept up with the ARGO
yeah, all i know is those two, ig he probably flies really fast
Well I know he has flames combing from his wings and he has the thunderclap but what else?
SarcasticGoji,
I think the question is at what point do we accept it's okay to poke at someone else's scar and at what point do we change that meaning before it's not that character anymore?
On the one hand you have the Japanese, who felt some of the issues Ryfle and I have pointed out in the Monsterverse is fairly tone deaf. While this discussion has accepted Godzilla has stood in for different topics to the Japanese, said topics have a through-line--a common thread that leads all the way back to World War II and how that effected the country even today.
For example, look at Shin Godzilla. The movie is about political red tape and how difficult it is for the Japanese to operate their country with the restrictions and rules posed by their constitution. But who wrote their democratic constitution? America. It's an aspect of the post-war that has loomed over the Japanese system since their bombing.
Let's step back a little further. What about the Cold War themes in Invasion of Astro-Monster? It's just another symptom of the post-war. Even Japan's pollution problem in Godzilla vs. Hedorah is a symptom of Japan's forced transition into capitalism following the war. It's all related, and as a result, Godzilla, stands apart from many other giant monster creations for this unique connection with Japanese culture. If you take that away he comes off a little hollow. By that point, why bother using Godzilla? Why not just create another monster? (And in many cases they have, like Clover, Gorgo, etc.)
"He has a condescending "I'm smarter than you" attitude and seems to be looking down on others with a different opinion to his, acting as if he has the "final say" in anything related to Godzilla. He acts as if his experiences with the franchise (which you mentioned) make him the "leading authority" on the franchise and that no one else has the right to disagree, basically using his history with the franchise to hold his opinions higher than anyone else's."
I only see a lot projecting over taking someone else's word poorly, sorry. Maybe if you pointed out specific sentences or examples I'd be more inclined to engage. But all I see is a review from someone who didn't care for the movie offering a firm stance as to way he feels it fails. Reviews and op-eds come off as harsh, but there is no contingency of the fandom being attacked here. Not once does he target the film's fans in the article.
"I've constantly seen certain fans use the "It's not MY Godzilla!" argument, while looking down on fans of the MonsterVerse, treating them as outcasts stating that they're not "True Fans" and implying that they don't "understand" the character. In my opinion this behavior is extremely "arrogant" and "hateful" towards others as it shows a sense of entitlement and self righteousness within members of the fanbase."
But doesn't implying that's what they're saying when it is not also a form of entitlement? Myself, Ryfle and others less enthralled with the Monsterverse have attacked the Monsterverse for the Monsterverse, not the fans. If you like it fine, but understand people have harsh criticism sometimes, not to be mean, but to make a steadfast point.
"You have constantly brought up the term "cultural appropriation" in your arguments against the MonsterVerse. How is that any different from me bringing up the terms "hateful" and "arrogant" in my defense of this series?"
The attacks on the series have been about the series. Your defense of the series using those words have been about the writers.
"The fact that they immediately try to use nuclear weapons against a threat without thinking shows how careless they are in regards to the use of these weapons."
While I really do think that there's an argument here, the movie itself never makes it. The film shouldn't rely on fan conjecture to connect the dots, especially when the anti-nuke character doesn't really comment on the events outside of exposition. I would have liked to have seen that explored a bit further in the film. As it stands, the whole cover-up idea for nuking Godzilla seemed pointless otherwise.
"The scene is about Serizawa warning Stenz about the potential risks of his plan. He brings up his family's connection to the Hiroshima bombings to remind Stenz of the dangers of nuclear weapons and the effects that they have on the world and the innocent civilans that inhabit it, which causes Stenz to become uncertain the plan (notice how he becomes more hesitant to continue the plan after this scene, however he is forced to go through with it)."
I do tend to agree that this scene has more nuance than Ryfle writes-off here. I'm simply expressing that his viewpoint did see the moment as "glorifying" nukes. Rather he felt the scene ended on a moment of accepting losses of the past and moving on to use the weapon that, ironically, birthed Godzilla as a cinematic character.
Disagreeable? Certainly. "Hateful?" Nah.
"The one thing that I found ironic in Ryfle's article was that he tries to ignore the messages that the other Godzilla films present, only focusing on the message of the original. Yes, the original film is the best of the series, but the fact that he seems to write off the other films as unimportant to the franchise comes off as extremely biased. He seems to only view Godzilla’s message as "nukes bad, America bad", acting as if the themes of the other movies are "irrelevant" because they aren't the same as the original. This does a great disservice to the rest of the franchise. He tries to claim that the 2014 film is "about nothing", ironically he actually acknowledges the themes and connection to real life disasters present in the film, but then decides to write them off as nothing more than "Destruction P***" because they aren't directly connected to the message of the 1954 film. The problem with his article is that he cherry-picks certain details of Godzilla's history while ignoring others that don't fit his narrative. Of course a modern American Godzilla film is going to have different cultural themes than the 1954 Japanese film, times change, politics change, issues change. The Godzilla series is constantly evolving, mostly changing it's themes in order to reflect the current events. If the series just continued the "nukes are bad" theme over and over, then I doubt that the series would have lasted that long (and we wouldn't be discussing it on these forums). Godzilla may have started out as an allegory for the destruction caused by nuclear weapons, but he has evolved past that, allowing the series to stay relevant for over 66 years and causing it to become the pop culture icon that it is today. However, It seems that Ryfle is too "stuck in the past" to acknowledge this... "
I think the reason Ryfle chose to compare the 2014 film to the original was because the 2014 film made the conscious decision to be about nuclear proliferation. Once you engage a Godzilla film with the topic that was his genesis, said film opens the door for more direct comparison.
He does mention the sequels did not approach, "the import of the original," but that's a fairly understood statement. He very much enjoys other movies in the franchise. (Particularly Mothra vs. Godzilla and Destroy All Monsters, both of which he did excellent commentaries on.)
I certainly agree that the Godzilla series has evolved over the years, but it's important to remember, evolved from what? Almost every theme, topic and nuance has been the deed of how post-war Japan deals with itself. And if the topic ever returns to nuclear proliferation, as the 2014 film decided to do, the filmmakers should understand--Hollywood productions in particular--they're dealing with a sensitive IP that only exists because a nation was wounded by Hollywood's country.
That said, I don't think Godzilla '14 is nearly as egregious as it's sequel. I've called King of the Monsters pro-nuclear before, but I concede that the 2014 film doesn't go that far. I think Ryfle cited it as maintaining a nuclear "status quo"--which is debatabley acceptable, but like I said, the movie doesn't say anything "good" about nuclear power either.
i mean ig Mutos where kinda main characters but they were still made purely by Legendary
I don’t mean to be rude, but I will say it. You seem a little sensitive when G. H. (Gman) negatively says something about Monsterverse. “He's a little too Heisei Gamera for my taste.” That’s his opinion. You don’t really need to defend Monsterverse Godzilla all the time. It’s just Gman’s opinion and he’s going to state it whenever given the chance. I used to do this, but I’ve learned to stop. You just let him say it, and move on. He’s not trying to be condescending, he just has a strong opinion.
Why can’t Godzilla change meanings for different countries? That’s basically saying Godzilla can only work in japan.
jet jagaur.
i DESPISE jet jaguar.
This poll is more so for the accessory Titans, not the title fighters.
Based on the scene where JJ fights the Kumacaras - Megalon hybrids, it really is a megalon hybrid. It’s face is definitely megalon. You have to look at it from the bottom to see the megalon face
Oh ok.
So about the 4k version, the atomic breath will look amazing regardless of brightness, as it is a source of light.
I have finished it.
But I will admit I skipped some scenes that dragged for too long
I don’t mean to be rude, but I don’t get why you claim that 4k drastically import everything G 14 when you haven’t seen it. You also negatively talk about movie, but as to my knowledge you haven’t seen the whole movie.
Did you finish it?
@Kattozilla, thank you.
@SarcasticGoji, Oh ok.
I don't mind the V. Rex, just some uuuhh...certain actions they had to take so the species didn't die out
I think they made modern Godzilla better because of his history with planet earth and how old and experienced he is.
not a kaiju I don’t think
I don't see where the article comes off as "arrogant" or "hateful".
Ryfle's attitude throughout the article has a very arrogant tone to it. He has a condescending "I'm smarter than you" attitude and seems to be looking down on others with a different opinion to his, acting as if he has the "final say" in anything related to Godzilla. He acts as if his experiences with the franchise (which you mentioned) make him the "leading authority" on the franchise and that no one else has the right to disagree, basically using his history with the franchise to hold his opinions higher than anyone else's. Because of this attitude, he comes off as very snobbish.
"I do see you use these words a lot when someone criticizes the Monsterverse. Is it possible you simply use these words for anything that upsets you in regards to criticism of these particular flicks?"
Yes, I recognize that I may use those words a little too much in regards to these topics, however, the reason I do is because I've seen a pattern of this in a lot of criticism aimed at the series. I've constantly seen certain fans use the "It's not MY Godzilla!" argument, while looking down on fans of the MonsterVerse, treating them as outcasts stating that they're not "True Fans" and implying that they don't "understand" the character. In my opinion this behavior is extremely "arrogant" and "hateful" towards others as it shows a sense of entitlement and self righteousness within members of the fanbase.
And if you're going to fault me for repeating certain points in my comments, I want to point out that you occasionally do the same. You have constantly brought up the term "cultural appropriation" in your arguments against the MonsterVerse. How is that any different from me bringing up the terms "hateful" and "arrogant" in my defense of this series?
"They were trying to kill it," is not a line indicative of, "how arrogantly these types of weapons are used." It painted the US's tests as a reaction toward trying to protect the world from a potential threat."
This does show the government's arrogant use of nuclear weapons. The fact that they immediately try to use nuclear weapons against a threat without thinking shows how careless they are in regards to the use of these weapons. They didn't stop to think "Hey this radioactive monster feeds on nuclear energy, maybe nukes aren't the best option" or “What negative effects could this have on the environment?”, they immediately thought "Oh look, a giant monster. Let's just nuke it into oblivion. Problem solved!" without thinking of the potential consequences (environmental or otherwise). They also arrogantly cover up the attempt to kill Godzilla as just another nuclear test thinking "Eh, no one will notice". The fact that the US treats the event as them "saving the world" shows their self righteousness, as they believed their actions were the "right thing to do" despite it only making the situation worse. This later plays into the idea of the military wanting to use nuclear warheads against Godzilla and the MUTOs, despite Serizawa reminder that "they tried that before", showing that they had learned nothing from their past (those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it) and once again their interference ends up making things worse.
"And at no point does Ryfle claim the scene between Stenz and Serizawa "glorifies" nuclear weapons, but merely that the scene acts as a conduit accepting the losses of Hiroshima as practical for the greater good."
It doesn't though. The scene is about Serizawa warning Stenz about the potential risks of his plan. He brings up his family's connection to the Hiroshima bombings to remind Stenz of the dangers of nuclear weapons and the effects that they have on the world and the innocent civilans that inhabit it, which causes Stenz to become uncertain the plan (notice how he becomes more hesitant to continue the plan after this scene, however he is forced to go through with it). Serizawa's fear becomes reality when the MUTOs steal the active warhead and build a nest around it in the city. So Ford and the rest of the soldiers are sent into the city to remove the bomb so that the city and the trapped civilians don't become victims of another Hiroshima-like event.
At no point does this scene (or the film) "accept the losses of Hiroshima as practical for the greater good", the film recognizes the bombings of Hiroshima as a tragedy that shouldn't have happened, stating that we should learn from our past so it isn't repeated.
The one thing that I found ironic in Ryfle's article was that he tries to ignore the messages that the other Godzilla films present, only focusing on the message of the original. Yes, the original film is the best of the series, but the fact that he seems to write off the other films as unimportant to the franchise comes off as extremely biased. He seems to only view Godzilla’s message as "nukes bad, America bad", acting as if the themes of the other movies are "irrelevant" because they aren't the same as the original. This does a great disservice to the rest of the franchise. He tries to claim that the 2014 film is "about nothing", ironically he actually acknowledges the themes and connection to real life disasters present in the film, but then decides to write them off as nothing more than "Destruction P***" because they aren't directly connected to the message of the 1954 film. The problem with his article is that he cherry-picks certain details of Godzilla's history while ignoring others that don't fit his narrative. Of course a modern American Godzilla film is going to have different cultural themes than the 1954 Japanese film, times change, politics change, issues change. The Godzilla series is constantly evolving, mostly changing it's themes in order to reflect the current events. If the series just continued the "nukes are bad" theme over and over, then I doubt that the series would have lasted that long (and we wouldn't be discussing it on these forums). Godzilla may have started out as an allegory for the destruction caused by nuclear weapons, but he has evolved past that, allowing the series to stay relevant for over 66 years and causing it to become the pop culture icon that it is today. However, It seems that Ryfle is too "stuck in the past" to acknowledge this...
nice flexing Die-Hard
yeah 4k seems like a dvd thing to me. be cool IF it was, though
I gotta say, I really like that Godzilla evolves. It adds variety to Godzilla. I like that about Shin Godzilla and Singular Point.
Well, I don really like the V. Rex but idk if its a kaiju.
Makes total sense.
I don’t really like Go- *instantly dies*
JK I LOVE THE BIG G.
To answer the question I like all of the titans. There’s no one that I particularly do not like.
Ahhhh. Got it.
It means things Monsterverse made, not toho
4K UHD is always a good bargain. Buuuuut, I have to agree with SarcasticGoji, why pay extra money for a movie just a little more pixelated. But, I have a Fire TV Stick 4K version so idk if it matters.
