Comments (Page 155)
Latest comments by Godzilla fans on news, forum discussions and images!
Planet Eater Ghidorah
Destroy Garbetrium bead, godzilla earth wins
Godzilla Earth
SarcasticGoji, you have forced my hand.
I shall summon my Titan team now....
1.gif)
You saved me....why?
Hmm, Monke
no, better
You guys better not be rickrolling us.
Godzilla vs Kong deleted scene:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcmQ28HALB4
yeah, lets focus on epic stuff like this
Die-hard Spino Fan I know, I meant like it wasn't just one fight and done.
It has to otherwise they are getting sued or something like that.
On the bright, Godzilla Vs. Kong lived up to it's title.
nevermind SarcasticGoji answered that for me
I have no idea.
Do y'all think Gman clicked bad or good but not great
I’ve just had a random thought. If news sources in UsA are still talking more about GVK are new sources in Japan talking more about Singular Point?
I don’t think toho will sell godzilla back
Would they get triggered by the “love it” part or the “not good” part?
GvK did ok in japan but I think Toho wants to take over again
That comment about JP3 would trigger so many people if they were still around lol
I loved the movie, but as SarcasticGoji said, how much you enjoy a movie doesn’t make it good. Overall, and I know this is a stretch but, it was like JPIII. I loved it but it was not good.
I do too. We’ve had serveral topics about whether GvK was good or not and i’m ready to move on. I’ve been trying to focus on singular point which seems really cool.
7/10 (flawed, but overall a pretty good entertaining movie)
I feel like we are beating a dead horse with the GvK topics.
saw the topic, knew immediately what was about to happen
SarcasticGoji,
Eh, we're kinda delving into a whole different topic here--One I'm quite passionate about and could go on and on over. At one point maybe they did know more. But I think if a film critic is successful he should do the following quote by Roger Ebert:
"A newspaper film critic should encourage critical thinking, introduce new developments, consider the local scene, look beyond the weekend fanboy specials, be a weatherman on social trends, bring in a larger context, teach, inform, amuse, inspire, be heartened, be outraged."
I admit, I only did a handful of these during my career. But now, unfortunately, film criticism is sought out as a checklist of what's good or bad in a film, usually going unread before it's transmorphed into a quantification by Rotten Tomatoes. It's a sad state the industry is in and when many wrote articles on the "death of the film critic" back in the mid-to-late 2000s they were right to an extent. I'm not sure if most critics really live up to the definition by Ebert.
I think the best way to critique films is start with successful stories. Not movies. Start out with Beowulf, Milton, Chaucer, etc. Enjoy history books. Learn about Joseph Campbell. And once you've nailed down what makes a good story, don't point it out in other works. Merely, observe and let your belief via observation do the talking. If it gets any emotional reaction, you've probably done your job right.
I just get jumpy when it seems like other people are being rude about others opinions.
Wait did Gman click good but not great or bad
I just thought that Saying you know what makes a good movies doesn’t actually mean you do. I am guilty of doing that. But am I wrong in saying that movies critics know more than average people. And even if it is wrong, then why should we label movies as bad.
In my opinion art that is meant to commercialize loses much of its artistic value, many movies can work around this.
And also Gman, I'm guessing you clicked bad.
SarcasticGoji,
I wouldn't say being a movie critic gave me special insight on what makes a good movie any more than most people--At least in the era of criticism as it has spiraled in the last 20 years.
I will say that working on film sets/post production did give me a different appreciation for how movies are made and was infinitely more influential in how I look at them.
Art criticism is a funny thing. There's an objective way of going about it, but it really has nothing to do with explaining why something is good or bad. It has everything to do with encouraging people to think about why something could be good or bad--Or maybe neither. It's just good if people think.
If one is to judge Godzilla vs Kong by the standards of which movies generally are, Godzilla vs Kong is just not a good movie. The human characters are shallow apart from Jia and certain elements of the plot don't make sense. However, it appears that was specifically was Wingard was going for.
Rather than have something compelling, he delivered what he perceived people to want - Mindless monster fun. To be fair, nobody apart from the hardcore fanbase really cares to see a really compelling human storyline in a monster movie. If the average movie-goer sees Godzilla or Kong in the movie title, that's who they're buying a ticket for. They certainly don't want to see 100 minutes of humans in a 120 minute monster movie.
GvK was pretty much marketed that way (focus on the monsters), or at least that's how I felt it was. I maintain that Kong: Skull Island is the only Monsterverse movie which truly struck the balance between the humans and monsters. GvK had potential to surpass that, but it didn't.
With all of that said, it doesn't mean that it wasn't enjoyable. I enjoyed it, perhaps in part because I lowered my expectations going in.
But was it your job? Did you learn the way characters should be written, how music should tie into the film? How shots should reflect emotions? What colors should be used? How to execute these ideas? It’s like saying that since I understand cooking I am good at it.
2 comments on this:
1. 10/10 because its lizard vs monke
2. Better then Ape Vs. Monster.
I figured it out a LONG time ago like in 2019
