New Replies (Page 1,829)
you know thay made the pack of destruction for GMK and they made toys 6.5 inch toys i think it going to be the same
what about the labratory ?
@MADISON From reading what you said about Godzilla's height, it seems that you have not heard of the square/cube law. I'm not going to bother with going into detail about exactly what it is, but it basically means that 20,000 tons is probably closer to a realistic weight for a creature of Godzilla's size than 280 tons.
@ DannyBlazor, I thought Gigan was a decent movie. I mean it's watch-able. At least agree that Gigan's design, although weird, is pretty cool. Right?
I never really cared for Gamera, but that is very cool.
I thought that Rodan delivered baby kaiju since the stork is too small.
two halfs? O.o
Sleeping godzilla is too cute!
@ TW_G-FAN2014
Before I begin, I would like to reiterate that I do not believe Kaiju are real. I don't think they ever existed in the past. And I don't they will come into being in the future.
But that article makes same kind of faulty analysis about size that many of the posters here do.
That article talks about the weight regular animal bone can support
It talks about 'x' rate metabolism in terms of required energy and feeding
It talks about the body density of a human as it relates to swimming.
It talks about the ability to survive in a vacuum
etc., so on and so forth.
NONE of those things are REQUIREMENTS for creatures in nature. It doesn't have to be animal bone, there are several other internal structures in the natural world which can support more weight. Metabolism rates even in warm blooded mammals is EXTREMELY variable, even before you get into things like reptiles, and other more exotic creatures. Body density of a human? Do I even need to explain how that's an overlimiting parameter when trying to describe the possiblity for exotic life? THERE ARE animals on earth which can survive in a vacuum. They discovered a new one just last year in fact.
A creature, in nature, using traits from animals that already exist, CAN physically be as big as a Kaiju, and not suffer any major biological complications due to the laws of physics or biology.
I mean, one doesn't exist. But one physically CAN. It's not ruled out by Newton or anything like that.
I take further objection with that article for it's straw man arguments. It takes extreme points that would never be true in the first place, and then refutes them as if it was a genuine limit if it occurred nature.
Like it takes comic book stats, presents those comic book facts as 'nature facts', and then explains why those 'nature facts' aren't possible.
If we are going to have a serious discussion about the potential physiology of a REAL animal, we shouldn't be tied to comic book stipulations, which that article attempts to do on several occassions.
For example, it says the Godzilla wiki states that Godzilla is 20,000 tons. Then it goes on to explain how difficult it would be for regular bone to sustain 20,000 tons.
Except, no Kaiju would ever actually be 20,000 tons, even it was real. That's a comic book fact, not a nature one.
Even the largest sauropods, standing over 50 feet tall, and 100 feet long, were only 20-40 tons. Godzilla is 100-350 feet tall depending on the film. That's only 2x-7x taller. So it's weight then (assuming Sauropodesque physiology....which is a fallible assumption to make) would only be 40-280 tons. I understand I'm doing rough, imprecise guessing here, but the point remains, 40-280 is nowhere 20,000. 40-280 is a MUCH more reasonable weight to sustain, even if constricting yourself to animal bone. But the article doesn't talk about that, because it prefers to assume the 20,000 number, since the 20,000 number is easier to argue against. It's hella cherry picking basically.
Basically it sacrifices legitimacy by attempting to use rhetoric to score argumentative points, rather than instead of having an objective conversation.
Again, Kaiju aren't real. But this whole "they're too big to be real" argument is misguided.
TW_G-FAN2014
Dude, I'm sorry, I think I overreacted a bit. :L I'm just not really having a good day today and the last thing I wanted was a disappointment from a movie I'm so excited for. Pretty sure other people can relate to that at least.
I will say, I don't remember telling anyone what was right and wrong with a Godzilla movie. I remember saying that I can't believe fans of Godzilla would want things in there that have never been in a Godzilla film and wouldn't have a positive impact on the movie.
And surely you can't tell me you want a ton of ADULT CONTENT such as really bad language and other things (you know what I'm talking about) in a Godzilla movie. How many people can say that? I was pretty sure I wasn't the only one. But if that's what people want, I'm not sure if I want to be a part of this fanbase anymore, if everyone enjoys watching bloody violence and gore. I love Godzilla, I love his movies, and the dark tone of this new one. I thought everyone did. I DON'T love bad language or other nonsense like that. Don't you agree?
Maybe I made an assumption with the violence and gore part. Maybe some people want that. I guess that's up to everyone. I can't deny that it surprises me.
You're right, though, I shouldn't get mad if there is a Director's Cut, and I won't. It very well could be great. I'll give it a chance. As you're saying, previously edited violence and language doesn't necessarily mean anything.
However, other than the fact that I think you misunderstood my intentions or took them wrong, I agree with your point. Like I said, maybe I did overreact a bit. I just want this movie to be good. Sorry if I came off as making judgements of anyone.
American production company? No way.
Wow, that's really awesome. Hopefully it will be even better than the Heisei trilogy.
well, when a daddy hokmuto and a mommy hokmuto love each other very much...
But how would you make them
According to the toy boxes, the mutos are prehistoric rivals of the Godzilla creatures.
I'm not a fan of the 'crazy scientist man' idea. It's a little too...hokey for me.
@DINOZILLA0439
You are making some serious assumptions my friend, and as much as I hate to say it, you're kind of making yourself look very foolish.
Mature content doesn't always pertain strictly to bad language or intimate sexual content. It pertains to violence as well, even fantasy violence can influence rating and determine whether or not something will end up in the theatrical cut. If you want an example, the first AVP (as bad as it was) was fairly heavily edited for the theatrical run. When the Predator impales the guy in the warehouse with his spear after Weyland and the others arrive, in the theatrical run there was no blood, just the guy gripping the spear before dying. In the 'Director's Cut', there was blood dripping from the spear and beginning to spread through his clothing.
Having a Director's Cut might also simply include scenes that simply didn't make it into the film. Sometimes they end up as deleted scenes, but not always. Things like that are very common in Director's Cut editions of movies, and just because some of it might seem excessive, it doesn't mean it doesn't belong.
You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not the one who gets to tell us, the rest of the Godzilla fanbase, what's right or wrong about a Godzilla movie or what goes into it. The things that you seem to hate, other fans might love, and you have no right to tell them they're wrong or that what they enjoy watching doesn't belong in the movie that they enjoy.
So, for your sake as well as ours, please take a chill pill. If there is a Director's Cut, it doesn't mean that there's going to be a bunch of nonsense or mature content. It just means that this cut is going to be slightly different than the theatrical run, and while previously edited violence and language might be a part of it, that doesn't make it inappropriate to the movie or wrong for the rest of the fan base.
So I'll say it again: Take a chill pill and give the movie it's fair chance.
Whether there's a Director's Cut or not, it doesn't mean it's going to be bad or have things that bring down the movie. There have been many examples of Director's Cut versions that were better than the theatrical run, so I advise you to give it a chance. If there is in fact a Director's Cut, which at this piont remains unconfirmed, then at least give it a chance. If you don't give it a chance simply because you've had bad experiences with other Director's Cut movies, then you very well run the risk of robbing yourself of the opportunity to enjoy a version of the film that might even be better than the theatrical run.
So don't do that. Don't be mad if there is a Director's Cut. Even if there is one, give it a chance. If you don't like it, don't watch it. You'll always have the option of watching the theatrical version instead of the Director's Cut version.
will my post on Godzilla could be real was locked and so i have to say no and someone can say that is really stupid
Iam Good Gman thats all i need to say but next time
Kaiju are 100% impossible.
They cannot exist. Not in this world, nor the next thanks to the realities of the laws of physics.
If you don't understand why, then read this: http://www.angelfire.com/ego/g_saga/kaijubiologyarticle.html
As much as we love Kaiju, they are impossible and will never exist.
@Madison
Haha, well they're pretty much the bottom of the barrel for the entire genre. In some ways the Mothra movies and GINO have a great deal in common for how misguided their attempts at the genre, or staples from the genre, were driven to the screen. I don't apologize for either one.
@KingKaijuGojira
You won't find Rebirth of Mothra 3 on DVD because Sony has yet to release it on any physical home video format. They've had the North American rights to the movie for nearly 15 years, but they've never bothered releasing for whatever reason... There's a chance they might release it on Bluray with the other two movies to cash in on Legendary's Godzilla.
I didn't know Gamera was turning 50! NOw I have to go out and by a present for the big guy.
Damn GMAN2887, how do you really feel? Don't hold back now :-)
Sorry, I don't mean to be a smartass. And I don't disagree with your points. That was just the most harsh I think I've ever seen you be with a film other than Godzilla 1998.
Apparently there's going to be a big announcment about it this May. No doubt, Daiei/Kadokawa will try to immulate the look and feel of Legendary's Godzilla.
Gamera's 50th anniversary is next year, so this makes sense.
On top of that is rumors of anew Ultraman television series called "Ultraman Victory".
GGojira45 might be right. If the new Godzilla is a hit it could spark some sort of revitalization of tokusatsu in Japan. I'm not holding my breath, exactly, but it'd be nice if audiences had a hunger for it again following Legendary's Godzilla.
@ Bigbadben and Erwingfan91, I second that opinion. Rebirth of Mothra 3 is the best of the trilogy. Mothra vs. Grand King Ghidorah (that's what they called that King Ghidorah, Google it if you don't believe me). You know that movie took place 3 years after Godzilla died at the end of Godzilla vs Destoroyah and around the time of the shameful movie from tristar. Guess King Ghidorah though he be able to destory earth once and for all with Godzilla out of the way. He probably didn't count on Mothra standing in his way. I just wish that I could find that movie on DVD or iTunes.
I truly believe these to be some of the worst, most unwatchable, cheap cash grabs of the entire genre. The first movie is tolerable at best. The second one I never want to watch again and the third has some fun special effects moments, but the entire concept is absolutely awful.
I don't mind that they're primarily targeting a much younger audience, but Toho really lost the balance between appealing to both children and adults with the same film. A friend in the Godzilla community, whom I highly regard, once said, "making something kid-friendly but still sophisticated enough to engage older viewers requires a lot more thought than just throwing bright colors at the screen."
The Mothra trilogy does the latter. The characters get progressively worse with each movie and Koichi Kawikata's special effects in the first two movies mark his worst, laziest efforts yet. These movies came to theaters around the time of the Gamera Trilogy, mind you. Suitmation and miniature effects had evolved and become far more sophisticated with Kaneko/Higuchi's Gamera. In contrast, the effects in the Mothra trilogy seemed to be a step backwards from even the worst moments in the Heisei Godzilla series. The Mothra props were generally immobile and lifeless. And the "spark" effects were becoming increasingly hokier. The few miniatures that were in these movies were pretty stale as well.
They did well at the box office due to Mothra's popularity, but that doesn't excuse how truly awful they were. The 1970s Godzilla movies make much more engaging children films than these disasters...
Well it's about time the Gaurdian of the Universe made a come back.
A 'Director's' Cut can mean anything these days.
When Director's Cuts first started out, they were actually usually entirely/significantly different versions of the film. It wasn't just extended scenes, but deleted scenes, added/deleted characters, new plot points and alternate endings.
It literally would mean: "how the Director would have shot this movie, if he didn't have a studio/producter to answer to....but still had their money to make this movie".
To be honest, MOST Director Cuts were worse (well maybe not worse, but definitely not as a popular) as their theatrically released counter-parts.....mainly because any director who gets unhinged can be a little quacky. Creative/Artsy people usually need to be reigned in by some 'Down-to-Earth' force at some level for the mainstream audience to swallow it. That's part of why really famous' directors/authors/singers tend to actually release WORSE work later in their careers. Because in the beginning, they had a boss/editor/producer/label/agent reigning them in. Then they get some latitude with success, and churn out more on their free will...and well....George Lucas or George RR Martin happens.
This doens't happen to everybody, some people continue to make great stuff even after the reigns are dropped, like Christopher Nolan or J.K. Rowling. And some Director's Cuts are HANDS-DOWN better than the wide release version. See Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut for an a good example of that. I'm just saying, these examples are more than the exception, than the rule.
Regardless of whether or not a Director's Cut is GOOD or BAD, they are becoming increasingly less common. As movie-making has become more.....formulaic....Director's Cuts in the true sense of the word, don't exist anymore, as director's don't go through the process of shooting their own cut, having it rejected, modified, and then re-shot.....I mean, well they do, but definitely not to the same extent.
Director's cuts nowadays are usually just the untrimmed versions of films. Things that were maybe in it but were cut to save a little screen-time or change the rating of the film. But nothing that like, substantially alters the movie.
I think what you're more worried about is "Unrated" Cuts, which are different than Director's Cuts. Whereas 'Director's Cuts' are usually based on some type of practical, financial, or artistic difference......"Unrated Cuts" are almost entirely just "stuff we left out so it could be PG-13" or "stuff we left out so we could keep it R (instead of NC-17".
Unrated cuts come exclusively packed with your gore, swear words, and sex scenes. Director's cuts CAN include some of these things, but usually that isn't what they mean by definition.
Even most 'Unrated' Cuts are considerably tame. Like the ONLY real change between PG-13 'Live Free or Die Hard' and the 'Unrated' DVD, was John McClane got to finish saying "Yipee-Kai-Yay MotherFucker", instead of it going "Yipee-Kai-Yay MotherF...Gunshot" like it did in theaters.
Again, this watering down of alternate cuts is cuz it's expensive to produce/shoot major extra content, so it's increasingly common that they only shoot stuff they have a real intent of being in the film. Unless they KNOW that the extra content is going to sell, like the LOTR Extended Editions which have become pretty common.
Unrated Cuts tend to only be marketed for Horror movies, Raunchy Comedies, and some action films. Godzilla isn't really the genre where an "Unrated Version" would sell more copies.
I don't think there will be a "Director's Cut" of Godzilla either, just because Gareth Edwards has already talked about the freedom Legendary gave him, and how he wants to save scrapped ideas for a sequel. So Gareth already got to shoot the film how he wanted it pretty much probably, and anything extra that was removed, he'd probably prefer if it was in a Godzilla 2, than a Director's Cut DVD.
I don't think there'll be a crossover battle, but a new Gamera will be fun to see!
Actually Director's cuts are usually just used to sell videos/dvds/blurays. Most director's cuts feature brief, mouse fart moments of footage that don't equate to anything.
Some director's cuts aren't even director cuts, as with Alien. Ridley Scott always said the original cut of the film was the cut he wanted people to see, but Fox demanded that there be a director's cut, so he had to pull his resources and shove scenes into the film to extend it a bit.
James Cameron on the other hand, feels like all his movies should be five hours long. Some of his 'director cuts' are nearly unwatchable unless you're already a fan of the original product. I think about the god awful amount of footage he added to the Aliens vs the much needed added footage to the Abyss
Director's cuts don't mean, under most circumstances, anything beyond a few moments or occassional dialogue being returned into the film that was cut for pacing reasons. My personal opinion, very few director's cuts are actually superior to the main cut of the film.
Sometimes less is more.
Godzilla's origin is very dark. You see Godzilla kill families, children dying of over-exposure to radiation. It's not the happy-go-lucky Godzilla of the 60s and 70s.
This 'Godzilla' film, much like the original, is more about the human protagonists as opposed to the title creature. Think of it in terms of 'Jaws'. The film wasn't from the perspective of the shark, and it was much better for it.
In terms of a Director's Cut, no it doesn't 100% mean more gore, violence, and harsh language. That's generally reserved for horror films and raunchy comedies. If 'Godzilla' gets a director's cut, it'll probably be some scenes that were cut for time's sake.
@Lopsquid
Oh, okey dokey. :) Pretty cool.
Godzilla is sleeping when an evil scientist injects syrum that splits him into two halfs
Yeah I've noticed the bloated Ebay prices. Not worth it if it's going to be out for a cheaper price in the coming weeks.
No, a director's cut doesn't always feature excessive blood/gore, language or sexual content. A lot of time, the director's cut is just an extended version of the film with deleted scenes kept in the movie.
Could this film have a bit more adult content in a director's cut? Possibly. I doubt it would be anything excessive honestly. Even if the director's cut has a bit more, let's say, volgar language or violence, it will more than likely remain a good film. And, if there is a director's cut, just go for the theatrical version, which will feature the film's PG-13 rated version.
Alot of people prefer director's cut because it allows us to view what the director had originally intened the film to be like. But, this is a matter of opinion as to whether or not you like this or not.
People have them on Ebay, but somewhat overpriced. I pre-ordered one today from Bigbadtoystore.com that will end up being around 60 bucks with shipping. Toywiz.com has them for around $65. As for when they ship, I can only guess, soon. If I find them at TRU, I'm gonna snatch another one up.
Um, what's happening?
