Does Godzilla (2014) really need a sequel?

It will all depend if this movie is good and successful. Gareth has said that he would be more than happy to jump in a continuation should people want it. While the concern that sequels would simply just sink Godzilla down is understandable, sometimes, when movie directors really have visions on what they want with ideas ready to be utilized, sequels can really add more onto a story. When they are passionate and perfectly executed, they make the whole thing a much greater epic narrative, which how I see it, is exactly what Godzilla deserves. And from the love and care that Gareth clearly has put through, it is very safe to say that he is a qualified visionary director.

Godzilla needs a story that rivals Hollywood's greatest epics, but unless it's a three hour standalone movie (Which it isn't), only with a series can it now accomplish that.

In my opinion, these days, Hollywood is heavily saturated with endless non-stop superhero movies. It's time to introduce the next best show to the world.

I mean, Godzilla 2014 doesn't NEED a sequel. But I'm sure most of us would like one :-)

There is nothing wrong with a sequel so long as it is actually a fresh idea/good story. 

I mean you're right, once they've revealed Godzilla and had him fight, they've kind of jumped that shark, and won't be able to capture that same awe in another film. The key is make sure a sequel does more than just revisit old themes. 

Like with Jurassic Park, the first movie was great. The second movie was much weaker. But the second movie wasn't weak just because it existed. It was weak because it had no new ideas, nothing new in terms philosophical or scientific conundrums, so it was trying to bank on amped up action sequences alone. 

In the 'Lost World' book, they break new ground with new scientific ideas and different debates than what we saw in the first movie, and overall it was a very good book. For example, Ian Malcom is STILL a brilliant cautionary scientist in the book, and his scientific content actually MATTERS but is DIFFERENT from what he presented in the first entry (focusing more on evolution and prions disease and how it affects the dinosaurs rather than chaos theory and breeding).

As opposed to the movie, where his status as a mathmetician is completely irrelevant, as his character basically only does the father/ex-husband thing...which made Ian Malcom interchangeable with almost any other character/actor they could have written for the part. 

I'm not trying say the second book is better or anything like that. The first book is still superior, but the second book is actually good on its own merit, instead of just some shallow action/adventure piece like the second movie was.

The differences between the first and second book compared to the first and second movie outline the differences between good and bad sequel making. Sequels themselves are not inherently bad, they just need to be done right instead of shoehorned in. 

Bringing it back to Godzilla, if they make a new Godzilla, it has to be more than just bigger and longer monster fights. It will need new ideas. It's not impossible for Gareth/Legendary to come up with some good ones. They will just need to take the time and effort to do so, instead of falling into the easier path of making a cheaper, simplistic cash grab like so many studios do.

As far as what some good sequel ideas might be, a Monsters type scenario, where they look at the world people have to live in now as a result of these monsters existing (a 10-30 years later thing...in a world less reliant and nuclear and electrical power), and tell a character driven story within that.

Gareth Edwards has already discussed wanting to do a 'Monster Island' type idea, where the humans try to lure and contain the monsters isolated from human society.

I personally think exploring that 'subterannean' world that these monsters came from might be pretty cool. Especially now that actual real world science is finding increasing evidence of underground 'oceans'. Like so the movie could mainly focus on people exploring/mapping this new world where the monsters come from, and of course we find out that there are many more alive.

Well to be fair the monster island idea definitely brings back a shock and awe, if anything the current movie will promote that. In this movie we have 3 monsters, 2 of which are on the same side, that basically wreck the western part of the US. To throw say 8 monsters all of which have their own agenda into the world would be a huge royal rumble. Right now its fair to say for the most part since there are so few it's not as much humans vs monsters as it is the US vs monsters. Sure they show parts of japan I'm guessing from the trailers, and there might be a few other attacks, to adding in 7 other monster to terrorize the world really raises the ante.

Until I've seen the movie and seen all the plots that are left unexplored or not ellaborated on I can't say if a movie "needs" a sequel, but judging by the monster island idea, and just the fact a world with giant monsters has a lot of directions it could go I think that 1 sequel would be fine and help the film out in most cases. Now a trilogy I'm not quite sold on.

Who's to say? Does a peacock really need all those feathers?

Of course I haven't seen it, but I personally would want to see another - even several - as long as it doesn't dillute the character and we don't get "The Matrix Effect" (someone alluded to that earlier) or the Spider-Man Syndrome™, which is having too many meaningless plot cul de sacs, WAY too many villains, and more sequels just for the sake of the franchise.  I think we're going to have that last one with the Man of Steel sequel.

"Need"? nope.

but do we "want"? Yes.

Let's see the movie first, sweetheart.

it all depends on if the movie is successful or not