Is Godzilla 2016 going to be like Godzilla 2014\'s Original Concept?

Actually it's on the contrary I only look at threads that mention G14 do to the sheer enjoyment I get to see what you have to say about them. I don't usually comment unless you say something as next level as you did, you can pull up examples of the last time I did it if you don't believe me, since it's been quite a while.

^I can't tell if that's bad or good xD.

    Godzilla is and always should be the focal point of cautionary stories concerning the ramifications of Man attempting to control power with which he has no business tampering. It is quite true - the times of Hiroshima have long since passed. However, the scars remain - and shall forever. If we cast aside the meaning behind a monster, its very soul is lost. Godzilla's essence, every fiber of his being, was woven to ensure that we as a species do not forget the nightmares we can create by ignoring boundaries that should not be crossed. There is danger in forgetting why a monster exists - just as there is danger in attempting to forget and/or change history to better suit a more peaceful tone. A volcano may be dormant, but that does not mean it has changed into a soothing waterfall. It will erupt again; and the destruction will well remind those whom forgot its presence. Godzilla is a much stronger metaphorical presence in the world today than many might think. The nuclear age is far from past; the monsters are simply dormant. If you do not heed the past, you will find yourself repeating it - and the bitterness of such an event is not a thing any of us would like to experience.

Something Real ›

You are describing pretty well what was reflected both in GMK and Godzilla PS3/4, at least in part. But I need to say something about the points talked about this topic. First, the meaning of the origins of Godzilla 1954 as film were to reflect the post war horrors caused by the Atomic bombs, but let´s think: who threw the bombs? I always thought everyone took the Openheimer reading in the trailer for G2014 out of context, specially with the phrase "I become death,the destroyer of worlds". When he read the message, the worker of Project Manhattan was referring to himself, not to the bombs, because he produced them. This message applies perfectly to the original 54 film, because Godzilla´s wake occured after bombings and testings, resulting in a giant angry monster whom absorbed a great amount of radiation and afterwards went rampant in TOkyo. Again, whom threw the bombs?
What I mean, in the original context, Godzilla just as the bombs he symbolized, was the result of the human kind efforts to "progress", in the foolish attempt to become stronger unleashing horrors against itself, spreading sorrow and death in the process. That was the message behind the original GOdzilla 1954 film. Big G was not the destroyer of worlds, IT IS HUMAN KIND ITSELF; that´s why in the ending it is said if we do not stop to use the atomic energy in this way, more monsters could emerge. Even GOdzilla was a victim of it as well: absorbed a high amount of radiation, was seriously affected, and what he used to be was matter of the past, even his scale desing is based in the burning scars caused by the radiation; not to mention he died at the end and nobody felt pity about it. GMK wanted to reflect how people neglected the memories about their past, again blaming the errors that human kind commits; but it was just a vague reference, did not bring a powerfull message like the 1954 had done, even for these times.

Again, I would like to see a movie as in Heisei style, because the monster vs monster formula was what worked the best, and I do not like to see Godzilla as a true bad guy; but if you want something like the first film, it should be focused in what we have to blame ourselves (shamefully there is a long list), not too much how horrible and terrible the monster could be, only if he is reflecting our Mr. Hyde within us.

GOJIRA19 - You have made many excellent points! I greatly enjoy thought-provoking discourse! I certainly agree with you on the premise that Godzilla is the result of Mankind - a nightmarish mutant brought forth by humanity's foolish tampering with atomic power. However, as he is a product of horrifying power, should not Godzilla himself be nightmarish and implacable? I fully understand and agree with your stance when you state that Godzilla is also a victim of the atomic age; however, he is also a punishment. In my opinion, a punishment is not a thing that sometimes acts as a windfall in the midst of crises. To have Godzilla act as Earth's silent and apathetic guardian is rather difficult to grasp when he is the byproduct of mishandled science and technology. Should he not be a warning against Man's hubris? Even so, I must say that you make a very convincing and interesting case for Godzilla being an anti-hero, and you have certainly given me much to consider! :)

The point is, Godzilla has nearly always been an anti-hero- and 2014 is no different. It's shocking how more then a year later we're still debating this film.

I could see Godzilla playing an anti hero in an American movie from an American perspective. The atomic bombs and the use they had in Hiroshima were somewhat of a greater of 2 evils. Japan at the time was fanatical. There were times when during WWII that civilians comitted suicide when Japan lost those battles due to the way they viewed their country. Japanese soldiers were known to have sub par weapons in comparison to their American counterparts, but were so hard to fight because they were very much willing to die for their country, to the point dieing was almost expected by them. The atomic bombs and their use were a way to end a bloody war that would have been extremely bloody that would have lasted much longer and costing more soldiers. So a quick even dangerous way to end the war was through the bombs. These of course ended up being a bigger threat in the coming decades. 

An American Godzilla could very easily be seen like Godzilla was in Godzilla vs King Ghidorah. He was used to take down a dangerous threat, but ended up being an even bigger threat himself. 

This of course would work from a western perspective in a movie, but Japan Godzilla and his roots more closely resemble death and destruction to the point of it still effecting them and their children today due to the ill lasting effects of radiation.

"The point is, Godzilla has always nearly been an anti hero and 2014 is no different. It's shocking how more than a year later we're still debating this film."

Because the trailers mislead everyone into thinking Godzilla was going to be that old DaiKaiju of death and destruction. As Gman2887 said, it's been done to death and even becomes boring after so long. 

^Exactly. We argue around and around why a darker or superhero Godzilla could be superior to another anti-hero Godzilla, but the fact is it's been done to death. And outside some mistepped, metaphorical issues the new Godzilla has as a character, 2014 really didn't bring anything new to the table we hadn't seen before.

I do want to note that every Godzilla era or new timeline began with more destructive, villianous roots before going anti-hero or superhero. The 2014 Godzilla is the first to break that trend with rather mixed results.

Uh Gman2887, you do realize that Godzilla 2000 was anti hero right? I mean, he didn't care for mankind, but he did do battle with Orga and even after saving the day, still left behind the sea of fire. That's the reason why Godzilla 2000 is my 2nd favorite millennium series film.

Godzilla 2000 ended with Godzilla as an anti-hero, but the movie opens with him as the lead threat--Causing mayhem and destroying mankind's energy supply. He's closer to Godzilla 1984 than he is Godzilla vs. SpaceGodzilla on the spectrum of things.

^However, 2014 is truly no different from 2000 except for the simple reason of the ending. Godzilla wasn't benevolent, he wasn't good in anyway shape or form- he was there to do what had to be done, defend his territory. If you think about it, he showed no sympathy to man, he didn't save anyone, he protected his territory from a neighboring threat and left back to the sea. Don't forget they destroyed half of San Francisco.

Just to clarify a strict difference between G14 and various other films. At no point in the movie of G14 did Godzilla ever directly destroy something without provocation. The best example is the bridge that was destroyed, the of course was only done after being shot at repeatedly from the military and being forced to break through it and after him rising from the water protected a school bus full of kids from the early shots the military took. The destruction of the city was mostly by the mutos as you see them digging into it in the mating scene. G14 may have also had an impact but the blame falls mostly on the mutos. There were plenty of visual cues that indicate G14 is a savior moreso than a destroyer, hell Serizawa even says it during most of the movie.

In comparison to other movies that are being brought up Godzilla actively went and attacked humanity to the point there was reason to believe he was antagonistic. Ghidorah the three headed monster started with him destroying boats. Godzilla 84 he was destoying cities, same with Godzilla vs Biollante and King Ghidorah. In Godzilla vs Mothra 92 he had no anti hero status the film he was portrayed completely evil with Battra ending up being the anti hero with Mothra filling the role of hero. Godzilla vs MechaGodzilla 2 he destroyed a city to find the egg, and Godzilla vs Destroyah starts out with him destroying hong kong.

Of the heisei and millennium movies the only one that really even cloesely resembles G14's actions and his perception of humanity would be the Godzilla in Godzilla vs SpaceGodzilla as he never went out of his way to destroy a city, there were cities he simply had to go through to get to where SpaceGodzilla was. In terms of the Millennium series I can't think of one movie that closely shows him as heroic a role as G14. G2000 he was the target of the military and actively destroyed power sources through the first half of the movie, Godzilla vs Megaguirus he was also a destoyer after atomic energy and then eventually plasma to the point they had to make a black hole gun to stop him. the kiryu saga he was antagonistic with no real heroic deeds to mention, and Final Wars he only destroyed those monsters because the human made Gotengo that he was chasing after led him to that point. Even after the humans helped him at the end he still turned around to finally settle the score with the Gotengo before Minilla's intervention. So the closest to G14 might be final Wars in terms of personality.

Point is though you can't compare G14 to most heisei or millennium movies. He fills a much more heroic role in the film through visual cues and Serizawa straight up saying he's a protector. It we had a scale of 1-100 with 1 being GMK level evil and 100 being Godzilla vs Megalon hero I'd put G14 at about a 70-75 range, moreso than an even 50, or close to that.

^But the point is, it wasn't like he was purposefully avoiding those buildings, he just didn't care. If Godzilla had to destroy humanity to say save an egg! He would! No hesitation, he was proclaimed as a savior because the military could literally do nothing to stop the MUTOs, only Godzilla was capable of killing them.

Gorilla,
You're missing the point here. The filmmakers made an intentional choice to show Godzilla causing as little mayhem and destruction as possible. We don't actually see anyone die in the tsunami he causes in Hawaii. We don't see the lives taken on the bridge-- In fact it cuts away as much as possible to minimize the idea that he killed anyone. The entire film shoots him as a hero from the start: As a creature to root for and constantly follow as an accompanying protagonist.

Godzilla never once directly destroyed anything out of territorial protection or malicious intent like he did in Godzilla 2000. Godzilla in G2K was immediately established as a malicious threat to humanity due to his intentional attacks on the mainland. All Godzilla did in the 2014 movie was jump out of the see after 60 years of hiding and become the world's most expensive c*ckblock.

So what if Godzilla "didn't care" about humanity and our structures? How is apathy supposed to argue in favor of his mean streak? The point is he has many times before and Godzilla 2000 is no exception. With that said, Godzilla 2014 and Godzilla 2000 really aren't the same at all.

Something Real- Thank you for your appreciation. I read your opinions and those are quite understandable, but I still feel is, if the upcoming film should take Godzilla to his roots, it's needed to focus in the mankind faults much more. Quoting again GMK, they focused in what you say how nightmarish and terrible could be a monster, portraying Godzilla pretty vile and evil (I recognize it one of best done films, but I don't like that portrayal), but the reason behind his wrath was just vaguely mentioned in the interview between the young reporter and the old 'ghost' man. For me it wasn't very deep, and turned Godzilla in just another mad creature destroying everything and killing everyone indiscriminately on his path like Cloverfield, La Carcaña (the Giant Claw), THEM, etc.In the other hand, the 1954 film was filled with messages about how our negligence caused such horrible destruction and ruined the life of others: quotes of the Atomic bombs, the woman with her children trying to calm them saying they will be with their departed father again, the radioactive pollution, and the shelters filled with people whom lost everything. That's much more deeper and gives to us more chance to reflex about our doings, inviting us to think a bit more. A film like GMK doesn't offer that; the original Godzilla 1954 was a master piece and I dare to say the best conducted film thus far due its deep meaning. Other relevant difference between the original Godzilla and the other monsters mentioned above, is that those represent the fear to the unknown, specially Cloverfield; Godzilla in other hand represents the fear of the unexpected consequences OF WHAT WE KNOW AND NEGLECTED. Saying again, Godzilla wasn't the destroyer of worlds, IS THE MANKIND ITSELF. 

My point is, If you want to see a destructive Godzilla, on the pure essence of his roots, it should be conducted in the right way with the real key points, otherwise it just will be another GMK or Cloverfield.

But again with my posture, I still want to see him as the anti hero role to offer us a good fight; but still I have my point of view. You say To have Godzilla act as Earth's silent and apathetic guardian is rather difficult to grasp when he is the byproduct of mishandled science and technology. That's very true under the perspective of his roots in 1954; but Godzilla changed over the years, through the films is shown he isn't only the embodiment of power or destruction, he still is a living being struggling to survive, specially under his new conditions as result of the atrocious acts of the human fooley. When he fights against another terrible threatening monster, he is not doing so to save the planet or for the good of mankind, he just fighting for himself (or for his adopted son when it was applied); the very same goes when fights against the military. I introduced a few years ago a lil cousin to G movies and one of his favorites is G vs Mechagodzilla 93, and after also watching it my uncle said to me he now understands Godzilla quite more, because he just try to defend himself from the attacks. That's what makes Godzilla appealing to general audience and casual watchers as well and allowed him to keep a legacy through various generations, they understand his position despite being a monster. Still there are some metaphoric messages in there: we don't like to accept our errors specially when they bring terrible consequences we cannot bear (reflected in Godzilla and his wrath), and what we try to do afterwards is just to try to wipe them out more than learn from them, despite we can cause more sorrow and others suffer in the process ( if we place Godzilla as victim as well) . More than a punishment, Godzilla is a drawback of the mankind foolish actions and misuse of its knowledge, just bringing the natural consequences of such negligence (if someone approach to the fire gets burnt), and he is paying for it as mankind does. Quoting Dr. Shiragami: "Godzilla and Biollante are not monsters, the real ones are the scientists whom created them."

Gojira19,
For all your tried words that point to a victimized Godzilla that represents mankind's flaws thrown back in our faces, I don't think you take into consideration just how unlikable he is shot in the original film. Between chewing a radio tower that spills reporters to their deaths and walking through flames to a mother telling her children they'll be with their father soon, the metaphor behind Godzilla's tragedy could arguably be underminded by how the filmmakers portrayed him.

In turn Godzilla's character in GMK has made similar actions. I also don't agree with your sentiment that the only mention about his wrath in that particular film is "vague" and pushed through a single scene between Yuri and Isayama. Godzilla's rage is heavy handed, not vague at all, and heavily repeated and followed through various conversation and visual cues about a less respectful country: Biker gangs, honor-less suicide (referencing Aokigahara forest), apathy over cover-ups and conveniently changed history-- All issues of a newer generation that Godzilla blitzed with a sense of cultural resurrection taught the hard way. Like the 1954 movie, GMK doesn't have subtext. It has text. There's very little vaguery involved. The difference is one movie acts to alleviate cultural fears and the other is a call to action for a country refusing to acknowledge mistakes and maintain the better parts of themselves. But as heavy handed as it is there's no lack of complexity.

In both cases Godzilla's terror can be seen as a variation of "tough love." Something Real pin-points this beautifully. Godzilla's messages are often stronger, more complex and able to spark more conversation when he's the malicious antagonist. (This conversation here is borderline proof of that.)

The anti-hero has yet to prove it can provide that. At least not today. It's been done to death to the point where it really isn't that interesting. Godzilla '14 was given lukewarm reception, Final Wars flopped with a similar character take. There was a time I would have said the anti-hero is by far the most interesting variation we could have, but that time was probably 15 years ago.

You're right though. Times have changed. And right now the anti-hero Godzilla isn't what this time needs.

G-Man you make some rather excellent points, but I don't think you guys are really understanding what I'm saying. Godzilla in 2014 wasn't shown to have killed, but that doesn't change the fact that he did, he most certainly killed people on the way towards the Mutos.

It's not like he was tip-toeing through the streets, avoiding every ant in his way, he was determined and if he had to fight the military, I promise you he would have. But there was never a scene where he was really being brutally attacked, and if he was, they would all be dead.

^ I take it the golden gate bridge doesn't count? The military attacked him and landed several direct hits at point blank range on Godzilla. He had the choice to retaliate but wasn't concerned with them.