Is MV Godzilla a inherently pro-nuclear metaphor?

"I think the directors either expected people to be able to make that distinction, especially when we see Mothra's radiation come out like "magic" stuff instead of actual radiation when she dies. The fact we can see a lot of the radiation makes it pretty obvious it's not the same as actual radiation, at least in my opinion. Also, B, if they didn't think people could make the distinction, then they also probably expected the same suspension of disbelief to have these creatures in the first place."

If that was the hope, it failed. It's confused enough general audiences and been a point of contention with enough fans to be considered a hole. What fans make of the visualization of radiation (and that's only an assumption of what we're seeing) is still conjecture and nothing more.

"It could just be an "interim" energy source between oil and before we manage to make solar power cheaper and widespread."

"People didn't switch from candles to the lightbulb in a year, it took decades for the necessary infrastructure to be fully developed."

Whatever came between candles and the lightbulb, likely didn't result in as many lost lives as nuclear power, barrels of waste being tossed in the ocean and warehouses full of the stuff--Except the ones shipped in black market circles to organizations without nuclear arms, anyway. This "interm" seems to be an excuse--Not to open up a completely separate argument entirely, but why not begin to exploit and mass produce the successfully tested alternatives instead of dance around and hang on to more dangerous forms of energy?

I guess a movie about how much better the lightbulb is would make a little more sense in terms of the nature angle.

"The point, saying that something is inherently deadly because it CAN, not usually will, but CAN cause death isn't a good argument, because then practically everything is deadly. And saying "it's inherently deadly because TOO MUCH can kill you, not that it will kill you in small amounts" is also bad, because even eating enough bananas (not sure why that's my example either) would kill you, it's really just a matter of scale."

"A horse can still kill a person in a number of situations, but overall the benefits outweighed the risks and here we are today."

No, I'm not saying radiation can be deadly, I'm saying it is deadly and it will kill. Your Nutella and horse can cause issues, but radiation will cause issues, because that's what its purest form does. The purest form of Nutella and a horse does not. You don't need a filter or shield of some kind to eat Nutella or brush a horse. You do to use radioactivity and even that has been prone to failure. You're taking objects and creatures that, when stripped down to their basics, have a "what if" warning label. You strip down radiation to what it is and it's deadly. Period.

As for Three Mile Island, I don't see how you could ignore all of the signs of what happened. The effects on people have mirrored that of Chernobyl and Hiroshima. The rates of cancer in the area are still abnormally high, even in 2019--So to conveniently stick to the "old data" because it was first is, in a word, off.

But hey, if you guys want to fist pump the world of radioactivity and wave the pro-nuke flag, be my guest. But that's not what the Godzilla series is for. I don't agree it was okay for it to take such a careless stance and it feels like a blatant slap in the face to the franchise. I'm glad people enjoyed the fan service, monster battles and ka-booms--But it all comes off as very shallow and tone deaf.

G.H. (Gman)

We're not saying we support nuclear power, we're just trying to give explanations as to why this move MIGHT be pro-nuclear. I, once again, don't think they took that stance without wanting to go back on it. I think that whole point of making Godzlla "good" was to make him evil in the next one, so that for the rest of the franchise he will be a neutral force, as he should be. That way making him good in this one would be incredibly true to the franchise, at least the Showa, Heisei, and Millenium eras. That way in GVK he can be bad, and in whatever other movies the Monsterverse makes, if any, will have a neutral-force Godzilla. Or one that is good and bad. Take it how you will, but I don't think they're going to keep Godzilla the goody two shoes pro-nuclear thing he is in KOTM. I mean, they practically had that down perfectly in 2014. Showed both aspects of nuclear warfare with different radiation based Kaiju on opposite sides, and Godzilla not being an inherently good character and showing all the destruction caused by the radioactive waste and plats across the planet. I think Godzilla's part in the Monsterverse as a whole will be like it was in 2014, which I feel, will be a good thing. It wouldn't be a slap to the face to the franchise; it would be TRUE to the franchise. Perhaps not the almost malevolent creature born from humanity's mistakes in the original movies, but as Godzilla as a whole in the vastly different eras, Showa, Heisei, Millenium, and even the anime. 

"No, I'm not saying radiation can be deadly, I'm saying it is deadly and it will kill. Your Nutella and horse can cause issues, but radiation will cause issues, because that's what its purest form does. The purest form of Nutella and a horse does not. You don't need a filter or shield of some kind to eat Nutella or brush a horse. You do to use radioactivity and even that has been prone to failure. You're taking objects and creatures that, when stripped down to their basics, have a "what if" warning label. You strip down radiation to what it is and it's deadly. Period."

That's when you are around TOO MUCH radiation. The same can be said if you eat or are surrounded by too much nutella. You're stomach will explode from too much nutella, or you'll suffocate in it. They're both dangerous in theory, it's just that it takes less of one to kill you. Saying something is "inherently dangerous" would apply to EVERYTHING, it's just a matter of how much of something you do or how much there is. 

"Whatever came between candles and the lightbulb, likely didn't result in as many lost lives as nuclear power, barrels of waste being tossed in the ocean and warehouses full of the stuff--Except the ones shipped in black market circles to organizations without nuclear arms, anyway. This "interm" seems to be an excuse--Not to open up a completely separate argument entirely, but why not begin to exploit and mass produce the successfully tested alternatives instead of dance around and hang on to more dangerous forms of energy?"

Well, we're not very good at using, collecting, or harnessing solar power yet. I mean, we're getting better, but until most things can be powered by it instead of nuclear power or oil, we can't exactly switch to it or else society will come to a halt, like how Gomi: Ninja Monster said. I agree we should put WAY more resources into developing that technology (and developing it for more important stuff than a grill, which is what some people are doing) so that we can finally berid ourselves of oil. However, the only "clean" source of power that is developed enough to work as an "interim", to my knowledge, is nuclear power. In the long run, it is a MUCH better alternative to oil. Sure, in case of a meltdown, it might render a place Chernobylized, but at least it won't make the world like a person's tongue after eating a ghost pepper like oil is doing. So converting to nuclear power while we wait for solar power and the like to catch up to speed is a MUCH better alternative than to keep using oil for the next few decades, especially when we might not even have that long because of oil. Honestly, it's much better to have 100 major cities become Chernobyl than the world will be in 100 years because of oil. At least humans and most life CAN exist in the unaffected areas instead of being like tinfoil in a microwave. Also, of course, I'm using hyperbole, so nobody give me any of that "it wouldn't really MELT us or set us on fire" shit. It would be understandable, and I'd do it myself, but don't you dare do it lol

Dear god that was a LONG ramble.

I... will cede on that point. We could be doing more to switch to more sustainable energy sources, but do not think the technology at its current level is fully capable of completely replacing nuclear and oil-based power, because it isn't yet. We're close, but there's still work to do.

Fire. Fire is deadly and fire will kill. Fire has caused and will continue to cause more death and destruction than nuclear energy, and yet until the last few centuries it was in every home and an integral part of society, because we figured out how to deal with it. Fire burned London to the ground how many times? Yet did Londoners give up fire? No, they learned from their mistakes and rebuilt stronger and safer so fire could be used with less danger. Fire and radiation are both incredibly good sources of energy, and both are incredibly dangerous when in the wrong amounts, used incorrectly, or just under unexpected circumstances. Strip fire down to what it is and it's deadly, yet all of us here using the internet would probably agree that fire has been a good thing for humanity overall.

Exactly, TheLazyFish, everything is dangerous in too high a quantity, some things just need to be in much smaller concentrations for them to be safe. Heck, sure, radiation at it's core is dangerous, but thanks to our atmosphere reducing the quantities we get, radiation is also one of if not the primary reason any of us are alive right now. All of our food comes in one way or another from plants, who need the sun to facilitate their growth. We need the sun to produce Vitamin D in our skin. So our very existence is a testament to the fact that proper amounts of radiation can be and are helpful.

That article is anecdotal, not the best source of scientific proof. The linked paper(from 2014) simply states that thyroid cancer in Pennsylvania is rising faster than the rest of the nation, potentially contributed to by the rising disease burden, and that possible causes(plural) need to be investigated and may provide insight into the drivers of the national increase in thyroid cancer. TL;DR: Thyroid cancer is on the rise across the country, but a little faster in Pennsylvania and we need to look into that. The article draws a conclusion which the paper itself did not. The "old data" is still data, and has not yet been sufficiently invalidated from what I or apparently the general scientific body have seen.

A possible flaw has occurred to me: Why is THIS a slap in the face to the franchise, but every other time Godzilla has been a heroic force isn't? Godzilla was birthed by nuclear radiation, yet after his 4th movie he was a protector of Japan for a very long run. Shouldn't every time Godzilla beat back space aliens, fought off worse monsters, or burned up sea pollution have been equally as egregious, because a nuclear-powered entity was clearly helping the earth? Or is what came before exempt because Japan made it? If it's "because heroes make money with the kids, can't blame business," than is KoTM not getting that pass because it wasn't a billion-dollar hit? Seems to me Godzilla Vs Hedorah should be getting just as much flack for showing a nuclear force cleaning up pollution instead of causing it as KoTM is getting for potentially slipping in pro-nuclear imagery on purpose.

This is probably the second time i've made a topic that has sparked a LOOOONG debate.

Gmkgoji:

Eh, somebody has to ask the hard questions, don't take it too personally. :P

Yeah, also connecting back to the mystical radiation I believe is a reference to the magical deradiation fruit from the original Mothra. Also we are irradiated everyday its called background radiation, radiation isn't going to kill you in small doses and a low mSv/yr.

Huh. Neat list, where'd you find it? 

I found it on this website https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/radiation-and-health/nuclear-radiation-and-health-effects.aspx

Its talks about several types of radiations and radiative exposures

Cool. Just keep in mind that's from the World Nuclear Association, so anti-nuclear people might not take that too seriously. I do like how they link all their sources on the webpage though. I also find it hilarious that on another list somebody thought to measure the radioactivity of a banana. :P

"we're just trying to give explanations as to why this move MIGHT be pro-nuclear."

Explaining why doesn't change the fact that it is. As for your theory regarding GvK--At the moment it's only a theory. We only have the films currently released to go on and I don't have a lot of interest in speculation.

"That's when you are around TOO MUCH radiation. The same can be said if you eat or are surrounded by too much nutella."

You're still not wrapping your head around this flawed argument. Nutella, when you start to eat it, is something your body absorbs the nutrients from almost immediately. Radiation is something that starts eating away your body almost immediately. Again one can kill, the other is from the get-go.

"Honestly, it's much better to have 100 major cities become Chernobyl than the world will be in 100 years because of oil."

I find this comment extraordinarily suspect. There's no hard data, predictions or proof on this at the moment--And while I agree oil isn't great, claiming burning oil would be worse than 100 Chernobyls sounds like a pretty baseless stretch--And one that conveniently ignores 65 years worth of a franchise we're on a website for.

"Strip fire down to what it is and it's deadly, yet all of us here using the internet would probably agree that fire has been a good thing for humanity overall."

Well I'll give you this, for a comparison that makes sense for a change. Fire at its core does kill. But it also does not spread irreparable pollution and cause political tensions over who has it, who doesn't and who is getting it illegally. There are safeguards around nuclear power/radioactivity that are put in place for a reason. Those safeguards, physical and political, continue to fail on a routine basis. (See: Fukushima)

"The "old data" is still data, and has not yet been sufficiently invalidated from what I or apparently the general scientific body have seen."

But it hardly validates itself anymore, given the admittance of missed variables from the get-go. At this point it's cherry picking.

"Why is THIS a slap in the face to the franchise, but every other time Godzilla has been a heroic force isn't? Godzilla was birthed by nuclear radiation, yet after his 4th movie he was a protector of Japan for a very long run. Shouldn't every time Godzilla beat back space aliens, fought off worse monsters, or burned up sea pollution have been equally as egregious, because a nuclear-powered entity was clearly helping the earth? Or is what came before exempt because Japan made it? If it's "because heroes make money with the kids, can't blame business," than is KoTM not getting that pass because it wasn't a billion-dollar hit? Seems to me Godzilla Vs Hedorah should be getting just as much flack for showing a nuclear force cleaning up pollution instead of causing it as KoTM is getting for potentially slipping in pro-nuclear imagery on purpose."

Oh here we go. I love this argument. First at what point did anyone insinuate that being a heroic Godzilla equated a pro-nuclear Godzilla? And why?

People seem to forget that Godzilla was and has always been a victim of the bomb. He was awoken by the bomb - he was scarred by the bomb. (His design, all throughout the Showa series especially, purposefully had keloid scares instead of scales.) I even mentioned that as Godzilla was a superhero, nuclear power was still being criticized. Godzilla vs. Megalon showed the damage nuclear testing was causing on Monster Island which was again positioning Godzilla as a victim.

Never once did those movies make blatant pro-nuclear story points like a Japanese man willingly detonating a bomb as an overwhelming positive or claiming radiation triggered positive regrowth. But they did show the negative effects as Godzilla played superhero (Godzilla vs. Megalon). It did show that nuclear power could land in the hands of illegal organizations that shouldn't have it (Godzilla vs. The Sea Monster). It did show it could damage the environment (Son of Godzilla). So while the victim of atomic testing ended up fighting for humanity, just as the Japanese had ended up becoming allies with the U.S. (despite disagreements), not once did the films ever concede to a pro-nuclear message.

Your politics bore me

I thought we established that while not whole yet, the area surrounding Chernobyl was recovering from the radiation. It takes a whole lot longer than growing back from a forest fire, but the damage is repairable, just not in a helpful timeframe. Agreed to the political side of it, though I'd hypothesize whoever figured out fire might have had to deal with similar issues for a least a few years. That's just conjecture though, feel free to ignore that bit. Your definition of "routine" seems awfully long, seeing as Fukushima was only the second accident of it's size in history. There will always be accidents and failures around anything, to demand none is ridiculous.

Missing variables have been called out on both sides, so choosing either argument involves some cherry picking. I'm siding with the widely-held consensus until more research comes in to shift that consensus, at which point I'll be here laughing at myself for being ill-informed. Tail-dragging dinosaurs are laughable today, but it was peak science once. That's how it goes.

See, that's why I said possible, I figured I was treading on old ground. That all seems fair, though I'd point out that Godzilla would be at much more of a disadvantage without his Atomic Breath, which I'm pretty sure was a result of that nuclear awakening. So while certain uses/misuses of nuclear power were being decried, I'd argue that nuclear energy itself was more a neutral force in the series, just like it is in real life. Also, wasn't the whole inciting incident of KOTM that governments and rouge agencies were trying to either eliminate Titans or use them for war? Aside from Ghidorah I think we can safely peg the Titans as neutral entities, who can be either good or bad for humanity. Isn't it possible to highlight the benefits of something without forgetting the dangers as well?

Gomi: Ninja Monster and Xenotaris

SO THAT'S WHY I KEPT USING BANANAS FOR A REFERENCE POINT!!!!! Damn, I CAN SEE THE FUTURE!!! Or... data that I will see the next day... eh...

G.H. (Gman)

"You're still not wrapping your head around this flawed argument. Nutella, when you start to eat it, is something your body absorbs the nutrients from almost immediately. Radiation is something that starts eating away your body almost immediately. Again one can kill, the other is from the get-go."

No, I don't think you're comprehending MY point. Everything is inherently deadly. If radiation is INHERENTLY deadly, that would mean it would have to kill at essentially the slightest touch. ANY amount would be enough for it to kill someone or something. But that isn't the case, or none of us would be able to go outside or eat or even exist. And HOW it kills is arbitrary, what matters is that it kills, which EVERYTHING does. I mean, the same thing goes for poisons, like Cyanide. They kill in the same way, by directly harming the body. Are they inherently deadly? Do they kill instantly no matter the amount? Can you eat a single apple seed and not die? Yes, it would take over 140 apple seeds to kill the average, 70 kilo person. It really is just a matter of AMOUNT with anything, not that they will inherently kill you. One cookie won't give you diabetes!

Again, a ramble, but the point is you misunderstood my concept. If radiation is inherently deadly, then so is everything else. The only reason you're saying that it is inherently deadly is because it just takes less of it to hurt people... and to support your argument, of course, or else we never would have brought that up.

"But it also does not spread irreparable pollution and cause political tensions over who has it, who doesn't and who is getting it illegally. There are safeguards around nuclear power/radioactivity that are put in place for a reason. Those safeguards, physical and political, continue to fail on a routine basis. (See: Fukushima)"

Yeah, mmhmm, I'm calling some bullshit on that one. The physical ones don't fail on a regular basis. If so... yeah, I think there'd be some news coverage on it. And nuclear power wouldn't be the "interim" power that is "championed", it would be solar power, hydro power, wind power, etc. Also "irreparable" isn't exactly the correct term. It may take thousands of years, BUT the radiation levels will go back down. And life finds a way to adapt to almost any condition. Besides that, back to the "100 Chernobyls" thing, I was using hyperbole, I thought that much was obvious. Even then, though, 100 cities becoming uninhabitable for thousands of years is, in my opinion, better than thousands of cities and ecosystems becoming uninhabitable for both humans and animal alike due to climate change. I mean, we're kind of fucked in that department. At least if 100 cities had a nuclear meltdown like Chernobyl, we could survive with the remaining tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of cities in the world. With climate change, billions could die and many species could go extinct, possibly even our own.

Monster_Zero 2112

Yeah, me too. Well, not that they're ENTIRELY boring, sometimes something funny can happen... but it's entirely comprised of whoever's bull shit sounds better. 

Really, I guess just comes down to a matter of opinion, how you look at it, and what direction the franchise goes. I don't think any of us are ever going to convince one another on whether or not this is a "slap to the face" of the franchise until more movies come out, so I think this argument is basically becoming pointless. 

They argue like a bunch of married couples.

Have any of you talked to Gmkgoji? He hasn't been responding to any of my messages. Either he's dead, taking a poop,making a sandwich or left his home.

We are exposed to 2.4 mSv a year, so a little radiation doesn't hurt anybody

Nevermind. He responded back.

Hello everyone. Since I am finally back, I have decided on who I agree with, and unfortunately, I agree with G.H. (Gman) because the way that the Monsterverse takes for granted the original message of the franchise and makes the original message of the franchise something it is not. And then there's the fact the "healing radiation" is too fantasy-like, and it just desecrates on what the franchise originally meant.

Fair point. I'd agree with you if I wasn't expecting them to pull an evilish Godzilla later. Speaking of which, out of curiosity, what if they're taking the angle I mentioned earlier?

Then it just takes itself too far to Godzilla being a good guy again. And then we'll have another incident like the later Showa Era in which Godzilla isn't cool anymore because they made him look like something meant for little kids again.

Too far to- neutral doesn't seem like goody two shoes to me, but difference of opinion I guess.

Well obviously I was gone too long to catch all the venom this time around, so I'll simply wrap up my thoughts with this:

I can't believe I live in a world where there's a pro-nuclear Godzilla movie, but I think I'm even more dumbfounded that there are plenty okay with it and defending it. Why should Japan not have an entire franchise dedicated to the dangers of nuclear proliferation? After all, the United States already has its own franchises that praise it without fault! Radioactive spiders give people powers, remember? An alien hero standing for truth, justice and the American way gets energy from the sun's radiation without any of those pesky negative effects. "Gamma" radiation makes a different type of mean, green fighting machine. But how dare the Godzilla franchise fly in the opposite direction, right? It's only been doing it for 65 years.

We have enough western franchises doing that and putting the pro-nuke stamp on Godzilla is the most cynical form of whitewashing we could've committed against the property. I have no problem with the series tackling other issues, but to contradict its core basics doesn't speak highly about the filmmakers behind the 2019 flick. I have no doubt Dougherty's a fan, but I don't think he's the kind of fan I'd want to hang out with.

Um, hold up. Spider-Man, Superman and Hulk aren't pro-nuclear/radiation, they used what was at the time a new and still mysterious branch of science to handwave their superpowers, people have been doing that for centuries with much less "objectively dangerous" breakthroughs, look at the Rocketeer or Buck Rogers. I'm pretty sure the reason behind Superman's power was "alien" first and "sun" when they needed an explanation(plus he debuted before WWII and nuclear weapons). Hulk has always been a tragic figure, the Gamma radiation is viewed as a curse, no matter how hard he tries to fix things it always reverts to worse state. If you've noticed, as our understanding of radiation grew, character's origins were tweaked to address this in new interpretations. Spider-Man got bitten by a bioengineered spider, Hulk experimented on himself with gamma radiation instead of getting hit with a random explosion, Superman's physiology takes radiation differently than humans. And if you really want to be picky, more recent comics have dealt with the negatives of the radioactive origins of those characters, Spider-Man ended up killing Mary Jane once because his bodily fluids were just as radioactive as he was.

I'm fine if we want to end the discussion, but I needed to point out that trying to say something is pro-nuclear solely because it doesn't explicitly condemn radiation is just plain wrong. Plenty of franchises and stories use it is as a powerful catalyst to get the plot moving and nothing more, which is why my initial argument was that we were reading too much into this, not everything needs to be a deep philosophical commentary to be worth enjoying.

It feels like this whole pro-nuclear MonsterVerse thing is just another excuse to dunk on KOTM, which fine, everyone's entitled to their opinions, but please don't try to make things out to be a war of ideals when they're in reality probably not, at least not intentionally.

Gomi: Ninja Monster

Ditto

G.H. (Gman)

We're not saying we're ok with a pro-nuclear Godzilla... but this wouldn't exactly be the first time? Later in the Showa era Godzilla was practically a good guy. And what about Minilla? They didn't seem all that anti-nuclear, because they were inherently pro-nuclear by saving the world and not even leaving radiation in the places they pass through. Not to dunk on the Showa era at all, but at least MV Godzilla leaves the area he passes through uninhabitable for humans. And don't say "oh but he didn't start off as pro-nuclear" because it's the same case here. Everyone was raving about the threat of radiation and with the nuclear plant disaster at the beginning and the MUTOs, it seems to have properly shown mostly anti-nuclear things. Maybe Godzilla seemed kind of like a hero, but most people doubted that throughout the film and it was constantly explained and re-explained that Godzilla was "an alpha predator" and just doing his job, so at WORST (or, best for nuclear?) he was a neutral entity. Honestly, this pro-nuclear stuff based on Godzilla fighting an evil Kaiju because he doesn't like them is faulty at best because of all the previous movies, especially later in the Showa era. It's not intentionally pro-nuclear, and doesn't really seem to be pro-nuclear. Gomi here is arguing it's not, and I'm arguing that and/or his hero thing is just set up for an "evil" arc to balance it. Even if the latter part is just theory, it's not exactly a flimsy one. And the former, again, IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE PRO-NUCLEAR. 

Even if we did decide it's "ok for it to be pro-nuclear," which we aren't actually saying (well, I said that earlier, BUT what I meant is that it's ok for it to be pro-nuclear-ISH. Not full on pro-nuclear, but more of a muddled ground like what nuclear power kind of is), so what? Sure, by your opinion (and to be honest, some of my own too) we'd kind of be "betraying the franchise" or "missing the entire meaning," but so what if we are? I mean, come on, so what? I mean, is it really any of your business to be "dumbfounded that there are plenty okay with it and defending it?" I mean, is it your personal business, does it really warrant insult? Because if you really think it does, I'm not sure you're the kind of fan I'd like to hang around. It's not like we're hating on it or insulting it, or even critiquing it. We're explaining why it might SEEM pro-nuclear. It really isn't more pro-nuclear than the late Showa era or Final Wars. By the way, when you mentioned the hulk, I thought you were talking about Hanna Barbara's Godzilla or late Showa era Godzilla at first lol

TheLazyFish:

G.H. (Gman) already addressed that point about the Showa Era in a response to me, which boiled down to "A victim of nuclear power doing good does not make the core message pro-nuclear." I don't quite agree with all his points, but it has been covered, might want to check back a page to see what he thinks.

Also I think a point of note is that while Godzilla has been overtly heroic on many occasions, aside from Showa those have been primarily American adaptations, which might be a part of what he's trying to say.

Gomi: Ninja Monster

Sorry, really sleepy right now and so my memory isn't all that great right now lol

TheLazyFish:

For a lazy fish, you seem to be tired a lot. :P

@Gomi: Ninja Monster

"Um, hold up. Spider-Man, Superman and Hulk aren't pro-nuclear/radiation, they used what was at the time a new and still mysterious branch of science to handwave their superpowers,"

Ok, sure, but that argument isn't helpful with our current discussion.

"people have been doing that for centuries with much less "objectively dangerous" breakthroughs,"

So if that's the case, then where's the horror movie about sticky notes or paper? See why your argument doesn't work here?

"I'm pretty sure the reason behind Superman's power was "alien" first and "sun" when they needed an explanation(plus he debuted before WWII and nuclear weapons)."

If that was the case, then you should remember that at the time, the word alien meant something like the Martians from War of the Worlds, not a humanoid from another planet. Again, it goes against your argument.

"Hulk has always been a tragic figure, the Gamma radiation is viewed as a curse, no matter how hard he tries to fix things it always reverts to worse state."

That's not even his character arc at all. Why are you trying so hard to win a losing battle?

"If you've noticed, as our understanding of radiation grew, character's origins were tweaked to address this in new interpretations. Spider-Man got bitten by a bioengineered spider, Hulk experimented on himself with gamma radiation instead of getting hit with a random explosion, Superman's physiology takes radiation differently than humans. And if you really want to be picky, more recent comics have dealt with the negatives of the radioactive origins of those characters,"

Yeah, but it doesn't mean you can do that if the character is anti-nuclear, like Godzilla.

"Spider-Man ended up killing Mary Jane once because his bodily fluids were just as radioactive as he was."

Yeah, but the key word is once. And they never mention it in the movies, so that argument is in vain, at best.

"I'm fine if we want to end the discussion, but I needed to point out that trying to say something is pro-nuclear solely because it doesn't explicitly condemn radiation is just plain wrong. Plenty of franchises and stories use it is as a powerful catalyst to get the plot moving and nothing more, which is why my initial argument was that we were reading too much into this, not everything needs to be a deep philosophical commentary to be worth enjoying."

First of all, let's not end this because there is still much more needed to be discussed. And second, Godzilla's whole point is to be anti-nuclear, so if course there is going to be some backlash towards him becoming pro-nuclear, and those backlashes have plenty of reasons, so they aren't just mindless, one point arguments, so don't make that excuse.

"It feels like this whole pro-nuclear MonsterVerse thing is just another excuse to dunk on KOTM, which fine, everyone's entitled to their opinions, but please don't try to make things out to be a war of ideals when they're in reality probably not, at least not intentionally."

And like I said before, these aren't just mindless, one-point backlashes with no real reason behind it. These are well-thought, highly intellectual backlashes with well and thought-out reasons.

"Spider-Man, Superman and Hulk aren't pro-nuclear/radiation, they used what was at the time a new and still mysterious branch of science to handwave their superpowers,"

Wow. Just. Wow. The air whooshing over the scalp must've made a terrific sound though.

I can't believe there's people in the fandom like this. I truly, truly can not--And yet, I've been a part of it for so long I'm not entirely sure why I'm surprised.

So, using radiation as an excuse for heroes, doesn't speak to Western values and views on radiation whatsoever? Got it. Check.

What a depressing thread...

I do tend to make depressive threads.

MincraftDinoKaiju:

I know the Superhero tangent wasn't relevant, but saying those characters are somehow praising radiation is wrong, which is what I was addressing. That whole block is devoted to the superhero point and comics in general, not the overall discussion, so none of the arguments will work with the Godzilla argument because they're not supposed to. You're reading a lot of those points out of context, so correcting them will only derail this further.

G.H. (Gman) said he was wrapping up his thoughts, so I just wanted to correct his use of superheroes in his argument and restate my original point, leaving the opportunity for the discussion to wind down, which at that point it largely already had.

I never said they weren't intellectual arguments, all I wanted to say was that they were highly intellectual arguments surrounding a core point that has NOT been confirmed in any capacity, just speculated on and theorized for and against. "Is MV Godzilla an inherently pro-nuclear metaphor?" was the question, we got into an extended tangential debate jumping off the conclusion/assumption that it was, the part about whether it actually was or not got largely disregarded.

Ergo: I think we're reading too much into this, it's okay if you don't like the movie, let's not get into a huge debate about the deeper meaning of something that was only a question in the first place.

MDK

"And like I said before, these aren't just mindless, one-point backlashes with no real reason behind it. These are well-thought, highly intellectual backlashes reasons."

No offense... but that kinda seems like patting yourself on the back lol. They are, but... I wouldn't say "highly intellectual" though. I mean... have any of us actually made "highly intellectual" points? I mean, that last sentence as a whole doesn't make much sense to me, but then again, I am really sleepy so my brain isn't working as well as it should... even when it does, it's not exactly  the best of brains a person could have... Yes Gomi, I am sleepy. I am always incredibly sleepy. I suck at sleeping, which is part of the reason I'm so lazy and sleepy all the time. Also, even when I do get enough sleep... I'm in a perpetual state of sleepiness lol. Think a sloth or koala, but fish. Halibut? Stingray? Angel Shark? I don't know.

"Yeah, but the key word is once. And they never mention it in the movies, so that argument is in vain, at best."

Why is that in vain? 

"First of all, let's not end this because there is still much more needed to be discussed. And second, Godzilla's whole point is to be anti-nuclear, so if course there is going to be some backlash towards him becoming pro-nuclear, and those backlashes have plenty of reasons, so they aren't just mindless, one point arguments, so don't make that excuse."

First of all, I think we maybe should end this, because I don't think any of us are going to convince one another on our points, because a lot of it is opinionated. Also, the thing about debating is it makes you entrenched in your own beliefs that you aren't likely to change our beliefs on this matter in a single discussion. Second of all, as we keep saying, he's not really becoming pro-nuclear. That point about "A victim of nuclear power doing good does not make the core message pro-nuclear," is true, but that also means the same applies here. This time, Godzilla isn't really a victim of radiation as much of a byproduct. So if doing something doesn't change his overall theme, and if he was portrayed as completely neutral that just so happened to do "good" by killing the mutos, then he isn't pro-nuclear. He's neutral towards it at best? Worst? I don't know. The same as how being creatures that are inherently neutral/ just wanting to reproduce, but feeding on radiation and accidentally hurting humans in the process wouldn't make Mutos anti-nuclear. So this point essentially helps prove the MV Godzilla still wouldn't really be pro-nuclear. 

"Yeah, but it doesn't mean you can do that if the character is anti-nuclear, like Godzilla"

Um... you can. Not that you should, but by your own logic, they can without too much bad. If it's ok for the "pro-nuclear" to show some anti-nuclear points, it should be ok for anti-nuclear to show some pro-nuclear points. So it'd be ok if this movie is somewhat pro-nuclear. Which it isn't really. 

"That's not even his character arc at all. Why are you trying so hard to win a losing battle?"

Why are you denying his character arc? That wasn't really the Hulk's character arc, yeah. IT WAS BRUCE BANNER'S!!! You know, the guy most affected by the radiation? The guy who tried so hard to get rid of the hulk, fearing the monster he had become? The guy that, no matter how hard he tried, was stuck as a monster because of how radiation changed him? Did you... pay attention to what Bruce Banner was afraid of in the Avengers of comics?

"If that was the case, then you should remember that at the time, the word alien meant something like the Martians from War of the Worlds, not a humanoid from another planet. Again, it goes against your argument."

What? How does that go against his argument at all? The design of the alien- No, that doesn't change the overarching theme. He was supposed to be a superhero people can relate to, which is why he looks human, but is an ALIEN so that he can have the powers he does. The sun was just thrown in LATER as an excuse for his powers, not "radiation being an overarching theme."

The main message in KOTM is environmental, and less about the radiation aspect. Hell, they showed that the creatures that were all born of radiation, the Titans, were destroying almost everything. They showed that places they went through became uninhabitable for people. They showed that soon, the human race will be extinct because of these radioactive, god like creatures. It was only at the end that they calmed down and just... roam and sleep. The reason Godzilla was "good" was A. So that people can relate to him, and perhaps a more subtle theme, B. that really, radioactive power is neutral. It's how it's used. Most of the titans are really indifferent towards humans. They only become aggressive towards us when Ghidorah wakes them up, or when attacked by people, like Rodan. They become calm under a calmer alpha, like Godzilla, and actually can do a little good for the environment, just under the right circumstances. However, they will always be neutral. No matter how much "good" they do, they don't really care at all about it. It's all just a byproduct. Why else did they keep reiterating that Godzilla is a neutral force? That he won't ALWAYS be doing "good" or be on our side? It's a movie showing that radiation can be used for GOOD and BAD, but it's really just neutral. It doesn't do bad unless used for such or someone does something well intended, but stupid with it (Titans woken up by Ghidorah= nuclear warfare and Rodan destroying the fighter jets after being attacked=experimenting with radiation or nuclear power plant disasters). It doesn't do GOOD unless someone specifically uses it for good, or it accidentally does something a little good by being around (Mothra saving people and being fairly non-lethal to humans=nuclear power plants doing some good, like supplying us with a possibly preferable alternative to oil, and the accidental good by being around, but still doing some accidental damage=Godzilla fighting Kaiju and inadvertently helping humans, but also destroying their homes and leaving their cities desolate at the same time). So really, it's not a pro-nuclear Godzilla movie as much as it is a neutral-nuclear Godzilla movie or whatever you want to call it. 

"So if that's the case, then where's the horror movie about sticky notes or paper? See why your argument doesn't work here?"

First of all, paper wasn't new when movies were invented. Second of all, WTF? That doesn't disprove the argument at all. Third of all, you are missing the core concept of science fiction, that they're usually showing the future benefits or horrors of new technologies or ideas. That's what I think Gomi was referencing. Fourth of all, it isn't always in HORROR movies, or even movies in general, it's usually in Scifi novels. 

G.H. (Gman):

Gosh dangit what did I say about deescalating the situation? *sigh*

What I was saying is that comic books and stories, especially science fiction and science fantasy, will latch on to whatever new science comes along, regardless if the extrapolations they make turn out to be wrong later on. For example, Blue Beetle, Hourman and Underdog used pills to gain their powers because vitamins and steroids were the hot new thing. Radiation, at the time, was just another new toy in the toybox for writers. The point was rarely to promote positive views on those things, just to give a serviceable explanation as to why heroes had powers regular people did not so they could get on with the story.

 @G.H (Gman)

I understand that we seem to be on the same boat with this topic, but I'm not really as knowledgeable in this topic as you are. However, I do still think that your points are valid.

Well said Gomi and TheLazyFish

Xenotaris

Thank you. It means a lot. But despite our disagreements, I have to say that G.H. (Gman) and MinecraftDinoKaiju have had some well said points.

well yes there is a bit of truth on both sides but I agree that MV Godzilla is nuclear neutral

Xenotaris

As do I

Speaking of energy, I found something interesting out. Scientists are finding out how to turn carbon emissions into carbon nanotubes. This can help reduce carbon emissions and help make renewable energy a more gradual process as not to have severely damaging economic repercussions.

Ooh, I think I heard something about that. Sounds cool if we can make it work, amazing what we can come up with when we put our heads together