|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: Matrix effects posted by CH Chang on May 07, 2001 at 21:13:48:
Despite Hollywood's attempt to transform GOJIRA into some stupid new- age environmental parable, and give THE BIG GREEN GUY a feminine side, the Japanese remain true to the spirirt of Godzilla.Toho went back on their agreement and released Godzilla 2000, mainly to show their displeasure with the Hollywood version.
Godzilla will always be a guy in a rubber suit, will always destroy Japanese cities and will always inadvertently save Japan from untold monsters and alien bad guys.
It's about traditional values and icons. What is it now, 25 movies since 1953 ? Same premise, same big box office in Japan, same fun watching Godzilla stomp on some models as you had 30 years ago.
Go Gojira! Take out Tokyo!
Follow Ups:
> > Despite Hollywood's attempt to transform GOJIRA into some stupid new- age environmental parable < <Godzilla has ALWAYS been an environmental parable, most obviously in the first film. It doesn't take a post graduate degree in semiotics to see that he's an analogy for Japan's fear of the consequences of nuclear weapons.
Hello Rob,Yes, you are right, in the beginning the monster could be related to the subconsciouus reaction of the Japanese people to the Hiroshima/Nagasaki devastation. Later, Godzilla became their friend, as did nuclear power/ the nuclear umbrella etc.
One of my favorites, DESTROY ALL MONSTERS has no environmental message, except "keep pesky monster controlling aliens away from earth". Most of the G films have no message, except "don't fuck with Godzilla."
Take for example Godzilla vs King Kong. King Kong heads for Tokyo, scientists decide the best way to keep him out is put up a big electric fence. Bad idea! Nothing Godzilla likes better than electricity, except maybe nuclear power plants. So, Godzilla heads for Tokyo as well, and you then have the perfect setting for wholesale destruction of a Japanese city- which is the whole point, it's fun to watch.
You could postulate that the destruction of cities reflects a subconscious and conscious fear of earthquakes and tsunami, but sometimes a film is just a film. You can read into them whatever you wish, but in the end it's just a guy in a rubber suit that people pay their money for, not some imagined cryptic environmental message.
My objection to the Hollywood version is that Godzilla could be understood like any animal, that SHE was just looking for a nest, and that Godzilla could be destroyed. What was with the eggs and that lame ending just in case you need to do a sequel ? You don't need baby Godzilla's to do sequels. You just need a new set to be stomped on. I was hoping that Godzilla was just going to stomp on LA, but why did she head for NYC ? Anyway, after some special effects and bad dialogue, I was hoping Godzilla would just go away as inexplicably as his/her arrival.
Godzilla remains topical by using current issues such as genetic engineering: in Godzilla vs Biolanthe ( a scientists accidently clones his dead daughter with a Godzilla cell and a rose bush to produce a 30,000 ton angry monster flower with the soul of a girl) and Godzilla 2000 (aliens try and get Godzilla cells for evil cloning purposes) but the message in both is the same- "don't fuck with Godzilla".
john "yes, I've seen every one, and I like Gamera as well" dem
Hey, I quite agree. I love Japanese monster movies. The cretins at Sony completely misunderstood the appeal of the films: people like them because they're cheesy. It's not a liability, its a big part of the charm of those films. No one watching "Godzilla" on late night TV ever thought "this would be a really great movie with $100 million worth of CGI".How come it never occured to the helicopter pilots being chased around Manhattan by Godzilla to fly up out of his reach? Perhaps they can only think in2 dimensions at Sony Pictures?
Does anyone remember a Japanese movie called "The H - Man"? That scared the hell of me when I was about 9, for about a week I expected to be dissolved by radioactive goo at any minute.
At this very moment someone in Hollywood is probably pitching a $100,000,000 remake of "Santo Vs. The Aztec Mummy." I can almost hear the set up: "Mummies and wrestling are hot hot hot right now and this has them both. Tom Cruise is on board to play Santo, a champion wrestler who's also a crime - fighter. No one knows his identity, he wears a silver lame mask but most of the time he doesn't wear a shirt. We can get Jeremy Irons or Stone Cold Steve Austin to play the Aztec Mummy."
I mean, how would Santo get a full- Nelson on that radioactive creep without getting melted ?- a scientist develops a radiation proof wrestling suit for Santo who beats him into submission and then supexes him to a new cold- fusion reactor, providing Mexico with a cheap clean fuel source.Cruise doesn't have the acting ability, even with the silver mask, to pull it off. I'd cast Keaunu Reeves :" Whoaa dude ! El Horrifico radioactive hombre !"
I think Rainer Wolfcastle is the only actor who could portray Santo.
> > > Godzilla has ALWAYS been an environmental parable, most obviously in the first film. < < <
That is true, almost all of the movies were environmentally oriented.
Still gotta love the camp!
I rememberas a kid staying up late at nights watching creature feature etc..
ah, the memories...
Jack
The whole point was to use the rubber suit.Toho retired Godzilla in '95, and had no plans to make any more G movies. After Hollywood Jarrasic-Parked it, there were so many complaints, that Toho released Godzilla 2000(G Vs. Orga) in Dec. 99.
Apparently, it was successful enough that they released another in Dec. 2000(not in US yet). Its amazing how many G-fans pop out of the woodwork.
Jack
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: