The Redemption of Godzilla (1998)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 ต.ค. 2024
- Godzilla was directed by Roland Emmerich and stars Matthew Broderick, Maria Pitillo, Jean Reno, Kevin Dunn, and Hank Azaria.
Topics covered in this video include:
Brief backstory on Dr. Niko Tatopoulos, Audrey, and Philippe.
The disrespect Roland Emmerich gets for Godzilla
The good quality of the writing in Godzilla
A brief history of Godzilla
A discussion of hardcore Godzilla fans
How Godzilla (1998) got such a bad reputation
Why hardcore Godzilla fans hate this Godzilla
The new origin of Godzilla for this version
The excellent camera work and blocking of Godzilla (1998)
The excellent exposition in Godzilla (1998)
The true and deserved faults of Godzilla (1998)
Thank you for all the well wishes regarding my computer. It's hard drive is failing and I bought a whole new computer instead of replacing just the hard drive. All is well and I was really lucky I still had this version of this video saved somewhere.
Thanks for sharing on Facebook I really enjoyed this review
Glad you enjoyed it! Stop by anytime!
Great insight and thank you. I am a hardcore Godzilla fan and love this version. I have the DVD and CD, it's a great soundtrack too!
David Arnold is awesome
Interesting perspective.
Thanks!
I agree with you in many aspects. When I saw it in theaters, I enjoyed it. When I saw it again a few years ago with my kids, I still enjoyed it. The main reason I was disappointed, and this is me, was the design. I get the thought behind it, but I just didn’t like the character design. It turned me off and other people have said the same thing to me, but I still think it’s a solid movie overall.
Yeah I enjoy it a lot
Redpemtion implies saving or being saved from sin or error
What is Nick’s redemption- Saving the day from an action he never took while being a passive character who originally didn’t want to try and take initiative
As for Audrey who is really the only character who tries to redeem herself while the film is also underplaying the ammount of damage her actions have done to Nick and New York as a whole
And Philippe, the secret servicemen who is redeeming his country therefore allowing it to not face any global consequences for….
How are the older films making Godzilla the teacher directly giving out a lesson while in 98s case is just the lesson. That’s a pointless distinction you don’t elaborate one. In Godzilla films such as Godzilla 84 his actions are very much a lesson for humanity or shin Godzilla, Godzilla vs Megagurius, Godzilla against Mechagodzilla,
You then go into a mini rant about Godzilla fans when that has no barring on explaining your distinction
As for your examples - you couldn’t compare it to other Godzilla films or other monster movies….that would make much more sense considering we’d see how Godzilla films or other monster films compare.
I'm rating the film against what it is trying to accomplish, and it is not trying to be taken as seriously as you are taking it.
@@BigShotCritic there is a lot of articles where emmerich stated that 98 was supposed to a film of what would happened of Godzilla was taken seriously in the real world. As such criticizing the thematic elements of the film from a realistic world building standpoint holds more value then you treating it with biased kid gloves.
You also call to attention how well made the exposition is. Philippe directly says that he wants to ensure his country doesn’t make more mistakes. So redemption sure but his actions in the greater context of this world show that theme to null in his character same for Nick
Just because a film is trying to accomplish something doesn’t mean it succeeded or didn’t do something that undermines its themes
New Star Wars, Wonder Woman 1984, black widow all have themes and ideas that when more critically examined show flaws in their writing. Whether I’m being serious or not is irrelevant I’m simply examining your thematic examination and how the greater world building and direct actions taken in the film undermine it
Okay, you're serious.
If we are examining it from a real world standpoint, the updated origin standpoint is completely justified, as is the lack of atomic breath, and the vulnerability to human weapons and being killed by rockets. I stand by my statement about exposition. And the redemption arc of the three characters I mentioned stands up. Each acted in a manner that ended up saving the world. Any wrongdoing by Audrey was vindicated by her role in saving the world. Nick's redemption is that his theories proved correct, and he is now taken seriously. As for Phillipe, he has cleaned up his country's mess. Accountability? That's not his job. His job was clean-up.
If you really want to attack this movie, go for its primary flaw: if you change Godzilla so much, why still call it Godzilla? The only reason is money, and it's not a good enough reason.
I still give it a pass, though, because it's still entertaining for people who can tolerate seeing Godzilla killed by humans.
@@BigShotCritic completely justified…. A lizard or lizard egg survived an atomic blast and radiation
Reduced its finger and toe counter
Changed its posture
Gave new uniform spines
New diet
Gave it traits of lizards that aren’t even native to French Polynesia
And swam across 2 oceans to an island it’s not native too to nest
Among other unrealistic things this Godzilla does
Remove Godzillas atomic breath from the first film and he’s far less outrageous and same applies to most other Godzilla’s
“His theories proved correct” he’s was right throughout the film. The disrespect he received is given no justification other then haha worm guy. Elsie and Craven do less then him but aren’t dismissed which shows his conflict as a contrived one.
“Her role in saving the world” how does saving the world vindicate her to Nick directly. The film or its characters make no mention of the fact that baby’s hatching putting them on a timer to ensure there own deaths is Audreys fault, outside of one line Nick isn’t mad had that line been removed then his feelings towards her haven’t changed
“That’s not his job” he wasn’t the one who did the nuclear testing so why is it redemption for the character if he cleans up. If your gonna answer with something along the lines of national pride then my point stands that Philippe is willing to cover up the actions of country ensuring their mistakes don’t come to light. Accountability isn’t a job but his job has greater implications
The reason was not money. Emmerich spent more then John debont proposed and debont wanted a more traditional Godzilla. Along with so much money already put into the original idea emmerich choosing to scrap that shows that money wasn’t the reason a trad Godzilla was made it’s because of emmerich. Your responses make me believe you’ve never researched this film and it’s behind the scenes
If you conclusion is “it’s fine cause it’s entertaining” then you have no room to critique film. Anyone can enjoy anything therefore giving “passes” can be given whenever your bias wants to.
@@Zimzilla99 you haven’t either
So what you are saying is that it is purely political in the sense that they dont want to blame the creation of Godzilla due to man's carelessness and that this goes against the progress that we have made in the nuclear age?
I'm not sure what you mean. I've heard people claim this movie is avoiding politics by passing off the blame for the nuclear contamination to France, but I think that's a pretty flimsy argument from someone who just sees politics in everything. It's a movie about a giant lizard for goodness sake. Must it be political?
@@BigShotCritic , I agree with you. I too feel that it is a flimsy agument to state that it is political as it relates to nuclear power, if that's part of what you were saying but other than that. It was an okay movie. I think people really disliked it simply becasue it did not live up to the standard of what we know a Godzilla movie to be. He seemed more like a frighten creature simply running amok than a mutated dragon who tries to defend his dominance of the planet. It just was'nt worthy of being cannon like the traditional movies prior.
The original Godzilla was created or awoken by man's carelessness.
Great giant monster movie, horrible Godzilla movie.
I have to respect this opinion. I really do.
@@BigShotCritic Full disclosure, im a hardcore Godzilla nut. That being said the 98 film really is a lot of fun and the animated series that followed was even better. It just needed a different title and no relation to Godzilla.
I’m sorry but you totally missed the mark why the fans hate this movie, it’s not the origin, if you did any research at all you’ll find that Godzilla has had MULTIPLE origins which weren’t nearly as hated as this one, but all were true to the character that is GODZILLA, he was an unstoppable force of nuclear power, normal human weapons were useless against him and massive destruction followed in his wake, and that stayed relevant through all 24 toho movies.
The FANS are mad because this “Zilla” is a slap in the face for any Godzilla fan, even the creators hated the design and origin, the simple fact that this dumb animal gets killed by missiles is 100% not Godzilla, so idk where you got “fans hate the origin and different ideas” theory from but it’s so off mark, I’m gonna guess you haven’t seen the 24 toho movies (and don’t blame you it IS a lot to sit through) but at least do some research before you put fans in this category since there are 3 key rules to his character:
1. He can never die (and when he seemingly does he always survives)
2. The atomic breath is very important to his character as he represents the horrifying power of nuclear destruction
3. HE NEVER GETS KILLED BY GOD DAMN MISSILES!!!
I agree with the point you were making with the cinematography and acting but don’t say there’s nothing wrong with this version of Godzilla and that the fans only hate “new things” cause it’s definitely not true. The 2016 “Shin Godzilla” is a very good example of a new origin story that stays true to the character.
Not sure if you’ll read this but just had to get it out there (and I definitely recommend shin Godzilla if you want another Godzilla movie to watch🤗)
I only just saw this because my profanity blocker is set to max. It's true, I haven't seen all 24 Toho Godzilla films.
I see what you're saying. And I definitely don't think the fans just "hate all new things", cuz that's bullcrap.
But you see how your "3 key rules" are reactionary to account for this movie. The first two are not, but the third certainly is.
Roland Emmerich did not have the respect of the character that he should have had going in. The reason I'm so forgiving of this movie is because of the damage that has been done to other beloved characters in the last ten years. Godzilla 1998 may be a flawed interpretation of the character - even a doomed interpretation. But they didn't use Godzilla for political grandstanding as has been done with Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who, etc.
The "pissed off about the origin story" theory is one of my own making, after watching a handful of TH-cam videos by people who are obviously Toho fans (that constitutes "research", right?). And, in fact, the origin story of this 1998 version of Godzilla accounts for the violations of all three of your key rules.
Is there any Toho origin for Godzilla that doesn't match what I said? I said he was traditionally a godlike prehistoric creature awakened by nuclear activity.
You're coming at me guns blazing, and that's okay. I expected some of that. The title of this video is meant to bring people like you here haha. BUT it's also meant to deliver on the title! (so it's not clickbait IMO)
@@BigShotCritic if I make a movie about Scooby doo but make him a golden retriever that can’t talk BUT has the same origin is that Scooby doo? Sure it could be a good movie but calling it Scooby doo would be an insult to the original creators, that’s why Godzilla fans don’t like this movie. You can defend it and say it’s a good movie all day long but don’t just say “heh lol G fans are just h8ters who don’t like new things” cause you obviously have no idea.
Don’t get me wrong there are still G fans who like the 98 film and that’s fine but the ones that I’ve met and talked with in groups and forums NEVER say people only hate it because it’s “something new” to do so would just be idiotic and totally missing to point.
Most people hate it because it’s like making a superman movie where he can get shot by bullets and has no powers but STILL calling it super man
Yeah, that point you just made is the true Achilles Heel of this movie. I maintain they had creative license to change Godzilla the way they did, but beyond a certain amount of change... why call it a Godzilla movie anymore? The only reason is brand recognition, and that is not sufficient justification.
However, I will point out that I never claimed Godzilla fans hated it simply because it was new.
Shin Godzilla is killed by blood cogelant, something you can buy at a cvs. You do realize that?