Pretty darn good, I enjoyed the pulpy tale at the beginning. The phrases and pacing dug into the genre like a flesh spike into The Storm Kings thigh. But then you switched it up by giving us another pulpy little story. This second story really doesn't connect to the first story, and thus lacks bite (get it? teeth, bite...bah). I like the mini world you presented and enjoyed reading this.Go to Comment
Finally watched this movie and I will start by saying that I will not try and fat shame this lizard. But I ask where was the shame in this movie. What this movie did though was drop theme of many movie in which monsters represent a punishment of man's sins or crimes.
To your comments:
1) Would you rather have a movie were Godzilla came out of nowwhere? Having Monarch around allowed from some condensed story telling and in specualtive fiction movies part of the appeal is to create a reality in which there are many stones to unturn. Having Monarch allows the story tellers to unpack material quickly and to say that it is just the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps your complaint doesn't lie in that Monarch wasn't developed enough but rather the first half of the movie really didn't connect to the second half of the movie.
(Nothing about how close the ships were to Godzilla made sense.)
2) This brings up the death of Bryan Cranston. Agreed his death was a weak link in the story. But not because we weren't going to get any more of his hokey disaster movie over acting but because the movie never bookended to his death. (at least I think it didn't...also did I use a double negative there?). There was never any evidence in the second half of the movie that son had reconnected to his father or gained some emotional closure. The same was true with his kid and his wife. There wasn't a scene in which everything came full circle. I know sometimes when movie try to hit these narrative beats and misstep it is so dissaterous that you wish they hadn't even tried. Maybe there was a scene and they cut it. But Bryan Cranston's death meant nothing in the film and his character's echo location insight was a just sign post in the story. Anybody could have put it up. Agreed his death was handled badly. That his son was wooden I didn't mind. I thought it kind of worked in the movie actually, it would have been exhausting if every time the shit inexplicably caught up to him we had another emotional peak. In fact compared to how cheesey and over wrought the performances in the first part of the movie were I found him a relief.
3) The important part with Watanabe , was he HAD to do TWO things. You needed the first guy to say "Godzilla" to be Japanese. WE NEEDED IT. Second you needed somebody to look at a screen or out a window and slowly take off his glasses as he wrestles with the new reality of the situation. WE NEEDED IT. As for a visceral scientist...well none of the characters in the movie were really guys driving with their dicks. I liked that, bring back the '2001', 'close encounters of the third kind' scientists. But as Godzilla's only cheerleader in the film you had to have him be quiet. If he was loud and hubris filled we would have wanted to fail or at least thought he was nuts. But you are right one could have given him more personality. Give him a couple 1 minute personal scenes like they did with the three principles in the Rock or tell him to act like Robert Downey Jr.
4) You're right...if only Joel Schumacher had been available or maybe Baz Luhrmann.
6) I didn't mind the giant bats. The fact that they called them parasites really had no bearing on the film, so yeah it goes with the movies general haphazard storytelling of throwing facts up and then forgetting about them. But the Muto was way better than Mothra and Mothra's larva. Somebody had to say it.
7) It was disaster movie. But not a very good one.
Why can't we discuss Strolen Submission with this type of depth?Go to Comment
That is a little snobby! Scras don't want no scrubs. Well, I don't need no fancy cars or diamond rings, just bring it on up to me.
Slightly more seriously (Internet serious) I reject your assertion that intellectual investment in art should be based around the financial investment in that art, Perhaps the intention or ambition of that art but those aren't tied to the money.
Nor am I suggesting that we have these types of pedantic fan boy rants, that while fun to write and read, are necessary as a means of critiquing content content here. They are fine for movies, but perhaps we could have a place in which this type of energy could be inwardly directed towards site content.Go to Comment
Whoa, let us not get all butt hurt* here Getting up set about this is beneath all of us. There is nothing wrong with pedantic fan boy rants about the minutia of geek culture as long we keep a sense of levity to it. I enjoyed scras’s get off my lawn rant here and I replied with my own absurd rant ( just with more typos). I said it was fun to write and read...don't confuse the message. I want Scras to write more such movie critiques. I will agree with them or disagree with them as I see fit, but I promise I will enjoy them. Plus dissecting other mediums and story telling helps us refine our own craft (as it is).
Scras is also right to point out these movie take massive resources to produce and as a result we should be harsh of them because they should be worth it. As members of the community that pays for these movies we have a duty to tell the world when they suck. (that is right, by refusing to watch J.J. Abrams material I am saving humanity) I get it. Scras wants a better Godzilla movie. Scras cares about Godzilla. It is part of his identity. But so is the citadel.
He also right, we can’t respond to citadel content the same way we respond to movie. But we can care about it as much if not more. That is all I am saying.
If I had to choose between a world without Godzilla or a world without the Citadel I would take the world without Godzilla.
In summary, Scras you are creative, smart and insightful.
*butt hurt is a Scras, used when people are taken aback by his ruthless flogging of their preferred media or by the amount of knowledge about "stuff" he can drop on themGo to Comment
The term Yuatja is that something you made up or is that from some other source material?
I am of several minds about how to comment on this one.
First thought is whether to critique comment or vote at all. If one comments on something and the recipients gets upset then there is no point. This website is all about personal enjoyment and if you strip them of that than you shouldn’t be here. People often say critiquing is okay and necessary as long as done nicely. But isn’t it nicer not to critique at all and just offer blanket praise? Light hearted criticism is often worse cause people might take it personally. This particular case is rough because it is always rough to make negative comments about the big guys on the website. In the internet world those guys have the power to be bullys and push you around or keep you from participating. Indeed the first time I ever offered Scras and Muro serious criticism I was so worried about doing it I sent it to them as a PM. They were cool about though and I later posted and voted. Critiquing and voting is the game of the citadel. But if push comes to shove if somebody asked me to give them a higher vote, or change my comment I would and I have.
Additionally, in the case of Scras, he always makes a point to say that he writes most of this for himself out of some compulsion. I get that. If there are four winds of the citadel than self-indulgent post has to be one of them. If somebody is posting just for them then maybe should you get off their lawn? But if one posts it up here and not in the forums than it must be because one wanted that piece to be evaluated.
Finally, I am also worried that on this website that I am the guy playing too hard. I am that guy playing full court D in pick up basketball, stealing bases in softball or blocking on the run in flag football. It is always a debate whether to try and be brief and light-hearted, but that can be ambiguous. And perhaps Scras and the cosmic era are special and deserve more attention.
One of the risks I have seen when you write for the cosmic era is that you spit out banal regurgitations of the inspirational material. In this particular post you simply describe the items from Predator movie. You mention a few things about the cosmic era (it could drive you insane or what have you) but you don’t integrate it. You already have arcano tech as a concept that give you carte blanche for most sci-fi stuff. Above, just like in your recent Cosmic Era Avenger’s post, all you do is describe the characters from the movies with new techno babble rationales for their powers and abilities (though I did think /Hulk, equipment: pants/ was funny). Contrast this to what you have done with G.I. Joe. You have taken the material and visual minutia of the Cobra faction from tv show and turned into a subversive and sympathetic terrorist group in the cosmic era. None of the story points are the same, but just a few details are kept, the window dressing is kept. I make have the logo of Cobra but it is really Amerika Command. It is a truly re-imagining. You failed to do that with the Predator tech stuff and the Avengers and thus you waste our time and yours. People like to read articles about stuff they already know, it makes them feel connected and comfortable. It sometimes fun to see lists of your favorite movie villains or the coolest movie guns. Your stuff on the Avengers and the Predator tech is fun in that regard, but not as cosmic era a post. I feel this whole discussion, your brain storming of with regard to how to integrate the tech, would be better suited for the forums.Go to Comment