What type of stories do you all like?

G theorist

Action oriented?

Human focused?

Origins?

Just curious 

G. H. (Gman)

Good ones.

sonictiger

Action/Human

Djdndnejwnwn

@Gman

What defines a good movies is opinion and preference, so technically that doesn’t answer the question. 

As for myself, I tend to enjoy action but prefer movies that keep me thinking about them long after the credits are done. I enjoy movies that I can break down shots and find themes and just are entertaining or thought provoking.

I tend to like movies like Gandhi.

G. H. (Gman)

SarcasticGoji,
Good movies are defined by how well they execute the story and themes that create the narrative. Bad movies fail at this.

How well that execution is done is up for debate, though usually based on set standards defined by rules of photography, storytelling convention and acting theory.

sonictiger

Examples of well-executed stories: The MCU as a whole, Kong: Skull Island, The Dark Knight, Cars, Star Wars, the Sonic movie, etc.

Examples of bad stories: Godzilla: King of the Monsters (even though the movie was good otherwise), Justice League (The Whedon Cut), Frozen, the Star Wars prequels, Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 3, etc. 

Gman and Goji, here are examples.

Djdndnejwnwn

@Gman

But who decides what makes a story good or bad. Who decides whether it is executed well or if characters develop enough it still depends on preference.

What I really want to know is how you judge movies. What do you think is well written or executed.

Xenotaris

Movie's that click with me

Djdndnejwnwn

Also this has almost nothing with the discussion but what are those shoes Goji has on?

sonictiger

Ok, how I judge movies.  I judge by (quality of) story, cast, VFX, action scenes, how they handle key plot points, etc.

KotM had 3 of those.

And I know that you asked Gman this, but I have an answer myself.

Djdndnejwnwn

any answer is a good answer

Xenotaris

well alot of stories I watch, read, or play some calls crap but I certainly enjoy them. 

sonictiger

Yeah, the story was kinda crap in KotM, but the cast gave it their all.  The VFX and fights were well executed.

I do admit I liked it less the 2nd time around, but it's still good.

sonictiger

2nd time watching it I mean.

G. H. (Gman)

SarcasticGoji,
I sort of already answered this. I'm not judging if a story is good or bad, but if it's well executed. At their core, there's no such thing as a good or bad story idea, only if they're told well. And again, a well executed story is judged by set standards defined by rules of photography, storytelling convention and acting theory. There are many books, classes and theories written on those subjects that define how those are critiqued.

As a former film critic, the whole, "it's just your opinion" is not something I submit to. Maybe, "your informed opinion", but even then that's subject for debate.

Djdndnejwnwn

So you judge movies based on guidelines created by different storytellers

G. H. (Gman)

SarcasticGoji,
That's one criteria, yes. Another is using that criteria to critique what type of story they're telling and how well they tell it. Obviously Ghandi is going to be a much different movie than Invasion of Astro-Monster. Saying one is better than the other based on their genre and type of film is preference. But judging them on how well they accomplish their goals while considering their influences and cultural inspirations is a more objective approach.

Film critiquing is more complex than even most modern day critics understand today.

sonictiger

OOOOOOOOOOOOO

Roast.

But I totally thought Gman was going to say what was wrong with the good things about KotM...lol.

sonictiger

Wow I put in my comment too late.  Was replying to Goji.

G. H. (Gman)

I've critiqued King of the Monsters enough and am honestly fairly exhausted of talking about a movie I find both a frustrating experience and ultimately boring.

sonictiger

BORING??? BORING????

You can say whatever you want but that's an overstatement but King Of The Monsters isn't boring.  But it can be frustrating.

G. H. (Gman)

If the story doesn't invest me, then the action just feels gratuitous and boring. I tried rewatching it a couple weeks ago and fell asleep.

sonictiger

There was at least some investing parts, like the family drama stuff I was invested in.  But that's it.

G. H. (Gman)

The family drama was among the confused drivel I found frustrating and unable to invest in. Mark I understand, but Emma? She loses her child to giant monsters, so her reaction is to... unleash giant monsters? Then she claims she isn't crazy and the film goes as far to vindicate that in the credits... If she's not the worst character in the entire 35 film series, she's at least one of them.

sonictiger

No, Emma's just awful.  She isn't one of the worst, she IS the worst.  Madison is far more understandable than both because Mark's character felt to me was that the writers wrote themselves into a corner.

Djdndnejwnwn

Actually I don’t think Emma is completely unrealistic. Her lines indicate that this was a gradual process not a “I-wake-up-and-want-to-unleash-Titans-everywhere.” Also grief is a very difficult thing and people react in different ways. The loss of a child for a parent, I think is the hardest, not only do you lose a loved one, but you lose the being you brought into the world and taught and showed how to live. You raised them, watched them take their first steps. Theirs something really special about the love parents have for their children, and that gets ripped away. I will repeat myself, but Emma does say, “As I dug deeper” this indicates it was a gradual process. So she was not necessarily sane during her coping. She found an unhealthy way to cope with her problems and that is why she is not unrealistic 

Djdndnejwnwn

She just was given the right resources to act on this coping

Djdndnejwnwn

@SonicTiger

I wasn’t trying to roast Gman.

sonictiger

Ok, but it was so screwy for WB to try and make Emma a character to get behind.  I honestly laughed when she died because it was supposed to be an emotional moment but it really wasn't because her character was willingly helping the bad guys for half the movie.

and it wasn't intentional, but it was a roast.

G. H. (Gman)

A lot of this I've talked about on here before. So before I run the risk of exhaustively repeating myself, I'm going to copy and paste my thoughts on King of the Monsters from another thread:

While the characters were engaging in King of the Monsters, they were absolutely grating to sit through--Most of them didn't even have arcs, they just just sit around "tracking" and gawking at monsters. It wasn't until Madison got fed up with the situation that someone decided to actually do something. Her stopping the worldwide attacks and luring Godzilla and King Ghidorah into battle probably makes her the film's biggest hero. Meanwhile, great actors like poor Charles Dance were completely, utterly wasted.

I liked the idea of Mark, but not his execution. The film seems afraid to go on too long without Kyle Chandler's face onscreen. They wouldn't give any other cast around him much time to shine.

Before they get to Castle Bravo he's exposition dumping his entire backstory to Dr. Graham. "Well after San Fransisco, I hit the bottle..." Really? It would've been far more effective had Serizawa and Graham found him drunk and hopeless in a bar--Then we would've seen a character struggling to pull himself together. And doing that while trying find his kids in the middle of a monster apocalypse would've enhanced the stakes for his character. It would've been a more interesting situation to put any character in and we wouldn't have had to get that long exposition dump on the aircraft. (Which is an issue the movie has. Instead of seeing Mark at his lowest, we're told. Instead of seeing why King Ghidorah is a great nemesis, we're told, etc.)

Mark magically has all the answers to everything. "This Mothra is a decoy. They're going after something bigger." - "Take the guns off him." - "Show him we're not a threat." - "Show me his hunting path." - "I have an idea to lure big bird away from the town." - "They only do that to feed, to fight or... something more intimate." - "They're moving in a pack. They're hunting. It's not erratic." - "How many nukes do you have?"

He's invited to an outpost full of supposed military & scientific experts, but none of them come up with the conclusions Mark does. Mark is FIVE YEARS BEHIND all of their knowledge/research, yet he comes up with all of the big, game changing ideas! No wonder no one else had any decent arcs--Kyle Chandler's character upstages all of them at every single turn.

Graham, Stanton, Coleman, Chen--None of them have an arc of their own and barely do anything to legitimize a supporting character role. In fact Coleman and Stanton could've been merged into one character; there was no reason to have two comedic relief characters. And the only thing Chen does is gawk with her mouth hung open and over-dramatically give the monsters titles: "The fire demon!" "The one who is many!" "Queen of the monsters!" If these monsters didn't have cool titles, there would be no need to put her in this movie.

Emma of course, comes off as nuts--Any character with the line, "I couldn't be more sane," is immediately questionable. But what's worse is the movie wants to legitimize her. And of course Charles Dance is basically wasted as a bus driver for her needs.

The only two characters I liked were Madison, who had the balls to backtalk her mother's insanity, steal the Orca to stop the mayhem and defy King Ghidorah in front of him. Serizawa was tolerable as well, but his reasoning for sacrificing himself takes some stretching. But why him? There's plenty of more experienced military personnel onboard the submarine who also know what the stakes are. It seems like the movie only wanted to kill him off for an emotional moment.

This moment is hurt by a very problematic issue anyway. The Godzilla franchise exists because the original film was a reaction to Japanese fears and anxieties over the atomic bomb/nuclear proliferation. The Godzilla character exists as, "residual scar tissue" of a culture that saw the atomic bomb upfront. He is a warning against the dangers of nuclear energy. So when the movie features a Japanese man, whose father was killed by the bomb, willfully setting off a nuclear weapon to save the day, it comes off as a problematic, disingenuous representation of the Godzilla series. This is the first time a nuclear weapon is used in a positive way in a Godzilla movie; while excuses can be made for this scene, the fact it's even debated as an egregious inclusion shows the director of this movie may have missed the forest for the trees.

The irreverence for Godzilla's original themes is also found with monsters triggering "positive" ecological regrowth with their radiation. (That's not how radiation works, Dougherty...) And the careless use of the name "Castle Bravo," for their super-duper-cool underwater base.

The monsters are generally the highlight of this mess, but the plotting of their threat comes with issues as well:

King Ghidorah was more intimidating when characters talked about him than when he was actually on-screen. We constantly have it rammed down our throats how Godzilla's rivalry with King Ghidorah is "legendary", but we don't see King Ghidorah do a lot himself. We never actually see him destroy a city, ala prior movies. He retreats during the first battle after Monarch fires missiles at him (of all things), it was confirmed by Dougherty he would've lost against Godzilla in the second battle had the Oxygen Destroyer not intervened and he needed Rodan's assistance after Mothra arrived to help Godzilla in Boston. Not to mention it took three heads forever to hit a humvee, when in previous movies he could just level whole cities from the air in seconds. And what's worse is the movie even confirmed Godzilla had defeated King Ghidorah before! If he's already beaten him, where's the concern or drama that he won't be able to again? So much for visual storytelling establishing their rivalry. Not my favorite incarnation of the character by a long shot.

It really highlights just how well King Ghidorah's introduction was handled in the original, 1964 debut--He was the last monster to show up in the movie, because the film built up to his big reveal, saving him for the final act - We were shown he's an alien, not told, because he landed in a meteor (*gasp* visual storytelling!) - We're highlighted how powerful Godzilla and Rodan are by seeing them pound each other for half of the film, giving audiences an idea how strong King Ghidorah is if they have to team up with Mothra - We watch how quickly he can exterminate a single city, especially compared to Godzilla & Rodan - The military don't even bother mounting an attack on him. This is not about comparing which incarnation is stronger. This is about which was established better as a threat in terms of cinematic storytelling and build-up. Honda, Sekizawa and Tsuburaya nailed it. Dougherty and Shields decided to write the least effective route for a villainous nemesis possible.

The entire film needed a heavy - heavy - rewrite to fix these issues. But Dougherty was more interested in other things.

Someone on Facebook mentioned this idea and I thought this would've been a good, simple way to go. Do away with the large cast and hone in on the conflict between two men and their ideologies. It would've benefited from diving deeper into their characters instead of sharing time with confused archetypes and needless characters gawking out windows. Here's his idea:

"For just the movie itself [King of the Monsters] I would have done away with the Russell family and make it about the conflict between Serizawa and Jonah. Give them a history together. Maybe Jonah used to be in charge of the armed forces division attached to MONARCH but after seeing how MONARCH leaders like Serizawa priorities titans lives over the men lost in the line of duty he got disenfranchised with the whole thing and is working to undermine MONARCH.

Basically instead of introducing new characters, make it about the characters already introduced in the previous movie."

I don't rank or rate movies like most fans do, but following 4 theater sittings and one home viewing, I don't think it's out of line to call this one of the worst Godzilla movies in the series.

sonictiger

A lot of that is right (sort of).  Madison is the only good human character, and I think backstory for Ghidorah would've made sense.  It seems like Godzilla Vs. Kong is going to fix that (except the fact that there's TOO MUCH for 113 minutes).  Visual storytelling is ditched a lot now, especially for WB because they're obsessed with having movies run as short as possible.  Anyways, a lot of this makes sense, but there is good stuff in KotM as well (Besides the final fight and Madison).