Godzilla's 2014 Size Discussion

still wrong.. you know who i mean

Here's my input on his size. If you have the target exclusive version of the blu ray disk and you watch the rebirth of an icon at 22 minutes into it they say his final height is between 350 and 400 ft. Then they have a chart which I will post and it appears that godzilla is 455 ft tall. Also if you look at the golden gate bridge compared to him I don't think he's 355 ft tall. I mean that's his official stats, but they don't measure up at all.... Here's the picture I took....

[IMG]http://i60.tinypic.com/2la51sm.jpg[/IMG]

<a href="http://tinypic.com?ref=2la51sm" target="_blank"><img src="http://i60.tinypic.com/2la51sm.jpg" border="0" alt="Image and video hosting by TinyPic"></a>

alrighty than, I can't get the picture to upload, here's where you can view it, http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2la51sm&s=8#.VDP9-fldViY

@CEEBOOGIE...In case you don't know.. the actual bridge in the movie is the Oakland Bay bridge.. so ya got to look up the specs on that. Also.. look up the four embarcadero center. notice the height of it and watch the final scene. I seriously doubt that WETA digital made this bad of a CGI mistake in the end of the movie. some will say.. ahh.. who cares about his size? well.. I DO. and I know others do too.. so called official stats.... do not coincide with visuals in the movie.  This GODZILLA is well over 400 feet in height. I think over 500 myself.

Actually, it's already confirmed the bridge is still the Golden Gate Bridge. Have you never heard of CGI being altered in areas for a certain effect and/or tone? It's happened lots of times in the film already. For example, Godzilla wouldn't be able to stand up in the water where he was if it was strictly realistic and not for effect. He'd just be submerged.

For effect.

And the bridge scene itself? You have to admit that Godzilla needed a certain atmosphere visually going for him in that particular scene.

For effect.

If the movie were strictly accurate, we wouldn't have some of the great Godzilla scenes we have.

it was the oakland bay bridge.... the navy ships were in oakland bay... the military post was in oakland bay park.. or the mock version of it anyway. this is a fact. and if it was to be depicted as the goldengate bridge.. then Godzilla would have to be 500 feet tall to be looking down at it. i hear a lot about effects in this movie. if we are to put trust in effects in order to determine size and such things... then the movie should reflect the so called official stats...but alas.. it does not.. and thus has failed in its objective of being a "grounded and realistic film.. and although I like the movie..I feel that we deserve to get what we pay for when we go to the theaters. IMO.. there was and is no excuse for such gross misrepresentation on the part of WETA Digital. nor can I excuse the producers of this movie for not seeing the CGI errors during production. Everyone here has different opinions. some care about such things while others don't. but I digress.

Nope, it was the Golden Gate Bridge. Confirmed in special features and all other official media. You DO realize that there's such a thing as purposeful effects discrepancies, right? You know, where the visual media is inconsistent at times on purpose for effect. It's kind of a staple of the Godzilla franchise as a whole. You wanna berate this movie for it? You then have to berate previous films for it too, no matter your opinion, since they possess just as bad, if not worse inaccuracies for the sake of presentation

I get what you say.. and I don't dispute what you say about past movies. On this movie.. to quote Gareth Edwards.." we are taking this movie very seriously" and "we're taking very grounded and realistic approach to this film." That being the case... I itake that to mean simply that every aspect and effect has to be just right.. or else it becomes just another Godzilla movie that meets the inaccuracy standards that past movies are noted for. IF I had the money that they had.. and access to the CGI... I would have made sure that there was consistancy and accuracy so that every scene would have a Godzilla that matches the Specs.. when put next to a known structure.. ie skyscraper. and thus I would ensure that realism and effect would not conflict with each other. as for the bridge.. for the film they used the oakland bay bridge.. and althiough its being refered to as the golden gate.. it is not. effect... in this case steals away from the point of realism.. and for the fan who wants things to be right about a movie.. especially if its been done 29 times before...  one would think that theres no room for error... goofs of any other thing that would detract from the theme.I know that there are others out there who feel the same.. but yet might not be so inclined as tyo speak out for fear of ridicule. If people want errors and campiness and goofs...and bad dialog.. the assylum pictures has a crapload of that. I expect more from a major motion picture studio like Warner Brothers and Legendary.

Using the term "grounded" and "realistic" and "gritty" means doing things to the right effect. This isn't a movie for the over-analytical fan, this is a movie for fans and non-fans alike to gather around and enjoy as a disaster flick. Again, I emphasize the "for effect" idea so mcuh because that's what matters most. Realism? Again, not the way you're interpreting it. Realism doesn't mean making things strict and unadaptive to proper direction.

It means making the effect of scenes feel real and impactful, despite what is actually in it. That includes upping Godzilla's size to fit the scene. FOR EFFECT. Because it's the effect that counts, not what little details we over-analyzers may find. Do you honestly believe the average-movie-goer would know to look for these inconsistencies that are really intentional?

as far I'm concerned.. there are fans who pay attention to detail.. and there are those who don't care either way. If spielberg had been in charge of this production.. these effect errors would not be present.. because he endorses accuracy when making movies that utilize FX. Godzilla's size would have been depicted accuatley in every scene. And thats what this topic is about. After all.. SIZE MATTERS and thats what Godzilla is... a HUGE creature. 355 ft.. or bigger.. HIs size and appearence on screen when placed near buildings that are very large indeed.. shows this movie and its intent was to reveal to us how big he is.. and for the screen time that he got.. which was'nt much.. but enough I guess to make people go wow.. they displayed him as being much bigger than the spec height of 355 feet. and in at least 4 scenes. THAT was done for effect??  WOW!!!

Yes, it does make people go WOW, because it's a scale unlike anything we've seen before. Sometimes, to make a scene feel right, you gotta alter things so that it all fits together properly. It worked for many other previous Godzilla movies, because we pay atention to what's happening. We can over-analyze after we enjoy and/or marvel at the spectacle happening before our very eyes.

I remember when, during the first few reveals of teaser footage, people were making estimates of Godzilla being over 700 feet tall. That's absolutely ridiculous, but then again....... it's the effect of such scenes that made us marvel at how big he was.

well..despite my objections.. it was a good movie.. and it could have been better. my hope is that just one Godzilla movie gets done right and depicts everything (size) accurately. and IMO a 600 foot tall Godzilla would have been cool. that is if this were a fantasy/sci film.. but it is a disaster film with monsters being the cause. If they wanted to.. and they could have.. they could have made godzilla 500 feet tall and no one would have given a hoot. they still would have gotten the WOW response. As for me.. the wow came when I saw the movie and thought.. who said he was 355 feet tall?  cuz he is way bigger than that.  THAT was my wow moment.. the wow being somebody lied about his size. as it is.. this appears not to be the case. so it boils down to the dumb audience member (me) will never figure this out because he is too stupid to get it. at least on the surface.. this appears to be the case... then again it could be bad film making. Bottom line. aslylum pictures could'nt have done a better job at screwing up CGI.. but at least thats to be expected from them..and thier low pocket book budget.

I wonder how many times I'll go over the fact that the CGI was intentional in many of the areas you called "screw-ups". Seriously, it's getting tedious trying to remind you that visual CGI is built on effect, not on strict accuracy. Did you NOT note the effect of those so-called "screw-ups" on the scene, how they portrayed the massive scale of things?

I've seen how you approached this........ you approach this from a purely technical standpoint, rather than from a film-making/vieweing standpoint.

I am not asking to to repeat youself. you are correct when you say that my approach is purel;y technical. If you're gonna spend 160 million dollars..(not to include the FIAT commercial).. and only have Godzilla on screen for short periods of time.. they could'nt get the scale right? forget about wow factor.. they could not portray him at his "actual height of 355 feet' when standing next to a 569 foot tall building??? the four embarcadero center??? all that money and they purposely depict him as being slightly taller than that building??? oh wait.. they shrank the building for effect.... thats just lazy film making. I would never cheat the intelligence of movie goers by  commiting fraud on the screen. I guess that some people like and don't mind having thier brain seduced in such a manner. I am not one of those people. I like a good sci fi fantasy flick just as much as the next guy. but I like things to be right. especially if they throw numbers at you like 355 feet. did they think no one would see ? San Fransico prides itself on it skyscrapers. Its a major reason why they chose that city for the film.

Lazy film making is making the effects not have any impact or reason. Good film making is turning the scenery into an amazing spectacle that bellies the technical production behind it. It has nothing to do with the technical accuracy. 

What you describe is purposeful inaccuracy, done not for the over-analyzer, but for the good of the movie and it saudience. And displaying a visual spectacle like the enormity of an entity like Godzilla in comparison to his environment means taking liberties like scaling for the purposes of film-making.

Have you ever once considered that maybe people are okay with seeing inaccuracies, IF they even notice, if it means the scene is just made that much better? That maybe your not thinking in terms of the direction of such scenes? I get it. You absolutely detest non-total accuracy in a film.

But that's hardly an issue with the movie, is it? People certainly aren't ridiculing the movie for that. It's the narrtive, the characters, the story people don't find quite satisfactory. If anything, the visual effects are one of the strongest points of the movie, bellying many others of the likes of Marvel and DC and other big names for its wow-factor and believable perspective.

Please understand that your points are valid, that Godzilla isn't portrayed 100% accurate, and I'm not saying your wrong on that front. You're perfectly correct on a purely technical front. But we can't approach the scenery you described from that alone. We need to take in other things, like perspective, impact, feel, that sort of thing.

I strongly advise that you at least consider that before accusing such scenes of bad film-making when you don't even factor in the more important goals of making said scenes.

Ok you two, lets chill here ok?

It was low budet film making.. pure and simple. IMO. you and I will never see eye to eye on this. so lets end this. I will over analyze films.. why.. because they want me to pay them money to see thier product.. well I have.. and as a paying customer.. I wanted a well done steak.. and got medium rare instead. so I ate it.. but I was not satisfied.. so I voice my discontent to the waiter and tell him to relay a message to the cook. what part of well done did you not understand? the next time I come here.. get my order right please. NOW normally you would just tell the waiter to take it back and have the cook make a fresh one right.. but in a movie theater we don't have that luxury. SO on this sight.. I voice my viewpoints. I don't expect everyone or anyone to agree with me.. so I'm not gonna beat this deadhorse anylonger on this sight. I am however taking it up to the top..LEGENDARY. My sights are set and they will hear me. 

Taking it to the top? I would actually LOVE to see that :P

I sent this out earlier to warner brother and it reads as follows... This is an opinion followed by questions more that it is a comment. First of all.. Why is Godzilla (your version) said to be 355 feet tall and yet in the movie itself.. he is displayed as being at least 500 plus feet in height. Please do not take this the wrong way.. but not all theater attendants look the other way when there is a flaw in the film. The final scene has Godzilla walking by the Four Embarcadero Center building.. which respectively stands 570 feet. SO.. Godzilla is only 355 feet and he is clearly bigger that that building in your movie. So help me.. if this was done on purpose for effect and they shrank the building for that scene just to make him look big.. this among other scenes as well portraying him much larger than the given information about his height.. then there needs to be an an apology made to the fans who wanted a Godzilla movie done right for once. Don't get me wrong.. the movie was cool and all.. but IF I was in the production studio... I would not have released the film until the scale of Godzilla's actual height was depicted accurately. I will not let go of this issue until I get a response from those in charge of production. If there is one thing I despise in movies.. its purposely flawed effects. I paid good money for my family and I to see Godzilla in the theater. Even my 13 year old.. took notice of his size and said that he looks way bigger daddy. And that was on the day we saw it for the first time. Now we have a blu Ray of it and she still can't help but notice the size.. and she has seen every Godzilla film ever made.. I know because I own them. All I ever wanted from this movie was to have it look gritty and realistic.. and be true to the first Godzilla movie.. which was a horror film. Instead I got a Showa film where Godzilla is the hero. (deep sigh). Thank you for taking the time to read this. I await a response.

thats step one.

It isn't flawed if it's intentional, you know. It's called "creative discrepancy". Just saying. You've seen it in movies ALL THE TIME. We all have. It happens in even the biggest budget films. The fact that you actually lodged this complain........ well...... you got more guts than I expected C:

just because some movie producers use creative discrepancy when making a movie.. does not imply that audiences will accept it.  Legendary took major liberties with creative discrepancy for every  scene that features Godzilla.. To me.. this is just idiodic.  why bother to tell people how tall he was before the movie came out.. if you don't think that people cared about his size in the first place. A little over 20 minutes of screen time and the producers felt the need to alter the his size.. or the buildings or whatever... just for art sake.. BULL CRAP. I can't believe that Gareth said that they were gonna take this movie seriously..... Really?!?! I will wait to hear from on high (WB) so to speak.

So, JUST because his size was altered for effect like in just about any other CGI-filled movie that the film-making wasn't serious? Seriously? Just that? Not the somewhat dull characters with whom we were supposed to attach to, nor the relatively thin emotional moments bar the film's beginning?

It's seriously ONLY the fact that his size was changed to make specific scenes work out that makes the direction and production non-serious? It's seriously only that?

It's seriously only the fact that the CGI artists couldn't stay strictly accurate that the film's production is so NON-SERIOUS? Even considering that all the footage had already been filmed and the artists had to make the CGI fit that, and not the other way around?

funny.. In Pacific Rim.. they went out of there way to make things look to scale for effect.. and that WAS a movie where creative liberties could be taken. for it was'nt a real city.. it was computer generated.. for the most part. so there was room for discrepancy there.. and thats understandable given the nature of the film.. which was sci fi fantasy. however Godzilla's fight scenes took place in a real city with know structures and as far I'm concerned.. there has to be room for capitalizing on making his oversall size.. relative to the know skyscrapers... clear and to the point. when you concider his screen time vs Pacific Rim monsters screen time. If he's this big.. and the building is this big... then portray it as such. there was no need for them to scale back a building for the last shot. he could have been kept at his height of 355 feet and walked past a 570 foot building and the shot still would have worked. I  think its rather disingenuous to depict him otherwise. IMO.

Well, unfortunately for you, it appears most audiences didn't find this a problem, nor did I, as the shots were done so brilliantly that the only thing that mattered was the presence of the King himself. I found your complaints overly analytical and not considering the actual purpose of the scenes themselves.

First scene of PR: Trespasser takes down the Golden Gate Bridge in a similar manner to Godzilla. Trespasser, officially, is 100 meters tall. Analyze that scene now.

RR44,

Dude, please give it a rest. Legendary has confirmed it numerous times now that godzilla is 355 feet tall or 107.5 meters. That is by far the tallest godzilla ever and that is tall enough.

I'm not saying that a 400-500 feet tall godzilla is not possible, considering that early plans for godzilla vs destroyah 1995, that godzilla apparently was supposed to hit another growth spurt making him reach 120 meters or 394 feet tall, but that did not happen.

However, Gman123 is absolutly right with this stuff.

actually he is 108.2 meters high and  167.7 meters long... look.. my fight is not with you guys.. its with WB and Legendary.. and that where I've taken the fight to. I have a great deal of passion for accurate depiction . I have no interest in picking apart Pacific Rim.. as to me it was a popcorn flick. Godzilla could have be way better. but it too fell vitctim to budget costs and bad story writing and of coarse.. FX blunders. thanks for the feedback and you guys made great points.. but I'm not done with this fight.. but here on this topic spot.. I'm done. Peace.Godzilla is 167.7 meters in length and that is equivalent to 550 feet and 108.2 meters in height.. and that is equivalent to 355 feet. -------------------------------- USS Saratoga (CV-3) was used in the film Godzilla during the sceen where he is swimming in the ocean. From bow to stearn it's Length is: 888 ft (270.7 m) -------------------------------- Four Embarcadero Center is a class-A office skyscraper in the Financial District of San Francisco, California. The building is part of the Embarcadero Center complex of six interconnected buildings and one off-site extension. The skyscraper, completed in 1982, stands 174 m (571 ft) with 45 stories. Four Embarcadero Center is the tallest building out of the entire complex, standing at slightly taller than One Embarcadero Center, which is the second tallest in the complex without its flagpole. ------------------------------- The Transamerica Pyramid is the tallest skyscraper in the San Francisco skyline. The building no longer houses the headquarters of the Transamerica Corporation, who moved their U.S. headquarters to Baltimore, Maryland, but it is still associated with the company and is depicted in the company's logo. Designed by architect William Pereira and built by Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company, at 853 ft (260 m), on completion in 1972 it was the eighth tallest building in the world.

355 ft 

90,000 tons

Not bad in height, but WAY too heavy. We don't need him fat.

Seems like a good time to revive this. I know what they SAY his height is.....but being PRESENTED as a different height is important. If he's only 355 feet tall....his head would still be 22 feet under water at the Golden Gate Bridge (377 ft deep). Couple that with the water to roadway height of 220' and you're looking at roughly 597 feet from bottom of water (which he is STANDING IN) to the bridge.......and that combined height still only comes up about waist high on him. If they listed the "official" height at 355 ft....this is a MASSIVE FX oversight/screw-up. He also walks to the bay and passes Four Embarcadero Center which is listed at 570 feet tall....and he's hunched over and the building still only comes to his shoulder....