About Godzilla 19982,257 Views18 RepliesAdd A Reply
How do you like Godzilla 1998?
I think it is a great monster movie, it has its merrits and the Creature Design looks great, but just like most of us thought, I wish they had given it a different title.
I dont think they even needed to aquire the rights to Godzilla to make it.
When I first saw it I honestly didnt really had any complaints about it, probably because I was a kid.
I feel like i dont need to say anything. But i can respect an opinion.
I'll admit Zilla is a rather interesting character
THATS ALOT OF FISH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I Believe In Harvey Dent
It's okay as a monster movie, but it is garbage as a Godzilla Movie. Why call it Godzilla? Zilla is nothing like the original. Why buy the license for Godzilla and than make this.
I have no problem with changing the design a little bit, but how could you get Zilla from the Godzilla design. He looks nothing like it, he has none of the abilities of Godzilla. I don't get it.
If you watch it as a monster movie, it's okay. There is this lovestory thing, that nobody needs, but it's okay. But it's not Godzilla. And Zilla isn't scary in any way.
I like Godzilla 1998. It's simply a fun movie that if you don't put under a microscope and sit back you can actually enjoy it. It really bothers me that people say things like, "oh Godzilla doesn't eat fish, or he wouldn't die from jet missiles." To this i respond Godzilla flies through the air using his nuclear breath, and dances on the moon. Is it really that big a deal that they did something different with him in this movie? I mean it was just a different take. Sure he's able to be taken out, but that adds fun to the movie. With no other monster if they would have made him invulnerable would it have been all that fun to watch? Were the baby scenes a copy from jurassic park? Sure but I still enjoyed them a hell of a lot more than any Minilla scene.
I liked it, ignoring that they call zilla "Godzilla" it´s a fun movie, yeah, it might be the typicall Emmerich crap, with a lot of cliches, bad drama and generic characters, but a giant iguana running trough the city is fun.
The movie itself is ****, if you ask a professional critic, for me: it is fine.
Really, my biggest problem with the film is the fact that is called "Godzilla". I mean, what do you expect when you see a film directed by Roland Emmerich? You expect a big, dumb, over-the-top action movie that has a lot of cheesy characters and writing, and that is EXACTLY what this film is. It's a fun movie, but with stale writing, like most of Emmerch's stuff. Take the name "Godzilla" off of it and you have a nice little homage to the Kaiju genre, kind of like Pacific Rim today. But, with that name at the top, it is a complete rape to the entire franchise.
Its very simple they called the movie "GODZILLA" because BEAST FROM 20,000 FATHOMS would'nt fly in this day'n age,but YES it was a good giant monster movie zilla was a cool monster was i happy when GODZILLA stomped the s**t out of zilla in final wars HELL YEAH!!!
I have always hated Fakezilla 1998 since I first saw it. I have always hated the bad acting, cliches, horrible monster design, and the general overall inconsistant sizes of Zilla really killed it for me. I think it is not even a fun monster movie. It is just unwatchable.
FOR SCIENCE OF COURSE!
when i was a kid i used to like it, but now that is see it, that is not godzilla. people got to understand that is not godzilla. its like if they make superman weak were he can't take a bullet, make him yellow, and make him look more like a alian to be more realistic, people are not going to like him and not think he's superman. that is my opinion.
As a general monster movie I love it. It's fun and exciting. However, while I love Zilla, I do admit it's not Gojira. TriStar, like Legendary Pictures, wanted a realistic take on the monster.
Zilla ended up being an advanced godzillasaurus instead of a Gojira. TriStar went in the wrong direction with it. I never understand why, in their concept artworks, it looked and behaved more like Gojira and yet these weren't used.
However it did have a cool look and neat aspects (like a powerfully built set of jaws). I'm glad to see some of the cooler aspects of Zilla being part of the 2014 American Godzilla.
I believe in Jesus Christ, who's my Lord and Savior.
John 3:16, Job 41:1-34, Leviticus 18:22
You all wanna hear my thoughts? Here it is (WARNING - MAY CONTAIN BAD LANGUAGE):
THAT MOVIE IS THE WORST LOAD OF DOUCHE RAPING, FART KNOCKING, RHINO JERKING, BALL SPLITTING, BIGGEST PIECE MONKEY SCROTUM I'VE EVER SEEN IN MY ENTIRE F%#$ING LIFE!!!! IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GODZILLA, THEY RAPED THE SOURCE MATERIAL, THEY HAD AN ORIGINAL SCRIPT, AND GODZILLA DESIGN, THAT WERE A MILLION TIMES BETTER THAN THE **** TRISTAR MADE IN THE END, THE ACTORS ARE HORRIBLE BEYOND BELIEF, WITH A LOT OF HORRIBLE STEREOTYPES - LIKE THE "LOUD-MOUTH, SHOOT-THE-****-OUT-OF-EVERYTHING-LIKE-RETARDED-*****-***S" STEREOTYPE, THE "GEEKY-SOCIALY-AKWARD" STEREOTYPE, THE "NEW-YORKER" STEREOTYPE, AND THE "DUMB-BIMBO-GIRLFRIEND" STEREOTYPE; ZILLA'S DESIGN (as a Godzilla design) IS AWFUL FAR BEYOND YOUR IMAGINATIONS, TRISTAR DIDN'T BOTHER CARRYING ON THE ORIGINAL SCRIPTED GOLD, THEY INSTEAD REPLACED IT WITH PURE, 100% CONCENTRATED BULL****, PLUS THEY WEREN'T INTERESTED IN GODZILLA; ROLAND EMMERICH HATES GODZILLA, THEY TURNED GODZILLA INTO A *****, THEY SPAT, RAPED, BEAT IT TO DEATH, SHOOT IN THE BALLS, AND TOOK A DUMP ON THE SOURCE MATERIAL WITH NO HUMANITY, AND SO DID THE SAME THING WITH TOHO'S FRANCHISE/LEGACY, AND RIPPED OFF THE FANS FROM THEY HARD EARNED MONEY TO A BIG DISAPPOINTMENT; IT DIDN'T REPRESENT GODZILLA AS A TRUE FORCE OF NATURE, JUST WROTE HIM AS "JUST AN ANIMAL", TOOK THE "GOD" OUT OF "GODZILLA", THEY FILM USED TO MAKE THE MOVIE HAD BETTER USE AS TOILET PAPER, AND IT SPAWNED THE TROLLIEST FANBASE OF ALL TIME - ZILLA FANS (just the fan-trolls, I know there's actually a good bunch out there) - THE GUYS WHO HAS BEEN TROLLING US FOR THE LAST 15 YEARS!!! THE MOVIE IS AWFUL, SUCKS BEYONG BELIEF, COMPLETELY UNWATCHABLE, AND I HOPE THE NEW MOVIE MAKES PEOPLE FORGET ABOUT THAT 1998 **** UP VERY, VERY SOON!!!
Please forgive me for my potty mouth, but this is the ONLY way I can express my thoughts about the GINO movie. (The "GINO" applies the title of the '98 movie only, which is what I just did)
@THETRUEAMERICANGODZILLA "TriStar, like Legendary Pictures, wanted a realistic take on the monster." I'm sorry, but TriStar never said anything about a "realistic" Godzilla, they originally were going to make "Godzilla vs. The Gryphon", but the whole "realistic" thing is an assumption people made up. The movie is really beyond unrealistic, plagued with scientifi and physical inaccuracies, it didn't carry the realism the original Godzilla did, which is to be a symbol for nuclear weapons.
The only enjoyability I can find from Zilla 98 is the nostalgia. That's it.
I don't see how anyone can call the creature in this movie Godzilla, even if that is the film's title. Zilla literally has none of the characteristics of Godzilla. They cannot be deemed the same in any way.
I have to agree with KaijuJira.
"There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self." - Ernest Hemingway.
MrAwesomeness I fully agree with you.
FOR SCIENCE OF COURSE!
I have no real problems with this movie. I enjoyed it. I also consider it a Godzilla movie (sue me), and I don't think it's the worst Godzilla movie ever (for me, the worst movie is a two way tie between Godzilla vs The Sea Monster, and Final Wars). The acting wasn't the best, but most Godzilla movies had terrible acting already. The '98 film had pretty damn good special effects for the most part and damn good cinematography (again, for the most part). All of this was superior to the Godzilla movies prior. Even today, I believe that the 98 film had some of the best camera angles, shots, and lighting to date in a Godzilla film. The movie was pretty cheesy for the most part, but so are most other Godzilla films. I mean, aside from scientific inaccuracies, the only real issue I have with this movie is the fact that Godzilla's behavior is more defensive than it is offensive. Godzilla's usually on the run or being attacked, rarely is he ever on the offensive (except for the taxi chase scene) and maybe the size. I honestly had no problem with how Godzilla looked. Oh, and the fact that he doesn't utilize his atomic breath (there's a difference between highly flammable gas and nuclear powered breath).
Oh and the two missile kill thing. That was stupid.
But overall, it was much better than most of the Godzilla movies, namely the showa movies (except for 1954), Final Wars, Battle for Earth, and Godzilla vs King Ghidorah.
I dunno, again. Not the best Godzilla movie, definitely not the worst *cough cough* Final Wars *cough cough*
@BCROCKETT94 I'm sorry, but there are a few things I have to respectfully disagree here:
1. TriStar's movie is so not a Godzilla film because it had nothing to do with neither the Godzilla character nor the source material, other than rip-off Jurassic Park and other flight scenes from other movies, so because of this it doesn't count as a Godzilla movie. I know it's your opinion, but I just think the movie should be looked at as just a generic monster movie than a Godzilla movie. Again, it rips off Jurassic Park more than having the real Godzilla in the movie.
2. That piece of crap that appeared in the movie is not Godzilla, it's called Zilla, and the reason for it is because Toho renamed the creature after TriStar lost the rights in 2002. Here's two 100% reliable, non-biased and non-fan-made links:
Zilla Name Change
3. Not all the Godzilla movies had terrible acting, if you're referring outside the Showa films. Have you seen The Return of Godzilla? The acting in that movie is actually pretty good.
4. The '98 movie has no plot at all, at least none that can keep focus on. Even if the original films' effects were limited (which you had to give them a break since it's all they had to work with at the time), but they all had an actual plot (except Godzilla's Revenge, we can all agree that movie sucks), and some of them had actual messages you may have missed - "Why is Godzilla far deeper than you think". Zilla barely got any screen time because tha kaiju got shoved aside by a ****ty romance, and annoying stereotypes. If a movie all it has are smoke and mirrors - TriStar's Zilla movie in this case - then the movie has nothing more to give, and plot, characters and GODZILLA are not part of that offer.
5. Zilla's design is great as a kaiju design. But as a GODZILLA design - IT SUCKS!!! IT LOOKS NOTHING LIKE THE ORIGINAL!!! TriStar should've done what Legendary is doing - modernize Godzilla's image, while keeping a classic impression.
These are just the things I have to disagree with you here, with all due respect.
I Believe In Harvey Dent
i don't think it was THAT bad , i mean , it was my 1st giant monster movie(at 1st i thought it was my 1st godzilla movie , but then i found out otherwise)