Is Godzilla 2016 going to be like Godzilla 2014\'s Original Concept?

Godzilla 2000 ended with Godzilla as an anti-hero, but the movie opens with him as the lead threat--Causing mayhem and destroying mankind's energy supply. He's closer to Godzilla 1984 than he is Godzilla vs. SpaceGodzilla on the spectrum of things.

^However, 2014 is truly no different from 2000 except for the simple reason of the ending. Godzilla wasn't benevolent, he wasn't good in anyway shape or form- he was there to do what had to be done, defend his territory. If you think about it, he showed no sympathy to man, he didn't save anyone, he protected his territory from a neighboring threat and left back to the sea. Don't forget they destroyed half of San Francisco.

Just to clarify a strict difference between G14 and various other films. At no point in the movie of G14 did Godzilla ever directly destroy something without provocation. The best example is the bridge that was destroyed, the of course was only done after being shot at repeatedly from the military and being forced to break through it and after him rising from the water protected a school bus full of kids from the early shots the military took. The destruction of the city was mostly by the mutos as you see them digging into it in the mating scene. G14 may have also had an impact but the blame falls mostly on the mutos. There were plenty of visual cues that indicate G14 is a savior moreso than a destroyer, hell Serizawa even says it during most of the movie.

In comparison to other movies that are being brought up Godzilla actively went and attacked humanity to the point there was reason to believe he was antagonistic. Ghidorah the three headed monster started with him destroying boats. Godzilla 84 he was destoying cities, same with Godzilla vs Biollante and King Ghidorah. In Godzilla vs Mothra 92 he had no anti hero status the film he was portrayed completely evil with Battra ending up being the anti hero with Mothra filling the role of hero. Godzilla vs MechaGodzilla 2 he destroyed a city to find the egg, and Godzilla vs Destroyah starts out with him destroying hong kong.

Of the heisei and millennium movies the only one that really even cloesely resembles G14's actions and his perception of humanity would be the Godzilla in Godzilla vs SpaceGodzilla as he never went out of his way to destroy a city, there were cities he simply had to go through to get to where SpaceGodzilla was. In terms of the Millennium series I can't think of one movie that closely shows him as heroic a role as G14. G2000 he was the target of the military and actively destroyed power sources through the first half of the movie, Godzilla vs Megaguirus he was also a destoyer after atomic energy and then eventually plasma to the point they had to make a black hole gun to stop him. the kiryu saga he was antagonistic with no real heroic deeds to mention, and Final Wars he only destroyed those monsters because the human made Gotengo that he was chasing after led him to that point. Even after the humans helped him at the end he still turned around to finally settle the score with the Gotengo before Minilla's intervention. So the closest to G14 might be final Wars in terms of personality.

Point is though you can't compare G14 to most heisei or millennium movies. He fills a much more heroic role in the film through visual cues and Serizawa straight up saying he's a protector. It we had a scale of 1-100 with 1 being GMK level evil and 100 being Godzilla vs Megalon hero I'd put G14 at about a 70-75 range, moreso than an even 50, or close to that.

^But the point is, it wasn't like he was purposefully avoiding those buildings, he just didn't care. If Godzilla had to destroy humanity to say save an egg! He would! No hesitation, he was proclaimed as a savior because the military could literally do nothing to stop the MUTOs, only Godzilla was capable of killing them.

Gorilla,
You're missing the point here. The filmmakers made an intentional choice to show Godzilla causing as little mayhem and destruction as possible. We don't actually see anyone die in the tsunami he causes in Hawaii. We don't see the lives taken on the bridge-- In fact it cuts away as much as possible to minimize the idea that he killed anyone. The entire film shoots him as a hero from the start: As a creature to root for and constantly follow as an accompanying protagonist.

Godzilla never once directly destroyed anything out of territorial protection or malicious intent like he did in Godzilla 2000. Godzilla in G2K was immediately established as a malicious threat to humanity due to his intentional attacks on the mainland. All Godzilla did in the 2014 movie was jump out of the see after 60 years of hiding and become the world's most expensive c*ckblock.

So what if Godzilla "didn't care" about humanity and our structures? How is apathy supposed to argue in favor of his mean streak? The point is he has many times before and Godzilla 2000 is no exception. With that said, Godzilla 2014 and Godzilla 2000 really aren't the same at all.

Something Real- Thank you for your appreciation. I read your opinions and those are quite understandable, but I still feel is, if the upcoming film should take Godzilla to his roots, it's needed to focus in the mankind faults much more. Quoting again GMK, they focused in what you say how nightmarish and terrible could be a monster, portraying Godzilla pretty vile and evil (I recognize it one of best done films, but I don't like that portrayal), but the reason behind his wrath was just vaguely mentioned in the interview between the young reporter and the old 'ghost' man. For me it wasn't very deep, and turned Godzilla in just another mad creature destroying everything and killing everyone indiscriminately on his path like Cloverfield, La Carcaña (the Giant Claw), THEM, etc.In the other hand, the 1954 film was filled with messages about how our negligence caused such horrible destruction and ruined the life of others: quotes of the Atomic bombs, the woman with her children trying to calm them saying they will be with their departed father again, the radioactive pollution, and the shelters filled with people whom lost everything. That's much more deeper and gives to us more chance to reflex about our doings, inviting us to think a bit more. A film like GMK doesn't offer that; the original Godzilla 1954 was a master piece and I dare to say the best conducted film thus far due its deep meaning. Other relevant difference between the original Godzilla and the other monsters mentioned above, is that those represent the fear to the unknown, specially Cloverfield; Godzilla in other hand represents the fear of the unexpected consequences OF WHAT WE KNOW AND NEGLECTED. Saying again, Godzilla wasn't the destroyer of worlds, IS THE MANKIND ITSELF. 

My point is, If you want to see a destructive Godzilla, on the pure essence of his roots, it should be conducted in the right way with the real key points, otherwise it just will be another GMK or Cloverfield.

But again with my posture, I still want to see him as the anti hero role to offer us a good fight; but still I have my point of view. You say To have Godzilla act as Earth's silent and apathetic guardian is rather difficult to grasp when he is the byproduct of mishandled science and technology. That's very true under the perspective of his roots in 1954; but Godzilla changed over the years, through the films is shown he isn't only the embodiment of power or destruction, he still is a living being struggling to survive, specially under his new conditions as result of the atrocious acts of the human fooley. When he fights against another terrible threatening monster, he is not doing so to save the planet or for the good of mankind, he just fighting for himself (or for his adopted son when it was applied); the very same goes when fights against the military. I introduced a few years ago a lil cousin to G movies and one of his favorites is G vs Mechagodzilla 93, and after also watching it my uncle said to me he now understands Godzilla quite more, because he just try to defend himself from the attacks. That's what makes Godzilla appealing to general audience and casual watchers as well and allowed him to keep a legacy through various generations, they understand his position despite being a monster. Still there are some metaphoric messages in there: we don't like to accept our errors specially when they bring terrible consequences we cannot bear (reflected in Godzilla and his wrath), and what we try to do afterwards is just to try to wipe them out more than learn from them, despite we can cause more sorrow and others suffer in the process ( if we place Godzilla as victim as well) . More than a punishment, Godzilla is a drawback of the mankind foolish actions and misuse of its knowledge, just bringing the natural consequences of such negligence (if someone approach to the fire gets burnt), and he is paying for it as mankind does. Quoting Dr. Shiragami: "Godzilla and Biollante are not monsters, the real ones are the scientists whom created them."

Gojira19,
For all your tried words that point to a victimized Godzilla that represents mankind's flaws thrown back in our faces, I don't think you take into consideration just how unlikable he is shot in the original film. Between chewing a radio tower that spills reporters to their deaths and walking through flames to a mother telling her children they'll be with their father soon, the metaphor behind Godzilla's tragedy could arguably be underminded by how the filmmakers portrayed him.

In turn Godzilla's character in GMK has made similar actions. I also don't agree with your sentiment that the only mention about his wrath in that particular film is "vague" and pushed through a single scene between Yuri and Isayama. Godzilla's rage is heavy handed, not vague at all, and heavily repeated and followed through various conversation and visual cues about a less respectful country: Biker gangs, honor-less suicide (referencing Aokigahara forest), apathy over cover-ups and conveniently changed history-- All issues of a newer generation that Godzilla blitzed with a sense of cultural resurrection taught the hard way. Like the 1954 movie, GMK doesn't have subtext. It has text. There's very little vaguery involved. The difference is one movie acts to alleviate cultural fears and the other is a call to action for a country refusing to acknowledge mistakes and maintain the better parts of themselves. But as heavy handed as it is there's no lack of complexity.

In both cases Godzilla's terror can be seen as a variation of "tough love." Something Real pin-points this beautifully. Godzilla's messages are often stronger, more complex and able to spark more conversation when he's the malicious antagonist. (This conversation here is borderline proof of that.)

The anti-hero has yet to prove it can provide that. At least not today. It's been done to death to the point where it really isn't that interesting. Godzilla '14 was given lukewarm reception, Final Wars flopped with a similar character take. There was a time I would have said the anti-hero is by far the most interesting variation we could have, but that time was probably 15 years ago.

You're right though. Times have changed. And right now the anti-hero Godzilla isn't what this time needs.

G-Man you make some rather excellent points, but I don't think you guys are really understanding what I'm saying. Godzilla in 2014 wasn't shown to have killed, but that doesn't change the fact that he did, he most certainly killed people on the way towards the Mutos.

It's not like he was tip-toeing through the streets, avoiding every ant in his way, he was determined and if he had to fight the military, I promise you he would have. But there was never a scene where he was really being brutally attacked, and if he was, they would all be dead.

^ I take it the golden gate bridge doesn't count? The military attacked him and landed several direct hits at point blank range on Godzilla. He had the choice to retaliate but wasn't concerned with them.

^Or nuking him in the 50s.

Fact is there's a lot more evidence pointing to him not wanting to fight the military than anything saying he would. There's actually no evidence of no matter how hard he was hit that he ever retaliated, so I'm not sure how one would know he would fight them, or destroy a city if needed. Pretty much everything points to this Godzilla being an ally of humanity exclusively. Hell ships travelled right beside him on his way to San Fancisco.

Gorilla,The fact, or idea rather, that Godzilla killed in 2014 really isn't the point. The filmmakers do everything under the sun to not draw attention to that so he can be viewed as a hero. He's a protagonist that the film follows through with. We don't actually see Godzilla make any malicious act on purpose and that's the real point. He has no connection to other angry variations, like in Godzilla 2000.

G14 is not an enemy of humanity, but G14 at-least I think planted a seed that he isn't doing anything to save humanity, and he will fight them if need be. But there was no need in this film, we're basing all of this on one film need I not remind you guys.

And in that one film he plays almost completely a hero role with little variation. In the one film he was attacked multiple times by humans, and they are the reasons the MUTOs, his enemies, resurfaced and provided them with the food source necessary for them to potentially take over, outside of the single human saving him which happened after everything else the humans had done to screw him over, and he had no foresight to know this was going to happen at those points.

Seems like he had every reason in the world to turn and attack them at some point, but never did meaning he filled a heroic role. Superman can turn around and destory humanity, but if he never does it he's a hero. Same logic applies here.

Once agin, you're basing him as a hero because a single film didn't show him kill anyone, you are literally trying to confirm that as fact- when it's not fully proven yet. I still am shocked to this day, at the horibble back-lash fans have given this film, to be honest I'm surprised anyone is happy at there being a Godzilla 2, since this film seems to just be beyond hated.

GorillaGodzilla,

The film is only hated because the way it was teased and how sloppy the design of Godzilla was. It's not the greatest but it's a fair design. Better than a few other designs at that. Is it hated more than G98? I really doubt that. 

Those are the main reasons why people hate the film than besides Bryan Cranstons character being killed too early. The thing is, so many out here like me, were expecting a very serious scary Godzilla film like that of 54'. The company legendary did the bait and switch project. They teased it like Godzilla was going to be a merciless killer who would destroy everything in his path yet, he only caused minimal damage to the city. If he isn't called a hero for killing the Mutos and leaving the area while the civilians cheer him on then how is Godzilla a hero classified in your eyes? 

He wasn't a hero but he wasn't a villian, that's my point.

"He wasn't a hero and he wasn't a villain, that's my point."

Okay, I'm lost on that. What's your point? 

He was not a full on hero, under any circumstances. Yet at the same time, he was not a full on villians, under any circumstances. He was the definiton, of an anti-hero.

"He was the definiton, of an anti-hero."

Then the definition of anti-hero must've been re-written recently. I don't recall any that get such an appraised ending with purposfully shot sequences that try avoid any emphasis on the harm he's causing. But yeah. Sure. Anti-hero definition.

I agree that he is an anti-hero, but he's a very, very loose one.

You know, when truly everything I say is used against me as if this is court, I surrender. It's truly un-fair, not only am I being teamed up on by 3 people and I have no-one on my side, but everything I say is being used against me as if it's fact.

GorillaGodzilla,

Myself, Gman2887, and Durp004 are just trying to tell you that you're wrong. There's no need to get sentimental over everything. 

GorillaGodzilla,

Myself, Gman2887, and Durp004 are just trying to tell you that you're wrong. There's no need to get sentimental over everything. 

My feeling about Toho Tokusatsu Godzilla 2016 is that it will be evokative of the atmosphere in the Godzilla 2014 trailers. I really don't see Godzilla being any sort of anti-hero in the films die to the statements of the directors indicating a terrifying nightmare is in store for audience. I cannot imagine a lunchbox/he's our hero Godzilla emerging from the story or the way I anticipate the film being made. The Legendary Godzilla had to be a character people could cheer for. It would seem that a decision to portray him that way was made early on. I think it's a box office thing. And, for the most part, it worked. Enough money was made to make a franchise viable.

I believe Anno and Higuchi want to make their Godzilla thoroughly Japanese and distinct from the Legendary American version. So, there will be a connection to the atomic origins of this monster and all that he symbolizes. I seriously doubt if there will be any whitewashing of the role of nations in nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific. Personally, I would like to see a bold and direct reference made to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a even a brief, but moving visual.

And the atomic bomb reference is never dated. Especially in Japan.

Half of both of our statements are right, none of us are entirely right.

I like Godzilla when he's the destroyer.