Predictions - Will sequel to Godzilla 2014 be better or worse ?3,709 Views19 RepliesAdd A Reply
With Skull Island having ties to Monarch... and with all the references to other kaijus in the G 14 movie..Mothra and Ghidorah mainly... and the fact that Max Boring-stien is writing the script for both the sequel and Skull Island and making claims that the G sequel will have more exciting stuff going on in it... and last but not least...Edwards directing it... given the history of sequels from other major motion pictures in the past from hollywood... do you believe that Godzilla 2 will survive the box office.. or will it fall prey to the stigma that sequels commonly have had happen in the box office... and never amount to being as good as the first movie. Let's keep in mind.. the first movie had a weak script and the only thing that saved it was Godzilla himself.
Well, Borenstein's draft for Skull Island was rewritten by a cache of other writers: John Gatnis (writer for Reel Steel and Flight) wrote the second draft in October, 2014. At some point Dan Gilroy (co-writer for Reel Steel and The Bourne Legacy) either helped Gatnis rewrite Borenstein's script or did the third draft. In August of 2015, Derrek Connolly (co-writer for Jurassic World) did some rewrites on the final draft. This type of shuffling is the norm in Hollywood, but I have hope it will include a better screenplay than Godzilla '14. I don't think any of the writers after Borenstein are outstanding, but I do think they write more interesting stories than he did.
I also think the only thing that saved Godzilla '14 from its script WAS Gareth Edwards. If it weren't for his visual style, which is unique to most Hollywood blockbusters, and his gift for tension and visual nuance it probably would've been a botch.
I also think Hollywood's streak for Blockbuster sequels have been better in the last decade and a half: X2: X-Men United, The Bourne Supremacy and Ultimatum, The Dark Knight, Skyfall, Captain America: Winter Soldier, etc. I'm not too worried about the sequel in terms of recent track records, but I am worried about Borenstein and, depending on how good Skull Island is, I hope the same thing that happened with Borenstein's script for Skull Island happens with Godzilla 2.
But overall... It's just too early to say. We have a few variables and top crew members, but that's it. It's hard to predict its success without much more.
RR44 - I happen to be of the opinion that the next film might be slightly worse. Not because it will lack exciting scenes and action; but because the team behind its creation have been swayed far to heavily by the social media crowds. It is always good to listen to fans. However, pandering will likely result in the production of a cookie-cutter film that flows by the numbers. I do have some hope for the next Godzilla film. Even so, I am concerned that creativity and ingenuity are being whittled down to only one vision.
The SFX/VFX for Godzilla 2 should be spectacular. There will be more enemy kaiju, airbourne and from the Toho Canon. We've been told, or at least, it was said at Comic Con, that the sequel will address (and thus improve upon) issues relating to kaiju screen time and action.
However, I believe the key to Godzilla 2 will be the story and narrative about Monarch. An exciting, twisting tale about the this mysterious organizaton, its background and motives could provide a rich, layered story. People love to see the inner workings of the entities that really drive things. It's because we want to be 'in on it.' As a fan who bought into the story around Monarch in Godzilla, I would like to go deeper into how it started, how it works, how decisions were made and who makes them. I think Serizawa and Graham are central to this. I loved watching them in the first film. It was, as Sally Hawkins said, as if they were telepathic. Their professional friendship and mutual respect was palpable. As a result, you could experience it and not just 'watch it.'
It will come down to the writing and the soul that the actors bring to this film, the next chapter in a saga.
If the audience can be immersed into the story, and move with it, the experience will be much more satisfying and rewarding. The best way for them to connect to the story is through the human characters. Dr. Serizawa and Dr. Graham were the first people we saw in Godzilla, and they were the last. They would provide needed continuity from the first film. They have, as it were, a relationship (of sorts) with Godzilla. They are the face of Monarch, the source of our knowledge about Godzilla. No one knows more about him than them. Dr. Serizawa is also the link to Japan, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Bomb. When Dr. Serizawa showed his father's watch to Admiral Stenz, with it stopped at 8:15 a.m., the moment that Little Boy exploded over Hiroshima, you could hear a pin drop in the theater. With this scene alone, Godzilla trascended monster and other special effects movies.
I hope we see them again in Godzilla 2.
All of these comments are awesome. I agree that Monarch will have a huge role to play in the sequel. I have respect for Edwards efforts.. but screen play writing needs a lot more meat and potatos... if they want to feed the hunger of we the fans. I think the first movie was just an appitizer... and the main coarse has yet to be served.
As for the visuals... they need to more accuratley depict Godzilla when putting him in a city next to buildings that are clearly taller than him. That for me was a sticking point in the first film. Case in point.. the Four Embarcadero Center building that was in the last scene before he swam off.. he walked past it and was taller than the building itself. This was a Special effects blunder.. imo. one of several. but I digress.
^You've brought that up before, but I don't see it as a blunder. For all we know they yo-yo'd his size simply because they felt the shot looked better that way. I'm ok with that when it's barely noticeable or something no one would know without looking at a technical manual. Blunder would be increasingly poor CG, lack of weight behind the monsters, poorly rendered imagery, etc. Cheating the size is just that: Cheating the size. Happens all the time with actors as well.
Gman2887... you are right about this cheating thing... but I cant help but wonder what an actual portrayal of Godzilla in a city would look like. and don't worry... I have no intention of beating this dead horse on the matter.. but it would have been nice if they would have went with the original script and made him 600 feet tall.. then that scene I mentioned would have been correct as far as scale goes. When Edwards said they were making a smart film... that should have been diagnosed in post production and corrected .. so as not to insult our intelligence.. at least as far as I'm concerned. But it is Hollywood and it is what it is.. so.. what will be.. will be. But you are right.
I don't think "making a smart film" and cheating the size of an object or character is the same thing. The Last Samurai is a smart film, but are we really going to call it out for Tom Cruise's 5'7" standing nose-to-nose with Ken Watanabe's 6'0"? Smart was sticking the shorter guy on an apple box so the more tense/intimate scenes weren't torpedoed by the height difference sticking out like a sore thumb.
In the case of Godzilla, the monster was simply framed better thanks to certain cheats. Whatever makes the movie flow better and look better visually aids it and that is, since the beginning of the medium, the truth. Quite frankly nothing stuck out that was puzzeling to me and you're the only one I've read from that's made such a issue of this. If anything I hope they do the same thing for the next movie as long as the shot looks good.
I think the real question is, can it be? With an already scheduled crossover with a future movie that is also supposed to reference and help set up the cross over a lot is riding on Godzilla 2. The first film did great, but domestically, given it's rather impressive opening it didn't end up with anything eye opening. The story of the movie is decent with the acting and characters only being redeemed by Cranston's small performance, and possibly the ideas behind Ken Watanabe's exposition. Overall the first movie is pretty average overall with a few shots of brilliance. To do worse when not one, but two franchise name's are attached would be pretty bad.
The second movie is promised to be bigger and better, but that's a pretty common promise, I don't think any movie writer has openly advertised for people to lower their expectations as a way to hype them up.
But, it is possible for people (including screenwriters and production staff) to improve upon their efforts and make better films, with more impressive results. Even if it hadn't happened before (and it has-The Dark Knight and Batman Begins), it's still within the realm of possibility.
I highly recommend the book, "Godzilla: The Art of Destruction" by Mark Cotta Vaz.
This beautiful text has opened for me many new doors into the artistry and creativity that went into the making of Godzilla. The technology at the disposal of these artists does not in any way diminish their gifts and abilities.
This book is a great companion to the film, which I love. What stands out most prominently, is the care and love which the character and the meaning behind him, were given. The respect on the part of the filmmakers for Godzilla comes across as authentic and heartfelt.
I am very happy to see that Godzilla is in good, talented hands.
Gman2887... of coarse I would make it an issue... and I am not the only one who feels this way... but on this site.. I.. like so many others... bring a voice to a particular thing about a movie... and give an honest opinion. I am not critical about what others have to say here on this site. I just have a certain perspective on things and address them on there face. Its all about the fans here and what they think and feel about a film that they either like or don't like. Edwards also said that his Godzilla film would be "grounded and realistic'... so I as a fan.. took that seriously and the sfx kinda ruined it for me personally. I just happen to be more of a techically minded person is all. And despite that... I liked the movie for its intent... but cheating to make a good shot... to me.. cheapens the quality... imo.
^Then you might as well accept every movie ever made now has cheapened quality.
The fact is every movie does what is artistically necessary to make a shot or scene look good. The creativity behind doing that, including cheating sizes, lightings and moods is what makes these things. The lighting in film, for example, is never natural. Costumes are always exaggerated in some way. This complaint, to me, seems so incredibly minute that it would make zero difference on the film's quality. Your concern for it is noted, but, ultimately, quite baffling.
Unfortunately, the CUT magazine article seems to just repeat information we already know about. The wait goes on.
I get what you say. Please don't be baffled over my point of view... I will say this however... if I had the money to spend on making a movie... size and scale and depiction would matter to me and I would see to it that it was artistic and well produced without cutting corners or cheating... or what ever it is that movie makers do. I accept the fact that other movies throughout history have done things a certain way... that does not mean that I would follow suit if I was a movie maker with a titanic budget at my disposal, and I would take careful steps to insure that the movie I produce would be done right.. to meet my specifications before it was released to the public at large. mabey you don't care about such things... and I'm cool with that.. but some of us do.
I predict the sequel will be better in regards to more monster brawl and city stomping time, which is my primary concern!
yeah.. just like pacific rim was... only better.
Trust me, there are plenty of things one can nitpick about the first movie, but the inconsistencies of the sizes of landmarks would be way low on my list. Like GMan said, filmmakers constantly take liberties with reality when making a movie. Take King Kong for example. In the original, his size/proportions actually changed during the course of the movie to fit that particular scene. Also, think about trying to climb a ladder using only one hand, while the other was holding something. Now, try that same thing scaling the edifice of the Empire State Building! Not to mention, gorillas are not known for their climbing abilities. When you watch any videos of gorillas in the wild, how many are in trees? They're pretty terrestrial. Gorillas on the whole are also, in spite of their tremendous strength, fairly timid animals. Kong's persona and abilities were altered to fit the character and the plot.
As for the question at hand, the sequel definitely needs to be better. What better is, and if it will be, is a totally subjective thing, and different for different folks here. They can't give us what they gave us with the first one though. They need to convince any moviegoers who felt burned by the first, that it's not going to be business as usual. Also, if the Kong movie next year tanks, that could change the game as well.