Themes of the MonsterVerse Titans: An Essay

Makes ZERO sense that question.

OF COURSE HE DOES

sonictiger

It makes more sense than you think actually. If he’s absorbing harmful radiation, a biological process could convert it in helpful radiation.

SasquaDash

Solar radiation isn’t the best example. We need the atmosphere to protect us from it.

I said OF COURSE HE CAN TRANSFORM IT INTO GOOD ENERGY

The question made no sense because the answer is obvious...

The answer isn’t that obvious actually.... if he could do that, then serious chemical reactions would have to occur. Essentially he’d have to able to absorb the radiation, convert it to energy, use some of that energy to convert to light. 

Yes radiation is light

Yeah I know.....and now I'm confused about the reactions

SarcasticGoji 

Yes, on it's own Solar radiation is harmful, however because of Earth's atmosphere blocking the harmful UltraViolet rays, solar energy becomes a beneficial power source that helps the environment grow.

That’s why I compared the Titan’s energy to photosynthesis. Carbon Dioxide is poisonous to humans and animals, however trees absorb Carbon Dioxide and convert it to breathable oxygen that humans and animals need to survive. Likewise, it’s not too much of a stretch to suggest that the MonsterVerse Titans that feed on harmful radiation can convert that radiation into a beneficial source of energy that can heal the environment.  

I also believe that in fiction rules can be bent, a story doesn’t always have to be rooted in reality or real world physics, especially if it’s a giant monster series where this exists:

I find it funny that people complain about the Godzilla series not being 100% realistic with radiation, yet when Bruce Banner becomes the Hulk by being bombarded by gamma radiation no one questions it (even though logically, that should kill him). I’m okay with fiction taking creative liberties if it fits the story. Fire can’t naturally exist underwater, but if cartoons want to make jokes about it, I feel like they should be able to.

“Space is warped and time is bendable.” - Mike Nelson

I couldn't have said it better.

"There are different types of radiation, Solar radiation does play a role in plant growth (and the creation of new life). The “radiation” that the titans emit was never stated to be nuclear radiation, it’s probably meant to be a new form of radiation that is emitted by the titans (possibly linked to the energy source within Hollow Earth). Godzilla and the other titans feed on the harmful nuclear radiation and expel a more beneficial energy source that helps to heal the environment, similar to how trees absorb carbon dioxide and create oxygen through photosynthesis."

This is a wonderful fan theory and all, but where is this in the movie? See the problem here is the movie refuses to make any distinction between harmful radiation or not. Even if this theory were the case, then Dougherty and Shields needed to make it clearer. As it stands, it just sounds like he thinks radiation is a life giving force. He even uses inaccurate information about Chernobyl to try and prove his point in the audio commentary--Which leads me to believe he was referring to nuclear radiation.

"To say that Dougherty’s film ruined the franchise’s message by being “Pro Nuclear or Pro Radiation” is inaccurate and (in some cases) false."

I never said Dougherty ruined the "franchise's message," as reductive of a title as that is for something so vast. I don't think he or another, singular bad movie out of a 36 film series has the power to ruin it. But I would argue he may not understand it as well as he's convinced.

"Godzilla vs King Ghidorah has a plot point where the Japanese government sends a nuclear submarine to create/re energize Godzilla so that he can protect them from Ghidorah, that could be misinterpreted as Pro Nuclear (hell, if you want to get technical, Godzilla was originally a living metaphor for the atomic bomb, yet he became a superhero in the later Showa films)."

The problem with this rebuttal is context. In Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah, the plan is concocted by a Japanese nationalist who is ostracized by the other characters for having the audacity to own nuclear weapons. It's not seen or written as an overwhelming positive, it's written as a commentary on the dangers of nationalism and capitalistic power growing so out of control that a singular company can own a weapon as dangerous and destructive as a nuclear bombs. Furthermore, the plan ends up not working because the narrative required this character's fallacy to be highlighted

As for Godzilla being a hero--Indeed. But in each case the movies still represented something that was born of the Japanese post-war and when the topic of nuclear proliferation arouse, it never had anything nice to say about it. Take something as thin as Godzilla vs. Megalon, for example. An entire war breaks out because of nuclear testing, which was always a great fear Japan had during the Cold War. A shift in character does not equate a lack of meaning for the Japanese culture.

"The topic of Nuclear energy use has changed a lot since the 50s, back then nuclear energy was seen as only being a weapon of mass destruction, however in more recent years nuclear energy has been used in a somewhat more beneficial way, being used as an energy source to power civilization."

I'm not here to debate whether or not nuclear power is beneficial. The fact is, like it or not, beneficial nuclear power is not what Godzilla represents and never has. To do so is to ignore the point of his genesis to begin with and also ignore how a different culture sees nuclear energy. Otherwise we're culturally appropriating an IP we could have merely created from scratch if we really want to.

Japan simply has not had the same luck with nuclear power as other countries. In 1995, days before the release of Godzilla vs. Destoroyah, an event occurred at the Monju Nuclear Power Plant. Although no radiation was released, a sodium leak caused a complete reactor shut-down. The Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corp. covered up the extent of the damage, causing outrage over how nuclear energy was being managed. [Source]

Numerous other issues happened at Japanese power plants culminating the famous Fukushima Nuclear disaster of 2011. The event was the greatest nuclear disaster since Chernobyl and caused the shutdown over over 50 nuclear reactors. [Source] Only 9 reactors now operate in Japan today. [Source] And with the issues still going on in Chernobyl today, the issue of nuclear power's stability is still in flux, especially in Japan.

"...however he also states that he wants to find a beneficial use for it, stating that if he does he would be the first to show it off to the world."

But he never does. Effectively, the movie treats his hope cynically. Serizawa died before that naivety could be put in action.

"however in modern day, Japan uses nuclear power plants to power their towns and cities. Things change, and modern Japan isn’t as anti nuclear as it was in the past."

As I mentioned above, this isn't very accurate, with only 9 of 50 reactors currently operating. But let's give you the benefit of the doubt for a moment--Let's pretend all 50 reactors are working today. That doesn't change the fact that the Godzilla is a warning built off of trauma. Just because the world accepts something dangerous as useful doesn't mean there can't or shouldn't be a warning of its use. Even as Japan had more active reactors in the 1990s, the Godzilla series was still harping on their use and warning of their dangers. Ironically, those warnings came to fruition in March of 2011 in Fukushima.

"...however the Toho Godzilla movies did the exact same thing. Like I stated earlier, Godzilla started out as a terrifying metaphor for the destruction caused by nuclear weapons, however Toho quickly turned him into a planet protecting superhero. If you want to dig deeper into the Showa films, you’ll find that they have the same “issues” that the MonsterVerse has. Godzilla defends the world from aliens (I guess that means nuclear weapons can protect us from invaders), Godzilla fights Hedorah (I guess nuclear weapons can stop pollution), Godzilla raises a son (radiation apparently makes you a great Dad)."

And here's the next issue that fans tend to misconstrue and it's no different here. Most Godzilla movies designate a theme to itself, but it doesn't always outright deal with nuclear proliferation and radiation. The difference is Godzilla: King of the Monsters decided to bring topics of nuclear weapons and radiation into the fold of the story. Radiation is not a topic brought up by the characters or story in Godzilla vs. Gigan, or Hedorah or Son of Godzilla. They decide to forego those ideas in favor of larger themes that may or may not have been more relevant to Japan at the time.

Godzilla: King of the Monsters, however, not only dives headfirst into certain taboos in the franchise, but the culprits of this act/story is an America superpower that caused another country's trauma to need Godzilla. It's rather disgusting in a way and frankly crosses some lines I find impermissible.

Honda and Fukuda were wise. Nowhere in Son of Godzilla is Godzilla's radiation mentioned. Nowhere in the context of the movie is Godzilla's nuclear power drawn attention to. The movie can't say, "radiation makes you a great Dad," because that's not in it. But Godzilla: King of the Monsters can say, "nukes will save the world," because that's literally what happens.

But you know what is in Son of Godzilla, All Monsters Attack and Godzilla vs. Hedorah? Topics of post-war Japan--Alternate subjects and themes that were directly effected by the events following their bombing.

I think Godzilla: King of the Monsters would've been better off had it avoided the topic altogether and found a different way to write in the resuscitation of Godzilla. But that's only one of many writing issues the film has.

And I agree, Godzilla's warning of nuclear proliferation and radioactive hazards will always be present in the character, but how the character evolves from that point is important as well. The liberties taken with Godzilla shows that the character can and will continue to be adapted for present day issues—And it's important that Godzilla stay relevant. The monster was born of the post-war's socio-political climate and he continues to embody ideological shifts caused by that climate in Japanese culture. To reverse engineer that is a completely different issue entirely.

I'll give the Monsterverse this much--for making so many egregious errors in theme and narrative, it has sparked conversation for the specifics behind Godzilla's representation. I believe they're at least topics worth thinking over.

"it has sparked conversation for the specifics behind Godzilla's representation. I believe they're at least topics worth thinking over."

I believe so too.

G. H. (Gman)

“This is a wonderful fan theory and all, but where is this in the movie?” 

In Godzilla 2014, it is stated that Godzilla and the MUTOs (and the other titans) feed on nuclear radiation. In King of the Monsters, It is stated that the titans emit an energy source that heals the environment and that because of this energy new life emerges wherever they appear. In Godzilla vs Kong, they introduce a mysterious energy source within the Hollow Earth, they also explain that the Hollow Earth energy is similar to energy readings from Godzilla and the other Titans, indicating a connection between them. While they don’t flat out say it in the films, it’s pretty easy to make a connection between these three plot points (an example of show, don’t tell). If anything, by doing this the MonsterVerse is doing exactly what an extended universe should do, it’s building up the world piece by piece and creating a bigger story.  If the Marvel Cinematic Universe explained all of its plot points all at once there would be much of a franchise.

“Nowhere in Son of Godzilla is Godzilla's radiation mentioned. Nowhere in the context of the movie is Godzilla's nuclear power drawn attention to. The movie can't say, "radiation makes you a great Dad," because that's not in it.”

Radiation is never mentioned in the story, but according to your own words, Godzilla is always a metaphor for nuclear weapons. So just because it’s not out right stated that somehow means that it doesn't apply in that certain scenario? If Godzilla always represents nuclear weapons, no questions asked, then wouldn’t the idea of him raising a son be the equivalent of a nuclear warhead having a baby?

“But you know what is in Son of Godzilla, All Monsters Attack and Godzilla vs. Hedorah? Topics of post-war Japan--Alternate subjects and themes that were directly effected by the events following their bombing.”

Wait, you stated that those movies ignore the anti nuclear theme, but then you state that they focus on post-war Japan and the issues that “were directly effected by the events following their bombing”. So... which is it? Are the films connected to the atomic bomb or not?

“I think Godzilla: King of the Monsters would've been better off had it avoided the topic altogether” 

So wait, you completely trash on Godzilla vs Kong because it lacks a message and in your eyes “lacks substance”. But now you're saying that King of the Monsters shouldn’t have had a message?

“but the culprits of this act/story is an America superpower that caused another country's trauma to need Godzilla. It's rather disgusting in a way and frankly crosses some lines I find impermissible.”

Honestly, all that I’m getting out of this conversation is that you really dislike the MonsterVerse movies because they are made in America. If they were made by Toho I feel like you probably wouldn’t be so negative towards them. Yes, the MonsterVerse has its flaws, I’m not denying that, however relentlessly ripping the films apart while completely ignoring flaws that exist in the Toho films is pretty one-sided and hypocritical. I absolutely love the Toho films (if I didn’t, I wouldn’t be here talking about them) but even I’ll admit that they have their issues .

 I don’t want to start an argument, but the fact that you seem to be looking down at other fans and acting like you’re the main authority of this franchise is somewhat irritating. Most of your comments on this subject have come off as kind of condescending to not only the MonsterVerse films and their filmmakers, but the fans of this franchise as well. In your last response you keep mentioning that other fans don’t get something or that they don’t understand a certain issue, and because of that you seem to act like you’re above them, in a way it’s almost insulting. Arrogant attitudes and Gate-Keeping have caused a lot of damage to various fandoms and I don’t want to see the Godzilla fandom suffering the same fate. 

Again, I don’t want to fight (let’s leave that to the monsters), but I feel like we can have debates without acting like a purist and putting people down. Honestly, there’s so much crazy fighting and awful crap happening in the world, it doesn’t need to crossover into our fandoms...

Agreed.

"While they don’t flat out say it in the films, it’s pretty easy to make a connection between these three plot points (an example of show, don’t tell)."

I'm amused you mention, "it’s pretty easy to make a connection between these three plot points" when it took a paragraph that long to connect the dots. I feel like a lot of this reads as fan conjecture--It goes less the way of world building and smacks more of plot convenience for individual filmmakers to tell their own stories. Which is fine, actually. It helps filmmakers put their own stamp on material, but makes a poor argument for continuity. For example: If Godzilla and the MUTO come from a time when the Earth's surface was, "10x more radioactive," and they've remained closer to, "the Earth's core" where they can feed on natural radioactivity, how is Monarch and Apex still alive from their excursion to Hollow Earth? They're closer to the radiation of the core than Serizawa was when he unceremoniously dragged a nuclear weapon to Godzilla and was exposed to fatal amounts of radioactivity. There's some astronomical holes in this logic and I don't believe, "show don't tell" applies when there's no consistency with what they're trying to tell.

"Radiation is never mentioned in the story, but according to your own words, Godzilla is always a metaphor for nuclear weapons. So just because it’s not out right stated that somehow means that it doesn't apply in that certain scenario? If Godzilla always represents nuclear weapons, no questions asked, then wouldn’t the idea of him raising a son be the equivalent of a nuclear warhead having a baby?"

This entire argument hinges on the fallacy that I've said Godzilla is "always a metaphor for nuclear weapons." Please read again, because I did not say that. As a matter of fact, I have been very careful not to say that. I have even made multiple points to say it's not even about the bomb, but how Godzilla has evolved culturally from that metaphor into the post-war. So there's clearly a misunderstanding or projecting here. I submit a paragraph from my first post in this thread:

"But let's ignore the bomb for a moment. Godzilla has been adapted to represent the transition of Japan into capitalism - the marketing that comes with it - the deconstruction of nuclear families - the Cold War - violent attacks on women - nationalism - Japan's pollution issue of the 1970s - the post-war world, etc. To quote Matt Frank, 'the specifics of Godzilla’s creation and narrative relevance have been honed and modified and pushed by over half a century’s worth of cultural evolution, modification, and revolution unique to Japan. That’s why Japanese Godzilla movies hit differently, even when they struggle themselves, compared to the US-made Godzilla movies.'"

Now if an individual story brings the concept or theme of nuclear proliferation, weapons and fears into play, I believe it should honor the character's existence as an outlet for cultural trauma. But if it does not, there's usually some residual meaning of post-war Japan that he takes on. Example: Godzilla's attack on nationalism brought on by post-war sentiments in Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah.

"Wait, you stated that those movies ignore the anti nuclear theme, but then you state that they focus on post-war Japan and the issues that “were directly effected by the events following their bombing”. So... which is it? Are the films connected to the atomic bomb or not?"

To quote one of the best lines from Shin Godzilla, "Post-war lasts forever," and the beginning of Japan's post-war can be traced to their defeat after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. To help understand, it's probably best to say, "it's all connected." That doesn't mean each film is specifically about the atomic bomb, or atomic-phobia, etc.

Historically, Japan's post-war ignited a plethora of talking points: The rise of capitalism in the country. The rise of pollution in 1970s Japan. The Cold War. The list goes on. Just because events and topics follow or relate back to the bombing, whether it be directly or indirectly, does not mean they are about the bomb. I hope that clarifies Godzilla either being only about the bomb or "something else" and instead helps relay that it all has a socio-politcal connection--Or perhaps evolution.

"So wait, you completely trash on Godzilla vs Kong because it lacks a message and in your eyes “lacks substance”. But now you're saying that King of the Monsters shouldn’t have had a message?"

Not at all. I was referring specifically to its handling of nuclear weapons. I've already stated Dougherty was on the right track by focusing on environmentalism, which the movie probably should've stuck with. There's an element of Eco-fascism to it that isn't very comfortable, but that's an entirely different topic.

"Honestly, all that I’m getting out of this conversation is that you really dislike the MonsterVerse movies because they are made in America. If they were made by Toho I feel like you probably wouldn’t be so negative towards them. Yes, the MonsterVerse has its flaws, I’m not denying that, however relentlessly ripping the films apart while completely ignoring flaws that exist in the Toho films is pretty one-sided and hypocritical. I absolutely love the Toho films (if I didn’t, I wouldn’t be here talking about them) but even I’ll admit that they have their issues."

Absolutely Toho's films have their issues. In fact I'd argue there have only been three or so truly good Godzilla movies in the last 37 years. Most in that time frame have had issues very similar to the Monsterverse in terms of storytelling, but none have made the egregious thematic issues that King of the Monsters has.

The reverse of your accusation is I don't think the Monsterverse would get nearly the praise it has been receiving if it were remade shot-for-shot with Japanese actors and tokusatsu styled effects. If anything it would only reveal how sub-standard they are. I've even asked Monsterverse fans this question point blank and they have admitted their love for these movies wouldn't be the same if Toho or some other Japanese company made them--Which says a lot.

"I don’t want to start an argument, but the fact that you seem to be looking down at other fans and acting like you’re the main authority of this franchise is somewhat irritating. Most of your comments on this subject have come off as kind of condescending to not only the MonsterVerse films and their filmmakers, but the fans of this franchise as well. In your last response you keep mentioning that other fans don’t get something or that they don’t understand a certain issue, and because of that you seem to act like you’re above them, in a way it’s almost insulting. Arrogant attitudes and Gate-Keeping have caused a lot of damage to various fandoms and I don’t want to see the Godzilla fandom suffering the same fate."

You're welcome to have that perception, but then I am at liberty to share mine. I have not been looking down at other fans for liking these films, I've merely offered a rebuttal to a topic you yourself have opened. If it seems like I'm coming off as condescending to the Monsterverse films and/or their filmmakers, then it's because I don't think they've done anything to win higher respect--Which, frankly, makes sense as I've made it clear I don't think very highly of all these movies. Two in particular.

As for me believing fans, and I quote myself here, "misconstrue" things, that's hardly a form of gatekeeping. I've opened up my opinions for scrutiny just as you have. It's what happens when these conversations are made public. I have not, however, resorted to name calling or disrespecting and I've even included sources. I'm not sure what more you want short of agreeing with you--And not everyone is going to. There's certainly far more aggressive discourse out there, including from professionals.

Let's also not rush to the shield of gatekeeping just because someone has an impassioned rebuttal against your opinion. Though it amuses me how I'm accused of it when one of the Monsterverse directors gets a free pass:

"It wouldn't be a true Godzilla film if you didn't touch upon those things, otherwise you're just making a big dumb monster movie. There has to be a sprinkle of it, otherwise you're not being faithful to the original intent of the series. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not a true Godzilla fan." [Source]

In the name of the father, son and the holy Dougherty, Amen.

G. H. (Gman)

     Sigh...

"I'm amused you mention, "it’s pretty easy to make a connection between these three plot points" when it took a paragraph that long to connect the dots. I feel like a lot of this reads as fan conjecture--"

"So there's clearly a misunderstanding or projecting here."

"You're welcome to have that perception, but then I am at liberty to share mine. I have not been looking down at other fans for liking these films, I've merely offered a rebuttal to a topic you yourself have opened. If it seems like I'm coming off as condescending to the Monsterverse films and/or their filmmakers, then it's because I don't think they've done anything to win higher respect--Which, frankly, makes sense as I've made it clear I don't think very highly of all these movies. Two in particular."

"Though it amuses me how I'm accused of it when one of the Monsterverse directors gets a free pass"

"In the name of the father, son and the holy Dougherty, Amen."

This is the condesending attitude that I'm talking about...

 you constantly have a snarky tone to your replies, as if you think our thoughts are inferior to your own, acting as if your above us...

Condescension is not very nice and not very Cash Money

Y E S

Using Cash Money is very cash money of you

SasquaDash,
I won't pretend I'm not poking fun at Dougherty, but as for the rest (especially that third paragraph you quoted) I don't know what to tell you except read it differently.

It’s easier to assume that others are being rude on the internet. I have ranted about this multiple times.

G. H. (Gman)

Honestly, this debate has been going on for a while and I really don't want it to devole into an argument...

So can we just agree to disagree, and call a truce?

Also, sorry if I came off as too combative, I can get a little defensive when comes to certain series that i'm passionate about.

"I can get a little defensive when comes to certain series that i'm passionate about."

Which is welcomed. The point of discourse is passionate discussion.