Close
Sign in with your E-Mail & Password
Godzilla Discussion Forums
MonsterVerse Godzilla or MonsterVerse Kong: Which modern take on a classic monster has been done better?

MonsterVerse Godzilla or MonsterVerse Kong: Which modern take on a classic monster has been done better?

1,676 Views21 RepliesAdd A Reply
Godzilla Vs. Kong: Which portrayal of the iconic monsters has been done better in the MonsterVerse?
Godzilla
65% (15 Votes)
Kong
35% (8 Votes)
Forum Topic

sonictiger

RodanMember1538 XPMay-17-2021 4:39 PM

So, Godzilla may have won the battle in Godzilla Vs. Kong but there's another question involving our two Titan-sized stars: Which iteration has been done better by Legendary and Warner Bros? For me, I think Kong has been done better has he's been reinvented for the MonsterVerse in a way where he can be much more than a one-off character.  I also think Godzilla's been done well, being made more into an anti-hero and his design being the best in Godzilla's history.  But in the end, gotta go with Kong's portrayal.  So who out of Godzilla and King Kong do you think had the better MonsterVerse counterpart? Sound off in the comments and in the poll!

That was very cash money of you.
PICK YOUR TITAN
Godzilla wins 2021 Shirt
Godzilla Hoodie
Kong Wins 2021 Shirt
21 Responses to MonsterVerse Godzilla or MonsterVerse Kong: Which modern take on a classic monster has been done better?

sonictiger

RodanMember1538 XPMay-17-2021 4:40 PM

Yeah, the Monke has been done better.

That was very cash money of you.

HinikunaGoji

GiganMember2347 XPMay-17-2021 5:00 PMTeam Ghidorah

I like the Gamera-esque  Godzilla, I think it works for an american adaptation.

And yes Gman, I know what you mean

SasquaDash

BaragonMember441 XPMay-17-2021 11:27 AM

Yes

Kattozilla

AnguirusMember1268 XPMay-17-2021 12:07 PMTeam Mothra

Aw man don't make me choose :(

she/her/herself, dino/saur/dinoself, robo/bot/roboself

Gojira Forces (Lim Chen Xi)

TitanosaurusMember700 XPMay-17-2021 1:18 PMTeam Mothra

even if I'm a huge fan of Godzilla, honestly, I think Kong did better

G. H. (Gman)

GiganAdmin4169 XPMay-17-2021 1:31 PMTeam Ghidorah

SarcasticGoji,
He's a little too Heisei Gamera for my taste.

Between the two I think Hollywood just understands Kong better--Which makes sense because it's their creation. We've just handled Kong's empathy and desire to be at peace in a world that knows he exists better.

Kong's design also looks like an evolution of his original, fantastical design, instead of just being a blown up silverback like the 2005 version. The best thing I can say about Godzilla's design is it looks like Godzilla. But it's hardly a definitive look. Nothing too memorable.

Godzilla they've muddled and contorted outside of his cultural confines. I'm reminded of Steve Ryfle's article, about how Hollywood has "whitewashed" Godzilla--And that was just the 2014 movie. Imagine the article he could write with the latest films.

"None of this makes any sense, it doesn't really matter. We just needed an excuse for them to do something and they had to go somewhere." - Adam Wingard

Chris

King GhidorahAdmin19562 XPMay-17-2021 2:19 PMTeam Ghidorah

Agreed, as much as I love Godzilla, Hollywood handled Kong better this time around. For points already expressed, the consensus being North America created Kong, home field advantage. Still love the MV Godzilla portrayal though, G14 the best - prefer Godzilla to be either impartial and neutral or a plague of destruction rather than "Humanity's savior".

SasquaDash

BaragonMember441 XPMay-17-2021 2:32 PM

G. H. (Gman)

"Whitewashing" Godzilla... doesn't that seem a little over dramatic...

Overall that article comes off as arrogant and hateful, pretty much trashing the movie for not "being the original" and being American. Steve Ryfle comes off as nothing more than a stuck up elitist snob, with a condescending "I'm smarter than you" attitude.

Also it seems that he wasn't paying attention to the movie's story, as he claims that the movie glorified nuclear weapons, which it doesn't.

The Government attempting to nuke Godzilla in the 50s wasn't an attempt rewrite history or to say that nukes are good, it was trying to show how arrogantly these types of weapons are used. The film also states that it was a 1954 "nuclear test" that was the government's attempt to destroy Godzilla, at no point does it negate the other nuclear tests conducted by America, Russia, France etc... (as Ryfle claims it does).

The MUTOs were awakened by the mining for Uranium and were drawn to sources of radiation, causing the Janjira power plant meltdown, which destroyed the lives of the people affected. The fact that the MUTOs were awakened by the mining of radioactive elements and were drawn to nuclear power plants shows the potential danger of harvesting this type of energy.

The Female MUTO's "dormant" spore was carelessly stored in the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, showing the government's irresponsible handling of potentially dangerous material, as they not only tossed the spore aside to be ignored, they put the MUTO in area were it could feed on nuclear energy and grow stronger.

When the military realizes that the monsters are unaffected by their standard weapons they try to use nuclear weapons, this shows the arrogance of the military as they are unconcerned by the potential risks this may cause. Serizawa attempts to warn Stenz about the risks by reminding him of the tragedy caused by the Hiroshima bombings (Ryfle stupidly claims that this scene "glorified" the bombings, making me question his intelligence). The military's plan goes wrong with MUTOs stealing the active warhead and building a nest around it, this shows how the military's arrogance made the situation worse, potentially leading to another Hiroshima like incident.

The soldiers are sent to move the bomb out of the city so that the city won't be destroyed by the explosion or exposed to the fallout.

IN WHAT WORLD DOES THAT "GLORIFY" NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!!

And if he's trying to say that Godzilla being a defender/hero is "pro nuke", Newsflash! Godzilla was a hero in some of the older Toho films, but I guess that fact doesn't fit his "America Bad" argument...

G. H. (Gman)

GiganAdmin4169 XPMay-18-2021 12:01 AMTeam Ghidorah

SasquaDash,
Over dramatic or not, the title speaks to the cultural appropriation of Godzilla I've spoken about in prior posts--And, personally, I'd call that harsher than "whitewashing", but the latter makes for a better title I suppose.

I don't see where the article comes off as "arrogant" or "hateful". Where does any of that come into play in this article? All I recognize is something that comes off as well researched and very honest in Ryfle's opinions. The man has recorded audio commentaries for five Godzilla films and written two of the most valuable English language books on the series, including the Ishiro Honda biography--having spoken to his family and many surviving Toho filmmakers. Knowledgeable? Sure. Earned the right to speak out on these topics given the exorbitant amount of resources/people he's been privy to? Absolutely. But I don't detect a hint of arrogance or hate in this article. I do see you use these words a lot when someone criticizes the Monsterverse. Is it possible you simply use these words for anything that upsets you in regards to criticism of these particular flicks?

A few things to consider: Ryfle is correct in explaining that the responsibility for America's nuclear tests in the 2014 film were being side-stepped in favor for something more righteous. "They were trying to kill it," is not a line indicative of, "how arrogantly these types of weapons are used." It painted the US's tests as a reaction toward trying to protect the world from a potential threat. (Even though, the reality is Castle Bravo poisoned people, got someone killed and put toxic fish on the Japanese market.) And at no point does Ryfle claim the scene between Stenz and Serizawa "glorifies" nuclear weapons, but merely that the scene acts as a conduit accepting the losses of Hiroshima as practical for the greater good.

In fact, the word "glorify" or "glorified" does not show up in the article at all. He's not even saying the film is pro-nuclear. (Nor is there an argument made that a heroic Godzilla is "pro nuke". That's an odd thing the assume since it's never even insinuated.) What Ryfle is criticizing the 2014 film (and the 1956/1985 American re-cuts of Godzilla and Return of Godzilla, respectfully) for is side-stepping responsibility for why Godzilla exists as a film character at all.

Granted, I don't entirely agree with Ryfle here. Personally, I think more can be said for how misused Godzilla was in the follow-up movie. The 2014 film has some problematic issues, as Ryfle pointed out, but it doesn't particularly say anything good about nuclear power either, as you suggested with the MUTO's arc. But he makes some good points that explain why Godzilla's compatibility with the Hollywood blockbuster mantra clashes with cultural ideologies.

"None of this makes any sense, it doesn't really matter. We just needed an excuse for them to do something and they had to go somewhere." - Adam Wingard

TexanGodzilla

BaragonMember107 XPMay-18-2021 12:22 AMTeam Godzilla

Godzilla, kong is just a lil glow up of him. i mean idk. 

CyberPhantom1

Mothra LarvaeMember42 XPMay-18-2021 2:08 AMTeam Godzilla

Godzilla is the true king 

Im Durp

BaragonMember478 XPMay-18-2021 2:46 AM

I think the answer is very clearly Kong for me. He's just better used in the stories he was part of in my opinion. Even though Godzilla had 2 movies prior to GvsK and Kong only 1 it was a pretty practical idea to make Kong the center of their confrontation movie.

SasquaDash

BaragonMember441 XPMay-18-2021 2:57 AM

G. H. (Gman),

I don't see where the article comes off as "arrogant" or "hateful".

Ryfle's attitude throughout the article has a very arrogant tone to it. He has a condescending "I'm smarter than you" attitude and seems to be looking down on others with a different opinion to his, acting as if he has the "final say" in anything related to Godzilla. He acts as if his experiences with the franchise (which you mentioned) make him the "leading authority" on the franchise and that no one else has the right to disagree, basically using his history with the franchise to hold his opinions higher than anyone else's. Because of this attitude, he comes off as very snobbish.   

"I do see you use these words a lot when someone criticizes the Monsterverse. Is it possible you simply use these words for anything that upsets you in regards to criticism of these particular flicks?"

Yes, I recognize that I may use those words a little too much in regards to these topics, however, the reason I do is because I've seen a pattern of this in a lot of criticism aimed at the series. I've constantly seen certain fans use the "It's not MY Godzilla!" argument, while looking down on fans of the MonsterVerse, treating them as outcasts stating that they're not "True Fans" and implying that they don't "understand" the character. In my opinion this behavior is extremely "arrogant" and "hateful" towards others as it shows a sense of entitlement and self righteousness within members of the fanbase. 

And if you're going to fault me for repeating certain points in my comments, I want to point out that you occasionally do the same. You have constantly brought up the term "cultural appropriation" in your arguments against the MonsterVerse. How is that any different from me bringing up the terms "hateful" and "arrogant" in my defense of this series? 

"They were trying to kill it," is not a line indicative of, "how arrogantly these types of weapons are used." It painted the US's tests as a reaction toward trying to protect the world from a potential threat."

This does show the government's arrogant use of nuclear weapons. The fact that they immediately try to use nuclear weapons against a threat without thinking shows how careless they are in regards to the use of these weapons. They didn't stop to think "Hey this radioactive monster feeds on nuclear energy, maybe nukes aren't the best option" or “What negative effects could this have on the environment?”, they immediately thought "Oh look, a giant monster. Let's just nuke it into oblivion. Problem solved!" without thinking of the potential consequences (environmental or otherwise). They also arrogantly cover up the attempt to kill Godzilla as just another nuclear test thinking "Eh, no one will notice". The fact that the US treats the event as them "saving the world" shows their self righteousness, as they believed their actions were the "right thing to do" despite it only making the situation worse. This later plays into the idea of the military wanting to use nuclear warheads against Godzilla and the MUTOs, despite Serizawa reminder that "they tried that before", showing that they had learned nothing from their past (those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it) and once again their interference ends up making things worse.    

"And at no point does Ryfle claim the scene between Stenz and Serizawa "glorifies" nuclear weapons, but merely that the scene acts as a conduit accepting the losses of Hiroshima as practical for the greater good."

It doesn't though. The scene is about Serizawa warning Stenz about the potential risks of his plan. He brings up his family's connection to the Hiroshima bombings to remind Stenz of the dangers of nuclear weapons and the effects that they have on the world and the innocent civilans that inhabit it, which causes Stenz to become uncertain the plan (notice how he becomes more hesitant to continue the plan after this scene, however he is forced to go through with it). Serizawa's fear becomes reality when the MUTOs steal the active warhead and build a nest around it in the city. So Ford and the rest of the soldiers are sent into the city to remove the bomb so that the city and the trapped civilians don't become victims of another Hiroshima-like event.

At no point does this scene (or the film) "accept the losses of Hiroshima as practical for the greater good", the film recognizes the bombings of Hiroshima as a tragedy that shouldn't have happened, stating that we should learn from our past so it isn't repeated.  

The one thing that I found ironic in Ryfle's article was that he tries to ignore the messages that the other Godzilla films present, only focusing on the message of the original. Yes, the original film is the best of the series, but the fact that he seems to write off the other films as unimportant to the franchise comes off as extremely biased. He seems to only view Godzilla’s message as "nukes bad, America bad", acting as if the themes of the other movies are "irrelevant" because they aren't the same as the original. This does a great disservice to the rest of the franchise. He tries to claim that the 2014 film is "about nothing", ironically he actually acknowledges the themes and connection to real life disasters present in the film, but then decides to write them off as nothing more than "Destruction P***" because they aren't directly connected to the message of the 1954 film. The problem with his article is that he cherry-picks certain details of Godzilla's history while ignoring others that don't fit his narrative. Of course a modern American Godzilla film is going to have different cultural themes than the 1954 Japanese film, times change, politics change, issues change. The Godzilla series is constantly evolving, mostly changing it's themes in order to reflect the current events. If the series just continued the "nukes are bad" theme over and over, then I doubt that the series would have lasted that long (and we wouldn't be discussing it on these forums). Godzilla may have started out as an allegory for the destruction caused by nuclear weapons, but he has evolved past that, allowing the series to stay relevant for over 66 years and causing it to become the pop culture icon that it is today. However, It seems that Ryfle is too "stuck in the past" to acknowledge this...   

Die-hard Spino Fan

BaragonMember470 XPMay-18-2021 2:58 AMTeam Godzilla

I think they made modern Godzilla better because of his history with planet earth and how old and experienced he is. 

That is one big pile of **** - Ian Malcom, 1993

HinikunaGoji

GiganMember2347 XPMay-18-2021 4:00 AMTeam Ghidorah

SasquaDash

I don’t mean to be rude, but I will say it. You seem a little sensitive when G. H. (Gman) negatively says something about Monsterverse. “He's a little too Heisei Gamera for my taste.” That’s his opinion. You don’t really need to defend Monsterverse Godzilla all the time. It’s just Gman’s opinion and he’s going to state it whenever given the chance. I used to do this, but I’ve learned to stop. You just let him say it, and move on. He’s not trying to be condescending, he just has a strong opinion.

 

G. H. (Gman)

Why can’t Godzilla change meanings for different countries? That’s basically saying Godzilla can only work in japan.

 

 

 

G. H. (Gman)

GiganAdmin4169 XPMay-18-2021 4:56 AMTeam Ghidorah

"He has a condescending "I'm smarter than you" attitude and seems to be looking down on others with a different opinion to his, acting as if he has the "final say" in anything related to Godzilla. He acts as if his experiences with the franchise (which you mentioned) make him the "leading authority" on the franchise and that no one else has the right to disagree, basically using his history with the franchise to hold his opinions higher than anyone else's."

I only see a lot projecting over taking someone else's word poorly, sorry. Maybe if you pointed out specific sentences or examples I'd be more inclined to engage. But all I see is a review from someone who didn't care for the movie offering a firm stance as to way he feels it fails. Reviews and op-eds come off as harsh, but there is no contingency of the fandom being attacked here. Not once does he target the film's fans in the article.

"I've constantly seen certain fans use the "It's not MY Godzilla!" argument, while looking down on fans of the MonsterVerse, treating them as outcasts stating that they're not "True Fans" and implying that they don't "understand" the character. In my opinion this behavior is extremely "arrogant" and "hateful" towards others as it shows a sense of entitlement and self righteousness within members of the fanbase."

But doesn't implying that's what they're saying when it is not also a form of entitlement? Myself, Ryfle and others less enthralled with the Monsterverse have attacked the Monsterverse for the Monsterverse, not the fans. If you like it fine, but understand people have harsh criticism sometimes, not to be mean, but to make a steadfast point. 

"You have constantly brought up the term "cultural appropriation" in your arguments against the MonsterVerse. How is that any different from me bringing up the terms "hateful" and "arrogant" in my defense of this series?" 

The attacks on the series have been about the series. Your defense of the series using those words have been about the writers.

"The fact that they immediately try to use nuclear weapons against a threat without thinking shows how careless they are in regards to the use of these weapons."

While I really do think that there's an argument here, the movie itself never makes it. The film shouldn't rely on fan conjecture to connect the dots, especially when the anti-nuke character doesn't really comment on the events outside of exposition. I would have liked to have seen that explored a bit further in the film. As it stands, the whole cover-up idea for nuking Godzilla seemed pointless otherwise.

"The scene is about Serizawa warning Stenz about the potential risks of his plan. He brings up his family's connection to the Hiroshima bombings to remind Stenz of the dangers of nuclear weapons and the effects that they have on the world and the innocent civilans that inhabit it, which causes Stenz to become uncertain the plan (notice how he becomes more hesitant to continue the plan after this scene, however he is forced to go through with it)."

I do tend to agree that this scene has more nuance than Ryfle writes-off here. I'm simply expressing that his viewpoint did see the moment as "glorifying" nukes. Rather he felt the scene ended on a moment of accepting losses of the past and moving on to use the weapon that, ironically, birthed Godzilla as a cinematic character.

Disagreeable? Certainly. "Hateful?" Nah.

"The one thing that I found ironic in Ryfle's article was that he tries to ignore the messages that the other Godzilla films present, only focusing on the message of the original. Yes, the original film is the best of the series, but the fact that he seems to write off the other films as unimportant to the franchise comes off as extremely biased. He seems to only view Godzilla’s message as "nukes bad, America bad", acting as if the themes of the other movies are "irrelevant" because they aren't the same as the original. This does a great disservice to the rest of the franchise. He tries to claim that the 2014 film is "about nothing", ironically he actually acknowledges the themes and connection to real life disasters present in the film, but then decides to write them off as nothing more than "Destruction P***" because they aren't directly connected to the message of the 1954 film. The problem with his article is that he cherry-picks certain details of Godzilla's history while ignoring others that don't fit his narrative. Of course a modern American Godzilla film is going to have different cultural themes than the 1954 Japanese film, times change, politics change, issues change. The Godzilla series is constantly evolving, mostly changing it's themes in order to reflect the current events. If the series just continued the "nukes are bad" theme over and over, then I doubt that the series would have lasted that long (and we wouldn't be discussing it on these forums). Godzilla may have started out as an allegory for the destruction caused by nuclear weapons, but he has evolved past that, allowing the series to stay relevant for over 66 years and causing it to become the pop culture icon that it is today. However, It seems that Ryfle is too "stuck in the past" to acknowledge this... "

I think the reason Ryfle chose to compare the 2014 film to the original was because the 2014 film made the conscious decision to be about nuclear proliferation. Once you engage a Godzilla film with the topic that was his genesis, said film opens the door for more direct comparison.

He does mention the sequels did not approach, "the import of the original," but that's a fairly understood statement. He very much enjoys other movies in the franchise. (Particularly Mothra vs. Godzilla and Destroy All Monsters, both of which he did excellent commentaries on.)

I certainly agree that the Godzilla series has evolved over the years, but it's important to remember, evolved from what? Almost every theme, topic and nuance has been the deed of how post-war Japan deals with itself. And if the topic ever returns to nuclear proliferation, as the 2014 film decided to do, the filmmakers should understand--Hollywood productions in particular--they're dealing with a sensitive IP that only exists because a nation was wounded by Hollywood's country.

That said, I don't think Godzilla '14 is nearly as egregious as it's sequel. I've called King of the Monsters pro-nuclear before, but I concede that the 2014 film doesn't go that far. I think Ryfle cited it as maintaining a nuclear "status quo"--which is debatabley acceptable, but like I said, the movie doesn't say anything "good" about nuclear power either.

"None of this makes any sense, it doesn't really matter. We just needed an excuse for them to do something and they had to go somewhere." - Adam Wingard

G. H. (Gman)

GiganAdmin4169 XPMay-18-2021 5:07 AMTeam Ghidorah

SarcasticGoji,
I think the question is at what point do we accept it's okay to poke at someone else's scar and at what point do we change that meaning before it's not that character anymore?

On the one hand you have the Japanese, who felt some of the issues Ryfle and I have pointed out in the Monsterverse is fairly tone deaf. While this discussion has accepted Godzilla has stood in for different topics to the Japanese, said topics have a through-line--a common thread that leads all the way back to World War II and how that effected the country even today.

For example, look at Shin Godzilla. The movie is about political red tape and how difficult it is for the Japanese to operate their country with the restrictions and rules posed by their constitution. But who wrote their democratic constitution? America. It's an aspect of the post-war that has loomed over the Japanese system since their bombing.

Let's step back a little further. What about the Cold War themes in Invasion of Astro-Monster? It's just another symptom of the post-war. Even Japan's pollution problem in Godzilla vs. Hedorah is a symptom of Japan's forced transition into capitalism following the war. It's all related, and as a result, Godzilla, stands apart from many other giant monster creations for this unique connection with Japanese culture. If you take that away he comes off a little hollow. By that point, why bother using Godzilla? Why not just create another monster? (And in many cases they have, like Clover, Gorgo, etc.)

"None of this makes any sense, it doesn't really matter. We just needed an excuse for them to do something and they had to go somewhere." - Adam Wingard

SasquaDash

BaragonMember441 XPMay-18-2021 7:18 AM

G. H. (Gman)

"But doesn't implying that's what they're saying when it is not also a form of entitlement?"

No, calling out someone on arrogant and overly entitled behavior does not count as entitlement...

"The attacks on the series have been about the series. Your defense of the series using those words have been about the writers."

How does that make your arguments and criticism more valid than mine though?

"While I really do think that there's an argument here, the movie itself never makes it. The film shouldn't rely on fan conjecture to connect the dots, especially when the anti-nuke character doesn't really comment on the events outside of exposition." 

This is an example of "Show Don't Tell", If the film had constantly repeated statements of "nukes are bad" and "the government is carless" over and over, then it would have been accused of being "preachy" and "annoying", the fact that the film keeps these statements to a minimal and keeps the message somewhat more subtle is, honestly, pretty smart. It allows the audience to find the meanings and come to a conclusion themselves, rather than beating them over the head with it and telling them what to think.

"I think the reason Ryfle chose to compare the 2014 film to the original was because the 2014 film made the conscious decision to be about nuclear proliferation."

The problem with his "comparison" is that it's too one sided and he doesn't attempt to compare the two. He blindly praises the original film for it's message, while relentlessly bashing the 2014 film for not following the same message. If his goal was to compare and contrast the themes of the films, he did a poor job at it. He completely ignores and writes-off the themes of the 2014 film, claiming that the movie is "about nothing". The article is mostly him claiming that the movie sucks because it's made in America and that America can't make a Godzilla movie. Honestly, I think if the 2014 film was made in Japan he wouldn't have been this harsh towards it.

"He does mention the sequels did not approach, "the import of the original," but that's a fairly understood statement. He very much enjoys other movies in the franchise."

So in other words, he gives the Toho movies a pass for not following the themes of the original, but then bashes the American movies for doing the same... That's pretty hypocritical...

"That said, I don't think Godzilla '14 is nearly as egregious as it's sequel. I've called King of the Monsters pro-nuclear before, but I concede that the 2014 film doesn't go that far."

As for the whole "King of the Monsters is pro-nuclear and disrespects the original" argument, I don't think that people understand how involved Toho is with these films. Ever since 1998, Toho has been extremely protective of Godzilla, and they've had more creative control over these newer projects, speaking out on anything they view as unfaithful to the franchise. In the script for King of the Monsters, the frightened Mothra larvae was going to attack and kill the Monarch soldiers, however Toho disapproved of this idea stating that Mothra was a defender and wouldn't purposefully harm people (although her actions in the 1961 film suggests otherwise). As a result Legendary was forced to change the scene to have the Mothra larvae trapping the Monarch soldiers in silk and webbing rather than killing them. The fact that Toho made Legendary change the scene shows that they had a lot of input on the movie, making them change a certain detail if they view it as too far removed from the character or the legacy of the series. With this in mind, if the Godzilla "revival" scene was as "egregious", "disrespectful", and "pro-nuclear" as you claim it to be, I'm pretty sure that Toho would have intervened and would have made Legendary change it. The fact that Toho allowed this scene to stay the same and never spoke out about it (the only complaints that I've seen are from certain elitist fans) implies that they actually approved of it.    

SarcasticGoji

I'm not trying to be overly sensitive, nor am I saying that Gman can't have an opinion (I have no problem with him comparing the MV Godzilla to Gamera, I've done the same thing), however I do think he's being needlessly antagonistic towards these films and constantly throwing too much hate at them (as if anything they do is wrong), when they don't necessarily deserve it. I've mentioned in previous posts that I strongly dislike the Polygon Anime Trilogy, however I don't constantly bash it any time it get's mentioned, I may explain the reasons I have for not liking it, but I'm not just throwing blind hatred towards it.

You claim that he’s not trying to be condescending and that he just has a strong opinion.

"I only see a lot projecting over taking someone else's word poorly, sorry. Maybe if you pointed out specific sentences or examples I'd be more inclined to engage."- G.H.(Gman)

Yes, because writing off someone's argument, while implying that they're poorly informed because they don't agree with your viewpoint isn't condescending at all...

My point is that he demands that people respect his opinions, while completely writing off and (in some cases) disrespecting the opinion of others simply because they don't fit his view points. He asks for proof to back up certain claims, yet when he gets it he immediately tosses it aside accusing it as nothing more than "fan conjecture" and "projecting" and ignores the argument completely. Yet when he makes a claim he immediately expects people to listen to it, no questions asked. It comes off as kind of hypocritical in away. Please note I'm not trying to start a fight with you or Gman, but at the same time I don't think fans acting like this should be the norm, if anything I think this behavior should be avoided.    

KaijuFan_6754

BaragonMember343 XPMay-18-2021 8:17 AMTeam Ghidorah

Can't we just agree that Godzilla and Kong did good in their own ways?

Godzilla VS. Kong is basically Donkey Kong VS. King K. Rool in live action.

SasquaDash

BaragonMember441 XPMay-18-2021 8:52 AM

KaijuFan_6754

Yes, we should.

G. H. (Gman)

GiganAdmin4169 XPMay-18-2021 10:48 AMTeam Ghidorah

"How does that make your arguments and criticism more valid than mine though?"

I never said they were. That's only been your assumption. Nor does said assumption have anything to do with criticizing the work in question and criticizing the critic.

"This is an example of "Show Don't Tell", If the film had constantly repeated statements of "nukes are bad" and "the government is carless" over and over, then it would have been accused of being "preachy" and "annoying", the fact that the film keeps these statements to a minimal and keeps the message somewhat more subtle is, honestly, pretty smart. It allows the audience to find the meanings and come to a conclusion themselves, rather than beating them over the head with it and telling them what to think."

Indeed on the idea of "show don't tell," but what is shown should be explored. The movie never got to a point where the statement was in contention for being "preachy".

"The problem with his "comparison" is that it's too one sided and he doesn't attempt to compare the two. He blindly praises the original film for it's message, while relentlessly bashing the 2014 film for not following the same message. If his goal was to compare and contrast the themes of the films, he did a poor job at it. He completely ignores and writes-off the themes of the 2014 film, claiming that the movie is "about nothing". The article is mostly him claiming that the movie sucks because it's made in America and that America can't make a Godzilla movie. Honestly, I think if the 2014 film was made in Japan he wouldn't have been this harsh towards it."

His comparison was to make the point that 2014 was an insufficient film, so of course he's going to make a case for the 1954 original in comparison to the 2014 flick. Likewise, I don't agree the movie is, "about nothing" and would concede that it's a fairly harsh criticism. But I do think there's a lot about the article he gets right or at the very least find interesting enough to consider.

"So in other words, he gives the Toho movies a pass for not following the themes of the original, but then bashes the American movies for doing the same... That's pretty hypocritical..."

That would be a misread of Ryfle's stance using points I thought we had already gotten passed. Let's revisit, shall we? You even quoted this one:

"I think the reason Ryfle chose to compare the 2014 film to the original was because the 2014 film made the conscious decision to be about nuclear proliferation."

Now you were more upset about the comparison than what this actually meant, it seems. The point is when you make a Godzilla film that centers its thematic narrative around nuclear proliferation, there's a lot of tip-toeing involved--Especially from the film industry of the country that looks at nuclear power much differently than the Japanese. However, there have been plenty of Godzilla movies since 1954 that have not centered their themes around the fear and study of nuclear warfare.

I think writing these criticisms off as, someone complaining because, "it's not Toho" is fairly shortsighted.

"The fact that Toho allowed this scene to stay the same and never spoke out about it (the only complaints that I've seen are from certain elitist fans) implies that they actually approved of it."

Toho also approved of the 1998 design before it went into filming--Quite frankly they only have so much power before studios pull the, "if you want to be a part of the international market, you have to play by our rules" card, which Sony did.

In any case, this isn't a game of "Toho says" and never has been. This is about criticism and cultural responsibilities. For example, Matt Frank told me once how some friends of his in Japan were fairly sickened by the fact that Monarch's super cool, high tech, sci-fi base was called, "Castle Bravo." This gentleman felt that was fairly insensitive and tone deaf, especially in light of the fact they're using a fictional Japanese character born from a reaction of how Castle Bravo effected their country. But if Toho says it's okay, he shouldn't feel that way I suppose.

"however I do think he's being needlessly antagonistic towards these films and constantly throwing too much hate at them (as if anything they do is wrong), when they don't necessarily deserve it."

And I think they do deserve it. They're constantly getting praised and free passes for things other movies are either criticized for or that other movies do tremendously better. That said, when a question is posed in an open discussion forum that I find interesting, I have no issue participating honestly. If that upsets you, I recommend not reading my posts.

You claim that he’s not trying to be condescending and that he just has a strong opinion.

"I only see a lot projecting over taking someone else's word poorly, sorry. Maybe if you pointed out specific sentences or examples I'd be more inclined to engage."- G.H.(Gman)

Yes, because writing off someone's argument, while implying that they're poorly informed because they don't agree with your viewpoint isn't condescending at all...

Unfortunately, you're reading it wrong. There was no condescension there. I genuinely wanted to know what you found "hateful" or "arrogant" because otherwise it does come off as projecting. This was a question posed to help me understand.

"My point is that he demands that people respect his opinions, while completely writing off and (in some cases) disrespecting the opinion of others simply because they don't fit his view points. He asks for proof to back up certain claims, yet when he gets it he immediately tosses it aside accusing it as nothing more than "fan conjecture" and "projecting" and ignores the argument completely. Yet when he makes a claim he immediately expects people to listen to it, no questions asked. It comes off as kind of hypocritical in away. Please note I'm not trying to start a fight with you or Gman, but at the same time I don't think fans acting like this should be the norm, if anything I think this behavior should be avoided."

In 2004 the original, Japanese version of Godzilla hit American theaters for the first time in history. It was opened to massive acclaim by critics and audiences alike. Art house cinemas applauded it and entertainment writers re-evaluated Godzilla as a great movie despite its former reputation. I was curious what one of my favorite film critics wrote about it, Roger Ebert. His review tore the film to shreds. He constantly referred to it as a "bad movie," and had, what I saw to be a narrow minded view of the film. It was quite baffling.

However, the review still had some good and interesting points. As scathing of a write-up as it was, he made some cultural connections worth mulling over and amusing little jabs he noticed that I hadn't thought of before. He hated the movie. I loved it. But I still learned from his review. It's okay to react to scathing criticism without knee jerking to the defense.

That said let's set the record straight: I have never once "demanded" my opinions be respected. That is a lie. I have also been very careful to explain why I don't agree with yours, but never disrespected them. I have asked for proof regarding verifiable facts, i.e. "when did this movie begin shooting?" But I have not asked for "proof" of why you think a certain way. I've only asked what specific sentences do you have to show this person was "arrogant" or "hateful"? (Something you did not deliver on and I can only continue to assume is conjecture as a result.) I have also never expected anyone to listen. I write what I'm thinking and if you feel the need to read it, that's on you.

You are mincing words to make this personal and that is not my doing. That is yours and yours alone. I would recommend perhaps learning to read other people's criticism less personally. Just because someone is delivering harsh, scathing criticism over something you like is not a personal attack. It could potentially be a learning opportunity--But only if you let it.

Otherwise, if you really feel the need to make this personal, my PMs are always open.

"None of this makes any sense, it doesn't really matter. We just needed an excuse for them to do something and they had to go somewhere." - Adam Wingard
Add A Reply
Log in to Post
Enter Your E-Mail
Enter Your Password

Stay Logged In
Scified Network
Godzilla-Movies.comHosted Community
JurassicWorld3.netHosted Community
Alien-Covenant.comHosted Community
AliensVersus
Predator.net
Hosted Community
Predator4-Movie.comHosted Community
New Godzilla Forum Topics
Highest Forum Ranks Unlocked
HinikunaGoji
HinikunaGoji
47% To Next Rank
Gigan
Kattozilla
Kattozilla
85% To Next Rank
Anguirus
KaijuBuildz
KaijuBuildz
57% To Next Rank
Titanosaurus
Die-hard Spino Fan
Die-hard Spino Fan
94% To Next Rank
Baragon
KaijuFan_6754
KaijuFan_6754
69% To Next Rank
Baragon
Godzilla vs. Covid-19 Shirt!
Godzilla vs. Kong Sweater
Support Us
Latest Godzilla Fandom Activity

Godzilla-Movies.com is an information resource for fans looking to learn more about the upcoming blockbuster Godzilla: King of the Monsters. Providing the latest official and accurate information on Godzilla: King of the Monsters, this website contains links to every set video, viral video, commercial, trailer, poster, movie still and screenshot available. This site is an extension of the Godzilla Fandom on Scified - a central hub for fans of Godzilla looking to stay up-to-date on the latest news. Images used are property of their respective owners. Godzilla: King of the Monsters and its associated names, logos and images are property of and are in no way owned by Scified and its related entities. This is a fan-created website for the purpose of informing and exciting fans for Godzilla: King of the Monsters's release.

Scified is an entertainment media network covering the latest news on the most popular, upcoming science fiction movies, games and television. All content is property of Scified.com unless otherwise stated. Images and names of content we promote, discuss, review or report are property of their respective owners. Scified is independantly owned and operated by a team of dedicated sci-fi movie fans, who strive to provide the best information and community experience for other like-minded sci-fi movie enthusiasts.

© 2021 Scified.com