My thoughts on the whole "realistic" debate!

[gzilla46]

I've been hearing that people still debate over whether the Japanese Godzilla or the American Godzilla are more realistic. But, now, I need to give MY thoughts on the matter. I personally don't know, but I'll be getting opinions with this little lecture.

I'll compare both to the Tyrannosaurus Rex.

Firstly, the Godzilla we all know and love:

Now, the reason that Toho posed Godzilla like that is partly due to the fact that a human is inside a suit, and we all know how humans are postured. But, another reason is the belief that T-Rex stood upright:

T-Rex was discovered in 1902 by Barnum Brown. Back then, when the first skeleton was shown in 1915, people believed that T-Rex was a slow, lumbering beast that stood upright like the Big G. We all know this is not true. The design was still believed to be true until the 1970's and that's where Godzilla's design came from. But, say that T-Rex was ten times bigger, more muscular, and had longer arms. I don't know if that would be more realistic or less, but give me your opinion.

Now, onto how Godzilla was depicted in the 1998 movie.

Godzilla's design HERE was based on the real stance of Tyrannosaurus Rex. The true T-Rex was actually a sleek, fast-moving predator (he could've been a scavenger, but that's a story for another time) that stood horizontally and less and less people used the old design after this discovery. Jurassic Park got it right and helped change the public's perception of T-Rex:

Godzilla in the 98 film was designed based off the REAL posture of Tyrannosaurus Rex, trying to make a creature that they thought would be more likely to exist than the original.

Now, I don't know which would be more realistic, the lumbering beast or the fast-moving predator. Which do you think is more realistic. Why do you think that way? Tell me your opinion here.

[ray243]

I liked GINO design because it felt more like a dinosaur than Toho's Godzilla. Mainly because the more plausible T-Rex stance helps to reinforce the belief that this is an actual creature rather than a suit. The harder it is to believe there is a man inside the suit helps to make the movie as a whole more believable.

I believe GMK tried to implement the more plausible T-Rex stance with a new suit, but failed because it is too exhausting for the actor inside.

This design actually makes me believe it is an actual creature more than Toho's design.

[20th Century Boy]

I understand the reason why the American Godzilla was trying to be more realistic. Times have changed and franchises evolve, and if the T-Rex was known to have stood horizontally in 1954, maybe Toho would have made Godzilla stand horizontally in his first movie. However, the reason people got so mad is because it broke tradition. Even if it wasn't realistic to have him standing upright, it certainly transferred to Godzilla's character over the years.

However, the original Godzilla wasn't really trying to achieve realism in the first place. After all, real T-Rexes (or whatever the plural form is) don't have spines on their back. Godzilla breaths atomic rays, has his skin burned by radiation, and is way taller than any known dinosaur discovered. I don't think realism was something the filmmakers had in mind.

Yeah, I'd say the American Godzilla is more realistic, and anyone who disagrees can throw pies at me or whatever. I don't care. But I don't watch movies for realism; no, I watch them for the exact opposite of realism. I like escapism and fantasy. I want to see oversized animals beat the crud out of each other, faster-than-light travel allowing us to colonize new planets that are somehow safe for humans to live on, and so on and so forth. It allows for some great stories to be told and it is only insulting to the viewer's intelligence when it is overdone and has no deeper meaning behind it, like the Transformers movies and Roland Emmerich movies. Even then, those are pretty fun to watch because they're eye candy, but they won't stand the test of time as other, more intelligent stories do and will.

So yeah, the bottom line is that realism is overrated, but shouldn't be overlooked or abandoned either.

[gzilla46]

I understand the reason why the American Godzilla was trying to be more realistic. Times have changed and franchises evolve, and if the T-Rex was known to have stood horizontally in 1954, maybe Toho would have made Godzilla stand horizontally in his first movie. However, the reason people got so mad is because it broke tradition. Even if it wasn't realistic to have him standing upright, it certainly transferred to Godzilla's character over the years.

However, the original Godzilla wasn't really trying to achieve realism in the first place. After all, real T-Rexes (or whatever the plural form is) don't have spines on their back. Godzilla breaths atomic rays, has his skin burned by radiation, and is way taller than any known dinosaur discovered. I don't think realism was something the filmmakers had in mind.

Yeah, I'd say the American Godzilla is more realistic, and anyone who disagrees can throw pies at me or whatever. I don't care. But I don't watch movies for realism; no, I watch them for the exact opposite of realism. I like escapism and fantasy. I want to see oversized animals beat the crud out of each other, faster-than-light travel allowing us to colonize new planets that are somehow safe for humans to live on, and so on and so forth. It allows for some great stories to be told and it is only insulting to the viewer's intelligence when it is overdone and has no deeper meaning behind it, like the Transformers movies and Roland Emmerich movies. Even then, those are pretty fun to watch because they're eye candy, but they won't stand the test of time as other, more intelligent stories do and will.

So yeah, the bottom line is that realism is overrated, but shouldn't be overlooked or abandoned either.

I don't watch movies for realism either. I was just putting my opinion out there as well as some science. I mean, T-Rexes don't breathe atomic fire after all.

[Smuggers]

Even if you make him more realistic-looking he's still unrealistic so what's the point?

[MDK]

I liked GINO design because it felt more like a dinosaur than Toho's Godzilla. Mainly because the more plausible T-Rex stance helps to reinforce the belief that this is an actual creature rather than a suit. The harder it is to believe there is a man inside the suit helps to make the movie as a whole more believable.

I believe GMK tried to implement the more plausible T-Rex stance with a new suit, but failed because it is too exhausting for the actor inside.

This design actually makes me believe it is an actual creature more than Toho's design.

Eww... Thats a horrible design and Godzilla is NOT supposed to be a dinosaur too. Godzilla is believable in the context of the story, not in real life.

[ray243]

I understand the reason why the American Godzilla was trying to be more realistic. Times have changed and franchises evolve, and if the T-Rex was known to have stood horizontally in 1954, maybe Toho would have made Godzilla stand horizontally in his first movie. However, the reason people got so mad is because it broke tradition. Even if it wasn't realistic to have him standing upright, it certainly transferred to Godzilla's character over the years.

However, the original Godzilla wasn't really trying to achieve realism in the first place. After all, real T-Rexes (or whatever the plural form is) don't have spines on their back. Godzilla breaths atomic rays, has his skin burned by radiation, and is way taller than any known dinosaur discovered. I don't think realism was something the filmmakers had in mind.

To my generation who grew up with Jurassic Park and saw how Therapods are portrayed in a horizontal manner, we might find it funny and destroy the believability of the movie. We "know" how a real T-Rex and Therapods should look like, so any film that portrayed a therapods in an upright manner would be seen as a outdated movie.

The expectation people have on movies are different. Godzilla should move along with it just like how every other franchise did to stay relevant.

Eww... Thats a horrible design and Godzilla is NOT supposed to be a dinosaur too. Godzilla is believable in the context of the story, not in real life.

I don't find the upright stance to be believable design, even within the context of the story. I am too used to T-Rex, raptors and other therapods standing horizontally as a kid growing up.

[Kiryu2012]

Godzilla doesn't need to be realistic. He's awesome the way he is. All the art portraying him as a T-rex or such would be better off as Godzillasaurus, and even still it wouldn't be that accepted here. The whole 'realistic' deal is just ridiculous, and going by that logic, Zilla wouldn't be standing like a theropod, since he's a marine iguana and wouldn't stand like a theropod. The theropod stance could work, but only for kaiju that are supposed to have the theropod stance. if there's ever a true Godzilla(not Zilla) that can move in the theropod stance, or at least use it when he's running, then MAYBE the realistic look can be applied. But I'm still staying with how Godzilla should look.

[Toxic Toast]

Tyrannosaurs and velociraptors are now known to have been feathered. Does that destroy the believability of Jurassic Park?

[MDK]

Believability =/= Realism.

Thread/

EXACTLY!

[godzilla98rules]

You want believability? Watch Gojira, Return of Godzilla or Godzilla vs Biollante or the Nolan Batman films.

You want realism? Look out your window or walk outside.


I watch Godzilla BECAUSE it's UN-realisitc. I want to see a mutant shoot lasers, if I just want plain old dinosaurs I'll watch Jurassic Park. Who watches films for realism? People watch films to escape reality, that's why it's called escapism.

Exactly. This is why I get annoyed when people talk about making Godzilla (or anything actually) realistic.
What is it with people wanting realism in their movies when they where made to escape realism?

[gzilla46]

Godzilla doesn't need to be realistic. He's awesome the way he is. All the art portraying him as a T-rex or such would be better off as Godzillasaurus, and even still it wouldn't be that accepted here. The whole 'realistic' deal is just ridiculous, and going by that logic, Zilla wouldn't be standing like a theropod, since he's a marine iguana and wouldn't stand like a theropod. The theropod stance could work, but only for kaiju that are supposed to have the theropod stance. if there's ever a true Godzilla(not Zilla) that can move in the theropod stance, or at least use it when he's running, then MAYBE the realistic look can be applied. But I'm still staying with how Godzilla should look.

Maybe. It's an interesting point.

I wasn't trying to say which is more realistic, I'm just putting some science to help people make their decisions. I was giving my thoughts on the debate.

[Rody]

For the record, gzilla, I'm not sure the Atari Godzilla is the best image representative.
...But anyway...

As already stated by several members, Godzilla isn't about realism. It's true that Godzilla's design was based upon real dinosaurs, and reflects the scientific understanding of the time; but I don't think scientific accuracy was a concern for the conceptual designers of the film. If it was, they probably wouldn't have mish-mashed several dinosaur species together in the first place.
Godzilla was supposed to be convincing as an ancient beast, but also be rather alien and frightening in appearance, not only because he's a creature out of his time, but because he's been transformed into something that should not have been.
GINO's design may seem more realistic to some, since it reflects the modern-day understanding of Theropod dinosaurs, but that doesn't necessarily mean it IS more realistic; after all, GINO is still a enormous monster. Technically, posture doesn't make a difference here, because GINO is simply too large to exist within the laws of known physics.
Again, Godzilla - and probably the giant monster genre in general - isn't about being realistic or accurate. It's about presenting a being(s) as believably (and terrifyingly) as possible in spite of the impossibility of their existence.

[gzilla46]

For the record, gzilla, I'm not sure the Atari Godzilla is the best image representative.
...But anyway...

As already stated by several members, Godzilla isn't about realism. It's true that Godzilla's design was based upon real dinosaurs, and reflects the scientific understanding of the time; but I don't think scientific accuracy was a concern for the conceptual designers of the film. If it was, they probably wouldn't have mish-mashed several dinosaur species together in the first place.
Godzilla was supposed to be convincing as an ancient beast, but also be rather alien and frightening in appearance, not only because he's a creature out of his time, but because he's been transformed into something that should not have been.
GINO's design may seem more realistic to some, since it reflects the modern-day understanding of Theropod dinosaurs, but that doesn't necessarily mean it IS more realistic; after all, GINO is still a enormous monster. Technically, posture doesn't make a difference here, because GINO is simply too large to exist within the laws of known physics.
Again, Godzilla - and probably the giant monster genre in general - isn't about being realistic or accurate. It's about presenting a being(s) as believably (and terrifyingly) as possible in spite of the impossibility of their existence.

I hear you. You make great points. I think realism is overrated in films, including Godzilla. Not to go off-topic, but I think they overdid it with Chris Nolan's Batman trilogy as well. For example, they turned Bane from this...


..to this.

[Bluezilla 65]

Godzilla is a an amphibious "dinosaur" that has adapted to live under the ocean as well as walk on land.
There are living dinosaur descendants adapted in the exact same way. Penguins. Penguins walk with their spine vertical not horizontal like an ostrich or chicken. Their hips have adapted to let them paddle in the ocean.
Now in would argue that Godzilla should be adapted the same way. Not for paddling with his feet but for steering. So no he shouldn't walk like a theropod.

[eabaker]

A realistic dinosaur could never, ever be sufficient to function as a metaphor for weapons that can level major cities.

[Laserface121]

I think what Gareth Edwards said is that, imagine what would happen if Godzilla really existed. On the surface, the idea seems out there. I mean, a giant fire-breathing dinosaur attacks a city and fights other monsters sounds really outlandish. However, it's about how it's executed and it plays out. To get what I'm saying, here's a video that I think explains everything fairly well.

http://youtu.be/dQ9Y74WgYtY

[JAGzilla]

Zilla wouldn't be standing like a theropod, since he's a marine iguana and wouldn't stand like a theropod.

Exactly. This destroys any idea that GINO is somehow more realistic as a dinosaur. It doesn't matter if his posture is more like a real therapod, because he isn't one. Would Anguirus be more realistic if he hopped around like a kangaroo?

[Gojira1963]

I know I have said this before and I will be repreating myself. But here it goes anyway. I do not think the term realism is the right term to use for these movies. As a fan I want the movies to be believable or plausible and I want the monsters to look life-like.

Yes we know dinosaurs had more of a horizontal stance. But with modern CGI Godzilla can be made to look life-like and still keep his traditional stance. Even in the Japanese movies his stance was different in various films.

[eabaker]

I know I have said this before and I will be repreating myself. But here it goes anyway. I do not think the term realism is the right term to use for these movies. As a fan I want the movies to be believable or plausible and I want the monsters to look life-like.

Yes we know dinosaurs had more of a horizontal stance. But with modern CGI Godzilla can be made to look life-like and still keep his traditional stance. Even in the Japanese movies his stance was different in various films.

Realism absolutely is the wrong word to use in discussing these movies. Verismilitude? Great. But realism is out the window right at the conceptual level.

Certainly, the original film, with its vérité aspects, is informed by socially realist cinema, and in that regard it (and two a lesser degree its immediate sequel) could be called the most "realist" films in the series, aesthetically.

The American film makes no attempt at realism. I doubt it's a movement of even the slightest interest to Devlin or Emmerich.