Page 4 of 6

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 5:31 am
by tbeasley
“I'm good. It'd be more interesting if they changed directors. Toho won't let me do it. There'd be a lot of difficulties."


That's just Anno being Anno. Image

Those crazy evolutions sound like Nobuhiko Obayashi/A Space Godzilla next level insanity.

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:40 am
by LSD Jellyfish
HeiseiGodzilla117 wrote:All that stuff lines up with the content Anno usually produces, so I wouldn't be shocked if there is truth to it. But it's just more stuff to make me not enjoy this take on Godzilla. If Shin breaks into a bit bunch of shinlets or turns into an amorphous space blob, it's really not Godzilla anymore.

I agree with that last statement, and for reference I'm all for the idea of changing Godzilla, within certain limits. Also the instant you move beyond the fifth form, you run into a serious problem of completely removing any of the relevance from the first film.

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 10:32 am
by BooLugosi
As much as I would like to see those ideas in some form, it really would cease to be Godzilla at a certain point.

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2017 1:56 pm
by ToxicLove
Anno usually has the decency and common sense to not prolong and over-stay his welcome in a franchise. Don't worry, I'm sure we'll be back to Godzilla vs MechaGhidorahMothra in due time for the rest of the fandom.

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:38 pm
by LSD Jellyfish
Yeah and the fact that people are so keen on having Shin versions of monsters like Ghidorah, rather than new unique monsters bothers me.

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2017 5:26 am
by Godzillian
Would anyone else rather Shin Godzilla appear only once? I feel like a sequel would ruin the film a bit, it works best as a stand alone

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2017 5:38 am
by Cybermat47
Godzillian wrote:Would anyone else rather Shin Godzilla appear only once? I feel like a sequel would ruin the film a bit, it works best as a stand alone


Agreed, though I wouldn't mind if Shin sort of appeared in later films.

For example, I have an idea for a Godzilla series that would have a mated pair of Godzillas. In the final film I imagined, one of the Godzillas disappears after being nuked by invading aliens. The remaining Godzilla is then killed in a battle with King Ghidorah. Then, the nuked Godzilla reappears, but damaged and mutated further by the alien nuke, so they resemble and have the back and tail beams of Shin Godzilla.

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2017 10:32 am
by eabaker
Godzillian wrote:Would anyone else rather Shin Godzilla appear only once? I feel like a sequel would ruin the film a bit, it works best as a stand alone


I'm 100% in agreement. To me, Shin represents possibly the most successful realization of what the Millennium series was aiming for: a bold, distinctive take on the concept of Godzilla by a filmmaker unrestrained by either having to follow past continuity or worry about paving the way for future installments.

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2017 10:52 am
by Zarm
eabaker wrote:
Godzillian wrote:Would anyone else rather Shin Godzilla appear only once? I feel like a sequel would ruin the film a bit, it works best as a stand alone


I'm 100% in agreement. To me, Shin represents possibly the most successful realization of what the Millennium series was aiming for: a bold, distinctive take on the concept of Godzilla by a filmmaker unrestrained by either having to follow past continuity or worry about paving the way for future installments.


Yes, definitely. It was more about a statement than creating a viable ongoing world, to me- a very self-contained piece that would not spin off well into the usual sort of vs. Series, or even another man vs. nature story.

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2017 12:12 pm
by MechaGoji Bro7503
Godzillian wrote:Would anyone else rather Shin Godzilla appear only once? I feel like a sequel would ruin the film a bit, it works best as a stand alone

Definitely, Shin Godzilla is awesome but he works better as a one off. I can see him reappearing in like a nightmare sequence in some other series.

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2017 5:40 pm
by Tyrant_Lizard_King
I'm on total agreement. As someone who loved Shin Godzilla a direct sequel would only hurt the narrative.

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2017 12:03 am
by KingZillla
I think a sequel can work, provided Anno comes back & it expands on the ideas from the first movie. What if other monsters started appearing? What if Earth basically becomes a wasteland like Mad Max overrun by horrible creatures. Is Mankind's time up.

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2017 2:48 am
by Showa Gyaos
I'd rather Shin Godzilla be a stand-alone title. Only Anno could make a "second chapter" work.

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2017 4:18 pm
by eabaker
KingZillla wrote:I think a sequel can work, provided Anno comes back & it expands on the ideas from the first movie. What if other monsters started appearing? What if Earth basically becomes a wasteland like Mad Max overrun by horrible creatures. Is Mankind's time up.


That doesn't seem like it would really contribute anything to what Shin was going for thematically. If anything, it would undermine it.

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:14 pm
by KingZillla
eabaker wrote:
KingZillla wrote:I think a sequel can work, provided Anno comes back & it expands on the ideas from the first movie. What if other monsters started appearing? What if Earth basically becomes a wasteland like Mad Max overrun by horrible creatures. Is Mankind's time up.


That doesn't seem like it would really contribute anything to what Shin was going for thematically. If anything, it would undermine it.

Idk, what I got from the ending with the Tail-humanoids is that Japan & then Humanity would have been wiped out if they couldn't stop Godzilla. He kept evolving throughout the movie. I think the humanoid creatures symbolize Mankind's time coming to an end because what if the Freeze on him is only delaying the inevitable?

Added in 2 minutes 40 seconds:
tbeasley wrote:
“I'm good. It'd be more interesting if they changed directors. Toho won't let me do it. There'd be a lot of difficulties."


That's just Anno being Anno. Image

Those crazy evolutions sound like Nobuhiko Obayashi/A Space Godzilla next level insanity.

Wow, love your avatar, dude! Nice to see fellow Hellboy fan!

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:18 am
by tbeasley
KingZillla wrote:Wow, love your avatar, dude! Nice to see fellow Hellboy fan!

:huge:

If Toho does decide to go ahead with a Shin sequel I hope Anno, Higuchi and co return as well. If anyone should do it, better or worse, it's them.

But I wouldn't put it past Toho to start fresh again Millennium style, and if so I hope they pick a team as exciting and promising as the one they got for Shin. If they've learned anything from Shin it should be to take their time producing these films with the right people.

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:23 am
by Shin Gabara
I'd prefer Toho let Shin stand alone.

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 10:31 am
by eabaker
KingZillla wrote:
eabaker wrote:
KingZillla wrote:I think a sequel can work, provided Anno comes back & it expands on the ideas from the first movie. What if other monsters started appearing? What if Earth basically becomes a wasteland like Mad Max overrun by horrible creatures. Is Mankind's time up.


That doesn't seem like it would really contribute anything to what Shin was going for thematically. If anything, it would undermine it.

Idk, what I got from the ending with the Tail-humanoids is that Japan & then Humanity would have been wiped out if they couldn't stop Godzilla. He kept evolving throughout the movie. I think the humanoid creatures symbolize Mankind's time coming to an end because what if the Freeze on him is only delaying the inevitable?


If any one outcome is inevitable, then the entire point about national self-determination becomes meaningless, though.

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 9:57 pm
by Gawdziller1954
Image
Image
Image
Image
Some interesting concepts for Shin Godzilla's first form. I personally prefer the top one, though it seems kinda unlikely considering he's a mutated sea reptile.

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:31 pm
by HeiseiGodzilla117
He's not a sea reptile. He's a fish. Everything about his early form is far more similar to different types of fish than any marine reptile. Especially the eyes and gills. He's very similar to eels and frilled sharks. He only becomes reptilian in subsequent forms. Hell, he had to evolve back legs to move on land.