That wasn't sarcasm, and I won't let you dictate my tone. The point is that, if Shin is guilty of "nerfing" the creature for a plan to succeed, Gojira is as equally as guilty--probably much more guilty, because at least Shin Godzilla justifies it, even if you personally can't suspend your disbelief.Zarm wrote:Sarcasm is unnecessary. You posed the question 'why didn't Godzilla just fry Serizawa with his atomic breath?' Just answering that objection.
Maritonic wrote:My problem with the mouth-open complaint is that it's sort of just suspension of disbelief. You hit a point where you have to just accept it's a movie and kind of deal with it. It never took me out of the experience, so I'm not really sure why it's such a big issue. And I have to agree; if it's a complaint, then you really could apply it to almost any action against Godzilla to beat him in previous films. You could ask a million "whys" of the Godzilla franchise and what it boils down to is "it's a movie and it would be kinda lame if Serizawa got torched by Godzilla".
Absolutely. It's a low form of criticism, and people are applying this logistical skepticism inconsistently.
What would be a more serious concern? I saw Rodan and eabaker in one thread discussing whether the (arguable--I kind of disagree) lack of on-screen human death is effective for the film, with IIRC Rodan arguing it's a weakness of the film and eabaker saying it's a double-edged sword of sorts. Now, there are lots of positions to take on this, and even a question of whether there really is less on-screen death than in Gojira, for example, but it's a much more interesting, insightful question to raise than silly logistical nitpicking of an action scene.
Just saying I am genuinely sorry you feel that way because I wish you could find the same enjoyment in it.
