Who should have directed Godzilla (1998)?

[Chris55]

To me, that's BS. There's so much you can do with Godzilla that hasn't been done before and still give the film a wide appeal.

That's not BS at all, Chris. Especially considering Toho themselves - who created the character and should technically therefore understand him more than anyone else - hasn't really known what the f@ck to do with Godzilla for at least two decades now.

Nah, I'm still calling BS. It just takes an imaginative writer and a willingness by Toho/LP to want to expand upon the character. The best example I'd say is Monster Zero. Godzilla fighting on another planet is pretty out of the box if you think about it.

[SuperSaiyan4Godzilla]

To me, that's BS. There's so much you can do with Godzilla that hasn't been done before and still give the film a wide appeal.

That's not BS at all, Chris. Especially considering Toho themselves - who created the character and should technically therefore understand him more than anyone else - hasn't really known what the f@ck to do with Godzilla for at least two decades now.

Nah, I'm still calling BS. It just takes an imaginative writer and a willingness by Toho/LP to want to expand upon the character. The best example I'd say is Monster Zero. Godzilla fighting on another planet is pretty out of the box if you think about it.

And it hasn't been done since, if I'm correct.

A good writer can make anything good. For example, It's Superman! by Tom DeHaven is an absolutely fantastic novel. Clark's characterization is flawless in my opinion. Lex Luthor is the best I've ever seen him. Lois Lane is actually an interesting character for once. And this novel doesn't even expand upon the Superman idea: it's set in the 1930s, in Depression era America. The only real difference is that there is no Metropolis [Its NYC in the book]...oh, and Clark is one of the most flawed characters in the book. That's sort of new for Superman.

That's just one of countless, successful reimaginings that exists. And you know what it took? A good writer.

[omgitsgodzilla]

^^Exactly. Now obviously a movie needs good execution to go with that good writing, but if the script is bad, the movie can't be much better.

[tymon]

^Yep, I think the main issue is Toho not wanting to take risks and instead settling on formulas. I personally think there are great Godzilla stories left to be told, if they ever get a chance to be told.

[SuperSaiyan4Godzilla]

^Yep, I think the main issue is Toho not wanting to take risks and instead settling on formulas.

And sucking ass and ruining good names.

[PopInPicsPresents]

Peter Jackson would have made a BEAST Godzilla movie.

[Gojisan866]

I think it would've been pretty interesting to see Tim Burton's take on Godzilla.

[Svitska Donkun]

John Carpenter.
He's the only american director who really gets Godzilla.

Tarantino may be a "fan", and a great director, but he's still very masturbatory like Kitamura. He would make a film he'd want to make, not a film for the fans. The only difference is that Tarantino is bursting with talent, compared to Kitamura's non existent talent.

[Legion1979]

John Carpenter.
He's the only american director who really gets Godzilla.

What, exactly, makes you say that?

[Svitska Donkun]

John Carpenter.
He's the only american director who really gets Godzilla.

What, exactly, makes you say that?

He's possibly the biggest Godzilla fan among Hollywood directors. He volunteered to be interviewed on Animal Planet's documentary on Godzilla, and he put in a lot of perspective on the franchise, you can even see Godzilla toys in the background of his house.
Beyond that, he's a great director and his style would be well put into making a Godzilla film.
The documentary can be viewed here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EX-fC7v1jaY

[Legion1979]

He's possibly the biggest Godzilla fan among Hollywood directors. He volunteered to be interviewed on Animal Planet's documentary on Godzilla, and he put in a lot of perspective on the franchise, you can even see Godzilla toys in the background of his house.
Beyond that, he's a great director and his style would be well put into making a Godzilla film.
The documentary can be viewed here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EX-fC7v1jaY

That doesn't exactly prove he'd be able to make a great Godzilla movie.

[Svitska Donkun]

He's possibly the biggest Godzilla fan among Hollywood directors. He volunteered to be interviewed on Animal Planet's documentary on Godzilla, and he put in a lot of perspective on the franchise, you can even see Godzilla toys in the background of his house.
Beyond that, he's a great director and his style would be well put into making a Godzilla film.
The documentary can be viewed here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EX-fC7v1jaY

That doesn't exactly prove he'd be able to make a great Godzilla movie.

None of these suggestions prove any of these directors could've made a good Godzilla movie, as none of them have. The point it who you think should've. I think Carpenter should've done it. I can't prove he'd make a ggood one, I'm just saying he should have.
Its no more invalid than saying Tim Burton should've done it, except its actually more valid because Carpenter is a good director. XD

[Hellspawn28]

Too bad John Carpenter has direct a major movie in 10 years. Ghost of Mars has put a end to his career, he went down hill after Escape from LA back in 1996. He directed Vampires back in 1998 with James Woods and if he was the director instead of Roland Emmerich then I doubt his version of G98 would have been any better then the movie that we got. If this was 80's Carpenter then it would have been a totally different story.

[omgitsgodzilla]

Peter Jackson would have made a BEAST Godzilla movie.

3 hours long and obviously made by an obsessive nerd? No thanks.

...That was kind of unfair. But still, his Kong remake reeked of fanboyism. He probably isn't the same way about Godzilla, but still. He's a little TOO much like us. And 3 hours long (his typical movie length from what I can see) is just too long for a Godzilla movie.

[Svitska Donkun]

...That was kind of unfair. But still, his Kong remake reeked of fanboyism. He probably isn't the same way about Godzilla, but still. He's a little TOO much like us. And 3 hours long (his typical movie length from what I can see) is just too long for a Godzilla movie.

This is the worst argument as for why somebody shouldn't direct a Godzilla film I have ever read.

[omgitsgodzilla]

...Yeah. Looking over it again, it was badly written. I don't really know how to properly articulate it other than I don't want to see a Peter Jackson Godzilla movie.

[Sav]

Steven Spielberg.

What he did in War of the Worlds was AMAZING. If he gave Godzilla the same treatment..


And Peter Jackson's an obvious choice. Take a look at King Kong & District 9.

[kpa]

Peter Jackson would have made a BEAST Godzilla movie.

3 hours long and obviously made by an obsessive nerd? No thanks.

...That was kind of unfair. But still, his Kong remake reeked of fanboyism. He probably isn't the same way about Godzilla, but still. He's a little TOO much like us. And 3 hours long (his typical movie length from what I can see) is just too long for a Godzilla movie.

I've always found the "3 hour complaint" about Jackson's movies to be a false and lazy one. He's directed around a dozen movies, and most of them are under 2 hrs long. The LORD OF THE RINGS films needed to be long, given the length and complexity of the original novels, and Jackson and his writers did a fantastic job of condensing the stories without losing what made the books so popular in the first place. KING KONG was the only film where he expanded on the original material, and while not of all that works I think much of it does and I can understand why he did it. The original film was made during the Great Depression so the audience didn't need that aspect of the story explained to them... all they had to do was walk outside the theater and it was right in front of them. But many people today don't know or care about history, so a modern version has to show and explain it so audiences understand why that time affects the characters and motivates their actions. And that adds to the running time.

The original KING KONG was based in part on the perception of gorillas in 1933. The 2005 KING KONG tells that story but from the modern understanding of how gorillas actually are. I think that both honors the original story while also bringing a unique voice to it. And combined with other details like the fresh take on the Ann/Kong relationship, or the amount of thought that went into developing Skull Island, it makes Jackson's KING KONG an exceptionally good film, flaws (and there definitely are some) and all. I only wish an American GODZILLA would be given that much thought, respect, and excitement for the source material.

[Legion1979]

The original film was made during the Great Depression so the audience didn't need that aspect of the story explained to them... all they had to do was walk outside the theater and it was right in front of them. But many people today don't know or care about history, so a modern version has to show and explain it so audiences understand why that time affects the characters and motivates their actions. And that adds to the running time.

But was an hour long boatride and the introduction of characters who, in the grand scheme of the movie, mean absolutely nothing even necessary?

[kpa]

You're a bit off with your "hour long boatride"since the characters are at sea for about half that time in the Jackson film. To compare: in the 1933 KING KONG, Kong makes his first appearance about 47 minutes into the film... in the 2005 version he shows up at 1:10. So the new version takes about 20 minutes longer to reach the same point, and that's including the time spent setting up the time period for modern audiences, establishing Ann's background (which is significant for the new relationship between her and Kong), and introducing all of the characters (and I think it's easier to identify with a character you get to know a bit than it is with nameless sailor #11).

This movie definitely has it's faults... the brontosaur stampede is a fun idea that goes on waaaaay too long, the Jimmy and Hayes subplot goes nowhere, etc, etc. But I can live with that when so much else is done right, and so much thought and care was given towards the key characters and the world they inhabit. AS a lifelong KING KONG fan, this movie works for me, and it works extremely well. And again, I only wish an American GODZILLA would get that degree of care and skill applied.