Bryan Cranston SPEAKS OUT, calls his early death a mistake

[eabaker]

And by the way, reading scripts doesn't necessarily make you a good writer. I've seen tons of films. Am I a great director?

No, but the fact that you've watched them with a critical eye has enabled you to make valid, insightful comments about them, as demonstrated in this very thread.

He's right that killing off his character eliminates the human emotional core, but he (and many others in this thread) don't understand how the story functions after that. Some things could have been executed better, perhaps, but the decision makes sense in the narrative.

While I agree with you that it was the right decision, and specifically the one that makes the most sense for the narrative shift you're describing, that was a shift to a type of narrative that robs a general audience of a lot of what they expect a big budget Hollywood movie to deliver. A portion of the audience may understand how the story is intended to function, but for a larger portion of the audience, all critical theory aside, it just doesn't function.

[KaijuArcade]

I completely agree with Cranston on this. I always thought Joe should have at least survived the Muto attack at the plant core and gotten a bit of hang time with Serizawa on the battle carrier to compare notes, it would have also given his character a much nicer bit of vindication instead of simply seeing the Muto before getting killed by the scaffold collapse. Obviously they would have probably had to come up with something after that for both Serizawa and Joe to do (maybe a side mission gathering more Muto intel and Joe dies at that point) but Serizawa himself was underused and they were paying Cranston to be in the movie so why not? And it's not only a narrative mistake, I always thought it was surprising as a marketing mistake because obviously a huge part of the movie's pre-release buzz was Cranston's huge popularity wave he was riding off of Breaking Bad. I'm sure a lot of Breaking Bad fans who got hooked on the movie thanks to him were greatly turned off by him getting killed off so quickly and that surely didn't help with additional word of mouth. But kudos to Cranston for being honest about it and at least he offered his opinion to Gareth and Max instead of just going with the flow. I also like that he keeps his typical sense of humor and even throws in a bit of support for the sequel in spite of this, "But whatever, I'm still dead, wait for Godzilla 2 to come out!" haha

Edit: Also, the constant raging from some here against post humanism themes is really tiring and immature sometimes. Post humanism has been the main thematic device of Godzilla since the very first movie, so if you don't like post humanism themes and the inevitable impact they have then maybe you signed on to the wrong series. That said, I also don't see what one's personal preferences about the use of post humanism as a thematic device has to do with the story here which is Cranston's performance and short screen time.

[Underworld54]

Maybe hiring Gareth was a mistake. I mean did he honestly think ATG was going to be more of a draw as a hero than Cranston would be? Bone headed move.

You can't say someone was a mistake just because you don't agree with a decision or the movie. It doesn't matter who was a bigger draw you can't shoehorn in an actor just because...you have to have a good reason for it and the story has to make sense for it. Gareth told the vision and story he wanted to tell and Bryan Cranston served his purpose...and clearly he was ok with it or else he wouldn't have signed on to do the movie.

Also the title of this thread is VERY misleading

Kinda like the marketing for Godzilla making it seem like Cranston was the lead in the film.

[eabaker]

Maybe hiring Gareth was a mistake. I mean did he honestly think ATG was going to be more of a draw as a hero than Cranston would be? Bone headed move.

You can't say someone was a mistake just because you don't agree with a decision or the movie. It doesn't matter who was a bigger draw you can't shoehorn in an actor just because...you have to have a good reason for it and the story has to make sense for it. Gareth told the vision and story he wanted to tell and Bryan Cranston served his purpose...and clearly he was ok with it or else he wouldn't have signed on to do the movie.

Also the title of this thread is VERY misleading

Kinda like the marketing for Godzilla making it seem like Cranston was the lead in the film.

Which made it that much more surprising when he died. That's using the paratext to the movie's advantage; it's misleading in a good way.

Good storytellers give the audience what they need, not what they want.

[seamus]

Unfortunately, where it fell flat was in the execution. Seeming to kill him, then having him not dead, then having him die off screen was a clunky maneuver, and his death never has any real emotional consequences for Ford.

THIS. Couldn't agree more. It was my exact reaction the first time I saw the film. Ford is distraught, but there's no specific tie-in to his dad with his distress. There's no catharsis.

[Jomei]

No, but the fact that you've watched them with a critical eye has enabled you to make valid, insightful comments about them, as demonstrated in this very thread.

Certain aspects of a film, yeah, but my opinions are worth much less on editing, lighting, sound design, etc.

While I agree with you that it was the right decision, and specifically the one that makes the most sense for the narrative shift you're describing, that was a shift to a type of narrative that robs a general audience of a lot of what they expect a big budget Hollywood movie to deliver. A portion of the audience may understand how the story is intended to function, but for a larger portion of the audience, all critical theory aside, it just doesn't function.

That's the danger of subverting expectations, I suppose, but that's not necessarily a failing on the film's part. Or, I should say, it's not an artistic failing.

@seamus: I get that, but the one thing the film does establish about their relationship is that it has been quite distant. Absent fathers are a theme. While there could have been more of a catharsis, the plot does kind of justify the stoicism. (ATJ playing the role so dryly definitely didn't help, though... it wouldn't have had to be the typical response to death to make a poignant moment or two)

[eabaker]

That's the danger of subverting expectations, I suppose, but that's not necessarily a failing on the film's part. Or, I should say, it's not an artistic failing.

Right. While, like I said, I think there were some problems in the execution, the decision to kill Joe off at that point in the story is a "failing" only according to a specific formula for mass audience, light adventure film making.

In a way, it represents the larger struggle to balance the movie's big narrative conceits with the need to make something that could function as a "tent pole" or "blockbuster" movie.

[Tyrant_Lizard_King]

I'm sorry I went I'm expecting an emotional character driven film cause that's what I was sold. Still this post humanism crap makes no sense as far as the film is concerned. If that was the case shouldn't the film have shifted focus to the monsters themselves and the destruction they wrought. But they still focused almost exclusively on Ford and not the monsters and their destruction. Only rarely did they actually cut away to the monsters themselves. If you're gonna focus that much time on a single character then shouldn't he be better drawn and his arc more involving. Thats the problem, they kill off Joe (the human core of the film) but wait almost a full 1/3 of the runtime before they actually get to the monsters really doing their thing. In that whole 2nd act barely anything of note or interest happens onscreen when the monsters aren't there. To frustrate things further the monsters are barely even shown when they are onscreen. Even in Gojira when Godzilla is on screen he is the only focus of the film. Every single frame is focused on the destruction he brings or the anguished faces of the characters watching the city burn. Everything is focused on Godzilla and nothing else. If this post humanism is true than shouldn't that have been the case?

[Jeff-Goldblum1]

If he lived, what would he do?

The only way around it is to have Ford die instead and focus away from a military aspect of the story. And just have Joe hang around Serizawa and stuff.

[LSD Jellyfish]

If he lived, what would he do?

The only way around it is to have Ford die instead and focus away from a military aspect of the story. And just have Joe hang around Serizawa and stuff.

Yeah but actually if Ford died it would have been way better. There would have been a bigger parallel and more emotion behind Cranston burning the Muto young at the end. "You kill my children I kill yours".

Plus it would have been great to get actual interaction and development between Ken Watanabe and Bryan Cranston. It would have allowed for the two scientists to discuss different things and their personalities would have clashed. It would have simultaneously increased Serizawa's role. Heck you could even have the two debate dropping the bomb.

On top of that in the Hawaii scene you didn't need Ford to be in the military. After the first Muto incident Cranston could have been in the airport grieving his son and essentially do everything Ford did. It would have made Cranston saving the Japanese kid more interesting because there's more weight attached to him finally being able to save someone. On top of that it would have actually have made Cranstons grandson in the film more interesting because you could have him sad that his dad died but also him growing with his grandfather.

And you didn't need Brody to derive perspective from of the military seeing how there were plenty of scenes with Godzilla or Muto without human perspective.

So we could have had more emotion, more science, more importance of the minor characters....and better actors if Cranston didn't die but Brody did.

But nope! Instead we get bland generic soldier dad man who can't do anything wrong!

And yeah sure Cranston was right about the Muto and that completes the early paranoia subplot but he never really gets to have a moment where he realized how right he was all along or got to tell anyone.

[KManX89]

Wow, he finally speaks the truth and tells us exactly what we've all been feeling from day one. I'm surprised it took him this long to finally say it TBH.

[godzillalives88]

Ford's lost everything Joe has and his family is directly in the MUTO/Godzilla's path. On paper he can be an equally interesting character, but admittedly, that doesn't happen in the film. That's a flaw.

However, contriving ways for a character who has no military or paleontology expertise to stay involved isn't necessarily a solution. The most Joe could have done is go back to San Francisco and try to get Ellie and Sam out of harm's way, and even that is WAY less interesting than what he was doing before.

[eabaker]

Thats the problem, they kill off Joe (the human core of the film)

But Joe is not the human core of the film. From the get-go, the focus is on the impact that Joe's life has had on Ford.

The fact that, once Joe is gone, Ford totally fails to be interesting or engaging is a problem with the development of Ford's character, but it's not the result of our losing Joe. Taking a character whose natural time in the narrative has passed and dragging out his appearance wouldn't help matters at all; it would just be a different problem than the one we ended up with.

[Mr. Xeno]

Taking a character whose natural time in the narrative has passed and dragging out his appearance wouldn't help matters at all; it would just be a different problem than the one we ended up with.

Hardly. If they had Ford die at the MUTO breakout, they could have done with Joe what the movie supposedly did with Ford. I've seen many people say that Joe's death supposedly motivates Ford to save his family, but he didn't need his father to die to get that motivation. Joe, on the other hand, has been reckless countless times, as proven by how Ford had to bail him out of jail (and I believe it's stated that it's not the first time). If Joe accidentally got his son killed at the hands of the MUTO, it would legitimately change his character by giving him a wake-up call to, basically, "sober up", at which point he WOULD have new found motivation to save his family. He would realize that he had gotten so consumed with grief over the death of his wife, and subsequent paranoia about Janjira, that he lost touch with what really mattered, causing his family to suffer severely as a result. With this life-changing event, he would do everything he could to get back to San Fran and save his daughter-in-law and grandson. The military would drop him off in Hawaii, and he'd find his own means back to San Fran (like Ford did). This would ultimately put Joe underfoot of the final battle, which would make the cutaways far less annoying, and would push the movie's messages of family home much, much better.

[GR8GODZILLAGOD]

Taking a character whose natural time in the narrative has passed and dragging out his appearance wouldn't help matters at all; it would just be a different problem than the one we ended up with.

Hardly. If they had Ford die at the MUTO breakout, they could have done with Joe what the movie supposedly did with Ford. I've seen many people say that Joe's death supposedly motivates Ford to save his family, but he didn't need his father to die to get that motivation. Joe, on the other hand, has been reckless countless times, as proven by how Ford had to bail him out of jail (and I believe it's stated that it's not the first time). If Joe accidentally got his son killed at the hands of the MUTO, it would legitimately change his character by giving him a wake-up call to, basically, "sober up", at which point he WOULD have new found motivation to save his family. He would realize that he had gotten so consumed with grief over the death of his wife, and subsequent paranoia about Janjira, that he lost touch with what really mattered, causing his family to suffer severely as a result. With this life-changing event, he would do everything he could to get back to San Fran and save his daughter-in-law and grandson. The military would drop him off in Hawaii, and he'd find his own means back to San Fran (like Ford did). This would ultimately put Joe underfoot of the final battle, which would make the cutaways far less annoying, and would push the movie's messages of family home much, much better.

Hot damn, that sounds good.

[Underworld54]

Taking a character whose natural time in the narrative has passed and dragging out his appearance wouldn't help matters at all; it would just be a different problem than the one we ended up with.

Hardly. If they had Ford die at the MUTO breakout, they could have done with Joe what the movie supposedly did with Ford. I've seen many people say that Joe's death supposedly motivates Ford to save his family, but he didn't need his father to die to get that motivation. Joe, on the other hand, has been reckless countless times, as proven by how Ford had to bail him out of jail (and I believe it's stated that it's not the first time). If Joe accidentally got his son killed at the hands of the MUTO, it would legitimately change his character by giving him a wake-up call to, basically, "sober up", at which point he WOULD have new found motivation to save his family. He would realize that he had gotten so consumed with grief over the death of his wife, and subsequent paranoia about Janjira, that he lost touch with what really mattered, causing his family to suffer severely as a result. With this life-changing event, he would do everything he could to get back to San Fran and save his daughter-in-law and grandson. The military would drop him off in Hawaii, and he'd find his own means back to San Fran (like Ford did). This would ultimately put Joe underfoot of the final battle, which would make the cutaways far less annoying, and would push the movie's messages of family home much, much better.

I like it, would have been a much much better movie.

[godzillalives88]

Taking a character whose natural time in the narrative has passed and dragging out his appearance wouldn't help matters at all; it would just be a different problem than the one we ended up with.

Hardly. If they had Ford die at the MUTO breakout, they could have done with Joe what the movie supposedly did with Ford. I've seen many people say that Joe's death supposedly motivates Ford to save his family, but he didn't need his father to die to get that motivation. Joe, on the other hand, has been reckless countless times, as proven by how Ford had to bail him out of jail (and I believe it's stated that it's not the first time). If Joe accidentally got his son killed at the hands of the MUTO, it would legitimately change his character by giving him a wake-up call to, basically, "sober up", at which point he WOULD have new found motivation to save his family. He would realize that he had gotten so consumed with grief over the death of his wife, and subsequent paranoia about Janjira, that he lost touch with what really mattered, causing his family to suffer severely as a result. With this life-changing event, he would do everything he could to get back to San Fran and save his daughter-in-law and grandson. The military would drop him off in Hawaii, and he'd find his own means back to San Fran (like Ford did). This would ultimately put Joe underfoot of the final battle, which would make the cutaways far less annoying, and would push the movie's messages of family home much, much better.

I like it, would have been a much much better movie.

Realistically though, I don't think a studio would greenlight a summer movie with a 55 year-old lead who loses his wife and then son separately in the first 40 minutes, leaving his daughter in law a widow and grandson fatherless. Seems a little heavy for a tentpole film...

Also, again, Joe's lack of military involvement would make it difficult for him to have up close and personal encounters with the kaiju in the second half. They were already a little too convenient with Ford, and he was facing these monsters head on.

[eabaker]

Taking a character whose natural time in the narrative has passed and dragging out his appearance wouldn't help matters at all; it would just be a different problem than the one we ended up with.

Hardly. If they had Ford die at the MUTO breakout, they could have done with Joe what the movie supposedly did with Ford. I've seen many people say that Joe's death supposedly motivates Ford to save his family, but he didn't need his father to die to get that motivation. Joe, on the other hand, has been reckless countless times, as proven by how Ford had to bail him out of jail (and I believe it's stated that it's not the first time). If Joe accidentally got his son killed at the hands of the MUTO, it would legitimately change his character by giving him a wake-up call to, basically, "sober up", at which point he WOULD have new found motivation to save his family. He would realize that he had gotten so consumed with grief over the death of his wife, and subsequent paranoia about Janjira, that he lost touch with what really mattered, causing his family to suffer severely as a result. With this life-changing event, he would do everything he could to get back to San Fran and save his daughter-in-law and grandson. The military would drop him off in Hawaii, and he'd find his own means back to San Fran (like Ford did). This would ultimately put Joe underfoot of the final battle, which would make the cutaways far less annoying, and would push the movie's messages of family home much, much better.

That could be a very good story, if told well, but it's not at all the story they were telling. There's a difference between "they killed him off too early in this story" and "they could have told a better story entirely, which would not have involved killing him off at all."

And what you describe would definitely not function as a post-humanist narrative.

[Jomei]

@Xeno: Ford needs to be alive to help get rid of the nuke. You can't just switch him and Joe around because Joe would have no business being part of that plan. There would be nothing for Joe to DO to try to save his son's family.

And you're ignoring that he HADN'T lost touch. He was dead-right in his "paranoia," as you describe it. That's why the discovery of the MUTO completes his character arc--he had been living solely to get to the truth of the Janjira incident, and he did it, leaving his son to do what he couldn't, which is protect his family.

And you're ignoring that the film actually doesn't push much of a family message. It has a theme of absent fathers, yes, and Ford tries to get back to his family, but the film actually ends up presenting these kind of narratives (individual heroism, the strength of a father, the unity of family, yada yada) as quite frail in the face of larger natural forces. In fact, the only serious human efforts to intervene are counter-productive, and the best Ford can do is help UNDO the blunders he helped set in motion. In the end, Ford reunites with his family (thanks in large part to Godzilla!), but far more moving than that is watching Godzilla rise, interrupting the cuddly family moment, and pull everyone's attention straight to him. Humanity can only watch and wonder what is next.

[tymon]

While Joe is easily my favorite character, I have to disagree with Cranston - the way this script was designed, it made sense for him to bite the dust in that part of the story. It was terribly executed though.

I'm not saying he's never written anything (though one TV episode and a movie nobody cares about aren't exactly glowing writing credentials) or that his opinion is invalid because of what's on his resume. I'm saying his opinion is wrong, and it shows he doesn't really know what he's talking about re: narratives. And because of that, perhaps there's a reason he's primarily known as an actor, not as a writer. It's clear where his real talents are.

Sorry Jomei, but this is a load of shit. Do some research on Breaking Bad and you'll come to realize that Cranston was in fact the one who truly understood and fleshed out Walter White and his motivations, far more than creator/idiot-savant Vince Gilligan. His insights had a profound influence on the plot and the direction of the show and it's moral vision. There's no doubt in my mind that the series would have fallen flat if it weren't for his him or an actor/creative mind of equal caliber. He also served as producer and director. But you're right, he doesn't know what he's talking about and should just shut up.

And his opinion is "wrong" simply because it doesn't align with your "post-human" interpretation of the film? That makes no sense.

You're coming off as a fanboy of a very mediocre film.

Bryan Cranston is a Michael Bay fanboy who just wants kitchy hotchy characters in an interwoven ensemble piece and should be banned from the fandom. He doesn't understand the artistic ecocentric meta-textual Dostoevskian postification of humanism that Gareth is trying to emulate.

>I don't understand this idea, so it must be gibberish!

It's not that it's hard to understand (it isn't - it's some pretty basic shit) - it's just that it isn't very interesting, at least not in the way it was presented in this movie. There's nothing complex going on here, and very little to interpret underneath the surface other than the blatantly obvious.