CGI or rubber suits?

[Gojira-Fan]

Defining Godzilla by the special effects would be like defining a comic book character by its first artist. If a unified fanbase in the thirties embraced Joe Shuster as the only acceptable Superman artist, we would never have the iconic work of Curt Swan.

That's a bad analogy. That analogy would work better if I was complaining about Eiji Tsuburaya no longer being the director of special effects.

[Biollante]

I think rubber suits Godzilla.

[Rockzilla]

I don't think Godzilla is defined by being a man in suit. It is just I hate CGI in general. Like I mentioned earlier The Thing Prequel Trailer has already upset me with CGI, although there is a couple of other things that look like it will make that a bad movie, but I won't get into that here.

I don't buy that American audiences "love" CGI and detest costumes. Predators 2010 was received fairly well and it used costumes. Can anyone honestly tell me that CGI werewolves in some recent films look anywhere near as good as American Werewolf in London or Dog Soldiers?

The only CGI that has ever somewhat impressed me was used In King Kong 2005 and even then I still prefer the 1933 version. Audiences apparently preferred the 1933 version as well.

[SuperSaiyan4Godzilla]

I don't think Godzilla is defined by being a man in suit. It is just I hate CGI in general. Like I mentioned earlier The Thing Prequel Trailer has already upset me with CGI, although there is a couple of other things that look like it will make that a bad movie, but I won't get into that here.

I don't buy that American audiences "love" CGI and detest costumes. Predators 2010 was received fairly well and it used costumes. Can anyone honestly tell me that CGI werewolves in some recent films look anywhere near as good as American Werewolf in London or Dog Soldiers?

The only CGI that has ever somewhat impressed me was used In King Kong 2005 and even then I still prefer the 1933 version. Audiences apparently preferred the 1933 version as well.

I've never met a normal person that likes the 1933 film.

[Rockzilla]

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1011615-king_kong/

Both critic and audience rating is high. I guess you just haven't met anyone that enjoys such an old film.

[shinmattiathekaiju]

I don't think Godzilla is defined by being a man in suit. It is just I hate CGI in general. Like I mentioned earlier The Thing Prequel Trailer has already upset me with CGI, although there is a couple of other things that look like it will make that a bad movie, but I won't get into that here.

I don't buy that American audiences "love" CGI and detest costumes. Predators 2010 was received fairly well and it used costumes. Can anyone honestly tell me that CGI werewolves in some recent films look anywhere near as good as American Werewolf in London or Dog Soldiers?

The only CGI that has ever somewhat impressed me was used In King Kong 2005 and even then I still prefer the 1933 version. Audiences apparently preferred the 1933 version as well.

I've never met a normal person that likes the 1933 film.

I liked the 2005 V-Rex more than the 1933's one.

[SuperSaiyan4Godzilla]

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1011615-king_kong/

Both critic and audience rating is high. I guess you just haven't met anyone that enjoys such an old film.

Hence why I said normal people.

I haven't met very many people that will watch a black and white film, let alone a black and white monster film.

[Rockzilla]

Honestly I think only watching modern movies is not "normal." Then again some of these kiddies would rather listen to Lady Gaga over ACDC.

[shinmattiathekaiju]

Honestly I think only watching modern movies is not "normal." Then again some of these kiddies would rather listen to Lady Gaga over ACDC.

Raspy voice:Awwww today's young.

[Crocodile]

Honestly I think only watching modern movies is not "normal." Then again some of these kiddies would rather listen to Lady Gaga over ACDC.

Raspy voice:Awwww today's young.

I know right, how dare they're definition of good not match my definiton of good

[SuperSaiyan4Godzilla]

Honestly I think only watching modern movies is not "normal." Then again some of these kiddies would rather listen to Lady Gaga over ACDC.

The people I call "normal" are just folks that aren't a buncha nerds posting on Godzilla forums. Or critics. Or probably the folks that would see a movie from 1933.

People today have specific standards in movies. They're accustomed to certain standards in acting and special effects. These standards are much different from the standards from 1933. The average person, especially today, does not have the attention span for something like Kong '33. The movie is too long with out enough action sequences.

In a society where attention spans are getting shorter and multi-tasking skills are rising, people are going to watch movies that can hold their attentions. A movie from the 30s will not hold any normal person's attention today.

[Rockzilla]

I can't disagree with that. It is a damn shame though.

[Jacob Kaiju X]

Honestly I think only watching modern movies is not "normal." Then again some of these kiddies would rather listen to Lady Gaga over ACDC.

The people I call "normal" are just folks that aren't a buncha nerds posting on Godzilla forums. Or critics. Or probably the folks that would see a movie from 1933.

People today have specific standards in movies. They're accustomed to certain standards in acting and special effects. These standards are much different from the standards from 1933. The average person, especially today, does not have the attention span for something like Kong '33. The movie is too long with out enough action sequences.

In a society where attention spans are getting shorter and multi-tasking skills are rising, people are going to watch movies that can hold their attentions. A movie from the 30s will not hold any normal person's attention today.

Really! King Kong 2005 is nearly three hours long, while the original was a mere 90 minutes (if less). i disagree with your greatly sir. I have seen the original, and it's a masterpiece. I've seen both remakes, and while Jackson's version was better than the one in the 1970's, it is inferior to the original film.

As for if this movie should use suits or CGI. I will go with CGI myself. People can be a bit closed-minded when it comes to that stuff.

[GodzillaIsCool]

Enjoying older movies and practical effects is an acquired taste. Just like Beer is an acquired taste for some.

A lot of people 20 years older than me at work find watching old sci-fi movies of the 30's, 40's and 50's ridiculous and can't stand watching them. That seems insane to me, but that is how people tick.

[Living Corpse]

I don't hate CGI, I just find the CGI fanboys annoying, especially since a lot of film makers today seem to be some of those fanboys.

[Chris55]

I think rubber suits Godzilla.

only Magnums do

[Tyler]

Get the Godzilla suit actors to do the motion capture. There ya go

[SuperSaiyan4Godzilla]

Honestly I think only watching modern movies is not "normal." Then again some of these kiddies would rather listen to Lady Gaga over ACDC.

The people I call "normal" are just folks that aren't a buncha nerds posting on Godzilla forums. Or critics. Or probably the folks that would see a movie from 1933.

People today have specific standards in movies. They're accustomed to certain standards in acting and special effects. These standards are much different from the standards from 1933. The average person, especially today, does not have the attention span for something like Kong '33. The movie is too long with out enough action sequences.

In a society where attention spans are getting shorter and multi-tasking skills are rising, people are going to watch movies that can hold their attentions. A movie from the 30s will not hold any normal person's attention today.

Really! King Kong 2005 is nearly three hours long, while the original was a mere 90 minutes (if less). i disagree with your greatly sir. I have seen the original, and it's a masterpiece. I've seen both remakes, and while Jackson's version was better than the one in the 1970's, it is inferior to the original film.

As for if this movie should use suits or CGI. I will go with CGI myself. People can be a bit closed-minded when it comes to that stuff.

I disagree with you greatly, kind sire. Why? The original was 105 minutes.

And next, We are not talking about your opinion; the opinion of an abnormal person. We're talking about the people that watch Jersey Shore, ESPN, and things that don't include giant monsters and all things that define us as fans.

[Rockzilla]

The kind of people that watch Jersey Shore probably didn't like the 2005 Kong either.

[3000]

The kind of people that watch Jersey Shore probably didn't like the 2005 Kong either.

I dunno. King Kong 05' was pretty accessible to most people.

it was actiony. With action, and stuff.