Legendary says Godzilla in ''Full active development''

[Svitska Donkun]

You're comparing two separate special effects philosophies. Tsuburaya, as others have mentioned, was more concerned with making things that were interesting to look at, not necessarily realistic. Some of his work isn't all that good if all you're worrying about is how realistic it is, but they make up for the lack of realism with elaborate sets and creativity. I see no point in comparing the two, as they weren't trying to achieve the same goal.

You fail to see though, I agree with ONE of those philosphies. A philosophy which should be applied to G2012. Posters were saying I was wrong by citing another one. That's just stupid. I'm defending my philosophy. Have I said Eji Tsuburaya's was wrong? No. I'm saying he's not the end all be all FX master. I'm not comparing them.

[Legion1979]

No. I'm saying he's not the end all be all FX master.

As far as our hobby is concerned, yes he is. At least in my opinion.

[Svitska Donkun]

No. I'm saying he's not the end all be all FX master.

As far as our hobby is concerned, yes he is. At least in my opinion.

That's quite silly and discredits many other incredible SFX pioneers.

[Legion1979]

No. I'm saying he's not the end all be all FX master.

As far as our hobby is concerned, yes he is. At least in my opinion.

That's quite silly and discredits many other incredible SFX pioneers.

I mean in the Japanese sci fi/giant monster genre, which is what most of us are here for right?

[Svitska Donkun]

I mean in the Japanese sci fi/giant monster genre, which is what most of us are here for right?

You are correct. He was the best in relation to where he was in the world at that time, BUT, this is an American production we're talking about. Different philosophies apply.

[Malchik]

No. I'm saying he's not the end all be all FX master.

As far as our hobby is concerned, yes he is. At least in my opinion.

That's quite silly and discredits many other incredible SFX pioneers.

C'mon, guy, it's like registering on a U2 forum and claiming U2 doesn't hold a candle to other artists. Though, you are right, we have an attachment to the man who has created the films we value so dearly. So, yeah, he is the greatest.

[Svitska Donkun]

C'mon, guy, it's like registering on a U2 forum and claiming U2 doesn't hold a candle to other artists. Though, you are right, we have an attachment to the man who has created the films we value so dearly. So, yeah, he is the greatest.

I'm here because I'm a Godzilla fan, not a Tsuburaya fan. I love old Japanese Monster Movies, and their special effects. They're either genuinely impressive, or nostalgic, but honestly...Comparing Tsuburaya to Douglas Trumbull is like comparing the Beastie Boys to the Beatles. One is clearly more influential to the ouvre of the medium than the other. I maybe a fanboy, but I'm never blinded by that fact.

[Legion1979]

You're aware that Tsuburaya's work is what influenced guys like Spielberg and Lucas, right?

[TokyoVigilante]

You fail to see though, I agree with ONE of those philosphies. A philosophy which should be applied to G2012. Posters were saying I was wrong by citing another one. That's just stupid. I'm defending my philosophy. Have I said Eji Tsuburaya's was wrong? No. I'm saying he's not the end all be all FX master. I'm not comparing them.

Oh I agree with you on the philosophy being applied to G2012, but I think it's unfair to say that Tsuburayas work doesn't compare to Stan Winston's, because naturally it doesn't. When people cite Tsuburaya as the end all of special effects artists, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they mean he was the end all of his time. Not only his work overall solid, it's consistently solid film after film with the ridiculous restraints on time and resources. Other then Harryhausen, I can't think of anyone else in the world who was turning out solid, mass-appeal special effects heavy films on a regular basis with a relatively consistent quality in the nineteen-sixties.

[Svitska Donkun]

You fail to see though, I agree with ONE of those philosphies. A philosophy which should be applied to G2012. Posters were saying I was wrong by citing another one. That's just stupid. I'm defending my philosophy. Have I said Eji Tsuburaya's was wrong? No. I'm saying he's not the end all be all FX master. I'm not comparing them.

Oh I agree with you on the philosophy being applied to G2012, but I think it's unfair to say that Tsuburayas work doesn't compare to Stan Winston's, because naturally it doesn't. When people cite Tsuburaya as the end all of special effects artists, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they mean he was the end all of his time. Not only his work overall solid, it's consistently solid film after film with the ridiculous restraints on time and resources. Other then Harryhausen, I can't think of anyone else in the world who was turning out solid, mass-appeal special effects heavy films on a regular basis with a relatively consistent quality in the nineteen-sixties.

I am NOT comparing the two. I'm just countering that Tsuburaya is not infallible. Furthermore, there may not have been effects artists who had made films on a consistent level in the 60's, aside from Harryhausen, but there were individual films whose FX outmatched most of Tsuburaya's filmography. Films like 2001, Fantastic Voyage, The Time Machine, and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea.

[Shin-Goji]

I'll go out on a limb and say Eji Tsuburaya would have used CGI if it were available in his time period.

You personally seem to hate CGI or have a very snobbish opinion of it. I watch Thor and I don't think "Oh, here's a computer effect", I think "WHOOOO HOOOO! I WANNA URU HAMMAH!" CGI will always be able to do better, cheaper, faster and more convincingly what suits, muppets and animatronics could ever do.

[cloverfan98]

While I agree that Tsuburaya's effects were not always perfect, I don't think they need to be. Don't get me wrong I want SFX to look as real as possible, but I can watch Avatar and know that its fake. To me SFX should also be an invitation to dream, and act as a way to open the viewer's mind to fantastic images. It's not always about looking photo realistic as it is about looking cool

[Svitska Donkun]

I'll go out on a limb and say Eji Tsuburaya would have used CGI if it were available in his time period.

I don't know about that, I'd think he'd only use it sparingly...he seems like a very manual, hands on effects director. Though you could be right, and that's quite depressing.

You personally seem to hate CGI or have a very snobbish opinion of it. I watch Thor and I don't think "Oh, here's a computer effect", I think "WHOOOO HOOOO! I WANNA URU HAMMAH!" CGI will always be able to do better, cheaper, faster and more convincingly what suits, muppets and animatronics could ever do.

CGI is a misused tool thats become far too pervasive. And CGI is most certainly not always more convincing. I find well made animatronics the most convincing of creature effects. Just because CGI is convenient and easy doesn't make it better. CGI, as I said, should be used sparingly and when there's no other options. It should be used to blend, not project. I will site LOTR and Jurassic Park again as perfect examples.

[Shin-Goji]

While I agree that Tsuburaya's effects were not always perfect, I don't think they need to be. Don't get me wrong I want SFX to look as real as possible, but I can watch Avatar and know that its fake. To me SFX should also be an invitation to dream, and act as a way to open the viewer's mind to fantastic images. It's not always about looking photo realistic as it is about looking cool

Quoted for Truthiness.

In 50 years, people will look at Cameron with the same laughter that others look at Godzilla movies with. Technology will advance. To not use it because of a nostalgia factor when the end product can be made better is just madness.

[TokyoVigilante]

I am NOT comparing the two. I'm just countering that Tsuburaya is not infallible.

Ah, understood. And I would agree.

Furthermore, there may not have been effects artists who had made films on a consistent level in the 60's, aside from Harryhausen, but there were individual films whose FX outmatched most of Tsuburaya's filmography. Films like 2001, Fantastic Voyage, The Time Machine, and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea.

Of course they're better, but that's not the point. They're exceptions to the rule, Hollywood didn't start taking Science Fiction seriously until the late-sixties and through-out the seventies (during the decline of the Japanese film industry at that). Tsuburaya may not have been doing the best work of the time, but he was doing some of the most solid and consistent work with less time and resources. That's a strong testament to his skills and talents as a special effects artist if there ever was any.

[Killswitch]

I think it says something, when there are only a handful of Sci-Fi films during that era that exceed Tsuburaya's work. I would throw War of the Worlds on that list, but overall, Toho was par for the course.

Its not always how good or bad the effects are, but the style in which the film was made. I love the style of the 60's films. Yes, there are times when the effects are lacking, but as a whole, I am very satisfied with the product.

[Tyler]

I always thought Japanese monsters had more personality, which probably comes from the suits.

[Pkmatrix]

I always thought Japanese monsters had more personality, which probably comes from the suits.

I agree, though that seems to be standard for Western giant monsters not named "King Kong". As much as I love movies like 20 Million Miles to Earth, The Black Scorpion, or The Valley of Gwangi, the monsters themselves don't have much personality besides "ROAR! STOMP! EAT!" Part of what makes me like the Japanese-style giant monster films is the variations and more defined personalities. It's easier to define Rodan, Mothra, or Gamera as "characters" than it is to do the same to Gwangi, Harryhausen's giant octopus or the Rhedosaurus, IMO.

I don't think the suits are the reason (Kong proves the same can be done with stop-motion and CGI), but merely highlights the different mindsets American and Japanese filmmakers went into their monster movies with.

[Darkness]

I don't think the suits are the reason (Kong proves the same can be done with stop-motion and CGI), but merely highlights the different mindsets American and Japanese filmmakers went into their monster movies with.

Completely agree with this. The Japanese filmmakers wanted the monsters to be characters, while for the the most part American filmmakers of the time wanted them to be simple antagonists. But there are a few occassions in which I feel like Toho didn't really give a monster a lot of character. Like Godzilla in the Kiryu films.

[KaneLocke]

CGI is a misused tool thats become far too pervasive. And CGI is most certainly not always more convincing. I find well made animatronics the most convincing of creature effects. Just because CGI is convenient and easy doesn't make it better. CGI, as I said, should be used sparingly and when there's no other options. It should be used to blend, not project. I will site LOTR and Jurassic Park again as perfect examples.

So... a major company should use a more expensive and difficult technique that is not going to appeal to a wide audience, when there is a cheaper alternative that, when done properly, can look just as stunning- if for no other reason than the potential to create something that LOOKS realistic, even when you know it's not?

Look at King Kong. The effects used in that were incredible. They weren't goofy, fake, and, for the most part, not very obvious, despite much of the moving being JAM PACKED with CGI. Even though you know what you're looking at is computer effects, you still can't help but have the feeling that, if you were there on set, you could reach out and touch what you're seeing on screen. I'm not a fan of CG-fest films, honestly, but when I look at something that goes to that level of detail, I can't help but be impressed. When I think about what effects artists did in 2005 with Kong, I can't help but be excited about even more advanced techniques being applied to Godzilla.

Suitmation, while being nostalgic, fun, and creates a sort-of tangibility for the movie, does limit what the creature can do in the film. CGI opens a whole new door for Godzilla, and in the hands of a company with a good track record for CGI and the funds to make use of, would actually be cool to see.

Is CGI in Hollywood overused? Yes. Does that mean it shouldn't touch a Godzilla film? No.