Is a heroic Godzilla inherently a pro-nuclear narrative?

For the discussion of the Legendary Pictures MonsterVerse. This includes Godzilla (2014), Kong: Skull Island and any upcoming films under the MonsterVerse umbrella.
Forum rules
Please be sure to read the subforum sticky "Regarding: Monsterverse Leaks & Unofficial Photos [Updated 7/13/2018]", linked below. Thank you!

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26327&p=1472505
darthzilla99
Interpol Agent
Posts: 434
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 5:34 pm

Is a heroic Godzilla inherently a pro-nuclear narrative?

Postby darthzilla99 » Mon Oct 07, 2019 1:58 pm

I was not sure where to put this thread so if mods feel this discussion belongs in the toho general section please go ahead and move it.

Anyways, after reading several comments criticizing KOTM presenting a supposed pro-nuclear narrative because of the fact Godzilla is revived with a nuclear bomb and the fact that Burning Godzilla essentially nukes Boston to kill King Ghidorah, I wonder why has this not been brought up before in past films? Particular in past films where Godzilla saves the world. This begs the question if Godzilla, a monster representing a living nuclear weapon (whither his origin be he's mutated or natural), saves the world in a film, does the film narrative basically more or less say that nuclear power is a necessary evil in some situations?

To give examples, GTTM. When Ghidorah comes to attack earth, two of the kaiju to fight Ghidorah (Godzilla and Rodan) are of nuclear origins. Even though those two do cause destruction early in the film, the fact later they join forces in repealing a foreign enemy does show a use of nuclear weapons. One could argue part of the narriative is saying "Yes, nuclear power is a terrible weapon when used incorrectly, but sometimes it is a necessary evil in fighting off a greater evil". This narrative is also carried over in both Monster zero since Godzilla and Rodan again fight off ghidorah after they gain freewill and even in DAM where after humanity loses control of the earth monsters, the earth monsters still attack the Kilak and only benefit humanity. You could make an argument that in DAM "Even if we don't have control over our nuclear weapons, it won't have any negative consequences".

Than we even get to Hedorah and Megalon. In Hedorah, since a nuclear power is the one that stops pollution, does the narrative say "Nuclear energy is one of the cleanest forms of energy and can solve our pollution problems"?
In Megalon, the antagonists origin story is that they are attacking the surface because they are afraid of dying from the worlds nuclear tests. So since one of the heroes is a nuclear power, does movie have a pro nuclear narrative?

So my question is this, if Godzilla is playing a heroic role in the movie, does that start making the narrative pro-nuclear energy? The only movie I can think of where Godzilla is heroic and still retains an anti-nuclear narrative is in Garth Edwards Godzilla since both Godzilla and the Mutos were awakened by nuclear testing and the film shows that using nuclear weapons is a terrible idea. In KOTM, we eventually have a showa-era heroic Godzilla with nuclear energy absorbing abilities and tropes of Heisei Godzilla.

So what does everyone think?
"Your not coming off as cocky. You come off as an idiot" by SBK.

User avatar
Terasawa
G-Force Lieutenant
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:06 am

Re: Is a heroic Godzilla inherently a pro-nuclear narrative?

Postby Terasawa » Mon Oct 07, 2019 2:10 pm

No, I don't think so.

My issue with KOTM is that nuclear weapons are used for a heroic purpose. This has never happened in a Godzilla movie before.

Yes, Godzilla is still a nuclear monster in previous films in which he saves the world, but the nuclear angle of the character is always played down or ignored altogether. You say Ghidrah promotes nuclear weapons by having Godzilla and Rodan save the planet, but I disagree. Here, the creatures aren't referred to as the spawn of nuclear weapons.

In other words, I think you have to take each film on its own. You can't make a pro-nuke stance for Godzilla vs. Gigan just because Godzilla represented nuclear devastation 18 years prior.
YouTube
変の声謎だよ。
Save All Dubs

Image

User avatar
UltramanGoji
Seatopian Daikaiju
Posts: 14196
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 11:40 am
Location: Western New York
Contact:

Re: Is a heroic Godzilla inherently a pro-nuclear narrative?

Postby UltramanGoji » Mon Oct 07, 2019 2:30 pm

darthzilla99 wrote:This begs the question if Godzilla, a monster representing a living nuclear weapon (whither his origin be he's mutated or natural), saves the world in a film, does the film narrative basically more or less say that nuclear power is a necessary evil in some situations?


Bolded is where the problem lies, at least for me.

I personally don't consider Godzilla a "living nuclear weapon"*. I consider him more a "casualty of the overzealous use of nuclear weapons". His existence was caused by man but his true loyalties lie with the planet. He protects the Earth, not mankind.

The later heroic Godzilla films are less "pro-nuke" and more "pro-nothing" because Godzilla's nuclear connection is pretty much thrown out the window save for some farcical attempts at anti-nuclear themes (see: Megalon).

* Of course, there are exceptions to this rule like pretty much all the standalone films like G54, ROG, and Shin but in the greater context of Godzilla as a character, I don't really consider him a 1:1 representation of the bomb.
Image

User avatar
gottatalktothefake
G-Grasper
Posts: 1345
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:49 am
Location: Isla Nublar, 120 miles West of Costa Rica

Re: Is a heroic Godzilla inherently a pro-nuclear narrative?

Postby gottatalktothefake » Mon Oct 07, 2019 2:54 pm

no, overused discussion
"Next time it'll be flawless."

User avatar
Inferno Rodan
EDF Soldier
Posts: 3788
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:49 pm
Location: Remnant

Re: Is a heroic Godzilla inherently a pro-nuclear narrative?

Postby Inferno Rodan » Mon Oct 07, 2019 3:05 pm

Terasawa wrote:My issue with KOTM is that nuclear weapons are used for a heroic purpose. This has never happened in a Godzilla movie before.

Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah. A nuclear submarine was sent to the Bering Sea where they thought Godzillasaurus was resting with the express purpose of mutating him into Godzilla proper. Granted, it goes slightly awry because he'd already been mutated and proceeds to attack the sub and get even stronger from it, but that doesn't change the original intent of the plan.
"The rantings of an upjumped zealot make for tedious listening." - Grigori, Dragon's Dogma

User avatar
Terasawa
G-Force Lieutenant
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:06 am

Re: Is a heroic Godzilla inherently a pro-nuclear narrative?

Postby Terasawa » Mon Oct 07, 2019 3:09 pm

Inferno Rodan wrote:
Terasawa wrote:My issue with KOTM is that nuclear weapons are used for a heroic purpose. This has never happened in a Godzilla movie before.

Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah. A nuclear submarine was sent to the Bering Sea where they thought Godzillasaurus was resting with the express purpose of mutating him into Godzilla proper. Granted, it goes slightly awry because he'd already been mutated and proceeds to attack the sub and get even stronger from it, but that doesn't change the original intent of the plan.


I've talked about this in other threads; it may have been intended to save Japan but it ended up being a disaster. The characters in the film are quite aware of this, and a number of them express their concerns with the plan before it's implemented. All in all that's quite different from KOTM wherein the only problem with using a nuke is destroying an ancient city and Serizawa's death.
YouTube
変の声謎だよ。
Save All Dubs

Image

Online
User avatar
LSD Jellyfish
Kwaidan
Posts: 6565
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 11:57 pm
Location: 富士山

Re: Is a heroic Godzilla inherently a pro-nuclear narrative?

Postby LSD Jellyfish » Mon Oct 07, 2019 3:32 pm

Inferno Rodan wrote:
Terasawa wrote:My issue with KOTM is that nuclear weapons are used for a heroic purpose. This has never happened in a Godzilla movie before.

Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah. A nuclear submarine was sent to the Bering Sea where they thought Godzillasaurus was resting with the express purpose of mutating him into Godzilla proper. Granted, it goes slightly awry because he'd already been mutated and proceeds to attack the sub and get even stronger from it, but that doesn't change the original intent of the plan.

Yeah been beaten to death. It's not something to be celebrated, and is done by a private, and obviously evil corporation. In fact, according to Emi, the complete control of almost the whole world by Shindo is the catalyst for why the Futurians originally go back in time. The actions are not done by the Japanese government, or the protagonists, unlike in KOTM where it is completely condoned. Not frustrated by people having this view as the film has some bad writing and is way too quick around that moment.

Anyways, back to the matter at hand:

No, a heroic Godzilla is not pro-nuclear. All you need to do is make Godzilla seem more like a heroic victim, or severely downplay that aspect of the character, while emphasizing other things. The late Showa does this, by barely mentioning Godzilla's origin or nuclear power. In Godzilla vs. Hedorah, a more overt societal issue takes the role of what would be Godzilla (Hedorah is essentially Godzilla; attacking ships, having a first excursion on land, spiraling out of control in the final act). Godzilla vs. Megalon has Godzilla and co negatively impacted by nuclear testing in the opening of the film, and is why the Seatopians attacked. All you need to do is not have the heroic Godzilla in question get a major power up by nukes.

IMO, Godzilal should never be a natural species. He should always be a mutation that should not exist. But rather then make that seem something as cool, make him an unfortunate victim.
Last edited by LSD Jellyfish on Mon Oct 07, 2019 3:37 pm, edited 3 times in total.
_JNavs_ wrote:The MV is like cheap imitation crabmeat, it tastes good, but it isn't real, while Shin is kino peak Japanese performance.

Rodan95 wrote:The Shobijin are sat on by a fatass explorer and killed. Mothra is pissed and destroys Japan.

User avatar
Inferno Rodan
EDF Soldier
Posts: 3788
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:49 pm
Location: Remnant

Re: Is a heroic Godzilla inherently a pro-nuclear narrative?

Postby Inferno Rodan » Mon Oct 07, 2019 3:38 pm

Terasawa wrote:I've talked about this in other threads; it may have been intended to save Japan but it ended up being a disaster. The characters in the film are quite aware of this, and a number of them express their concerns with the plan before it's implemented. All in all that's quite different from KOTM wherein the only problem with using a nuke is destroying an ancient city and Serizawa's death.

You said your problem was that nukes were used for a heroic purpose, and that had never happened in a Godzilla movie before. This is false. Nukes were, in fact, used for the exact same purpose of reviving Godzilla in GvsKG as they were in KOTM. It didn't end up as any more of a disaster than if nothing at all had been done in GvsKG. And besides that, you said nothing to the effect of it being okay as long as the results weren't exactly according to plan. Either way, it's a double standard on your part because the whole situation is very similar in both movies.

LSD Jellyfish wrote:Yeah been beaten to death. It's not something to be celebrated, and is done by a private, and obviously evil corporation. In fact, according to Emi, the complete control of almost the whole world by Shindo is the catalyst for why the Futurians originally go back in time.

...wat

No, the sub was sent by the Japanese government.
"The rantings of an upjumped zealot make for tedious listening." - Grigori, Dragon's Dogma

User avatar
Living Corpse
Seatopian Daikaiju
Posts: 10298
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 10:49 pm

Re: Is a heroic Godzilla inherently a pro-nuclear narrative?

Postby Living Corpse » Mon Oct 07, 2019 3:41 pm

No, today's enemy is tomorrows friend. Nukes and Godzilla can used to destroy or protect anyone.
Image

Online
User avatar
LSD Jellyfish
Kwaidan
Posts: 6565
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 11:57 pm
Location: 富士山

Re: Is a heroic Godzilla inherently a pro-nuclear narrative?

Postby LSD Jellyfish » Mon Oct 07, 2019 3:44 pm

Inferno Rodan wrote:
LSD Jellyfish wrote:Yeah been beaten to death. It's not something to be celebrated, and is done by a private, and obviously evil corporation. In fact, according to Emi, the complete control of almost the whole world by Shindo is the catalyst for why the Futurians originally go back in time.

...wat

No, the sub was sent by the Japanese government.

Shindo says he will send his submarine, a privately owned one that is in offshore Japan. To jog your memory, I believe he shows a model of it. At that moment characters pan what is going on. He is about to send for it, when I believe, an unrelated nuclear submarine, from Russia, is attacked by Godzilla. Either way, the revival of Godzilla is not treated as something heroic, or cheered on by the Japanese government in film. It is a whacky plan, made by a clearly villainous character with severe megalomania.

The main difference:
-Shindo is clearly mentally unhinged.
-Shindo, according to Emi, and the Futurians, basically runs Japan and most of the world. His company becomes a super power, and from what it sounds like it's a shitty world. Shindo, shares his role with the Futurians as the antagonists of the film. You can see him and Godzilla forming a duo, and the Futurians also forming a duo with Ghidorah. Emi and MKG represent a more moderate view.
-Shindo, to an extent, realizes what he is doing is super illegal as he has his submarine in international waters, free from Japanese law.
-The government does not condone or have any involvement in Godzilla's resurrection.
-Godzilla proceeds to directly go on one of his worse shit-fit rampages right after. Even if the latter stuff was all wrong, there is a clear and direct cause and effect of why using nukes to solve problems would make things worse.

KOTM:
-Monarch is a government organization, and aided by the military.
-Monarch and the government okay the plan to resurrect Godzilla with nukes. It is not treated as a fringe decision, and is not criticized or chastised by other characters.
-This is all done so Godzilla can destroy King Ghidorah. It is meant to be big and epic, and celebrated.



Added in 1 minute 42 seconds:
Living Corpse wrote:No, today's enemy is tomorrows friend. Nukes and Godzilla can used to destroy or protect anyone.

:roll:

So like, I don't mean to call you out on this, but that's very easy to say coming from the perspective of a country that's never been affected or bombed by nukes. Not saying people of the world can't realize the danger of nukes or whatever, but i don't think any Japanese politician or citizen, that isn't some cherry picked bizarro would ever agree with that statement.
Last edited by LSD Jellyfish on Mon Oct 07, 2019 3:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
_JNavs_ wrote:The MV is like cheap imitation crabmeat, it tastes good, but it isn't real, while Shin is kino peak Japanese performance.

Rodan95 wrote:The Shobijin are sat on by a fatass explorer and killed. Mothra is pissed and destroys Japan.

User avatar
UltramanGoji
Seatopian Daikaiju
Posts: 14196
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 11:40 am
Location: Western New York
Contact:

Re: Is a heroic Godzilla inherently a pro-nuclear narrative?

Postby UltramanGoji » Mon Oct 07, 2019 3:48 pm

Living Corpse wrote:Nukes and Godzilla can used to destroy or protect anyone.


Nuclear weapons have literally zero purpose beyond the complete annihilation of something.

Nuclear energy on the other hand is a lot different. But nuclear weapons? No friggin' way.
Image

User avatar
Terasawa
G-Force Lieutenant
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:06 am

Re: Is a heroic Godzilla inherently a pro-nuclear narrative?

Postby Terasawa » Mon Oct 07, 2019 3:57 pm

Inferno Rodan wrote:
Terasawa wrote:I've talked about this in other threads; it may have been intended to save Japan but it ended up being a disaster. The characters in the film are quite aware of this, and a number of them express their concerns with the plan before it's implemented. All in all that's quite different from KOTM wherein the only problem with using a nuke is destroying an ancient city and Serizawa's death.

You said your problem was that nukes were used for a heroic purpose, and that had never happened in a Godzilla movie before. This is false. Nukes were, in fact, used for the exact same purpose of reviving Godzilla in GvsKG as they were in KOTM.


I strongly disagree for the reasons I laid out in my previous response. The plan is hatched as an absolute last-ditch effort and immediately Dobashi shows unease. Fujio is outraged that Shindo has nuclear weapons. Terasawa complains about the plan before and after it's confirmed the dinosaur has already been mutated. Once Godzilla reappears, Mazaki and Miki both remark that Godzilla is much bigger/more menacing and -immediately after defeating King Ghidorah- they both realize Japan is in trouble. "It's not going to be friendly to us." The only character who has any heroic or noble aspirations is Shindo, and even he realizes the mistake once Godzilla dispatches Ghidorah. (Or how else do you interpret the somber close-up?)

Ultimately I don't think this is at all intended to be heroic in GvKG. All you need to do is listen to the characters' dialogue to tell you as much. Calling the government/Shindo's plan to revive Godzilla with nuclear weapons "heroic" equates to calling Emma's plan in KOTM likewise "heroic." They both thought they were doing what was right, and may have even had legitimate reasons for believing that, but they are unquestionably misguided and wrong.

It didn't end up as any more of a disaster than if nothing at all had been done in GvsKG.


Come again? I don't understand. The revived Godzilla manages to destroy King Ghidorah and the Futurian mothership, but then he goes on to immediately ravage Japan from the northernmost point of Hokkaido down to Tokyo (we only see him rampaging through Sapporo and Tokyo, however). Before his death, Wilson even says that the Futurians' goal has been accomplished, although not by the plan they set in motion. They had never intended Godzilla to reappear but it works out for him, because, as he says, "This Godzilla is unfriendly and will destroy your country."

True, Godzilla may have only caused as much damage as King Ghidorah would have if Godzilla hadn't been revived. But whether you realize it or not, you're saying that Japan's heroic plan ultimately caused as much damage as if they hadn't carried it out. The Japanese government accidentally creates a monster that carries out the Futurians' plan for them. That's not heroic, that's foolish.

And besides that, you said nothing to the effect of it being okay as long as the results weren't exactly according to plan. Either way, it's a double standard on your part because the whole situation is very similar in both movies.


Once again, no, I don't think so. Only if you're watching the movie without actually paying attention to what's going on. No one cheers at the revival of Godzilla. It's shown to be a pretty horrendous mistake. Meanwhile, in KOTM, Boston is essentially nuked but it's OK because only Serizawa died.

LSD Jellyfish wrote:Shindo says he will send his submarine, a privately owned one that is in offshore Japan. To jog your memory, I believe he shows a model of it. At that moment characters pan what is going on. He is about to send for it, when I believe, an unrelated nuclear submarine, from Russia, is attacked by Godzilla. Either way, the revival of Godzilla is not treated as something heroic, or cheered on by the Japanese government in film. It is a whacky plan, made by a clearly villainous character with severe megalomania.


The sub belongs to Shindo's Teiyo Group, which Emi refers to as the world's largest (and most corrupt) corporation in her time. The idea of nuking Godzilla is first discussed at the Prime Minister's residence; the only government official that visits Shindo's office to discuss the plan is Dobashi. It is apparently a government plan though, as both Terasawa and Wilson refer to "nuclear fanatics" in the "higher echelons of government and business".
Last edited by Terasawa on Mon Oct 07, 2019 4:11 pm, edited 4 times in total.
YouTube
変の声謎だよ。
Save All Dubs

Image

User avatar
Living Corpse
Seatopian Daikaiju
Posts: 10298
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 10:49 pm

Re: Is a heroic Godzilla inherently a pro-nuclear narrative?

Postby Living Corpse » Mon Oct 07, 2019 4:13 pm

UltramanGoji wrote:
Living Corpse wrote:Nukes and Godzilla can used to destroy or protect anyone.


Nuclear weapons have literally zero purpose beyond the complete annihilation of something.

Nuclear energy on the other hand is a lot different. But nuclear weapons? No friggin' way.


I'm not a fan of nukes, but they weirdly prevent another full on world war because of Mutually Assured Destruction.

Anyways, Godzilla is a symbol of war, which is why I don't see a heroic Godzilla as "problematic". Friends and enemies change with the times, who was your friend or foes in the last war might have reversed roles in the next.
Image

User avatar
HedorahIsBestGirl
Samurai
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2019 10:17 am

Re: Is a heroic Godzilla inherently a pro-nuclear narrative?

Postby HedorahIsBestGirl » Mon Oct 07, 2019 4:29 pm

darthzilla99 wrote:Than we even get to Hedorah and Megalon. In Hedorah, since a nuclear power is the one that stops pollution, does the narrative say "Nuclear energy is one of the cleanest forms of energy and can solve our pollution problems"?
In Megalon, the antagonists origin story is that they are attacking the surface because they are afraid of dying from the worlds nuclear tests. So since one of the heroes is a nuclear power, does movie have a pro nuclear narrative?


Godzilla gets his scaly ass whooped in Godzilla vs. Hedorah. It's only the giant electrodes that allow him to win the fight. So whether or not you see Godzilla as a literal allegory for nuclear weapons, no, Hedorah does not have a pro-nuclear narrative.

Godzilla vs. Megalon is too stupid to have any deeper meaning, so I wouldn't bother reading into it.

In general, in movies where Godzilla is a hero or anti-hero, I see him more as a living force of nature than a walking nuclear weapon. So no, I don't think a heroic Godzilla is a filmmaker's way of promoting nuclear weapons. The films in which I see Godzilla as a true metaphor for nuclear weapons are all films in which Godzilla is clearly the villain: Gojira '54, Godzilla Raids Again, Mothra vs. Godzilla, Godzilla 1985, Godzilla vs. Biollante, GMK and Shin Gojira. All of these films have anti-nuclear narratives, to varying degrees.

Online
User avatar
LSD Jellyfish
Kwaidan
Posts: 6565
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 11:57 pm
Location: 富士山

Re: Is a heroic Godzilla inherently a pro-nuclear narrative?

Postby LSD Jellyfish » Mon Oct 07, 2019 4:32 pm

HedorahIsBestGirl wrote:
darthzilla99 wrote:Than we even get to Hedorah and Megalon. In Hedorah, since a nuclear power is the one that stops pollution, does the narrative say "Nuclear energy is one of the cleanest forms of energy and can solve our pollution problems"?
In Megalon, the antagonists origin story is that they are attacking the surface because they are afraid of dying from the worlds nuclear tests. So since one of the heroes is a nuclear power, does movie have a pro nuclear narrative?


Godzilla gets his scaly ass whooped in Godzilla vs. Hedorah. It's only the giant electrodes that allow him to win the fight. So whether or not you see Godzilla as a literal allegory for nuclear weapons, no, Hedorah does not have a pro-nuclear narrative.

Godzilla vs. Megalon is too stupid to have any deeper meaning, so I wouldn't bother reading into it.

In general, in movies where Godzilla is a hero or anti-hero, I see him more as a living force of nature than a walking nuclear weapon. So no, I don't think a heroic Godzilla is a filmmaker's way of promoting nuclear weapons. The films in which I see Godzilla as a true metaphor for nuclear weapons are all films in which Godzilla is clearly the villain: Gojira '54, Godzilla Raids Again, Mothra vs. Godzilla, Godzilla 1985, Godzilla vs. Biollante, GMK and Shin Gojira. All of these films have anti-nuclear narratives, to varying degrees.

If people observe Godzilla vs. Megalon in a bubble, despite how stupid it is, I think it's very obvious that it's anti-nuke.

People forget, because it's stock footage, but the opening explicitly shows Godzilla and other monsters, having their home being destroyed by nuclear fallout and tests. The Seatopians are distressed as well. The main issue with that film is that the opening shows why nukes are bad, and never adresses it after the opening scene.
_JNavs_ wrote:The MV is like cheap imitation crabmeat, it tastes good, but it isn't real, while Shin is kino peak Japanese performance.

Rodan95 wrote:The Shobijin are sat on by a fatass explorer and killed. Mothra is pissed and destroys Japan.

User avatar
Inferno Rodan
EDF Soldier
Posts: 3788
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:49 pm
Location: Remnant

Re: Is a heroic Godzilla inherently a pro-nuclear narrative?

Postby Inferno Rodan » Mon Oct 07, 2019 4:51 pm

LSD Jellyfish wrote:Shindo says he will send his submarine, a privately owned one that is in offshore Japan. To jog your memory, I believe he shows a model of it. At that moment characters pan what is going on. He is about to send for it, when I believe, an unrelated nuclear submarine, from Russia, is attacked by Godzilla. Either way, the revival of Godzilla is not treated as something heroic, or cheered on by the Japanese government in film. It is a whacky plan, made by a clearly villainous character with severe megalomania.

The sub is privately owned by Shindo's company, yes, but your memory of the other events is off. The plan to send the sub was approved by the government, as confirmed by other dialogue later on. It's the sub which is shown getting destroyed. The Russian sub you're thinking of is the one that caused the initial mutation of Godzillasaurus in the 70s into the Godzilla from the previous two movies. That's the whole thing with GvsKG: absolutely nothing was altered in the timeline. The writing is just pants-on-head stupid.


Terasawa wrote:I strongly disagree for the reasons I laid out in my previous response. The plan is hatched as an absolute last-ditch effort and immediately Dobashi shows unease. Fujio is outraged that Shindo has nuclear weapons. Terasawa complains about the plan before and after it's confirmed the dinosaur has already been mutated. Once Godzilla reappears, Mazaki and Miki both remark that Godzilla is much bigger/more menacing and -immediately after defeating King Ghidorah- they both realize Japan is in trouble. "It's not going to be friendly to us."

Ultimately I don't think this is at all intended to be heroic in GvKG. All you need to do is listen to the characters' dialogue to tell you as much. Calling the government/Shindo's plan to revive Godzilla with nuclear weapons "heroic" equates to calling Emma's plan in KOTM likewise "heroic." They both thought they were doing what was right, and may have even had legitimate reasons for believing that, but they are unquestionably misguided and wrong.

Fair enough, I suppose. Doesn't change the fact that Godzilla was still very much intentionally revived and powered up with nuclear weapons for the sake of defeating what was considered a greater threat, though.

Come again? I don't understand. The revived Godzilla manages to destroy King Ghidorah and the Futurian mothership, but then he goes on to immediately ravage Japan from the northernmost point of Hokkaido down to Tokyo (we only see him rampaging through Sapporo and Tokyo, however). Before his death, Wilson even says that the Futurians' goal has been accomplished, although not by the plan they set in motion. They had never intended Godzilla to reappear but it works out for him, because, as he says, "This Godzilla is unfriendly and will destroy your country."

True, Godzilla may have only caused as much damage as King Ghidorah would have if Godzilla hadn't been revived. But whether you realize it or not, you're saying that Japan's heroic plan ultimately caused as much damage as if they hadn't carried it out. The Japanese government accidentally creates a monster that carries out the Futurians' plan for them. That's not heroic, that's foolish.

As I said in response to LSD above, nothing about the timeline was changed. The previous movies still happened. It's the same Godzilla. He was always "unfriendly." He didn't destroy Japan. Wilson's comments were either him being mistaken or him being as horrendously written as most of the other characters and somehow not realizing Godzilla never went away.

Once again, no, I don't think so. Only if you're watching the movie without actually paying attention to what's going on. No one cheers at the revival of Godzilla. It's shown to be a pretty horrendous mistake. Meanwhile, in KOTM, Boston is essentially nuked but it's OK because only Serizawa died.

How is it a mistake? Again, Godzilla never went away in the first place. Just because the movie is so terribly written that the characters in it somehow don't realize absolutely nothing changed, despite speaking with other characters that still know of his existence, doesn't alter that fact. As for the KOTM side, quite frankly one city getting leveled with near-zero loss of human life to save the entire planet and all life on it certainly seems like a tradeoff worthy of celebration to me, sooo...
"The rantings of an upjumped zealot make for tedious listening." - Grigori, Dragon's Dogma

User avatar
Terasawa
G-Force Lieutenant
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:06 am

Re: Is a heroic Godzilla inherently a pro-nuclear narrative?

Postby Terasawa » Mon Oct 07, 2019 5:29 pm

Inferno Rodan wrote:
Once again, no, I don't think so. Only if you're watching the movie without actually paying attention to what's going on. No one cheers at the revival of Godzilla. It's shown to be a pretty horrendous mistake. Meanwhile, in KOTM, Boston is essentially nuked but it's OK because only Serizawa died.

How is it a mistake? Again, Godzilla never went away in the first place.


Correct, but he was evidently still reeling from the effects of the ANEB, as mentioned at the beginning of the film.
YouTube
変の声謎だよ。
Save All Dubs

Image

User avatar
kamilleblu
G-Grasper
Posts: 1362
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 6:46 pm

Re: Is a heroic Godzilla inherently a pro-nuclear narrative?

Postby kamilleblu » Mon Oct 07, 2019 5:35 pm

Inferno Rodan wrote:As I said in response to LSD above, nothing about the timeline was changed. The previous movies still happened. It's the same Godzilla. He was always "unfriendly." He didn't destroy Japan. Wilson's comments were either him being mistaken or him being as horrendously written as most of the other characters and somehow not realizing Godzilla never went away.

The future did change. Godzilla originally never recovered from the ANEB. But Shindo's submarine changed all of that. Japan is destroyed and Emmy's mentor explicitly mentions that Godzilla was the one to do it. That's why Emmy had to return to the 20th century with Mecha-King Ghidorah.

User avatar
Terasawa
G-Force Lieutenant
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:06 am

Re: Is a heroic Godzilla inherently a pro-nuclear narrative?

Postby Terasawa » Mon Oct 07, 2019 5:58 pm

Zarm laid out a really credible interpretation of the time travel mechanics in GvKG here. The discussion carried over onto the next page. It's a good read.
YouTube
変の声謎だよ。
Save All Dubs

Image

User avatar
Dynomy-DX
Samurai
Posts: 173
Joined: Sat May 13, 2017 2:10 pm
Location: On some random dying sun

Re: Is a heroic Godzilla inherently a pro-nuclear narrative?

Postby Dynomy-DX » Tue Oct 08, 2019 8:31 am

I really don’t think there’s any “pro nuke” agenda being pushed in KOTM. Idk why people are still debating and arguing that the message is a “disgrace to the original movie” when I sincerely doubt the filmmakers had any intent to treat it as such.

That being said, I can certainly see why people could get that message out of the movie. They could have handled the consequences of using the nuke a bit better. But the movie isn’t trying to make any hot take on the state of nuclear warfare. It just seems like unfortunate implications at worst.

I just chose to take it as another representation of the character. The movie isn’t trying to be the 1954 movie, or Shin Godzilla. While some show the horrors of Nuclear bombs and testing, others show nuclear power can be put to good use. Unfortunately, it’s hard to passively show the latter considering it’s an action movie that’s already full of chaos and destruction, and is at the peak of it’s climax. At the end of the day, it’s also just one chapter to the Monsterverse. Who knows, maybe they’ll pick up on this in Godzilla Vs. Kong, or Godzilla 3 (if it happens.)

So... TL;DR, It isn’t, and I feel the arguments are kinda forced. But I understand where the concern is coming from.
Reignited... and hopefully less weird this time around.

I'm a guy with simple interests. Mostly revolving around monsters blowing up entire cities.


Return to “MonsterVerse (2014-Present)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests