Who should have directed Godzilla (1998)?

[Cimmerian Dragon]

Ridley Scott (though I would give John Carpenter my second nod).

[StonedHope]

I would first and for most would have opted for James Cameron but I dont think he would have gone for the project.
So I think Paul Verhoeven should have done it. He has a balance between mature and humour. He knows how to direct action and just coming off of starship troopers he's had his hands dirty with CGI. Also just coming off a flop he had alot to learn. He got go performances out of not so good actors. Godzilla wouldn't have been in the best hands but they would have been better hands.

[Showa Gyaos]

Tim Burton would've been perfect.

[cloverfan98]

I once read an article in Wizard:The Guide To Comics ! that Sam Raimi(The Evil Dead Trilogy, Spider-Man Trilogy, A Simple Plan, Darkman ) had been one of the names in the running for the flick. When the news came out that Sony had chucked him from the Spidey franchise last year(F*** YOU SONY !!!), I thought he would be a good choice for Legendary's try at the Big-G with his schedule cleared.

I know this name isn't too popular in these parts, but I did think McG would've been an interesting choices. I know Terminator Salvation didn't wow too many people when it came out. But a lot of the initial fan reviews on the flick were rather positive. And most of the shortcomings were blamed on the script, which had suffered a bit of tinkering from the studio. And as I remember the Terminator's creator, James Cameron, even said he enjoyed it as well. McG has also been the bloke behind some of fandom's favorite TV shows as well. The O.C., Chuck, and my favorite of the bunch, Supernatural. I thought get him together with the show's producers/writers Eric Kripke, Sera Gamble, and Ben Edlund on a Godzilla flick. You'd get on hellacool flick. Anyone who watches Supernatural would know that they're fans of the Big-G from a few references to the Monster king throughout the show.

One name mentioned that threw his hat into the ring for try at Sony's take on Godzilla was horror miester Clive Barker. Creator of the cute and cuddly Hellraiser franchise. His proposal was rejected for being "too dark", and I'd love to see what the bloke had come up with.

I'd love to see Barker's G as well! As for McG I liked his Terminator film, but as far as I know he's an awesome action directorand thats it. I feel like his G film would have been VERY close to what we got with G98.

[omgitsgodzilla]

Steven Spielberg makes great movies and knows how to properly adapt something. Read Jurassic Park, then watch the movie. The film adaptation keeps the essence of the novel - a story of genetic technology being taken too far and going awry - while catering to the mainstream moviegoing audience's expectations at the same time. It condenses the scientific concepts into smaller bits that are easily understood while getting the same point across as in the book, as well as the lengthy passages involving computers being cut down to what is necessary to advance the story, with the dinosaur scenes being given a more prominent place in the film. Spielberg understands what works in a book vs. what works in a movie, or more generally how to take a work created with one audience in mind and shift its content - respectfully - to create a work that is more accessible to another. Jurassic Park is an intelligent, thrilling film made using the best of an intelligent, thrilling book. Steven Spielberg would be great for Godzilla.

[StonedHope]

Steven Spielberg makes great movies and knows how to properly adapt something. Read Jurassic Park, then watch the movie. The film adaptation keeps the essence of the novel - a story of genetic technology being taken too far and going awry - while catering to the mainstream moviegoing audience's expectations at the same time. It condenses the scientific concepts into smaller bits that are easily understood while getting the same point across as in the book, as well as the lengthy passages involving computers being cut down to what is necessary to advance the story, with the dinosaur scenes being given a more prominent place in the film. Spielberg understands what works in a book vs. what works in a movie, or more generally how to take a work created with one audience in mind and shift its content - respectfully - to create a work that is more accessible to another. Jurassic Park is an intelligent, thrilling film made using the best of an intelligent, thrilling book. Steven Spielberg would be great for Godzilla.

After that, I really want to read Jurassic park now.

[shinmattiathekaiju]

Steven Spielberg makes great movies and knows how to properly adapt something. Read Jurassic Park, then watch the movie. The film adaptation keeps the essence of the novel - a story of genetic technology being taken too far and going awry - while catering to the mainstream moviegoing audience's expectations at the same time. It condenses the scientific concepts into smaller bits that are easily understood while getting the same point across as in the book, as well as the lengthy passages involving computers being cut down to what is necessary to advance the story, with the dinosaur scenes being given a more prominent place in the film. Spielberg understands what works in a book vs. what works in a movie, or more generally how to take a work created with one audience in mind and shift its content - respectfully - to create a work that is more accessible to another. Jurassic Park is an intelligent, thrilling film made using the best of an intelligent, thrilling book. Steven Spielberg would be great for Godzilla.

After that, I really want to read Jurassic park now.

The novel is a bit boring but overall,its awesome.

It does feature a scene where the T-Rex swims.

[SuperSaiyan4Godzilla]

I hear that the Jurassic Park novel is actually rather lackluster. The film, while it may be a blockbuster, is much more than Crichton could muster.

[omgitsgodzilla]

I hear that the Jurassic Park novel is actually rather lackluster. The film, while it may be a blockbuster, is much more than Crichton could muster.

It can be boring if you go into it expecting the emphasis to be on the action like in the movie. But really, it's a book about science and the ethical issues surrounding it. The dinosaur plot is there to make for a good thriller, and because Crichton was, at the time, a dinosaur nut. Don't get me wrong, it's a great story, very well-written, but at its core it wasn't really so much about the dinosaurs as it was a commentary about genetics. Many of his books are like that: Rising Sun isn't really about the murder mystery, it's about Japanese-US tensions. Congo isn't really about the expedition, it's about primatology. The Andromeda Strain and Sphere aren't really about the space disease or the alien sphere, they're about psychology and people's reactions to adverse situations. Jurassic Park is a great book, but you'll be disappointed if you expect it to be just like the movie.

TL;DR: The book is more about ethics in science than adrenaline, and one should expect that if they read it.

[wataru]

I hear that the Jurassic Park novel is actually rather lackluster. The film, while it may be a blockbuster, is much more than Crichton could muster.

Did you read the novel?

[Showa Gyaos]

I had to read the freaking book in middle school. The movie was much more interesting.

[omgitsgodzilla]

I guess it depends on whether one really cares about chaos theory and the science in the book. I personally find it very interesting, but I can see why some people wouldn't.

[Goji]

I had to read the freaking book in middle school. The movie was much more interesting.

You had to?

[Lord Gappa]

I had to read the freaking book in middle school. The movie was much more interesting.

You had to?

I smell conspiracy.

[SuperSaiyan4Godzilla]

I hear that the Jurassic Park novel is actually rather lackluster. The film, while it may be a blockbuster, is much more than Crichton could muster.

Did you read the novel?

Yeah. I'm not big on Crichton in general, though. I tried reading Next and that wasn't that great. He got preachy.

[wataru]

I hear that the Jurassic Park novel is actually rather lackluster. The film, while it may be a blockbuster, is much more than Crichton could muster.

Did you read the novel?

Yeah. I'm not big on Crichton in general, though. I tried reading Next and that wasn't that great. He got preachy.

I couldnt read Lost World, so I know whatcha mean. Sphere is a good novel though the movie sucks. Andromeda Strain, Eaters of the Dead, Jurassic Park and Sphere are the only works from him I like. I need to check out Airframe and Prey though

[omgitsgodzilla]

Prey is pretty good. Less moralizing, if that's what you find off-putting.

[kpa]

Out of the directors that Sony listed down. Who should have directed the movie if Roland never came along?

Hellspawn28, I think you may have things a little backwards... Roland Emmerich only got GODZILLA after all the other directors TriStar approached turned the project down. The original producers attached to GODZILLA said the studio wanted an A-list director, but none of them wanted to make the movie. The directors they named who said "No" included...

Tim Burton
James Cameron
Joe Dante: He said "They have quite a job ahead of them trying to turn Godzilla into what they're talking about, which is a movie that will attract major stars. I don't know what you do with that time-worn plot that can be 'new' enough to make it something special."
Terry Gilliam
Ridley Scott
Robert Zemeckis
Barry Sonnenfeld
Sam Raimi
Joe Johnston
Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin also initially passed, saying they couldn't get around "the cheese factor".

One of the producers also suggested the Coen Brothers, but the studio wouldn't consider them since HUDSUCKER PROXY had just come out and bombed.

I don't believe Steven Spielberg was asked since he had just done JURASSIC PARK and was busy with SCHINDLER'S LIST. But he is on the record saying a big budget Godzilla movie is a bad idea.

Clive Barker wasn't approached about directing GODZILLA. He was one of a handful of writers (including the Thomas Brothers who wrote PREDATOR) asked to submit a story treatment.

TriStar had so much trouble finding a director they put out an open call in May 1994. They were thrilled when Jan DeBont signed on in July, 1994. When he walked the project went dormant for years, and if Devlin and Emmerich hadn't agreed to to do the film in 1996 it probably would have been cancelled.

With a project like this that has decades of history and a loyal (if small) fan base, I think it should go to a director who has a genuine interest and understanding of the material, and preferably a passion to deliver. Some of the directors named are very talented but (with the possible exception of DeBont) none of them really wanted to make GODZILLA so none of them should have.

Changing gears, Critchton's Jurassic Park is an excellent book. It's just much more downbeat and pessimistic than Spielberg's adaptation. After a decade of "cute" movies like HOOK, it was great that the book inspired Spielberg back towards his pre-ET roots. Many of the films he'd made since them have been much better than what he was doing immediately before JP.

[Chris55]

Joe Dante: He said "They have quite a job ahead of them trying to turn Godzilla into what they're talking about, which is a movie that will attract major stars. I don't know what you do with that time-worn plot that can be 'new' enough to make it something special."

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.

[Legion1979]

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.