Does This Statement Hold any Truth with our Fanbase?

[Biollante]

Has there ever been a Godzilla film that we could really consider "violent for the sake of being violent?" Been a while since I've seen them, but I recall Return of Godzilla and Godzilla vs. Hedorah having some pretty unnecessary scenes.

Wasn't there a scene in RoG where Godzilla just burned down a row of Japanese soldiers? I think it was right after he emerged from the ocean.

[Svitska Donkun]

Has there ever been a Godzilla film that we could really consider "violent for the sake of being violent?" Been a while since I've seen them, but I recall Return of Godzilla and Godzilla vs. Hedorah having some pretty unnecessary scenes.

Uhm...no, not really. Every Godzilla films have fallen into specific boundaries under Toho's supervision. They're are every specific limitations set on the character when he was portrayed in movies. This is why there was an outcry when the IDW comics had Godzilla killing children. And it was extremely transparent that it was only in there for shock value. Godzilla himself did nothing questionable in Gvs.H; Hedorah however did some pretty horrifying things, but that was because he was a living manifestation of pollution and death. It made sense. When Godzilla killed those people in ROG it was because they were trying to portray Godzilla as he was in '54, completely unstoppable, and us being insignificant. In Gamera, it was really transparent he was killing all those people for no reason other than shock value, especially given that he contradicts himself in that very sequence. Just because of the lazy unclear "disconnected himself from humanity" thing is in the script doesn't justify Gamera murdering everyone but saving ONE kid.

[Biollante]

Was it really intentional murder? (I can't believe I'm asking this)

The attempt at shock value is pretty blatant, but you can at least sugar coat it to say that Gamera lost his "connection" with humans and was killing people on accident. Is that not better than Gamera just killing people because "lolwhynot?" I like to think there's something to work with there, even though it's well, not worked with

[Svitska Donkun]

Was it really intentional murder? (I can't believe I'm asking this)

The attempt at shock value is pretty blatant, but you can at least sugar coat it to say that Gamera lost his "connection" with humans and was killing people on accident. Is that not better than Gamera just killing people because "lolwhynot?" I like to think there's something work to with there

He decided to fire a fireball through a building full of people. He landed of people when entering the city. He was not ignorant to the thousand of screams of pain around him. His actions wwere certainly more of "lolwhynot?" then bumbling accidents. It was a bad decision. Now if the Gayos were killing everyone rather than fleeing for their lives....IT was a boat load of stupid.

[Biollante]

He decided to fire a fireball through a building full of people.

To make an omelette...

You know, it never really occurred to me during my first viewing, but that whole sequence was very silly.

[Svitska Donkun]

He decided to fire a fireball through a building full of people.

To make an omelette...

You know, it never really occurred to me during my first viewing, but that whole sequence was very silly.

Yea, without all Gamera's visual bells and whistles, its really a terrible movie. I have the opposite problem with GMK. I think the special effects are terrible but the movie is good. Gamera 1&2 are great, though.

[TitanoGoji16]

And then they try to back track all that murder with Gamera deciding to protect one kid. It's skreeonk stupid.

You do realize that Gamera 'saved' that kid completely by accident, right?

[therealmccoy]

Again, this is another matter entirely. But depicting the horrors of what's actually happening to humanity is not a vain effort. And you know what? Let's just say they were trying to be dark and violent for the sake of it. My response would then be: so what? If a person doesn't like it they don't have to watch it, much less like it. But to chastise it as being inferior JUST because it's pointlessly dark or violent in whatever manner is simply being intolerant.

Well good, considering I don't watch it. But excuse me for having skreeonk standards in what I watch and not wanting my favorite franchise to sink to that level.

Was that really necessary?

High standards are cool and everything, but when those standards make you dislike the film as much as you do, you're taking it too seriously. Feel free to blast me with a wall of text proving me wrong; I welcome it.

Excuse me and a lot of others for not letting our standards ruin a damn monster movie for us.

[SuperSaiyan4Godzilla]

Again, this is another matter entirely. But depicting the horrors of what's actually happening to humanity is not a vain effort. And you know what? Let's just say they were trying to be dark and violent for the sake of it. My response would then be: so what? If a person doesn't like it they don't have to watch it, much less like it. But to chastise it as being inferior JUST because it's pointlessly dark or violent in whatever manner is simply being intolerant.

Well good, considering I don't watch it. But excuse me for having skreeonk standards in what I watch and not wanting my favorite franchise to sink to that level.

lulz. Standards only matter when it comes to women.

[Cimmerian Dragon]

Has there ever been a Godzilla film that we could really consider "violent for the sake of being violent?" Been a while since I've seen them, but I recall Return of Godzilla and Godzilla vs. Hedorah having some pretty unnecessary scenes.

Wasn't there a scene in RoG where Godzilla just burned down a row of Japanese soldiers? I think it was right after he emerged from the ocean.

Unnecessary? I thought those scenes, especially the total incineration of a company in a few seconds, really set the mood for the upcoming attack. Godzilla washed them away like a burning tidal wave, and when I was a kid it really made him sort of scary.

[Svitska Donkun]

High standards are cool and everything, but when those standards make you dislike the film as much as you do, you're taking it too seriously. Feel free to blast me with a wall of text proving me wrong; I welcome it.

Excuse me and a lot of others for not letting our standards ruin a damn monster movie for us.

So because I dislike a movie I take it too seriously? I guess if you ever have to explain why you dislike a film you just take it too seriously. Criticism is obviously irrational.

Fine, if you don't look for quality in your movie releases go enjoy shoving popcorn in your face while watching Transformers 6. Don't use your brain at all. Just turn it off and watch a bunch of meaningless fluff. It's great when you don't have to think or do anything. Geeze, with all the pure garbage coming out of Hollywood these days, I guess most people think the same. Guess we'll never see a change then. Oh well.

[therealmccoy]

So because I dislike a movie I take it too seriously?
Fine, if you don't look for quality in your movie releases go enjoy shoving popcorn in your face while watching Transformers 6. Don't use your brain at all. Just turn it off and watch a bunch of meaningless fluff. It's great when you don't have to think or do anything. Geeze, with all the pure garbage coming out of Hollywood these days, I guess most people think the same. Guess we'll never see a change then. Oh well.

There you go, reading too much into everything everybody says.

And saying stuff like "it sickens me" is taking it too seriously. It's a damn movie. If it's a slap to your face to see people sink money into the "garbage" you personally see coming out of Hollywood, then you need to find a new hobby.

I do look for quality in films. I never said otherwise. But I don't need a movie to enrich my soul every time I sit down in front of a TV. Maybe you do, but that's your loss. "Meaningless fluff" to you is pure entertainment for another. What's wrong with turning your brain off every once in a while? Oh, wait, I guess by your logic, I'll eventually become stupid. Just because someone prefers a dark Godzilla film or Gamera film or whatever doesn't make them the sheep you make them out to be.

Just because I like going to the movies and spending twenty bucks once a damn month doesn't make me an idiot. If you want to keep thinking that though, by all means, go ahead.

[Svitska Donkun]

And saying stuff like "it sickens me" is taking it too seriously. It's a damn movie. If it's a slap to your face to see people sink money into the "garbage" you personally see coming out of Hollywood, then you need to find a new hobby.

Not at all. All that shows is I am passionate about an artform. And those passionate about an artform are the only ones having any real business creating it. This logic is totally ridiculous. I suppose if I took a news story too seriously it'd be silly too. This is the real world, where people take what they focus their lives around seriously. Do you think Gordon Ramsay would ever pop down in McDonald's? No. Because that's making a statement that you're ok with junk food in an industry you love. Honestly, that's just insulting.

I do look for quality in films. I never said otherwise. But I don't need a movie to enrich my soul every time I sit down in front of a TV. Maybe you do, but that's your loss. "Meaningless fluff" to you is pure entertainment for another. What's wrong with turning your brain off every once in a while? Oh, wait, I guess by your logic, I'll eventually become stupid. Just because someone prefers a dark Godzilla film or Gamera film or whatever doesn't make them the sheep you make them out to be.

http://www.empireonline.com/empireblogs ... post/p1094

Its clear to me that you simply do not care enough to understand and honestly have no business debating this any further.

[SuperSaiyan4Godzilla]

And saying stuff like "it sickens me" is taking it too seriously. It's a damn movie. If it's a slap to your face to see people sink money into the "garbage" you personally see coming out of Hollywood, then you need to find a new hobby.

Not at all. All that shows is I am passionate about an artform. And those passionate about an artform are the only ones having any real business creating it. This logic is totally ridiculous. I suppose if I took a news story too seriously it'd be silly too. This is the real world, where people take what they focus their lives around seriously. Do you think Gordon Ramsay would ever pop down in McDonald's? No. Because that's making a statement that you're ok with junk food in an industry you love. Honestly, that's just insulting.

I am passionate about literature and writing. By your logic, I should dismiss some of the comic books and novels that I am now reading. Hell, by that logic, a good chunk of Shakespeare's canon should be scorned. The Bard wrote some baaad plays. But I digress.

Your comparison with Gordon Ramsay and McDonald's is a bit...extreme and stupid at best. Yes, but there is a difference between Ramsay and McDonald's: Ramsay sees a commodity like food as an art form, while McDonald's sees it as a commodity, something to be consumed by an audience.

And that's what music, literature, and movies are essentially: products to be consumed by the mass. This date backs to the days of Homer and the stories of the Bible. These were just stories to tell and to be entertained by. There's a lot of bad story elements in the Classics. Does that mean we shouldn't read the Classics because they were cranked out for the mass and have some bad elements in it?

Film started as a form of entertainment, which people made an art form. Same can be said for the stage, music, and literature. It only became an art form because people made it that way. And with the intellectual art film, the mass audience film didn't become extinct. Merely, the two coexist.

Hell, the article you cited is lacking some precious information. Recent studies state that the human IQ is going up. Yes, we are all getting smarter as a species. What does that mean? That means are processing more and doing more work. And our entertainment is meant to take our minds away from that increased workload with some mindless action and drama. Why? Because we don't have to think. Thinking takes energy. It tires us. And at times, it skreeonk hurts (read: never study quantum physics).

And even art and meaning can be found in the low arts. Its been happening for the last 20 years or so. Its rather interesting.

But, shall let my points stand. We need the mass media to help us ease our minds and just be entertained. We need meaningless entertainment because it helps our mind rest.

[Tohosaurus]

It may sound exceptionally rude, but I find a certain irony in some of his comments ... this coming from the same guy that was shaken to tears (by his own admission) when he was "talked down to" by Stuart and incredibly offended by the whole "ascended fans" comment, which judging by his first post in this topic he hasn't let go of to this day. This whole thread is full of dissenting opinions being lashed out against on his part in fully hostile force. That's one way of getting your thoughts across, but it's a bit conflicting when you take issue with hardline views of others.

It's perfectly fine to be passionate about something, but sometimes you have to calm down and bring yourself back to planet Earth.

[therealmccoy]

Not at all. All that shows is I am passionate about an artform. And those passionate about an artform are the only ones having any real business creating it. This logic is totally ridiculous. I suppose if I took a news story too seriously it'd be silly too. This is the real world, where people take what they focus their lives around seriously. Do you think Gordon Ramsay would ever pop down in McDonald's? No. Because that's making a statement that you're ok with junk food in an industry you love. Honestly, that's just insulting.

Being passionate about an art form is great. But there are better ways to express your passion than making generalizations about the movie-going public's intelligence by their taste in movies. That's not being passionate, that's being an arrogant dick.

I do look for quality in films. I never said otherwise. But I don't need a movie to enrich my soul every time I sit down in front of a TV. Maybe you do, but that's your loss. "Meaningless fluff" to you is pure entertainment for another. What's wrong with turning your brain off every once in a while? Oh, wait, I guess by your logic, I'll eventually become stupid. Just because someone prefers a dark Godzilla film or Gamera film or whatever doesn't make them the sheep you make them out to be.

http://www.empireonline.com/empireblogs/words-from-the-wise/post/p1094

Its clear to me that you simply do not care enough to understand and honestly have no business debating this any further.

Good article.

Maybe I don't have any business debating it further. I'm obviously not as intelligent in film as you, but I do have an opinion. And you have discredited my opinion because I don't view films on your level, which is bullshit.

[Tohosaurus]

I am passionate about literature and writing. By your logic, I should dismiss some of the comic books and novels that I am now reading. Hell, by that logic, a good chunk of Shakespeare's canon should be scorned. The Bard wrote some baaad plays. But I digress.

Your comparison with Gordon Ramsay and McDonald's is a bit...extreme and stupid at best. Yes, but there is a difference between Ramsay and McDonald's: Ramsay sees a commodity like food as an art form, while McDonald's sees it as a commodity, something to be consumed by an audience.

and that's what music, literature, and movies are essentially products to be consumed by the mass. This date backs to the days of Homer and the stories of the Bible. These were just stories to tell and to be entertained by. There's a lot of bad story elements in the Classics. Does that mean we shouldn't read the Classics because they were cranked out for the mass and have some bad elements in it?

Film started as a form of entertainment, which people made an art form. Same can be said for the stage, music, and literature. It only became an art form because people made it that way. And with the intellectual art film, the mass audience film didn't become extinct. Merely, the two coexist.

Hell, the article you cited is lacking some precious information. Recent studies state that the human IQ is going up. Yes, we are all getting smarter as a species. What does that mean? That means are processing more and doing more work. And our entertainment is meant to take our minds away from that increased workload with some mindless action and drama. Why? Because we don't have to think. Thinking takes energy. It tires us. And at times, it skreeonk hurts (read: never study quantum physics).

And even art and meaning can be found in the low arts. Its been happening for the last 20 years or so. Its rather interesting.

But, shall let my points stand. We need the mass media to help us ease our minds and just be entertained. We need meaningless entertainment because it helps our mind rest.

You are very eloquent.

[Svitska Donkun]

And you have discredited my opinion because I don't view films on your level, which is bullshit.

Oh boo.
Do not say an opinion anywhere unless you are prepared to have it discredited.You can go ahead and say that it's bullshit that I discredited you're opinion because its different from mine, but that's how this works. People are under the misconception that the idea of an opinion means everything they say is entitled to some magic shielding and everyone should respect that, but its not the case. My opinion is just as valid, if not more so than yours. For an opinion to matter in the grand scheme of things it requires alot of experience and evidence to support it. People went back and forth for decades on Evolution until it was accepted as fact. Saying Movies can be "dumb fun" without any kind of reasoning as to why they should be is not an opinion. I do not agree with you're "opinion" and I will pick at it as much as I will to, as you are the one who threw it out there for anyone to pick at.

[SuperSaiyan4Godzilla]

And you have discredited my opinion because I don't view films on your level, which is bullshit.

Oh boo.
Do not say an opinion anywhere unless you are prepared to have it discredited.You can go ahead and say that it's bullshit that I discredited you're opinion because its different from mine, but that's how this works. People are under the misconception that the idea of an opinion means everything they say is entitled to some magic shielding and everyone should respect that, but its not the case. My opinion is just as valid, if not more so than yours. For an opinion to matter in the grand scheme of things it requires alot of experience and evidence to support it. People went back and forth for decades on Evolution until it was accepted as fact. Saying Movies can be "dumb fun" without any kind of reasoning as to why they should be is not an opinion. I do not agree with you're "opinion" and I will pick at it as much as I will to, as you are the one who threw it out there for anyone to pick at.

The thing that is lacking from your "discrediting" of opinions is respect.

As a society, we've become some obsessed with competition and winning that we often forget the respect out competition deserves.

Rarely do I discredit someone's opinion. As a rule, opinions cannot really be discredited. Opinions are ideas synthesized by a person has has taken in information and facts about something and has formed their own idea on whatever the opinion is about. It is an educated opinion based on good information and good science.

As an exception to the rule, an opinion can be wrong if it is based on incorrect information and bad science. Also, an opinion can be wrong if it is based off irrational ideas and claims. "I think abortion is killing." "Why?" "Because I don't like it. Its wrong." "Why is it wrong?" "its killing!" "How is it killing?" "How?" "Because it is."...that is a bad opinion. They merely state an opinion without information or elaborated ideas to back it up.

As someone who prides himself on his intellect, you seemed to have ceased intellectual growth. The discussion of ideas and opinions isn't about who is right and who is wrong and who knows the truth. Its about understanding a subject. People read things differently. To one person, Raymond Carver's minimalist style could be consider refreshing. It gets to the point and doesn't fluff up the story with superfluous details. Conversely, another person could see Carver's minimalist style as lazy, artistically lacking, or missing "something."

We have these two conflicting opinions. Which one is right and which one is wrong? I believe neither. To me, it simply says that Carver is a minimalist. And the opinions help me understand the concept of minimalism.

The exchange of ideas and opinions isn't meant to be a competition. That intellectual forum is meant to show the different sides of one concept. You should never try to disprove a good opinion*. You should simply provide a defense for your opinion. "This is why I think this way." Not, "This is why you should think this way."

Never tote that your opinion is correct because you shun the opinions and thoughts of others. Thus, you hamper your own intellectual growth.


*A good opinion is like I said above. It is an educated opinion. One based on facts and information from creditable sources and good science.

[JVM]

I don't think it's true at all. Most Godzilla fans are pretty reasonable people.