GODZILLA: Tristar Godzilla Film (1998)

[LegendZilla]

Can anyone come up with good ways to counter whatever defences people may make for this film? Here is one example I have :

Defence : “Why is everyone so upset that Godzilla dies in this film? He died in the original!”

Counter : The issue is not so much he got killed, but rather the manner in which he did. He was killed by mere conventional weaponry rather than an irreproducible super-weapon.

Other defences one could make for this film may include : “Godzilla’s looks change from film-to-film, so why are you complaining now?”, or “Godzilla breathing fire and being indestructible is to unrealistic!”. Can you gentlemen think of a good sentence or to countering those defences? In addition, could you site any other defences one could make for this movie and counter them?

Best of luck.

[Kaiju-Killer 751]

Can anyone come up with good ways to counter whatever defences people may make for this film? Here is one example I have :

Defence : “Why is everyone so upset that Godzilla dies in this film? He died in the original!”

Counter : The issue is not so much he got killed, but rather the manner in which he did. He was killed by mere conventional weaponry rather than an irreproducible super-weapon.

Other defences one could make for this film may include : “Godzilla’s looks change from film-to-film, so why are you complaining now?”, or “Godzilla breathing fire and being indestructible is to unrealistic!”. Can you gentlemen think of a good sentence or to countering those defences? In addition, could you site any other defences one could make for this movie and counter them?

Best of luck.

That more or less covers it really

At the end of the day any arguments against the Japanese films can be chalked up to not getting the inherent message, like what Kaiju-King42 said

"If Godzilla had been a dinosaur or some other animal, he would have been killed by just one cannonball. But if he were equal to an atomic bomb, we wouldn't know what to do. So, I took the characteristics of an atomic bomb and applied them to Godzilla." – Ishiro Honda.

While I'm more than happy to defend the monster on its own merits, even as a Godzilla incarnation rather than simply another monster, I can't really defend the film itself too much. I watch it and still enjoy it, but it is plagued with problems. Is it the worst Godzilla film ever made? Eh, maybe not that far, but it's not great.

Oh! Actually, I think I can think of one

Argument: "Why does it matter if most of the human characters are annoying? Humans aren't important in a Godzilla film anyways!"

Counter: "Humans ARE important, as a matter of fact-We see the story from their narrative and perspective, and give the audience something they can to relate to or personalize with in a way that can be intelligible. Having solely Kaiju action and smashing, while fun, wouldn't really make much sense from a story-telling perspective. Also, look back to the original movie proper, and see how humans had a profound impact on the themes and tone of the movie-how citizens suffered and struggled from Gojira's influence, and how Serizawa sacrificed himself to kill Godzilla."

[Gigantis]

Can anyone come up with good ways to counter whatever defences people may make for this film? Here is one example I have :

Defence : “Why is everyone so upset that Godzilla dies in this film? He died in the original!”

Counter : The issue is not so much he got killed, but rather the manner in which he did. He was killed by mere conventional weaponry rather than an irreproducible super-weapon.

Other defences one could make for this film may include : “Godzilla’s looks change from film-to-film, so why are you complaining now?”, or “Godzilla breathing fire and being indestructible is to unrealistic!”. Can you gentlemen think of a good sentence or to countering those defences? In addition, could you site any other defences one could make for this movie and counter them?

Best of luck.

..Why are you bringing this up? Are you purposely trying to start an argument?

[LSD Jellyfish]

Can anyone come up with good ways to counter whatever defences people may make for this film? Here is one example I have :

Defence : “Why is everyone so upset that Godzilla dies in this film? He died in the original!”

Counter : The issue is not so much he got killed, but rather the manner in which he did. He was killed by mere conventional weaponry rather than an irreproducible super-weapon.

Other defences one could make for this film may include : “Godzilla’s looks change from film-to-film, so why are you complaining now?”, or “Godzilla breathing fire and being indestructible is to unrealistic!”. Can you gentlemen think of a good sentence or to countering those defences? In addition, could you site any other defences one could make for this movie and counter them?

Best of luck.

..Why are you bringing this up? Are you purposely trying to start an argument?

I sort of think the people who genuinely dislike this film and care enough to give it attention are outnumbered by the people who just want to bash it.

[godjacob]

I've always had a mixed history with this film. Hated it at first cause I felt it was an insult to Godzilla's name, to learning to appreciate it for its own qualities and try not to let nostalgia bitterness cloud objective judgement, to learning the behind the scenes details and the pure contempt Emmerich & Devlin had for the Godzilla franchise when making it to spark back the flames of resentment.

Needless to say it has been a personal roller coaster.

[G1985]

...the behind the scenes details and the pure contempt Emmerich & Devlin had for the Godzilla franchise when making it ...

This, plus Harry Knowles receiving a paid trip to attend the premiere of GINO after outright lying about the first leaked image of GINO being a fake planted by the studio. But the capper for me was a long-forgotten A&E special I saw the night before the premiere, in which a Tri-Star executive claimed to be a big Godzilla fan and to prove it picked up a Dor Mei figure off of his credenza and claimed it was the Godzilla from Godzilla vs The Thing. I believe Devlin intended the film to be a satire of Godzilla, so much so that the marketing attempted to make fools of the fans.

[Gigantis]

Honestly if Emmerich's main goal really was to satire the genre, he should've just made an outright parody lol

[godjacob]

Emmerich & Devlin didn't have a goal to satirize shit. They just wanted to make their own monster movie and wanted as little to do with Toho's creature as possible even though they were hired to make a Godzilla movie. They changed the design an emphasizes speed because they thought it was cooler, they tossed out the old script from the 94 film because they disliked two monsters fighting each other and considered Godzilla a "dopey" idea before TriStar panicked and gave them full creative freedom to make their..."masterpiece." The satirize claim is likely just a defense built from the negative reception by the fandom when the movie came out as Devlin was especially defensive about it allegedly getting into fights with fans on online message boards with anyone who criticized it in the immediate aftermath.

"I didn't want to make a traditional Godzilla. I wanted nothing to do with it. I wanted to make my own. We asked ourselves what would we do today with a monster movie and a story like that. We forgot everything about the original Godzilla right there."
-Emmerich

[SoggyNoodles2016]

The satire in the film is incredibly base level or seems to be accidental. It was never the intention, it's just their incompetence with the film made it seem like they must have been intentionally making a joke.

[G1985]

The satire in the film is incredibly base level or seems to be accidental. It was never the intention, it's just their incompetence with the film made it seem like they must have been intentionally making a joke.

I beg to differ. You don't put Matthew Broderick, Hank Azaria, Harry Shearer, Kevin Dunn, Michael Learner, Vicki Lewis and Nancy Cartwright all in the same film, give their characters funny names, and then claim you're actually making a serious monster movie.

[godjacob]

Emmerich & Devlin didn't have a goal to satirize poop....The satirize claim is likely just a defense built from the negative reception by the fandom when the movie came out ...

You don't put Matthew Broderick, Hank Azaria, Harry Shearer, Kevin Dunn, Michael Learner, Vicki Lewis and Nancy Cartwright in the same film, give all of their characters funny names, and then claim you're actually making a serious monster movie.

I never said he was going for something overly serious, just that the design was not to be a parody. And their intent was very much to make their true monster movie in their "style" rather than satirize the Godzilla series.

[SoggyNoodles2016]

The satire in the film is incredibly base level or seems to be accidental. It was never the intention, it's just their incompetence with the film made it seem like they must have been intentionally making a joke.

I beg to differ. You don't put Matthew Broderick, Hank Azaria, Harry Shearer, Kevin Dunn, Michael Learner, Vicki Lewis and Nancy Cartwright all in the same film, give their characters funny names, and then claim you're actually making a serious monster movie.

That is literally the shallowest of shallow reasons for something to be a parody.

Thats like saying Star Wars is a space movie parody because Alec Guinness was in a few comedies and Obi Wan Kenoboi is a funny movie

[eabaker]

If it's intended to be satire... what exactly is it supposed to be satirizing?

Or are we actually saying it's supposed to be parody? That might be closer to what Devlin and Emmerich were at least capable of as storytellers, but the question becomes what, exactly, does the movie do to parody the genre?

The fact that a work has elements that are - at least intended to be - funny doesn't make that work parody or satire.

[G1985]

The satire in the film is incredibly base level or seems to be accidental. It was never the intention, it's just their incompetence with the film made it seem like they must have been intentionally making a joke.

I beg to differ. You don't put Matthew Broderick, Hank Azaria, Harry Shearer, Kevin Dunn, Michael Learner, Vicki Lewis and Nancy Cartwright all in the same film, give their characters funny names, and then claim you're actually making a serious monster movie.

That is literally the shallowest of shallow reasons for something to be a parody.

Thats like saying Star Wars is a space movie parody because Alec Guinness was in a few comedies and Obi Wan Kenoboi is a funny movie

I didn't say anything about GINO being a joke, a parody or a comedy. I said it was a satire.

Satire is a genre of literature and performing arts, usually fiction and less frequently in non-fiction, in which vices, follies, abuses and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, corporations, government, or society itself into improvement. Although satire is usually meant to be humorous, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit to draw attention to both particular and wider issues in society.

[eabaker]

I beg to differ. You don't put Matthew Broderick, Hank Azaria, Harry Shearer, Kevin Dunn, Michael Learner, Vicki Lewis and Nancy Cartwright all in the same film, give their characters funny names, and then claim you're actually making a serious monster movie.

That is literally the shallowest of shallow reasons for something to be a parody.

Thats like saying Star Wars is a space movie parody because Alec Guinness was in a few comedies and Obi Wan Kenoboi is a funny movie

I didn't say anything about GINO being a joke, a parody or a comedy. I said it was a satire.

Satire is a genre of literature and performing arts, usually fiction and less frequently in non-fiction, in which vices, follies, abuses and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, corporations, government, or society itself into improvement. Although satire is usually meant to be humorous, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit to draw attention to both particular and wider issues in society.

And again I must ask: If its a satire, what is it satirizing and how is it doing so?

[tbeasley]

I doubt they were going for satire with a barrage of quotes like this -

"It will be the most awesome Godzilla ever. It has to be a step above. Roland and I have said this Godzilla must be to its predecessor what Tim Burton's Batman was to Adam West." - Dean Devlin

The problem stem from the film's humor - When trying to make every character funny or the butt of jokes, no one's funny, and the characters just seem annoying and incompetent. There's a lack of any real tension.

[Spuro]

"Roland and I have said this Godzilla must be to its predecessor what Tim Burton's Batman was to Adam West." - Dean Devlin

Boy, that quote sure tells you everything you need to know.

[Gigantis]

If he was trying to make a darker and edgier Godzilla than he totally failed lol.

[GodzillaFan1990's]

Isn't it funny that the more you think about it the movie felt more like a remake of The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms.

That said, this movie is still a guilty pleasure of mine. Ignoring the title, I see this as its own giant monster movie. It's a fun entertaining monster romp.

[EvaGhidorah01]

Fun Fact about the marketing of Godzilla 1998. They were not legally allowed to show their film's Godzilla design in any promotion, barring some specific exceptions such as merchandise. It was this way since they originally got the rights around 1993.

Source: A 1993 Licensing Agreement Document for TriStar's Acquisition of Godzilla from Toho.

Another thing to note is that this same document mentions that TriStar do not get the rights to King Ghidorah, Mothra, and Rodan. Given I've heard that there are rumors of Ghidorah having been considered for the picture (I've heard he was at one point considered but soon replaced with the Gryphon, is that true?). Could that statement be evidence of that rumor, or am I just thinking about it too much?