@Jermofoot:
Ok. How do you think the military would respond to an actual monster that was proven to be resistant to everything we threw at it? We have absolutely no history or point of reference because:
[it’s] a fantasy movie.
(to use your own words)
Well first off, I have no idea how the government and/or military would react. But I don’t think that putting large, expensive ships directly in harms way would be effective, especially when their weapons do not appear to be helping at all. I imagine they would realize this. All in all, the military response issues were pretty minor. I am able to step back and see that this is a movie, a fictional monster movie at that, and take it for what it is. That still doesn’t mean I didn’t find it annoying.
Secondly, I did not call Godzilla a fantasy movie, because it is not. I called Star Wars a fantasy movie. Godzilla is science fiction, which implies a degree of believability based in science or reason. To what degree I suppose is up to the viewer. So, no, those were not my own words.
@Jermofoot:
I think critiquing the lack of classic music, wooden acting, and being short on action (after all, that was the premise of the original movies) are all valid complaints.
But let’s be realistic here: it’s a movie about a giant monster (not real) tearing shizzy up and fighting other giant monsters (also not real). You’re gonna have to stretch some things to fit a giant monster into cinematic expectations these days (i.e. the old movie methods would not work).
Which is why movies today, especially science fiction ones, need more scientific explanation or carefully considered plot elements. Cinema has become more sophisticated and the general populace more educated. People are less easily fooled or apt to just accept things unquestioningly. Even in the 90s Batman movies there was little explanation of Batman’s tools, vehicles, abilities, etc… And the villains were more cartoonish than real. But in the newer films were are given plausible purposes for virtually everything, even if it is briefly done. And with Legendary (Nolan/Goyer) doing the Dark Knight films and also producing Godzilla, I was expecting something closer to Nolan-Batman level. Although, same goes for Man of Steel and that was also a bit of a letdown.
Yes, some elements the audience will still have to just accept and not question, like they used to, but the less of that the better the movie will be.
@Flashman:
Being highly critical of fictional movies seems like missing the point to me…
I can intellectualize “the point” of a monster-destruction film, but that does not mean that I find it more entertaining because I know its purpose for the general public. I don’t mean to appear as some great critic or a snob or something, I just generally prefer films with a little more meaning and a little more plausibility to them. Especially when a particular genre (e.g. science fiction) inherently implies it. You may say that I am looking in the wrong place for meaning and plausibility, but I disagree. Why should a science fiction monster movie be mutually exclusive of something intellectually provocative or realistic and predominantly believable?
@Jermofoot:
You don’t like it and listed your reasons and that’s fair. I like to see it thought out like that. On the flipside, it seems pretty deep for a movie that doesn’t take itself as seriously as you do.
I try not to take myself that seriously… but hey… And there have been Godzilla movies that have taken themselves more seriously than others. This one certainly falls into the more serious spectrum, but for me it was not perfect. Neither was it terrible.
To be honest, I am always more critical with only a single viewing. I would like to see it again and see if my perspectives change on anything.