MisterNugNug
Member
PM PLEASE?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Godzilla Leaked Wondercon Footage
- Thread starter Chaotic-Strike
- Start date
- Status
hipbabboom
Huh? What did I say? Did I screw up again? :(
BUNTING1243
Banned
I'd love a PM link as well
Zeyphersan
Banned
Can I hop on this PM bandwagon?
chronos4590
Member
Is this ok to do?
PM please too
SillyEskimo
Member
Zeyphersan
Banned
God bless you
TigerKnee
Member
SillyEskimo
Member
PeregrinSe7en
Member
I don't think it's dumb to nitpick things that take you out of the movie emotionally. Of course Godzilla himself isn't realistic, but a movie that has realistic ramifications of what it would be like with a monster lumbering around a city is what we want. This 2012 stuff with how the tsunami was shot: the dog, the leash, the family escaping, is cliche and isn't what we were advertised or excited for.
You can complain about nitpicking almost too easily with a movie like this. If something takes you out mentally from being there, that's exactly what it does, and somethone saying: "BUT THERE IS A GIANT LIZARD AND YOUR COMPLAINING ABOUT WAVES MOVING SLOWLY AND PEOPLE CASUALLY JOGGING WHAT DID YOU EXPECT" is lazy. We expected more engaging action. Action and score, or lack of it, to really put you in the movie, not make you feel like you are watching one.
Believe it or not, apart from having a giant monster, a movie like this could be realistic, and that would be awesome.(fingers crossed)
You can complain about nitpicking almost too easily with a movie like this. If something takes you out mentally from being there, that's exactly what it does, and somethone saying: "BUT THERE IS A GIANT LIZARD AND YOUR COMPLAINING ABOUT WAVES MOVING SLOWLY AND PEOPLE CASUALLY JOGGING WHAT DID YOU EXPECT" is lazy. We expected more engaging action. Action and score, or lack of it, to really put you in the movie, not make you feel like you are watching one.
Believe it or not, apart from having a giant monster, a movie like this could be realistic, and that would be awesome.(fingers crossed)
RustyNails
Member
There's premise, and there's nitpicking. Two different things. Premise is a giant firebreathing lizard is rampaging America. Nitpicking is if something looked lazy in a scene. I mean, if you are going on to sell us the premise, make sure you sell it right. I heard the same complaint in Nolan Batman movies. Person 1: Those guards werent even shooting Batman. Lazy fight choreography. Person 2: Its a movie about a guy dressed as a bat jumping off rooftops what did u expect lolo
It drowns out valid crticism just because the premise is ridiculous.
I like the way you think. Lets be friends
PeregrinSe7en
Member
sorry, but im not buying that examples. to me its nitpicking. can you name a movie were every single little thing was done exactly right.
and if so i demand a full essay of every single minor detail(s) that your movie choice did right.
triplestation
Member
Not "lizard"
Gator-bear-elephant
Gator-bear-elephant
HalfBakedProphet
Member
I'm sorry Rusty but I can't take you seriously with that new tag
But seriously, it's easy to find things to nitpick in a 5 minute, low quality off screen clip. I didn't have any issues with the scene besides the music and the seemingly forced drama with the kid on the train. But like I said earlier in the thread, I'll withhold any final judgment until watching the full movie in theaters and everything is in context. Any sweeping judgments are premature.
Unless the poster (over San Francisco) is exaggerated I'd say Zilla is closer to 1200' tall than 300. Just sayin,
Delta Assault
Member
I think I read somewhere that they were going with 110 meters tall, which would be somewhere about 340 feet.
That poster is hilariously out of scale.
Messofanego
Banned
I thought the 2001 music was just for the trailers, didn't know it or the score sounding like that menacing choir was in the actual movie at the end of that 5 min clip.
GODDAMN please let this be awesome.
GODDAMN please let this be awesome.
Ah, bummer. I was hoping they would make it THAT massive.
We're judging what we have seen. I hope that the majority of the movie is good as well. Do you understand that this scene could be an indication of what the movie will be like and that's why a big group of people are voicing their opinions: "sounds like shit" "didn't know boomer from id4 was making a cameo".
This is a major set piece of the movie. You're acting fanboyish and overly defending a 5 minute clip that has worried many fans of what the trailers were portraying, with bad logic. Reminds me of myself when I first saw the Lost World and kept lying to myself that it was awesome, because of "t rex in city sooo cool" and I failed to be honest with myself that I wasn't feeling it, and I couldn't articulate it. I was scared of being disappointed in something I waited for for so long.
We're not movie critics with our noses high in the air, the majority of the clip is shitty, and our articulation on why it's shitty is not nitpicking, it's communicating.
Delta Assault
Member
If Godzilla was that massive, most of the movie would be showing the heroes fighting his foot.
Which would be ridiculous. This isn't some World of Warcraft movie.
More_Badass
Member
So something as minute as the dog running and a family surviving is enough to make that scene "shitty" and "cliche"?
Let's ignore the whole atmosphere and tone of the rest of the clip. Or that dozens, maybe hundreds of people just got wiped out by that tsunami. Etc
Yes, people are nitpicking tiny insignificant details. And by insignificant, I mean in the context of the scene as a whole. In isolation maybe those things seem stupid, but the whole atmosphere and presentation of that scene is a tense disaster, a slow burn reveal of Godzilla
PeregrinSe7en
Member
im defending the film as a whole.
sure, this remake will have some minor flaws, but in the grand scheme of things most people who go to see it wont care whether or not a monsters leg is too stumpy or that that a tidal wave of water is moving too slow.
im going in as a person that just wants to be entertained for two hours.
TheJollyCorner
Member
Obviously I feel Edwards will make this film a lot more menacing and somber than '98 Zilla, but my mind keeps going back to that thought of: this is still a PG-13 summer flick that Legendary wants to make a lot of money on and likely wants to make a series of films based on. That's the reality of this.
Everyone wanting super grim-dark with scary 2001 music and overall monster apocalypse where humans are just absolutely fucked will probably be disappointed. As a little 5 minute clip is already proving in this thread, certain expectations are already in place.
Personally what I saw (even with incomplete CG and a temp score) worked for me, but I see the concern from various GAFers and I'm starting to wonder what the overall expectation has become.
Is simply having a competent Godzilla movie that honors the original concept (i.e. a destructive force of nature created by humankind's own ambitions), especially after the attempted money-grab farce that was the Emmerich/Devlin version, not enough any more? Have the excellent trailers raised expectations too high?
Oh, I'm not faulting anyone for any initial feelings of concern or disappointment. I'm already having an emotional arm-wrestling contest in my heart between my current self, which would love something frightening and tragically catastrophic & my inner-child, which just wants to see monsters fighting and Big G doing his thing.
I just don't think this is going to be as heavy as some are expecting.
I'd love to be proven wrong and this film actually turn out oppressively bleak, but I'm trying to keep my expectations at: mass destruction/monsters fighting/humans overcoming sprinkled with some light-hearted cheese to prevent the film from being just completely depressing as fuck. Truth is, I also want to have fun with this film. That Godzilla intro at the end of the clip, roaring, ready to engage in battle, was an unexpected fist-pump moment for me.
So what do you guys think?
Everyone wanting super grim-dark with scary 2001 music and overall monster apocalypse where humans are just absolutely fucked will probably be disappointed. As a little 5 minute clip is already proving in this thread, certain expectations are already in place.
Personally what I saw (even with incomplete CG and a temp score) worked for me, but I see the concern from various GAFers and I'm starting to wonder what the overall expectation has become.
Is simply having a competent Godzilla movie that honors the original concept (i.e. a destructive force of nature created by humankind's own ambitions), especially after the attempted money-grab farce that was the Emmerich/Devlin version, not enough any more? Have the excellent trailers raised expectations too high?
Oh, I'm not faulting anyone for any initial feelings of concern or disappointment. I'm already having an emotional arm-wrestling contest in my heart between my current self, which would love something frightening and tragically catastrophic & my inner-child, which just wants to see monsters fighting and Big G doing his thing.
I just don't think this is going to be as heavy as some are expecting.
I'd love to be proven wrong and this film actually turn out oppressively bleak, but I'm trying to keep my expectations at: mass destruction/monsters fighting/humans overcoming sprinkled with some light-hearted cheese to prevent the film from being just completely depressing as fuck. Truth is, I also want to have fun with this film. That Godzilla intro at the end of the clip, roaring, ready to engage in battle, was an unexpected fist-pump moment for me.
So what do you guys think?
Yeah, incredible stuff.
Messofanego
Banned
The 2001 type music does seem to be in the movie from that clip, so I'm excited. Nolan films can be pretty bleak for being PG-13 so I don't think people are concerned about the rating. This movie doesn't need excessive bloodletting or gore. My expectations haven't changed, in fact more excited to see there'll be monster on monster fights.
Messofanego
Banned
Don't. Some of the CGI effects are not done. It'll be much better to see this on the big screen, has a big crowd pleasing moment at the end.
HalfBakedProphet
Member
probably. You can't please everyone; the character means very different things even amongst hardcore fans. Just look at the 30 days thread and the various opinions on the same movie (GMK) Based on all the interviews with Edwards, having followed the production closely and reading the script leak synopsis, I'm confident they at least got the character right. Edwards understands what makes Godzilla appealing, at least to me personally.
And as dark as the original film was, it was still balanced with the human story and drama. It gave the movie weight and made it greater than just a B-film monster movie. I'd argue that anyone wanting 2 hours of disaster porn didn't understand the core aspects of what made the first film so good.
dreamcastfan
Member
pm pretty please.
RustyNails
Member
So we're not allowed to criticize movies because no movie is perfect?
The clip is using temp music, so probably not.
unholyrevenger72
Banned
Here's a list of the realistic ramifications of a huge monster coming ashore
1. a localized tsunami caused by the huge volume of the monster displacing water.
2. People fleeing the tsunami, including parents with their small children
3. Terrestrial Animals fleeing the tsunami, including labradors and retrievers
This why your complaints are invalid, you specify what you want, then turn around and say what you want is cliche and not what you were excited for.
CloudyTuba
Member
Okay, here we go. I don't even care really but I thought it would be fun to figure out how realistic the G-tsunami was.
While tsunamis move super fast out in open water, they typically move about 30-55mph once they reach the shore. The features of the land at that point may slow it down further.
They don't usually hit as large Hollywood wave walls. It's more like rapidly filling a swimming pool. In a matter of minutes you go from getting your shoes wet to hoping the water doesnt overtake your roof. It looks so unexciting at first that many don't realize the danger they're actually in. The Japanese tsunami was (obviously) considered an exceptionally large one. At the shore it was 15-25 feet tall, but it topped out at around 125 feet tall when the water was squeezed between things like buildings and hills.
This is actually fairly correctly depicted in Godzilla, as you can see it is small near the shore and grows larger as it moves among the buildings.
Another thought I was pondering was whether or not Godzilla's mass could generate a tsunami that large. I'm actually sort of doubting it based on some measurements I've seen, but I can't find enough relevant data to do any math. However it may be so large simply due to the fact that he is displacing it so close to shore, with a fairly small radius of effect which is unlike a normal tsunami.
So at the end of the day the question is: Does the water look like it's moving faster than around 55mph, and should it be moving slower than 55mph that far inland among the buildings?
I'm thinking that the water is indeed moving fast on average, but it's within the realm of possibility. Again, it could be the result of the source being close to shore and moving outward. It's not the typical tsunami-creator. At least they went out of their way to show the shore receding and avoided going straight for the wave-wall.
While tsunamis move super fast out in open water, they typically move about 30-55mph once they reach the shore. The features of the land at that point may slow it down further.
They don't usually hit as large Hollywood wave walls. It's more like rapidly filling a swimming pool. In a matter of minutes you go from getting your shoes wet to hoping the water doesnt overtake your roof. It looks so unexciting at first that many don't realize the danger they're actually in. The Japanese tsunami was (obviously) considered an exceptionally large one. At the shore it was 15-25 feet tall, but it topped out at around 125 feet tall when the water was squeezed between things like buildings and hills.
This is actually fairly correctly depicted in Godzilla, as you can see it is small near the shore and grows larger as it moves among the buildings.
Another thought I was pondering was whether or not Godzilla's mass could generate a tsunami that large. I'm actually sort of doubting it based on some measurements I've seen, but I can't find enough relevant data to do any math. However it may be so large simply due to the fact that he is displacing it so close to shore, with a fairly small radius of effect which is unlike a normal tsunami.
So at the end of the day the question is: Does the water look like it's moving faster than around 55mph, and should it be moving slower than 55mph that far inland among the buildings?
I'm thinking that the water is indeed moving fast on average, but it's within the realm of possibility. Again, it could be the result of the source being close to shore and moving outward. It's not the typical tsunami-creator. At least they went out of their way to show the shore receding and avoided going straight for the wave-wall.
TrAcEr_x90
Member
Could someone send me the link?!!!
Eppy Thatcher
God's had his chance.
Pretty please PM link? Must see....
- Status