 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
May 24, 2014 - 7:21 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Joe E.
(Member)
|
Huh? It was a poor mans Transformers movie.
I imagine "Huh?" is something you say a lot. That's an odd way to describe a film that isn't anything like Bayformers.
And yes, as far as kaiju cinema goes, maybe it IS a game-changer.
"Huh" as in taken aback by a lot of hyperbole. People like the film fine. But to call it a game changer? The score was practically themeless and actually quite annoying in the film. The script was as bright as a Transformers film. Incredibly successful is yet to be determined. It's not like this is in the same league as Titanic, Avatar, or Avengers. I bet at the end of the day, the much hated 98 film adjusted for inflation equals the box office of this incarnation. Game changer? I think not.
LOL! Nobody expected it to be Titanic, Avatar or Avengers. Godzilla is not universally loved.
Avengers' success is deserved and well-explained. Titanic was alright but nothing that blew me away.
Avatar? Now that was the most overrated, unoriginal, overhyped spectacle ever. A threadbare "magic whitey" story that is essentially Pocahontas in space. An alien race that suspiciously resembles Native Americans? It's embarrassing that that movie was as successful as it was. And the "science" in it was awful.
If Godzilla spawns a new renaissance for kaiju cinema (one particular genre), then yes, it may be a game changer in that respect.
Don't disagree with your assessment of Avatar, but that by definition was a huge hit. Another way this movie is like a Bay movie is in the fact it's really nothing more than a 2 hour long US military, knights in shinning armor propaganda film. Apparently they even controlled Japan! Didn't we give that back? LOL
How is it a US military propaganda movie? The military is pretty inconsequential in the movie, and only there because of course they'd be out there if ginormous creatures like the ones in it actually appeared.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
May 24, 2014 - 9:07 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
Hold on, did you ever see KING KONG LIVES-86- Where the director made the main soldier look like a over emotional sadistic redneck character. Films of this nature have done it both ways.
Yeah sorry Solium, but that's pure bullshit. The military are not positively portrayed all of the time. Not even close.
Hollywood has had an on again off again relationship with the military. Like during WW2? Not so much for a couple of decades after that. Its been generally all pro US military the last 14 years. Do your own research and get the facts before calling it pure BS. 
Edit: Here, I did the research for you-
"That increasing synergy between Hollywood and the Pentagon led to the current military-entertainment complex in which studios get to use taxpayer-subsidized military locations, equipment, personnel, and expertise in exchange for giving the military script approval. In this disproportionate exchange of power, the studios get significantly reduced production budgets, while the Pentagon gets to harness the power of cinema (and television) to advance a pro-war, pro-military agenda where multiplexes, flat screens and PCs become virtual recruitment offices."
http://movieline.com/2013/02/06/military-entertainment-complex-hollywood-pentagon-relationship-battleship-zero-dark-thirty/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 24, 2014 - 10:15 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Joe E.
(Member)
|
Hold on, did you ever see KING KONG LIVES-86- Where the director made the main soldier look like a over emotional sadistic redneck character. Films of this nature have done it both ways.
Yeah sorry Solium, but that's pure bullshit. The military are not positively portrayed all of the time. Not even close.
Hollywood has had an on again off again relationship with the military. Like during WW2? Not so much for a couple of decades after that. Its been generally all pro US military the last 14 years. Do your own research and get the facts before calling it pure BS.
Edit: Here, I did the research for you-
"That increasing synergy between Hollywood and the Pentagon led to the current military-entertainment complex in which studios get to use taxpayer-subsidized military locations, equipment, personnel, and expertise in exchange for giving the military script approval. In this disproportionate exchange of power, the studios get significantly reduced production budgets, while the Pentagon gets to harness the power of cinema (and television) to advance a pro-war, pro-military agenda where multiplexes, flat screens and PCs become virtual recruitment offices."
http://movieline.com/2013/02/06/military-entertainment-complex-hollywood-pentagon-relationship-battleship-zero-dark-thirty/
Okay, but that still doesn't change the fact the military in this particular film isn't particularly portrayed in the manner you describe. No, the movie isn't going out of its way to show US troops in a negative light, but they're clearly not effective against any of the creatures, either. We do see military figures acting professionally, but... is that really so terribly unusual to you?
Incidentally, the military didn't participate in the production of The Avengers or I believe Captain America: The Winter Soldier because of the uncertainty of their fictional relationship with S.H.I.E.L.D. - it wasn't clear whether the fictional agency was supposed to have authority over the real-world US armed forces, and so on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
