Thread:Project Predacon/@comment-27724978-20190912170600/@comment-4820209-20190928054721

Davidg7359 wrote: What was the reason for changing the origins anyways if it doesn’t effect the movie?

Making sense is not what makes a movie good. Mecha Godzilla city was still a massive disappointment, because they went through all the trouble to say that Mecha Godzilla was going to appear in the film, design a new mecha Godzilla (which didn’t even resemble Mecha Godzilla), only to scrap it have have Godzilla destroy a city for the millionth time.

If you are going to say that you are going to use all of Toho’s monsters just to hype up your movie, and then just throw them all into some novels, that is wasted potential. If you say you are going to use a monster for your film, actually use them.

Also, what? Your nitpick about King of the Monsters not being grounded in reality at least somewhat made sense. Anime shouldn’t be grounded in reality because it doesn’t have all the limitations that live action movies have. They had the opportunity to make a good trilogy of movies, and use all of the monsters they said they were going to use. But instead, we just got wasted potential. What a failure. Things don't need to inherently affect the film's plot to mean something, or be of meaning. The argument is about how it was done for no/some reason, not its impact on the plot.

Second, Mechagodzilla did appear in the film, just not how people "wanted" it to. The point there was how, to me, the rationalization behind why it appeared as it did needed to make sense in the first place. And I'd argue making sense plays a part in making the film good, or at least of higher potential quality. Because rules and logic do exist in movies. And why stick around or be invested if people make stupid decisions, after showing intelligence.

Third, pretty sure they didn't say they were gonna use the novel kaiju in the films, given the film's marketing literally focused on, and advertised the monsters in the movie alone. Never the novels, bar Planet's flashback. Everything pointed to the opposite direction. Marketing, clips, posters, etc. Dunno where you get this.

Finally, yes, I get it. Anime shouldn't be limited to reality, or has the ability to stretch out past reality's boundaries, ironically realistically. So, by this logic, the opposite will also be true. Making a live action film should ideally (But not exclusively) yield a more grounded, realistic style. Given the medium. Yet, we had arguments about that, specifically, when I brought up how things like physics and certain plot elements break down in reality, and cease to be believable in the setting it's introduced in. You'll say it matters for the anime, and it should try to be less grounded, but when physics is brought up in a live-action environment, you'll say it doesn't matter. Where is the line drawn.