Thread:Project Predacon/@comment-27724978-20190912170600/@comment-4820209-20190917001922

Davidg7359 wrote: Didn’t want to go on a long rant on this wiki but oh well. 1. The tone shift wasn’t that radical as Kong Skull Island also changed the tone. They tried to distance themselves from 2014 because its predecessor was hard to look at, had horrible acting, had little monster action, and just bored me to tears. They changed a lot of things to improve the monsterverse. Skull Island is also a spin-off and introduction for an entirely different monster, in a different time period. It has the luxury of being able to be different because of its circumstance. Either way, it doesn't matter if it's not "as" big as the jump from Godzilla to Skull Island when the leap from Godzilla to King of the Monsters is blindsiding either way, and simply doesn't fit as a sequel. Davidg7359 wrote: 2.The color palette from 2014 was very ugly and dark to the point where you can barely see Godzilla. They also only remastered 3 old tracks, so it’s barely an issue. And the action being to fast paced and exciting is not an issue. Godzilla inherently doesn’t make sense, why should this movie makes sense? Also Rodan and Mothra’s fight was definitely not the highlight of the movie. Again, exiting action isn’t a problem. And they wanted to expand upon the events of 2014 because it didn’t provide much to work with. Godzilla as a being and concept not making sense with reality again doesn't mean we need nonsensical movies that don't canonically align. It should make sense because as a piece of media, I'd expect you to have something meaningful to say or add to the series, given money exchanges hands, and you're expecting me to come back again, following a movie I enjoyed, parading yourself as a sequel to it. I expect effort put into the worldbuilding of the universe that has been established, and I expect consistency in upholding that universe. Because as a director, it is your job to respect the past of your direct series, and also continue it in a viable fashion as a result. Davidg7359 wrote: 3. Did you read Godzilla Aftershock? It’s a prequel to this movie that explains a lot of what is going on in the monsterverse. The seventeen monsters were added in order for there to be more monsters than just Godzilla and the MUTOs, and had more thought put into them than just cookie cutter Cloverfield-like monsters. You’re overthinking this. These monsters are each individual different monsters coexisting with each other. They survived until now for the same reason that Godzilla did, because these monsters don’t naturally die, at least not for thousands of years, which isn’t coincidental. Ghidorah didn’t do anything to stop Godzilla’s atomic breath because he just fired a gravity beam and charging up another one. Godzilla and the female MUTO were fighting at close range, while Godzilla and Ghidorah weren’t. I'm not overthinking this. I'm only putting forward the mental effort that should've gone into making this sequel in the first place. And if Aftershock is going with the idea that they all somehow existed at the same time, then yeah, this universe is kinda being blasted in terms of belief suspension, lol. They all somehow co-existed at the same time, and somehow, a single one of each (In a world we know has breeding pairs) has survived into the present day, despite everything going on from the Permian (Assuming they arose in Godzilla's time) to now. About six mass extinctions occurred between then and now, and you expect me to believe they all survived that. Again, hilariously coincidental and convenient. That isn't thought, lol. Think about Cretaceous North America. Where the dominant apex predator of the upper continent (ranging from the US to about Canada) was the sole species Tyrannosaurus rex for a good few million years. Then across the globe you had three more superspecies, like Spinosaurus, Carcharodontosaurus, and Giganotosaurus, on top of others. You have about four species (not all concurrently, on top of others) making their area of the globe their stomping grounds for a few solid million year chunks, over various timeframes. So how do you work seventeen monsters the size of skyscrapers into this world, who all vie for the spot of "alpha" and the dominant member of their chain, if creatures a tenth of their size evolved specifically to the point of never treading on each other's toes, or being made irrelevant in their ecosystems. It literally makes no sense. And was done for the rule of cool. At the expense of breaking the universe itself. Davidg7359 wrote: 4. See point 1. Godzilla 2014 was terrible, and King of the Monsters was trying not to be another Godzilla 2014. Also Admiral Stenz didn’t die, did you watch the movie? Also how is it possible that recasting of actors exited you more than the monsters? Stenz was heavily implied to have been killed in the film's final battle during the novelization. Canon kinda sucks, dude.

And the recasting of certain actors makes me excited because I care about the potential storytelling opportunities present with these characters. Could've had great Mon-arcs (teehee) about these two. So much potential for actual thoughtful interactions and morals.

I'm not excited about monsters I expect to see, and I know probably won't extend to mean anything bar flashy visuals. I'd known the major four would be in the film since 2014. It's not really a hype surprise they appeared. Nor is action something that can carry me through a movie. Davidg7359 wrote: 5. They had a fan make the film to improve upon the last film, because the films he saw as a kid were clearly better than 2014. He also did expand upon the last movie. And those films should have no super-major bearing on an established universe that is different than those he saw as a kid, bar the monsters in name that he saw, and some obvious cheeky references. The film should've been a proper sequel, not a softcore remake that is a non-sequel sequel. They shouldn't have hired someone who was just gonna relive his childhood through a lens at the cost of any universal consistency. Davidg7359 wrote: 6. Godzilla went thermonuclear because of the Bomb that Serizawa powered him up with. Godzilla eats atomic energy, this was alluded to in 2014. The pulses didn’t do anything to his surroundings because they were already melted. Godzilla was extremely powered up so it would make sense that the gravity beams don’t do anything to Godzilla. If you were attacked by an attack that you know wasn’t going to effect you, what else would you do but stand there? Godzilla is also inherently Outlandish and corny. Godzilla survived being dropped from the upper atmosphere because he has a power called regeneration. Mind blowing right? Your next two sentences contradict each other, and neither makes sense. No, he didn't. He went thermonuclear (Burning form) as a result of Mothra, hence the specific design of the nuclear pulses he unleashes, post-Mothra death, on top of the all too obvious lingering shot on moth dust covering Godzilla. The nuke that Serizawa planted by him just revived him to an average state. And gave him too much energy. But that plot point was actually dropped. Given the end result was death for Godzilla, there. And following the "countdown" nothing actually came of it.

Your justification for the pulses doing nothing doesn't actually acknowledge my issue. My point on that was there wouldn't be rubble if something hot enough to melt steel was walking around. There would just be molten rock and metal surrounding Godzilla for however wide the radius of damage is. Which is how heat works. Surprisingly, the anime that should've been ten times more ridiculous and outlandish was more grounded and understood this.

Third to that, no. If Godzilla is powered up from his burning abilities, there is nothing there insinuating he's somehow more durable. If anything, intense heat would make him more vulnerable. A glass cannon. There outright is no explanation for why he's somehow suddenly invincible to an attack that once knocked him off an Antarctic shelf. It's purely plot armor and a deus ex machina. Of course, this being me, if I had this ability, no I wouldn't just be standing around. I'd be abusing said ability to just nuke my opponent while they couldn't touch me. Why waste time? As an animal it makes no sense for Godzilla to essentially "taunt" his rival in an anthropomorphic way.

Fourth, regeneration means nothing towards attacks that can outright kill you before it kicks in. Venom, the symbiote, in a much wackier set of universes has the power of regeneration. And even one of his weaknesses is intense heat. Because it nullifies his regenerative abilities through sheer intensity.It kills him faster than he can regenerate. Godzilla's regeneration would mean nothing to a fall from that high, nor would it somehow stop him from dying immediately when he lands on his head, due to his own weight and the sheer force his re-entry generates. Of course, this also doesn't go over how this is the same Godzilla who was winded from a skyscraper falling on him, post-fight. Somehow he goes from that, and then collapsing for a night, to surviving atmospheric re-entry. Davidg7359 wrote: They submitted to Godzilla because a. He’s an alpha and b. He can easily kill them all. You submit to things that can kill you out of a little known emotion called fear. This female MUTO isn’t a threat without a male to make babies with. You're not grasping my point. Him being an alpha makes no sense when the animals bowing to him are entirely foreign to him as a species and the concept of bowing itself isn't universal. And no, you don't submit to things that will kill you that are of the opposite species. You either fight, or you run, which is where fear and survival instinct comes in. That's how the real world works. And a universe aiming to be grounded not grasping the basic fundamentals of that is nuts to me.

Either way, it doesn't matter if the female MUTO "isn't a threat". She's still the canonical predator/prey to Godzilla. There is no justifiable reason for her to bow to him when they've evolved to kill each other. You don't get stalemates like this from real animals. Davidg7359 wrote: In conclusion, you expected far too much from this movie. There is a clear difference between opinion and quality. You failed to state any grave flaws with this movie, instead opting to nitpick. Please tell me those other points, because I can do this all day. I mean, yeah, I expected actual homework to go into this sequel. Which wasn't done here. And is a big problem. Since when is expecting too much a bad thing, now. I shouldn't have to lower my expectations, I should have them being raised or challenged. Or else, again, what's the point of even being invested if I'm never being challenged or struck with actual good content. There isn't one.