Thread:Project Predacon/@comment-27724978-20190912170600/@comment-4820209-20190920005544

Davidg7359 wrote: I know that I’m wasting my time with this reply because you are so stubborn with your opinions, but I’ll do it anyways.

spin-off noun a byproduct or incidental result of a larger project. "the commercial spin-off from defense research" a product marketed by its association with a popular television program, movie, personality, etc. "spin-off merchandising" a subsidiary of a parent company that has been sold off, creating a new company. Kong Skull Island is not a spin-off because it doesn’t branch off of the Monsterverse. And my point was that the change was not really drastic at all. And my point about them distancing themselves from a bad movie still stands. It doesn't need to branch off from the MonsterVerse to be a spin-off. Halo: Reach and Halo 3: ODST are both spin-off titles, officially, and both take place in direct Halo canon, sometimes during mainline Halo titles.

Point is, I could list 16 different ways tone's conveyed differently to make King of the Monsters a radically different movie than 2014's Godzilla. Be it visuals, how music accents a scene, how a climax occurs, etc. It isn't a matter of debating a tone shift. It's a matter of both liking it, and determining its quality for the larger universe. And in the case of 2014's Godzilla to King of the Monsters, it's a resounding failure. Davidg7359 wrote: 2. What I’m saying is that this movie doesn’t have to make sense. Physics are not the most important thing for a monster movie. And that wasn’t even my main point. What I was trying to get across was that if they made another 2014, they would be doomed from the start. The reason why this movie didn’t do that good in the American box office was because so many people were disappointed with this movie’s predecessor that they didn’t bother to see the sequel, as it would probably be just as bad as the last movie. I don't really care if you don't put value on physics, the point of my argument was on how the movie changed 2014's established physics ruleset. And I argue inconsistency is bad in a supposed-to-be consistent universe. It's not a matter of whether or not I value it, or whether or not I like it. I think consistency itself is a bad trait for a consistent series, regardless of my enjoyment.

Towards the box office. I doubt that. We don't inherently know why it bombed. But 2014's Godzilla was a commercial and critical success. Key being critical. It was recommended by critics, even if it wasn't perfect, so I'm highly doubting a successful movie would suddenly result in a really poor turnout for the sequel. I think the sequel just kinda shot itself in the face, lol. Gotta put actual responsibility somewhere. Over scapegoating projects that did fine. Davidg7359 wrote: 3. Aftershock explains the spine change. And the “breeding pairs” of monsters are not the mental effort that should’ve gone into making a sequel. The monsters survived the mass extinctions by doing what some animals do when the environment is less than favorable for them, they go into a long sleep called hibernation. Mind blowing, right? I would respond to these next two sentences about dinosaurs, if I could make out a coherent thought. Also, Godzilla, Kong, and Ghidorah are the only monsters that vie for supremacy. Aftershock showed Godzilla's spines being destroyed, which in turn means they have to regrow. That doesn't inherently explain how or why they'd change shape. Since at that point they'd be healing, not changing. When you cut your finger, or scar a part of your body, or break a bone, you're not radically changing. Your finger isn't changing shape. You're mostly just altering and "damaging" your fingerprint at the most, not growing a new form of finger or fingerprint. And this makes less sense, especially during sequences like the 2014 flashback in the movie's intro, which directly goes against established canon by showing a 2019-era Godzilla in 2014, lol.

Furthermore, you whiffed on my point by emphasizing breeding pairs, which played a role in my comment but weren't my inherent point. Would be appreciated if you read over what I said, again.

To that point, hibernation works for small mammals and animals. Hence why large animals get screwed over in mass extinctions. The only justification could maybe be the fact the creature's snagged up radiation from the extinctions involving that, enabling them to feed. Such as the infamous Cretaceous one. But what about the Permian and Triassic extinctions. Which completely nuked the planet at an atmospheric level to an insane degree, killing nearly everything, big and small. You can't just hide from the planet itself changing, except for Godzilla, which was canonized as being able to lurk around Earth's core to feed on radiation, which makes sense, given at that depth, living standards aren't a problem and I can suspend my disbelief for him. But not every monster is Godzilla. Thus, it just doesn't work. At all.

To that point, just because you can't make out a coherent thought about the dinosaur point doesn't mean I didn't make one. Not my problem. Re-read what I said and try to understand it over passing it off. Because it is a logical inconsistency for this series.

And nah, even by the film's synopsis, all the monsters are vying for supremacy. They all just happened to bow to Godzilla, and one was allied with him. Which is why that entire thing is dumb at a fundamental level. Even so, that doesn't really change how bowing is dumb, and makes no sense, and how not taking out Godzilla at his weakest is a logistically dumb move from an animalistic perspective. Davidg7359 wrote: 4. I was unaware of Admiral Stenz’s death. But my point still stands. And the only two actors from 2014 that portrayed actual emotion are not returning for one reason or another. If anything, you should be exited about the new cast. Why should I, when they're literally the epitome of what I never wanted. A generic family meant for people to put themselves into with minimal actual depth. Nothing unique. There's at least something special about the actual scientists dealing with the disasters present. Hence why Shin Godzilla was also leagues ahead in terms of casting and characters.

My point was, anything I liked about 2014 (My reason to be excited for King of the Monsters) got nuked and absolutely nothing in King of the Monsters, pre-marketing or post-launch was good enough to replace them. And in turn, I'd have rather they just made an actual sequel focusing on these characters, over killing them to soft-reboot the storyline with new people I give no damns about, because of flimsy script-writing. Davidg7359 wrote: 5. Are you saying that fans can’t make good sequels that have a bearing on the established universe? The director just made the movie more faithful to Godzilla’s roots, instead of being different for no reason. That is why the Godzilla anime trilogy was such a failure, because it alienated the fan base, while doing nothing with those differences. The differences from the last movie were because the last movie wasn’t that good of a Godzilla film. I didn't say that once. I spoke in broad strokes, but only referred to the fact I don't think this guy as a fan was the right fit for the job of making a sequel in a cinematic universe. As he wasn't, to me.

Furthermore, I don't see why we need to "go back to Godzilla's roots" when we have 25+ films centering on said roots. Films from less than a decade ago. If anything, we're in need of more stuff that challenges our views of the franchise than we are needing super faithful adaptations of things we've seen multiple times. Davidg7359 wrote: 6. It was established that Serizawa’s Bomb made Godzilla go into critical mass. And the anime being more grounded in reality than this only proves all of the missed opportunities of the anime trilogy. And while I do agree that burning Godzilla was a deus ex machina, there are so many deus ex machinas in Godzilla movies, that it isn’t really a movie specific problem. Venom has nothing to do with Godzilla anyways, because Godzilla will have to have been drained of atomic energy in order for him to die, or else his regeneration will heal him completely. Also, Godzilla is a lot stronger in this movie than he was in 2014. Also your next point doesn’t make sense because monsters are obviously not real animals. It was established the bomb juiced up Godzilla to the point he'd overload and die, but was basically returned to fighting form for the time. That wasn't where his burning form came from. His burning form came from Mothra's energy. The point there either way was that moth dust absorption is still a ridiculous concept unfitting of the universe, and the fact they dropped the countdown of Godzilla dying out of nowhere is stupid (Especially when the stakes rose with burning Godzilla). The former because it doesn't make sense for a creature to evolve to die, and if that's their idea of a symbiotic relationship, that further pushes a point that they do no homework whatsoever. And the second obviously is bad because dropping plot points is also poor writing. Especially when your climax hinges on it.

Just because other Godzilla films have deus exes doesn't mean we should stand for new films falling by the sword of that trope. It should be just as lambasted for being lazy writing as other films are. Regardless of your enjoyment. So you can actually get a better product next time.

Further, the point is, regeneration won't save you from attacks that don't deal tons of damage over time. That's the point of regeneration, you don't die by death from 1,000 cuts because you heal from them. But if you have an ax take your head off immediately, regeneration won't matter. A lizard can regenerate its tail and has evolved to do so. Won't matter if you just curbstomp it to kill it immediately. Same should go for a "grounded" monster movie's creatures. And usually, it is. Not here, though. Hence the issue. Davidg7359 wrote: Again, physics isn’t really important for monster movies. And this movie could’ve been the perfect movie ,which it isn’t, you still would’ve wanted more. That’s why your arguments are only nitpicks and not any actual grave flaws, which there are in this movie, but you failed again at mentioning any. Again, you putting less value on monster physics doesn't just devalue my criticism. I don't ultimately care what you perceive to be good or bad. Because my point isn't on whether or not it's good or bad. My point is just on consistency. And how consistency is important. And how changing something as dramatic as how physics work between sequels results in a disjointed mess of a visual narrative. Hence why Pacific Rim and its sequel also got railed for it, rightfully so.

Further, to go on the point you made, when monster movies focus on monsters, creatures that are larger than life, fighting, how do you actually figure physics don't matter. At all. A proper or improper use of physics define how we perceive these monsters. As real or fake. It's one of the major factors in how they went about making the original Godzilla suit-based, with how they filmed it. So the actual physics of the suit itself looked good and convincing when stop-motion wasn't the best for it. Compared to stop motion and real-time shot use. Physics kinda defined this series' intro, regardless of how you feel about them. They're very important.