You Won't See Much Godzilla in "Godzilla"

The old adage 'less is more' might be cliche but its cliche for a reason. I can enjoy a solid build-up to the big reveal. It worked for some of my favorite movies, like Jurassic Park and Alien.  And as much as I liked movies like Pacific Rim and Godzilla: Final Wars the plot was thin and there was no real suspense or mystery.

I'm really not concerned about this. And never was. He's right about how many shots Jurassic Park has in it and Godzilla was only on-screen for 17 minutes in the original film. The thing is Godzilla's presense was felt thorughout the original movie and that's what counts. I'd be happy if the same goes down in this movie.

Quality not quantity, folks.

Besides those first two reviews from casual fans were certainly fullfilled so that's good enough from the fan standpoint.

Which tweets are you talking of? I know, there was a review I seen online, and the person seemed to like the movie quite a bit.

If it is true that Godzilla doesn't have much time in the movie, then I am not sure what the director was thinking. That to me suggests a lack of confidence in showing more Godzilla. It will obviously anger many Godzilla fans, but, Edwards did say he made the film for himself and not really the fans.

It seems that this movie is trying to reach a larger audience and not so much playing to the Godzilla fanbase as much.

Lets be realistic though. How much Godzilla is too much and how much is not "not much?"

that is a difficult thing to know. 

We will have to wait and see though. Its not a good idea though to irk your main fan base or ignore their wants and desires.

I think what it comes down to is that Edwards would be taking a hugh chance with his career if he went all out. The movie would flop he is probably thinking, and then he is more or less done as a film maker for a bit.

If he plays it safe, he has more of a chance and what safer way then to play "the human card?"

The other thing to note. If they are so worried about showing Godzilla too much, why is he being shown in the trailers? If your film has Godzilla in the background, and your building the climax of him etc, why then show him in the trailers?

^A lot of this smacks of a lot of over-thinking. Seems to me the cast and crew are very confident in the film they've produced and believe this is the best way to go about it.

$50 says much of it leads up to a climatic and fullfilling third act not unlike that of Jaws which is becoming a strong comparison from the cast and crew every day.

And I said fan reviews, not tweets.

Well, the original film needed a real support from the human characters due represented their struggle against a terrible disaster and Godzilla had a stand-alone appearence. If really need such support here I hope the plot and the acting is good enough to bring it, because personally I got bored easily when I do not find  what I am looking for, monsters fights in this case. I need to admit there some movies with good plot besides the monster action and the original film is a remarkable example of that; the second place on the series, at least for me, is Godzilla vs Biollante. It has a good background over the characters, specially when we see SHiragami tragic story and how he laments her daughter death, and the entire complot around the G-cells. That maked a good story, and it was needed because the new kaiju co-star, Biollante, did not do much at all. 

GMAN2887,

Here is the way I look at it. Ultimately, we all have to see the film for ourselves. However, it does seem likely that Godzilla won't be in the film as much as some might  like. 

Now I realize that the original film also took a similar approach, however, that was the 1950s and they didn't have access to the amount of visual effects that we have today. I think it quite likely that if they did, we would have seen a lot more of Godzilla and not only him, but what he could do. 

Also, I still don't get why they would hide him and build him, but then show him in the trailers? 

My personal feeling is that Edwards is a new director and less willing to take risks and went with a more "safe" approach to Godzilla. 

In the end that actually might work. More people will be captivated and it may in fact cause people to want to see the film again.

Talisman> Here is the way I look at it. Ultimately, we all have to see the film for ourselves. However, it does seem likely that Godzilla won't be in the film as much as some might  like. 

I am agree. I cannot make a good judgement unless I watch it. So I hope this does not turn into something like my "Loch Ness Horror" experience. When I was a kiddo I saw the trailer in a old VHS "Fantastic Dinosaurs from the Movies", where depicts how were created the old monster movies, but the highlight was the compendium of old trailers, from classics like Godzilla: King of the MOnsters and Harryhausen productions, to cheap B movies like the GIant CLaw and The GIant Gila Monster. I loved those trailers, and one that caught my special attention was about the movie featuring Nessie: Loch Ness Horror. I always wanted to see that movie, but very recently I got that chance, and I was very dissapointed because the trailer already shown ALL NESSIE APPEARENCES ON THE FILM, or at least over the 95% of those. The film was pretty short, simplistic and had really bad acting.

I tend to like the cheesyness of B movies, but this hit the bottom. Maybe this is an extreme comparision, but I would be upset if the

If anyone is interested, here are some links of what killed Nessie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzLhRttQpcc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZUirs6KzgE

@Tailsman

While limits in special effects and the pioneering of a new visual style is possibly one of the reasons we saw little of Godzilla in the original film, the fact is it still worked and many today even believe he's on-screen longer than he is. That also doesn't explain the small amount of screentime Godzilla had in films like Monster Zero, Godzilla vs. MechaGodzilla...etc...

I think the "safe" approach would have been to bombard Godzilla in the viewers faces, ala Transformers. He even said himself that he, "resisted the temptation" to overdo the CGI and tell a more compelling story not saturated with it. It seems most new, young and fresh directors have more of an all-in approach:

Young, early directors Colin Strause and Greg Strause attempted the opposite of Edward's philosophy with Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem and Skyline. Both were abysmal movies. Gavin Hood's first foray into Hollywood Blockbusters was pitting more action than story into X-Men Origins: Wolverine. A safe, young, blockbuster filmmaker sounds like someone who has an impulse for all-out action/effects. That's not how Edwards is reading.

We can project fears of "not seeing Godzilla as much as we'd like" all we want, but if anyone's going to judge the movie for Godzilla's screentime then I'd recomend backtracking to other Godzilla movies where he has more screentime. They'll always have those.

I think you are all jumping the gun based on one review (and that reviewer's subjective interpretation of whether we see enough Godzilla). This is hardly what I call clear evidence of whether we'll see enough of Godzilla in the film. 

Dont worry, between character development and all the solo Muto action the film will be just fine. Wasnt the original Jurassic Park a longer movie than G14? In JP I beleive the total scene minutes with dinosaurs was @ 20 minutes in total. I could be off a little but was eye-opening when you think it was a 2 hour plus movie.

I'm not going to say anything on this till I see the movie. I will say, however, that at least as far as the aforememotioned transformers movies go I was extremely disappointed by how little action there was in the first film until the end. It was a good movie and I enjoyed it, don't get me wrong, but I enjoyed the third film much more than the first (and the action in even the second more than the first) because there wasn't much of it. That being said we'll see how Godzilla turns out. I do want a good story and even if we aren't constantly seeing Godzilla as long as there's a lot going on and not a lot of standing around talking ill be more than content. 

Think about it, the classic movies do not show the monster much until the third act.  "Jaws", "Alien", "Jurassic Park", 'Moby Dick", "King Kong", "Cloverfield" and Godzilla 1954 used anticipation to enhance the suspend, and then proceeded to a big payoff so the audience could leave the theatre satisfied.  The sequels showed more of the monsters so the excitement wasn't as intense (except for "Aliens", which I thought was a better film").  To me it was a little strange that the movie only had a budget of $160 million.  You'd think that If Pacific Rim" had a budget of $190 million, that Godzilla would have to equal that or surpass it.  But if Godzilla has limited screen time, then that would mean less GCI. 

To be honest, Godzilla didn't appear much in his older films. But man, when he does appear, it does not dissapoint!

Its a 2 hour movie,in KING KONG kong wasnt always there but when he was it was awsome soooo not gonna worrie.

There are other tweets that are very positive...No worries. Why does there always have to that one be asshole howler monkey that comes here to spread trouble??

This is the best way to go. The cast has made Jaws references many times which is in my top 5 films of all time. Godzilla has to have a presence felt like an angry god who shows up, does his thing and leaves like the Daimajin movies which featured it's title character for maybe 8-10 minutes in each film. The concept trailer and teasers show a lot of what it shouls be like to emphasize the real world horror of what a Godzilla attack may be, hidden in smoke with voyeuristic views from fleeing cars, buildings.

Or we could give in to fans and greatly cheapen the fx so we can see a 30 minute fight where nothing happens like in Space Godzilla.

@ Raterrex

Pacific Rim also took place in the future, where there was plenty of FX shots of sci-fi background elements besides the monsters and robots.  Godzilla, in contrast, takes place in the modern day, where they can just film in real life settings without using FX to alter the shot.

@FREE5

Point well taken.  However, "The Lone Ranger", which takes place during the 19th century cost $215 million to make, and you really can't tell where the money was spent.  I think the studios may have been a little nervous about remaking Godzilla after the 1998 disaster.  So they limited the budget, which may have limited Godzilla's screen time.  Either way it appears as if Godzilla will still be a mega hit, so alls well that ends well.  With the success of Godzilla 2014, a sequel or a remake of "King Kong vs Godzilla", will get as much money as the studios think is necessary.

@terminated

and you don't on the scifi japan forum? LOL!

Not alot can be okay, but too little is not. I'm sure the film will have its merits besides Godzilla himself, but suspence or not, I want a healthy dose of my favorite monster. I guess we'll wait and see.

well we don't see much of godzilla in the 1954 movie, so this doesn't really bother me, also it's like in jaws when you don't see the shark until later in the film

A-hole howler monkey! LMAO..  that's the best thing I've heard on this site yet. Thats a line Mr. Cranston should be using. 

I wouldn't say multiple sources are saying this, I've only found 3 so far (one of which has questionable reliability). Anyone who has been following this movie should know by now that they're taking a very mysterious approach to Godzilla, hiding him until the climax. From the sounds of what I've read you don't see him much for the first hour and then the airport scene happens (people who saw Wondercon footage know what that means).

If the only negative that's starting to leak out is that Godzilla isn't shown enough, I think we're in for quite a treat.