Home > Entertainment > Movies > Movie Reviews
Would the movie 'Godzilla' have been more successful with a different name?
Results so far:
| No | 84% | 430 votes | Total: 509 votes | |
| Yes | 16% | 79 votes |
No
by Bobby B. Paul
Created on: August 09, 2008
1998's Godzilla is such a bloated weak story that its only strength is in its name. Beyond that it creates nothing original, and pays no homage to its predecessor. It sits in the bland world of being nothing but CGI effects.
There is something about the Hollywood remake that confuses me. When they remake, why do they feel compelled to duplicate everything including the titles, and characters? How can they be so unable to reach either way? How can I ever see a movie title with Pink Panther in its name and not think about Peter Sellers? There is no way that Steve Martin, who is an amazing comic talent, can answer that. Why not create a new, Sellers inspired character and explore that?
So it is with Godzilla.
The monster of the early Godzilla films is so iconic and campy, that remaking the character would need the efforts of top notch storytelling, which Roland Emmerich lacks. The movie itself is not bad. Its Predictable and formulaic but at least the formula works. Hollywood, with its bloated price tags and overstaffed teams, and ridiculous deadlines looks to make a profit by taking as few risks as possible. The summer movie formula works at the box office.
The problem is the genre. Godzilla isn't a monster movie genre. Godzilla is a genre unto itself. It is a camp movie's camp movie. How do you think of the name without the exaggerated serrated back fins or the cardboard miniature houses filmed with the largest camera available? These things define Godzilla.
But CGI teams look at this and say to themselves, we can make it better than before; more real, more interactive. We can make the monster believable. Great. I like it. But that is not Godzilla. That's a new monster and a new character updating an old rich genre. By the time you are done, it doesn't look like Godzilla.
The monster is a Godzilla shape, but also takes from Jurassic Park, and shows only small callbacks to the original. The 1998 monster shows a lot less personality and a lot more destructive capacity. Did it need to be Godzilla? It lacked any true redefinition of the campy genre, showed no evidence of franchise capability, and did not create a story any better than the Japanese productions that made Saturday afternoon TV watchable for kids. It could have had many other names and even more original creature designs that could push it enough to be something very different.
I'm even betting that the artists conceived many different creatures for Godzilla some that were outrageous and others that were very innovative and iconic. I will further bet that the producers rejected those saying things like "It doesn't look a thing like Godzilla." Then somebody could have responded with "well the story will be the same, we'll just replace Godzilla with Killizard or some other name." It's just that simple. Certainly screenwriters have a find and replace feature on their computers, right?
But no, that won't happen. Hollywood knows that there is a name they can sell. They don't care how bad the cereal tastes so long as there is a recognizable cartoon animal on the cover. That's why they keep the name. It's not about homage or nostalgia, its about marketing. They know grown-ups watched those movies as kids they know the name means something and we want to see how they interpret that monster. It's a bait and switch campaign that brings in the money but leaves us feeling duped.
In defense of those same movie makers, maybe that's what it takes. Maybe costs and budgets require this overly safe formula. You just can't take chances with millions of dollars right? Maybe so, unless you get an innovative gutsy upstart, like say, J.J. Abrams, and see what happens. Cloverfield created a Godzilla type monster and low key way of working around it. This is a movie about the people and how they are being affected personally by the monster. It certainly had its detractors, who hated the first person perspective, but its box office success and critical success combined to make a movie more memorable than Godzilla and put a sequel in discussion.
Godzilla had a budget of about 125 million and took in 135 million domestically. That's about an 8 percent profit, and is barely break even. However, it did another 239 million internationally and made about twice its original budget back gross ticket sales. Not bad. Cloverfield cost 25 million and grossed 170 million worldwide, with 80 million domestic and 90 million international, giving it a return of 6 times above the original budget.
If we leave the monster movie genre we can look at other remakes. Hitchock's Psycho was remade as closely as a remake can be. Not only is the plot and the title the same, it is a shot by shot duplicate of the original. Talk about playing it safe. With a 20 million dollar budget and a 37 million dollar return, nobody found it successful financially or critically. Disturbia remade Hitchock's The Rear Window as a teen suspense. Its quality in no way compares to the styles of Hitchock, nor does the acting compete. But the story has appeal and it doesn't try to just copy. The result is a movie that sells four times above the budget at the box office.
It seems silly that producers can't be even a little daring in their remakes. Good stories retold with a fresh perspective, different characters and structure can be successful. Good stories warmed up as a leftover have a history of dropping off the map. Godzilla is actually a reasonably successful film, but nobody is standing in line for part two. This is the real failure. This is the day of the franchise. Filmmakers seek to create films that will sell not only themselves, but their future productions. If this is to be, filmmakers need to reexamine how to freshen up the old stories they seem determined to use.
Can it be done? Anybody seen The Dark Knight yet?
Learn more about this author, Bobby B. Paul.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
by David Rasmussen
Created on: February 25, 2009 Last Updated: February 28, 2009
Psyche. Actually I just wanted to post my thoughts on this so I picked something randomly.
Thing is asking a question like would the movie Godzilla have been more successful with a different name is sorta like asking if cigarettes would be less harmful to you if they had a different name... in other words the name of the movie has nothing to do with the suck factor, because I don't care what you call this movie it'll still be campy compared to the superior pre and post Wide Eyed Good Guy Godzilla era... what? That? You never heard of that? Oh.
Briefly. After a few movies out at the start of his career (including the original Godzilla (which was remade in English with the addition of Raymond Burr who actually was not in the original Japanese version), Godzilla vs. King Kong (heralding a future when big name titles would clash in movies like Aliens vs. Predator, Jason vs. Freddy and W. vs. Earth... ok, maybe not the last one) and Godzilla versus Mothra (... even to today I can't get that damn song of the little twins out of my head... damn you little Mothra summoning twins! DAMN YOU!) before the people behind Godzilla (in one of their rare lapses of judgment) decided to make Godzilla turn good... complete with wide eyes and bad movies like the one with the kid who dreams of Monster Island and Godzilla Jr (who later becomes Godzilla II in the late 20th Century/Early 21st Century Godzilla movies), Godzilla versus the toxic waste monster, and Godzilla teamed up with spin-off character that failed to spin-off the giant (best known for his "holding pattern over airport maneuver") Red something robot dude... another theme song I can't unstick from my head. Eventually, however, Team Godzilla brought him back to his city smashing roots of old, and the series took off again as good stuff.
Then Team Godzilla had a lapse of sanity again, and let the Americans make their own Godzilla movie in the late 90's... why? Who can say, maybe it was that time of the year and the staff was huffing crazy shrooms or something in their miso soups, whatever it was they gave the Americans the right to do Godzilla and in 1998 Roland Emmerich co-wrote and directed "Godzilla", the movie which starred Matthew Brodderick, Jean Reno (yahh!), Maria Pitillo, Hank Azaria, Michael Lerner and Kevin Dunn.
Thing is the cast maybe wasn't the problem... no, I take it they were NOT the problem (Godzilla survived worst castings during his good guy years, believe you me) the problem is the Americans just had to do Godzilla their way, forgetting the proud (and sometimes not so proud) traditions of Godzilla and all that made the character great (mainly his trademark look, mannerisms and abilities which were thrown to the wayside in this movie for an American take on Godzilla which fans obviously rejected).
Though you'd have to wonder why since Godzilla is still basically what he was in Japan, an anti nuclear message. Born of nuclear radiation (French nuclear tests in the French Polynesia area) Godzilla follows the same origins of the traditional Godzilla (right?), but once we're past that forget tradition as Godzilla gets his - I mean HER American makeover... (smile!)
After Godzilla (Gojira) rampages against some ships and across Panama Godzilla comes up in New York City, and immediately sets up shop on the island of Manhattan where the military seals him in (though it's not like Godzilla wants to leave... yet). The hero being Matthew Brodderick isn't a stretch, in fact it could have worked out well. Add to that Jean Reno (who could have had more to do in this movie) and we have possibilities... until people see the mutated lizard thing they turned Godzilla into and suddenly there's a mob of angry fans forming stage left with their rent-a-pitchforks and torches at the ready.
I don't know, DID Godzilla have to be true to the Japanese version? Why the hell couldn't the Americans make their OWN Godzilla and make it work? Too much history, too much fan base, and too much expectations to live up to the Japanese version no doubt. I don't know, but I think if this was a lesser Japanese monster character with not as large a fan base (like the lesser known giant monster turtle savior of the universe that tastes like chicken for instance) then we might not have such a problem, but take a well known iconic figure like Godzilla (been around for like many a year) and try to make him in your own vision and WHAM, the fan base is revolting!
Add to that token "Nuclear Fire" breath attack ability, a Godzilla that just doesn't seem as cold and calculating as the original since this Godzilla just came to NYC to give birth, while the original Japanese Godzilla didn't raid Tokyo just to build a nest and give birth! That Godzilla attacked Tokyo because it was there and he could... it's like the old adage about the Chicken crossing the Road - if the Chicken breathed nuclear fire and was big and the other side of the road was the location of Tokyo.
Anyway if we threw in another mega monster (for the side of light like Mothra or a Military built Mecha Godzilla or for the side of dark like King Gidorah or Rodan) maybe the movie could have been better. If we had a more destructive and cold as ice city smasher Godzilla instead of the nest building only destroys when he feels like it Godzilla (I know I should be saying she but whatever, I'm lazy) then maybe it would have been better. Anything to remind us of the great city smashing heydays of the Japanese version and not this watered down, overtly baby Godzilla-ized geez this is stupid American version. I felt it insulted my intelligence, and yours too.
And yes, the end of the 98 movie hinted at a sequel, and the new Godzilla would have fought King Kong... luckily Peter Jackson got a hold of King Kong before Emmerich and Godzilla (American version) is hopefully lost forever in pre production hell never to be re-made ever again... if we're lucky. (Sure, the Japanese Godzilla franchise ground to it's end sometime ago, but we will always have the DVDs to warm our monster loving hearts).
So just to be clear on this? Asking you "Would the movie 'Godzilla' have been more successful with a different name?" is pointless since its name is NOT the problem with Godzilla... everything else BUT the name was its problem.
Come back next week as I ruin the age old debate on whether the movie "Ishtar" would have been more successful with a different name... (hint, I already have a new name in mind... and it'd be banned the minute I said it).
Learn more about this author, David Rasmussen.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Write and get published
Share with other writers
Polish your freelancing skills
Quality articles from proven freelancers
Exclusive rights, fast turnaround
Brand engagement, business blogging -- our writers do it all
INFORMATION
Copyright © 2002-2012 Helium, Inc. All rights reserved.
Helium.com: A Service of RR Donnelley