What defines a Godzilla movie?

SHAZOTHEHEDGEHOG - A Godzilla film is defined by its singular, self-evident trait: the inclusion of Godzilla. The destruction, death and/or mayhem that ensues over the course of such a film is secondary to the apperance and role of Godzilla himself. Al in all, I am of a mind to state that a Godzilla film is defined primarily by the lead monster's (Godzilla's) spot in the film. :)

Thank you Something Real for that wondrous response! I can agree with your point through every detail!

SHAZOTHEHEDGEHOG - You are most welcome! I am pleased the response I gave is acceptible. As an aside, I am mortified by the fact that I did not spell "all" correctly in my reply! Ugh! I am such and oaf! Oh, well. :)

What makes a Godzilla movie?

Godzilla

destruction

people running and getting crushed by buildings

people talking about how to stop ethier godzilla or the other evil monster

have godzilla destroy more stuff and fight the millitary, fight a super X or mech, or another monster

have godzilla swim to the water, "die", or roar in victory then walk to the water

godzilla theme in the end credits 

BOOM

oh and have a badass opening of godzilla roaring when he busts out of the water as the opening titles show up

@Something Real, I didnt notice that 'all" was mispelled! XD

@HeiseiKing So basically the same structure as a Heisei Godzilla movie? Its ironic hense your name! XD. For my animation, Godzilla would have a silhouette rising out of rubble with the J. Robert Oppenheimer dialogue. When the dialogue would say "Vishnu takes on his multi-armed form, and says..." Godzilla would be seen from a side angle rising up from the rubble of Japan in silhouette form and the screen would cut to black. An iconic Godzilla roar would sound loudly and the dialogue will continue, fading into the title as the line finishes.

As i said above a badass opening titles, and yours is BADASS!!!

I think the only real criteria is Something Real's. Everything else is just an added variable.

Did we see people physically die on-screen in Godzilla vs. Mothra '92? How much destruction was there in Godzilla's Revenge? Did he fight a monster in Godzilla '54 or The Return of Godzilla?

It seems to me the traits many think define a Godzilla movie aren't the result of being a Godzilla movie, but rather how screenwriters believe specific films should be written. Deaths, destruction and battles depend on what kind of Godzilla movie your setting out to make. They're not necessarily a recipe that automatically make a Godzilla film.

My views are based off of Something Reals and G-Mans.

A Godzilla film is Godzilla, the bottom line, backdrop, everything its about Godzilla. But Godzilla, has to act a certain way and invoke a certain feeling with his presence, and a good amount of G films don't execute this well (GMK).

In the original 1954, Godzilla's presence was felt when he was not on screen. He was here not intentionally, but acting on instinct, which is something terrifying for us humans. Godzilla in the Heisei series destroyed the building for a mainly Malicious intent, and had no care whether we lived or died, he was fighting for himself and anyone who needed too go in the process would have.

In the Millenium, he had mixed feelings. In 2000 he had truly malicious intent, FOR THE FIRST HALF. And then he battled Orga, my feelings are as those for the Heisei for Millenium, he was fighting for himself. And this was further Proven when he proceed's to blow up the city.

In GMK, Godzilla tried so hard too be evil that he was not evil, he was cartoony. And in Tokyo SOS he was a pure evil, but once again his villanious presence wasn't felt because him being evil was too forced upon you.

And in Final wars he was portrayed as a Anti-Hero leaning towards being a hero, so he was a good Godzilla.

In Godzilla 2014, Godzilla had a uncontrollable feel, he felt like an animal but an animal who can not be stopped he truly felt like Godzilla, but only when he was on screen!! When Godzilla was off screen his presence was not felt, you just knew he existed and he was not shown enough for you too feel his power. But when he was on screen he felt like a Godzilla.

@Gman2887, Where my animation was going, I wanted a dark tone. That's why I wanted death, destruction and battles. When I first got into Godzilla, the movie I saw was Godzilla vs King Ghidorah. It had a very dark tone towards the end of the movie and that's what gave me chills. It's exactly what I'm aiming for. Thanks for your response, it made me think a lot about the films I've watched.

@GorillaGodzilla, Wow, that was awesomelay detailed! You just went and described most of the Godzilla personalities! I really didnt see how Godzilla 2000 was malicious to me until you made that description. I just though he didn't give a crap about people at all. Thanks for your response!

Yeah it pretty much just comes down to having Godzilla. Destroying buildings/protecting them, fighting other monsters/being alone, killing people/saving people, being good/bad every aspect of these has been done in movies that we all would call a Godzilla movie.

As long as it has Godzilla the film can go in whatever direction it wants with the character for the most part.

It really boils down to what kind of Godzilla film you're watching. Everything Durp004, something real, and Gman2887 pointed out is pretty much what makes a Godzilla a Godzilla film.

"I really didnt see how Godzilla 2000 was malicious to me until you made that description."

ShazoTheHedgehog,
To be fair, other than the 1954 film, I think GorillaGodzilla pretty much misses the mark on most of the films he was describing by a pretty large margin. I've always felt in cases like Godzilla 2000 and the Heisei series, he's simply territorial. Tokyo SOS wasn't truly evil, he was simply attacking because the bones of a relative had been disturbed, as emphasized by the Shobijin/Chujo about a thousand times in that film.

And he's normally off about the excellence in GMK which emphasized Godzilla as a symbolic amaglam for the historical dangers of generational gaps spiraling a culture into repeat mistakes. The idea was that he was their to forcibly remind Japan, thus the "force" was necessary.

But this gets into less about what makes a Godzilla movie and more about how Godzilla is used. He's been a nuclear analogy. Defender of humanity. Advocate for going green. A cold war pin-up. A posterboard for natural disasters. A social study for unchecked nationalism and capitalism. A confidence builder for children with imagination. A warning about generational mistakes and an example of world unity. He can stand in for practically anything as long as he looks, sounds, walks, fights and terrorizes (whether it be an enemy monster or humanity) like Godzilla.

I agree with everything stated above me

However, as long as it isn't some movie made by a different studio that uses basically a new creature that Toho takes the rights to and makes it a new kaiju, it's a Godzilla movie.

@GMAN2887 Its just.. Godzilla didn't reallly look like a "malicious being" in 2000 to me. I like to see other people view. Heisei Godzilla, in later movies, looked like a passionate creature who cared for others and didn't destroy intentionally. However in Godzilla vs King Ghidorah and Biollante, his demeanor was terrifying towards mankind. I enjoyed GMK, but Godzilla looked odd. His personality was destructive but his look was just disturbing. Thanks for the clarificaction.

Wow, these responses are getting really good! I enjoy reading them all!

The later Heisei Godzilla films certainly tried to portray Godzilla in a more sympathetic light, generally. This is likely due to story shifts in the later Heisei movies.

Godzilla in Godzilla 2000 was out to destroy human energy for some reason-- That act seemed like terrirotial aggression to me.

And if you found Godzilla's look disturbing in GMK, I would say the film's mission was accomplished.

But again all of this has more to do with how to use the character. Not what makes a Godzilla film.

Gman, i believed that Godzilla did indeed have Malicious intent in 2000. Tokyo SOS was him being back with a vengeance cause he was attacked, 2003 may have just been territorial. And you can't deny, in GMK they were trying too hard to make him seem like a Demon which was so strange after Godzilla never acting like that.

And Shazo no problem glad i helped.

    I have often found myself at odds with how to feel when viewing GMK. The concept of Godzilla being an otherworldly being that is, for all intents and purposes, a monstrous composite of restless souls and negative energy is, hmm, interesting.

    Personally, I have always enjoyed Godzilla as a cautionary tale against the use of atomic power - a mutant nightmare resultant of Mankind's abject disregard for nature. That is what Godzilla is to me; what he means to me. He is a symbol of unfettered progress that cares naught for the world within which it has arisen - a monolithic being of flesh and blood characterized by our most horrid qualities. To that end, Godzilla is much like the humans responsible for his birth; and, like nealry evey creation that has arisen from our haphazard manner of discovery, he is destined to destroy us. There is no reason good enough to explain this fatalistic dance. Just as when a star dies upon generating iron within its core, it simply is the way it must be.

GorillaGodzilla,

Godzilla in Gmk acted no different than Godzilla 54', 64', and 84' films. This whole demon thing isn't taking into aspect by anyone. Toho did something different with Gmk and it worked. It's the highest grossing Godzilla film of the whole millennium series. Just because Godzilla in Gmk has the undertaker like eyes doesn't make him a demon. They wanted to represent fear. That's what Godzilla was in 54', 64' 84' and even few others. 

HUGE-BEN - I personally felt that Godzilla's eyes in GMK were neat! I enjoyed how monstrous he appeared - it suited his character as it was presented within the bounds of the film! :)

As overrated as it may be, I find Gmk the best of the millennium series. Godzilla is and always will be a symbolism of the atomic bomb. He wasn't made to be kid friendly during his early years. He was our punishment, our sacrilege, our torment, our demise. He didn't come kid friendly until the late 60's and 70's films. Due to Gameras influence. 

If Godzilla wasn't meant to be scary, terror incarnate, or our punishment, then what would He have been? 

HUGE-BEN - Well spoken, my friend! :)

Everything mentioned so far is fascinating and really thought provoking. Forgive me if my answer sounds too simplistic, but take a look at Tri-Stars Godzilla 1998 and the opposite of that defines a Godzilla film. Specifically, Godzilla is not a coward that runs from the military and is impervious to missiles. He's not an overgrown iguana on the loose. And this might sound debatable if you watch the films closely, but most of the destruction in Godzilla movies is caused by Godzilla himself or adversary monsters and not the military. I say debatable because I've seen some Toho films where it seems like the military is firing at the monsters but it looks more like a spray of gunfire going past them or over them. 

GorrillaGodzilla,
The only malicious intent Godzilla had in Godzilla 2000 was destroying human energy. This is established during his first attack in the film. It was aggression most certainly, but malicious? The most obvious reason seems territorial.

As for GMK, there was nothing about how Godzilla acted that wasn't established by what the characters were fearing or saying before he arrived in the film. It was completely in line with what the movie doing and felt no more or less out-of-place than what Godzilla does in other movies. My only recommendation for coping with Godzilla's mercilessness is paying closer attention to the first 30-40 minutes of the film.

I'll agree Godzilla does act different from previous incarnations and that's both an excellent and forgotten thing-- Praiseworthy even. In the early Showa era Godzilla would act completely different from film to film. In King Kong vs. Godzilla he would clap, tauntingly, when he had the upper hand. In the following film he was an unstoppable force with little character to him at all. In Ghidorah: The Three Headed Monster he's suddenly a reluctant hero taking cheap jabs from a laughing Rodan and communicating with different monster species, etc. We might as well curse these decisions for Godzilla "never acting like that" as well. We're only 50-45 years too late.

The point is younger fans are used to a set way that Godzilla is portrayed. Despite storylines that might place him in a more sympathetic light, Godzilla's character has remained relatively unchanged since the 1980s. Barring minor variation, GMK's Godzilla is the most unique character change to him since the 1960s-- And even that is only an extention of things we've seen before, not a revolution.

GMK has issues and if you dislike it, that's fine. But claiming it was "poorly executed" isn't targeting the right flaws since its execution is arguably more auteur-driven than anything the series has seen since 1989. Maybe longer.

Being Auteur doesnt necessarily mean good though. I would say Godzilla vs Hedorah is extremely auteur, but think it is the worst film in the series. 

I don't find GMK Godzilla's actions all that different that others. It's more aggressive towards humanity, but not that much more than early heisei, or showa, nothing that made me really gasp. I wouldn't call Godzilla's actions the problem with the film, it was everything around them that was the problem, it was nice seeing an evil Godzilla with no redeemable values destroying things for no reason other than to destroy. The fact he's a representation of simply forgetting the past is pretty poorly done though, in my opinion, a bad motive to this destruction and overall character.

"The fact he's a representation of simply forgetting the past is pretty poorly done though, in my opinion, a bad motive to this destruction and overall character."

In what way though. Not once has anyone who doesn't like the film given a decent reason as to how it's poorly done and, even worse, this is the absolute first time I've witnessed anyone insist it's a "bad motive", even if they don't like the film. Especially considering the Japanese climate at the time-- Or now for that matter.

While I agree autuerism isn't always good, GMK is certainly an exception, especially in comparison to the previous dull 15 years.

G-Man

I have been in the watching Godzilla since 1994, i wouldn't call myself a newbie fan.

I do happen to agree with Durp, as he makes some great points. And i am not saying that Godzilla acting differently never happened, i'm just saying that in the original's Godzilla vs King Kong, Three Headed Monster etc. His execution of character difference was explained in a greater detail.

In GMK, they gave some forced reason that, "The souls of world war 2 veterans have come back with a vengeance!!" And that did not make any sense too me. If it was Japanese world war 2 veterans why would they mercilessly kill they're own people? Wouldn't it have been the Allies that might have seeked that kind of vengeance?

And his white eyes i know i have elaborated before, were just so damn cartoony for even me. The film felt like they were trying to emulate 54, but the screenplay and the script just did not work.

In what way though. Not once has anyone who doesn't like the film given a decent reason as to how it's poorly done

Well they establish Godzilla is supernatural. This isn't left ambiguous like the original if he may have been the island's monster this movies establishes this Godzilla is supernatural, but at no point does he ever do anything supernatural it's just Godzilla with white eyes. Maybe a super pissed off Godzilla but nothing is different that the normal monster to this possessed one. The monster is also animal which is also established in the movie, so which way are we going? He acts normal outside the white eyes so I guess he's an animal but other characters disagree. This is thrown back and forth to the point no one knows what he is. You often blame the fact on the confusion of heisei's timeline on the writing but there's just as much confusion over what this Godzilla really is. I've seen so many different things people assume he is based off the movie. 

I've witnessed anyone insist it's a "bad motive", even if they don't like the film.

Okay I think it's fair to say based off the film the angry Godzilla was going to destroy Japan killing as many people as possible on the grounds of trying to forget the past. Problem is this movie takes place in 2001 so most of the people weren't even alive for this event and even those that were might have been too young to actively participate or do that horrible things japan did in the war. The movie even acknowledges the fact Japan did horrible things. There's nothing wrong with trying to distance yourself as a new generation from the sins of your fathers. They weren't alive, had no influence on the time and probably don't support the things Japan did so they try to forget, a common thing people do with horrible things. Every country does it the bad part of their past gets shoved under the rug by the new generation trying to establish themselves as different people with a different mindset and ethics. Problem is this doesn't matter Godzilla is going to kill all of them on the grounds of for a better term trying to move on. If this movie took place in the 60s or 70s and people were lying to the public about what happened in the war or denying it I could see the vengeance, but on the grounds of trying to forget the horrible things your country did, possibly long before you were born, you get to die.

GorillaGodzilla,
"His execution of character difference was explained in a greater detail."

No it wasn't. There was literally zero explaination as to why Godzilla clapped his hands and gloated in King Kong vs. Godzilla. There might have been some translation with the monster talk in Ghidorah: The Three Headed Monster, but even the talk itself is never explained and is a trait that has never happened before. Furthermore, no one explained why Godzilla joined up with Mothra to stop King Ghidorah-- It's merely and effectively shown.

Meanwhile, the entire first 30 to 40 minutes of GMK practically set up what kind of Godzilla we're about to get both in verbal exposition and visuals.

"And that did not make any sense too me. If it was Japanese world war 2 veterans why would they mercilessly kill they're own people?"

Well, you basically explained why it doesn't make sense to you-- You weren't paying attention. It's not simply the Japanese war veterans that have given their rage to Godzilla, but all of those who lost their lives in the Pacific War. This is clearly stated during the conversation with Prof. Isayama at the police station. Americans, Chinese and Russians lost their lives in the Pacific War as well.

Furthermore, as the film eludes to early on, the restless souls are enraged by the forgetfulness of the Japanese people. This gets into the current social climate of Japan; they're a country that likes to gloss over WWII in the history books. This is seen as dangerous in the eyes of many professors and historians as many believe the Japanese should take responsibility for the things they did in the war. Thus the wrestless souls are more a conglomeration of clashing ideals, all of which feel Japan needs to heed the past. This is effectively symbolized in how the country has forgotten Godzilla himself or likes back at him as a joke.

Wouldn't it have been the Allies that might have seeked that kind of vengeance?

As I said above, the Allies were also in the Pacific War and have also bestowed their rage to Godzilla. But where does this idea of vengeance come from? Why would the Allies want vengeance? They won. The remnants of the Allied forces today merely want Japan to remember the war and take responsibility. That's the point here. Godzilla's terror is a punch in the face to keep the country from repeating the same mistakes. (Mistakes that many believe Japan may make again today, I might add.)

The film felt like they were trying to emulate 54, but the screenplay and the script just did not work.

There lies another problem. The film isn't trying to emulate the 1954 movie. It's updating what Godzilla means for the current Japanese generation. It's a story drenched in mysticsm and the modern Japanese political climate. It does its own thing while merely respecting the terror seen in the original. If you go in thinking it's some sort of imitation of 1954, you have the wrong mindset.

Durp,
"Well they establish Godzilla is supernatural."

Where? This is a massive misconception. What he is is clearly stated and emphasized by Prof. Isayama:

"Atomic weapons and energy have given it extraordinary capacities for survival. Yet it's still a physical animal, thus it can be defeated."

The eyes are an aesthetic choice. Kaneko wanted Godzilla to look angry and "evil" and that type of aesthetic typically sells it. Even if no one is sure what Godzilla is in this film, that kind of questioning works. The ambiguity with Godzilla makes him all the more terrifying and if people can't pay attention enough to simply believe he may or may not be a mystical creature, more power to them for adding that layer. I wish it were closer to that complexity, honestly.

"Problem is this movie takes place in 2001 so most of the people weren't even alive for this event and even those that were might have been too young to actively participate or do that horrible things japan did in the war."

It takes place in 2004, additionally this claiming people were "too young to remember" or "participate" is pleading ignorance to the real issue. You and I are too young to have remembered the war, but we have books upon books with pages and pages dedicated to WWII.

In Japan it's not that simple. Those books may or may not exist, but little attention is brought to them either due to some form of shame or an insistance that they need to forget what atrocities they committed and continue to play the victim card without any responsibility. This is the exact problem that many filmmakers, historians and professors are combating in Japan right now and Shusuke Kaneko ended up addressing it years before it became a more popular topic for the likes of Hayao Miyazaki.

To paraphrase Miyazaki, the political and economic climate in Japan is very similar to their pre-WWII intervention, and its a cause for worry.

The idea isn't that they're trying to distance themselves from it, the idea is that they refuse to take responsibility altogether. The characters in the movie, for example, look back at the history of Godzilla as some kind of myth or joke. They don't understand what really happened during Godzilla's first appearence and how serious it was because it's never spoken of.

And so Godzilla is, once again, a warning to that kind of forgetfulness. Is it really that unimportant? I suppose Godzilla killing people so we don't forget about nature's wrath is a better reason? Or how about Godzilla being a warning of the dangers of radioactivity for a culture that's already experienced atomic warfare a mere decade beforehand? Lets not pretend Godzilla hasn't killed people for symbolic reasons that can be framed as superfluous.

It's similar to the idea of certain German groups denying the Holocaust actually happened. There are people who either truley believe that or insist on saying it because they want history to forget about it. Removing what happened doesn't make it better. That's what the film conveys and it's become a more pressing issue in Japan than the ho-hum, sweep-under-the-rug mentality you seem to view it as.