Unpopular Godzilla Opinions

[Executive Hamster]

Truthfully, even if I agreed with the sentiment, I'm tired of hearing it. Sometimes it really feels like G-fans copy paste their opinions from other people. Everyone constantly expresses the same opinion in often the same exact words.

[JVM]

It was in a G-Fan article from, I think, 2020. He went on a rant against cancel culture and defended the blackface natives from King Kong vs Godzilla.

Edit: Titanus Rodan posted before I could. Believe me, a lot of.my friends saw that article when it first came out and thought it was awful. Having read it myself (though not recently) I was definitely grossed out by it. He's also posted some questionable comics in the past.

I recall a previous issue (possibly Issue #119) where Lees seemed to exhibit a similar sentiment in passing, a sort of 'inevitably the cancel culture mob will come for Godzilla' vibe regarding something like this, and... it really pretty much put me off reading any further G-Fan. That was a comment in passing and this is a dedicated article to the same subject, showing nothing improved after that point. Real shame.

I don't know if there was any real grace period for GFW. I remember it was divisive before I even saw it. I was fairly young at the time, but I remember they put a bunch of reviews in G-Fan. First one I read called it the best movie since '54. Second one I read said it made GINO look good.

There was definitely no such grace period, the film already had a reputation as being disappointing, but the discourse around the film was definitely different. It had that "it's a bad film but I liked y and z" sort of thing going for it, with kids liking it straightforwardly and a lot of genuine interest in some of the kaiju designs, whereas over time I think the division became more... binary and bitter, where there's not really any aspect of the film singled out in a positive way by detractors, and where its fanbase seems less open to discussing flaws. The consensus is the same but the tone changes.

As a minor side note, the first year or two after it was out, there were definitely some conversations about why certain kaiju were or weren't in the movie. I remember an amusing comic involving Baragon, Megalon and some other kaiju waiting in line to appear in the film, then leaving while they see Godzilla beating up some other monsters. I don't think anyone worries about that kind of thing today.

There's also JL Carrozza who is basically modern Brian Griffin taken human form: An utterly pretentious scumbag

To be fair to Carrozza, he exposed the Mark Jamarillo situation when a lot of others stayed silent.

Unpopular opinion (maybe not in here but in more casual circles): The whole defense of G98 being "a good monster movie, just don't call it Godzilla" that I've kept hearing is patently ridiculous. Even as an ordinary monster movie, it's D-tier schlock you'd expect from a hack like Roland Emmerich

If you think Stargate and Independence Day are "D-tier shlock" I can completely agree with you, but I've seen those films be given a lot of credit today as nineties classics and as long as those films are regarded as good and okay, I can't see G98 being treated as much worse than them. I mean, I do think Independence Day is probably superior in an objective way (uncertainty is because I've not watched it recently) but it's not like, miles above it.

Truthfully, even if I agreed with the sentiment, I'm tired of hearing it. Sometimes it really feels like G-fans copy paste their opinions from other people. Everyone constantly expresses the same opinion in often the same exact words.

I agree, it often feels like G-fans copy paste their opinions from other people. Everyone constantly expresses the same opinion in often the same exact words.

This doesn't look like a G-fandom problem to me but a generalized fandom problem -- I'm seeing it lots of other places, too. I've seen a lot of people regurgitate things from movie reviews when questioned why something sucks. One of my other communities, I've ranted before, has recently had a new youtuber come in, and suddenly a lot of valid but previously obscure opinions he's held are becoming gospel among new fans, and whenever they are questioned, they restate his arguments. I have a lot of friends who fall into restarting things a youtuber has said, really.

[edgaguirus]

Unpopular opinion (maybe not in here but in more casual circles): The whole defense of G98 being "a good monster movie, just don't call it Godzilla" that I've kept hearing is patently ridiculous. Even as an ordinary monster movie, it's D-tier schlock you'd expect from a hack like Roland Emmerich

An unpopular opinion would be one that called G98 the best movie ever.

[Jetty_Jags]

Ok but to talk about the blackface natives in kkvg, is there really any racism here? It’s been a while since I’ve seen it but I’m not convinced. Blackface is racist for a couple or key reasons, it spawned out of minstrel shows (from my understanding a squarely American form of art/entertainment) where white performers adorned black makeup/face paint, and portrayed highly offensive and stereotypical traits generally prescribed to African Americans. It’s not just that they wore black makeup and wanted to look like black people, it’s that for a large period of time the only acceptable form/appearance of blackness in American entertainment/culture was a clown like farce made as a means of degrading those individuals by primarily white performers (still denying black people from participating even from their own mockery). There’s a further argument that putting on another racial group’s appearance is racist as it can be taken off and trivializes their marginality (I’m not as convinced by this argument but I understand it’s still important to a lot of people). Both of these factors explain why blackface of any kind is horribly offensive in the western hemisphere. It’s a stark reminder of violent racial pasts, awful forms of entertainment, and the socio-economic disparity between racial groups. My issue is that this explicitly exists within a western historical/cultural context and I think applying it to 1960s Japanese filmmaking is frankly asinine. Again it’s been a while since I’ve seen kkvg but is the depiction of the natives outside of blackface in bad taste? Are they portrayed as stupid or savages, particularly any more so than other kk media (or for the sake of chronicity the ‘33 movie)? I don’t see either argument for why blackface is racist applying here. It doesn’t seem to want to degrade black people, there is no history of racially motivated minstrel shows in Japan (if this is not so please let me know), and does Japan even have a history of societally ingrained racism against black people (perhaps but I doubt it is anywhere close to that of the us and other western powers)? Furthermore, I don’t see this as a Breakfast at Tiffany’s situation where a white actor steals the role to play an (offensive caricature to boot) Asian character. Realistically how many Black people could they get to play these roles without recruiting overseas, what was the black population in Japan at this time? Sure they could have changed the origin of the natives, but that would require implanting a modern western perspective on a historical group of Japanese filmmakers. I don’t see it as anymore racist than a little girl raiding her mom’s makeup bag to steal her bronzer to look like Pocahontas. Is the act racist in itself no, is it shocking anywhere outside of those circumstances, yes.

[LSD Jellyfish]

Ok but to talk about the blackface natives in kkvg, is there really any racism here? It’s been a while since I’ve seen it but I’m not convinced. Blackface is racist for a couple or key reasons, it spawned out of minstrel shows (from my understanding a squarely American form of art/entertainment) where white performers adorned black makeup/face paint, and portrayed highly offensive and stereotypical traits generally prescribed to African Americans. It’s not just that they wore black makeup and wanted to look like black people, it’s that for a large period of time the only acceptable form/appearance of blackness in American entertainment/culture was a clown like farce made as a means of degrading those individuals by primarily white performers (still denying black people from participating even from their own mockery). There’s a further argument that putting on another racial group’s appearance is racist as it can be taken off and trivializes their marginality (I’m not as convinced by this argument but I understand it’s still important to a lot of people). Both of these factors explain why blackface of any kind is horribly offensive in the western hemisphere. It’s a stark reminder of violent racial pasts, awful forms of entertainment, and the socio-economic disparity between racial groups. My issue is that this explicitly exists within a western historical/cultural context and I think applying it to 1960s Japanese filmmaking is frankly asinine. Again it’s been a while since I’ve seen kkvg but is the depiction of the natives outside of blackface in bad taste? Are they portrayed as stupid or savages, particularly any more so than other kk media (or for the sake of chronicity the ‘33 movie)? I don’t see either argument for why blackface is racist applying here. It doesn’t seem to want to degrade black people, there is no history of racially motivated minstrel shows in Japan (if this is not so please let me know), and does Japan even have a history of societally ingrained racism against black people (perhaps but I doubt it is anywhere close to that of the us and other western powers)? Furthermore, I don’t see this as a Breakfast at Tiffany’s situation where a white actor steals the role to play an (offensive caricature to boot) Asian character. Realistically how many Black people could they get to play these roles without recruiting overseas, what was the black population in Japan at this time? Sure they could have changed the origin of the natives, but that would require implanting a modern western perspective on a historical group of Japanese filmmakers. I don’t see it as anymore racist than a little girl raiding her mom’s makeup bag to steal her bronzer to look like Pocahontas. Is the act racist in itself no, is it shocking anywhere outside of those circumstances, yes.

The whole KKVG blackface "controversy" is bullshit for the reasons you outline. Everyone, on here, at least, agrees that black face is bad, and probably a poor looking decision in KKVG, but leave it at that. It's only weirdoes looking for attention trying to make it a bigger thing that it is, and make some commentary on cancel culture.

On top of that, most of said people, ignore that KKVG was actually pretty critical of colonialism and capitalizing off of natives.

[Gojira18]

Ok but to talk about the blackface natives in kkvg, is there really any racism here? It’s been a while since I’ve seen it but I’m not convinced. Blackface is racist for a couple or key reasons, it spawned out of minstrel shows (from my understanding a squarely American form of art/entertainment) where white performers adorned black makeup/face paint, and portrayed highly offensive and stereotypical traits generally prescribed to African Americans. It’s not just that they wore black makeup and wanted to look like black people, it’s that for a large period of time the only acceptable form/appearance of blackness in American entertainment/culture was a clown like farce made as a means of degrading those individuals by primarily white performers (still denying black people from participating even from their own mockery). There’s a further argument that putting on another racial group’s appearance is racist as it can be taken off and trivializes their marginality (I’m not as convinced by this argument but I understand it’s still important to a lot of people). Both of these factors explain why blackface of any kind is horribly offensive in the western hemisphere. It’s a stark reminder of violent racial pasts, awful forms of entertainment, and the socio-economic disparity between racial groups. My issue is that this explicitly exists within a western historical/cultural context and I think applying it to 1960s Japanese filmmaking is frankly asinine. Again it’s been a while since I’ve seen kkvg but is the depiction of the natives outside of blackface in bad taste? Are they portrayed as stupid or savages, particularly any more so than other kk media (or for the sake of chronicity the ‘33 movie)? I don’t see either argument for why blackface is racist applying here. It doesn’t seem to want to degrade black people, there is no history of racially motivated minstrel shows in Japan (if this is not so please let me know), and does Japan even have a history of societally ingrained racism against black people (perhaps but I doubt it is anywhere close to that of the us and other western powers)? Furthermore, I don’t see this as a Breakfast at Tiffany’s situation where a white actor steals the role to play an (offensive caricature to boot) Asian character. Realistically how many Black people could they get to play these roles without recruiting overseas, what was the black population in Japan at this time? Sure they could have changed the origin of the natives, but that would require implanting a modern western perspective on a historical group of Japanese filmmakers. I don’t see it as anymore racist than a little girl raiding her mom’s makeup bag to steal her bronzer to look like Pocahontas. Is the act racist in itself no, is it shocking anywhere outside of those circumstances, yes.

I thought it was brownface instead of blackface, which iirc was pretty common in Japanese media at the time

[LSD Jellyfish]

What was common at the time doesn’t make it right or acceptable. But, the argument that it’s black face and the way the G-fan article portrayed it grossly misrepresented what it was, and how people would react to it, all for political motivation and fake outrage.

[Gojira18]

What was common at the time doesn’t make it right or acceptable. But, the argument that it’s black face and the way the G-fan article portrayed it grossly misrepresented what it was, and how people would react to it, all for political motivation and fake outrage.

Never said it was. I just thought there was a difference between the 2

[John Pannozzi]

Ok but to talk about the blackface natives in kkvg, is there really any racism here? It’s been a while since I’ve seen it but I’m not convinced. Blackface is racist for a couple or key reasons, it spawned out of minstrel shows (from my understanding a squarely American form of art/entertainment) where white performers adorned black makeup/face paint, and portrayed highly offensive and stereotypical traits generally prescribed to African Americans. It’s not just that they wore black makeup and wanted to look like black people, it’s that for a large period of time the only acceptable form/appearance of blackness in American entertainment/culture was a clown like farce made as a means of degrading those individuals by primarily white performers (still denying black people from participating even from their own mockery). There’s a further argument that putting on another racial group’s appearance is racist as it can be taken off and trivializes their marginality (I’m not as convinced by this argument but I understand it’s still important to a lot of people). Both of these factors explain why blackface of any kind is horribly offensive in the western hemisphere. It’s a stark reminder of violent racial pasts, awful forms of entertainment, and the socio-economic disparity between racial groups. My issue is that this explicitly exists within a western historical/cultural context and I think applying it to 1960s Japanese filmmaking is frankly asinine. Again it’s been a while since I’ve seen kkvg but is the depiction of the natives outside of blackface in bad taste? Are they portrayed as stupid or savages, particularly any more so than other kk media (or for the sake of chronicity the ‘33 movie)? I don’t see either argument for why blackface is racist applying here. It doesn’t seem to want to degrade black people, there is no history of racially motivated minstrel shows in Japan (if this is not so please let me know), and does Japan even have a history of societally ingrained racism against black people (perhaps but I doubt it is anywhere close to that of the us and other western powers)? Furthermore, I don’t see this as a Breakfast at Tiffany’s situation where a white actor steals the role to play an (offensive caricature to boot) Asian character. Realistically how many Black people could they get to play these roles without recruiting overseas, what was the black population in Japan at this time? Sure they could have changed the origin of the natives, but that would require implanting a modern western perspective on a historical group of Japanese filmmakers. I don’t see it as anymore racist than a little girl raiding her mom’s makeup bag to steal her bronzer to look like Pocahontas. Is the act racist in itself no, is it shocking anywhere outside of those circumstances, yes.

I thought it was brownface instead of blackface, which iirc was pretty common in Japanese media at the time

If anything, I think the natives of Faro Island (and Infant Island) are meant to be Southeast Asian (i.e., from around the same area of the world as Indonesia). So, i argue that it's still problematic in it's own way.

[LSD Jellyfish]

If anything, I think the natives of Faro Island (and Infant Island) are meant to be Southeast Asian (i.e., from around the same area of the world as Indonesia). So, i argue that it's still problematic in it's own way.

Well, yeah. The thing is though, that the people of Faro Island aren't a real culture or people. Same go for the Infant Islanders. They're inspired by stereotypes and depictions of native cultures that were common at the time, and I agree it's "problematic", but it's not the same situation as a minstrel show, blackface, or making fun of a specific group of people. Would it have been better, or more "authentic", to hire a bunch of Indonesian and ambigiously southeast asian people, to portray a fictional culture?

Again, it's important to view this in context of the films. King Kong vs. Godzilla (1963) is very explicit (in the Japanese cut), that Tako is an idiot businessman who doesn't respect people or indigenious populations, and only seeks to exploit them. The scene with the cigarettes and radio can be interpreted as a "hey look, the supposedly civilized people have introduced and forced a bunch of worthless junk, including something that is super dangerous, onto the natives". The two men on the island believe the natives to be stupid, especially for worshipping thunder, only to be proven wrong quickly, showing that Mr. Sakurai and his companion, are ignorant of the reality of the situation themselves. Even if Kong helps end Godzillas rampage, the film is also pretty clear that bringing Kong to Japan was a stupid idea. Compared to other natives in popular culture around that time, the natives aren't demonized, or treated as a true other, where they are completely alien and foreign. In an analysis of King Kong vs. Godzilla, people also seem to miss that the film's Kong plot, is a satire of the original 1933 film, which itself was much worse in its portrayal of natives (basically inhuman).

The entire plot of Mothra (1961), Mothra vs. Godzilla (1964), and even Ebirah Horror of the Deep (1966), feature the exploitation of natives as a major plot element. Yes, they are dated depictions that are unforunate, but it ignores that for the time, these films and their contents, were way ahead of the time of criticizing exploitation of people. I also think that Toho is aware of this to some degree. There's a reason why after the Showa Era, Mothra's keepers have been depicited solely as the Shojibin/Cosmos, with no extra natives to accompany them.

This entire conversation annoys me, because the original article that I'm responding to now, was some BS made up to ruffle feathers, and prove some sort of hypocrisy amongst the more liberal leaning side of the fandom. To be crystal clear in my own beliefs on the matter, yes it was wrong and outdated how these films stereotyped native peoples, but by no means is it some horrendous blemish that invalidates the films they are in, or their underlying message. And most people I've seen on here, understand this. It is by no means the "gotcha" moment that the writer of the original article believes it is.

[Voyager]

I have returned to these wretched forums to espouse my agenda upon the masses!!!!

SpaceGodzilla’s lame. I think it’s just so lame to have pretty much what amounts to a Crackzilla who has telekinesis as a villian. At least Mechagodzilla is cool in his films. SpaceGodzilla is powerful, sure, and he does make fools out of Godzilla and MOGUERA, but he just looks too damn silly. His roar is annoying, he’s got Heisei obesity syndrome, and to boot, he’s got a poorly aged beam weapon.

[HedorahIsBestGirl]

SpaceGodzilla’s lame.

This shouldn't be unpopular. Space Godzilla sucks. He's one of the least menacing villains in this whole long series. I think he owes most of his popularity to Save the Earth.

[Legion1979]

I get Destroyer's popularity. Space Godzilla though? Why??

[JAGzilla]

I like the giant shoulder crystals. Random, unnatural attachments like those, Gigan's hooks, or Megalon's drills make for some of my favorite kaiju designs. It sets them apart from a lot of other movie monsters, and helps to sell them as these fantastical creatures beyond our understanding of nature.

[miguelnuva]

I get Destroyer's popularity. Space Godzilla though? Why??

SpaceGodzilla came out around the same time as Broly and Venom. The Dark doppelganger was a Super popular trope during the 90's. It existed before ofcourse but the 90's went crazy with it.

It's funny to me because in someway Shin Godzilla does the dark doppelganger better than SpaceG does in someways.

[StardustGenius]

Destoroyah has way more in common with Broly and Doomsday than Spacegodzilla does. Sadistic, violent, extremely overpowered monsters that the hero has a tough time fighting. Trope characters like that were indeed popular in the 90s, but I don't see how it fits Spacegodzilla. He's a doppelganger, not an unstoppable beast.

Spacegodzilla looks like a Super Mode for Godzilla (HAH), but all the other concept art for Spacegodzilla looked more interesting than him. That centaur inspired one was much freakier if they had gone with it.

[GigaBowserG]

I get Destroyer's popularity. Space Godzilla though? Why??

Godzilla is already everyone's favorite, so instead of following that trend, I'll like the monster that looks a lot like him instead. It's what the cool kids do.

[Gigantis]

I get Destroyer's popularity. Space Godzilla though? Why??

SpaceGodzilla came out around the same time as Broly and Venom. The Dark doppelganger was a Super popular trope during the 90's. It existed before ofcourse but the 90's went crazy with it.

It's funny to me because in someway Shin Godzilla does the dark doppelganger better than SpaceG does in someways.

IDK If I'd call Broly Goku's doppelganger.

[Gojira18]

I get Destroyer's popularity. Space Godzilla though? Why??

SpaceGodzilla came out around the same time as Broly and Venom. The Dark doppelganger was a Super popular trope during the 90's. It existed before ofcourse but the 90's went crazy with it.

It's funny to me because in someway Shin Godzilla does the dark doppelganger better than SpaceG does in someways.

IDK If I'd call Broly Goku's doppelganger.

Yeah, especially since his relationship with Goku is so flimsy and laughable

[LSD Jellyfish]

I like Spacegodzilla in that it's a doppleganger but still has it's own unique flair and abilities. They could've just made an "Evilver Godzilla" that looks spinier, and has a more intense/differently colored beam, but went for something with a completely different moveset and way of attacking. There's no association of crystals with Godzilla, and it's something that makes SG stand out from his originator.

I like Spacegodzilla. As I mentioned above, to me he has a unique "moveset" and abilities that make him stand out from the crowd. I get, and mostly agree, that his original movie isn't so great, but I like his appearances in all the extended media. He suffers from the exact same issue as Destoroyah: big ambitious monster that suffered due to a bulky suit and underexplored ideas. I'm looking forward to the upcoming Godzilla Rivals: Spacegodzilla.