Godzilla 1998: A Good Remake [of a Different Movie] · 2:24am Sep 19th, 2016
I was going to title this post "Godzilla 1998: A Good Remake" but God hates click-bait titles.
Godzilla [1998] by Tristar Pictures is a bad "Godzilla movie". It has a monster that is virtually unrecognizable as an incarnation of Godzilla and shares no traits with the enigmatic king of kaiju beyond the fact she’s an amphibious reptile with spikes on her back. Zilla by Toho, or GINO as fans have called her since 1998, was the product of two men who had almost no respect for the original source material. In fact Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin had pretty negative views of the original Godzilla film, frequently insulting the old plot lines and special effects; such as erroneously claiming Toho FX director Eiji Tsuburaya was completely ignorant of Stop-Motion animation mechanics and stupidly having to use a rubber lizard suit (Mr. Tsuburaya was actually well aware of and knew how to do Stop-Motion, it was just the fact a short production cycle because Gojira [1954] had, there was no time to do it).
It makes it all the more saddening considering the original 1994-1995 script Tristar [Readable Here] was going to use at first not only included a far more On-The-Ball incarnation of Godzilla, but a unique enemy and new ideas to the franchise we’d see later in kaiju films. Elements of the 1994 Jan De Bont Godzilla script later found themselves worked into later movies, though they were completely thrown out in the script revisioning by Dean Devlin and Roland Emmerich to the point there is virtually no similarities between the 1994 and 1998 scripts respectively.
Point is, Godzilla [1998] was a bad Godzilla film; but I don’t hate it. It was actually my first kaiju movie I ever saw and I got plenty of fond memories for it. I still got the “Kid Friendly” version my father made for four year old me on VHS, which has a lot of the talking cut out and ends with Zilla getting torpedoed and swimming off into the ocean. It’s a bad Godzilla film, but after almost twenty years to look at it in light of seeing both every other Godzilla film and a huge number of other monster movies both homegrown and foreign; I do still like it as a monster movie and popcorn entertainment.
We all know the joke some G-fans crack about it'a faithfulness to the wrong source material. As one G-Fan magazine writer once put it
“If you close your ears every time they say “Godzilla” and imagine it’s a Beast from 20,000 Fathoms remake; it’s closer than most remakes we get these days.”
It’s since become common thought to compare this film to “The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms”, a 1953 monster movie from the USA. A prehistoric monster (animated by the now legendary Stop-Motion wizard Ray Harryhausen) called a Rhedosaurus gets freed from the ice in the arctic from a nuclear explosion, traveling south and coming ashore to wreck havoc in New York City. The film was a hit when it was released and more than one of Godzilla’s creators’ have cited it as a chief inspiration both for their movie and their titular character’s reptilian look. In fact when Tomoyuki Tanaka first got the idea to make a monster movie, the working title on the outline he jotted down was “The Giant Monster From 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea”.
Just as Godzilla could be considered the archetypical Japanese giant monster movie, 20k Fathoms could be considered the codifier for the American giant monster film. There were earlier examples for sure, like 1933’s King Kong, but 20k Fathoms laid a lot of the ground work for almost every 50s monster film to follow. And when people said the 1998 film was more like 1953 film instead of Godzilla, it actually does line up well.
-The creature is big, but not gargantuan levels so it dwarfs most buildings.
-Rather than a force of nature or angry god, the monster acts more like an aggressive animal.
-The film’s technology, barring some relatively minor elements; is not fantastical.
-The monster can be killed, or at the very least seriously hurt, with conventional weapons, not some fantastical super weapon, it just takes awhile to land any good hits.
Tarantula, The Colossal Man, Beginning of the End, THEM!, It Came from Beneath the Sea; and The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms all follow this scheme with very little deviation. This is in stark contrast to how many Japanese kaiju films play out. It’s not a good or a bad thing, but it can make differences jarring. Godzilla [1998] is basically a Japanese monster put into an American styled monster movie. For an inversion, Pacific Rim (2012) is an American monster movie that plays out like a Japanese monster movie.
So why what’s the big deal you may ask? Seems like an open and shut case as to why the 1998 film ended up the way it did due to cultural and film making differences, resulting in a film (G1998) with some accidental similarities to an unrelated film (20 Fathoms) rather than its foreign source material (G1954). Actually, there seems to be much more to it than that.
Recall the 1994 script. It did have many American monster movie elements such as the military actually being effective even if Godzilla was ultimately needed to defeat the villain monster, and the monsters themselves were scaled down to a degree compared to the original Toho dimensions (around 40-50 meters). However, there is a big difference. Godzilla 1994 still felt like a Japanese monster film at its core. The Japanese born elements still played at the center-
-Only one of the kaiju could stand a good chance at destroying the other
-A fantastical weapon or device is created to affect a kaiju
-The military can somewhat harm the monsters but not in a meaningful way
-etc.
Which would have resulted in a far more faithful adaption of the source despite the unique parts of the script. And with the 2014 Godzilla film showing this faithfulness is possible even with a new spin, nationality wasn’t the core factor of the change.
I actually think the reason Godzilla [1998] ended up more like a Beast from 20,000 Fathoms remake because it literally was supposed to be a Beast from 20,000 Fathoms remake. Just look at the plot-
-We start with a nuclear explosion in a remote region
-First person to see the monster is considered crazy
-The first traces we see of it are damage to a seaside location
-It sinks a few ships before making landfall
-First attack is at the exact same Manhattan dock
-Monster rams itself through a building during the first rampage and leaves a hole in it
-There’s a confrontation with the military down a dark main street at night
-A blood test is done on the creature’s samples after the battle and discovers a plot point
-Monster finally killed once it becomes tangled up in a New York landmark and fired upon
And just lengthen Rhedosaurus’ hind legs to make it a biped, reverse the angle of and scale up the back spines; and you get something very close to the 1998 creation. This is especially noticeable when you consider the 1994 script's design, while slimmed down and more dinosaur-like than the Toho Godzilla, still was very recognizable as Godzilla with all the classic traits intact. Another huge difference both Zilla and Rhedosaurus have versus Godzilla is the nuclear ties. Depending on origin Godzilla is either a natural creature like Rhedosaurus or a mutation like Zilla, but regardless his ties to the atomic bomb and it's power is very much at a forefront with some incarnations irradiating an area just by walking through it. With Zilla and the Rhedosaurus however, the nuclear devices are treated more as a means to an end to get the monsters loose. Rhedosaurus wasn't radioactive and was merely freed via a bomb and Zilla, while a mutation, didn't have any radioactive ties beyond her origin. Godzilla is the incarnation of an atomic bomb whereas both Zilla and Rhedosaurus thematically are closer to just a confused, large animal mostly causing destruction by merit of size alone.
Take out the word “Godzilla”, give the film a new title, and change the seaside attack from a village to a lighthouse and it would function very closely as a Beast from 20,000 Fathoms remake.
Why do I think this may have been intentional? Because the makers of the 1998 film never shut up about The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms. In fact in many of their quotes it is virtually the only movie brought up by them multiple times.
“Godzilla was one of the last concepts of the ’50s that had never been done in modern form — that idea of the giant monster as in THE BEAST FROM 20,000 FATHOMS. Why not do them again? Big Lizard eats Big Apple. I like it.”
“-we don’t have the same kind of limitations the Japanese had when they made their GODZILLA. There is an American movie called THE BEAST FROM 20,000 FATHOMS, shot in the early 1950s.-”
• Roland Emmerich, director
And previously Emmerich and Devlin had done movies that they admitted to being spiritual successors to old 1950s movies. “Independence Day” was basically them remaking “Earth Vs. The Flying Saucers” by their own admission. And in the 1998 Tristar movie, you can see multiple Ray Harryhausen Sci-Fi movies playing on TVs in the background; most notably “It Came from Beneath the Sea!” when two looters are robbing an empty store. They were clearly aware of The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms and were fans of it and the genre.
1990s Hollywood was very keen on remakes, many of which never got made. There was a planned King Kong remake, a planned Creature of the Black Lagoon remake, the infamous Mummy remake; and many more. With so many remakes and spiritual successor films floating around, would it be out of the realm of possibility that there actually was an idea by someone to redo 20,000 Fathoms? Maybe not.
It might have been as simple as Devlin and Emmerich already thinking of doing a remake 20,000 Fathoms by the time they were brought in by Tristar to redo the 1994 script. So they saw their chance, tossed out Godzilla’s elements almost entirely and pasted 20,000 Fathoms elements into the slot. It would explain why the 1998 Script and 1994 Script had almost nothing in common despite one apparently being a rewrite of the other.
So, yah. As more and more stuff comes out about how the 1994 films morphed into the final product, the joke of GINO being more like Rhedo could be hilarity in hindsight seeing as Godzilla 1998 might literally be a Beast from 20,000 Fathoms remake by intention. And I think when you look at it like that, the 1998 film gets a bit better looking back upon it. Being maybe less a remake deviating from the source material as much as it is a remake of something else entirely that got the wrong name and title.
As for the 1994 script, I’ll cover that next time. But as sad as it is we didn’t get that movie, I don’t think we need mourn it too much. In some ways, we’ve actually seen that movie twice now. More on that later...
Remake Original
Oh, some neat trivia on The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms. The movie was an expansion on a short story by writing legend, Ray Bradbury, originally called "The Fog Horn". The story was about how the foghorn on a remote light house draws in a dinosaur-like sea monster. The story was picked up by Bradbury's friends at Warner Brothers, Jack Dietz and Ray Harryhausen; who expanded it into the film's plot, while making note to include the story's lighthouse scene.
The Fog Horn would be subject homage and parody many times over in fiction, but one notable example was in the first season of the Pokemon anime titled "Mystery at the Lighthouse". In the episode a pokemon researcher named Bill lures in a giant pokemon of a seemingly unknown species (viewers might later recognize it as a giant Dragonite) to his lighthouse by playing it's call out a fog horn.
Now take into account that Godzilla was inspired by the Rhedosaurus, who's movie popularized "The Fog Horn" and suddenly Godzilla and this-
are effectively cousins in fiction...
FINALLY! Someone agrees with me. I don't consider it to be a Godzilla film at all and yet, so many people say that it is.
In that topic (only if you watched it), what's your opinion of the godzilla 1998 cartoon?
4216465 Love it. Good anthology series and adore Zilla Junior.
This was admittedly one of the earliest "Godzilla" films i remember watching. I never personally had a problem with it, even when i compared it to the Toho films. My younger mind had all large reptilian monsters labeled as either "Dragon", "Dinosaur", or "Godzilla".
Dragons were in fantasy-type settings, dinosaurs either walked around and acted like animals or went on adventures and sang songs (i was a big Land Before Time fan), and the "Godzilla"s wrecked cities and fought other giant monsters.
I was also at an age back when they showed the Hanna-Barbera Godzilla animated series, and back when "Walking with Dinosaurs" was the most scientifically accurate and up-to-date dinosaur documentary, along with the first Jurassic Park film, so i could tell the differences. Godzilla was a big, tail-dragging reptile, and predatory dinosaurs were big scaly birds with teeth and claws.
So when i saw Zilla for the first time, i was enthralled. Who cares if it's not "a real Godzilla"? It's big and FAST. "It's a Godzilla-Dinosaur!" thinks younger me.
It was the speed that impressed me in later years when i became more entrenched in Kaiju popculture. All the really fast Kaiju i knew about were flyers, and i didn't appreciate things like MechaGodzilla as their own unique type of Kaiju yet, so Zilla was unique to me for being a speedster kaiju who couldn't fly. Oh, i knew he could never stand up in a fight with a heavier Kaiju thanks to Jurassic Park (it doesn't matter if raptors are completely badass, Tyrannosaurus still wins in a fight), but i could imagine him helping the "good monsters" by running in and acting as a distraction, snapping and clawing before getting out of range again.
I never got the point of all the hate Zilla received, just like i never got the point of the hatred towards Spinosaurus in JP3 (Who i always thought was just awesome)
Now that all that's out of the way, I'm just curious, what are your thoughts on the animated series that came after Godzilla (1998)?
Good popcorn kaiju movie, lousy big G movie, glad we agree.
I actually have that movie and it was my first kaiju movie I watched too lol
First, I watched that Hanna Barbara Godzilla cartoon, a VHS of Mothra vs Godzilla, Godzilla 1998, Godzilla 2000, then I briefly had a neighbor who had a VHS of King Kong vs Godzilla. I didn't see the other movies and the Godzilla 1998 cartoon until I had reliable Internet. I personally think Godzilla 1998 might have been better received if the monster had been different. It had a good plot and I think good acting.
4216480 I agree^^
That's a very good analysis on Godzilla '98, and a VERY interesting comparison to "The beast from 20,000" fathoms. To be honest, i don't think i would've been able to tell before you revealed it to me. Guess now i have to go watch the movie to see the comparisons for myself. Thanks a bunch for that, bro. This was a good motivator for me, and i'm grateful you made it.
It helps that it has a pretty awesome soundtrack:
Also, I find it interesting that you refer to Zilla/GINO as a 'she', rather than as 'he' like they're commonly referred to as. Yeah, I know biolohically they're female, but more often than not they're settled with a male personality. What does this mean for Zilla Jr. in the Amlgam'Verse? Is he biologically male or just an infertile female who identifies as male?
Ya know, it'd never occured to me before that G'98 and The Beast shared so much in common. But that you lay it out like that it makes a lot of sense.
Now, I personally think G'98 is a perfectly fine Kaiju movie. It's got a number of great scenes where Zilla does something cool. Through of course there are several things that hurt the film like some cheesy spots, and Matthew Broderick.
There's plenty to like about it, if you divorce yourself from thinking of the creature as Godzilla. Even Toho found a way to work with it, in GMK, when they reference a monster that the American's mistook for Godzilla.
I haven't seen that movie since I caught it on TV 15-something years ago. All that I remembered from back then is that plotline of a reporter stealing some tapes from Matthew Broderick which, even for young 13 years-old me, felt like padding since I still remember telling to myself "What does this have to do with the giant monster? That giant-sized raptor seems a tad bit more important than getting a big scoop!", and that I was strangely reminded of The Lost World, which I didn't like (and I didn't watch the original Jurassic Park until years later because of that). Thankfully, we got an awesome animated series out of it that made me like Godzilla, despite never watching any of the movies.
Nowaday, when someone mentions Godzilla 1998 (having re-watched it recently), all that comes to mind is...
"That's a lot of fish."
I've never seen "Beast from 20,000 Fathoms", but it does sound interesting. Kinda like watching "The Thing from Another World" after watching "The Thing" (just stay clear of the comic series). Although, Roland Emmerich kinda rubs me the wrong way as a movie director. His shtick (outside of creating bad disaster movies and semi-descent popcorn flicks) seems to be taking material that he doesn't like (like Godzilla or Shakespeare) and making movies to insult them. Not only this reeks of pretentiousness, but what's the point of making movies dedicated to insult materials that you hate, especially with the amount of money thrown at them. Why doesn't he just get a blog?
P.S. Yeah, I know I'm taking my sweet time (I've been pretty busy lately and I'm still not used to watching movies on my laptop without doing something else, which is annoying when I have to read subtitles as well), but I've still only saw half the Godzilla movies you sent me. I'll try to catch up fast. On a brighter note, last week was my birthday and I got a copy of Pacific Rim. Can't wait to watch that.
Edit: I caught that after writing the comment, but that's actually the first time I saw the poster for Godzilla 1998. And all I have to say is...that tagline.
It's official now. Roland Emmerich is over-compensating.
4216563
I'd attribute that more to most very inhuman looking monsters being called "he" by default. Zilla sr. being female actually makes a heck of a lot more sense than it being a hermaphroditic male as many female lizards, including some closely related to iguanas, are capable of parthenogenesis; where they can lay clutches of eggs without mating. And many of these species can produce both sons and daughters because of how reptile chromosome work*. In fact parthenogenesis is extremely well documented in lizards, to the point there is actually a species of whiptail lizard in New Mexico that reproduces solely by this method or mating with males of related species because the species in itself somehow lost all it's males. With this in mind and the fact Zilla is supposed to be a mutated lizard of some sort, makes perfect sense to me the original one was indeed female and Zilla Junior is a male offspring. Thus explaining why Zilla Junior never reproduced on his own a bit more clearly than the show saying he was inexplicably sterile.
*long story short, whereas in mammals it's the father who determines the sex of the offspring via giving his Y chromosome for a son and X chromosome for a daughter, in reptiles it's the female who has the varied chromosome and thus determines the offspring's sex
4216504
Yah G'1998 was made by guys who did disaster movies. As that it's not too bad and actually lines up pretty nicely with how 1950s American monster films go.
4216540
Interesting. My first exposure to Godzilla was hearing of the 1998 film (in that year, how could you not?) and I asked my dad what Godzilla was and he said "He's like a big dinosaur". So already liking monsters and dinosaurs and learning Godzilla was supposed to be the biggest and the baddest dinosaur and monster of them all, I jumped at the chance to see the big guy. First exposure was the aforementioned edit of the film courtesy of pops, soon followed days later by both the HB Godzilla show on Boomerrang my sister found and Godzilla: King of the Monsters on my first DVD. I watched the heck out of those and I believe I might have seen a couple episodes of the Animated Series on televisions on the air force base. The base has a mall with a food court and the TVs often played FOX Kids and Kids WB channel so stuff like Godzilla, Digimon, or Pokemon was often on when I was there. I was finally hooked in good when Godzilla 2000 came out, which is the first movie I can distinctly recall seeing in theaters.
4216560
No prob buddy! And yah, definitely see Beast from 20,000 Fathoms! As said, it was a primary inspiration for Godzilla and was one of Tomayuki Tanaka's favorite movies. It's definitely one of Ray Harryhausen's best and actually the first major monster movie to have a nuclear theme.
4216588
I first noticed some similarities when I noticed Rhedosaurus
A. Kinda looks like an iguana
B. Is attacking Manhattan
Resulting in 10 year old me going "Hmmm, this looks familiar."
And in later years when I noticed other G-fans making the comparison and looked at the films themselves again, it became apparent. Add in 1998's creators being fans of Ray Harryhausen and the fact these similarities only cropped up after they got involved and it started raising some eye brows. Fact Emmerich mentioned 20,000 Fathoms multiple times and an odd hand rumor that 1998's boat attack originally was going to be on a lighthouse, and it was obvious.
Godzilla 1998 is a good popcorn flick and basically a 1950s American monster movie made in the 1990s. Good Godzilla film? No. But did it have a neat monster design and is an entertaining film as just a monster flick? I think so. And with Toho offering a very plausible escape clause of mistaken identity, works fine for me and the Amalgam'verse.
That makes a lot of sense how Godzilla 1998 was so widely panned, compared to the original source that the directors were going for.
Makes you wonder what would've happened if they made it a remake of their original inspiration of "The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms"?
They probably chose "Godzilla" as the title and the naming for the monster simply for the Marketing purposes, considering the Heisei series was dominating the most of the 80s in both Japan and America. Cause compared to the "Beast from 20,000 Fathoms" and the name Godzilla, the big G is still more memorable, which is sad.
But not as sad as the directors dissing the 1954 Godzilla movie for it's effects when it wasn't really relevant to the PLOT. Compare the 1954 version to the following versions that came after it. It wasn't about monster fights or alien invasions. It was about the tragedy of nuclear warfare, and the consequences to both nature and humanity for wielding such a power. If you're going to do a remake, at least have some respect for the original series to show WHY it inspired you, not slap a label on it just to get views. It's like Movie RICK-ROLLING. :P
Still, I can't say I wasn't entirely disappointed. As with all you all, G1998 was the first "kaiju" movie that I saw at the time, and what followed DIDN'T DISAPPOINT!!!!
THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR INCLUDING ZILLA JR IN THE AMALGAM'VERSE AND MAKING HIM A RESPECTABLE KAIJU!!!
EDIT: I now have a profound respect for Dragonite now (as I wondered where that Lighthouse scene came from), and I must now commence with Breeding and EV training!
4216651
Ah, I see. Not to mention it would better explain the relationship between Zilla Jr. and Komodithrax, since if they were both female it wouldn't really make sense why they would develop the relationship they did.
4216651
There's actually more of G'98 that I like than not, so for me it's pretty re-watchable. the opening attacks on the ships, his initial landing in NYC, combating the military on land and in the water, and that fantastic shot of Zilla leaping over the bridge.
And while I enjoyed the cartoon series follow-up, I never thought it was all that great. I remember it came in along with a few other new cartoons, like Men In Black, with which it shared the same animation style. A style I never really liked, and thought was kinda lazy. While I was glad to have a Godzilla/monster themed cartoon to watch, it just wasn't that great a product. Though like the film, it did have a number of redeeming elements.
Now if you don't mind "mr. I wanna post interesting blogs all the time", I'm about to wrap-up the script for 31's review.
4216651 Heh. I'm already inclined to believe that based on what everyone's been saying about it. So when i get the chance, i'll definitely do it.:)
Same here. The 1998 film was the first "Godzilla" I ever saw and it got me into the Kaiju genre. I agree that its a bad Godzilla movie, but I don't hate it either. Hell, I loved the cartoon series that continued the story cause it actually had elements of Godzilla in it. Him fighting other monsters and breathes atomic fire, etc.
I also think Zilla, Sr. indeed make more sense if he was a "she". I get the asexual reproduction part, but the fact that in the movie, Zilla is a "he" and was pregnant, it made me so confused. I may be wrong on this, but in certain species of lizards, females can asexually reproduce. Again, could be wrong.
Moving on, Godzilla 1998 was more of a remake to 20,000 Fathoms than Godzilla. I think they were planning to, but decided to put Godzilla's name on it. It was for marketing value. They were interested in the name, but not the actually monster. Bad Godzilla movie, but still a decent monster flick in general and popcorn entertainment. That's why I still watch it for those reasons.
4216692
Speak for yourself Heatseeker!
Filbarlow's designs for the kaiju of the series were probably some of the creepiest monsters I've ever seen designed. They almost look eldritch in design, something I would almost expect with mutated monsters.
orig10.deviantart.net/cbd7/f/2011/151/d/2/d279cded4e126f3fb717a78e4faf27f5-d3hnry7.jpg
vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/the-american-godzilla/images/4/48/18cham1.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130617103618
Filbarlow was a great choice for both Godzilla, MIB, and Ghostbuster Extreme. His designs are really the stuff of nightmares.
orig12.deviantart.net/fefb/f/2013/193/1/0/xgb_maintitle_ghosttrain_150dpi_by_filbarlow-d6d428r.jpg
... so basically, TriStar acquired the rights to make a film featuring the most beloved Kaiju Japan has ever produced, and were going to do so... but then decided to let a couple of disaster movie makers use that name to remake a decent yet largely unmemorable American giant monster movie. Complete with the bit with the monster attacking a lighthouse mirrored by their monster "humping" the Chrysler Building.
This is why I've long called this movie "The Iguana That Ate New York" instead of it's actual title. It also is why Toho re-branded the monster "Zilla"; they did indeed leave the "God" out.
I will grant this is a decent monster movie. But, to paraphrase the commentary on the Centurion Collection' s Godzilla release, there's a reason Godzilla is a classic movie, while The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms is just a fun afternoon at the cinema.
4217247
Of my criticism of the show, the monsters are actually not among them. While some may be weird, I find them interesting additions to the franchise. I've even introduced a few of them in my headcanon, with the intent to include more. I even have a place for Nick's team in one of my upcoming precursor stories.
I remember the opening intro got you hyped for the show, even if they couldn't decide on a single size for Godzilla. But the way the music rose, the monsters all converging on New York City, as a Kaiju fan, I loved it!
Not that I have any proficiency grounds to criticize this Mr. Filbarlow's artistic talent, I'm just saying how they animated it, however solid his designs, didn't come out that great in the animation. Which I don't think is his fault. And that's not to pick on this show, I think animation has gone downhill generally since the 70's, with notable exceptions.
That...actually makes a lot of sense.
And agreed on the topic of it being a decent monster flick but an awful Godzilla flick.
Plus, despite the obvious flaws in this movie, I feel I should point out one SINGLE scene that at least in my opinion was done perfectly to this DAY still gives me chills:
Not only is this scene shot well, not only is the music perfect, but in it's essence captures the very feeling of TERROR of what is to come.
This fisherman is just SO traumatized by what has transpired, that almost nothing gets his attention. But when Jean Reno lights his lighter and asks what he saw, he only says ONE word:
"Gojira....Gojira...Gojira...."
Just from the sound of his voice alone as he utters that one singular word is not just referring to a giant monster, but something almost ancient, bestial, ethereal, unfathomable, and unstoppable, as though an ancient God, feared by many, has reawakened. The sheer delivery of this scene, albeit short, is almost perfect.
This scene alone would've been perfect to describe the ORIGINAL G-man if used in one of his movies.
G'98 was the first giant monster movie I saw. I enjoyed it quite a bit as a kid and still do to this day, though now seeing flaws that I overlooked when younger. The cut I got to see as the full version. Never knew that there was a cut that didn't show Zilla getting brought down.
Godzilla Final Wars: Proved how weak Zilla was when he faced Godzilla.