Original Godzilla In U.S. Theaters

saudadelinux writes "The original Gojira is in theaters now through July. See the *uncut Japanese version* of the film as it was really meant to be seen, as a serious anti-nuke picture, not just Saturday afternoon UHF fodder."

Comments

Godzilla uncut? Guess he's not Jewish

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone else get a scary image of that foreskin?

I think you mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Godzirra.

Re:I think you mean...

[zalas]

No, the poster is correct. The Japanese behind the 'Godzilla' on the image is basically GO JI RA.

Re:I think you mean...

[Metallic Matty]

Bow to the power of Engrish.

Or whatever you call Americanized Japanese.

Re:I think you mean...

[Old Wolf]

I see you've reverted to older forms of romanization.. nowdays, 'zi' and 'di' are (unfortunately, imho) written as they are pronounced, ie. 'ji'

Re:I think you mean...

[defago]

The Japanese behind the 'Godzilla' on the image is basically GO JI RA.

Yes, that's right.
I was told that the name was actually created from a merge between "GO RI RA" (gorilla) and "KU JI RA" (whale), and intended as a pun for both King-Kong (the gorilla) and Moby Dick (the whale).

Re:I think you mean...

[Echnin]

"Basically"? Literally, according to the Hepburn romanization system, which is the most common outside Japan: ko" shi" ra = gojira. In the Kunrei-shiki and Nihon-shiki systems, which are the ones sanctioned by Japanese government for use in schools, it's "gozira".

Re:I think you mean...

[Echnin]

Most Japanese use the older system (or a slight variation; Kunrei-Shiki), because it's taught in school. So they write "tu, zi, di, si", and the rest...

Re:I think you mean...

[TheoMurpse]

while i can verify your "gorira" + "kujira" as being completely true, i cannot verify the king kong/moby dick theory

however, as an interesting side note,
Donkey Kong
gets its name because the creator thought "donkey" was english for "stubborn" and "kong" was english for "gorilla"

Re:I think you mean...

[Old Wolf]

by 'the older system' I was referring to kunrei-siki , what's the difference between that and your "older system" ?
I was under the impression they stopped doing that lately, but obviously not :)

Re:I think you mean...

[Echnin]

The real old system is Nihon-shiki. Kunrei-shiki takes some stuff from Hepburn. Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunrei-shiki

Solly Cholly

[Anonymous Coward]

Srashdot isn't lacist.

Re:Solly Cholly

[Anonymous Coward]

Hualaghagalha.

Re:Solly Cholly

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're saying is that although you know nothing about Japanese culture, you don't mind making dumb-ass ignorant bigoted comments about it anyway? Or can I play this game too, and make broad generalisations about American culture derived solely from, say, the Garfield comic strip? Or some popular America porn magazine? Or the Red Meat comic strip?

Re:Will be going tomorrow afternoon

[Anonymous Coward]

Bigger?

Sing it with me... "50 stories tall, Godzilla! Godzilla!"

(I humbly apologize to all those who remember that song enough to he horrified at the their own memories)

It's more than an anti-nuke picture.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more along the lines of a warning about the dangers of running away with a technology before we understand the consequences and the social commentary that, ultimately, is exactly what were going to do anyway.

Re:It's more than an anti-nuke picture.

[Aglassis]

Any technology can be used for good or evil, especially technology that makes energy. Alfred Nobel, the inventor of TNT, knew this only too well. He created the Nobel prize so people wouldn't remember him as the creator of a weapon.

As far as understanding what technology's consequences are: technology is part of society. Its not that somehow society and technology can be seperated and analyzed so that only the 'good' technology can interface somehow with society. Society is what causes the technology to exist in the first place and continue its development. Society has as much as an effect on the dangers of the technology as the mechanics of the technology itself.

Some may argue that technology can't be released until its full impact on society is known. Thats impossible, as a modern technological society can't exist as a free state with blantant censorship. These issues aren't suddenly new. Its the same problem that engineers throughout history have had to deal with when they realized that their peaceful invention could have dangerous implementations. Research DNA, make more powerful bioweapons. Reasearch nuclear power, make the most powerful WMDs. Research network technology, make the powerful network warfare that we saw in the beginning of Gulf War 2.

Correct the society and the consequences of the technology will follow along.

Re:It's more than an anti-nuke picture.

[jon787]

Any technology can be used for good or evil, especially technology that makes energy. Alfred Nobel, the inventor of TNT, knew this only too well. He created the Nobel prize so people wouldn't remember him as the creator of a weapon.

Corrent except for the fact that Nobel created Dynamite not TNT. He also developed the blasting cap I think.

Re:It's more than an anti-nuke picture.

[nsample]

Dynamite, yes. Blasting cap, yes. However, his real start was in the production of nitroglycerine.

Re:It's more than an anti-nuke picture.

[Trurl's Machine]

I completely agree except for one thing:

Alfred Nobel, the inventor of TNT

Alfred Nobel invented dynamite (which was basically just a better way to handle the good old nitroglycerine). TNT (trinitrotoluene) was invented by German scientist von Willbrand in 1860's.

Re:It's more than an anti-nuke picture.

[RogueProtoKol]

Who would of helped? War torn Europe who were abit busy rebuilding after their little fight? The US nuked a couple of Jap cities, the Brits bombed Dresden into dust, Japanese invaded China and performed war atrocities and Germany invaded most of Europe peforming war atrocities.

What makes the US any worse than the rest? War is hell, get over it.

Re:It's more than an anti-nuke picture.

[evilviper]

Any technology can be used for good or evil

Oh yeah? And just how are you going to use child-safe scisors for evil?

Re:It's more than an anti-nuke picture.

[corndogg]

Any technology can be used for good or evil, especially technology that makes energy. Alfred Nobel, the inventor of TNT, knew this only too well. He created the Nobel prize so people wouldn't remember him as the creator of a weapon.

As far as understanding what technology's consequences are: technology is part of society. Its not that somehow society and technology can be separated and analyzed so that only the 'good' technology can interface somehow with society

You are exactly right that technology, seen as ideas, theories, inventions, etc... is inseparable from the society where they are born in the first place. The ever widening spread of electronic communication makes the bond between what can be imagined and/or created and society even tighter.

BUT... this has nothing to do with the countless hours of labor and the trillions upon trillions of dollars that the world's nations have spent to refine TNT into highly specialized weapons that are designed for more than just "shock and awe".

It's not like a few scientists grab some parts off the shelf at Circuit City and lego together a smart bomb. It takes a lot of hard human labor to turn basic technology into what we might consider "reliable" evil.

Like it or not, it's a simple matter of where we (in the grandest sense) choose to direct our efforts.

Re:It's more than an anti-nuke picture.

[fucksl4shd0t]

BUT... this has nothing to do with the countless hours of labor and the trillions upon trillions of dollars that the world's nations have spent to refine TNT into highly specialized weapons that are designed for more than just "shock and awe".

Yes and no. In your specific example, maybe. You see, how many scientists work on bombs and don't at least try to imagine how the bombs might be used for good, solid, peaceful purposes? How much asteroid mining are we going to be able to accomplish with our fission drives and our fancy TNT thanks to decades of military research? (Assuming we ever get to the asteroid belt in the first place, of course)

There are numerous examples of technologies we use every day that came out of military research whose intent was to find ways to either "make the other bastard die for their country" or to reduce the number of losses of our own (increased efficiency, more kills per individual, etc). Hell, the original moonshot was done with old military rockets, and rocket technology itself was originally designed for Nazi explosives to be propelled across the channel and into English cities, indiscriminately slaughtering civilians and troops, women, children, etc. All of us slashdotters, for the most part anyway, seem to be hoping all this rocket technology will turn out to be useful, but only time will tell, still.

It's not like a few scientists grab some parts off the shelf at Circuit City and lego together a smart bomb. It takes a lot of hard human labor to turn basic technology into what we might consider "reliable" evil.

True, but how many of the parts currently available at Circuit City were invented/originally engineered for smart bombs? It takes "pure evil" to build weapons without even thinking of how they can be used for "non-evil" purposes, and I really doubt there are that many scientists and engineers that are willing to work under such conditions. While killing and war seem to be a pretty popular sport even in our "civilized" times, designing with the sole intent of killing goes against basic human nature.

Re:It's more than an anti-nuke picture.

[fucksl4shd0t]

Not to mention that we were working on nukes because Germany was working on them, we just didn't get them to the field in time to use them against Germany. Rest assured, we would've tossed 'em at Berlin and Dresden if we had them ready, and the rest of Europe would have thanked us for it.

Let's not forget that there was actually a report done, and nuclear fallout wasn't totally understood (I don't even know if they knew about it). Basically, we could've kept fighting Japan for another year or more and lost millions more in a slow win, killing millions more, etc. Or we could ask for their surrender and threaten to drop a doomsday weapon. Our firebombing in Tokyo (and a few other places) did a whole lot more damage than those nukes, and was a lot less humane, even considering what we know now about nuclear fallout. We didn't win because nukes themselves were so big. We don't know why Japan surrendered, but there are strong indications that Japan surrendered not because of the doomsday bombs, but because it really did look like we could keep this up for years/decades, bringing on newer and more powerful weapons. They didn't surrender because they thought they could still win. ;)

I think Truman made the right decision, dropping the bombs, and I think he showed the right amount of restraint. We could have nuked Japan into oblivion, instead of just making a token drop. If we were dropping the bomb just to be mean, why did we only drop two? You know? ;)

Re:It's more than an anti-nuke picture.

[Kierthos]

Child safe scissors, meet a child and any important documents you have lying around the house.

Kierthos

Re:It's more than an anti-nuke picture.

[Pros_n_Cons]

I didn't think it was an anti-nuke picture. I think it had more to do with bringing it on themselvs. General Yamamoto was quoted as saying "I fear we have awoken a sleeping giant, and filled it with a terrible resolve". At the time most of America wanted to be isolationists and let europe/world solve its own problems. Had Japan not attacked our shores the "sleeping giant" would not have gone to hers.

Re:It's more than an anti-nuke picture.

[WinPimp2K]

Well from what little I rememember, one of the reasons we only dropped two nukes was because that was all we had at at the time - some guy named Joe convinced Harry it would be better for the Allies if the US didn't save any of those weapons right at that particular point in time.

It seems Joe heard about some guy named George who felt that as long as there were all these big armies in Europe it would be a good time to get rid of the Commies - before the borders got all settled down and everything.

Of course that is just my understanding about some of the reasoning that went into the decision to follow up with a second bomb so soon after Hiroshima.

Re:It's more than an anti-nuke picture.

[einTier]

There's a good reason we dropped two, and why we dropped those two one right after the other -- it was all we had.

In those days, getting the nuclear material wasn't exactly easy. We had enough fissionable material for three bombs. One we detonated at Los Alamos to prove the bomb actually worked. The other two became Fat Man and Little Boy.

We really didn't know how destructive the two bombs would be, but we did know that producing a third would take quite a bit of time. A fourth or fifth would take even more time after that.

What we were afraid of is that the Japanese wouldn't surrender. This was a very real possibility, as they had never surrendered before, and their culture ecouraged suicide attacks over surrender. We had to make the Japanese believe that we had a near inexhaustable supply of these weapons, that if they didn't surrender that we would keep dropping a new one on their cities every few days until they did -- or simply wiping the whole country clean without ever setting one American foot on Japanese soil. When you can't engage the enemy face to face, suddenly being a martyr isn't so appealing. Dying for nothing is never fun. Making your parents, wives, children, et al die for nothing is even less enjoyable.

However, had we waited to drop the second bomb and not gotten our surrender after it, it could have been months before we could drop a third. And a month after that before we could drop a fourth. Show that you can only carry out these attacks every once in a while and you might steel your enemy's resolve. They might figure that they can wait you out, or they might get used to being blasted, or they (the leaders anyway) might figure out a way to survive. Then you have to go over there and kill them all hand to hand anyway. WE had to show them we had the will and the power to scour their country from the face of the planet.

What we did was one hell of a poker bluff. Thankfully, the Japanese never called us on it. It was horrible thing, dropping those bombs, but it would have been far more horrible and bloody to have marched American troops all the way to Tokyo -- for both sides.

Re:It's more than an anti-nuke picture.

[rworne]

True, but how many of the parts currently available at Circuit City were invented/originally engineered for smart bombs?

Dunno, but my Circuit City bought TiVo recorded Dr. Strangelove a couple of weeks back without my ever telling it to do so.

Re:It's more than an anti-nuke picture.

[Hatta]

Whatever it's about, I'm upset it's not coming to my home town. I count 17 cities where it's being screened. That's not even 1 per state! WTF I'd like to see it, but I'm not sure it's worth the 4 hour drive to chicago just for a movie. Maybe I'll take the opportunity to revisit MSI and the Field Museum too.

Re:It's more than an anti-nuke picture.

[vdoogs]

Brand the scissors with the following: On one side - "Microsoft". On the other side - "What would you like to cut today?"

Re:It's more than an anti-nuke picture.

[homunculi]

But is there an issue with intent? I mean it isn't as though we entered the nuclear age because there were a group of scientists who were neutrally exploring the atom; they were building a bomb. It wasn't as if we entered the space age because there were a group of scientists who were neutrally questing for space, we were looking for superiority in a cold war and looking for the ability to deliver a bomb. It seems to me that we end up with a great deal of technology that is "beneficial" because there is money to be made in war but the technology would not necessarily exist if war was not the goal. Frankly I would rather have peace and no velcro or GPS. . .

Flamebait

[boomgopher]

"See the *uncut Japanese version* of the film as it was really meant to be seen, as a serious anti-nuke picture, not just Saturday afternoon UHF fodder."

It would be cool if Greenpeace projected this film on walls, boats, etc. during their protests. And maybe have someone running around dressed in a Godzilla outfit.
That, mixed with the long hair, round eyeglasses, hemp clothing, and Joni Mitchell music, would be a sight worth paying to see...

Re:Flamebait

[boomgopher]

Actually, I stand corrected - their message would be much more effective if they dressed like these guys (from another serious anti-nuke film):

Godzilla versus Monster Zero

Re:Flamebait

[Anonymous Coward]

So, just how liberal does one have to be to consider Bill O'Reilly conservative?

Anti-Nuke

[weston]

Geez. What's with Japan and being so anti-nuke, anyway?

Re:Anti-Nuke

[Anonymous Coward]

They have ~50k lbs of plutonium. You can burn it as fuel in nuke plants, just not the ones countries Iran are allowed to use. From time to time they meditate on their constitutional pacifism, which has worked very well for them for 50 years. As a nation in their position might, they occasionally wonder if they might be outgrowing it. Accusations of "check-book diplomacy" from a certain nation might have some influence over this. The main obsticles to a japanese nuclear weapon are the prohibitive economic cost, political will, and their national sense of self. In short, if they wanted, they could do it maybe in six months, and no one could do anything about it. I'm sure the six months is a serious barrier to them doing even in an era of increasing instability. After all if you can do it in six months, there's little reason not to wait for either a better time or a time where such an extravagance is unavoidable.

Re:Anti-Nuke

[Justin Ames]

The Japanese are allowed to have any army they want. But currently the constitution only allows a self-defense force. But there is talk about changing this, so that Japan can take a place amongst the "big boys" as such. Although it will probably best everyone but America very quickly. I am sure the army will still be called the SDF, I think that's just a cool name.

Re:Anti-Nuke

[Aglassis]

You said: "the fact is that plutonium can only be used for weapons, period."

A quick lesson in nuclear physics:

A nuclear reactor operates by fissioning a fissible fuel (no suprise here!). While I'm not going to describe the physics of criticality you can look it up elsewhere. A fissible fuel is a fuel that will fission when hit by an alpha or a neutron. Due to the physics of criticality, alphas are not used (they have too short of a range and are rarely released from fission fragments anyways). Neutrons are used in two forms: fast and slow. A nuclear weapon will use fast neutrons (neutrons that after whatever reaction that created them have not been moderated) and a nuclear reactor will use slow neutrons (neutrons that have slowed down to the ambient kinetic energy of the reactor--typically by water or graphite).

It should be fairly obvious why only very heavy elements are used in fissible fuel. But due to a quirk in physics, only the odd atomic mass fuels work well. This is due to the fact that in order to cause fission you have to agitate the nucleus enough for it to split. Typically this is about 5 MeV of kinetic energy for an even numbered fuel. For an odd numbered fuel, the internal nuclear reaarangement gives this amount of energy so that a nucleus can fission with a slow neutron while an even numbered fuel needs a fast neutron with a very high kinetic energy.

What does this mean? U-233 is a slightly worse fuel than U-235 which will be a slightly worse fuel than Pu-239. Since Pu-239 is heavier than U-235 (which is used in an enriched form in nuclear reactors) it will be more suitable for nuclear reactors.

What about those fast neutrons, will they work? Yes, but common sense says that if they are slowed down they will have more interactions before escaping from a reactor, so they would work better. Nuclear bombs don't have the time for neutrons to slow down to ambient before interactions so they depend entirely on fast neutrons (the converse shows why a nuclear reactor can never explode like a nuclear bomb).

Re:Anti-Nuke

[DNS-and-BIND]

Go ahead and laugh. As soon as North Korea finishes their nuke(s), you'll see Japan go nuclear faster than you can say, "irrishaimase". Japan has been living with a foreign-written constitution for a long, long time, and there's substantial support for throwing it out and becoming a real nation again.

Re:Anti-Nuke

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct. Additionally, fast breeder reactors, or breeder-burners achieve excellent efficiency. They start with Uranium-235, but in the process of using it, they "breed" Plutonium-239, which they can then turn around and use for additional fuel.

The reason these reactors are not in widespread usage is political, not technical. Governments (i.e. the U.S., China, France, UK, and Russia) don't want a lot of plutonium being created in commercial reactors because of its potential use as a weapon.

Yes, U-235 can be used in a weapon, but "weapons-grade" uranium must be enriched to ~90% U-235. Commercial reactors can run with a much lower enrichment percentage, which makes governments less nervous.

Re:Anti-Nuke

[Tokerat]

You mean do everything in their power to prove they have bigger nuts and better morals than everyone else, just like both North Korea and my home nation of The United States of America do?

I'm glad Japan is smart enough to lead the way into the future. :-(

Maybe I'm trolling, but when you step back and look at it all, it's quite pointless, especially this day in age.

Re:Anti-Nuke

[Smitedogg]

Too lazy to google this, but IIRC there are around 20-25 Soviet submarines that used fuel that was enriched to ~90%

Re:Anti-Nuke

[DNS-and-BIND]

Perhaps pointless to your limited, esoteric point of view, but to the hundreds of millions of Japanese who will very soon have the threat of imminent nuclear attack hanging over their heads, the issues are real. The only known solution to a nation threatening you with nuclear weapons is nuclear deterrence. Perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten us with your plans for this situation?

Re:Anti-Nuke

[Yokaze]

> Japan has been living with a foreign-written constitution for a long, long time, and there's substantial support for throwing it out and becoming a real nation again.

Actually, accoring to a yearly poll by Asahi, Shinbun, this year is the first time there is more than 50percent support for a revision of the constitution. But a plurarity is for the inclusion of more rights. Only about 15percent are for a revision because it "was forced on Japan by the United States", less than 10 percent are against the pacifistic Article 9.

Here a perspective on the consitution.

> As soon as North Korea finishes their nuke(s)

North Korea has already nukes.

> you'll see Japan go nuclear faster than you can say, "irrishaimase".

Vice Defense Minister Shingo Nishimura had to resign in 1999 after suggesting that Japan should go nuclear.

Re:Anti-Nuke

[jwinter1]

Dude, it's going to take me forever to say "irisheyesmaize", so I'm not worried.

Re:Anti-Nuke

[jschrod]

Hu? "because of its potential use as a weapon."

Ridiculous. People are against usage of Plutonium because it is much more poisonous than Uranium. (Not as a short-term poison, like some plants, there it is quite innocuous. As a long term poison, as seen in Chernobyl.) Thus final storage of Plutonium waste is even more harder to achieve than of Uranium waste.

You can call this reason political, and not technical, if you want. I don't.

Re:Anti-Nuke

[eniu!uine]

I don't know what you're trying to say here, but admit it: It's perfectly possible for a nuclear reaction to cause massive growth in a lizard. Godzilla could have happened and may be happening right now!

Re:Anti-Nuke

[Registered Coward v2]

US FBMs (Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarines) - do you really doubt that we would not retaliate in kind if NK nuked Japan?

Perhaps it was North Vietnam's massive nuclear arsenal that kept us from turning Hanoi into a massive glowing parking lot?

Quite frankly, Japan is probably better of not building nukes and investing the money elsewhere, since all they need to do is call 001-911 if NK decides to not play nice.

Re:Anti-Nuke

[mh101]

tbe fact is that plutonium can only be used for weapons, period.

Nope, it can also be used to generate the power required to run the Flux Capacitor. Haven't seen Back to the Future lately, have you? =)

Re:Anti-Nuke

[kir]

The Japanese military (it is a military) has deployed a small force to Iraq. This is the first major deployment in quite a while. The Diet has debated the "self-defense force only" clause in their constitution numerous times -- each time the idea of a non-self-defense force military gains momentum.

It's only a matter of time.

Japan growing an "offensive" scares the hell out of Korea and China. They have not forgotten the past.

Re:Anti-Nuke

[Guppy06]

"As soon as North Korea finishes their nuke(s), you'll see Japan go nuclear faster than you can say, "irrishaimase"."

It would be redundant. It's all but accepted that the US would use its own nukes to protect the USN's largest aircraft carrier (if for no other reason).

Both Japan and ROK seem to be more willing to accept the continued presence of US troops than to develop their own nuclear weapons, no matter how unpalletable having US soldiers around may be for them.

Nukes cost money, but American soldiers are free.

Re:Anti-Nuke

[jonerik]

Japan has one of the three or four highest military budgets in the world; somewhere around $42 billion or so per year last I'd read. They're limited to spending only 1% of their GDP per year on their military, but their GDP is so large that their military is as well-equipped (mainly with a combination of American and homegrown weapons systems) and well-trained as any in the world.

Re:Anti-Nuke

[Xuri]

"Oh good - if we die tomorrow from a North Vietnamese nuclear bomb, no worries. The Americans will revenge us. Huzzah!" I don't think the issue is whether or not someone will retaliate against North Vietnam for nuking Japan - but whether or not North Vietnam would nuke Japan at all if Japan had/have their "nuclear deterrent".

Re:Anti-Nuke

[Registered Coward v2]

Re:Anti-Nuke (Score:1)
"Oh good - if we die tomorrow from a North Vietnamese nuclear bomb, no worries. The Americans will revenge us. Huzzah!" I don't think the issue is whether or not someone will retaliate against North Vietnam for nuking Japan - but whether or not North Vietnam would nuke Japan at all if Japan had/have their "nuclear deterrent".

You miss the point - Japan has a nuclear deterrant, since an attack on them would be treated by the US as if it was an attack on the US - it's part of our nuclear umbrella.

Re:Anti-Nuke

[jimmy page]

I still can't say "irrishaimase"... no clue where to begin ... I guess you're right.. They will go nuclear before I can say it....

Re:Anti-Nuke

[brassman]

Additionally, fast breeder reactors, or breeder-burners achieve excellent efficiency. They start with Uranium-235, but in the process of using it, they "breed" Plutonium-239, which they can then turn around and use for additional fuel.

A quibble: The main point of a breeder reactor is that it reacts U-235 and uses the neutron flux to transmute (relatively) common U-238 to Pu-239. U-238 is other wise useless in a fission reactor. Turning it into Pu-239 makes it useful for fission reactors... and, alas, for bombs.

U-235 is too rare. The total amount available is not really enough to run a fission economy. We need to convert that useless "depleted uranium" (U-238) if we're ever to achieve the "power too cheap to meter" economy that "they" promised us back when I was a kid.

Damn, I'm getting old.

Re:Anti-Nuke

[Jerf]

Vice Defense Minister Shingo Nishimura had to resign in 1999 after suggesting that Japan should go nuclear.

I think that was the grand-parent's point; unless the Japanese are Gods amoung Men, the serious prospect of having a city nuked is likely to provoke a strong desire towards being able to defend themselves by a significant proportion of the population. (Although MAD starts to seriously breakdown in the case of a lone madman effectively in control of the nuke; the USSR, for all of the rhetoric of both sides, could be counted on to act essentially rationally, within its frame of reference, which is why MAD worked in the Cold War.)

If it doesn't... well, I still don't follow Europe's simultaneous "intense fear of the US" and "complete lack of desire to spend any money on defense", so I guess I have a track record of underestimating the irrationality of large populations.

(To me, actions speak louder then words. A lot of people, hell, entire countries screech about how evil the US is and how we scare them. But it's all words; their spending on defense says they feel quite confident that the US isn't going to come obliterate them... and even after the so-called "imperialistic actions" of the US over the last few years, I still haven't of any defense build-ups as a result... yes, it's only one metric but it's one of the few objective ones we've got, and it says that people aren't really as afraid of the US as they say they are. And yes, I'm looking at percent GDP, not absolute spending. No one country could out-spend us absolutely but a combination of the bigger ones could... and they don't.)

Re:Anti-Nuke

[Yokaze]

> the serious prospect of having a city nuked is likely to provoke a strong desire towards being able to defend themselves by a significant proportion of the population.

Well, certainly. But there are two question.

Does North Korea provide such a threat?
Well, I may be alone. But I have a hard time to believe Kim Chong-Il and his cabal would launch a nuclear strike against Japan. Not because they are nice people, but because it would bring them no benefit, to say the least.

Would Japan going nuclear provide such a defense?
A research in 1995 provided a clear answer. No. It would only agitate all Asian neighbours. It concludes, that living under the nuclear umbrella of the US is a sufficient deterrent. Hence, the strong emphasis of the current Japanese goverment on the U.S.-Japanese alliance.

> well, I still don't follow Europe's simultaneous "intense fear of the US" and "complete lack of desire to spend any money on defense"

You are probably referring to a poll in the Europe, which resulted in the US being rated as the highest threat to peace.
Well, I'd assume is not like Europeans are fearing that the US is going to invade Europe, which would be outright ridiculous. It is more a concern about the US willingness and readiness to wage wars against others.

The lack of interest in raising military spending is fully in accordance with such a pacifistic stance.

Re:In a world that seems to be stagnant remakes...

[irokitt]

I do believe you mean re-release. And I would love to see them stop "coppying" the classics. Although seeing Godzilla with some better texture mapping, and maybe some shaders....

Look!

[red floyd]

points
<DUBBING type="lips-not-matching-words">
Look! Godzilla!
</DUBBING>

Re:Look!

[hc00jw]

points
<DUBBING type="lips-not-matching-words">
Look! Godzilla!
</DUBBING>

Point not taken, if you watch the trailer, you would see that it is "undubbed"!

Re:Look!

[red floyd]

In the future, tags will be added to all posts for the humor impaired, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Re:In a world that seems to be stagnant remakes...

[AngstAndGuitar]

I do believe you mean "I wish I were...." But thank you for correcting my Engrish. ;)

To anyone considering seeing this movie...

[MisterLawyer]

Here is a well written review worth reading before you go.

"If you've never seen Godzilla before, you might actually be impressed by the quality of the acting and script. This isn't a scream-queen b-movie, despite its reputation. Most of the characters seem genuinely terrified of the thin air they're staring into before Godzilla is matted in..."

And I would be remiss if I didn't remind you to check out the imdb

Re:To anyone considering seeing this movie...

[MojoReisen]

Tell George Lucas. Maybe he'll learn something.

Re:To anyone considering seeing this movie...

[drinkypoo]

Look! Meesa see Godzilla!

I think we'd be better off just locking Lucas in a dark room somewhere, like a closet or the cabinet under the kitchen sink.

Oblig. Simpsons Reference

[ErichTheWebGuy]

Context: Godzilla has just appeared. Massive pain and utter destruction are imminent.

USA: D'OH!

Re:Life of Brian... also rereleased

[Anonymous Coward]

Y'know, please don't take this the wrong way (this is neither meant as flamebait or trolling) but wouldn't it be better if we just left LoB alone? We've all seen it. We can do bad impressions of the cast. We know the trivia. I saw it in the cinema and it doesn't gain much. Python were anarchic when they were first around. Not anymore. The style of humour is mainstream these days. Nothing wrong with regarding it as a classic, but draw the line.

It just seems sad really that the nerd flag is flying over this venture. I'm damn sure this isn't what the Python team had in mind when they started out. You want to show you understood what they were really about? Write your own stuff. Or failing that just take life less seriously. Python were mocking the Bible. The idea was not that you'd come along and turn their film scripts into its replacement.

Blue Oyster Cult - Godzilla

[mse61]

With a purposeful grimace and a terrible sound
He pulls the spitting high tension wires down

Helpless people on a subway train
Scream bug-eyed as he looks in on them

He picks up a bus and he throws it back down
As he wades through the buildings toward the center of town

Oh no, they say he's got to go go go Godzilla
Oh no, there goes Tokyo go go Godzilla

History shows again and again
How nature points up the folly of men

Re:Blue Oyster Cult - Godzilla

[.com b4 .storm]

Only on Slashdot can you post LYRICS to a song and get moderated "Insightful" :)

It's, like, so unfair

[Prof. Pi]

In a just world, you'd be able to invade all your neighbors, enslave their women for sex, use their civilians for bayonet practice and launch suprise attacks on other countries without people doing nasty things to you!

CN Tower

[pipingguy]

Look, I hate to push a point, but why haven't movie monsters chomped down on Canada's tallest moument? Is it some kind of Americentric thing?

Re:CN Tower

[agent dero]

Canadian's are traditionally viewed as non-threatening, so most people have no beef with them

America is another story, not to mention American buildings are more well known.

Re:CN Tower

[zakezuke]

America is another story, not to mention American buildings are more well known.

I take exception to that... being familar with mainstreem sci-fi I find it more common then not to see scenes of Vancover or Torronto. Heck, many a Jackie Chan flick have been filmed in Canada including Rumble in the Bronx if I spy my mountains correctly.

I will admit that I don't often see a huge Mozilla running around Victoria for example... but because of the amounts of movies filmed in Canada it wouldn't shock me in the slightest.

Re:CN Tower

[evilviper]

why haven't movie monsters chomped down on Canada's tallest moument?

Come now. Everybody knows that gigantic monsters don't like cold weather. Did you ever see Godzilla or King Kong on a rampage while it was snowing? Of course not.

Re:CN Tower

[Spazmania]

being familar with mainstreem sci-fi I find it more common then not to see scenes of Vancover or Torronto.

Yes, that's one of life's little ironies. A huge number of movie scenes are filmed in Canada, but the characters in the movie generally identify their location as somewhere in the US.

I don't know whether to be amused by this subtle "annexation" of Canada, or offended that a hundred million US movie-goers apparantly can't tell the difference.

Re:CN Tower

[Khomar]

I have to argue against your point because you are ignoring where the films are made. Gojira is a Japanese film, so logically the monster is attacking Tokyo. When they made the American remake, obviously the monster would attack America. It comes down to who the primary audience is for the movie. I am sure that if a Canadian film company decided to make a monster movie, you would see downtown Toronto in flames, but for now, most monster movies have been either Japanese or American. You might as well make the point about monsters attacking any skyline in any other city in any other country of the world.

Hmm... will the new King Kong be attacking Auckland?

Re:CN Tower

[Spoing]

I think you've just proved his point. Canadian cities are similar enough to US cities that they can act as stand ins. If not, people would say "Hey, that's not New York, it's Torronto!". They don't, unless they've been to Torronto.

The same thing happens within the US (city or landscape swaps) though specific buildings in the US tend to be more well known. (More people below the boarder to see them on a day-to-day basis...actually, if you split Canada between the southern 200km and the northern rest, most people in Canada don't see the rest of Canada the vast majority of the time; they don't live there!)

Re:CN Tower

[Wyatt Earp]

Why would American movie-goers be able to tell what Canada looks like?

As for Rumble in the Bronx, it was pretty damned funny to have the mountains in the background, but then that hack Michael Bay did the same thing in Pearl Harbor with California acting as Long Island.

Re:CN Tower

[frankmu]

we all know canada has only two seasons:
winter and last winter

Re:CN Tower

[pipingguy]

Canadian's are traditionally viewed as non-threatening

Oh yeah!? Well then I think that you are a...no, I just can't do it.

But then, I'm a secret agent of Canadian World Domination. Oh crap, I spilled the beans!

Re:CN Tower

[aborchers]

Well, Godzilla did crack out of an iceberg in King Kong vs Godzilla. Come to think of it, he looked pretty pissed about it...

Re:CN Tower

[OldManAndTheC]

Look, I hate to push a point, but why haven't movie monsters chomped down on Canada's tallest moument? Is it some kind of Americentric thing?

Maybe it's just that to destroy Canadian monuments you need Canadian monsters. And it's not easy to think of any good ones:

(...out of the frozen tundra of the Great North he comes, destroying everything in his path, twin antlers blazing with radioactive fury...)

"Look out, eh? It's... Moosilla!!!!!"

Re:CN Tower

[zakezuke]

I think you've just proved his point. Canadian cities are similar enough to US cities that they can act as stand ins. If not, people would say "Hey, that's not New York, it's Torronto!". They don't, unless they've been to Torronto.

Actually I've not been to New York Nor Toronto. However, it doesn't take first hand experence to note geographical features such as mountain ranges. The only reason I would remember it's city features is because i've seen them on TV and film. The funny thing about Canada and America is they are both countries in North America. There are also going to be similarities in construction and building materials.

actually, if you split Canada between the southern 200km and the northern rest, most people in Canada don't see the rest of Canada the vast majority of the time; they don't live there

Yes, it's probally why Canada took offence when America was in its 54 40' or fight manifest destiny phase and basicly wanted all of populated Canada, till it was settled in the treety of Oregon that the northern border be the 49th.

But this is another way to spot something filmed in Canada, the fact the highway system is mainly geared tward east / west travel between the major cities. Most of the north/south highways have traffic lights and such.

Interesting article

[MrChuck]

And when he types that, his lips move out of sync.

Anyway, I'd read this article last sunday (near the bottom a couple pages) and was gonna go see it.

Perhaps the theaters will be slashdotted - 30,000 people show up for the first show, lose interest and never come back or discuss it again.

Re:Interesting article

[piper-noiter]

Perhaps the theaters will be slashdotted - 30,000 people show up for the first show, lose interest and never come back or discuss it again.

Don't forget the witty off-topic jokes they will shout at the screen, disrupting the movie, just to see how many people will laugh.

...
Wait a second, I think I'm mocking myself.

Nitpick

[ciroknight]

I completely agree with you except for one little point:

Any technology can be used for good or evil, especially technology that makes energy

Making energy would defeat Law of Conservation of Energy (and most likely Law of Conservation of Mass, since that's how most of the energy we're accustom to seeing is expressed). IANAP, but it really does get irritating to see this in writing... I guess you could reform it as: Any technology can be used for good or evil, especially technology that deals with releasing or storing energy.

Re:Nitpick

[Aglassis]

You said: "Making energy would defeat Law of Conservation of Energy (and most likely Law of Conservation of Mass, since that's how most of the energy we're accustom to seeing is expressed). IANAP, but it really does get irritating to see this in writing... I guess you could reform it as: Any technology can be used for good or evil, especially technology that deals with releasing or storing energy."

Actually, my job does create energy (I work as a reactor operator). I just decrease mass by doing it.

Re:Nitpick

[Aglassis]

You said: "You are not creating energy, since the mass in energy in itself, it is what there's no law of convervation of mass, you just need the law of conservation of energy, since mass is energy ...

Sorry that I got to nitpick your nitpick:

Mass and energy are both human terms. They have no inherent meaning beyond how we interpret them. But one of our interpretations is that energy can do work. Now its fairly obvious that mass can be converted to energy and then do the work, but my point is, as far as interpreting as a linguist (which I am certainly not), mass and energy are certainly different. Now you can say mass is energy and energy is mass as long as you want but you have to be careful that you don't lose your meaning when you do so. For example, I can easily say that an electron has a mass of about 0.5 MeV, but I certainly wouldn't measure the mass of an apple in Joules.

Re:Nitpick

[IWannaBeAnAC]

Not really. That shows that mass can be turned into energy, and vice versa, but that doesn't mean that mass and energy are the same, any more than it means that a beam of light is the same as a lump of lead.

For another example, all forms of energy are 'equivalent' but that doesn't mean that a fast car is the same thing as a hot room.

Re:In a world that seems to be stagnant remakes...

[irokitt]

It's a song lyric, go talk to Eddie Vedder;)

Just watch out for Mr. Ozawa...

[AngstAndGuitar]

He scares me. although the rest of the article shows that they publicly disavow the use of nuclear weapons. this is also interesting
(as an aside, but slightly related) I hope people won't get the idea that I dislike Japan or the Japanese people, far from it. But I don't trust governments or corporations, be they American or Japanese, in fact, I might trust Japanese corporations more, once you have a job, you have it for life. And I've had mostly good experiances with individual Japanese, more per capita than I do with Americans.

Re:Just watch out for Mr. Ozawa...

[tigga]

I might trust Japanese corporations more, once you have a job, you have it for life.

And if your boss is a jerk - you have him for life. Him, because in Japan almost all management is male.

I wonder...

[MysteriousMystery]

Times have changed since the 1950s when this movie was start of the art, I really do wonder how many people will bring Robotic puppets with them and make comments about the movie.

The US can do that now

[DrJimbo]

... and we even get to see pictures of it all on tv. I hear that videos of even nastier stuff will be coming out soon.

Re:The US can do that now

[maelstrom]

Give me a break dude. The abuses in Iraq are to be condemmed and those responsible should do jail time, but it doesn't come close to the Rape of Nanking and to suggest otherwise is a distortion of history.

Re:The US can do that now

[Wyatt Earp]

And the other big difference is, the abuses by the Americans in the Iraqi prison will lead to the abusers and thier commanders being stripped of rank, and for the abusers some hard time at Fort Leavenworth Military Prison. Hell Rumsfeld might even go down for it, even though he had no control even if he wanted them on an MP Company in Iraq.

The Japanese, German and Iraqi governments would promote these sorts of folks, or make these sorts of actions military policy. If this was the Imperial Japanese Army c. 1938 operating in Iraq, they'd have already enslaved the girls of Basra to act as comfort women for the soldiers up at Najif.

Re:The US can do that now

[Anonymous Coward]

Give me a break dude. The abuses in Iraq are to be condemmed and those responsible should do jail time, but it doesn't come close to the Rape of Nanking and to suggest otherwise is a distortion of history.

He didn't compare Iraq to the Rape of Nanking. He just said that some Americans are getting away with rapes and murders and the like in Iraq, and that pictures of that kind of stuff was appearing on TV. Im not so sure that he's wrong either. Read the news carefully -- reports of rapes and other abuses beyond that one prisoner scandal actually have in fact started coming out.

Example: Read this article.

Re:The US can do that now

[Evil Poot Cat]

...and there hasn't been a whole lot of getting away with anything yet. And there may not be. That all depends on who gets convicted (or not) of what.

Oh boy!

[Phidoux]

he says, rushing off to buy tickets! I can't wait to be bored to death AND to have it happen in Japanese!

Personally I think I'd rather wait till LOTR is released with runic subtitles.

Re:Life of Brian... also rereleased

[Nerull]

Its a direct quote from a transcript of Bush speaking somewhere (Don't remember), where he makes a rather sad attempt at the famous quote:
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

The quote in full is "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."

I saw a recording of it, imagine him studdering at each of the '-'s to get a better idea of what it sounded like.

How or why he tried to say that is beyond me, but I'd at least hope he was ad-libbing, surely they found someone smarter than he is to write his speaches...

Re:What's the point?

[LauraScudder]

Yeah, the public has an allergic reaction to anything having to do with radioactivity now. It's like irradiated meat. God forbid you eat meat that is not at all radioactive, but is safer and keeps for longer.

As if well maintained nuclear plants are more hazardous than those petroleum monsters injecting god-knows what kinds of carcinogens and pollutants into the air we breathe.

And on a relatively unrelated note...

[anon*127.0.0.1]

I'll be seeing Blue Oyster Cult tomorrow.

Re:And on a relatively unrelated note...

[anon*127.0.0.1]

Hey, I appreciate you defending me like that, AC.

On the other hand, I'm at least partially to blame. I could have lined the BOC website, or linked the Richardson Wildflower Festival, which is where they'll be, but I was just too damn lazy. Failing that, I can see where a moderator might not catch the reference.

I just realized... BOC playing a Wildflower Festival? Shades of Spinal Tap!

Matthew Broderick is going to be pissed ...

[Qetu]

Unfortunately, due to IP issues with the previously licensed Godzilla Hollywood movie (adn despite this one being the original), it will be called "FireLizard".

Mozilla representatives are pondering legal action.

Serious Anti-nuke picture

[Satan's Hand Puppet]

"...as a serious anti-nuke picture"

Oh yes of course. I should be ashamed of missing the true subtext. Silly me, I thought it was just a B grade monster movie.

trailer

[fateswarm]

Apple.com has a quicktime trailer for the re-release here.

Re:trailer

[FashionNugget]

that's a trailer!?
that was pathetic.

Re:trailer

[Nogami_Saeko]

Ya, I'll second that thought on the trailer. Not a hint of movie footage, just the age-old, and much parodied "text on a black background".

I was pretty underwhelmed as well.

N.

Godzilla vs The Smog Monster

[Anonymous Coward]

How ironic was it that Godzilla, a mutant created by nuclear fallout, helped the environment by battling the Smog Monster, another creation of man made toxins.

Re:Godzilla vs The Smog Monster

[crashnbur]

To answer the question asked, it was incredibly ironic. I mean, that was the entire point! They only wanted to show us that even the worst environmental (or other man-caused) disasters can be beneficial in the rarest, most extreme, most random circumstances!

But considering the world today and asking the same question in the present tense, [sarcasm]is that irony... or coincidence?![/sarcasm]

People are just irrational

[grahamsz]

Mass hysteria seems to apply to nuclear power. It's not risk free, in fact the stakes are (as we've seen) very high - but people seem to conveniently ignore larger issues and latch on to easy to fear ones.

9/11 is a good example - smoking kills more people every day in the USA.

On a smaller scale I was brushing my teeth at a campsite during a water shortage, and out of habit left the water running as I brushed... only to get yelled at by a women who had left her huge SUV running so her husband could visit the bathroom.

anyway i'm tired and drunk and going to bed.. i forgot my conclusion

Re:People are just irrational

[MrMr]

smoking kills more people every day in the USA
I take it you mean the USA is not being hysterial about smoking?
Perhaps where you are...

Re:People are just irrational

[grahamsz]

A neighboring town has a total ban on smoking anywhere but your car or personal property - you can't even walk down the street smoking.

However we don't see the same war on terror or war or drugs hysteria.

Re:Life of Brian... also rereleased

[LauraScudder]

Aren't you overreacting a bit? "the nerd flag flying over this venture"? It's not like nerds have sole claim on enjoying their comedy, or that the parent was at all claiming this. Turning their film scripts into a replacement for the Bible? I don't think that's happenned. A large majority of people I met in college had never seen Life of Brian, despite being able to quote their other works like Search for the Holy Grail. I think that its good that one of their other works is getting put out into theaters again so that more people get the opportunity to see it. Personally, I think it's pretty damn funny. Chill out and enjoy the fucking movie.

Katakana lesson - juyo ichi

[Thaidog]

Go - Ji - Ra

Damn that's funny when it's screamed out the mouth by someone about to be stepped on!

Re:What's the point?

[Blastrogath]

If you think oil plants are bad, look into coal fired plants. Not only do you get more smog but there are radioactives in coal, so the average coal fired power plant puts out scads more radioactive matter than a well run nuclear plant. (but i'm not counting the spent fuel rods)

Serious/unserious? Big difference is the music

[doom]

I could swear that I saw this version a few years back in the rep houses, but I suppose I'll need to see it again to see if that was was missing some of this "uncut" footage. In any case, I think the serious quality of the original japanese version is being overplayed, and the unseriousness of the American version with Raymond Burr is quite exaggerated.

To me the really notable difference was in the music. The Japanese version has some very spare, slow drumming as it's theme. The American version evidentally introduced the symphonic music with a more "horror movie" feel that I've always thought of as "The Godzilla Theme" (You know, ra da da DAA... ra dun da DAAAAAAH... ra da da daaaah, da daaaah dah or something like that.). That theme, combined with the sounds of destruction and carnage strikes me as a pretty obvious precursor to a lot of Industrial music.

(Anyway, you want to see a really strange film? Try renting "Mothera" sometime. Twin miniature faerie women singing in Balinese to get an "exotic" sound to Japanese ears...)

w00t!

[pi8you]

It looks like they've added Minneapolis(among other places) to the list of cities where it'll be playing! Originally it wasn't a listed city and I was thus quite saddened, living in Minneapolis as I do. Now it's a real possibility and one I plan to take fullest advantage of. Maybe I'll even bring my 12" Godzilla figure, going strong since 1985, along to the show. Nothing quite like seeing Godzilla up on the big screen, gives a great sense of scale compared to seeing him on puny televisions.

Re:w00t!

[lazybeam]

It's still false advertising; "A Monster of Mass Destruction - Coming soon to your city!" - well my city isn't on that list, nor any city I can get to. :-P

Re:Nitpick^3

[swatter]

Mass and energy are both human terms. They have no inherent meaning beyond how we interpret them.

This is crap. They are certainly human terms, but they do have a specific meaning (which is as inherent as it gets). The fact is the best theory about the universe we have makes energy and mass two measures of the same quantity -- they're just expressed using different units.

For example, I can easily say that an electron has a mass of about 0.5 MeV, but I certainly wouldn't measure the mass of an apple in Joules.

Why not, it's about 3x10^16 J. Granted, that's not as meaningful to most as 300 grams, but then 300 grams doesn't mean a hell of a lot to many Americans either...

Err, so there.

Please let the pedantic parade end.

[Anonymous Coward]

He was just fine using the laymans distinction, in what is esentially a layman enviroment. You are appealing to the "jargon", and overly specific, version of the words in an appeal to authority. It has failed you. You have failed it.

If you must insist on such primitive displays of noodle armed social dominance, might I direct you to one of the starwars.vs.startrek newsgroup where this sort of thing is appropriate?

Re:Please let the pedantic parade end.

[kir]

I'd like to congratulate you (whoever you are) on a fine post. You have summed up in merely 71 words what I have been trying to say about this place (and many others like it on the net) for years.

Many who practice this "noodle armed social dominance" (I LOVE THAT PHRASE) are only repeating what they've read or heard. It's sad really.

Re:Serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

consider the time (1954). Public knowledge about nuclear physics was zero, USA and Soviet Union were testing atomic bombs in the atmosphere while teaching "duck and cover"...

Re:Serious?

[Tony Hoyle]

I think that article poster got a bit ahead of themselves.

I'm prepared to accept it may be a well scripted movie, even well acted (although the version I've seen sure doesn't look like it), but serious? Give me a break. It's a monster flick.

I actually saw it

[beforewisdom]

way back in the stoneages before cable bought up every rerun and old movie in site.

It was in black and white. Starred Raymond Burr and was something someone other then a 12 year old could enjoy.

Steve

Re:I actually saw it

[vonFinkelstien]

... Uh, no you didn't.

You saw the Americanized and edited version that was released years ago in the U.S.

They are now giving us the unAmericanized (i.e., no Raymond Burr) and unedited version.

;-)

Re:In a world that seems to be stagnant remakes...

[Finuvir]

I do believe you mean "I wish I were...."

Bloody hell, that's ignorant. "I wish I was" has always been correct English, in Britain and America, while "I wish I were" has only recently been accepted by English dictionaries because illiterate foreigners bastardised the language to such an extent that the Brits picked up on it.

We know drama

[tepples]

I thought Ted Turner invented TNT.

Re:We know drama

[Binky The Oracle]

Which is a perfect illustration of what so many other posters are saying in this thread: any technology can be used for good or evil. ;-)

So do we get to...

[bicho]

...as it was really meant to be seen...

So, is it a remasterededition with thx and new scenes so that it can be seen as it was really mean to be seen?

Will there be any prequels yet?

Re:So do we get to...

[cfuse]

So, is it a remasterededition with thx and new scenes so that it can be seen as it was really mean to be seen?

Will there be any prequels yet?

Does Godzilla fire first?

anyone looking for the trailer

[seibed]

don't bother with the trailer, it has got to be the lamest trailer possible...

here, let me sum it up for you:
original.
uncut.
undubbed.
uncensored.
o riginal version.

All of this is in big bold white letters on a black screen. exciting huh?

you would think that since they've had to footage for fifty years they might be able to come up with something a little more creative!

I've got movie sign!

[Captain Spam]

[...]as it was really meant to be seen, as a serious anti-nuke picture, not just Saturday afternoon UHF fodder.

But I LIKE Saturday afternoon UHF fodder, you insensitive clods!

Spin Factor

[glrotate]

O'Reilly is a snooty populist with a good dose of Catholic mixed in. He is not a right winger.

O'Reilly is totally right wing

[Anonymous Coward]

He's the complete right wing package:

Racist. Check.
Homophobe. Check.
Anti-intellectual. Check.
Europhobe. Check.
Appears on FOX television. Check.

C'mon...

[nate nice]

"as a serious anti-nuke picture"

Maybe an anti nuke picture, but can it really be taken seriously?

He say you Blade Runner.

[zerocircle]

...Engrish...Or whatever you call Americanized Japanese.

That would be Japanglish, in the tradition of Spanglish and Franglais.

Re:Serious/unserious? Big difference is the music

[aborchers]

Huh?

The drums and the symphonic Gojira theme are by Akira Ifukube and are from the original.

Anything you saw less recently than this month in a rep house was the Americanized version (it did tour not too long ago) because this is the first US theatrical release (outside of possibly fan conventions) of the Japanese original.

The Shobijin song in the original Mosura was in Malay.

Re:What's the point?

[Lehk228]

You can thank Ralph Nader for that one, But I guess Personal political gains are more important to him than the Environment and current energy crunch, If it wasn't for his turning the environmental groups against our one real hope for clean Energy, we would actually have clear skies, probably Electric cars, since an abundance of near-free Electricity would allow for Cars using higher density methods of storage even if recharging them required huge amounts of "wasted" energy.

Re:Life of Brian... also rereleased

[LauraScudder]

Unfortunately, the character limit on sig's made me sacrifice info on the quote in order to keep it there. In case you're wondering, it roughly translates to, "That was just a prologue; there, where they burn books, they also burn people in the end." Heinrich Heine said that in 1820 (though some sources say 1821). I think it's really interesting because it's a little more than 100 years before the Nazis came to power and started burning books. And we all know what they did to people in the end.

Re:What's the point?

[LauraScudder]

And because we burn pure hydrocarbon compounds in our power plants.

While coal is definitely the worst, petroleum plants in general produce all sorts of shit in our air. Check it

Re:In a world that seems to be stagnant remakes...

[AngstAndGuitar]

Leon. O Lord, my lord, if they were but a week married, they would talk themselves mad.

-Much Ado About Nothing Act II Scene II ln 370 How far back is "recent"? And I was aparently under the mistaken impression that Shakespeare was English... :p

Re:What year is this ?

[anon*127.0.0.1]

More like 1984, but thanks for playing!

Re:Short memories...

[Sj0]

Did?

50 years isn't exactly a drop in the bucket. The world today is a much different place than it was then.

Do you think the US could get away with nuking a first world nations city like they did in WWII?

Do you think Germany could get away with invading a first world nation like THEY did in WWII?

Do you think Japan could get away with declaring war by bombing a military outpost attached to a city?

The truth is, if ANY of the events of WWII happened today, the countries involved would be in serious shit. Diplomatic relations and public opinion hinges on a more liberal, less nationalistic tone than it did back then, especially when first world nations are involved.

Re:Life of Brian... also rereleased

[rightfuture]

Always look on the bright side of Tokyo!!

---
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world.
Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has".
- Margaret Mead -

"All it takes for evil to prevail is for a few good men to do nothing"
- Abraham Lincoln -

Re:In a world that seems to be stagnant remakes...

[Finuvir]

I take your point and concede the presence of that construction for longer than I had realised, but I'm waiting to be told why "if I was" is unacceptable.

Re:Serious?

[Cerv]

When you find the time you might want to investigate the 'metaphor'.

I wonder...

[Lord Kano]

See the *uncut Japanese version* of the film as it was really meant to be seen, as a serious anti-nuke picture,

Why does it not surprise me that the Japanese made an anti-nuke movie?

LK

DECzilla

[MobyTurbo]

bash-2.05b$ fortune -m DECzilla
%% (fortunes)
Speaking of Godzilla and other things that convey horror:

With a purposeful grimace and a Mongo-like flair
He throws the spinning disk drives in the air!
And he picks up a Vax and he throws it back down
As he wades through the lab making terrible sounds!
Helpless users with projects due
Scream "My God!" as he stomps on the tape drives, too!

Oh, no! He says Unix runs too slow! Go, go, DECzilla!
Oh, yes! He's gonna bring up VMS! Go, go, DECzilla!"

* VMS is a trademark of Digital Equipment Corporation
* DECzilla is a trademark of Hollow Chocolate Bunnies of Death, Inc.

-- Curtis Jackson

Nobel characterization overblown

[PCM2]

Alfred Nobel, the inventor of TNT, knew this only too well. He created the Nobel prize so people wouldn't remember him as the creator of a weapon.

Actually, from what I've read, evidence supporting the theory that Nobel suffered from some kind of existential angst from having created something (dynamite, as others have mentioned) that could be used as a weapon is pretty thin. He hated war, yet seemed to be something of an optimist about the progress of science -- even where weapons were concerned -- believing that mounting casualties of war would only speed the arrival of a better and lasting peace, once people finally understood how tragic war really was. He invented the Nobel price not out of guilt, but out of a desire to celebrate human achievement. If he was wracked with guilt over his invention of dynamite, he never gave voice to those feelings, either publicly or in private writings.

The Music of Godzilla: All hail Akira Ifkube

[LouisvilleDebugger]

In American film music of the 1950's, the ultimate composer was probably Bernard Hermann (Psycho, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Citizen Kane, to name a very very few.) In the Soviet Union, it was Shostakvich and others.

In Japan, it was Akira Ifukube, who scored the original Godzilla and a host of sequels. Once dubbed the "Igor Stravinkski" of Japan, Ifukube built real suspense and menace into the Godzilla score through the repeated use of a collage of simple themes, much as composers such as John Williams would later do for film soundtracks like "Star Wars."

There are many excellent Japanese import CDs that can be ordered, at least from the U.S., which contain the very best of the sparkling Gozilla scores, including an all-year retrospective in two volumes.

Have you SEEN the original Godzilla?

[LouisvilleDebugger]

Even the American-released version is truly scary and dark. It's action-packed, with the dread advancing faster than the characters can formulate a solution. And of course, the solution is as tragic as the original situation.

Godzilla is a dystopian sci-fi masterpiece for mood, and I've shed many a movie-goer tear as the scientist burns his notes, and his ex-betrothed realizes what's going to happen: there is horror advancing through that scene without a single monster in sight, and not a single word spoken.

If you can get past the 1954 production values to see Godzilla for what it is, a terrifying and cautionary tale of technology gone wrong, I guarantee that it's possible to enjoy Godzilla 1954 just as much as the many later attempts to visit this, uh...stomping ground.

Re:In a world that seems to be stagnant remakes...

[UncleFluffy]

Google for "subjunctive".

Re:Serious/unserious? Big difference is the music

[doom]

The drums and the symphonic Gojira theme are by Akira Ifukube and are from the original.

Hm. Interesting.

Anything you saw less recently than this month in a rep house was the Americanized version (it did tour not too long ago) because this is the first US theatrical release (outside of possibly fan conventions) of the Japanese original.

The version that I saw had no Raymond Burr footage in it. It was billed as the original Japanese version, though it was given the big publicity build-up that this one is.

Either my memory of the soundtrack is totally scrambled (hard to believe, I was listening for "The Godzilla Theme"... I own a double-CD set of the soundtrack music, I'm pretty familiar with it), or there are multiple versions floating around, and the definition of "original" is a little hazier than we're being lead to believe at the moment.

The Shobijin song in the original Mosura was in Malay.

Ah, thanks.

Re:Serious/unserious? Big difference is the music

[aborchers]

Where did you manage to see the Japanese version? I've heard of it playing conventions and possibly Japanese community theatres, but never of a general release.

The soundtrack to the original G is heavy on the drums and contrabass wail of the creature. On that question you are undoubtedly correct. I'm very nearly certain, though, that the Ifukube "Frigate March" theme used in all the later pictures does occur as the JDF troops advance to meet the creature.

I have a less-than-official VHS of the unaltered original, so I will check that tonight. If you're really interested in pursuing this (obviously I am a bit of a G nerd and always willing to discuss such things :-)) you can email me alb-at-popes-dot-com (I'm sure this thread will be archived soon) and I will let you know what I discover.

Re:Serious/unserious? Big difference is the music

[doom]

aborchers wrote:

Where did you manage to see the Japanese version? I've heard of it playing conventions and possibly Japanese community theatres, but never of a general release.

It was at the RedVic, a small movie theater in San Francisco on the upper Haight.

The soundtrack to the original G is heavy on the drums and contrabass wail of the creature. On that question you are undoubtedly correct. I'm very nearly certain, though, that the Ifukube "Frigate March" theme used in all the later pictures does occur as the JDF troops advance to meet the creature.

Okay, I just listened through the CD "The Best of Godzilla 1954-1975", and I see that part of the trouble is my memory, but part of it is just that I'm getting the names of the pieces wrong.

There's some symphonic music used in the original version of Godzilla, but it's a pretty rapid, monotonous piece, almost like a military march (and I can believe that it's called "Frigate March", though that's not mentioned on the notes for this CD. It goes something like:

Da da da, Da da da, dundadada da da dah...

The music that I for some reason imprinted on as "The Godzilla Theme" doesn't come up on this CD until the main titled for "Ghidorah the 3-headed Monster" [1] released in 1964. It's also by Akira Ifukube. It's a slow, ominous piece, with a fill in the middle that goes something like:

Raa daa da daaaah, Raa daa da daaaah, Raa daa du daah dun dah da...

(I bet that makes it all clear.)

I note that this same melody recurrs with more embellishment in "Destroy All Monsters" (1968) as part of "Showdown on Mt. Fuji".

And unless I'm totally out to lunch, it's also use pretty prominently in some major destruction scenes in the US release of "Godzilla"... I would need to see it again to check.

[1] The Ghidorah movie's original japanese title was apparently something like "The Greatest Giant Monster Battle on Earth".

Ghidorah was always my pick for coolest monster of the Godzilla pantheon. Three heads, wings, *two* tails, breathes fire: Ghidorah's got everything.

Re:Serious/unserious? Big difference is the music

[aborchers]

Aha! I think I see where we're diverging on the themes. The Frigate March from G '54 has been used in many of the films as a sort of battle march and that's what I think of as the "G Theme" because it dates to the original film. The other piece you're talking about is used in many of the later films (all of them since the nineties, for certain) to accompany the titles, and is therefore also quite reasonably interpreted as a G Theme.

This was keeping me up nights. Glad we got it worked out! :-)

And I agree wholeheartedly about Ghidorah. Godzilla will always be number one for me, but Ghidorah is by far the coolest creature design in the 50-year history of the series.