Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Original Godzilla In U.S. Theaters

Posted by michael on from the mystery-science-theater dept.

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."

48 of 261 comments (clear)

  1. Solly Cholly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Srashdot isn't lacist.

  2. Re:I think you mean... by zalas · · Score: 5, Informative

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

  3. Re:Will be going tomorrow afternoon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    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)

  4. It's more than an anti-nuke picture. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:It's more than an anti-nuke picture. by Aglassis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
    2. Re:It's more than an anti-nuke picture. by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:It's more than an anti-nuke picture. by Kierthos · · Score: 2, Funny

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

      Kierthos

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    4. Re:It's more than an anti-nuke picture. by WinPimp2K · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --

      You either believe in rational thought or you don't
    5. Re:It's more than an anti-nuke picture. by einTier · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

      --
      -------------------------------------------------- $665.95 -- retail price of the beast.
  5. Re:I think you mean... by Metallic+Matty · · Score: 5, Funny

    Bow to the power of Engrish.

    Or whatever you call Americanized Japanese.

  6. Flamebait by boomgopher · · Score: 4, Funny

    "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...


    --
    Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
  7. Anti-Nuke by weston · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --
    Tweet, tweet.
    1. Re:Anti-Nuke by Aglassis · · Score: 5, Informative

      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).

      --
      Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
    2. Re:Anti-Nuke by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:Anti-Nuke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:Anti-Nuke by Yokaze · · Score: 4, Informative

      > 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.

      --
      "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
    5. Re:Anti-Nuke by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  8. Look! by red+floyd · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    --
    The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
  9. Re:In a world that seems to be stagnant remakes... by AngstAndGuitar · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    --
    Less look fast, more go fast.
  10. To anyone considering seeing this movie... by MisterLawyer · · Score: 5, Informative
    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

    1. Re:To anyone considering seeing this movie... by MojoReisen · · Score: 4, Funny

      Tell George Lucas. Maybe he'll learn something.

      --
      "Nothing is impossible for the man who refuses to listen to reason"
  11. Re:I think you mean... by Old+Wolf · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

  12. Blue Oyster Cult - Godzilla by mse61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    --
    ++mse61--
    1. Re:Blue Oyster Cult - Godzilla by .com+b4+.storm · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      --
      "Wow, you're like some kind of superhero able to ward off happiness and success at every turn."
      -- Ryan Stiles
  13. CN Tower by pipingguy · · Score: 4, Funny


    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?

    1. Re:CN Tower by agent+dero · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Error 407 - No creative sig found
    2. Re:CN Tower by zakezuke · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    3. Re:CN Tower by evilviper · · Score: 4, Funny
      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.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:CN Tower by aborchers · · Score: 2, Informative

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

      --
      Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
  14. Interesting article by MrChuck · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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.

  15. Nitpick by ciroknight · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    1. Re:Nitpick by Aglassis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
    2. Re:Nitpick by Aglassis · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
  16. The US can do that now by DrJimbo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... 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.

    --
    We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
    -- Anais Nin
    1. Re:The US can do that now by maelstrom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The more you know, the less you understand.
  17. Re:What's the point? by LauraScudder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  18. Matthew Broderick is going to be pissed ... by Qetu · · Score: 5, Funny


    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.

  19. Serious Anti-nuke picture by Satan's+Hand+Puppet · · Score: 2, Funny

    "...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.

  20. trailer by fateswarm · · Score: 5, Informative

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

  21. Godzilla vs The Smog Monster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  22. Re:I think you mean... by defago · · Score: 5, Informative
    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).
  23. Re:I think you mean... by Echnin · · Score: 2, Informative

    "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".

    --
    Lalala
  24. Serious/unserious? Big difference is the music by doom · · Score: 2, Informative
    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...)

  25. Re:Nitpick^3 by swatter · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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.

  26. We know drama by tepples · · Score: 2, Funny

    I thought Ted Turner invented TNT.

  27. anyone looking for the trailer by seibed · · Score: 4, Informative

    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!

  28. I've got movie sign! by Captain+Spam · · Score: 2, Funny

    [...]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!

    --
    Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
  29. Have you SEEN the original Godzilla? by LouisvilleDebugger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.