Original Godzilla In U.S. Theaters

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Original Godzilla In U.S. Theaters

Posted by michael on Friday May 7, 2004 @06:05PM 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."

13 of 261 comments (clear)

Solly Cholly by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-07 18:09 · Score: 5, Funny

Srashdot isn't lacist.
Re:I think you mean... by zalas · 2004-05-07 18:09 · Score: 5, Informative

No, the poster is correct. The Japanese behind the 'Godzilla' on the image is basically GO JI RA.
It's more than an anti-nuke picture. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-07 18:11 · 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 · 2004-05-07 18:25 · 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.
Re:I think you mean... by Metallic+Matty · 2004-05-07 18:11 · Score: 5, Funny

Bow to the power of Engrish.

Or whatever you call Americanized Japanese.
Anti-Nuke by weston · 2004-05-07 18:12 · Score: 5, Funny

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

--
Tweet, tweet.
1. Re:Anti-Nuke by Aglassis · 2004-05-07 18:50 · 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 Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-07 19:03 · 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.
To anyone considering seeing this movie... by MisterLawyer · 2004-05-07 18:24 · 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
Re:Nitpick by Aglassis · 2004-05-07 18:59 · 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.
Matthew Broderick is going to be pissed ... by Qetu · 2004-05-07 19:30 · 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.
trailer by fateswarm · 2004-05-07 19:37 · Score: 5, Informative

Apple.com has a quicktime trailer for the re-release here.
Re:I think you mean... by defago · 2004-05-07 19:53 · 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).