Discord-logo.jpg Join our Discord!
If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here.

Talk:Godzilla (2014)

From Internet Movie Firearms Database - Guns in Movies, TV and Video Games
Revision as of 14:55, 19 February 2015 by Spartan198 (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Are people going to whine and cry about this Godzilla not being of the same tired old 1950s monster design, too? Spartan198 (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2014 (EDT)

I thought the biggest criticism of the 1998 film was that it just wasn't a very good movie. --Funkychinaman (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2014 (EDT)
Excluding semantic stuff (i.e., New York instead of Tokyo, American cast instead of Japanese, etc.), was the plot really that different from the original 1954 film? Mutated iguana the size of a skyscraper attacks city, residents flee in terror while military proves woefully ineffective against said mutated iguana. That's both movies in a nutshell, so what makes the 1998 movie any worse than the original? Spartan198 (talk) 09:18, 13 May 2014 (EDT)
Matthew Broderick --Clonehunter (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2014 (EDT)
You can't look past one actor? I'm not that fond of Jake Gyllenhaal or Mark Wahlberg, but I still thoroughly enjoyed The Day After Tomorrow and Shooter. Spartan198 (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2014 (EDT)
Guys, you do realize that talk pages are supposed to be used for discussing guns in the movie, not for expressing opinions about the film? I realize I'm not really active on the site too much, which means that I've more-or-less surrendered my admin cred, but I think you're better off keeping this discussion in the "Off Topic" section of the forum. -MT2008 (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2014 (EDT)

As a Godzilla fan myself, here's my take on the film; the first act isn't done too well, by by the second act the movie gets a whole lot better, especially with the final monster battle. The only things worth nitpicking about this film is that a character that was overhyped in the trailers died in the middle of this film, the monsters (or MUTOs) that Godzilla fights in this film were unoriginal and recycling the "Cloverfield monster look" just like every other monster film is doing these days (except Pacific Rim), the human characters and the dialogue were a bit bland, the MUTOs took the center stage way too much while Godzilla seemed to take a backseat the whole time, and the backstory they gave for Godzilla and the MUTOs was meh, at best.

But the positives are as follows; Godzilla and the other monsters' near-invincibility towards military weaponry, seeing both him and the MUTOs fuck the shit out of major cities and places like Janjira, Waikiki, Honolulu, Las Vegas, the Golden Gate Bridge and San Fransisco was MILES better than the 'minor damage' that the 1998 "iguana-Godzilla" caused, the monster battles and the battles between the monsters and the military was very well done and shows how these monsters are almost god-like with their presence and power, and for all the scenes involving the humans, it was ok at best. Maybe they could've drawn more inspiration from the original 1954 film, but for what it was worth, it worked well for the most part. And lastly, Godzilla's appearance and characteristic traits; much, MUCH better than the previous American adaptation.

This film is definitely a 7 to 8 star film. --ThatoneguyJosh (talk) 08:15, 25 May 2014 (EDT)

Well that has always been the norm for Godzilla movies, he gets little screen-time compared to his adversary(ies) and humans. MUTOs looked nothing like the Cloverfield monster. The only thing that I was kinda wondering about was why did Honolulu have SWAT snipers on the rooftops. Wouldn't the military have sent in their own snipers? -User:1morey May 25, 2014 1:39 PM (EST)

Saw it last night on MAX. Not necessarily bad, but really slow-paced. Say what you want about the 98 movie, but at least once the action started, it stayed that way. Not so for this one. The end battle was a bit short and anti-climatic, though. And since when does the US military transport nuclear ICBMs in such an unsecured manner? Would have made a lot more sense to load them on C-17s and airdrop them to the detonation site from 35,000 feet to avoid the EMP generated by the MUTOs. Spartan198 (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2015 (EST)

Grenade Machine Gun

I watched this a couple weeks ago and I noticed the military had set up a Mark 19 (I believe it's called) 25mm grenade launcher outside their HQ. You can most notably see it when Ken Watanabe comes outside. Anyone else get eyes on it enough to identify.--That's the Way It's Done (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2014 (EDT)


I don't know about the rest of the movie, but the screencap given shows either an original M203 or M203A2 (the only difference between the two is the type of barrel clamp) with 12" barrel. If it was an A1, the barrel wouldn't extend as far forward as it does. Spartan198 (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2014 (EDT)

M16A4 and M240B.

I haven't seen the movie since it first came out in May, but I think I remember during the Lone Pine scene, two soldiers seen dismounting from a truck appear to have an M16A4 and an M240B. Also, when you see newsreel footage of the MUTO attacking Vegas (I think that was the city) I thought I saw soldiers shooting another M240 Bravo at it.-Gunner5

Ford and "his" M4

It's not a continuity error, it's two different weapons. When he joins the nuke train, he has one with the EOTech 552 and PEQ-2, but loses it during the MUTO's attack on the bridge. Then when he HALOs in with the SF team, he gets another one that has the newer EOTech 553 and PEQ-15. On a side note, though, has anyone noticed that he doesn't fire a single shot throughout the entire movie? lawl Spartan198 (talk) 09:55, 19 February 2015 (EST)

Do Not Sell My Personal Information