My favorite commercials of this favorite guilty pleasure of mine dispite being born in 2002 are the Toy Commercial ones, I use to have the Living Godzilla figure when I was a kid but sadly lost it after that but then again, my Dad before he passed gave me a 1998 Godzilla hand puppet and I loved it, I even thanked him after that lol.
@@sonofdragon5530you know what’s disgraceful..thinking talking to someone like that is mature especially over as something is simple as someone liking something you don’t like…most normal people would not comment such childish things.
I remember i was so young i could barely read 3 letter words and when the museum guide in the first ad said "Jurassic" i was excited because i thought it was a Jurassic park ad. Even more so with the giant foot. I couldn't read the title card but i was all too familiar with Godzilla's roar that i knew i was wrong and couldn't have been happier.
Now, listen, I'm not trying to jump on a bandwagon and hate on this movie like everyone else, I'm just putting the whole thing in retrospect. I was a big Godzilla fan. I was young, and I was pretty disappointed. But it's been 26 years, and I've gotten over it. I've given the movie every chance to watch. And for what it is, it's not bad. I mean, it's not high-class entertainment. It's a monster movie, it's popcorn entertainment. I feel as if the same problem occurred with Independence Day. It was the coolest movie from 96, but a lot of people hated it, and I don't understand why they criticized stereotypes. It's about aliens that arrive to Earth and destroy its famous landmarks. If you wanted something more like the meaning of life, you're not gonna get it. But the problem with this movie is that they called it Godzilla. It was a chance to introduce a monster to western audiences, but instead, they made something different that might as well have been a remake of Beast from 20,000 Fathoms. It followed the basic idea of a giant, reptilian creature, but it could've been almost anything. The name, Godzilla, was slapped on it, just for a marquee value. They were interested in the name, and not the actual character. Two simple things: He breathes atomic breath, and he's indestructible. Some people have said, "Well, that was too unrealistic, and they were trying to make a more serious approach with this one." But that's horseshit. That's like trying to make Superman realistic and not allowing him to shoot heat vision. It doesn't matter if it's realistic or not. That's the time-honored trademark of the character. Superman shoots heat vision, Godzilla shoots atomic breath. This is not Godzilla. In fact, Toho officially renamed the monster Zilla. They even make a reference to it in the movie "Godzilla, Mothra and King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack". Earlier in the film when they were discussing the history of Godzilla, they mentioned that in 1998, a monster attacked New York City. The Americans think it was Godzilla, but it really wasn't. And later, in "Godzilla: Final Wars", there's a small cameo where Godzilla fights Zilla, and basically annihilates Zilla with one single blast of his nuclear breath in Sydney, Australia. Too bad Zilla didn't have nuclear breath. Bottom line, Godzilla 1998 should officially be renamed "Zilla". It's not worthy of God, it's just Zilla. And even that sounds too much like it.
@@monster-mecha_enthusiast_2002 not at all, the toys were pretty cool but no one wanted to buy them after the movie came out because so many people hated it (not me though I loved it)
More money wouldn't have fixed the problem, Roland Emmerich just wasn't a Godzilla fan. An earlier script from Jan De Bont had Godzilla battling a monster called The Gryphon, Roland scrapped that because he didn't like the idea of two monsters fighting.
@@billybarnett9518 I'm familiar with that storyline & you have a point, in order to make a movie that is based on a prior IP you need someone who understands (& maybe is a fan of) that IP to be at the helm
