Big Blue Huddle

I think this review sums up my views of the film


If there is a singular aspect that makes the King of the Monsters stand out, it's his presence. Behind his actions are not only power but genuine malice and chaos incarnate, ravenously clawing apart the human world at a whim. Each time Godzilla appears, a sense of dread washes over you — the sheer menace of the monstrous beast threatening to reach through the screen and drag you to an untimely demise. These aspects, which I refer to as his presence, is what made Godzilla an international icon that has persisted through dozens of films spanning almost a century.

Such was the sensation I felt when I first saw the original 1954 "Godzilla" in my youth, and I have not felt such unbridled dread since that day. Since then I have seen many of the subsequent Godzilla films, both old and new, but something was always missing from them. They lacked that devilish spirit; that terror, that horror, that ability to induce fear as their precursor once did.

Honestly, I thought Godzilla's original presence had been forgotten and lost to time. Then I saw "Godzilla Minus One," and I felt that fear grip me again.

For the first time in too long, Godzilla was an absolute menace on the screen. Skillful writing slowly increases his threat level perfectly, consistently raising the stakes and driving the humans of the tale into even deeper despair.

Watching Godzilla's return to form in this new feature film was nothing short of a treat and something I would trade a box of cookies to experience for the first time again. If one box is not enough, I can offer two. No? Well, onto the dreaded human story it is, then.

From the first movie, the human aspect has been a vital part of Godzilla films, and "Godzilla Minus One" is no different. In recent years, this focus has disappointed fans and often distracted from the actual monsters than fitting cohesively into the plot. This time, however, I was pleasantly surprised, not only by the skillful balance between human storytelling and monster madness, but also by the impact of the human stories presented in the film.

In "Godzilla Minus One," the human story not only holds actual bearing on the overarching story but is engaging as well. The film addresses many heavy topics and themes across its runtime, handling them very well and incorporating them into the overall narrative both skillfully and effectively.

At many points throughout "Godzilla Minus One" where things didn't look like they could get worse, they somehow did. The film consistently subverted expectations and pushed those the audience grew deeply invested in closer toward breaking points and ultimate failure. Watching the protagonists face their demons and grow as a result was great to see — an empowering tale of persistence and redemption which brought about a surprisingly satisfying ending to such a bleak and turbulent tale.

Ultimately, while I do hold the original 1954 "Godzilla" film as king, "Godzilla Minus One" is a close second — far closer than I thought it would be. Its human story is on par with the original and in some ways surpassed the original in terms of storytelling. "Godzilla Minus One" has an excellent balance between its human story and monster-making-things-go-boom, which was very refreshing compared to the more human-story-focused Monsterverse films of Universal. If you're looking for a kaiju film with some heavy human storytelling, a menacing monster and an astounding ending, "Godzilla Minus One" is for you.

For us non-Japanese speakers, the subtitled version is the only one in theaters at the moment, so if you are not comfortable with reading in the cinema you might want to wait until a dub in your language of choice is released.

On the goat scale, I hereby award "Godzilla Minus One" five out of five goats. As a film, it is indeed worthy to portray the King of the Monsters.

https://www.hilltopviewsonline.com/28515/life-and-arts/review-godzilla-minus-one-finds-humanity-in-a-monsters-jaws/

Quote from: Ed Vette on Today at 05:05:43 PMIn the end, it's another Godzilla movie with a better actors and plot, subpar script and riding the special effects. Guess what? There will be a sequel.

This was actually a low-budget movie (compared to the other blockbuster-style monster movies)

I guess it's an acquired taste.  I have always enjoyed the old monster movies (which this one harkened back to)

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on Today at 04:42:50 PMThat bad? I was planning on maybe giving it a shot.

If you liked the original Godzilla movie, this is a better version of the original.   Again, you have to enjoy monster movies at least a little bit or you will end up viewing the movie as Ed did.

Quote from: spiderblue43 on Today at 03:43:37 PMDo the gloves NFL wrs all wear enhance one-handed grabs the media marvels at? It's almost getting routine every game.

Those gloves certainly don't hurt

here's a good article on the topic

https://www.relentlesssports.co/blogs/custom-sports-gear/why-are-nfl-players-gloves-so-sticky-a-closer-look

Quote from: Ed Vette on Today at 04:21:30 PMI saw the article. He didn't impress at camp last year and I doubt he would have made the team. Marquis players try not to get hurt at these OTA's. Let's see how he looks in August. It would be nice to push the roster by default players.

Ed,

I thought his path to the 53 was as a special teamer rather than as a WR (as you pointed out, he didn't look all that great at receiver).



Overall, I am happy with how much better the WR corps is.  Last year, many of us hoped BFW would make the team and play a significant role.  This year, I couldn't care less.   If, by some miracle, he improves and becomes part of the WR corps, great, but it's hardly needed.

Interestingly enough, the Giants have two of the players pictured

Quote from: Jclayton92 on Today at 03:11:55 PMIf it is anyone this season my money is on Belton, the ball has a tendency to just find him. He's worth playing full time just for the picks and fumbles.

I wouldn't rule out Nubin.   He was a ballhawk in college and Schoen says they did a study in Buffalo that being a ballhawk is a trait that tends to carry over from college to the NFL

Quote from: Jolly Blue Giant on Today at 02:43:23 PMWell...you are well-informed in this subject, that's for sure. What I wouldn't do to be able to talk to my father and ask him questions that I now have. I always got a kick out of watching him blow his boatswain whistle, where he'd cup his hands around it and control the screech by opening and closing his hand. He also amazed me when showing me how to tie knots. Farmers in the area used to bring him ropes that he would splice together for them. But as far as calculating distance and adjusting for pitch, roll, and yaw...he never talked about, so I doubt he was involved in the mathematics needed to make the calculations - in fact, I'm sure of it. All I know is that he used to use binoculars from atop the mast and to radio down the results of the hits after the 16" guns were fired

As a mathematician myself, I find it all very intriguing. I've always been impressed with those who calculate the earth's rotation when sending rockets to the moon as the entire trip is anything but static. Anyway, thanks for sharing the videos. I'm old, but still learning...which I think is a good thing for keeping a brain in thinking shape

As a hindnote, you would've made a good sailor. Did you ever consider joining the Navy or did your interest come later in life?

I actually stopped at the naval recruiting station when I was in HS.  I was considering going to Stevens Institute and I could get a full ride scholarship if I studied to be a nuclear engineer.  My mother found out and didn't want me to.  Then I got a full scholarship to Cooper Union.   Sometimes I wonder about paths not taken.

Quote from: Jolly Blue Giant on Today at 02:16:26 PMWow...you've done your research, Rich. I'm impressed 

I am a huge naval history buff.  I subscribe to Naval History (I am a member of the Naval Institute).  I have watched many of the videos on the two channels I posted.  I have watched countless hours of naval documentaries, and I have more than my fair share of naval books.

Quote from: Jolly Blue Giant on Today at 01:16:04 PMThe computerized firing was probably not available in WWII. Far more sophisticated than the days of pirate ships, but pretty much the same type of warfare as the days of pirates. The New Jersey loaded cannons with black powder (albeit - an incredibly larger amount), and a spearheaded (more accurate because of rifling in the barrels) cannonballs

Radar was pretty crude and could only detect sounds (usually planes) before the planes were seen. Submarines had a crude model of sonar towards the end of WWII, but it could only detect other submarines, torpedoes, or underwater mines less than a couple thousand yards...which was too late if a torpedo was coming directly at the sub. Sonar was not yet used by top water ships. Battleships were not equipped with sonar during WWII or Korea

Although they had a type of mechanical "computer", what they really had were knobs and gauges, to set speed, target range/distance, etc. To calculate moving targets during battle, sailors used slide rulers (if you can remember them...LOL). I still have my old slide rule that I used before the first digital calculator came out that could help me out when using trig. Pain in the ass to use is an understatement. I bring it out to show my grandkids and they are unimpressed. Computers in that day (WWII/Korea) were advanced mechanical renditions of the old Chinese abacuses, and slide rulers were America's answer to a scientific calculator



Ships weaponry and advanced technology was pretty crude during WWII and Korea. Black powder cannons and eyesight was used over everything, compared to today

Actually, the battleships did have computers.  They were mechanical and analogue but they worked rather well

The Mark 8 fire control computer in the aft secondary battery plotting room of the battleship USS IOWA





Here is a good rating of both optical as well as radar-guided fire control

http://www.combinedfleet.com/b_fire.htm

Here is a good article of one of the earlier fire control computers


http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-056.php

Quote from: Jolly Blue Giant on Today at 12:21:41 PMIn a straight out one-on-one, head-to-head battle, the Yamato would beat the New Jersey. The Yamato was more powerful (had 18" cannons) and had stronger hull defense (much thicker steel skin) that could withstand more hits. Fortunately, that scenario never happened. The Yamato was sunk (along with almost the entirety of its crew) by US air superiority. The US aerial assault dropped thousand-pound bombs from the air onto the ship, destroying their front 18" cannons and superstructure...but the real damage was done by torpedo bombers from the air, which blew the hell out of Yamato's hull

Winner in your scenario: Yamato

Versus the German Bismarck, the New Jersey would have made short work out of destroying it, but of course, the Bismark was sunk (May '41) by the British and Polish navies before the US joined WWII. The New Jersey was launched (Dec '42), more than a year after the Bismarck was at the bottom of the sea

Winner in that scenario: New Jersey

Torpedo bombers were the biggest threat and raised the biggest alarm to all ships in WWII. America was not the only country that had them as all the other countries, including Japan, had them. In fact, that was how the Japanese sunk the USS Arizona in Pearl Harbor



Advantage the Iowa Class battleships (New Jersey, Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin) had over other battleships were that they were the longest and thinnest of the major battleships of the world, hence faster. Also, US battleships were purposely engineered with that specific width so they could cross the Panama Canal (US territory at that time) and could move quickly between the Pacific and the Atlantic when necessary saving weeks of sea time and tons of refueling requirements



Bottom line: Air and underwater superiority made Battleships obsolete. Before the rise of missiles, planes, and nuclear subs...battleships were king of the sea - the power symbol of sea warfare and land bombardment. They were called "Dreadnoughts" by all sailors for a reason...they brought "dread" to surface warfare on the high seas. No other ship wanted to deal with them in battle

I am not so sure who would win.  The Yamato had bigger guns and thicker armor (but lower-quality armor).  The New Jersey had superior speed (5 knots faster), radar-guided firing (with computerized firing solutions), and I suspect a faster rate of fire.

I have to confess, I am embarrassed as sin that this thread (one I consider one of the silliest I have seen in some time) continues to be near the top of the board   

https://x.com/MySportsUpdate/status/1796286376138432978

I always enjoy this speculation.   One-on-one (admittedly unrealistic for a WW2 naval battle), who would have won the USS New Jersey or the IJN Yamato?

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on June 01, 2024, 07:28:38 PMI know many film aficionados strongly prefer subtitles and scoff at watching foreign films with English dubbed in, but I will confess I prefer the latter.

I watched the dubbed version.  I thought the voice acting was solid in the dubbed version.  Plus, this is a monster movie; I watch it for entertainment value, not to be reading subtitles.  I only use subtitles if I am watching something with heavy accents (like Irish or Scottish) and I am struggling to understand what is being said.