Original Godzilla In U.S. Theaters

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."

It's more than an anti-nuke picture.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:It's more than an anti-nuke picture.

[Aglassis]

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.

Nitpick

[ciroknight]

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 re

Re:Nitpick

[Aglassis]

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.

Re:Nitpick

[Aglassis]

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

Re:Nitpick^3

[swatter]

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 i

Re:Please let the pedantic parade end.

[kir]

I'd like to congratulate you (whoever you are) on a fine post. You have summed up in merely 71 words what I have been trying to say about this place (and many others like it on the net) for years.

Many who practice this "noodle armed social dominance" (I LOVE THAT PHRASE) are only repeating what they've read or heard. It's sad really.

Re:Nitpick

[IWannaBeAnAC]

Not really. That shows that mass can be turned into energy, and vice versa, but that doesn't mean that mass and energy are the same, any more than it means that a beam of light is the same as a lump of lead.

For another example, all forms of energy are 'equivalent' but that doesn't mean that a fast car is the same thing as a hot room.

Re:It's more than an anti-nuke picture.

[jon787]

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.

Corrent except for the fact that Nobel created Dynamite not TNT. He also developed the blasting cap I think.

Re:It's more than an anti-nuke picture.

[nsample]

Dynamite, yes. Blasting cap, yes. However, his real start was in the production of nitroglycerine.

Re:It's more than an anti-nuke picture.

[Trurl's Machine]

I completely agree except for one thing:

Alfred Nobel, the inventor of TNT

Alfred Nobel invented dynamite [nobel.se] (which was basically just a better way to handle the good old nitroglycerine). TNT [autofahrerschreck.de] (trinitrotoluene) was invented by German scientist von Willbrand in 1860's.

We know drama

[tepples]

I thought Ted Turner invented TNT [tnt.tv].

Re:We know drama

[Binky The Oracle]

Which is a perfect illustration of what so many other posters are saying in this thread: any technology can be used for good or evil. ;-)

Re:It's more than an anti-nuke picture.

[evilviper]

Any technology can be used for good or evil

Oh yeah? And just how are you going to use child-safe scisors for evil?

Re:It's more than an anti-nuke picture.

[Kierthos]

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

Kierthos

Re:It's more than an anti-nuke picture.

[fucksl4shd0t]

BUT... this has nothing to do with the countless hours of labor and the trillions upon trillions of dollars that the world's nations have spent to refine TNT into highly specialized weapons that are designed for more than just "shock and awe".

Yes and no. In your specific example, maybe. You see, how many scientists work on bombs and don't at least try to imagine how the bombs might be used for good, solid, peaceful purposes? How much asteroid mining are we going to be able to accomplish with our fissi

Re:It's more than an anti-nuke picture.

[rworne]

True, but how many of the parts currently available at Circuit City were invented/originally engineered for smart bombs?

Dunno, but my Circuit City bought TiVo recorded Dr. Strangelove a couple of weeks back without my ever telling it to do so.

Re:It's more than an anti-nuke picture.

[Pros_n_Cons]

I didn't think it was an anti-nuke picture. I think it had more to do with bringing it on themselvs. General Yamamoto was quoted as saying "I fear we have awoken a sleeping giant, and filled it with a terrible resolve". At the time most of America wanted to be isolationists and let europe/world solve its own problems. Had Japan not attacked our shores the "sleeping giant" would not have gone to hers.

Re:It's more than an anti-nuke picture.

[Hatta]

Whatever it's about, I'm upset it's not coming to my home town. I count 17 cities where it's being screened. That's not even 1 per state! WTF I'd like to see it, but I'm not sure it's worth the 4 hour drive to chicago just for a movie. Maybe I'll take the opportunity to revisit MSI and the Field Museum too.

Re:It's more than an anti-nuke picture.

[fucksl4shd0t]

Not to mention that we were working on nukes because Germany was working on them, we just didn't get them to the field in time to use them against Germany. Rest assured, we would've tossed 'em at Berlin and Dresden if we had them ready, and the rest of Europe would have thanked us for it.

Let's not forget that there was actually a report done, and nuclear fallout wasn't totally understood (I don't even know if they knew about it). Basically, we could've kept fighting Japan for another year or more and los

Re:It's more than an anti-nuke picture.

[WinPimp2K]

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 cou

Re:It's more than an anti-nuke picture.

[einTier]

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 e

Flamebait

[boomgopher]

"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...

Re:Flamebait

[boomgopher]

Actually, I stand corrected - their message would be much more effective if they dressed like these guys (from another serious anti-nuke film):

Godzilla versus Monster Zero [sonofsanguinary.com]

Spin Factor

[glrotate]

O'Reilly is a snooty populist with a good dose of Catholic mixed in. He is not a right winger.

Anti-Nuke

[weston]

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

Re:Anti-Nuke

[DNS-and-BIND]

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.

Re:Anti-Nuke

[Tokerat]

You mean do everything in their power to prove they have bigger nuts and better morals than everyone else, just like both North Korea and my home nation of The United States of America do?

I'm glad Japan is smart enough to lead the way into the future. :-(

Maybe I'm trolling, but when you step back and look at it all, it's quite pointless, especially this day in age.

Re:Anti-Nuke

[DNS-and-BIND]

Perhaps pointless to your limited, esoteric point of view, but to the hundreds of millions of Japanese who will very soon have the threat of imminent nuclear attack hanging over their heads, the issues are real. The only known solution to a nation threatening you with nuclear weapons is nuclear deterrence. Perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten us with your plans for this situation?

Re:Anti-Nuke

[Registered Coward v2]

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.

Re:Anti-Nuke

[Registered Coward v2]

Re:Anti-Nuke (Score:1)
"Oh good - if we die tomorrow from a North Vietnamese nuclear bomb, no worries. The Americans will revenge us. Huzzah!" I don't think the issue is whether or not someone will retaliate against North Vietnam for nuking Japan - but whether or not North Vietnam would nuke Japan at all if Japan had/have their "nuclear deterrent".

You miss the point - Japan has a nuclear deterrant, since an attack on them would be treated by the US as if it was an attack on the US - it's part of our nucle

Re:Anti-Nuke

[Yokaze]

> 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 [kantei.go.jp].

Here a perspective [indiana.edu] 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.

Re:Anti-Nuke

[Aglassis]

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).

Re:Anti-Nuke

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Anti-Nuke

[jschrod]

Hu? "because of its potential use as a weapon."

Ridiculous. People are against usage of Plutonium because it is much more poisonous than Uranium. (Not as a short-term poison, like some plants, there it is quite innocuous. As a long term poison, as seen in Chernobyl [uswaternews.com].) Thus final storage of Plutonium waste is even more harder to achieve than of Uranium waste.

You can call this reason political, and not technical, if you want. I don't.

Re:Anti-Nuke

[brassman]

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.

A quibble: The main point of a breeder reactor is that it reacts U-235 and uses the neutron flux to transmute (relatively) common U-238 to Pu-239. U-238 is other wise useless in a fission reactor. Turning it into Pu-239 makes it useful for fission reactors... and, alas,

Re:Anti-Nuke

[eniu!uine]

I don't know what you're trying to say here, but admit it: It's perfectly possible for a nuclear reaction to cause massive growth in a lizard. Godzilla could have happened and may be happening right now!

Re:Just watch out for Mr. Ozawa...

[tigga]

I might trust Japanese corporations more, once you have a job, you have it for life.

And if your boss is a jerk - you have him for life. Him, because in Japan almost all management is male.

Re:Anti-Nuke

[jonerik]

Japan has one of the three or four highest military budgets in the world; somewhere around $42 billion or so per year last I'd read. They're limited to spending only 1% of their GDP per year on their military, but their GDP is so large that their military is as well-equipped (mainly with a combination of American and homegrown weapons systems) and well-trained as any in the world.

Re:Anti-Nuke

[kir]

The Japanese military (it is a military) has deployed a small force to Iraq. This is the first major deployment in quite a while. The Diet has debated the "self-defense force only" clause in their constitution numerous times -- each time the idea of a non-self-defense force military gains momentum.

It's only a matter of time.

Japan growing an "offensive" scares the hell out of Korea and China. They have not forgotten the past.

The US can do that now

[DrJimbo]

... 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.

Re:The US can do that now

[maelstrom]

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.

Re:Short memories...

[Sj0]

Did?

50 years isn't exactly a drop in the bucket. The world today is a much different place than it was then.

Do you think the US could get away with nuking a first world nations city like they did in WWII?

Do you think Germany could get away with invading a first world nation like THEY did in WWII?

Do you think Japan could get away with declaring war by bombing a military outpost attached to a city?

The truth is, if ANY of the events of WWII happened today, the countries involved would be in serious shit.

Look!

[red floyd]

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

To anyone considering seeing this movie...

[MisterLawyer]

Here [stomptokyo.com] 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 [imdb.com]

Re:To anyone considering seeing this movie...

[MojoReisen]

Tell George Lucas. Maybe he'll learn something.

Re:To anyone considering seeing this movie...

[drinkypoo]

Look! Meesa see Godzilla!

I think we'd be better off just locking Lucas in a dark room somewhere, like a closet or the cabinet under the kitchen sink.

Oblig. Simpsons Reference

[ErichTheWebGuy]

Context: Godzilla has just appeared. Massive pain and utter destruction are imminent.

USA: D'OH!

Blue Oyster Cult - Godzilla

[mse61]

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

Re:Blue Oyster Cult - Godzilla

[.com b4 .storm]

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

CN Tower

[pipingguy]

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?

Re:CN Tower

[agent dero]

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.

Re:CN Tower

[zakezuke]

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.

Re:CN Tower

[Spazmania]

being familar with mainstreem sci-fi I find it more common then not to see scenes of Vancover or Torronto.

Yes, that's one of life's little ironies. A huge number of movie scenes are filmed in Canada, but the characters in the movie generally identify their location as somewhere in the US.

I don't know whether to be amused by this subtle "annexation" of Canada, or offended that a hundred million US movie-goers apparantly can't tell the difference.

Re:CN Tower

[Spoing]

I think you've just proved his point. Canadian cities are similar enough to US cities that they can act as stand ins. If not, people would say "Hey, that's not New York, it's Torronto!". They don't, unless they've been to Torronto.

The same thing happens within the US (city or landscape swaps) though specific buildings in the US tend to be more well known. (More people below the boarder to see them on a day-to-day basis...actually, if you split Canada between the southern 200km and the northern rest, m

Re:CN Tower

[zakezuke]

I think you've just proved his point. Canadian cities are similar enough to US cities that they can act as stand ins. If not, people would say "Hey, that's not New York, it's Torronto!". They don't, unless they've been to Torronto.

Actually I've not been to New York Nor Toronto. However, it doesn't take first hand experence to note geographical features such as mountain ranges. The only reason I would remember it's city features is because i've seen them on TV and film. The funny thing about Canada an

Re:CN Tower

[pipingguy]

Canadian's are traditionally viewed as non-threatening

Oh yeah!? Well then I think that you are a...no, I just can't do it.

But then, I'm a secret agent of Canadian World Domination. [ptbcanadian.com] Oh crap, I spilled the beans!

Re:CN Tower

[evilviper]

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.

Re:CN Tower

[frankmu]

we all know canada has only two seasons:
winter and last winter

Re:CN Tower

[aborchers]

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

Re:CN Tower

[Khomar]

I have to argue against your point because you are ignoring where the films are made. Gojira is a Japanese film, so logically the monster is attacking Tokyo. When they made the American remake, obviously the monster would attack America. It comes down to who the primary audience is for the movie. I am sure that if a Canadian film company decided to make a monster movie, you would see downtown Toronto in flames, but for now, most monster movies have been either Japanese or American. You might as well ma

I wonder...

[MysteriousMystery]

Times have changed since the 1950s when this movie was start of the art, I really do wonder how many people will bring Robotic puppets with them and make comments about the movie.

Have you SEEN the original Godzilla?

[LouisvilleDebugger]

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

And on a relatively unrelated note...

[anon*127.0.0.1]

I'll be seeing Blue Oyster Cult tomorrow.

Re:And on a relatively unrelated note...

[anon*127.0.0.1]

Hey, I appreciate you defending me like that, AC.

On the other hand, I'm at least partially to blame. I could have lined the BOC website, or linked the Richardson Wildflower Festival, which is where they'll be, but I was just too damn lazy. Failing that, I can see where a moderator might not catch the reference.

I just realized... BOC playing a Wildflower Festival? Shades of Spinal Tap!

Re:What year is this ?

[anon*127.0.0.1]

More like 1984, but thanks for playing!

Matthew Broderick is going to be pissed ...

[Qetu]

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.

Serious Anti-nuke picture

[Satan's Hand Puppet]

"...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.

trailer

[fateswarm]

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

anyone looking for the trailer

[seibed]

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!

Re:trailer

[Nogami_Saeko]

Ya, I'll second that thought on the trailer. Not a hint of movie footage, just the age-old, and much parodied "text on a black background".

I was pretty underwhelmed as well.

N.

Godzilla vs The Smog Monster

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Godzilla vs The Smog Monster

[crashnbur]

To answer the question asked, it was incredibly ironic. I mean, that was the entire point! They only wanted to show us that even the worst environmental (or other man-caused) disasters can be beneficial in the rarest, most extreme, most random circumstances!

But considering the world today and asking the same question in the present tense, [sarcasm]is that irony... or coincidence?![/sarcasm]

Serious/unserious? Big difference is the music

[doom]

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...)

I actually saw it

[beforewisdom]

way back in the stoneages before cable bought up every rerun and old movie in site.

It was in black and white. Starred Raymond Burr and was something someone other then a 12 year old could enjoy.

Steve

I've got movie sign!

[Captain Spam]

[...]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!

Solly Cholly

[Anonymous Coward]

Srashdot isn't lacist.

Re:I think you mean...

[zalas]

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

Re:I think you mean...

[defago]

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).

Re:I think you mean...

[Echnin]

"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".

Re:I think you mean...

[Metallic Matty]

Bow to the power of Engrish.

Or whatever you call Americanized Japanese.

He say you Blade Runner.

[zerocircle]

...Engrish...Or whatever you call Americanized Japanese.

That would be Japanglish, in the tradition of Spanglish and Franglais.

Re:I think you mean...

[Old Wolf]

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

Re:I think you mean...

[Echnin]

Most Japanese use the older system (or a slight variation; Kunrei-Shiki), because it's taught in school. So they write "tu, zi, di, si", and the rest...

Re:I think you mean...

[Old Wolf]

by 'the older system' I was referring to kunrei-siki , what's the difference between that and your "older system" ?
I was under the impression they stopped doing that lately, but obviously not :)

Interesting article

[MrChuck]

And when he types that, his lips move out of sync.

Anyway, I'd read this article [sfgate.com] 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.

Re:Will be going tomorrow afternoon

[Anonymous Coward]

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)

Re:In a world that seems to be stagnant remakes...

[irokitt]

I do believe you mean re-release. And I would love to see them stop "coppying" the classics. Although seeing Godzilla with some better texture mapping, and maybe some shaders....

Re:In a world that seems to be stagnant remakes...

[AngstAndGuitar]

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

Re:In a world that seems to be stagnant remakes...

[irokitt]

It's a song lyric, go talk to Eddie Vedder;)

Re:In a world that seems to be stagnant remakes...

[Finuvir]

I do believe you mean "I wish I were...."

Bloody hell, that's ignorant. "I wish I was" has always been correct English, in Britain and America, while "I wish I were" has only recently been accepted by English dictionaries because illiterate foreigners bastardised the language to such an extent that the Brits picked up on it.

Re:In a world that seems to be stagnant remakes...

[Finuvir]

I take your point and concede the presence of that construction for longer than I had realised, but I'm waiting to be told why "if I was" is unacceptable.

Re:What's the point?

[LauraScudder]

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.

People are just irrational

[grahamsz]

Mass hysteria seems to apply to nuclear power. It's not risk free, in fact the stakes are (as we've seen) very high - but people seem to conveniently ignore larger issues and latch on to easy to fear ones.

9/11 is a good example - smoking kills more people every day in the USA.

On a smaller scale I was brushing my teeth at a campsite during a water shortage, and out of habit left the water running as I brushed... only to get yelled at by a women who had left her huge SUV running so her husband could visit t

Re:People are just irrational

[grahamsz]

A neighboring town has a total ban on smoking anywhere but your car or personal property - you can't even walk down the street smoking.

However we don't see the same war on terror or war or drugs hysteria.

Re:What's the point?

[Lehk228]

You can thank Ralph Nader for that one, But I guess Personal political gains are more important to him than the Environment and current energy crunch, If it wasn't for his turning the environmental groups against our one real hope for clean Energy, we would actually have clear skies, probably Electric cars, since an abundance of near-free Electricity would allow for Cars using higher density methods of storage even if recharging them required huge amounts of "wasted" energy.

Re:What's the point?

[LauraScudder]

And because we burn pure hydrocarbon compounds in our power plants.

While coal is definitely the worst, petroleum plants in general produce all sorts of shit in our air. Check it [igc.org]

Re:Life of Brian... also rereleased

[LauraScudder]

Aren't you overreacting a bit? "the nerd flag flying over this venture"? It's not like nerds have sole claim on enjoying their comedy, or that the parent was at all claiming this. Turning their film scripts into a replacement for the Bible? I don't think that's happenned. A large majority of people I met in college had never seen Life of Brian, despite being able to quote their other works like Search for the Holy Grail. I think that its good that one of their other works is getting put out into theat

Re:Life of Brian... also rereleased

[LauraScudder]

Unfortunately, the character limit on sig's made me sacrifice info on the quote in order to keep it there. In case you're wondering, it roughly translates to, "That was just a prologue; there, where they burn books, they also burn people in the end." Heinrich Heine [kirjasto.sci.fi] said that in 1820 (though some sources say 1821). I think it's really interesting because it's a little more than 100 years before the Nazis came to power and started burning books. And we all know what they did to people in the end.

Re:Serious?

[Tony Hoyle]

I think that article poster got a bit ahead of themselves.

I'm prepared to accept it may be a well scripted movie, even well acted (although the version I've seen sure doesn't look like it), but serious? Give me a break. It's a monster flick.