“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”
—Daniel J. Boorstin

Godzilla Director: A Message Movie About Global Warming

godzilla posterIn an interview with the Daily Beast, Godzilla's director Gareth Edwards apparently didn't get the memo that people aren't as worried about global warming as he thinks they are. Edwards just couldn't help himself with a message movie that Godzilla is "God" protecting mankind from climate change:

Edwards: Yeah. Man vs. Nature is the predominant theme of the film, and I always tried to go back to that imagery. At the beginning when they find the fossils, it was important to me that they didn’t just find them—it was caused by our abuse of the planet. We deserved it, in a way. So there’s this rainforest with a big scar in the landscape with this quarry, slave labor, and a Western company. You have to ask yourself, “What does Godzilla represent?” The thing we kept coming up with is that he’s a force of nature, and if nature had a mascot, it would be Godzilla. So what do the other creatures represent? They represent man’s abuse of nature, and the idea is that Godzilla is coming to restore balance to something mankind has disrupted.

Edwards then confuses the name Godzilla (Gojira), which is a "portmanteau of the Japanese words: gorira (gorilla), and kujira (whale)", by having his characters refer to the creature as "God."

Edwards: Well, there’s a reason his name begins with “God,” I think. He is a god, really. He’s at the top of the food chain and probably King of the World, in a sense. We did this title sequence at the beginning of the film filled with sea serpents, ancient Greek symbols, and that sort of thing, and the idea is that for all of time man has always found that there’s something out there for us to worship or fear, and it’s gone away for a while but in our film it returns.

So like the movie Noah, Edwards has decided to turn a perfectly simple monster vs. monster flick into a message movie:

Edwards: As we got into it, the message of Godzilla turned into, “We should let nature take its course and shouldn’t try to control it.” Stories have been used for a long time to smuggle the morals of the day inside them, and today, people are worried about global warming. In our film, the nuclear side of it was a concern with the things that have happened recently in Japan.

Unfortunately for Edwards, global warming (aka climate change) ranks dead last in Gallup and Pew surveys. Let's hope his Godzilla doesn't end up like Roland Emmerich’s 1998 "disasterpiece" of the same name. Japanese are already complaining their beloved Godzilla looks fat and overweight. Maybe it's because Gojira is now stuffed full of messages, meanings, and life lessons.

 

Pin it

Comments   

Joker
#1 Joker 2014-05-15 07:36
"They represent man’s abuse of nature, and the idea is that Godzilla is coming to restore balance to something mankind has disrupted".

? !!!! ??? !!!!! ????????

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

IS IT 1 APRIL?

ARE WE CRAZY?

Hollywood, don't you just love it?

The James Cameron School of political film making.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

And I thought it was going to be another dull Thursday afternoon.

Now all we need is another sermon from Drewski just to round things off.


ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
Quote | Report to administrator
Duane Nash
#2 Duane Nash 2014-05-16 20:26
The use of Godzilla as a parable to nuclear war/environmental castastrophe is not new- it goes back to the first film in the series Gojira in 1954.
Quote | Report to administrator
amirlach
#3 amirlach 2014-05-18 14:40
Watched it last night. No mention of "Climate Change" at all. If this was his intent it failed miserably.

It kind of reminds me of the guy's who created Happy Day's. Their intent was to created a feeling of impending dread, as the characters idyllic life of the 50's was going to be torn apart by the Vietnam War... Or something.

The message was so subtle no one ever noticed it. Then Fonzie Jumped the Shark.
Quote | Report to administrator
Apple
#4 Apple 2014-05-20 07:43
Dummies, of course it wouldn't be mentioned. It's an underlying theme in the entire movie. I, for one, completely got the references to the man and nature dichotomy. I didn't even have to read this to figure that out. The movie is a good portrayal of the ideology behind the 'godzilla' figure in the former series.
Quote | Report to administrator
amirlach
#5 amirlach 2014-05-21 19:41
Too bad no one else noticed eh? Apple? Seeing as "climate change" is a scam and that "Ideology" is just the same old failed socialist clap trap. :zzz

Oh! And Godzilla WAS TOO FAT! You would think he was hiding out in a GM Corn Maze in the Mid West.
Quote | Report to administrator
Duane Nash
#6 Duane Nash 2014-05-23 17:15
@ amiriach Climate change is a scam? I didn't know that... How did 97% percent of climate scientists pull the wool over our eyes? Those dastardly scientists!!
Quote | Report to administrator
Robert
#7 Robert 2014-05-23 18:23
Oh please, not the 97% lie again. The longer this goes on the more convinced I am that the believers in CAGW or whatever they call it this week really suck at math.
Quote | Report to administrator
amirlach
#9 amirlach 2014-05-23 19:24
Duane Nash! You need look no further than the predictive skill of the models. 100% of the IPCC Models have failed to skillfully predict "climate change". Quote:
Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics said, “It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.”
And RE: Your bogus 97% Consensus . Quote:
They solicited 10,257 earth scientists and only 77 chose to answer the online survey (yes, only 77). 75 of those “climate scientists” agreed with the survey’s two questions (yes, only 2 questions).
Still think 77 of 10,257 is 97%?

Every single claim the alarmists make can be torn apart by looking at the actual data.
Quote | Report to administrator
amirlach
#10 amirlach 2014-05-23 19:25
"Voila, the infamous and widely publicized “97%” of climate scientists (75 divided by 77) who thought man was the cause of global warming turned out to be a numeric joke.

As a side note, in order to assure an initial high survey percentage, the two researchers did not ask major segments of the scientific world to participate. Those would be the segments that were known to be critical of the AGW theory, including: solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers."
Quote | Report to administrator
JayPee
#11 JayPee 2014-05-23 20:37
@duane nash

How about a real consensus. Have you ever searched the
GLOBAL WARMING PETITION PROJECT ?
If you bother to be objective and look, you will find more than 30,000 genuine and identified American scientists who openly say that the climate change, agw, and ghe conjectures are without foundation and questionable at best.

Of course if these 30,000 represent only 3% then obviously you must be able to come up with and identify 970,000 genuine scientists who endorse
the stupidity you promulgate.

I, therefore demand you name the 970.000 or be denounced as a liar.
Quote | Report to administrator
amirlach
#12 amirlach 2014-05-24 17:22
Or the 100% Consensus. 100% of IPCC "Model Predictions" are wrong.

Yet strangely the more wrong they become over time the more "convinced" the alarmists become.
Quote | Report to administrator
din365
#13 din365 2014-05-25 17:42
Don't be too harsh on Duene. If he still believes the 97% number because it's been parroted all over as gospel fact, and nobody has ever shown him the study that tore the 97% "consensus" apart, or know about the few "agw endorsers" that came out and called cook a liar.

actually, cook's "consensus" was torn apart when it was actually revealed that over 60% of them neither endorsed nor "denied" climate change.
Quote | Report to administrator
Apple
#14 Apple 2014-05-30 22:41
Not saying climate change is not a myth or otherwise, just saying that the ideology behind climate change was executed well in the movie.
Quote | Report to administrator
amirlach
#15 amirlach 2014-06-01 10:59
Quote:
Not saying climate change is not a myth or otherwise, just saying that the ideology behind climate change was executed well in the movie.
Except that those moth things fed on radioactive material, not man made Co2. And Godzilla who was "restoring" the balance of nature, never destroyed any Co2 producing power plants.

You got one thing right. "The ideology behind climate change". No empirical evidence supports this failed theory. It's pure leftwing dogma.
Quote | Report to administrator
Duane Nash
#16 Duane Nash 2014-06-01 17:00
Ummm wow. Amiriach what are your credentials and why should I believe what you are saying over what NASA is saying?
climate.nasa.gov/evidence
The only conspiracy from where I sit is being perpetrated by blogs and commentators such as the ones who write and comment on this blog. All your links were easily debunked btw. Your debunking was debunked as well. The Global Warming Petition Project is not even primarily composed of earth scientists so I call bs. The 97% refers to peer reviewed literature not some online survey. Flawed models mean that more work is needed in methodology not that the whole premise of anthropogenic warming is invalid, I call false equivalency. I am no climate scientist but I am going to side with NASA over a blog that posts stories on Godzilla and commentators with no obvious grasp of the science. Get back to me when your peer reviewed study disproving anthropogenic global warming is published. Where is all that CO2 coming from again? US. I will be waiting.
Quote | Report to administrator
prestigio
#17 prestigio 2014-06-01 23:27
perpetual inanity

no matter how soundly and repeatedly proven wrong

they still return yelping and parroting
supposed authority who like themselves
cannot proffer any proof
of their declarations

they can wallow in their stupidity

to grant them a forum
reduces our own credibility
Quote | Report to administrator
amirlach
#18 amirlach 2014-06-02 20:39
Well Duane, all you have to do is look at how many times James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt have been caught "adjusting" data to fit model results. They have zero credibility.

I never mentioned the Global Warming Petition Project so whatever. As for the 97% of "Peer Reviewed" papers. That has be completely refuted. wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/21/cooks-97-consensus-study-falsely-classifies-scientists-papers-according-to-the-scientists-that-published-them/

Eeven so Duane. If the science is "settled" and there is a 97% LOL Consensus, why are 100% of the "consensus" model predictions wrong? And why is it that the more wrong they become over time the more "convinced" the so called "consensus" becomes?


Notice how many of those failed models are Nasa GISS? :D
Quote | Report to administrator
amirlach
#19 amirlach 2014-06-02 20:47
Here's a direct link you can zoom in on, make it easy for you to count how many of Nasa GISS/ Hansen model predictions have failed. nofrakkingconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/hayden_ipcc_arrow.jpg

Quote:
Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics said, “It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.”
Quote | Report to administrator

Add comment

Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Get your own avatar at Gravatar.com.

PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to administrator' link. If you find your post gone, it's because you violated the TOS.


Security code
Refresh

4409475
Today
Yesterday
This Week
Last Week
This Month
Last Month
All days
6086
13086
53660
2762441
371207
466108
4409475
Your IP: 54.196.197.28
Server Time: 08-28-2014 11:06:52
Visitors Counter