« Code Black trailer shows powerful documentary | Filmstalker | Edge of Tomorrow »


Godzilla sequel, surprised? Come on now.

Godzilla2014.jpgThere's a sequel being talked about for Godzilla already after a big opening, apparently the biggest of 2014 to date, and while many are talking about it as though it was a surprise, it really wasn't was it?

Looking at one of my local multiplexes for screenings tomorrow I can see that Godzilla has a mere seventeen in a mixture of 2D, 3D and IMAX, compare that with Bad Neighbors with nine, or The Amazing Spider-Man 2 or The Two Faces of January with just four 2D screenings. X-Men: Days of Future Past has eighteen screenings on its first day out but only fifteen the following Wednesday, two less than Godzilla.

With all those showings is it a wonder that it took so much money? The film is being pushed at audiences on a massive scale, even bigger than the new X-Men film is. It's not just the number of screenings though, it's the marketing budget behind the film, it was mammoth, as big as the creature itself. Another reason not to be so surprised.

The article in Deadline that talks about the sequel and bands around numbers talks about the director's first film, Monsters (Filmstalker review), which made a mere US $2.6 million in total, comparing that to the figures of US $103 million outside the U.S. for it's opening and $93 million in the U.S. for this past weekend. It's hardly a fair comparison though, how many multiplex screens did Monsters get pushed into and what was the marketing budget worldwide for that film? Comparisons between the two are unfair, especially considering how the films presented their stories.

It's rather pathetic of Dan Fellman, the head of domestic distribution for Warner Bros., to also make the comparison and point out that Godzilla made more in one night than the director's first film did throughout its lifetime. If I was Gareth Edwards I'd be rather annoyed at that statement, they hired him on the strength of what he did with that film and now they're belittling it because they through hundreds of times the amount that film cost at just the advertising.

I think it's fair to say that Godzilla was getting a sequel regardless, unless it totally failed at the cinemas, and that wasn't likely considering the alternative choices.

There's no real word on what the sequel will consist of or where it will take the creature, but does it really matter? With it showing in more screenings than any other film and being marketed to death beforehand, it'll make money regardless of if it's any good or not.




Site Navigation

Latest Stories


Latest Reviews


Filmstalker Poll


Subscribe with...

Site Feeds

Subscribe to Filmstalker:

All articles

Reviews only

Audiocasts only

Subscribe to the Filmstalker Audiocast on iTunesAudiocasts on iTunes



Help Out

Site Information

Creative Commons License
© filmstalker.co.uk

Give credit to your sources. Quote and credit, don't steal

Movable Type 3.34