Which is better?
The vs
>>84366428
Gorjilon Nigger Jawone Skipskull
>>84366440
/thread
>>84366428
kong it isn't even close
This one.
Kong, because it actually has kang kong and other crazy creatures for a significant amount of time. The leads were still charisma vacuums but that mitigated it.
Kong.
Skull Island. For all the strength of its direction, the weakness of Godzilla 2014's writing is so severe that I don't think there is a serious case for it being better than Kong. Kong used the charisma of its strongest actors like Samuel Jackson and John C. Reilly very effectively. Godzilla squandered Bryan Cranston, Ken Watanabe and Sally Hawkins.
>>84366857
yes
>>84366857
>the weakness of Godzilla 2014's writing is so severe
What was wrong with the writing?
>>84366428
godzilla. was actually an ominous-feeling monster flick. made you wait but the initial reveal and end were worth the watch. the parts with the people werent as bad as people like to pretend either.
Kong
>>84368539
>What was wrong with the writing?
i'm a seven year old boy on an icelandic jack-in-the-box forum and i could write a less generic, hackneyed script
>>84366428
Godzilla is better. Nice pacing and pretty damn good build ups.
Both are a 7/10, though.
The one where Godzilla fights two giant turks
>>84366428
Kong. The characters in that movie were a lot better than the bland main character in Godzilla.
Kong is a better overall movie, but Godzilla had better individual moments and the monster fights were better.
The real issue is why they were so drastically different in tone considering they are supposed to be a cinematic universe.
>>84370969
>why they were so drastically different in tone considering they are supposed to be a cinematic universe.
Actually, I loved this fact. It makes them feel independent and not forced.
>>84366428
They're both shit but Kong is better.