Godzilla 2 & Godzilla 3 planned, Gareth Edwards involved

News Simon Brew 23 May 2014 - 07:40

It seems Legendary isn't just making one Godzilla sequel - it wants a Godzilla 3 as well...

Last night, news broke that Godzilla director Gareth Edwards has landed the job of directing one of Lucasfilm's planned Star Wars prequels. And that's instantly raised questions as to whether Edwards will be remaining involved in Godzilla 2.

Well, as it turns out, not only is Edwards still attached to Godzilla 2, but Legendary Pictures has a trilogy planned, as Godzilla 3 is on the cards as well.

Legendary Pictures CEO Thomas Tull, speaking to ShockTillYouDrop, said that "the plan has always been for Gareth to direct a different film before we started on another Godzilla, but who knew it would be a Star Wars installment? We have a great plan in store for Godzilla fans and I am looking forward to seeing Gareth’s imprint on the Star Wars universe".

We suspect that Godzilla 2, if Edwards directs, won't be around until 2018. But we wait to hear more about it...

The Hollywood Reporter.

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Disqus - noscript

Did anyone else here think Godzilla was a bit, ya know, utter shoite?
And dont give me the human drama excuse, they could not have been less interesting.

I think a big part of it (as well as the human drama featuring humans with the emotional depth of wet concrete) was the way they did four dramatic reveals of big G before allowing us to see more than the first hit of a fight.

The constant reveals and cut-aways meant - for me, at least - that by the time the last fight rolled around I just didn't care anymore.

I was, despite all that, starting to smile watching the fight until a soldier said "look at this" and the camera left the three giant monsters fighting to show us a bloody hole in the ground.

I agree with what you say there, by the time the final battle rolled round, even though it was impressive, I was already 'out'. My interest was lost and it was too little too late!
I may have to watch the final 15 minutes (standalone) sometime in the future to appreciate it.

Totally agree, the human drama did not deliver at all, except (POSSIBLE SPOILER) for Cranston who had too little screentime and I was really bored by the time the final fight began.

Nope, loved it from start to finish. A great homage to the original film with lots of teasing the monster instead of having him stomp about for two hours, building up properly to the big fight at the end. Found myself bouncing in my chair like a little kid throughout half the film.

i'm starting to feel more confident about the star wars films knowing that a tallented and trustworthy film maker such as edwards is involved, his work thus far has been stellar

I enjoyed Godzilla, but let's not go over-kill, eh?

why not? we've been bludgeoned with mind numbing production line franchises such as transformers for years, isn't it about time that we got a franchise which actually has some film making talent behind it?

I'll take a Godzilla sequel over a Transformers one any day of the week!

I thought it was quality. I don't give a toss about the 'human drama', Cranston aside. It was clever and brilliantly well made and didn't take the audience for morons.

If you don't give a toss about the human side of things, which is where the focus was, and it was lacking in the Godzilla department, then what could you actually enjoy? What was clever? Hey, to each their own, but what was clever?

I think this is all a ploy so they can have a franchise called: The Legendary Godzilla Trilogy.

'Lacking in the Godzilla department' is where critics of the film lose me

Why do critics who state that lose you there?

If its an awful drama/human story with stodgy script and well below average acting, AND an disappointing action/monster/dinosaur thing film, then when does it excel?

Why can nobody answer me that?

What I'm trying to say is, It doesn't stand out in ANY way.

Could you please tell me what you enjoyed about it?

Thank you

First of all, no need to get so defensive and rally so hard on points im not even debating. Secondly, I thought that the introduction and build to the final fight made sense, since you dont want to be burned out on monster fighting halfway through and the final fight had the scope and destruction, not to mention the visuals, that I was really hoping for. Thirdly, you have not actually given a reason why you think the monster sections are poor

First thing, I wasn't defensive.

The human story (85% of the film) was non existent. Although everyone has their opinion, and everybody is entitled to it.
(BUT I feel this can't be argued, I state this as fact)

The monster sections didn't excel in anyway. There was not one moment tension or excitement. No visual flair, no imagination.
(This can be argued, depending on your expectations)

Well, all i am trying to have a debate about is the fighting and you keep going back to the other stuff, all i said was i dont get what people have against the fighting. I pretty much get your point about the human story, even if i dont feel as strongly about it as you do.

But, no visual flair and no imagination? The light up the tail before the atomic breath, the lightning strike silhouette, the general design of the mutos, the street level camera work throughout, the red flares on the skydivers through those evil looking clouds... I dunno, maybe i came on a bit strong too but i dont really understand your view there

Also, I cant stay mad at a guy with Kurt Angle as his avatar

And I'm not getting yours at all, but that's the wonder of cinema I suppose.
We'll have to disagree on it, and there's no harm in that!

That made me laugh, I must admit :)

i'm sure pro wrestling is much more interesting than a film which has been carefully crafted by clever and creative individuals who seem to be fully aware of the history of the material they are dealing with, and tailoring their film as such
it's a shame that film making of such a high calibur is wasted on individuals who have no appreciation for the art

I like pro wrestling, I also like Godzilla. Isn't this site called Den of Geek?

Did anyone else think Godzilla looked a bit like Albi the Racist Dragon from Flight of the Conchords? :-)

All creatures with scales look the same to me... I think it's because I'm so racist

No visual flair? Really? Fair enough if that's what you thought, but I'd say the film is undeniably well-made, and looks amazing, whatever the script deficiencies. Some incredibly atmospheric shots and evocative images in there - the halo jump for example, and the first big battle in Hawaii. And I thought the scene on the train bridge with the MUTO was legitimately tense.

The film is not perfect. But i got the sense that every frame of that film was made by someone who really cared and because of that I cared. In fact I don't mind admitting that for long portions of Godzilla I felt emotional, as this film made a 43 year old feel like a 12 year old again, after he had watched a Spielberg summer blockbuster and fell in love with the movies. That's priceless!

I loved Cranston's role in it and the film would have been better with him as a lead.

because stretching out a pretty good idea over two more films always works out really well...

Nope, it was pretty great.

The human side was fine - I didn't massively love the main guy but I did like him because he was a likeable person and you got on his side because he's just trying to get home and keeps getting dragged in because he's doing the right thing. You sympathise with him which is what you need for this to work.

That stuff was fine but what it did really well was use him and the other human characters to give a human perspective on what was happening.
The giant action (particularly stuff like the bridge bit and the monorail bits) set pieces would work less well if you did not have a) the perspective and b) the sense of risk you only get when you at least somewhat relate to a character on screen and c) the pacing/build up.

It gets the pacing spot on, probably the best pacing in an over 2 hour film I've seen in years. It's never once makes you think, 'well this has been going on for ages' as every Marvel film has in the finale. I think this is because the reveal/action scenes are relatively short and interspersed throughout the film but big in impact and the plot keeps romping along. It's also because it's one of the few blockbusters in ages where they dont mess up the finale by just having it go on too long and that's partly because there are small breather breaks within the action.

You state it as fact, but you are still wrong.

Also I really don't know what planet you are from if you didn't think the monster sections didn't work. There was both visual flair and imagination in complete abundance.

I went to see Godzilla today, and was just left bored & frustrated, it was like a 2 hour trailer for a great film(or the outakes of a great film!), the editing was terrible(though im sure the filmmakers thought they where being clever) every time the action got going and something interesting was about to happen the film cut away to some dull scene or over which completely killed the momentum, aron taylor johnson has no screen presence at all and was as dull as dishwater, The great Bryan Cranston...... well I wont give it away(but be prepared to be very underwhelmed by his role in the movie) Elizebeth olsson though was/is a very good screen presence and and was the only actor to come across as believable/authentic, but she had nothing really to do and her character had no baring on anything that happened in the movie,

im not saying this to be a contrary smartarse but the Godzilla movie from the 90s(as pants as that was) was a more fun & entertaining film start to finish than this.

100% agree, ive no problems with human dramas as long as the humans/actors are actually interesting, only Elizabeth Olsson came across well but it seemed her character was just shoe horned in so the film had a lead actress(similar role to Mireille Enos/brad pits wife in world war z)

well the film is called Godzilla!
would you have liked king Kong more if it was all told from the pov of Jamie bells character, with the bare minimum of kong

couldnt we have michael bay instead? just keep the way godzilla looks. More action! I hate the pull-away shots.

I really dislike the trend of exploiting firemen/soldiers in these disaster type of movies. Its became an easy forced tearjerker cliche at this point. Also the humans, especially Kickass, are boring.

The thing about four dramatic reveals of Big G - that's exactly it, that's exactly my problem. The entire film felt so... repetitive! It's not enough for the (fairly boring!) lead to have a face-to-face moment with Godzilla, he has to have one, I think, with every monster in the film. It's not enough for Godzilla to appear dead once, he has to appear dead a good three times. Likewise Bryan Cranston - it looked like he died in the power plant, it looked like he died when the bridge collapsed, but he survived that, too... for just long enough to get his bland son some facetime with Monarch, then died in the helicopter! If a trick worked, they pushed that button again and again, until it didn't.

I think, visually, it's a beautiful film, with some great concepts - but really repetitious, and every single scene was played for tension. The pace was -even-, but I thought it was glacial. By the time we reached the Golden Gate bridge, for instance, we'd already had half a dozen glimpse-then-reveals - I thought its tricks were wearing incredibly thin. As a viewer, I was silently yelling, "Get a move on!"

I'm glad I've seen it, it was a sumptuous bit of filmmaking and the cinema was the right place to experience it, but I'm also glad my ticket was free. Gareth Edwards has proven he's a talented director, with huge amounts of visual flair, but he's a very indulgent one. He indulges in tension, rather than pyrotechnics, so it's a smarter (and trendier) kind of indulgence, but I think Godzilla was very much a director's pet.

I'm aware this might sound like I don't like it - I suppose if I'm focusing on the negatives it's because I'm surprised by how warmly it's been received! I'm neither in one camp nor the other, there were plenty of things I did like, but everyone's already covered those bits at length. I was entertained, but I felt like I'd had my fill long before the credits rolled.

Does "involved" necessarily mean he's directing Godzilla's sequels?

I think my point has been argued for me here.

I highly believe the next villian will be Mothra. The name was on the aquarium in the house when they went back to get the disk.

I watched Godzilla last night and was surprised how good it was. Great film.

2018 f**k that, find a different director. It happens all the time due to schedule conflicts. 2018 is ridiculous!

Watch the classics, then you'll understand, 28 movies from 1954 to 2004

Sponsored Links