Tristar Godzilla before it sucked…

Updated on December 14, 2007 By Ken Begg 21 Comments

These are pictures of a 43 inch tall (!) Godzilla maquette made by the Stan Winston studio.  It’s being auctioned on eBay soon with a crapload of other really amazing film props, original posters, etc.  The estimated value will be between $12,000-18,000.

However, it’s the history of the piece that is most intriguing:

“1149. Pre-production maquette of Godzilla. (TriStar, 1998) Based on input from the original powers that be, the look was to be a traditional, Toho-style Godzilla – to be easily and immediately recognizable by the viewing audience. Jan de Bont was originally slated to helm the latest production starring this legend among film legends. A production delay and re-shuffling of staff lead to a different direction in the look of the title monster. This was the Stan Winston Studio revisitation of the iconic screen character, long before Matthew Broderick or Roland Emmerich became involved in the final version of the movie that was shot. Measures 43 in. tall x 63 in. long (head to tail). $12,000 – $18,000”

Ah, what might have been….

 

 

Pin It



Related Posts

  • Truth is, if you’ve ever read a recap of the script DeBont would have been working with, though Godzilla would have looked like Godzilla and would have even fought another monster, they still couldn’t get it right. If nothing else, even Devlin and Emmerich understood to keep Godzilla the product of mankind’s atomic testing and not do something as dumb as changing Godzilla’s origins to that of a dinosaur experimented on by aliens that’s been frozen away in an iceberg for eons. And on top of that, the DeBont script had Godzilla practically behaving like Gamera by the end, protecting his human friends (i.e. catching their crashing helicopter and gently setting it down). Reading the synopsis of it, it’s kind of hard not to wonder if perhaps the writers of Gamera: Guardian of the Universe cribbed some ideas from it.

    Of course, the greatesst irony of all is that the DeBont film didn’t happen because Sony thought the budget was too high. Devlin & Emmerich vowed they could bring it in much cheaper, only they ended up going so overbudget that the difference between the two budgets was only about $20 million.

  • Zandor Vorkov

    I sure wish I could afford to buy that.

  • rockrocky77

    Awsome Ken.

  • fish eye no miko

    I’m gonna get skewered for this, but–I liked the design of the creature. No, it’s NOT Godzilla (or Gojira), and if it had been called anything else, that would have been preferable (the movie still wouldn’t have been good), but I liked the way the monster looked.

  • The US one always reminds me of a chicken. I love how it shows up in Final Wars just to get killed.
    –
    Maybe if they had gone with this Stan Winston version more people would know that Godzilla is gray not green.

  • sardu

    Wow! Half of me thinks, “Coolest Godzilla EVER” but the other half thinks “A Godzilla that isn’t cheesy isn’t really Godzilla.

    Now if they had just stuck with the maquette and stop-motion animated that- that would have been a cool yet still cheesy way to do it. Any American Godzilla movie was doomed when the budget went over 5 million… even Peter Jackson lost his way when he had too much cash.

  • Zbu

    I agree with Sordu. This looks neat, but it’s not Godzilla. It’s an American idealized Godzilla. And the movie itself was doomed to failure either way simply because it would either be too ‘good’ (without the inherent value that is apparent in the Japanese movies) or too ‘bad’ in a way that the 1998 version really brought to the fore.

    An American Godzilla wouldn’t work because the events leading up to it combined with the treatment the poor series has gotten in the states have taken it away from the byproduct of a nuclear strike and the societal changes that went along with that. To America, Godzilla is merely a cheesy monster movie without the pathos behind it. In a way, I’m glad the 1998 film was a failure. Who would want to see a Godzilla film that’s been ‘fixed’ and ‘cleaned up’ to fit the current American moviegoers’ standard? It would be like Doctor Who: The Movie all over again, without the understanding behind the character and focusing only on what is ‘understood’ about the character based on PBS broadcasts and the inherent cheesiness of the whole affair.

    In this case, I think the Godzilla 1998 is a good example of this. It should be a constant reminder that having a lot of money to make something look ‘good’ isn’t always the best thing, and maybe there are some movie genres Hollywood can not and should not try to reproduce, regardless of the money to be had.

  • Scott Foy is right on, because I heard about the DeBont script at G-Fest one year, and nobody was happy. However, in retrospect, while that movie still might have sucked, at least it would have been identifiably Godzilla-ish, as the eventual movie wasn’t. Godzilla would have basically looked like Godzilla, he would have fought other monsters, he would have fought (rather than run from) the military, etc.

    Hollywood is always going to change things for no reason to prove what big freaking Artistes they all are. However, DeBont was at least in the ballpark (if way, way out in left field).

    Listening to Emmerich and Dean talk about fearing Godzilla’s “cheese factor” (Note to Mr. Emmerich and Dead: Screw you and the German horses you rode in on. Sincerely, Ken Begg) was infuriating, and they ran from that ‘cheese factor’ so much they didn’t even make a Godzilla movie. No, they wanted to make a “realistic” monster. How infuriated they were to have to condescend to give Godzilla flame breath, which Godzilla doesn’t have. He has a radioactive beam, thank you very much. Instead, they inserted, lamely, flame effects in a couple of scenes where Godzilla blew on stuff with hurricane force, like Peter Potamus.

    In fact, renaming it something else–it’s closer to Beast from 20,000 Fathoms than Godzilla–would be one of the way to make that movie significantly better, if not good.
    I don’t have a problem with the monster design, I had a problem calling it Godzilla. If they hadn’t, no problem.

    The other, obviously, would have been to cut out entirely everything to do with the “baby godzillas”, a nausiatingly protracted and pointless subplot that sank the film for once and all.

    So yes, this would have sucked, too. However, it would have been closer to what audiences wanted (Silly them, it turns out they *wanted* the cheese factor of actually seeing a GODZILLA movie), might have made a lot more money, and resulted in an even better sequel.

    Far-fetched? Yes. But still you have to think it would have been better than what we got.

  • That Emmerich and Devlin believed making a Godzilla movie was beneath them is all the more infuriating when you consider the films on their resume are hardly short on cheese. Or are they so delusional as to believe Universal Soldier and ID4 were realistic?

  • EXACTLY!!

  • fish eye no miko

    Ken Begg: “I don’t have a problem with the monster design, I had a problem calling it Godzilla. If they hadn’t, no problem.”

    Exactly.
    I also agree about the baby ‘Zillas… way too much like the raptors from Jurassic Park for me.

  • Actually, if you think of it this way, this version of Godzilla would’ve been OUR Godzilla. Have you guys thought about that, or are you gonna gripe some more, huh?

  • David Fullam

    At least this version would have featured a Godzilla that looked a little more like the real thing and had the fighting spirit of the original. Not the cowardly beast we got. Godzilla does not run from a fight.

    Wow, think back to the Summer of this film. I can remember when the Deanzilla was released to the net, and the fans cried foul. Then we were all told that it was only a prelim design, and not the finished product. The finished product would look more like the Japanese original we were told. Anyone remember the very obscure rumor that went around at one point? It was said, in a handful of circles, that yes, the chicken monster was indeed the final design, but oh you faithful Godzilla fans, just you all wait until the end, wink, wink. Intimating that the creature was going to mutate into a form that looked like the real deal, only CGI, for the climax. Yeah, right. We were also assured that Dean and Roland were “HUGE” Godzilla fans, who loved the series and would do it justice. Wow.

  • “Actually, if you think of it this way, this version of Godzilla would’ve been OUR Godzilla. Have you guys thought about that, or are you gonna gripe some more, huh?”

    Actually, the “OUR Godzilla” arguement is pretty much the excuse Dean Devlin tried to use in interviews to justify the movie he and Emmerich made.

  • BeckoningChasm

    Hang on…the Emmerich/Deviln film was serious? Even with all the “Mayor Ebert” and the Elvis immitation and noone being able to pronounce Matthew Broderick’s name? Gads, I thought they intentionally racheted up the cheese factor just because it was Godzilla. I thought it was dumber than any of the Japanese ones I’ve seen (not that I’ve seen a lot).

    One day I’d love to see a serious and scary giant monster movie. If it has to be campy or its not Godzilla, fine, give me something else then.

  • Huntress

    One day I’d love to see a serious and scary giant monster movie.

    Check out South Korea’s “The Host”. Highly recommended.

  • Huntress

    See, I can actually understand their concerns about the cheese factor. It might have made hardcore Godzilla fans happy, but that’s not a big enough market (in the US) to justify making a Hollywood version by itself. It’s like how Trek movies have to appeal to a certain number of non-Trekkies as well in order to be successful.

    So while Devlin and Emmerich still made a craptastic movie, they did have the problem of having to make a Godzilla that would appeal to mainstream American audiences. And it seems like they succeeded in that to a certain extent, because although the movie didn’t make as much as expected, it certainly wasn’t a flop either. It made money for its backers.

  • Huntress, I understand what you’re saying, but Godzilla was still the number one most anticipated movie that summer. Obviously the audiences expected Godzilla to be at least a traditional giant monster movie. If the film had been better, it would have made a LOT more money, certainly enough to make the film a tentpole as it was anticipated to be.

  • The Rev. D.D.

    Wow, that’s pretty cool looking.
    Still, the design of the American G was one of the only things I didn’t mind. I kind of dug it in a way. It was his completely un-G behavior that ruined it for me. Well, that and a host of other problems with the film itself…
    I remember hoping against hope they’d give us a G film that ran closer to Stargate than ID4–kind of dumb but fun and enjoyable rather than a big empty spectacle devoid of spirit–but sadly it did not come to pass.
    If nothing else, we can say this for the American film–it led to the cartoon series, which was pretty cool. Kind of like how Starship Troopers gave us that superior CGI series.

    Fultam–I do remember that rumor, so you’re not the only one.

  • David Fullam

    Glad to see I’m not the only one who remembered the obscure climactic mutation rumor. I also agree with Huntress, everyone should see The Host.

  • The Rev. D.D.

    Definitely. The Host is easily the best giant monster movie since the 90s Gamera films. I liked it enough to put a review of it on the old message board where no one would ever see it. :)