Skip to main content

So How Was Godzilla?

Although Godzilla crosses paths with nuclear energy twice during his current rampage, the use of it is fairly innocuous. In the first instance, a giant insect called a MUTO causes a nuclear plant to shake apart, but it expels no radiation because the creature absorbs it all while mutating in its cocoon. In the second, and cleverest, use, the mate of the first MUTO has been captured and stowed in Yucca Mountain. Although it’s said that the Nevada repository holds used fuel, it of course doesn’t – yet.

I’d prefer to believe that, in the movie’s terms, Yucca Mountain was created specifically and exclusively to contain the big bug. It would fit the secretive nature of the authorities in the film – which have already explained away nuclear test bombing in the 50s as a means of sealing giant creatures in their underwater world – so why not?

As for the movie itself, well, maybe it’s that I don’t see many summer blockbusters, but the screenplay is flat out awful – which wouldn’t matter much if the story didn’t spend its first hour with barely characterized human beings who spout reams of exposition. A lot of good actors racked up  nice paydays for not doing very much besides try out their concerned faces and unreel big blocks of text. I wonder why the production would spend the money when hungrier performers could have done as well and not effected the film’s promotion.

When the bugs and Godzilla – who is the good guy here, though he still causes a lot of property damage – show up, we realize that the beige, dusty look of many of the earlier scenes is a way to make the special effects look less cartoony when they take over the movie. It works well enough, though it gives the movie a polluted aura that doesn’t really fit it. This is one brown monster movie.

But really, it’s all about roaring and squashing people underfoot and monster tangles. If I was 13, I would have loved it – though I would have gotten plenty bored with the first hour and decamped for popcorn.

What did you think?

Comments

jimwg said…
Today on Retro-TV I caught an early Gene Roddenberry (who ought know better) pilot called "Genesis II" where actor Alex Cord somehow "rearranges the fuel elements" of a nuclear power plant to explode like a A-bomb to keep it away from baddies in the future. Ditto for a film earlier called the "The Savage Bees" with Richard Wildmark where a bee-attacked nuclear plant control room makes it explode. I think there's a "Nuclear Tornado" flick out there too. How many other similar inaccurate but seemingly credible portrayals of nuclear energy gone wild out there forms the base of the public's fears toward nuclear power I wonder!

James Greenidge
Queens NY
Ryan said…
Cool beans from Mrs. Fowler's AP Human class.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…