Talk:Godzilla/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The TRUTH of the Heisei timeline paradox

.Read this;

GODZILLA VS KING GHIDORAH and the HEISEI TIMELINE Author: Keith Aiken, SciFi Japan http://www.scifijapan.com/

Kazuki Omori is a very sloppy writer, but GODZILLA VS KING GHIDORAH does fit within the Heisei timeline without ruining or contradicting the other films. Just saying the movie is not part of continuity or that it erases the events in GODZILLA 1985 and BIOLLANTE may be easy, but it's not accurate according to Toho. Since they make and own these movies it's their call. With a little effort, seeing how the pieces fit together is not too hard.

There are a few things the viewer needs to keep in mind regarding the Heisei films: 1. Toho says the timeline included G54 and G85-to DESTOROYAH. That's it, no adding or cutting of movies. 2. A good explanation should not contradict anything shown in any of those movies. 3. The viewer should add as little guesswork to the story as possible. Any explanation that requires a lot of fan-created events never shown onscreen is junk IMO.

Combining sloppy writing and time travel is just asking for problems, but if you follow the 3 'rules' above the Heisei Godzilla timeline goes like this:

GODZILLA VS KING GHIDORAH picks up with Godzilla still weakened by the ANB virus from GODZILLA VS BIOLLANTE. During the military conference early in GODZILLA VS KING GHIDORAH Miki states that Godzilla is so weak he hasn't moved from his resting place in the Sea of Japan in nearly 3 years.

The Futurians appear in 1992. They have a book written by reporter Kenichiro Terasawa that theorizes that Godzilla was created from a dinosaur that was discovered on Lagos Island during WWII. The Futurians say that their own analysis shows a 90% chance the Terasawa is right. Two things contradict that; Yamane's theory behind G54 in the original GODZILLA (which was conceived by Godzilla’s creators Ishiro Honda and Tomoyuki Tanaka with writer Takeo Murata), and the events in DESTOROYAH (also written by Omori, the writer/director of GODZILLA VS KING GHIDORAH) that prove the 54 and 84-95 Godzillas are two different beasts. If the Lagos dinosaur was G54, then preventing its transformation into Godzilla would have zero effect on G84. The Futurians’ plan is flawed from the start.

The Futurians say that Godzilla will soon revive and attack nuclear power plants, causing fallout that will make Japan uninhabitable for centuries. Emi later tells Terasawa that this is a lie; in her time Godzilla had never recovered from the ANB. For all intents and purposes he was beaten. The Futurians real plan was to take over Japan before it could become the most powerful nation on earth.

The group travels back in time to 1944. Miki senses that the dinosaur is Godzilla, but she has never met the 1954 Godzilla. Of course she recognizes it as the Godzilla she encountered in GODZILLA VS BIOLLANTE.

The wounded dinosaur is teleported to the Bering Sea in 1944. It is NOT transported thru time as many people incorrectly assume.

The group returns to 1992 to find things are exactly the same as when they left, and everyone still remembers Godzilla (you think that would be a tip off). Futurian leader Wilson receives a report from the Japanese Self Defense Force that Godzilla is no longer in the Sea of Japan (you think he'd bother to check for himself, but he doesn't). This is easily explained; Godzilla simply moved. In Omori's GODZILLA VS BIOLLANTE the JSDF cannot track Godzilla when he is moving underwater. This was shown at the mid-point of that film; watch the scene where they expected Godzilla to attack Tokyo and were caught completely off-guard when he surfaced near Osaka instead.

The Futurians betray everyone, and Shindo's nuclear sub heads to the Bering to attempt to recreate Godzilla from the dinosaur.

Miki senses Godzilla (not the dinosaur) moving slowly in the Bering Sea, which further proves Godzilla was not removed from history. This surprises Terasawa, so he does some research and finds a newspaper report on a nuclear submarine that sank in the Bering Sea in the 1970s. This nuclear accident is what mutated the dinosaur into the 84 Godzilla; by moving the dinosaur the Futurians didn't “uncreate” G54, they aided the creation of G84. This is confirmed when Shindo's sub doesn't find the dinosaur, but an ANB-weakened Godzilla instead. Godzilla absorbs the sub's nuclear energy, which burns off the ANB infection and increases Godzilla's size to 100 meters.

Everything else is in the film pretty clear, I think.

The Heisei Series timeline goes like this: 1944: Dinosaur moved to Bering Sea. March 1954: Bikini H Bomb test. 1954: The H Bomb tests mutate an amphibious creature into the first Godzilla (50 meters tall), and destroy its undersea environment. This leads to the events shown in the original GODZILLA; when the first Godzilla attacks Japan and is killed by the Oxygen Destroyer. Late 1970s: Nuclear sub accident in Bering Sea creates 2nd Godzilla (80 meters tall) from dinosaur (proof: newspaper headline in GODZILLA VS KING GHIDORAH) 1984: Events in GODZILLA 1985. 2nd Godzilla attacks Japan and is dumped into volcano at Mt Mihara. 1990: Events in GODZILLA VS BIOLLANTE. Godzilla is infected by ANB. 1992: Events in GODZILLA VS KING GHIDORAH. 1993-1994: GODZILLA AND MOTHRA, GODZILLA VS MECHAGODZILLA II 1995: GODZILLA VS SPACE GODZILLA refers to events in BIOLLANTE, proving that film is still part of the timeline. 1996: GODZILLA VS DESTOROYAH refers to events in the original GODZILLA, and states clearly that the original and Hesiei Godzillas are not the same monster.

This by no means a perfect explanation, but it answers most of the questions and should clear up some of the confusion. User:Dark-Hyena 02:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Change the picture back

The current one is aweful! Who the hell changed it?

-G

I have to say the current image is pretty terrible. You can't see any details. While it is a rather iconic image, it is not a good image for someone who does no know what Godzilla looks like.

Similar Concepts Section

As of now the section isn't adding much to the article. It needs to be expanded or deleted. Perhaps a section on Godzilla-inspired segments or parodies.

There was a very similar Korean monster I couldn't remember its name. It was a lousy movie. I cannot remember the details. -- Toytoy 18:27, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

It was called Yongary, and it is a pretty lousy movie. -- Zntrip

Check this out:

If you're fliping talking about Godzilla, then you're talking about a giant monster screaming and kicking stuff over. That's a pretty far-reaching theme, going as far back to 1925's The Lost World, all the way up to more modern variations like Jurassic Park. Hey, if it's mean and big enough to eat you, it's related to Godzilla. The most similar concept to the original Godzilla is probably The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms, which the original Godzilla is basically a remake (and huge improvement) of. Yongary, and the remake YongGary, are both rip-offs of their era's Godzilla; the original ripped off 60's Godzilla (in a very weepy way), and the second was an ever worse version of the American Godzilla movie from 1998.

There was a ripoff based in the Samurai era called Magic Serpent, which went so far as to steal Godzilla's roar, but the biggest comparisons could probably be drawn to Gamera. The Gamera movies, made by the Daiei studio between 1965 and 1980, and again from 1995-1999, were an attempt to unseat Godzilla as industry leader by catering to the kids even more than lter Godzilla offerings. That meant more kid heroes, cuter monsters, and believe it or not, more violence.

Captain Amazo

What do you mean a big improvement of. "The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms" was a good movie! Show some respect for the classics! Also may I say that in "Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah" (which, despite popular beleive was not anti-American) the "Godzillasaur's" roar was that of Gamera's.-Tim: staff member of the Godzilla Tower Fan Site.

---

Re: 'The Magic Serpent

The Toho monster roars were only used in the US version. Also, it wasn't a ripoff, this 1966 Toei film was based on an ancient story called "Jiraiya Gouketsu Monogatari" (The Tale of the Gallant Jiraiya). It was also performed in kabuki plays. -Ryuuseipro

Other Possible Topics

Godzilla in popular culture is a big topic that could use some discussion. I've heard that it's illegal to yell "Godzilla!" in Tokyo I assume because of annoying tourists. Another topic that's talked on shortly is Toho's efforts to keep their desired image of Godzilla. I remember reading an article in Nintendo Power with the creators of one of the video games on how Toho made them keep the image of Godzilla, IE destroying buildings but not squishing people.

Oh really? In the Dark Horse comic book series Godzilla did stomp on and squish people. They even went so far as to have Godzilla's maw drenched in blood on the cover of Godzilla King of the Monsters #1 (the one that introduces Cybersaur who was based off of Mechagodzilla. I only say this because it was the first of a second series of comics produced by Dark Horse).Looks like Toho couldn't convince them to keep Gojira's image. And quite often the Godzilla suits would be disguised and used for the "Ultra Q" and "Ultraman" series, being passed off as new monsters. Two examples include, Gomess and Jiras.-Tim: staff member of the Godzilla Tower Fan Site.

• Godzilla never stepped on anyone human in the series, but he did step on some large aliens and bodyslam others. As for the blood from Godzilla's mouth, that was his own blood not anyone else's. --Anguirus111 00:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Godzilla's size

in the first movie it was clearly stated that Godzilla was over 400 hundred feet tall.

That's what the Americanised version (King of the Monsters) says. In the original Gojira Dr Yamane estimates the height at 50 meters. The original takes precedence.SMegatron 20:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Godzilla: King of the Monsters & Vandalism

Why this keeps getting deleted, I don't know. Half the people editting this list don't even seem to have Wikipedia account names, just IPs. I'm thinking its some Godzilla fan who either doesn't like the original movie, or never saw it and is assuming it must not exist. Wikipedia is an informational resource, its not a place to delete information that you don't like. If you don't want to deal with the fact that there was an earlier movie, then go ahead and ignore it, but deleting it is dishonest. --Corvun 04:51, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

First, I just want to say, I am a Godzilla fan. Quite a large one. I say this because I want you to know I have some sort of clue (to put it mildly) about the series. I hate to burst your bubble, Corvun, but there is NO Godzilla film from 1949. The first movie was JAPANESE, and made in NINETEEN FIFTY FOUR. This '54 Godzilla film was not based off some American version, it was inspired by the original King Kong and The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms. For christ's sake, do some research. Visit some fan sites. Read some Godzilla books. Go to a Godzilla message board and ask around. You will find no mention of a Godzilla film from 1949, which surely would be mentioned somewhere, wether it was liked or not. And why wouldn't it be? According to you, it started a whole series of Japanese films we all love.

Besides, surely somebody, somewhere would cover the story of Toho contacting the American filmmakers and saying "Hey, we wanna use your monster for a 50-year-long movie series!" After all, surely Toho wouldn't just start using Godzilla without asking, and the American filmmakers wouldn't say something about it. Wouldn't we fans want to know how our beloved films got their start?

The title Godzilla: King of the Monsters, by the way, belongs to the U.S. 1956 version of the 1954 Japanese film. So even if your fairy-tale film did exist, that's certainly not the title.

Furthermore, some sites, such as http://www.tohokingdom.com , cover unmade Godzilla films, such as Godzilla vs Frankenstein, Godzilla vs The Devil, Godzilla vs King Kong 2, and Mothra vs Bagan. How could they be well-known to the fandom and not the (supposedly) very first Godzilla movie?

So tell me, please, where are you getting this? Some monster movie book? A website? Some guy on the bus? You say, "I'm thinking its some Godzilla fan who either doesn't like the original movie..." Well, Godzilla's Revenge and Godzilla vs Megalon aren't particularly cared for, yet you don't see anybody deleting those. Hell, if it was about popularity, I'm pretty sure the TriStar Godzilla would be the first to go! Even the Internet Movie DataBase ( http://www.imdb.com ), which occasionally has the most bizzare and erroneous listings I've seen, doesn't have this mysterious Godzilla film listed. In fact, when I searched for "Godzilla (1949)" there, the closest I got was Godzilla vs Biollante, which was made in 19-8-9. I'm sorry, Corvun, but Godzilla '49 simply does not exist.

--- TitanoGoji16, a member of Monster Zero ( http://www.clubtokyo.org/discuss/index.php )

I'll tell you where I got it. I saw the damned movie. Monster Vision, a show on the television cable channel TNT that used to air late at night and show classic monster movies. Godzilla: King of the Monsters from 1949 was shown. It was shown again during a Godzilla marathon. Scenes from the movie were edited into the music video produced to go along with Blue Oyster Cult's song. It was produced by an American film studio (the name escapes me), starred an American actor who played a news reporter visiting Japan. An American actress played the heroine.

Now I haven't seen it in a few years, and can't find any references to it on the internet. But you know what? There's a damned lot of things you can't find references to on the internet. The only thing "mysterious" about this movie is the series' fans' refusal to acknowledge it.

Personally, I think it was Godzilla at his finest. --Corvun 09:32, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

"Monster Vision, a show on the television cable channel TNT that used to air late at night and show classic monster movies. Godzilla: King of the Monsters from 1949 was shown. It was shown again during a Godzilla marathon. Scenes from the movie were edited into the music video produced to go along with Blue Oyster Cult's song. It was produced by an American film studio (the name escapes me), starred an American actor who played a news reporter visiting Japan."

...that's Godzilla: King of the Monsters. The '56 U.S. adaptation of the '54 Japanese movie. The American actor was Raymond Burr.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0197521/?fr=c2l0ZT1kZnxteD0yMHxzZz0xfGxtPTIwMHx0dD1vbnxwbj0wfHE9R29kemlsbGEgS2luZyBvZiB0aGUgTW9uc3RlcnN8aHRtbD0xfG5tPW9u;fc=1;ft=5;fm=1

You see, I also used to watched Monster Vision, and even have that same Blue Oyster Cult music video on my computer ("Well, it's big... and terrible!"). Heck, I even have a Monster Vision airing on tape somewhere. While I didn't record the TNT airing of King of the Monsters, I do have many VHS and DVD copies of the exact same film. And they all list either '54 or '56 as the release year.

Now I haven't seen it in a few years

Well, jeeze, that explains everything. Why don't you go rent it and watch it once or twice before griping that Godzilla fans are ignoring the first Godzilla movie .

This also explains the claymation and American actress bits, as neither of these are true. The heroine in King of the Monsters was one of the original Japanese actors, and of course Godzilla was a man in a rubber suit.

and can't find any references to it on the internet

...you can't find any reference to "Godzilla: King of the Monsters" on the internet? That... makes no sense. At all. Have you actually tried looking it up?

The only thing "mysterious" about this movie is the series' fans' refusal to acknowledge it.

Well, now that I've figured out what film it is you're talking about, I can assure you that they don't.

Personally, I think it was Godzilla at his finest.

A lot of fans agree with you.

--- TitanoGoji16, a member of Monster Zero ( http://www.clubtokyo.org/discuss/index.php )

I've been looking for that video forever. Where can I find it? --Talison 02:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

---

You don't even realize you're talking about a completely different movie. Of course Monster Vision also showed the first Japanese version. Why wouldn't they?

And of course I found references to "Godzilla: King of the Monsters" on the internet, just not the original version with the claymation Godzilla, who was long-snouted, pointy-eared, and basically looked like a bipedal version of the Beast from 20,000 leagues, whenever they bothered to show him below the waist, that is -- and in those instances, it was a man in a suit, but those were few and far between.

So if we're talking about the same movie, who was the blonde, American heroine in the film? --Corvun 11:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

i think you'd make a better case if you could present some evidence beyond your own childhood memories. no, not everything is on the internet, but there are lots of other sources you could turn to for corroborative information, like books, magazine articles, or even writing a letter to toho, or to TNT!

those of us who keep removing the 1949 references aren't rabid fans who are denying reality, we're basing this on every single piece of information on godzilla we've ever seen, from books to magazine articles to godzilla conventions to people in the industry and yes, the internet too.

please come back with some evidence before you complain any more.

bunnyhero 05:19, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

---

So, let me get this straight. Real life doesn't count as evidence, but books, magazines, letters, and websites do? Basically if something is written down, that automatically makes it true, and if it isn't written down, that automatically makes it false? That sort of reminds me of the position that "skeptics" hold: if a tree falls in a forest and 3 hundred lumberjacks in flannel shirts and denim pants are there to hear it, it doesn't make a sound -- but if a tree falls in the forest and two or three ecologists with white coats and clipboards are there to hear it and write about, then all of the sudden you can say it made a sound.

Honestly, I don't think I'll ever understand that philosophy. Anyone can write anything down. 'Documents' and 'records' and things of that sort can all be wrong. I've had to learn this the hard way more than a few times dealing with the government, who are more concerned with what some piece of paper in one of their file cabinets somewhere says, than they are with what's true in real life. But, I'm tired of arguing this anyway. I have other pages that need attention. I just don't like seeing false information given to people. Hopefully you'll see the movie for yourself one of these days (it's a killer film, and I really think you'd enjoy it) and you'll add it yourself. --Corvun 05:40, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

wow, talk about straw-man arguments. did i ever say that writing things down automatically made things true? notice how you conveniently ignored one of the sources: "people in the industry." you can barely remember the movie, but people who talk to toho on a day-by-day basis must be wrong?

anyway, i'm glad you're letting your conspiracy theory drop.

bunnyhero 06:14, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

---

"Corvun, you troll. Stop abusing Wikipedia with your lies. What on earth is motivating you?"

Okay, first of all Bunny Hero and Anonymous IP, this isn't Usenet. This isn't the place for childish character attacks, nor is it the place to accuse people of holding "conspiracy theories" just because they disagree with one of your statements (do you even know what a conspiracy theory is?).

Here on Wikipedia there's supposed to be a thing called cooperation for the benefit of everyone. Refering to fellow contributors as "trolls" and going on the offensive any time someone says he or she believes you're wrong about something is neither proper adult behavior nor constructive. It adds nothing to Wikipedia and benefits no one, except perhaps your own crippled egos.

If y'all want to play these sophmoric games of making unfounded Ad Hominem attacks, misrepresenting others' words, flaming, using abusive language, and accusing others of lying and subscribing to your own made-up conspiracy theories, I suggest you go to a Usenet group where that sort of thing is acceptable.

What you've demonstrated thus far is unacceptable Wikipedian behavior. Tell me, who was the one to bring the issue into the talk page, rather than making sweeping deletions without even bothering to discuss it? Who thus far has been the one refraining from name calling? Who thus far has yet to engage in out-of-context word twisting? Who has yet to sling a single drop of mud? Who of us has attempted to give the most benefit of doubt the largest group of people (such as assuming it was one person making the deletions, rather than blame it on some 'conspiracy')?

If you'd take a lesson from the majority of your fellow Wikipedians, you'd find its possible to have civil, grown-up conversations and disagreements that are far more enlightening and often even enjoyable, than attempting to transform this educational forum into a battleground for flame wars like a newsgroup or a chatroom.

So for Christ's sake, learn some manners, and at least try act like adults.--Corvun 06:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

you're right: i shouldn't have characterized your belief as a conspiracy theory. i do apologize for that. however, i don't think that requesting more evidence was out of line. i think that was a completely reasonable request.

"Who thus far has yet to engage in out-of-context word twisting?" you imply that you haven't, but i would say that your response to my information request was indeed word-twisting. (on the other hand, perhaps you truly misunderstood what i was asking. if so, i apologize.)

still, please realize that many people would find some of your statements inflammatory, whether or not you intended them as such. for example: "The only thing "mysterious" about this movie is the series' fans' refusal to acknowledge it" comes across as insulting, which may not have been what you intended.

take care.

bunnyhero 07:39, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

---

Wow. You've really impressed me. Now THAT's Wikipedian of you! I'd like to apologize as well. I allowed myself to be angered by the deletions and had, although basically civil, a far to aggressive tone in my first post to the talk page. I should have sat it out a while.

Your request for references was reasonable. I'll see what I can turn up as far as references go.

I didn't mean "The only thing "mysterious" about this movie is the series' fans' refusal to acknowledge it" in an insulting manner, and I'm sorry it came off that way. Having remembered certain portions of the movie so vividly, I just assumed it was one of those situations like in Star Trek fandom almost all the fans have just sort of decided to ignore Star Trek V. That does happen in fandom sometimes.

Coming to think of it, though, I suddenly find myself realizing that the movie's date could have been mispoken on that particular episode of Monster Vision, or typoed on the Prevue (now TV guide) channel, and I never bothered to verify the date because, well, I had no idea at the time I'd end up right here, now, debating the matter. And as far as the blonde co-star...didn't the 1954 film have a blonde in it as the main character's girlfriend or something, that was killed off early on? If so, then that means I might have really seen the '54 version under the false impression of a possibly mispoken or typoed date. --Corvun 10:23, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

No, it didn't, which then begs the question of what movie you saw. In the American verison, Raymond Burr's character acts more as a bystander or observer of the events, since his character didn't exist in the original and was edited in by American producers after the fact. Now, I'm not entirely sure, but it's possible that you actually saw the American version of "Varan the Unbelievable", another movie made by the creators of Godzilla. Varan looks like a cross between Godzilla and the Rhedosaur from the Beast from 20,000 Fathoms. It was also Americanized far more than the original Godzilla, giving the impression that it was actually an American film. What else do you remember about the movie? Perhaps this can solve the mystery once and for all. -- Pkmatrix

Godzilla 1998

Should the American Godzilla be under the list of movies? In the film Godzilla: Final Wars the American Godzilla is referred as ジラ (Zilla in English). Zntrip 17:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)Zntrip

Probably not. Would you call Jurassic Park a Godzilla movie if they called the dinosaurs, "Godzillas?".

---

As much as cult followers would like to believe it's not true, the Americanized version of Godzilla is a part of the Godzilla cult as a whole now. Some text has been added to the start of the article to mention this as undoubtably many western film-goers and researchers unfamiliar with the franchise would probably like to know about that particular movie and its relationship with the true Godzilla movies, even if it is a small snippet.--Dan Atkinson 10:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. That's like saying that the "Carnosaur" films are part of the Jurassic Park continuity because they have similar "monsters" and a common background of 65 million years ago.

---

I can't tell from the discussion if the question was to include the 1998 Godzilla at all or to include it in the Official Filmography; at the moment only the first inclusion is made, but to me it seems that both should be. While not produced by Toho, the movie was indeed licensed by Toho and included in their database of Godzilla films (which seems to have since been taken down).

It might be argued now that Godzilla has joined Mothra and Atragon, having been incorporated into the Godzilla universe through later films (Mothra vs. Godzilla, Destroy All Monsters, Godzilla: Final Wars) though not (or questionably) originally being part. Might it be appropriate to replace the Similar concepts section with a section listing and discussing such movies as these?--Crazilla 18:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Godzilla Wikicity

a little ad here: Gruler started a Godzilla wikicity (site, info). The site is bare. Any Godzilla fan wanna add content there?—Dwx 10:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Movie Timeline

You know what this Article REALLY needs? A Timeline. Because for every movie, We all known WHERE It happens but we don't know WHEN it happens. Know what I mean? --Arima 06:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

No Zntrip 01:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Filmography issues

--I'm in total agreement with Crazilla. The stock monsters listing is pointless, and so is listing Volcano Monsters. Also, we are using OFFICIAL film and monster names here. If you do not know what these are, then why change them? TohoKingdom.com is generally a good source for official names. As is the Official Godzilla Compendium.--

(Just removed my previous comment, which was silly.) Most blatantly, the "Stock monsters" column in the filmography table just doesn't belong in the main "Godzilla" article. (Passing mention might be made in the Shōwa Series discussion, but no more.) "Special effects director" might be a more appropriate extra column, since they hold nearly as much responsibility and prestige for tokusatsu films as Directors, and are especially pertinent to an article whose subject is a kaiju, rather than an actor.

Also, while it seems fair to differentiate Godzilla (1998 film) and Godzilla 3D to the MAX from the Toho-produced films, i see no reason to include The Volcano Monsters, or any other failed project for that matter, be it the nearly-filmed Godzilla vs. The Devil, the Hollywood attempt Godzilla 3D, or the fabled Star Godzilla.—Crazilla 06:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Star Godzilla is a piece of hooey. I saw the supposed movie review for it at Stomptokyo.com. That images they posted were from some John Cusak, Demi Moore film, that had Pauly Shore in the Godzilla suit running amok over a Real Estate Representation of some land that was being bought. --Anguirus111 00:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is Godzilla vs. the Smog Monster?

Thats a classic.

---

If you're asking why Smog Monster isn't in the filmography, the reason is that Toho's official English title for it is Godzilla vs. Hedorah (which is indeed there). If you're just asking how to obtain a copy (in which case return this heading to the level you gave it), it's part of a new slew of tokusatsu releases on DVD; try Barnes & Noble.

on amazon.com, you can find it other either name, however as smog monster it is more difficult to find then as vs hedorah214.13.212.26 18:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up the 1998 Godzilla info

Since there was quite a bit of scattered redundant info about the 1998 TriStar film, I compiled it in a new entry in the "Films" section. I also toned down some of the POV comments about that film, since even though we fans feel it was a train wreck we need to keep our neutral Wiki faces on. ;-) The Lizard 18 Jan 2006

Ridiculous

I don't know why the Japanese were getting so uptight over the 1998 film! I mean, they ruined King Kong, an American monster, by having him as a man in a gorilla suit! That's retarted! Scorpionman 03:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The Americans had a man in a gorilla suit for the 1970's version of King Kong too. Most American Godzilla fans hate the 1998 film as well. Btw, it's spelled "retarded" not "retarted".

Oh, excuse the spelling error (sarcasm of course), but seeing as how Kong is an American monster it's alright if we portray him that way (not very many people like the 1970's version anyway). Scorpionman 23:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Many Japanese got upset about the USA version of Godzilla because it was nothing has Godzilla should be. Also Dean Devlin used techniques that could be called sneaky to get Toho's approaval of the film. For more details check out Gojistomp.org and look under essays, they've got a whole list of reasons why people were upset. And as for Kong, King Kong was actualy quite popular in Japan and there was even a second Toho Kong after "King Kong vs. Godzilla". And King Kong vs. Godzilla was based off of a script written by Willis Obrian (the original animater of Kong) and was sold to the Japanese when no one wanted to use Obrian's slow stop motion techniques in the US. After awhile Toho lost permision to use Kong's name so Godzilla was used to replace him in several movies.-Tim: staff member of the Godzilla Tower Fan Site.

Your obviously an Idiot. The Americans ruined not only King Kong and Godzilla (I refer to him by the fan name Zilla), but they ruined the orginanal Godzilla film (King of the monsters) with raymond burr. They had a hand in making King Kong vs. Godzilla, and they made it quite clear that there monster was supieror. --75.6.212.253 15:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Godzilla Parodies

How many Godzilla parodies are there?! There's like a gazillion of them! --Mr. Kool 20:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Mr. Kool

It would be quite impossible to list them all. Scorpionman 02:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Godzilla Vs King Kong

Who would win in a fight between Godzilla and King Kong? I think Godzilla would win. --Mr. Kool 20:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Mr. Kool.--Mr. Kool 20:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Mr. Kool. Sorry, I thought the signature didn't get added

Easily. Godzilla would just have to use his fire-breath and fry Kong! But I'd root for Kong since he is an American monster. Scorpionman 02:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The script was originally King Kong vs. Ginco, by Willias O'brian, but was sold to Toho when no one in the US wanted to use the slow stop motion effects.

If you're talking about Kong in his original size, no question Godzilla. If you're talking about Kong to the Toho size, Godzilla. Desert Spada 22:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the movie had Kong win, actually.Pengwiin 22:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

in the movie, kong was smarted, godzilla was stronger, and kong got godzilla to leave 214.13.212.26 18:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Filmography maintenance continues

There have been some really silly edits recently in the Filmography table, including the renumbering of all the films to exclude the 1998 Godzilla and the duplication of Godzilla: Final Wars as both a 2004 and 2005 film. In addition to reverting these changes, I think that the clarification of "Official Toho Title" and "Original US Title" will help those who are looking for the US cinematic titles. We could get into the original Japanese cinematic titles, but for the sake of simplicity and ease of reference, I think the official Toho titles are good enough (eg: Terror of MechaGodzilla instead of Counterattack of MechaGodzilla and so on). The Lizard 20:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"spelled in katakana"

Early in the article, we have the text 'Gojira's name was "originally" spelled in katakana (呉爾羅).' But the parenthetical text is not katakana, it's ateji, that is, kanji used without regard for their meaning, to take the place of kana. So which is it? Context suggests that his name was originally written in ateji ("spelled" is not the right word, no matter what), but right now, this section is self-contradicting. Because I don't know which is correct, I am hesitant to change the article, and want to throw this open on the talk page. adamrice 14:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that needs to be changed. While ateji might be too obscure a concept to get into for most english-speaking readers, the word "katakana" is just flat-out wrong and should probably just be changed to "kanji". The Lizard 00:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I made several big changes

Due to unofficial opinionated information. For example Godzilla 2000's 'Super Nova'. NO SUCH THING EXISTS.

I found similar things in several areas, and information on the change in style of the Showa films was quite inaccurate according to Toho-approved TV shows, other fans and my own opinion.

Please keep this thing pure and faithful.

(The Elfoid 17:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

Proposal to split up the Godzilla article

Now stop me if this has already been started or chime in if you know what I’m getting at.

My suggestion would be to split the article in two. Basically take out everything from this article but the Powers section and put it into a Godzilla Series article. In the series article would detail the cultural significance of movies and other productions. It could also act as a hub for all the movie articles (e.i. the filmography) and link to the other related Godzilla articles like the character pages.

The Godzilla article then could focus more on the character and all his different incarnations such as the differences between the vs. series, millennium series, and all the others. The Power section could then be split up and accurately describe the powers of the specific version of Godzilla instead of attempting to explain what series the powers and details relates to after the fact.

I would also like to suggest that we impose a template for the related monster pages like the ones found in the comic book character pages and similar pages. This could then set a standard for all other Kaiju Films articles like Gamera, Rodan, and Mothra. I noticed there isn’t a Kaiju Film article so it would be advantageous if one was made that work like a hum for all Kaiju Films series like Godzilla and so forth.

Now I most of times in the past I'm told to "go do then" and frankly I want to do just that but I do not want to step on anyone’s feet in doing so. If there are any objections or suggestions then please post them. I’m going to wait a few days before I start anything. DyslexicDan 22:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This has been done before e.g. in Friday the 13th (film series) and related pages or A Nightmare on Elm Street (series) and related pages, so there should be no problem. You could also draw some inspiration from the series articles on those franchises AdamSmithee 07:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don’t see this being to difficult as all the movies have already been organized and many related monster movies already have a separate article for the character and movies. All Toho related monsters have already been save for Godzilla from some reason. I’m going to do more research on what is currently being done before I mess with anything. See if any series have been done already like the Toho content. It looks like all I’m going to have to do is clean up the current articles and expand on what is already here. This takes a bit of weight off of me as now I know I don’t have to create anything new but rather edit some of the neglected content. I'm still going to make Kaiju Films page and change the Daikaiju link on the Tokusatsu which redirects to a definition of kaiju rather then to a Kaiju Films page (which at the moment doesn't exist). I need to make to note that its a Tokusatsu Subgenre. DyslexicDan 19:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a better out line of the plans I intend to implement on my user page. It’s a rough draft so far and I do intended to change and adapt it as necessary. Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you comment on anything I’m doing. --DyslexicDan 04:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

42 kilobytes preferred file limit

I would like to note that my intended plans on making a Godzilla Film Series article from a lot of the content current in this article would fix the current preferred file size problem. We wouldn’t have to cut back on any of the information but instead would just be placing it some ware else more appropriate for it. I would hate to see any of the information lost because what we have is really great. We just need to orginize it better. --DyslexicDan 04:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Godzilla character page

All the content that has been cut out of this article is now in the Godzilla (film series) page. This page now can focus on Godzilla the character and his relevance in media he appears in. All the real world, cultural, and similar information can now be directed to the film series page. --DyslexicDan 00:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This was the start of series of what will hopefully be improvements. Because of the scope of what I plan on doing I will only begin with this edit and see if it is accepted by the community before I even thing about doing anything else. --DyslexicDan 01:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The Major Change

Its been about two weeks sense I made the proposal to drastically change this article and now its done. It about 1000 words shorter (closer to 800) and vary little is repeated. Now there are sections for every incarnation of Godzilla so we are able to discuss the qualities each one. --DyslexicDan 19:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Measurement and Character Description Issues

I went over the height and weight of each Godzilla and put them into the metric and U.S. Customary measurements. Also, I would like to know where many of these 'theories' for the Millennium Godzillas are originating from. I changed the description for GiraGoji (the Godzilla from "Godzilla vs. Megaguirus") because I had never heard of any theory that placed this particular universe being in line with "Ebirah: Horror of the Deep" (1966) and "Godzilla vs. Destoroyah" (1995) or that this Godzilla is a matured Godzilla Jr. Furthermore, the film itself creates a new timeline that is not in line with any other Godzilla movie, despite the fact that it digitally places the GiraGoji into the 1954 film. Also it is never said that the Godzilla from "Godzilla 2000" is the original one from the first movie, but I decided to leave that 'fact' in since I have not seen the Japanese version of the film, which may have explained this particular Godzilla's origin in more detail.

-Onward2Vengeance; 18 Apirl 2006, 14:09 PM (PST)

Godzilla vs. Megaguirus was the one movie that I haven’t personally seen so I had used the Godzilla vs. Megaguirus article as reference and it states that Godzilla vs. the Sea Monster, and Godzilla vs. Destoroyah as part of its continuity. I’m not familiar with that film so I wasn’t going to question it but it now appears that the Godzilla vs. Megaguirus article needs some revisions. The Godzilla in Godzilla 2000: Millennium isn’t the original, that just an inconsistency in that paragraph. It will fix in a bit. --DyslexicDan 15:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

After reading the Godzilla 2000: Millennium section again, it just says the Godzilla of that movie is not related to any other Godzilla. Its just really short and can be easily misread.

Kiryu's stats on the page

I know that Kiryu himself was created from the bones of the original Godzilla and in a way is Godzilla, but Biolante and Space Godzilla are also related or clones if you will of him. Kiryu is really nothing more then a mechanized version of Godzilla's father in his two film appearances. If you’re going to include him then you may as well put Biolante and Space Godzilla if Kiryu is listed, but the details of those monsters belong on their respective pages.

It’s my interpretation that Kiryu was more then just another mechagodzilla or a space Godzilla, but that he was the original Godzilla. I would like to have some other user to state their interpretation of Kiryu before we do anything. Its not like it is hurting anything with him being there for the time being.

Either way we probably should comment on Biolante and Space Godzilla because they should be at least mentioned and linked too.

--DyslexicDan 19:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Hi there. I edited the page recently( hope nobody minds) and I was wondering: is it possible to get pictures of all the various incarnations of Godzilla and place them next to the approprate bio? It would certainly look god, as well as giving newcomers an idea of the differences between them.SMegatron 18:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Good idea but we would need to make sure we fallow the guildlines on Help:Image page. There is a lot of rules to fallow and I personally haven touched on anything about images yet.--DyslexicDan 19:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Propose reorginaization

I'm a moderate Godzilla fan, and came over to see what Wikipedia had to say about the Godzilla phenonenon. Insead, I mostly see a large article about Godzilla's film continuity. Which has value, but isn't the main thing I'd like to see in the main Godzilla article.

I'd suggest moving the entire sections on the Shōwa, Heisei, and Millennium series merged into the Godzilla (flim series) article. And much of the non-film related information from there should be moved here.

This article should list the basic facts about Godzilla, go into a large amount of detail regarding his creation and inspiration, his cultural relevance in Japan and the US, give a very brief history of the film series (ie, just a paragraph mentioning how they changed in tone over time, and linking to the film series article), and then maybe some comparison to other monster characters. Ocicat 22:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Basically that is what we are doing but because contributors often don’t bother to search for related articles before adding information and because the majority of contributions are related to fictional mythos, all the continuity and story information is going in this article to preserve the integrity of the cultural relevance and real world history information which will go into the film series article. It just reverse of what you suggested. That is unfortunately the nature of this article and even though all the major contributors would agree with your logic but none of use have the time to invest to monitory this article to make sure it stays that way. It is just a lot easier to put the more encyclopedic and cultural important information in the article with the lower profile.

Also the Godzilla article is self just went under a major face life of its own. Both this article and the film series article were one article and we are still working on retrieving quality information of the archives. --DyslexicDan 16:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to stress the importance of keeping the fiction and mythos information separate from the real life and cultural information and in another place that is not the Godzilla article. We need to avoid losing or downing the more encyclopedic information in pissing matches and the editing wars like in the old version of the article. Because this article gets more traffic it is more likely to be abused. I say let this article be the character article that the fanboys will bicker in. Any user looking for more in depth information will navigate to the film series article anyway. I do think a name change is in order for the film series article so it reflects the information that will be in it better. When I made the film series page I was thinking either film series or franchise but seeing how there is no community over then, no one is going to mind the name change.--DyslexicDan 05:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Godzilla in raids again

The Godzilla in raids again was not the original monster from the first film. That was one was definetly killed. It was actually a separate creature.

02:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)~Enda80

You can't say that for certain. There's nothing saying he didn't regenerate "off-camera".

It's assumed that the original Godzilla was totally desentigrated in the first film. And in the Heisei series they say that the original Godzilla was killed off for good. One big annoyance through out the series is that they have a tendancy of erasing all past events in the series. Things can get very confusing but from as far as we know the Godzilla in Godzilla Raids Again was actually a second Godzilla monster.-Tim

I wouldn't take the speculation of baffled "experts" as gospel. After all, didn't Dr. Yamane in the first film suggest that he thought Godzilla had been in suspended animation for a mere 2 million years? Incompetent writing, yes, but a canon precedent for how the so-called scientists of the Godzilla films are about as scientifically accurate as any given episode of Star Trek.

Actually, it can be sure that this Godzilla IS a comptetely different creature. The oxygen destroyer completely liquified Godzilla's body. There was nothing left. Desert Spada 22:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing visible from the perspective of the camera at the distance it was at, you mean. If I have to choose between believing that two incredibly similar and equally unlikely monsters existed in the same universe, or that small fragments of the first monster congealed back together and rebuilt Godzilla, the latter is more parsimonious. We can see at the end of GMK Godzilla's bare heart still beating, in the process of regeneration. Why should the notion that Godzilla regenerated from similarly sparse portions be any less likely here?

Horrible, horrible grammar

Oh, dear God. I was browsing through various film pages and came across this. Ow. I re-arranged one paragraph - admittedly rather hurriedly, but at least it's far more literate than it's previous incarnation - and soon realised how large a task it would take to make the entire article legible. I'm far too lazy to do all that, but someone seriously needs to have a look at the language on this article, 'cause I'm fairly sure I could crush a small child with the amount of paper I could fill with grammar, spelling and continuity mistakes. FinalDeity 14:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I did what I could to clean up that section, FinalDeity. Now, however, I notice that this section was just recently added, and that the main thrust of the article is not a discussion of the films, but a discussion of the Godzilla character... So I'm wondering if this section even belongs in this article. If anyone wants to move it somewhere else, or just delete it, feel free to do so. -- Rizzleboffin 17:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it belongs more in the article on the film series rather than this one, which is about the various incarnations of the creature itself. If nobody minds, I'm going to move it there. SMegatron 10:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, SMegatron-- Though maybe it belongs more in the Godzilla, King of the Monsters! article? (The one about the 1956 American release) Since that's what the section is describing. Fits in the film series article too though. -- Rizzleboffin 01:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd never thought of that, but as its a great idea I've moved it there. I definetly don't think it should be on this page though, as the Spirit section is on the message of the original film while this article is on the monster itself. SMegatron 13:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Apostrophe has made a pretty decent argument about the original spirit being intended to portaray the point of the creature. I'm not convinced myself but it seems we leave it as is. Thoughts anyone? SMegatron 17:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I share Apostrophe's discomfort with the current "nerd essay" being the main Godzilla article. I think this is a good "nerd essay," however, and useful for someone wanting further details on the Godzilla character, but I doubt this is what the general user wants to see when he types "Godzilla" into the search box.

I do think this "original spirit" paragraph in question is good, and certainly belongs somewhere-- either in a main Godzilla article, or in the article on the 1956 US release of the 1954 film. But what exactly that main article should be, I'm not quite sure either... Godzilla is a big topic, and certainly needs to be broken down (as it is) into smaller articles. When I pull up this article, I usually find myself automatically clicking on the "Film series" link at the top of the page, but that's still not a main Godzilla article...

Is that confusing enough an answer for you? -- Rizzleboffin 18:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No, makes sense to me. Question is, how do we improve on it? How do we make it a non-fanboy/nerd article without alienating people who want to now about the character rather than the film? SMegatron 18:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I took the extreme measure of checking a few paper encyclopedias to see how they handle the topic. Britannica had no main entry. Even Kodansha's Encyclopedia of Japan didn't have one. I did find one in the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Japanese Culture, and I've put it in my user-space. You can read it here: Godzilla entry in Encyclopedia of Contemporary Japanese Culture.

Though I think most of us will disagree with some of the points and details in the article (the dismissal of the early '60s films especially rubbed me wrong), it seems to have a good, workable structure. It divides Godzilla into 1) a pop-culture icon, 2) a movie series, and 3) a progenitor of a film genre. It then discusses these three aspects of Godzilla.

Perhaps this article could do the same (adding, Godzilla the character, and any other aspects of "Godzilla" appropriate)-- Have short discussions of each aspect, with links to more in-depth articles on each of those aspects.

Just throwing out the idea. The article is good, with a long history, and I'm still relatively new here and don't want to step on anyone's toes. -- Rizzleboffin 19:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

What you're describing would work really well (I think so anyway). Just so long as we're not repeating what's on the film series article. It makes sense though: I edit some Doctor Who pages occasionally and certain of their pages such as this one - Dalek - are set out like that, with a conceptional history, a history within the show and how it has affected British popular culture in that way. SMegatron 14:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the grammar is that people who speak Japanese as their primary language wrote the article. I guess I could do the dirty work and fix it up... at least for the main article... Sfrostee 17 May 2007.

Special effects

Why does Toho Studios continue to use cheezy "suitmation" techniques when there are a host of things they could do with CGI? I mean, anybody could dress up in a rubber suit and stomp down a model city and call it "terrifying". And as for Rodan; a rather stupid-looking hand-puppet that didn't even flap its wings! It looked nothing like a real pteradon. Even the pteradon in King Kong, which was created by stop-motion was more realistic than Rodan! You know, it really surprises me that Godzilla's so popular. The films with good plots are really, really cheezy and the one with good special effects has one of the worst plots in the history of filmmaking. I think they should just give up on this. Scorpionman 14:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the man in a suit is what has come to define Godzilla for many people, otherwise what you get is GINO(great special effects, piss-poor plot). Yes, a lot of G-films do have ropey plots, but there are some great ones out there(GMK,Tokyo S.O.S, certain Heisei films). Also effects have improved to the point where a mix of suitmation and CGI can really come off well, like Tokyo S.O.S or Gamera 3. It's not meant to be terrifying, and hasn't for a long time, but it can still be entertaining. SMegatron 09:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen the Japanese giant monster trilogy, Gamera? Those three movies were released in 1995, 1996 and 1999. The special effects in them can blow away almost any recent, giant, big-budget epic film America can come up with. Not saying this as a way to discredit American blockbusters, but it really drives me up the wall when imbeciles have to complain about the special effects in Japanese giant monster movies because they don't feature fancy CGI (all the time, that is). And really, you think CGI is a better way for Toho, the company that makes Godzilla, to make their monster movies? You couldn't be any more wrong. CGI, like fake rubber suits, can look just as crappy. Especially when it looks too cartoonish or out of place.

With that, there's something about a man in a rubber suit that has more charm than fancy computer images. People in this society may like everything done to be with computers, however, I have a couple of friends who don't paticularly care for Godzilla, but do enjoy the movies as a way of entertainment. They didn't like GINO or Godzilla '98 because they didn't get the same feeling when watching monster movies with rubber suits. I don't have anything against the fake Godzilla because it revived my interest in him and that the directors that ruined Godzilla have made entertaining pop-corn flicks. Today, that minute they see a Godzilla-related feature, we always have certain idiots start raviving that it's fake, cheesy and crap like that. Well, when you consider the fact that the Godzilla series features a giant radioactive dinosaur, a moth goddess, a flying pteradon, three-headed golden space dragon, a baby dinousar with a STRIKING resmeblance to Doughboy, a giant shrimp/lobster and ALL kinds of weird, out-wordly creatures, it is rather hard to make it realistic. The day a Japanese giant monster movie is realistic is when a real giant monster attacks Japan. Which isn't bound to happen anytime soon.

Special effects in American Sci-Fi movies, remember, aren't anything worth raviving about either. Now, to get off-topic with the SPFX in Toho's movies, I would to be curious to how other monster movies like Rodan, Varan, Mothra and etc... fit into the Godzilla timeline? It's a wee bit confusing.

You're right that American Sci-Fi movies aren't always worth raving about, but you're only using B-movies as examples. Why don't you look at King Kong, Jurassic Park, War of the Worlds and a host of others? Snakes on a Plane is a piece of crap, I agree; they didn't have to generate the snakes. But that (combined with a couple of other really trashy films directed by horrible directors combined with bad acting and poor animating skills) isn't what defines a good CGI film. Now stop ranting against it, will ya?! BugEyedMonster 16:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm really, REALLY eager for Godzilla to make the complete switchover to CGI and share the benefits of unparalleled realism like the bear and crocodiles from Lake Placid, the cheetahs from Hidalgo, and the snakes from Snakes On A Plane. Jesus Christ.

Please don't use Jesus' name like that. I find it highly irreverant and disrespectful (as do others, I'm sure). Scorpionman 00:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You know, they wouldn't have to give up actors portraying monsters if they switched to CGI (see motion capture for example), and they wouldn't have to only use it; they could do animatronics and suits where neccessary, but overall CGI would be a lot more realistic. I agree, computer-generated imagery isn't always as realistic as it is made out to be, but mostly this is because of cheap technology and poor directing. You don't have to generalize the whole thing like that. BugEyedMonster 16:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Godzilla Parodies

I think we should include a section that lists the various monsters and creatures that have been influenced by Godzilla, such as Reptar from Rugrats and Lizzie from the Rampage Video Game series. I remember there used to be a list like this, what happened to it? Why was it removed?

Name Origin

Someone removed the second possible origin of the name "Gojira", the one that (as I recall) head of production of Toho says is true. This notion is repeated many times, though many believe it it be false. But since it is such a prevelent theory, I think it should be included. It's certainly a major part of the pop culture mythology of the big guy. I don't have the references available to me right now, but I will check my Godzilla books soon. I don't want to put the theory back in without a reference. Also, I removed this "Gojira was originally conceived as a fire breathing ape creature" thing, as it cited no information, and, frankly, I have never ever heard that!  :) The Shrike 19:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoops. The fat guy theory was not deleted from this page, it's simply on the Godzilla Film Series page, and not this one! What's up with that? Plus the Film Series page asserts without reservation what this page states as having "no actual evidence to support this". Maybe the Godzilla Character page and the Godzilla Film Series page should agree? You think? Is directly copying from one article, and pasting in another frowned upon? Well, I rewrote both of them to be the same way. Hopefully everyone is happy!The Shrike 21:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Introduction needs work

Quote: "Godzilla is the personification of the horror of nuclear weapons. He was created by nuclear bombs, the very same that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. His sheer size, power, fire, horror and destruction are to show that of the atomic bomb. However, in some films, such as "Godzilla: Final Wars", it can be argued he turns into a symbol nuclear technology saving mankind, perhaps by utilizing cold fusion."

I have seen better writing, folks. As I understand it, Godzilla resulted from an H-bomb test in 1954, not the A-bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Could the sentence, "His sheer size, power, fire, horror and destruction are to show that of the atomic bomb," be rewritten, "His sheer size, power, fire, horror and destruction reflect the atomic bomb." ? That's a slight improvement, but sopmething much better could be used, I am sure.

Maybe that last sentence could be stripped of some of the detail - the cold fusion reference seems to go a bit far for an introduction. Perhaps, "In some later films, however, it can be argued he is presented as a symbol of beneficial uses of nuclear technology."

Godzilla Theme Music

I was wondering why the godzilla theme music, which has been in every Godzilla movie I've seen isn't mentioned in the article? If I remember right, it played each time Godzilla would arrive. I'm fairly certain it was in the first movie, and I always thought it was somewhat of a staple in the series. I'm referring to the version by Akira Ifukube.

I believe Akira Ifukube's theme is mentioned in the Godzilla (film series) article... either way, it'd belong there, not here in this article, which is specifically for the *character* of Godzilla.

Godzilla Roar?

Could someone possibly upload a sound file of Godzilla's roar for this article? Place it under the section pertaining to the roar? I think one would be very useful. I dunno how to upload sound files myself, unfortunately. D:

Cancelled Films section?

Should we have a section about Cancelled Films or original versions of films that were completed? BlackMask 19:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think something like that would go in the Godzilla film series article, not the character article.

Copyedit

This article is in severe need of major copyediting. The tense is absolutely inconsistant throughout, and many sentences are extremely hard to follow. --Mal 10:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sadly the article had a copyedit tag at the top of the page a few months back. We thought we'd fixed it, but it just seems to have degenerated again.SMegatron 14:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest we re-add the tag any time its removed, if anyone sees the article is still badly presented. Hopefully it might attract the attention of editors who will improve it. I might give it a go myself at some point. --Mal 01:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Jan DeBont's Film

Is there any wiki info on DeBont's planned Godzilla film for the early 90s that was canned? I've seen a few proposed production photos for it and there is of course the script that's out there. I think it's one of the few cancelled Godzilla films that might be worthy of it's own article. --Anguirus111 01:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think such a thing would go in the Godzilla film series article, not the character article. Still, I'm all for giving it a wiki page, or maybe one for canned Godzilla films in general, (since there have been a *lot* of scrapped movie ideas.)

Started an article for unmade Godzilla films, including the Jan De Bont film. Feel free to expand it as y'all see fit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmade_Godzilla_Films

Chronology

How about a exhaustive and a simple detailed chronology of all of the Godzilla movies in order with perfect organization tables to them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berniethomas68 03:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

We have one already. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godzilla_%28film_series%29

K00bine 19:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

godzilla picture

the godzilla picture should be replaced it is blurry and does not show much details

Atomic Breath?

Isn't it called Atomic Ray? 65.40.238.156 02:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Big

There are so many articles, shouldn't there be a WikiProject on this? Simply south 21:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Godzilla name pronunciation

I have a few issues with this section. I was looking for something like this because I was curious to know how the English spelling came about, since it is a very unintuitive romanization (the more standard spelling being "Gojira"), but it seems to contradict itself in places, and makes a few claims I'd like to see sources for.

Also, for a discussion of pronunciation, the language could be more precise, and the pronunciations should use the International Phonetic Alphabet, as recommended by the Wikipedia manual of style for pronunciation. I have a basic understanding of IPA, phonetics and Japanese phonology, so I can help out with this last part, but it would be better to have a real expert's comments and contributions on all this.

Here's one example of what I am having trouble following: "the correct pronunciation is Gojira (ゴジラ), as it was originally meant as the monster's name and has retained the exact writing form from era to era."

• I can't make any sense of this. Is it saying the katakana representation when pronounced in a standard Japanese accent doesn't do justice to a word in the Oto Island people's language? The section also gives an alternate kanji representation, so I'm not sure what this unchanging "exact writing form" is. Further, the previous paragraph suggests that the expected Japanese pronunciation "gojira" is not actually what is uttered in the movie, so it seems strange to now say that it is correct.

Also, I would think the claim that Japanese romanization was much less sophisticated in the 1950s could be disputed. Most of the systems in use today had already been developed long before then, but I do not know how consistently they were used. Does anyone have more information on this? -- Calcwatch 10:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Godzilla Pictures!!!!!!!!

There were twenty-eight Godzilla films, each with a Godzilla that looked a little more different than before.

WHY OH WHY do we have two of the eight pictures that actually show Godzillas in his films solely feature the Final Wars Godzilla?

And on top of that, why are they both of such horrible quality?!

There wasn't any dire need to change the picture that was there beforehand, anyway, ESPECIALLY with a picture as blurry as the one that exists there now.

The original Godzilla, regardless of the personal opinions of anybody who reads this article, was the first and inarguably most important Godzilla incarnation to have ever existed. I don't know how to edit pictures on this website, but I would ask anybody who does to replace the current, poor-quality Final Wars screencap at the top of the article with a good quality image of the original Godzilla.

Thanks

24.15.88.107 04:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Real Fixer-Upper

Okay, I've made MANY edits to the existing article.

As it was, this whole thing seemed extremely juvenile and immaturely written. I've tried to fix quite a bit as far as grammar, FACTUAL ERROR, and word choice.

Before making future edits or additions, please create a discussion here in the talk page instead of going straight into editing the article.

139.67.201.157 04:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

i just wanted to say that the revisions you made are excellent. nicely done. bunnyhero 00:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This is looking better, but it appears difficult to maintain the Godzilla pages in general. There seems to be an unfortunate combination of overly-technical adult fans and grammatically-challenged younger fans who can't grasp the concept of what constitutes an encyclopedic entry. The Lizard 22:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This whole article still needs a lot of work. In particular, the "incarnations" area is out of control. Plot descriptions of movies are not needed here (they might belong in the Godzilla (film series) article), and detailing minor variations in Godzilla's apperance, powers, and origins are also out of place in an encyclopdia entry about the character. This kind of information should be incorporated into the (film series) article, or spun off into it's own sub article. O cicat 01:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Request To Protect

We should request to have this article protected from editing for all unregistered or new users. I dont know how though. SG-17 05:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Weight

I know this article already has problems with citing its references, and I expect this point would be rather low on the priority scale for inclusion, but I'm wondering where the information on his weight(s) come from. Were those numbers cited in different films, or are they estimates by the editors and therefore OR? Thanks. --Boradis 20:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Bring Back Better Picture!!!!!!

The link http://outnow.ch/movies/2005/godzillafinalwars/img/movie.fs/03?w=1400&h=930&print=1 If anyone is logged in to wikipedia can anyone put it in wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.168.108.52 (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

The current picture doesnt do godzilla justice. --75.6.212.253 15:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to put in pictures from one site to another can anyone who does please put this picture in!

Shouldn't we include a more rounded "other media" section?

I know for a fact that besides the movies and TV series (and video games) Godzilla made appearances in comic books at least. Luis Dantas 15:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Appearences in Popular Culture

Godzilla has made *so* many cameos in popular culture and this article is quite bloated as it is. Perhaps we should turn that into a seperate article?

K00bine 08:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Godzilla having Gender

The producers of Atari have contacted Toho and they said they prefer Godzilla to be a it. But they don't mind a few "He's" here in there.

Can we somehow include this? Angry Sun 20:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A-bombs or H-bombs?

What caused Godzilla's mutation?

Apparently, according to the 1954 film, it was experimental "H-bombs" dropped in the pacific during WWII. This is innaccurate, as H-Bombs were first manufactured during the early stages of the Cold War in the 1950's, years after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (which were destroyed by A-bombs). Godzilla vs King Ghidorah confirms that Goji's mutation occurred in the mid 40's, when A-bombs were the pinnacle of nuclear weaponry. If you read the article on the original film it reads; The sediment from the monster, which Yamane named “Godzilla,” after the Odo Island god, had contained a massive amount of Strontium-90, which could have only have come from an atomic bomb. Personally, I think the writers didnt know at the time that H and A bombs were two different things. 129.12.230.169 18:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

A Lesson for you in Flim Making. The Creator of Godzilla didn't have to make it make sense. My god.

The whole series takes place in a freaking reality where Giant Monsters exist. It doesn't matter what freaking bomb they use.

It's an alternate reality. Angry Sun 22:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

TriStar

Why, may I ask, was my section discussing the 1998 American remake removed? I think it's perfectly relevant to the article, as it is part of the Godzilla franchise! Scorpionman 01:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who originally removed it, but: your most recent revert to bring it back also added a bunch of grammatical errors such as "allow" for "allowed", "it's" for "its", "repeat" for "repetition" (undoing my own edit), "fanboys" for "purists" (which is unacceptable POV), and so on. I had to read the history twice, and the talk page, to figure out that your goal was restoring that section instead of random vandalism. I've no objection to including a section on the 1998 American remake and I'd be happy to have you put that section back in - but I wasn't willing to go through the many individual changes you made simultaneously, and figure out which ones were errors and which were useful material. Please put your section back in by *just* adding it, as a new edit that does nothing else instead of reverting to a previous buggy version, and then I think your new section will get more support. 216.75.189.154 12:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

split

I took the liberty of splitting the powers and abilities of Godzilla from Godzilla. I thought that having the powers and abilities in godzilla's article was unneccesary, so I gave godzilla's powers and abilities a seperate article. - The one who wrote this. 00:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)hyuuga-sama

Just storing some pics

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/3168/pdvd005ku7.jpg http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/4839/pdvd007oh8.jpg http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/6167/pdvd008zb5.jpg Some pics for the future G-force article Dark hyena

If there's gonna be one... Angry Sun 17:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Criteria for Major enemies

Here is my logic. A major enemy must be;

A) Popular B) Have fought Godzilla more than twice (a one off must be for a very good reason) C) Must have affected Godzilla's career in some epic or personal way

Enemies like Titanosaurus, King Caesar, Orga and EBIRAH (wtf??) simply do not make the cut. They hardly had any affect on Godzilla's career, didn't prove exactly challenging, and only fought Godzilla 1-2 times.

Destroyah, though he only fought Godzilla once, makes the cut because he made the fight personal by killing Godzilla's only family. 83.100.132.62 09:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

We are not putting in a Minor Enemy thing okay. Major Enemies is for all enemies. Angry Sun 01:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox too long?

Just a thought. 83.100.132.62 18:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The most significant reason for this is the list of enemies. For purposes of neatness, I propose the only enemies listed should be the ones of upmost importance. Shorten the list to strictly King Ghidorah, MechaGodzilla, Mothra, and Gigan. The simple reason for this is that they are Godzilla's most significant adversaries and the only ones to appear as the MAIN enemy in multiple movies (e.g. Hedorah wouldn't count even though he has his own movie versus Godzilla because his other role (Final Wars) is very tertiary. Actually most monsters appearing in Final Wars could fit this profile. However we're looking for the most significant enemies in the broader scope of the franchise. These would be the ones that contribute very significantly to the plot.)

I also propose the Allies section only include Mothra, Rodan, and Anguirus for the same reason above. Yes, Godzilla had many many allies but these three were his most significant. Adding anyone else is clutter and definitely an excess of information. --208.47.40.96 05:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm just gonna make it "Allies" and "Enemies" to please you freaking IPs... Angry Sun 06:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Now that its changed back to what it was, isn't the issue of it being too long still present? Also, if we really see it necessary to list out every...single...monster that was an ally or enemy, then both lists are very incomplete. I just think it's rather silly that all of them have to be listed out. (Sorry for not realizing I was logged out. That's my post above.) --Blackbox77 12:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh... Well...I shall add to it. Jet Jaguar. Zone Fighter.

And who else? Who else who else? Angry Sun 16:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well if we wanted the infobox to be a cluttered mess, we'd still need to add King Kong, Baragon, Mecha-King Ghidora, Gabara, Kamacuras, Kumonga, Zilla, and the ever important Giant Condor to the enemies and Varan, Gorosaurus, Kumonga, Minilla, and Godzilla Jr. to the allies. However I'm saying lets not do that. First of all, do we agree that the info box is a too long? If so, I say lets limit the enemy/ally list to those monsters that are the most important. Spelling out every single one isn't just cluttered and unnecessary but comes off as unprofessional. Does anyone share this opinion?--Blackbox77 17:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well we can't make a Enemies sub-article anyway where in the main one. This is the only place for them. And G Jr. is his off-spring. Angry Sun 17:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

A strict interpretation of the world "ally" wouldn't exclude a potential ally just because they are kin. Anyway, I'm simply curious if most agree listing every single enemy and ally is unnecessary. Who those chosen to be placed in the infobox can be debated later... --Blackbox77 17:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

But as you can see. Minya and G Jr. are already in the box under Relationships. Angry Sun 17:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That's really not my point (even though I agree that Minilla and G Jr. shouldn't be included under allies). I'm talking about limiting the excess of enemies/allies in the info box. Debating who gets to be in there can be done later. AS, do you think listing every single ally and enemy Godzilla has ever had is silly? Just curious --Blackbox77 17:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I say we should keep it. There's no other place for us to put all these enemies. Unless we can make a Enemies area somewhere in the article. Angry Sun 17:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

AS, I'm flattered you took my advice even though I said don't do it. ;) Actually, I agree - a separate space in the article dedicated to allies and enemies sounds far more interesting. Maybe limit the number of each that appear in the infobox and a greater list elsewhere in the article. And it wouldn't make the beginning of Godzilla's article look messy and cluttered. Maybe do that? --Blackbox77 17:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the main article (discussing each iteration of Godzilla) already details who he allied and fought with. That information along with the Toho Tokusatsu template already lists out all the monsters. A third gigantic list might just be excess. --Blackbox77 18:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure it lists all the monsters? I could swear it forgets one... Angry Sun 18:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If not, just add it. I only bring all this up because I felt like listing them all in the infobox was unnecessary. Listing them else where seems far more affective. --Blackbox77 18:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of it does seem to be fanwank. --CLS 14:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Character description

Who keeps taking out the powers and abilities for the main article? The main article is about Godzilla the character himself so it makes sense to keep that section in there. I think the way the article was restructed was done badly. There was a lot of extraneous stuff that could have been included in subarticles like the film series article or Godzilla in popular culture article. This new version seems to focus on these things and barely talks about Godzilla at all. Instead of a long list of movies followed by a synopsis of each movie, why not create a fictional biography of Godzilla for each era?

Because there was one... What did you do to it? The last version was perfect. :| Angry Sun 04:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There it's back...

What the crap happened...!?! Angry Sun 04:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Living underwater

As a fictional creation, you can't assume that Godzilla's biology matches the biology of other water-living creatures. And since none of the films has ever explained how Godzilla manages to live underwater, I think the article should only state that Godzilla has the ability to live underwater without guessing how he manages to do so. --66.31.159.229 03:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A. He was iraddiated under the water.
B. Every Movie shows him coming out of the Water. With the exception of where the plot calls for him to come out of another entrance.
C. He sleeps in the Water.(As revealed in a book I believe)
D. Every Movie has shown him going back to the Water. Angry Sun 03:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Godzilla has also been shown coming out of, and sleeping in, lava and magma. That doesn't mean that he can breathe molten rock. Unless we can cite a reference or movie that says Godzilla can breathe underwater (or hold his breath for months at a time), the article should just say that he can live under the water and not make guesses. --24.97.157.2 03:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It says in Godzilla's Revenge that he can breathe underwater. Though the canonicity of that film is dubious, it's a start, at least, and it's consistant with his description as a transitional form in the original movie.

K00bine 15:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Flight

Which WikiNazi removed my addition of *flight* from Godzillas powers? More people would search a Godzilla Wiki to find out the rare and unusual fun facts than to find the obvious (he's big and has atomic breath). Whoever did it needs to dust off Godzilla vs. Smogmonster and give it a spin ASAP. In the meantime put my contribution back so not to embarrass yourself and to have this already flawed wiki be as complete and accurate as possible. Unbelievable. Cadillacula 09:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Re-added (forgot to sign) - DO NOT MESS WITH MY SHIZNIT AGAIN. Misinformed police please refer directly to the movie in question via this link: [1] Boo Yah! --Cadillacula 22:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the section detailing Godzilla's atomic breath that he used it to fly once. You probably didn't read the article carefully enough.

K00bine 15:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Species

Who keeps changing godzilla's species from Godzillasaurus to Tyrannosaurus it is never said in any of the movies that he was. Also he was only from a Godzillasaurus in the Heisei series and it was never determined what he was in the Showa or Millennium series so I do think we need to mention that

It's probably just n00bs who think he's a T-Rex crossed with a Stegosaurus... Angry Sun 03:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

But It was explained in G vs.KG that the Godzillasaur if left on the island would become the Godzilla that would attack Tokyo in 1954. SG-17 15:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Biollante and SpaceGodzilla are NOT Godzillas siblings

Dictionary definition of brother/sister; a male/female offspring having both parents in common with another offspring; a male/female sibling.

Were Bio and Space-G born from the same parents as Godzilla? No.

Biollante was created by artificially merging Godzilla's own cells with a rose; therefore, she is a CLONE. SpaceGodzilla was a regenerated form of Biollante with the plant parts filtered out and replaced with crystal. He is a clone as well. So enough with the brother, sister BS. 87.102.38.60 21:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

She is his sister... Because Godzilla's Cells went into her... Thus making Biollante his sibling... His Clone Sibling... Same with Spacegodzilla... Angry Sun 02:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that does not make her his sister, it makes her his clone. They did not share the same parentage, therefore they cannot by definition be brother or sister. They are creatures artificially grown from his cells, they're therefore once again; clones. 87.102.35.224 17:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Toho's Word over yours. Angry Sun 18:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:King vs. king.jpg

Image:King vs. king.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Godzilla knows kung fu?

I noticed that the article is categorized in fictional martial artists. Is Godzilla really a martial artist? Just wondering, as he never struck me as a sensei; he's more like a giant mutated lizard. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 03:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That misconception comes from the suit actors doing martial arts like moves during the Showa Era.--CLS 06:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What is Godzilla's IQ?

I did not find out Godzilla's intelligence from this article. He seems to grow smarter from film to film, I want to know the reason of this. Perhaps on going atomic effect in his brain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3