# Talk:Godzilla Minus One

Godzilla.com and other Japan-leaning sources are referring to the current 11/3/23 release as Godzilla’s 70th anniversary, probably due to the way Japan counts ages.
Is the wiki standard to default to a western understanding of ages/anniversaries where something starts at 0 instead of 1? 71.193.203.242 (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

That's weird. The 70th anniversary would be 2024. 2023 would mark the 69th anniversary. Those are the correct numbers. I'm not sure if rounding the number is a Japanese thing but we should stick to the correct number and simply state in the body that Japanese sources are rounding the number. Unless it's not a Japanese thing and the Japanese sources are getting it wrong? Armegon (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
It's not rounding, it's the way Japan counts birthdays and anniversaries: starting at 1 instead of 0.
In the west we would consider 1954 to be year 0 and 1955 to be year 1, so 2023 would be year 69 and 2024 would be year 70.
In Japan, they consider 1954 to be year 1, 1955 to be year 2, so 2022 would be year 69, and 2023 is year 70.
Please see the official announcement from the studio where they refer to it as the 70th. This should be a definitive source on how it's being handled, unless there is a wikipedia standard to enforce a western-style understanding of birthdays/anniversaries? — https://godzilla.com/news/production-of-the-latest-godzilla-movie-confirmed/ 71.193.203.242 (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Godzilla.com says "For the 70th Anniversary of Godzilla’s inception, we’re celebrating a year early!". It's possible that the film is being produced for the 70th Anniversary of the franchise (2024) but Toho is releasing it prior to avoid conflict with the GvK sequel at the box office in Japan. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 13:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
That makes sense. Toho and Legendary's contract forbids Toho from releasing a domestic Godzilla film in the same year as Legendary's Godzilla film to avoid either competition, confusion, or both. So technically, the 70th anniversary will still fall in 2024 in Japan. Armegon (talk) 03:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Robot's official webpage for the film, along with this and this site credits Toho as 製作, which has been called "Presenter" by official English sources in the past (an example of this being Shin Ultraman). It appears English-language sites are erroneously crediting Toho as the producer of the film instead of Robot. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't speak Japanese and am forced to use google translate and google translate says "Production: Toho Co. , Ltd." Considering Godzilla is Toho's property and they did produce the last 4 Toho films, we should stick with them being one of the co-production studios for now until the inevitable English press notes are released. Armegon (talk) 03:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
I've been researching nearly all day on who are the production companies. I've found two Japanese sources that say Toho Studios is co-producing the film with Robot. These sites are otocoto and natalie. Should I go ahead and add this info to the article citing these sites since they are generally reliable sources? Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah. That seems like a good idea. Armegon (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Also claims the film is set in the same world as Shin Godzilla.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robsalkowitz/2023/07/11/godzilla-spotted-approaching-america-toho-international-announces-new-creature-feature/ giftheck (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

So I recently made an edit that was reverted and I believe it should be on the page. The edit was about the design of this Godzilla, but it does not seem to have a designated section. So I was wondering if we could make a section related to the design of this particular Godzilla. Thank you for your time!! 24.121.69.2 (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Armegon: Why revert my edit? Sources have stated that it is strongly inspired by the 1954 film to the point that it is now considered a at least in part remake, and have you seen the footage from the trailer? Its undeniable, so why revert? 2404:4404:2A28:5300:D904:8031:A13D:EA70 (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
That's your analysis and it doesn't belong on Wiki. Toho, or other RELIABLE sources for that matter, do not  confirm it as a remake. It may be inspired by G54, but it's not BASED on it. See Template:Infobox film and MOS:FILMLEAD, there's a major difference between "inspired by" and "based on". We do not combine different sources or opinions to form a conclusion, per WP:SYNTH. We go by what reliable sources confirm, per WP:RS. Armegon (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Please note WP:FILMAUDIENCE and WP:UGC which state that user voted web polls are not reliable and should generally not be used in Wikipedia film articles in most cases. In this article the review aggregators ja:Filmarks and ja:Eiga.com both appear to be aggregators of only user votes (like IMDB votes, which are not allowed) not reputable film critics (unlike Metacritic or Allocine [fr], which are allowed). These kinds of user votes are not normally allowed, but sometimes exceptions are made when these types of scores are reported by other reputable sources or if there is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS among editors. -- 109.76.135.251 (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Can someone fact check the freon being used to aerate the water?
Then English dub states the freon creates a membrane around godzilla making it sink. 
freon is also denser than water, so if you aerate the water with it the water itself becomes more bouyant.
I think the idea was to create a dense pocket that envelops godzilla and makes it sink, not to aerate the water and change the buoyancy? Lios959 (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The dub: I noticed quite a few translation errors that even I could pick up on. (My Japanese is elementary school level at best.) I wouldn't trust the dub on mundane translations, letalone some made up scifi technobabble.
Membrane: No membrane will make things float or sink. That's not how boyancy works. Otherwise we would just coat a peace of brick in it and make floating brickhouses.
Freon: Freon is only denser than water in liquidform. And Freon stays liquid in average sea temperature around -10 to 10 Celcius, at 2-4 bars. That is 2-4 atmospheres. So this thing has to be deployed at or below 1-3m depth at least, otherwise it immediately turns into gas and it is no more effective than a loud fart. And guess what, Feron's density as a gas is a fraction of water. Even as a liquid it wouldn't be dense enough to sink it to 1800m under water level. you would need stupid quantity of Freon.
TLDR: no, it doesn't work that way, it's a monster movie. Bobsyourdeaduncle (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The assertment of universal critical acclaim seems like an editorializing overstatement. The many sources establishing critical acclaim do not support "universal". It seems like a case of citation overkill, and the phrase "Attributed to multiple references" seems confused.
I suggest making the sentence read "Godzilla Minus One has received critical acclaim", supported by one or two references. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 00:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems only one source says "universal" acclaim. Armegon (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Oh, one source really said "universal" – I missed that. Anyway, sources should support facts, not determine what language we use: encyclopedic. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 08:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Change made (again). —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 13:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Wait so, why are we not following suit with the acclaim statement and doing what pages like Barbie, Oppenheimer, and Shin Godzilla do? The "Attributed to multiple references:" statement is used as a general indicator to stop users from changing the information to read something like "mostly positive" based on what one or two references have said. I get what WP:CITEKILL says but why is it used on the other pages? & I'm not using all of those footnotes after a single word. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I have to agree with St.Nerol. Adding multiple sources to an "attributed to multiple sources" footnote is excessive. I think that method of citing should be reserved for edits that would likely be challenged. E.g. with Shin Godzilla and Western reviews; so many fanboys are unwilling to accept that not everyone thinks that film is a masterpiece, despite what multiple sources reflect. But in most cases, sometimes two reliable sources are sufficient. Armegon (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I started a similar discussion over at The Dark Knight. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 20:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 Reverted whatever happened here per MOS:ACCLAIMED and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. "A few" sources are not sufficient to support claims such as "critical acclaim". See also related discussions at Talk:The Dark Knight#"Attributed to multiple references" and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#"Attributed to multiple references", also started by this user. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I disagree with this reversion. Let's see where the other ongoing discussions end up. –—St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 13:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I noticed every other source I could find in Japan and overseas seems to say the film received critical acclaim and Shūkan Gendai (which I'm told isn't the most reliable Japanese source) is the only one saying Japan had a mixed response based on the comments of one critic they interviewed. Should we just go by this one source or stand by what everyone else is saying in this case? Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd recommend removing it outright if it's unreliable and is the only source making that claim. Armegon (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Hang on, I've finally found another one claiming the film had mixed Japanese reviews now (though I also found out Toho Entertainment said it had "rave reviews" in Japan). Seems alright to keep the claim though critical Japanese reviews for the film available online seem more mixed-to-positive. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
In that case, yeah -- leave as is and add the other "mixed" source. Would be beneficial to illustrate different nationalistic perspectives. Armegon (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I read the source; it says "they ARE mixed reviews in Japan" not that reviews in Japan are mixed. So you were posting incorrect information. Bigbossbalrog (talk) 01:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Furthermore, the first article is a discussion on why the movie got so much acclaim overseas, its about a single reviewers opinion, it never mentions anything on a mixed consensus.
https://gendai.media/articles/-/123893
Sources have already been posted about a positive aggregate from Japanese critics.
 Bigbossbalrog (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Ugh. Not this again. First of all, I expect you to keep your conduct as civil as possible. No edit warring, no ignoring guidelines, or hostilities like you did at Shin Godzilla and Talk:Shin Godzilla – otherwise your time here will be short. That said, I don't know what translator you're using. I'm using Translator by uLanguage and it translates the text as "It seems that there are mixed reviews in Japan". For the Gendai Media article, it translates as "The ``surprising reason`` why ``Godzilla-1.0,`` which received mixed reviews in Japan, generated overwhelming enthusiasm overseas."
We can rewrite the text as "Source A and Source B reported that Japanese reviews were mixed" instead of implying a general mixed reception. Armegon (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I used Google Translate. But I think that's appropriate if it's kept in the Reception section, rather then the top header, which should just state it's general critical reception, as those two sources by themselves aren't comprehensive.
Someone already found a contradiction to those two other sources, but since it's from Toho themselves, it's probably not creditable. Bigbossbalrog (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
If think the articles indicate something less grand then "critical acclaim", we can change it to "received a positive reception from critics" in the top header. Bigbossbalrog (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Right, I understand what you are trying to do here but there are a few issues arising with what you're saying and doing regarding covering the critical reviews in Japan. First of all, Japanese reviews are not included on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic and the country doesn't have its own critical review aggregator but instead features audience review sites so we don't know exactly if it had acclaim or mixed response. Gendai's article which we cite for the mixed reviews has an interview with a Japanese film critic that goes in-depth explaining why Japanese reviews were more mixed compared to overseas and has some convincing statements made by the critic on the matter (see page 3). Yes, Toho Entertainment may have said otherwise but what they said ("全国にて絶賛公開中です") can be interpreted in several ways and doesn't specify that it is referring to critics.
Also you need to discuss these kinds of things before going ahead and making an edit just because nobody replied or objected to a suggestion you made here. Unless you find multiple reliable sources that say it had critical acclaim in Japan it's best to leave this and add {{Dubious}} to the page rather than adding it right away and then ensuing edit wars with other users. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
If aggregates don't exist, you can infer reception from the massive amount of awards Minus One was nominated and won in Japan, as shown on the award page?
The fact of the matter is, there's two sources saying it got a more mixed reception. Which is one more then the other. And that Gendai article, does it provide citation about these other mixed reviews or it it a blanket statement from this one reviewer? Again if there's no aggregate, a very limited amount of articles, alongside Toho saying it got good reviews. I don't think there's enough evidence eitherway to say if it got critical acclaim or mixed acclaim from Japan. Which is why leaving it as "generally positive reviews in the top" and giving a mention to the two articles that talk about a more mixed reception in Japan is the best approach.
We have dozens of articles from reliable sources saying it received critical acclaim world-wide. Bigbossbalrog (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Yet almost all reliable sources ignore Japanese reviews entirely, don't they? I've found most Japanese sources don't mention local critics' opinions at all and only say it obtained critical acclaim overseas. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
So once again, the only thing that mentions the general reception directly (without taking awards in consideration) are those three sources?
If that's the case, I think how it is now accurately present the movie's reception.
Would it be possible to look at individual Japanese movie reviews and use all of them as sources for a general reception? Bigbossbalrog (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
And I apologize for my methodology to both you and Armegon. I tried to approach it better then with Shin, but it seems it wasn't quite right either. Bigbossbalrog (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
"Infer reception from the massive amount of awards Minus One was nominated and won in Japan" is a violation of WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." The two Japanese sources provided specifically confirm the mixed reception. Per WP:CITEKILL: "it is better to cite a couple of great sources than a stack of decent or sub-par ones." Two sources have already been provided, so it seems more than enough to keep it. Armegon (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Japanese and Western aggregates have both collected an overwhelming majority of positive reviews as detailed under the sources. Two articles claiming otherwise are not considered reliable sources. I will be removing them. Bigbossbalrog (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

BTW, the source that people were using to claim that reviews in Japan were mixed was either an error or done intentionally. It states, "they ARE mixed reviews in Japan" not that reviews in Japan are mixed."  Which is very different. The Japanese aggregate site shows a generally positive reaction from Japanese critics. Bigbossbalrog (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Second , the first article is a discussion on why the movie got so much acclaim overseas, its about a single reviewers opinion, it never mentions anything on a mixed consensus.
https://gendai.media/articles/-/123893 135.23.153.250 (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
@Bigbossbalrog Must we go over this again? Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 04:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I'd like to add that it's rather odd that the current iteration of the section on the movie's reception in Japan extensively references an American critic insulting Japanese critics, specifically with insults that that appear similar to weird cold war era red baiting, rather than actually directly referencing actual Japanese critics. Which critics are accusing the movie of jingoism and also shouldn't be taken seriously because of their left wing views? Do we have serious sources for those critics being evil leftists or is it just one American guy's opinion? Is the political accusation worth including in the article? Of course it's inevitable that english language wikipedia will be biased in favor of english language sources, but this seems like an excessive example of that to me. I understand the "a few great sources are better than many good sources" thing but I don't agree that the subjective, politicized, grievance-tinged opinions of a single writer from the other side of the planet is a great source for the perspective of j
Japanese critics. Apologies for not formatting this properly I'm very confused by the wikipedia formatting language — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.222.239.80 (talk • contribs) 

Currently there is no description of the contents of the film in the opening section. There should be a brief description of what the film is about. I haven't seen it, so I can't add it myself. Perhaps just say that it gives Godzilla's backstory or something, if that's what it did. Uchiha Itachi 25 (talk) 08:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It should be all good now, I've just added a brief description there Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Eiga-Kevin2: Why did you delete his reaction from the Critical response section? Seems pertinent enough to warrant an inclusion, since his came from Japan and strengthens the point of its mixed reception there. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to cut the page down and just felt Schilling's opinion on it being a bit nationalistic already covers that Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 06:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Sources: [2] [3] GojiraFan1954 (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Would love some explanation in this. Shelter3 (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

In the film, it is shown that Japan was in a state of zero after World War II. But during Godzilla's Ginza attack, that was where he put Japan at Minus One. GojiraFan1954 (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)