# Talk:King Kong vs. Godzilla

I've owned this film for about a year, but am leaving it purposefully unwatched until I've seen 'King Kong' [now done], 'Godzilla' [now done], 'Godzilla Rides Again' and 'Son Of Kong'.  My query is...with Kong dying at the end of his adventure in 1931 [year from Wold Newton], and Kiko dying after his film...and 'Godzilla' stated in dialogue as 1954...who fights Godzilla in this film?? Godzilla himself I understand [see the Wold Newton Godzilla timeline for his resurrection], but not Kong!
The King Kong in this film has NOTHING to do with original Hollywood one. This Kong is a Japanese interpretation and is a new beast with a new back story. This is like how the Hollywood Godzilla is utterly different then the one from the TOHO films, in terms of origin and continuity.

The Original Godzilla is much, much larger than the Original Kong anyway.

Godzilla is around 400' tall. King Kong is only about 30' tall, making Godzilla approximately 370 feet taller than King Kong. The movie shows them as about equal in size. Did King Kong Grow or did Godzilla shrink?74.100.47.237 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 23:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Out of all of the films in Godzilla, this is my favorite so far. Commander Lightning  —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC). 

I know this comment is over a decade old now, but please keep in mind that this is a talk page, and as such, its purpose is to be a place to discuss improvements to the King Kong vs. Godzilla article. It is not meant to be a forum for general discussion of the film. –Matthew - (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

There is a section that is critical of Kong's suit and SFX which reads more like an editorial. I know a film of this age has few sources available to provide a citation of such opinion, but is there a way to rephrase? Thanks.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Originaldave77 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC) 

In the US version, when the scientists in the submarine are looking at Godzilla trying to melt his way out of the iceberg, one of the soldiers asks why the iceberg is glowing, and one of the men says something that sounds like Chandrasekhar limit.  I'm just curious as to what was actually said. 199.60.146.153 (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Chelenkhov Light.
http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/16/usah.jpg
The captain asks the question and one of the scientists answers him. He says the same thing in the Japanese version. In the Japanese version the American actors speak English with Japanese subtitles on the screen.
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/876/japansh.jpg
Giantdevilfish (talk) 04:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the definiton.  So Godzilla's spines glow because of Cherenkov radiation.  Interesting. 142.26.194.190 (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

King Kong was 40 feet tall. Godzilla was over 400 feet tall. Not only that, but Godzilla could breath fire. One atomic sneeze and the movie would have ended with Godzilla the winner and King Kong a pile of smoldering ashes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.52.87 (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC) 

In the original Japanese version of Gojira 1954 Godzilla's heighth is given as 150 feet which seems to be in proportion to the miniature buildings, etc. In the Americanized version Godzilla, King of the Monsters edited from Gojira, Godzilla's heighth is given as 400 feet for some unknown reason. Obviously, the Kong of KKvG1962 is not the same Kong as KK1933 (who was much handsomer anyway). Naaman Brown (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes Godzilla's height is 164 feet (50 meters). That is what is stated in the original japanese version of the film by Dr.Yamane. This is also what is written in numerous Toho books and periodicals. That is how they scaled the miniatures in relation to the suit actor. In the Americanized version of the film, they wanted to over-exaggerate Godzilla's height by having Raymond Burr's character state he was 400 feet tall. That is more then twice the size of Godzilla's actual height in the film!!!Giantdevilfish (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I've looked through this article and find it meets all the criteria for a B-class article. I welcome other views and have no problem if anybody disagrees. I'd just ask that they mention what criteria it fails and why. Thanks. 64.40.54.160 (talk) 10:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the lack of sources enough? I've assessed it as a C-class article. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems there are some users who wish to add Legendary's Godzilla vs. Kong in a section titled "Remake/Reboot". I do agree that Legendary's Godzilla vs. Kong deserves a mention in the article but giving the film its own section that implies it is a remake/reboot is inaccurate. There are no sources cited or provided confirming that Legendary's Godzilla vs. Kong is a remake or reboot of Toho's version. They coincidentally share a similar title but they're two totally different unrelated films. Legendary's film will not follow the same story, characters, or cues of any kind from Toho's version like remakes do and it is not a reboot because Legendary did not announce it as a reboot or a remake, they announced it as the fourth film in their cinematic franchise. To say Legendary's Godzilla vs. Kong is a remake/reboot is synthesis which is in violation of wiki's WP:SYNTH guidelines. I've added a mention of Legendary's version in the Legacy section because it is more appropriate than giving it its own inaccurate section. Armegon (talk) 10:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Just because Godzilla and King Kong are crossing paths again doesn't necessarily mean its a remake or "reboot" of this particular film. Universal and Toho aren't even involved in its production and there is no evidence it will follow the same storyline or themes of this film. Its just a new movie featuring these two characters that is tied into a shared universe that Legendary Pictures and Warner Brothers are building together. So I agree that its not a remake or reboot of this particular movie, just like there is no evidence that Kong Skull Island will be a prequel and tied into the 1933, 1976 or 2005 remakes of King Kong.Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC).
Exactly. Hence why a "remake/reboot" section is unnecessary unless Legendary confirms it. The main users who keep re-adding the remake/reboot section are mainly anonymous IP users. Is there any way to stop prevent their further disruptive editing? Armegon (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The "Mushroom Clouds and Mushroom Men" book is a self-published book, and therefore not appropriate for Wikipedia. Can we remove it and it's content/replace it with reliably sourced content? Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Wether its self published or not the source that is used are actual quotes and data taken from Japanese source materialsGiantdevilfish (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on King Kong vs. Godzilla. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141016003938/http://www.nihon-eiga.com/program/detail/nh10005863_0001.html to http://www.nihon-eiga.com/program/detail/nh10005863_0001.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140306095452/http://www.toho-a-park.com/godzilla-60th/ to http://www.toho-a-park.com/godzilla-60th/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061121135826/http://www.tohokingdom.com/web_pages/lost_projects/godzilla_vs_king_kong91.htm to http://www.tohokingdom.com/web_pages/lost_projects/godzilla_vs_king_kong91.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061121135913/http://www.tohokingdom.com/web_pages/lost_projects/godzilla_vs_mechani_kong.htm to http://www.tohokingdom.com/web_pages/lost_projects/godzilla_vs_mechani_kong.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on King Kong vs. Godzilla. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160507195019/http://www.nihon-eiga.com/osusume/shin-godzilla/ to http://www.nihon-eiga.com/osusume/shin-godzilla/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726152550/http://www.historyvortex.org/KawakitaInterview.html to http://www.historyvortex.org/KawakitaInterview.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I wanna address this Wikipedia page for the film needs to be updated on it’s facts regarding the ending and the outcome. The final fight is confirmed a draw as the ending was too ambiguous to decide the winner. 
In every Japanese document, including the screenplay and script, it's non-conclusive. Only one English-language sales brochure from 1963 says Kong won. But that does not make it so. Plus that brochure was made for western audiences. And was released during the 1963 English dub of the film. 
As I said, that alleged "win" appeared in ONE English-language brochure (as I noted, above). That’s it. No other source by Toho says Kong won other than that one outdated source. All other original Japanese text documents do not declare a win for either monster. Also Tomoyuki Tanaka officially declared the final fight a draw in his Toho official book called “Definitive Edition Godzilla Introduction”. 
Here are translated pages from the book to confirm it.
https://mykaiju.com/investigating-godzilla/6/
https://mykaiju.com/investigating-godzilla/7
Keep in mind, Tomoyuki Tanaka was the President Of Toho’s Film Division at the time. So he had more say over the film’s he produced.
So, unless you produce this "multiple" documents, don't insult me. I read Japanese. This is clearly not so. Please do not make stuff up. Thanks! SG1994! (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not clear what you're talking about here. A quick check of your contributions page shows that you hadn't made any edits to either the article or this talk page for at least a year prior to the above post, so where did anyone insult you or claim the existence of multiple documents without specifying them, and why are you replying to them here instead of on the discussion page where they said these things? Martin IIIa (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:King Kong vs. Godzilla/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 22:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
The poster image is appropriately tagged.

There are three fair use images, which is a lot; you need outstanding reasons to have that many.  I think the best FUR is for the O'Brien painting.  The other two seem unnecessary to me: the purification ceremony is just a group of people standing with the monsters -- one wouldn't know it was purification ceremony from the image, so there's no understanding gained from it.  The image of Tsuburaya is not much better -- at the scale needed for fair use, the octopus is just a vague blob.  I would suggest cutting both of these.
What makes the following reliable sources?
vantagepointinterviews.com -- per this page it appears to be a one-man operation.
Brett has worked and is involved in various trustworthy publications as I have already stated below, and the site's articles are interviews with people involved in the production of these films so I believe this source should stay. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 9:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
eiga-chirashi.jp
From what I can see, this site falls under the WP:USERGENERATED criteria as unacceptable since it is an archive of materials such as film posters and flyers, and should be removed. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 9:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
jpbox-office.com
ld-dvd-bluray.2-d.jp
the-numbers.com -- per this page it started as a one-person site, and it's not clear that's ever changed.
The Numbers has generally reliable coverage on box office numbers, and the "about us" article states that the site "started small but had big ambitions", and then goes on to note that "we have achieved and exceeded those objectives", proclaiming that the site is written and updated by more than one individual. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 9:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
historyvortex.org -- seems to be a fan site
movies.about.com -- see discussion of about.com at WP:RS/PS
g-fan.com
"Merian C. Cooper was bitterly opposed to the project": suggest making this "Merian C. Cooper, the producer of the 1933 King Kong film, was bitterly opposed to the project"; non-aficionados will have no idea why Cooper's opinion is relevant.
'Years later, Honda stated in an interview. "I don't think a monster should ever be a comical character." "The public is more entertained when the great King Kong strikes fear into the hearts of the little characters."' Are these both quotes from Honda?  The second one is unattributed.
" in particular the movies of Toyonobori": should this be "moves" rather than "movies"?
"Finishing its theatrical run with a total estimated gross of approximately $10,367,650 worldwide." This is not a complete sentence.
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I was the one who uploaded those images and the reason was to give the reader a better visual understanding of the production such as Tsuburaya literally creating an effect (the octopus), and to show the suit actors (along with Tsuburaya) to give a visual as to how they were brought to life on film, since almost all of the effects featuring the title characters were done with actors in suits. It was all about giving readers a visual perspective. The inspiration came from a picture of Andy Serkis acting as Kong that appears on the King Kong (2005 film) page.Giantdevilfish (talk)
I understand your argument but I'm afraid I'm not convinced they are necessary for the reader to understand -- that is, that the text cannot convey the same information.  If you don't want to remove them, I can ask another editor who is expert on images to take a look, if you like.  I could also list this for a second opinion at GAN, but that could take many months. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I just wanted to add that years ago there was a brief discussion about the images in question here [[1]]. The quote "I think the two production photos are reasonable to include per discussion of what's being stated in the text." refers to the 2 images in question. The other images that were discussed were considered OK to delete. (It was a rerelease poster, the US poster and a comic book cover).Giantdevilfish (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
That is helpful, thanks.  I'm not convinced myself, but I can see it's not an unreasonable position.  I will see if I can ask an image expert to stop by; if no-one has time I'll mark the review as requiring a second opinion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 20:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with removing the purification image, for the reasons expressed by Mike. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for being late, I'm the nominator and didn't expect a review to come this soon anyways. In the case of G-Fan, it is an independent magazine published by Daikaiju Enterprises by professionals, and vantagepointinterviews.com, the site owner Brett Homenick is a professional (IIRC), so I feel these two sources should be retained. These interviews also include interviews with those involved in the production of the film, some of whom are no longer able to be interviewed, so this information can only be found in these sources. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 8:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
OK on G-Fan.  Can you find something that demonstrates Homenick is a professional in the field?  I agree that would probably do it. Any thoughts on the others? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I can't find much on Homenick other than his interviews with people for G-Fan (which is written by professionals) and Vantage Point Interviews, as well as his interviews in trusted publications such as this & this. Anyways, as for the other sources, I think ld-dvd-bluray.2-d.jp should be removed as I have found nothing to prove it isn't an independent-owned site, and I'll leave the others to be talked about someday soon. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 5:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
I consider jpbox-office.com, historyvortex.org, and movies.about.com to not meet the Reliability criteria of this site, so I am removing them as well as the content using these sites as references. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 10:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
OK -- if you would post a note here when you're through removing them, I'll take another look then.  Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: I've removed them. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 11:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Looks like historyvortex.com and ld-dvd-bluray.2-d.jp are still in the article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Their all truly gone now. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 5:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
I've struck some other points that are addressed above.  It looks like you agree that eiga-chirashi.jp should be removed?  It's still in the article.  There are also two other points above that you haven't responded to -- the request to remove the purification ceremony picture, and the incomplete sentence.  That just leaves the two remaining sources which we're looking at the reliability of.  I've posted about these at the RSN and pinged you to that thread. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

In regards to the purification ceremony pic, is the point of contention that's it's described as a purification ceremony which is not discussed in the article? I described it as such because that is what is happening in the image but that wasn't the reason I uploaded it.  It was to show the suit actors in costume alongside the spfx director since the costume designs are discussed in the body of the article. If it description of the image was reworded would it still be an issue?Giantdevilfish (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
I've changed the incomplete sentence to read "Overall, the film is estimated to have earned $8,700,000 worldwide", as for the ceremony picture I feel the use of an image featuring the Godzilla & Kong suits or their actors is necessary, but since the ceremony isn't mentioned in the text, I believe it could be replaced with a pic of Tsuburaya directing Nakajima and Hirose. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 10:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
@Giantdevilfish, The issue is not the discussion of the image but the fact that there are three fair use images in the article.  I asked for a second opinion on this and Nikkimaria commented above that she thought it should be removed.  @Eiga-Kevin2, is the pic you're considering replacing it with also fair use?  If so it wouldn't resolve the issue.
I've struck a couple more points above; we're now down to just the two sources (which I'm hoping we'll get a consensus on at RSN) and the image. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: I'm considering replacing the ceremony photo with a public domain file, like this one: [2] or this one. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 11:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
What's the evidence that either of those is public domain? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I realized most of the film's production stills should be in the public domain as they where published &/or photographed in Japan between 1962-1963 (per [3]). - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 12:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
OK -- how about if you upload those three to Commons and link those versions?  I am not expert enough to be certain about that tag but it does seem reasonable, and if the images survive on Commons then you're good to go. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that I've uploaded the Giant Octopus picture to Commons before and it got deleted because it was still copyrighted in the United States, since the one used on the article is fair use and is kind of unnecessary I believe it should be deleted as well. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 1:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't follow -- are you suggesting that File:KKvGoctopus.jpg should be deleted?  It's not on commons and it's OK for en-wiki to host fair use pictures. But if the giant octopus picture got deleted it implies the PD Japan template you linked to doesn't apply to these, in which case we're back to saying they're all fair use.  I really recommend you delete the purification ceremony one from the article.  It doesn't add anything significant. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I've removed the ceremony image, are you suggesting keeping the Octopus pic? Because I feel it should be removed. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 2:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Up to you. My main objection was to the number of fair use images.  I think if I were editing the article I would remove it, but Nikki's comment above did not suggest removing it so I think it's your call. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I've removed it, now it's just the remaining two sources to be discussed. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 2:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks.  Let's wait and see if anyone comments on them at the RSN thread. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Have struck my objection to The Numbers, so just the one source left at issue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Why was the octopus image removed? There was no consensus to remove the image. You even brought Nikkimaria in and she had no objection to the image. You and Kevin want it removed, Nikki and I felt it was OK.  That's not consensus.Giantdevilfish (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
It's not a GA issue -- personally I wouldn't keep it, but I think it's an issue for editors of the article to work out on the talk page.  It won't affect whether this article passes GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
vantagepointinterviews.com has been removed for reasons I've explained on the RSN thread. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 11:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
OK -- that was the last issue.  Passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

King Kong vs. Godzilla.png
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)