Talk:Godzilla (franchise)

message: The user "heiseigodzilla425" at Toho Kingdom explains this situation better than I could
(at https://www.tohokingdom.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1751278&sid=6962a6bb5c6ed8a0c2e01c1ff72579e9#p1751278):
I tweaked a few things  from the user's post to clarify some finer points, FYI.
"I'm not sure where/when people started thinking that Echo Bridge or Lionsgate owned Godzilla vs. Biollante, but Miramax has always owned it. After Disney sold off Miramax [in 2011], Miramax made a deal with Echo Bridge and Lionsgate to distribute their titles, and split the titles roughly 50/50 between the two distributors, with Lionsgate taking on the more popular titles. After some time, the deal with Echo Bridge expired, and Lionsgate inherited the Echo Bridge titles, but everything was still sublicensed through Miramax. When Lionsgate took over the distribution for Biollante, they merely released whatever Echo Bridge did, and swapped out Echo Bridge's logo with Lionsgate's logo. (As a side note, I have no idea if the Lionsgate pressings have the same audio issues that the initial Echo Bridge pressings had).
I have no idea if Lionsgate still has a distribution deal with Miramax. If they don't, then that will easily explain why Biollante is OOP these days. If they do still have that distribution deal, then that may be an indication that the rights for Biollante have reverted back to Toho. If we consider that Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah and Godzilla vs. Mothra (1992) may have reverted back already (since that Blu-ray combo pack is apparently OOP, and Keith Aiken stated that those films' renewal dates were in 2019), and assume (with extra emphasis on this being an assumption) that Toho's contracts for distribution rights from around 1989-1992 would have been fairly consistent, then it is not unlikely that Biollante's distribution rights reverted from Miramax back to Toho."
--JFP (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: We really shouldn't base info on what's found on forums. If there's a reliable source that confirms the contrary, then changing the current licensor back to Miramax, or whoever, would be warranted. Armegon (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems legit. I wouldn't mind reverting the licensor back to Miramax. Armegon (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  All evidence strongly suggests that Miramax currently has the US rights to Godzilla vs. Biollante, not Lionsgate 

message: The "Oodako" (大ダコ)  from King Kong vs. Godzilla is literally just a giant octopus.  "Oodako" simply means "giant (or big) octopus" in Japanese.
Hence why edited its name from "the Oodako" to "the Oodako (Giant Octopus)".
Maybe it should just be called "Giant Octopus" with a note saying that "Oodako" means "Giant Octopus" in Japnaese. Or the other way around.
[ Source: https://www.tohokingdom.com/kaiju/giant_octopus.htm]
Same thing with the "Ookondoru" (大コンドル) from Ebirah, Horror of the Deep. "Ookondoru" literally means "giant (or big) condor" in Japanese. Plus "Kondoru" is simply a Japanese transliteration of the Western term "Condor" (unlike "Oodako", which derives from "Tako", the Japanese word for "Octopus".  When why in "King Kong vs. Godzilla", when the "Oodako" attacks, people yell "Tako", and one of the main characters think they're talking about his boss Mr. Tako).
Confusingly, when the "Ookondoru" makes a cameo (via stock from Ebirah) in All Monsters Attack, in the original Japanese language version, its called "Oowashi" (大ワシ , literally "Giant Eagle" in Japanese) by the character Ichiro.
[ source: https://www.tohokingdom.com/kaiju/giant_condor.htm ; https://www.tohokingdom.com/kaiju/giant_eagle.html ]
The giant sea louse in Return of Godzilla is unnamed in the film itself.
But official Japanese guidebooks give it the name ショッキラス (which when directly romanized is spelled "Shokkirasu"). English language fans seemed to have settled on "Shockirus" being its  "proper" name [ source: https://www.tohokingdom.com/kaiju/shockirus.htm ]
Hence why I changed it from "Giant Sea Lice" to "Shockirus (Giant Sea Lice)"
--JFP (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explaining the names of a few minor monsters 

message: Historically, as Godzilla is asexual the plots have used gender-neutral pronouns. I would like to get a consensus on using this as this has been changed recently Alaney2k (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the term is agender, not asexual. The source listed is from un-offical novel from 2003, not a official encyclopedia. Plus, the character has been referred to as Minilla's adoptive father & papa, as well as with masculine titles such as king & god. It probably depends on incarnation of the character, plus there's probably a "nuance" in translation that we're not getting. Monsieur X (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agender is a human term, not a biological one. Certainly the various references to Godzilla in movies and media has varied between "he" and "it". But, I think, only Minilla has ever been described as a male the "son" in the films. People use pronouns as they wish and by convention but not , etc. Since we don't really know, I think it is more appropriate to use gender-neutral or use the names of the kaiju. Even in the Legendary films, they refer to Godzilla as an "alpha" not an "alpha male." But I am mainly interested in consensus for consistency. Alaney2k (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The majority of people use male pronouns when discussing Godzilla & some of other major monsters in series, such as King Ghidorah. Unless stated otherwise, such as with explicitly female monsters like Mothra, Rodan's mate & Biollante. There's also the various female members of Godzilla's species seen in spin-offs that act as mates or love-interests. Monsieur X (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

text: I say we only use gender pronouns where the monsters are explicitly referred to as "he/him" or "she/her" i.e. the Hollywood films, the 1956 GKOTM, and Godzilla 1985. The Japanese films use gender-neutral pronouns, so the film articles would need to reflect this as well per WP:FILMPLOT: "describes the events of the original general release". As for the Godzilla and Godzilla (franchise) articles, I believe we should go with gender neutral pronouns since all the information provided is based on the Japanese versions and not the dubs, sans the Hollywood films. Armegon (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronouns 

message: In Toho's official stand for Comic Con 2019 a panel listing the series' filmography lists the 2016-2018 films as "Reiwa Era". This is the clearest photo I have found, from a blogger's web page. I have added a citation to the Reiwa Era section of the filmography. --Joseon1 (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confirmation of Reiwa era as an official moniker 

message: The person who made the collage of Toho Godzilla images had a nice idea, and it was probably useful when it linked to a full-size version. But it's non-free media, so it had to be reduced in size to a thumbnail of thumbnails, and that point it stopped bein useful. The rationale for using this non-free image in the article is "To provide visual identification of the various incarnations of Toho's Godzilla", but the thumbnails are so small it quite frankly fails at that. It's too small to tell them apart and it doesn't even give the reader an idea of what Godzilla looks like. It's a collection of tiny smudges and makes this article look like a Geocities fan page. If you actually want "to provide visual identification of the various incarnations of Toho's Godzilla", it should be replaced by an image that actually does that, because this does not. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: "Tiny smudges" seems hyperbolic. The image is not that difficult on the eyes and it achieves its goal just fine, despite the size. The goal is not just to illustrate the various redesigns but to also visually show readers how far back the character goes and how much he's progressed since the franchise's inception. Armegon (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collage of tiny smudges 

message: "The film franchise consists of 36 films; 32 produced by Toho, one produced by TriStar Pictures, and four produced by Legendary Pictures."
This adds up to 37. Geniuswaitress (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many films? 

message: Wait what about everyone else in the series/franchise like mothra,Rodman, 68.129.63.120 (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Godzilla 

message: The culture impact and guest appearances shouldn’t really be listed in this article as they are not directly part of the franchise. A better place are the pages Godzilla in popular culture and Godzilla#culture impact.
I already tried to remove this information but was reverted by User:Armegon and told to reach a consensus. UnkreativeFrog (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. You may be partially right, hence why I started re-editing and copyediting the Television section myself. It's not necessary to go into detail of Godzilla's various appearances, that's what the Godzilla in Pop Culture article is for; but it should at least be briefly noted since it is a part of Godzilla's appearance in American television. I'm currently working on that at the moment. Armegon (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

text: It seems they've already been moved. For the franchise article, we should just edit and summarize what's already there similar to how we would summarize an article's lead. Armegon (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The culture impact and guest appearances shouldn’t be in this article 

message: Should we add info about the Japanese films ticket sales/attendance? Flower Pot Zip (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Support: but it needs to be attributed to a reliable source, of course. Armegon (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ticket sales 

message: At least for now shouldn’t likely Son of Kong be in the Godzilla x Kong costar section. 0Detail-Attention215 (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Jumping the gun. Not confirmed to be Kong's son. Armegon (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Son of Kong as a Monster Costar