Talk:Godzilla (1954 film)
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
For a page as short as this one and only two external links, it doesn't seem appropriate to separate them by section, so (barring objection within the next little while) i'm going to remove the "Editing of 1954/1956 Release" subheading (and make some other small edits). By the way, if the article can be read at a source more accessible than the TimesSelect Archive (which requires purchasing an account upgrade), the link might be changed. (I found it at Common Dreams, but the disclaimer on their page doesn't seem to encourage linking there.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazilla (talk • contribs) 23:22, December 4, 2005
Critique of Ebert
The commentary on Ebert feels a bit harsh; and its unclear if its necessary. (His quote provides useful context as one negative voice - the article makes clear that the vast majority of reviews have been positive.) It seems odd to argue that his view is anachronistic just after quoting him suggesting that "This was not state of the art even at the time", and suggesting that an earlier film had better special effects. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by G34j (talk • contribs) 03:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
This entire article seems to have been written by a single overly zealous Godzilla obsessor with no real desire to make a quality Wikipedia article. Who keeps stuffing complete cast lists into each Toho monster movie article?!
- Please sign your comments. There are plenty of articles with similarly exhaustive cast lists. There's no rule against it. The only thing I found lacking in this article is any reference to the 1956 American reedited version with Raymond Burr. I have added a section relating to it (with a link to the main article). 126.96.36.199 22:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The infobox for the cast has swallowed weverything underneath it. How can this be fixed? Is an inbfobox even really necessary?
K00bine 11:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Is there any source that can be sited for the statement "It was orignally blasted by Japanese Critics in 1954?"
Prons 00:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms
There should be a mention of the FACT that Godzilla owes a lot to the beast from 20,000 fathoms. It predates Godzilla, it is a giant dinosaurlike monster, that's appearence is due to Atomic testing. You have to be kidding yourself if you think there would be a Godzilla as we know it without the Beast.188.8.131.52 (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)firstname.lastname@example.org
- So, can you cite this theory? Have you ever heard of the two tribes of monkeys on two separate islands that never meet yet develop the same behaviors? Sierraoffline444 (talk) 06:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, not only does Godzilla borrow heavily from the Beast in terms of its overall storyline making the influence pretty evident, but its documented that Tomoyuki Tanaka read about The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms in a trade magazine (and its box office success) before he got the idea to pitch his giant monster film to his boss at Toho.Giantdevilfish (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
first Tokusatsu show?
Like a number of 1950s monster movies, Godzilla reflected fears and uncertainties about the atomic bomb; however, there is a theme that resonated with Japanese audiences of 1954, just nine years after the end of WWII: the original Japanese version of Gojira includes dialogue of residents of Tokyo remembering the bomb shelters of WWII: residents of Tokyo did not use bomb shelters against atomic attack. There was a long history of B29 incendiary bombing campaigns against Toyko, and the scenes of Tokyo in flames and the characters' dialogue about shelters seem more reminding of the fire bomb raids on Tokyo than of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki or Hiroshima. Naaman Brown (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Troubled by the new reboot...
Isn't anyone kind of worried that the Legendary production is increasingly looking more like the producers are caving to the unreasonable demands of the fandom's purists instead of remaining intellectually independent enough to let the film carve it's own singular artistic identity? I am personally finding these developments to be very upsetting and troubling as they clearly show signs that the project is already allowing itself to be artistically compromised, as if rather than offer product that is unique and original, they're more-or-less going to trot out the same formulaic Punch-and-Judy show that Toho themselves have been peddling out since 1973. What are your thoughts on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)