Talk:Zilla (Godzilla)

Discussion Archived

13/10/2009 Archived the original Talk Page. Getting a little too long.--ACE Spark (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Final Wars and Name - Editing War

Apparently, there seems to be an editing war going on - someone keeps trying to change this page and all references to "American Godzilla", and any and all information regarding it's cameo in Final Wars keeps getting removed. So to the people that keep doing this, come on, this is a discussion page - DISCUSS it. What's with the constant editing war? This Godzilla re-appeared in Final Wars (go on, check it up on youtube, here's the video!, it deserves a mention, even if it's only a line or two. It happened. It's fact.

As for the name, Toho offically named it Zilla. So, there you go. That's it's name. Gino should be briefly mentioned in the article as the name fan's gave it before it's offical naming, but it's offical name should be used overall.

To those that keep editing the page, please discuss your reasoning here. Let's keep it civil. I've stated my opinion. Post yours.
--ACE Spark (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the info should be there. However, it appears that the removal is the work of one user, since all the deletions are by IP addresses that can be traced back to AT&T Internet Services (specifically, a range of IP addresses that appear to be reserved for the Irvine, California area). --Jtalledo (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Not that I have anything to do with this, but well, I personally find it unfair. Toho didn't create the "American Godzilla", so why do they have the right to "officially rename it"? TriStar Pictures got their rights to use the concept, the name. What THEY call it should be what it IS called, even if Toho was the original creators. It's not their version. Sure, they can do whatever the hell they want with it in their own Godzilla universe and timeline, but that is NOT a part of the TriStar Godzilla universe or timeline. From the '98 movie's "perspective", Final Wars never occurred. Right?

--Swiiman (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think at the time I was a little annoyed by people trying to change this article and all references into what is basically fannon names. The Article is either about "Godzilla (US)" or "Zilla". Quite frankly, i'm not a Godzilla fan, so I don't really care either way, or what people want to call it. Providing it's not GINO. Gino isn't offical one way or the other. I'm just going with what's sourced. --ACE Spark (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Swiiman. Toho doesn't have the authority to officially rename the creature from the film made by TriStar. I doubt TriStar would even consider Final Wars s part of their Godzilla continuity. "Zilla" really was just Toho making a jab at the TriStar version of Godzilla.--24.147.62.26 (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I have merchandise from the 1998 film, and it says that the monster belongs to Toho. 75.157.115.154 (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Toho can call the CGI critter in their movie Zilla or whatever else they want. They can't welch on having licensed the original name to TriStar. TriStar could, if they produced additional material in which they declared the name as changed. You are just being confusing by calling it something other than what is written on the box. JethroElfman (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I went looking for sources that confirm Zilla as Toho's official name. Their site is in Japanese, so I can't tell what's up there. MonsterZero.us, now SciFiJapan.com, doesn't have the editorial up anymore. Most sites use Wikipedia as their source. IMDB references an interview with Kitamura, quoting, "he said that he named the Hollywood version Zilla for his film"[1]. Is there anything substantial out there? This makes "Zilla" something Kitamura came up with as director, rather than as a spokesman for Toho. It also makes it clear he accepted "Zilla" as belonging to Final Wars and not Godzilla (1998). JethroElfman (talk) 03:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This information is wrong. Toho themselves have stated that Zilla is indeed the American Godzilla and was created as a way to give the fans closure after Roland Emerich took the "God" out of Godzilla. And seeing that TOHO not TriStar OWNS AND LOANED the Godzilla license I believe that gives them all the rights in the world to rename it and put the creators in their place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.110.82 (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you JethroElfman. On many sources, sites and information that I can find (including IMDb, Toho Kingdom and the Monster Legacy blog etc.) it appears there never was any real name change, but a global misunderstanding, it actually seems like if Kitamura actually created the name "Zilla" when he created the American Godzilla character that should be in his Final Wars film, but he just didn't want his American Godzilla to bear the same name so obviously he created a new name for his creature so that it would please dissatisfied fans, although the creation of Zilla caused many fans to misinterpret Zilla as an actual new name for the American Godzilla species and as either the actual character Godzilla (which was killed by the way) from the 1998 Godzilla film or Godzilla Junior from Godzilla: The Series. Even if this name change myth was true, it would have been shown more clearly, at least in later movie re-releases and DVD/Blu-ray copyright disclaimers which are still mentioning "Godzilla" instead of "Zilla", but it appears the official statements are actually that Godzilla (1998), Godzilla Junior (1998-2000) and Zilla (2004) are completely different characters based upon the same design and species, and that Zilla is an exclusive Japanese creature that is also exclusive to the Japanese Godzilla: Final Wars. End of story. TurokSwe (talk) 10:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Should this page be merged with Godzilla?

The film Godzilla is about Zilla so Zilla is also known as Godzilla and could rightfully be covered on that page. Opinions? 89.100.194.115 (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is worth mentioning Zilla in the main Godzilla page but still worth it to have a seperate article. --Blackbox77 (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

There's really no reason to merge these articles. The Godzilla articles is long enough as it is and Toho (the company which created Godzilla) has shown they draw a distiction between this monster and Godzilla, both in naming him differently and in having him appear in the same film as Godzilla. I think instead of merging this with Godzilla a page cover ALL the Toho companies monsters who do not require their own pages should be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.146.46 (talk) 07:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Zilla article, to me, looks big enough to stay seperate from Godzilla. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

why should we merge it? there both big enough articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.37.99 (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

As of 2004, they have been considered separate entities, both by Toho and the fanbase. The only reason there should be a merger if individual notability was not established, and I can see there is no reception section but if anyone could take over the Zilla article, reception would be established in a snap. Merger is definitely unessecary. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Zilla is a different character, and Toho intentionally wanted to separate Godzilla from Zilla which is why he renamed the Zilla character to what it is. If we mention Zilla on the Godzilla article, then we would have to mention all the other Kaizu on there too. ScienceApe (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No to merge. Just as Clover gets its own article, this incarnation of Godzilla can have its own, being so distinctive from the rubber-suit version. For that matter, I much prefer the title "American Godzilla", with a note about the appearance in Final Wars. They don't get to change the character's name 10 years later. The creature in the 1998 movie was obviously called Godzilla. It's eponymous! You don't get better than that for being the definitive name. It's not like the term Xenomorph used by fans for the Alien; it's spelled out for you on the screen and on the cover of the box. A look-alike or parody was used in Final Wars, and called Zilla for that appearance, without changing what it was called in its original appearance. JethroElfman (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Definitely don't merge them. Within the 1998 Godzilla movie, it's clear it is a different creature. In two following Toho films, it was made clear that while they may share a continuity, they are different creatures.El Gonz (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Zilla is its own creature, Toho even said that it has little relation to Godzilla.

No, ridiculous idea, especially since every other Godzilla monster has their own page, and Zilla is officially a separate creature in Godzilla canon. Yonskii (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The American Godzilla certainly deserves to be mentioned on the Godzilla page because of the fact that the American Godzilla is another kind of Godzilla, because it was a remake of the Godzilla creature, and because it is the American Godzilla. Zilla is just another character, Zilla is not the species, the species is American Godzilla. The species includes the characters/monsters Godzilla (1998), Baby Godzilla (1998), Godzilla Junior (1998-2000), Cyber-Godzilla (1998-2000), and Zilla (2004), and they're all American Godzillas (despite that the creature Zilla (2004) is Japanese). In short, true Godzillas. TurokSwe (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Pro-Toho bias

Please use this as a place to corral all discussions of bias in this article so that the template can be removed promptly. Universaladdress (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. BDD and Andrewa both have valid concerns about the article, but they're outside the scope of RM and need to be addressed elsewhere. Jenks24 (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Zilla → American Godzilla – This page is obviously mostly about the fictional American Godzilla species, where the characters Godzilla (1998), Baby Godzilla (1998), Godzilla Junior (1998-2000), Cyber-Godzilla (1998-2000), and Zilla (2004) belongs, and because of the fact that Zilla (2004) is just another character/monster within the American Godzilla species I don't think that "Zilla" is an appropriate name for this page, since the page seems to cover the whole American Godzilla species with all characters within it and not just Zilla (2004). The current name was obviously based upon the famous name change myth, but no sources indicate that there ever was a name change for the species or the other characters. It actually appears that Ryuhei Kitamura named his creature Zilla exclusively for the 2004 film "Godzilla: Final Wars" and that Zilla's appearance in the film caused a huge misintepretation and misunderstanding among fans that actually falsely believed the American Godzilla to have been renamed Zilla, while Zilla was actually just another character within the American Godzilla species. TurokSwe (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Weak support Yeah, I guess that accurately describes what's going on here, but separating this from Godzilla seems like pedantic WP:FANCRUFT. Stay tuned for my article on Daniel Craig James Bond, where I explain how the James Bond portrayed by Daniel Craig is a distinct character because he looks different. :/ --BDD (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The name change was a widely spread myth, and by myth it means it's not real. There are no official statements that Zilla is the new name for the American Godzilla species and its characters, there are however some statements that Zilla is just a different character with its own exclusive name. This page still covers the whole American Godzilla species and therefore "Zilla" is not an appropriate name. If we're naming this page after the characters within the species rather than the actual species name (American Godzilla) then we could aswell name this page Godzilla, Godzilla Junior, Baby Godzilla, or why not Cyber-Godzilla? Just because a special amount of people are familiar with the name "Zilla" doesn't mean we have to name the page "Zilla". The page should be named after what it describes, and it describes the American Godzilla species, and not just one of all its characters. I honestly don't see how this is a matter of "weak support". Again, there are no official statements that "Zilla" is the name of this fictional species, and the best and most famous sources tells that "Zilla" is not the name of the species. There are even people who don't know about the name change myth and still stay to the idea that the American Godzilla is the real name for the species. "American Godzilla" is the best title for this page. TurokSwe (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It's weak because I'm skeptical that this article should even exist, not that I disagree with your reasoning. To people who aren't fans of the series, such as me, the "American Gozilla" from the Emmerich film was simply a modern interpretation of the original character. --BDD (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand, but since there are articles on other Godzilla-monsters why not having this one exist? It's true that the American Godzilla was a modern interpretation, but it is also in one way a different monster, or at least according to some, but I think I understand your point. But even if this article shouldn't exist, at least it doesn't deserve to be called Zilla instead of American Godzilla. TurokSwe (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: In terms of WP:AT there seems no case either way above. Suggest also urgent work on the lead, it's currently [2] one over-long paragraph containing some not very encyclopedic and even not very English phrasing. Multiple issues with the article as flagged but IMO the lead is a good place to start. Andrewa (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Current merge discussion (March 2013)

It seems the consensus has definitely shifted from the obsolete 2010 merge discussion above on this page. Interesting development - a strong opinion in the above rename discussion seemed to be that the page should be merged, not renamed, although this was understandably not an option under that discussion. Strong opinion seems to be that the existence of this page is WP:FANCRUFT (as indicated by the bizarre intro text that doesn't really qualify as encyclopedic and instead serves as an apologia for the page's existence) and that it should be merged with Godzilla. Discussion above also notes that BDD and Andrewa's concerns need a place to be aired, so this is it. ToFeignClef (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think the page shouldn't be merged, because the American Godzilla is neither officially recognized by Toho or the greater majority of the fanbase as being Godzilla in any way, other than bearing the name. You can ask millions of Godzilla and Zilla fans, and they would at least admit that the American Godzilla and Godzilla are different things.
  Merging this page with Godzilla would be excactly like merging Final Fantasy III with Final Fantasy VI; the American version is not the japanese version, not officially in the name or the design. If possible, the most that can be done would just be mentioning Godzilla 1998 in the Godzilla article, but not claiming that they are in fact, the same being.
  (Check the Gino thread down below for strong facts regarding Zilla and the 'Zilla-name change misconception' misconception. I meant to type misconception twice, because that is what it is. 493Titanollante (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Gino

It says in this article that GINO is Godzilla, and it is not at all (and I've got very strong facts to prove it). Here are some pictures from the GMK movie to prove that this is not officially recognized as Godzilla by Toho. Click the links to see the pictures.

[3] [4] [5]

You can buy the DVD of Godzilla, Mothra and King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack, or just look for this bit on YouTube and you can see these people say that this is not Godzilla. Also, after Sony's rights to Godzilla expired in 2003, the creature couldn't be left in the air and Toho assumed the creature's copy-rights. The reason the 2006 DVD re-release still says "GODZILLA used with permission" etc., is because of the very obvious fact: They named the film, "GODZILLA". When TriStar 'took advantage by re-releasing GODZILLA', they just took advantage, and they didn't alter anything in the film whatsoever-- not the Title of the movie, not the name of the creature, not the copyrights on the back, nothing was changed except just moving the GODZILLA movie from VHS to DVD.

So, these are some very good and strong points I'm giving. You may still call this thing, which is officially known as ZILLA, American Godzilla, but the whole 'misconception' thing about the Zilla-Name Change is actually true, and it was proven in Final Wars. Just look at these creatures in Final Wars and in the movie. Do they look any different from each other?

[6] [7]

I didn't think so either. Not to mention that the 1998 GODZILLA film and Godzilla: Final Wars do not take place in the same timeline and/or Universe, so it could very so be the 1998 creature without any plotholes whatsoever. At least Zilla Jr (from Godzilla: The Series) had some differences from his father, like actually being durable and having a beam, as well as being a different color; these two look exactly alike, except the 2004 Zilla is CGI of lesser quality. Also, it cannot be stated that Zilla is 'more destructive' or 'eats humans' or anything, because Zilla was being mind-controlled by the Xiliens, which would obviously mean it would have a different personality, just like the other Final Wars kaiju like Rodan, Anguirus, and King Caesar, who are known to be defenders of Earth rather than the monsters who cause destruction.

All this means is that the 'Zilla Name-Change Misconception' is a misconception itself, with millions of Godzilla and Zilla fans knowing the truth that Toho changed the creature's name to Zilla. I hope this is enough evidence from Toho and TriStar themselves that Zilla is, as a matter of fact, not Godzilla in any way.

PS: Isn't it ironic that 'The American Godzilla' is a French Polynesian Iguana? 493Titanollante (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to a video that uses my points to argue that Toho officially renamed the 1998 creature to Zilla. Everyone should check it out. 493Titanollante (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Toho actually does count this Godzilla as an official incarnation, some people involve with Godzilla movies just don't like the movie.--VaderRaptor (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

User talk:VaderRaptor, this is an old and closed topic. Everyone here has moved on and the page has been improved since then. No need to restore a concluded topic. Armegon (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Why is it being changed to American Godzilla?

First off, American Godzilla isn't an official character. Secondly, the character has been copyrighted as Zilla. It used to be copyrighted as Godzilla but Toho has changed his name ala MOUGERA.--KPLives! (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Needs to be moved back to Zilla

The claims that the "Zilla" name is unofficial or that it applies only to the Final Wars incarnation are blatantly false. The NAME and DESIGN have been TRADEMARKED by Toho; check the corporate logo on the back of the Godzilla: Final Wars DVD. This is what is known as a retcon. Its name is retroactively (and more important, LEGALLY) "Zilla" and it's NOT this article's place to dispute that, for this would be Original Research and against wikipedia's rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.43.174 (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I second this motion, it's been officially and legally copyrighted as Zilla by Toho, the above arguments by 493Titanollante are MORE than sufficient enough. And all the edits by TurokSwe are nothing but disruptive and bias lies, and he has NOT learned his lesson about the edit war policy, as he has gone and went RIGHT back to what he was doing and changed this page back to his biased version! Please, someone from the Administration REALLY should ban him! 66.26.66.25 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, the name dispute doesn't really matter. "Zilla" is a simple and effective way of differentiating the two creatures, and with a new Hollywood-produced film in the makings, "American Godzilla" could only cause further confusion. And I know that a common comparison would be between Mothra and Mothra Leo, or Mechagodzilla and Kiryu, but they were both still in movies entitled "Mothra", "Mothra 2", "Mothra 3," and "Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla" and "Godzilla x Mechagodzilla"; Not "Mothra Leo," "Mothra Leo 2", "Mothra Leo 3" or "Godzilla x Kiryu." What the creatures are called isn't particularly important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.160.210.161 (talk) 04:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

it can be interpreted in different ways

Nonsense. There's nothing up to interpretation. The logo has the character's name and design on it, both accompanied by a trademark.

The various Toho monsters have gone by many names over the years, but Toho's official monster logos are what we've always used here to determine what the characters' names are officially. This is why "King Shisa" was moved to King Caesar and "Kamakiras" was moved to Kamacuras back in the day. Doesn't matter what name they may have been referred to originally, we go by their most recently trademarked official english names.

Wikipedia is about facts, yes. Absolutely! And it is a verifiable FACT that Toho has officially trademarked this character design with the name "Zilla". They own it, they decide what's canon.

What official, legal capacity has the name "American Godzilla" (emphasis mine) ever been used for this character, anyway? None. Nada. Zilch. Zero. Doesn't appear on any of Toho's corporate logos or trademarks. This article's very name is guilty of speculation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.43.174 (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Who in the heck did that to TurokSwe's reply? I mean, it's funny and all, but what the actual hell. Kaiju-Human (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I dunno, but it was real hilarious. My take is that it was someone who isn't very fond of that guy. 493Titanollante (talk) 02:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Two Pages

It's great to see this page has been moved back to its original title but apparently, there's a copy of this same wiki page? - Armegon —Preceding undated comment added 08:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed this as well, now that the editing war is over, and the Zilla page has been restored, there's no need for this American Godzilla page anymore. It should be deleted, and the redirect should be reversed, so that when people type in "American Godzilla", it should be redirected to the Zilla page. Kaiju-Human (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hm, that's very true. No more TurokSwe means no more reverting facts, so we should do it. 108.214.32.91 (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Back to American Godzilla? WHY?!

I see that the Zilla page has been redirected to the American Godzilla page, re-supported with the unverified inaccuracies deleted before. I've taken the liberty of restoring the article back to its rightful verifiable state but what's the reason behind the re-re-title of the article? Official documentation of the character's name change to Zilla has been proven and provided, with three cited sources, mind you. So why the sudden change back to American Godzilla?

Remember that there is another American Godzilla, unrelated to the 1998 incarnation, due out in 2014. Are we going to call that American Godzilla II? This creature has been deemed too different to be Godzilla and has been legally/officially been recognized as Zilla by its parent owner, Toho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armegon (talk • contribs) 05:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. Whether "Zilla" needs disambiguation can be discussed in another RM; for now, it's WP:PRIMARYTOPIC at least, since it already redirects here. As for me, I stand by my comments regarding Daniel Craig in the last RM. --BDD (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

American Godzilla → Zilla – [See talk page] 493Titanollante (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

This page needs to be moved back to Zilla, so I'll just re-post what I said in the Gino section, just to get things started. Everyone, please discuss why you want this page to be moved back, and please do so while logged in; it seems that this requested move can't be accomplished unless it is under just one section titled 'Requested move', with actual discussions with many logged in people. So, here's my previous posts down there on Wikizilla explaining why this should be called Zilla:

First, the article was moved to American Godzilla. That isn't very official. Secondly, the page is filled with links to Zilla fan sites; completely unnecessary. Thirdly, the page has been discussed only with a minority of Zilla fans for it to be merged into the Godzilla page. That is just, not good. It also isn't fancruft because only a few fans want it, not hundreds or tens. Finally, the fact that it claims Zilla and "American Godzilla" to be different monsters and that the 1998 Iguana is actually Godzilla, which is absolutely false.

I've got very strong facts to prove that Zilla and "American Godzilla" are both Zilla. Here are some pictures from the GMK movie to prove that this is not officially recognized as Godzilla by Toho. These prove that GODZILLA and GMK take place in the same Universe, because why else would they reference something that absolutely didn't exist in any way otherwise?

[8] [9] [10]

You can buy the DVD of Godzilla, Mothra and King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack, or just look for this bit on YouTube and you can see these people say that this is not Godzilla. Also, after Sony's rights to Godzilla expired in 2003, the creature couldn't be left in the air and Toho assumed the creature's copy-rights. The reason the 2006 DVD re-release still says "GODZILLA used with permission" etc., is because of the very obvious fact: They named the film, "GODZILLA". When TriStar 'took advantage by re-releasing GODZILLA', they just took advantage, and they didn't alter anything in the film whatsoever-- not the Title of the movie, not the name of the creature, not the copyrights on the back (except, of course, removing the icons for "GODZILLA" and "BABY GODZILLA" [11] [12]), nothing was changed except just moving the GODZILLA movie from VHS to DVD (and from DVD to Blu-Ray).

Besides, since they called the film "GODZILLA", and Godzilla is a trademark of Toho Company Ltd (TriStar's GODZILLA trademark was cancelled by Toho [13]), they do have to give credit to Toho. TriStar owns only the movie (whose title can't be changed, because movie titles can't be changed after an official release), Toho owns the monster since Sony's rights expired in 2003.

Also, the picture showing Zilla still being trademarked as "Godzilla" and the Baby Zillas as "Baby Godzilla", with people claiming it to be from the 2006 DVD? It's not from any DVD. It's from the VCR release. They've lied. And also, those trademarks have been cancelled and abandoned GODZILLA 1998 BABY GODZILLA 1998.

So, these are some very good and strong points I'm giving. You may still call this thing, which is officially known as ZILLA, American Godzilla, but the whole 'misconception' thing about the Zilla-Name Change is actually true, and it was proven in Final Wars. Just look at these creatures in Final Wars and in the movie. Do they look significantly different from each other?

[14] [15]

I didn't think so either. You might say that they do look very different, but that's because of a simple fact: Toho was not very good at Computer-Generated-Imagery (CGI), but TriStar was. That by default means that the 2004 Zilla would be less polished and look more bad-CGI-ish. Also, TriStar never did give Toho the CGI model of 1998 Gino, did they?

Also, since they are based on the same design, wouldn't that mean that they are TradeMarked as the same? I mean, Toho doesn't make different copy-rights for each incarnation of Godzilla. Toho doesn't have a Trademark specifically for the Godzilla from the 90's and a different one for the Godzilla from "Godzilla: 2000 Millenium". They are both Registered as "Godzilla" and they just put a number from what year it is after that (example: "Godzilla® 90's" and "Godzilla® 2000"). So, why would Toho create a separate TradeMark for something with the same appearance, unless they are updating it or changing its name? They didn't. GODZILLA® Cancelled [16] BABY GODZILLA Logo Cancelled ZILLA In Effect

The 1998 GODZILLA film and Godzilla: Final Wars do not take place in the same timeline and/or Universe, and since there is no official continuity between GFW and GMK (because GMK had continuity with GODZILLA 1998 because they referenced the monster in it), it all goes down to speculation from there.

At least Zilla Jr (from Godzilla: The Series) had some differences from his father, like actually being durable and having a beam, as well as being a different color; these two look very alike, except the 2004 Zilla is CGI of lesser quality that wasn't even made from the same model as the 1998 version. Also, it cannot be stated that Zilla is 'more destructive' or 'eats humans' or anything, because Zilla was being mind-controlled by the Xiliens, which would obviously mean it would have a different personality, just like the other Final Wars kaiju like Rodan, Anguirus, and King Caesar, who are known to be defenders of Earth rather than the monsters who cause destruction.

All this means is that the 'Zilla Name-Change Misconception' is a misconception itself, with millions of Godzilla and Zilla fans knowing the truth that Toho changed the creature's name to Zilla. I hope this is enough evidence from Toho and TriStar themselves that Zilla is, as a matter of fact, not Godzilla in any way.

Also, isn't it ironic that 'The American Godzilla' is a French Polynesian Iguana? Overall, ZILLA™ is the official © name of the the creature that was known as GODZILLA® prior to 2004/2005.

Here is a link to a video that uses my points to argue that Toho officially renamed the 1998 creature to Zilla. Everyone should check it out.

Matt Frank (creator of the "Godzilla: Rulers of Earth" series by IDW, has commented about the Zilla Name Change! He's affiliated with Toho, so what he says really counts. Click on the Godzilla: Rulers of Earth Issue #2 DeviantART link to see his comment (scroll down). Also worth noting, "ZILLA" will appear but with the exact same design of "GODZILLA 1998".

Please, do discuss! 493Titanollante (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I concur with this statement. There's numerous evidence that the "American Godzilla" is in fact ZILLA. We're going to get the REAL American Godzilla in 2014, and having this page up will just confuse people! Besides, the first requested move was requested by a bias and disruptive liar who has already been banned from Wikipedia, so that is ALSO evidence that "American Godzilla" should be moved permanently back to Zilla. Not only that, but any and all copyrights for the design of this character in association to the name "Godzilla" have expired YEARS ago, and Toho's copyrights to the character design and the name "Zilla" are still in effect to this day! Kaiju-Human (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree. There is a mountain of evidence that proves that the 1998 "American Godzilla" is officially and legally registered as "Zilla" by its parent owner, Toho. It is (legally) wrong to reference the 1998 character as Godzilla because that name, in legal terms, no longer applies to that character anymore. Here is a legal documentation proving that the 1998 character was once registered as "Godzilla" but no longer applies anymore: http://www.trademarkia.com/godzilla-75423143.html As you can see, the copyright status is canceled. Here is the former trademark logo used to accompany the copyright but that too has been cancelled, or in this case, abandoned: http://www.trademarkia.com/logo-75503990.html Here is the copyright for Zilla, showing that the copyright is currently active, registered, and in effect: http://www.trademarkia.com/zilla-76669021.html American Godzilla has no legal capacity. Zilla does because that's the official copyright Toho assigned to the 1998 character since 2004. - User:Armegon —Preceding undated comment added 22:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Not all the arguments in the WORLD can make those links with all that legal documentation false. 493Titanollante (talk) 02:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: It should be noted that an article title on Wikipedia should be the common name of the topic. Even if "Zilla" is the official term, it may be that "American Godzilla" is the more common name. In this case, "Zilla" can still be mentioned in the article's lead sentence. However, I'm not sure if there is real coverage about this specific offshoot that would warrant a split from Godzilla itself? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

  The legal documentation is right there. This character was bought by Toho Co. Ltd. fair and square, and the name was changed to "Zilla". And besides, after Godzilla: Final Wars, the general Godzilla fan community has accepted Zilla as a suitable name, while only a select few people who still want to believe the name change is a myth still call this character Godzilla, which is entirely incorrect. Kaiju-Human (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

  My initial statement is based on WP:COMMONNAME. For example, an actor's common name is the article title, where the lead sentence mentions his or her full name. I reviewed Google Books Search for "Zilla" vs. "American Godzilla", and I found the later more frequently mentioned. Also, where does Godzilla (2014 film) fall? All coverage related to that film mentions Godzilla as opposed to Zilla, even with Toho's involvement. My impression is that "Zilla" is not a common name for any article title. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

  I'm looking at this which does not even mention "Zilla" in the index. If this topic is supposed to be about the creature in Emmerich's 1998 film, we should be able to cover it at the film article. From what I can tell, this topic appears to fall under WP:NEO especially since there is synthesis of primary source material here. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

  Google books? Why would you even consider to search there? Zilla has not ever appeared in any books whatsoever. Zilla will be featured for the first time in a book in an upcoming comic book series by IDW, called "Godzilla: Rulers of Earth". Every Godzilla fan knows that. Also, the searches you used, about "American Godzilla", don't even talk about the creature from Final Wars and 1998. Also, yes, we are talking about the cxreature from the 1998 film, and from 2004, and from everything that featured it ever since it was created.
  And, who ever brought Godzilla 2014 to this discussion? The Godzilla from 2014 will not be involved or even remotely related with the creature THIS article mentions. The monster from the film is called "Godzilla" and not "Zilla" because simply, that movie has NOTHING to do with this monster. Also, you're wrong. Zilla is an extremely common name for all articles related to this creature. And the greater kaiju community acknowledges this creature as "Zilla", except for people who simply don't want to accept the name change. I'm making an educated guess here, and I think you aren't a Godzilla fan, or very knowledgeable about Godzilla.
  Do you want to see something actually using the ZILLA icon? Click here, and look at the circles. What does one of the circles say and show? This very creature. Also, the Godzilla from 2014 won't look, be related, or be made to Zilla. Instead of searching for "books" on Amazon.com, try just looking for Zilla. Just search "Zilla" in google. No "book", no "news", no "locations", just Zilla. Click on web results and images. There. Zilla being called Zilla. 493Titanollante (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

  Whether the character is "better known" as "American Godzilla" is redundant. American Godzilla has absolutely no legal capacity! Zilla, on the other hand, does! Toho has filed an official legal registration to the character, provided with a trademarked icon as you can see here...

http://www.freak23.com/dvd/SONY_godzilla_final_wars.jpg

The 1998 character does not appear in any of Toho's official registrations and trademarks under American Godzilla, no, but rather under Zilla. To name an article by what the topic's "common name" is contradicts the soul purpose of Wikipedia, to deliver the facts and truth and the fact and truth is the legal documentations provided before you prove that the 1998 character is officially (legally) and commonly (by fans) recognized as Zilla, not American Godzilla. Remember, Zilla has legal capacity, American Godzilla does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armegon (talk • contribs) 21:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

493Titanollante, I ask you to keep your responses succinct. Walls of text are harder to respond to. Please see the guidelines at WP:COMMONNAME for why the common name, not necessarily the same thing as the legal name, would be used for the article title. I am not a Godzilla fan and am trying to understand the issue better, which is part of why I ask for more succinct responses. To my understanding, the creature "American Godzilla"/"Zilla" has only appeared in two films: Emmerich's 1998 film, and Godzilla: Final Wars, in which the creature is opposite the more traditionally recognized Godzilla. Is this correct? Also, in response to why I searched for books, Wikipedia follows the policy of verifiability. If a book about Toho's Godzilla series does not even mention "Zilla" tangentially years after the release of Godzilla: Final Wars, then there is not a case for verifiability. As for straightforward Googling, we need to use reliable sources to help with establishing article titles and providing content. The Godzilla Wiki cannot be used to this end. That's why I quote WP:NEO: "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." From what I can tell, reliable sources use "American Godzilla" as a common name, making it suitable as an article title per Wikipedia's guidelines. This does not mean that "Zilla" should not be mentioned in this article (if it is to be kept); we can discuss the legal terms provided that there are reliable sources for that. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is what I mean by an example of a reliable source covering this topic: "The monster was killed off to clear the docks for Roland Emmerich's long-in-development 'American remake' Godzilla (1988) [sic]... In Fainaru uôzu [Godzilla: Final Wars], Emmerich's monster (redubbed 'Zilla') reappears and is swiftly beaten up by the one, the only, the real Gojira. Fans cheered, few others cared." What would help would be additional sources that can look at this more closely. Maybe we can seek out coverage mentioning "Zilla" during the release of Godzilla: Final Wars. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This mentions both "American Godzilla" and "Zilla". This also says, "This final film features a Hollywood version of Godzilla, called Zilla, employed as an assassin by space-aliens known as 'Xiliens' who seek to conquer Earth." Another point to consider is that "Zilla" may not be readily recognizable as the American Godzilla, so it still may not be a good choice for the article title due to lack of WP:PRECISION. Correct me if I'm wrong, but "Zilla" has also traditionally been used as shorthand for Godzilla. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Erik, the book you're looking into was published on April 13, 2007. The reason why it doesn't mention Zilla (officially) is because the name wasn't filed into the copyright registry until December 2, 2008. Less than a year after the book was published. I still disagree that the article should go by what the topic is "commonly known as" as opposed to what it officially and legally is known as. The 1998 film is still titled to this day as GODZILLA but fans and audiences commonly refer to the film as either Zilla 1998 and even at times American Godzilla but the article's title does not conform to what the film is "commonly known" by but rather by what it has officially been released as. The same principal applies to the 1998 character. Yes, some may commonly refer to the character as American Godzilla or even Godzillla USA but the absolute truth is that the character has been officially registered by Toho as Zilla and that copyright has been in effect since its foundation. Additionally, there's no need for coverage because I already provided direct links to the official legal documentations of the name but in case you missed them, here they are again...

http://www.trademarkia.com/godzilla-75423143.html

http://www.trademarkia.com/logo-75503990.html Here is the copyright for Zilla, showing that the copyright is currently active, registered, and in effect: http://www.trademarkia.com/zilla-76669021.html

- Armegon —Preceding undated comment added 22:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

"American Godzilla" is not a common name, as we have said before. Also, I haven't even mentioned any "Godzilla Wiki"s as a source. Want to see coverage mentioning Zilla? I'll you plenty of links, like an actual video from Final Wars.

Godzilla Final Wars Godzilla VS Zilla (read the comments showing people saying its the 1998 version)

Godzilla: Final Wars on Toho Kingdom and one

Review on Toho Kingdom (at 8th paragraph)

Zilla on Toho Kingdom

Zilla Jr

Godzillathon #23 (at the end)

Zilla Jr. vs. Cyber-Zilla (showing that people call not only the 2004 version as "Zilla", but previous versions as well)

Also, I don't get why you use old, out-dated websites to prove your claims that this is still called "American Godzilla". Ever since 2004, no one has ever called Godzilla "Zilla". "Zilla" is extremely easily associated by any and all Godzilla fans to the 1998 creature, and the creature from the animated series. While it IS true that people call this creature "American Godzilla", that isn't even a third of the current fanbase. Most Godzilla fans who still call it "American Godzilla" will most likely use it on the Godzilla 2014 monster, because many Godzilla fans do not even consider Zilla an/the "American Godzilla" in any way. They either continue to bash the monster because it wasn't Godzilla or see it as it's own thing, and don't think about it as a Godzilla incarnation, like me and the creator of that Zilla JR page on FaceBook. Just read the comments on the Godzilla Final Wars video. Those are all Godzilla fans there, commenting. 493Titanollante (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Armegon, thanks for explaining about the book being published before the name registration. Still, you are arguing to ignore the topic's common name for the title and instead give it the legal one. WP:COMMONNAME is under Wikipedia's policy for article titles. Here is a relevant passage: " The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name, or the trademarked name." As I already explained, the common name is what is appropriate for the article title. I fully understand that there is legal documentation of the specific name Zilla, but per policy, we use a common name.

493Titanollante, we need to use reliable sources to follow Wikipedia's policy of verifiability. We cannot reference online comments, social media, or self-published websites. That is why I linked to my results. I understand that they precede the official registration, so are there any reliable sources that have discussed the trademark since then? The sources are needed because we cannot make sweeping statements without substantiation. I encourage you to read WP:NEO again. I will highlight this passage: "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." See WP:SECONDARY for what "secondary sources" means.

I sense that we will not convince each other. I do ask you to understand that Wikipedia has policies and guidelines. I have linked to the relevant ones in assessing this request to move. Based on these policies and our links, I do not see "Zilla" as a common name—as demonstrated by reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia—for the article title. I have yet to see reliable sources giving coverage about the trademark, which is what we need to move forward. At the same time, I am less sure about American Godzilla because like with Zilla, I do not see recent use of it in reliable sources. It was mentioned in older reliable sources as "the American Godzilla" as a way to differentiate from the traditional Godzilla. Another possible article title could be Godzilla (1998 film creature) because obviously that creature is called Godzilla in the context of that film, but the disambiguation term may be a mouthful for some. If you are compelled to reply, I ask to provide reliable sources as defined at WP:RS; the sources provided in this discussion are not reliable. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Then there aren't any sources in the internet at all, since all the Official 'GODZILLA' 1998 websites got sold or stopped their servers, and TOHO's Official Godzilla Website is, of course, in japanese (and it doesn't help that the official website for Godzilla isn't available in the US, and is only in japanese). So, the name change is legal, but since his Official Website can't be accessed outside of Japan, no one will ever know if it's official, even though we have all the evidence we need (that the 1998 copyrights have been cancelled), and we have the logo for Zilla in Godzilla: Final Wars in the official DVD cover, not to mention that it came after the 1998 film, absolutely none of the re-releases show the copyright logo or name (and the film still being called GODZILLA is a whole 'nother topic, because that film TriStar actually owns, but since TriStar's rights to Godzilla expired in 2003, they can't make any more Godzilla films and they can't use the logo and/or character other than the film which they have documented as GODZILLA [which they can't rename, because a movie's title can't be changed years or months after it officially premiered], which is copyright of Toho, so they still say that the "GODZILLA" trademark is used with permission from them). But just like you said, that may be too much legal, true, and official stuff. Anyways, since there aren't any reliable sources, and there is proof of the name change, and many, many fans call this creature ZILLA, this should just be called Zilla.

Also, I read "WP:RS", and I found this: "The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book)". Isn't Godzilla: Final Wars a piece of work itself? It includes the monster that is being discussed, and it comes from the parent studio of Godzilla (Toho) which also obtained the rights to the 1998 creature in 2003, doesn't it? But then again, since it is official, and it isn't a reliable website, I guess it doesn't count. I also found this: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article. If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Does this mean that Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on "Zilla"? After all, no reliable sources can be found in the internet, and all we have is too much legal evidence. If it is so, then the administrator can just delete this article. It'll make things easier for the kaiju community.493Titanollante (talk) 04:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Weak support The 1998 incarnation of the creature tends to be referred to as the "American Godzilla", so keeping with WP:COMMONNAME, that is obviously a more encylopedic title for the article. Even though there is a shit load of original research in the article and the move proposal, the gist is that the article is about a specific trademarked version of the creature. Reading Kalat, pg.153 (especially pages 155–156) convinces me that American Godzilla identifies a topic scope taking in the American re-edits of the original films that turned the monster into a dragon, the 1998 creature and presumably the new upcoming film i.e. its general depiction in American media. Generally I would have concurred with Erik's alternative suggestion but it seems to have popped up in another production too, so on account of that I support the move to Zilla to unambiguously identify this specific trademarked version. Betty Logan (talk) 03:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: See, I agree with you 99%. What I don't agree with is that this is the Common name, because no up-to-date reliable sources call it "American Godzilla" any more. There are three "American Godzilla"s: the first was from Hanna-Barbera, the second was Zilla, and the third, which everyone is calling both Godzilla and American Godzilla, is from the upcoming 2014 Godzilla film. All of these are made by different companies, and will look different. The "Godzilla (1998 film monster)" page should be a redirect to Zilla, and maybe the Legendary Pictures Godzilla will either become part of the Godzilla article, or be called something else. This page (American Godzilla) should be a disimbaguation, listing the animated Godzilla, Zilla, and the Legendary Godzilla. 493Titanollante (talk) 04:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Erik, your argument is logically sound however, I would still have to disagree with you. Much of the sources you've provided have been outdated. Recent sources have actually refereed to the 1998 creature as Zilla, as he was confirmed to be featured in the upcoming comic series Godzilla: Rulers of Earth under the name Zilla, not American Godzilla and I absolutely agree with Logan's and Titano's arguments. The 1998 creature wasn't the first "American Godzilla". There have been other Western interpretations prior such as the mentioned Hanna-Barbera Godzilla cartoon, Steve Miner's initial American Godzilla film attempt from the early 80's, TriStar's early version of Godzilla from Jan de Bont, and the semi-American production of Godzilla, King of the Monsters! and Godzilla 1985. An article with the title American Godzilla would imply the article covers not only the 1998 incarnation but past interpretations as well. - User talk: Armegon —Preceding undated comment added 05:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support a move because 493Titanollante and Armegon have made a good case for "American Godzilla" not being a proper article title. That is one kind of ambiguity to avoid. It seems like "Zilla" is the only real option to use, especially considering their cited use in upcoming media. However, I also think that "Zilla" by itself has its own ambiguity. When I was researching this topic, most instances of "zilla" had to do with -zilla, so I do not think this creature can be considered the primary topic over that concept. If we move to "Zilla", we should have a disambiguation term attached. I'm not sure what that could be. Zilla (film monster), perhaps? If you agree about adding a disambiguation term, I'm open to suggestions. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• 'Support' Erik, you are absolutely right. The term Zilla has been lifted from the Toho character's name Godzilla and has become somewhat of a cultural term to refer anything massive or bad, for example Zilla-music, Zilla-rules, Bride-Zilla, Broad-Zilla, etc. Yes, a disambiguation term should follow but I say it should be called either Zilla (Kaiju) or Zilla (character). I say kaiju because the character is now part of the Godzilla universe and is now coined as a Kaiju amongst others but I also say character because, well, this is a character but I support adding a disambiguation term to the article. Armegon (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Armegon

This may help: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (characters)#Disambiguating a character. Betty Logan (talk) 02:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support I'm all for a disambiguation term to distinguish the Zilla character from other forms of media that use "-zilla" in their names. I believe Zilla (film monster) or Zilla (Godzilla Series) would be good disambiguation terms, at least in my opinion. Kaiju-Human (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support: Moving this page to Zilla, or Zilla (character), or Zilla (Kaiju) is all perfect and I support it to the very end; all we need now is to change this article's title so it isn't called "American Godzilla". It's real good to see so many people supporting the move. :) 493Titanollante (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: This category Category:Godzilla characters suggests three possible options: Zilla (Toho), Zilla (kaiju), or Zilla (Godzilla). "Kaiju" is not bad, but I'm mildly concerned that it is not a clear term for most English-language readers. "Godzilla" feels a bit redundant after "Zilla", but that's a nitpick. "Toho" seems the best option relatively. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Out of those I would go with Zilla (Godzilla), but I'll throw another one out: Zilla (American Godzilla). Since the creature seems to be referred to as the "American Gozilla" outside of Toho circles i.e. published texts on Godzilla, it may be a good idea to retain that connection for the layman reader. Betty Logan (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Haha... that last one is just way too neat of a compromise. :) I'd definitely be fine with that since "American Godzilla" is put in a new context. Heck, both terms are put in context of each other. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hm, I think "(Toho)" is perfect, because "(Godzilla)" feels wrong. I guess "(American Godzilla)" wouldn't be too much of a problem, but there will another American Godzilla (2014), and it may cause a bit of confusion for non-Godzilla fans who want to reasearch the Godzilla 2014 kaiju and don't know about the 1998-2004 and IDW comics Zilla. But for current Godzilla fans and people knowledgeable about Godzilla, it won't cause too many problems. 493Titanollante (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Definitely go with "(Toho)" for the disambiguation term. Toho owns the 1998 incarnation and made it a part of the Toho universe with Godzilla: Final Wars and the IDW Comics Godzilla: Rulers of Earth. Let's go with Zilla (Toho). Armegon (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright, "(Toho)" works for me then. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support a move. The term "American Godzilla" is now starting to become more used for the upcoming film and the Godzilla fetured in it rather than the 1998 movie. with Toho offically re-naming the creature Zilla, making the page name somthing like Zilla(Kaiju), Zilla(Creature), Zilla (Monster) or Zilla (Toho) are much better than the Term American Godzilla, which is starting to not really refer to this single creature.

--Croc117 (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Croc117

Agree! 493Titanollante (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Straightforward move?

It seems like in the last discussion, we all agreed to move the article to Zilla (Toho). Should we go ahead and do this? We can go ahead and move Zilla (disambiguation) to Zilla after. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, seems about right. Kaiju-Human (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• That's completely fine, after all, we did agree. 493Titanollante (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

  Done. Also updated Zilla (disambiguation) which can be moved to Zilla now. Please see my wording at that disambiguation page to see if it needs adjusting. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Theropod?...

Some anonymous IP seems hellbent on identifying Zilla as a theropod. I'm guessing they've never actually seen the movie before. Not only is Zilla shown to be a mutated lizard, a paleontologist in the film tries to identify the monster as an Allosaurus only for her suggestion to be rejected on the grounds that the monster is too big and dinosaurs are extinct.

Yeah, it was shown that Zilla is a mutated marine iguana. I don't know who is editing this, but he must stop. 493Titanollante (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Zilla is actually a green iguana, not a marine iguana. Both species have a very distinctive appearence; note the green iguana's long muzzle, the dewlap on its throat, the fatty cheek deposits, the large, round scales on the lower jaw and the slender body. In contrast, the marine iguana has a very short muzzle, no dewlap, no cheek deposits, finer scales and a fat body. The lizard guarding the nest during the opening sequence is a green iguana, not a marine iguana.

Marine Iguana

Green Iguana

Pointing this out in the article itself might be Original Research, however, so it uses the non-specific identifier "iguana." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.144.216 (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Zilla is not a lizard. It's a dinosaur, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.55.89.17 (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Erm, no. In-canon, Zilla is a mutated iguana (either marine iguana or green iguana, since though the film says that it's a marine, Zilla overall looks more like a green iguana); in the real world Zilla is a attempt at redesigning Godzilla that was designed like a modern theropod so it could look agile, which ended up just making the fans even less pleased then they already were with the final product.

Of course, a creature of Zilla's size would be about as agile as a flying brick on wheels if it could exist, but eh. Movie logic for ya'. Raptormimus456 (Talk paeg, boyo)

Alias issue

First and foremost, I'd like to thank whoever cleaned and polished the article. It's simple, straight to the point, and cites reliable sources as opposed to previous edits. However, I have a minor issue I'd like to bring up for discussion.

As many of you are well aware, I'm assuming, Zilla went by several aliases prior to Toho officially renaming it to Zilla. The most popular alias was GINO, the acronym for Godzilla In Name Only, coined by Godzilla purists. Zilla also went by other aliases such as TriStar Godzilla, American Godzilla, even Hollywood Godzilla. However, none of these aliases appear to be listed in the alias section of the infobox and this is where my issue comes in.

Godzilla 1998 is kept on the alias section but other aliases such as Gino or TriStar Godzilla have been left out, with those terms deemed "unofficial" however, someone added a "DO NOT CHANGE" warning on the alias section stating, "Official names only! GINO is not an official term.", which I find contradicting because Godzilla 1998 IS NOT an official term either! It is not a legal copyright nor is it addressed as an official term for the character by either Toho or TriStar.

As far as I'm concerned, Godzilla 1998 is another term coined by fans and journalists long ago to distinguish it apart from Godzilla. Much like the term Gino was coined. Additionally, the purpose of the alias section is to inform readers what the character is also known by. Well, the Zilla character is also known by as Gino, TriStar Godzilla, American Godzilla, and Hollywood Godzilla. Godzilla 1998 is a term for the character no different from the ones I've listed. I don't understand why these other aliases should not be included in the alias section. Yes, they may not be official, but neither is "Godzilla 1998". As far as I'm concerned, that term has no legal capacity whats so ever. So why should that term (which is unofficial) be kept while the other terms (also unofficial) are alienated? --Armegon (talk) 11:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• I second this notion. While I may hate the GINO alias myself, I still recognize it as an alias for the Zilla character that many peole still refer Zilla by. Godzilla 1998 is just as unofficial as GINO, so I believe we should have every right to add the other aliases in. Kaiju-Human (talk) 04:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure the name "Godzilla 1998" was used on official Japanese products before the name change. But perhaps the "alias" section should be removed altogether, all it does is invite fanon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.144.216 (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Apparently the video game Godzilla Generations uses the name "Godzilla-USA". It seems that's the closest we've got to an official "alias" for Zilla.

• • "Pretty sure" doesn't confirm its legal capacity. I can guarantee you that the term Godzilla 1998 was not used in ANY products prior to the name change. While Godzilla USA was used for the character in the video game, it still doesn't stand as an official term for the character either because A.) it wasn't copyrighted, B.) it is not trademarked by Toho as that and C.) that term was only used ONCE for the character. I do agree that Godzilla USA should remain on the alias section but along with others such as GINO, TriStar Godzilla, American Godzilla, and Godzilla 1998. You can go ahead and say that GINO is not an official name but neither is Godzilla USA or Godzilla 1998 because those terms haven't been legally registered as copyrights or trademarks, therefore marking them as unofficial as well. In the games Godzilla: Destroy All Monsters Melee and Godzilla: Unleashed, they contain SEVERAL PLAYABLE GODZILLA CHARACTERS. For example (in Melee) there is GODZILLA 90's and GODZILLA 2000, however, those terms weren't used as official terms to refer to Godzilla and were just simply other aliases. No different from GINO or TriStar Godzilla. Prior to the name change, some sources even refereed to the 1998 creature as GINO. I don't understand why Godzilla USA or Godzilla 1998 should remain on the alias section only when they're just as unofficial as GINO, TriStar Godzilla, and American Godzilla, which is what the character is also known by, hence the purpose of the alias section. There is no legal capacity behind Godzilla 1998 or Godzilla USA to deem them official and to be the only aliases to remain on the alias section. If there is legal capacity, then legal documentation confirming their official right should be presented just like legal documentation was presented confirming the Zilla name change to change back this article to Zilla but as of now, no such legal documentations exist. Therefore, Godzilla 1998 and Godzilla USA shouldn't be the only aliases listed on the alias section when they're just as unofficial as GINO, TriStar Godzilla, and American Godzilla. Armegon (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I could have sworn I saw "Godzilla 1998" used on the packaging for a model kit, but it may have just been a garage kit. At any rate, "Godzilla-USA" is the closest we've got to an official "alias" for Zilla since it appears in an officially licensed Toho product. I was under the impression the "alias" field on these Toho monster articles were meant for alternate translations or secondary names for the characters, such as "Spiega", "Gimantis" and "Minya". "Godzilla-USA" may not be the Official Legally Registered Trademarked Name for the character, but an alias invented by Toho absolutely takes priority over fanon such as "TriStar Godzilla" and "American Godzilla" (which isn't allowed on Wikipedia anyway as per WP: Original Research.) "GINO" is mentioned under criticism and it's relavent to that section because it's indicative of the backlash against the character, but including it in the "alias" field gives it undue weight. To me this just sounds like more of the sort of quibbling minutea that this article was overhauled to purge anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.144.216 (talk) 09:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Swedish Version

http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Godzilla

^It would appear the Swedish version of this article is still infected with the bias that was poisoning this one until recently. Anybody up to fixing and redirecting it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.144.216 (talk) 06:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• If anyone can speak, read, write Swedish then that would be fine. Can't we got some Swedish admins on this? Armegon (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"Supervillain"

Removed Zilla from the "Supervillains" category. A villain is evil by definition. Zilla has no moral agency, it's just a non-sapient animal behaving in accordance to its biological imperitives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.144.216 (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism on the page again?

Someone has gone and re-edit parts of the page to distinct the characters Zilla and Godzilla 1998 as different characters. This is not true, Godzilla 1998 is now copyrighted as Zilla. Evidence has been provided to vouch for that fact and here's another piece of evidence. Comic book artist Matt Frank, who's employer IDW comics holds the rights to Godzilla and all other Toho characters, including Zilla, has confirmed (via official deviantART page) that Toho makes zero distinction between "Zilla" and "Godzilla 1998" with the exception of title alone. Ever since 2004, Toho's official stance has been that any future incarnations of the character be referred to hereafter as "Zilla.". I suggest that the page be reverted back to its original state before the unnecessary changes and removals. Armegon (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 493Titanollante (talk • contribs)

Godzilla 1998 itself has not been trademarked as Zilla, but Zilla itself is a trademarked version of Godzilla 1998/American Godzilla. And what Matt Frank has said basically means that Godzilla 1998 and Zilla are of course from the same kind of creature or the design that Patrick Tatopoulos created, but they go by different TITLES, meaning while the Zilla-trademarked version of the creature go by the name/title of "Zilla", the 1998 monster go by the name/title of Godzilla. There's no arguing they aren't of the same type of fictional monster, but according to the agreement in the talk page this article was supposed to specifically be about the "trademarked version" (the one, Zilla, that appeared in Final Wars and the comic Rulers of Earth). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.101.38.241 (talk) 09:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Shogo Tomiyama confirmed that the 1998 creature is now officially called Zilla. He was literally quoted as saying "we renamed Hollywood’s 1998 version of the monster ‘Zilla’ because they took the God out of Godzilla." The page is about Zilla and must cover every incarnation of the character, including the 1998 creature because that's where the character first appeared. Just like how a page title American Godzilla must cover every single Western interpretation of Godzilla, not just the 1998 film incarnation. The 1998 creature is no longer trademarked as Godzilla and as Shogo Tomiyama said, an official representative from Toho, it is now called Zilla. Armegon (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:WAF, articles about fictional characters should be written from a real-world perspective. In the real world, this fictional monster goes by the name "Zilla", because this is what Toho says it is. This retroactively applies to all past incarnations of the character. Continuity doesn't apply to trademarks. The Marvel Comics incarnation appears on Toho's Godzilla logo, but the logo is used as a catch-all for EVERY incarnation of the character. Same applies to Zilla.

Wow, this is an excellent argument you've put up here. I really must congratulate you, because you've made this thing a bit easier to understand. So yeah, TurokSwe lost the "Godzilla and Zilla Debate"... again. Except, it's not a debate anymore. It's just a flat-out fact. 493Titanollante (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

More or less. Wikipedia treats fiction as fiction. The old Zilla article was written from an "In-Universe" perspective, as though it were cataloguing individuals of a species of living organisms. "In-Universe", a quack biologist nicknamed his pet iguana "Godzilla" after its parent, who was misidentified as such by the press. In the real world, this fictional character was initially named "Godzilla", but was subsequently treated as a separate character and renamed "Zilla" by its legal owners. Wikipedia prefers the latter approach to writing about fiction. If it helps, think of IRL!Zilla as an "actor" in a sense: the movie (and subsequent cartoon) are titled "Godzilla", and Sony needs permission to sell this movie because they don't own the trademark, hence the disclaimers that appear on the packaging. The character is officially named "Zilla" in the real world by its parent owners, and it "played" the titular monster under the in-universe nickname "Godzilla".

Of course, the 1998 movie is still titled Godzilla, but that's because you can't change a movie's title post-theatrical release. All incarnations of the character(s, since the 98' Baby Zillas were also trademarked in the same move by Toho) in the article are indeed trademarked Zilla and Baby Zilla, and not Godzilla and Baby Godzilla. User:Raptormimus456 Talky-walky page! —Preceding undated comment added 13:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Zilla's Sex

Here's the quote from scene 14 on the Godzilla 1998 R1 DVD commentary regarding Zilla's sex. It comes after a discussion where they talk about the original Godzilla and Minilla, and the ambiguity concerning Godzilla's sex in the original Japanese films. This is what Tatopoulis (the creator, not the character) had to say about Zilla:

Tatopoulis: "What's interesting about this one is that we did end up sculpting the genitals of the creature, which you barely see in the movie. You guys (the other FX directors on the commentary) were aware of that, when we started the CG, we actually created the genitals. Thank god we didn't see too much of it, we were quite discrete. (Nervous laughter) But y'know, it was interesting that we were building some of that." ... "The funny thing is, if we did make male genitals, it would be very scary, because most of the shots are from the street level, I think it would be too much." (More nervous laughter)

So we have confirmation from the effects crew that Zilla has lady parts. A true hermaphrodite (such as a snail) would have a mix of male and female parts. It would appear that Zilla is an asexual female, like other parthenogenic lizards. I'm not sure if we should use gendered pronouns for the character in the article itself though, since the article paints in broad strokes and approaches the subject from a real-world perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.100.15 (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

New Infobox Image

Could somebody with an account possibly upload a new picture for the infobox? The current one is cropped and doesn't show much of the character's design. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.100.15 (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, if consensus was that the image needed replacing, I would. But there doesn't seem to be any (not to mention the infobox image is one of the most famous Zilla images), so we'd probably need a clear consensus that the current one needs replacing (besides, it shows all of the design it needs; the stance, legs, arms, head, neck, body and part of the tail) before even thinking of replacing it. Raptormimus456 (Got somethin' to say?) —Preceding undated comment added 13:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

http://static.markiza.sk/a501/image/file/1/0690/crjq.jpg

Maybe this one would be better (albeit slightly cropped and heavily reduced in size, of course.) It's literally the same picture but shows more of the tail, not to mention the horizontal posture, which is one of this design's most distinctive features. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.109.237 (talk) 02:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I may be recalling wrong, but I'm pretty sure that prose is just as useful in describing character design as an image, so we already have a good description;

"Godzilla was originally conceived by Toho special effects directors Eiji Tsubaraya and Akira Watanabe as a robust, erect-standing, plantigrade reptilian sea monster and played by an actor in a monster costume; Tatopoulos reimagined it as a lean, digitigrade bipedal iguana that stood with its back and tail parallel to the ground and rendered via computer animation. The monster’s distinctive facial features include a prominent lantern jaw, inspired by the fictional tiger Shere Khan from Disney’s animated adaptation of The Jungle Book. Zilla’s color scheme was designed to reflect and blend in with the urban environment."

So yeah, I don't think we need a bigger image when the prose does that job for us. The current image is fine. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Now then, considering the upcoming film...

Because the name "American Godzilla" is, while previously assigned to Zilla pre-Final Wars, now being used to refer to the 2014 design, what would that entail as for the redirection of "American Godzilla" to the Zilla article? I'd assume that, since it's an American version of the Godzilla character, it would have to be in the "American Godzilla" article, if the consensus was that AmeriGoji deserved it's own Wikipedia article. If not, than would we would need to redirect American Godzilla into another section of the base Godzilla article, or just have a new article on every Godzilla design? Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Other than listing the Godzilla suits and redesigns a new page for the Godzilla 2014 is not necessary at all. Though that is a rather massive undertaking. As there are over a dozen suits each with modifications for any time one is reused in another film. Would also need to make a list of CGI models starting with the one that appeared in Godzilla 2000.Assuming they share the same names as the suit in the film they appear in. Does Toho have an official name for the 2014 version yet? .

Also this discussion would be better in the main Godzilla talk page. CLS (talk) 08:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that's true. Toho hasn't made a comment on any other name for the AmeriGoji, though they have apparently seen the film and given it their approval, suggesting that it would be in the main article for Godzilla as a character. But yeah, I guess having everything related to Godzilla would be placed in the main Godzilla character article, including the Gareth Edwards remake, makes the most sense. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of "Reception" paragraph?

In order to avoid an "edit war", I guess we can discuss this as gentlemen. KingHooves has decided on his own to remove the "Reception" section of the article under the reason that it is "inappropriate" and it relies on "fan blogs" as sources. Firstly, the paragraph cites multiple reliable journalistic sources to support the paragraph's claims. THE ONLY thing close to a blog cited is Matt Paprocki's review of Godzilla: The Series from blogcritics.org, which last time I checked, was not a "fan" blog. Secondly, the "Reception" section is no where near "inappropriate". It is constructive and informative to a high extent. It would be considered "inappropriate" if it were written as a biased rant from a fan, which is clearly not the case. There is no denying that there was a spark of controversy behind this character & the section covers said controversy in an unbiased, constructive, informative, & journalistic matter and this is why I have reinstated the section. An entire section cannot be removed by one person's decision because they do not agree with it. We must reach a consensus to see if the paragraph is worth keeping or not. Please check the Revision History page to learn more. Armegon (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Keep - I think it is encyclopedic, although we can always discuss the content. I think in the history of the series the character is quite notable. And that it was controversial as it was so unlike the Toho Godzilla and the subsequent reaction. Alaney2k (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - I very much agree with all of your points. We can't remove a section, which gives reason as to why the character was renamed to Zilla, just because someone doesn't agree with it. 108.214.32.91 (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree with everything everyone has already said. 493Titanollante (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Anti-sockpuppet - I am not particularly fooled by any of this. KingHooves (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • If you think we're sockpuppets, KingHooves, then that's too bad. If that's not what you meant by that, then an explanation would've been appreciated. 493Titanollante (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - Nakajima, Satsuma and Kaneoko's sentiments reflect the general consensus on the character and are well known. The audience backlash against the character is one of the few notable things about it. 99.242.109.237 (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Rulers of the Earth

The same Zilla would later go on to fight Godzilla once again, in a slightly longer battle, in the 2013 IDW comic series Godzilla: Rulers of Earth.[18]

This appears to have been taken out of context, the citation doesn't say what this claims it does. Furthermore, Matt Frank has stated that the IDW Godzilla comics are set in their own continuity. For legal reasons, they're not allowed to be set in the same continuity as any of the films.

New Information

http://31.media.tumblr.com/712098e787d5e3d1204cccadb9a294fc/tumblr_nbosoeA8nq1rl1vlfo1_500.png 206.87.21.82 (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how this contradicts the article? It already says that the name "Godzilla" continues to be used for the 1998 film and TV series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.109.237 (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Zilla mentioned in Godzilla, Mothra and King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All-Out Ridiculous Title

In the very beginning of Godzilla, Mothra and King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack, Zilla is indirectly referenced as "another giant monster attacked eastern American at New York City" a few years ago. (According to the subtitled version of the film.) This is without a doubt referring to Roland Emmerich's Godzilla. This is just something I thought worthy of note, further establishing Zilla as canon but distinct from Godzilla, but I cannot edit Wikipedia pages very well, so yeah... Can someone else do it for me? 68.100.138.56 (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation page for 'American Godzilla'

As some of you may have noticed, I've added other American interpretations of Godzilla to the American Godzilla redirects here column. It seemed a bit unfair that only the two Hollywood films were listed as the association of American Godzilla when there have been countless of other American interpretations of many mediums that came before and after said films. After adding these other American versions of Godzilla, the column seemed bloated to me and the thought came to me about separating "American Godzilla" from the Zilla article & giving it its own disambiguation page, given that there is enough material to list as "American Godzilla". Thoughts? Armegon (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Introduction

My suggestion is that the introduction of the article be changed from this;

Zilla (ジラ Jira), formerly known as Godzilla, is a kaiju that first appeared as the titular character in TriStar Pictures 1998 film Godzilla. It was initially created as a reimagining of Godzilla but was later retconned as a stand-alone character by Toho (the license owners) for future appearances. The character has since appeared in other media as "Zilla."

To the following;

Zilla (ジラ Jira) is a kaiju that first appeared in the 2004 Toho film Godzilla: Final Wars and acts as a variation of the titular character in TriStar Pictures 1998 film Godzilla. Zilla has since appeared in the 2013 comic Godzilla: Rulers of Earth and the 2015 video game Godzilla: Kaiju Collection.

That for the simple reasons that it is much more simplified and easy to understand and doesn't invite for the possibility of misunderstanding the written text and because the trademark-references aren't necessary (they are simply just demonstrating whether or not a certain trademark is active or not, but they say nothing on any changes of names) or could be mentioned in another section simply. Zilla wasn't "formerly" known as Godzilla, but Zilla was never under that title, nor has the 1998 Godzilla changed its title to Zilla. Zilla is just yet another different incarnation of the 1998 Godzilla. It also includes better references, such as the relatively newly published article on SciFi Japan tackling the title-controversy in a clear way. 78.73.25.173 (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that we should probably remove the "formerly known as" part and add "Godzilla" to the alias section, given the new material published by Keith Aiken but what I'm really having an issue with is this part Zilla is a kaiju that first appeared in the 2004 Toho film Godzilla: Final Wars and acts as a variation of the titular character in TriStar Pictures 1998 film Godzilla. It makes it seem like we're trying to separate the characters through continuity. That's like saying that Godzilla is kaiju that first appeared in 1974's Godzilla vs. Mechagozilla but acts as a variation of the titular character in the 1954 film Godzilla. It treads close to WP:SYN guidelines. Keith said that Zilla is a variation of Godzilla 98 and a variation has to have something precede it in order to be a variation, incarnation, or new version of something and in this case, the first iteration of Zilla was the monster in the 1998 film, G98 precedes 2004 Zilla or IDW Zilla, so we really can't open the article with "Zilla is a kaiju that first appeared in the 2004 Toho film Godzilla: Final Wars" when there were two incarnations that pre-date the 2004 Zilla. The original opening stated that it "first appeared as the titular character in TriStar Pictures 1998 film Godzilla", meaning it acknowledges that the first version of this character was as Godzilla but also covers the Zilla part. Additionally, the article does identify the 1998 monster as Godzilla multiple times, especially when you look at the film section when it separates the variations "As Godzilla" or "As Zilla". Armegon (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Zilla (Toho). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.pennyblood.com/godzilla2.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.monsterzero.us/editorials/editorials.php?catID=Nws&subCatID=15&contentID=524

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Godzilla 1998 is Not Zilla

Even though zilla in Godzilla:final wars it's a incarnation of godzilla 1998, Godzilla 1998 and zilla are still separate kaiju, because matt frank states that "Toho makes zero distinction" between the two creatures suggesting they consider to the same kind of monster, but not the exact same monster also he states "with the exception of the title alone" meaning that both creatures don't share the same name. And there is some differences between godzilla 1998 and zilla 2004, godzilla 1998 is grey with hint of yellow and has blue spikes while zilla 2004 is black and dark green and has dark blue purple spikes.They also they also have different heights, godzilla 1998 is 197 feet tall and zilla 2004 is 295 feet tall. For all of these differences it is theoried that godzilla 1998 and zilla 2004 also have different origins, godzilla 1998 being an iguana mutated by an nuclear test by the french polynesia in 1968, zilla 2004 on the other hand is a monster created or genetically engineered by the Xilliens in Godzilla:final wars. All of these reasons confirm that godzilla 1998 is not Zilla 2004 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.219.229.44 (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• The article shows the various incarnations in the picture. It's obviously been depicted differently in different media. The Zilla in final wars was based on a toy from the merchandise of the 1998 film. In general terms, it's the same character, just has looked different. In the large number of Godzilla films, Godzilla has looked different also. Your comments about genetic engineering are original research. Otherwise, if there is some reference to that, we could add that. Alaney2k (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
• Zilla in final wars was indeed based on the 1998 american godzilla but, it doesn't mean their the same character because, zilla was made as a parody of godzilla 1998, in short zilla is a separate variation of godzilla 1998 meaning that zilla is a variation, but different kaiju to godzilla 1998. References:http://the-american-godzilla.wikia.com/wiki/Zilla_(2004) and http://the-american-godzilla.wikia.com/wiki/The_Godzilla_and_Zilla_Debate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.219.229.44 (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
• You're using wikia as your source for your defense. Wikia is a fan site that relies heavily on original research, synthesis, and fan opinion. You must use real verified sources, like a source from Toho, in order to solidify your argument, not use fan opinions that are trying to sound like facts, please read WP: VERIFY and WP: RELIABLE. The page already cites reliable sources to justify the statements left on the page. Furthermore, the page is suppose to cover ALL incarnations of the character, not just one. The Godzilla page covers all incarnations of the character, it doesn't just cover only the '54 Godzilla or only the '84 Godzilla, it covers all incarnations including TriStar's Godzilla. The page makes it very clear that the '98 film and animated series incarnations are still copyrighted as Godzilla but it also clarifies that new versions of TriStar's Godzilla are copyrighted as "Zilla". Like I said, Zilla is a variation of TriStar's Godzilla and the page must cover all variations. Armegon (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zilla (TriStar 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.tvacres.com/adanimals_tacobell.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131015195729/http://expressindia.indianexpress.com/news/ie/daily/19980711/19250874.html to http://expressindia.indianexpress.com/news/ie/daily/19980711/19250874.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) 09:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussing removal of information

Someone is asking why I changed information regarding Zilla GojiraFan98 (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello GojiraFan98 (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

You there GojiraFan98 (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I reverted you as an administrative action, as you can't remove sourced material and mainly because you tried to use an external image in the article, which you can't do. Basically, you are breaking things because you seem to be unaware of how the technical side works. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oh, and this page isn't a chat room. If you are expecting replies in one minute or less, you are going to be sorely disappointed. Sometimes it's a few days. Best to get used to that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes I am unaware of technical stuff like this and I admit that I just wanted to correct the article because of the fact that the 98 portrayal of Godzilla isn’t Zilla LEGALLY, that was the only point I was trying to make. No need to be rude about it GojiraFan98 (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• I personally don't care what is in the article, but you obviously need to start a discussion about it here first. Again, my edits were to fix the stuff you broke. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Damn no need to be a dick GojiraFan98 (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Please read WP:CIVIL. You need to adjust your attitude when someone gives you usable information about how to proceed with getting consensus on an edit, or you will end up blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Block me I could care less, I just want you to talk to me normally with respect instead of hinting at me being an idiot, the end. No more responses GojiraFan98 (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

If, as you say, the '98 portrayal isn't legally Zilla, then you just need to provide a reliable source to support that claim. I'd suggest you read the page I linked there to get a good idea of what counts as a reliable source - sourcing is very important to Wikipedia, and if you remove existing sources and add content without sourcing it, your edits will continue to be reverted. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 22:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Zilla FW ≠ Godzilla 1998!

Зилла из Финальных войн ≠ Годзилле 1998!