Talk:Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019 film)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 June 2019 and 24 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cecybueso (article contribs).

Edit request "box office success"...

...to "box office disappointment". The film was objectively not a "box office success" when the article itself goes on to say that it is hundreds of millions of dollars away from break-even.

Help with sources.

Can some of you help me with sources for this article? Thank you- Vincent ☺ Tristar72 (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Title

We should remove "(2019 film)" from the title because there are no other film with that exact title.Enjoyer of World (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It must be removed. DarkFallenAngel (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The only difference from the 1956 movie title is an "!". This title makes it clear. Alaney2k (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

There are ',' and '!'. This film use ':'. Enough difference.--Enjoyer of World (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

You can add the information "This article is about the upcoming film. For the 1956 film, see Godzilla, King of the Monsters!".--Enjoyer of World (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

That is there. Alaney2k (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Alaney2k: "," and "!" is enough difference. If "This article is about the upcoming 2019 film" is there, no need to add "(2019 film)" to its title. Enjoyer of World (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. They both share the subtitle "King of the Monsters", how is that not the same? The only differences are the punctuations, which holds very little ground to distinguish the two, let alone remove the modifiers. Please read WP:ATDIS, it clearly states when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary. The "(2019 film)" part distinguishes this film from the 1956 film, henceforth it is necessary. If someone were to google "Godzilla King of the Monsters" right now, they would only find plenty of results regarding the 1956 film and very little of the upcoming 2019 film. The "(2019 film)" part helps disambiguate the two films and helps readers navigate their search results better. Armegon (talk) 03:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Wow thank you. Now I understand. Enjoyer of World (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Somebody has requested this move, and the result was: not moved. The punctuations are small differences. I believe that this discussion should be closed. 2601:205:4100:CB5B:9814:5516:7567:34E0 (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Title move

As per an announcement via their Facebook page the film is officially titled Godzilla II: King of the Monsters in the UK: https://www.facebook.com/GodzillaMovieUK

So the lead of the article should be changed appropriately. Gistech (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

That title may be for the UK release but this is an American production and all material released by the studio so far has titled the film as Godzilla: King of the Monsters. Armegon (talk) 07:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect material released by the studio in other countries and territories includes the alternate title. In order to keep with Wiki guidelines. The alternate title NEEDS to be in the lead. Every other American production Wikipage with an alternate title, has it in their leads. This page is a disgrace without it. ThatIPGuy (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if it's an American production, other American produced films are represented on Wikipedia with their alternative titles in the introductory line. It is important to keep this information immediate for international viewers who know the film by its international title. It helps redirect international audiences to the page. This is an American production viewed on an international scale, international viewers have to be accounted for here. Refusing to do so is selfish on the user's behalf, with American elitist agenda in mind. 2001:8003:8126:1B01:95F0:4EB:FB2F:F378 (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

"Refusing to do so is selfish on the user's behalf, with American elitist agenda in mind". WOW! I guess we can rule out that the anonymous user is not taking the matter seriously. WP:FILMLEAD states that the lead should only summarize key important points of the article. The international title is hardly noteworthy since its only addition is a roman numeral, not a new title altogether. The international title is already covered in the Release section with a verified source, so there's no need to add it in the lead and there is no rule requiring that the international title be added. @Alaney2k, you have contributed to this article and other MonsterVerse related articles, what's your two cents on the matter? Armegon (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Armegon is such a control freak.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:9052:B901:B857:6A07:6F8E:7F7A (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Because I follow Wiki guidelines? Yeah, I'm the bad guy for keeping the children from treating these articles like fandom Wikias without moderation or oversight. What a crime. Armegon (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually if you were concerned with following Wiki guidelines, you'd add Godzilla II: King of the Monsters to the lead of the article, because every other American production Wikipedia page puts alternate titles in their leads. Be responsible and add it. I STRONGLY SUPPORT adding the alternate title to the lead. ThatIPGuy (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Alaney2k please add your deciding vote in this matter. ThatIPGuy (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Puzzling. The Facebook page showed Godzilla II then seems to stop using it. Were they just trying it out? Alaney2k (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Alaney2k Here's the official page from Roadshow Films (WB's distributor in international markets) which displays the II [1] Each person who has commented on this talk page has voiced support for the alternate title to be added. Even without support written in bold, it's clearly visible that most people want the title in the article's lead to represent the movie being released internationally. Every other wikipage of an American production has the alternate title in the article's lead, however Armegon has taken extreme lengths to prevent this from happening.ThatIPGuy (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@User talk:ThatIPGuy's opinion and vote should not be considered because the user is manipulating votes, check here. ThatIPGuy deliberately added support votes to influence consensus to his/her favor. Armegon (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I've seen admins and editors get quite mad over sock puppetry and other rules breaking. The rules breaking has to stop. There is no rush to figure this out. Alaney2k (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I have added a link to this discussion to the Film Project talk page. Somebody there can help us out. It seems reasonable to add the alternate title in some way. Alaney2k (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Oops. I see above that it was added in the Release section. Alaney2k (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• Note: User:ThatIPGuy and two other users who posted to this discussion have been indefinitely blocked for abusively using multiple accounts in an attempt to drum up consensus here. !votes from the sockpuppets have been removed. User:ThatIPGuy's comments were left in place. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThatIPGuy for more information. ST47 (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I have added a redir page Godzilla II: King of the Monsters to this article. Alaney2k (talk) 20:23, 29 April 20

@Armegon: The Avengers (2012 film) seems comparable. It has slightly different titles internationally. The article shows the alternate international titles in the lead sentence. And that is considered a good article. Alaney2k (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah but that alternate title is significantly different from the original. It's notable. The alternate title for Godzilla is the exact same as the original, the only difference is that the alternate title has a roman numeral. That's why I find it hardly noteworthy for the lead. Armegon (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

That's true, but a large segment of the world will know this film under a different title. Which would appear to be an official title? In advertising, listings, etc. I wonder if they will put a different title screen on the film. Alaney2k (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

It's possible. I've seen some of the UK trailers use the title card Godzilla II. Perhaps they will use that title card for the European release. Armegon (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Alaney2k I support changing this article to be in line with The Avengers (2012 film) it's only for the benefit of the page, and while this is an American and Chinese production, it is seeing a worldwide release where the worldwide audience should be fairly considered. The foreign title under the "Release" section feels unprofessional and inconsiderate of the worldwide audience. I think using The Avengers (2012 film) as an example, should be the way to resolve all of this. It only makes the page seem more professional as this is a movie seeing a worldwide release. Rebirth3k (talk) 12:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

It has been pointed out that User:Rebirth3k is a suspected sock puppet account for User:ThatIPGuy, check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThatIPGuy. Armegon (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry? I don't understand what you mean. Rebirth3k (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. The international title is not different enough to warrant inclusion. If someone from France can't understand that Godzilla II: King of the Monsters is the exact same film as Godzilla: King of the Monsters then that is their fault, not Wikipedia's. Bob2448 (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Wikipedia is from America. If there is an article about a movie, the title would be the one from the American version. The alternate title should only be in the lead. 73.185.25.110 (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Music section

i dont know where you would find a source for this, other than the trailer released today, but the final trailer features the King of Monsters theme, or a modern version thereof, alongside Over The Rainbow from Wizard of Oz. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFxN2oDKk0E shadzar-talk 19:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The usual approach is to look for secondary sources that mention it, then add a note about it with a reference. Doesn't seem notable, IMO. Alaney2k (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2019

A full plot synopsis change from the current

"The heroic efforts of the crypto-zoological agency Monarch as its members face off against a battery of god-sized monsters, including the mighty Godzilla, who collides with Mothra, Rodan, and his ultimate nemesis, the three-headed King Ghidorah. When these ancient super-species—thought to be mere myths—rise again, they all vie for supremacy, leaving humanity's very existence hanging in the balance."

to

"In 2014, Drs Mark Russell (Kyle Chandler) and Emma Russell (Vera Farmiga) lose their son Andrew during the the battle between Godzilla and the MUTOs in San Fransisco. 5 years later, Mark and Emma have separated. Emma and their daughter Madison, both work with crypto-zoological organization Monarch, to track down and study Titans, giant God-like monsters that once dominated the Earth. The pair investigate an enormous egg inside a temple in China. It soon hatches, giving birth to a giant larva that Monarch dubs "Mothra". Emma is able to communicate to Mothra and other Titans with a device called "The Orca", capable of emitting frequencies that only Titans can respond to. Mothra becomes docile, until an organization of eco-terrorists, led by Alan Jonah (Charles Dance), an ex-British Forces officer who resents humanity for their wars and environmental destruction, attack the area and kill all the other scientists. Mothra manages to escape during the confusion and escapes underneath a waterfall, and the terrorists kidnap both Emma and Madison, taking them to their base in Antarctica.

Dr. Serizawa (Ken Watanabe), Dr. Vivienne Graham (Sally Hawkins), and Sam Coleman (Thomas Middleditch) of Monarch are questioned at a Senate hearing, debating whether the military takes over operations at Monarch. Monarch reaches out to Mark, who can track the frequencies of the Orca. He doesn’t warm to the organization due to their involvement with Godzilla, who he blames for Andrew's death. Monarch takes Mark to a camp in Bermuda, dedicated to tracking Godzilla. After an encounter with Godzilla, the team realizes he is heading to Antarctica, and soon after discover Jonah's intent to free a Titan encased in ice called “Monster Zero”. Once there, Mark sneaks his way into the containment facility and tries to free Emma and Madison, only for Emma to detonate the ice herself and free Monster Zero. Once departed in a chopper, Emma activates the Orca and awakens Monster Zero. The Titan destroys the facility until Godzilla emerges from the ocean. The two engage in a brutal fight that ends with Godzilla being knocked into the ocean. Monster Zero continues his rampage, killing Dr. Graham before disappearing in a freak tropical storm.

Bewildered by Emma's actions, and Monster Zero's sudden disappearance, Monarch realize Emma and Jonah's next target is Mexico and depart. Before touchdown, they are contacted by Emma directly, revealing her involvement with Jonah the entire time. She believes that humanity's gradual destruction of Earth through pollution and deforestation will eventually wipe out the world and everyone in it, and awakening each of the Titans one by one will restore the natural order to the planet, leading to a peaceful co-existence between humans and Titans. Mark realizes she's trying to make up for losing Andrew in the San Fransisco battle. Monarch evacuates the Mexican city the tropical storm is heading towards. However, before the evacuation is complete, Jonah orders Emma to use the Orca to awaken another Titan called Rodan. The volcano erupts as Rodan emerges, laying waste to the city and people below. Madison, reflecting on the carnage, begins to doubt her mother's intentions.

As the storm begins to swamp over Mexico, Monarch realizes that Monster Zero wasn’t lost in the storm, but is the one causing it. In a last ditch effort to save what's left of the populace, Monarch's air force lead Rodan away from the city, engaging him in a dogfight over the ocean, in an attempt to lead him into Monster Zero’s storm, with the hopes both Titans can kill each other. A brief battle occurs, ending with Monster Zero easily defeating Rodan. Monster Zero focuses his attention on the remaining aircraft, but is stopped by the sudden arrival of Godzilla. Monster Zero once again has the upper hand. Admiral William Stenz (David Strathairn) contacts Monarch, revealing a new, experimental anti-Titan missile known as the Oxygen Destroyer. Dr. Serizawa pleads against the idea but is overruled. During the fight between the Titans, the Oxygen Destroyer detonates in the ocean. Godzilla is seemingly killed, while Monster Zero survives unscathed. Monster Zero perches atop Rodan’s volcano and begins drawing energy from it and the storm, regenerating itself and gaining new strength. It lets loose a roar that awakens all Titans all across the world, who begin obeying their new alpha. The Titans begin a worldwide rampage. Shocked by Godzilla's death and the subsequent mayhem caused by the awakened Titans, Madison distances herself from her mother.

Monarch realizes through Dr Ilene Chen's (Zhang Ziyi) reading of mythological texts that Monster Zero (now named Ghidorah) was a "demon who fell from the sky”, alluding to an alien-origin. It is further revealed that Godzilla and Ghidorah are the alpha Titans, who have challenged each other for total dominance before. Mothra emerges from her cocoon underneath the waterfall and flies over the Bermuda facility in the ocean. Monarch learn that Godzilla and Mothra's species regularly allied together in ancient times, and that Godzilla survived the Oxygen Destroyer. Mark joins Monarch aboard a submarine to try to fully restore Godzilla. They locate his resting place inside an ancient underwater city, feeding off radiation from the sea floor to stay alive. In order to revive Godzilla in enough time to stop Ghidorah, the team decide detonating a nuke would provide him enough radiation to get back to full strength. The nuke won’t launch however, meaning someone must take it to Godzilla and manually detonate it. Despite the objections of everyone else, Dr. Serizawa volunteers himself. Setting the nuke down in front of an injured Godzilla, Serizawa sets the timer, sharing his final moments with him as the nuke detonates. A supercharged Godzilla rises out of the water, bigger and stronger than ever.

In Boston, Emma finally realizes King Ghidorah's awakening of all Titans will destroy the Earth far worse than humans could ever do, but Jonah ignores her pleas to turn back. Madison overhears this and steals the Orca, using it to lure Ghidorah to Boston so the other Titans can destroy him. Ghidorah gets to Boston first and the destruction begins, chasing Madison through Fenway Park, but Godzilla shows up with an a squadron of Monarch jets in tow. Mothra and Rodan arrive too, facing each other while Godzilla takes on Ghidorah. Rodan gains the upper hand until Mothra stabs him through the chest with a hidden stinger, taking him out of the battle. Monarch realizes that the nuke used to revive Godzilla gave him too much energy, and he will soon go thermonuclear. Ghidorah gains the upper hand after lifting Godzilla into orbit and dropping him. Mothra flies in before Ghidorah can deliver the killing blow, landing on Godzilla's downed body to protect him. She ultimately sacrifices herself to protect him. As Mothra’s body burns up, her ashes rain over Godzilla's body, transferring her energy to him, which Ghidorah starts to drain from him.

Mark, Emma, and Madison are reunited and attempt to restart the Orca, which was damaged in the attack, to lure Ghidorah away from Godzilla. Ultimately as they are evacuated, Emma drives away with the Orca so Ghidorah can follow her and Mark and Madison can escape. Ghidorah eventually catches up, killing her and destroying the Orca. Godzilla arrives, powered up by Mothra's energy back up and, unleashes two fiery atomic pulses that burns Ghidorah away. Shortly after, the other Titans arrive from across the world, bowing to Godzilla, accepting him as their new alpha. Godzilla roars, now King of the Monsters.

In a post-credit scene, a fisherman reveals one of the decapitated heads of Ghidorah to Jonah, who accepts it." 86.176.9.129 (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: There's already a full plot section in the article at time of writing. NiciVampireHeart 15:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 30 May 2019

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Most editors argue that the exclamation point in the title of Godzilla, King of the Monsters! (1956) is insufficient to distinguish the 1956 film from the 2019 film (MOS:PRECISION). There is no consensus on which film (if any) is the primary topic for this title. (non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 03:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019 film) → Godzilla: King of the Monsters – No doubt this will soon become the primary topic. Besides, the 1956 film is titled Godzilla, King of the Monsters! (note the punctuation marks) and the unproduced film is titled Godzilla: King of the Monsters in 3D (should we even have articles for unproduced films? Doesn't that violate WP:NFF?). Kailash29792 (talk) 09:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 22:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• In regards to the unproduced film, WP:NFF states that it should not have its own article "unless their failure was notable per the guidelines". I think the unproduced Miner film is notable because this was the first attempt to produce a Hollywood Godzilla film that pre-dates TriStar and Legendary's films. So much went into the development stage, only to have the project scrapped. I'd say it's notable. Enough verified sources have been cited for the plot, development, writing, effects, and cancellation. There's enough information and sources to merit its own article. Armegon (talk) 09:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree, the unproduced film was notable and is well-supported with sources. A very interesting example of 'development hell.' Alaney2k (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I think having two other films with similar titles (regardless of punctuation or two additional characters) is enough for the needed clarification. TropicAces (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support The (2019 film) is superfluous. Alaney2k (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• I'm a little torn. On the one hand, punctuation might not be different enough, which I think would mandate that the 1956 film have the dab added to the end of its title as well. On the other, punctuation could well do the trick, and then hatnotes would suffice. I'm curious if the comma in the '56 film is really valid, considering the title card doesn't have any punctuation after Godzilla, but I'd have to look at a film database for its official title. This is a tricky one. I still have to think on it, but I figured I'd provide some food for thought. Sock (tock talk) 00:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment I agree with you that, if the 2019 film should be disambiguated in the title, then perhaps the same should be done to the 1956 film. Sure, in terms of punctuation, the title of the 1956 film includes a comma and an exclamation point, whereas the title of the 2019 film only has a colon. Nonetheless, if one were to say both titles aloud, they would sound identical without the release years being clarified (that is, unless someone says the name of the 1956 film really emphatically because of the "!" at the end). I think clarification is important. –Matthew - (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I think it's important to clearly distinguish between the 1956 film and the 2019 film by including "(2019 film)" in the latter article's title, even when taking into consideration the punctuation in the former article's title. I also think it would be a little hasty of us to designate the 2019 film as being the primary topic, considering the 1956 film has been the primary topic for over sixty years. In any case, if a reader is looking for the article about the 2019 film and somehow finds themselves on the article about the 1956 film instead (or vice versa), the hatnotes at the top of each article will be able to easily direct them to their desired destination. –Matthew - (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I think regardless of punctuation, it is still important to specify the years of release for the films as people can easily get both mixed up when searching for them. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• OPPOSE: "(2019 film)" will help readers distinguish this version and the 1956 version. The 1956 version has been the primary topic for a good while now and it's unlikely to change soon. Armegon (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support -Technically, they are different titles. In situations like this, you'd have 2 separate pages (no years added) with a hatnote that explains that there is a similarly titled page and a link to it. technically, you would only use a hatnote currently if there was an ambiguiated titled that redirected to either this page or the 1956 film page. If there isn't, then a hatnote isn't used here (as it currently sits).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as TropicAces mentioned, a small piece of punctuation (!) doesn't make it very clear, per MOS:PRECISION. Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 00:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose we can't use a ! for dab except for one exceptional article Airplane! which is so super-well-known to be an exception. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Punctuation alone is insufficient to disambiguate the titles in this case, especially considering the age of the 1956 version. Vrrajkum (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The (2019 film) is unnecessary disambiguation. The titles are distinct, therefore, there's no reason to bother with parentheses. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The (2019) film is necessary to differentiate the 1956 version from the 2019 version. AceAlen (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: In my opinion the other article, "Godzilla, King of the Monsters!", should be renamed to "Godzilla, King of the Monsters! (1956 film)", while keeping the name of this article the same as it is now. I would argue that the other article is not the primary topic either. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons already stated above. A comma vs colon is not enough to distinguish the 2 titles; same goes for one containing a ! while the other doesn't. We must remember too that most people aren't going to type out the punctuation and instead will rely on the autocomplete feature to display results after typing the first few characters or so. Having this article with the "(2019 film)" suffix makes it immediately obvious to readers that it is (or isn't) the article they're looking for. I also disagree with the OPs assertion that this movie will become the primary topic after the other has been the primary for over 60 years and arguably is where this movie got its name from, proving that the 1956 version is the more notable one. —TheSameGuy (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Commment - I would point people to WP:SMALLDETAILS, which specifically addresses things like this before you single-mindedly just go "it's not enough".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support It has a different title from a similarly named movie. Felicia (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support: After looking back, I think that we should move the page Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019 film) to "Godzilla: King of the Monsters", with the latter (which is a disambig page) being moved to "Godzilla: King of the Monsters (disambiguation)". I'd also like to point out that there is no redirect for Godzilla: King of the Monsters (1956 film) to Godzilla, King of the Monsters!, so, this rename of pages would fit in line with that, too, as they are different titles that are just similar in punctuation, but not the same. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Upon further review, especially after reading Bignole's comment about WP:SMALLDETAILS along with Trailblazer101's suggestion about "Godzilla: King of the Monsters (disambiguation)", I retract my previous statement of opposition towards the requested move. –Matthew - (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Not a significant enough distinction to invoke WP:SMALLDETAILS._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Just going to point out that one of the examples they use in that guideline is "The World Is Yours", with the 2 variations only separated by the use of an umlaut. Visually, and also being able to type that, it's far less of a difference than the addition of commas and exclamation points. The reason SMALLDETAILS exist is to help not have to disambiguate when it isn't necessary. That's why we have hatnotes available to us for anyone that may accidentally come to this article looking for another one. Technically, we're disambiguating two pages with years when they aren't actually spelled the same way.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I already know. I oppose using it when the only thing differentiating the titles is minor punctuation. At least the umlaut is part of the title proper._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Pointing out the version is important and easily rocognized. Barca (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support I absolutely agree with you. The title of the article for the 1956 film is "Godzilla,King of the Monsters!",and there is no

"(1956 film)" in it. Also,people who oppose you think that it can't be distinguished because of the comma. But there is an exclamation mark at the end. So this page should definitely be moved. The "(2019 film)" should be removed. 2601:205:4100:CB5B:80DE:E032:6B2F:D69C (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)2:33 AM (UTC)

• Oppose this move 2601:541:4500:1760:A89A:65D6:E57B:36CE (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

COMMENT: I don't mean to make this sound like a voting poll but there are 10 opposed and 6 supports. It seems the consensus is clear and there hasn't been much further discussion since the 12th. Perhaps it's time to close this? Armegon (talk) 04:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The move is unnecessary and the current title differentiates between new and old movies with the same title. - TurokSwe (talk) 11:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Moving the page would mean there's no differentiating between the new and old films. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - I change my mind and oppose. There is a disambiguation page with no "(disambiguation)". 2601:205:4100:CB5B:80DE:E032:6B2F:D69C (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2019 (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.

Thoughts on the Budget?

So currently the budget in the infobox is listed at $170-200 million, which I am fine with. Most publications list the film at one or the other, and each seems perfectly plausible. However I'd love to get your guys' thoughts on this:

In their weekend box office report (cited in the article and also here [2]), Deadine notes the budget at $170 million, with a few sources saying it could be $185 million. Fine and not worth much since the 185 figure falls between the 170 and 200. *However* they then write "...though I have others telling me the project was originally shopped around at $230M net". Do you guys think that means a few people insist the film cost $230 million to produce? Or just that that is the figure that the filmmakers wanted to shoot on before the studio talked them down? The strange wording and the large leap up from $170 million makes me cautious to add it to the infobox, so want to see how anyone else interrupts it. Cheers! TropicAces (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

@TropicAces: The language "shopped around" leads me to believe that $230M is the budget that the producers were seeking for the film, but did not necessarily receive. I would stick with $170-200 million. Vrrajkum (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2019

Change

"Ben Travis, writing for Empire Online, wrote "Globe-trotting but not adventurous, action-packed but not remotely exciting, utterly overstuffed and completely paper-thin."[139]"

to

Ben Travis, writing for Empire Online, gave it one out of five stars and wrote "Globe-trotting but not adventurous, action-packed but not remotely exciting, utterly overstuffed and completely paper-thin."[139]

Reason: for other reviews, the relative rating (e.g. C-) is given, but not for the Empire review. 131.130.153.43 (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 20:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Stop changing my edits!

    If you undid my revision in the Plot section (look at the history), please read this. Many people are considering my links easter egg links, and people are changing my edits! Somebody replaced "decides" (my revision) with "agrees"! Just let me edit and stop trimming these edits. 2601:205:4100:CB5B:80DE:E032:6B2F:D69C (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

You don't own Wikipedia. Your demands to have people stop editing goes against WP:OWN. Armegon (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I realized that "them" is still there! I believe that is my revision! Well, I apologize. Please don't let anyone get me blocked. 2601:205:4100:CB5B:80DE:E032:6B2F:D69C (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Monsters

I think that we should rewrite, cleanup, edit and expand Monsters including Godzilla, Mothra, King Ghidorah and Rodan to the article please? There is going to be a lot more work that needs to be done. 89.187.100.71 (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)