Talk:Godzilla (1998 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Godzilla (1998 film). 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this film actually a remake of Ray Harryhausen ?[edit]

"At a later date, the producer Dean Devlin made a remark about the production of this work," Originally I tried to make remake of Ray Harryhausen's special effects movies but borrowed the name value of Godzilla because funds did not come out " In the play, there is also a scene tribute to 'The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms' and 'It Came from Beneath the Sea' "

In The Japanese wikipedia, it is described as a fact. (https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/GODZILLA#cite_ref-15) Doesn't this fact exist?

The scanened page of the book that has been as source in a Japanese wikipedia.(http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/toratugumitwitter/imgs/5/0/50ea903f.jpg) --126.123.157.14 (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source cited is a blog. We do not cite blogs in the English Wiki, we use verified sources. Anybody can make a blog and the Japanese wiki seems to be unregulated, unlike the English wiki. Armegon (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Armegon: Ryfle says that the film was a remake of The Beast in Japan's Favorite Mon-Star - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 6:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
@Eiga-Kevin2: You're misinterpreting what he said. He doesn't mean it's a remake in the objective/factual sense. He's making a subjective/critical comment that the film has so much more in common with Beast than Godzilla that it's practically a remake. Similar how some critics found Star Trek Into Darkness to be more of a remake of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, despite Into Darkness not being a remake at all. Armegon (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Future" vs. "Cancelled sequels"[edit]

There has been a recent dilemma on the page about a section that is titled "Cancelled sequels". The issue with it is that there is more to the future of the film than just sequels that were abandoned: There is the animated series that followed the film, there is Toho's reboot ("Godzilla 2000") that took place earlier than the studio had originally planned due to the 1998 film's failure, there is the title character's appearance in "Godzilla: Final Wars" (under the name "Zilla") and there is the 2014 reboot by Legendary Pictures which proved to be a greater success than the 1998 film.

Therefore, I believe that renaming the section "Future" with "Cancelled sequels" as a subsection makes more sense for the page. ChristianJosephAllbee (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSED. Doesn't make sense at all. Calling the section "Future" implies that the 1998 film has...well, a future. It doesn't. All of what the section covers is past tense, so how could one refer to the past as the future? TriStar lost the rights in 2003, so where's the future in that? Toho's Millennium reboot and Legendary's reboot were/are their own thing that had/have no impact nor association with TriStar's version at all and are merely footnotes to what came after 1998. So again, where's the future in all of that? Armegon (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about a compromise by having a separate "Legacy" or "Aftermath" section which covers the animated series and reboots separately from the abandoned sequels? ChristianJosephAllbee (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or naming the proposed section as "Aftermath" or "Legacy" instead of "Future". ChristianJosephAllbee (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not add your suggestions before consensus. No one has agreed to your Aftermath/Legacy option yet. WP:QUO is still in place. Additionally, the Toho's Response subsection already covers the rebranding. So there is no need to repeat this anywhere else. I don't think a separate section is warranted given that the Animated/Reboots subsections are pretty small. We could just rename the section from "Cancelled sequels" to good ol' fashioned "Sequels" and create a "Cancelled trilogy" subsection for the aborted sequels topic. Armegon (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having "Animated series" and "Reboots" as subsections in a "Cancelled sequels" section makes no sense either. If we could meet in the middle and have "Aftermath" as the main title, I would be willing to drop the "Toho rebranding" subsection since you say that it has already been covered. ChristianJosephAllbee (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a separate section for the animated/reboots section has no merit cuz again, they're too small and can easily be covered in the section they're in now. It's best to rename the main section from "Cancelled sequels" to simply "Sequels". The subsection with the aborted sequels will be a genuine subsection of its own titled "Cancelled trilogy". Armegon (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that if "Animated..." and "Reboots" are too small for their own "Aftermath" section, then what is the problem with having "Cancelled...", "Animated..." and "Reboots" all in the same "Aftermath" section? It makes plenty of sense as all of these things were affected by the critical and commercial failure of the film. ChristianJosephAllbee (talk) 02:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can ask the same thing: what's wrong with having all those sub-sections under "Sequels"? The entire section is about subsequent film installments, aborted or otherwise. "Sequels" is appropriate while "Aftermath" is inept. Aftermath is more appropriate for a topic relating to terrorism, controversy, scandals, court trials, etc. In this case, Aftermath implies more dire events followed (execs fired, director/writer blacklisted, film bans, studio bankruptcy etc.) but no such events occurred. "Sequels" is the more appropriate title for the section. Armegon (talk) 04:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A reboot is not a sequel. An animated series can be a sequel, but the purpose of the section is to cover what happened as a result of the film's failure, which includes no more sequels, an animated series AND a reboot. You say that "Future" makes no sense, but having all those things in a "sequel" section doesn't either. Aftermath, by definition, is simply a consequence or result. ChristianJosephAllbee (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still disagree and still opposed. Yes, the reboots are not sequels but that's why they're covered in SUBSECTIONS. I don't understand why subsections are difficult for you to grasp but we're at a deadlock here. You can pursue other options to bring additional opinions to the discussion at Content dispute resolution. No consensus has been reached yet, so the current edit remains per WP:QUO. Armegon (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of like the "Aftermath" suggestion proposed by ChristianJosephAllbee; I feel like it rather neatly covers everything that came after this film regardless of type (while "Sequels" only covers potential followup films to this specific film). Given a choice between "Sequels" and "Cancelled Sequels" I definitely prefer the former, as the animated series was developed as a sequel and was definitely not cancelled. "Aftermath", though, makes more sense with the later "Reboots" subheader. "Post-Release" might also work too?
I'd also like to suggest we all take a few deep breaths and chill a little; calling someone's suggestion 'inept' is counterproductive at best. It's just Wikipedia, after all, no need to get hot under the collar about it. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 19:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution, NekoKatsun. This is exactly what I was getting at when I mentioned "Aftermath" and "Post-Release" is a good broad term for what came following the movie. ChristianJosephAllbee (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I SUPPORT for using "post-release". So are we all in agreement for "post release" so the change can be made? Armegon (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 19:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Zilla(1998 film)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Zilla(1998 film) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 25#Zilla(1998 film) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Godzilla_(1998_film)&oldid=1207282345"