Talk:Godzilla (1998 film)/Archive 1

runtime (& any other disputed factoids)

Is there an extended version of this movie that runs 169 minutes? If so, i'd love to see it, but i've only ever heard of the original release, which goes just a bit over two horus (140 min., according to the IMDb). Crazilla 22:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC) (oops)[reply]

The "Cameos and allusions to other films" sections states that the insurance company is called Lao Che, however it sounds more like La Rochelle which make more sense as a name for a french company.

Soundtrack in Movie?

I seem to recall that the majority of the songs in the supposed "soundtrack" Godzilla: The Album appear at no point during the film. It's been a bit since I've seen this, put I'm pretty sure that's true. Anyone know one way or the other? (71.192.34.220 (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Ain't it the review?

So, I keep hearing about this Harry Knowles review.... is this it? http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=801 If show, it should be an external link. - Kevingarcia 05:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come With Me?

Do some of you guys know the background music of Puff Daddy's Come With Me? I think I heard it somewhere before.--Martin L. King 18:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir, Led Zeppelin, 1975. - Kevingarcia 07:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just goes to show that anyone can sell out.

we deserve the sequal

Godzilla fighting a giant insect? Sounds like the sequal would have been a lot like the "real" Godzilla movies. Manhatten becomes permenantly abandoned and the new monster Island. Godzilla actually fights more and uses the fire breath. Sounds like the sequal would have done the series some justice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VRaptorX (talk • contribs) 17:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

For one thing, learn to spell. For another, wikipedia is not a message board.66.191.114.224 20:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who removed the section on Cloverfield? Scorpionman 02:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get a citation on the Godzilla sequel getting scrapped in favor of a Mel Gibson period piece? Or how about a citation for a Godzilla sequel in the event that Spider-Man 3, a film about a marvel superhero, does well at the box office? This ALMOST smells like vandalism.

Why no sequal?

THis movie kicked ass! It made twice the budget! They should renew their liscense and make a damn REAL sequel!

You're joking, right!?

The movie did make $260 million in world wide sales. However, considering it was projected to take in $250 million in the US and another $200 million overseas, its probably safer to say it got its "ass kicked." The hype and promotion surrounding this movie rivaled that of the previous years hit, Titanic. Titanic would go on to take in approximately $1.8 billion world-wide. Not only did Godzilla come no where close to meeting its projections, but the production/promotion costs absorbed its entire gross U.S. box office take. Since the studio only gets roughly 60-70% of the gross, Godzilla 1998 didn't even break even until the halfway point of its over seas box office receipts.

After word got out that Emmerich was debating the sequels creation, fans of Godzilla felt it necessary to send letters of protest. Whether or not that affected Emmerich's decision or not I'm not sure. Apparently a lot of fans of the Godzilla series hated the new look, location, and the very idea of the American Godzilla being Godzilla, me not being one of them.

Why does the article state that for a sequel to be made it depends on the success of Spider-Man 3? Son of Kong

I wonder the same thing Scorpionman 02:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A sequal? We'd be drowned out by more constant raining. GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhh You Can't Have a Sequel to This...This Anti-Christ of a movie.... The American Japanophiles/Godzilla Fan-Freaks Would Quite literally Suicide-Bomb the HollyWood sign if a Sequel to That ......Film.....were made (I actually liked the Film by the way) --81.98.179.99 (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. The reason you can't have sequel is the movie made no where near the box office take that was expected and almost bankrupted Sony Picture’s Centopolis Division. While the hate mail the Roland and Emmerich received may have been excessive, and I emphasize may, its usually a good idea to target that core audience first and build out from there. Some casual movie goers liked this movie, and probably saw it once. However, its the rabid Godzilla fan boys who generate the "hype" and will go back to see a film 5 or 6 times if they love it, or 10 million chat room pages and countless movie review articles if they hate it. In any event, Toho pictures once again has exclusive rights to Godzilla and weren’t too pleased with how their brand was muddied by Godzilla 98. 151.207.246.4 (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol it does'nt "kick ass" - but it is a good 'fun' movie, hence, a sequal would probly have been crap since we've already seen the 'fun',and since there's not much 'art' in the movie they've got nothing to build on. If you really wanna see what happens to the 'last egg' you could tr 'n hunt down the animated show

O'neil

Is the O'Neil character's name a reference to O'neil in Stargate, also by Ronald Emmerich? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.110.141 (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're reaching with that one151.207.246.4 (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Uh...is there a reason for the "suit Godzilla" picture in here, with the caption "Zilla caught in the suspension cables of the Brooklyn Bridge"? I smell a rat Scorpionman 21:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Godzilla (1998 Movie Poster).jpg

Image:Godzilla (1998 Movie Poster).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Godzilla1998DVD.jpg

Image:Godzilla1998DVD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagline is WRONG

Size does NOT matter! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.171.185 (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feh

Nick Tatopoulos, eh. More like Nick Tittopolis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.29.188 (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this film they make Godzilla a bit taller and looked more like a T-Rex. Godzilla is alot better looking in Godzilla Mothra and King Ghidorah Giant Monsters all-out Attack. The idea of Godzilla with blank white eyes looks more evil. Godzilla in the 1998 film was improved but not as good as the original Godzilla. In Godzilla Final Wars Godzilla Fights the American Godzilla (Godzilla 1998). So if you like the Godzilla 1998 and other Godzilla monsters, then you will like Godzilla Final Wars! jgkghjdfh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgkghjdfh (talk • contribs) 23:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

american godzilla vs. orginal

In one of the more recent movies, the REAL Godizilla fights the american one, then beets him in a 20 second fight, I do not rember which gozilla movie it was in, but it should be mentioned, if anyone can tell me which godzilla movie it was, that would be great--Not G. Ivingname (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The movie your thinking of is Godzilla: Final Wars-- User: Cloverbeatme!! (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Where was the Chernobyl scene filmed? And where was the french poly scene filmed?

Development section

This section, except for the last paragraph, seems to be word for word the same as some of the text on the Rodan's Roost page that it references. ([1]) Is this plagiarism on our part, or is it okay to have such a big quote? Actually, for that matter, I don't know which came first, and I wouldn't want a well written section to be removed if it was actually created by fellow Wikipedia editor(s). Is there a way to check when the Rodan's Roost page was created and/or last modified, so we could tell if they're stealing it from us or not?--RainbowWerewolf (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the incriminating passages to be safe. In either case, the development information is not reliably sourced. What we could do to rebuild the section is to take keywords from the passage and search them to find reliable sources that publish the information elsewhere. Nice catch! —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simpsons' voice actors

Isn't it relevant that this movie features 3 of the 6 main voice actors from The Simpsons? Probably we can add it as a fact and compare it to other movies showing 2 or more of them (which I personally don't think has ever happened besides this once).Microamigo (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say no. You can probably find all sorts of links between a few actors in any film. raseaC^{talk to me} 09:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One section clashes with the other

I noticed that at the end of the section entitled "Difference from The Original Japanese Godzilla," there is a line that says, "Despite that Roland Emmerich's Godzilla film did not stay faithful to the source material, it spawned an animated series that paid respect and homage to the original Godzilla films and was received well by fans of the original Japanese Godzilla."

Then a section or so below it in the section entitled "Animated series," there is a line that says, "While the film was negatively received by Godzilla fans, the series managed to gain a lot of praise."

Which is it, they seem to contradict themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.23.195 (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some unreliable sources and false facts

At the top of the page on the second paragraph, there is a line stating "Godzilla explores nuclear mutation, crisis management and military warfare." It does provide a reference link but it leads directly to Roland Emmerich's page. There is no proof that director Emmerich or anyone from the production of this film has said such a thing. Also on the top page, and this is just a minor thing, I believe the term "remake" may not fit the bill because the film is nowhere near close to the original Godzilla film in terms of story, characters, or setting. I believe the term "reimagining" may be more suitable. Also, the top page sites that "The film score was composed and orchestrated by musicians David Arnold and Nicholas Dodd", however, in the infobox section, it states that the music was composed by David Arnold and Michael Lloyd. There's no cite reference to prove or vouch for this fact.

The Accolades section is a bit questionable. The 26th Saturn Awards section has the film listed nominated for Best Fantasy film, Best Direction, and Best Special Effects. However, the source it provides lists the film nominated ONLY for Best Special Effects, not Best Fantasy Film or Best Direction. Another false fact listed in the Accolades section is that Roland Emmerich "won" Best European Director from the 11th European Film Awards. A source is provided but it directs to a dead link.

Also, the film was nominated for several Razzie Awards, of which are not listed in the Accolades section. The film was nominated for Worst Picture (Tri-Star), Worst Director (Roland Emmerich), 1998-Worst Movie Going Year Ever (Mega-Zillion-Dollar Cross-Promotional Overkill: Armageddon, Godzilla, ETC.), Worst Screenplay (Dean Devlin and Roland Emmerich) and won Worst Supporting Actress (Maria Pitillo) and tied Worst Remake or Sequel. Here is the link to vouch for these facts not listed in the Accolades seciont, ^[1]

Should we include the Japanese title in the lead or not?

The film was officially released in Japan as GODZILLA or Godzilla (depending on if we take the font literally or not) by Toho. I would hazard that including at least one version of the film's title in another language might at least be of use to the article, even if not all too major; since even if it is an American film, it has ties to a Japanese character (and has an official Japanese title, as well). We have the Japanese titles for every other film in the franchise (excepting the 2014 reboot), and this does have a Japanese title right now, unlike the new film; but that's just my own opinion, so discussion here is probably the best (and most democratic) solution. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Links

Some of the citations are not working anymore. 206.87.21.82 (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zilla

Sounds like Toho called it Zilla because it has no god. הראש (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zilla retcon mention in Lead

Mezigue has decided to make an executive decision all by himself by removing the mention of TriStar's Godzilla being retconned as "Zilla" by Toho from the lead under the basis that it's "fan-cruft". I have reviewed the Wikipedia:Fancruft guidelines and the Zilla retcon edit, shown here, does not qualify as fan-cruft. WP:FAN states Avoid including information that is trivial and of importance only to a small population of fans. The content is not trivial nor important exclusively to fans only, it is an important part of the film and character's history. Fans and audiences were not happy with TriStar's Godzilla, so next time the character made an appearance, they released it as "Zilla" in 2004 and the name has since been trademarked for all future incarnations of TriStar's Godzilla and the character has since re-appeared in other media as "Zilla" since 2004. So how is all of that information not notable or important enough to deserve a small mention in the lead??? There's enough sources that support this information, nearly enough that warranted the TriStar Godzilla to have its own separate article apart from Toho's Godzilla. WP:FAN states that information is only considered fan-cruft when the content is unimportant but the Zilla retcon is important! It's not trivial, it's an essential part of the character's history.

What is fan-cruft is something along the lines likes "both the original & 1998 movie open with the monster attacking a boat" or "one of the actors were born on the same date that the original movie was released", etc. and vice versa. The Zilla retcon is supported by reliable sources to warrant a mention in the lead, one source even cites the Toho producer responsible for the retcon and even discussing why the retcon happened. It is important for readers to know early on how the studio(s) decided to handle the character after the release of the movie. Mezigue's reason for its removal is because it is not notable enough in relation to this film to be in the lead but it certainly is notable enough in relation to the title character of the film, Godzilla, which is what the movie is about. WP:FILMLEAD even states that Succeeding paragraphs in the lead section should cover important aspects of the film detailed in the article body... These include milestones or major events in the film's production, prominent themes, reception of the film by critics and audiences, box office grosses and milestones, controversies, summary of awards and honors, spin-offs (e.g., sequels, remakes, other media), and any significant impact the film has made in society. The Zilla retcon is the result of reception from critics and audiences and it's certainly a milestone in the film and character's history. It meets the criteria of WP:FILMLEAD's reception, spin-offs, other media, and significant impact because the poor reception the film and character received is what lead Toho to change future incarnations of TriStar's Godzilla to Zilla and that deserves a notable mention in the lead. Thoughts? Armegon (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it is a textbook illustration of fancruft. It means nothing to 99.999% of the public that some spin-off thing decides this version is different from that version. The use of the word "retcon" does not really make sense either as the story is not changed. It seems to be essentially a copyright/branding decision. Mezigue (talk)

Well, you could argue the same thing that the animated series means nothing to "99.999%" of people, yet that gets a mention in the lead. Heck, you could also say the same thing about the Jan de Bont version that it would mean nothing to 99.999% of people but it's still noted in the article because it is important information yet it's not associated with Emmerich's version directly nor is it fancruft. The same logic applies with the Zilla name-change. It can't really be considered fancruft if it's supported by reliable sources and has been commonly associated with the film & character. The name-change has even been discussed officially, not just in fan circles. Chris Mowry, who's company has the license for Zilla, even associated Zilla with the 1998 movie, shown here. Toho themselves also associated Zilla with the 1998 film, shown here and here. So how is this fancruft if it's been acknowledged officially? It's notable because all Zilla incarnations are variations of TriStar's Godzilla, who originated in the 1998 film. So it makes sense that the Zilla name-change be noted in the lead so readers can know that TriStar's Godzilla was featured in other media (besides the 98 film and cartoon) but under the new name Zilla. Armegon (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Godzilla (1998 film). 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.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} 08:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links 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: 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) 18:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't link to "Wikizilla"

Wikipedia's poorly managed enough as it is; offsite wikis are universally shit; content by tendentious Godzilla fans is possibly as bad as the Internet can get. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080914184217/http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html to http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sonypictures.com/homevideo/catalog/catalogDetail_DVD043396231290.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sonypictures.com/homevideo/catalog/catalogDetail_DVD043396140851.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) 13:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140510164127/http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20140510/NEWS/305190021/Marines-unceremoniously-ousted-from-newest-version-Godzilla to http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20140510/NEWS/305190021/Marines-unceremoniously-ousted-from-newest-version-Godzilla

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) 14:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://razzies.com/asp/content/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=38

[1] ttp://razzies.com/asp/content/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=38

[1]