HOME | DD
InkHyaena — Gojira
Published: 2008-04-07 20:36:45 +0000 UTC; Views: 2259; Favourites: 59; Downloads: 15
Redirect to original
Description
My version of real-Gojira. I'm having fun with the realism lately.Related content
Comments: 42
That is not Gojira that is zilla the 98 version was renamed Zilla and made his own monster.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This is Godzilla, not Zilla. Better catch up.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, it's pretty clearly Zilla.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There's not a single hint to Zilla anywhere. Not only does this creature have the same design as Godzilla '98, the artist herself states pretty clearly that this is "Gojira" - in other words, Godzilla '98. That is clear.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Zilla is the name of the '98 Godzilla. Toho bought the rights to him literally just so that they could rebrand and murder him.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You need to catch up, buddy, that's a brutally misinformed myth that's been going around since Zilla was first introduced in 2004 as a separate incarnation of the 1998 Godzilla.
First off, Toho NEVER bought the rights to Godzilla '98, they always owned the beast. What you're probably referring to is the legal rights to utilize the Godzilla character and trademark that reverted back to Toho after their contract with Sony expired in 2003. However, Sony still holds the international distribution rights to the 1998 film, and as per contract between Sony and Toho, the creature in the film is permanently trademarked as "GODZILLA" and nothing else, and thus also per said contract, Toho could never rename the creature even if they wanted to (they never did and never wanted to either, for that matter, and why would they do that to a major American picture adaptation of their famous monster). Second, Zilla is a distinct monster which at the same time as it is a brand new incarnation of Godzilla '98, it is also a separate monster altogether (from Godzilla '98) that was set up to be utilized for future projects involving Toho's own Godzilla and his established universe.
To summarize, NO, the 1998 Godzilla's name is NOT "Zilla" and NEVER was. Each and all of TriStar's Godzilla incarnations that pre-date the release of "Godzilla: Final Wars" are STILL and will REMAIN titled and trademarked as "Godzilla" alone.
I recommend that you read the following words from author Keith Aiken (who's been in close and constant involvement with various Godzilla-related projects, including the production and development of Godzilla 1998 and the issues regarding the "Zilla" trademark) so you can catch up on this issue (on the last link, scroll down to the "Aftermath" section):
www.scifijapan.com/articles/20…
Bottom line, if I may be a little brute at the same time as I'm ironic, "It's Gojira, you moron!" (if you get the reference)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Look, I'm not talking about technicalities. It's pretty widely accepted that the thing that Tristar made is not Godzilla.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I speak only on what is correct and actual - in essence, true. The idea that this creature "is not Godzilla" is exclusively accepted among a certain group of fans that happened to dislike or disapprove of the 1998 film and its adaptation of the famous beast. Outside of this group, looking at the majority of movie-fans who are not Godzilla-fans as well as the other group of people that actually appreciated and enjoyed this new take on Godzilla, there is NO issue. They (unaffected by the legal support for their stance) accept TriStar's beast for what it was always meant to be - Godzilla, and nothing else. You might not have noticed that Godzilla-fans who previously held a more negative look on the 1998 Godzilla are gradually but increasingly learning to accept it as just another among Godzilla's many faces. Perspective, maturity and relativism plays an important role here.
Again, bottom line, the creature that TriStar produced still was, still is, and still will be Godzilla. Regardless of any differing opinions among fans.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
'A certain group of fans'?
I believe you mean "The majority of the Godzilla fandom". Dude, the people who actually liked Godzilla 1998 are in the vast minority - even discounting the fact that it's a shitty adaptation of Godzilla, it's just not a good movie. The jokes fall flat, the characters aren't interesting, and its claims of being a more 'accurate' Godzilla fall apart like a house of cards at the slightest scrutiny. Even the original creators of Godzilla didn't like the film, especially seeing as it spat on every theme that the original film stood for.
"You might not have noticed that Godzilla-fans who previously held a more negative look on the 1998 Godzilla are gradually but increasingly learning to accept it as just another among Godzilla's many faces. Perspective, maturity and relativism plays an important role here."
Mainly because that hasn't happened at all. Honestly, the opposite is more in line with what I've seen: people who were originally fans of the '98 Godzilla film are becoming increasingly aware that it's not a good Godzilla movie, especially with the recent two Godzilla movies being released. I should know; I was one of those people.
And no, Zilla isn't 'another face' for Godzilla. It bears little to no similarities with Godzilla besides being a large amphibious reptile with spikes on its back. The rest of it is nothing more than a cobbled-together ripoff of both Jurassic Park and Aliens.
"TriStar's beast for what it was always meant to be - Godzilla, and nothing else."
Actually, it wasn't: the '98 Godzilla is and always has been meant to be a remake of The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms, the film that directly inspired Godzilla, and it's quite apparent when you look at it more closely. Other films by Ray Harryhausen constantly make cameo appearances in the film, both Devlin and Emmerich never shut up about it when they were interviewed about making the film, and if you grew the titular monster's hind legs, reversed the angle of the back spikes, and blew those up, you'd get something very similar to Zilla. The similarities go beyond that, especially in the plot:
-We start with a nuclear explosion in a remote region
-First person to see the monster is considered crazy
-The first traces we see of it are damage to a seaside location
-It sinks a few ships before making landfall
-First attack is at the exact same Manhattan dock
-Monster rams itself through a building during the first rampage and leaves a hole in it
-There’s a confrontation with the military down a dark main street at night
-A blood test is done on the creature’s samples after the battle and discovers a plot point
-Monster finally killed once it becomes tangled up in a New York landmark and fired upon
And in the nature of the creatures:
-They're big, but not so gargantuan that they dwarf most buildings.
-Rather than forces of nature or angry gods, the monsters act more like aggressive animals
-The two films' technology, barring some relatively minor elements, is not fantastical.
-Both monsters can be killed, or at the very least seriously hurt, with conventional weapons, not some fantastical super weapon, it just takes awhile to land any good hits.
But most importantly, they treat nukes in a near-identical manner: while Godzilla is specifically a representation of the atomic bomb and that imagery is at the forefront of his assaults, nukes in both 20K Fathoms and the '98 Godzilla film are used more as a means to get their monsters loose. The Rhedosaurus wasn't radioactive and was merely freed via a bomb and Zilla, while a mutation, didn't have any radioactive ties beyond its origin. Godzilla is the incarnation of an atomic bomb, while both Zilla and Rhedosaurus are thematically closer to just confused, large animals that mainly cause destruction from their sheer size alone.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Calm down. It's okay if you do not personally wish the 1998 adaptation to be recognized as "Godzilla", but you have no saying on the official documentation recognizing the beast as Godzilla (you cannot ignore what has been stated within the links provided), and neither will you change the mind of anyone who accepts said creature as Godzilla. Also, whether or not people consider the 1998 film to be a good film has no bearing on whether or not the 1998 creature is registered or recognized as "Godzilla". I'm afraid what you're attempting to do here is all in vain, and the juvenile arrogance displayed here does no one any good. You need to stop this irrational hate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I might not have a say in it, but Toho does. They bought the rights to Zilla and renamed it as such.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, Toho (and Sony) do indeed have a say in it, and the links I provided you with earlier makes it very clear where both Toho and Sony stand on the matter, and what they both agree upon and has always agreed upon is that Godzilla '98 will legally remain registered as an incarnation of the Godzilla-character and bearing the same title.
Also, Toho never "bought" the rights to Godzilla '98, they ALWAYS owned him because he IS but another extension of the Godzilla title and character which they already and permanently own. It was Sony who bought the rights to utilize the Godzilla title AND character in their 1998 film, but Toho owned the title and character ALL THE TIME and Sony had to go to Toho to get approval for EVERYTHING that they did with the film and its creature (and thus all that you see in the 1998 film was approved and praised by Toho), but their contract with Toho expired in 2003 and the rights to develop and produce further products featuring the character reverted back to Toho at that time. But Sony still holds the international rights to the film. Stop spreading that old myth that "Toho bought the rights" to their own character...
And yet again, they never "renamed" the creature to "Zilla", they never wanted or intended to, and they never could rename it even if they wanted to because the contract between Toho and Sony does not allow it. But all incarnations of Godzilla '98 prior to 2003 are still registered as "Godzilla" alone. The case with "Zilla" is (as I've said before) that this creature is more like an "offspring" of Godzilla '98. It's like this, Zilla is a separate incarnation of Godzilla '98 just like Kiryu is a separate incarnation of Mechagodzilla. They haven't renamed Mechagodzilla just because they introduced a new incarnation of the same character. See below for clarity;
Kiryu is Mechagodzilla, but Mechagodzilla isn't Kiryu.
Zilla is Godzilla '98, but Godzilla '98 isn't Zilla.
In other words, the latter does NOT replace or rename the former.
Now, if you personally want to refer to Godzilla '98 as "Zilla" too (and disregard of it as an incarnation of Godzilla), you have every right to do so, but be aware that you will be technically and legally incorrect and unjustified to do so. Get your facts right before you move ahead and make false claims you cannot even stand by. That's my advice to you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You really are a "letter of the law, not the spirit of the law" kind of guy, aren't you?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I am definitely a "spirit of the law"... Also, one major reason why I am even caring at all about standing up for the actual documentation and contracts regarding Godzilla (1998) is because of the evident and ardent bullying (of people who happen to be fans of this fictional creature) which has sadly been occurring far too frequently. I fight bullies and evil and protect the weak and small (at the same time as I teach actual facts, not the things people want to be "facts").
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Dude, you're not helping anyone's case. You're arguing for something that simply isn't true.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You say that, yet you can't present even a shred of iota of support for your claims, while I've already presented enough information with enough clarity through the links posted earlier. If the words that I speak are supposedly "untrue", then please give some actual support to that accusation. Don't make statements you cannot stand by. And yes, I am helping any and all fans of Godzilla '98 to combat bullies and any false claims of a supposed "name change" which said bullies may throw at them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Evidence: Godzilla Final Wars. The '98 Godzilla is shown separately from the real one, and is referred to as 'Zilla.'
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
First off, that's not even evidence. Godzilla: Final Wars is an expression of the limits to the permanent contract between Sony and Toho (i.e. per contract Toho is not allowed to rename Sony's adaptation of Godzilla, but they are allowed to introduce subsequent incarnations of the creature under different titles). If anything, that's evidence that Toho produced yet another incarnation of Godzilla (1998), just under a different title, just as they introduced Mechagodzilla under a different title with Kiryu. But the point is, the original monster was NEVER "renamed" or "retitled" and as per contract they NEVER even could rename it even if they wanted to.
To provide some ACTUAL evidence and documentation that Godzilla (1998) is NOT Zilla, you need to look no further than the following two links that I've been referring to repeatedly in this discussion (on the latter link, scroll down to the "Aftermath"-section), because these explain clearly the difference between the two creatures;
imgur.com/rw74Yk0
www.scifijapan.com/articles/20…
Again, see below for clarity on this whole issue and misconception;
- Kiryu (incarnation) is Mechagodzilla (original), but Mechagodzilla (original) is not Kiryu (incarnation).
- Zilla (incarnation) is Godzilla (1998; original), but Godzilla (1998; original) is not Zilla (incarnation).
You're beating a dead horse by ignoring my words and continuing this discussion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
...Are you terminally stupid? I admire your devotion to your cause, but you are arguing against basic evidence. Zilla is not Godzilla and never will be: He was made by a director who hated the series and was specifically designed to be a slap in the face to the series. There are no similarities between the two besides "Big mutant reptile."
There are certain aspects of Godzilla's character that remain constant in any one of his movies - aspects that Zilla doesn't have:
- He's a massive aquatic beast that breathes atomic radiation
- Conventional modern weaponry fails to do any real damage to him, requiring creative new ideas to be brought in
- He's a living metaphor for the atom bomb, or any natural disaster, really.
First of all, the second article you linked to specifically states that the creature in Final Wars is Zilla - he's explicitly called 'The American Godzilla'. It also says that Toho could use the thing in Final Wars. A quote from said article: “Toho makes zero distinction between ‘Zilla’ and ‘Godzilla 1998’ with the exception of title alone. The film itself is recognized as GODZILLA, as is the animated series. Ever since 2004, Toho’s official stance has been that any future incarnations of the character be referred to hereafter as ‘Zilla’.”
So there. Proof literally spoonfed to you. Happy now?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Now you're just rambling nonsense and insults again (and you basically totally ignored what I was saying). This is why parents must teach their precious children some discipline. Roland Emmerich only disliked Toho's movies (understandably, and everybody's got different tastes), he never "hated" them, and with the help of artist Patrick Tatopoulos he sought to create a more believable and more menacing Godzilla, one that was faster and cooler. Emmerich sought to create his own version of Godzilla, essentially, and I for one salute him for that.
///There are certain aspects of Godzilla's character that remain constant in any one of his movies - aspects that Zilla doesn't have:
- He's a massive aquatic beast that breathes atomic radiation
- Conventional modern weaponry fails to do any real damage to him, requiring creative new ideas to be brought in
- He's a living metaphor for the atom bomb, or any natural disaster, really.///
Godzilla (1998) literally fulfills each of these points. This begs the question, did you even watch the original movie and animated series? -.-
///First of all, the second article you linked to specifically states that the creature in Final Wars is Zilla - he's explicitly called 'The American Godzilla'. It also says that Toho could use the thing in Final Wars.///
And when and where did I EVER say that the creature in Godzilla: Final Wars "wasn't" Zilla??? That's what I was implying repeatedly. Pay attention again to the following illustration;
- Kiryu (incarnation) is Mechagodzilla (original), but Mechagodzilla (original) is not Kiryu (incarnation).
- Zilla (incarnation) is Godzilla (1998; original), but Godzilla (1998; original) is not Zilla (incarnation).
Do you comprehend the difference?
///A quote from said article: “Toho makes zero distinction between ‘Zilla’ and ‘Godzilla 1998’ with the exception of title alone. The film itself is recognized as GODZILLA, as is the animated series. Ever since 2004, Toho’s official stance has been that any future incarnations of the character be referred to hereafter as ‘Zilla’.”///
PRECISELY! This once again goes back to my earlier example. I.e. Kiryu and Mechagodzilla are the same essential character, but Kiryu is a later and different incarnation of the basic character, and it's all the same with Zilla and Godzilla (1998). However, Godzilla (1998) is still legally registered as GODZILLA alone, both in title and character, being just another of many incarnations of the actual and overall Godzilla character ever since his first conception in 1954. Both of my provided links makes each of these points abundantly clear.
Even though the entire section of the article tries to bring out the point that Godzilla (1998) is STILL Godzilla and not "Zilla" (while Zilla happens to be a later incarnation of Godzilla '98 just as the case with Kiryu which I used as an example), these two quotes states the following that I've been talking about;
///In creating “Zilla” for FINAL WARS, Toho continued a decades-old tradition of assigning unique names, trademarks and copyrights to the different incarnations of their monsters, including such favorites as Mechagodzilla (Mechagodzilla 2, Super Mechagodzilla, Mechagodzilla Kiryu), Mothra (Mothra Leo, Fairy Mothra, Aqua Mothra, Armor Mothra, Eternal Mothra) and King Ghidorah (Mecha-King Ghidorah, Cretaceous King Ghidorah, Grand King Ghidorah, Monster X II, Kaizer Ghidorah). This practice allows the studio to both maintain the original brand while also offering a “new” version for additional films and merchandising.///
///Toho has repeatedly stated that they still consider the 1998 film to be GODZILLLA. The November 29, 2004 world premiere of FINAL WARS was part of a celebration in Los Angeles that included Godzilla receiving a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. In their application for the award, Toho included the TriStar movie in the monster’s filmography, stating, “GODZILLA has starred in 28 motion pictures including the 1998 blockbuster film produced in Hollywood.”///
This entire issue should be settled already. Again, you're beating a dead horse.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"more believable and more menacing Godzilla"
Yeah, no. I don't know what planet you live on, but a marine iguana, a herbivorous lizard that isn't even native to the islands that the movie claims, cannot mutate into a deformed theropod thing that can somehow run at over 500 mph, can't be detected by thermals because "it's cold-blooded," and has legs that would never support its weight. It's like a sturgeon giving birth to a pterosaur - it just doesn't work.
"he never "hated" them"
You've clearly never read his interviews on the project. He doesn't really seem to understand what makes Godzilla Godzilla, and that fact makes him clearly unsuited to be the director of a Godzilla film. It's like making Michael Bay direct a heart-tugging romance; it's not gonna work.
"Godzilla (1998) literally fulfills each of these points."
Are you high? Let's see here:
-Zilla doesn't actually breath fire, atomic or otherwise
-It's killed by normal fucking jets
-It's basically a giant lizard, not radioactive in the slightest, unlike Godzilla, whose very presence leaves area uninhabitable.
You don't really understand what symbolism is, do you?
"And when and where did I EVER say that the creature in Godzilla: Final Wars "wasn't" Zilla??? That's what I was implying repeatedly. "
Then which one is it, ya flip-flopper?
Kiryu in canon is meant to be a second model based on the previous Mechagodzilla - they exist in the same continuity, dude.
You clearly have no idea exactly what you're talking about, and are just trying to make me slip up. Good day to you; I hope you get hit in the genitals.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
///Yeah, no. I don't know what planet you live on, but a marine iguana, a herbivorous lizard that isn't even native to the islands that the movie claims, cannot mutate into a deformed theropod thing that can somehow run at over 500 mph, can't be detected by thermals because "it's cold-blooded," and has legs that would never support its weight. It's like a sturgeon giving birth to a pterosaur - it just doesn't work.///
Emmerich had that goal to create a more believable and better Godzilla, and he evidently succeeded (despite the old rubber-suit fans' backlash). Now, it might not be realistic (as Godzilla has never been and never will be), but the way that Emmerich and company brought the creature to life with modern cutting edge special effects and a more believable and modern design, regardless of the realism behind this fictional creature's origin. You can't exactly get the impression that Toho's rubber suits were believable. But when you experience the magic of the 1998 film (and the 1954 original which the 1998 film is a remake of), you can't help but marvel at how real everything appears, especially for that time, and it still holds up (it still bothers me that they did not focus as much on the special effects of the 2014 film). Anyway, Godzilla and his origin stories has NEVER been realistic (no fictional creature has), but some may be considered more "realistic" or at the very least more "believable" than others. I guess it's relative. You're stating a fact that has always been evident. What are you complaining about?
///You've clearly never read his interviews on the project. He doesn't really seem to understand what makes Godzilla Godzilla, and that fact makes him clearly unsuited to be the director of a Godzilla film. It's like making Michael Bay direct a heart-tugging romance; it's not gonna work.///
First off, that's not even a "fact", but your own personal conclusion in regards to his thoughts. Second, being a devoted fan of him, his films and especially of Godzilla (1998), having grown up with that great beast and worn out the film, you bet I've dived into his words and thoughts on the entire production. Third, what makes Godzilla who he is is a matter of personal perspective, but basically, he's a gigantic reptilian fire-breathing monster that causes havoc and terror around him. Emmerich fully understood what Godzilla was all about, as does anybody else who know about the character, and he brought that image to fruition with his team's creative visions. Fourth, Emmerich was one of many good choices for a director to helm a major motion picture adaptation of Godzilla at that time, especially considering he was (and still is) "the master of disaster movies and king of destruction", which is precisely what would be needed for a Godzilla film to even work.
///Are you high? Let's see here:
-Zilla doesn't actually breath fire, atomic or otherwise
-It's killed by normal fucking jets
-It's basically a giant lizard, not radioactive in the slightest, unlike Godzilla, whose very presence leaves area uninhabitable.
You don't really understand what symbolism is, do you?///
You gotta let go of this juvenile behavior.
First off, Godzilla (1998; not Zilla) does utilize an atomic breath weapon referred to as "Power Breath", and this weapon essentially has two modes; (1) an atomic ignitable jet-stream of air and (2) an atomic fire-breath. This is evidenced both by the original 1998 film, the story treatment of the cancelled sequel to said film, the follow-up animated series, as well as various additional merchandise and video games.
Second, Godzilla (1954) is killed by a powerful man-made weapon after finally being outsmarted by the main characters, and Godzilla (1998) is also killed by a powerful man-made weapon after finally being outsmarted by the main characters (although he may also have suffered grave heartache after the revelation of the killing of his precious children, the intended heirs of this natural world).
Third, Godzilla (regardless of incarnation; even 1998) has always essentially been a giant radioactive (regardless of degree) reptilian monster of some sorts (lizard, dinosaur, alien, hybrid, unknown creature, whatever).
///Then which one is it, ya flip-flopper?///
I'm sorry, you'll have to be more specific, this statement doesn't make sense.
///Kiryu in canon is meant to be a second model based on the previous Mechagodzilla - they exist in the same continuity, dude.///
As I've understood it, Kiryu was constructed during the Millennium series, working as a reboot-series separate from Toho's previous films with the exception of the original film from 1954, so technically (in-universe) it would be the first Mechagodzilla ever assembled, but in reality it's the third incarnation of Mechagodzilla (each incarnation having been introduced in three different series; Showa, Heisei, and Millennium). Anyway, I don't see what you sought to have said by this statement. Even if Kiryu (or Mechagodzilla 3) actually did exist in the very same continuity as the previous incarnations of the character, this has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion we're having.
///You clearly have no idea exactly what you're talking about, and are just trying to make me slip up. Good day to you; I hope you get hit in the genitals.///
Again, let go of this juvenile behavior and all these ridiculous insults and ill-will, it won't ever do anyone any good whatsoever. I'm "trying to make you slip-up"? That's quite hilarious to hear you say, and even more so reading through literally every single one of your previous replies which testify towards you having already done that repeatedly yourself by not only misrepresenting me and my provided sources, but also by making inaccurate statements irrelevant to the discussion as well as speaking of your own personal opinions as if they were some sort of undisputed "fact" (as you said). Instead of getting aggravated at me, why don't you take a good look at your own wretched behavior?
Alright, good day, my dear friend. I hope you'll have a pleasant evening!
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Lediblock2 (having blocked me):
Certainly, kid.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
He blocked you??? How pathetic of him!
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yeah, you clearly have no idea how Godzilla works.
Seeing as I can't seem to get through your thick head, I'm not gonna waste my breath on you. I'll let someone far more verbose than me explain it in a way that your simple little mind can handle.
A review on the '98 Godzilla movie, one of hundreds that explain the flaws of the film:
tyrantisterror.tumblr.com/post…
And an article as to what makes Godzilla special:
tyrantisterror.deviantart.com/…
Your condescending tone is not helping your case - you are arguing for a cause that you clearly know nothing about.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
i love both the japanese and american version im also planning to collect godzilla and kaiju figures for my godzilla collection
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Needs a little more spikes but none the less awesome!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Lol. He looks like a fox that pounces on its prey through the snow!
*BOING!*
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That's where I got the inspiration for the pose.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Actually after toho fixed americas mistake by separating this thing from godzilla/gojira in "Godzilla- Final Wars", that particular monster became known as zilla rather than godzilla which is still used as the american name for the origial gojira movies. Anyway this work is a very good rendering of zilla!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't know much about all these Godzillas, I just usually end up calling them whatever comes to mind. 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Basically, Toho hated this Godzilla so much that they rebranded it as Zilla just so that the real one could murder it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
...that isn't gojira that's godzilla
Gojira= Original
Godzilla= Cheap American version
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Wrong Godzilla has always been his name in the U.S.
The monsters name is ZILLA
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
