Talk:Zilla (Godzilla)

	Film: Japanese
This article is supported by the Japanese cinema task force.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Horror Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

/Archive 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3] [4] [5]

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

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

[6] [7]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The claims that the "Zilla" name is unofficial or that it applies only to the Final Wars incarnation are blatantly false. The NAME and DESIGN have been TRADEMARKED by Toho; check the corporate logo on the back of the Godzilla: Final Wars DVD. This is what is known as a

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

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

it can be interpreted in different ways

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

The various Toho monsters have gone by many names over the years, but Toho's official monster logos are what we've always used here to determine what the characters' names are officially. This is why "King Shisa" was moved to

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

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

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

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

It's great to see this page has been moved back to its original title but apparently, there's a

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

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

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

It seems like in the last discussion, we all agreed to move the article to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I could have sworn I saw "Godzilla 1998" used on the packaging for a model kit, but it may have just been a garage kit. At any rate, "Godzilla-USA" is the closest we've got to an official "alias" for Zilla since it appears in an officially licensed Toho product. I was under the impression the "alias" field on these Toho monster articles were meant for alternate translations or secondary names for the characters, such as "Spiega", "Gimantis" and "Minya". "Godzilla-USA" may not be the Official Legally Registered Trademarked Name for the character, but an alias invented by Toho absolutely takes priority over fanon such as "TriStar Godzilla" and "American Godzilla" (which isn't allowed on Wikipedia anyway as per

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to

WP:WAF

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

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

More or less. Wikipedia treats fiction as fiction. The old Zilla article was written from an "

In-Universe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zilla (ジラ Jira), formerly known as Godzilla, is a

retconned as a stand-alone character by Toho

(the license owners) for future appearances. The character has since appeared in other media as "Zilla."

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

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

I agree that we should probably remove the "formerly known as" part and add "Godzilla" to the alias section, given the new material published by Keith Aiken but what I'm really having an issue with is this part Zilla is a kaiju that first appeared in the 2004 Toho film Godzilla: Final Wars and acts as a variation of the titular character in TriStar Pictures 1998 film Godzilla. It makes it seem like we're trying to separate the characters through continuity. That's like saying that Godzilla is kaiju that first appeared in 1974's Godzilla vs. Mechagozilla but acts as a variation of the titular character in the 1954 film Godzilla. It treads close to

WP:SYN guidelines. Keith said that Zilla is a variation of Godzilla 98 and a variation has to have something precede it in order to be a variation, incarnation, or new version of something and in this case, the first iteration of Zilla was the monster in the 1998 film, G98 precedes 2004 Zilla or IDW Zilla, so we really can't open the article with "Zilla is a kaiju that first appeared in the 2004 Toho film Godzilla: Final Wars" when there were two incarnations that pre-date the 2004 Zilla. The original opening stated that it "first appeared as the titular character in TriStar Pictures 1998 film Godzilla", meaning it acknowledges that the first version of this character was as Godzilla but also covers the Zilla part. Additionally, the article does identify the 1998 monster as Godzilla multiple times, especially when you look at the film section when it separates the variations "As Godzilla" or "As Zilla". Armegon (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• 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 {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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.—

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

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

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.tvacres.com/adanimals_tacobell.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131015195729/http://expressindia.indianexpress.com/news/ie/daily/19980711/19250874.html to http://expressindia.indianexpress.com/news/ie/daily/19980711/19250874.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If, as you say, the '98 portrayal isn't legally Zilla, then you just need to provide a

reliable source to support that claim. I'd suggest you read the page I linked there to get a good idea of what counts as a reliable source - sourcing is very important to Wikipedia, and if you remove existing sources and add content without sourcing it, your edits will continue to be reverted. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 22:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Зилла из Финальных войн ≠ Годзилле 1998! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Нияз Шакиров (talk • contribs) 09:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but this kaiju is not zilla this is Godzilla Its always been Godzilla not only the film calls it Godzilla and even many Toys call this Godzilla Even tho Most People calls it zilla Its a Incarnation of Godzilla Not zilla Kamata kun overlord 2016 (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]