Godzilla Collectibles Thread

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
... wasn't Godzilla '54 a mutated T-Rex type dinosaur as shown in Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah?
In the original Yamane only speculates what Gojira could be. The only solid evidence he had of the "ancient" origin is a Trilobite found near Gojira's footprint. Which is a moot point since Trilobites went extinct before the advent of dinosaurs, so if they actually didn't extinct then originally, before the H-bomb mutation, Gojira could be any marine animal from any period of time.

"Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah" was created in 90's. It's part of the Heisei reboot and has no relation to the original film.
 
In the original Yamane only speculates what Gojira could be. The only solid evidence he had of the "ancient" origin is a Trilobite found near Gojira's footprint. Which is a moot point since Trilobites went extinct before the advent of dinosaurs, so if they actually didn't extinct then originally, before the H-bomb mutation, Gojira could be any marine animal from any period of time.

"Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah" was created in 90's. It's part of the Heisei reboot and has no relation to the original film.

Huh? Am I totally wrong here? I thought it's definitely related to the original film. Hensei wasn't a reboot and that they just acted like every other movie in the Showa era didn't exist and Godzilla Returns was a direct sequel and then the rest of the Hensei movies followed. Therefore Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah is related to the original film.
 
Depends which timeline you follow. The original '54 movie branches into both the Showa and Heisei series. The Heisei series of sequels were meant to be a more serious series working off of the original '54. So if you follow the Showa sequels, '54 wasn't a dinosaur (or at least never confirmed). If you follow the Heisei series, '54 Goji was actually originally a dinosaur. A Godzillasaurus, to be exact.

I tend to prefer the Heisei movies, so, I guess, for me, '54 Goji was originally a dinosaur.
 
I prefer the original Gojira concept and what is ultimately the Godzilla 2014 concept, that Godzilla is a mystery of nature hidden from man, mostly, drawn out into the world by man tampering with forces against nature. The difference is, in Gojira, he was representative of nature fighting back against man and a taste of the horrors further meddling would unleash, where in Godzilla 2014, the MUTOs were more the horror we’d be inviting on ourselves and Godzilla was a force of balance.

It’ll be interesting to see if in Godzilla 2, he takes a bit of grudge on man like, hey I saved your ***** from the MUTOs and you learned nothing, so now you can deal with me.
 
I like the godzilla 54 nuanced background more. The hesei literal dinosaur mutation from godzilla vs kong ghidorah is something I don't apply to the original background, more like a spinoff.

The way I see it, 2014 godzilla is like wolverine without his adamantium. He was the same creature in ancient times as he was in 2014. Radiation or atomic bombs didn't change or make him. He's just an ancient, old creature, the same as he's always been. No chip on his shoulder, no mankind's comeuppance.

A major part of Godzilla's backstory is the atom bombs and the mutation and the vengeance. Just like Wolverine is the experiments and having adamantium put on his body. Godzilla was one creature before being mutated by atomic bombs and he changed into another creature after--both physically and emotionally. His temperament changed, his body was full of physical scars, and he was able to weaponize that atomic energy.

As brutal as it sounds, Riddick isn't very far off base with his claim on 2014. He at least had the imposing, indestructability which is still a hugely important trait of Godzilla, but he was robbed of his unique and somewhat tragic backstory. And they knew better because he was teased and advertised as that same monster, but the actual film version was a bait and switch into a more heroic creature. So he's not as offensive as 1998 Gino, but he isn't true to what Godzilla really was.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
As brutal as it sounds, Riddick isn't very far off base with his claim on 2014. He at least had the imposing, indestructability which is still a hugely important trait of Godzilla, but he was robbed of his unique and somewhat tragic backstory. And they knew better because he was teased and advertised as that same monster, but the actual film version was a bait and switch into a more heroic creature. So he's not as offensive as 1998 Gino, but he isn't true to what Godzilla really was.

Godzilla 2014 doesn't hold true to the origins of the character but for me, what keeps it from qualifying as a GINO is that it does hold true to the franchise. Even Toho's own films would eventually depart from that.

For me, GINO, as describing the 98 Godzilla, is fitting in that the creature from that movie did not behave in any way like any Toho iteration of Godzilla, aside from having big spikes on his back, he didn't look like any other Godzilla before it, as often alluded, it seems to have taken more influence from Jurassic Park than anything Toho ever did.

I don't dispute those saying Godzilla 2014 isn't necessarily Godzilla as he was born, but it's also quite far from turning it's back wholly on the franchise like Sony did.
 
Godzilla 2014 doesn't hold true to the origins of the character but for me, what keeps it from qualifying as a GINO is that it does hold true to the franchise. Even Toho's own films would eventually depart from that.

For me, GINO, as describing the 98 Godzilla, is fitting in that the creature from that movie did not behave in any way like any Toho iteration of Godzilla, aside from having big spikes on his back, he didn't look like any other Godzilla before it, as often alluded, it seems to have taken more influence from Jurassic Park than anything Toho ever did.

I don't dispute those saying Godzilla 2014 isn't necessarily Godzilla as he was born, but it's also quite far from turning it's back wholly on the franchise like Sony did.
I can't think of a single toho Godzilla iteration that didn't blossom from man's need to play with nuclear power.

In that sense, it is unlike any Godzilla iteration. Even superhero 70s Godzilla still had that vengeful beginning as mankind's hubris.

I know the feel of the film feels more like a late Showa film, I do get that. But as far as the main monster himself, that nuclear scarring is a core part of Godzilla's character. He was the victim of man playing God so he came back and destroyed man's home.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
I guess it comes down to how you see things, I see late Showa Godzilla more equivalent to Batman, flash the Batsignal and he'll come to the rescue, he was man's defender, so if he were truly a scarred, tragic creature wreaking vengeance, then he would have been destroying as much as those he fought. Early Showa was true to that, vs. Mothra, GTTHM, there were whole scenes of him just destroying things and being fought off by military.

For me, at the end of the day, if I watch Godzilla 2014 I feel like I'm watching a Godzilla movie, if I watch 98, I feel like I'm watching a monster movie.
 
I guess it comes down to how you see things, I see late Showa Godzilla more equivalent to Batman, flash the Batsignal and he'll come to the rescue, he was man's defender, so if he were truly a scarred, tragic creature wreaking vengeance, then he would have been destroying as much as those he fought. Early Showa was true to that, vs. Mothra, GTTHM, there were whole scenes of him just destroying things and being fought off by military.

For me, at the end of the day, if I watch Godzilla 2014 I feel like I'm watching a Godzilla movie, if I watch 98, I feel like I'm watching a monster movie.
But he had a natural progression. That godzilla in megalon was once the godzilla from 1955 who killed everyone he saw. In ghidrah, he goes from villain to hero in that one movie. It's consistent as the rest of the series goes on.

So while he was like Batman as you put it, you still look at him and say he was once a killer who is now making amends.

2014 was just a large creature that ate radiation back in prehistoric times and as far as we know nothing's ever changed him.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
Soon.
 

Attachments

  • 674868BC-1B7B-4A9A-B2FA-06CD91860092.jpg
    674868BC-1B7B-4A9A-B2FA-06CD91860092.jpg
    217.8 KB
2014 bugs me in the sense that he was born millions of years ago in a hot bed of early earth radiation and now he roams the earth as a fully radiated protector of earth.

Nothing humans did with harnessing fusion had any negative impact on him.

There was really nothing to seperate Godzilla from the MUTO.

The MUTO liked to eat nuclear weapons why would that bother Godzilla any?

Was he threatened by the MUTOS multiplying, why?
 
It's all just as simplistic and dumb as the movie itself.
Godzilla are natural predators to Mutos, yet Mutos are natural parasites to Godzilla.
It makes absolutely no sense, just like the whole "sexual reproduction" thing.
 
Well, in G2014, the fossil at the beginning maybe the reason why the big G himself just hate Muto so much he may have a grudge on them. He also don't like another big fish in the pond so he just want to kill it. All this while a fry like human in his path and he doesn't care that much (based on Hawaii scene) as long as they don't bothered him.

All in all, it makes much sense as the movie with 200m height monster with 10,000 tons mass in it. But we still love watching it anyway, don't we?
 
I like watchin' it but GINO14 only had around 5 minutes of it overall.
The rest is generic poorly written crap about boring *** pathetic human characters.
 
Back
Top