Jump to content

Talk:Godzilla, King of the Monsters!

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

Untitled

[edit]

Tirade? Went on a tirade against King of the Monsters? That's not very dictionary-like. POV for sure.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Godzilla, King of the Monsters!. 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) 13:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Godzilla, King of the Monsters!

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Godzilla, King of the Monsters!'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Criterion":

  • From Destroy All Monsters: "Destroy All Monsters (1968)". The Criterion Collection. The Criterion Collection. Retrieved 26 July 2019. ... Destroy All Monsters mounts a thrilling display of innovative action sequences and memorable images that have made it a favorite for generations of viewers.
  • From Godzilla (1954 film): "Godzilla (1954) - The Criterion Collection". Criterion. Retrieved December 17, 2017.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More 1956 reviews needed

[edit]

I'd add a lot more early reviews for the film beyond just Bosley Crowther's. A substantial number of reviews were favorable, some reviewers even showed understanding of the nuclear themes in spite of the toned down message. Crowther's low opinion of the film's special effects was a minority view among critics at the time... most praised the effects. Also, he was a genre movie hater in general, so singling his scornful review out makes it seem as if he had something against this movie specifically and not other sci-fi and horror of the time. It feeds into a popular, misleading narrative of the Burr version to just include only Crowther's bad faith review when there was a wide range of both positive and negative views of the film even at the time. This inaccurate, revisionist narrative tries to connect the supposed complete sanitization of the Burr cut to the Crowther review as if Crowther would have reviewed the film favorably if it had been released with more of the h-bomb references intact, or unedited with subtitles (he would not have). It's also a nonsensical connection because the whole thesis of Crowther's bad faith review is "it's just another stupid fake monster movie, this time from Japan and inspired by King Kong." Please understand that I'm not advocating for a more "fair" sampling of reviews, just a wider sampling that doesn't give fuel to a flimsy narrative people have been pushing for years. -- Syd

TV debut not KHJ

[edit]

Article says: “…and it made its television broadcast debut in 1959 on KHJ-TV in Los Angeles.”

Which just goes to show you can’t believe everything you read in books. KHJ in Los Angeles aired Godzilla Monday through Friday, King Kong on Saturday, and Godzilla once again on Sunday, July 6-12 1959. At least 5 other markets aired Godzilla before that. The earliest I know of is WOR in New York City, which ran a schedule similar to its 1956 King Kong debut: twice nightly Monday through Friday and 3 times on Saturday, October 13-18 1958. Source: The New York Times. 71.162.113.226 (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the comment above goes to show that you can't believe everything some random person tells you without evidence. A verified source was provided for the KHJ claim. Where's your source? Just saying "source: New York Times" is not enough. Where's the link? Where's the article? We can't alter content without a citable source. Armegon (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Of course you don't have to believe me...I'm just alerting you to the fact that the book is wrong and thus you're wrong. Ok, I tried putting a link here but I deleted it because it required my personal log-in to the Boston Public Library for access to the NY Times. But it isn't hard to check...it's the NY Times! Monday October 13 1958 TV listing 7:30pm...page 158. Why not be right? And with all due respect to that book's author, how could he have been right (verified?) when I have found 4 other stations besides WOR that aired Godzilla before KHJ. Mind you, I'm not saying WOR was first...to do that I'd have to see every TV schedule for every station in the country, wouldn't I? 71.162.113.226 (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we're wrong then provide evidence if it isn't hard to check as you claim. Otherwise, you're wrong. Plain and simple. We're not gonna do your homework for you. You made the dispute, so it's your responsibility to prove your claim. Armegon (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I said I tried to link to the NY Times but was unable to. Nobody at Wiki has access to the NY Times? And it's not a question of you doing my homework for me, it's you doing yours for you. I'm not the one being wrong in public. 71.162.113.226 (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Making claims yet not providing evidence to back them up? Sounds like you're the one being wrong in public. We found a verified and authoritative source to back up our claims. We already did our homework and showed our work. All you've provided are claims and excuses not to prove them. Armegon (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


How did I not provide evidence? The New York Times is on-line...I gave you the date, the time, the page number. Anybody reading this discussion who has access to it can look it up and see for themselves. Boston and Providence RI also aired Godzilla before KHJ, and that's from the Boston Globe which is also on-line. Also stations in San Diego and San Francisco, available at the California Digital Newspaper Collection. Who didn't do their homework? All you have is a reference in a book from the 1990s, which it turns out was wrong. It happens, books are sometimes wrong. I have a genealogy blog. If somebody tells me there's a mistake, the first thing I do is investigate it and find out what's what. Why the big fuss? 71.162.113.226 (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not evidence you provided. Anyone can make a false citation. We need indisputable evidence, a link to the article. Again, you brought up the dispute, so it's your responsibility to provide the link. What's so hard about that? Why the big fuss? The source we used is from the most authoritative and accurate scholar on the subject of Godzilla history. Therefore, it's reliable and it stays...unless you can prove it wrong with a link to the NYT article. Armegon (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Let me ask you 2 questions: (1) Do you know the exact date when Godzilla first aired on KHJ? (2) Would you agree that a TV listing in a newspaper showing Godzilla airing on another channel, in another city, before the KHJ date would disprove your claim? 71.162.113.226 (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, 1: the only TV debut date I know of is from the Ryfle source. I actually own the book and if I didn't, it's immediately accessible via a scanned digital version. That source, and likely the Kalat book, are the only sources immediately available to check the TV debut dates. 2: Yeah, I'd definitely concede to the newspaper source. But again, we need a link. Accurate info for Godzilla films are scarce, so we tend to rely on English books & commentaries published by verified journalists and authors like Ryfle, Godziszewski, Kalat, Ragone, England, Galbraith IV, and others. A text citation alone isn't enough, as it can be challenged by any other editor and reverted back to a more reliable source like Ryfle's book. Armegon (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough...well, Ryfle only says 1959...the exact dates, although I understand you needn't believe me, but for future reference just in case, are Monday thru Friday July 6 thru 10 at 9pm...Saturday the 11th they ran King Kong at 9pm...then Sunday the 12th Godzilla a final time at 9pm.

As for the link to the New York Times, WOR, twice nightly and 3 times on Saturday, October 13-18 1958, I went to ProQuest at the Boston Public Library website and copied the link, but I think you'll find it behind a paywall...well, free for library users, but not open to the general public. That's the best I can do. Why you don't want to see for yourself I still don't understand, but so be it.

https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.bpl.org/hnpnewyorktimes/docview/114530559/pageviewPDF/D4847D0E27147FDPQ/1?accountid=9675

71.162.113.226 (talk) 02:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One More American

[edit]

In the “Filming and Dubbing” section, you might mention that besides adding Raymond Burr, Frank Iwanaga, body doubles, and Japanese voice actors, there was one more addition…another American actor who had a speaking role, although he’s uncredited. That’s Mikel Conrad as Burr’s editor George Lawrence to whom he relays the story. Interesting that they went to the trouble of filming his side of the phone conversation when they could have just used a distorted voice, or nothing but Burr listening and responding. 71.162.113.226 (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just added him to the cast. Armegon (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! 71.162.113.226 (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Godzilla, King of the Monsters!/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 05:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I'll look at this tomorrow when I am more awake! — GhostRiver 05:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Infobox and lede

[edit]
  • Link "dubbing" here to Dubbing (filmmaking)
  • This version dubbed most of the Japanese dialogue into English, altered and removed key plot points and themes, and added new footage with Burr leading and narrating most of the film and interacting with body-doubles and Japanese-American actors in an attempt to make it seem like Burr was part of the original Japanese production. A lot going on in this sentence; can probably be broken into two.

Plot

[edit]
  • Plot clocks in at 577 words, good job
  • Delink Tokyo per MOS:OVERLINK
  • Pipe "H-bomb" to Thermonuclear weapon
  • "fiancé" → "fiancée" since Emiko is a woman
  • Spell out "Japan Self-Defense Forces" on first intro and then add (JSDF) in parentheses for future use
  • Specify Japanese Navy

Cast

[edit]
  • Good

Production

[edit]

Crew

[edit]
  • I have never seen a section like this before; usually the crew is woven into the prose
  • In any case, rather than having the same reference listed after each person, it might be easier to include a line like "Personnel taken from A Critical History and Filmography of Toho's Godzilla Series", and then have the one citation attached to that sentence (an example of this can be found in most music articles, like the Personnel section of Painting of a Panic Attack)

Development

[edit]
  • No period needed on the quote attribution in the quote box
  • The first instance of "Toho" in the body should be linked
  • "advertisement materials" → "advertising materials"
  • "The contract was forged" → "The contract was signed" (forged here would mean that the crime of forgery took place, which doesn't appear to be the case)
  • "were already sold" → "had already been sold"
  • Comma after "Godzilla, the Sea Beast"

Filming and dubbing

[edit]
  • "to find key scenes to insert Burr" → "to find key scenes in which Burr could be inserted"
  • Most of the phrase "atomic bomb and hydrogen bomb, such as the bombing of Nagasaki, the Bikini Island tests, radioactive contamination of tuna by American and Russian bomb tests" can be linked to the respective pages
  • "Tong recorded six voices (older characters) while Hong recorded seven voices (younger characters)." → "Tong recorded voices for six older characters, while Hong recorded for seven younger characters."

Release

[edit]

Theatrical and box office

[edit]

Critical response

[edit]
  • Add an intro sentence to the first paragraph saying something about mixed to positive reviews
  • "On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes"
  • "gave the film a bad review, dismissing it with: "'Godzilla', produced in a Japanese studio, is an incredibly awful film"." → "disparaged Godzilla, King of the Monsters, dismissing it as "an incredibly awful film"."
  • "alterations, film critic"

Home media

[edit]
  • ""Making of the Godzilla Suit,"" → ""Making of the Godzilla Suit"," per MOS:LQ

Italian re-release

[edit]
  • "and by Cozzi himself"
  • "didn't match" → "did not match"
  • "Tempera immediately accepted due to his being a fan of Godzilla." → "Tempera, a fan of Godzilla, immediately accepted."

Legacy

[edit]
  • "the character of Godzilla"
  • ""Raymond Burr's Steve Martin."" → ""Raymond Burr's Steve Martin"." per MOS:LQ

Sequel

[edit]

References

[edit]
  • [7] (Forbes) needs an access date
  • [30] (NYT) has a different date format than the other refs
  • [38] and [39] are incomplete refs
  • SciFi Japan is italicized in [43] and [46] but not in [6]

General comments

[edit]
  • The "Notes" section is currently empty and can be excised
  • Photos are fair use or public domain and are all relevant
  • No stability concerns in the revision history
  • Outside of an obvious mirror site, Earwig score looks good

Putting on hold for now to allow nominator to address comments. Feel free to ping me with questions, and let me know when you're done! — GhostRiver 19:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostRiver: I greatly appreciate you taking time to review the article. I have finished adding all your suggestions. Armegon (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of my comments have been addressed, passing now! — GhostRiver 04:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive edits being reverted

[edit]

The Reception should by its own section as its common practice for films in Wikipedia . I tried to change this but User:Armegon reverted it multiple times. UnkreativeFrog (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not common practice. You just want to follow a trend that you perceive as common practice. MOS:FILMCRITICS makes no rule or guideline that the Reception section should be its own section. Therefore, sections for each article should be determined on its own merits. Additionally, the critical response/reception for this article is too small to warrant a separate section compared to the reception section of the 1954 Godzilla article or, more recently, the Reception for Avatar: The Way of Water. Also, some of your edits are non-constructive because you're just unnecessarily moving things around, and even repeating one edit verbatum, with no good reason. There's a reason why everything was where it was and why the article passed GA nomination. But if it's an issue, I would not oppose to renaming the "Release" section to "Release and reception". It would cover all bases. Armegon (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

with common practice I meant that nearly every article about media has the Reception in its separate section. But its pretty irrelevant so I will just leave this page how it is with. No grudges UnkreativeFrog (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Double feature

[edit]

Hey Armegon, what do you see in this image? https://i.imgur.com/az6hEZX.png 142.189.237.102 (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Armegon: I think the point 142.189.237.102 is trying to make is that newspaper sources seem to contradict the book source. I searched newspapers.com for April and early May and I found multiple other movies paired with this movie as a double feature:
What I could not find was any articles or listings that mentioned Prehistoric Women (1950 film) as a double feature. The source may be incorrect. It looks like the broader release date might be earlier than April 27th as well. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there is no mention in articles or listing doesn't mean the book is incorrect. Newspapers.com isn't the only source available for film releases and is likely prone to missing articles/listings. What you've proven is that Godzilla was double-billed with several films, so the likelihood of it being double-billed with Prehistoric Women is equally as high -- that's where Kalat's book fills in the gap. But I wouldn't mind now removing that piece of info from the release since Godzilla was double-billed with more than one film; seems like overkill to list every film it shared the screen with. But I also wouldn't mind adding the films that Godzilla was double-billed with. Whatever consensus turns out to be, I'll support. Armegon (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a high level of confidence in the book as a source because it's not self-consistent about the release date. It lists the release date as April 26th on page 46 and as April 27th on page 48. I went ahead and changed it to "late April".
Also, "283 theaters" seems to have been misattributed to Kalat and missing the mention of Boston that was originally present. I'm also not sure how important the theater count is for a single city when it was more broadly released. Therefore, I also removed the theater count.
Please let me know if you have any concerns about the current version. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now, these US double-bills were not mandatory, but rather optional. So, they didn't play everywhere like this. Theaters back then could put together their own programs from different studios/distributors. Some theaters in the 1960s-early 1970s would do triple-and-quadruple features, and so would drive-ins. And they didn't all have to be "new" films, either. In the Summer of 1976, some theatres would do all-day Godzilla matinees with GODZILLA VS. MEGALON, YOG, DESTROY ALL MONSTERS and GHIDRAH! On it's first release in May of 1976, MEGALON was usually (but not exclusively) double-featured with THE GIANT SPIDER INVASION. The only Godzilla films that were given mandatory double bills were Monster Zero (with The War of The Gargantuas) and Godzilla's Revenge (with Island of the Burning Damned). Those films were promoted together with a double bill trailer and double bill poster. They were not promoted with separate trailers and posters. So the others were not paired up with a mandatory double feature. This film in particular also played on a double bill with Man Beast. Giantdevilfish (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Godzilla,_King_of_the_Monsters!&oldid=1217371524"