Talk:List of films featuring giant monsters

Page move

Is nobody has any objections, I'll be renaming the page "List of films featuring giant monsters" soon. The purpose of this is to clear the confused waters of inclusion criteria arguments, and to reduce the list's vagueness. With the new name, there'll be no arguments as to whether or not a film as a whole is a "giant-monster movie"; rather, films that show giant monsters onscreen (with sources to back them up) can be included, which is the simplest solution to deciding criteria. –Matthew - (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

That's...not actually how I'd read the title based on the word "featuring". King Kong features a giant ape. Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow includes giant animals, but I wouldn't consider them "featured". Maybe "List of films with giant monsters", to avoid potential confusion? That naming is consistent with some of the other film list articles. DonIago (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning regarding "featuring" vs. "including", but I disagree that using "with" would promote consistency. List articles that use the word "featuring" typically involve topics that are found within the content of the film.

"Featuring" list examples:

• films featuring dinosaurs
• films featuring extraterrestrials
• films featuring hallucinogens
• films featuring insects
• films featuring mental disorders
• films featuring space stations

On the other hand, list articles that use the word "with" typically relate to the films' editing styles, musical choices, or accolades.

"With" list examples:

• films with a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes
• films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes
• films with all four Academy Award acting nominations
• films with associated hip hop songs
• films with overtures
• films with post-credits scenes

Therefore, it seems as though "featuring" would make more sense in terms of consistency. –Matthew - (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think that the word "featuring" is being used in an ambiguous manner in these cases, especially if one were to think of the similar concept of actors featured in a film (which I believe usually means top billing, or close to it), but if a consensus develops that "featuring" is acceptable usage, I won't fight it. DonIago (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I've asked the question at WT:FILM, just to see what others think, if anything, about the matter. DonIago (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

How would you feel about "List of films containing giant monsters"? –Matthew - (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't like the word, as I don't think films really "contain" things, but I do find it less ambiguous than "featuring". "List of giant monsters in film"? DonIago (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd be okay with calling it simply "in film". Anyone else have any thoughts? –Matthew - (talk) 02:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a new genre for me so my opinions can be discounted but I think a word like "featured" is required to avoid having the list expand to cover any film where an unusually large creature makes an appearance. The lead image at Monster movie makes it clear that the topic concerns films where the monster is central to the story. Johnuniq (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, calling it just "list of giant monsters in film" would mean that the monster would be the first parameter of the list, or, the list item furthest to the left. This would require reorganisation of the whole list. Plus, using "featured" would keep the list from expanding too excessively. –Matthew - (talk) 12:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, whether the list should be about any film in which a giant monster appears, or only films "featuring" a giant monster, was a central point of concern that I think fell off the radar in the course of the discussion. If we want to limit this list to films in which the giant monster is central to the film, I'm fine with invoking "featured". DonIago (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. –Matthew - (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

On the subject of dragons

I don't think dragons aren't typically seen as being akin to Godzilla, Rodan, etc., so therefore, if a film or films featuring dragons are to be included in this list, I'd highly suggest that they include a source that refers to the aforementioned dragons as "giant monsters" or a similar term. –Matthew - (talk) 12:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. There's room for List of films featuring dragons if anyone cares to build such an article. DonIago (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Missing films

Well, maybe someone said that already, but I want to do it too. Obviously I know that lists should cite notable sources. However, sometimes rules are too picky. We should cite websites, articles and magazines, but hear me out please. For example, I added almost all Jurassic Park films with references. But Jurassic World: Dominion can't be there, despite it is obviously in the same genre? If every previous Jurassic Park film is a giant monster film, this is obviously too. Other example: Godzilla is obviously a giant monster. Every his movie is there. But Raiga: God of the Monsters can't be there, because nobody found an article, where it was called a giant monster film?

When you will answer my question, please, don't forget about the logic. We should follow rules, but let's don't forget about it. Thanks for answers. --Дейноніх (talk) 08:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

For list articles, sources are required. Also, sequels to films can be in different genres than their predecessors. DonIago (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

They can be in different genres, but if dinosaurs in 5 films are considered as giant monsters, they obviously are considered too in the sixth film. --Дейноніх (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

That's the textbook definition of synthesis. DonIago (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)