Talk:Godzilla (TriStar)

NOT ZILLA

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)

Redundant trademark information

Why do we need the following in the article, and doesn't it feel a bit redundant? (1) "Toho had filed the "Zilla" name on July 21, 2006, and it was registered on April 20, 2007." (2) "Toho had renewed the trademark on April 4, 2017, and is set to expire on April 20, 2027." Character pages typically don't include trademark information like this, the first even disregards that the trademark was in use by 2004 before 2006 or 2007, and there's no context justifying these particular sentences and it doesn't seem noteworthy. They arguably clutter the page and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.113.97.247 (talk) 08:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Sidebar header image should be replaced

The header image of the right side bar represents Godzilla 1998, but it would seem more appropriate to have an image that actually features Zilla from Final Wars, considering the article is based around the Zilla variant rather than Godzilla 1998, and it might give the wrong impression that the name "Zilla" applies to Godzilla 1998. The information in the side bar also needs to be clarified, given that the people listed as the creators and actors are those of the original Godzilla 1998 and not in fact the latter Zilla variant which the article is centered around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.113.97.247 (talk) 08:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Unclear reasoning for reverting edits

I'm inviting Armegon to discuss the reasoning for disagreeing with and repeatedly reverting my edits for no apparent reason. Please explain and lets discuss, so far I have received no responses on previous issues, only instances of edit warring and accusations of "revisionism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.113.97.247 (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

First, stop reverting the article back to your edits. I gave you reason the first time: “WP:QUO is in place” —- which means don’t continue editing or reversing the article until consensus is reached. If you can read accusations, then you can read Wiki rules and guidelines. Be civil.

Now, some of your edits do come off as revisionist and leads to confusion. You’re rearranging the language to make it seem like Zilla is a new character unrelated to TriStar’s Godzilla and just so happens to look similar? That’s the impression I’m getting and is contrary to the sources provided. There is one thing that you are correct about, and that is that the ‘04 Zilla variant is the one that has appeared in comics and other merch since 2004. I added that fact in the lead before you removed it. Armegon (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, although I expected you to out of civility actually check the talk page each time you chose to revert my edits and remind me to go to the talk page. My edits consist of correcting the language so as to not give the false impression that Zilla is a retroactive replacement or identical synonym for the 1998 Godzilla, but to clarify that they are in fact two different characters with two different trademarks, with Zilla being a variant character of Godzilla 98 in the same sense as Kiryu is to Mechagodzilla or that Monster X is to King Ghidorah for example, such as Keith Aiken notably stated in the article. If this entire article even justifies existing, then it should naturally be focused on Zilla, and not try to blend it with the 1998 Godzilla in a confusing manner, especially as the main Godzilla character article already covers Godzilla 98. I'm not sure what "happens to look similar" is supposed to mean here, but it's not as if my edits were communicating that Zilla wasn't based on Godzilla 98 and just accidentally "happened" to feature Tatopoulos' design. Zilla is based on Godzilla 98, not a retroactive replacement, that's the point I'm making. I'm not sure where the "revisionism" is supposed to be present exactly, or how exactly I'm "contradicting the sources provided", when all I'm attempting to do is constructing the language so as to be as consistent and accurate as possible.

Also fair. But keep in mind that editors have lives as well, so you shouldn’t interpret a lack of response as a sign that you were ignored. I’m currently at work, so my replies will come here and there.

Most of what you’re trying to achieve was already covered before your edits. For years, the word “retcon” was inaccurately used here (my fault) but I’ve changed it years ago to reflect that the Godzilla/Zilla name issue thing was more of a matter of branding via trademarks. Like I said, the thing I changed that you’re right about was that the ‘04 version was the one Toho marketed the most; the “new iterations are now known as Zilla” (again, my fault) no longer applies. The article already made it clear that the 1998 version and its animated counterpart are “Godzilla.” I also made the language clear years ago that the ‘98 image is the TriStar Godzilla one. Even the article title has been changed years ago to reflect both iterations names.

The article now simply paints the chronological event of things: 1998 happened, people didn’t like it which led to Zilla and has since been used the most but the ‘98 version is still Godzilla, etc. Adding that Zilla is “based” on 1998 doesn’t make sense either cuz Toho shares ownership of that version with Sony; Toho’s usage is not the same as adapting— like Legendary adapting someone else’s character. Just like Kiryu is not based on Mechagodzilla (not in the adaptation sense) since it’s a new version by the same company that made the original. There is no billing in GXMG or Tokyo SOS that Mechagodzilla and Mothra are “Based On” something prior like Legendary’s billing. Likewise, FINAL WARS doesn’t have a credit saying “Zilla is based on Godzilla 1998 or works by Patrick Tatopoulos”, etc. Does that kinda make sense? Armegon (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I definitely understand the difficulty of trying to engage this discussion while being at work, but I think it also has to be pointed out though that you did find the time while at work to check in on this article, revert edits and make your own edits, while providing text responses, so clearly one could argue you have enough time. To be fair I mean!

I'm not sure what you mean by "most of what I'm trying to achieve was already covered", and I evidently found flaws in the article that arguably needed correction and clarification. If there's any particular edit you have in mind then please do bring it up. I definitely appreciate you admitting fault on the issue you mention, that's admirable! I do want to note though that even if there are places in the article that distinguishes Zilla from Godzilla 98, there are still parts of it that are lacking in that distinction, hence my edits intended to improve the article. I'm not sure where in the article you make it clear that the image represents the TriStar Godzilla, I didn't see that distinction in the side bar, nor am I still sure why we're using an image of Godzilla 98 rather than just an image of Zilla from Final Wars. If we're going to use the 98 image, then there ought to be clarification associated with it that this is the base character for Zilla, rather than the representative image of Zilla. The side bar kinda mixes them both together in a confusing manner and fails to properly distinguish between them. Well, actually, most of the side bar information represents Godzilla 98 rather than Zilla, and just puts the name Zilla on it, giving a misleading perception.

I think there's a bit of arbitrary terminology being used when saying "it's not an adaptation" or "it's not based on". Obviously these subsequent distinct variants ARE based on these original characters and adapted/derived from them. If we are to present Zilla as a version/variant/variation/adaptation/derivation of Godzilla 98 and what led to the creation of this new character variant, then we need to make it clear and not try to pass it off as being retroactively the same as the original that it's based upon. I'm really not sure how saying "Zilla is based upon Godzilla 98" is supposed to "not make sense" because of the fact "Toho shares ownership of Godzilla 98 with Sony". You'd have to elaborate on what you mean by that, because that sentence makes no sense to me. You may be using a different kind of dictionary that isn't intuitively obvious in distinguishing these terms. Obviously Kiryu IS based on Mechagodzilla, it is a distinct variant of the character with the original Mechagodzilla as its base from which it is derived/adapted. Whether it was made by the same company or not, or whether it's explicitly stated on the DVD cover that it is a new version derived from Godzilla 98 (which is already obvious), seems completely irrelevant. No, I'm afraid it doesn't make sense, and it seems a very arbitrary distinction without any clear meaning.

Now you’re confusing me. I think its best if we simplify by me asking which specific edits you have the most issue with? Perhaps we can work together to revise them.

As for the image, what I meant was that the caption attached already articulates to readers that the subject in the image is TriStar’s Godzilla, not Zilla. I made sure to articulate that language years ago. I added the ‘98 image because that’s the source: before Zilla ‘04, there was Godzilla ‘98. So it made sense for the article’s image to use the primary source, or the “base” as you’ve said.

@NekoKatsun: you’ve reverted the IP’s edits not too long ago. We would be honored to hear your two cents on the matter, if you’re interested. Armegon (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

That's my thinking, I think it's better if you elaborate on which particular edits of mine that you take issue with and why exactly, because I'm confused as well as to what is supposed to be the issue. If there's no actual issue then I can't say that I see the need for either reverting or discussing them. The caption in its current form doesn't communicate clearly enough why a picture of Godzilla 98 is being shown rather than one of Zilla, but merely gives the impression that Godzilla 98 is a representation of Zilla, rather than vice versa. If the article is supposed to be centered on Godzilla 98 (which most of the article deals with), as the base character which Zilla is based upon, then it needs to reflect that in title and language, but if it's meant to cover Zilla, then we need to cut back on the Godzilla 98 content and focus the article on that character. Besides, again, the subject of Godzilla 98 is already covered in the main Godzilla character and franchise articles so that one hardly justifies its own article unless we're gonna do articles for each and every other Godzilla incarnation in that case (in which case we'd probably have to refocus the article on Godzilla 98 and less on Zilla). I'm still unclear on how exactly "it makes sense" to use that image. We wouldn't use a picture of Mechagodzilla 74 to represent Kiryu or use a picture of King Ghidorah 64 to represent Kaizer Ghidorah, for example, it just becomes odd and confusing.

We can change the image to show both 1998 and Zilla side by side. I did a similar collage for the Yonggary (character) article. Both variants would be represented fairly.

I’m confused by what you mean by “title.” If you mean altering the article’s title, then I don’t see the point. “Zilla (Godzilla)” already reflects the official names of both variants. Unless you’re open to going with “TriStar Godzilla (Zilla)” as an alternative? I’m open to better suggestions.

Now I disagree on cutting back on either variant. Makes no sense. The whole point of a character article is to cover and elaborate on details that would otherwise be too long to touch on in either the Godzilla article or Godzilla (franchise) article. Perfect example, the Mechagodzilla article details every single iteration without the need to cut back on any variant. I was the editor that split the variants by era (Showa, Heisei, etc.) We can do something similar?

Split the variants by “TriStar era” and “Toho era”, each section has its own development info and reception, etc. That way there’s no need to cut back on anything, the article would be more organized, and again both incarnations would be represented fairly. I tried a similar style with the Yonggary character article with the limited info available. Armegon (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I suppose I'm less concerned with representing both characters as I am with staying consistent and coherent. If the article ought to be treated in the same manner as the Mechagodzilla article, then the title of the article ought to be "TriStar Godzilla", seeing as we're anchoring it to the original character from which the latter variants (Kiryu in the case of Mechagodzilla, or Zilla in the case of TriStar Godzilla) were derived.

The current title "Zilla (Godzilla)" would be the equivalent of giving the Mechagodzilla article the title "Kiryu (Mechagodzilla)" and it makes little sense. The same issue would arise if you switch the names around with "TriStar Godzilla (Zilla)" and "Mechagodzilla (Kiryu)", there would be no need for including the name of any latter variant in the title, only the original from which all the rest are derived. Either the article is going to be all-encompassing under the umbrella of the original character (in this case TriStar Godzilla), or it's going to be focused on a particular variant (such as Zilla).

Again, I don't see the need for giving any single Godzilla incarnation (other than the original 1954 one which all the rest are derivatives of) their own article, as they are already sufficiently covered on the main Godzilla articles that deals with the character and franchise as a whole, and you don't need to cover everything about each version of Godzilla in those articles, only the essential aspects. The best case here would be for the article to focus on Zilla alone as a distinct monster introduced in Final Wars and its appearances in later products, and cut back on content covering Godzilla 98 except for minor essential details relating to developing the character for Final Wars.

I don't know. I'm all for the "all-encompassing" approach, similar to the articles for Mechagodzilla and King Ghidorah. Because I am in the same boat as you -- I don't think it's necessary to give every single iteration its own article, unless its warranted. That's why I think this is the best compromise I can think of that would mostly appease everyone: both variants would be fairly represented and the information can still be consistent and coherent since we'd be regulating the info to each variant's section.

Also, seems that Godzilla (TriStar) is available to use to rename the article. It's reminiscent how the Godzilla (Monsterverse) article is titled. Armegon (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

My thinking was that it's a bit redundant to include Godzilla 98 because it's already covered on the main Godzilla articles, so at best I see the article as focusing in on Zilla since it has the "privilege" of being treated as its own monster since first introduced in Final Wars. I suppose the title "Godzilla (TriStar)" akin to "Godzilla (MonsterVerse)" would make more sense though if you're going for the all-encompassing approach with different sections covering each version, so at the very least that would probably be an improvement.

Yes. The “all-encompassing” approach would streamline information more accurately. Compartmentalization seems to be the key for improvement here. But before we implement these new changes, I think we should wait a few days for other editors to throw their hat into the ring. I pinged one editor and still waiting their response. Armegon (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, lets wait a few days (say a weekend, or a week?), and then lets see how it turns out.

A week sounds perfect! Armegon (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

SPECIES

it's a common misconception that the TriStar Godzilla (Zilla) is a mutated marine iguana. Her design was inspired by marine iguanas, yes. however the intro shows 9 different clips of 6 different species of lizards. Bearded dragons, komodo dragons, Chinese water dragons, green iguanas, marine iguanas, and tree anoles. only TWO shots are of marine iguanas, and the eggs shown at the end are implied to belong to a green iguana. (none of these species are native to anywhere near the location shown).furthermore, the intro shows that the nuclear testing is happening on Atoll de Moruroa in French Polynesia. The French Polynesian origin is movie when a general saying the first sighting of Zilla was in French Polynesia. there's also a scene in the beginning where they discuss the possible origins, saying it may be a mutated dinosaur, this is immediately refuted by another member of the team who says that Zilla is an entirely new species. in this scene he describes Zilla as "a possible mutated aberration, a hybrid created by radioactive fallout. an entirely incipient species. the first of its kind"

to list Zilla's species as marine iguana is not accurate 2601:249:9301:C170:7A0D:5D7A:3FD2:A365 (talk) 00:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be better to simply identify the species with the more broader "mutated reptile" -- he is a reptile after all. Or just remove the "Species" column all together since it's a detail only fans care about, per WP:FAN and WP:INUNIVERSE. Armegon (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed! Either set it as "mutated amphibious reptile" or remove the section. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)