Goji wrote:GodzillaSpawn wrote:Yes, let's be deadly serious about a completely fictitious universe full of fake looking man-in-rubber-suit dinosaur/monster/robot/alien films and insult the poor guy who decides to add a little twist to it. That makes much more sense.
What's the point of that anyway?
Nobody is being "deadly serious" about anything. In fact, all I'm saying is that there is
no point to it all. If you have fun with stuff like this, then all the power to you man. I simply don't see the point in making shit up 'just because'.
Before GODZILLA VS. KING GHIODORAH was made, one could argue that the Godzilla that emerged in '84 was the original, reborn, but VS. KING GHIDORAH confirms that the original Godzilla
did die.
I suppose you could say in the "alternate" universe of GODZILLA KING OF THE MONSTER!/GODZILLA 1985, it is the same Godzilla, since that is implied in GODZILLA 1985, but meh..
Yeah, that's what I was thinking as well. When G'84 came out, I have a feeling that they were setting it up that it was the same monster. In fact, much of the dialogue in Return of Godzilla suggests, even in the Japanese version, that Godzilla cannot be killed by this or that (the film is even called
The Return of Godzilla). The prof guy knows immediately that being trapped in a volcano won't kill him. Had everybody been convinced that the original Godzilla been killed, then I don't think that everybody would be so gloom-and-doom on the topic. He's obviously mortal and was killed thirty years ago--it's not like he was showing up every year to destroy cities. Now, had he come back from being turned to atoms somehow, then yes, I'd understand all the pessimistic "no matter what, Godzilla will live" talk.
But then Godzilla vs King Ghidorah came about and changed the timeline and made it so that they were two different monsters (even though I'm not sure if the director intended to). And NSZ, I'm not molding an argument, you made your point and the article was very helpful. But I've always just known to go from what was in the films, and while the article mentions that had Godzilla truly be erased from history in GvKG, none of the characters would remember him, I just always chalked it up to more of the sloppy writing in that movie. As well as references to "Biollante" and the original in GvSG and GvD (whch you don't even get confirmation that those events still exist until three films later), respectively, again, more inconsistent writing and trying to steer clear from the whole time-traveling plot device. Clearly, for that article to have been necessary, the whole idea wasn't mapped out very well from the beginning by Toho in the films themselves.
As for the skeleton remains at the end of 1954, yes, anyone familiar with the film knows Godzilla dissolved at the end. But, like you said, GKOTM was well-known and on television alot, so by your logic enough people would have seen it leading up to Godzilla 1985 and yet they still added those lines. I don't believe they would edit Steve Martin back into all these scenes just for him to be flat-out wrong in his implications (aside from the fact that the following films change the history so he IS wrong). Again, I personally feel that the American version links the two films as the same monster on purpose (which is moot considering how the timeline changed). And it's not like they couldn't cop their way out of what was shown on screen seeing as how they use the fully intact skeleton of the 1954 monster to build Kiyru and everybody seems fine with it.
