Page 5 of 6

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 12:04 am
by Gawdziller1954
HeiseiGodzilla117 wrote:He's not a sea reptile. He's a fish. Everything about his early form is far more similar to different types of fish than any marine reptile. Especially the eyes and gills. He's very similar to eels and frilled sharks. He only becomes reptilian in subsequent forms. Hell, he had to evolve back legs to move on land.

Nope, he's a sea reptile. Supplementary material states he is a sea reptile, concept art shows him resembling a mosasaur at an early stage, and he resembles a mosasaur through form 2. His teeth resemble sea reptile teeth, which are small and conical, and looks NOTHING like the teeth of an eel or a frilled shark. Growing back legs would be easier for a marine reptile because marine reptiles still retain functional limbs with fingers and wrists. He has gills, sure. However, said Sea Reptile has had 65,000,000 years to evolve gills. Large eyes? Another adaptation for the deep sea. His body is long and serpentine with a tapering tail, unlike eels who are laterally flattened and have NO GILLS (They have sphericles) or have a single gill slit on either side of the body. If he's a fish(Which he's not), he's a frilled shark, not an eel of any shape or form.

Maki has studied Godzilla's DNA, which he extracted when Godzilla was still in the deep sea. The DNA would show what type of animal he was. Maki states he's a reptile, not a fish. The only official piece of evidence which shows him as a fish is ONE SINGLE PICTURE that doesn't even specify what type of animal he was (It has a huge pink question mark over it and the passage dubiously state shim to be a "Marine life form"). Evidence points toward him being a sea reptile, he looks like a sea reptile, so I'm calling him a sea reptile until Toho officially changes his origins from "Mutated marine reptile" to "Mutated fish". You could argue Godzilla 1954 isn't a reptile because he has gills by your logic.

Image

Image

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 12:36 am
by HeiseiGodzilla117
Ah, you're the one who argued with Inferno Rodan and myself in another thread. This will go in circles again. But I'll just say this. There is supplementary material (which should be irrelevant, but whatever) that shows fish with Godzilla spines. Clearly meant to show what he was. If they didn't want to imply he was a fish they would have drawn something else, like a marine reptile. I don't think it's in the art book, but another book for the movie.

As for what you're referring to, which would be Goro Maki's notes, they're irrelevant. That's a character's hypothesis, not "word of god." So as far as supplementary material goes, it's not worth much. The only thing we got from Maki's notes in the movie were that Godzilla can change to adapt to his environment. And that's the only relevant thing.

If we go by what's on screen, he looks like a fish. You can twist the gill thing however you like, but it won't change that fact. He doesn't have small gills like the Showa Godzillas or even LPG. He has large, red gills that resemble those of fish and some amphibians. His snout shape resembles that of certain fish (like eels and certain sharks) far more than any mosasaur. It's clear that was the aesthetic they were going for. If they wanted to give you a sense that he was a mosasaur, they would've had him look like a mosasaur. No gills, no nubs, no lidless eyes, and he would have had flippers for front limbs.

But hey, it doesn't really mean much to me anyway. So I'll leave it here and be on my merry way.

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:20 am
by Cybermat47
Any chance of getting a link for said supplementary material?

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:48 am
by GodzillaBurgh
It's without a doubt that Godzilla's an Angel.

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 8:12 am
by Gawdziller1954
Cybermat47 wrote:Any chance of getting a link for said supplementary material?

I'll provide links when I have time.

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:36 am
by Gerdzerl
I personally prefer the fish theory over the marine reptile one. It seems suspicious to me that a tetrapod would have gills (not counting the larval stages of amphibians, of course).

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 3:05 pm
by GodzillaBurgh
I just thought he was a freak mutation of a microorganism that slowly evolves into some god-like being.

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 4:07 pm
by Gawdziller1954
[size=50][/size]
GodzillaBurgh wrote:I just thought he was a freak mutation of a microorganism that slowly evolves into some god-like being.

DEAR LORD STOP WITH THE MICROORGANISM THING, SHIN IS OFFICIALLY A PREHISTORIC FISH OR A SEA REPTILE

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 6:22 pm
by GodzillaBurgh
Gawdziller1954 wrote:[size=50][/size]
GodzillaBurgh wrote:I just thought he was a freak mutation of a microorganism that slowly evolves into some god-like being.

DEAR LORD STOP WITH THE MICROORGANISM THING, SHIN IS OFFICIALLY A PREHISTORIC FISH OR A SEA REPTILE

I'm sorry. :oops:

Added in 4 minutes 32 seconds:
What the Hell IS HE? Is he a fish, a sea reptile, a freak mutation gone wrong, or simply... a God?

Added in 21 seconds:
What the Hell IS HE? Is he a fish, a sea reptile, a freak mutation gone wrong, or simply... a God?

Added in 39 seconds:
What the Hell IS HE? Is he a fish, a sea reptile, a freak mutation gone wrong, or simply... a God?

Added in 13 minutes 34 seconds:
What the Hell IS HE? Is he a fish, a sea reptile, a freak mutation gone wrong, or simply... a God?

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:48 pm
by Gawdziller1954
GodzillaBurgh wrote:
Gawdziller1954 wrote:[size=50][/size]
GodzillaBurgh wrote:I just thought he was a freak mutation of a microorganism that slowly evolves into some god-like being.

DEAR LORD STOP WITH THE MICROORGANISM THING, SHIN IS OFFICIALLY A PREHISTORIC FISH OR A SEA REPTILE

I'm sorry. :oops:

Added in 4 minutes 32 seconds:
What the Hell IS HE? Is he a fish, a sea reptile, a freak mutation gone wrong, or simply... a God?

Added in 21 seconds:
What the Hell IS HE? Is he a fish, a sea reptile, a freak mutation gone wrong, or simply... a God?

Added in 39 seconds:
What the Hell IS HE? Is he a fish, a sea reptile, a freak mutation gone wrong, or simply... a God?

Added in 13 minutes 34 seconds:
What the Hell IS HE? Is he a fish, a sea reptile, a freak mutation gone wrong, or simply... a God?

Well, Toho's The Art of Shin Godzilla contains a paper by Goro Maki in-universe that appears in the film. It suggests he was a marine reptile that survived the KT Event and evolved over 65,000,000 years to live a life on the abyssal plain (These evolutions included gills and massive, lidless eyes). However, there was a book called The Science of Shin Godzilla that showed large fish with Dorsal plates swimming around nuclear waste barrels. However, the picture is dubious as to if it directly points toward him being a fish, as there is a large pink question mark imposed on the picture and the caption below simply states him to be an ancient form of marine life. I personally lean toward highly specialized marine reptile, but others, such as Heiseigodzilla up there, lean toward him being a fish of sorts, like a coelocanth or an arthrodire placoderm.
There is a "omnipotent" form spoken about as a further form after the yashiori strategy that would basically be able to do anything, but I am only around 75% sure that is cannon. As for him being a microorganism, that was a mistranslation from the plot synopsis spread around at first by good-intentioned people that was picked up and more widely dispersed by the "GINO 2.0" crowd. And if he's either fish or reptile,he's still a freak mutation, as both theories require a breeding population of Godzillas to support the theory in itself, but no other individuals got mutated into the Godzilla we see in Shin Godzilla.

also, no need to post the same thing 3 times over m8. that's overkill.

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 8:54 am
by King of the Monsters
I think the reptile theory makes more sense assuming he is the result of a marine reptile ancestor evolving fish-like qualities over millions of years. He isn't a fish, but possesses many traits of one due to convergent evolution.

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 8:57 pm
by Gawdziller1954
King of the Monsters wrote:I think the reptile theory makes more sense assuming he is the result of a marine reptile ancestor evolving fish-like qualities over millions of years. He isn't a fish, but possesses many traits of one due to convergent evolution.

In Goro Maki's thesis, He states Godzilla's natural evolution over the years prior to 1954 would be very difficult to understand and that his ancestors evolved to live a completley oceanic life underwater, without the need to go up for air.

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:11 am
by King of the Monsters
Gawdziller1954 wrote:In Goro Maki's thesis, He states Godzilla's natural evolution over the years prior to 1954 would be very difficult to understand and that his ancestors evolved to live a completley oceanic life underwater, without the need to go up for air.

Hence why he would develop gills despite being more of a reptile than a fish.

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:25 am
by Gawdziller1954
King of the Monsters wrote:
Gawdziller1954 wrote:In Goro Maki's thesis, He states Godzilla's natural evolution over the years prior to 1954 would be very difficult to understand and that his ancestors evolved to live a completley oceanic life underwater, without the need to go up for air.

Hence why he would develop gills despite being more of a reptile than a fish.

Exactly.

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 8:56 am
by LSD Jellyfish
Jesus Christ, are people seriously arguing over the biological nature of Shin G whether he's a fish or a reptile? You do realize it's a fictionalized monster? No need to pull out your biology books and start over analyzing it.

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 9:03 am
by HeiseiGodzilla117
LSD Jellyfish wrote:Jesus Christ, are people seriously arguing over the biological nature of Shin G whether he's a fish or a reptile? You do realize it's a fictionalized monster? No need to pull out your biology books and start over analyzing it.


Whoa! People are discussing a monster in its respective discussion thread? What a bunch of faggots.

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 11:13 am
by King of the Monsters
Considering the biological nature of Shin Godzilla is a plot point in the film and the subject of a fictional essay included in the film's art book, I don't see why we wouldn't be discussing it in this thread.

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 12:03 pm
by SpaceG92
LSD Jellyfish wrote:Jesus Christ, are people seriously arguing over the biological nature of Shin G whether he's a fish or a reptile? You do realize it's a fictionalized monster? No need to pull out your biology books and start over analyzing it.

Way to buzzkill.

Try telling that to every "mystery" of a movie/comic/anything franchise. How does the Force work? Why am Stuperman strongk? How does the Flash run so fast? Why does the Hulk turn green? How does Godzilla's atomic beam work? How does Batman security shovel god knows how much money into gadgets and weapons that no one notices? How does Saiyan biology work?

"Who care's it's a fictional character in a fake movie!" Pretty sure every fan base will disown you.

Added in 4 minutes 33 seconds:
HeiseiGodzilla117 wrote:Whoa! People are discussing a monster in its respective discussion thread? What a bunch of f====.

Woah - missed this one. I know you're being sarcastic - but let's try to not add fuel to fire, okay.

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 4:10 pm
by MM Raids Again
LSD Jellyfish wrote:Jesus Christ, are people seriously arguing over the biological nature of Shin G whether he's a fish or a reptile? You do realize it's a fictionalized monster? No need to pull out your biology books and start over analyzing it.


Can we still blow unhealthy amounts of money on it though? Money isn't an option, bro.

Re: Monster Discussion: Godzilla (2016)

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 1:07 pm
by tbeasley
Another Wiki find... says it's a First Form from Bullmark but the design doesn't match the tail we see in the movie
Image

But yeah, arguing semantics in a monster movie is kind of beside the point. It's always gonna be a mix of what makes 'sense' and what looks cool or interesting visually. I mean, they say he's some kind of sea reptile in the original but he's this upright walking thing with plates down his back. More than anything, including Shin, his look is meant to connote something prehistoric and mysterious. He's become the ultimate throwback to antediluvian monsters over time.