Monster Discussion: American Godzilla '98/Zilla

[Janjira-York]

I love the ''mmmmmmhuua'' at the ship sinking part
It seems to ty to be the onk in skreeonk with a realistict aproach (notice that most of G98 roars are skreeenk!) kind of what legendary did but without a sooo much obius finall ONK

[RumbleJapan]

I thought a fast and slim Godzilla was the request of Toho. I swore I read that on a concept art image or something.

First time I've heard of that. Then again, fans have always been spitting out false accusations about Toho's part in this, I'm not sure what started where.
I do know Devlin said Toho was taken aback for a bit when the first saw the design, but later they said they loved it. Devlin isn't exactly the most trusting source either though.
Youtube is filled with these little vintage featurettes that were not included with the home video releases.

A fast and slim Godzilla is an interesting concept. I felt like it could have gone in the right direction if they collaborated ideas with Toho fans.

[KManX89]

http://www.trademarkia.com/godzilla-75423143.html
http://www.trademarkia.com/logo-75503990.html
http://www.trademarkia.com/logo-75503991.html

I trust an official trademark website more than an illustrator who claims that Toho couldn't change the name of the monster if they wanted to (even though they own the rights to the character) and cites the fact that the 1998 film is still called "Godzilla" as proof of this (Sony owns the rights to the film itself, so only they could change its name). The way I see it, we don't have any definitive proof either way.

But anyways, even if he/she/it is still legally called "Godzilla," a mutant iguana that runs away from the military, has no atomic breath, and is killed by regular missiles is still not really Godzilla. At best, he/she/it is a completely separate character that just has the same name as the King of the Monsters.

1. Rights for a Godzilla animated series was canceled. Have you seen any new episodes of Godzilla the Series lately?
2. Design logo used for Merchandise, in 1999 Toho reverted back to the original logo. therefore they never renewed it..
3. Ditto, Toho reverted back to the original Baby Godzilla logo.

I mentioned earlier in this thread (I think it was this thread) that some of the earlier products for G'98 used the old logos in the trademark. You must keep in mind that Toho made the new logos before people saw the design, back when they likely believed that Godzilla was going to look like "this" from now on (There was supposed to be sequels and such). Obviously once they merchandise for G'98 stopped and G2K started production, there was no point in having two logos for one trademark, and the G'98 franchise's future was pretty much dead at that point.

1. Irrelevant.
2. The trademark was abandoned after Sony let the rights expire back in 2003.
3. Except the Baby Godzilla logo was abandoned for the 98 monster as well.

Not to mention: Keith Aiken worked with Sony on the 98 movie, so his credibility on this issue is stained right off the bat.

Like I said in another thread:

-This coming from a guy who works (or has worked) for Sony, oh yes, nothing shady about that at all.
-Said the 98 monster is still trademarked as Godzilla, which is demonstrably not the case, I already showed you documented proof that they removed the Godzilla trademark and icon for the 98 monster.

Here they are again:
Official documentation of Toho removing the icon for the 98 monster.
Official documentation of Toho removing the "Godzilla" trademark for the 98 monster.

It's not Godzilla, in spirit or in trademark, fact, not opinion, even Ktamaura and Tomiyama said in an interview that the Zilla name change is official, I'd take their word (the guys who now own the rights to said character) over a guy who worked with Sony on the POS 98 movie (which BTW, wasn't just a bad Godzilla movie, it was a terrible movie all around) any damn day of the week, yeah, Aiken can say it all he wants, but a picture is worth a thousand words, and I just gave you two of em, both of which prove he's lying.

And them re-releasing the movie as "Godzilla" means jack shit, everybody knows you can't re-name movies you don't own the rights to, which Sony/Tri-Star still owns the rights to that one movie, even though they no longer have the rights to the character, which reverted back to Toho in 2003.

[gzilla46]

http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab43 ... oncept.png

I think this was the one they presented the design to Toho with, a least I think that's how it was referred to as in a documentary I saw recently.
I can't really blame Patrick for the design. Emmerich wanted a Godzilla that could move fast, with a modern zing to it, and he obeyed his boss. At least he tried to incorporate some of the classic Godzilla into the design, even though some parts were dropped in the final film.

That scene in that picture actually would've been great to watch on screen.

[Starsteam]

http://www.trademarkia.com/godzilla-75423143.html
http://www.trademarkia.com/logo-75503990.html
http://www.trademarkia.com/logo-75503991.html

I trust an official trademark website more than an illustrator who claims that Toho couldn't change the name of the monster if they wanted to (even though they own the rights to the character) and cites the fact that the 1998 film is still called "Godzilla" as proof of this (Sony owns the rights to the film itself, so only they could change its name). The way I see it, we don't have any definitive proof either way.

But anyways, even if he/she/it is still legally called "Godzilla," a mutant iguana that runs away from the military, has no atomic breath, and is killed by regular missiles is still not really Godzilla. At best, he/she/it is a completely separate character that just has the same name as the King of the Monsters.

1. Rights for a Godzilla animated series was canceled. Have you seen any new episodes of Godzilla the Series lately?
2. Design logo used for Merchandise, in 1999 Toho reverted back to the original logo. therefore they never renewed it..
3. Ditto, Toho reverted back to the original Baby Godzilla logo.

I mentioned earlier in this thread (I think it was this thread) that some of the earlier products for G'98 used the old logos in the trademark. You must keep in mind that Toho made the new logos before people saw the design, back when they likely believed that Godzilla was going to look like "this" from now on (There was supposed to be sequels and such). Obviously once they merchandise for G'98 stopped and G2K started production, there was no point in having two logos for one trademark, and the G'98 franchise's future was pretty much dead at that point.

1. Irrelevant.
2. The trademark was abandoned after Sony let the rights expire back in 2003.
3. Except the Baby Godzilla logo was abandoned for the 98 monster as well.

Not to mention: Keith Aiken worked with Sony on the 98 movie, so his credibility on this issue is stained right off the bat.

1. You really can't read, can you?
2 & 3. The logos were abondoned, but not the copyrights. They are the same as Godzilla and Baby Godzilla from the Toho Movies (but the Baby Godzilla copyrights were never applied to the film, just Godzilla). The merch icons being abandon have nothing to do with the monster's name.

And the fact Keith worked with Sony just goes to show how much he would know about this, instead of fans who pull this information out of their asses like you.

(Sorry for this coming out rude, but I'm tired of this needless argument, and you replied to something that was over a month old).

[KManX89]

Hey TurokSwe, is that you?

Bottom line is: you have an (ex?) exec of Sony's word who A)worked on the 98 movie (oh yes, no bias there at all ) and B)keeps mentioning Toho's failure to re-name a movie they don't own the rights to as proof of his unsubstantiated claims, while I have Toho, the ones who OWN THE RIGHTS TO THE CHARACTER's word and an official trademark website which says they've removed the Godzilla trademark and icon for the monster from the 98 movie.

It's very easy to see which one is more credible, and it sure as hell ain't the first one, buddy.

Like I said in the other thread on the Legendary forum: the 98 monster is not Godzilla, in name or in spirit, get the fuck over it. If it was, the "Godzilla" logo and trademark would still be there for it, and Toho doesn't create separate trademarks for different incarnates of Godzilla, every incarnate of Godzilla regardless of year/era is still registered as Godzilla with the year/era coming afterwards, for example: "Godzilla® 90's" and "Godzilla® 2000" (®=registered), so they wouldn't go out of their way to create a whole new copyright for Zilla (because that's who he is now, I'm sorry) unless they were changing its name (I refuse to call it a "he"), if they were to distinguish it from Toho Godzillas while still recognizing it as a Godzilla, they would change it to "Godzilla® 1998" just like they did for each version of the Toho Godzilla, but they didn't, they changed it to "Zilla®", so there ya go, argument debunked.

[g2vd]

Hey TurokSwe, is that you?

Bottom line is: you have an (ex?) exec of Sony's word who A)worked on the 98 movie (oh yes, no lack of bias there at all ) and B)keeps mentioning Toho's failure to re-name a movie they don't own the rights to as proof of his unsubstantiated claims, while I have Toho, the ones who OWN THE RIGHTS TO THE CHARACTER's word and an official trademark website which says they've removed the Godzilla trademark and icon for the monster from the 98 movie.

It's very easy to see which one is more credible, and it sure as hell ain't the first one, buddy.

Like I said in the other thread on the Legendary forum: the 98 monster is not Godzilla, in name or in spirit, get the fuck over it. If it was, the "Godzilla" logo and trademark would still be there for it, and Toho doesn't create separate trademarks for different incarnates of Godzilla, every incarnate of Godzilla regardless of year/era is still registered as Godzilla with the year/era coming afterwards, for example: "Godzilla® 90's" and "Godzilla® 2000" (®=registered), so they wouldn't go out of their way to create a whole new copyright for Zilla (because that's who he is now, I'm sorry) unless they were changing its name (I refuse to call it a "he"), if they were to go back and modify its copyright to distinguish it from Toho Godzillas while still recognizing it as a Godzilla, they would change it to "Godzilla® 1998" just like they did for each version of the Toho Godzilla, but they didn't, they changed it to "Zilla®", so there ya go, argument debunked.

Um he never said he worked on 98 where did you get that from also from Godzilla 1995.

Spoiler:

^^I can't believe I'm posting this again. It's completely obvious that you're just ignoring it:

http://i.imgur.com/rw74Yk0.jpg

May I highlight the part where it says "The Wikizilla article on the name change is inaccurate"?

-This coming from a guy who works (or has worked) for Sony, oh yes, nothing shady about that at all.
-Said the 98 monster is still trademarked as Godzilla, which is demonstrably not the case, I already showed you documented proof that they removed the Godzilla trademark and icon for the 98 monster.

Keith is a member of the fandom who's done more work on Godzilla and knows the fandom better than you. If he says it's a certain way, that's how it is. End of story.

PS, yes, you're damn right I ignored it because I stopped reading at the "it's still trademarked as Godzilla" bit, I just proved that it's not (TWICE now, might I add), get the fuck over it.

1. No, you didn't prove it, because it's been disproved already by people who know much more than you do.
2. Chill the heck out.

And Like Starstream Said the logos have been canceled but not the copyrights I am not going to act like I know more about Godzilla than anybody else but I listen to people that know more and yet you continue to argue about it even when the proof is staring you in the face.

[Starsteam]

Yeah... there's nothing to go on about now, we're going in circles. I think he has proven that he doesn't really know what he's talking about.

Talk about a waste of time. I had a whole big block typed out and everything.

[20th Century Boy]

If he wants to live in ignorance, let him.

[KManX89]

http://web.archive.org/web/200502031811 ... illa2.html

PENNY BLOOD: You were quoted as saying, “that you renamed Hollywood’s 1998 version of the monster ‘Zilla’ because they took the God out of Godzilla.”

SHOGO TOMIYAMA: Yes, because Hollywood’s Godzilla is just a normal monster He’s not a God. Hollywood treated Godzilla as a live monster or live animal. They shot him down with missiles and all that.

So there you go, you have an ex-Sony and G98 storyboard artist's word, whereas I have an actual interview with execs from Toho, who own the rights to said character and have explicitly said that the Zilla name change is official in said interview, now King me (no pun intended).

And I don't care that Aiken also runs Sci-Fi Japan and worked at Toho, the fact that he had ANY stake in the 98 movie at all (and he did) and was an exec at Sony (and he was) and he says that means his credibility on the subject is questionable at best (yes, I said it) especially when he uses the fact that Toho re-released the film as "Godzilla" in Japan (when they don't have the authority to rename it because they don't own the rights to the movie, just the character, only Sony can) as "proof" of his claims. Oh yes, there's absolutely no reason to believe he's "in on it" whatsoever bearing these things in mind.

Also, the '®' tag in trademarks means 'Registered,' and please know that the placement of such a tag means everything in character trademarks. The fact that it follows the "Godzilla" in the name and proceeds the year means it's still recognized as Godzilla, if it were trademarked as "Godzilla 2000®", THEN it would be trademarked as a distinct monster (or they, meaning all different incarnates of the registered Godzilla character). Furthermore, the fact that no such trademark exists for "Godzilla® USA" or "Godzilla® 98", but "Zilla®" DOES with the exact same icon as the 98 monster tells you everything you need to know.

[20th Century Boy]

http://web.archive.org/web/200502031811 ... illa2.html

PENNY BLOOD: You were quoted as saying, “that you renamed Hollywood’s 1998 version of the monster ‘Zilla’ because they took the God out of Godzilla.”

SHOGO TOMIYAMA: Yes, because Hollywood’s Godzilla is just a normal monster He’s not a God. Hollywood treated Godzilla as a live monster or live animal. They shot him down with missiles and all that.

So there you go, you have an ex-Sony and G98 storyboard artist's word, whereas I have an actual interview with execs from Toho, who own the rights to said character and have explicitly said that the Zilla name change is official in said interview, now King me (no pun intended).

And I don't care that Aiken also runs Sci-Fi Japan and worked at Toho, the fact that he had ANY stake in the 98 movie at all (and he did) and was an exec at Sony (and he was) and he says that means his credibility on the subject is questionable at best (yes, I said it) especially when he uses the fact that Toho re-released the film as "Godzilla" in Japan (when they don't have the authority to rename it because they don't own the rights to the movie, just the character, only Sony can) as "proof" of his claims. Oh yes, there's absolutely no reason to believe he's "in on it" whatsoever bearing these things in mind.

Also, the '®' tag in trademarks means 'Registered,' and please know that the placement of such a tag means everything in character trademarks. The fact that it follows the "Godzilla" in the name and proceeds the year means it's still recognized as Godzilla, if it were trademarked as "Godzilla 2000®", THEN it would be trademarked as a distinct monster (or they, meaning all different incarnates of the registered Godzilla character). Furthermore, the fact that no such trademark exists for "Godzilla® USA" or "Godzilla® 98", but "Zilla®" DOES with the exact same icon as the 98 monster tells you everything you need to know.

By your logic, we shouldn't trust Tomiyama either because he works for Toho, and Toho has a bias against Godzilla 1998. You see how weak your argument is?

And you MISQUOTED the interview. Tomiyama didn't say "Yes" to the first question posed. You deliberately cut out the rest of the interviewer's questions. Here's the full quote from the link you provided:

PENNY BLOOD: You were quoted as saying, “that you renamed Hollywood’s 1998 version of the monster ‘Zilla’ because they took the God out of Godzilla.” When I read that quote, I interpreted it to be a slam against Hollywood’s Godzilla (1998.) I’m getting the impression now that your statement was referring to the “spiritual interpretation” of Godzilla in Japan verses Hollywood’s “monster interpretation.” It really wasn’t meant as a putdown. Is that correct?

SHOGO TOMIYAMA: Yes, because Hollywood’s Godzilla is just a normal monster He’s not a God. Hollywood treated Godzilla as a live monster or live animal. They shot him down with missiles and all that.

I think this speaks for itself. You know argument is weak when you deliberately misquote things.

[g2vd]

Wow just wow so you are saying that Keith has his credibility stained because he worked at Sony keith is the closest you can get to the word of Toho he runs sci-fi Japan and is friends with people at toho so if you want a trust worthy source he is one of the best and than you deliberately remove stuff from the quote in some desperate attemp to continue your argument even when it has been proven wrong in every way.

[KManX89]

.

I posted an exact quote from a producer from Toho, who now own the rights to the Zilla character, confirming (explicitly, might I add, nothing ambiguous about what was said in it whatsoever) the Zilla name change, that >>>>>>>a guy associated with Toho who worked on the 98 movie and uses senseless theories as his only "proof" towards the contrary, period. And even if that weren't the case, that still wouldn't change the fact that all he has is bullshit theories as proof of his claims, whereas I have an interview with producers from Toho, where Shogo Tomayama said, very distinctly, that they did change the name to Zilla because "it took the God out of Godzilla".

Also, they didn't post this lovely little gem on the back of the GFW case for nothing, now did they? To prove that I'm not bluffing:



#Debateover.

And BTW, it doesn't fucking matter that it was trademarked as "Godzilla" when the movie came out and prior to 2004/2005, it's ridiculous that people are actually using this to try and rationalize how it somehow makes the monster from the 98 movie and Zilla two separate monsters, anyone who knows anything about trademarks knows it doesn't work that way, all it means is that the 98 monster used to be trademarked a "Godzilla", but isn't, anymore, ever hear of retconning? You don't go by previous trademarks, you go by the current one, same reason why King Ceasar is no longer referred to as "King Shisa", same with Kamacuras, who was trademarked as "Kamakiras" in his first film Son of Godzilla. To quote a guy putting the troll TurokSwe in his place on the Zilla Wiki talk page, it doesn't matter what name they may have been referred to originally, we go by their most recently trademarked official English names, in both past and present tense, hence the "Kamakiras" featured in SoG is Kamacuras as well.

BTW, yes, I sound like I have a chip on my shoulder, because I have a huge problem with people posting heresay (because that's what it is) as indisputable fact despite all evidence to the contrary (and there's tons of it). The Zilla name change is official, an exec producer from Toho said it himself FFS, deal with it. And no, a guy who doesn't even work for Toho merely saying that the monster is still trademarked as "Godzilla" (hence heresay) is not indisputable fact, I just showed you, numerous times, might I add, the "Godzilla" trade mark and icon does not exist for the 98 monster, anymore, it clearly says "Cancelled" on the official trademark page for it FFS, so there you go, debunked.

[Legion1979]

The Zilla name change is official, an exec producer from Toho said it himself FFS, deal with it.

When I read that quote, it sounded more to me like he was explaining why they renamed the monster when they created "Zilla" for Final Wars, not why they supposedly changed the name of the monster in the 1998 film. Which, as far as I'm concerned, didn't happen.

And no, a guy who doesn't even work for Toho merely saying that the monster is still trademarked as "Godzilla" (hence heresay) is not indisputable fact, I just showed you, numerous times, might I add, the "Godzilla" trade mark and icon does not exist for the 98 monster, anymore, it clearly says "Cancelled" on the official trademark page for it FFS, so there you go, debunked.

YAAAWWWWWWWWWNNNNNN

[ScouseGojira]

Toho did release Godzilla '98 on blu-ray as part of their 60th anniversary collection and on that blu-ray there is indeed a Godzilla logo, not zilla. So therefore, the monster in that film is trademarked as a variation of Godzilla. End of story.

[KManX89]

I don't care how credible you think Aiken is, a trademark website is as official as it gets, and they paint a totally different picture as seen in the two pics above.

Like I said, #DebateOver.

[Starsteam]

Oh my god, are you still using that? How embarrassing.
That is not the trademark page for a character.


Aiken isn't stating a opinion or a assumption. The character of Zilla has never been applied to the 1998 movie. The trademark for Godzilla has never been abandoned, as it is still in use by both Sony and Toho for this movie. Only the attached icon used for merchandising as been discontinued since all merchandise for the 1998 movie has ended production.
Here's the post-2004 2009 Blu-ray release for Godzilla 1998. Toho takes care of their legal matters and would have applied any newly-trademarked character to a previous film.
https://33.media.tumblr.com/d89e6e1a6a5 ... r1_500.png


Fun fact: Zilla's character legal information (above) also lists trading cards. I believe this is from that American trading card series from a while back that included a character card for Zilla. You know what the description said? 'It has a resemblance to the creature in the 1998 movie but it has not been confirmed to be the same'. These are official trading cards too.

Regardless of what any person from Toho says, they have never made the name change official in legal terms. Again, Kieth is simply going by what the legal information attached the movie and animated series says.

Do you really want to keep this going?

[KManX89]

Oh my god, are you still using that? How embarrassing.
That is not the trademark page for a character.
http://38.media.tumblr.com/6db5718cc0c2 ... 1_1280.png

Aiken isn't stating a opinion or a assumption. The character of Zilla has never been applied to the 1998 movie. The trademark for Godzilla has never been abandoned, as it is still in use by both Sony and Toho for this movie. Only the attached icon used for merchandising as been discontinued since all merchandise for the 1998 movie has ended production.
Here's the post-2004 2009 Blu-ray release for Godzilla 1998. Toho takes care of their legal matters and would have applied any newly-trademarked character to a previous film.
https://33.media.tumblr.com/d89e6e1a6a5 ... r1_500.png


Fun fact: Zilla's character legal information (above) also lists trading cards. I believe this is from that American trading card series from a while back that included a character card for Zilla. You know what the description said? 'It has a resemblance to the creature in the 1998 movie but it has not been confirmed to be the same'. These are official trading cards too.

Regardless of what any person from Toho says, they have never made the name change official in legal terms. Again, Kieth is simply going by what the legal information attached the movie and animated series says.

Do you really want to keep this going?

Considering they both used the same trademark, it's totally legit.

And as I pointed out earlier, Shogo Tomiyama, who owns the rights to the character, already confirmed they changed it's name in an interview. Penny Blood even blatantly stated "you were quoted as saying "you renamed Hollywood's 1998 version of the monster 'Zilla'" and he responded with "yes". There's no way in hell that can be interpreted as anything but them changing its name no matter how much spin Aiken or anybody tries to put on it.

[g2vd]

I..

[Legion1979]

And as I pointed out earlier, Shogo Tomiyama, who owns the rights to the character, already confirmed they changed it's name in an interview. Penny Blood even blatantly stated "you were quoted as saying "you renamed Hollywood's 1998 version of the monster 'Zilla'" and he responded with "yes". There's no way in hell that can be interpreted as anything but them changing its name no matter how much spin Aiken or anybody tries to put on it.

Good lord, this is stupid....

Like I said, it sounds more like Tomiyama was referring to the name change in GFW when Zilla was created as a separate character, and NOT some legal change that altered the '98 Godzilas name.

I mean Jesus Christ, if the newest Japense release of the 1998 film copywrites the monster as "GODZILLA", how the f@ck is this even up for debate.