Talk:Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Help with sources.

Can some of you help me with sources for this article? Thank you- Vincent ☺ Tristar72 (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Music section

i dont know where you would find a source for this, other than the trailer released today, but the final trailer features the King of Monsters theme, or a modern version thereof, alongside Over The Rainbow from Wizard of Oz. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFxN2oDKk0E shadzar-talk 19:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The usual approach is to look for secondary sources that mention it, then add a note about it with a reference. Doesn't seem notable, IMO. Alaney2k (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2019

A full plot synopsis change from the current

"The heroic efforts of the crypto-zoological agency Monarch as its members face off against a battery of god-sized monsters, including the mighty Godzilla, who collides with Mothra, Rodan, and his ultimate nemesis, the three-headed King Ghidorah. When these ancient super-species—thought to be mere myths—rise again, they all vie for supremacy, leaving humanity's very existence hanging in the balance."

to

"In 2014, Drs Mark Russell (Kyle Chandler) and Emma Russell (Vera Farmiga) lose their son Andrew during the the battle between Godzilla and the MUTOs in San Fransisco. 5 years later, Mark and Emma have separated. Emma and their daughter Madison, both work with crypto-zoological organization Monarch, to track down and study Titans, giant God-like monsters that once dominated the Earth. The pair investigate an enormous egg inside a temple in China. It soon hatches, giving birth to a giant larva that Monarch dubs "Mothra". Emma is able to communicate to Mothra and other Titans with a device called "The Orca", capable of emitting frequencies that only Titans can respond to. Mothra becomes docile, until an organization of eco-terrorists, led by Alan Jonah (Charles Dance), an ex-British Forces officer who resents humanity for their wars and environmental destruction, attack the area and kill all the other scientists. Mothra manages to escape during the confusion and escapes underneath a waterfall, and the terrorists kidnap both Emma and Madison, taking them to their base in Antarctica.

Dr. Serizawa (Ken Watanabe), Dr. Vivienne Graham (Sally Hawkins), and Sam Coleman (Thomas Middleditch) of Monarch are questioned at a Senate hearing, debating whether the military takes over operations at Monarch. Monarch reaches out to Mark, who can track the frequencies of the Orca. He doesn’t warm to the organization due to their involvement with Godzilla, who he blames for Andrew's death. Monarch takes Mark to a camp in Bermuda, dedicated to tracking Godzilla. After an encounter with Godzilla, the team realizes he is heading to Antarctica, and soon after discover Jonah's intent to free a Titan encased in ice called “Monster Zero”. Once there, Mark sneaks his way into the containment facility and tries to free Emma and Madison, only for Emma to detonate the ice herself and free Monster Zero. Once departed in a chopper, Emma activates the Orca and awakens Monster Zero. The Titan destroys the facility until Godzilla emerges from the ocean. The two engage in a brutal fight that ends with Godzilla being knocked into the ocean. Monster Zero continues his rampage, killing Dr. Graham before disappearing in a freak tropical storm.

Bewildered by Emma's actions, and Monster Zero's sudden disappearance, Monarch realize Emma and Jonah's next target is Mexico and depart. Before touchdown, they are contacted by Emma directly, revealing her involvement with Jonah the entire time. She believes that humanity's gradual destruction of Earth through pollution and deforestation will eventually wipe out the world and everyone in it, and awakening each of the Titans one by one will restore the natural order to the planet, leading to a peaceful co-existence between humans and Titans. Mark realizes she's trying to make up for losing Andrew in the San Fransisco battle. Monarch evacuates the Mexican city the tropical storm is heading towards. However, before the evacuation is complete, Jonah orders Emma to use the Orca to awaken another Titan called Rodan. The volcano erupts as Rodan emerges, laying waste to the city and people below. Madison, reflecting on the carnage, begins to doubt her mother's intentions.

As the storm begins to swamp over Mexico, Monarch realizes that Monster Zero wasn’t lost in the storm, but is the one causing it. In a last ditch effort to save what's left of the populace, Monarch's air force lead Rodan away from the city, engaging him in a dogfight over the ocean, in an attempt to lead him into Monster Zero’s storm, with the hopes both Titans can kill each other. A brief battle occurs, ending with Monster Zero easily defeating Rodan. Monster Zero focuses his attention on the remaining aircraft, but is stopped by the sudden arrival of Godzilla. Monster Zero once again has the upper hand. Admiral William Stenz (David Strathairn) contacts Monarch, revealing a new, experimental anti-Titan missile known as the Oxygen Destroyer. Dr. Serizawa pleads against the idea but is overruled. During the fight between the Titans, the Oxygen Destroyer detonates in the ocean. Godzilla is seemingly killed, while Monster Zero survives unscathed. Monster Zero perches atop Rodan’s volcano and begins drawing energy from it and the storm, regenerating itself and gaining new strength. It lets loose a roar that awakens all Titans all across the world, who begin obeying their new alpha. The Titans begin a worldwide rampage. Shocked by Godzilla's death and the subsequent mayhem caused by the awakened Titans, Madison distances herself from her mother.

Monarch realizes through Dr Ilene Chen's (Zhang Ziyi) reading of mythological texts that Monster Zero (now named Ghidorah) was a "demon who fell from the sky”, alluding to an alien-origin. It is further revealed that Godzilla and Ghidorah are the alpha Titans, who have challenged each other for total dominance before. Mothra emerges from her cocoon underneath the waterfall and flies over the Bermuda facility in the ocean. Monarch learn that Godzilla and Mothra's species regularly allied together in ancient times, and that Godzilla survived the Oxygen Destroyer. Mark joins Monarch aboard a submarine to try to fully restore Godzilla. They locate his resting place inside an ancient underwater city, feeding off radiation from the sea floor to stay alive. In order to revive Godzilla in enough time to stop Ghidorah, the team decide detonating a nuke would provide him enough radiation to get back to full strength. The nuke won’t launch however, meaning someone must take it to Godzilla and manually detonate it. Despite the objections of everyone else, Dr. Serizawa volunteers himself. Setting the nuke down in front of an injured Godzilla, Serizawa sets the timer, sharing his final moments with him as the nuke detonates. A supercharged Godzilla rises out of the water, bigger and stronger than ever.

In Boston, Emma finally realizes King Ghidorah's awakening of all Titans will destroy the Earth far worse than humans could ever do, but Jonah ignores her pleas to turn back. Madison overhears this and steals the Orca, using it to lure Ghidorah to Boston so the other Titans can destroy him. Ghidorah gets to Boston first and the destruction begins, chasing Madison through Fenway Park, but Godzilla shows up with an a squadron of Monarch jets in tow. Mothra and Rodan arrive too, facing each other while Godzilla takes on Ghidorah. Rodan gains the upper hand until Mothra stabs him through the chest with a hidden stinger, taking him out of the battle. Monarch realizes that the nuke used to revive Godzilla gave him too much energy, and he will soon go thermonuclear. Ghidorah gains the upper hand after lifting Godzilla into orbit and dropping him. Mothra flies in before Ghidorah can deliver the killing blow, landing on Godzilla's downed body to protect him. She ultimately sacrifices herself to protect him. As Mothra’s body burns up, her ashes rain over Godzilla's body, transferring her energy to him, which Ghidorah starts to drain from him.

Mark, Emma, and Madison are reunited and attempt to restart the Orca, which was damaged in the attack, to lure Ghidorah away from Godzilla. Ultimately as they are evacuated, Emma drives away with the Orca so Ghidorah can follow her and Mark and Madison can escape. Ghidorah eventually catches up, killing her and destroying the Orca. Godzilla arrives, powered up by Mothra's energy back up and, unleashes two fiery atomic pulses that burns Ghidorah away. Shortly after, the other Titans arrive from across the world, bowing to Godzilla, accepting him as their new alpha. Godzilla roars, now King of the Monsters.

In a post-credit scene, a fisherman reveals one of the decapitated heads of Ghidorah to Jonah, who accepts it." 86.176.9.129 (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: There's already a full plot section in the article at time of writing. NiciVampireHeart 15:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on the Budget?

So currently the budget in the infobox is listed at $170-200 million, which I am fine with. Most publications list the film at one or the other, and each seems perfectly plausible. However I'd love to get your guys' thoughts on this:

In their weekend box office report (cited in the article and also here [1]), Deadine notes the budget at $170 million, with a few sources saying it could be $185 million. Fine and not worth much since the 185 figure falls between the 170 and 200. *However* they then write "...though I have others telling me the project was originally shopped around at $230M net". Do you guys think that means a few people insist the film cost $230 million to produce? Or just that that is the figure that the filmmakers wanted to shoot on before the studio talked them down? The strange wording and the large leap up from $170 million makes me cautious to add it to the infobox, so want to see how anyone else interrupts it. Cheers! TropicAces (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

@TropicAces: The language "shopped around" leads me to believe that $230M is the budget that the producers were seeking for the film, but did not necessarily receive. I would stick with $170-200 million. Vrrajkum (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2019

Change

"Ben Travis, writing for Empire Online, wrote "Globe-trotting but not adventurous, action-packed but not remotely exciting, utterly overstuffed and completely paper-thin."[139]"

to

Ben Travis, writing for Empire Online, gave it one out of five stars and wrote "Globe-trotting but not adventurous, action-packed but not remotely exciting, utterly overstuffed and completely paper-thin."[139]

Reason: for other reviews, the relative rating (e.g. C-) is given, but not for the Empire review. 131.130.153.43 (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 20:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Title move

As per an announcement via their Facebook page the film is officially titled Godzilla II: King of the Monsters in the UK: https://www.facebook.com/GodzillaMovieUK

So the lead of the article should be changed appropriately. Gistech (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

That title may be for the UK release but this is an American production and all material released by the studio so far has titled the film as Godzilla: King of the Monsters. Armegon (talk) 07:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect material released by the studio in other countries and territories includes the alternate title. In order to keep with Wiki guidelines. The alternate title NEEDS to be in the lead. Every other American production Wikipage with an alternate title, has it in their leads. This page is a disgrace without it. ThatIPGuy (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if it's an American production, other American produced films are represented on Wikipedia with their alternative titles in the introductory line. It is important to keep this information immediate for international viewers who know the film by its international title. It helps redirect international audiences to the page. This is an American production viewed on an international scale, international viewers have to be accounted for here. Refusing to do so is selfish on the user's behalf, with American elitist agenda in mind. 2001:8003:8126:1B01:95F0:4EB:FB2F:F378 (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

"Refusing to do so is selfish on the user's behalf, with American elitist agenda in mind". WOW! I guess we can rule out that the anonymous user is not taking the matter seriously. WP:FILMLEAD states that the lead should only summarize key important points of the article. The international title is hardly noteworthy since its only addition is a roman numeral, not a new title altogether. The international title is already covered in the Release section with a verified source, so there's no need to add it in the lead and there is no rule requiring that the international title be added. @Alaney2k, you have contributed to this article and other MonsterVerse related articles, what's your two cents on the matter? Armegon (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Armegon is such a control freak.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:9052:B901:B857:6A07:6F8E:7F7A (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Because I follow Wiki guidelines? Yeah, I'm the bad guy for keeping the children from treating these articles like fandom Wikias without moderation or oversight. What a crime. Armegon (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually if you were concerned with following Wiki guidelines, you'd add Godzilla II: King of the Monsters to the lead of the article, because every other American production Wikipedia page puts alternate titles in their leads. Be responsible and add it. I STRONGLY SUPPORT adding the alternate title to the lead. ThatIPGuy (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Alaney2k please add your deciding vote in this matter. ThatIPGuy (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Puzzling. The Facebook page showed Godzilla II then seems to stop using it. Were they just trying it out? Alaney2k (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Alaney2k Here's the official page from Roadshow Films (WB's distributor in international markets) which displays the II [2] Each person who has commented on this talk page has voiced support for the alternate title to be added. Even without support written in bold, it's clearly visible that most people want the title in the article's lead to represent the movie being released internationally. Every other wikipage of an American production has the alternate title in the article's lead, however Armegon has taken extreme lengths to prevent this from happening.ThatIPGuy (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@User talk:ThatIPGuy's opinion and vote should not be considered because the user is manipulating votes, check here. ThatIPGuy deliberately added support votes to influence consensus to his/her favor. Armegon (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I've seen admins and editors get quite mad over sock puppetry and other rules breaking. The rules breaking has to stop. There is no rush to figure this out. Alaney2k (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I have added a link to this discussion to the Film Project talk page. Somebody there can help us out. It seems reasonable to add the alternate title in some way. Alaney2k (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Oops. I see above that it was added in the Release section. Alaney2k (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• Note: User:ThatIPGuy and two other users who posted to this discussion have been indefinitely blocked for abusively using multiple accounts in an attempt to drum up consensus here. !votes from the sockpuppets have been removed. User:ThatIPGuy's comments were left in place. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThatIPGuy for more information. ST47 (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I have added a redir page Godzilla II: King of the Monsters to this article. Alaney2k (talk) 20:23, 29 April 20

@Armegon: The Avengers (2012 film) seems comparable. It has slightly different titles internationally. The article shows the alternate international titles in the lead sentence. And that is considered a good article. Alaney2k (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah but that alternate title is significantly different from the original. It's notable. The alternate title for Godzilla is the exact same as the original, the only difference is that the alternate title has a roman numeral. That's why I find it hardly noteworthy for the lead. Armegon (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

That's true, but a large segment of the world will know this film under a different title. Which would appear to be an official title? In advertising, listings, etc. I wonder if they will put a different title screen on the film. Alaney2k (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

It's possible. I've seen some of the UK trailers use the title card Godzilla II. Perhaps they will use that title card for the European release. Armegon (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Alaney2k I support changing this article to be in line with The Avengers (2012 film) it's only for the benefit of the page, and while this is an American and Chinese production, it is seeing a worldwide release where the worldwide audience should be fairly considered. The foreign title under the "Release" section feels unprofessional and inconsiderate of the worldwide audience. I think using The Avengers (2012 film) as an example, should be the way to resolve all of this. It only makes the page seem more professional as this is a movie seeing a worldwide release. Rebirth3k (talk) 12:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

It has been pointed out that User:Rebirth3k is a suspected sock puppet account for User:ThatIPGuy, check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThatIPGuy. Armegon (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry? I don't understand what you mean. Rebirth3k (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. The international title is not different enough to warrant inclusion. If someone from France can't understand that Godzilla II: King of the Monsters is the exact same film as Godzilla: King of the Monsters then that is their fault, not Wikipedia's. Bob2448 (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Wikipedia is from America. If there is an article about a movie, the title would be the one from the American version. The alternate title should only be in the lead. 73.185.25.110 (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Stop changing my edits!

    If you undid my revision in the Plot section (look at the history), please read this. Many people are considering my links easter egg links, and people are changing my edits! Somebody replaced "decides" (my revision) with "agrees"! Just let me edit and stop trimming these edits. 2601:205:4100:CB5B:80DE:E032:6B2F:D69C (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

You don't own Wikipedia. Your demands to have people stop editing goes against WP:OWN. Armegon (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I realized that "them" is still there! I believe that is my revision! Well, I apologize. Please don't let anyone get me blocked. 2601:205:4100:CB5B:80DE:E032:6B2F:D69C (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 30 May 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Most editors argue that the exclamation point in the title of Godzilla, King of the Monsters! (1956) is insufficient to distinguish the 1956 film from the 2019 film (MOS:PRECISION). There is no consensus on which film (if any) is the primary topic for this title. (non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 03:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019 film) → Godzilla: King of the Monsters – No doubt this will soon become the primary topic. Besides, the 1956 film is titled Godzilla, King of the Monsters! (note the punctuation marks) and the unproduced film is titled Godzilla: King of the Monsters in 3D (should we even have articles for unproduced films? Doesn't that violate WP:NFF?). Kailash29792 (talk) 09:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 22:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• In regards to the unproduced film, WP:NFF states that it should not have its own article "unless their failure was notable per the guidelines". I think the unproduced Miner film is notable because this was the first attempt to produce a Hollywood Godzilla film that pre-dates TriStar and Legendary's films. So much went into the development stage, only to have the project scrapped. I'd say it's notable. Enough verified sources have been cited for the plot, development, writing, effects, and cancellation. There's enough information and sources to merit its own article. Armegon (talk) 09:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree, the unproduced film was notable and is well-supported with sources. A very interesting example of 'development hell.' Alaney2k (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I think having two other films with similar titles (regardless of punctuation or two additional characters) is enough for the needed clarification. TropicAces (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support The (2019 film) is superfluous. Alaney2k (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• I'm a little torn. On the one hand, punctuation might not be different enough, which I think would mandate that the 1956 film have the dab added to the end of its title as well. On the other, punctuation could well do the trick, and then hatnotes would suffice. I'm curious if the comma in the '56 film is really valid, considering the title card doesn't have any punctuation after Godzilla, but I'd have to look at a film database for its official title. This is a tricky one. I still have to think on it, but I figured I'd provide some food for thought. Sock (tock talk) 00:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment I agree with you that, if the 2019 film should be disambiguated in the title, then perhaps the same should be done to the 1956 film. Sure, in terms of punctuation, the title of the 1956 film includes a comma and an exclamation point, whereas the title of the 2019 film only has a colon. Nonetheless, if one were to say both titles aloud, they would sound identical without the release years being clarified (that is, unless someone says the name of the 1956 film really emphatically because of the "!" at the end). I think clarification is important. –Matthew - (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I think it's important to clearly distinguish between the 1956 film and the 2019 film by including "(2019 film)" in the latter article's title, even when taking into consideration the punctuation in the former article's title. I also think it would be a little hasty of us to designate the 2019 film as being the primary topic, considering the 1956 film has been the primary topic for over sixty years. In any case, if a reader is looking for the article about the 2019 film and somehow finds themselves on the article about the 1956 film instead (or vice versa), the hatnotes at the top of each article will be able to easily direct them to their desired destination. –Matthew - (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I think regardless of punctuation, it is still important to specify the years of release for the films as people can easily get both mixed up when searching for them. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• OPPOSE: "(2019 film)" will help readers distinguish this version and the 1956 version. The 1956 version has been the primary topic for a good while now and it's unlikely to change soon. Armegon (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support -Technically, they are different titles. In situations like this, you'd have 2 separate pages (no years added) with a hatnote that explains that there is a similarly titled page and a link to it. technically, you would only use a hatnote currently if there was an ambiguiated titled that redirected to either this page or the 1956 film page. If there isn't, then a hatnote isn't used here (as it currently sits).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as TropicAces mentioned, a small piece of punctuation (!) doesn't make it very clear, per MOS:PRECISION. Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 00:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose we can't use a ! for dab except for one exceptional article Airplane! which is so super-well-known to be an exception. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Punctuation alone is insufficient to disambiguate the titles in this case, especially considering the age of the 1956 version. Vrrajkum (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The (2019 film) is unnecessary disambiguation. The titles are distinct, therefore, there's no reason to bother with parentheses. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The (2019) film is necessary to differentiate the 1956 version from the 2019 version. AceAlen (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: In my opinion the other article, "Godzilla, King of the Monsters!", should be renamed to "Godzilla, King of the Monsters! (1956 film)", while keeping the name of this article the same as it is now. I would argue that the other article is not the primary topic either. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons already stated above. A comma vs colon is not enough to distinguish the 2 titles; same goes for one containing a ! while the other doesn't. We must remember too that most people aren't going to type out the punctuation and instead will rely on the autocomplete feature to display results after typing the first few characters or so. Having this article with the "(2019 film)" suffix makes it immediately obvious to readers that it is (or isn't) the article they're looking for. I also disagree with the OPs assertion that this movie will become the primary topic after the other has been the primary for over 60 years and arguably is where this movie got its name from, proving that the 1956 version is the more notable one. —TheSameGuy (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Commment - I would point people to WP:SMALLDETAILS, which specifically addresses things like this before you single-mindedly just go "it's not enough".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support It has a different title from a similarly named movie. Felicia (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support: After looking back, I think that we should move the page Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019 film) to "Godzilla: King of the Monsters", with the latter (which is a disambig page) being moved to "Godzilla: King of the Monsters (disambiguation)". I'd also like to point out that there is no redirect for Godzilla: King of the Monsters (1956 film) to Godzilla, King of the Monsters!, so, this rename of pages would fit in line with that, too, as they are different titles that are just similar in punctuation, but not the same. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Upon further review, especially after reading Bignole's comment about WP:SMALLDETAILS along with Trailblazer101's suggestion about "Godzilla: King of the Monsters (disambiguation)", I retract my previous statement of opposition towards the requested move. –Matthew - (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Not a significant enough distinction to invoke WP:SMALLDETAILS._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Just going to point out that one of the examples they use in that guideline is "The World Is Yours", with the 2 variations only separated by the use of an umlaut. Visually, and also being able to type that, it's far less of a difference than the addition of commas and exclamation points. The reason SMALLDETAILS exist is to help not have to disambiguate when it isn't necessary. That's why we have hatnotes available to us for anyone that may accidentally come to this article looking for another one. Technically, we're disambiguating two pages with years when they aren't actually spelled the same way.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I already know. I oppose using it when the only thing differentiating the titles is minor punctuation. At least the umlaut is part of the title proper._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Pointing out the version is important and easily rocognized. Barca (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support I absolutely agree with you. The title of the article for the 1956 film is "Godzilla,King of the Monsters!",and there is no

"(1956 film)" in it. Also,people who oppose you think that it can't be distinguished because of the comma. But there is an exclamation mark at the end. So this page should definitely be moved. The "(2019 film)" should be removed. 2601:205:4100:CB5B:80DE:E032:6B2F:D69C (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)2:33 AM (UTC)

• Oppose this move 2601:541:4500:1760:A89A:65D6:E57B:36CE (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

COMMENT: I don't mean to make this sound like a voting poll but there are 10 opposed and 6 supports. It seems the consensus is clear and there hasn't been much further discussion since the 12th. Perhaps it's time to close this? Armegon (talk) 04:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The move is unnecessary and the current title differentiates between new and old movies with the same title. - TurokSwe (talk) 11:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Moving the page would mean there's no differentiating between the new and old films. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - I change my mind and oppose. There is a disambiguation page with no "(disambiguation)". 2601:205:4100:CB5B:80DE:E032:6B2F:D69C (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Title

We should remove "(2019 film)" from the title because there are no other film with that exact title.Enjoyer of World (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It must be removed. DarkFallenAngel (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The only difference from the 1956 movie title is an "!". This title makes it clear. Alaney2k (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

There are ',' and '!'. This film use ':'. Enough difference.--Enjoyer of World (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

You can add the information "This article is about the upcoming film. For the 1956 film, see Godzilla, King of the Monsters!".--Enjoyer of World (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

That is there. Alaney2k (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Alaney2k: "," and "!" is enough difference. If "This article is about the upcoming 2019 film" is there, no need to add "(2019 film)" to its title. Enjoyer of World (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. They both share the subtitle "King of the Monsters", how is that not the same? The only differences are the punctuations, which holds very little ground to distinguish the two, let alone remove the modifiers. Please read WP:ATDIS, it clearly states when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary. The "(2019 film)" part distinguishes this film from the 1956 film, henceforth it is necessary. If someone were to google "Godzilla King of the Monsters" right now, they would only find plenty of results regarding the 1956 film and very little of the upcoming 2019 film. The "(2019 film)" part helps disambiguate the two films and helps readers navigate their search results better. Armegon (talk) 03:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Wow thank you. Now I understand. Enjoyer of World (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Somebody has requested this move, and the result was: not moved. The punctuations are small differences. I believe that this discussion should be closed. 2601:205:4100:CB5B:9814:5516:7567:34E0 (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Monsters

I think that we should rewrite, cleanup, edit and expand Monsters including Godzilla, Mothra, King Ghidorah and Rodan to the article please? There is going to be a lot more work that needs to be done. 89.187.100.71 (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

OPPOSED. Any information about the monsters can be found in the Creature design section. Armegon (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Production countries

The British Film Institute (BFI) lists the film here as being a co-production between the United States, Japan, and China. Can User:Armegon give an explanation for why s/he reverted this? BFI is a reliable source. Maestro2016 (talk) 10:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Maestro2016:I gave my explanation here. Don't know why it merits another one. Regardless, Legendary Pictures is the sole studio credited for producing the film, per the official poster billing block. If that's not enough, the official final credits provided by Legendary and WB, found here, lists Legendary Pictures as the sole production company and gives Toho and Huahua an In Association credit. How is this difficult to grasp? This is now common knowledge. It's pretty clear that BFI mucked up that info without doing any real fact-checking, but I just did the fact-checking for you and BFI. The sources, again straight from Legendary and WB, speak for themselves. Armegon (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, the Credits & Rating tab from the film's official website, found here, lists Legendary Pictures as the sole production studio. You're telling me that BFI knows more about which countries made the movie than the studio that actually produced it? Armegon (talk) 10:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Your own sources clearly state that Legendary Pictures produced the film "in association with" Toho and Huahua, which makes them co-production companies.

According to the Opening credits article, "(NAME OF THE PRODUCTION COMPANY)" means: "Name of the production company that actually made the film or name of the investment groups or companies that financed a substantial part of the film (usually credited as "in association with" or "A [production company name] production.")."

According to this source, "IN ASSOCIATION WITH SO-AND-SO PRODUCTION COMPANY" means: "There may be multiple production companies that played a part in getting the movie made. They are listed here, after the distributor and the primary production company, studio or studio subsidiary."

Legendary is the primary production company, not the sole production company. BFI has not made any mistake here. The problem is that you are misrepresenting the sources. Maestro2016 (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

No. YOU are misrepresenting the sources. You're contradicting yourself with your own sources. The "primary" production studio is the one that actually financially produced the film. Hence why the credits is listed as "A Legendary Pictures Production". The New England source states "multiple production companies that played a part in getting the movie made". "Played a part" could mean one thing or another. It doesn't confirm they actually produced the film. Legendary IS the sole production studio because they're the only ones who put their money down to make the movie. You seem to be confusing the primary studio and "association with" as the same thing. It's not. Your own sources confirm that. Armegon (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. The problem is that you are misinterpretating the credits. As the Opening credits article states: "companies that financed a substantial part of the film (usually credited as "in association with" or "A [production company name] production.")." When a company is credited as "in association with", it means it's a co-production company that financed part of the film. That's what "in association with" means, as explained over at the Opening credits article. In this case, Toho and Huahua both financed part of this film's production. None of the sources support your claim that Legendary is the sole production company. That is entirely your own WP:ORIGINAL research, based on your misinterpretation of the credits. As stated by the British Film Institute, a reliable source, this film is an American-Japanese-Chinese co-production. You are the one going against what a reliable source states in favour of your own WP:OR interpretation of the credits. Maestro2016 (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

You do realize you are using a Wikipedia article as a source for your argument? An article that's been tagged with having issues and only cites 5 sources. I, on the other hand, already provided 3 reliable sources to support my argument that confirm that the film was "A Legendary Pictures Production". Not "A Legendary Pictures, Toho, and HuaHua Media Production." How is that WP:OR? The sources speak for themselves. Armegon (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's go over the sources:

• British Film Institute - "Countries: People's Republic of China, Japan, USA"
• Poster - "A Legendary Pictures Production In Association With Toho Co., Ltd."
• Warner Bros - "Legendary Pictures Production, in association with Toho Co., Ltd."
• Sci-Fi Japan - "A LEGENDARY PICTURES PRODUCTION In Association with Toho Co., Ltd., In Association with Huahua Media"

All of these sources more-or-less agree that a Japanese production company (Toho) co-produced the film. There is no contradiction or disagreement between these sources regarding this matter. The only problem is, again, that you are simply misinterpreting what "In association with" means. Maestro2016 (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Those very sources you provided confirm that the film was "A Legendary Pictures Production." Not "A Legendary Pictures/Toho/Huahua Media Production." @User talk:Betty Logan given what you told me on the infobox talk page, where do you believe this case falls under in terms of adding the Association credits to the article's infobox? Armegon (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

As per Template:Infobox film, "Country: For reasons explained below preference is given to reliable databases like BFI, AFI, or trade publications such as Screen International and Variety." BFI is literally the first source recommended by the template documentation. BFI clearly states that Japan and China are co-production countries. Maestro2016 (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Further below at Template:Infobox film, "Country: According to the European Lumiere project, the value of this parameter is seldom found in the primary source (the film) and often involves original research". This is essentially what you are doing, engaging in original research based on a primary source (the film's credits) to determine the production country. The template documentation says to avoid doing this, but to instead rely on reliable database sources like BFI. Maestro2016 (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be inaccuracies from BFI that extend outside of GKOTM. Their listing for Godzilla '84 seems to confuse The Return of Godzilla with the Hanna Barbera cartoon from 1978. Godzilla vs. Megaguirus is listed as being released in 2001, yet it was released in 2000. Jan De Bont's UNPRODUCED Godzilla film has its own page, for some reason? Even the original Gamera film is inaccurately listed. It's describing the American cut, yet the country of origin is listed as Japan instead of Japan/United States and it inaccurately lists the film being released in 1964, yet the Japanese cut was released in 1965 and the US cut was released in 1966. This proves my original argument that BFI messed up and doesn't fact check their lists. How can this site be considered reliable when it can't even get the correct info for certain films? User talk:Betty Logan your two cents would be appreciated. Armegon (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

My comments at Template_talk:Infobox_film#Production_companies related to production companies. This seems to be a different discussion entirely. Countries of origin in the infobox should always be sourced, without exception. As Template:Infobox_film#Country states there is no universally accepted definition for what constitutes a "country of production". The British Film Institute is a respectable organization, but the problem when it comes to countries of production is that many countries have different criteria. As the Lumiere site states:

There are no widely accepted international or even European definitions of the criteria to be used to determine the country of origin of a film. This is both a legal and a statistical problem. It is enlightening to compare the lists provided by the different national sources that we use: countries involved in a joint production are not always indicated (even when the main coproducer is from another country). Different national records - and the statistics on which they are based - can show the same film as having a whole range of nationalities.

Simply put, if you are looking for an easy answer you are not going to find one. The best approach is to look at the sources in the article and sources regularly used by film articles and apply WP:WEIGHT. You will need to apply WP:WEIGHT because different sources will say different things. It is worth noting that Lumiere itself lists four countries of production, while ScreenDaily lists the same as the BFI. Betty Logan (talk) 06:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I just want to make a comment here. The British Film Institute tends to contradict the American Film Institute in regards to what is considered production. For instance they have Germany listed as a country involved with the production of the 2005 remake of King Kong.Here, when no German production company is listed on the American Film Institute page for the film Here. The same applies for the 2014 Godzilla movie where the BFI has Japan listed [Here, while the AFI doesn't have a Japanese company listed on their site HereGiantdevilfish (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Neither is probably incorrect, it's just a case of different methodologies being applied. In both of these cases the LUMIERE database is consistent with the AFI (US/NZ for King Kong and just US for Godzilla). On the other hand LUMIERE lists four nationalities for Godzilla: King of the Monsters. The German companies listed on American films tend to be just financiers (due to a generous taxation law) rather than involved in some aspect of production. Betty Logan (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes! Exactly! This is the point I was trying to illustrate earlier that BFI is not as reliable, nor consistent, with information regarding certain films. The official final credits, found here, only lists Legendary Pictures as the sole production company. As far as Huahua Media's involvement goes, this source seems to confirm that Huahua Media only invested in the film's marketing for the Middle Kingdom. Toho seems to only have an IP investment since the film is based on their characters. Armegon (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

What is or isn't listed as a production company does not always determine the country of origin. A country can be a stake-holder in the film without contributing production services, which is often why many companies are credited in the credits. One example of this is the James Bond films that are produced by the British based EON Productions but co-owned by MGM/UA, so they are regarded as UK-US films. In the two examples highlighted by Giantdevilfish, the AFI and LUMIERE correlate exactly, but for Godzilla: King of the Monsters LUMIERE lists US/Japan/China (as the BFI does) and also Mexico! So in this scenario we have another source that is usually consistent with the AFI that corroborates the BFI, so the BFI does not seem to be anomalous in this case. Betty Logan (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

In regards to the countries, it could be left as is since several sources support the coalition. As for the production company, Legendary Pictures is still credited as the sole production company per the poster billing block/final credits. So the infobox should only reflect Legendary Pictures in the production company section. Armegon (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Should Godzilla's box office be 400 million?

Godzilla's online income after the movie goes down should make the box office at least US$396 million to US$400 million. Comezgirl (talk) 11:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

NOT DONE. There are various reliable sources cited that confirm it was a box office disappointment and box office mojo confirms the film only grossed $386M, not $400M. Armegon (talk) 11:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Unnecessary comments

I personally think that there are too many fundamentally meaningless parts in the evaluation section. There is no need to add comments from too many websites or newspapers, such as the Guardian, as long as the Rotten Tomatoes ratings and Rotten Tomatoes comments are displayed. Comezgirl (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

You're clearly not familiar with MOS:FILM. It states "Detailed commentary from reliable sources regarding the critics' consensus (or lack thereof) is encouraged. Individual critics can also be referenced to detail various aspects of the film. Professional film critics are regarded as reliable sources, though reputable commentators and experts—connected to the film or to topics covered by the film—may also be cited." Armegon (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

My views on this comment also include why the key reactions are mainly concentrated in Europe and the United States, but there is no comment on the people of China or Taiwan. Comezgirl (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

In short, the evaluation part is mainly based on Europe and the United States, and there is no mention of the evaluation of the Asian region at all. Comezgirl (talk) 02:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to add additional reviews/analysis, provided they are supported by verified sources and the critic/author is reliable and certified. The current reviews on the article were added when they became immediately available during the film's release. Armegon (talk) 10:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit request "box office success"...

...to "box office disappointment". The film was objectively not a "box office success" when the article itself goes on to say that it is hundreds of millions of dollars away from break-even.

I think this is certainly true from your country’s point of view, but in my country, Taiwan, this time the box office is higher than last time, and in China it is also higher or almost the same. Generally speaking, it can only be said that it is not as good as expected, and it cannot be said to be disappointed. Comezgirl (talk) 10:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

So please don’t look at the world in terms of your country. Don’t think you represent the world just because your country is strong Comezgirl (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

NOT DONE. There are various reliable sources cited that confirm it was a box office disappointment and box office mojo confirms the film only grossed $386M, not $400M. Armegon (talk) 11:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that movies have no other non-theatre income, such as the Internet and video tapes? Comezgirl (talk) 11:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand by what you mean by "internet income", but there is evidence of box office and home media sales already cited in the article. See the infobox, Box office subsection and home media subsection. Armegon (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Does your wiki emphasize the need for emotional or neutral tone? The word disappointment, dare you tell me that it conforms to the principle of no emotion? Comezgirl (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Our Wikipedia in Taiwan emphasizes that the tone should be moderate and appropriate, but your American Wikipedia actually doesn't care? Comezgirl (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

"Disappointment" is the common phrase used in English. DonQuixote (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

We are going by what's confirmed by the sources cited and they all label the film as a "box office disappointment." On that note, I said you can add additional content with verified sources, not delete sourced material like you did here. Please refrain from repeating such actions in the future. If you persist, you may find yourself blocked for disruptive editing. Armegon (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand, thank you Comezgirl (talk) 07:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

What may not be mentioned in the comments

The comment here forgot to mention one thing, that is, the appearance of Chinese actors in Godzilla and the intervention of Chinese capital led to a rise in anti-Chinese sentiment, making the box office lower than last time. Comezgirl (talk) 09:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

KOTM Production Studios and Countries

Armegon The criteria used for the Production Company and the Country sections of the infobox on the page Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019 film) is incorrect.

A production company is the company that hires the talent and people behind the making of the film. Writing, casting, producing ect. Warner Bros only co financed the film. Toho is "in Association" because they reap the Japanese profits as well as merch. Wanda Qingdao Studios is a film set brand and only provided one of many studio locations another of which is Blackhall Studios. The sources provided have different criteria of a production company than what's accepted.

The countries section refers to which national industry the film was produced under and it was done under the United States Hollywood Studios. It doesn't refer to filming or set locations where it was shot.

This is criteria accepted by all other movie pages on wikipedia including other Monsterverse films. The page for Kong: Skull Island country falls under United States as it should stay. It doesn't fall under the country of Vietnam simply because it was filmed there. And neither does it for China despite one of the Production companies Tencent being a Chinese company, because the film doesn't fall under the China Film Group Corporation's criteria for a Sino-Foreign co-production, therefor it is treated as a foreign release when it comes to Box Office as did Kotm when it released despite Chinese companies investing in it.

25% of the BO revenue goes to foreign studios in China. 43% goes to Sino native films and Co-productions. The former is the case for all Monsterverse films. --Rebel14 (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

This issue has already been discussed above (see here). I'm actually on your side. Legendary is the only production company listed in the press release/billing block set forth by the studio but apparently, we need to add other studios that secondary sources identify as the production companies, per WP:SECONDARY. The sources provided, Variety and Screen Daily, are reliable and verified. So they take importance over the primary source, unfortunately. I personally don't find Lumiere to be reliable enough to add Mexico as one of the film nationalities, but apparently it is reliable according to some editors. You can request for comment to bring more opinions to the matter to cull a consensus at WP:RFC. Armegon (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

That's kinda messed up. Why are secondary sources taken priority over the ACTUAL STUDIO! It shouldn't be this complicated to garner a consensus about something that is factually incorrect. That is an obvious appeal to Argumentum ad populum. And even using such a fallacious guideline points in our favor. just look at literally any other wiki page about a film. Then look at their article on Variety and Lumiere. They're defintetly not in correspondence. The consensus is clear. That being said you're the only real regular on this page. So I don't see the problem if you agree with me.--Rebel14 (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, other articles have different content but unfortunately that's where WP:OTHER comes in. Basically, just cuz another article has this or that (usually thru consensus), doesn't mean that this article should follow suit. Template:Infobox film states that we should use secondary sources that identify the production companies instead of the press release or billing block. Again, we can request for additional comments and make a strong case. This is the better option IMO cuz we may acquire enough opinions to build a consensus to prevent the info from ever being changed again. Or we could change it right now based on our discussion (and risk the opposing editors from May to resurface and revert the edit) and if a month passes without further disputes, WP:QUO would be in place. But should someone challenge it later, we'd be back here to where we started. Thoughts? Armegon (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok I'll bite. How do we start a WP:RFC?

I can do it. Armegon (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC

Seeking additional comments whether to list a sole film production company on infobox based on billing block/press release or add multiple production companies based on secondary sources. Armegon (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

👍--Rebel14 (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that a list would suffice. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 02:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Eduemoni So what do you think? Should we do production studios based on the billing by the official studio or by media sources not involved with the production?--99.10.95.243 (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Could you please link to the billing block/press release sources? I see that secondary sources refer to multiple production companies. Awoma (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Here's the final credits put forth by the studio (1). Even the billing block on the poster identifies Legendary Pictures as the sole production company (2). I feel the secondary sources have misidentified the other companies as production companies. Wanda Qingdao Studios is a filming facility, not a production company. Toho has a financial stake in the film because it's licensing their intellectual property to Legendary. WB is only the distributor. Legendary was the hands on production company. Armegon (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Judging from that, I think you're correct. Also note that previous film Godzilla (2014 film) is correctly listed as having the sole production company Legendary Pictures. Unfortunately, sources are hard to come by, as it seems this mistake has been made by one early source and all subsequent ones have simply copied it, considering it less important information than the main story they're actually covering. In this instance, I think primary sources such as press releases can trump those secondary sources. If you can find a good secondary source though, that would be ideal. Awoma (talk) 08:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Alot of secondary sources seem to copy each other. The only secondary sources I could find that lists Legendary as the sole production company is Movie Insider and SciFi Japan (1, 2). In this case, I'd argue that we'd need to go with the primary source since most secondary sources are reporting inaccurate information seemingly copied from IMDB (1). Armegon (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

About the screening location

I always think it’s weird to not mention Taiwan and Singapore Comezgirl (talk) 03:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Request to change "Negative Reviews" to "Mixed Reviews".

On Rotten Tomatoes, Godzilla: King of the Monsters has an approval rating of 43% based on 342 reviews (147 Fresh and 195 Rotten), with an average rating of 5.20/10. On Metacritic, the film has a score of 48 out of 100 based on 46 critics (14 Positive, 23 Mixed and 9 Negative), indicating "Mixed or Average reviews". Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "B+" on an A+ to F scale, the same grade earned by the first two MonsterVerse installments, while those at PostTrak gave it an overall positive score of 85% (with an average 4.5 out of 5 stars) and a 75% "definite recommend." Justice League recieved a 40% on Rotten Tomatoes based on 398 reviews (159 Fresh and 239 Rotten, with an average rating of 5.3/10. On Metacritic, Justice League has a score of 45 out of 100, based on 52 critics (12 Positive, 28 Mixed and 12 Negative), indicating "mixed or average reviews".

Justice League had a more negative reception than Godzilla:KOTM, yet Wikipedia describes Justice Leage as having "Mixed Reviews" while Godzilla:KOTM is described as having "Negative Reviews" despite having a somewhat more positive reception than Justice League. If Justice League's reviews are listed as "Mixed", then Godzilla: KOTM's reviews should be listed as "Mixed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zroy96 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Opposed. There's two sources provided verifying the negative reviews response. Armegon (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I would support highlighting that Metacritic shows the majority of its reviews to be mixed, followed by positive, then negative. This is a more accurate measurement of critical reception. It does not have to replace the existing sources. We can use in-text attribution to say who said what about the overall reception. It's worth noting that The Indian Express said early reviews were negative, and ScreenRant says that "critics have been left divided", which is more nuanced than just saying "negative reviews". We should be able to fit all these pieces together for the readers. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding audience scores, they are out-of-place in the "Critical response" section. Audiences are self-selecting by nature, and the scores are based on opening-weekend audiences, so it is more suitable in the "Box office" section. It is a bit of synthesis to put the audience scores after the scores based on how critics responded to the film in the "Critical response" section, implying that one should compare when the reality is that it shouldn't. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

"I would support highlighting that Metacritic shows the majority of its reviews to be mixed, followed by positive, then negative." This statement shows that the majority of reviews on metacritic are "Mixed or Average" rather than negative. On Rotten Tomatoes the film has a rating of 43% based on 342 reviews (147 Fresh and 195 Rotten which shows a difference of 48 critics whitch isn't enough to say that it's unanimously positive or negative.) It should noted that not all of the "Rotten" are entirely negative, many reviews are mixed, ranging from 5/10 to 6/10, while not positive are far from negative. One review on the site gave the film a 78/100 yet the review was marked as "Rotten." ScreenRant says that "critics have been left divided". This statement shows that the critical reception is mixed as it implies that the critic reviews are conflicting as opposed to being unanimously negative. The two sources that support the "negative" reception are extremley biased, as they only show the negative reviews and completely ignore the positve reviews in an attempt to make the movie look bad. These sources are also based on early reviews, which at the time started out as negative, however after the film's initial release the reviews became more mixed, with many positive reviews being written after it's release. This means that the critical reviews are mixed not negative. To say that the critical reception for the movie was completely negative is inaccurate and spreads misinformation. Also to say that the audience scores "don't count" is a great diservice to those who view these films as your basically saying that their opinions are worthless. Critics shouldn't be held above anyone else because, much like the audience, they a just normal people who have their own opinions and to say that they deserve more attention is unfair. To Quote the character of Anton Ego from Ratatouille, "In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zroy96 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, Metacritic is empirically better than Rotten Tomatoes to use. We have to be mindful of Metacritic weighing the overall score after categorizing all the reviews. For example, even if there are more mixed reviews than anything else, the overall score may be positive because Metacritic could weigh toward the fewer positive reviews. So we can both mention the weighted overall score and and indicate the raw categorization of reviews as positive, mixed, and negative. Rotten Tomatoes doesn't really have that distinction -- it could be very positive scores and very negative scores balancing out for an "average" score, for example. So RT isn't very good for extracting useful details beyond the overall score, where Metacritic is.

Audience scores are appropriate but in the "Box office" section because the scores are captured on opening weekend. They should never be compared to what the critics think. For example, Killing Them Softly got decent reviews from critics, but it got an "F" grade from CinemaScore because audiences likely went to see it for Brad Pitt and wasn't expecting that kind of movie. There's not a good way to consider what audiences think of a movie beyond opening-weekend measurements. User ratings online can't qualify. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Erik:, I'm a bit confused as to what you're proposing and/or supporting because critical response already highlights MetaCritic's score as "On Metacritic, the film has a score of 48 out of 100 based on 46 critics, indicating 'mixed or average reviews'." Did you want to expand this highlight in the lead or did you want to note how each source highlights mixed or negative reviews, like how Wonder Woman 84's critical response opens? Armegon (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm saying that the two sources about negative reviews are simplistic and should be quoted more fully, and be joined by a breakdown of Metacritic's sample. The Wonder Woman 1984 example is a good one of explaining what different sources have said. I think it can be done here (with other similar sources if possible) and followed by Metacritic's breakdown. In my experience, RT and MC are repeated ad nauseum the exact same way when we can break it down more usefully for overall assessments. (Like RT's rating average is more valuable than its percentage.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Erik: I'd be in support of that style. But are we doing this for the lead, critical response section, both? How do you feel about this proposal?

"The Indian Express called early reviews 'largely negative'. Cinema Blend reported the response to be a 'mixed affair', and Screen Rant called the reviews 'so negative'." 00:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm ok with the early negative reviews being mentioned, however I strongly believe that the mixed reviews should be mentioned so that the reception information is more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zroy96 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

"Mixed reviews" are mentioned in my proposal. Armegon (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Here are a couple of sources that state that the film recieved mixed reviews:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/godzilla-king-of-the-monsters-earns-a-mixed-bag-of-reviews-112159026.html

https://comicbook.com/anime/news/godzilla-king-of-the-monsters-review-round-up/#9https://www.comicbookmovie.com/sci-fi/kaiju/godzilla/godzilla-king-of-the-monsters-reviews-are-mixed-is-great-action-enough-to-make-up-for-a-bad-story-a168629#gs.rfnzjp

https://in.mashable.com/entertainment/3728/early-reviews-for-godzilla-king-of-the-monsters-all-agree-on-one-thing

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2019/08/13/godzilla-king-of-the-monsters-king-kong-skull-island-brie-larson-rampage-dwayne-johnson-meg-jason-statham-jurassic-world-chris-pratt-pacific-rim-john-boyega-warner-bros-universal-legendary-box-office/?sh=1d23978d7a5c Mabye these can help improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zroy96 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

We should use two sources for mixed, Yahoo finance and Forbes are the most reliable. And the Indian Express and Screen Rant for negative. Armegon (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2021

Remove the name Sargon from the page it was confirmed that it was never an actual character in the movie Lindenhs (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The Newsweek article gives this name, so we'd need a different source to remove it. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2021

change received mixed-to-negative reviews to received mixed reviews 2605:B40:1000:AE00:FD4E:30D5:D76:CBCA (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

OPPOSED. We have two reliable sources verifying the "mixed to negative" reception (1, 2). Furthermore, MOS:FILM does not forbid this. It clearly states "The overall critical reception to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources", which is exactly what the Observer and Forbes sources attribute. Additionally, the opening of the article's critical response illustrates how some sources note negative reviews, while others note mixed. It's very clear that the reception was mixed to negative, but rather than settling on synthesis, I actually found two reliable sources to verify the claim (see above). This feels more like cherry picking than anything. Favoring one over the other. Which goes against WP:CHERRYPICKING, it clearly states "include contradictory and significant qualifying information from the same source." Again, both the Observer/Forbes sources provide that. Armegon (talk) 07:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Cite error

The refname "TrailerReveals" is no longer in use, but still appears in the reflist. It should either be commented out or removed.

Thanks 89.241.33.89 (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done --Ferien (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you 89.241.33.89 (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)