Talk:Shin Godzilla/Archive 1

Archive 1

Satomi Ishihara's character's name

While reports, articles, and websites like imdb call Satomi Ishihara's character "Kayoko Ann Patterson"; the film itself spells her name "Kayoco Anne Patterson" — and not just in Funimation's subtitles, either. At the 37:20 timestamp mark there's a dossier about her character that spells the name with a "c" rather than a "k". 128.189.115.199 (talk) 06:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Sequels section

Armegon, I'm confused by your reverts.

A few days ago I removed the Sequels section, as it consisted entirely of a single sentence: 'In July 2017, co-director Shinji Higuchi attended G-Fest XXIV and answered questions regarding sequels, stating, "They cannot make it until after 2020"'.' This is not notable information. It's barely information at all.

You reverted my edit, citing MOS:FILM in your edit summary. I deleted it again, writing: "Please indicate the part of MOS:FILM that says film articles must have single-sentence "Sequel" sections containing no notable information." You have restored it again, with the summary: "MOS:FILM literally does not state that at all."

Maybe you misunderstood my edit summary. My point was indeed that MOS:FILM has nothing in it saying that articles should have Sequels sections even when there's nothing worth writing in them. I don't understand why you restored the Sequels section citing MOS:FILM as justification when there is nothing in MOS:FILM to support you.

I see you have also added the following sentence to the section: "Despite not producing a direct sequel to Shin Godzilla, Toho produced and released Godzilla: Planet of the Monsters the following year." This sentence explicitly states that there is no sequel to the film (yet). So why do we have a Sequels section, when there's nothing to say?

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When there's concrete information about a sequel, we can include it. Popcornduff (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes Popcornduff, what you said did confuse me but it's not the main reason why I reverted your edit. There is no reason or anything on MOS:FILM that states that any section with a single sentence (despite citing a source) should be removed. You're also wrong about you saying that the information provided for the Sequel section is not notable. It is indeed very notable. Let me paint a scenario for you... it is now late 2017 and no sequel for Shin Godzilla has been produced, much less released. Why? Readers would want to know the answer to that question and co-director Shinji Higuchi has provided that answer. Despite being a very short, brief answer... it's still an answer from the director himself. Not some third party source, hence why it is notable. On top of that, a source has been provided for it. Regarding WP: BALL, the first thing it clearly states is Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. Yet, this is not speculation nor is it unverifiable. Like I said before, this quote comes directly from the director himself and a reliable source has been cited, hence its notability and should not be removed. Armegon (talk) 06:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

You're the one who brought up MOS:FILM, not me. Like I said above: I don't understand why you restored the Sequels section citing MOS:FILM as justification when there is nothing in MOS:FILM to support your revert.

I think you're confusing reliable sources with notability. We have a reliable source that the director said something. Great. But that doesn't mean whatever he said is notable. What the director said here is completely unremarkable. He didn't say a sequel was planned. He just said a sequel can't be made right now.

"No sequel for Shin Godzilla has been produced, much less released. Why? Readers would want to know the answer to that question and co-director Shinji Higuchi has provided that answer." This presumes a sequel would have been announced by now if it were possible, but the source doesn't say this. For all we know they'll never make a Shin Godzilla sequel even when it becomes possible. Until something concrete is known there is nothing to report in the article. Popcornduff (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems we're at a deadlock between you and me. I think it's notable, but you think it's not. Perhaps we should invite other editors to deliver their two cents on the matter? Because everyone seemed fine with the Sequel section the way it was until your deletion. Perhaps a consensus should be reached on the matter. Armegon (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Sjones23, you've worked on this article recently. Do you have an opinion? Popcornduff (talk) 07:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

As a third-party, I can weigh in on some issues. As per WP:NFF:"Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun." Then again, if there are more sources that are available, we should expand on it where necessary. I can consider splitting off the articles when principal photography begins. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

What do you think of the section as it stands? Do you think it contains notable information? Popcornduff (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it does contain notable information at the moment per WP:NFF. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is this. I think it should stay in because its viable information. To make a long story short when Toho licensed Godzilla to Warner Brothers, part of the deal was they couldn't make a live action Godzilla film until the rights expire after 2020. (With the exception of Shin Godzilla). So it seems very likely Toho would do a sequel if permitted to, but obviously can't for legal reasons. This is why they are doing an anime trilogy since the deal stated live-action films. Listing this in the article will explain to readers why there was no live action sequel (yet anyway) and why the follow up films are anime films. While the anime trilogy is not a sequel there is a reason they are being made following Shin Godzilla. If the title "Sequels" is confusing maybe it can be renamed "Follow Up Films". What ever the case may be the fact Toho can't do any live action Godzilla films until 2020 should be listed somewhere on that article.Giantdevilfish (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

"So it seems very likely Toho would do a sequel if permitted to, but obviously can't for legal reasons". This is WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

Unless we find a source saying "Toho plans to do a sequel but can't yet", we can't put that in the article. The information as it stands, which is effectively just "Toho can't do a sequel until 2020", could be placed somewhere in the article, but is not deserving of a dedicated section. Popcornduff (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:CRYSTAL, which states " It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, ", I believe information on a follow-up is of value here per the previously stated rule. I'd only argue against it now if the suggestion was to include an article about it, which I would be against for other reasons stated on WP:CRYSTAL and MOS:FILM. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

That same article with Higuchi's quote states... In other words, Toho has to wait until Legendary finishes Godzilla vs. Kong (set for a 2020 release) before they can begin work on either a Shin Godzilla sequel or any film featuring Godzilla. So we can add something like Due to their contract with Legendary, Toho cannot produce any live-action films featuring Godzilla until Legendary's contract expires in 2020. That would definitely constitute it as notable information. Armegon (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the Sequels section as written deserves to stay. Which I like, because I added it in the first place because I thought it was notable. Since Godzilla is an ongoing franchise, I think the question of a sequel is always raised. Interestingly, when first created, that section included the Legendary licensing but that was removed. Taking it out sort of made its inclusion more debatable. Keep it, it is informative. Alaney2k (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe we have reached a consensus: keep the Sequel section as it is. Of course, we will expand on it as more related information is revealed. Armegon (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you're all nuts, but sure. Popcornduff (talk) 05:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Concerning the removal of the staff section and music information

Minami Ichikawa is credited as the chief producer of the film while the usual convention is to list the composer who scored the film (in this case, it's Shiro Sagisu) in the infobox. I tried to remove the production information myself, but it got reverted since I didn't properly explain the removal, so I'm taking it up to the talk page in order to prevent an edit war and explain what happened here. There are actually four producers for the film that may need to be listed in the infobox. Any thoughts about this removal? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 10:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Sjones23, in regard to your recent removal of the production credits yet again, you stated that "each person does not have an article" yet a source has been provided for quite some time, this one, that was cited literally right next to "Production Credits". You also state that "doesn't explain their contribution to the film as individuals" yet the titles of each individual is listed as such... "Katsuro Onoe - associate director, VFX creative director, Shirō Sagisu - music composer, Tetsuo Ohya - VFX producer...etc". Your removal(s) are counter-productive because a source, the press release, has been cited and each individual's contribution has indeed been listed. The production credits listed had been formatted after the production credits listed on the pages for Edge of Tomorrow, Interstellar, and Godzilla, which I also realized you've removed the production credits back in July 2017 for the same reasons. I have restored the productions for G14 for the very same reasons I've restored the production credits for the Shin Godzilla article. Armegon (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I understand where your concerns are coming from, especially since staff credits are an essential element for films, especially in the infobox where they mention important members (i.e. producers, directors, actors, composers, cinematographers, editors, etc.). However, I have some concerns regarding WP:NOT#INFO and the WP:MOSFILM doesn't say anything about production credits, so I'm wondering if listing credits in the production section necessary for this particular article? I've also asked some uninvolved editors for their thoughts on the matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings about this one, not knowing much about the nitty gritty of the subject, but my inclination is that simply listing credits in the body of the article isn't necessary. It strikes me as WP:NOT#INFO as Sjones23 says. I'm suspicious of lists generally, as they tend to be arbitrary information dumps without the context or narrative of prose. Popcornduff (talk) 04:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

This is something that has come up a few times at WP:MOSFILM. I would actually suggest bringing it there. There has been discussion about whether or not we should start having some sort of list of production credits in the body of the article, as there can be some important roles at times that aren't listed in the infobox and the infobox is already bloated as it is. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I know it's a discussion that has been brought up by @Erik: a few times.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing explicitly preventing production credits, but it can be argued whether or not such credits are indiscriminate for an encyclopedic article. I do want to highlight that an infobox is supposed "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)" (WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE). For example, the film infobox's "Starring" field could be considered a summary of the key actors from the article's cast list. Historically, we don't have that with production credits. Oftentimes we list crew members in the film infobox that we never discuss in the article. In addition, passerby editors ask about adding new parameters to the film infobox because they see no place in the article body to mention the costume designer, production designer, art director, etc, even though these are positions that win awards. I would favor production credits more especially if there are blue links in the set (and I think Armegon's examples tend to reflect that). To think of it another way, there could be a well-known and prolific costume designer who worked on a film (and has their own Wikipedia article), yet with no baseline production-credits approach, there is no entry point to navigate to their own article. (For what it's worth, I'm a big proponent of cross-navigation.) If a set of production credits does not really come with blue links, I could see a case being made that the names are indiscriminate. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

After reading different point of views, I've sort of changed my mind. I don't mind now whether it's removed or not. Armegon (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Remove the Inquisitr article claiming the movie received "mixed" reviews

The movie stands at 85% on Rotten Tomatoes. RT is the most functional Reviews aggregator currently. The Inquisitr article just cherrypicked some Reviews and distorted facts. The reality is that Shin Godzilla has received mostly Positive reviews from Western critics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:B385:1BF:E473:3F45:CD9C:1510 (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

"Mostly positive" and "mixed to positive" are pretty much the same thing. What the article indicates, at least in my opinion, is that the film received a different reception in countries like the United States than in Japan. And Rotten Tomatoes only has 34 reviews for the film as of right now. Friginator (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Exactly! You look at the reviews from Japanese critics and it's all critical praise but Western reviews are less ravishing than the Japanese reviews. Granted, while most of them are positive, there are also plenty of mixed reviews (hence why "mixed to positive" is more appropriate and a fair middle ground) and the cited source from the Inquisitr rightfully illustrates how the film was received differently from Western critics. I do not see any legitimate or constructive reason why it should be removed at all. Armegon (talk) 09:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Change article title back to "SHIN GODZILLA"?

With Funimation now named the official distributor for the Americas and that their press release information confirms that they will release the movie as SHIN GODZILLA instead of GODZILLA RESURGENCE at the insistence of Toho, should we rename the article back to SHIN GODZILLA since this is now the English title that Toho prefers to use? Thoughts Armegon (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I think we could, but it might be premature. I don't think that Shin Godzilla is an English title. It's a combination of Japanese and English. Not sure if they are simply distributing the Japanese with sub-titles. It could be a one or two-day release like they have done with Dragonball Z. In the end, though, I guess we go with what it will be delivered as. However, it's not on Funimation's web site, it doesn't have a firm release date, etc. I would like to see it on Funimation's web site with some marketing materials. It could very well be that it has to have a Japanese title and no dubbing to satisfy their agreement with Legendary. As mentioned in the article, it is a "domestic release". Alaney2k (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I see now that they have put it on their web site in their blogs and Facebook. One uses SHIN GODZILLA all caps and the other is Shin Godzilla mixed case. And they mention it is Japanese. So I would go with 'Shin Godzilla'. It does not appear there will be a "Godzilla Resurgence"-titled movie. Alaney2k (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

And if it comes out so soon, I am sure it will just be sub-titled. Alaney2k (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

So we're in agreement? Change the article back to "Shin Godzilla"? Armegon (talk) 23:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes. No objections. Alaney2k (talk) 03:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I am. Though, obviously, this page would become a redirect. Friginator (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)