User talk:Spock seat

Well the book was an official Toho Publication. I'm not sure if it has an actual author listed, but there is a quote from Tanaka himself in it talking about how Turner wanted too much money for the character rights. I can't imagine Tanaka would be lying like that especially in a Toho publication, or Toho printing such lies in thier own publications. I'll dig through the book to see if any authors are listed.

Furthermore while this script sounds interesting, I just can't see it ever happening. Contrary to popular belief the King Kong character is not in the public domain. If you have a chance read the book Living Dangerously: the Adventures of Merian C Cooper. It talks about the court battles Cooper's estate went through to get the rights to the character back in the 1990's/2000's, and how its split up between them and Universal with Time/Warner retaining the rights to the original film. Alot of people think Kong is in the P.D because of the Donkey Kong case with Nintendo, but that was in the 1980's things have changed since then.

If a U.S company picks it up (more then likely it would have to be Universal), I can't see them using "Gigantis" over Godzilla. They would have to licence Godzilla from Toho, and it seems unlikely that would happen. But that's just my opinionGiantdevilfish (talk) 05:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

You know it's funny how people don't understand what Public Domain actually is and how it's applied. King Kong has been ruled more than once, in fact many times, that the character and the story associated is public domain. That's important language: "The character and the story associated". Public Domain laws are such that one can create their own character based on the original as such from scratch. One cannot use any relation from a character based on what is owned. For example, Universal cannot make Cooper's Kong based on Cooper's ownership, so they made a 1976 version which had nothing to do with Cooper's Kong, fought it against RKO and won. Donkey Kong was made and had nothing to do with Universal's 1976 Kong and Cooper's Kong. Universal thought otherwise, sued and lost. The latest version, 2005 Jackson's version, was made specifically based on Cooper's Kong, hence the partnership/ownership. Additionally, may I add, that the DVD release way back of "King Kong vs Godzilla" was pulled due to the unauthorized use of pictures from the 1976 Kong. That Kong is not in public domain, because Universal created it from scratch and therefore owns the rights to it. The makers of the DVD had to have the item pulled and it was never sold since. Willis O'Brien, albeit the person who did SFX work on the original Kong, made his own script and Toho created their "King Kong vs Godzilla" based on a different Kong. "King Kong Escapes" also, a different Kong. Neither had ANY reference to the Cooper 1933 Kong. So the Cooper Estate certainly can get the rights "back" to their character based on a dual use from Universal, but they cannot get the rights to any character created from Public Domain that is mutually exclusive to the ownership of the original 1933 Kong. There have been many more "King Kong's" out there than just Donkey Kong and the 1976 Kong. "Queen Kong", "King Kong Hamburgers", etc. The issue is, the name King Kong, Kong, etc. and a gorilla in love with a girl cannot be considered an ownership. But one cannot use a licensed existing character that was created apart from Cooper's Kong. And certainly, one cannot make Cooper's Kong. One has to make their own Kong. That's what Public Domain law is. Again, Toho doesn't make a "King Kong vs Godzilla" because they don't have the distribution power in America to have it released. And their power in Japan has diminished greatly as Toho is less a movie company and more a company that owns commercial real-estate. Additionally, Toho can't afford a law suit from a company the size as Universal. Toho recently lost a lawsuit against Subway sandwich shops claiming they used a "likeness" to the Godzilla character. Here a TV commercial shows a man in a lizard suit with an Asian female screaming inside a "Japanese city" as they called it, being destroyed. Their lawsuit was for such a minuscule amount of money. They lost as it was apparent, the monster could not be proven to be Godzilla. A better example I'll provide is James Bond's "Never Say Never Again" with Sean Connery. Rather than give a full legal explanation, the story was a carbon copy of "Thunderball", but there is a mutual exclusion with James Bond, however the character IS James Bond, 007, Sean Connery, an agent with the British Secret Service, pursuing a billionaire in a yacht in Nassau, etc. We do not see Albert R. Broccolli or MGM going after Warner Brothers, in this case. Again, public domain laws and what's considered copyrightable are in effect. Finally, public domain laws in the USA and Japan are different. They are NOT the same. You'll have to study them on your own.

And it's funny, as you state that Cooper and Universal owns the rights to their Kong and Ted Turner owns the rights to just the motion picture (which he also colorized and owns the rights to that colorization version), so what legal basis would Toho go to Ted Turner to get "the rights to Kong"? He doesn't own the distribution rights to the character beyond the film itself, and if he did then Cooper didn't own the rights. They never went to Ted Turner. Turner never talked to them. In fact, the people quoted don't even speak English. That's why the Toho publication is bogus. They may have had an idea and just expanded it for a fanzine book because "they assume" no one will find it proven. Well, I did. I went to Turner. It's a farce. It always was. Toho couldn't afford locations, sets, staff, the list is endless. They made movies for pennies with staff in rubber suits, using fire crackers and bad writers. And (again) zero distribution power in the United States. None. That's the truth.

I certainly can imagine EVERYONE at Toho lying in a business like that, including the late Tanaka....everyone. I've been on their property, I've met everyone there, I know exactly what happens over the Pacific. It's worse than wild wild west, a practiced judicial system equivalent to Guantanamo Bay. Japan doesn't have an "Ann Landers" to correct every bogus rumor created which becomes extorted by an American bi-lingual with no professional editorial background like the Washington Post or an affiliated FCC licensed American media apparatus.

Then we have this nonsense written in the Wiki bio: "In 1963, Merian Cooper attempted to sue over the use of his character, but lost as it turned out he was not Kong's sole legal owner as he had previously believed." The correct answer is (if there was such a law suit against the Japanese in 1963) that the King Kong character was in no way associated to Cooper's original. And we also have this additional nonsense that O'Brien and Cooper were part of the "King Kong vs Godzilla" script and then were not paid for their efforts. In the King Kong wiki file, it says Toho's version of a Cooper's Kong. It is NOT a Cooper's Kong, not even close. All of this contradicts each other, therefore none of it is true. So in the end, I think no one really knows what really happened, no one knows the law and are only guessing the law (like you are doing Giantdevilfish since you never practiced law), therefore I can only go by referenced law, actual law and practiced law.

I can see an American company using "Gigantis" based on a new character that is not Godzilla. It's a different time and if Jurassic Park can be made with new Dinosaurs (like the "Jurassic Park" style dinosaurs used in the 2005 Jackson Kong), any character fighting a Kong is fair game. In fact, in my opinion, Godzilla is a dead character if one cannot base or write such a story of legacy vs legacy. There is difficulty writing a story of this nature, it's not "Abbott and Costello Meets Frankenstein". That's my opinion and I am correct. Your opinion is noted and I fully support the script written by that author is picked up as soon as possible. In fact, faster than soon. And you should too, unless you can't do anything for it, the latter I believe more. However, thank you for your welcomed contribution.Spock seat (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Sky High

Hi Spock!

Thank you for your reply. Yes, I understand that wikipedia is public and edited by many (including you and me ;) and I'm quite used to that. If I wasn't, I'd just revert it back to the way I had it before, without posing the question. Instead, I posed the question asking him what his thoughts were. Perhaps he had good reasons for deleting those categories which I had not considered. I'm very open-minded. Because he has not replied, I now feel a little more free to put it back the way I had it. But I might give him another 24 hours. If he doesn't reply with his reasons, I'll assume he has no objections to me putting it back the way it was. That's the purpose for having the discussion page.

Thank you for working on Yumiko's page! (Similar given name, but not me, LOL!) She's Yumiko (and much prettier!!)--I'm just simple little Yumi! ^_^

Live long and prosper, Spock! (Happy yumi yumi (talk) 06:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Your edits to a.o. Gamera the Brave

shado-x.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Gamera the Brave, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing their websites from appearing on Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a spam link. That is an official review page for GAMERA: THE BRAVE. Did you read what's listed, it provides the actual information provided by Kidokawa Pictures. There are many links from Toho Kingdom all over Wikipedia. Are you aware that Toho Kingdom is not an official Toho site and violates Toho's trademarks? SHADO CONTROL does not violate any trademarks and is an official source for many Godzilla and Gamera movies.

Yes, and we are not a linkfarm, please read the external links guideline and the 'what wikipedia is not' policy. I hope you see that above is a final warning, I hope that you will choose from now to discuss first on talkpages before re-adding the information (and preferably let other users do that). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also warning you that edit summaries like "... Go by the file, what's written or lay off" (diff) are not appropriate. Please work with other editors in a constructive way. There are several who have problems with what you add and how you add it, please discuss with other editors (e.g. in a wikiproject, see Wikipedia:WikiProject; you can also find them via the banner on talkpages). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"... Go by the file, what's written or lay off" was in response to an multiple facet numerous I.P. addresses identified as the same location: Cox Communications, from an anonymous user that was placing their own judgment.

SHADO CONTROL, www.shado-x.com is not a SPAM link.

SHADO CONTROL at http://www.shado-x.com is not a SPAM link. It provides the official review for GAMERA: THE BRAVE with pictures provide by Kidokawa Picture, including the original PRESS PACK. Now, I don't know what discussion you are having with competitive reviewers that use some sort of cyber-bullying moral judgement, but all of SHADO CONTROL's reviews are official. They were at the press briefings in Japan. They are official. Read the reviews based on those links and you will see they are official.

I will state however, that there exist many reviews and references from an on-line apparatus known as TOHO KINGDOM. That is *NOT* an official TOHO site, they are not authorized to use one (1) picture from Toho, they place Toho's (R) trademark in their domain and violate Toho's Trademarks. Those are what require to be removed from wiki-pedia for actual facts. When Wiki-Pedia wants to allow trademark violators, such as Toho Kingdom to parade around as if they are an official Toho site, when they aren't even close, then you have to consider reality.

SHADO CONTROL has the official sources. For any additional requests from SHADO CONTROL please forward them to the President of Toho Pictures. Here is the address and phone number. Have a nice day.

SPOCK SEAT

Yet, that IP is one of the numerous editors who question your edits. ".. lay off" is NOT a proper and friendly response to that. Please discuss, and please don't post personal information on wikipedia. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That personal information is my information. It's public information. That IP encompassed numerous IPs from the same location, we did a check. In fact the numerous users were in fact one to three users. Additional comments came from the same user. In fact that same user wrote comments that all parties were contacted, which was NOT true, because I am the party and in contact with all the parties. An additional post from the same user stated "no (financial) consideration", which he knows nothing about. So, because the user used multiple IP addresses to remove information, I stated to "lay off". Sorry, but that was said due to multiple IP addresses from the same user made to look like numerous users.

Return the movie review links as they are all official. I see you have no plans to write or call the name and numbers provided. I don't know how official you want it. Thank you for your correspondence. Return the GAMERA: THE BRAVE link, because you will not find any more accurate information anywhere. Any information yo0u receive about Gamera: The Brave will be less than what is provided from SHADO CONTROL, the official information, using the official sources.

SPOCK SEAT

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Godzilla Against Mechagodzilla has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\bshado-x\.com\b' (link(s): http://www.shado-x.com/gxmg.html) .

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 14:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you.

(outing: diff)

W

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may place {{unblock}} on your user talk page to have the block reviewed. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia.