Godzilla losing to Mothra: Is it THAT bad?

[LamangoKaijura]

Ghidrah the Three Headed Monster may (vaguely) reference Mothra vs. Godzilla, but it is a distinct story.

"As you know, Godzilla lost to Mothra months ago. Maybe we can get Mothra to help again?"
"What happened to the baby mothras?"
"Oh, one died. But the other one is living peacefully on Infant Island."
"Godzilla may still be angry about losing."
Vaguely. Yes.

Absolutely none of that requires a viewer to have seen the previous movie in order to understand that conversation, nor does it outline that movie's plot in any particular detail. So, okay, maybe "generalized" or "superficial" would have been a better word than "vague." This is all way too far from being the point to be at all relevant to the conversation.

It in no way makes Ghidrah a work that informs Mothra vs. Godzilla, because only a time machine could have done that. That's the whole issue here. You cannot cite derivative work as defining the meaning of a source work.

It's the only film that's a direct fucking sequel besides GRA. But OK, it doesn't happen in the same universe cause you said so.

[eabaker]

"As you know, Godzilla lost to Mothra months ago. Maybe we can get Mothra to help again?"
"What happened to the baby mothras?"
"Oh, one died. But the other one is living peacefully on Infant Island."
"Godzilla may still be angry about losing."
Vaguely. Yes.

Absolutely none of that requires a viewer to have seen the previous movie in order to understand that conversation, nor does it outline that movie's plot in any particular detail. So, okay, maybe "generalized" or "superficial" would have been a better word than "vague." This is all way too far from being the point to be at all relevant to the conversation.

It in no way makes Ghidrah a work that informs Mothra vs. Godzilla, because only a time machine could have done that. That's the whole issue here. You cannot cite derivative work as defining the meaning of a source work.

It's the only film that's a direct fucking sequel besides GRA. But OK, it doesn't happen in the same universe cause you said so.

It's not a matter of what universe it takes place in. That's totally irrelevant. It's a matter of the most basic principles of literary analysis. Author/artist creates work A, which is completed and made available to the public. Artist then follows that up with work B, which is extrapolated from work A. Interpretation of work B is in part dependent upon the context provided by work A, but work B does not retroactively alter the meaning of work A.

An audience sitting in a theater in 1964 watching Mothra vs. Godzilla wasn't - or certainly shouldn't have been - thinking, "Gee, I wonder how I'll like that ending in the context of the hypothetical next movie in this series. I can't wait until eventually these movies are no longer profitable, so that production is of the series is discontinued and I can determine whether or not each movie's climax satisfies me." They were responding to that movie, right then and there.

[Rodan]

Eabaker is right and this argument is ridiculous.

Edit -- That was going to be the entirety of my post, but to nuance it just a little bit, these movies, existing and released as stand-alone entries, require a different approach from, say, a tightly serialized television series, where the expectation is established up front that individual episodes aren't going to offer complete experiences and that the series is to be more properly judged on its narrative as a whole (though it also has the weight of getting viewers there). Mothra vs. Godizlla and Ghidorah may be part of the same "series," but they weren't made to be taken in together, and if the fault with the death of one larva is anywhere, it's in what Ghidorah offers as a loose sequel, rather than the ending of the previous film.

And slightly more on-topic, I disagree that the film would be improved any for Godzilla killing one larva. Not only is it a bit more believable and thematically relevant that the two larva incapacitate him by working together, it would just double-down on pathos already present in the death of the adult Mothra.

[Stevo_1985]

It's not a matter of what universe it takes place in. That's totally irrelevant. It's a matter of the most basic principles of literary analysis. Author/artist creates work A, which is completed and made available to the public. Artist then follows that up with work B, which is extrapolated from work A. Interpretation of work B is in part dependent upon the context provided by work A, but work B does not retroactively alter the meaning of work A.

An audience sitting in a theater in 1964 watching Mothra vs. Godzilla wasn't - or certainly shouldn't have been - thinking, "Gee, I wonder how I'll like that ending in the context of the hypothetical next movie in this series. I can't wait until eventually these movies are no longer profitable, so that production is of the series is discontinued and I can determine whether or not each movie's climax satisfies me." They were responding to that movie, right then and there.

[Coobzilla03]

Nah, it's not bad, it's good! Godzilla was the villain, Mothra was the protagonist, and typically the bad guys loose.

[robreedwrites]

When I was around 6 or so, I was watching this movie for the first time with my foster sister and I was bragging about how Godzilla never lost (I had probably only seen Monster Zero, Ebirah, and Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla (74) at that point). I don't think it really registered for me that Godzilla was the villain in this film, and I was absolutely devastated when he lost (to caterpillars, nonetheless!). I got over it eventually, and now it's my favorite film in the franchise.