Western Kaiju Canon

[UltramanGoji]

Like Jomei's discussion says, there's a reason we use a Japanese loan word to describe the genre.

But but but, don't the Japanese use English loanwords as umbrella terms? As mentioned somewhere above, they call any cartoon "anime." To them, if it's an animation, it's an animation.

Not that I would call any monster a kaiju; my instinct is to call it a kaiju if it's very big but not just a big animal.

Should take a look at the rest of the posts in this thread, as that was already addressed:

Loan words can change meaning depending on their linguistic context.

For example, even if Japanese still use the word "anime" in a Japanese context to refer to any animation (I'm not sure this is true, and I think they do differentiate between Japanese works and others a lot of the time), the meaning is different in an English context where we already have the words "animation" and "cartoon." In other words, if you're speaking English and say "anime," it has a different and more specific meaning because of the existence of other words in the lexicon (people eventually adopted the Japanese loanword over the neologism "Japanimation"). If someone in the states says they like "anime" and you ask about their favorite Simpsons episode, you're being willfully dense. (Or you don't speak English well.)

Similarly, in an English-speaking context, "kaiju" typically refers to Japanese giant monster works rooted in tokusatsu works from the '50s and '60s. (But "tokusatsu" just mean special effects, so Transformers is a tokusatsu movie, too!!!!! <- says the guy not paying attention)

[Follinollante]

Fair.
(yeah i was just too lazy to read through less than a dozen or so posts)
If I may ask, how would you describe how your picks for the Western kaiju canon fit in? The Monsterverse monsters I can see, as it all began with a crossover involving a bona fide kaiju.

[UltramanGoji]

If I may ask, how would you describe how your picks for the Western kaiju canon fit in? The Monsterverse monsters I can see, as it all began with a crossover involving a bona fide kaiju.

Sure, love talking about this type of stuff!

- King Kong '33 and The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms are both "proto-kaiju" films, made before the genre was fully conceptualized but containing elements that would inspire its formation in the years that followed. Kong and Beast were both direct influences on Godzilla and both contain monsters that are different from the standard "beast on the loose" movies found in Western genre canon.
- Gorgo was the first Western giant monster film directly inspired by and made in the style of Japanese tokusatsu and kaiju films, from the suitmation and miniature techniques to the monster's presence in the stories as tragic forces of nature disrupted by man's arrogance.
- Godzilla '98 is...well, a Godzilla movie. Godzilla's a kaiju, even if the 1998 movie takes away some of his iconic attributes.
- Kraa! The Sea Monster and Zarkorr! The Invader follow a similar style to Gorgo in that they're directly inspired by Japanese tokusatsu-styled filmmaking and were even part of a new sublabel dedicated to making these types of films (Monster Island Entertainment, spun off from Full Moon Entertainment) though sadly it never made anything beyond these two films.
- Cloverfield is probably the greatest Western kaiju film outside of the film that follows it on this list. It's allegorical nature and brilliantly realized creature design are comparable to many kaiju media from the 50's and 60's, most notably the original Godzilla.
- Pacific Rim and the MonsterVerse films don't really need much explanation.
- Colossal is the premier example of how you can reconstruct the kaiju genre to tell different kinds of stories. It's similar in a way to 2009's Demeking the Sea Monster in that it's more of a drama than a science fiction film, but it still utilizes kaiju tropes and iconography to tell its very human stories.
- Rampage is a less cerebral entry; the original games were directly inspired by kaiju films so...well, like G98 it's gotta be here.

[Follinollante]

So the general vibe I'm getting (both from myself and from others) is that if the Japanese would call it a daikaiju, we would call it a kaiju. I know that's more or less how I feel.
Got any Western "giant monster" movies that you would not call kaiju films? That would make for an interesting comparison,

[UltramanGoji]

So the general vibe I'm getting (both from myself and from others) is that if the Japanese would call it a daikaiju, we would call it a kaiju. I know that's more or less how I feel.
Got any Western "giant monster" movies that you would not call kaiju films? That would make for an interesting comparison,

"Kaiju" and "daikaiju" are basically interchangeable, they're really only used in marketing to denote great size and power, i.e. "Daikaiju Gappa", "Daikaiju Guilala" etc.

There's an endless list of movies that I don't personally consider part of the genre, but to keep it brief I'll list a handful that were mentioned in this thread:

- Them!
A great film, but the Gi-Ants are not kaiju as they are simply enlarged ants that are easily destroyed by common human weaponry. The film's atomic metaphor is extremely basic and tacked on.
- 20 Million Miles to Earth
The Ymir is veerry close to being a kaiju in my eyes, but the film itself is again, very basic atomic age monster movie and the creature is killed quite handily by the military.
- It Came From Beneath The Sea
Extremely basic, too much so. Big octopus, killed by torpedoes. Standard crap.
- Tarantula
See above, but replace "Octopus" with "spider" and "torpedoes" with "napalm".

Basically, almost all Western giant monster movies are about spectacle over substance and usually feature military in heroic, super-machismo roles fighting the good fight against the big snarly monster and usually winning in the end. Western sentimentality towards larger creatures is definitely more antagonistic compared to Japanese media where big creatures are usually depicted with an indifference towards humanity or treated as natural gods. That Eastern sensibility is lost in almost 90% of Western monster films and is why I consider very little of them to be kaiju.

[mikelcho]

You know, UG, I remember watching Zarkorr! and Kraa! on VHS and loving them. It's a pity they still haven't been released officially on DVD/Blu-ray (I wonder who owns the rights to them now?).

Also, I seem to remember an artist who made a painting of Godzilla facing Zarkorr and Kraa. I think it was shown on here, but I'm not sure. A little help here, please? Thanks!

[Follinollante]

So could one consider the last Hobbit movie to be a kaiju flick? Part of me wants to classify Smaug as a kaiju (he's a gigantic, seemingly unkillable force of nature), but something about that feels off.

[Vakanai]

Much of what we'd call a western kaiju comes down to personal opinion, but let's put that aside for the moment. Western film has its own style and standards, so what monsters would fit a kaiju by western standards? If we look at Kong, Beast, Rampage, and others, there are some similarities.
- Size: Jaws is a big fish, but not much that much bigger than a normal Great White. Kong's size changes film to film, but in his first film, and probably his smallest size, he's at least 6 times larger than a normal gorilla. This would also make the big bugs kaiju as well. The ants in THEM were 9 ft (if I remember right) at most, while the huge Tarantula was advertised at 100 ft. The same would go big humans like the Colossal Man.
- Danger level: Some monsters are more dangerous than others. The Giant Claw is a nearly indestructible bird that preys on everything that moves. The Behemoth projects waves of radiation that kills anyone nearby. Reptilicus has poison spit. These monsters, like Eastern kaiju, possess weapons capable of killing beyond tooth and claw.
- Hardness to kill: The Black Scorpion has already been mentioned in this aspect. Its exoskeleton stopped tank shells. We could also look at Kronos, which was hit by an atomic bomb and walked away stronger than ever. Some of these beasts required specialized and highly inventive weapons, or shots that were very lucky.

You might not agree with these, but these are some of the Western attributes I would say mark a Western kaiju film.

I disagree with the last two points - they have no greater weapons than mandible/claw and need no inventive means to kill, but THEM, Deadly Mantis, and other giant bugs should be considered "western kaiju". Hell, these definitions would exclude King Kong from the list, as he only had size and personality, but any list that excludes him is flawed.

Edit: Crap forgot my original intent was to ask - wasn't Kronos a giant robot? Technically he'd be Western Mecha wouldn't he/it?

Added in 10 minutes 3 seconds:

So could one consider the last Hobbit movie to be a kaiju flick? Part of me wants to classify Smaug as a kaiju (he's a gigantic, seemingly unkillable force of nature), but something about that feels off.

I'd say no. While dragons have clearly influenced kaiju, since Godzilla is arguably a dragon himself, dragons are their own genre entirely I would say. They're an archetype, they predate just about anything else by unknown millennia perhaps - as in some of our oldest stories feature them and they probably predate recorded fiction having been told orally for untold generations. Dragons are just dragons.

[SpiderZilla]

There's an endless list of movies that I don't personally consider part of the genre, but to keep it brief I'll list a handful that were mentioned in this thread:

- Them!
A great film, but the Gi-Ants are not kaiju as they are simply enlarged ants that are easily destroyed by common human weaponry. The film's atomic metaphor is extremely basic and tacked on.
- 20 Million Miles to Earth
The Ymir is veerry close to being a kaiju in my eyes, but the film itself is again, very basic atomic age monster movie and the creature is killed quite handily by the military.
- It Came From Beneath The Sea
Extremely basic, too much so. Big octopus, killed by torpedoes. Standard crap.
- Tarantula
See above, but replace "Octopus" with "spider" and "torpedoes" with "napalm".

Basically, almost all Western giant monster movies are about spectacle over substance and usually feature military in heroic, super-machismo roles fighting the good fight against the big snarly monster and usually winning in the end. Western sentimentality towards larger creatures is definitely more antagonistic compared to Japanese media where big creatures are usually depicted with an indifference towards humanity or treated as natural gods. That Eastern sensibility is lost in almost 90% of Western monster films and is why I consider very little of them to be kaiju.

I think a lot of these criticisms could be equally applied to the Rodan film. The film's reference to atomic fallout was tacked on by the American distributor. The Meganulon are simply enlarged insects. Rodan is simply a big pterosaur. The Rodans are killed quite handily by the military who triggered a volcanic eruption through standard shelling.

[HedorahIsBestGirl]

Funny, I was just thinking about this the other day when I saw this thread appeared. As a few have said before, for a Western monster movie to be a "kaiju film" in my eyes, it needs to be made in a style - production-wise, tonally, thematically - that clear homages (or rips off) Japanese monster movies. I agree with the list posted by UltramanGoji though I'm on the fence about King Kong '33. It's arguably a "proto-kaiju" film like The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms but I don't really count it as a true kaiju movie.

One movie I would add to the list is The Giant Behemoth. It was directed by Eugene Lourie, who also made Beast and Gorgo, and I think it counts as a kaiju movie just as much as they do. The Paleosaurus explicitly uses radioactivity as a weapon, just like Godzilla, which definitely makes it feel more like a kaiju than the Rhedosaurus did. The biggest argument against Behemoth is that it's portrayed with stop motion animation and not suit acting but I don't think that's enough to disqualify it from the list.

[UltramanGoji]

I agree with the list posted by UltramanGoji though I'm on the fence about King Kong '33. It's arguably a "proto-kaiju" film like The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms but I don't really count it as a true kaiju movie.

Oh, I don't really either. Kong himself is kind of "grandfathered in" as a kaiju, but the original film (and subsequently the 76 and 05 remakes) aren't technically kaiju films by our definition.

One movie I would add to the list is The Giant Behemoth. It was directed by Eugene Lourie, who also made Beast and Gorgo, and I think it counts as a kaiju movie just as much as they do. The Paleosaurus explicitly uses radioactivity as a weapon, just like Godzilla, which definitely makes it feel more like a kaiju than the Rhedosaurus did. The biggest argument against Behemoth is that it's portrayed with stop motion animation and not suit acting but I don't think that's enough to disqualify it from the list.

True, I honestly forgot about TGB because I didn't really care for it last I watched it But I definitely agree that if Rhedosaurus and Gorgo are on the list, then the Paleosaurus can be added too.

Added in 15 minutes 56 seconds:

I think a lot of these criticisms could be equally applied to the Rodan film. The film's reference to atomic fallout was tacked on by the American distributor. The Meganulon are simply enlarged insects. Rodan is simply a big pterosaur. The Rodans are killed quite handily by the military who triggered a volcanic eruption through standard shelling.

Sure, but the Meganulon and Rodan at are at least designed to be look far different from any sort of insect or pterosaur that was thought to have existed at the time. That, plus the film's Japanese origins automatically give it an edge over other monster films of similar makeup.

[Jetty_Jags]

To throw my few cents in I’ve never been partial to geography being a legitimate definition of genre.

Geography is a defining element of many things...

Plus, artistic movements have often been both historically and regionally defined. French New Wave cinema, for example. American transcendentalism. "...

I've been thinking about this for a while, and I do need to clarify my previous statement. I do think geography helps in corralling certain items and does make descriptions easier. Things like artistic movements clearly benefit from this, as mentioned certain food items (although more on this later), and just being able to generally talk about more defined things is helpful. I can say "yadda yadda, Russian literature" and we know I'm not talking about Byron, Shelly, Dickins, ect.

However, I get frustrated with attempts to use geography as an additional qualifier in descriptions of artistic genres/styles/forms or anything relating to the substance of the work itself. While certain thematic/stylistic/cultural influences/throughlines can be generally made about art from specific regions, it gets very muddy if geography becomes a binary requirement, to the point where things that often should be included are excluded, and things that should not be included are kept in.

Furthermore, it introduces the Theseus' ship problem alluded to by LSD. If something needs to be of Japanese origin to be a kaiju flick what about the co-American productions mentioned by LSD, what about Godzilla King of the Monsters, Gigantis the Fire monster, ect ect? Then what level of direct Japanese involvement is required, and is it limited with trans-pacific productions, or do we throw Yongary or Pulgasari outside of Kaijudom because their partial (or in the case of the latter, forceful/deceptive/unethical) international production? What if Golgola ever saw the light of day, would it be grandfathered in simply for being eastern/Asian? If so, I'm not really comfortable with that. All of this doesn't even get into the changing perceptions of nations, their boundaries, and their people.

Obviously, food frequently uses these qualifiers, but there's also a material component at play, where certain climates dictate the actual properties and characteristics of the food itself. To me (completely outside of the wine world fwiw), the Champagne-iness of Champagne has less to do with France, and more to do with the environmental conditions of the land in which we call Champagne France. While cultural movements are certainly regional, they are far easier to transplant than yearlong weather patterns and soil conditions.

TLDR: Even writing this I know there are going to be issues and oversites, such is the nature of trying to erect defined boundaries for complex sets of items. But I think my biggest issue with using geography in this way is that at first it appears to be an objective means of solving this issue (or at least simplifying it), when in reality it just introduces yet another highly subjective/unstable metric to the equation.

Added in 26 minutes 20 seconds:

You know, UG, I remember watching Zarkorr! and Kraa! on VHS and loving them. It's a pity they still haven't been released officially on DVD/Blu-ray (I wonder who owns the rights to them now?).

Also, I seem to remember an artist who made a painting of Godzilla facing Zarkorr and Kraa. I think it was shown on here, but I'm not sure. A little help here, please? Thanks!

This?

[Jomei]

However, I get frustrated with attempts to use geography as an additional qualifier in descriptions of artistic genres/styles/forms or anything relating to the substance of the work itself. While certain thematic/stylistic/cultural influences/throughlines can be generally made about art from specific regions, it gets very muddy if geography becomes a binary requirement, to the point where things that often should be included are excluded, and things that should not be included are kept in.

Right, that's why what I advocate is a sort of "soft binary," wherein that binary element must be present but that doesn't count out things that do not strictly fall within [Factor X] but which are clearly downstream of it.

I think maintaining the Japanese-ness of "kaiju" is important if words are to have meaning at all, but I think recognizing that kaiju works have had such an impact that creators in other places are making works in that tradition. Is Pacific Rim exactly the same thing as Destroy All Monsters? Not exactly, but the connection between it and Japanese works (including explicitly naming their monsters "kaiju") makes this an obvious case that helps point the way to a smarter standard.

To reiterate the standard I personally use, I think of a work as being classed as something "kaiju" worth discussing in this "canon" when:

• It is a Japanese monster work, or
• It is a monster work from another region clearly engaging in the kaiju tradition, or
• It is one of a handful of works that influenced the beginning of kaiju eiga in Japan

This does introduce a subjective variable (degree of influence from Japanese kaiju) but has the merit of both including and excluding some items that seem obvious to belong/or not.

[Vakanai]

I agree with the list posted by UltramanGoji though I'm on the fence about King Kong '33. It's arguably a "proto-kaiju" film like The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms but I don't really count it as a true kaiju movie.

Oh, I don't really either. Kong himself is kind of "grandfathered in" as a kaiju, but the original film (and subsequently the 76 and 05 remakes) aren't technically kaiju films by our definition.

Problem is there is no "our" definition here - we fans can't agree if kaiju means giant monster movies, Japanese giant monster movies specifically, or any movies that rip off Japanese monster movies. It's, like most things in fandom, subjective not objective.

[Jomei]

Yeah, but without the Japanese component, we have spare terms fluttering about. There doesn't have to be a single agreed-upon definition for a certain kind of gravity to mostly solidify what it means.

In the same way some people can raise the thought that really everything animated is "anime" because that's the origin of the word, but very few really believe that, I think the online chatter about things like Barnie and Clifford being "kaiju" show that this is just fodder for banter.

There won't be 100% consensus, but the direction the term leans in is clear.

[Vakanai]

Yeah, but without the Japanese component, we have spare terms fluttering about. There doesn't have to be a single agreed-upon definition for a certain kind of gravity to mostly solidify what it means.

In the same way some people can raise the thought that really everything animated is "anime" because that's the origin of the word, but very few really believe that, I think the online chatter about things like Barnie and Clifford being "kaiju" show that this is just fodder for banter.

There won't be 100% consensus, but the direction the term leans in is clear.

Barnie and Clifford aren't giant monsters, so no that's a bad example. To the vast majority of non-fans kaiju and giant monster is interchangeable. Are we talking admittedly somewhat elitist fans want to define it as or what most people define it as? Even among non-anime fans the word anime isn't used for most cartoons outside Japan, but the same isn't true for kaiju - most people out of the fandom see no difference between one giant monster film or the next.

[Jomei]

To the vast majority of non-fans kaiju and giant monster is interchangeable.

I don't think this is true at all. I do not believe normie non-fans went to Peter Jackson's King Kong and said, "That's a kaiju." If they know the term at all outside of Pacific Rim, they're probably already versed enough to know it's a Japanese thing.

And if they don't know or aren't distinguishing, I think that's probably a knowledge issue. If they knew the history and took the time to watch some more films, I think most would see the distinction. So why would we go with a definition based on ignorance?

Are we talking admittedly somewhat elitist fans want to define it as or what most people define it as? Even among non-anime fans the word anime isn't used for most cartoons outside Japan,

Agreed

but the same isn't true for kaiju - most people out of the fandom see no difference between one giant monster film or the next.

...what?? So you think non-kaiju fans are running around seriously calling things like THEM! kaiju? Are they calling the Ray Harryhausen Cyclops a kaiju? Who are these non-kaiju fans running around doing this?

I also don't think we should base our definitions on the understanding of people who don't know the difference between anything. That should be obvious lol

[UltramanGoji]

I agree with the list posted by UltramanGoji though I'm on the fence about King Kong '33. It's arguably a "proto-kaiju" film like The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms but I don't really count it as a true kaiju movie.

Oh, I don't really either. Kong himself is kind of "grandfathered in" as a kaiju, but the original film (and subsequently the 76 and 05 remakes) aren't technically kaiju films by our definition.

Problem is there is no "our" definition here - we fans can't agree if kaiju means giant monster movies, Japanese giant monster movies specifically, or any movies that rip off Japanese monster movies. It's, like most things in fandom, subjective not objective.

I was referring to me and HedorahIsBestGirl when I said “our”.

[mikelcho]

To throw my few cents in I’ve never been partial to geography being a legitimate definition of genre.

Geography is a defining element of many things...

Plus, artistic movements have often been both historically and regionally defined. French New Wave cinema, for example. American transcendentalism. "...

I've been thinking about this for a while, and I do need to clarify my previous statement. I do think geography helps in corralling certain items and does make descriptions easier. Things like artistic movements clearly benefit from this, as mentioned certain food items (although more on this later), and just being able to generally talk about more defined things is helpful. I can say "yadda yadda, Russian literature" and we know I'm not talking about Byron, Shelly, Dickins, ect.

However, I get frustrated with attempts to use geography as an additional qualifier in descriptions of artistic genres/styles/forms or anything relating to the substance of the work itself. While certain thematic/stylistic/cultural influences/throughlines can be generally made about art from specific regions, it gets very muddy if geography becomes a binary requirement, to the point where things that often should be included are excluded, and things that should not be included are kept in.

Furthermore, it introduces the Theseus' ship problem alluded to by LSD. If something needs to be of Japanese origin to be a kaiju flick what about the co-American productions mentioned by LSD, what about Godzilla King of the Monsters, Gigantis the Fire monster, ect ect? Then what level of direct Japanese involvement is required, and is it limited with trans-pacific productions, or do we throw Yongary or Pulgasari outside of Kaijudom because their partial (or in the case of the latter, forceful/deceptive/unethical) international production? What if Golgola ever saw the light of day, would it be grandfathered in simply for being eastern/Asian? If so, I'm not really comfortable with that. All of this doesn't even get into the changing perceptions of nations, their boundaries, and their people.

Obviously, food frequently uses these qualifiers, but there's also a material component at play, where certain climates dictate the actual properties and characteristics of the food itself. To me (completely outside of the wine world fwiw), the Champagne-iness of Champagne has less to do with France, and more to do with the environmental conditions of the land in which we call Champagne France. While cultural movements are certainly regional, they are far easier to transplant than yearlong weather patterns and soil conditions.

TLDR: Even writing this I know there are going to be issues and oversites, such is the nature of trying to erect defined boundaries for complex sets of items. But I think my biggest issue with using geography in this way is that at first it appears to be an objective means of solving this issue (or at least simplifying it), when in reality it just introduces yet another highly subjective/unstable metric to the equation.

Added in 26 minutes 20 seconds:

You know, UG, I remember watching Zarkorr! and Kraa! on VHS and loving them. It's a pity they still haven't been released officially on DVD/Blu-ray (I wonder who owns the rights to them now?).

Also, I seem to remember an artist who made a painting of Godzilla facing Zarkorr and Kraa. I think it was shown on here, but I'm not sure. A little help here, please? Thanks!

This?

Yes, that's the one, thanks!

[Vakanai]

To the vast majority of non-fans kaiju and giant monster is interchangeable.

I don't think this is true at all. I do not believe normie non-fans went to Peter Jackson's King Kong and said, "That's a kaiju." If they know the term at all outside of Pacific Rim, they're probably already versed enough to know it's a Japanese thing.

And if they don't know or aren't distinguishing, I think that's probably a knowledge issue. If they knew the history and took the time to watch some more films, I think most would see the distinction. So why would we go with a definition based on ignorance?

Are we talking admittedly somewhat elitist fans want to define it as or what most people define it as? Even among non-anime fans the word anime isn't used for most cartoons outside Japan,

Agreed

but the same isn't true for kaiju - most people out of the fandom see no difference between one giant monster film or the next.

...what?? So you think non-kaiju fans are running around seriously calling things like THEM! kaiju? Are they calling the Ray Harryhausen Cyclops a kaiju? Who are these non-kaiju fans running around doing this?

I also don't think we should base our definitions on the understanding of people who don't know the difference between anything. That should be obvious lol

No, most non-fans don't use the word kaiju at all they say giant monster or monster or even Godzilla as a catch all term. But yes, to them it's all the same thing.
I think fans are in their own little bubble.