Say Something Positive About The Anime Trilogy

[BlankAccount]

It's understandable with Kaizer's earlier Monster X form, as being a skeletal humanoid is very far removed from either traditional King Ghidorahs or Horsy Ghidorahs designs.

[Maritonic]

It's understandable with Kaizer's earlier Monster X form, as being a skeletal humanoid is very far removed from either traditional King Ghidorahs or Horsy Ghidorahs designs.

Disagree, personally. As far as I'm concerned, Keizer is very much an incarnation of Ghidorah. Radical departure or not, he's still a Ghidorah. For me it's the same as saying Burning Godzilla, Godzilla 2000, or Shin aren't "Godzilla" incarnations just because they're different. I know there are some people that feel that way, about Shin primarily, but I just can't process that. Every Ghidorah I've seen on screen, even Space Noodle Ghidorah who I REALLY dislike, is still a Ghidorah.

[BlankAccount]

It's understandable with Kaizer's earlier Monster X form, as being a skeletal humanoid is very far removed from either traditional King Ghidorahs or Horsy Ghidorahs designs.

Disagree, personally. As far as I'm concerned, Keizer is very much an incarnation of Ghidorah. Radical departure or not, he's still a Ghidorah. For me it's the same as saying Burning Godzilla, Godzilla 2000, or Shin aren't "Godzilla" incarnations just because they're different. I know there are some people that feel that way, about Shin primarily, but I just can't process that. Every Ghidorah I've seen on screen, even Space Noodle Ghidorah who I REALLY dislike, is still a Ghidorah.

Oh no I completely see Kaizer as a King Ghidorah incarnation and not just a cousin like Desghidorah, I'm just saying the Monster X form is way more removed from Ghidorah than people make the Kaizer from out to be. People go one how Kiazer is way too diferent from past Ghidorah designs but at least looks like a dragon, Monster X is basically a giant person everyone seems to forget, which is funny cause he turns into Kaizer.

[Maritonic]

It's understandable with Kaizer's earlier Monster X form, as being a skeletal humanoid is very far removed from either traditional King Ghidorahs or Horsy Ghidorahs designs.

Disagree, personally. As far as I'm concerned, Keizer is very much an incarnation of Ghidorah. Radical departure or not, he's still a Ghidorah. For me it's the same as saying Burning Godzilla, Godzilla 2000, or Shin aren't "Godzilla" incarnations just because they're different. I know there are some people that feel that way, about Shin primarily, but I just can't process that. Every Ghidorah I've seen on screen, even Space Noodle Ghidorah who I REALLY dislike, is still a Ghidorah.

Oh no I completely see Kaizer as a King Ghidorah incarnation and not just a cousin like Desghidorah, I'm just saying the Monster X form is way more removed from Ghidorah than people make the Kaizer from out to be. People go one how Kiazer is way too diferent from past Ghidorah designs but at least looks like a dragon, Monster X is basically a giant person everyone seems to forget, which is funny cause he turns into Kaizer.

Ohhhh sorry I totally misread what you wrote. I got you.

[Zarm]

It's understandable with Kaizer's earlier Monster X form, as being a skeletal humanoid is very far removed from either traditional King Ghidorahs or Horsy Ghidorahs designs.

Disagree, personally. As far as I'm concerned, Keizer is very much an incarnation of Ghidorah. Radical departure or not, he's still a Ghidorah. For me it's the same as saying Burning Godzilla, Godzilla 2000, or Shin aren't "Godzilla" incarnations just because they're different. I know there are some people that feel that way, about Shin primarily, but I just can't process that. Every Ghidorah I've seen on screen, even Space Noodle Ghidorah who I REALLY dislike, is still a Ghidorah.

I think that's a key distinction, though- they are 'a Ghidorah.' But is that 'an incarnation of Ghidorah, the character,' or 'a member of the Ghidorah family, but a different member than King Ghidorah?' The existence of so many variations and even one continuity with more than one individual (two, if you count that weird showa retcon) does lend itself to thinking of Ghidorah as a 'type' rather than an individual, with 'King Ghidorah' being the most frequently-seen individuals. But if, say, Death-Ghidorah is a separate individual within the same family (because GKG is there to fill the 'main role'), why can't Keizer or Guardian Ghidorah be a similar 'member of the family,' but not a version of the same character (a 'Dick Grayson filling in the roll of Batman' or Terry McGinnis, if you will; it is still a new incarnation of Batman, the same role that we've always seen... but it's not a new version of Bruce Wayne, just a separate entity tied to him taking up the same role.)

I'm guessing that's how a lot of people think of it. I don't know that I do, but that does make sense to me, in theory, considering we have the proof-of-concept of 'multiple versions of Ghidorah in one continuity and at least one of them isn't the same guy.'

[Maritonic]

I don't think there is really any distinction. As far as I'm concerned, it's just a new version of Ghidorah. Leo Mothra is just a new version of Mothra. Shin is a version of Godzilla. I don't think it's more complicated than that.

[Zarm]

But Mothra Leo isn't the same as traditional Mothra (or else mommy Mothra wasn't), they're distinct individuals that coexist onscreen. Same with Desghidorah and Grand King Ghidorah. So it has to be a little more complicated than that; one of each, at most, can be the incarnation of the same character in that universe. The other may fill the same role and be closely related... but at least one of them is, to use the same analogy, Dick Grayson and not Bruce Wayne, even if both take up the mantle of Batman over the course of the film.

[Maritonic]

Okay, I'm actually going to really simplify what I mean by this.

If someone asked you to list every version of Ghidorah on screen, would you include or exclude Grand, Death, and Keizer?

If someone asked you to list every version of Mothra on screen, would you include or exclude Leo, Aqua, and Armored?

If you answered "include", then that is what I mean by they're incarnations of the characters.

If you answered "exclude" then I'm at a loss, frankly.

[Godzillian]

Is it copyrighted as King Ghidorah? That is the only question you need to ask about any of them and it will tell you if it is Ghidorah or a separate monsters

[Zarm]

Right. But they're still "Mothra" in some capacity. I don't...I don't get it.

I'm not talking within universes. I'm talking as a general rule of thumb. The Dick Grayson analogy doesn't apply to what I'm talking about because we're not talking about characters that are, in fact, two different "characters".

It's like saying Kiryu isn't a Mechagodzilla. He is. He's an version of Mechagodzilla. Just because he's different than the Showa or Heisei versions doesn't mean he isn't a Mechagodzilla.

Right. He is 'a MechaGodzilla.' But he's not the same individual as showa MechaGodzilla.

I've just erased a hlaf-hour's writing to try and boil it down more simply:
Minilla and Junior are not incarnations of Godzilla. They are supposed to be of his species, the same *kind* of thing as him, but not the same character as him. Right? For some people (like me), Mothra Leo would be the same thing; he is the same kind of thing as Mothra, but not an alternate interpretation of her character. He's a new, distinct character that is her son. (Probably, translation issues pending. ) For Ghidorah, it's the same thing; Desghidorah or GKG are not the same creature. They're the same kind of creature, but distinct characters within that kind, just like Godzilla and Minilla (and even deceased 1954 Godzilla, technically) are distinct characters within the same species, individuals that coexist within the same filmic universe.

Now, the controversial part is- now that that principle has been established (Not every 'Mothra' is specifically the same character as the Mothra that's in most films, not every Godzillasaur is Godzilla, not every Ghidorah is King Ghidorah), then some people question whether other interpretations of Ghidorah are the same character, or just the same kind.

(Now for me, that's a step too far; Keiser Ghidorah may transform from a three-headed guy, but he's just the Shin-style 'way out there' interpretation of the same character; GMK may be a good guy spiritual being, but he's still the film's interpretation of the same King Ghidorah that's been around in Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster. It makes sense to me that a kaiju is that series' interpretation of the same character UNLESS there are actually two in the same series, necessitating one of them being different). So that's where I come down in the debate. But that is the debate; once we know that not every Ghidorah is a remake of the same character (because there can't be two simultaneously in the same series, logically), how do we determine which ones are new versions of the same character, and which ones are just another example of the same 'kind.' (After all, for two movies, it looked like Desghidorah was ROM's interpretation of the Ghidorah character; then a third one came along and suddenly he wasn't, or at least wasn't the only.)

Does that make any more sense?

[Maritonic]

Read my simplification. Because I'm not talking about "individuals".

Added in 2 minutes 18 seconds:
Because you and I are talking about two completely different things haha.

[Zarm]

Okay, I'm actually going to really simplify what I mean by this.

If someone asked you to list every version of Ghidorah on screen, would you include or exclude Grand, Death, and Keizer?

If someone asked you to list every version of Mothra on screen, would you include or exclude Leo, Aqua, and Armored?

If you answered "include", then that is what I mean by they're incarnations of the characters.

If you answered "exclude" then I'm at a loss, frankly.

Ah, but there's the rub. If someone asked me to list every version of 'a Mothra' onscreen, I'd say 'include.' But if someone asked me to list every version of Mothra, the character, onscreen, I'd exclude; because I see him as 'the son of Mothra.'

And if everyone asked me to include every version of 'a Ghidorah' onscreen, I'd include; but if they asked me to list every version of King Ghidorah, the character... then I'd have to exclude either Grand or Death (and probably Death, because Grand is a much closer match).

Like I said, to me it's the difference between 'every instance of that species or archetype' (sure, Leo is the same species and type of character as Mothra) and 'every instance of that identity' (no, Leo is a distinct character fromt he mommy Mothra, who I'd more closely identify as that film-series' version of Mothra, the character, as we knew her before.)

Added in 46 seconds:

Read my simplification. Because I'm not talking about "individuals".

Added in 2 minutes 18 seconds:
Because you and I are talking about two completely different things haha.

Sorry, it popped up while I was typing. Yeah, I think the difference is in whether you think of the kaiju as a person with an identity like humans have (in which case, there can only be one in any given universe), or a sort of archetype (in which, however many you have in one universe, they all fulfill the role). I don't think anyone is discounting Ghidorahs in the GINO sense ("That's not a real Ghidorah!"), just debating whether they are the same as the 1965 character in an individual sense (which is where that maybe-too-confusing Dick Grayson thing comes in.)

[Maritonic]

Yeahhh it sounds like you're over complicating what I'm saying actually haha.

Added in 2 minutes 5 seconds:
Because the whole "every version of a Ghidorah" thing is exactly what I'm going for when I say that Keizer is a Ghidorah. Whether he represents the same character introduced in the 60's is entirely different. But he's still a version of Ghidorah. That is my point.

[Zarm]

Yeahhh it sounds like you're over complicating what I'm saying actually haha.

Added in 2 minutes 5 seconds:
Because the whole "every version of a Ghidorah" thing is exactly what I'm going for when I say that Keizer is a Ghidorah. Whether he represents the same character introduced in the 60's is entirely different. But he's still a version of Ghidorah. That is my point.

Right. I'm just trying to explain that that is other people's point. Hence why we're talking about two different things.

I think most, if not all, fans agree with you in the context of the thing you're talking about; they just debate whether it's the same character in that other context that I was talking about, but they use the same words (just like we did) to mean different things, so it's easy to talk at cross-purposes.

I was just trying (poorly) to explain the difference between the two.

[Maritonic]

Yeahhh it sounds like you're over complicating what I'm saying actually haha.

Added in 2 minutes 5 seconds:
Because the whole "every version of a Ghidorah" thing is exactly what I'm going for when I say that Keizer is a Ghidorah. Whether he represents the same character introduced in the 60's is entirely different. But he's still a version of Ghidorah. That is my point.

Right. I'm just trying to explain that that is other people's point. Hence why we're talking about two different things.

I think most, if not all, fans agree with you in the context of the thing you're talking about; they just debate whether it's the same character in that other context that I was talking about, but they use the same words (just like we did) to mean different things, so it's easy to talk at cross-purposes.

I was just trying (poorly) to explain the difference between the two.

lol but what I'm going for is people will sit there and say that Keizer would not be a "ghidorah", he would be something else entirely. That's what I'm saying I don't understand.

I think we're just talking in circles at this point.

[Zarm]

lol but what I'm going for is people will sit there and say that Keizer would not be a "ghidorah", he would be something else entirely. That's what I'm saying I don't understand.

Well... I assume there that they actually mean he's not a "King Ghidorah," the character, and are just being lazy in how they type it. (Even then, I wouldn't agree, but I'd understand the reasoning). If they don't even think it's a Ghidorah, the archetype, then I am equally baffled.

[MechaGoji Bro7503]

Is it copyrighted as King Ghidorah? That is the only question you need to ask about any of them and it will tell you if it is Ghidorah or a separate monsters

Keizer and Death Ghidorah have their own little trademark icon thing, so that's why I view them as separate characters. If they didn't then I would have a similar view to Maritonic's.

[Destorogoji]

This song is glory for my ears.
Or maybe depression, which fits in a great way.

[gottatalktothefake]

Looks at Planet Eater's story

That it's over

[MechaGoji Bro7503]

This song is glory for my ears.
Or maybe depression, which fits in a great way.
[youtube]]

Interesting how the whole song is in English!